28 



point. There have been a number of studies. There have been stud- 

 ies that compared one outfall site to another outfall site for the 

 complete loading of the effluent from the plant. In terms of utiliz- 

 ing the new inshore structures that it will have available to it to 

 minimize — or optimize, I guess, the discharge protocol, I do not 

 think that has been done. As I say, I do not know what the conclu- 

 sions would be, because the inshore resources are very sensitive 

 and already seriously injured. I think it has to be done. I think it 

 has to be done as part of the contingency planning. 



One of the things that has always back-stopped some of my opin- 

 ions about this outfall is the notion I have that impacts, if properly 

 monitored and observed in that monitoring, would be reversible — 

 they would be reversible in the immediate term and also in the 

 long-term. Part of the ability to do that with knowledge that you 

 are making the right decision and balancing everything correctly is 

 doing a detailed study of these different discharge options. I think 

 the MWRA has said they will do that. I do not know if they have 

 done it or what the status of it is. 



Mr. Studds. Well, Mr. MacDonald, speaking of discharge options, 

 there has been quite a bit of press about your construction sched- 

 ule, as you know, which has kept all of us awake. First the tunnel 

 is on schedule, and then it is not, then the treatment plant is on 

 schedule, and then it is ahead of schedule. We all get a little con- 

 fused following it. You do not suppose it is possible that, given the 

 delays in the tunnel itself, we may never actually see primary ef- 

 fluent discharged into the bays? 



Mr. MacDonald. I think that is less likely — less than 50/50. I 

 think we will see the tunnel completed in due time to go ahead 

 with our proposal to discharge primary treatment — primary efflu- 

 ent from the new outfall location. 



Mr. Studds. Of course, another way of saying that is — it is not 

 impossible. 



Mr. MacDonald. I tried to hedge it as nicely as I could. 



Mr. Studds. I do not know whether that means I am rooting for 

 you to hurry up or slow down, but whichever it takes. As you 

 know, there are a lot of folks who feel pretty strongly about that. 



Now, Mr. Bigford, on that subject, how come NMFS did not in- 

 clude among its conservation recommendations one that would 

 delay the use of the outfall until secondary treatment was in place? 



Mr. Bigford. It relates to our opinion of the possibility of the 

 current situation causing jeopardy with the stock — having the like- 

 lihood of causing jeopardy to the right whales or the hump back 

 whales. Basically, we think the current situation is not threatening 

 the continued existence of the species. It is not likely to affect the 

 species. If the current situation is not affecting it, then we think a 

 concerted effort to improve the current situation is going in the 

 right direction. If that means they continue with the current dis- 

 charges, albeit it at a different location, while source reduction, im- 

 proved treatment, reduced toxins and reduced nutrients, and all 

 sorts of other specific actions are being taken, we think the situa- 

 tion is acceptable. 



Mr. Studds. If I understand you correctly, you are pointing out 

 that the current situation does indeed affect the creatures in ques- 

 tion; am I correct? 



