22 



[The prepared statement of Ms. Ritchie can be found at the end 

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Studds. Thank you very much. 



Finally, on the panel, Mr. Peter Shelley of the Conservation Law 

 Foundation. Mr. Shelley. 



STATEMENT OF PETER SHELLEY, CONSERVATION LAW 

 FOUNDATION 



Mr. Shelley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Sub- 

 committee, and Senator Kerry. Thank you for holding these hear- 

 ings. 



This is a difficult, complex issue, but not certainly the first that 

 has been associated with this project. I would like to commend ev- 

 eryone who has been involved in this, as well as earlier complex 

 issues for the straightforward, intelligent and focused advocacy 

 that has been brought to it. Particularly the Cape advocates, who 

 have been, in my view, highly responsible for carrying the burden 

 of making us all aware of this issue. I think they have done a ter- 

 rific job on that. 



I have been involved in this project longer than the MWRA, 

 since early 1983. Back then, billions of gallons of wastes were being 

 discharged. They were damaging the resources of Boston Harbor. 

 They were injuring the users of Boston Harbor. They were, as the 

 computer modeling now indicates, well within its range of accura- 

 cy, significantly damaging the resources of Massachusetts Bay. 



The lawsuit that CLF filed in 1983 was not intended and we do 

 not think it has produced a proposal that is shifting pollution from 

 Boston Harbor out into Massachusetts Bay. That was not our 

 intent. I do not think that that is what is going on. We are commit- 

 ted to doing everything with this Subcommittee and others to make 

 sure that does not happen. 



We have also actively participated in outfall issues. Some of the 

 issues with the MWRA we have not participated in as extensively 

 as others, but in outfall issues, I think I can say, we have been in- 

 volved from the very beginning. We were involved opposing the 

 waiver of the secondary treatment application in the early 1980's. 

 We opposed the reapplication for a waiver of secondary treatment 

 in the mid-1980's. We have been heavily involved with the siting 

 process of this outfall. We have reviewed all of the studies, to the 

 extent of our abilities. We have consulted with outside scientists, 

 including scientists who have dived in the area of the existing out- 

 falls, who have dived in the area of the proposed outfall. 



We have looked at the issues raised by the Cape, and they are 

 important issues. Based on our present understanding, based on 

 the best currently available scientific information, we think that 

 this proposed outfall technology and location is the best — best in 

 the sense that it minimizes the risks to all Massachusetts Bay re- 

 sources, including endangered species. Based on that same current- 

 ly-available scientific information, our view is that the EPA/ 

 NMFS' conclusions, with respect to no jeopardy, no likely jeopardy 

 are well within their bounds and probably accurate. 



Nonetheless, there is risk and uncertainty. I would like to em- 

 phasize that we strongly agree with the conservation recommenda- 



