no authority under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to control ocean dumping.

Furthermore, the general thrust of that act is the control of continuous discharges which violate water quality standards, rather than control of intermittent dumping.

The Coast Guard has enforcement capability but no independent authority to control ocean dumping. The AEC's authority is limited to controlling the disposal of radioactive materials. In short, such regulatory authority as exists is dispersed, inadequate, and lodged largely in agencies which have operational as well as regulatory functions.

There is a clear and urgent need to provide strong Federal authority. We believe such authority should be centralized in an agency whose chief role is environmental control. Our proposed bill would give this responsibility to EPA.

The bill provides that, except as may be authorized in a permit issued by the Administrator, no person may transport material from the United States for the purpose of dumping it into ocean or other waters covered by the bill, or dump any materials into the waters of the contiguous zone to the extent that such dumping may affect the territorial sea or the territory of the United States.

The bill would apply to all Federal, State, and foreign governmental organizations, employees and agents, as well as to private persons and entities. The waters to which the bill applies would include the Great Lakes. It would apply to all kinds of matter including dredge spoil, solid waste, sewage sludge, industrial wastes, radioactive materials, munitions, and chemical, biological, and radiological warfare agents. The Administrator would be authorized to issue permits to dump materials or to transport them for dumping where, in his judgment, such activity will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities. He would be required to establish criteria for evaluating permit applications, taking into account the likely environmental impact of the proposed dumping, as well as alternative locations and methods of disposal and the impact on the public interest of issuing or denying permits or of requiring such alternative disposal.

The Administrator would be authorized to impose restrictions relating to the type and amount of materials to be dumped, and the time and place of dumping. He would authorized to limit, deny, alter, or revoke permits where he finds that materials cannot be dumped consistently with the criteria established for the issuance of permits.

Civil and criminal penalties of up to $50,000 per violation would be provided for violations of the act or of any regulations or permit issued thereunder. The Attorney General would be authorized to bring actions for equitable relief to redress such violations. Surveillance and enforcement authority would be given to the Coast Guard.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to say that in this area our efforts are all preventive and that we seek to protect an undamaged resource. Unfortunately, as the committee well knows, the Nation has permitted unregulated and damaging dumping into the oceans on the false premise that the oceans have unlimited capacity to accept. our wastes and debris. But we now know, with very little time to spare, that the ocean is fragile.

We would be pleased to discuss these proposals in detail and to answer any questions you may have.

That is the conclusion of my statement, Mr. Chairman.

At this point, if Mr. Dominick could give a more detailed answer to your question regarding the figures that we have as to the waste treatment needs, I think it might be beneficial to the committee.

Senator MUSKIE. While they are setting that up, maybe we can put one or two questions to you, Mr. Ruckelshaus.

On the question of ocean dumping, is it your view that this is a water quality program?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have asked as part of our standard-setting authority to be allowed to set standards in the contiguous zone and in the ocean proper in an effort to develop a permit system under the Marine Protection Act that will be consistent with the water quality standards that we set. We do not now have that authority.

Senator MUSKIE. It should be an integrated program?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes; I think it should be.

Senator MUSKIE. And you feel it definitely should come under your jurisdiction?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. Should control be applied to the transport or to the dumping of the waste? I gather it should be applied to the dumping of the waste.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes; it is the dumping of the waste.

The permit program would have to be aimed at insuring water quality standards by prohibiting or controlling any dumping that occurred in the ocean.

Senator MUSKIE. But the permit would be applied to the dumping; it would not be applied to transporting?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes; it would be a permit for both dumping and transporting.

Mr. DOMINICK. I believe, Mr. Chairman, we are ready to proceed if we can have the lights dimmed here.

We thought it would be helpful, Mr. Chairman, for your subcomittee and for the general public who has been following this question of the needs for municipal waste treatment systems, to present in graphic form where we have come since last year and how we have arrived at the figures which are contained in the President's budget of this year.

The chart follows:)

THE THREE WQO ASSESSMENTS OF NEEDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WASTE TREATMENT WORKS

ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS

Three assessments by WQO (FWQA):

January 1970

July 1970

December 1970

Mr. DOMINICK. Three assessments have been conducted during 1970 and the first in January, the second in July, and the third and most recently in December.

(The chart follows:)

59-068 0-71-pt. 1-3

DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE JANUARY 1970 ASSESSMENT

JANUARY 1970 ASSESSMENT

One and five-year priority lists-basic tool: Available from section 7 submittals, Updated monthly by regions.

Returned to States for checking.

Confirmed by independent statistical analysis: 1968 inventory data and needs. Period 1/1/70 to 6/30/74.

Total needs, $10.2 billion: Estimated Federal contribution, $4 billion.

Mr. DOMINICK. The January assessment was the least comprehensive of the three. We used what information has available to us from the 1- and 5-year priority lists submitted to us by States under their State program planning activities. Those lists were up-dated monthly by our regional offices and in some cases we had to return to the States for a further check of the information.

Last January's study was confirmed by an independent statistical analysis using inventory data and a straight mathematical and statistical projection from that inventory data.

The needs, as you will recall, which were addressed in the President's program and before this subcommittee last year, were estimated at $10.2 billion with an estimated Federal contribution of only $4 billion based upon assumption that the Federal share would be approximately 40 percent of the total needs.

(The chart follows:)

DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE JULY 1970 ASSESSMENT

JULY 1970 ASSESSMENT

Data compared on city-by-city basis.

Cities with gross differences contacted directly.

New WQO figure for 7/1/70 to 6/30/74: Total needs, $12.2 billion.

Mr. DOMINICK. In July we undertook within then FWQ and now the Water Quality Office a very intensive study which was prompted in part by the National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors study with which you are very familiar and which has been the subject of a good deal of discussion with your subcommittee.

Upon receiving the results of that National League of Cities study, we felt it imperative that we compare the data provided to the National League of Cities and data provided to States and in turn to ourselves on a city-by-city basis, and we checked directly with many of the cities where gross differences occurred between the two studies. The new Water Quality Office figure then in July amounted to $12.2 billion.

(The chart follows:)

DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE DECEMBER 1970 ASSESSMENT

DECEMBER 1970 ASSESSMENT

Period 12/1/70 to 6/30/74.

All projects over $5 million: 419 cities, 990 projects; 74% of cost, 11% of projects.

Balance of 7,900 projects from WQO files (updated monthly), represent 26% of cost.

Mr. DOMINICK. Finally, to make sure that the administration and the Congress had the most up-to-date information available, in December of last year, we reviewed all projects over $5 million in

total cost and these fell largely into the principal cities of the country as would be obvious, and we reviewed directly with 419 cities, the detailed engineering plans for 990 projects. This constituted 74 percent of the total cost of estimated needs for projects nationwide but, as you can see, it constituted 11 percent of the total number of projects. The point here is that these were all of the very large projects around the country which were reviewed exclusively and directly by us and the local communities involved.

The balance of 7,900 projects represent 26 percent of the total national cost and those projects have been reviewed from information gathered monthly in our Water Quality Office.

(The chart follows:)

CRITERIA UPON WHICH WQO COLLECTED DATA FROM THE COMMUNITIES FOR THE DECEMBER 1970 ASSESSMENT

Water quality standards.

Enforcement.

State standards.

NEEDS CRITERIA

Other (population growths, replacements, obsolescence, etc.).

Mr. DOMINICK. Your question to the Administrator was: What do these needs represent? Basically, our effort during the past year has been to bring some consistency, some rationality, and some direct relationship between the regulatory requirements which are placed upon the municipalities of this country by virtue of water quality standards, enforcement conference recommendations, or State standards or intrastate recommendations, to bring those regulatory requirements to the front and, based upon such requirements, to project the amount of capital cost to construct the treatment facilities needed to meet water quality standards objectives.

(The chart follows:)

DISTRIBUTION OF NEEDS ON THE BASIS OF NEEDS CRITERIA USED IN THE DECEMBER 1970 ASSESSMENT

a/BASED ON EPA-WQO ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS,

DECEMBER 1970

TOTAL 12. 56 BILLION

Mr. DOMINICK. The other category here represents the need to project through the end of our time frame, through the end of fiscal year 1974, population growths, replacements, obsolescence, et cetera, so that we do not find ourselves running to catch up from behind as we have over the past 50 years.

In other words, we are seeking to keep current with new needs during this time frame as they present themselves.

This gives you some indication of the total pie as it is broken down: water quality standards requirements represent 44 percent of the total needs; specific enforcement conference recommendations, 17 pecent; separately identified State requirements, 7 percent; and replacement growth obsolescence, 32 percent for a total of $12.56 million in total needs to meet our water quality objectives by the end of fiscal year 1974.