150 
that the nutrients, trace metals, etc. associated with the soil, are present in a form 
which can be utilized by garden plants. 
Even in ocean disposal, it is quite often desirable to confine these materials 
within a designated site, as opposed to dispersing the material. The Corps, with 
great encouragement from Representatives to the LDC, is actively seeking out and 
evaluating innovative aquatic disposal techniques such as capping contaminated ma- 
terials with clean sediment, disposal in subaqueous, anaerobic borrow pits, etc., as a 
means of confining these materials, maintaining the original geochemistry of the 
dredged sediment, and, in essence, isolating the associated contaminants from the 
aquatic environment. 
If ongoing research on these and other innovative aquatic disposal alternatives for 
contaminated materials proves them to be environmentally feasible, then the next 
research step would be to evaluate appropriate existing and/or innovative dredging 
and disposal technologies to maximize the environmental acceptability of these 
methods while simultaneously insuring maximum economic efficiency of the dredg- 
ing/disposal techniques. 
Question. What differences exist between the Corps and EPA in interpretation of 
predictive procedures to evaluate long-term effects of ocean disposal of dredged ma- 
terial, as noted on page 6 of your testimony? 
Answer. The acute, or short-term predictive tests (laboratory bioassays for toxic- 
ity) and the long-terrm predictive tests (laboratory bioaccumulation tests) were de- 
veloped by a joint EPA/Corps technical committee composed of senior scientists and 
ecologists from each agency’s research community. 
As stated in the implementation manual for these tests, which was prepared by 
the joint technical Committee, the results of these predictive tests are not to be used 
as a sole determinant on decisionmaking regarding impacts, but should be used, 
along with other available scientific knowledge, in making a final decision regarding 
impacts. The tests require use of “anticipate worst case disposal conditions” as well 
as the use of highly sensitive marine test organisms, to include species known to 
bioaccumulate heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbon constituents such as PCB’s, 
etc. 
Existing differences between regulatory agencies in interpreting test results 
center almost exclusively on the fact that several EPA regional offices and other 
Federal agencies consider that, if laboratory test results indicate any bioaccumula- 
tiuon, then the material is considered totally unacceptable for ocean disposal. How- 
ever, this is contradictory to the intent of the tests which were developed as a 
conservative predictor, or “red flag’’, of impacts to be used along with other scientif- 
ic knowledge in assessing impacts. The extensive research conducted to date by EPA 
and the Corps as well as independent, national and international research has dem- 
onstrated that many marine species naturally regulate heavy metals and other con- 
taminants of concern. This research shows not clear-cut trends regarding impact 
from bioaccumulation. 
The Corps and EPA have initiated joint research on long term effects of dredged 
material disposal to include an assessment of the ecological significance, if any, of 
bioaccumulation. 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY Mr. D’AMouRS AND ANSWERED BY NOAA 
Question 1. Preliminary estimates from NOAA indicate that sewage sludge dump- 
ing could increase from the current seven million wet tons to 17 million wet tons 
per year in the Boston-Washington corridor by 1987. Has NOAA made a forecast of 
the possible impact from such dumping? 
Answer. We have hypothesized the consequences of transferring the present 
annual sewage sludge volume of seven million wet tons from the New York Bight to 
the 106-mile site. Forecasting the impact of a larger volume is difficult due to the 
unknown character of the sewage sludge and what sites might be used. 
Question 2. Does NOAA believe that we have sufficient knowledge to implement a 
multi-media waste management program on a regional basis? 
Answer. NOAA and the community of marine scientists can define the expected 
environmental consequences of ocean disposal. Other agencies can evaluate the en- 
vironmental effects of disposal in other media, including the economic ramification. 
A cooperative effect should be successful in developing comprehensive, regional 
multi-media waste management plans. 
Question 8. Current federal regulatory measures are generally directed at individ- 
ual pollutants or activities, yet marine ecosystem degradation results from the accu- 
mulated impacts of all pollution sources, including adverse effects of habitat change 
or loss. Does NOAA have any recommendations on how to deal with this problem? 
