188 



Our information concludes that, although the 12-mile site may 

 have benefits over the 106-mile site, the latter would not be 

 significantly harmed by designation for sludge dumping. Because 

 of this finding, and because our documentation has been submitted 

 to EPA, I believe the regulatory process should continue so that 

 a decision can be made on the merits. 



I am aware that Representative Carper offered an amendment 

 in full Committee which would have required EPA to submit a 

 prospectus to the committees of jurisdiction prior to designating 

 any site or issueing any permit for ocean dumping. The committees 

 would have an opportunity to raise objections to the prospectus 

 and EPA would be required to consider those objections. If EPA 

 went ahead and designated a site or issued an objectionable permit, 

 Congress could legislatively veto that decision. 



My reaction to the proposal is both positive and negative. 

 On the positive side, it would serve to bring information to the 

 Committee, and I am convinced that accurate information will 

 vindicate our approach to the issue of ocean disposal. On the 

 other hand, I fear that a legislative veto will further politicize 

 the decision-making process. Again, the Congress should promote 

 an objective, scientific forum as the appropriate location for 

 making difficult waste management choices. 

 State of New Jersey 



This proposal has a number of attractive features v^iich 

 we feel are worthy of this Committee's consideration and further 

 development. The plan calls for the 12-mile site to be designated 

 by Congress for 5 years. During that period, EPA, New York and 



Page 12 



