192 



Mr. Train. It would not cover any oil discharges, as that is specif- 

 ically excluded by the bill, as it is governed by other legislation. 



Mr. DuPoNT. if you had people living on it, how about simply 

 sewage from the structure ? 



Mr. DiNGELL. I believe that is excluded, too, am I correct, Mr. 

 Train? 



Mr. Train. No, I am not positive. I am not sure whether it is cov- 

 ered. I would think by this legislation, or other water quality stand- 

 ards, and the Refuse Act permit authority, but I cannot answer your 

 question specifically. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Would you get us an answer to that ? 



That is a very interesting point. 



Mr. DuPoNT. If the chairman would yield, also, and perhaps a 

 little more relevant is the question of heated water discharge from the 

 nuclear powerplant in the Delaware River, and I don't know if this 

 bill covers that, or if it is covered under the previous Water Quality 

 Act. 



Mr. Train. Well, that is being dealt with under the permit author- 

 ity, under the Refuse Act. 



This has been construed to include thermal discharges now by the 

 administration, so that I would be pretty sure would not be covered 

 by the dumping legislation. 



Mr. DiNGELL. INIr. Train, counsel has observed to me the relevant 

 section of the bill to which we are addressing ourselves appears to be 

 on page 3, at the top of the page, and the question I think concerns 

 outfall, and since we are not talking about a vessel, does this fall 

 under the meaning of dumping, or just what does this matter of the 

 runoff and effluent fall under ? 



Mr. Train. I think it could fall under either one, depending on 

 how the different acts are administered, and I think this could prob- 

 ably be clarified as to which of the intentions it is. 



I do not know the specific answer to the question. 



Mr. DuPoNT. Let me focus a minute on procedural questions from 

 another point of view. 



How do you envision the permit issuing process as working ? 



An application is made from some firm. Is there a hearing on each 

 permit, or once the EPA has generally classified areas, can they issue 

 permits with no hearing ? 



Mr. Train. EPA clearly has the authority to hold hearings, and 

 they doubtless will have hearings in a number of cases. 



There is no requirement in the statute that they hold a hearintr in 

 every single case of an application for a permit under this authority, 

 and I would not think that Congress would require a permit and hear- 

 ing in every such case. 



This is true, for example, with the Corps of Engineers dredgiiig 

 and filling permit authority under the Rivers and Harbors x^ct. 



They do have hearings in many cases, but they decide this of their 

 own discretion, such as in cases of great public interest, new questions, 

 or questions of importance and so forth. 



They issue some 6,000 such permits a year, and it would be an ad- 

 ministrative impracticality to have hearings in each case. 



Mr. DuPoNT. As the environment groups get more and more strength. 

 I wonder that each time a permit is sought, that some gi"0iip, either 



