REPORT ON
OCEAN DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
IN THE
NEW YORK BIGHT
Prepared by
the US Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
March 1989
-------
REPORT ON
OCEAN DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
IN THE
NEW YORK BIGHT
Prepared by
the US Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
March 1989
-------
ADVABCED COPY
REPORT ON
. OCEAN DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
IN THE
NEW YORK BIGHT
Prepared by
the US Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
March 1989
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I.
II.
1
OCEAN DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES IN THE NEW YORK
BIGHT: AN OVERVIEW
5
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL: 12-MILE AND
106-MILE DEEPWATER SITES
13
III. INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL: 106-MILE DEEPWATER
INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
IV.
V.
VI.
20
ACID WASTE DISPOSAL
25
WOODBURNING AT SEA
29
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL: 6-MILE MUD DUMP
SITE AND INLET SITES
37
VII. CELLAR DIRT DISPOSAL
1.
1.
2.
3 .
4 .
5.
6.
7.
45
FIGURE
OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES
11
TABLES
PLANNED OCEAN DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
12
PLANNED MUNICIPAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
19
PLANNED INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
24
PLANNED ACID WASTE DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
28
PLANNED WOODBURNING ACTIVITIES
PLANNED DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES'
36
44
PLANNED CELLAR DIRT DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
50
i
-------
NEW YORK BIGHT OCEAN DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ocean Dumping Program in the New York Bight is a Federal pro-
gram, authorized by law, with responsibilities shared by four
separate agencies. Specifically, the Marine Protection, Re-
search, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) consolidated Federal
management practices for the oceans, including the Ocean Dumping
Program. EPA has the authority to designate and manage ocean
disposal sites and shares permitting responsibility with the Army
Corps of Engineers (COE). The Coast Guard is responsible, in
cooperation with EPA, for surveillance to ensure lawful ocean
dumping practices.EPA is responsible for enforcement of permit
and statutory requirements. EPA and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) share in a comprehensive re-
search program to monitor the effects of ocean disposal, while
NOAA is also authorized to establish marine sanctuaries.
The Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 modifies the Ocean Dumping Pro-
gram by prohibiting all ocean dumping of industrial waste and
municipal sludge after 1991. No permit may be issued under MPRSA
which authorizes ocean disposal of these wastes unless such
authorization was already in effect as of September 1, 1988.
Within 9 months of enactment, or by August 15, 1989, a dumper
must have a permit from EPA and have entered into an agreement
with EPA and the respective state to implement a land-based
alternative to ocean dumping. Depending on the date in the
agreement for the cessation of ocean dumping, a schedule of fees
and/or penalties will apply.
Following are short summaries of the existing and projected sta-
tus of all elements of the Ocean Dumping Program in and adjacent
to the New York Bight.
A. MUNICIPAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL: 12-MILE AND 106-MILE DEEPWATER SITES
Sewage sludge has been dumped in the New York Bight since 1924.
In recent years nine dumpers -- the City of New York, Westchester
County, and Nassau County in New York State; and six sewerage
authorities in New Jersey: Passaic County Sewerage Commission,
Middlesex County utilities Authority, Rahway Valley Sewage
Authority, Bergen County utilities Authority, Linden/Roselle
Sewerage Authority, and Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties
-- have continued the practice. The volume of material dumped
was about 8 million wet tons in 1987. EPA attempted to halt
the ocean disposal of sludge by the end of 1981, but an action
brought by New York City and later duplicated in New Jersey, led
to a Federal Court ruling barring EPA from halting the dumping
without considering alternative disposal methods and their im-
pacts. Since that decision, the sludge dumpers have been oper-
ating under court orders rather than MPRSA permits.
1
-------
Recently enacted Federal legislation, the Ocean Dumping Ban Act
of 1988, prohibits the ocean disposal of sewage sludge after
1991.' EPA is now negotiating detailed agreements to end the
ocean disposal of sludge with each of the remaining sludge
dumpers as well as with the appropriate state. EPA plans to
conclude the permitting process prior to the date required in the
legislation (August 15, 1989).
B. INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL: lOG-MILE DEEPWATER SITE
When EPA first regulated industrial waste disposal in 1972, there
were over 100 permittees engaged in ocean disposal. The number
of permittees and the volume of industrial waste disposed in the
ocean have declined since that time. The last permits issued by
EPA for the ocean disposal of industrial wastes went to twoE.I.
du Pont de Nemours facilities in 1984. Both of these permits
have expired and there are currently no authorized permits for
use of the lOG-Mile Industrial Waste Disposal Site.
A reapplication for an ocean disposal permit by one of the du
Pont facilities was withdrawn in July 1988, and there is no cur-
rently projected use for the designated disposal site. Since all
former permittees have found acceptable alternatives to the ocean
disposal of industrial waste, EPA is pursuing actions to de-
designate this disposal site. De-designation of the lOG-Mile
Industrial Waste Disposal site may be completed as early as Sep-
tember, 1989.
C. ACID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
The Acid Waste Disposal Site was first used in 1948 and was for-
mally designated by EPA in 1983. There have been only two per-
mittees using the site in recent years: Allied Corp. and NL In-
dustries. NL Industries ceased ocean disposal activities in
1983, and Allied Corp.'s most recent permit for the disposal of
a hydrochloric acid co-product expired in September 1988. No
disposal activities have been conducted at the site since.
Permits for ocean disposal of acid waste products were granted
only when there were no feasible land-based alternatives and the
disposal operation complied with all environmental regulations.
EPA has encouraged permittees to develop methods to minimize
waste volumes. Allied Corp. has identified feasible landbased
alternatives which will be implemented in the next few years. As
a result of biological and chemical testing performed during the
recent processing of Allied's latest reapplication, more restric-
tive disposal conditions were to be incorporated into any permit
issued. Asa result of the restrictions on total volume, volume
2
-------
per discharge, and discharge rate, Allied determined that ocean
disposal is no longer feasible. The portion of the operation
which generated the co-product has been temporarily discontinued
while the majority of the facility continues to operate.
The Ocean Dumping Ban Act specifically precludes new entrants
from applying for permits to use the Acid Waste Disposal Site, so
EPA will proceed with the de-designation of the site.
D. WOODBURNING AT SEA
Woodburning at sea is considered a form of ocean disposal because
particulate matter in the combustion plume eventually settles
onto the ocean surface. Unburned pieces of wood and the ashes
resulting from the burning operation are not permitted to be
dumped into the ocean, and must be returned to land for either
subsequent burning or disposal at a landfill. An interim site
has been used for ocean woodburning operations for about the past
20 years.
Most of the wood burned at sea is a result of clean-up measures
to remove floating navigation hazards in New York-New Jersey Har-
bor and to implement the New York Harbor Drift Removal Project,
both efforts of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Drift Removal
Project eliminates deteriorated shore structures (piers, piles,
bulkheads, etc.) as well as sunken vessels and other wooden
debris so as to eliminate the sources for future floating navi-
gation hazards. In addition to clearing away hazardous debris,
this project opens the metropolitan shoreline .to subsequent
redevelopment.
While use of the woodburning site supports beneficial activities
in New York-New Jersey Harbor, EPA has placed stringent condi-
tions on permittees in order to preclude adverse impacts to the
marine environment. In particular, detailed alternatives evalu-
ations are required to ensure that there are no practicable land-
based disposal options before a given woodburning operation is
allowed. As a result of this policy, only one of the last three
woodburning requests was authorized at the ocean disposal site;
the other two resulted in land-based disposal actions. Other
restrictions have also been implemented to ensure the safety of
the ocean disposal process.
EPA is presently considering designation of a permanent wood-
burning site. Should a permanent site be designated, only mater-
ial collected from New York-New Jersey Harbor and its environs
would be eligible for ocean disposal. This policy assumes that
outside of the densely populated metropolitan area there is suf-
ficient landfill capacity to handle any wood wastes generated.
3
-------
E. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL: MUD DUMP SITE AND INLET SITES
Dredged material disposal at the 6-Mile Mud Dump site is integral
to the maintenance of the major port facilities found in New York/
New Jersey Harbor. With continued widening and deepening of port
navigation channels, anchorages, and berths, historic dredged
material volumes disposed at the Mud Dump will continue and may
even increase.
Disposal sites near the outlets of 8 coastal inlets
Long Island and New Jersey shores are also used, as
support the maintenance of their respective Federal
channels.
along the
necessary, to
navigation
While EPA authorizes the use of ocean dredged material sites, it
encourages alternative disposal methods, such as beach nourish-
ment, whenever such methods are feasible. EPA continues to re-
view existing dredged material testing procedures and results to
ensure that the material is suitable for. ocean disposal and that
the procedures are state-of-the-art and appropriate. The Army
Corps of Engineers administers the permitting procedure for use
of the Mud Dump and Inlet sites.
In compliance with the Water Resources and Development Act of
1986, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are investigating the
designation of a new site in deeper water to supplement the ex-
isting Mud Dump Site. This site designation process .is scheduled
for completion by Spring 1991. The inlet disposal sites current-
ly have interim status, but final designation is scheduled for
Fall 1989. . .
F. CELLAR DIRT DISPOSAL SITE
The Cellar Dirt Disposal site is used for the disposal of con-
struction site debris, concrete, excavation dirt, rubble, and
rock. It has been in use since 1940, and was formally designated
by EPA in 1983. Since 1973, when EPA first began issuing permits
for cellar dirt disposal, the number of permittees and volumes of
material ocean disposed have declined. Since 1980, disposal at
the site has occurred in only 2 years, and currently there re-
mains only one permittee, Port Liberte Partners.
All cellar dirt disposal operations have been restricted to the
northwest corner of this 1.1 square mile site to minimize dele-
terious environmental impacts on the whole site. The current
permit expires November 1989, and EPA is now initiating a re-
evaluation of the need for the site and the general feasibility
of alternative disposal methods as a first step in de-designating
the site. There are no other pending applications for use of the
Cellar Dirt Disposal site.
4
-------
I.
OCEAN DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT: AN OVERVIEW
A.
Requlatorv Authoritv
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(MPRSA) regulates ocean dumping activities (Ocean Dumping Pro-
gram). Any material which would unreasonably degrade or endanger
human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment,
ecological systems, or economic potentialities is prohibited from
being disposed in the ocean. To implement this purpose and to
control ocean dumping in ocean waters, MPRSA specifies and
assigns site designation procedures, permitting procedures, moni-
toring responsibilities, and enforcement responsibilities to four
separate federal agencies.
Title I of MPRSA authorizes the EPA Administrator to designate
sites where ocean disposal may be prohibited or permitted. This
Title also establishes a permitting program and assigns its
administration to EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The
Coast Guard is given the responsibility for conducting surveil-
lance and other appropriate enforcement activities to prevent
unlawful ocean dumping and to ensure that the dumping occurs
under a valid permit, at the designated location, and in the
manner specified in the permit. Title II of MPRSA requires EPA
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
to conduct a comprehensive and continuing program of research and
monitoring regarding the effects of ocean disposal. Title III
gives NOAA the auth~rity to establish marine sanctuaries.
The Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988~ which was signed on November
18, 1988, lends additional enforcement power to the administra-
tion of the Ocean Dumping Program. It bans all ocean dumping of
municipal sludge and industrial waste after 1991. No permit may
be issued under MPRSA which authorizes a person to dump into
ocean waters, or to transport for the purpose of dumping into
ocean waters, sewage sludge or industrial waste, unless that
person was authorized by a permit issued under Section 102 of
MPRSA or by court order as of September 1, 1988. Thus, no new
entities will be permitted to use those particular ocean disposal
sites. In addition, within 9 months of enactment (by August 15,
1989) no previous permittee may dump sewage sludge or industrial
waste unless such entity has obtained a permit from EPA and en-
tered into an agreement to phase out and terminate ocean dumping.
The following sections delineate the specific responsibilities
authorized by Title I and Title II of MPRSA, including the Ocean
Dumping Ban Act of 1988.
5
-------
B.
Policy
The unique character of the ocean demands rigorous protection and
careful use of its resources. EPA is committed to the protection
of the ocean by maintaining its specially protected status as
mandated by Congress and in accordance with international ocean
law. As an overall principle, EPA protects the oceans from sig-
nificant adverse effects of waste disposal and assures that the
oceans will not be used for "cheap" waste disposal as a matter
of short run economic considerations. Disposal of wastes will
only be considered if a technically feasible and environmentally
acceptable alternative does not exist. EPA advocates the devel-
opment and use of technologies for waste minimization, recycling,
and differential treatment strategies such as onsite neutraliza-
tion of acid waste.
certain materials are strictly prohibited from being ocean dis-
posed. The international London. Dumping Convention prohibits the
discharge of all high level radioactive materials, biological and
chemical warfare agents, certain toxic organic wastes, plastics,
petroleum products, and wastes containing certain toxic metals
into international waters. Municipal garbage is also prohibited
from being ocean disposed.
The result of EPA's management of ocean disposal has been a sub-
stantial reduction in the amount of industrial waste dumped into
the ocean, as well as in the number of communities that ocean
dump sewage sludge. Implementation of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act
will eliminate completely the ocean disposal of industrial waste -
and municipal sewage sludge, removing those waste types from the
existing ocean disposal waste stream.
C.
Existinq Ocean Disposal Activities
As shown in Figure 1, the New York Bight and environs contain
disposal sites for sewage sludge, industrial wastes, acid wastes,
woodburning, dredged material, and cellar dirt.
Sewage sludge consists primarily of water and residual municipal
sewage solids from primary and secondary sewage treatment plants.
Between 1924 and 1987, sewage sludge from New York and New Jersey
was disposed at a dump site located approximately 12 miles off-
shore (Disposal Site #2). On April 1, 1986, EPA denied petitions
to redesignate the 12-mile site and since January 1, 1988 all
municipal sewage sludge disposal has occurred at the Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Dump site located approximately 115 nautical
miles offshore (Disposal site #8). Nine municipalities currently
dump approximately 8 million wet tons of municipal sludge a year
under court order at this Deepwater Site. site designation
. expires on March 17, 1991.
6
-------
The Deepwater Industrial Waste site (Disposal Site #7) was desig-
nated by EPA in 1984 for the disposal of aqueous industrial
wastes. The Deepwater site is located outside the New York
Bight, approximately 110 nautical miles offshore. Since designa-
tion, the annual volume of industrial wastes disposed at the site
has varied from a low of 0 wet tons in 1985 to a high of 140,133
wet tons in 1986. The most recent permit application for dis-
posal at the Industrial Waste site has been withdrawn, and there
is no currently permitted disposal at the site. A Proposed Rule
to de-designate the site is expected during Spring 1989.
Dumping at the Acid Waste site (Disposal site #4), located approx-
imately 15 nautical miles offshore, commenced in 1948. In 1983,
EPA formally designated the site for the disposal of aqueous acid
wastes. The last entity disposing of acid waste at the site has
withdrawn its application to continue the practice. EPA Region
II will now recommend that the site be de-designated.
The woodburning site (Disposal site #5) is located approximately
17 miles offshore. Used since the 1960's for the burning of har-
bor debris, pier pilings, driftwood, and other similar wooden
debris collected within New York-New Jersey Harbor, the wood-
burning site currently has interim status and is expected to be
designated by EPA in 1989. There are currently 3 permittees
utilizing the woodburning site for the annual combustion of
approximately 40,000 tons of wooden debris. Wooden debris is
not dumped overboard, and only the airborne combustion products
(particulates) reach the ocean; the remaining ash is returned to
shore for landfilling. .
The majority of material dredged from New York-New Jersey Harbor
is ocean disposed at the Mud Dump site (Disposal site #1). The
site has occupied its present location since 1915, and was form-
ally designated by EPA as a regional dredged material disposal
site in 1984. The site has a capacity of 100 million cubic yards
of dredged material. Each year approximately 8 million cubic
yards of dredged material are disposed at the Mud Dump Site.
In addition to the Mud Dump Site, there are eight inlet dredged
material disposal sites located within the New York Bight (Dis-
posal Sites #6). Four of these inlet sites are in New York
(Rockaway, East Rockaway, Jones, and Fire Island) and four are in
New Jersey (Shark River, Manasquan, Absecon, and Cold Spring).
The only materials which may be disposed of at the inlet dredged
material disposal sites are sediments from the specific inlets
which the sites serve. The sites are now designated on an inter-
im basis, with final designation expected in 1989.
The Cellar Dirt site was designated by EPA in 1983 for the dis-
posal of excavation rock and dirt. Located approximately 8 miles
offshore, the Cellar Dirt Site (Disposal site #3) has received
50,000 cubic yards of material since its designation. At pre-
sent, there is one permittee utilizing the Cellar Dirt Site.
7
-------
D.
site Desiqnation
section 102(c) of MPRSA authorizes the administrator of EPA to
designate recommended areas or times for ocean disposal activi-
ties and, when necessary to protect critical areas, sites or
times within which certain materials may not be dumped. This
authority includes the designation of ocean disposal sites for
dredged material, sewage sludge, industrial wastes, cellar dirt,
and woodburning debris. In 1986, the EPA Administrator gave the
Regional Administrators the authority to designate dredged mater-
ial sites. In Region II, the Regional Administrator was also
given the authority to designate a woodburning site.
EPA has voluntarily adopted an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) policy which provides that the Agency will prepare an EIS
for the designation of ocean disposal sites. The Ocean Dumping
Regulations establish eleven criteria to be considered in
designating ocean disposal sites. These include:
The geographical location and physical characteristics of
the site,
The location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery,
feeding, or passage areas of living resources,
The location- in relation to beaches and other amenity
areas,
Types and quantities of wastes to be disposed,
Transport and mixing characteristics at the site,
Current and previous discharges in the area, including
cumulative impacts, -
Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas
of scientific importance, or other legitimate uses of the
ocean,
Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring,
Existing water quality and ecology of the site,
Potentiality for the development or recruitment of
nuisance species, and
Proximity of significant natural or cultural features of
historical importance.
The site designation process involves preparation of an EIS and a
careful and thorough environmental review in accordance with the
site designation criteria. The site designation process is con-
ducted to identify and select a location suitable for the type
of material in question. The designation of a site does not
authorize actual disposal operations, which may take place only
if an ocean dumping permit is issued.
E.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Permittinq
The Ocean Dumping Regulations and criteria delineate
procedures which must be followed in order to obtain
disposal permit. The Army Corps of Engineers issues
8
the specific
an ocean
permits to
-------
ocean dispose dredged material; EPA issues permits for the ocean
disposal of all other materials which satisfy the criteria speci-
fied in the Ocean Dumping Regulations. Although dredged material
disposal permits are issued by the Corps, EPA reviews all permit
applications to assure that the proposed disposal activities will
be in compliance with the criteria specified in the regulations.
The Ocean Dumping Regulations and criteria identify 5 categories
of permits which may be issued by EPA. General permits are
issued for burial at sea; transportation of target vessels by the
u.s. Navy for the purpose of sinking the vessels in ocean waters,
testing ordnance, and providing related data; and the transporta-
tion and disposal of vessels under specified conditions. Re-
search permits may be issued as part of a research project when
it is determined that the scientific merit of the proposed pro-
ject outweighs the potential or other impacts that may result
from the proposed dumping. Emergency permits may be issued in
unusual situations in which conditions exist that pose an unac-
ceptable risk relating to human health and there are no other
feasible solutions. There are currently no research permits or
emergency permits which have been issued for the New York Bight,
and Region II does not generally issue these types of permits.
Special permits are issued for the dumping of materials which
satisfy the criteria established in the Ocean Dumping Regulations
and for which authorized disposal sites have been designated.
Permits issued for the disposal of sewage sludge, acid wastes,
cellar dirt, and industrial wastes are all special permits.
Interim permits may be issued for the disposal of materials at an
interim disposal site which has not been permanently designated
by EPA. For example, interim permits are currently issued for
the disposal of woodburning debris. As part of its ongoing
evaluations, EPA is currently preparing an EIS for designation
of a permanent woodburning site.
The regulations specify the procedures which must be followed in
order to obtain an ocean disposal permit. As part of the permit
application process, the applicant must submit information to EPA
including a chemical and physical description of the material to
be dumped, the proposed methods of controlling the release rate
at the dump site, an assessment of the anticipated environmental
impacts of the proposed dumping on the marine environment and
other amenities, and a statement of need for the proposed dump-
ing. This last requirement involves an evaluation of short- and
long-term alternative means of disposal including an analysis of
the availability and environmental impacts of such alternatives.
When EPA has received a complete application for an ocean dis-
posal permit, it applies the criteria established in its marine
policy (Section B) to make a tentative determination regarding
issuance or denial of the permit. EPA then issues a public no-
tice announcing its tentative determination. For all ocean dis-
9
-------
posal applications in the New York Bight, a public hearing is
scheduled to solicit public comment on the proposed activity.
All comments received orally at the hearing or in writing in
response to the public notice are addressed in a report which is
presented to the Regional Administrator. The Regional Adminis-
trator then renders a final permit determination.
The Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 modifies the permitting proce-
dure as it pertains to disposal of industrial waste and municipal
sludge. No permit will be issued for ocean disposal of indus-
trial waste or municipal sludge to any dumper not already author-
ized for such activity as of September 1, 1988. All existing
dumpers must have a permit from EPA by August 15, 1989 in order
to continue their activity.
F.
site Management
EPA has site management responsibilities at all designated ocean
disposal sites, including dredged material disposal sites. site
management responsibilities include monitoring activities to
assure that disposal activities at the sites continue to satisfy
the ocean dumping regulations and site designation criteria. EPA
conducts research, investigations, experiments, training, demon-
strations, surveys, and studies as part of its site management
responsibilities.
G.
surveillance/Enforcement
The u.s. Coast Guard is responsible for surveillance activities
to prevent the unlawful disposal or transportation of materials,
and to assure that authorized ocean disposal is performed in
compliance with permit conditions. Vessel and aircraft patrols,
shipriders onboard dumping vessels, in-port boardings and inspec-
tions, and radar are several methods of surveillance used by the
Coast Guard. In addition, all vessels transporting sludge must
now be equipped with an Ocean Dumping Surveillance System, or
"black box." This consists of an onboard computer that communi-
cates with the Coast Guard computer at Governor's Island, and
reports on when and where the dumping activities take place. All
ocean disposal permits issued by EPA require the permittees to
give the authorities advance notification prior to commencing any
ocean disposal activities.
Pursuant to MPRSA, any information concerning violations of the
Act or specific ocean dumping permit conditions is forwarded to
EPA for appropriate action when civil actions are indicated, or
to the Attorney General for criminal cases. Suspected violations
are documented by the Coast Guard to the maximum extent practic-
able and referred to EPA for investigation and determination of
possible enforcement actions. Evidentiary material may include
witness statements, photographs, samples, message traffic, and
log excerpts.
10
-------
..yUD
IS'O-\,
CAI-\,
Yo-\,
NEW YORK
BIGHT LIMIT ---..
I
730
740
LONGITUDE
o 5 10
I I I
20 30
I I
Nautical Miles
750
Figure 1. New York Bight Ocean Disposal Sites
o
8
40
I
50
I
76°W
410
400
w
C
:::I
~
t=
<{
...J
390
380 N
-------
TABLE .1.
PLANNED OCEAN DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DISPOSAL SITE
PLANNED ACTIVITY
TIME FRAME
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deepwater Sewage
Sludge site
Monitoring Survey
Issue Sludge Permits
September 1989
August 1989
----------------------------------------------------------------
12-Mile Sewage
Sludge site
Monitoring Surveys
for Site Closure
Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deepwater Industrial
Waste site
Propose site
De-Designation
Spring 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Acid Waste site
Proposed site
De-Designation
Spring 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Woodburning site
Draft EIS
Public Hearing regard-
ing Proposed site
Designation
Tentative Permit
Determination
Final EIS
site Designation
Summer 1989
Summer 1989
Summer 1989
1990
1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New Dredged Material
Disposal site
Preliminary Studies
Draft EIS
Final EIS
site Designation
Ongoing
Summer 1990
Spring 1990
Spring 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inlet Dredged Material site Designation
Disposal Sites Site Management &
Monitoring Plans
Fall 1989
1990
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellar Dirt site
Investigate Need for
Continuation of the
site
Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
12
-------
II. MUNICIPAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL: 12-MILE AND
106-MILE DEEPWATER MUNICIPAL SLUDGE DUMP SITES
A. Historical PersDective
In 1924 New York City began ocean dumping municipal sludge at a
site 12 miles outside of New York Harbor, known as the 12-Mile
site (Figure 1). Over the next few decades additional communi-
ties in the New York and New Jersey area began to ocean dump
municipal sludge at this site. The 12-Mile site was located in
the New York Bight Apex approximately 10.3 nautical miles east
of Highlands, N.J., and 9.9 nautical miles south of Long Island.
The site occupied an area of about 6.6 square nautical miles with
a water depth of approximately 27 meters (88 feet).
While more than 200 sewage treatment plants dumped municipal
sludge at the 12-Mile Site at one time, by December, 1981 only
nine municipal sewage authorities from both New York and New Jer-
sey were authorized to use that site. The nine were the New York
City Department of Environmental Protection, the Westchester
County Department of Environmental Facilities, the Nassau County
Department of Public Works, the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis-
sioners, the Middlesex County utilities Authority, the Rahway
Valley Sewage Authority, the Bergen County utilities Authority,
the Linden/Roselle Sewerage Authority, and the Joint Meeting of
Essex and Union Counties.
In 1981, New York City and several other municipalities brought
suits against EPA, challenging the Agency's refusal to renew
their permits to ocean dispose sludge at the 12-Mile site after
December 31, 1981, when site designation expired. In the case,
"City of New York v. EPA," 543 F. Supp. 1084 (S.D.N.Y. 1981), the
Judge ruled that EPA could not deny ocean dumping permits without
considering the availability and impact of land-based alterna-
tives. .
Provided that certain conditions of previously issued EPA permits
were satisfied, the Judge's order barred EPA from initiating any
action to prohibit New York City from dumping municipal sludge at
the 12-Mile Site until the Agency ruled on the City's petition to
redesignate the site. Orders similar to the "City of New York"
order were entered into on the consent of the parties in cases
involving EPA and the eight other municipal sewerage authorities.
On May 4, 1984, EPA designated the Deepwater Municipal Sludge
Dump site (DMSDS), commonly known as the 106-Mile Site. Begin-
ning with the designation of the 106-Mile site in 1984, sludge
disposal operations at the 12-Mile site were phased out. The
disposal of sludge at the 106-Mile site began in March 1986;
sludge disposal at the 12-Mile site ended on December 31, 1987.
Since then all sludge disposal has taken place at the DMSDS.
13
-------
The DMSDS is located approximately 120 nautical miles southeast
of Ambrose Light and 115 nautical miles from Atlantic City, New
Jersey, the nearest coastline. Water depths at the site range
from 2,250 to 2,750 meters. Figure 1 shows the location of the
site.
Although the number of municipal sludge dumpers has decreased
since the passage of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanc-
tuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), the volume has increased from 4.6
million wet tons in 1973 to more than 8.4 million wet tons in
1987. That increase resulted primarily from the upgrading of
sewage treatment plants and the resultant increase in municipal
sludge production in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area.
B. Policy
Prior to issuing any permits for ocean disposal, EPA applies the
criteria established in the Ocean Dumping Act. EPA will not
allow the ocean disposal of any waste if there is a technically
feasible and environmentally acceptable disposal method with less
overall environmental impact. EPA actively encourages environ-
mentally beneficial approaches such as waste minimization, recy-
cling or reuse, with the ultimate goal being no further ocean
disposal.
The Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 bans the ocean dumping of muni-
cipal sludge beyond December 31, 1991. Nine months following the
date of enactment (by August 15, 1989), the dumping of municipal
sludge is prohibited without a permit issued by EPA. A compli-
ance or enforcement agreement must be in place in order for the
permit to be issued. No permits for the ocean dumping of muni-
cipal sludge can be issued unless the permittee has been pre-
viously authorized to do so.
A compliance agreement includes a plan that will result in the
implementation of an alternative to ocean dumping by December 31,
1991 and an associated schedule which specifies key dates for
implementing environmentally sound disposal alternatives. An
enforcement agreement includes the same provisions as the compli-
ance agreement but specifies a date after December 31, 1991 for
implementation of the alternative plan. A fee waiver provision
pertains to a dumper who has entered into a compliance agreement
but not to one who has entered into an enforcement agreement.
Regardless of whether a dumper has entered into a legal agreement
which outlines a schedule to cease ocean dumping, penalties will
be imposed on continued dumping beginning January 1, 1992. Both
compliance and enforcement agreements will include provisions for
the states to establish Clean Oceans Funds which will target
money to aid dumpers in developing alternative disposal methods.
14
-------
C. Existing Ocean DisDosal Activities
The nine sludge dumpers currently utilize the DMSDS for the dis-
posal of municipal sludge. In 1987, over 8.4 million wet tons of
sludge were ocean dumped, 47% at the 12-Mile site and 53% at the
DMSDS or 106-Mile site. Beginning in 1988, all sludge has been
discharged at the DMSDS. Sludge disposal is currently authorized
by Federal court order, not by EPA permit.
The nine sewerage authorities utilize a combination of private
waste transporters and municipally owned and operated vessels to
ocean dispose the sludge. New York City owns and operates its
own fleet of sludge barges; Westchester County, Nassau County,
and the six New Jersey authorities (Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners, Middlesex County utilities Authority, Rahway Val-
ley Sewage Authority, Bergen County utilities Authority, Linden/
Roselle Sewerage Authority, and Joint Meeting of Essex and Union
Counties) contract private waste transporters to dispose of their
sludge.
D. Site, Designation
As stated previously, the 12-Mile site had been in use since 1924
for the ocean disposal of municipal sludge. In 1973, EPA desig-
nated the site as an "interim" disposal site. On May 18, 1979,
EPA designated it as an approved municipal sludge disposal site.
The rulemaking package promulgated in conjunction with the site
designation specified that designation would expire on December
31, 1981. At that time EPA would have to make a decision on
redesignating the site for future use. In the interim, EPA
would conduct monitoring studies at the 12-Mile Site to determine
whether the sludge disposal was producing unacceptable adverse
environmental impacts. Based on the results of the monitoring on
the 12-Mile Site, EPA decided 'not to redesignate the site when
its designation expired in 1981. EPA determined tha~ in order to
minimize environmental impacts, a new deepwater site"s,hould be
. design'ated off the continental Shelf. ",
EPA's decision to designate a deepwater site was based upon the
results of studies at the interim Deepwater Site as well as at
the 12-Mile Site. Previous monitoring activities at the interim
DMSDS indicated that wastes disposed at a deepwater site undergo
rapid initial dilution followed by extensive dispersion. Thus,
after temporary perturbations, water quality could be expected to
return to ambient conditions before reaching any beach, shore-
line, or known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery.
On May 4, 1984, EPA designated the DMSDS as an approved sewage
, sludge dump site. This site was located within the previously
interim designated 106-Mile Site, and occupies an area of 100
square nautical miles. Site designation expires on March 17, 1991.
15
-------
E. Permitting
As noted above, the nine municipal sludge dumpers have no current
EPA permits to ocean dispose sludge. Since the 1981 court deci-
sion discussed in Section A above, all nine of the sludge dumpers
have been operating under court orders. In JUly, 1986 EPA noti-
fied the nine sludge dumpers that, in order to continue to util-
ize the DMSDS, they must submit permit applications consistent
with the criteria specified in MPRSA. MPRSA specifies that ocean
dumping permits may not be issued unless the applicant can demon-
strate that there are no alternative land-based disposal methods
available that are technically feasible, economically reasonable,
and likely to have less adverse impacts on the total environment
and human health than ocean disposal. EPA requested that these
applications be submitted by January, 1987.
EPA received applications from three New York sludge generators
in January, 1987. The six New Jersey authorities, however,
requested an additional six months to submit their applications.
In August, 1987 one application was submitted on behalf of
all six New Jersey dumpers. In November, 1987 EPA completed its
review of the permit applications and determined that all of the
applications were incomplete because they did not contain a
current or viable analysis of land-based alternative disposal
methods and technologies. EPA sent letters to the applicants
informing them that additional information was required in order
for the applications to be considered complete. The applicants
submitted additional information on incineration, landfilling
and/or composting in January, 1988. ' EPA has completed its review
of this additional information, but must 'engage in further nego-
tiations with the applicants to conclude compliance/enforcement
agreements to end the ocean dumping of municipal sludge in com-
pliance with the Ocean Dumping Ban Act. These matters must be
resolved before EPA can make its final determination regarding
permit issuance.
F. site Manaqement
EPA has site management responsibilities at all ocean disposal
sites. As part of these responsibilities, EPA has developed a
monitoring plan for the DMSDS with the objective of assessing
actual and potential impacts of sludge disposal on the marine
environment, both at the site and in adjacent areas. Data col-
lected is being used to make decisions regarding both the issu-
ance of permits in compliance with the Ocean Dumping Ban Act and
the design of future monitoring programs.
Information on baseline conditions at the site, including chemi-
cal and physical characteristics, exists from recently completed
studies. Between 1984 and 1986, EPA conducted 5 baseline studies
at the site. The data that were collected were used to develop
. an updated monitoring plan and were used as the baseline for com-
parison of more recently gathered data at the DMSDS.
16 .
-------
When EPA shifted sludge disposal operations from the 12-Mile site
to the DMSDS, the discharge rates established for the 12-Mile
site were not amended to account for conditions at the DMSDS.
Since 1986, when sludge dumpers first began utilizing the DMSDS,
EPA has conducted semiannual surveys at the site to determine the
fate and effect of the sludge being dumped. In addition to field
observations of sludge plume behavior, waste characterizations
have been performed on sludge samples collected both at the site
and at the individual treatment plants.
Based upon both laboratory and field data, EPA has developed an
empirical formula to calculate the maximum rate at which indivi-
dual sludges could be discharged in compliance with EPA's ocean
dumping criteria and the guidelines formulated under the London
Dumping Convention. Analytical results of sampling individual
treatment plant sludges showed that current discharge rates are
too high to achieve compliance with EPA's criteria. Reductions
in the discharge rates, which vary depending on the individual
treatment plant sludge, are necessary to meet the applicable cri-
teria. These findings will be reflected in any subsequent permit
issued for disposal of municipal sludge at the DMSDS.
G. Surveillance/Enforcement
The u.s. Coast Guard is responsible for surveillance activities
to prevent the unlawful disposal or transportation of material.
To assure that authorized ocean disposal is performed properly
under the terms of the court order,. all sludge dumpers are re-
quired to notify the Coast Guard prior to each disposal opera-
tion. Each dump event is assigned a reference number which is
then used to identify the dumper throughout the course of the
operation. In addition, a sludge dumper may not conduct a dump
unless there is an independent shiprider onboard to provide sur-
veillance, or the vessel is equipped with a computerized tracking
system to monitor the course of the vessel.
EPA requires that, depending on availability, all vessels trans-
porting sludge must be equipped with:,an Ocean Dumping Surveillance
System (ODSS). The ODSS consists of an onboard computer that
communicates with a computer at the Coast Guard station on Gover-
nors Island in New York City. The onboard computer, assisted by
the Loran C navigation system, reports the latitude and longitude
of the vessel at any given time. Sensors in the hull detect when
dumping operations take place. As of December 1988, 16 vessels
have been outfitted with the ODSS.
When surveillance activities indicate that the sludge dumpers
have violated conditions pursuant to the Court Orders, EPA can
initiate enforcement activities. In JUly, 1988 EPA issued Admin-
istrative Complaints against all nine New York and New Jersey
sludge dumpers for violating sludge disposal conditions during
17
-------
the period from January to April, 1988. violations included
discharging the sludge too quickly, failing to comply with the
approved vessel tracklines during the discharge operations, and
failing to provide information critical to EPA's determination of
compliance with discharge rates. These Administrative Complaints
were issued pursuant to EPA's authority established under MPRSA.
The Agency proposed combined penalties in excess of $1.25 million.
EPA has met with all nine sludge dumpers, who have responded to
the complaints. In some cases, tentative settlements have been
reached, but no action has been finalized, and EPA is continuing
to pursue this enforcement action.
As a result of allegations contained in a December 1988 complaint
filed by the New Jersey state Attorney General concerning short
dumping within NY-NJ Harbor waters by one of the sludge trans-
porters, EPA has developed a sludge manifest system. The system
involves reporting information on each sludge transfer and
procedures for sealing all valves on the barges by independent
inspectors approved by EPA. EPA is currently working with the
sludge dumpers and waste transporters to implement the system,
which will become binding when included as a special condition of
the final permits scheduled to be issued in August 1989.
H. Planned Activities
Table 1 summarizes upcoming EPA activities relevant to sludge
disposal. . Major items.include site monitoring surveys, modifi-
cation of sludge discharge rates, development of a monitoring
program to be implemented by the sludge dumpers, and the nego-
tiation of schedules to phase out the ocean dumping of sludge.
18
-------
TABLE ~. PLANNED MUNICIPAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
ACTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS
PROPOSED DATE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Modify
Discharge Rates
Ongoing
EPA has notified sludge dumpers
that they must adopt revised
discharge rates; negotiations
will continue in order to en-
sure compliance with the ocean
dumping criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Development Of
Permittee Moni-
toring Programs
Ongoing'
EPA has met with sludge dumpers
regarding a monitoring program
to be implemented by them.
Testing will consist of waste
. characterization, near-field
monitoring during times of dis-
charge, and far-field monitor-
ing for environmental impacts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Public Meetings/
Hearing for Sludge
Di~posal Permits
February/
April 1989
Receive public comment on
applications for sludge dis-
posal permits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Report of
Chitinoclasia
Work Group
April 1989
It will address concerns re-
lating sludge dumping to fish
and shellfish diseases, by in-
vestigating the occurrence of
disease, determining if it is
related to sludge dumping, and
making recommendations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Response to
Administrative
Complaints
Ongoing
Receive and review response
from sludge dumpers on EPA
Administrative Complaints.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
106-Mile site
Workshop
. .'
March 1989
Address technical and admini-
strative issues relating to
site management.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Final Determina-
tion on Sludge
Disposal Permits
August 1989
Final permits will include
revised discharge rates and
permittee monitoring require-
ments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
106-Mile Site
Survey
September 1989
Monitoring for far-field fate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
19
-------
III. INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL: 106-MILE DEEPWATER INDUSTRIAL
WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
A.
Historical Perspective
The ocean disposal of industrial wastes has been occurring in the
northeast for many generations. Prior to the establishment of
EPA and the enactment of permitting regulations, there was very
little regulation of ocean disposal.
Subsequent to enactment of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) in 1972, over 100 permittees have dumped
industrial wastes at various ocean disposal sites, including the
Deepwater Industrial Waste Disposal site. The Deepwater Indus-
trial Waste Disposal site is located approximately 110 nautical
miles off the coast of Cape May, New Jersey. The si~e is circu-
lar with a radius of three nautical miles; water depths at the
site range from 1440 to 2750 meters. Figure 1 shows the location
of this disposal site. EPA designated the Deepwater Industrial
Waste Disposal site for continuing use on May 4, 1984. The
current site is a portion of the former interim-designated 106-
Mile site.
Quantities of industrial wastes dumped at the interim-designated
site decreased from 329,000 wet tons in 1973 to 192,000 wet tons
in 1982. After final designation of the Deepwater Industrial
Waste Disposal Site, quantities of waste dumped continued to
decrease. In 1985, 99,000 wet tons of material were discharged
at the site; this quantity increased to 213,000 wet tons in 1986,
but decreased to 28,000 wet tons in 1987. In 1988, there was no
industrial waste disposal at this site.
The last permits which EPA issued for the ocean disposal of
industrial wastes were to two E.I. du Pont de Nemours facilities
in 1984. Both of these permits expired in 1987. There are
currently no authorized permits for disposal at this site, nor
permit applications to utilize the site.
B. Policy
Prior to permitting any industrial waste disposal, EPA applied
criteria established in the Ocean Dumping Act, that is, EPA did
not allow industrial waste disposal if there were a technically
feasible and environmentally acceptable disposal method with less
overall environmental impacts. EPA will not allow the oceans to
be used as a "cheap" method of waste disposal if other environ-
mentally sound and technically feasible alternatives exist.
EPA evaluated all applications received for ocean disposal of
industrial wastes applying the Ocean Dumping Regulations and
Criteria found at 40 CFR 220-227. The criteria were promulgated
20
-------
under MPRSA, as amended (33 USC 1401-1444), Section 102. The
criteria stipulate that an ocean dumping permit can be issued
only if there are no alternatives to ocean disposal which are
technically feasible, economically reasonable, and which would
have less adverse impact on the overall environment than ocean
disposal.
Consistent with this policy, EPA evaluated all potential alter-
natives to ocean disposal for each application received. All
permits issued contained conditions requiring the permittee to
evaluate and implement alternative disposal methods. This policy
has helped reduce the number of permits which EPA issues for
ocean disposal of industrial waste from over 100 in the 1970's,
to none today. .
Because there are currently no permittees utilizing the site nor
permit applications for future use, EPA is proposing to de-desig-
nate the Industri~l Waste Disposal Site. EPA proposes de-desig-
nation on the basis that the need for ocean disposal of indus-
trial wastes cannot be demonstrated due to the availability of
feasible alternative disposal methods. This action is consistent
with the Ocean Dumping Ban Act which prohibits ocean disposal of
municipal sludge and, industrial waste after December 31, 1991.
C. Existina Ocean DisDosal Activities'
There are currently no permittees utilizing the Deepwater Indus-
,trial Waste Disposal Site. The most recent permittees were the
E.I. du Pont De Nemours and Company facilities in Edge Moor,
Delaware and Linden, New Jersey which disposed of industrial
wastes at the site until March 1987. Both of these facilities
were issued three-year special ocean disposal permits in 1984.
Reapplications were submitted for new ocean disposal permits, but
first the facility in Linden, New Jersey, and then the facility
in Edge Moor, Delaware, withdrew their applications due to the
presence of feasible alternatives. Consequently, there are no
"permittees currently disposing industrial wastes at the Deepwater
Industrial Waste Disposal site.
D. site Designation
EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations and criteria contain provisions
for selecting and designating ocean disposal sites. When these
regulations were published in 1972, fourteen municipal and
industrial waste disposal sites were listed in the regulations
and given interim designation.
In June, 1979 a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was
published recommending the permanent designation of the Deepwater
Industrial Waste Disposal Site. Through this EIS, EPA conducted
an in-depth study of the dump site to determine its compliance
21
-------
with the criteria and regulations. A public hearing to solicit
additional comments was held in August 1979. The Final EIS was
published in February 1980 and the designation of a permanent
industrial waste disposal site occurred in May 1984.
As discussed in Section B above, EPA is currently proposing the
de-designation of the industrial waste disposal site on the basis
that there are feasible land-based alternatives to ocean disposal.
EPA anticipates that the site de-designation can be concluded by
the end of 1989.
E.
Permitting
The permits issued in 1984 underwent a comprehensive review re-
garding the evaluation of alternative disposal methods and the
assessment of potential adverse environmental impacts.
In addition to the general ocean dumping permit conditions per-
tinent to all ocean disposal permits, special conditions relating
to the disposal of industrial wastes were included, such as quar-
terly waste analyses and bioassays, alternatives evaluations, and
assurances of proper disposal practices.
F.
Site Manaqement
EPA has site management responsibilities at all designated ocean
disposal sites. site management responsibilities include moni-
toring activities to assure that disposal activities at the sites
continue to satisfy the ocean dumping regulations and site desig-
nation criteria.
EPA conducts monitoring cruises at the nearby 106-Mile Sewage
Sludge Disposal site on a semi-annual basis. These cruises have
measured water quality parameters adjacent to the Industrial
Waste Disposal Site. In addition, EPA and NOAA have conducted
baseline monitoring of the 106-Mile Sewage Sludge Disposal Site
and environs for various parameters in the water and biota.
Sludge dumpers conduct quarterly monitoring of actual disposal
activities and quarterly bioassays and analyses of actual barged
waste.
G.
Surveillance/Enforcement
The Coast Guard provides primary surveillance of all ocean
disposal operations. Permit conditions require the permittee to
notify EPA and the Coast Guard prior to departure for dumping.
Permit conditions also require independent shipriders on all
trips for disposal at the site. These shipriders are provided
and/or approved by the U.S. Coast Guard, and approved by EPA, to
conduct surveillance of ocean dumping activities.
22
-------
Following the disposal operations, the shipriders report to the
Coast Guard regarding whether all of the permit conditions have
been satisfied. When surveillance indicates that permit condi-
tions have not been satisfied, EPA could initiate enforcement
actions against the permittee and/or waste transporter. No en-
forcement actions have been necessary regarding industrial waste
disposal activities at the Deepwater Industrial Waste Disposal
Site because there have been no reported violations.
Planned Actions
H.
Planned actions in connection with the Deepwater Industrial Waste
-Disposal site are summarized in Table 3. As indicated in this
Table, the primary focus will be on site de-designation.
23
-------
TABLE ~.
PLANNED INDUSTRIAL WASTE ACTIVITIES
ACTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS
PROPOSED DATE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transmittal of site
De-Designation Package
to Headquarters
March 1989
Region II prepared the
site de-designation
package and began
coordination with
Headquarters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Publication of Proposed
site De-Designation
Package in the Federal
Register
April 1989
EPA will publish its
intention to de-
designate the indus-
trial waste site and
solicit public
comments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Address Comments Re-
ceived Regarding
Proposed site De-
Designation; Prepare
Final De-Designation
Package
April 1989
to
July 1989
All comments will be
reviewed and addressed
in the final de-
designation package
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Publication of the Final
De-Designation Package
in the Federal Register
September 1989
Upon publication, the
current Deepwater
Industrial Waste
Disposal site will no
longer be available
for ocean disposal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
24
-------
IV.
ACID WASTE DISPOSAL
A.
Historical Perspective
The acid waste disposal site is located approximately 15 nautical
miles south of Long Beach, Long Island, and approximately 15
nautical miles east of Long Branch, New Jersey. The site is 12
square nautical miles in area. The location of the site is shown
in Figure 1. Water depths at the site range from 75 to 95 feet.
The site was first used for the disposal of acid waste products
in 1948. EPA designated the site for continuing use in June,
1983. Since then, permits to discharge acid waste at the site
have been issued to two entities: Allied Corp. and NL Industries.
The primary material discharged by Allied Corp. prior to June,
1986, was a hydrochloric acid by-product produced during the
manufacture of Genetron 22 fluorocarbon, which is similar to
freon, and tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) monomer acid. Since 1986,
only acid waste associated with the manufacture of Genetron 22
has been discharged at the site. The acid waste contains hydro-
chloric acid, fluoride, and trace amounts of metals. The mater-
ial discharged by NL Industries was an acid/iron co-product;
however, NL Industries ceased ocean disposal activities in 1983.
Quantities of acid co-product discharged at the site decreased
from 1,756,000 wet tons in 1981 to 833,000 wet tons in 1982. A
further significant decrease in the amount of material discharged
at the site occurred in 1983 subsequent to the cessation of ocean
disposal activities by NL Industries. Allied Corp. disposed of
38,000 wet tons of acid co-product at the site in 1983. Subse-
quently, Allied has discharged 40,000 wet tons in 1984, 40,000
wet tons in 1985, 34,000 wet tons in 1986 and 32,600 wet tons in
1987. From January 1 to September 30, 1988, when its most recent
permit expired, Allied discharged 47,700 wet tons.
B.
Policy
Prior to the passage of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988, EPA
issued permits for ocean disposal of acid waste products only
when the applicant demonstrated that no feasible landbased alter-
natives existed, and the disposal operation complied with all the
provisions of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972 (MPRSA) (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 1431 et
seq., as amended). Applicants were also required to comply with
all General and Special Conditions written in individual permits.
Since passage of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act, new entrants are
specifically prohibited from applying for permits to practice
ocean disposal; therefore, no future permits authorizing use of
the Acid Waste Disposal Site will be issued.
25
-------
C.
Existina Ocean DisDosal Activities
with the expiration of Allied's last permit on September 30,
1988, there has been no further disposal at the Acid Waste Site.
As Allied has determined that continuation of ocean disposal is
not practicable, there will be no future disposal activities at
the site.
D.
Site Desianation
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) associated with
designation of the site was issued in December, 1979. The Final
EIS was issued in September, 1980. The site was designated as a
disposal site by EPA in June, 1983, in accordance with the proce-
.dures outlined in the EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria
(40 CFR 228). The site has been designated for continuing use,
and there is no expiration date for the designation: however,
since the last permittee has developed plans for discontinuation
of ocean disposal, EPA anticipates de-designating the site by the
end of 1989.
E.
permittina
Allied Corp. obtained its most recent permit on October 1, 1985,
after demonstrating compliance with existing regulations. Field
monitoring performed by Allied Corp. indicated that impacts to
the marine environment were minimal because of the infrequency
of disposal activities, and the neutralizing effect of ocean
water on the acid co-product. Previous testing, however, had
been conducted in accordance with procedures more suitable to
dredged material (which has a solid phase) than to a liquid ef-
fluent (which disperses in surface waters) such as was discharged
by Allied. More recent biological testing utilizing methodology
more suitable for analyzing liquid effluent indicated that unac-
ceptable levels of waste material were remaining in the water
column subsequent to intial mixing: therefore, a significant
reduction in the discharge rate as well as the total amount of
material to be discharged was to have been incorporated into any
permit issued. Upon assessing the logistic constraints imposed
by these restrictions, however, Allied determined that continua-
tion of ocean disposal was no longer feasible, and the applica-
tion was withdrawn.
F.
Site Manaaement
Monitoring at the site consisted of biological, chemical, and
physical analyses. Allied Corp. conducted sampling at the site
during disposal operations on a quarterly basis. They also
provided waste dispersion studies and laboratory toxicity studies.
26
-------
(;~
Studies conducted included testing for acute toxicity at the dis-
posal site, and analyses of waste, receiving water, and zooplank-
ton samples. These studies have been discontinued as a result of
the expiration of Allied's permit and cessation of ocean disposal
activities.
G.
Surveillance/Enforcement
The Coast Guard provides primary surveillance of all ocean dispo-
sal operations. Past permit conditions required that the Coast
Guard be notified within ten minutes of the actual time that a
disposal operation was to begin. The master of the ocean dumping
vessel was required to prepare a navigational overlay of the
vessel trackline for the duration of the dump. The overlay was
signed and forwarded to the Coast Guard within 72 hours after
completion of the trip. The ocean dumping vessel was equipped
with a spotlight of sufficient intensity to give ample coverage
of the vessel wake, to be utilized during all nighttime dumping
episodes. Monthly Transportation and Dumping Logs were submitted
to both the Coast Guard and EPA in order to demonstrate that the
disposal restrictions specified in the permit were not being ex-
ceeded. .
Pursuant to MPRSA, any information concerning violations .of the
Act or specific ocean dumping permit conditions is forwarded to
EPA for appropriate action when civil actions are indicated, or
to the Attorney General for criminal cases. Since the Acid Waste
Disposal site was designated, there have been no reports of
illegal dumping or permittees violating permit conditions at the
site. Consequently, EPA has not initiated any enforcement
actions regarding acid waste disposal.
H.
Planned Actions
As the last remaining entity utilizing the Acid Waste Disposal
site has withdrawn its application to continue disposal, and as
no other permits are pending for use of the site, Region II re-
commends site de-designation to the Administrator. Table 4 sum-
marizes planned acid waste disposal actions.
27
-------
TABLE ~.
PLANNED ACID WASTE DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION
PROPOSED DATE
COMMENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Region II's Recom-
mendation for
De-Designation of
site
March 1989
In view of land-based
alternatives to be
implemented by Allied,
and provisions in the
Ocean Dumping Ban Act
prohibiting new permits,
there will no longer be
an authorized use of
this site.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Final site
De-Designation
December 1989
Revocation of site
Designation for disposal
of acid waste.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
28
-------
v.
WOODBURNING AT SEA
A.
Historical Perspective
woodburning at sea is considered a form of ocean disposal because
particulate matter in the plume created by the woodburning opera-
tions ultimately settles onto the ocean. Unburned pieces of wood
and the ashes resulting from the burning operation are not per-
mitted to be dumped into the ocean, and must be returned to land
for either subsequent burning or disposal at a landfill.
Prior to the establishment of EPA and enactment of permitting
regulations for ocean dumping, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the City of New York, and private waste transporters were burning
waste wood at a site in the Atlantic Ocean located approximately
17 nautical miles off the coast of Point Pleasant, New Jersey.
This woodburning site, which now serves as the current interim
site, is shown in Figure 1. Water depths average 31 meters at
the site.
The Port of New York and New Jersey exhibits extensive water-
front development associated with marine transport. Because many
of the waterfront structures, bulkheads, and pile fields were
constructed many years ago, they have deteriorated and the wood
from the structures enters the waterways and creates hazards to
navigation.
charged with the responsibility of maintaining navigable water-
ways, the Corps is responsible for removing any hazards to navi-
gation (e.g., driftwood). The Corps maintains a fleet of vessels
which transit the Harbor removing potential navigation hazards
from the water. In an effort to prevent wooden debris from
entering the water, the Corps has implemented a source removal
program, the New York Harbor Drift Removal Project, whereby
deteriorated structures are removed before becoming waterborne.
This program serves a dual purpose: in addition to preventing
potential navigation hazards by removing the deteriorated struc-
tures at their source, areas which are cleaned up are reopened
for subsequent development. Although the Corps is the lead
agency in this program, the states in which the projects are
located must contribute matching funds. The majority of wood
collected from this source removal and harbor clean-up program is
disposed of by burning the debris at the woodburning site; how-
ever, two of the last three projects for which the Corps sought
bids from contractors to perform the work and dispose of the
debris utilized upland disposal methods.
The Corps has been the largest user of the woodburning site,
accounting for approximately 70% of the wood burned between 1973
(when records were first kept) and 1987. During this time,
369,679 tons of wood were burned at the site by all permittees.
The maximum volume burned in anyone year has never exceeded
60,000 tons.
29
-------
B.
Policy
Prior to permitting any woodburning activities, EPA utilizes the
criteria established in its Ocean Dumping Act. That is, EPA will
not allow woodburning if there is a technically feasible and en-
vironmentally acceptable disposal method with less overall envir-
onmental impact. EPA applies a rule of reason in determining the
practicality of an alternative and the balancing of environmental
impacts. EPA will not allow the oceans to be used as a "cheap"
method of waste disposal if other environmentally sound and tech-
nically feasible alternatives exist.
Consistent with this policy, when EPA receives an application for
a woodburning permit it evaluates alternative methods of disposal.
If the applicant is a private waste transporter, EPA evaluates the
availability of land-based disposal sites for each specific pro-
ject in the application prior to making a permit decision. If the
applicant is a government institution such as the Corps or the
City of New York, EPA makes a general determination regarding the
availability of alternatives for all of the projects on a program-
wide basis. However, if there is no feasible alternative on a
program-wide basis and EPA makes a determination to issue the
permit, EPA conditions the permit to require the permittee to ad-
vertise all projects for both ocean and land-based disposal, and
to submit the results of the bidding process to EPA. If EPA de-
termines that a feasible disposal method exists for a particular
project, it will not allow that project to be ocean disposed.
Hence, even though EPA may issue a permit for woodburning, it
performs a project-by-project review to assess the availability
of land-based disposal methods. Of the last three contract bids
submitted to EPA for review, EPA authorized only one of the pro-
jects for ocean disposal. Sufficient landfill capacity existed
to dispose of the debris generated by two of the projects.
All woodburning permits that are issued contain stringent condi-
tions requiring that all phases of the operation be conducted in
the safest manner possible. Over the past few years, these con-
ditions have been revised and supplemented to address the public
concern that woodburning operations were not being conducted
safely. section C below discusses these permit conditions.
No woodburning activities may be conducted between Memorial Day
and Labor Day when recreational use of coastal waters is at a
peak. This policy has been implemented to minimize the potential
for accidents involving recreational vessels should a woodburning
vessel inadvertently discharge wood into the water.
As previously stated, the source removal program has an inci-
dental benefit of removing deteriorated structures from the
waterfront to allow subsequent redevelopment. Although from the
community standpoint this may be the primary factor justifying
cost-sharing for the removal and disposal of the deteriorated
structures, EPA believes that environmental considerations also
30
-------
must be given priority, that is, the deteriorated nature of the
shore structures, not the shoreline's potential for redevelopment,
should drive the project's implementation. Existing mandates re-
quire the Corps to restrict clean-up actions to structures located
below the mean high water line. EPA believes that this mandate
should be changed so that structures up to the spring high tide
line could be removed because materials from this area could
potentially become waterbourne.
Should a permanent site be designated, the only material which
may be burned there is wooden debris collected from New York-New
Jersey Harbor and its environs. Wood from other areas may not be
discharged at the site. This policy is based upon the premise
that outside of the metropolitan New York-New Jersey area, where
space is at a premium, there should be sufficient landfill capa-
city to dispose of any wood wastes generated.
C.
Existing Ocean Disposal Activities
There are currently three permittees which utilize the woodburn-
ing site: the Corps, the city of New York, and Weeks Stevedoring
Company. Each of these parties burns wooden debris under one-
year interim permits issued by EPA.
In 1987, the Corps burned approximately 31,000 tons of wooden
debris at the woodburning site. The Corps does not transport the
debris to the burn site or conduct the actual burning operations.
These functions are performed by a waste transporter under con-
tract. The Corps currently utilizes two waste transporters:
Weeks Stevedoring Company and Donjon Marine, Inc.
The City of New York had a woodburning contract in 1987, under
which it burned approximately 300 tons. The current permit was
issued in April 1988 for the disposal of approximately 12,000 tons
of wood wastes generated in conjunction with the renovation of
ship and ferry terminals. Weeks Stevedoring Company and Donjon
Marine also serve as waste transporters for the City of New York.
In addition to serving as a waste transporter for both the City
of New York and the Corps, Weeks Stevedoring Company operates
under its own woodburning permit. Its current permit, issued in
April 1988, authorizes the disposal of approximately 25,000 tons
of wooden debris from private and government projects in both New
York and New Jersey. Weeks Stevedoring Company did not perform
any woodburning operations in 1987 under its permit.
D.
site Designation
. The current woodburning site, located in the Atlantic Ocean
approximately 17 nautical miles off the coast of Point Pleasant,
New Jersey, has interim status. It is the same site that has
31
-------
been used historically by the Corps since the 1960s. It gained
interim status in 1977 based primarily on the use of the site
prior to the enactment of MPRSA. Interim status is still in ef-
fect pending completion of an EIS and formal site designation.
In 1983, EPA issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS on the
proposed designation of an ocean woodburning site in the New York
Bight. Based upon concerns raiseq during the development of the
Draft EIS, it was decided that the document would not be final-
ized until additional air and water quality data were collected
in order to determine whether toxic emissions are produced during
burning. These studies have been completed and a Draft EIS will
be issued in 1990. Concurrent with the publication of the Final
EIS later in 1990, EPA may designate a permanent woodburning site.
E.
permittin9
The three permittees which currently utilize the woodburning site
operate under one-year interim permits issued by EPA. Until an
EIS is prepared and a site is formally designated, the maximum
duration of any interim permit is one year.
The woodburning permits currently in effect are the most compre-
hensive ever issued by EPA. Several special conditions are
incorporated into the permits to assure that environmental im-
pacts resulting from the woodburning operations will be minimal
and that the operations will be conducted in a controlled and
safe manner. Permit conditions include the following:
1.
Barges must be equipped with stanchions of a specified
height and spacing around the perimeter of the barge.
Heavy duty chain link fencing must be stretched and welded
to the stanchions on the sides and stern of the barge, and
two horizontal steel rails must be securely fastened along
the length of the fence along its top and midsection.
Transit from the departure site to the burn site and the
initial ignition of the burn barge must be conducted
during daylight hours.
2.
3.
No more than 3500 tons of material may be burned at the
site at any given time.
The annual amount of material burned at the site by all
permittees may not exceed 119,000 tons. The only variance
from this cap is if the permittees can submit
meteorological data demonstrating that during a given burn
the wind direction was not onshore. If this information
is submitted, the tonnage of wood burned during that burn
event will not contribute toward the cap.
4.
32
-------
10.
F.
5.
Ashes resulting from the woodburning operation must be
returned to shore for disposal in a landfill practicing
standard cover and compaction procedures.
6.
Prior to leaving the burn site, the permittee must either
wet down for a minimum of two hours after all flames
appear to be extinguished, or, if a wetdown cannot be
performed, remain at the burn site for an additional 12
hours after all flames appear to be extinguished.
7.
A third vessel must perform twenty-four hour a day
surveillance of the entire burning operation from the time
that the vessel leaves port until the time that the vessel
returns to port. This vessel must be capable of, and is
responsible for, retrieving any wood which it observes
falling into the waterway.
An independent shiprider, approved by EPA, must be present
during all woodburning operations.
8.
9.
No woodburning may occur between Memorial and Labor Days.
The permittee must provide EPA with information estab-
lishing its capability for retrieving timbers in the event
of a catastrophic discharge. In the event of such a
discharge, the permittee must ensure that all timbers are
retrieved.
site Management
In 1986, a comprehensive at sea monitoring and computer modeling
study was conducted to assess air and water quality impacts
resulting from woodburning operations. Representative samples of
wood from projects throughout New York-New Jersey Harbor were
collected, and a waste characterization was performed to document
the concentrations of various metals, organohalogens, PCBs, and
creosote. On the basis of this characterization, EPA identified
a worst case wood, and controlled laboratory studies were con-
ducted to measure various organic and inorganic compounds in the
gaseous emissions and various metals in the ash residues.
After the laboratory studies were completed, field studies were
initiated to monitor air and water quality during the burning and
wetdown phases of a typical woodburning operation. Air samples
collected upwind, downwind, and aboard the burn barge did not
detect PCBs or dioxin at or above EPA-approved detection limits.
Creosote was detected, but by placing an annual cap of 119,000
tons on the amount of material which may be burned by all permit-
tees at the burn site, EPA-approved detection limits were not
violated. Metals were generally not detected or were detected in
trace amounts. Run-off water and water samples collected in the
vicinity of the burn barge did not contain unacceptable amounts of
33
-------
organic compounds. Dioxin and PCBs were not detected. Analysis
of the wet ash samples indicated that the aaterial was suitable
for disposal at a sanitary landfill practicing standard cover and
compaction procedures.
G.
Surveillance/Enforcement
Permit conditions require the permittees to contact the Coast
Guard and EPA prior to initiating a woodburning operation.
Because the Coast Guard has primary surveillance responsibility
from the time that the loaded barge leaves port, the Coast Guard
conducts a pre-departure inspection to assure that the wood is
loaded in a manner such that it does not fall overboard during
transit. EPA supplements this activity with random pre-departure
inspections.
Once the vessel has left port, an EPA-approved independent ship-
rider provides 24-hour a day surveillance from onboard either the
towing vessel or the trailing vessel. The shiprider is required
to submit a report after the vessels return to port. When avail-
able, EPA utilizes the services of its helicopter to provide sur-
veillance of woodburning operations. In 1988, EPA observed por-
tions of two of the four burns conducted in April and May.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
assists EPA and the Coast Guard in performing surveillance
activities." EPA and DEP entered into a Me80randum of Agreement
whereby the Regional Administrator of EPA deputized DEP employees
to act as EPA representatives to provide surveillance during
woodburning operations. DEP has provided surveillance aboard
marine police boats during selected woodburning operations.
When surveillance activities indicate that permit conditions have
been violated, EPA initiates enforcement actions against the
permittees and/or waste transporters. Over the past four years,
EPA has issued two civil administrative orders assessing monetary
penalties for violations of woodburning permits. In 1984, EPA
took civil action against Weeks stevedoring Company for leaving
the burn site with visible flames and collected $5000 in adminis-
trative penalties. In 1988, EPA issued an administrative order
to Weeks Stevedoring company for discharging debris into the
water during the course of a woodburning operation and collected
$26,000 in administrative penalties. "In part due to these en-
forcement actions, EPA incorporated more stringent conditions
into the woodburning permits to assure that there are no recur-
rences. For example, after the second administrative action was
resolved, all woodburning permits issued by EPA contained condi-
tions requiring the perimeter of all burn barges to be equipped
with ei9ht foot high fencing to prevent debris from falling over-
board.
34
-------
H.
Planned Actions
Upcoming actions in conjunction with woodburning activities are
summarized in Table 5. As indicated in this Table, a Draft EIS
and rulemaking package should be issued during 1989. Public
hearings in conjunction with the proposed site designation will
be conducted subsequent to publication of the Draft EIS. A final
decison regarding the Corps permit application should be rendered
during Spring 1990. During 1990, the final EIS should be issued
and a permanent woodburning site is expected to be designated.
35
-------
TABLE 2.
PLANNED WOODBURNING ACTIVITIES
ACTION
PROPOSED DATE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS
Publish Draft EIS &
. Proposed Rulemaking
for the Designation
of a Permanent Wood-
burning site
Summer 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The public comment period
will be a minimum of 45
days.
Public Hearings
Fall 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings will be in con-
junction with the pro-
posed site designation.
There will be two hear-
ings, one in NY and one
in NJ
Permit Decision
Summer 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Permit decision regarding
COE permit application.
Public hearing was held
in June 1988.
Final EIS and site
Designation
1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This date is tentative
and is dependent upon
the comments received to
the draft EIS
Review Bid Data for
Individual Projects
As Needed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COE and NYC are required
to advertise all pro-
jects for land-based, as
well as ocean, disposal
methods. EPA reviews
this information.
DEP Surveillance of
Woodburning Opera-
tions
As Needed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming that DEP re-
sources are available,
surveillance will be
conducted for each burn.
Coast Guard Pre-
Departure Inspec-
tions of Burn
Barges
As Needed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming that Coast
Guard resources are
available, inspections
will be conducted for
each burn.
EPA Surveillance of
Woodburning Events
As Needed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming that the EPA
helicopter is available,
EPA will conduct as many
checks as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
36
-------
VI.
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL: MUD DUMP AND INLET SITES
A.
Historical Perspective
The Port of New York and New Jersey has historically been one of
this Nation's leading ports. The Port contains approximately 40
federally maintained waterways, 1200 waterfront facilities, 235
deep draft terminals, and over 1 million linear feet of berthage.
The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintaining and
improving all waterways within the Port to assure that the navi-
gation channels can accommodate the cargo, container, and pas-
senger ships. Each year approximately 8 million cubic yards of
material are dredged by the Corps and private permittees to
accommodate these vessels, and the majority of this material is
discharged at the Mud Dump site. The Mud Dump site is a regional
site where virtually all of the material dredged from New York-
New Jersey Harbor and its environs is deposited.
The Mud Dump Site is located approximately 5 nautical miles off
the coast of Highlands, New Jersey. The site has an area of
approximately 2.3 square miles with water depths ranging between
16 and 29 meters. Figure 1 shows the location of this site.
In addition to the Mud Dump Site, there are 8 inlet disposal
sites servicing specific inlets in New York and New Jersey. The
4 New York Sites are the Rockaway, East Rockaway, Jones, and Fire
Island Inlet disposal sites, and the 4 New Jersey sites are the
Shark River, Absecon, Manasquan, and Cold Spring"Inlet disposal
sites. Because the majority of the material dredged from these
inlets is sand, the material is generally used for beach nourish-
ment. Consequently, the inlet disposal sites are utilized on a
sporadic basis for relatively small quantities of dredged mater-
ial. Figure 1 shows the locations of these sites.
B.
Policy
MPRSA charges EPA with the responsibility for designating
dredged material disposal sites and managing these sites once
designated. The Act charges the Corps with the responsibility
for reviewing applications and issuing permits for the disposal
of dredged material, and allows the Corps to make recommendations
for site selection.
While the COE evaluates permit applications and issues permits
for dredging activities and the ocean disposal of dredged mater-
ial, EPA reviews all public notices for dredging projects. If
the project is being authorized pursuant to section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, EPA may veto permit issuance if the proposed
activity would result in a significant adverse impact to the
environment.
37
-------
In reviewing public notices for dredged material disposal appli-
cations at the Mud Dump Site, EPA applies the following criteria
established in the Ocean Dumping Act. EPA will oppose the issu-
ance of a permit if a technically feasible and environmentally
acceptable disposal method with less overall environmental im-
.pacts exists. Alternative disposal methods which have been
implemented include beach nourishment and upland disposal. Beach
nourishment is the preferred disposal method if the dredged
material has a relatively coarse texture (generally greater than
80% sand) and there are nearby beaches with a similar sediment
composition requiring beach nourishment. EPA applies a rule of
reason in determining the practicality of alternatives and in
balancing the environmental impacts. EPA will ,not allow the
oceans to be used as a "cheap" method of waste disposal if other
environmentally sound and technically feasible alternatives exist.
Prior to permit issuance, all applicants for ocean disposal per-
mits must perform a battery of tests on representative samples of
dredged material from the proposed project. These tests were
developed jointly by EPA and the Corps, and were based on guid-
ance provided in the document entitled "Ecological Evaluation of
Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material Into Ocean Waters," pub-
lished in 1977 by the Corps Waterways Experiment Station (WES)
and the EPA Environmental Research Lab (ERL) in Narragansett,
Rhode Island. EPA Region II and the New York District Corps used
the procedures delineated in this document to formulate a series
of tests specific to the New York Bight. These tests include
physical tests such as analyses of site water and elutriate, and
biological tests such as solid phase bioassays on 3 indicator
species and bioaccumulation analyses of the organisms surviving
the solid phase tests. These tests were developed to assure that
dredged material disposal at the Mud Dump site would not further
degrade the ecosystem. These testing procedures are presented in
a joint EPA/corps document entitled "G~idance for Performing
Tests on Dredged Material to be Disposed of in Ocean Waters."
If the bioassay/bioaccumulation tests indicate that the material
to be disposed of at the Mud Dump site is not suitable for unre-
stricted ocean disposal, the testing results will be evaluated to
determine if the material can be discharged using mitigative mea-
sures. One such measure is capping. In instances where the
dredged material would not pose an acute toxicity threat (as
indicated by a clean bioassay test), but where the potential
exists for chronic toxicity if organisms are exposed to the
dredged material for prolonged periods of time (bioaccumulation
test), capping may be appropriate to mitigate the potential for
chronic exposure. EPA and the Corps make the determination of
whether capping is sufficient to mitigate potential chronic
impacts on a case-by-case basis depending upon the number of
organisms exceeding bioaccumulation criteria. In all instances
where capping is recommended, a cap must consist of clean mater-
ial with a minimum ratio of 2 to 1, cap to project material. All
caps must be in place within 2 weeks of dredged material disposal.
38
-------
In instances where the testing results ihdicate the potential for
acute toxicity, the dredged material may not be disposed of at
the Mud Dump site. At present, there are no alternatives for
disposal of such material other than upland disposal sites, al-
though additional options are being explored, such as subaqueous
borrow pits and containment islands.
Dredged material from all potential projects located in the
Passaic River and Newark Bay area must undergo dioxin testing in
addition to the testing procedures required in the Guidance
Manual. Dioxin analyses of sediments and biota performed by the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) indicate
that sediments from these areas may pose a potential threat to
aquatic organisms if ocean disposed. The issue of potential
dioxin contamination will be further addressed in the section E.
Whenever dredged material is suitable for beach nourishment, EPA
recommends this disposal option in lieu of ocean disposal. Prior
to disposal, all permit applicants, including the Corps if dredg-
ing is being performed in conjunction with a federal dredging
project, must perform a grain size analysis on the material to be
ocean disposed. If the material is primarily clean sand and
there are beaches contiguous to the project location, EPA recom-
mends that the material be used for beach nourishment. EPA
generally requires the material to be at least 80% sand if it is
to be used for beach nourishment. .
All dredged material disposal sites should be non-dispersive
sites capable of containing the dredged material disposed at the
site. All sites designated for dredged material disposal must
have these characteristics.
Co
Existinq Ocean Disposal Activities
Each year the Corps averages more than 25 applications for dredg-
ing permits that involve ocean disposal at the Mud Dump site.
These applications are submitted by both private and public
applicants, including the Corps if dredging of federal navigation
channels is required. The majority of these permit applications
are suitable for unrestricted ocean disposal. Over the past few
years, acknowledging that the Corps pre-screens all applications,
EPA has not reviewed any projects which could not be ocean dis-
posed because of acute toxicity. The annual volume of material
discharged at the Mud Dump Site by the Federal government and all
permittees is approximately 8 million cubic yards.
The history of dredged material disposal at the 8 inlet sites is
quite variable. Most of the material dredged from the inlets has
been deposited along nearby beaches because of the predominantly
sandy character of the material. The Cold Spring Inlet disposal
site was last used in 1987. The Rockaway and East Rockaway Inlet
39
-------
sites were last used in 1979. The Manasquan, Absecon, and Jones
Inlet sites were last used in 1978. The remaining two dredged
material disposal sites, at Fire Island and Shark River Inlets,
have not received any material in recent years. EPA continues to
encourage disposal of inlet dredged material for beachfill when-
ever feasible.
D.
site Desiqnation
Parts of the current Mud Dump site have been used for the dis-
posal of dredged material since 1914. In 1984, EPA formally
designated the site for the disposal of dredged material. The
site was designated for an indefinite period of time and its
capacity was set at 100 million cubic yards of material. This
limit was based upon navigational concerns associated with the
bathymetric contours of the resultant dredged material mound.
Since the site was designated, approximately 25 million cubic
yards of material have been disposed of at the site.
section 211 of the Water Resources and Development Act of 1986
(WRDA) mandated that EPA designate a site for the disposal of
dredged material not less than 20 miles from the New York and New
Jersey shorelines. The statute requires that the site be desig-
nated within 3 years from the time of enactment, meaning not
later than November 1989. Following designation of this' site,
all disposal at the Mud Dump site would be curtailed so that only
"acceptable dredged material" would be deposited at the existing
site, with all other material that would otherwise have gone to
the Mud Dump being discharged at the newly designated site. In
the statute "acceptable dredged material" is to be defined by the
Corps in consultation with EPA.
Though WRDA authoriz~d EPA to designate a new dredged material
disposal site by 1989, it did not provide any resources with
which to perform the site designation. Funding did not become
available to Region II until the Spring of 1988, and at that time
EPA began the process to designate a site. Studies are underway
to determine the zone of siting feasibility, the economic factors
associated with relocating a dredged material disposal site fur-
ther offshore, and the transport mechanisms for dredged material
in a deeper water environment. Two field cruises were planned
for 1989, one that was completed in February and one in July.
Draft and Final EISs will be circulated in accordance with EPA's
policy on voluntary EIS preparation. Public scoping meetings to
explore issues to be addressed in the EIS were held in September
1988. EPA projects that the new site will be designated by the
spring of 1991, 3 years from the time funds became available.
In June 1988, EPA published the Final EIS and draft rulemaking
package recommending the designation of 8 project-specific
dredged material disposal sites for inlets in New Jersey and New
York. EPA expects these sites to be formally designated in 1989.
40
-------
E.
Permittinq
As previously stated, the evaluation and issuance of permits to
dredge and ocean dispose of dredged material is the responsibil-
ity of the Corps. EPA reviews all Corps public notices regarding
dredging projects to assure that the projects will conform to the
criteria established in the Ocean Dumping Regulations. If the
proposed project falls within the scope of section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, EPA has the authority to veto permit issuance if
the proposed action will cause significant adverse impacts to the
environment. This veto power exists with permits issued under
section 103 of MPRSA as well, though the Corps may override the
veto for navigation considerations.
Permitting responsibilities for disposal at the Mud Dump Site lie
with the New York District Corps. Permitting responsibilities at
the 8 inlet sites are divided between 2 different Corps Districts,
New York and Philadelphia. The New York District is responsible
for permitting activities at the Rockaway, East Rockaway, Fire
Island, Jones, and Shark River Inlet dredged material disposal
sites; while the Philadelphia District is responsible for permit-
ting activities at the Manasquan, Absecon, and Cold Spring Inlet
dredged material disposal sites.
All material discharged at the inlet dredged material disposal
sites must originate in the inlet which it serves. Although both
public and private permittees utilize the site, the majority of
dredged material disposed at the sites originates from Corps
navigation projects. The "permitting process is similar to that
described above for use of the Mud Dump Site, and only those"
materials which satisfy the criteria for ocean disposal may be
discharged at the sites.
The testing procedures required in order to obtain a permit for
the ocean disposal of dredged material are subject to change
pending the availability of new information. For example, in
1985 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
prepared a report documenting elevated dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
concentrations in marine biota in the vicinity of Newark Bay.
Tissue analyses from indigenous aquatic organisms indicated that
the organisms were bioaccumulating the dioxin, often to concen-
trations exceeding the Food and Drug Administration's recommended
allowances. The primary source of the dioxin was a Superfund
site that discharged wastewater into the Passaic River near the
mouth of Newark Bay.
Shortly thereafter, EPA, the Corps, the u.S. Fish and wildlife
Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service formed a work-
ing group to address the dioxin issue. On a short-term basis,
testing is required of all permit applicants to determine whether
sediments dredged from the Passaic River/Newark Bay area could be
ocean disposed. On a long-term basis, ERL/Narragansett, with
41
-------
funding from the Corps, is conducting a series of bioaccumulation
tests on representative organisms. The goal of this research is
to define a relationship between sediment concentrations and
biota body burdens. This relationship can then be used in the
regulatory process.
F.
site Manaqement
As previously stated, MPRSA designates EPA as the agency respon-
sible for monitoring and managing all dredged material disposal
sites; however, because of the integral role the Corps plays in
the permitting process, that agency is involved in all site
management activities.
In May 1988, EPA Region II and the New York District Corps en-
tered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding site
management of the Mud Dump site. According to the MOU, although
EPA is ultimately responsible for management control of the Mud
Dump Site, EPA will significantly involve the Corps in all site
management activities because of the latter's expertise regarding
site management. The Corps will develop and implement a long-
range monitoring plan, perform any necessary site investigations,
prepare an annual report summarizing the results of site monitor-
ing, develop an annual plan for the timing and strategic place-
ment of dredged material, and perform site maintenance.
When the inlet dredged material disposal sites are formally desig-
nated, EPA will attempt to reach similar site management agree-
ments with both the New York and Philadelphia Districts of the
Corps. EPA plans to develop a site monitoring strategy for these
8 sites within 6 months of the designation of the sites; the
monitoriong strategy may be embodied in the form of a MOU.
G.
Surveillance/Enforcement
The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for surveillance activities
to prevent the unlawful discharge and transportation of dredged
material, and to assure that the authorized ocean disposal is
performed in compliance with permit conditions. Vessels and air-
craft patrols, in-port boardings and inspections, and radar are
several methods used by the Coast Guard for the surveillance of
ocean dumping activities. All dredged material disposal permits
issued by the Corps require permittees to give advanced notifica-
tion to both the Coast Guard and the Corps prior to commencing
any ocean disposal operations.
Pursuant to MPRSA, any information concerning violations of the
Act or specific ocean dumping permit conditions is forwarded to
both the Corps and EPA. Either the Corps or EPA may initiate
enforcement actions for permit violations. The Corps has the
42
-------
authority to suspend or revoke permits and EPA has the authority
to seek civil penalties. In instances where illegal dumping has
occurred without benefit of a Corps permit, EPA has the authority
to pursue civil penalties and/or criminal investigations. No
permit violations or unauthorized discharge of dredged material
have been reported to EPA over the past 4 years. Consequently,
EPA has not pursued any recent enforcement actions.
H.
Planned Actions
Upcoming dredged material disposal activities are summarized in
Table 6. As indicated in this Table, upcoming activities include
the designation of a new regional dredged material disposal site,
the designation of the 8 inlet disposal sites, the development
and implementation of site monitoring and management strategies
for the Mud Dump site and inlet sites, and permit reviews for
disposal applications at the Mud Dump site and inlet sites.
43
-------
TABLE Q.
PLANNED DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION
PROPOSED DATE
COMMENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Designation of the New
York/New Jersey Inlet
sites
Fall 1989
EPA proposed site
designation in May
1988.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Development of Moni-
toring and Management
Strategy for Inlet
sites
Spring 1990
Strategy will be
developed within six
months of site
designation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Review of Permit Appli-
cations for Mud Dump
site and Inlet sites
within 30 days
of public
notice
Applications are re-
ceived on a continuous
basis. Reviews will
be completed within 30
days of public notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Field Cruises to Iden-
tify Potential Dis-
posal sites
Draft EIS and Proposed
Rulemaking
Final .EIS and site
Designation
February &
July 1989
Summer 1990
spring 1991
This schedule is contin-
gent upon the ability
to locate a suitable
site which complies
with the criteria estab-
lished in MPRSA.
----------------------------------------------------------------
44
-------
VII.
CELLAR DIRT DISPOSAL
A.
Historical PersDective
The Cellar Dirt Disposal site is used for the disposal of con-
struction site debris, concrete, excavation dirt, rubble, and
rock. This site is located approximately 6.6 nautical miles east
of Highlands, New Jersey and 11.7 nautical miles south of Rocka-
way, Long Island, New York, positioned in a circle with a radius
of 0.6 nautical miles. The area of the site is approximately 1.1
square miles, and water depths at the site range from 29 to 38
meters. Figure 1 shows the location of the Cellar Dirt Disposal
Site relative to the New York Bight.
Use of the Cellar Dirt Site pre-dates the formation of EPA and
the enactment of permitting regulations for ocean dumping. The
ocean disposal of cellar dirt in the ocean was first recorded in
1908 at a point 3 miles southeast of Scotland Lightship. As
shoaling became evident, the disposal site was moved progres-
sively seaward into deeper water. The existing Cellar Dirt
Disposal site has been in use since 1940, and was formally desig-
nated by EPA as a permanent disposal site in 1983.
EPA began issuing permits for cellar dirt disposal in 1973. The
amount of material disposed of at the Cellar Dirt Disposal Site
is variable from year to year. Between 1973 to 1980, an annual
average of 372,000 cubic yards of cellar dirt material was dis-
posed of at the site, mostly by Moran Towing COrPOration. In
1973 Water Tunnel Contractors disposed of, under an EPA issued
permit, 126,364 cubic yards of material at the Cellar Dirt
Disposal site. Since 1980, disposal has occurred in only 2
years. In 1985 the City of New York disposed of approximately
50,000 cubic yards of cellar dirt material, and since the
beginning of 1988, approximately 17,450 cubic yards of material
has been disposed by Port Liberte Partners.
B.
Policy
Prior to permitting any cellar dirt disposal activities, EPA uses
the criteria established in the Ocean Dumping Act. Consistent
with this policy, when EPA receives an application for a cellar
dirt disposal permit it evaluates alternative methods of disposal.
A complete waste characterization must accompany the application
so that EPA can assess potential impacts to the marine environment
associated with the ocean disposal of the material. If any of
the excavated material is dirt from projects abutting the Passaic
River or Newark Bay, dioxin analyses must be conducted as part of
the waste characterization because sediments from those waterways
have been documented to contain elevated levels of dioxin.
45
-------
Once a permit is issued, the applicant must continue to submit
waste characterization data on a quarterly basis for the duration
of the permit to assure that the material being disposed of is
similar in nature to the material for which the application was
submitted. All permits are subject to revision, revocation or
limitation, in whole, or in part, as a result of a determination
by the Regional Administrator that the dumping authorized by the
permit would violate applicable water quality standards or that
the dumping can no longer be carried out consistent with EPA's
marine policy, at any given time during the term of the permit.
All cellar dirt disposal operations have been restricted to the
northwest corner of the disposal site to minimize deleterious
environmental impacts on the whole site. By restricting disposal
operations to the northwest corner of the site, only a portion of
the site experiences primary impacts as a result of the disposal
operations. Only cellar dirt material, as previously defined,
may be discharged at the Cellar Dirt site.
C.
Existina Ocean Disposal Activities
There is currently one permittee that utilizes the Cellar Dirt
Disposal site. Port Liberte Partners has a three year special
permit to ocean dispose construction debris, dirt, rocks, rubble,
and similar material at the Cellar Dirt Site.
To date, approximately 17,450 cubic yards of cellar dirt have
been discharged at the Cellar Dirt Disposal 'Site under this
permit. Transportation and disposal are performed by a waste
transporter under contract to Port Liberte Partners. Port
Liberte Partners is currently utilizing Disch Construction as its.
waste transporter.
D.
site Designation
The existing Cellar Dirt Disposal site has been in use since 1940
and was designated by EPA as an interim site in 1973. Pursuant
to this interim designation, EPA published a Draft EIS and pro-
posed rulemaking package in 1981. The Final EIS was published in
1982 and a permanent Cellar Dirt site was designated in 1983.
The Cellar Dirt Disposal Site is designated for continuing use
with no expiration date; however, EPA Region II is currently pro-
posing the de-designation of the Cellar Dirt Disposal site upon
expiration of the current permit on the basis that Port Liberte,
. the sole dumper, has not demonstrated a continued need for future
disposal, and that land-based alternatives have been utilized by
other generators of cellar dirt. EPA anticipates that the site
de-designation can be~oncluded by the end of 1990.
46
-------
E.
Permittinq
Ocean disposal is only permitted provided that the applicant can
demonstrate a need for ocean dumping, lack of acceptable alterna-
tives to ocean dumping, and compliance with EPA's marine environ-
mental impact criteria. EPA issued an ocean dumping permit on
November 12, 1986 to Port Liberte Partners for the disposal of
400,000 cubic yards of excavation dirt from Port Liberte, Caven
Point, Jersey City, New Jersey. The material is a by-product of
the creation of a canal network and townhouse community. Approx-
imately 17,450 cubic yards were discharged in 1988. Port Liberte
Partners' permit expires on November 12, 1989. There are no
other current permits for use of the Cellar Dirt Disposal site.
Cellar dirt disposal permits contain several special conditions,
in addition to general ocean dumping permit conditions, to assure
that environmental impacts resulting from the cellar dirt dis-
posal operations will be minimal and that the operations. will be
conducted in a controlled and safe manner.
1.
The permit specifies both the maximum volume of material
which may be discharged under the permit, as well as the
maximum daily volume.
The waste generator must submit to EPA quarterly reports
of volumes removed from its facilities by the waste
transporter and the waste transporter must submit to
EPA quarterly volumes of material it transported to the
Cellar Dirt Disposal site.
2.
3.
Waste materials must be discharged as rapidly as pos-
sible within the EPA designated dump site.
4.
The waste generator must conduct analyses on a quarterly
basis on a representative sample of material for a
number of parameters.
5.
The waste generator must implement an EPA approved
monitoring program as a means of determining the
environmental impacts of ocean disposal at the Cellar
Dirt Site. The monitoring consists of four parts:
a.
A pre-project survey to assess baseline conditions.
b.
A second survey within 30 days after the final
ocean dumping event authorized under the permit
to compare conditions after dumping with baseline
conditions and to assess the short-term impacts of
ocean disposal.
c.
A third survey within 6 to 12 months after the
final ocean dumping event to assess long-term
effects of ocean disposal.
47
-------
d.
A compliance survey each summer during the term of
the permit to monitor the impacts of a typical
ocean dumping event.
6.
Land disposal in place of ocean dumping must be utilized
by the waste generator whenever possible. Semi-annual
reports must be submitted by the waste generator detail-
ing the endeavors to comply with this condition.
The waste transporter must provide telephone notifica-
tion of each sailing to the Captain of the Port of New
York of the u.s. Coast Guard, no later than 24 hours
prior to the estimated time of departure.
7.
F.
site Management
EPA is responsible for site management at all designated ocean
disposal sites and coordinates with the permittees to ensure
that all monitoring, research, and surveying activities are
conducted in accordance with EPA guidelines. site management
responsibilities include monitoring activities to assure that
disposal activities at the sites continue to satisfy the ocean
dumping regulations and site designation criteria.
Permittees are responsible for conducting monitoring studies at
the Cellar Dirt Disposal site to ensure that no deleterious envir-
onaental impacts occur as a result of disposal operations. In
January, 1988, Port Liberte conducted a comprehensive baseline
monitoring survey. The purpose of the baseline survey was to
establish environmental conditions existing at the Cellar Dirt
Disposal site prior to any actual dumping under the permit.
Future monitoring surveys, two following final dumping activities
and one compliance survey during the summer as outlined in the
special permit conditions, will then be compared to this baseline
survey to determine what impacts the disposal of cellar dirt ma-
terial had on the Cellar Dirt Disposal site. A Quality Assurance/
Quality Compliance Plan for these studies was approved by EPA.
G.
Surveillance/Enforcement
The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for surveillance activities
to prevent the unlawful disposal or transportation of materials,
and to assure that authorized ocean disposal is performed in
compliance with permit conditions. Vessels and aircraft patrols,
shipriders onboard dumping vessels, in-port boardings and inspec-
tions, and radar are several methods used by the Coast Guard for
the surveillance of ocean disposal activities. All ocean dis-
posal permits issued by EPA require the permittees to give the
authorities advance notification prior to commencing any ocean
disposal activities.
48
-------
Pursuant to MPRSA, any information concerning violations of the
Act or specific ocean dumping permit conditions is forwarded to
EPA for appropriate action when civil actions are indicated, or
to the Attorney General for criminal cases. Since the Cellar
Dirt Disposal site was designated, there have been no reports of
illegal dumping or permittees violating permit conditions at the
Cellar Dirt site. consequently, EPA has not initiated any
enforcement actions regarding cellar dirt disposal.
H.
Planned Actions
Table 7 summarizes upcoming actions in reference to the Cellar
Dirt Disposal site. Planned activities include the quarterly
waste characterization analyses, a summer compliance survey, and
two monitoring surveys to assess the short-term and long-term
impacts associated with cellar dirt disposal. Additionally, EPA
will focus on the de-designation of the current site.
49
-------
TABLE 2.
PLANNED CELLAR QIBI DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
ACTION
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS
PROPOSED DATE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quarterly Waste
Characterization and
Analysis
Quarterly through-
out the duration
of the permit.
This is performed by
the permittee as a
permit condition.
Monitoring Survey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
December 1989
Monitoring will be
conducted within 30
days following permit
expiration to assess
short term impacts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation for
De-Designation of
site
winter 1990
Region II will recom-
mend de-designation of
site for Headquarters
approval.
Monitoring Survey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
December 1990
Monitoring will be
conducted about one
year after permit
expiration to assess
long term impacts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
50
------- |