BRIEFING
DOCUMENT
Prepared by the
.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
for
THE PRESIDENT'S
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADVISORY BOARD
NEW YORK CITY
SEPTEMBER 26-29,1972
UJ
CD
T
-------
OCEAN DUMPING
A Briefing Document for
THE PRESIDENT'S
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ADVISORY BOARD
Prepared by
Lawson E. Whitesides, Jr.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
With the Assistance of
Regions I, II, III, IV, VI, IX, and X, E.P.A.
The Office of International Affairs, E.P.A.
The Office of Legislative Affairs, E.P.A.
James Verber, Food and Drug Administration, H.E.W.
New York District Office, Corps of Engineers
Policy Planning Division, E.P.A.
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION 2 - CURRENT OCEAN DISPOSAL PRACTICES 3
SECTION 3 - EFFECTS OF OCEAN DISPOSAL 15
SECTION 4 - ALTERNATIVES TO OCEAN DUMPING 19
SECTION 5 - CURRENT NATIONAL POLICY 23
SECTION 6.- FEDERAL OCEAN DUMPING LEGISLATION 31
SECTION 7 - STATE LEGISLATION AND CONTROL ACTIVITIES 35
SECTION 8 - INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITY 39
REFERENCES 43
-------
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
This Briefing Document has been written for the use of the
President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board in connection
with its meeting in New York City from September 26-29, 1972.
The topic of Ocean Disposal of Waste was covered authorita-
tively by the Council on Environmental Quality in its 1970 Report
to the President entitled Ocean Dumping: A National Policy (1). Much
has happened in this field in the intervening two years and, as
a result, some of the specific information in that report is
now out of date.
This Briefing Document has been assembled in an attempt to
bring information in the Council's Report up to date. Although
it has been written to be understandable by itself, it will be
most meaningful if read in connection with the Council's Report.
Every attempt has been made to include salient information
which the Advisory Board needs. This document should not,
however, be considered an exhaustive treatment of the subject.
-------
Particularly in the areas of research on the effects of ocean
dumping and alternatives to ocean dumping, it is impossible to
give complete coverage in a brief report. Presentations by
experts during the first and second days with attendant
questioning by the Board should plug gaps in the written
information available.
In the seven sections which follow, the material is
organized in the following way: Current Practices are reviewed
in Section 2 and followed by the Environmental Effects of these
practices in Section 3 and Alternatives to these practices in
Section 4. The Present National Policy is outlined in Section 5,
the status of new Federal Ocean Dumping Legislation is discussed
in Section 6, and State Legislation and Activity is reviewed in
Section 7. Section 8 describes current International Activity
to regulate and control ocean disposal of waste.
-------
SECTION 2 - CURRENT OCEAN DISPOSAL PRACTICES
In its 1970 Report to the President, the Council on Environ-
mental Quality reviewed ocean dumping practices for six materials
(1, p. iv).
Dredge Spoil - The solid material removed from the bottom
of water bodies generally for the purpose of improving
navigation: sand, silt, clay, rock, and pollutants that
have been deposited from municipal and industrial discharges.
Sewage Sludge - The solid material remaining after municipal
waste water treatment: residual human wastes and other
organic and inorganic wastes.
Solid Waste - More commonly called refuse, garbage, or trash.
The material generated by residences; commercial, agricultural,
and other establishments; hospitals and other institutions
and municipal operations. Chiefly paper, food wastes,
garden wastes, steel and glass containers, and other miscel-
laneous materials.
-------
Industrial Wastes - Acids; refinery, pesticide, and paper
mill waste; and assorted liquid wastes.
Construction and Demolition Debris - Masonry, tile, stone,
plastic, wiring, piping, shingles, glass, cinderblock, tar,
tarpaper, plaster, vegetation, and excavation dirt.
Radioactive Wastes - The liquid and solid wastes that result
from processing of irradiated fuel elements, nuclear reactor
operations, medical use of radioactive isotopes, and research
activities and from equipment and containment vessels which
become radioactive by induction.
This section will present more recent data on quantities of
materials disposed of, disposal sites, and disposal costs.
Estimates of the quantities of dumped material were presented
by the Council in its Report to the President. These estimates
were based on data supplied by the Dillingham Corporation for
1968 (2) and were later found to be incomplete (3). Verber's
revisions of these estimates were used in the later Dillingham
report (4) and are used as the 1968 figures here. Both the 1968
and the 1970 data presented here, like data used in the Council's
Report to the President, do not include waste piped into the ocean
but only that waste delivered by vessel.
Dredge Spoil
On a tonnage basis, dredge spoil is the largest waste category
being disposed of in the sea. Because of the large number of
dredge projects carried out all around the country at any one time,
-------
it is extremely difficult to compile a comprehensive inventory
of quantities disposed of. Estimates made by the Dillingham
Corporation (2) and used by the Council on Environmental Quality
in its 1970 Report to the President indicated that 38.4 million
tons of dredge spoil were dumped in the ocean in 1968 (1, p. 3).
However, Verber's careful review of the Dillingham data yielded the
following quite different estimates, which have been used in
a later Dillingham report (4).
Table A: Amount of Dredge Spoil Disposed of
in the Ocean during 1968
Annual Tonnage
Atlantic Coast 30,880,000
Gulf Coast 13,000,000
Pacific Coast 8.320.000
Total 52,200,000
No estimates for later years have been as carefully or comprehen-
sively assembled. However, some data are available for later
periods and can be compared.
On a national basis, a significant portion of the polluted
dredge spoil is disposed of at the New York Harbor dumping sites.
During the five-year period from 1964 to 1968 (inclusive) an
average of 7.5 million cubic yards of dredged material was dis-
posed of in the Harbor (7). In the year June 1969 - June 1970
this figure was 6.6 million cubic yards (8) and in the calendar
year 1971 the figure was 9.3 million cubic yards (5). Of this
-------
latter 9.3 million cubic yards, however, 3.2 million is accounted
for by two unusually large projects.
Industrial Waste
Industrial waste is a category which includes a wide variety
of materials. Table B shows the percentage (by weight) breakdown
of the industrial waste dumped into the ocean in 1968.
Table B: Types of Industrial Haste Disposed of
in the Ocean in 1968 (4. p. 22]
Waste Acid 58%
Refinery Wastes 12%
Pesticide Wastes 7%
Paper Mill Wastes 3%
Other 20%
By far the largest single contributor (on a weight basis) was
waste acid.
Table C presents total amounts of dumped industrial waste
for 1968.
Table C: Amount of Industrial Waste Disposed of
in the Ocean during 1968 (4, p. 21)
Annual Tonnage
Atlantic Coast 3,013,000
Gulf Coast 696,000
Pacific Coast 981.000
Total 4,690,000
While it was not possible to compile complete data for later
periods, a comparison of certain key source areas is possible.
The New York City area is the single most important source of
this industrial waste, accounting for over 55% of the tonnage in
-------
1968 (4, pp. 21 and 22). Between 1968 and 1970 the amount from
this area grew from 2.7 million tons (4, p. 22) to 3.4 million tons (5),
Of this total, in each case approximately 90% was waste acid.
Ocean dumped industrial waste from the Philadelphia area increased
from 290,000 tons in 1968 (4, p. 22) to 733,000 tons in 1971 (5).
Almost all of this material is waste acid.
Sewage Sludge
The ocean dumping of sewage sludge from barges is carried
out at two Atlantic Coast sites only: in Lower New York Harbor
and near the southern tip of New Jersey. As Table D indicates,
the quantity of material being disposed of at these sites has
increased significantly in the last three years, reflecting an
increase in the amount of raw sewage being treated as well as
the higher degree of treatment now occurring in some upgraded
plants.
Table D: Amount of Sewage Sludge Disposed of in the
Ocean
Annual Tonnage
1968~[T) T97T (5)
Atlantic Coast 4,477,000 5,721,000
Gulf Coast 0 0
Pacific Coast 0 0
Total 4,477,000 5,721,000
At the New Jersey Clean Water Council hearing on June 29, 1971,
Morris Klegerman explained how much more sewage sludge is produced
when a plant is upgraded by using the following example:
-------
8
"A non-industrial community with primary sewage treatment
now typically produces 4 1/2 to 5 tons of sludge daily on
a dry solids basis for a population of 100,000 people. On
a wet basis, that is, the quantity actually barged to sea
(after concentration), it is between 45 to 50 tons per day
per 100,000 of population. After secondary treatment,
however, the corresponding figures will become about 9 tons
per day on a dry solids basis and about 200 tons per day
on a wet basis (i.e. in the condition barged to sea).
So that even with zero population growth and zero industrial
growth, the communities comprising the metropolitan New
Jersey area, by reason of the increased degree of sewage
treatment, will double their production of sludge on a dry
solids basis and quadruple the volume on a wet basis."
Construction and Demolition Debris
The ocean disposal of construction and demolition debris is
carried out almost exclusively at a site 15 miles south of New
York City. The quantity of this material dumped at sea depends
on how much construction and demolition occur in New York during
the year and how much of this typically "clean" inert material
is used for fill in projects around New York Harbor. As Table E
shows, the quantity of debris was significantly less in 1971
than three years earlier.
Table E: Amount of Construction and Demolition Debris
Disposed of in the Ocean
Annual Tonnage
1968~[4FT97T (5)
Atlantic Coast 574,000 348,000
Gulf Coast 0 0
Pacific Coast 0 0
Total 574,000 348,000
-------
Solid Waste
The known ocean disposal sites for solid waste (refuse,
garbage, etc.) are on the Pacific Coast. Only three sites were
known to be operating in 1968, and by 1971 only two were still
active (one 20 miles offshore of the City of Montara, California
and the other 20 miles off Newport Beach, California). Table F
shows that there was perhaps a slight reduction in the known
quantity of solid waste disposed of in the sea between 1968
and 1971.
Table F: Amount of Solid Haste Disposed of in
the Ocean
Annual Tonnage
196814")Till (5)
Atlantic Coast 0 0
Gulf Coast 0 0
Pacific Coast 26,000 21,000
Total 26,000 21,000
Radioactive Haste
For all practical purposes, the ocean disposal of radio-
active wastes from the United States was almost nonexistent in
1968 and 1971 (4, p. 23; 6).
Cost of Disposal
A table of 1968 disposal costs and cost ranges is presented
in the final Dillingham report (4) and is reprinted here as
Table G.
-------
10
Disposal Sites
The final Dillingham report (4) also contains the latest
comprehensive mapping of disposal sites available (1968). This
set of maps is reprinted here as Figures 1,2, and 3.
-------
Table G
AVERAGE AND REPORTED RANGE OF COSTS PER TON FOR MARINE
DISPOSAL OF WASTES IN U.S. COASTAL WATERS
1968
Type of Waste
Dredging spoils
Industrial wastes
Bulk
Containerized
Refuse and
Garbage
Sewage sludge
Construction and
demolition debris
Explosives
Miscellaneous
Total U.S.
Average
cost/ton
$0 . 40/ton
$l.70/ton
$24/ton
$15/ton
$1 . OO/ton
$0.75/ton'
$l5/ton
$l5/ton
Reported
Range $/ton
$.20 - .55
$0.60*9. 5O
$5-130
$5 - $6O
$.80-1.20
$.70- 1.35
$15 - $90
$5 -. $6OO
Pacific Coast
Average
cost/ton
$0.43/ton
$1 . OO/ton
$53/ton
$l5/ton
$l5/ton
Reported
Range $/ton
None
$O.6O-9.5O
$5O - $130
$5-$60
$5 - $600
Atlantic Coast
Average
cost/ton
$0 . 54/ton
$l.80/ton
$7 . 73/ton
$1. OO/ton
$0.75/ton
Reported
Range $/ton
$.40 - .55
$.60-7.00
$5 - $17
$.80-1.20
$.7O -1.35
Gulf Coast
Average
cost/ton
$0 . 25/ton
$2.30/ton
$28/ton
Reported
Range $/ton
$0.20 -.25
$.75-3.50
$10 - $40
-------
12
Pacific Coast Disposal Areas
and
Artificial Reefs
N
\
Ore.
LEGEND
D Dredging Spoils
E Explosives and Toxic Chemical Ammunition
© Explosives and Toxic Chemical. Ammunition, Inactive Site
G Refuse
I Industrial Waste
R Radioactive Waste
R3 Marker includes more than one site
Artificial Reef
Marker includes more than one reef
See inset mop
I
0. "^ »L03 Angelas
Nautical Miles
Figure 1. The Pacific Coast was the only U.S. coast where authorized refuse disposal sites were found.
-------
13
Atlantic Coast Disposal Areas
and
Artificial Reefs
LEGEND
0 Dredging Spoils
© Dredging Spoils, Inactive Site
E Explosives and Toxic Chemical Ammunition
© Explosives and Toxic Chemical Ammunition,
Inactive Site
I Industrial Waste
R Radioactive Waste
S Sewage Sludge
D2 Marker includes more than one site
# Artificial Reef
H& Marker includes more than one reef
of"'
Nautical Miles
Figure 2. Sewage sludge disposal sites were only found on the Atlantic Coast, where most radioactive waste
disposal sites were also located.
-------
O £
»
U
§1
3 O.
If
It
M
il
B 5'
o 5'
e ^
3"
>•* n
So
- e
n O
O 9
Sif
i-> X
'
5
*"
I
a
o
g.
I
I
6W/ 0/ Mexico Disposal A reas
and
Artificial Reefs
Texas
LEGEND
0 Dredging Spoils
© Dredging Spoils, Inactive Site
E Explosives and Toxic Chemical Ammunition
© Explosives and Toxic Chemical Ammunition, Inactive Site
I Industrial Waste
R Radioactive Waste
04 Marker includes more than one site
Artificial Reef
ifj Marker includes more than one reef
GULF of MEXICO
Nautical Miles
-------
15
SECTION 3 - EFFECTS OF OCEAN DISPOSAL
In its 1970 Report to the President, the Council on
Environmental Quality reviewed the known effects of ocean pollu-
tion, caused in some cases by ocean dumping (1, Chap. II). In
this section the material presented by the Council will be
reviewed very briefly, and then the results of a few of the more
important recent studies will be presented.
Summary of the Council's Report on Ocean Pollution
1. Biological concentration of pollutants may occur in the
marine food chain. For example, phytoplankton, at the bottom
of this chain, concentrate certain heavy metals, which are
concentrated further within the food chain.
2. Effects of ocean pollution on marine life result from
toxicity, oxygen depletion, biostimulation and habitat change.
A. Toxicity - Toxic wastes include such materials as
pesticide waste, oil and refinery wastes, heavy metals,
and paper mill wastes. Sublethal effects, of toxic
wastes on marine life include reduced vitality and
growth, reproductive failure, and interference with
sensory functions.
-------
16
B. Oxygen Depletion -
"Oxygen supports marine and aquatic life and
is necessary to the biological degradation
of organic materials. Organic wastes [including
sewage sludge] dumped or discharged into water
bodies demand oxygen to decompose. If waste
loads are too heavy, the oxygen levels become
depleted and the diversity of marine organisms
is altered . . . When all of the oxygen is
depleted, organisms die and anaerobic bacteria
produce hydrogen sulfide and methane gas which
are malodorous" (1, p. 14).
C. Biostimulation -
"Some wastes, such as sewage sludge, are
particularly rich in nutrients, such as
phosphates and nitrates. These nutrients can
cause biostimulation--the accelerated fertili-
zation of plant life. When the plants die,
oxygen necessary to support marine life is
used in their decomposition. And when dead
algae are carried to beaches, they rot and
produce unpleasant odors. By creating excessive
blooms of algae, biostimulation indirectly
changes the nature of bottom sediments and thus
whole communities of bottom organisms" (1, pp. 14
and 15). (It should be noted that nutrient poor
areas of the ocean exist, which might benefit
from detoxified sewage sludge.)
D. Habitat Changes - Changes in the kinds and quantities
of sediments may change whole ecological systems.
3. The effects of ocean pollution on humans include public
health, recreation, and economic losses.
A. Public Health - Toxic agents like mercury and pathogens
like the hepatitis virus may find their way into the
human food chain through seafood.
B. Recreation - Many beaches have been closed near large
metropolitan areas. Floating material, such as solid
waste and oil, as well as odors from rotting algae and
anaerobic water, are unpleasant and damage amenity values.
-------
17
C. Economic Loss - Ocean pollution has had a substan-
tial, deleterious effect on the shellfish industry and
on other seafood industries. (New methods are being
developed which may make it possible to clean shellfish
from contaminated beds.) Cleaning up and rehabilitating
polluted beaches is another cost.
Some Important Recent Studies
In a recently published study of the New York Harbor disposal
areas, the National Marine Fisheries Service has concluded that
the "disposal of dredging spoils and sewage sludges has had a
significant and often deleterious effect on the living resources
of the New York Bight" (9, p. 7-1). Some of the most important
findings of the study are:
1. Heavy metals were found to have accumulated in sediments
directly receiving sludge and spoil, and are spreading out from
the designated points of disposal.
2. "Many large crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters
collected inside the disposal areas were diseased." Also found
in the disposal area were some, but not a large portion, of
diseased finfish (9, p. 7-2).
3. "The central portions of the disposal areas contained
almost no normal benthic [i.e. bottom dwelling] macrofauna [like
lobsters]."
4. No prolonged effect on the zooplankton or benthic organisms
could be attributed to ocean disposal of industrial acid wastes.
(As Section 2 shows, large quantities of acid waste are disposed
of in the New York disposal areas.)
-------
18
In this same report, other similar studies were reviewed.
1. A report by Grigg and Kiwala (10) "indicated a reduction
in species diversity and numbers of individuals at sewage outfalls
along, the southern California coastline." Such reductions indicate
ecological stress.
2. Shelton (11), however, "was unable to detect a significant
effect of ocean disposal of sludge on benthic organisms" of the
Thames Estuary, perhaps because of strong currents.
A significant study by Jannasch e_t al_. (12) recently reported
that they found very little microbial degradation of organic
materials, including fruit, bread, and meat, over a three-month
period at a depth of 1,500 meters. These results have prompted
the following statement from the National Marine Fisheries Service:
"Present disposal practices have 1) degraded the benthic
communities of the New York Bight, 2) produced large amounts
of floatable materials, and 3) resulted in generally
deteriorated .waters and marine sediments. We believe, how-
ever, thatxit would be imprudent to shift ocean dumping
further offshore unless it is done with considerable caution
and supervision. [Jannasch's results suggest] the possibility
of damage to benthic nonmicrobial fauna if extensive deep-
sea dumping were to occur" (9, pp. 7-10 and 7-11).
-------
19
SECTION 4 - ALTERNATIVES TO OCEAN DUMPING
The 1970 Report to the President by the Council on Environ-
mental Quality discusses various alternatives to ocean dumping (1).
This section will review these alternatives, in some cases with
additional comments based on new studies.
Dredge Spoil - The Council recommended continued ocean disposal
of unpolluted dredge spoil, but conceded that "for polluted
dredge spoils, current disposal practices are not adequate" (1, p. 24)
The National Marine Fisheries Service agrees, concluding recently
that "a high priority should be given to developing new modes of
disposal of contaminated dredging spoils" (9, p. 7-11). Interim
methods of disposal, suggested by the Council, include disposing
of the polluted material farther from shore or isolating the
material in diked areas. Jannasch's findings (Section 3) have
led many to oppose disposal of polluted dredge spoil in the deep
sea (Section 6). On the other hand, the idea of diking has
-------
20
recently gained renewed attention. The Army Corps of Engineers
has proposed a diked disposal area south of Staten Island (the
Hoffman-Swinburne Project). The polluted water from inside this
specially lined and diked basin would be decanted through a
treatment facility as rain or new spoil material raised its
level. A feasibility study for this project has been endorsed
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Longer-range alternatives include high temperature incinera-
tion of polluted spoil and pre-treatment to remove toxic wastes
so that the spoil can be used for soil improvement. Suggestions
to reduce the quantity of polluted spoil which must be handled
include better erosion control and higher levels of waste treatment.
Sewage Sludge - According to the Council, the alternatives for
disposing of sewage sludge, both interim and long-term, are to
use it as a soil conditioner and fertilizer, to incinerate it,
or to use it in landfill and reclamation projects. In the New York
metropolitan area, where 90% of the sewage sludge barged to sea
originates, it has been difficult to implement these alternatives
quickly. By almost any method of returning sludge to the land,
the total quantity of sludge generated in New York would require
large areas of disposal land. And incineration would require large
capital expenditures and might worsen the area's existing air
pollution problems (Section 5). In a recent study it was found
that small but measurable quantities of specific metals which
are known to accumulate in the human system, and which are known
-------
to be toxic at certain levels, were found in the input sludge,
stack emissions, scrubber water, and residue of those incinerators
tested. Also small, but measurable quantities of specific organic
chemical compounds including various pesticides and polychlorinated
biphenyls, which are known to accumulate in the human system,
were found in all sludge samples analyzed. It should be expected
that, under conditions of poor combustion, such compounds could
be emitted from the stacks of sewage sludge incinerators and perhaps
thence to human lungs (13). Although it is not possible to
establish that health effects are associated with sewage sludge
incineration, these findings are a source of concern nonetheless.
Solid Waste - As was indicated in Section 2, the ocean disposal
of solid waste is not at present practiced widely. However, the
Council believes that there will be growing pressure in the future
to dispose of solid waste at sea because of "increasing population;
increasing per capita rates of solid waste generation; and the
declining capacity, increasing costs, and lack of nearby land
disposal sites" (1). The Council sees sanitary landfill and
incineration as possible interim alternatives. In connection
with landfill, rail haul is mentioned, perhaps to help reclaim
strip mines. Incineration at offshore facilities is a possibility.
Long-term alternatives cited by the Council include recycling and
generating electric power with fluidized bed reactors fueled by
solid waste.
-------
22
Industrial Waste - A wide variety of materials are included in
this category and so it is impossible to give specific alterna-
tives which apply across the board. However, in terms of general
types of interim solutions, the Council cites incineration and
treatment followed by land disposal. A long-term alternative
might be to change production processes, perhaps by recycling the
material. The Council suggests that regional disposal, treatment,
and'control facilities might be established.
Construction and Demolition Debris - This material is usually
"clean" and inert, and the Council, therefore, sees no need to
seek alternatives to supervised ocean disposal.
-------
23
SECTION 5 - NATIONAL POLICY ON OCEAN DISPOSAL OF WASTE
In 1970 the Council on Environmental Quality recommended a
comprehensive national policy on ocean disposal of wastes to the
President. This policy would "ban unregulated ocean dumping of
all materials and strictly limit ocean disposal of any materials
harmful to the marine environment" (1). The following details
of the Council's policy recommendations are taken from Ocean
Dumping - A National Policy (1, pp. v-viii).
"The Council recommended new legislation which would:
(1) Require a permit from the the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency for the transportation
or dumping of all materials in the oceans,, estuaries,
and the Great Lakes.
(2) Authorize the Administrator to ban ocean dumping of
specific materials and to designate safe sites.
(3) Establish penalties for violation of regulations.
(4) Provide for enforcement by the Coast Guard.
-------
24
"The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
would be guided by the following principles in exerting
his authority:
(1) Ocean dumping of materials clearly identified as
harmful to the marine environment or man should be
stopped.
(2) When existing information on the effects of ocean
dumping are inconclusive, yet the best indicators are
that the materials could create adverse conditions if
dumped, such dumping should be phased out. When further
information conclusively proves that such dumping
does not damage the environment, including cumulative
and long-term damage, ocean dumping could be conducted
under regulation.
(3) The criteria for setting standards for disposing of
materials in the ocean and for determining the urgency
of terminating disposal operations should include:
(i) Present and future impact on the marine environ-
ment, human health, welfare, and amenities.
(ii) Irreversibility of the impact of dumping.
(iii) Volume and concentration of materials involved.
(iv) Location of disposal, i.e., depth and potential
impact of one location relative to others. .
(4) High priority should be given to protecting those
portions of the marine environment which are biologically
most active, namely the estuaries and the shallow,
nearshore areas in which many marine organisms breed
on spawn. These biologically critical areas should
be delineated and protected."
The Council recommended "the following policies relating to
specific types of wastes currently being dumped . . .
(1) Ocean dumping of undigested sewage sludge should be
stopped as soon as possible and no new sources
allowed.
(2) Ocean dumping of digested or other stabilized sludge
should be phased out and no new sources allowed. In
-------
25
cases in which substantial facilities and/or significant
commitments exist, continued ocean dumping may be
necessary until alternatives can be developed and
implemented. But continued dumping should be con-
sidered an interim measure.
(3) Ocean dumping of existing sources of solid waste should
be stopped as soon as possible. No new sources should
be allowed, i.e., dumping by any municipality that
currently does not do so, nor any increase in the
volume by existing municipalities.
(4) Ocean dumping of polluted dredge spoils should be
phased out as soon as alternatives can be employed.
In the interim, dumping should minimize ecological
damage. The current policy of the Corps of Engineers
on dredging highly polluted areas only when absolutely
necessary should be continued, and even then, navigational
benefits should be weighed carefully against damages.
(5) The current policy of prohibiting ocean dumping of
high-level radioactive wastes should be continued.
Low-level liquid discharges to the ocean from vessels
and land-based nuclear facilities are, and should
continue to be, controlled by Federal regulations
and international standards. The adequacy of such
standards should be continually reviewed. Ocean dump-
ing of other radioactive wastes should be prohibited.
In a very few cases, there may be no alternative offering
less harm to man or the environment. In these cases
ocean disposal should be allowed only when the lack of
alternatives has been demonstrated. Planning of
activities which will result in production of radio-
active wastes should include provisions to avoid ocean
disposal.
(6) No ocean dumping of chemical warfare materials should
be permitted. Biological warfare materials have not
been disposed of at sea and should not be in the future.
Ocean disposal of explosive munitions should be terminated
as soon as possible.
(7) Ocean dumping of industrial wastes should b'e stopped
as soon as possible. Ocean dumping of toxic industrial
wastes should be terminated immediately, except in
those cases in which no alternative offers less harm to
man or the environment.
-------
26
(8) Ocean dumping of unpolluted dredge spoils, construction
and demolition debris, and similar wastes which are
inert and non-toxic should be regulated to prevent
damage to estuarine and coastal areas.
(9) Use of waste materials to rehabilitate or enhance the
marine environment, as opposed to activities primarily
aimed at waste disposal, should be conducted under
controlled conditions. Such operations should be
regulated, requiring proof by the applicant of no
adverse effects on the marine environment, human health,
safety, welfare and amenities."
On October 7, 1970, President Nixon endorsed the Council's
recommendations (14) and shortly thereafter recommended Federal
legislation for implementing this national policy. Legislation
on this subject is (as of August 15, 1972) under consideration
by Congress.
Until a new law is passed the Environmental Protection Agency
is using the Report of the Council on Environmental Quality to
guide its actions and policies as they relate to ocean dumping
practices (15, p. 2). In the specific case of the Federal Construc-
tion Grants Program for the construction of municipal waste
treatment plants, an interim policy was established by E.P.A. on
October 31, 1971 (16). This interim policy provides that:
(1) Federal grant funds may not be used for the construction
of new treatment plants when sludge is to be disposed of in the
ocean.
(2) Federal grant funds may not be used for the expansion or
improvement of existing facilities which dispose of sludge to
the ocean,unless concurrently with the expansion or improvement,
conversion to other means of disposal is planned.
-------
27
(3) Under certain circumstances, the second requirement
may be waived on an interim basis. In this case, other require-
ments apply.
(4) The cost of facilities and equipment for disposal of
sludge in ocean waters is not considered an eligible construc-
tion cost for purposes of a grant.
The implementation of this policy has created problems
in the New York City area, where approximately 13 million people
depend upon ocean disposal of sludge. Alternatives to ocean
dumping in the New York metropolitan area would require sub-
stantial investments. Sludge incineration on the scale necessary
to implement the interim policy might lead to an air pollution
problem less desirable than the results of the current sludge
dumping practice (15). And land disposal of all sludge produced
by existing plants and those under construction would require
by one estimate 165 square miles per year at a 2 inches depth (17).
Because of this situation E.P.A. has under review a revised
interim policy which would permit the continuation of ocean
disposal of sludge from facilities in the New York metropolitan
area. If adopted, this policy would only apply for those areas
where the environmental alternative to ocean disposal is now
unacceptable and would be an interim solution only (15, p. 3).
Specifically, this special interim policy for the
New Jersey-New York metropolitan area would include the following
-------
28
provisions (15, pp. 3 and 4):
(1) Approval of construction grants with continued ocean
disposal of sludge provided:
(a) Sludge is adequately treated.
(b) Industrial waste ordinances regulate the discharge
of heavy metals or other toxic materials into the
municipal system. This industrial waste pre-treatment
policy must be adopted by E.P.A. and the States
to assure specific minimum concentrations of objectionable
materials in the waste treatment plants' influent and
effluent as well as the resultant sludge.
(c) Ocean dumping from the New Jersey-New York metro-
politan area has to be abandoned when a more effective
environmental alternative is available through the
efforts and requirements of the States, E.P.A., and
regional sludge management authorities.
(2) It is recognized that ocean disposal of sludge will
have an effect upon the marine environment. E.P.A. would assume
its responsibilities in an assessment of these effects by establish-
ing new dumping sites, controls over dumping practices, and
evaluating and monitoring the marine environment prior to and
during the interim ocean disposal of sludge. This program of
monitoring and analysis should permit E.P.A. in cooperation with
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to expand
its knowledge of the effects of ocean disposal of treated and
detoxified municipal sludge.
-------
29
(3) E.P.A. would support the formation and operation of
regional intrastate or interstate solid waste disposal authorities.
It is recommended that this interest be in the form of financial
resources and/or technical assistance. These authorities would
be responsible for the development of acceptable long-term
alternatives for the management of the sludge problem. The same
authorities would implement the most effective alternatives to
permit eventual abandonment of ocean disposal.
No final action has been taken on this proposed revised
interim policy for the New York metropolitan area.
-------
31
SECTION 6 - FEDERAL OCEAN DUMPING LEGISLATION
One of the principal recommendations of the Council on
Environmental Quality in its 1970 Report to the President was for
Federal legislation on the ocean disposal of waste (1). A draft
of such a bill was sent to Congress as part of the President's
1971 Environmental Program. Although Congress has not yet taken
final action on the ocean disposal bill (as of August 15, 1972),
passage may come at any time.
On July 27, 1972, a House-Senate Conference Committee announced
that it had reached agreement on H.R. 9727 (19). This agreement
cleared the way for House and Senate action on the ocean dumping
law. As it now stands, the two-year measure provides $39.1 million
for the regulation of dumping, $20 million for the establishment
of marine santuaries, and $12 million for research. Specific
provisions of the bill include (18):
1. an absolute ban on the transportation and dumping of
radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agents,
and high level radioactive wastes.
-------
32
2. a prohibition on the transportation and dumping of all
other waste material unless authorized by permit.
The following description of the bill is largely quoted from
an EPA release (18):
The Administrator of EPA will issue a permit after notice and an
opportunity for a public hearing when he determines that the proposed
activity will not degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or the
marine environment, ecological systems or the economic potentialities.
When reviewing a permit application, the Administrator must
consider appropriate alternative locations and methods of disposal or
recycling as well as the need and the effects of the proposed dumping.
A permit may not be issued where the material to be dumped will violate
applicable water quality standards.
In addition, the Administrator is authorized to designate sites
and/or times within which certain materials may not be dumped.
The Corps (of Engineers) may issue permits for dumping of
dredge spoil. In each case the Corps must make an independent deter-
mination based upon the potential effects of a permit denial on
navigation, economic and industrial development,and foreign and domestic
commerce in addition to the possible methods of disposal and appropriate
locations for dumping.
The Corps cannot issue a permit which does not comply with the
criteria relating to the effects or with the sites or times of the
dumping. The Administrator will determine whether the Corps is in
compliance with such restrictions and the determination of the
Administrator is final..
-------
33
If the Corps determines that there is no economically
feasible method or site available, it must so certify and request
a waiver from the Administrator of EPA. The waiver is automatically
approved thirty days after receipt unless the Administrator finds
the dumping will result in an unacceptably adverse impact on
municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, wildlife, fisheries, or
recreational areas.
Penalties of up to $50,000 and one year imprisonment are
provided for those who knowingly violate the Act. As far as citizen
suits are concerned, any person has standing in Federal courts and
may seek to enjoin violations of the Act or of an issued permit.
The Coast Guard is given responsibility to enforce the provision
having to do with unlawful transportation of material for dumping.
The Secretary of Commerce, in conjunction with the Coast Guard
and EPA, is to develop a comprehensive research and monitoring
program as to the effects of dumping. The Secretary of Commerce
is also authorized to initiate a comprehensive and continuing program
of research with respect to the long-range effects of pollution.
In addition, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to conduct research,
investigations, experiments, training demonstrations, surveys and
studies to determine the means of ending all ocean dumping.
Finally, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to designate
as marine sanctuaries areas of the oceans, estuaries, and Great Lakes
where he determines that such action is necessary to preserve them for
their conservation, recreational, ecological or aesthetic values. No
license or permit can be issued to conduct activity within a designated
-------
34
marine sanctuary.
The Environmental Protection Agency is now in the process of
developing plans to implement this law. If it is passed, the imple-
mentation plan would be published shortly thereafter (20).
-------
35
SECTION 7 - STATE LEGISLATION AND CONTROL ACTIVITIES
In 1970 the Council on Environmental Quality concluded that
"State regulation has not established a basis for an extensive and
comprehensive method of controlling ocean dumping. Besides general
lack of authority and programs, State jurisdiction would generally
be limited to the 3-mile territorial sea" (1, p. 30). Since 1970,
activity has varied considerably from State to State.
In Maryland, a House Joint Resolution was adopted on May 17, 1971,
calling on:
"The Congress of the United States and the Federal Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare [to] take immediate action
to halt the pollution of our ocean waters being caused by
the dumping of untreated wastes into the waters of the Atlantic
Ocean" (21).
Florida passed a law in 1971 requiring secondary treatment "or
other treatment deemed necessary" on new ocean outfalls and by
January 1, 1973 on all industrial waste discharged through ocean
outfalls (22). And Maine approved a law authorizing its Wetlands
Control Board to adopt "orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting
dredging, filling, removing or otherwise altering any coastal wetlands
or draining or depositing sanitary sewage into or on any coastal
-------
36
wetland, or otherwise polluting the same" (23).
Perhaps the broadest State ocean disposal control regulation
yet proposed is the one currently under consideration in New Jersey
(24). The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection gives
the following description of the specific provisions of this regulation
(25):
Section 1 of the proposed regulations defines the legal
and technical terms used in the regulations.
Section 2 of the regulations prohibits, outright, the
handling or loading on vessels for ocean disposal of
certain materials whose adverse impact on the marine
environment is so great that even disposal far from
shore would be unwise. These materials include pesticides,
petroleum products, mercury, and radioactive materials.
Section 3 of the proposed regulations restricts the handling
or loading for ocean disposal of materials which are
generated in such amounts that the onshore treatment which
would be required by an outright prohibition of their
loading for disposal at sea would not be immediately
practical.
These materials are chemical wastes (which do not contain
the four materials banned by Section 2 of the proposed
regulations), sewage sludge, and polluted dredge spoil.
The restriction is that handling or loading on vessels
of such material shall be in violation of the regulation
unless the material handled or loaded is disposed of in
waters deeper than 2,000 meters as shown on the section
of the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Chart Int. 108, N.O. 131
reproduced in the proposed regulation. Waters of this
depth occur within 125 miles of the coast line of the
State.
The restrictions on loading for ocean disposal of dredge
spoil apply only to dredge spoil taken from highly polluted
waterways. These are the Delaware River south of Camden,'
New Jersey, Raritan Bay, Raritan River, Newark Bay, Arthur
Kill, Hackensack River, Passaic River, Hudson River, and
Kill Van Kull.
-------
37
Section 4 of the regulations requires that all those persons
engaged in any phase of the ocean disposal of waste materials
obtain a permit from the Department within thirty days of
the effective date of the regulation or prior to the commence-
ment of their ocean disposal activity, whichever occurs later.
Section 5 of the regulations requires that every person issued
a "Permit to Handle or Load Materials for Ocean Disposal"
shall report monthly to the Department on the details of
his loading, handling, and disposal activities.
A public hearing was held on these proposed regulations on
July 14, 1972. Testimony included a statement by Mr. Ralph F. Vaccaro
and Dr. Peter H. Wiebe of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
who cited evidence that biological decomposition of organic matter
is relatively slow in the deep sea and that deep-sea dumping (as
required in Section 3 of the proposed regulations) "is at best a
hazardous pursuit and may be tantamount to storing the wastes
indefinitely." They suggested "that use of the deep sea for
waste disposal activities should be denied until such time as the
possible dangers are proved invalid" (26).
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency supports "the objectives
of the proposed New Jersey ocean disposal control regulations." EPA
stated, however, that "there has been a recommendation that materials
should be discharged eastward of the 2,000 meter depth line. This
practice should be avoided and minimized until its environmental
impact can be assessed effectively and be demonstrated to be without
significant harm" (15). Questions have also been raised about the
geographical extent of New Jersey's jurisdiction.
As of August 15, 1972, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection was still reviewing testimony on the proposed regulations and
had taken no final action (27).
-------
39
SECTION 8 - INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITY
The focal point for recent international activity related to
ocean disposal of waste has been the U.N. Conference on the Human
Environment held in Stockholm, Sweden, from June 5-16, 1972.
The Preparatory Committee for this Conference recommended in
February 1971 that an Inter-Governmental Working Group on Marine
Pollution be established to prepare some of the action to be taken
in Stockholm. The first session of this Group was held from June 14-
16, 1971, in London. During these meetings the United States introduced
draft articles of a convention on the regulation of transportation for
ocean dumping (28). The Group continued consideration of the draft
articles at its second session in Ottawa from November 8-12, 1971.
As a result of these sessions and subsequent exchanges between the
interested Governments, an Inter-governmental Meeting on Ocean
Dumping was held at Reykjavik, Iceland from April 10-15, 1972. At
this meeting, the text of draft articles of a Convention for the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping was produced. The meeting
also passed a resolution to forward these draft articles to the
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment for further con-
-------
40
sideration and appropriate action (30).
These draft articles include provisions for the following actions
by the states parties to the convention (30):
1. Prohibition of dumping of specific materials, including
organohalogens (such as DDT), mercury and its compounds,
cadmium and its compounds, persistent plastics, persistent
synthetic materials which float, various oils, high level
radioactive waste, and agents of chemical and biological
warfare.
2. Establishment of a system of permits for the dumping of
all other materials. Special permits would be required
for materials containing significant amounts of arsenic,
lead, copper, zinc, and their compounds, as well as
organosilicon compounds, cyanides, fluorides, and pesticides
not specifically prohibited. Included also would be acids
and alkalies containing significant amounts of beryllium,
chromium, nickel, and vanadium, as well as bulky wastes
which might present a serious obstacle to fishing or
navigation.
The U.N. Conference on the Human Environment referred this draft
ocean dumping convention to the U.N. Seabeds Committee for its comments
and to a conference to be held in the United Kingdom for final
consideration, if possible, before the end of 1972. The State Depart-
ment says that, "The U.S. strongly supported . . . this recommendation
as offering the best possible opportunity for prompt conclusion of
the work on the ocean dumping convention first proposed by U.S. in
June 1971" (31, p. 37).
The U.N. Conference on the Human Environment also recommended that
the participating governments (31):
1. Accept and implement available instruments on the control
of maritime sources of marine pollution.
2. Ensure that the provisions of such instruments are complied
with by ships flying their flags and by ships operating
in areas under their jurisdiction.
-------
41
3. Control ocean dumping and continue work on ocean dumping
conventions.
4. Participate in the approaching Law of the Sea Conference
and the 1973 IMCO Marine Pollution Conference with objective
of bringing all significant sources of pollution in marine
environment, including radioactive pollution from nuclear
vessels, under appropriate control and eliminating completely
by middle of present decade all intentional discharge of
oil from ships.
5. Strengthen national controls over land-based sources of marine
pollution.
Of these recommendations the U.S. State Department said the
following (31):
The U.S. supported the entire recommendation as it urges states
to take legal measures nationally, regionally, and internationally
to bring major sources of marine pollution under control. The
U.S. has misgivings about carte-blance endorsement of all available
instruments and believes case-by-case review is necessary, especially
of non-binding instruments in form of resolutions, etc., of inter-
national organizations. The U.S. does not accept that references
in paragraphs (2) and (3) constitute endorsement of jurisdiction
other than that widely accepted in international law. The
U.S. interprets the reference to appropriate controls of radio-
active pollution from nuclear vessels to mean that each government
will establish and enforce controls over its own nuclear powered
naval vessels and that these governments will take into account
generally recognized international radiation standards.
Following on the recommendation of the Conference, a meeting has been
tentatively scheduled for October 23 through November 3, 1972, in the
United Kingdom for final consideration of the Convention for the Prevention
of Marine Pollution by Dumping (32).
-------
43
REFERENCES
(1) Council on Environmental Quality, Ocean Dumping: A National
Policy; A Report to the President, Government Printing Office,
Washington, 1970.
(2) Smith, D.D. and Brown, R.P., 1970., An Appraisal of Oceanic
Disposal of Barge-Delivered Liquid and Solid Wastes from
U.S. Coastal Cities. Prepared by the Dillingham Corporation
for Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of
Solid Waste Management under Contract No. PH 86-68-203 (mimeograph).
(3) Personal communications, James L. Verber, Food and Drug Administra-
tion, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, August 14, 1972.
(4) Smith, D.D. and Brown, R.P., 1971, Ocean Disposal of Barge-
Delivered Liquid and Solid Wastes from U.S. Coastal Cities.
Prepared by the Dillingham Corporation for the Bureau of
Solid Waste Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract No. PH 86-68-203.
,(5) Data were supplied by Regions I, II, III, IV, VI, IX, and X
of the Environmental Protection Agency and the District Offices
of the Corps of Engineers. They were complied by Region II
of EPA.
(6) Personal communications, Michael Terpilak, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II, 1972.
(7) Gross, M.G., Analyses of Dredged Wastes, Fly Ash, and Waste
Chemicals - New York Metropolitan Region, Technical Report
No. 7, Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of
New York, Stony Brook, 1970.
(8) Corps of Engineers, New York District, Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Supervisor of the Harbor Permit Program,
New York, 1971.
(9) U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries
Service, The Effects of Waste Disposal in the New York Bight,
Sandy Hook Laboratory, Highlands, New Jersey, 1972.
(10) Grigg, R.W. and Kiwala, R.S., 1970, Some ecological effects of
discharged waters on marine life, California Fish and Game,
56:145-55, as described in (9), page 7-6.
(11) Shelton, R.G., 1970, The effects of the dumping of sewage
sludge on the fauna of the outer Thames Estuary. C.M. 1970/E:8,
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, as
described in (9), page 7-7.
-------
44
(12) Jannasch, H.W., Eimijellen, K., Wirsen, C.O., and Farmanfarmaian,
A., 1971, Microbial degradation of organic matter in the deep
sea. Science 171,672-675, as described in (9), page 7-11.
(13) Environmental Protection Agency, Task Force Report on Sludge
Incineration, 1972.
(14) Report on Ocean Dumping - Message from the President (H. Doc.
No. 91-399, the White House, October 7, 1970.
(15) Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Statement on Proposed
New Jersey Ocean Disposal Regulations, submitted to the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection August 14, 1972.
(16) Environmental Protection Agency, Interim Policy on Section 8
Grants for Treatment Works Which Dispose of Digested Sludge
in Ocean Waters, Washington, October 21, 1971.
(17) David Bird, "U.S. Relaxes Policy on Dumping Sludge", quoting
G.M. Hansler, E.P.A., New York Times, March 11, 1972.
(18) Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Legislation, Special
Dumping Supplement, Washington, July 28, 1972.
(19) U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 9727, 1972.
(20) Personal communications with Scott Shotwell, EPA, Washington,
August 16, 1972.
(21) Maryland, Resolution 68, Laws 1971, House Joint Resolution
No. 97, Approved May 17, 1971.
(22) Florida, Chapter 274, Laws 1971, Senate Bill No. 745, Approved
June 24, 1971.
(23) Maine, Chapter 541, Public Laws 1971, House Bill No. 1299,
Approved June 28, 1971.
(24) New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Proposed
New Jersey Ocean Disposal Control Regulation, Filed with the
Division of Administrative Procedures May 25, 1972.
(25) New Jersey Uepartment of Environmental Protection, Ocean Disposal
Control Regulation: Basis and Background Document, June 1972.
(26) Statement by Mr. Ralph F. Vaccaro, Associate Scientist, and Dr.
Peter H. Wiebe, Assistant Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution at the Public Hearing on Proposed New Jersey Ocean
Disposal Control Regulations, Monmouth College, West Long Branch,
New Jersey, July 14, 1972.
-------
45
(27) Personal communications with New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, August 15, 1972.
(28) United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Report of the
First Session of the Inter-Governmental Working Group on Marine
Pollution. London, June 14-18. 1971. A/Conf. 48/IWGMP.I/5,
June 21, 1971.
(29) United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Identification
and Control of Pollutants of Broad International Significance,
A/Conf. 48/8, January 7, 1972.
(30) United National Conference on the Human Environment, Identification
and Control of Pollutants of Broad International Significance,
Addendum No. 1: Draft Articles of a Convention on Ocean Dumping,
A/Conf. 48/8/Add. 1, May 2, 1972.
(31) United States Department of State, U.N. Conference on the Human
Environment: Round-up of Actions Taken, June 21, 1972.
(32) Personal communication with Mr. Robert Porter of the Office of
International Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, August 14,
1972.
------- |