require EPA to develop marine water quality and sediment quality criteria, and to revise existing criteria to address sediment quality. Failure by a State to adopt sediment quality standards would result in EPA establishing standards;

direct EPA to conduct a survey of sediment contamination in coastal waters;

amend the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to add a national goal of eliminating ocean dumping of sediment that violates sediment quality standards. Until such a goal could be met, ocean dumping contaminated sediment would require a special permit;

clarify the MPRSA to assure that States can issue ocean dumping standards that are stricter than Federal requirements;

require EPA to develop site management plans for ocean dumpsites providing for baseline monitoring, special conditions for site management, and long-term management and termination of use of the site;

require ocean dumping permits to reflect site management plan conditions, and would require permit applicants to consider pollution prevention measures; and, ⚫ increase penalties for ocean dumping violations.

The environmental community would like to see S. 1070 amended to include the Great Lakes in its provisions. We strongly support the above-mentioned portions of the bill, and strongly urge the committee to quickly pass it, and support its passage through the full Senate.

S. 31

We support several of the provisions included in S. 31, but have serious reservations about portions of the bill. The aspects of the bill we support include:

⚫ creating a National Contaminated Sediment Task Force. EPA has an internal task force on contaminated sediments that is coordinating input from all the offices within the EPA. Creating an inter-agency work group would help ensure that sediment information is shared between different Federal bodies that track sediment issues; similarly, inclusion of non-Federal advisors is a good idea;

⚫ developing and applying sediment quality criteria for both marine and Great Lakes areas;

EPA promulgating sediment quality criteria and standards; surveying possible contaminated sediment sites; and

subjecting sediment restoration projects to State and local government certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

However, we have strong reservations concerning other provisions of the bill, including concerns that the bill would:

grant too much control over sediment remediation projects to the Army Corps of Engineers. This is an issue of key concern to many environmental groups. We certainly feel that the Corps is the correct agency for actual dredging and remediation activities. However, the Corps' track record in environmental matters is plagued with public suspicion, litigation and administrative appeals. Despite its protestations that it wants to be known as the "Corps of Environmental Engineers," many divisions of the Corps have done nothing regarding sediment quality issues to identify themselves as advocates for the ecosystem. Therefore, the Corps should carry out the actual dredging and other remediation activities, but the EPA should be in charge of crafting the remediation plans, and directing and supervising all Corps activities. In this way, the Corps would undertake the mechanics of remediation, but the EPA would be in charge of directing and supervising all Corps activities;

● exempt ocean dumpsites from inclusion in a list, provided by the bill, of possible sites for remediation. This is of concern because ocean dumpsites can be adjacent to, or in, fishing or shellfishing grounds; migratory paths of marine mammals; and habitat for marine mammals and other wildlife. Ocean dumpsites can become sources of contamination that threaten aquatic resources, the foodchain, and human consumers. It is very important that ocean dumpsites be included in the list of areas that could qualify for remediation;

⚫ unnecessarily curtail public participation. Additional public comment periods on key provisions in the bill should be mandated, and a "citizen suit" provision should be included. The public needs to be active players in process that determines the choice of, and actual remediation of, contaminated sites. Furthermore, citizens have the right to the same provisions that are enunciated in CERCLA: the citizen suit provision; and,

⚫ absence of source control and pollution prevention language. The bill does not include a plan for reducing and controlling the sources of pollutants that are causing sediment contamination. Failing to mandate pollution prevention and source control programs will fail to address the ongoing, and new contamination, of sediments. If sediment pollution is to be controlled, the sources of that pollution must

be controlled. A source reduction plan should be included in the bill, with funding for its implementation.

Making the changes proposed above to the bill would greatly strengthen it, which would ensure strong support for the legislation from environmental groups.

CONCLUSION

The nation has had to grapple with serious environmental problems. Laws passed during the past two decades have sought to better protect the natural environment, and human health, from the variety of dangerous products America has used, and continues to use. The problem of contaminated underwater sediments, while large, is not insurmountable. It is important that hearings such as this are held so that crucial information can be shared, good questions asked, and plans for action drafted and implemented. In an unprecedented show of public concern, more than 230 groups from across the United States, including labor unions, health, citizen, environmental, fishing and sporting organizations, have endorsed a Citizens Charter on contaminated sediments that calls for many of the actions I have outlined today. These organizations, representing literally millions of Americans, stand ready to assist and support Congress in taking the necessary steps to address our contaminated underwater lands.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

FOOTNOTES

1 Little, Arthur D., Inc. An Overview of Sediment Ouality in the United States, Final Report to Monitoring and Data Support Division, Office of Water Requlations and Standards, EPA (EPA Contract No. 68-01-6951, Reference 52967-05.) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C. p. 21. June 1987.

2 Ibid, p. 5.

3 Sullivan, Jerry, and Bixby, Alicia, "A Citizen's Guide: Cleaning Up Contaminated Sediment." Lake Michigan Federation: Chicago, IL. p. 4. 1989.

* Ibid, p. 22.

5 National Research Council, Committee on Contaminated Marine Sediments, Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems. Contaminated Marine Sediments-Assessment and Remediation. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C. p. 47. 1989.

6 National Research Council, op cit., p. 53.

7 Ehler, Charles N., Director, Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, "Statement before the Subcommittee on Superfund, Ocean and Water Protection and the subcommittee on Environmental Protection, Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate." July 12, 1989. p. 8.

8 National Research Council, op cit, p. 1.

• PTI Environmental Services. Workshop Proceedings: Toxic Sediments-Approaches to Manaqement. (Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C. p. B-5. September 1988.

10 Ibid, pp. B-24-B-27.

11 Ibid, pp. B-13-B-17.

12 Chesapeake Executive Council, "The Second Progress Report under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement." Chesapeake Executive Council: Richmond, VA. pp. 28-33. December 1989. 13 Memo from Dorothy Leonard to Charles Ehler, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. October 16, 1990.

14 Heal the Bay, "San Diego Bay Toxic Hot Spots." Heal the Bay: Santa Monica, CA.

15 Hayden, Tom, "Ocean Pollution in California: Regional Problems Statewide Concern." California Assembly Task Force on Toxic Pollution in Santa Monica Bay: Sacramento, CA. p. 7. August 1988.

16 Ibid, p. 9.

21 Fogarty, David, "Great Lakes Toxic Hotspots: A Citizen's Action Guide." Lake Michigan Federation: Chicago, IL. p. 40. 1987.

22 Ibid, p. 41.

23 Ibid, pp. B-9-B-12.

24 Ibid, p. 43.

25 Ibid, p. 44.

26 Ibid.

27 Little, op

cit, p. 5.

28 Little, op cit, p. 57.

29 National Research Council, op cit, p. 11.

30 Ibid, p. 57.

31 Ibid, p. 426.' 32 Ibid, p. 139. 33 Ibid, p. 139.

40 Ibid, p. 137.

41 Ibid, p. 10.

42 Ibid, p. 11.

43 Little, op cit, p. 59.

44 Ibid, p. 1.

45 Natural Resources Defense Council, "Ebb Tide for Pollution: Actions for Cleaning Up Coastal Waters." Natural Resources Defense Council: Washington, D.C. p. 6. 1989.

46 Ibid, p. 19.

47 Ibid, p. 57.

48 National Research Council, op cit, p. 157.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid, p. 159.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid, p. 158.

54 Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, "The Great American Fish Scandal: Health Risks Unchecked." Public Voice for Food and Health Policy: Washington, D.C. 1986.

55 Simon, Anne W. and Hauge, Paul, "Contamination of New England's Fish and Shellfish." Coast Alliance: Washington, D.C. p.6. June 1987.

62 Schmidt, William E., "Toxic Sludge Clogs Harbor, but Where Can It Go?" New York Times: New York. August 8, 1989.

63 The Oceanic Society, "Edwin B. Forsythe Roundtable on Land-Based Sources of Marine Pollution Background Paper." The Oceanic Society: Washington, D.C. p. 8. March 12, 1985.

64 Ehler, op cit, p. 8.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid, p. 3.

67 Little, op cit, p. 66.

68 Ibid, p. 69.

69 Ibid.

70 Ehler, op cit, p. 3.

71 Bakalian, Allan, "Regulation and Control of United States Ocean Dumping: A Decade of Progress, and Appraisal for the Future" in the Harvard Environmental Law Review, Volume 8:193. Harvard University: Boston, MA. p. 194. 1984.

72 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Pollution Program Office. National Marine Pollution Program: Federal Plan for Ocean Pollution Research, Development & Monitoring, Fiscal Years 1985-1989. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Washington, D.C. p. 100. September 1985.

73 Millemann, Beth, "The Dirty Deeps," in Sierra Magazine. Sierra Club: San Francisco, CA. p. 32. May/June 1990.

[Attachments to this statement have been retained in committee files.]

PREPARED Statement of TIMOTHY MCNULTY

Introduction: A Critical Juncture for Great Lakes Policy

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Timothy McNulty, and I am executive director of the Council of Great Lakes Governors. On behalf of the governors, I thank you for this opportunity to testify before you on the major challenges facing the Great Lakes.

The Council was formed in 1983 to serve as the persona] organization of the eight governors of the Great Lakes States. The Council was designed by the founding governors to be a vehicle for action on the common environmental and economic challenges facing a region which is home to both the world's largest body of freshwater and the world's most extensive industrial complex.

The Council has been a vehicle for action. Through the Council the governors have created the first public, regional endowment for the environment: the Great Lakes Protection Fund. The governors have also created the first regional foreign trade office and embarked on a joint international tourism campaign with the province of Ontario. It is from this foundation that these governors look to the challenges facing the Great Lakes ecosystem in the 1990's.

The views presented below are not intended to represent the specific policy proposals of a governor. But I am confident that the comments do capture the spirit of the policy directions these governors will chart individually and collectively.

The central point of my testimony is that we stand at a critical juncture. We have much to be proud of and have reach an unprecedented era of commitment to the Great Lakes. The return of sports fishing to the Lakes-now a nearly three billion dollar industry-is symbolic of our victory over the first generation of pollution challenges we faced.

Congressional support for the Lakes in the last several years including significant action by this Committee has been excellent. Finally, without a doubt, never have we had an administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as committed to the Great Lakes as William K. Reilly.

At the same time, it is also clear that our present environmental strategies cannot deliver the environmental quality the citizens of the Great Lakes desire and deserve. Our current environmental strategies have made tremendous strides against point-source pollution and such threats as phosphorus. But it is clear that approaches centered primarily upon end-of-the-pipe regulation will not eliminate the threat of persistent toxins and can only jeopardize the competitiveness of the Great Lakes manufacturing base-a base which will play a pivotal role in preserving our national standard of living.

The point which I wish to stress today, which the governors of the Great Lakes States made just last April in partnership with Administrator Reilly and major industry and environmental leaders, is that we must forge a new environmentalism. We can no longer regard Great Lakes programs as a series of line items, a collection of programs and projects to be managed incrementally. Our challenge is nothing less than to recast the entire framework of Great Lakes policies and programs.

The stewardship of this new environmentalism can not rest with any single agency or institution at any level of government. Nor can we reach the goal of virtual elimination through traditional policy instruments. While standards will remain a pivotal element of environmental strategies-the goal of virtual elimination depends upon crafting a cohesive approach of standards, incentives, and investments to integrate the economic and environmental evolution of the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes governors have demonstrated that they are eager to forge a new environmentalism and welcome a strong partnership with this committee and with Congress as a whole.

My remarks will highlight three key elements of a new strategic direction:

the creation of an "environmental federalism" where State and Federal investments are made with consensus and strategic coordination;

⚫ a fundamental shift toward an "applied focus" to move from planning to action on remediation; and

engendering a prevention orientation which shifts us from a mode of managing pollution to eliminating the use of toxic substances.

No single program or legislative act can produce this strategic shift. We must commit ourselves to redirecting the entire Great Lakes infrastructure.

The Need for on Environmental Federalism: Great Lakes Governors Negotiate a Detailed Protocol to Coordinate Federal and State Policy

The first critical step toward a new policy framework for the Great Lakes is to end the fragmentation between State and Federal efforts. The continuing budget