202 



that further licenses, permits, or authorizations of a similar nature could not be 

 issued. 



Subsection 7(b) maintains present responsibility and authority contained in 

 the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and provides that the provisions of Sections 4 

 and 7(a) of the bill do not apply to actions taken under that Act. However, the 

 AEC must consult with the Administrator before issuing a pennit to conduct any 

 activity otherwise regulated by this proposal. Moreover, the AEC must comply 

 vvith the radioactive-material standards set by the Administrator, and the 

 Administi-ator is directed to consider the policy expressed in subsection 2(b) of 

 this proposal along with the factors stated in subsections 5(a) (1) and 5(a) (2) 

 in setting such standards for the waters covered by this proposal. 



Subsection 7(c) relates to authorities contained in the Rivers and Harbors Act 

 of 1899, respecting dredging, filling, harbor works, and maintenance of navigabil- 

 ity. The powers are exercised for the most part by ^the Secretary of the Army 

 and the Chief of Engineers. Except for the limited supersession found in sub- 

 section 11(e). the Rivers and Harbors Act authorities are not negated or abro- 

 gated, nor are existing licenses or permits issued under the Act terminated. 

 Rather, in situations where this bill and the Act of 1899 both would apply tO' 

 dumping of material in connection with a dredge, fill or other permit issued by 

 the Corps of Engineers, issuance of the permit requires a certification by the 

 Administrator of EPA that the activity is in conformity with this proposal and 

 any regulations issued under it. The Administrator will not issue separate per- 

 mits in such cases. 



Subsection ll(e)'s limited supersession of the Rivers and Harbors Act per- 

 tains only to Section 13 (the "Refuse Act"). Nonetheless, after this Act be- 

 comes effective, the Department of the Army's permit program under the Refuse 

 Act, which is administered in close cooperation with EPA on all water quality 

 matters, will continue to regulate the disposition of any effluent covered by the 

 Refuse Act from any outfall structure regardless of the waters into which this 

 disposition occurs. In addition, the Refuse Act will continue to apply to all de- 

 positing of material into those navigable waters of the United States or their 

 tributaries which are not covered by subsection 4(b) of this Act. 



The objective of the limited supersession is to remove a double permit requii'e- 

 ment in the area of overlap between H.R. 4723 and the Refuse Act. To achieve 

 this objective, subsection 11(e) supersedes the Refuse Act only insofar as it 

 applies to dumping as defined in subsection 3(f), of material in the waters 

 covered by subsection 4(b). One further consideration deserves mention. Simple 

 supersession of part of the Refuse Act's coverage would leave an accompanying 

 gap in protection of navigation. Accordingly, subsection 7(d) provides for 

 consultation by the Administrator of EPA with the Secretary of the Army in 

 cases where the Administrator finds that proposed activity regulated by the 

 ocean dumping system may affect navigation or create an artificial island on 

 the Outer Continental Shelf. 



Besides the provision relating to Refuse Act, Section 11 contains a number 

 of other repeals or supersessions. Subsections 11(a) and 11(b) repeal the 

 Supervisory Harbors Act of 1888, as amended (33 U.S.C. §§441-451b), and the 

 provision of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 418) which pre- 

 served the Supervisory Harbors Act from supersession by the 1899 Act. The 

 Supervisory Harbors Act provides a special authority to control transit in and 

 from the harbors of New York, Baltimore, and Hampton Roads, Virginia. This 

 authority has been used to regulate ocean dumping. The proposed Act would 

 replace that authority. Subsection (e) repeals Section 2 of the Act of August 5, 

 1886 (33 U.S.C. §407a), which pertains to deposits of debris from mines and 

 stamD works. These deposits are covered by this bill or the Refuse Act. Lastly 

 Section 4 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1905 (33 U.S.C. §419), which has 

 been used to buttress the Corps of Engineers' authority to regulate ocean dump- 

 ing, is superseded, insofar as it authorizes action that would be regulated by 

 this proposal. 



Section 4 of the 1905 Act has been used to set aside areas for oyster cultivation. 

 If the oysters and other material placed in the oyster beds were "devices", they 

 would be exempt from the coverage of this bill under the second proviso to sub- 

 section 3(f). A "device", however, ordinarily connotes a mechanism or a piece of 

 equipment, and accordingly oysters and thus oyster beds are not exempted from 

 coverage. As a further result, section 4 of the 1905 Act would be superseded in the 

 area. 



As an alternative to the foregoing approach, the Committee could delete the 

 supersession of section 4 of the 1905 Act. The Corps could then continue to use 



