organic carbon; and 45 percent of the phosphorous going into the New York Bight.

NOAA will have a major role to play in the study of the effects of dredged material and other substances on the marine environment. NOAA is currently in the process of drafting an interagency agreement with the Corps of Engineers and, in fiscal year 1978, will begin a pilot dredged material study in the Mississippi Delta area. I am pleased to see that after more than 4 years of having no funds appropriated, NOAA is finally able to fulfill its responsibilities mandated under title II.

The lion's share of the blame for the slow start of title II programs rests on NOAA itself. In past years, for some reason NOAA decisionmakers determined that, relative to other NOAA programs, its title II responsibilities were relatively unimportant. This is illustrated by the fact that NOAA did not even request funds for title II until fiscal year 1976. By the time NOAA did request funds, the other decisionmakers in the budget process had been convinced that title II programs did not merit funds, and again in fiscal year 1976 no funds were appropriated.

For the first time now, it seems that this unfortunate and unjustified perception has been reversed. For fiscal year 1979, OMB has approved $3.35 million and $2.56 million to sections 201 and 202 respectively under title II.

My last observation pertains to title III of the act-the marine sanctuaries program. This program, which has yet to be appropriated any funds, is just now getting its feet on the ground. To date, only two marine sanctuaries have been designated, the Monitor and Key Largo sites.

Last year, the President's environmental message emphasized the importance of the marine sanctuaries program. Since that time, over 170 potential sanctuary sites have been identified. In response to this increased interest and the need to effectively manage other uses of the ocean, NOAA formed the Office of Ocean Management. The marine sanctuaries program is a major component of this new office. I hope the result of these new changes will be a long-awaited realization of congressional intent-an effective marine sanctuary program.

I would like to call on our ranking minority member, Mr. Forsythe, and ask if he has any comments he would like to make. Mr. FORSYTHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do have a few comments that I would like to make as we open this hearing.

We are now in our sixth year of a national ocean dumping program established when Congress enacted the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Among other tasks, this act authorizes "research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies, for the purpose of determining means of minimizing or ending all dumping materials within 5 years of the effective date of this act." That 5-year deadline was passed last October.

Today, 52 years later, dumping is continuing and no immediate end is in sight. EPA and Congress have set December 31, 1981, as a deadline for the ocean dumping of harmful wastes, but major dumpers, in particular New York City, do not believe the deadline

can be met. An all-out effort, drawing upon resources from the private and public sector, will be required in order to prevent yet another deadline from sliding by.

One obstacle to an effective ocean dumping program has been the structure of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. NOAA, an agency specializing in oceanographic research, has been given responsibility in the act for researching land-based alternatives to ocean dumping. This responsibility ought to belong to EPA. H.R. 5851, a bill which I introduced and which has been cosponsored by 18 members of our committee, would make this change. I hope this provision can be incorporated into the authorization bill that we are considering today.

Finally, I would like to address EPA and NOAA. This committee plans to take a very close look at your ocean dumping programs. We consider it imperative that ocean dumping be ended by 1981, and we plan to give the involved agencies a very substantial authorization for these programs. In addition to authorized funding, this committee is prepared to act on legislative proposals such as H.R. 5851-to insure that the 1981 deadline is met. Constructive, environmentally sound alternatives must replace the disgraceful practice of ocean dumping.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BREAUX. Thank you.

I would like to call our first witness, the Honorable Thomas C. Jorling, Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials.

Tom, the subcommittees welcome you. If you have anyone that you would like to accompany you, please identify them for the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS C. JORLING, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN T. RHETT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER PROGRAMS OPERATION; AL WASTLER, CHIEF, OCEAN DISPOSAL BRANCH; AND KENNETH BIGLANE, DIVISION CHIEF, OIL AND SPECIAL MATERIALS DIVISION

Mr. JORLING. Thank you.

If the committee would allow, I would like to ask Jack Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Program Operations; Kenneth Biglane, Division Director, Oil and Special Materials Control Division; and Al Wastler, of the Marine Protection Plan, if they would accompany me to the table.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I welcome the opportunity to testify today to provide the support of EPA and the administration for continued authorization of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act-MPRSA.

In 1972, while the landmark Water Pollution Control Act amendments was moving toward enactment, it became clear that one byproduct of the regulation of discharges of pollutants from industrial and municipal sources would be significant increases in the volume of sludge.

The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act was passed 8 days after the FWPCA to eliminate the option of disposing of harmful sewage sludge in the ocean environment.

Since that time, EPA has brought all sewage, industrial and dredge ocean disposal under regulatory control. Today, with the added thrust of the 1977 Clear Water Act amendments, the end of dumping harmful industrial and sewage sludge is in sight.

I would like to describe the actions now being taken by EPA to insure that the remaining sewage sludge dumpers will be able to stop ocean dumping by the end of 1981 in conformance with Public Law 95-153.

We have just completed the process of issuing new interim permits to municipal sludge dumpers in the New York-New Jersey area. The major sludge dumpers in New York State requested and were granted extensions for the development and submission of facility plans. These plans are now due between May and July of this year. Major New Jersey sludge generators have submitted draft facility plans which are now being reviewed by the region II staff. Public hearings on these plans will begin the third week in February.

The new permits generally incorporate explicitly more enforceable milestones than were included in previous permits. For example, the New York City schedule now contains 28 interim dates leading to the cessation of ocean dumping by the end of 1981. Similarly, in the case of Westchester County, there are 13 interim dates. Other permits also include numbers of interim dates appropriate to each situation.

This has been done so that EPA can monitor progress more closely than before and can take appropriate enforcement action before major slippages occur. We believe this approach has built into these permits an early warning system which will improve our ability to keep the dumpers on schedule. All dumpers have been advised of our intent to monitor compliance with all permit conditions very closely and to take immediate enforcement action when permit conditions are violated.

In the case of the city of Philadelphia, EPA brought a successful action for violation of an ocean dumping permit. The administrative law judge recommended the assessment of a fine of $225,000 against the city. Unless Philadelphia agrees voluntarily by entering into a court-ordered consent decree as a result of negotiation now ongoing in the region, further enforcement action is contemplated to insure Philadelphia meets its permit requirements and ends ocean dumping on schedule. EPA has already referred the case to the Department of Justice for possible judicial enforcement. EPA will do whatever is necessary to get Philadelphia out of the ocean no later than 1981.

During the past year, serious consideration has also been given to relocating the New York-New Jersey metropolitan areas and Philadelphia sewage sludge dumping sites. A hearing on these matters was held last spring at Toms River, N.J., to solicit information on the issues involved. Given the importance we attach to this problem and the tremendous range and complexity of issues and evidence involved, I am doing a detailed review of the record of

that informational hearing. I anticipate that a decision will be announced during the next several weeks.

I regret to report to you that Camden, N.J., has not yet stopped ocean dumping. In justice to the city, however, I would like to state that this is not due to lack of good faith effort on their part. There were some difficulties in receiving bids on construction of part of the composting plant which delayed some construction into bad winter weather. We do expect at this time that the composting facility will be operational by the end of March and that ocean dumping of sewage sludge will stop at that time.

The schedules for implementation for all remaining sludge generators are indeed tight and have little allowance for slippage. In addition, the enforcement posture of the agency has been enhanced with last session's amendment. We believe that our careful monitoring of each permittee's activities will afford the highest probability of forestalling any occurrences that will result in any permittees being unable to dump harmful sewage sludge by December 31, 1981.

Of course, ending sludge dumping requires more environmentally acceptable alternatives for sludge disposal. EPA, continuing the work of its predecessor agencies, has been working on methods for the disposal and management of municipal sludge since the enactment of the first Federal water pollution control laws. The study of these alternatives to ocean dumping of municipal sludge normally has been funded, not through the ocean dumping program, but rather through the Federal Water Pollution Control ActFWPCA-since municipal sludge is a byproduct of the sewage treatment process.

The current research and demonstration program emphasis has shifted toward development of improved technology for returning sludge to the environment in an ecologically acceptable manner. In fiscal year 1976, nearly $3 million was allocated on such programs, including secondary health and ecological effects of the alternatives to ocean disposal. The emphasis of these projects was on beneficial utilization, that is, land application for soil enhancement, crop production and reclamation of disturbed lands, the production of energy, and resource recovery.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to submit for the record copies of some of the documents that the agency has produced pursuant to this research and development activity, all dealing with municipal sludges, the most recent being the technical bulletin on municipal sludge, which does deal with the alternatives and criteria measuring the acceptability of those practices.

Mr. BREAUX. Without objection, they will be received for consideration by the subcommittee.

Mr. JORLING. New technologies are being examined to determine if there are cost-effective methods for producing or recovering marketable products in the processing of sludge. These products include metals recovery, organic acids, fertilizer bases, soil conditioners, methane, and the recovery of process heat. The program will also provide guidance for controlling unacceptable land disposal practices under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of

In addition to research and demonstration programs, EPA is undertaking pilot studies for the design of new and innovative technologies for sludge as well as studies of regional solutions to sludge issues. Presently over $17 million has either been obligated or is in the process of being committed for such studies. These funds have been targeted to those communities that have been ocean dumping. This work is being done and supported under the Clear Water Act.

It is our understanding that consideration is being given to transferring the research and demonstration authority of section 203 of the Ocean Dumping Act from NOAA to EPA. If this is done, we would regard the demonstration of the practicality of land-based alternatives for the disposal of sewage sludge as the first priority. Land-based sludge disposal research has been financed and carried out by EPA since the beginning of the sewage treatment program. I should point out that no sludge land disposal research has been financed under the authority of the MPRSA. We also believe that attention should be given to the development of innovative technology particularly as it applies to the disposal of dredged material. Major problems in utilizing some land-based alternatives for these types of wastes are related to the demonstration of the practicality of techniques already developed through ongoing research. Pyrolysis and composting are examples of such techniques. More effort needs to be devoted to implementing such alternatives on a demonstration basis, as has been done in the case of Camden, N.J., so that the hesitation of some communities about using an unproven technique can be overcome.

The act gives EPA the authority to designate ocean dumping sites for dredged material, as well as for sewage sludge and industrial wastes. EPA is required to prepare Environmental Impact Statements-EIS's-in support of each site designated for use on a continuing basis.

Carrying out this responsibility requires the collection of environmental data on the dumpsites and adjacent areas, and continuing measurement and assessment of conditions at each site. We have an interagency agreement with NOAA which includes provision for NOAA to collect baseline information on some ocean disposal sites as part of their research activities under title II.

The thrust of the NOAA activities under title II is, however, directed toward understanding the complex processes occurring in the ocean through long-range research activities, and not toward obtaining the types of site specific data required for us to designate and manage sites in a timely manner. Thus, while we have obtained valuable information from NOAA on the New York Bight and on the 108-mile site, and we expect to receive additional information in the future, we are unable to rely on other agencies' commitment of resources so that timely inputs can be made to meet our site designation responsibilities which have regulatory impact.

During the past year we have negotiated a contract for preparing EIS's on all sites which are not being phased out prior to January 1980. This contract includes a provision for additional baseline surveys to supplement information presently available or expected to be developed through the research efforts of NOAA under title