159 



Mr. Hughes. Thank you very much, Mr. Kamlet. 

 Mr. Lahey. 



STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. LAHEY 



Mr. Lahey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



As indicated I am William Lahey, with the Woods Hole Oceano- 

 graphic Institution. I am pleased to be here to discuss fee systems 

 for ocean dumping. 



I would like to take a few minutes to summarize my written tes- 

 timony which is submitted for the record. 



Environmental charge systems are often designed to achieve one 

 of two purposes: To raise revenues or to discourage activities that 

 degrade the environment. In practice, however, many systems have 

 a regulatory effect and revenue generating function. 



Indeed, there are a number of examples of pricing mechanisms 

 designed both to generate revenue and regulate pollution — what 

 can be called a dual purpose charge system. 



There are a number of reasons for considering a dual purpose 

 charge system for ocean dumping. The fee could be structured to 

 achieve important regulatory goals. The fee moreover, could pro- 

 vide a source of revenue which could be used for waste manage- 

 ment activities. 



The fee proposal contained in the May 16, 1983, staff draft, in 

 other words the Hughes-Forsythe proposal, is commendable in 

 terms of how the revenue would be distributed. But it could go fur- 

 ther in incorporating important regulatory uses of fees. 



Earmarking a large percentage of the revenue from the 12-mile 

 site to State and local governments for development of long-term 

 disposal options is sensible. Such a scheme could spawn a wide va- 

 riety of approaches to waste disposal. It may be wise, however, to 

 amend the revenue distribution ratio to provide for more funding 

 for Federal programs including research and development of alter- 

 native disposal methods. Funding a comprehensive multimedia as- 

 sessment of options for municipalities in the New York-New Jersey 

 region is a sound idea. 



The staffs fee proposal could incorporate many potential benefi- 

 cial regulatory uses of pricing mechanisms which it does not now 

 include. There are no provisions for varying the fee level to create 

 incentives for sound waste disposal practices. The staff proposal, 

 for instance, could vary the fee level according to types and concen- 

 trations of contaminants in the wastes. The present staff draft in- 

 stead relies on waste quality standards. And past experiences with 

 numerical standards suggests that we should consider an alterna- 

 tive approach. A variable fee system may be a wise alternative. 



I wonder whether we want another deadline for dumping at the 

 12-mile site. If Congress wishes to terminate dumping at the site it 

 should consider doing so with the use of escalating dumping fees. 



I am skeptical of efficacy of another so-called firm phaseout date 

 for ocean dumping even if all municipalities were able to comply 

 with the deadline experience with other deadlines suggest they 

 often result in hasty adoption of inefficient or inappropriate tech- 

 nologies. A fee system on the other hand, could be designed to 

 gradually reduce or terminate dumping at a given site. It could 



