453 



Mr, DiNGELL. One of the reasons I ask this is I happen to have read 

 some articles in the paper; for example, one mentioned that it is pos- 

 sible perhaps to properly encase and package these substances and put 

 them into places between the plates in the earth crust, where there is a 

 downward movement into the crust, and dispose of waste that way 

 with minimum hazard to the environment. 



Then I observed another connnent about utilization of pumps to 

 bring cold water up to create nutrient, and I wonder if we ought not 

 perhaps consider giving you the authority to engage in a program of 

 converting municipal sewage into useful nutrients. We have done that 

 in the Great Lakes with great success. 



It occurs we might not have the putrification problem in the ocean, 

 if we treat sewage in the proper way and deposit it in the right place 

 to create a significant benefit. 



Mr. RucKELSHAus. I agree, Mr. Chairman, there are those who 

 believe that this can happen, and I think it may well be right. I think 

 we need more research to determine whether this would be a proper 

 way to dispose of sewage sludge. 



Mr. DiNGELL. Perhaps a device of this kind might be highly desir- 

 able to include in the research authorization in the direction we are 

 discussing at this time. 



Mr. RuGKELSHATTS. We have had this same problem come up, the 

 same question, in virtually every bill which we presently have before 

 Congress, and in our general appropriations bill we have included a 

 considerable sum of money for research across the agency, and we have 

 attempted to deal with the problem of research money in our general 

 appropriation bill rather than trying to deal with it in each individual 

 bill that comes across. 



We are trying to in the agency centralize the general research over- 

 view, and the effort to coordinate all of our research into areas where 

 it would seem to bear the most fruit for the environment. 



Mr. DiNGELL. I can see the desirability from j^our riewpomt. but 

 from the standpoint of congressional review, we have the other prob- 

 lem, and that is comparing what you are doing as opposed to congres- 

 sional direction, and that is the reason I seek your assistance in this. 



Mr. Ruckelshaus, the Chair is a little bit concerned here about the 

 language at page 12. You mentioned that no new sources of ocean dis- 

 posal of sewage sludge would be permitted, and then you went on to 

 say you would not allow an increase in volume of dumping over cur- 

 rent levels, that is a very strong statement, for what existing barging 

 facilities can accomjiioclate. 



How do you propose to carry out that particular j^olicy statement ? 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. How do I propose to carry out that statement? 



Mr. DiNGDELL. To carry out that statement. 



I happen to be in entire agreement with it. I want to be sure we have 

 before us your proposal. 



Mr. Ruckelshaus. There may be some specific problems with this 

 statement in sections of the country, in particular New York City, but 

 with the 6-montli period in which we have to implement the act, I 

 think we can develop alternatives sites that will allow us to carry out 

 this pledge, at least not to have any increase. 



Mr. DiNGELL. You have indicated here again at pages 18 and 14 that 

 a great deal of effort and investment is necessary, and research is 

 needed in recycling wastes. 



