97 
Mr. Scuatzow. We have a few problems with the way it is set 
up. My staff and I have met with the committee staff members and 
we have discussed in detail our reactions to a number of the provi- 
sions. 
In terms of the financial management provision or the user fee 
provision that was in the proposed committee draft—we had some 
problems in terms of our ability to administer it because it was un- 
clear as to how one would deal with the site-selection process when 
more than one applicant might use the site over a period of time. 
When we go designate, for instance, a new site, or when we go with 
a monitoring program at a site, who actually pays? Does the exist- 
ing dumper pay? Does he bear the complete cost? Does the new 
dumper bear the charge? We just felt that administratively it was 
too complicated. 
That is why, I think, in our comments we are looking for a man- 
agment fee system which is much easier to administer. 
Mr. D’Amours. Do you have any other specific problems with the 
staff recommendations? 
Mr. ScHatzow. I have a number of concerns. Although the 
Agency has not taken an official position on it, I would like to 
share with you some of my concerns. 
I think it ties in very much with the question which you were 
asking as to wouldn't it be helpful to the Agency in administering 
this act to get much more explicit guidance from the Congress as to 
the meaning of the terms. 
I think that might be a very good idea. Our problem is that when 
we look at this draft, it was unclear that we were going to get the 
guidance. I think the issues are very difficult to wrestle with. Let 
me go through a few of them. 
One thing in very general terms which the draft attempted to do 
was to get away from the notion of unreasonable degradation and 
the balancing of alternatives, and instead to substitute the notion 
of degradation, seemingly to avoid the balancing. 
I guess that I have a number of concerns. I am not at all sure 
how the word “degrade” or “degradation” would be defined. I am 
not sure what we are really talking about when we are talking 
about adverse effects. Are we talking about any adverse effects? 
Are we talking about any level of bioaccumulation? Are we talking 
about any effect at all in the environment? 
The language itself appeared to us to be as difficult to implement 
as the present statute in terms of making those kinds of judgments 
unless its purpose was to define all disposal alternatives which 
have any negative impact at all, no matter how slight, as those 
which degrade. 
Within the definition, itself, there seems to be an inconsistency. 
Part 4 of the definition appeared to allow marine impacts so long 
as the area could restore itself after dumping is terminated. Yet, 
part 2 of the definition appearently would classify any adverse 
impact as degradation. Therefore, it is unclear to us what the in- 
tention was there. Was there an intention to allow at least tempo- 
rary degradation within areas, within the dump site? Outside the 
dump site? 
Another area where we had problems was in terms of section 
102(a)(1)(d) which contained a complete ban on the ocean dumping 
