12 



atives of our military establishment, especially as relates to the 

 former Soviet Union. 



Since NOAA is a coleader of the Arctic Monitoring and Assess- 

 ment Program, I was wondering how much money and effort 

 NOAA plans to spend on monitoring nuclear contamination in the 

 Arctic. Do you have a specific plan for that, and if so, could you 

 provide some detail for us? 



Also, in 1995, our country will be hosting an international con- 

 ference on land-based sources of marine pollution, and I was won- 

 dering if NOAA has — in its involvement for that conference, is nu- 

 clear contamination of the Arctic going to be one of the issues dis- 

 cussed at that conference? 



Ms. JosEPHSON. Yes, it is going to be discussed at that confer- 

 ence. 



And the answer to your first question, I would like to submit 

 something for the record, and we will also submit some detail on 

 your second question. 



[The following information was submitted subsequent to the 

 hearing by Ms. Josephson:] 



NOAA has recently taken the lead for the U.S. participation in the Arctic Moni- 

 toring and Assessment Program (AMAP), and headed the U.S. Delegation to the 4th 

 AMAP Task Force Meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland, October 11-14, 1993. NOAA is 

 presently working through the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee 

 (lARPC) to develop a more proactive role in AMAP and to identify the resources 

 required to do so. NOAA does not presently have any resources in its budget that 

 are specifically designated for AMAP. However, we do have ongoing programs that 

 contribute to the AMAP Project Directory. 



The key concern regarding the potential for migration of contaminants from Rus- 

 sian waters has been focused on the radionuclide disposal problem. The Arctic radio- 

 active studies now being conducted through the Department of Defense, under the 

 program management of the Office of Naval Research, should provide preliminary 

 findings on any potential imminent threat. NOAA is participating in these studies 

 on a cooperative basis by collecting and analyzing sediment and biological samples, 

 including tissue samples from species used in native subsistence, in order to help 

 determine the present amount and source of radionuclides in the U.S. Arctic. 



In the long-term, decomposing containers and reactors also are a significant 

 source of concern. This concern can only be addressed through a long-term environ- 

 mental assessment and monitoring program. NOAA is working with the lARPC to 

 formulate an interagency plan to assess the potential long-term problem associated 

 with radionuclides and other contaminants (e.g., persistent organic compounds) so 

 that recommendations can be made upon which to base policy and decision-making. 



To my knowledge, NOAA has not been involved in the preparations for the 1995 

 international conference on land-based sources of marine pollution. I will look into 

 this matter and see if land-based sources of nuclear contamination of the Arctic are 

 going to be addressed and, if not, urge that this concern be considered. 



Mr. Weldon. I appreciate your working with us, as you have 

 done in the past on this issue, so that we can together raise the 

 awareness of the international community on the seriousness of 

 this issue, especially within the confines of the former Soviet re- 

 publics. 



Looking at the 10-year plan of NOAA, the strategic plan and I 

 think the somewhat ambitious — and most of which I will be sup- 

 portive of — cost estimates, I guess my question relates to the Vice 

 President's plan to reinvent government and how that will tie in 

 with NOAA's obvious need for additional funding. What impact do 

 you see happening with NOAA in line with the Vice President's 

 plan? 



