Mr. BREAUX. Do you have a list from EPA setting out the priorities or the type of interagency contacts you have with EPA to study particular dumpsites? Dr. HESS. As we move forward in the program we get from EPA their idea of what the highest priority items are. I am not sure we have a written list, but we have statements from them that first the deepwater dumpsites, 106, then second Puerto rico, and then Gulf of Mexico. Mr. BREAUX. They have not submitted a written communication to you covering order of priorties? Dr. HESS. I do not believe so. Mr. BREAUX. That seems to me to be pretty critical. Dr. HESS. I think we will get that taken care of shortly. Mr. BREAUX. I would hope so. Mr. HUGHES. I am a little confused. Where is the New York Bight dumpsite? Dr. HESS. There are several dumpsites in the New York Bight. Mr. HUGHES. You referred to 106. I do not think that 106 is in the New York Bight. Dr. Hess. I agree. I agree it is not in what we call the New York Bight. Mr. HUGHES. Then what I am trying to find out is where does the New York Bight, which is like the dumping grounds of the world, as far as I am concerned, fit into the relative priorities? We have more stuff being dumped in the New York Bight than probably all the other places combined. Dr. HESS. Yes, I agree with that, and we have been carrying out a program of research in the new York Bight for 5 years, I believe it is. That is not a program that has been started under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. It was started before that law, and it will continue through 1981. We have coordinated with EPA on certain parts of the work that we do, but that is a NOAA research project. Mr. HUGHES. What I am trying to point out is how is that funded? Dr. Hess. It is funded under a program called MESA, Marine Ecosystem Analysis. Mr. HUGHES. Let me get back to the Philadelphia dumpsite again. As I recall, one of the last reports I saw, which emanated from NOAA, indicated that there were traces of cadmium and mercury years after we ceased dumping at the Philadephia site. I am just wondering, would it not be important for us to try to find out what the traces of cadmium and mercury are now that we have ceased dumping at that site. One of the problems we have in the New York Bight area is that we find traces of cadmium and mercury, 100 times over the safety level postulated by EPA, and it would seem to me, in looking at the relative priorities, that it is very important to find out, years after we have stopped dumping at a site, just what traces of mercury and cadmium we have. I cannot understand why we do not have some further studies of that particular dumpsite. Dr. Hess. I agree with you, it would be a good idea to study a large number of dumpsites. I think Mr. Jorling mentioned 67 sites that are active now. We have to work on those with highest priority. Mr. HUGHES. You know, what concerns me, I do not know where this Puerto Rican dumpsite is, but I know in the Philadelphia dumpsite area we have clammers all over the place. I would think it would be very important, from the standpoint of health and the environment, to determine just what has been the impact of this dumping. If we interrupt the monitoring now, we are going to lose a real good opportunity to find out more about the impact of ocean dumping. Dr. Hess. But it is not a matter of interrupting the monitoring of the Philadelphia dumpsite as far as we are concerned. We have not been involved in studies of that sort. Mr. HUGHES. I understood you were. Dr. HESS. No, I am sorry, we are not. Mr. HUGHES. Do you have any idea who has? Is it EPA? Dr. HESS. EPA did the entire study on the Philadelphia dumpsite. We were not involved. Mr. HUGHES. I suppose you have the same problem as I do, i.e. trying to determine which of the agencies have jurisdiction. I can see where you have problems with the Army Corps, with dredge materials, because they are doing things that also fall within your jurisdiction. Your suggestion is then that NOAA has never participated in monitoring the Philadelphia dumpsite? Dr. HESS. Correct. Mr. HUGHES. Do you coordinate your findings on other dumpsites with EPA? Is there an exchange of information? Dr. HESS. Yes, very closely. The New York Bight, sewage dumpsite, being the best example, there has been a close relationship between our people and the people running the MESA project. Mr. HUGHES. Would it be helpful if we had one lead agency that would actually coordinate those activities? I mean you are doing some monitoring, the Army Corps of Engineers is doing some monitoring, EPA is doing some monitoring, and even though I hear you when you tell me there is interagency coordination, I often find that is not the case. I just wonder, is this a major flaw in our effort to try to learn more about programs such as ocean dumping? You have one agency determining priorities, doing some monitoring of your own, another agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, that determines their own priorities, which is doing some monitoring, and then you have NOAA, which would seem to have a great deal of technical expertise, and depth in this area, but nobody in the final analysis is really coordinating these activities. Do you envision that this is a major problem in trying to attack a common goal? Dr. HESS. I think that we would work better if we had a single agency coordinating these things. Mr. HUGHES. You, of course, would suggest that EPA be the lead agency? Dr. HESS. I have not thought of that answer, sir. Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Pritchard? Mr. PRITCHARD. Yes, I will be following this matter closely, Dr. Hess, as to how you are coming in the Puget Sound area with MESA. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman, just 20 seconds. Mr. BREAUX. It was not even 10 seconds. You might note, Mr. Hughes, that there is pending in the House, legislation which would designate NOAA as the lead agency in all marine pollution research and monitoring. It has already passed the Senate, and is pending in the House right now. It would designate NOAA as the lead agency, and clear up once and for all, which agency should have one lead and help to coordinate the Federal effort to conduct ocean pollution research and development. Gentlemen, thank you. We will have some additional questions that we would like to submit. Sam, I would like to ask you one other thing. Do we have any plans for the Merrimac? Mr. BLEICHER. There are a number of other Civil War wrecks that people have suggested to use as possible sanctuaries. Mr. BREAUX. Thank you, gentlemen. With that, the subcommittee will stand adjourned subject to the call of the Chair. [The following was submitted for the record:] Hon. JOHN B. BREAUX, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of January 6, 1978, expressing your concern about the ability of some ocean dumpers of harmful sewage sludge to meet their compliance schedules for stopping ocean dumping by December 31, 1981. We share your concern and are using every administrative and legal remedy open to use to insure that the legal requirements are met for stopping the ocean dumping of harmful sewage sludge. In your letter you specifically mention potential problems with Westchester County and New York City in complying with the recently passed law mandating the cessation of ocean dumping of harmful sewage sludge by December 31, 1981. I would like to bring you up to date concerning the implementation schedules of these two ocean dumping permittees. As you are aware, permits issued and effective August 1, 1976, contained an implementation schedule which included nine interim dates leading up to the cessation of ocean dumping by the end of 1981. As part of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II's annual review of permits and permit conditions, both New York City and Westchester County requested changes in certain of these interim dates but not in that final date. After considerable discussion between Region II and the respective permittees, the new permits were issued January 10, 1978, granting the revised schedules submitted by the applicants/permittees. In the case of New York City, the schedule_now contains 28 interim dates leading to the cessation of ocean dumping in 1981. Similarly, in the case of Westchester County, there are 13 interim dates. It should also be noted that all interim permits issued on January 10 by Region II to 35 sewage sludge generators contain an implementation schedule for the cessation of their current practice of ocean dumping on or before December 31, 1981, in accordance with 40 CFR Section 220.3(d) and the statutory deadline imposed by Public Law 95-153. The interim dates included in these permits are, to a great extent, those suggested by the permittees as dates they believe can be met. The inclusion of a larger number of identifiable milestones in the permits will enable us to monitor permittees' activities more closely than before and will also provide us with additional bases on which appropriate enforcement action can be instituted. In issuing those permits, the Region notified each permittee that, under EPA regulations, unless the Regional Administrator determines that the permittee has an implementation schedule adequate to insure cessation of all ocean dumping by 1981 at the latest, no further permits may be issued to the permittee after April 23, 1978. EPA has no discretion to do otherwise since the 1981 deadline has been made statutory by Public Law 95-153. Region II is closely monitoring the activities of all permittees under the newly issued permits and is implementing an enforcement strategy which includes immediate enforcement action by the Region if any of the specified interim dates are missed. The schedules for implementation are indeed tight and have little allowance for slippage. There is certainly some chance that unforeseen and uncontrollable factors such as strikes and delays in funding or deliveries of equipment will create problems difficult to resolve. However, we believe that our careful monitoring of each permittee's activities will afford the highest probability of forestalling any such occurrences and will result in all permittees ceasing to dump harmful sewage sludge by December 31, 1981. I will be happy to keep you informed of our progress in phasing out the sewage sludge dumpers. Sincerely yours, THOMAS C. JORLING, WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES, Hon. JOHN BREAUX, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, DEAR SIR: On October 13, 1977 I wrote to you expressing concern over a provision of proposed bill H.R. 5851 which would impose fines, or would require a high rate of expenditure of funds to study and develop land-based alternatives to ocean disposal of sludge. I appreciate your detailed response of October 18, 1977 which also requested further information from this department. As you indicated, compliance with the December 31, 1981 date, now required by provisions of H.R. 4297, will be difficult. Numerous environmental, economic and regulatory considerations will effect such compliance and must be thoroughly addressed. The County has "taken the deadline seriously", has undertaken major steps toward achieving the goal, and has been cooperative and responsive to Federal and State Agencies in this regard. The County has not yet chosen a specific land based alternative, but is moving rapidly toward such decision which will be consistent with the time constraints imposed by law. The following responses to the five items of information requested in your October 18 letter are offered: (1) Westchester County operates six municipal wastewater treatment plants, of which only the facility located in Yonkers is herein addressed. The other plants already utilize or are in the process of implementing methods of land based sludge disposal. The County is currently under engineering contract for $236,619 for preparation of a facility plan relative to disposal of sludge from the treatment plant at Yonkers. Previously, a Sludge Management Study costing $140,000 and also addressing the Yonkers facility was begun in 1975 and completed in February 1977. Department staff has expended considerable effort associated with these studies. (2) The Federal and State funding, relative to the above noted $236,619 study work, will amount to 87% percent of costs. (3) Westchester County will complete the above noted Step 1 work by June 1, 1978, which will establish the alternative for implementation. Plans and specifications (Step 2) are to be completed by June 15, 1979. Construction of facilities (Step 3) is to begin by February 1, 1980, with completion before the end of 1981. Funding for Step 2 and Step 3 work will depend upon the alternative chosen. (4) The most serious problems which could effect meeting of the deadline are likely to be beyond the control of this County. Such occurrences as formal protests, court actions, strikes or excessive material and equipment delivery problems could impose delays in the program. The current schedule has little room to absorb any such delays. Each available alternative involves considerable cost and environmen tal implications, and must be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the State and Federal regulations prior to commitment for implementation. Many of the procedures cannot be shortened. (5) With regard to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II has been willing and available to provide technical assistance and advice regarding environmental acceptibility of land based alternatives. The decision as to need for an E.I.S. will await evaluation of the Environmental Assessment and is not predictable at this time. In conclusion, this County has undertaken a program which can meet the December 31, 1981 deadline. The proposal for imposition of fines and legal sanctions, as indicated in our October 13th letter, are viewed as non-productive, themselves presenting a possible impediment. Such will do nothing toward avoiding the most severe type delays outside of County control. If special legislative action were to be considered, such would better address the topics noted in item (4) above. I thank you for your interest and consideration regarding the serious problems facing communities such as Westchester County in addressing this endeavor. WILLIAM G. BORGHARD, P.E., Commissioner. OCTOBER 18, 1977. WILLIAM G. BORGHARD, P.E., Commissioner, Department of Environmental Facilities, DEAR COMMISSIONER BORGHARD: Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1977 explaining your views on the bill, H.R. 5851. The Subcommittees on Oceanography and Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment held hearings on the bill on September 20. During these hearings I brought up the very point you discuss in your letter. The intent of the legislation is to ensure that interim permit holders will implement acceptable land-based alternatives by December 31, 1981. The Committee is aware that in some cases, particularly New York City, compliance with this deadline will be difficult. The Committee feels very strongly that this deadline must be met and realizes that the time to correct situations which may impede progress toward this goal is now. According to testimony given by the Environmental Protection Agency at the September 20 hearings, most interim permit holders have not yet chosen a definite land-based sewage sludge disposal alternative. I take it from your letter that Westchester County falls into that category. A little more than four years remain before the ocean dumping of sewage sludge must end. Consequently, I think the Members of the Committee are justified in their concern over the possibility of meeting the deadline. No further action is anticipated for H.R. 5851 this session. I have directed the staffs of the Subcommittees to look into our mutual concerns regarding any adverse impact this legislation would have on interim permit holders and their efforts to phase out ocean dumping by December 31, 1981. You could assist me and the staff by providing the following information: 1. How much has Westchester County spent on the development or implementation of land-based alternatives in the last five years? 2. How much Federal and State funding has Westchester County received or is expected to receive for purposes of developing or implementing land-base alternatives in the last five years? 3. Describe Westchester County's schedule which will lead to the complete phaseout of ocean dumping by December 31, 1981. In this description please include an accounting of funds which will be spent and the date when an alternative will be chosen (if an alternative has already been chosen explain that alternative.) 4. A discussion of any problems which may prevent Westchester County from achieving phaseout by December 31, 1981. 5. Has the Federal EPA provided to Westchester County technical assistance or advice regarding the environmental acceptability of land-based alternatives? Will EPA require an EIS to be prepared before any alternative is implemented? Thank you for your interest and your assistance. Sincerely, 33-546 - 78-9 JOHN BREAUX, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography. |