72 



Thank you. 



Mr. D' Amours. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. 



The gentleman from Delaware, Mr. Carper. 



Mr. Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome the 

 panel and publicly thank the members of the panel who were at 

 Rehoboth earlier this month for the hearing and for your coopera- 

 tion in extending to the citizens of my State of Delaware the oppor- 

 tunity to be heard on a very important issue to us. 



There was mention during Mr. Schatzow's testimony of the pro- 

 posed separation of dumping of industrial wastes in one portion of 

 the 106-mile site and dumping of sewage sludge in another portion 

 of the site. With that background, I would ask the following ques- 

 tion: The ocean-dumping criteria specifiy that sites designated for 

 ocean dumping of dredge materials shall be used only for the ocean 

 dumping of dredge material. Is there a reason for restricting use of 

 a site to a particular class of waste materials? 



Both Mr. Ehler and Mr. Schatzow, if you would comment on 

 that. 



Mr. Schatzow. I think there are two types of responses. I think 

 first of all different types of materials have different types of po- 

 tential for environmental deregulation which makes different sites 

 acceptable or not acceptable for different types of materials. I can 

 give you examples of that. 



In addition to that question, I think the other point is that in 

 terms of monitoring and monitoring impacts, it is preferable to sep- 

 arate site designations so that when you are monitoring, you know 

 what you are monitoring, if a problem is caused, you know where 

 the problem is coming from. 



Mr. Ehler. I would agree there is some need to keep the wastes 

 somewhat separate from the standpoint of monitoring. Once you 

 have dumped things in the water column in proximity to each 

 other, they are difficult to separate out. 



Mr. Carper. What magnitude of separation are we talking about 

 at the 106-mile site? 



Mr. Schatzow. The 106-mile site is a very large site. It is 450 

 square miles. So I think what we are talking about is different 

 quadrants, and again we are working on that right now with 

 NOAA in terms of defining some much smaller site boundaries and 

 clearly isolating the two sites. 



Mr. Carper. Mr. Ehler and Mr. Schatzow, in your testimony you 

 acknowledged that the long-term effects of ocean disposal at the 

 106-mile site are generally unknown and therefore careful monitor- 

 ing must be undertaken. The EPA notice of the proposed designa- 

 tion of the site proposes a 5-year environmental study. There is an 

 obvious need for this and substantial cause to question whether it 

 can be done adequately and we must have details of the monitoring 

 plan for the site. 



What sort of monitoring program do you have in mind for the 

 106-mile site? I know you spoke to this briefly in your comments, 

 but could you elaborate just a bit. 



Mr. Schatzow. Dr. Anderson. 



Dr. Anderson. In developing the monitoring plan, our current 

 strategy is to base the monitoring strategy on the MARMAP, and 

 maybe Mr. Ehler can help me with what the acronym is for. It is a 



