441 



lisiied on the basis of secondary treatment, which has a meaning in 

 terms of municipalities that is not nearly as clear in the case of in- 

 dustry. 



]Mr. Sharood. Would your water quality standards say for outfalls 

 that extend far beyond the contiguous zone, differ from your stand- 

 ards for outfalls that extend only 2 or 3 miles out from shore ? 



]\Ir. EucKELSHAUs. I think again it depends on the nature of the 

 ocean, and where the outfall is. I don't know of any outfall that ex- 

 tends beyond the 12-mile zone. 



Mr. Sharood. Mr. McCloskey yesterday said San Francisco is con- 

 templating building one a 100 miles out in the Pacific. I don't know if 

 this is true or not. 



Mr. RucKELSHAUS. This is why we have asked for rather flexible au- 

 thority, granted a great deal of authority, into the ocean dumping 

 bill, because there is a lot we don't know, and it may well be that there 

 are places in the ocean in which it would be the most desirable environ- 

 mental place to either dump or discharge wastes, and as far as ex- 

 amples are concerned, they don't readily come to mind, but I think 

 we need to keep this power and have this ability built into the statute. 



j^lr. Sharood. Do you see any utility in this legislation requiring 

 that after a year your agency will report back to Congress on the 

 implementation and follow-through. 



Mr. EucKELSHAus. No, we are doing that in all of the bills that we 

 now have. We report up here about once a month. 



Mr. Sharood. I have two other short questions. 



One is on the penalties. You have an exemption there for Federal 

 employees. This is probably more traditional, I suppose, than anything 

 else, from the criminal penalties, and yet it would cover State em- 

 ployees, municipal employees, and other governmental types. Why 

 carve out an exemption for a Federal employee who might willfully 

 violate this act, on a personal liability basis ? 



Mr. EucKELSHAUs, I think in stating your question, you stated the 

 reason, that it is a traditional reason for the Government suing itself, 

 and in this case 



Mr. Sharood. No, we are talking about a person, an employee, an 

 official of the Government. 



Mr. EucKELSHAUs. Of course, he would be acting outside of the 

 scope of his authority as governmental authority, if he was doing it. 



I have some difficulty, myself, in saying exactly why there should be 

 an exemption, except that there are administrative procedures for 

 handling employees of the Federal Government who violate any rules 

 or regulations of their employment, and traditionally it has been 

 thought that these regulations and procedures were sufficient to handle 

 the situation in the case where an employee was involved in some part 

 of civil violation. 



Now, governmental employees are subject to criminal penalties, just 

 as are any other citizens. To the extent that this offense is similar to a 

 criminal offense, it becomes more difficult to exclude the Federal 

 employee. 



It is a difficult question. 



Mr. Sharood. Is it logical to exempt a Federal employee and not the 

 State or local employee ? 



62-513—71 29 



