74 



dumping. Now, 20 years later, EPA indicates in table No. 1 of its 

 submitted testimony that the estimated contaminant input in per- 

 centage contribution, which I understand, was prepared by New 

 York City consultants, went all the way down to 3 percent in terms 

 of mercury. 



There is no figure for PCB's. But that is an enormous jump in a 

 few years. I just think it is extremely difficult for this committee to 

 act when we seem to be dealing with figures that change radically 

 and are very slippery. What is the answer to this? How do we de- 

 termine whether or not stopping dumping in the bight apex would 

 or would not significantly improve the area, and have you conclud- 

 ed that it would significantly improve it? 



Could you answer that? Could you answer first the question or 

 have you concluded there would be significant improvement if we 

 stopped dumping? 



Mr. Schatzow, could you answer that? 



Mr. Schatzow. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to answer it a 

 number of times. 



Mr. D' Amours. I know that and I have been listening to the 

 answer to that question for a number of years and I still don't get 

 an answer. 



Mr. Schatzow. I am not sure I can answer it better. I am not 

 sure it is a question of numbers. Whether mercury from sewage 

 sludge is 10 or 25 percent of the mercury contribution to the bight, 

 I don't think we are prepared to tell you to convert to environmen- 

 tal terms as we discussed with Congressman Hughes, what exactly 

 that means. 



What exactly it means in environmental terms to decrease the 

 amount of mercury going into the bight by 10 or 25 percent. I don't 

 know that. 



It is very difficult scientifically to do that, to be able to plot those 

 kinds of numbers 



Mr. D' Amours. If you don't know that, how can you make a de- 

 termination that we should cease dumping? 



Mr. Schatzow. Well, we have not made the determination that 

 we should cease dumping. I think what we have presented in our 

 testimony, Mr. Chairman, is a notion of a variety of sources to the 

 bight and to the pollution of the bight and a variety of programs 

 that are underway to substantially reduce that pollution and an ex- 

 pectation with coordination in development of those different re- 

 sponses we will see a very significant reduction in pollutant loads 

 and a significant improvement in the water quality of the bight. 



Mr. D' Amours. Mr. Ehler, how would you approach that? 



Mr. Ehler. Let me approach that shortly after I explain the dif- 

 ferences in PCB contaminant loadings. From the time our initial 

 study took place in the mid-seventies and was published in 1978, 

 significant controls have been placed on the use of PCB's both in 

 terms of pretreatment in municipal sewage treatment plants and 

 bans of PCB's in industrial operations. So I think the reason we see 

 significantly reduced levels of PCB's is simply that we have caused 

 that to happen through regulations and law. 



In terms of the specific improvement in environmental quality 

 from a given single action such as a cessation of sewage dumping, 

 again I have to say what we have all said before. It is very difficult 



