ANNUAL REPORT
ON
ADMINISTRATION OF THE OCEAN DUMPING PERMIT PROGRAM
under
PL 92-532, "The Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972"
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
AUGUST 1973
-------
I Summary
II Introduction
III Pollution at Sea
IV Legislative Summary
V International Convention
VI Program Strategy
VII Elements of the Permit Program
VIII Present Status of the Permit Program
IX Research Strategy
X Monitoring Strategy .
f . .
XI Conclusion
-------
Summary
The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972, PL 92-532, established a program for the regu-
lation of ocean dumping through the issuance of permits by
EPA for the dumping in the ocean of materials other than
dredged spoil. Dredged spoil is regulated by permits
issued by the Corps of Engineers and subject to review by
EPA. This is a water quality-based program oriented
toward a no harmful discharge goal. This program
regulates all dumping seaward of the baseline from which
the territorial sea is measured; discharge through
outfalls into ocean waters is regulated under the FWPCA
using the same criteria applicable to the ocean dumping
permit program.
On August 3, 1973, the Senate ratified the inter-
national ocean dumping convention. When this convention
has been ratified by 15 nations it will come into force as
an international instrument for the regulation of ocean
dumping. The regulations under which the ocean dumping
permit program operates are fully consistent with the
intent and the language of the convention.
The program has been operational only since April 23,
1973; since that time 75 applications have been received
and U7 permits granted. Four permits have been denied and
several applications withdrawn. The major activity has
been in the northeastern part of the United States where
the dumping of municipal sewage sludge and industrial
wastes and sludges into the ocean has been going on for
many years. Over 80 percent of the permits issued have
been to municipalities or industries in the New York and
Philadelphia areas.
An interagency coordinating committee consisting of
EPA (chairman), NOAA, Coast Guard, and Corps of Engineers
has been formed to coordinate all activities under the
Act. This committee has developed draft research
strategies and monitoring strategies and is currently
working on standard procedures and methods for carrying
out monitoring and studies of disposal sites.
The interim regulations and criteria under which the
program has been initially operating are now being revised
-------
based on public comment and upon the operating experience
of the first fev; months of the program. Final regulations
and criteria are to be published in the nea:r future.
-------
Introduction
April 23, 1973, marked the end of unregulated
disposal of waste material under the control of the United
States into the territorial seas, waters of the contiguous
zone of the United States and the oceans. Laws passed in
October, 1972 by the Congress of the United States
regulate the disposal of wastes into the marine
environment and have as the ultimate goal a complete
control and limitation of the disposal of harmful
materials in the marine environment.
The passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) and the Marine Protec-
tion, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 92-532) has
established a Federal program of marine pollution abate-
ment and control. Responsibility for different aspects of
the program is split among several different agencies,
particularly the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The role
of EPA is to set criteria to govern the disposal of wastes
to the marine environment, and to issue permits for the
discharge, transportation, and dumping of all waste
materials into the marine environment except for dredged
material, for which the Corps of Engineers will issue
permits for dumping based on EPA criteria.
Permits are issued for ocean discharge through
outfalls under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) permit program established as author-
ized under Section U02 of"PL 92-500, using the criteria
developed under Section U03, and for ocean dumping under
the separate permitting authority of PL 92-532.
The authorities delegated by these two Acts provide a
broad base upon which effective control of marine
pollution can be built. This report, which is the first
annual report required- on administration of Title I of PL
92-532, covers the status of the program up to June 23,
1973, including two months of the issuance of ocean
dumping permits. This report outlines the extent of the
problem of marine pollution, describes the statutory
authorities presently available to control it, describes
how the ocean dumping permit program operates, and
outlines the overall program strategy being used to turn
-------
the legislative authorities into an effective program to
protect the marine environment from degradation through
control of ocean dumping.
-------
Pollution at Sea
The marine environment has become increasingly
polluted because, in the advancement of technology, man
has not addressed all the environmental ramifications of
his scientific and engineering pursuits. The evolution of
every new marketable product, service or process generates
some form of waste product. This waste can range from a
simple heat increment to complex combinations of
inorganic-organic industrial wastes. In the past, little
attention was given to the environmental effects of the
waste product, much less to ascertaining the reuse
potential or alternative use capability. The minimal
technological effort directed at the waste end of the
product cycle endeavored to seek out "hiding places" for
spent materials, locations affording minimal impact on the
immediate environmental system. The coastal region is the
ultimate receptacle for most durable waste. The obvious
size and assumed mixing properties of the oceans have led
some to believe that here lies the supreme "hiding place".
Contrarily, available pollution statistics now show
the marine environment has become fouled in places and is
becoming increasingly so. Some of the symptoms of this
fouling are shown in concentrations of heavy metals,
oxygen depletion, bacterial growth, and accelerated bio-
stimulation. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) ,
in its 1970 ocean dumping report to the President, des-
cribes the degradation of the marine environment. In
1968, 38 million tons of dredged spoil (34 percent -
polluted), 4.5 million tons of industrial wastes, 4.5
million tons of sewage sludge (significantly contaminated
by heavy metal fractions), and 0.5 million tons of con-
struction and demolition debris were deposited and
concentrated in the coastal ocean environment. These 48
million tons of materials constitute less than 2 percent
of the total volume of wastes generated yearly in the
United States. But, coupled only with trends in popula-
tion growth in the coastal zone, the volume of marine
discharge able, material, extrapolated optimistically, would
increase 70 percent by 1980.
The effect of concentrating pollutants can be tragic
as in the case of Minimata Bay, Japan. Here, mercury
concentrations as great as 10 ppb led to 43 deaths and
unnumbered cases of blindness, neurological diseases, and
-------
brain disorders within the Japanese population. Another
example indicates that an estimated 20 percent of the U.S.
shellfish beds, valued at 63 million dollars, lie closed
because of concentrated pollution.
Finally, attention is drawn to the case of the New
York Bight, New York City's "dump". The past forty-year
period indicates that the oxygen concentration as a per-
cent saturation in the near bottom waters declined from 61
percent in 1949 to 59 percent in 1964. In 1969 the oxygen
concentration dropped to 29 percent in the sludge dump
area and was as. low as 10 percent in the center of the
dump. This observation indicates that delicate thresholds
of waste assimilating capacity exist in the environment
beyond which the addition of more waste results in rapid
degradation of marine water quality.
The sum total of pollutants in marine waters is not
known, largely due to the size and complexity of the
problem, but some quantitative estimates of toxic con-
stituents are impressive. The National Academy of
Sciences reports the flux of petroleum products to the
marine environment may reach 100 million tons per year;
pulp mill effluents 2 to 4 million tons per year; heavy
metals greater than 1 million tons; organic chemicals
greater than 100,000 tons per year.
There is little information about the fate of waste
materials discarded by man after they reach the open
ocean, but a few illustrations show that man's methods of
waste disposal are impacting there as well. Dr. Thor
Heyerdahl reports that in'a 57-day voyage across the
Atlantic his crew was rudely greeted on 43 days with
varied types and quantities of floating materials
discarded by man. Further evidence of global ocean
contamination is brought forth in the article, "Plastics
on the Sargasso Sea Surface", from Science, (1972). The
authors report concentrations of plastic particles at
3,500 pieces or 290 grams per square kilometer over an
area bounded -within seven degrees of latitude by five
degrees of longitude. Plastics have only been produced in
quantity since World War II, again reinforcing the
acceleration and resultant timeliness of the ocean
pollution problem.
-------
A more recent rsurvey covering some 700,000 square
miles of ocean from Cape Cod to the Caribbean Sea revealed
that oil and plastic materials in ocean waters were
distributed far mor« widely than had previously been
suspected. Analysis of the distribution of the plastic
contaminants showed a 20 percent occurrence in samples
collected in the Caribbean Sea, and a 50% occurrence in
samples collected in the Antillean Chain and the
continental shelf between Cape Cod and Florida. The
heaviest concentrations were from Florida to the
Chesapeake Bay, and near Long Island. The plastic scraps
were white or opaque spheres or discs, speck to pea-sized,
and were identified as polystrene.
Previous hypotheses of not being able to contaminate
the ocean were obviously incorrect, and the problem must
be addressed. Steps are being taken through the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 92-
532), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (PL 92-500), the Convention on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter,
and the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organiza-
tion. ,
-------
Legislative Summary
Title I of PL 92-532, the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, is designed to
regulate the dumping and transportation for dumping of
waste material within the territorial and beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Title I
bans the dumping of all chemical, biological, or radio-
logical warfare agents, and high level radioactive wastes.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
is authorized to issue permits for the transportation for
the purposes of dumping or for dumping of all material
except for dredged material which will be handled by the
Corps of Engineers 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. Title II of the
bill authorizes the Secretary of Commerce in coordination
with the Coast Guard and EPA to initiate a comprehensive
program of research on the effects of ocean dumping and on
pollution of- the ocean in general. Title III allows the
Secretary of Commerce-to designate as marine sanctuaries
those areas of ocean waters to the outer edge of the
Continental Shelf for the purposes of. preserving or
restoring such areas for their conservation, recreational,
ecological, or aesthetic values.
Section 403 of PL 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, provides that the
Administrator shall, within 180 days after enactment and
from time to time thereafter, promulgate guidelines for
determining the degradation of the waters ^f tHe
territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and the oceans
including the effect of disposal of pollutants on human
health and welfare, on marine life, and on aesthetic,
recreational and economic values as well as guidelines for
determining the persistence of pollutants.and other
possible locations Jror. the£r""(Iisposal.FTo "permit under
Section 402 for a discharge into the territorial sea, the
waters of the contiguous zone, or the oceans shall be
issued, except in compliance with the guidelines. The
Administrator shall not issue a permit unless adequate
information exists on any proposed discharge to make a
reasonable judgment on any of the guidelines.
-------
Section U04 of PL 92-500 deals with a separate permit
program for the discharge of dredged and fill material
into the navigable waters, administered by the "Corps of
Engineers. Disposal sites will be specified for each
permit by the application of guidelines developed by the
Administrator in conjunction with the Secretary of the
Army and by consideration of the economic impact of the
site. The Administrator is authorized to deny or restrict
the use of any area for specification as a disposal site.
Section 405 of PL 92-500 provides that, in any case
where the disposal of sewage sludge which results from the
operations of treatment works (including removal of in-
place sludge from one location and its deposit at another
location), would result in any pollutant from that sludge
entering the navigable waters, such disposal is prohibited
except in accordance with a permit issued under this
Section.
It is the goal of both pieces of legislation that the
marine environment be protected from the disposal of
materials into it, whether discharged from barges or
through continuous outfalls. Both pieces of legislation
also require the setting up of a continuing program of
ocean disposal within which ocean dumping .which does not
damage the marine environment can be carried out on a
continuing basis, not only in this generation but also in
succeeding ones. It was therefore essential that the
criteria developed prevent the use of the marine environ-
ment as a hiding place for highly conservative waste's on
other than an interim basis. On the other hand, the
criteria developed should" permit disposal to the marine
environment of waste products which are either innocuous
or beneficial in that environment, and provision had to be
made for revision of criteria to incorporate the impact of
advancing waste disposal technology.
10
-------
International Convention
The Convention on the Prevention of Marine- Pollution
by Dunning of Wastes and Other Flatter was developed at t.io '
Intergovernmental Conference held at London in the fall of
1972. It became open for signature December ?0, 1972, at
London, Mexico City, Moscow and Washington. The Senate
ratified this Convention on August 3, 1973. After 15
nations have ratified it, it will be in effect.
As soon as the Convention becomes effective,
legislation has been introduced to amend the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act OF 1972 (PL 92-
532) to require the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to implement the statute in a manner
consistent with the Treaty.
The Interim Regulations for the Transportation for
Dumping, and the Dumping of Material into Ocean Waters,
and for other Purposes, which were published in the
Federal Register on Thursday, April 5, 1973, and the
Interim Criteria under which permits mav be issued, as
required by the terms .of PL 92-532, which were published
in the Federal Register on liav 1C, 1973, were written with
the language of the Treaty in mind. Thus, ratification of
the Treaty should not require anv drastic clianres in these
Regulations and Criteria or in the operation of the Permit
Program. •
11
-------
Program Strategy
The legislation establishing the ocean dumping permit
program imposes on EPA a commitment to a part of the
environment in which controls have been lacking in the
past and in which the present state of knowledge is
extremely deficient. The near shore waters of the oceans
have been used in recent years as the final repository of
a variety of wastes which could not be disposed of
conveniently or legally into more strictly regulated parts
of the environment, such as inland waters. Concurrently,
the oceans have been the domain of the deep- sea research
oceanographers who were more interested in understanding
fundamental processes than in meeting real- time needs for
regulatory control.
The past approach to combatting marine pollution
problems has been one of responsive enforcement, i.e., an
environmental damage is recognized and action is taken to
abate the source of pollution, wherever such authorities
existed, such as within the territorial sea. Outside of
the territorial waters, however, no authority to combat
marine pollution existed, and even responsive enforcement
action could not be taken.
A solely responsive approach to the abatement of
pollution is not, however, sufficient to cope with the
existing and potential pollution problems of the oceanic
environment. The effects of pollutants in this marine
environment may go unnoticed until vast areas are
irreversibly damaged. This condition is a result of the
subtle interaction of pollutants in the coastal zone and
in the zone of tidal mixing and of the great distances
pollutants dumped at sea may travel in the ocean in the
absence of land barriers.
The strategy necessary to cope with such problems
must therefore be one of seeking out and correcting poten-
tial pollution problems before they occur as well as
making a direct and immediate attack on the problems that
already exist.
The new authorities embodied in the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 and in the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 extending
water pollution control authorities to the contiguous zone
12
-------
and the oceans make it possible for EPA to carry out the
full range of program activities necessary to accomplish
this in the near-shore oceanic environment.
i
I
i
I In passing the Ocean Dumping Act, Congress estab-
lished the basis for strong regulatory control of ocean
dumping, but made the Act effective long before much of
the information needed for its continuinr implementation
could be obtained and even before the necessary studies
could be planned, much less carried out. In establishing
the legislative base for the program, Congress took the
view that protection of the marine environment was of
immediate concern, and required that criteria be developed
based on the presently known impact of waste materials on
the marine environment.
This approach is analogous in concept to the setting
of water quality criteria, and then developing discharge
standards to meet those criteria. In the Ocean Dumping
Act, however, the criteria concern the entire marine eco-
system, not just water quality, and the critical parts of
the ecosystem are the disposal sites themselves, since
they are the first parts of the ecosvstem to be impacted
by wastes. In terms of inland waters, a plant dumping
wastes into a stream is analogous to a barge dumping
wastes into the ocean.
When the water quality standards program was estab-
lished in 1966, there had already been some 40 years of
research and field survey of the impact of wastes on-
streams, and a definitive body of data already existed.
When the Ocean Dumping Act was passed, however, only 10 of
the 200 dumping sites in use had ever been studied, and
only a few of these in any systematic manner. Even in
these few cases there is insufficient information to
determine what the quantitative impact of wastes on the
marine environment actually is. There is, consequently, a
great dearth of knowledge on the impact of wastes which
must be rectified at the same time the permit program is
in operation..
In starting the program, EPA has set highly
restrictive limitations on the types of materials which
can be dumped on a continuing basis with reasonable
assurance of negligible environmental damage. At the same
time a system for the issuing of interim special permits
13
-------
for wastes not meeting the limitations was established,
and dump sites now in use were approved on an interim
basis. Thus, while the mechanism for issuing permits is
established and operating, there, is no bar>in for knowing
at the present time how much or what kind of wastes h.ivo
been dumped, what their impact on the environment mnv be,
or exactly what restrictions should be placed on dumping
to protect the environment.
The program strategy includes full implementation of
the permit program on a continuing basis, the evaluation
and approval of some disposal sites for dumping on a
continuing basis and termination of dumping at others,
research and monitoring to improve knowledge of the impact
of ocean dumping and the ability to regulate it
effectively.
The following Chapters describe the operation and
present status of the permit program and the research and
monitoring strategies through which interagencv
cooperation will be sought and these goals achieved.
Since so little work has been done on the studv of
the impact of ocean dumping on the marine environment and
particularly on the impact of wastes on specific dumping
sites, the use of existing dumping sites for continued
dumping for an interim period was desirable for the
following reasons:
1. If an existing dump site has already been.
irreparably damaged by dumping, little additional impact
on the marine ecosystem will occur by continuing to dump
at that location; whereas it may be true that arbitrarily
shifting to a new site could result in irretrievable
damage to two areas.
2. If an existing dump site is gradually being
degraded by dumping, careful monitoring of the site and
the nature of the wastes being dumped will provide
valuable information on the impact of wastes on the marine
environment without having to devote an undamaged part of
the ecosystem for this purpose.
3. The resources available for carrying out the
necessary field surveys, are quite limited; by limiting the
universe necessary to study the areas known to be already
-------
stressed by ocean dumping, these resources can be
committed to solve the problems where they exist rather
than dispersing them on a random search for new dump
sites.
At the present time only general evidence is avail-
able to determine the impact of dumping on many of these
sites. Until sufficient evidence is accumulated and
guidelines are prepared on the use of individual sites,
evaluation of permit applications must be based upon a
consideration of the general types of characteristics of
dump sites desirable for minimizing the effects of waste
materials on the environment.
The evaluation and approval of disposal sites is .
therefore a critical part of the entire strategy. It is
here that the decisions must be made as to whether or not
waste materials can be dumped without harm to the ocean
environment, and, if they cannot, what part of the marine
environment should be reserved for this purpose. For this
reason the chapter on monitoring strategy deals in some
detail with the procedures to be used in evaluating
disposal sites.
15
-------
Elements of the Permit Program
The Ocean Disposal Permit Program incorporates the
use of five types of permits; the general permit, the
special permit, the interim special permit, the emergency
permit, and the permit to handle dredged materials.
The general permit is essentially a determination
made by the Administrator that a class of materials is to
be considered harmless and innocuous and treated in a
prescribed fashion. The determination and handling
instructions are formally published in the Federal
Register. This type of permit will be used to regulate
such activities as the dumping of galley waste and refuse
from naval, merchant, and passenger vessles during routine
operation, removal of wrecked vessels from navigation
channels and their dumping in the ocean, and burial at
sea.
The special permit regulates all materials not
covered by the general permit and strictly regulates the
disposal of such materials when it can be demonstrated
that the quantities, nature of wastes and methods of
disposal will not result in irreparable or irrevocable
harmful effects on the marine environment. Bioassays and
other tests as appropriate made by approved techniques
will be required by the Environmental Protection Agency
prior to the issuance of a special permit.
An interim special permit may be granted when a waste
violates the criteria, but when there is no economically
feasible present alternative to the ocean disposal of the
waste. In such cases a permit may be granted, but only
contingent on the development of a satisfactory
implementation plan either to bring the waste into com-
pliance with the criteria or to eliminate it from ocean
dumping entirely.
An emergency permit will be issued only when there is
a danger to human health involved and there is no feasible
alternative to ocean dumping. This type of permit
requires consultation with the Department of State since
it deals with materials which will be prohibited under the
international ocean dumping convention.
16
-------
The dredged material permit issued and administered
by the Corps of Engineers is specifically gaared to
dredged spoils and requires the same careful testing as
for those materials addressed by the EPA special permit.
The Administrator will recommend appropriate sites and has
the right to review permits issued by the Corps of
Engineers.
With the initiation of the permit program on
April 23, 1973, anyone who wishes to dispose of waste in
the ocean must make application for a permit by submitting
a letter of application to the EPA Regional Administrator
responsible for the port of exit to the disposal site
under consideration.
The letter must include the origin of the waste
(manufacturing process); the nature of the waste
(physical, chemical description); amount; the means of
conveyance to the dump site; usual location of vessel;
name of person or firm applying for application and site
selection. The applicant will also be asked to submit
information concerning alternate methods open to him for
disposal, and a strong case for ocean dumping on the part
of the applicant should be prepared prior to submission of
application letters.
If, and only if, the information in the application
letter is complete, and if through the proper testing the
material is shown to meets the criteria, will a permit be
issued to the applicant describing in detail the site to
be used, the time of dumping and the prescribed method for
release of the waste into.- the sea.
A processing fee of $500.00 is charged for processing
each application for a special permit for dumping (no fee
is charged for a general permit) and if the applicant
wishes to use a site other than those listed by EPA as
approved sites, an additional fee of $1,000.00 is charged.
Renewal of special permits is $200.00. Agencies of the
United States are not required to pay a fee.
The tentative decision to issue or deny a permit is
prepared in writing within 10 days after receipt of an
application letter. If the tentative determination is to
issue a permit the following information is forwarded to
the applicant.
17
-------
1. proposed time limitations, if anv;
2. proposed dumping site, and • • .
3. a brief description of any other proposed
special conditions determined to be appropriate for
inclusion in the permit.
Public notice of all completed applications is
circulated widely for public information. Specifications
of the application and permit are posted and further
information can be found at the office of the Regional
Administrator. Notice is mailed to any interested party
upon request and shall be considered a standing request.
The states (water pollution control agency) are
notified and certification by the state contiguous to the
territorial sea used as a dump location is requested.
State certification is not required in the waters outside
the territorial waters of the United States.
In addition to the public and the states, the Corps
of Engineers, Department of Commerce, NOAA and the Coast
Guard receive a copy of the application for comment to the
issuing office of EPA within 30 days.
The Department of Interior also receives notification
as required by provisions, of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act and the Marine Protection, Research and .
Sanctuaries Act. •
If enough interest is shown by the public, a hearing
will be held. Requests for the hearing must be in writing
and submitted within 30 days of notice to all parties.
The Regional Administrator or designee will designate a
time and place to air all comments or objections to the
issuance of any permit. The Administrator may also
determine that the request does not merit a public hearing
and in such a case he will advise the requestor in writing
of his action and continue to process the application.
Anyone receiving a permit must maintain a complete
record of his dumping activities and shall make it
available for inspection upon the request of the Admin-
istrator or his designee. The information should reflect
18
-------
the instructions found on the permit and anv deviation
from the permit instructions.
A report of the information in the records is
required, the periodicity of which is made part of the
permit instructions*
If an emergency at sea occurs and dumping is required
without a permit, the dumper must report all particulars
to the Administrator within 30 days of the dumping.
Under the law the U.S. Coast Guard will patrol and
monitor dumping activities. Penalties for violation of
the law can run as high as $50,000 for each violation.
Anyone violating the law will have a trial-type hearing
and within 30 days following adjournment a determination
will be made by the Administrator based on the facts and
findings as presented by the hearing officer.
19
-------
Present Status of the Permit Program
The ocean dumping permit program became operational
April 23, 1973, the effective date of PL 92-532. Since
that time the seven EPA coastal regions have issued U7
permits for ocean dumping. Table I presents pertinent
data on the permits issued as of June 23, 1973.
Uo major problems in administration of the program
have appeared. The limited periods for public comment on
specific permit applications in the initial stages of the
program has caused some adverse public comment, but this
was an interim measure required by the time constraints
inherent in the initiation of the program.
Because of these constraints it was necessary to
publish interim regulations and criteria as a basis for
operation in the first few months of the program. These
are presented in the Appendix. Periods for public comment
on the regulations and criteria expired June 23, 1973.
Based on these comments, research presently under way, and
operating experience during the first few months of the
program, the interim regulations and criteria will be
revised and final regulations will be promulgated in the
fall of 1973.
Interagency coordination on a national scale is being
achieved by an interagency coordinating committee composed
of EPA, NOAA, the Coast Guard, and the Corps of Engineers.
Interagency agreements and guidelines for operation -are
now being developed.
>
The Coast Guard is informed of all permits issued and
the conditions imposed, so that suitable surveillance
operations can be conducted. The Coast Guard has not
advised EPA of any violations of the Act as of June 23,
1973.
The responsibility for issuing special permits has
been delegated to EPA regional offices. Brief summaries
of the activities (through June 23, 1973) of each region
follow.
20
-------
Region I (Boston^ Massachusetts)
Region I issued its first ocean dumping permit May
18, 1973, to the New England Division of the Corps of
Engineers for the sinking of a barge at the Foul dump site
in Massachusetts Bay.
The region has also received three other formal
applications for disposal at sea. Safety Projects is an
industrial refuse collector of hazardous and toxic chemi-
cals in small quantities. They provide some
neutralization or encase these materials in concrete. The
region has broken this application into two parts. The
first section will deal with the disposal of earth metals
(Calcium,, Sodium, Lithium, and Potassium) which have been
stored on site and have an immediate explosive risk. A
public hearing was held June 19, 1973, at the John F.
Kennedy Federal Building. The rest of the application
will be handled as a typical ocean disposal operation.
Another hearing will have to be scheduled to decide
whether this operation should continue and, if so, what
limitations and monitoring schedules should be developed.
The other two applications are by Pfizer Chemical
Company and ASS Transportation Company. The Pfizer
application is for the disposal of a culture medium used
in the processing of their product. This material was
originally disposed of in Long Island Sound. An enforce-
ment conference terminated that operation, and a land
disposal site was used. Local discontent has forced" them
to find another alternative; so, once again they propose
ocean disposal. ASS Transportation has been contracted by
the City of Stamford, Connecticut, to dispose of sewage
sludge off the coast of New York. This will be a
temporary procedure until the construction of an
incinerator is completed within the year.
The regional office has also been contacted regarding
the disposal of two fishing boats. Copies of the regula-
tions have been sent to the prospective permittees, and
the region is awaiting the applications.
21
-------
Region II (New York, New York)
In January of 1973 Region II received from the Corps
of Engineers a lis : of the permits the Corps had issued to
municipal and industrial ocean dumpers. In addition to
this list of namesj the region prepared a list of those
organizations they felt would be potential ocean dumpers.
The Regional Administrator sent a letter to every
potential ocean dumper on these lists. The letter
outlined EPA's responsibilities under the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 and
requested information necessary for evaluation of a permit
application.
Although several speeches and papers had been given
in the region to groups which represented potential appli-
cants , many prospective applicants were uncertain exactly
what would be required of them. Because of this, meetings
were scheduled with each industrial applicant following
receipt of the requested information. The EPA program was
outlined and the draft regulations and criteria discussed.
Applicants were asked whether they were currently
disposing of their wastes in the ocean, if they had been
doing it a long time, why the waste was not being disposed
of elsewhere, what the process was giving rise to the
waste, how long they proposed to continue to dump in the
ocean, what they could do to reduce the levels of toxic or
unacceptable materials in their waste, and what their
implementation plan was for the future. Because of .the
lack of time, municipal applicants were contacted by
telephone. If any severe problems arose, they came in to
discuss them*
Following these meetings, public notice of 21 com-
plete applications was printed in the New York Times along
with notice of public hearings to be held within 5 to 7
days. At the same time letters were sent to the appli-
cants giving them the time and date of their hearing.
Each public hearing was attended by a hearing officer
from the Enforcement Division, his technical aide, two
Surveillance and Analysis Division representatives and
representatives of the applicant, permit holder, and the
general public. With the exception of a representative of
one environmental group who attended each hearing and
objected to each permit application, there was very little
22
-------
written or oral comment from the general public at the
hearings.
Following the hearings, meetings were held by the
Regional Administrator's staff to discuss comments made at
the hearing and to make a judgment as to whether to change
the conditions of the permit and whether to issue or deny
the permit. If the decision was made to issue the permit,
it was signed by the Regional Administrator and
notification sent to the applicant that it was approved.
The time constraints of issuing permits by April 23
presented a great problem for Region II. In addition to
contacting each applicant and holding separate meetings
with them, public notices had to be written and public
meetings attended. Too, much effort was put into
selecting the appropriate parameters used for monitoring
of the wastes and the methodology by which the analyses of
the wastes would be done. Meetings were held with the
applicants, dumpers and analytical laboratories to discuss
these methods.
Following issuance of the permits, several barge
companies objected to the specifications in the permits
that dumping be done in daylight hours only since the
maritime industry works around the clock. As a result of
this objection, it was agreed that dumping at night could
be done if necessary; however, if more than 25 percent of
the dumping were done after dark, the application would
come up for reconsideration.
The region is currently discussing with each permit-
tee alternatives to ocean disposal. Various
municipalities who are dumping sewage sludge are
contacting industries in their jurisdictions to get them
to reduce by pretreatment their discharges of toxic or
harmful material.
Among Region II's.applicants are two companies who
pick up wastes from a number of locations, including some
trucking "middlemen." On one occasion one of these
middlemen picked up a load of wastes intended for land
disposal and they ended up in the trucking company's
wastes to be disposed of in the ocean. A member of the
Surveillance and Analysis Division was checking the
manifests of truckers bringing waste in for ocean disposal
23
-------
and noted that the generator of the wastes intended for
landfill was not on the list of customers whose wastes
were approved for ocean disposal. As a result this
particular middleman was not permitted to contribute his
truckload of wastes to those being disposed of in the
ocean. This type of surveillance is continuing as
personnel are available.
In addition, one of the companies was requested to
drop two of his customers since one had wastes containing
a high percentage of mercury and the other would not
identify his wastes, his process or his products.
For the most part the applicants and dumpers have
been very cooperative. They seem to be aware that their
wastes may be damaging the environment and are cooperating
fully with the region.
A meeting with the Coast Guard to discuss
surveillance indicated that Coast Guard was waiting for
guidance from their Headquarters; further meetings are
planned.
Region II has been cooperating with NOAA for the past
year in the MESA project in the New York Bight area. They
have attended all meetings and agree with NOAA that this
area deserves high priority.
The EPA coastal Pollution Research Laboratory in
Corvallis is currently making a study in Region II on test
site selection and pre-site evaluation for testing of an
experimental dump site off Fire Island. Information on
the microbiology of the water column is being gathered by
Region II personnel. A decision will be made within the
next six months on whether the site is to be used.
During May and June of this year Region II personnel
are collecting general chemical background data on dump
sites in the Bight to support evaluation of their permit
requests in line with the criteria. Both the sludge
dumping grounds and the acid dumping grounds will be
covered from U to 6 times each.
-------
Region III (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
On April 23 Region III issued ocean disposal permits
to the City of Philadelphia and the Edge Moor facility of
E.I. duPont. Philadelphia was granted a permit to dump no
more than 75 million gallons of sewage sludge in the six
month period ending October 23 at a site 50 miles from
shore. The City has been requested to do extensive
analyses of their sludge and will be required in the
future to initiate studies to determine lethal effects,
bioaccumulation and degradation.
DuPontfs permit was for no more than 20 million
gallons of a 15-20% acid liquid during the six-month term
of the permit. The company is presently complying with
EPA requests for analyses and monitoring.
The region has also received a number of other permit
applications. The Sun Oil Company of Marcus Hook,
Pennsylvania, submitted an application on April 18 to dump
approximately 6,000 barrels a month of white water and
17,000 barrels a month of spent caustic at a site
approximately 100 miles off Cape Hatteras. Several meet-
ings were held with the company, and a public hearing is
scheduled for July 13 with an alternative site proposed.
Rollins Environmental Services, Inc., of Wilmington,
Delaware, applied for a permit on March 29 to dump
approximately 2 million gallons of a contaminated brine
solution once every seven weeks. Although additional
supportive data were submitted on April 30, the region
requested further information on May 1. The company is
presently supplying this information.
Modern Transportation Company of Philadelphia applied
for a permit on April 11 to dump approximately one million
gallons of a mixture of industrial wastes and sewage
sludge, septic wastes and digester cleanout. A hearing
was scheduled for July. 12. A meeting was held on June 21
to discuss future permits for segregated wastes.
Four other permit applications have been received;
three are awaiting additional technical information from
the applicants, and the fourth was withdrawn upon receipt
of a request for supplemental information.
25
-------
As a result of the hearings and evaluation of all
pertinent information on the City of Philadelphia's
application, Region III decided to move the City's
dumpsite from its existing location 12 miles offshore to
another existing site 50 miles offshore. Prior to the
City's dumping at the new site, the region carried out a
baseline survey of the site.
Region IV (Atlanta, Georgia)
Region IV has not received any applications for ocean
dumping permits. The region has sent letters to all State
and Federal agencies which would have knowledge of ocean
dumping activities, and all responses have been negative.
Several inquiries from potential permit applicants
have been answered.
Region VI (Dallas, Texas)
Region VI is strictly regulating ocean dumping in the
Gulf waters adjacent to Texas and Louisiana by imposing
restrictions designed to minimize the effects of dumping
on the marine environment and at the same time allow
studies to begin leading to an understanding of the fate
of waste materials. Each ocean dumping permittee is
required to conduct toxicity studies of their waste using
appropriate marine species so the acute damage can be
minimized during future operations.
The^most important and most difficult requirement of
the permittee is in-situ bioaccumulation studies that will
reveal the uptake and magnification, if any, of their
waste in the marine organisms that inhabit the dump area
at any stage during their life cycle.
In addition to regulating dumping and requiring
studies, Region VI has required the permittee to record
the water depth during dumping operations, permanently
label all drums and provide a spill prevention containment
and countermeasure plan to safeguard aquatic resources if
an unplanned discharge occurs outside the approved dumping
zone.
Ocean dumping personnel are actively compiling data
on the potential deep water fishery that is being
26
-------
developed through the efforts of the National Marine
Fisheries Service and Texas Parks and Wildlife.
Exploratory fishing is taking place on the Continental
Slope from 100 to 1,000 fathoms and potential commercial
concentrations of royal-red shrimp, tile fish, hake, and
deep-water crabs have been discovered. Information
related to this new fishery necessitates a re-evaluation
of the approved dump sites and dictates the need for
deeper sites as well as requirements for treatment
schedules in lieu of dumping.
A meeting was held with the Coast Guard to determine
their capability for surveillance and to include within
future permits any special requirements that would apply.
As a result of the meeting, additional requirements were
added to -the twenty-four hour notice from the permittee to
the local Captain of the Port and EPA.
Numerous meetings have been held with each applicant
for an ocean dumping permit to gather data and resolve
differences between what is best for the environment and
what is best for the applicant.
The region has eight (8) complete applications and
two (2) incomplete applications to date. Of the eight
complete applications Region VI has issued six permits,
denied one and is still processing one.
Region IX (San Francisco, California)
Region IX has received two completed applications for
ocean dumping permits. The H-10 V/ater Taxi Company, Ltd.,
of San Pedro, California, collects and disposes of ships'
galley wastes from vessels in the Los Angeles-Long Beach
Harbor area. Wastes are transported to a site about 7
miles east of Catalina Island. Public notice will be
published and transmitted for review before the end of
June 1973.
The Los Angeles Police Department requested a permit
to dispose of the collection of contraband and unclaimed
weapons each year between July 1 and 10 as required by the
State Penal Code. Public notice was published and trans-
mitted for review on June 5. On June 15 the applicant
withdrew the application stating that it has located a
27
-------
metal recycling facility which will accept the estimated
5.5 tons of material for disposal.
An application was received from California Salvage
Company, Wilmington, to dispose of four to five tons of
material, the majority being Lithium salts, with smaller
portions of pure Sodium and Potassium, at a site about 13
nautical miles southwesterly of Los Angeles breakwater at
a depth of about 485 fathoms. Additional data on this
application is forthcoming.
Informal contact was made with three other potential
applicants. In all cases they will probably resort to
other methods of disposal.
Region X (Seattle, Washington)
Region X has received one letter of application and
three inquiries requesting information.
Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Company applied to
discharge 150,000 barrels a month of vanillin black liquor
from a barge to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The
determination was made that those waters are presently
classified as internal waters and are not subject to con-
trols on ocean disposal under PL 92-532.
The U.S. Forest Service, Alaska (The South Tongass
National Forest) is inventorying the beaches and adjacent
uplands for discarded equipment left over from past.
logging and development actvities. As monies become
available they plan to barge dump this scrap iron at
several open water locations in at least 200 feet of
water. At this point a question remains as to whether
these locations are governed by the ocean dumping permit
program or Section 402 of PL 92-500.
The titanium tetrachloride plant of Oregon Metal-
lurigical Corporation, Albany, Oregon, is currently shut
down, but recent favorable market forecasts have generated
an interest in returning to production. Proposed waste
material would be a sludge produced from titanium tetra-
chloride production. Proposed disposal would be off the
mouth of the Columbia River.
28
-------
Mr. L.F. Brown, Portland, Oregon, has inquired about
the ocean disposal of 30,000 or more rubber tires,
probably weighted with concrete.
29
-------
TABLE I
Peqion I
Ocean Dumping Permits Granted,
April 23, 1973 - June 23, 1973
Applicant
U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers'
Matprial Dumped
barae
Date
Is sited
5/18
Amount
Dunned
Freauency
Term
(days)
60
-------
Pecrion II
Applicant Material Dumped
New York City:
(11 plants)
Pockaway Sewage municioal sewage sludoe
Treatment Plant (STP)
26th Ward STP n
Wards Island STP "
Port Richmond STP "
Tallman Island STP "
Newtown Creek STP "
Hunts Point STP "
Bowery Bay STP " .
Coney Island STP . «
Owls Head STP . "
Jamaica STP . . ' ."
County of Nassau " ,
Passaic Bailey «
Seweraoe Conm.
Date
Tssu'ed
4/23
4/23
4/23
4/?3
4/23
4/23
4/23
4/23
4/23
4/23
4/23
4/23
4/23
Amount
Dumped * .
8,000 cy
13,000 cv
166,000 cy
3,000 cv
65,000 cv
242,000 cv
73, "00 cy
96, "00 cy
27,000 cy
33,000 cy :
40,000 cy
65,000 cy
167,000 cv
frequency
4 lo^ds ii
90 days
6/60
37/60
12/QO
17/PO
55/7"
16/60
35/30'
12/70
13/70
WRO
18/90
Term
lays'
90
60
60
90
80
70
60
80
70
70
80
80
90
* during term of permit
-------
Region II - 2
Applicant
Material Pumped
P.ate
Issued
Amount
Punned.
Term
(days)
Linden Poselle
Sewerage Authority
Bergen County Sever
Authority
v'iddlesex County
Authority
A/?3
American Cyanimic* Co. chemical
Linden, NJ
Allied Chemical Corp. "
"orris town, MJ
E. I. duPont s Co.
ML Industries, Inc.
(special permit)
Moran Towing Corp.
(special pemit)
inorannic salts
i. r acid
cellar dirt,
tion rubble
Merck, Sharpe f, Dohme pharmaceutical waste*?
Puerto Pico
County of Westchester municipal sewage sludge
City of Camden "
Middletovm Sewerage • . . « .
Authoritv
/1/23
4/23
n. A f O 0 0 c^.p
na] .
cv
n cv
710/onn cv
300,^00 cv
cy
ir>/oo
1-7/dav
4/°0
00
90
70
1 yr.
1RO
90
4/27
4/27
4/27
25,000 cv
17,325 cy
5,550 cv
13/«0
1/30
1/30
90
90
no
City of Long Beach
4/27
6,000 Cy
3/°0
90
-------
Region II - 3
Annlieant
Material
nat-.e
Issued
Amount
Dumped
Fregnencv
Tern
(days)
Joint Meeting of
Essex and Union
Counties .
Chevron Oil Co.
Perth A.r.boy, NJ
West Long Beach
Sewer District
Modern Transportation
S. Kearny, NJ
(municipal)
Modern Transportation
S. Kearnv, TIJ
(industrial)
Jonas Disposal, Inc.
Caldvcill 7n:cking
Wm. Schaefer Septic
Hess Oil
Woodhridge, NJ
City of Paterson
Police Department
Nev; York City
Police Department
U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers, IIY Dist.
municipal sewage sludge V27 35,580 cy 6/°0 days
spent caustic solution
waste
4/27
municipal Sfsvraore sludge 5/4
municipal sewage sludge 5/4
5/4
municipal, sentic tanV, 5/4
industrial sludae
soent caustic solution 5/30
guns v 5/31
dangerous weapons or 5/31
obiects
tug and any additional 5/31
sunken vessels obstructing
navioation
59,160 cy
3/90
925 cv 1/90
35,000 cy 10/00
316,000 c' ft. 7/90
3,000-3500 cy 3-5/QO
495 (1 ton) 1/30
13 tons
1/30
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
30
30
180
-------
Reqion II - 4
. Terrr
Applicant . Material Pumped Issued Pumped Frequency (days )
Pratt & Whitney sludge from electro- . 5/300 cy 3/°0 ?o
E.Hartford, CT chemical machining
The permit was denied because the wa«?te contained too much oil, chromium, and volatile solids.
-------
Applicant
Consolidated Edison
Co. of NY
Pollution Control
Industries
Puerto Pico
f'aterial
Pate
Issued
Amount
Dunned
Frermencv
APPLICATIONS PENDING
caustic clean!ng water
pharmaceutical wastes
Yabucoa Sun Oil Co. elenental sulfur
RCA
Oxochem Enterprise
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Olefins
Co.
Ansul Company
Marinette, WI
ferric chloride with
chromium
organic wastes
(oxo-a]cohol«)
snent caustic
arsenic salts
1,000,000
gal.
1/90
426,000 gal. 1A*.
11,000 tons 1/3 davs
nlus 30 tons
oer dav
3,000 eral, 4/00
32,000 cv 8/<>0
5,200 cv'
40,000 tons R/90
Term
(days)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
-------
Region III
Applicant
Material Dumped
Date- .Amount:
Issued Dunned
Fr«*ouency
Tern
(day?)
City of Philarlelnhia di Tester1 sewaa«
4/21
75,^00,^00
]pn
F. I. duPont
acid
4/?3
-------
Peoion VI
Applicant
n. I. duPont
Re a union •>: v/o r>: 3
E. I. duPont
Houston plant
P. I. duPont
Jtelle nlant
".A.F.
E. T. duPont
Ponchnrtrain
Ethyl Corp.
Baton Pouge, LA
Material. Dumned
ch^nical
chemical was-t-es
a ]/chp>TTii (7
sindcre
Date,
Issuec!
5/1
S/?S
Amount
Dumned *
not to exceed not to exceed
210,000 T
38,400 '"/^
99,000 ^ lo,?00 T/mo
5,000 barrel? l,ooo barrel:
i ?oo barrels/"*
Term
(days)
180
155
E. T. duPont's5 Beaumont worVs also ann!I ied for a perni.t that would cover dumninn of anv
material in an emergency situation. This application wa
-------
Research St rate cry
The ocean dumping program strategy, described on page
12, prescribes an integrated approach to achieving the
goals of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, PL 92-532, and the related goals with the
Federal Water Polluion Control Act Amendments of 1972, PL
92-500. As outlined, the program strategy includes the
rapid development of criteria to guide the evaluation of
permit applications, the implementation of a permit
program, the evaluation of existing disposal sites and the
monitoring and surveillance of sites. To date, actions
have proceeded to allow each of these components to be
initiated- with all possible speed by participating
agencies in the interest of rapid implementation.
However, experience to date has demonstrated that the
technical information which must serve as a basis for each
of these components in the broad strategy is less than
adequate. For example, in the development of the
regulations and criteria for implementation of PL 92-532,
the available information for setting criteria for .
evaluating permits was found to be sparse and that which
existed was focused on problems other than those related
specificallv to ocean dumping on the marine environment.
Consequently, recognition of the need to develop the
scientific information to guide the implementation of the
legislation has increased rapidly during the early stages
of the program. The development of this scientific _
information is the primary goal of the ocean disposal
research program. ,
The objectives designed to achieve the goal of the
ocean disposal research program form a matrix of support
for the components of the broad program strategy, while
seeking to develop the mandated information necessary to
be considered in the execution of the program. The
objectives are cross supportive and interdependent because
of the complex nature of the actual problems. The
specific objectives are as follows:
1. Develop the scientific information necessary to
establish and revise criteria for evaluating ocean
disposal permit application as described in Section 102 of
PL 92-532. " .
30
-------
2. Develop the analytical methods, techniques and
systems necessary to characterize waste materials, to
determine effects in the marine environment, to character-
ize existing sites and to monitor existing and alternate
sites.
3. Develop an understanding of the effects of past
practices on existing sites and methodologies, for
evaluating the desirability of continued dumping at
existing sites or initiating dumping at new sites.
4. Develop procedures for handling, transporting
and dumping wastes to minimize overall effects of disposal
actions.
5. Develop an understanding of the effects of
extraneous influences (airborne pollutants, river and
estuarine discharges and ocean outfalls) in relation to
direct ocean dumping.
6. Develop alternatives to ocean dumping and
information on the benefits of selective disposal actions.
7. Develop methodologies for assessing the
effectiveness of the overall program through monitoring
and other methods.
8. Develop the scientific expertise to support
enforcement actions. • .
The elements of the -strategy to achieve these .
objectives are dependent on the effective cooperation of
the Federal agencies directly involved in implementing the
respective acts and other agencies conducting research in
the marine environment. An effective research program
will require the integration of other agency activities as
they relate to the ocean disposal program while
maintaining the mission responsibilities of each agency.
The principal elements of the strategy consist of the
following:
1. Continuation of existing research programs in
associated agencies with the recognition of the need for
early integration into the overall planning for the ocean
disDosal research.
31
-------
2. Establishment of a mechanism for interagency
coordination of those research programs capable of con-
tributing to the needs of the ocean disposal program.
3. Development of an overall interagencv strategv
to guide the development of ocean disposal research plan
and specific agreements to implement the program.
U. Early identification of gaps in existing
programs to establish the basis for long term resource
requirements.
5. Development of a formal system for reporting,
assessing and assimilating research information with the
needs of the overall ocean disposal program.
Programs have been initiated by the agencies with
research capabilities which will contribute to the
objectives of the ocean disposal research program. EPA is
conducting studies to determine the fate and effects of
material on selective species and in the marine environ-
ment. NOAA is actively studying, along with other
activities, the effects of past dumping practices in the
New York Bight and the Corps of Engineers is pursuing a
program to develop understanding of dredged spoil disposal
problems. Actions currently underway will lead to the
development of a coordinated Federal strategy and plan for
the conduct of these programs.
32
-------
Monitoring Strategy
The success of the regulatory aspects of the ocean
dumping permit program will depend to a larre extent on
the degree to which the impact of permitted ocean dumoinr
activities on the ocean environment can be determined in
time to correct anv adverse trends prior to non-reversible
changes. This can be achieved only by a carefully planned
and implemented program of monitoring dump sites and other
areas which may be affected by dumping activities.
The needs of the ocean dumping permit program for
continuing information on the health of the marine
environment are only a part of the total national need for
data on the oceans. The overall strategy to satisfy the
needs of "the ocean dumping permit program for information
obtainable from monitoring is to incorporate these needs
into the program requirements of other components of EPA
and other agencies through active participation in the
development and implementation of the national marine
monitoring plan now being undertaken by the Subcommittee
on Marine Baselines and Monitoring (SC/MBM) of the Inter-
agency Committee on Marine Environmental Prediction
(ICMAREP).
Such an approach will make it possible to use the
full range of Federal capability and resources in satis-
fying the marine monitoring needs of the ocean' dumping
permit program under PL 92-532 as well as those of PL 92-
500, which requires EPA to establish and maintain a .marine
water quality monitoring network for general pollution
surveillance purposes. Such a strategy has the following
major elements:
1. Strong support of NOAA in fulfilling its PL
92-532 research and monitoring requirements and close
cooperation in its MESA projects;
2. Incorporation of PL 92-532 surveillance activi-
ties of the Coast Guard into the monitoring nrogram;
3. Utilization of the marine monitoring activities
of other Federal agencies;
4. . Emphasis on incorporating on-going State marine
programs into the overall scheme;
33
-------
5. Strong or5.entation of EPA efforts toward provid-
ing laboratory support, quality control and standardiza-
tion, data flow mechanisms, and establishment of a routine
program of evaluating and reporting on the status of the
marine environment .In general, and areas relating to ocean
disposal in particular, including definitions of
additional monitoring and surveillance needs;
This strategy is directed toward carrying out a
marine monitoring program to satisfy EPA's
responsibilities under both PL S2-500 and PL 92-532, yet
which is structured almost entirely on PL 92-532
requirements. The data produced by such a monitoring
program should allow 1) evaluation of existing dumping
sites and ocean outfalls; 2) location of possible
alternative dumping sites; 3) tracing of pathways and
locations of sinks of pollutants; U) prediction of
response of in-shore and off-shore water quality to man-
induced changes; 5) location of control sites against
which to measure long and short-term effects of ocean
dumping and discharges from ocean outfalls; 6)
determination of pollutant inputs to, and effects on,
estuaries and other marine waters by upland drainage; and
7) determination of compliance with permit conditions.
An adequate monitoring program will be composed of
three types of continuing monitoring activities :.
1. Surveillance of dumping operations
2. Disposal site monitoring
,•
3. Disposal site evaluation studies (baseline
surveys)
Hone of these by itself can satisfy the full needs
for environmental data on the impact of ocean dumping, and
the obtaining of maximum information for minimum cost
requires close coordination of all three types of
activity.
Coordination of these activities is being achieved
through the direct efforts of an Interagency Coordinating
Committee for Ocean Dumping composed of representatives of
EPA, NOAA, Coast Guard, and Corps of Engineers, which has
taken the initial steps necessary to develop a coordinated
-------
monitoring plan through the existing efforts of the
ICMAREP.
Research and monitoring dealing with the lonp-range
impact of pollution on the marine environment, is the
primary responsibility of NOAA under the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 92-
532). The designation of disposal sites, setting disposal
conditions, and the designation of critical areas and
times at which dumping may not occur is, however, an EPA
responsibility. Full use will be made of the facilities
of other Federal agencies in doing this, insofar as these.
can be made available, but it is up to EPA to determine
what information is required for its purposes and the
conditions under which it should be obtained.
Dumping may be done only at approved locations. Some
existing dumping sites have been approved by EPA in the
regulations for use on an interim basis pending the
development and evaluation of the information necessary to
approve dumping sites for use on a continuing basis.
Sites will be approved through publication in the Federa1
Register and approval .will be based on a thorough evalu-
ation of sufficient data to determine the probable impact
of wastes on the proposed sites.
Should an applicant request use of a dump site not
already designated as an approved dumping area, the appli-
cant will be responsible for providing to EPA data
sufficient to evaluate the ecological value of the p.ro-
posed site and the impact of waste materials upon it.
„•
Dumping sites will not be approved for dumping on a
permanent basis. Each site will be subjected to an
initial baseline survey prior to auproval for continuing
use and will then be carefully monitored and resurveyed on
a continuing basis. In general, sites in use will be
approved for continuing use as long as they exhibit
negligible damage from the wastes dumped at them and as
long as the effects of the wastes do not impact other
areas. If a'site begins to exhibit degradation, then its
use for dumping will be terminated permanently or until it
recovers.
In approving a site for continuing use, the approach
will be to prepare a full environmental evaluation of the
35
-------
present conditions of the site and the probable impact of
dumping upon it. This will be based on the volumes and
nature of the waste material dunned within its boundaries
and upon one or more baseline surveys of the site. Such
surveys would not be of the level of effort needed for a
thorough research study, but would give the data necessary
to determine present conditions and probable impact of
wastes on the site. Such a survey should include measure-
ments of chemistry of the water column at and near the
site; current structure and water mass movement and
characteristics; bottom sediment geology, chemistry, and
physical characteristics; bathymetrv; nature and diversity
of biota, including plankton and other floating life,
pelagic, mid-level, and demersal crustaceans and fish,
shellfish, and benthic organisms. Such a survey, repeated
at periodic intervals would enable EPA to determine
whether or not a site is being adversely affected and
termination of its use is indicated.
The technical report on the baseline studies will
serve as the basis for the environmental assessment and
will be combined with other information on site use to
provide an analysis of the overall environmental impact of
the designation of the site as approved for continuing
use.
The actual approval of a site will be done through
promulgation in the Federal Register according to standard
administrative procedures.
There have been 119 dumping sites approved on an
interim basis. This approval has been based only on their
prior use for the dumping of wastes. Within this list are
sites which are heavily used at the present time and also
sites which are not being used at all right now.
Among these 119 sites are those which should be
evaluated as rapidly as possible to determine whether or
not their use can be continued or whether or not alternate
sites must be selected and dumping at the existing sites
terminated. 'Because of the limited resources available
for carrying out site evaluation studies, the evaluation
of some sites must be deferred until a later time. The
basis for setting priorities for site evaluation studies
is as follows:
36
-------
1. Sites Presently in Use
The approved interim dumping sites are of the
highest order of priority for evaluation. Lach site
presently in use must be evaluated and either approved or
disapproved for continuing use. Where disapproval of an
existing site is indicated as a result of an evaluation,
the selection and approval of an alternate site becomes of
a high order of priority, depending on the nature and
extent of the damage associated with the existing site.
Among the sites presently approved on an interim
basis, the following orders of priority in disposal site .
evaluation are indicated:
- a. Sludge dumping and industrial waste dumping
sites in use and close inshore, i.e., within or
immediately adjacent to the contiguous zone;
b. Sludge dumping and industrial waste dumping
sites in use farther offshore than in l.a.;
use;
c. Inshore dredged spoil disposal sites in
d. Offshore dredged spoil disposal sites in
use;
e. Garbage and refuse disposal sites in use;
f. Construction and demolition debris disposal
sites in use; ,
g. Other sites in use.
2. Alternate Sites
When a disposal site evaluation study of an
interim approved site indicates that use of that site
should be suspended or" terminated immediately, an
alternate site should be selected and evaluated as rapidly
as possible, and the priority for the selection of an
alternate site should be the same as for the evaluation of
the original site. The following results of a disposal
site evaluation would provide strong indication that use
of the site should be discontinued as soon as possible:
37
-------
a. Movement of waste materials dunned at the
site into estuaries or onto oceanfront beaches or shore-
lines;
b. Movement of waste materials dumped at the
site into productive fishery or shellfishery areas;
c. Degradation of the ecosystem at the dump
site which appears progressive and which mipht result in
complete sterilization of the dump site if dumping is
allowed to continue.
If the biota at an existing dumn site are
completely wiped out and if this condition is confined to
the immediate vicinity of the dump site, the selection of
an alternate site may not be of a high order of priority,
since the use of an alternate dump site may only result in
completely damaging two sites instead of one. A preferred
approach would be to phase out dumping of the materials
causing the damage as rapidly as possible.
3. Interim Approved Sites not in Use \
Sites approve'd on an interim basis but not
currently being used should be surveyed to determine the
extent of damage and rate of recovery from past damage.
Such sites may be anproved as possible alternate sites,
used as control sites, or recommended to IIOAA for detailed
research study to determine long-range irroacts of ocean
dumping.
Priorities amoncr these sites will.be set
according to how recently dumping at the site was
discontinued and the type of wastes dumped there. The
highest priority would be assigned to sites at which
sewage sludge and/or industrial wastes were most recently
dumped.
1. Control Sites'
As part of the long-range research and
monitoring required to determine the impact of wastes on
the marine environment, several control sites not impacted
by wastes will be selected off each major coastal area;
these will be surveyed on a routine continuing basis as a
38
-------
means for tyinp, together all disposal site evaluation
studies, particularly in regard to normal fluctuations
over a period of years.
39
-------
Conclusion
Since the enactment of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL 92-S32), on
April 23, 1373, the previously uncontrolled practice of
transporting and dumping of wastes in ocean waters has
cone under control. A permit program under wnich each
pernittee is required to provide a detailed description of
the waste material, method of disposal, and disposal site
location has been implemented and is now operational. An
interagency coordinating committee consisting of EPA
(chairman), NOAA, Coast Guard, and Corps of Kngineers has
been formed to coordinate all activities under the Act.
This committee has developed draft research strategies and
monitoring strategies and is currently working on standard
procedures and methods for carrying out monitoring and
studies of disposal sites.
During Fiscal Year 1974, field investigations of
existing dump sites will be conducted as a first step in
determining the impact of permitted ocean dumninp activi-
ties on the ocean environment. Standard procedures for
sampling and monitoring will be initiated, and the interim
regulations and criteria will be revised.
In the conduct of the dump site investigations UPA
will, to the fullest extent practicable, utilise the
marine facilities of other Federal agencies.
------- |