440 



]Mr. Sharood. That is the way I read it, and I wanted to get your 

 view on that, to make sure I was not misinterpreting it. 



Do you think we should ? 



Mr, RuCKELSHAus. I think it ought to be made clear as to the cover- 

 age of the act in this kind of situation. 

 "Mr. Sharood. Will you submit some language ? 



Mr. Ruckelshaits. Yes, we will. 



Mr. Sharood. Fine. 



(The information follows:) 



Dumping Material Fkom Foreign Terkitory in Waters Seaward of the 



United States 



A paragraph could be added after subsection 4(b) as follows : 



'•This Act does not apply (1) to transportation for dumping carried out by 

 United States citizens when such transportation originates in territory other 

 than United States territory, or (2) to dumping of material by United States 

 citizens when such material is not transported from the United States for the 

 purpose of dumping it and the dumping takes place in ocean, coastal, or other 

 waters other than those described in subsection (b)." 



The definitional section could be amended to define "United States citizen" to 

 include natural persons who are citizens of the United States as well as United 

 States corporations and agencies of the Federal or of any State or local govern- 

 ment of the United States. 



The amendment is not recommended because it is believed that section 4 is 

 already very clear that the activities in question would not be regulated by the 

 bill. Furthermore, without a careful reading, the additional language might be 

 misconstrued to mean that United States citizens would be given more favorable 

 treatment than foreign nationals, clearly an undesirable result. 



]\Ir. Sharood. I have another question with regard to the overlap or 

 tie-in between the Dumping Act and the proposed amendments to the 

 Water Quality Act. 



As I read the proposal under section 10 of the Water Quality Act, 

 you will be establishing standards for the contiguous zone of the high 

 seas with respect to effluent w^hich flows from the United States into 

 those waters, but until you have in fact established standards, there is 

 no effective prohibition or limitation upon a municipality or private 

 industry to run an effluent pipe, let us say, out into the contiguous zone 

 or the high seas. 



]Mr. RucKELSHAus. There is not now. 



Mr. Sharood. But even after this act is presumably in force you 

 must first establish standards ? 



Mr. RucKELSHAUs. Well, the way we will get at it is through effluent 

 standards, which makes much more sense than water quality standards 

 that distance from the shore. 



]Mr. Sharood. The next question is : viewing this from a nationwide 

 standpoint, effectively how long is it going to take you to establish 

 effluent standards which will encompass all of the seacoasts of the 

 United States, let us say ? 



Mr. RucKELSTiAus. We are in the process now of establishing 

 effluent standards for 21 basic classes of industries in the country, and 

 we expect to have the preliminary reports on those standards by the 

 first part of next month, and hopefully, we will have an ability to 

 establish effluent standards prior to July 1 for these 21 basic industries. 



As far as effluent standards for municipalities are concerned, where 

 we have pipes outside of the 3-mile zone, they might well be estab- 



