ities. Under the EPA/NOAA interagency agreement (IAG), NOAA is to consult with EPA on site survey plans. Coordination of the overall research effort under Sections 201 and 202 is not required under the IAG, and EPA has had no significant input to planning other NOAA research activities under these sections.

C. Research studies

Studies of this type are the responsibility of NOAA under Title II, and EPA does not conduct these types of studies.

EPA has, however, conducted some field studies of a research nature in its efforts to evaluate incineration at sea as a viable waste disposal alternative. In 1974, EPA did air and sea monitoring of a research burn of organochlorine wastes in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA provided a vessel, on a reimbursible basis, but was unable to assist in the investigations otherwise.

Question 2. Exactly how many meetings have been held between NOAA and EPA pursuant to the EPA/NOAA interagency agreement?

Answer. The EPA/NOAA IAG, signed in March 1975, is only one of many aspects of contact and coordination between EPA and NOAA in implementing the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. There have been cooperative studies in the New York Bight Apex, at the 106-mile dumpsite, and at the 40-mile (Philadelphia) site. NOAA representatives are invited to attend our Regional Coordinators Meetings, and NOAA staff frequently participate in EPA public hearings. EPA participates in NOAA planning sessions for studies at EPA dumpsites and assists NOAA in preparing budget justifications for some of its field research activities related to ocean dumpsite research. There are numerous meetings at various staff levels as needed on specific problems. We do not have records showing exactly how many meetings in the past three years have dealt specifically with the IAG only. In 1978, there have been two meetings so far on this subject, and there were four during the last three months of 1977 which dealt with various aspects of the IAG. We estimate that about 12 meetings over the past three years have dealt with substantive matters under this IAG.

Question 3. What additional funds to Title I would be needed in order to effectively implement responsibilities pursuant to the transfer of Section 203 of Title I of the Act?

Answer. Transfer of Title III of EPA would require a thorough reevaluation of present activities in the light of the new responsibilities which this section includes. These new requirements would require reexamination of our permit-issuing process, particularly with regard to the demonstration of new or innovative technologies under Section 203, and the reorientation of some of our site designation procedures, particularly toward the disposal of dredged material so as to create new estuarine habitats or artificial islands.

This reevaluation would be done as part of the Zero-Bases-Budgeting process in relation to other EPA programs and the funds presently being expended in research on alternatives to ocean dumping. This is a very complex process, and we are unable to provide an answer to this question at the present time. We will, however, be happy to provide you with the results of this analysis as soon as the budget formulation process is complete.

Question 4. Is EPA's work on radiological waste dumpsites funded under Title I of the Act? How much is this each year?

Answer. Radiological waste dumpsite studies have, in the past, been funded primarily by EPA's Office of Radiation programs (ORP), which does not receive funds under Title I. However, these funds have been supplemented by amounts varying from $50,000 to $100,000 per year from resources allocated to Title I activities.

Question 5. Does EPA now have a ship to assist with its ocean dumping program? Answer. In developing a program of work under the EIS Contract mentioned earlier, an analysis was made of the relative costs for vessel support for baseline surveys under this contract. We found that the cost of conversion and operation of a surplus Navy vessel for the period of this contract would result in a saving of over $1 millon over a two-year period. Since a suitable vessel was availabel for transfer at no cost to EPA, we proceeded to acquire it and turned it over to our Contract for conversion and operation under this contract. Acquistion ad use of this vessel is based solely on its being the most cost- and time- effective method for obtaining the survey data we need in a timely fashion. We have no plans at present to support the use of this vessel beyond the present contractual commitment.

Question 6. Is there a need to step-up dumpsite survey efforts if most of these dumpsites will be discontinued by the end of 1981?

Answer. The present contract deals only with sites presently used for the disposal of sewage sludge and industrial wastes, and with sites which will be used for

incineration at sea in the future. We do not plan on doing further work or completing EIS's on those sites which will be phased out by January, 1980, when the interim site designations presently in the EPA ocean dumping sites and on the 106mile site has already been done, and EIS's will be completed on these sites so they can be formally designated for use in 1980 and 1981, and, for the 106-mile site, after that time for a special permit.

Dredged material dumpsites require the same types of studies and designation procedures as other sites. The present study effort does not include any dredged material sites although we are considering modifying the present contract to include some dredged materials sites in place of those sites which are being discontinued. However, this will only be about 3 out of the 127 sites that are presently designated. We believe that 15-30 of the dredged material sites now in use require detailed study for designation.

Question 7. Has EPA ever fined a permit holder for not complying with conditions in a permit?

Answer. Yes. In 1976 six fines totalling $6,700 were assessed in addition to the $225,000 penalty assessed Philadelphia. In 1977, three fines were assessed totalling $51,000. Some cases are still pending.

Question 8. How do you perceive the pending NOAA/Corps interagency agreement?

Answer. We have seen only an initial draft of an agreement prepared by NOAA, which was provided to us by the Corps of Engineers. This draft is similar to the EPA/NOAA IAG in its basic provisions, and calls for NOAA to do baseline surveys for the Corps of Engineers for dredged material sites. We support the principle of NOAA doing baseline surveys for both EPA and the Corps of Engineers to the extent they can produce a timely product to support the regulatory program. However, NOAA has been unable to do this for EPA and we see little likelihood that they will be able to do it for the Corps of Engineers.

Question 9. On page 7 of your testimony you state, "the thrust of the NOAA activities under Title II is, however, directed toward understanding the complex processes occurring in the ocean through long-range research activities, and not toward obtaining the types of site specific data required for us to designate and manage sites in a timely manner." NOAA, under Section 201, is directed to "initiate a comprehensive and continuing program of monitoring and research regarding the effects of the dumping of material into ocean waters," etc. Also, NOAA, under the EPA/NOAA interagency agreement, is supposed to provide research support for site designations and management. Could you be more specific as to how NOAA is falling short in fulfilling its aforementioned responsibilities? Include any recommendations you have for improving NOAA's role in dumpsite designation and management efforts.

Answer. As noted in our response to Question 1, the term "research" is subject to widely varying interpretations. The definitions presented in our response to that question identify three categories of "research"; of these, the first two represent the priority needs of the regulatory program, while the third identifies the types of long-range studies which NOAA is conducting under Section 201 of Title II. Under the EPA/NOAA IAG, NOAA has agreed to adapt these research efforts to the extent feasible to assist EPA in designating dumpsites. There are, however, certain factors which have limited the extent to which the NOAA research studies have proven useful to EPA in meeting its operational requirements. These are:

a. NOAA dumpsite cruises are planned and conducted as oceanographic_research studies through grants and contracts, not as broadscale dumpsite surveys. That is, a group of "principal investigators" is selected to plan and conduct the study, and the • work done is that in which they and their students are interested, which has been frequently not that required by EPA guidelines for dumpsite surveys. For example, in the studies of the 106-mile dumpsite, less than half the samples were taken at or near the dumpsite.

b. Each NOAA survey is planned as a separate operation, not as part of an overall program. Planning normally requires 6-12 months for each survey after grants have been given to the principal investigators. The total planning and study period for each survey is so long that conditions at a site may have changed materially between surveys and it becomes impossible to tell whether observed changes are seasonal or the result of pollution.

c. Reports on surveys are not available in a timely manner. The results of surveys are often presented by the principal investigators in scientific meetings long before the results are made available to EPA in a report suitable for use in a site designation.

The only site survey report we have received from NOAA covers three cruises at the 106-mile dumpsite. This survey was requested in 1973, surveys were conducted in 1974, 1975, and 1976, and a report was finally published in late 1977. Even then, the report did not recommend acceptable waste loadings or an appropriate monitoring scheme for this site.

Improvement in NOAA's role in dumpsite designation and management would require a reorientation of their overall approach from a basic research mode to the provision of technical services and support.

ANSWERS BY NOAA TO MR. BREAUX'S QUESTIONS

Question 1. On page 7 of Mr. Jorling's prepared testimony he states: "the thrust of the NOAA activities under Title II is, however, directed toward understanding the complex processes occurring in the ocean through long-range research activities and not toward obtaining the types of site specific data required for us to designate and manage sites in a timely manner." NOAA under section 201, is directed to "initiate a comprehensive and continuing program of monitoring and research regarding the effects of the dumping of material into ocean waters," etc. Also, NOAA, under the EPA/NOAA interagency agreement, is supposed to provide research support for site designations and management. Is NOAA falling short in fulfilling its aforementioned responsibilities?

Answer. We interpret Mr. Jorling's statement as addressing our Marine Ecosystems Analysis (MESA) program which, although not funded under Title II, is directed toward understanding the complex processes occurring in the ocean through long-range research activities in selected areas. The MESĂ project for the New York Bight is aimed at determining the impacts of a wide range of man's activities upon that ecosystem, but it is also providing specific information and assessemnts to assist EPA in making management decisions concerning ocean disposal. The New York Bight project is related more closely to our proposed fiscal year 1979 section 202 program than our ongoing section 201 effort and accordingly might be interpreted as in Mr. Jorling's testimony.

Our Ocean Dumping Program in response to section 201 and our responsibilities under the NOAA/EPA interagency agreement are separate and are carried out by our National Ocean Survey. This program has been providing information for our recommendations to EPA with respect to the movement of present dumpsites to site DWD-106 off the continental shelf. We also have been working through this program with EPA Region II on the problems associated with the dumping of pharmaceuticals at a site off Puerto Rico. These activities together with our MESA research on the dumpsites in New York Bight, have been fulfilling NOAA's responsibilities under the law and, in addition, have been providing site specific data useful to EPA in meeting its management responsibilities.

Question 2. How are NOAA's Title II programs coordinated with other NOAA programs such as the MESA project and Sea Grant programs?

Answer. The Ocean Dumping Program in response to section 201 of Title II has close coordination with the MESA project through frequent working level contact and visits of personnel including the respective managers. A formal coordinating committee also has been established, meeting approximately once each quarter. Plans for field projects are exchanged and preliminary findings discussed. Joint positions are developed on issues (e.g., movement of dumping from one site to another) and public hearings (e.g., New York, Toms River, etc.).

Coordination with Sea Grant programs has taken the form of evaluating current Sea Grant sponsored studies to assure integration of their findings into related Title II programs. The tie between the Sea Grant Program and the Ocean Dumping Program will be strungthened if the requested funds for complementary research in ocean dumping, now before the Congress, are appropriated. We plan to build upon Sea Grant studies at selected sites. This cooperation between the two programs will take on greater importance when dredge material disposal sites are studied, as most Sea Grant work has addressed this problem.

Question 3. Can you explain the sudden change of attitude by OMB in regard to funding for NOAA's Title II efforts?

Answer. There has been no sudden change in the OMB attitude in regard to funding NOAA's Title II efforts. The total appropriation for Title II in fiscal year 1977 was $1.37 million for the initial phase of our section 201 program. The President's proposed spending for Title II in fiscal year 1978 was $3.0 million; $1.87 million of which the Congress appropriated. For fiscal year 1979, the Administration now has before the Congress a request to increase Title II funding to $5.9 million.

Question 4. How are section 201 and 202 programs administered within NOAA? Does the fact that these programs fall under different NOAA major line components present a coordination problem?

Answer. The Title II programs administered by NOAA are presently directed at our section 201 responsibilities. The Ocean Dumping Program of the National Ocean Survey (NOS) which carries out the NOAA responsibilities under the NOAA/EPA interagency agreement, is in response to section 201. There is no authorized program for section 202 research in fiscal year 1978. The proposed program for section 202 in the President's Budget for fiscal year 1979, if approved by the Congress, will be undertaken by the Environmental Research Laboratories (ERL) and the National Marine fisheries Service.

Close working relationships exist between the program manager of the Ocean Dumping Program and the managers of other NOAA research programs that complement Titles II research. These relationships have been effective in minimizing coordination problems and provide a means of integrating the results of NOAA research.

Question 5. What is the status of the pending NOAA/CORPS interagency agreement? Does EPA support this agreement?

Answer. A draft of the proposed interagency agreement is under discussion by NOAA and the Corps of Engineers. The interagency agreement is needed to formalize the procedures for site assessments by NOAA to support Corps of Engineers regulatory functions, especially in reference to dredge material disposal. The agreement is to facilitate the setting of joint priorities and establish procedures for the development of analyses and dissemination of information.

We have not sought nor have we been advised of EPA's position on this proposed agreement as it is specifically addressing the Corps of Engineers ocean dumping activities and our related supporting functions.

Question 6. Is there effective coordination between NOAA and EPA under this Act? Is the NOAA/EPA interagency agreement working effectively? How many meetings have been held pursuant to NOAA/EPA interagency agreement?

Answer. We believe that the Act has served to define the relative responsibilities of the two agencies. The NOAA/EPA interagency agreement has further clarified these responsibilities and provided a basis for coordinating associated activities. It has been especially useful at the operating level between managers of the NOAA Ocean Dumping and MESA programs and officials from EPA Regions II and VI. Annual meetings are held between the two agencies as required by the interagency agreement. These meetings are used to establish priorities for dumpsite investigations, determine the major problems to be studied at each site, and develop procedures to be followed including joint assessment of NOAA findings. The interagency agreement has been effective in developing the priorities and needs for the NOAA to address within its available resources.

Question 7. Do you expect a supplemental appropriation to Title II in fiscal year 1978? Are any discussions going on about such a supplemental appropriation? Answer. There are no plans or discussions presently underway regarding a supplemental appropriation for Title II in fiscal year 1978. Our requirements for increased Title II activities are reflected in the President's Budget for fiscal year 1979.

Question 8. NOAA's budget request for fiscal year 1979 indicate accelerated survey efforts on dumpsites that will soon be discontinued. Last year in authorization hearings before these Subcommittees, Dave Wallace stated that he felt it was a waste of money to begin expensive surveys of dumpsites, the use of which will hopefully be terminated in a few years. Please explain this change in attitude. Answer. The program proposed in the fiscal year 1979 request includes continuation of the investigations at DWD-106 and the industrial waste dumpsite off Puerto Rico, as well as the initiation of studies at two dredge material dumpsites in the Gulf of Mexico. Additional dredge material dumpsites are being considered in our planning. This increasing emphasis on dredge material sites is in response to a shift in priorities resulting from regulations on ocean dumping issued by EPA in January 1977 which calls for the cessation of sewage sludge and industrial waste dumping by the end of 1981. It is unlikely that all ocean dumping will cease by that time. The survey work at the dumpsites we have selected for investigation is providing one of the first bodies of information concerning pollution effects on ocean waters.

[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the subcommittes adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]

OCEAN POLLUTION RESEARCH

MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1977

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:33 a.m., in Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John B. Breaux (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Breaux, AuCoin, and Pritichard.

Staff Present: Judy A. Townsend, professional staff; Grant Wayne Smith, professional staff; Thomas R. Kitsos, professional staff; Curits L. Marshall, professional staff, minority; and Donna Kay Firkin, subcommittee clerk.

Mr. BREAUX. The subcommittee will please come to order.

Today the Subcommittee on Oceanograph of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee convenes hearings on Federal ocean pollution research and monitoring. In particular, we will be considering the need for additional legislation providing for the coordination of Federal programs relating to such research.

On September 26, 1977, the House Committee on Science and Technology reported amendments to S. 1617, a bill to establish a program of ocean pollution research and monitoring. Our committee has subsequently been referred the bill for a period of time ending not later than Octobler 17, 1977.

[The bill follows:]

(127)