296 
degree by allowing many of these activities to occur simultaneously. Also, increased 
funding could serve to accelerate the ability of these agencies to make decisions. 
Most importantly, if the ocean is going to be increasingly used as a waste disposal 
option—and it appears likely this is so—then research and monitoring funding must 
be increased to keep ahead, or at least abreast, of these activities. 
(8) You have identified the need for incentives for reuse and recycling of materi- 
als. Could you be more specific? 
The NACOA report pointed out how imaginative efforts by municipalities and in- 
dustry to reuse and recycle waste were inhibited by Federal regulations, public per- 
ceptions, and the market structure. 
One incentive would be the establishment of user fees, such as is proposed in the 
MPRSA amendments. 
Another is the metering of inputs from industrial sites, and the characterizing of 
waste contributions that could lead to charges on pollutants. 
Finally, there could be financial support for recycling and reuse through subsidies 
for promising technology, and tax deferrals for recycling equipment. 
Mr. ForsyTHE. To follow upon the research question, we ought 
never to say we have found the answer. The further we go, the 
more we find we really do not know and should know. 
It is important that we make the best possible effort and make it 
continuous. 
Dr. Knauss. I could not agree with you more as a scientist, sir. I 
am always surprised at what I think I know, and I find out a few 
years later I am less sure than I was. 
Mr. ForsyTHE. That leads into the question of the funding and 
fees that are addressed in the draft amendments and which were 
discussed by Mayor Koch this morning. The Mayor took some ex- 
ception to a flat fee but thought there ought to be some way to 
assess the shared costs. Do you have any comment on that idea? 
Dr. KNauss. Do you mean as to who should pay the fees? 
Mr. ForsyTHE. Yes; should it be based on the tons of sludge or is 
there some other way which might be a little bit more sophisticat- 
ed than saying every ton of sludge is going to pay “X’’? 
Dr. Knauss. I do not have very useful ideas on this. However, let 
me make one possible suggestion. The ultimate hope, of course, is 
that we will recycle as much of this material as we possibly can. 
One of the ways in which you can encourage recycling at industrial 
sites, and others, is to establish a sufficiently high enough fee that 
there is encouragement to try to look at ways in which they can 
reduce the amount of material that they would be otherwise put- 
ting in a sewer system. 
Mr. ForsytHe. As a matter of fact, I think I was the first 
member of this committee to propose just that kind of fee. I 
became less enamored of it later because it was not locked into re- 
search monitoring, which I believe would be essential if we were to 
go this way. 
I am prepared to try to find some way to make this work in a 
way that wouldn’t destroy those who will have to pay the fee. For 
instance, to assess New York City be the equivalent of the differ- 
ence between the costs at the 12-mile and 106-mile sites, would be 
relatively ridiculous. 
Dr. Knauss. I would like to add one word to that. Coming from 
Rhode Island, I would hope that fees such as this would be estab- 
lished at the Federal level and not at the State level. It would be 
very easy for electroplating plants to move from Providence, R.I., 
to Attleboro, Mass., or vice versa, depending upon who has the 
