663 
lished NACOA, and EPA has its own advisory group in the Science 
Advisory Board. 
In sum, the Agency appreciates the subcommittees’ efforts in de- 
veloping a fee system. However, we believe that this system needs 
clarification in many places. We are encouraged at the prospect of 
developing such a system and look forward to working with you in 
the near future. 
Mr. D’Amours. Captain Swanson, you may proceed. 
STATEMENT OF R. LAWRENCE SWANSON 
Mr. Swanson. We will submit our formal testimony for the 
record and I will quickly summarize. 
Mr. D’Amours. Without objection, it is so ordered. 
Mr. Swanson. Mr. Chairman, NOAA is opposed to both of the 
amendments introduced in these bills. We do, however, reiterate 
our support for the concept of user fees. Activities that use the 
oceans for waste disposal should be expected to pay the costs associ- 
ated with regulating and monitoring the short- and long-term ef- 
fects of that use. 
It can be said that failure to establish this principle in effect pro- 
vides an incentive and even a subsidy to continue the use of the 
oceans for this purpose, and thus a potential to overuse it. The ap- 
plication of the concept of user fees in regard to ocean waste dis- 
posal will help to assure that adequate funds will be available to 
undertake necessary regulatory and monitoring activities. 
NOAA endorses the proposal that EPA recover the costs associat- 
ed with site designation and periodic monitoring of the dump sites. 
We do not agree with the draft amendment proposing the Ocean 
Waste Management Commission and the use of special fees for re- 
search activities. 
The Commission would be charged with undertaking a continu- 
ing comprehensive assessment of all research and monitoring of 
sewage sludge dumping, supporting necessary research and moni- 
toring on sewage sludge dumping research and on alternative 
methods of sewage sludge dumping, and submitting an annual 
report to Congress. 
NOAA strongly opposes the concept of the Ocean Waste Manage- 
ment Commission. The proposed Commission and its advisory com- 
mittee would introduce yet another layer of bureaucracy into the 
entire process. We view the Commission as an unnecessary entity 
that would duplicate activities of existing Government agencies. 
In sum, we endorse the concept of user fees but believe the pro- 
posed scheme of implementing them would prove expensive and 
cumbersome. We do support such user fees as are appropriate to 
insure the wise use of the oceans for waste disposal purposes but 
believe a more simplified approach is required. 
Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to work with you and your com- 
mittee staff in looking further into this concept and I would be 
glad to try to answer any questions you might have at this time. 
Thank you. 
[The statement of Mr. Swanson follows:] 
