442 



Mr. E,uckj;lshaus. It is more logical, because it is a Federal pro- 

 gram, and the Federal program can be administered more carefully 

 by the Federal Government, and there is more authority over the em- 

 ployees of our level of government than there is over the State level. 



For instance, if any employee of the Federal Government vio- 

 lated provisions of this act, he could be discharged, and there would be 

 means or ways of forcing his discharge. In the case of the State em- 

 ployee, if the State wanted to completely ignore the fact that he vio- 

 lated it, there would be very little we could do. 



Mr. Sharood. On the question of emergencies, you have a provision 

 here for the safety of human life, or words to that ejffect, that re- 

 quires a report, I believe. 



Who determines whether or not there is a situation that endangers 

 human life, the private party who decides to go out and dump ? Is it 

 totally their judgment, or must they consult with you, or will you have 

 any handle on this at all ? 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. Clearly, if there was a dumping, it would be a 

 dumping without a permit, so on the basis of the fiat basis of the 

 statute itself, it would be a violation of the statute. 



Their claim would be that thej^ did this to safeguard human life, as 

 the statute gives them an exception from having a permit. 



They make a report to me, the Administrator of this agency, indicat- 

 ing that while they did violate the act on its face, they were exempted 

 from the act because of the need to safeguard human life, and there 

 would be a need for them to prove to me this is what happened. 



Mr. Sharood. What you are saying, in effect, is that this is a defense. 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. That is right. 



Mr. Sharood. But the way it is written in the bill, it seems to me it is 

 more of an exemption than a defense. 



I wonder if you will consider rewriting that section to spell out a 

 little more clearly that this is a defense to a civil or criminal penalty, 

 and not an exemption, as it appears to be. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Would you yield ? 



Mr. Ruckelshaus, this is a matter that does concern me, too. I have 

 the distinct feeling that, as the bill is presently constituted, anyone 

 would be able to come forward and say, "Well, it was an emergency, 

 and we had to run out and dump the stuff to get rid of it." 



And I am not sure precisely what you would do in that event, and 

 I think some great care should be devoted to preventing this exemp- 

 tion, or whatever you want to call it, from becoming virtually a license 

 to evade the bill. 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. If that is the 

 import of the section, I think that the mere fact that they raised that 

 as an excuse for dumping without a permit would be pretty trans- 

 parent, unless they had some really good evidence as to why they 

 actually needed to engage in this particular dump in order to safe- 

 guard human life. 



It seems to me it would be a pretty extreme situatiorL in which this 

 defense would come up. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Would you take a careful look at that and see whether 

 or not some amendatory language is necessary,, and; try to assist the 

 committee with that particular provision? 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. We will. 



