A revised version of this language could appropriately be embodied in the ocean dumping law either as an addition to section 104, or as additions to both section 102 and section 103. We believe the rationale behind the section 4(f) approach, designed to minimize the destruction of public parklands at the hands of highway projects, applies directly and logically to protecting the ocean from damage resulting from waste disposal. In both cases, the resource being protected is owned by no one and everyone. In both cases, only the Congress can protect these resources for the benefit of this and future generations. The second issue we were asked to address concerns the proposed transfer of the responsibility for developing land-based alternatives to ocean dumping from NOAA, where section 203 currently places it, to EPA, under a proposed new section 113. Our views on this question are spelled out on pages 10 through 13 of our prepared statement. Although the approach proposed by the bill is one we could live with, we would prefer to see it modified in three major respects: First: The bill should require the determination of means of "expeditiously" minimizing or ending all dumping, and not simply minimization or termination as vague goals. Second: The duty to search out such alternatives, proposed for section 113 in the context of EPA, should be extended to include the Corps of Engineers through a comparable provision in section 103. And third, we believe it would be appropriate and desirable to retain in NOAA, as part of a truncated Section 203, residual authority and responsibility to "encourage, cooperate with, and promote the coordination of" alternatives research, while transferring to EPA and the Corps responsibility over the direct conduct of and grant support for such research. We make this suggestion based on our view that some outside supervision is necessary to ensure that research results relevant to finding ocean dumping alternatives are recognized and applied as such. Outside coordination, of the sort which NOAA could provide, would also assist in minimizing duplication of efforts by and among other Federal agencies. In making this recommendation, we do not mean to impugn the competence of EPA or the Corps of Engineers. Rather, it reflects the fact that EPA, for example, is organized along specific functional lines. It has offices concerned with grants administration, research and development, effluent standards, and so forth. It is quite easy within such a context for one office concerned with ocean dumping to be totally unaware of what any other of a dozen separate offices may be doing which may bear on finding alternatives to ocean dumping. We recommend a coordination role for NOAA only because clarity and perspective can sometimes only be gained from a distance. The third issue we were asked to address concerns the 1981 phaseout deadline contained in the bill as proposed in paragraph (5)(A)(i). Our comment is brief: We fully support this provision. Finally, we were invited to offer further comments and suggestions concerning amendments to the ocean dumping law. Rather than belaboring these now, I would simply invite the committee's attention to pages 13 through 15 of our prepared statement. If the committee wishes to explore any of these recommendations further, I would be happy to pursue them with the committee staff or during the question period. That concludes my statement. We thank the committee for the opportunity to present it and hope it has been responsive to the committee's needs. Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Kamlet, we thank you once again for your detailed statement. Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Hughes? Mr. HUGHES. I have no questions. Mr. BREAUX. Mr. Forsythe? Mr. FORSYTHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank you very much for a very detailed job but, again, we are under pressure of time. If we have any further questions, we will submit them to you. Again, we appreciate it very much. Mr. KAMLET. Thank you. Mr. BREAUX. Thank you. With that, we will conclude today's hearings and the Subcommittee on Oceanography and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment will stand adjourned until further call of the Chair. [Whereupon, at 5:07 p.,m., the subcommittees adjourned.] OCEAN DUMPING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1978 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT Washington, D.C. The subcommittees met at 10:07 a.m., in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John. Breaux (chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceanography) presiding. Present: Representatives Breaux, Leggett, Hughes, Forsythe, Pritchard, Emery, and Evans. Staff present: Ernest J. Corrado, chief counsel; Ned P. Everett, counsel; Richard D. Thornton, counsel; Judy A. Townsend, professional staff; Grant Wayne Smith, professional staff; Donna Kay Firkin, subcommittee clerk; Curtis L. Marshall, professional staff, minority; and Gregory Batey, research assistant. Mr. BREAUX. The subcommittees will please come to order. Today, the Subcommittees on Oceanography, and Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment convene hearings to consider the authorization of funds to be appropriated to the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. The act, commonly known as the Ocean Dumping Act, is divided into three parts: Title I establishes the ocean dumping permit program to be administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. Both U.S. Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard are mandated responsibilities under this title. The corps is given general responsibility over the dumping of dredged material, and the Coast Guard is required to provide monitoring and surveillance support to the program. Title II directs the Department of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to provide research and monitoring support for the ocean dumping program. In addition, section 202 gives NOAA the authority to conduct research pertaining to the long-term effects of pollution and other maninduced changes to the marine environment. Last, title III establishes with NOAA a marine sanctuary program which provides for the protection and regulation of activities in specified areas of the ocean. Today the subcommittees will be considering the level of funds that will be required to effectively carry out the program mandated under the three titles of the act for fiscal years 1979 and 1980. Before we start with the testimony, I would like to make some observations. For the most part, since it became law in 1972, the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act has suffered from a lack of interest on the part of the administration. While the ocean dumping permit program has been considerably more successful in obtaining funds relative to the other titles under the act, it is questionable whether the intended purpose of the program, as established by Congress, has been adequately carried out. The express purpose of the act is to strictly prohibit or limit the dumping of materials which are harmful to the marine environment. In response to this congressional directive the EPA promulgated regulations which have attempted to define what is environmentally acceptable to dump into the ocean. At the same time, that agency also established various permit categories for materials being ocean dumped. One such category, interim permits, has been a special concern of these subcommittees because these permits allow the dumping of materials which do not comply with the EPA environmental criteria. All of the industrial wastes and municipal sewage sludge currently being dumped into the ocean is allowed under interim permits. EPA's justification for the use of such permits is based on the fact that no acceptable alternative disposal methods are available which would permit the termination of the dumping of these substances into the marine environment. The subcommittees have looked long and hard into this problem. We have held many days of hearings and have heard testimony from the cities engaged in ocean dumping, technical experts familiar with alternative disposal methods, the EPA, and other agencies responsible for carrying out the intent of the act. Our findings have been somewhat disturbing. Most of these cities have not yet selected a disposal alternative to ocean dumping. The EPA has assured Congress that all dumping authorized by interim permits can be eliminated by December 31, 1981. EPA has codified this termination date in its revised regulations published on January 11, 1977. Last session, these subcommittees, concerned that the cities were not taking the intent of the act nor the EPA deadline seriously, adopted an amendment which would require the cessation, by the end of 1981, of all sewage sludge dumping which does not comply with the EPA environmental criteria. This amendment was signed into law by the President last October. We do not intend to stop here. I personally have my doubts that this deadline will be met. The plight of Camden, N.J. only substantiates my fears. In hearings before these subcommittees last session, the Honorable Angelo Errichetti, Mayor of Camden, claimed that his city would terminate its ocean dumping by the end of 1977. Camden is still dumping its sewage sludge into the Atlantic Ocean. With the approach of the 1981 deadline, the need for the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act will not diminish. In this session, and in the future, we will be directing our efforts to what currently accounts for over 90 percent of all materials which are being ocean dumped-dredge spoil. According to studies conducted by NOAA's marine ecosystems analysis project, dredge spoil compared to all other pollution sources, accounts for over 50 percent of the suspended solids; 30 percent of the lead; 20 percent of the |