73 



program that has been in effect by the National Marine Fisheries 

 Service for over 20 years along the North Atlantic coast looking at 

 the impacts of overfishing and environmental aspects on the fish- 

 ing resources on and just off the Continental Shelf. This plan 

 would be added to in terms of additional studies of environmental 

 aspects. Most of the MARMAP's work has been in terms of fisher- 

 ies and in terms of catch rather than environmental aspects, but 

 we can add to that. Going on into specific wastes that are being or 

 are proposed to be dumped, we would add to the monitoring plan 

 such evaluations necessary for those specific wastes. 



Mr. Carper. When will those actually be spelled out? 



Dr. Anderson. We would spell it out prior to our final determi- 

 nation on site determination. 



Mr. Carper. Thank you. 



Mr. ScHATZow. Congressman, we would be happy when we have 

 that plan together after V7e have met with NOAA and with the 

 States, to brief you personally or brief the committee on that plan 

 and get your reaction and ideas about it before we made that plan 

 final. We would be happy to do that. 



Mr. Carper. Thank you for that. 



What would be NOAA's and EPA's responsibilities under that 

 monitoring program? Mr. Ehler? 



Mr. Ehler. Again, I think it is a little premature to spell out the 

 specifics of that plan because we have not worked out the details. 

 Our contribution to such a program would initially be the continu- 

 ation of certain kinds of monitoring programs that we currently 

 have in that area. Pete Anderson mentioned the MARMAP pro- 

 gram; that is the stock assessment program, potentially of use to 

 assessing the long-term, large-scale effects on fishery resources. We 

 have had the northeast monitoring program working in the region 

 for 3 years. We would certainly build on the baseline data that pro- 

 gram has established. 



Mr. Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to return to 

 this line of questioning. My time is expired for now. 



Thank you. 



Mr. D' Amours. Thank you, Mr. Carper. 



Gentlemen, I would like to return to the question I referred to 

 earlier and the question Mr. Hughes got into to some extent. New 

 York City essentially is saying, "Look, if you stop dumping at the 

 12-mile bight apex site, there will be no significant improvement to 

 that area." I take it you are saying that New York is incorrect be- 

 cause NOAA is recommending and EPA seems to be on the verge 

 of recommending a cessation of dumping at the 12-mile site. 



The quantification of the pollution caused by dumping is there- 

 fore critical. If New York is correct and there is no quantifiable, no 

 substantial, no significant improvement ecologically to the area if 

 you stop dumping, that is one thing. 



If they are not correct, it is quite another. 



Now, how do you respond to that? I can't seem to get anybody to 

 agree that there would be a significant improvement. The figures 

 that this committee has been given have varied. In 1981, NOAA 

 was saying that. 



Over 40 percent of the mercury entering the bight came from 

 sludge dumping and 25 percent of the PCB's came from sludge 



28-914 O— 84- 



