69 



associated improvement in environmental quality would probably 

 also be in that range. It is difficult to pinpoint it to exact percent- 

 ages of improved quality. But certainly there would be an improve- 

 ment. 



Mr. D' Amours. The gentleman is going to have his own time, but 

 if there is something that needs to be said, I would yield to the gen- 

 tleman from New Jersey. 



Mr. FoRSYTHE. Just for a moment. I think Mr. Ehler said that 

 sludge dumping is perhaps 10 percent of the pollutant problem. If 

 you don't do something about the other 90 percent, it may be diffi- 

 cult to detect a 10-percent improvement. 



Mr. Ehler. That is correct. 



Mr. D' Amours. In 1981, NOAA testified that, "Nearly one-fourth 

 of the PCB's and nearly half of the mercury entering the bight 

 come from sludge dumping." 



Now, you testify here today that the amount is considerably less. 

 What happened in the last few years to change this? 



Mr. Ehler. We have obtained additional data. I think the testi- 

 mony in 1981 was based on our 1976 studies, which as we testified 

 today, have been updated continually. If you would like a more 

 complete explanation of the changes in those numbers, I would 

 defer to one of my associates. 



Mr. D' Amours. I would very much like that. My time for ques- 

 tioning has expired. We have a vote now, but I think that will 

 allow some of the 5-minute rounds to continue before that vote. 



I will recognize Mr. Forsjdhe. 



Mr. FoRSYTHE. Thank you very much. 



I thank both NOAA and EPA for your testimony this morning. I 

 guess the thing that impresses me is that if we look solely at 

 sludge dumping at the 12-mile site as the major problem for the 

 bight, we are fooling ourselves. Unless we undertake comprehen- 

 sive control measures, addressing all sources of contamination into 

 the bight, we are going to do little by mandating elimination of the 

 12-mile site for sludge dumping. Is that right? 



Mr. ScHATZOW. I think that is generally true. I guess one of the 

 things to point out is that if you look at the bight apex area, we 

 are dealing to some extent with some geographical differences, that 

 is to say that the estuarine inputs, river inputs are those closer to 

 the shore so I think we would just by eliminating the sludge dump- 

 ing itself see some significant improvement in the more eastern 

 area of the bight where the sludge dumpsite is located, that that 

 improvement is somewhat independent of the control of the river 

 estuarine inputs. 



I would emphasize again, though, and where I guess I get con- 

 cerned about comprehensive studies is that the mandate to control 

 the other sources, particularly the river estuarine sources, is there 

 in the Clean Water Act. Those efforts are underway to a very sub- 

 stantial extent. So I guess I get somewhat nervous when people say 

 let's do a big study, because I think the question of the dredge ma- 

 terial which is contributing a significant mass loading, as we at- 

 tempted to point out in our testimony, the combination of the pack- 

 ing of that material, the inorganic form of it, means that we think 

 it probably has a lesser contribution in volume than suggested. 



Mr. FoRSYTHE. Mr. Ehler, would you agree generally with that? 



