which might justify some kind of rascality tliat neither this committee 

 or yourself wants to sanctif}'- at this time. I would suggest that you 

 give us suggestions as to how we can meet tliis particular challenge, 

 and hope that you might he able to give us some legislative suggestions 

 for amendment to this particular bill to prevent that kind of situation. 



Mr. EucKELSHAUS. We will certainly do that. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you. 



Thank you, Mr. Anderson. 



Mr. Anderson. A last brief question to follow up on Mr. Karth's 

 discussion on the oil well spillage or dumping : You cited the $5,000 

 penalty. Isn't there a difference on the o-mile limit application ? What 

 happens beyond the 3 miles? Is that area under the Department of 

 Interior's supen-ision with a diiferent set of penalties, or are the penal- 

 ties the same ? 



Mr. KucKELSHAUS. I think tliey are, jSIr. Anderson. 



Mr. DoMiNiNiCK. Mr. Anderson, the application of regulations 

 under section 11 to offshore facilities would only apply to territorial 

 waters, and the regulation of offshore facilities in the contiguous zone 

 is by regulation of the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

 Survey. I think the answer to your question is basically "Yes" ; as to 

 offshore oil facilities, there is a difference between application of Fed- 

 eral Water Pollution Control Act and application 



Mr. Anderson. Are the penalties the same ? 



Mr. DoMiNicK. I am not aware of what penalties are now being 

 employed by the Department of Interior on the contiguous zone. 



Mr. Anderson. That is the area beyond the 3 miles ? 



Mr. DoMiNicK. That is correct. 



Mr. Anderson. Thank you. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Kyros ? 



Mr. Ktros. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield my time to 

 Mr. Kogers. 



Mr. EoGERS. Thank you. Mr. Kyros. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Euckelshaus, to pursue tliis question just a minute on setting a 

 deadline, you say you believe it should be done administratively al- 

 though where there is one industry like oil you had no objection to 

 that. You say it might make some wait until the deadline. Suppose we 

 say that you could ban it on or before a certain date. Would you have 

 any objection to that? 



Mr. EucKELSHATTs. Xo, I think that would obviate some of the prob- 

 lem, but still when you have an outside date, thereis still a tendency 

 for anybody who is discharging to look to that outside date as to time. 



Mr. 'Eogers. And when there is no date at all. they think they may 

 never have to do it unless you catch up with them ? 



Mr. Euckelshaus. If 'we don't set a deadline, that is right. 



Mr. EoGERS. Sure. So I think it is better for us to try to set deadlines. 



Now, I think it would be helpful to the committee to have some 

 suggested dates from you in the agency and you may not be able to 

 give them now, I realize, but I think we should have them very shortly. 

 For instance, why shouldn't everybody have primary treatment, which 

 is practically nothing, by 1972, this coming year, the end of 1972 ? 



Mr. Euckelshaus. Our goal under the Water Pollution Control 

 Act is secondary treatment for every municipality, and it is for that 



