426 



Mr. Kuckelshaiis, does your agency have any kind of policy or 

 general attitude toward the dumping today, continued dumping or 

 future dumping of mine tailings or mine waste material in the Great 

 Lakes and particularly Lake Superior? 



Mr. R.UCKELSHAUS. We have had at least three enforcement con- 

 ferences regarding the Reserve Mining Co. which I assume you are 

 alluding to in Lake Supei^or. We have presently the report from 

 a committee that was assigned the responsibility under the last enforce- 

 ment conference to develop an on-land disposal site for the taconite 

 tailings involved in that situation. We don't find that that report 

 is adequate and we have, and will shortly be announcing, the recom- 

 mendation of the Environmental Protection Agency as to what further 

 action should be taken relating to that particular incident. 



Mr. RuppE. Without going into that specific case, what are the 

 ranges of recommendations or directives that can come out of your 

 agency in a situation of that kind ? What are the possibilities t 



Mr. RucKELSHAUs. There are a number of possibilities. One of the 

 problems we have is that the enforcement conference it is a rather 

 cumbersome technique. In our water pollution control amendments 

 that are presently pending before Congress we have asked for the 

 authority to move much more quickly than we can under these en- 

 forcement conferences. We can make recommendations and the recom- 

 mendations are ignored as they have been in many instances. We then 

 go to an administrative hearing and make findings and further recom- 

 mendations and then from that hearing we have to go to court. That 

 is a very cumbersome administrative procedure. TVliat we are asking 

 for in the water bill is precisely the same thing that was in the air 

 bill, that is, that the Federal presence come right up behind the 

 States in terms of their enforcement authority. In that instance, if 

 we go to court of equity as opposed to attempting to get a fine, the 

 range of options as to what is done is as broad as the equity power of 

 that court, which is limitless in terms of providing equitable solutions 

 to the problem. 



Mr. RuppE. Thank you. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Thank you, Mr. Ruppe. Mr. Anderson ? 



Mr. Anderso:n". Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Ruckelshaus," who asked for the exclusion of AEC? Was this 

 asked for by the Commission itself ? 



Mr. Ruckelshatts. I can't give you the specific answer to that, IMr. 

 Anderson. This bill was prepared before our agency really came into 

 existence. We have reviewed the bill and this is the way the bill was 

 drafted in its final form. It was my understanding there were extenuat- 

 ing circumstances as to reasons for tlie specific exclusion of AEC, and 

 that is why I say that my understanding again of what was testified to 

 yesterday is somewhat different from my understandina: again of the 

 reason. For that reason, I will have to consult with AEC to find out. 



Mr. Anderson. I had understood this was an administration bill, 

 so T assumed it would come from your office. 



Mr. Rtjckelshaus. It, as most of the environmental bills presently 

 pending in Congress, was drafted under sponsorship of CEQ. We 

 didn't come into'existence mitil December 2. We are supporting these 



