192 



(2) During your appearance, you stated that the study of the studies by Rice 

 University was flawed because, I believe you stated, there was no baseline informa- 

 tion available on the Gulf of Mexico. My questions are: 



(a) Would you say those studies are irrelevant as to the impacts of drilling muds and 

 other commercial activities on the OCS? If so, why, and if not, why? 



(b) If the Rice and other studies are flawed because of the lack of baseline informa- 

 tion, what impact does this have upon EPA's studies referred to in testimony before 

 this Committee? 



(3) Are you prepared to state that any scientific study conducted under an5i;hing 

 other than actual operating conditions could prove conclusively that there is or is 

 not significant harm to marine biology from any OCS commercial activity? 



(4) Do you feel that applying these standards (i.e., conclusively proving no signifi- 

 cant harm) to all uses of the oceans would be proper? 



(5) Can you supply this Committee with empirical evidence or research findings of 

 the negative impacts of commercial activities (other than oil and gas) in the marine 

 environment? 



(6) Would you mind telling this Committee if there is any research conducted 

 under actual operating conditions on the OCS that you feel is relevant and that 

 proves conclusively that there is or is not any significant negative impact to fisher- 

 ies from commercial usage of the oceans? 



(7) Can you prove conclusively through research (without actually allowing events 

 to continue until there is a significant negative impact) that oil and gas activities, 

 commercial fishing, the dumping of dredge spoil or other commercial uses of the 

 oceans will not have any significant negative impact on the marine biology? 



(8) In your statement, and in your response to questions, you expressed deep 

 concern over providing adequate protection for the marine environment against 

 harm from oil and gas operations, as is the case with all commercial activities I am 

 sure, by using the regulatory authority you have by law. There is no reason this 

 should be doubted, nor disagreed with. 



In response to a question by Mr. Breaux, you also stated, and agreed with the 

 Secretary of the Interior Andrus, that there was adequate authority in law to 

 provide for the safety necessary for the resources in the Georges Bank and as a 

 matter of fact, you agreed that neither EPA nor Interior were permitting any 

 activity that posed a foreseeable significant adverse impact to fisheries or any other 

 resources on the OCS. In light of this, do you feel that there is more that should or 

 could be done that is allowed or is not allowed by law to protect the marine biota? 



(9) Is there any level of commercial uses of the oceans at which you could say 

 conclusively there will not be any foreseeable significant harm to the marine 

 biology? If so, what is that level, and how could it be accomplished? 



(10) What is the scientific difference and relationship between "proving conclu- 

 sively there will be harm" and "proving conclusively there will not be harm"? How 

 does this difference relate to the modeling, conclusion, and usage of research as well 

 as to its relevance? 



(11) What is the relationship and significant difference between scientifically 

 proving there "will be no foreseeable harm," and "there will be foreseeable harm"? 

 What is the relevance of each? 



(12) What do you feel would be the impact of additional legislation, such as is 

 being considered, to provide another layer of legal requirements to protect commer- 

 cial fishing in the Georges Bank area from oil and gas operations, in light of the fact 

 that EPA and DOI say that they have the legal authority to protect against 

 foreseeable harm to fisheries and other marine resources? 



(13) Is the phrase "harm to the marine biology" necessarily significant as pertains 

 to a negative impact on the marine environment? 



(14) Is the phrase "harm to the marine biology" necessarily a relative or signifi- 

 cant finding as pertains to significant negative impact on commercial fishing? 



(15) In EPA's experience, have long-term biological effects of suspected toxic 

 substances been substantiated when short-term effects were not detected? 



(16) Upon what evidence does EPA base the conclusion that the Georges Bank is 

 more ecologically sensitive than the Gulf of Mexico? 



(17) What areas onshore or offshore are now approved for disposal of drilling 

 muds? What is the procedure for obtaining approval of such dump sites and what 

 period of time is required to obtain approval? If needed, can EPA assure, without 

 question, that such approved sites will be established? 



(18) Did the EPA participate in develpping the protocol for conducting bioassays 

 on drilling muds? Has an acceptable protocol been established which can be general- 

 ly used by all laboratories? 



