143 



Ms. CoMPTON. That is one of the interpretations of reading the 

 two sections together. 



Mr. Studds. But the final evaluation of that data is yours, not 

 theirs. 



Ms. CoMPTON. Absolutely. 



Mr. Studds. That is very clear. The record as I say will remain 

 open. Members may wish to submit questions in writing to both 

 agencies. 



Also in the record will appear the letter which I referred to from 

 the Commandant of the Coast Guard to Acting Chairman Ashley of 

 this committee. 



Thank you again for your patience and your attendance. 



You have one more thing you wish to say? 



Ms. CoMPTON. I do. I hope the committee will understand the 

 position which the agency is in given the line of questioning from 

 the two different positions that we heard today, and the difficulty 

 with which we face very complex questions. 



Mr. Studds. The difficulty of the agency's position is abundantly 

 and increasingly clear. I think the reference you make as you sit 

 here being battered both from the gulf coast and from New Eng- 

 land points up what I meant when I said what ought to be a 

 scientific problem I think has become, to an extent which I deplore, 

 a political rather than a scientific question. Your agency ought, in 

 my opinion, to be making scientific judgments in accordance with 

 the mandates of the statute. 



I realize — in addition, you live in the same world of political 

 reality that we all do. As you point out, today's hearing demon- 

 strates clearly some of the conflicting pressures to which the Ad- 

 ministrator is subjected. That presumably is why he is so highly 

 paid. 



Thank you very much. 



[The information follows:] 



U.S. Coast Guard, 

 Washington, D.C., July 16, 1980. 

 Hon. Thomas L. Ashley, 



Acting Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

 House of Representatives, Washington, D.C 



Dear Mr. Chairman: I am concerned that information concerning the Coast 

 Guard's open water pollution response plans and objectives, which appears on pages 

 12 and 32 of House Report No. 96-909 (accompanying H.R. 6672), may be mislead- 

 ing. 



The national response goals established by the President's March 17, 1977 Oil 

 Pollution message are not being implemented by the Coast Guard, nor are we in the 

 process of deplojdng high seas containment and cleanup equipment at eleven strate- 

 gic sites around the U.S. to respond to an oil spill of 100,000 tons within 6 hours. 



The strategy recommended in the Transportation System Center Study of 1977 

 has been modified in the light of later experience. Specifically the Secretary of 

 Transportation has approved for planning purposes a three year projects to improve 

 spill response at 11 high risk areas around the country. Equipment would be 

 stockpiled and maintained at facilities with the objective of attaining a nationwide, 

 aggregate oil recovery capacity of 200 tons of oil per hour, conditions permitting. 

 Implementation of this plan depends on the normal budget process, to begin in 

 fiscal year 1982. A small amount of the equipment ultimately needed to meet this 

 objective is now in place at three Coast Guard Strike Team locations, but as noted 

 in the Report on H.R. 6672, more equipment and storage facilities will be needed. If 

 the need for a further federal effort is demonstrated, the Coast Guard has suggested 

 a ten year program expansion to a 3,300-10,000 ton/day regional goal. At this time, 

 though, it is difficult to forecast that far into the future. 



Although a prototype Zero Relative Velocity skimmer has been developed through 

 Coast Guard R&D, a final decision to go forward with a production model has not 



