340 



dmnped into a harbor, and from that vantage point they would have 

 some rational perspectives in dealing with the corps about contami- 

 nated dredging material. In other words, would it not be better to have 

 them all operating and cooperating together than to have the Corps 

 of Engineers operating independently of the EPA ? 



Mr. Langlois. I say no, and I might say, if I may, the case that 

 involved the dredging of Portland Harbor in the middle 1960's from 

 35 feet to 48 feet which is the basis of our survival as a major port 

 because, without it, we would have lost perhaps the major shipping. 



We felt — and certainly no one took issue in 1963, when the permit 

 was granted to dump off the coast of Portland, no one took issue that 

 we were going to spoil the fishing grounds, we are going to contaminate 

 all the areas which were richly blessed with fish. We are satisfied that 

 no one has raised a hand since 1965 when we finished the job to 

 come forward to say that because we deposited spoils off the Portland 

 lightship that it in any way affected the fishing habitat. 



So, we are satisfied that in our own backyard the corps acted 

 prudently in behalf of their responsibilities and our own, and we think 

 they can continue to do so. 



Mr. Ktkos. But your primary concern, as indicated by your state- 

 ment, is that it would be a time-consuming process, if the corps had to 

 consult and obtain a permit from the EPA. 



Mr. Langlois. Time consuming would be one factor. The second 

 would be that for decades the Army corps has accepted this responsi- 

 bility and we feel have the expertise. If you transfer that to anotlier 

 department, it could well be that these two factors alone could jeop- 

 ardize our future dredging projects and the disposal of the spoils. 



Mr. Ktros. Up and down the coast of Maine, do you know how 

 many areas we have had shut off from shellfish because of pollution ? 



Mr. Langlois. Right. 



Mr. Kyeos. Dredged spoils, inevitably from harbors where munici- 

 pal sewage has been dumped for many years, carriers the effects of this 

 pollution. Would it not be logical and rational to have this agency, the 

 EPA, the agency that uniformly oversees all forms of pollution, at the 

 same time act to expedite the dredging of harbors that might be silted 

 up, that can't be used ? Wliy can't they live together ? I can't quite see 

 that. 



Mr. Langlois. Perhaps Mr. Amundsen would like to comment a lit- 

 tle further on this. 



Mr. Amundsen. I think in order to do that logically you would 

 have to bring EPA into the basic considerations of each and every one 

 of these projects, which normally now take nine years to evolve. So 

 that you would have, I think, a duplication of function. Wlien you 

 get into the economics of the project, you have to transport the ma- 

 terial and so on, and choosing a disposal site, each one of these prob- 

 lems is different. It all wraps up closely with the local considerations 

 and the corps has within the last year insisted on a local permit as well 

 as its own. So that the system is pretty well stafeguarded now. 



I might say with these additional local restrictions it is taking 6 

 months to a year to get even a simple dredging maintenance permit 

 where we are already experiencing vessel groundings on this basis. So 

 there is a lot to be taken into consideration on this question, sir. 



