329 



Questions of Mr. Carper and Answers by EPA 



Question. What sort of monitoring program does the Environmental Protection 

 Agency have in mind for the 106-mile site (details, please)? 



What will be NOAA's and EPA's responsibilities under this program? 



What costs are to be anticipated in conjunction with the program described 

 above? (if an expanded MARMAP Program is envisioned, what will be the addition- 

 al costs incurred to adequately monitor the 106-mile site over existing expendi- 

 tures?) 



Answer. As indicated in EPA's testimony, a monitoring program is currently 

 being developed jointly by EPA and NOAA. Once developed, EPA plans to provide 

 interested Congressional offices and State agencies with an opportunity to review 

 and comment. This program will use as its base two programs currently operated by 

 NOAA, its Marine Resource Monitoring, Assessment and Prediction (MARMAP) 

 Program and its Northeast Monitoring Program (NEMP). MARMAP measures tem- 

 poral and spatial changes in key components of the shelf ecosystem including pri- 

 mary productivity, nutrients, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton, fish, benthos, and circu- 

 lation. NEMP monitors and assesses various components of the marine ecosystem to 

 provide a current apprasial of the health of these waters. In addition, short-term 

 and compliance monitoring requirements will be developed to assess specific wastes 

 covered in the site designation. Short- and long-term monitoring will include sam- 

 pling protocols in the water column, bottom sediments, and marine organisms. Both 

 of these monitoring programs, including the sampling protocols, will be developed 

 conceptually and will be modified, as necessary, to apply to particular permitted 

 wastes. The final monitoring program will be developed prior to the Agency's final 

 site designation rulemaking. 



MARMAP and NEMP are existing programs which are expected to continue to be 

 funded through the NOAA budget process. Short-term, long-term, and compliance 

 monitoring are proposed to be conducted by federal agencies and funded either 

 through a user fee system, which was proposed by the Administrator and submitted 

 into the record by Frederic A. Eidsness, Jr., EPA's former Assistant Administrator 

 for Water, at the 15 March 1983 House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee 

 meeting, or through the usual NOAA and/or EPA budget Process. 



Question. From the EPA's perspective, why are New York City and New Jersey 

 municipalities which are still dumping not using land-based alternatives for sewage 

 sludge disposal? 



Is there any sludge in NYC or the NJ municipalities in question which might be 

 clean enough for land applications or composting now? 



Why is the City of Philadelphia able to find land-based disposal alternatives for 

 its sewage sludge while NYC dumps all of its sludge? 



Is Philadelphia sludge cleaner (than all of NYC's sludge)? 



How does the sludge from these cities compare in terms of contaminant loading 

 and suitability for land application or other land-based disposal alternatives? 



Is there a significant difference in the sewer systems of these two cities which 

 may affect the relative cleanliness of their sludges? 



Are there any other factors which might require the cities to employ different dis- 

 posal options? 



Answer. New York City, Nassau County, Westchester County, and the six New 

 Jersey sewerage authorities which are still ocean dumping sewage sludge have no 

 implemented land-based disposal options primarily because they were unable to ac- 

 quire requisite State approvals to contruct and/or operate such disposal options. 



The State of New Jersey has opposed the land-application of sludges from five of 

 the six plants in northeastern New Jersey due to contaminant loadings. Most au- 

 thorities have considered thermal destruction. The State of New York has estab- 

 lished a moratorium on land application to certain soil types (including most soil 

 types in the metropolitan area). 



Implementing land-based options for sewage sludge disposal involves institution- 

 al/regulatory problems, as mentioned above, and consideration of the capacity of 

 the particular disposal option, as well as the level of contamination of "cleanliness" 

 of the sludge in question. For instance, the Bergen County Utilities Authority 

 (BCUA) investigated the feasibility of utilizing composting. The land upon which 

 BCUA intended to construct its composting facility is instead being proposed by the 

 State of New Jersey for a State park. Also, in the event that state approvals were 

 obtained, the question of the availability of sufficient capacity to dispose of sludge 

 arises. For instance. New York City investigated site availability and capacity for 

 composting its sludges and found that available areas for using the composted 

 sludge were limited in capacity and could only be utilized for seven years. 



28-914 0—84 22 



