506 
Mr. HuGues. We are cutting back in research. 
Dr. SEGAR. These issues will be addressed in both the site desig- 
nation process coming up and also in the special permit applica- 
tions that are to be prepared by the dumpers. 
Mr. HuGuHEs [presiding]. My time is up and I suspect I am now 
chairman of the committee. 
The gentlewoman from Rhode Island. 
Mrs. SCHNEIDER. I have a number of questions. 
Mr. White, you had said that of course the economics are a legiti- 
mate factor in determining whether one would pursue the ocean 
dumping option or take another route. To what degree do you 
think that the various coastal States, individually or collectively 
through your association, are reviewing those various options? 
Mr. Wuite. I think there are only two agencies that are current- 
ly putting sludge in the ocean by pipeline, Boston and the city of 
Los Angeles; and the city of Los Angeles is under a consent decree 
to not do so when they can have an alternative. And I think there 
are two, possibly three east coast agencies that are barging sludge. 
Most of them are not putting sludge in the ocean today but they 
are, indeed, anxious to have that particular option out there be- 
cause if they don’t put sludge in the ocean it has to go somewhere. 
Mrs. SCHNEIDER. Do you have any numbers as to how many are 
doing the ocean dumping option and how many are not? 
Mr. Wuitr. My understanding is there are two only that are on 
the east coast that are barging their sludge and putting it in the 
ocean. Boston is using a pipeline and the city of Los Angeles on ee 
west coast is using a pipeline to dispose of its sludge. 
So there are four agencies that we are aware of. 
Mrs. SCHNEIDER. And that is it? 
Mr. WuitE. That is it. 
Mrs. SCHNEIDER. Are you familiar with the work that is being 
done at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia? 
Mr. Waite. No. 
Mrs. SCHNEIDER. Well one of our witnesses later on this morning 
will be testifying and I would think that it would be valuable infor- 
mation for you to carry back to your member States because it does 
present an option to the ocean dumping scenario. 
One of the other questions I had was that I am wondering wheth- 
er you think that the burden of proof should fall on various mu- 
nicipalities and State governments to guarantee that there will be 
no degradation to the environment through applying for ocean 
dumping permits or do you think that EPA should be responsible 
for proving that there will be adverse effects before denying a 
permit? 
Mr. White. Well, first, our position is that the existing language 
that says, “no unreasonable degradation,’ is what ought to main- 
tain rather than no “degradation.”’ But when it comes to the ques- 
tion of no unreasonable degradation, it seems to me that an appli- 
cant for a permit always has the burden of establishing that they 
are going forward. 
The difficulty is, as Judge Sofaer pointed out, that. EPA has, up 
to now, been unable or perhaps unwilling to set out rules that will 
define what is unreasonable degradation or the criteria that must 
be employed. So I think the answer to your question is any agency 
