16 



cific solutions. It needs State and local governments to deal with 

 the problem. 



We have developed stormwater regulations and have permit ap- 

 plication requirements for the largest municipal and industrial 

 sources. We have also requested additional funding for sewage 

 treatment plant construction to ensure adequate treatment for all 

 coastal areas. 



Nevertheless, we recognize that, in some cases, pollution of coast- 

 al waters is still a problem and additional measures must be taken 

 to protect the public. Monitoring of coastal waters to protect recre- 

 ational users varies from State to State. Some States have very 

 active monitoring programs, while others do not. We are aware 

 that these inconsistencies have caused concern and confusion in 

 the mind of the public. 



In September of 1992, EPA began a negotiated rulemaking proc- 

 ess with a diverse group of interested parties to explore the issues 

 of national microbiological criteria monitoring requirements and 

 closure standards for the beaches. We have interviewed State and 

 local health agencies, environmental groups, industry representa- 

 tives, scientists and other Federal agencies. 



We have now completed that first phase of the negotiated rule- 

 making process. Based on that consultation with more than 50 par- 

 ties, we, at the agency believe, that a consensus building regulation 

 is the best approach. 



We are preparing a plan that includes an estimate of resources 

 required to complete the negotiated rulemaking, and also the re- 

 sources that are required for the research program to improve our 

 knowledge of microbiological contamination in recreation waters. 

 The funding and timing for negotiating the rulemaking will be con- 

 sidered in the agency with other high priority statutory and court- 

 mandated programs that we at EPA must strive to complete. 



Let me now turn to the bill. We agree that the recreational 

 water standards should utilize a consistent approach, as is demon- 

 strated in the Ambient Water Quality Criteria Bacteria Standards 

 of 1986. As I have stated already, consistent microbiological stand- 

 ards require cooperation among all stakeholders. 



Section 3 of the bill requires EPA to provide criteria for patho- 

 gens to be used in assessing coastal recreational waters. Our 1986 

 water criteria are a good base to start. 



We applaud the bill's efforts to ensure State's adoption of the 

 EPA criteria. However, we offer a modification. We believe that 

 States should adopt published criteria within a fixed time, such as 

 three years. If a State fails to adopt the criteria within three years, 

 EPA's criteria should become applicable water quality standards 

 without further promulgation by EPA. 



We agree that we need consistent monitoring. We believe that 

 we need to look at the resources required. We need to consider the 

 fact that States and localities at present are concerned with the 

 cost of compliance with the drinking water regulations and 

 wastewater treatment construction costs. 



Marine debris in our coastal waters is also addressed in the bill. 

 We are pleased to let you know that we have a number of activities 

 in this area. We have conducted field investigations of the land- 

 based sources of debris and have prepared reports assessing plastics 



