163 



incinerator residue. Moreover, a number of significant advances in waste processing, 

 such as in the area of industrial pretreatment, have occured only recently. These 

 factors suggest that recent and projected cutbacks in federal research and develop- 

 ment monies could retard the implementation of safe and useful waste disposal 

 techniques. 



There are also other reasons for adopting a dual purpose charge system for ocean 

 dumping. A dumping charge would likely be more equitable than the current regu- 

 latory system. The enforcement history of the ocean dumping regulations, for in- 

 stance, has been inconsistent; while the EPA systematically phased out the small 

 volume municipal dumpers during the 1970s most of the large volume dumpers con- 

 tinue to ocean dump. This unequal treatment has been more the result of the vaga- 

 ries of direct regulation than a response to differences in the merits of dumping ap- 

 plications. This inequity would be eliminated under a charge system since it would 

 be relatively easy to ensure uniform imposition of a fee. 



Finally, a charge approach to ocean dumping also offers valuable regulatory flexi- 

 bility. Since our knowledge of the effects of waste disposal in the ocean is rudimen- 

 tary, future scientific findings may prompt us to completely rethink our ocean dis- 

 posal policy. The need for disposing wastes in the ocean will not remain static. Fac- 

 tors such as advances in alternative disposal technologies and demographic changes 

 will alter the need for ocean dumping in the future, given these uncertainties it 

 seems important to adopt a regulatory program which is able to respond to chang- 

 ing conditions. 



IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 



While there are a number of compelling justifications to developing a multi-pur- 

 pose charge system, translating the theory into a viable federal program requires 

 that a number of implementation issues by addressed. The following section devel- 

 ops and frames the questions which must be addressed prior to implementing an 

 ocean dumping charge. It does not, however, attempt to design a fee system. Instead, 

 the implementation issues are presented and the salient arguments associated with 

 these questions are analyzed. 



First, what institutional body sets the fee level? The charge could be determined 

 by Congress, much as is done for traditional taxes; the federal agency which cur- 

 rently has regulatory authority, the EPA or Corps of Engineers; or by a specially 

 created body. A charge system which requires modifications in the charge to be ap- 

 proved by Congress would be a very inflexible regulatory tool. Such a system would 

 negate one of the primary assets of a dumping charge — an ability to respond easily 

 to environmental, economic or technological changes. 



Charges could be set and the revenue managed by a special institutional body. 

 Indeed, a quasi-governmental commission to manage revenue generated frorn ocean 

 dumping user fees was proposed in congress in 1982. A special charge-setting au- 

 thority has both advantages and drawbacks. If the charge authority is made up of 

 representatives from both industry and government this institutional structure may 

 inspire wider political acceptability and cooperation from industry. The fee-setting 

 and collection authority for the Japanese emission tax, for instance, is a quasi-gov- 

 ernmental agency that is made up of representatives from industry. Students of the 

 Japanese system have found that this institutional structure encourages industry 

 cooperation and political acceptability. The Germans, moreover, have a pollution 

 charge system which is managed by an independent agency made up of representa- 

 tives from the polluting industries and affected cities. Commentators have conclud- 

 ed that, on the whole, this institutional structure functions well. 



A possible drawback to creating a special fee-setting authority, on the other hand, 

 is that it would unnecessarily duplicate many of the activities now being conducted 

 by Federal agencies. Setting the charge level, especially if the charge varies accord- 

 ing to waste characteristics and environmental conditions, will entail the collection 

 and evaluation of large amounts of technical information. These activities are al- 

 ready being conducted by three federal organizations: Environmental Protection 

 Agency, National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration; and the Corps of engi- 

 neers. The National Advisory Committee on the Oceans and Atmosphere also pro- 

 vides policy and technical advice on ocean dumping. 



In terms of administrative flexibility and institutional competence there are ad- 

 vantages to giving fee-setting authority to the EPA. Under this proposal Congress 

 would delegate authority to set the level of charge to EPA. Delegation of authority 

 to EPA in vague legislative language, however, will likely result in litigation over 

 the reasonableness of the charge EPA subsequently sets. A possible solution to this 

 problem is to build some sort of arbitration arrangement into the legislation. 



