524 
5. Managed ocean disposal of sludge, which should gradually become better in 
quality as the pretreatment program is implemented, should be continued until 
such time as the environmental impact study has rendered its recommendations 
and those recommendations are to be implemented. Further, there should be no ar- 
bitrary decision rendered for the movement of the disposal site from its present 
area. Any such decision should again be made only after careful scientific studies by 
the Federal agenices. 
CONCLUSION 
Over the past several years there has been great public concern over the practice 
of disposing of sludge in the ocean. We have, during this period of time, established 
the potential human problems associated with the available land based option using 
thremal destruction. The agencies I represent are not advocating a continuation of 
business as usual; we are recommedning that a thorough evaluation be made of all 
options, invluding ocean disposal. The environmental consequences of the land 
based options on our citizens must be carefully weighed vs. the environmental ef- 
fects on the marine environment. Only after this process, as required by the Nation- 
al Environmental Policy Act, is completed, should we lay out our course for the 
most effective long term solution. We urge this committee to enact legtislation 
which will take this approach. 
Mr. HuGuHEs. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony 
and we will endeavor to adhere by the 5-minute rule. You can 
assist us if you try to keep your responses brief. 
First of all, Dr. Goldberg, do you agree with the last statement 
made by Mr. Ricci, that we should not be moving to the 106-mile 
site from the present 12-mile site? 
Mr. GOLDBERG. Only on a scientific basis can I answer the ques- 
tion. My sense would be that the 106-mile site would pose less 
danger to the renewable resources of the sea as a disposal site. 
Mr. HuaGues. So scientifically your answer is no, you don’t agree. 
Mr. Ricci, given the fact that a scientist doesn’t agree with you 
scientifically, do you still say that we shouldn’t move to the 106- 
mile site? 
Mr. Ricct. I quite frankly am not expert enough to truly answer 
the question scientifically. I simply relate to the weighing of the 
various opinions that I have heard. 
Mr. Huaues. You did have an opinion? 
Mr. Ricci. As a nonexpert based on statements of other experts. 
Mr. HuGues. It is primarily an economic consideration, is it not? 
Mr. Ricci. Based upon statements I have heard other scientists— 
I think Dr. Goldberg would acknowledge that there is some diversi- 
ty of opinion as to what you might or might not do off the Conti- 
nental Shelf. 
Mr. Huaues. Mr. Ricci, one of the things that you said, which I 
agree with, was that we should be using pretreatment and we 
should through point source, interruption or interception, be trying 
to identify is where these pollutants are getting into our 
wastewater treatment system. How much are we doing to try to 
identify putting pollutants into the system? 
Mr. Ricci. We represent one-fourth of the State of New Jersey 
waste, in effect. We have spent several hundred thousand dollars to 
do that very thing, to identify all of the industrial discharges. We 
are inventorying all of their waste. We now have them under moni- 
toring programs and we are monitoring. 
Mr. HuaGues. Monitoring and getting rid of the salisermaces are 
two different things. What are we doing to try to eliminate mer- 
cury, cadmium, PCB’s at the source, which seems the thing to do? 
