tion for us, at least in the short term, then we might simply pick up the Federal dollars and invest in pyrolysis, a process whose technology is not yet proven. But that would be very wasteful. We are hesitant about embarking on a crash program founded on untried processes. Mr. Jorling or one of his associates indicated that EPA was going ahead with other communities with capital investment in facilities. No mayor can expect reelection if he invests huge sums of city and Federal money in a plant only to have it shut down. I don't know the political situation in Baltimore, but I would think it would be a great embarrassment to a city administration for it to invest its own and Federal money into a plant and then finding it won't work. We cannot afford that in New York City today. We want to get into the bond market and be able to borrow that 121⁄2 percent so we can get on with the job. But if we build facilities that become white elephants, we are going to have more and more difficulty in putting our city on a good financial basis. That has to be kept in mind here. Mr. BREAUX. On that point, Mr. Low, in previous hearings held before these subcommittees on June 15, 1977, Mr. Hansler, who was then Regional Administrator for EPA, stated there were thousands of acres in New York that could be used for composting. And I think that was a pretty important statement. So we asked EPA here in Washington if they would list the locations and the size of each site in New York City. And the answer that EPA gave us― and I would like you comment on it-and this is included in the hearing record on that date-said that: Under an EPA contract, the Interstate Sanitation Commission prepared a report in June 1976 entitled "Report of Technical Investigation of Alternatives with New York, New Jersey, Metropolitan Area Sewage Sludge Disposal Management Program." This report listed proposed sites or locations for use of sludge treatment sites by municipalities located in the New York and New Jersey metropolitan area. Most of these sites are large enough for the construction of composting facilities. Since publication of the above-mentioned reports, the city has informed EPA that there also exists sufficient acreage at several abandoned landfill sites, at Fresh Kill landfill sites on Staten Island to be used as a composting facility site. The result of the study indicated that composting material could be used within the metropolitan area on highway median strips, parklands, as landfill cover, as nursery cover. The study indicates there are thousands of acres within New York City, the New York City area, which could be used to receive composting materials. Mr. Low. I hadn't seen that evaluation. However, another branch of the Federal- Mr. BREAUX. Wait. You haven't seen that? Mr. Low. About the acreage? No, sir. Mr. BREAUX. I mean, that is a key thing that we are talking about. Mr. Low. I haven't seen the EPA coming in and telling us we have places to dump sludge in New York City. Mr. BREAUX. No; the Interstate Sanitation Commission of New York. Mr. Low. Well, I have been quoting from this and- Mr. BREAUX. Let me finish my question. Mr. Low. I have been quoting from this and that-indicating— Mr. BREAUX. Let me finish my question. The Interstate Sanitation Commission, which is your State Sanitation Commission, and which covers New York and New Jersey, did report to the EPA about this. And that is the kind of a key question we are talking about. Mr. Low. I understood that the comment about the median strips and parklands, et cetera, had come from an EPA evaluation. Mr. BREAUX. The EPA provided us the answer that they had a contract with the Interstate Sanitation Commission to do the investigation. It was the Interstate Sanitation Commission's findings on New York City. Mr. Low. Yes. And what happened is this: You have the initial report, which is "Phase II Report of Technical Investigation," prepared for the Interstate Sanitation Commission by its consultant. The commission, which is a public body with representation from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, issued its summary of October 1976. I am not going to take the committee's time, but I can refer you to page after page in the report questioning the viability of composting for New York City. It was the consultants who gave the opinion you quoted, but when the commission members wrote their report, by no means did they tell us we had plenty of room in New York City to dispose of compost. I would like to mention the Fresh Kills landfill, because another branch of the Federal EPA is hounding us to close down our incinerators. We have six incinerators and some landfill areas. About 60 to 70 percent of our solid waste is disposed of on landfills. Now, you have landfills in your communities. I imagine you conceive of them as depressions, as holes, as valleys. In New York City our landfills are mountains, and we are being told every day that we must close them down. We could dispose of some sludge on our landfills, but not for long. We have a giant landfill in Staten Island-Fresh Kills-which will be phased out eventually. There is another in the East Bronx, a mountain several hundred feet high. There is one in Brooklyn .near Kennedy Airport, which is another mountain. We are under pressure right now by the solid waste disposal unit of the Federal EPA to shut them down. It is a little surprising to hear people concerned about liquid waste disposal telling us to keep building them up higher and higher. Mr. BREAUX. Well, let me follow up on my question. I quoted from the EPA contract with your Interstate Sanitation Commission. And I quoted what Mr. Jorling said. And maybe he is not correct. I want your comment on it. He says―― Mr. Low. I think Mr. BREAUX. Let me finish. Mr. Low. I think the distinction- Mr. BREAUX. Let me finish. You will get a chance to respond. It is my turn now. Mr. Low. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I thought you had asked a question. Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Jorling says: Since publication from the above-mentioned report, the city has informed EPAthat is your city-that there also exists such acreage in several abandoned landfill sites and at the Fresh Kills landfill site on Staten Island for use as a composting facility. Is that not the position of the city of New York? Because EPA is incorrect if that is not true. And he says the city is telling him that. Mr. Low. We indicated, when we were here before, that in order to make the 1981 deadline if there were no viable land-based alternatives, then what we would have to do would be to use our vessels to pump the sludge onto existing landfills. That would be an interim measure, a short-term measure in order to comply with the 1981 deadline. In that connection we referred to the Fresh Kills landfill. I must add that if we have to go in that direction-and this current study will tell us whether or not that is the only thing we can do then we would have to dewater the sludge. We are concerned about the problem of leachate, which would not be eliminated by dewatering. I believe that the response of the city was in connection with what we have referred to as a two-phrased approach. The only way we could meet the 1981 deadline would be by adopting some kind of interim approach like that, which is far short of the solution that the committee and the city are looking for. That would not be composting. It would be simply using the vessels to transport the sludge to a central dewatering facility, and then pumping the thickened sludge onto existing landfills. If the Congress says get out of the ocean and onto the land, that is the only thing we shall be able to do between now and December 31, 1981 in order to comply with the statute. But it is not a longterm solution by any means. It was in that context that the committee was supplied with that data. Mr. BREAUX. Can you tell me how much money-money raised from the city of New York-was spent on research, development, or implementation of any land-based alternatives in the last 5 years? Mr. Low. Approximately $280,000. Mr. BREAUX. In 5 years? Mr. Low. The study by the Interstate Sanitation Commission was funded in total by the Federal EPA. The present step I study that I referred to, of $2.8 million, will require the city to spend 122 percent; it is to those funds, in terms of several hundred thousands, that I am referring. Mr. BREAUX. Do you have a round number, an estimate of how much the city spends on sewage disposal; not on alternates, but on sewage itself? Mr. Low. We spend approximately $30 million a year to operate our plants, of which up to $10 million has been reimbursed by the State in the past. This year it will be something like $7,500,000, because the State reimbursement was cut to 25 percent and, as I indicated before, that program is designed to be phased out in May 1978. So, as things now stand, next year the city will be short about $7.5 million in the operation of our sewage treatment plants. The plants, I should point out, include the four ocean-going vessels that take the sludge, the residue, out to the dumpsite. Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Hughes? Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I understood your response correctly, Mr. Low, to the question of how much a year is spent on land-based alternatives and sludge dumping, most of the funds you refer to are part and parcel of the study that is underway now, where 872 percent is furnished by the EPA and 121⁄2 percent by the city. That is where the sum of $280,000 Mr. Low. Yes. It is $250,000. Mr. HUGHES. That is an ongoing study? Mr. Low. That is ongoing Mr. HUGES. That was a study that was just undertaken. This study that the chairman referred to was concluded in October 1976, and it was determined that the study did not point the way sufficiently for the city to undertake an alternative course. Mr. HUGHES. Is it correct, then, to say that New York City, aside from the study performed by EPA for the Interstate Sanitation Commission and the study that is under way now that is ongoing at a cost of $2.8 million, New York City has spent no other funds looking at land-based alternatives? Mr. Low. I think that is correct. Mr. HUGHES. I just find that appalling. I realize that this committee has no direct jurisdiction over landfill projects and solid waste recycling; but when you describe to me the mountains of landfill, I find that beyond comprehension when there are technologies available to recycle resources such as solid waste. I am sure you are familiar with, the resourse recovery techniques that are available, even though New York City may have more mammoth problems. I frankly can say your statement concerns me. I know that your administration is having great trouble in trying to find dollars to do the things that you want to do. But I find that there is not really the feeling of urgency in getting out of the ocean. That is why the coastal States are so very concerned, not about just New York City, but some of the north Jersey communities that dump in the ocean. Let me tell you, the same things go for the communities that you mentioned in north Jersey or any others in north Jersey that are dumping in the ocean-it is absolutely wrong and it is our intent to bring ocean dumping to a halt. You indicated in your testimony that you were traveling today or looking at some facilities today. There is all kinds of technology available. Are you familiar with the Bowing project, for instance, one of the dewatering techniques that I am familar with? Mr. Low. Let me respond in respect to solid waste disposal. We are pursuing a number of innovative approaches. I think the primary emphasis today is on cooperation with the local public 33-546 784 power utility to use solid waste for generating steam. We are not oblivious to the other experimental projects, particularly the one in north Boston. We have a good program under way, but I have pointed out our lack of space which is dramatized by the fact that when it comes to solid waste, where we are behind the eight ball, too, we are building mountains. We do not have a lot of space upon which we could simply distribute the sludge that is now being disposed of at sea. Mr. HUGHES. Philadelphia does not have a lot of space. They have some of the same political problems that you describe. The city of Boston does not have a lot of space. Los Angeles and San Francisco do not have a lot of space; but these communities have managed within the constraints that you have described, to better address their sludge and solid waste problems. I do not want to get into any particular project or particular technology dealing with the water content at any great length. I know it is one of the big problems. Resources Conservaton Co. has a program where they go into communities, apparently for a charge of something like $25,000 to bring their facility in and actually prove to the community that they can not only do water, the sludge, but make it a useful product. They can tell you what your kind of sludge is best for. Whether it is usable as a fertilizer or best for composting. Are you familiar with their particular program? Mr. Low. I am not. Mr. Rivlin tells me he is not. However, I would say to you that our sludge after secondary treatment is about 3 percent solids, and dewatering would be a giant problem. Mr. HUGHES. I am not saying that the Resources Conservation Co. technique is the answer. There are many other approaches. Mr. Low. We would be happy to look at it, Mr. Congressman. Mr. HUGHES. R.C.C. is not the only one, but it is one of the ones that I am familiar with, and they are actually promoting it to the point where they will go into a community for a certain amount and prove to the community that they can come out with an end product that is marketable in some fashion. In fact, some of the areas in the Far West, apparently, that have a lot of pulp manufacturing have now found that some technologies will not only dispose of their waste material but in fact create another profitable end product. I know that there are a lot of other technologies around and I just get the impression in listening to you describe what New York has done that you really have not done very much of anything. Mr. Low. Well, we have made the attempt; and I think the only response I could make to you is twofold: No. 1: New York, too, is a coastal State. I do not know whether our coast line is as long or longer than that of New Jersey, but the counties of Nassau and Suffolk, with their recreational facilities and beaches are concerned, as you are in your area. We are equally desirous about ending ocean dumping. The study that was made with Federal funds is so replete with conditions, questions, and equivocations that the city simply could not go forward with anything based on this study. Therefore, we had to undertake a new study, and that is the problem. |