343 



had an increasing conspicuous pattern of rules and regulations with 

 regard to ocean dumping and with regard to dumping in the Great 

 Lakes under the administration of the Corps. I have been reading the 

 bills before us as you gentlemen were testifying to try to see how you 

 would be differently treated by EPA on ocean dumping than you have 

 been treated by the Corps under existing Executive order under the 

 various other statutes relevant to ocean dumpmg. Fish and Wildlife 

 Coordination Act, and other matters. 



Now can you address yourselves to that? This poses a difficult 

 question to the committee. 



Mr. Langlois. Mr. Chairman, as we stated, we feel that the Corps' 

 experience m grantmg permits in the past — they have the expertise, 

 they are engineers, they are involved in the planning. As it is an engi- 

 neering function to dredge, as it is to dump, that here lies the expertise. 

 Tliis is used and is available. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Let me simplify this. Are you telling us that you want 

 this regarded simply as an engineering problem and not as an environ- 

 mental problem? 



Mr. Langlois. Not at all. 



Mr. DiisTGELL. Is it your position that you want us to ignore, or the 

 agencies granting these permits for dumping to totally ignore the 

 enviromnental questions involved ? 



Mr. Langlois. Not in any way. I wanted to add that we under- 

 stand and attempt to assist the Corps in its role today, which is more 

 prominent now than it has been in the past regarding the environment. 

 The grantmg of permits in the past, as I mentioned, in Portland 

 Harbor in 1963 was a routine matter. It did not even have a public 

 hearmg. We have appeared at public hearings before the Corps and we 

 certainly apprepriate and understand. As we mentioned, we are ecology 

 minded at the ports, we have a program in great scope regarding all 

 phases of pollutants: oil spillage, debris, deterioration, disposal of 

 spoils. So we understand and we appreciate. We are only putting 

 forth our thoughts that we have a responsibility to commerce and 

 industry and we must maintain these channels in order that the bridge 

 between our industry and world industry does not break down. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Let me make you a very simple and very clear state- 

 ment. I can understand your apprehension. By tliis legislation, we 

 are_ not going to hold up the ocean dumping or other dumpings 

 entirely. We are not, by this legislation before us, going to halt, let us 

 say, dredging and filling in the harbors. It is not our intention to 

 do that. It is the intention I think, and the intention of the adminis- 

 tration, to handle it in careful fashion and in an environmentally 

 sound fashion that would consider fish, wildlife, and other things. 

 That, very strongly, is the intention of the Chair. 



Now I must tell you that it is my opinion that the administration 

 will not settle for less than something of the order of the bill before 

 us. But I would be interested, as one of the two subcommittee chair- 

 men considering this matter, in having specific amendments and sug- 

 gestions from you folk as to precisely what you want. 



Now I could tell you, just sitting here, that it is my personal judg- 

 ment that EPA is going to issue the ocean-dumping permits, t will 

 tell you, speaking here as a subcommittee chairman, that I have much 

 doubt that you will be radically differently treated by EPA than you 

 would by tiie Corps. I must tell you that I have observed the Corps 



