75 



to quantify that down to exact figures. We know that if 10 percent 

 is significant, and if we took 10 percent away, we would see a sig- 

 nificant improvement. If 10 percent were not considered signifi- 

 cant, then obviously we wouldn't define the result as significant. 



Mr. D' Amours. I appreciate those answers. Do I understand that 

 in response to the question from Mr. Hughes, you indicateid that 

 NOAA was advocating cessation of dumping at the apex? 



Mr. Ehler. Yes. 



Mr. D' Amours. Thank you. 



Mr. Forsythe. 



Mr. Forsythe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



First, Mr. Schatzow, could you give us your schedule for action 

 on the designation decisions on a site-by-site basis? 



Mr. Schatzow. I can give you my — I have given this committee 

 so many schedules in the past I hate to give any more. 



Mr. Forsythe. We will accept a tentative schedule, 



Mr. Schatzow. Tentative, my personal schedules, we would have 

 in terms of the 12- and 60-mile site, we would expect to have the 

 task team recommendations as I mentioned, by the end of August. 

 We would hope to have a proposed decision in the Federal Register 

 by November and plan to hold a public hearing or number of 

 public hearings obviously including the one that you have request- 

 ed at Toms River, in December, and have a final decision in the 

 Federal Register by March 1984. 



Mr. Forsythe. Thank you for the 12-mile and 60-mile site sched- 

 ules. What about the 106-mile site schedule? 



Mr. Schatzow. The 106 would be at least as rapid and might be 

 done in conjunction with that or could be done more rapidly. 



Mr. Forsythe. At the present time, am I correct in assuming 

 that the decision on the 106-mile site is nearer to completion? 



Mr. Schatzow. We have a proposal obviously out on 106. We 

 have had public comment, we have had a public hearing. Our next 

 step is final designation. The question becomes whether we will go 

 ahead with the final decision on the 106-mile site or whether we 

 will wait and make the decision jointly with the 12 and 60. But it 

 will be no later — the 106-mile site decision will be no later than the 

 decision on the 12 and 60. 



Mr. Forsythe. Thank you. 



In your testimony dealing with bacterial contamination, I think 

 you referred to the point that if there is any active bacterial con- 

 tamination existing in sewage sludge as deposited, there definitely 

 has been a failure in the treatment process. Would that be a cor- 

 rect statement? 



Dr. Anderson? 



Dr. Anderson. Mr. Forsjdhe, no, the treatment process that is 

 presently used by most of the generators of sludge is disinfection 

 for the effluent to the river but not disinfection of the sludge. 



Mr. Forsythe. So there is no final chlorination treatment, for in- 

 stance? 



Dr. Anderson. There is some digestion which does take care of 

 some of the pathogens but not all. 



Mr. Forsythe. I just want to make sure I understood what you 

 referred to in that area. 



Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



