292 
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal remarks. I would be 
pleased to try to answer any questions the subcommittee might 
have. 
Mr. D’Amours. Thank you, Dr. Knauss. 
I have several questions. In fact, I may ask you to respond to 
some for the record. 
One general question I have is this: I noted that you were here 
all morning and that you listened to the testimony of our two earli- 
er witnesses. I would be interested in hearing your comments on 
Mayor Koch’s position that we ought not to be moving from the 
bight inasmuch as to do so would just be moving from a dirty area 
and dirtying still another clean area. What is your feeling about 
that? 
Dr. Knauss. Before I answer, let me emphasize that NACOA has 
not taken a position on whether or not any particular site is suit- 
able for ocean dumping. We have recommended that the ban on 
the dumping of sewage sludge be lifted, but we did not feel it was 
our position to recommend specific dumpsites. My personal opinion 
on the question of the New York Apex is influenced by all of the 
other things that are going on at present which are polluting the 
Apex area. The numbers that NOAA gives suggest that less than 
10 percent of the pollution in the New York Bight is due to sewage 
sludge dumped there. Maybe it is as low as 8 or 5 percent. 
Assuming those numbers are correct—and I have no reason to 
think they are not correct—then I am not convinced that the addi- 
tional costs to which Mayor Koch referred is indeed worth the 
effort of going from that site to another site. I do not think the ad- 
ditional 5 percent pollution is worth it. There are also some argu- 
ments to keeping presently pristine areas pristine. 
Mr. D’Amours. What about the arguments that one hears that 
the chemicals that are very persistent by nature—PCB’s, mercury, 
and others—ought to be removed from the bight because of their 
very persistence and our desire, hopefully, to at least begin the 
process of cleansing the bight area. What do you think about that? 
Dr. Knauss. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I do not know how you are 
going to ever “remove” the material that is tied up in those sedi- 
ments, whether it is complex organics or various heavy metals. I 
think they are going to be there for some time. They may be buried 
in time as more sediment rains down on top of them, but I do not 
see that they are going to go anywhere. 
Again, I guess I come to the conclusion that, until such time as 
one attacks the primary sources of pollution in this area and solves 
those problems, I am not convinced personally—and again, I em- 
phasize this is my position, not NACOA’s position—that it is a cost- 
effective thing to do. 
Mr. D’Amours. Are you suggesting we give up on the bight? 
Dr. Knauss. No, sir. I am suggesting that the funds that we have 
available to clean up pollution be used primarily to solve the prob- 
lems insofar as possible of all the other sources of pollution that 
are coming into the Bight from the Hudson River and elsewhere; 
that we spend money on, the kinds of things that Captain Cousteau 
was referring to in terms of recycling waste material at the indus- 
trial sites, that kind of thing; being sure that there is at least pri- 
mary, and preferably secondary, sewage plants at all the other 
