191 



Mr. Tkain. Before Mr. Everett begins, Mr. Cliairman, there is one 

 point we were talking about this morning where I think I may have 

 misspoken, and tliat is with respect to the sewer outfalls that extend 

 or coextend beyond the limits of the contiguous zone. 



It is my understanding that the present version of the administra- 

 tion's proposals now before the Congress would extend water quality 

 standards to outfalls that reached the high seas, and that is beyond 

 the contiguous zone, if they originate in the United States. So, I was 

 incorrect to the extent I suggested that neither under the pending 

 legislation in the water quality field nor under this legislation as 

 presently written would the Federal Government have a hand. 



That was not correct. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you. 



Mr. Everett. Mr. Tram, in connection with that same title, on 

 page 3 of the bill, section (f ) , goes on to read, and says : 



And provided further. That it does not mean the intentional placement of any 

 device in the oceans, coastal, or other waters or on the submerged land beneath 

 such waters, for the purpose of using such device there to produce an effect 

 attributable to other than its mere physicial presence. 



I was wondering if you could elaborate on that particular provision 

 of the bill, as to what type of device we are talking about. 



Is that part of the national defense feature, or just what ? 



Mr. Traix. I am sure it covers all of those things. It would cover oil 

 well drilling and production platforms, military installations, I pre- 

 sume, of various kinds, and oceanographic surveillance, and monitor- 

 ing systems. 



None of these things would normally be thought of as examples of 

 dumping, but for purposes of certainty, the bill seeks to insure that 

 the definition of dumping does not include them. 



Mr. E-srERETT. But some of these devices could result in a discharge of 

 an effluent that could be constituted pollution, could it not ? 



Mr. Train. Yes. 



Mr, Everett. But based on the way this section is written, it would 

 exclude those from being covered under the act, things like pipelines, 

 drilling structures, things of that sort ? 



Mr. Train. Drilling structures, and I think pipelines also are cov- 

 ered by regulations of the Department of the Interior, which include 

 very stringent environmental protection elements. 



Pipelines are to some extent, I believe, regulated by the Department 

 of Transportation, and also, I believe, by the Coast Guard. 



Mr. Everett. How about nuclear reactors ? 



I understand there is a program on the way to investigate the de- 

 sirability of placing nuclear reactors in these offshore waters. 



They would also be excluded ? 



Mr. Train. I do not think we are saying quite the same thing when 

 we say they are excluded. 



We are excluding the placing of the structure from the definition 

 of dumping. 



This does not go to discharges, and things of that sort, from the 

 structure itself. 



Mr. DuPoNT. Mr. Train, are you saying if an oil structure, or 

 nuclear powerplant, or something is placed a mile offshore, will or 

 will not this bill cover the effluent from that structure ? 



