UNITED STATES .
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO
OCEAN DUMPING CRITERIA
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Oil and Special Materials Control Division
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO
OCEAN DUMPING CRITERIA
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Oil and Special Materials Control Division
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. I'Cnvi ronrnontal Protection Agency
Washington, \). C. 20160
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (WH-548)
Washington, D.C. 20460
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Proposed Revisions to the Ocean Dumping Criteria.
Pursuant to the EPA's Procedures for the Voluntary Preparation
of Environmental Impact Statements (FR Vol. 39, No. 204, October 21,
1974), any comments on this statement should be submitted before
September 7, 1976. Your attention is requested not only on the content,
but also on the presentation of the material.
Comments or requests for additional copies should be forwarded
to the above EPA address marked for Attention: Director, Oil and
Special Materials Control Division (OSMCD).
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO
OCEAN DUMPING CRITERIA
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Prepared by: Oil and Special Materials Control Division
Office of Water Program Operations
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
July 16, 1976
Approved by:'
Date:
-------
SUMMARY SHEET
Proposed Revisions to Ocean Duinping Criteria
(X) Draft ( ) Final Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oil and Special Material Control Division
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Washington, D. C. 20460
1. Name of Action - (X) Administrative Action, ( ) Legislative Action
2. Description of Proposed Action - The proposed action is to revise the
Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria'published in the Federal
Register on October 15, 1973, in accordance with which ocean dumping
permits are issued. The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, as amended, (MPRSA) authorizes the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to issue permits for disposal of
wastes in ocean waters when he determines that such dumping will not
unreasonably degrade the marine environment.
3. Environmental Impact and Adverse Environmental Effects - The revised
criteria will not in themselves result in any direct environmental impacts.
The revised criteria reflect significant improvements over the existing
criteria resulting from advancement in the state-of-knowledge, and
several years of operating experience. EPA believes that these revisions
provide the strict control necesssry to follow the intent of the Congress
in permitting ocean dumping which will not unreasonably degrade or
endanger human health or the marine environment. The environmental
impacts that may occur would result from any ocean dumping permitted
or denied under the revised criteria as opposed to any ocean dumping
permitted or denied under the existing criteria. These potential
-------
secondary effects include the benefits of preventing dumping that
unacceptably impacts the marine environment, while allowing strictly
regulated dumping of some wastes whose acceptability for dumping is
established by testing. The adverse impacts include a temporary and
unavoidable impact at the dump site from dumping operations. Another
adverse impact that should be considered is the effect that an alterna-
tive disposal method may have on the land (land disposal) or air
(incineration).
«
The proposed criteria for management of disposal sites require
a commitment of resources to oceanographic surveys and monitoring
that is irretrievable, as is the expense incurred by the dumper to
develop and implement alternatives to ocean dumping. The long-
range beneficial impacts of the expenses of testing, surveys and
development of alternatives will be increased recycling of material
and protection of the marine environment.
4. Alternatives Considered: Possible alternative approaches to
revisions of the existing criteria fall into five general categories:
1. No action; i.e. , the existing criteria remain in force in their
present form.
2. Structural changes in the criteria; i.e. , change the types of
tests required for certain materials.
3. Change the level of impact selected as acceptable; i.e.,
beyond which there is "unreasonable degradation. "
4. The proposed action.
11
-------
It is not possible, within the present state of knowledge, to quantify
the impact on the marine environment of changing any specific limitation
in the criteria. Thus, changes in individual specific limitations in.the
criteria are not regarded as real alternatives within the context of
this EIS, and individual changes in such specific limitations will not
be discussed except within the framework of other alternatives.
5. Comments on the draft impact statement are requested from the
following:
Federal Agencies
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Maritime Administration
Department of Defense
Department of the Corps of Engineers
Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy
Department of the Air Force
Department of Health, Education, Welfare
Department of the Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Bureau of Land Management
Geological Survey
Department of Transportation
U. S. Coast Guard
Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Water Resources Council
National Science Foundation
111
-------
States Territories and Municipalities
Maine
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Other Groups:
National Wildlife Federation
The American Eagle Foundation
Sierra Club
Environmental Defense Fund Inc.
Resources for the Future
Water Pollution Control Federation
National Academy of Sciences
6. Draft environmental impact statement made available to the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Public on
The comment period will end 45 days after CEQ announces the availability
of the EIS in the Federal Register.
iv
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas
California
Oregon
Washington
Alaska
Hawaii
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
New York City, New York
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Camden, New Jersey
-------
PREFACE
On October 21, 1974 the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) announced, although not required to do
so by law or court decisions, that EPA after October 15, 1974,
would voluntarily prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's)
on certain of EPA's environmentally protective regulatory actions in
accordance with EPA's Regulatory EIS Procedures (39 FR 374.9).
Two of these activities, criteria and site designation, involve the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, (MPRSA)
which regulates dumping of materials into the marine environment.
This EIS is being prepared to examine the impacts of the proposed
revisions to the ocean dumping criteria (40 CFR 227 and 228). The
revisions were proposed in the Federal Register on June 28, 1976.
This EIS does not include the proposed revisions to the procedural parts
of the ocean dumping regulations (40 CFR 220 - 226 and 229) since these
deal primarily with the administrative procedures to be used in applying
the criteria to the regulation of ocean dumping under EPA and U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers permits.
The revised criteria reflect significant improvements over the existing
criteria resulting from advancement in the state-of-knowledge, and several
years of operating experience. EPA has now explicitly identified the marine
species for determination of the toxicity of the material to be dumped; the
elutriate test has been improved thereby providing a now reliable technique
for testing dredged material and assessing the effects of dumping; and the
v
-------
addition of criteria for selection and management of dump sites provide
the means by which any adverse effects can be determined and corrective
action taken. EPA believes that these revisions provide the strict control
necessary to follow the intent of the Congress in permitting ocean dumping
which will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health or the marine
environment.
The proposed criteria embody a wide range of considerations specifically
stated in the MPRSA and in the International Convention on the regulation of
ocean dumping. As a consequence they are quite complex and, when examined
in detail without a clear understanding of their relationship to the overall
intent of the regulatory program, are likely to be confusing to the reader.
Section I02(a) of the MPRSA states that the Administrator of .EPA may
issue permits for ocean dumping where he determines that the dumping
will not "unreasonably degrade" or endanger human health, welfare, or
amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic
potentialities. The MPRSA then lists a series of factors to be considered
by EPA in establishing criteria to implement the permit program.
The intent of the MPRSA, therefore, is to strictly regulate ocean dump-
ing to the extent that "unreasonable degradation" will not occur, and it was
left to the regulatory agency, EPA, to set criteria under which ocean dump-
ing could be permitted without unreasonable degradation. As recently as
Spring, 1976, the expressed intent of the MPRSA was reiterated in
Congressional reports resulting from oversight hearings on the MPRSA.
vi
-------
The House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee stated that
"ocean dumping should be allowed as an alternative method of disposal
though strictly controlled and only when it will not unreasonably degrade
or endanger human health or the marine environment", a/ The Senate
Commerce Committee concurred in this by stating "that ocean dumping
is acceptable, but only if it will not result in harmful effects upon human
health, the marine environment, or the economic welfare of an area. b_/
Thus, the clearly stated intent of the Congress is to permit ocean
dumping as an acceptable alternative means of waste disposal under
strict regulation as long as there is not "unreasonable degradation. "
Within the limits set by the factors required to be considered in setting
criteria, it is left to EPA to determine what should be regarded as
"unreasonable degradation" and to establish specific criteria to insure
that the impacts of dumping do not reach or exceed this level. These
proposed revisions to the criteria are based upon the EPA determination
that, while some changes in water column chemistry or sediment chemistry
as a result of ocean dumping are acceptable, any significant impact on the
biota constitutes "unreasonable degradation. " This definition is stated in
more detail in Section 228. I0(c), and the specific limitations set in the
»
criteria are intended to each be directed toward insuring that this level
of impact is not exceeded.
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary Sheet i
Preface v
Table of Contents viii
List of Tables xii
Chapter I- Background and Basis for Regulation 1
< Introduction . 1
Statutory Basis for Regulation 2
Domestic Legislation 3
International Convention 5
Factors Governing Establishment of Criteria 7
Domestic Law Basis for Criteria 7
International Convention Basis for Criteria 8
Corps of Engineers Permits for Dredged Material 12
Basis for the Development of Existing Criteria 14
' History 14
General Regulatory Requirements 19
Specific Considerations Required by the Convention 20
Characteristics of the Matter 21
Characteristics of the Dumping Site and Method of Deposit 31
General Considerations and Conditions 34
Structure of the Existing Criteria and Basis for Specific Limitations 35
Part 227. 21. Materials for which no permit will be issued 36
Part 227. 22. Other Prohibited Materials 38
Mercury and Cadmium 41
Vlll
-------
Ambient Background Levels 42
Initial Mixing 45
Permissible Deviation from Normal Ambient Values 50
Organohalogens 52
Oils and Greases 53
Part 227. 3 Strictly Regulated Dumping 54
Part 227.4 Implementation Plan Requirements for Interim Rermits 61
Part 227. 5 Less Strictly Regulated Dumping and Disposal Acts 62
Part 227.6 Disposal of Dredged Material 62
Criticsm of Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria 67
General Criticism of Criteria 69
o
Criticism of Dredged Material Criteria 72
Chapter II - Description of the Proposed Criteria 74
General Basis 74
Part 227. Criteria for the Evaluation of Permit Applications for
Ocean Dumping of Materials 75
Subpart A - General 76
Subpart B- Environmental Impact Criteria 77
Definition of Trace Contaminant 78
Carcinogens, Mutagens, Teratogens 79
Reevaluation of Mercury and Cadmium Criteria 79
Strictly Regulated Materials 85
Limiting Permissible Concentration (LPC) 86
Dredged Material 88
ix
-------
Source of Dredged Material . 88
Elutriate Test 89
Bioassay 91
Other Factors Considered 91
Subpart C- Need 92
Subparts D & E- Impacts on Aesthetic and Recreational
Values and Other Uses 93
Subpart F- Special Requirements for Interim Permits 97
Subpart G- Definitions 97
Part 228. Disposal Site Designation and Management 97
Existing Site Designation Procedure 98
New Site Designation Procedures 98
General Permits 99
Special and Interim Permits 100
Emergency Permits 102
Research Permits 102
Dredged Material Disposal 103
Incineration of Sea 104
Criteria for the Selection of Sites 105
Disposal Site Management 109
Regulation of Disposal Site Use 110
Limitations on Times and Rates of Disposal 110
Disposal Site Monitoring 111
Evaluating Disposal Impact 112
Modification in Disposal Site Use 114
-------
Chapter III - Alternatives to the Proposed Action 116
Alternative 1. No Action 118
Alternative 2. Change the Structure of the Criteria 120
Alternative 3. Change Level of Acceptable Impact 122
Alternative 4. The Proposed Action 133
II •
Chapter IV - Impacts of the Proposed Criteria 139
Immediate Impacts on the Marine Environment 139
Long-Range Impacts on the Marine Environment 142
Impacts on Other Parts of the Environment 146
Economic Impacts 148
Chapter V - Adverse Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided 150
Environmental Impacts 150
Economic Impacts 152
Chapter VI - Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's
Environment and The Maintenance and Enhancement
of Long-Term Productivity 155
Chapter VII - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 158
References 161
Index to Key Topics 162
Appendix A - Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act j
of 1972
Appendix B - The International Convention on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by the Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter
Appendix C - (Existing) Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria -
October 15, 1973. .
Appendix D - Proposed Revisions to the Ocean Dumping Regulations
and Criteria - June 28, 1976.
Appendix E - Past and Current Ocean Dumping Practices
XI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table I. 1 - Relationship Between Ocean Dumping Criteria and
Considerations Required by the Act and the Convention 16
Table III. 1 - Relative Importance of Statutory Factors in Establishing
Criteria at Each Impact Category 124
Table III. 2 - Impacts Associated With Various Impact Categories 125
Table III. 3 - Changes in Criteria for Different Impact Categories as
the Basis for Regulation 126
Table III. 4 - Impacts of the Proposed Action I32a
XII
-------
CHAPTER T
BACKGROUND AND BASIS FOR REGULATION
Introduction
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
as amended, (MPRSA) (Appendix A) establishes a policy of strictly
regulating ocean dumping by banning the dumping of chemical,
biological, or radiological warfare agents and high-level radio-
active wastes and by authorizing a permit system for the dumping
of any other materials in ocean waters.
In April 1974 the United States ratified the International Con-
vention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the Dumping
of Wastes and Other Matter. (See Appendix B.) The Convention
went into force in August 1975.
Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR 220-227)
were published in October 1973 (Appendix C) to evaluate permit
applications and wastes proposed to be dumped in the ocean. As
a result of operating experience, advances in the state of know-
ledge of impacts of wastes in the marine environment, comments
received on the existing Regulations and Criteria, and, finally,
to address more explicitly the requirements of the Convention,
EPA has decided to revise the Ocean Dumping Regulations and
Criteria of October 1973. The proposed revisions to the Ocean
Dumping Regulations and Criteria (Appendix D) represent over
two years of effort to provide a regulatory program that will
protect the marine environment and ensure that no unreasonable
-------
degradation will occur from ocean dumping.
This draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared
to evaluate the effects that the proposed revisions to the ocean
dumping criteria will have when used to evaluate permit appli-
cations, wastes proposed for dumping, and impacts on the marine
environment.
Statutory Basis for Regulation
Ocean dumping as a means of ultimate waste disposal has been
practiced for many years, particularly in the heavily populated
northeastern part of the United States. (See Appendix E for Past
and Current Ocean Dumping Practices. ) Prior to the passage of
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(MPRSA) there was only a minimal amount of regulation of ocean
dumping. Most of this was provided by the Corps of Engineers
(COE) which had the authority to issue permits for the trans-
portation of wastes from such places as New York, Philadelphia,
and Baltimore. Prior to enactment of the MPRSA, permits issued
by the Corps of Engineers in these locations were based on trans-
portation and navigational factors, not upon environmental impacts.
Selection by the COE of sites for such disposal was also based
on navigational grounds.
In 1969 and 1970 considerable public interest was aroused
by a number of individual situations involving the disposal of
nerve gas and other warfare agents by ocean dumping, as well
as by studies of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (NOAA) and several universities which pointed to potential
-------
adverse effects resulting from the dumping of sewage sludge and
industrial wastes in the New York Bight. This interest culmin-
ated in the preparation of a widely circulated report \J by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) on ocean dumping.
This report on ocean dumping by CEQ addressed the magni-
tude and nature of the entire ocean dumping problem and pro-
posed methods, both technological and legislative, to deal with it.
CEQ's recommendations included the enactment of new legislation
to:
- establish a permit system for ocean dumping based on
environmental effects;
- broaden the geographic coverage; and
- vest responsibility in an agency oriented toward environ-
mental considerations.
Domestic Legislation
»
These recommendations .were embodied in the Marine Pro-
tection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) (PL 92-532),
regulating the dumping of wastes into ocean waters. (Appendix
A.) Title I of this Act is designed to regulate the dumping and
transportation for dumping of waste material within the territorial
seas and the contiguous zone of the United States and for dumping
anywhere in the world by any ships leaving from U. S. ports
and by all U. S. flag vessels. Title I bans the dumping of all
chemical, biological, or radiological warfare agents, and high
level radioactive wastes. The Administrator of the Environmental
-------
Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to issue permits to regulate
ocean dumping of any other material except for dredged material
which will be handled by COE consistent with EPA criteria. Civil
penalties may be assessed by the Administrator, after notice and
opportunity for a hearing, and an action may be brought to impose
criminal penalties when the provisions of this Title are knowingly
violated.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(FWPCA) (PL 92-500) regulates the disposal of material into the
marine environment from ocean outfalls through the promulgation
of criteria to prevent degradation of the marine environment
(Section 403) and their required application in the issuance of
permits (under Section 402) for discharge into the navigable
waters, including the international seas.
In its passage of these laws the Congress made a national
commitment for the protection of a part of the environment which
had not previously been the subject of any environmentally pro-
tective regulatory activities. While considerable oceanographic
research has been done in the past, the bulk of it was directed
toward general theoretical problems of the marine environment;
and the scientific and technical knowledge of the impact of waste
materials in the marine environment is severely limited. This
has required the development of a regulatory program in which
the scientific basis for the regulatory process under MPRSA
advances as the state of knowledge advances.
-------
International Convention
In October 1971, a Conference on Marine Pollution was held
in Oslo, Norway. The countries invited to participate in this
Conference were the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium,
Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, Iceland, Norway, the Nether-
lands, Portugal, and Sweden. The Conference was primarily
concerned with the effects of ocean pollution on the fisheries
resources of the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and certain
other parts of the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans contiguous to the
participating countries. The Conference resulted in the Con-
vention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from
Ships and Aircraft.
During this same period, international negotiations were being
conducted for the development of another international treaty to
regulate the dumping of wastes in the marine environment and
produced the 1972 International Convention on the Prevention
of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.
(Appendix B. )
This Convention was developed at the intergovernmental
conference held at London in the fall of 1972. It became open
for signature December 29, 1972, in London, Mexico City,
Moscow and Washington. The Senate gave its approval for
ratification of this Convention on August 3, 1973. The U. S.
ratification was deposited on April 29, 1974. This Convention
-------
entered into force in August 1975 when the required minimum
number of fifteen nations ratified it. In accordance with the
provisions of Article XIV of the Convention, the first meeting of
the Contracting Parties was held in London, England, on
December 17 and 18, 1975. Attending were delegations rep-
resenting the 22 Contracting Parties, 50 observer states and
13 observer organizations. After some discussion, the Con-
tracting Parties adopted a resolution designating the Inter-
governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) to
be responsible for the Secretariat duties relating to the Con-
vention. Guidelines for the agenda and suggested scheduling
for the first consultative meeting were discussed, and it was
scheduled tentatively for September of 1976.
During the deliberations on this Convention, the United States
passed the MPRSA establishing the ocean dumping permit program.
In March 1974 an amendment (PL 93-254) to the MPRSA brought
the Act into full compliance with the Convention. Upon U.S.
ratification and entry into force of the Convention, the MPRSA
became the enabling domestic legislation for the Convention.
Now the Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria, which were
published in October 1973 (40 CFR 220-227) are being revised
to comply with the Convention although the permit program has
operated in substantial compliance with the Convention since it
entered into force.
-------
Factors Governing the Establishment of Criteria
The authorities delegated by the MPRSA and the Convention
provide a broad base upon which effective control of marine
pollution can be built.
Domestic Law Basis for Criteria
The MPRSA (Appendix A) strictly prohibits the dumping of
biological, chemical, or radiological warfare agents and high
level radioactive wastes into ocean waters. For other materials
the Administrator may issue permits when he determines that the
dumping will not unreasonably degrade the marine environment.
Section 102(a) of the MPRSA states that the Administrator shall
establish and apply criteria for reviewing and evaluating ocean
dumping permit applications, and in establishing such criteria he
shall consider, but not be limited to, the following:
"(A) The need for the proposed dumping;
(B) The effect of such dumping on human health and welfare,
including economic, esthetic, and recreational values;
(C) The effect of such dumping on fisheries resources, plankton,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches;
(D) The effect of such dumping on marine ecosystems, partic-
ularly with respect to:
(i) The transfer, concentration, and dispersion of such
material and its byproducts through biological, physical, and
chemical processes;
(ii) Potential changes in marine ecosystem diversity,
productivity, and stability; and
(iii) Species and community population dynamics.
«
(E) The persistence and permanence of the effects of the
dumping;
-------
(F) The effect of dumping particular volumes and concen-
trations of such materials;
(G) Appropriate locations and methods of disposal or re-
cycling, including land-based alternatives and the probable impact
of requiring use of such alternate locations or methods upon con-
siderations affecting the public interest.
(H) The effect on alternate uses of oceans, such as scientific
study, fishing, and other living resource exploitation, and non-
living resource exploitation.
(I) In designating recommended sites, the Administrator shall
utilize wherever feasible locations beyond the edge of the Continental
Shelf. "
International Convention Basis for Criteria
The Convention (Appendix B) prohibits the dumping of any
materials listed in its Annex I, such as the following:
1. Organohalogen compounds
2. Mercury and mercury compounds
3. Cadmium and cadmium compounds
4. Persistent plastics and other persistent synthetic materials.
5. Crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, and lubricating oils,
hydraulic fluids, and any mixtures containing any of these, taken
on board for the purpose of dumping.
6. High-level radioactive wastes or other high-level radio-
active matter.
7. Materials in whatever form produced for biological and
chemical warfare.
This Annex does not apply to: (a) substances which are rapidly
rendered harmless by physical, chemical, or biological processes
in the sea, or (b) when the matters listed in (l)-(5) are present
as trace contaminants.
8
-------
The Convention requires that special care be taken in issuing
permits for ocean dumping the following substances and materials
listed in Annex II:
A. Wastes containing significant amounts of the matters listed
below:
arsenic
lead
copper
zinc
organosilicon compounds
cyanides
fluorides
pesticides and their by-products not covered in Annex I
B. The dumping of large quantities of acids and alkalis:
beryllium
chromium
nickel
vanadium
C. Containers, scrap metal and other bulky wastes liable to
sink to the sea bottom which may present a serious obstacle to
fishing or navigation.
D. Radioactive wastes or other radioactive matter not included
in Annex I.
Annex III contains provisions to be considered in establishing
criteria governing the issue of permits for the dumping of matter at
sea, taking into account Article IV 2. These provisions are:
A. Characteristics and Composition of the Matter
1. Total amount and average composition of matter
dumped (e.g., per year)
2. Form, e.g., solid, sludge, liquid, or gaseous.
9
-------
3. Properties: physical (e.g., solubility and density),
chemical and biochemical (e.g. , oxygen demand, nutrients) and
biological (e.g., presence of viruses, bacteria, yeasts, para-
sites).
4. Toxicity.
5. Persistence: physical, chemical and biological.
6. Accumulation and biotransformation in biological
materials or sediments.
7. Susceptibility to physical, chemical and biochemical
changes and interaction in the aquatic environment with other
dissolved organic and inorganic materials.
8. Probability of production of taints or other changes
reducing marketability of resources (fish, shellfish, etc.).
B. Characteristics of Dumping Site and Method of Deposit
1. Location (e. g., co-ordinates of the dumping area,
depth and distance from the coast), location in relation to other
areas (e.g., amenity areas, spawning, nursery and fishing
areas and exploitable resources).
2. Rate of disposal per specific period (e.g., quantity
per day, per week, per month).
3. Methods of packaging and containment, if any.
4. Initial dilution achieved by proposed method of
release.
5. Dispersal characteristics (e.g., effects of currents,
tides and wind on horizontal transport and vertical mixing).
10
-------
6. Water characteristics (e.g., temperature, pH,
salinity, stratification, oxygen indices of pollution - dissolved
oxygen (DO), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) nitrogen present in organic and mineral
form including ammonia, suspended matter, other nutrients
and productivity).
7. Bottom characteristics (e.g., topography, geo-
chemical and geological characteristics and biological pro-
ductivity).
8. Existence and effects of other dumpings which have
been made in the dumping area (e.g., heavy metal background
reading and organic carbon content).
9. In issuing a permit for dumping, Contracting Parties
should consider whether an adequate scientific basis exists for
assessing the consequences of such dumping, as outlined in this
Annex, taking into account seasonal variations.
C. General Considerations and Conditions
1. Possible effects on amenities (e.g., presence of
floating or stranded material, turbidity, objectionable odour,
discolouration and foaming).
2. Possible effects on marine life, fish and shellfish
culture, fish stocks and fisheries, seaweed harvesting and
culture.
3. Possible effects on other uses of the sea (e.g.,
impairment of water quality for industrial use, underwater
11
-------
corrosion of structures, interference with ship operations
from floating materials, interference with fishing or navigation
through deposit of waste or solid objects on the sea floor and
protection of areas of special importance for scientific or con-
servation purposes).
4. The practical availability of alternative land-
based methods of treatment, disposal or elimination, or of
treatment to render the matter less harmful for dumping at sea.
Article IV 2 of the Convention, to which Annex III refers,
states:
"Any permit shall be issued only after careful
consideration of all factors set forth in Annex III,
including prior studies of the characteristics of the
dump site, as set forth in Sections B and C of that
Annex. "
Corps of Engineers Permits for Dredged Material
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, as amended, (33 U.S. C. 1401) vests responsibility
in the Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with EPA, for authorizing
the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping
it in ocean waters.
Applications and authorizations for dredged material permits
for the dumping of dredged material in ocean waters are processed
by the Corps of Engineers in accordance with 33 CFR 209. 120, with
special attention to Section 209. 120(q)(17), and 33 CFR 209. 145.
The District Engineer will authorize ocean dumping of dredged
12
-------
material only when he makes a determination that the dumping
will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare,
or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems,
or economic potentialities.
In making such a determination the District Engineer applies
the EPA Criteria (40 CFR 220-227). Based upon an evaluation
of the potential effect of a permit denial on navigation, economic
and industrial development, and foreign and domestic commerce
of the United States, a determination as to the need for dumping
is made. A determination as to other methods of disposal and
as to appropriate locations for the dumping is also made.
Prior to issuance of any Dredged Material Permits the Dis-
trict Engineers notify the appropriate EPA Regional Offices of
the intention to do so. In any case where EPA disagrees with
the determination of the District Engineer as to the compliance
with the criteria of Part 227 relating to the effects of dumping
the determination of EPA shall prevail, unless the Administrator
grants a waiver allowing a permit to be issued which does not
comply with such criteria and with such restrictions.
The Criteria by which Dredged Material Permits are eval-
uated by EPA are based on explicitly identified mandatory
considerations stated in Section 102(a) of the MPRSA and the
Annexes of the International Convention on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.
13
-------
The factors upon which the criteria must be based are for-
matted differently in the Act from what they are in the Conven-
tion, but they cover the same range of overall considerations
to be made in the evaluation of any permit for ocean dumping
of any material. The Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria
are based on the factors listed in both the Act and the Con-
vention and are an attempt to simplify the evaluation of permit
applications on an individual basis.
Basis for the Development of Existing Criteria
History
In the Fall of 1972 when it became apparent that the Congress
would enact an Act to regulate ocean dumping, EPA began the
process of developing criteria to provide an effective technical
base for the regulatory program. During the subsequent months
EPA sought advice and counsel from its own marine scientists
and from marine specialists in universities, industries,
environmental groups. Federal and State agencies.
In January 1973 when an initial draft set of criteria had
been developed, a four-day workshop was held to study and
revise the draft criteria. To this workshop were invited all
of those who had made suggestions or comments, or had
otherwise expressed an interest in the ocean dumping criteria.
Over 100 persons attended and participated. The document
resulting from this workshop established the framework for
14
-------
the criteria and the basis on which permits would be issued
or denied. The criteria themselves went through numerous
revisions after that, based on comments and criticisms received
from many reviewers, but the basic approach did not change,
either in the present criteria or in the proposed revisions.
The purpose of this discussion is to outline and discuss the
requirements imposed by the factors explicitly stated in the Act
or the Convention as considerations to be made in the development
of criteria for regulation of ocean dumping. Table 1-1 is pre-
sented to show the interrelationships of the existing and proposed
Regulations to the basic considerations given in the Act and the
Convention.
15
-------
TABLE I
Relationship Between Ocean Dumping Criteria and Considerations
Required by the Act and the Convention
ACT
Section 102{a)
CONVENTION
Annex III
EXISTING
Regulations
PROPOSED
Regulations
A-Need for
Dumping
C.4
B-Human health
and welfare
A. 4, 5,6,8
B. 1,2,5, 8
C.I
C-Fisheries
resources
A. 1,4,8
C.2
220.3(b)(c)(d)
227.4
227. 6(d)
221.K])
220. 3(a)(b)(c)(d)
227.21
227.22
227.31
227.51
227.71
227.73
227. l(a)
227.32
227.33
227.64(a)
227. l(a)
227. 6(c)
227.21
227.22
227.31
227.34
227.36
227.71
227.73
227.22(h)
227.32
227.6(c)
227.64(a)(2)
221.
227.l(a)
227.2(b)(2)
227.3(b)
227. 74(d)
227.14
227.15
227.16
227.24(b)
227. 5
227.6
227.27
227.29
227.7
227. 4(a)
227. 10
227.9
227.8
227. 17
227. 18
227. 19
227. 5
227.6
227. 7(d)
227. 7(c)
227.8
227.7(b)(e)
227.27
227.29
227. 6(d)(e)
227. 10
227.l3(c)(d)
16
-------
TABLE 1 (CONT'D)
D-Marine
Ecosystems
A. 1.3.4.5,6, 7
E-Persistence,
permanence
G-Alternatives
B. 6, 7,8, 9
C.2
A*t 1« «L t «jf 3» '
B. 1,3,4.5,8
C.3
F-Volumes, A. 1,2,3,4
concentrations
B. 1.2,3.4,5,7,8
C.I,2,3
C.4
227.21
227.22
227.31
227.33
227.36
227.51
227. 6(c)
227. 71
227. 73
227.64((a)(2)
227. l(a)
227.5
227.6
227.9
227. 7(c)
227. 7(e)
227.8
227.27
227.29
228
227.4(a)(b)(c)
227 21 227. 5(d)
22?! 22(a)(b)(c)(d)(h) 22?! 6(a)(b)(c)
227.31(b)(9) 227.7(a)
227. 4(c)
227. 12
227.35 227.11
227. l(c)
227.20
227.21
227.22
227.21
227.22
227.31(a)
227.3l(b)(6)
227.31(b)(9)
227.34
227.51
227.71
227.73
227. l(e)
227.33
227. l(a)
227.36
227.4(A)(a)(4)
227.4(A)(b)(c)(e)
227.
227.5
227. 6
227. 7(e)
227. 7(a)
227. 7(d)
227.12
227. 13(c)(d)
227.27
227.29
227.8 .
227.9
228
227. 7(c)
227.20
227.21
227.22
227.24(e)
227.25(b)(c)(d)
227. Kb)
227.2(a)(l)
227.2(b)(2)(3)
227. 15(c)
17
-------
TABLE 1 (CONT-D)
H-Other uses C. 3 227. l(c)(e) 227.4(d)
of Oceans 227.20
227.21
227.22
I-Siting off the B. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 227.64
Continental Shelf 228
18
-------
General Regulatory Requirements
The specific statutory consideration, stated in the Act and in
the Convention have been stated earlier; their overall intent is to
strictly regulate all dumping to: (1) "prevent or strictly limit the
dumping of any material which would adversely affect human health,
welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological I
systems, or economic potentialities" (the MPRSA); (2) "prevent
the pollution of the sea by the dumping of waste and other matter
that is liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living
resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere
with other legitimate uses of the sea" (the Convention).
Thus, the concerns with which regulation of ocean dumping
is to cope are:
(1) hazards to human health or welfare;
(2) damage to the marine environment which would reduce
its value for other uses;
(3) damage to the normal functioning of marine ecosystems;
and
(4) damage to the recreational and esthetic values of the
marine environment.
These concerns are expressed in terms of a wide-ranging list
of considerations explicitly stated in Section 102(a) of the MPRSA
Act and in Annex III of the Convention, and which are to be the
basis for the criteria. In addition, both the Act and the Convention
have lists of prohibited materials.
19
-------
These considerations must be turned into specific criteria
by which a permit application can either be approved or rejected.
Any criteria in a regulatory program must meet these require-
ments:
(1) They must be expressed in terms of identifiable and
measurable characteristics of the waste and the
environment which it will affect.
(2) They must have significance with regard to the purposes
of the regulatory program; i. e., they must deal with one
or more of the major concerns identified in the MPRSA
or the Convention;
(3) They must be defensible as a basis for regulation,
to the public, as well as to the scientific community.
(4) They must be enforceable.
Recognizing that the criteria for the ocean dumping permit
program must meet these requirements, the next step is to
examine what information on each permit application is needed
to meet the general concerns outlined above, and to make sure
that the parameters chosen do indeed reflect ample consideration
of all the factors listed in Section I02(a) of the MPRSA, and
Annex III of the Convention.
Specific Considerations Required by the Convention
The factors presented in Annex III of the Convention are separated
into factors related to characteristics of the matter, characteristics
of the dumping site and method of deposit, and general considerations
20
-------
and conditions. These cover the same broad range of considera-
tions to be made in establishing criteria as do the factors presented
in Section I02(a) of the MPRSA Act, but are more detailed and
explicit. The discussion of the basis for the criteria will, therefore,
be based on an item-by-item examination of the factors listed in
Annex III of the Convention (pages 9-12).
Many of the factors listed are redundant and duplicative, or
otherwise closely related; for clarity of discussion, these factors
are listed here as they are in Annex III, and will be cross-
referenced as appropriate according to the outline of Annex III.
Characteristics of the Matter
The criteria must require an examination of the material to
be dumped to determine its overall impact on the marine environ-
ment and its potential for adverse impacts on human health and
welfare and on amenities. While the ultimate burden of making
a determination regarding the acceptability of the material for
ocean dumping rests with the permitting authority, the applicant
must provide the information on his waste to permit such a
determination to be made.
The applicant must supply information on the amount,
composition, physical state, and chemical, biochemical and
i
biological properties of his waste (A. 1, A. 2, A. 3, A. 4). There
are, of course, practical limits to what chemical, physical, and
biological analyses will be useful in determining whether a waste
is acceptable for ocean dumping, both in terms of what can
be measured within the present state-of-the-art, and whether
21
-------
or not specific measurements actually provide useful information
to the permit issuing authority.
Annex III lists five general considerations (A. 4, A. 5, A. 6,
A. 7, A. 8) to be made regarding the probable effects of a waste
dumped in the ocean. It is useful to examine each of these
individually to see what information is required to make a
determination in each case.
A. 4. Toxicity - Toxicity of a specific chemical compound to
a particular organism is determined by exposing the organism to
various concentrations of the material and determining its effects
on the organism, a procedure generically known as a "bioassay. "
There are many types of bioassays in standard use, and there are
tables showing the toxicity of many different chemical compounds
to certain organisms. Unfortunately, the bulk of the data available
is based on bioassays on either terrestrial animals (rats, mice,
rabbits) or on freshwater aquatic organisms (minnows), and these
results cannot be extrapolated directly to marine organisms.
It is also true that the toxicity of a mixture of compounds may
not be predictable from the toxicities of the individual compounds
themselves, but may be either greater ("synergism") or less
("antagonism") than would be predicted from the individual
toxicities. Since nearly all wastes are mixtures, it would be
necessary to run bioassays on the wastes themselves to deter-
mine their actual toxicity.
22
-------
When liquid wastes are the subject, bioassays can be run
fairly easily and the results can be interpreted in a meaningful
fashion; however, if the wastes are solid, a mixture of liquid and
solids (sludges), or precipitate when dumped, bioassays do not
directly give a true picture of toxicity. Toxicity from the
disposal of such wastes must be inferred from solubility of waste
constituents in ocean waters, rates of solubilization, or avail-
ability by ingestion to organisms, or a combination of these.
It is apparent, however, that the prime measure of the
toxicity of a waste must be some type of bioassay on the waste
itself combined with some knowledge of the physical state of
the waste in the ocean both when dumped and in the future.
A. 5. Persistence - Wastes that decompose in the ocean
into innocuous materials are generally less potentially damaging
than wastes with constituents which persist in the ocean for long
periods of time and may buildup to concentrations having some
long-range detrimental effect. All chemical elements are, of
course, persistent, but their forms may be changed by combina-
tion with other elements. Of major concern in waste disposal
is the presence in wastes of certain heavy metals which may be
toxic or may bioaccumulate and become toxic at some place in
the food chain. Also of major concern are synthetic organic
chemicals which may be relatively inert in the marine environ-
ment but which at some time or place have adverse effects such
as being toxic to marine organisms or producing taints in
23
-------
harvestable species. Inert materials having no particular toxic
effects are also of concern when they may be dumped in large
quantities at certain places (cf. B.I, B. 7, C.I, C.2).
The properties of the individual constituents of wastes
(e.g., elements, specific compounds) are generally well-known
and available from the scientific literature. From knowledge of
the type of waste, its sources, raw materials used in production,
and types of processes used in manufacture and waste treatment,
the likelihood of certain persistent materials being in a parti-
cular waste can be inferred.
For example, a waste from an inorganic process industry,
such as Titanium Dioxide production, would be likely to have
trace metals and insoluble solid material present, but would
not be likely to have organic compounds present unless these
were used somewhere in the process. On the other hand, a waste
from a petrochemical manufacturing facility would have a variety
of organic compounds, the nature of which could be deduced from
the process used, but would be unlikely to contain heavy metals
unless these were used as a catalyst in the production. Similarly,
the composition of domestic sewage is generally well-known, and
the likelihood of other materials being present in a municipal
sewage can be determined from knowledge of industrial inputs
to municipal treatment facilities.
Therefore, the applicant should be required to provide, as part
of the application, a chemical and physical analysis of his waste
sufficient to determine whether any persistent materials are
24
-------
present in significant quantity. The review of this information
would have to be done on a case-by-case basis and would re-
quire considerable knowledge of industrial processes by the
reviewer. When persistent materials are present, then the
probable impact of such materials would have to be determined,
and limitations would have to be set for specific constituents or
classes of materials depending the type of impact they are likely
to have.
Five general types of impacts can be identified, and should
be addressed in the criteria:
1. Impacts of inert, insoluble material..
/
Even though a persistent material may have no other impact,
it still occupies space, and solid materials which sink wi-lLcjover"
the bottom in and near the point of disposal. The amount of the
bottom covered will depend on density of the material, particle
size, current regime at and near the dumpsite, and the structure
of the ocean floor at and near the dumpsite. Because of the
many variables involved, it is not po'ssible to specify quantitative
limits for disposal of inert materials. Each situation must be
examined individually, and limits set accordingly, to minimize
interference with benthic life from waste covering the bottom
and destroying the normal habitat. Thus, some knowledge of the
dumpsite is necessary to make a reasonable determination of the
probable impact.
Inert materials which float or remain suspended may have
adverse impacts on light penetration, thus damaging the
25
-------
phytoplankton population or esthetic values, or interfering
with fishing or other uses of the ocean. Again, these must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Thus, the criteria for regulating disposal of inert solid
material should be based on the basis of probability of damage
to other uses of the ocean or to the benthic life, considering
all the variables involved.
2. Toxicity (Annex III. A. 4)
The toxicity of the waste can be determined by bioassays on
the waste itself, but it may not be possible to interpret the results
of bioassays in terms of the effect of long-term exposure of
sensitive organisms to low concentrations of specific toxic
elements or compounds. However, an allowance for minimizing
the likelihood of any such effects can be made by using a safety
factor (an "application factor") together with the measured
toxicity from bioassays on the waste. Such an application
factor would be based on values generally regarded as reasonable
within the present state of knowledge.
3. Accumulation in biological materials or sediments.
(Annex III, A. 6)
Bioaccumulation or magnification of some persistent constituents
of wastes may result in their reaching levels toxic to humans or
other organisms at some point in the food chain. Bioassays on the
waste provide no direct or indirect measure of the potential for
26
-------
such effects, and the criteria to regulate the dumping of such
constituents must be based on other information than direct
measurements of the toxicity of the waste as discharged.
The criteria for regulation of materials which are bio-
accumulative and toxic should be established by first identi-
fying those elements or compounds which exhibit bioaccumu-
lative and toxic properties, and then setting safe limits for
their concentrations in wastes to be discharged.
4. Susceptibility to physical changes, chemical changes
and interaction in the aquatic environment with other
dissolved organic and inorganic materials.
(Annex III. A. 7)
In considering the impact of the disposal of any persistent
material into the marine environment, it must be remembered
that seawater is a highly-buffered three percent salt solution
at a pH of about 8.0-8. 3, which may interact rapidly with wastes
of highly acidic or alkaline properties. In this interaction com-
pounds may be created or destroyed and the resulting materials
may have impacts unlike those of constituents of the waste as
dumped. Because of the complex and variable composition of
most wastes, it is not possible to establish general quantitative
criteria to regulate the dumping of materials which may interact
with components of seawater or marine sediments.
Knowledge of the composition of the waste provides infor-
o
mation to determine the likelihood of any significant interaction,
and the criterion for acceptability for ocean disposal should be
27
-------
non-interference with uses and no long-term adverse effects on
the marine environment.
5. Probability of the production of taints or other changes
reducing marketability of resources (fish, shellfish, etc. ).
(Annex III. A. 8)
«
The major materials causing this type of impact are specific
classes of organic compounds such as mercaptans, aromatic
nitrogen compounds, phenols, which are most often present in
oil refinery wastes, petrochemical plant wastes, and paper mill
wastes.
Knowledge of the source of the waste will determine whether
or not such compounds are likely to be present in a waste, and
analysis of the waste for specific compounds or classes of com-
pounds will show whether or not any of these materials are.
present in significant quantity.
The levels at which many compounds do cause tainting effects
are known and tabulated, so that a determination can be made in
many cases from the composition of the waste itself as to whether
or not a waste is likely to cause tainting of fish or shellfish.
General quantitative criteria cannot be established for determining
the acceptability for ocean disposal of wastes containing such
materials, since the characteristics of the disposal site itself and
the method of disposal may have a significant bearing on making
such a determination.
28
-------
Summary of Requirements for Criteria Related to the
Characteristics of the Matter Proposed for Dumping - After
consideration of all the factors listed in Annex III. A.
of the Convention, and corresponding considerations listed in
Section 102(a) of the Act, it is concluded that a reasonable and
enforceable set of criteria reflecting the present state of know-
ledge of the impacts of wastes on human health and welfare and
on the marine environment can be developed along the following
lines:
The applicant must provide EPA with detailed information
on his waste, including quantity, physical state, source, type
of process from which it came, and chemical and physical
properties. EPA may require such additional tests as might
be appropriate for the type of waste and its history. The
criteria must specify the types of tests that will be required
for the various types of wastes and set the limits within which
they will be regarded as environmentally acceptable for ocean
disposal. The types of wastes which should be addressed and
the types of tests needed are:
1. Liquids - a bioassay test to determine toxicity is needed.
2. Inert solids - No special test of such wastes, but the
criteria should specify the properties of such wastes which are
of concern (e.g., buoyancy, flocculence) and state the basis for
determining acceptability.
3. Sludges - A bioassay test to determine toxicity is needed,
but where solid fraction is a large part of the sludge, the
29
-------
properties and behavior of the solid fraction must be considered.
4. Dredged Material - Dredged material is primarily inert
solid material of natural origin, but it may contain partly sol-
ubilized organic or mineral material in the interstitial matter.
On which may be released to the environment during the process
of dredging or redeposition. A special test to determine how
much material is released to the environment is needed, since
solid phase bioassays have not been developed, and bulk or total
sediment analysis give no meaningful information on the immediate
or long term impact of dredged material dumping.
5. Acidic or Alkaline Wastes - Such materials can interact
with seawater, frequently with the formation and precipitation of
new compounds. Measurements are required of pH, Acidity or
Alkalinity, and also possibly special tests to determine what
compounds are formed and in what state they exist may also be
needed.
In addition to specifying such tests and setting acceptable
limits, the criteria should identify, as appropriate, particular
materials or waste constituents of special concern and set
acceptable limits for their disposal. Such lists would include
the following:
1. Materials specifically prohibited by the Act or the
Convention.
2. Elements or compounds known to be highly bioaccumulative
and toxic at some point in the food chain.
30
-------
3. Materials known or suspected to have adverse chronic
effects even at low concentrations over a long time of exposure.
4. Materials of unique properties (e.g., radioactive
materials) which require specific unique criteria for regulation.
Characteristics of the Dumping Site and Method of Deposit -
Even when a waste has been found acceptable on an individual
basis for disposalinto the marine environment based on its com-
position and properties, it is necessary to insure that the disposal
is effected in such a fashion that immediate impacts are minimized
and that there are no adverse chronic effects due to buildup of
certain constituents at or near the dumpsite and that there is
no significant transport of material from the dumpsite to other
areas.
Annex III of the Convention lists certain factors regarding
dumpsites which should be taken into consideration. These are:
B. 1. Location, including geographical position, depth
and proximity to coast lines, amenity areas, spawning,
nursery and fishing areas and exploitable resources.
B. 5. Dispersal, horizontal transport, vertical mixing
characteristics and effects of tides and wind.
B. 6. Water characteristics (e.g., temperature, salinity,
stratification, dissolved oxygen content, suspended matter,
nutrients, productivity, etc. ).
31
-------
B. 7. Type, topography, geological character and
biological productivity of bottom.
B. 8. Existence and effects of current and previous dis-
charges and dumping in the area (e. g., heavy metal background
reading, organic carbon content, etc.).
To apply all of the considerations for each dumpsite requires
a detailed and specific knowledge of each dumpsite which could
be derived only from the collection of a broad range of data over
several seasons at each dumpsite, together with data collected on
a continuing basis at the dumpsite to assess whether or not
buildups are occurring. When the Act was passed such infor-
mation did not exist on any dumpsite, nor was there time to
collect and evaluate appropriate data before the Act became
effective. It was not possible, therefore, to promulgate
criteria for assessing the suitability of dumpsites at that time.
The approach taken initially was, therefore, as follows:
A. Dumpsites for the disposal of all wastes other than
dredged material (i. e., those for which EPA would issue
permits for dumping)
1. Examine existing dumpsites generally in terms of the
considerations of Annex III insofar as any information at all
was available, and continue to use those sites on an interim
basis until the necessary studies could be made to either
approve each site for continuing use or else terminate its use.
32
-------
based on criteria derived from the considerations in Annex
III.
2. Because of the many unknown factors regarding the
overall impact of waste disposal on the marine environment
and the lack of site-specific data on the overall impact of ocean
dumping on the marine environment, the criteria regarding the
composition and properties of the matter to be dumped should
be stringent enough to provide adequate environmental safe-
guards even without specific knowledge of the characteristics
of the individual dumpsites.
3. EPA should issue permits only when it is clearly demon-
strated that there are no existing feasible alternatives, even when
wastes meet the criteria for acceptability for ocean disposal.
4. When reasonable doubt as to the acceptability of existing
dumpsites exists, other sites should be utilized where possible,
or sites should be relocated. (This was done in two cases:
(1) The Galveston site was moved away from the Flower Garden
coral reef; and (2) the Philadelphia sewage sludge disposal site
was moved farther out to sea. )
B. Dumpsites for the disposal of Dredged Material (i.e. ,
those for which the Corps of Engineers issues permits
with EPA concurrence. )
A list of interim sites recommended by the Corps of
Engineers would be accepted by EPA, but special require-
ments for sites for the disposal of "polluted" dredged material
33
-------
should be included in the criteria. The requirements would
provide for additional environmental safeguards specifically
related to dredged material disposal, and should reflect the
considerations in Annex III as they apply to dredged material.
Annex III also contains considerations dealing with packing
and containment of the waste (B. 3. ), and initial dilution
achieved by the proposed method of release (B. 4.). These
considerations are directly related to the composition and
properties of the matter to be dumped as well as to dumpsite
characteristics. Because of the variable nature of the materials
concerned, limitations in these areas should be set on a case-
by-case basis as a result of the bioassay and other tests, and
the appropriate limitations specified by EPA or the Corps of
Engineers as a permit condition.
General Considerations and Conditions
Annex III. C. lists some miscellaneous considerations which
have already been discussed above and so will be mentioned only
briefly.
Effects on amenities (C. 1. ) are directly related to the
amounts and properties of the material to be dumped, and
can be controlled by setting criteria regarding floatable
material or material which may have persistent effects
which may affect amenities.
Effects on other uses of the sea (C. 3. ) depend on the
composition and properties of the material, as well as on
34
-------
the dumpsite. They can be controlled by evaluation of the
material in terms of its toxicity, persistent constituents,
interactive nature with seawater, and potential for long range
chronic effects.
The practical availability of alternative means of disposal
or elimination must be determined on a case-by-case basis for
each waste, and the determination in each case would have to be
made by EPA from detailed information provided by the applicant
and reviewed by a qualified professional waste disposal staff.
Structure of the Criteria and Basis for Specific Limitations
The criteria used to evaluate permit applications for ocean
dumping are based on the considerations listed in Annex III of
the Convention and Section 102(a) of the Act, and include the
specific requirements regarding certain materials in the Act or
in Annex I of the Convention. They are organized, however, so
that the applicant, reviewing personnel, and the general public
can easily see what requirements a material must meet to be
acceptable for ocean dumping.
The existing criteria are given in 40 CFR, Part 227, and are
organized in this manner: Part 227. 1 states the general grounds
for issuance of permits. This section is a statement of EPA policy
regarding implementation of the Act, and generally outlines what
is found in the subsequent Sections of Part 227.
Parts 227.2 - 227. 6 set criteria for the disposal of various
types of material, except for Section 227.4 which establishes
35
-------
criteria under which an interim permit may be granted for a
waste which cannot qualify for a special permit, but for which
there is no alternative disposal method at the present time.
The categories of materials used are; (1) prohibited materials,
(2) materials prohibited as other than trace contaminants, (3)
materials requiring special care, (4) non-toxic wastes, (5) solid
wastes, and (6) dredged material.
Part 227. 7 contains definitions applicable to Part 227, and
Part 227. 8 sets procedures for amendment of the criteria.
The basis and rationale for the limitations imposed are pre-
sented in the following discussion.
Part 227.21. Materials for which no permit will be issued.
This Section incorporates a list of materials which could have
extremely adverse effects on the marine environment because of
toxicity, persistence, or unknown nature, and which are, there-
fore, absolutely prohibited.
The Act contains a statutory prohibition against the ocean
disposal of biological, chemical, or radiological warfare agents,
and high-level radioactive wastes. These materials are also
prohibited by Annex I of the Convention except when they are
present as "trace contaminants". Since the Act is more stringent
than the Convention in this particular case, the absolute pro-
hibition is used in the criteria. This Section also prohibits the
dumping of persistent synthetic or natural materials which may
36
-------
float or remain in suspension in the ocean, but permits the
disposal of such materials when they have been processed so
that they will sink to the bottom and remain in place.
Annex I of the Convention contains a prohibition against
synthetic materials, unless present as "trace contaminants",
when they float or remain in suspension in the sea in such a
manner as to interfere materially with fishing, navigation or
other legitimate uses of the sea. The criterion incorporated
here is broader than required by the Convention in that it in-
cludes inert natural, as well as synthetic materials.
Materials such as those prohibited here, while not toxic
themselves, do not degrade rapidly in the ocean, and con-
sequently tend to build up over a period of years, affecting both
recreational and commercial uses. The presence of these types
of materials has been observed far from land in many parts
of the world ocean. It is likely that the source of much of the
observed floating material may be garbage or trash thrown
overboard from vessels rather than the dumping of wastes from
land-based sources, but permitting the dumping of inert floatable
materials where it can be regulated would merely add to the
existing problem. EPA, therefore, believed that the absolute
prohibition was needed to achieve long-term protection of the
oceans from what is essentially a poor housekeeping practice.
This Section also contains a provision prohibiting the dumping
of materials insufficiently described to determine their impact.
37
-------
This provision was included to prevent the dumping of materials
not analyzed sufficiently for EPA to make a determination as to
their impact based on the applicable criteria set out in Part 227.
The Act requires public notice and opportunity for public
hearing in all cases, and it was EPA's view that all information
on a waste should be available for public review and comment.
Therefore, if an applicant is unwilling or unable to provide
publicly all necessary information, he will not receive a permit
as stated in this prohibition.
Part 227.22. Other Prohibited materials
This Section deals with certain specific constituents which may
be present in wastes or other materials. These constituents are
chemical elements, compounds or materials which, because of
their bioaccumulative and toxic nature and their persistence,
should not be put any place in the environment where they could
affect life, particularly food chain species.
While an absolute prohibition against the dumping of such
materials would be desirable, such a limitation is not practicable
because of their ubiquitous nature.
Mercury and cadmium are naturally occurring chemical
elements, and they and their compounds are found in ocean
waters and sediments, as well as in rivers, streams, and
terrestrial soils. They are found in human sewage and may
enter industrial wastes from raw materials or process water,
38
-------
even when they are not used in industrial processes. Both
metals bioaccumulate in food chain organisms, and both are
extremely toxic to human beings, causing nervous disorders
which can result in complete disablement or death at low con-
centrations.
Organohalogens are a class of chemical compounds which
are extremely persistent and in many cases bioaccumulative
and toxic. These include many of the widely used pesticides,
such as DDT, and persistent degradation products, such as
DDE, which have been put on the land and in the air around
the world. They have been found in penguins in the Antarctic
and in cow's milk and human milk in the United States. Or-
ganohalogens are suspected of being responsible for decreases
in population of some wildlife, such as the brown pelican.
Natural petroleum oils are also found worldwide, and some
parts of the ocean contain natural petroleum seeps. Petroleum
oils also enter the ocean from operating discharges from vessels,
as well as from land runoff from cities and highways. Much of
the world's economy is ba'sed on the use of petroleum oils for
fuel or lubrication, and some residues are present in all sewage
and many industrial wastes. Concern with petroleum and its
distillates results from its persistence and from its film-forming
and surf ace-active properties which can have extremely adverse
effects on biota.
39
-------
Annex I of the Convention prohibits the dumping of wastes
containing these materials when the materials are present as
other than "trace contaminants". The Convention makes no
attempt to identify what is meant by "trace contaminants", and
this omission led to considerable debate during the development
of the criteria concerning what was meant by "trace contaminant",
and how it should be applied in the criteria.
A "trace contaminant" is conceptually an impurity present in
very small amounts, usually regarded as near the limits of
detectability. A "trace contaminant" in a waste would, therefore,
be a very small concentration of a material not regarded as a
normal constituent of a waste. In the case of the four classes
of materials considered here, even when these materials are
present in concentrations and under conditions in which they
would be conceptually regarded as "trace contaminants", per-
missible concentrations of each of these in a waste must be
based upon the potential they might have for causing harm
rather than on abstract concepts.
The interim definition of "trace contaminants" adopted by the
Oslo Convention, which regulates dumping in European waters,
reflects this approach. This definition is:
"Trace Contaminants" are substances which, when present in
an otherwise acceptable waste, do not occur in such amounts
that the dumping of wastes causes significant undesirable
effects, including the possibility of danger associated with
40
-------
that the dumping of wastes causes significant undesirable
effects, including the possibility of danger associated
with their bio-accumulation in marine organisms and
specially in food species. "
Acceptance of this definition would also require the setting
of acceptable levels based on the potential for immediate or
long-range adverse effects.
In setting of acceptable concentrations of these materials in
wastes, EPA chose to make a distinction between those firms
which use or produce any of these materials and those waste
producers which do not. The criteria make it possible for waste
producers which do not use or produce any of these materials
to receive interim permits, subject to an acceptable implemen-
tation plan, while other firms could only receive a permit if the
acceptable concentration limits were meet.
This was done because it was believed that firms which use
these materials in their processes, or produce them, should
have readily available both the expertise and the technology for
control of their waste streams, while other waste producers
might require time for implementation of control measures or
to find alternative means of disposal.
Mercury and Cadmium Criteria - When the criteria were
being developed, information on the acute and chronic effects of
these materials on the marine environment was not available;
indeed, only the most scattered data were available on the normal
41
-------
ambient values for mercury and cadmium in ocean waters and
in marine sediments. Since toxicity data were not available at
that time, it was decided to base the mercury and cadmium
criteria were based on ambient concentrations by allowing in a
waste a concentration that, after reasonable allowance for mixing,
would be close enough to the normal ambient levels that no
significant adverse effects would be expected. To do this it is
necessary to answer three questions:
1. What are the normal ambient background levels of mercury
and cadmium?
2. What is a reasonable allowance for mixing?
3. How much deviation from the normal ambient levels can
be tolerated without significant adverse effects?
Ambient Background Levels - Mercury - Data on Atlantic surface
waters show a fairly consistent average mercury concentration,
based on 1967-1968 data reported in the International Decade of
Ocean Exploration (IDOE) baseline study. 2_/ The results may be
summarized as follows:
Location
No. Samples
Range*
Avg. Cone.*
Tropical N Atlantic
Irish Sea
North Sea
English Channel
Mediterranean
Monaco Coastal
TOTAL 36
*Micrograms per liter (ppb)
10
4
4
4
5
9
.067-. 17
. 058-. 14
.063-. 14
.086-. 13
.062-. 14
.064-. 19
0. 11
0.10
0.099
0.11
0.094
0. 14
.058-. 19
0.11
42
-------
However, several points about this set of data should be
noted. First, while the data do represent a wide geographical
area, none of the samples were from waters near the United
States, where these criteria are to be applied. Second, while
the averages are quite consistent, the ranges of the sets of
samples are also consistent and show a nearly uniform range
for each sample set of the same magnitude as the mean value;
i.e., the average range of the sample sets is .085. Thus, it is
likely that the normal ambient concentration of mercury in open
ocean surface waters is represented by a range of values rather
than by a specific level which can be applied uniformly at all
times and places.
A straightforward application of the Student "t" statistic to
these data shows that, at the 90 percent confidence level, the
mean value for mercury in the surface waters of the ocean is
0.11 +_. 01 micrograms per liter. However, the standard de-
viation of the observations is 0. 04, which means that the range
of normal ambient mercury concentrations would lie between 0. 07
and 0.15 in about two-thirds of a large number of observations
and between 0. 03 and 0. 19 in 95 percent of a large number of
observations.
Data were obtained from the same source on mercury in
marine sediments in the Atlantic.and Pacific Oceans. These
data in micrograms/gm (ppm) are:
43
-------
0. 18 + 0. 14 0.77 + 0.28
0.37 + 0. 18 1.2 +0.3
0. 60 + 0. 10 1.0+0.4
1.5 + 0.4 0.28 +_ 0.35
0.29 + 0.05 0.48 + 0.25
0.88 + 0.20 0.09 + 0.08
0.55 + 0. 30 0. 18 + 0.25
0.38 +0.32 0.86 + 0.28
0. 14 + 0.06 0.51 + 0. 14
These samples were collected at depths ranging from 80 to
7600 meters; there appears to be no consistent variation with
depth. The striking features of these data are the wide variation
in the reported observations, and the large range of uncertainity
associated with the individual observations. Based on these
values, mercury levels of from zero to 1. 9 micrograms per
gram would not be unexpected in natural marine sediments.
With such large analytical uncertainty in the data, the esti-
mation of an average value for mercury in marine sediments
is difficult and subject to large differences of opinion concerning
the significance of the data. The mean value of the data is 0. 57
+_ 0. 23; however, in view of the small number of observations
and the large errors associated with each observation (suggesting
possible contamination of the data with erroneous results), the
median would probably be a more meaningful statistic to use
44
-------
in this case. The median is 0. 5, and the mean variation asso-
ciated with the four values nearest this value is +_-0. 25.
Therefore, for purposes of these criteria, the background
level for mercury in marine sediments is regarded as 0. 5 + 0. 25
micrograms per gram of dry sediment, and in ocean waters as
0. 11 +_ 0. 01 micrograms per liter of seawater.
Cadmium Background Levels - Data on cadmium concentrations
in seawater is scarcer than for mercury. The standard textbook
values for cadmium in seawater give normal ambient concentrations
of 0. 1 micrograms per liter. The SCCWRP data show cadmium
concentrations at control stations in coastal areas of 0.20 and 0. 74
micrograms per liter. 3_/ Data on cadmium in sediments from the
same source showed a value of 0.37 + . 07 micrograms per gram
based on 46 samples from the Southern California Bight.
' Based on the limited data available, reasonable average
natural background values for cadmium in coastal waters would
be about 0. 20 micrograms per liter in the soluble state and about
0. 37 +^ 0. 07 micrograms per gram in sediments.
Initial Mixing - When a waste is dumped from a barge into the
ocean, it is immediately subject to the powerful turbulence effects
typical of open ocean waters. Depending upon the relative densities
of the liquid and solid portions of the waste, the particle sizes of
solid material, and the hydrodynamic regime at the dumpsite, the
waste may be dispersed rapidly into the seawater or may settle
45
-------
rapidly to the bottom. Because of the difference in behavior of
liquids and solids (except some solids which behave much like
liquids on dumping) on being dumped, it is necessary to consider
liquids and solids separately.
While the general theory of oceanic turbulent diffusion is
well-developed, there are no standard factors which can be
applied to specific problems without detailed data on each sit-
uation. Thus the final decision on initial mixing allowances
was made based on the beet judgment of EPA technical staff
with experience in diffusion theory and practice in water
pollution problems.
A standard technique in field studies of diffusion phenomena
is to use a brightly colored dye and measure its change in concen-
tration over a period of time after it is introduced into a water
body. Experience with such studies in tidal waters, even without
strong tidal currents, indicates that rapid diffusion occurs within
the first 4-6 hours after the initial dye dump, during which the
initial concentration of the dye is generally reduced by factors
of 10, 000 - 50, 000 times, based on limited observtions under
field conditions. Similar results can be obtained from theoretical
oceanic diffusion considerations by applying appropriate factors.
A straightforward application of the historical Fickian diffusion
6
theory with observed values of eddy diffusion coefficients (10 -
82 22
10 cm /sec in the horizontal, and 0.1-10 cm /sec in the
46
-------
vertical, 4_/ suggests that dilutions of the order of 100, 000 may
occur within four hours.
There were at that time, however, no actual data on which
to base a determination of "reasonable initial mixing", so a
judgmental choice of four hours was made based on the
following points:
(1) Within a period of four hours dilution of the order of
about 30, 000 times can be reasonably expected under open
ocean conditions for a material of approximately the same
density as seawater.
(2) Acute toxicity measurements involve the exposure of
organisms to various waste concentrations for extended periods
of time, usually 48-96 hours, and are based generally on acute
effects on 50 percent of the organisms at that time. Thus, if
a waste contained materials at the acutely toxic concentration,
it would be expected that far less than 50 percent of those at the
point of dumping would show any acute effects, and that within
four hours concentrations of less than . 0001 of that required to
acutely damage 50 percent of the organisms would exist at the
point of discharge.
(3) Chronic toxicity is measured over much longer periods
of time, sometimes through several generations of organisms.
Data on chronic toxicity are much more difficult to obtain and,
therefore, much scarcer than data on acute toxicity. As a
re suit-of this, the concept of an "application factor" has often
47
-------
been used in applying acute bioassay data to natural environ-
ments. The "application factor" is regarded as that fraction of
the acute toxic concentration below which chronic toxic effects
are not likely. Application factors in general use are 0.1, 0.01,
0. 001, with 0.01 being the one most frequently applied in unknown
situations. Chronic effects are generally regarded as resulting
from continued exposure to low concentrations for long periods
of time. Thus by using suitable application factors to bring con-
centrations below expected chronic toxic effects levels within a
four-hour period, the probability of the occurrence of any chronic
effects from dumping becomes extremely low.
As pointed out earlier, solid materials must be treated sep-
arately from liquids, since they can in most cases be regarded
as settling rapidly to the bottom. The immediate toxic effect
of toxic constituents of solid materials is probably quite small
since they are essentially insoluble. Their toxicity would become
an environmental concern as they dissolve into the seawater or
are consumed by or transformed by benthic biota and thereby
become active in the food chain. Because of this an allowance
for initial mixing for solid material was not feasible, .and it was
assumed that wherever solid material reached bottom it would
have the same potential for damage.
Initial mixing in this discussion has dealt with liquids (or
particulates) which can be expected to disperse rapidly due
to oceanic turbulence effects, and settleable solids for which
48
-------
initial mixing is not regarded as a factor. A further class of
materials should also be considered: those which may contain
or may interact with seawater to form particulates of a density
such that they might tend to concentrate at a thermocline, halo-
cline, or other hydrodynamic discontinuity. The reconcentration
of any such material at such hydrodynamic discontinuities is not
likely since mixing processes in the homogeneous layers con-
tiguous to such discontinuities are likely to be intense, based
on theoretical considerations, and any tendency to reconcentrate
would be overbalanced by diffusion processes in an open ocean
situation. However, the volume in which initial mixing could
occur could be limited by such a discontinuity. Thus, it was
decided that a definition for a mixing zone should be adopted
which recognizes the possibility of such effects, as well as the
amount of mixing that could be expected within four hours.
In any given dumping situation, even in the same location,
the volume of water actually affected will have an unpredictable
shape because of local conditions; however, for operational
purposes of setting permit conditions, it was necessary to
identify the limits of a volume roughly equivalent to that which
would be likely to be affected, and which would recognize the
operational features of dumping from a barge or vessel.
A volume 200 meters wide and 20 meters deep (unless
shallower because of a hydrodynamic discontinuity), and as
long as the distance the barge moves during dumping was
49
-------
selected. In a typical dumping operation a barge carryying
2000 tons of waste might dump along a 7 n. m. path; according
to the above mixing zone definition, this would achieve a dilution
of about 32, 000 times in the four-hour initial mixing period.
Permissible Deviation from Normal Ambient Values - As
was pointed out earlier, information on acute and chronic toxicity
levels for mercury and cadmium was not available when the criteria
were being developed, so it was not possible to reflect verified
toxicity data in the criteria.
Instead, it was determined that the criteria should be based
on allowing in the mixing zone, after reasonable allowance for
initial mixing, only an increase in concentration of 50 percent
over the observed mean value. The rationale for this is as
follows:
(a) Data showing measured concentrations of mercury are
extremely limited and show a large and consistent variation
throughout the surface waters of the ocean. Thus, while a mean
value can be calculated, it is merely a mathematical artifact which
describes the central tendency of the observed data.
(b) An allowance of a deviation of 50 percent from the mean
value, in terms of actual environmental conditions, means that
a change in mercury concentration of +. 05 ppb would be permitted
in the mixing zone after initial mixing. Such a change is well
within the actually observed range of values of mercury found in
ocean waters, and permitting this level of increase should cause
50
-------
no additional stress on organisms in the immediate vicinity of
the dump. Increases in mercury concentration above normal
ambient levels would be transient, certainly less than four
\
hours in duration, and it is unlikely that such exposure of or-
»
ganisms at the dumpsite would result in significant chronic effects.
(c) There were no comparable data on cadmium, but it is
reasonable to infer by analogy that cadmium concentrations in the
ocean are likely to exhibit the same type of variability, and that,
therefore, the same rationale should apply.
(d) For solid materials no allowance for initial mixing is
made, and the criterion should be based on allowing a 50 percent
deviation from the mean values of mercury and cadmium concen-
trations in natural ocean sediments. Since mercury and cadmium
in the solid phases of wastes would become biologically active
only gradually as a result of solution or biological transformation,
this criterion would provide an even greater degree of protection
for marine organisms.
Based on the foregoing rationale and the amount of diluttion
which could be expected within the first four hours after dis-
charge for liquid or liquid-like wastes, the following criteria
were set for mercury and cadmium:
Liquid phase:
Mercury 1.5ppm
Cadmium 3. 0 ppm
Solid phase:
Mercury *0. 75 ppm
Cadmium 0. 6 ppm
51
-------
Organohalogens - The organohalogens of concern are
primarily persistent synthetic organic compounds (e.g.,
DDT, PCB's) for which the natural background level is zero.
Adequate data on the general toxicity of specific organohalogens
exist in the literature, although very little of this deals with
marine organisms.
These materials tend to bioconcentrate and to bioaccum-
ulate in a large number of organisms and through the food
chain, and the major concern with their presence is the
potential for chronic effects. Thus, the amount of organo-
halogens permitted in a waste should be less than that which
would be likely to cause chronic effects. Because of the
unknown nature of many of the effects of organohalogens and
their persistent nature, it was decided that permissible
organohalogen concentrations in any waste as dumped should
be no greater than 0. 01 of the acute toxicity as measured in
an appropriate bioassay, as specified in Section 227. 71 of
the criteria.
By placing this requirement on the waste, any organo-
halogens present in the waste must already be present in
concentrations below the level at which chronic effects would
be expected, and allowance for initial mixing would bring these
concentrations to less than . 001 of the concentrations which
are regarded as generally safe for protecting against chronic
toxicity.
52
-------
Since wastes are likely to be mixtures of compounds in
which synergistic effects are likely, it was felt that this
additional safety factor was desirable.
Oils and Greases - Oils and greases in general are of
concern because of their characteristic properties of forming
surface films and coating the exterior surfaces of organisms.
Other regulatory programs have used the existence of a visible
sheen on the surface as being the criterion for an unacceptable
amount of oil or grease being present in receiving water.
This criterion was adopted, with the test being the ability of
the waste to form a surface sheen when mixed with 100 parts
of water.
This amount of dilution was chosen because it has been
found that properly designed and operated diffusers can achieve
this amount of dilution immediately after discharge, and it
was felt that barge disposal could be controlled similarly if
necessary. Under such conditions of dispersion no surface
film would form even in the mixing zone and there would be
little danger to the environment from any oil or grease present
in a waste.
The specific limitations set forth above do not apply if any
of these constituents are present entirely in forme which are
rapidly rendered harmless in the sea providing they will not
make edible marine organisms unpalatable or endanger human
53
-------
health or that of domestic animals, fish, shellfish, or wildlife.
This exception is incorporated in Annex I of the Convention;
EPA felt that it should be included in the criteria so that any
applicant could have the opportunity to collect and present
evidence on the harmlessness of his waste rather than be bound
completely by the specified limitations which are based on very
sparse and general information.
Part 227. 3 Strictly Regulated Dumping
This section of the criteria deals with those materials which,
because of their source or characteristics, or both, might have
significant adverse effects on the marine environment unless
their dumping is strictly controlled. This section establishes
criteria dealing with overall toxicity of such wastes and with
other characteristics of such wastes which might have adverse
environmental impact.
Part 227. 31 sets the general criterion of toxicity to be
applied to all liquid or liquid-like wastes dumped in bulk or in
containers that may rupture and allow the waste to interact
directly with the marine environment.
Part 227. 31(b) presents the list of wastes or other materials
which are subject to this criterion; the list is essentially that
given in Annex II of the Convention, with some additions to include
wastes not identified in the Convention but of concern because
of special considerations of toxicity or other impacts. Those
wastes added to the Convention list are those which, in the
54
-------
opinion of EPA staff, have in the past created environmental
problems when disposed of in the aquatic environment.
Part 227. 3l(a) establishes the criterion for acceptability
for ocean dumping of the wastes or materials identified in
227. 31 (b). This criterion is that the waste must meet the
Limiting Permissible Concentration (LPC) of pollutants as
defined in Part 227. 71.
There are two bases for determining the LPC. In one case,
if data are available to show the impact of the material on the
marine environment, then the LPC can be set at 0. 01 of the
concentration known to be detrimental to the environment. In
the second case, if data on the toxicity of a waste are not avail-
able, then bioassays are to be done using appropriate sensitive
marine organisms, and the LPC is set at 0. 01 of the level
shown to be toxic to the test animals.
The LPC, in either case, is not to be exceeded in the re-
ceiving water after reasonable allowance for initial mixing,
which, as discussed earlier, has been set at four hours. The
volume of water actually affected during this period will depend
on a large number of transient factors, such as wind and wave
conditions, current regime, relative density of the waste and
seawater, barge speed, and method of discharge. For purposes
of setting permit conditions and estimating what the LPC should
be it is necessary, however, to have a quantifiable basis for
estimating the volume likely to be affected during this initial
four-hour mixing period.
55
-------
The approach used is incorporated into Parts 227. 72 and
227.73, which define the "Release Zone" and the "Mixing
Zone. " The Release Zone is essentially the surface of the
ocean surrounding the barge or other vessel while the barge
is dumping. The width has been set at 100 meters on each
side of the barge, and the length is the distance the barge
travels while dumping. The Mixing Zone is then obtained by
multiplying the area of the Release Zone by an appropriate
depth, which has been set at 20 meters, the ocean bottom, or a
hydrodynamic discontinuity, whichever is smaller.
No actual Mixing Zone is likely to ever assume this uniform
geometrical configuration; this is a mathematical artifact
intended only to be used as a basis for calculation in deter-
mining an appropriate LPC value. The width and depth
dimensions were chosen so that, when combined with the range
of distances which would normally be covered in a dumping
operation, dilutions of the order of 10, 000-50, 000 would be
implicitly assumed. The basis for the use of these values was
discussed earlier. Obviously, other combinations of width and
depth could be chosen, so the choice of dimensions must be
regarded as essentially arbitrary.
The LPC is most frequently based on the results of a
bioassay on the total waste run for a period of 48-98 hours.
The acute toxicity level associated with such a bioassay is that
concentration of a waste which, in 48-96 hours, will kill 50
56
-------
percent of the test organisms; this value is the median tolerance
limit (TL ). This type of bioassay measures acute toxicity,
m
but gives no measure of potential long-range chronic effects.
Chronic effects can also be measured by bioassays. but
they require test periods involving complete life cycles of the
organisms and experimental conditions difficult to achieve in
other than a well-equipped research laboratory. Because of
the difficulties of conducting chronic bioassays and the lack of
available standard methods, acute bioassays were regarded as
the only feasible means of determining toxicity on a routine
operational basis.
As discussed earlier, when chronic toxicity data are not
available it is standard practice to use an application factor
applied to the acute toxicity TL to approximate chronic toxicity
m
levels. Application factors of 0.1, 0.01, or 0.001 are used
depending on the nature of the material and its probable chronic
effects. For mixed wastes application factors of 0. 01 have
been used in many water pollution control actions in fresh water
environments, and, by analogy, the same factor was selected
as the basis on which to determine LPC values for ocean dumping
applications.
Recognizing the many unknowns and approximations involved
in the setting of the LPC criterion, it is pertinent to examine
what risks to the environment are inherent in this approach.
The criterion requires that any dumped waste must be below
57
-------
chronic toxicity levels within four hours. Using the mixing zone
estimate described above to calculate an LPC implicitly assumes
dilution factors of 10,000 - 50,000 within that period, so that the
waste in the barge would be discharged at a rate and length of
path so that the total mixing zone volume is sufficient to insure
that 0. 01 of the TL is not exceeded four hours after dis-
m
charge. For highly toxic wastes very low rates of discharge
and very long discharge paths would be required.
In the mixing zone itself, where the TL values will be ex-
m
ceeded, there will be some damage to organisms. The amount
of damage will depend on the length of time organisms will be
exposed to waste concentrations in excess of TL values,
m
and on what volume of the mixing zone is actually affected.
... If it is assumed that a dilution of 10, 000 times will be
achieved in four hours, then the following general conclusions
can be drawn:
(1) If the dispersion is at a constant rate, the maximum
time organisms would be exposed to acutely toxic waste
concentrations would be less than two hours. However,
initial dispersion would occur at a much faster rate,
probably as an exponential function, and it is likely that
acute toxic levels would only occur for about one hour,
i.e., until dilutions of 100 times are achieved.
(2) Since acute toxic levels (TL ) are based on 50 per-
m
cent kill of organisms in 48-96 hours, it is unlikely
58
-------
that significant damage to the total population would occur
in a 1-2 hour exposure period.
(3) If the total volume available for dilution is 10,000, then
only 1 percent of that volume would be affected by wastes
in excess of acutely toxic concentrations. Therefore,
only 1 percent of the total population at the dump site
would even be exposed for 1-2 hours to waste concen-
trations above acutely toxic levels.
It is apparent that, even allowing for order of magnitude
errors in application factors, there are still enormous safety
factors incorporated in this criterion; and it does provide an
adequate margin of safety for marine biota in terms of acute and
chronic toxic effects.
Part 227. 32 deals with wastes which may present a hazard to
fishing or navigation. These might be particulate wastes which
could be carried for long distances and clog fish gills or settle
out on shellfish beds, settleable wastes that might interfere with
bottom trawling or navigation, or have other effects. Because
of the many ways in which wastes may cause hazards to fishing
or navigation, it is not feasible to list and quantify them, so
the basis for regulation is a case-by-case examination of each
application.
Part 227. 33 deals with large quantities of material, even of
a non-toxic nature. Determination of acceptability for ocean
dumping in such cases will be made on a case-by-case evaluation
59
-------
of their potential for causing damage.
Part 227. 34 deals with acids and alkalis, which would be
neutralized by the seawater, but which in the process might form
unacceptable materials. While some change in pH and alkalinity
at the disposal site may be acceptable, a change great enough to
cause significant damage, i.e., permanent, would be unaccept-
able; however, such judgments must be made on a case-by-case
basis, and it is not feasible to promulgate general criteria to
cover all contingencies. Therefore, the criteria are set in
terms of the environmental effects of concern, and the deter-
mination of acceptability is left to the permit granting authority
based on appropriate tests to evaluate what the probable impacts
of a specific waste might be.
Part 227. 35 deals with the dumping of containerized wastes.
Basically, wastes are containerized when their direct impacts on
marine ecosystems may be so damaging as to not permit their
disposal in bulk. The criteria governing the disposal of con-
tainerized wastes set standards which would allow the release of
containerized materials only after such periods of time that the
wastes would have decomposed to such an extent that they would
have little, if any effect, on the immediate marine environment.
Again, judgment must be made on a case-by-case basis, and
standards applied depending on the nature of the waste and the
material used for containerization.
Part 227. 36 deals with the dumping of wastes containing living
60
-------
organisms, and sets conditions under which such materials may
not be dumped. This section is not directed toward sewage sludge
which may contain large numbers of coliform bactepia, plus small
quantities of viruses and human pathogens typical of domestic
sewage. This section is directed rather to experimental lab-
oratory wastes which involve the results of tests of biologically
active pathogenic organisms, and the disposal of wastes from such
tests. The purpose of this section is to assure that, when the
wastes from such activities are ocean-dumped, the pathogens
are not of the type which wouid be viable in seawater.
Part 227.4. Implementation Plan Requirements for Interim
Per mils" ~~
Part 227.4 sets requirements for implementation plans which
are an integral part of interim permits. Interim permits are
granted for wastes which do not meet the criteria, but for which
there is no alternative but ocean dumping at the time the permit
is requested. No interim permit may be issued without the
applicant explaining, in detail, why he has no other means of
disposal, and showing what efforts he has made to find another
means of disposing of his waste. The requirements stated in
Part 227.4 amount to an environmental assessment of the dis-
posal of the applicant's waste, and require the development of
a means for: (1) bringing the waste within the limits of the
criteria, or (2) terminating ocean dumping at the earliest
possible time. This type of assessment must, obviously, be
61
-------
done on a case-by-case basis and the determination as to its
acceptability is left to the Regional Administrator.
Part 227. 5. Less Strictly Regulated Dumping and Disposal Acts
Part 227. 5 deals with non-toxic liquid and solid wastes which
would have little impact other than their occupancy of space at the
point and time of disposal. Such wastes are not regarded as re-
quiring the same type of strict regulation as those wastes listed
in Part 227. 3(b), and the test requirements are relaxed corres-
pondingly. It is, of course, necessary that the applicant demon-
strate, in each case, that his waste does fall within the limits
set in this Part, but once this is done bioassays and other such
tests are not required.
Part 227. 6. Disposal of Dredged Material
Part 227.6, including its subsections, deals with the disposal
of dredged material in the ocean. Both the Act and the Conven-
tion put dredged material in a different category from sewage
and industrial wastes. The Act assigns responsibility for the
regulation of the disposal of dredged material to the Corps oT
Engineers, and Annex I of the Convention identifies dredged
material as a "material" rather than a waste (the framers of
the Convention obviously thought there was a substantive dif-
ference), even though it points out that the same care is to be
taken in the disposal of dredged material in the ocean as in the
disposal of anything else that is proposed for ocean dumping.
The Act specifies that the disposal of dredged material shall
62
-------
be done in accordance with criteria promulgated by EPA and
based on the statutory requirements of Section I02(a) of the
Act.
Dredged material poses a special problem in regulating
its disposal in that it is not a "waste" in the sense that it is
the result of a treatment process applied to municipal or in-
dustrial wastes. Instead, dredged material is primarily natural
sedimentary material (dirt or soil) brought into waterways by
erosion, bed load transport, or land runoff, which may be
contaminated by sewage or industrial wastes. Thus, the major
problem with dredged material is not to determine the com-
position of the natural sedimentary material, but to determine
the nature and extent of its contamination from sewage and
industrial wastes, or from nonlocalized land runoff. In any
case, the dredged material is essentially soil or soil material,
probably contaminated by other matter, and the primary concern
of the regulatory program is with the contamination, not with
the soil, or sediment, itself.
Thus, effective and implementable regulation of dredged
material disposal requires a different approach from that
used in the disposal of waste materials. Bulk analysis of
dredged material gives a measure of the total chemical
composition of the natural soil and the contaminants, but it
does not provide a measure of the potential toxicity or bio-
availability of these materials. In fact, bulk analyses can be
63
-------
extremely misleading because many potentially toxic elements
are essential components of the crystal structure of natural
sediments and do not become biologically active.
There is. therefore, in the regulation of dredged material
disposal, a need to differentiate between the natural sediments
and the contaminants, and also to determine if the contaninants
present in the dredged material do get into the marine environ-
ment during the processes of dredging and dumping.
None of the standard tests available in water pollution con-
trol or oceanography met the special need posed by dredged
material and its potential for impact on the marine environment.
Therefore, considering that dredged material is primarily soil,
dirt, or sediment, a test from agricultural chemistry was adapted
to the needs of the ocean dumping program. Since the use of this
test was an innovation, it is worthwhile to consider briefly its
usefulness and its limitations.
As sedimentary material rests on the bottom of a waterway,
and is worked by currents, it may adsorb pollutants from the
overlying water either directly on the solid surface or in the
interstitial water; chemical or biological effects may also
concentrate pollutants on the natural sediments or in the inter-
stitial water. When such material is dredged from the bottom,
the adsorbed pollutants may be released into the overlying water,
either during dredging or redeposition. The major pollutional
effect of the deposition of dredged material in the ocean is
64
-------
associated with the release of absorbed contaminants to the
environment during deposition, and the concomitant toxicity
they introduce to the aquatic environment.
The test chosen as reasonably descriptive of the impact
of a dredged material on a marine environment was an "elutriate"
test, which has the virtue of simplicity but has the disadvantage
of not being an absolutely perfect test (like most tests in water
pollution control or oceanography).
The elutriate test, as chosen for the purposes of these
criteria, and described in Section 227. 6l(c) addresses these
types of reactions and impacts directly and is essentially a
pragmatic test of what happens when dredged material is pulled
up from the bottom and redeposited. The test lacks scientific
elegance, and it will most certainly be discarded when a
demonstrably better test is available, but it does have a basis
of scientific justification in agricultural chemistry related to the
testing of soils, and it does address itself directly to what happens
when sediment is dredged up and redeposited.
In dealing with dredged material, the major problem of
water column concern is what constituents are released to the
environment during dredging or redeposition. The elutriate test
determines this directly, even though the value of 50 percent
over normal ambient values is arbitrary and based on a best
judgment estimate of what might be damaging. The elutriate
65
-------
test has been criticized because many toxic materials, including
trace metals, tend to be absorbed from seawater during the test.
This is true, but it should also occur when dredged material is
dumped at sea, thus providing a scrubbing effect for many
pollutants. These pollutants would, in all likelihood, be event-
ually released to the marine environment, but at concentration
and rates low enough that there would be little, if any, effect.
Thus, the elutriate test does provide a reasonably accurate
measure of the impact of dredged material on the environment
at the disposal site, and is a useful test for determining the
acceptability of dredged material for open ocean disposal.
This discussion would not be complete without pointing out the
basic differences between the disposal of dredged material in the
open ocean as opposed to its disposal in confined estuarine or
i
wetland environments. In the case of confined estuarine or wet-
land environments, the dredged material may be concentrated for
extended periods of time in a small area with great potential for
the buildup of pollutants to damaging levels because of restricted
circulation and lack of flushing of the dump site. In open ocean
disposal there are always currents or other hydrodynamic features
which tend to disperse rather than concentrate dissolved materials,
and so there is little potential for the buildup of toxic pollutants
in or near the disposal site in open ocean disposal.
Part 227. 6 contains general criteria for the selection of
dredged material disposal sites; this is included to insure that
66
-------
the sites, which are generally close to shore, are indeed nearly
enough characteristic of open ocean to insure that appropriate
dispersion takes place.
Thus, within the framework of the elutriate test and the
specific criteria for the selection of disposal sites for polluted
dredged material, EPA felt that the basis for regulation was
consistent with the requirements of the other parts of the
criteria and recognized the peculiar characteristics of dredged
material.
Criticism of Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria
Because of the time constraints of implementing the ocean
dumping permit program authorized by the MPRSA within six
months after passage of the new law in October 1972, interim
criteria were developed, in accordance with Section I02(a), in
April and May 1973 based on the state of the knowledge at that
time of the impact of waste materials on the marine environment.
Final Regulations and Criteria, published in October of 1973, were
based on initial operating experience with the program and on
public comment on the interim documents. The existing criteria,
which have been established largely from laboratory experimenta-
tion, are the basis upon which permits are currently issued or
denied. They contain detailed quantitative test requirements and
test procedures which are intended to estimate probable environ-
mental effects of disposed materials.
It was anticipated in October 1973 that the Regulations and
67
-------
Criteria would be periodically revised to reflect additional
public comment, additional operating experience, advances in
scientific understanding of the impact of pollutants on the marine
environment, and the recommendations of international scientific
bodies on contaminant concentrations permissible in the oceans.
The October 15, 1973 publication included a request for
comments to be considered in future revisions. In addition.
Section 227. 8 (amendment of criteria) provides for changes to
the criteria either by EPA or by any person who petitions to
amend the criteria. A number of comments have been received,
including recommendations for changes to the criteria from
persons inside and outside EPA. All of the comments have
been considered in the proposed revisions to the Ocean Dumping
Criteria about which this impact statement is being prepared.
National Wildlife Federation Petition - In April 1974, the
National Wildlife Federation (NWF) filed a petition with the
Administrator of EPA for amendment of the ocean dumping
criteria. The petition expressed the concern that EPA's
criteria for evaluating permit applications fail to meet statu-
tory requirements, and rely largely on tests and procedures
which lack sound scientific basis. In short, NWF is concerned
that EPA's existing criteria will not enable EPA to fulfill its
mandate to prevent and strictly regulate harmful ocean dumping.
The National Wildlife Federation petition alleges the inadequacy
of the criteria generally and with regard to dredged material
as the introduction states:
68
-------
"Our concerns with the criteria as a whole are that
they do not meet the statutory requirements for criteria,
they rely heavily on a definition of "trace contaminants"
and on a bioassay procedure for measuring environmental
harm which have little or no scientific basis, and they
create loopholes for "materials requiring special care"
which frustrate strict regulations.
Our concerns With the criteria for dredged spoils
include the legality of creating a separate set of criteria
for these spoils, distinctions made between "unpolluted"
and "polluted" spoils, and the failure to define the re-
spective responsibilities of EPA and the Corps of
Engineers. "
General Criticism of Criteria - Criticism of the ocean
dumping criteria for the evaluation of permit applications
addresses the following six issues:
1. Part 227 of EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations and
Criteria, should be revised to incorporate each of the required
statutory considerations.
Section 102(a) of the MPRSA requires the Administrator of
EPA to consider a minimum of nine items (See B. l.a. ) in
developing criteria for reviewing permit application. Although
some of these nine are covered in the October 1973 Criteria, the
NWF recommends that the criteria be revised to include: (a) no
issuance of a permit unless the need for the proposed dumping is
demonstrated, (b) specification of impacts to human health, wel-
fare, and the marine environment that are too severe to allow
dumping, (c) an evaluation of the impacts of dumping on other
uses of the ocean, (d) a definition of appropriate sensitive marine
organisms, and (e) designation of dump sites off the Continental
69
-------
Shelf unless determined to be infeasible.
2. Section 227. 22 should be revised to provide a definition
of "Trace Contaminants" which has a rational scientific basis
and is compatible with that of the international convention on
the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and
other matter.
The International Convention prohibits the dumping of certain
materials, except when contained in wastes as "trace contaminants".
However, the Convention does not define "trace contaminants" which
leaves the interpretation up to the individual countries. The NWF
petition recommends revising the definition of "trace contaminants"
from the levels indicated in the October 1973 Criteria to a con-
centration in the liquid or solid phase of a waste of no greater
than one order of magnitude of the concentration of some material
in seawater or natural sediments.
3. The "Limiting Permissible Concentration" (LPC) and
"mixing zone" concepts should be redefined to facilitate monitoring,
eliminate ambiguities, and limit the extent of dumping impact.
The October 1973 Criteria define the concepts of "Limiting
Permissible Concentration" and "mixing zone" to be used in
evaluating wastes proposed for dumping and in evaluating dumping
impacts. The NWF petition recommends redefining these terms
so that the limit on ocean dumping is not dependent on the rate
at which the dumping occurs.
70
-------
4. Paragraph (b)(l) of Section 227.31 (materials requiring
special care) should be revised to add antimony to the list of
strictly regulated heavy metals.
Annex II of the International Convention requires that special
care be taken before issuing permits for wastes containing certain
materials. This list of materials in Annex II is included as
Section 227. 31 of the October 1973 Criteria. The NWF petition
seeks to add antimony to the list of materials requiring special
consideration.
5. Section 227.31 (materials requiring special care), should
be amended to prohibit ocean dumpers from violating toxic pollutant
and hazardous substance limitations established pursuant to Public
Law 92-500.
The October 1973 Criteria require that special care be taken
before issuing permits for dumping of wastes containing tcxic
pollutants or hazardous substances designated under Section
307(a) or Section 3ll(b)(2)(A) of PL 92-500. The NWF petition
recommends, in addition, that the Criteria prohibit ocean
dumping of materials in those categories in excess of the limita-
tions established pursuant to Sections 307 and 311 of PL 92-500.
6. Detailed, formal, and uniform bioassay procedures should
be developed as rapidly as possible.
The October 1973 Criteria specify that the toxicity of a waste
be determined by a bioassay with an appropriate sensitive marine
organism in accordance with approved EPA procedures. The NWF
71
-------
petition objects to the use of the brine shrimp, Artemia
sal in a, as an appropriate sensitive marine organism and
recommends that EPA develop improved bioassay procedures
which would be applied uniformly to all EPA Regions.
Criticism of Dredged Material Criteria - Criticism from
the NWF on the ocean dumping criteria addresses the following
three issues:
1. Before Section 227. 61 - 64 procedures (ocean dumping
of dredged materials) may lawfully be substituted for the general
criteria established pursuant to Section I02(a) their functional
equivalence must be persuasively demonstrated.
The dumping of dredged material is regulated under the
October 1973 Criteria in Sections 227. 61 through 227. 64.
These sections provide for a practical application of the
Criteria for prohibited materials and for materials requiring
special care when evaluating dredged material proposed for
dumping. The NWF petition recommends that the dredged
material criteria not replace the general criteria, but rather
be used to supplement the general criteria until EPA can justify
using separate criteria for dredged material.
2. Sections 227.61 (unpolluted dredged material) and §227.64
(disposal of polluted dredged material) should be revised: (1) to
facilitate the characterization of dredged material as "polluted"
or "unpolluted" and (2) to relate more strictly the ocean dumping
of both types of dredged materials to minimize or avoid harm to
72
-------
the marine environment.
A distinction is made in the October 1973 Criteria between
"polluted" and "unpolluted" dredged material. This recognizes
that the impact of dredged material disposal is largely dependent
upon the pollutants that leach out of the sediments. The NWF
petition recommends that the distinction between "polluted" and
"unpolluted" dredged material be based on a modified shake
(or elutriate) test, a sediment analysis test, and a required
bioassay test.
3. Section 227. 6 (disposal of dredged material) should be
revised to clarify the respective permit-review and site-
A
specification responsibilities of EPA and the Corps of Engineers.
The October 1973 Criteria permit the dumping of dredged
material in the ocean unless there is evidence of unacceptable
adverse impact on the marine environment. The NWF petition
recommends that the dredged material criteria be cross-
referenced with Section 225. 3 Corps of Engineers Permits to
ensure that the EPA review requirements of Section 103 of the
MPRSA are fulfilled.
73
-------
CHAPTER II
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED CRITERIA
This EIS covers the revision of Part 227 and the addition of
Part 228 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part
227 sets forth the standards and criteria for the evaluation of
ocean dumping permit applications, and Part 228 contains the
criteria for the selection and management of disposal sites for
ocean dumping.
General Basis
Section I02(a) of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanct-
uaries Act, as amended, (MPRSA) requires the Administrator to
establish and apply criteria for reviewing and evaluating appli-
cations for permits to dump materials into ocean waters. That
same Section of the Act also listed various factors which were to
be considered in establishing those criteria. The London Con-
jf^tt^^
vention also listed factors that must be considered in evaluating
permit applications. An amendment (P. L. 93^54) to MPRSA
requires that the Administrator apply the standards and criteria
of the Convention in establishing these criteria to the extent that
they do not relax the requirements of the Act.
The standards and criteria were published on October 15, 1973.
As previously discussed, the National Wildlife Federation (NWF)
petitioned EPA to amend the criteria which they contended.did not
adequately consider the necessary factors in either Section 102(a)
of the Act or the Convention.
74
-------
In the previous discussion, it was noted that ocean dumping
in various forms had been performed for a long time, but until
recently the attitude has been maintained that because of the
size, the oceans had almost unlimited assimilative capacity.
Therefore, there was little action taken to control environmental
damages resulting from this activity. Thus there existed a paucity
of information concerning the technology and means for such
control. Since the passage of MPRSA and publishing of the
regulations and criteria, in 1973, many improvements in the
State-of-the-Art have developed.
The proposed criteria contain revisions which are intended
to be more responsive to the factors in Section I02(a) and the
Convention and also to incorporate the improved technology
gained through studies and experience in implementing the
existing criteria. Some of the suggestions proposed by the
NWF have been adopted directly or in modified form. Some
test methods and procedures developed by EPA laboratories
have been included.
Part 227 - Criteria for the Evaluation of Permit Applications for
Ocean Dumping of Materials
Objection to the existing regulations has been raised because
they fail to address explicitly the factors contained in Section I02(a)
of MPRSA or the Convention. The proposed criteria for evalu-
ating individual applications for ocean dumping permits have
75
-------
been rewritten and reorganized into seven Subparts which reflect
the statutory criteria of Section 102(a). These Subparts are:
A - General
B - Environmental Impact Criteria
C - Need for Ocean Dumping
D - Impact of the Proposed Dumping on Esthetic, Recreational,
and Economic Values
E - Impact of the Proposed Dumping on Other Uses of the
Ocean
F - Special Requirements for Interim Permits
G - Definitions
Subpart A - General (Sections 227. 1 - 227. 3)
This replaces Section 227. 1 of the existing regulation. This
Subpart establishes explicit criteria for making a determination
as to the issuance or denial of a permit based on the results of
the evaluation of the permit application in accordance with the
other Subparts. In accordance with the intent of the Act to pre-
vent unreasonable degradation of the oceans, Subpart A contains
definite instructions concerning the action to be taken when the
waste proposed for dumping either meets or fails to meet the
environmental criteria in Subpart B.
Section 227. 1 establishes the applicability of the different
sections of Part 227, and 227. l(b) states that only certain portions
of Part 227 apply to the consideration of dredged material disposal.
76
-------
Section 227. 2 allows for the granting of permits if the environ-
mental impact conditions of Subpart B are satisfied, but limits the
applicants to interim permits, as described in Subpart F, if the
conditions of Subparts C (need), D (impacts on recreational,
economic or esthetic values), or E (impacts on other uses of the
ocean) are not met.
Section 227. 3 provides for the denial of permits if the con-
ditions of Subpart B are not met, but allows for the issuance
of interim permits under Subpart F subject to certain limits on
specific materials (contained in Sections 227. 5 and 227. 8) when
need is demonstrated and the denial of the permit would have an
adverse impact on the factors discussed in Subparts D & E which
is greater than the adverse environmental impact of the issuance
of the permit.
Subpart B - Environmental Impact Criteria (Sections 227.4 - 227. 13)
This replaces Sections 227.2, 227.3, 227.5, and portions of
227. 6 in the existing regulation. This Subpart sets specific impact
prohibitions, limits, and conditions for dumping materials into
ocean waters.
Section 227.4. This is a statement of the general basis for the
criteria of Subpart B. It explicitly addresses the statutory criteria,
as recommended by the NWF, namely, the avoidance of adverse
effects on human health, marine resources, the marine ecosystem,
and other uses of the ocean.
77
-------
Section 227. 5. This is the list of prohibited materials. The
list is unchanged from the existing criteria, but the language has
been changed to conform more closely with the language of the
Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter.
Section 227. 6. This is the list of materials prohibited as other
than trace contaminants. This section replaces Part 227. 22 in
the existing regulation. This Part has been changed significantly.
Definition of Trace Contaminant
The term "trace contaminant" is not explicitly defined.
The definition used in the existing regulation has been severely
criticized by the NWF and by some scientists on the grounds that
whether or not a particular constituent was introduced fortuitously
into waste should not be a basis for deciding if it is a "trace con-
taminant. " Many marine scientists, including participants at a
workshop on the ocean dumping program convened by the National
Academy of Sciences, have been asked to recommend a better
definition, but no workable definitions have been received.
There is general agreement that a "trace contaminant" is a
constituent present in a waste in very small quantity, usually
near the limits of detectability by standard analytical methods.
This, however, does not provide an adequate basis for regulatory
purposes, particularly since the detectability of a constituent may
have little bearing on its environmental impact.
78
-------
Even when a constituent is present in a waste in quantities
in which it would be regarded conceptually as a "trace con-
taminant" according to the broad definition stated above, limits
must be set on the amounts that can be released safely into the
marine environment at a particular time and place.
Carcinogens, Mutagens, Teratogens
Known or suspected carcinogens have been added to the list.
This is intended to apply only to specific materials which have
been characterized as carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens by
a responsible health agency. Section 227. 6(c) allows for special
studies on the probable impact of their disposal at the discretion
of EPA. This approach is preferred because of the lack of specific
knowledge of the fate and effects of such materials in the marine
environment.
Reevaluation of Mercury and Cadmium Criteria
The criteria for mercury and cadmium have been reevaluated
j&^
in great depth at several workshops sponsored by EPA and in
•*~s
extensive review of available information. The properties of these
metals are such that their discharge to any part of the environ-
ment should be limited to the minimum feasible, whether it is
the ocean, fresh water rivers, or lakes, air, or land. From a
practical standpoint, however, these metals appear as contam-
inants in many waste residues which are the result of applying
79
-------
the best waste treatment technology available to wastes from
municipalities and industries. For example, sludges often
concentrate metals in proportion to the efficiency of removal
from the liquid effluent. It may be necessary, therefore, from
time to time, to dispose of waste residues containing small
quantities of mercury and cadmium to some part of the marine
environment as a means of ultimate disposal. In such cases it
is necessary to have criteria for disposal operations so that
there is minimum impact on any part of the total environment
used for disposal.
Based on these overall considerations, the criteria appli-
cable for ocean disposal of wastes containing mercury or
cadmium as trace contaminants should reflect the need to
minimize any acute or chronic toxic effects which may result
from the presence of mercury or cadmium in such wastes.
Limits on these constituents should obviously be set at or
below those levels which would cause adverse impacts on the
t
marine environment or indirectly cause adverse impacts on
other parts of the environment. When the existing regulations
were promulgated, documentation on the toxicity of mercury
and cadmium in the marine environment was not available,
and the existing levels were based on allowing an increase
of 50 percent over average existing ambient levels reported
in the scientific literature.
80
-------
Recent information gathered by EPA recommends Limiting
Permissible Concentrations (LP.C) in marine waters of 50 ppb of
mercury to avoid acute effects, and 0. 10 ppb to avoid chronic
effects. Normal ambient values of mercury in ocean waters have
been reported as ranging from 0. 06 to 0.27 ppb with an average
value of 0. 1 ppb. For cadmium the recommended acute and
chronic levels for marine waters are 320 ppb and 5.0 ppb,
respectively. These are levels recommended not to be ex-
ceeded in marine waters, and by applying appropriate dilution
factors, it is possible to relate the existing criteria for mercury
and cadmium in the liquid phase of wastes to acute and chronic
levels of toxicity in the receiving waters.
In the existing criteria for liquid wastes, acceptable concen-
trations of these constituents were established by allowing a
temporary increase in the mixing zone of 50 percent over average
normal ambient values for mercury and cadmium in ocean waters
(cf. pp 42-51). This amount of increase would still be within the
observed range of normal variation of ambient values for these
constituents; acceptable concentrations of these constituents in
solid phases of wastes are set at 50 percent over the average
concentrations of mercury and cadmium found in normal natural
ocean sediments. This amount of increase is also within the
range of natural variation of sediment concentrations of mercury
and cadmium.
If mercury is present in a waste at the maximum concen-
tration allowed by the criteria (]. 5 ppm), a dilution of 30 times
81
-------
would be required to bring this concentration below acute toxicity
levels, and a dilution of 15,000 times would be required to reach
o
chronic effects levels. For cadmium, the corresponding dilution
factors are 10 and 600, respectively.
The maximum allowable concentrations of these constituents
in wastes prior to disposal are based on requiring release pro-
cedures such that the concentrations of the constituents will be
almost instantaneously below acute toxicity levels, and within
four hours the concentration of cadmium will be below chronic
toxicity levels and the concentration of mercury will be within the
normal ambient range of mercury in the oceans. These criteria
will provide adequate protection for the marine environment for
these reasons:
"Acute" toxic levels are based on exposure of organisms to
toxicants for periods of time generally from 48 to 96 hours, and
are base,d upon observable damage to 50 percent of the organisms
tested within that time period. Under the proposed criteria,
concentrations below acutely toxic levels should be reached
within seconds or, at worst, within minutes. There is, there-
fore, very low probability of any significant acute effects due
to these constituents.
"Chronic" toxic levels are usually based on obHervation ol'
subtle damage resulting from long-term exposure, frequently
over a full life cycle. Test periods may be of the order of
weeks or months of constant exposure. The proposed criteria
82
-------
permit chronic levels to be exceeded only for periods of up to
four hours, so the probability of chronic effects due to disposal
of wastes containing mercury and cadmium at these concentrations
is extremely small.
The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has set a concentration
of 0. 5 ppm mercury in edible fish as the level above which fish
are not safe for human consumption. The "chronic toxicity" level
for mercury in seawater is based upon an assumed bioaccumulation
factor of 10, 000 times the ambient mercury level in fresh water,
not upon the observed chronic effects of 0. 1 ppb of mercury in
seawater on marine organisms. Requiring mercury concentrations
to be in the normal ambient range within four hours after disposal
insures that the biota near the point of disposal will not be stressed
to any greater degree than those in other parts of the ocean.
This rationale presumes that the frequency of intermittent
disposal loads and the hydrographic conditions permit "clearing"
of the dump site between dumps. If there is a concentration build-
up from successive dumps, management of the disposal site
becomes more complicated. Accumulative loading over a period
of time must be considered, and a waste load allocation approach
to management would be needed. This applies to both liquid and
solid phases of waste.
For mercury and cadmium present in solid phases, there
are no toxicity values available. These materials are not toxic
as solids in the marine environment, but they become toxic when
83
-------
they dissolve or are biotransformed so that they become avail-
able in the food chain. Thus, the main factor affecting the
toxicity of mercury and cadmium in the solid phase is the
kinetics of their rates of solution and/or biotransformation.
Recent work on the kinetics of mercury methylation.^/
suggests that the rate of methylation of dissolved mercury ranges
-6
from 0. 3 - 5.2 micrograms (10 gm) Mercury per day per gram
of microbial biomass under anaerobic conditions, while the
corresponding range for aerobic conditions is 0. 5 - 11.0. These
values are based on fresh water aquatic environments with
mercury initially in the dissolved ionic state. If we assume
that the mercury in sediments dissolves rapidly enough to
make the methylation process the rate-determining step for the
entire process, then some estimate may be made of the safety
factor of the criterion for solid-phase mercury.
Assuming that there is one gram of microbial biomass in
the sediments per square meter of ocean bottom and that one
kilogram of sewage sludge solids containing 100 mg/kg of
mercury is uniformly deposited on the ocean bottom, then the
-6
rate of methylation is of the order of 11 X 10 grams of
mercury per day per square meter, and it would require in
excess of 1, 000 days to methylate all of the mercury in the
*
sludge. It is obvious, therefore, that the release of methyl
mercury from the solid phase of sewage sludge proceeds at
such a low rate that there would be very low probability of
-------
mercury in sewage sludge solids being released into the environ-
ment into forms available for biological uptake, even at concen-
trations in the sludge much higher than those permitted by the
criteria.
This estimate is obviously quite crude and deals with order
of magnitude estimates. However, the assumptions made were
chosen to give a "worst case" approximation based on existing
information. More detailed studies on the kinetics of mercury
transformation in the ocean environment would be necessary
before consideration could be given to modifying the criteria
for mercury concentrations in sewage sludge solids.
Similar studies are not available for cadmium in sewage
sludge solids, so no evaluation of the safety factors built
into the cadmium criterion can be made at this time.
Sections 227. 6(d) & (c) revise the current policy (existing
Section 227. 22(h)) of allowing dumping of prohibited compounds
which will "rapidly" be rendered harmless by requiring this
process to take place within 4 hours of dumping, except for
research permits, on which a case-by-case determination is
required.
Strictly Regulated Materials (Sections 227.7-227. 12)
These sections replace Section 227. 3 of the existing regulation.
The criteria incorporated in these sections have been reorganized
s
to clarify their applicability. In addition, the list of specific
materials requiring special care has been omitted. This list.
was given in Annex II of the Convention for the Prevention of
-------
Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. EPA
believes that all waste materials should be treated as requiring
special care and that singling out only a few materials for strict
regulation unnecessarily limits the scope of EPA's regulatory
program. These materials are, however, specifically addressed
in Section 227. 13 (Dredged Material) as being of particular concern
if there is probable contamination of sediments by them.
Significant changes made in these sections are the quantifi-
cation of permitted pH change in the dumping of acidic or alkaline
wastes and the limits set on the dissolved oxygen depression
allowed during the dumping of oxygen-consuming wastes. The
limits set are based upon the best judgment of EPA professional
staff by analogy with freshwater processes. A provision is also
included in Section 227. 10 to the effect that hazards to shore-
lines and beaches are to be a specific area of concern in evalu-
ating permit applications.
Limiting Permissible Concentration (LPC)
It is pertinent in considering the changes made in these sections
to discuss the changes made in the definitions of Subpart G, which
deal with the use of the LPC criterion.
"Appropriate sensitive marine organisms" are defined to in-
clude at least three trophic levels from among those species
documented in the scientific literature as being reliable test
organisms for the anticipated impact on the ecosystem at the
disposal site. It is also explicitly stated that bioassays shall
86
-------
be run for a minimum of 96 hours at conditions appropriate for
environmental stress at the disposal site. For phytbplankton it
may be desirable to run bioassays for shorter times, and pro-
vision is made for this. These changes reflect strong recom-
mendations by the National Wildlife Federation, as well as
operating experience with the program.
Some comment was received that only organisms indigenous
to the dump site should be used in the bioassays. This, however,
is impractical because not all marine organisms can be main-
tained in a healthy state under laboratory conditions, and it is
necessary to maintain the control organisms with very low
mortality for at least 96 hours to complete the bioassays.
Standard practice is to invalidate a bioassay if more than 5
percent of the control organisms die. Enough representative
species are amenable to laboratory culture, however, that
sensitive species appropriate for any geographical region can
be selected.
The zone of initial mixing ("mixing zone") has been limited
by definition to include only that volume into which a waste will
disperse within four hours after dumping. The means by which
the limits of the mixing zone may be estimated have been
broadened to include the application of field data and verified
mathematical models where such information is available.
These changes have been made to recognize the actual state-
of-the-art in hydrodynamic theory and practice.
87
-------
Since acceptable levels for trace contaminants were set based
on assumed rates of initial dispersion and dilution, as was the
LPC itself, it is reasonable to permit the use of new information
in setting permit requirements rather than being bound to an
essentially arbitrary definition of a mixing zone.
Dredged Material (Section 227.13)
Source of Dredged Material - EPA and the Corps of Engineers
believe that it is unnecessary for the public and the government
agencies involved to expend substantial resources in conducting
expensive, time-consuming tests of each and every application
for a dredged material. Instead, Section 227.13(b) describes
a three-step screening procedure and the highly subjective terms
"polluted" and "unpolluted" are no longer used. The first step
is an examination of the nature of material to be dredged, the
potential sources of man-made pollution in the geographical areas
where dredging is to be done, and where the material will be
dumped. Dredged material may be excluded from the laboratory
testing procedures and considered environmentally acceptable for
ocean dumping if any of the following conditions is determined to
exist:
(1) Dredged material is composed predominantly of
sand, gravel, or any other naturally occurring sedimentary
material with particles larger than silt, characteristic of
and generally found in areas of high current or wave energy
-------
such as streams with large bed loads or coastal areas with shifting
bars and channels,
(2) dredged material is for beach nourishment or restoration
and is composed predominantly of sand, gravel, or shell with
particle sizes compatible with material on receiving shores,
or when,
3(a) the material proposed for dumping is substantially
the same as the substrate at the proposed disposal site;
3(b) the area from which the material proposed for dumping
is to be taken is sufficiently removed from sources of pollution
to provide reasonable assurance that such material has not been
contaminated by such pollution, and
3(c) adequate terms and conditions are imposed on the
dumping of the dredged material to provide reasonable assurance
that the material proposed for dumping will not be moved by
currents or otherwise in a manner that is damaging to the environ-
ment outside the disposal site.
Elutriate Test (Section 227. 13(c) - If the preliminary examina-
tion of the proposed dredging project indicates that there may be
potential sources of contaminant^ in the material to be dredged
and dumped in ocean waters, an elutriate test shall be performed
to predict the effect on water quality due to the release of these
contaminants. The elutriate is the supernatant resulting from
a vigorous 30-minute agitation of one part bottom sediment from
the dredging site with four parts water (vol/vol) collected from
89
-------
the dredging site followed by one-hour settling time and appropriate
centrifugation and a 0. 45)i filtration. Major constituents to be
analyzed in the elutriate are those deemed critical by the District
Engineer, after evaluating and considering any comments re-
ceived from the Regional Administrator, and considering known
sources of discharges in the area. Consideration should also
be given to the possible presence in the sediments of the fol-
lowing specific constituents as other than trace contaminants.
o organohalogen compounds;
o mercury and mercury compounds;
o cadmium and cadmium compounds;
o known or suspected carcinogens from analyses of the
possible sources in the area and specific amounts of
arsenic, lead, copper, zinc, organosilicon compounds,
o
cyanides, fluorides, pesticides and their by-products
not listed above and radioactive materials.
Particular attention should be given to the possible presence
of major constituents that could cause unacceptable oxygen demand
or adverse chemical-biological interactive effects and known
characteristics of the extraction and disposal sites. The dredged
material will be considered as environmentally acceptable for
ocean dumping if the elutriate concentrations, after allowance
is made for dilution after initial mixing and consideration of the
volume and rate of the proposed dumping, do not exceed the
Limiting Permissible Concentration. Limiting Permissible
90
-------
Concentration with respect to dredged material, is that concen-
tration of a major constituent in the elutriate which, after
allowance for initial mixing, does not exceed applicable water
quality criteria.
The procedures for conducting the above elutriate test
represent a considerable improvement over the previous test
procedures. This improved technique results from research
conducted by the Corps of Engineers under the Dredged Material
Research Program.
Bioassay (Section 227. 13(d)) - If the elutriate test reveals
certain constituents in the dredged material exceed the limiting
permissible concentration for ocean dumping, a final test, a
bioassay, is conducted on the material to establish dumping
conditions which will enable the material to be ocean dumped.
or render a final determination that the material is unaccept-
able for ocean dumping.
Other Factors Considered
Subparts C, D, and E explicitly state the factors to be con-
sidered in evaluating ocean dumping permit applications, other
than those of environmental impact, which are incorporated in
Subpart B. The final determination in each case will be made
by balancing all of the factors stated in the criteria, including
environmental impact, as well as the factors listed in Subparts
C, D, and E.
91
-------
Subpart C - Need for Ocean Dumping - (Sections 227.14 - 227. 16)
This section which has no counterpart in the existing criteria
was developed to conform to the requirements of Sections 102 (A)
and (G) of the Act. EPA has taken a strict, highly restrictive
approach, by requiring all dumpers to actively seek alternatives
to ocean dumping. J5/ EPA has taken this approach because of the
general lack of specific knowledge about the impacts of waste
materials on marine ecosystems. This Subpart requires applicants
for dumping permits to examine the feasibility of other disposal
methods or possible changes in production procedures, methods or
raw materials so as to reduce or limit the need for ocean dumping.
In some cases, a dumper may be required to take action to phase
out dumping or continue research for alternative methods of disposal.
The burden of proof is placed upon the dumper. The EPA policy
with regard to strict control of ocean dumping is reflected in
Section 220. 3 of the proposed regulations which requires that
no Interim Permits be issued after April 23, 1978.
The purpose of these criteria is to assure that before a
waste is permitted to be ocean dumped, a thorough effort
has been made to treat it to the optimum degree to reduce its
environmental impact, and to be certain that there are no
better ways to dispose of it.
The need for dumping will be determined by evaluation of
the following factors:
(a) Degree of treatment feasible for the waste to be dumped.
92
-------
and whether or not the waste material has been or will be
treated to this degree before dumping;
(b) raw materials and manufacturing or other processes re-
sulting in the waste, and whether or not these materials or
processes are essential to the provision of the applicant's goods
or services, or if other less polluting materials or processes
could be used;
(c) the relative environmental impact and cost for ocean
dumping as opposed to other feasible alternatives including
but not limited to:
(1) land fill;
(2) well injection;
(3) incineration;
(4) spread of material over open ground;
(5) recycling of material for reuse;
(6) additional biological, chemical, or physical treatment
of intermediate or final waste streams;
(7) storage.
(d) irreversible or irretrievable consequences of the use of
alternatives to ocean dumping.
Subpart D - Impact of the Proposed Dumping on Esthetic,
Recreational and Economic Values and Subpart E - Impacts of the
Proposed Dumping on Other Uses of the Ocean (Sections 227. 17 -
227.22)
93
-------
These sections which have no counterpart in the existing
criteria were developed to conform to Sections 102(a)(B); (C);
(G); and (H) of the Act. These Sections provide guidance concerning
the factors which must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when
reviewing an application for dumping materials into the ocean.
The impact of dumping on esthetic, recreational and
economic values will be evaluated on an individual basis using
the following considerations:
(1) Potential for affecting recreational use and values of
ocean waters, inshore waters, beaches, or shorelines;
(2) Potential for affecting the recreational and commercial
values of living marine resources.
For all proposed dumping, full consideration will be given to
such non-quantifiable aspects of esthetic, recreational and
economic impact as:
O) Responsible public concern for the consequences of the
proposed dumping;
(2) Consequences of not authorizing the dumping, including
without limitation the impact on esthetic, recreational and
economic values with respect to the municipalities and in-
dustries involved.
The assessment of the potential for impacts on esthetic,
recreational and economic values will be based on an evaluation
of the appropriate characteristics of the material to be dumped,
allowing for conservative rates of dilution, dispersion, and bio-
-------
chemical degradation during movement of the materials from
a disposal site to an area of significant recreational or com-
mercial value. The following specific factors will be considered
in making such an assessment:
(a) nature and extent of present recreational and com-
mercial use of areas which might be affected by the proposed
dumping;
(b) existing water quality, and nature and extent of disposal
activities, in the areas which might be affected by the proposed
dumping;
(c) state water quality standards approved or adopted by the
Administrator pursuant to Section 303 of the FWPCA for waters
within the territorial sea, or other applicable water quality
criteria which might be affected by the proposed dumping;
(d) visible characteristics of the materials (e.g., color,
suspended particulates) which result in an unacceptable esthetic
nuisance in recreational areas;
(e) presence in the material of pathogenic organisms which
may cause a public health hazard either directly or through
contamination of fisheries or shellfisheries;
(f) presence in the material of toxic chemical constituents
released in volumes which may affect humans directly;
(g) presence in the material of chemical constituents which
may be bioaccumulated or persistent and may have an adverse
effect on humans directly or through food chain interactions;
95
-------
(h) presence in the material of any constituents which might
significantly affect living marine resources of recreational or
commercial value.
An appraisal will also be made of the nature and extent of
existing and potential uses of the disposal site itself and of any
area which might reasonably be expected to be affected by the pro-
posed dumping, and a quantitative and qualitative evaluation made,
where feasible, of the impact of the proposed dumping on each use.
The uses considered shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) commercial fishing in open ocean areas;
(b) commercial fishing in coastal areas;
(c) commercial fishing in estuarine areas;
(d) recreational fishing in open ocean areas;
(e) recreational fishing in coastal areas;
(f) recreational fishing in estuarine areas;
(g) recreational use of shorelines and beaches;
(h) commercial navigation;
(i) recreational navigation;
(j) actual or anticipated exploitation of living marine
resources;
(k) actual or anticipated exploitation of non-living resources,
including without limitation, oil and gas exploration and
development and offshore marine terminal or other
structure development; and
(1) scientific research and study.
96
-------
Subpart F - Special Requirements for Interim Permits Under
Section 102 of the Act - (Sections 227.23 - 227. 26)
This replaces Section 227.4 of the existing criteria. Section
220. 3(d) df the proposed regulations states that interim permits
may be issued under certain conditions to dump materials which •
would not be suitable for dumping under these criteria or for which
no disposal site has been designated on other than an interim
basis. The requirements for an assessment of the environmental
impacts of the proposed dumping together with an implementation
plan for mitigating the adverse impacts or eliminating the need
for dumping as part of the permit application have not been changed
substantially from the existing criteria.
Subpart G - Definitions - (Sections 227.27 - 227.30)
This replaces Section 227. 2 of the existing regulation. Several
important changes have been made in this section. These changes
are discussed on pages 86-88.
Part 228 - Disposal Site Designation and Management
Part 228 of the proposed revisions to the Ocean Dumping
Regulations establishes criteria for the initial selection of ocean
disposal sites and for the management of the sites after desig-
nation. It also presents factors which must be considered with
respect to the determination of the permissible levels of disposal
o
of materials at a particular site. Part 228 establishes the re-
quirement to evaluate the total stress on the marine environment
at the disposal site, rather than basing permit issuance solely
97
-------
on testing of the waste. The following sections outline the site
designation procedures and provide a detailed list of criteria for
the selection of sites:
Existing Site Designation Procedures
A list of "Approved Interim Ocean Dumping Sites" was published
on May 16, 1973, (38 FR 12875-77) and the preamble to the Final
Regulations and Criteria, published on October 15, 1973, (38 FR
28610-21) stated that the list of "Approved Interim Ocean Dumping
Sites" would continue to be effective until such time as final regula-
tions relating to site selection and use are published. Such final
regulations for site selection and use are the subject of this
Draft EIS.
The existing sites will continue to be used for dumping specific
materials on an interim basis pending completion of baseline or
trend asessment surveys and ultimate designation for continuing use
or termination of use in accordance with the new site selection
criteria of Part 228. The interim sites will be available for use
for a period not to exceed three years from the date of final promul-
gation of Part 228, except for those sites approved for continuing
use or disapproved for use by promulgation in Part 228 during
that period of time.
New Site Designation Procedures
Section 228. 4 - Procedures for designation of sites of the
proposed revisions to the Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria
98
-------
specifies for the first time the procedure by which an ocean
disposal site is designated. Certain categories of ocean disposal
permits require the use of a site which has been designated based
on extensive environmental studies in accordance with the require-
ments of Sections 228. 5 - General criteria for the selection of sites -
and 228. 6 - Specific criteria for site selection. Other permit
categories, either due to the nature of the material to be disposed
of or because of the emergency nature of the situation, do not require
the use of a site designated in accordance with Section 228. 5 and
228. 6. A more detailed discussion of the procedures for designating
sites as they pertain to the various categories of ocean disposal
permits follows:
General Permits
Geographical areas or regions within which materials may be
dumped under a general permit will be published as a part of the
promulgation of each general permit. A general permit is issued
based on the knowledge that the materials for which it is issued
will have a minimal adverse environmental impact on the area
designated in the permit and that the materials are generally
disposed of in small quantities. There will also be general
permits designating areas or regions for the disposal of specific
classes of materials that may have to be disposed of in an emer-
gency situation. Thus, a marine disaster requiring immediate
action, involving materials of minimal adverse environmental
impact, may be acted upon under a general permit without losing
99
-------
the time required to propose and designate an ocean disposal
site or losing the time to comply with other actions mandated for
emergency permits. General permits designating geographical
areas or regions for the disposal of specified materials are
published in Part 229. Other general permits may be published
as the need arises.
Special and Interim Permits
Areas where ocean dumping is permitted subject to the
specific conditions of individual special and interim permits will
be designated by promulgation in Part 228, and such designation
will be made based on environmental studies of each site, regions
adjacent to the site, and on historical knowledge of the impact of
waste disposal on areas similar to such sites in physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics. All studies for the evaluation and
potential selection of dumping sites will be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of Sections 228. 5 General criteria for the
selection of sites - and 228. 6 - Specific criteria for site selection.
These extensive environmental studies will establish an environ-
mental baseline from which any eological impact in general, and
any specific impacts on alternative uses of the site, marine
resources, and recreational and esthetic values can be measured
using the criteria in Section 228. 10 - Evaluating disposal Impact.
Special permits are issued for the dumping of materials which
satisfy Part 227 - Criteria for the Evaluation of Permit Appli-
cations for Ocean Dumping Materials such that specific environ-
100
-------
mental impact prohibitions, limits, and conditions for the dumping
of materials into ocean waters are met and that the proposed disposal
is determined not to unduly degrade or endanger the marine environ-
ment or present unacceptable adverse effects on human health, the
marine ecosystem, or the ocean for other uses. However, monitoring
of the site will be required to ensure no unacceptable adverse persistent
or permanent effects result.
Interim permits are generally issued for the dumping of materials
which are not in compliance with the environmental impact criteria
of Subpart B of Part 227, or which are otherwise unacceptable for ocean
dumping as determined in accordance with the criteria of Subparts
D or E of Part 227, or for which an ocean disposal site has not been
designated on other .than an interim basis pursuant to Part 228.
Interim permits are subject to the determination that the material
proposed for dumping complies with certain specified restrictions
in the types and quantities of materials, that there is a need to ocean
dump the material, or that any one of a specified list of factors is
of greater significance to the public interest that the potential for
adverse impact on the marine environment.
The Administrator may, from time to time, designate specific
locations for temporary use for disposal of small amounts of
materials under a special permit only, without disposal site designa-
nation studies, when such materials satisfy the Criteria and the
Administrator determines that the quantities to be disposed of at such
sites will not result in significant impact on the environment. Such
101
-------
designations will be done by promulgation in Part 228, and will be
for a specified period of time and for specified quantities of materials.
Emergency Permits
Dumping sites for materials disposed of under an emergency
permit will be specified by the Administrator as a permit condition
and will be based on an individual appraisal of the characteristics
of the waste and the safest means for its disposal.
Emergency permits are issued for those materials, with certain
specified restrictions, which in an emergency situation pose an
unacceptable risk to human health and admit of no other feasible
solution except dumping at sea. The term "emergency" refers to
situations requiring action with a marked degree of urgency, but is
not limited in its application to circumstances requiring immediate
action.
Research Permits
Dumping sites for research permits will be determined by the
nature of the proposed study. Dumping sites will be specified by
the Administrator as a permit condition.
Research permits may be issued for the dumping of materials,
with certain specified restrictions, into the ocean as part of research
with respect to the impact of materials on the marine environment
when it is determined that the scientific merit of the proposed pro-
ject outweighs the potential environmental or other damage that may
result from the dumping.
102
-------
Dredged Material Disposal.
Dredged material disposal sites will be selected by the Corps
of Engineers and approved by EPA only for the disposal of dredged
material being dumped under Dredged Material Permits issued by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. EPA approval of site designa-
tion will be made based on historic uses of the site, and on historic
knowledge of the impact of disposal in areas similar in physical,
chemical and biological characteristic. Studies for the evaluation
and potential selection of dumping sites will be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of Section 228. 5 and paragraph
(a) of Section 228. 6, except that:
(1) Baseline and trend assessment requirements will be de-
veloped on a case-by-case basis from the results of research,
including that now in progress by the Corps of Engineers.
(2) A joint environmental impact assessment for all sites
within a particular geographic area may be prepared based on
complete disposal site designation or evaluation studies on a
typical site or sites in that area. In such cases, sufficient studies
to demonstrate the generic similarity of all sites within such a
geographic area will be conducted.
(3) Disposal sites will be areas where benthic life which might
be damaged by the dumping is minimal.
(4) Disposal sites will be located such that disposal operations
will cause no unacceptable adverse effects to known nursery or
productive fishing areas. Where prevailing currents exist, the
103
-------
currents should be such that any suspended or dissolved matter
would not be carried into known nursery or productive fishing
areas or populated or protected shoreline areas.
(5) Disposal sites will be selected whose physical environ-
mental characteristics are most amenable to the type of dispersion
desired.
(6) To minimize the possibility of any harmful effects, dis-
posal conditions must be carefully set, with particular attention
being given to the following factors:
(i) Times of dumping, where applicable, should be chosen,
where possible, to avoid interference with the seasonal reproduc-
tive and migratory cycles of aquatic life in the disposal area.
(ii) If the type of material involved and the environmental
characteristics of the disposal site should make either maximum
dispersion desirable, the discharge from and movement of the
vessel during dumping should be in such a manner as to obtain the
desired result to the fullest extent feasible.
Incineration at Sea
Incineration at sea is an emerging viable technology for the
disposal of certain wastes. EPA research permits have been
authorized for at sea incineration of organochlorine wastes in the
Gulf of Mexico. The results of these studies have shown ocean
incineration to be an environmentally acceptable and viable means of
ocean disposal of these organochlorine wastes. Due to the lack of
technical information to determine the acceptability of the process for
-------
other wastes, permits for incineration of wastes at sea will be issued
only as research or interim permits until specific criteria to regulate
this type of disposal are promulgated. Ocean incineration sites will
be designated in accordance with the requirements of the type of
permit required by EPA.
Criteria for the Selection of Sites
The General Criteria for the Selection of Sites, Section 228. 5,
are considered self explanatory and are listed below to show the
types of considerations which must be addressed in the selection
of an appropriate ocean disposal site:
"The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permited
only at sites or in areas selected to minimize the interference of
disposal activities with other activities in the marine environment,
particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shellfisheries,
and regions of heavy commercial or recreational navigation.
Location and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen that
temporary perturbations in water quality or other environmental
conditions caused by disposal operations affecting mixing zones
anywhere within the site can be expected to be reduced to normal
ambient seawater levels or to undetectable contaminant concentra-
tions or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine
sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or shellflshery.
If at anytime during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it is
105
-------
determined that existing disposal sites presently approved on an
interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet the criteria for site
selection set forth in Section 228. 5-228. 6, the use of such sites
will be terminated as soon as suitable alternative disposal sites can
be designated.
The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize for identification and control any immediate adverse
impacts and permit the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-range impacts. The
size, configuration, and location of any disposal site will be deter-
mined as a part of the disposal site evaluation or designation study.
EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf. "
The Specific Criteria for Site Selection, Section 228. 6, will
be used by EPA in the evaluation of proposed ocean disposal
sites. Compliance with the various criteria are determined on the
basis of information provided by disposal site designation studies,
baseline or trend assessment suveys, and other available data.
The specific criteria for site selection are listed below with a
statement under each criterion regarding the general consideration
for each item:
(a) In the selection of disposal sites, in addition to other necessary
or appropriate factors determined by the Administrator, the following
factors will be considered:
106
-------
(1) Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography
and distance from coast;
This criterion requires the definition of the physical characteristics
of the site. The emphasis is to show that the physical character is
appropriate'to its intended use. Examples are showing the location
to be near the source of waste and the depth not being excessive to
cause destruction of waste containers, if used.
(2) Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery,
feeding, or passage areas of living resources in adult or
juvenile phases;
This criterion is self-explanatory since location near these types
of activities may have detrimental effects upon the living resources.
( '.) Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas:
This criterion is self-explanatory since location near these
types of activities may have detrimental effects upon the people using
such areas.
(4) Types and quantities of waste proposed to be disposed of,
and proposed methods of release, including methods of
packing the waste; if any;
This criterion is used to identify those factors related to waste
and waste disposal techniques which may limit the use of a site.
(5) Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring;
This criterion identifies any problems .anticipated with the
requirements for surveillance and monitoring.
10?
-------
(6) Dispersal, horizontal transport, and vertical mixing
characteristics of the area, including prevailing
current direction and velocity, if any;
This criterion establishes the adequacy of the site to disperse
the waste and render it harmless. Any problems regarding the
movement of toxic materials out of the site would be identified in
this section.
(7) Existence and effects of current and previous discharges
and dumping in the area (including cumulative effects);
This criterion identifies any detrimental effects resulting from
any previous uses of the site before selection for ocean disposal.
If previous uses of the site have impaired its ability to assimilate
additional wastes, the site could be limited in its use or considered
unacceptable for ocean disposal.
(8) Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas
of special scientific importance and other legitimate uses
of the ocean;
The purpose of this criterion is to show that the site is outside
these types of areas and would not interfere with other uses of the
ocean.
(9) The existing water quality and ecology of the site as
determined by available data or by trend assessment or
baseline surveys as described in the Guidelines for Ocean
Disposal Site Baseline and Trend Assessment Surveys;
108
-------
This criterion identifies the biological and chemical baseline
for the site. This criterion will be one of the principal bases for
determining site use.
(10) Potentiality for the development or recruitment of
nuisance species in the disposal site;
This criterion is self-explanatory.
(11) Existence at or near the site of any significant natural
or cultural features of historical importance.
The purpose of this criterion is to preclude the selection of an
ocean disposal site in the vicinity of such features.
(b) The results of disposal site evaluation and/or designation
study based on the criteria stated in paragraphs (1) - (11) will be
presented in support of the site designation promulgation as an
environmental assessment of the impact of the use of the site for
disposal, and will be used in the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement for each site where such a statement is re-
quired by the National Environmental Policy Act or EPA policy.
Disposal Site Management
Upon completion of the ocean disposal site selection and desig-
nation process, the Administrator delegates the management authority
for the site to either an EPA Regional Office or to EPA Headquarters.
The designated management authority is fully responsible for all
aspects of the management of sites within the general requirements
specified in the Ocean Dumping Regulations. Management of
a site consists of regulating times, rates, and methods of disposal
109
-------
and quantities and types of materials disposed of; developing and
maintaining effective ambient monitoring programs for the site;
conducting disposal site evaluation studies; and recommending
modifications in site use and/or designation. The site selection
and management criteria of Section 228 will ensure that the marine
environment at the disposal site is not overstressed during its use.
Regulation of Disposal Site Use
Section 228. 7 states that disposal site use will be regulated
by controlling discharges, establishing a disposal site monitoring
program, and modifying disposal site use based on periodic evalu-
ations of disposal impact. The individual aspects of the regulation
of disposal site use are addressed in separate sections.
Limitations on Times and Rates of Disposal
Limitations as to time for and rates of dumping may be stated
as part of the promulgation of site designation. The times and
the quantities of permitted material disposal will be regulated by
the EPA management authority so that the limits for the site as
specified in the site designation are not exceeded. This will be
accomplished by the denial of permits for the disposal of some
materials, by the imposition of appropriate conditions on other
permits and, if necessary, the designation of new disposal sites
under the procedures of Section 228.4. In no case may the total
volume of material disposed of at any site under special or
interim permits cause the concentration of the total materials
110
-------
or any constituent of any of the materials being disposed of
at the site to exceed limits specified in the site designation.
Disposal Site Monitoring
The monitoring program may include baseline or trend
assessment surveys by EPA, NOAA, and other Federal agencies,
or contractors, special studies by permittees, and the analysis
and interpretation of data from remote or automatic sampling
and/or sensing devices. The primary purpose of the monitoring
program is to evaluate the impact of disposal on the marine
environment by referencing the monitoring results to a set of
baseline conditions.
Each EPA management authority shall develop and maintain
monitoring programs for the continuing evaluation of all disposal
sites assigned to it. When disposal sites are being used on a
continuing basis, such programs may consist of trend assess-
ment surveys conducted at intervals frequent enough to assess
the extent and trends of environmental impact and special studies
conducted by the permittee to identify immediate and short-term
impacts of disposal operations. These surveys may be supple-
mented, where feasible and useful, by data collected from the
use of automatic sampling buoys, satellites or in situ platforms,
and from experimental programs.
EPA will require the full participation of permittees, and
enourage the full participation of other Federal, State, and
local agencies in the development and implementation of dis-
posal site monitoring programs.
Ill
-------
Evaluating Disposal Impact
The basic rationale for the impact classification system is
that, some changes in the composition of water and sediments
may be tolerated, but any significant sign of damage to any of the
biota may be a forerunner of adverse changes affecting the entire
ecosystem and steps should be taken to reduce waste loadings to
levels at which no changes in the biota are detectable. Thus,
the EPA recognizes that there is some impact on the biota that
may presage some form of significant long-range impact and
regards this level of impact as being "unreasonable degradation"
and will take appropriate steps to preclude this from happening.
The following is a synopsis of the impact classification system:
(a) Impact at each site will be evaluated periodically. Re-
ports will be prepared by or under the direction of the EPA
management authority for a specific site and will be based
on an evaluation of all data available from baseline and trend
assessment surveys, monitoring surveys, and other data
pertinent to conditions at and near a site.
(b) The types of effects which will be considered in deter-
mining to what extent the marine environment has been impacted
are:
(1) Movement of materials into estuaries or marine sanc-
tuaries, or onto oceanfront beaches, or shorelines.
(2) Movement of materials toward productive fishery or
shellfishery areas.
112
-------
(4) Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in water quality
or sediment composition at the disposal site, when
these changes are attributable to materials disposed
of at the site.
(5) Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in composition or
numbers of pelagic, demersal, or benthic biota at or
near the disposal site, when these changes can be at-
tributed to the effects of materials disposed of at the
site.
(6) Accumulation of material constituents (including
human pathogens) in marine biota at or near the site.
(c) The determination of the overall severity of disposal at the
site on the marine environment will be based on an evaluation of
all pertinent data. Impacts will be categorized according to the
overall condition of the environment of the disposal site and
adjacent areas. The following categories of impact will be used:
(1) Impact Category I; The effects of activities at the dis-
posal site shall be categorized in Impact Category I:
(i) When the biota, sediments, or water column in the
disposal site are adversely affected to the extent that there are
statistically significant decreases in the populations of any species
inhabiting the disposal site, including particularly valuable com-
mercial or recreational species or biota essential to the propagation
of such valuable commercial or recreational species, or
113
-------
(ii) When any toxic waste, toxic waste constituent, or
toxic by-product of waste interaction, is identified in detectable
concentrations above normal ambient values outside the disposal
site.
(2) Impact Category II: The effects of activities at the
disposal site which are not categorized in Impact Category I shall
be categorized in Impact Category II.
Modification in Disposal Site Use
Modifications in disposal site use which involve the withdrawal
of designated disposal sites from use or permanent changes in the
total specified quantities or types of wastes permitted to be dis-
charged to a specific disposal site will be made through promul-
gation of an amendment to the disposal site designation set forth
in Part 228 and will be based on the results of the analyses of
impact or upon changed circumstances concerning use of the
site.
Modifications in disposal site use will not automatically
modify conditions of any outstanding permit. Unless the EPA
management authority for a site modifies, revokes or suspends
a permit or any of the terms or conditions of such permit based
on the results of impact analyses or upon changed circumstances
concerning use of the site, such permit will remain in force
until its expiration date.
The EPA management authority will use the following criteria
(/
-------
in evaluating the need to modify, revoke or suspend any out-
standing permit with respect to disposal site use and in
recommending permanent changes in disposal site use to
the Administrator:
Impact Category I; Reduce disposal volumes or concen-
trations at the site to levels which will allow the environment
to recover.
Impact Category II; Maintain or increase existing rates of
disposal if necessary or appropriate.
The determination of the Administrator as to whether to
terminate or limit use of a disposal site will be based on the
impact of disposal at the site itself and on the Criteria.
115
-------
CHAPTER in
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
EPA has received much comment and criticism regarding
the specific limits set for trace contaminants, the LPC, the
elutriate test for dredged material, and the mixing zone, as
well as other specific requirements of the criteria. Questions
have been raised as to whether or not these limits should be
changed, and what would be the impact of such changes.
It should be apparent, from the rationale presented in
Chapter I concerning the existing criteria and in Chapter II
concerning the proposed revisions, that the specific limita-
tions in the criteria are based to a large extent on the best
judgment of EPA scientific staff and reflect the very limited
state of knowledge of the specific impacts of wastes and other
materials on the marine environment. All of the require-
ments of the criteria are directed toward achieving a goal of
not allowing "unreasonable degradation" of the marine environ-
ment, and the numerical limitations in specific sections of the
criteria each reflect only one aspect of trying to achieve that
goal, as discussed in Chapter I (pp. 19-34).
It is not possible, within the present state of knowledge, to
quantify the impact on the marine environment of changing
any specific limitation in the criteria. It is even probable that
some of the specific numerical limitations could be changed
without allowing "unreasonable degradation" of the oceans,
116
-------
but the information needed to do this does not exist at the
present time. Thus, changes in individual specific limita-
tions in the criteria are not regarded as real alternatives
within the context of this EIS, and individual changes in such
specific limitations will not be discussed except within the
framework of other alternatives.
Possible alternative approaches to revisions of the existing
criteria fall into five general categories:
(1) No action; i.e., the existing criteria remain in force
in their present form.
(2) Structural changes in the criteria; i.e., change the types
of tests required for certain materials.
(3) Change the level of impact selected as acceptable; i.e.,
beyond which there is "unreasonable degradation. "
(4) The proposed action.
The other general categories of alternatives, however, do
include specific options which deserve consideration, and these
are discussed in the following sections. The alternatives are not
to be compared directly due to the necessarily overlapping nature
of the revisions. Alternative 3 actually constitutes the most com-
prehensive set of options, basically reflecting most of the major
revisions. Alternative 2 includes the issues of basing the regulatory
program upon the use of water quality criteria and of considering
v
dredged material the same as any other waste material. These
issues are significant enough to be highlighted as options that could
be used. Alternative 4, the proposed action, is actually one specific
option under alternative 3.
11?
-------
Alternative 1. No Action
The interim ocean dumping criteria were developed in April
and May 1973 to reflect consideration of the statutory criteria and
were based on the state of knowledge at that time of the impact of
waste materials on the marine environment. The current criteria
published in October 1973 as Final Regulations and Criteria for
Ocean Dumping include revisions to the interim criteria based
on initial operating experience with the program and on public
comment on the interim documents.
After these regulations and criteria were published, further
operating experience of EPA indicated that modifications of the
regulations and criteria were needed to provide more explicit
guidance to applicants, permittees, and the EPA Regions on
operational requirements of the program. There is a need to
specify in more detail the considerations which go into a deter-
mination of whether a permit will be issued. The present regu-
lations do not adequately address the regulation of ocean dumping
sites.
The existing criteria for dumping of dredged material are
based upon the concept that there are two major categories of
such material. One category which originates from inner
harbors etc., may contain sediments from outfall discharges of
municipal and industrial wastes. This category of material
may contain pathogens, heavy metals, and toxic substances.
Strict control over such dumping is required. The other
118
-------
category originating from outer bars etc., would consist mainly
of sand or inorganic material deposited from the action of waves
or currents. These materials require very minimal control.
In consideration of the above differences in materials, the
existing criteria require elutriate tests and bioassays of the
first category only to determine suitable dumping conditions
and site location. Materials in the latter category may be
dumped at any site approved for dumping of setteable solid wastes
of natural origin.
NWF has objected to the above concept. There is concern
that the "unpolluted dredged material" addressed in Sections
227. 61 and 227. 62 of the existing criteria may be dumped with-
out requiring any elutriate tests or bioassay to determine its
characteristics or suitability of the site. EPA concurs that some
changes are needed in these Sections to provide greater pro-
tection.
If no action is taken, the current criteria will continue to
be used for evaluating permit applications and the same criticism
will exist as has been put forth in the National Wildlife Federation
(NWF) petition and other comments. Just as the NWF petition
brought into focus the criticism of the ocean dumping criteria,
the lawsuit filed in November 1975 in the U. S. District Court for
the District of Columbia by the NWF against EPA and the Corps
of Engineers for amendment to the ocean dumping criteria for
dredged material has focused the Court's attention on the criteria.
-------
The court is interested in what revisions to the criteria will be
proposed before deciding the case.
Taking no action in revising the criteria has the following four
objections as expressed in the NWF petition:
1. The statutory criteria in Section I02(a) of the Act and the
criteria in Annex III of the Convention are not specifically con-
sidered in the ocean dumping criteria.
2. The definition of a "trace contaminant" is related to the
source of the waste.
3. There is a lack of adequate definition of bioassays and
mixing zones.
4. No criteria exist for dump site selection and management.
For these reasons, as well as operating experience with the
permit system and the likelihood of further citizen or court
action, the no-action alternative should be rejected.
Alternative 2. Change the Structure of the Criteria
The general structure of the criteria was established, as des-
cribed in Chapter I, after a close evaluation of the specific con-
siderations embodied in Annex III of the Convention and an analysis
of what information could be reasonably obtained within the present
state of knowledge.
During the development of the proposed revisions, considera-
tion was given to changing the basis for the test procedures from
that presently used, which sets limits in the waste for certain
120
-------
materials or constituents to an approach which would merely
require that water quality criteria be met after a reasonable
allowance for initial mixing. It was felt that this might reduce
the amount of testing required on individual wastes, and make
the test basis more directly related to known and accepted safe
environmental concentrations of specific materials.
It was determined, however, that, the present state-of-know-
ledge was not yet sufficiently advanced to allow the promulgation
and use of marine water quality criteria of sufficient accuracy
for a large enough number of materials to serve the needs of the
permit, program. Therefore, while recognising that this approach
might serve as the basis for modifying the criteria in the future.
EPA. determined that this approach was not a viable option at the
present time.
120a
-------
Detailed consideration was also given to revising the structure
of the criteria as they applied to dredged materials by considering
dredged material as any other dumped material and apply the same
test procedures.
Under this alternative all dredged material would be considered
to be as harmful as municipal and industrial wastes and would
require bioassay tests for every specific case.
The Act differentiates between dredged material and other
wastes. Whether this is an indication that the materials are so
different that they should be treated separately cannot be deter-
mined from the legislative history. However, because dredged
material is so different from municipal and industrial wastes it
cannot be considered similar in any manner.
Dredged material constitutes more than 80% of the total volume
of material dumped in ocean waters during calendar year 1975.
However, by conservative estimates only approximately 20% of
this volume of dredged material is composed of material which
requires vigorous testing and special consideration given to
methods of disposal to minimize the potential for environmental
impact of the disposal site and surrounding area. The remaining
80% of dredged material is of such a nature that rigorous tests
are not required, but special consideration in disposal is re-
quired to hold the environmental impact to a minimum.
EPA believes that it is not necessary for the government
nor for the public to expend substantial resources to consider
the pollution potential when the material is naturally occurring
121
-------
and uncontaminated sedimentary material. For this reason the
distinction between dredged material and other wastes must
be retained.
Alternative 3. Change Level of Acceptable Impact
The criteria embodied in Parts 227 and 228 represent, as
a whole, a scheme for regulating ocean dumping to prevent
"unreasonable degradation" of the environment. EPA has chosen
to allow some change in sediment characteristics or water
chemistry as being reasonable, but no damage to the biota out-
side the region of initial mixing is allowed under these criteria.
In the overall framework of Parts 227 and 228, a waste or
material proposed for dumping is evaluated on many different
bases to determine if it may be ocean dumped, and the final
determination of whether or not to permit the dumping is based
upon a careful evaluation of all the factors involved. The rationale
underlying the setting of certain specific limitations is given in
Chapters I and II, but it must be realized that each limitation
set does not stand by itself in the regulatory scheme, nor
would isolated changes in a few of the limitations change the
entire regulatory concept and approach.
Changes in the trace contaminant limitations, time allowed
for initial mixing, elutriate test limitations, and the Limiting
Permissible Concentration, as well as changes in other parts
of the criteria could all result from selection of other alterna-
tives to the definition of "unreasonable degradation" than that
322
-------
chosen by EPA as the basis for operating the program. This
discussion will be based on considering the overall impact
on the criteria of the use of alternative definitions for "un-
reasonable degradation" within the limits imposed by the Act
and the Convention.
The types of degradation associated with the effects of ocean
dumping can be broken down into five categories of impact, de-
pending on the location and severity of impact. Any one of these
impact categories could be selected as being a level which
could be regarded as "unreasonable degradation, " and specific
criteria for dumping could have been set to implement this level
as the basis for regulation. In each case, all of the statutory
factors would be applied in evaluating each permit application,
but the consideration given to each factor would be different for
each impact category. Table III-l shows, for each impact
category, the relative weight that would be given the major
factors into which the criteria are divided. Table III-2 shows
the impacts associated with various impact categories; and
Table III-3 shows how specific parts of the criteria would be
modified to allow degradation to the extent specified at each
impact category.
Tables III-l and III-3 combined illustrate how the relative
importance of the various statutory considerations would change
if different impact categories were regarded as the level beyond
which there would be "unreasonable degradation, ". and show the
123
-------
TABLE III-l: Relative Importance of Statutory Factors in
Establishing Criteria at Each Impact Category
[mpact
Category
A
B
C
D *
E
Subpart B
Human
Health
2
1
1
1
1
Marine
Ecosystems
5
4
3
2
1
Subpart C
Need
Alternatives
1
2
2
3
4
Economic
Impact on
Dumper
1
2
3
4
5
Subpart D
Recreational
& Aesthetic
Values
3
3
2
2
2
Subpart E
Uses of
the Ocean
4
3
2
2
3
H
ro
f
*0ption D is the Impact Category of the proposed revisions.
Priority for consideration of factors:
1. primary
2. major
3. moderate
4. minor
5. minimal
-------
TABLE III-2
IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS IMPACT CATEGORIES
(Options under Alternative 3)
Options
(impact
Categor^
A
B
C
D*
E
A
B
C
D* .
E
Subpart C
Need and
Alternatives
D I ST LT H
1
++ + -H- • + +
-H- + ++ + +
+ 4-f + -H- + .
++2 +
.-
Economic
Impact on
Dumper
D I ST LT II
++ 3 ++ ++ ++r . +
+ + + +
*
+ - + -
4
Subpart B
Impacts on
Human Health
D I ST LT II
+ i
. • . . + +
+ +'
+ ++ + '++»-++'-
Impacts on
Marine Ecosystems
D I ST LT II
6
+ +
++ 7 ++ ++
++ ++ ++ -H- ' ++
' Subpart D
: Impacts on
Recreational and
Aesthetic Values
D I ST LT II
+ 4-
+
+ ++ + 8 ++ ++
++ ++ ++ 4-t- ++
Subpart E
Impacts on
Other Uses of
The Ocean
D I ST LT 11
+
+ ++ ++
n
+ ++ ++ ++ ++
*0ption D is the Intact Category of the proposed revisions.
D - Direct Impacts
I - Indirect Impacts
ST - Short Term Impacts
LT - Long Term Impacts
II - Irreversible and Irretrievable
Commitment of Resources
++ - major beneficial impact
+ - minor beneficial impact
0 - no impact
- - minor aadverse impact
-- .- niajor adverse impact
(see following page for footnotes)
12.5
-------
FOOTNOTES
1. 1C - A would have a minor4 beneficial indirect impact concerning
the alternatives to ocean dumping since dumpers would be able to
direct their resources into projects other than developing alter-
natives to ocean dumping.
2. Impact Category (1C) - D would have a major beneficial (++) long
term impact concerning alternatives to ocean dumping since
implementation of those alternatives would encourage recycling
and recovery of materials which would otherwise be lost in
dumping.
3. 1C - A would have a major beneficial and direct economic impact
on the dumping, since the dumper would not have to invest in the
development and implementation of alternatives.
4. 1C - E would have a major adverse economic impact on the dumper
with irreversible and irretrievable investments in equipment or
treatment facilities to implement alternatives.
5. 1C - D would have a major beneficial long term impact on human
health since no effects outside of the dump site would be allowed
and only changes to water and sediment chemistry within the
dump site.
6. 1C - A would have a major adverse direct impact on marine
ecosystems, since not only would biota at the site be severely
damaged but the wastes would move from the site into other areas.
7. 1C - D would have a minor adverse short term impact on marine
ecosystems, since changes in water and sediment chemistry would
be allowed within the dump site.
8. 1C - D would have a minor beneficial short term impact on
recreational values, since the changes to water and sediment
chemistry would be confined to the dump site.
9. 1C - E would have a minor beneficial direct impact on other uses
of the ocean, such as fishing or shellfishing, since, while allowing
changes in water and sediment chemistry within the dump site,
no impacts would be allowed to biota within or outside of the dump
site.
125a
-------
TABLE III-3. Changes in Criteria for Different Impact
Categories as the Basis for Regulation
Inpact
Category
A
B
C
D»
E
Subpart B
Impacts on Impacts on
Human Health Marine Ecosystems
No bioassay required; large allowance
for initial mixing, trace contaminant
levels changed according; no elutriate
test required, no restrictions on large
quantities.
LPC application factor raised; moder-
ate allowance for initial mixing, trace
contaminant levels raised accordingly;
elutriate test not required, some re-
striction on quantities.
No change from D.
Proposed criteria.
LPC application factor lowered,
initial mixing time decreased.
' Subp.irt C
Need and Economic Impact
Alternatives on Dumper
Need determined primarily
by economics, e.g.. cheapest
means of disposal.
Presently available standard
treatment procedures
implemented if economically
competitive with dumping.
Alternatives to dumping re-
quired for highly toxic wastes,
but dumping may be used for
others if standard treatment
techniques are too expensive.
Economics a relatively minor
consideration, any alter-
native must be used if tech-
nologically feasible.
No waste could be dumped that
would have 'any measurable
adverse effect.
Subparl I)
Recreational and
Aesthetic Values
Specify amount
of damage per-
mitted outside
dump site.
Specify amount
of damage allowed
at dump site.
No' damage
at dump site.
No damage
at dump site.
No damage
at dump site.
SuLuirt ' C
Oilier Uses
Of The Ocean
Specify critical
uses which may
not be interfered
with outside
dump site.
Specify amount
of damage allowed
at dump site.
No damage
at dump site.
9
No damage
at dump site.
No damage
at dump site.
ro
*0ption D is 1he Impact Category of the proposed revisions.
-------
differences in specific parts of the criteria which would result
if different levels of impact were regarded as acceptable. These
tables are helpful in showing the differences in the various alterna-
tives which could have been used as the basis for regulation,
both in terms of the general regulatory framework and the specific
limitations incorporated in Parts 227 and 228.
As an example, in moving from Impact Category (IC)-A to
IC-E, the considerations regarding the need for dumping and the
availability of alternatives change from being pf "primary"
importance, (Weighting Factor(WF)-l) to of "minor" importance
(WF-4) with economic impact on the dumper being of "minimal"
importance, as shown in columns 4 and 5 of Table III-l. Table
III-3 then shows how these Weighting Factors would be translated
into specific changes in the cirteria for each Impact Category.
For example, at 1C-A, the need to dump is of "primary" importance,
and this need would be determined almost entirely by economics at
1C-A; in contrast, at IC-E, no waste could be dumped that had any
measurable adverse effect, and the economic impact on dumpers
would be of "minimal" importance, which means that the cost of
alternatives would have little, if any, bearing on the decision of
whether or not to issue a permit.
127
-------
Columns 2 and 3 of Table III-l show the relative importance
of the environmental impact criteria at the five different impact
categories. At IC-A, the impact on human health is of "major"
importance (WF-2), but is of less importance than the economic
need to dump, which is of "primary" importance (WF-1). The
general impact on marine ecosystems would be regarded as of
"minimal" importance (WF-5) if IC-A were regarded as an accept-
able level of degradation. At the other impact category levels
human health would be of primary importance, and impact on marine
ecosystems would be of increasing importance at each succeeding
level of impact.
Table III-3 shows some of the specific changes in the environmental
impact criteria that might be made if the different impact categories
were used as the basis for regulation. For example, at IC-A, a
bioassay would not be used, because acute toxicity of wastes to
marine organisms would be of little concern if this level of impact
were regarded as acceptable. The acceptable levels for constituents
permitted only as trace contaminants would probably be raised to
accommodate the primary importance of the economic need for
dumping, or quantitative limits might not be set at all.
128
-------
If, on the other hand, IC-E were the basis for setting criteria,
the application factor for the LPC might be lowered, and the initial
mixing time decreased to a few minutes, which would reduce the
acceptable levels for trace contaminants in the wastes to levels
which would be very close to the concentrations naturally present
in ocean waters. Other changes would probably also be made. It
should be emphasized that Table III-3 should not be regarded as
an exhaustive compilation of all the changes that would be made
in the proposed criteria for each impact category. Those changes
presented in Table III-3 are major changes intended to be illustrative,
of the overall changes in the criteria that would be made if alternative
definitions of "unreasonable degradation" were chosen as the basis
•
for regulation, and Table III-3 should be regarded as merely
illustrative in this regard.
The types of impact and general rationale for the criteria
associated with each are as follows:
Impact Category A.
Type of Impact
The site itself is severely degraded, with accumulation of
toxic materials to such an extent that the biota at the site are
severely damaged or absent, and commercial species are not
present or are not harvestable. In addition, wastes are being
moved from the dump site into areas being used for other
129
-------
purposes to the extent that uses in other locations are also
being damaged.
Criteria Rationale
At this level of impact, the primary consideration in the
regulatory process would be the economic need to dump. Human
health would also be a major consideration, but damage to marine
ecosystems would be of concern only as it might affect the food
chain and so become a menace to public health.
Some damage to recreational values would be accepted, which
would probably be some damage to beaches and shorelines; damage
would be accepted up to the point where beaches were closed.
There would also probably be extensive damage to commercial
fisheries and shellfisheries outside the dump site; damage to
other uses would probably b.e accepted up to the point where
there would be interference with navigation.
At this impact category there would be both short-term and
long-term adverse impacts at the dump site and areas adjacent
to it, and the dump site itself would probably be irreversibly
and irretrievably damaged. There would also be widespread
secondary adverse impacts on beaches and shorelines, as well
as primary direct adverse impacts on the dump site and adjacent
ocean areas.
Because of the extreme and widespread damage that would
occur using this alternative as the basis for regulation, it was
rejected.
130
-------
Impact Category B.
Type of Impact
Damages at the dump site itself are of the same type as in
A, but the damage is confined to the dump site itself.
Criteria Rationale
Under this alternative severe damage would be accepted at
the dump site, but no significant damage would be allowed any-
where else. Human health and economic need would be the
major considerations in evaluating permit applications, with
other impacts of only moderate or minor concern as long as
only the dump site itself was being affected. The dump site
itself would be probably irreversibly and irretrievably damaged
for other uses.
This alternative was rejected also. If the dump site itself
was severely damaged, it would be difficult to insure that, over
the long-term, there might not be adverse secondary impacts
of an irreversible and severe nature which would not be observed
until it was too late to reverse the trend.
Impact Category C.
Type of Impact
All damage is confined to the dump site. There is some
damage to the biota, but not to the extent that there is signifi-
cant impact on commercial or recreational species.
Criteria Rationale
Under this alternative economic necessity is still a major
consideration, but of equal importance are effects of the
131
-------
dumping on recreational and aesthetic values and on other uses
of the ocean. Effects on human health is still a primary factor.
Some damage to indigenous biota would be accepted, but not to
the extent that there would be interference with recreational or
commercial uses of the site.
This alternative was rejected because of the difficulty over
the long-term in restricting the amount of ecological damage to
levels which would insure no other adverse impacts.
Impact Category D.
Type of Impact
There is some change in sediment characteristics or water
chemistry at the dump site, but there is no significant damage
to the biota.
Criteria Rationale
Under this alternative, which is the basis for the proposed
criteria, only changes in sediment characteristics and/or water
chemistry would be allowed at the dump site, and no damage to
the indigenous biota would be allowed.
This alternative, while still regarding human health as of
primary importance, places major importance on the impact on
marine ecosystems, as well as on other uses of the ocean and
on recreational and aesthetic values. Need to dump and
economic impact on the dumpers are of lesser importance
when this alternative is used. The impacts associated with
this alternative are summarized in Table III-4.
' 132
-------
TABLE III-4
IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
At Impact Level D With Impacts Only on Water.Chemistry
and Sediment Chemistry and no Impacts on Biota
Oo
Impacts
Beneficial
Impacts
Adverse
Impacts
Short
Term Uses
VS.
Long
Term
Productivity
Need
encourage recycling;
encourage treatment
impacts of alter-
native disposal
(land, air)
economic hard-
ship initially to
protect marine
environment
Recreational &
Human Health Aesthetic Values
protect health protect beaches
— - mounding; turbidity;
allow change in
water & sediment
- - - localized impacts
on water & sedi-
ments, but not on
biota
Marine
Ecosystems
x
prevent acute toxic
effects; minimize
adverse impacts; pre-
vent impact on biota;
increase knowledge of
dumping impacts
allow change in
Water & sediment;
mounding; turbidity
localized impacts
on water & sedi-
ments
,»
Uses of the
Ocean
protect fishery
resources; im-
prove sit selec-
tion; improve site
management
shipping inter-
ference; close
down fisheries
near dump site
restricting im-
pacts to "accept-
able" level;
protect fishery
resources
Economic
Impact on
Dumper
cost of developing
alternatives; ex-
pense of testing;
cost of bioassays;
cost of surveys
initial cost of alter-
natives produces.
recycling benefits
Irreversible loss of material;
and cost of alternatives
Irretrievable development; invest-
ment in alternative
equipment or treat-
ment facilities
dispersion of
toxic substances
cost of analytical
testing; cost of
bioassays; cost of
monitoring surveys
-------
This alternative was chosen as the basis for regulation
because, while it did permit the dumping of some toxic
materials, it should result in no permanent damage to the
marine environment and offered adequate safeguards for
human health.
Impact Category E.
Type of Impact
There is no detectable difference between the dump site and
areas outside of it.
Criteria Rationale
Under this alternative the primary considerations are human
health and impact on marine ecosystems, with only minimal
concern for the economic impact on dumpers. Use of this
alternative would be tantamount to placing a ban on all ocean
dumping.
This alternative was rejected because it was far more
stringent than needed for adequate protection of human health
and marine ecosystems, and would result in placing undue
economic burdens on dumpers without significant environ-
mental benefits.
Alternative 4. The Proposed Action
This alternative revises the existing final criteria as pre-
viously described in Chapters I and II.
The long-term goal of the ocean dumping permit program is
to assure that reusable or recyclable resources are not wasted,
and that only those wastes which will provide no unreasonable
133
-------
damage to the marine environment are dumped. The proposed
criteria have been developed to achieve these goals, and disposal
sites will be managed so that unreasonable degradation will be
stopped before irreversible changes occur. Thus, with rigid
application of the proposed criteria, it should be possible to use
ocean dumping as an acceptable ultimate disposal alternative for
some wastes without any long-term damage to the marine environ-
ment.
One of the major criticisms of the existing criteria by the
NWF is that they do not explicitly recognize the statutory criteria
nor do they provide guidance on how each of the statutory criteria
will be applied. Part 227 deals with the evaluation of individual
applications for ocean dumping. It has been redrafted to establish
detailed criteria based on the statutory requirements of Section
I02(a) of the Act and the requirements of the Convention, especially
Article IV and the Annexes to the Convention. These criteria are
concerned with evaluating the toxicity of the waste itself and
evaluating the need for and alternatives to ocean dumping.
Subpart A of the revised criteria states the terms of reference
which the Regional Administrator or Administrator will use for
making a final determination on a permit application. Each of
the Subparts B, C, D, and E addresses a separate consideration
which is required by the statute in Section 102. These subparts
state the considerations that are to be made and the basis on
which a determination will be made in each category as to whether
-------
or not the proposed dumping is acceptable in terms of the criteria
for each subpart. Subpart A states the terms of reference for
making a final determination on the application by balancing the
results of Subparts B, C, D, and E. No subpart in and of itself
is dispositive of the issue, which the Agency believes consistent
with the broad balancing required by the statute.
With regard to dredged material this alternative would include
some of the NWF recommendations, as well as improvements based
on information gained since the current criteria were published.
Specifically, the proposed criteria would be as follows:
1. The distinction between dredged material and waste from
other sources, i.e., industrial and municipal, will be retained
because of the nature of the material and its interactions.
2. Categories or classification of dredged material are changed
due to a better understanding of the effects of the dumping of the
dredged material in ocean waters. The revised criteria for ocean
dumping of dredged material are based on the improved testing
procedures and techniques developed by the Corps of Engineers
under the Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP) since the
original (and existing) criteria were established. These revised
criteria are similar to the 404(b) guidelines promulgated on
September 25, 1975, as 40 CFR 230. The tests required under
404(b) reflect the improved technology resulting from the DMRP
projects in criteria development, and the tests prescribed under
these revisions to the ocean dumping criteria are in general
135
-------
accordance. Thus, a general conformity in evaluation of permit
applications for disposal of dredged material under the criteria
and guidelines developed for both the FWPCA and the MPRSA
is established and maintained.
Dredged material by way of the nature of the material itself
dictates that special forms of the criteria be adopted for review
of dredged material permit applications. However, the criteria
to be applied must provide the same critical analyses that are
prerequisite for review of permit applications for disposal of
municipal and industrial wastes. The proposed revised and
improved procedures for dredged material disposal in ocean
waters accomplish this.
The "screening" approach contained in these criteria en-
ables EPA to adopt an efficient and thorough analysis program
for the review of permit applications for disposal of dredged
material in ocean waters, yet still provide an environmentally
sound and cost effective program.
The revised criteria for review of dredged material dis-
posal permit applications no longer retain the "polluted" and
"unpolluted" terms contained in the October 15, 1973, criteria.
These terms were originally used to compare sediments taken
near municipal or industrial waste outfalls with those which were
apparently not affected by waste discharges. The original dif-
ferentiation was highly subjective and did not relate directly to
the criteria of most concern, i.e., the presence or absence of
toxic trace metals or other persistent materials which may be
136
-------
released to the marine environment in such a manner as to cause
an environmental hazard. The revised procedures for deter-
mining the environmental acceptability for disposal of dredged
material in ocean waters in terms of appropriate water quality
criteria provide a considerably more effective regulatory approach
than the existing arbitrary classification. The approach taken
determines that the acceptability for ocean disposal be consistent
with the intent of the Act and the Convention in that ocean disposal
under strictly controlled conditions should be evaluated as an
alternative along with others such as land disposal, disposal in
inland waters, diked disposal, etc., after the need has been
established. To emphasize what is unacceptable would imply an
intent to ban ocean disposal which would be contrary to the intent
of the Act and of the Convention.
The bioassay, where determined to be required in the test
procedures, specifies a variety of appropriate indicators to
determine conditions under which the material may be dumped
to avoid creating any damage to human health or to the marine
environment.
The ocean dumping criteria as applicable to disposal of
dredged material is only one decision-making tool in the dis-
posal of the material in order that the port, harbor, or channel
may be kept open to continue the economic situation of the area
in question. Public interest reviews and comments from approp-
riate Federal and State agencies under the Fish and Wildlife
137
-------
Coordination Act, NEPA, and the Endangered Species Act are
also part of the decision-making process. Only after all these
factors are considered and the decision is in favor of ocean
disposal does the criteria become the major decision-making
tool.
The proposed criteria include certain factors to be con-
sidered in determining where the ocean disposal of material,
including dredged material, should be allowed, and in what
manner, to minimize the environmental impact of such disposal.
Dredged material sites to be used for disposal are determined
as part of the environmental assessment and EIS where approp-
riate, and also is a part of the public interest review process.
: For the above reasons the agency believes the proposed action
is the most feasible alternative available at this time.
138
-------
CHAPTER IV
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CRITERIA
Any dumping of materials into the ocean will have some impact,
and impacts of dumping are generally adverse. But the impacts of
regulating ocean dumping, of prohibiting the dumping of certain
materials, of specifying conditions and locations under which
dumping may occur, and of encouraging the development of alter-
natives to ocean dumping can all be beneficial impacts. Table
III-3 identifies some of these probable impacts.
In implementing the Act and the Convention, EPA has estab-
lished criteria which seek to minimize adverse impacts and to
prevent unreasonable degradation. The proposed criteria do not
represent a change in EPA policy in implementing the program,
nor do they present a new regulatory approach. Therefore, the
impacts of the proposed criteria are basically similar to those
associated with the existing criteria. The proposed criteria provide
more specific guidance to the Regional offices on the evaluation
of permit applications (Part 227). The proposed criteria also
provide for the first time specific criteria for selection and
management of disposal sites. (Part 228. )
Immediate Impacts on the Marine Environment
When wastes are dumped in compliance with the criteria, an
initial mixing period of four hours is allowed in which there
may be some localized impact to the environment. After this
139
-------
period there should be no acute toxic effects anywhere, but there
is always the possibility of chronic effects due to the buildup of
waste constituents in sediments, the water column, or in certain
organisms.
The criteria are based on testing of the waste itself using
tests which represent the present state of knowledge of the
impacts of wastes on marine ecosystems. This present state
of knowledge is not sufficiently advanced that it is possible to
state with absolute certainity that all possible types of impacts
will be detected by the tests used. Because of this the criteria
are extremely stringent and have large safety factors incor-
porated in them.
Studies conducted to date by the Corrps of Engineers' Dredged
Material Research Program at historical dredged material disposal
sites indicate that the primary impact on the aquatic environment
is physical, i.e., a changing of the bottom topography. As
expected, this in turn results in a smothering of some of the
bottom dwelling organisms. This, however, is not as great as
might be expected, as the organisms tend to migrate vertically,
in addition, recolonization apparently occurs rather rapidly.
Due to physical and chemical changes in the ocean bottom,
recolonization may not necessarily be by the same type of
organisms.
Some dredged material is contaminated from deposition of
pollutants on the bottom of waterbodies, from industrial,
-------
municipal, agricultural, and other sources. These pollutants
may leave the sediments in actual dumping operations. In addition
to the physical impacts of dumping, this potential release of
pollutants from the dredged sediments is a major consideration
in ocean dumping dredged material. Probable direct impacts of
the dumping of industrial and municipal wastes also include
mounding, turbidity, smothering of biota, and release of toxic
substances.
Part of the NWF objection was the fact that not all dredged
material is to be included in the evaluation procedures. There
could be the adverse impact following some dredged material
that has not had an elutriate test or bioassay to be dumped and
this mateerial could possibly have toxic properties. However,
EPA believes that it is not necessary for the government nor for
the public to expend substantial resources to consider the
pollution potential when the material is naturally occurring and
uncontaminated sedimentary material. Experience and results
of studies indicate that the probability of significant amounts
of contaminated material being undetected in the dredged
material which is dumped without tests on bioassays is very
slight. Therefore, the possibility of adverse environmental
impacts do not warrant the substantial expenditure necessary
to test all dredged material.
The proposed criteria are adequate to protect against
acute effects, but considerably more study is needed to
-------
determine whether or not they are adequate to protect against
chronic effects over a long period of time.
Long-Range Impacts on the Marine Environment
The MPRSA gives EPA the mandate to prevent "unreasonable
degradation" of the marine environment. In order to assure that
such degradation does not occur, the proposed criteria provide
guidance in Part 228 on the selection and management of dis-
posal sites. In establishing the criteria, EPA has taken the
approach that some modification in sediment chemistry and in
water column chemistry may be acceptable, but degradation
becomes unreasonable when the biota are affected to any signif-
icant degree. The impact categories established in Part 228
as the basis for site management of the criteria on a con-
tinuing basis will minimize degradation other than extremely
localized impacts and thus will provide mitigating measures.
The proposed criteria require baseline surveys on the sites
themselves and a continuing monitoring program to detect any
chronic effects before any adverse impacts become irreversible.
Such mitigating programs have already been initiated by the
Regional Offices as part of the permitting process and will be
continued and expanded during the next few years.
Much concern has been expressed over the buildup in the
marine environment of persistent toxic bioaccumulative
materials such as pesticides and heavy metals. The worldwide
-------
contamination of the environment by pesticides such as DDT has
been demonstrated, and ecological damage due to this con-
tamination has been found. Because of this, the ocean disposal
of known persistent toxic and bioaccumulative elements and
compounds has been prohibited except when they are present as
trace contaminants.
Organohalogen compounds are man-made and are not
naturally occurring materials, so their'effects are much easier
to isolate and control than are those of mercury and cadmium,
which are elements naturally present in marine waters and
sediments. At the present time there is no direct evidence to
show how much mercury or cadmium can be safely tolerated in
ocean waters over a long period of time.
The concentration of mercury normally present in ocean
waters is double the concentration regarded as the safe limit
in fresh water, and the approach taken in EPA's water quality
criteria development for marine waters is to not increase the
normal ambient level. One question which should be addressed
in terms of long range impacts is the potential for raising the
ambient mercury concentration in seawater by continued dumping
of wastes containing small amounts of mercury. There are two
aspects to this problem which should be considered.
First, mercury is a naturally occurring element which will
always be present in some part of the environment; if it is not
-------
dumped into the ocean it will be present in the land or in the
air, depending on the place and method of ultimate disposal.
It is quite likely that some of the mercury put on the land or
into the air will eventually get back into the ocean, so that
merely stopping ocean dumping of mercury does not mean that
the oceans will be unpolluted by it. Attention must also be
given to the potential adverse impacts of placing mercury on land
or in the air.
Second, water in the surface layers of the ocean is constantly
in motion. The probability of buildups of mercury in the water
column or in sediments in contact with the water column is extremely
small because of the constant exchange of water due to persistent
currents, storm-induced turbulence, and seasonal overturns.
Soluble mercury, if not ingested by marine organisms
immediately after disposal, will be diluted and transported far
from the disposal site before any measurable increase above ambient
levels occurs at the point of disposal. Concern has been expressed,
however, that enough mercury might be dumped over a long period
of time to raise the ambient levels of the ocean. Considering that
dissolved mercury dumped off the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts would :;
li
probably be caught up in the Gulf Stream and be distributed throughout
the North Atlantic Ocean, it may be estimated that dumping of
mercury at many times present rates would have to continue for
several hundred years before any change could be measured using
present analytical techniques.
-------
Thus, while mercury, as well as cadmium, is among those
materials which are of the deepest concern because of their toxic
and bioaccumulative properties, it is unlikely that application of the
existing or the proposed criteria will permit the development of
irreversible adverse impacts within the foreseeable future.
There has been no documentation to date of any long-term
chemical or biochemical ecological damage due specifically to
the open-water discharge of dredged material. As discussed
above, the impacts that have been documented are the physical
changes in bottom topography such as mounding of dredged
material on the bottom and the short-term turbidity effects
due to suspended materials. The impacts of these suspended
particulate materials are aesthetic in nature and have shown
no biological significance. If the material dumped contains no
releasable material, it is recolonized by the flora rapidly and
there are few visible impacts of short duration. Research
efforts are being expended to determine long-term impacts which
may result from the mounding. Both field and laboratory ex-
periments are being conducted by the Dredged Material Research
Program to determine whether the mounding remains in place,
or is dissipated through wave action, bottom currents, etc.,
and also the extent of the migration and migratory habits of
benthic organisms under these situations.
Impacts on Other Parts of the Environment
Enforcement of the proposed revisions to the criteria will
require many dumpers, especially those dumping sewage sludge.
-------
to find other alternatives to ocean dumping for ultimate dis-
posal of their wastes. This will result in adverse impacts on
air, land, or other parts of the aquatic environment, depending
on what the means of final treatment and the location for ultimate
disposal may be.
If incineration or incineration-like processes (such as pyrolysis)
is the alternative means of disposal, there will be a discharge of
some gases and heat into the atmosphere, plus some incompletely
burned waste or waste byproducts. If such disposal methods are
implemented on a large scale, there could be adverse effects
on the world climate from the discharge of carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere, local problems of air pollution from the discharge
of heat and undestroyed waste components, and possibly long-grange
buildup in the atmosphere of toxic trace metals or persistent
toxic compounds contained in the stack emissions.
Most land^based incineration includes scrubbing of the stack
gases to remove most of the combustion products; however, the
material scrubbed out must be disposed of in some fashion. When
it is not feasible to reuse or reprocess such materials, they must
either be put on the land or back into the aquatic environment at
some point. In either case, there may be some adverse impact
as described below.
If land is the ultimate environmental location for disposal,
there may be several types of adverse impacts, depending on the
type of waste and method of disposal. If the waste is completely
-------
inert, it will still occupy space, and over a long period will
result in large amounts of land being committed for storage
of inert solid material and, therefore, be unusable for other
purposes. If the waste contains toxic trace metals of toxic
compounds these may leach into the ground and contaminate
ground water supplies. If it is attempted to isolate the area
used for land disposal by an impervious barrier, then there
is always the possibility of the barrier rupturing and releasing
large quantities of toxic wastes to surface or ground waters.
Discharge of wastes into other parts of the aquatic en-
vironment (such as rivers, lakes, streams or estuaries)
rather than the oceans may have adverse impacts on the fresh
water environment, while toxic trace metals and persistent
toxic chemicals may eventually enter the marine environment.
Thus, if the criteria are applied in such a fashion as to
force dumpers out of the ocean into less environmentally
acceptable alternatives, there may be adverse impacts on
other parts of the environment as a result of using these
alternatives.
Economic Impacts
The major new cost in applying the criteria is in the cost of
implementing effective monitoring programs, baseline surveys,
and bioassay tests. While these costs are irreversible, they will
significantly advance the state of knowledge of the marine environ-
ment, and will thus bring mitigating measures in this area far
148
-------
beyond "the resources required.
As dumpers are required to seek alternatives to dumping, they
must invest time and money to examine alternatives, then must also
invest in equipment or treatment facilities to implement alternatives.
These investments must necessarily be regarded as irreversible.
Dumpers are required to make every effort to recycle and reuse
their waste products, so that the material dumped represents only
that residue which has no further value. However, even material
which cannot be reused at the present time may be ultimately
capable of being converted into materials which may be of value
to mankind. Materials dumped into the ocean would, in most cases,
be no longer available for such recovery.
1U9
-------
CHAPTER V
ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
The adverse impacts associated with applying the proposed
criteria in regulating ocean dumping can be separated into two
broad categories: environmental and economic. The proposed
criteria do not represent a change in EPA policy in implementing
the program, nor do they present a new regulatory approach. The
adverse impacts associated with these proposed criteria are,
therefore, basically those associated with the existing criteria,
and this discussion will be based on the adverse impacts of both
sets of criteria. Table III-3 presents the impacts, both bene-
ficial and adverse, that may be anticipated from the proposed
criteria.
Environmental Impacts
Ocean dumping of most materials involves a dilution, a
O
dispersion, and subsequent irretrievable loss of that material. In
addition, there is the potential for release of toxic substances by
dispersion or from the sediments of dredged material. The final
fate of these toxic substances is, of course, uncontrollable. The
best solution, therefore, is to minimize their addition to the
marine environment. The bioassay requirements of Section 227.27
are designed as a mitigating measure to avoid acutely toxic effects
of the dumping of the wastes. However, the state of knowledge of
effects is not advanced enough to assure that no long range chronic
150
-------
effects will occur. Also* there'is no assurance that the bioassays
will actually reflect the impacts at the dump site. This is why the
monitoring of dump sites is an important continuing mitigating
program component.
To date, in spite of numerous studies conducted, there has
been no documentation of long-term chemical or biochemical
ecological damage due specifically to open-water discharges of
dredged material. Impacts that have been documented are the
physical changes in bottom topography, such as mounding of
dredged material on the bottom, and the short-term turbidity due
to suspended materials. The biota located at specific discharge
sites are obviously physically impacted by the covering; however,
the sites are rapidly recolonized by benthic organisms character-
istic of the deposited sediment material, i.e., sand dwelling or
mud dwelling organisms. However, the recolonization may not
necessarily be by the same type organisms due to the physical
and chemical changes in the bottom.
Except for some municipal sludges, it is anticipated that all
dumping under EPA interim permits will be terminated by 1978.
The disposal of municipal sewage sludges may continue for several
years after 1978, but all interim permit dumping is scheduled to
end by 1981. In the meantime, effective monitoring and baseline
survey programs are now being implemented by the EPA Regional
Offices and Part 228 is being proposed to facilitate selection and
management of dump sites. If it appears during this interim period
151
-------
that irreversible or otherwise catastrophic changes are occurring
at existing disposal sites, the criteria allow for the mitigating
action of modification or revocation of permits as required to
prevent such effects. During the period when interim permits
are being issued, some damage to the marine environment
must be expected. It is not known whether any site has been
permanently damaged, but it is certain that a long period of
recovery will be required after dumping stops at a site before
pollution sensitive organisms will be reestablished.
Economic Impacts
There are costs both to the Federal Government and to present
and potential dumpers associated with applying the criteria. The
existing criteria have already required many dumpers to seek
alternatives to ocean dumping; records are not available to deter-
mine the magnitude of these costs, particularly for industrial
dumpers. The proposed criteria would not change this situation,
but using the proposed impact categories of Section 228. 10 to
determine "unreasonable degradation" it is likely that there would
be a need to move some dumpers to new disposal sites with more
favorable environmental conditions. The only case known at the
present time where this might be required is in the New York Bight,
where the incremental cost might be 30 million dollars per year
over the next five years. Tj
These criteria would also require applicants for permits, as
well as the Federal Government, to do more extensive testing of
152
-------
waste materials and to conduct monitoring activities related to the
impacts of ocean dumping. The incremental costs of this would
be about 3. 5 million dollars per year to the Federal Government,
based on EPA budget proposals. The incremental costs to the
applicant would be primarily the cost of monitoring and of the
additional bioassays required. This would not be a large increase.
Since the impacts of ocean dumping most dredged material are
physical, the proposed criteria do not require that all dredged
material be subjected to full analytical testing. Dredged material
determined to be "acceptable" by the District Engineer of the Corps
of Engineers, either because of its source or as a result of the
elutriate test (Section 227. 13), may be dumped without further
testing. The cost of full testing of all dredged material is prohibi-
tive and unwarranted for most dredged materials. The decision
of "acceptability" may allow the dumping of dredged material which
will have an adverse effect, but the criteria are designed to greatly
mitigate and minimize this.
As the dumpers develop and implement alternatives to ocean
dumping, there may be adverse impacts of the alternatives, such
as to the land from land disposal or to the air from incineration.
Adverse impacts on other uses of the ocean may be temporary
as in restrictions to navigation around dump sites or may be for
an unknown period of time as in closing fishing and sh'ellfishing
grounds in the area of a dump site.
In developing the proposed criteria and in establishing the level
of impact which would be regarded as "unreasonable degradation",
153
-------
EPA has attempted to establish a regulatory framework which
would permit use of the ocean as an acceptable alternative for
waste disposal without creating permanent damage to any part of
the ocean, other than the occupation of some space on the ocean
bottom by inert material.
15U
-------
CHAPTER VI
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF
MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The relationship between local short-term uses of man's
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity is essentially a trade-off between the added economics
involved in implementing these criteria versus the long-term
improvement in the marine environment. Some of these trade-
off impacts are presented in Table III-3.
Any ocean dumping by its very nature impacts the marine
environment to some extent. However, the benefits of an
immediate complete cessation of dumping as compared to the
severe impacts of this on municipalities, industries, and con-
sumer products have had to be weighed. Since alternative
disposal methods are not readily available or require ex-
tensive studies, immediate cessation would result :hi pro-
hibitive costs and/or damage to the environment from less
environmentally acceptable disposal or storage methods until
alternative measures could be developed.
There will be short range and long range costs of imple-
menting these criteria. The additional testing requirements for
dredged material and bioassay requirements for dredged material
and other wastes will allow more effective evaluation of possible
impacts of wastes proposed for ocean dumping, but at additional
costs for testing. In cases where dredged material exceeds
155
-------
the limiting permissible concentrations and bioassays are
used to establish dumping conditions, additional costs may
result from hauling material to alternative sites or imple-
menting other actions required as a condition of the permit.
The revisions emphasize the requirement of evaluating the
need for dumping with the subsequent costs as alternatives
are sought and implemented.
Since alternative methods of disposal would require pre-
treatment or disposal ashore under conditions regulated by
other environmental legislation, increased costs could be
expected, but improved environmental conditions overall
should also be expected. The increased costs would be passed
on to the public in the form of increased taxes or increased
cost of manufactured products. The long-term effect will
be more recycling and recovery of wastes as a result of
process modifications and upgraded treatment. This recycling
and reuse would result in some saving of resources, but
additional fuel and other energy would be required for the
treatment or recycling process.
To assure that the permit program is accomplishing the
goal of preventing "unreasonable degradation, " the proposed
criteria include Part 228, Criteria for the Management of
Disposal Sites for Ocean Dumping. By indicating that impacts
to the water or sediment chemistry are acceptable, but impacts
to the biota or outside the site are unacceptable, the proposed
156
-------
criteria should prevent any long-range adverse impact on
the marine environment.
The criteria for management of disposal sites require
sizable expenditures for oceanographic survey work. However,
information gained from baseline and trend assessment surveys
is necessary to analyze impacts and possibly modify or term-
inate use of a site to prevent long-term unacceptable impact.
These revisions should in the long range minimize impacts
on the marine environment, although at additional expense, by
facilitating evaluation of specific wastes, by determining
locations and conditions for dumping, by forcing development
of alternatives, and by modifying use of disposal sites when
necessary to protect the marine environment.
157
-------
CHAPTER VII
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT
OF RESOURCES
Disposal of material is accompanied by an irreversible and
irretrievable commitment of resources. Ocean dumping of wastes
is no exception to this, but considerable effort is expended in
keeping this resource commitment at minimal levels. The two
major areas where the commitment may occur are in the disposal
sites and the loss of materials. Some of these impacts are shown
in Table III-3.
The revised criteria specifically require an evaluation of the
impact of ocean dumping on other uses of the ocean. The desig-
nation of an area as an ocean disposal site removes that and
surrounding areas from other uses, such as temporarily for
shipping and for unknown time periods for fishing and shellfishing.
The oceans have a natural capacity to ameliorate impacts of ocean
dumping and other stresses. One purpose of the revisions to the
ocean dumping criteria is to keep any impacts to the disposal sites
within the assimilative capacity of the oceans. In that way irre-
trievable effects will be minimized and no unreasonable degradation
of the marine environment will occur.
There is an irretrievable commitment of resources material is
ocean dumped. Liquid portions of the wastes are quickly diluted
and solid portions are quickly dispersed, except in the cases of
containerized wastes or construction debris. Wastes being ocean
158
-------
dumped contain trace materials, some of which have value as
materials and some of which have toxic effects in greater con-
centrations. The addition of these trace materials to the oceans
is irreversible; once dumped the materials cannot be reclaimed.
Also, upon dispersion the ultimate fate of the materials is un-
controllable, whether they end up in the water column, in sedi-
ments, or in the biota. The proposed criteria, therefore, attempt
to minimize the irreversible impacts on the marine environment
by restricting the dumping of potentially toxic trace materials.
By emphasizing justification of the need for ocean dumping, each
permittee is required to examine the alternatives available for dis-
posal including recycling and recovery of the wastes, thus reducing
the loss of valuable materials by ocean dumping.
The commitment of money and manpower as a result of the
revisions to the criteria for evaluating permit applications and the
introduction of criteria for management of disposal sites will
primarily involve increased analytical testing of the wastes and
additional bioassays, as well as an increased number of oceano-
graphic surveys for baseline studies and monitoring. It should be
noted that the Regional Offices now voluntarily require additional
analytical and bioassay testing in the permitting process. In
practice, therefore, such testing will not represent additional cost
over the current pactices. The new criteria will result in uniform
application by all regions.
159
/
-------
Since dumpers are required to seek alternatives to dumping,
their investment of time and money to examine alternatives, as
well as the equipment and treatment facilities to implement the
alternatives, must necessarily be regarded as irreversible.
160
-------
REFERENCES
a. U. S. Congress, House of Representatives. Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act Authorization
Fiscal Year,1977. Report No. 94-1047.
b. U.S. Congress, Senate.. Marine Protection Research,
and, Sanctuaries Act Authorization. - Fiscal Year 1977.
Report No. 94-860. ,
1. Council on Environmental Quality. Ocean Dumping - A
National Policy. Washington, D. C. Government Printing
Office, 1970.
2. Robertson, David E. , L. A. Rancitelli, J.C. Longford and
R. W. Perkins, "Battelle Northwest Contribution to the IDOE
Base-Line Study. " Battelle Northwest In Baseline Studies of
Pollutants in the Marine Environment, 1972 IDOE Workshop,
1972.
3. Isaacs, John D. , Chairman Consulting Board, Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP),
"The Ecology of the Southern California Bight: Implication
for Water Quality Management, " 1973.
4. Sverdrup, H. U. , Martin W. Johnson, and Richard H. Fleming.
The Oceans - Their Physics, Chemistry, and General
Biology, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1942.
5. Bisogni, J. J. , and A. W. Lawrence, "Kinetics of Mercury
Methylation in Aerobic and Anaerobic Aquatic Environments. "
Journal WPCF Vol. 47, No. 1, 1975, pp. 135-152.
6. Environmental Protection Agency. Ocean Dumping in the
United States, 1975 Third Annual Report of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency on Administration of Title I,
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, as amended.
7. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II. Sludge
Dumping in the New York Bight, Draft EIS. April 1976.
161
-------
INDEX TO KEY TOPICS
Bioaccumulation - pp. 10, 23-27, 29, 30, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 52,
83-85, 95, 142-46, 148
Dredged Material -pp. 12-14, 30, 33, 34, 62-65, 69, 72, 73,
76, 86, 88-91, 103, 104, 116, 118, 119, 121, 135-138,
140, 141, 146, 150, 151, 153, 155
Dump Sites, Disposal Sites - pp. 8, 10-12, 31-34, 66, 67, 97-115,
119, 120, 139, 142, 153, 155, 157, 158
Impacts - pp. 7, 8, 11, 12, 16-20, 22, 25-28, 33-35, 59-61,
63-67, 69, 77, 91-97, 99-115, 116, 118, 120-138,
139-149, 150-154, 155-157, 158-160
Interim permits - pp. 36, 61, 62, 77, 97,, 100-102, 151
International Convention, Convention - pp. 1, 5, 6, 8-35, 40, 54,
62, 70, 74, 75, 78, 85, 86, 92, 94, 120, 134, 137, 139
Limiting Permissible Concentration (LPC) - pp. 55-57, 70, 81,
86, 87, 90, 91, 116, 122
Mixing Zone, intial mixing - pp. 10, 31, 45-53, 55-59, 70, 81,
82, 85, 87, 88, 90, 116, 122, 139, 150, 158
Toxicity - pp. 10, 22, 23-27, 29, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 47,
48, 50-59, 69, 71, 72, 80-84, 86, 87, 91, 95, 128,
137, 140-142, 146, 148, 150
Trace Contaminant - pp. 8, 36, 37, 40-45, 50-52, 69, 70, 78-83,
88, 90, 116, 120, 122
162
-------
APPENDIX A
Public Law 92-532
92nd Congress, H. R. 9727
October 23, 1972
2in3ict
80 STAT. 1052
and Sanctuaries
Aot of 1972.
TII •iviriilnir ilir traiisiHiriiitiiin for (liiiuiiinu, «f material into
(ii-i'aii wilier*, mid for other purposes.
Hi' il niiii-li-il hi/ t/ii' Seniifi- null lltinxr af Ifi'in-rxi'iiliit.ircx t>f I fir
I'liitril Shili'H (if Anii'rirn. in f.'fint/n-xx tixxrnilili'.il. That tills AH. limy Ma«*ine Proteo-
ht> cited us tin- "'.Miirini' Protection, Kescarch, aixl Sanctuaries Act of tion» Roaearoh,
i !>;•_'".
FIMHXI!. I'Ol.iry, AMI I'l IH'IISK
Si:c. •>.. (a) I 'nrcjriilalcd dumping of material into ocean waters
endangers In i n 1:1 n limit li. we I l':in>, and n men it it's, and t lie inn rinc. envi-
ronment, ecological s\'slrms. and rrnnoniM1 potent in III ics.
(li) Tin1. Conjrrcss dcdiin's t lint il isllio policy of I lie. I'nilcil StnlcM
lo regulate tin1 dumping "I nil types of nialcrmls into iK'i'nn vvalcrs
mill to pi'i'vcnl or st rii-tly liinit the. ilinnpinj; into ocean waters of any
material which would adversely allect human health, welfare, or
iimenit ies. or I lie marine environment, ecological systems, or economic
potentialities.
To this end, il is ihe purpose of this Act to regulate tlie. trnns|)orta-
tion of material from the I'nited Slates for dumping into ocean
waters, and Ihe dumping of material, transported from outside Ihe
I'nited Slates, if the dumping occurs in ocean waters over which the
I'nilisd Stales has jurisdiction or over which it may exercise control,
tinder accepted j>riueiples of international law. in order to protect its
lerritory or territorial se.a.
DK.riNITIONK
SKC. :i. For the purposes of I his Ac) the term -
(ii) ".\diiiinislralor" means the Administrator of the Knviron-
mentiil I'rolect ion Agency.
(h) "()cean waters" means those waters of Ihe. open seas Ivinji sea-
ward of the lia.se line from which the territorial se.a is measured, as
provided for in I hi1 ('onvention on the Territorial Sea and the ('on
tijfiioiiH/oni1 (1". CST Kioii; TIAS r,(i:s'.i).
(c) "Material'' means mailer of any kind or description, including,
hut, not, limited to, dredged material, solid waste, incinerator residue.
fjiirliajre, se\viifre. sewage sludfre, munitions, radioloyfical, che,inical, am)
hioloijrical warfare agents, rmliimet ive materials, chemicals, hiolo^ical
and Inhoriilory waste, wreck or discarded c<|iiipmcn!, rock, sand, exca-
vat ion dehris, and indiisl rial, municipal, a
-------
Pub. .Law 92-532 - 2 - October 23, 1972
U(> STAT. 1053
30 Stat. 1152. "f 1K:'!). as iiiwnded CM U.S.C. -4"7), or under the. provisions of the
68 Stat! 921. Atomic Kuergy Act of HIM. us amended (4-2 I'.S.C. ^011, ft seq.), nor
docs it int'iin n routine discharge of effluent incidental to tlie. propul-
sion of, or operation of niotor-drivon equipment on, vessels: /'/•«-
t'idud, further. That it does not mean the construction of any fixed
structure or artificial island nor the intentional placement of any
device, in ocean waters or on or in the submerged land beneath such
waters, for a pin-pose other than disposal, when such construction or
such place.nient is otherwise, regulated by Federal or State law or
occurs pursnnnt to an authorized Federal or State program: A'lul
provided further. That it does not include the deposit of oyster shells.
or other materials when such deposit is made for the purpose, of
developing, maintaining, or harvesting fisheries resources and is other-
wise regulated bv Federal or State law or occurs pursuant to an author-
i/ed Federal or Stnte. program.
(g) ''District court of the I'nited States'" includes the District Court
of ("riiam. the District Court of the. Virgin Islands, the District Con it
of Puerto Kico. the District Court of the Canal /one. and in the case.
of American Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
the District Court of the. United States for the District of Hawaii.
which court shall have jurisdiction over actions arising therein.
(h) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Army.
(i) "Dredged material" means any material excavated or dredged
from the navigable waters of the. United States.
(j) ''High-level radioactive, waste," menus the aqueous waste, result-
ing from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or
equivalent, aim the concentrated waste, from subsequent extraction
cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor
fuels, or irradiated fuel from nncfear power reactors.
(k) "Transport" or "transportation" refers to the carriage and
related handling of any material by a vessel, or by ii.ny other vehicle.
including aircraft.
TITLE I—OCEAX DUMPING
I'ROniBlTF.n ACTS
Si-r. 101. (a) Xo person shall transport from the United States any
radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agent or any high-level
radioactive waste., or except as may bo authorized in a permit issued
under this title, and subject to regulations issued under section 108
hereof by the. Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard
is operating, any other material for the purpose, of dumping it into
ocean waters.
(b) Xo person shall dump any radiological, chemical, or biological
warfare ngcnt or any high-level radioactive waste, or, except as may
be. authorized in a permit issued under this title, any other material,
transported from any location outside the United States, (1) into the
territorial sea of the. United States, or (2) into a. /.one. contiguous to
the "territorial sea of the. I'nited States, extending to a line twelve
nautical miles seaward from the. base line from which the breadth of
the territorial sen is measured, to the extent that, it may affect the terri-
torial sea or the territory of the United States.
(c) Xo officer, employee, agent, department, agency, or instrumen-
tality of the United States shall transport, from any location outside
the United States any radiological, chemical, or b'iologicnl warfare
agent or any high-level radioactive waste, or. except ns may l>e author-
ised in a permit issued under this title, any other material for the
purpose of (lumping'it into ocean waters.
-------
October 23, 1972 - 3 - Pub. Law 92-532
86 STAT. 1054
KN'VIHON.MKXTAI. 1'HOTKCTtOX AdKXCY IT.KMITS
Sw. 10-2. (a.) Kxcept in relation to dredged material, as provided,
for in section 103 of this title, and in relation to radiological, chemi-
cal, and biological warfare agents and high-level radioactive waste,
as provided for in section 101 of this title, the Administrator way
issue permits, after notice and op|M>rtui»ity for ptiMip hwing*, f\\\-
the trnns|>ortiition from thi> Tnilod StulVs »M\ in »l»o <•!»!«<> of «n
sigencv or instrumentality of the United States, f<>r thr ti'Hnsportn-
tion from a location outside, tho United States, of material for the
purpose of dumping it into ocean waters, or for the dumping of
Uniterm) into the. waters described in section 101 (b), where the. Admin-
istrator determines that such dumping will not unreasonably degrade, ;
or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the. marine
environment, ecological systems, or economic, potentialities. The
Administrator shall establish and apply criteria for reviewing and
evaluating such permit applications, and, in establishing or revising
such criteria, shall consider, but not be limited in his consideration
to, the following:
(A) Tho need for the proposed dumping.
(B) The effect, of such dumping on nuninn health and welfare,
including economic, esthetic, and recreational values.
(C) The effect of such dumping on fisheries resources, plank-
ton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shore lines and beaches.
(D) The effect of such dumping on marine ecosystems, par-
ticularly with respect to—
(i) the transfer, concentration, and dispersion of snch
material and its byproducts through biological, physical, and
chemical processes,
(ii) potential changes in marine ecosystem diversity, pro-
ductivity, and stability, and
(iii) species and community population dynamics.
(E) The persistence and permanence of the effects of the dump-
ing.
(F) The effect of dumping particular volumes and concentra-
tions of such materials.
(G) Appropriate locations and methods of disposal or'recy-
cling, including land-based alternatives and the probable impact
of requiring use of such alternate locations or methods upon con-
siderations affecting tho public interest.
(H) The effect on alternate uses of oceans, such as scientific
study, fishing, and other living resource exploitation, and non-
living resource exploitation.
(I) In designating recommended sites, the Administrator shall
utilize wherever feasible locations beyond the edge of the Con-
tinental Shelf.
In establishing or revising such criteria, the Administrator shall con-
sult with Federal. State, and local officials, and interested members
of the general public, as may appear appropriate to the Administrator.
With respect to such criteria as may affect the civil works program of
the Department of the Army, the Administrator shall also consult
with the Secretary. In reviewing applications for permits, the Admin-
istrator shall make such provision for consultation with interested
Federal and State, agencies as he deems useful or necessary. No per-
mit shall be issued for a dumping of material which will violate appli-
cable water quality standards.
(b) The Administrator may establish and issue various categories
of pennits, including the general permits described in section 104(c).
-------
.65M.1Q5S 92-532 - 4 - October 23, 1972
(c) Tlie Administrator may. considering the criteria established
pui'suant to subjection (a ) of this section, designate recommended sites
or times for dumping and, when he finds it necessary to protect critical
areas, shall, after consultation with the Secretary, also designate sites
or times within \yliich certain materials may not be dumped.
(d) Xo permit is required under this title for the transportation
for dumping or the dumping of fish wastes, except when deposited in
harbors or other protected or enclosed coastal waters, or where the
Administrator finds that such deposits could endanger health, the.
environment, or ecological systems in a specific location. Where the
Administrator makes such a finding, such material may be deposited
only as authorized by a permit issued by the Administrator under thin
section.
( 'OKI'S OK KNIIINKKKM I'KIIMITK
SKI'. 108. (a) Subject, to the provisions of subsections (b), (c).
and (d) of this section, the. Secretary may issue. permits. after notice;
and opportunity for public hearings, for tie transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it into oceiin water*, where the
Secretary determines that the dumping will not unreasonably degrade
or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine.
environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities.
(b) In making the determination required bv subsection (a), the,
Secretary shall apply those criteria, established pui-wiant to section
10*2 (a), relating to the effects of the. dumping. Hased upon an evalua-
tion of the. potential effect, of a permit denial on navigation, economic
and industrial development, and foreign and domestic commerce, of
the I'nited States, the. Secretary shall make an independent determi-
nation as to the need for the, dumping. The Secretary shall also make.
an independent determination as to other possible methods of disposal
and as to appropriate, locations for the dumping. In considering appro-'
priate, locations, he shall, to the extent feasible, utilize the reconi-
inended sites designated by the Administrator' pursuant to section
(c) I'rior to issuing any permit, under this section, the Secretary
shall first notify the. Administrator of his intention to do HO. In any
case, in which the Administrator disagrees with the. (((-termination of
the. Secretary an to compliance, with the. criteria established pursuant
to section 102(») relating to the. effects of the. dumping or with the
restrictions established pursuant- to section 102(e) relating to critical
ureas, the determination of the Administrator shall prevail. Unless the
Administrator grants n waiver pursuant to subsection (d), the Secre-
tary shall not issue, a permit, which does not. comply with Biirh criteria
and with such re.strict.ions.
Waiver. (d) If. in any case., the. Secretary finds that, in the, disposition of
dredged material, there is no economically feasible method or site
available, other than a dumping site the utilization of which would
result in non-compliance with the criteria established pursuant to sec-
tion l()2(a) relating to the, effects of dumping or with the, restrictions
established pursuant to section 102(c.) relating to critical areas, he
shall so certify and request a waiver from the Administrator. of the.
specific requirements involved. Within thirty days of the. rince.ipt of
the. waiver request-, unless the Administrator finds,. itlwiftlie dumping of
the material will result in an unacceptablyjjdrfcrse impact on munici-
pal water supplies, shell-fish beds, wildlife', fisheries (including spawn-
ing and breeding areas), or recreational areas, he shall grant the
waiver.
-------
October 23, 1972
- 5 -
Pub. Law 92-532
66 STAT. 1056
(e) In connection with Federal projects involving dredged nmterial,
tin-. Secretary may, in lieu of the permit procedure, issue regulations
require the application to such projects of the same criteria,
other factors to be evaluated, the same procedures, and the stune
requirements which apply to the issuance of permits under subsections
(a), (b), (c.),nnd (d) of this section.
PERMIT CONDITIONS
SEC. 104. (n) Permits issued under this title shall designate and
include (1 ) the type, of material authorized to be transported for dump-
ing or to be dumped j (2) the amount, of material authorized to be
transported for dumping or to be dumped ; (3) the location where such
transport for dumping will be terminated or where such dumping will
occur; (4) the length of time for which the permits are valid andtheir
expiration date; (5) any special provisions deemed necessary by the
Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be, after consultation
with the Secretary of the Department, in which the Coast Guard is
operating, for the monitoring and surveillance of the transportation or
dumping; and (<>) such other matters as the Administrator or the
Secretary, as the case may be, deems appropriate.
(b) The Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may he. may
prescribe such processing fees for permits and such reporting require-
ments for actions taken pursuant to permits issued by him under this
title as he deems appropriate.
(c) Consistent with the requirements of sections 102 und 103, but in
lieu of a requirement for specific permits in such case, the Administra-
tor or the Secretary, as the case may be. may issue general permits for
the transportation for dumping, or dumping, or both, of. specified
materials or classes of materials for which he may issue permits, which
lie determines will have a minimal adverse environmental impact.
(d ) Any permit issued under this title shall be reviewed periodically
and, if appropriate, revised. The Administrator or the Secretary, as
the case may be, may limit or deny the issuance of permits, or he may
alter or revoke partially or entirely the. terms of permits issued by
him under this title, for the transportation for dumping, or for the
dumping, or both, of specified materials or classes of materials, where
he finds that such materials cannot be dumped consistently with the
criteria and other factors required to be applied in evaluating the per-
mit application. No action shall be taken under this subsection unless
the » fleeted pel-son or permittee shall have been given notice and oppor-
tunity for a nearing on such action as proposed.
(c) The Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be; shall
require an applicant for a permit under this title to provide such infor-
mation rfs he may consider necessary to review and evaluate such
npplication.
(f ) Information received by the Administrator or the Secretary, as
(ho case may be, as a part of any application or in connection witli any
permit, granted under this title shall be available to the public as a
matter of public record, at every stage of the proceeding. The final
determination of the Administrator or the Secretary, as the cnse may
IK', shall be likewise available.
(g) A copy of any permit issued under this title shall be placed in
a conspicuous place in the vessel which will be used for the transporta-
tion or dumping authorized by such permit, and an additional copy
shnll be furnished by the issuing official to the Secretary of the depart-
ment in which 'the Coast Guard is operating, or its designee.
Review.
Public
information.
-------
Pub. Law 92-532 - 6 - October 23, 1972
66 STAT. 1057 *
PENALTIES
SKA'. 10"). («) Any pei'sou who violates any provision of this title,
or of Hiu regulations promulgated under this title, or a pennit issued
under this title shall be liable to a civil penalty of not more than
:jC>0,OiN) for each violation to IK- assessed by the Administrator. Xo
(M-nalty shall |H> assessed until the person charged sJiall have l«en
given notice and an opportunity for a hearing of such violation. In
ih'terininin>! (he ainoiint of the penalty, the gravity of the violation,
prior violations, and the di>monstrat<.ratn
charged in attempting to achieve rapid compliance after notification
of a violation shall be considered by said Administrator. For good
cause shown, the Administrator may remit or mitigate such penalty.
I "pon failure of the otfending party to pay the penalty, the Adminis-
trator may recjuest the Attorney General to commence an action in the
appropriate, district court of the United States for such relief as may
be appropriate.
(b) In addition to any action which may l>e brought tinder sub-
section (a) of this section, a person who knowingly violates this
title, regulations promulgated under this title, or a permit issued
under this title shall be, fined not more than $50,000, or imprisoned
for not more than one year, or both.
(c.) For the purpose of imposing civil penalties and criminal fines
under this section, each day of a continuing violation shall constitute
a separate olFense as shall the dumping from each of several vessels,
or other sources.
(d) The. Attorney (ie.neral or his delegate may bring actions for
equitable relief to enjoin an imminent or continuing violation of this
title, of regulations promulgated under this title, or of permits issued
under this title, and the district courts of the United States shall have
jurisdiction to grant such relief as the equities of the case may require.
Uablli-ty. (e) A vessel, except a public vessel within the meaning of section
I.'! of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (83U.S.C.
Ante, p..816. 1108). usod in a violation, shall be liable in rein for any civil penalty
assessed or criminal Hue imposed and may be, proceeded against in any
district court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof; but
no vessel shall be, liable unless it. shall appeal1 that one. or more of the
owners, or Imreboat charterers, was at the time of the violation a con-
senting party or privy to such violation.
Ante, pp. 1054 (0 If the, provisions of any permit issued under section 102 or 103
1055, are violated, the Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be,
may revoke the jiermit or may suspend the permit for a specified period
of time. No permit shall he revoked or suspended unless the per-
mittee shall have been given notice and opportunity for a hearing on
such violation and proposed suspension or invocation.
(g) (1) Kxeppt as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection any
person-may commence a civil suit on his own he.half to enjoin any
person, including the United States and any other governmental
instrumentality or agency (to the extent permitted by the eleventh
amend n lent to the Constitution), who is alleged to he in violation of any
prohibition, limitation, criterion, or permit established or issued by
or under this title. The district courts shall have jurisdiction, without
regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to
enforce such prohibition, limitation, criterion, or permit, as tho case
ninv be.
-------
October 23, 1 V72 - 7 - Pub. L,aw 92-532
IIG.STAT. 1058
(li) No action limy lie. uoiniiii.'liri'd-
(A) prior to sixl.y days after notice of the violation has be.en
given to tlie Administrator or to the Secretary, and to any alleged
violator of the prohibition, limitation, criterion, or permit; or
(B) if the Attorney General lias commenced and is diligently
prosecuting a civil action in a court of the United States to
require compliance with the prohibition, limitation, criterion, or
permit; or
(C) if the Administrator has commenced action to impose a
' penalty pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, or if the
Administrator, or the Secretary, has initiated permit revocation or
suspension proceedings under subsection (f) of this section; or
(D) if the United States has commenced and is diligently
prosecuting a criminal action in a court of the United States or
a State to redress a violation of this title.
(3) (A) Any suit under this subsection may be brought in the judi-
cial district in which the violation occurs.
(B) In any such suit under this subsection in which the United
States is not a party, the Attorney General, at the request of the
Administrator or Secretary, may intervene on behalf of the United
States as a matter of right.
(4) The court, in issuing any final order in any suit brought pur-
suant to paragraph (1) of tins Subsection may award costs of litigation
(including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party,
whenever the court determines such award is appropriate.
(.r>) The injunctive relief provided by this subsection shall not
restrict any right which any person (or class of persons) may have
under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any standard
or limitation or to seek any other relief (including relief against the
Administrator, the Secretary, or a State agency).
(h) No person shall be subject to a civil penalty or to a criminal Exception.
fine or imprisonment for dumping materials from a vessel if such mate-
rials are dumped in an emergency to safeguard 'ife »t sea. Any such
emergency dumping shall be reported to the Administrator under
such conditions as he may prescribe.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS
SEC. 106. (a) After the effective date of this title, all licenses, per-
mits, and authorizations other than those issued pursuant to this title
shall be void and of no legal effect, to the extent that they purport
to authorize any activity regulated by this title, and •whether issued
before or after the effective date of this title.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to actions
taken before the effective date of this title under the authority of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1809 (30 Stat. 1151), as amended (83
U.S.r,401ct.seq.).
(<•) Prior to issuing any permit under this title, if it appears to the
Administrator that the disposition of material, other tlian dredged
material, may adversely affect navigation in the territorial sea of the
United States, or in the. approaches to any harbor of the United States,
or may create an artificial island on the, Outer Continental Shelf, the
Administrator shall consult with the Secretary and no permit shall
-------
86 STAT. 1059
Pub. Law 92-532
- 8 -
October 23, 1972
"State."
60 Stat. 1080}
72 Stat. 563.
Infra.
l)t- issued if the Secretary determines that navigation will l>e unreason-
ably impaired.
(d) Aftor the. effective date of this title, no State shall adopt or
rnforce liny rule or regulation relating to any activity regulated by
this title. Any State may, however, propose to the Administrator cri-
teria relating to the dumping of materials into tlw vxtvut Jhat ^w-h 'hiiWi|j>Ji>!>ig
may aff
-------
October 23, 1972
- 9 -
Pub. Law 92-532
86 STAT. 1060
1 \TKKN.\TIOXAI, COOPERATION
SKI:. !(>!). The. Secretary of State, in consultation with the Adminis-
trut'or, shall ycek effective, international action and cooperation to
insure protection of the inurine environment, and may, for this pur-
pose, formulate, present, or support specific proposals in the United
Nations and other competent international organizations for the
development of appropriate international rules and regulations in
support of the policy of this Act.
KKFKOTIVK DATE AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS
SEC. 110. (a) This title, shall take effect six months after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(b) No legal action begun, or right of action accrued, prior to the
effective date, of this title shall be affected by any provision of this
title.
SEC. 111. There, are hereby authorized to be appropriated not to Appropriation.
exceed $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1973, and not to exceed $5.500,000
for fiscal year 1974, for the purposes and administration of this title,
and for succeeding fiscal years only such sums as the Congress may
authorize by law.
SEC. 112. The Administrator shall report annually, on or before Annual report
June. 30 of each year, with the first report to be made on or IK'fore to Congress.
June. 30, 1973 to the Congress,, on his administration of this title,
including recommendation'! for additional legislation if deemed neces-
sary.
TITLE II—COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH ON OCEAN
DUMPING
SEC. 201. The Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Report to
Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating Congress.
and with the Administrator shall, within six months of the enactment
of this Act, initiate, a comprehensive and continuing program of
monitoring and research regarding the effects of the dumping of
material into ocean waters or other coastal waters where the tide ebbs
and flows or into the Great Lakes or their connecting waters and shall
report from time to time, not less frequently than annually, his
findings (including an evaluation of the short-term ecological effects
and the social and economic factors involved) .to the Congress.
SEC. 202. (a) The Secretary of Commerce? in consultation with
other appropriate Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentali-
ties shall, within six months of the enactment of this Act, initiate a
comprehensive and continuing program of research with respect to
the possible long-range effects of pollution, over-fishing, and man-
induced changes of ocean ecosystems. In carrying out such research,
the Secretary of Commerce shall take into account such factors as
exist.ing and proposed international policies affecting oceanic prob-
lems, economic considerations involved in both the protection and the
use of the oceans, poRsible alternatives to existing programs, and ways
in which the health of the oceans may best be preserved for the benefit
of succeeding generations of mankind.
(b) In carrying out his responsibilities under this section, the Sec-
retary of Commerce, under the foreign policy guidance of the Presi-
dent'and pursuant to international agreements and treaties made by
8S-4(i5 O - 72 .
-------
86 STAT. 1061
Pub. Law 92-532
- 10 -
October 23, 1972
the President with the advice mid consent of the Senate, may act
alone or in conjunction with any other nation or group of nations.
and shall make known the results of his activities by such channels or
communication as may appear appropriate.
Annual report (c) In January of each year, the Secretary of Commerce shall report
to Congress. to the Congress on the results of activities undertaken by him pursuant
to this section during the previous fiscal year.
(d) Each department, agency, and inde|>endent instrumentality of
the Federal Government is authorized and directed to cooperate with
the Secretary of Commerce in carrying out the purposes of this sec-
tion and, to the extent permitted by law, to furnish such information
as may he requested.
Inter-agency (e) The Secretary of Commerce, in carrying out his responsibilities
agreements. under this section, shall, to the .extent feasible utilize the personnel,
services, and facilities of other"Federal departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities (including those of the Coast Guard for monitoring
purposes), and is Authorized to eater into appropriate inter-ngency
agreements to accomplish this action.
Federal-state SRc. 203. The Secretary of Commerce shall conduct and encourage,
cooperation. cooperate with, and render financial and other assistance to appropri-
ate public (whether Federal. State, interstate, or local) authorities,
agencies, and institutions, private agencies and institutions, and indi-
viduals in the conduct of, and to promote the coordination of. research,
investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and
studies for the purpose of determining means of minimizing or ending
all dumping of materials within five years of the effective date of this
Act.
Appropriation. SEC. 204. There are authorized to be appropriated for the first fiscal
year after this Act is enacted and for the next two fiscal years there-
after such sums as may be necessary to carry out this title, but the
sums appropriated for any such fisca'l year may not exceed $B,000,000.
TITLE III—MARINE SANCTUARIES
"Seoretary." ^E<:- ;l01- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (h) of sec-
tion i\ of this Act, the term "Secretary", when used in this title, means
Secretary of Commerce.
STX;. 302. (a) The Secretary, after consultation with the Secretaries
of State. Defense, the Interior, and Transportation, the Administra-
tor, and the heads of other interested Federal agencies, and with the
approval of the President, may designate as marine sanctuaries those
areas of the ocean waters, as far seaward as the outer edge of the
Continental Shelf, as defined in the Convention of the Continental
15 UST 471. Shelf (15 U.S.T. 74; TIAS 5578), of other coastal waters where the
tide ebbs and flows, or of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters,
which he determines necessary for the purpose of preserving or restor-
ing such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or
esthetic values. The consultation shall includp an opportunity to review
and comment on a specific proposed designation.
(b) Prior to designating a marine sanctuary which includes waters
lying within the territorial limits of any State or superjacent to the
subsoil and seabed within the seaward boundary of a, coastal State,
as that boundary is defined in section 2 of title I of the Act of May 22,
43 use 1301. 1053 (07 Stat. 20), the Secretary shall consult with, and give due con-
sideration to the views of, the responsible officials of the State involved.
As to such waters, a designation under this section shall become effec-
-------
October 23, 1972
- 11 -
Pub. Law 92-532
86 STAT. 1062
tive sixty days after it is published, unless the Governor of any State
involved shall, before the expiration of the sixty-day period, certify
to the Secretary that the designation, or a specified portion thereof,
is unacceptable to his State, in which case the designated sanctuary
shall not include the area certified as unacceptable until such time as
the Governor withdraws his certification of unacceptability.
(c) When a marine sanctuary is designated, pursuant to this sec-
tion, which includes an area 61 ocean waters outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States, the Secretary of State shall take
such actions as may be appropriate to enter into negotiations with
other Governments for the purpose of arriving at necessnry agree-
ments with those Governments, in order to protect such sanctuary
and to promote the purposes for which it was established.
(d) The Secretary shall submit nn annual report to the Congress, Annual report
on or before November 1 of each year, setting forth a comprehensive *° Congress.
review of his actions during the previous fiscal year undertaken pur-
suant to the authority of this section, together with appropriate rec-
ommendation for legislation considered necessary for the designation
and protection of marine sanctuaries.
(e) Before a mai-ine sanctuary is designated under this section, the Hearings,
Secretary shall hold public hearings in the coastal areas which would
DP most directly affected by such designation, for the purpose of
receiving and giving proper consideration to the views of any
interested party. Such hearings shall be held no earlier than thirty
days after the publication of a public notice thereof.
(f) After a marine sanctuary has been designated under this sec- Regulations.
tion, the Secretary, after consultation with other interested Federal
agencies, shall issue necessary and reasonable regulations to control
any activities permitted within the designated marine sanctuary, and
no permit, license, or other authorization issued pursuant to any other
authority shall be valid unless the Secretary shall certify that the
permitted activity is consistent with the purposes of this title and
can be carried out within the regulations promulgated under this
section.
(g) The 'regulations issued pursuant to subsection (f) shall be
applied in accordance with recognized principles of international law,
including treaties, conventions, and other agreements to which the
I'nited States is signatory. Unless the application of the regulations
is in accordance with such principles or is otherwise authorized by
an agreement between the Unitea States and the foreign State of
which the affected person is a citizen or, in the case of the crew of a
foreign vessel, between the United States and flag State of the vessel,
no regulation applicable to ocean waters outside the territorial juris-
diction of the United States shall be applied to a person not a citizen
of the United States.
SEC. 3fy1. (a) Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United Penalties.
States who violates any regulation issued pursuant to this title shall
be liable to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each such vio-
lation, to bo assessed by the Secretary. Each day of a continuing viola-
tion shall constitute a separate violation.
(b) No penalty shall oe assessed under this section until the. person
charged has been given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Upon
failure, of the offending party to pay an assessed penalty, the Attorney
(leneral, at the request of the Secretary, shall commence, action in the
appropriate district court of the United States to collect the penalty
and to seek such other relief as may be appropriate.
-------
86 STAT. 1063
Pub. L,aw 92-532
- 12 -
October 23, 1972
(c) A vessel used in the violation of a regulation issued pursuant to
this title shall be 'liable in rein for any civil penalty assessed for such
violation and may be proceeded against in any district court of the
United States having jurisdiction thereof.
Jurisdiction. (d) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction
to restrain a violation of the regulations issued pursuant to this title,
and to grant such other relief as may be appropriate. Actions shall be
brought by the Attorney General in the name of the United States,
either on his own initiative or at the request of the Secretary.
Appropriation. SEC. 304. There are authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year
in which this Act is enacted and for the next two fiscal years thereafter
such sums as may be necessary to carrjr out the provisions of this title,
including sums for the costs of acquisition, development, and operation
of marine sanctuaries designated under this title, but the sums appro-
priated for any such fiscal year shall not exceed $10,000,000.
Approved October 23, 1972.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORYs
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 92-361 (Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries) and
No. 92-1546 (Comm. of Conferenoe).
SENATE REPORT No. 92-451 (Comm. on Commerce).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORDS
Vol. 117 (1971): Sept. 8, 9, oonsidered and passed House.
Nov. 24, oonsidered and passed Senate, amended.
Vol. 118 (1972)i Dot. 13, Senate and House agreed to oonferenoe
report.
WKEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTSl
Vol. 8, No. 44 (1972): Oct. 28, Presidential statement.
-------
APPENDIX B
CONVENTION dX THE PlJEVEXTlOX OF M.AIUXE IV'MA: I K-X T'.V 'DvMWXG
OF WASTES AND Orm:ii MATTKR
The CotiJracthtg Parties to this Convention.
fierogit'Stng that tho marine environment and the. living organisms
winch it supports arc of vital importance to humanity, and nil people
have an interest in assuring that it is so managed that its quality and
rf.-our.jfs are not impaired ;
fit cognizing that the capacity of the sea to assimilate wastes and
render them harmless, and its ability to regenerate, natural resources,
is not unlimited:
ffttof/niz'hifl that .Stairs have, in accordance with the Charter of the
l.'nited Nations and' the principles of international law, the sovereign
right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environ-
mental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within
their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment
of other States or of areas beyond the limits of "national jurisdiction;
J?eca/l'tng Resolution 2719 (XXV) of the General Assembly of the
l.'nited Nations on the principles governing the sen bed and the ocean
floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdic-
tion;
Xoi'n'iy that marine pollution originates in many sources, such as
dumping fnd discharges through the atmosphere, rivers, estuaries,
out falls and pipeline?, and that n is important that States UPC the best
practicable .means to prevent such pollution and develop products and
processes' which will n-ihne the amount of harmful waMos to be dis-
posed of;
Bc'nt'j convhifed th;:t inlei national action to control (he pollution
of the ?c-.i bv dumping can and must be- taken without delny but that
this act ion should not prechide discussion of measures to control other
source.-: of marine pollution iiss-oon as possible; and
"[Visit'trig to improve protection of the marine environment by en-
couraging States with a common interest-in pitrlicular geographical
areas to enter into appropriate agreements suppleinentary to this Con-
vention:
ffarc ogreed as follows:
AKTICLK I
Contracting Parlies shrill individually and colU-clively promote tho
• •(Ti'Clivi? control of nil .-ources of pollution of the marine environment,
:uitl )iic-dgfc themselves e.-jpecially (o take «1] pi-:ic.(icnblc steps to pre-
vent the pollnt iun of ilit; sea by the dumping of waste and other matter
(hat i? bable to create haxar'ds to human nealth, to hai-m living re-
sources and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with
other It'iitimate uses of the sea.
(1)
J3 IIS-73 2
-------
Airnri.i: u
(.'•mi ;-n< tinij P.-u ties shall, ns provided for in the follo'.vinj.' Articles,
(::\c tlVtvtivc measures individually, according to their .scientific, tech- '
MI.-:il and economic capabilities, and collectively, to prevent marine
pollution candid by dumping :ind shall harraoni/.e iiu-ir policies in
iliis regard.
AHTICI-E lit
b'or the pu rposes of this Convention:
1. (a) "Dumping" means:
(i) any deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter
from vi'HSi'ls, aircraft, platforms or other man-made struc-
tures at sea;
(ii) any deli be rate disposal at. sea of vessels, aircraft, plat-
form? or other man-made :-inic-tnre.sat >ea.
(b) "Dnmphuj" docs not iiH-hule:
(i) the disposal at sea of wastes or oilier junlter inr-idi-ntal
In. nr derived from the normal operations i>f N't'^^r1]?. ftircraft,
platforms or other man-made structures at ^ca and thoir
oimipmc-nt, other than vastes or other i:i:itti-r tr:i:i-po:1c-d by
or to vt:.v.«cls, siiirraft. plal forms or other uian-niMde >truc-
inres at M.-a, operating for the purpose of disposal of -iif.-h
maMer or derived from the treatment of :MIC!I v.-j-U-s (if other
matter on Hi<:h ve?^fls. aiirraft. plat forms or >*> i iK-ture's;
(ii) placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere
dij-pcwti tiji-ve-.f. prOi'i«'i'-u i"hai siicli piaci-iiii/m is not cnjiirarv
to the aims of this Convention. ' '•"• .
(i:) The disposal of \vaMes or other matvc-r dircrtly nrirnijr
fi\>m, or related vo the exjiloration. exploitniii>ii and :%.r->ncinted
• olf ^o\ii\.-f'? will nftt "be
Kiveivil l.iv the PICA isio :~ of this Convention.
•1. "Ves?.'!ls and aiixraft" means \vaterboriK; »r airborne craft
of any type whatsoever. This expression im-ludrs air fiiOiioned
c-i-aft'and floating <-raft. whether self-propelled or n?t.
?>. "Sea." means all mai'ine waters other thnn the internal wa'ors
of Slates.
4. "\Va.-tes or othe.r matter" means material mid .Mibstance. of
nnv kind, form or dcscvipi ion. _ -
,v>. :'Jfpe«:ial permit" means permission granted .specinc-nlly on
application in advance and in accordance with Annex II and
Amexlir. :
C*. ••General permit" mean? pennusion jimnted in advance and
in iivciirdavict- \vith Annex 1.1 J.
7. "The. Or/.r:irii.-a1ion'' means (he Or;:ani?:ili»n df-i^naled by
the Cont lactin;: Parties in accordance with Aiticle X.l^" (-2).
Airnci.K rv
1. 1'n ai-roidani-.? with the provision? of this Con vent ion Cont rafting
Parties shall prohibit, ihe diiinping of any waste? or other matter in
whatever form or condition except ns oth*erwi>e spin-ined below.
(a] ihe dnrnping of wastes or other matter li.Mcd hi Annex I is
prohibited;
')
-------
3.
(b) the dumping of wastes or other mfitter listed in Annex II
require? a prior special permit;
(c) the dumping of all other wastes or matter requires a prior
general permit.
•1. Any permit, shall be issued only after careful consideration of all
ihe factors sot forth in Annex 111, including prior studies of the char-
acteristics of the dumping site, as set forth in Sections B and C of that
Annex.
3. Xo provision of this Convention is to be interpreted as prevent-
ing a Contracting Party from prohibiting, insofar as that Party is
concerned, the dumping of wastes or other matter not mentioned in
Annex f. That Party shall notify such measures to the Organisation.
Al."rlCI,E V
1. The. provisions of Article IV shall not apply when it is necessary
lo secure the safety of human life or of vessels, aircraft, plat.forrus
or other man-made structure's at sea in cases of foi-ce iiiajeure caused
by stress of weather, or in any case which constitutes a danger to hu-
man life or a real threat to vessels, aircraft, plat forms or other man-
made structures at, sea, if dumping appe.ars to be. the only way of
averting the threat and if there is every probabilitv that the. damage
consequent upon such dumping will be less than would otherwise occur.
.'.fiich dumping shall be so conducted as to Juin'irnis-c ihe likelihood of
damage to human or marine, life and shall be reported forthwith to the
Organisation.
:'.. A (.'ontracting Party may issue a special permit as an exception t
!o Article lV(l)(a). in emergencies, posing unacceptable risk relnt- :
in«i to human health and admitting no other feasible solution. Before
doim; .-.•''.' ihe Party shall consult any other country or ci>imtrio.
-------
(,/) monitor individually, or in collaboration v.ilh other Par-
lies :mhail i sue prior special or fjenprnl permits in accordance \viih para-
pr.iph' (1) m 1't'i'pf.ct of matter intended for dumping:
(/'") loaded in its territory;
(If) loaded by a vessel or aircraft registered in its territory or
ll-yinjr it? !':»:.', when the loading occurs in the territory of a.Stato
nut i-Tarty to this Convention.
'•\. In ir?ninj.r permits uinle.r snb-para'.rraphs (1) (a) and (b) above,
the appropriate authority or .authorities shall comply with Annex HI,
tur.-vtho.r with su«-h additional critc-rin, measures and requirements ns
thry may n'Haider relevant.
\. F.ach Contractinjr P:>rly, directly or through a Secretariat estab-
li.li.'d under a regional agreement, shall repoj't to the Oriianisntion,
and \ lieiv appropriate to other Parties, the information specified in
• .-uli-p ! <-;igraphs (<•} and (d) of paragraph (1) above, and the criteria,
meat-nri-s and requirement? it adopts in accordance with paragraph (3)
above.-The procedure- to be followed and the nature of such reports
shall be agreed by the. Parties in consultation.
AI:TICI;F. vit
1. I'.ach Coiitrai-tin:: Party shall apply the measures rerjuired- to
implement the present Convention to nil:
(«) vessels :;nd aircraft registered in its tcrritoi'y or flying its
flnsr: _ * "-y
\l>) vrsrols and aircraft loading in its territory or tc'rritorial
?o:is matter which is to be dumped: -v
(<•) veKi-els and aircraft, and fixed or floating platf<>rms under
it?, jurisdiction believed to be engaged in dunvpini:.
9. Kach Parly shall take, in it.s territory appropriate measures to
prevent and punish conduct in contravention of the provisions of this •
Convention.
3. The Parlies agree to co-operate in the development of procedures
for the effecti\c. application of this Convention particularly on ihe
hii/h seas, iucbidinj; procedures for the reporting of vessels and air-
craft observed dumpinj.' in contravention of the Convention. : -
1. This Convention shall not apply to those vessels and aircraft en-
titled to sovereign iinnnmitv under international law. However e,nch
Parly >hall ensure by the ado|.iiion of appropriate measures that such
vessels and air«-ra fi ov, ned or operated by it act in a manner consistent
with the object and purpose of this Convention, and shall inform the
Organisation accordingly.
5! Xothin«r in this Convention shall affect the ripht of each Party
to adopt other measures, in accordance with the principles of
international law, to prevent clumping at se.a.
Airriri-r. vnt
Tn order to further the. objectives of this Convention, (Vie Conlract-
in;r Parties with common interests to protect, in the marine environ-
-------
.'moil ill a f_riven gooiM':'iphical area si in 11 cndfiavour. taking into account
'•liaracteristic regional features. (o enter into regional agreements con-
sistent with this Convention foi- the prevention of pollution, especially
liy dumping. The Contracting Parlies to the present Convention shall
endeavour to net consistently with the objectives and provisions of
Mieli regional agreement?, which shall be notified to them by the Orga-
nisation. Contra cling Parties shall seek to co-operate with the parties
lo regional agreements in order to develop harmonized procedures to
he followed by Contracting Parties to the different conventions con-
cerned. Special attention shall be given to co-operation in the field of
monitorin and scientific research. . '
E ix
The Contracting Parlies shall promote, through collaboration
within (lie Organisation and ofhe.r international bodies, support for
(Imse Parties which request it for:
(«/) the training of scientific and technical personnel;
(l>) the supply of nt-ecssary equipment and facilities for re-
search and monitoring; • •
(c) the disposal and treatment of waste and other measures to
prevent or mitigate, pollution caused by dumping;
preferably within the countries concerned, so furthering the aims find
purports of this Convention.
Tn acvordnnee with the principles of international law regarding
State rr.-.ponsibility for damage to the. environ me.' it of other Slates or
to any other area of the. environment, caused by dumping of wastes
and other matter of all kinds, the Contracting Parties undertake to
duvi-lop procedures for Mie assessment of liability and the sr-ltlement
of disputes regarding dumping.
The Cmit raet ing Parties shall at their first consultal ive meeting con-
sider procedures for the wttlement of disputes concerning the inlerprc-
tation and application of this Convention.
Aitricix xii
'The Contracting Parties pledge, themselves to promote, within tho
<-'iin[i;'t(-m; fpecialifed a;;.vjicics and oilier international bodies, meas-
ure.-! to prul ret the niai'inc environment against pollution caused bjr:
((/) 1'ivdroearbons, including oil. and their wastes;
(6) other noxious or hri/.ardous matter transported by vessels
for purposi-i other than dumping;
(c) wastes ::enera(ed in the course of operation of vessels, air-
era fr. plat font:* and other man-made strm.-.tures at ?e.a ;
((/) radio-active pollutants from all sources, including vessels;
(f) rtgrnls of chemical and biological warfare;
-------
(/') wastes f>r other in:itle convened liv the
Oi .'.'anisalion jifler (he Law of the Sea Conference, .-md in any case.
.a l;t!cr ihan 1!>70, with a view lo dcTmimi tlio natiire and »-xtcnt of
':(.• ri::ht and the respoii-ibiliiy of a coastnl State to apply tlir? Con-
\ rjition in a x.one adjacent to its const.
AltTICI.E XIV
1. The fiovernnient of the rn:.ti-itnin and
Noi'lhcrn. f rehmd as a dejio.-itary s]:all call a nieetin.-r of tho Co:iih:ct-
in«; Parlies nu( lat'T than tlirec mon'.hp after the entry into foir-p of
vliis f'onvi-'iition to dcr'ulc on oi-"-j'.iM:-at>onal jnaiter?.
2. The Cont !•;>'.•(inir Parties shall i«^i)ate a competent Oi^ahisa-
tion csi.-l!i-.«r at the lime of that joeelinjr to- be. responsible- for
Si'fivSariat ;.; of (he J>artic,s at any lime, on the rc'invst of t\vo-
' tbii-i's of the Par! tc?:
(6) pn-p;i!-'ji;: and a:---'stin«r. in conciliation with (he. Contract-
in;: I'ariics and ajiprupriate I niei national Or^ani^ationf. in the
),
V (1) and (2). V'f(4).XV. XX and XXL
Prim- to the d[-.-i::nat;,o!i of the Oryanis'ation these fvn)rti"n£ shall. ;•.?
ncci.'-.'-arv. be pcr'oi jned V»y tht1 d'/posiljiry, who foi- tliii purpose shall
hi? the (io\i i-nm."!it of the T"ni(ed Kingdom of Great Britain and
Xorlhem fri-land.
-------
). -Consultative or special meetings. of the Contract ins: Parties shall
":eep midcr continuing review the nnpkmcnfation of this Convention
'
(',/) review and adopt amendments to this Convention arid its
\n;-ie.\cs in accordance with Article XV:
invite the
rae with and to
, , ie appropriate scientific body or bodies to collabo-
••- with and to advise the Parties or the Organisation on any
scientific or technical aspect relevant to this Convention. inclu. The Coi.ii rsii-iinj.' 1'anies at, their lirs.t consultative meeting shall
I ;'l.l;--ii rules of p'.-oix'durc,:;
.M.'TH'l.i: XV
(a) At ini-ii:in;:s of the Contracting Parties called in accordance/'
Ai'-icle X 1Y amendment? to this. Convention may be adopted by a
thirds: majoriiv of ihoi'p present. An amendment shall enter into
• {"..;• i',c P:;r!:V.T which liave accepted it on the sixtieth day after
third- of the I'M !;•:•? ?h:i!l have deposited nn instrument uf accept-.
of i!....
1,
:.ii-ni \\iih tlic Or.-riinisation. Thc-reafier the amend- .
iiK"it =)iall enter ii;t.i force for niiy- other Party 30 days after. that'':
1'aitv dc-j'i'i.-it< i;s ir,>! r'.i.'iient of acceptnnce of the sirnoridi'n/nt. • '"•-'•'
1 1/): 'I'll'. Or;::.;1.:.-;'!;)"!! ^liall inform all Coni ractin]it a'nct- to the Or:.pani«at ion ain'l 10(1 da VS
al'ii-r a'i'i'val I"/ :'''>e n'^-i-i in;: for all uthcr Parties evept for those
'li !
.'-f,-,iv the end of ihe loo da\s niahc a doi.-hu-ation that they arc
1 1.1 accept ihe ami -ndinent nt that time. Parlit-s should e.n-
\o;ir to siirnify the'-r acceptance of an amendment to the Or^misa-
"•- :f"'<\\ a? ]"i--ihle aftei- approval fit a met! ing. A Party may at
ijme -nl'-iiliiK- an acceptance for a previous declaration of cibjftc-
: :ii,il ;he amendmrnt- pK'viuii?! v objected to shall th.'-rc'upon enter
1 f. ,;-.•(• fi.r lhal Party.
An •• ..... cpiarn-e or declaration of objection under this AifHc ?hall
d.p b tin-
of an instrument with the Oi-i;anisation. The
-------
(V;':iltiKjialitt 'Republics, the United Kingdom uf Gieat j
I'.i-',!: '-n -.nit I Xorlhorn Ireland, and the United State:; of A >. ILT'KTI. ;
AUTICLE XVI 1 1
A Her ftl December 1073. this Convention shall be opi-n for accession
by fiiiy State. The jjistrinrients of a«.-ccK!rion shall be deposit ;-d with the
(lOM/i-nments of Mexico, (lie Union of Soviet S'X-ialist l'i-'.'!iblies|.'the
United .Kinjrdoin of Great Britain an:ii rad.iii;: P;irly ratifying or :icf-o
-------
>f \fr-.\ii-o. ihci Union of Soviet So>'-inli.-?(' llispublics.
i!u- I'lilii-d Kingdom of Gn.'.-u Britain find Xortlicrji Ireland and the
I "niied :.-i:iti.-; of America \\0io sliall send certified copies (hereof
-------
AXXKXKS
AXNKX I
1. Oruaiiohalojjpn compounds.
il'. Mercury and mercury compounds.
."<. Cadmium and cadmium compounds.
!. IVrsist.-iit plastic? nnrl other persistent synthetic materials, for
example, neil'iiu; and ropes, which may lion! or may remain in swpon-
.-ioii in (he sea in Mich a manner as to interfere matci iallv with lishin^,
na\ i;:;il'u>n or other le«:itim:iU' U!:es of the 5-en.
.">. ('i-ink- oil. fuel oil. henvy dit-.-e] oil, :nid hihr'n/atiii:: oil~. hyilrMiilic
lltiid.-. and :iny i!ii\tnres eonlaininir any of tlie.se. lal«'ii on linard for
Ihc jiii rjio. i- . I hirh-levi.'l radio-active wastes or o(l»-r hiirli-1e\-el I'lulin-net ive
inalti-r, ilci'liu-d on jiid.ilic health. l»iolo!i-ir;il or other yronnd:5. hy thu
!-(nii(n-tent Jnternat :oii:il l.'ody in this Held, rit ]irerfent the Thterna-
lioii:;! Atninii- l-]iiei::y Ancney. a? uii^uital.ile foi- duiniiiiur at pea.
T. Matc-rinls in '''liatever form (e.s^. sc>lid^. liijuid-.-". ^enii-lifjnids,
.•rar-er- or in a liviii:: state) produced for hiolo.'jiral and cliemiea]
warf;: re.
S. The preceding paracirajihs of this Annex dr> nfit ,'ipply t(V r-'iih-
stan(•!•.-• which ai'e raj/ully venderfd liarmlc?;.^ hv ]>h\>ie:i1, cheinif-al >>r
l>io).i;;u-:d pr<<;•>•!•-C'=: 111 (lie sea provided they n«jt :
(i) in;:l;e eiliMe marine orirajiisms nnjialaialile. or
(ii) eiiv1aii:;(.-r Inmian health or that of dfiiiii'.-iic animals.
The fonsuli!iii\o procedui'e provided for under Article XIV .should
he followed hy a 1'aity if there is doul.it about, the harndessnep? of the
Sr'idi.-tance. /
0. This Annex does Ji«''t apply to wastes or other materials (e. ::nd their cumiiounds
••op|'«-r J
/me
ur^'an
eyanideS
iluorides
jii-:-t icidi s ruid (heir hy-prfidnets not; covered in Annex I.
-------
|i. In t1!!1 ;.-•!.(• of perinii1- for the dtmipni::' of lame (juant itie.-; of
ai ••>!.- and all.ali-. co)»di'r:itinn shall lie ;/nvn to the possible presence.
in r-iu'h N\:'.rirs of i',:e .-nb-^iances li-teil in ]iarai;raph A and to tin- fol-
hiv.'m:r additional .- ib-tani-es:
and their i.-omponnds
vanadium
('. Containers, .-orap nu-lal and other bulky vrasic.s liable to sink to
the :-ca liinjom \\l:'u-li in.iv \Mr.-ent a tvrions ubsh'.clc (o li.-liin!: or
)r.i\ !!.';li ion.
I). l!::ilio-;ii-i i\ c v>au1.rs or olliiT rntlio-artivi1 inalh-r not iin-1udcunt of tin- n-ixinnin-nd-ilioiis
f t-ojisidi-ri'd in o.-lal.'lislnnir fritci 1:1 ;.:'ovi-riiiii:: ilu*
i. -.in1 of ]>crinitr-~ for llic diinipin;^ of matter at son. lakui;: ii;(o :n.'ciiunt
Artu-lo 'lV«-2).in--li:d.--:
.1. ('}in, '"••'••< -.'.M'/'f.-.- it,'(l <(/)/, j>(j$!ttO'n of lite Dutiter
]. Total amount and avcra^o coiiUKi^ilion of n:::(ti.-r duinpcd ((-.•:.
IH.M- \ i'-ir1). • • /
••. 1-Vrm. c.tr. Miliil. ;.-l\;(l'i-c. I'njiiid. or irafi-on?.
'•'•. 1'nij'ori ic:- : ]«'nv.-:'ral (('._'/. >ol\iliilitv and diii:-i!\'). r!iciuical and
liiorlniini«'al ((•.•.'. o\\ ;;,•!! di-i:i:iiid. nut ru-nts) and l.'"io'!ci;.Mi'al (o.g. pres-
cn'-i- of \ ir\: ?:r?. ! larfrria. yr;:.-iH. pai a. -files).
i I. To\i<-!iy.
"i. 1'i'fsi^ivin-c : j'lhyrii.'iil. t.-hcinical and liiolo^ival. /
''«. Ao.-nii'inlai ion and biott ansfoi mat ion in biological n/aU-rials or \
:-i'd liiK-Hls..
io ihyiii.-id. «.-hc-inic:il :iml l.'!Och(''nic:>l chanp-s -.'.ml
with othor ii'.;.-'ol\cd urpmic
and inor
?. Probability of |.i]odui.-tioi\ of taints or other changes ivdncin^
markctabiVity or roroimvs (fifh. shflllish. ftc.).
//'. C'Ji'ini- -ic r'-:'" •'•• f'i i>nii:ji')'ij Kt1e oin.l >IK tJu'i'.I uj defiant
\. l.n'-atK'Vi (•'•.:.'. '.•o-Mi'd'siiatc? of the duiniiiii'i siren, di-pth and dis-
tiiiirc frniii fhc i-i-a-; ") . Kti.-aiioj\ in n.-lat i'»i to other areas (i'.«r. flincn'it y
::i'-:i.-". .- ] >a \v ], 151:1. .'iT.r.-ory and (i.-liin:i aK-arj and (.'\ph.nt able resources).
•J. Kate of d5-]io-:il pc-r i-peciHc i.n'riod (('-IT- quantity per day, per
v. ( i-k. per in»nth )• ''
.''.. ^b•!!l"^1.^ of )r.i.-];.!;:i)i:r mid cunt aiinnent . if anv.
I. Initial dilution achieved by projio^ed niethoil of release'.
.V 1 'i.-p.-i -::1 rltararicricli'-s (c.ir. cll'cets of cu rrcul #. tides and \vind
mi bfii-i/'iiital i ra):>i.uii-t and vertical mix ing).
-r • harai-u.-ri.--tics (P.;:. temperature. p.IF. :-nlin1ty. stratificu-
i'h'ii. oxyp-n indicia of i.-yilution-diasolvcd oxygen (I.'Oj, chemical
-------
• :: ii j'l.'.-r'it in ur:;:i;ii'.' :::;•! iiiim-ral form indiiili.:!^ :ii!iiiici;i:i. ssi.s-
j.i !!i!rroili;<-i ivity).
• • i! r!n; .!Cirn-tif.>; a;i'l I >': < >'.< ••_'!• 'al productivity).
N. K\:.-u ;iiv ;i',ul i iii'.-i- of otbiT .!:. jiresoH-o of ili'.;in (o.ir. iinp:1.irnn-nt of wn-
ir; ii:;:'',',iy foe indiii-tr'nil ii:-v. uiKk'nviilLT corrosion of >tnu-)iirc=. 5n-
i' .•!'. n'iit;r v,i(]i <:liip o]»(.-i':itinns from (lt).Tti)iir jii:itc>via!p. h:torfc'r(-nre
• •• '•'<'.! ii-niii-.c or naviiiiilion ilirovi.crli dt-posit of v.'n.-le or solid objects
-.:i i':.1 ;•(•;!'lloor :»nd {n-f)((-,-t I'm of IDX^V^ of spccinl impoi'tont-c for soi- .
i t i ,,i.-•.)• rt'n-(.-rvafion ]T.i j".i-:i'~).
'. I'.jc ]»r:;ijtic:il. :i\'ail;iiiiliiy <>f tsKernalivc lanil-bas^il ini-l'ious of ; • -
11 •• i, hi'Vif, tlij-pfjjnl or r-liniiiialion. or of IresilJi'ifnt t<"> ri-nd^r tlio i •
•!•:;! '..'I' !••-« !:ann fill for dr.i.ipi.'iij at sen. ^
/
-------
AI'I'KNDIX (
(ft
MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1973
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 38 • Number 198
PART II
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OCEAN DUMPING
Final Regulations and Criteria
NO. ifl»—Pt. n—i
-------
28fi10
YiJIo n 220.1. There was a comment
Hint "fifth wastes", "territorial sea", "con-
tiguous zone", and "ocean" should ba de-
fined (5) . All of these terms except "flsh
wastos" are defined In the Act and are
referenced in 9 220.2. "Pish wastes" seems
HClf-cxplonatory, so no changes were
nmdc in response to. this comment.
A new 9 220.1 (a) has been added to
clarify the relationship between these
regulations and the International Ocean
Dumping Convention (IOBC). This
merely points out that the basis for the
control of ocean dumping under these
regulations is the came KB required by
Die IODC and lists the criteria of the
IOBC. This change was recommended by
the Bszm-femsnt of Stats for inclusion as
stKta as $&e CcaveaMoa was ratified by
theTj.8.
This escfcloa has also been changed by
the addition of B section on the piece-
meat of materials for enhancement of
fisheries and the basis on which a permit
-will not be required.under this Act. This
change is made based on a comment re-
ceived (5) and on discussions with other
Federal agencies on how this matter
could ba meat easily handled.
Section 220.3. Several comments were
received on the categories of permits,
with the general permit the subject of
most concern. Environmental groups (7,
10) were concerned that detailed criteria
for the Issuance of general permits were
not given and were concerned about the
basis on which general permits would be
issued. On the other hand, suggestions
were made that the general perm&-could
be used to allow the dumping of munic-
ipal sewage sludge (9), as an interim
measure for all wastes (8), and for the
dumping of materials such as fly ash (3).
Other comments were concerned with
setting an outside time limit on permits
of one year (2, 3, 4, 6). Because of the
time required to obtain permits and the
budgetary cycles of municipalities, pe-
riods ranging from two to five years were
recommended.
There appeared to be a general con-
fusion and misunderstanding of the man-
ner in which EPA intended to use the
general permit, and also some confu-
sion about the overall relationship among
general, special, Interim special, and
emergency permits (9, 2). The listing
of permit categories was split among
several sections of the interim Regula-
tions and Criteria; to facilitate under-
standing, therefore, all the categories of
permits and the general basis for issu-
ance were consolidated Into § 220.3 and
more precise definitions were applied to
remove the apparent basis of confusion.
In summary the permit categories as re-
vised are:
1. General permits. Requirement for a
fixed expiration date was removed: Since
this will be used only for such things
as the dumping of galley waste and
burial at sea, an expiration date is
Inappropriate.
2, Special permits. Only for wastes
that meet the numerical criteria of
88 227.22 and 227.3. The outside time
limit is lengthened to three years.
3. Emergency permits. Language un-
changed. Covers materials which do not
meet 8 227.22 (trace contaminants) and
requires consultation with State for ma-
terials violating § 227.22.
4. Interim permits. These are a subset
of "special permits" within the meaning
of the Convention and are identified in
these regulations as a separate category
of permits to cover the dumping of mate-
rials which do not meet the numerical
requirements of § 227.22 or § 227.3, but
must be dumped at/present because there
is no feasible alternative. This would re-
quire an implementation plan (the time
limit is keyed to the plan and may not
exceed one year), and the permits are
not renewable. A new permit may bs is-
sued on proof of satisfactory progress in
implementation.
8. Bsaearck permits. This was also a
eubssft of special permits. !t is broken
out csparatejy to permit more flexible
revise aot enly by the public, but also
by fctoe cclsaftiflc community to determine
its merit; on & continuing basis. Research
permits wouM be granted only for 18
montko, but
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
2S611
re.leel.cil because It would involve addi-
tional administrative work in merely
.shifting 'tux dollars from one pocket to
another. It was suggested that contrac-
tors working for a government agency
be exempt from any fee (4). This can be
accomplished by the government agency
applying for the permit rather than the
contractor without a change in language.
The processing fees have been In-
creased because the original estimates of
itrocefwlnK costs were too low.
f!it-J.ton 222.1. There was a comment
Unit negative action or denial is antici-
pated as final action on permit applica-
tions (7>'. This is not the case; each per-
mit application la to be evaluated fairly
bnsed ori the criteria as stated in the
regulations. The Act requires strict regu-
lation of dumping, not prohibition.
Section 222.2. Several comments were
received stating that the 10 day period
to make a tentative determination on
permit applications was too short (7, 10).
The language has been changed to re-
quire notification of an applicant within
If) days as to whether his application is
complete and to allow 30 days after a
completed application for preparation of
a tentative determination of action and
publication of a public notice.
Other, comments were received con-
cerning the interim time limits <3. 6, 7,
10>; this section no longer applies and
tins been deleted.
Section 222.3. One comment received
wild that States should certify not only
for dumping In territorial waters but also
In dumping which could affect their ter-
ritorial waters (1); the language has
been changed to include requesting certl-
ilcatiuii for dumping within the con-
tinuous zone, but denial of certification
will be accepted only if the State can
demonstrate 1U; water quality standards
In the territorial sea will be violated by
(lumping In the contiguous zone. Other
comments dealt with including addi-
tional Information with the public notice,
such as tin environmental impact state-
ment, monitoring requirements, etc. (5,
V, 10). The public notice is a brief sum-
in ary of the permit application and In-
tended action, suitable for publication In
ii newspaper or posting in a public place.
Inclusion of the detail suggested Is not
feasible In the public notice, but all docu-
mentation of the application will be
nvallnble for public Inspection as
8 :»22.3 < 4) states.
Section 222.4. Comments were received
KiiKKcsllnfg that there IN an implied in-
I.ent to approve permits In the regula-
tions (7. 10); the language has been
rlianiiccl to correct any such Impression.
The question was also raised as to the
biuilfl on which States are expected to
certify applications (5). The language
has been changed to state that certifica-
tion as to impact on water quality stand-
ards Is required.
Section 222.5. This Section deals with
the circumstances under which a public
hearing may be called. Comments by en-
vironmental groups suggest that any time
anyone requests a public hearing such a
hearing must be held. The regulations
merely state that anyone requesting a
public hearing must state in writing
what his objections are, and what issues
are to be raised at such a hearing. These
are reasonable requirements, and serve
merely to screen out the Irresponsible
people who have no Issues to raise, but
just want to have a public forum for
speechnmking which would not contrib-
ute to the basis for consideration of a
permit application and would be done
at the expense of the taxpayers.
Section 222.7. Comments were made on
the necessity of making the entire permit
application available to the public (7,
10). This is covered adequately in g 222.3
(a)(4).
Section 222.9. One comment was made
on the "ominous" tone of the regulations
(7). This relates to the findings of the
presiding officer of the public hearing;
the language explicitly states he must
give full consideration to all views and
arguments presented at the hearing and
forward his recommendations to the ap-
propriate authority. This seems quite
adequate to serve the public Interest, and
the "ominous" nature of the regulations
Is not apparent.
Section 222.10. There was an objec-
tion to limiting consideration of permit
applications to 180 days, apparently on
the basis that this is too short a period
for full examination and study in the
"light of ecological criteria" (10). Six
months seems quite adequate for full
consideration by competent professionals
of any permit application.
Section 223.1. This Section deals with
the contents of permits; comments were
received suggesting that the composition
requirements on municipal sewage
sludges were too exhaustive (9), and that
monitoring requirements should be
spelled out In some detail (7, 10). The
regulations specifically state in this Sec-
tion that a permit shall include- such
monitoring as the Administrator deter-
mines is feasible; additional detail Is
extraneous, since monitoring require-
ments must be imposed on a case-by-
case basis.
Section 223.3. One comment states
that the permit must be displayed on the
vessel doing the dumping (10); the Act
states that this must be done and suita-
ble language has been explicitly Included
in § 223.1.
Section 224.1. Tills Section refers to
the records to be kept by permittees.
One comment stated that the informa-
tion required should be obtained by EPA
rather than individual sewerage author-
ities (7); the Information required is
that which a dumper would normally be
expected, to acquire In the course of car-
rying out the conditions of a permit. The
dumper, of course, may not be the ap-
plicant; this seems to be the basis for
the comment. A comment was made that
the records should be submitted to EPA;
this is required In 8 224.2.
Section 224.2. Reports on emergency
actions have been changed to a time
limit of 10 days rather than 30 days In
response to two comments (4, 5). Com-
ments were also made that EPA should
require reports more often than every
six months (7, 10); the regulations
specify other reporting requirements
may be Imposed. The sis-montho inter-
val is a basic requirement, and other,
more restrictive requirements may be
imposed as the Administrator or his
designee deems necessary.
Part 225. Two comments were re-^
ceived regarding the 15-day time limit
for responding to notification by ' the
Corps of Engineers of proposed action on
dredged material permits (7, 10). This
is not considered adequate for full con-
sideration of a permit application by
those .commenting' If the tests specified
in the criteria have been applied, thlo
time is quite aufSclent; if they have not
been applied, the time Is ample for
pointing this out.
Part 228. One comment was received
on to whom the penalties apply (£».
It seems obvious from the law and from
the regulations that whoever dumps Il-
legally, or in violation of a parmlt is-
sued to him Is subject to the penalties
under the law.
Part 227. These criteria are Intended
to apply both to P.L. 92-632 and to sec-
tion 403 (c) of P.L. 92-500. Comments
were received indicating that this re-
lationship is not apparent (24). Lan-
guage has been introduced to include the
statement "dumping or other discharge"
where appropriate, instead of "dump-
ing." The sections on Release Zone,
§ 227.72 and Mixing Zone, i 227.73. have
also been modified appropriately.
Section 227.1. Comments were received
stating that the overall thrust of the
criteria was confusing (14, 24). A section
has been Introduced (9 227.1 (c)) to
clarify the general basis on which per-
mits may be granted. Other comments
suggested relatively minor changes
which were Incorporated (19, 20, '21, 28).
These were to Insert In 8 227.1 (a) "In
quantities" after "ocean waters of any
material" and to change 8 227.1 (a) "be-
cause of" to "to preventer minimize".
Because of some doubt an to the scien-
tific advisability of using locations oS the
continental shelf (37), the last sentence
of § 227.1 (h) was eliminated. One com-
ment suggested incorporating the con-
cept of elimination of ocean discharges
by 1985 (24), a policy goal of P.L. 92-600,
not P.L. 92-532.
Section 227.21. A comment by AEC
(18> says that we should define radio-
logical warfare agents. This term ap-
pears to be self-explanatory and Is not
defined either in the International Con-
vention or In PXi. 92-532.
Section 227.22. Numerous comments
were received on the prohibition of these
materials except in trace concentrations
(24. 19, 20. 21, 25. 20). The commentn
made on this section also relate to the
definition of "trace" and those pertinent
to this definition will be considered in
the discussion under § 227.74. Tlio
burden of the comments was basically
that this requirement is highly restric-
tive except for the exclusion in para-
FEDEBAl QEGISTER, VOL. 30, NO. 198—MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1973
-------
2Sfi11!
. Comments by industry sug-
gested that EPA, by using these limita-
tions, could effectively eUminnba dl
ocean dumping: comments by KRBC
suggested that EPA might use this eu-
rluslon to permit a lot more ocean dump-
ins, it was pointed "out that the term
"(rare concentrations" doss not follow
the language of the Ocean Dumping Com-
venlion which uses the tsrm "trace coa-
taminanta". This is true and the lan-
nuage has been changed from "wastes
containing more than trace concentra-
tions of the foliowing materials" to
"wastes containing the following mate-
rials as other than trace contaminants".
A definition of trace contaminants and
allowable levels for their discharge has
been Included in this section.
The City of Philadelphia (28) wanted
organohalogens, mercury, and cadmium
to be removed from this section • and
placed In 0 227.31. This cannot be done
because of the requirements imposed by
the Ocean Dumping Convention.
Industrial representatives (19, 28)
wanted the language of § 227.22(e)
broadened; the present language reflects-
the usage of the International Ocean
Dumping Convention and has not b®en
changed.
Section 227.3. NRDC (24) says that
EPA' should define acceptable bloasaay.
A procedure for bloassay is being pre-
pared and should be available by De-
cember 1; however, there seems to be
little point In including the procedure
in these regulations. Tha language of
S 227.31 (a) (2) was changed to show that
the volume of the mixing zone is a factor
In determining the limiting permissible
concentration. Several industries (10,
21, 20) wanted a reference to titanium
dioxide wastes in 8 227.3Kb) (3) elimi-
nated. The list of processes given are
those in which ocean dumping has been
used In the past and which are the ones
for which particular care must be taken.
One industry (14) objects to the inclu-
sion ' of oxygen consuming and/or bio-
degradable organic matter as a material
requiring special cuwe. Such materials
If dumped in large Quantities and con-
centrated in one place can cause extreme
oxygen depletion with concomitant bills
of biota. The AEC (18) wants the sec-
tion on containment of radiological
wastes eliminated; we feel that contain-
ment of radiological wastes is an Impor-
tant means of disposal and the section
should be retained.
The AEC (18) wanted more specific
language about containerization of ra-
dioactive wastes incorporated; the pres-
ont language incorporates the approach
they would like to use and no chances
were made.
NRDC (24) wanted the terminology of
8 227.33 changed by eliminating "stogie
time and place"; making this change
would completely change the meaning of
the section, so no change was made. In
§ 227.34 NRDC (24) wanted "no per-
manent damage" to refer Instead to 100
years. We think that the present lan-
guage is far more comprehensive and
can see no significance SB making the
suggested change.
NRDC also wants a definition for "en-
vironmentally Innocuous materials" in
§ 227.35; the term appears self-explana-
tory and it Us certain not subject to quan-
titative definition.
In 8 227.36 the Corps of Engineers (11,
31) wanted the term dredged material
removed and the State of Pennsylvania
(30) wanted the term sewage sludge re-
moved. The language was broadened to
include any material.
Section 227.4. The American Petroleum
Institute (8) says that the requirement
that, in the exploration of alternatives
to ocean dumping changes in plant proc-
esses be considered, means that the Ad-
ministrator could Insist that a company
make a product in a particular way. This
Is not true; this is merely a requirement
that all means possible for reducing or
eliminating a waste material be explored.
The only decision that EPA will make is
whether or not to grant an ocean dump-
ing permit and it is a reasonable require-
ment to ask a manufacturer to explore
other ways of getting rid of the waste
besides ocean dumping.
NRDC (24) wants implementation
plans to be provided for all discharges
which fall under the jurisdiction of the
FWPCA. This would be a matter to be
covered In permits granted under the
WPDES rather than under P.L. 02-932.
This section merely establishes the cri-
teria upon which an acceptable imple-
mentation plan will be judged in evalu-
ating a permit application, not whether
an Implementation plan will be required.
AEC (18) wants a requirement for best
practicable technology and best avail-
able technology to "be eliminated. This
matter is & point of EPA policy and the
change is not made.
Section 227.5. NRDC (24) says that
EPA cannot guarantee the nontoxicity
of all other materials not specified in
gg 227.22 and 227.31. The referenced sec-
tions are written so as to include prac-
tically all waste materials which are.
likely to contain toxic materials. A per-
mit must still be granted for materials
regulated under § 227.5; these sections
just categorize some materials for which
less extensive testing may be required
than the materials listed in §§ 227.22
and 227.31.
Section 227.6. One Industrial corpora-
tion (15) objected to the latitude being'
given in making decisions on disposal of
dredged spoil. NRDC also objects to the
discretionary language in the disposal of
dredged spoil. This particular section
was developed after considerable nego-
tiation between EPA and the Corps of
Engineers. It is recognized that the test
procedure described in 9 227.61 (c) has
limited applicability. The present test as
specified is an Interim indicator of short-
term effects to determine whether
dredged spoil is polluted. Upon comple-
tion of research now underway by the
Corps of Engineers (June 1074), modifi-
cations to this test may be proposed.
Section 227.71. Several comments were
received atomat the definition of limiting
permissible concentrations. Most, of the
comments dealt with choice of an appli-
cation factor (24, 14, 18, 6, 19, 20, 25,
28, 20). WRDC stated we must provide
justification for an application factor of
0.01. Various Industries' comments sug-
gested values of 0.5, 0.1, and at the dis-
cretion of the Regional Administrator.
The application factor of 0.01 was rec-
ommended by the National Technical
Advisory Committee on Water Quality
Criteria as a conservative factor to use
in cases where a wast* of unknown
ecological impact is Involved. This factor
Is also used by the British Government
in the regulation of ocean dumping
around the British Soles. A number of
scientists hava been asked to comment
on the bioassay procedure. AH have com=
mented upon the difficulty of ruanins
bloaeeayo involving marina Dpooimoaa,
but ncna has ouggestad that another ap°
plication facto? would b0 preferabl®. We
feel that the 0.01 factor represents a
sound conservative approach toward in-
terpretation of the biooosay results and
their application in tho environment and
that this Approach is based upon the best
available scientific knowledge and
experience.
.Sections 227.72 and, 227.73. Tho lan-
guage has been changed in theso sections
to state explicitly how these definitions
apply for disposal through an outfall or
other structure.
Section 227.76. The definition of trace
concentrations was the subject of con-
siderable comment by industrial raprp-
sentatives. Several modifications to 6he
definition in the interim criteria ware
suggested (3, 8, 14, 19, 21, 28, 29), and a
new definition incorporating some of the
suggestions has been developed and in-
corporated into 6 227.32. Section 327.74
has been eliminated as unnecessary.
Liot of approved interim dump oitoa.
Numerous, questions were raised on the
selection and use of dump sites. The
modifications required in response to
these questions will require substantive
changes in ttoe list and the addition of a
new section to these regulations. This
addition will ba published oo proposed
rulemaMng for addSfcJosial patolto com-
ment bofore being promulgated 03 part
of the final regulations. Until then, no
changes will be made in the list of ap-
proved3 dump flites.
These regulations and criteria will be
revised periodically to reflect additional
public comment, additional operating
experience, and advances In scientific
understanding of the Impact of pollut-
ants on the marine environment, and the
recommendations of International scien-
tific bodies on contaminant concentra-
tions permissible in the oceano.
Comments on. these regulations and
criteria will be considered in ail future
revisions. Comments should be addressed
to Omce of Ms and Water ProBramo, Bn=
vironmental Protection Agency, Atten-
tion : Mr. T. A. Wastler, Room 788, Eaot
Tower, Waterside Mall, 401M Street SW,(
Washington, D.C. 204QO.
Tho International Convention on the
Prevention of Marino Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Otto Matter
was ratified by the U.S. Senate on Au°
H2BEQAI REGISTER, VOL SB, WO. 198—MONDAY, OCTQDEB IS, 1WS
-------
op OOMMEKTTO on Coain
Stat» Banato, Commonwealth of
ocohucatto.
OonaoU&BitoG. BflJcon Company of
3. 1873. These regulations and cri-
teria form the taia for tfaa oparottag
program to oafores fehs Ounwsatttea aifcsi
it comes Into foreo ofte? ralSSSeoStai Csy
fifteen nattoas. TXssy tyffl tea ffiroflfliitefl to
be fully consistent with the Coavsatesai
when it comes into force for the United
States. •
All applications for ocemn dumptag
permits received after October 15. IBIS.
will be processed in accordance with
these final resula&oao. All permits
granted under the interim regulations,
and which expire p&tor to February 13,
1074, ore hereby extended until Wobsn-
ary 13, 1B7<5; all otto permits will em-
pire as stated in the gEarmit, oxcepfc that
all permits toned sosnJc
ulatlons wffl espSs-a iao later fihcss
18.1074.
Bated October 2,1S73.
1.
8.
a.
4.
8.
3.
7.
6.
9.
10.
11.
12.
18.
14.
18.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
23.
23.
24.
26.
26.
27.
28.
20.
SO.
31. U.8. Army Oorija of Engineers^
32. MoBsachuootto teotltista c£
£&au£c9turtng Gfcemfcrto .toeolottan,
WoablaotiHa, a.O.
Offloo of &2£jlolriaon, HPA.
seats of WBCT "SToSS B32>o?taiQn.t of En-
vironmental Coocs-roitlon.
Ameileoa Patrotousa
Wllllomo Oollo[p,
ooohucotto.
E. I. Uulpont <2o Kamroaso & Csanpaay,
Peaaaic Vailoy Scrcsosrcso
Wowcsb. How
by EPA EHiKJUeat to section 103
Act. Subject to the exclusions to •
tton (c), the Act prohibits:
(1) Transportation from the Ofoited
States of radiological, chemical, cor Mo-
logical warfare agents, or of any
level radic&ctivd wastes, for the
of dumping them into ocean waters,
th@ dumping of any such materials into
t&o territories sea, or into the con<51fTO=
ous zone (to the extent it may oSgnt
the territorial csa or the territory of the
(2) Transportation from the
States of mo&srial not epsciSed to par-
agraph (b)(i) of this section for the
purpose of dumping it into ocean waters,'
and the dumptos of any such material
into the territorial sea, or into the con-
tiguoug sono
able in Mea of oa applteESSoa ?c?
for
As Kssa in «Mb par*. «he tesa "Act"
means the MDrSns Protection,
and Sanctuarto Act of 1872,
02-6S3, S8 U.S/C. ffniGc
vlded herein, eSl oShes- toasao
the maaninco 'Dcgisasfl
Act.
g 220.S Catesos'lea of jpermitu.
(a) Gener(gJ $3?mito. J?rom time to
time the 'Admimstmtor asa? outiioriso,
by generBl permit, the dmaptos of
tain materials, ouch as calloy wcafco
ships or other mia-toMo materials Gen-
erally disposed of in email guontltteo.
Such seneral pormito shoU &a publtofeetl
in the SPEDEHAX. SEOiOTca cmfi ohall opoeify
ths types ortfl amousita oS
which n?i^y bo dumped, ths
dumping aitss for ouoh ^lumpino
^£3, and cay otimr ocsdi
oppropyJafes by fe&a AdmtesteSs-Qfear.
oral parmlt oaoy bo C5scaSsS 657 Gtea
FEDEDAL neeiSTEQ, VOL. 30, NO. 198—MONDAY, OC7@QB3 IS, 1073
-------
28614
Administrator
application of aa interested
accordance with the procedures of
221, or may bs eraafced by ©10
trator oa Ma owa taifcia&lws, Diabjecfe to
the notice and hearing requirement) of
Part 222 of this sufcehapter.
(b) Special permtte. The dumping of
material requiring an EPA psrmii imfier
the Act. and not covered by B general
permit published In the FBDEOAS. Roo-
ISTER under paragraph (B) of fchJs esc-
tlon, will require B specie! permit Issued
to a specified appllc&nt. havtas a fined
expiration date, (which shall b® no Sate?
than three years from the date of issue)
and specifying the exact amount of ma-
terial permitted to be dumped there-
under. Special permits will be granted
only on application in accordance with
the requirements of Part 221 of this sub-
chapter. No specie! permit shall be
granted for any material which does not
meet the criteria of 88 227.22 and 227.31
of this subchapter. Special permits may
be renewed upon application at the dis-
cretion of the Administrator or his
deslgnee.
(c) Emergency permits. After consul-
tation with the Department of State amd
with such other persons as may be ap-
propriate, the Administrator may Issue
an emergency permit to dump materials
specified in 8 227.22 of this subchapter
where there is demonstrated to exist an
emergency requiring the dumping of
such material, which poses an unaccept-
able risk relating to human health and
admits of no other feasible solution. -As
used herein, "emergency" refers to situ-
ations requiring action with a marked
degree of urgency, but is not limited in
its application to circumstances requir-
ing Immediate action.
fd) Interim permits. It Is the intent
of this program to prevent or strictly
regulate the disposal to 'the marine en-
vironment of any materials damaging to
that environment. The quantitative basis
for determining limiting concentrations
and quantities of known toxic or other-
W!H(! damaging materials which can be
dumped without measurable damage,
batted on existing knowledge. Is given In
88227.22 and 227.31 of this subchapter.
When an applicant wishes to dump any
of the materials listed in 8 227.31 of this
subchapter in excess of the limiting per-
missible concentrations, or when the con-
stituents identified In 8 227.22 of this
subchapter are present as trace contami-
nants as defined in 9 227.22 of this
Hubchapter but are in excess of the levels
at which they may be dumped under spe-
cial permit, he may, under certain con-
ditions, be granted an Interim permit at
the discretion of the Administrator or his
deslsnce. These conditions are:
< 1) An environmental assessment of
the potential environmental Impact of
the dumping will be required as part of
each application and. In addition, a thor-
ough review of the actual need for the
dumping and possible alternatives will
bo made in evaluating the permit appli-
cation. The decision on whether or not
to grant on Interim permit will be based.
in part, on consideration of the following
fcctoza FQloMva to fcfee need to and eS-
&K?aafcilw£3 60 dumptos:
(J) Bssxoa of tTQE-tmeat feaoibls £cs
SKS weato So toa dumpsd, aad wfoaBho? 02-
stoft tho mate material has bssa or
SBOVQ feSao aiafe!te3{57 to
(ii) Mcasaf ecturtag or othe? processes
resulting ia aie west®, and whefchsy or
rtc>5 fchess successes are esssatJoS, c? if
other less polluting processes could bs
used.
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
28615
>rt22l.l A|ig>licalioii furiiu fur apeciul
jll-rillllti.
Applications for EPA special or Interim
pormlts under the Act may be filed with
the Administrator or the Regional Ad-
ministrator, If any, authorized by § 220.4
to act on <.he application. Unless and until
printed application forms are made-avail-
able, an application may be made by let-
ter. Any application for a permit under
this Hiibchupter will Include at a
minimum:
(a) Name and address of applicant;
(b) Name of the person or firm (If not
the applicant), and the name or other
iclentl/lcatlon and usual location of the
conveyance, to be used In the transporta-
tion and dumping of the material
Involved;
(c) Physical and chemical description
of material to be dumped, Including re-
sults cl tests necessary to meet the re-
qulrenionts of Part 227 of this subchapter,
and trio number, size, and physical con-
figuration of the materials and any con-
l.alnerH to be dumped;
Proposed method of disposal at'
the dump Bite;
(h) Identification of the specific proc-
ess or activity giving rise to the produc-
tion of the material;
(1) Information on the manner In
which the type of material In question
has been previously disposed of by or on
behalf of the applicant;
(j) A description of available alterna-
tive means of disposal of the material,
with explanations of why each of such
alternatives Is thought by the applicant
to be inappropriate.
§221.2 Oiliw Infornmlion.
In the event the Administrator, Re-
gional Administrator, or a person desig-
nated by either to review permit appli-
cations, determines that additional
Information is needed In order to apply
the criteria set forth in Part 227 of this
Mtbchaptcr, he shall so advise the ap-
plicant In writing. For purposes of apply-
ing the time limitation of § 222.1, an
application will not be considered com-
plete until all additional information re-
quested pursuant to this section is re-
c(;lvcd. and all such information shall
be deemed part of the application.
£221.3 Applicant.
Any person may apply for a permit
under this Part, even though the pro-
ixwed dumping may be carried on by a
permittee who is not the applicant. How-
ever. Issuance of a permit win not excuse
the permittee from any civil or criminal
liability which may attach by virtue of
IH.s having transported or dumped mate-
rials in violation of the terms or condi-
tions of a permit, notwithstanding that
the permittee may not have been the
applicant.
§ 221.4 Adequacy of information.
No permit Issued under this Part will
be valid for the transportation or dump-
Ing of any material which is not accu-
rately and fully described in the appU-
catlon. No permittee shall be relieved
of any liability which may arise as a
result of the transportation or dumping
of material which does not conform to
information provided In the application
solely by virtue of the fact that such
Information was furnished by an appli-
cant other than the permittee.
§ 221.5 Proceosing fees.
(a) A processing fee of $1,000 will be
charge in connection with each ap-
plication for a permit for dumping in
an existing dump site designated In this
subchapter.
(b) A processing fee of an additional
$3,000 will be charged In connection with
each application for a permit Involving
the use of a dump site other than a des-
ignated dump site.
(c) A processing fee of 8700 will be
charged In connection with each appli-
cation for renewal of a permit.
(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing,
no agency or Instrumentality of the
United States or of a State or local gov-
ernment will be required to pay the proc-
essing fees specified in paragraphs (&>,
.(b), and (c) of this section.
Sec.
222.1
222.2
222.3
222.4
322.5
322.8
223.7
222.8
222.0
222.10
PAKT 222—ACTIONS ON
APPLtCATIOWS
General.
Tentative determinations.
Notice of applications.
Issuance of permits without hearing.
Initiation of hearings.
Time and place of bearings.
Notice of hearings.
Conduct of hearings.
Recommendations of presidios of-
ficer.
Issuance of permits after hearings.
AUTHORITY : Title I. Pub. L. 90-532,86 Stat.
1052 (33 UB.O. 1411-1421).
§ 222.1 General.
Decisions as to the Issuance, denial, or
imposition of conditions on a permit is-
sued by EPA pursuant to this Part will
be made in the light of the factors set
forth in section 102(a) of the "Act and
after Issuance of criteria pursuant
thereto, in the light of such criteria. In
all cases, final action on any application
for a special permit, or renewal thereof,
will be taken by EPA within 180 days
from: (1) The date the application Is
filed, or, (2) in the event the application
Is deficient, from the date on which the
applicant provides all requisite informa-
tion, whichever Is later, provided, that
if & hearing is convened pursuant to
Fart 222 of this subchapter, such 180 day.
limit to grant a permit will be extended
by the time required for such hearing. .
§ 222.2 Tentative ilclerminatioiia.
An applicant shall be Informed within
30 days whether or not his application in
complete and what additional informa-
tion Is required. Within 30 days after
receipt of a completed permit applica-
tion, EPA shall publish a public notice
Including a tentative determination with
respect to issuance or denial of the per-
mit applied for. If such tentative deter-
mination is to issue the permit, the fol-
lowing additional tentative determina-
tions will be made:
(a) Proposed time limitations, if any;
(b) Proposed dumping site; and
(c) A brief description of any other
proposed special conditions determined
to be appropriate for inclusion in the
permit in question.
g 222.3 Notice of upplicutiono.
(a) Contents. Public notice of every
complete permit application received
shall be circulated to inform the public.
Each such public notice shall include at
least the following:
(1) A summary of the information in-
cluded in the permit application;
(2) Any tentative determinationo
made pursuant to 0 223.2;
(3) A brief description of the proce-
dures set forth in 0 223.0 for sracjaesfcing
a public hearing on the proposed dump-
Ing; and
(4) The location at which interested
persons may obtain further Information
on the proposed dumping, Including
copies of any relevant documents.
(b) Publication. (1) Hotlce given pur-
suant to paragraph (a) of thio section
shall be circulated within the geographi-
cal area of eny port Suxragh or from
which material is proponed to be trans-
ported for dumping in the territorial oea,
as follows:
-------
KUILIS AWE) KEGULA?{©NS
unless the Slate can demonstrate that
dumping In the contiguous zone will vio-
late water quality standards within the
part of the territorial sea under Its
jurisdiction.
(d) Notice to Corps of Engineers. In
addltioa to other notice required by this
section, notice of each application for
dumping win bs forwarded to toe appro-
priate office of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for review in accordance with
section 103(c) of the Act (pertaintag to
navigation, harbor approaches, and
artificial islands on the outer continental
shelf). Unless advice to the contrary is
received within 30 days of the date such
notice Is transmitted to the Identified
agencies by the Administrator, Regional
Administrator or their deslgnees, these
agencies will be deemed to have no ob-
jection on account of matters required
to be considered pursuant to section 106
(c) of the Act.
(e) Notice to Coast Guard. In addi-
tion to other notice required by this
section, notice of each application for
dumping will be forwarded to the appro-
priate district office of the U.S. Coast
Guard for review in accordance with
• section 104(a) (6) of the Act.
(f) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, and
P.L. 92-832 require Regional Adminis-
trators to consult with appropriate re-
gional officials of the Departments of
Commerce and Interior, the Regional
Director of the NMFS-NOAA. the agency
exercising administrative jurisdiction
over the fish and wildlife resources of the
State subject to any dumping. Unless
advice to the contrary is received within
30 days of the date such notice is trans-
mitted to the identified agencies by the
Administrator, Regional Administrator
or their designees, these agencies will be
deemed to have no objection on account
of matters required to be considered pur-
suant to section 108 (c) of the Act.
§ 222.4 KoouniracQ or dcmiel of
(al General. Subject to the receipt of
certification, If required, pursuant to
section 401 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, from any State to which
notice has been sent pursuant to 0 222.3
(c), the Administrator, Regional Admin-
istrator or their designeas will tools'or
deny permits in accordance with 0 322.1,
•as soon as all provisions of 0 222.3 (a)
(pertaining to public notice) have been
complied with, unless e, request for c, pub-
lic hearing has been granted pursuant
to 3222.5(b), or unless objection te re-
ceived from the Corps of Engineers pur-
suant to 8 222.3(d).
(b) Waiver of State certification.
State certification as to the probable im-
pact of the proposed dump on State
water quality standards pursuant to sec-
tion 401 of tha Federal Water Pollution
Control Act will bo deemed waived, in ac-
cordance with the terms thereof,.if such
certification is not received within SO
days of notice to tho appropriate State
agency under 0 232-8(c), or such longer
period to which the Administrator, Re-
gional Administrator or their designeos.
may agree.
§ 222.5 Initiation of heariiiGo.
(a) Any person may, within 30 days
of the date on which all provisions of
0 222.3 (b) have been complied with, re-
quest e, public hearing to consider fcfoe
issuance or denial of any permit applied
•Cor under this Part. Any such request for
a public hearing must be In writing, and
must state any objections to the issu-
ance or denial of the proposed permit,
and the Issues which are proposed to be
considered at the hearing.
(b) Upon receipt of a written request
meeting the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section, or at his own dis-
cretion, the Administrator, Regional
Administrator or a deslgnee of either,
will flx a time and place for a public
hearing, and shall publish notice of ouch
hearing in accordance with 0 322.7,
whenever such request presents bona
fide Issues amenable to resolution by
public hearing.
. (c) In the event the Administrator.
Regional Administrator or a deslsnee of
either, determines that a request pur-
portedly made pursuant to this section
does not comply with the requirements
of paragraph (a) of this section, he
shall so advise, in writing, the parson
requesting the hearing, and shall pro-
ceed to rule on the permit application
in accordance with g 222.4(a) T
§ 222.6 Time and piece of heurfngo.
When the Administrator or Regional
Administrator grants a request for a
public hearing pursuant to 9 222.5(a),
he shall designate an appropriate loca-
tion for such hearings, and an appro-
priate time which shall be no sooner
than 30 days following the receipt of such
request. Where possible, public hearings
shall be held in a location in the States,
if any, to which notice of the permit ap-
plication was given pursuant to 0 333.3
(c).
§ 222.7 Notice of hearings.
Notice of public hearings. Including
information as to their time and place,
shall be given, at a minimum, to parsons
to whom, and in the manner in which,
notice of tho permit application was pub-
lished pursuant to § 222.3.
§ 222.® Condiictt off hcarfngn.
The Administrator or Regional Ad-
ministrator may designate a presiding
officer to conduct a hearing convened
pursuant to this part. The presiding offi-
cer shall be responsible for the esspsdi-
tlous conduct of the hearing, sad shall
cause a suitable record (including, if
appropriate, a verbatim transcript) of
the proceedings to be made. Any person
mey appear at a hearing convened pur-
suant to this Part whether or not he
requested the hearing, and may. be rep-
resented by counsel or any other author-
ized representative. The presiding officer
io authorised to sat forth reasonable re-
strictions ca the nature or amount of
documentary matorlul or Lcallmony prn-
oanted at a hearing, giving due regard to
the relevancy of any such information,
and to the avoidance of unduo repatltive-
ness of information presented. No cross-
examination of any person, including' the
applicant, appearing at a .hearing stall
be permitted, althouzsh the presiding of-
ficer, may, Sn his discretion, address to
persons or fehelr authorised representa-
tives questions submitted in writing by
participants at a hearing.
§ 222.9 EecDniimemdlattfoztQ of presiding
officer.
At any time following the adjourn-
ment of a public hearing convened pur-
suant to this part, the preoifiing officer
may prepare written recomEaendsttons
relating to the issuance or denial of the
proposed permit, or relating to aoy een-
dltlono which he believes may appro-
priately be imposed on any such permit,
after full consideration of the views and
arguments expressed at the hearing: pro-
vided, that the presiding offlcer'o find-
ings and recommosidationo, if oay, ond
the record of the hearing, wili to aM cooap
be completed and forwarded to too Ad-
ministrator, Regional Administrate?, or
their designated representatives within
30 days following adjournment of the
hearing. Copies of the presiding officer's
findings and recommendations, If any,
shall be provided to any interacted p©?oon
on request, free of charge. Copies of the
record will be provided to accordance
with 8 2.111 of this title.
§ 222.10 loouance o! permliso after Biear-
imgo.
Within 30 days following receipt of the
presiding officer's findings and recom-
mendations, if any, but in no event later
than 180 days from the time limit opaci-
fled in g 222.1. Tha Administrator, Re-
gional Administrator, or their deolgnees,
shall make a final determination with
respect to the issuance, denial, or im-
position of conditiono on, any permit
applied for under this part. '<
PART 22i~-e©EWE&V]TO ©P K1MDV8
Sac.
"333.1 Ooatontei of pormito.
333.3 Oonomlly applicable conditions of
pormita.
AOTHonmr: Title X, Pub. L. 63-889, 0fl Qtot.
loss (as u.s.o.
§ 223.1 Comtonlo ol? pet-mllo.
Permits, other than general pormito,
which may be issued on forma to be pub-
lished by SPA and must bo displayed on
the vessel engaged in dumping, will In-
clude at a minimum the following:
(a) Name of permittee;
(b) Means of conveyance and methods
and procedures for disposal of material
to bo dumped; and, in the case of per-
mits for the transportation of material
for dumping, the port through or from
which such material will be (Sranspor&sd;
(c) A complete description, taotafiJng
ail relevant chemical and phyoiccJ prop-
erties and quantities, o&tho saateieS to
(d) The disposal oSto;
30, N©. ie>S—AftONDAV, ©£T©0DB
-------
KULES AND REGULATIONS
28W17
The times at which the permitted
dumping may occur;
Such monitoring relevant to the
assessment of the Impact of permitted
clumping activities on the marine en-
vironment at the disposal Bite as the Ad-
ministrator determines Is feasible; and
-------
2«filS
S5ULES AND REGULATIONS
rcr, and to receive copies of the tran-
script of the proceedings. Formal rules
of evidence will not apply. The hearing
officer will rule on all evidentiary mat-
tern, and on all motions, which will be
wubjoct to review pursuant to f 223.3.
8 226..1 nctermlnaliims.
Within 30 days following adjournment
of the hearing, the hearing officer will In
all cases make findings of facts and
recommendations to the Administrator,
Including, when appropriate, a recom-
mended appropriate penalty, after con-
Hlderatlon of the gravity of the viola-
tion, prior violations by the person
charged, and the demonstrated good
faith by such person In attempting to
achieve rapid compliance with the pro-
visions of the Act and this subchapter.
A copy of the findings and recommenda-
tions of the hearing officer shall be pro-
vided to the person charged at the same
time they arc forwarded to the Admin-
istrator. Within 30 days of the date on
which tho hearing officer's findings and
recommendations are forwarded to the
Administrator, any party objecting
thereto may file written exceptions with
the Administrator.
§ 226.4 Final ncllon.
A final order on a proceeding under
this Part will be issued by the Admin-
istrator or by such other person desig-
nated by the Administrator to take such
final action, no sooner than 30 days fol-
lowing receipt of the findings and recom-
mendations of the hearing officer. A copy
of the fliial order will be served by regis-
tered rhail (return receipt requested) on
the person charged or his representa-
tive. In the event the final order assesses
a penalty, it shall be payable within 80
days of the date of receipt of the final
order, unless judicial review of the final
order Is sought by the person against
whom the penalty Is assessed.
PART 227—CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUA-
TION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS
See.
227.1 General groumlu for the tusuance of
pennlta.
•J27.2 Prolilblted nets.
227.21 Materials Tor which no permit will
be kMuod.
227.22 Oilier prohibited muterlaJH.
227.11 Strictly regulated dumping.
V..27 111 Materials requiring special cure.
227..'12 Huy.arcla to llMhinj; or navigation.
227.:i:i Large quanutlen of rruUerlals.
227.:i4 Adds and alkallM.
227.30 Containerized wastes.
227.;JO Materials containing living orga-
nisms.
227.4 JmplcmrMitatlon plan requirements
for tntorlm pcrmitfl.
'.:27.r> l,f»i Btrlctly regulated dumping and
dlnjxjfla] acta.
227.fi! Wiiatos of a lion-toxic nature.
227.112 Holld wasU-H.
227,n Disposal of dredged material.
227.01 Unpolluted dredged material.
227.02 Disposal at unpolluted dredged ma-
terial.
i!27.o;i Polluted dredged material.
'.!27.fl4 Dlnpowil of polluted dredged mate-
rial.
227.(Hi Rovtolon of tent procedures.
Sec.
227.7 Definitions.
227.71 Limiting permissible concentrations.
227.72 Release zone.
227.73 Mixing zone.
227.74 High-level radioactive wastes.
227.8 Amendment of criteria.
AUTHOBITT: Title I, Pub. L. 92-632, 88 Stat.
1052 (33 UB.C. 1411-1421).
§ 227.1 Genera] grounds for the issuance
of permits.
(a) It Is the policy of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to regulate the
dumping of all types of materials Into
ocean waters and to prevent or to reg-
ulate strictly the dumping or other dis-
charge into ocean waters of any mate-
rial In quantities which would adversely
affect human health, welfare, or amen-
ities, or the marine environment, eco-
logical systems, or economic potential-
ities, or plankton, flsh, shellfish, wildlife,
shorelines, orbeache;:.
(b) These criteria apply to the eval-
uation of permit applications for the
dumping or discharge through outfalls
or other structures of gaseous, solid, and/
or liquid matter of any kind or descrip-
tion.
(c) Sections 102(<:) of PL 02-532 and
403 Cc) of PL 92-500 both require that
applications for permits for the dumping
or other discharge of any materials into
the marine environment be evaluated on
the basis of the Impact of the materials
on the marine environment and marine
ecosystems, on the present and poten-
tial uses of the ocean, and on the eco-
nomic and social factors Involved.
(d). The disposal of some types of
waste materials into the marine environ-
ment Is prohibited because of explicit
legislative requirements. Such prohibited
waste materials are identified in 6 227.21
(a), (b), (c).
(e) The disposal of some types of
waste materials Into the marine en-
vironment Is strictly regulated to prevent
or minimize known or potential adverse
effects on the aquatic ecosystem or hu-
man health and welfare. These materials
and limiting concentrations and condi-
tions upon the disposal of these mate-
rials are given in § 227.3. The concentra-
tions and quantities of materials Identi-
fied in this section arc based on the most
current scientific knowledge and will be
subject to revision aa more knowledge
of marine processes and ecosystems be-
comes available. It Is the goal of the
ocean dumping permit program of the
Environmental Protection Agency to re-
quire development of implementation
plans for elimination of dumping of any
materials in excess of these concentra-
tions and quantities as rapidly as
possible.
(f) The disposal of some types of
waste materials is subject to less strict
regulation and permission because of the
minimal adverse environmental effects to
be anticipated by reason of such disposal.
These waste materials are described in
§ 227.5.
-------
KULES AND REGULATIONS
28fll»
(4) The total amounts of oils and
Krciu
Cjanismo.
It is prohibited to dump any material
which would:
(a) Extend the range of biological
peats, viruses, pathogenic microorsa-
nlsmo or other agents capable of Infest-
ing, infecting or altering the normal
populations ol
(b) Degrade unlnfected areas, or
(c) Introduce viable species not In-'
digenoufl to an area.
§ 227.4 Iimipleiimeiiitattiosm plena ireqnulre-
melons for imfleirum permits.
As a condition on every Interim per-
mit, the applicant must carry out fcwo
phases to bring his waste within accept-
able limits:
PHASE A—PLANNING
(a) Make a thorough review of the actual
need for the dumping;
(b) Submit an evaluation of potential en-
vironmental Impact:
(l) Description of proposed action;
(2) Environmental Import of the proposed
action;
(3) Adverse Impacts which cannot bo
avoided ohould tho propocai bo Implomontod;
(4) Alternatlvoo to the proposod octlon:
(1) Land ail;
(11) Deep well Injection;
(111) Shallow wall Injection;
(lv) Incineration;
(v) Spread of material ovor opon around;
(vl) Recycling of material for:
(a) ROUDO In procaca;
(b) By-produota;
(vll) Biological, chemical, or phyolocj
treatment;
(6) Relationship between short-term ucoo
of man's environment and the maintenance)
and enhancement of long-term productivity;
(6) Irreversible and Irretrievable commit-
ments of 'resources which would bo Involved
In the proposed action should It bo imple-
mented;
(7) A dlocuoDlon of problems and objec-
tions raised by other Federal, State and local'
agencies and by Interested persona in tho
review process;
The content of an acceptable plan for dif-
ferent waste materials will vary but tho fol-
lowing requirements should be recognltaed
and met:
(a) If the waate la treated to tho doQreo
necessary to bring It Into oompllonoo with
the ocean disposal criteria, tho applicant
should provide a description of tho treat-
ment 'and a scheduled program for treat-
ment and a subsequent analysis of treated
material to provo the oSoctlvonooa of tho
process.
(b) If treatment cannot bo effected by
post-process techniques tho applicant ohould,
determining the -offending constituents, on-
amlne hlo raw materials and hlo total jjrocaao
to determine tho origin of the pollutant. 12
the offending oonotltuenta are found in th/D
raw material tho applicant ohould oonoldor a
new supplier and provide an analyolo of tho
new material to prove compliance. Raw mate-
rials aro to Include all water uood in tho
process. Water from municipal oourcca cam-
plying with drtnftlng water otandardo la ac-
ceptable. Water from othor oourooo ouch GO
private wello ohould bo analyzed toy eosa°
tamlnanto. Water that boo boon ucsd in dho
process ohould bo consldorod for treatment
and recycling ao an additional oourco of proo-
ess water.
(c) If offending conotltuonts are a rooult
of the process. It Is recommended that a
consultant be employed by the applicant to
Investigate and describe tho source of tho
constituents. A report of this Informatics
will be oubmltted to EPA and tho applicant
will then submit a proposal describing pocalo
ble alternative!) to tho oslotlng procaob or
proceooeo and lovol of coat and offootlvoncca.
(d) Schedule and documentation for im-
plementation of approved control procaoo:
(1) Snglnoorlno plan.
(2) !71nanolnc opp/oval. '
PBDEOAI, QB6I3TOQ, VOL. 90, NO- 190—MONDAY, OC7ODOQ 19,
-------
AM©
(3) Qtcartlnt; for
• <3
csJterlQ wffl be amsider®&:
(e.) Dredged materials are teSScaa
®ls4 have basn dnsdgefi o? es-
fs>!H!s this navigable
Stefesa. In that
to tocluds and/or to esMKlt o,
eapacity for absorption and
of a wide \/®silety af
c? &bcsac© of pollufesate
ssdlments may be used as an Sndsis of
MDtory of asposure of the o®dl2aen*3 fe)
'domestic sad industrial diecharc^, as
well as urban and agricultural raaoff.
(b) Because the natural proe£3C©2 of
oediment
ornate phases contain Ins none
©1? the EaotefelG listed to 98 227.22
327.31 may ba reecurfied ea basically
toslc .In th@ martos emrtoranenft. Solid
waafcs phasea coaifcatotog any or esll of
fcho mafcorteJa Itoted to 00 327.22 sad
227.31 to forma tacoluble 02- colublo but
not e^cesdlng tSio accsptobSo italics of
0 237.i52(f) or limiting pOTmtesiMe con-
centrations of 0 327.71 mcy also tea ra-
BBrded as non-tosiSc to tiie marias sa-
vlronmsat. Psrmlfe appllcatSffiao fos? oucXi
metorioja may to ovaluated on Qse tesla
of th® ch?ovMercp«?tiss of municipal, industrial,
rasraoS wastes incorporated into
sediments, practical implement&tioB of
the criteria of B8 227.22 and §2f.8i
tea achieved 6hroush the
the foHoutos Bsetlone in
(c) The dumping of dredged
in the ocean iTill be permitted
to the conditions outlined to 00 227.31
through 227.64 unless there is evSde
that the proposed disposal will Siavo
isascceptoble adverse impact on
Mfe, asSiesteo (including opawnins
breeding Dross), or recreational
(d) Bsciaiona conceminef the disposed
of dredged m&tsrM ia the caaaa
teoed on eonsMerationa of
need for such disposal, .
ocean dumping, the nature
of the environmental impact, oaifl
economic ciato or benefits invoiced.
JSredgefi SHsatsriaS may bs clssaoiflsd cs
mipoBiata^ toffisad on Sie taotm ^?tocs^
source (s) of the sediments, the htoto?y
of its exposure to pollutant®, orad its
physical composition. If. the osfiiaiQnfca
cannot be classified ES unpollmtsS ac-
cording to tSie following criteria, labora-
tory sonalyBes will bs required.
mstesrlaS wffl be considered
if it meafci one of OIQ followins
tlons:
(a) Tho dredged material Jo compsced
oasentiaily of ecawS said/or gravel, eir of
say other natusrally cccurrinc E0dimoai=
ta?y snatertola with parade oiacs tago?
than silta cad clays, genoraily foaaffl to
Met chasiffisls, ocean tera, oaeaan on-
tFCJioo channels to sounds and
cM oSie? Drees of noxmoiHy Mah
energy such as predominates at
coEstSines.
(b) Xf-the water quality at and near
tfoe dredgSng site is adequate, socorfitag
to' the oppMcaMs State water
for Qie propagoteoim of
Efl wildlife, ond if tto
occostotefl wi^j the mc^3i?io3 Co tea
dredged are typical of a heaS«S>y ooo-
oysfeam, tabtas into s^count the no?a!ac3
frequency of dredging, the sediments
csa be reoocnffiobly stecslfied ESS
o,
moso
of ao
the WE&EF tona Qis ure^jcssd dlsiissal
oSte imsd for Ote fesatSng. The
eiufegtofea" So toe osspsmatEsafe
f roax Qis ^7tet!Is^o1Ia g^-mimito ohE^dng of
ons psyt toosbm Esdimait wiQi four pests
trofear fKcm the pz^tosed disjiasal c2te
followed by sae hour of lefc&Saef 6Jie m2s-
ture aetto cswa oppropriats flltrotfiim or
eeatrifusBtiea. "Ma$o? con3«8te2Qtow cs-e
ssa water graoSity pcrametosa
oito
(55?
2 &&0 saatestoEa to 00 337.33
8 §§?.. ^ea • ssofesrJcS Beaa
f oamd 4o bs gojlmtsfi ia oocj^acsESQ
8227.61(0), bioasaay tests msy fea SOT-
formed whoa it can be ohown th&t toe
results of oiseh testa con bo uoed to GO-
sist in eet^ag diopooal condltiom To
minimize tho psosibility of QXI& oisoh
harmful effects, dispoool conditSoao ms3&
toe carefully cat, wit& partteiates1 ntfeon-
tion being given to SSie fonowins facteo:
(G) fllo^oos? o3i2fl oalectton. <£) Dio-
posol aStea stouid feo osoao waoro tosxl&ic
life. which might ba domogod &y fee
dumping is mSnimaJ.
(2) The disposal cite mucft tea located
such that dte&oaal operotiono will CGisoe
no unacceptDMs Gdvosra effecto to JSaown
nursery or produetiVQ flahlne oroao.
Where provoking ourrsnto oaiot, the csisr-
renta should fea ouch that e,ny
or dissolved matter would not ba
in to known mirsory or productive
ing areas o?' populated or protected
shoreline QS-QGO.
(S) ZttBpozoS sltca chould be selected
whose physieol onviFonmentoJ chore®-
teriatics era sioat amendblo 60
of diaperciaa doaired.
(b) Summing conditions. (1)
dumping should be ohoaan,
elKa, to ovoid tofesrforenoo ufl&s
seasonal
cycles of OQUotio lifo in the dioposEl
(2) If the typa of matsiriaS involved
and the environmental
FE®CQAi
VO(, 30, NO, 198 — MOMDAV,
US,
-------
RULCS AND REGULATIONS
28021
of the disposal site should make either
maximum or minimum dispersion de-
sirable, the discharge from and move-
ment of the vessel during dumping
should be In such a manner as to obtain
the desired result to the fullest extent
feasible.
§ 227.(>'.'> HcrUion of Irsl prnrnlu:•••».
Test procedures and values mentioned
above arc based on the best currently
available knowledge and are subject tc
rovlnlon and modification based on the
urneral Increase of knowledge or specific
Information on the effects of the dis-
posal ol' dredged materials In the ocean.
S 227.7 Definitions.
5)227.71 Limiting pcrmisnildc rnnren-
Iriilionn.
The limiting permissible concentra-
tion Is:
> 0.01 of a concentration of a waste
materln 1 or chemical constituent other-
wise shown to be detrimental to the ma-
rine environment.
S 221.72 ItrleiiHe 7.oiic.
A release zone is the area swept out by
the locus of points constantly 100 meters
from the perimeter of the conveyance
engaged in dumping activities, beginning
at the first moment in which dumping is
scheduled to occur and ending at the
the last moment In which dumping; is
scheduled to occur. For disposal through
an outfall or other fixed stucture, the
release zone is measured from the point
at which the waste material enters the
ocean if no diffuser is used, or from the
length of outfall along which diffuser
ports are located.
§ 227.73 Mixing zone.
(a) The mixing zone is the region Into
which a waste is initially dumped or
otherwlsed discharged, and into which
the waste will mix to a relatively uniform
concentration within four hours after
dumping. It is required that the concen-
tration of aJl waste materials or trace
contaminants be at. or below, the limit-
Ing permissible concentration at the
boundaries of the mixing zone at all
times and within the mixing zone four
hours after discharge. The actual con-
figuration of a mixing /one will depend
upon vessel speed, method of disposal,
type of waste, and ocean current and
wave conditions. For the purposes of
these regulations a volume equivalent to
that of a mixing zone is the column of
water immediately continuous to the re-
lease zone, beginning at the surface of
the water and ending at the ocean floor,
the thermocllne or halocllne, If one
exists, or 20 meters, whichever is the
shortest distance.
(b) For disposal through an outfall or
other structure, the volume of the mix-
Ing zone will be measured by projecting
the release zone at the depth of the point
of release or the waste to the nearest
hydrodynamlc discontinuities above and
below that point, but in no case exceed-
ing 20 meters in total distance. Diffusion
of wastes beyond the limits of the mixing
zone will be estimated by standard
oceanographic methods of calculation
acceptable to the Administrator or his
designee.
§ 227.74 High-level radioactive wastes.
High-level radioactive waste means
the aqueous waste resulting from the
"operation of the first cycle solvent ex-
traction system, or equivalent, and the
concentrated waste from subsequent ex-
traction cycles, or equivalent, In a fa-
cility for reprocessing irradiated reactor
fuels or Irradiated fuel from nuclear
power reactors.
§ 227.11 Amendment of criteria.
In the event that the Administrator or
his delegate concludes that it In desirable
to amend this Part, he shall announce
his intention of doing so by publishing
notice thereof In the FEDERAL REGISTER,
and shall thereafter follow the proce-
dures prescribed In section 4 of the Ad-
ministrative Procedures Act <0 U.S.C.
553 >. Any person proposing amendments
to this Part shall notify ttte Administra-
tor of the amendments so proposed, and
the justifications supporting the amend-
ments so proposed. Should the Adminis-
trator reject the amendments so pro-
posed, he shall notify the proponent of
such action within 30 days of the date
upon which such amendments were given
to him.
[FR Doc.73-21343 Filed 10-12-73:8:48 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 198—MONDAY, OCTOBER'15, 1973
-------
APPENDIX I)
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1976
PART III:
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OCEAN DUMPING
Proposed Revision of
Regulations and Criteria
-------
EtULES
[ 00 CFB Parto 233 TfonrosSij OSS) 3
[FBI. 683-21
'©SEAN CKUOPJtCS-
Ffropooe^ Kowiolon off KogutoStao ontd)
GHtorto
The Environmental Protsctta Agency
today publishes proposed revisions of the
regulations and criteria with respect to
the transportation of wastes for the pur-
pose of ocean dumping. Under Title X of
the Merino Protection, Research, dnd
\Sanctnarles Act of S't?f3. as amended, S3
U.8.C. 1401 ot seq., (hereafter "the Act',')
the Agency on October 15, 1S73 (88 PR,
28G10 ct seq.) published regulations cut-
ting forth the procedures to be followed,
and the criteria to be applied. In review-
ing applications to dispose of materials
In ocean waters. These rules now appear
at 40 CPR Parts 220-227. In addition,
the October 16 notice sets forth substssi-
tlvc criteria to be applied In evaluating
permits to discharge materials through
ocean outfalls, pursuant to sections C02
and 403 ro»
pose revisions to fcho ocean outfall cri-
teria presently appearing in 40 CF5&
Pant 227.
The proposed revisions announced to-
day affect both the procedures to be fol-
lowed In reviewing applications for ocean
dumping and the substantive criteria to
bo applied in evaluating those applica-
tions. The Agency believes that changes
In the present regulations are appropri-
:i t« for several reasons:
Operating experience?, o£ SPA pointed
to several ways in wMcia the regulations
required modification. There is & aead
to specify In more detail the considera-
tions which go Into e determination of
whether a permit will be issued. The
present reguaSatlona do not adequately
address the regulation of ocean dumping
Kites. Also, some people consider tho
present regulationo SKSjrtetoins to. the dis°
POB&1 of drodged matoial inadequate.
A petition for additional rulemaklng
by the National Wildlife Federation was
received in April of 1874 and pointed out
several areas in which the present regu-
completely satisfy tho Act, the Conven-
tion on the Prevention of Marine Pollu-
lutlons require changes if they are to
t.lon by Dumping of Wasto and Other
Mutter open for signature December 2®,
1972, ut London (hereafter, "Conven-
tion"), and the Amendments to the Asfi,
in light of the Convention', which were
1 Tho Convontloa become offectlvo, accost-
Ing to As-fcJoHo XO2£(l&. on Augizofe 80, W?Q,
whoa ttoo flffecorafcSa poyCy coooflcffl &> Ito torao.
about by Pub. L. 93-254 (MarcSn
22,1874).
In addition to the petition from the
NattonoS Wfldlife Federation, an to='
dividual has requested that the em<23=
Sency permit provisions contained in fc&s
regulations be modifies' to require moia
adequate public notice and opportunlfe
. for hearing prior to the issuance of
those permits. EPA has thoroughly F3=
vised and expanded the ocean dumptas
regulations and criteria to allow for
sreater public participation In the pro-
gram.
The Agency has held several mejo?
heariasa on applications to dispose o£
materials; th9 experiences of thsao
hearings and ferae Beslonal Administra=
tors' experiences In reviewing applies
tlons have prompted several suggestion
as to ways In which the present regula- .
tlons nad criteria can bo improved to
more adequately address the taifolo-
mentation of the Act and Convention,,.
and to address the real world
encountered by the Regional A
tors.
Th® orlterla tove been modified to re-
flect recent advances in scientific knowl-
edge, but the technical basis for th@
regulatory program remains the same,
and Store Is no change In EPA's intsaS
to oli&ainata ocean dumping of unac=
cepta&lo materials as rapidly as possible*
It is not possible to note in this pream-
ble all the places in the regulations In
which changes have been made; many
modifications are minor and will not
feet the day-to-day operation of
program. However, the major substan
tlve changes have been noted below. It
must be emphasized that the regula=
tlons proposed today will when promui=
- gated replace seven * existing Parts c2
Title 40 CFR, will add Part 228 and
amend Part 220. While the regulationo
appear to be long and complicated tho'
Agency has attempted to follow a logical
pattern which will make their use mora
iconvenient than one might assume G«
first inspection. It also must be note&
that the regulations proposed today win
constitute tho entire set of tools ono
needs to implement the Act and t&Q
Convention.:
STETCSEZARY OP PROPOSED CHAMOES
Part 220. There has been confusioffl
over tha relafeSonshlp of the Federal
Watec PoUutidsa Control Act and the AeS.x
and between the Act and the Convention
Sections 220.1 and_ 220.2 have been ax=
panded to state with more precision tho
applicability of the various laws and reg-
ulations implementing those laws. Ao
stated before, the proposed modlflcatioroo
will delete any mention of ocean outf alSo
to the extent that they are covered undo?
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Separate regulations are in preparation
which will cover ocean outfalls. The pro=
hlbited acts of 0 220.1 (a) and the enclu°
slons of subsection (c) are essantiolS^
the same as the language used in E3e3-=
tlons 2. 3. and 101 of the Act, 33 U.S.©,
1401,1402, and 1411. likewise, the doSai-
tiono eaifi ths categories pf EwrmUa
caafcsd. in Part 220 are clmcst IdoatlcaJ
. So.fc&'e existing regulations or to the lan-
aicvss used In the Act Itself.
2& afcoidd be pointed out that in § 2203
ths'. Agency has placed a cutoff of
April 23,1978, tos the Issuance of-dnterlm
psrmite except for the dumping of wastes
2CT2a cs^mge treatment works of munlcl-
B^ffltto presently under Interim permits
when the applicant has make a. showing
"of good faith effort to comply with re-
eairemeata^of e, special permit, and with
.s-espsct to)"SsMtetrial plants with treat-
ment fc^litles under construction. At-
Sajitlon to also • directed to the limita-
tion In thct subsection that prohibits the
issuance of an interim permit to c. fa-
cility which has not previously dumped
v/eotG3 to the ocean. In view o£. tha
OJtpaffl^ng capacity of publicly
treatment works and other indua-
treatment facilities which may gen-
csats aEbstantial quantities of sludge,
thla section may have Impact on deci-
sions to impose of residual wastes. Many
, Scial procedures have been
developed in r@oppnse to the petitions
from.&So. Jem SSalr and the National
WttdjUJQ .ffedGrafiJon. These procedures
allow fee1 appropriate notice within the
time cosiotealnta that often are Involved
when o, true emergency exists. Section
282.3 provides for the distribution of
Qoplcs of the notice to agencies and per-
sons, including ail states within BOO milea
of th'Q proposed dumping olte. TtoC2O
&ave boen mafio ia response to
?eque3ta for a greater dissemi-
s>ubli@ notices. This chango
ormalise the proccdurca
which feSxo AseffiCfUfl now following.
P50DQAI RBOlSTOn, VOL. OH, NO. 123—MONDAY, JUNO 20,
-------
Becttono 222.4 through 222.12 establish
& OK? Bsearlag procedure. Tho Agency
•will now allow requests for adjudlcatory
hearings and may convene such hearings
when the lesusoo raised present oubstan-
tlal questions of public Interest or when
the Regional Administrator determines
that a public hearing of this type is ap-
propriate to resolve outstanding issues.
The Agency feao found that on several
nmjor dlsputeo involving ocean dumping
jiormltfl it hao been useful to conduct ad-
judicator y hearings in an effort to rec-
oncile conflicting statements of foci
The proposed procedural regulations will
codify many of the ad hoc procedures
wlilch EPA has used in these adjudlca-
tory hearings.
Part 223. In 8 223.2 the reasons which
can be used for modification, revocation
or suspension of a permit have been
amended to Include a finding of unac-
ceptable adverse environmental impact
according to the procedures set forth in
Part 328, which is new. In other words,
the review of permit Issuance will be con-
ducted not simply on the basis of an
analysis of the constituents of the waste
and 4he degree to which these meet or
Violate the criteria of Part 227, but also
they will be evaluated in light of the
total environmental effect of the dump-
Ing of wastes at a particular site.
/'art 224. The reporting requirements
are essentially unchanged. However, no
longer will an applicant for- renewal of
n special permit be allowed to file a de-
layed report. This change has been made
on the recommendation of the National
Wildlife Federation. EPA agrees that to
delay the fllln sof this Important report
Is not consistent with the spirit-of the
Act.
Part 225. Under section 103 of the Act,
33 U.8.C. 1413, the Agency plays a major
role in the determination by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers
("Corps") whether to issue a permit for
the ocean disposal of dredged material
uncl whether to concur with the proposal
by the Corps-itself to proceed with such
disposal activities Part 223 has been re-
written to clarify the procedures EPA
will use In evaluating requests to dispose
of dredged material in ocean waters. It
must be noted that the role the Agency
plays In this review Is similar to but not
identical with the role the Agency plays
In review of permits to dispose of dredged
material In fresh water under Section
404 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C.
1344. The public IB Invited to comment on
Part 225; specifically the Agency is con-
cerned that the procedures outlined in
this part comply with the Intent of sec-
tion 103 of the Act and yet not be so cum-
bersome as to make the provisions un-
workable.
Part 226. The two section^ dealing with
the assessment of civil penalties for vio-
lation of the Act have been rewritten to
add substantial detail to the present
Sections 226.1 through 226.4. The Re-
BlonBl Administrators have recom-
mended thafi the procedures to be fol-
lowed in the enforcement actions be
spelled out in substantially more detail
to end oome of the confusion that toap.
surrounded use of the present 0 228.2.
The reader should note that the rules of'
prooadwre set forth in Part 232 axe sub-
stantially Incorporated in Part 226.
Part 227. This is the heart of the ocean
dumping regulations and contains most
of the substantive modifications that
have bssn made to the existing regula-
tions. The criteria of Part 227 are drafted
in light of section 102 of the Act end the
requirements of the Convention, especial-
ly Article IV and the Annexes.to that
Convention. One of the major criticisms
of the existing criteria which hao been
voiced by the National Wildlife Federa-
tion and other observers of ths Agency
operations under the existing regula-
tions is that the criteria do not clearly
state how each of the statutory and reg-
ulatory criteria' will be applied. Subpart
A of the revised criteria states the terms
of reference which the Regional Admin-
istrator or Administrator will use for
making e, final determination, on a per-
mit application. Each of the Subparta B,
C. D, and E addresses a ceparate consid-
eration which is required by the statute
in section 102. No subpart In and of Itself
is dispositive of the issue, which the
Agency believes is consistent with the
broad balancing required by the statute.
Subpart A replaces g 227.1 in the existing
regulations.
Subpart B replaces ft 8 227.2 through
227.5 and portions of § 227.6 in the exist-
ing regulations. This subpart sets specific
environmental impact limits and condi-
tions on the dumping of materials In
ocean waters.
Section 227.4 states what statutory
findings will be assumed If the environ-
mental criteria of Subpart B are satis-
field. Section 227.5 lists the materials
which will not be allowed to be disposed
of in the ocean under any circumstances;
the language of this section to a great
extent parallels the language in Annex I
of the Convention. Section 227.6 lists ad-
ditional Items that are InchHSed In An-
nex I of the Convention and provides that
it Is Impermissible to dispose of these
materials as other than trace contami-
nants. Also, subsection B provides that
above certain numerical limits waste will
not comply with the requirements for a
special permit. Section 227.6 has perhaps
received more attention than any other
aspect of the ocean dumping regulations.
The Agency has found that defining a
trace contaminant In numerical terms
is scientifically impossible.
Some scientists believe that a trace
contaminant is defined In terms of a cer-
tain level over background concentra-
tions. Other scientists believe that the
definition of a trace contaminant implies
some level slightly above the analytical
threshold. To many scientists these are
unsound alternatives: the first has little
to do with environmental harm; the
second merely Indicates that the defini-
tion will change as developing analyti-
cal arts proceed. After several work-
shops attended by many of the recog-
espcrto la 4fco flsfcS, EPA
mat to a&feaaiEjfc to <9c3na tea®?
cant. Xnatsad,
ttal J-830UFSS3 to
levels aS, sasrcury, cadmium, cjwS ©tins?
pubstencas .which nay prove hanngul to
the environment. Ths Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement presents a
discussion of the factors and ,£he data
considered by the Agency la arfflvfegs at
the numerical limttattoias to auboeattca
B of § 227,$, It must be effljph&sfesfi that
although only mercury c&d ea&nium
and compounds containing these ele-
ments have sxpllclt numerical iisiits-
tlona in the criteria, the other require-
ments pertaining to orgonohalojjeas, oils
and greasea, and, similar highly toxic
substances can bo translated into, nu-
merical terms when the naiTD(Svq;,«ora=
aideratloas.sst foztSi in 0227.$ oro fol-
lowed. Ths' determination of occaptabls
levels Qg overall tosiclty must involve
consideration s2 ttia mixing asm and
the iispernion rate, and for &&csp tax-
portent elements the applteomfe- !o ro-
ferred to She Definition oeo&eai o&.Sub-
part G of Fart 23?,
The criteria fo? evaluating dtopooal
of dredcefi materials In ocoos waters
have undergone substantial roviokm.
much of it in response to allegQtiogb
raised In National WUdllfo FedarefcSsn v.
Train, at al. Civil Action.No, 7^-1937
(United Stales District Court las the
District of Columbia). That action chal-
lenges the present dredged matqriqa cri-
teria. Section 227.Kb) states ®iot osly
certain portions of Part 227 apply t© fcbe
consideration of dredged matorioJ dis-
posal. The key to determining whether
dredged material complies with tho EPA
criteria la B 227.13, which is a substantial
revision of the regulations presently; poy-
taining to dredged materials.
Dredged material which to taken frogn
high current or wave energy areas such
as streams with large bedloads or coastal
areas with shifting bars and channels
is considered acceptable under these pro-
posed criteria. EPA feels that it to not
necessary for the public and tho Gov-
ernmental, agencies to expand aufoafcaa-
tial resources in considering fcho pollu-
tion potential of aaturally occurring and
unconlaminated oedlmentary material.
This is not to ony, of course, that t&c
method by which the material la dis-
posed and the slta which IK used for dis-
posal are not important. For materials
which are not clearly environmentally
acceptable and which muot go through
further evaluation, EPA has required
that the applicant employ an elutriate
test, which is an analytical tool designed
to separate from the sediment thcco pol-
lutants which may leave the sediment
in actual dumping operations. SPA has
greatly expanded the substances wbi$h
must be examined during the elutriate
test, consistent with the requirements of
the Convention and with the demands
placed on dumpers of other materials.
Thus, in subsection (c) reference ia
made to the liet of constituents in para-
graph A of 9 227.6.
The reader should also stoto ®haC a
substantial change has fessa mc&Q in
FEDERAL"REGISIED, VOL. 41, NO. us—MONDAY, JUNE as, 1976
-------
2flf> 18
BULES
that it rhilrlate concentrations, after
ullowanre Is made for dilution, do exceed
limiting permissible concentrations es
tiffined In
-------
PROPOSED RULES
2W7
Sections 228.10 through 228.12. These
sections establish the criteria whlch.EPA
will use Tor evaluating Impact on a dis-
posal site and for altering use of a site.
The criteria for evaluating disposal Im-
pact on more specific statements of ap-
propriate criteria of section 102(a) of the
Act. These criteria deal with ecological
impact in general, and specific impacts
on alternate uses of the oceans, marine .
resources, and recreational and esthetic
values.
These criteria are presented as two Im-
pact Categories, each of which is differ-
entiated from the other by quantifiable
measures of impact obtainable from data
collected from the disposal site and other
parts of the marine environment. The
detailed requirements for surveys to ob-
tain the necessary data are contained In
fi 228.13.
The survey requirements presented In
8228.13 were developed Jointly by EPA
and NOAA, with valuable contributions
provided by the National Wildlife Fedcr*
fttlon, as well as a number of private In-
dividual*. The data collected on particu-
lar sites may be modified slightly from
Incise listed In g 228.13 as dictated by
specific conditions at a site or charac-
teristics of wastes dumped at a site, but
the structure of baseline and trend as-
sessment surveys will be based on- the
requirements of 8 226.13. Such surveys
are not Intended to cover all possible eco-
logical features of a site, but to collect,
on a consistent reproducible basis,, the
data necessary to detect impacts.
Impact Category I reflects the situa-
tion In which there is an Identifiable Im-
pact OB the biota at the site, but it is not
the type of Impact ttat has & measur-
able effect on another use of the marine
environment. With this level of flsnpocS,
EPA recognizes that there is some impact
on the biota that may presage some form
of olgnlflcanfc long-range Impact ard
resarda this level of Impact as being "un-
reasonable degradation."
At the level of Impact Category II, Jt
may be possible to see some changes in
chemical characteristics in water and
sediments at and near the site, but there
are no detectable changes in the biota.
The provisions of fi 228.11 identify the
actions which will be taken when each
level of Impact la observed. The Act
states that the Administrator of EPA
may issue permits for ocean dumping
when he determines that unreasonable
degradation of the marine environment
will not occur. By the provisions Incor-
porated In 9 22S.11, EPA will determine
that unreasonable degradation will ©c-
cur at Impact Categpry I, but that im-
pacts at the level of Impact Category n
are acceptable.
The basic rationale for the impact
classification system io that, some
changes In the composition of water and
sediments may be tolerated, but any sig-
nificant sign of damage to any of She bi-
ota may be & forerunner of adverse
chaoses affecting the entire ecosystem
end otaps should be taken to reduce waste
loading feo lovolo at which no changes
In the biota cso detectable. Weafcas dis-
charged In compliance with Part 227 are
not expected to have an unacceptable
adverse effect on marine biota. Manage-
ment of each site in compliance with the
criteria of this Part 228 will provide an
additional safeguard to the environment
from any cumulative effects of dumping.
Section 228.12 lists the Interim ocean
disposal sites available for the disposal of
municipal or industrial wastes. This -list
has been revised from that previously
published to reflect changes made during
permit operations, and to correct some
technical errors In the Initial list. All the
sites are designated as interim because
the Administrator has determined to
conduct environmental Impact studies
and to prepare environmental impact
statements prior to the designation of
any site as a final ocean dumping site.
See 39 PR 37419 (October 21, 1974).
Many persons have commented that the
Agency has left ocean disposal sites des-
ignated as interim for several years and
that the interim 'character of the sites
Is losing its validity. EPA is aware that
there Is a need to concjude the environ-
mental assessment process and deter-
mine whether a location will or will not
be designated. However, It has found that
one of the major obstacles to preparation
of environmental Impact statements is
the collection of adequate and reliable
baseline information. The sophistication
and time required to assemble an ade-
quate data base Is considerable, and the
assessment of the data Is a major scien-
tific undertaking. The Agency hopes to
complete environmental Impact state-
ments on at least three interim sites in
the near future. Ocean disposal sites for
the use of persons wishing to discharge
dredged material are not designated in
this proposed rulemaking.
The United States Coast Guard has
suggested to the Agency that all ocean
dumping sites other than those to be
used for dredged material and for mate-
rial permitted to be discharged under
general permits, be reoriented to coin-
cide with LORAN-C time delay line grid.
Most of the present sites are generally
rectangular In "shape: some are circular.
Reorientatlon would make the cites
oblique-angled parallelograms with each
side, coinciding with Q alngle'XOJaAN-C
time' defey line of position. Oblique-an-
gles would not exceed 75 deerees for any
of the sites under consideration.
The proposed reorlentatlon would sim-
plify the navigational calculations which
the person who Is ocean dumping must
perform to Insure that he remains within
the boundaries of the site, and will facil-
itate more accurate surveillance. The
problems associated with accurate con-
version of LORAN information to lati-
tude-longitude, and the inverse conver-
sion, can be eliminated for both the per-
son du-oiping the waste and any surveil-
lance craft.
An additional benefit which win be
realized by the proposed reorlentatlon
will be the simplification of the design
of electronic equipment to provide sur-
veillance of dumping operations. The
Ocean Bumping Surveillance System
fODSS) being evaluated by £ha,,C
-------
Part 220. Thlo part contains one pro-
posed senes-oi paraiife ®5W3?!as Hio dte°
i >os ul of clean wrecks onfi hulks, and one
Kpneroi permit covertao fcfca transport
:md disposal o? fcargefc vcxala and bodies
at. sea. Becaiasa the transport and dis-
posal HD? VG3398 hulks occurs Quits often,
••.special!? in busy commercial port areas,
t.iic public ts Invited to direct its atten-
tion to the proposed conditions imposed
mi this type of activity. It must be re-
membered thai under & general permit
the parson who wta&es 6s> dispose of ma-
terial is not required fc© citato a opscM
or Interim dtopraal permit and is not
required to undergo a formal pubic hear=
ing. The Agency has afttempteS to eon°
Rider and Incorporate the suggestions of
the United States Army Corps of Engi-
neers and the Doited States Coast Guard
in drafting the proposed amendment to
Part 2§g>.
AND XNP1ATIOWAHY Il^PACX '
fcrlplicat© and addressed to Bar. T. A.
Wastler, Chief, Marine Protection,
Branch. Oil and Special Materials Oon-
DMsion (WB-848). Environmental
Ageasj?. 1 M. Street, SW.,
E>.C. 30480.
Dated: June 10, JOTS.
Administrator.
Subchapter H of Chapter X of Title <
1. TSso gable of contents for Subparfc US
is revised to re&& DO follows:
Although the Agency is not required by
law to prepare an environmental Impact
Ntatement In connection with revision
of the regulations and criteria pertain-
ing to ocean disposal. 3ft has chosen to
prepare such a statement with respect
to the proposed revision to Part 227. Sea
39 PR 874181 (October 21, 1B74). A draft
environmental statement has been pre-
pared and is available for Inspection In
i.hc office noted in the last paragraph of
Hits preamble. In addition, there are a
limited number of the draft statements
available to parsons who have an Inter-
est in reviewing that document. Bequests .
for copies should be sent to the address
noted below.
Executive Order 11821 (November 27,
1974) requires that major proposals for
legislation and promulgation of regula°
Moris and rules by agencies of the execu-
tive branch bs accompanied by Q state-*
ment certifying that tSuo inflationary im-
pact of the proposal has been evaluated;
OMB Circular A-107 (January 28. 1975)
prescribes guidelines for the identifica-
tion and evaluation of major proposals
requiring preparation of inflationary im-
pact certifications. The Administrates?
has directed that EPA regulatory actions
will require certification when they are
likely to result In: (1) Capital invest-
ment exceeding 0100.000,000; (2) annu-
nll/ed costri exceeding 050,000,000; (3)
total additional coats of production of
any major project exceeding 5 percent of
welling price; or (4) increase In net na-
tional energy consumption by the equiv-
alent of 25,000 barrels of oil per day. None
of these limiting criteria is exceeded by
the proposed' revisions announced today
imri. therefore, an inflationary impact
statement has not bean prepared.
The Agency will consider all written
comments on these proposed revisions to
criteria and regulations when the com-
ments arc received on or before August
21. 1D7S. At the close of the public com-
mon t period, SPA may hold one or more
public hearings to review the comments
received, if there is sufficient public ta=
tei-est. Comments should b3 provided to
SUBOETAPTOQ E3 — OCEAN Ovmeiva
Part ,- '
320 Gtonoral.
321 Applies tlono for ocean dumping permlto
under section 109 of the act.
233 Action on eooaa dumping permit appli-
cations undoer oeoctlon 103 of the act.
338 Contents, modifications, revocation and
suspension of ocean dumping permlto
under ccotlOB 103 of tiao cct.
334 JSaoorfia end roporta required ot ocaam
(Sumplns parmltteao unde? cotton 103
of ttoo act.
336 Corps of engineers dredged material
permits.
326 Enforcement of the act.
327 Criteria for tho evaluation of parmH
applications for ocean dumping of
materialo.
228 Criteria fa? tho management of dis-
pooc.1 oltoa for ocean dumping.
236 OenQral poraito.
2. Part 220 to
°W8'
revised to read as fol-
Soc.
220.1 ^purpose, and scope.
220.2 Deflnitlono.
230.3 Cetogorles of permits.
220 A Authorities to Issue permits.
Atrraoareir: 88 U.E.0. 1421 and 1418.
(a) General. This Subchapter H estab-
lishes procedures and criteria for the is-
suance of permits by EPA pursuant to
section 102 of the Act. This Subchapter H
also establishes the criteria to be applied
by the Corps of Engineers in Its rsvtew
of activities Involving the transporta-
tion of dredged material for the purpose
of dumping It in ocean waters pursuant
to section 103 of the Act. Except as may
bs authorized by a permit Issued pursu-
ant to this Subchapter H, or pursuant to
section 103 of the Act, and subject to
other applicable regulations promulgated
pursuant to section 108 of the Act: .
(1) No person shall transport from
the United States any material for-tho
purpose of dumping it into ocean waters;
(2) Xn the casa of a vessel or aircraft
registered in the United States or flying
the United Stato Sag or In the case of a
United States department, agency, or in-
strumentality, no person shall transport
from any location any material for th®
purpose of dumping it into ocean waters;
and
(3) No person shaft dump any ma-
terial transported from & location
side th® United Stetes:
(J) Into &i® territorial csz o2
United States; or
(HI) Into a zone cootigumso to fea fes?-
?Storial esc, of the UaJted Stefcsa, eatsaid-
fimg to & Mae twelve aiaciMca! miles csa-
from (Sie bacs Sine fBuom which Qi©
«?
stay aEecft th©
oS On®
toi
territorial
United Stotss. ••'.
(b) Relationship to
agreemento. In accordance with section
102 (B) o2 fehe Act, She regulations and
criteria included to ihio @ubchapteF H
opply the stsndEStto and efifesFis
tag upon the United Stoto undo?
"Conventtaa on 4ho Prov®a$ion rtJ.J
rins Pollution by Dumping of
and Oth<3>?'Scatter? to too extenfc
application.of oucta ateai&\?6o sad e?i°
toria do aofe ?elajs -4hs ?©QUisfeas@ist3 of
4he Act.
(c) Exclusions. (1) Fish wastes. This
Subchapter H does not apply to. and no
permit Siereuadep shall be ?equtosd £®p,
the transportation for tho purrees ©Z
dumping o? tho dumping .fi$,pcsasi wctorb
of'fish wastes unless such dumptoc oc°
curs in: (
(i) Harbors of other protected or en-
closed coastal wates; or
(tt) Any ofche? location where the Ad-
ministrator finds that, ouch
may reasonably tio
danger health, flho envteepSaont as GCO=
logical • systems.
(2) Fisheries resourced. This Sub-
ehopto? IS doos not apply go, and no per-
mit heroura^or ohall bs FG§«JJ?ed for, the
placement or deposit of oyster shells or
other materials for the purpose of de-
veloping, maintaining or harvesting
fisheries resources; provided, such p3fiCQ? deposit is regulated wide? or Jo
E, part of on authorized State or Federal
•program certified to ISP A by the'agency
authorized to enforce the regulation, or
to administer the program, so the, case
may be; and provides terser, thafc 4hQ
national Oceanic ond Ates'eophoric
ministmWon, 4he U.S. Cooat OKiaPd,
the^U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- con-
cur in such placement or deposit as' it
may affect their responsibilities and such
concurrence is veldenced by lettero of
concurrence from these agencies.
(8) Vessel propulaton and fixed struc-
tures. This Subchapter H does not apply
to, and no permit hereunder shall be re-
quired for: i
(1) Routine discharges of effluent inci-
dental to £hs propulsion of vessels or tho.
Deration of motor-driven equipment on
vessels; OP
(it) Construction of any fixed struc-
ture or artificial Island, or the Inten-
tional placement of any device in ocean
waters or on or in the submerged land
beneath such waters, for a purpose ot&QF.
than disposal when such coswtnsefctoa
-------
«i) Emergency to safeguard life at
sea. 'This Subchapter H doss act apply
to, and no perailt hersander shell be re-
quired for, tSse dumping of material Into
ocean •waters from a vessel or aircraft to
an emergency to safeguard life at sea to
the extent that the person owning or op-
erating such vessel or aircraft files
timely reports required by 8 234.2 (b).
§ 220.2 KJofflmJljtooaOo
As used in this Snbchapter H:
. (a) "Act" means the Marine Protec-
tion, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1872, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1401);
(b) "FWPCA" means the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended (33 UJS.C. 1251);
(c) "Ocean" or "ocean waters"
means those waters of the open seas
lying seaward of the baseline from which
the territorial sea Is measured, as pro-
vided for In the Convention on the Ter-
ritorial Sea and the -Contiguous Zone
(IB U8T 1608: TIAS 5839); this defini-
tion Includes the waters of the territorial
see, the contigous zone and the oceans
aa defined in section 602 of the FWPCA.
(d) "Material" means matter of any
bind or description, Including, but not
limited to, dredged material, solid waste,
incinerator residue, garbage, sewage,
sewage sludge, munitions, radiological,
chemical, and biological warfare agents,
radioactive materials, chemicals, bio-
logical and laboratory wasta. wreck or
discarded equipment, rock, sand, excava-
tion debris, industrial, municipal, agri-
cultural, and other waste, but such
term does not mean sewage from vessels
within the meaning of section 312 of the
PWPCA. Oil within the meaning of sec-
tion 311 of the FWPCA .shall constitute
"material" for purposes of this Sub-
chapter H only to the extent that it is
total on board a vessel or aircraft for
the primary purpose of dumping.
(e) "Dumping" means a disposition
of material: Provided, That it does not
mean a disposition of any effluent from
any outfall structure to the extent that
such disposition Is regulated under the
provisions of the FWPCA, under the pro-
visions of section 13 of the Elver and
Harbor Act of 1898, as amended (33
li.S.C. 407). or under the provisions of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2011), nor does it
mean a routine discharge of effluent In-
cidental to the propulsion of. or opera-
tion of motor-driven equipment on, ves-
sels: Provided further. That It doss not
mean the construction of any fixed
structure or artificial island nor the in-
tentional placement of any device in
ocean waters or on or in the submerged
land beneath such waters, for a purpose
other than disposal, when such cons-
truction or such placement is otherwise
regulated by Federal or State law or
occurs pursuant to an authorized Fed-
eral or State program: And provided
further. That it does not Include the de-
posit of oyster shells, or other materials
when such deposit is made for the pur-
pose of developing, maintaining, or har-
vesting fisheries resources and Is other-
wise regulated by-Federal or State law
or occurs pursuant to an atsthcsrtzsd
Federal or State program.
(f) "Sewage Treatment Works"
means municipal or domestic waste
treatment facilities of any type which
are publicly owned or regulated to the
extent that feasible compliance sched-
ules are determined by the availability
of funding provided by Federal, State,
or local governments.
(g) "Criteria" means the criteria set
forth In Part 227 of this Subchapter H.
(h) "Dredged Material Permit" means
a permit issued by the Corps of Engi-
neers under section 103 of the Act (see
33 CFR 209.120) and any Federal proj-
ects reviewed under Section 108 (e) of
the Act (see 33 CFR 209.145).
(1) Unless the context otherwise re-
• quires, all other terms shall have the
meanings assigned to them by the Act.
g 220.8 Catesuwrles of permfrlo.
This 8 220.3 provides for the issuance
of general, special, emergency, interim
and research permits for ocean dumping
under section 102 of the Act.
(aVOeneraZ permits. General permits
may be issued for the dumping of cer-
tain materials which will have a minimal
adverse environmental impact and are
generally disposed of in small quantities,
or for specific classes of materials that
must be disposed of in emergency situa-
tions. Oeneral permits may be issued on
application of an Interested person in
accordance with the procedures of Part
221 or may be Issued without such appli-
cation whenever the Administrator de-
termines that issuance of a general per-
mit la necessary or appropriate.
(b) Special permits. Special permits
may be issued for the dumping of mate-
rials which satisfy the Criteria and shall
specify an expiration date no later than
three years from the date of issue.
(c) Emergency permits. For any of
the materials listed in g 227.8. except as
trace contaminants, after consultation
with the Department of State with re-
spect to the need to consult with parties
to the Convention on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
or Other Matter that are likely to be
affected by the dumping, emergency per-
mits may be Issued to dump such mate-
rials where there is demonstrated to exist
an emergency requiring the dumping of
such materials, which poses an unaccept-
able risk relating to human health and
admits of no other feasible solution. As
used herein, "emergency" refers to situ-
ations requiring action with e, marked
degree of urgency, but is not limited in
its application to circumstances requir-
ing immediate action. Emergency per-
mits may be issued for other materials,
except those prohibited by Section 227.8,
without consultation with the Depart-
ment of State. when the Administrator
determines that there exists an emer-
gency requiring the dumping of such ma-
terials which poses an unacceptable risk
to human health and admits of no other
feasible solution.
(d) Interim permits. Prior to April 23,
1978, interim permits may be issued un-
der osrteto coiafliifcoESB i
Subpart A of Ferfc 227 to tossp mate-
rials wMsh are not in cesBpHaaee with
th© environmental Impact criteria of
Subpart B of Part 227, or .wSsMi are
otherwise unacceptable for cceanTsump-
Ing as determined in accordance with the
criteria of Subperts D or £ of Part 227 or
for which an ocean disposal cits has aot
been designated on other Qiaa ®a interim
basis pursuant to Part 238 of «M) ©ab-
chapter H; provided, however, a© parsiit
may be issued for the ocean dumping of
any materials listed in Section 227.5, or
for any of the materials listed in Section
227.6, except as trace contaminants; pro*
vlded further that the compliance tiato
of April 28, 1979, does not apgtiy to:
(l) The dumping of wootoO.froBB 0ew-
ase treatment wortea when tto Eoglenai
Administrator «3atermlnea tS&afc 6S»e ap-
plicant has exercised his beofc offorto to
comply with all requirements of a opeclni
permit; or
(2) The dumping of any other waste/*
by existing dumpers when ifce Sessional
Administrator determines that the
dumper has attempted in good faith to
comply with the date of ApriE §S. 1878,
and has a treatment facility under con-
struction on a schedule adequate to per-
mit phasing out of ocean dumping .or
compliance with the criteria of Submrt
B by April 23,1081, at the latest.
No Interim permit will be granted 2or
the dumping of waste from a facility
which has not previously dumped waste
in the ocean (escept whan (ha fcsSMts? is
operated by a municipality how 6unasitoK
such wastes), from a new faeSSlty, or
from the expansion or modification of
an existing facility, after the cSectHvo
date of these regulations. Wo
-------
Jlili.lU
BUIES
!• 220.1 \nlliorinilA.
The dmnpinK of material In those
portions of (.ho territorial soa which are
.subject t'i the jurisdiction of any State
wll.liln their respective Regions, and In
Uioso portions of the contiguous zone
Immediately adjacent to such parts of
the territorial sou; mid In the oceans
with respect to approved waste disposal
silt's designated pursuant to Part '228 of
(his 8ubc.hupl.er H. and
y order of the Administrator, the Re-
gion In which transportation Is to origi-
nate shall be responsible for review of
the application and shall prepare the
technical evaluation of the need for
dumping and alternatives to ocean
dumping. The Region having jurisdic-
tion over the proposed dump site shall
take all .other actions required by this
.Subchapter H with respect to the permit
application. Including without limita-
tion, determining to Issue or deny the
permit, specifying the conditions to be
Imposed, and giving public notice. If
both ReKlons do not concur In the dis-
position of the permit application, the
Administrator will make the final deci-
sion on nil Issues with respect to the per-
mit application, including without lim-
itation. Issuance or denial of the permit
:incl the conditions to be Imposed.
<<:> Review Corps Corps of Engineers
Dredged Material Permits. Regional Ad-
ministrators have the authority to re-
view, to approve or to disapprove or to
propose conditions upon Dredged Ma-
terlal Permits for ocean dumping of
drcclued material at locations within the
respective Regional Jurisdictions. Re-
gional jurisdiction to act under this para-
graph <«) of § 220.4 Is determined by the
Administrator In accordance with § 228.4
< o'.
:i. Part 221 In revised to read UB follows:
PART 221—APPLICATIONS FOR OCEAN
DUMPJN© PERMIT© UNDER SECTION
1O2 OF THE ACT
Moo.
D21.1 Applications for permits.
•.!'.! l.3 Other Information.
See.
221.3 Applicant.
221.4 Adequacy of Information In applica-
tion.
221.8 Procesolng fees.
AUTHORITY: 33 0.8.C. 1421 and 1418.
§ 221.1 Applications for permits.
Applications for general, special, emer-
gency. Interim and research permits un-
der section 102 of the Act may be flled
with the Administrator or the appro-
priate Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, authorized by § 220.4 to act
on the application. Applications shall be
made by letter and shall contain, In ad-
dition to any other material which may
be required, the following:
(a) Name and address of applicant:
Adequate physical and chemical
description of material to be dumped,
including results of tests necessary 'to
apply* the Criteria, and the number, size,
and physical configuration of any con-
tainers to be dumped:
(d) Quantity of material to be dumped:
(e) Proposed dates and times of dis-
posal ;
Proposed dump site, and in thp
event such proposed dump site Is not ft
dump site designated In this Subchapter
H. detailed physical, chemical and bio-
logical information relating to the pro-
posed dump site and sufficient to support
its designation as a site according to
the procedures of Part 228 of this Sub-
chapter H;
(g) Proposed method of releasing the
material at the dump site and means
by which the disposal rate can be con-
trolled and modified as required;
(h) Identification of the specific proc-
ess or activity giving rise to the produc-
tion of the material;
(1) Description of the manner in which
the type of material proposed to be
dumped has been previously disposed of
by or on behalf of the person -
jilicitlion.
No permit issued under this Subchap-
ter H will be valid for the transportation
or dumping of any material which' is "not
accurately and fully described in the ap-
plication. No permittee shall be relieved
of any liability which may arise as a re-
sult of the transportation or dumping of
material which does not conform to in-
formation provided in the application
solely by virtue of the fact that such in-
formation was furnished by an applicant
other than the permittee. '
§ 221.5 ProccoBlnjj ffccn.
(a) A processing fee of $1,000 will be
charged In connection with each appli-
cation for a permit-for dumping in an
existing dump site designated in thin
Subchapter H.
(b) A processing fee of an additional
03.000 will be charged in connection with
each application for a permit for dump-
ing in a dump site other than a dump
site designated in this Subchaptor H.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this 9 221.6, no agency or instru-
mentality of the United States or of e,
State or local government vrill bo re-
quired to pay tho processing tfeao speci-
fied in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section.
fl. 40 Part 222 is revised to read as fol-
lows:
FEDERAL CJECISTGB, VOL. 41, NO. 123—MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1976
-------
ernes
PART 222— ACTCOW «M 0CEAS3
KS3C3J7 fiKSLCSOTKBMS MMES2
T1K3 a^S ®7 TIMS ASF
Sec.
2aa.1 General.
•,!28.3 Tentative determination!!. '
'."^U.:i NoUoa of oppUcatlono.
Kan.* Initiation of hoarl&sa.
Time anfl placo ot hoarlugs.
Presiding OSkcw.
OtmEoticcirtas.
de-
osr.
CSU
aaa.it
223.10 Appoal toodjudlratory hoortpgo.
^33.11 Conduct of cdjudlcatory iicsricga
i/22.13 Appoal to Administrator.
Authority: 83 U.S.C. 1
Umt pj-actJceMs, fcs to-Sea w4iaa£a MO
days from the date a. ccnajslofcs £53>ltei-
Uon is filed.
§ 2$3.S T-emtoSflve tocmmtmefilllosio.
(a) Within 30 days of the receipt of his
initial application, an applicant shall be
Issued notlflca&cn oS whether his appli-
cation Is complete and rahat. if .any, ad-
ditional Information Is required. Ho such
notification shall be deemed to foreclose
the Administrator or the RasteioJ Ad-
ministrator, no the case may be, from re-
quiring additional information at any
time pursuant to § 221.2.
Within 30 days after receipt of &
completed psrmifc explication, the Ad-
ministrator or the Regional Administra-
tor, as the case may be. shall publish
notice of such application Including &
tentative determination with respect to
1/wuance or danieS of the permit. If such
tentative detarmlnaMoa is to issue the
permit, the following additional tenta-
tive determinations wfll be made:
(1) Propesed tame limitations, if any;
(2) Proposed rate of dlschargs fnsaa
the baree or vessel transporting the
waste;
(3) Proposed dumping site; and
(4) A brief dsscrlptlon of any other
proposed conditions determined to 8>e ap-
propriate for inclusion to the permit in
question.
8 222.S FJetibe roff COTiffisca&nn.
(a) Contents. Notice of ever? complete
application for & general, special, interim,
emergency amS sesearcia permit snoZl. IE
addition to any other material, •j&chnte
the following:
(2) Amsmcaary of ths Information in-
formation tosJu^sfi ta"gjjo jpsrmti expli-
cation;
(2) any tentative dstsszalnatioao made
pursuant to paragraph flu) (OeraeroZ permits. Notice off £very
ocsnptete osjsaicatlon for a general psr-
mlt car notice of action propeoecJ to be
token by the Administrate? to fcsua a
Eranait, without an ta-ppMcsSfea.
, by publication la the FEO-
EteAs water poUuttea comteol
(3) Emergency permits. Notice of -esssry
complete application for an emergency
permit shall be given by publication in
accordance with paragraphs (b) (i) (1)
and That an emergency, as deaned in
paragraph (c) of § 220.3 exists;
(ii) Tfeiet &he emergency poses an im-
ece6£l£&2e riote relating to human toealth;
4illi) E^Mat tt^s emcrsency adssiite of
sio otiser 2esis(Rri© coluttoa; oad
(Jv) "HiQfc the public tafcresS ES@t!i&Q3
the Sas3£flmco ';&£
this section, copies of such notice wS3 tog
mailed by the Administrator or t&e Ke-
Olonal Atiministrator, as Kie esss may
tos, to any person, group or Fefierci, gtoto
or SoeaJ agaicy upon request. Aay oech
Teois^t saay be a standing f®tj^@3t ?or
eessles e? aacSj notices and oJtaSl ba eub-
mitted.to writing to the Admlatelrator
07 to £SJy JtecloRal Administrator end
^mH fctote to aH or any class
Qp2?ff£cQ%Q63)8 ^?%[3ch tnay be
by the Admlnlstrtor or such
the ease may
(d) Copies of notice sent to S6s&2s. In
edditlca to the publication of sts&ea ?e-
y 5>arasraph (W of fehJo
(e) Copies cs/ rtrflte
of azjdklos
, copies of such aottes odll .be
to 4hs -stSce oS tttes Qj52T>Gsa-la,te
Mda-ic* ZEastoser g
lOS .oS (She AoS <®s?festo33E3
SJon, hajfecr es^roao
ilaVv^^da oa tfee OJJter
(f) Cocrfeo o/ owties oa%& Ha>
Gttantt. laa Addition to the publisa&bn of
rcguirsd -by paragraph u>( etf thdn
oc^isa eJ.cKoia noiifioe will ito oent
feo the .Q®33TQ5nSofeo •fiJc4ffteft ©race ci? the
U.S. Coast. Qaattil f«? s-evics? osal (2EC£3Sjfc>
suffgestiaai e^ oejfl$6se3oi'eK!S^&£s>Os teo
included in fehs parsiit
Ftoh
Act. ThQ.Floh asd WildUto Coop
Act, Roorcaailzattoi Plan £1®. 0
and £bo A3t r
totrator
-------
be Imposed upon, the proposed permit,
nnd BhQll state the Issues which era pro-
posed to be raised by ouch person te
consideration at a hearins.
In the event the Administrator or
11 u; Regional Administrator, as the case
may be, determines that a request filed
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section
does not comply with the requirements of
Kiich paragraph (a) or that ouch request
docs not present substantial issues of
public interest, he shall advise, in writing,
the person requesting the hearing of his
determination.
§ 222.5 Ttae owdl place off (hecrfinga.
Hearing's shall be held in the State in
closest proximity to the proposed dump
site, whenever practicable, and shall be
set for the earliest practicable date no
Jons than 30 days after the receipt of an
appropriate request for a hearing or a
determination by the Administrator or
the Regional Administrator, as the case
may be, to hold such a hearing without
such a request.
8 222.6 PreotdSmis Offlficcp. •
A hearing convened pursuant to this
Subchaptur H shall be conducted by a
Presiding Officer. The Administrator or
Regional Administrator, BO tho case may
be. miay designate a Presiding Officer. Poir
adjudlcatory heeirinca held pursuant to
9 222.11, the Presiding Officer shall be an
EPA employee who has had no prior con-
nection with the permit application in
question. (Including without Simitatloia.
the parf ormance of investigative or pros-
ecuting functions or e,ny other functiono,
nnd who is not employed in the enforcQ-
ment division OF any regional snforcs-
ment office. "*•
§ 222.7 ComiflucS off oMaWHc hsasimiB.
The Presiding Officer shall be respon-
sible for the expeditious conduct of the
hearing. The hearins shall be an in-
formal public hearing, not an adver-
sary proceeding, and shall ba conduct
so as to allow the presentation, of public
comments. When tho P?esidSng Offices?
determines that it to necessary or appro-
priate, he shall cause & suitable record.
which may Include a verbatim transcript,
of the proceedings to be made. Any par-
sea may appear at o public hearing cosi-
vosaed puroiaan!; to 0 322.8 whether or nc4
ho sequester £he tesartos, oafl mc^ toa
represented by ooian^xjl or aw c$her au-
thorized s^rescsitiglva, ^Sso Pyesidtog
Officer ie authorised to E3& $o%<& secooa-
able restrictions on the nature or amount
of documentary material or testimony
presented at a public hearing, giving du©
regard to the relevancy of any such In-
formation, and to the avoidance of undue
repetitlveness of Information preseated.
*
§ 223.® KewtnmmendhttJoitto off
• Wlthia 30 days following the adjourn-
ment of a public hearing convened pur-
suant to § 222.8, or within such additional
period as the Administrator or the Re-
gional Administrator, as the case may be,
may grant to the Presiding Officer for
good cause shown, and after full con-
sideration of the comments received at
the hearing, the- Presiding Officer will
prepare and forward to the Administra-
tor OF to the Regional Administrator, as
the cae& may be, written recommenda-
tions relating to She Issuance or denial o€,
or conditions to be Imposed upon the
proposed permit and the record of the
hearing, if any. Such recommendations
shall contain a brief statement of fcho
basis for the recommendations. Copies of
the Presiding Officer's recommendations
shall foa provided to any Interested par-
son on request, without charge. Copies
of the record will be provided In accord-
ance with 40 CFB 2.
§'222.9 Seouamce off permits.
(a) Within 30 days following receipt
of the Presiding Officer's recommenda-
tions or, where no hearing has been held,
following the close of the 30-day period
for requesting a hearing as provided in
8 222 A, the Administrator or the Regional
Administrator, as the case may bo, shall
make a determination with respect to the
Issuance, denial, or Imposition of condi-
tions on, any permit applied for under
this Subchapter H and shall give notice
to the applicant; and to all persons who
registered their attendance at the hear-
ing by providing tSieir name and mail-
ing address, if any, by mailing & letter
stating the determination and stating
therefor in terms of the Criteria.
,
oil portioo ohoffi fe©
PG3CQA8, aG©10TDQ, VOffl. 01, MO. 123—MOM&AV, JUKU 2Q,
-------
PROPOSED RULES
26653
formed at the commencement of the ad-
Judicatory bearing of the parties in-
volved. Any party may be represented
by counsel or other authorized repre-
Heritatlve.
Hearing procedures Including sub-
mission of oral or written direct testi-
mony, conduct of cross-examination, and
tlte opportunity for oral arguments;
(6) Pre-hearlng discovery; and
<7> Any other matter which may ex-
pedite the hearing or aid in disposition
of any Issues raised therein.
Adjudli:al.ary hearing procedures.
'I I The burden of proof und of going
forward with the evidence shall:
(!) In the case of any adjudicatory
hearing held pursuant to 8 222.10, be on
the applicant.; and
'Hi In Die ease of nny adjudlcalory
lic-urlm; field pursuant to 5 223.2 or pur-
nunnt to Part 220, be on the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
<2> The Presiding Officer shall have
the fluty U> conduct a fair and impartial
lienriiiK. to take action to avoid unnec-
essary delay in the disposition Of pro-
ceedings, and to maintain order. He shall
have all powers necessary or appropri-
ate to that end, Including without limi-
tation, the following:
'D To administer oaths and affirma-
tions:
(III To rule upon offers of proof and
receive evidence;
(ill) To regulate the course of the
hearing and the conduct of the parties
and their counsel;
(Iv) To consider and rule upon all pro-
cedural and other motions appropriate
to the proceedings, and
(v) To take any action authorized by
these regulations and in conformance
with law.
(3) Parties shall have the right to
cross-examine a witness who appears at
an adjudicatory hearing to the egttent
that such cross-examination is necessary
or appropriate for a full disclosure of the
facts. In multiparty proceedings the Pre-
siding Officer may limit cross-examina-
tion to one party on each side If he is
satisfied that the cross-examination by
one party will adequately protect the In-
terests of other parties.
(4) When a party will not be unfairly
prejudiced thereby, the Presiding Officer
may order all or part of the evidence to
be submitted in written form.
(5) Rulings of the Presiding Officer on
the admlsslblllty of evidence, the pro-
priety of cross-examination, and other
procedural matters, shall be final and
shall appear hi the record.
(6) Interlocutory appeals may not be
taken.
(7) Parties shall be presumed to have
taken exception to an adverse ruling.
(8) The proceedings of all hearings
shall be recorded by such means as the
Presiding Officer may determine. The
original transcript of the hearing shall
be a part of the record and the sole offi-
cial transcript. Copies of the transcript
shall be available from the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency in accordance with
40 CFR 2.
(9) The rules of evidence shall not
apply.
(f) Decision after adjudicatory near-
ing. (1) Within 30 days after the con-
clusion of the adjudicatory hearing, or
within such additional period as the Ad-
ministrator or the Regional Administra-
tor, as the case may be, may grant to the
Presiding Officer for pood cause shown.
the Presiding Officer shall submit to the
Administrator or the Regional Admin-
istrator, as the case may be, proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law,
his recommendation with respect to any
and all issues raised ut the hearing, and
the record of the hearing. Such findings.
conclusions and recommendations shall
contain a brief statement of the basis for
the recommendations. Copies of the Pre-
siding Officer's proposed findings of fact.
conclusions of law and recommendations
shnll be provided to all parties to the
adjudicatory heariiiR on request, without
charge.
(2) Within 20 days following submis-
sion of the Presiding Officer's proposed
findings of fact, conclusions of law and
recommendations, any party may submit
written exceptions, no more than 20
pages in lenfrth, to such proposed find-
ings, conclusions and recommendations
and within 30 days following the sub-
mission of the Presiding Officer's pro-
posed findings, conclusions and recom-
mendations any party may file written
comments, no more than 10 pages In
length, on another party's exceptions.
Within 4fi days following the submission
of the Presiding Officer's proposed find-
ings, conclusions and recommendations.
the Administrator or the Regional Ad-
ministrator, as, the case may toe, shall
make a determination with respect to all
issues- raised at such hearing and shall
affirm, .reverse or modify the previous
or proposed determination, is the case
may be. Notice of such determination
shall set forth the determination for
each such issue, shall briefly state the
basis therefor and shall be given by mall
to all parties to the adjudicatory hearing.
§222.12 Appeal to AdratnUtralnr.
A concise statement of the facts
on which the person relle* and appropri-
ate citations to the record of the adjudi-
catory hearing;
(3) A concise statement of the legal
basts on which the person relies;
<4> A concise statement setting forth
the action which the person proposes
that the Administrator take; and
(5) A certificate of service of the no-
tice of appeal on all other parties to the
adjudicatory hearing.
The effective date of any deter-
mination made pursuant to paragraph
(f) (2) of 5 222.11 shall be stayed by the.
Administrator pending final determina-
tion by him pursuant to this | 222.12
upon the filing of a notice of appeal
which satisfies the requirement!) of para-
graph (b> of this section or upon ini-
tiation by the Administrator of review
of any determination In the absence of
such notice of appeal.
(d) Within 20 days following the flllw:
of a notice of appeal In accordance with
this section, any party to the adjudica-
tory hearing may file a written memor-
andum, no more than 15 pages In length,
in response thereto.
(e) Within 48 days following the fil-
ing of a notice of appeal In accordance
with this section, the Administrator shall
render his final determination with re-
spect to all Issues raised In the appeal to
the Administrator and nhall affirm, re-
verse, or modify the previous determina-
tion aud briefly, state Uae basis for hli<
determination.
(f) In accordance with 8 U.8.C. sec-
tion 704. the filing of an appeal to tho
Administrator pursuant to thin section
shall be a prerequisite to Judicial review
of any determination to Issue, deny or
impose conditions upon any permit, or
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 125—MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1976
-------
to modify, rcvoltc or suspend any permit.
or to lake any other enforcement action.
under this Rubrhuptor H.
.'i. I'urt 223 Is revised to read as follows:
PART 223 — CONTENTS, MODIFICATION,
REVOCATION AND 3USKENSB0N OF
OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS UNDER
SECTION 102 OIF THE ACT
: • '!•
•".!:l I C'lllllClllHOf piTlllttH.
:'.:'. :i a Miidtncntlon, revocation nnd suspen-
Hlon.
Ai.Tiioiivr?: 38 U. B.C. 1431 nnd 1418.
'; -2.1.1 tjmlcnle of permits.
dO All special, Interim, emergency
mid roHPiirr.h permits shall be displayed
m< ti 10 vessel cngiiKcd In dumping, and
t.hnll Include- the following:
< I > Name of permittee;
f,!» Moans of conveyance and methods
iuul procedures for release of the mate-
rial to be dumped:
i:n Tlie port through or from which
-.IK-II niiii.orlul will be transported for
diiinplni/..1.
i A description of relevant physical
und chemical properties of the material
to bo dumped:
) The quantity of the material to-'
i>« tlumpcd expressed In tons:
«!> The disposal site: •
i7> The times at which the permitted
(lutnplnK may occur nnd the effective
(Into and expiration date of the permit;
1 81 Special .provisions deemed neces-
sary, after consultation with the Coast
Guard, for monitoring or surveillance of
the transportation or dumping:
(9) Such monitoring relevant to the
assessment of the Impact of permitted
clumping activities on the marine en-
vironment at the disposal site as the
Administrator or Regional Administra-
tor. as the case may be, may determine to
be necessary or appropriate; and
(10) Any other terms and conditions
determined by the Administrator or the
Rcalonal Administrator, as the case may
be, to be necessary or appropriate, in-
cluding without limitation, requirements
for the continued Investigation or devel-
opment of alternative to ocean disposal.
(b) General permits shall contain such
terms und conditions as the Admin-
istrator deems necessary or appropriate.
Interim permits shall. In addition
to the information required or per-
mitted to bo Included in th© permit
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion, include terms and conditions which
satisfy the requirements oS 0 220.3 (d).
nnd 8 227.8.
8 223.2 MmOHlraaBoin, ravocatiom am&
MO Modification, revocation and oua-
wimton. Any permit Issued under section
102 of the Act shall be subject to moda-
flcatlon. revocation or suspension, to
whole or In part. at any time by tho
Administrator or Regional Administra-
tor, as the case may bo, as d result o£
any of the ffoJloutac:
(i) vtotofeJon oS Djaj; team os ooafli-
tton of t&g 2»omse; oc?
(2) Misrepresentation, inaccuracy, or
failure to disclose all relevant facts In
the permit application: or
(3) A determination by the EPA man-
agement authority that the cumulative
impact of the permittee's dumping ac-
tivities or the- aggregate Impact of all
dumping activities at the dump site des-
ignated In the permit be categorized as
Impact Category I: or
(4) Changed circumstances concern-
ing management of the disposal site; or
(5) Failure to keep the records, and
to notify appropriate officials of dump-
ing activities, as required by 88 224.1 and
224.2.
(b) Notice of modification, revocation
or suspension. The Administrator or the
Regional Administrator, us the case may
be, shall give notice of any modification,
revocation or suspension pursuant to
paragraph (a) of this section to the per-
mittee by certified-mull, return receipt
requested, and to the public and appro-
rlate Federal/State agencies In accord-
ance with paragraphs (b) through (g) of
8 222.3. Such notice shall state the modi-
fication, revocation or suspension and the
reasons therefor.
(c) Requests for hearings. (1) Within
30 days after publication of notice of any
modification, revocation or suspension
pursuant kto paragraph (b) of this sec-
tion, a permittee or any other interested
person may request- an adjudlcatory,
hearing on the issues raised by any such
modification, revocation or suspension.
Any such request shall be in writing, shall
Identify the person requesting the hear-
ing, shall state with particularity such
person's objections to the modification,
revocation or suspension and shall state
the issues which are proposed to be
raised by such person for consideration
at the hearing.
(2) Whenever (1) a written request sat-
isfying tile requirements of paragraph
(c) (1) of this.section has been received
and the Administrator or Regional Ad-
ministrator, as the case may be, deter-
mines that such request presents sub-
stantial issues of.public Interest, or (11)
the Administrator or Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be. determines
in his discretion that an adjudicator?
hearing is appropriate, the Administra-
tor or the Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, will set a time and place for
an adjudicators' hearing in accordance
with B 222.5, and will give notice of such
hearing by publication in accordance
with 9 222.3-.
(3) Any person requesting an adjudl-
catory hearing or requesting admission
&a & party shall state in his written re-
quest, and shall by filing such request
consent, that he and his employees anfi
agents ahBll oubmit themselves to cross-
examination 06 any such hearing and to
the taking oS an oath administered by
the Presiding Officer.
(4) In the event the Administrator o?
the Regional Administrator, as the case
may bo, determines that a request flleel
purotaant to pamgrapa (c) (1) of fcSito oss=
tion fleas no* comply with the
ments of such paragraph (c) (1) or that
such request does not present substan-
tial Issues of public interest, he shall ad-
vise, In writing, the person requesting the
hearing of his determination.
(d) Conduct of hearing. An adjudlca-
tory hearing held pursuant to this sec-
tion shall be conducted by a Presid-
ing Officer and a determination rendered
in accordance with 0 222.11. Any determi-
nation made after such hearing by the
Administrator or the Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be, may be ap-
pealed to the Administrator In accord-
ance with and shall be subject to the pro-
visions of 8 222.12.
8. Part 224 is revised to read as fol-
lows :
PART 224—RECORDS AND REPORTS RE-
QUIRED OF OCEAN DUMPJWG PEC3MGY-
TEES UNDER SECTION W2 OF TME ACT
Sec.
224.1 Records of pcrmlUcKa.
284.2 Reports.
Authority: 33 U.8.C.. 1421 and 1418.
§ 224.1 Bfcortls of permStJoeo.
Each permittee named in a special, in-
terim, emergency or research permit
under section 102 of the Act and each
person availing himself of the privilege
confered by a general permit, shall
maintain complete records of the fol-
lowing Information, which will be avail- "
able for Inspection by the Administra-
tor, Regional Administrator, the Com-
mandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, or
their respective deslgnees:
(a) The physical and chemical ciiar-
actcrlstlcs of the material dumped pur- •
simnt to the permit;
(b) The precise times and locations of
dumping; " . '
(c) Any other Information required as
a condition of a permit by the Adminis-
trator or the Regional Administrators, as
the case may be.
§ 224.2 Keporao.
(a) Periodic reports. Information re-
quired to be recorded pursuant to Q 224.1
shall be reported to the Administrator or
the Regional Administrator, as the case
may be, for the periods indicated within
30 days of the expiration of such periods:
(11> For each six-month period, if any,
following the effective date of the
permit;
(2) For any other period of less than
six months ending on the expiration date
of the permit; and
(3) As otherwise required in the con-
ditions of the permit.
(b) .Reports of emergency dumping. If
material is dumped without & permit
pursuant to paragraph (c) (B) of fl 220.1.
the owner or operator of the vessel or
aircraft from which such dumping oc-
curs shall as soon as feasible Inform the
Administrator. Regional Adminiofcroto'.
or the nearest Coast Ouasrd dtoteict o£
the incident by radio, telephone, o; tele-
graph and GhsJl wlthto 10 days file a
writton report; uit&i (Sjs Administrator
or RestonaH Administrator containing,
ra@OQAB, QG©I8TOQ, V©8» 0?, NO. 123—MONDAV, JUMO 20,
-------
PROPOSED RULES
26655
the information required under fi 224.1
and a complete description of the cir-
cumstances under which the dumping
occurred. Notification shall also be
given to the Pood and Drug Administra-
tion, Shellfish Sanitation Branch.
Washington, D.C. 20204, as soon as pos-
sible.
7. Part 225 Jo revised to read as follows :
PA53T 223— CSOCSPi (BUT SWSOMEEKS
)' MOTERBftt
Hoc.
236.1 General.
2S5.B Hovlew til Dredged Materiel Permits.
325.3 Procedure for Invoking ocozamuc Im-
pact.
;wfi.* Waiver by Administrator.
AUTHORITY: S3 U.8.C. 1431 and 1418.
§ 225.1
'ApjjSleatlono and authorizations for
Dredged Material Permits under section
103 of the Act for the transportation of
drefiae snErtertol for ttie purpose of
dumping It hi ocean waters will bs evalu-
ated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers In accordance with the Criteria set
foVth In Part 227 and processed In ac-
confeinoe w52a 83 CFR 208.120 with spe-
cial attention to 1 $09.130 (17V and S3
§ 225.2 ffiov&KW of BovsdlgiMl Material
(a) The District Engineer shalS send &
copy of the public notice to the appro-
priate RegtoaJ Administrator, and set
forth In writing all of the following In-
formation :
(1) The location of the proposed dls-
prora^nlte GSK& its p&yotoal boundaries;
(2) A statsmenSoo to wbeBoor the site
hon been dedignatsd tor use by She Ad-
ministrator pursuant to section 102(c)'
of ttoe Act:
<8) K the proposed disposal alts has
not tessn designated by the Adminis-
trator, a statement c? On® basis for the
proposed determination that no desig-
nated site IB feasible and a description of
the characteristics of the proposed dis-
posal site necessary for its designation
pursuant to Part 228 of this Snbchap-
terW;
<4) The history of previous dredged
material discharges authorized at the
proposed disposal sCfce;
(6) Exlstanco and documented effects
of other authorized dusijjings that have
bccin made in the dum&img area (e.g.,
heavy metal background reading and
organic carbon content) ;
(6) An estimate of the length of time
during which disposal will continue a&
thi) proposed site;
(7) Characteristics and composition
of the dredged material ; and .
(8) A ctatomsnt concerning a prelim-
inary determination of the need fos?
and/or availability of an envlronmenta!
Impact statement.
(b) Tha Regional Administrator will
16 days of the date the public
end e&tor tefermatrtcn required
ts feo CEkaaSSScsS by 228.2 SGfejBct t® toe gsiwrlso -Sa
csssapSa to) «? 'gsti essltea u^sn
of irttasaatloia Eacct oas? .EJOCOQ feoo (ylo-
lated any pi-ovJaion of the
Act relating to critical areas, he shall go
certify and request that the Secretary of
the Army seek a waiver from the Admin-
istrator pursuant to Part 225.
(c) The Criteria of this Part 227 are
established pursuant to Section 102 oS
the Act and apply to the evaluation of
proposed dumping of materials under
Title I of the Act. The Criteria of this
Part 227 deal with the evaluation of pro-
posed dumping of materials on a case-
by-case basis from information supplied
by the applicant or otherwise available
to EPA or the Corps of Engineers con-
cerning the characteristics of the wast®
and other considerations relating to the
proposed dumping.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provl-
slons of these Criteria, no permit will be
tesusd whsn tho dumping would result ta
vlolaUoa of applicable crater
Hknerfoib wMdn oa&bffy o!ka eavg°
toroacd mo! ontlnfy
Bliffl QnvlroniiniRDiitnD impact criteria act
forJh in Sdbpnrt H. ^
If the material proposed for ocean
dumping does not satisfy the environ-
mental impact criteria of Subpart B, the
Administrator or the Regional Admin-
istrator, as the case may be, will deny the
permit application; provided however,
that he may Issue an Interim permit pur-
suant to paragraph (d) of § 220.3 and
Bubpart F of this Part 237 when.he deter-
mines that: s
(a) The material proposed £or dump-
ing does not contain any of the materials
listed In B 227.6 except as trace contami- I
nan^s, or any of the materials listed to
0227.5;
8EGISTGR, VOL. 41, N01>J^5—MONDAY, JUNO 20, 1976
-------
PROPOSED
26C>7
*b) In accordance with Subpart C
there IB a need to ocean dump the ma-
terial; avid
(c) Any one of the following factors
la of H renter significance to the public
Internal than the potential for adverse
Impact on the marine environment, as
determined in accordance with Subpart
Br
(1) The need for the dumping, as de-
termined In accordance with Subpart
C; or
(2) The adverse effects of denial of the
permit on recreational or economic
values as determined in accordance with
Subpart D; or
(3) The adverse effects of denial of the
permit on other uses of the ocean, as de-
termined In accordance with Subpart E.
Subpart B—Environmental Impact
§ 227.4 Criteria for evaluating eiiviron-
nicnlul impart.
Tills Subpart B seta specific environ-
mental impact prohibitions, limits, and
conditions for the dumping of materials
Irit/o oocnn waters. If the applicable pro-
hibitions, limits, and conditions are satis-
fied. It. Is the determination of EPA that
tho proposed disposal will' not unduly
degrade or endanger the marine environ-
ment, and that the disposal will present:
(ID No unacceptable adverse effects
on human health and no significant
damage to the resources of the marine
environment;
(b) No unacceptable adverse effect on
the marine ecosystem;
(c) No unacceptable adverse persistent
or permanent effects clue to the dumping
of Uie particular volumes or concentra-
tions of these materials: and
id) No unacceptable adverse effect on
the ocean for otlier uses as a result of
direct environmental impact.
§ 227.5 Prohibited materials.
The ocean dumping of the following
materials will not be approved by EPA
or the Corps of Engineers under any cir-
cumstances:
(a) High-level radioactivity wastes as
denned in 8 227.30;
'(b) Materials in whatever form (In-
cluding without limitation, solids, liquids.
Bcml-lin watero
to neutralize ocld or oik dine wastes;
provided, however, that dumping con-
ditions must be such that the average
total alkalinity or total acidity of the
ocean water after allowance for initial
mixing, as defined In 0 327.29. may bo
changed, based on otoichlometrte calcu-
lations, by no more than 10 percent dur-
ing all dumping operations at a site.
(e) Wastes containing biodegradable
constituents, or constituents which con-
sume oxygen in any fashion, may be
dumped in the ocean only under condi-
tions la which the dissolved oxygen after
allowance for initial mixing, as <2sflned
in 0 227.29, will not be depressed by more
than 25 percent below the normally an-
ticipated ambient conditions 8n ®ia &B-
PEDEBAl REGISTGQ, VOL. 41, NO. 125—MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1976
-------
KULES
§ 227.3 Limitations on u5ce diapoaol
e>l tonic waaJeo.
No wastes will be deemed acceptable
for iK-ean dumping unless such wastes
<-:in be dumped so as not to exceed the
limiting permissible concentration as de-
nned In 8 227.27; provided that this does
not. npply to those wastes for which spe-
«-iflr criteria ixre established In §9 227.11
<>r "J37.ia. Totixl quantities of wastes
ilumped at a site may be limited as de-
Mirlbert In 8 228.8.
{; 227.9 [UmtOadlono ora quDiUilies oS
waste mnaQeirlalo.
Substances which may damage the
ocean environment due to the quantities
in which they are dumped, or which may
.seriously reduce amenities, may be
(lumped only when the quantities to be
dumped at a single time and place are
controlled to prevent damage to the
(tnvlronmentor to amenities.
§ 227.10 DlmEairda to ffblhliifj, navigation,
elior«-l!miiBS ur beached*
Wastes which may present a haz-
ard to shorelines or beaches may be
dumped only at sites and under condi-
tions which will Insure no danger to
.shorelines or beaches.
S 227. II JJonBiiiiirrlzcd wiintou.
(a) Wastes containerized solely for
transport to the dumping site and ex-
pected to rupture or leak on impact or
shortly thereafter must meet the appro-
priate requirements of §§227.6, 227.7,
H27.8. 227.9 and 227.10.
(b> Other containerized wastes will be
approved for dumping only under the
following conditions:
<1> The materials to be disposed of
decay, decompose or radlodecay to ery-
vtronmentally innocuous materials with-
in the life expectancy of the containers
and/or their inert matrix; and
(2) Materials to be dumped are present
In .such quantities and are of such nature
that only short-term localized .adverse
effects will occur should the containers
rupture at any time; and
(3) Containers are dumped at depths
and locations where they will cause no
threat to navigation, fishing, shorelines,
or beaches.
8 227.12 HiiHofliililo wael«s.
(a) Solid waste:* consisting of natural
minerals or materials compatible with
I lie ocean environment may be generally
npproved for ocean dumping provided
(•Iicy arc insoluble above the applicable
trace or limiting permissible cor.centra-
l Ions and arc rapidly and completely set-
tlcable, und they are of n particle size
mid density that they would be deposited
or rapidly dispersed without damage to
bcnthic, demersal, or pelagic biota.
(b) Persistent inert synthetic or nat-
ural materials which may float or remain
in suspension in the ocean as prohibited
in 5 227.5(d) may be dumped in the
only when they have been processed in
such a fashion that they will sink to the
bottom and remain in place.
§ 227.18 Dffcdced materials!
(a) Dredged materials are bottom sedi-
ments that have been dredged or exca-
vated from the navigable waters of the
United States, and their disposal into
ocean waters is regulated by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers using the cri-
teria of appllcable^sectlons of Parts 227
and 228. Sediments normally contain
constituents that exist in different chem-
ical forms and are found In various con-
centrations in several locations within
the sediments. The potential bloavallable
fraction of a sediment Is dissolved In the
sediment interstitial water or in a loosely
bound form that is present in the sedi-
ment. Evaluation of the significance of
chemical-biological Interactive effects re-
sulting from the discharge of dredged
material Is extremely complex and de-
mands procedures which are at the fore-
front of the current state-of-the-art.
Changes In the concentration of dis-
solved chemical constituents affiliated
with sediments may best be estimated
by use of an elutriate test. To the extent
permitted by the state-of-the-art, ex-
pected effects such rvs toxlclty, stimula-
tion, inhibition, or bioaccumulatlon may
best be estimated by appropriate bio-
assays.
(b) Dredged material may be excluded
from the evaluative procedures specified
iri paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section
and considered environmentally accepta-
ble for ocean dumping if any of the fol-
lowing conditions is determined to exist:
( 1 ) Dredged material is composed pre-
dominantly of sand, gravel, or any other
naturally occurring sedimentary mate-
rial with particle sizes larger than silt,
characteristic of and generally found in
areas of high current or wave energy
such as streams with large bed loads or
coastal areas with shifting bars and
channels;
(2) Dredged material is for beach
nourishment or restoration and is com-
posed predominantly of sand, gravel or
shell with particle sizes compatible with
material on receiving shores; or
(3> When: (1) The material proposed
for dumping Is substantially the same as
the substrate at the proposed disposal
site; and
(11) The site from which the material
proposed for dumping is to bo taken is
sufficiently removed from sources of pol-
lution to provide reasonable assurance
that such material has not been con-
taminated by such pollution; and
(ill) Adequate terms and conditions are
imposed on the dumping of dredged
material to provide reasonable assurance
that the material proposed for dumping
will not be moved by currents or other-
wise In the manner that is damaging to
the environment outside the disposal site.
. (c) In order to predict the effect on
water quality due to the release of con-
taminants from the sediment, an elutri-
ate test may be used. The elutriate is the
supernatant resulting from a vigorous
30-mlnute agitation of one part bottom
sediment from the dredging site with
four parts wtfter (vol/vol) collected from
the dredging site followed by one houV
settling time and appropriate centrifu-
gatlon and a 0.45u filtration. Major con-
stituents to be analyzed in the elutriate
are those deemed critical by the District
Engineer, after evaluating and consider-
ing any comments received from the Re-
gional Administrator, and considering
known sources of discharges in the area.
Consideration should also be given to the
possible presence in the sediments of the
specific constituents identified In 6 227.6
(a) and significant amounts of arsenic,
lead, copper, zinc, organoslllcon com-
pounds, cyanides, fluorides, pesticides and
their by-products not covered in Q 227.6,
(a) and radioactive materials. Particular
attention should be given to the possible
presence of major constituents that could
cause an unacceptable oxygen demand
or adverse chemical-biological interac-
tive effects and known characteristics of
the extraction and disposal slteti. Tho
dredged material will bo considered E0
environmentally acceptable for oceaxs
dumping if elutriate concentration^ ofto?
allowance is made for dilution in accord-
ance with §227.30 and consideration of
the volume and rate of the proposed
dumping, do not exceed the llmltlns per-
missible concentration ao defined in
8 227.27.
(d) If such elutriate concentrations
are found to exceed llmltlns permissible
concentrations, the District Engineer
may, after considering comment from
the Regional Administrator, specify bio-
assays when such procedures will be of
value in establishing dumping condi-
tions or in determining if the dredged
material is environmentally acceptable
for ocean dumping. In addition, when th'e
specific constituents listed in 8 227.6(a)
are present as other than trace contami-
nants the District Engineer will require
the applicant to use such procedures to
demonstrate that these constituents are
(1) present in the wastes only as chemi-
cal compounds or forma (9.5., toerfc In-
soluble solid materials) non- toxic to
marine life and non-bloaccumulatlve In
the marine environment, or (2) present
to the material only &s chemical com-
pounds or formo wSiioh. within four hours
after disposal, will be rendered non-toxic
to marine life and non-bloaccumulatlve
in the marine environment by chemical
or biological degradation in the sea ; pro-
vided they will not make edible marine
organisms unpalatable; or will not en-
danger human health or that of domestic
animals, fish, shellfish, and wildlife. The
procedure followed in the performance of
any such bloasoay will Incorporate ex-
posure times and concentrations deter-
mined from a knowledge of the proposed
dumping rate and volume and of the
hydrodynamics of the intended dumping
area. '
Subpart £ — Klocd for OeQQin ©ymplns
§ 227.14 Cfflaarfo ffoir ovaloiatflinp oho need
Soff oeeara aSramplnB Qmdl nlles-natlveo
This Subpart C states the basis on
which an evaluation will be made of the
FEDEBAt R6OISTEO, VOl. 41, NO. 125—MONDAY, JUND 28, 1976
-------
KULiS
26659
need for ocean dumping, and alternatives
to ocean dumping. The nature of these
factors does not permit the.promulgatlon
<>r specific quantitative criteria of each
permit application. These factora wfll
therefore be evaluated If applicable for
ouch proposed dumping on an individual
basis using the guidelines specified In this
Subpart C.
8227.15 IFuclors eonnldlemL \
The need for dumping will be deter-
mined by evaluation of the following
(uctors:
(a> Degree of treatment feasible for
the waste to be dumped, and whether or
not the waste material has been or will
be treated to this degree before dumping;
(b) Raw materials and manufacturing
or other processes resulting In the waste,
and whether or not these materials or
processes are essential to the prdvislon of
the applicant's goods or services, or If
other less polluting materials or proc-
esses could be used;
(c) The relative environmental Im-
pact and cost tor ocean dumping as
opposed to other feasible alternatives in-
cluding but not limited to:
(l) Landfill;
(2) Well Injection;
(i!) Incineration:
(4) Spread of materiul ' over open
ground;
(6) Recycling of material for reuse;
(6) Additional biological, chemical, or
physical treatment of Intermediate or
final waste streams;
(7) Storage.
(d) Irreversible or irretrievable con-
sequences of the use of alternatives to
ocean dumping.
% 227.16 BneZo for determination off
need for ocean ili
(a) A need for ocean dumping will be
considered to have been demonstrated
when a thorough evaluation of the fac-
tors listed in I 227.15 has been made by
EPA, and the Administrator, Regional
Administrator or District Engineer, as
the case may be, has determined that
the following conditions exist where ap-
plicable :
(1) There are no practicable Improve-
ments which can be made In process
technology or in overall waste treatment
to reduce the adverse Impacts of the
waste on the total environment;
(2) There are no practicable alterna-
tive locations and methods of disposal or
recycling available, Including without
limitation, storage until treatment fa-
cilities are completed, which have less
adverse environmental Impact than
ocean dumping.
(b) For purposes af paragraph (a) of
this section, waste treatment or Im-
provements In processes and alternative
methods of disposal are practicable
when they are available at reasonable
incremental cost and energy axpendl-
lures, which need not- be competitive
with the costs of ocean dumping, taking
into account the environmental benefits
derived from such activity.
(c) The duration of permits Issued
under Subchapter H and other terms and
conditions Imposed In those permits shall
be determined after taking Into account
the factors set forth In this section. Not-
withstanding compliance with Subparts
B, D, and £ of this Part 227 permittees
may, on the basis of the need for and
alternatives to ocean dumping, be re-
quired to terminate all ocean dumping
by a specified date, to phase out all ocean
dumping over a specified period qr peri-
ods, to continue research and develop-
ment of alternative methods of disposal
and make periodic reports of such re-
search and development in order to pro-
vide additional Information for periodic
review of the need for and alternatives
to ocean dumping, or to take such other
action as the Administrator or the Re-
gional Admlnlstratdr, as the case may be,
determines to be necessary or. appropri-
ate.
Subpart D — Impact of tha FVopooed Dump-
Ing on (Esthetic, Recreational amxg EC®-
§ 227.17 BUMS for Presence in the material of toxlo
chemical constituents naloacsS, 8a vol-
umes which may affect humans fltreotty ;
(g) Presence hi the material of chem-
ical constituents which may be bioac-
cumulated or persistent and may have an
adverse effect on humans directly or
through food chain Interactions;
(h) Presence in the material or any
constituents which might significantly
affect living marine resources of recrea-
tional or' commercial value. ' •
§ 227.1 9 Assessment of impact.
An overall assessment of the proposed
dumping will be m$de based on the effect
on esthetic, recreational and ' economic
values based on the factora aot: forth in
this Subpart D, Including whe£o appli-
cable, enhancement of these valuoo, and
the results , of the assessment will be
expressed, where possible, on c, quanti-
tative basis, such as percentage of a re-
source lost, reduction in user dayo of
recreational areas, or dollars lost In com-
mercial fishery profits.
SubporJ IE — -Impact of tho
Dumping on Of tior Uosp of «ho ©coon .
ft 227.20 Biinlo
Ca> Based on current state-of-the-art,
consideration must be given to any pos-
sible Ions-range effects of even the moat
innocuous substances when dumped hi
the Ocean on a continuing basis. Such
a consideration is made in evaluating the
relationship of each proposed disposal
activity in relationship to ito aotontlal
for long-range Impact on other iscso- of
the ocean.
(b) An evaluation will be made on an
Individual basis for each proposed dump-
Ing of material of the potential for ef-
fects on uses 'of the ocean for purposes
other than material disposal. The fac-
tors to be considered in this evaluation
include those stated in Subpart D, but
the evaluation of this Subpart E will be
based on the Impact of the proposed
dumping on specific uses of the ocean
rather than on overall esthetic, recrea-
tional and economic values.
§ 227.21 lines connidcred.
An appraisal will be made of the na-
ture and extent of existing and potential
uses of the disposal site Itself and of any
areas which might reasonably be ex-
pected to be affected by the proposed
dumping, and a quantitative and quali-
tative evaluation made, where feasible,
of the impact of the proponed dumplrm
on each use. The uses considered shall
Include, but not be limited to:
(a) Commercial fishing In open ocean
, areas;
(b) Commercial fishing in coastal
areas;
(c) Commercial fishing in estuarinn
areas;
(d) Recreational fishing In open ocean
areas;
(e) Recreational fishing in coastal
areas;
(f) Recreational fishing in catuarfna
areas;
PfiDEtrAl, UEGISTEG, VOL. 41, NO. 125—MONDAY, JUNE 38, 1976
f *
-------
26680
Recreational use of ohosraltosa
beaches; «
/\ discussion of problems and ob- •
icrUons raised by other Federal, State
uiul local agencies and by Interested per-
i;ons In tlic review process.
§ 227.25 Coixicnts of ptniiP.
In addition to the environmental as-
sessment required by g 227.24, a plan de-
veloped pursuant to this Subpart F must
Include a schedule for eliminating ocean
dumptos or fe?toglng the waste} tote
compliance with the environmental im-
pact criteria of Subpart B, including
without limitation, the following:
-------
PROPOSED RULES
26661
ccptable to EPA or the District Engineer,
us appropriate.
(2) When field data on the dispersion
and diffusion of a waste of characteris-
tics similar to that proposed for dis-
charge are available, these shall be used
In conjunction with an appropriate
mathematical model acceptable to EPA
or the District Engineer, as appropriate.
Ci> when no field data are available,
theoretical oceanic turbulent diffusion
relationships may be applied to known
characteristics of the waste and the
disposal site.
(4) When no other means of estima-
tion are feasible, the dumped waste may
be assumed to be evenly distributed after
four hours over a column of water 20
meters deep bounded on the surface by
the release zone.
§ 227.30 BUgli-lcvcl rn.liomlivc ..lalcrinl.
High-level radioactive material means
the aqueous waste resulting from the
operation of the first cycle solvent ex-
traction system, or equivalent, and the
concentrated waste from subsequent ex-
traction cycles, or equivalent, In a facil-
ity for reprocessing Irradiated reactor
fuels or Irradiated fuel from nuclear
power reactors.
10. Part 228 Is added to read as fol-
lows:
PANT 228—CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGE-
MENT'OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN
DUMPING
Mi'C.
2211.1 Applicability.
aaB.a UrrinlLlmin.
228.:* DlHponal ttllo management responsi-
bilities
22B.4 Procedures for designation of sites.
228.5 Ocnfral criteria for the selection of
H) ton.
228.0 Mpcc.lltu criteria for nll.e selection.
228.7 Regulation of disposal site use.
228.B Limitations on times and rates of dis-
posal.
228.9 Dlnposal alto monitoring.
228.10 Evaluating disposal Impact.
228.11 Modification In dtapoHiil elte use.
228.12 Dol!'Katlon of management authority
for Interim ocean dumping sites.
228.1.'I Guidelines for ocean disposal site
baseline and trend assessment sur-
veys under section 102 of the Act.
/VHTIH.KITY: :i:i U.H.C. 1421 and 1418.
§22(1.0 AppUruhilily.
The criteria of this Pivrt 220 are estab-
lished pursuant to section 102 of the Act
mid upply to the evaluation of proposed
oucun clumping under Title I of the Act.
The criteria of this Part 228 deal with
the evaluation of the proposed dumping
of material In ocean waters In relation
to continuing requirements for effective
management of ocean disposal sites to
prevent unreasonable degradation of the
marine environment from all wastes be-
ing dumped hi the ocean. This Part 228
l.s applicable to dredged material dis-
posal sites only as specified in S 228.4(e>.
§ 220.2 D.-finilions.
(a) The term "disposal site" means a
designated and precise geographical area
within which ocean dumping of wastes
la permitted under conditions specified
in permits Issued under sections 102 and
103 of the Atit. Such sites are Identified
by boundaries established by (1) coordi-
nates of latitude and longitude for each
corner, or by (2) coordinates of latitude
and longitude for the center point and a
radius in nautical miles from that point.
Boundary coordinates shall be Identified
as precisely as Is warranted by the ac-
curacy with which the site can be located
with existing navigational aids or by the
Implantation of transponders, buoys or
other means of marking the site.
(b) The term "baseline" or "trend as-
sessment" survey means the planned
sampling or measurement of parameters
at set stations or in set areas in and near
disposal sites for a period of time suf-
ficient to provide synoptic data for de-
termining water quality, benthlc, or
biological conditions as a result of oce.an
disposal operations. The minimum re-
quirements for such surveys are given
In 8 228.13.
(c) The term "disposal site evalua-
tion study" means the collection, analy-
sis, and interpretation of all pertinent
Information available concerning an
existing disposal site, Including but not
limited to, data and information from
trend assessment surveys, monitoring
surveys, special purpose surveys of other
Federal agencies, public data archives,
and social .and economic studies and
records of affected areas.
(d) The term "disposal site designa-
tion study" means the collection, analy-
sis and Interpretation of all available
pertinent data and information on a
proposed disposal site .prior to use. In-
cluding but not limited to, that from
baseline surveys, special purpose surveys
of other Federal agencies, public data
archives, and social and economic studies
and records of areas which would be af-
fected by use of the proposed site.
(e) The term "management au-
thority" means the EPA organizational
entity assigned responsibility for.imple-
menting the management functions
Identified In § 228.3.
(f) "Statistical significance0 shall
mean the statistical significance deter-
mined by using appropriate standard
techniques of multlvariate analysis with
results Interpreted at the 95 percent con-
fidence level and based on data relating
species which are present In sufficient
numbers at control areas to permit a
valid statistical comparison with the
areas being tested.
(g) "Valuable commercial and recrea-
tional species" shall mean those species
for which catch statistics are compiled
on a routine basis by the Federal or
State agency responsible for compiling
such statistics for the general geographi-
cal area impacted, or which are under
current study by such Federal or State
agencies for potential development for
commercial or recreational use.
-------
2G6S2
. except
that:
(1) Baseline and trend assessment re-
quirements may be developed oaa a cace=
by-case basis from the recalte of re-
search. Including thoft now in progress
by the Corps of Engineers.
<2> A joint environmental impact BS-
KCRsment for all sites within a particular
geographic area may be prepared based
on complete disposed site designation or
evaluation studies on & typical site or
sites In that area. In such cases, sufficient
studies to demonstrate the generic simi-
larity of ail sites within such a geographic
area will be conducted.
<:t) Disposal sites will be areas where
bcnthlc Hie which might be damaged by
the dumping is minimal.
<4) Disposal sites will be located such
that disposal operations will cause no
unacceptable adverse effects to known
iiui-Kcry or productive fishing areas.
Where prevailing currents exist, the cur-
rents .should be such that any suspended
or dissolved matter would not be carried
Into known nursery or productive fishing
areas or populated or protected shore-
line an-as.
(5) Disposal sites will be selected
whose physical environmental charac-
teristics are most amenable to the type
of dispersion desired.
(0) To minimize the possibility of any
harmful effects, disposal conditions must
be carefully set. with particular atten-
tion being 'given to the following factors:
(1) Times of dumping, where appli-
cable, should be chosen, where possible,
to avoid interference with the seasonal
reproductive and migratory cycles o!
uquutii: life In Uie disposal area.
(11) If the type of material Involved
and the environmental characteristics
of the disposal site should make cither
maximum or minimum dispersion de-
sirable, the discharge from and move-
ment of the vessel dtarlms dumping
should be In such & manner as to obtoto
the desired result to the fullest
feasible. „
§ 220..1 Cctipirull criteria Son
o>! oHlaso.
(a) The dumping of materials Into the
ocean will be permitted only at sites o?
In arciis selected to minimize the inter-
ference of disposal activities with other
activities In the marine environment.
particularly avoiding areas of existing
fisheries or shcllflsherles, and regions of
heavy commercial or recreational navi-
gation.
(b> Locations and boundaries of dis-
posal eflfesa wffl toa es> ehcaea that tempo-
rary perturbations in water quality or
other environmental conditions during
initial mixing caused by disposal opera-
tions anywhere within toe site can be ex-
pected to be reduced to normal ambient
eeawater levels or to undetectable con-
taminant concentrations or effects before
reocBaiBg any beach, shoreline, marine
sanctuary, or known geographically lim-
ited fishery or ehellfishery.
(c) If at anytime during or after dis-
posal site evaluation studies, it Is deter-
mined that existing disposal sites pres-
ently approved on an Interim basis for
oceaa dumping do not meet the criteria
for sits selection set forth in SB 228.5-
228.6, the use of such Bites will be ter-
minated ,as coon as suitable alternate
disposal sites can be designated.
(d) The slzso of ocean disposal sites
will be limited in order to localize for
identification and control any immedi-
ate adverse impacts and permit the Im-
plementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance programs to prevent adverse
long-range Impacts. The size, configura-
tion, and location of any disposal site
will be determined as a part of the dis-
posal site evaluation or designation study.
(e) EPA will, wherever feasible, des-
ignate ocean dumping sites beyond the
edge of the continental Bhelf and other
such sites that have been historically
used.
§ 228.6 . Specific eriaerfn fas- oUle
(a) In the selection of disposal sites,
m addition to other necessary or appro-
priate factors determined by the Admin-
istrator, the following factors will be con-
sidered:
(l.) Geographical position, depfch 02
water, bottom topography and distance
from coast;
(2) Location In relation to breeding,
spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage
areas of living resources in adult or ju-
venile phases;
<3> Location In relation to beaches and
other amenity areas;
(4) Types and quantities of wastes
proposed to be disposed of. and proposed
methods of release, including methods of
packing the waste, If any;
(5) Feasibility of surveillance and
monitoring;
(6) Dispersal, horizontal transport
and vertical mixing characteristics of the
area. Including prevailing current direc-
tion and velocity. If any:
(7) Existence and effects of current
and previous discharges and dumping in
the area (Including cumulative eSeets);
<8> Interference with shipping, fish-
ing. recreation, mineral extraction, de-
salination, fish and shellfish culture.
arecs oZ special scientific importance and
other legitimate uses of the ocean;
snE.
Limitations as to time for and rates
of dumping may be stated as part of tho
promulgation of sits dac&natioa. The
times and the Quontltlso of iperraaitAsd
material disposal will be reffialofeid. by
the EPA management authority DO that
the limits for the site as specified in the
Bite designation are not exceeded. Thip
wlU be accomplished by the denial of
permits for the disposal of some ma-
terials, by the imposition of appropriate
conditions on otSier permits and, If nec-
essary. the designation of new disposal
sites under the procedures of a 328.3. In
no case may the total volume of material
disposed of at any site under special or
Interim permits cause the concentration
of the total materials or any constituent
of any of t£je Esoterfcilc toeing dtopoesd ®S
at the site to oncssd Itaalta cpaeifled 8m
the site designation.
The monitoring program, if deemed
necessary by the Regional Administrator
or the District Engineer, iss appropriate.
may Include baseline or trend assess-
ment surveys by EPA. NOAA, other Fed-
eral (agencies, ©r contractors, especial
studlsa by permittees, asad the
and interpretofcton of
-------
PROPOSED RUliS
26663
and baseline surveys should generally
conform to the applicable requirements
of "5 228.13. These surveys shall be the
responsibility of the Fedreal govern-
ment.
(b) Special studies conducted by the
permittee to Identify Immediate and
Impacts of disposal opera-
Thoso m»rvcy« may bo supplemented,
where feasible and useful, by data col-
lected from the use of automatic
sampling buoys, satellites. or In situ plat-
forms. and from experimental programs.
EPA will require the full participation
of permittees, and encourage the full
participation of other Federal and State
and local agencies In the development
nnd Implementation of disposal site
monitoring programs. The monitoring
and research programs presently sup-
ported- by permittees may be Incorpa*
rated Into the overall monitoring pro-
gram Insofar as feasible.
§ 228.10 Evaluating dmponnl impact.
(a) Impact of the disposal at each
.site designated under seotlon 102 of the
Act will be evaluated periodically and a
report will be submitted OH appropriate
mi part of the Annual Reixirt to Con-
iirc.'Ut. Such reports will be prepared by
<>r under the direction of the EPA man-
-I cement authority for a specific site and
will be based on an evaluation of all data
uvti liable from baseline and trend as-
Mw.smcnt surveys, monitoring surveys,
mid other data pertinent to conditions
at and near a site.
(b> The following types of effects. In
addition to other necessary or appropri-
ate considerations, will be considered In
determining to what extent the marine
environment has been Impacted by
materials disposed of at an ocean dis-
posal Kite:
(1) Movement of materials Into estu-
aries or marine sanctuaries, or onto
oceanfront beaches, or shorelines;
(2) Movement of materials toward
productive fishery or shellflsliery areas;
<3» Absence from the dlwposal site of
pollution -r.ensltlve biota characteristic of
the general area ;
(4) Progressive, non -seasonal. changes
In water quality or sediment composition
:it the disposal site, when these changes
arc attributable to materials disposed of
at the site;
• 5) Progressive. non-seasonal, changes
in composition or numbers of pelagic,
demersal, or benthlc biota at or near the
disposal site, when these changes can be
attributed to Uie effects of materials dis-
posed of at the site;
(0) Accumulation of material constitu-
ents (Including without limitation,
human pathogens) In marine biota at or
near the site.
(c) The determination of the overall
severity of disposal at the site on the
maruie environment. Including without
limitation, the disposal site and adjacent
areas, will be based on the evaluation of
the entire body of pertinent data using
appropriate methods of data anlysls for
the quantity and type of data available.
Impacts will be categorized according to
the overall condition of the environment
of the disposal site and adjacent areas
based on the determination by the EPA
managment authority assessing the na-
ture and .extent of the effects identified
in ! 228.10(b) in additional to other
necessary or appropriate considerations.
The following categories shall be used:
(1) Impact Category I: The effects of
activities -at the disposal site shall be
categorized In Impact Category I when
one or more of the following conditions is
present:
(1) There is identifiable progressive
movement or accumulation, in detectable
concentrations above normal ambient
values, of any v/aste or waste constituent
from the disposal site within 12 nautical
miles of any shoreline, marine sanctuary
designated under Title III of the Act, or
critical area designated under section
102(c) of the Act; or
(11) The biota, sediments, or water col-
umn of the disposal site, or oi any area
outside the disposal site where any waste
or' waste constituent from the disposal
site is present In detectable concentra-
tions above normal ambient values, are
adversely affected to the extent that
there are statistically significant de-
creases in the populations of valuable
commercial or recreational si>ecles. or of
specific-species of biota essential to the
propagation of such species, within the
disposal site and such other area as com-
pared to populations of the same orga-
nisms in comparable locations outside
such site and area; or
(111) Solid waste material disposed of
at the site has accumulated at the site or
in areas adjacent to It, to such an extent
that major uses of the site or of adjacent
areas are significantly impaired and the
Federal or State agency responsible for
regulating such uses certifies that such
significant impairment lias occurred and
states In Its certificate the basis for its
determination of such Impairment; or
(Iv) There are adverse effects on the
taste or odor of valuable commercial or
recreational species as r. result of dis-
posal activities; or
(v) When any toxic waste, toxic wast©
constituent, or toxic byproduct of waste
interaction, is identified In toxic concen-
trations above normal ambient values
outside the disposal site more than four
hours after disposal.
(2) Impact Category II: The effects off
activities at the disposal site which are
not categorized In Impact Category I
shall be categorized In Impact Category
XL ,
§228.11 Modification in dlrpbtal »ll«
use.
(a) Modifications in disposal site use
which involve the withdrawal of desig-
nated disposal sites from use or perma-
nent changes in the total specified
quantities or types of wastes permitted
to be discharged to a specific disposal
site will be made through promulgation
of an amendment to the disposal site
designation set forth In this Part 228
and will be based on the results of the
analyses of impact described in § 228.10
or upon changed circu:nsts«ioea, con-
cerning use of the site.
(b) Modifications In disposal Bit? use
promulgated pursuant to paragraph (a)
of this section shall not automatically
modify conditions of any outstanding
permit issued pursuant to this . Sub-
chapter H, and provided further that un-
less the EPA management authority for
nuch site modifies, revokes or suspends
fiuch perlmt or any of the tormn or con-
ditions of such permit In accordance with
the provisions of 6 223.2 bused on the re-
sults of impact analyses an described in
8 228.10 or upon changed circunutancen
concerning use of the site, such permit
will remain In force until Its expiration
date.
(c) When the EPA management au-
thority determines that activities at ft
disposal site have placed the site in Im-
pact Category I, the Administrator or the
Regional Administrator, as the case may
be, shall place such limitations on the
use of the site as necessary to reduce
the Impacts to acceptable levels.
(d) The determination of the Admin-
istrator as to whether to terminate or
limit use of a disposal site will be based
on the impact of disposal at the site
Itself and on the Criteria.
§ 228.12 Delegation! of management au-
thority for interim ocean dumping
oitcrio
The following sites are approved for
dumping the indicated materials on an
interim basis pending completion of
baseline or trend assessment HurvoyH and
designation for continuing use or termi-
nation of use. Management authority for
all sites Is delegated to the EPA organi-
zational entity under which each Bite In
listed. The sizes and use specifications are
based on historical usage and do not
necessarily meet the criteria stated In
this Part. This list of Interim sites will
remain in force for a period not to exceed
three years from the date of final pro-
mulgation of this Part 228, except for
those sites approved for continuing use
or disapproved for use by promulgation
In this Part during that period of'time.
FEDERAL IEOI3TER, VOL 41. NO. 133—MONDAY, JUNE 20,
J'l
-------
26661
PROPOSED fiULES
Presrol location (latitude, longltntin)
Proposed location OatHndX longllaaY)
Loran-C Ume delay, lines of proposed EPA
FftmMTmo
Eit« bovndarles mkm
«"33" N.. (Way W, I run! tadlni „
4T .'«' N., Tira.V XV., 1 mnl rmlhl.i
" W.. O.fl iitnt null in *
iv'iiiw N. to urai'iB" N., waisw xv. to
«8°33'44" N «9°54'«n" W.; 43°8?*OI" N. W52*G2" W ;
4tP3rOH" N.. SSf 64'5l" W.; t?f&Jfb\" N., "W&fi'Sfl" W.
4;PW44" N., 7II"»»'3.P>" W.; 42"1!4'09" N., 7U"3'-.".ril" W.;
42°24'I9" N., TtTSl'48" W.; 42~2.V54" N., 70°3B'34" W.
4U°M'28" N., 78"«rBi" XV.; 40°22/.W" N., iS^/SR" W.;
4(l°2r41" N., 78°4'J'S7" W.; 40"'24'-Y,4(B70toS1000;9930-7,,e0820to n
C9840.
9930- Y, 50070 to STOIO; 9030-Z, 89880 to H
60885.
9930- Y, 61050 to 41800; 9930-55. 70440 to H
70S60.
6830- Y, 61030 to 51040; 9930-Z, 69S1S to II
6U820.
n
iwSt-otrtal
VflCM.
Uo.
ffiu'tpf rite.
Waste oclfl.
Chemical
WMttl.
Oeltor«it.
Wrnfrkn.
Chemical
.
w.
!m-!l(l'(»l" N. to 38"36W N., 74"Ui'(W" W. to
TV-JAW w.
mr-.tnu" N. to ss'Jsw N., -4"i(iw w. to
74*2(]W W.
31"4flW N. lo 8U"3Ii'(IO" W., 3r47'(](l" N. lo
w."*von" w., IIINKW N. u> STOW w.,
:n°4 w-M'W N., was'flo" w. to
ur-K'oo" w.
VH'INIW N. til ariOW N., SU"lf.'On" W. lo
RU'WOO" XV.
aPWiKi" N. lii J7"(m'iio" N.. :i3"!!u'(i(i" xv. 1.1
«4"0fl'oo" w.
i" N., 74"2i'i.v xv; _.
i'.'ifl" N., WJT.'lfi" W.; W30-W, I4Z76 to 14«fB( 9030-E, 7KUJO IV
I" W.'; SI"4.V4II" N., KcrWK'Jd" W. to 71976.
.iiiw. N.. 74°-K'5-l" XV.; 88"a»'?fi" N., 74"ia'3ll" XV.; 9930-Y, 521SO to S'^200; 9030-!!, 70880
aH01jr4.V N., 74'IV'Ofl" XV.; HS°84'l.pi" N., mKVi" W. to 7044O.
WJS'84" N. 74"l/i'.'rO" W.; 38"I8'M" N., 74'0(1'2II" W.; («U)-jf. KfXU to 62250- 9830-2, 70400 III
38"I7'I5" N., 740U''III" W.• ag'WM" N., 74"2I'I&" XV.' to 70520.
81"48'(IO" N., I
31"44'80" N.,
Wani" N., W°3I'37" W • 27"14".M" N !H"^.r,'3H" XV • (') ... VI
J7"H'28" N., «.r4IWW.;2702" W.; (') VI
8H"ll3'3li" N., H!I"|II'I«I"\V.; 2K"I2'IKI" N. H'f'l'.l'lin" W.
27"H4fl«l" N. IW-l'fl.V XV.; -ilVJil'Ici" N., !i:i"l:!':W" W.; (') . VI
wastes.
Wnstonchl.
Induttrlol
WHitce.
Po.
Do.
' l,»n;ni ('' pnurrlliiiitn'i for
•,]<•••• In Uiilf uf M.'Xlcn l.n l»
l iijwiii Iirnilpjn«-Mf.ntlon nl t.hc I Jalr Ouiu;l (.1111111 t'. chain.
§ 22ll. IS (JuiilrlinrH for oronn r trend
iLSKfisKiiifni. Kitrvev Is to determine the
ph.VRlcnl. i-licinlc.al, ni:nloi;l<'iil, and hlo-
1 Id- rc.L'.iirik'd n;; a cumprrhenslvo
fiynopl.i;- nnd rrprescnffltlvn picture of
oxlstlni' (V)iidlt.loM.s; r.-K'li such survey is
to hi- i'limn<'d ii.r. piirt of a ronliinml
jnonitoilnK program lliroiif.h v.lilrh
cli.'innc.s In i-findilliins nl. a dl'jposnl siio
can or dociimrnted nn«l n;..-.f.':r;r'd. f>ur-
veyK will lie planned in eooixliriiitloii with
the inii'.oliii; pi'OKnitns of NOAA mid
Other l-'rdcrnl. f'tnlo. loenl, or private
ai-trnulos with nilssloiiK in the marine
environment. The Held survey data e,ol-
le,ctlon ph:ise of a disposal site evalua-
tion or di'Ki«nni,lon study Khali be
planned and conducted lo obtain a hody
of Inl'oi nm.l.ion both ivprosentivtlve of
th<- site lit tho time of sludy and oh-
talnnl by icc.hnifinc.s reproducible In
j)rri:l:ilon and accuracy in fiiturp studies.
A lull iilun of Ktndy which xvlll provide
ii. record of .".ampllng, annlytl( ul, nnd
clala n-diiflloM pYoccdurris jmist be dc-
vclopfd, dor-iiinontod nnd approved by
the 1'TPA man.'iBcmrnt authority. I'hins
for nil surveys which will produce In-
formation to be. unrd in the preparation
'of environmental hnpnr.t statements will
be approved by the Administrator or his
dcslgnee. Tills plun of study also shall
bo Incorporated (is an nppcndlx Into a
technical report on the study, together
with notations describing deviations
from the plrm required In actual opera-
tions, ttelat.lve finphasi.s on Individual
UKiKvtK of the environment at each site
will dcpi'iid on the type of wastes dis-
posed of nl. the site and the manner In
which such wnstes are likely to affect the
local c'livlroiuncnt, but no major feature
of the disposal site may be mv.1cc.tcd.
'Hie observations made and the data
obtained are to be based on the Inl'orma-
tion nccessiiry to evaluate the site for
ocean dumping. The parameters meaa-
iircd will he those Indicative, either di-
rectly or Indirectly, of the Immediate
nnd lofifi-trrm Impact of pollutants on
the environment at the disposal Kite and.
adjacent land or water ureas. An Initial
disposal Kite evaluation or designation
study should provide an Immediate base-
line appraisal of ;< particular site, but It
should al.so be repmrdcd as tin: first of
a .series of .studies to be continued as lonx
as the site Is used for waste disposal.
(a) Timing. Baseline or trend assess-
ment surveys will be conducted with duo
rciuird for climatic and seasonal impact
on stratification and other conditions in
the upper layers of the water column.
Where a choice of season is feasible,
trend assessment surveys should be made
during those months, when pollutant ac-
cumulation within disposal sites Is likely
to he most, severe, or when pollutniit im-
pacts within disposal sites Is likely to be
most notlecablc.
(1) Where disposal sites arc near larKC
riverine Inflows to the. ocean, surveys will
be done with due regard for the seasonal
variation In river (low. In some cases sev-
cnil surveys at various river flows may
bo necessary before a site can be
approved.
(2) When Initial surveys fihow that
seasonal variation Is not significant and
survey:; at Rrcater than seasonal Inter-
vals are adequate for characterizing a
Kite, resurveys Khali be carried out In
climatic conditions as similar to those
of the original .surveys as possible, par-
ticularly In depths less thnn 200 meters.
fb) Duration. The actual duration of
a field survey will depend upon the sl7,e
and depth of the site, weather condi-
tions during the .survey, and the types
of data to be collected. For example, for
a survey of an area of 100 square miles
on the continental shelf. Including an
average dump site and the region con-
tinuous to It, an on-t>itc operation would
be scheduled for completion within one
week of weather suitable for on-slte
operations. More on-f:ltc operating time
may bo scheduled for larger or highly
complex sites.
(c) Numbers and Localionn of Samp-
ling SUiHous. The numbers arid location!!
of sampling stations will depend In part
on the local bathymetry with minimum
numbers of stations per site fixed as spec-
ified In the following sections. Where
the bottom Is smooth or evenly Bloplm,
stations lor water column measurements
and benthlc sampling and collections,
other than trawls, shall be spaced
throughout the survey area In a manner
planned to provide maximum eovevaHO
of both the disposal site and continuous
control areas, considering known water
movement characteristics. Where there
are major Irregularities In the bottom
topography, such as canyons or gullies,
or In the nature of the bottom, sampling
stations for sediments and benthlc com-
munities shall be spaced to provide rep-
resentative sampling of the major dif-
ferent features. Sampling shall be done
within the dump site Itself and In the
contiguous area. Sufficient control sta-
tions outside a disposal site shall be oc-
cupied to characterise the control area
environment at least an well an the dis-
posal site itself. Where there arc known
persistent current;), sampling In ron-
tU'.iioua areas shall Include, at leant two
statloiiH downcurrcnl of the dump nltf'.
and at least two stations upcurrent of the
Kite.
Mcasurr.me.ntx In the Water Col-
umn at and Near 1h<: Dump Site.
<1) Water Quality /'ammeters Meas-
ured. These shall Include the major Indi-
cators of water quality, particularly thoso
likely to be affected by the waste pro-
posed to be dumped. Specifically Included.
at all stations arc measurements of tem-
perature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, sus-
pended solids, turbidity, total organic
carbon. pH. Inorganic nutrients, and
chlorophyll a. I
(1) At one station near the center of ,
the disposal site, samples of the water
column shall be taken for the analysis of j
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 125—MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1976
-------
PROPOSED RULES
26«65
the following parameter*: mercury, cad-
mium, copper, chromium, zinc. lead, ar-
fienlc. (selenium, vanndlum, beryllium,
nickel, pci.aicides, petroleum hydrocar-
boiM. mid persistent orgmiohalogens.
TIU'.MC mimplcfi flhnll be preserved for sub-
n(M|iioiit uiml.vfllf) by or under the direct
fiiiporvteiun of EPA laboratories In ac-
cordance with tho approved plan of
study.
(lit Tlu'Mo parameters tiro tho basic
i r<|iiln Water Quality Sampling Require-
ments. The number of samples collected
from t.he wutcr column should be suffi-
cient to Identify representative changes
throughout the water column such as to
avoid short-term impact due to disposal
nativities. The following key locations
.should be considered In selecting water
column depths for sampling:
Middle of the thermocllne or halo-
cllne. or both If present;
(v> Near the top of the stable layer
beneath a thermocllne or halocllne;
(vl) Near trie middle of the stable
layt'r;
(vll) As near the bottom as feasible;
(vlll) Near the center of any zone
showing pronounced biological activity
or lack thereof.
In very shallow waters where only a few
of these would be pertinent, as a mini-
mum, surface, mid-depth and bottom
samples shall be taken, with samples at
additional depths being added as Indi-
cated by local conditions. At disposal
sites fur enough away from the Influence
of major river inflows, ocean or coastal
currents, or other features which might
cause local perturbations In water chem-
istry, a minimum of 5 water chemistry
stations should be occupied within the
boundaries of a site. Additional stations
.should be added when the area to be cov-
ered In the survey is more than 20 square
miles or when local perturbations In wa-
ter chemistry may be expected because
of the presence of one of the features
mentioned above. In zones where such
Impacts are likely, stations shall be dis-
tributed so that at least 3 stations are
occupied in the transition from one stable
regime to another. Each water column
chemistry station shall be replicated a
minimum of 3 times during a survey ex-
cept In waters over 200 meters deep. This
may be done by three separate casts dur-
ing one occupation of a station.
(3) Water Column Biota. Sampling
stations for the biota in the water column
shall be as near as feasible to stations
used for water quality; In addition at
least two night-time stations In the dis-
posal site and contlnguous area are re-
quired. At each station vertical or
oblique tows with appropriately-meshed
nets shall be used to assess the mlcrozoo-
plankton, the nekton, and the macrozoo-
plaiikton, and a bottom trawl shall be
used to assess demersal biota. Towing
times and distances shall be sufficient
to obtain representative samples of or-
ganisms near water quality stations. Or-
ganisms shall be sorted and identified
to taxonomic levels necessary to Identify
dominant organisms, sensitive or Indica-
tor organisms, and organism diversity.
Tissue samples of representative species
shall be analyzed for pesticides, persist-
ent organohalogeiiH, and heavy metals.
Discrete water samples shall also be used
to quantitatively assess the phytoplank-
ton at each station. These requirements
are the minimum necessary In all cases.
Where there are'discontinuities present,
such as thermocllnes, halocllnes, con-
vergences, or upwelllng, additional tows
shall be made In each water mass as
appropriate.
-------
fj)
Eactoso ESKS •E^cS ca
smwcQ ©7 feQ7tos^ncr2£3 (flofei c& tosoS 4
otottonn wfl^Sa aft leos* 8
tea
toff
J33TTO57 -COS.
or
watc? ooHnsKasa
IOTIK ao £C3ifc23 ®ast23 s ©12 losss onia
of the dunaptag sito. ttor itfteiBztes
more than 10 mines atota tfea ££as
one current meter stetta every 8 mflto
should be operated. Wltare t&saro ara fifej-
coiitlnultles in swrtooa toyero, e.g.. due to
land runoff, stations should toe operated
In each water mass. f.
(11) W«eey Btaaa Movement,. Accept-
able methods Include: dye, drogues, sur-
face drifters, side scam BCWIEJT, bottom
drifters. and bottom photography or
television. Wiien such techniques are
the ^rtaiary source of hydrcdynamic
data, eovOTGO© should be such that all
significant hydpodynamic features IS&ely
to affect waste movement are measured.
<2> Scot State. Observations of sea
state and of standard meteorological
parameters shall be made at 8-hour In-
tervals.
(3) Surjac.e Phenomena. Observation^
shall be made of oil slicks, floating ma-
terials. and other visible evidence of pol-
lution ; and, where possible, collections of
floating materials shall be made.
(g) Suney Procedures and Tech-
niques. Standard procedures for oceano-
grnphlc surveys and sampling methods
are given In the H.O. 007, "Instruction
Manual for Obtaining Oceanographlc
Date." 3rd Ed., 1908, reprint 1970. These
are to be used as guidance for general
procedures, but it la recognized that sur-
vey techniques must be flexible In order
to accommodate advances in technology,
differences in local conditions, and
equipment malfunctions. Special consid-
erations in water and sediment sampling
are discussed in the EPA "Analytical
Methods Manual for the Ocean Disposal
Permit Program" of EPA. When more
stringent requirements are {specified to
the EPA Manual, these talc® precedence
over those in the H.O. SO? publtaatlora.
Techniques for sampling and analyoio
in the benthlc region are ^pund ta fctoa
Ocean Disposal Manual, which owpple-
mcnts procedures in the JBP Handbook
No. 16. "Methods for the Study of Ota
Marine Benthos," edited by H. A. Hotaao
and A. D. McXntyre.
(1) Standard cceanograpJiic Jateora-
lory procedures as found In' the H.O. SO?
publication ohould bo uoad
anolyoea. Sampleo to bs nan at a
Umo ohould bo preserved ea clsscirtbed to
the Oosara Disposal MossuaH to pre^asG
decay, exferacftlon. as- contomtoafaon.
<11) Samples analysed to shore -based
laboratories will be onalyzefl to accos-fi-
anca_with protteduj?s3 tei too Oecaaa B£>
a weH co fesJms
csd -fifeaS 25? A
M aurweya,
Ifl. ff^arS S8Cro caSCsfl to reafl cs
tocsi:
43)
><2
fazza
csto.
'fcaset vassals.
aae fflsposai o? VCD-
; S3 U.S.C.
[BToSal ob oeo.
IdlS.
(a) All persoss subject to TJtS,-o I
t&e Acfe are hereby ' srantefl a
permit to transpori human remains from
the United States and an persons owning
or operating a vessel or aircraft reg-
istered in the United States or flying the
United States Sag and all departments,
agencies, or instrumentalities of the
United Sttaes are hereby granted a gen-
eral permit to transport human remains
from any locattaa for the purpose of
burial at sea and to bury such remains
at sea subject to the following condi-
tions :
(1) Except as herein otherwise pro-
vided, human remains shall be prepared
for burial at sea and shall be burled in
accordance witH accepted practices and
requirements as may be deemed appro-
priate and desirable by the United States
Navy, United States Coast Guard, ,or
civil authority charged with the responsi-;
blllty for making such arrangements;
(2) Burial at sea of human remains
which are not cremated shall take place
no closer than three nautical miles from
land and in water no less than one hun-
dred fo£homs (sis hundred feet)' deep
and oM necessary measures shall be
taken to ensure that the remains sink to
the bottom TapMIy and permanently;
and
(3) Cremated remains shall be burHed
in or on ocean waters without regard to
the depth limitations specified in para-
graph (a) (2) of this section provided
that such burial shall take place no closer
than three nautical miles from land.
(b) For purposes of this section and
S 220.2. "land" means that portion o!
the baseline from which the territories
sea is measured. DO provided for in the
Convention oa too Territorial Ssa caid
the Contiguous Zone, which la In closest)
proximity to the proposed disposal cite.
(c) Flowers a.n& wreathe consiattoB oS
matosteJo which ore readfiiy decompos-
able in the marine environment may bs
disposed oS ufflder the ffeneral permit cet
forth in Ihlo Section at the site at wMcb
dtopcsol of tensaa rematac £s authostessS.
fee VS2B3! rfxifct) to SJia b^.
and that
1m-
43) Afl nnofa wEael elnMszgs shall bo
conducted in water at least 1000 fattums.
(£360 feefc) &£Sss esafi at ieaafe' SO laa
•OTC3 cteffl tea -tetoax by
EsJ at o Efevy or o4feer
poreon-
all matsitala which may degrade
with-
(!) eiaplyJais cS all fuel
teaks ostfl 2ac3 toes to &teo Josrcst
o2
-end
torato and liB£3 o tics lowesfc point
practicable so that such tas&s and lines.
are essentially free of petroleum, and
(Id ) removing from the hjfflo other pa&ut-
osits God all resdlliy detaciiGbia Eaa^ariEi
coasable of creatina debMs or confcrtfeuStas
An annual report will be made to
tfeo Adsalnlsferater of fee Environmental
Protscttcca Assocy setting fortli tii©
name of each vessel used as a
vessel, its approximate
location ood of
vfflsoello.
(a) All persons siibjeet to Title I of
ttea Act are hereto (jrasstea a esffiemi per-
mit to transport vessels frcm the United
States, and all departments, agencies, or
Instrumentnlltleo cf the United 8te£&s
ars lieroby grantsfl a gesiaral parmlt to
transport vessels from any location. for
the purpose of disposal in the ocean oub-
Ject to the following conditions:
tl) Except in eaaergency situations, as
fietermSned by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and/or the U.S. Coast Qraarfi,
ttoe parson desiring -to dispocs of a weasel
thlo general permit tgaeU, no later
one moEtis prior to tfae proposed
date, pawMs the following; Jn-
2oraaafeion to written to the SPA Regional
AtestafeitraJtor for too Rsstom 1st ^Bto!!s&
tters B>rjsp®osfl disgicsal will te&e place :
(J> A cSatosssat (dtetoffltos 6tea azsod fear
<3sa nflteposall of tSio vessel ;
tSea of
to 5>o disclosed of ortd
(8M) DstaUeia descrSptton o£ 4ita pro-
posed dtopcoal procedKrca;
(Iv) BafesTOiafctos os> abb szofesnttQl ef-
c2 feha vecso! ekgjoscd on Qza marine
§ 829.2
-------
PROPOSED RULES
26667
GlnglnecrH and/or the District Com-
mimder of tho U.S. Coast Guard, appro-
priate measures shall be taken, prior to
disposal, by qualified personnel to re-
move to the maximum extent practicable
nil materials which may degrade the
innrine environment. Including without
limitation, ii> emptying of all fuel lines'
mid fuel tanks to the lowest point prac-
tti'nhin. flushing of such lines and tanks
with water, and again emptying such
lines and tanks to the lowest point prac-
ticable so Umt such lines and tanks are
essi.Mitlttllj' fret; of petroleum, and (il) re-
moving from the hulls other pollutants
iin.I all readily detachable material
c.uimhlc of creating debris or contribut-
ing t<> chemical pollution.
(11 Except In emergency situations, as
determined by the U.S. Army Corps of
'BnKlucei'H and/or the U.S. Coast Guard,
tho dumper shall notify the EPA Re-
Klonal Administrator and the District
Commander of the U.S. Coast Guard
that tho vessel has been cleaned and Is
available for Inspection; the vessel may
bo transported lor dumping only after
EPA and the Coast Guard agree that the
requirements of paragraph 'a> (3 > of this
section have been met.
(5) Disposal of these vessels shall take
place In a site designated on current
nautical charts for the disposal of
wrecks or no closer than twenty-two
kilometers (twelve miles) from the
nearest land and in water no less than
flfty fathoms (three hundred feet) deep.
and all necessary measures shall be
taken to ensure that the vessels sink to
the bottom rapidly and that marine
navigation is not otherwise Impaired.
(6) Disposal shall not take place in
established shipping lanes unless at a
designated wreck site, nor in a designated
marine sanctuary, nor in a location
where the hulk iiuiy present a hazard to
commercial trawling or national defense
(see 33 CFB 205).
(7) Except in emergency situations, as
determined by the U.8. Army Corps of
Engineers and/or the U.S. Coast Guard,
disposal of these vessels shall be per-
formed during daylight hours only.
(8) The Captaln-of-the-Port (COTP).
U.S. Coast Guard, and the EPA Regional
Administrator shall be notified forty-
eight (48) hours hi advance of the pro-
posed disposal. In addllton. the COTP
and the EPA Regional Administrator
shall be notified by telephone at least
twelve (12) hours In advance of the ves-
sel's departure from port with such de-
tails as the proposed departure time and
place, disposal site location, estimated
time of arrival on site, and the name
and communication capability of the
towing vessel. Schedule changes are to
be reported to the COTP as rapidly a»
possible.
(9) The National Ocean Survey,
NOAA, 6010 Executive Blvd., Rookvllle,
MD 20852, shall be notified In writing,
within one week, of the exact coordinates
of the disposal site so that it may be
marked on appropriate charts.
For purposes of this Section,
"land" means that portion of the base-
line from which the territorial sea In
measured, an provided for In the Con-
vention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone, which Is In closest
proximity to the proposed disposal site,
|FR Doo.76-18572 Piled 6-35-76;8i.45 amj
fCOERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. US—MONDAY, JUNE 76, 1976
-------
APPENDIX E
Past and Current
Ocean Dumping Practices
Ocean Dumping Prior to 1973
In 1968, a limited study done by the Dillingham Corporation,
indicated approximately 62 million tons of waste material were
disposed of in the ocean. E-l/ Most of this was dredged material
from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' harbor dredging operations,
which accounted for more than 52 million tons. Industrial waste
tonnage ranked second with 4. 7 million tons dumped. Sewage
sludge was third with 4. 5 million tons. In addition to these
categories, refuse and garbage accounted for 26, 000 tons;
construction and demolition debris, 574, 000 tons; outdated
military explosives and chemicals, 15, 200 tons; and mis-
cellaneous, 200 tons.
Of the waste categories studied in 1968, the industrial dis-
charges were considered to be the most significant. These in-
cluded 2. 7 million tons of waste acid, 560, 000 tons of refinery
wastes, 330, 000 tons of pesticide wastes, 140, 000 tons of paper
mill wastes, and 940 tons of other materials.
While data on amounts of ocean dumping are not available
for the years 1969 through 1972, the following Table E-l lists
amounts dumped for calendar years 1973, 1974 and 1975. The
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(MPRSA) became effective in April of 1973 and for the first time,
•
E-l
-------
TABLE E-l
OCEAN DUMPING IN THE
UNITED STATES
(in tons)
WASTE TYPE 1973 1^74 1975
Industrial Waste 5,050,800 4,592,000 3,446,000
Sewage Sludge 4,898,900 5,010,000 5,039,600
Construction & 973,700 770,400 395,900
Demolition Debris
Solid Waste 240 200 0
Explosives 000
Dredged Material 44,208.000 98,665,500 87,826,400
TOTAL 55,131,640 109,038,100 96,707,900
E-2
-------
reliable statistics are being compiled as a result of the per-
mit program.
Impacts of Ocean Dumping
Bottom Sediment Build-Up - The effects on fish and shellfish
of rapid local build-up of sediment (mounding) as the result of
dredged material disposal is thought to result in destruction
of spawning areas, reduction in food supplies and vegetational
cover, trapping of organic matter (with resultant development
of anaerobic bottom conditions), and the absorption or adsorption
of organic matter. E-2/
Turbidity - The effects of turbidity on fish and crustaceans
can be direct or indirect. Direct effects cause an immediate
response or even mortality by suffocation; turbidity was also
thought to result in reduced growth and decrease survival of
larval stages of fish and shellfish. E-2/
The effect of dredged material depends in large part on the
location and characteristics of the disposal site. For example,
if dredged materials are discharged in inshore waters normally
quite turbid because of wave action or the tidal flushing of
turbid waters out to sea, then the additional effects of the
associated turbidity (but not necessarily the sedimentation)
would be minimal.
Coliform Contamination - Traditionally, coliform bacteria
have been used as indicators of pollution from municipal waste-
water discharges. While coliforms do not pose a threat to public
E-3
-------
health, their presence in large numbers indicates a high prob-
ability that pathogenic organisms are also present. Most of the
information on bacterial contamination relates to the coliform
group since it has become possible only recently to monitor
directly for pathogenic organisms in situ (in place).
Since 1968, EPA and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) have been monitoring the bottom sediments and the water
column in the Apex of the New York Bight, especially in the vicinity
of the existing sewage sludge dump site, for indications of coliform
contamination. This monitoring activity has produced the following
observations and actions.
In 1970, FDA prohibited shellfishing in an area of 11.1 km
(6. 0 n mi) radius around the existing dump site located in the
Bight Apex based on high coliform counts in the water column and
bottom sediments and on the potential for shellfish contamination.
Areas adjacent to the closed area were found to be of very high
quality and safe for shellfish harvesting. Coliforms contributed
by sludge dumping were not accumulating, but were experiencing
a relatively rapid die-off following their introduction into the Apex.
In 1972, FDA extended the prohibited shellfishing zone to the
Long Island and New Jersey shorelines. Nearshore waters out
to the 3-mile (5. 6 km) limit had previously been closed because
of potential coliform contamination from onshore sources. The
decision to close the additional area was based upon poor surface
E-4
-------
water quality only; bottom waters and sediments appeared to be of .
good quality. Coliform sampling data strongly suggest that con-
tamination of shellfish waters beyond the 5. 6 km (3.0 mi) limit
is attributable to onshore sources, such as runoff, wastewater
discharges, and estuarine inputs, rather than to sludge dumping.
The incidence of coliforms in nearshore bottom sediments was
low and decreased significantly seaward, indicating onshore
sources of contamination.
The most recent FDA and EPA studies in 1974 and 1975 of
the waters between the sludge dump site and the Long Island
and New Jersey beaches show no significant coliform con-
tamination of the sediments or water column that can be
attributed to sludge dumping at the existing dump site. The
EPA monitoring program of the Bight Apex continues to show
excellent surface and bottom water quality, with regard to
coliform densities, surrounding the existing dump site. E-3,
E-4, E-5/ This monitoring program includes testing for coliform
bacterial groups in the bottom sediments and water column, for
selected pathogenic bacterial groups in the bottom sediments
(negative to date) and, since late 1975 for viruses in the water
column (also negative to date). However, FDA still finds the area
unacceptable for shellfishing.
Diseases of Marine Organisms - Several disease conditions
have been observed in a variety of marine organisms in the Bight
Apex. These include occurrences of fin rot, lobster die-off,
E-5
, <=*< -'
-------
necrosis of crustacean exoskeletons, gill fouling, and protozoan
parasites on gill tissues. To date, none of these observed con-
ditions have been attributed directly or solely to sludge dumping,
nor have the causative agents been isolated.
The occurrence of fin rot has been linked to environmental
stress, as evidenced by the inability to induce the condition in
test fish by innoculation with bacterial isolates. Investigators
found in 1975 that fin rot was confined largely to bottom dwelling
flat fish in Raritan Bay and the Bight Apex, with no occurrence
among fish in the relatively pristine Great Bay on Long Island.
Fin rot was also observed in pelagic species, such as weakfish,
from the western end of Raritan Bay.
The occurrence of fin rot in winter flounder, the most
commonly affected species, was statistically greater in the
Bight Apex than in seaward areas of the Bight. The percent of
occurrence was statistically greatest in areas characterized
by sediments of high-carbon content. Also, no diseased fish
were found in the vicinity of ocean outfalls. Preliminary results
from on-going experiments indicate that survival of caged fish in
the Christiansen Basin, where organic material is accumulating,
is low compared to fish survival in unpolluted areas.
Pathological conditions of shells and gills have been observed
in crustaceans, including rock crab, lobster, and shrimp. Crabs
with coated gills have been observed in the Bight Apex. This
"black gill" disease was prevalent except during the molting season.
E-6
-------
Necrosis of the exoskelton and appendages of shrimp, lobster,
and crab was also reported in the vicinity of the sludge and
dredged material dump sites. It is postulated that the degraded
conditions of the Bight Apex caused by pollution from all sources
and the occurrence of high concentrations of bacteria found there
may contribute to diseases of marine organisms.
The Benthos - The .benthic community is composed of those
organisms that live on or in the sediments or substrates.
At present, a bottom area of approximately 52 sq. km. (15
sq. n. mi. ) around the existing dredged material and sewage
sludge dump sites shows evidence of reduced biomass and a
shift in the composition and diversity of the benthos.
Fish Activities - As part of a NOAA-National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) study, groundfish in the New York
Bight were sampled twice yearly to relate dumping to activities
of fish. On a seasonal basis, the catch of bony fish in high-
carbon sediment areas of the Bight Apex, such as the sewage
sludge dump site, was found to be lower than in low-carbon
sediment areas. From this, it was concluded that migratory
movements are affected by the ocean dumping of sewage sludge.
Fin Rot - The occurrence of fin rot in demersal fishes has
been attributed to polluted conditions in the Bight Apex and in
Raritan Bay. Causative agents have not been defined, nor has
the anomaly been exclusively linked to ocean dumping. In spite
of a significant difference in fin rot occurrence between fish taken
E-7
-------
in the Apex and those taken in the outer Bight, the overall per-
centage occurrence is low (3.8 percent of winter flounder from
the Apex, 0. 7 percent from the outer Bight). A greater per-
centage occurrence was observed in samples taken from high-
carbon sediment areas (5.1 percent of winter flounder sampled).
Plankton - Plankton are defined as those plants (phytoplankton)
and animals (zooplankton) which float in the water column.
Ocean dumping practices in the Bight Apex have had no observ-
able effect on phytoplankton productivity. Increased sludge
dumping probably would not increase or decrease the rate of
primary productivity, but might expand the area of high phytop-
lankton productivity. Similarly, ocean dumping practices have
had no discernible effect on the species composition, abundance,
or distribution of zooplankton in the Apex.
It was reported in 1973 that "no short-term adverse affects
have been observed on free-floating or swimming marine organ-
isms in the New York Bight. E-6 ' Specifically, no effects were
observed on zooplankton species composition and distribution. "
This may indicate the incapacity of present field techniques
to detect effects on plankton. Laboratory investigations suggest
that there are effects on plankton.
In investigating the effect of sewage effluents on phytop-
plankton it was found that the response of phytoplankton was
quite varied and unpredictable. Although growth was generally
enhanced by the addition of nitrogen and phosphorous, the role
E-8
-------
of minor growth substances (trace metals, vitamins) became
paramount in the regulation of phytoplankton productivity,
composition, and abundance.
The effects on zooplankton are only slightly less confused.
Based on field and laboratory data, NOAA-NMFS reports that
sludge and dredged material cause pathological anomalies in
larger crustaceans. It seems likely that smaller crustaceans,
such as gammarid amphipods (a common fish food), would be
affected in a similar manner.
Shellfish - Contamination of edible commercial and sport
shellfish taken from the New York Bight represents a significant
potential public health hazard to the metropolitan area. Shell-
fishing has been prohibited in the immediate area of the existing
dump site, as well as in other estuarine and coastal waters in
the Bight Apex. The health hazard implicit in the consumption
of contaminated shellfish is much greater than that from direct
contact (swimming) because shellfish have the capacity to con-
centrate microorganisms in their tissues.
Sewage Sludge
Recently NOAA - Marine Ecosystems Analysis Program
(MESA) prepared two reports (March and November 1975) on
dumping at the existing sewage sludge site. E-7, E-8/ The
consensus of these reports is that no significant accumulation of
sewage sludge is occurring at the existing dump site, but that
E-9
-------
some sludge particles may be mixing with natural fines in the
Christiansen Basin, northwest of the dump site. The reports
also note that the ecological effects of sewage sludge dumping
are indistinguishable from those associated with: 1) dredged
material and acid wastes dumping, 2) contaminants in the
plume of the Hudson estuary, 3) shore-zone contributions,
and 4) atmospheric contaminant fallout. However, there is
ample evidence that sewage sludge dumping exerts significant
local effects. The most obvious effect is smothering of bottom
dwelling organisms, such as crabs, lobsters, and clams. Some
fish in the Bight Apex are afflicted with fin rot, but this disease
is not thought to be attributable solely to sewage sludge dumping.
There is no substantial evidence that commercial or rec-
reational fishing in the Bight is being affected by ocean dumping
or by other non-dumping pollutant sources. However, the catch
of groundfish appears to be reduced in high-carbon sediment
areas, such as in the vicinity of the existing sewage sludge dump
site. Furthermore, it is apparent that very few surf clams reach
commercial size within the area now impacted by sewage sludge
dumping.
The NO A A - MESA reports do not indicate any shoreward
movement of coliform contamination as a result of sludge
dumping at the existing site. However, they do note the apparent
persistence of coliform bacteria in the vicinity of the existing
dump site, especially in the bottom sediments.
E-10
-------
The NOAA-MESA reports do not indicate any shoreward
movement of coliform contaminantion as a result of sludge
dumping at the existing site. However, they do note the
apparent persistence of coliform bacteria in the vicinity of
the existing dump site, especially in the bottom sediments.
Dredged Materials
A large percentage of dredging is done directly by the Corps
of Engineers. The remainder is done by private contractor under
Corps permits. Dredged materials are generally disposed of
in open coastal waters less than 100 feet deep.
Dredged materials account for approximately 80 percent by
weight of all ocean dumping. The Corps of Engineers estimates,
from sketchy data, that in 1968 about 34 percent (13 million tons)
of this material may have been contaminated. Contamination
occurs from deposition of pollutants from industrial, municipal,
agricultural, and other sources on the bottom of water bodies.
Contaminated dredged materials vary at every location
according to the land-based sources of pollution. Detailed
quantitative analyses of the pollutants in dredged material
in the coastal areas were not available.
The discharge of dredged materials at sea may result in
anomalously rapid sediment build-up at the disposal site, in
addition to temporary discoloration of the water by turbidity.
The sediment build-up may be expected to have significant
E-ll
-------
effects on bottom-dwelling organisms and the life forms
dependent upon them in the food chain. Turbidity may be
expected to affect various aspects of the water column and
the contained biologic assemblage.
Industrial Wastes
Dumping in the New York Bight
1948 The acid waste dumping ground was established. The
National Lead Company of Sayreville, New Jersey, began
the disposal of acid wastes.
1949 Studies on the disposal of chemical wastes at sea were
made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution, sponsored by the National
Research Council with funds supplied by the National
Lead Company. This study resulted in the conclusion
that under the conditions prevailing during the period
of investigation "the procedure employed by the National
Lead Company in disposing of wastes from its titanium
plant is entirely proper" and "the operations should not be
discouraged unless some new facts justify a contrary
opinion. " E-9/
1956 A diving survey of the acid disposal area was made by
the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution during the fall
of 1956. With the exception of a greenish ooze found on
the bottom in some sections of the disposal area, there
E-12
-------
were no detrimental effects to the ocean floor or to
marine life. The iron content of samples taken in
conjunction with the diving studies showed no indication
that there was any buildup of iron in the disposal area.
1957 The State of New York Department of Health and the
Governor's office continue to receive complaints
alleging serious pollution of ocean waters by indus-
trial wastes dumped at sea. The Commissioner of
Health requested the Public Health Service to explore
the possibilities of a restudy of acid waste disposal in
the NYB, in the light of continuing complaints from the
Sportsmen's Council of the New York Marine District
which represented 125 different fishing and boatmen's
clubs. Sport and party-boat fisherman strongly objected
to the dumping of sulfuric acid in their fishing grounds.
1960 A summary of information on waste disposal in the
NYB was prepared by the Public Health Service
Sanitary Engineering Center. E-10/ This report
indicated that the acid dumping area was moved twice
in response to complaints of the fishermen. On the
basis of scientific evidence presented and on the
basis of professional opinions expressed by scientific
people, there is no conclusive evidence that the acid
dumping in the NYB has had a deleterious effect on
fish population. Such dumping does cause discoloration
of a large area in the Bight and, for this reason, and the
E-13
-------
poor fishing alleged by the party, charter, and private fisher-
men, this area has been eliminated as a sports fishing area.
On the other hand, it is believed that the canopy of iron floe in
the acid grounds creates a shadowed and relatively darkened
area in the ocean that is attractive to bluefish.
Impacts of Industrial Wastes - Studies have been conducted
through the years on the waste dispersal operation and its effects.
These studies concluded that repeated industrial acid-iron waste
disposal off the New Jersey coast has not appreciably affected
the marine environment in the acid dump ground area. E-ll/
Prolonged detrimental effect on the zooplankton and benthic
organisms by ocean disposal of industrial acid wastes was not
substantiated.
Industrial wastes documented in the Dillingham Report include
waste acids and chemical wastes. E-l/ These wastes are typically
dissolved or suspended in a water media for bulk discharge at
sea from tank barges. In some cases, the material is barrelled
and dropped over the side.
The majority of studies of the environmental effects of in-
dustrial wastes in the sea, prior to 1968, were carried out in
Gulf of Mexico waters because the Galveston District of the
Corps of Engineers required filing of laboratory and field
studies of the wastes in support of disposal applications.
Waste Acid - Studies of the dispersion and environmental
effects of acid-iron wastes discharged from barges in the
E-14
-------
New York Bight area have been-investigated. (E-12 through E-16/)
These wastes consist of ferrous sulfate and spent sulfuric acid
in a freshwater solution, and are the byproducts of a titanium
paint pigment manufacturing process.
The studies showed that the toxic effects of these wastes are
minimal. Laboratory toxicity tests to determine if .the acid-iron
wastes had any effect on the growth of green plankton algae showed
that concentrations of wastes which severely limited growth are
found only close to the discharge barge and are diluted rapidly
at sea. Zooplankton from samples immediately behind the barge
were temporarily immobilized but recovered rapidly on dilution
with unpolluted water a short distance astern of the disposal barge.
Additional findings of a 1958 study showed that the accumulation .
of iron hydroxide, resulting from the chemical reaction of the wastes
with seawater, was about twice as great in 1957 as that observed in
1948, and 50 percent more than that observed in 1950. E-15/ This
was less than might have been expected, however, from the increase
in the discharge rate that had occurred over the same period. No
evidence was found to indicate that the general turbidity of the waters
caused by the iron precipitate has increased outside the general
disposal area. It was reported that, since establishment of the
acid-iron disposal operation in 1948, a concentration of bluefish
developed on the outer boundaries of the disposal area, thus creating
a highly popular sport fishery that did not previously exist.
E-15
-------
Interstate Electronics has also reported on the effects of
industrial waste disposal in the Gulf of Mexico in 1973. E-9/
At the present time, most disposal of toxic chemical wastes
in the Gulf of Mexico is performed by discharge of liquids or
slurries from tank barges 110 miles south of Galveston. Some
of the companies have commissioned studies to determine sur-
face toxicity gradients, ,dispersion rates, etc., during dumping
operations. Their conclusions have been that adverse biological
effects are minimal with mortality of organisms only at the
discharge point, and no detectable surface effects after 2 to 8
hours. There have been no studies of effects on benthic or
demersal life, although one study showed reconcentration in
the bottom muds and stratification at intermediate depths.
Most of the industrial waste dumped in the site 35 miles
south of Southwest Pass, was containerized in 55-gallon drums
which were pierced by pickaxe or rifle fire during jettisoning.
This practice did not take advantage of a unique attribute of
this site. It is located in the mouth of a submarine canyon at
the base of the foreslope of the Mississippi River delta. The
rate of sediment deposition is probably the greatest of any
comparable deep water area in the world. It has been esti-
mated that drums would be completely buried in three to five
years. Drums which are completely filled to prevent rupture,
adequately weighted, and sealed with a preservative coating
could, therefore, be permanently buried, removing the contained
E-16
-------
toxics and their possible effects from the environment. There
is no available information on the effects of the present dumping
operations. The surface currents are northwest towards shore
and pass through the most economically important shrimping
area in the country. Seasonal subsurface and bottom current
data is lacking, and there is no monitoring program of any
kind in the area.
From the scant information which was available, waste dis-
posal in the Gulf of Mexico had caused only one major problem
up to the present time. This was the occasional collecting of
drums in the nets of shrimp trawlers.
Ocean Dumping 1973 to Present
During the two years that the Act has been in effect'all pre-
viously unregulated dumping of wastes into ocean waters has come
under strict regulation by the Ocean Dumping Permit Program.
The absence of complete and accurate dumping records prior
to the implementation of the permit program makes any com-
parison with ocean dumping activity of past years difficult. It
is evident however, that ocean dumping of wastes was increas-
ing when the Act was passed. In addition, both the Senate and
House versions of this Bill reflected the concern that those
pollutants, which were previously discharged into the Nation's
waters or air and are now restricted by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and the Clean Air
E-17
-------
Act, should not end up indiscriminately being dumped in
the oceans.
The data in Table E-2 show an increase in the amount of
dumping of industrial wastes, sewage sludge, and construction
debris from 1973-1975, with no dumping of explosives and
fairly insignificant dumping of solid waste (in this case,
garbage from foreign vessels which is prohibited by law for
health reasons from being brought to shore). The permit
program went into effect in mid-1973, so the data for that
year reflect eight months of dumping activity extrapolated
for 12 months to estimate an annual rate.
There are currently 11 ocean dumping sites in use for the
disposal of municipal and industrial wastes. The type of
wastes being dumped at each site is indicated in Table E-3.
In implementing the ocean dumping permit program, EPA
requires a thorough evaluation in all applications of the need
for ocean dumping and the availability of alternate methods of
disposal. This approach has required a number of industrial
dumpers to seek other alternatives.
Since the permit system has been effective, 81 former or
potential ocean dumpers are not ocean dumping. Other permittees
are on implementation plans to phase out ocean dumping. On the
Atlantic Coast alone, 67 former dumpers ceased ocean dumping
either by the time the Act went into effect or after having initially
E-18
-------
TABU; t-2
OCEAN DISPOSAL: TYPES AND AMOUNTS, 1975*. 1974**, and 1973***
(IN TONS, APPROX.)
HASTE TTPE ATLANTIC
1975 1974 1973
Industrial Waste 3,322,300 3. 642, COO 3,642,800
Sewage Sludge 5,039, 600 5,010,000 4,898,900
Construction I
Deaolltlon Debris 395,900 770,400 973,700
Solid Waste 000
Explosives 000
TOTAL 8,757.800 9,422,400 9,515,400
GULF
1975 1974 1973
123.700 950,000 1,408,0:0
0 0 0
000
000
000
123,700 950,000 1,408,000
1975
PACIFIC
1974
1973
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
200
0
0
0
0
240
0
0
200
240
TOTAL
1975 1974 1973
3,446,000 4,592,000 5.050,800
5,039,600 5,010,000 4,898,900
395,900 770,400 973,700
0 200 2iO
0 0 '0
8,881,500 10,372,600 10,923,640
• 1975 Source - EPA Regional Offices. Unpublished reoorts, 1975; updated
Information, 1976 (12 months of dumoing activity).
•* 1974 Source - EPA Regional Offices. Unpublished reports, 1974; updated
Information, 1976 (12 months of dumping activity).
•*• 1973 Source - EPA Regional Offices. Unpublished reports, 1973; updated
information, 1976 (8 months of dumping activity, May
to December 1973 under permits issued by Ocean Disposal
Program extrapolated for 12 months to provide an annual
rate).
-------
TABLE E-3
DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN DUMPING
Dump Sites For Municipal And Industrial Wastes
Site
1. Current N.Y.
Sludge Site
2. Galveston Site
3. "106" Site
4. Philadelphia
Sludge Site
5. DuPont Site
6. N. Y. Acid Site
7. Mississippi
River Site
8. Region I Ind.
Waste Site
9. Puerto Rico Ind.
Waste Site
10. N.Y. "Cellar
Dirt" Site
11. Ocean Incineration
Site
Center Points
Lat. 40° 22' 30"N
Long. 73° 41' 30"W
Lat. 27° 20'N
Long. 94° 36'W
Lat. 38° 50'N
Long. 72° 15'W
Lat. 38e21'N
Long. 74" 10'W
Lat. 38° 30'N
Long. 74° 15'W
Lat. 40° 18'N
Long. 73° 38'W
Lat. 28" 05'N
Long. 89°22.5'W
Lat. 42° 25'N
Long. 70° 35'W
Lat. 19° 15'N
Long. 66842.5'W
Lat. 42° 23'N
Long. 73° 49'W
Lat. 26° 40'N
Long. 93° 40'W
Nature of Use
municipal sewage sludge
industrial wastes
industrial wastes
municipal sewage sludge
acid wastes
acid wastes
industrial wastes
industrial wastes
industrial wastes
construction or
demolition debris
ocean incineration
E-20
-------
received permits. Another nine companies here have either
withdrawn their applications or have been denied permits. At
least 10 current dumpers are scheduled to cease ocean dumping
by December 1976, and eight more by July 1977.
The amount of industrial wastes dumped in the Gulf of Mexico
under ocean dumping permits declined in 1975 to less than 10
percent of the amount dumped in 1973 under the first year of the
permit program. This decrease is due largely to the fact that
five of the seven original permittess had implemented alterna-
tives to ocean dumping by the end of 1975. Although a number of
dumpers have ceased ocean dumping off the Atlantic Coast, the
amount of dumping has only decreased slightly due to industrial
growth during which time the companies have been seeking
alternatives to ocean dumping.
The slight increase in the amount of sewage being ocean
dumped off the Atlantic Coast is due to increased plant capacity
and additional levels of treatment of municipal waste, not to an
increased number of municipal dumpers. About four million tons
of unwatered municipal sludge were dumped in the New York
Bight in 1975. Upgrading present treatment facilities secondary
level with 90% reduction of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
and suspended solids, plus treatment of the present raw sewage
discharges, will significantly increase the volume of sludge to be
handled. Unless environmentally acceptable alternative sludge
E-21
-------
disposal methods are developed, this additional sludge will be
i
dumped in the ocean.
The decrease in construction rubble is due primarily to the
cessation of the work on the Harlem River water supply tunnel.
The construction debris from this project was being transported
to the "Cellar Dirt" site a'nd ocean dumped.
As indicated in Table E-2, ocean dumping of barged wastes
is currently utilized as a disposal technique predominately on
the East and Gulf Coasts for industrial wastes and on the East
coast alone for sewage sludge. This is not merely because these
areas have failed to fully pursue alternatives to ocean disposal,
but rather a combined result of historical usage of ocean dumping
and immediate unavailability of alternate methods of disposal.
The use of ocean outfall pipes and the availability of land for
disposal on the West Coast have made unnecessary the barging
of wastes to the ocean. Inland disposal of municipal effluents
and sludges in the Gulf Coast states has prevented the develop-
ment of ocean dumping of municipal wastes into the Gulf of Mexico.
On the other hand, it has been those areas open to the sea with
a high density of population and industrial development such as
Metropolitan New York and Philadelphia that have turned to ocean
dumping. Now these industrial and municipal dumpers are being
required to evaluate the alternatives to ocean disposal.
The cost to the permittee of ocean dumping as a disposal
technique varies with the type of waste, the distance to the dump
E-22
-------
site, and permit requirements. A general estimate can,be made
of dumping costs by waste categories:
Mixed Industrial Wastes $12-$14/cubic yard
Acid Wastes $ 2-$ 6/cubic yard
Sewage Sludge , $ 2-$ 6/cubic yard
E-23
-------
REFERENCES
i
E-l Smith, David S., and Robert P. Brown, Ocean Disposal of
Barge-delivered Liquid and Solid Wastes from U. S. Coastal
Cities, 1971.
E-2 Saila, S. B., T. T. Palgar, andB.A. Rogers. Results of
studies related to dredged sediment dumping in Rhode Island
Sound, in Proceedings of the Annual North Eastern Regional
Antipollution Conference, University of Rhode Island, Ingston,
July 22-24, 1968.
E-3 FDA, 1974. Total and Fecal Coliform Levels in Sediments
and Waters from Stations Between the Sewage Sludge Dump
Site and Long Beach, New York: January 7, 1974, Brooklyn,
New York.
E-4 USEPA, July 1974. Ocean Disposal in the New York Bight:
Technical Briefing Report, No. 1: Surveillance and Analysis
Division, USEPA-Region II, Edison, New Jersey.
E-5 USEPA, April 1975. Ocean Disposal in the New York Bight:
Technical Briefing Report No. 2. Surveillance and Analysis
division, USEPA-Region II, New York, New York.
E-6 Parras-Carayannis, G., Ocean Dumping in the New York
Bight - An Assessment of Environmental Studies: U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research
Center, Technical Memo No. 39, 1973.
E-7 NOAA-MESA, March 1975. Ocean Dumping in the New York
Bight: NOAA Technical Report, ERL 321-MESA; Rockville,
Maryland.
E-8 NOAA-MESA, November 1975. Evaluation of Proposed
Sewage Sludge Dump Site Areas in the New York Bight:
Draft Report prepared by NOAA-MESA, Stony Brook, New
York for the USEPA-Region II, New York.
E-9 Interstate Electronics Corporation, 1973. Ocean Waste
Disposal in Selected Geographic Areas, Report 4460C1541:
IEC, Oceanics Division, Anaheim, California.
E-10 Public Health Service Sanitary Engineering Center, Acid
Waste Disposal in the New York Bight, Cincinnati, Ohio.
December i960.
E-ll Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole,
Massachusetts. Acid-Iron Waste Disposal and the Summer
Distribution of Standing Corps in the New York bight.
Undated.
-------
E-.12 Buelow, R.W. Ocean Disposal of Waste Material. In
Transactions; National Symposium on Ocean Sciences and
Engineering of the Atlantic Shelf, Philadelphia, March
19-20, 1968. Marine Technology Society.
E-13 Redfield, A. C. , and L. A. Walford. A Study of the Disposal
of Chemical Waste at Sea; Report of the Committee for
Investigation of Waste Disposal. National Research Council
Publication No. 201. Washington, D. C., National Academy
of Sciences, 1951.
E-14 Ketchum, B. H., and W. L. Ford. Rate of Dispersion in the
Wake of a Barge at Sea. Transactions of the American Geo-
physical Union, 33(5):680-684, October 1952.
E-15 Ketchum, B. H., C. S. Yentsch, and N. Corwin. Some
Studies of the Disposal of Iron Wastes at Sea. Reference
58-7. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1958.
(Unpublished manuscript. )
E-16 Schuyler, S., and g. Heimerdinger. Continental Margin
Data Collection Pilot Project; a Division of Research and
Development Open-File Report (CT-02-69-45). (Cincinnati)
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970.
(Restricted distribution. )
E-25
------- |