291 
At the same time, EPA and NOAA programs planned for fiscal 
year 1983 seem inadequate to handle this renewed activity. EPA’s 
management and research resources for ocean disposal work are 
level funded. NOAA’s budget for supporting ocean disposal re- 
search is cut by 60 percent. Even at the fiscal year 1982 budget 
level, NOAA’s recently published milestone charts show that, be- 
cause of budget constraints, their programs could not provide re- 
search results in a timely enough fashion for many regulatory deci- 
sions, such as new EPA ocean dumping regulations, for example. 
Given the current situation, NACOA has several points to make. 
First, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no significant 
change in scientific knowledge that would cause NACOA to change 
its 1981 recommendations. In fact, a National Research Council 
symposium last June at the University of Delaware supported the 
view that the oceans have considerably more capacity for receiving 
some kinds of wastes—under controlled conditions and at carefully 
selected sites—than we are currently using. NACOA continues to 
believe that ocean dumping should be a waste disposal option, but 
this option must be carefully weighed against land-based and incin- 
eration alternatives. 
Second, we must safeguard against indiscriminate dumping. Be- 
cause ocean disposal may well be a politically and economically 
easy choice in the face of growing land disposal problems, any in- 
creased use of the oceans for waste disposal must be accompanied 
by strong and viable management and assessment programs. 
NACOA believes that carefully designed monitoring programs are 
essential so that we can be alerted to any unexpected negative im- 
pacts; and that a solid basic research effort must be in place so that 
we can begin to predict waste disposal effects. 
Third, NACOA believes that EPA and NOAA funding plans for 
ocean disposal management and research programs fall short of 
meeting these needs. Therefore, we must look to Congress to insure 
that the essential management, research, and monitoring efforts 
are provided for. 
Given the current economic climate, it may not be possible, or 
even desirable, for the Federal Government to be the sole source of 
funding for these efforts. NACOA supports the notion of payments 
from municipal and industrial waste dumpers to supplement Fed- 
eral funds for management, monitoring, and research programs. 
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me make several comments on your 
staff's discussion draft of proposed amendments to the Ocean 
Dumping Act. Because the full text was not available for discussion 
at the last NACOA meeting, we have not examined the amend- 
ments in detail, but I note that several of the proposals parallel 
NACOA’s recommendations. I think it is safe to say we support the 
proposal to consider ocean dumping as a waste disposal option if no 
prudent and feasible alternative exists. NACOA also supports the 
emphasis placed on continued improvement of preprocessing and 
recycling techniques; on careful site designation; and on continued 
monitoring and basic research concerning ocean disposal effects. 
We concur with the proposal to institute a fee system to guarantee 
adeduate funds for the management, monitoring, and research 
efforts. 
