144 



Mr. T. A. Wastler 

 Page 4 



Site, the funds could be used to offset the additional costs 

 involved and for monitoring purposes. Etc. The purpose of the "fee" 

 would in no sense be punitive. Rather, it would be analogous 

 to purchase of an option to buy land (except that the funds would 

 all be returned eventually, with interest). In this case, what 

 would be "bought" would be the option to spend money in furtherance 

 of an ultimate sludge management objective, rather than of an 

 interim objective which might later be shown to have been unnecessary 

 or unwise. 



Although the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

 Act does not specifically authorize imposition of the kind of 

 "fee" proposed, the statute does give the EPA Administrator broad 

 authority to "prescribe such processing fees for permits... as he 

 deems appropriate" (§ 104 (b) ) , and to "limit or deny the issuance 

 of permits..." {§ 104 (d) ) . And in view of the Administrator's 

 far-reaching discretion to withhold permit issuance where insufficient 

 information exists to permit him or her to confidently conclude 

 that proposed dumping will not "unreasonably degrade" the marine 

 environment, we believe there is ample legal authority to sustain 

 the proposed course of action. Of course, legalisms aside, if it 

 became clear to the municipalities that EPA was committed to either 

 immediately shifting all dumping to the 106-Mile Site, or adopting 

 our refundable fee proposal, it seems likely that the municipalities 

 would be inclined to voluntarily agree to the fee approach. 



The opportunity to convey these views is appreciated. 



Sincerely, 



Kenneth S. Kamlet, Director 

 Pollution & Toxic Substances 

 Division 



KSK/eh 



cc: NVfF Affiliate Organizations 

 in NY, NJ, DE, and MD 



