2 1 Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin2 istration permitting such discharge and establishing the 3 terms, conditions, limitation, and penalties applicable thereto. 62-513 O 71 7 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., April 19, 1971. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for reports on H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723, bills "To regulate the dumping of material in the oceans, coastal, and other waters and for other purposes." This Department supports the enactment of H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723 which carry out the recommendations set forth by the President in his February 8, 1971, message on the environment. Under these bills, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would be authorized to issue permits for dumping materials into oceans, coastal, and other waters when, in his judgment, such dumping will not unreasonably endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities. The Administrator, EPA, would be directed to establish criteria for evaluating permit applications on the basis of their likely environmental impact including (1) possible persistence of the effects of the proposed dumping, (2) volume and concentration of materials involved, and (3) the location proposed for dumping. Of especial interest to this Department is the provision (Sec. 5(a) (2) that the Administrator, EPA, consider "alternate locations and methods of disposal including land-based alternatives. . . ." Since most of the land in the United States is rural land, used for farming or forestry, this Department is concerned with any land-based alternatives which might be considered. The Department of Agriculture has information and expertise relevant to the suitability of various land sites for disposal of solids, either as sanitary landfills or through methods by which many solids may be beneficially incorporated in the soil. We wish to point out that the bills very appropriately provide that, in establishing or revising criteria against which dumping permit applications would be approved or denied, the Administrator, EPA, will consult with this Department, along with several other interested Federal agencies. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, J. PHIL CAMPBELL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of the Department of Defense on H.R.'s 285, 336, 337, 548, 549, 805, 983, 1095, 1383, 1661, 3662, 4217, 4584 and 5050, 92nd Congress, bills concerning the discharge of military or other material into international waters or waters of the United States, and the transportation of that material for disposal into internaional waters. The Department of the Army has been assigned responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense on these bills. The purpose of the bills is to prohibit unregulated dumping into the oceans and other waters. The Department of the Army on behalf of the Department of Defense is deeply concerned about the adverse ecological and environmental effects associated with the discharge of wastes and other materials into the navigable, coastal, and ocean waters of the United States. Each of these bills addresses some facet of this area of concern. We are concerned, however, that certain of these bills could unnecessarily prohibit some important activities not necessarily harmful to the marine environment. We are especially concerned that the prohibitive features of certain of these bills could be construed as an attempt to preclude operation of U.S. nuclear powered warships, including the strategic deterrent Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine force. Such a result would be untenable to the security of the United States. The Department of the Army on behalf of the Department of Defense believes that the Administration's bill, H.R. 4723, introduced by you on February 22, 1971, to the 92nd Congress, realistically and comprehensively provides for the intent expressed in the proposed bills cited in the first paragraph, above, with respect to preventing unregulate dumping of harmful substances into estuarine areas. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the Committee. Sincerely, Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, STANLEY R. RESOR, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR MR. GARMATZ: The Atomic Energy Commission is pleased to reply to your letter of February 19, 1971, requesting our views on H.R. 336 and H.R. 548, identical bills "[t]o require the Council on Environmental Quality to make a full and complete investigation and study of national policy with respect to the discharging of material into the oceans." These bills are identical to H.R. 18914, which was introduced in the 91st Congress on August 11, 1970. At your request, our views on that bill were submitted for your Committee's consideration by letter dated October 30, 1970. Consistent with the views we expressed at that time, we feel that the proposed legislation is unnecessary. On October 7, 1970, the President made public the results of a study conducted by the Council on Environmental Quality with respect to the discharge of materials into the oceans. To implement the policy recommendations contained in the Council's report, the Administration recently sent to Congress a proposed bill which would provide for comprehensive regulation of the discharge of materials into the oceans and coastal waters, as well as the Great Lakes. This proposed legislation was introduced in the House on February 10, 1971, as H.R. 4247. Accordingly, in view of these developments it is apparent that the objectives of H.R. 336 and H.R. 548 have already been realized. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Cordially, GLENN T. SEABORG, Chairman. H.R. 1661 and H.R. 5050.-These bills, which are identical, would impose a specific prohibition on an owner or master of a vessel, in regard to the loading of any waste on a vessel, while it is in a United States port, if the material is to be dumped in territorial or international waters. An authorizing permit would first have to be obtained from the Administrator of the Environment Protection Agency; such authorization would be based on the Administrator's determination that the discharge would not damage the marine environment or human health and welfare. The Administrator would be precluded from authorizing any discharges of wastes between the Continental Shelf and the coast of the United States. The owner or master of the vessel would also be required to notify the Coast Guard of the exact location where the authorized dumping would be effected. H.R. 3662 and H.R. 4359.-These similar bills would prohibit any person from dumping waste material into the coastal or ocean waters of the United States, including the Great Lakes and estuarine areas, without first obtaining a permit from the Administrator of EPA. The Administrator could issue the permit if he determined that the discharge would not damage the ecology of the marine environment; the Administrator would be obliged to take into account a number of factors specified in the bills, including the effect of the dumping on human health and welfare. No permit could be issued for the disposal of certain specified wastes, including “radioactive wastes". Section 9(a) of H.R. 4359 (not contained in H.R. 3662) would require that the Secretary of Commerce designate portions of the waters encompassed by the bill, as well as adjacent land areas, as marine sanctuaries. The Administrator of EPA would be prohibited from issuing or renewing any permit for the disposal of any wastes "in any area designated or under study for possible designation as a marine sanctuary." H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723.-These identical bills, which are favored by the Administration, would (1) carefully regulate the transportation of materials from the United States for the purpose of disposal in the oceans and coastal and other waters of the United States, and (2) dumping in waters over which the United States has jurisdiction. The term "dumping" and other key words in these bills are clearly defined. Both transportation and dumping would be prohibited unless the Administrator of EPA issues an authorizing permit. The Administrator may issue such permits "where the applicant presents information respecting the proposed activity which in the judgment of the Administrator indicates that such transportation, or dumping, or both will not unreasonably degrade or unreasonably endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities." In reviewing permit applications the Administrator would be guided by criteria to be established by him in consultation with certain named Federal agencies, including the Atomic Energy Commission, as well as "other appro priate Federal, State, and local officials." The Administrator would have very broad authority with respect to types and scopes of permits, but no permit could be issued for dumping that would violate applicable water quality standards. The bills provide that transportation or dumping without a permit would be permitted in emergency situations where necessary to safeguard human life; in such excepted instances, reports must be furnished to the Administrator "within such time and under such conditions as he may prescribe by regulation." Under the caption "Relationship to Other Laws" the bills provide, among other things, that: "(b) Nothing in this Act shall abrogate or negate any existing responsibility or authority contained in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and section 4 and subsection 7(a) of this Act shall not apply to any activity regulated by that Act: Provided, The Atomic Energy Commission shall consult with the Administrator prior to issuing a permit to conduct any activity which would otherwise be regulated by this Act. In issuing any such permit, the Atomic Energy Commission shall comply with standards set by the Administrator respecting limits on radiation exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of radioactive material. In setting such standards for application to the oceans, coastal, and other waters, or for specific portions of such waters, the Administrator shall consider the policy expressed in subsection 2(b) of this Act and the factors stated in subsections 5 (a) (1) and 5(a) (2) of this Act." This provision recognizes that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. vests the Atomic Energy Commission with regulatory authority over the construction and operation of nuclear facilities and the possession and use of certain defined nuclear materials, including the disposal of all radioactive materials except radioactive material produced in accelerators and naturally occurring radium and its daughters. AEC has not permitted ocean disposal of high-level radioactive wastes from fuel reprocessing operations. Although the disposal of low-level liquid wastes from such facilities as nuclear power plants and the dumping of solid, packaged radioactive wastes into the ocean have been permitted, AEC has strictly controlled and limited the quantities and types of wastes disposed in this manner. In fact, AEC itself has made no sea disposals during the past eight years and has not issued any licenses for this purpose since 1960. The four existing licenses have seldom been used. The discharge of radioactive effluents from AEC licensed facilities is subject to a comprehensive system of Federal regulations and licensing requirements, which are contained in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 of the Commission's regulations. These regulations are based upon recommendations which have been made by the Federal Radiation Council. Pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (effective December 2, 1970) the functions of the FRC were transferred to the Environmental Protection Agency, which now has the responsibility to set standards for the protection of the general environment from radioactive materials. As with the disposal of radioactive wastes, the AEC has exercised its authority over the discharge of radioactive effluents by strictly controlling and limiting such releases. We do not believe that experience has shown any need for an additional system of control over such discharges or disposal. Unlike the other bills mentioned above, H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723 avoid the problem of dual regulation in the atomic energy field. Under these bills AEC would be required to consult with the Administrator before issuing a permit for any activity which would otherwise be within the scope of the statute, and would also be required to comply with the standards set by the Administrator respecting limits on radiation exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of radioactive material. In our view, the proposed legislation embodied in H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723 would provide for more comprehensive and effective regulation of the discharge of materials into the marine environment than would the other bills. Moreover, we feel that enactment of any of the other bills could give rise to serious problems which are avoided in the careful draftsmanship of the proposed legislation of the President. We recommend that favorable consideration be given to enactment of the text of H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723. We believe that the other bills, which cover many of the same areas as H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723, are not as well drawn as those two bills and should not be enacted into law in their present form. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Cordially, GLENN T. SEABORG, Chairman. Hon. EDWARD A. GARMATZ, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. GARMATZ: The Atomic Energy Commission is pleased to reply to your requests for our views on H.R. 285, H.R. 337, H.R. 549, H.R. 983, H.R. 1095, H.R. 4217, and H.R. 4584, bills relating to the regulation of discharges of specified materials into the navigable waters of the United States or international waters. We note that these bills are identical or substantially similar to proposed legislation introduced in the 91st Congress. Our comments on the prior bills were submitted for your Committee's consideration by our letters dated October 30, 1970. As we then explained, we strongly support effective measures to protect and preserve our environment; however, we did not favor enactment of those bills because they appeared to be unnecessary. Additionally, we believe they would have interfered with the functions of AEC under the Atomic Energy Act, without adding something of substantive benefit. As noted in our earlier replies, at the President's request the Council on Environmental Quality undertook an intensive study of pollution in the marine environment. The results of CEQ's study were subsequently made public by the President on October 7, 1970. In implementation of the policy recommendations embodied in the Council's report, the Administration recently transmitted a proposed bill to the Congress which would provide for comprehensive regulation of the discharge of materials into the oceans and coastal waters, as well as the Great Lakes. H.R. 4247, and your bill H.R. 4723, introduced in February, set forth the Administration's legislative proposal. In a companion letter today, we have submitted our comments to you on H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723 and several other bills concerned with dumping. Respecting navigable waters which may not be covered by H.R. 4247 and H.R. 4723, legislative authority already exists for the regulation and control of discharges into such waters. Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as |