76 



Mr. D' Amours. Mr. Hughes. 



Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Just to pick up again on the colloquy concerning the Federal 

 input into the New York Bight Apex. I wonder if you can tell me 

 where the contaminant input estimates found on table 1 of your 

 statement came from, Mr. Schatzow? 



Mr. Schatzow. The contaminant estimates that are found on 

 table 1 came from SEAM Ocean Motion, a consultant to New York 

 City. They have not been at this point peer reviewed by EPA or by 

 NOAA. They take off from an original study done in 1976 by 

 NOAA and they will be — EPA and NOAA will be scrutinizing this 

 material. 



Mr. Hughes. Why do we have to rely on a consultant for the city 

 of New York? Don't we have an independent source of data that 

 would give EPA and NOAA direction on this total input question? 



Mr. Ehler. Yes, we do. We have our own work in this area. To 

 my knowledge the numbers presented in this table are not signifi- 

 cantly different. 



Mr. Hughes. Do you have a copy of the table? 



Mr. Ehler. Yes, I do. 



Mr. Hughes. I wonder if we can make that part of the record, 

 Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. D' Amours. Without objection, I am sure we can. 



[A copy of the table was not available at the time of printing.] 



Mr. Hughes. You say the table represents no significant differ- 

 ence? 



Mr. Ehler. I would not say we have rigorously examined the 

 table. I might ask Hal Stanford. The table does appear in the EPA 

 testimony. We have not reviewed it from 



Mr. Hughes. How about EPA? Will you review the previous cri- 

 teria and compare that with the consultant's testimony? 



Mr. Schatzow. As I believe I mentioned in my testimony, this is 

 part of the volumes and volumes of material that we received from 

 the municipalities in the beginning of May. We have not yet had 

 the opportunity to give that material more than a cursory view. 

 We will obviously look at it and review it carefully before we make 

 the tentative decision in terms of the 12- and 60-mile sites. 



Mr. Hughes. Does EPA or NOAA have any way of independently 

 verifying this criteria? It is critical to this whole case being made. 

 It seems to me that we have quibbled about what is substantial and 

 what is significant and now we find that we are comparing it with 

 some information supplied by a consultant to the city of New York. 

 That gives me some concern. Don't we have any way of independ- 

 ently attempting to verify what is the contaminant input? 



Mr. Schatzow. We do and we will. I guess what I am saying is 

 we have not done it to this point. The point Bud Ehler just made 

 was those general numbers are within the general range of our 

 previous estimates and our — NOAA's previous estimates from 

 NOAA's work. Hal, you may want to respond. 



Mr. Hughes. My time is running out. Let me move on. I have to 

 presume that under the criteria established by EPA, whatever 

 dumping takes place at the 106-mile site will be reasonable deregu- 

 lation, obviously, you will not prevent unreasonable deregulation. 



