325 



thorities whose primary or untreated effluent is ultimately dis- 

 charged into the ocean. 



Only then will the PVSC and other New Jersey authorities be 

 able to avoid development and construction of facilities which are 

 later found to be unacceptable by the regulatory agencies. In a 

 word, it is time for a Federal commitment on the issue of sludge 

 disposal. 



Your third question was: "Is it realistic to adopt the stated goal 

 of environmental restoration of the New York Bight?" 



In response to this question, it is important to note that the 

 PVSC and the other New Jersey authorities are really not quali- 

 fied to respond to the issue of restoration of the New York Bight. 

 We are wastewater engineers — not marine biologists. We would not 

 presume to address an issue that should be addressed to more ap- 

 propriate experts. 



However, we feel that it is important to note that as pointed out, 

 for example, in the NO A A studies and in our comments supporting 

 the redesignation of the 12-mile site, et cetera, sludge contributes 

 less than 6 percent of most metals, less than 4 percent of most nu- 

 trients, and an insignificant amount of microorganisms to the 

 waters of the New York Bight. 



Indeed, most contaminants come from the dumping of dredged 

 materials and wastewater discharges from Metropolitan New York 

 and New Jersey that ultimately flow into the bight. Our conclu- 

 sion, supported by the various recent studies cited previously, indi- 

 cates that sludge dumping at the present 12-mile site has a rela- 

 tively minor impact on the bight, as compared to other sources of 

 contaminants discharged into it. 



Cessation of dumping in the New York Bight would not signifi- 

 cantly restore the ecosystem of the bight. However, any alternative 

 to continued ocean disposal at the present 12-mile site in the bight 

 would increase the costs of disposal without a commensurate im- 

 provement in the ecology of the bight. 



Let me close by assuring this committee that PVSC and the 

 other agencies have a continuing commitment to fulfilling our re- 

 sponsibility for environmental protection. Our track record is clear. 

 We want to come up with an acceptable solution, but we need your 

 help and the help of USEPA and NJDEP in deciding what that ac- 

 ceptable solution should be. 



Mr. D' Amours. We wish to thank you, Mr. Carella, and assure 

 you that we are not unsympathetic to the difficulty of the position 

 in which you find yourself and we applaud your efforts to find 

 ways to obviate the need for any ocean dumping, 



I have no questions at this time. 



I will yield my time for questioning to Mr. Carper, if he has any 

 questions. 



Mr. Carper. Mr. Chairman, I do not. 



Mr. D' Amours. Mr. Forsythe. 



Mr. Forsythe. Yes, I have questions, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Carella, I appreciate your testimony. You indicate that New 

 Jersey DEP believes your sludge contains unacceptable levels of 

 heavy metals. Has the New Jersey DEP defined "acceptable" 

 levels? If so, can you achieve such levels with your pretreatment 

 program? 



