22 



Mr. Pallone. OK. Well, maybe if I can put it a different way. 

 What if someone within the Port Authority was interested in 

 having the test results come out a certain way for their own rea- 

 sons? Could they fabricate that without your knowledge, or does 

 the fact that you go back and look at those reports pretty much 

 preclude that kind of fabrication? 



Mr. Caspe. If someone wants to do something to try to break the 

 law, there are always ways of fabricating something. I presume 

 they could do that. We went back and we checked the records all 

 the way back into the actual lab and the actual bench tests them- 

 selves and came back with that information. 



Mr. Pallone. OK. Thank you. Let me ask another thing. The in- 

 vessel storage option that was proposed by Clean Ocean Action and 

 some of the other environmental groups, my understanding is that 

 pursuant to the Ocean Dumping Act — and I may not have the 

 name right, but the one that Mr. Saxton and Mr. Hughes spon- 

 sored — that alternatives to ocean dumping have to be fully ex- 

 plored before a permit is approved. Now, once we put forward this 

 in-vessel storage alternative, isn't there a requirement under the 

 law to look at that and to rule it out before a decision is made be- 

 cause I haven't even got a response from any of the agencies about 

 the in-vessel alternative? I have no response. Isn't there a legal re- 

 quirement to look at it and analyze it and rule it out before any 

 action is taken? I thought that was a requirement of the law. 



Mr. Davies. I think we do look at alternatives. Our concern, 

 frankly, if I can speak frankly, is that if we store this material, we 

 as yet have no remedial technology that is cost effective that can 

 deal with this volume of material. And if we store this material in 

 tankers or something of that sort, all we have is a future problem 

 that we do not see a solution for at this point in time. If 



Mr. Pallone. Well, I understand what you are saying. You said 

 that previously. What I want to know is isn't there a requirement 

 that you get back to us? In other words, we send a letter asking 

 that this be considered. We don't have a response. Isn't there a re- 

 quirement that it be considered and that there be a response before 

 we go ahead? That was my understanding, that every alternative 

 to ocean dumping had to be looked at and ruled out, so to speak. 

 You know, I don't know if you can answer it, but that was my un- 

 derstanding. I would like somebody who can 



Mr. Davies. Well, why don't we do a response to you on this very 

 specifically, that we will work through our regulations and our 

 lawyers with on this so that we can give you a response? I guess 

 my preliminary feeling is that we look at the normal, feasible al- 

 ternatives when we make a decision on disposal, and those were 

 taken into account in terms of alternatives that we have in this 

 case. The issue then of storage in a vessel leads us to say, "Well, 

 what do we do with it in the long-term? Are we basically creating a 

 long-term problem which we don't have a solution to so is it a prac- 

 ticable alternative?" But we will give you a written response to 

 this. 



Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 Mr. Caspe. Can I just add something to that for a second? Again, 

 EPA is not the permitting agency in this regard so the alternatives 

 analysis that was done in sludge, for example, when we were deal- 



