746 
Question. You have indicated that there are existing mechanisms to accomplish 
the coordination function of the proposed Commission. Are there any problems asso- 
ciated with these mechanisms and is there any representation from municipal sew- 
erage agencies with regard to their decision-making and recommendation functions? 
Answer. The National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) 
advises Federal programs governing oceans and the atmosphere including any gaps 
in these programs. NACOA consists of representatives from academic institutions, 
environmental groups, and affected industries. 
EPA, NOAA, and the Corps have a close working relationship which ensures co- 
ordination of all Federal research in this area. NOAA’s research is closely coordi- 
nated with affected groups. Independently of NOAA, EPA’s research plans undergo 
peer review both inside and outside the Agency before they are implemented. This 
review is carried out by researchers, academicians, and trade groups such as the As- 
sociation of Municipal Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), as appropriate. Moreover, EPA’s 
regional personnel who have contact with the permittees are involved in designing 
Agency ocean research strategies and can provide for permittee priorities in this 
context. Therefore, the mechanisms for coordination do exist and, we believe, are 
working. 
Question. If special fees were collected from 102 permittees and earmarked for ad- 
ditional site designation activities, is there any possibility those funds would be used 
for the designation of dredged material sites? 
How would you divide the site designation and monitoring costs among users 
under your proposal? 
Answer. We believe that it would be inappropriate to utilize special fees collected 
from municipal and/or industrial dumpers for any activities related solely to 
dredged material sites. Moreover, we do not believe that we should charge other fed- 
eral agencies for their ocean disposal activities. Since the majority of dredged mate- 
rial is disposed of by the Corps we plan to continue to fund these activities through 
the budget process. We will probably set up two separate accounts for the disposal 
program, one for dredged materials the other for non-dredged. Up to now, this divi- 
sion of accounts has not been necessary as both the dredged and non-dredged pro- 
grams as supported through the same funding source. 
We are still evaluating alternative bases for the fee, such as the degree of toxicity 
of the material dumped, whether or not the material has been ocean dumped in the 
past, and where the sites are located (e.g., on or off the Continental Shelf). 
Question. If EPA had the authority to recover all costs associated with ocean 
dumping, what ange of fees would you expect to assess 102 permittees for: 
(a) processing permit applications? 
(b) designating dump sites? 
(c) monitoring activities? 
(d) research? 
(e) development? 
Answer. (a) The average cost for processing a permit application is $8,000. 
(b) The average cost for designating an ocean dumping site is $500,000. Of course, 
the exact cost of designating a specific site will depend on the existing available 
information on that site, the depth and hydrology of the site, the wastes to be dumped 
there, and the proximity of the site to special or critical areas. The fee assessed each 
permittee will depend on the numbers of sites and dumpers, and the method of 
allocation utilized. 
(c) The costs for monitoring activities will also vary greatly depending on the wastes 
being dumped, the depth and hydrology of the site, the proximity of the site to areas of 
human use or valuable marine resources, and the like. For example, Federal agencies 
have been spending roughly $2.5 million annually on monitoring in addition to the 
monitoring conducted by the 102 permittees themselves. 
(d) and (e) The cost for research and development activities have been roughly $2.0 
million annually. 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY Mr. ForsyTHE AND ANSWERED BY NOAA 
Question 1. How is the present monitoring program divided between EPA, NOAA, 
and the 102 permittes? 
Answer. In an attempt to define the respective roles of the Federal agencies, 
municipalities, and dumpers in respect to monitoring, NOAA and EPA recently 
sponsored a series of regional workshops, addressing such factors as what constitutes 
adequate monitoring, the objectives and the various forms of monitoring, and how to 
integrate regional strategies into a national framework. Based on the results of 
