444 



tional matters eould deal with a great viariety of things, such as the route to 

 the dumping site, safety precautions to ensure that tlie transportation and dump- 

 ing are carried out safely, the precise times when dumping wall be allowed, 

 monitoring and reporting requirements, and the like. Greater specification of 

 the allowable permit provisions might lend support to the argument that the 

 listing is intended to be exclusive. EPA prefers the language of the bill as 

 presently drawn, which enumerates only the basic provisions of the typical 

 permit, namely, those relating to type and amount of material, location of dump- 

 ing, and expiration date. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Now, it occurs to me, Mr. Euckelsliaus, that you are 

 going to be dealing under this section with persons who will constitute 

 a category of ocean dumjoers. Are you going to want licensing author- 

 ity for those people, as opposed to permit ? 



ISIr. RucKELSHAUs. You mean a more general license ? 



Mr. DiNGELL. I am talking about contractors who will engage in this 

 business. 



That is the way it is done today. Are you going to need or want that, 

 or will that be desirable for you to have ? 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. I really 



Mr. DiNGELL. Would you like to reflect on that and give us your 

 guidance on that point, please ? 



(The information follows:) 



EPA Authority To License Teansport Contractors For Ocean Dumping 



We favor the minimum amount of regulation necessary to control ocean dump- 

 ing. The provisions of H.R. 4247 requiring a permit for each incident of dump- 

 ing or transportation for dumping provide all the control that is necessary. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Everett. 



Mr. Everett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Ruckelshaus, also, when you reflect on the emergency provision, 

 please give some thoughts to a way of expediting a procedure with re- 

 spect to these type dumpings, and still require a permit or some noti- 

 fication to you or the Department prior to the dumping of such 

 material. 



Mr. Ruckelshatjs. All right. 



Mr. Dingell. If you will yield, the Chair comes to the thought that 

 perhaps we ought at least to require that they do give you notice, in 

 the event of these so-called emergencies, so that if they are going to do 

 something that is hazardous, and it is not a bona fide emergency, then 

 you could bring into play whatever powers you felt necessary, includ- 

 ing resort to the courts for equity for appropriate injunctive relief. 



Mr. Etjckelshaus. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, the pur- 

 pose of that provision is primarily for a distressed ship at sea, where 

 it is necessary to dump over a number of ballasts, or whatever might 

 preserve the ship. 



Mr. DiNGELL. This was the Coast Guard's interpretation, but I am 

 sure you recognize that the particular section is rather more broadly 

 drawn than that. 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. Yes, it is. 



Again, I would think that other than that specific application, even 

 if you are talking about toxic materials in the question as to whether 

 to dump them on land or in the ocean is safeguarding human life, I 

 cannot conceive of such a sitaution, but it is possible, and there is no 

 reason that could not be worked out as the general permit procedure 



