133 
In summary, the corps responsibilities for regulating disposal of 
dredged material, including contaminated materials, directly in- 
volve and impact upon, a number of environmental media includ- 
ing inland waters, wetlands, estuaries, terrestrial habitats, and the 
ocean. It is our responsibility to insure the maximum possible pro- 
tection for each of these mediums in our Federal activities as well 
as in the management of our dredged material regulatory pro- 
grams. 
The predominant scientific opinion, including that of the Nation- 
al Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, which was es- 
tablished to provide advice to the President and Members of Con- 
gress, is that the ocean is an environmentally acceptable disposal 
option for dredged material. Further, available scientific research 
clearly indicates that the ocean disposal of dredged materials 
should be regarded as equally viable to any other disposal alterna- 
tive from an environmental perspective and that ocean disposal 
should not be disregarded for reasons other than scientific knowl- 
edge of unacceptable effects on dumping. This point has been fully 
recognized by Representatives to the London Dumping Convention 
and is reflected in the fact that the London Dumping Convention 
has developed a scientifically based set of exclusions which exempt 
dredged materials from the mandatory biological and chemical 
testing for prohibited materials that are required for other waste 
materials proposed for ocean disposal. 
Mr. Chairman, in your letter to the Chief of Engineers request- 
ing that the corps present testimony here today, you specifically re- 
quested our comments on several areas. I have covered all of those 
areas in my prepared statement except those which relate to sug- 
gested changes to the Ocean Dumping Act amendments which have 
been prepared by your staff. Unfortunately, we did not have ade- 
quate time to prepare comments fully coordinated within the ad- 
ministration, but we ask that we be allowed to present those com- 
ments later for the record. 
This concludes my oral statement, Mr. Chairman, and I will try 
to respond to your questions. 
Mr. D’Amours. Thank you very much, General Gay, and again 
Dr. Byrne. 
Dr. Byrne, you were in the room earlier and you heard quite a 
bit of the discussion about your Agency during the EPA testimony. 
Given the large increase we can expect in utilization of the oceans 
for waste disposal, and the large cuts in NOAA’s budget—do you 
think NOAA is going to be able to provide the research and infor- 
mation we need in a timely manner? 
Dr. Byrne. That is a difficult question to answer, Mr. Chairman. 
The part that makes it difficult is the aspect of a timely manner. 
We find that whenever we deal with the environment, as our re- 
search unfolds we frequently turn up more questions that we do 
answers. I am sure this is the case with respect to addition of sub- 
stances to the ocean as well. 
It is clear that, with the urgency of this particular problem, if we 
were to apply all of the required resources and all of the talents of 
the researchers available to us to deal only with this particular 
problem we still would feel, within a year or so, or whatever the 
