143 



Mr. T. A. Wastler, Chief Marine 



Protection Branch 

 Page 3 



to ocean dumping) ; (c) Congress has indicated its intention to 

 reexamine and amend the Marine Protection, Research, and 

 Sanctuaries Act during the 98th Congress; and (d) ongoing and 

 proposed studies may shed new light on the relative merits of 

 alternative sludge management techniques. 



In light of these circtunstances, and in the interest of 

 avoiding premature foreclosure of EPA's options and the too-hasty 

 redistribution of resources by either EPA or the sludge-dumping 

 municipalities, we propose another course. 



4. A Modest Proposal 



Each of the sludge dumping municipalities has provided 

 estimates of how much more it believes it would cost for its sewage 

 sludge to be ocean-diimped at the 106-Mile Site as opposed to the 

 12-Mile Site. All of the municipalities, not surprisingly, 

 vehemently oppose such a dumpsite shift and the attendant increased 

 costs, because they see no great environmental advantage to dumping 

 further offshore. 



In our view, EPA can and should defer deciding this question 

 on its environmental and legal merits, pending resolution of some of 

 the uncertainties identified under item #3, above. EPA could take 

 such an approach and still not lose much momentum in promoting a 

 final resolution of the sludge dumping question, by pursuing the • 

 following steps: 



a. Designate the 106-Mile Site for industrial wastes, but 

 conditionally designate it (for 5 years) for sewage sludge — pending 

 the resolution of the aforementioned uncertainties. 



b. Take no immediate action with respect to extending the 

 designation of the 12-Mile Site, allowing use of that site for 

 sludge dumping to continue on an interim basis (under operation of 

 various court orders) . 



c. Call upon the sludge dumping municipalities to deposit 

 a refundable "user fee" in an "escrow account" or other "reserve 

 fund" or "trust fund" account. The size of the fee should be based 

 on the municipality's estimate of the cost differential of dumping 

 at the 106-Mile Site versus the 12-Mile Site. (Municipalities might 

 be given the opportunity to reduce their cost estimates based on 

 medium- and long-term economies of scale, etc.). These funds would 

 be earmarked for the exclusive use of the municipalities that had 

 contributed them, as long as they were used for sludge management 

 purposes. Specifically, if EPA (or Congress) were to ultimately 

 mandate a halt to ocean dumping, the funds could be used to defray 

 the costs of implementing land-based alternatives. If the decision 

 were made to allow dumping at the 12-Mile Site to continue, the funds 

 could be used to reduce the contaminant content of the sludges 



(e.g. , via industrial pretreatment) and to defray monitoring costs. 

 Finally, if the decision were made to shift dumping to the 106-Mile 



