541 



First, a glaring defect of the present Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 

 and other proposed legislation on ocean dumping is the assumption that those 

 chemicals and wastes that are toxic can be enumerated and thus barred from 

 the oceans. It is safe to state that experts in the field would not be ab^e to 

 compose such a list. The reason is that our knowledge is much too primitive ; 

 substances we once thought to be much too inso^ub^e to be harmful turn out 

 to be solublized by micro-organisms or by reacting with other pollutants and 

 consequently are capab'e of being amplified in the food- web to toxic levels. 

 Further, toxicity is always a function of concentration — low levels of fluoride 

 are beneficial but higher concentrations are deadly metabolic poisons — and it 

 is impossible to predict at present, what concentrations of industrial wastes 

 become toxic to marine life. H.R. 805 does not contain this defect. Instead, the 

 burden of proof of non-toxicity is on the dumper. This may appear, at first, too 

 controversial, too unjust to business but remember a dying or dead ocean may 

 have unfathomable effects on all mankind. In reality, this requirement will 

 limit dumping and tend to stimulate recycling of wastes. Our knowledge and 

 technology can make recycling a reality. If ecological considerations are para- 

 mount then suddenly recycling wastes will become much cheaper than dumping. 



Secondly, H.R. 805 includes thermal pollution which the present federal legis- 

 lation does not. The proliferation of nuclear and fossil power plants using 

 ocean or estuary water for cooling purjwses demands immediate Federal regula- 

 tion. The rejection of excess heat into estuaries can do profound damage to these 

 all important ocean nursery grounds. 



It is these two substantive aspects of this bill, not covered by present Federal 

 legislation, that are essential if this nation is to move towards sound ecological 

 solutions to our very serious waste disposal problems. 



Don Comb, and 

 Jeannette Hargroves, 



Ocean Studies Group, 

 Sierra Cluh — ISlew England Chapter. 



(Committee Note. — The following information is a follow-up on 

 material supplied for the record in the committee's hearing entitled 

 "Administration of the National Environmental Policy Act — Part 1," 

 Serial 91^1, on page 1264:) 



Department of the Navy, 

 Office of Legislative Affairs, 

 Washington, B.C., June 23, 1971. 

 Hon. John D. Dingell, 



Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, Committee 

 on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, 

 B.C. 

 Dear Mr. Chairman : In response to the requests made by the Subcommittee 

 on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, House Committee on Merchant Marine 

 and Fisheries, during the hearing held on December 11, 1970, I am enclosing a 

 summary embodying the contents of a final report released by the Secretary of 

 the Navy, of the results of the investigation of the oil dumping incident which 

 occurred off Mayport, Florida on November 30, 1970. 

 Sincerely yours, 



Lando Wt Zech, Jr., 



Captain, U.S. Navy, 



Deputy Chief. 

 Enclosure. 



Final report op results of Navt investigation to inquire into the circum- 

 stances SURROUNDING THE DISCHARGE OP WASTE MATERIAL WHICH OCCURRED OFF 

 THE COAST OP JACKSONVILLE, FlA., ON NOVEMBER 30, 1970 



1. The review of the investigation has now been completed within the Depart- 

 ment and the intermediate and fina' reviewing authorities have concurred in the 

 findings of fact, opinions and recommendations of the investigation as they were 

 prevously reported. 



2. Review of the investigation revealed that the directive of the Chief of Naval 

 Operations, dated October 30, 1970, regarding the implementation of the National 

 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 was in the process of being prepared for dissemi- 



62-513 O - 71 - 36 



