27 



we do have a good cross sectional representation from all the scien- 

 tific community. Certainly, we would like to have their input on 

 the recommendations before we commit to doing them all. Because 

 we do have, as I say, a good cross representation here. 



Mr. Studds. Well, are you aware of anyone better qualified to 

 make these recommendations than either Mr. Kraus or Dr. Mayo? 



Mr. KoTELLY. Well, Dr. Mayo's group is on the Task Force. 



Mr. Studds. Yes. Are you aware of anyone better qualified than 

 those two? 



Mr. KoTELLY. Their qualifications are certainly held in the high- 

 est regard by EPA and the rest of the scientific 



Mr. Studds. That was not my question. Are there any people as 

 knowledgeable as these two in this field, to your knowledge? 



Mr. KoTELLY. I am not an expert on that, sir. I just cannot say. I 

 know that they are important experts that we rely on, and we have 

 quoted them extensively in our biological assessment. To say that 

 they are the only ones that can make decisions on monitoring is — 

 it may be a little too far-fetched. I think there are others who can 

 also have input in this monitoring plan as well. 



Mr. Studds. Well, who else do you think might have useful 

 input? 



Mr. KoTELLY. Well, I would say that everybody who is on this 

 Committee. If you want me to name them, sir, I will; but I will 

 present this for 



Mr. Studds. OK. No, no. I just want to make sure that those who 

 know the most about this are heeded and paid attention to here. 



Mr. KoTELLY. I think we have a good cross-representation. As I 

 say, I will submit this list to the Subcommittee 



Mr. Studds. Right. 



Mr. KoTELLY. — with my testimony. 



Mr. Studds. A cross-section of people is not always the ideal way 

 to gather expertise, as you know. For example, I would not be 

 much help, because I do not know much about it. 



Mr. KoTELLY. Neither would I, to be honest with you. 



Mr. Studds. Well, I hope neither of us is on the Task Force then. 



Mr. KoTELLY. Neither you nor I are on it. 



Mr. Studds. Great. 



Mr. KoTELLY. There are others that are. 



Mr. Studds. That is some reassurance, I am sure, to the critters 

 in question. 



Mr. Shelley, you speak, or at least you recommend — and I am a 

 little surprised, if I understand you correctly, that the MWRA and 

 the EPA consider the water quality impacts of the various treat- 

 ment options all the way from full use of the new outfall as soon as 

 the new primary treatment plant is built, to no use of the outfall 

 until secondary treatment is online — that full range of options. Are 

 you suggesting that that range has never been considered before? 



Mr. Shelley. It certainly has not been considered at the same 

 level of some of the other analyses. I did not believe that the 

 MWRA was even capable of using its existing outfalls, from an en- 

 gineering standpoint, in that kind of way — mixing and matching 

 them — until a report was filed with the Court, I think in the En- 

 dangered Species litigation, suggested that those were mitigation or 

 response options that were feasible from an engineering stand- 



