749 
Question 7. Is it reasonable to expect your agency to be able to accurately esti- 
mate the costs to be incurred for your monitoring activities sufficiently in advance 
in order to fairly assess the fees to users? 
Answer. Within normal ranges of predictability, costs to be incurred for monitor- 
ing can be estimated in advance for fee purposes. Actual costs might be determined 
through some audit arrangement with provision for cost adjustment or forward-car- 
ried credit. 
Question 8. With regard to the past site designation process, who chose the site to 
be studied and who carried out the data collection activities-EPA, NOAA, or the ap- 
plicant? 
Answer. EPA either designated the site to be studied or established historical 
sites on an interim basis until adequate studies could be carried out. Data needed 
were obtained by field surveys or by using existing data from all sources including 
that held by NOAA or by potential users of the site. NOAA has provided data to 
EPA and to EPA contractors for EIS and site designation purposes in sites in the 
New York Bight and at the 106-mile site. EISs are reviewed by all concerned parties 
including NOAA, the applicants, and appropriate community and conservation 
groups. NOAA has been involved directly in the site designation process for a) con- 
ducting research and preparing reports for a proposed 65-mile sewage sludge site in 
the New York Bight, and b) current studies associated with establishment of a 
dredged material site off Norfolk, Virginia. . 
Question 9. To what extent does NOAA get involved in the site selection process? 
Answer. The answer to this question is provided in #8 above. In addition, discus- 
sions are in progress with EPA to give NOAA some appropriate role in phases of 
the site selection process. 
Question 10. It is appropriate to designate specific sites for dumping of waste ma- 
terial into ocean waters, assuming they meet the criteria for such dumping, or 
would it ever be desirable to dump the materials in more than one area? 
Answer. Decisions associated with designation of single-use and/or single or mul- 
tiple sites depend on the specific circumstances surrounding the problem. From the 
environmental standpoint it is possible that multiple sites might be desirable if the 
volume of wastes exceeded the ability of a single site to accept or disperse it proper- 
ly. However, it appears that some sites (e.g., the 106-mile site) can accommodate vol- 
umes of wastes in excess of that now being disposed. Further, some site may be used 
for given combinations of wastes (such as chemical wastes and sewage sludge) while 
others should not. Conceptually, it is possible that large areas such as slope waters 
in general or the Gulf Stream could be used for disposal purposes, i.e., it may be 
feasible to depart from using fixed, finite sites, although further investigation of 
such disposal strategies is required. 
Question 11. Do you think the existence of a Commission would encourage or dis- 
courage research by your agency? 
Answer. Existence of a Commission would inevitably lead to overlap and duplica- 
tion, complicating roles and research responsibilities. The resulting confusion would 
not make for an environment conducive to effective research. 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSMAN FORSYTHE AND ANSWERED BY CONFERENCE 
oF CoAsTAL AGENCIES 
USER FEES 
Question 1. You have heard the testimony from EPA and NOAA concerning their 
views on the collection of user fees. Would you please comment on their proposal to 
set up a user fee system through the regulatory process? 
Answer. CCA believes that user fees for ocean waste disposal should not include 
any costs other than the administrative costs of site designation and permit process- 
ing. There would be no need to go through a rulemaking process to establish the 
user fees that we would find equitable. We do believe that a mandatory arbitration 
process should be used to settle disputes over what is, and what is not, to be includ- 
ed as part of the government’s “reasonable” administrative costs. ane 
Question 2. How would your agencies define “reasonable administrative costs” in- 
curred by EPA or NOAA for the processing of a permit or the designation of a site 
for the dumping of sewage sludge? : : , 
Answer. We would like to see records of actual costs of site designation, and 
permit processing, in the past. Any proposed increases in such costs should be ex- 
plained by the agency before they move to collect such increases; and any disputes 
