146 
Mr. Huaues. Let me just run through a couple more things very 
quickly. 
First of all, it is obviously important for us to have an ongoing 
research program to try to carry on research that we have under- 
taken, to learn as much as we can about what we are doing. We 
cannot do that without money, can we? 
Second, it is important to monitor whatever we are doing using 
whatever base-line studies that exist, to see what changes are 
taking place and try to factor that into our research. Would that be 
a fair assumption? 
Dr. Byrne. That is a fair assumption. 
Mr. HuGues. Is it also fair to assume that if we do not do that we 
could end up someday, finding out after the fact that we have 
dumped something, that it is irreparable? 
Dr. ByRNE. That is a fair assumption also. 
Mr. HuGues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. D’Amours. Thank you gentlemen for coming. 
This meeting is adjourned. 
[Whereupon the subcommittee was adjourned at 2:42 p.m.| 
[The following was received for the record:] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY Mr. D’AMouRS AND ANSWERED BY THE CORPS OF 
ENGINEERS 
Question. The staff draft established a procedure for reviewing alternatives to 
ocean dumping if a material is deemed to degrade the marine environment. Given 
the establishment of this balancing review, do you think that the waiver provision is 
still necessary? 
Answer. The waiver provision would be considered for overriding economic rea- 
sons in terms of evaluating alternatives, as well as for national interest reasons. In 
regard to national interest considerations, the timely dredging of Federal navigation 
channels, such as the entrance to New York Harbor or the Mississippi River, which 
are of regional as well as national economic importance, is essential to insure that 
the flow of commodities such as fuel oil is not unduly impeded. 
In several cases throughout the U.S., maintenance of major Federal naviation 
projects has been unduly delayed because of differences of opinion between resource 
agencies in interpreting results of laboratory bioaccumulation tests which were de- 
veloped to implement the provisions of the Act. This has often led to last minute, 
crisis-oriented meetings between regulatory and resource agencies which have usu- 
ally resulted in only temporary solutions to the disposal problems. These crisis-ori- 
ented situations are often recurring and are becoming increasingly complicated by 
an increased inavailability of inland disposal alternatives. 
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), MPRSA, the Clean Water Act 
and other appropriate regulatory provisions, require the Corps to carefully evaluate 
all feasible disposal alternatives. Our evaluations carefully consider environmental 
as well as economic factors. The Clean Water Act, the MPRSA and other regula- 
tions were established for a single purpose and/or for a single disposal medium, 
and, quite often at the environmental expense of other disposal media. The proposed 
amendments to the MPRSA have not resolved this problem and, in fact, we feel that 
the proposed amendment would increase the restrictive regulation of ocean dump- 
ing at the expense of alternative disposal media. 
Thus, we strongly feel that the waiver provision is still required as a last alterna- 
tive for certain situations where economic considerations in the national interest 
would clearly override disposal medium-specific environmental considerations. 
Question. How many waivers have been sought since enactment of the Act? 
Answer. The prerogative to grant a waiver belongs to EPA, not the Corps. To 
date, the action with EPA has centered around development of ocean dumping crite- 
ria, development of scientific tests and the interpretation of test data. EPA deter- 
mines whether a particular discharge meets the criteria. If EPA determines that 
the criteria are not met and if the Corps believes the waiver should be granted 
based on national economic interests, then such a waiver would be requested. How- 
ever, the Corps practice has been to try to modify the project in such a way that the 
