Key provisions of the proposed bill would extend Federal jurisdiction for pollution abatement to include expressly ground waters, tributaries of interstate and navigable waters, pollution of waters of the contiguous zone which adversely affects water quality in the territorial sea, and pollution of the high seas resulting from discharges of matter transported from United States territory. The proposed bill would also more adequately define water quality standards to mean water quality standards established under existing law, and in additional, water use designations, water quality criteria, effluent limitations, and plans of implementation and enforcement established pursuant to new requirements contained in the bill. The proposal would also require the Administrator to publish regulations establishing specifications for water quality criteria and effluent limitations. In doing so, the uncertainty and confusion which have resulted from a lack of guidance to the States in this respect and the delays caused in the establishment of enforceable standards would be eliminated. Water quality standards under the proposed legislation would include two elements not previously specified: water use designations and effluent limitations. Water quality standards in all States would be required to be revised to include these new elements. It would provide the Administrator with clear authority to establish standards in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction or where the States do not have jurisdiction, after public hearings. The proposed bill would also eliminate the existing enforcement conference. The Administrator would be authorized to abate pollution and enforce water quality standards through the issuance of orders following notice to violators. Such orders would be legally enforceable. Appeal from and judicial review of such orders would be provided. The Administrator could also call a fact-finding hearing to be conducted with State participation, and, where he finds a threat to health or welfare, he may initiate the speedy revision of water quality standards. Civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day of violation of a final order would be provided. Further provisions would provide the Administrator with authority to establish effluent limitations for hazardous substances, to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, to enter and inspect facilities, and to require dischargers to perform effluent monitoring. Court action by citizens would also be authorized to enforce water quality standards or to compel the Administrator to perform non-discretionary acts. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED BILL This proposal would greatly strengthen the regulatory tools at the command of the Environmental Protection Agency for water pollution control and would give private citizens a larger role in the enforcement process. Its impact on the environment is anticipated to be a wholly beneficial one. Specific provisions of the bill are designed to broaden the scope of application of water quality standards, increase water quality requirements, provide for speedy, just, and effective enforcement procedures, and allow for public participation through hearings and citizen suits. In short, the proposal would give the EPA the added authority it needs to more effectively carry out its mission of water quality protection and enhancement. All of these provisions are directed toward water quality protection and enhancement. 3. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED We do not foresee any unavoidable adverse effects to the environment which might result from the enactment of this proposal. Its purpose is to expand and increase presently existing regulatory controls over water pollution situations, and its environmental effects, therefore, are expected to be entirely beneficial with respect to environmental quality. 4. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED BILL This proposal reflects the recommendations of Federal, State, and local enforcement officials in the water pollution control field as to the needs in the upgrading of water quality standards and enforcement procedures. We feel this is the best and most comprehensive proposal in the enforcement field which can be submitted at this time. If enacted, we intend to review the operation of these new procedures to ascertain their adequacy and with a view toward additional refinement that may be indicated by implementation of these provisions. 5. RELATION BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT Since this proposal is wholly directed toward water quality protection and enhancement both legitimate, local, short-term uses and long-term productivity of the environment will benefit from this proposal. 6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES Since this proposal would strengthen the regulatory authority of the EPA, its effect upon natural resources would be one of enhancement, not exploitation or commitment. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 23 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED, TO INCLUDE AMERICAN SAMOA AND THE TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS WITHIN THE MEANING OF "STATE" (Prepared in compliance with section 102 (2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), February 8, 1971) 1. NATURE OF PROPOSED BILL The proposed bill will amend the definition of "State" in Section 23 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to include American Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands within the meaning of this definition. These areas were included in the definition of "State" for purposes of the 1970 amendments to that Act, dealing with oil pollution, hazardous polluting substances, vessel sewage, training grants and contracts and scholarships. However, these areas are still unable to benefit from or participate in many important EPA programs, including: (1) water quality standards program; (2) waste treatment construction grant program; (3) research, development, and demonstration grant program; (4) performance standards and other requirements of Executive Order 11507, dealing with the prevention, control, abatement of air and water pollution from Federal facilities. In order to obtain consistency with the Act and to extend the pollution control efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency to all areas of United States responsibility, this proposed legislation is offered. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED BILL The Southwest Regional Office of the Water Quality Office, Environmental Protection Agency, has received repeated requests from the Governments of American Samoa and the Pacific Trust Territory that they be made eligible for grants and other programs administered by EPA. Officials of these governments are greatly concerned with the deterioration of the quality of their waters and are anxious to participate in programs which would help them protect and enhance water quality in those jurisdictions. This bill would provide such waterway protection and improvement. 3. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED Since this proposed bill is designed to bring American Samoa and the Pacific Trust Territory entirely within the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, there would not appear to be any significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects resulting from such action. In particular, the inclusion of these jurisdictions under the water quality standards and other programs would help these areas protect and upgrade the quality of their waterways. 4. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED BILL The most obvious alternative to the proposed bill is to do nothing. This would perpetuate a situation already identified as unsatisfactory for the effective protection of environmental values in these areas of American responsibility. 5. RELATION BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT Both in the short and long terms, this proposed legislation would bring jurisdictions within the water quality management and planning process and is intended to provide for the enhancement of water resources in those areas. 6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The proposed bill makes no commitments of natural resources. Rather than committing resources, the proposal is intended to make high quality water resources available in an area where they are presently suffering degradation. PROPOSED MARINE PROTECTION ACT OF 1971 PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 102 (2) (C) OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 (P.L. 91-190), FEBRUARY 8, 1971 A. NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL The proposed legislation would regulate the dumping of material into the oceans and coastal and other waters. It would bar the transportation of material from the United States for dumping in the oceans, coastal waters, and the Great Lakes and the actual dumping of material in our territorial waters or in the Contiguous Zone, except as authorized by permits issued by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Administrator would establish and apply criteria for evaluating dumping applications, and in establishing such criteria would consider specified environmental considerations. Additionally, the Administrator would be empowered to ban ocean dumping of certain materials and to designate recommended safe disposal sites. Transportation for dumping or dumping without a permit or in violation of a permit would be subject to civil and criminal penalties. The Coast Guard would perform surveillance and other appropriate enforcement activity. B. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND HISTORY OF THE PROPOSAL The proposed legislation would implement the recommendations of the report "Ocean Dumping-A National Policy." That report, requested by the President in his April 15, 1970, message on waste disposal, was prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality and made public by the President on October 7, 1970. The Council was materially assisted in preparing the report by the members of a Federal Task Force, established to provide guidance in formulating the recommended policy. Helpful assistance was also received from agencies and individuals in State and local government and from scientists and academicians, inIcluding the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. C. ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (1) The environmental impact of the proposed legislation (a) The proposed bill would establish for the first time a comprehensive, unified Federal regulatory scheme to meet the serious threat of pollution in the oceans and similar waters. It would permit implementation of an anti-dumping policy which has its focus on prevention of damage, and would allow action to be taken before the problem of ocean dumping becomes acute. The Council report points out that there is a critical need for a national policy on ocean dumping. Many of the wastes now being dumped are heavily concentrated and contain materials that have a number of adverse effects. Many are toxic to human and marine life, deplete oxygen necessary to maintain the marine ecosystem, reduce populations of fish and other economic_resources, and damage aesthetic values. In some areas such as the New York Bight, the environmental conditions created by ocean disposal of wastes are serious, The Council study indicates that the volume of waste materials dumped in the ocean is growing rapidly. Because the capacity of land-based waste disposal sites is becoming exhausted in some coastal cities, communities are looking to the ocean as a dumping ground for their wastes. Faced with higher water quality standards, industries may also look to the oceans for disposal. The result could be a massive increase in the already growing level of ocean dumping. If this occurs, environmental deterioration will become widespread. In most cases, feasible and economic land-based disposal methods are available for wastes currently being dumped in the ocean. In fact, many alternatives to ocean dumping, such as land reclamation and recycling to recover valuable waste components, can be applied to obtain positive environmental benefits, such as the maintenance and enhancement of valuable associated living marine re sources. Current regulatory activities and authorities are not adequate to handle the problem of ocean dumping. States do not exercise extensive control over ocean dumping, and generally their authority extends only within the three-mile territorial sea. The greater part of current dumping occurs outside these waters. The Army Corps of Engineers has regulatory authority over ocean dumping but, again, this is largely confined to the territorial sea. The Corps also has responsibility to facilitate navigation, chiefly by dredging navigation channels. As such, it is in the position of regulating activities over which it also has operational responsibility. The Coast Guard enforces several Federal laws regarding pollution but has no direct authority to regulate ocean dumping. The authority of the Environmental Protection Agency does not provide for issuance of permits to control ocean dumping. And, the Atomic Energy Commission has authority only for disposal of radioactive materials. New legislative authority is necessary. Taken together, present responsibilities are dispersed, and operational agencies exercise responsibility to regulate themselves and entities performing work consistent with their primary mission. It is now necessary that responsibility for ocean dumping be centralized in an agency whose chief role is control of pollution. (b) The proposed bill would enable EPA to regulate the dumping of materials in the oceans and similar waters by not only private persons or entities but also all Federal, State, and in appropriate cases, foreign, governmental organizations employees and agents. Thus, even sister Federal organizations would have to comply with the permit and standard-setting provisions of the proposal. (c) The proposed bill sets out specific considerations to be used by EPA in developing criteria for ocean dumping. These considerations would permit EPA to refine and modify the criteria as additional knowledge respecting the effect of ocean dumping is developed. (d) The proposal would enhance the ability of the Federal government to engage in productive research efforts to understand the effects of materials dumped or spilled into the oceans and to develop means of monitoring and controlling such disposal. In developing the criteria and enforcement programs EPA and the Coast Guard would have the impetus to work not only with each other but also to use their present research authority to develop relevant research programs in conjunction with such other agencies as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (e) The authority contained in the proposal and the policy contained in the Council's report which would be implemented by the authority, would have an estimated impact on present dumping practices as follows: About 48 million tons of wastes were dumped at sea in 1968. These wastes included dredge spoils. industrial wastes, sewage sludge, construction and demolition debris, solid waste, explosives, chemical munitions, radioactive wastes, and miscellaneous other materials, the present degree of regulation for these materials varies considerably. (i) As the following table indicates, dredge spoils accounted for 80 per cent by weight of all ocean dumping: The Corps of Engineers estimates that about 34 per cent (13 million tons) of this material is polluted. Disposal of this material at sea can be a serious source of ocean pollution. Dumping of unpolluted material can also be harmful particularly if it occurs in biologically active areas such as shellfish beds. Present regulatory control over dredge spoil disposal is vested in the Corps, both as a consequence of its authority to regulate dredging and dumping in navigable waters, and as a result of its self-regulation of the dredge spoil produced by its own activity. Granting EPA a permit authority over the dumping of dredge spoil, even where it is generated by the Corps' own activities, would allow EPA to phase out the ocean disposal of polluted dredge spoils and to base selection of disposal sites for unpolluted material primarily on environmental factors, with a resulting considerable gain in alleviating marine environmental degradation. The policy on dumping dredge spoil which the legislative proposal is designed to implement may result in carrying out fewer and smaller dredging operations. Most polluted dredge spoil may be appropriate for disposition at land sites, and development and use of these sites would involve greater costs than ocean or other marine dumping sites. Greater disposal costs may be incurred for even unpolluted dredge spoil. Appropriate dumping sites may not exist in close proximity to the dredging area and considerable costs may be incurred in transporting the spoil to suitable areas. Reducing the amount of dredging may be of some benefit to the environment, for dredging normally involves increasing the turbidity of the relevant waters and suspending some of the pollutants which are present in material being dredged. This would also have a beneficial effect in reducing dredge spoil that might be dumped on coastal marsh areas which are often unique and productive of waterfowl and other shore birds and often serve as the nutrient base for food chains of valuable estuarine living marine resources. The proposal would allow implementation of the Council's recommendations to bar as soon as possible the dumping of industrial wastes, especially those which are toxic, and undigested sewage sludge. Dumping of digested or other stabilized sludge would be phased out as environmentally-sound land-based alternatives were developed. Other land-oriented materials which under the proposal and new anti-dumping policy could not be dumped at sea or in similar waters include high-level radioactive wastes and chemical warfare agents. Dumping of other materials, such as explosive munitions, would be phased out. (2) Adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the bill be enacted (a) Each decision not to permit the dumping of material in the ocean or similar waters would to some degree enhance the quality of those waters. Yet, the waste disposal problem would only shift to another part of the environment if long-term alternatives cannot be developed to increase recycling of waters, to conserve resources, and to manage solid wastes effectively from an economic and environmental standpoint. Nevertheless, the bill seeks to vest the permit authority with the Administrator of EPA, who, because of his responsibility in the areas of air and water pollution control, radiation standard-setting, and solid-waste management research, is probably better qualified than any other Federal government official to choose between competing disposal modes. (b) Arguably, the assumption of an active regulatory role by the Federal government would lead States and local governments to abandon their current efforts to control dumping. However, State and local regulatory efforts of a comprehensive nature have only begun to be developed, and the bill would explicitly save these nascent efforts from preemption. In California, for example, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Quality Control Board has passed stringent anti-dumping rules which were effective January 1, 1971. These efforts, and those of a similar nature, could be revised to reflect the newly strengthened Federal authority. (c) The bill would repeal or restrict the scope of several existing Federal statutes and add requirements to others. These actions are not expected to have adverse environmental effects. In its subsections 11(a) and 11(b), the bill would repeal the Supervisory Harbors Act of 1888, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 441-451b), and the provision of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 418) which preserves the Super |