79 



pursued its permit application. As I said, it is unclear to me that 

 they are actively pursuing it. 



Mr. Dyson. Mr. Chairman, if I could just have one short ques- 

 tion. I know you don't have time to enhance that answer now, but 

 if you would for the record explain how that all works out, what 

 EPA is going to look at on the transportation, and I understand 

 you are concerned, but I need more than just concern. 



Mr. ScHATZOW. I would be happy to respond for the record as to 

 the exact status of Washington, D.C. 



Mr. Dyson. Or others, Philadelphia, whatever. 



Mr. ScHATZOW. Philadelphia has not applied. I will respond for 

 the record as to what our review process is. 



[See question 2 of insert on p. 328.] 



Mr. Dyson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. D' Amours. I would like to continue the questioning with Mr. 

 Carper because that may allow us to move on after Mr. Carper's 

 questioning to the next panel. 



I don't mean to curtail any further questions, but unless I am ad- 

 vised by other members of the subcommittee that they have fur- 

 ther questions for this panel, I will recognize Mr. Carper for his 5 

 minutes of questioning. This will give him time to make the vote 

 which is, by the way, a recorded vote on the rule of the supplemen- 

 tal appropriations. 



There being no objection to that, I will now recognize Mr. Carper 

 and then we will terminate this panel. 



Mr. Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I would like to follow up on the line of questioning I pursued ear- 

 lier. We were talking about the monitoring plan for the sites being 

 designated. I was asking the witnesses for their comments regard- 

 ing NOAA's and EPA's responsibilities under the monitoring plan. 

 I understand that this monitoring plan would be tied to the larger 

 Northeast monitoring program. Given that monitoring at the 106- 

 mile site will require additional ship time and that additional re- 

 search facilities will be necessary to adequately assess contaminant 

 effects of the organisms of that area, could you give me some idea 

 of what the magnitude of the costs are that we are talking about? 



Mr. Ehler. Again, Congressman, without working out the details 

 of that plan, it is difficult to estimate the costs. Initially we would 

 certainly try to make maximum use of our existing monitoring pro- 

 gram in that area, which you correctly stated is the Northeast 

 monitoring program. We would want to visit the sites more fre- 

 quently, and we will make tradeoffs probably from other stations 

 that we currently sample. There are, I believe, 140 stations in the 

 Northeast monitoring network. 



I suspect that we could probably establish a fairly rigorous moni- 

 toring program without significant additional resources. 



Mr. Carper. How much was requested in the fiscal year 1984 

 budget for the Northeast monitoring plan? 



Mr. Ehler. The Northeast monitoring program is funded at the 

 level of approximiately $2 million; $1.2 million comes from the Na- 

 tional Marine Fisheries Service and the National Ocean Service 

 contributes roughly $800,000. 



The $800,000 NOS contribution has been identified as one of the 

 cuts we would make in the 1984 budget. That is not to say that no 



