674 
Answer. It is not our intent to use the fee system as a means to discourage or 
encourage any disposal alternative. The purpose of the system is to recoup funds 
which the Agency expends for program activities in direct support of permittees. 
It is not really possible to accurately determine a level of costs which would act to 
shift municipal sludge disposal away from the ocean and toward other media. This 
is because the costs of ocean dumping vary significantly from dumper to dumper 
and from site to site, and the costs of other disposal methods vary greatly from 
option to option and from dumper to dumper. 
In general, however, it can be said that the costs of ocean dumping are lower than 
the costs of other alternatives, and an ocean dumping user fee would have to be 
very high in order to shift the economic balance. For example, New York City dis- 
poses of about 3.5 million wet tons of municipal sludge annually. Dumping this 
sludge at the 12 mile site costs the City about $1.5 million annually, roughly $1.30/ 
ton. This compares to a user fee of roughly $14.30/ton for land based alternatives. 
Thus, it would take a user fee of $13.00/ton to equalize the costs at the 12 mile site 
with land disposal. 
Mr. D’Amours. Mr. Carney. 
Mr. CaARNEY. I have one question of the Chair. As a member of 
all three subcommittees that are conducting the hearings today, do 
I get 15 minutes? 
Mr. D’Amours. The answer is no. 
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
I think the chairman, Mr. Scheuer, brings out a very important 
point there with user fees. If there is an inequity between types of 
methods to dispose of sewage sludge, the Federal Government in a 
very roundabout way would be forcing one media to be used and 
perhaps the followup support of the communities and Members of 
Congress as well, and I think we have to be very careful with that. 
I would like to pursue some questions along the line of monitor- 
ing and that is, I would like to know how specifically is it divided 
up between EPA and NOAA? That is, monitoring of the 102 
permit? 
Mr. Erpsness. Currently, how specifically? The two agencies rep- 
resented here do environmental monitoring. 
Mr. Carney. Who would do the research activity out there? 
Mr. EIpsNEss. Right now, EPA is conducting research, so is 
NOAA, and apparently the Corps of Engineers, although I can’t 
speak to what this research is at the present time. 
Mr. Swanson. If I might add, EPA and NOAA have divided up 
their roles with respect to research. We have done this, I think, 
rather intelligently. EPA’s research is primarily in the area of 
aquatic toxicology in laboratory studies, whereas NOAA primarily 
deals with oceanic processes and environmental research and look- 
ing for effects actually occurring in the marine environment. 
Mr. Carney. I am glad you brought that out. The effect would be 
the responsibility of NOAA on the marine environment. It was my 
understanding at a Public Works Committee hearing, EPA claimed 
that the dumping of sewage sludge in the New York Bight would 
have no effect on the New York Bight. I would have to think that 
that would be something officially coming out of NOAA, because 
they would be responsible for the R&D in that area. Would you 
like to comment on that, sir? 
Mr. Emsness. I think the Captain might be the Beiter one. | 
think you are right, that NOAA was basically doing the monitoring 
research in much of that area. 
