391 



2. It is our firm belief tliat any regulation of dumping should apply to all U.S. 

 waters and the oceans outside this Nation's territorial waters and the contiguous 

 zone. In this connection, we like the definition contained in Section 3(b) of 

 H.R. 4723 vs-'hich specifies the coverage as "oceans, gulfs, bays, salt-water lagoons, 

 salt-water harbors, other coastal waters where the tide ebbs and flows, and the 

 Great Lakes." However, definitions in H.R. 3662 and H.R. 43-59 are essentially 

 the same. 



3. We think it is appropriate for the Environmental Protection Agency to be 

 empowered to issue permits, if any dumping is to be allowed, if the action will 

 not degrade the environment or ecological systems or endanger human health, 

 welfare, or the amenities. H.R. 4723 appears to give the EPA Administrator 

 suitable discretion in issuing permits and we like the provision in this proposal 

 which burdens the applicant with providing information ito justify a permit. 



4. We agree that the EPA Administrator should be authorized to designate 

 by a permit the type and amount of materials to be transported and/or dumi)ed 

 and the location, as well as the period of time that the permit is valid. This is 

 outlined in H.R. 4723. And. we also are in accord with that proposal's require- 

 ment that a permit shall not violate applicable water quality standards. 



5. We concur with the principle expressed in H.R. 472-3, whereby EPA will 

 establish and apply criteria for evaluating permit applications. We prefer this 

 discretionary process on this criteria more than formal regulations as in some 

 other bills before the Committee. 



6. We do not disagree with the provision which names the Department of 

 Justice responsible for conducting any legal actions which may be necessary, 

 or with surveillance by the Coast Guard. However, we do note a wide variance 

 in the amounts of maximum fines to be applied to violators for each offense : 

 .?2,000 in H.R. 4359, .$-5,000 in H.R. 808, $-50,000 in both H.R. 4723 and S. 1238, 

 and -$25,000 in S. 1286. Penalties should serve as deterrents and we question 

 whether $2,000 is enough in some instances. On the other hand, penalties can be 

 so severe that many courts would be reluctant to impose them. However, in our 

 .iudgment, we do not feel that $50,000 is so severe as to impede such sentencing 

 when this is a maximum. 



7. We are in concurrence with provisions in H.R. 3662 and H.R. 4359 which 

 would immediately suspend the dumping or disposal of radioactive wastes, toxic 

 industrial wastes, and chemical or biological warfare materials. 



8. We note with particular interest the provisions in H.R. 3662 which would 

 authorize and direct the Administrator of the EPA to conduct research and inves- 

 tigation on the marine ecology. We believe that the authorized appropriation of 

 $1 million per year for this purpose Is both reasonable and appropriate. 



9. We think favorably of the provision in H.R.4359, proposed new Section 7(g) 

 to the Act of August 3, 1968, wherein : "The Administrator of the Environmental 

 Protection Agency may by regulation prohibit the disposal or dumping of any 

 waste material which he determines may damage the ecology of the marine en- 

 vironment, and in making such determination he may rely upon whatever indica- 

 tors are currently available to him, regardless of the fact that such indicators 

 may not be conclusive." 



10. We recommend that the Subcommittees give consideration to proposed 

 Section 7 in S.1082. This proposal would provide for determining means of re- 

 covering useful materials from wastes. Certainly, in our opinion, if a deleterious 

 waste can be transferred into a positive value, the entire environmental move- 

 ment will have been strengthened. 



To conclude, Mr. Chairman, we have welcomed this opportunity of making these 

 remarks and we certainly hope that these Committees can take joint action to 

 report a bill to the full Committee at the earliest possible time. 



Mr. DixGELL. T]ie Chair is very pleased to welcome for our first 

 witness the very able Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

 Ao-ency, Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus. 



We are happy to welcome you to the committee. The Chair observes 

 that 7f ou probably have members of your staff present in the room, and 

 if you would like to have any of them present with you at the table, 

 vou may feel free to do so, if you will only identify them for the record 

 by name and by responsibility. 



