721 
larly Mr. Hughes, who may have more questions, I would like to 
ask a few further questions of the panel. 
Captain Swanson, following up on our dialog earlier, do you 
think you could submit to me in writing how NOAA distinguishes 
between those research cost recovery user fees that it does support 
and those in this bill that it does not; that is the reason for distin- 
guishing. Could you give me that in writing? That would be very 
helpful to me. 
Mr. SWANSON. Yes, sir. 
[The information follows:] 
SUPPORT OF CERTAIN RECOVERY OF RESEARCH Costs 
NOAA supports the recovery of costs, including the costs of appropriate research, 
through user fees. We would support the recovery of research costs where the 
nature of the research could be associated unequivocably with the product, service, 
or function involved, i.e., where it can be shown that the user to pay the fee benefits 
directly from the research in question. We would find it difficult to recover the re- 
search costs associated with a broad agency mission, for example. In regard to 
NOAA’s résearch on problems associated with sewage sludge disposal, NOAA con- 
ducts programs of studies of a generic and long-term nature. It is this kind of broad, 
trend-identification investigation that could not be supported by fees of users with 
specific waste or site-oriented problems. NOAA thus distinguishes between the kind 
of research that can be associated with user fees and a broader, mission-oriented 
and more generic and longer-term research with which user fee identification would 
be difficult. 
Mr. D’Amours. This question goes to either of you. You do distin- 
guish apparently between monitoring work and research work, do 
you not? 
Mr. Epsness. I don’t have an answer for that. 
Mr. D’Amours. I should let Captain Swanson go, because he had 
an answer. He said yes. 
Mr. Erpsness. I don’t know how to make that cut. Perhaps be- 
cause I am not a scientist. 
Mr. D’Amours. How do you distinguish between monitoring and 
research, Captain Swanson? 
Mr. Swanson. We view monitoring as being the application of 
science that is reasonably well known, looking at long term trends 
in the marine environment, whereas, in research, we look at this 
as being more the development of new knowledge. In the field of 
ocean dumping there is a monitoring component, and there is a re- 
search component and there is also a gray area that overlaps both. 
Mr. D’Amours. I appreciate that answer. 
Mr. Borberg, representing the Conference on Coastal Agencies, is 
going to testify a bit later and he contends that the Federal agen- 
cies don’t sustain any field costs as a result of monitoring, but in- 
stead, they charge the municipalities with the responsibility for col- 
lecting data. Is that accurate? 
Mr. Eipsness. I would like to answer that, if I may. EPA does 
impose, in the discharge permits themselves, monitoring require- 
ments, the expenses of which are borne by municipalities, but it is 
my understanding EPA also does compliance monitoring as well. It 
is done in one sense as a check on the work being done in terms of 
quality control and quality assurance, and in another sense, to fill 
in the gaps that may exist in a monitoring program, specified in a 
permit condition. 
Lies Crys wus) 4p 
