450 



tion of this kind from Congress, and whether or not it would be neces- 

 sary, or would it conflict with any administration policy ? 



Mr. RucKELSHAUs. Well, it does not conflict with any policy, be- 

 cause we are attempting to do this rig'ht now. I am going to Brussels 

 next week for a meeting of the Committee on Challenges to Modern 

 Society, in an effort to get some international cooperation with this 

 problem. 



There is in section 10 of this bill, of course, a provision relating to in- 

 ternational cooperation, and I think that a direction like this, indi- 

 cating Congress is concerned that we make these international efforts, 

 is very beneficial. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Now, there are, if you please, gentlemen, in the last 

 two pages of the bill, pages 13 and 14, section 11, entitled "Repeal and 

 Supersession." there are a whole series of statutes, sections, and so 

 forth, which are referred to at that point. 



Would you gentlemen please inform the committee, would you, 

 please, gentlemen, give the committee at your convenience some state- 

 ment of precisely what the meaning of this particular section happens 

 to be? 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. Yes ; we will. 



Mr. DiNGELL. It will be very helpful to the committee. 



( The statement follows : ) 



"Repeal and Supersession" Definition 



We understand that this statement will be provided by the Council on Environ- 

 mental Quality. 



IMr, DiNGELL. Now, in your statement, Mr. Ruckelshaus, page 5, 

 you state the Administrator in issuing permits to dump materials, to 

 transport them for dumping, will be required to determine that such 

 activity will not, and so forth. 



On whom would be the burden of proof in that matter ? Would it he 

 upon you, or would it be on the would-be dumper ? 



Mr. Rtjckelshatjs. I think it would be clearly on the dumper. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Is there amendatory language needed to make that 

 crystal clear? 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. I think it is clear from the present statute, but 

 I certainly would have no objection to making it clearer if the com- 

 mittee felt it was necessary. 



Mr. DiNGELL. I must tell you that I am not satisfied that it is as 

 clear as I personally would like. 



Your words at this time have great impact on me, and I am satisfied 

 under the legislative history, but it would be appreciated if you would 

 review that point and let the committee have the benefit of your 

 views. 



(The information follows:) 



Burden of Proof for Proposed Dumping Permit 



In our view subsection 5(a) is sufficiently clear that such burden of proof is 

 upon the permit applicant. 



Of course the Administrator must exercise his judgment as to whether siioh 



