171 
A number of the bureaucrats who have testified on the subject of the 
Bight at this and other hearings have urged that we do nothing until 
we have had a chance to conduct further studies. I submit, Mr. Chair- 
man, that we know enough now. Further studies will only prove once 
again that the disaster is, in fact, spreading. We can and we must stop 
dumping in coastal waters now. Then it will be important that we 
study the conditions further to determine how best to correct the 
damage that has already been done. 
A second point has been made by the Corps of Engineers and by some 
other Federal officials. They have said that dealing with the waste ma- 
terials in other ways than dumping would be too costly or too difficult. 
Some have even said that we don’t know what the alternatives ave. 
I submit that this is not true. The report of July 24 stresses that we 
do have the technology necessary to deal with these wastes in other 
ways. Let me suggest a few. 
First, for dredge spoil and industrial waste, one obvious solution 
is high heat incineration. Incineration at 3,000 degrees will destroy 
practically anything except earth and firebrick. It will reduce most 
wastes by between 94 and 96 percent. In the case of dredge spoil, the 
result will be quite clean earth that can be used as fill and a harmless 
“frit” that can be used in building blocks, as fireproofing for shingles 
and as road surfacing material. I have here a sample of that frit, which 
I will submit to the committee. 
Hor sewage sludge, the long range answer is to recapture its valuable 
nutrients for use in agriculture. In the not too distant future, we will 
be very much in need of its important fertilizing agents. In the interim 
while we construct the necessary facilities for processing the sludge, 
most scientific opinion holds that it can be safely dumped at greater 
distances at sea. In fact, properly defused over the surface, it may well 
be a useful nutrient to enrich the relatively poor marine environment 
further out on the continental shelf. 
Let me close by stressing that in my opinion, every day of continued 
dumping poses great threats not only to our marine resources but to 
public health and vitally important urban recreation areas. We cannot 
aiford the cost imposed by such wanton destruction. We cannot afford 
the loss of the valuable materials that are now being dumped. And we 
can, and must, afford the cost of other forms of disposal and recycling. 
Following the pattern so frequently followed in government of 
waiting for disaster to strike, and then hoping to correct the situation, 
would produce a real catastrophe in the New York Metropolitan area. 
J urge that this committee take strong, affirmative action on the legis- 
lation before you, I would also urge that it be broadened to cover other 
coastal waters and the Great Lakes areas as well. I want to thank you 
again for your courtesy in permitting us to testify. Dr. Pearce and I 
are available to answer any questions that the committee may have. 
Mr. Drincetu. Mr. Ottinger, we are privileged to have you with us 
this morning. 
Mr. Keith ? F 
Mr. Kerru. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I reflect that I do have to 
leave almost immediately, but I think what you have said here is a 
very good statement of the situation that exists, and one with which all 
of the public is concerned, and one with which the administration has 
indicated its concern, but I think that a parallel might be drawn here. 
Precipitous withdrawal from Vietnam has a cost, and it must be 
56-7 88S—71——_12 
