456 



ested persons may express their vie^YS concerning the application. The Ad- 

 ministrator shall hold a public hearing on an application -^^henever he 

 determines that there is substantial public interest in the application or that 

 a hearing will be of assistance to him in reaching a determination as to 

 whether a permit should be issued, and if so, the terms of the permit." 



Mr. DiNGBLL. It is also my intention to be fair, and give you the 

 opportunity to have you give us your best judgment, because we intend 

 to lean hea^dly on this matter. 



Mr. Everett. 



Mr. Everett. Mr. Ruckelshaus, when you have an opportunity, also, 

 section 5(f) and 6(f) of the bill are not clear to me, and I wondered 

 if they are duplicative. If not, would you provide a brief explanation 

 of what you are trying to get at with these two different sections ? 



Mr. HucKELSHAus. Yes, we will. 



(The information follows:) 



Inte^'tions of Sectio^n's 5(f) and 6(f) 



Section 5(f) authorizes the Administrator to establish, by regulation, cate- 

 gories of dumping or transportation for dumping for which permits will not be 

 granted because of inability to comply with the criteria established under sec- 

 tion 5(a). Section 5(f) also authorizes the Administrator to alter or revoke 

 permits where he determines that the materials in question cannot be dumped 

 consistently with such criteria. Section 6(f) authorizes the Administrator to 

 revoke or suspend a permit which has been violated. 



The sections are not duplicative. They both deal with revocation of permits, 

 but in different circumstances : 5(f) applies Where the Administrator determines 

 that the material cannot be dumped consistently with the criteria (even though 

 there has been no violation of the permit), whereas G(f) applies where there has 

 been a violation (even though the dumping authorized by the permit could be 

 carried out consistently with the criteria ) . 



Mr. Everett. Section 12 of the bill pertains to delegation of your 

 responsibility to other agencies, including the issuance of permits. Do 

 you contemplate that you will transfer or delegate this responsibility 

 to some other agency ? 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. We have no present contemplation of doing 

 that. It just may be that in the administration of the act itself there 

 would be some area where dual permits or dual administration of the 

 act would not seem to be wise, that we would want to make such a 

 delegation. 



We have no present intention, nor do I foresee any in the near future, 

 of making such a delegation. 



Mr. Everett. As Mr. Dingell mentioned a while ago, it is broad 

 language, and it opens the door. 



One problem we have with respect to AEC is that they already are 

 exempted; but if this provision should be dropped from the legisla- 

 tion, you could still turn around and delegate the same responsibility 

 to AEC with respect to dumping of their own waste materials. 



This is something that gives the committee some concern. 



Mr. Dus^GELL. Mr. Everett, if you will yield, as a matter of fact it 

 has been interpreted by some of the members of the committee as af- 

 fording a complete exemption to AEC from EPA regulation in cer- 

 tain instances of ocean dumping, and I would like it very much if you 

 would please to direct your attention to the responsibility as to whether 

 or not some amendatory language is not necessary for the bill, so that 



