tional matters could deal with a great variety of things, such as the route to the dumping site, safety precautions to ensure that the transportation and dumping are carried out safely, the precise times when dumping will 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 dumping, and expiration date.

Mr. DINGELL. Now, it occurs to me, Mr. Ruckelshaus, that you are going to be dealing under this section with persons who will constitute a category of ocean dumpers. Are you going to want licensing authority for those people, as opposed to permit?

Mr. 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 TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS FOR OCEAN DUMPING We favor the minimum amount of regulation necessary to control ocean dumping. The provisions of H.R. 4247 requiring a permit for each incident of dumping 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 respect to these type dumpings, and still require a permit or some notification to you or the Department prior to the dumping of such material.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. 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, including resort to the courts for equity for appropriate injunctive relief.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, the purpose 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

itself, with prior notice and a hearing, if necessary, and all of the provisions of the granting of any permit.

Mr. DINGELL. It would be possible, if somebody wanted a very fine device to evade the probability of a hearing over a very unpopular subject.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I suppose that is right.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Everett.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Ruckelshaus, I am still not clear in my mind as to how this would work with respect to the Corps of Engineers.

The chairman of the full committee is concerned about the plans for the Baltimore harbor project. In a statement issued by Mr. Reynolds yesterday, on behalf of the American Institute of Merchant Shipping, he indicated that the project had already been approved, and that the State of Maryland, the board of public works and State of Maryland have given assurance that disposal areas will be provided in the Chesapeake Bay opposite Kent Island and/or in diked areas off Baltimore Harbor.

If this bill is passed in its present form, what will take place with respect to a permit application that would have to be obtained under this legislation, so far as the dredge and fill permit is concerned?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well, as it would ordinarily work, if we are talking about a dredge and fill permit from the Corps of Engineers, where under their authority under the Rivers and Harbors Act, there would only be one permit issued, and if the permit is requested of them, any dumping provisions relating to the issuance of that permit would come under the purview of our responsibilities, under this act, and they would have, under the act, as I read it, there is no requirement for a separate permit.

Mr. EVERETT. The State of Maryland said they would like to have

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Excuse me. There has to be certification under section 7(b) (2) to the Corps of Engineers by our agency that there is no violation of the criteria.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Everett, if you yield, what you as saying here, if you please, Mr. Ruckelshaus, is that under this particular proposal, you would still have the corps continue to issue dredge-fill permits as they do under existing law, but that the dredge-fill permits would require an additional activity by your agency under lines 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the bill appearing on page 11, which, for the purpose of the record, says:

And regulations issued hereunder, unless the Administrator has certified that the activity proposed to be conducted is in conformity with provisions of this Act and with regulations issued hereunder.

Am I correct in that?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That is right.

Mr. DINGELL. So essentially, the corps would have to defer to you on environmental matters, even though they would actually issue the permit in that particular instance. Am I correct?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I think the theory of this is one agency ought to have responsibility for assuring that there is uniform treatment for dumping whatever the material is in the ocean, and if you divide this

responsibility up, it would be more difficult to get consistent treatment for dumping of material in the ocean.

Mr. DINGELL. This would refer also to estuaries, bays, salt marshes, and also to the Great Lakes, which is a matter we have not discussed, which I hope we will be able to address ourselves to a little later.

Thank you, Mr. Everett.

Mr. EVERETT. Does the certification requirement in effect give you veto authority over this type of permit that would be issued by the corps?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That is right. They could not issue a permit without the certification from us.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Ruckelshaus, for the purposes at this point, I think it would be useful for you to give us, for the record, a statement. Does this bill in any way amend or alter the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. No, it does not.

Mr. DINGELL. Does the bill in any way amend the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, particularly section 102? Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. No, it does not.

Mr. DINGELL. Does it in any fashion at all change or amend the agreement and understanding between the Corps of Engineers and and the Interior Department, which has just been reviewed by the Supreme Court in Zabze v. Tabb where they said they would consider questions regarding fish and wildlife in issuing permits of this kind?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I am not familiar with that case. I would have to defer that answer.

Mr. DINGELL. I will see to it that the precise title of the case is made available to you, and you may submit the additional information to us. Briefly, the Corps and Interior Department made an agreement which said that the corps would condition dredge and fill permits on consideration of 50-mile values.

This was challenged in the courts and was reviewed up in the Supreme Court, and the agreement was upheld, it was held that the corps agreement was proper, rather than Interior Department, and that in light of the Coordination Act and in light of the National Environmental Policy Act, these matters could be appropriate conditioning devices to dredge and fill permits issued by the corps.

After you have had a chance to review that more carefully, we would like your guidance on that.

(The information follows:)

H.R. 4247 EFFECT ON MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

This Memorandum of Understanding deals with consultations between the Department of the Interior and the Department of the Army on fish and wildlife, recreation, and water pollution problems associated with dredging, filling and excavation operations conducted under permits issued under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. H.R. 4247 would have no effect on this Memorandum of Understanding (although it might be pointed out that Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, by transferring responsibility for water pollution control from the Department of the Interior to EPA, has narrowed the scope of application of the

Memorandum). Subsection 7 (c) (2) of H.R. 4247 would require consultations between the Department of the Army and EPA in addition to the consultations between the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior required by the Memorandum of Understanding.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Ruckelshaus, how will this act affect applications and permits that have already been approved?

I notice the act takes effect 6 months after its effective date. How will this affect projects underway, or applications that have been approved by previous agencies?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. It would not affect them at all, unless there were some dumping that was going to occur after the effective date of the act. So if you had a dredge and fill permit that had been issued, unless there was some violation of the act itself, it would not affect that particular permit, although it is conceivable to me that there may have been a dredge and fill permit authorized in which we were dumping polluted dredges in some sections of the ocean which seemed to be inadvisable, where we would ask them to get a permit to do that, or ask them to go through this procedure.

I think once the act took effect, that it would impact any dumping that occurred after that, and, if a permit were issued for a dredge and fill that covered several months, or even years, then at that point, when the act took effect, there would have to be some control over that continued dumping.

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Ruckelshaus, there has been some concern expressed by port authorities that maybe industrial and economic development considerations would not be taken into account as much so as they would under the National Estuarine Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

I don't find too much language in the bill that relates to that. Are you going to take all of these considerations in mind when you consider where a dumping should take place, or if it should take place at all?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. What specific kinds of considerations?

Mr. EVERETT. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, all Federal agencies shall carry out their responsibilities in such way as to achieve a balance between population growth, urbanization, industrialization, and resource use, in order to attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation to health, safety, or other consequences.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well, of course, we will carry out the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, and any other act of Congress.

Mr. EVERETT. And to create or maintain conditions under which man can exist in harmony and fulfill social and economic requirements of present and future generations.

Under the National Estuarine Act, it likewise requires similar consideration, that the estuaries will be utilized in such a manner that balance will be maintained between the national need to protect such areas in the interest of conservation and the need to develop these estuaries to further growth and development.

Now, the concern expressed is that these concepts and requirements might not be kept in mind under the administration of this act as they would be under the administration of the National Environmental Policy Act and National Estuarine Act.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I think we are clearly mandated to keep those considerations in mind, and I think, given the present state of the law, we have no ability to keep those considerations in mind in our ocean policy, and we certainly would keep them in mind in the administration of this act.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Ruckelshaus, in the Great Lakes area you have generally a freeze on open water dumping of polluted dredge spoil. These spoils are deposited now, and must be deposited in closed, diked

areas.

Is it your intention to continue that practice with regard to the Great Lakes area?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Mr. Dominick may be able to give you an answer. He has been involved in this directly, and he may be able to give you

a better answer.

Mr. DINGELL. I would like your comments, if you please, Mr. Dominick.

Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. Chairman, I think the important legislation that has directed activity in this area is the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970, section 123 of that act which refers to alternate disposal sites in the Great Lakes for the dumping of polluted dredge spoils.

We are in the process of identifying now, with the Corps of Engineers, those harbors where polluted dredge spoils are a significant problem, and we have identified up to 40 or more at the present time. Mr. DINGELL. In fact, you have not got a single Great Lakes harbor that does not have polluted dredge spoil in it. Is that not a fact?

Mr. DOMINICK. I think most of them very definitely will have some degree of pollution in them. We also want to evaluate whether additional dredging is going to be required in order to keep navigational channels open.

As that evaluation is completed, we will be making determinations and referring these determinations to the Administrator on the availability of on-land disposal sites, and on the Federal and State or local funding required to implement those alternative sites.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Ruckelshaus, on page 11, you mentioned toxic industrial wastes. You may not wish to do so at this particular time, but would you give this committee a definition of what those are, not necessarily the exclusive definition, but one which would give us an understanding of how you interpret that particular word?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes, we will.

(The definition follows:)

"TOXIC INDUSTRIAL WASTES" DEFINITION

"Toxic industrial waste" is a general term used to describe various materials having the ability to produce harmful effects in living organisms. These materials are dumped by industry either because there are no straight forward or economi