521 



Mr. KoGERS. That is fine if they have. Each one has done that ? 



General Hayes. That is correct. 



Mr Rogers. Said that they should have a person in each command 

 specifically responsible ? 



General Hayes. That's right. 



Mr. EoGERS. That it be done. That is fine, and I commend you. 



Thank you very much. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you, Mr. Eogers. 



Mr. Everett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Rogers. Let me ask this before you proceed. 



You will let us have this report on the Air Force dumping? 



General Hayes. Air Force dumping ? 



The Air Force base in California, yes, sir. 



Mr. Rogers. Thank you. 



(The information may be found on p. 541.) 



Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Everett. 



Mr. Everett. Admiral Crawford, in conjunction with Mr. Rogers' 

 question with respect to the operation of vessels, in the next to the last 

 paragraph of your statement, it says as follows. 



Finally, a good ocean dumping act should exclude the day-to-day operational 

 discharges from ships, such as sewage and oily bilge, which are properly subject 

 to regulation by other laws. In this connection it is our understanding that 

 'dumping' as defined in the proposed act would not include the incidental dis- 

 charge of some debris or other material the water from an activity provided 

 that disposition is not the primary objective of the activity. For example, waste 

 incidental to the operation of sihips, the material and debris from missiles, spent 

 bombs and other projectiles would be excluded from this act. 



Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce into the record a letter from 

 Mr. Barry Sullivan, Washington representative of the River and Har- 

 bor contractors, addressed to Congressman Lennon, who raises this 

 same point. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Without objection, the document referred to will be 

 inserted in the record at this particular point. 



(Letter follows:) 



The National Association of River and Habbob Contbactobs, 



Washington, D.C., March 31, 1971. 

 Hon. Alton Lennon, 



Chadrman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and 

 Fisheries, Rayhurn House Oflice Building, Washington, D.C. 

 Deab Mb. Chaibman : With reference to H.R 4723, a bill to regulate the dump- 

 ing of material in the oceans, coastal, and other waters and for other purposes, 

 may we suggest that consideration be given to amendment of Sec. 3. (f ) defini- 

 tions. As amended, the provision would read as follows : 



"Dumping" means a disposition of material : Provided, That it does not mean 

 a disposition of any effluent from any outfall structure, or a routine discharge 

 of effluent incidental to the propulsion or operation of vessels. And provided fur- 

 ther. That it does not mean the intentional placement of any devise in the oceans, 

 coastal, or other waters, or on the submerged land beneath such waters, for the 

 purpose of using such devise there to produce an effect attributable to other than 

 its mere physiioal presence. (Proposed amendment italic above.) 



In the operation of vessels, cooling water is required for equipment, such as 

 winches and derricks, auxiliary machinery, etc., and as effluent this cooling water 

 is the same as the effluent from propulsion. 



Accordingly, we request such effluent receive the same statutory treatment as 

 "effluent incidental to propulsion of vessels." 

 Sincerely, 



Babby Sullivan, 

 Washington Representative. 



