269 
troplating industry in New York City. These are being implement- 
ed now and are enforceable as of July 1, 1983, when they will be 
enforced in New York City. 
Mayor Kocu. I would support, Mr. Chairman, national legisla- 
tion that requires all manufacturers producing these contaminants 
to apply state-of-the-art technology. 
Mr. D’Amovrs. I appreciate that. 
Your testimony, Ed, is couched in phrases of a clear choice be- 
tween land dumping and ocean dumping, but it avoids the issue of 
dumping at various sites within the ocean. The Bight apex has 
been called one of the most polluted areas of ocean in the world by 
a former acting director of NOAA. Yet there are other sites—the 
106-mile site and the 65-mile site. So it is not only a question of 
dumping on land or in the ocean. Are you suggesting then that you 
would not be opposed to dumping at other sites in the ocean? 
Mayor Kocu. What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is the following. 
It becomes a question of cost-effectiveness: what do you get by 
moving to the 106-mile site, which would increase our costs from $4 
million to $27 million, plus a $50 million capital expenditure for 
upgrading the boats. You get nothing, because as I understand it, 
analysis of the 12-mile site and the impacts of continued disposal of 
our sludge there indicates it does not significantly increase the deg- 
radation of that site. So shall we go out and degrade another site? 
It does not make any sense to me. 
If it does not significantly add to the degradation of that particu- 
lar site, and until we find a way to remove the contaminants and 
protect that site, shall we open up another site? I do not think so. 
Mr. D’Amours. But that overlooks, does it not, that the ocean 
does have an assimilative capacity. If that assimilative capacity has 
been reached and exceeded, as I would suggest it might very well 
be, in the New York Bight, does not it make sense to use some 
ones area of the ocean that still retains some assimilative capac- 
ity? 
Mayor Kocu. If in fact, Mr. Chairman, there was a finding that 
there was a significant change ensuing as a result of continued dis- 
posal at the Bight apex, and there was independent information 
which was acceptable to yourselves, that might suggest a change of 
sites. But we see no such changes. You do not have a report before 
you that says there is a significant increase in despoilation by con- 
tinued dumping. hh fact, I understand the available evidence in- 
dictes just the contz ‘ry. 
Therefore, since 1 .ere is no significant change, associated with 
our current practices, we should not move from that site to another 
where we would likely cause such changes. I just do not believe 
that makes sense. Jacques Cousteau said that the Continental 
Shelf, which is where the 106-mile proposed site is, is the most 
fragile of ocean areas. Why would you want to start a new dump 
site at the most fragile of ocean sites. 
Mr. D’Amours. But the truth is, Ed, that the reason you do not 
want to go to that new dump site is cost. 
And that brings us to the critical issue, and that is what Jacques 
Cousteau mentioned earlier, and that is precisely the point that 
Judge Sofaer overlooked. If you look at the Clean Air Act, the 
Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, or other environ- 
