427 



bills. But in answer to your specific question, I can't give you the his- 

 tory and genesis of all of these bills because we weren't there at the 

 time this happened. 



Mr. Anderson. Municipal and industrial sewage is excluded in this 

 .fict. Yesterday when we were discussing the dumping of rubbish, it was 

 brought out that the act would apply in cases where rubbish was being 

 transported by trucks, barges and conveyor belt. In my district, we are 

 experimenting with a rubbish disposal project, in which rubbish is 

 ground up and delivered in pipes. If rubbish were delivered in pipes, 

 would this law be applicable ? 



Mr. RucKELSHAUs. It would be under the Federal Water Pollution 

 Control law. It would be under the same agency. 



Mr. Anderson. The fact that it w^ould be conveyed in pipes rather 

 than on a belt would be the difference ? 



Mr. Euckelshaus. Well, the question is, the distinction is between 

 the continuous discharge and intermittent dumping. The continuous 

 ■discharge. which is normally through a pipe, is controlled under Fed- 

 eral Water Pollution Control Act. "Wliat we need to do is to get control 

 ■over intermittent dumping, which is what this bill is aimed at. 



That doesn't mean that the standards would be any different in 

 terms of what we would do as far as water quality control is concerned 

 fis far as what we would permit to be discharged from a pipe into 

 any ocean or river or lake under the Water Pollution Control Act. 



Mr. DiNGELL. If you would yield, Mr. Anderson. 



I am curious, isn't that going to mean that a fellow who puts the 

 same amount of stuff in the water through an outfall or through barge 

 ■dumping or through a conveyor belt or through a grouncl-up dry dis- 

 charge through a pipe is going to get different treatment insofar as 

 the amount that he can put in and insofar as the deadlines that he is 

 going to have to meet ? For example, let's say a fellow would be banned 

 absolutely by an order that you would issue with regard to putting 

 toxic industrial wastes or substances of this kind in from a barge, but 

 he would be able to continue, if he were to alter his operation. He 

 would then be able to continue by simply piping it in from an outfall 

 as liquid waste, so long as it didn't impair the water quality stand- 

 ards ; or if he were to divert it by a conveyor belt or through a pipe, 

 ground up in dry from, he might be able to get still different treatment. 



Now it occurs to me that probably to treat it as dumping he is going 

 to get more stringent treatment than he is going to get under the Water 

 Quality Act, because the Water Quality Act is not going to prohibit 

 against the positive dumping in the waterways ; but it is going to deal 

 with the end result of what the deposit has to be. 



In other words, you would then be fixing a tolerance as opposed to 

 quite possibly an absolute prohibition. Would you want to comment on 

 that, Mr. Euckelshaus. 



Mr. Euckelshaus. Yes, Mr. Chairman. No. 1, if we are talking about 

 toxic substances, and we were prohibiting the dumping of a toxic sub- 

 stance under the ocean dumping authorit}^, we would likewise prohibit 

 it from being discharged by an industry through the municipal system 

 or directly into a stream. 



Mr. Dingell. This is not so, Mr. Euckelshaus, and you well know 

 it. The law allows, and you do, I know — for example, up in our coun- 



