457 



AEC will not be able to escape entirely your permit and regulatory 

 requirements. 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. That is not the intention, and so we will direct 

 our attention to amendatory language of that nature. 



Mr. DiNGELL. I think it would be very helpful. 



(The proposed language follows :) 



AEC Permit and Regulatory Requirements 



One way of accomplishing tliis would be to delete section 7(b) of the bill al- 

 together, so that the AEC would be subject to the requirements of the Act just 

 like other Federal agencies. 



As section 7(b) is now written, the AEC would be required to consult with 

 the Administrator prior to issuing permits for dumping, but would not, however, 

 be required to consult with the Administrator prior to carrying out the dump- 

 ing itself. Thus, another way of tightening regulatory control vrith respect to the 

 AEC would be to require consultation with the Administrator in the latter case 

 as well as in the former. The first two sentences of the proviso in section 7(b) 

 could be amended to read as follows : 



''Provided, The Atomic Energy Commission shall consult with the Ad- 

 ministrator prior to conducting any activity or issuing a permit to conduct 

 any activity which would otherwise be regulated by this Act. In conducting 

 any such activity or in issuing any such permit, the Atomic Energy Commis- 

 sion shall comply with standards set by the Administrator respecting limits 

 on radiation exposures or levels, or concentrations or quantities of radioac- 

 tive material." 



Mr. Everett. One final question, Mr. Euckelshaus, with respect to 

 finder's fee. I wondered what your thinking would be on including a 

 provision in the bill that would provide for an informer's fee. 



Mr. E.UCKELSHAUS. The informer's fee has worked in some instances, 

 and has not in others. 



The question I suppose really is whether you want to proceed with 

 the fine or through injunctive process. An informer's fee is of no par- 

 ticular benefit through the injunctive process, and here, where you 

 have a specific act that is violated, maybe an informer's fee would be 

 a good way to insure that the statute was complied with. 



Mr. E\^RETT. Would you have any particular objection to including 

 a provision of this sort ? 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. I have not thought about it, but offhand I can- 

 not think of any. 



Mr. Everett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Dingell. Mr. Sharood had a question he would like to direct at 

 you, please, Mr. Ruckelshaus. 



Mr. Sharood. In the penalty provision, dealing with actions against 

 the vessel, you have an exception for public vessels, and then it goes 

 on to say "as defined in the Water Quality Act or Water Pollution 

 Control Act or other public property of a similar nature." 



Could you tell us what you are referring to there, "other public 

 property of a similar nature" ? 



Mr. RucKELSHATJS. I am not sure what they do have in mind, al- 

 though an action against a public vessel would again be taking out of 

 one pocket and putting it into another. 



Mr. Sharood. I want to know how far this exemption goes. There 

 may be some optional aspect to this. I cannot visualize what you mean 

 by "other pubic property." 



62-51.3 — 71 30 



