Page images
PDF
EPUB

"(1) shall prescribe, and collect from applicants for permits, a processing fee in an amount commensurate with the administrative costs directly incurred by the Administrator or the Secretary in processing the permits; and

"(2) may prescribe such reporting requirements with respect to actions taken by permittees pursuant to permits issued under this title as he deems appropriate.".

SEC. 4. Section 107(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1417(a)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: "Whenever the Secretary enters into any agreement under this subsection, he shall immediately inform the Administrator of the details of such agreement.".

SEC. 5. Title I of such Act of 1972 is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

"SEC. 113. The Administrator shall

"(1) conduct research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies for the purpose of determining means of minimizing or ending all dumping of materials into ocean waters and waters described in section 102(a)(1) of this title and developing disposal methods alternative to such dumping; and

"(2) encourage, cooperate with, promote the coordination of, and render financial and other assistance to appropriate public authorities, agencies, and institutions (whether Federal, State, interstate, or local) and appropriate private agencies, institutions, and individuals in the conduct of research and other activities described in paragraph (1).”.

SEC. Title I of such Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1441-1444) is amended

(1) by striking out "possible alternatives to existing programs," in section 202(a); and

(2) by striking out section 203.

Mr. BREAUX. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceanography, I am committed to the elimination of all ocean dumping which is harmful to the marine environment as soon as possible. With regard to meeting the December 31, 1981, deadline, I have some serious doubts as to whether it can be accomplished if the current approach of EPA toward interim permit holders is allowed to continue.

The subcommittees were pleased to learn during the June 15 oversight hearings that Camden, N.J., was well on its way toward phasing out its ocean dumping by the end of this year. As far as the status of other interim permit holders, such as Philadelphia, New York City and several municipalities in the New York-New Jersey area, I am much less optimistic. There is a little more than 4 years remaining before the deadline will be upon us. At this point, neither New York City, Philadelphia, nor a number of other interim permitholders have selected the land-based alternative that will have to be implemented by December 31, 1981. I find a statement made by Mr. Robert Low, the head of New York City's Environmental Protection Administration to be most disturbing. In response to questions posed by the subcommittees, he stated:

We are making an all-out effort to meet the deadline. Under normal conditions, we would have expected that 1985 would have been a more reasonable deadline. We are engaging a knowledgeable consultant to provide us with answers as soon as humanly possible. There is a chance that we can meet the deadline. However, in the absence of a proven technology which is environmentally acceptable and is feasible under New York City conditions, it is quite possible that ocean dumping of sewage sludge beyond December 31, 1981, may have to be continued.

I do not want to find out as we are coming to the wire, that any interim permitholder will not be able to make the deadline. If there is any doubt as to the ability of anyone to comply with this deadline, the time to do something about it is now.

Today, I would like to have from the witnesses specific answers to the following questions:

One, how far along are Philadelphia, New York City, and other interim permitholders with respect to their implementation schedules; two, what circumstances exist, and what circumstances might arise between now and 1981 to upset these phaseout schedules; three, exactly what resources are being committed to phasing out ocean dumping authorized by interim permits; if there is a lack of funding, I would like to know. Finally, I want to be assured that the EPA is adequately assisting interim permitholders with the selection of land-based alternatives. I do not want to see materials, such as sewage sludge and industrial wastes, diverted from the oceans to some even more environmentally unacceptable alternative.

I would like to make a comment before recognizing anyone. It seems like every time we have hearings on ocean dumping or sewage sludge we have either press releases from EPA or find out that EPA is doing something that makes the headlines the day before.

And I note that in the papers this morning EPA has granted a permit allowing the city of Philadelphia to continue to dump at the 35-mile site off the Maryland-Delaware coast of Cape May.

I would assume that this decision was made based primarily on the economics of the situation.

The bill before us today would remove economic incentives to choose ocean dumping over land-based disposal alternatives.

EPA, apparently, is very timely in granting a permit and I think we are very timely in having these hearings.

I would also like to say that I have introduced a bill along with the other cosponsors, particularly Mr. Forsythe. And in keeping with our democratic process, we are having hearings on this bill, although I am not certain at this time that H.R. 5851 offers the best approach to solving the problem.

I do think it is certainly serious enough and certainly deserves adequate investigation by the subcommittee to determine if this is, in fact, the best approach.

I do not want to come up with a bill that would penalize communities for ocean dumping, and at the same time create a financial hardship for those communities that makes it more difficult for them to meet the deadline established by the bill.

And, of course, that investigation is the purpose of the hearings today.

I would like to recognize the ranking minority member.
Mr. FORSYTHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just a short statement I would put in the record at this time.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of these hearings is to consider the bill, H.R. 5851, which I introduced and which was cosponsored by 18 other members of this committee.

The intention in sponsoring the legislation is clear. We want to end harmful ocean dumping as quickly as possible and as responsibly as possible.

The bill bans ocean dumping of harmful material including sewage sludge after 1981, which is something this committee has supported in the past.

More importantly, this bill would include provisions which insure that the 1981 deadline can be met in a responsible and environmentally sound manner. Clearly, it is not enough for our committee to simply ban the ocean dumping of sewage sludge. It is imperative that we act on legislation that will insure sound landbased waste disposal methods available as alternatives to ocean dumping.

This bill has two key provisions involving the penalty fee on ocean dumping. First: The dumpers of harmful materials would be required to pay a fee based on the characteristics of the wastes they are dumping. This penalty fee would remove the economic advantages of ocean dumping. No longer would municipalities and industries drag their heels in meeting EPA's regulations simply to save themselves money.

Second: The penalty fee will be channeled back to the municipality or industry if it indicates that the money will be used to develop, demonstrate, or implement constructive land-based alternatives to ocean dumping. In the past, cities such as New York have spent next to nothing to end their ocean dumping practicesa trend which must be immediately reversed.

It is clear that without H.R. 5851, the 1981 deadline will not be met in any responsible environmentally sound manner.

Recently, New York City informed this committee that:

Under normal conditions we would have expected that 1985 would have been a more reasonable deadline. Absent a proven technology which is environmentally acceptable and is feasible under New York City conditions, it is quite possible that ocean dumping of sewage sludge beyond December 31, 1981, may have to be continued.

Members of this committee will not tolerate ocean dumping of harmful sewage beyond 1981. Furthermore, we cannot be satisfied with simply banning dumping after 1981. Legislation must be enacted which will insure the harmful practice of ocean dumping is replaced with an environmentally beneficial alternative.

H.R. 5851 is such legislation and it is urgently needed.

I thank the chairman for agreeing to hold this hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BREAUX. Any other opening statement?

Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to observe that I think your hearing is timely but there are those of us who do not believe that the interim permit for Philadelphia was timely at all.

I will develop that point further when I get to my questioning. Mr. BREAUX. The gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. HUGHES. I don't have much of an opening statement, except to say that I am very happy the chairman has scheduled this particular hearing and I think it is timely.

Even though I am a cosponsor of H.R. 5851, I don't think it is a total answer. I think the chairman is correct that it has some very good ingredients in it, one of which would be to penalize those not making serious efforts to end ocean dumping.

My colleague from New Jersey put his finger on a major part of the problem. New York City and Philadelphia, but particularly New York, have done little to end ocean dumping.

All they expect to spend is $210,000 in trying to develop alternatives to ocean dumping because the old attitude of out of sight, out of mind, is still the cheapest way to dispose of waste material. It is this very attitude that started harmful dumping.

I frankly don't think the EPA has any legal authority to grant interim permits for harmful ocean dumping. I think the interim permits system is illegal and improper. It has made a dead sea of an area off the Middle Atlantic; it threatens to despoil the beaches of Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey; it presents all kinds of risk to the health of the people as well as problems for the economy.

I am hopeful that this committee will come to grips with the problem.

I trust that today EPA will tell us that the 1981 deadline that I offered to the Ocean Dumping Act, which I understand still has not moved out of the rules committee, is acceptable to them.

We have not tried to secure a rule from that committee. Perhaps that particular authorization is not necessary—but I am very hopeful that EPA would reexamine their position on the 1981 deadline, so at least we can put an outside time on ocean dumping.

I understand that the EPA has taken another look at the 1981 deadline and will have something for us today.

We have to stop the harmful ocean dumping. And if it means that we don't address the problem in this committee, I think we are going to see increasing litigation to stop the kind of ocean dumping that is just destroying our area of the country.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for your calling this timely meeting.

I am also hopeful that the EPA today will be able to tell us a lot more than I presently know about their policy in dealing with interim permits, and particularly the one just issued for Philadelphia.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you.

I would like to comment on H.R. 4297, a bill to reauthorize the Ocean Dumping Act, to which Mr. Hughes offered an amendment. The amendment passed in full committee mark up and we are trying and have tried to get a rule. It has been pending in the Rules Committee for several months.

Any help Mr. Hughes can give in helping us get a rule, I am all for it, because I would like to get this acted upon as quickly as possible.

The Chair would also observe at the present time he is the only member not being dumped on as far as interim permits and ocean dumping are concerned. I welcome the participation of those who have direct problems.

We welcome back to the committee our friend from EPA, Thomas Jorling, Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials, as our first witness. He may have anyone he wishes to accompany him.

Please identify them for the record.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS JORLING, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY JACK RHETT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER PROGRAMS; AND T. A. WASTLER, MARINE PROTECTION BRANCH, OIL AND SPECIAL MATERIALS

Mr. JORLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would ask, if I could, that Jack Rhett, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Programs and Al Wastler, the head of the Marine Protection Branch, Oil and Special Materials, be asked to be seated with me at the table.

Mr. BREAUX. We have a copy of your statement in the record. You may proceed as you see fit.

Mr. JORLING. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

It is a relatively short statement, so perhaps I could read it in its entirety.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the staff working draft of H.R. 5851, a bill to encourage municipalities to find landbased alternatives to ocean dumping.

As I have testified to this committee before, it is the policy of EPA to make sure that all municipal and industrial dumpers will be out of the oceans by 1981. We are convinced that land-based disposal methods, including the possibility of recycling into beneficial uses, provides the most environmentally acceptable solutions for the disposal of sewage sludge. Although the remaining sludge dumpers may not be able to inaugurate beneficial uses of sludge by 1981 they should all, at the very least, be able to landfill sludge by the cutoff date.

This proposed legislation will help us in meeting the 1981 deadline. It should encourage expeditious development of alternatives and will enable EPA to monitor and to work more closely with permittees to assure that acceptable alternatives to ocean dumping are found.

The provisions of this bill have our support. New subsection (5) would make our present regulatory scheme part of the law. Dumping in the period between the present and 1981 would be permitted only if the permittee had been previously dumping and if the Administrator determines that there is no alternative for the disposal of such material which can be immediately implemented and which is less harmful than ocean disposal. This is essentially our present regulations which we believe have a firm legal basis in section 102(a) of the present law. Based on the experience we have had and the continuing oversight of our subcommittee, we believe the proposed amendment would help clarify this position leaving no question as to the intent of Congress.

The only problem we see in this change is the possible unintentional limitation in section 4 which would prevent the agency from issuing research and emergency permits. Section 4 requires that all the criteria must be met for all new materials dumped after the enactment of this bill. Such incidents as the recent incineration of Herbicide Orange in the Pacific which required a dumping permit could not be tested under this new section since we did not know for sure, before the test burn, if the criteria would be satisfied. For

« PreviousContinue »