EPA which has developed a long standing expertise in such research through the programs established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. [The bills follow:] [H.R. 4715, H.R. 5282, and H.R. 5851] BILLS To amend the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 regarding the issuance of interim permits for ocean dumping, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Ocean Dumping Amendments Act of 1977". SEC. 2. Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412) is amended (1) by striking out all the matter in subsection (a) appearing immediately before "the Administrator" the first place it appears therein and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "SEC. 102. (a)(1) No permit may be issued under this title with respect to any radiological, chemical, and biological warfare agent or any high-level radioactive waste. "(2) No permit may be issued under this section with respect to any dredged material to which section 103 of this title applies. "(3) Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection,"; (2) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following new paragraphs: "(4) Except as provided in paragraph (5) of this subsection, the Administrator may not issue any permit under this section on or after the date of the enactment of the Ocean Dumping Amendments Act of 1977 unless the material to be transported or dumped meets the criteria established under paragraph (3) of this subsection. "(5)(A) Until December 31, 1981, the Administrator may issue interim permits for the transportation for the purpose of dumping into ocean waters material which does not meet the criteria established under paragraph (3) of this subsection; but any such permit "(i) may not be issued to other than a person who dumped material of the same type into ocean waters before the date of the enactment of this Act, "(ii) shall apply only with respect to material of that type, and "(iii) may only be issued if the Administrator finds that such person has no immediately available alternative for the disposal of such material other than dumping into ocean waters. "(B) No interim permit issued under this paragraph, or any renewal of any such permit, may have an effective period exceeding one year after the date of issue. "(C) In addition to such other provisions as may be imposed by the Administrator on permits issued under this paragraph, the Administrator shall require each person issued an interim permit to expend adequate funds, during the effective period of the permit, for research, in conjunction with the Administrator, into one or more methods for disposing, other than by ocean dumping, of the type of material covered by the permit. The Administrator shall specify for any permittee an alternative method of material disposal on which the permittee must so expend adequate funds, if the Administrator determines that alternative method is technologically and economically achievable (taking into account the relevant factors pertaining to the type of material concerned and to the region in which the facility of the permittee is located) and environmentally less harmful than ocean dumping. If the Administrator does not specify an alternative method for research under the preceding sentence for a permittee, the permittee must undertake research, in conjunction with the Administrator, on one or more alternative methods for the disposal of the material concerned in compliance with the criteria set forth in paragraph (3) of this subsection as soon as possible, but not later than December 31, 1981. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term 'adequate funds' means an amount determined by the Administrator to be necessary to carry out in a responsible manner, within the effective period of the permit, the research required under the permit; except that, in any case in which the Administrator specifies an alternative method for research, the amount may not be less than the difference, as estimated by the applicant and approved by the Administrator, between the cost of disposing of the material by ocean dumping for the effective period of the permit and the estimated cost of disposing of the material during such effective period by the alternative method.". SEC. 3. Section 104(b) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C 1414(b)) is amended to read as follows: "(b) The Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be "(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. 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. 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. |