line over the next several years very large major new sewage treatment plants which will generate new greater amounts of sludge.

Mr. BREAUX. The draft bill before us is unclear as to whether Federal grants or Federal funds that are going to communities for implementing alternative land-based disposal sites would be considered as part of the money expended by the local communities in this offsetting penalty procedure.

Would your recommendation be to consider Federal grants or not consider them?

Mr. JORLING. In other words, a determination of whether or not the penalty will be based only on the local share or whether it would be on the total share?

And I believe, and I am subject to correction here because I am not sure whether or not there is any proposed statutory language which would answer that, but it would apply to the entire amount.

Mr. BREAUX. I am really asking you for a recommendation because we have to clear it up in the draft. It is kind of open for argument right now. It is not clear.

I am just asking for a recommendation.

Mr. JORLING. Our feeling is that the communities we are talking about not only need an inducement to find the alternative, but they need an inducement to move expeditiously.

And that the calculation of the fee based on only the local share, Mr. Chairman, would not provide that incentive to move quickly: That the difference between the cost of ocean dumping and the cost of land treatment alternatives should be the entire cost. And then they will then move to seek the proper position on the State priority list that is necessary for the Federal money to be made available.

Mr. BREAUX. So we should consider Federal funds as well as local community funds?

Mr. JORLING. That is my recommendation.
Mr. BREAUX. I recognize Mr. Hughes.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I understand your testimony correctly, EPA now favors a legislative deadline of December 31, 1981. In other words, EPA in the past has used the December 31, 1981, deadline merely as a target. EPA in essence made a determination that municipalities dumping could feasibly abate the other dumping by that date. But the last time EPA was before us, EPA took the position that they didn't favor putting the 1981 deadline in legislation form. So your testimony today really is a reversible of that previous testimony?

Mr. JORLING. Mr. Hughes, we went around on this issue the last time I was here and I attempted to articulate what the administration's position is and hopefully will continue to be.

The 1981 date first appeared in EPA regulations, and that is a statement with the full force and effect of law. The question that surrounds the statutory date is one with respect to possible noncompliance and the circumstances surrounding that possible noncompliance. We have, for instance, in the Water Pollution Control Act, statutory deadlines for compliance. Some of those have passed.

The question arises: What happens? Do you immediately put a plug in the pipe or do you provide an enforcement action with penalties and what have you?

Our statement of support for the 1981 date is firm. We believe it can be done

Mr. HUGHES. That wasn't my question.

Mr. JORLING. We believe that our regulatory effort will get there. What we are suggesting is, that in the event of noncompliance in 1981 for whatever reason, and some perhaps outside the control of the communities that are affected, that there must be some recognition that enforcement actions will then take place.

And those enforcement actions will probably be penalties plus a new schedule of compliance that is very tight-but to accommodate that fact-rather than immediately suspending the dumping. We are concerned a greater environmental harm could occur unless we have that enforcement possibility.

Mr. HUGHES. I accept your explanation.

I just want to applaud what I consider to be certainly a correct modification of EPA's position-whether it is a reversible or not. It certainly is a giant step in the right direction. It will serve notice on those that are dumping that we mean what we say; and that 1981 is the deadline.

Let me ask you this: Philadelphia will be testifying a little later. And they indicate they can be out of the ocean dumping by 1980. Why was the interim permit that was just granted, granted to 1981, if, in fact, they can be out of the ocean by 1980?

Mr. JORLING. You have introduced a new fact, if it is indeed a fact, that Philadelphia has indicated they are prepared to be out by 1980.

Mr. HUGHES. I don't want to steal Philadelphia's show because they will be next, but let me just read to you from the statement that was presented by Mr. Guarino, who is the commissioner of the water department. He indicates: "I would like to indicate for the record that Philadelphia expects to be out of ocean dumping one full year in advance of the December 31, 1981, deadline."

Mr. JORLING. They are referring to the proposed statutory time and not our permit time.

Our permit time for Philadelphia to end ocean dumping advanced one date, Mr. Hughes, is 1980.

Mr. HUGHES. I see.

I would also like to know what progress EPA is making in assessing the impact of dumping off the Shelf at the 106 site? Mr. JORLING. These evaluations have been occurring in two forms: One is the standard EIS review of that designation; and the second is part of the hearing examiner's review of the matter and part of the court order.

On both cases I don't want to prejudge the issue. The hearing examiner should be momentarily issuing his recommendation to the administrator. And the EIS timetable calls for completion of the draft by January.

And then it goes out into the public process.

Mr. HUGHES. When does that start?

When does the EIS start?

Mr. JORLING. The EIS?

Mr. HUGHES. Yes.

Mr. JORLING. The surveys, the baseline data surveys, began approximately 2 years ago. The formal EIS preparation began in April of this year.

Mr. HUGHES. Why is it that EPA has taken so long when it was rather clear in the legislation, adopted in 1972, that in designating the recommended sites, the Congress indicated the administrator should utilize wherever feasible locations that are beyond the edge of the Continental Shelf.

And given that as a legislation pronouncement, why did it take EPA so long to take a look at the impact of dumping beyond the edge of the Continental Shelf?

Mr. JORLING. I think the fair answer, sir, is that EPA is an agency with limited resources. And our basic orientation is to cease ocean dumping so that the resources we have been giving higher priority and attention to are the resources necessary to develop acceptable land-based alternatives.

Mr. HUGHES. EPA found the resources to look at the impact on other areas. EPA was studying the possibility of opening up a dumping site some 70 miles off of our beaches. It seems that they have resources for that.

Why didn't you have resources to take a look at what the impact would be 106 miles out?

Mr. JORLING. Those resources have been applied, but I am still making the point that we feel that the protection of the ocean is going to be satisfied and served by developing land-based alternatives rather than simply trying to designate disposal sites around the shores of the United States.

Mr. HUGHES. But it seems to me that Congress was pretty clear in its language in the legislation in 1972; that is that it would be preferable in selecting sites for dumping, to dump beyond the edge of the Continental Shelf.

Now, here we are some 5 years later, and we still really haven't taken a good look at what the impact would be at the 106-mile site. We still have dumping taking place at the Cape May site. Up until recently the EPA was looking at the possibility of opening up new areas some 70 miles off the mid-Atlantic region.

It seems to me that EPA hasn't really complied with the mandate of Congress to take a serious look and to give preference where feasible to the sites beyond the Outer Continental Shelf. Mr. JORLING. OK, again we are conducting the review of the 106mile site.

Mr. HUGHES. What is the status of the potential 70-mile site? Mr. JORLING. I will have to ask staff to give you that.

Mr. HUGHES. I hope it is a dead issue.

Mr. JORLING. The review of the 70-mile site is included within the final EIS activity on the New York Bight.

So that those two were made conjunctive.

Mr. HUGHES. Is EPA still considerating the opening up of a new site, a pristine site off the mid-Atlantic, some 70 miles off our coast?

Mr. JORLING. No. The answer to that is no.

Mr. HUGHES. That's progress. The last time EPA was in before us you indicated there was some uncertainty as to the specific authority to grant interim permits to begin with.

Has EPA looked into the authority question since your last appearance, Mr. Jorling? Where in the legislation does EPA have any authority to grant interim permits to any municipality for harmful ocean dumping?

Mr. JORLING. After a review of that question, we continued to believe that there is a firm legal foundation for the mechanism that we have developed. We were confronted with a statutory objective of protecting the biological and chemical and physical integrity of the oceans, and given that overall direction, we thought it appropriate that the Congress intended that to be the overall objective of the regulatory program.

And rather than simply tailor the criteria downward and make them less stringent, our best judgment would indicate it is necessary to protect the oceans-which we think is the overriding congressional objective-and we then conclude that there was inherent in that objective the ability to phase down these requirements, Mr. Hughes, based on the authority that we received. And among the considerations that we had to make were alternatives in feasibility. Mr. HUGHES. What section of the Marine Protection Act does EPA rely upon for that specific authority?

Mr. JORLING. I believe that the basic statement of criteria for evaluating permit applications, Mr. Hughes, that refers to alternatives that impact on other environmental parameters is contained in the various objectives of 102(a).

Mr. BREAUX. The time has expired.

Mr. Forsythe?

Mr. FORSYTHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, in your statement on pages 3 and 4, you discussed this penalty fee and you come to the point of saying that you really believe that a fee basis dealing totally with the difference between ocean dumping and land-based alternatives would be the right way to do it.

You state it might prevent litigation and extended rulemaking and so forth. And I just would remind you that in our last discussion on this in response to a written question, I think you suggested exactly what is now in the working draft of the legislation. Mr. JORLING. That is right.

Mr. FORSYTHE. So you now support our initial bill and retract your earlier recommendations.

I would like to have you expand that a little further.
Mr. JORLING. Yes, sir.

The question of delay, cease, penalties, what have you, has been the subject of intense congressional scrutiny over the last 8 or so months. And I think a lot of people have been studying these matters very carefully with some intensity. And as more analysis is performed, the concepts are continually refined. And I think you have pointed out the fact that we have now changed our position. And let me just describe the two basic reasons, if I can, for that change.

The first change or the first judgment is that the measure of the difference between the ocean-dumping cost and the cost to do a

land-based alternative is a sufficient driving mechanism to provide the incentive for these communities to develop the system.

That is the major factor. And that compares, I think, almost identically, recognizing a different situation, with the concept of the Clean Air Act and the concept that the administration proposed and the Senate adopted, with some change, in the Water Pollution Control Act that is now pending in a companion committee, the House Public Works Committee.

The second aspect is that incentives work most effectively when they are relatively precise. And we think that by including questions concerning what in effect are cause-effect relationships-the cause of the ocean dumping and the effect on the ocean environment-is something upon which scientists disagree and certainly lawyers disagree. And that adding that dimension would remove that provision, would remove that expeditious aspect of the delay compliance penalty and would provide endless opportunity for delay.

So we think that the combination of a sufficient measure being provided by the difference in cost with the relatively fewer litigable issues raised by the other measures, Mr. Forsythe, indicates that we should change our position.

Mr. FORSYTHE. Then you would now support the language in the original draft bill rather than what we put in the working draft? I think the language in the original draft is now where you are. I just want to make sure.

Mr. JORLING. Yes, that is our position.

Mr. FORSYTHE. Now, how much money have New York and Philadelphia, if you can remember, spent in recent years on implementation of alternatives?

Mr. JORLING. If I might ask permission to supply that information for the record.

Mr. FORSYTHE. We would appreciate that.

[The following was received for the record:]

NEW YORK AND PHILADELPHIA FUNDING OF RESEARCH

The municipalities in the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan area were told by EPA and the States that alternatives would be studied and funded by the Federal Government and the States, and that they were required by permit condition to participate fully in the Interstate Sanitation Commission/Ocean County Study by furnishing all data upon request. It was the considered opinion of EPA and the States that separate studies by almost 100 facilities would not be cost effective. It is understood, however, that New York City funded approximately $150,000 of independent research. The Interstate Sanitation Commission/Ocean County Study was funded at $930,000.

For Philadelphia, the City reports that $500,000 was spent in fiscal 1976 and $1 million was spent in fiscal 1977.

Mr. FORSYTHE. Well, I know Mr. Hughes referred to that matter. Mr. JORLING. I might add, sir, that no one has the impression that New York City is the only corporate in that Hudson-New York Harbor area.

Mr. FORSYTHE. I recognize that.

And I believe that in some ways-at least in terms of getting secondary treatment-New York City is moving far faster than some of my New Jersey communities on the other side of the river. And the real basic problem of raw sewage is one that I have to compliment New York's progress. They have done a commendable