459 



We have one permit program under ocean dumping provisions, and 

 another program under the Water Pollution Control Act. 



Mr, DiNGELL. You don't have permits under the Water Pollution 

 Control Act, and the new legislation does not apply to permits, does it ? 



Mr. KucKELSHAus. That is right, except we do have for the dis- 

 charge of industrial wastes not going through municipal systems. We 

 have a permit program including tliat. 



Mr. DiNGELL. All right. Now, would it be possible for you through 

 administrative action to control, or rather to m.erge the two programs ? 

 Por example, Secretary Volpe has merged the reporting requirements 

 under section 4(f) of the Transportation Act and 102(2) (C) of the 

 National Environmental Policy Act. Could you merge the two with- 

 out any difficulties % 



Mr. RucKELSHAUs. Assuming we had the statutory framework to 

 do so, I am sure we could, and I think that is what we have got to be 

 very careful about, and I think the passage of this act has got to be 

 looked at carefully in tenns of passage of the Water Pollution Control 

 Act, so we don't have an overlap and so that the two programs can 

 clearly be merged under the two statutes. 



Mr. DiNGELL. We vv'ould be giving the same agency the authority to 

 issue two permits. That should not create too much problem, if you 

 would administer it wisely and well, would it ? 



Mr. RucHELSHAus. It would not, except we would be issuing one 

 permit under the Refuse Act, if industry was involved, and then an- 

 other permit under the Ocean Dumping Act, so they would have to get 

 two permits for doing essentially the same thing. 



Mr. DiNGELL. It would not create problems with water pollution 

 activity, would it ? 



Mr. RucKELSHAUs. Other than the dual permit, which is not a^veiy 

 administratively neat way to do it, I don't see that it would affect our 

 effort to clean up the water. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Actually, you are effectively, in some areas, doing 

 away with the Refuse Act permit, anyway, in other parts of the bill, 

 are you not ? 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. Yes, but that is by distinguishing between inter- 

 mittent dumping and continuous outfall. 



If you put outfalls into this act, we would be treating outfalls 

 differently, depending on where the}^ are located. 



]Mr. DiNGELL. I am talking outside of the 3 miles. Does the corps' Re- 

 fuse Act appl}^ to the running of these outfalls beyond the 3-raile Ihnit ? 



Mr. RuCKELSHAUS. No. 



Mr. DiNGELL. That would not be a major problem, except insofar as 

 construction is concerned ? 



Mr. RucKELSHAiTS. As far as we know now, it is no problem because 

 I don't know of any industrial outfall that goes out that far. 



Mr. DiNGELL. There are some long lines that are contemplated in 

 some parts of the country very shortly, and is it your view that these 

 are being done in part to avoid the requirements of the water pollution 

 control laws ? 



Mr. RuCKELSHAUS. I don't think that they are being done to avoid 

 the requirements as much as they are to maybe take advantage of what 



