them involved with drug enforcement, navigational assistance, monitoring trash, sludge, etc., and one of the things that we did recently was to give them some funding to put some black boxes on sludge-carrying vessels so that we could make sure that they didn't get lost along the way to the dump-site, which, by the way, we don't like either but compared to what our alternatives are we've accepted it, and I hope that's temporary, Bill, and that we'll eventually get out of ocean dumping. The tales-and we'll close with this-about being out on the ocean and seeing man's carelessness-we heard from Senator Chafee about talking to an around-the-world sailor, one of the people who raced single-handedly around the world in a sailboat, who said that even when he was 1,000 miles off any coast that he would see spots where there was debris and junk, flotsam and jetsam, you name it floating in the water far away from man's obvious presence. This pollution has begun to permeate the oceans, and we've got to fight hard against it. I thank both of you. My distinguished colleague, Senator Pressler, from South Dakota, also, I believe, without an ocean, has arrived. I know, Senator Pressler, that you're concerned about environmental issues; I just wondered whether you'd want to ask Congressman Hughes or Congressman Saxton any questions, or whether you had a statement you wanted to make. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY PRESSLER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA Senator PRESSLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement for the record. I want to commend the gentlemen on their statements. I shall be listening with much interest to be educated on this subject. We do not have an ocean, but we are concerned about what happens in our Nation regarding pollution. I shall have to leave because I have the new, prospective justice of the Supreme Court coming to my office in a few minutes. I do ask unanimous consent to place my prepared statement in the record. Senator LAUTENBERG. Without objection. Thank you, Senator. [Senator Pressler's statement follows:] OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY PRESSLER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA Mr. Chairman, thank you, for scheduling this hearing on S. 1751, the Shore Protection Act. This is an important issue which needs to be addressed. Garbage being washed up on beaches and ocean shores create an eyesore. This problem creates problems for the beach tourism industries and cost local governments and private entities money to clean up the garbage. The garbage also creates environmental problems in the water. However, this problem is part of a much larger problem. What should we do with the millions of tons of garbage generated each day? This is a growing problem which needs to be addressed. A comprehensive program to effectively dispose of the increasing amount of garbage needs to be developed. Mr. Chairman I look forward to hearing the witnesses and working with you and other members of the committee on this issue. Senator LAUTENBERG. I want to thank this panel for spending their time with us and for their thoughtful testimony, and for your pledges to work with me and I with you on getting this legislation moving, and to continue to introduce ways to protect our oceans, our beaches, and ultimately our families. This is the time to do it, before we're swamped by this beyond our ability to fight back. Thank you very much. I would ask the next panel to please come aboard, as they say: Captain Robinson, Captain North, Mr. Denit, and Mr. Davies. We don't play favorites here, as I'm sure you know. We're very interested in your testimony, but we will now turn on the clock because we do need for you to summarize your comments. Mr. Denit, will you both be testifying? Mr. DENIT. No, sir. The people joining me are available for questions. Senator LAUTENBERG. I see. OK. Well, then, why don't we do this-Captain Robinson, will each of you be testifying, or will you just work as a team there? Captain ROBINSON. We're working as a team, Mr. Chairman, to answer any questions. Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. What we'll do is give each of you 10 minutes to present your testimony. We have an expert over here who knows how to set the clock. It's been so long since I've been in the field of technology. Thank you. We'll ask Mr. Denit to testify first, if you would. Or have you decided among you how you want to? Mr. DENIT. I'm speaking on behalf of both agencies. STATEMENT OF JEFFREY DENIT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY TUDOR DAVIES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND CAPT. TOM ROBINSON, U.S. COAST GUARD Mr. DENIT. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Jeffrey Denit, Deputy Director of the Office of Solid Waste at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. I am presenting this testimony on behalf of J. Winston Porter, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response. With me today is Tudor Davies, the Director of the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection and Captain Tom Robinson from the Coast Guard and his associate. I also have available Lisa Friedman and Susan Lepow from our Office of General Counsel if questions arise requiring their assistance. We appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss EPA's position on S. 1751, the "Shore Protection Act of 1987." S. 1751, according to its title, is a bill to require vessels to manifest the transport of municipal or other non-hazardous commercial wastes transported offshore to ensure that these wastes are not illegally disposed of at sea. In essence, the bill would require vessels transporting RCRA Subtitle D wastes to obtain a vessel identification number from EPA and to comply with a manifest system intended to track these wastes from the point of loading through disposal. In addition, the bill would require the owner/operator of the waste source facility and the owner/operator of the disposal facility to ensure that the waste material is properly loaded onto and unloaded from the vessel which transports the waste. Finally, the bill would require EPA and the Coast Guard to conduct studies to evaluate systems for surveillance or tracking of vessels transporting Subtitle D wastes. S. 1751 would apply to vessels in inland waters and out to the end of the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. To the extent that municipal waste is dumped into ocean or inland waters during the transportation of these wastes, a violation of existing U.S. law has occurred. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, prohibits the discharge or disposal of such waste in the inland and territorial waters of the United States without a permit. In addition, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act prohibits the transportation of materials for the purpose of ocean dumping, except as may be authorized by a permit issued under that act. Therefore, enactment of this legislation would create a duplicative regulatory program. The EPA nor the Coast Guard is aware of any evidence to suggest that the problem being addressed by this bill warrants a national manifest system for vessels transporting municipal waste. Furthermore, if the illegal ocean dumping or discharge of municipal waste were found to be a national problem, it is likely that a workable solution would involve enhancement of enforcement activities- Senator LAUTENBERG. Excuse me. In your testimony you say a "more" workable solution. Did you say that? A "more"? Mr. DENIT. Yes, sir. I had stricken the word "more" from my testimony. Senator LAUTENBERG. Good. Mr. DENIT. Workable solution would involve enhancement of enforcement activities under existing law rather than the creation of an entirely new mechanism. In addition to our major, overall concern with the Shore Protection Act-that it addresses, on the Federal level, a symptom of a problem which is more rightfully the concern of State and local governments-EPA would like to note some other problems with the implementability of this bill. We note that the vessel identification number required under title I and manifest requirements set forth in title II of the bill apply to vessels which transport municipal or commercial wastes, regardless of the purpose of its transportation. Thus, the bill seems to reach not only vessel transport of wastes for ultimate land disposal, but also transportation for purposes of ocean dumping. As mentioned earlier in my testimony, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act already hibits the transportation of materials for the purposes of ocea ing, ex as may be authorized by a permit issued under t e.o While EPA has not issued any permits allowing the ocean dumping of municipal trash or garbage, because of the broad manner in which the bill is drafted it would seem to apply to activities already subject to regulation under this law. Although section 801(a) of the bill provides that it does not supercede or preempt any other laws, the bill does not specifically address whether its provisions are to be applied in addition to other existing statutory requirements. In particular, the bill does not specify whether vessels with valid Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuary Act ocean dumping permits are additionally subject to the vessel identification number and manifest requirements. We also note that the definition of "vessel" in section 101, subsection 8 specifically refers to the transport of dredged material. The responsibility for permitting ocean dumping of dredged material lies with the U.S. Corps of Engineers under section 103 of the Marine Sanctuaries Act. Since dredged material is only referred to in the bill's definition of "vessel" it is not clear to us whether the bill is meant to apply to dredged material disposal. The timeframes suggested in this bill are not achievable. The 180 days to call in all permits to be issued under this bill is extremely ambitious; it would not allow time for EPA to develop a program, permit standards, or regulations. Likewise, the 30-day deadline for EPA to issue each individual permit is simply too short. There is one last item I would like to mention about S. 1751. Section 201(d) of the bill would require that the owner/operator of a disposal facility to send in manifests on a weekly basis. This is more frequent than is required for hazardous wastes, but, more importantly, there is no exception reporting system to flag those instances where the waste never reached the disposal facility. This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time, as well as my colleagues. Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Denit. What I'll do is take the Coast Guard testimony next, and we'll-okay. I'm informed that you're here to be responsive and not to deliver testimony. What if I were to ask you for some off-the-cuff additions as to what you see as either the objections or support for this legislation that strikes you particularly? What kind of a response would I get? Captain ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have not seen the problem of illicit dumping as being a particular problem Nation-wide. While we do support the environment and support your efforts to improve the environment, the number of violations that have been reported to us and that we have gone ahead and filed-while I do not have those statistics immediately available, we could provide them-but from my experience there are probably very few where there are actual violations of ocean dumping of garbage or debris. Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, I'd have to say to you that this stuff materialized out of somewhere. If it materialized out of thin air we ought to get the process, because it creates an awful lot of junk and a lot of debris. So if it's washing in from the ocean it's obviously being made available for that trip some place along the way. When I hear you say that you don't hear about violations of existing laws, some of which Mr. Denit suggested are already taking care of these problems, I'd have to ask you where this stuff comes from. I know Captain North is up in the New York Region. You and I have taken a garbage tour up there. Captain NORTH. Yes, sir. Senator LAUTENBERG. It's not listed on the Carnival Cruise Lines, but we did see a beauty out there in terms of that garbage barge, and it brought everybody's attention to the problem. Then we had the terribly unsightly plague that struck the New Jersey shore. It has stricken it for some time now, but finally got to the level at which people said, "Well, that's enough. We're not going to take it any more. What is your response to how we get it? Where does it come from? What do we do about it? Captain NORTH. Well, in relation to the infamous garbage barge, the MOBRO 4000, we have found no routine transportation of trash in bulk off the coast. The MOBRO 4000 was an anomaly in that respect. We have taken some initiatives as a result of this summer's pollution in looking for that type of activity. We have aircraft patrols twice weekly down the coast toward Tom's River, New Jersey, from New York. My boat patrols, as well as the other boats that I have out on the water in the upper and lower bays of New York, are on the lookout for vessels that are in route to Ambrose or out to sea that are carrying trash or garbage in bulk as the MOBRO 4000 did. We are not aware, again, of any routine off-shore shipment of trash. In fact, none since the MOBRO 4000's trip. There is, however, routine movement of trash in bulk in vessels in New York Harbor. It is essentially a captive fleet operated by the City of New York. We are well aware of that operation; it is a very visible one. We see it all the time as we're out on our harbor patrols and out doing other work in the harbor. I'm not aware of any other routine transportation of bulk trash operation within my zone of responsibility. The source of the trash off the Jersey shore is still under investigation by a number of agencies. I think there's been a lot of speculation as to sources of that, but I think it is an accumulation of trash from various sources: dunnage and packing from vessels offshore; hotel trash from vessels off-shore, which would be ship-board generated garbage as opposed to cargo taken out and dumped; recreational boating refuse; wash-off from storm drains of litter in the streets; things of that nature combined with climactic conditions of tide and current that caused a great deal of that to coagulate into this 50-mile slick or 20-mile slick, or whatever. Certainly there are many sources of this trash off-shore. I feel that the routine operation of the movement of trash in New York Harbor conducted by the city is not one of those sources. That's not to say that there aren't, on infrequent occasions, some midnight dumper-if you want to call it that-that goes out and dumps small quantities of trash in comparison. That's what we're looking for. In addition to increasing our patrols' awareness and working with Air Station Brooklyn to conduct air patrols down the coast, we are also using aircraft from Brooklyn to conduct harbor patrols |