527 
Mr. ForsyTHE. Do you have any idea as to what the impact 
might be from ocean incineration where it goes onto a boat and out 
to sea? Is that something we should be looking at? 
Mr. GoLpBERG. Yes. There is one ship, the Vulcanus, operating in 
the Gulf of Mexico, burning organic waste. The information we 
have is that it is an effective way of destroying certain toxic mate- 
rials. 
Mr. ForsyTHE. I know there is some work going on with at-sea 
incineration, specifically in the New York area. They have a prob- 
lem, however, because of the dewatering costs and the many other 
costs which are incurred before they even get it out there. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. HuGues. The gentleman from Delaware is recognized for 5 
minutes. 
Mr. Evans. Thank you. 
Mr. Ricci, you said the key word is to “manage” the sludge and 
not “dump” it, but whatever you may call it, it is still placing the 
same in the ocean, and I think dumping comes closer to describing 
what is done with sewage sludge when it is put in the ocean. I am 
really concerned about your statement that there were some scien- 
tists who felt that we might be better off dumping harmful sewage 
sludge at the 12-mile site rather than the 106-mile site. It seems to 
me that that is inconsistent with the conventional wisdom. Most of 
the advocates and proponents of dumping as opposed to on-land dis- 
posal say that the ocean is big enough to cleanse itself, and certain- 
ly if you are 106 miles out versus 12 miles out, you have a much 
greater opportunity to cleanse the cadmium, mercury, or whatever, 
before it gets into very fertile feedstock areas for fish and shellfish. 
That is just an assumption that I have always made based on 
dozens of people that I have talked to. I just haven’t had the oppor- 
tunity to speak to anyone who disagrees with that. 
Mr. Ricci. Congressman, I have heard at seminars or seen in 
papers that I have read that there was some concern—again to 
have the specific knowledge—that some of these scientists have ex- 
pressed a concern as to what the effects might be of getting this 
stuff down into the deep waters, colder temperatures, the thermo- 
clines, that may affect the movement of material. It is a concern 
that I have heard expressed. I can’t really speak to the scientific 
validity one way or the other. 
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Ricci. 
Dr. Goldberg, did I hear you correctly? You implied that any dis- 
posal of sewage sludge containing toxic substances is bad if it is on 
land as opposed to the ocean? 
Mr. GoLpBERG. No. In my testimony I emphasized the multime- 
dia assessment. My argument is that for any site and for any spe- 
cific type of sewage sludge the assessment has to be made as to 
whether land, air, or sea disposal results in minimal or zero loss of 
renewable resources. That is the criterion I would place. 
Mr. Evans. I would hope that someday we would be able to do a 
recycling process for sewage sludge. Scientists and engineers and 
others in America have been pretty good about developing new 
technology, and I would hope that that could be developed. It cer- 
tainly is not going to be developed as far as the ocean is concerned, 
because it would be very difficult indeed for the foreseeable future 
