107 



authority to go ahead and move in on that right away. Outside of 

 that the authorization is required of the regional response team 

 member from the Environmental Protection Agency after he has 

 consulted with the appropriate State. Then only if an important 

 species is endangered or if the overall impact of the spill will be 

 reduced by the use of dispersants. I might say historically in this 

 country the use of dispersants has been quite conservative. I think 

 that has been good. I think that as dispersants are becoming less 

 toxic, and they are, our attitude toward them is changing some- 

 what. I think this is a good change. I do not think it is going to 

 change quickly however. But we are looking at things such as the 

 pre-identification of certain areas in certain times of the years at 

 certain temperatures where an on-scene coordinator might use dis- 

 persants without referral to the RRT. One of the most important 

 things about them is they must be used quickly, while the oil is 

 fresh, before it emulsifies. So these decisions have to be made 

 quickly because if you do not make them quicky you are out there 

 applying dispersants not very effectively. So we are looking at ways 

 we can make these decisions more quickly and effectively. 



Mr. Carney. I have to admire you Captain, you answered about 

 four of the questions I was going to ask in that one answer. One 

 thing, would I be correct in summarizing what you have said by 

 saying that the Coast Guard is continually making new SOP's as to 

 the use of dispersants as more information is available to them and 

 as the art and scientific reports as to their adverse effects are 

 available to you? 



Captain Corbett. That is generally right, except it would be 

 more accurate to say the regional response team, and the Coast 

 Guard and EPA are on those teams, cochair those teams, are 

 making those efforts, rather than the Coast Guard. EPA really has 

 the overall responsibility for the policy on the issue of dispersants. 



Mr. Carney. Thank you. 



Mr. Studds. Mr. Hughes. 



Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Captain, for 

 your testimony. I am a little concerned over your statement in 

 response to earlier questions that you have not been as close, the 

 Coast Guard has not been as close in following contingency plans 

 in other areas of the OCS other than Georges Bank. What is the 

 state of the siting or prepositioning of equipment and of contingen- 

 cy plans generally in the Baltimore Canyon area? 



Captain Corbett. I do not know. I would be glad to respond to 

 that for the record if you like. It is no doubt in the contingency 

 plan which the industry has submitted to Interior. We can obtain it 

 from Interior and provide it to you. 



Mr. Hughes. I would appreciate your furnishing it. It gives me 

 great concern. Here we are, we have sunk about, I guess, between 

 13 and 15 test wells in the Baltimore Canyon. Exxon just recently 

 announced they are going to sink another delimiting well in the 

 Baltimore Canyon. It would appear from your testimony that we 

 have not paid too much attention to contingency plans in that 

 area. That gives me great concern in view of the fact it would 

 appear likely that we are going to find commercially extractable 

 quantities of at least natural gas in that region of the OCS. 



