that has to stop. That needs to cease. The CSOs need to be abated. I'm trying to say 
that from a hardware point of view, it's an antiquated system that we know enough about, 
in comparison to other major metropolitan cities, to know the hardware needs to be 
changed. So there's a duality here. I feel that the research needs to monitor 
improvements of the different types of hardware that we install over the years. But I 
don't think we need more research to begin to implement that. 
From a hardware point of view, it's in a very sad state. I would rank it very 
badly compared to other metropolitan areas nation wide. Our regional administrator with 
EPA has said that quite often. From the EPA's regional point of view, we want pollution 
control equipment, funding it along with the different processes: the environmental 
review process, the finishing of the facilities plans, the designs of the new treatment 
plants, the designs of sludge management, disposal techniques that are agreed upon, and 
more. There's a lot to be done. And we don't need to rank it any further to begin some of 
that action. 
C. Breen: I have to add something to what Kathy is saying about the practical 
hardware standpoint. When we talk about new facilities for the Metropolitan District 
Commission, we're talking about more than just end-of-the-pipe type equipment such as 
treatment plants or combined sewer overflow treatment facilities. Basically, the system 
is in such a state of antiquation that a number of major pumping stations and interceptors 
also need repair or replacement. And right now, they're causing not only pollution in the 
Harbor, but pollution in the local freshwater bodies along their routes because, as Kathy 
mentioned, 43 communities extend west of the Harbor. Thus we need the hardware not 
only to improve or lessen pollutant loading into the Harbor, but to keep the sewage out of 
people's basements and local streams. 
G. Wallace: I'd just like to expand on that. I can't let that comment pass 
unscathed because I think it's a little bit more complex than just pollution abatement. 
Pollution abatement is fine if you're working as a marine scientist and you're concerned 
about the health of the marine environment. What about the marine ecosystem? They 
have to go hand-in-hand. I'm appalled, for example, at the 301(h) progress, which does not 
consider the ramifications of the increased toxicity of the sludge, for example, because 
the wastes are going to be generated. How they're handled and where they're transported 
or where they end up may be slightly different in each case, but it certainly should go into 
the overall decision process. 
I think—and this viewpoint has been made more and more often by people such 
as Ed Goldberg and Charlie Osterberg recently at the APU meeting in Baltimore—we need 
some reasonable management plan for judging where the waste is going to go. The marine 
environment has to be considered as a possible repository of that waste. It obviously has 
to be done with some rationale so that we don't reach concentrations that presumably 
induce toxic fish disease and other sublethal effects that we can't even begin to address 
because we don't have the expertise to do so. 
Ill 
