664 
PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. LAWRENCE SWANSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MARINE 
PoLLUTION ASSESSMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittees, my name is Lawrence Swanson, I 
am the Director of the Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, which is the focal 
point within NOAA for the coordination of marine pollution activities in the 
agency, including research on ocean waste disposal. I am pleased to be here today to 
testify on the proposed user fee amendments to H.R. 6113 and on the proposed 
amendment to H.R. 6324, establishing an Ocean Waste Management Commission. 
The proposed amendments to H.R. 6118, a bill to amend Title I of the Ocean 
Dumping Act, would establish a system of user fees to recover the costs of permit- 
ting actions and of site selection, plus a special fee by sewage sludge dumpers for 
purposes of research on sewage sludge problems. Amendments to H.R. 6324 would 
establish an Ocean Waste Management Commission to administer the research. 
This Commission, together with its Advisory Committee, would be charged with sig- 
nificant responsibilities in directing the course of research into problems associated 
with the ocean disposal of sewage sludge. 
Mr. Chairman, NOAA is opposed to the amendments to both bills. Before I ex- 
plain the reasons behind this position, I would like to say, first, that we have 
worked very closely with your Committee staff on many aspects of ocean waste dis- 
posal, and are sensitive to your concerns. It is in this context that we offer our criti- 
cal yet we hope constructive comments on the proposed amendments. 
We do reiterate our support for the concept of user fees. Activities that use the 
oceans for waste disposal should be expected to pay the costs associated with regu- 
lating that use. It can be said that failure to establish this principle in effect pro- 
vides an incentive and even a subsidy to continue to use the oceans for this purpose, 
and the potential to overuse it. The application of the concept of user fees in regard 
to ocean waste disposal will help to assure that adequate funds will be available to 
undertake necessary regulatory activities. User fees represent a viable financing 
mechanism and provide the means for shifting the necessary costs associated with 
Federal regulation to those groups that benefit most from the practice of ocean 
dumping. The concept that those who benefit should pay the costs is fundamental 
policy of this Administration and NOAA fully supports it. 
Therefore, NOAA endorses the proposal that EPA recover the costs associated 
with site designation and periodic monitoring of the dumpsites. Where we do not 
agree with the draft amendments is on: (1) the proposed imposition of a special fee 
only on sewage sludge dumpers and not also on industrial waste and dredged mate- 
rial dumpers; (2) the use of the fee for research activities; and (8) the need for an 
Ocean Waste Management Commission. 
With respect to the proposed amendments to H.R. 6324, which would establish an 
Ocean Waste Management Commission, the Commission would be charged with: un- 
dertaking a continuing comprehensive assessment of all research and monitoring on 
sewage sludge dumping; supporting necessary research and monitoring on sewage 
sludge dumping; research on alternative methods of sewage sludge dumping; and 
submitting an annual report to Congress. The Commission would have three com- 
missioners, a full-time executive director and a full-time staff of nine individuals. 
The Commission would be advised by a 6-member Ocean Waste Management Advi- 
sory Committee. The proposed amendment requires that the $2,000,000 in funds to 
be generated each year from the special fee on sewage sludge dumpers be made 
available to the Commission. No less than 75 percent of these monies for any fiscal 
year is to be used for carrying out research and monitoring on sewage sludge dump- 
ing. 
NOAA strongly opposes the establishment of an Ocean Waste Management Com- 
mission. The proposed Commission and its Advisory Committee 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. 
Furthermore, the cost of the Commission would divert the user fee funds that would 
otherwise be available for research. 
In sum, we endorse the concept of user fees but believe the proposed scheme of 
implementing them would prove expensive and cumbersome, and duplicate a great 
deal of work now being undertaken or planned. We do support such user fees as are 
appropriate to ensure the wise use of the oceans for waste disposal purposes, but 
believe that a more simplified approach is required. 
We have tried to analyze these amendments in a positive sense, Mr. Chairman, 
and hope that our comments are helpful to the Committees in their deliberations. 
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my brief statement and I am prepared to answer 
any questions you have. 
