30 



Mr. Hughes. And that, in fact, the frequency of monitoring 

 standards, the use of water standards, and the proximity to pollut- 

 ants are all reasonable standards to be used? 



Ms. Stasikowski. Yes. 



Mr. Hughes What is it that you find wanting in the bill, aside 

 from the fact that you are going to get to it? 



Ms. Stasikowski. As I said, last September, we initiated this ne- 

 gotiated rulemaking, working with various States, local groups, en- 

 vironmental groups; and we feel that because there are differences 

 in the temperatures, frequency of use, and amount of exposure, 

 that we would be more successful if the stakeholders participated 

 in development of the rule with negotiated rulemaking. 



Mr. Hughes. Yes. But you see, negotiated rulemaking means you 

 are going to reach some consensus with individual participants. 

 That isn't going to work. 



I mean, frankly, if you were telling me that there is not suffi- 

 cient flexibility in the bill to take into account long coastlines, dif- 

 ferences in use, possible pollution-causing equipment, such as 

 drains that overflow or waste-water treatment facilities that are 

 damaged, if you were telling me that we didn't have enough stand- 

 ards in here, then I could understand that. 



But you haven't told me anything. Aside from your concern 

 about one of the criteria that we utilized, that being the specific 

 numeric calculator used to reflect public health risk, which NOAA 

 testified they had some concerns about, you haven't told me any- 

 thing. 



Is there anything in here that would not be in the public interest 

 if we implemented it tomorrow? 



Ms. Stasikowski. No. One of the issues with the bill is, if the bill 

 is to be comprehensive and cover bacteria and viruses which you 

 cannot detect using the presently approved — the method that we 

 had in 1986 criteria and the methods available right now, we really 

 do not have sufficient funds to develop the methods. 



Mr. Hughes. The bill provides some additional funds to do things 

 like that. If we waited around here until we found the perfect solu- 

 tion, we would never do anything. 



I have heard the same arguments made about a whole host of 

 initiatives I have been involved in over the years concerning ocean 

 policy. We need to continue to strive for the perfect, but we are uti- 

 lizing what is the best scientific knowledge available, and that is 

 what we are trying to do rationally with this bill. You haven't been 

 very successful in persuading the States to utilize the basic re- 

 search you have done. 



Your track record isn't very good. It demonstrates that leaving it 

 up to the States isn't going to work. 



Ms. Stasikowski. One of our comments on the bill, if the bill 

 were to be enacted; we would prefer the use of a "hammer provi- 

 sion;" this means that if the State does not adopt the criteria or 

 standard within three years, that criteria would become a standard 

 automatically. 



We have worked with the States to implement toxics criteria into 

 State standards and found that it was very difficult for us to per- 

 suade States to adopt the toxics criteria as standards. It took a very 



