bight apex, including the prospect of reopening the eastern third of 

 the apex to commercial shellfishing. 



Other measures as part of an overall bight apex restoration plan 

 are obviously also desirable and in our view are entirely feasible. 



It should also be noted that under EPA's ocean dumping regula- 

 tions the 12-mile site certainly represents an impact category 1 lo- 

 cation. As such, the regulations mandate action by the administra- 

 tor to modify the conditions of site use to restore conditions to an 

 acceptable status, which may include termination of dump site use, 

 and such might well be the action necessary here. 



Accordingly, the Hughes-Forsythe proposal could be viewed as 

 simply ratifying the mandate contained in EPA's own regulations. 



A second key point is that while relocating the sludge dumping 

 site to a deepwater site is far less desirable than keeping harmful 

 sludge out of the ocean entirely, a shift of this kind particularly if 

 temporary, will almost certainly yield net environmental benefits. 

 In addition to permitting shellfish beds in part of the apex to be 

 reopened to commercial harvesting, such a change is also likely to 

 reduce the probability of dumping-related contamination of the 

 human food chain. 



We do not, however, favor a shift to deepwater dump site 106 at 

 which industrial wastes are currently disposed. We believe along 

 with EPA that any change in dumping location must be accompa- 

 nied by "further studies of the site and careful monitoring of the 

 impact of disposal at the site." 



Dumping sewage sludge along with industrial waste at the 106 

 site would in our judgment frustrate this monitoring and manage- 

 ment objective. It would set an undesirable precedent in making 

 the 106-mile site the first of some 140 interim approved dump sites 

 at which more than one category of waste was permitted to be 

 dumped. 



Indeed EPA's current regs make clear in the case of dredged ma- 

 terial that sites designated for the ocean dumping of dredged mate- 

 rial may only be used for the ocean dumping of dredged material. 

 A similar rule would make good sense for sewage sludge and indus- 

 trial waste. We accordingly urge this committee to consider an 

 amendment which would preclude a decision by EPA to allow 

 sludge and industrial wastes to be dumped at the same site. 



It should be noted however that the 3-year period specified in the 

 Hughes-Forsythe proposal for phasing out the use of the 12-mile 

 site would provide ample time for the selection and designation of 

 an alternative deepwater site for sewage sludge currently dumped 

 at the 12-mile site. 



The third point is that we would not support a moratorium on 

 designation of the 106-mile site because designation of the 106-mile 

 site is not the issue in our view. The real issue is whether sewage 

 sludge and industrial wastes should be permitted to be jointly 

 ocean dumped at any site. As I have indicated, we think the 

 answer is no, and we favor an amendment to accomplish this 

 result. 



Point four, we do not favor an across-the-board congressional 

 review process to precede the designation of all ocean dump sites 

 because the vast majority of sites subject to final designation are in 

 active use already; interposing a process of this kind therefore 



