34 



Mr. Studds. ok. 



The next step in this process, as I understand it, is the determi- 

 nation by EPA as to whether or not to issue this permit. As I also 

 understand it, EPA and CZM have committed to a pubUc hearing 

 in the course of that process. Is that correct — where people will 

 have a chance to have further input? I assume at that time you 

 will hear again much of what you have heard here. It is a decision 

 we are all going to have to live with, as are the critters we are con- 

 cerned about, for a long time to come. 



What I would like to do is to go down and give each of you a 

 chance to have one final word, if you will. You do not have to have 

 any final word if you do not want. You can be very brief. You can 

 be moderately brief. If there is one overwhelming thought you 

 would like to have remain in the mind of particularly the EPA at 

 this point, who really has the next decision to make in this process, 

 please feel free to do so. 



We will just start at the other end, Mr. Shelley? 



Mr. Shelley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This comment is not di- 

 rected toward EPA, but it is an observation that my role of histori- 

 an allows me to make here. Many of the opinions and certainly the 

 conclusions my group has reached are based on reviews of thick 

 documents. We have added a couple of feet of documents to the lit- 

 erature and also some technology and stuff, but that helps us make 

 decisions. The simple fact of the matter is that inadequately treat- 

 ed sewage and industrial waste water and street runoff is what is 

 going to jeopardize these resources, jeopardize the whales, poten- 

 tially kill whales. As one of the historians of Metropolitan Boston, I 

 would like to point out that a new treatment plant was built on 

 Deer Island in 1968, and it was essentially non-functional 12 years 

 later because of a lack of investments and a lack of leadership 

 coming from this sewer agency. I do not accuse Mr. MacDonald of 

 lacking leadership. I think he has done a terrific job with the 

 MWRA. The fact of the matter is that operating this plant at the 

 levels that all of the predictions are based on is going to require 

 significant amounts of money. Money, to my environmental col- 

 leagues down in Washington, does not seem to be much of an issue 

 for the Clean Water Act reauthorization. 



I have to say that I have a very deep concern that having the 

 local service territory pay such a large amount of the capital pro- 

 gram for this project, and the absence of a broader-based state as- 

 sistance or a broader-based Federal assistance for all municipal 

 areas, puts tremendous pressure on operation and maintenance. As 

 someone who has seen the results of not operating and maintaining 

 a plant, I hope to God we do not repeat that. I really do. I wish I 

 could persuade some of my environmental colleagues down in 

 Washington that this still is a priority. I do have a concern in that 

 area that I do not know how to wrestle with particularly, other 

 than to say the paper looks good, but I hope we make it happen. 



Mr. Studds. I agree with you. I am going to mention that in my 

 final remarks. 



Ms. Ritchie, do you want a parting shot? 



Ms. Ritchie. Very briefly. I guess my concern is that perhaps 

 overall we are profligate with our marine environment. I am con- 

 cerned with what appears to be a departure of what I understood 



