103 
Mr. ForsyTHE. In your proposed budget you would have adequate 
funds to carry out your responsibilities on the program that has 
been in existence in the New York Bite area. 
Mr. Davies. Particularly for ocean dumping, yes. 
Mr. ForsyTHE. Before I do forget, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
ask permission for Mr. Lent to incorporate a statement in our 
record and permission for all members to submit questions? 
Mr. D’Amours. Without objection. 
Mr. ForsyTHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
[Statement of Mr. Lent follows:] 
STATEMENT BY Hon. NORMAN F. LENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 
STATE OF NEw YORK 
This is the first day of authorization hearings on the Marine Protection, Research, 
and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean Dumping Act) since EPA decided not to appeal the 
Sofaer judgment in The City of New York v. EPA. As such, it offers an appropriate 
time to consider where we go from here regarding the role of the ocean as a waste 
disposal option. 
Under the Sofaer judgment, EPA’s dumping regulations were remanded to that 
agency for revision to conform to the requirements of the Ocean Dumping Act. 
Those requirements call for a balancing of the environmental impact of various 
sludge disposal methods on a case-by-case basis, to determine that which is the least 
environmentally harmful. I am anxious to hear about the status of EPA’s efforts to 
develop such regulations and how the agency intends to monitor sewage sludge dis- 
posal to protect the environment. 
In addition, I am greatly concerned about site designation determinations which 
will be made. There is evidence that ocean disposal of sewage sludge in the New 
York Bight does not unreasonably degrade the marine environment. Yet, many of 
my constituents in Long Island are concerned about the impact of continued dump- 
ing in the Bight area and are anxious to see a full evaluation of other potential sites 
for disposal of sewage sludge and other wastes. 
For example, I recently met with representatives of Long Island’s fishermen who 
have evidence that the dumping area may be expanding and the dumping activity 
adversely affecting their fishing activities. They told me their fishing nets come up 
littered with waste caused by “short dumps” and that controls are needed to make 
sure the dumping occurs at the designated site. They say that so long as dumping is 
necessary, the 106-mile site is the best place to dispose of wastes. I urge EPA to give 
most serious consideration to this point. 
While the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) 
has reported to Congress that scientific information available to date does not sup- 
port a total ban on the ocean disposal of all sludge or all industrial wastes, NACOA 
recommended that ocean waste disposal research should continue. I believe further 
research can lead us to the answers to questions such as the fishermen raised to me. 
We may not be able to eliminate the risks involved with waste disposal entirely, but 
surely we can minimize risks by studying various options available to us, and then 
choosing the path of least environmental harm. I believe that is what the American 
people want and certainly what my constituents on Long Island see is necessary. 
As one who supports a multi-medium approach to waste management, and one 
who believes that the ocean should remain a waste disposal option for use on a case- 
by-case basis, I pledge to support efforts to assure an environmentally sound waste 
management program is implemented. 
Mr. ForsyTHE. You have carried out extensive monitoring activi- 
ties, never excessive, on the New York and New Jersey beach areas 
in the past. What has been the cost per year for these activities, do 
you know? 
Ms. Hurp. We will submit that for the record, sir. 
Mr. Scuatzow. If we may. 
Mr. ForsytHE. Maybe this next question will have to be an- 
swered the same way, but do you know what amount was request- 
ed for monitoring those dumping activities in fiscal 1983? 
