152 



?P: ee 



•ib-9492 



cessation of sludge diunping alone will not be likely to lead to 

 iamediate recovery in view of the other materials disposed 

 there, and that even if all major contaminant inputs are 

 curtailed, a rapid recovery is improbable. (Id.) Dr. Swanson's 

 testimony clearly reflected his awareness of the fact, of which 

 the City makes a great deal, that sewage sludge is not the only 

 source of pollution in the Bight Apex (Ex A, pp. 17, 22-24). 

 Neverrheless , it was his considered opinion that termination of 

 sludge dumping by the end of 1981 remains an environmentally 

 worthy objective. (Ex. A, p. 24). The EPA fully concurs with 

 Dr. Swanson's views on this subject. 



8. In paragraph 14 of his affidavit, Commissioner 

 McAxdle reviews a number of points alleged to be found by 

 Ecological Analysrs , Inc., the group commissioned by the City 

 to study the effects of its sludge dumping. I have studied the 

 report to which reference is made, and I take issue with each 

 statement presented. I address them in turn below: 



a) Commissioner McArdle notes that "there is vir- 

 tually no significant accumulation of sewage sludge on the ocean 

 bottom at the existing dump site." (Aff. IT 14). That is, a 

 mound of material has not built up at the sludge site, as it has 

 at the dredged material site about 5 miles to the west. I would 



note, however, that solids related to such sludge have been 



2 

 found to have impacted the surficial sediments in a 10-15 km 



area in and adjacent to the dximp site. Thus, the site itself 



has not shown huge accumulations because the solids have been 



spread by physical processes (currents, dilution, dispersion) 



over a much greater area of impact. It would be inaccurate to 



conclude from this chat there is no adverse impact to the marine 

 environment. 



