670 
STATEMENT OF Hon. JAMES H. SCHEUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 
STaTE oF NEw YORK 
Thank you, Mr. D’Amours. 
First, let me say that it is a pleasure to share this podium with you on an issue of 
mutual concern to our Subcommittees. 
I hope that this will be the first of many occasions where we work together on 
topics of common interest—topics such as acid rain, aquaculture, and a NOAA or- 
anic act. 
‘ Our Subcommittee on Science and Technology—the Subcommittee on Natural Re- 
sources, Agriculture Research, and Environment—has examined the topics of 
sewage sludge disposal and ocean pollution research for parts of at least five hear- 
ings during the 97th congress. 
We have found that there is an alarming lack of data comparing the environmen- 
tal effects of sludge disposal by ocean dumping, incineration, or landfill disposal. 
NOAA has testified that in the New York Bight, approximately 5 percent of the 
pollutant load is contributed by disposal of sewage sludge. 
However, because of inadequacies in the research base, it is not possible to deter- 
mine whether land or ocean disposal of a given waste would be more threatening to 
human health and the environment. 
Our subcommittee also concludes that in light of increasing pressures to dum 
wastes of all kinds in the oceans, the fiscal year 1983 budget requests of both NOAA 
and EPA for ocean pollution research were totally inadequate. 
The Science Committee has reported authorization bills for both of these agencies 
which would nearly double the Administration request for ocean pollution research 
funding. 
Whether or not these funds are ultimately provided to NOAA and EPA by Con- 
gress, it is apparent that in a period of budgetary restraint, we have to look at all 
possible options for funding activities which are clearly in the public interest. 
That is why I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman for developing the proposals that 
we are considering today. 
The Ocean Waste management commission seems to be an effective and equitable 
mechanism for collecting additional research fees and for forging closer cooperative 
links between the relevant Federal agencies and the affected municipalities. 
I do have some questions that I will pursue today regarding the allocation of user 
fees and the extent of the government activities which should be funded by the 
users, but I think that the concept itself is meritorious, and I look forward to hear- 
ing the testimony of our witnesses. 
Mr. SCHEUER. Let me ask you a few questions about EPA and 
NOAA, whose research activities come under the jurisdiction of the 
Science Subcommittee that I chair. 
First, if I understand the testimony, you would favor collection of 
user fees to cover the cost of permanent operations, permit process- 
ing, site designation and limited monitoring. But I take it you 
oppose fees to fund research programs. Perhaps you would break 
down your fiscal year 1983 request for activities which you are rec- 
ommending be covered by these user fees? 
Mr. Erpsness. I would have to get back to you, Congressman, on 
the record. I think that is an excellent proposal because in my tes- 
timony I tried to point out the importance of the question of audit- 
ability and what is the basis for cost, what costs are eligible for ap- 
plication. When you are in local government setting a user fee 
system for water sewer treatment, you go to your budget and mark 
those line items that you can allocate out for that particular func- 
tion. That would be a good step to take as a way of getting into the 
specifics on this. 
We will get back to you on this. It would not be in the order of a 
formal proposal. It would be basically initial thoughts we might 
have on that, but it would have to be subjected to a considerable 
amount of debate within the agency, with the administration, you, 
and the public. Please accept our response in that light. 
