394 



with the criteria established for tlie issuance of permits, as well as to 

 alter or revoke permits upon such finding. 



The Administrator would be authorized to require applicants for 

 permits to provide such information as he considers necessary to 

 evaluate the application. Information required by the Administrator 

 might include detailed plans for conversion to land-based disposal. The 

 Administrator would also be authorized to prescribe reporting require- 

 ments for actions taken pursuant to permits. 



Any person who violates the act or the provisions of any regulations 

 or permit issued thereunder would be liable to a civil penalty of up to 

 $50,000 per day, imprisomnent of up to one year, or both. The Attorney 

 General would be authorized to bring actions for equitable relief to 

 redress any such violations, and the Adininistrator would be authorized 

 to revoke or suspend a violator's permit. The bill would require the 

 Coast Guard to conduct surveillance and other enforcement activity. 



No permit would be denied, suspended, or revoked, or a civil 

 penalty assessed, without notice and opportunity for a hearing. 



An important aspect of the bill is the clear definition of its rela- 

 tionship with other Federal laws related to ocean dumping and water 

 pollution control. As I have already indicated, the bill would be in- 

 applica^ble to internal navigable waters, except for estuarine areas and 

 the Great Lakes, and would be inapplicable to effluents discharged 

 from outfall structures. 



Overlap with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the 

 Refuse Act of 1899, which between them deal with discharges of all 

 types into navigable waters, is avoided by specific provisions which 

 would prevent duplication or conflict with the provisions of these 

 other law^s. 



The Refuse Act requires a permit issued by the Army Corj^s of 

 Engineers for the discharge of wastes other than mmiicipal sewage 

 into navigable watei-s. Duplicate permit requirements for the disposal 

 of wastes into waters covered by both Acts would be avoided, since 

 H.R. 4723 would expressly supersede the Refuse Act in areas in which 

 both apply. 



With respect to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, under 

 which water quality standards are established and enforced, H.R. 

 4723 provides that no permit may be issued for dmnping of material 

 Yfhich would violate such standards. 



Under another Administration proposal relating to standards and 

 enforcement, the Administrator of EPA would be given authority to 

 establish water quality standards for the contiguous zone with respect 

 to the discharge of matter orighiating within U.S. territory. 



Such standards, as well as the standards already established by 

 jomt Federal-State action for coastal waters out to the 3-mile limit, 

 will be of great assistance in implementing H.R. 4723 if it is enacted. 



Except as I have just indicated with respect to the Refuse Act, all 

 f;xisting authorities and actions taken under the Rivers and Harbors 

 Act of 1899 would be preserved. The authority of the Atoniic Energy 

 Connuission to regulate tlie disposal of radioactive materials would 

 be affected. 



In implementing H.R. 4723, EPA would rely on assistance pro- 

 vided by otlier Fecieral agencies. In establishing or revising criteria 

 for the issuance of permits, the Administrator would consult with 



