166 



derscored by the provision to terminate all dumping at the 12-mile site after Decem- 

 ber 31, 1986. If Congress does wish to reduce or even terminate dumping at the 12- 

 mile site, or any other site, it should consider doing so with the use of escalating 

 dumping fees. I am very skeptical of the efficacy of another so-called firm phaseout 

 date for ocean dumping. Even if all municipalities are able to comply with this 

 deadline, experience with other regulatory deadlines suggests that they often result 

 in hasty adoption of inefficient or inappropriate technologies. A fee system, on the 

 other hand, could be structured to gradually reduce or terminate dumpings at a 

 given site. The three year fee system for the 12-mile site proposed by the staff, for 

 instance, could easily be modified to reduce or terminate dumping at this site. This 

 could be done by continuing the annual incremental increases in the fee per ton 

 until the desired level of dumping was achieved. This system would give individual 

 municipalities the opportunity and incentive to develop long-term, practical waste 

 disposal alternatives. 



Finally, the fee system proposed by the staif is unnecessarily complicated. I be- 

 lieve a more straight forward fee system, gilbeit more detailed, could be designed. 

 Under such a system, for instance, the dumping fee level would be based on three 

 factors: costs associated with ocean dumping incurred by federal agencies, the loca- 

 tion of the dump site and the characteristics of the wastes to be dumped. This fee 

 structure would be well suited to include other sources of ocean dumping, such as 

 dredge material and fly ash, if so desired in the future. 



CONCLUSION 



A carefully designed fee system could be the cornerstone of a sound program to 

 manage wastes in the ocean. The fees could be structured to encourage sound waste 

 disposal practices. The revenue generated by the levy, moreover, could be used to 

 address many of the scientific uncertainties associated with ocean waste disposal. In 

 short, it is a versatile regulatory and revenue generating tool which deserves serious 

 consideration. The staff fee proposal contains commendable provisions with respect 

 to revenue distribution but fgiils to address regulatory uses of fee systems. 



I appreciate the opportunity to present my views and am pleased to respond to 

 any questions. 



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



Let me start with you, Mr. Lahey. 



One of the things you recommend and we thought about is the 

 variable fee system. Is it your feeUng that it would be practically 

 possible and feasible to develop that fee and not get into a morass 

 of problems associated with the quantity and degree of pollutants? 



Mr. Lahey. When we speak of the variable fee we could talk 

 about variable according to different sites or variable according to 

 the contaminant constituents in the waste. 



Admittedly one could conceive of a fee which varied according to 

 the constituents of the waste that would be complex and indeed 

 perhaps unenforceable. 



My suggestion would be to initially consider a simple fee struc- 

 ture; perhaps based on three parameters. Examples of parameters 

 to consider are bioassay tests or concentration of certain contami- 

 nants of concern, such as PCB's or mercury. 



The current permitting process requires relatively detailed infor- 

 mation on the types and amounts of contaminants in the waste to 

 be ocean dumped. Since this information is already available to the 

 EPA I do not forsee any major problem arising from a fee which is 

 indexed to key contaminants in the waste. This view is underscored 

 by the detailed variable charge system for pollution control used in 

 France. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop- 

 ment recently concluded that the French system worked quite effi- 

 ciently and did not create burdensome administrative expenses. 



I wouldn't contemplate initially adopting a variable fee based on 

 five or six different parameters in the wastes. So you could design 



