Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection
Briefing Book
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
January 1989
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
1. EPA'S COASTAL AND MARINE POLICY 1-1
POLICY STATEMENT 1-1
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1-1
2. THE IMPORTANCE OF OCEANS, ESTUARIES, AND THE GREAT LAKES 2-1
SCALE ' 2-1
USES " 2-1
VALUE 2-2
THREATS 2-2
RESULTS 2-2
3. THE THREATS TO OCEANS, ESTUARIES, AND THE GREAT LAKES ...... 3-1
MARINE DEBRIS "• • 3-1
MEDICAL WASTE '. . . 3-3
PATHOGENS 3-4
EUTROPHICATION 3-5.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES 3-7
OIL CONTAMINATION 3-10
CHANGE IN LIVING RESOURCES 3-11
4. LEGISLATION OF IMPORTANCE TO OMEP 4-1
CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1977 AS AMENDED BY THE WATER QUALITY ACT OF
1987 4-1
National Estuary Program 4-4
Point Source Controls 4-5
Nonpoint Sources 4-6
Section 304(1) 4-6
Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes Programs 4-6
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1972 4-7
OTHER LAWS . 4-8
Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 . . . 4-9
Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 4-9
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 ' 4-10
Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988 4rll
Degradable Plastic Ring Carrier Act of 1988 4-11
Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988 4-11
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and Amendments . 4-12
National Ocean Pollution Planning Act of 1978 4-12
Marine Mammal Protection Act ; ; ; 4-12
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 4.-13
Endangered Species Act of 1972 4-13
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 4-14
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (as amended July 31, 1986). . 4-14
Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 ' . . 4-14
Deepwater Port Act of 1974 4-14
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
5. O11EP PROGRAMS AND OBJECTIVES .
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
Coal
Approach
Current Status
POINT SOURCE CONTROL (301 [ hJ/403 [ cJ).
Coal
Approach
Current Status
NEAR-COASTAL WATERS ACTIVITIES.
NCW Coals
NCV Objectives
NCW Approach
The Gulf of Mexico Initiative
GREAT LAKES PROGRAM
GLNPO Goal
GLNPO Approach
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
Chesapeake Bay Program Goal
Chesapeake Bay Program Approach
OCEAN DUMPING
Goal
Ocean Dumping Policy
Approach
OCEAN INCINERATION
PLASTICS
Goal
Approach
OTHER ACTIVITIES
5—6
5—6
5—6
5—7
5-8
5—9
5—9
5—10
5—11
5—11
5—12
5—13
5—13
5—14
5—15
5-15
5-16
5-16
5—16
5—17
5—1
5—1
5—2
5—2
5—3
5—3
5—4
5—4
5—5
5-5
OTHER ACTIVITIES: NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT
Goal
Approach
OTHER ACTIVITIES: HABITAT PROTECTION
Goal
Approach
5—17
5—17
• . 5-18
5—18
5-18
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
6. ORGANIZATION OF OMEP .
FUNCTIONAL STATEMENT
POLICY AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT STAFF
MARINE OPERATIONS DIVISION
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION
SELECTED PERSONNEL WITHIN OMEP.
Office of the Director
Policy and Management Support Staff
Marine Operations Division
Technical Support Division
7. OMEP’S RELATIONSHIP TO EPA REGIONS
REGIONAL ORGANIZATION
OMEP’S RELATIONSHIP WITH REGIONAL OFFICES
KEY REGIONAL CONTACTS
Coastal Program Division
Estuarine Program Office
National Ocean Pollution Planning
Ocean Assessment Division .
National Sea Grant Program.
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE .
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
U.S. COAST GUARD
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE.
10. MAJOR AUTHORIZING COMMITTEES IN CONGRESS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS.
Selected Responsibilities
Subcommittees
6—1
6—1
6—3
6—4
6—5
6—6
6-6
6-7
6—7
6—7
8-1
8-1
8-1
8—2
9-1
9—1
9-1
9—1
9—2
9-2
9-3
9—3
9—4
9-4
9—5
10-1
10-2
10-2
10-2
10-3
10-3
10-3
7—1
7—1
7—2
7—6
8-1
8. OTHER EPA OFFICES IMPORTANT TO OMEP
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION, OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND
STANDARDS
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM, OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND
STANDARDS
OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
9. OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS WITH MARINE AND ESTUARINE RESPONSIBILITIES
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Office.
Selected Responsibilities
Subcommittees
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES. .
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(continued)
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION
Selected Responsibilities
Subcommittees
OTHER OMEP-RELATED COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
The Oceanic Society
Save The Bay
The Coastal Society
Greenpeace USA, Inc
Natural Resources Defense Council,
The Environmental Policy Institute.
The National Wildlife Federation.
The National Audubon Society.
The Sierra Club
The Clean Water Action Project.
The Izaak Walton League of America,
PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS
The Coastal States Organization
The Association of State/Interstate Water Pollution
Administrators
The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
The National Governors’ Association
The National Conference of State Legislators.
INDUSTRY.
The American Association of Port Authorities.
11—1
11—1
11—1
11—1
11—2
11—2
11—2
11—3
11—4
11—4
11—4
11—5
11-5
Control
11—6
11—6
11—6
11—7
11—7
11—7
11-8
11-8
12. OMEP RESOURCES
APPENDICES
MAGAZINE ARTICLES
Our Filthy Seas
Don’t Go Near The Water
A New Emphasis on Near Coastal Waters
Clean Water Act Amendments Focus on Revised Ideas About
Water Quality Managers Meet the Coastal Zone
12—1
10-4
10-4
10-4
10-5
10-5
10-5
10-5
10-5
10-6
11. ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS IMPORTANT TO OIIEP.
Inc.
Inc..
Pollution
A-I
A-9
A- 17
A- 19
A- 23
-------
LEGISLATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Clean Water Act
CWA 205(1)
CWA 301(h)
CWA32O
CWA 403(c)
CVA 117
CWA 118
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987.
Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988
Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988
Degradable Plastic Ring Carrier Act of 1988
Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988
Water Resources Development Act of 1986
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
Chesapeake Bay Agreement
OMEP BACKGROUND MATERIALS
Program Agenda
Delegations
Management Sys tens
Program Fact Sheets
National Estuary Program Estuary Descriptions
D— 1
B—i
3-2
B—4
B-6
B—7
B-8
B-il
B—27
B—37
B—59
B-69
B-73
B-79
Marpol V
London Dumping Convention
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1987 . .
INTERSTATE AGREEMENTS
c-i
C- 27
C-45
E- 1
E- 31
E-53
E-57
E-67
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 4—1
Table 4—2
Table 4—3
Figure 4—1
Statutory Requirements by Act
Statutory Requirements by Lead Agency .
Statutory Requirements by Date
Acts and Activities Relevant to OMEP
4—16
4—20
4—23
4—2
Figure 5—1 Waters Covered Under Agency Initiatives, 1988
5—21
Figure 6—1
Figure 6—2
Figure 6—3
OMEP Organization Chart
OMEP Staffing Chart
Regional Coordinators, Headquarters
6—8
6—9
6—10
Table
Table
Table
Table
12—1
12—2
12—3
12—4
Ranking Scheme
HQ and Regional Assessments of HO/Regional Relationship
Regional Directory and Key Contacts
12—3
12—4
12-6
12—7
Table 7—1
Table 7—2
Table 7-3
7—3
7—4
7—7
OMEP Funding History
Fiscal Year 1990 Presidential Request
National Estuary Program Funding History
Full—Time Equivalent Allocations to Regions
-------
Introduction
-------
J’u L, 74L 1J í
* , ‘A 7 -
c Q STi,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
I pi c
J N 9 tYSG
OFFICE OF
WATER
NENOPANDUM
SUBJECT: ONE? Briefing Book /
FROM: Tudor T. Davies, Director9 (
Off ice of Marine and Estuarne Protection /
TO: Addressees
I am pleased to transmit to you the OMEP Briefing Book,
which summarizes the major features of the Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection. It places these features in the
perspective of marine and estuarine environmental health, the
legislative and regulatory tools available for improving marine
and estuarine health, and the context in which the Office
operates.
The Briefing Book contains the following:
o OMEP’s goals and objectives
o The importance of the marine, estuarine, and
Great Lakes environments
o Threats to the quality of marine, estuarine, and
Great Lakes environments
o Legislation that provides tools to maintain or restore
marine and estuarine quality and avert the effects of
threats
o OMEP programs and their relationship to enabling
legislation and environmental threats
o OMEP’s organization and regional and HQ staff contacts
-------
—2—
o Other EPA offices that are important to achieving
OMEP’s goals
o Other Federal programs with marine and estuarine
responsibilities
o Major congressional authorizing committees
o Environmental and public interest groups.
In addition, the Book includes many important reference
documents, such as copies of all of our enabling legislation,
international and interstate agreements, delegations of
authority, the OMEP Agenda, a summary of OMEP
resources, and summaries of statutory requirements.
We prepared this book with several uses in mind. We plan to
use it to assist us in the transition to the new Administration,
to provide a handy resource document for OMEP staff and our
regional counterparts, and to orient new staff to our programs.
This book was prepared in a format to allow us to update and
continue to add items, which we plan to do periodically.
We hope that this book is useful to you and your staff.
Please contact Dana Letourneau of my staff (475—8580) if you
have any comments or suggestions.
Attachment
-------
Addressees:
ONEP Staff
Tudor Davies
Bob Zeller
Tom DeNoss
Dana Letourneau
Craig Vogt
Darrell Brown
Paul Pan
Louise Wise
Michelle Miller
John Pai
Reg ions
Paul Keough
Dave Fierra
Ron Manfredonia
Rich Caspe
Mario Delvicaro
Al Morris
Greene Jones
John Pomponio
Charles Spooner
Bruce Barrett
Mike McGhee
Doug Lipka
Frank Covington
Carol Finch
Myron Knudson
Bruce Elliott
Harry Seraydarian
Loretta Barsamian
Robert Burd
Ron Kreizenbeck
Norbert Jaworski
ow
Rebecca Hanmer
William Whittington
Jim Elder
Martha Prothro
Dave Davis
Marion Mlay
Mike Quigley
Mike Cook
Jim Home
Mary Blakeslee
Lori Gnibbin
Other Offices
Mark Flory (OC)
Delia Scott (OC)
-------
INTRODUCTION
This briefing book summarizes the major features of the Office of Marine
and Estuarine Protection (OMEP). It places these features in the perspective
of marine and estuarine environmental health, the legislative and regulatory
tools available for improving marine and estuarine health, and the context in
which the Office operates.
The organization of the book relies on the tenet that the driving force
for all of OMEP’s activities is the Office’s goal, as specified in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) draft Coastal and Marine Policy.
This briefing book presents the goal first. The remainder of the book
describes the following:
• The importance of the marine, estuarine, and Great Lakes environments
• Threats to the quality of marine, estuarine, and Great Lakes
environments
• Legislation that provides tools to maintain or restore marine and
estuarine quality and avert the effects of threats
• OMEP programs and their relationship to enabling legislation and
environmental threats
• OMEP’s organization and staff
• Other EPA offices that are important to achieving OMEP’s goals
• Other Federal programs with marine and estuarine responsibilities
• Major congressional authorizing committees
• Environmental and public interest groups.
This sequence of topics leads from the environment and Its problems, to
the environmental management tools that can be applied, how OMEP applies them,
and with what resources. It proceeds further to a discussion of the context
In which OMEP operates and other organizations that can help OMEP achieve its
goals, both within the Agency and outside. This organization resulted in some
overlap between sections that was necessary in developing the commentary.
1
-------
The Appendices, unlike the main body of text, are a collection of items
that do not have a rigid organizational structure. Related topics are grouped
together as much as possible, primarily according to pertinent publications,
legislation, international agreements, and OMEP background materials.
2
-------
Coastal and
Manne Policy
-------
Environmental
Importance
-------
2. THE IMPORTANCE OF OCEANS, ESTUARIES, AND THE GREAT LAKES
The Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection’s (OMEP’s) responsibilities
encompass oceans, estuaries, and the Great Lakes. These bodies of water are
geographically dispersed and respond in fundamentally different ways to
various threats. This section outlines the significance of oceans, estuaries,
and the Great Lakes according to their scale, their uses and economic value,
and their decline in quality over the last century.
SCALE
• Approximately four—fifths of the Earth’s surface is covered by water,
most of it being oceans and estuaries.
• About three—fifths of the U.S. International Boundary is at a
coastline or within a body of water.
• There are over 150 large estuaries, myriad inlets, and small embay-
ments in the United States. Twelve of the large estuaries are now in
the National Estuary Program.
• The Great Lakes contain nearly 20 percent of, the world’s fresh water
and make up nearly one—fourth of the U.S. coastline.
USES
• The oceans, estuaries, and the Great Lakes must provide for multiple,
conflicting human uses related to
— Resource extraction
— Commercial shipping and recreational boating
— Commercial and sport fishing
— Body contact recreation and sunbathing
— Aesthetic enjoyment
- Drinking water supply
— Waste disposal.
• About 100 million people, nearly 1 of every 3 U.S. citizens, lives
within 100 miles of an ocean or Great Lakes coast.
• About 30 million people live in the Great Lakes Basin, with nearly
half drawing their drinking water from the Lakes.
2—1
-------
VALUE
• Estuaries and embayments are the most biologically productive regions
of the oceans because of an abundance of nutrients, shallow, well—
mixed waters, and teeming plant and animal communities.
• Economic values are appreciable.
— Commercial and recreational fishermen generate more than
$10 billion annually in direct revenue.
— Beach usage in Florida in 1984 was estimated to generate sales in
excess of $4.5 billion.
— Shipping, tourism, and residential and commercial development are
mu].tibllllori dollar, coast—related activities.
— Offshore oil production values and royalties are substantial and
likely to Increase.
THREATS
• Shoreline development has been explosive, causing destruction of
coastal wetlands and wildlife habitat.
• Channellzation and freshwater flow modifications have destroyed the
very nature of some estuaries, causing changes in species composition
and their utility to humans.
• Estuaries and oceans are the natural repositories of pollutants that
arise not only from coastal areas but from upstream sources as well.
RESULTS
• Water quality is declining precipitously, resulting in
— The closure of one—third of historically available U.S. shellfish
beds because of pollution
— Widespread beach closures because of marine debris, medical wastes,
and sewage contamination
— Fish consumption advisories for contaminated fish and fishing bans
on species whose stocks have been depleted by pollution, habitat
modification, and overfishing
— The designation of three coastal embayments (New Bedford Harbor,
Commencement Bay, Coos Bay) and four Great Lakes harbors (Waukegan,
Sheboygan, Astabula, Buffalo River) as Superfund sites.
• Declining environmental quality has led to reduction in tourism and
recreational enjoyment of coastal and estuaririe environments.
2—2
-------
• Time and Newsweek cover stories cite numerous examples of waste,
including medical debris, washing up on the nation’s beaches (see
Appendix).
• In August 1988, EPA’s Administrator, Lee Thomas, discussed the medical
waste issue on CBS’ “Face the Nation” and ABC spent 45 minutes of an
hour news program on the state of the oceans.
2—3
-------
Environmental
Threats
-------
3. THE THREATS TO OCEANS, ESTUARIES, AND THE GREAT LAKES
Humans have affected marine and the Great Lakes environments through
various activities. The combination of effects, causative agents, and
activities have historically been defined as problem areas. These problem
areas include
• Marine debris
• Medical waste
• Pathogens
• Eutrophication (excessive plant growth)
• Toxic substances
• Oil contamination
• Change in living resources.
Each of these is outlined below.
MARINE DEBRIS
Marine debris is solid waste that floats or remains suspended in the
ocean. It includes such items as plastic bags, six—pack carriers, bottles,
cans, driftwood, paper products, and other materials that can wash up on
beaches and pose an aesthetic nuisance, interfere with wildlife, or threaten
human health.
Sources
• Combined sever overflows, treatment plant bypasses (minor source,
based on recent measurements)
• Ocean dumping (minor to nonexistent source; floating material is
prohibited in dumped material)
• Illegal dumping of trash from shore or at sea (major source; no other
source can account for the quantities and types of wastes observed)
Effects
• Can injure or kill marine animals that become entangled in floating
materials or ingest plastic resembling prey
• Can be an aesthetic nuisance in water and on beaches
• Can damage boat propellers and clog engine intakes
3—1
-------
History
• Concerns existed during the late 1800s that solid debris in U.S.
harbors was a threat to shipping.
• Congress passed the Rivers and Harbors Act in 1899, making dumping of
waste in harbors illegal.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CUE) was given responsibility for
administering law, with the U.S. Coast Guard acting to enforce CUE
policies.
• Over the years, the nature of the solid waste appearing in near—
coastal waters has changed from logs and barrels to plastic webbing,
trash bags, tampon applicators, and condoms.
• Recent concerns include debris washing up on beaches in New York/New
Jersey, Texas, and other areas.
• International recognition of the problem is evidenced by the recent
Annex V of the Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which
bans dumping from ships.
EPA Activities
• Enforcement
— The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to seek district court orders restraining dischargers,
order administrative penalties of up to $125,000 and compliance
with the CWA, bring a district court action for injunctive relief
and penalties, and bring district court actions for criminal
sanctions of willful or negligent violations.
— The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
authorizes EPA to conduct surveillance of unlawful dumping of
plastics or floatable materials, seek district court orders to
prevent dumping, assess penalties of up to $50,000 per violation,
and seek criminal fines.
• Initial EPA Priority
- To identify the offenders
- To prosecute them to the fullest
• Progress to Date
— EPA has patrolled coasts and offshore waters by helicopter and ship
to spot offenders and waste slicks and has spotchecked garbage
transfer operations in New York Harbor.
— Under the National Municipal Policy, EPA has taken recent enforce-
ment actions against sites in New York/New Jersey Harbor on
investigation and remedial action.
3—2
-------
• Select Future Actions
- Increasing surveillance to identify illegal activities
— Determining major sources and fates of marine debris
— Implementing a demonstration program for the tracking of infectious
wastes on a regional basis
MEDICAL VASTE
Medical waste comprises materials disposed of by various sources. Items
that are potentially infectious, such as used syringes, bandages and
dressings, blood vials, and diseased body parts, are of particular public
concern.
Sources
• Medical waste generators include hospitals, medical laboratories,
private practioners, research facilities, and veterinary hospitals.
• The points of environmental release are not well understood, but may
include illegal dumping.
Effects
• Beach closings have occurred because of stranded medical waste.
• Strong public revulsion to finding such materials on or near bathing
beaches lowers interest in active and passive water—based recreation;
if trends involving greater amounts of wastes on beaches persist,
tourist and recreational revenues may continue to decline.
• Lack of documented effects on human health suggest that there is
little human risk.
History
• This issue Is only a recent concern, although small amounts of medical
waste may have been “lost” from acceptable waste disposal practices
for several years.
• The EPA first focused on medical wastes in the marine environment
during 1986, when it addressed problems on the coast of New Jersey.
• Also in 1986, EPA determined that medical waste was not hazardous, and
therefore, not regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.
3—3
-------
• In 1988, major public interest developed when medical waste was found
around New York, Boston, North Carolina, and in the Great Lakes.
• Based on public reaction, Congress passed the Medical Waste Tracking
Act of 1988 in an effort to restrict release of medical wastes to the
environment.
EPA Activities (Coordinated by Office of Solid Waste)
• Developing a program to implement the Medical Waste Tracking Act
— Defining and listing the types of medical wastes to be covered
— Devising a demonstration program
- Establishing a uniform manifest for transporters
- Creating standards for segregation, packaging, and labeling of
wastes
— Instituting recordkeeping and reporting requirements
• Designing a policy for interstate transport of medical waste
— Defining and determining policy for small quantity generators (who
may be exempted)
- Instituting recordkeeping and reporting requirements for onsite
incinerators
PATHOGENS
Pathogens are bacterial, viral, or other parasitic infectious agents that
can cause disease in humans or animals.
Sources
• Agricultural pasture/range runoff
• Animal rearing areas/feedlot runoff
• Urban runoff
• Combined sewer overflow/treatment plant bypass
• Inadequately treated sevage
Effects
• Health effects range from mild disorders, such as diarrhea, to more
serious maladies, including cholera, typhus, hepatitis, and typhoid,
if pathogens are present in significant concentrations in the water
column or shellfish.
• The closures of shellfish beds and recreational beaches have been
mandated to protect human health.
3—4
-------
His tory
• Recognized as a problem at the turn of the century: contamination of
public drinking water supplies by human waste led to development of
drinking water enteric indicator ( E. coli ) standards and chlorination
of both drinking water intakes and sevage effluents.
• Swimming—related illnesses led to the development of ambient water
pathogen standards and procedures for closing beaches.
• Increased as a problem through the late 1950s to the early 1970s.
• Began to decrease with increased construction of publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) and increased control of feedlot and
agricultural runoff.
• Other sources of pathogens are considered a problem in some estuaries
in the National Estuary Program (NEP).
• Geographically isolated incidents may be on the rise as a result of
combined sewer overflow caused by increases in the size of sewerage
service areas with combined severs and in the amount of impervious
surfaces in service areas.
EPA Activities
• Controlling pathogen discharge through National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) controls on point sources
• Recommending nonpoint source best management practices for agricul-
tural sources
• Encouraging development of management plans where significant problems
exist in NEP estuaries and near—coastal waters
• Funding activities to reduce discharges from combined sewer overflows
• Banning the ocean dumping of sewage sludge
EUTROPHICATION (EXCESSIVE PLANT GROWTH)
Eutrophication is the process of increasing primary productivity in
aquatic systems by increasing nutrient inputs. The general effects of
eutrophication, caused by increased plant biomass, are negative.
Sources
• Runoff
— Agricultural and feedlot runoff
— Runoff from urban areas and fertilized lawns
3—5
-------
— Agricultural return flows
— Atmospheric deposition
• Combined sewer overflows
• Treated sewage/industrial discharge
Effects
• Decomposing algae reduce dissolved oxygen concentrations, killing
fish.
• Settling algal mats blanket spawning beds and smother bottom—dwelling
firifish and shellfish.
• Algal blooms and mats pose an aesthetic nuisance.
• Algal blooms, mats, and rooted plants foul propellers and clog engine
water intakes.
• Foul odor of decaying algae reduces property values and limits use of
beaches.
His tory
• Eutrophication began at the turn of century as a result of the
discharge of untreated municipal waste, as well as agricultural and
feedlot runoff.
• Total loadings of sewage origin probably declined in the 1970s and
1980s, despite urban growth, as a result of phosphate detergent bans.
• Eutrophication is considered a problem in most estuaries in the NEP,
and is still a problem in portions of the Great Lakes:
- Lake Ontario
- Western Basin of Lake Erie
- Green Bay
- Saginaw Bay.
• Excessive plant growth is a continuing problem in many estuaries
because of
— Excessive fertilizer use on cropland
— High nitrogen and phosphorus content of treated wastes
— Combined sewer overflow of untreated wastes
— Urban runoff from fertilizer—treated lawns
- Atmospheric deposition of nitrate in Chesapeake Bay.
3—6
-------
EPA Activities
EPA established NPDES limits on point source nutrient discharge, partic-
ularly in the Great Lakes; imposed technology—based limits that were more
restrictive than the National standard for secondary treatment for phosphorus
removal; and rejected 301(h) requests that posed an environmental threat. EPA
is also
• Supporting State efforts to ban detergents containing high levels of
phosphorus
• Promoting nonpoint source best management practices through State
management programs
• Supporting State programs to develop comprehensive conservation and
management plans for estuaries and near—coastal waters.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Toxic substances are chemicals that adversely affect the ability of
plants or animals to survive in nature or adversely affect human health.
Major adverse responses to toxic chemicals include death, higher Incidence of
tumors or cancer, bioaccumulation, and reduced reproductive ability. Most
heavy metals and many organic chemicals are considered toxic.
Sources
• Industrial point sources
• Municipal POTWs treating industrial waste
• Agricultural runoff
• Air deposition
• Urban runoff
• Nonpoint sources
• Contaminated ground-water venting to surface water
• In—place contaminated sediments
• Leaks and spills
• Ship hulls treated with antifouling coatings
Effects
• On Wildlife
— Mortality
- Tumors
3—7
-------
- Reproductive Impairment
- Embryotoxicity
— Reduced resistance to disease
— Birth defects
• On Humans
— At high concentrations, cause direct toxicity or increased cancer
risk
—— Exceed FDA finfish/shelifish consumption action levels
-- Exceed EPA/State acceptable risk levels in water, sediment,
fish, or game
— Produce aesthetic impacts due to taste or odor of drinking water
and fish tainting
- Cause motor and cognitive development problems in children because
some toxicants pass through placenta or accumulate in mother’s milk
His tory
• After World War II, synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides, solvents,
and plastics, and their unintended byproducts, including dioxin and
octachiorostyrene, became an increasing fraction of the wastevaters
discharged by industry.
• Industries wishing to reduce disposal costs sought hook—ups to POTWs,
which resulted in an increase In the discharge of partially treated
toxic substances from POTWs and an increase in the amount of contami-
nated sludge generated.
• Persistent chemicals, such as hexachlorobenzene, DDT, polychiorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and mercury, accumulated in sediments.
• Many persistent substances were concentrated in finfish and shellfish
at hundreds of thousands of times the concentration In the water.
• Methyl mercury conentratlons are alarmingly high in swordfish on both
U.S. coasts and in sport fish from the Great Lakes Basin.
• DDT, PCBs, and a variety of other persistent pesticides and synthetic
organics have been found at potentially harmful levels in finfish and
shellfish throughout U.S. coastal waters and the Great Lakes.
• DDT, PCBs, and other persistent organic chemicals were banned from
production and use in the 1970s, yet high levels persist in the
environment.
• Most industries now comply with production bans and other technology-
based treatment guidelines for toxic chemicals.
3—8
-------
• Most municipal and industrial sanitary sewage dischargers install,
operate, and maintain at least secondary treatment technology that
removes many toxicants.
• Despite these efforts, most estuaries in the National Estuary Program
list toxic pollution as a severe problem.
• This problem is increasing because of the accumulation of toxic
pollutants in estuary sediments.
• Contaminated sediments retard the recovery of contaminated estuaries,
harbors, and bays by slowly releasing toxic pollutants into the
overlying water column or into aquatic food chains.
• The health of the marine aquatic ecosystem and adjacent terrestrial
ecosystems Is at increased risk and the productivity of commercial
fisheries is jeopardized.
• Contaminated finfish and shellfish eaten by humans represent a health
risk to the direct and indirect consumers.
EPA Activities
• Promulgated Best Available Technology and pretreatment standards for
toxics
• Controlling toxic point source discharge through NPDES permits
limiting discharge of individual chemicals amd whole effluent toxicity
• Requiring States to assess toxic pollution and develop toxic material
control plans under CWA 304(1)
• Renediating contaminated sites through Superfund; adding Superfund
sites by considering bioaccumulation in the Hazard Ranking System
• Controlling accidental releases through CWA and Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act provisions
• Evaluating the importance of toxic sources, such as nonpoint sources
(including contaminated sediments) and atmospheric deposition, as part
of the Great Lakes, Near-Coastal Waters, and National Estuary Program
• Developing remedial action plans for Areas of Concern and lakewide
management plans for the Great Lakes
• Establishing instream toxic criteria and Water Quality Criteria for
several toxic chemicals; expanding the list of chemicals that have
criteria
• Developing sediment quality criteria
• Working with the Food and Drug Administration to develop a mutually
acceptable approach to regulating exposure to toxicants in food
originating in contaminated water
3—9
-------
OIL CONTAMINATION
Oil contamination is the presence of crude oil or oil products in water,
sediments, or organisms. Oil and oil products are generally considered toxic.
Sources
• Bilge pumping
• Tanker leaks, spills, and wrecks
• Inadequately treated industrial wastevaters
• Improper domestic and commercial disposal in storm sewers
• Leaking shoreline or upstream above-ground tanks
• Offshore oil production
Effects
• Oil spills and leaks affect terrestrial and aquatic biota.
— Beaches, sea birds, and other wildlife are coated when oil slicks
are blown to shore.
- Chemicals toxic to aquatic life (including fish) are released.
• Clean—up efforts nay further damage aquatic ecosystem through
dispersal of toxic components or physical disturbance of sensitive
habitats such as salt marshes.
His tory
• Rapid growth of heavy primary manufacturing industries (such as
coke/iron/steel, petroleum) and basic chemicals and secondary manu-
facturing (including automobiles, heavy machinery, and household
appliances) in the first half of the 20th century resulted in the
intentional or accidental release of oil and grease from marine,
shoreline, and upriver industrial facilities.
• Increased shipping led to increases in leaked or spilled oil from fuel
tanks and the discharge of oil—contaminated wastewater from bilge
tanks.
• Major accidents, such as Amoco Cadiz, focused worldwide attention on
oil pollution at sea.
• The U.S. Coast Guard was given lead responsibility for cleanup of oil
spills.
• The risk of catastrophic release of oil to the estuaries, harbors,
bays, and near—coastal waters as a result of accidents has increased/
is increasing because of greater volumes of oil products being
shipped.
3-10
-------
• Studies of the aftermath of the Torrey Canyon and Amoco Cadiz
disasters indicate long—term ecological effects on bottom—dwelling
marine life, in addition to the short-term impacts on water column
animals and waterfowl and on recreation, such as beach closings.
EPA Activities
• Controlling the discharges of oil, grease, and petroleum hydrocarbons
from land-based sources through NPDES permits on industrial/municipal
sources
• Regulating the quality of drilling mud and produced water discharges
from offshore oil platforms
• Prohibiting the dumping of petroleum products in marine environments
through permitting under the MPRSA (current), and prohibiting dumping
of industrial waste under the Ocean Dumping Ban Act (future)
• Assisting the Coast Guard in designing and implementing emergency
procedures for spills
CHANGE IN LIVING RESOURCES (HABITAT LOSS AND ALTERATION)
Change in living resources implies that some human—caused activity, such
as pollutant discharge or habitat modification, has altered the number or
types of species inhabiting a particular area.
Problems
• Wetlands continue to be lost each year in the United States; values
lost include aquatic and wildlife habitat, flood control, and water
quality.
• Population and industrial growth in the U.S. coastal zone continues at
a rapid rate, with nearly 75 percent of the population projected to be
within 50 miles of the coast (including the Great Lakes) by 1990; this
trend poses severe and Increasing damage to near—coastal waters and
aquatic resources.
• Channelization and river flow modifications because of dams have
affected hydrologic regimes of estuaries, altering salinity regimes
and changing flushing patterns.
Shore Terrestrial Populations
Causes
• Habitat destruction (wetland loss)
• Contamination of wildlife with toxic substances
3—11
-------
Effects
• Loss of terrestrial wildlife through reduced reproductive success
because of pesticides and the destruction of nesting/rearing sites
• Increased nutrient runoff to near—coastal waters caused by loss of
wetland “filter”
His tory
• Arrival of western man in North America and development along
shoreline comnenced change.
• Acceleration continued to the present day.
• Many shoreline species are threatened or endangered today.
Trends
Change is continuing at an increasing rate because of urban/suburban
expansion and the increasing value of shoreline property.
EPA Activities
• Sponsor a National Wetlands Policy Forum with the Conservation
Foundation (summer 1987).
• Develop an Action Plan to implement recommendations from the National
Wetlands Policy Forum.
• Prevent, to the extent possible under existing law, the destruction of
wetland habitat by
- Prohibiting filling of ‘wetlands with dredged materials under
Section 404 of CWA (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/USEPA)
- Discouraging coastal growth through National Estuary Protection and
Near-Coastal Waters Programs
— Ensuring that Federal actions are consistent with ‘wetland
preservation
— Limiting discharge of toxic substances through NPDES and
pretreatment programs
— Regulating use of pesticides
- Cleaning up near-coastal hazardous waste sites.
3—12
-------
Estuarine and Marine Aquatic Populations
Causes
• Habitat destruction resulting from near—shore fill by developers,
channelization for commercial harbor development/transport, offshore
oil drilling, overfishing, and siltation of spawning beds
• Poor water quality evidenced by low dissolved oxygen concentrations,
high concentrations of oil, grease, and toxic substances, and the
presence of nutrient—caused algal blooms
Effect
• Decrease in the reproducing populations of ecologically significant or
economically important species
History
• Became a problem at the turn of the century
• Accelerated through the mid-.1960s
• Began to slow with the advent of the National Environmental Policy Act
• Is still considered a serious problem in most estuaries in the
National Estuary Program
Trends
Habitat is continually being lost because of the need for channel
dredging and wetland filling due to the expansion in commercial shipping using
supertankers, offshore oil and gas drilling, and agricultural and urban
runoff, as well as the accumulation of toxic substances in sediments.
EPA Activities
Prevent, to the extent possible under existing law, the destruction of
wetland habitat by
• Prohibiting filling of wetlands with dredged materials
• Discouraging coastal growth through National Estuary and Near-Coastal
Waters Programs
• Ensuring that Federal actions are consistent with wetland preservation
• Limiting discharge of toxic substances through NPDES and pretreatment
programs
3-13
-------
• Regulating use of pesticides
• Cleaning up near-coastal hazardous waste sites.
3—14
-------
Legislation
-------
4. LEGISLATION OF IMPORTANCE TO OMEP
Authorizing legislation for the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
(OMEP) is found primarily in the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). The major features of
these acts, as they pertain to OMEP, are described below. In addition, many
other acts, including the following, cover topics significant to OMEP:
• Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987
• Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988
• Water Resources Development Act of 1986
• Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988
• Degradable Plastic Ring Carrier Act of 1987
• Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988
• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
• National Ocean Pollution Planning Act of 1978
• Marine Mammal Protection Act
• Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980
• Endangered Species Act of 1972
• Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
• Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (as amended July 31, 1986)
• Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978
• Deepwater Port Act of 1974.
Outlines of each enactment are presented after more extensive descriptions of
the CWA and the MPRSA. In addition, a chart of acts and activities of
importance to OMEP is provided on page 4-2 and tables of legislative
requirements are provided starting on page 4—16.
CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1977 AS AMENDED BY THE WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1987
The Clean Water Act outlines a number of programs that regulate dis-
charges into the navigable waters of the United States and other activities
(such as dredging/filling) that have impacts on water quality. This
comprehensive legislation addresses point source and nonpoint source water
pollution for both freshwater and marine water bodies. The list on page 4—3
4—1
-------
I - -
bage From
APPS
I S
5’
L c4 i z nc
r3-l2NathcalMiIes ” ;
. 5. -
MSRA
Clean Mr Ad (CAA)
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPR5A)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS)
Comprehensive Environmental Re p n .. . , ( ‘ , , Ijj ai J
Sewage Sludge
MPSRA
4?
Indusirial Wasie
MPSRA
SpJh
CWA
ERQA
I.i bility Act (( ‘IRC ’I.A)
I
a
1
1
N)
1
Internal Territorial Contiguous Open
Waters Sea Zone Ocean
CAA X
CWA 1,2 2,3,4 23 ,4 2,3,4
MPRSA X X X
RCRA X
SDWA X
AWS 5 5 5,7,8,9,10 5,6,7,8,9,10
CERCLA X X X X
1. Dredge
2. Pipe Outfalls
3. Sewage Treatment Plants
4. Oil and Chemical Spills
5. Plastics
6. Floating Dunnage. Lining, and Packing Materials
7. Paper, Rags, Class, Metal, Bottles, Crockery, and Similar Refuse
8. Paper. Rags, Class, etc Comminuted or Ground
9, Food Waste
10. Food Waste Comminuted or Ground
FIGURE 4-1. ACTS AND ACTIVITIES RELEVANT TO OMEP
-------
identifies programs that apply to marine or estuarine protection. OMEP’s
major program responsibilities are underlined:
• Section 320 National Estuary Program (and Title VI of the CWA——
the State Revolving Fund)
• Section 205(1) Marine Estuary Reservation (Program Funding )
• Section 301(h) Discharges from Publicly Owned Treatment Works
( POTWs) to Marine Waters
• Section 403(c) Ocean Discharge Criteria
• Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution
• Section 304(1) Individual Control Strategies for Toxic Pollutants
• Section 117 Chesapeake Bay Program
• Section 118 The Great Lakes Program .
These programs encompass research and development programs (117, 118, 320),
the development and implementation of control strategies (205 [ 1J, 304 [ 1], 319,
320), and marine discharges (301(hJ, 4031c1). Activities under Section 205(1)
are related to the Construction Grants Program (Section 201), and activities
under Sections 301(h) and 403(c) are related to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements (Sections 402 and
403).
A number of these programs require intra-agency coordination between OHEP
and other Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offices, including the Office
of Water Enforcement and Permits, Office of Water Regulation and Standards,
Office of Municipal Pollution Control, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, and Office of General Counsel, as well as interagency coordination
with other agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The legislative
mandates and related programs for these agencies are discussed later in this
chapter.
4-3
-------
National Estuary Program
OMEP oversees the implementation of the National Estuary Program (NEP),
pursuant to Section 320 of the CWA. This section requires the development of
basin—wide, comprehensive conservation and management plans for identified
estuaries. The Act identifies the following estuaries for priority consider-
ation: Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, Buzzards Bay, Puget Sound, New
York Harbor, Delaware Bay, Delaware Inland Bays, Albemarle Sound, Sarasota
Bay, San Francisco Bay, Santa Monica Bay, and Galveston Bay. Each of these
estuaries is now part of NEP. The recent Ocean Dumping Ban Act (1988)
identified four additional priority estuaries: Massachusetts Bay, including
Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor; Barataria-Terrebone Bay estuary complex in
Louisiana; Indian River Lagoon In Florida; and Peconic Bay In New York.
Management plans are developed by management conferences, convened by the
Administrator for each estuary accepted into the program. Under Section 320,
OMEP issues grants to eligible participants in each estuary program. Section
320 authorizes appropriations of $12 million per yer through 1991. In
addition, Section 205(1), a set—aside under the Construction Grants Program,
provides additional funding for marine estuary programs. One—third of the
reserve funds, administered by OMEP, may be used to convene management
conferences, conduct assessments, develop management programs, or implement
control measures. The remaining two-thirds of the reserve funds, managed by
the Office of Municipal Pollution Control in consultation with OMEP, are
available to address water quality problems caused by combined sewer overflows
(CSOs) In marine bays and estuaries. Approximately $6 million per year Is
authorized for the estuary management development and implementation
activities in Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990; about $12 million per year is
authorized for marine CSOs in Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990.
A State Revolving Fund program, a long—term source of financing for
estuaries, has also been established under the CWA. Seed money for revolving
loans is to be provided to the States so they can deal with a variety of water
quality problems. Programs that are eligible for State revolving loans
include POTV design and construction (80 percent of all available funds will
be devoted to this task), work for the mitigation of storm water and CSOs,
4—4
-------
implementation of nonpoint source controls, and development of estuary manage-
ment plans and implementation of clean—up actions.
The Near-Coastal Waters (NCW) Initiative, which includes the Gulf of
Mexico Initiative, was developed under a broad EPA mandate. The Initiative’s
purpose is to highlight coastal waters that require additional management
attention, encourage environmental managers to more effectively use existing
regulatory authority and resources to solve problems, and to help Federal,
State, and local officials implement new management tactics that will achieve
measurable environmental improvements. General authorization for implementing
NCW Initiatives exists in Section 104(b)(3) of the CWA, which allows EPA “to
make grants to State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies,
other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, organizations, and
individuals for the purposes of prevention, reduction, and elimination of
pollution.”
Point Source Controls
Since April 1974, all point sources discharging vastewaters to the
nation’s waters have been required to have a NPDES permit. This permit
contains effluent limitations for conventional, nonconventional, and toxic
pollutants and self—monitoring and reporting requirements to assure compliance
with permit conditions. Technology—based limitations include secondary
treatment for POTWs and Best Available Technology for industrial discharges.
The water—quality—based limitations are also applied as needed to protect
aquatic life and human health.
Currently, OMEP is responsible for regulating discharges from point
sources in coastal and ocean receiving waters under Sections 301(h) and 403(c)
of the CVA. Under Section 301(h), EPA may grant a waiver to a POTW, allowing
it to provide less than secondary treatment if it meets certain criteria
manaated by the CVA.
OIIEP is also responsible for implementing the Ocean Discharge Program
under 4 03(c) of the CWA. This section authorizes EPA to issue permits to
ocean dischargers based on a site—specific assessment of environmental
effects, including impacts of a discharge on the biological community.
4—5
-------
Nonpoint Sources
The nonpoint source provisions of the CWA (Section 319) require States to
assess their waters and to develop a Management Program to control nonpoint
sources. States are required to identify all water body segments not meeting
Water Quality Standards or not supporting designated beneficial uses. For
each segment not meeting standards or not supporting beneficial uses, the
contribution of nonpoint sources by category (and subcategory) must be
specified in the assessment.
The Management Program required for each State must identify actions
required to address the problems caused by each source category. The program
must specify, among other requirements, the lead agency, the milestones to be
achieved, and the funding and timetable for implementation.
Section 304(1)
The 1987 Amendments to the CWA require States to identify water body
segments where toxic pollutants cause Water Quality Standards to be exceeded
or cause nonattainment of designated beneficial uses. For each identified
water body segment, Individual Toxics Control Strategies must be developed to
reduce point source discharges. EPA requires the Implementation of control
strategies by means of NPDES permits.
Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes Programs
OMEP oversees two important National program initiatives: the Chesapeake
Bay Program (Section 117) and the Great Lakes National Program (Section 118).
Both require intergovernmental agreements, Federal and State program integra-
tion, and the development of comprehensive management strategies for basin-
wide water quality.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is administered through Region III at a field
office In Annapolis, Maryland. The bay region includes Maryland, Virginia,
Delaware, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. Through grant coordina-
tion and issuance, the office is responsible for data collection, impact
assessment, program coordination, information dissemination, and management
program development.
4—6
-------
The Great Lakes Program is located in Region V at the Great Lakes
National Program Office. The objectives of this Program are spelled out in
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972, signed by the United States
and Canada. The Great Lakes include Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron
(including Lake St. Clair), Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and all connecting
channels, including the Saint Mary’s River, Saint Clair River, Detroit River,
Niagara River, and the Saint Lawrence River. This Program oversees U.S.
participation with the International Joint Commission, extensive surveillance
of the lakes, inter— and intra—agency coordination, the development of a 5—
year management plan, and implementation of a number of demonstration
projects.
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCE, AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1972
The MPRSA of 1972, in the absence of a permit, prohibits the dumping of
materials in the Territorial Sea or the Contiguous Zone and prohibits the
transport of materials for the purpose of dumping. The MPRSA implements the
provisions of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
of Wastes and Other Matters (London Dumping Convention), the only global
agreement concerned solely with the dumping of wastes into the marine environ-
ment. MPRSA calls on EPA, the COE, NOAA, and the USCG to play roles in con-
trolling ocean dumping. EPA and the COE administer the Act. OMEP is account-
able for all of EPA’s responsibilities under MPRSA, but many aspects of the
program (site designation, permitting for Industrial and municipal sludge, and
dredged material permit review) have been delegated to Regions. NOAA monitors
the effects of ocean dumping, and the Coast Guard enforces the Act.
EPA’s role is to designate specific sites for the ocean dumping of
materials and to issue permits for disposal of nondredged material. EPA also
establishes ocean dumping criteria for issuing these disposal permits. The
COE issues permits for dredged material disposal after EPA concurs on each
permit.
Recent amendments to the MPRSA and the Ocean Dumping Ban Act (described
later in this section), require phasing out the dumping of all materials
4—7
-------
except dredged materials and fish wastes by December 31, 1991. Other pro-
visions of the amendments call for monitoring programs for the Deepvater
Municipal Sludge Dump Site, the establishment of user fees, and a fund for
deposit of penalties and collected user fees. Dredged material provisions of
the MPRSA are left unchanged.
Dumping in open ocean and coastal waters is subject to MPRSA provisions.
MPRSA covers all wastes except those discharged through a pipeline or from a
stationary drilling platform. The Clean Water Act governs all dumping in
estuaries as well as exempt wastes. The MPRSA does not contain provisions to
control dredging or the dumping of dredged material in estuaries. Both of
these activities are controlled under Section 404 of the CWA and are not an
OMEP responsibility. Currently, OMEP and the Office of Wetlands Protection
are jointly re—evaluating and harmonizing the evaluation of dredged material.
OTHER LAWS
Other EPA laws designed to limit or halt the entry of pollutants into the
environment or regulate land uses include the Clean Air Act of 1970; the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as amended; the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986; the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1970; the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1977; and the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act of 1978 as amended. OMEP
works with the EPA offices responsible for implementing these laws to ensure
that their regulations and National policies consider the special concerns of
coastal and ocean environments.
Although OMEP is concerned with a broad range of legislation, it focuses
primarily on the acts listed at the beginning of section 4. The following
paragraphs outline other acts that have specific requirements for OMEP or that
relate to OMEP’s sphere of interest.
4—8
-------
Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987
Provisions
• Office of Solid Waste (OSW), with OMEP assistance, is responsible for
conducting a study of the methods to reduce plastic pollution. This
study will contain
— A list of improper disposal practices
— A list of specific plastic materials that may injure fish and wild-
life or degrade the economic value of coastal waterfront areas
— A description of EPA’s existing activities aimed at reducing
plastic in marine environments
— An evaluation of potential substitutes for some plastic materials
- Recommendations for recycling incentives
- Commentary on the potential development of degradable materials.
• OMEP will also assist EPA program offices and other Federal agencies,
such as NOAA and the Department of Transportation (DOT), to initiate
and administer a 3—year public education program on plastic pollution.
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency: EPA
• Other Involved Agencies: Department of Commerce (DOC), DOT
Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988
Provisions
• Prohibits the dumping of municipal sewage sludge in the oceans after
December 31, 1991
• Prohibits the dumping of sewage sludge in the oceans within 6 months
of enactment unless the dumper has entered into a compliance or
enforcement agreement with EPA to end ocean dumping
• Establishes civil penalties
• Establishes permit fees to cover the costs to EPA, NOAA, and the Coast
Guard for monitoring and associated research and for determining
compliance with the Act
• Establishes the Clean Oceans Fund for deposit of the penalties and
permit fees; establishes funds to be used by Federal agencies in
conducting monitoring, research, surveillance, and enforcement
activities
4—9
-------
• Requires EPA and NOAA to design and implement a monitoring program at
both the 12— and 106—mile dumping sites
• Prohibits within 6 months of enactment the dumping of medical waste in
the oceans and imposes civil and criminal penalties
• Adds Barataria Bay-Terrebonne Bay, Massachusetts Bay, River Lagoon,
and Peconic Bay to the list of estuaries given priority consideration
for inclusion in the National Estuary Program established in the 1987
Amendments to the CVA
• Includes the Shore Protection Act of 1988, which requires vessels to
obtain a permit and implement a waste—handling manifest system for the
transport of municipal or other nonhazardous commercial wastes
• Requires EPA to submit to Congress within 6 months a report on the
implementation of Section 403(c) of the CWA
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency: EPA/OMEP
• Other Involved Agencies: DOC, USCG
Water Resources Development Act of 1986
Provisions
• Requires Administrator to designate an alternative disposal site for
materials that would otherwise be disposed of at the Mud Dump Site.
• Restricts all existing and future uses of the Mud Site to disposal of
“acceptable dredged materials.” These “acceptable” materials Include
rock, beach—quality sand, material excluded from testing under the
ocean dumping regulations, and any other materials the Administrator
deems substantially free of pollutants.
• Restricts dumping of municipal sludge within the New York Bight Apex
after December 15, 1987, to “eligible authorities.” “Eligible
authority” means any sewerage authority or other unit of State or
local government authorized by the court on November 2, 1983, to dump
municipal sludge at the Apex site.
• Mandates studies of the New York Harbor and adjacent channels, the
dioxin contamination in the Passaic River-Newark Bay, and the New York
Bight.
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency (for provisions outlined): EPA, Region II
4-10
-------
Hedical Waste Tracking Act of 1988
Provisions
• Requires 24-month demonstration programs for the tracking of medical
wastes in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and the Great Lakes
States unless a governor notifies the Administrator that the State
will not participate
• Requires EPA to develop lists of medical wastes and develop
regulations for the demonstration program
• Requires report to Congress on the progress and results of the
demonstration programs
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency; EPA/OSW
Degradable Plastic Ring Carrier Act of 1988
Provisions
• Requires, by regulation, that plastic ring carriers shall be made of
naturally degradable material
• Directs EPA to require by regulation within 2 years that plastic ring
carriers be made of degradable materials, unless EPA determines that
the byproducts from degradable ring carriers create a greater threat
to the environment than do nondegradable ring carriers
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency: EPA
Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988
Provisions
• Requires a 10-year monitoring program jointly conducted by EPA and
NOAA and a Navy home port monitoring program
• Continues Navy research programs on toxicity and environmental risk
assessment associated with the use of paints containing organotin
compounds
• Focuses Navy and EPA research on alternative antifoulant paints
• Provides a phase—out schedule for sale and application of existing
stocks
4-11
-------
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency: EPA
• Other Involved Agencies: Department of Defense, Navy
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and Amendments
Provisions
• Allows for grants to be awarded to States for developing and
administering management programs for coastal zones
• Designates areas as “National Estuarine Reserves” and support for
conducting research within these areas
• Requires the Department of Commerce to prepare a biennial report to
Congress on the program’s accomplishments and funding
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency: DOC
• Other Involved Agencies: EPA, Department of Interior
National Ocean Pollution Planning Act of 1978
Provisions
• Establishes a comprehensive 5-year plan for Federal ocean pollution
research and development and monitoring programs, including the Great
Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, and other estuaries of National
significance
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency: DOC
Marine Mammal Protection Act
Provisions
• Places a moratorium on the taking and importation of marine mammals
and marine mammal products for any purpose other than scientific
research or public display
• Establishes a marine mammal commission to review the activities of the
United States pursuant to existing laws and international conventions
and to study the stocks of marine mammals to enhance methods of their
protection and conservation
4—12
-------
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency: DOC for members of the Cetacea and Pinnipedia orders of
marine mammals, Department of Interior for remainder
Fish and Vildlife Conservation Act of 1980
Provisions
• Provides financial and technical assistance to States for the develop-
ment, revision, and Implementation of conservation plans and programs
for nongame fish and wildlife
• Requires U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review Federal projects for
their Impact on wildlife
• Allows U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to specify required activities
to reduce impact on wildlife
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency: Department of Interior
Endangered Species Act of 1972
Provisions
• Conserves endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems they
depend on for survival
• Develops criteria for determining which species are “endangered” or
“threatened”
• Consults, through the Secretary of Interior, with other Federal
agencies concerning actions that may jeopardize an endangered or
threatened species
• Establishes procedures that encourage affirmative cooperation among
agencies
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency: Department of Interior
• Other Involved Agencies: Endangered Species Committee consisting of
Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of the Army, Chairperson of the
Council of Economic Affairs, Administrator of NOAA, and one individual
from each affected State, as appointed by the President
4—13
-------
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Provisions
• Prohibits the building of bridges, dams, dikes, etc., in any navigable
water of the United States without the approval of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
• Prohibits the deposit of refuse in navigable waters generally
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (as amended July 31, 1986)
Provisions
• Establishes rules and regulations for leasing Outer Continental Shelf
Lands for the exploration, development, and production of minerals,
oil, and gas
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency: Department of Interior
• Other Involved Agencies: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Energy,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Trade Commission,
Attorney General
Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978
Provisions
• Provides for navigation and vessel safety and protection of the marine
environment by regulating vessel traffic in ports and navigable waters
of the United States.
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency: U.S. Coast Guard
Deepuater Port Act of 1974
Provisions
• Regulates the ownership, construction, or operations of deepwater
ports by issuing licenses for the loading and unloading of commodities
or materials
4-14
-------
• Requires an Environmental Review to determine the impact on the marine
environment of construction and/or operation
Participating Agencies
• Lead Agency: DOT
Other Participating Agencies
• EPA, Department of Interior, NOAA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Federal Trade Commission
4—15
-------
0 ’
TABLE 4 -1.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BY ACT
(Key for abbrewat,ons and acrnnyrns at end of table)
Lead Lead
Q 1
Freauencv
Statute
Section
Program Agency Office Requirement
Biennially
CWA
117(c)
Chesapeake EPA CBLO Reports to Congress on grant progress reports
Bay
Biennially
CWA
117(c)
Chesapeake States Progress reports on grants
Bay
2/4/92
At
CWA
1 18(d112)
Great Lakes EPA GLNPO 6-Year Plan and program for nutrient reduction
completion
2/4/92
At
completion
CWA
1 18(c)(3)
Great Lakes EPA GLNPO 5-Year Study and demonstration projects on
In-place toxics
2/4/87
CWA
1 18(c)(4)
Great Lakes EPA GU1PO Interagency agreements on Great Lakes activities
12/29/88
Annually
CWA
1 18(c)(6)
Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Report to Congress covering, achievements in
Implementing GLWQA (including finanical
expenditures) progress in surveillance, long- term
prospects for Emprovement, and a comprehensive
assessment of next FY activities
9/30/88
Annually
CWA
1 18(d)(2)
Great Lakes DOC NOAA Report to Congress on ldentiflcation of Issues and
changes in Great Lakes
2/4/91
Eveiy 4 years
CWA
1 18(d)(3)
Great Lakes DOC NOAA Develop and maintain an inventoiy of
environmental research programs
9/29/88
Annually
CWA
1 18(e)(l)
Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Joint Research Plan (with NOAA/OLRO)
2/4/88
Annually
CWA
118(l)
Great Lakes DOD. USDA. COE, SCS, Report to Administrator on GLWQA-related
DOT, DOl, USCG, FWS, activities
DOC NOAA
Biennially
CWA
320(h)
NEP Grant Progress reports to Administrator
recipient
12/31/89
Biennially
CWA
320(J)(2)
NEP EPA OMEP Comprehensive Report to Congress on NEP research
From time to
time
CWA
403(c)(1)
403(c) EPA OMEP Promulgate guidelines for determining the
degradation of marine waters
5/29/89
MPPRCA
2202(d)
Plastics EPA OSW Report to Congress on plastics pollution reduction
Pollution study
9/30/88
MPPRCA
2203
Plastics DOC NOAA Report to Congress on effects of plastics pollution on
Pollution the marine environment
4/1/88
to 4/1/91
MPPRCA
2204(a)
Plastics DOC/EPA NOAA/OMEP Plastics pollution education program
Pollution
12/31/88
MPPRCA
2204(b)
Plastics DOC/EPA NOAA/OMEP Volunteer citizen patrol programs
Pollution
-------
TABLE 4-1. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BY ACT (continued)
(Key for abbreviations and acronyms at end of table)
________ _______ ______ RequIrement
New York Public hearings in states affected by New York Bight
Bight Restoration Plan
New York Report to Congress on NYB plastics problems
Bight
New York Report to Congress on schedule for reports and
Bight restoratIon plan
New York Prellmlnaiy Report to Congress on pollutant inputs
Bight
New York Preliminary Report to Congress on control measures
Bight
New York Report to Congress on New York Bight Restoration
Bight Plan
Ocean Report to Congress by Administrator on the
Dumping administration of Title 1 of the MPRSA
Medical U sting of medical wastes
Wastes
Medical Regulations for tracking of medical waste in
Wastes demonstration states
Medical Report to Congress on generators, threats to human
Wastes health and environment, costs, methods of control,
and successes
Ocean Enforcement monitoring report
Dumping
403(c) Report to Congress on CWA sec 403(c)
Implementation
Ocean Report to Congress on progress toward stopping
Dumping ocean dumping of sewage sludge and Industrial waste
Ocean Report to Congress on monitoring plan
Dumping
Ocean Report to Congress on results of monitoring
Dumping
Medical Guidance for disposal of medical wastes by public
Wastes vessels
Waste Issuance of vessel permits for transport of wastes
1-land ling
Waste Prescribe regulations on waste handling and
Handling transport
Proaram Aciencv Office
EPA Region II
EPA 06W
EPA Region II
EPA Region 11
EPA Region II
EPA Region II
EPA OMEP
EPA 0 6W
EPA 06W
EPA 06W
8/29/88
6/29/88
6/29/88
12/29/88
12/29/89
12/29/90
2/1/88
5/1/89
5/1/89
5/19/89
5/19/89
12/31/88
11/19/89
12/31/90
2/19/89
Freauencv Statute
to 12/29/90 MPPRCA
M PP RCA
MPPRCA
MPPRCA
MPPRCA
MPPRCA
Annually MPRSA
MWTA
MWTA
At MWTA
completion
ODBA
ODBA
Annually ODBA
ODBA
Annually ODBA
ODI3A
ODBA
ODBA
Section
230 1(a)
2302
2303(a)
2303(b)
2303(c)
2303(d)
112
11002(a)
1 1003
11008
1004
1007
104 B(l)
104 B(J)(4)(A)
104 B(j)(4)(B)
3105
4102
4103
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
DOD/EPA
DOT/ EPA
EPA
RegIon 11
OMEP
Region H
OMEP
OMEP
06W
USCO
06W
-------
TABLE 4-1. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BY ACT (continued)
(Key for abbrewat,ons and acrnnyms at end of table)
Lead
fl j Frequency Statute Section Proaram Agency Office Requirement
11/19/90 ODHA 4201 C ean DOT/EPA USCG/OSW Report to Congress on study and recommendations
Dumping on vessel tracking systems
9/14/90 Organotin 6 TBT EPA OPP Certification that anufouling paints have release
rate 0.4 pg
6/16/90 Annually Organotln 7(a) TRT EPA OPP Administrator reports on concentrations of
organotin in estuaries
6/16/88 Annually Organotln 7(d) TBT DOD Navy Secretary reports to EPA and states on organotin
concentrations in home ports
6/16/93 Organotin 7( f) T I3T EPA OPP Administrator report on effectiveness of laws,
controls, in meeting standards
6/16/92 Organotin 8(b) TBT EPA OPP Report to Congress on alternatives to organotin
paints
3/30/89 Organotin 9 TBT EPA OWl Administrator Issues final Water Quality Criteria
I . document
10/28/90 Plastic RIng 3 Plastics EPA 08W DeterminatIon by EPA to require that plastic ring
Carriers carriers be degradable
12/31/88 Annually Senate Report Great Lakes EPA GLJ IPO Report to Congress on Great Lakes cleanup and a
100-192 comprehensive assessment of next F? activities
1/1/88 Senate Report Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Report to Congress recommending model research
100-192 program to correct air toxic contamination
problems
11/18/89 WRDA 211(a) Ocean EPA Region I I Designation of alternative to Mud Dump Site
Dumping
3/17/89 WRDA 32(d) Ocean EPA Region II Designation plan for alternative(s) to Mud Dump
Dumping Site
-------
Key to Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.
Abbreviation/Acronym Meaning
CBLO Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CWA Clean Water Act, as amended
DOC U.S. Department of Commerce
DOD U.S. Department of Defense
DO! U.S. Department of Interior
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
GLRO Great Lakes Research Omce
GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
MPPRCA Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987
MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
MWTA Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988
NEP National Estuary Program
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NYB New York Bight
ODBA Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988
OMEP Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
OPP Office of Pesticide Programs
Organotin Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988
OSW Office of Solid Wastes
OWRS Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Plastic Ring Carriers Degradable Plastic Ring Carriers
SCS U.S. Soil Conservation Service
TBT Tri-butyl Tin
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
WRDA Water Resources Development Act of 1986
4—19
-------
TABLE 4-2. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BY LEAD AGENCY
(Key for abbreviabons and acronyms at end of Table 4-1)
Lead Lead
p j Frequency Statute Section Program Agency Oflica Requirement
9/30/88 Annually CWA 1 18(d)(2) Great Lakes DOC NOAA Report to Congress on Identification of Issues and
changes in Great Lakes
2/4/91 Every 4 years CWA 1 18(d)(3) Great Lakes DOC NOAA Develop and maintain an Inventory of
environmental research programs
9/30/88 MPPRCA 2203 Plastics DOC NOAA Report to Congress on effects of plastics pollution on
Pollution the marine environment
12/31/88 MPPRCA 2204(b) Plastics DOC/EPA NOAA/OMEP Volunteer citizen patrol programs
Pollution
4/1/88 to 4/1/91 MPPRCA 2204(a) Plastics DOC/EPA NOAA/OMEP Plastics pollution education program
Pollution
6/16/88 Annually Organotin 7(d) TBT DOD Navy Secretary reports to EPA and states on organotin
concentrations in home ports
0 2/4/88 Annually CWA 118(f) Great Lakes DOD, USDA. COE. SCS, Report to Administrator on CLWQA-related
DOT, DOl, USCG, FWS, activities
DOC NOAA
2/19/89 ODBA 3105 Medical DOD/EPA 06W Guidance for disposal of medical wastes by public
Wastes vessels
ODBA 4102 Waste DOT/EPA USCG Issuance of vessel permits for transport of wastes
Handling
11/19/90 ODBA 4201 Ocean Dot/EPA USCG/OSW Report to Congress on study and recommendations
Dumping on vessel tracking systems
Biennially CWA 117(c) Chesapeake EPA CBLO Reports to Congress on grant progress reports
Bay
2/4/92 At CWA 1 18(c)(3) Great Lakes EPA GLNPO 5-Year Study and demonstration projects on
completion In-place toxics
2/4/92 At CWA 1 18(c)(2) Great Lakes EPA CLNPO 5-Year Plan and program for nutrient reduction
completion
2/4/87 CWA 1 18(c)(4) Great Lakes EPA CLNPO Interagency agreements on Great Lakes activities
9/29/88 Annually CWA 1 18(e)(l) Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Joint Research Plan (with NOAA/GLRO)
12/29/88 Annually CWA I 18(c)(6) Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Report to Congress covering achievements in
implementing CLWQA (including finanical
expenditures), progress in surveillance, long- term
prospects for improvement, and a comprehensive
assessment of next FY activities
-------
TABLE 4-2. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BY LEAD AGENCY (continued)
(Key to abbreviations and acronyms at end of Table 4-1.)
Lead Lead
Date Frequency Statute Secilon Program Aaencv Office Requirement
1/1/88 Senate Report Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Report to Congress recommending model research
100-192 program to correct air toxic contamination
problems
12/31/88 Annually Senate Report Great Lakes EPA CLNPO Report to Congress on Great Lakes cleanup and a
100-192 comprehensive assessment of next FY activities
From time to CWA 403(c)(1) 403(c) EPA OMEP Promulgate guidelines for determining the
time degradation of marine waters
12/31/89 Biennially CWA 3200)(2) NEP EPA OMEP Comprehensive Report to Congress on NEP research
2/1/88 Annually MPRSA 112 Ocean EPA OMEP Report to Congress by Administrator on the
Dumping administration of Title 1 of the MPRSA
12/31/90 Annually ODBA 104 B(J)(4flB) Ocean EPA OMEP Report to Congress on results of monitoring
Dumping
5/19/89 ODBA 1007 403(c) EPA OMEP Report to Congress on CWA sec 403(c)
implementation
11/19/89 ODBA 104 B(J)(4)(A) Ocean EPA OMEP Report to Congress on monitoring plan
Dumping
9/14/90 Organotin 6 TBT EPA OPP Certification that antifouling paints have release
rate <04
6/16/93 Organotin 7( 1) TBT EPA OPP Administrator report on effectiveness of laws,
controls, in meeting standards
6/16/92 Organotin 8(b) TBT EPA OPP Report to Congress on alternatives to organotin
paints
6/16/90 Annually Organotin 7(a) TBT EPA OPP Administrator reports on concentrations of
organoun in estuaries
6/29/88 MPPRCA 2302 New York EPA 06W Report to Congress on NYB plastics problems
Bight
5/29/89 MPPRCA 2202(d) Plastics EPA 06W Report to Congress on plastics pollution reduction
Pollution study
At MWTA 11008 Medical EPA 06W Report to Congress on generators, threats to human
completion Wastes health arid environment. costs, methods of control.
and successes
5/1/89 MWTA 11003 Medical EPA OSW Regulations for tracking of medical waste in
Wastes demonstration states
-------
TABLE 4-2. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BY LEAD AGENCY (continued)
(Key to abbreviations and acronyms at end of Table 4-1.)
Lead Lead
Date Frequency Statute Section Program Agency Office Requirement
5/1/89 MWTA 11002(a) Medical EPA 06W Usting of medical wastes
Wastes
ODBA 4103 Waste EPA OSW Prescribe regulations on waste handling and
Handling transport
10/28/90 Plastic Ring 3 Plastics EPA 06W Determination by EPA to require that plastic ring
Carriers carriers be degradable
3/30/89 Organotin 9 TBT EPA OWRS Administrator issues flnal Water Quality Criteria
document
12/29/89 MPPRCA 2303(c) New York EPA Region II Preliminary Report to Congress on control measures
Bight
12/29/90 MPPRCA 2303(d) New York EPA Region H Report to Congress on New York Bight Restoration
Bight Plan
12/29/88 MPPRCA 2303(b) New York EPA Region II Preliminary Report to Congress on pollutant inputs
Bight
6/29/88 M PPRCA 2303(a) New York EPA Region II Report to Congress on schedule for reports and
Bight restoration plan
8/29/88 to 12/29/90 MPPRCA 230 1(a) New York EPA Region I I Public hearings in states affected by New York Bight
Bight Restoration Plan
12/31/88 Annually ODBA 104 B(I) Ocean EPA Region 11 Report to Congress on progress toward stopping
Dumping ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste
5/19/89 ODBA 1004 Ocean EPA Region Ii Enforcement monitoring report
Dumping
3/17/89 WRDA 32(d) Ocean EPA Region II Designation plan for alternative(s) to Mud Dump
Dumping Site
11/18/89 WRDA 2 11(a) Ocean EPA Region II Designation of alternative to Mud Dump Site
Dumping
Biennially CWA 320(h) NEP Grant Progress reports to Administrator
recipient
Biennially CWA 117(c) Chesapeake States Progress reports on grants
Bay
-------
TABLE 4-3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BY DATE
(Key for abbreviations and acronyms at end of Table 4-1)
Lead Lead
Section Program Agency Office
4102 Waste DOT/EPA USCG
Handling
403(c)(1) 403(c) EPA OMEP
117(c) EPA CBLO
11008 EPA 06W
1 ’
NJ
flQIQ Freauencv
From time to
time
Biennially
At
completion
Biennially
Biennially
2/4/87
1/1/88
2/1/88 Annually
2/4/88 Annually
4/1/88 to4/1/91
6/16/88 Annually
6/29/88
6/29/88
8/29/88 to 12/29/90
Statute
ODBA
CWA
CWA
MWTA
ODBA
CWA
CWA
CWA
Senate Report
100- 192
MPRSA
CWA
MPPRCA
Organotin
MPPRCA
MPPRCA
MPPRCA
______ Requirement
Issuance of vessel permits for transport of wastes
Promulgate guidelines for determining the
degradation of marine waters
Reports to Congress on grant progress reports
Report to Congress on generators, threats to human
health and environment, costs, methods of control.
and successes
06W PrescrIbe regulations on waste handling and
transport
Progress reports to Administrator
Progress reports on grants
Interagency agreements on Great Lakes activities
Report to Congress recommending model research
program to correct air toxic contamination
problems
Report to Congress by Administrator on the
administration of Title 1 of the MPRSA
Report to Administrator on CLWQA-related
activities
GLNPO
GLNPO
Chesapeake
Bay
Medical
Wastes
Waste
Handling
NEP
Chesapeake
Bay
Great Lakes
Great Lakes
O n
Dumping
Great Lakes
Plastics
Pollution
TBT
New York
Bight
New York
Bight
New York
Bight
4103
320(h)
117(c)
1 18(c)(4)
112
118( 1)
2204(a)
7(d)
2302
2303(a)
230 1(a)
EPA
Grant
recipient
States
EPA
EPA
EPA
DOD. USDA.
DOE DCI,
DCC
DOC/ EPA
DOD
EPA
EPA
EPA
OMEP
COE. ScS,
USCC, FWS,
N OAA
NOAA/OMEP
Navy
06W
Region I I
Region I I
Plastics pollution education program
Secretary reports to EPA and states on organotin
concentrations in home ports
Report to Congress on NYB plastics problems
Report to Congress on schedule for reports and
restoration plan
Public hearings in states affected by New York Bight
Restoration Plan
-------
TABLE 4-3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BY DATE (continued)
(Key to abbreviations and a ’onyms at end of Table 4-1.)
Lead Lead
Date Frequency Statute Section Program Agency Otlice Requirement
9/29/88 Annually CWA 1 18(e)(1) Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Joint Research Plan (with NOAA/GLRO)
9/30/88 Annually CWA 1 l8(d)(2) Great Lakes DCC NOAA Report to Congress on Identification of Issues and
changes in Great Lakes
9/30/88 MPPRCA 2203 PlastIcs DOC NOAA Report to Congress on effects of plastics pollution on
Pollution the marine environment
12/29/88 Annually CWA 1 18(d116) Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Report to Congress covering: achievements in
implementing GLWQA (Including finanical
expenditures), progress in surveillance, long-term
prospects for improvement, and a comprehensive
assessment of next FY activities
12/29/88 MPPRCA 2303(b) New York EPA Region 11 PrelimInary Report to Congress on pollutant inputs
Bight
12/31/88 MPPRCA 2204(b) Plastics DOC/EPA NOAA/OMEP Volunteer citizen patrol programs
Pollution
12/31/88 Annually ODBA 104 B(I) Ocean EPA Region II Report to Congress on progress toward stopping
Dumping ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste
12/31/88 Annually Senate Report Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Report to Congress on Great Lakes cleanup and a
100-192 comprehensive assessment of next FY activities
2/1/89 Annually MPRSA 112 Ocean EPA OMEP Report to Congress by Administrator on the
Dumping administration of Title 1 of the MPRSA
2/4/89 Annually CWA 118(f) Great Lakes DOD. USDA. COE. SCS. Report to Administrator on GLWQA-relatcd
DOT. DCI, USCG, FWS, activities
DOG NOAA
2/19/89 OBDA 3105 Medical DOD/EPA 06W Guidance for disposal of medical wastes by public
Wastes vessels
3/17/89 WRDA 32(d) Ocean EPA Region 11 Designation plan for alternative(s) to Mud Dump
Dumping Site
3/30/89 Organotin 9 TBT EPA OWRS Administrator issues final Water Quality Criteria
document
5/1/89 MWTA 11003 Medical EPA 06W Regulations for tracking of medical waste in
Wastes demonstration states
5/1/89 MWTA 1 1002(a) Medical EPA 06W Listing of medical wastes
Wastes
5/19/89 ODI3A 1004 Ocean EPA Region ii Enforcement monitoring report
Dumping
-------
TABLE 4-3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BY DATE (continued)
(Key to abbreviations and aaonyms at end of Table 4-1)
Lead Lead
Frequency Statute Section Program Agency Office Reauirement
5/19/89 ODBA 1007 403(c) EPA OMEP Report to Congress on CWA sec. 403(c)
implementation
5/29/89 MPPRCA 2202(d) PlastIcs EPA 06W Report to Congress on plastics polluUon reduction
Pollution study
6/16/89 Annually Organotin 7(d) TBT DOD Navy Secretary reports to EPA and states on organotin
concentrations in home ports
9/29/89 Annually CWA 1 18(e)(1) Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Joint Research Plan (with NOAA/GLRO)
9/30/89 Annually CWA I 18(d)(2) Great Lakes DOC NOAA Report to Congress on Identification of Issues and
changes in Great Lakes
11/18/89 WRDA 86 211(a) Ocean EPA Region II Designation of alternative to Mud Dump Site
Dumping
11/19/89 ODBA 104 B(J)(4)(A) Ocean EPA OMEP Report to Congress on monitoring plan
Dumping
L i i 12/29/89 Annually CWA I 18(c)(6) Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Report to Congress covering: achievements In
implementing GLWQA (including finanical
expenditures), progress In surveillance, long-term
prospects for improvement, and a comprehensive
assessment of next FY activities
12/29/89 MPPRCA 2303(c) New York EPA Region II Preliminary Report to Congress on control measures
Bight
12/31/89 BIennially CWA 320(J)(2) NEP EPA OMEP Comprehensive Report to Congress on NEP research
12/31/89 Annually ODBA 104 B(i) Ocean EPA Region II Report to Congress on progress toward stopping
Dumping ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industnal waste
12/31/89 Annually Senate Report Great Lakes EPA CLNPO Report to Congress on Great Lakes cleanup and a
100-192 comprehensive assessment of next FY activities
2/1/90 Annually MPRSA 112 Ocean EPA OMEP Report to Congress by Administrator on the
Dumping administration of Title 1 of the MPRSA
2/4/90 Annually CWA 1 18(f) Great Lakes DOD. USDA, COE, SCS, Report to Administrator on GLWQA-relatcd
DOT, DOl, USCG, FWS, activities
DOC NOAA
6/16/90 Annually Organotin 7(d) TBT DOD Navy Secretary reports to EPA and states on organotin
concentrations in home ports
6/16/90 Annually Organotin 7(a) TBT EPA OPP Administrator reports on concentrations of
organotin In estuaries
-------
TABLE 4-3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BY DATE (continued)
(Key to abbreviations and acronyms at end of Table 4-1.)
Lead Lead
Pate Frequency Statute Section Program Agency Office Reautrement
9/14/90 Organotln 6 TI3T EPA OPP Certification that antifouling paints have release
rate< 0.4 pg
9/29/90 Annually CWA 1 18(e)(1) Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Joint Research Plan (with NOAA/GLRO)
9/30/90 Annually CWA 1 18(d)(2) Great Lakes DOC NOAA Report to Congress on identification of issues and
changes in Great Lakes
10/28/90 Plastic Ring 3 Plastics EPA 06W Determination by EPA to require that plastic ring
Carriers carriers be degradable
11/19/90 ODBA 4201 Ocean DOT/EPA USCG/OSW Report to Congress on study and recommendations
Dumping on vessel tracking systems
12/29/90 Annually CWA 1 18(c)(6) Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Report to Congress covering: achievements In
Implementing CLWQA (including finanical
expenditures), progress in surveillance, long-term
prospects for improvement, and a comprehensive
a’ assessment of next FY activities
12/29/90 MPPRCA 2303(d) New York EPA Region II Report to Congress on New York Bight Restorauon
Bight Plan
12/31/90 Annually ODBA 104 B(J)(4)(B) Ocean EPA OMEP Report to Congress on results of monitoring
Dumping
12/31/90 Annually ODBA 104 B(i) Ocean EPA Region II Report to Congress on progress toward stopping
Dumping ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industnal waste
12/31/90 Annually Senate Report Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Report to Congress on Great Lakes cleanup and a
100-192 comprehensive assessment of next FY activities
2/1/91 Annually MPRSA 112 Ocean EPA OMEP Report to Congress by Administrator on the
Dumping administration of Title 1 of the MPRSA
2/4/91 Eveiy 4 years CWA 1 18(d)(3) Great Lakes DOC NOAA Develop and maintain an inventory of
environmental research programs
2/4/91 Annually CWA 118(1) Great Lakes DOD, USDA. COE, SCS. Report to Administrator on GLWQA-related
DOT. DOl. IJSCC. FWS, activities
DOC NOAA
6/16/91 Annually Organotin 7(d) TBT DOD Navy Secretary reports to EPA and states on organotin
concentrations in home ports
6/16/91 Annually Organotin 7(a) TBT EPA OPP Administrator reports on concentrations of
organotin In estuaries
9/29/91 Annually CWA I 18(e)(l) Great Lakes EPA CLNPO Joint Research Plan (with NOAA/GLRO)
-------
TABLE 4-3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BY DATE (continued)
(Key to abbreviations and a onyms at end of Table 4-1.)
Lead Lead
Date Frequency Statute Section Program Agency Office Requirement
9/30/91 Annually CWA I 18(d)(2) Great Lakes DOC NOAA Report to Congress on ldentilicaUon of Issues and
changes in Great Lakes
12/29/91 Annually CWA 1 18(c)(6) Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Report to Congress covering: achievements in
implementing C LWQA (including finanical
expenditures), progress In surveillance, long-term
prospects for improvement, and a comprehensive
assessment of next FY activlUes
12/31/91 Biennially CWA 32O(J)(2) NEP EPA OMEP Comprehensive Report to Congress on NEP research
12/31/91 Annually ODBA 104 B(J)(4)(B) Ocean EPA OMEP Report to Congress on results of monitoring
Dumping
12/31/91 Annually ODBA 104 B(i) Ocean EPA Region II Report to Congress on progress toward stopping
Dumping ocean dumping of sewage sludge and Industrial waste
12/31/91 Annually Senate Report Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Report to Congress on Great Lakes cleanup and a
100-192 comprehensive assessment of next FY activities
2/1/92 Annually MPRSA 112 Ocean EPA OMEP Report to Congress by Administrator on the
Dumping administration of Title 1 of the MPRSA
2/4/92 Annually CWA 118(t) Great Lakes DOD, USDA. COE. SCS, Report to Administrator on GLWQA-related
DOT, DOl, USCG, FWS. activities
DOC NOAA
2/4/92 At CWA 1 18(c)12) Great Lakes EPA GLNPO 5-Year Plan and program for nutrient reduction
completion
2/4/92 At CWA 1 18(c)(3) Great Lakes EPA CLNPO 5-Year Study and demonstration projects on
completion in-place toxics
6/16/92 Annually Organotin 7(d) TBT DOD Navy Secretary reports to EPA and states on organotin
concentrations in home ports
6/16/92 Annually Organotin 7(a) TBT EPA OPP Administrator reports on concentrations of
organotin In estuaries
6/16/92 Organotin 8(b) TBT EPA OPP Report to Congress on alternatives to organotin
paints
9/29/92 Annually CWA I 18(e)(1) Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Joint Research Plan (with NOAA/GLRO)
9/30/92 Annually CWA 1 18(d)(2) Great Lakes DOG NOAA Report to Congress on Identification of Issues and
changes in Creat Lakes
-------
I ’ .)
co
TABLE 4-3. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BY DATE (continued)
(Key to abbreviations and acronyms at end of Table 4-1.)
Lead Lead
Q ii Frequency Statute Section Program Agency Office Requirement
12/29/92 Annually CWA 1 18(c)(6) Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Report to Congress coverlng achievements in
Implementing GLWQA (including finanical
expenditures), progress in surveillance, long-term
prospects for improvement, and a comprehensive
assessment of next FY activities
12/31/92 Annually Senate Report Great Lakes EPA GLNPO Report to Congress on Great Lakes cleanup and a
100-192 comprehensive assessment of next FY activities
6/16/93 Organotin 7(f) TBT EPA OPP Administrator report on effectiveness of laws,
controls, in meeting standards
-------
Programs and
Objectives
-------
5. OMEP PROGRAMS AND OBJECTIVES
This section identifies the statutory mandates and describes the
approaches, policies, implementation activities, and current status of the
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection’s (OMEP’s) programs:
• National Estuary
• Point Source Control (301(h)/403(c))
• Near-Coastal Waters Activities (including the Gulf of Mexico
Initiative)
• Great Lakes
• Chesapeake Bay
• Ocean Dumping
• Ocean Incineration
• Plastics
• Other Activities
- Nonpoint Source (NPS) Management Activities
— Habitat Protection.
In addition, a map of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)
coastal initiatives is provided on page 5—21.
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
The National Estuary Program (NEP) has a relatively abbreviated history.
In 1985, Congress directed EPA to conduct programs in four estuaries: Narra-
gansett Bay in Rhode Island, Buzzards Bay in Massachusetts, Long Island Sound
in New York and Connecticut, and Puget Sound in Washington. EPA initiated
programs for two more estuaries in 1986: San Francisco Bay in California and
Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds in North Carolina. To coordinate these efforts,
Congress formally established NEP by the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water
Act (CWA), and specified six more estuaries for priority consideration. Each
of the six estuaries has now become part of the Program (see below).
5—1
-------
Goal
The primary NEP goal is to restore the physical, chemical, and biological
integrity of the nation’s estuaries by protecting and enhancing water quality
and the living resources.
Approach
The OMEP leads and administers the NEP, while Regional offices coordinate
onsite efforts. Each program goes through four phases:
• Phase I——Establish framework (management conference committee
structure) for decision making
• Phase tI——Characterize and define problems to examine changes in water
quality and natural resources, evaluate point and nonpoint pollutant
loadings, and determine their relationship to pollution problems
• Phase III—— Create a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) to summarize findings, identify and prioritize problems,
determine environmental quality goals and objectives, and identify
action plans for pollution control and resource management
• Phase IV——Implement the CCMP.
To develop and then implement CCMPs, OMEP convenes management conferences
for selected estuaries, as required by the 1987 Amendments to the CWA. These
Amendments identify seven major purposes for a management conference:
• To assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and uses of the
estuary
• To collect, characterize, and assess data on toxics, nutrients, and
natural resources within the estuarine zone to identify the causes of
environmental problems
• To develop the relationship between the in—place contamination and
point and nonpoint loadings of pollutants to the estuarine zone and
the potential uses of the zone, water quality, and natural resources
• To develop a CCHP that recommends priority corrective actions and
compliance schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the estuary, and that assures the protection of desig-
nated estuary uses
5—2
-------
• To develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the CCMP by the
States, as well as by Federal and local agencies participating in the
conference
• To monitor the effectiveness of the actions taken
• To review all Federal financial assistance programs and Federal
development projects for consistency with the plan.
Current Status
Each of the original six estuary programs will complete its CCHP during
the early 1990s. In addition to these efforts, EPA Initiated programs in 1988
for six more estuaries:
• New York/New Jersey Harbor in New York and New Jersey
• Delaware Bay in Delaware and New Jersey
• Delaware Inland Bays in Delaware
• Sarasota Bay in Florida
• Galveston Bay in Texas
• Santa Monica Bay In California.
In 1988, the Ocean Dumping Ban Act (ODBA) identified four new areas that must
be given priority consideration by EPA for Inclusion in the NEP: Massachu-
setts Bay; Barataria—Terrebone Bay, Louisiana; Indian River Lagoon, Florida;
and Peconic Bay, New York. By the early 1990s, OMEP plans to complete a
susceptibility assessment for the 90 estuaries not currently designated by the
Water Quality Act and develop a prescription for action.
POINT SOURCE CONTROL (3011h1/403(cJ)
Since April 1974, all point sources discharging wastewaters to the
Nation’s waters have been required to have a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Permits contain effluent limitations for
conventional, nonconventional, and toxic pollutants and self—monitoring and
reporting requirements to assure compliance with permit conditions.
Technology—based limitations include secondary treatment for publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs), Best Practicable Technology, Best Conventional
Technology, and Best Available Technology for industrial discharges and
5—3
-------
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources and Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources. The water—quality—based limitations are also applied as needed to
protect aquatic life and human health.
OMEP has responsibilities for implementing two programs relating to
control of point sources discharging to marine waters. These programs are
described below.
Coal
The goal of these programs is to ensure the protection of the marine eco-
system through adequate controls on point source discharges.
Approach
In evaluating applications for 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment
requirements for POTWs, OMEP requires an approach based on water quality and
environmental impact that Includes:
• Site—specific evaluations of environmental information
• Assurance that a balanced, indigenous population is maintained in the
receiving water, public water supplies are protected, recreational
activities are protected, and State water quality standards are
maintained.
Section 403(c) is intended to protect most marine species, as well as
unique, sensitive, and ecologically critical species. It provides additional
authority for evaluation of alternatives to onsite disposal and for more
stringent permit terms and conditions if monitoring should indicate that the
permit is not adequately protective.
The 403(c) approach to point source control differs fundamentally from
most other CWA requirements because it allows consideration of sediment, as
well as water colunm effects, and is intended to protect unique, sensitive,
and ecologically critical species, in addition to aquatic life in general. In
addition, 403(c) may require zero discharge following assesment of alternative
disposal or recycling options available and the impact of alternative uses on
the oceans.
5-4 -
-------
Permits granted under 403(c) include all regular CWA requirements and
conditions, including monitoring, pretreatment, and compliance with water
quality standards. Assessment of environmental effects must consider the
impacts of pollutant disposal on human health and welfare, marine life, and
aesthetic, recreational, and commercial values. In addition, it must evaluate
the persistence of the effects.
Current Status
Very few U.S. municipal dischargers to coastal or ocean waters qualify
for a 301(h) permit. By the CWA 1982 deadline, 208 POTWs had applied for
301(h) waivers. As of September 1988, EPA had made 190 final decisions.
Forty-eight POTWs have been granted 301(h) waivers.
The 1987 Amendments to the CWA modified the 301(h) Program by requiring a
minimum of primary treatment and, for POTWs serving populations greater than
50,000, removal of toxic pollutants through a pretreatment program to the same
extent as if secondary treatment were provided for approvable permits. OMEP
is revising its regulations in response to these changes and issuing guidance
for permit relssuance.
Concerning 403(c) status, OMEP is initating activities to identify and
characterize dischargers subject to 403(c) provisions. As required by the
Ocean Dumping Ban Act, OMEP is preparing a report to Congress on these
activities. EPA plans to implement a targeted strategy for achieving
compliance with 403(c) requirements aggressively.
NEAR-COASTAL WATERS ACTIVITIES
The Near—Coastal Waters (NCW) Program is a long—range initiative to
restore and protect the water quality and natural resources of the nation’s
coastal areas. It is a 10 to 15—year strategic plan for improved management
of near-coastal water environmental quality and improved coordination with
other Federal, State, and local programs.
The recognition underlying the NCW Program is that problems and solutions
are multisubstance, multisource, and multimedia in nature. Total pollutant
load management will be required to restore and maintain water quality.
5-5
-------
NCV Goals
The overall goals are
• To highlight coastal waters needing attention
• To encourage environmental managers to use existing regulatory
authority and resources more effectively to solve environmental
problems
• To help Federal, State, and local officials implement new management
tactics.
NCV Objectives
The Program has formulated a number of objectives, including the
following, to meet its goals:
• To develop management programs for bodies of water
• To assess the status of near—coastal waters to identify those areas
needing management attention, and to undertake near-coastal water
pilot projects to explore innovative management actions for improving
and protecting near-coastal waters
• To provide more practical research products to help coastal managers
solve problems and transfer information on successful management
techniques, including innovative financing techniques, to other
coastal areas of the country
• To upgrade EPA’s base program efforts (monitoring, permitting, and
enforcement), with the mix of activities tailored by Regions/States
• To apply a targeted, geographic-based approach to demonstrate
significant environmental results in selected near-coastal waters and
estuaries through focused intergovernmental action (National Estuary
Projects and NCW Pilots)
• To strengthen public involvement through an open planning process that
involves all the stakeholders in the development of solutions.
NCW Approach
Using its first National assessment, the NCW Program is developing a
long—term strategy for addressing problems in specific geographic areas. In
addition, it is devising criteria for selecting estuarine and near—coastal
waters and wetlands to develop implementation programs incorporating improved
5-6
-------
management techniques. EPA is encouraging the use of the State Revolving Fund
(SRF) and Governors’ discretionary funds for implementation of estuary and
nonpoint source management plans. Key activities of Fiscal Year 1989 involve
the following:
• Continuing efforts in the 12 National Estuary Programs that now
include all coastal regions and all the major interstate estuaries
• Developing the New York Bight Restoration Plan
• Expanding the Gulf of Mexico Initiative
• Adding two more NCW pilot projects
• Initiating a National network for technology transfer about NCW
problems, management tools, and innovative techniques
• Promoting innovative financing in NEP through the development of
financial plans by State and local governments
• Continuing the NCW National assessment with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The major activities of Fiscal Year 1990 are as follows:
• Developing a framework for action for the Gulf of Mexico Initiative
• Completing problem definition and beginning to draft CCMPs for the
initial six National estuary projects
• Transferring technology from successful efforts-—such as NCW pilots,
NEP projects, and Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay Programs-—to ongoing
programs, States, and localities
• Using existing estuary projects to demonstrate selected cleanup
strategies that have the potential for basin—wide application, such as
methods of controlling coliform bacteria.
The Gulf of Mexico Initiative
The Gulf of Mexico Initiative is a major near-coastal waters program. It
is designed to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for managing and
protecting the resources of the Gulf of Mexico that will achieve a balance
between the needs and demands of man—related activities and the preservation
and enhancement of living marine resources in the Gulf.
5—7
-------
Since the environmental problems of the Gulf of Mexico are the result of
many different, and sometimes conflicting, State and regional activities, the
solutions will require Region—wide coordinated efforts. EPA ’s Gulf of Mexico
Program was established to improve communication among all Federal agencies,
States, public and private organizations, and citizens and to focus attention
on the problems of and solutions for the Gulf ecosystem.
Jointly managed by Regions IV (Dallas, TX) and VI (Atlanta, GA) and with
an office in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, the Agency plans to establish a
framework for action consisting of management options for resolving selected
environmental problems through implementation of Federal and State regulatory
controls, enlistment of public and private participation, and research and
information gathering activities.
GREAT LAKES PROGRAM
Created by EPA in 1977, the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)
was formalized by the 1987 CWA Amendments. This National Program office is
located in Chicago and has centralized functions pertinent to the Great Lakes
from EPA Headquarters and the Regions.
The GLNPO is responsible for promoting and tracking the U.S. implemen-
tation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the
United States. This Agreement was first signed in 1972, renegotiated in 1978,
amended in 1983, and renegotiated in 1987. The 1987 revisions to the
Agreement preserved the basic structure of the Agreement, but added several
new Ideas.
The significant 1987 Amendments to the Great Lakes Agreement can be found
in Annexes 1, 2, and 13 through 17. Annex 1 requires the parties to the
Agreement to compile and maintain lists of substances that are believed
already present within the vater, sediment, or aquatic blota of the Great
Lakes system, and that either have acute or chronic toxic effects on aquatic,
animal, or human life, or have the potential to cause such toxic effects.
Substances must also be listed that are not believed to be currently entering
the Great Lakes system but that have the potential to enter it.
5-8
-------
Annex 2 requires the completion of remedial action plans for Areas of
Concern and lakewide management plans, as well as the procedures for their
submission, review, and approval.
Annex 13 pertains to measures for abating and reducing nonpoint sources
of pollution from land—use activities. Land use activities are to be
evaluated on a watershed basis, and watershed management plans should be
developed and implemented. Wetland restoration/preservation and demonstration
projects will be undertaken.
Annex 14 seeks to identify the nature and extent of sediment pollution in
the Great Lakes system by the use of research studies, surveillance programs,
and technological programs. It also calls for the development of long—term
abatement measures.
Annex 15 calls for research, surveillance and monitoring, and identifi-
cation of pollution control measures to reduce atmospheric deposition of toxic
substances.
Annex 16 requires coordination of existing programs in the effort to
control contaminated ground waters affecting the boundary waters of the Great
Lakes system.
Annex 17 delineates research needs to support the achievement of the
Agreement goals.
GLNPO Goal
The underlying GLNPO mission is to assure restoration, protection, and
enhancement of the Great Lakes resource through implementation of the 1972,
1978, and 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements between the United States
and Canada, as well as through the CWA.
GU PO Approach
The early GLNPO priority was to eliminate eutrophication (excessive plant
growth) by reduction of phosphorus loads from point and nonpoint sources. The
5—9
-------
Program encouraged States to place limits of 1 mg/i on all POTV point sources
of 1 mgd or greater. Runoff from agricultural lands was reduced by encourag-
ing changes in tillage practices. The GLNPO has helped States establish a
detergent phosphorus ban, has given no till—low till demonstration grants
through interagency agreements with Soil Conservation Service and Cooperative
Extension Programs, and provided demonstration grants, through cooperative
agreements with municipalities, to test innovative phosphorus removal
technology.
The Program focuses on the contamination of water, sediment, and biota
with persistent toxic substances. Its new, 5—year strategy has the following
goals:
• To support the completion of Lakewide Management Plans for Lakes
Superior, Huron, Michigan, Ontario, and Erie to determine the steps
needed to make fish safe to eat
• To support the completion and Implementation of Remedial Action Plans
to restore beneficial uses in all geographic areas of concern
• To obtain sufficient information about sources, fates, and effects of
pollutants to support a mass balance approach in remedial programs,
using GLNPO surveillance activities, including the Green Bay study and
the Great Lakes Atmospheric Deposition network
• To conduct a demonstration program to assess and address contaminated
bottom sediments
• To evaluate results of point source and nonpoint source remedial
prog rams to determine whether additional controls are needed to
restore oxygen levels in Lake Erie
• To strengthen partnerships with the Great Lakes States, other EPA
programs, and other Federal agencies in carrying out all
responsibilities
• To protect the Lakes from human abuse by improving public under-
standing of the Great Lakes system and related issues.
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
The Chesapeake Bay Program began in 1977 as a Federal—State partnership.
In 1980, the Virginia and Maryland legislatures established the Chesapeake Bay
Commission to coordinate interstate planning and programs from a legislative
5—10
-------
perspective. In 1983, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed by the gover-
nors of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the District of
Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and EPA.
The same parties signed an expanded and refined agreement in 1987. This
agreement includes
• Goals and priority commitments for living resources, water quality,
population growth and development, and public information, education,
and participation
• Pledges to develop strategies to control toxic materials, manage
fisheries, minimize the impact of development on the drainage basin,
provide public access, and govern effectively
• Establishes a commitment among the Bay States to reduce levels of
nutrients by 40 percent by the year 2000.
Opened in the early 1980s in Philadelphia, the Chesapeake Bay Program
Office was formally mandated by the 1987 Amendments to the CWA. The Chesa-
peake Bay Liaison Office in Annapolis, Maryland, administers day-to-day
operations.
Chesapeake Bay Program Goal
The Program is dedicated to preparing plans that viii Improve and protect
the Bay’s water quality and living resources.
Chesaspeake Bay Program Approach
To fulfill its mission, the Program is proceeding to accomplish, through
the States, the following tasks:
• Institute land—use controls at or near the Bay shoreline
• Develop nonpoint source control programs for agricultural and urban
sources
• Accelerate tighter controls on point sources, particularly municipal
treatment plants
• Strengthen wetlands protection plans and programs.
5—11
-------
In accomplishing these tasks, as well as others, the Chesapeake Bay
Program has passed through two phases and is now in a third state of
evolution:
• Phase I——Intensive Investigations
— The critical problems chosen were nutrient enrichment, toxic
substances, and decline of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAy).
— The result was a greatly increased understanding of pollutant
sources, transport—fate, and impact on SAy.
• Phase 11——Characterization
— The effort focused on determining trends in water quality and
resource health.
- The goal was to provide an information base for evaluating human
Impacts and a framework for guiding management options.
- The final product was a document entitled, Chesapeake Bay: A
Profile of Environmental Change , which discussed the state of the
Bay, possible causes for its current status, and trends.
- The management approach was to examine alternative strategies for
control of pollutants and to set up monitoring strategies.
• Phase 1 11——Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action
- The current approach encourages a Regional management strategy.
— It sets goals for each State concerning the reduction of pollutant
discharges.
— The Program also develops predictive tools, Including a compre-
hensive data management system.
OCEAN DUMPING
EPA’S initial policy under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctu-
aries Act (MPRSA) was to phase out ocean dumping. This policy was enhanced by
Congressional mandates in 1977, terminating the dumping of “harmful” sewage
sludge by December 1981, and in 1980, establishing a deadline for the cessa-
tion of dumping industrial waste. In 1981, a Federal court found that, under
the MPRSA, EPA could not ban dumping in the New York Bight without considering
the costs, environmental consequences, and availability of land—based alterna-
tives for disposal.
5—12
-------
Congress has since intervened and has passed the ODBA of 1988. The
primary purpose of this legislation is to end the dumping of sewage sludge and
industrial waste in the oceans by December 1991. Among other provisions, a
compliance or enforcement agreement among a dumper, the governor of the
appropriate State, and EPA must be developed to be Incorporated in the
dumper’s permit. This agreement includes a plan that will result In the
phasing out of ocean dumping of nondredged material no later than December 31,
1991, and a schedule for implementing environmentally sound disposal alterna-
tives. Through the agreement, States are required to establish a Clean Oceans
Fund that will target money to aid the dumpers in developing alternative
systems. The legislation imposes two disposal fees on permitted dumpers: an
administrative fee to cover the costs of carrying out the Act and a punitive
fee to be paid by dumpers who cannot end ocean dumping by 1991.
The ODBA of 1988 includes additional provisions to regulate garbage barge
operations and to make it illegal to dispose of medical waste in the navigable
waters of the United States.
Goal
The Program mission is to minimize the impacts of ocean disposal through
permitting, site designation, monitoring, and enforcement actions.
Ocean Dumping Policy
EPA policy for ocean dumping is dictated in part by the MPRSA (as
recently amended by the ODBA) and the London Dumping Convention (LDC). The
MPRSA specifies that materials may not be dumped, or transported for the
purpose of dumping, without a permit. EPA issues permits for nondredged
materials, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) issues permits for
dredged materials. In addition, EPA may specify sites where dumping is
allowed and areas of the ocean where no dumping shall occur.
The MPRSA, in concurrence with the LDC, also bans the dumping of biologi-
cal, chemical, and radiological agents of war. In addition, regulations pro-
mulgated under the IIPRSA agree with the LDC regarding materials containing
mercury, cadmium, organochiorines, petroleum hydrocarbons, and materials that
5—13
-------
float or remain suspended in the water column so that they interfere with
other legitimate uses of the ocean.
In the absence of the ODBA, EPA’s policy has been to minimize the impacts
of ocean disposal by selecting sites (in the site designation process) for
dumping where impacts will be small and by limiting the nature and amounts of
materials that can be dumped at those sites. This policy has been implemented
for sewage sludge and industrial wastes by
• Requiring potential dumpers to demonstrate that there are no feasible
alternatives to ocean disposal of their waste
• Limiting the dumping rate of materials that contain toxic or hazardous
chemicals (Increasing the dilution of the waste)
• Specifying as permit conditions activities that must be undertaken to
find alternatives to ocean dumping.
For dredged materials, considered separately in the MPRSA, EPA and COE
have developed testing protocols for determining the likely effects of
disposal. Criteria are then applied to determine whether specific dredged
materials are acceptable for ocean dumping.
Approach
New ocean dumping regulations and guidelines being developed by OMEP will
respond to the ODEA and to an earlier lawsuit concerning dredged material.
The new regulations will remove many of the provisions that apply to EPA-
issued permits——permits for sewage sludge and industrial wastes. In response
to the new law, OMEP will establish guidelines for the negotiation of compli-
ance and enforcement agreements among the dumper, the State, and EPA to phase
out ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste; the incorporation of
new conditions into dumping permits; and the implementation of administrative
and punitive fee programs.
The dredged material lawsuit challenged EPA’s use of different permit
review criteria for dredged and nondredged materials. Although the court did
not rule out the use of different standards, it did find that EPA had not
adequately explained the differences. The new regulations will continue to
5—14
-------
protect the oceans by requiring assessments concerning the effects of ocean
dumping of dredged material on human health and the ocean environment. The
assessments must be conducted before disposal sites can be selected and
permits to use the site issued, and while the site is in use.
OCEAN INCINERATION
EPA’s Ocean Incineration Program began in 1974 with the determination
that incineration at sea was authorized under the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. In the same year, the first two research burns
occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Air Force incinerated Herbicide Orange
at a site in the Pacific Ocean. During 1981, successful incineration of
liquid wastes occurred in the Gulf.
EPA has suspended this Program for lack of funding in both the 1989 and
1990 fiscal years. The ODBA of 1988, which took effect November 18, 1988,
prohibits the issuance of new permits for incineration of industrial waste at
sea.
PLASTICS
The Plastics Program was mandated by the marine—related provisions of the
Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA). The purpose of
the MPPRCA is to identify and reduce the effects of plastic pollution on the
marine environment. This law implements Annex V of the Protocol of 1978
Relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL). MARPOL prohibits discharge into the sea of all plastics
including, but not limited to, synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets, and
plastic garbage bags. It also prohibits discharge of food wastes and other
floating materials within specified distances from land. Under this law, EPA
is responsible for a study of methods to reduce plastic pollution of the
marine environment. The report to Congress detailing this study is due in May
1989.
This law also requires EPA to develop a New York Bight Restoration Plan
in cooperation with NOAA and other Federal and State agencies. The develop-
ment of this plan is being managed by EPA’s Region II, in coordination with
OMEP.
5-15
-------
In 1988, Congress passed another law specifically addressing plastic ring
carriers. This legislation directs EPA/Office of Solid Waste to require by
regulation that plastic ring carriers be made of naturally degradable material
so that, when discarded, they will decompose within a reasonable period of
time.
Goal
The Program’s mission is to minimize the adverse impacts of plastic on
the marine environment by cooperating with other EPA offices and other Federal
agencies in the following ways:
• Studying methods to reduce plastic pollution
• Determining sources, fates, and effects of plastic pollution.
Approach
In conducting Program activities, OMEP will work with other programs,
particularly those dealing with waste minimization policies. In addition, the
Office will collaborate with other Federal agencies that have related respon-
sibilities under the law. OMEP and NOAA have already collaborated to analyze
the effects of plastic materials on the marine environment and recommend
appropriate legislation. NOAA and the Department of Transportation share the
responsibility for a public education program on the effects of plastic
pollution and ways to reduce pollution levels.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
OMEP, because of its role in NCV and NEP, has strong ties with other EPA
Programs. Two Programs of particular importance are the Nonpoint Sources
Program and the Wetlands Protection Program. Both of these Programs have
potentially complementary roles with OMEP in specific geographic areas. The
Programs’ activities of particular relevance to OMEP are outlined in the
following subsections.
5—16
-------
OTHER ACTIVITIES: NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT
No direct statutory mandate exists for OMEP decision making or oversight
activities for nonpoint source management——these functions are the respon-
sibility of the Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) under Section
319 of the CWA. Such activities are, however, an integral part of the near—
coastal waters restoration and protection program and the NEP. Primary
responsibility for this Program resides with OWRS.
Goal
The purpose of the nonpoint source activities is to meet water quality
objectives by reducing nonpoint source pollution loads within the context of a
total load management approach.
Approach
The primary activities required by the CVA are the review and approval
(where appropriate) of State—prepared Nonpoint Source Assessments and Manage-
ment Programs. The Office of Water Regulations and Standards is providing
technical assistance to States, when requested, for the preparation of these
documents. Other activities are being encouraged through other EPA programs,
such as OMEP. These actions are designed to improve control and/or reduce the
amount of nonpoint source pollution, primarily from agricultural sources, by
• Targeting treatment (through best management practices) to high—
priority geographic areas
• Reducing sources of nonpoint source pollution through such actions as
the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program,
which takes critical areas out of agricultural production
• Leveraging and influencing Federal land management practices
• Encouraging protection and restoration of wetlands to buffer adjacent
streams, lakes, and estuaries from the effects of these discharges
• Facilitating transfer of “what’s working” information from State to
State.
Nonpoint source management focuses as well on establishing a Federal funding
strategy, beginning with contributions from the SRF. The strategy will
5—17
-------
encourage States to provide financial assistance for successful models, such
as the Wisconsin program.
In Fiscal Year 1990, the Agency plans to
• Target implementation of a few State nonpoint source Management
Programs to protect critical aquatic habitats with the greatest
potential for demonstrating success, particularly In States with
innovative approaches where definitive results will occur
• Place special emphasis on protecting/restoring critical aquatic
habitats in geographic areas affected by nonpoint sources, such as the
Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Gulf States, where higher levels of
activity will be encouraged to ensure protection of valuable estuaries
and wetlands.
OTHER ACTIVITIES: HABITAT PROTECTION
Additional OMEP activities address habitat protection as part of the NCW
and NEP. As with the Nonpoint Source Program, OMEP does not have direct
responsibility for program implementation, but influences Regional actions
through the NCV and NEP. This section identifies these efforts.
Goal
The purpose of habitat protection is to maintain and, where possible, to
restore or enhance the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
critical aquatic habitats, including wetlands.
Approach
The focus of these activities, as indicated below, is on the protection
of wetlands and critical aquatic habitats. In conducting these efforts as
part of the NCW or NEP, OMEP cooperates with the Office of Wetland Protection.
• Wetlands protection
— Continue to regulate major physical modification/destruction of
wetlands through aggressive implementation of dredged or fill
material permit program (Section 404 CWA)
— Increase attention to ensure that such substances as hazardous
wastes, nonpoint sources, stormwater, municipal vastewater, and
atmospheric deposition and that unregulated hydrological
modifications do not unacceptably impair wetland functions
5—18
-------
— Continue efforts to address site—specific issues through Advanced
Identification Projects, identifying the most susceptible wetland
areas and building State/local commitment to protect these areas
Build State capacity to administer wetlands protection programs,
and leverage other Federal agency programs as effectively as
possible
• Critical aquatic habitat protection
- Incorporate principles of the State Clean Water Strategy approach
in defining problems, assessing risks, setting priorities, and
developing rnultiyear action plans to protect and enhance our
critical aquatic habitats in all States, with EPA assistance
- Improve local, State, and Federal decision—making tools to address
ecological concerns by increasing our commitment to research in
such areas as biological assessment in water quality standards/
implementation
— Use available statutory authorities, including water quality
standards and State 401 certification of Federal permits, to expand
efforts to protect the most ecologically susceptible and valuable
areas.
The specific initiatives identified for Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990
concentrate on wetlands protection:
• Fiscal Year 1989
— Wetlands protection
—— Implement recommendations of National Wetlands Policy Forum
—— Accelerate the program to increase State protection of wetlands
through water quality criteria and Section 401 certification of
404 permits
— General
-— Identify opportunities and initiate cross—program joint
projects to test innovative techniques for protecting critical
aquatic habitats
—— Develop marine water quality and sediment criteria, toxicity
testing methods, and analytical techniques to implement a
water—quality—based approach in coastal waters
—- Develop water quality criteria for wetlands and improved
methods for assessing impacts of discharges on wetlands
5-19
-------
• Fiscal Year 1990
— Wetlands protection
—— Work with other water quality management programs to provide
technical assistance, review and evaluate cross—program
approaches, develop joint methods, and initiate pilot projects
addressing discharges to wetlands
-- Participate actively in planning processes for aquatic
resources that address multiple objectives——such as flood
control, habitat protection, recreation, water quality, and
open space
—— Establish monitoring and information management systems to
allow Incorporation of wetlands data; develop and apply
Geographic Information Systems to integrate information for
wetlands decisions.
5-20
-------
Oregon Coast
San Francisco Bay, CA
Great Lakes
4
Santa Monica Bay, CA
Buzzards Bay, MA
“w . Long Island Sound, NY
NY Bight
, , ‘J Harbor
DeIaware Bay
Chesapeake Bay
bemarle-Pamlico Sounds,
. )
Perdido Bay, FI./AL( Sarasota Bay, FL
Galveston Bay, TX
FIGURE 5-1. WATERS COVERED UNDER AGENCY INITIATIVES, 1988
-------
OMEP
Organization
-------
6. ORGANIZATION OF OMEP
Tudor Davies, Director
Louise Wise, Deputy Director
Dana Letourneau, Director, Policy and Management Support Staff
Louise Wise, Acting Director, Technical Support Division
Craig Vogt, Acting Director, Marine Operations Division
Having identified pertinent legislation and programs, the discussion
turns to organizations, beginning in this section with the Office of Marine
and Estuarine Protection (OMEP). The section highlights OMEP responsibilities
and the work of its two divisions: the Marine Operations Division and the
Technical Support Division. In addition, the presentation identifies selected
Office personnel, concluding with OMEP organizational and staffing charts and
a regional coordinators list.
FUNCTIONAL STATEMENT
OMEP, under the supervision of a Director, is responsible for developing
policies and strategies and for implementing National programs to protect,
restore, and maintain the nation’s coastal and marine waters to protect human
health and sustain living resources. Authorities are derived principally from
the Clean Water Act (CVA) and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA), as well as a number of provisions under other laws, such as the
Ocean Dumping Ban Act (ODBA) and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and
Control Act. OMEP also represents the United States in supporting inter-
national activities to stop pollution of the oceans and protect critical
habitat and marine endangered species and resources. The Office serves as the
coordination point for interagency activities to protect the coastal and
marine environment, and it works closely with other Federal agencies,
including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Army
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Minerals Management Service, that have marine protection and regulatory
responsibilities to develop and implement cooperative strategies and programs.
Within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), OMEP strives to achieve a
unique geographic approach by focusing and integrating Agency regulatory tools
and management attention on current and future coastal problems.
6—1
-------
OMEP is responsible for the overall policy, guidance, and regulation
development and implementation of the National Estuary Program (NEP),
authorized by Section 320 of the 1987 Amendments to the CWA. It also provides
overall direction and technical support for implementation of the Near—Coastal
Waters Strategy, initiated by the EPA Administrator in 1985.
OMEP is responsible for developing regulations, policies, guidelines, and
procedures for ocean dumping permits, as well as research and emergency
dumping permits, 403(c) ocean discharge permits, 301(h) permits, and marine
debris. The Office develops guidance and conducts monitoring programs for
identification and collection of data necessary for decision making and
program management.
OMEP oversees the Regions in their evaluation and selection of suitable
sites for ocean dumping of dredged materials by the Army Corps of Engineers
and for the disposal of other wastes permitted by EPA.
OMEP provides policy oversight of the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes
Programs and the Gulf of Mexico Initiative, including the review of budget and
work plans, and it assures the integration of these programs with other
activities in the marine and estuarine programs.
OMEP provides assistance to EPA Regional offices and States to ensure
implementation of National programs and protection of the coastal and marine
environments. OMEP also serves an important role in the technology transfer
from the estuary and near—coastal water initiatives to State and local
decision makers, EPA headquarters, and Regional, as well as other Federal
agency, program managers.
OMEP works with the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and NOAA on
the development and implementation of a research strategy to address issues in
the marine and coastal environments.
OMEP plays a leadership role in international activities related to
protecting the coastal and marine environments. Responsibilities include
preparing and presenting U.S. positions for the London Dumping Convention and
6—2
-------
other international meetings and agreements, in consultation with the Depart-
ment of State and EPA’s Office of International Affairs.
POLICY AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT STAFF
The Policy and Management Support Staff (PMSS), under the supervision of
a Director, serves as principal staff to the Office Director on matters
relating to policy, budget, administration, and management. It manages the
program planning and budget process, providing budget development, hearing
preparation, operating plan development, implementation, and financial
management. Budget development includes the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay
Programs, as well as OMEP programs. Management activities for legislative and
policy analysis involve preparing testimony, commenting on legislation, and
acting as liaison with the Office of Legislative Affairs. The PMSS serves as
the communications coordinator for the Office and the focal point for respond-
ing to inquiries from Congressional staff, State/local governments, and other
external groups. In addition, the PMSS conducts special studies and analyses
on issues pertinent to the various groups.
The PMSS serves as the Great Lakes Program coordinator, overseeing
activities of the Great Lakes National Program Office in Region V.
The PMSS develops and oversees the implementation of the Office’s portion
of the Agency Operating Guidance and the Office of Water Evaluation Guide and
both systems’ accountability measures, and also coordinates Office partici-
pation in Regional reviews to assure effective guidance and oversight of
Regional performance. The PMSS also develops and oversees the workload model
for allocation of Regional resources.
The PMSS manages all of OMEP’s technical support contracts, providing
advice and overseeing OMEP’s work assignment managers, and it develops
contract plans. It also manages all administrative processes, such as merit
pay and performance standards system, space, personnel, and organization and
management services. The PMSS serves as the personal computer site coordi-
nator, oversees automated data processing activities, and coordinates the
development of the Information Collection Budget.
6—3
-------
The PMSS is the liaison and coordination body with the Office of Water
and other Agency offices.
MARINE OPERATIONS DIVISION
The Marine Operations Division (MOD) is responsible for the development
and implementation. of regulations, policy, and procedures for the evaluation
of permits issued under Section 403(c) of the CVA; evaluation of requests for
waivers of secondary treatment requirements for publicly owned treatment works
discharge into marine waters under Section 301(h) of the CWA; and implementa-
tion of MPRSA and ODBA provisions. The Division has two branches: the
Environmental Analysis Branch and the Marine Permits and Monitoring Branch.
Under 403(c) of the CWA, MOD prepares required reports, develops and
implements strategies to meet 403(c) ocean discharge criteria, prepares
technical guidance documents, and provides technical support to Regions for
conducting environmental impact assessments of discharges.
Activities under Section 301(h) include providing policy and procedures
guidance, as well as technical support to the Regions; developing regulations
in response to the 1987 Water Quality Act Amendments; and establishing a
memorandum of understanding with ORD on assistance in evaluation of 301(h)
waivers. MOD also develops guidance for secondary treatment equivalency
determinations, 301(h) permit reissuance, and monitoring data evaluation. The
Ocean Data Evaluation System is also developed and maintained within MOD, and
technical assistance for its use is provided to Regions.
Under the MPRSA and ODBA, MOD develops ocean dumping regulations and
guidance documents, manages the ocean dumping operating program, including
oversight of Regional dump-site designations and permits, and prepares an
annual report to Congress. The Division serves as liaison with Office of the
General Counsel, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, U.S. Coast Guard, the State Department,
and the Regions on MPRSA enforcement actions. In addition, MOD coordinates
with NOAA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on monitoring effects of ocean
dumping and regulates and implements guidance for incineration at sea.
6—4
-------
The OSV Anderson is operated under the direction of MOD as part of its
continuing role in assessing water quality impacts at ocean dumping sites. In
addition, the OSV Anderson conducts special surveys to assist Regions in
assessing water quality problems in coastal and marine waters. The Division
also provides designs and reviews of monitoring surveys.
Other activities Include oversight and technical assistance on the New
York Bight Restoration Plan and Mid—Atlantic Bight Initiative. International
activities include the London Dumping Convention and the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships (MARPOL). Finally, MOD
has the lead for coordination and participation in marine activities related
to the Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION
The Technical Support Division (TSD) is responsible for overall policy
development and implementation of two major program areas of the EPA: the
NEP, authorized by Sections 317 and 320 of the Amendments to the CWA, and the
Near-Coastal Waters Strategy. These programs provide the primary focus within
EPA for comprehensive planning to restore and protect coastal resources. In
addition, the TSD is responsible for effective oversight of and assistance to
the Chesapeake Bay Program and for the development of a strategy for con-
trolling pollutant loadings, both point and nonpoint source discharges, to
coastal waters. The Division has two branches: the Technical Guidance Branch
and the Technical Services Branch.
TSD’s principal activities in support of the NEP are as follows:
• Development of National representation and guidance to define criteria
for inclusion in the NEP and grant requirements
• Oversight and support for implementation of 12 estuary programs
designated through 1988
• Selection and oversight of new estuaries to the National Program,
including the negotiation of State/EPA Conference Agreements
• Oversight of fiscal management, recordkeeping, and monitoring
• Provision of data—management support to define problems and character-
ize the estuary
6—5
-------
• Ensurance of the development of adequate scientific and management
tools to address estuarine and marine pollution abatement and control
through coordination with other Federal agencies, EPA programs, and
State/local activities
• Facilitation of the exchange and communication of NEP experience and
expertise among all program participants.
Activities In support of the Near—Coastal Waters Strategy include
• The identification and development of assessment tools, such as a
National data base in coordination with NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey,
Regions, and States, and the conduct of training and informational
workshops at the Region and State levels
• The conduct of pilot projects to demonstrate innovative applications
of scientific tools and management techniques
• Intra—agency coordination to focus existing regulatory and management
tools on coastal access
• The development of improved scientific tools
• The development and implementation of a technology transfer network.
The major activity associated with the Chesapeake Bay Program is to
oversee and provide assistance to EPA Region III and the Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office for the implementation of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
As part of the National strategy for point source discharges to coastal
waters, the Division supports (1) the identification of discharges subject to
Section 403 of the CWA, (2) an evaluation of pollutants and impacts, (3) the
development of permitting priorities, and (4) the training of Regional and
State staff.
SELECTED PERSONNEL VITHIN THE OFFICE OP MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Office of the Director
Dr. Tudor Davies has a long history of involvement in environmental
Issues. In his 20 years of professional experience, he has served as Director
of the EPA Large Lakes Research Program; Deputy Director of the Gulf Breeze,
Florida, Environmental Research Laboratory; Director of the Chesapeake Bay
6—6
-------
Program; and Director of the Narragansett, Rhode Island, Environmental
Research Laboratory. At Headquarters, Dr. Davies has acted as the Policy
Chief and Acting Deputy Administrator for the Office of Water. Since 1984, he
has been the Director of OMEP.
Louise Wise has been Deputy Director since October 1988. At EPA, she has
served as an attorney in the Office of General Counsel; a program analyst for
the Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response;
Director of the Standards and Policy Division of the Office of Underground
Storage Tanks; and Special Assistant to the Administrator. Ms. Wise earned
her J.D. degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1978.
Policy and Management Support Staff
Dana Letourneau has more than 16 years of Government experience. She
has held her current position in OMEP since March 1987. Prior to that, Ms.
Letourneau was a Program Analyst in EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring. She has also served as the Special Assistant to the Administrator
and Legislative Officer in the Department of Labor. She received her MPA in
1977 from George Washington University and an MBA in 1983 from Marymount
University.
Marine Operations Division
Craig Vogt has more than 18 years of professional experience. He holds a
master’s degree in sanitary engineering. Mr. Vogt began his career with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Portland, Oregon. Since coming to the Agency
in 1971, he has served as a sanitary engineer In Region X, an environmental
engineer in the Office of Water Regulations and Standards, and as Branch Chief
and Deputy Division Director in the Office of Drinking Water, developing
National drinking water standards. Mr. Vogt is currently the Director of the
Marine Operations Division.
Technical Support Division
Louise Wise, the Office’s Deputy Director, has been serving as Acting
Division Director since November 1988.
6—7
-------
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
I
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION
(8-475-7102)
LOUISE WISE, ACTING DIRECTOR
5-7102
FIGURE 6-1. OMEP ORGANIZATION CHART
(8-382-7166)
TUDOR DAVIES. DIRECTOR
LOUISE WISE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
POLICY AND MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT STAFF
(8-475-8580)
DARLA LETOURNEAU, DIRECTOR
I
I I
Technical Guidance
Branch
MARINE OPERATIONS DIVISION
(8 475 7130)
Michelle Hiller, Chief
I I
TechnIcal ServIces
Branch
(8-475-7102)
John Pai, Chief
I
Environmental
Analysis Branch
(8-475-7102)
Paul Pan, Chief
Marine Permits and
Monitoring Branch
(8-475-7102)
Darrell Brown, Chief
6—8
-------
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
I
MARINE OPERATIONS DIVISION
Craig Vogt, Acting Director
Pearl Smith, Secretary
Ed McLean, Consultant
FIGURE 6-2. OMEP STAFFING CHART
Tudor Davies, Director
Louise Wise, Deputy Director
Ellen Delaney. Secretary
Al Wastler
Bob Zeller
Nicole Veruete (Sec)
Nichelle Jackson (S IS)
POLICY AND MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT STAFF
Darla Letourneau, Director
Ray Baum
Gloria Hamm
Susan Jackson
Paul Kraman
Roy Rathbun
Paula Monroe
Rosslyn Wright (Sac)
Angela Hoiliday (SIS)
I
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DIVISION
Louise Wise, Acting Director
Betty Moore, Secretary
Technical Guidance
Branch
Technical Services
Branch
Michelle Hiller, Chief
Toni Armitage
Caren Chitterling
Raymond Hall
Steve Glomb
Mary Lou Soscia
Joanne King (Sac)
John Pai, Chief
Mark Alderson
Joe Hall
Lore Hantske
Kathy Minsch
Margherita Pryor
Stephanie Stanzone
Nadeen Thompson (Sec)
Environmental
Analysis Branch
Marine Permits and
Monitoring Branch
Paul Pan, Chief
Darrell Brown, Chief
Jonathan Amson
Barry Burgan
Ginny Fox-Norse
Elly Carney
Bob King
Susan Hitch
Wanda Rasper (Sac)
Dave Redford
Diana Gearhart (Sec)
6—9
-------
MOD MOD TSD
REGIONS 301(h)/403(c) Ocean Disposal NCW/NEP PMSS
I Virginia Fox—Norse Barry Burgan Raymond Hall
475—7129 475—7134 475—6145
II Robert King David Redford Steve Glomb
475—7119 475—7179 475—7114
III Robert King Barry Burgan Tom Armitage
475—7119 475—7134 475—7378
IV Robert King Susan Hitch Stephanie Stanzone
475—7119 475—7178 475—7137
VI Robert King Susan Hitch Lore Hantske
475—7119 475—7178 475—7111
IX Virginia Fox—Norse Susan Hitch John Pai
475—7129 475—7178 475—7102
X Virginia Fox—Norse Darrell Brown Katherine Minsch
475—7129 475—7180 475—9552
CB Tom Armitage
475—7378
GL Mary Lou Soscia Paul Kraman
475—7109 382—7194
FIGURE 6-3. REGIONAL COORDINATORS, HEADQUARTERS
6-10
-------
Relationship to
Regions
-------
7. ONEP’S RELATIONSHIP TO EPA REGIONS
The Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP) works closely with
each of the coastal Regions: Region I (Boston, MA), Region II (New York, NY),
Region III (Philadelphia, PA), Region IV (Atlanta, GA), Region V (Chicago,
IL), Region VI (Dallas, TX), Region IX (San Francisco, CA), and Region X
(Seattle, WA). This section describes the general types of organizational
structures found in these regions, discusses the roles that Headquarters (HQ)
and the Regions play in each OMEP program, and provides a list of key
contacts.
REGIONAL ORGANIZATION
Activities in programs of interest to OMEP are generally placed in the
Water Management Division of each Region. Region III, however, places marine
and estuarine programs in the Environmental Services Division. A variety of
structures for branches and sections exists under these Divisions.
In Region I, essentially all programs of interest to OMEP come under the
Water Quality Branch. The Environmental Evaluation Section is responsible for
ocean disposal site designation and Section 301(h) waivers, the Water Quality
Management Section for nonpoint sources and comprehensive estuarine manage-
ment, and the Wetlands Protection Section for review of Clean Water Act (CVA)
Section 404 and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act Section 103
permit.
In Region II, the Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch is the primary
group involved in marine and estuarine programs. Under this Branch are the
National Estuary Program, ocean dumping, and Near—Coastal Waters activities.
However, the Water Standards and Planning Branch is responsible for
implementation of Sections 301(h) and 403(c) in the Region.
In Region III, OMEP-related activities occur mainly in two branches in
the Environmental Services Division: the Environmental Monitoring and
Surveillance Branch, which includes Annapolis operations, and the
Environmental Assessment Branch, which includes a Wetlands and Marine Policy
Section and an Environmental Planning Section. The Chesapeake Bay Program
Office is in Annapolis, Maryland, and reports to the Water Division Director.
7—1
-------
In Region IV, responsibilities are divided among three sections in the
Marine and Estuarine Branch: the Water Quality Management Section, the
Wetlands Section, and the Marine Protection Section.
In Region V, responsibilities related to OMEP reside in the Great Lakes
National Program Office in Chicago, Illinois, which reports to the Regional
Administrator.
In Region VI, the Water Quality Branch has two sections related to OMEP
activities: the State Programs Section and the Technical Section. A sister
branch, the Permits Branch, contains sections that are responsible for the
review and issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits.
In Region IX, the Wetlands and Estuaries Section within the Wetlands,
Oceans, and Estuaries Branch undertakes activities related to the Section
301(h) Program. The Wetlands and Oceans Disposal Section, in the same branch,
implements the Ocean Dumping and CWA Section 404 Programs.
In Region X, the Environmental Evaluation Branch is responsible for ocean
dumping, and the Water Permits and Compliance Branch is responsible for
Sections 403(c) and 301(h).
OMEP’ S RELATIONSHIP WITH REGIONAL OFFICES
The relationship between OMEP and the various Regional offices is
determined on a program-by—program basis. Some programs, for example, are
primarily HQ—oriented, whereas others are basically oriented to Regions. As
part of the OMEP Futures project, both HQ and Regional staff were requested to
rate the relative HQ/Regional role for each program as it exists now and as It
should be in the future.
The ranking scheme was based on a 5-point scale, with 1 designating a
National program, and 5 a Regional effort. It included the descriptors iden-
tified in Table 7—1.
7—2
-------
The following discussion provides a short description of each program
type.
• National Program: A number of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) programs are run at HO with limited Regional Input. Examples
include offices with regulatory development activities, where Regions
may be Involved in various work groups, but have limited responsi-
bility. Other examples include special studies, such as reports to
Congress, and such centralized functions as those found In the Office
of Pesticides Programs. The pesticides in drinking water survey and
acid rain study are other examples of programs in which HO retains
primary responsibility.
Table 7—1. Ranking Scheme
Scale
Type of Program
Characteristics
1
National
Administered by HO with minimal
Regional participation
2
Regional
Extensive HO guidance and control
3
RegIonal
Moderate HQ control
4
Regional
Little HO guidance or control
5
Regional
Regional control, with no HO
guidance
• Regional Program with Extensive HO Oversight: This type of arrange-
ment is common in “newly delegated” programs and some EPA permitting
and enforcement programs. The Regions are provided with extensive
guidance as to what constitutes a priority program activity. Guidance
is also provided on how to conduct the activity. Perhaps most impor-
tantly, an extensive number of “targets,” usually through the
Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS), are provided. There
are frequent telephone contacts between HO and Regional officials
concerning the progress of the program. “Bean counts” are an all—
encompassing exercise. Regional programmatic decisions are often
subject to HO scrutiny. This type of program normally results because
of heavy congressional and public scrutiny. The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permitting and Enforcement Program is a good
example.
• Regional Program with Moderate HQ Oversight: This type of arrangement
is typical of “older” programs; the Regions and States have extensive
experience with such programs. EPA HQ retains a policy role, but the
Regions are given a larger degree of autonomy in the selection of
program activities. The number of SPMS targets is typically fever,
7—3
-------
and contacts regarding program progress are conducted at a lower key.
Regions are provided with significant autonomy in negotiating grant
agreements and responsibilities with the States. Oversight is con-
ducted by HQ, but at lesser frequency and intensity. Direct HO
Involvement at any particular site is infrequent, normally occuring
only when some precedential issue Is raised. The NPDES Program is a
good example of this type of effort.
• Regional Program with Minimal HO Oversight: This type of arrangement
is common in relatively noncontroversial programs, such as the Water
Quality Monitoring Program. Although HO maintains a policy and
technical assistance role, especially in researching or developing new
techniques, investigating “emerging” problems (e.g., Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits’ recent role in toxicity reduction evalua-
tions) and transferring technology, the Regions have responsibility
for day—to-day operations. They receive minimal HO guidance or
oversight.
• Regional Program: The Regions have day—to—day responsibility with
little HO input. Limited to no targets are provided. An example
Includes the degree of guidance that the Regions receive in negoti-
ating CWA Section 106 grant agreements with the States. General
guidance is provided through a number of mechanisms, but the Regions
have freedom in developing the final grant agreement.
Headquarters management and Regional staff have assessed OMEP programs,
using the 5—point scale identified previously for National and Regional pro-
grams. Table 7—2 presents their numerical appraisals.
Table 7—2. HO and Regional Assessments of
the HO/Regional Relationship
Programs
HEADQUARTERS
REGIONS
Now
Future
Now
Future
Ocean Dumping
3
2.5
3.5
3.25
Plastics
1
NA
1.4
2.6
Ocean Incineration
1
1
1.2
1.6
Section 301(h)
2
3
3.4
4
Section 403(c)
4
2.5
2.6
3.7
National Estuary
2.5
3.5
2.35
3.35
Near—Coastal Waters
1
2
1.9
3.55
Great Lakes
5
3.5
4.0
3.86
Chesapeake Bay
5
3.5
3.75
3.94
Gulf Coast
5
3.5
2.94
3.65
7—4
-------
In 5 of the 10 cases summarized in Table 7—2, HQ and the Regions viewed
the current relationship similarly. In the remaining five cases, however, the
differences in the scores given by HQ and the Regions exceeded 1 point:
• HQ felt its current role in the Section 301(h) Waiver Program was very
strong, exercising extensive oversight (2), whereas the Regions felt
that the Program received moderate to minimal oversight (3.4).
• On the other hand, HO felt it exercised minimal oversight (4) with
respect to the Section 403(c) Program. The Regions felt that
extensive to moderate oversight (2.6) was exercised by HO.
• With respect to three demonstration programs (Great Lakes, Chesapeake
Bay, Gulf Coast), HO felt that the Regions had a free hand (5). The
Regions, on the other hand, felt that oversight was provided in
varying degrees, as expressed by scores of 4, 3.75, and 2.94 for the
Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and Gulf Coast Programs, respectively.
The Regions believe that less HQ oversight in the future is merited for 8
of the 10 programs. HQ saw an increasing HO role in four of nine cases (HO
did not provide an assessment for the future of the Plastics Pollution Pro-
gram). The two cases in which the Regions recognized a need for an increasing
HO role are the Ocean Dumping Program and the Great Lakes National Program
Office (GLNPO).
Although the Regional representatives provided a scoring for the future
of the Ocean Dumping Program that allows for more HO involvement, the
difference between the current and future assessment was minimal (3.25 vs.
3.5). Thus, the Regions viewed the Program as largely a Regional one. The HO
assessment, despite seeing a slightly greater HO role in the future (2.5 vs.
3), was similar to the Regional assessment in both the direction and magnitude
of the change. The Regions also saw a need for greater HO oversight of GLNPO
in the future, but the degree of change was minimal (3.86 vs. 4). HO
indicated a need for much stronger oversight of this Program than currently
exists (3.5 vs. 5). However, asnoted above, there is no shared perception as
to how much HO oversight is currently exercised over this Program.
7—5
-------
HO saw a need for a modification (Indicated by changes greater than 1) in
the HQ/Regional relationship (current vs. future relationship) with respect to
three demonstration programs (GLNPO, Chesapeake Bay, Gulf Coast) and the
Section 403(c) Program, as indicated by a 1.5 change in scoring for each of
these programs. The Regions, on the other hand, did not see a similar need
for change. Although the Regions recognized a need for a large change in the
Section 403(c) relationship (as indicated by a 1.1 differential between the
current and future relationship), the change was in the opposite direction
than that seen by HO. That is, the Regions saw a need for less oversight.
The Regions indicated a need for change (as noted by a current/future
differential greater than 1) for three programs. The first of these, the
Section 403(c) Program, is described above. Others are the Plastics Program
(1.2), for which HO has not formulated a future assessment, and the Near—
Coastal Waters Initiative (1.65). In both cases, the Regions saw the need for
less HO oversight. HO representatives agreed that a change was needed in the
Near-Coastal Waters Initiative relationship (from 1 to 2), but the change was
not as dramatic as the Region’s 1.65 differentIal. HO viewed the need for a
future relationship characterized by heavy HO oversight (2), but the Regions
saw the need for moderate to minimal HO oversight (3.55).
K Y REGIONAL CONTACTS
This section identifies personnel with significant programmatic responsi-
bility In the six coastal Regions. Some of the contacts may change as a
result of current reorganization, as in Region III. The personnel identified
below will, however, remain useful resources for information on OMEP efforts
in the various Regions.
7—6
-------
REGION I
TABLE 7-3. REGIONAL DIRECTORY AND KEY CONTACTS
N.. Cazetsi Waler. PJ.tlnn.I 5 trn. P.,,Ora,r. SOlihi Cantart Oee .,
David Pieces, Director
US EPA
Water Management Division
John P Kennedy Bldg
Boston, MA 02203
Fl’S 8-835-3478
E-Mail EPA9I4O
Ron Marifredonla, Chief
Water Quality Branch
Fl’S 8-836-3531
E-mail EPA9I4O
Corrirrc L. Kupstas
Water Qua lily Branch
wg Management Section
Fl ’S 8-565-3546
E-Mail EPA9I4O
Kim Kechier
Water Quality Evaluation
F l’S. 8-835-4432
E-mail, EPAS 146
Dave Tome
Water Quality Evaluation
Fl’S 8835-4432
E-mail EPASI46
Dave Tome (8-835-4432 )
Roscroary Monahan
Water Quality Evaluation
Fl’S 8-835-3550
E-mail. EPA9I46
Richard Caspe. Director
Water Management Division
US EPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York. NY 10278
FF5 8-264-2513
E-mail. EPA9270
Mario DclVlcario, Chief
Mar & Wetlands Protection Br
FF5 8-264-5170
E-mail EPA927 i
Mario DelVicario, Chief
Mar & Wetlands Protection Br
FF8 8-264-5170
E-mail EPA927 1
Seth Ausubel
Mar & Wetlands Protection Br
FF5 8-264-5170
E-mail 5PAS270
Mario DclVicarlo, Chief
Mar & Wetlands Protection Br
Fm 8-264-5170
E-mail EPAS27I
Seth Ausubel (NY/NJ)
Jo Brecher (I-IS)
Mar & Wetlands Protection Br
Ff5 8-264-5170
E-mail EPAS27O
Mario Dclvicarlo, Chief
Mar & Wetlands Protection Br
FTS 8-264-5170
E-mail EPA9271
REGION II I
Greene Jones. Director
Environmental Services DivisIon
US EPA
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Fl’S 8-597-4532
E maiL EPAS38O
Alvin Morris, Director
Water Management Division
Fl’S 8-597-9410
E-maiL EPA9360
Charles Spooner, Director
Chesapeake Bay Program
Annapolis City Marina
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
Fl’S 8-922-2258
E-maiL EPA5363
John Pomponio, ChIef
Env Assessment Branch
Env Services Division
Fl’S 8-597-1181
E-mail EPA9332
Bill Muir, Bag Oceanographer
Env Assessment Branch
FTh 8-597-2541
E-mail EPA9380
iiiil Muir, Meg Oceanographer
Era Assessment Branch
FFS 8-597-2541
E-mail EPA9380
Maria O?.ialley
Wetlands & Mar Policy Sect.
301-266-9180 Annapolis)
597-1182 (Philadelphia)
E-mail EPA5332
Bill Muir. Meg. Oceanographer
Erie Assessment Branch
Era Services Division
Fl’S 8-597-2541
E-mail EPA838O
Bill Muir. Meg Oceanographer
Env Assessment Branch
Env Services Division
Fl’S 8-597-2541
E-maIl EPA938O
toil Muir. Reg Oceanographer
Env Assessment Branch
Env Services Division
FTS 8-597-2541
E-mail EPA9SBO
REGION II
Steve Silva
Water Quality Brunch
Fl’S 8-935-3538
E-Mail. EPA9 140
Plasties
--I
Mario DeiVicarlo, Chief Mario DelVicurio, Chief
Mar & Wetlands Proteciitn Br Mar & Wetlands Protection Br
F l ’S 8-264-5170 FF5 8-264-5170
E-mail EPAS27 I E-mail EPA927 1
Charles Spooner. Director
Fl’S 8-922-2258
E-mail EPA9363
-------
TABLE 7-3. REGIONAL DIRECTORY AND KEY CONTACTS (continued)
Near Coastal Witeri National Futnaly PmQTam SOlihi Contact
REGION IV
Bruce Barrett. Director Robert F (Mlkc( McGhce. Chief Lloyd Wise Uoyd Wise RegInald Rogers Reginald Rogers
Water Management Division Marine arid Eatuarine Branch Water Management Division Water Management Division Water Management Division Water Managcment Division
345 Courtiand Street. RE i-is 8-257-2128 i-iS 8-257-2126 i-IS 8-257-2126 i-IS 8-257-2126 Frs 8-257-2126
Atlanta. GA 30365 5-mall El’A944t Earl Boreman E-Mail EPAS44O E-Mail. EP/i9440 E-Mail EPA9440
FTS 8-257-4450 FFS 8-257-2128
E-mail. EPAS44O Frank Redmond. Chief E-Mail EPA9440
Wetlands and Coastal Protection
Doug Lipka FTh 8-257-2 126
Cul(PrcgramOfl lcc E-mail EPA9441
John C Stennis Space Center
Stennis Space Center. Doug Llpka
MS 39529 Gulf Program Office
FTh 8-494-3726 i-IS 8-494-3726
REGION V
Carol Finch. Acting Director Carol Finch. Acting Director Ralph Christianson (8-353-3545
Great Lakes National Prog. Office Great LSke5 National Prog Office Susan Boldt
US EPA FIS 8-353-2147 Great Lakes National Prug. 0 16cc
230 South Dearborn Street E-mail EPAS5I8 i-iS 8-353-2694
ChIcago, 11.60604 E-Mail EPA9518
FFS 8-353-2117
E-mail. EPA95I8
REGION VI
Myron Knudaon. Director Ken Klrkp trick. Dcp Director Russell Putt David Neleigh. Chief Norm Thomas L Johnson
Water Management Division Water Management Division Water Quality Branch Technical Section Federal AcUviUcs Branch Water Quality Branch
US EPA i-IS 8-255-7144 i-iS 8-255-7145 i-iS 8-255-7145 i-is 8-2s5-226o i-IS 8-255-7145
1445 Rena Avenue E-mail EPA967I E mall. EPA967O E-mail EPA3684 E mall EPA9670
Dallas, ‘IX 75202 Russell Putt (Galveston. Gulf Inn.
FTS 8-255-7100 Bntce Elliott Water Quality Branch
E-mail. EPA967 I WatergualltyBranch i-iS 8-255-7145
i-IS 8-255-7136 Barbara Kieler (Barstarla)
Russell F Rhodes. Director E-mail EPA9670 E-mail EPAS67O
Environmental Seivices Division
i-rs 8-255-2510
-------
REGION II
TABLE 7-3. REGIONAL DIRECTORY AND KEY CONTACTS (continued)
Near Coastal Waters
Pssamm
Harry Seraydariari. Director
Water Management Division
1)5 EPA
215 Fremont Street
San Frandsco, CA 94)05
FTS 8-974-8115
E-mail. EPA992O
Janet Hashlmoto, Chief
Oceans and Estuaries Section
FFS 8-974-8283
E-mail EPA992 1
Nancy Lindsay (SMB )
FF5 8-974-98)2
Mike Monroe (SFBJ
415-464-7990
Janet Hashlmoto. Chief
Oceans and Estuaries Section
FF5 8-974-8283
E-mail. EPA992I
Pat Cotter
Oceans and Estuaries Section
FF5 8-974-0257
E-mail EPA9921
Janet l-lashimoto. Chief
Oceans and Estuaries Section
FFS 8-974-8283
E-mail EPAS92I
Robert Burd. Director
Water Management Division
U S EPA
1200 SIxth Avenue
Seattle. WA 9810)
FTS 8-399-1086
E-mail. EPA9O3O
Ron Kretzenbeck. Director
o PolIcy and Program Man
FF5 8-399-1283
E-mail EPA9O3O
Jack Gakalauer. Chief
Office of Puget Sound
FF5 8-399-0966
E-mail EPA9O3O
Torn Wilson. Chief
Office of Water Planning
FFS 8-399-1354
E-mail. EPA9O3O
John Gabrleison
OW Planning
FF8 8-399-4183
E-mail EPASO3O
Jack Gakatatter. Chief
Office of Puget Sound
Ff8 8 399 0966
E-mail EPA9O3O
John Armstrong
Office of Puget Sound
FF5 8-399-1368
E-mail EPA9O3O
Jan Hastings. Chief
Ocean Programs
FF5 8-399-8504
E-mail. EPA9O3 I
Carla Fisher
Ocean Programs
Ff5 8-399-1756
E-mail EPA9O3O
BIll Riley. Chief
Water Resources Ass Section
FFS 8-399-1412
E-mail EPA9O31
John Maick
Water Rcsonrces Assess Sec
Ff8 8-399-1286
E-mail EPASO3O
Michael Rylko
Office of Puget Sound
FF8 8-399-4014
E mall EPA9O3O
Norbert Jaworskl. Director
Environmental Research Lab
U S EPA
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Ri 02882
FFS 8-836-6001
E-mail. EPAS400
Allan Beck
ER IJJ
FFS 8-838-6005
E-mail. EPA84GO
Don Phelps
ERLN
FF8 8-838-6077
E-mail. EPAB46O
John Paul
ERLN
FF3 8-836-6037
E-mail EPA8469
Hal Walker
ERLN
FF8 8-8386134
E-mail EPA8460
Loretta Barsamlan. Chief
Wetlands. Oceans, and Eat. Br
FF3 8-974-8)88
E-mail EPA992 1
REGION I
ORD
-------
Other EPA Offices
-------
8. OTHER EPA OFFICES IMPORTANT TO OMEP
The Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP) managers were asked
to list Office of Water organizations, as well as other organizations they
thought had significant impact on their roles. The following paragraphs
summarize those discussions, addressing the organizations in order of
importance.
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION, OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
The Criteria and Standards Division is responsible for developing water
quality criteria for fresh and salt waters, as well as sediments. These
criteria are used in establishing water quality standards for State waters and
have relevance to the National Estuary Program, the Ocean Dumping Program, and
the Near—Coastal Waters Initiative. In addition, State standards are
reflected in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Program permits through the water—quality—based approach.
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM, OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
The Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program is responsible for providing policy and
technical guidance and overseeing State implementation of the nonpoint source
provisions of the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act. It has the
authority, through the Regions, to approve or disapprove State NPS assessments
and management programs. Due to a lack of appropriations, State
implementation of NPS programs has little financial support.
The Nonpoint Source Task Force, set up by the Assistant Administrator for
Water, has developed a strategy for implementing the CWA Section 319
provisions. The strategy, consisting of five themes (awareness, successes,
economic incentives, regulatory authority, and good science), was the focus of
discussion for three State and Regional workshops.
OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits is responsible for estab-
lishing, implementing, overseeing, and enforcing the NPDES and pretreatment
programs. More recent activities have focused on developing rules and
procedures for sludge management, combined sewer overflows, and stormwater.
8—1
-------
All of these issues are of importance to OMEP’s mission of marine/estuarirle
protection.
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EHERGENCY RESPONSE
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is responsible for the development,
implementation, and oversight of solid and hazardous waste disposal programs.
Areas of overlap with OMEP include plastic debris, waste minimization, medical
waste, and rules/policies associated with land—based sources of pollution,
such as hazardous waste incineration and location standards. In addition, a
sister office of OSV, the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), is
responsible for developing the Hazard Ranking System (FIRS). In accordance
with the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, OERR is revising the
FIRS. The results of this FIRS revision will include the Increased likelihood
of estuaries, bays, and harbors achieving National Priority List status.
OMEP has assisted the 05W by providing testimony supporting recycle/reuse
of materials and the development of alternatives (product substitution).
8—2
-------
Federal Marine
Programs
-------
9. OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS WITH MARINE AND ESTUARINE RESPONSIBILITIES
Several Federal agencies conduct activities relevant to the interests of
the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP). This section identifies
the key efforts, concentrating especially on programs sponsored by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
NOAA is a major Federal environmental management agency created within
the U.S. Department of Commerce in 1970. Dedicated to improving the compre-
hension and uses of the physical environment and oceanic life, NOAA is a
source of objective information on the potential Impacts of human actions on
environmental quality and is the repository for several programs with strong
ties to OMEP.
Coastal Program Division
Part of NOAA’s Office of Coastal Resource Management, this Division
provides financial and technical assistance to approved State Coastal Zone
Management Programs. In addition, it monitors State compliance with National
program requirements.
Contact: James P. Burgess, Director
Coastal Program Division
Office of Coastal Resource Management
NOAA
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NV
Washington, DC 20235
(202) 673—5111
Estuarine Program Office
Located in the Chief Scientist’s Office at NOAA, the responsibilities of
this Office include developing and implementing a National estuarine strategy
for NOAA; coordinating NOAA’s various estuarine activities, such as estuarine
research and assessment, fisheries research, coastal management, and habitat
conservation; coordinating NOAA’s estuarine activities with other Agency
organizations, such as OMEP; and providing technical assistance to NOAA, other
9—1
-------
Federal agencies, and State and local governments in estuarine assessment and
j ntjfication/nionitOriflg of specific management programs.
Contact: Virginia K. Tippie
Estuarine Program Office
Chief Scientist’s Office
NOAA
625 Universal South
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20235
(202) 673—5243
National Ocean Pollution Planning Office
This organization is also located within the Chief Scientist’s Office at
NOAA. The Office collaborates with all Federal agencies having marine
research roles and is responsible for reviewing existing marine pollution
research programs and recommending future directions.
Information on current research is obtained from various organizations,
including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/OMEP, but primarily from
the EPA/Office of Research and Development and other Federal agencies. A
compendium of marine research activities reports on the collected data. In
addition, representatives from various research groups convene in one or more
workshops to identify and rank major issues facing the oceans. Recommenda-
tions for the direction of future research are then developed based upon these
workshops.
Contact: Amor L. Lane, Director
National Ocean Pollution Planning Office
N OAA
Rockwall Building, Room 610
11400 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
(301) 443—8823
Ocean Assessment Division
Part of the Office of Oceanographic and Marine Assessment at NOAA, the
Ocean Assessment Division (OAD) provides decision makers with comprehensive
scientific information and characterization of the oceans and the coastal
areas and estuaries of the United States. This information ranges from
9—2
-------
strategic, National assessments of coastal and estuarine environmental
quality, to real—time (minute-by-minute) data concerning navigation and
hazardous material spill response. OAD consists of three branches: the
Strategic Assessment Division, the Coastal and Estuarine Assessment Branch,
and the Hazardous Material Response Branch.
Contact: Charles N. Ehler
Ocean Assessment Division
Office of Oceanographic and Marine Assessment
NOAA
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 323
Rockville, MD 20852
(301) 443—8487
National Sea Grant Program
This Program was established to accelerate the development, use, and
conservation of the Nation’s marine resources. The research skills of
university scientists in oceanography, engineering, law, economics, and
sociology are combined with a strong commitment to make pertinent data
available to a wide audience. Since its inception, Sea Grant has forged an
effective partnership with universities, marine industries, and Government
agencies; published technical, advisory, and public information reports; and
conducted conferences, workshops, and seminars to ensure widespread
dissemination of research findings. In addition, the Program offers
significant insight into the nation’s current and future needs in marine
resource development.
Contact: Dr. Ned A. Ostenso
R/SE-i
The National Sea Grant Program
6010 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20852
(202) 443—8923
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE
Located within the Department of Interior, the Minerals Management
Service (MSS) is responsible for managing the exploration, development, and
production of oil, gas, and minerals on the Outer Continental Shelf. The MMS
develops leasing plans; regulates exploration, development, and production
9—3
-------
activities; and provides scientific research data to assist in the development
of mineral resources. During the course of developing leasing plans, it also
produces very detailed Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that provide a
wealth of technical data on the oceanic environment and supply reliable
information to OMEP for its Ocean Dumping Program. Furthermore, the MMS often
funds major research programs to study the physical oceanography of leasing
sites.
Contact: William Bettenberg, Director
Minerals Management Service
Department of Interior
18th and C Streets
Washington, DC 20240
(202) 343—3500
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) works closely with OMEP and the Ocean
Dumping Program. The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
articulates the COE role. COE issues Dredged Material Permits, which EPA then
reviews to ensure consistency with EPA’s Ocean Dumping Regulations. OMEP Is
also responsible for coordinating with the Corps to designate ocean dumping
sites for dredged material. In reality, most of the burden of site
designation falls on COE, which gathers the necessary information, interprets
it, and prepares the EIS. EPA usually provides oversight and publishes the
final EIS. In addition, COE has a major role in dredging and filling under
Section 404 of the CWA.
Contact: Lt. Col. Ronald G. Kelsey, Assistant Director
Environmental Programs
Army Corps of Engineers
Pulaski Building
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20314
(202) 272—0104
U.S. COAST GUARD
The Coast Guard contributes to the enforcement efforts of the ocean
dumping provisions of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act.
Specifically, it provides surveillance of the sewage sludge dumpers that now
9—4
-------
dump at the 106—Mile Sewage Sludge Dumpsite. Such surveillance is usually
conducted through the “black box” system, which transmits and records barge
location and depth of water. These data are then transmitted to EPA, which
determines whether or not further action is necessary. The Coast Guard is
also responsible for containment and cleanup of oil and other hazardous
material spills.
In addition, the Coast Guard sets the regulatory and enforcement
standards for vessel seaworthiness and for the storage and shipment of
hazardous materials when transported between land sites and shipping vessels.
Contact: Como. Peter J. Rots, Chief
Office of Marine Environment and Systems
U.S. Coast Guard
Washington, DC 20593
(202) 426—2007
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Located within the Department of Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service
is the lead Federal agency In the conservation of the nation’s migratory
birds, certain mammals, and sport fishes. The Service is primarily
responsible for obtaining the data on the distribution, abundance, and
habitats of freshwater and estuarine fish and birds, mammals, and significant
reptiles and amphibians. It plays a major role in identifying threatened and
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act and helps to enforce laws
falling under the Lacey Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition, the Service reviews federally
approved projects that might impinge on fish or wildlife habitat, administers
Federal aid to State governments, provides technical assistance to State and
foreign governments, serves as lead Federal agency in international
conventions on wildlife conservation, and operates a public affairs and
environmental education program to inform the public about the status of
America’s fish and wildlife resources.
The Fish and Wildlife Service directly participates in several OMEP
programs. It reviews 301(h) waivers, approves Ocean Dumping Permits,
participates in site designations under the Endangered Species Act and the
9—5
-------
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and acts as an information clearinghouse
for the National Estuary and Near—Coastal Waters Initiatives Programs.
Contact: Frank Dunkle, Director
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of Interior
18th and C Streets, NV
Washington, DC 20240
(202) 343—4717
9—6
-------
Congressional
Committees
-------
10. MAJOR AUTHORIZING COMMITTEES IN CONGRESS
The three primary authorizing committees for the Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection (OMEP) are the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works, the House Public Works and Transportation Committee, and the House
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Although other bodies may deal with
marine-related legislation, these committees generally are consulted about or
take the lead in marine areas.
The following pages identify the three primary committees and their
subcommittees, along with other committees concerned with Issues related to
OMEP. The emphasis is on committee leadership (because elections will affect
membership), as well as on selected responsibilities within each group’s area
of jurisdiction.
10-1
-------
SENATE CONHIrrEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC VORKS
SD—458 Dirksen Senate Office Building
(202) 224—6176
Quentin N. Burdick, ND John H. Chaf fee, RI
Chairman (1988) Ranking Minority Member
(1988)
Selected Responsibilities
• Environmental policy
• Environmental research and development
• Ocean dumping
• Fisheries and wildlife
• Environmental aspects of Outer Continental Shelf lands
• Solid waste disposal and recycling
• Environmental effects of toxic substances other than pesticides
• Water resources
• Flood control and improvements of rivers and harbors, including
environmental aspects of deep—water ports
• Public works, bridges, and dams
• Water pollution
• Air pollution
• Noise pollution
• Nonmilitary environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy
• Public buildings and improved grounds of the U.S. in general,
including Federal buildings in the District of Columbia
Sub commit tees
• Water Resources, Transportation, and Infrastructure
• Environmental Protection
• Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Substances
• Superfund and Environmental Oversight
• Nuclear Regulation
10-2
-------
HOUSE COMMIrFEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES
1334 Longworth House Office Building
(202) 225—4047
Walter B. Jones, NC Robert V. Davis, MI
Chairman (1988) Ranking Minority Member
(1988)
Selected Responsibili ties
• Merchant Marine in general
• Oceanography and marine affairs, including coastal zone management
• Coast Guard, including lifesaving service, lighthouses, lightships,
and ocean derelicts
• Fisheries and wildlife, including research, restoration, refuges, and
conservation
• Measures relating to the regulation of common carriers by water
• Rules and International arrangements to prevent collisions at sea
• International fishing agreements
Sub conuni t tees
• Oversight and Investigations
• Merchant Marine
• Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment
• Coast Guard and Navigation
• Oceanography
• Panama Canal/Outer Continental Shelf
10-3
-------
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION
2165 Rayburn House Office Building
(202) 225—4472
Glen Anderson, CA John Paul Hamnierschmidt, AR
Chairman (1988) Ranking Minority Member
(1988)
Selected Responsibilities
• Flood control and improvement of rivers and harbors
• Measures relating to the Capitol Building and the Senate and the House
Office Buildings
• Measures relating to the construction and maintenance of roads and
post roads, other than appropriations
• Measures relating to the purchase of sites and construction of post
offices, customhouses, Federal courthouses, and government buildings
within the District of Columbia
• Oil and other pollution of navigable waters
• Public works for the benefit of navigation, including bridges and dams
(other than international bridges and dams)
• Water power
• Transportation, including civil aviation, except railroads, railroad
labor, and pensions
• Roads and the safety thereof
• Water transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate
Commerce Commission
• Related transportation regulatory agencies, except (1) the Interstate
Commerce Commission as it relates to railroads, (2) Federal Railroad
Administration, and (3) Amtrak
Subcommittees
• Aviation
• Economic Development
• Investigations and Oversight
• Public Buildings and Grounds
• Surface Transportation
• Water Resources
10 -4
-------
OTIII K OMEP-RELATED COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Subcommittees
• Rural Development and Rural Electrification
• Conservation and Forestry
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Sub commit tees
• Foreign Commerce and Tourism
• Merchant Marine
• Science, Technology, and Space
• National Ocean Policy Study
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittees
• Energy Regulation and Conservation
• Energy Research and Development
• Mineral Resources Development and Production
• Public Lands, National Parks, and Forests
• Water and Power
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittees
• Health and the Environment
• Energy and Power
• Transportation, Tourism, and Hazardous Materials
10-5
-------
House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Subcommi t tees
• Natural Resource, Agriculture Research, and Environment
• Energy Research and Development
• Science, Research, and Technology
• International Scientific Cooperation
• Transportation, Aviation, and Materials
10-6
-------
Groups and Industry
-------
11. ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS IMPORTANT TO OMEP
This section describes the major constituency or interest groups related
to the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP). The organizations
are categorized under three headings: Environmental Groups, Public Interest
Groups, and Industry.
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
The following paragraphs identify 11 leading environmental organizations,
focusing on their origins, membership, purposes, and connections to OMEP.
Although the groups have related commitments to protecting the environment,
they are diversified in size, ranging from several thousand to several million
members, and in age, the oldest (the Sierra Club) having been founded in 1892
and the newest in 1985 (the Coastal Society).
The Oceanic Society
Founded in 1969 as an international, nonprofit, membership organization,
The Oceanic Society focuses on the marine environment through conservation,
education, and research. The Society seeks to combine public information
projects with specific involvement in marine environmental issues around the
world. Its objective is to foster informed and sensible management of ocean
and coastal resources.
Contact: Clif Curtis, Executive Director
The Oceanic Society
1536 16th Street, NV
Washington, DC 20026
(202) 328—0098
Save The Bay
Organized in 1970, Save the Bay currently has more than 10,000 family
members. The group is affiliated with the Environmental Council of Rhode
Island and is dedicated to protecting and maximizing the assets of the
Narragansett Bay. Save the Bay works as a watchdog/advocacy organization by
rallying legislative and legal intervention, conducting research, and
encouraging public education and citizen involvement. The group’s areas of
11—1
-------
expertise include sewage treatment, pretreatment/toxicS, and coastal develop-
ment/land use.
Contact: Trudy Coxe, Executive Director
Save the Bay, Inc.
434 Smith Street
Providence, RI 02908—3732
(401) 272—3540
The Coastal Society
The Coastal Society was founded in 1985 as an international, nonprofit
organization of interdisciplinary professionals dedicated to promoting the
understanding and wise use of coastal environments. The group seeks to foster
Improved Interdisciplinary communication and to promote public understanding
and knowledge of the coast through conferences, workshops, and publications.
Contact: Virginia Tippie, President
The Coastal Society
5410 Grosvenor Lane
Suite 110
Bethesda, MD 20814
(301) 897—8616
Greenpeace USA, Inc.
Established In 1970 as a nonprofit organization dedicated to the preser-
vation of marine ecosystems, Greenpeace has 550,000 active supporters. It
employs nonviolent, direct action to confront environmental abuse. Campaigns
address decimation of marine mammal populations, ocean disposal of toxic and
radioactive wastes, preservation of Antarctica, elimination of acid rain, and
continuation of nuclear weapons testing.
Contact: Greenpeace USA, Inc.
1611 Connecticut Avenue, NV
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 462—1177
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
The focus of the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit
membership organization, is on protecting America’s endangered natural
11—2
-------
resources and improving the quality of the human environment. The Council
combines an interdisciplinary legal and scientific approach in monitoring
government agencies, bringing legal action, and disseminating citizen
information. The group’s areas of concentration are air and water pollution,
nuclear safety, land use, urban environment, toxic substances control,
resource management, wilderness and wildlife protection, international
environment, Alaska, coastal zone management, energy conservation, soil
erosion, and forestry.
Contact: Jessica Landman
NRDC
1350 New York Avenue
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 783—7800
The Environmental Policy Institute
Founded in 1972, the Environmental Policy Institute was merged with the
Environmental Policy Center in 1982. Its charter is to act as an independent,
nonprofit public interest advocacy organization dedicated to influencing
National and international public policies that affect natural resources. The
Institute seeks to accomplish its goals through research, public education,
lobbying, litigation, and organization of coalitions that are economically,
politically, and geographically diverse. The Institute’s specific areas of
concentration include energy and water conservation; groundvater, river,
farmland, wetland, Chesapeake Bay, and coast and ocean protection; air, water,
toxic materials, pesticides, and strip mining pollution control; genetic
diversity/biotechnology in agriculture; public lands; transportation; nuclear
waste; nuclear insurance; nuclear power; nuclear weapons production and
testing; health effects of radiation; gas; oil; coal; and international water,
energy, and agricultural projects.
Contact: Chuck Fox
Environmental Policy Institute
218 D Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 544—2600
11—3
-------
The National Wildlife Federation
This group was established in 1936 as a nonprofit, conservation education
organization. With a current membership of over 4,500,000, the Federation is
dedicated to creating and encouraging an awareness worldwide of the need for
wise use and proper management of those resources upon which our lives and
welfare depend: soil, air, water, forests, minerals, plant life, and
wildlife. The organization oversees a comprehensive conservation education
program, distributes numerous periodicals and education materials, sponsors
outdoor nature programs, and litigates environmental disputes.
Contact: hark Van Putten
Great Lakes Region
The National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th Street, NV
Washington, DC 20036—2266
(202) 797—6800
The National Audubon Society
Organized in 1905 with a membership of over 550,000, the National Audubon
Society is one of the nation’s oldest and largest conservation organizations.
It provides a balanced program of research, education, and action, its prime
objective being the long—term protection and wise use of land, water,
wildlife, and other natural resources. Through its study of bird life, the
Society has come to believe that all forms of life are interdependent.
Contact: Hope Babcock
The National Audubon Society
801 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 547—9009
The Sierra Club
The oldest environmental group identified in this section, the Sierra
Club was founded in 1892. It currently has 57 chapters nationwide. The
organization seeks to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the
Earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the Earth’s ecosystems
and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the
quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to
11—4
-------
carry out these objectives. Its nonprofit program includes work on legis-
lation, litigation, public information, publishing, wilderness outings, and
conferences.
Contact: Melanie Griffen
The Sierra Club
330 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 547—1144
The Clean Water Action Project
This group, created in 1971, is a National citizens organization that
works for clean and safe water at an affordable cost, control of toxic
chemicals, and the protection of our nation’s natural resources. With a
current membership of 350,000, the Clean Water Action Project (CWAP) works to
influence public policy decisions at all levels of government through
advocacy, education, technical assistance, grassroots organization, and
lobbying. In addition, CWAP conducts a summer and year-round intern program,
organizes coalitions of diverse economic and political constituencies
(including the National Campaign Against Toxic Hazards), and conducts voter
education programs.
Contact: Eric Draper
The Clean Water Action Project
733 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 638—1196
The Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.
The League seeks to promote the means and opportunities for educating the
public to conserve, maintain, protect, and restore the soil, forest, water,
air, and other natural resources of the United States and to encourage the
enjoyment and wholesome use of these resources. The organization is currently
50,000 members strong.
Contact: David Dickson
The Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.
1701 North Fort Myer Drive
Suite 1100
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 528—1818
11—5
-------
PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS
The five organizations discussed in this section represent government
organizations at various levels, from local to National. As in the preceding
section, the discussion identifies each group’s origins, constituency,
mission, and relationship to OMEP.
The Coastal States Organization
Established in 1970 as a nonpartisan association, the Coastal States
Organization (CSO) represents the collective views and interests of 35 coastal
States and territorial governments in U.S. ocean and coastal affairs. The CSO
is the States’ leading advocate for sound marine resource management and
protection efforts nationwide. The group encourages cooperation among its
member States in the resolution of National coastal issues affecting the Gulf,
oceans, and Great Lakes of the United States and serves as a forum for the
debate, review, and assessment of coastal management practices, problems, and
progress.
Contact: Gary Magnuson, Director
The Coastal States Organization
444 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 312
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 628—9636
The Association of State/Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
This Association, founded in 1969, comprises States, interstate agencies,
territories, and the District of Columbia. It specifically represents State
water administrators, who manage the nation’s water programs on a daily basis.
Contact: Robbi Savage, Executive Director
Association of State/Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators
444 North Capitol Street, NV
Suite 330
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 624—7782
11—6
-------
The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies is a lobbying group of
the 80 largest metropolitan sewerage authorities that comprise its members.
It attempts to influence legislation and Environmental Protection Agency
policies that affect the requirements for sewage treatment, pretreatment, and
discharge quality.
Contact: Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
477 H Street, NV
Washington, DC
(202) 682—5886
The National Governors’ Association
Organized in 1908, the National Governors’ Association represents the
governors of the 50 States, the Commonwealths of North Mariana Islands and
Puerto Rico, and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands. Its mission is to influence the shaping and Implementation of
National policy and to apply creative leadership to the solution of State
problems. Policies and programs are formulated by the governors and eight
standing committees: Executive; Agriculture and Rural Development; Economic
Development and Technological Innovation; Energy and Environment; Human
Resources; International Trade and Foreign Relations; Justice and Public
Safety; and Transportation, Commerce, and Communication. In addition, special
committees and task forces may be appointed at the governors’ request.
Contact: Tony Curtis
Committee on Energy and Environment
National Governors’ Association
444 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 250
Washington, DC 20001
The National Conference of State Legislators
The National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) is a State
legislator—supported nonprofit organization that provides information support
on issues of interest to its constituency. It conducts small studies and
11—7
-------
publishes newsletters and information documents for circulation to members.
The NCSL’s primary focus is on State issues.
Contact: Nancy New
The National Conference of State Legislators
444 North Capitol Street, N J
Suite 250
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 624—8675
INDUSTRY
This concluding section identifies the work of the American Association
of Port Authorities, which represents ports and promotes industry throughout
the entire Western Hemisphere.
The American Association of Port Authorities
Although foreign countries are corporate members of the Association, the
American arm of this group represents only American port interests before
Congress and other Federal agencies.
Contact: Mark Sickles
American Association of Port Authorities
1010 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 684—5700
11—8
-------
OMEP Resources
-------
12. OMEP RESOURCES
This section contains the budget history and the Fiscal Year 1989
Presidential Request for the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP),
the budget history of the National Estuary Program, and Fiscal Years 1988 and
1989 full—time equivalent (FTE) allocations to the Regions for OMEP—related
activities.
Table 12—1 summarizes the annual budget from 1984 to 1989 in actual
dollars and in 1984 dollars. Major program elements (Coastal Environmental
Management, Ocean Disposal Permits) are divided into Headquarters and Regional
components. The Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes Programs are exclusively
Regional components.
OMEP’s extramural funding has tripled (in 1984 dollars) between 1984 and
1988, and FTEs have doubled. The greatest increase has been in the Coastal
Environmental Management element; an eight-fold increase in 1984 dollars and a
four—fold increase in FTEs between 1984 and 1988. The Ocean Disposal Permits
element has doubled in extramural funds, and only slightly increased in FTEs
in the same period. Both Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes Programs have
doubled in FTEs, and slightly more than doubled in 1984 dollars.
The Fiscal Year 1990 Presidential Request (Table 12—2) indicates a total
extramural funding budget of approximately $45 million, with about 215 FTEs
being devoted to OMEP programs. The increases in funds over Fiscal Year 1989
are split between the Coastal Environmental Management and Ocean Disposal
Permits elements ($2.8 million and $2.0 million, respectively), with decreases
in both the Great Lakes Program ($2.0 million) and Chesapeake Bay ($250
thousand). All FTEs remained the same except for Coastal Environmental
Management, which increased to 33.
The National Estuary Program funding history appears in Table 12-3. This
table indicates the budgets, by estuary program, for Fiscal Year 1985 through
Fiscal Year 1988 (in actual dollars). Changes in individual estuary program
funding represent changes in activities as programs have developed. In Fiscal
Year 1988, six new estuaries were added to the program.
12—1
-------
The final table, Table 12—4, indicates FTEs allocated to each Region for
OMEP—related work in 1988 and 1989 by program (not including Chesapeake Bay
and the Great Lakes Programs).
12—2
-------
TABLE 12-1. OMEP FUNDING HISTORY
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Repuesl
COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
HEADQUARTERS
Work years 33 73 73 88 279 279 338
Extramural-Total 16750 55572 73450 134557 138160 14733 5 17508 5
Extramural 16750 55572 73450 95857 61360 10028 5 155085
Sec 205(l) 00 0 0 00 38700 76800 47050 2000 0
1984 $ Total 16750 53627 69557 122985 121028 124056 147421
REGIONS
Work years 175 375 375 407 585 635 902
Extramural 00 00 00 00 11192 13500 13430
1984$Tota l 00 00 00 00 9804 11367 11308
TOTAL
Work years 208 44 8 44 8 49 5 864 91 4 124 0
Extramural 16750 55572 73450 134557 149352 160835 188515
1984 $ Total 16750 53627 69557 122985 130832 135423 158730
OCEAN DISPOSAL PERMITS
HEADQUARTERS
Work years 206 256 267 282 172 172 172
Extramural 22032 18104 6021 1 60792 33748 40275 45275
1984$Total 22032 17470 57020 55564 29563 33912 38122
REGIONS
Work years 189 189 203 272 302 282 279
Extramural 00 500 0 500 0 5000 14000 900 4 2387 6
1984 $Tota l 00 4825 4735 4570 12264 7581 20104
TOTAL
Work years 395 44 5 470 55 4 474 45 4 45 1
Extramural 22032 23104 65211 65792 47748 49279 69151
1984$Tota l 22032 22295 61755 60134 41827 41493 58225
CHESAPEAKE BAY/Ill
Workyears 50 100 100 100 100 100 100
Extramural 40000 92500 92500 92500 102500 110000 106988
1984 $ Total 40000 89263 8759 7 8454 5 89790 92620 90084
GREAT LAKESN
Work years 150 200 200 20 0 260 36 0 354
Extramural 38973 54642 38973 41973 96973 110973 90237
1984 $ Total 38973 52730 36907 38363 84948 93439 75980
OMEP TOTAL
HEADQUARTERS
Work years 239 329 340 370 45 1 45 1 51 0
Extramural 38782 73676 13366 1 19534 9 171908 18761 0 220360
1984$Total 38782 71097 126577 178549 150591 157968 185543
REGIONS
Work years 564 864 878 979 1247 1377 1635
Extramural 78973 152142 136473 139473 224665 243477 23453 1
1984$ Total 78973 146817 129240 127478 196806 205008 197475
TOTAL
Work years 803 1193 1218 1349 1698 1828 2145
Extramural 117755 22581 8 270134 334822 396573 431087 45489 1
1984$Total 117755 217914 255816 306027 347397 362975 383018
12—3
-------
OFFICE OF WATER
FY 1989 OP PLAN AND FY 1990 PRES REQUEST
OFFICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Workyears (WY) in FIE, Contract $ in
PAGE 1
PMSS
12/21/ 88
FILE: BUD9OI
TABLE 12-2.
FY 1990 PRESIDENTIAL REQUEST
FY 1990
PRES REQUEST
A. COASTAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
1. NCW INITIATIVES
• HEADQUARTERS
• REGIONS
SUBTOTAL
2. GULF OF MEXICO INITIATIVE
• HEADQUARTERS
• REGIONS
SUBTOTAL
3. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
• HEADQUARTERS
205(1) SET—ASIDE
• REGIONS
FY 1989 GP PLAN VS
FY 1990 PRES REQUEST
WY $
I-
000s, Ne9ative numbers in (000)
FY 1989
OP PLAN
WY % $
350.0 0.8
843.0 2.0
1,193.0 2.8
0.0 0.0
500.0 1.2
500.0 1.2
8,590.1 20.0
4,705.0 11.0 *
0.0 0.0
13,295.7 30.9
837.8 2.0
0.0 0.0
837.8 2.0
‘S
250.0 0.6
0.0 0.0 H
H
10,028.5 23.3
4,705.0 11.0 *
1,343.0 3.1 H
16,016.5 31.4 H
SUBTOTAL
4. 301(h) MARINE DISCHARGE WAIVERS
• HEADQUARTERS
• REGIONS
SUBTOTAL
5. 403(c) OCEAN DISCHARGE CRITERIA
EVALUAT IONS
• HEADQUARTERS
• REGIONS
:
4.2 2.3
9.7 5.3
13.9 7.7
0.0 0.0
3.0 1.7
3.0 1.7
!
:
11.3 9.5
26.0 14.3
43.3 23.9
!
1
3.7 2.0
17.5 9.5
21.2 11.7
2.6 1.4
7.0
!
!
1
27.8 15.3
63.2 34.8
91.0 50.1
:
1
WY %
7.0 3.3
12.9 6.0
19.9 9.3
0.0 0.0
6.0 2.8
6.0 2.8
20.5 9.6
39.0 18.2
59.5 27.7
2.7 1.3
17.5 8.2
20.2 9.4
3.6 1.7
14.8 6.9
18.4 8.6
33.8 15.8
90.2 42.1
124.0 51.8
$ ‘ I
‘I
500.0 1.1 H
507.0 1.1 H
1,007.0 2.2
500.0 1.1 H
500.0 1.1 H
1,000.0 2.2 H
13,180.0 29.0 H
2,000.0 4.4 4*
— 0.0 0.0 H
15,180.0 33.4
837.8 1.8 H
0.0 0.0 H
837.8 1.8 H
490.1 1.1 H
336.0 0.7 H
826.7 1.8 H
15,508.5 34.1 H
2,000.0 4.4 * 4
1,343.0 3.0 H
18,851.5 41.4 H
2.8
3.2
6.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
3.2
0.0
13.0
16.2
(1.0)
0.0
(1.0)
1.0
7.8
8.8
6.0
0.0
27.0
33.0
150.0
(336.0)
(186.0)
500.0
0.0
500.0
4,589.3
(2,705.0)
0.0
1,884.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
240.7
336.0
576.7
5,480.0
(2, 105.0 I
0.0
2,775.0
SUBTOTAL
6. COASTAL ENVIRONMENT MGMT TOTAL
• HEADQUARTERS
205(I) SET—ASIDE
• REGIONS
TOTAL
* In 1989 Op Plan, based on CC funding of $1.95 billion, with $941.0 million in CG and $941.0 million in SRF.
* 4 In 1990 Pres Request, based on CG request of $1.15 billion, with $400.0 in CG and $800.0 million in SRF.
-------
TABLE 12-2. FY 1990 PRESIDENTIAL REQUEST (continued)
OFFICE OF WATER
FY 1989 OP PLAN AND FY 1990 PRES REQUEST
OFFICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
B. OCEAN DISPOSAL PERMITS
I a
U ’
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I I
I I
II
1. OCEAN DUMPING
• HEADQUARTERS
• REGIONS
SUBTOTAL
2. NEW YORK BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN
• HEADQUARTERS
• REGIONS
3. NEW YORK MUD DUMP SITE
• HEADQUARTERS
• REGIONS
4. PLASTIC POLL / BEACH MONITORING
• HEADQUARTERS
• REGIONS
5. OCEAN DISPOSAL PERMITS TOTAL
• HEADQUARTERS
• REGIONS
TOTAL
C. TOTAL FOR OMEP PROGRAMS
1. COASTAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT
• HEADQUARTERS
2050) SET—ASIDE
• REGIONS
SUBTOTAL
2. OCEAN DISPOSAL PERMITS
• HEADQUARTERS
• REGIONS
SUBTOTAL
3. GREAT LAKES PROGRAM
• REGIONS
4. CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
• REGIONS
5. OMEP TOTAL
• HEADQUARTERS
• REGIONS
TOTAL
FY 1989
OP PLAH
WY %
11.2 9.5
24.9 13.7
42.1 23.2
0.0 0.0
2.0 1.1
0.0 0.0
1.0 0.6
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
11.2 9.5
21.9 15.4
45.1 24.6
27.8 15.3
63.2 34.8
91.0 50.1
11.2 9.5
21.9 15.4
45.1 24.8
35 4 19.5
10.0 55
45.0 24.8
136.5 15.2
181.5 100.0
$
3,221.5 1.5
887.6 2.1
4,115.1 9.6
300.0 0.1
0.0 0.0
400.0 0.9
0.0 0.0
100.0 D.2
0.0 0.0
4,021.5 9.4
861.6 2.1
4,915.1 11.4
10,028.5 23.3
4,705.0 11.0
1,343.0 3.1
16,016.5 31.4
4,021.5 9.4
881.6 2.1
4,915.1 11.4
11,023.7 25.7
10,948.6 25.5
18,761.0 43.1
24,203.1 56.3
42,964.1 100.0
FY 1990
PRES REQUEST
$
3,221.5 7.1
2,187.6 4.8
5,415.1 11.9
700.0 1.5
0.0 0.0
400.0 0.9
0.0 0.0
200.0 0.4
200.0 0.4
4,521.5 10.0
2,381.6 5.2
6,915.1 15.2
15,508.5 34.1
2,000.0 4.4
1,343.0 3.0
18,851.5 41.4
4,527.5 10.0
2,381.6 5.2
6,915.1 15.2
9,023.7 19.8
10,698.8 23.5
22,036.0 48.4
23,453.1 51.6
45,489.1 100.0
WY %
11.2 8.0
24.9 11.6
42.1 19.6
0.0 0.0
2.0 0.9
0.0 0.0
1.0 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
11.2 8.0
21.9 13.0
45.1 21.0
33.8 15.8
90.2 42.1
124.0 51.8
11.2 8.0
21.9 13.0
45.1 21.0
35 4 16.5
10.0 4.7
51.0 23.8
163.5 76.2
214.5 100.0
PAGE 2
PMSS
12 /2 7/88
FY 1989 OP PLAN VS
FY 1990 PRES REQUEST
WY $
o.o 0. 0
0.0 1,300.0
0.0 1,300.0
0.0 400.0
0.0 0.0
o.o 0.0
0.0 00
0.0 100.0
0.0 200.0
0.0 500.0
0.0 1,500.0
0.0 2,000.0
6.0 5,480.0
(2,705.0)
21.0 0.0
33.0 2 ,115.0
0.0 500.0
0. 0 1,500.0
0.0 2,000 0
0.0 (2,000 0)
0.0 (250.0)
6.0 3,215 0
21.0 (750.0)
33.0 2 .525 0
-------
TABLE 12-3. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM FUNDING J 1
Planning
Target
FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 — /2
Albemar le/Pamlico 350 685 1,625 1,200
Buzzards Bay 399 653 391 955 550
Long Island Sound 999 1,004 1,861 2,138 1,400
Narragansett Bay 1,057 1,254 1,067 2,335 1,400
Puget Sound 1,300 1,760 1,253 2,320 1,400
San Francisco Bay 350 671 1,700 1,200
Delaware Bay 150 700
Delaware Inland Bays 326 400
Galveston Bay 150 700
New York/New Jersey Harbor 50 800 _ ‘3
Santa Monica Bay 150 700
Sarasota Bay 150 400
National Program 223 795 1,187 2,809 N/A
TOTAL 3,978 6,166 7,115 14,858 N/A
_/1 EPA contribution only
_/2 Excludes Priority Action Demonstration Projects
_/3 Includes $100 thousand carry over from FY 1988
-------
TABLE 12-4. FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT ALLOCATIONS TO REGIONS (FY 88 AND 89)
TOTAL REGION I REGION II REGION III REGION IV REGION VI REGION IX REGION X
OCEAN DISPOSAL SUBTOTAL
88 302 3.0 12.9 3,0 34 34 23 22
89 28.2 1.8 12.2 1.6 3.3 2.5 3.7 3.1
CHANGE -20 -1.2 -0.7 -14 -01 -09 14 09
COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAG EMENT SUBTOTAL
88 615 110 10.9 40 79 44 170 63
89 63.5 11.8 10.9 5.0 9.1 4.4 14.6 7.7
CHANGE 2.0 0.8 0.0 1.0 1 2 00 -24 1 4
a. 301(h) Waivers
88 175 2.1 45 00 00 00 101 08
89 17.5 2.2 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 2
CHANGE 00 01 1.0 00 00 00 -23 1 2
b. 403(c) Evaluations
88 7.0 10 1.0 10 10 10 10 10
89 7.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
CHANGE 00 00 0.0 00 00 00 00 00
c. National Estuary Program
88 260 6.5 4.0 15 45 20 45 30
89 26.0 7.2 3.0 2.5 3.7 2.0 44 3 2
CHANGE 00 07 -1.0 10 -08 00 -01 02
d. Near Coastal Waters
88 110 1.4 1.4 15 24 14 14 15
89 13.0 1.4 1.4 1.5 4.4 1.4 1.4 1 5
CHANGE 20 00 0.0 00 20 00 00 00
OCEAN DISPOSAL-COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TOTAL
88 917 140 23.8 7.0 113 78 193 85
89 91.7 136 23.1 6.6 12.4 69 183 108
CHANGE 00 -04 -0.7 -04 1.1 -09 -10 23
-------
Appendix A
Our Filthy Seas . A-I
Don’t Go Near the Water A-9
Clean Water Act Amendments Focus on
Revised Ideas About Pollution A-19
Water Quality Managers Meet the Coastal Zone A-23
-------
0
4
- - -
I
I T
- -— -
_______________ - --. • - -. - ________________
I
I
1•
-------
The Dirty Seas
Threatened by rising pollution, the oceans are
sending out an SOS
The very survival of the human species
depends upon the maintenance of an ocean
clean and alive, spreading all around the
world. The ocean is our planet’s life belt.
—Marine Explorer Jacques-Yves
Cousteau (1980)
A fter sweltering through a succes-
sion of torrid, hazy and humid
days, thousands of New Yorkers
sought relief early last month by
heading for the area’s public beaches.
What many found, to their horror
and dismay, was an assault on the
eyes, the nose and the stomach.
From northern New Jersey to Long
Island, incoming tides washed up a
nauseating array of waste, including
plastic tampon applicators and balls
of sewage 2 in. thick. Even more
alarming was the drug parapherna-
lia and medical debris that began to
litter the beaches: crack vials, nee-
dles and syringes, prescription bot-
tles, stained bandages and Contain-
ers of surgical sutures. There were
also dozens of vials of blood, three of
which tested positive for hepatitis-B
virus and at least six positive for
antibodies to the AIDS virus.
To bathers driven from the surf
by the floating filth, it was as if
something precious—.the,r beach,
their ocean—had been wantonly de-
stroyed, like a mindless graffito de-
facing a Da Vinci painting. Susan
Guglielmo, a New York City house-
wife who had taken her two toddlers
to Robert Moses State Park, was
practically in shock: “I was in the
water when this stuff was floating around.
I’m worried for my children. It’s really a
disgrace.” Said Gabriel Liegey, a veteran
lifeguard at the park: “It was scary. In the
19 years lye been a lifeguard, I’ve never
seen stuff like this.”
Since the crisis began, more than 50
miles of New York City and Long Island
beaches have been declared temporarily
off limits to the swimming public because
of tidal pollution. Some of the beaches
were reopened, but had to be closed again
as more sickening debris washed in. And
the threat is far from over: last week med-
ical waste was washing up i the beaches
of Rhode Island and Mas husetts. “The
planet is sending us a message,” says Dr.
Stephen Joseph. New York City’s health
commissioner. “We cannot continue to
pollute the oceans with impunity.”
As federal and state officials tried to
locate the source of the beach-defiling
materials, an even more mysterious—and
perhaps more insidious—process was un-
der way miles off the Northeast coast.
Since March 1986, about 10 million tons
of wet sludge processed by New York and
New Jersey municipal sewage-treatment
plants has been moved in huge barges out
beyond the continental sheLf There, in
an area 106 nautical miles from the en-
trance to New York harbor, the sewage
has been released underwater in great,
dark clouds.
The dumping, approved by the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, has stirred
noisy protests from commercial and sport
fishermen from South Carolina to Maine.
Dave Krusa, a Montauk, N.Y., fisher-
man, regularly hauls up hake and tilefish
with ugly red lesions on their bellies and
fins that are rotting away. Krusa is among
those who believe that contaminants from
Dump Site 106 may be borne back toward
shore by unpredictable ocean currents.
“In the past year, we’ve seen a big in-
crease of fish in this kind of shape,” he
says. Who will eat them? New Yorkers,
says a Montauk dockmaster, “They’re go-
ing to get their garbage right back in the
fish they’re eating.”
This summer’s pollution of Northeast-
ern beaches and coastal waters is only the
latest signal that the planet’s life belt, as
Cousteau calls the ocean, is rapidly Un-
buckling. True, there are some farsighted
projects here and there to repair the
damage, and there was ample evi-
dence in Atlanta last week that the
Democrats hope to raise the nation’s
consciousness about environmental
problems. The ,heightened interest
comes not a moment too soon, since
marine biologists and environmen-
talists are convinced that oceanic
pollution is reaching epidemic
proportions.
The blight is global, from the
murky red tides that periodically af-
flict Japan’s Inland Sea to the un-
treated sewage that befouls the fa-
bled Mediterranean. Pollution
threatens the rich, teeming life of
the ocean and renders the waters off
once famed beaches about as safe to
bathe in as an unflushed toilet. By
far the greatest, or at least the most
visible, damage has been done near
land, which means that the savaging
of the seas vitally affects human and
marine life. Polluted waters and lit-
tered beaches can take jobs from fi-
sherfolk as well as food from con-
sumers, recreation from vacationers
and business from resorts. In dollars. pol-
lution costs billions; the cost in the quality
of life is incalculable.
In broadest terms, the problem for the
U.S. stems from rampant development
along the Atlant cand Pacific coasts and
the Gulf of Between 1940 and
1980, the nwt W Americans who live
within 50 mj *a seashore increased
from 42 million tc 9 million—and the to-
tal is still mounting. Coastal waters are
getting perilously close to reaching their
Crbnson carpet an algae bloom hi Osalu Bay
last May, one of the lsmtheds of
red tides that appea off Japan each yea’
SANktI SM NSUN
COVER STORY
Environment
A- 3
-------
capacity to absorb civilization’s wastes.
Today scientists have begun to shift the
focus of research away from localized
sources of pollution, like oil spills, which
they now believe are manageable, short-
term problems. Instead, they are concen-
trating on the less understood dynamics of
chronic land-based pollution: the discharge
of sewage and industrial waste and—possi-
bly an even greater menace—the runoff
from agricultural and urban areas.
Conveyed to the oceans through riv-
ers, drainage ditches and the water table,
such pollutants include fertilizers and her-
bicides washed from farms and lawns,
motor oil from highways and parking lots,
animal droppings from city streets and
other untreated garbage that backs up in
sewer systems and spills into the seas.
Says Biologist Albert Manville of Defend-
ers of Wildlife, a Washington-based envi-
ronmental group: “We’re running out of
time. We cannot continue to use the
oceans as a giant garbage dump.”
The oceans are broadcasting an in-
creasingly urgent sos. Since June 1987 at
least 750 dolphins have died mysteriously
along the Atlantic Coast. In many that
washed ashore, the snouts, flippers and
tails were pocked with blisters and cra-
ters: in others, huge patches of skin had
sloughed off. In the Gulf of Maine. harbor
seals currently have the highest pesticide
level of any U.S. mammals, on land or in
water. From Portland to Morehead City,
N.C.. fishermen have been hauling up
lobsters and crabs with gaping holes in
their shells and fish with rotted fins and
ulcerous lesions. Last years oyster haul in
Chesapeake Bay was the worst ever: the
crop was decimated by dermo. a fungal
disease, and the baffling syndrome MSX
(multinucleate sphere X).
S uffocating and sometimes poison-
ous blooms of algae—the so-called
red and brown tides—regularly
blot the nation’s coastal bays and
gulfs, leaving behind a trail of dying fish
and contaminated mollusks and crusta-
ceans. Patches of water that have been al-
most totally depleted of oxygen, known as
dead zones, are proliferating. As many as
1 million fluke and flounder were killed
earlier this summer when they became
trapped in anoxic water in New Jersey’s
Raritan Bay. Another huge dead zone, 300
miles long and ten miles wide, is adrift in
the Gulf of Mexico.
Shellfish beds in Texas have been
closed eleven times in the past 18 months
because of pollution. Crab fisheries in La-
vaca Bay. south of Galveston, were forced
to shut down when dredging work stirred
up mercury that had settled in the sedi-
ment. In neighboring Louisiana 35 of
the state’s oyster beds are closed because
of sewage contamination. Says Oliver
Houck, a professor of environmental law
at Tulane: “These waters are nothing
more than cocktails of highly toxic
substances.”
The Pacific coastal waters are gener-
ally cleaner than most, but they also con-
tain pockets of dead—and deadly—water.
Seattle’s Elliott Bay is contaminated with
a mix of copper, lead, arsenic, zinc, cad-
mium and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB5), chemicals once widely used by the
electrical-equipment industry. “The bot-
tom of this bay is a chart of industrial his-
tory,” says Thomas Hubbard, a water-
quality planner for Seattle. “If you took a
core sample, you could date the Depres-
sion, World War H. You could see when
PCBS were first used and when they were
banned and when lead was eliminated
from gasoline.” Commencement Bay. Ta-
coma’s main harbor, is the nation’s largest
underwater area designated by the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency as a Super-
fund site, meaning that pollution in the
bay is so hazardous that the Federal Gov-
ernment will supervise its cleanup.
Washington State fisheries report find-
ing tumors in livers of English sole,
which dwell. diment. Posted signs
warn, CRAB AND SHELLFISH
MAY BE UN* ’1’O EAT DUE TO POLLU-
TION. Lest anyone fail to get the message.
the caution is printed in seven languages:
English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Cambodi-
an, Laotian, Chinese and Korean.
San Francisco Bay is also contarninat-
ed with copper, nickel, cadmium, mercu-
A-4
TIME, AUGUST 1. 1988
-------
ry and other heavy metals from industrial
discharges. Last year toxic discharges in-
creased 23%. In Los Angeles urban runoff
and sewage deposits have had a devastat-
ing impact on coastal ecosystems, notably
in Santa Monica Bay, which gets occa-
sional floods of partly processed wastes
from a nearby sewage-treatment plant
during heavy rainstorms. Off San Diego’s
Point Loma, a popular haunt of skin
divers, the waters are so contaminated
with sewage that undersea explorers run
the risk of bacterial infection.
U.S. shores are also being inundated
by waves of plastic debris. On the sands of
the Texas Gulf Coast one day last Sep-
tember, volunteers collected 307 tons of
litter, two-thirds of which was plastic, in-
cluding 31,733 bags, 30,295 bottles and
15,631 six-pack yokes. Plastic trash is be-
ing found far out to sea. On a four-day trip
from Maryland to Florida that ranged 100
miles offshore, John Hardy, an Oregon
State University marine biologist, spotted
“Styrofoam and other plastic on the sur-
face, most of the whole cruise.”
Nonbiodegradable plastic, merely a
nuisance to sailors, can kill or maim ma-
rine life. As many as 2 million seabirds
and 100,000 marine mammals die every
year after eating or becoming entangled
in the debris. Sea turtles choke on plastic
bags they mistake for jellyfish, and sea Ii-
otis are ensnared when they playfully
poke their noses into plastic nets and
tires. Fish and birds are being choked out
of Guanabara Bay, the entryway to Rio de
Janeiro, by sewage and industrial fallout.
Japan’s Inland Sea is plagued by 200 red
tides annually; one last year killed more
than 1 million yellowtail with a potential
market value ofSlS million. In the North
Sea chemical pollutants are believed to
have been a factor in the deaths of 1,500
harbor seals this year. Last spring the
Scandinavian fish industry was hard hit
when millions of salmon and sea trout
were suffocated by an algae bloom that
clung to their gills and formed a slimy
film. Farmers towed their floating fish-
ponds from cord to cord in a desperate ef-
fort to evade the deadly tide.
For five years, at 200 locations around
the U.S., the National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration has been
studying mussels, oysters and bottom-
dwelling fish, like flounder, that feed on
the pollutant-rich sediment. These crea-
tures, like canaries placed in a coal mine
to detect toxic gases, serve as reliable indi-
cators of the presence of some 50 contam-
inants. The news is not good. Coastal ar-
eas with dense populations and a long
history of industrial discharge show the
highest levels of pollution. Among the
worst, according to Charles Ehler of
NOAA: Boston Harbor, the Hudson River-
Raritan estuary on the New Jersey coast,
San Diego harbor and Washington’s Pu-
get Sound.
rings. Unable to open their jaws, some sea
lions simply starve to death. Brown peli-
cans become so enmeshed in fishing line
that they can hang themselves. Says
Kathy O’Hara of the Center for Environ-
mental Education in Washington: “We
have seen them dangling from tree
branches in Florida,”
Some foreign shores are no better off.
Remote beaches on Mexico’s Yucatan
Peninsula are littered with plastics and
4 . * ua i
‘ 4 II
r...+,... .
H
u cawUou a alga au PugstSsi
TIME, AUGUST 1, 1988
A-S
-------
Last week the EPA added six major es-
tuaries to the half a dozen already on the
list of ecologically sensitive coastal areas
targeted for long-term study. Estuaries,
where rivers meet the sea, are the spawn-
ing grounds and nurseries for at least two-
thirds of the nation’s commercial fisher-
ies, as well as what the EPA calls sources of
“irreplaceable recreation and aesthetic
enjoyment.”
Although the poisoning of coastal wa-
ters strongly affects vacationers, home-
owners and resort operators, its first (and
often most vocal) victims are hshermen.
Commercial fishing in the U.S. isa S3. 1 bil-
lion industry, and it is increasingly threat-
ened. Fisherman Richard Hambley of
Swansboro, NC., recalls that only a few
years ago. tons of sturgeon and mullet were
pulled out of the White Oak River. “Now
Environment
EPA: “Anyone who eats the liver from a
lobster taken from an urban area is living
dangerously.”
Fish and shellfish that have absorbed
toxins can indirectly pass contaminants
to humans. Birds migrating between Cen-
tral America and the Arctic Circle, for ex-
ample, make a stopover in San Francis-
co’s wetlands, where they feast on clams
and mussels that contain high concentra-
tions of cadmium, mercury and lead. Says
Biologist Gregory Karras of Citizens for a
Better Environment: “The birds become
so polluted, there is a risk from eating
ducks shot in the South Bay.”
Despite the overwhelming evidence of
coastal pollution, cleaning up the damage,
except in a few scattered communities, has
a fairly low political priority. One reason:
most people assume that the vast oceans,
well as contaminants, enter rivers from a
variety of sources. Eventually, these pollut-
ants find their way into tidal waters For
the oceans, the first critical line of defen
is that point in estuaries, wetlands anL
marshes where freshwater meets salt wa-
ter. Marine biologists call this the zone of
maximum turbidity—literally, where the
water becomes cloudy from mixing.
There, nutrients and contaminants
that have dissolved in freshwater encoun-
ter the ionized salts of seawater. The result-
ing chemical reactions create particles
that incorporate the pollutants, which then
settle to the bottom. As natural sinks for
contaminants, these turbidity zones pro-
tect the heart of the estuary and the ocean
waters beyond.
But the fragile estuarine systems can
be overtaxed in any number of ways.
_________ — — . — T .aJ . ? -
¶ . -.- . .
-J - ..‘7 , ,.
—
- t—_
‘. .. — ._—
. .- .- ..-p- , . . ‘:•- ,- - . .
— . M ..-‘-— ‘ £ “ — — ‘
, — -
-.—.---—, - .., -
; . . ‘ i :
- S - -
that is nonexistent,” he says. “There are no
trout schools anymore. Crabs used to be
like fleas, I’m lucky to get a few bushels.”
Ken Seigler, who works Swansboro’s
Queens Creek, has seen his income from
clams and oysters drop 50% in seven years:
this year he was forced to apply for food
stamps. New Jersey Fisherman Ed Malls-
zewski has used his small boat for only two
weeks this year. He is tryingto bail out,and
so are others.
In the diet-and-weljness ‘80s, fish has
been widely touted as a healthful food. Not
only do smaller catches mean ever higher
prices, but also the incidence of illnesses
from eating contaminated fish—including
gastroenteritis, hepatitis A and cholera—
is rising around the U.S. Pesticide residues
and other chemicals so taint New York
marine waters that state officials have
warned women of childbearing age and
children under 15 against consuming
more than haIfa pound of bluefish a week;
they should never eat striped bass caught
off Long Island. Says Mike Deland, New
England regional administrator for the
which covci inure than 70”o of the woric s
surf ce, have an inexhaustible capacity to
neutralize contaminants, by either absorb-
in.g them or letting them settle harmlessly
to the sediment miles below the surface.
“People think ‘Out of sight, out of mind,’”
says Richard Curry, an oceanographer at
Florida’s Biscayne National Park. The
popular assumption that oceans will in ef-
fect heal themselves may carry some truth,
but scientists warn that this is simply not
known. Says Marine Scientist Herbert
Windom of Georgia’s Skidaway Institute
of Oceanography: “We see things that we
don’t really understand. And we don’t
really have the ability yet to identify natu-
ral and unnatural phenomena.” Notes
Sharron Stewart of the Texas Environ-
mental Coalition: “We know more about
space than the deep ocean.”
Marine scientists are only now begin-
ning to understand the process by which
coastal waters are affected by pollution.
The problem, they say, may begin hun-
dreds of miles from the ocean, where nutri-
ents, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as
Dredging can stir up the bottom, throwing
pollutants back into circulation. The U.S.
Navy plans to build a port in Puget Sound
for the afrcraft cariier ”U.S.S. Ni mhz and
twelve other ships; the project will require
displacement of more than I million cu.
yds. of sediment, with unknown ecological
consequences. Similarly, natural events
such as hurricanes can bestir pollutants
from the sediment. The estuarine environ-
ment also changes when the balance of
freshwater and salt water is disturbed. Up-
stream dams, for example, diminish the
flow of freshwater into estuaries; so do
droughts. On the other hand, rainstorms
can cause an excess of freshwater runoff
from the land.
Whatever the precise cause, trouble
begins when the level of pollutants in the
water overwhelms the capacity of estuaries
to assimilate them. The overtaxed system,
unable to absorb any more nutrients or
contaminants, simply passes them along
toward bays and open coastal areas.
“When the system is working,” says Mau-
rice Lynch. a biological oceanographer at
A-6
TIME. AUGUST 1.1988
-------
the Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
“it can take a lot of assault. But when it gets
out of whack. it declines rapidly.’
It is then that the natural growth of
sea grass may be ended, as has happened
in Chesapeake Bay. or sudden blooms of
algae can occur, particul*sty in stagnant
waters. The exact reasona for these spurts
of algal growth are unknown. They can be
triggered, for example, by extended peri-
ods of sunny weather following heavy
rains. Scientists believe algal growth is
speeded up by the runoff of agricultural
fertilizers. The burgeoning algae form a
dense layer of vegetation that displaces
other plants. As the algae die and decay,
they sap enormous amounts f oxygen
from the water, asphyxiating fish and oth-
er organisms.
Some kinds of algae contain toxic
chemicals that are deadly to marine life.
When carcasses of more than a dozen
whales washed up on Cape Cod last fall,
their deaths were attributed to paralytic
shellfish poisoning that probably passed
up the food chain through tainted mack-
erel consumed by the whales. Carpets of
algae can turn square miles of water red,
brown or yellow. Some scientists specu-
late that the account in Exodus 7: 20 of
the Nile’s indefinitely turning red may re-
fer to a red tide.
When such blights occur in coastal ar-
eas, the result can be devastating. Last
November a red tide off the coast of the
Carolinas killed several thousand mullet
and all but wiped out the scallop popula-
tion. Reason: the responsible species, Pzy-
chodiscus brevis, Contains a poison that
causes fish to bleed to death. Brown tides,
unknown to Long Island waters before
1985, have occurred every summer since;
they pose a constant threat to valuable
shellfish beds.
A study of satellite photographs has
led scientists to believe that algae can be
conveyed around the world on ocean cur-
rents. The Carolinas algae, which had
previously been confined to the Gulf of
Mexico, apparently drifted to Atlantic
shores by way of the Gulf Stream. One
species that is native to Southern Cali.for-
ma is thought to have been carried to
Spain in the ballast water of freighters.
The effects of man-made pollution on
coastal zones can often be easily seen: far
less clear is the ultimate impact on open
seas. The ocean has essentially two ways
of coping with pollutants: it can dilute
them or metabolize them. Pollutants can
be dispersed over hundreds of square
miles of ocean by tides, currents, wave ac-
tion, huge underwater columns of swirling
water called rings, or deep ocean storms
Laused by earthquakes and volcanoes.
Buried toxins can also be moved
around by shrimp and other creatures that
dig into the bottom and spread the sub-
stances through digestion and excretion.
Though ocean sediment generally accu-
here is .ittle question that the
oceans have an enormous ability to
absorb pollutants and even regen-
erate once damaged waters. For
example, some experts feared that the vast
1979 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico would
wipe out the area’s shrimp industry. That
disaster did not occur, apparently because
the ocean has a greater capacity to break
down hydrocarbons than scientists
thought. But there may be a limit to how
much damage a sector of ocean can take.
Under assault by heavy concentrations of
sludge, for example, the self-cleansing sys-
tem can be overwhelmed. Just like decay-
ing algae. decomposing sludge robs the Wa-
A-7
ter of oxygen, suffocating many forms of
marine life. What effect chronic contami-
nation from sludge and other wastes will
have on the oceans’ restorative powers is
still unknown.
Rebuckling the planets life belt may
prove formidable. The federal Clean Wa-
ter Act of 1972 overlooked runoff pollu-
tion in setting standards for water quality.
Meanwhile, the nation’s coasts are subject
to the jurisdiction of a bewildering (and
often conflicting) array of governmental
bodies. One prime example of this confu-
sion, reports TTME Houston Bureau Chief
Richard Woodbury, is found in North
Carolina’s Albemarle-Pamlico region
There both the federal Food and Drug
Administration and a state agency regu-
late the harvesting of shellfish. A third
agency, the state’s health department,
surveys and samples the water and shell-
fish. And another state body sets the
guidelines for opening or closing shellfish
beds. Complains Douglas Rader of the
Environmental Defense Fund: “The cra-
zy mix of agencies hurts the prospects for
good management.”
Lax enforcement of existing clean-
water policies is another obstacle. Ac-
cording to Clean Ocean Action, a New
Jersey-based watchdog group, 90% of the
1,500 pipelines in the state that are al-
lowed to discharge eff’uent into the sea do
so in violation of regulatory codes. Mu-
nicipalities flout the rules as well. Even if
Massachusetts keeps to a very tight sched-
ule on its plans to upgrade sewage treat-
ment, Boston will not be brought into
compliance with the Clean Water Act un-
til 1999—22 years after the law’s dead-
line. Meanwhile, the haifa billion gallons
of sewage that pour into Boston Harbor
every day receive treatment that is ruth-
mentary at best.
Some communitiesare leading the way
in trying to preserve their shores and coast-
al waters. In March the legislature of Suf-
folk County on Long Island passed a law
mulatesat a rate of about one-hal.f inch per
thousand years, Biogeochernist John Far-
rington of the University of Massachusetts
at Boston cites discoveries of plutonium
from thermonuclear test blasts in the l950s
and l960s located 12 in. to 20 in. deep in
ocean sediment. Thus contaminants can
conceivably lie undisturbed in the oceans
indefinitely—or resurface at any time.
TIME. AUGUST I. 1988
-------
forbidding retail food establishments to
use plastic grocery bags. food containers
and wrappers beginning next year. Sixteen
states have laws requiring that the plastic
yokes used to hold six-packs of soda or beer
together be photo- or biodegradable. Last
December the U.S. became the 29th nation
to ratify an amendment to the Marpol (for
marine pollution) treaty, which prohibits
ships and boats from disposing of plas-
tics—from fishing nets to garbage bags—
anywhere in the oceans. The pact goes into
effect at the end of this year.
Compliance will not be easy. Mer-
chant fleets dump at least 450,000 plastic
containers overboard every day. The U.S.
Navy, which accounts for four tons of
plastic daily, has canceled a contract for
11 million plastic shopping bags, and is
testing a shipboard trash compactor. It is
also developing a waste processor that can
melt plastics and turn them into bricks.
The Navy’s projected cost of meeting the
treaty provision: at least $1 million a ship.
Supporters of the Marpol treaty readily
acknowledge that it will not totally elimi-
nate plastic pollution. “If a guy goes out
on deck late at night and throws a bag of
trash overboard,” says James Coe of
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Ser-
vice in Seattle, “there’s no way that any-
one will catch him.”
Stiff fines and even prison sentences
may get the attention of landbound pol-
luters. Under Administrator Mike De-
lapd. the EPA’S New England office has
acquired a reputation for tough pursuit of
violators. In November 1986 the agency
flied criminal charges against a Provi-
dence boatbuilder for dumping PCB5 into
[ rragansett Bay. The company was
fined $600,000 and its owner $75,000; he
was put on probation for five years.
Washington is one of the few states
with a comprehensive cleanup program.
Three years ago, the Puget Sound water-
quality authority developed a master plan
for cleaning up the heavily polluted,
3,200-sq-mi. body of water. The state leg-
islature has levied an 8 -a-pack surtax on
cigarettes to help pay the bill: this year the
tax will contribute an estimated $25 mil-
lion to the cleanup. The Puget Sound au-
thority and other state agencies closely
monitor discharge of industrial waste and
are working with companies on ways to
reduce effluent.
A n aggressive effort is being made
to limit runoff as well. Two coun-
ties have passed ordinances that
regulate the clearing of land and
the installation and inspection of septic
tanks. Farmers are now required to fence
cattle away from streams. Zoning has be-
come more stringent for construction in a
critical watershed area: a single-family
house requires at least two acres of land.
The number of livestock and poultry per
acre is also controlled.
The Puget Sound group has an educa-
tional program that teaches area residents
everything from the history of the sound
to what not to put down the kitchen sink.
Controlling pollution is promoted as ev-
eryone’s task. High school students take
water samples, and island dwellers have
been trained in what to do if they spot an
oil spill. Says Seattle Water-Quality Plan-
ner Hubbard: “Bridgetenders are great at
calling in with violations. They are up
high. and when they see a black scum or a
little slick, they let us know about it.”
Officials hope the cleanup program
will have the same result as a decades-
long effort mounted by the Federal Gov-
ernment and four states in the Delaware
River estuary, an area ringed by heavy in-
dustry and home to almost 6 million peo-
ple. The Delaware’s pollution problems
began in Benjamin Franklin’s day. By
World War H, the river had become so
foul that airplane pilots could smell it at
5,000 ft. President Franklin Roosevelt
even considered it a threat to national se-
curity. In 1941 he ordered an investiga-
tion to determine whether gases from the
water were causing corrosion at a secret
radar installation on the estuary.
Although the Delaware will never re-
gain its precolonial purity, the estuary has
been vastly improved. Shad, which disap-
peared 60 years ago, are back, along with
33 other species of fish that had virtually
vanished. Estuary Expert Richard Albert
calls the Delaware “one of the premier pol-
lution-control success stories in the U.S.”
Such triumphs are still rare, and there
is all too little in the way of concerted
multinational activity to heal the oceans.
That means pollution is bound to get
worse. Warns Clifton Curtis, president of
the Oceanic Society, a Washington-based
environmental or nization: “We can ex-
pect to see an inc .e in the chronic con-
tamination of oc*stal waters, an increase
in health advisories and an increase in the
closing of shellfish beds and fisheries.”
Those are grim tidings indeed, for both
the world’s oceans and the people who
live by them. —8yAntas . T ,xia.
Papart.dbyAmlr.a Do’fnia /N.w V Eg r.,w
L,/BostcnapdEd-.s*,*t R*hd/S.afll.
D A
,“
: —
A-B
TIME. AUGUST I. 1988
-------
1111111 urn
DIP lU A FA t StART
How Dukakis Plans to Win
ORL ! VA VNN !A
1 9 OOd N AV T!dVW 9LOL
M O)fl( U NX OH SW
)I-2 a RRflV £ )JM ‘!dW ORLO iOM
6L
z rn
A P1
lg
-------
W ith 9 million people competing
for a place in the sun, New
Yorkers are used to a little
hassle—and a little mess—
with their summertime fun at
the beach. But this year is different: for the
past several weeks, beaches from Staten
Island to the eastern Long Island resort
towns have been intermittently shut down
by a trickle of potentially hazardous medi-
cal waste—sutures, hypodermic needles,
catheter bags and vials of blood. Where the
debris came from is anybody’s guess, and
frustrated state and city officials have been
quarreling about the likely source. But the
beachgoing public, fearful of the fact that
several of the mysterious blood samples
have tested positive for AIDS, is observing
New York’s latest garbage crisis by staying
home in droves.
New York’s problem is by no means
unique: along with a gruesome array of
other garbage, hospital waste has floated
ashore on beaches from Maine to Texas in
the past year. Beach closings because of
bacterial contamination are even more
commonplace. This summer public-health
authorities in locations from the New Jer-
sey shore to San Francisco have been forced
to suspend bathing because of sewage-
plant breakdowns. Nearly a third of Louisi-
ana’s oyster beds are routinely closed be-
cause of pollution, and half the shellfish
beds in Galveston Bay, Texas, are off limits
to fishermen. Temporary or not, all these
local pollution alerts underscore what re-
sponsible environmentalists say is now a
full-blown national crisis: the wholesale
contamination of U.S. coastal waters by
millions of tons of sewage, garbage, toxic
chemicals and other contaminants. Al-
though the United States is now disposing
of its human and industrial waste more
carefully than ever before, there is mount-
ing evidence that the ocean, like the land, is
faring badly under the ecological stress im-
posed by man. It may well be, as New York
City Health Commissioner Dr. Stephen Jo-
seph suggested, that “the plan-
et is sending us the message
that there is a line beyond
which we cannot go.”
Drawing that line—estab-
lishing a tolerable balance be-
tween the needs of industrial
society and the health of the
biosphere—is what environ-
mental regulation is all about.
While the nation has made real
progress in protecting its land,
air and drinking water, most
Americans are still largely ig-
norant of pollution’s impact on
the oceans and coastal waters
they depend upon so heavily.
That impact cannot be calculat-
ed with precision. But signs of
progressive deterioration are
sadly abundant along many of
the nation’s most beautiful
bays, estuaries and seashores.
Ocean pollution is not only ap-
parent when bathing beaches
are closed because of water-
borne contamination. It is evi-
dent every time a shellfish bed
is put off limits to clamming or
oyster harvesting, and it is im-
plicated when whole species of
fish—the striped bass in the
Hudson River, for example—
are declared unfit for human
consumption. Many environ-
mentalists also blame pollution
for the rising number of fish
kills, whale kills and red tides
that are becoming familiar
events in coastal communities
from Maine to California.
Black mayonnaise’: The prob-
lem for most landlubbers, of
course, is that most of the effects
of coastal pollution are hard to see. Bays
and estuaries that are now in jeopardy—
Boston Harbor, for example, or even San
Francisco Bay—are still delightful to look
at from shore. What is happening underwa-
ter is quite another matter, and it is not for
the squeamish. Scuba divers talk of swim-
ming through clouds of toilet paper and
half-dissolved feces, of bay bottoms covered
byafouland toxic combination of sediment,
sewage and petrochemical waste appropri-
ately known as “black mayonnaise.” Fish-
ermen haul in lobsters and crab covered
with mysterious “burn holes” and fish
whose fins are rotting off. Offshore, marine
biologists track massive tides of algae
blooms fed by nitrate and phosphate pollu-
tion—colonies of floating microorganisms
that, once dead, strangle fish by stripping
the water of its life-givingoxygen.
Pollution problems of one degree or an-
other can be detected virtually anywhere
along the coastline of the continental Unit-
ed States. This is due partly to advances in
NEWSWEEK AUGUST 1, 198
‘. 1
I
LEE DODDS..-PHYI’flRF.PflRTERS ADAM STOLTMAN
Fri. sea to ailing sea: (doe kw i.se from top) Texas au spill, Puget Sound sewage drain, Staten
Island trash, Gulf Coast fish kill and medical refuse washed ashore in New York City
‘ tflHIR
A-il
-------
From Puget Sound to
Chesapeake Bay, and
along the Gulf Coast,
too, once pristine inlets
are in ecological ruins.
A look at America’s best-
known bays shows that
• every one is in trouble,
and that saving them
• won’t be simple.
the measuring methods used by modern
science: trace elements of DDT. for exam-
ple, are now identifiable in the sediment of
many bays and estuaries, although DDT
has been banned for nearly 20 years. But
technology is only confirming what ecolo-
gists have been saying all along—that the
slow buildup of chemical contaminants in
coastal waters must have consequences,
and that it is at best shortsighted to regard
the ocean, as many shore dwellers do, as a
place where pollution can be dumped out of
sight and out of mind. “The environmental
prophecies of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s are
unfortunately coming to pass,” says Les
Kaufman, a research scientist
at the New England Aquarium
in Boston. “People have to look
at [ the environment] as an or-
ganism. That’s not hippie talk.
It’s reality.”
costs: A primary
cause of coastal pollution is hu-
man sewage, which continues
to foul bays and beaches despite
federal efforts to ban offshore
disposal. Since Congress passed
the Clean Water Act of 1977,
federal, state and local agencies
have spent more than $100 bil-
lion improving the nation’s
sewage systems to what EPA
calls the “secondary treat-
ment” level. (Secondary treat-
ment means that 90 percent of
all solid waste is removed from
sewage effluent) It can be ar-
gued that the money was well
spent: more than half the na-
tion’s population now disposes
of its sewage in ways the EPA
deems safe, and the quality
of many coastal and inland Wa-
terways.—not.ably the Great
Lakes—has improved substan-
tially as a result page 48k.
But maintaining current EPA
standards is likely to cost as much as $400
billion more by the year 2000—and this
time, unless Congress changes its mind,
state and local governments will have to
foot most of the bill.
There are gaping flaws in the façade of
septic progress, however. One of them is
the fact that the Clean Water Act did not
require pollution controls on storm sewers.
Storm sewers connect the numberless
grates and drains on the streets of almost
every city and town in America; they dis-
pose of rainwater. It is a fact of urban life
that storm sewers also collect large
amounts of pollutants—gas, oil, antifreeze,
fertilizer and pesticides—then deposit the
resulting mess in the nearest waterway.
Christine Reid, a Santa Monica, Calif.. city
councilwoman, blames Los Angeles-area
storm sewers for much of the pollution that
befouls Santa Monica Bay. “Many ofusjust
aren’t attentive to the things we don’t see,”
Reidsighs.”Thepeoplesweepingdogdooin
the gutter don’t realize that their kids will
be surfing in it.”
9iiau ba Is on th. beach: By far the worst
problem with offshore sewage pollution is
the fact that some of the nation’s biggest
metropolitan areas have never quite com-
plied with the Clean Water Act. New York
(page 46) is a prime example; so
is Boston. Despite the sparkling
redevelopment of the Boston
waterfront, Boston Harbor is
one of the worst coastal cess-
pools in the nation. Three mil-
lion people live within a 25-mile
radius of the harbor, and nearly
all the human and industrial
waste of the metropolitan area
winds up in its waters. The har-
bor bottom contains high con-
centrations of DDT and PCB’s,
a chemical compund that is
widely used in electrical equip-
ment and suspected of being a
carcinogen. Local beaches are
littered with grease balls, tam-
pon applicators and the occa-
sional condom—all of which
are apparently released by
the antiquated and overloaded
sewage system.
At best, the Boston system
offers what is politely known as
“primary” treatment—which
means that sewer sludge is sep-
arated from waste water, and
then both are dumped into the
harbor. “If that sounds unbe-
lievable,” says Paul Hauge of
the Conservation Law Founds-
Where the
Fish No
Longer Jump
Boston Harbor
New York Harbor Chesapeake Bay
Industrial waste and
inadequate sewage treatment
have turned the city’s 50-
square-mile harbor into the
nations largest cesspool
Local flounder suffer fin rot
and tumors.
Despite improvements, Pollution and salinity have
New York City’s 14 sewage-,. ted fish and oyster
treatment facilities still “S ,. In North
don’t meet federal stand& . - $ largest estuary.
The harbor is a rich stew S.nd heavy metals
aeptic,chem l l and in .. .. detected in
contaminants. Jb uij,mnts and fish.
AL)AM T’UI,TMA”
Staten Islaud fistsam US. park police with medical waste
NEWSWEEK AUGUST 1. 198
A—12
-------
Gulf of Mexico
Oil spifls, oft-ship dumping,
industrial discharge and
sewage runoff have closed
beaches, degraded wetlands,
destroyed wildlife and
threatened commercial
fls liingin the gulf.
San Francisco Bay Puget Sound
Rapid development, and
the diversion of streams and
rivers that once flushed the
bay, have fostered dangerous
concentrations of a wide
range of pollutants.
Discharge from mills and
smelters has inundated the
sound—and its marine
life—with heavy metals and
toxic chemicals. Some
inlets have been designated
hazardous sites by the EPA.
Santa MoniCa Bay
Sewage and uncontrolled
storm runoff from fast-
growing Los Angeles
County have tainted the bay
and its beaches; white
croakers from the area are
now inedible.
tion of New England. it’s because it is.” At
worst—after a heavy rainstorm, for exam-
ple—the whole system breaks down and
raw sewage, plus whatever is flushed off
local streets, is channeled into the harbor
through “combined sewer overflows.” Bos-
ton is belatedly beginning to clean up its
act—but only after local environmental
groups took the local sewer authority to
court. The authority must stop dumping
sewage sludge into Boston Harbor by 1991,
and the beaches should be free of garbage
by 1995. Secondary treatment should begin
by 1999,11 years after the Clean Water Act
deadline. Environmentalists think Boston
Harbor will begin to recover sometime in
the next century.
Ths uals if Eaqls Harbsr No one, is betting
that industrial pollutants like PCB’s will
disappear. Boston Harbor is only one of
many coastal waterways whose bottoms
may have been permanently contaminated
with chemical waste and toxic metals. 0th-
er areas with especially difficult toxic-
waste problems include New York Harbor,
parts of the Mississippi River estuary in
southern Louisiana and parts of Galveston
Bay. Three areas of Puget Sound, the vast
inland sea that is the pride of the Pacific
Northwest. are so heavily polluted they
have been designated toxic-hazard sites on
the EPA’s Superfund cleanup list. The bot-
tom sediments and tidal flats of Corn-
mencement Bay—an inlet bordered by oil
refineries, chemical plants, pulp mills and
a defunct copper smelter—are loaded with
petrochemicals, copper, lead, zinc and ar-
senic. Nearby Eagle Harbor is so polluted
that much of its rapidly diminishing popu-
lation of English sole can no longer repro-
duce, and the area’s harbor seals once regis-
tered one of the highest levels of PCB
contamination ever recorded.
Bay-bottom contamination by heavy
metals and organic chemicals poses an en-
vironmental double whammy. Many such
pollutants become more concentrated as
they travel up the food chain. The obvious
conclusion is that fish from polluted waters
should not be eaten. New York state offi-
cials, to cite just one example, warn con-
sumers not to eat more than one serving
per week of any fish taken in coastal wa-
ters, the Hudson River or Lake Erie; wom-
en of childbearing age and children under
15 are advised not to eat many New York
state fish at all.
The other problem with contaminated
bottom sediment is that there is no good
way to get it out. Some pollutants, such as
DDT and PCB’s, are extremely long-lasting
chemical compounds that have spread very
PO UTA T
SOUB
r L-.
Nutrients
Fertilizers
sewage
Algae blooms;
marine life destroyed
Chlorinated
hydrocarbon..:
—
DDT, PCB’;
Agricultural runoff,
industrial waste
Contaminated and diseased
fish and shellhsh
Petroleum
hydrocarbon..
Oil spills, industrial
discharge, urban runoff
Ecosystem destruction
Heavy metals:
arsenic, cadmium,
copper, lead, zinc
Industrial waste,
mining
Diseased and
contaminated fish
Particulate
material
Soil erosion.
dying algae
Smothers shellfish beds,
blocks light needed by
marine plant life
Plastics
Ship dumping, household
waste, litteT
Strangles, mutilates wildlife;
destroys natural habitats
NEWSWEEK AUGUST 1. 988
widely in rivers, bays and tidal muck.
Dredging the bottom only spreads them
further, which is why environmentalists
often oppose dredging projects for naviga-
tion or development. And though some offi-
cials now say polluted sediment can be
“capped” with a layer of clean flu, that
remedy is probably useful in only a few,
relatively small problem areas.
Dud zone: Marine ecologists are equally
concerned by what is known as “nonpoint”
pollution of coastal waters, Nonpoint pollu-
tion is a grab-bag term that refers to all
forms of unregulated runoff from the land.
Its environmental threat comes chiefly
A Witch’s Brew of Pollutants
xic, bacterial and nutrient contamination n affects virtually the entire
con.ofthecontinentaIUnitedStates and som ysandeetuaries inayb.
impair for generations. A survey of man’s inhumanity to nature
SOURCE NATIONALOCKAN1C AND ATNOSPNEIUC ADMINISTRATION
A-13
-------
thuu. h not exclusively from
sih and from nitrogen and
rosphorous compounds used
a fertilizers. These nutrients.
which ore not in themselves
t’xic. It-ed algae blooms which
c .. n cr.tduaHv suck the dis-
— ‘- H- ‘xr con content from
b — oiid inlets. ehokinu oil
both p ant and animal life.
no’ rican arnie: u—u enor—
rnou amount of fertilizer on
their cri-, much of which is
t in runoff to the sea. Nutri-
ent runoff mar be contrihur in ’
i the crowt K of a 3.{)Lu -square-
mile deod zone’ near the
mouth of the Mississip i River
in the ( ulf of \l xc ,. But farmer’s aren’t
the only culpr:ts in the metroal ton
Nrt as .sav Dan DudekoftheEnv rou-
mental DefenSe Fund, much of the tern z-
er runoff can be attributed to millions of
/euloUs suburbanites feedinu their lawns.
Nonpoint pollution is now a problem in
virtually every bay and estuary in the
United States, and it is certain to get worse.
It is made more acute by coastal develop-
ment—the process of ditching. draining
and filling wetlands that previously served
both as breeding grounds for marine life
and as filters for pollution from the land, At
least half the nation’s coastal wetlands
have now been lost to “helter-skelter” de-
velopment. the EP.1s Rebecca Hamner
says. The long-term impact on fish, shrimp.
crabs and other food source
can only be guessed at, but pol-
lution from nitrogen and ph’r--
phorous compounds is alread
altering the balance of nature
in some of the nation’s most
productive fishing grounds Al.
bemarle and Pamlico sounds.
in North Carolina, are a case in
point. Veteran crabbers like
Gray Paul of Core Point. N (‘.,
who has been fishing the Pamli.
cc Rver fr 20 years. say their
L ’at K - havedroppedb’ ’halfin
pa two years because the
r iv -r : con content has been
deple’ ed More and more, Paul
say . Pamlico Sound’s blue
crabs are coming ashore in a desperate
search for oxygen. “Last night they were
even climbing on top of the pier hecau t’ of
the dead water,” he says.
The burden of nonpoint pollution is
demonstrated all too well in Chesapeake
Bay, one of the mid-Atlantic region’s busi-
est waterways. Like other endangered es-
tuaries, the Chesapeake has clearly bene-
New York’s King’Size Sewage Problem
C hurning up the algae-
.uined waters around
New York Cit vs 26th Ward
sewac ’-treatment plant. a
325-foot u ” boat toots its
horn and heads out to sea,
brimrrunu with 710,000 gal.
lons of tr ‘ed human waste.
The tanker is part of a small
fleet that plies the ocean 24
hours a day, annually releas-
ing 8 million tons of sludge
from New York City and eight
neighboring sewer authori-
ties into the Atlantic. Bobbing
in gentle ocean swells, the
boats slowly zigzag across a
patch of ocean 106 miles off-
shore, releasing their cargo
in jet-black plumes.
The boats haven’t always
traveled so far. For most of the
past century. sludge barge
and other haulers have made
the waters off New Jersey and
New York one of the worlds
most odious garbage dumps.
Just 12 miles offshore. the
ocean floor is littered with e -
erything from rusting drums
of low-level radioactive waste
to turn-of-the-century rubble
from subway tunnels and
cholera-infested tenements.
Shortsighted dumping of
sewage, harbor dredgings and
caustic industrial acids has
fouled the beaches, killed
millions of fish and laced once
rich clam and oyster beds with
deadly PCB’s.
The federal Environmental
Protection Agency officially
banned sludge dumping as of
1981. but the New York-area
sewage commissions success-
fully challenged the rule in
court. Though they won the
right to keep dumping, they
eventually agreed to ferry
the waste farther offshore
and release it slowly to pre-
vent high concentrations. Lo-
cal officials, including New
York Mayor Ed Koch, main-
tain that the current system
poses no danger to aquatic
life, but fishermen and envi-
ronmentalists disagree. They
saytheolddumpsite isa virtu-
al “dead sea” and they fear
that dumping at the new
site—located just off the conti-
nentalshelfand in the heart of
some of the nation’s richest
fishing grounds—will shatter
a fragile marine ecosystem.
Little choice: Right or wrong,
the sludge dumpers may be
living on borrowed time. Con.
gress, responding to pressure
from fishermen and disgust-
ed beach bathers, is poised
do pass legislation in August
banning all ocean sludge
dumping by 1992. New York
City officials are scrambling
for ways to comply with the
imminent ban, but none of
the alternatives looks prom-
ising. Burning the waste in
incinerators would add new
pollutants to the region’s al-
ready dirty air. And compost-
ing it on open land would re-
quire open space that the
crowded area lacks. Either
alternative would inspire bit-
ter political protest and
would be a huge financial
burden. Given the volume of
sewage involved—New York
City produces 1.7 billion gal-
lons every day—officials say
they have little choice but to
continue dumping some of
the sludge at sea.
The problem isn’t likely to
be resolved before the turn of
the century. But even if New
York manages to stop dump-
ing sludge into the ocean (as
200 other coastal communi-
ties already have, that alone
won’t save the nearby waters.
The city’s sewage system is so
rickety that it shuts down
during heavy rains—unload-
ing raw sewage, 1.7 billion
gallons at a time, directly
into the harbor.
PET ER Mt-h I L iMP Lfl .Veu York
The price of ocean dumping: .Sitc’/ is1r u’ith burn-spot diseaSe
l’t.’rI•i: F ’REEI)
Overload: Treatment plant
\E V-WEEK AUGUST 1.
A- 14
-------
— . - -. ,
lited from dera ar.d tate )flt ris )fl
point- Ource pollution from sewlce and in-
dustrial plants. But fertilizer and pesticide
runoff from upstream farms is still a major
problem. In addition, according to a recent
study by the Environmental Defense Fund.
approximately 5 percent of the nitrogen
pollution in the bay probably comes from
acid rain—a finding that may have enor-
mous implications for other coastal waters
and for the continuing campaign to pass
acid-rain legislation.
Curbing nutrient pollution now a pri-
mary focus of government and private ei
trts to save the Chesapeake. Maryland.
Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of
Columbia have agreed to an ambitious
campaign to reduce the bays nutrient lev-
els by 40 percent by the year 2000. That will
require billions of dollars in government
funding and a small revolution in current
soil-management techniques, such as cre-
ating buffer zones to control fertilizer
erosion. Environmentalists like Ann Pow-
ers, vice president of the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, are “guardedly optimistic”
about the future, although development
pressur’s .::round the hay are tu. n -
n c ‘The real uest!on. Payers avc. “is
whether a ‘ra ile resource like the Chesa-
peake can exist in the middle at’ a
megalopolis.”
Cities by the sea: The question is no less
relevant to the nation as a whole. Fully 70
percent of the U S. population is already
clustered within 50 miles of one coastline
or another, and that concentration is in-
creasing: America is gradually becoming
Mega.opolis-hv-rne-Sea. The consequences
for coastal waters are obvious, and the fed-
eral Oovernraent is stepping up its efforts to
protect marine life and marine habitats.
Under zne Water Quality Act at 1987. EPA
now has the authority to audress nonpoint
pollution. The same law established a na-
tional estuaries program to involve the
l’ederal government in state and local ct-
f’orts to clean up the Chesapeake. the Great
Lakes. Long Island Sound. Puget Sound,
San Francisco Bay. Aibemarle and Pamli.
co sounds. Narracansett Bay, RI.. and
Buzzards Bay. Mass. Last week EPA ex-
panded that list to include Santa Monica
Bay, Galveston Bay, Sarasota Bay, Dela-
‘.¼ lre Ba ’ and New York Harror i’veIj
The overriding point to e.r -ow
Americans :s that marine pollution can 0)
longer be dismissed as the spec al concern
(it scientists or environmental extremists.
The costs of coastal contamination are
large and very direct, as a recent study .1
New Bedford Harbor, Mass.. nythe Nation-
al Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion suggests. Like the waters around Bos-
ton and New York, New Bedford Harbor is
dying from a massive dose at’ toiic and
nutrient pollutants. By NOAA’ 5 estimate.
that pollution has already cost the town
nearly 550 million—52.1 million in lost
revenues to local lobstermen, S1.9 million
lost to the recreational rishing industry.
514.7 million in lost tourism and . 531) mil-
lion in reduced property values. The cost of
averting further damage, in New Bedford
and nationwide, is likely to be very high—
but Americans, on balance, have little
choice but to do what still needs to he done.
TJ\1MORGANTHACU’i(hMAR H .ER
ri ttq.chin ,,’ . Lis s BROW N Ut
TED KEN ‘cry in S ’z’. Lis.s DREV
in H’mston .p ’/ - ‘p ’ -a
‘In Health There Are No Borders’
T he New River stretches
only about 80 miles, from
the Mexican border into Cali-
fornia’s lush Imperial Valley,
vet it holds the distinction of
being the most polluted wa-
terway on the continent.
Great clumps of foam gush
into the river from a large
drain near its source in Mexi-
cali and cascade across the
U.S. border like tiny icebergs.
Human feces float along,
dumped directly from the
city’s antiquated sewer sys-
tem. Bottles, bags and an
occasional dead cat bob past,
probably from Mexicali’s mu-
nicipal dump site, located on
a tributary. Health experts
have found 28 viruses—in-
eluding typhoid, salmonella
and polio—in the fetid wa-
ters, along with carcinogenic
chemicals like chloroform
and benzene. In some spots
levels of fecal coliform bacte-
ria have been measured at
5.000 times the U.S. stand-
ards for safe human contact.
There are similar horror
stories all across the south-
ern U.S. border: booming
Mexican cities, unable to ac-
commodate their growth, are
spewing human and indus-
trial wastes virtually un-
checked into shared water-
ways. Every day, S million
gallons of Tijuana’s excess
sewage inundate the Tijuana
River, upsetting the ecologi-
cal balance of California wet-
lands and forcing officials
to keep two miles of beach
near San Diego permanently
closed. There are no sewage-
treatment, plants at all in
Nuevo Laredo and Juárez,
across the border from El
Paso, Texas; human waste
flows untreated into the Rio
Grande. The rivers also con-
tain hazardous chemicals,
dumped by industrial facili-
ties along the border. Envi-
ronmentalists charge that at
least some of the offenders
are U S.-owned maquiladora
plants, taking advantage of
Mexico’s cheap labor and lax
enforcement of er’tvironmen-
tal laws.
Dozens of commissions
have convened since the lh4Os
to discuss the border pollution
problems. But cleanup efforts
remain pitifully scant. Under
a recent $1.2 million pact, U.S.
funds are now helping to re-
store Mexicali’s sewage-treat-
ment system. Still, the New
River remains as contaminat-
ed as ever. California offi-
cials, meanwhile, are pressing
Congress to help fund a 540
million “defensive pipeline”
that would channel Tijuana’s
sewage back into Mexico be-
fore it threatens San Diego
Bay. In the end, solving the
problems vj11 require much
. reater international cooper-
ation—and a greater com-
mitment 01’ funds. “In health.
there are no borders,” sighs
Jose L. Gonzalez, director of
the health department in La-
redo. Texas, where officials
fear an outbreak of typhoid
tracked in from the Rio
Grande. “We’re beginning to
be scared about the power-
lessness on our side.”
NE\VS\VEEK .AUGL’ST I.
-------
____ .L i 1L
i1
-
bI)i ‘ , .\‘ H
Pelted by pollutants that ride the winds: .‘ rnpling the waters of Lake Ontario
Toxins, Toxins Everywhere
The Great Lakes reel under an invisible assault
A Uflc 1enti t . puzzle over the
f te ofthe ocean . other researchers
think they have . een the future—in
the Grt - it Lake Thirty years ago it
seemed that the va t water of the
v rid’ largest inland reservoirs could
ah orb anything and everything mar.
dumped into them. But by the late l 4i 3 i-
Lake Erie was dying, and parts of’ the
other four t -emed poised to follow. A
deluge c n : : Vial efliuents was poison-
n c wav - Fish were dvin in awe-
‘.rne nu : a the remains of algae
that thr:vei: on Se ace and farm runoff
depletea th..’ v .ater’s oxvcen supply The
micht l ki . turned out, were not infi-
nitely resilient—and that points to a
larger ies on. ‘I think the oceans will
experience the same thing.’ warns Ly-
man Wible )l the Wisconsin state
division of’ environmental standards.
If the reat Lakes otter a
cautionary tale, they also illus-
trate what money, technology
arid political will can accom-
plI h S:ncc’ 1972 the United
tat and Canada have spent
o btl in to clean the lakes. pri-
manly by building or improv-
nL ewage.troatment plants.
On Lake Michigan’s Green
Bay. or instance, the 25 pa-
per mills and municipal sew-
age Systems that together dis-
gorged some 400,000 pounds
of organic waste a day
years ago now spew out just
one-eighth that amount. And
tougher federal laws have cur-
tailed other poin source ” of
pollution, such a factories and mines.
\Vhjle the Great Lakes may look and
: :ell better. they remain deeplytroubled
; er . “We are now dealing with the
n ‘. generation of diffused, widespread
a’ insidious toxic substance says
V am Brah of the Center for the ( nat
L.. ,es. a Chicago-based policy group. At
least 400 hazardous chemical —includ-
ing PCB’s, pesticides. cadmium and
lead—are found in the lakes. Some have
been there for decade . demonstrating
that. contrary to the beliet of’ a more
innocent age. the lakes dn not ck ’inso
themselves, at least not quickly PCB’ .
from electronics manutacturing. wii! r-e-
main in sediments f’orcenturies. And the
lakes continue to absorb a variety of
“nonpoint” pollutants, such a pesti-
cides and fertilizers from distant i irm .
lead from i. a oline and petroleum
pi-oduct carried in runoff from Cities
\Ianv n id:o pollutants seem to ride
the winds, something environmental sci
enliSts recognized only recently. PCB’s.
for example, have been detected in the air
above Lake Superior near Duluth. even
Hugh they haven’t been produced in the
rec ion in i-ears The fact that they’re
turning up in the lake water, not just on
the muddy bottom, is further evidence
that the windsarecontinuallydepositing
the cmtantinants Othem’ pollutants in
Lake Superior include toxaphene. an in-
ect cide used ma in the southern
United State and DDT. banned in the
United States in 1 T2 but still used in
Latin America. The bottom line, says Ste.
yen Eisenreich. a professor of environ-
mental engineerin at the University of
Minnesota. :s that “any chemical dis-
charge in the Northern Hemisphere can
fir-id its way into the Great Lakes.”
Fishy tumors: Typicall ’. the chemicals
are present in minute concentrations—
the ’ are often measured in parts per tril-
lion in the water. But that is no reason for
complacency. Plants and animals “bioac-
cumulate” the substances, increasing
their concentrations with every step up
the aquatic food chain. Since people eat-
ing lake fish would accumulate even
higher concentrations of the chemicals.
health authorities have banned carp
fishing in Green Bay since 1984 and ad-
vise people not to eat large chinook salm-
on or rainbow trout. A t though the health
effects of the chemicals aren’t clear, the
lakes’ denizens are hardly thriving on
them. Tumors and other pollution-relat-
ed deformities are widespread in the fish,
or instance. And in the St Lawrence
River. which drains the lakes, bodies of
beluga whales keep washing ashore. Rid-
dled with PCB’s. mercury, DDT and the
carcinogen benzo-a-pyrene. “the whales
should have signs on them saying ‘toxic-
waste container’.” says geneticist Joseph
Cummins of the University of
Western Ontario.
The Great Lakes have shown
that better sewage treatment
and controls on factory ef-
fluents can clean up the
most obvious trash and stench.
Checking toxic chemicals. espe-
cially those borne by the wind,
will be much harder—but every
bit as important. A the lakes’
history makes clear, even
waters that stretch to the hori-
zon will not absorb man’s gar-
bage without suffering, per-
haps irreversibly.
HARON B ;r. v io/i
( hROLLIP7 I.A”, lund
I ’ v m ii in ‘,“i’ ’’: B:
:/
A living ‘toxic-waste container’: Exu ‘o r: .t’.., u beached bc/a go
A-16
-------
Review & Forecast
A New Emphasis on
Near Coastal Waters
By Lee M. Thomas
I Administrator
I US. Environmental Protection Agency
T he year of 1987 represented a
milestone in the nation’s aware-
ness of the health of its coastal and
marine environments. In February,
Congress enacted new amendments
to the Clean Water Act, giving us
many new tools to address water
quality problems, particularly those
in coastal areas.
Congress’ Office of Technology
Assessment released a landmark re-
port in April on coastal and ocean
pollution. That report, entitled
Wastes in Marine Environments,”
concluded that ocean quality has
improved and that the nation should
now turn its attention to controlling
the pollution of estuaries and coastal
waters.
Congress conducted several hear-
ings on the status of coastal waters
and progress being made to improve
the quality of those ecosystems by
federal, state, and local governments.
More hearings are likely to follow.
Congress’ action Comes none too
soon. The summer of 1987 saw a
plague of fish kills, red and green
tides, and beach closings caused by
garbage and contaminated waters
throughout the country. These events
signalled a pressing need to itreng-
then our efforts in addressing the
problem of degradation in these sen-
sitive ecosystems.
Our challenge is a difficult one. We
will have to meet it in the face of
increaing pressures from coastal de-
velopment and rapid population
growth. Experts predict that by 1990,
75% of all Americans will be living
within 50 miles of a coast.
With population growth comes a
myriad of threats to the near coastal
ecosystems, from both point and
nonpoint sources. Clearly, we will
have to increase our attentiveness to
the impacts of our everyday activities
on the health of estuaries, bays, and
other coastal waters. We will have to
adjust our everyday lives in ways that
will minimize negative impacts on
these ecosystems.
Fortunately, we are making pro-
gress. The quality of coastal waters in
a number of areas is improving as a
result of concerted efforts by govern-
ment, industry, and citizens. A good
example is the Great Lakes. Another
is Chesapeake Bay. In each, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is
an active participant inacomprehen
sive waterbody management program.
Others are planned.
The success of these efforts comes
from the substantive commjtmcn
embodied in the agreements them-
selves and in the willingness of the
signatories to implement them. In
November, the U.S. and Canada
renewed the Great Lakes Water Qual-
ity Agreement by adding provisions
for improved monitoring of toxic
contamination and development of
remedial action plans for geographic
areas of concern. We have a strong
agreement that will bring about fur-
ther environmental improvements.
Similarly, we are seeing progress in
Chesapeake Bay. A stronger Bay
agreement has been negotiated by
EPA, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsyl
vania, the District of Columbia, and
the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
That revised agreement calls for de-
velopment and implementation of a
basin-wide plan by July 1988 to
achieve a 40% reduction in nutrient
inputs by the year 2000. It also man-
dates development by next December
of a basin-wide plan for red ucing and
controlling toxics.
The new Water Quality Act of
1987 establishes several important
components to EPA’S program for
coastal waters. The National Estuar-
ies Program is perhaps the most
focused of these. It incorporates into
the federal law elements of an effort
EPA had underway to focus more
attention on our vita! estuaries and
near coastal waters.
Under the new law. EPA will Con
vene management conferences fo
estuaries selected as having riationa
significance. The objective of thes
conferences will be to assess trends ii
water quality, characterize environ
mental problems, assess the impac
of pollutant loadings on the estuary
develop a comprehensi e managemeni
plan including priority corrective
actions and compliance schedules for
addressing point and nonpoint sour-
ces of Pollution, and monitor the
effectiveness of those actions taken.
We expect to designate six national
estuaries by early 1988. These include
Albemarle and Pamljco Sounds in
North Carolina; Long Island Sound
in New York and Connecticut: Buz-
zards Bay, Massachusetts: Narragan-
sett Bay, Rhose Island; Puget Sound,
Washington; and San Francisco Bay,
California.
Additional provisions of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 hold particular
promise for restoring and maintain-
ing the health of our estuaries. The
nonpoint source provisions arc aimed
at tackling pollution problems that
result from everyday settings like
CIRCLE NO.22 ON INQUIRY CARD
JANUARY 1988 / SEA TECHNOLOGY
(Continued on pqr 34)
A- 17
-------
farms, parking lots, and roads. EPA
estimates that a significant portion of
the remaining pollution in our near
coastal waters comes from these di-
verse sources. The institutionaliza-
tion of a locally oriented program to
control such sources of pollution will
be a tremendous boon for our near
coastal ecosystems.
Finally, EPA is focusing special
attention of its own on the long-term
problems facing America’s estuaries
and near coastal waters. Our strategy
emphasizes five major environmen-
tal problems: Toxics contamination,
eutrophication, pathogens. loss of
habitat, and changes in living resour-
ces. Our near coastal waters initiative
will allow us to better focus available
regulatory and management resour-
ces, improve our information resour-
ces, explore innovative approaches
to environmental improvement, and
more fully involve the public in prob-
lem-solving.
The initiative will have three prior-
ity activities. First is a nationwide
assessment of existing information
on near coastal water environmental
quality problems. In coordination
with the states and other federal
agencies, we will identify coastal
waters in need of attention.
Second is the initiation of pilot
projects to demonstrate low-cost, inno-
vative management techniques for
addressing priority coastal water prob-
lems. By demonstrating the utility of
these techniques, it is our hope that
they can be applied to other coastal
waters in the future.
And third, we will step up our.
technology and information transfer
activities for estuaries and coastal
waters as part of a larger EPA tech-
nology transfer initiative. These infor-
mation-sharing activities will facili-
tate the exchange of technical and
management information among pro-
gram managers nationwide.
Overall, then, 1987 was an impor-
tant year for making progress in
improving our near coastal waters.
And 1988 promises to be a banner
year for further expanding ourefforts.
Improving the quality of our nation’s
coastal environment is a high priority
at EPA. Achieving this goal will take
the best efforts ofall levels of govern-
ment, industry, and individuals. ,st,
A- 18
-------
Water Act An end i e i :s Foci s
On Revised Ideas About Pollution
Environmental Protection A gency Water Programs Broaden
The Definition of “Quality,” Take Steps Toward Restoration
C ongress’clean water legislation
has reflected a steady growth in
environmental awareness. Fifteen
years ago, we worried about pollu-
tants we could see and smell. Now we
know that the most obvious villains
are not necessarily the worst. But
back then, fecal coliforms, suspended
solids, and oil and grease had the
advantage of being easy to detect,
measure, and treat. The Federal Water
Pollution Act of 1972 reflected the
consensus of the times. It established
a regulatory system that focused on
reducing end-of-pipe quantities rather
than protecting receiving water qual-
ity, Individual facilities were required
to obtain permits to discharge waste-
water based on uniform national
standards—called effluent limitations
guidelines—established and enforced
by EPA.
By the time the Clean Water Act of
1977 was passed, we were a little
more sophisticated about toxic pol-
lutants. The original system was main-
tained, but EPA was directed to con-
centrate on developing guidelines for
129 priority toxic pollutants and
classes of pollutants. Other than add-
ing this new class of pollutants, how-
ever, the Clean Water act made few
major changes in the assumptions of
the original legislation.
In the jargon of regulators, both of
these laws operate through technology-
based limitations. That is, the limits
on substances that can be discharged
into public waterways or public sewer
systems are derived from the tech-
nologies available to treat or remove
the substances. These limits—as mic-
rograms per liter, kilograms per thou-
sand kilograms of production unit.
etc.—are applied uniformly to every
facility in a category, regardless of
the condition of the water to which
the effluent is discharged. Pristine or
putrid, critical habitat or sewer ditch,
every body of water is treated the
same.
A New Approach
The Water Quality Act of 1987
marks a major sea change in this
approach. As its name implies, the
new act recognizes that regulating
pollutants is merely the first step in
protecting a body of water: the final
goal is to preserve or restore its qual-
ity. It acknowledges that “quality”
encompasses much more than some
arbitrary chemical measurement, that
it includes complex ecological and
aesthetic values as well. And finally,
the 1987 law broadened the scope of
EPA water programs to address issues
such as nonpoint pollution, toxic hot
spots, and protection of critical aqua-
tic habitats such as wetlands and
estuaries. For the first time, the
Agency is looking at integrated eco-
systems, rather than clusters of iso-
lated problems.
EPA’s National Estuary Program
is a major example of this fresh
approach. As Congress noted when it
established the program, estuarj s
are among the richest and most pro-
ductive habitats on earth. They serve
as the principal spawning grounds
and nurseries for at least two-thirds
of our country’s commercial fisher-
ies. provide irreplaceable recreational
and aesthetic enjoyment, and are
home to valuable and unique species
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
Yet they are under severe stress
from conditions—such as overdevel-
opment and massive population grow-
th—that do not respond to conven-
tional strategies of regulation and
enforcement. Non point sources such
as agricultural runoff, for example,
contribute pesticides. nitrogen, and
phosphorus to bays hundreds of miles
downstream; development alters or
destroys complex ecological relation-
ships: and population growth increases
pollutant loads from every source.
These are as much management issues
as they are regulatory or scientific
problems.
The National Estuary Program was
established under the Water Quality
Act to address precisely these kinds
of issues. Its purpose is to identify
nationally significant estuaries, and
demonstrate how comprehensive plan-
OCTOBER 1988 / SEA TECHNOLOGY
Cea
By Rebecca Hanmer
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Water
Environmental Protection Agency
A- 19
-------
ning and management can protect
and improve their water quality and
enhance their living resources.
This emphasis on comprehensive
planning and management is unique;
no other EPA program has the man-
date to target entire geographic areas
in this way. Instead of focusing nar-
ro ly on single issues, participants in
the program have the luxury of the
big picture. They can look at prob-
lems from e’ .erv possible aspect.
Three characteristics in particular
distinguish this new approach. First,
it recognizes that most estuary prob-
lems have no single source, and that
correcting these problems calls for
basin- ’ ide solutions. Second, it brings
together a variety of regulatory and
management tools from many differ-
ent programs to address such con-
cerns as point source pollution, non-
point source pollution, land-use man-
agement, and coastal resource pro-
tection.
Third, and most important, it is
partnership, involving everyone with
interest in the estuary. These interests
are represented through a collabora-
tive effort called the management
conference. By law, management con-
ferences must include representatives
of citizen and user interest groups,
scientists, and all relevant govern-
ment agencies and resource manag-
ers at the state, local, and federal lev-
els. EPA provides technical expertise
and the organizational umbrella, but
it is the management conferences
that identify the major problems in
their estuaries, decide where to focus
their efforts, and recommend prior-
ity actions to address and correct the
identified problems under a CCMP—
comprehensive conservation and man-
agement plan. CCMPs are the blue-
prints for dealing with an estuary’s
problems. They translate goals estab-
lished by the management confer-
ence into concrete actions, schedules,
and political and financial commit-
ments.
Currently, there are 12 estuaries in
the program. These include Buzzards
Bay in Massachusetts; Narragansett
Bay in Rhode Island; Long Island
Sound in Connecticut and New York;
New York-New Jersey Harbor in
New York and New Jersey; Delaware
Bay in New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
and Delaware; Delaware Inland Bays
in Delaware; Albernarle; Pamlico
sounds in North Carolina: Sarasota
Bay in Florida ; Galveston Bay in
Texas; Santa Monica Bay and San
Francisco Bay in California; and
Puget Sound in Washington State.
These 12 were named in the Wate
Quality Act for priority considera-
tion to be included in the National
Estuary Program. However, EPA
may select additional estuaries for
the program in response to nomina-
tions by state governors, or at the
agency’s initiative in the case of inter-
state estuaries. Estuaries are selected
based on their potential to address
issues of significant national concern,
as well as their demonstrated institu-
tional, financial, and political com-
mitment to take protective actions.
Once an estuary is selected, EPA
formally convenes a management con-
ference.
Estuary Management
Because so many important deci-
sions hinge on accurate data, man-
agement conferences always include
a scientific or technical advisory body.
These advisors help ensure that the
management conference is making
(Confsnu.d on pqe ?)
HARBOR BRANCH HAS A SPECIAL FLEET TO MEET YOUR NEEDS,
with over sixteen years experience operating unique research vessels and submersibles.
The JOHNSON-SEA-LINK submersibles dive
to 3,000 feet to observe, photograph, and col-
lect marine organisms. In addition to scientific
expeditions, they have conducted surveys on
the U.S.S. MONITOR and played a critical
role in locating and identifying parts of the
lost space shuttle CHALLENGER.
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Inc.
5600 Old Dixie Hwy., Ft. Pierce, FL 34946. Contact Tim Askew, 407/465-2400,
I
R/V SEA DIVER
• 100’x35’x9’
• ROV capabilities
• 7,000 urn at 12 knots
• Science laboratory
• Accommodations for 16
CIRCLE P O. 4 ON INOU IPY CARD
OCTOBER 1986 / SEA TECHNOLOGY
RN SEWARD JOHNSON
• 176’x36’x12’
• Wet and dry labs
• Submersible support
• Surface research support
• 8,000 urn at 12 knots
• Accommodations for 30
RN EDWIN LINK
• 168’x38’x12’
• Wet and drylabs
• Submersible support
• Surface research support
• 6,000 urn at 10 knots
• Accommodations for 30
.&i .
—I
A-20
-------
decisions based on technically sound
information. In addition, the Water
Quality Act requires conferences to
carry out seven major tasks, and at
least three of these include significant
scientific and technical input. Specif-
icallv, the law requires for each es-
ua r v:
long-term monitoring to assess
trends and measure variations in pol-
lutant concentrations, marine ecol-
ogy, and other physical or biological
parameters, including water quality,
natural resources, and uses
• data collection and analysis to
identify potential causes 01 environ-
mental problems:
• ecosystem assessments to iden-
tify pollutant loadings and relate
them to observed natural and man-
made changes in the estuary;
• comprehensive sampling to mon-
itor nutrients, chlorine, acid precipi-
tation, dissolved oxygen, and poceri-
tiallv toxic pollutants such as organic
chemicals and metals; and
General Outline of Typical SEA-MAC Model SM-88 Tow Reel
2EA TECHNOLOGY / OCTOBER 988
SEA•MAC MARINE PRODUCTS
10134 Olga Lane
Houston. TX 770.41 — (713) 462-9019
P 0. Box 41.071
Houston. TX 77241-1071
Telex: 9102406625
FAX (713) 462-9026
CIRCLE NO. SO ON INQUIRY CARD
• research to identity nutrient.
sedim t and pollutant movement
through the estuary and their effects
on water quality, the ecosystem, and
the designated uses of the estuary.
More generally, EPA itself is seek-
ing to improve the scientific basis of
our marine coastal decision making,
including developing criteria for eva-
luating the quality of estuarine waters
and sediments, assessing the expo-
sure of living resources to toxic pol-
lutants, developing methods for quan-
titative ecological risk assessments,
and preparing guidance on assessing
human health risks from chemically
Contaminated fish and shellfish.
Another major component of the
national program is EPA’s new tech-
nology transfer initiative. This effort
will bea keyelement in disseminating
important technical information, as
well as Innovative and effective man-
agement techniques developed in the
estuary programs.
It’s also important for the long
run. The really critical decisions and
choices lie at the local and state lev-
els, where issues of growth, land-use,
and zoning have always been resolved.
EPA and the federal governme ,can
provide the leadership and technical
assistance to help local communities
make informed and deliberate choi-
ces. We can promote innovations
and focus resources. But the political
and institutional will to protect the
resources must come from the states
and be grounded in local communities.
I believe the National Estuary Pro-
gram will show that local officials
can benefit from and effectively use
scientific information in the process
of making environmental decisions.
Even more important, the program
will prove that a partnership of local
officials, technical experts, and Citi-
zens can effectively address issues of
resource use and development. ri
Ms. Hanmer has
been with the fed-
eral government
more than 20 years.
Since joining EPA
in 1972, she has
worked as director.
Office of Federal
Activities; regional administrator; and
deputy assistant administratorfor water—
her current position in addition to serv-
ing as acting assistant administrator. She
has received the Administrators Special
Achievement A ward and the Presidential
Meritorious Executive A ward, as well as
EPA ‘s gold and silver medals.
SEA-MAC Model SM-88 is an electric powered, hydraulically controlled, variable
speed oceanographic winch specifically designed for the marine environment. Ease
of mobility is achieved by the use of high-strength aluminum construction through-
out. which allows the SM-88 to remain lightweight and compact, while retaining the
SEA-MAC capability for heavy-duty operation.
•i
MARINE PRODUCTS
HOUSTON. TEXAS
A-2 1
-------
commentaries
WATER QUALITY MANAGERS MEET THE COASTAL ZONE
A Presentation at the 1987 Annual Conference of the
National Association of Environmental Professionals
Rebecca W Hanmer
US. Environmental &otection Agency
I am going to speak to you today about a critical
national exwinonmental problem facing our coun-
try—the continuing degradation of our coastal
waters—and the steps the Environmenai Protection
Agency will be taking to address this problem
through its Near Coastal Waters In itiative, through
the new Water Quality Act of 1987, and in particular,
through the development of integrated State clean
water strategies.
The basic problem is this: despite the enormous
investments that this country has made to protect the
biological, physical, and chemical integrity of our
coastal waters and wetlands (coastal waters includes
the Great Lakes), there are still many large areas
where water uses and environmental quality are
impaired or threatened—partly from point sources,
but in particular from non-point source pollution—
and where critical habitats are being degraded or
destroyed at an alarming rate.
What is the evidence of this plight of our coastal envi-
ronments?
• Nearly 50% of assessed coastal waters do not meet
designated uses due to nonpoint source poUution,
such as urban and rural or agricultural runoff; fur-
therniore, this figure understates the problem
because of the low percentage of waters assessed.
• Toxic contamination of shellfish and fish has led to
many closures, bans, and advisories to protect
human health. To ring also are responsible for an
increased incidence c i fish cancers. Toxic chemicals
enter the water column from point and nonpoint
Rebecca W. Hanmer is Deputy Assistant Mminiatrator for
Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Wash-
ington, DC. In this position she shares direction of an inter-
disciplinary staff of 500 involved in developing national pol-
icy, standards, and regulations under the Clean Water Act;
the Safe Drinking Water Act; Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act; and portions of the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act. Formerly, Rebecca Hanmer headed
the GPA Regional Office in Atlanta as well as EPA’s national
water pollution permit and enforcement program
Requests for reprints nlay be addressed to Rebecca W. Han-
mer Deputy Assistant Mmirustrator for Water, U.S. Envi-
rorimental Protection Agenc 40]. M Street SW, Was}ungton,
DC 20460
sources; from contaminated sediments, a particu-
larly insiduous problem; and from atmosphenc
deposition, a pollution source that requires global
cooperation in order to control.
Large areas of coastal waters that are naturally
suitable to support shellfish are closed to harvest-
ing because of pathogen cont . miiii twn from sew-
age or livestock waste. Last year’s Nations.! Shell-
fish Register reported a loss of productive shellfish
acreage in ten of eleven states and a loss of
approved shellfish waters from 1,000 to 200,000
acres.
• Seriously low oxygen levels plague many of the
bays and estuaries on all three coasts and in the
Great Lakes due to an excess of nutrients running
off from farmlands and suburban lawns.
• Loss of critical habitat for fish, shellfish, and
waterbirds: for example, Louisiana is losing wet-
lands at a rate of 50 square miles per year.
• Declines in most commercial and sport fisheries:
for example, the striped bass commercial fishery
on the East Coast dropped from 14.7 million
pounds in 1973 to 1.7 million pounds just ten years
later. • Loss of recreational benefits for the public.
With coastal populations continuing to mushroom
(by 1990, 75% of the population is expected to live
within an hour’s drive from one of the nation’s coast-
lines), development pressures will continue to
threaten these valuable ecosystems. This is in addi-
tion to the heavy industrial usage already existing
along the coast and in the drainage basins.
Clearly this situation is urgent. In fact, successful
programs are underway in specific geographic areas
of the country where people have demonstrated that
they care about the especially valuable resources of
the coast.
I am referring in particular to two EPA pioneering
programs: the Great Lakes Program and the Chesa-
peake Bay Program. The Great Lakes Program
began in 1972 under the auspices of the Clean Water
Act and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
with Canada. This program was initially a response
0191-5398/8853 00+ 00
A—23 1 )i988 National Associstios of Environmental ProfesstonaL .
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL, Vol. 10 p 95-91, 1988
Prnted in the USA. All rights reserved.
-------
REBECCA W. HANMER
to pollution from nutrients. More recently, however,
damage from toxic chemicals has become an increas-
ing focus of effort. The Chesapeake Bay Program,
originating in 1977 when studies of the bay demon-
strated its decline, is a model for basinwide pollution
management.
The National Estuary Program, initiated under
EPA’s Fiscal Year 85 appropriations, is applying this
basinwide collaborative management concept to six
other waterbodies on the East and West Coasts.
Our challenge now is to reach out to the rest of the
country to slow the onslaught of degradation of the
coastal environment, to stem the tide of pollution and
destruction of aquatic habitats that accompany the
explosive population growth and land development
we are now experiencing in coastal areas.
EPA has recognized this need and has launched,
under the direction of Mminiqtrator Lee Thomas, a
long-term strategic framework for improving the
management of near coastal waters with the goal of
maintaining, and where possible, enhancing near
coastal water environmental quality. And now the
Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) presents us with a
unique opportunity to apply a variety of new tools
towards this goal.
This new law expands and strengthens the Clean
Water Act through a number of changes designed to
enhance water quality and improve programs. At the
same time, it charts a new direction, with a number of
important new challenges to be met—by EPA and the
states—within an extremely brief time frame.
The WQA establishes a major new program in the
management of nonpoint sources, a program for
increasing the effectiveness of state controls over tox-
ins, and strengthens authorities for the protection of
estuaries and the Great Lakes. These programs
address a set of well recognized environmental prob-
lems, particularly from nonpoint sources. We have
not had much success in solving these problems so
far, due to the large expense involved, the size and
diversity of the regulated community, the implied
changes in peoples’ lifestyles, and countervailing eco-
nomic pressures.
In this area of nonpoint source pollution, the legis-
lation creates a new program for control through
implementation of State requirements. States
must assess their waters to determine where there
are impairments of water quality due to nonpoint
sources and to identify those sources. By August
1988, States are to develop programs to implement
best management practices. This includes an
implementation schedule, an Attorney General’s
statement of legal authorities, identification of
funding sources, and a plan for coordination with
related Federal projects.
• The WQA also establishes a program for identify-
ing waters affected by toxic pollutants and imple.
meriting specific controls to reduce those toxins.
This program requires States to assess their
waters to determine where there are impairments
of water quality due to point source discharges,
such as municipal and industrial effluent, and to
identify those discharges. By February 1989,
States are to set effluent limitations with National
Pollution Discharge Elimantion System (NPDES)
permits (“individual control strategies”) for these
discharges sufficient to assure that water quality
standards are attained. States must also revise and
expand their standards to include all 185307(a)
toxic pollutants where EPA has set criteria and
where their discharge could reasonably be
expected to interfere with designated uses. You can
expect to see major activity in the Great Lakes
region as state after state tightens its regulations.
• Third, the new law authorizes the National Estu-
ary Program. The Act declares that it is in the
national interest to engage in long-term planning
and m riAgement to ensure that the ecological
integrity of the nation s estuaries is mRintained.
EPA and the states are to convene mRn gement
conferences for estuaries of national significance in
order to assess water quality and trends and to col.
lect and assess data on problems and causes. Corn.
prehensive mpnAgement plans are to be developed
and implemented in an expeditious fashion.
• Finally, the bill formally establishes the Great
Lakes National Program Office in EPA to carry out
United States commitments in the 1978 Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement.. The program
office in coi junction with the states will develop
and implement “remedial action plans” for control
of toxic pollutants. In addition, a monitoring net-
work is to be created to develop a comprehensive
data base, a five-year nutrient control program is
to be established, and a five-year toxic study is to
be undertaken to control and remove toxic pollu-
tants from the system, particularly those in lake
bottom sediments.
The WQA of 1987 represents a return of significant
authority to the state environmental agencies. This
is in contrast with the previous fifteen years of water
pollution control devoted largely to installation of fed-
erally set technology control requirements. Success of
these programs will depend upon expanded State
leadership, greater attention to cross-media and
cross-program linkages and impacts, and cost-effec-
tiveness in program operations. At the same time,
states must implement new mandates under the Safe
Drinking Water Act as well as continue ongoing con-
trol efforts.
These new mandates place a premium on some very
difficult things to administer multi.agency programs
A- 24
-------
COASTAL ZONE
and projects, and geographic area discretion, which
reqwre an abundance of careful judgement and very
sophisticated data. Since there is not nearly enough
money to do it all, targeting and pnoritizing could be
very competitive.
EPA is beginmng to market a concept for developing
an integrated State Clean Water Strategy as the most
effective way for implementing these amendments.
This strategy is based upon a comprehensive, risk-
based, geographical pnoritization of State water
quality program activities. It embodies the following
implementation phases:
Waterbyiy assessments, involving extensive infoi--
mation gathering and data collection from many
different sources, including State and federal agen-
cies, industry, envinonmentaj groups, academia,
and the pubic;
• Ranking the waterbodies, and targeting those
which are the most valuable, the most threatened
and in need of action, and which are the most ame-
nable to water quality improvement with available
tools;
• Preparation of management plans to address the
identified problems, including descriptions of
implementing near-term and long-range control
requirements. Geographic or watershed based
plans will be encouraged.
Each of these activities is required separately, in
varying degrees, under the amendments mentioned
earlier—nonpoint, toxics, estuaries, and Great Lakes.
The objective and challenge of the Clean Water Strat-
egy will be to integrate these parallel efforts as much
as possible, and to exploit opportun ities to deal with
water problems according to a strategic approach
rather than in a piecemeal fashion.
To accomplish this, the States and EPA must look
beyond the boundaries of the traditional water pollu-
tion control agencies with whom we normally deal.
We will need to strengthen our relationships with
other State agencies, such as fish and game, public
health, coastal planning and management, and agri-
culture, as well as our relationship with other federal
agencies, like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
Given the limited amount of money available, pro-
grams must be targeted where there is the greatest
public support, high resource values, and where other
programs at the Federal, State, arid local level can be
leveraged. Because of the ever growing populations in
coastal areas, the coastal zone will rank high for
attention and thus water quality managers must
work with coastal managers for mutual benefit.
It seems appropriate that in this year of celebrating
the 200th anniversary of the United States Constitu.
tion, which sets forth the underlying framework and
principles upon which this country is based, we now
have a new constitution for managing our country’s
waters as embodied in the new Water Quality Act.
Nowhere is this new dedication more needed than in
our coastal environments.
The challenge before us is immense, but not unattain-
able. It will call for high professionalism in admin.is-
tering officials, more effective communication
between environmental managers and the publie,
more “marketing” and less “controlling” behavior,
and more interagency cooperation. I am confident we
can go far in meeting this challenge and in restoring
the health, beauty, and productivity to our coastal
waters. In fact, we have little choice but to get on
with it.
A- 25
-------
Appendix B
Clean Water Act
CWA2O5(I) B-I
CWA 301(h) B-2
CWA 320 B-4
CWA 403(c) B-6
CWA 117 B-7
CWA 118 B-8
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act B-li
Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 B-27
Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 B-37
Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988 B-59
Degradable Plastic Ring Carrier Act of 1988 B-73
Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988 B-79
-------
[ Sec 205(1) added by PL 100-4J
(1) Marine Estuary Reservation.—
(1) Reservation of Funds.—
(A) General Rule. — Prior to making allotments
among the States under subsection (c) of this section,
the Administrator shall reserve funds from sums appro-
priated pursuant to section 207 for each fiscal year
beginning after September 30, 1986.
(B) Fiscal Years 1987 and 1988 — For each of fiscal
years 1987 and 1988 the reservation shall be 1 percent of
the sums appropriated pursuant to section 207 for such
fiscal year
(C) Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990 — For each of fiscal
years 1989 and 1990 the reservation shall be 1½ percent
of the funds appropriated pursuant to section 207 for
such fiscal year
(2) Use of Funds. — Of the sums reserved under this
subsection, two-thirds shall be available to address water
quality problems of marine bays and estuaries subject to
lower levels of water quality due to the impacts of
discharges from combined storm water and sanitary
sewer overflows from adjacent urban complexes. and
one-third shall be available for the implementation of
section 320 of this Act, relating to the national estuary
program.
(3) Period of availability — Sums reserved under this
subsection shall be subject to the period of availability
for obligation established by subsection (d) of this
section.
(4) Treatment of Certain Body of Water — For
purposes of this section and section 20 1(n). Newark Bay.
New Jersey, and the portion of the Passaic River up to
Little Falls, in the vicinity of Beatties Dam, shall be
treated as a marine bay and estuary.
B—i
-------
(h) The Administrator, with the concurrence of the
State. may issue a permit under section 402 which moth-
ties the requirements of subsection (b) (1) (B) of this see-
uon with respect to the discharge of any pollutant from
a publicly owned treatment works into marine waters, if
the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Ad-
ministrator that—
(I) there is an applicable water quahty standard spe-
cific to the pollutant for which the modification is re-
quested, which has been identified under section 304(a)
(6) of this Act;
(2) the discharge of pollutants in accordance with
such modified requirements will not interfere, alone or in
combination with pollutants from other sources, with the
attainment or maintenance of that water quality which
assures protection of public water supplies and protec-
tion and propagation of a balanced, indigenous poptila-
tion of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allows recreation-
al activities, in and on the water;
(3) the applicant has established a system for mon-
itoring the impact of such discharge on a representative
sample of aquatic biota, to the extent practicable, and
the scope of such monitoring is hmtted to include only
those scientific investigations which are necessary to
study the effects of the proposed discharge;
(Sec. 301(h)(3) amended by PL (00—41
(Editors note Section 303(b)(2) of PL 100-4 states the
amendment to 301(h)(3). “shall only apply to moddica-
tions and renewals of modifications which are tentatively
or finally approved after the date of the enactment of
this Act.”l
(4) such modified requirements will not result itt any
additional requirements on an other point or nonpoiru
source;
(5) alt applicable pretreatment requirements for
sources introducing waste into such treatment works
will be enforced:
(6) in the case of any treatment works serving a
population of 50,000 or mOre. with respect to any toxic
pollutant introduced into such works by an industrial
discharger for which pollutant there is no applicable
pretreatriterit requirement in effect, sources introducing
waste into such works are in compliance with all applica-
ble pretreatment requirements, the applicant will en-
force such requirements. and the applicani has in effect
a pretreatment program which, in combination with the
treatment of discharges from such works. removes the
same amount of such pollutant as would be removed if
such works were to apply secondary treatment to dis-
charges and if such works had no pretreatment program
with respect to such pollutant;
[ New Sec 301(h)(6) added by PL 100—4]
(7) to the extent practicable. the applicant has estab-
lished a schedule of acciuties designed to eliminate the
entrance of toxic pollutants from nonindustrial sources
into such treatment works:
[ Former See. 30 1(h)(3) deleted by FL 97—117. former
(6) and (7) redesignated as (7) and (8) by PL 100-4]
(83 there ‘will be no new or substantially increased dis-
charges from the point source of the pollutant to which
the modification applies above thai olumeot discharge
specifIed in the permit:
(9) the applicant at the time such modification be-
comes effective will be discharging effluent which has
received at least primary or equivalent treatment and
which meets the criteria established under section
304(a)(l) of this Act after initial mixing in the waters
surrounding or adjacent to the point at which such
effluent is discharged.
(Sec. 301(h)(9) added by FL l00-4J
For the purposes of this subsection the phrase “the
discharge of arty pollutant into marine waters” refers to
a discharge into deep waters of the territorial sea or the
waters of the contiguous zone, or into saline estuarine
waters where there is strong tidal movement and other
hydrological and geological characteristics which the
Adrnuustrator determines necessary to allow compitance
with paragraph (2) of this subsection, and section l0l(a)(2)
of this Act. For the purposes of paragraph (9), “primary
or equivalent treatment” means treatment by
screening, sedimentation, and skimming adequate to
remove at least 30 percent of the biological oxygen
demanding material and of the suspending solids in the
treatment works influent. and disinfection, where appro-
priate A municipality which applies secondary treat-
ment shall be eligible to receive a permit pursuant to this
subsection which modifies the requirements of subsec-
tion (b)( I )(B) of this section with respect to the dis-
charge of any pollutant from any treatment works owned
by such municipality into marine waters No permit
issued under this subsection shall authorize the dis-
charge of sewage sludge into marine waters. In order for
a permit to be issued under this subsection for the
discharge of a pollutant into marine waters, such marine
waters must exhibit characteristics assuring that water
providing dilution does not contain significant amounts
of previously discharged effluent from such treatment
works No permit issued under this subsection shall
authorize the discharge of any pollutant into saline
estuarine waters which at the tme of application do not
support a balanced indigenous population of shellfish.
fish and wildlife, or allow recreation in and on the waters
or which exhibit ambient water quality below applicable
water quality standards adopted for the protection of
public water supplies, shellfish. lish and wildlife or
recreational activities or such other standards necessary
to assure support and protection of such uses The
prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall
apply without regard to the presence or absence of a
causal relationship between such characteristics and the
— 2
-------
applicants current or proposed discharge Notwithstand-
irig any other provisions of this subsecuon, rio permit
may be issued under this subsection for discharge of a
pollutant into the New York Bight Apex consisting of
the ocean waters of the Atlantic Ocean westward of 73
degrees 30 minutes west longitude and northward of 40
degrees tO minutes north latitude.
(Sec. 301(h) amended by PL 97—117, PL 100—41
[ Ed:tors note Section 303(g) of PL 100-4 states the
amendments to 30 1(h) and (h)(2), as well as the provisions
of (h)(6) arid (h)(9), “shall not apply to an application
for a permit under section 301(h) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act which has been tentatively or
finally approved by the Administrator before the date of
the enactment of this Act: except that such amendments
shall apply to renewals of such permits after such date of
enactment.”l
(i) (1) Where construction is required in order for a
planned or exisciiig publicly owned treatment works to
achieve limitatioii under subsection (b)(1) (B) or (b) (I)
(C) of this section, but (A) construction cannot be com-
pleted within the time required in such subsection, or
(B) the United States has failed to make financial assis-
tance under this Act available in time to achieve such
limitations by the time specified in such subsection, the
owner or operator of such treatment works may request
the Administrator (or if appropriate the State) to issue a
permit pursuant to section 402 ot this Act or to modify a
permit issued pursuant to that section to e\tend such
time for compliance Any such request shall be filed
with the Administrator (or if appropriate the State)
within 180 days after the date of enactment of the
Water Quality Act of 1987 The Administrator (or if
appropriate the State) may grant such request and issue
or modify such a permit, which shall contain a schedule
of compliance for the publicly owned treatment works
based on the earliest date by which such financial
assistance will be available from the United States and
construction can be completed, but in no event later than
July I, 1988. and shall contain such other terms and
conditions, including those necessary to carry out subsec-
tions (b) through (g) of section 201 of this Act. section
307 of this Act, and such interim effluent limitations
applicable to that treatment works as the Administrator
determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act
B— 3
-------
Sec 320. National Estuary Program.
[ Sec. 320 added by PL 100—4 ]
(a) Management Conference.—
(I) Nomination of Estuaries. — The Governor of any
State may nominate to the Administrator an estuary
lying in whole or in part within the State as an estuary of
national significance and request a management confer-
ence to develop a comprehensive management plan for
the estuary. The nomination shall document the need for
the conference, the likelihood of success, and informa-
tion relating to the factors in paragraph (2).
(2) Convening of Conference.—
(A) In General. — In any case where the Administra-
tor determines, on his own initiative or upon nomination
of a State under paragraph (1), that the attainment or
maintenance of that water quality in an estuary which
assures protection of public water supplies and the pro-
tection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous popu-
lation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allows recre-
ational activities, in and on the water, requires the
control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution to
supplement existing controls of pollution in more than
one State, the Administrator shall select such estuary
and convene a management conference
(B) Priority consideration — The Administrator
shall give priority consideration under this section to
Long Island Sound, New York and Connecticut, Narra-
gansett Bay, Rhode Island; Buzzards Bay. Massachu-
setts: Puget Sound. Washington; New York-New Jersey
Harbor, New York and New Jersey: Delaware Bay,
Delaware and New Jersey: Delaware Inland Bays, Dela-
ware. Albermarle Sound, North Carolina. Sarasota Bay.
Florida: San Francisco Bay, California; Santa Monica
Bay. California, and Galveston Bay, Texas.
[ 320 (a)(2)(B) amended by PL 100-202)
(3) Boundary Dispute Exception. — In any case in
which a boundary between two States passes through an
estuary and such boundary is disputed and is the subject
of an action in any court, the Administrator shall not
convene a management conference with respect to such
estuary before a final adjudication has been made of
such dispute.
(b) Purposes of Conference. — The purposes of any
management conference convened with respect to an
estuary under this subsection shall be to—
(1) assess trends in water quality, natural resources,
and uses of the estuary;
(2) collect, characterize, and assess data on toxics,
nutrients, and natural resources within the estuarine
zone to identify the causes of environmental problems;
(3) develop the relationship between the inplace
loads and point and nonpoint loadings of pollutants to
the estuarine zone and the potential uses of the zone,
water quality, and natural resources;
(4) develop a comprehensive conservation and man-
agement plan that recommends priority corrective ac-
tions and compliance schedules addressing point and
non point sources of pollution to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical. and biological integrity of the estu-
ary, including restoration and maintenance of water
quality, a balanced indigenous population of shellfish,
fish and wildlife, and recreational activities in the estu-
ary, and assure that the designated uses of the estuary
are protected;
(5) develop plans for the coordinated implementation
of the plan by the States as well as Federal and local
agencies participating in the conference:
(6) monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursu-
ant to the plan; and
(7) review all Federal financial assistance programs
and Federal development projects in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on
September 17, 1983, to determine whether such assist-
ance program or project would be consistent with and
further the purposes and objectives of the plan prepared
under this section.
For purposes of paragraph (7), such programs and
projects shall not be limited to the assistance programs
and development projects subject to Executive Order
12372. but may include any programs listed in the most
recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which
may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the
plan developed under this section.
(c) Members of Conference. — The members of a
management conference convened under this section
shall include, at a minimum, the Administrator and
representatives of—
(I) each State and foreign nation located in whole or
in part in the estuarine zone of the estuary for which the
conference is convened;
(2) international, interstate, or regional agencies or
entities having jurisdiction over all or a significant part
of the estuary,
(3) each interested Federal agency, as determined
appropriate by the Administrator;
(4) local governments having jurisdiction over any
land or water within the estuarine zone, as determined
appropriate by the Administrator; and
(5) affected industries, public and private education-
al institutions, and the general public, as determined
appropriate by the Administrator.
(d) Utilization of Existing Data. — In developing a
conservation and management plan under this section,
the management conference shall survey and utilize
existing reports, data, and studies relating to the estuary
that have been developed by or made available to Feder-
il. interstate, State, and local agencies.
B— 4
-------
(e) Period of Conference. — A management confer-
ence convened under this section shall be convened for a
period not to exceed 5 years. Such conference may be
extended by the Administrator, and if terminated after
the initial period, may be reconvened by the Administra-
tor at any time thereafter, as may be necessary to meet
the requirements of this section.
(f) Approval and Implementation of Plans.—
(1) Approval. — Not later than 120 days after the
completion of a conservation and management plan and
after providing for public review and comment, the
Administrator shall approve such plan if the plan meets
the requirements of this section and the affected Gover-
nor or Governors concur.
(2) Implementation. — Upon approval of a conserva-
tion and management plan under this section, such plan
shall be implemented. Funds authorized to be appropri-
ated under titles II and VI and section 319 of this Act
may be used in accordance with the applicable require-
ments of this Act to assist States with the implementa-
tion of such plan
(g) Grants.—
(1) Recipients. — The Administrator is authorized
to make grants to State, interstate, and regional water
pollution control agencies and entities, State coastal zone
management agencies, interstate agencies, other public
or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, organizations,
and individuals
(2) Purposes. — Grants under this subsection shall
be made to pay for assisting research, surveys, studies,
and modeling and other technical work necessary for the
development of a conservation and management plan
under this section.
(3) Federal Share. — The amount of grants to any
person (including a State, interstate, or regional agency
or entity) under this subsection for a fiscal year shall not
exceed 75 percent of the costs of such research, survey,
studies, and work and shall be made on condition that
the non-Federal share of such costs are provided from
non-Federal sources.
(h) Grant Reporting. — Any person (including a
State, interstate, or regional agency or entity) that
receives a grant under subsection (g) shall report to the
Administrator not later than 18 months after receipt of
such grant and biennially thereafter on the progress
being made under this section.
(I) Authorization of Appropriations. — There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator not
to exceed 512,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal
years 1987, 988. 1989, 1990, and 1991 for—
(I) expenses related to the administration of manage-
ment conferences under this section, not to exceed 10
percent of the amount appropriated under this
subsection;
(2) making grants under subsection (g), and
(3) monitoring the implementation of a conservation
and management plan by the management conference or
by the Administrator, in any case in which the confer-
ence has been terminated
The Administrator shall provide up to $5,000,000 per
fiscal year of the sums authorized to be appropriated
under this subsection to the Administrator of the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry
out subsection U).
U) Research, —
(1) Programs — In order to determine the need to
convene a management conference under this section or
at the request of such a management conference, the
Administrator shall coordinate and implement through
the National Marine Pollution Program Office and the
National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration, as appropriate,
for one or more estuarine zones—
(A) a long-term program of trend assessment monitor-
ing measuring variations in pollutant Concentrations,
marine ecology, and other physical or biological environ-
mental parameters which may affect estuarine zones, to
provide the Administrator the capacity to determine the
potential and actual effects of alternative management
strategies and measures;
(B) a program of ecosystem assessment assisting in
the development of (i) baseline studies which determine
the state of estuarine zones and the effects of natural
and anthropogenic changes, and (ii) predictive models
capable of translating information on specific discharges
or general pollutant loadings within estuarine zones into
a set of probable effects on such zones,
(C) a comprehensive water quality sampling program
for the continuous monitoring of nutrients, chlorine acid
precipitation dissolved oxygen, and potentially toxic pol-
lutants (including organic chemicals and metals) in
estuarine zones, after consultation with interested State,
local, interstate, or international agencies and review
and analysis of all environmental sampling data present-
ly collected from estuarine zones; and
(D) a program of research to identify the movements
of nutrients, sediments and pollutants through estuarine
zones and the impact of nutrients, sediments, and pollu-
tants on water quality, the ecosystem, and designated or
potential uses of the estuarine zones.
(2) Reports. — The Administrator, in cooperation
with the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, shall submit to the Con-
gress no less often than biennially a comprehensive
report on the activities authorized under this subsection
including—
(A) a listing of priority monitoring and research
needs;
(B) an assessment of the state and health of the
Nation’s estuarine zones, to the extent evaluated under
this subsection;
(C) a discussion of pollution problems and trends in
pollutant concentrations with a direct or indirect effect
on water quality, the ecosystem, and designated or po-
tential uses of each estuarine zone, to the extent evaluat-
ed under this subsection; and
(D) an evaluation of pollution abatement activities
and management measures so far implemented to deter-
mine the degree of improvement toward the objectives
expressed in subsection (b)(4) of this section.
(k) Definitions. — For purposes of this section, the
terms ‘estuary’ and estuanne zone’ have the meanings
such terms have in section 104(n)(4) of this Act, except
that the term ‘estuai-ine zone’ shall also include associat-
ed aquatic ecosystems and those portions of tributaries
draining into the estuary up to the historic height of
migration of anadromous fish or the historic head of
tidal influence, whichever is higher.
B— 5
-------
OCEAN DISCHARGE CRITERIA
Sec. 403. (a) No permit under section 402 of this Act
for a discharge into the territorial sea, the waters of the
contiguous zone, or the oceans shall be issued, after
promulgation of guidelines established under subsection
(c) of this section, except in compliance with such guide-
lines. Prior to the promulgation of such guidelines, a
permit may be issued under such section 402 if the Ad-
ministrator determines it to be in the public interest.
(b) The requirements of subsection (d) of section 402
of this Act may not be waived in the case of permits for
discharges into the territorial sea.
(c) (I) The Administrator shall, within one hundred
and eighty days after enactment of this Act (and from
time to time thereafter), promulgate guidelines for
determining the degradation of the waters of the terri-
torial seas, the contiguous zone, and the oceans, which
shall include:
(A) the effect of disposal of pollutants on human
health or welfare, including but not limited to plankton,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches;
(B) the effect of disposal of pollutants on marine life
including the transfer, concentration, and dispersal of
pollutants or their byproducts through biological, phys-
ical, and chemical processes; changes in marine ecosys-
tem diversity, productivity, and stability; and species
and community population changes;
(C) the effect of disposal, of pollutants on esthetic,
recreation, and economic values;
(D) the persistence and permanence of the effects of
disposal of pollutants;
(E) the effect of the disposal at varying rates, of par-
ticular volumes and concentrations of pollutants;
(F) other possible locations and methods of disposal
or recycling of pollutants including land-based alter-
natives; and
(G) the effect on alternate uses of the oceans, such as
mineral exploitation and scientific study.
(2) In any event where insufficient information exists
on any proposed discharge to make a reasonable judg-
ment on any of the guidelines established pursuant to
this subsection no permit shall be issued under section
402 of this Act
B—6
-------
Sec. 117 Chesapeake Bay.
[ Sec. 117 added by PL 100—4J
(a) Office — The Administrator shall continue the
Chesapeake Bay Program and shall establish and main-
tain in the Environmental Protection Agency an office,
division, or branch of Chesapeake Bay Programs to—
(1) collect and make available, through publications
and other appropriate means, information pertaining to
the environmental quality of the Chesapeake Bay (here.
inafter in this subsection referred to as the Bay’),
(2) coordinate Federal and State efforts to improve
the water quality of the Bay;
(3) determine the impact of sediment deposition in the
Bay and identify the sources, rates, routes, and distribu-
tion patterns of such sediment deposition; and
(4) determine the impact of natural and man-induced
environmental changes on the living resources of the Bay
and the relationships among such changes, with particu-
lar emphasis placed on the impact of pollutant loadings
of nutrients, chlorine, acid precipitation, dissolved oxy-
gen, and toxic pollutants, including organic chemicals
and heavy metals, and with special attention given to the
impact of such changes on striped bass
(b) Interstate Development Plan Grants.—
(1) Authority. — The Administrator shall, at the
request of the Governor of a State affected by the
interstate management plan developed pursuant to the
Chesapeake Bay Program (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the ‘plan’), make a grant for the purpose of
implementing the management mechanisms contained in
the plan if such State has, within 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this section, approved and committed
to implement all or substantially all aspects of the plan.
Such grants shall be made subject to such terms and
conditions as the Administrator considers appropriate.
(2) Submission of Proposal. — A State or combina-
lion of States may elect to avail itself of the benefits of
this subsection by submitting to the Administrator a
comprehensive proposal to implement management
mechanisms contained in the plan which shall include
(A) a description of proposed abatement actions which
the State or combination of States commits to take
within a specified time period to reduce pollution in the
Bay and to meet applicable water quality standards, and
(B) the estimated cost of the abatement actions proposed
to be taken during the next fiscal year. If the Adminis-
trator finds that such proposal is consistent with the
national policies set forth in section 101(a) of this Act
and will contribute to the achievement of the national
goals set forth in such section, the Administrator shall
approve such proposal and shall finance the costs of
implementing segments of such proposal.
(3) Federal share. — Grants under this subsection
shall not exceed 50 percent of the costs of implementing
the management mechanims contained in the plan in
any fiscal year and shall be made on condition that non-
Federal sources provide the remainder of the cost of
implementing the management mechanisms contained in
the plan during such fiscal year.
(4) Administrative costs. — Administrative costs in
the form of salaries, overhead, or indirect costs for
services provided and charged against programs or
projects supported by funds made available under this
subsection shall not exceed in any one fiscal year 10
percent of the annual Federal grant made to a State
under this subsection.
(c) Reports. — Any State or combination of States
that receives a grant under subsection (b) shall, within
18 months after the date of receipt of such grant and
biennially thereafter, report to the Adminstrator on the
progress made in implementing the interstate manage-
ment plan developed pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay
Program. The Administrator shall transmit each such
report along with the comments of the administrator on
such report to Congress.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations. — There are
hereby authorized to be appropriated the following
sums, to remain available until expended, to carry out
the purposes of this section:
(I) $3,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal
years 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, to carry out subsec-
lion (a); and
(2) $10,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal
years 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990, for grants to States
under subsction (b).
B— 7
-------
Sec. 118. Great Lakes.
[ Sec. 118 added by PL 100—41
(a) Findings, Purpose, and Definitions.—
(I) Findings. — The Congress finds that—
(A) the Great Lakes are a valuable national resource,
continuously serving the people of the United States and
other nations as an important source of food, fresh
water, recreation, beauty, and enjoyment;
(B) the United States should seek to attain the goals
embodied in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
of 1978 with particular emphasis on goals related to
toxic pollutants; and
(C) the Environmental Protection Agency should take
the lead in the effort to meet those goals. working with
other Federal agencies and State and local authorities.
(2) Purpose. — It is the purpose of this section to
achieve the goals embodied in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement of 1978 through improved organiza-
tion and definition of mission on the part of the Agency,
funding of State grants for pollution control in the Great
Lakes area, and improved accountability for implemen-
tation of such agreement.
(3) Definitions. — For purposes of this section, the
term—
(A) “Agency” means the Environmental Protection
Agency;
(B) “Great Lakes” means Lake Ontario. Lake Erie,
Lake Huron (including Lake St. Clair). Lake Michigan,
and Lake Superior, and the connecting channels (Saint
Mary’s River, Saint Clair River, Detroit River, Nia-
gara River, and Saint Lawrence River to the Canadian
Border);
(C) “Great Lakes System” means all the streams,
rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water within the drain-
age basin of the Great Lakes:
(D) “Program Office” means the Great Lakes Na-
tional Program Office established by this section; and
(E) “Research Office” means the Great Lakes Re-
search Office established by subsection (d).
(b) Great Lakes National Program Office. — The
Great Lakes National Program Office (previously estab-
lished by the Administrator) iS hereby established within
the Agency. The Program Office shall be headed by a
Director who, by reason of management experience and
technical expertise relating to the Great Lakes, is highly
qualified to direct the development of programs and
plans on a variety of Great Lakes issues. The Great
Lakes National Program Office shall be located in a
Great Lakes State
(c) Great Lakes Management.—
(1) Functions. — The Program Office shall—
(A) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State,
tribal, and international agencies, and in accordance
with section 101(e) of this Act, develop and implement
specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of
the United States under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978,
(B) establish a Great Lakes system-wide surveillance
network to monitor the water quality of the Great Lakes.
with specific emphasis on the monitoring of toxic
pollutants;
(C) serve as the liaison with, and provide information
to, the Canadian members of the International Joint
Commission and the Canadian counterpart to the
Agency;
(D) coordinate actions of the Agency (including ac-
tions by headquarters and regional offices thereofl
aimed at improving Great Lakes water quality; and
(E) coordinate actions of the Agency with the actions
of other Federal agencies and State and local authori-
ties, so as to ensure the input of those agencies and
authorities in developing water quality strategies and
obtain the support of those agencies and authorities n
achieving the objectives of such agreement.
(2) 5—Year Plan and Program. — The Program Of-
fice shall develop, in consultation with the States, a five-
year plan and program for reducing the amount of
nutrients introduced into the Great Lakes. Such pro-
gram shall incorporate any management program for
reducing nutrient runoff from nonpoint sources estab-
lished under section 319 of this Act and shall include a
program for monitoring nutrient runoff into, and ambi-
ent levels in, the Great Lakes.
(3) 5-Year Study and Demonstration Projects. — The
Program Office shall carry out a five-year study and
demonstration projects relating to the control and remov-
al of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes, with emphasis
on the removal of toxic pollutants from bottom sedi-
ments. In selecting locations for conducting demonstra-
tion projects under this paragraph. priority consideration
shall be given to projects at the following locations
Saginaw Bay, Michigan; Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin:
Grand Calumet River, Indiana; Ashtabula River. Ohio.
and Buffalo River, New York
(4) Administrator’s Responsibility. — The Adminis-
trator shall ensure that the Program Office enters into
agreements with the various organizational elements of
the Agency involved in Great Lakes activities and the
appropriate State agencies specifically delineating—
(A) the duties and responsibilities of each such ele-
ment in the Agency with respect to the Great Lakes,
(B) the time periods for carrying out such duties and
responsibilities; and
(C) the resources to be committed to such duties and
responsibilities.
(5) Budget Item. — The Administrator shall, in the
Agency’s annual budget submission to Congress, include
a funoing request for the Program Office as a separate
budget line item.
B— 8
-------
(6) Comprehensive Report. — Within 90 days after
the end of each fiscal year. the Administrator shall
submit to Congress a comprehensive report which—
(A) describes the achievements in the preceding fiscal
year in implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978 and shows by categories (including
judicial enforcement, research, State cooperative efforts,
and general administration) the amounts expended on
Great Lakes water quality initiatives in such preceding
fiscal year:
(B) describes the progress made in such preceding
fiscal year in implementing the system of surveillance of
the water quality in the Great Lakes System. including
the monitoring of groundwater and sediment, with par-
ticular reference to toxic pollutants;
(C) describes the long-term prospects for improving
the condition of the Great Lakes; and
(D) provides a comprehensive assessment of the
planned efforts to be pursued in the succeeding fiscal
year for implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978, which assessment shall—
(i) show by categories (including judicial enforcement.
research. State cooperative efforts, and general adminis-
tration) the amount anticipated to be expended on Great
Lakes water quality initiatives in the fiscal year to which
the assessment relates; and
(ii) include a report of current programs administered
by other Federal agencies which make available re-
sources to the Great Lakes water quality management
efforts
(d) Great Lakes Research.—
(1) Establishment of Research Office. — There is
established within the National Oceanic and Atmospher-
ic Administration the Great Lakes Research Office.
(2) Identification of Issues. — The Research Office
shall identify issues relating to the Great Lakes re-
sources on which research is needed The Research
Office shall submit a report to Congress on such issues
before the end of each fiscal year which shall identify
any changes in the Great Lakes system with respect to
such issues.
(3) Inventory. — The Research Office shall identify
and inventory Federal, State, university, and tribal envi-
ronmental research programs (and, to the extent feasi-
ble, those of private organizations and other nations)
relating to the Great Lakes system, and shall update
that inventory every four years.
(4) Research Exchange. — The Research Office shall
establish a Great Lakes research exchange for the pur-
pose of facilitating the rapid identification, acquisition,
retrieval, dissemination, and use of information concern-
ing research projects which are ongoing or completed
and which affect the Great Lakes System.
(5) Research Program. — The Research Office shall
develop, in cooperation with the Coordination Office, a
comprehensive environmental research program and
data base for the Great Lakes system The data base
shall include, but not be limited to. data relating to
water quality, fisheries, and biota
(6) Monitoring. — The Research Office shall con-
duct, through the Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory, the National Sea Grant College program,
other Federal laboratories, and the private sector, appro-
priate research and monitoring activities which address
priority issues and current needs relating to the Great
Lakes.
(7) Location. — The Research Office shall be located
in a Great Lakes State
(e) Research and Management Coordination —
(1) Joint Plan Before October 1 of each year, the
Program Office and the Research Office shall prepare a
joint research plan for the fiscal year which begins in the
following calendar year.
(2) Contents of Plan — Each plan prepared under
paragraph (1) shall —
(A) identify all proposed research dedicated to activi-
ties conducted under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1978,
(B) include the Agency’s assessment of priorities for
research needed to fulfill the terms of such Agreement,
and
(C) identify all proposed research that n ay be used to
develop a comprehensive environmental data base for
the Great Lakes System and establish priorities for
development of such data base.
(1) Interagency Cooperation — The head of each
department, agency, or other instrumentality of the
Federal Government which is engaged in, is concerned
with, or has authority over programs relating to re-
search, monitoring, and planning to maintain, enhance,
preserve, or rehabilitate the environmental quality and
natural resources of the Great Lakes, including the Chief of
Engineers of the Army, the Chief of the Soil Conserva-
tion Service, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, shall submit an annual report to the
Administrator with respect to the activities of that agen-
cy or office affecting compliance with the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1978
(g) Relationship to Existing Federal and State Laws
and International Treaties — Nothing in this section
shall be construed to affect the jurisdiction, powers, or
prerogatives of any department, agency, or officer of the
Federal Government or of any State government, or of
any tribe, nor any powers, jurisdiction, or prerogatives of
any international body created by treaty with authority
relating to the Great Lakes
(h) Authorizations of Great Lakes Appropriations —
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Adminis-
trator to carry out this section not to exceed S 11,000,000
per fiscal year for the fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989,
1990. and 1991. Of the amounts appropriated each fiscal
year—
(I) 40 percent shall be used by the Great Lakes
National Program Office on demonstration projects on
the feasibility of controlling and removing toxic
pollutants:
(2) 7 percent shall be used by the Great Lakes
National Program Office for the program of nutrient
monitoring; and
(3) 30 percent shall be transferred to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for use by the
Great Lakes Research Office.
B—9
-------
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1972
(Enacted by P.L. 92-532, October 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1052, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.,
and 16 US.C. 1431 et seq.; Amended by P.L. 93-254, March 22, 1974; P.L. 93-472, Oc-
tober 26, 1974; P.L. 94-62, July 25, 1975; P.L. 94-326, June 30, 1976; P.L. 95-153, No-
vember 4, 1977; P.L. 96-332, August 29, 1980; P.L. 96-381, October 6, 1980; P.L. 96-
470, October 19, 1980; P.L. 96-572, December 22, 1980; P.L. 97-16, June 23, 1981;
P.L. 97-109, December 26, 1981; PL 97-375, December 21, 1982; PL 97-424, January
6, 1983; PL 98-498, October 19, 1984; PL 99-272, April 7, 1986; PL 99-499, October
17, 1986; PL 100-4, February 4, 1987)
This Act may be cited .is the “Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
Finding, Policy, and Purpose
Sec 2 (a) Unregulated dumping of material into ocean
waters endangers human health, welfare, and amenities,
and the marine environment, ecological systems, and
economic potentialities
(b) The Congress declares that it is the policy of the
United States to regulate the dumping of all types of
materials into ocean waters and to prevent or strictly
limit the dumping into ocean waters of any material
which would adversely affect human health, welfare, or
amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems,
or economic potentialities.
(c) It is the purpose of this Act to regulate (1) the
transportation by any person of material from the United
States and, in the case of United States vessels, aircraft,
or agencies, the transportation of material from a location
outside the United States, when in either case the trans
portation is for the purpose of dumping the material into
ocean waters, and (2) the dumping of material trans.
ported by any person from a location outside the United
States if the dumping occurs in the territorial sea or the
contiguous zone of the United States.
Sec 3. For the purposes of this Act the term—
(a) “Administrator” means the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency
(b) “Ocean waters” means those waters of the open
seas lying seaward of the base line from which the
territorial sea is measured, as provided tot in the Conven.
non on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (15
UST 1606, hAS 5639).
(c) “Material” means matter of any kind or descrip-
tion, including, but not limited to, dredged material, solid
waste, incinerator residue, garbage, sewage, sewage sludge,
munitions, radiological, chemical, and biological wartare
agents, radioactive materials, chemicals, biological and
laboratory waste, wreck or discarded equipment, rock,
sand, excavation debris, and industrial, municipal, agricul-
tural, and ot’ r waste, but such term does not mean
sewage from .essels within the meaning of section 312 of
the Federal V ater Pollution Control Act, as amended (33
U S.C. 1322) Oil within the meaning of section 311 of
the Federal ‘i cr Pollution Control Act, as amended (3
U S C 1321), shall be included only to the extent that
such oil is taken on board a vessel or aircraft for the
purpose ot dumping.
(d) “United States” includes the several States, the
Distrii.t of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Canal Zone, the territories and possessions of the
United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands
(e) “Person ‘ means any private person or entity, or
any officer. employee, agent, department. agency, or
instrumentality of the Federal Government, of any State
or local unit of government, or of any foreign govern.
men
B—li
-------
(0 ‘Dumping” means a disposition of material Pro-
vided, That it does not mean a disposition of any effluent
from any outtali struuure to the extent that such disposi-
tion is regulated under the provisions of the Federal
Water Poiluiton Control Act, as amended (33 U S C
1251.1376) under the provisions ol section 13 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended (33 U SC
407), or under the provisions of the Atomic Energy A .t
of 1954, as amended (42 U S C 201 I, et seq.), nor does
it mean a routine discharge of effluent incidental to the
propulsion of, or operation of motor-driven equipment
on. vessels Provided further, That it does not mean the
construction of any fixed structure or artificial island nor
the intentional placement of any device in ocean waters
or on or in the submerged land beneath such waters, for a
purpose other than disposal. when such construction or
such placement is otherwise regulated by Federal or State
law or occurs pursuant to an authori.zed Federal or State
program. And provided further, That it does not include
the deposit of oyster shells or other materials when such
deposit is made for the purpose of developing, maintain-
ing, or harvesting fisheries resources and is otherwise
regulated by Federal or State law or occurs pursuant to
an authorized Federal or State program.
(g) “District court of the United States” includes the
District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin
Islands, the District Court of Puerto Rico, the District
Court of the Canal Zone, and in the case of American
Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the
District Court of the United States for the District of
Hawaii, which court shall have jurisdiction over actions
arising therein.
(h) “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Army
(i) “Dredged material” means any material excavated
or dredged from the navi ble waters of the United
States.
(j) “High-level radioactive waste” means the aqueous
waste resulting from the operation of the first cycle
solvent extraction system, or equivalent, and the con-
centrated waste from subsequent extraction cycles, or
equivalent, in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor
fuels, or irradiated fuel from nuclear power reactors.
(k) “Transport” or “transportatioli” refers to the car-
riage and related handling of any material by a vessel, or
by any other vehicle, including aircraft
(I) “Convention” means the Convention on the Preven-
tion of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter
TITLE I - OCEAN DUMPING
Prohibited Acts
Sec 101. (a) Except as may be authorized by a permit
issued pursuant to section 102 or section 103 of this title.
and subject to regulations issued pursuant to section 108
of this title,
(I) no person shall transport from the United States,
and
(2) in the case of a vessel or aircraft registered in the
United States or flying the United States flag or in the
case of a United States department, agency, or instru-
mentality, no person shall transport from any location
any material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean
waters.
(b) Except as may be authorized by a permit issued
pursuant to section 102 of this title, and subject to
regulations issued pursuant to section 108 of this title, no
person shall dump any material transported from a loca-
tion outside the United States (I) into the territorial sea
of the United States, or (2) into a zone contiguous to the
territorial sea of the United States, extending to a line
twelve nautical miles seaward from the base line from
which the breadth of the terniorial sea is measured, to
the extent that it may affect the territonal sea or the
territory of the United States.
(Editor’s note: Section 4 of P.L. 95-153 provided for
a ban on dumping of sewage sludge to take effect at the
end of 1981. The following is the relevant section:
Sec. 4. (a) The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (hereinafter referred to in this sec-
tion as the “Administrator”) shall end the dumping
of sewage sludge and inOustrial waste into ocean waters,
or into waters described in section 10 1(b) of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as
soon as possible after the date of enactment of this
section, but except as provided in subsections (b) and
(c) in no case may the Administrator issue any
permit, or any renewal thereof (under title I of such Act
of 1972) which authorizes any such dumping after
December 31, 1981.
(Sec. 4(a) of PL 95-153 amended by PL 96-5721
(b) After December 31, 1981, the Administrator
may issue permits under such title I for the dumping
of industrial w.iste. into ocean waters, or into waters
described in such section 10 1(b), if the Administrator
determines—
(I) that the proposed dumping is necessary to
conduct research—
B— 12
-------
(A) on new technology related to ocean dumping, or
(B) to determine whether the dumping of such
substance will unreasonably degrade or endanger human
health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment.
ecological systems, or economic potentialities.
(2) that the scale of the proposed dumping is such
that the dumping will have minimal adverse impact
upon the human health, welfare, and amenities, and the
marine environment, ecological systems, and economic
potentialities: and
(3) after consultation with the Secretary of Com-
merce, that the potential benefits of such research will
outweigh any such adverse impact.
Each permit issued pursuant to this subsection shall
be subject to such conditions and restrictions as the
Administrator determines to be necessary to minimize
possible adverse impacts of such dumping. No permit
issued by the Administrator pursuant to this subsection
may have an effective period of more than six
consecutive months
[ Sec. 4(b) of PL 95-153 revised by PL 96.572]
(c) After December 31, 1981, the Administrator
may issue emergency permits under such title I for the
dumping of industrial waste into ocean waters, or
into waters described in such section 101(b), if
the Administrator determines that there has been
demonstrated to exist an emergency, requiring the
dumping of such waste, which poses an unacceptable
risk relating to human health and admits of no
other feasible solution As used herein, “emergency”
refers to situations requiring action with a marked
degree of urgency
(d) For purposes of this section—
(I) the term “sewage sludge” means any solid,
semisolid, or liquid waste generated by a municipal
wastewater treatment plant the ocean dumping of which
may unreasonably degrade or endanger human health,
welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment,
ecological systems, and economic potentialities: and
(2) the term “industrial waste” means any solid.
semisolid, or liquid waste generated by a manufacturing
or processing plant the ocean dumping of which may
unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, wel-
fare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological
systems, and economic potentialities
Environmental Protection Agency Permits
Sec. 102. (a) Except in relation to dredged material, as
provided for in section 103 of this title, and in relation to
radiological, chemical, and biological warfare agents and
high-level radioactive waste, for which no permit may be
issued, the Administrator may issue permits, alter notice
and opportunity for public hearings, for the transporta.
lion from the United States or, in the case of a vessel or
atrcraft registered in the United States or flying the
United States flag, in the case of an agency or instru
mentality of the United States, for the transo rtation
from a location outside the United States, of material for
the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters, or for the
dumping of material into the waters described in section
101(b), where the Adrrunistrator determines that such
dumping will not unreasonably degrade or endanger hu-
man health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environ-
ment, ecological systems. or economic potentialities The
Administrator shall establish and apply criteria for review-
ing and evaluating such permit applications, and, in
establishing or revising such criteria, shall consider, but
not be limited in his consideration to, the following
(A) The need for the proposed dumping
(B) The effect of such dumping on human health and
welfare, including economic, esthetic, and recreational
values
(C) The effect of such dumping on fisheries resources.
plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shore lines and beaches
(D) The effect of such dumping on marine ecosystems,
particularly with respect to—
(i) the transfer, concentration, and dispersion of such
material and its byproducts through biological, physical,
and chernicil rocesses.
(ii) poteni I changes in marine ecosystem diversity.
productivity ud stability, and
(iii) specIc .ind community population dynamics
(E The p . rsistence and permanence of the effects of
the dumping
(F) The eitect of dumping particular volumes and
concentrations of such materials
(G) Appropriate locations and methods of disposal or
recycling, including land-based alternatives and the pro.
bable impact of requiring use of such alternate locations
or methods upon consider.itions affecting the public in
terest
(H) The etie t on alternate uses of oceans, such as
scientific study fishing, and other living resource exploita-
tion, and nonliving resource exploitation
(I) In desicnating recommended sites, the Administra-
tor shall utiiize wherever feasible locations beyond the
edge of the (oiitiriental Shelf
B-. 13
-------
In establishing or revising suLh criteria. the Administra-
tar shall Lonsult with Federal. State, and local officials.
and interested members of the general public, as may
appear appropriate to the Administrator With respect to
such criteria as may affect the civil works program of the
Department of the Army, the Administrator shall also
consult with the Secretary In reviewing applications for
permits, the Administrator shall make such provision for
consultation with interested Federal and State agencies as
he deems useful or necessary No permit shall be issued
for a dumping of material which will violate applicable
water quality standards
To the extent that he may do so without relaxing the
requirements of this title, the Administrator, in establish-
ing or revising such criteria, shall apply the standards and
criteria binding upon the United States under the Conven-
tion, including its Annexes
(b) The Administrator may establish and issue various
categories of permits, including the general permits
described in section 104(c)
(c) The Administrator may, considering the criteria
established pursuant to subsection (a) of this section,
de gnate recommended sites or times for dumping and,
when he finds it necessary to protect critical areas, shall,
after consultation with the Secretary, also designat sites
or times within which certain materials may not be
dumped.
(d) o permit is required under this title for the
transportation for dumping or the dumping of fish wastes.
except when deposited in harbors or other protected or
enclosed coastal waters, or where the Administrator finds
that such deposits could endanger health, the environ.
ment. or ecological systems in a specific location Where
the Administrator makes such a finding, such material
may be deposited oniy as authorized by a permit issued
by the Administrator under this section
(e) In the case of transportation of material, by an
agency or instrumentality of the United States or by a
vessel or aircraft registered in the United States or flying
the United States (lag, from a location in a foreign State
Party to the Convention, a permit issued pursuant to the
authority of that foreign State Party, in accordance with
Convention requirements, and which otherwise could have
been issued pursuant to subsection (a) hereof, shall be
accepted, for the purposes of this title, as if it were issued
by the Administrator under the authority of this
section Prowded, That in the case of art agency or
instrumentality of the United States, no application
shall be made for a permit to be issued pursuant to
the authority of a foreign State Party to the Convention
unless the Administrator concurs in the filing of such
application
[ 102(e) amended by PL 96-572J
Corps of Engineers Permits
Sec 103 (a) Subject to the provisions of subsections
(b), (c), and (d) of this section, the Secretary may issue
permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearings,
for the transportation of dredged material for the purpose
of dumping it into ocean waters, where the Secretary
determines that the dumping will not unreasonably de.
grade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or
the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic
potentialities
(b) In making the determination required by subsec-
tion (a), the Secretary shall apply those criteria, estab-
lished pursuant to section 102(a), relating to the effects
of the dumping Based upon an evaluation of the poten.
tial effect of a permit denial on navigation, economic and
industrial development, and foreign and domestic com-
merce of the United States, the Secretary shall make an
independent determination as to the need for the dump.
ing. The Secretary shall also make an independent deter-
mination as to other possible methods of disposal and as
to appropnate locations for the dumping In considenng
appropnate locations, he shall, to the extent feasible,
utilize the recommended sites designated by the Adinin-
istrator pursuant to section 102(c).
(c) Pnor to issuing any permit under this section, the
Secretary shall first notify the Administrator of his iriten.
tion to do so l:t any case in which the Administrator
disagrees with the determination of the Secretary as to
compliance with the cnteria established pursuant to sec
tion 102(a) relating to the effects of the dumping or with
the restrictions established pursuant to section 102(c),
relating to critical areas, the determination of the Adn’irn-
istrator shall prevail. Unless the Administrator grants a
waiver pursuant to subsection (d), the Secretary shall not
issue a permit which does not comply with such cnteria
and with such restrictions.
(d) If, in any case, the Secretary finds that, in the
disposition of dredged material, there is no economically
feasible method or site available other than a dumping
site the utilization of which would result in noncom-
pliance with the criteria established pursuant to section
102(a) relating to the effects of dumping or with the
restrictions established pursuant to section 102(c) relating
B— 14
-------
to critical areas, he shall so certity and request a waiver
from the Administrator of the specific requi(ements in-
volved Within thirty days of the receipt of the waiver
request, unless the Administrator finds that the dumping
of the material will result in an unacceptably adverse
impact on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, wild-
life, fisheries (including spawning arid breeding areas), or
recreational areas, he shall grant the waiver
(e) In connection with Federal projects involving
dredged material, the Secretary may, in lieu of the permit
procedure, issue regulations which will require the applica-
tion to such projects of the same criteria, other factors o
be evaluated, the same procedures, and the same require-
ments which apply to the issuance of permits under
subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
Permit Conditions
Sec 104. (a) Permits issued under this title shall
designate and include (I) the type of material authorized
to be transported for dumping or to be dumped, (2) the
amount of material authorized to be transported for
dumping or to be dumped; (3) the location where such
transport for dumping will be terminated or where such
dumping will occur, (4) the length of time for which the
permits are valid and their expiration date, (5) any special
provisions deemed necessary by the Administrator or the
Secretary, as the case may be, after consultation with the
Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is
operating, for the monitoring and surveillance of the
transportation or dumping, and (6) such other matters as
the Administrator or the Secretaty, as the case may be,
deems appropriate.
(b) The Administrator or the Secretary, as the case
may be, may prescribe such processing fees for permits
and such reporting requirements for actions taken pur-
suant to permits issued by him under Ilus title as he
deems appropriate.
(c) Consistent with the requirements of sections 102
and 103, but in lieu of a requirement for specific permits
in such case, the Administrator or the Secretary, as the
case may be, may issue general permits for the transporta
non for dumping, or dumping, or both, of specified
materials or classes of materials for which he may issue
permits, which he determines will have a minimal adverse
environmental impact.
(d) Any pernnt i ued under this title shall be reviewed
periodically and, if’ appropriate, revised. The Administra-
tor or the Secretaiy, as the case may be, may limit or
deny the issuance of permits, or he may alter or revoke
partially or entirely the terms of permits issued by him
under this title, for the transportation for dumping, or for
the dumping, or both, of specified materials or classes of
materials, where he finds that such materials cannot be
dumped consistently with the criteria and other factors
required to be applied in evaluating the permit applica-
tion No action shall be taken under this subsection unless
the affected person or permittee shall have been given
notice and opportunity for a hearing on such action as
proposed
(e) The Administrator or the Secretary, as the case
may be, shall require an applicant for a permit under this
title to provide such information as he may consider
necessary to review and evaluate such application.
(1) Information received by the Administrator or the
Secretary, as the case may be, as a part of any application
or in connection with any permit granted under this title
shall be available to the public as a matter of public
record, at every stage of the proceeding The final deter-
mination of the Administrator or the Secretary, as the
case may be, shall be likewise available.
(g) A copy of any permit issued under this title shaU
be placed in a conspicuous place in the vessel which will
be used for the transportation or dumping authorized by
such permit, and an additional copy shall be furnished by
the issuing official to the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating, or its desi ee.
(h) Notwithstanding any provision of title I of the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 to the contrary, during the two-year period begin-
ning on the date of enactment of this subsection, no
permit may be issued under such title I that authorizes
the dumping of any low-level radioactive waste unless
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency deterrriines—.
(I) that the proposed dumping is necessary to conduct
research—
(A) on new technology related to ocean dumping, or
(B) to determine the degree to which the dumping of
such substance will degrade the marine environment;
(2) that the scale of the proposed dumping is limited
to the smallest amount of such material and the shortest
duration of time that is necessary to fulfill the purposes
of the research, such that the dumping will have minimal
adverse impact upon human health, welfare, and amerii-
ties, and the marine environment, ecological systems,
economic potentialities, and other legitimate t ses;
(3) after consultation with the Secretary of Corn.
merce, that the potential benefits of such research will
outweigh any such adverse impact; and
B— 15
-------
(4) that the proposed dumping will be preceded by
appropriate baseline monitoring studies of the proposed
dump site and its surrounding environment.
Each permit issued pursuant to this subsection shall
be subject to such conditions and restrictions as the
Administrator determines to be necessary to minimize
possible adverse impacts of such dumping.
(i)( I) Two years after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the Administrator may not issue a permit
under this title for the disposal of radioactive waste
material until the applicant, in addition to complying
with all other requirements of this title, prepares, with
respect to the site at which the disposal is proposed, a
Radioactive Material Disposal Impact Assessment
which shall include—
(A) a listing of all radioactive materials in each
container to be disposed, the number of containers to be
dumped, the structural diagrams of each container, the
number of curies of each material in each container, and
the exposure levels in rems at the inside and outside of
each container:
(B) an analysis of the environmental impact of the
proposed action, at the site at which the applicant
desires to dispose of the material, upon human health
and welfare and marine life;
(C) any adverse environmental effects at the site
which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented;
(D) an analysis of the resulting environmental and
economic conditions if the containers fail to contain the
radioactive waste material when initially deposited at
the specific site;
(E) a plan for the removal or containment of the
disposed nuclear material if the container leaks or
decomposes;
(F) a determination by each affected State whether
the proposed action is consistent with its approved Coast-
al Zone Management Program;
(G) an analysis of the economic impact upon other
users of marine resources;
(H) alternatives to the proposed action;
(I) comments and results of consultation with State
officials and public hearings held in the coastal States
that are nearest to the affected areas;
(J) a comprehensive monitoring plan to be carried out
by the applicant to determine the full effect of the
disposal on the marine environment, living resources, or
human health, which plan shall include, but not be
limited to, the monitoring of exterior container radiation
samples, the taking of water and sediment samples, and
fish and benthic animal samples. adjacent to the contain-
ers, and the acquisition of such other information as the
Administrator may require; and
(K) such other information which the Administrator
may require in order to determine the full effects of such
disposal
(2) The Administrator shall include, in any permit to
which paragraph (1) applies, such terms and conditions
as may be necessary to ensure that the monitoring plan
required under paragraph (1)(J) is fully implemented,
including the analysis by the Administrator of the sam-
ples required to be taken under the plan
(3) The Administrator shah submit a copy of the
assessment prepared under paragraph (I) with respect to
any permit to the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries of the House of Representatives and the Com-
mittee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate
(4) (A) Upon a determination by the Administrator
that a permit to which this subsection applies should be
issued, the Administrator shall transmit tuch a recom-
mendation to the House of Representatives and the
Senate.
(B) No permit may be issued by the Administrator
under this Act for the disposal of radioactive materials
in the ocean unless the Congress, by approval of a
resolution described in paragraph (D) within 90 days of
continuous session of the Congress beginning on the date
after the date of receipt by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of such recommendation, authorizes the
Administrator to grant a permit to dispose of radioactive
material under this Act.
(C) For purposes of this subsection—
(1) continuity 01 ession of the Congress is broken only
by an adjournment sine die;
(2) the days on which either House is not in session
because of an adjournment of more than three days to a
day certain are excluded in the computation of the 90
day calendar period.
(D) For the purposes of this subsection, the term
resolution’ means a joint resolution, the resolving clause
of which is as foIlows That the House of Representa-
tives and the Senate approve and authorize the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection Agency to grant
a permit under the Marine Protection, Research. and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to dispose of radioactive materi-
als in the ocean as recommended by the Administrator
to the Congress on * 19_.’, the first blank space
therein to be filled with the appropriate applicant to
dispose of nuclear material and the second blank therein
to be filled with the date on which the Administrator
B—i 6
-------
submits the recommendation to the House of Represen-
tatives and the Senate.
[ 104(h) and (i) added by PL 97-424]
Special Provisioiis Regarding Certain Dumping Sites
[ 104A added by PL 1004]
Sec 104A. (a) New York Bight Apex.—(1) For
purposes of this subsection:
(A) The term “Apex” means the New York Bight
Apex consisting of the ocean waters of the Atlantic
Ocean westward of 73 degrees 30 minutes west longitude
and northward of 40 degrees 10 minutes north latitude
(B) The term “Apex site” means that site within the
Apex at which the dumping of municipal sludge oc-
curred before October 1, 1983
(C) The term “eligible authority” means any sewer-
age authority or other unit of State or local government
that on November 2, 1983, was authorized under court
order to dump municipal sludge at the Apex site.
(2) No person may apply for a permit under this title
in relation to the dumping of, or the transportation for
purposes of dumping, municipal sludge within the Apex
unless that person is an eligible authority
(3) The Administrator may not issue, or renew, any
permit under this title that authorizes the dumping of, or
the transportation for purposes of dumping, municipal
sludge within the Apex after the earlier of—
(A) December 15, 1987; or
(B) the day determined by the Administrator to be the
first day on which municipal sludge generated by eligible
authorities can reasonably be dumped at a site designat-
ed under section 102 other than a site within the Apex.
(b) Restriction on Use of the 106-Mile Site — The
Administrator may not issue or renew any permit under
this title which authorizes any person, other than a
person that is an eligible authority within the meaning of
subsection (a)(1)(C), to dump, or to transport for the
purposes of dumping, municipal sludge within the site
designated under section 102(c) by the Administrator
and known as the “106-Mile Ocean Waste Dump Site”
(as described in 49 F.R. 19005).
Penalties
Sec. 105 (a) Any person who violates any provision of
this title, or of the regulations promulgated under this
title, or a pernut issued under this title shall be liable to a
civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation
to be assessed by , 1it Administrator. No penalty shall be
assessed until the person charged shall have been given
notice and an oppoltunaty for a hearing of such violation.
In determining the amount of the penalty, the gravity of
the violation, prior violations, and the demonstrated good
faith of the person charged in attempting to achieve rapid
compliance after notification of a violation shall be
considered by said Administrator For good cause shown,
the Administrator may remit or mitigate such penalty
Upon failure of the offending party to pay the penalty
the Administrator may request the Attorney General to
commence an action in the appropriate district court of
the United States for such rehef as may be appropnate.
(b) In addition to any action which’ may be brought
under subsection (a) of this section, a person who know.
ingly violates this title, regulations promulgated under this
title, or a permit issued under this title shall be fined not
more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than one
year, or both.
(c) For the purpose of imposing civil penalties and
criminal fines under this section each day of a continuing
violation shall constitute a separate offense as shall the
dumping from each of several vessels, or other sources.
(d) The Attorney General or his delegate may bring
actions for equitable relief to enjoin an imminent or
continuing violation of this title, of regulations promul.
gated under this title, or of permits issued under this title.
and the district courts of the United States shall have
jurisdiction to grant such relief as the equities of the case
may require.
(e) A vessel, except a public vessel within the meaning
of section 13 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended (33 U.S.C. 1163), used in a violation, shall be
liable in rem for any civil penalty assessed or criminal fine
imposed and may be proceeded against in any district
court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof; but
no vessel shall be liable unless it shall appear that one or
more of the owners, or bareboat charterers, was at the
time of the violation a consenting party or pnvy to such
violation.
(I) If the provisions of any permit issued under section
102 or 103 are violated, the Administrator or the Sec.
retary, as the ease may be, may revoke the permit or may
suspend the permit for a specified period of time No
permit shall be revoked or suspended unless the pemmittee
shall have been given notice and opportunity for a heanng
on such violation and proposed suspension or revocation.
(g) (I) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this
subsection any person may commence a civil suit on his
own behalf to enjoin any person, including the United
States and any other governmental instrumentality or
agency (to the extent permitted by the eleventh amend.
ment to the Constitution), who is alleged to be in
violation of any prohibition, limitation, criterion, or per.
mit established or issued by or under this title. The
district courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to
the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the
parties, to enforce such prohibition, limitation, criterion,
or permit, as the case may be.
(2) No action may be commenced—
(A) prior to sixty days after notice of the violation has
been given to the Administrator or the Secretary, and to
B— 17
-------
any alleged violator of the prohibition, limitation, crite-
rion, or permit. or
(B) if the Attorney General has commenced and is
diligently prosecuting a civil action in a court of the
United States to require compliance with the prohibition,
limitation, criterion, or permit, or
(C) if the Administrator has commenced action to
impose a penalty pursuant to subsection (a) of this
section, or if the Administrator, or the Secretary, has
initiated permit revocation or suspension proceedings
under subsection (f) of this section. or
(D) if the United States has commenced and is dili-
gently prosecuting a criminal action in a court of the
United States or a State to redress a violation of this title.
(3) (A) Any suit under this subsection may be brought
in the judicial district in which the violation occurs.
(B) In any such suit under this subsection in which the
United States is not a party, the Attorney General, at the
request of the Administrator or Secretary, may intervene
on behalf of the United States as a matter of right.
(4) The Court, in issuing any fInal order in any suit
brought pursuant to paragraph (I) of this subsection may
award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney
and expert witness fees) to any party, whenever the court
determines such award is appropnate.
(5) The injunctive relief provided by this subsection
shall not restrict any right which any person (or class of
persons) may have under any statute or common law to
seek enforcement of any standard or limitation or to seek
any other relief (including relief against the Administra.
tot, the Secretary, or a State agency).
(h) No person shall be subject to a civil penalty or to
a criminal tine or imprisonment for dumping materials
from a vessel if such materials are dumped in an emer-
gency to safeguard life at sea. Any such emergency dump-
ing shall be reported to the Administrator under such
conditions as he may prescribe.
Relationship to Other Laws
Sec 106 (a) After the effective date of this title, all Ii.
censes, permits, and authorizations other than those
issued pursuant to this title shall be void and of no legal
effect, to the extent that they purport to authorize any
activity regulated by this title, arid whether issued before
or after the effective date of this title.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to
actions taken before the effective date of this title under
the authority of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (30
Stat. 1151), as amended (33 U S.C. 401 et seq.)
(c) Pnor to issuing any permit under this title, if it
appears to the Administrator that the disposition of mate-
rial, other than dredged material. may adversely affect
navigation in the territorial sea of the United States, or in
the approaches to any harbor of the United States. or
may create an artificial island on the Outer Continental
Shelf, the Adrrunistraror shall Lonsult with the Secretary
and no permit shall be issued it the Secretary determines
that navigation will be unreasonably impaired
(d) After the effective date of this ntle. no State shall
adopt or enforce any rule or regulation relating to .iny
activity regulated by this title Any State may however.
propose to the Administrator criteria relating to the
dumping of materials into ocean waers within its jurisdic.
lion, or into other ocean waters to the extent that such
dumping may affect waters within the jurisdiction of such
State. and if the Administrator determines, after notice
and opportunity for hearing, that the proposed criteria
are not inconsistent with the purposes of this title. may
adopt those criteria and may issue regulations to imple.
merit such criteria. Such determination shall be made by
the Administrator within one hundred and twenty days of
receipt of the proposed criteria For the purposes of this
subsection, the term “State” means any State, interstate
or re onal authority, Federal territory or Commonwealth
or the District of Columbia.
(e) Nothing in this title shall be deemed to affect in
any manner or to any extent any provision of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act as amended (16 U.S.C
66 1-666c).
(f) In addition to other provisions of law and not-
withstanding the specific exclusion relating to dredged
material in the flrst sentence in section 102(a) of
this Act, the dumping of dredged material in Long
Island Sound from any Federal project (or pursuant
to Federal authorization) or from a dredging project
by a non-Federal applicant exceeding 25.000 cubic yards
shall comply with the criteria established pursuant to
the second Sentence of section 102(a) of the Act
relating to the effects of dumping. Subsection (d)
of this section shall not apply to this subsection.
[ 106(f) added by PL 96-572]
(g) SAVINGS CLAUSE —Nothing in this Act shall
restrict, affect or modify the rights of any person (1) to
seek damages or enforcement of any standard or limita-
tion under State law, including State common law, or
(2) to seek damages under other Federal law, including
maritime tort law, resulting from noncompliance with
any requirement of this Act or any permit under this
Act
[ 106(g) added by PL 99-499]
Enforcement
Sec. 107. (a) The Administrator or the Secretary, as
the case may be, may, whenever appropriate, utilize by
agreement, the personnel, services and facilities of other
Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, or
State agencies or instrumentalities, whether on a reim-
B— 18
-------
bursable or a nonreinibursable basis. in carrying out his
responsibilities under this title.
(b) The Administrator or the Secretary may delegate
responsibility and authority for reviewing and evaluating
permit applications, including the decision as to whether a
permit will be issued, to an officer of his agency, or he
may delegate, by a&eement, such responsibility and au-
thority to the heads of other Federal departments or
agencies, whether on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable
basis.
(c) The Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating shall conduct surveillance and
other appropriate enforcement activity to prever.t unlaw-
ful transportation of material for dumping, or untawful
dumping. Such enforcement activity shall include, but nor
be limited to. enforcement of regulations issued by him
pursuant to section 108, relating to safe transportation,
handling, carriage, storage, and stowage The Secretary ol
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
shall supply to the Administrator and to the Attorney
General, as appropriate, such information of enforcement
activities and such evidentiary material assembled .is they
may require in carrying out their duties relative to penal-
ty assessments, criminal prosecutions, or other actions in-
volving litigation pursuant to the provisions of this title
Regulations
Sec. 108. In carrying out the responsibilities and au-
thority conferred by this title, the Administrator, the Sec-
retary, and the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating are authorized to issue such reg-
ulations as they may deem appropriate
International Cooperation
Sec. 109. The Secretary of State, itt consultation with
the Administrator, shall seek effective international action
and cooperation to insure protection of the marine en-
vironment, and may, for this purpose, formulate, present,
or support specific proposals in the United Nations and
other competent international organizations for the devel-
opment of appropriate international rules and regulations
in support of the policy of this Act
Effective Date and Savings Provisions
Sec 110, (a) 11 ’us title shall take effect six months
after the date of the enactment of this Act
(b) No legal action begun, or right of action accrued,
pnor to the effective date of this title shall be affected by
any provision of ttus title.
Sec. 111. There are hereby authorized to be appro-
pnated not to exceed $3,600,000 for fiscal year 1973.
not to exceed $5,500,000 for each of the fiscal years
1974 and 1975, not to exceed S5,300,000 for fiscal year
1976, not to exceed $1,325,000 for the transition period
(July I through September 30, 1976), not to exceed
$4,800,000 for fiscal 1977. not to exceed S4 800 000
a
for fiscal year 1978, not to exceed S2,000.000 for
each of fiscal year 1980. fiscal year 1981. and not to ex-
ceed 54,213,000 for fiscal year 1982. for the purposes and
administration of this title, and for succeeding fiscal
years only such sums as the Congress may authorize law
[ Ill amended b PL 96-572. PL 97-161
Sec 112 The Administrator shall on or before Febru-
ary I of each year report to the Congress on the
administration of this title during the preceding fiscal
Year, including recommendations for additional legisla-
tion if deemed necessary
[ 112 revised by PL 96-4701
TITLE II — COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH
ON OCEAN DUMPING
Set. 201 The Secretary of Commerce. in coordination
with the Secretary 01 the Department in which ihe Coast
Guard is operating and with the Administrator shall with-
in six months of the enactment of this Act [ October 23,
1972), initiate a comprehensive and continuing program
of monitoring and research regarding the effects of the
dumping of material into ocean waters or other coastal
waters where the tide ebbs and flows or into the Great
Lakes or their connecting waters
[ 201 amended by PL 99-2721
Sec 202 (a)( I) The Secretary of Commerce, in close
consultation with other appropriate Federal depart-
ments, agencies. and instrumentalities shall, within six
months of the enactment of this Act, initiate a compre-
hensive and continuing program of research with respect
to the possible long-range effects of pollution, overfish-
ing, and man-induced changes of ocean ecosystems
These respon i -ilities shall include the scientific assess-
ment of damaccs to the natural resources from spills of
petroleum or retroleum products. In carrying out such
research, the “ ccretary of Commerce shall take into
account such tactors as existing and proposed interna-
tional policies affecting oceanic problems. economic con-
siderations involved in both the protection and the use of
the oceans, possible alternatives to existing programs,
and ways in which the health of the oceans may best be
preserved for the benefit of succeeding generations of
mankind
[ 202(a) amended by PL 96-381. (a)(1) designated and
amended by PL 99-2721
(2) The Secretary of Commerce shall ensure that the
program under this section complements, when appropri-
ate, the activities undertaken by other Federal agencies
pursuant to title I and section 203. That program shall
include but not be limited to —
(A) the development and assessment of scientific tech-
niques to define and quantify the degradation of the
marine environment;
(B) the assessment of the capacity of the marine
environment to receive materials without degradation.
B— 19
-------
(C) continuing monitoring programs to assess the
health of the marine environment, including but not
limited to the monitoring of bottom oxygen concentra-
tions, contaminant levels in biota, sediments, and the
water column. diseases in fish and shellfish, and changes
in types and abundance of indicator species.
(D) the development of methodologies, techniques.
and equipment for disposal of waste materials to mini-
mize degradation of the marine environment
[ 202(a)(2) added by PL 99-2721
(bi In carrying Out Pus responsibilities under this
section, the Secretary ot Commerce, under the foreign
policy guidance of the President and pursuant to inter-
national agreements and treaties made by the President
with the advice and consent of the Senate, may act alone
or in conjunction with any other nation or group of
nations, and shall make known the results of Pus activities
by such channels of cominumcation as may appear appro-
pnate.
(c) Each department, agency, and independent instru-
mentality of the Federal Government is authorized and
directed to cooperate with the Secretary of Commerce in
carrying out the purposes of this section and, to the ex-
tent permitted by law, to furnish such information as
may be requested.
[ Former 202(c) as amended by PL 96-470 was deleted
and former subsections (d) and (e) were redesignated as
(c) and (d), respectively, by PL 99-272]
(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in carrying out his
responsibilities under ttus section, shall, to the extent
feasible utilize the personnel, services, and facilities of
other Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities
(including those of the Coast Guard for monitoring pur-
poses), and is authorized to enter into appropriate inter.
agency agreements to accomplish this action.
Sec. 203. (a) The Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency shall—
(I) conduct research, investigations, experiments,
training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies for the
purpose of—
(A) determining means of minimizing or ending,
as soon as possible after the date of the enactment of
this section, the dumping into ocean waters, or
waters described in section 101(b), of material which
may unreasonably degrade or endanger human health,
welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment,
ecological systems, or economic potentialities, and
(B) developing diaposal methods as alternatives
to the dumping described in subparagraph (A); and
(2) encourage, cooperate with, promote the coordina-
tion of, and render financial and other assistance to
appropriate public authorities, agencies, and institutions
(whether Federal, State, interstate, or local) and
appropriate private agencies, institutions, and individuals
in the conduct of research and other activities described
in paragraph (I).
(b) Nothing n this section shall be construed to
affect in any way the December 31, 1981, termination
date, established in section 4 of the Act of November 4,
1977 (Public Law 95-15); 33 U.S.C. 14l2a) for
the ocean dumping of sewage sludge.
[ 203 revised by PL 96-381]
(c) The Administrator, in cooperation with the Secre-
tary. the Secretary of Commerce, arid other officials of
appropriate Federal, State. and local agencies, shall
assess the feasibility in coastal areas of regional manage-
ment plans for the disposal of waste materials. Such
plans should integrate where appropriate Federal, State,
regional, and local waste disposal activities into a com-
prehensive regional disposal strategy. These plans should
address, among other things —
(I) the sources, quantities, and types of materials that
require and will require disposal;
(2) the environmental, economic, social, and human
health factors (and the methods used to assess these
factors) associated with disposal alternatives;
(3) the improvements in production processes, meth-
ods of disposal, and recycling to reduce the adverse
effects associated with such disposal alternatives;
(4) the applicable laws and regulations governing
waste disposal: and
(5) improvements in permitting processes to reduce
administrative burdens.
[ 203(c) added by PL 99-272]
(d) The Administrator, in cooperation with the Secre-
tary of Commerce shall submit to the Congress and the
President, not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this provision, a report on sewage sludge
disposal in the New York City metropolitan region. The
report shall —
(1) consider the factors listed in subsection (c) as they
relate to landfilling. incineration, ocean dumping, or any
other feasible disposal or reuse/recycling option;
(2) include an assessment of the cost of these alterna-
tives: and
(3) recommend such regulatory or legislative changes
as may be necessary to reduce the adverse impacts
associated with sewage sludge disposal.
[ 203(d) added by PL 99.272]
Annual Report
Sec. 204. (a) ‘n March of each year, the Secretary of
Commerce shall report to the Congress on his activities
under this title during the previous fiscal year. The
report shall include —
(I) the Secretary’s findings made under section 201,
including an evaluation of the short-term ecological
B—20
-------
effects and the social and economic factors involved with
the dumping,
(2) the results of activities undertaken pursuant to
section 202;
(3) with the concurrence of the Administrator and
after consulting with officials of other appropriate Fed-
eral agencies, an identification of the short and long-
term research requirements associated with activities
under title I, and a description of how Federal research
under titles I and [ I will meet those requirements, and
(4) activities of the Department of Commerce under
section 5 of the Act of March 10. 1934 (48 Stat. 401; 16
USC 665).
(b) In March of each year, the Administrator shall
report to the Congress on his activities during the pre-
vious fiscal year under section 203
[ 205 added by PL 96-572; revised and redesignated as
204 by PL 99-2721
Sec 205 There are authorized to be appropriated for
the first fiscal year after this Act is enacted and for the
next two fiscal years thereafter such sums as may be
necessary to carty out this title, but the sums appro.
pnated for any such fiscal year may not exceed
$6,000,000. There axe authorized to be appropriated not
to exceed $1,500,000 for the transition period (July I
through September 30, 1976), not to exceed $5,600,000
for fiscal year 1977. not to exceed $6,500,000 for
fiscal year 1978, not to exceed $11,396,000 for fiscal
year 1981. not to exceed $12,000,000 for fiscalyear
1982, not to exceed $10,635,000 for fiscal year 1986.
and not to exceed $11,114,000 for fiscal year 1987
(204 amended by PL 96-381; amended and redesignated
as 205 by PL 99-272)
TITLE III — NATIONAL MARINE SANCIUARIES
[ Title 111 revised by P1 98-4981
Sec. 301. Findings, Purposes, and Policies.
(a) Findings — The Congress finds that —
(1) this Nation historically has recognized the impor-
tance of protecting special areas of its public domain,
but these efforts have been directed almost exclusively to
land areas above the high-water mark:
(2) certain areas of the marine environment possess
conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, re-
search, educational, or esthetic qualitLes which give them
special national significance;
(3) while the need to control the effects of particular
activities has led to enactment of resource-specific legis-
lation, these laws cannot in all cases provide a coordinat-
ed and comprehensive approach to the conservation and
management of special areas of the marine environment;
(4) a Federal program which identifies special areas
of the marine environment will contribute positively to
marine resources conservation and management; and
(5) such a Federal program will also serve to enhance
use of the marine environment.
(b) Purposes and Policies. — The purposes and poli-
cies of this title are —
(I) to identify areas of the marine environment of
special national significance due to their resource or
human-use values,
(2) to provide authority for comprehensive and coordi-
nated conservation and management of these marine
areas that will complement existing regulatory
authorities,
(3) to support, promote, and coordinate scientific
research on, and monitoring of, the resources of these
marine areas,
(4) to enhance public awareness, understanding, ap-
preciation, and wise use of the marine environment, and
(5) to facilitate, to the extent compatible with the
primary objective of resource protection. all public and
private uses of the resources of these marine areas not
prohibited pursuant to other authorities.
Sec 302. Definitions.
As used in this title, the term —
(1) ‘draft management plan’ means the plan described
in section 304(a)(1)(E);
(2) ‘Magnuson Act’ means the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U S C 1801 et
seq);
(3) ‘marine environment’ means those areas of coastal
and ocean waters, the Great Lakes and their connecting
waters, and submerged lands over which the United
States exercises jurisdiction, consistent with internation-
al law;
(4) ‘Secretary’ means the Secretary of Commerce;
and
(5) ‘State’ means each of the several States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of
the United States.
Sec. 303 Sanctuary Designation Standards.
(a) Standards —The Secretary may designate any
discrete area of the marine environment as a national
marine sanctuary and promulgate regulations imple-
menting the designation if the Secretary—
(1) determines that the designation will fulfill the
purposes and policies of this title: and
(2) finds that—
(A) the area is of special national significance due to
its resource or human-use values;
(B) existing State and Federal authorities are inad-
equate to ensure coordinated and comprehensive conser-
vation and management of the area, including resource
protection, scientific research, and public education;
(C) designation of the area as a national marine
— ,I r ..i
tBb and
B—2 1
-------
(D) the area is of a size and nature that will permit
comprehensive and coordinated conservation and
management
(b) Factors and Consultations Required in Making
Determinations and Findings.—
(I) Factors.—For purposes of determining if an area
of the marine environment meets the standards set forth
in subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider—
(A) the area’s natural resource and ecological quali-
ties, including its contribution to biological productivity.
maintenance of ecosystem structure, maintenance of
ecologically or commercially important or threatened
species or species assemblages, and the biogeographic
epresentation of the site;
(B) the area’s historical, cultural, archaeological, or
paleontological significance:
(C) the present and potential uses of the area that
depend on maintenance of the area’s resources, including
commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence uses.
other commercial and recreational activities, and re-
search and education;
(D) the present and potential activities that may
adversely affect the factors identified in subparagraphs
(A). (B), (C);
(E) the existing State and Federal regulatory and
management authorities applicable to the area and the
adequacy of those authorities to fulfill the purposes and
policies of this title:
(F) the manageability of the area, including such
factors as its size, its ability to be identified as a discrete
ecological unit with definable boundaries, its accessibil-
ity, and its suitability for monitoring and enforcement
activities,
(G) the public benefits to be derived from sanctuary
status, with emphasis on the benefits of long-term pro-
tection of nationally significant resources, vital habitats,
and resources which generate tourism:
(H) the negative impacts produced by management
restrictions on income-generating activities such as living
and nonliving resources development; and
(I) the socioeconomic effects of sanctuary designation.
(2) Consultation.—ln making determinations and
findings, the Secretary shall consult with—
(A) the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisher-
ies of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate;
(B) the Secretaries of State, Defense, Transportation,
and the Interior, the Administrator, and the heads of
other interested Federal agencies;
(C) the responsible officials or relevant agency heads
of the appropriate State and local government entities,
including coastal zone management agencies, that will or
are likely to be affected by the establishment of the area
as a national marine sanctuary;
(D) the appropriate officials of any Regional Fishery
Management Council established by section 302 of the
Magnuson Act (16 U.S C 1852) that may be affected
by the proposed designation: and
(E) other interested persons
(3) Resource Assessment Report.—ln making deter-
minations and findings, the Secretary shall draft, as part
of the environmental impact statement referred to in
section 304(a)( 1), a resource assessment report docu-
menting present and potential uses of the area, including
commercial and recreational fishing, research and edu-
cation, minerals and energy development, subsistence
uses, and other commercial or recreational uses The
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, shall draft a resource assessment section for the
report regarding any commercial or recreational re-
source uses in the area under consideration that are
subject to the primary jurisdiction of the Department of
the Interior.
Sec. 304 Procedures for Designation and
Implementation.
(a) Sanctuary Proposal.—
(1) Notice —In proposing to designate a national
marine sanctuary, the Secretary shall—
(A) issue, in the Federal Register, a notice of the
proposal, proposed regulations that may be necessary
and reasonable to implement the proposal, and a sum-
mary of the draft management plan;
(B) provide notice of the proposal in newspapers of
general circulation or electronic media in the communi-
ties that may be affected by the proposal: and
(C) on the same day the notice required by subpara-
graph (A) is issued, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Com-
merce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a
prospectus on the proposal which shall contain—
(i) the terms of the proposed designation;
(ii) the basis of the findings made under section
303(a) with respect to the area;
(iii) an assessment of the considerations under section
303(b)( 1);
(iv) proposed mechanisms to coordinate existing regu-
latory and management authorities within the area:
(v) the draft management plan detailing the proposed
goals and objectives, management responsibilities, re-
source studies, interpretive and educational programs,
and enforcement, including surveillance activities for the
area;
(vi) an estimate of the annual cost of the proposed
designation, including costs of personnel, equipment and
facilities, enforcement, research, and public education;
(vii) the draft environmental impact statement:
(viii) an evaluation of the advantages of cooperative
State and Federal management if all or part of a
B—22
-------
proposed marine sanctuary is within the territorial limits
of any State or is superjacent to the subsoil and seabed
within the seaward boundary of a State, as that bound-
ary is established undcr the Submerged Lands Act (43
USC 1301 etseq.);and
(ix) the proposcd regulations referred to in subpara-
graph (A).
(2) Environmental Impact Statement.—The Secre-
tary shall—
(A) prepare a draft environmental impact statement,
as provided by the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 USC. 4321 et seq.). on the proposal that
includes the resource assessment report required under
section 303(b)(3). maps depicting the boundaries of the
proposed designated area, and the existing and potential
uses and resources of the area, and
(B) make copies of the draft environmental impact
statement available to the public.
(3) Public Hearing —No sooner than thirty days after
issuing a notice under this subsection, the Secretary shall
hold at least one public hearing in the coastal area or
areas that will be most affected by the proposed designa-
tion of the area as a national marine sanctuary for the
purpose of receiving the views of interested parties.
(4) Terms of Designation. — The terms of designation
of a sanctuary shall include the geographic area pro-
posed to be included within the sanctuary, the character-
istics of the area that give it conservation, recreational,
ecological, historical, research, educational, or esthetic
value, and the types of activities that will be subject to
regulation by the Secretary to protect those characteris-
tics The terms of designation may be modified only by
the same procedures by which the original designation is
made.
(5) Fishing Regulations. — The Secretary shall pro-
vide the appropriate Regional Fishery Management
Council with the opportunity to prepare draft regula-
tions for fishing within the United States Fishery Con-
servation Zone as the Council may deem necessary to
implement the proposed designation. Draft regulations
prepared by the Council, or a Council determination
that regulations are not necessary pursuant to this para-
graph. shall be accepted and issued as proposed regula-
tions by the Secretary unless the Secretary finds that the
Council’s action fails to fulfill the purposes and policies
of this title and the goals and objectives of the proposed
designation. En pTcparing the draft regulations, a Re-
gional Fishery Management Council shall use as guid-
ance the national standards of section 301(a) of the
Magnuson Act (16 U.S.C. 1851) to the extent that the
standards are consistent and compatible with the goals
and objectives of the proposed designation. The Secre-
tary shall prepare the fishing regulations, if the Council
declines to make a determination with respect to the
need for regulations, makes a determination which is
rejected by the Secretary, or fails to prepare the draft
regulations in a timely manner Any amendments to the
fishing regulations shall be drafted, approved, and issued
in the same manner as the original regulations
(6) Committee Action — After receiving the prospec-
tus under subsection (a)( I )(C), the Committee on Mer-
chant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representa-
tives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate may each hold hearings on
the proposed designation and on the matters set forth in
the prospectus If within the forty-five day period of
continuous session of Congress beginning on the date of
submission of the prospectus, either Committee issues a
report concerning matters addressed in the prospectus.
the Secretary shall consider this report before publishing
a notice to designate the national marine sanctuary
(b) Taking Effect of Designations. —
(I) Notice. — In designating a national marine sanc-
tuary, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register
notice of the designation together with final regulations
to implement the designation and any other matters
required by law, and submit such notice to the Congress
The Secretary shall advise the public of the availability
of the final management plan and the final environmen-
tal impact statement with respect to such sanctuary No
notice of designation may occur until the expiration of
the period for Committee action under subsection (a)(6).
The designation (and any of its terms not disapproved
under this subsection) and regulations shall take effect
and become final after the close of a review period of
forty-five days of continuous session of Congress begin-
ning on the day on which such notice is published
unless —
(A) the designation or any of its terms is disapproved
by enactmeni of a Joint resolution of disapproval de-
scribed in paragraph (3); or
(B) in the case of a natural marine sanctuary that is
located partially or entirely within the seaward boundary
of any State. the Governor affected certifies to the
Secretary that the designation or any of its terms is
unacceptable, in which case the designation or the unac-
ceptable term shall not take effect in the area of the
sanctuary lying within the seaward boundary of the
State
(2) Withdrawal of Designation. — If the Secretary
considers that actions taken under paragraph (l)(A) or
(B) will affect the designation of a national marine
sanctuary in a manner that the goals and objectives of
the sanctuary cannot be fulfilled, the Secretary may
withdraw the entire designation. If the Secretary does
not withdraw the designation, only those terms of the
designation not disapproved under paragraph (1)(A) or
not certified under paragraph (l)(B) shall take effect
(3) Resolution of Disapproval. — For the purposes of
this subsection, the term resolution of disapproval’
B— 23
-------
means a joint resolution which states after the resolving
clause the following: “That the Congress disapproves the
national marine sanctuary designation entitled
that was submitted to Congress by the Secre-
tary of Commerce on “, the first blank
space being filled with the title of the designation and
the second blank space being filled with the date on
which the notice was submitted to Congress. In the event
that the disapproval is addressed to one or more terms of
the designation, the joint resolution shall state after the
resolving clause the following “That the Congress ap-
proves the national marine sanctuary designation enti-
tled that was submitted to Congress by the
Secretary of Commerce on but disapproves
the following terms of such designation
“, the first blank space being filled with
the title of the designation, the second blank space being
filled with the date on which the notice was submitted to
Congress. and the third blank space referencing each
term of the designation which is disapproved.
(4) Procedures —
(A) In computing the forty-five-day periods of con-
tinuous session of Congress pursuant to subsection
(a)(6) and paragraph (I) of this subsection —
(i) continuity of session is broken only by an adjourn-
ment of Congress sine die: and
(ii) the days on which either House of Congress is not
in session because of an adjournment of more than three
days to a day certain are excluded.
(B) When the committee to which a joint resolution
has been referred has reported such a resolution, it shall
at any time thereafter be in order to move to proceed to
the consideration of the resolution. The motion shall be
privileged and shall not be debatable. An amendment to
the motion shall not be in order, and it shall not be in
order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion
was agreed to or disagreed to.
(C) This subsection is enacted by Congress as an
exercise of the rulemaking power of each House of
Congress. respectively, and as such is deemed a part of
the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only
with respect to the procedure to be followed in the case
of resolutions described in this subsection. This subsec-
tion supersedes other rules only to the extent that they
are inconsistent therewith, and is enacted with full rec-
ognition of the constitutional right of either House to
change the rules (so far as those relate to the procedure
of that House) at any ume, in the same manner, and to
the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such
House.
(c) Access and Valid Rights. —
(I) Nothing in this title shall be construed as termi-
nating or granting to the Secretary the right to termi-
nate any valid lease, permit, license, or right of subsis-
tence use or of access if the lease, permit, license, or
right —
(A) was in existence on the date of enactment of the
Marine Sanctuaries Amendments of 1984. with respect
to any national marine sanctuary designated before that
date, or
(B) is in existence on the date of designation of any
national marine sanctuary, with respect to any national
marine sanctuary designated after the date of enactment
of the Marine Sanctuaries Amendments of 1984
(2) The exercise of a lease, permit. license, or right is
subject to regulation by the Secretary consistent with the
purposes for which the sanctuary is designated
Sec 305 Application of Regulations and Internation-
al Negotiations.
(a) Regulations — The regulations issued under sec-
tion 304 shall be applied in accordance with generally
recognized principles of international law, and in accord-
ance with the treaties. conventions, and other, agree-
ments to which the United States is a party No regula-
tion shall apply to a person who is not a citizen, national,
or resident alien of the United States, unless in accord-
ance with—
(I) generally recognized principles of international
law;
(2) an agreement between the United States and the
foreign state of which the person is a citizen: or
(3) an agreement between the United States and the
hag state of a foreign vessel, if the person is a crew-
member of the vessel.
(b) Negotiations — The Secretary of State. in consul-
tation with the Secretary, shall take appropriate action
to enter into negotiations with other governments to
make necessary arrangements for the protection of any
national marine sanctuary and to promote the purposes
for which the sanctuary is established.
Sec 306 Research and Education.
The Secretary shall conduct research and educational
programs as are necessary and reasonable to carry out
the purposes and policies of this title.
Sec 307 Enforcement
(a) In General. — The Secretary shall conduct such
enforcement activities as are necessary and reasonable to
carry out this title. The Secretary shall, whenever appro-
priate, utilize by agreement the personnel, services, and
facilities of other Federal departments. agencies, and
instrumentalities on a reimbursable basis in carrying out
the Secretary’s responsibilities under this title
(b) Civil Penalties —
(I) Civil Penalty. — Any person subject to the juris-
diction of the United States who violates any regulation
issued under this title shall be liable to the United States
for a civil penalty of not more than S50.000 for each
such violation, to be assessed by the Secretary Each day
B— 24
-------
of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate
violation
(2) Notice. — No penalty shall be assessed under this
subsection until the person charged has been given notice
and an opportunity to be heard. Upon failure of the
offending party to pay an assessed penalty, the Attorney
General, at the request of the Secretary, shall commence
action in the appropriate district court of the United
States to collect the penalty and to seek such other relief
as may be appropriate
(3) In Rem Jurisdiction. — A vessel used in the
violation of a regulation issued under this title shall be
liable in rem for any civil penalty assessed for such
violation and may be proceeded against in any district
court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof
(c) Jurisdiction — The district courts of the United
States shall have jurisdiction to restrain a violation of
the regulations issued under this title, and to grant such
other relief as may be appropriate. Actions shall be
brought by the Attorney General in the name of the
United States The Attorney General may bring suit
either on the Attorney General’s own initiative or at the
request of the Secretary
Sec 308 Authorization of Appropriations
To carry Out this title, there are authorized to be
appropriated:
(I) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1985
(2) $3,300,000 for fiscal year 1986
(3) $3,600,000 for fiscal year 1987
(4) $3,900,000 for fiscal year 1988
Sec. 309 Severability
If any provision of this Act or the application thereof
to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the
validity of the remainder of this Act and of the applica-
tion of such provision to other persons and circumstances
shall not be affected thereby
B— 25
-------
H. R. 3674—3
TITLE Il—PLASTIC POLLUTION
RESEARCH AND CONTROL
SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ‘Marrne Plastic Pollution Research
and Control Act of 1987”.
SEC. 2002. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) IN GE RAL—Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), this
title shall be effective on the date on which Annex V to the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships. 1973, enters into force for the United States.
(b) ExcEprioNs.—Sections 2001, 2002, 2003, 2108, 2202, 2203, 2204,
and subtitle C of this title shall be effective on the date of the
enactment of this title.
(c) ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL—The authority to prescribe regulations
pursuant to this title shall be effective on the date of enactment
of this title.
(2) E v crivE DATE OF REGULATIONS.—Any regulation pre-
scribed pursuant to this title shall not be effective before the
effective date of the provision of this title under which the
regulation is prescribed.
SEC. 2003. PREEMPFION: ADDITIONAL STATE REQUIREMENTS.
(a) PREF.MT”rioN.—Except as specifically provided in this title,
nothing in this title shall be interpreted or construed to supersede or
preempt any other provision of Federal or State law, either statu-
tory or common.
(b) ADDITIONAL STATE REQuIREMENTS.—Nothlng in this title shall
be construed or interpreted as preempting any State from imposing
any additional requirements. -
Subtitle A—Amendments to Act to Prevent
Pollution From Ships
SEC. 2101. DEFINITIONS.
Section 2.of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C.
1901 et seq.) is amended as follows:
(1) ‘ t (a)” is inserted after “SEc. 2.”.
(2) Subsection (aXi) (as redesignated) is amended to read as
follows:
“(1) ‘MARPOL Protocol’ means the Protocol of 1918 relating
to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships, 1913, and includes the Convention;”.
(3) Subsection (aX2) (as redesignated) is amended by striking
all after “and” the second time it appears and inserting in lieu
thereof the following’ ‘Annexes I, 11, and V thereto, including
any modification or amendments to the Convention, Protocols,
or Annexes which have entered into force for the United
States;”.
(4) Subsection (aX3) (as redesignated) is amended by inserting
“and ‘garbue “ after “discharge”.
(5) The following is added at the end of section 2:
B— 27
-------
H.R 3674—4
“(b) For purposes of this Act, the requirements of Annex V shall
apply to the navigable waters of the United States, as well as to all
other waters and vessels over which the United States has
jurisdiction.’
SEC. 2102. APPLICATION OF ACT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Sectlon 3(a) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from
Ships is amended to read as follows:
“(a) This Act shall apply—
“(1) to a ship of United States registry or nationality, or one
operated under the authority of the United States, wherever
located;
“(2) with respect to Annexes I and II to the Convention, to a
ship, other than a ship referred to in paragraph (1), while in the
navigable waters of the United States;
“ 3) with respect to the requirements of Annex V to the
Convention, to a ship, other than a ship referred to in para-
graph (1), while in the navigable waters or the exclusive eco-
nomic zone of the United States; and
“(4) with respect to regulations prescribed under section 6 of
this Act, any port or terminal in the United States.”.
(b) ExcLusIoNs.—Section 3(b) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from
Ships is amended to read as follows:
“(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), this Act shall not
apply to—
“(A) a warship, naval auxiliary, or other ship owned or oper-
ated by the United States when engaged in noncommercial
service; or
“(B) any other ship specifically excluded by the MARPOL
Protocol.
“(2XA) Notwithstanding any provision of the MARPOL Protocol,
and subject to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the requirements
of Annex V to the Convention shall apply after 5 years after the
effective date of this paragraph to a ship referred to in paragraph
(1)(A).
“(B) This paragraph shall not apply during time of war or a
declared national emergency.”.
(c) REGuL vrIoNs.—Section 3(c) of the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships is amended to read as follows:
“(c) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations applicable to the
ships of a country not a party to the MARPOL Protocol, including
regulations conforming to and giving effect to the requirements of
Annex V as they apply under subsection (a) of section 3, to ensure
that their treatment is not more favorable than that accorded ships
to parties to the MARPOL Protocol.”.
SEC. 2103. POLLUTION RECEPTION FACILITIES.
(a) DETERMINATION or ADEQUACY 0? FAcIuTIFs.—Section 6(a) of
the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships is amended—
(1) by inserting “(1)” immediately after “(a)”;
(2) in subsection (aX 1), as so redesignated, by striking “recep-
tion facilities of a port or terminal” and inserting in lieu thereof
the following: “a port’s or terminal’s reception facilities for
mixtures containing oil or noxious liquid substances”; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
“(2) The Secretary, after consulting with appropriate Federal
agencies, shall establish regulations setting criteria for deter-
B- ’2 8
-------
H. R. 367 4—5
mining the adequacy of reception facilities for garbage at a port
or terminal, and stating such additional measures and require-
ments as are appropriate to ensure such adequacy. Persons in
charge of ports and terminals shall provide reception facilities,
or ensure that such facilities are available, for receiving gar-
bage in accordance with those regulations.”.
(b) C0NSIDELvrI0N OF Nu ts a A.ND Tv or SHIPS.—Section 6(b)
of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships is amended by striking
“terminal,” the first time it appears and inserting in lieu thereof the
following: “terminal, and in establishing regulations under subsec-
tion (a) of this section,” and by striking “seagoing ships” and
inserting in lieu thereof the following: “ships or seagoing ships”.
(C) CERT11ICAT IssuANcL—Section 6(c) of the Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships is amended to read as follows
“(cXl) If reception facilities of a port or termimIl meet the require-
ments of Annex V to the Convention and the regulations
prescribed under subsection (aXi), the Secretary shall, after con-
sultation with the Adniinistrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, issue a certificate to that effect to the applicant.
“(2) If reception facilities of a port or termiiial meet the require-
ments of Annex V to the Convention and the regulations
prescribed under subsection (aX2), the Secretary may, after consulta.
tion with appropriate Federal agencies, issue a certificate to that
effect to the person in charge of the port or terminal.
“(3) A certificate issued under this subsection—
“(A) is valid until suspended or revoked by the Secretary for
cause or because of changed conditions; and
“(B) shall be available for inspection upon the request of the
master, other person in charge, or agent of a ship using or
intending to use the port or terminal.
“(4) The suspension or revocation of a certificate issued under this
subsection may be appealed to the Secretary and acted on by the
Secretary in the mnnner prescribed by regulation.”.
(d) E rrav Daz ’n .z.—Section 6(e) of the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships is amended—
(1) by inserting “(1)” immediately after “(eY’;
(2) by striking “(1)” and inserting in lieu thereof “(A)”;
(3) by striking “(2)” and inserting in lieu thereof “(B)”;
in subparagraph (A), as so redesignated, by striking “the
MARPOL Protocol’ and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
“Annexes I and II of the Convention”; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
“(2) The Secretary may deny the entry of a ship to a port or
termin l required by regulations issued under this section to provide
adequate reception facilities for garbage if the port or terminal is
not in compliance with those regulations.”.
SEC. 2104. VIOLATIONS.
(a) SHIP INSPECTIONS.—SeCtiOn 8(c) of the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships is amended by—
(1) striking “(1)” and inserting “(A)”;
(2) striking “(2)” and inserting “(B)”;
(3) inserting “(2)” immediately after “(C)”;
(4) in the last sentence of paragraph (2) (as redesignated),
strikina “If a report made under this subsection involves a ship,
other than one of United States registry or nationality or one
B— 29
-------
H. R. 3674—6
operated under the authority of the United States, the” and
inserting “The”, and
(5) inserting before paragraph (2) (as redesignated) the follow-
ing: ‘U i This subsection applies to inspections relating to pos-
sible violations of Annex I or Annex II to the Convention by any
seagoing ship referred to in section 3(a)(2) of this Act.”.
(b) SHIP INSPECTIONS OTHER THAN AT PORT OR TERMINAL.—Section
8 of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships is amended by re-
designating subsection (d) as subsection (f) and inserting after
subsection (C) the following:
“(d xl) The Secretary may inspect a ship referred to in section
3(ax3) of this Act to verify whether the ship has disposed of garbage
in violation of Annex V to the Convention or this Act.
‘(2) If an inspection under this subsection indicates that a viola-
tion has occurred. the Secretary may undertake enforcement action
under section 9 of this Act.
“(eXi) The Secretary may inspect at any time a ship of United
States registry or nationality or operating under the authority of
the United States to which the MARPOL Protocol applies to verify
whether the ship has discharged a harmful substance or disposed of
garbage in violation of that Protocol or this Act.
“(2) If an inspection under this subsection indicates that a viola-
tion of the MARPOL Protocol has occurred the Secretary may
undertake enforcement action under section 9 of this Act.”.
SEC. 2105. CIVIL PENALTIES.
(a) PAYMENT FOR INFORMATION.—
(1) INFORMATION LEADING TO CONVICTION—SeCtion 9(a) of the
Act to Prevent Pollution From Ships is amended by inserting
after the first sentence the following: “In the discretion of the
Court, an amount equal to not more than ‘/z of such fine may be
paid to the person giving information leading to conviction.”.
(2) INFORMATION LEADING TO ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY.—SeC ’
tion 9(b) of the Act to Prevent Pollution From Ships is amended
by adding at the end the following: “An amount equal to not
more than ½ of such penalties may be paid by the Secretary to
the person giving information leading to the assessment of such
penalties.”.
(b) REFERENCE. OF VIoL.E ’rToN TO Cou v or REGISTRY OR
NATIONAuTY.—Section 9(f) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from
Ships is amended by striking “to that country” and inserting “to the
government of the country of the ship’s registry or nationality, or
under whose authority the ship is operating’.
SEC. 2106. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PROTOCOL
Section 10 of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships is
amended—
(1) in subsection (a), by striking “Inter-Governmental Mari-
time Consultative Organization” and inserting “International
Maritime Organization”; and
(2) iii subsection (b), by striking “Annex I or II, appendices to
the Annexes, or Protocol I of the MARPOL Protocol,” and
inserting “Annex I, II, or V to the Convention, appendices to
those Annexes, or Protocol I of the Convention”, and by striking
“Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization” and
inserting “International Maritime Organization
B— 30
-------
H. R.3674—7
SEC. 2107. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT: REFUSE RECORD
BOOKS: WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS: NOTIFICATION OF
CREW AND PASSENGERS.
(a) ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT, GENERALLY—SeCtiOn 4(a)
of the Act to prevent pollution from ships is amended to read as
follows:
“(a) Unless otherwise specified in this Act, the Secretary shall
administer and enforce the MARPOL Protocol and this Act. In the
administration and enforcement of the MARPOL Protocol and this
Act, Annexes I and II of the Convention apply only to seagoing
ships.’.
(b) R us RECORD BooKs; WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS; NOTIFICA-
TION OF CREw AND PAssENGERs.—Sectlon 4(b) of the Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships is amended by—
U) inserting ‘(1)” after “(b)”; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
“(2) The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall—
“(A) within 1 year after the effective date of this paragraph,
prescribe regulations which—
“U) require certain ships described in section 3(aXl) to
maintain refuse record books and shipboard mpnagement
plans, and to display placards which notify the crew and
passengers of the requirements of Annex V to the Conven-
tion; and
“(ii) specify the ships described in section 3(aXl) to which
the regulations apply;
“(B) seek an international agreement or international agree-
ments which apply requirements equivalent to those described
in subparagraph (AXi) to all vessels subject to Annex V to the
Convention; and
“(C) within 2 years after the effective date of this paragraph,
report to the Congress—
“(i) regarding activities of the Secretary under subpara-
graph (B); and
“(ii) if the Secretary has not obtained agreements pursu-
ant to subparagraph (B) regarding the desirability of apply-
ing the requirements described in subparagraph (AXi) to all
vessels described in section 3(a) which call at United States
ports.”.
SEC. 2108. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.
The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships is amended by adding at
the end the following:
“Szc. 17. Any action taken under this Act shall be taken in
accordance with international law.”.
Subtitle B—Studies and Report
SEC. 2201. COMPLIANCE REPORTS.
(a) I G NERAL.—Within 1 year after the effective date of this
section, and biennially thereafter for a period of 6 years, the Sec.
retary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of
Commerce, shall report to the Congress regarding compliance with
B— 31
-------
H. R. 3674—8
Annex V to the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships. 1973, in United States waters.
Ib) REPORT ON INABIL ITY TO COMPLY.—Within 3 years after the
effective date of this section, the head of each Federal agency that
operates or contracts for the operation of any ship referred to in
section 3(bXJi(A) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships that
may not be able to comply with the requirements of that section
shall report to the Congress describing—
1) the technical and operational impediments to achieving
that compliance:
(2) an alternative schedule for achieving that compliance as
rapidly as is technologically feasible;
t3) the ships operated or contracted for operation by the
agency for which full compliance with section 3(bX2XA) is not
technologically feasible; and
(4) any other information which the agency head considers
relevant and appropriate.
(c) CONGRESSIONAL. AcrioN.—Upon receipt of the compliance
report under subsection (b), the Con ress shall modify the applicabil-
ity of Annex V to ships referred to in section 3(bX1XA) of the Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships, as may be appropriate with respect to
the requirements of Annex V to the Convention.
SEC. 2202. EPA STUDY OF METHODS TO REDUCE PLASTIC POLLUTION.
(a) IN G a&z..—The Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, shall
commence a study of the adverse effects of the improper disposal of
plastic articles on the environment and on waste disposal, and the
various methods to reduce or eliminate such adverse effects.
(b) SCOPE 0? STUDY—A study under this section shall include the
fol lowing
(1) A list of improper disposal practices and associated specific
plastic articles that occur in the environment with sufficient
frequency to cause death or injury to fish or wildlife, affect
adversely the habitat of fish or wildlife, contribute significantly
to aesthetic degradation or economic losses in coastal and water-
front areas, endanger human health or safety, or cause other
significant adverse impacts.
(2) A deecri ption of specific statutory and regulatory authority
available to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the steps being taken by the Administrator, to
reduce the amount of plastic materials that enter the marine
and aquatic environment.
(3) An evaluation of the feasibility and desirabthty of sub-
stitutes for those articles identified under paragraph (1),
comparing the environmental and health risks, costs, disposabil-
ity, durability, and availability of such substitutes.
(4) An evaluation of the impacts of plastics on the solid waste
stream relative to other solid wastes, and methods to reduce
those impacts, including recycling.
(5) An evaluation of the impact of plastics on the solid waste
stream relative to other solid wastes, and methods to reduce
those impacts, including—
(A) the status of a need for public and private research to
develop and market recycled plastic articles;
(B) methods to facilitate the recycling of plastic materials
by identifying types of plastic articles to aid in their sorting,
B— 32
-------
H R.3674—9
and by standardizing types of plastic materials, taking into
account trade secrets and protection of public health;
(C) incentives, including deposits on plastic containers, to
increase the supply of plastic material for recycling and to
decrease the amount of plastic debris, especially in the
marine environment;
(D) the effect of existing tax laws on the manufacture and
distribution of virgin plastic materials as compared with
recycled plastic materials; and
(E) recommendations on incentives and other measures
to promote new uses for recycled plastic articles and to
encourage or require manufacturers of plastic articles
to consider reuse and recycling in product design.
(6) An evaluation of the feasibility of ms king the articles
identified under paragraph (1) from degradable plastics mate-
rials, taking into account—
(A) the risk to human health and the environment that
may be presented by fragments of degradable plastic arti-
cles and the properties of the end-products of the degrada-
tion, including biotoxicity, biosecumulation, persistence,
and environmental fate;
(B) the efficiency and variability of degradation due to
thffering environmental and biological conditions; and
(C) the cost and benefits of using degradable articles,
including the duration for which such articles were de-
signed to remain intact
(c) CONSULTArtoN.—In carrying out the study required by this
section, the Administrator shall consult with the heads of other
appropriate Federal agencies, representatives of affected industries,
consumer and environment interest groups, and the public.
(d) REP0Rr.—Within 18 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall report to the Congress the results of the study required by this
section, including recommendations in connection therewith.
SEC. 2203. EFFECTS OF PLASTIC MATERIALS ON THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT.
Not later than September 30, 1988, the Secretary of Commerce
shall submit to the Congress a report on the effects of plastic
materials on the marine environment. The report shall—
(1) identify and quantify the harmful effects of plastic mate-
rials on the marine environment;
(2) assess the specific effects of plastic materials on living
marine resources in the marine environment;
(3) identify the types and classes of plastic materials that pose
the greatest potential hazard to living marine resources;
(4) analyze, in consultation with the Director of the National
Bureau of Standards, plastic materials which are claimed to be
capable of reduction to environmentally benign submits under
the action of normal environmental forces (including biological
decomposition, photodegradation, and hydrolysis); and
(5) recommend legislation which is necessary to prohibit, tax,
or regulate sources of plastic materials that enter the marine
environment.
SEC. 2204. PLASTIC POLLUTION PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM.
(a) OUTREACH PRoGRAM.—
B-33
-------
H R. 674—1O
(1) IN GENERAL—Not later than April 1. 1988. the Admirns-
trator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation,
shall jointly commence and thereafter conduct for a period of at
least 3 years, a pubLic outreach program to educate the public
(including recreational boaters, fishermen, and other users of
the marine environment) regarding—
(A) the harmful effects of plastic pollution;
(B) the need to reduce such pollution;
(C) the need to recycle plastic materials; and
(D) the need to reduce the quantity of plastic debris in the
marine environment.
(2) AUThORIZED AcrIvrrIEs.—A public outreach program under
paragraph (1) may include—
(A) workshops with interested groups;
(B) public service announcements;
(C) distribution of leaflets and posters; and
D any other means appropriate to educating the public.
(b) CITIZEN Pow.moN PA ’raoLs.—The Secretary of Commerce,
along with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast
Guard is operating, shall conduct a program to encourage the
formation of volunteer groups, to be designated as “Citizen Pollution
Patrols”, to assist in monitoring, reporting, cleanup, and prevention
of ocean and shoreline pollution.
Subtitle C—New York Bight
SEC. 230i. NEW YORK BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN.
(a) IN GENERAL—Within 3 years after the effective date of this
section, the Administrator, in consultation with the Administrator
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other
Federal, State, and interstate agencies, shall prepare a New York
Bight Restoration Plan. In preparing such plan, the Administrator
shall seek the views and comments of interested persons and hold
public hearings in States to be affected by the plan. The first such
public hearing shall occur not later than 8 months after the effec-
tive date of this section.
(b) SCOPE OF PLAN.—The New York Bight Restoration Plan pre-
pared undersubsection (a) shall, at a minimum—
1 identify and assess the impact of pollutant inputs, such as
treated and untreated sewage discharge, industrial outfalls,
agricultural and urban runoff, storm sewer overflow, upstream
contaminant sources, atmospheric fallout, and dumping, that
are affecting the water quality and marine resources of the New
York Bight;
(2) identify those uses in the New York Bight and other areas
that are being adversely affected by such pollutant inputs;
(3) determine the fate of’ the contaminants from such pollut-
ant inputs and their effect on human health and the marine
environment;
(4) identify technologies and management practices necessary
tbr controlling such pollutant inputs;
(5) identify the costs of implementing such technologies and
practices and any impediments to such implementation;
B— 34
-------
H. H. 3674—il
(6) devise a schedule of economically feasible projects to im-
plement such technologies and practices and to remove such
impediments;
7) develop recommendations for funding and coordinating the
various Federal, State, and local government programs nec-
essary to implement the projects referred to in paragraph (6);
and
(8) comprehensively assess alternatives to dumping of munici-
pal sludge and the burning of timber in the New York Bight.
SEC. 2302. NEW YORK BIGHT PLASTIC STUDY.
The Administrator shall conduct a study of problems associated
with plastic debris in the New York Bight, with specific attention to
the effect of such debris on beaches, marine life, the environment,
and coastal waters, and shall report to the Congress within 6 months
after the effective date of this section with recommendations for the
elimination of the threats posed by such plastic debris.
SEC. 2303. REPORTS.
(a) SCHEDULE FOR PRELIMINARY REPoRTs D RESTORATION
PLAN.—Not later than 6 months after the effective date of this
section, the Administrator shall submit to the Congress a detailed
schedule (including associated funding requirements) for completing
preliminary reports and the New York Bight Restoration Plan
under this subtitle.
(b) PRELIMINARY REPORT ON ALTRRNATWES.—Not later than the
earlier of January 1, 1990, or the date of any decision by the
Administrator affecting the redesignation of the 106-mile Ocean
Waste Dump site for municipal sludge or the designation of any
additional municipal sludge dump site, the Administrator shall
submit to the Congress a preliminary report assessing alternatives
to the ocean dumping of municipal sludge.
(C) PRELIMINARY REPoWr0N Pou ..u’m. r INPuTS.—Not later than 1
year after the effective date of this section, the Administrator shall
submit to the Congress a preliminary report on the e amin tions
required under section 2301(bXl), (bX2), and (bX3).
(d) PRELIMINARY REPORT ON CONTItOL MRAsuRrs.—Not later than
2 years after the effective date of this section, the Administrator
shall submit to the Congress a preliminary report on the examina-
tions required under section 2301(bX4), (bX5), (bX6), and (bX7).
(e) SUBMISSION OF RESTORATION Pu .N TO CONG R ESS.—Not later
than 3 years after the effective date of this section, the Adminis-
trator shall submit to the Congress the New York Bight Restoration
Plan prepared under section 2301.
SEC. 2304. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this subtitle—
(1) NEW YORK BIGHT.—The term “New York Bight” means an
area comprised of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary and waters of
the Atlantic Ocean—
(A) west of Montauk, Long Island, New York (71 degrees,
50 minutes west Longitude);
(B) north of Cape May, New Jersey; and
(C) extending seaward to the edge of the Continental
Shelf.
(2) ADMINISTRATOR—The term “Administrator” means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
B— 35
-------
H. R.3674—12
SEC. 2305. AUTHORIZATION OF ‘tPPROPRiATIo S.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator not
more than £3,000,000 for carrying out this subtitle during fiscal
years 1988. 1989, and 1990.
TITLE 111—MARINE SCIENCE, TECHNOL.
OGY, AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 3001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the “Marine Science, Technology, and
Policy Development Act of 1987”.
Subtitle A—National Sea Grant College
Program Authorization
SEC. 3101. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the “National Sea Grant College
Program Authorization Act of 1987”.
SEC. 3102. REFERENCE TO THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PRO-
GRAM ACT.
Unless otherwise provided, whenever in this subtitle an amend-
ment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal
of, a title, section. subsection, or other provision, the reference shall
be considered to be made to a title, section. subsection, or other
provision of the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C.
1121 et seq.).
SEC. 3103. DECLARATION OF POLICY.
Section 202 (33 U S.C. 1121) is amended as follows:
(1) Subsection (a) is amended—
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as para-
graphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively; and
(B) by inserting before paragraph (4) (as redesignated) the
following:
“(1) The national interest requires a strategy to—
“(A) provide for the understanding and wise use of ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes resources and the environment;
“(B) foster economic competitiveness;
“(C) promote public stewardship and wise economic devel-
opment of the coastal ocean and its margins, the Great
Lakes, and the exclusive economic zone;
“(D) understand global environmental processes; and
“(E) promote domestic and international cooperative solu-
tions to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes issues.
“(2) Investment in a strong program of research, education,
training, technology transfer, and public service is essential for
this strategy.
“(3) The expanding use and development of ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes resources resulting from growing coastal area
populations and the increasing pressures on the coastal and
Great Lakes environment challenge the ability of the United
States to manage such resources wisely.”
B— 36
-------
S. 2030
i ne iIiundredth on rezs of the 1 nited tates of mfflr.a
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the twenty.fifth day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and eighty.eight
n ct
To amend the Marine Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to provide for
ternunation of ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled,
TITLE I—OCEAN DUMPING OF SEWAGE
SLUDGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE
SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the “Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988”.
SEC. 1002 ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES AND PENALTIES FOR OCEAN DUMP-
ING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE.
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33
U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) is amended by striking the second section 104A
and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
“SEC. 104B. OCEAN DUMPING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE AND INDUSTRIAL
WASTE.
“(a) TERMINATION OF DUMPING.—
“(1) PROHIBITIONS ON DUMPING.—Notwithstanding any other
provision of law—
“(A) on and after the 270th day after the date of the
enactment of this section, no person (including a person
described in section 1O4A(aX1XC)) shall dump into ocean
waters, or transport for the purpose of dumping into ocean
waters, sewage sludge or industrial waste, unless such
person—
“(i) has entered into a compliance agreement or
enforcement agreement which meets the requirements
of subsection (c) (2) or (3), as applicable; and
“(ii) has obtained a permit issued under section 102
which authorizes such transportation and dumping:
and
“(B) after December 31, 1991, it shall be unlawful for any
person to dump into ocean waters, or to transport for the
purposes of dumping into ocean waters, sewage sludge or
industrial waste.
“(2) PROHIBITION ON NEW ENTRANTS.—The Administrator
shall not issue any permit under this Act which authorizes a
person to dump into ocean waters, or to transport for the
purposes of dumping into ocean waters, sewage sludge or indus-
trial waste, unless that person was authorized by a permit
issued under section 102 or by a court order to dump into ocean
waters, or to transport for the purpose of dumping into ocean
waters, sewage sludge or industrial waste on September 1, 1988.
“(b) SPECIAL DUMPING FEES.—
B— 37
-------
S. 2030—2
“(1) IN GENERAL—Subject to paragraph (4), any person who
dumps mto ocean waters, or transports for the purpose of
dumping into ocean waters, sewage sludge or industrial waste
shall be liable for a fee equal to—
“(A) $100 for each dry ton (or equivalent) of sewage
sludge or industrial waste transported or dumped by the
person on or after the 2’7Oth day after the date of the
enactment of this section and before January 1, 1990;
“(B) $150 for each dry ton (or equivalent) of sewage sludge
or industrial waste transported or dumped by the person on
or after January 1, 1990, and before January 1, 1991; and
“(C) $200 for each dry ton (or equivalent) of sewage sludge
or industrial waste transported or dumped by the person on
or after January 1, 1991, and before January 1, 1992.
“(2) PAYMENT OF FEES.—Of the amount of fees under para-
graph (1) for which a person is liable, such person—
“(A) shall pay into a trust account established by the
person in accordance with subsection (e) a sum equal to 85
percent of such amount;
“(B) shall pay to the Administrator a sum equal to $15
per dry ton (or equivalent) of sewage sludge and industrial
waste transported or dumped by such person, for use for
agency activities as provided in subsection (0(1);
“(C) subject to paragraph (5), shall pay into the Clean
Oceans Fund established by the State in which the person
is located a sum equal to 50 percent of the balance of such
amount after application of subparagraphs (A) and (B); and
“(D) subject to paragraph (5), shall pay to the State in
which the person is located a sum equal to the balance of
such amount after application of subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C), for deposit into the water pollution control revolv-
ing fund established by the State under title V I of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as provided in subsec-
tion (0(2).
“(3) Sc iznui FOR PAYMENT.—Fees under this subsection
shall be paid on a quarterly basis.
“(4) WAIVER OF FEEs.—(A) The AdminiRtrator shall waive all
fees under this subsection, other than the portion of fees re-
quired to be paid to the Administrator under paragraph (2XB)
for agency activities, for any person who has entered into a
compliance agreement which meets the requirements of subsec-
tion (cX2).
“(B) The Administrator shall reimpose fees under this subsec-
tion for a person for whom such fees are waived under subpara-
graph (A) if the Administrator determines that—
“(1) the person has failed to comply with the terms of a
compliance agreement which the person entered into under
subsection (cX2); and
“(ii) such failure is likely to result in the person not being
able to terminate by December 31, 1991, dumping of sewage
sludge or industrial waste into ocean waters.
“(C) The Administrator may waive fees reimposed for a
person under subparagraph (B) if the Administrator determines
that the person has returned to compliance with a compliance
agreement which the person entered into under subsection
(cX2).
B— 38
-------
S. 2030—3
“(5) PAYMENIS PRIOR TO rADLL8} MENr OF ACCOUNT.—(A) In
any case in which a State has not established a Clean Oceans
Fund or a water pollution control revolving fund under title VT
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, fees required to be
paid by a person in that State under paragraph (2) (C) or (D), as
applicable, shall be paid to the AdminiRtrator.
“(B) Amounts paid to the Administrator pursuant to this
paragraph shall be held by the Administrator in escrow until
the establishment of the fund into which such amounts are
required to be paid under paragraph (2), or until the last day of
the 1-year period beginning on the date of such payment, which.
ever is earlier, and thereafter—
“(i) if such fund has been. established, shall be paid by the
Adminiitrator into the fund; or
“(ii) if such fund has not been established, shall revert to
the general fund of the Treasury.
“(c) Coz ipu*z AGREgMEN’T *iri E1JoRcFMg r AGREEMENTS.—
“(1) Iii GENRRAL.—A8 a condition of issuing a permit under
section 102 which authorizes a person to transport or dump
sewage sludge or industrial waste, the Administrator shall re-
quire that, before the issuance of such permit, the person and
the State in which the person is located enter into with the
Administrator—.
“(A) a compliance agreement which meets the require-
ments of paragraph (2); or
“(B) an enforcement agreement which meets the require-
ments of paragraph (3).
“(2) COMPLIANCE AGREE 4’rs.—An agreement shall be a
compliance agreement for purposes of this section only if—
“(A) it includes a plan negotiated by the person, the State
in which the person is located, and the AdrniniRtrator that
will, in the opinion of the Administrator, if adhered to by
the person in good faith, result in the phasing out and
terrninfition of ocean dumping, and transportation for the
purpose of ocean dumping, of sewage sludge and industrial
waste by such person by not later than December 31, 1991,
through the design, construction, and full implementation
of an alternative system for the management of sewage
sludge and industrial waste transported or dumped by the
person;
“(B) it includes a schedule which—
in the opinion of the Admini trator, specifies
reasonable dates by which the person shall complete
the various activities that are necessary for the timely
implementation of the alternative system referred to in
subparagraph (A); and
“(II) meets the requirements of paragraph (4);
“(C) it requires the person to notii in a timely manner
the Adminicitrator and the Governor of the State of any
problems the person has in complying with the schedule
referred to in subparagraph (B);
“(D) it requires the Administrator and the Governor of
the State to evaluate on an ongoing basis the compliance of
the person with the schedule referred to in subparagraph
(B);
B—3 9
-------
S. 2030—4
“(E) it requires the person to pay in accordance with this
section all fees and penalties the person is liable for under
this section; and
“(F) it authorizes the person to use interim measures
before completion of the alternative system referred to in
subparagraph (A).
“(3) ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENTS—An agreement shall be an
enforcement agreement for purposes of this section only if—
“(A) it includes a plan negotiated by the person, the State
in which the person is located, and the Administrator that
will, in the opinion of the Administrator, if adhered to by
the person in good faith, result in the phasing out and
termination of ocean dumping, and transportation for the
purpose of ocean dumping, of sewage sludge and industrial
waste by such person through the design, construction, and
full implementation of an alternative system for the
management of sewage sludge and industrial waste trans-
ported or dumped by the person;
“(B) it includes a schedule which—
“Ci) in the opinion of the Administrator, specifies
reasonable dates by which the person shall complete
the various activities that are necessary for the timely
implementation of the alternative system referred to in
subparagraph (A); and
“(ii) meets the requirements of paragraph (4);
“(C) it requires the person to notify in a timely manner
the AdmirnRtrator and the Governor of the State of any
problems the person has in complying with the schedule
referred to in subparagraph (B);
“(D) it requires the Administrator and the Governor of
the State to evaluate on an ongoing basis the compliance of
the person with the schedule referred to in subparagraph
(B);
“(E) it requires the person to pay in accordance with this
section all fees and penalties the person is liable for under
this section; and
“(F) it authorizes the person to use interim measures
before completion of the alternative system referred to in
subparagraph (A).
“(4) Scii w &—A schedule included in a compliance agree-
ment pursuant to paragraph (2XB) or an enforcement agree-
ment pursuant to paragraph (3XB) shall establish deadlines
for—
“(A) preparation of engineering designs and related speci-
fications for the alternative system referred to in para-
graph (2XA) or paragraph (3XA), as applicable;
“(B) compliance with appropriate Federal, State, and
local statutes, regulations, and ordinances;
“(C) site and equipnient acquisitions for such alternative
system;
“(D) construction and testing of such alternative system;
“(E) operation of such alternative system at full capacity;
and
“(F) any other activities, including interim measures,
that the Administrator considers necessary or appropriate.
“(5) Ci.w ocw s FuNDS.—(A) Each State that is a party to a
compliance agreement or an enforcement agreement under this
B—40
-------
S. 2030—5
subsection shall establish an interest bearing account, to be
known as a Clean Oceans Fund, into which a person shall pay
fees and penalties in accordance with subsections (bX2XC) and
(dX2XCXi), respectively.
“(B) A State which establishes a Clean Oceans Fund pursuant
to this paragraph shall allocate and pay from the fund each
year, to each person in the State which has entered into a
compliance agreement or enforcement agreement under this
subsection, a portion of amounts in the fund on the last day of
that year which is equal to the sum of—
“(1) amounts paid by the person into the fund in that year
as fees pursuant to subsection (b)(2XC) and as penalties
pursuant to subsection (dX2XCXi);
“(ii) amounts paid by the Administrator into the fund in
that year as fees held in escrow for the person pursuant to
subsection (b)(5XB); and
“(iii) interest on such amounts.
“(C) Amounts allocated and paid to a person pursuant to
subparagraph (B)—
“(i) shall be used for the purposes described in subsection
(eX2XB); and
“(ii) may be used for matching Federal grants.
“(D) A Clean Oceans Fund established by a State pursuant to
this paragraph shall be subject to such accounting, reporting,
and other requirements as may be established by the Adminis-
trator to assure accountability of payments into and out of the
fund.
“(6) PUBLIC PARTICWATION.—The Administrator shall provide
an opportunity for public comment regarding the establishment
and implementation of compliance agreements and enforcement
agreements entered into pursuant to this section.
“(d) PENALTIES.—
“(1) IN GENERAL—In lieu of any other civil penalty under this
Act, any person who has entered into a compliance agreement
or enforcement agreement under subsection (c) and who dumps
or transports sewage sludge or industrial waste in violation of
subsection (aX1XB) shall be liable for a civil penalty, to be
assessed by the Administrator, as follows:
“(A) For each dry ton (or equivalent) of sewage sludge or
industrial waste dumped or transported by the person in
violation of this subsection in calendar year 1992, $600.
“(B) For each dry ton (or equivalent) of’ sewage sludge or
industrial waste dumped or transported by the person in
violation of this subsection in any year after calendar year
1992, a sum equal to—
“(i) the amount of penalty per dry ton (or equivalent)
for a violation occurring in the preceding calendar
year, plus
“(ii) a percentage of such amount equal to 10 percent
of such amount, plus an additional 1 percent of such
amount for each full calendar year since December 31,
1991.
“(2) PAYMENT OF PENALTY.—Of the amount of penalties under
paragraph (1) for which a person is liable, such person—
“(A) shall pay into a trust account established by the
person in accordance with subsection (e) a sum which is a
percentage of such amount equal to—
B—4 1
-------
S. 2030—6
“(i) 90 percent of such amount, reduced by
“(ii) 5 percent of such amount for each full calendar
year since December 31, 1991;
“(B) shall pay to the Administrator a sum equal to $15
per dry ton (or equivalent) of sewage sludge and industrial
waste transported or dumped by such person in that year,
for use for agency activities as provided in subsection (f 1);
“(C) for violations in any year before calendar year
1995—
“(i) subject to paragraph (4), shall pay into the Clean
Oceans Fund established by the State in which the
person is located a sum equal to 50 percent of the
balance of such amount; and
“(ii) subject to paragraph (4), shall pay to the State in
which the person is located a sum equal to the portion
of such amount which is not paid as provided in sub-
paragraphs (A), (B), and (C), for deposit into the water
pollution control revolving fund established by the
State under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as provided in subsection (0(2); and
“(D) for violations in any year after calendar year 1994,
shall pay to the State in which the person is located a sum
equal to the balance of such amount, for use by the State
for providing assistance under subsection (0(3).
“(3) SCHEDuLE FOR PAYMENT—Penalties under this subsection
shall be paid on a quarterly basis.
“(4) P*vIx i’s PRIOR TO r4tsusimc j r o ACCOuNT.—In any
case in which a State has not established a Clean Oceans Fund
or a water pollution control revolving fund under title VI of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, penalties required to be
paid by a person in that State under paragraph (2XC) (i) or (ii), as
applicable, shall be paid to the Administrator for holding and
payment or reversion, as applicable, in the same manner as fees
are held and paid or revert under subsection (bX5).
“(e) ThusT Accow r.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—A person who enters into a compliance
agreement or an enforcement agreement under subsection (c)
shall establish a trust account for the payment and use of fees
and penalties under this section.
“(2) Taus’i ACCOUNT REQUIREMENTS.—An account shall be a
trust account for purposes of this subsection only if it meets, to
the satisfaction of the Administrator, the following require-
ments:
“(A) Amounts in the account may be used only with the
concurrence of the person who establishes the account and
the Administrator except that the person may use amounts
in the account for a purpose authorized by subparagraph
(B) after 60 days after notification of the Administrator if
the Administrator does not disapprove such use before the
end of 8UCh 60-day period.
“(B) Amounts in the account may be used only for
projects which will identify, develop, and implement—
“(i) an alternative system, and any interim measures,
for the management of sewage sludge and industrial
waste, including but not limited to any such system or
measures utilizing resource recovery, recycling, ther-
mal reduction, or composting techniques; or
B— 42
-------
S. 2030—7
“(ii) improvements in pretreatment, treatment, and
storage techniques for sewage sludge and industrial
waste to facilitate the implementation of such alter-
native system or interim measures.
“(C) Upon a finding by the Administrator that a person
did not pay fees or penalties into an account as required by
this section, or did not use amounts in the account in
accordance with this subsection, the balance of the amounts
in the account shall be paid to the State in which the
person is located, for deposit into the water pollution con-
trol revolving fund established by the State under title VI
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as provided in
subsection (0(2).
“(3) USE OF UNEXPENDED AMOUNTS.—tJpon a determination by
the Administrator that a person has terminated ocean dumping
of sewage sludge or industrial waste, the balance of amounts in
an account established by the person under this subsection shall
be paid to the person for use—
“(A) for debts incurred by the person in complying with
this Act or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act;
“(B) in meeting the requirements of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) which apply to
the person, including operations and maintenance; and
“(C) for matching Federal grants.
“(4) USE FOR MATCHING FEDERAL ciw.rrs.—Amounts in a trust
account under this subsection may be used for matching Fed-
eral grants.
“U) USE OF F rs D PENALTIES.—
“(1) AGENCY Acr lvmEs.—of the total amount of fees and
penalties paid to the Administrator in a fiscal year pursuant to
subsections (bX2)(B) and (dX2XB), respectively—
“(A) not to exceed one-third of such total amount shall be
used by the Administrator for—
“(i) costs incurred or expected to be incurred in
undertaking activities directly associated with the issu-
ance under this Act of permits for the transportation or
dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste, includ-
ing the costs of any environmental assessment of the
direct effects of dumping under the permits;
“(ii) preparation of reports under subsection (i); and
“(iii) such other research, studies, and projects the
Administrator considers necessary for, and consistent
with, the development and implementation of alter-
native systems for the management of sewage sludge
and industrial waste;
“(B) not to exceed one-third of such total amount shall be
transferred to the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating for use for—
“(i) Coast Guard surveillance of transportation and
dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste subject
to this Act; and
“(ii) such enforcement activities conducted by the
Coast Guard with respect to such transportation and
dumping as may be necessary to ensure to the maxi-
mum extent practicable complete compliance with the
requirements of this Act; and
B— 43
-------
S. 2030—8
“(C) not to exceed one-third of such total amount shall be
transferred to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans
and Atmosphere for use for—
“(i) monitoring, research, and related activities
consistent with the program developed pursuant to
subsection (jX1); and
“(ii) preparing annual reports to the Congress pursu-
ant to subsection (jX4) which describe the results of
such monitoring, research, and activities.
“(2) DEPosrrs INTO STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOL.V-
ING FUND.—(A) Amounts paid to a State pursuant to subsection
(bX2XD, (dX2XCX11), or (eX2XC) shall be deposited into the water
pollution control revolving fund established by the State pursu-
ant to title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
“(B) Amounts deposited into a State water pollution control
revolving fund pursuant to this paragraph—
“(i) shall not be used by the State to provide assistance to
the person who paid such amounts for development or
implementation of any alternative system;
‘(ii) shall not be considered to be State matching amounts
under title V I of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act;
and
“(iii) shall not be subject to State matching requirements
under such title.
“(3) PENALTY PAYMENTS TO STATF4 AFTER 1994.—(A) Amounts
paid to a State as penalties pursuant to subsection (dX2XD) may
be used by the State—
“(i) for providing assistance to any person in the State—
“(I) for implementing a management program under
section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act;
“(II) for developmg and implementing a conservation
and management plan under section 320 of such Act; or
“(110 for implementing technologies and manage-
ment practices necessary for controlling pollutant
inputs adversely affecting the New York Bight, as such
inputs are identified in the New York Bight Restora-
tion Plan prepared under section 2301 of the Marine
Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987; and
“(ii) for providing assistance to any person in the State
who was not required to pay such penalties for construction
of treatment works (as defined in section 212 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act) which are publicly owned.
“(B) Amounts paid to a State as penalties pursuant to subsec-
tion (dX2XD) which are not used in accordance with subpara-
graph (A) shall be deposited into the water pollution control
revolving fund established by the State under title VI of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Amounts deposited into
such a fund pursuant to this subparagraph—
“(i) shall not be used by the State to provide assistance to
the person who paid such amounts;
“(ii) shall not be considered to be State matching amounts
under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act;
and
“(iii) shall not be subject to State matching requirements
under such title.
“(4) DEPOSITS INTO TREASURY AS OFFSETrING COLLECTIONS.—
Amounts of fees and penalties paid to the Administrator pursu-
B— 44
-------
S. 2030—9
ant to subsection (bX2XB) or (dX2XB) which are used by an
agency in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be deposited into
the Treasury as offsetting collections of the agency.
“(g) ENFORCEMENT.—
“(1) IN GENERAL—Whenever, on the basis of any information
available, the Administrator finds that a person is dumping or
transporting sewage sludge or industrial waste in violation of
subsection (aX 1), the Administrator shall issue an order requir-
ing such person to terminate such dumping or transporting (as
applicable) until such person—
“(A) enters into a compliance agreement or an enforce-
ment agreement under subsection (c); and
“(B) obtains a permit under section 102 which authorizes
such dumping or transporting.
“(2) REQUIREMENTS OF OREER.—Any order issued by the
Administrator under this subsection—
“(A) shall be delivered by personal service to the person
named in the order;
“(B) shall state with reasonable specificity the nature of
the violation for which the order is issued; and
“(C) shall require that the person named in the order, as
a condition of dumping into ocean waters, or transporting
for the purpose of dumping into ocean waters, sewage
sludge or industrial waste—
“(i) shall enter into a compliance agreement or an
enforcement agreement under subsection (c); and
“(ii) shall obtain a permit under section 102 which
authorizes such dumping or transporting.
“(3) Ac’rio s.—The Administrator may request the Attorney
General to commence a civil action for appropriate relief,
including a temporary or permanent injunction and the imposi-
tion of civil penalties authorized by subsection (dXl), for any
violation of subsection (aXi) or of an order is8ued by the
Administrator under this section. Such an action may be
brought in the district court of the United States for the district
in which the defendant is located, resides, or is doing business,
and such court shall have jurisdiction to restrain such violation
and require compliance with subsection (aXi) and any such
order.
“(h) SmTE PRoGI ss REPORTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Governor of each State that is a party to
a compliance agreement or an enforcement agreement under
subsection (c) shall submit to the AdminiRtrator on September
30 of 1989 and of every year thereafter until the Administrator
determines that ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial
waste by persons located in that State has terminated, a report
which descnbes—
“(A) the efforts of each person located in the State to
comply with a compliance agreement or enforcement agree-
ment entered into by the person pursuant to subsection (c),
including the extent to which such person has complied
with deadlines established by the schedule included in such
agreement;
“(B) activity of the State regarding permits for the
construction and operation of each alternative system; and
“(C) an accounting of amounts paid into and withdrawn
from a Clean Oceans Fund established by the State.
B—45
-------
S. 2030—10
“(2) FMLua TO SUBMIT REPORT.—If a State fails to submit a
report in accordance with this subsection, the Administrator
shall withhold funds reserved for such State under section
205(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.s.c.
1285(g)). Funds withheld pursuant to this paragraph may, at the
discretion of the Administrator, be restored to a State upon
compliance with this subsection.
“(i) EPA PRoGRESs REPORTS.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than December 31 of 1989 and of
each year thereafter until the Administrator determines that
ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste has termi-
nated, the Mministrator shall prepare and submit to the Con-
gress a report on—
“(A) progress being made by persons issued permits
under section 102 for transportation or dumping of sewage
sludge or industrial waste in developing alternative systems
for managing sewage sludge and industrial waste;
“(B) the efforts of each such person to comply with a
compliance agreement or enforcement agreement entered
into by the person pursuant to subsection (c), including the
extent to which such person has complied with deadlines
established by the schedule included in such agreement;
“(C) progress being made by the Adminiatrator and
others in identifying and implementing alternative systems
for the management of sewage sludge and industrial waste;
and
“(D) progress being made toward the termination of
ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste.
“(2) REPERRAL. ro CONGRESSIONAL coMslrrrgFs.—Each report
submitted to the Congress under this subsection shall be re-
ferred to each standing committee of the House of Representa-
tives and of the Senate having jurisdiction over any part of the
subject matter of the report.
“(j) ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Adminiqtrator, in cooperation with the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere,
shall design a program for monitoring environmental
conditions—
“(A) at the Apex site (as that term is defined in section
104A);
“(B) at the site designated by the Administrator under
section 102(c) and known as the ‘106-Mile Ocean Waste
Dump Site’ (as described in 49 F.R. 19005)
“(C) at the site at which industrial waste is dumped; and
“(D) within the potential area of influence of the sewage
sludge and industrial waste dumped at those sites.
“(2) Paooa Rsquni M rs.—The program designed under
paragraph (1) shall include, but is not limited to—
“(A) sampling of an appropriate number of fish and
shellfish species and other organisms to assess the effects of
environmental conditions on living marine organisms in
these areas; and
“(B) use of satellite and other advanced technologies in
conducting the program.
“(3) MONITORING Acrlvrr iES.—The Administrator and the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere shall
B— 46
-------
S. 2030—il
each conduct monitoring activities consistent with the program
designed under paragraph (1).
“(4) REPORTS.—(A) Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Administrator, in cooperation
with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and At-
mosphere, shall submit to the Congress a report describing the
program designed pursuant to paragraph (1).
“(B) Not later than December 31 of each year after the
submission of a report under subparagraph (A), the Adminis-
trator and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere shall report to the Congress the results of monitor-
ing activities conducted during the previous year under the
program designed pursuant to paragraph (1).
‘(k) DEFINrrI0N5.—For purposes of this section—
“(1) the term ‘alternative system’ means any method for the
management of sewage sludge or industrial waste which does
not require a permit under this Act;
“(2) the term ‘Clean Oceans Fund’ means such a fund estab-
lished by a State m accordance with subsection (cX5);
“(3) the term ‘excluded material’ means—
“(A) any dredged material discharged by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers or discharged pursuant to
a permit issued by the Secretary in accordance with section
103; and
“(B) any waste from a tuna cannery operation located in
American Samoa or Puerto Rico discharged pursuant to a
permit issued by the Administrator under section 102;
“(4) the term ‘industrial waste’ means any solid, semisolid, or
liquid waste generated by a manufacturing or processing plant,
other than an excluded material;
“(5) the term ‘interim measure’ means any short-term method
for the management of sewage sludge or industrial waste,
which—
“(A) is used before implementation of an alternative
system; and
“(B) does not require a permit under this Act; and
“(6) the term ‘sewage sludge’ means any solid, semisolid, or
liquid waste generated by a wastewater treatment plant, other
than an excluded material.
SEC. 1003. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) PUBLIC LAw 9 5—153.—Section 4 of Public Law 95-153 (33 U.S.C.
1412a) is amended—
(1) by striking subsection (a);
(2) by striking subsection (b);
(3) by redesignating subsection (c), and any reference thereto,
as subsection (a);
(4) in subsection (a) (as so redesignated) by striking “After”
and inserting “Notwithstanding section 104B of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, after”;
(5) in subsection (a) (as so redesignated) by striking “such title
I” and inserting “title I of such Act”;
(6) by striking subsection (d); and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
“(b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘industrial waste’ means
any solid, semisolid, or liquid waste generated by a manufacturing
or processing plant.”.
B— 47
-------
S. 2030—12
(b) ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT—Section 2301(bX8) of the Marine
Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 is amended by
striking “dumping of municipal sludge and”.
(c) PRELIMINARY REPORT ON ALrERNATIvES.—Section 2303 of the
Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 is
amended—
(1) by striking subsection (b), and
(2) redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e), and any reference
thereto, as subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively.
SEC. 1004. ENFORCEMENT MONITORING REPORT.
Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(hereinafter in this title referred to as the “Administrator”), in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall submit a
report to the Congress which outlines progress made in using elec-
tronic monitoring equipment, and other means to monitor and
prevent dumping of sewage sludge outside the site designated by the
Administrator under section 102(c) and known as the “106-Mile
Ocean Waste Dump Site” (as described in 49 FR. 19005), and by
vessels in transit to that site.
SEC. 1005. PROHIBITION ON DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE AT LAND.
FILLS ON STATEN ISLAND.
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33
U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), as amended by this Act, is amended by inserting
after section 104B the following:
‘SEC. 104C. PROHIBITION ON DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE AT LAND-
FILLS ON STATEN ISLAND.
“(a) IN GE IW. ..—No person shall dispose of sewage sludge at any
landfill located on Staten Island, New York.
“(b) EXCLUSION FROM PEmIES.—
“(1) IN GENERAL—Subject to paragraph (2), a person who
violates this section shall not be subject to any penalty under
this Act.
“(2) INJVNCrI0N.—Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit the bring-
ing of an action for, or the granting of, an injunction under
section 105 with respect to a violation of this section.
“(C) DEFINITION.—FOT purposes of this section, the term ‘sewage
sludge’ has the meaning such term has in section 104B.”.
SEC. 1006. USE OF STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING
FUND GRANTS FOR DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS.
(a) GENERAL REQUIREMENT.—NOtWithstaIidiflg the provisions of
title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, each of the
States of New York and New Jersey shall use 10 percent of the
amount of a grant payment made to such State under such title for
each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991 and 10 percent of the State’s
contribution associated with such grant payment in the 6-month
period beginning on the date of receipt of such grant payment for
making loans and providing other assistance as described in section
603(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to any govern-
mental entity in such State which has entered into a compliance
agreement or enforcement agreement under section 104B of the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 for identi-
B—48
-------
S. 2030—13
fying, developing, and implementing pursuant to such section alter-
native systems for management of sewage sludge.
(b) LIMITATION.—If, after the last day of the 6-month period
beginning on the date of receipt of a grant payment by the State of
New York or New Jersey under title V I of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act for each of fiscal years 1990 and 1991, 10
percent of the amount of such grant payment and the State’s
contribution associated with such grant payment has not been used
for providing assistance described in subsection (a) as a result of
insufficient applications for such assistance from persons eligible for
such assistance, the 10 percent limitations set forth in subsection (a)
shall not be applicable with respect to such grant payment and
associated State contribution.
SEC. i007. OCEAN DISCHARGES.
(a) IN GE iw...—Wjt 6 months after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a
report on the implementation of section 403(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S C. 13 43(c)).
(1) REPORT CoN’rF is.—The report under this section shall
Contain—
(1) an accounting of discharges into the waters of the tern-
tonal sea, the contiguous zone, and the ocean, including—
(A) the total number of discharges;
(B) the location, source, volume, and potential environ-
mental effects of each discharge;
(C) the date of original issuance, review, and reissuance of
each discharge permit; and
(D) the number of discharges that have been determined
by the Administrator to be in compliance with the ocean
discharge criteria regulations promulgated pursuant to sec-
tion 403(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act;
(2) a schedule for implementing section 403(c) of such Act and
achieving compliance with guidelines promulgated under such
section as expeditiously as practicable, and an estimate of the
resources required to meet such schedule; and.
(3) recommendatjo for any additional legislative authorities
needed to achieve compliance with such guidelines.
SEC. 1008. CLERICAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO GREAT LAKES WATER
QUALITY AGREEMENT OF 1978.
Section 118 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1268) is amended by inserting “, as amended by the Water Qualit 7
Agreement of 1987 and any other agreemen and amendments,’
immediately after “the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1978” each place that term appears.
TITLE Il—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR
PRIORITy CONSIDERATION UNDER
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
SEC. 2001. DESIGNATION OF AREAS.
Section 320(aX2XB) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended—
B— 49
-------
S. 2030—14
(1) by inserting “Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts (includ-
ing Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor);” after “Buzzards Bay,
Massachusetts;”;
(2) by striking “and” before “Galveston Bay, Texas”; and
(3) by inserting after “Galveston Bay, Texas;” the follow-
ing: “; Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, Louisiana;
Indian River Lagoon, Florida; and Peconic Bay, New York”.
TITLE 111—DUMPING OF MEDICAL WASTE
Subtitle A—Dumping by Public Vessels
SEC. 3101. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the “United States Public Vessel
Medical Waste Anti-Dumping Act of 1988”.
SEC. 3102. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The washing ashore of potentially infectious medical
wastes from public vessels of the United States may pose serious
and widespread risks to public health and to the welfare of
coastal communities.
(2) Current Federal law provides inadequate protections
against the disposal of such wastes from such vessels into ocean
waters.
(3) Operators of such vessels must take immediate action to
stop disposing of such wastes into ocean waters.
SEC. 3103. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this subtitle:
(1) Po’rxwnAu.y INPECFIOUS aIxc&z.. wASTE.—The term
“potentially infectious medical waste” includes isolation wastes;
infectious agents; human blood and blood products; pathological
wastes; sharps; body parts; contaminated bedding; surgical
wastes; and other disposable medical equipment and material
that may pose a risk to the public health, welfare or the marine
environment.
(2) PUBLIC v s .—The term “public vessel” means a vessel
of any type whatsoever (including hydrofoils, air-cushion ve-
hicles, submersibles, floating craft whether propelled or not,
and fixed or floating platforms) that is owned, or demise char-
tered, and operated by the United States Government, and is
not engaged in commercial service.
SEC. 3104. PROHIBITION.
After 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, no
public vessel shall dispose of potentially infectious medical waste
into ocean waters unless—
(1XA) the health or safety of individuals on board the vessel is
threatened; or
(B) during time of war or a declared national emergency;
(2) the waste is disposed of beyond 50 nautical miles from the
nearest land; and
(3XA) in the case of a public vessel which is not a submersible,
the waste is 8teriljzed, properly packaged, and sufficiently
B—50
-------
S. 2030—15
weighted to prevent the waste from coming ashore after dis-
posal; and
(B) in the case of a public vessel which is a submersible, the
waste is properly packaged and sufficiently weighted to prevent
the waste from coming ashore after disposal.
SEC. 3105. GUIDANCE.
Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense and the head of each affected agency,
in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, shall each issue guidance for public vessels
under the jurisdiction of their agency regarding implementation of
section 3104.
Subtitle B—Dumping by Vessels
SEC. 3201. AMENDMENTS TO MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND
SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1912.
(a) DEFINmON.— .Sectjon 3 of the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1402) is amended—
(1) by redesignating subsection (k) and (1), and any reference
thereto, as subsections (D and (m), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following:
“(k) ‘Medical waste’ means isolation wastes; infectious agents;
human blood and blood products; pathological wastes; sharps; body
parts; contaminated bedding: surgical wastes and potentially
contaminated laboratory wastes; dialysis wastes; and such addi-
tional medical items as the Administrator shall prescribe by regula-
tion.”.
(b) PRornBmoN.—Subsection (a) of section 102 of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1412(a))
is amended in the first sentence—
(1) by striking “biological warfare agents and” and inserting
“biological warfare agents,”; and
(2) by inserting “and medical waste,” after “radioactive
waste,”.
(c) CIVIL PE J..iiEs.—Sectjon 105(a) of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1415(a)) is amended
by inserting after the first sentence the following: “In addition, any
person who violates this title or any regulation issued under this
title by engaging in activity involving the dumping of medical waste
shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $125,000 for each
violation, to be assessed by the Administrator after written notice
and an opportunity for a hearing.”.
(d) CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND F0RFErFURFS.—Sectjon 105(b) of the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C.
1415(b)) is amended—
(1) by inserting “(1)” before “In addition”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(2) In addition to any action which may be brought under
subsection (a), any person—
“(A) who knowingly violates any provision of this title by
engaging in activity involving the dumping into ocean waters of
medical waste shall upon conviction be fined not more than
$250,000, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; and
B—5 1
-------
S. 2030—16
“(B) convicted of a violation involving such activity shall
forfeit to the United States any property constituting or derived
from any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as
a result of such violation, and any of the property of the person
which was used, or intended to be used in any manner or part,
to commit or to facilitate the commission of the violation.”.
SEC. 3202. AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AC !’.
(a) D kiiuh1oN.—Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the
following
“(20) The term ‘medical waste’ means isolation wastes; infec-
tious agents; hurn n blood and blood products; pathological
wastes; sharps; body parts; contaminated bedding surgical
wastes and potentially contaminated laboratory wastes; dialysis
wastes; and such additional medical items as the Administrator
shall prescribe by regulation.”.
(b) PRoIIIBFrIoN.—Section 301(f) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1311(f)) is amended by striking “or high-level
radioactive waste” and inserting “, any high-level radioactive waste,
or any medical waste,”.
TITLE IV—SHORE PROTECTION ACT OF
1988
SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the “Shore Protection Act of 1988”.
Subtitle A—Shore Protection
SEC. 4101. DEFINITIONS.
In this title—
(1) “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection A ency.
(2) “coastal waters’ means—
(A) the territorial sea of the United States;
(B) the Great Lakes and their connecting waters;
(C) the marine and estuarine waters of the United States
up to the head of tidal influence; and
(D) the Exclusive Economic Zone as established by Presi-
dential Proclamation Number 5030, dated March 10, 1983.
(3) “municipal or commercial waste” means solid waste (as
defmed in section 1004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6903)) except—
(A) solid waste identified and listed under section 3001 oi
the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921);
(B) waste generated by the vessel during normal oper-
ations;
(C) debris solely from construction activities;
(D) sewage sludge subject to regulation under title I of the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.); and
(E) dredged or fill material subject to regulation under
title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
B— 52
-------
S. 2030—17
Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), or the Rivers
and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et
seq.).
(4) “person” means an individual, trust, firm, joint stock
company, corporation (including a government corporation),
partnership, association, State, municipality, commission, politi-
cal subdivision of a State, or any interstate body.
(5) “receiving facility” means a facility or operation where
municipal or commercial waste is unloaded from a vessel.
(6) “United States”, when used in a geographic sense, means
the States of the United States, Puerto Rico, the District of
Columbia, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or posses-
sion of the United States.
(7) “waste source” means a facility or vessel from which
municipal or commercial waste is loaded onto a vessel, includ-
ing any rolling stock or motor vehicles from which that waste is
directly loaded.
SEC. 4102. VESSEL PERMITS AND NUMBERS.
(a) IN GENERAL—A vessel (except a public vessel as defined in
section 2101 of title 46, United States Code) may not transport
municipal or commercial waste in coastal waters without—
(1) a permit for that vessel from the Secretary of Transpor-
tation; and
(2) displaying a number or other marking on the vessel as
prescribed by the Secretary under chapter 123 or section
12502(b) of title 46, United States Code.
(b) PER &rr APPUcAnONS.—Applicatiori for a permit required by
subsection (a) of this section shall be made by the vessel owner or
operator and include—
(1) the name, address, and telephone number of the vessel
owner and operator;
(2) the vessel’s name and identification number,
(3) the vessel’s area of operation;
(4) the vessel’s transport capacity;
(5) a history of the types of cargo transported by that vessel
during the previous year, including identifying the type of
municipal or commercial waste transported as—
(A) municipal waste;
(B) commercial waste;
(C) medical waste; or
(D) waste of another character.
(6) any other information the Secretary may require; and
(7) an acknowledgment.
(c) EFFECFIVE DATE o PERMITS.—A permit issued under this
section—
(1) is effective 30 days after the date on which it was is8ued;
(2) may be issued only for a period of not more than 5 years
after the effective date of the permit;
(3) may be renewed for periods of not more than 5 years only
by the vessel owner or operator that applied for the original
permit; and
(4) is terminated when the vessel is sold.
(d) DENIAL ø PERMrrS.—The Secretary may, or at the request of
the AdminiRtrator shall, deny the issuance of a permit for any vessel
B—5 3
-------
S. 2030—18
if the owner or operator of the vessel has a record of a pattern of
serious violations of—
(1) this subtitle;
(2) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.);
(3) the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.);
(4) the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33
U.S.C. 401 et seq.); or
(5) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.).
(e) PEa rr DEcIsroN.—.The Secretary, after consultation with the
Administrator, shall issue or deny a vessel permit under this section
within 30 days after receiving a complete application. On denying
the issuance of the permit for a vessel the Secretary shall—
(1) notif r the applicant of the denial and the reasons for the
denial; and
(2) provide an opportunity for a hearing on the denial.
(f) MAINTAINING PgRMIT.—
(1) IN GEz ERAL.—The permit issued for a vessel under this
title shall be maintained in a manner prescribed by the
Secretary.
(2) ENooRss1 ’rs. —if’ a vessel is a documented vessel, the
Secretary may endorse a permit on the vessel’s certificate of
documentation.
(g) INFORMATION SYgrRM.—The Secretary may include
information in a permit in the vessel information system main-
tained under chapter 125 of title 46, United States Code.
SEC. 4103. WASTE HANDLING PRACTICES.
(a) IN Ge —
(1) LOADING.—The owner or operator of the waste source shall
take all reasonable steps to assure that all municipal or
commercial waste is loaded onto a vessel in a manner that
assures that waste deposited in coastal waters is minimized.
(2) SECtJRING.—The owner or operator of a vessel shall assure
that all municipal or commercial waste loaded onto the vessel is
secured by netting or other means to assure that waste will not
be deposited into coastal waters during transport.
(3) OFIOADING.—The owner or operator of the receiving
facility shall take all reasonable steps to assure that any
municipal or commercial waste in offloaded from a vessel in a
manner that assures that waste deposited into coastal waters is
minimized
(4) CLEANING UP.—The owner or operator of any waste source
or receivmg facility shall provide adequate control measures to
clean up any municipal or commercial waste which is deposited
into coastal waters.
(b) Rsc uI IoNs.—The Administrator, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, shall prescribe regulations—
(1) requiring that waste sources, receiving facilities, and ves-
sels provide the means and facilities to assure that the waste
will not be deposited into coastal waters during loading, offload-
ing, and transport;
(2) requiring, as appropriate, the submission and adoption by
each responsible party of an operation and maintenance
manual identifying procedures to be used to prevent, report,
B—5 4
-------
S. 2030—19
and clean up any deposit of municipal or commercial waste into
coastal waters, including record keeping requirements; and
(3) if the Administrator determines that tracking systems are
required to assure adequate enforcement of laws preventing the
deposit of municipal or commercial waste into coastal waters,
requiring installation of the appropriate systems within 18
months after the Administrator makes that determination.
SEC. 4104. SUSPENSION. REVOCATION. AND INJUNCTIONS.
(a) SUSPENSION * in REvoCATIoN—After notice and opportunity
for a hearing, the Secretary of Transportation may, and at the
request of the Administrator shall, suspend or revoke a permit
issued to a vessel under this title for a violation of this title or a
regulation prescribed under this title.
(b) INJUNCrION S.—The Secretary or the Administrator may bring
a civil action to enjoin any operation in violation of this title or a
regulation prescribed under this title in the district court of the
United States for the district in which the violation occurred.
SEC. 4105. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) GEN u. Aumoarry.—The Secretary of Transportation shall
enforce this title under section 89 of title 14, United States Code.
The Secretary may authorize other officers or employees of the
United States Government to enforce this title under that section.
(b) PERIODIC EXAMINATIONS.—The Secretary shall conduct periodic
examinations of vessels operating under this title transporting
municipal or commercial waste to determine that each of these
vessels has a permit issued under section 4102 of this Act.
(c) REFUSAL OF CLEA.RANCE.—The Secretary of the Treasury may
refuse the clearance required by section 4197 of the Revised Statutes
of the United States (46 App. U.S.C. 91), to any vessel subject to this
title which does not have a permit required under section 4102 of
this Act.
(d) DENI J.. OF E rav AND D rErmoN.—lf a vessel does not comply
with this title, the Secretary of Transportation may—
(1) deny entry to any place in the U uted States; and
(2) detain at the place in the United States from which it is
about to depart.
(e) PERSIsrgN’r VtowoRs.—The Administrator shall conduct an
investigation of the owner or operator of a vessel or facility if the
owner has 5 or more separate violations during a 6-month period.
SEC. 4106. SLJBPENA AUTHORITY.
(a) GENERA!. Aumoarry—In an investigation under this title, the
attendance and testimony of witnesses, including parties in interest,
and the production of any evidence may be compelled by subpena.
The subpena authority granted by this section is coextensive with
that of a district court of the United States, in civil matters, for the
district in which the investigation is conducted.
(b) SUBPENA AumoRrry.—An official designated by the Secretary
of Transportation or Administrator to conduct an investigation
under this part may issue subpenas as provided in this section and
administer oaths to witnesses.
(c) FAILURE TO COMPLY.—When a person fails to obey a subpena
issued under this section, the district court of the United States for
the district in which the investigation is conducted or in which the
person failing to obey is found, shall on proper application issue an
B— 55
-------
S. 2030—20
order directing that person to comply with the subpena. The court
may punish as contempt any disobedience of its order.
(d) WrrNEss FER5.—A witness complying with a subpena issued
under this section may be paid for actual travel and attendance at
the rate provided for witnesses in the district courts of the United
States.
SEC. 4107. FEES.
The Secretary of Transportation may collect a fee under section
9701 of title 31, United States Code, of not more than $1,000, from
each person to whom a permit is issued under this subtitle for a
permitting system and to maintain information.
SEC. 4108. CIVIL PENALTY PROCEDURES.
a) GENERAL PRocEDuR .—After notice and an opportunity for a
hearing, a person found by the Secretary of Transportation to have
violated this title or a regulation prescribed under this title for
which a civil penalty is provided, is liable to the United States
Government for the civil penalty provided. The amount of the civil
penalty shall be assessed by the Secretary by written notice. In
determining the amount of the penalty, the Secretary shall consider
the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the prohibited acts
committed and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpabil-
ity, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters
that justice requires.
(b) COMPROMISING PENALTIES.—The Secretary may compromise,
modify, or remit, with or without consideration, a civil penalty
under this title until the assessment is referred to the Attorney
General.
(C) RE naiu. TO THE Arroa GENERAL—If a person fails to pay
an assessment of a civil penalty after it has become final, the
Secretary may refer the matter to the Attorney General for collec-
tion in an appropriate district court of the United States.
(d) REFUND OF PE j..’ry.—The Secretary may refund or remit a
civil penalty collected under this title if—
(1) application has been made for refund or remission of the
penalty within one year from the date of payment; and
(2) the Secretary finds that the penalty was unlawfully,
improperly, or excessively imposed.
SEC. 4109. PENALTIES.
(a) GENERAL PENALTY—Except as provided in subsection (b) of
this section, a person violating this title is liable to the United
States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000.
Each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation. A vessel
involved in the violation also is liable in rem for the penalty.
(b) OPERATING WITHOUT A PERMIT—A person violating section
4102 of this Act is liable to the United States Government for a civil
penalty of not more than $10,000. Each day of a continuing violation
is a separate violation. A vessel involved in the violation also is
liable in rem for the penalty.
(c) CRIMINAL PENALTY—Any person that knowingly violates, or
that knowingly aids, abets, authorizes, or instigates a violation of
this title, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, impris-
oned for not more than 3 years, ‘or both.
B—56
-------
S. 2030—2 1
(d) PAm rs FOR INFoiu,f IoN.—The court, the Secretary of
Transportation, or the Administrator, as the case may be, may pay
up to one-half of a fine or penalty to any person giving information
leading to the assessment of the fine or penalty.
Subtitle B—Related Provisions
SEC. 4201. STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
(a) S’runy.—The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary
of Transportation, shall conduct a study to determine the need for,
and effectiveness of additional tracking systems for vessels to assure
that municipal or commercial waste is not deposited in coastal
waters. In conducting this study, the Administrator shall use the
data collected from its permitting and enforcement activities under
this title. In determining the effectiveness of tracking systems, the
Administrator shall rely on the information provided by the Sec-
retary under subsection (b) of this section. The report shall include a
recommendation whether additional tracking systems are needed.
This study shall be submitted to Congress within 24 months after
the date of enactment of this title.
(b) RECOMMENDATION8._The Secretary shall provide rec-
ommendations to the Administrator concerning the various tracking
systems that might be applicable to vessels transporting municipal
or commercial waste which the Secretary currently is studying. The
Secretary shall consider the relative effectiveness of various systems
and the relative costs of the systems both to the United States
Government and to the vessel owner.
SEC. 4202. RELATION TO (Y HER LAWS
(a) Er ac’r ON Fw &ij. STArE LAWS.—Thj S title does not
affect the application of any other Federal or State law, statutory or
common, including the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanc-
tuaries Act of 19’72 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).
(b) Emcr ON FOREIGN VFSSEIa.—Thjs title shall be carried out
with respect to foreign vessels consistent with the obligations of the
United States under international law.
B—5 7
-------
S 2030—22
SEC. 4203. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated $1,500,000 for each of the
fiscal years 1989 and 1990, to carry out this title.
SEC. 4204. APPLICATIONS AND EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) APPLICATION8.—The Secretary shall make vessel applications
for permits to be issued under section 4102 of this Act publicly
available within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Emc’rIvE DATE FOR P nTE.—Section 4 102(a) of this Act is
effective 240 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) EmcrlvE DATE roa HANDLING Piu cricE8.—Section 4103 of
this Act takes effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
B—58
-------
-.. ,‘-,T,. ‘ - - ,c—— —
- - — - - - - -- - - - y-
-
Report for H.R.3515 Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988
As finally approved by the House and Senate (Enrolled), AT THE SECOND
SESSION
Complete Text of this version
H. R. 3515
One Hundredth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun arid held at the City of Washington on Monday,
the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight
An Act
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to require the Administrator of the-.
Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations on the management of
infectious waste.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988”.
SEC. 2. TRACKING OF MEDICAL WASTE.
(a) Amendment of Solid Waste Disposal Act.--The Solid Waste Disposal Act Is
amended by adding the following new subtitle at the end:
“Subtitle J—-Oemonstration Medical Waste Tracking Program
“SEC. 11001. SCOPE OF DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR MEDICAL WASTE.
“(a) CoveredStates. —The States within the demonstration program
established under this subtitle for tracking medical wastes shall be New York,
New Jersey, Connecticut, the States contiguous to the Great Lakes and any
State Included in the program through the petition procedure described In
subsection Cc), except for any of such States In which the Governor notifies
the Administrator under subsection (b) that such State shall not be covered by
the program. -
“(b) Opt Out.—-(1) If the Governor of any State covered under subsection (a)
which Is not contiguous to the Atlantic Ocean notifies the Administrator that
such State elects not to participate in the demonstration program, the
Administrator shall remove such State from the program.
B—59
-------
‘(2) tf the Governor of any other State covered under subsection (a)
notifies the Administrator that such State has implemented a medical waste
tracking program that Is no less stringent than the demonstration program
under this subtitJe -and that such State elects not to participate in the
demonstration progr&Th, the Administrator shall, if the Administrator
determines that such State program is no less stringent than the demonstration
program under this subtitle, remove such State from the demonstration program.
‘(3) Notifications under paragraphs (1) or (2) shall be submitted to the
Administrator no later than 30 days after the promulgation of regulations
implementing the demonstration program under this subtitle.
‘(c) Petition In.-—The Governor of any State may petition the Administrator
to be included ii the demonstration program and the Administrator may, in his
discretion, include any such State. Such petition may not be made later than
30 days after promulgation of regulations establishing the demonstration
program under this subtitle, arid the Administrator shall determine whether to
include the State within 30 days after receipt of the State’s petition.
“(d) Expiration of Demonstration Program.-—The demonstration program shall
expire on the date 24 months after the effective date of the regulations under
this subtitle.
‘SEC. 11002. LISTING OF MEDICAL WASTES.
“(a) List.--MOt later than 6 months after the enactment of this subtitle,
the Administrator shall promulgate regulations listing the types of medical
waste to be tracked under the demonstration program. Except as provided in
subsection (b), such list shall include, but need not be limited to, each of
the following types of solid waste:
“(1) Cultures and stocks of infectious agents and associated
biologicals, including cultures from medical and pathological
laboratories, cultures and stocks of infectious agents from research and
industrial laboratories, wastes from the production of blologicals,
discarded live and attenuated vaccines, and culture dishes and devices
used to transfer, inoculate, and mix cultures.
“(2) Pathological wastes, including tissues, organs, and body parts that
are removed during surgery or autopsy.
“(3) Waste human blood and products of blood, including serum, plasma,
and other blood components.
“(4) Sharps that have been used in patient care or in medical, research,
or .industrial laboratories, including hypodermic needles, syringes,
pasteur pipettes, brokeii glass, and scalpel blades.
“(5) Contaminated animal carcasses, body parts, and bedding of animals
that were exposed to infectious agents during research, production of
blologicals, or testing of pharmaceuticals.
“(6) Wastes from surgery or autopsy that were In contact with Infectious
agents, including soiled dressings, sponges, drapes, lavage tubes,
drainage sets, underpads, and surgical gloves.
‘17) Laboratory wastes from medical, pathological, pharmaceutical, or
other research, co erc1al, or industrial laboratories that were in
contact with Infectious agents, including slides and cover slips,
disposable gloves, laboratory coats, and aprons.
“(8) Dialysis wastes that were In contact with the blood of patients
undergoing hemodialysis, including contaminated disposable equipment and
supplies such as tubing, filters, disposable sheets, towels, gloves,
aprons, and laboratory coats.
‘19) Discarded medical equipment and parts that were In contact with
B—60
-------
infectious agents.
110) Biological waste and discarded materials contaminated with blood,
excretion, excudates or secretion from human beings or animals who are
isolated to protect others from conmiunicable diseases.
‘ (U) Suctt•other waste material that results front the administration of
medical care to a patient by a health care provider and is found by the
Administrator to pose a threat to human health or the environment.
“(b) Exclusions From List.-—The Administrator may exclude from the list
under this section any categories or items described in paragraphs 6) through
(10) of subsection (a) which he determines do not pose a substantial present
or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly
treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.
“SEC. 11003 TRACKING OF MEDICAL WASTE.
“(a) Demonstration Program. --Not later than 6 months after the enactment of
this subtitle, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing a
program for the tracking of the medical waste listed in section 11002 which is
generated in a State subject to the demonstration program. The program shall
(1) provide for tracking of the transportation of the waste from the generator
to the disposal Facility, except that waste that Is incinerated need not be
tracked after incineration, (2) include a system for providing the generator
of the waste with assurance that the waste is received by the disposal
facility, (3) use a uniform form for tracking In each of the demonstration
States, and (4) Include the following requirements:
“(A) A requirement for segregation of the waste at the point of
generation where practicable.
“(B) A requirement for placement of the waste in containers that will
protect waste handlers and the public from exposure.
“(C) A requirement for appropriate labeling of containers of the waste.
“(b) Small Quantlties.-—Irt the program under subsection (a), the
Administrator may establish an exemption for generators of small quantities of
medical waste listed under section 11002, except that tne Administrator may
not exempt from the program any person who, or facility that, generates 50
pounds or more of such waste in any calendar month.
‘(c) On—Site tncInerators.-—Concurrently with the promulgation of
regulations under subsection (a), the Administrator shall promulgate a
recordkeeping and reporting requirement for any generator in a demonstration
State of medical waste listed In section 11002 that (1) Incinerates medical
waste listed In section 11002 on site and (2) does not track such waste under
the regulations promulgated under subsection (a). Such requirement shall
require the generator to report to the Administrator on the volume and types
of medical waste listed in section 11002 that the generator incinerated on
site during the 6 months following the effective date of the requirements of
this subsection.
“Cd) Typ• of Medical Waste and Types of Generators.--For each of the
requirements of this section, the regulations may vary for different types of
medical waste and for different types of medical waste generators.
“SEC. 11004. !NSPECTIONS.
“(a) Requirements for Access.——For purposes of developing or assisting in
the development of any, regulation or report under this subtitle or enforcing
any provision of this subtitle, any person who generates, stores, treats,
transports, disposes of, or otherwise handles or has handled medical waste
shall, upon request of any officer, employee, or representative of the
B—6 1
-------
Environmental Protection Agency duly designated by the Administrator, furnish
information relating to such waste, including dfl tracking forms required to
be maintained under Section 11003, conduct monitoring or testing, and permit
such person at all reasonable times to have access to, and to copy, all
records relating to such waste. For such purposes, such officers, employees,
or repreSefltdtlve9-.are authorized to——
“(1) enter at reasonable times any establishment or other place where
medical as .es are or have been generated, stored, treated, disposed of,
or tran porced from;
‘(2) conduct monitoring or testing; and
‘(3) inspect and obtain samples from any person of any such wastes and
samples of any containers or labeling for such wastes.
‘(b) Procedures.--Each inspection under this section shall be comenced and
completed with reasonable promptness. If the officer, employee, or
representative obtains any samples, prior to leaving the premises he shall
give to the owner, operator, or agent in charge a receipt describing the
sample obtained and, if requested, a portion of each such sample equal in
volume or weight to the portion retained if giving such an equal portion is
feasible. If any analysis is made of such samples, a copy of the results of
such analysis shall be furnished promptly to the owner, operator, or agent in
charge of the premises concerned.
“(c) Availability to Public.--The provisions of section 3007(b) of this Act
shall apply to records, reports, and information obtained under this section
in the same manner and to the same extent as such provisions apply to records,
reports, and information obtained under section 3007.
“SEC. 11005. ENFORCEMENT.
“(a) Compliance Orders.--
“(1) Violations. ——Whenever on the basis of any information the
Administrator determines that any person has violated, or Is In violation
of, any requirement or prohibition in effect under this subtitle
(including any requirement or prohibition in effect under regulations
under this subtitle) (A) the Administrator may issue an order (1)
assessing a civil penalty for any past or current violation, (if)
requiring compliance immediately or within a specified time period, or
( lii) both, or (B) the Administrator may comence a civil action in the
United States district court in the district in which the violation
occurred for appropriate relief, including a temporary or permanent
injunction. Any order issued pursuant to this subsection shall state with
reasonable specificity the nature of the violation.
“(2) Orders assessing penalties.——Any penalty assessed in an order under
this subsection shall not exceed $25,000 per day of noncompliance for each
violation of a requirement or prohibition in effect under this subtitle.
In assessing such a penalty, the Administrator shall take into account the
seriousnes of the violation and any good faith efforts to comply with
applicable requirements.
1 1(3) Public hearing.--Any order Issued under this subsection shall
become final unless, not later than 30 days after issuance of the order,
the persons named therein request a public hearing. Upon such request, the
Administrator shall promptly conduct a public hearing. In connection with
any proceeding under this section, the Administrator may issue subpoenas
for the production of relevant papers, books, and documents, and may
promulgate rules for discovery procedures.
W(4) Violation of compliance orders.-—In the case of an order under this
B—6 2
-------
subsection requiring compliance with any requirement of or regulation
under this subtitle, if a violator fails to take Corrective action within
the time specified in an order, the Administrator may assess a civii
penalty of no more than $25,000 for each day of Continued flOncompliance
with the order:
(b) Criminal Penalties.__Any person who——
‘(1) knowingly violates the requirements of or regulations under this
subtitle;
“(2) knowingly omits material information or makes any false material
statement or representation in any label, record, report, or other
document filed, maintained, or used for purposes of compliance with this
subtitle or regulations thereunder; or
“(3) knowingly generates, stores, treats, transports, disposes of, or
otherwise handles any medical waste (whether such activity took place
before or takes place after the date of the enactment of this paragraph)
and who knowingly destroys, alters, Conceals, or fails to file any record,
report, or other document required to be maintained or filed for purposes
of compliance with this subtitle or regulations thereunder
shall, U Ofl Conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000 for each
day of violation, or imprisonment not to exceed 2 years (5 years in the case
of a violation of paragraph (1)). If the conviction is for a violation
committed after a first conviction of such person under this paragraph, the
maximum punishment under the respective paragraph shall be doubled with
respect to both fine and Imprisonment.
“(c) Knowing Endangerment.__Any person who knowingly violates any provision -
of subsection (b) who knows at that time that he thereby places another person
in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, shall upon conviction be
subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than
15 years, or both. A defendant that is an organization shall, upon Conviction
under this subsection, be subject to a fine of not more than S1,O00,Qot . The
‘?rms of t’is paragraph shall be interpreted in accordance with the rules
provided under section 3008(f) of this Act.
“(d) Civil Penalties._.Any person who violates any requirem n of or
regulation under this subtitle shall be liable to the United States for a
civil penalty In an amount not to exceed $25,000 for each such violation. Each
day of such violation shall, for purposes of this section, constitute a
separate violation.
“(e) Civil Penalty Pol1cy. ——C , penalties assessed by the United States or
by the States under this subtitle shall be assessed in accordance with the
Administrator’s ‘RCRA Civil Penalty Policy’, as such policy may be amended
from time to time.
“SEC. 11006. FEDERAL FACILITIES.
“(a) In Generaj....Each department, agency, and Instrumentality of the
executive, 1egjsla jy and Judicial branches of the Federal Government in a
demonstration State (1) havlng jurisdiction over any solid waste management
facility or disposal site at which medical waste Is disposed of or otherwise
handled, or (2) engaged in any activity resulting, or which nay result, In the
disposal, management, or handling of medical waste shall be subject to, and
Comply with, all Federal, State, Interstate, and local requirements, both
ubstantive and pr edur J (including any requirement for permits or reporting
any provisions for injunctive relief and such sanctions as may be Imposed
y a court to enforce such relief), respecting control and abatement of
medical waste disposal and management In the same manner, and to the same
B—63
-------
extent, as any person is subject to such requirements, including the payment
of reasonable service charges. The Federal, State, interstate, and local
substantive and procedural requirements referred to in this subsection
include, but a e .Pot limited to, all administrative orders, civil, criminal,
arid adrninistrath% penalties, arid other sanctions, including injunctive
relief, fines, and Imprisonment. neither the United States, nor any agent,
employee, or officer thereof, shall be inirune or exempt from any process or
sanction of any State or Federal court with respect to the enforcement of anY
such order, penalty, or other sanction. Thr purposes of enforcing arty such
substantive or procedural requirement (including, but not mited to, any
injunctive relief, administrative order, or civil, criminal, administrative
penalty, or other sanction), against any such department, agency, or
instrumentality, the United States hereby expressly waives any immunity
otherwise applicable to the inited States. The President may exempt any
department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch from compliance
with such a requirement if he determines it to be in the paramount interest of
the United States to do so. No such exemption shall be granted due to lack of
appropriation unless the President shall have specifically requested such
appropriation as a part of the budgetary process and the Congress shall have
failed to make available such requested appropr atlon. Any exemption shall be
for a period not in excess of one year, but additional exemptions may be
granted for periods not to exceed one year upon the President’s making a new
determination. The President shall report each January to the Congress all
exemptions from the requirements of this section granted during the preceding
calendar year, together with his reason for granting each such exemption. -.
‘(b) Definition of Person.--For purposes of this Act, the term ‘person’ -
shall be treated as including each department, agency, and instrumentality of
the United States.
‘SEC. 11007. RELATIONSIUP TO STATE LAW.
‘(a) State Inspections and Enforcement.--A State tray conduct inspections
under 11004 and take enforcement actions under section 11005 against any
person, including any person who has imported medical waste Into a State in
violation of the requirements of, or regulations under, this subtitle, to the
same extent as the Administrator. At the time a State Initiates an enforcement
action under section 11005 against any person, the State shall notify the
Administrator in writing.
“(b) Retention of State Authority.-—Nothing In this subtitle shall--
“(1) preeMpt any State or local law; or
“(2) except as provided In subsection (c) otherwise affect any State or
local law or the authority of any State or local government to adopt or
enforce any State or local law.
“(c) State Forms.. . .Any State or local law which requires submission of a
tracking form from any person subject to this subtitle shall require that the
form be identical fri content and format to the fan required under section
11003, except that a State may require the submission of other tracking
Information which Is supplemental to the Information required on the form
required under section 11003 through additional sheets or such other means as
the State deems appropriate.
“SEC. 11008. REPORT TO COP4GRESS.
“(a) Final Report.-..Not later than 3 months after the expiration of the
demonstration program, the Administrator shall report to Congress Ofl the
following topics:
B—6 4
-------
“(1) The types, number, and size of generators of medical waste
(including small quantity generators) in the United States, the types and
amounts of medical waste generated, and the on-site and off-site methods
currently u%ed. tO P!andle, store, transport, treat, and dispose of the
medical waste,’-.including the extent to which such waste is disposed of in
sewer systems.
‘(2) The present or potential threat to human health and the environment
posed by medical waste or the incineration thereof.
‘(3) The present and potential costs (A) to local economies, persons,
and the environment from the improper handling, storage, transportation,
treatment or disposal of medical waste and (B) to generators,
transporters. and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities from
regulations e cablishing requirements for tracking, handling, storage,
transportation, treatment, and disposal of medical waste.
“(4)(A) The success of the demonstration program established under this
subtitle in tracking medical waste,
“(B) changes in incineration and storage practices attributable to the
demonstration program, and
“(C) other available and potentially available methods for tracking
medical waste and their advantages and disadvantages, including the
advantages and disadvantages of extending tracking requirements to (1)
rural areas and (11) small quantity generators.
“(5) Available and potentially available methods for handling, storing,
transporting, and disposing of medical waste and their advantages and
disadvantages.
“(6) Available and potentially available methods for treating medical -
waste, including the methods of incineration, sterilization, chemical
treatment, and grinding, and their advantages, including their ability to
render medical waste noninfectious or less infectious, and unrecognizable
and otherwise protect human health and the environment, and disadvantages.
“(7) Factors affecting the effectiveness of the treatment methods
identified In subsection (a)(5), including quality control and quality
assurance procedures, maintenance procedures, and operator training.
“(8) existing State and local controls on the handling, storage,
transportation, treatment, and disposal of medical waste, including the
enforcement and regulatory supervision thereof.
“(9) The appropriateness of using any existing State requirements or the
requirements contained in subtitle C as nationwide requirements to monitor
and control medical waste.
“(10) The appropriateness of the penalties provided in section 11006 for
insuring compliance with the requirements of this subtitle, including a
review of the level of penalties imposed under this subtitle.
“(ll)(A) The effect of excludir households and small quantity
generators fros any regulations governing the handling, storage,
transportation, treatment, and disposal of medical waste, and
“(8) potential guidelines for the handling, storage, treatment, and
disposal of medical waste by households and small quantity generators.
“(12) Available and potentially available methods for the reuse or
reduction of the volume of medical waste generated.
‘(b) Interim Reports.-—The Administrator shall submit two Interim reports to
Congress on the topics l1ste I In subsection (a). The Interim reports shall
con 1n the information on the topics available to the Administrator at the
time of submission. One Interim report shall be due 9 months after enactment
of this subtitle and one shall be due 12 months after the effective data of
B—6 5
-------
regulations under this subtitle.
‘(c) Consultatlei .-— [ n preparing the reports under this section, the
Administrator shall cansult with appropriate State and local agencies.
“sec. 11009. HEALTH IMPACTS REPORT.
‘Within 24 months after the enactment of this section, the Administrator of
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry shall prepare for
congress a report on the health effects of medical waste, including each of
the following-—
“(1) A description of the potential for infection or injury from the
segregation, handling, storage, treatment, or disposal of medical wastes.
“(2) An estimate of the number of people injured or infected annually by
sharps, and the nature and seriousness of those injuries or infections.
“(3) An estimate of the number of people infected annually by other
means related to waste segregation, handling, storage, treatment, or
disposal, and the nature and seriousness of those infections.
‘(4) For diseases possibly spread by medical waste, including Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome and hepatitis B, an estimate of what percentage
of the total number of cases nationally may be traceable to medical wastes.
“SEC. 11010. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
“(a) Consultation.-—(1) In promulgating regulations under this subtitle, the
Administrator shall consult with the affected States and may consult with
other interested parties.
“(2) The Administrator shall also consult with the International Joint
Commission to determine how to monitor the disposal of medical waste emanating
from Canada.
“(b) Public Coninent.--In the case of the regulations required by this
subtitle to be promulgated within 9 months after the enactment of this
subtitle, the Administrator may promulgate such regulations in interim final
form without prior opportunity for public comment, but the Administrator shall
provide an opportunity for public comment on the interim final rule. The
promulgation of such regulations shall not be subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980.
‘(c) Relationship to Subtitle C.—-Nothlrmg in this subtitle shall affect the
authority of the Administrator to regulate medical waste, including medical
waste listed under section 11002, under subtitle C of this Act.
“SEC. 11011. EFFECTIVE DATE.
“The regulations promulgated under this subtitle shall take effect withIn 90
days after promulgation, except that, at the time of promulgation, the
Administrator ms ,y provide for a shorter period prior to the effective date If
he finds the regulated community does not need 90 days to come Into compliance.
“SEC. 11012. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
“There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator such sums as
nay be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1989 through 1991 for purposes
of carrying out activities under this subtitle.”.
(b) Table of Contents.-—The table of contents for the Solid Waste Disposal
Act Is amended by Inserting the following after the items relating to subtitle
Subtltle J-—Demonstratlon Medical Waste Tracking Program
“Sec. 11001. Scooe of demonstration program for medical waste.
B—66
-------
“SeC. 11002. Listing of medical wastes.
“Sec. 11003. Track 1ng.of medical waste.
“Sec. 11004. Insp btions.
“Sec. 11005. Enforcement.
“Sec. 11006. Federal facilities.
‘Sec. 11007. Relationship to State law.
“Sec. 11008. Report to Congress.
“Sec. 11009. Health impact report.
“Sec. 11010. General provisions.
“Sec. 11011. Effective date.
‘Sec. 11012. Authorization of appropriations.”.
SEC. 3. OEFLNITtON.
Section 1004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903) Is amended by
adding the following at the end thereof:
‘(40) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the term ‘medical
waste means any solid waste which is generated in the diagnosis, treatment,
or immunization of human beings or animals, in research pertaining thereto, or
in the production or testing of biologicals. Such term does not Include any
hazardous waste Identified or listed under subtitle C or any household waste
as defined in regulations under subtitle C.”.
SEC. 4’. EPA LAW ENFORCEMENT POWERS.
(a) Conferral of Law Enforcement Powers.--Chapter 203 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the foll3wing:
“Sec. 3063. Powers of Environmental Protection Agency
“(a) Upon designation by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, any law enforcement officer of the Environmental Protection Agency
with responsibility for the investigation of criminal violations of a law
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, may--
“(1) carry firearms; -
“(2) execute and serve any warrant or other processes issued under the
authority of the United States; and
“(3) make arrests without warrant for-—
‘(A) any offense against the United States committed in such
officer’s presence; or
“(B) an y felony offense against the United States If such officer
has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed or Is coi m itt1ng that felony offense.
‘(b) The powers granted under subsection (a) of this section shall be
exercised tn accordance with guidelines approved by the Attorney General.”.
(b) Clerical Pmendnent.-—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter
203 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
“3063. Powers of Environmental Protection Agency. TM .
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Yit’e President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
a eases eeeafla eee a C O O_ S e —
B— 67
-------
S.
undrtdth on r ss of t t z of 2n r a
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the twentr.fift/& day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight
n rt
To require that pLastic ring carrier devices be degradable, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatjues of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I—DEGRADABLE PLASTIC RING
CARRIERS
SEC 101. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that - . .
(1) plastic ring carrier devices have been found in large
quantities in the marine environment;
(2) fish and wildlife have been known to have become entan-
gled in plastic ring carriers;
(3) nondegradable plastic ring carrier devices can remain
intact in the marine environment for decades, posing a threat to
fish and wildlife; and
(4) 16 States have enacted laws requiring that plastic ring
carrier devices be made from degradable material in order to
reduce litter and to protect fish and wildlife.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this title—
(1) the term “regulated item” means any plastic ring carrier
device tnat contains at least one hole greatec than i ’ e iiiche n
diameter which is made, used, or designed for the purpose of
packaging, transporting, or carrying multipackaged cans or
bottles, and which is of a size, shape, design, or type capable,
when discarded, of becoming entangled with fish or wildlife; and
(2) the term “naturally degradable material” means a mate-
rial which, when discarded, will be reduced to environmentally
benign subunits under the action of normal envitonmentaL
forces, such as, among others, biological decomposition, photo-
degradation, or hydrolysis.
SEC. 103, REGULATION.
Not later than 24 months after the date of the enactment of this
title (unless the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency determines that it is not feasible or that the byproducts of
degradable regulated items present a greater threat to the environ-
ment than nondegyadable regulated items, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall require, by regulation, that
any regulated item intended for use in the United States shall be
made of naturally degradable material which, when discarded,
decomposes within a period established by such regulation. The
period within which decomposition must occur after being discarded
shall be the shortest period of time consistent with the intended use
B-6 9
-------
S. 1986—2
of the item and the physical integrity required for such use. Such
regulation shall allow a reasonable time for affected parties to come
into compliance, including the use of existing inv ntor1es.
TITLE Il—SAN FRANCISCO BAY
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
SEC. 201. ENLARGEMENT OF REFUGE.
Section 2 of the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the establish-
ment of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge”, approved
June 30, 1912 (16 U.S.C. 668dd note), is amended to read as follows:
“SEc. 2. There shall be included within the boundaries of the
refuge the following:
“(1) Those lands, marshes, tidal flats, salt ponds, submerged
lands, and open waters in the south San Francisco Bay area
generally depicted on the map entitled ‘Boundary Map, Pro-
posed San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge’, dated July
1971, and which comprise approximately twenty-one thousand
six hundred and sixty-two acres within four distinct units to be
known as Fremont (five thousand five hundred and twenty
acres), Mowry Slough (seven thousand one hundred and sev-
enty-five acres), Alviso (three thousand and eighty acres), and
Greco Island (five thousand eight hundred and eighty seven
acres). Said boundary map shall be on file and available for
public inspection in the offices of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service. Department of the Interior.
“(2) Up to 20,000 acres in the vicinity of the areas described in
paragraph (1), and similar to the areas described in paragraph
(1), which the Secretary determines are nece sary to protec: fish
and wildlife resources.”.
SEC. 202. TOTAL AREA OF REFUGE.
Subsection (a) of section 3 of such Act is amended in the second
sentence by striking “twenty-three thousand acres’ and inserting
“43,000 acres”.
SEC. 203 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 5 of such Act is amended—
(1) by inserting “(a)” before “There”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
B— 70
-------
S. 1986—3
“(b) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to
acquire areas described in section 2(2) such sums as may be
necessary, which shall remain available until a pended.”.
P esidei of the Senate, p’
B—7 1
-------
PUBLIC LAW 100-333—JUNE 16, 1988 102 STAT. 605
Public Law 100—333
100th Congress
An Act
To prohibit the use of certain antifouling paints containing organotin and the use of June 16. 1988
organotin compounds. purchased at retail, used to make such paints (H R 2210)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatwes of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, Organotin
Antifoulirig
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. Paint Control
Act of 1988
This Act may be cited as the Organotrn Antifouling Paint Con- Hazardous
trol Act of 1988”. materials
Environmental
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. protection
(a) FIND1NGS.—The Congress finds the following: 2401
(1) Antifouling paints containing organotin biocides are used 33 USC 2401
to prevent the build-up of barnacles and other encrusting orga-
nisms on vessels.
(2) Laboratory and field studies show that organotin is very
toxic to marine and freshwater organisms at very low levels.
(3) Vessels that are less than 25 meters in length and are
coated with organotin antifouling paint account for a large
amount of the organotin released into the aquatic environment.
(4) The Environmental Protection Agency ha determined
that concentrations of organotin currently in the waters of the -
United States may pose unreasonable risks to oysters, clams,
fish, and other aquatic life.
(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to protect the aquatic
environment by reducing immediately the quantities of organotin
entering the waters of the United States.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 33 USC 2402.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term “Administrator” means the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agenc
(2) The term “antifouling paint” means a coating, paint, or
treatment that is applied to a vessel to control fresh water or
marine fouling or anisrns.
(3) The term ‘estuary” means a body of water having an
unimpaired connection with open sea, where the sea water is
measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land drain-
age, and such term includes the Chesapeake Bay and estuary-
type areas of the Great Lakes.
(4) The term “organotin” means any compound of tin used as
a biocide in an antifouling paint.
(5) The term “person” means any individual, and partnership,
association, corporation, or organized group of persons whether
incorporated or not, or any government entity, including the
military.
(6) The term “qualified antifouling paint containing
organotin” means an antifouling paint containing organotin
that-
B— 73
-------
PUBLIC LAW 100-333--JUNE 16, 1988
(A) is allowed to be used under the terms of the final
decision referred to in section 12(c ); or
(B) until such final decision takes effect, is certified by the
Administrator under section 6 as having a release rate of
riot more than 4.0 micrograms per square centimeter per
day.
(7) The term “release rate’ means the rate at which organotin
is released from an antifouling pamt over the long term, as
determined by the Administrator, using—
(A) the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM)
standard test method which the Environmental Protection
Agency required in its July 29, 1986, data call-in notice on
tributyltin compounds used in antifouling paints; or
(B) any similar test method specified by the Adminis-
trator.
(8) The term ‘ retail” means the transfer of title to tangible
personal property other than for resale, after manufacturing or
processing
(9) The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Na .
(10) The term “State” means a State of the United States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or any tern-
tory or possession of the United States.
(11) The term “vessel” includes every description of
watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of
being used, as a means of transportation on water.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON THE APPLIC TlON OP ORGANOTIN
AN’TIFOULING PAINTS ON CERTAI?I ESSELS.
(a) PRoHIBrnoN.—Subject to section 12 d, and except as provided
in subsection (b). no person in any State may apply to a vessel that is
less than 25 meters in length an antitouling paint containing
organotin.
(b) Exc noNs.—Subsection (a) shall not prohibit the application
of a qualified anti.fouling paint containing organotin on--
(1) the aluminum hull of a vessel that is less than 25 meters in
length; or
(2) the outboard motor or lower drive unit of a vessel that is
less than 25 meters in length.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ORGANOTIN ANTIFOULING PAINTS
AND ORGANOTIN ADDITIVES USED TO MAKE SUCH PAINTS.
(a) INrsiuM PROHIBmON OF CERTAIN ORGANOTIN AN’TIFOEJLING
PAIN ’rs.—Subject to section 12(d), no person in any State may—
(1) sell or deliver to, or purchase or receive from, another
person an antifouling paint containing organotin; or
(2) apply to a vessel an antifouling paint containing organotin;
unless the antifouling paint is certified by the Administrator as
being a qualified antifouling paint containing organotin.
(b) PROHIBITION OF CERT*iN ORGANOTIN ADDITIVES.—SUbJeCt to
section 12(d), no person in any State may sell or deliver to, or
purchase or receive from, another person at retail any substance
containing organotin for the purpose of adding such substance to
paint to create an antifouling paint.
B—74
-------
PUBLIC LAW 100-333—JUNE 16, 1988
SEC. 6. CERTiFICATION.
(a) INITIAL CERTIFICATION—NOt later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall certify each
antifouling paint containing organotm that the Administrator
determines has a release rate of not more than 4.0 micrograms per
square centimeter per day on the basis of the information submitted
to the Environmental Protection Agency before the date of the
enactment of this Act in response to its July 29, 1986, data call-in
notice on tributyltin or any other data call-in notice.
(b) SUBSEQUENT CE11T1FICATION.—After the initial period of certifi-
cation required by subsection (a), and not later than 90 days after
the receipt of information with regard to an antifouling paint
ontain1flg orga.notin submitted—
(1) in response to a data call-in referred to in subsection (a); or
(2) under any provision of law;
the Administrator shall certify such paint if, on the basis of such
information, the Administrator determines that such paint has a
release rate of not more than 4.0 micrograms per square centimeter
per day.
SEC. 1. MONITORING AND RESEARCH OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS.
(a) ESTUARKNE MONITORING.—The Administrator, in consultation
with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere,
shall monitor the concentrations of organotin in the water column,
sediments, and aquatic organisms of representative estuaries and
near-coastal waters in the United States. This monitoring program
shall remain in effect until 10 years after the date of the enactment
of this Act. The Administrator shall submit a report annually to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro
tempore of the Senate detailing the results of such monitoring
program for the preceding year.
(b) NAVY HOME PORT MONITORING.—The Secretary shill provide
for periodic monitoring, not less than quarterly, of waters serving as
the home port for any Navy vessel coated with an antifouling paint
containing organotin to determine the concentration of organotin in
the water column, sediments, and aquatic organisms of such waters.
(C) NAVY RESEAJtcH OF ECOLOGICAL ErstcTs.—The Secretary shall
continue existing Navy programs evaluating the laboratory toxicity
and environmental risks associated with the use of antifoalrng
paints containing organotin.
d) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit a report annually to the
Administrator and to the Governor of each State in which a home
port for the Navy is monitored under subsection (b) detailing the
results of such monitoring in the State. Such reports shall be
included in the annual report required to be submitted under
subsection (a).
(e) ASSISTANCE TO STATES. —To the extent practicable, the
Administrator shall assist States in monitoring waters in such
States for the presence of organotin and in analyzing samples taken
during such monitoring.
(1) FIVE-YEAR REpowr.—At the end of the 5-year period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
submit a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
to the President pro tempore of the Senate providing an assessment
of—.
B— 75
-------
PUBLIC LAW 100-333—JUNE 16, 1988
(1) the effectiveness of existing laws and rules concerning
organotin compounds in ensuring protection of human health
and the environment;
(2) compliance with water quality criteria established pursu-
ant to section 9 of this Act and any applicable water quality
standards; and
(3) recommendations for additional measures to protect
human health and the environment.
SEC. 8. ALTERNATIVE ANTIFOULANT RESEARCH.
(a) RESEARCH—The Secretary and the Administrator shall con-
duct research into chemical and nonchemical alternatives to
antifouling paints containing organotin.
(b) REPORT.—At the end of the 4-year period beginning on the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with
the Secretary, shall submit a report to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate
detailing the results of the research conducted pursuant to subsec-
tion (a).
SEC. 9. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA DOCUMENT.
Not later than March 30, 1989, the Administrator shall issue a
final water quality criteria document concerning organotin com-
pounds pursuant to section 3 04(a) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)).
SEC. 10. PENALTIES.
(a) CIVIL PENALTIES.—(1) Any person violating section 4 or 5 shall
be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each offense.
(2) After notice and an opportunity for a hearing, a person found
by the Administrator to have violated section 4 or 5 is liable to the
United States Government for the civil penalty assessed under
subsection (a). The amount of the ci ii penalty shall be assessed by
the Administrator by written notice In determining the amount of
the penalty, the Administrator shall consider the nature, cir-
cuinstances, extent, and gravity of the prohibited acts committed
and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and other matters that
justice requires.
(3) The Administrator may compromise, modify, or remit, with or
without consideration, a civil penalty assessed under this section
until the assessment is referred to the Attorney General.
(4) If a person fails to pay an assessment of a civil penalty after it
has become final, the Administrator may refer the matter to the
Attorney General for collection in the appropriate United States
district court.
(b) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—Afly person knowingly violating section
4 or 5 shall be fined not more than $25,000, or imprisoned for not
more than one year, or both.
SEC. ii. OTHER AUTHORITIES: STATE LAWS.
(a) OTHER AUTHORITIES or m ADMINI5TEAT0R.—Nothing in this
Act shall limit or prevent the Administrator from establishing a
lower permissible release rate for organotin under authorities other
than this Act.
(b) STATE LAws.—Nothing in this Act shall preclude or deny any
State or political subdivision thereof the right to adopt or enforce
B— 76
-------
PUBLIC LAW 100-333—JUNE 16, 1988
any requirement regarding antifouling paint or any other substance
containing organotin. Compliance with the requirements of any
State or political subdivision thereof respecting antifouling paint or
any other substance containing organotin shall not relieve any
person of the obligation to comply with the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 12. EFFECTIVE DATES: USE OF EXISTING STOCKS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—EXCePt as provided in subsection (b), this Act
shall take effect on the date of its enactment.
(b) TERMINATION OF INTERIM PROHIBITION—SectiOn 5(a) shall
remain m effect until a final decision regarding the release of
organotin into the aquatic environment by antifouling paints,
pursuant to the process initiated by the Administrator’s Position
Document 1 dated January 8, 1986—
(1) is issued by the Administrator; and
(2) takes effect.
(C) FINAL DECISION DEFTNED.—FOr purposes of subsection (b). a
final decision shall be considered to have taken effect upon the date
of the expiration of the time for making any appeal with respect to
such decision or, in the case of any such appeal, the resolution of
such appeal.
(d) Uss OF EXISTING S’rocKs.—Notwithstanding the prohibitions
contained in sections 4 and 5, the Administrator, not later than 90
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, shall provide
reasonable times—
(1) not to exceed 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, for the continued sale, delivery, purchase, and receipt
of any antifouling paints containing organotin and organotin
additives that exist before the date of the enactment of this Act;
and
(2) not to exceed one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, for the application of any antifouling paints containing
organotin and organotin additives that exist before the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Approved June16, 1988.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H R 2210 (S 1788)
HOUSE REPORTS No 100-400 (Comm on Merchant Marine and Fisheries)
SENATE REPORTS No 100-237 accompanying S 1788 (Comm on Environment and
Public Works)
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Vol 133 (1987) Nov 9. considered and passed House
Dec Ii. considered and passed Senate. amended, in lieu of
S 1788
Dec 18, House concurred in Senate amendment with amend-
ment
Vol 134 (1988) Apr 18, Senate concurred in House amendment with amend-
ment
May 24, House concurred in Senate amendment
0
B— 77
-------
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES I
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1986
Ocrcs n 17, 1956.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. HOWARD, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
iTo accompany H.R 6]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6) to pro-
vide for the conservation and development of -water and related re-
sources and the improvement and rehabilitation of the Nation’s
water resources infrastructure, having met, after full and free con-
ference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their re-
spective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as fol-
lows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TiTLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT Tn’L&—This Act may be cited as the 11 Water Resources
Development Act of 1986’
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS. —
Tztie I—Cost Sharing
Title 11—Harbor Development
Title 17%—Inland Waterway Transportation System
Title 1 V—Flood Control
Title V—Shoreline Protection
Title VI— Water Resources Conservation and Development
Title Vu—Water Resources Studies
IWe VHf—Project Modifications
Title 1X -Ge,zenzl Provisions
Title X—Project Deaughorizatioflo
Title XI—Miscellaneous Programs and Projects
Title XH—Den’ Safely
Title XIU—Namzngs
Title X l V—Reuenue Ftvvisions
64-5550
B— 79
-------
eligible operations and maintenance costs not provided by payments
from the Harbor Maintenance Tru.st Fund under this section.
SEC 21!. ALTERNATIVES To MUD DUMP FOR DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATE.
fl/AL
(a) DESIGNATION OP ALTERNATIVE SITEs.—Not later than three
years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall designate one or more
sites in accordance with the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanc-
tuaries Act of 1972 for the disposal of dredged material which,
without such designation, would be disposed of at the Mud Dump
(as defined in subsection (g)). The designated site or sites shall be
located not less than 20 miles from the shoreline. The Administra-
tor, in determining sites for possible designation under this subsec-
tion, shall consult with the Secretary and appropriate Federal,
State, interstate, and local agencies.
(b) USE OF NEWLY DESIGNATED S ITE.—Beginning on the 80th day
following the date on which the Administrator of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency makes the designation required by subsection
(a), any ocean disposal of dredged material (other thqn acceptable
dredged material) by any person or governmental entity authorized
pursuanT to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
of 1.972 to dispose of dredged material at the Mud Dump on or
before the date of such designation shall talie place at the jiewly
designated ocean disposal site or sites u,tder ‘ ijbsectzon (a) in lieu of
the Mud Dump.
(c) INTERIM AVAILABILITY OF LAWFUL S!TES.—Unttl the 30th day
following the date on which the Administrator of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency makes the designation required by subsection
(a), there shall be available a lawful site for the ocean disposal of
dredged material by any person or governmental entity authorized
pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972 to dispose of dredged material at the Mud Dump on or
before the date of such designation.
(d) STATUS REPORTS.—NOt later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act and annually thereafter until the designation
of one or more sites under subsection (a), the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency shall submit a report to the Corn-
rnittee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Repre-
sentatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate describing the status of such designation.
(e) Fcrrup USE OF MUD Du r RESTRICTED TO ACCEPTABLE
DREDGED T RIAL NotwithstandLng any other provision of law,
including any regulation, the Secretary shall ensure that, not later
than the 30th day following the date on which the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency makes the designation re-
quired by subsection (a), all existing and future Department of the
Army permits and authorizations for disposal of dredged material
at the Mud Dump shall be modified, revoked, and issued (as appro-
priate) to ensure that only accep!’thle dredged material will be clis-
POSEd of at wek sits and that all other dredged material deter-
mined to be suitable for ocean disposal will be disposed of at the
Site or sites designated pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.
B—80
-------
(1) DEFINITION OF ACCEPTABLE DREDGED MATERL4L.—For pur
poses of this section, the term “acceptable dredged material” mean
rock, beach quality sand, material excluded from testing under the
ocean dumping regulations promulgated by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Marine Protec-
tion, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 197f4 and any other dredged
material (including that from new work) determined by the Secre-
tory, in consultation with the Admini .strator to be substantially
free of pollutants
‘g) DEFiNITiON OF MUD Du vp. —For purposes of this section, the
term “Mud Dump” means the area located approximately 5 miles
east of Sandy Hook, New Jersey, with boundary coordinates of 40
degrees 2 S’ minutes 48 seconds N, 73 degrees 51 minutes 28 seconds
W; 40 degrees 21 minutes 48 seconds N, 73 degrees 50 minutes 00
seconds W, 40 degrees 21 minutes 48 seconds N, 73 degrees 51 min-
utes 28 seconds W and 40 degrees 28 minutes 48 seconds N, 73 de-
grees 50 minutes 00 seconds W
SEE. 212. EMERGENCY RESPOA’SE SERVIcES.
(a) Ga4NTs.—The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any
non-Federal interest operating a project for a harbor for provision of
emergency response services in such harbor (including contingency
planning, necessary personnel training, and the procurement of
equipment and facilities either by the non-Federal interest, by a
local agency or municipality, or by a combination of local agencies
or municipalities on a cost-reimbursable basis, either by a coopera-
tive agreement, mutual aid plan. or mutual assistance plan entered
into between one or more non-Federal interests, public agencies, or
local municipalities,).
(‘b,) AUThORIzATION OF APPROPRIATIONS—There is authorized to
be appropriated for-fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1986,
and ending before October 1, 199 $5,000,000.
SEC. 213. HARBOR OFFICE AT sUORRO BA Y. C’ALIFOR.VL4.
For reasons of navigation safety, subject to section 803(a) of this
Act, the Secretary is authorized to make a grant to the non-Federal
interest operating Morro Bay Harbor, California, for construction of
a new harbor office at such harbor, at a total cost of $500,000, with
an estimated first Federal cost of $375,000 and an estimated first
non-Federal cost of $125,000.
SEC. 2U. DRFL IT 1OXS.
For purposes of this title—
(1) DEEP-DRAFT HARBOR. —The term “deep-draft harbor”
means a harbor which is authorized to be constructed to a
depth of more than 45 feet (other than a project which is au-
thorized by section 202 of this title).
‘2,’ ELIGIBLE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANcE.—(A) Except as
provided in subparagraph (B), the term “eligible operation.s and
maintenance” means all operations, maintenance, repair, and
rehabilitation, including maintenance dredging reasonably nec-
essary to maintain the width and nominal depth of any harbor
or inland harbor.
(B) As applied to the Saint Lawrence Seaway, the term “eligi-
ble operations and maintenance” means all operations, mainte-
B—B 1
-------
(A) economic assumptions;
(B) engineering standards;
(C) estunates of spending for operation and maintenance;
(D) estimates of expenditures for similar investments by
State and local governments;
(E) estimates of demand and need for public services de-
rived from such capital investments and estimates of the
service capacity of such investments; and
(F) the effects of delays in planning and implementation
of water resources projects on the capital investment costs
of water resources programs, including increased costs asso-
ciated with interest rates and inflation;
(5) a description of the economic, social, and enuironmental
benefits realized from past investments and expected to be real-
ized from future investments, including the protection of life
and property; and
(6’) an analysi,s of the effect of different levels of cost sharing
and user fee recovery on the demand for water resources
projects.
SEC. 70& NEW YORK HARBOR AND A DJA CENT cHANNEL STUDY.
The Secretary is directed to expedite completion of the study of
New York Harbor and Adjacent Channels, New York and New
Jersey, authorized by a resolution of the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate, dated December 1,5, 1880, and to
submit a report to Congress on the results of such study not later
than December 31, 1987.
SEC 709. DIOXIN CONTAñILVA nON IN PASSAIC RIVER-NEWARK BAY.
(a) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall study and monitor the extent and adverse environmental ef.
feces of dioxin contamination in the Passaic River-Newark Bay
navigation system. The study and report under this section are not
intended to encumber civil works projects under development or
scheduled to be maintained. Work on these projects shall proceed
along the present schedule.
(7) Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 4ct,
Ihe Administrator shall transmit a report on the results of such
study and monitoring along with any recommendations of the Ad.
rninz.strator concerni:tg methods of reducing the effects of such con-
tamination to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of
the Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation
of the House of Representatives.
SE 710. DEAIJTJIORJZA TI ON OF STUDIES.
(a) Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act,
and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
hst of incomplete water resources studies which have been author.
lzed but for which no funds have been appropriated during the.
lull fiscal years preceding the submission of such list. For each such
Study the Secretary shall include the following information:
(1) th€ date of authorization and the manner in which the
Study was authorized;
(2) a description of the purposes of the study;
B—8 2
-------
(3) Interstate Highway 15, adjacent to Utah Lake;
(4) Rock. Little Rock, and Slate Canyons in the city of Prouo,
(5) the Bear River, its tributaries and outlets;
(6) the Weber River, its tributaries and outlets; and
(7) the Sevier River, its tributaries and outlets.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the sum of $1,600,000 is au-
thorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal years begzn-
ning after September 80, 1986, such sums to remain available until
expended.
SEC. 72S. NEW YORK BIGHT STUD}
(a) The Secretary shall study a hydro-environmental monitoring
and information system in the New York Bight in the form of a
system using computerized buoys and radio telemetry that allows for
the continual monitoring (at stratcgically located sites throughout
the New York Bight) of the following: wind, wave, current, salinity
and thermal gradients and sea chemistry, in order to measure the
effect of changes due to air and water pollution, including changes
due to continued dumping in the Bight.
(b) In addition, the Secretary shall study a proper physical hy-
draulic model of the New York Bight and for such an offshore
model to be tied into the existing inshore physical hydraulic model
of the Port of New York and New Jersey operated by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers.
(c) The Secretary shall coordinate fully 1L’ith the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency in carrying out the study de-
scribed in this section and shall report any findings and recommen-
dations to Congress. The Secretary and the Administrator shall also
consider the views of other appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, academic institutions, and members of the public who are
concerned about water quality in the New York Bight.
(d) There is authorized to be appropriated not more than
$1,000,000 per fiscal for each of fiscal years 193?, 1988. 1989, 19.90,
and 1991.
SElL’. 729. STUDY OF JI ’ATER RESOURCES .VEEDS OF RIVER £ ISLVS A.VD RE-
cio 1 c.
(a) The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of the Interi-
or and in consultation wit/i appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, is authorized to study the water resou. ’ces iteeds of river
basins and regions of the United States The Secretaries shall report
the results of sue/i study to Congress not later than October 1. 1988
(b) In carrying out the studies authorized under subcectioa (a) of
this section, the Secretaries shall consult with State, interstate, and
local governmental entities.
(c) There is authorized to be appropriated $.5, 000,000 for fiscal
years beginning after September SO. 1986, to carry out this section.
SEC. 730. STUD} OP IlEC ’ IPTURE OF BENEFiTS OF INCREASED LAND
VA LUES.
The Secretary shall study current practices on the sharing of costs
related to the benefits of increased land values resulting from water
resources projects carried out by the Secretary, together with poten-
tial methods by which any increase in land values should be shared
between the Federal Government and the non-Federal interests. The
Secretary shall report to Congress on the results of such study, along
B-83
-------
neers, the Secretary of the Array is authorized to allocate water
which was allocated in the project purpose for municipal and in-
dustrial water supply and which is not under contract for delivery.
for such periods as he may deem reasonable, for the interim use for
irrigation purposes of such storage until such storage is required for
municipal and industrial water supply. No contracts for the interim
use of such storage shall be entered into which would significantly
affect then-exz.stzng uses of such storage. ‘
SEC. 932. WA TER SUPPLY ACT AMENDMENT&
(a) Section 301(b) of the Water Supply Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 319, 43
U.S.C. 390b(b)), is amended as follows:
(1) in the third proviso, after “That” insert the following: “(1)
for Corps of Engineers projects, not to exceed 80 percent of the
total estimated cost of any project may be allocated to anticipat-
ed future demands, and , (2) for Bureau of Reclamation
projects,’
(2) in the fourth proviso, after “That” insert the following:
“for Corps of Engineers projects, the Secretary of the Army may
permit the full non-Federal contribution to be made without
interest, during construction of the project or, with interest,
over a period of not more than thirty years from the date of
completion, with repaym.ent contracts providing for recalcula-
tion of the interest rate at, five-year intervals, and for Bureau
of Reclamation projects,’:
(3) after the first sentence insert the following: “For Corps of
Engineers projects, all annual operation, maintenance, and re-
placement costs for municipal and industrial water supply stor-
age under the provisions of this section shall be reimbursed
from State or local interests on an annual basis. For Corps of
Engineers projects, any repayment by a State or local interest
shall be made with interest at a rate to be determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the average
market yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the
United States with remaining periods to maturity comparable
to the reimbursement period, during the month preceding the
fiscal year in which costs for the construction of the project are
first incurred (or, when a recalculation is made), plus a premi-
um of one-eighth of one percentage point for transaction costs.’
and
(4) strike out “The interest rate used” and insert in lieu there-
of “For Bureau of Reclamation projects, the interest rate used ‘
(b) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to amend or require
amendment of any valid contract entered into pursuant to the
Water Supply Act of 1958, or Federal reclamation law and approved
by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Interior prior to
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC 9J COST SHARING FOR DISPOSAL OF MATERIAL ON BEA CHEb
Section 145 of the Water Resources Deuelopment Act of 1976 (88
U.S. a 426j) is amended by inserting “by such State of 50 percent”
after “upon payment ‘
B—84
-------
SEC. 1172. SPECIAL PRO VISIONS REGARDING CERTAIN DUMPING S1TE
(a) The Congress finds that the New York Bight Apex is no longer
a suitable location for the ocean dumping of municipal sludge.
(1’) Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972 (32 US.C. 1401 et seq.) is amended by inserting after sec-
tion 104 the following new section:
“SPECIAL PROVISIONS REGARDING CERTAIN DUMPING SITES
“S.sc. 104A. (a) NEW YORK BIGHT APEx. —(1) For purposes of this
subsection—
“(A) The term ‘Apex’ means the New York Bight Apex con-
sisting of the ocean waters of the Atlantic Ocean westward of
72 degrees 30 minutes west longitude and northward of 40 de-
grees 10 minutes north latitude.
‘YB) The term ‘Apex site’ means that site within the Apex at
which the dumping of municipal sludge occurred before October
1, 1982.
“(C) The term ‘eligible authority’ means any sewerage author-
ity or other unit of State or local government that on November
2, 1982, was authorized under court order to dump municipal
sludge at the Apex site.
“(2) No person may apply for a permit under this title in relation
to the dumping of or the transportation for purposes of dumping,
municipal sludge within the Apex unless that person is an eligible
authority.
“(2) The Administrator may not issue, or renew, any permit under
this title that authorizes the dumping of or the transportation for
purposes of dumping, municipal sludge within the Apex after the
earlier of—
“(A) December 15, 1987; or
“(B) the day determined by the Administrator to be the first
day on u’hich municipal sludge generated by eligible authorities
can reasonably be dumped at a site .designated under section
102 other than a site within the Apex.
“(b) RESTRICTION ON USE OF THE 106-MILE SITE.—The Admini.s-
trator may not issue or renew any permit under this title which au-
thorizes any person, other than a person that is an eligible authority
within the meaning of subsection (aX1XC), to dump, or to transport
for the purposes of dumping, municipal sludge within the site desig-
ncztcd under section 10 3(c) by the Administrator and known as the
‘106’-Mzle Ocean Waste Dump Site’ (as described in 49 FR. 19005). ‘
SE 1173. dHIIAGO TUNNEL AND RESERVOiR PROJECT.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including sec-
tion 202 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act), the Feder-
al share of the cost of construction of the Chicago Tunnel and
Reservoir Project, Illinois, shall be 75 percent.
TITLE XII—DAM SAFETY
Ssc 1201. (a) Section 1 of Public Law 92-367 (33 US.C. 467; 86
Stat. 506) is amended by striking out the final period and inserting
in lieu thereof the following: ‘ unless such barrier, due to its loca-
tion or other physical characteristics, is likely to pose a significant
threat to human life or property in the event of its failure. “.
B—85
-------
San Lu!s Rey River Flood Control
Section 1165 of the Conference substitute establishes the interest
rate for purposes of analyzing the costs and benefits of the San
Luis Rey River, California, flood control project as the applicable
interest rate at the time an agreement under section 215 of the
Flood Contro’ Act of 1968 was entered into The 215 agreement for
this project was executed in April 1983. Since that time the project
sponsor, the City of Oceanside, California, has spent more than
$560,000 in clearing the river channel and constructing the
project’s stabilizer and rock levee.
The project was authorized 16 years ago with a favorable benefit
to cost ratio. This ratio has diminished over the years as interest
rates have_xisen. Section —— requires the interest rate for analyz-
ing the costs and benefits of this project to remain at the rate when
the Corps of Engineers signed the 215 agreement.
Definition of “Navigable”
For purposes of the list required to be prepared pursuant to Sec-
tion 1166(b) of the Conference Report, the term “navigable waters
of the United States” has the same meaning as that term has
under Sections 9 and 10 of the River and Harbors Act of 1899.
Elliott Creek
The purpose of Section 1170 is to ensure that the local coopera-
tive agreement entered into by the Department of the Army and
the non-Federal interests on January 24, 1984 need not be altered
or renegotiated as a result of the enactment of this bill.
Buffalo River Sediments
The Conference agreement deletes section 1185, which required
the Corps of Engineers in consultation with the environmental Pro-
tection Agency, to remove and dispose of toxic pollutants from
areas of the Buffalo River in New York.
That type of activity is appropriate for a response by E.P.A.
under authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund). One of the most
heavily contaminated ‘hot spots” in the Buffalo River appears to
be within the Federal navigation channel.
Areas of High Unemployment (‘Formerly House Section 1187)
When constructing any water resources project in an area which
has a high unemployment rate, the Secretary should, to the extent
be determines feasible, provide for the employment of residents of
such a labor market area.
For the purposes of the above, the term “labor market area” has
the same meaning given to this term by the Secretary of Labor.
Further, a labor market area has a high rate of unemployment if
the average rate of unemployment for such area, as deternimedbY
the Secretary of Labor, over the most recent twelve-month period
for which statistics are available is higher than the national aver-
age rate of unemployment, as determined by the Secretary of
Labor, over such twelve-month period.
B—8 6
-------
Appendix C
MARPOL V c-i
London Dumping Convention C-27
Great lakes Water Quality Agreement C-45
>
1
( o
-------
96TH CoNGREss QrNATE ‘ Exacuint
J Senion f I C
PROTOCOL OF 19T8 RELATING TO THE INTERNA-
TIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF
POLLUTION FROM SHIPS, WITH ANNEXES AND
PROTOCOLS
ME SSAGE
PROM
TILE PRESIDENT OF THE [ EXITED STATES
TEA NSMIT 1NG
THE PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM
SHIPS, WITH ITS ANNEXES I AND II. AND PROTOCOLS I
AND II, 1973, DONE AT WNDON FEBRUARY 17, 1978 (THE
MARPOL PROTOCOL)
w
JANUARY 23, 1979—Treaty was read the first time and, together svith the
accompanying’ papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate
U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-113 WASHIYGTON 1979
C— ].
-------
PROTOCOL OF 1978 RELATING TO THE INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION
FROM SHIPS, 1973
The parties to the present protocol,
Recognizing the significant contribution which can be made by the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,
1973, to the protection of the marine environment from pollution from
ships,
Recoznizing also the need to improve further the prevention and
control of marine pollution from ships, particularly oil tankers,
Recognizing further the need for implementing the Regulations for
the Prevention of Pollution by Oil contained in Annex I of that
Convention as early and as widely as possihle,
Acknowledging however the need to defer the application of Annex
II of that. Convention until certain technical problems have been
satisfactorily resolved,
Considering that these objectives may best be achieved by the
conclusion of a Protocol relating to the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973,
Have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS
1. The Parties to the present Protocol undertake to give effect to
the provisions of:
(a) the present Protocol and the Annex hereto which shall
constitute an intezral part of the present Protocol; and
(b) the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
subject to the modifications and additions set out in the present
Protocol.
2. The provisions of the Convention anti the present Protocol shall
be read and interpreted together as one single instrument.
3. Every reference to the present Protocol constitutes at the same
time a reference to the Annex hereto.
ARTICLE I I
IMPLEMENTATION OF ANNEX II OF THE CONVENTION
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 14(1) of the Convention,
the Parties to the present Protocol agree that they shall not be bound
by the provisions of Annex II of the Convention for a penod of three
years from the date of entry into force of the present Protocol or for
such longer period as may be decided by a two-thirds majority of the
Parties to the present Protocol in the Marine Environment Protection
C- 3
-------
Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”) of the Inter-
Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (hereinafter i e-
ferred to as “the Organization”).
2. Dtinng the period specified in paragraph 1 of this Article, the
Parties to the present Protocol shall not be under any obligations nor
entitled to claim any pnvileges under the Convention in respect of
matters relatinci to Annex I i of the Convention and all reference to
Parties in the óonvention shall not include the Parties to the present
Protocol in so far as matters relating to that Annex are concerned.
ARTICLE III
COMMUNICATION OF INFOSMATIOM
The text of Article 11(l)(h) of the Convention is replaced by the
following:
“a list of nominated surveyors or recognized organizations which
are authorized to act on their behalf in the administration of matters
relating to the design, construction, equipment and operation of ships
carrying harmful substances in accordance with the provisions of the
Regulations for circulation to the Parties for information of their
officers. The Administration shall therefore notify the Organization
of the specific responsibilities and conditions of the authority delegated
to nominated surveyors or recognized organizations.”
ARTICLE IV
SIGNATURE, RATIFICATION, ACCEPTANCE, APPROVAL AND ACCESSION
1.tThe present Protocol shall be open for signature at the Head-
quarters of the Organization from 1 June 1978 to 31 May 1979 and
shall thereafter remain open for accession. States may become Parties
to the present Protocol by:
(a) signature without reservation as to ratification, acceptance or
approval; or
(b) signature, subject to ratification, acceptance or approval,
followed by ratification, acceptance or approval; or
Cc) accession.
2. Ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be effected
by the deposit of an instrument to that effect with the Secretary—
General ot the Organization.
ARTICLE V
ENTRY INTO FORCE
1. The present Protocol shall enter into force twelve months after
the date on which not less than fifteen States, the combined merchant
fleets of which constitute not less than fifty per cent of the gross
tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping, have become Parties to it
in accordance with Article IV of the present Protocol.
2. Any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession
deposited after the date on which the present Protocol enters into
force shall take effect three months after the date of deposit.
C-4
-------
3. Alter the date on which an amendment to the present Protocol
is deemed to have been accepted in accordance with Article 16 of the
Convention, any instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or
accession deposited shall apply to the present Protocol as amended.
ARTICLE VI
AMENDMENTS
The procedures set out in Article 16 of the Convention in respect
of amendments to the Articles, an Annex and an Appendix to an Annex
of the Convention shall apply respectively to amendments to the
Articles, the Annex and an Appendix to the Annex of the present
Protocol.
ARTICLE VII
DENUNCIATION
1. The present Protocol may be denounced by any Party to the
present Protocol at any time after the expiry of five years from the
date on which the Protocol enters into force for that Party.
2. Denunciation shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument
of denunciation with the Secretary-General of the Organization.
3. A. denunciation shall take effect twelve months after receipt of
the notification by the Secretary-General of the Organization or after
the expiry of any other longer period which may be indicated in the
notification.
ARTICLE VIII
DEPOSITARY
1. The present Protocol shall be deposited with the Secretary-
General of the Organization (hereinafter referred to as “the Deposi-
tary”).
2. The Depositary shall:
(a) inform all States which have signed the present Protocol or
acceded thereto of:
(i) each new signature or deposit of an instrument of
ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, together
with the date thereof;
(ii) the date of entry into force of the present Protocol;
(iii) the deposit of any instrument of denunciation of the
present Protocol together with the date on which it
was received and the date on which the denuncia-
tion takes effect;
(iv) any decision made in accordance with Article 11(1)
of the present Protocol;
(b) transmit certified true copies of the present Protocol to
all States which have signed the present Protocol or acceded
thereto.
3. As soon as the present Protocol enters into force, a certified true
copy thereof shall be transmitted by the Depositary to the Secre-
tariat of the United Nations for registration and publication in
accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.
C—5
-------
ARnmE IX
LANGUAGES
The present Protocol is established in a single original in the Eng-
lish, French, Russian and Spanish languages, each text being equally
authentic. Official translations in the Arabic, German, Italian and
Japanese languages shall be prepared and deposited with the signed
original.
In witness whereof the undersigned being duly authorized by their
respective Governments for that purpose have signed the present
Protocol.
Done at London this seventeenth day of February one thousand
nine hundred and seventy-eight.
C—6
-------
ANNEX
MODIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE INTERNA-
TIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POL-
LUTION FROM SHIPS, 1973
ANNEX 1.—REGUlATIoNS FOR THE PREVENTION OF
POLLUTION BY OIL
Regulation 1
Definitions
Paragraphs (1) to (7)—No change
The existing text of paragraph (8) is replaced &y the following:
(8) (a) “Major conversion’ 7 means a conversion of an existing ship:
(i) which substantially alters the dimensions or carrying capac-
ity of the ship; or
(ii) which changes the type of the ship; or
(iii) the intent of which in the opinion of the Admimstration is
substantially to prolong its life; or
(iv) which otherwise so alters the ship that, if it were a new ship,
it would become subject to relevant provisions of the present
Protocol not applicable to it as an existing ship.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraph (a) of this
paragraph, conversion of an existing oil tanker of 20,000 tons dead-.
weight and above to meet the requirements of Regulation 13 of this
Annex shall not be deemed to constitute a major conversion for the
purposes of this Annex.
Paragraphs (9) to (22)—No change
The exwttng text of paragraph (23) is replaced by the following:
(23) “Lightweight” means the displacement of a ship in metric tons
without cargo, fuel, lubricating oil, ballast water, fresh water and feed
water in tanks, consumable stores, and passengers and crew and their
effects.
Paragraphs (24) and (25)—No change
The following paragraphs are added to the existing text:
(26) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (6) of this Regu-
lation, for the purposes of Regulations 13, 13B, 13E and 18(5) of this
Annex, “new oil tanker” means an oil tanker:
(a) for which the building contract is placed after 1 June 1979; or
(b) in the absence of a building contract, the keel of which is laid,
or which is at a sunilar stage of construction after 1 January
1980; or
(c) the delivery of which is after 1 June 1982; or
(d) which has undergone a major conversion:
(1) for which the contract is placed after 1 June 1979; or
C—7
-------
(ii) in the absence of a contract, the construction work of
which is begun after 1 January 1980; or
(iii) which is completed after 1 June 1982,
except that, for oil tankers of 70,000 tons deadweight and above, the
definition in paragraph (6) of this Regulation shall apply for the pur-
poses of Regulation 1 .3(l) of this Annex.
(27) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (7) of this Regu-
lation, for the purposes of Regulations 13, 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D and
18(6) of this Annex, “existing oil tanker” means an oil tanker which
is not a new oil tanker as defined in paragraph (26) of this Regulation.
(28) “Crude oil” means any liquid hydrocarbon mixture occurring
naturally in the earth whether or not treated to render it suitable for
transportation and includes:
(a) crude oil from which certain distillate fractions may have been
removed; and
(b) crude oil to which certain distillate fractions may have been
added.
(29) “Crude oil tanker” means an oil tanker engaged in the trade
of carrying crude oil.
(:30) “Product carrier” means an oil tanker engaged in the trade of
carrying oil other than crude oil.
Regulations 2 and 3.—No change
Regulation 4
The existing text of Regulation 4 is replaced by the following.
Surveys and Ins pectiorie
(1) Every oil tanker of 150 tons gross tonnage and above, and
every other ship of 400 tons gross tonnage and above shall be subject
to the surveys specified below.
(a) An initial survey before the shjp is put in service or before
the Certificate required under Regulation 5 of this Annex is
issued for the first time, which shall mclude a complete
survey of its structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrange-
ments and material in so far as the ship is covered by this
Annex. This survey shall be such as to ensure that the struc-
ture, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and material
fully comply with the applicable requirements of this Annex.
(b) Periodical surveys at intervals specified by the Administra-
tion, but not exceeding five years, which shall be such as to
ensure that the structure, equipment, systems, fittings, ar-
rangements and material fully comply with the requirements
of this Annex.
(c) A minimum of one intermediate survey during the period of
validity of the Certificate which shall be such as to ensure
that the equipment and associated pump and piping systems,
including oil discharge monitoring and control systems, crude
oil washing systems, oily-water separating equipment and oil
filtering systems, fully comply with the applicable require-
ments of this Annex and are in good working order. In cases
where only one such intermediate survey is carned out in
C—8
-------
any one Certificate validity period, it shall be held not before
six months prior to, nor later than six months alter the half-
way date of the Certificate’s period of validity. Such inter-
mediate surveys shall be endorsed on the Certificate issued
under Re u1ation 5 of this Annex.
(2) The Administration shall establish appropriate measures for
ships which are not subject to the provisions of paragraph (1) ol this
Regulation in order to ensure that the applicable provisions of this
Annex are complied with.
(3) (a) Surveys of ships as regards the enforcement of the provisions
of this Annex shall be carried out by officers of the Administration.
The Administration may, however, entrust the surveys either to
surveyors nominated br the purpose or to organizations recognized
by it.
(b) The Administration shall institute arrangements for unscheduled
inspections to be carried out during the period of validity of the
Certificate. Such inspections shall ensure that the ship and its equip-
ment remain in all respects satisfactory for the service for which the
ship is intended. These inspections may be carried out by their own
inspection services, or by nominated surveyors or by recognized orga-
nizations, or by other parties upon request of the Administration.
Where the Administration, under the provisions of paragraph (1) of
this Regulation, establishes mandatory annual surveys the above
unscheduled inspections shall not be obligatory.
(c) An Administration nominating surveyors or recognizing orga-
nizations to conduct surveys and inspections as set forth in sub-
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph, shull as a minimum empower
any nominated surveyor or recognized organization to:
(i) require repairs to a ship; and
(ii) carry out surveys and inspections if requested by the appro-
priate authorities of a Port State.
The Administration shall notify the Organization of the specific
responsibilities and conditions of the authority delegated to the
nominated surveyors or recognized organizations, for circulation to
Parties to the present Protocol for the information of their officers.
(d) When a nominated surveyor or recognized organization deter-
mines that the condition of the ship or its equipment does not corre-
spond substantially with the particulars of the Certificate or is such
that the ship is not fit to proceed to sea without presenting an un-
reasonable threat of harm to the marine environment, such surveyor
or organization shall immediately ensuie that corrective action is talcen
and shall in (tue course notfy the Administration. If such corrective
action is not taken the Certificate should be withdrawn and the Admin-
istration shall be notified immediately, and if the ship is in a port of
another Party, the appropriate authorities of the Port State shall also
be notified immediately % ‘hen an officer of the Administration, a nonii-
nated surveyor or recognized organization has notified the appropriate
authorities of the Port State, the Government of the Port State con-
cerned shall give such officer, surveyor or oiganlzation any necessary
assistance to carry out their obligations under this Regulation. When
applicable, the Government of the Port State concerned shall take such
steps as ill ensure that the ship shall not sail until it can proceed to
sea or leave the port for the urpose of l)toceeding to the nearest
al)propriate repair yard availab e ithout presenting an unreasonable
threat of harm to the marine environment.
C—9
-------
(e) In every case, the Administration concerned shall fully guar-
antee the completeiress and efficiency of the survey and inspection and
shall undertake to ensure the necessary arrangements to satisfy this
obligation.
(4) (a) The condition of the ship and its equipment shall be main-
tained to conform with the provisions of the present Protocol to ensure
that the ship in all respects will remain fit to proceed to sea without
presenting an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment.
(b) After any survey of the ship under paragraph (1) of this Regula-
tion has been completed, no change shall be made in the structure,
equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements or material covered by the
survey, without the sanction of the Administration, except the direct
replacement of such equipment and fittings.
(c) Whenever an accident occurs to a ship or a defect is discovered
which substantially affects the integrity of the ship or the efficiency
or completeness 0 r its equipment covered by this Annex the master
or owner of the ship shall report at the earliest opportunity to the
Administration, the recognized organization or the nominated surveyor
responsible for issuing the relevant Certificate, who shall cause inves-
tigations to be initiated to determine whether a survey as required by
paragraph (1) of this Regulation is necessary. If the ship is in a port
of another Party, the master or owner shall also report immediately
to the appropriate authorities of the Port State and the nominated
surveyor or recognized organization shall ascertain that such report
has been made.
Regulations 5, 6 and 7
I n the existing text of these Regulations, delete all references to “(1973)”
in relation to the International Oil Pollution Prevent ton Certificate.
Regulation S
Duration of Cerhficate
The existing text of Regvlatwn is replaced fry the follmving:
(1) An International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate shall be
issued for a period specified by the Administration, which shall not
exceed five years from the date of issue, provided that in the case of
an oil tanker operating with dedicated clean ballast tanks for a limited
period specified in Regulation 13(9) of this Annex, the period of validity
of the Certificate shall not exceed such specified period.
(2) A Certtficate shall cease to be valid if significant alterations have
taken place in the construction, equipment, systems, fittings, arrange-
ments or material required without the sanction of the Administration,
except the direct replacement of such equipment or fittings, or if inter-
mediate surveys as specified by the Administration under Regulation
4(l)(c) of this Annex are not carried out.
(3) A Certificate issued to a ship shall also cease to be valid upon
transfer of the ship to the flag of another State. A new Certificate shall
only be issued when the Government issuing the new Certificate is
fully satisfied that the ship is in full compliance with the requirements
of Regulation 4(4)(a) and (b) of this Annex. In the case of a transfer
between Parties, if requested within three months after the transfer
has taken place, the Government of the Party whose flag the ship was
c—to
-------
formerly entitled to fly shall transmit as soon as possible to the Adrmn-
istration a copy of the Certificate carried by the ship before the transfer
and, if available, a copy of the relevant survey report.
Regulations 9 to 12.—No change
The existing text of Regulation 13 is replaced by the following
Regulations:
Regulation 13
Segregated Ballast Tanks, Dedicated C ean Ballast
Tanks and Crude Oil Washing
Subject to the provisions of Regulations 13C and 13D of this Annex,
oil tankers shall comply with the requirements of this Regulation.
New oil tankers of 20,000 tons deadweight and above
(1) Every new crude oil tanker of 20000 tons deadweight and above
and every new product earner of 30,000 tons deadweight and above
shall be provided with segregated ballast tanks and shall comply with
p aragraphs (2), (3) and (4), or paragraph (5) as appropriate, of this
Regulation.
(2) The capacity of the segregated ballast tanks shall be so deter-
mined that the ship may operate safely on ballast voyages without
recourse to the use of cargo tanks for water bs.llast except as provided
for in paragraph (3) or (4) of this Regulation. In all cases, however,
the capacity of segregated ballast tanks shall be at least such that, in
any ballast condition at any part of the voyage, including the condi-
tions consisting of lighwexght plus segregated ballast only, the ship’s
draughts and trim can meet each of the following requirements:
(a) the moulded draught amidships ( lm) in metres (without
taking into account any ship’s deformation) shall not be less
than:
dm=2.0+0 .02L;
(b) the draughts at the forward and after perpendiculars shall
correspond to those determined by the draught amidships
(cliii) as specified in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph, in
association with the tnm by the stern of not. greater than
0.015L; and
(c) in any case the draught at the after perpendicular shall not
be less than that which is necessary to obtain full immersion
of the propeller(s).
(3) In no case shall ballast water be carried in cargo tanks except
on those voyages when weather conditions are so severe that, in the
opinion of the master, it is necessary to carry additional ballast water
in. cargo tanks for the safety of the ship. Such additional ballast water
shall be processed and discharged in compliance with Regulation 9 of
this Annex and in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 15
of this Annex and entry shall be made in the Oil Record Book referred
to in Regulation 20 of this Annex.
(4) In the case of new crude oil tankers, the additional ballast
permitted in paragraph (.3) of this Regulation shall be carried in cargo
tanks only if such tanks have been crude ml washed in accordance with
Regulation 13B of this Annex before departure from an oil unloading
port or terminal.
c—il’
-------
- (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of this Regula-
tion, the segregated ballast conditions for oil tankers less than 150
metres in length shall be to the satisfaction of the Administration.
(6) Every new crude oil tanker of 20,000 tons deadweight and above
shall be fitted with a cargo tank cleaning system using crude oil
washing. The Administration shall undertake to ensure that the system
fully complies with the requirements of Regulation 13B of this Annex
within one year after the tanker was first engaged in the trade of
carrying crude oil or by the end of the third voyage carrying crude oil
suitable for crude oil washing, whichever occurs later. Unless such oil
tanker carries crude oil which is not suitable for crude oil washing, the
oil tanker shall operate the system in accordance with the recuirement
of that Reziilation.
Exist ing crude oil tankers of 40,000 tons deadwetglit and above
(7) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (8) and (9) of this
Regulation every existing crude oil tanker of 40,000 tons deadweight
and above shall be provided with segregated ballast tanks and shall
comply with the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this Regu-
lation from the date of entry into force of the present Protocol.
(8) Existing crude oil tankers referred to in paragraph (7) of this
Regulation may, in lieu of being provided with segregated ballast
tanks, operate with a cargo tank cleaning procedure using crude oil
washing in accordance with Regulation 13B of this Annex unless the
crude oil tanker is intended to carry crude oil winch is not suitable
for crude oil washing.
(9) Existing crude oil tankers referred to in paragraph (7) or CS)
of this Regulation may, in lieu of being provided with segregated
ballast tanks or operating with a cargo tank cleaning procedure using
crude oil washmg, operate with dedicated clean ballast tanks in
accordance with the provisions of Regulation 13A of tins Annex for
the following penod.
(a) for cnide oil tankers of 70,000 tons deadweight and above,
until two years after the date of entry into force of the
present Protocol; and
(b) for crude oil tankers of 40,000 tons deadweight and above
but below 70,000 tons deadweight, until four years after
the date of entry into force of the present Protocol.
Existing product carriers of 40,000 tons deadweight and above
(10) From the date of entry into force of the present Protocol, every
existing product carrier of 40,000 tons deadweight and above shall be
provided with segregated ballast tanks and shall comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this Regulation, or, alterna-
tively, operate with dedicated clean ballast tanks in accordance with
the provisions of Regulation 13A of this Annex.
An o il tanker qua1 fied as a seqregated ballast oil tanker
( i i) Any oil tanker which is not required to be provided with
segregated ballast tanks in accordance with paragraph (1), (7) or
(10) of this Regulation may, however, be qualified as a segregated
ballast tanker, provided that it complies with the requirements of
paragraphs (2) and (3), or paragraph (5) as appropriate, of this
Regulation.
C - 12
-------
Regulation 13A
Re juirements for Oil Tankers with Dedicated (.‘ieam Ballast Tan ks
(1) An oil tanker operating with dedicated clean ballast tanks in
accordance with the provisions of Regulation 13(9) or (10) of this
Annex, shall have adequate tank capacity, dedicated solely to the
carriage of clean ballast as defined in Regulation 1(16) of this Annex,
to meet the requirements of Regulation 1:3(2) and (3) of this Annex.
(2) The arrangements and operational procedures for dedicated
clean ballast tanks shall comply with the requirements established
by the Administration. Such reqwrements shall contain at least all the
provisions of the specifications for Oil Tankers with Dedicated Clean
Ballast Tanks adopted by the International Conference on Tanker
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1978, in Resolution 14 and as may be
revised by the Organization.
(3) An oil tanker operating with dedicated clean ballast tanks shall
be equipped with an oil content meter, approved by the Administration
on the basis of specifications recommended by the Organization’, to
enable supervision of the oil content Lu ballast water being discharged.
The oil content meter shall be installed no Eater than at the first
scheduled shipyard visit of the tanker following the entry into force
of the present Protocol. Until such time as the oil content meter is
installed, it shall immediately before discharge of ballast be estab-
lished by examination of the ballast water from dedicated tanks that
no contamination with oil has taken place.
(4) Every oil tanker operating with dedicated clean ballast tanks
shall be provided with:
(a) a Dedicated Clean Ballast Tank O erat ion Manual detailing
the system and specifying operational irocedures. Such a
Manual shall be to the satisfaction ot the Administration
and shall contain all the information set out in the Specifica-
tions referred to in paragraph (2) of this Regulation. If an
alteration affecting the dedicated clean ballast tank system
is made, the Operation Manual shall be revised accordingly,
and
(b) a Supplement to the Oil Record Book referred to in Regula-
tion 20 of this Annex as set out in Supplement 1 to Appendix
III of this Annex. The St pplement shall be permanently
attached to the Oil Record Book.
Regulation 13B
Requirements for Crude Oi.1 Washing
(1) Every crude oil washing system required to be provided in
accordance with Regulation 13(6) and (8) of this Anne. shall comply
with the requirements of this Re uIation.
(2) The crude oil washing insta’lation and associated equipment and
arrangements shall comply with the requirements established by the
Administration. Such requirements shall contain at least all the provi-
sions of the Specifications for the Design, Operation and Control of
I Reference is made to the Recommendation on Internatiooai Performance nd Test Specifications (or
Oily-Water Separating Equitinient and Oil Content Meters adopted by the Urgaiuzation by Resoiuiiott
A itl3LX).
C— 13
-------
Crude Oil Washing Systems adopted by the International Conference
on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention, 1978, in Resolution 15
and as may be revised by the Organization.
(3) An inert gas system shall be provided in every cargo tank and
slop tank in accordance with the appropriate Regulations of Chapter
11—2 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea,
1974, as modified and added to by the Protocol of 1978 Relating to
the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.
(4) With respect to the ballasting of cargo tanks, sufficient cargo
tanks shall be crude oil washed prior to each ballast voyage in order
that, taking into account the tanker’s trading pattern and expected
weather conditions, ballast water is put only into cargo tanks which
have been crude oil washed.
(5) Every oil tanker operating with crude oil washing systems shall
be provided with:
(a) an Operations and Equipment Manual detailing the system
and equipment and specifym operational procedures. Such
a Manual shall be to the satisfaction of the Administration
and shall contain all the information set out in the Specifica-
tions referred to in paragraph (2) of this Regulation. If an
alteration affecting the crude oil washing system is made,
the Operations and Equipment Manual shall be revised
accordingly; and
(b) a Supplement to the Oil Record Book referred to in Regula-
tion 20 of this Annex as set out in Supplement 2 to Appendix
III of this Annex. The Supplement shall be permanently
attached to the Oil Record Book.
Regulation 130
Existing Tanker8 Engaged in Specific Trade8
(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this
Regulation, Regulation 13(7) to (10) of this Annex shall not apply to
an existing oil tanker solely engaged in specific trades between:
(a) ports or terminals within a State Party to the present Pro-
tocol; or
(b) ports or terminals of States Parties to the present Protocol,
where:
(i) the voyage is entirely within a Special Area as defined in
Regulation 10(1) of this Annex; or
(ii) the voyage is entirely within other limits designated by
the Organization.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this Regulation shall oni
apply when the ports or terminals where car o is loaded on suc
voyages are provided with reception facilities a lequate for the recep-
tion and treatment of all the ballast and tank washing water from oil
tankers using them and all the following conditions are complied with:
(a) subject to the exceptions provided for in Regulation 11 of this
Annex, all ballast water, including clean ballast water, and
tank washing residues are retained on board and transferred
to the reception facilities and the entry in the appropriate
Sections of the Supplement to the Oil 1 ecord Book reterred
c—i 4
-------
to in paragraph (3) of this Regulation is endorsed by the
competent Port State authority;
(b) agreement has been reached between the Administration and
the Governments of the Port States referred to in subpara-
graph (1)(a) or (b) of this Regulation concerning the use of
an existing oil tanker for a specific trade,
(c) the adequacy of the reception facilities in accordance with the
relevant provisions of this Annex at the ports or terminals
referred to above, for the purpose of this Regulation, is
approved by the Governments of the States Parties to the
present Protocol within which such ports or terminals are
situated; and
(d) the International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate is
endorsed to the effect that the oil tanker is solely engaged in
such specific trade.
(3) Every oil tanker engaged in a specific trade shall be provided
with a Supplement to the Oil Record Book referred to in Reoiilation
20 of this Annex as set out in Supplement 3 to Appendu Ill’ of this
Annex. The Supplement shall be permanently attached to the Oil
Record Book.
Regulation 13D
Exüting Oil Tankers Having Special Ballast Arrangement.
(1) Where an existing oil tanker is so Constructed or operates in such
a manner that it complies at all times with the draught and trim
requirements set out in Regulation 13(2) of this Annex without re-
course to the use of ballast water, it shall be deemed to comply with
the segregated ballast tank reqwrements referred to in Regulation
13(7) of this Annex, provided that all of the following conditions are
complied with:
(a) operational procedures and ballast arrangements are approved
by the Admimstration;
(b) agreement is reached between the Administration and the
Governments of the Port States Parties to the present
Protocol concerned when the draught and trim requirements
are achieved through an operational procedure; and
(c) the International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate is
endorsed to the effect that the oil tanker is operating with
special ballast arrangements.
(2) In no case shall ballast water be carried in oil tanks except on
those rare voyages when weather conditions are so severe that, in the
opinion of the master, it is necessary to carry additional ballast
water in cargo tanks for the safety of the ship. Such additional
ballast water shall be processed and discharged in compliance with
Regulation 9 of this Annex and in accordance with the requirements of
Regulation 15 of this Annex, and entry shall be made in the Oil Record
Book referred to in Regulation 20 of this Annex
(3) An Administration which has endorsed a Certificate in accord-
ance with sub-paragraph (1)(c) of this Regulation shall communicate
to the Organization the particulars thereof for circulation to the Parties
to the present Protocol.
c—I 5
-------
Regulation l E
Protee we Location of Segregated Balla.rt Space.&
(1) In every new crude oil tanker of 20,000 tons deadweight and
above and every new product carrier of 30,000 tons deadwei ht and
above, the segregated ballast tanks required to provide the capacitv
to comply with the requirements of Regulation 13 of this Annex which
are located within the cargo tank length, shall be arranged in accord-
ance with the requirements of paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) of this
Regulation to provide a measure of protection against oil outflow in
event of grounding or collision.
(2) Segregated ballast tanks and spaces other than oil tanks within
the cargo tank length (L,) shall be so arranged as to comply with the
following requirement:
PA + EPA , J [ L (B + 2D)J
where: PA = the side shell area in square meters for each
seuregateti ballast tank or space other than an
oil tank based on projected moulded dimensions,
PA, the bottom shell area in square metres for each
such tank or space based on projected moulded
dimensions,
L 1 = length in metres between the forward and after
extremities of the cargo tanks,
B = maximum breadth of the ship in metres as defined
in Re ulation 1(21) of this Annex
D = moulded depth in metres measured vertically from
the top of the keel to the lop of the freeboard
deck beam at side amidships. In ships havrn
rounded gun -ales, the moulded depth shall be
measured to the point of intersection of the
mouhled lines of the deck arid side shell plating,
the Irnes extending as though the gunwale were
of an nilar desigu,
J = 0.45 for oil tankers of 20,000 tons deadweiuht
0.30 for oil tankers of 200.000 tons deadweuzht
and above, subject to the provisions of par I.-
graph ( ) of this Regulation.
For intermediate values of deadweight the value
of “J” shall be determined by linear interpola-
tion.
Whenever symbols given in this paragraph appear in this Regulation,
they have the meaning as defined in this paragraph.
(3) For tankers of 200,000 tons deadweight and above the value of
“J” may be reduced as follows:
J reduced = [ _ (a— 0 )] or 0.2 whichever is greater
where:
a =0.25 for oil tankers of 200,000 tons deadweight
a =0.40 for oil tankers of :300,000 tons ikiulweight
a =0.50 for oil tankers of 420,000 tons de idweight and above,
C— 1.6
-------
For intermediate values of deadweight the value of “a” shall be
determined by linear interpolation.
U as defined in Regulation 2 (1)(a) of this Annex,
0, =as defined in Regulation 2 (1)(b) of this Annex,
0 4 =the allowable oil outflow as required by Regulation 24(2)
of this Anne c.
(4) In the determination of “P.1 ” and “PA,” for segregated ballast
tanks and spaces other than oil tanks the following shall apply•
(a) the minimum width of each wing tank or space either of which
extends for the full depth of the ship’s side or from the deck
to the top of the double bottom shall be not less than 2
metres. The width sholl be measured inboard from the ship’s
side at right angles to the centre line. Where a lesser width is
provide(l the wing tank or space shall not be taken into
account when calculating the protecting area “P 4 ”, and
(b) the minimum vertical depth of each double bottom tank or
space shall be B/15 or 2 metres, whichever is the lesser.
Where a lesser depth is provided the bottom tank or space
shall not be taken into account when calculating the
protecting area “PA,”.
The minimum width and depth of wing tanks and double bottom
tanks shall be measured clear of the bij e area and, in the case of
minimum width, shall be measured clear o ’ any rounded gunwale area.
Regulation 14.—No change
Regulation 15
In the existing text of this Regulation, delete reference to “(1073)” in
relalton to the international Oil Pollution Pi eientwm Certificate.
Regulations 16 and 17.—So change
Regulation 18
Pumping, Piping and Discharge Arrangements of Oil Tankers
Paragraphs (1) to (4),—No change.
The follounng paragraphs are added to the existing text:
(5) Every new oil tanker required to be provided with segregated
ballast tanks, or fitted with a ciude oil washing system shall comply
with the lol1owin requirements:
(a) it shali be equipped with oil piping so designed and in-
stalled such that oil retention in the lines is minimized, and
(b) means shall be provided to drain all cargo pumps and all
oil lines at the completion of car o discharge, where neces-
sary by connexion to a suippung device. The line and pump
drainings shall be capable of being discharged both ashore
and to a caro o tank or a slop tank. For discharge ashore a
special small diameteu line shall he piovided for that
purpose and connected outboard of the ship’s mamfold
valves.
(6) Every existing crude oil carrier required to be provided with
segregated ballast tanks, or fitted with a crude oil washing system
c—li
-------
or operated with dedicated clean ballast tanks, shall comply with
the provisions of paragraph (5) (b) of tins Regulation.
Regulation 19.—No change
Regulation 20
In the existing text of this Regulation, delete reference to “(1973)”
in relation to the International Oil Pollutism Prevention Certificate.
Regulations 21 to 25.—No change
Appendix I.—LIST OP oas
No change
Appendix 11.—FORM OF CERTIFICATE
The ezieting form of Certificate is replaced by the following form:
INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION CERTIFICATE
r ued under the provisions of the Protocol of 1978 Relating to the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,
1973, under the Authority of the Government of
(full designation of the country)
by
(full designation of the competent person or organization authorized under the provisions of the Pro-
tocoi of 1978 RelatIng to the internat Ional Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. 1973)
Dèdlnztlve
or
Nene of stop e lt on
Port of
registry
Gross
tonnage
Type of ship:
Crude oil tanker 2
Product carrier 2
Crude oil/product carner 2
Ship other than an oil tanker with carao tanks coming under
Regulation 2(2) of Annex I of the Protoco 2
Ship other than any of the above 2
Date of building or major conversion contract
Date on which keel was laid or ship was at a similar stage of con-
struction or on which major conversion was commenced
Date on which keel ias laid or ship was at a similar stage of con-
struction or on which major conversion was commenced
Date of delivery or comptetion of major conversion
Delete as approgrtate.
c —la
-------
PART A—ALL SHIPS
The ship is equipped with:
for ships of 400 tons gross tonnage and above:
(a) oily-water separating equipment (capable of producing
effluent with an oil content not exceeding 100 parts per
million)
(b) an oil ftltenng system (capable of producing effluent with
an oil content not exceeding 100 parts per million)
for ships of 10,000 tons gross tonnage and above:
(c) an oil discharge monitoring and control system (additional
to (a) or (b) above) or
(d) oily-water separating equipment and an oil filtering system
(capable of producing effluent with an oil content not ex-
ceeding 15 parts per million) in lieu of (a) or (b) above.
Particulars of requirements from which exemption is granted under
Regulation 2(2)and 2(4)(a) of Annex I of the Protocol:
Remarks:
Endol-sement for Ezieeing Ship8 4
This is to certify that this ship has now been so equipped as to
comply with the requirements of the Protocol of 1978 Relating to the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
1973, as relating to existing ships 5
Signed
(Signature of duly authorized o cIal)
Place
Date
(Seal or stamp of the Authority, as appropriate)
PART B—OIL
Deadweight
of ihip Length at
Cerrying capacity f ship (cubic meters) (metric tons) ship (meters)
It is certified that this ship is constructed and equipped, and must
operate, in accordance with the following:
I Delete as appropriate
4Th1s entry need not be reproduced on a Certificate other than the fist Certificate issued to any ship
‘The period after the entry into force of the Protocol within which oily-water separating egulpnient,
oil discharge control systems, od mterlng systems and/or slop tank arrangements must be provided is set
out iii Regniation i3A(3), 15(l) and 16(4) of Annex I of the Protocol.
I This Part should be completed for oil tankers Including combination carriers, and thoee entries which
are applicable should be completed for ships other than oil tankers which are constructed and utilized to
carry oil in bulk of an aggregate capacity of 2 (6) cubic metres or above.
C—I 9
-------
1. This ship is.
(a) required to be constructed according to and complies with
(b) not required to be constructed according to
(c) not required to be constructed according to, but complies
with
the requirements of Regulation 24 of Annex I of the Protocol.
2. This ship is:
(a) required to be constructed according to and complies with
(b) not required to be constructed according to
the requirements of Regulation 13E of Annex I of the Protocol.
3. This ship is:
(a) required to be provided with segregated ballast tanks accord-
ing to, and complies with a
(b) not required to be provided with segregated ballast tanks ac-
cording to
(c) not required to be provided with segregated ballast tanks
according to, but complies with
(d) in accordance with Regulation 13C or 13D of Annex I of the
Protocol, and as specified in Part C of this Certificate,
exempted from a
the requirements of Regulation 13 of Annex I of the Protocol
(e) fitted with a cargo tank cleaning system using crude oil
washing in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 13B
of Annex I of the Protocol, in lieu of being provided with
segregated ballast tanks
(f) provided with dedicated clean ballast tanks in accordance
with the provisions of Regulation 13A of Annex I of the
Protocol, in lieu of being either provided with segregated
ballast tanks or fitted with a cargo tank cleaning system
using crude oil washing a
4. This ship is:
(a) required to be fitted with a cargo tank cleaning system using
crude oil washing according to, and complies with
(b) not required to be fitted with a cargo tank cleaning system
using crude oil washing according to
the requirements of Regulation 13(6) of Annex I of the Protocol.
Segregated ballast tanks 10
The segregated ballast tanks are distributed as follows:
Volume
(cubic meters)
Volume
Tank (Cubic meters)
Tank
Delete as appropriate.
I Delete as appropriate.
•Delete as appropriate
I’ Delete ii not applicabid.
C— 20
-------
Dedicated Clean Ballast Tanks
This ship is operating with dedicated clean ballast tanks until
(date)
in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 13A of Annex I
of the Protocol.
The dedicated clean ballast tanks are designated as follows:
Tank Volume
(cubic meters)
Volume
Tank
Manual 12
This is to certify that this ship has been supplied vith:
(a) a valid Dedicated Clean Ballast Tank Operation Manual in
accordance with Regulation 13A of Annex I of the Protocol
(b) a valid Operations and Equipment Manual for Crude Oil
Washing in accordance with Regulation 13B of Annex I of
the Protocol 13
Identification of the valid Manual
Signed:
(Signature of duly asothori ed oflicial)
Place:
Date:
(Seal or stamp of the Authority as appropriate)
Identification of the valid Manual
Signed:
(SIgnature of duly authorized official)
Place:
Date:
(Seal or stamp of the Autlionty, as appropriate)
PART C.—EXE l PTIONS 14
This is to certify that this ship is:
(a) solely engaged in trade between
and in accordance with
Regulation 13C of Annex I of the Protocol ; or
(b) operating with special ballast arrangements in accordance
with Regulation 13D of Annex I of the Protocol
and is therefore exempted from the requirements of Regulation 13 of
Annex I of the Protocol.
Signed.
(Slgnatweo(duly authorized ollicial)
Place:
Date:
_____________ (Seal or stamp of the Authority, as appropriate)
I’ Delete I C not applicable.
“Delete U not applicable.
“Delete as appropriate
Delete if not applicable.
U Delete as appropriate.
C—21
-------
This is to certify:
That the ship, has been surveyed in accordance with Regulation 4
of Annex I of the Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, con-
cernin the prevention of pollution by oil; and
that tL survey shows that the structure, equipment, systems,
fittings, arrangement and material of the ship and the condition
thereof are in all respects satisfactory and that the ship complies
with the applicable requirements of Annex I of that Protocol.
This Certificate is valid until
subject to intermediate
survey(s) at intervals of
Issued at -
(Place of Issue of Certificate)
19
(Signature of duly authorized offlci l)
(Seai or stamp of the Authority, as appropriate)
INTERMEDIATE SURVEY
This is to certify that at an intermediate surv y required by Regula-
tion 4(1)(c) of Annex I of the Protocol 1978 Relating to the Inter-
national Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,
1973, this ship and the condition thereof were found to comply with
the relevant provisions of that Protocol.
Signed
(Signature of duly authorized official)
Place
Date
Next intermediate survey due
(Seai or stamp of the Authority, as appropriate)
Signed
(Signature of duly authorized official)
Place
Date
Next intermediate survey due
(Seal or stamp of the Authorliy, as appropriate)
Signed
(Signature of duly authorized official)
Place
Date
Next intermediate survey due
(Seal or stamp of the Authority, as appropriate)
Signed
(Signature of duly authorized o eIuI)
Place
Date
(Seal or stamp of the Authority, as appropriate)
APPENDIX III
FORM o OIL RECORD BOOK
The following forms of Supplements to the Oil Record Book are added
to the existing form:
C— 22
-------
Supplement 1
FORM OF SUPPLEMENT TO O [ L RECORD BOOK FOR OIL TANKERS OPERATED
WITH DEDICATED CLEAN BALLAST TANKS 18
Name of ship
Distinctive number or letters
Total cargo carrying capacity cubic metres
Total dedicated clean ballast capacity cubic metres
The following tanks are designated as dedicated clean ballast tanks•
Taint Volume
(cubic meters)
Volume
Tank
Note The periods covered by the supplement should be consistent with the periods covered by the Oil Record Book.
(A) BALLASTING OF DEDICATED CLEAN 8ALLAST TANKS
30 1. Identity of tank(s) ballasted
102. Date and po sition of ship when water intended for flushing, or port
Dallaat was taken to dedicated clean ballast tank(s)
103. Date and position of ship when pump(s) and lisei were flushed to
Slop tank
104 Date and position of Chip when additional ballast water was taken to
dedicaled clean ballast task(s)
305. Oats time and posjlion of ship when (a) valves to slop tank, (b)
valves to cargo tanks, (c) other valves affecting the clean ballast
System were closed
106. Quantity of clean ballast taken on board
The undersigned certifies that, in a(lcllt lon to the above, all sea
valves, cargo tank and pipeline conne’:lons and connexions between
tanks or inter-tank connexions, were secured on the completion of
ballasting of dedicated clean ballast tanks.
Date of entry O cer in charge
Master
(B) DISCHARGE OF CLEAN BALLAST
107 Idestity of tank(s) — - -
108. Date, time and position of ship at start of distharge of clean ballast
(a) to sea, or (b) into reception facility
109 Date, time and positions of ship upon completions of discharge to sea
110 Quantity discharged (a)to sea, or(b) into reception facility
Iii. Was the ballast water checked for oil contamination before dischirgel
112. Was the discharge monitored during discharge by an oil content
meter?
l13. Was there any indication of oil contamination of the ballast water
before or during discharge’
114 Date and position of ship when pump and line, we,. Bushed after
loading
115 Date, time and position of ship whes (a) valves Is slop tank, (b)
valves to cargo lanka, (c) other valves affecting the clean ballast
system were cloned
116. Quantity of polluted water tianslerred to slop tank(s) (Identify slop
tank(s))
The undersigned certifies that, in atidit ion to the above, all sea valves
overboard discharge valves, cargo tank and pipeline connexions and
i’ This Supplement should be attached to the 011 Record Book for oil tankers operating with dedicated
clean ballast tanks In accordance wIth Regulation 13A of Annex I of the Protocol of 19:8 RelatIng to the
InternatIonal Convention for the PreventIon of PollutIon from Ships, 1973. Other information as required
should be entered In the Oil Record Book
C—23
-------
connexions between tanks or inter-tank connexions, were secured on
completion of discharge of clean ballast and that the pump(s) and
pipes designated for clean ballast operations were properly cleaned
upon completion of discharge of clean ballast.
Date of entry Officer in charge
Master
Supp1emen
FOR\T OF SUPPLE\IENT TO OIL RECORD BOOK FOR CRUDE OIL TANKERS
OPERATING WITH A CARGO TANK CLEANING PROCEDURE tJSIxG
CRUDE OIL WASHING 17
Name of ship
Dtstinctive number or letters
Total cargo carrying capacity cubic metres
Voyage from to
(Port(s)) (date) (Port(s)) (date)
NOTES: The periods covered by the supplement should be consistent.
with the periods covered by the Oil Record Book.
The cargo tanks crude oil washed should be those laid down in
the Operations and Equipment Manual required by Regulation
13B(5)(a) of the Protocol.
A separate column should be used for each tank washed or water
nnsed.
(A) CRUDE OIL WASHING
201. Date when and port where crude oil washing was
carried out or sbip position ii carried out be-
tween two discharge ports
202 Identity of tank(s) washed (see note I)
203 Number of machines in use
204 Commenced washing
(a) Date and time
(b) Ullage
205 Washing pattern employed (see note 2)
208 Washing line pressure
207 Completed or stopped washing.
(a) Date and time
(b) Ullage
208 Remarks
P Note I ’ When in individual tank has more machines than can be operated uiniultanesusly, as described in the Operatione.
and Equipment Manual, then the section being crude oil washed should be identified. eq. No 2 centre, forward section
Note 2 In accordance with the Operations and Equipment Manual, enter whether single-stage or multistage method of
washing is employed If multistage method lOused, gina the vertical arc covered by the machines and the number of times
that arc is covered tor that particular stage of the program
Note 3 If the programs given in the Operations and Equipment Manual are not followed, then details must be given
under Remarks.
The tanks were washed in accordance with programmes given in the
Operations and Equipment Manual (see Note 3) and confirmed dry on
completion.
Date of entry Officer in charge
Master
ItThta Supplement should be attached to the OIl Record Book for crude oil tankers operatIng with a cargo
tank cleanina procedure using crude oil washIng In accordance with Regular lois 138 of Annee t of the Pro-
tocol of 1978 Relating to the InternatIonal ConventIon for the Prevention of PollutIon from Shtp 1973,
and Is Intended to replace Section (e) of the Oil Record Book DetaIls of ballantang and deballasting arid other
information requIred should be entered in the Oil Record Book.
C—2 4
-------
(B) WATER RINSING OR FLUSHING OF TANK BOTTOMS
209 Dale ard position ef ship when tinsieg or flushing
was carried out
210 Identity of lash(s) and date
211 Volume ot water used
212 Transferred to
(a) Rece tioo facilities
(b) Slop tank(s) (idenlily siop tank(s))
Date of entry Officer in charge
Master
Supplement S
FORM OF SUPPLEMENT TO OIL RECORD BOOK FOR
OIL TANKERS ENGAGED EN SPECIFIC TRADES
Name of ship
Distinctive number or letters
Total cargo carrying capacity cubtc metres
Total ballast water capacity required for compliance with Regulation
13(2) and (3) of Annex I of the Protocol cubic metres
Voyages from to
(Port(s)) (Port(s))
NOTE: The periods rovered by the Supplement should be consistent
with tile oertods covered by the Oti Record Book.
(A) LOADING OF BALLAST WATER
301
Identity of tank(s) batlanted
302
Date and position at ship when ballasled
303
Total nuaotity ot ballast loaded in cubic mourns
304
305
Method of catcalating ballast quantity
Remarks
366
Date and signature ot officer in charge
3D ?
Date and signatare of Master
(B) REALLOCATION OF BALLAST WATER WITHIN
THE SHIP
306 Reason fnr reallocation
309 Date and signature of officer in charge
310 Oats and signature of Master
(C) BALLAST WATER DISCHARGE TO RECEPTION FACILITY
31t Date and port(s) where ballast water was discharged
3(2 Name or designation ot reception facility
313 Total goontity ot ballatt water discharged in cubic
mattes
314 Method of calculating ballast quansity
3t5 Date and aigratare of officer in karga
310 Date sad signature of Master
317 Date, signatara and stamp of pset auttiarity official
i Thia Supplement should he atnaehrd to tIre OLt Recs-d Book for oil t?tkers enpeqeul in sperttlc tilta’en
In occordaitce wish Reeulstioit iac of Aisnes I of the Protocol of t978 Ri fai itg in the titter itastoinal Can
ve’rsori tea the t’teveni ion of Folttaitoii from SI spa lyfl. aiLS is Itireisdrt to i eplace Sen inns (ii). fl, ig)
and ci) ot the Oil Recoud Book Other sntotsnatuoti iequtred should be entered so the Ott Record Book
C— 25
-------
ANNEX 11.—REGULATIONS FOR THE CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY
Noxious LIQUID SUBSTANCES IN BULK
No Change
ANNEX 1 1 1.—REGULA T IONS FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION
BY HARMFUL SUBSTANCES CARRIED BY SEA IN PACKAGED FORMS,
OR IN FREIGHT CONTAINERS, PORTABLE TANKS OR ROAD AND
RAIL TANK WAGONS
No Change
ANNEX 1 1 1.—REGULATIONS FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION BY
SEWAGE FROM SKIPS
No Change
ANNEX 11.—REGULATIONS FOB THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION BY
GARBAGE FROM SHIPS
No Change
0
C—26
-------
INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE
ON THE
CONVENTION ON THE DUMPING OF WASTES AT SEA
London, 30 October - 13 November 1972
Final Act of the Conferen
with attachments induding the
CONVENTION ON THE
PREVENTION OF MARINE POLLUTION
BY DUMPING OF WASTES AND OTHER MATTER
1982 edition
LONDON
C—2 7
-------
PREFACE
Pursuant to Recommendation 86 of the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment (Stockholm, 5-16 June 1972). the Government of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland convened the lnter .Governmenta(
Conference on the Convention on the Dumping of Wastes at Sea in London from
30 October to 13 November 1972. The Conference adopted the Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter
The Convention entered into force on 30 August 1975, 30 days after the
deposit of the fifteenth instrument of ratification or accession. In accordance with
Article XIV of the Convention, the United Kingdom Government convened the
first meeting of Contracting Parties in London from 17 to 19 December 1975. The
main purpose of this meeting was to designate, under the terms of Article XIV(2)
of the Convention, a competent Organization existing at the time of the meeting
to be responsible for the Secretariat duties in relation to the Convention.
The meeting unanimously agreed to designate the International Maritime
Organization to be responsible for the Secretariat duties in relation to the Conven-
tion and requested the Organization to assume and discharge those duties forthwith.
Amendments to the Annexes to the Convention were adopted by the Third
Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties in 1978 and by the Fourth Consultative
Meeting of Contracting Parties in 1980. These amendments entered into force on
11 March 1979 and on 11 March 1981, respectively, for all Contracting Parties
which had not deposited a declaration of objection with the Organization in accord-
ance with Article XV(2).
This publication contains the texts of the Final Act of the Conference d of
the Convention as received by IMO from the Government of the United Kingdom
but incorporating the above-mentioned amendments to the Annexes.
The Third Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties in 1978 also adopted
amendments to the Articles of the Convention relating to procedures for the settle-
ment of disputes. At the time of publication of this edition the amendments are not
yet in force, in accordance with Article XV(1) they will come into force on the
sixtieth day after the date on which they are accepted by two-thirds of the
Contracting Parties. The text of these amendments is included in this publication
for information.
This edition also includes the texts of the following two resolutions.
resolution on the pr notion of assistance in accordance with Article IX,
adopted by the In*-Governmental Conference in 1972;
resolution on the ç ation of a competent Organization to be responsible
for Secretariat du , adopted by the first meeting of Contracting Parties in
1975,
The 1976 edition contained the Technical Memorandum of Agreement of the
Inter-Governmental Conference referring to special methods of disposal of small
quantities of inorganic compounds of mercury and cadmium for a period of
not more than five years after the Convention entered into force, that is until
30 August 1980. The Memorandum has been omitted from this edition.
C—2 9
-------
INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE ON THE CONVENTION
ON THE DUMPING OF WASTES AT SEA
London, 30 October to 13 November 1972
FINAL ACT
Representatives of the Governments of Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia,
Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, the Byelorussian
SSR, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, El
Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, the Gambia, the Federal Republic of
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia,
Iran, Ireland, Italy, the Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan. Kenya, the Republic
of Korea, Kuwait, Liberia, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Nepal, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua. Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan. Panama. Paraguay,
the Philippines, Portugal, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, the Somali Demo-
cratic Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand,
Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, the Ukrainian SSR, the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, the United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, the People’s Demo-
cratic Republic of Yemen, and Zambia; Observers from the Governments of
Burma, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, Guyana, the Khmer Republic, Malta, Sierra
Leone, Tanzania, Turkey, the Republic of Viet-Nam, Yugoslavia and Zaire; and
Observers of the Commission of the European Communities, the Inter-Govern-
mental t Aarut,me Consultative Organizat,on, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development, the International Labour Organisation, the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the World
Meteorological Organization, accepted the invitation extended to them by the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to
participate in an Inter-Governmental Conference. The Secretary-General of the
United Nations was also represented at the Conference.
The Conference was called for the purpose of giving consideration to draft
articles and annexes of a Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping prepared at earlier inter-governmental meetings of limited membership,
with a view mpleting the text of a Convention which might be opened for
signature beIo*the end of 1972.
The Conference met at Lancaster House. London, from the 30th of October
to the 13th of November 1972. Dr. M. W. Hoidgate, leader of the delegation of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was elected Chairman.
His Excellency Senor Don Vicente Sanchez Gavito, the leader of the delegation
of Mexico and Mr. N. N, Jha, the leader of the delegation of India. were elected
Vice-Chairmen Dr. D L Simms served as Secretary-General.
With effect from 22 May 1982 the name of the Inter .Governmentat Maritime Consultative
Organization was changed, by virtue of amendments to the Organization’s Convention, to
the “International Maritime Organization”
C—31
-------
CONVENTION
ON THE PREVENTION OF MARINE POLLUTION BY
DUMPING OF WASTES AND OTHER MATTER
THE CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION,
RECOGNIZING that the marine environment and the living organisms which
it supports are of vital importance to humanity, and all people have an interest in
assuring that it is so managed that its quality and resources are not impaired.
RECOGNIZING that the capacity of the sea to assimilate wastes and render
them harmless, and its ability to regenerate natural resources, is not unlimited;
RECOGNIZING that States have, in accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to
exploit their own resources pursuant to their OWfl environmental policies, and the
responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not
cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of
national jurisdiction.
RECALLING Resolution 2749 (XXV) of the General Assembly of the United
Nations on the principles governing the sea-bed and the ocean floor and the subsoil
thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction,
NOTING that marine pollution originates in many sources, such as dumping
and discharges through the atmosphere, rivers, estuaries, outf aIls and pipelines, and
that it is important that States use the best practicable means to prevent such
pollution and develop products and processes which will reduce the amount of
harmful wastes to be disposed of;
BEING CONVINCED that international action to control the pollution of
the sea by dumping can and must be taken without delay but that this action
should not preclude discussion of measures to control other sources of marine
pollution as soon as possible, and
WISHING to improve protection of the marine environment by encouraging
States with a common interest in particular geographical areas to enter into
appropriate agreement p amentary to this Convention;
HAVE AGREED as follows:
ARTICLE I
Contracting Parties shall individually and collectively promote the effective
control of all sources of pollution of the marine environment, and pledge them-
selves especially to take all practicable steps to prevent the pollution of the sea by
the dumping of waste and other matter that is liable to create hazards to human
health, to harm living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to inter-
fere with other legitimate uses of the sea.
C—3 2
-------
ARTICLE IV
1. In accordance with the provisions of this Convention Contracting Parties
shall prohibit the dumping of any wastes or other matter in whatever form or
condition except as otherwise specified below
(a) the dumping of wastes or other matter listed in Annex I is prohibited;
(b) the dumping of wastes or other matter listed in Annex II requires a
prior special permit.
(c) the dumping of all other wastes or matter requires a prior general
permit.
2. Any permit shall be issued only after careful consideration of all the factors
set forth in Annex Ill, including prior studies of the characteristics of the dumping
site, as set forth in Sections B and C of that Annex
3. No provision of this Convention is to be interpreted as preventing a
Contracting Party from prohibiting, insofar as that Party is concerned, the dumping
of wastes or other matter not mentioned in Annex I. That Party shall notify such
measures to the Organization.
ARTICLE V
1. The provisions of Article IV shall not apply when it is necessary to secure
the safety of human life or of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made
structures at sea in cases of force majeure caused by stress of weather, or in any
case which constitutes a danger to human life or a real threat to vessels, aircraft.
platforms or other man-made structures at sea, if dumping appears to be the only
way of averting the threat and if there is every probability that the damage
consequent upon such dumping will be less than would otherwise occur. Such
dumping shall be so conducted as to minimize the likelihood of damage to human
or marine life and shall be reported forthwith to the Organization.
2. A Contract n ‘ Pirty may issue a special permit as an exception to
Article lV(1)(a), irH ncies, posing unacceptable risk relating to human health
and admitting no f ibIe solution. Before doing so the Party shall consult
any other country or countries that are likely to be affected and the Organization
which, after consulting other Parties, and international organizations as appropriate.
shall, in accordance with Article XIV promptly recommend to the Party the most
appropriate procedures to adopt. The Party shall follow these recommendations to
the maximum extent feasible consistent with the time within which action must
be taken and with the general obligation to avoid damage to the marine environment
arid shall inform the Organization of the action it takes. The Parties pledge them-
Se”. to assist one another in such situations.
3 Any Contracting Party may waive its rights under paragraph (2) at the time
of, or subsequent to ratification of, or accession to this Convention.
C—3 3
-------
2. Each Party shall take in its territory appropriate measures to prevent and
punish Conduct in contravention of the provisions of this Convention.
3 The Parties agree to co-operate in the development of procedures for the
effective application of this Convention particularly on the high seas, including
procedures for the reporting of vessels and aircraft observed dumping in contra-
vention of the Convention.
4. This Convention shall not apply to those vessels and aircraft entitled to
sovereign Immunity under international law However, each Party shall ensure by
the adoption of appropriate measures that such vessels and aircraft owned or
operated by it act in a manner consistent with the object and purpose of this
Convention, and shall inform the Organization accordingly.
5. Nothing in this Convention shall affect the right of each Party to adopt other
measures, in accordance with the principles of international law, to prevent dumping
at sea.
ARTICLE VIII
In order to further the objectives of this Convention, the Contracting Parties
with common interests to protect in the marine environment in a given geographical
area shall endeavour, taking into account characteristic regional features, to enter
into regional agreements consistent with this Convention for the prevention f
pollution, especially by dumping. The Contracting Parties to the present Conven-
tion shall endeavour to act consistently with the objectives and provisions of such
regional agreements, which shall be notified to them by the Organization.
Contracting Parties shall seek to co-operate with the Parties to regional agreements
in order to develop harmonized procedures to be followed by Contracting Parties
to the different conventions concerned. Special attention shall be given to co-
operation in the field of monitoring and scientific research.
ARTICLE IX
The Contracting Pvties shall promote, through collaboration within the
Organization and od’is matjonal bodies, support for those Parties which request
it for:
(a) the training of scientific and technical personnel;
(b) the supply of necessary equipment and facilities for research and
monitoring;
Cc) the disposal and treatment of waste and other measures to prevent or
mitigate pollution caused by dumping;
preferably within the countries concerned,so furthering the aims and purposes of
this Convention.
C—34
-------
ARTICLE XIV
1 The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland as a depositary shall call a meeting of the Contracting Parties not later than
three months after the entry into force of this Convention to decide on organiza-
tional matters.
2. The Contracting Parties shall designate a competent Organization existing at
the time of that meeting to be responsible for Secretariat duties in relation to this
Convention Any Party to this Convention not being a member of this Organization
shall make an appropriate contribution to the expenses incurred by the Organiza-
tion in performing these duties
3 The Secretariat duties of the Organization shall include
(a) the convening of consultative meetings of the Contracting Parties not
less frequently than once every two years and of special meetings of the
Parties at any time on the request of two-thirds of the Parties;
(b) preparing and assisting, in consultation with the Contracting Parties and
appropriate International Organizations, in the development and imple-
mentation of procedures referred to in sub-paragraph (4)(e) of this
Article;
(c) considering enquiries by, and information from the Contracting Parties,
consulting with them and with the appropriate International Organiza-
tions, and providing recommendations to the Parties on questions
related to. but not specifically covered by the Convention,
(d) conveying to the Parties concerned all notifications received by the
Organization in accordance with Articles IV(3), V(1) and (2), Vl(4),
XV, XX and XXI.
Prior to the designation of the Organization these functions shall, as necessary, be
performed by the depositary, who for this purpose shall be the Government of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
4 Consultative or special meetings of the Contracting Parties shall keep under
continuing r iiew the imp$mentation of this Convention and may, inter a/ia:
(a) review an opt amendments to this Convention and its Annexes in
accordanc with Article XV,
(b) invite the appropriate scientific body or bodies to collaborate with and
to advise the Parties or the Organization on any scientific or technical
aspect relevant to this Convention, including particularly the content
of the Annexes;
(c) receive and consider reports made pursuant to Article VI(4).
d) promote co-operation with and between regional organizations con-
cerned with the prevention of marine pollution,
C— 35
-------
ARTICLE XVII
This Convention shall be subject to ratification. The instruments of ratifica-
tion shall be deposited with the Governments of Mexico, the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
and the United States of America.
ARTICLE XVIII
After 31 December 1973. this Convention shall be open for accession by any
State The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Governments of
Mexico, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America.
ARTICLE XIX
1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date
of deposit of the fifteenth instrument of ratification or accession.
2. For each Contracting Party ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the
deposit of the fifteenth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention
shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such Party of its instru-
ment of ratification or accession.
ARTICLE XX
The depositaries shall inform Contracting Parties
(a) of signatures to this Convention and of the deposit of instruments of
ratification, accession or withdrawal, in accordance with Articles XVI,
XVII, XVIII and XXI, and
(b) of te on which this Convention will enter into force, in accordance
with Article XIX.
ARTICLE XXI
Any Contracting Party may withdraw from this Convention by giving six
months’ notice in writing to a depositary, which shall promptly inform all Parties
of such notice.
C- 36
-------
ANNEX I
1. Organohalogen compounds.
2. Mercury and mercury compounds.
3. Cadmium and cadmium compounds.
4. Persistent plastics and other persistent synthetic materials, for example.
netting and ropes, which may float or may remain in suspension in the sea in such
a manner as to interfere materially with fishing, navigation or other legitimate uses
of the sea.
• 5. Crude oil and its wastes, refined petroleum products, petroleum distillate
residues, and any mixtures containing any of these, taken on board for the purpose
of dumping.
6. High-level radio-active wastes or other high-level radio-active matter, defined
on public health, biological or other grounds, by the competent international body
in this field, at present the International Atomic Energy Agency, as unsuitable for
dumping at sea.
7. Materials in whatever form (e.g. solids, liquids, semi-liquids, gases or in a
living state) produced for biological and chemical warfare.
8. The preceding paragraphs of this Annex do not apply to substances which
are rapidly rendered harmless by physical, chemical or biological processes in the
sea provided they do not:
(i) make edible marine organisms unpalatable, or
(ii) endanger human health or that of domestic animals.
The consultative procedure provided for under Article XIV should be followed by
a Party if there is doubt about the harmlessness of the substance.
9. This Annex does not apply to wastes or other materials (e.g. sewage sludges
and dredged spoils) containing the matters referred to in paragraphs 1-5 above as
trace contaminants. Such wastes shall be subject to the provisions of Annexes II
and Ill as appropriate.
10. Para r 1 and 5 of this Annex do not apply to the disposal of wastes
or other meaur referred to in these paragraphs by means of incineration at sea.
• Paragraph 5 was amended by the Fifth Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties in
1980 The original text of paragraph 5 reads as follows:
“5 Crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, and lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, and any
mixtures containing any of these, taken on board for the purpose of dumping.”
The amendment entered into force on 11 March 1981
Paragraph 10 was added to the original text by the Third Consultative Meeting of Con.
tracting Parties in 1978, The amendment entered into force on 11 March 1979.
C— 37
-------
(b) pesticides and their by-products not covered in Annex I.
(2) Contracting Parties shall first consider the practical availability of alternative
land-based methods of treatment, disposal or elimination, or of treatment to render
the wastes or other matter less harmful, before issuing a permit for incineration at
sea in accordance with these Regulations. Incineration at sea shall in no way be
interpreted as discouraging progress towards environmentally better solutions
including the development of new techniques.
(3) Incineration at sea of wastes or other matter referred to in paragraph 10 of
Annex I and paragraph E of Annex II, other than those referred to in paragraph (1)
of this Regulation, shall be controlled to the satisfaction of the Contracting Party
issuing the special permit.
(4) Incineration at sea of wastes or other matter not referred to in paragraphs (1)
and (3) of this Regulation shall be subject to a general permit.
(5) In the issue of permits referred to in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this Regula-
tion, the Contracting Parties shall take full account of all applicable provisions of
these Regulations and the Technical Guidelines on the Control of Incineration of
Waste and Other Matter at Sea for the waste in question.
PART II
R ilatjon 3
Approval and Surieys of the IncineratIon Sysimn
(1) The incineration system for every proposed marine incineration facility shall
be subject to the surveys specified below. In accordance with Article VII(1) of the
Convention, the Contracting Party which proposes to i e an incineration permit
shall ensure that the surveys of the marine incineration facility to be used have been
completed and the incineration system complies with the provisions of these
Regulations. If the initial survey is carried out under the direction of a Contracting
Party a special permit, which specifies the testing requirements, shall be issued by
the Party. The results of each survey shall be recorded in a survey report.
(a) An initial survey iall be carried out in order to ensure that during the
incineratjott of waste and other matter combustion and destruction
efficien in excess of 99.9 per cent.
(b) As a p f the initial survey the State under whose direction the
suiwy iS carried out shall:
(i) approve, the siting, type and manner of use of temperature
measuring devices;
(ii) approve the gas sampling system including probe locations,
analytical devices, and the manner of recording;
(iii) ensure that approved devices have been installed to automatically
shut off the feed of waste to the incinerator if the temperature
drops below approved minimum temperatures;
C— 38
-------
Regulation 5
Operational Requirements
(1) The operation of the incineration system shall be controlled so as to ensure
that the incineration of wastes or other matter does not take place at a flame
temperature less than 1250 degrees centigrade, except as provided for in Regula-
tiOn 4.
(2) The combustion efficiency shall be at least 99 95± 0.05% based on:
CC0 —CCO
Combustion efficiency = x 100
Co 2
where C 2 = concentration of carbon dioxide in the combustion gases
CCO = concentration of carbon monoxide in the combustion gases.
(3) There shall be no black smoke nor flame extension above the plane of the
stack.
(4) Tie marine incineration facility shall reply promptly to radio calls at all times
during the incineration.
Regulation 6
Recording Devices and Records
(1) Marine incineration facilities shall utilize recording devices or methods as
approved under Regulation 3. As a minimum, the following data shall be recorded
during each incineration operation and retained for inspection by the Contracting
Party who has issued the permit
(a) continuous temperature measurements by approved temperature
measuring devices;
(b) date and time during incineration and record of waste being Incine-
rated;
Cc) ves l position by appropriate navigational means;
Cd) f i of waste and fuel — for liquid wastes and fuel the flow rate
sh t continuously recorded; the latter requirement does not apply
to ls operating on or before 1 January 1979;
Ce) CO and CO 2 concentration in combustion gases;
(f) vessel’s course and speed.
(2) Approval forms issued, copies of survey reports prepared in accordance with
Regulation 3 and copies of incineration permits issued for the wastes or other
matter to be incinerated on the facility by a Contracting Party shall be kept at the
marine incineration facility.
1 C—39
-------
ANNEX II
The following substances and materials requiring special care are listed for
the purposes of Article Vl(1)(a).
A. Wastes containing significant amounts of the matters listed below.
arsenic
lead
copper and their compounds
zinc
organosilicon compounds
cyan ides
fluorides
pesticides and their by-products not covered in Annex I.
B. In the issue of permits for the dumping of large quantities of acids and alkalis.
consideration shall be given to the possible presence in such wastes of the substances
listed in paragraph A and to the following additional substances:
beryllium
chromium and their compounds
nickel
vanadium
C. Containers, scrap metal and other bulky wastes liable to sink to the see
bottom which may present a serious obstacle to fishing or navigation.
D. Radio-active wastes or other radio—active matter not included in Annex I.
In the issue of permits for the dumping of this matter, the Contracting Parties
should take full account of the recommendations of the competent international
body in this field, at present the International Atomic Energy Agency.
E.’ In the issue of special permits for the incineration of substances and materials
listed in this Annex, the Contracting Parties shall apply the Regulations for the
Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other Matter at Sea set forth in the
Addendum to Annex I and take full account of the Technical Guidelines on the
Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other Matter at Sea adopted by the Con-
tracting Parties in consultation, to the extent specified in these Regulations and
Guidelines.
F. Substa ,jth though of a non-toxic nature, may become harmful due to
the quantities ‘wI’sict they are dumped, or which are liable to seriously reduce
amenities.
Additional paragraph adopted as an amendment by the Third Con jItatjv, Meeting of
Contracting Parties in 1978 The amendment entered nto force on 11 March 1979.
Additional paragraph adopted as an amendment by the Fifth Con,jltatjve Meeting of
Contracting Parties in 1980 The amendment entered into force on 11 March 1981.
C— 40
-------
8 Existence and effects of other dumpings which have been made in the
dumping area (e.g. heawy metal background reading and organtc carbon content).
9 In issuing a permit for durrr ing, Contracting Parties should consider whether
an adequate scientific basis exists for assessing the consequences of such dumping.
as outlined in this Annex, taking into account seasonal variations.
C—General considerations and conditions
1 Possible effects on amenities (e.g. presence of floating or stranded material,
turbidity, objectionable odour, discolouration and foaming)
2 Possible effects on marine life, fish and shellfish culture, fish stocks and
fisheries, seaweed harvesting and culture.
3. Possible effects on other uses of the sea (e.g. impairment of water quality for
industrial use, underwater corrosion of structures, interference with ship operations
from floating materials, interference with fishing or navigation through deposit of
waste or solid objects on the sea floor and protection of areas of special importance
for scientific or conservation purposes).
4. The practical availability of alternative land-based methods of treatment,
disposal or elimination, or of treatment to render the matter less harmful for
dumping at sea.
C—4 1
-------
REQUESTS the Secretary-General of the Inter-Governmental Maritime
Consultative Orgaiizatio . to inform the Contracting Parties of the above-
mentioned amendments in accordance with Article XV(1)(b) of the Convention
ALSO REQUESTS the Secretary-General of the lnter.Governmental Maritime
Consultatjve Organizations to perform among his other Secretariat duties, functions
provided for in the Appendix to the Convention regarding settlement of disputes,
INVITES the Contracting Parties to accept the amendments as soon as
possible
Attachment
ARTICLE Xl
The existing text of Article Xl is replaced by the following:
Any dispute between two or more Contracting Parties concerning the inter-
pretation or application of this Convention shall, if settlement by negotiation or by
other means has riot been possible, be submitted by agreement bet en the parties
to the dispute to the International Court of Justice or upon the request of one of
them to arbitration. Arbitration procedures, unless the parties to the dispute decide
otherwise, shall be in accordance with the rules set out in the Appendix to this
Convention.
ARTICLE XIV
The existing text of wb-peragraph (a) of paragraph 4 of Article XIV is
replaced by the following:
(a) review and adopt amendments to this Convention, its Annexes and Appendix
in accordance with Article XV;
ARTICLE XV
The existing text of wb-paragraph (a) of paragraph 1 of Article XV is
replaced by the following:
(a) At meetings of the Contracting Parties called in accordance with Article XIV
amendments tGthi, Convention and its Appendix may be adopted by a two-
thirds majority of those present. An amendment shall enter into force for the
Parties which P accepted it on the sixtieth day after tWo-thirds of the
Parties shall have deposited an instrument of acceptance of the amendment
with the Organizati . Thereafter the amendment shall enter into force for
any other Party 30 days after that Party deposits its instrument of acceptance
of the amendment.
‘ The name of the Organization was changed to the “International Maritime Organization” by
virtue of amendments to the Organization’s Convention which entered into force on
22 May 1982
C—42
-------
Secretary. .General of the Organization within a period of 30 days of an agreed list
of qualified persons. The Secretary-General shall select the Chairman of the
Tribunal from such list as soon as possible. The Chairman shall then request the
party which has not nominated an arbitrator to do so. If this party does not nomi-
nate an arbitrator within 15 days of such request, the Secretary-General shall, upon
request of the Chairman, nominate the arbitrator from the agreed list of qualified
persons.
4 In the case of the death, disability or default of an arbitrator, the party to the
dispute who nominated him shall nominate a replacement within 30 days of such
death, disability or default. If the party does not nominate a replacement, the arbi-
tration shafl proceed with the remaining arbitrators In the case of the death,
disability or default of the Chairman, a replacement shall be nominated in accord-
ance with the provision of paragraphs 1(u) arid 2 of this Article within gO days of
such death, disability or defauLt
5 A list of arbitrators shall be maintained by the Secretary-General of the
Organizatton and composed of qualified persons nominated by the Contracting
Parties. Each Contracting Party may designate for inclusion in the list four persons
who shall not necessarily be its nationals, If the parties to the dispute have failed
within the specified time limits to submit to the Secretary-General an agreed list of
qualified persons as provided for in paragraphs 2. 3 and 4 of this Article, the
Secretary-General shall select from the list maintained by him the arbitrator or
arbitrators not yet nominated.
ARTiCLE 4
The Tribunal may hear and determine counter-claims arising directly out of
the subject matter of the dispute.
ARTICLE 5
Each party to the dispute shall be responsible for the costs entailed by the
preparation of its own case. The remuneration of the members of the Tribunal and
of all general expenses incurred by the Arbitration shall be borne equally by the
parties to the dispute, The Tribunal shall keep a record of all its expenses and shall
furnish a final statement thereof to the parties.
ARTICLE 6
Any Contracting Party which has an interest of a legal nature which may be
affected by the decision in the case may, after giving written notice to the parties
to the dispute which have orginally initiated the procedure, intervene in the arbitra-
tion procedure with the consent of the Tribunal and at its own expense. Any such
intervenor shall have the right to present evidence, briefs and oral argument on the
matters giving rise to its intervention, in accordance with procedures established
Pursuant to Article 7 of this Appendix, but shall have no rights with respect to the
Composition of the Tribunal
C—4 3
-------
RESOLUTION OF THE INTER-GOVERNMENTAl. CONFERENCE ON
THE CONVINTION ON THE DUMPING OF WASTES AT SEA ON
AUISTANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE IX
THE PARTICIPANTS AT THIS CONFERENCE,
HAVING AGREED to promote support for scientific and technical co-opera-
tion in the prevention and control of marine pollution caused by dumping,
HAVING NOTED the need to assist Contracting Parties who may request
support for this purpose in accordance with Article IX of the Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter,
REQUEST the Secretary-General of the United Nations to report this
resolution to the appropriate bodies for early consideration.
C—44
-------
REVISED
GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
OF 1978
Agreement, with Annexes
and Terms of Reference.
between the
United States and Canada
signed at Ottawa
November 22, 1978
and
Phosphorus Load Reduction Supplement
sIgned October 7, 1983
j . as amended by Protocol
1 signed November 18. 1987
Consolidated by the
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
UNITED STATES AND CANADA
January, 1988
-------
REVISED GREAT LAKES I4ATER QUALITY AGREEMENT OF
1978
ARTICLE SUBJECT PAGE
I Definitions
II Purpose
III General Objectives
IV Specific Objectives
V Standards, Other Regulatory
Requirements, and Research
VI Programs and Other Measures
VII Powers, Responsibilities and
Functions of the IJC
VIII Joint Institutions and
Regional Office
IX Submission and Exchange of
Information
X Consultation and Review
XI Implementation
XII Existing Rights and
Obligations
XIII Amendment
XIV Entry Into Force and
Termination
XV Supersession
ANNEX SUBJECT PAGE
1 Specific Objectives
Specific Objectives Supplement
to Annex 1
2 Remedial Action Plans and
Lakewide Management Plans
3 Control of Phosphorus
Phosphorus Load Reduction
Supplement
&N. I SUBJECT PAGE
4 Discharges of Oil and
Hazardous Polluting
Substances from Vessels
5 Discharges of Vessel Wastes
6 Review of Pollution from
Shipping Sources
7 Dredging
8 DIscharges from Onshore and
Offshore Facilities
9 JoInt Contingency Plan
10 Hazardous Polluting Substances
Appendix 1 — Hazardous Polluting
Substances
Appendix 2 — Potential Hazardous
Polluting Substances
11 Surveillance and Monitoring
12 Persistent Toxic Substances
13 Pollution from Non-Point Sources
14 Contaminated Sediment
15 Airborne Toxic Substances
16 Pollution from Contaminated
Groundwa tot
17 Research and Development
Terms of Reference for the Joint 126
Institutions and the Great Lakes
Regional Office
3
8
9
10
12
13
23
26
27
28
29
30
30
31
31
72
77
79
82
84
88
90
94
101
104
108
113
115
118
122
123
32
45
49
60
63
-------
PROTOCOL AMENDING THE 1978 AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CANADA
ON GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY. AS
AMENDED ON OCTOBER 16, 1983
The Government of the United States of America
and the Government of Canada,
REAFFIRMING their commitment to achieving the
purpose and objectives of the 1978 Agreement between
the United States of America and Canada on Great
Lakes Water Quality, as amended on October 16, 1983;
HAVING developed and implemented cooperative
programs and measures to achieve such purpose and
objectives;
RECOGNIZING the need for strengthened efforts to
address the continuing contamination of the Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem. particularly by persistent
toxic substances;
ACKNOWLEDGING that many of these toxic substances
enter the Great Lakes System from the air, from
ground water infiltration, from sediments in the
Lakes and from the runoff of non-point sources;
AWARE that further research and program
development is now required to enable effective
actions to be taken to address the continuing
contamination of the Great Lakes;
DETERMINED to improve management processes for
achieving Agreement objectives and to demonstrate
firm leadership in the implementation of control
measures;
-------
Have agreed as follows:
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON GREAT LAKES WATER OUALITY. 1971
The Government of Canada and the Government of
the United States of America
Having in 1972 and 1978 entered into
Agreements on Great Lakes Water Quality;
Reaffirming their determination to restore and
enhance water quality In the Great Lakes System;
Continuing to be concerned about the impairment
o of water quality on each side of the boundary to an
extent that is causing injury to health and property
on the other side, as described by the International
Joint Comission;
Reaffirming their intent to prevent further
pollution of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem owing to
continuing population growth, resource development
and increasing use of water;
Reaffirming in a spirit of friendship and
cooperation the rights and obligations of both
countries under the Boundary Waters Treaty, signed on
January 11, 1909, and in particular their obligation
not to pollute boundary waters;
Continuing to recognize the rights of each
country in the use of its Great Lakes waters;
Having decided that the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreements of 1972 and 1978 and subsequent reports
of the International Joint Coninission provide a sound
basis for new and more effective cooperative actions
to restore and enhance water quality in the Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem;
Recognizing that restoration and enhancement of
the boundary waters can not be achieved independently
of other parts of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
with which these waters interact;
Concluding that the best means to preserve the
aquatic ecosystem and achieve improved water quality
throughout the Great Lakes System is by adopting
common objectives, developing and implementing
cooperative programs and other measures, and
assigning special responsibilities and functions to
the International Joint Comlssiofl
Have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I
DEF IN IT IONS
As used In this Agreement:
(a) ‘Agreement” means the present Agreement as
distinguished from the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement of April 15, 1972;
-------
Joint
(b) “Annex” means any of the Annexes to this
Agreement, each of which is attached to and
forms an integral part of this Agreement;
(C) “Boundary waters of the Great Lakes System”
or “boundary waters” means boundary waters,
as defined in the Boundary Waters Treaty,
that are within the Great Lakes System;
(d) “Boundary Waters Treaty” means the Treaty
between the United States and Great Britain
Relating to Boundary Waters, and Questions
Arising Between the United States and
Canada, signed at Washington on January 11,
1909;
Ce) “Compatible regulations” means regulations
no less restrictive than the agreed
principles set out in this Agreement;
(f) Objectives TM are broad descriptions
of water quality conditions consistent with
the protection of the beneficial uses and
the level of environmental quality which
the Parties desire to secure and which will
provide overall water management guidance;
(g) TM Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem” means the
interacting components of air, land, water
and living organisms, including husans,
within the drainage basin of the St.
Lawrence River at or upstream from the
point at which this river becomes the
International boundary between Canada and
the United States;
(h) “Great Lakes System” means all of the
streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of
water that are within the drainage basin on
the St. Lawrence River at or upstream from
the point at which this river becomes the
international boundary between Canada and
the United States;
Ci) “Harmful quantity TM means any quantity of a
substance that If discharged Into receiving
water would be Inconsistent with the
achievement of the General and Specific
Objectives;
(j) “Hazardous Polluting substance” means any
element or compound Identified by the
Parties which, if discharged in any
quantity into or upon receiving waters or
adjoining shorelines, would present an
inininent and substantial danger to public
health or welfare; for this purpose,
“public health or welfare” encompasses all
factors affecting the health and welfare of
humans Including but not limited to human
health, and the conservation and protection
of flora and fauna, public and private
property, shorelines and beaches;
(k) “International Joint Coemiission” or
“Cor,inisslon” means the International
Conmiisson established by the Boundary
Waters Treaty;
(1) “Monitoring” means a scientifically
designed system of continuing standardized
measurements and observations and the
evaluation thereof;
-------
Cm) “Objectives” means the General Objectives
adopted pursuant to Article III and the
Specific Objectives adopted pursuant to
Article IV of this Agreement;
( ) “Parties” means the Government of Canada
and the Government of the United States of
America;
(0) “Phosphorus means the element phosphorus
present as a constituent of various organic
and inorganic complexes and compounds;
(p) Research means development,
interpretation and demonstration of
advanced sci•ntific knowledg, for the
r.solution of issues but does not include
monitoring and surveillance of water or air
quality;
(q) “Science Advisory BoardN means the Great
Lakes Science Advisory Board of the
International Joint Commission established
pursuant to Article VIII of this Agreement;
(r) TM Speclfic Objectlves means the
concentration or quantity of a substance or
level of effect that the Parties agree.
after Investigation, to recognize as a
maximum or minimum desired limit for a
defined body of water or portion thereof,
taking into account the beneficial uses or
level of environmental quality which the
Parties desire to secure and protect;
(s) “State and Provincial Governments” means
the Governments of the States of Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota. New York.
Ohio, Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. and the Government of the
Province of Ontario;
(t) “SurveIllance means specific observations
and measurements relative to control and
management;
Cu) Ulerms of Reference means the Terms of
Reference for the Joint Institutions and
the Great Lakes Regional Office established
pursuant to this Agreement, which are
attached to and form an integral part of
this Agreement;
(v) “Toxic substance” means a substance which
can cause death, disease, behavioural
abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations.
physiological or reproductive malfunctions
or physical deformities in any organism or
Its offspring, or which can become
poisonous after concentration In the food
chain or in combination with other
substances;
(w) “Tributary waters of the Great Lakes
System” or “tributary waters” means all the
waters within the Great Lakes System that
are not boundary waters;
(x) “Hater Quality Board means the Great Lakes
Hater Quality Board of the International
Joint Coninisslon established pursuant to
Article VIII of this Agreement.
U,
-------
ARTICLE III
GENERAL OBJECTIVES
ARTICLE II
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Parties Is to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem. In order to achieve this purpose. the
Parties agree to make a maximum effort to develop
programs, practices and technology necessary for a
better understanding of the Great lakes Basin
Ecosystem and to eliminate or reduce to the maximum
extent practicable the discharge of pollutants Into
the Great Lakes System.
Consistent with the provisions of this Agreement,
it is the policy of the Parties that:
(a) The discharge of toxic substances in toxic
amounts be prohibited and the discharge of
any or all persistent toxic substances be
virtually eliminated;
(b) Financial assistance to construct publicly
owned waste treatment works be provided by
a combination of local, state, provincial.
and federal participation; and
(c) Coordinated planning processes and best
management practices be developed and
implemented by the respective jurisdictions
to ensure adequate control of all sources
of pollutants.
The Parties adopt the following General
Objectives for the Great Lakes System. These waters
should be:
(a) Free from substances that directly or
indirectly enter the waters as a result of
human activity and that will settle to form
putrescent or otherwise objectionable
sludge deposits, or that will adversely
affect aquatic life or waterfowl;
(b) Free from floating materials such as
debris, oil, scum, and other imiscible
substances resulting from human activities
in amounts that are unsightly or
deleterious;
(c) Free from materials and heat directly or
indirectly entering the water as a result
of human activity that alone, or in
combination with other materials, will
produce colour, odour, taste, or other
conditions in such a degree as to interfere
with beneficial uses;
(d) Free from materials and heat directly or
indirectly entering the water as a result
of human activity that alone, or in
combination with other materials, will
produce conditions that are toxic or
harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life;
and
LI’
-------
(e) Free from nutrients directly or indirectly
entering the waters as a result of human
activity in amounts that create growths of
aquatic life that interfere with beneficial
uses.
ARTICLE IV
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
I. The Parties adopt the Specific Objectives for the
boundary waters of the Great Lakes System as set
forth In Annex 1, subject to the following:
(a) The Specific Objectives adopted pursuant to
this Article represent the minimum levels
of water quality desired In the boundary
waters of the Great Lakes System and are
not Intended to preclude the establishment
of more stringent requirements.
(b) The determination of the achievement of
Specific Objectives shall be based on
statistically valid sampling data.
Cc) Notwithstanding the adoption of Specific
Objectives, all reasonable and practicable
measures shall be taken to maintain or
Improve the existing water quality in those
areas of the boundary waters of the Great
Lakes System where such water quality Is
better than that prescribed by the Specific
Objectives, and in those areas having
outstanding natural resource value.
(d) The responsible regulatory agencies shall
not consider flow augmentation as a
substitute for adequate treatment to meet
the Specific Objectives.
(e) The Parties recognize that in certain areas
of Inshore waters natural phenomena exist
which, despite the best efforts of the
Parties, will prevent the achievement of
some of the Specific Objectives. As early
as possible, these areas should be
Identified explicitly by the appropriate
jurisdictions and reported to the
International Joint Coninisslon.
(f) The Parties recognize that there are areas
in the boundary waters of the Great Lakes
System where, due to humen activity, one or
more of the General or Specific Objectives
of the Agreement are not being met.
Pending virtual elimination of persistent
toxic substances in the Great Lakes System,
the Parties, in cooperation with State and
Provincial Governments and the Commission,
shall identify and work toward the
elimination of:
U) Areas of Concern pursuant to Annex 2;
(ii) Critical Pollutants pursuant to Annex 2;
and
(iii) Point Source Impact Zones pursuant to
Annex 2.
2. The Specific Objectives for the boundary waters
of the Great Lakes System or for particular portions
-------
thereof shall be kept under review by the Parties and
the International Joint Commission, which shall make
appropriate recommendations.
3. The Parties shall consult on:
(a) The estabflshment of Specific Objectives to
protect beneficial uses from the combined
effects of pollutants; and
(b) The control of pollutant loading rates for
each lake basin to protect the integrity of
the ecosystem over the long term.
ARTICLE V
STANDARDS, OTHER REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS,
AND RESEARCH
1. Water quality standards and other regulatory
requirements of the Parties shall be consistent with
the achievement of the General and Specific
Objectives. The Parties shall use their best efforts
to ensure that water quality standards and other
regulatory requirements of the State and Provincial
Governments shall similarly be consistent with the
achievement of these Objectives. Flow augmentation
shall not be considered as a substitute for adequate
treatment to meet water quality standards or other
regulatory requirements.
2. The Partia’ shall use their best efforts to
ensure that:
(a) The principal research funding agencies in
both countries orient the research programs
of their organizations in response to
research priorities identified by the
Science Advisory Board and recommended by
the Commission;
(b) Mechanisms be developed for appropriate
cost—effective international cooperation;
and
(c) Research priorities are undertaken in
accordance with Annex 17.
ARTICLE VI
PROGRAMS AND OTHER MEASURES
1. The Parties, in cooperation with State and
provincial Governments, shall continue to develop
and implement programs and other measures to fulfil
the purpose of this Agreement and to meet the General
and Specific Objectives. Where present treatment is
Inadequate to meet the General and Specific
Objectives, additional treatment shall be required.
The programs and measures shall include the following:
(a) Pollution from Municioal Sources . Programs
for the abatement, control and prevention
of municipal discharges and urban drainage
into the Great Lakes System. These
programs shall be completed and in
operation as soon as practicable, and in
the case of municipal sewage treatment
facilities no later than December 31,
1982. These programs shall include:
-------
(I) Construction and operation of waste
treatment facilities in all
municipalities having sewer systems to
provide levels of treatment consistent
with the achievement of phosphorus
requirements and the General and
Specific Objectives, taking into account
the effects of waste from other sources;
(ii) Provision of financial resources to
ensure prompt construction of needed
facilities;
(iii) Establishment of requirements for
construction and operating standards for
facilities;
( lv) Establishment of pre—treatment
requirements for all Industrial plants
discharging waste Into publicly owned
treatment works where such Industrial
wastes are not amenable to adequate
treatment or removal using conventional
municipal treatment processes;
Cv) Development and implementation of
practical programs for reducing
pollution from storm, sanitary, and
combined sewer discharges; and
(vi) Establishment of effective enforcement
programs to ensure that the above
pollution abatement requirements are
fully met.
(b) Pollution from Industrial Sources .
Programs for the abatement, control and
prevention of pollution from industrial
sources entering the Great Lakes System.
These programs shall be completed and in
operation as soon as practicable and in any
case no later than December 31, 1983, and
shall include:
(1) Establishment of waste treatment or
control requirements expressed as
effluent limitations (concentrations
and/or loading limits for specific
pollutants where possible) for all
industrial plants, including power
generating facilities, to provide levels
of treatment or reduction or elimination
of inputs of substances and effects
consistent with the achievement of the
General and Specific Objectives and
other control requirements, taking into
account the effects of waste from other
sources;
(ii) Requirements for the substantial
elimination of discharges into the Great
Lakes System of persistent toxic
substances;
(iii) Requirements for the control of thermal
discharges;
(iv) Measures to control the discharge of
radioactive materials Into the Great
Lakes System;
-------
(v) Requirements to minimize adverse
environmental impacts of water intakes;
(vi) Development and implementation of
programs to meet industrial
pre—treatment requirements as specified
under sub—paragraph (a)(iv) above; and
(vii) Establishment of effective enforcement
programs to ensure the above pollution
abatement requirements are fully met.
(c) Inventory of Pollution Abatement
Requirements. Preparation of an inventory
of pollution abatement requirements for all
municipal and industrial facilities
discharging into the Great Lakes System in
order to gauge progress toward the earliest
practicable completion and operation of the
programs listed in sub—paragraphs (a) and
(b) above. This Inventory, prepared and
revised annually, shall include compliance
schedules and status of compliance with
monitoring and effluent restrictions, and
shall be made available to the
International Joint Commission and to the
public. In the initial preparation of this
inventory, priority shall be given to the
problem areas previously Identified by the
Water Quality Board.
(d) Eut rophicatiOIL Programs and measures for
the reduction and control of inputs of
phosphorus and other nutrients, in
accordance with the provisions of Annex 3.
(e) Pollution from Agricultural. Forestry and
Other Land Use Activities . Measures for
the abatement and control of pollution from
agricultural, forestry and other land use
activities including:
(I) Measures for the control of pest control
products used in the Great Lakes Basin
to ensure that pest control products
likely to have long—term deleterious
effects on the quality of water or its
biota be used only as authorized by the
responsible regulatory agencies; that
inventories of pest control products
used in the Great lakes Basin be
established and maintained by
appropriate agencies; and that research
and educational programs be strengthened
to facilitate Integration of cultural.
biological and chemical pest control
techniques;
(ii) Measures for the abatement and control
of pollution from animal husbandry
operations, including encouragement to
appropriate agencies to adopt policies
and regulations regarding utilization of
animal wastes, and site selection and
disposal of liquid and solid wastes, and
to strengthen educational and technical
assistance programs to enable farmers to
establish waste utilization, handling
and disposal systems;
(iii) Measures governing the hauling and
disposal of liquid and solid wastes.
Including encouragement to appropriate
U,
a’
-------
regulatory agencies to ensure proper
location, design, and regulation
governing land disposal, and to ensure
sufficient, adequately trained technical
arid administrative capability to review
plans and to supervise and monitor
systems for application of wastes on
land;
(iv) Measures to review and supervise road
salting practices and salt storage to
ensure optimum use of salt and
all—weather protection of salt stores in
consideration of long—term environmental
impact;
Cv) Measures to control soil losses from
urban and suburban as well as rural
areas:
(vi) Measures to encourage and facilitate
improvements in land use planning and
management programs to take account of
impacts on Great Lakes water quality,
(vii) Other advisory programs and measures to
abate and control inputs of nutrients,
toxic substances and sediments from
agricultural, forestry and other land
use activities;
(viii) Consideration of future reconm endations
from the International Joint Commission
based on the Pollution from Land Use
Activities Reference; and
(ix) Conduct further non-point source
programs in accordance with Annex 13.
(f) Pollution from Shipping Activities. .
Measures for the abatement and control of
pollution from shipping sources, including;
(%) Programs and compatible regulations to
prevent discharges of harmful quantities
of oil and hazardous polluting
substances, in accordance with Annex 4;
(ii) Compatible regulations for the control
of discharges of vessel wastes, in
accordance with Annex 5;
(iii) Such compatible regulations to abate and
control pollution from shipping sources
as may be deemed desirable in the light
of continuing reviews and studies to be
undertaken in accordance with Annex 6;
(iv) Programs and any necessary compatible
regulations In accordance with AnneXes 4
and 5, for the safe and efficient
handling of shipboard generated wastes,
including oil, hazardous polluting
substances, garbage. waste water and
sewage, and for their subsequent
disposal, including the type and
quantity of reception facilities and, If
applicable, treatment standards; and
(v) Establishment by the Canadian Coast
Guard and the United States Coast Guard
of a coordinated system for aerial and
surface surveillance for the purpose of
-------
enforcement of regulations and the early
identification, abatement and clean—up
of spills of oil, hazardous polluting
substances or other pollution.
(g) Pollution from Dredging Activities .
Measures for the abatement and control of
pollution from all dredging activities,
including the development of criteria for
the identification of polluted sediments
and compatible programs for disposal of
polluted dredged material, in accordance
with Annex 7. Pending the development of
compatible criteria and programs, dredging
operations shall be conducted in a manner
that will minimize adverse effects on the
environment.
(h) Pollution from Onshore and Offshore
Facilities . Measures for the abatement and
control of pollution from onshore and
offshore facilities, including programs and
compatible regulations for the prevention
of discharges of harmful quantities of oil
and hazardous polluting substances, in
accordance with Annex 8.
(I) Contingency Plan . Maintenance of a joint
contingency plan for use in the event of a
discharge or the imminent threat of a
discharge of oil or hazardous polluting
substances, in accordance with Annex 9.
(j) Hazardous Polluting Substances .
Implementation of Annex 10 concerning
hazardous polluting substances. The
Parties shall further consult from time to
time for the purpose of revising the list
of hazardous polluting substances and of
identifying harmful quantities of these
substances.
(k) Persistent Toxic Substances . Measures for
the control of inputs of persistent toxic
substances including control programs for
their production, use, distribution and
disposal, in accordance with Annex 12.
(1) Airborne Toxic Substances . Programs to
identify pollutant sources and relative
source contributions, Including the more
accurate definition of wet and dry
deposition rates, for those substances
which may have significant adverse effects
of environmental quality including the
indirect effects of Impairment of tributary
water quality through atmospheric
deposition In drainage basins. In cases
where significant contributions to Great
Lakes pollution from atmospheric sources
are identified, the Parties agree to
consult on appropriate remedial programs.
The Parties shall conduct such programs in
accordance with Annex 15.
(m) Surveillance and Monitoring .
Implementation of a coordinated
surveillance and monitoring program in the
Great Lakes System, in accordance with
Annex 11, to assess compliance with
pollution control requirements and
achievement of the Objectives, to provide
Information for measuring local and whole
lake response to control measures, and to
Identify emerging problems;
-------
ARTICLE VII
(ii) Remedzal Action Plans . Measures to ensure
the development and implementation of
Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern
pursuant to Annex 2;
(0) Lakewide Management Plans . Measures to
ensure the development and implementation
of Lakevide Management Plans to address
Critical Pollutants pursuant to Annex 2;
(p) Pollution from Contaminated Sediments .
Measures for the abatement and control of
pollution from all contaminated sediments,
including the development of chemical and
biological criteria for assessing the
significance of the relative contamination
arising from the sediments and compatible
programs for remedial action for polluted
sediments in accordance with Annex 14; and
(q) Pollution from Contaminated Groundwater and
Subsurface Sources . Programs for the
assessment and control of contaminated
groundwater and subsurface sources entering
the boundary waters of the Great Lakes
System pursuant to Annex 16.
2. The Parties shall develop and implement such
additional programs as they jointly decide are
necessary and desirable to fulfil the purpose of this
Agreement and to meet the General and Specific
ObjectIves.
POWERS. RESPONSIBILITIES AND FUNCTIONS OF
THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
1. The International Joint Commission shall assist
in the implementation of this Agreement.
Accordingly, the Commission Is hereby given, by a
Reference pursuant to Article IX of the Boundary
Haters Treaty, the following responsibilities:
(a) Collation, analysis and dissemination of
data and information supplied by the
Parties and State and Provincial
Governments relating to the quality of the
boundary waters of the Great Lakes System
and to pollution that enters the boundary
waters from tributary waters and other
sources;
(b) Collection, analysis and dissemination of
data and information concerning the General
and Specific Objectives and the operation
and effectiveness of the programs and other
measures established pursuant to this
Agreement;
(C) Tendering of advice and recommendations to
the Parties and to the State and Provincial
Governments on problems of and matters
related to the quality of the boundary
waters of the Great Lakes System including
specific recommendations concerning the
General and Specific ObjectIves,
legislation, standards and other regulatory
requirements. programs and other measures.
and Intergovernmental agreements relating
to the quality of these waters;
-------
(d) Tendering of advice and recommendatiotls to
the Parties in connection with matters
covered under the Annexes to this Agreement;
(e) Provision of assistance in the coordination
of the joint activities envisaged by this
Agreement;
(f) Provision of assistance in and advice on
matters related to research in the Great
lakes Basin Ecosystem, including
identification of objectives for research
activities, tendering of advice and
recommendations concerning research to the
Parties and to the State and Provincial
Governments, and dissemination of
information concerning research to
interested persons and agencies;
(g) Investigations of such subjects related to
the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem as the
Parties may from time to time refer to It.
2. In the discharge of its responsibilities under
this Reference, the CommissiOn may exercise all of
the powers conferred upon It by the Boundary Waters
‘reaty and by any legislation passed pursuant thereto
including the power to conduct public hearings and to
compel the testimony of witnesses and the production
of documents.
Commission shall make a full report to the
and to the State and Provincial Governments
frequently than bienniallY concerning
toward the achievement of the General and
Objectives including, as appropriate,
matters related to Annexes to this Agreement. This
report shall include an assessment of the
effectiveness of the programs and other measures
undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, and advice and
recommendations. In alternate years. the Commission
may submit a summary report. The Commission may at
any time make special reports to the Parties, to the
State and Provincial Governments and to the public
concerning any problem of water quality in the Great
Lakes System.
4. The Commission may in its discretion publish any
report, statement or other document prepared by it in
the discharge of its functions under this Reference.
5. The Commission shall have authority to verify
independently the data and other Information
submitted by the Parties and by the State and
Provincial Governments through such tests or other
means as appear appropriate to it. consistent with
the Boundary Haters Treaty and with applicable
legislation.
6. The Commission shall carry out its
responsibilities under this Reference utilizing
principally the services of the Hater Quality Board
and the Science Advisory Board established under
Article VIII of this Agreement. The Commission shall
also ensure liaison and coordination between the
institutions established under this Agreement and
other institutloflS which may address concerns
relevant to the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem,
including both those within its purview, such as
those Boards related to Great Lakes levels and air
pollution matters, and other international bodies as
appropriate.
3. The
Parties
no less
progress
Sped fic
-------
ARTICLE VIII
JOINT INSTITUTIONS AND REGIONAL OFFICE
1. To assist the International Joint Commission in
the exercise of the powers and responsibilities
assigned to it under this Agreement, there shall be
two Boards:
(a) A Great Lakes Water Quality Board which
shall be the principal advisor to the
Commission. The Board shall be composed of
an equal number of members from Canada and
the United States, including
representatives from the Parties and each
of the State and Provincial Governments; and
(b) A Great Lakes Science Advisory Board which
shall provide advice on research to the
Commission and to the Water Quality Board.
The Board shaH further provide advice on
scientific matters referred to it by the
Commission, or by the Water Quality Board
In consultation with the Commission. The
Science Advisory Board shall consist of
managers of Great Lakes research programs
and recognized experts on Great Lakes water
quality problems and related fields.
2. The members of the Water Quality Board and the
Science Advisory Board shall be appointed by the
Commission after consultation with the appropriate
government or governments concerned. The functions
of the Boards shall be as specified in the Terms of
Reference appended to this Agreement.
3. To provide administrative support and technical
assistance to the two Boards, and to provide a public
information service for the programs, including
public hearings, undertaken by the International
Joint Commission and by the Boards, there shall be a
Great Lakes Regional Office of the International
Joint Commission. Specific duties and organization
of the Office shall be as specified in the Terms of
Reference appended to this Agreement.
4. The Commission shall submit an annual budget of
anticipated expenses to be incurred in carrying out
its responsibilities under this Agreement to the
Parties for approval. Each Party shall seek funds to
pay one—half of the annual budget so approved, but
neither Party shall be under an obligation to pay a
larger amount than the other toward this budget.
ARTICLE IX
SUBMISSION AND EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
1. The International Joint Commission shall be given
at Its request any data or other Information relating
to water quality in the Great Lakes System In
accordance with procedures established by the
Commission.
2. The Commission shall make available to the
Parties and to the State and Provincial Governments
upon request all data or other information furnished
to It in accordance with this Article.
3. Each Party shall make available to the other at
its request any data or other information in Its
control relating to water quality in the Great Lakes
System.
C’
I - ..
-------
4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Agreement, the Commission shall not release without
the consent of the owner any information identified
as proprietary information under the law of the place
where such information has been acquired.
ARTICLE X
CONSULTATION AND REVIEW
1. Following the receipt of each report submitted to
the Parties by the International Joint Commission in
accordance with paragraph 3 of Article VII of this
Agreement, the Parties shall consult on the
recommendations contained in such report and shall
consider such action as may be appropriate, including:
(a) The modification of existing Objectives and
the adoption of new Objectives;
(b) The modification or improvement of programs
and joint measures; and
(c) The amendment of this Agreement or any
Annex thereto.
Additional consultations may be held at the
request of either Party on any matter arising out of
the implementation of this Agreement.
2. When a Party becomes aware of a special pollution
problem that is of joint concern and requires an
immediate response, it shall notify and consult the
other Party forthwith about appropriate remedial
action.
3. The parties, in cooperation with State and
Provincial Governments, shall meet twice a year to
coordinate their respective work plans with regard to
the implementat ion of this Agreement and to evaluate
progress made.
4. The Parties shall conduct a comprehensive review
of the operation and effectiveness of this Agreement
following every third biennial report of the
Commission required under Article VII of this
Agreement.
TICLE Xl
II4PLEWENTATION
1. The obligations undertaken In this Agreement
shall be subject to the appropriation of funds in
accordance with the constitutional procedures of the
Parties.
2. The Parties commit themselves to seek:
(a) The appropriation of the funds required to
implement this Agreement, including the
funds needed to develop and implement the
programs and other measures provided for in
Article VI of this Agreement, and the funds
required by the International Joint
Commission to carry out its
responsibilities effectively;
(b) The enactment of any additional legislation
that may be necessary in order to implement
the programs and other measures provided
for in Article VI of this Agreement; and
a’
-------
(C) The cooperation of the State and Provincial
Governments in all matters relating to this
Agreement.
ARTICLE X l i
EXISTING RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to
diminish the rights and obligations of the Parties as
set forth in the Boundary Haters Treaty.
ARTICLE XIII
AMENDMENT
1. This Agreement, the Annexes, and the Terms of
Reference may be amended by agreement of the
Parties. The Annexes may also be amended as provided
therein, subject to the requirement that such
amendments shall be within the scope of this
Agreement. All such amendments to the Annexes shall
be confirmed by an exchange of notes or letters
between the Parties through diplomatic channels which
shall specify the effective date or dates of such
amendments.
2. All amendments to this Agreement. the Annexes,
and the Terms of Reference shaH be communicated
promptly to the International Joint Commission.
ARTICLE X IV
ENTRY INTO FORCE AND TERMINATION
This Agreement shall enter into force Upon
signature by the duly authorized representatives of
the Parties, and shall remain in force for a period
of five years and thereafter until terminated upon
twelve months’ notice given in writing by one of the
Parties to the other.
MTICLE XV
SUPERSESSION
This Agreement supersedes the Great Lakes Hater
Quality Agreement of April 15, 1972, and shall be
referred to as the “Great Lakes Hater Quality
Agreement of 1978.”
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned
representatives duly authorized by their respective
Governments, have signed this Agreement.
DONE in duplicate at Ottawa in the English and
French languages, both versions being equally
authentic, this 22nd day of November 1978.
IN FOI DE QIJOl, les représentantS soussignées,
dOment authorisés par leur Gouvernemeflt respectif,
ont signé le present Accord.
FAIl en double exemplaire a Ottawa en français et
en anglais, chaque version faisant egalement fol, ce
22ème jour de novembre 1978.
-------
Appendix D
Chesapeake Bay D- I
-t
C D
-------
1987 CHESAPEAKE BAY AGREEMENT
HE CHESAPEAKE BAY IS A NATIONAL TREASURE
and a resource of worldwide significance. Its ecological, economic, arid cultural importance are felt far beyond its waters and
the communities that line its shores Man’s use and abuse of its bounty, howeveç together with the continued growth arid
development of population in its watershed, have taken a coil on the Bay system. In recent decades, the Bay has suffered
serious declines in quality and productivity 0 REPRESENTING the Federal government and the States which surround
the Chesapeake Bay, we acknowledge our stake in the resources of the Bay and accept our share of responsibility for its
current condition We are determined that this decline will be reversed. In response, all of our jurisdictions have embarked
on ambitious programs to protect our shared resource and restore it to a more productive state. 0 IN 1980, the legislatures
of Virginia and Maryland established the Chesapeake Bay Commission to coordinate interstate planning and programs
from a legislative perspective In 1985, Pennsylvania joined the Commission. And, in 1983, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsyl-
vania, the District of Columbia, the US. Environmental Protection Agency and the Chesapeake Bay Commission formally
agreed to a cooperative approach to this undertaking and established specific mechanisms for its coordination. Since 1983,
our joint commitment has carried us to new levels of governmental cooperation and scientific understanding. It has formed
a firm base for the future success of this long.term program The extent and complexity of our task now call for an
expanded and refined agreement to guide our efforts toward the twenty-first century. 0 RECOGNIZING that the
Chesapeake Bay’s importance transcends regional boundaries, we commit to managing the Chesapeake Bay as an integrated
ecosystem and pledge our best efforts to achieve the goals in this Agreement. We propose a series of objectives that will
establish a policy and institutional framework for continued cooperative efforts to restore and protect Chesapeake Bay We
further commit to specific actions to achieve those objectives The implementation of these commitments will be reviewed
annually and additional comf iitments developed as needed.
GOALS AND PRIORITY COMMITMENTS
T HIS NEW AGREEMENT CONTAINS Goals and Prionty representing the Federal government, the District of Colurnbu the
G.immucments for Living Resources, Water Quality, Popula. State of Maryland and the Commonwealths of Pennsylvania 3nd Vir
nun Growth and Devclopment Public Informac Educa’ ginta (hereinafter the “Scst&) and the thesapeake Bay Comm on
ciun and Participation. Public Access, and Governance 0 The parties This Agreement may be amended and anachmenn added in the furure
cci this 1987 Agreemenc are the US Environmental Protection Agency by unanimous action of the Qiesapeake Executive CounciL
D— 1
-------
LIVING RESOURCES
G o A L PROVIDE FOR THE RESTORATION AND PRO-
TECTiON OF THE LiVING RESOURCES. THEIR HABITATS
AND ECOLOGICAL RCLAT7ONSHIPS The pnaluaivir
diverory and abundance of living resources are the best ultimate mea•
sures of the Chesapeake Bays condition. These living resources are the
main focus of the restoration and protection effort Some species of
shellfish and hnfish are of immense commercial and recreational value
to man. Others are valuable because they are part of the vast array of
plant and animal life that make up the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem on
which all species depend. We recognize that the entire natural system
must be healthy and productive We will determine the essential ele-
ments of habitat and environmental quality necessary to support living
resources and will see that these conditions are attained arid maintained.
We will also manage the harvest of and monitor populations of com•
mercially, recreationally and ecologically valuable species to ensure sus-
tained. viable stocks. We recognize that to be successful, these actions
must be carried our in an integrated and coordinated manner across the
whole Bay system.
OBJECTIVES
o R,esrote, enhance, protect and manage submerged aquatic vegetation.
o Protect, enhance and restore wetlands, coastal sand dunes, forest
buffers and other shoreline and riverline systems important to
water quality and habitat.
o Conserve soil resources and reduce erosion and sedimentation to
protect Bay habitat.
o Maintain freshwater flow regimes necessary to sustain estuarine
habitats, including, where appropriate, establishing minimum in-
stream flows.
O Develop compatible Bay-wide stock assessment programs.
o Develop Bay-wide fisheries management strategies .ind develop
wmplementary stare prugr ms and plans to pnnevt .ind restore the
finfish and shellfish stoi.ks of the Bay. especially the freshw.ner .and
estuarine spawners.
O Provide for the restoration of shellfish stocks in the Bay, espeti lly
the abundance of commercially important spet.ies.
o Restore, enhance and prixect waterfowl und wildlife
COMM I TM ENT
TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL WE AGREE
O byfaisaary I9aR. to develop and adopt guidelines for the pnwetrion
of water quality and habitat conditions netessary to support the liv.
Ing resources found in the Chesapeake B.sy system, and to use these
guidelines in the implementation of water quality and habitat pm.
cection programs.
o by July 1988, to develop, adopt and begin to implement a Bay-wide
plan for the assessment of commercially. recreatiunally and selected
eculogically valuable species.
o by ltd 7 1988, to adopt a schedule for the development of Bay-wide
resource management strategies for commercially, recre ritin I)y
and selected ecologically valuable spec .
O by July 1989. to develop, adopt and begin to implement 134y-wide
management plans fur oysters, blue crabs ,and American Shad Plans
for other rnapur commercially. rrcreationally and etukgically v.iluable
species should be initiated by 1990
O by December 1988, to develop a Bay-wide poliry fur the priitei.lion
of tidal and nun-tidal wetlands.
o Provide fur fish passage at dams, and remove stream bkx.ksges
wherever necessary to restore natural passage for migratory fish
D-2
-------
WATER QUALITY
G o A L REDUCE AND CONTROL POINT AND NON.
POINTSOURCES OF POLL UTION TO ATTAIN THE WATER
QL!ALITY CONDITiON NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE
UVZNG RESOURCES OF THE BAY The improvement and mainte-
nance of water quality are the single most aicical elements in the over-
all restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay Water is the
medium in which all living resources of the bay live, and their ability to
survive and flourish is directly dependent on it. 0 To ensure the pro-
ductivity of the living resources of the Bay, we must clearly establish the
water quality conditions they require and must then attain and maintain
those conditions Foremost, we must improve or maintain dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the Bay and its tributaries through a con-
tinued and expanded commitment to the reduction of nutrients from
both point and nonpoinc sources We must do the same for tories and
conventional pollutants. To be effective, we will develop basin-wide
implementation plans for the control and reduction of pollutants which
are based on our bear understanding (including that derived from
modeling) of the Bay and its tributaries as an integrated system.
o aj E CT IV ES
o Provide timely construction and maintenance of public and private
sewerage facilities to assure control of pollutant discharges.
O Reduce the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage
into Bay waters from such sources as combined sewer overflows,
leaking sewage systems, and failing septic systems.
o Evaluate and institute, where appropriate, alternative technobgie
for point source pollution control, such as biological nutrient re-
moval and land application of effluent to reduce pollution loads in a
coat-effective mannee
o Establish and enforce pollutant limitations to ensure compliance
with water quality laws.
o Reduce the levels of nonpoint sources of pollution.
O Reduce sedimentation by strengthening enforcement of existing
control regulations.
o Eliminate pollutant d dierges from recreational boats
O Identify and control t k discharges to the Bay system, including
metals and toxic otganita, to pencvct water quality, aquatic resources
and human health theough implementa tion and enforcement of the
states National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
programs and ocher programs
O Reduce chlorine daschargts in critital finfish and shellfish areas.
Minimize water pollution incidents and provide adequate response
to pollutant spills
o Manage sewage sludge, dredged spoil and hazardous wastes to pro-
tect the Bay system.
o Manage groundwater to protect the water quality of the Bay
O Quantify the impacts and identify the sources of atmospheric inputs
on the Bay system.
COMMITMENT
TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL WE AGREE
O by Icily 1988, to develop, adopt and begin implementation of a
basin-wide strategy to equitably achieve by the year 2000 at lea s t a
40 percent reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the main
stem of the Chesapeake Bay. The strategy should be based on agreed
upon 198) point source loads and on nonpoint loads in an average
rainfall yeae
0 by December 1991, to re-evaluate the 40 percent reduction target
based on the results of modeling, research, monitoring and other
information available at chat time
0 by D .c . rnber 1988, to develop, adopt and begin implementation of
a basin-wide strategy to achieve a reduction of toxia consistent with
the Water Quality Act of 1987 which will ensure protection of
human health and living resources. The strategy will cover both
point and nonpoirtc sources, monitoring protocols, enforcement of
pretreatment regulations and methods for dealing with in-place
toxic sediments where necessary
0 by lady 1988, to develop and adopt, as required by the Water Quality
Act of 1987, a basin-wide implementation strategy for the manage-
ment and control of conventional pollutants entering the Chesapeake
Bay system from point and nonpount sources.
0 by lady 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency, acting for the
federal government, will develop, adopt and begin implementation
of a strategy for the control and reduction of point and nunpoinc
sources of nutrient, toxic and conventional pollution from all
federal facilities.
D—3
-------
POPULATiON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
G o A I. PLAN FOR AND MANAGE THE ADVERSE EN-
VIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN POPULATION
GROWTH AND LAND DEVELOPMENT IN THE CHESA-
PEAKE BAY WATERSHED There is a clear correlation between
population growth and associated development and environmental
degradation in the Chesapeake Bay system. Enhancing. or even main-
raining. the quality of the Bay while accommodating growth will fre-
quently involve difficult decisions and restrictions and will require
continued arid enhanced commitment to proper development scan-
dards. The states atid the federal government will assert the lull mea-
sure of their authority to mitigate the potential adverse effects of con-
tinued growth. 0 Local jurisdkuons have been delegated authority
over many decisions regarding growth and development which have
both direct and indirect effects on the Chesapeake Bay system and its
living resources. The role of local governments in the restoration and
protection effort will be given proper recognition and support through
I and federal resources 0 Scares will engage in an arrive partner-
wirh local governments to establish policy guidelines to manage
gt ’th and development-
OBJ ECu V ES
o Designate a state-level office responsible for ensuring consistency
with this Agreement among the agencies responsible for compre-
hensive oversight of development activir including infrastructure
planning, ctpital budgets, land preservation and waste manage-
ment activities.
O Provide local governments with financial and technical assistance to
continue and expand their management efforts.
O Consult with local government representatives in the development
of Chesapeake Bay restoration and protection plans and programs.
O Identify and give public recognition to innovative and otherwise
noteworthy examples of local government restoration and protec-
tion-related programs.
0 Assure that government development proiects meet all environ-
mental requirements.
4) Promote, among local, state and federal governments, and the
private sector, the use of innovative techniques to avoid and, where
necessary, mitigate the adverse Impacts of growth.
COMMITMENT
TO ACHiEVE THIS GOAL WE AGREE-
to commission a panel of experts to report, by December 1988, on
anticipated population growth and Land development patterns in
the Bay region through the year 2020. the infrastructure require-
ments necessary to serve growth arid development, environmental
programs needed to improve Bay resources while a mrnodacing
growth, alternative means of managing arid directing growth and
alternative rnechantsms For financing governmental serv, and
environmental controls. The panel of experts will consist of twelve
members thrte each from Virginia. Maryland and Pennsylvania.
and one each from the District of Columbia, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
0 by Janaisry 1989, to adopt development policies and gwdelines de-
signed to reduce adverse impsets on the water quality and living
resources of the Bay, including minimum best management pmelices
for development and to cooperatively assist local governments in
evaluating land-use and development decisions within their pur-
view, consistent with the policies and guidelines.
O no evaluate state and federal development pro eces in light of their
potential impacts on the water quality and living resources of the
Chesapeake Bay, and design and carry out each state and Federal
development protect so as to serve as a model for the private sector
in terms of land-we
o by December 198& to develop a srrategr to provide incentives,
cedsn l assistax arid guidance to local governments to actively
encourage them to incorporate protection of tidal and non-tidal vet-
lands and fragile natural areas in their land-use planning, water and
sewer planning. construction and ocher growth-related manage-
ment
D—4
-------
PUBLIC INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION
G o A L PROMOTE GREATER UNDERSTANDING
AMONG CITIZENS ABOUT THE CHESAPEAKE BAY SYS-
TEM. THE PROBLEMS FACiNG IT AND POUCIES AND
PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO HELPITAND TO FOSTER INDIViDUAL
RESPONSIBIIffl’AND STEWARDSHIP OF THE BA S RESOURCES
G O A L PROViDE INCREASED OPPORTUNiTIES FOR
CITIZENS TO PARTiCIPATE IN DECISIONS AND PRO
GRAMS AFFECTING THE BAY The understanding and
support of the general public and interest groups are essential to sus-
taining the long.term commitment to the restoration and protection of
the Chesapeake Bay system arid its living resources. Citizens must have
opportunities to learn about that system and associated management
policies and programs and must be given opportunities to contribute
ideas about how best to manage that natural system.
OBJECTIVES
o Provide timely information on che progress of the restoration
program.
o Assure a continuing process of public input and participation in
policy decisions affecting the Bay.
o Enhance Bay .oriented education opporTunities to increase public
awareness and understanding of the Bay system
O Provide curricula and field experiences for students
o Promote opportunities to involve citizens directly in Bay restoration
efforts.
o Coordinate the production and distribution of Bay information and
education materials
COMM ITM ENT
TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS WE AGREE-
o to conduct coordinated education and information programs to
inform the general public, local governments. business, students.
community associations and others of their roles, responsibilities
and oppoctunitics in the restoration and protection effort, and to
promote public involvement in the management and decision-
making process.
O to provide for public review and comment on all implementation
plans developed pursuant to this agreement
O by Marth 1988, to develop state and federal communication pli.ns
for public information, education and participation, and by May
1988, to develop a unified, Bay.w ale commun tion plan.
O to promote Chesapeake Bay testoration efforts by establishing an
annual Bay-wide series of Chesapeake Bay Watershed Awareness
events, to include a Governor’s Cup Fishing Tournament
PUBLIC ACCESS
G o A L PROMOTE INCREASED OPP0RT1JNmFS FOR
PUBUC APPRECIATION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE BAY
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES Interest in and commitment to the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are greatly affected by personal con-
tact with that natural system. Consequently, improved opportunic for
access to the shores and waters of the system are essential if public
awareness and support are to be maintained and inaeued.
OBJECTIVES
O Improve and maintain a to the Bay iixhading public beaches,
parks and fo r es n ei
O Improve opponuniuta foe r est nid and amrnerc*sl fishing.
o Secure shoreline uge maintain open sp and provide oppor-
twut for passive recteation.
O Secure necessary acreage to protect unique habitat and environrnen
tally sensitive areas.
COMMITMENT
TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL WE AGREE
O to intensify our efforts to tmprove and expand public access oppar
tunuties being made available by the federal government, the states
and local governments, by developing a strategy, which uricha s an
inventory of current ss opportunities by lid, 1988. which targets
state and federal actions to secure additional tidal shoref runt res
by Decemb., 19% along the Bay and its tributaries.
o by December 1988; to prepore a comprehensive guide to i exa Li
cilities and the natural resource system for the tidal Oiesapeake Bat
D—5
-------
GOVERNANCE
G o A I SUPPORTANDENHANCETHEPRESENTCOM-
PREHENSIV COOPERA77VE AND COORDINATED 4P-
PROACH TOWARD MANAGEMENT OF THECHESAPFAKE
&IY SYSTEM
G o A I PROVIDE FOR CONTINUITY OF MANAGE.
MENT EFFORTS AND PERPETUATiON OF COMMIT.
MENTS NECESSARY TO ENSURE WNG.TERM RESULTS.
The cooperation necessary to sustain an effective Osesapeake Bay
restoration and protection effort requires a formal working arrange-
ment involving the states and the federal government. That institu-
tional arrangement must allow for and promote voluntary individual
actions coordinated within a well-defined context of the individual
responsibilities and authorities of each state and the federal govern-
ment. It must aLso ensure that actions which require a concerted,
Bay-wide approach be addressed in common and without duplication.
One of the principal functions of the coordinating Institution is to
develop strategic plans and oversee their implementation, based on
advice from the public, (torn the scientific community and from user
groups. 0 In addition, the coordinating body must exert leadership to
marshal public support, and it must be accountable for progress made
under the terms of this agreement. The coordinating body will continue
to be called the Chesapeake Executive Council The Chesapeake F.xecu-
ove Council shall be comprised of the Governors, the Mayor of the
District of Columbia, the Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
nun Agency and the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
The chairmanship of the Council shall rotate annually as determined by
the Council. The term of the Chairman shall be one yese The Adminis-
trator of the Envitorimental Protection Agency shall represent the fed-
eral government arid the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission
shall represent ta members.
o BJ E CTI V ES
o Continue to demonstrate strong, regional leadership b convening
an annual public meeting of the Oiesapealte Executive CounciL
o Continue to support the Chesapske Executive Council and provide
for tethnr 1 and public policy advice b maintaining strong advisory
committ
o Coordinate 5 ay nasm n acuvu and develop and maintain
effective mechanisma foe anubdit
o The Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office shall provide staff support to
the Chesapeake Executive Council by providing analyses and data
management. and by generating reporta related to the overaU pro-
gram The Implementation Committee shall provide guidance to
the CBLO Director in all matters relating to support for the Council
and their supporting committees, subcommittees and work groups
including the development of all plans and other documents asso-
ciated with the Council
O Examine the feasibility of joint funding support of the Chesapeake
Bay Liaison Office.
O Track and evaluate activities which may affect eatuarine water
quality and resources and report at least annually
o Develop and maintain a coordinated (Jiesapeake Bay data man-
agement system.
o Continue to implement a coordinated Say-wide monitoring system
and to develop a Bay-wide living resources monitoring system.
O Develop and implement a coordinated Bay-wide research program.
COMM ITMENT.
TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS WEAGREL
O to develop an annual Chesapeake Bay work plan endorsed by the
Chesapeake Executive Council
o to continue to support Bay-wide environmental monitoring and
research to provide the technàl and scientific information neces-
zany to support management decisions.
o to strengthen the Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office by assigning, as
appropriate, staff persons from each jurisdiction and (rum pai-tici-
paring federal agencies to assist with the technical support functions
of that off
o by July l988 to develop and adopt • comprehensive research plan
to be evaluated and updated annually to address the technical needs
of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
O by lily 1988, develop a Say-wide monitoring plan for selected
commercialI recreanunally and ecologically valuable species
o by March 1988, to establish a local government advisory committee
to the Chesapeake Executive Council and charge that committee to
develop a strategy for local government participation in the Bay
program.
O to consider and review the feasibility of establishing an independent
Chesapeake Bay Executive Board.
o by July 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency, acting for the
federal government, will develop a coordmnaced, federal agency
workplan which identifies specific federal programs to be integrated
into a coordinated federal effort to support the restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay
D—6
-------
B Y THIS AGREEMENT we reaffirm our commitment to restore and protect the ecological inregric)c productivity and beneficial uses of the
Chesapeake Ray system We agree co report in Januaiy 1989 on progress made in fulfilling the commitments in this agreement, and to
consider at chat time additional commitments The implementation strategies which will be developed pursuant to this agreement will be
appended as annexes, and annual reports will include an accounting of progress made on each strategy
)L1 P1 t4A ZA 4 J /
(Dare)
— OIUO(,LF AT5
A. . I. _ A. , A, A A & .A . C, 1i
T i , . P. i.. ,,. fl. — I ,. • A N P,. N 1 F
Ha.. — .., n, , ii, ‘. ,* Ti, W is — , . C 1
Nil, Ti, l I
J at S 4J
FOR THE COMMON WEALTH OF VIRGINM
FOR THC STATE Of MARYLAND
fOR THE COMMON WC,f LTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
fOR THE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA
fOR THE D!STRIcTOFCOLUM&4
FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSiON
4 i c
)72 u— /45 fr
-Q
D— 7
-------
Appendix E
Program Agenda E-l
Delegations E-3 1
OMEP Management Systems E-53
Program Fact Sheets E-57
National Estuary Program Estuary Descriptions E-67
-------
OFFICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OFFICE OF WATER
Fl 1989—90 AGENDA
Tudor Davies, Director
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
December 1988
E— 1
-------
10/13/8 8
OPPICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
EPA created the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP)
in 1984. This action reflects EPA’S continuing and heightened
commitment to protect the nation’s ocean and coastal waters. By
centralizing in one place the major EPA programs dealing with
this resource, the Agency now provides a focused responsibility
for addressing the growing coastal and ocean problems and a
concentrated emphasis on coastal protection, now and in the
future. OMEP’s approximately forty environmental scientists,
policy specialists, planners, and other professionals establish
and oversee regulatory and monitoring policies for ocean disposal
activities; support the development and implementation of
comprehensive plans for estuaries of national importance; support
the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay Programs; coordinate marine
research activities; provide an environmental ethic and
coordination point for interagency and international ocean and
coastal actions and issues; and strive to focus and integrate
Agency regulatory tools and management attention on current and
future coastal problems, for a unique geographic approach within
EPA.
OMEP’s activities to protect ocean and coastal waters include
implementation of programs under two major laws —— the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act and the Clean Water Act
—— as well as a number of provisions under other laws, such as
the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act and the
Ocean Dumping Ban Act.
This Program Agenda for OMEP describes the goals and ongoing or
planned activities for FY 1989 and 1990. Note that the FY 1990
plan is based on President Reagan’s FY 1990 budget request, which
is confidential until January 9, 1989. Thus, the Program Agenda
is a dynamic document, subject to change as priorities or
external events intervene. It is also incomplete since we cannot
clearly foresee all our future needs. Note that the activities
outlined apply only to the Headquarters program office.
The Agenda is structured around six programmatic themes. Each
theme is further defined through a set of objectives that are, in
turn, elaborated by numerous activities and/or products. Each
major section of the Agenda includes a narrative discussion of
the theme area, the legislative background, and a listing of
significant available policy, regulations, or guidance documents.
E— 3
-------
At the level of activities and products, most entries include the
target date. The target date indicates the anticipated date of
completion, by fiscal year and quarter. For example, 89(3)
indicates an activity is targeted to be completed in the third
quarter of FY 1989. ongoing projects/activities are labelled
“ongoing.”
Major Themes with Objectives (FY 89 and 90 )
I. Theme: Implement the Near Coastal Waters (NCW) Strategy
Objectives: Continue NCW national assessment jointly with
NOAA, USGS, Regions and States
Complete pilot projects to demonstrate
innovative management techniques
Establish and expand technology network to
reach Region, State, and local NCW managers
Support and oversee Gulf Initiative’s framework
for action
Develop OMEP-wide Data Management Strategy
II. Theme: Implement the National Estuary Program (NEP)
Objectives: Oversee Regional implementation of State/EPA
agreements in existing six estuary projects
Implement priority action plan projects
Issue guidance and regulations to implement
WQA/NEP provisions
Negotiate State/EPA agreements and establish
5—year plans for six new 1988 estuary
proj ects
Add new estuaries to the national program
Develop Comprehensive Report to Congress on
NEP research activities
III. Theme: • Implement National Coastal and Marine Policy
objectives: Issue National Coastal and Marine Policy
Develop and implement Action Plans
IV. Theme: Implement Controls on Point Source
Discharges to Near Coastal Waters (30l(h)/403(C))
Objectives: Implement 301(h) program
Implement 403(c) program
E— 4
-------
V. Theme: Manage Ocean Dumping and Related Programs
Objectives: Implement Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988
Issue ocean dumping regulations
Implement ocean dumping regulations
Support Regional site designation
Harmonize, with OWP, the processes for
analyzing disposal of dredged material
Support Regional disposal site management
Represent the Agency on LDC, MARPOL,
Caribbean and other interagency/international
marine pollution issues
Provide support to Region II in 106-mile site
management
Support Region II in preparation of draft
EIS/Rule on Mud Dump Site in New York Bight
Support Plastic Pollution Control Efforts
Issue Regulations to suspend ocean incineration
program
Support Region II in New York Bight Restoration
Plan Report to Congress
VI. Theme: Provide Effective Oversight/Assistance to the
Development and Implementation of New Great
Lakes and Chesapeake Bay Agreements
Objectives: Oversee implementation of Great Lakes Agreement
Oversee implementation of Chesapeake Bay
Agreement
E— 5
-------
THEME: IMPLEMENT THE NEAR COASTAL WATERS (NCW) STRATEGY
The near coastal waters are invaluable, supporting a wide range
of beneficial uses —— ecological, economic, recreational, and
aesthetic -- that depend upon good water and sediment quality.
Coastal waters and wetlands are home to many ecologically and
commercially valuable species of fish, shellfish, birds and other
wildlife. In fact, 85% of our nation’s fish are dependent upon
near coastal waters at some point in their lifecycles. These
waters are worth billions of dollars a year in commercial and
recreational fisheries, tourism and travel, urban waterfront
development and private real estate, recreational boating,
marinas, and harbors. Millions of people a year enjoy the bays,
beaches, wetlands, and coastal ocean for swimming, boating,
fishing, hiking, birdwatching, parks, and open space.
Furthermore, with 75% of the nation’s population predicted to be
living within 50 miles of the coast by 1990, stresses on near
coastal water systems are increasing.
The NCW Program was initiated as part of EPA’S first strategic
planning process in 1986. The Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection developed a 10-15 year strategic plan for EPA to
improve its management of near coastal waters environmental
quality and identify ways to improve coordination with other
federal, state and local offices with responsibilities for
coastal programs. The Program is now focused on implementing and
refining techniques for protecting and enhancing the
environmental quality of near coastal waters specifically to:
• highlight coastal waters needing attention;
• encourage managers to more efficiently use
their existing regulatory authority and
resources to solve environmental problems;
and
• help federal, state, and local officials
implement new management tactics that will
achieve measurable improvements in near
coastal water quality.
The NCW Program is EPA’s most recent and comprehensive step
in its continually evolving coastal waterbody management program.
It has a broader scope than the National Estuary Program (NEP),
in terms of both the physical definition of the waters to be
protected and the levels of management effort. EPA initiated the
NCW Program to develop a broader framework within which to
promote coastal water protection efforts. The Program is building
on the lessons learned through the NEP and other EPA coastal
E—6
-------
management programs, such as the Chesapeake Bay Program and the
Great Lakes Program; developing new techniques; and providing
greater flexibility to tailor protection efforts to the needs of
other coastal waters.
The Gulf of Mexico Initiative is another example of the NCW
approach in practice. The purpose of this initiative is to
develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for managing and
protecting the resources of the Gulf of Mexico that will achieve
a balance between the needs and demands of man-related activities
and the preservation and enhancement of living marine resources
in the Gulf.
As the environmental problems of the Gulf of Mexico are the
result of many different, and sometimes conflicting, State and
regional activities, the solutions will require Region-wide
coordinated efforts. EPA’S Gulf of Mexico program was
established to improve communication among all Federal agencies,
States, public and private organizations and citizens and to
focus attention on the problems of and solutions for the Gulf
ecosystem.
Jointly managed by Regions IV (Dallas, TX) and VI (Atlanta, GA)
and with an office in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, the Agency
plans to establish a framework for action consisting of
management options for resolving selected environmental problems
through impleinentaton of Federal and State regulatory controls,
enlistment of public and private participation, and research and
information gathering activities.
Many provisions of the 1987 Water Quality Act also enhance EPA’S
ability to meet the NCW Initiative’s goals, including
requirements for state nonpoint source management plans (Section
319); state toxics control programs (Section 304(1));
construction grant set-asides for marine combined sewer overflows
(CSOs) and estuaries (Section 205); and the National Estuary
Program (Section 320).
In FY 1989—90there are four major priority activities. First,
EPA will continue its long-term project of conducting a national
assessment of the environmental status and trends of all near
coastal waters to identify those in need •of management attention
and begin application of assessment data in ongoing Agency
programs. Second, EPA will implement the three pilot projects
funded in FY 1988 and will select three more in FY 1989. Third,
OMEP will expand technology transfer activities to transfer the
learnings from our model successful programs and techniques in
the NEP, Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes to State and local
governments. Fourth, OMEP will support and oversee expansion of
the Gulf Initiative and development of the framework for action.
E— 7
-------
Objectives: Continue NCW national assessment jointly with
NOAA, USGS, Regions and States
Complete pilot projects to demonstrate
innovative management techniques
Establish and expand technology network to
reach Region, State, and local NCW managers
Support and oversee Gulf Initiative’s framework
for action
Develop OMEP-wide Data Management Strategy
Requlations, Policies and Guidances in Effect (as of 12/8/88):
Near Coastal Waters Strategic Options Paper 8/86
NCW Pilot Project Program Fact Sheet 2/88
NCW Program Fact Sheet 1/89
NCW Pilot Project Selection Criteria/Process 10/88
NCW Regional Reports 10/88
Northeast Case Study Nutrient Chapter 10/88
Draft Permit Writers’ Guide for Discharges to TEA 3/89
Estuarine Marine Waters (Joint OMEP/OWEP
Initiative)
* TBA = To be available
E—8
-------
I. linDlement the Near Coastal Waters Strateqv
FY’89-90 Oblectives and Products
Oblective : Continue NCW national assessment jointly with
NOAA, USGS, Regions, and States:
Date Product
ongoing Provide guidance/assistance/
workshops to assist Regions
90(4) Prepare assessment summaries for 2
coastal Regions
Obiective : Complete 3 pilot projects to demonstrate
innovative management techniques:
89(2) Select 3 new pilot projects from
Regions I, II, V, VI and IX
Ongoing Provide support and oversight to
Regional pilot projects
activities
Ob-lective : Establish and expand technology network to reach
Region, State, and local NCW managers
89(2) Develop/operate an OMEP computer
bulletin board
89(2) Develop Innovative Financing Guide
and hold workshops
89(3) Hold annual NCW technology and
management tactics information
transfer conference
89(4) Issue joint OWEP/OMEP Permit
Writers Guide
Obiective : Ongoing Support and oversee Gulf
Initiative’s framework for action
Objective : 89(4) Develop OMEP-wide Data Management
strategy
E—9
-------
THEME: IMPLEMENT THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
Section 320 of the 1987 Water Quality Act established the
National Estuary Program. Prior to that, the program was
initiated by EPA in 1985 under broad Clean Water Act authorities.
The goals of the NEP are to protect and improve water quality,
enhance living resources, and provide a mechanism that enables
conflicting uses to be balanced so that the environmental
integrity of the estuary is maintained. The National Estuary
Program is modeled, to some extent, on pioneer work conducted by
EPA for the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay.
Examples of the types of environmental problems being addressed
in the NEP include loss of aquatic habitat, contamination of
estuarine sediments by toxics, elevated nutrient levels,
bacterial contamination, and oxygen depletion.
Two characteristics distinguish EPA ’s non—traditional approach to
addressing pollution in estuaries. First, the program targets
the basin—wide assessment of problems and causes; second, the
approach incorporates collaborative problem-solving that includes
all relevant government agencies as well as public interest and
user groups. The outcome is the development of long—range
management strategies to halt the degradation of the nation’s
estuaries.
The Administrator of EPA selects estuaries for the program in
response to nominations by State governors, or at the Agency’s
initiative, in the case of interstate estuaries. Estuaries are
selected based on their potential to address issues of
significant national concern, as well as their demonstrated
institutional, financial, and political commitment to carry out
protective actions. Once an estuary is selected, the
Administrator formally convenes a management conference.
Congress required EPA to give priority consideration to 12
estuaries. In the Spring of 1988, the agency convened management
conferences for six of these estuaries: Albemarle/PamlicO Sound,
Buzzards Bay, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, Puget Sound,
and San Francisco Bay. By May 1988, EPA had received governor’s
nominations for the remaining estuaries given priority
consideration: Delaware Bay, Delaware Inland Bays, Galveston Bay,
New York—New Jersey Harbor, Santa Monica Bay, and Sarasota Bay.
EPA convened management conferences for these six estuaries on
July 18, 1988. In November 1988, the CWA was amended by the
Ocean Dumping Ban Act to add four new estuaries to the priority
consideration list: Massachusetts Bay, Barataria — Terrebonne
Estuary, LA, Indian River Lagoon, FL, and Peconic Bay, NY.
An open process that involves all concerned parties in each phase
of the program is crucial to the success of a management
conference. A management conference consists of federal, state,
E— 10
-------
and interstate agencies, as well as interested academic and
scientific institutions, industries, and citizen groups. Through
a consensus building approach, the management conference
establishes program goals and objectives, then identifies and
selects the problems to be addressed in the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), and designs pollution
control and resource management strategies to meet each
objective.
The Act establishes a new grant program for development of the
CC!4P and authorizes $12 million a year with a 25% minimum state
matching requirement. Section 205 also provides an estuaries
program set-aside from the construction grants appropriation (1/3
of 1 1/2% in FY 1989 and 1990) for implementation of Section 320.
This set-aside ends after 1990. In addition, the new State
Revolving Fund Program allows States, beginning in 1989, to use
the funds for the development and implementation of a CCNP under
Section 320. The Act also authorizes estuarine research with NOAA
under Section 320(j) at the Administrator’s request or at the
request of a management conference.
The Agency’s overall goal for the NEP is to carry out estuary
programs and transfer the technical and management experience and
expertise to the States and local governments so that they can be
applied to other estuaries. The FY 1989/90 priorities for the
NEP are to: implement the State/EPA Conference Agreements in the
current estuary programs; focus activities in new estuaries added
in 1988 on problem definition, characterization, building public
participation programs, and getting state project offices
established and operational; implement priority action plans
where management conferences have approved five—year workplans in
place; and in FY 1990, add new estuary programs to the national
program, consistent with national criteria and guidance.
Objectives: Oversee Regional implementation of State/EPA
agreements in existing six estuary projects
Implement priority action plan projects
Issue guidance and regulations to implement
WQA/NEP provisions
Negotiate State/EPA agreements and establish 5-
year plans for six new 1988 estuary projects
Add new estuaries to the national program
Develop Comprehensive Report to Congress on
NEP research activities
E— 11
-------
Requlations, Policies, and Guidances in Effect (as of 12/8/88):
• Program Policy Governing Award of Federal 3/86
Financial Assistance Agreements Under the
National Estuary Program
• Revised draft “National Estuary Program Primer” 2/88
• Coordination Paper -- NOAA/EPA Guidance on 8/88
Integration of the National Estuary Program and
Coastal Zone Management Program
• Draft Document “The National Estuary Program 9/88
and Final Guidance on the Contents of the
Governor’s Nomination” (Final expected
early 1989)
• Draft Estuary Program Grants Regulation TBA 4/89
(ready to go to Red Border review in
December 1988)
* TBA = To be available.
E— 12
-------
II. Implement the National Estuary Program
FY’89-90 Objectives and Products
Objective : Oversee Regional Implementation of State/EPA
Agreements in existing six estuary projects
Date Product
Ongoing Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds
Ongoing Buzzards Bay
Ongoing Long Island Sound
Ongoing Narragansett Bay
Ongoing Puget Sound
Ongoing San Francisco Bay
Objective : Implement priority action plan projects
Ongoing Oversee implementation of 12
projects selected in FY’88
89(3) Select and fund action plans from
estuary proposals in FY’89
Objective : Issue guidance and regs to implement WQA/NEP
provisions
89(2) Final NEP guidance
89(2) Section 320(g) interim grant
regulations
89(3) Section 320(g) final grant
regulations
89(3) Guidance on NEP implementation
Objective : Negotiate State/EPA Agreements and establish 5-
year plans for six new 1988 estuary projects
89(4) New York/New Jersey Harbor
89(4) Delaware Bay
89(4) Delaware Inland Bays
89(4) Sarasota Bay
89(4) Galveston Bay
89(4) Santa Monica Bay
Objective : Add new estuaries to the national program
90(1) Evaluate nominations for four new
estuary projects
90(1) Convene management conferences
90(3) Negotiate State/EPA conference
agreements with each new project
E— 13
-------
II. Implement the National Estuary Program (Cont’d)
FY’89-90 Objectives and Products (Cont’d)
Objective : Add new estuaries to the national program (Cont’d)
Date Product
90(3) Establish funding targets for new
proj ects
Objective : Develop, with NOAA assistance, Comprehensive
Report to Congress on NEP research activities
89(3) Issue draft
89(4) Issue final
E— 14
-------
THEME: IMPLEMENT NATIONAL COASTAL AND MARINE POLICY
Degradation of our estuaries, near coastal waters and the oceans
is a critical national problem. While some progress has been
made to protect our coastal and marine resources, much more needs
to be done. The increasing awareness of the environmental and
human health problems related to marine pollution led to OMEP’s
development in 1988 of a draft “National Coastal and Marine
Policy,” at the direction of the Administrator.
The draft policy states that the United States Government will
protect, restore, and maintain the nation’s coastal and marine
waters to protect human health and sustain living resources. We
will take actions to further control pollution of these waters
and aggressively limit the effects of increasing coastal
populations.
The policy includes five goals and a series of specific
objectives for each goal. The goals would commit EPA to work
with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, for the
recovery of full recreational uses of the nation’s beaches,
restoration of fisheries and shelifisheries, prevention of the
use of the ocean for disposal of wastes, expansion of scientific
research and monitoring programs and the promotion of
international efforts to stop ocean pollution and protect living
resources.
These goals and corresponding objectives have been set with the
understanding that solutions to coastal and marine pollution are
long-term and will require time and resource conunitinents of
people and governments at all levels.
EPA will need to develop broad support for the policy and, as
appropriate, acceptance of specific responsibilities among EPA
offices at Headquarters and the Regions, other Federal agencies
and States.
The draft policy is currently being reviewed by other Federal
Agencies and coastal States. Based on the recommendations and
feedback, the final policy recommendations will be developed and
presented to the new Administration.
If approved, action plans will be developed for each objective to
identify specific actions, decisions, and deadlines necessary to
meet the commitments of the responsible offices and Agencies.
E— 15
-------
The development of these action plans is already underway for
activities within EPA’s authorities. In Fl 1989, emphasis will
be on issuing the proposed policy; assisting OW and other EPA
offices in the development of Action Plans: and coordinating the
Agency’s Action Plans with other Federal Agencies.
Objectives: Issue National Coastal and Marine Policy
Develop and implement Action Plans
Regulations, Policies and Guidance in Effect (as of 12/8/88):
. Draft National Coastal and Marine Policy, dated November 29,
1988, sent out for review by other Federal Agencies and
coastal States.
E— 16
-------
III. Intplentent National Coastal and Marine Policy
FY’88-89 Objectives and Products
Ob-lective : Issue National Coastal and Marine Policy
Date Product
89(2) Issue policy
Ob-iective : Develop and implement Action Plans
89(3) Assist OW offices in development of
Action Plans
89(3) Work with other EPA offices in
development of Action Plans
89(3) Coordinate with other Federal
Agencies
E— 17
-------
THEME: IMPLEMENT CONTROLS ON POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES TO NEAR
COASTAL WATERS (301(h)/403(c))
Clean Water Act provisions require in—depth assessments of the
potential impacts of certain point sources that discharge
directly to coastal or ocean waters. These provisions, sections
301(h) and 403(c), are both implemented through the NPDES permit
program. Permits granted under either provision are issued for a
period of up to five years and include all other requirements of
the Clean Water Act including monitoring, pretreatment, and
compliance conditions.
301(h) Program
Section 301(h) allows publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that
discharge into coastal or ocean waters to provide less than
secondary treatment if certain environmental conditions are met.
The statutory mandate requires EPA to take a water quality and
environmental impact based approach to these decisions. This is
a site—specific assessment which relies totally on whether there
would be any adverse receiving water impacts from the proposed
discharge. A permitted discharger assures that a balanced
indigenous population of marine lives is maintained in the
receiving water, that public water supplies and recreational
activities are protected, and that State water quality standards
are met.
Section 301(h) permits include stringent monitoring requirements
to ensure continued protection of the ecosystem; monitoring
results will be used as a basis for permit reissuance. The Water
Quality Act Amendments of 1987 modified the 301(h) program by,
among other changes, requiring a minimum of primary treatment and
compliance with all pretreatment requirements. OMEP will be
revising its regulations in response to these changes and issuing
guidance for permit reissuance.
In FY 1989 and 1990, the 301(h) waiver program shifts from the
review of original waiver applications and determination to an
ongoing operational program focusing on evaluating monitoring
programs and reissuing permits, as well as implementing the new
WQA requirement that 301(h) waiver recipients which serve a
population over 50,000 must comply with pretreatment requirements
equivalent to secondary treatment.
403(c) Program
Section 403(c) requires that all NPDES permitted discharges from
point sources into certain waters (the territorial seas, the
contiguous zone, and the oceans) must not “unreasonably degrade
E— 18
-------
the marine environment.” A conclusion of “no unreasonable
degradation” can only be made after consideration of the effects
of pollutant disposal on human health and welfare, marine life,
and aesthetic, recreational, and commercial values; the
persistence and permanence of these effects; the effects of
varying disposal rates; the alternative disposal or recycling
options available; and the effect on alternate uses of the
oceans.
This is a fundamentally different decision—making process for
pollution controls than required under other provisions of the
Clean Water Act, as it allows more stringent control of
pollutants known to be persistent and harmful in the marine
environment and public health. It is not restricted by
engineering attainability, and has no rigorous cost or economic
restrictions. It also includes consideration of sediment as well
as water column effects, and is intended to protect not just most
aquatic species but unique, sensitive, or ecologically critical
species as well.
In Fl 1988, identification of the universe of sources requiring
ocean discharge evaluations and the pollutants of concern began.
In FY 1989, the focus will be on preparing the report to Congress
on implementation of 403(c), which will include a strategy,
schedule, and resource needs to achieve compliance. In Fl 1990,
the program will be expanded and the implementation strategy
developed in Fl 1989 will begin to be implemented.
Objectives: Implement 301(h) program
Implement 403(c) program
Regulations, Policies and Guidances in Effect (as of 12/8/88):
30l(hI
• Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document
(1982)
• Design of 301(h) Monitoring Programs for Municipal
Wastewater Discharges to Marine Water (1982)
• Ecological Impacts of Sewage Discharges on Coral Reef
Communities (1983)
• Summary of U.S. EPA-Approved Methods, Standard Methods,
and Other Guidance for 301(h) Monitoring Variables
(1985)
• Recommended Biological Indices for 301(h) Monitoring
Programs (1985)
E— 19
-------
301(h) (Cont’d )
• Bioaccujiiulation Monitoring Guidance including:
— Estimating the Potential for Bioaccumulatiori for
Priority Pollutants and Pesticides (1985)
- Selection of Target Species and Review of
Available Bioaccumulation Data (1985)
- Recommended Analytical Detection Limits (1985)
- Analytical Methods for EPA Priority Pollutants
and Pesticides in Tissues from Estuarine and
Marine Organisms (1986)
- Strategies for Sample Replication and
compositioning (1987)
• Evaluation of Coastal Survey Positioning Methods for
301(h) Monitoring Programs (1986)
• Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for 301(h)
Monitoring Programs (1986)
• Guidance for Conducting Fish Liver Histopathology
Studies during 301(h) Monitoring (1987)
• ODES — Ocean Data Evaluation System (1987)
• ODES User’s Guidance (1986)
• ODES Data Submission Manual (1985)
• ODES User’s Guide: Supplement A - Description and Use
of ODES Tools (1986)
• Technical Support Document for ODES Statistical Power
Analysis (1987)
• ODES Data Brief — Reference Information (1987)
• Guidance for Evaluating Effectiveness of 301(h)
Monitoring Programs (1987)
• Guidance for Coastal Navigation (1987)
• DECAL Report (1987)
403(c )
• Ocean Discharge Criteria Regulations (Vol. 45 No. 194)
October 3, 1980, pp. 65953
E— 20
-------
IV. Implement Controls on Point Source Discharges to Near
Coastal Waters (301(h)/403(cfl
FY’Sg—gO Objectives and Products
Objective : Implement 301(h) program
Date Product
89(2) Issue draft technical guidance
90(1) Issue final technical guidance
89(2) Revise 301(h) regulations
(proposal)
90(1) Revise 301(h) regulations (final)
89(2) Issue draft guidance for large
applicants
90(1) Issue final guidance for large
applicants
Ongoing Complete the final determinations
of first round of 301(h) waivers
Objective : Implement 403(c) program
89(3) Develop Report to Congress on
403 (C) Implementation
89(4) Initiate development of workshops!
training for Regions and States
on 403(c)
90(4) Develop draft ODCE criteria for
targeted industry groups
E—2 1
-------
THEME: MANAGE OCEAN DUMPING AND RELATED PROGRANS
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(MPRSA), better known as the Ocean Dumping Act, regulates the
ocean dumping of all types of materials that may adversely affect
human health, the marine environment, or the economic potential
of the ocean. Titles I and II place responsibility for
administering the Act on EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers; for
monitoring the effects of ocean dumping on the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and for enforcing the Act
on the Coast Guard. Title III gives the Secretary of Commerce
the authority to establish marine sanctuaries. OMEP carries out
all of EPA’s responsibilities under MPRSA.
The MPRSA is also the domestic legislation for implementing the
provisions of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Dumping
Convention), the only global agreement concerned solely with the
dumping of wastes into the marine environment.
To implement the Act and to control dumping in ocean waters,
Title I of the Act establishes a permit program and assigns its
administration to EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The
Act authorizes EPA to choose specific sites for the dumping of
non-dredged material into the ocean, requires dumpers to obtain a
permit prior to using such sites, and directs EPA to establish
criteria for granting ocean dumping permits. The Act specifies
nine factors to be considered in the permit process: 1) the
effect of the dumping on human health and welfare; 2) its
effect on fisheries resources and beaches; 3) its effect on
marine ecosystems; 4) the permanence of the effect of dumping;
5) the effect of volumes and concentr tioriS; 6) the appropriate
locations and methods of disposal; 7) the effect on alternate
uses of the ocean; 8) the need for proposed dumping; and 9) the
location of the site beyond the continental shelf.
In 1988, Congress passed the Ocean Dumping Ban Act to amend the
MPRSA. The primary purpose of this legislation is to end the
dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste in the oceans by
December 31, 1991. EPA is directed to require the development of
a compliance or enforcement agreement by the dumper, the Governor
of the appropriate State, and EPA and to incorporate the terms of
this agreement in the dumper’s permit. This agreement includes a
plan that will result in the phasing out of ocean dumping of non-
dredged material no later than the December 1991 deadline, and a
schedule for implementing environmentally sound disposal
alternatives. Through the agreement, dumpers are required to
establish trust funds which will target money to aid their
development of alternative systems. The legislation imposes two
E—2 2
-------
disposal fees on permitted dumpers: an administrative fee to
cover the costs of carrying out the Act and a punitive fee to be
paid by dumpers who cannot end ocean dumping by 1991. The
administrative fees will be allocated equally among three
agencies: EPA, NOkA and the Coast Guard.
New ocean dumping guidance, that will respond to the 1988 law,
and new regulations, that will respond to several lawsuits
concerning dredged material, are being developed by OMEP. The
new regulations will continue to protect the oceans by requiring
assessments of the effects of ocean dumping on public health and
the ocean environment 1) before disposal sites can be selected,
2) before permits to use the site are issued, and 3) while the
site is in use.
The Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 also includes additional
provisions to regulate garbage barge operations and to make it
illegal to dispose of medical waste in the navigable waters of
the U.S. and in coastal waters.
EPA is also given authority to choose sites for the dumping of
dredged material, but the Corps is responsible for issuing
permits to dump at those sites. The waters subject to MPRSA can
be either open ocean or coastal waters, but not estuarine waters.
MPRSA defines “material” as all wastes except those discharged
through a pipeline or from a stationary drilling platform. The
Clean Water Act governs all dumping in estuaries as well as these
excepted materials.
The Agency’s strategy for addressing the dredged material
disposal sites is embodied in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between EPA and the Department of the Army signed in July 1987,
to serve as the basis for MOUs between the Agency’s Regions and
the Corps of Engineers District Offices that will cover work and
funding for the final EIS preparation and designation of the
remaining sites and for site management. The MOU should enhance
coordination and cooperation between EPA Regions, COE Division
offices, and permit applicants.
Currently, OMEP and OWP are jointly reevaluating and harmonizing
the evaluation/disposal of dredged material.
In Fl 1989, emphasis will be on negotiating compliance or
enforcement agreements with the Region II dumpers and setting up
trust funds to implement the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988
(ODBA); and issuance of the proposed ocean dumping regulations.
In Fl 1990, the focus will be on oversight and implementation of
E— 23
-------
the ODBA compliance or enforcement agreements and assisting the
dumpers in the development of alternative systems; promulgating
and preparing for implementation of regulations; expanding EPA’s
role in the development of environmental impact statements and
sight monitoring and management; and assisting Region II in the
completion of the New York Bight Restoration Plan.
Objectives: Implement Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988
Issue ocean dumping regulations
Implement ocean dumping regulations
Support Regional site designation
Harmonize, with OWP, the processes for
analyzing disposal of dredged material
Support Regional disposal site management
Represent the Agency on LDC, MARPOL,
Caribbean and other interagency/international
marine pollution issues
Support Region II in preparation of draft
EIS/Rule on Mud Dump Site in New York Bight
Provide support to Region II in 106-mile site
management
Support Plastic Pollution Control Efforts
Issue Regulations to suspend ocean incineration
program
Support Region II in New York Bight Restoration
Plan Report to Congress
Regulations 1 Policies and Guidances in Effect (as of 10/1/88):
• Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged
Material into Ocean Waters. U.S. EPA/COE (1977).
• Bioassay Procedures for the Ocean Disposal Permit
Program (1978).
• General Approach to Designation Studies for Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites. EPA/COE (1984).
• Guidance Document for Ocean Dumping Permit Writers
(1988)
• Ocean Dumping Site Designation Delegation Handbook for
Dredged Material (1987)
• EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria, 40 CFR 220-
225, 227—229.
• Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of
the Army and EPA (July 27, 1987).
E— 24
-------
V. Manage Ocean Dumping and Relative Programs
FY’89-90 Objectives and Products
Objective Implement Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988
Date Product
89(2) Develop trust and other accounts
Ongoing Provide assistance to Region II in
development & implementation of
compliance or enforcement
agreements and permits
89(3) Assist Region II in Report to
Congress on surveillance
equipment
90(1) Assist Region II in Report to
Congress on progress toward
ending ocean dumping
90(1) Develop jointly with NOAA Report to
Congress on Monitoring plan for
106 mile site
Objective : Issue ocean dumping regulations
89(4) Proposed regulations and support
documents
90(4) Final regulations
Objective : Implement Ocean Dumping Regulations
Ongoing Provide increased training and TA
to Regions
90(1) Hold joint COE/EPA workshops on
testing protocols and EIS
development
89(1) Issue draft interim guidance
testing manual
89(2) Issue final interim guidance
testing manual
89(4) Issue regulatory draft guidance
documents (site designation,
testing manuals, ocean dumping
alternatives, permit writers)
90(4) Issue final regulatory guidance
documents
89(2) Issue annual Report to Congress on
Ocean Dumping
E—2 5
-------
V. Manage Ocean Dumping and Relative Programs (Cont’d)
FY’89—90 Objectives and Products
Oblective : Support Regional Site Designation
Date Product
89(3) Support Regional implementation of
individual Region/COE District
MOUs
89(3) Draft site management/monitoring
guidance
90(3) Final site management/monitoring
guidance
Ob-lective : Harmonize, with OWP, the processes for analyzing
disposal of dredged material under the MPRSA and
CWA
89(4) Develop similar draft testing
manuals
90(2) Develop similar final testing
manuals
89(4) Prepare joint draft document that
outlines management options
90(2) Prepare joint final document that
outlines management options
90(3) Develop joint draft OWP/OMEP/Corps
site designation/monitoring
gii idance
90(4) Develop joint final OWP/OMEP/Corps
site designation/monitoring
guidance
Obiective : Support Regional disposal site management
89(2) Provide oversight/TA to Regions
Ongoing Work with Regions to expand and
strengthen monitoring activities
Ongoing Coordinate monitoring activities
with other Federal agencies
89(3) Draft OD enforcement strategy
90(1) Final OD enforcement strategy
89(2) Delegate specific OD activities to
Regions
Ob-jective : Ongoing Represent Agency on interagency!
international pollution issues
marine
E— 26
-------
Work with OSW on development of
draft Report to Congress on
Plastic Pollution
Work with OSW on development of
final Report to Congress on
Plastic Pollution
Issue draft plastics and floatables
report
Issue final plastics and floatables
report
Issue Regulations to Suspend Ocean
Incineration Program
Support Region II in developing
Report to Congress on NY Bight
Restoration Plan
V. Manage Ocean Dumping and Relative Programs (Cont’d)
FY’89-90 Objectives and Products
Date Product
Objective: Ongoing Provide support to Region II in
106-mile site management
Objective : 90(3) Support Region II in preparation of
draft EIS/Rule on Mud Dump Site
Objective : Support Plastic Pollution Control Efforts
Pollution
89(1)
89(3)
89(2)
89(3)
Objective : 89(1)
Objective : 90(4)
E— 27
-------
THEME: PROVIDE EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT/ASSISTANCE TO THE
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW GREAT LAKES
AND CHESAPEAKE BAY AGREEMENT
Great Lakes Agreement
Launched in 1970, the Great Lakes Program is the oldest
geographically focused environmental program in the United
States. A cooperative effort between the U.S. and Canada, the
program fulfills the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements between
the two countries. The goal of the Agreement is “to restore and
maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the
Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.”
The first Water Quality Agreement between the U.S. and Canada was
signed in 1972 and amended in 1978, when the Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO) was created to oversee the U.S.’
fulfillment of its obligations under the Agreement. The
Agreement was further amended in 1983 and again in 1987. During
the consultations leading to this recent Agreement, the principal
concern was the control of persistent toxic substances which have
accumulated in sediments in many urban and industrial centers in
both countries, identified as “Areas of Concern.”
Five technical areas were included in the 1987 amendments:
remedial action plans for the “Areas of Concern”; remedial action
plans for each of the five lakes to identify and quantify
critical.pollutants; monitoring of atmospheric deposition of
toxics; demonstration projects for polluted sediments; and
monitoring of groundwater.
The Clean Water Act amendments of 1987 direct GLNPO to coordinate
actions within and external to EPA that are aimed at improving
water quality in the Great Lakes to ensure U.S. compliance with
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Act further
requires GLNPO to manage Great Lakes surveillance, research, and
demonstration proj ects.
The GLNPO is located within EPA Region V (Chicago) and provides
the national program management for the Great Lakes program.
ONEP’s role is one of support and oversight.
E— 28
-------
Chesapeake Bay Agreement
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States
and biologically, one of the most productive systems in the
world. It is part of an interconnected system that includes a
portion of the Atlantic Ocean and rivers draining parts of New
York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and
Virginia. The water and related land resources of Chesapeake Bay
serve over 12 million people.
The Chesapeake Bay Program began in 1977 as a federal—state
partnership. In 1980, the legislatures of Virginia and Maryland
established the Chesapeake Bay Commission to coordinate
interstate planning and programs from a legislative perspective.
And in 1983, the Governors of Maryland, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, and EPA signed the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. This agreement commits the States and the District of
Columbia to prepare plans that will improve and protect the Bay’s
water quality and living resources.
In 1987, the parties signed an expanded and refined Agreement for
continued cooperative efforts to restore and protect Chesapeake
Bay. This new Agreement contains goals and priority commitments
for living resources; water quality; population growth and
development; public information, education and participation;
public access; and governance. A most important provision is a
commitment among the Bay States to reduce the levels of nutrients
in the Bay by 40 percent by the year 2000. There are also
pledges to develop strategies to control toxics, to manage
fisheries,and to minimize the impact of development on the Bay’s
drainage basin. The Chesapeake Bay Program was also formally
mandated by the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act.
The Chesapeake Bay program is managed by EPA’S Region III office
in Philadelphia, and day-to-day operations are handled by the
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office in Annapolis, Maryland. OMEP’s
role is, again, one of support and oversight.
Objective: Oversee Implementation of GL Agreement
Oversee Implementation of CB Agreement
E- 29
-------
VI. Provide Effective Oversight/Assistance to the Development
and Implementation of New GL and CB Agreements
EY’89-90 Oblectives and Products
Ob -lective : Great Lakes
Date Product
Ongoing Oversee implementation of GL
Agreement with Canada
89(3) Oversee conversion to new research
vessel
89(1) Review Report to Administrator and
Congress
Obiective : Chesapeake Bay
Ongoing Oversee implementation of
Administrator’s commitments on
new CB Agreement
90(1) Review Report to Congress
E—30
-------
D LE TI TS
t .RINE P r zTIc , R EA L AND SA UAREES Acr
3-1-A. Administrative Fnforce nt: Issuance of rv1aints and
Signing of Consent Agreer rits
1 • ? UmCRMY . Pursuant to the rine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA), to issue r laints; to designate hearir and presidir officers;
and to negotiate and sign consent a eerrents zr orializing settlerents bet eer
the A ncy and resçzrndents.
2 • ‘ 10 WH 4 DELEX3Pa’ED . Regional Administrators and the Assistant Administratc
for S’ ter.
3. LIT aIc? S .
a. Regional Administrators mist consult with the Assistant Adrrd.nistrator
for ter or his designee before exercising any of the above aut1 rities.
In addition, once the alleged violator files an answer or fails to file
an ans r within the specified tirr period, the Re onal CQ 1se1 or their
designees will c ict all negotiations.
b. The Assistant zthsiistrator for ter may exercise these aut1 rities
in nulti-Regicnal cases or cases of national significance. In addition, the
Assistant Adntinistrator for ? ter mist consult in advance with the Assistant
Adniinistratcr for force nt and Coi 1iance nitorir or his designee and
mist notify any affected Regional Adnü..nistrators when exercising any of the
above autl-crities. Once the alleged violator files an answer or fails to file
an an.s er within the specified tinE period, the Assistant Administrator for
fliforc nt and Ca 1iance nitorir or his designees will conduct all
negotiations.
c. The Assistant A ünistrator for iforcat nt and Ccxr 1iance ‘bnitoring
and the Assistant Administrator for ter may eive their respective consulta 4
re uir nents by n rcrazñmt.
4. R EIB3 TI T ALTrHcIRI’rf . This autbority may be ralelega ted.
5. ADD IO L
a. Section 105 of RSA; 40 CFR 22.
b. The A ncy official signing the cai Iaint shonid also sign the
settlet nt a3reenent.
E-3 1
-------
DEL TIa S
R E p r rIc&1, , P S fl RI CT
3—1-B. àninistrative Fnfor nt: ? gency Representation in
Hearings and Sign.thg of Consent greerents
1. NJfl ORIT t . ‘ lb represent the A ncy in itü.nist rati’ enforcenent actions
c dicted under the Marine Protection, Researth, arid Sanctuaries Act ( RSA)
and 5 U.S.C. Section 554; to negotiate nsent agreenents bet een the A ncy
and res xDr ntS resulting fran st h enforcat nt actions; and to initiate an
appeal fran an edird.nistrati’ce determination, arid to represent the A ncy in
s .Eh a lpealS.
2. TO WE 4 DLEGAT D . Assistant A td.r1istratOr for .forcenent arid Ca 1iance
r1 itoririg and Regional ?dininist.rators.
3. LIMI TICt S .
a. This autlcrity nay only be exercised after the alleged violator
either files an ans r.er or f i1- to file an ans er within the specified ti
penal.
b. Only the Assistant Administrator for forcet nt and Caipliance
t’tnitorirj may exercise the aut rity to initiate appeals.
c. The Assistant Aã d.nistrator for Enforcer flt and Catp].iaflce bnitoring
irust nsult with the Regional Pdministrator or his desi iee arid the Assistant
Administrator for S’ ter or his designee prior to initiating an appeal.
4. RDELEZATIC& AIJI’! DRflY . This autb rity may be redelegnted.
5. ADDITI L REEER S .
a. Section 105 of MPRSA; and 40 CFR 22.
b. The Agency official who signs the c np1aint s1 i1d also sign the
settlerte.nt a reenent.
E— 32
-------
D JEG TIONS
..LE. 2 5 :C81
r .RINE P EC IO L RESEPi L N SA ’I’rJARI AC1 ’
3-1-C. Administrative Enforceitent: Issuance of Consent
Orders and Final Orders
1. AL1TI )RITY .
a. To issue consent orders menorializing settlei ents between the Agencj
arid respondents resulting fran administrative enforcei nt actions under the
Marine Protection, Resea.rch, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).
b. To issue final orders assessing penalties or suspendix or revoking
permits under MPBSA. - -
2. W WaM D ATED . Regional P .riistrators and Hea quaiters Judicial
Officer.
3. L T2’,TICt S . The Regional or Headquazters Judicial Officers nay r t be
eiployed 1, ’ the Office of En.forceient and Caipliance ‘bnitaring or bj any
pr rau office directly associat with the type of violation at issue in
the ins. lved proceeding.
4. P TIC AUmORITY . The Regional Adn .nistrators may redelegate this
authority to their respective Regional Judicial Officers. The Mead uarters
Judicial Officer nay not redelegate this autlxrity.
5. ADITIO L REF . 40 R 22.
E— 33
-------
D LD I0NS
i iL 25 i
RD P 1rECrIc T, ND S It RI ACT
3—2. Special Ocean Duzr ing Permits cc1 ing
Incineration—at-Sea Permits
1. ALYIH)RflY . ‘lb desi iate hearing and presiding officers for perlTd.t application
hearings, issue tentative determinations to iss or deny special permits (excluding
incineratiorl-at-sea-çerlTLLts) , issue or deny special permits, iir cse conditions
and take final action as a result of hearings on issuance/denial of permits
and inp. ition of condit.icns p suant to the rine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), Sections 102 and 104.
2. W WF t1 D L ATE) . Re .ona]. ?dministrators.
3. R ATICN ArYn DRTrf . Authority to designate hearing and presiding
officers n y not be rede1e ted. Other auth rities nay be redele ted to the
Division Director level.
4. ADDITIO L REFER S . 40 FR 220.
E—3 4
-------
LEGAT IONS MANUAL
12/23/86
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEA H, AND S? NCTt .RIES ACT
3—3. signation of ean I1m pir Sites and itica1 Areas
1. ALTn ORrrY . To designate ocean d r irg sites and critical areas p zsuant to
section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act.
2. TO WH 1 DELEGATED . Assistant Administrator for Water and Regional Adin.this—
trator s.
3. LnIrTATIONS .
a. The Regional Administrators may only exercise this authority with regard
to the designation of ocean dunping sites for dredged rraterial and stes result—
ir fran f ish processirç where such wastes require a permit under Sections 102
and 102(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. In addition,
only the Regional Administrator for Region II may exercise this authority for the
designation of od b .rning sites off the coastline of Region II.
b. The Assistant Administrator for Water may only exercise this authority
with regard to the designation of all other ocean dunping sites and with regard
to the designation of critical areas.
4. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY . This authority may not be redelegated.
5. ADDITIONkL REFERENCES . 40 CFR 228.
E— 35
-------
D z? 1 r.Ia S
JUL. 2 5 1984
t .R 1E P I I’ICt,l, P EA !, AN]) S?INCIUARI ?C
3-4. Research arid Drergency ( ean m ing Permits,
Other Than Incineration-at-Sea Permits
1. ATJI DRIT’L . ‘lb desig ate hearing and presidir officers for perxrd.t application
hearir s concerning research and et rgency ocean r ir permits other than for
the incineration of approved stes at sea, and to issue or deny suth permits,
inip se conditions, arid take final action as a result of hearings on issuance/denial
of permits and thpceiticn of conditions p .zsuant to the rine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), Sections 102 and 104.
2. ‘ 10 M DELEX.A’l . Assistant Pdministrator for Water and Regional Mii d.nistra-
tors.
3. LThITATICt S .
a. The Assistant ttiriistrator for Water has authority for pennittiz
where ocean dt iping will occ at a site to be used b 1 ’ nore than one Region
and where the Regional A .nistrator determines that the Region has insufficient
technical expertise to assess the permit re ues t.
b. Regional Administrators are reuired to notify the Assistant Administrator
for Water prior to issuance of a permit.
4. R A IC T ?xyz 3DnrrY . This aut1 rity nay not be redelegated.
5. ADDITIC L 40 R 220.
E— 36
-------
DELEG TIct4S
Jl L 25 j
MARINE P EC ICN, RESEA R, ND SAC1UABIES ACr
3—5. Disa rova1 of Ccean m ir of Dredged Materials
1. ALm ORITi . To disapprove Corps of Engineers permits for ocean d npir of
dredged material if the material proposed for ocean dtmping does not satisfy
the enviromentai. in act criteria pursuant to Section 103(c) of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MP9SA).
2. Ct4 DELE ED . Regional Administrators.
3. LIMIT1 TIC . This auttxDrity is to be exercised in accordarxe with
Section 220.4 of the Oean D.miping Regulations.
4. REDELEGATICt4 AUTHORITY . This authority may not be redelegated.
E—3 7
-------
c€LEc TIct4S 7/25,’ 4
MARINE P TEC1’IQN, RESE H, P ND SANCIIJARIES ACr
3—6. Research and Special Incineration—at—Sea Permits
1. L7fl ORITY . 1b designate hearing and presiding officers for permit applica-
tion hearings, concerning research and special permits for the incineration of
approved wastes at sea; to issue tentative determinations to issue or deny st h
permits issue or r y st h permits, iiiçose conditions, and take final action
as a result of hearings on issuance/denial/r 0Cati0flhTTCdifbatb0n of permits;
and to approve or disapprove requests for judicatory hearings pursuant to
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).
2. ¶0 401 D€L 1ED . Assistant ministrator for Water.
3. REDEL ATICt AUTHORITY . This authrity may not be redelegated.
4. ADDITIct AL REFEREN ES . 40 CFR 220.
E— 38
-------
JAN i g
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 1200
2. - CLEAN WATER ACT
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM ASSISTANCE
1. AUTHORITY . To approve grants or cooperative agreements to
carry out projects under the National Estuary Program pursuant to
Section 320(g) of the Clean Water Act, as amended. These
projects include research, surveys, studies, modeling and other
technical work necessary for the development of comprehensive
conservation and management plans.
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED . Regional Admihistrators and the Assistant
Administrator for Water.
3. LIMITATIONS .
a. Regional Administrators may exercise this authority for
estuaries having Annual Work Plans approved by a Management
Conference convened by the Administrator and in accordance with
the National Estuary Program policy, guidance, and criteria.
b. The Regional Administrator’s authority is specific to
activities identified in approved Annual Work Plans based on 5—
year Work Plans established as part of State/EPA Conference
Agreements approved by the Management Conference.
c. The Assistant Administrator for Water’s authority is specific
to the conduct of activities at the national program level that
assist in the development of comprehensive conservation and
management plans.
d. Approval of any research project by a Regional Administrator
or the Assistant Administrator for Water will be given only with
the assurance that recipients, when conducting such projects,
will use research protocols commensurate with those developed by
the Office of Research and Development.
E—3 9
-------
4. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY .
a. Regional Administrators may redelegate this authority to the
Division Director level.
b. The Assistant Administrator for Water may redelegate this
authority to the Director, Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection.
5. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES . 40 CFR Parts 30, 31, 33, 35, and 40;
any policy or guidance developed for the National Estuary
Program; Policy on Performance—Based Assistance, May 1985;
Assistance Administration Manual. Authority to execute (sign)
these assistance agreements is delegated to the Regional
Administrators and the Assistant Administrator for Water under
Delegation 1.14 “Assistance Agreements.”
E—40
-------
JAN !989
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 1200
2. - CLEAN WATER ACT
Assistance Agreements for Near Coastal Waters (NCW Activities
1. AUTHORITY . To approve grants or cooperative agreements to
State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies,
other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions,
organizations, and individuals for projects related to improving
the environmental conditions of NCW pursuant to Section 104(b) (3)
of the Clean Water Act. These projects include national
activities to assess the health of near coastal waters, including
NCW pilot projects to demonstrate innovative management actions
that address identified environmental quality problems, regional
NCW assessments, and special Agency initiatives, such as the Gulf
of Mexico Initiative. Such NCW activities may or may not include
one or more estuaries in the National Estuary Program (NEP)
authorized by Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. -
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED . Regional Administrators and the Assistant
Administrator for Water.
3. LIMITATIONS .
a. Regional Administrators may exercise this authority for NCW
pilot projects to demonstrate innovative management actions that
address identified environmental quality problems in selected
NCW, regional NCW assessments, and other special Agency
initiatives such as the Gulf of Mexico Initiative.
b. The Assistant Administrator for Water may exercise this
authority for National activities to assess the health of NCW and
develop innovative management strategies having national
applicability.
c. Awards for NCW activities made by a Regional Administrator or
approved by the Assistant Administrator for Water under this
authority cannot support the development of a Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) under the National
Estuary Program.
E—4 1
-------
d. Approval of any research project by a Regional Administrator
or the Assistant Administrator for Water will be given only with
the assurance that recipients, when conducting such projects,
will use research protocols commensurate with those developed by
the Office of Research and Development.
4. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY .
a. Regional Administrators may redelegate this authority to the
Division Director level.
b. The Assistant Administrator for Water may redelegate this
authority to the Director, Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection.
5. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES . 40 CFR Parts 30, 31 33, and 40; any
policy or guidance developed for near coastal waters activities;
Policy on Performance—Eased Assistance, May 1985. “Assistance
Administration Manual.” Authority to execute (sign) these
financial assistance agreements is delegated to the Regional
Administrators and the Assistant Administrator for Water under
Delegation 1—14, “Assistance Agreements.”
E—42
-------
aTI
ii 25 84
C N TL ACt ’
2—4. eat takes cnstration PC m
1. A PIT f . T aççrcve a e nts with any State, litica.]. subdivision,
thterstate agency, or other pthlic agency, or thinaticn thereof, to carry
o..zt aie or ncre projects to de cnstrate r rethods and tediniques and to
develq, preliuiix a y plans for the elii ination or control of llution within
ail or any part of the watersh s of the Great takes p.ir uant to the Clean
Water P t (C ), Section 108.
2. W W} 1 DEIa ATW . gi al Pdininistrators for Pegi II, III, and V.
3. L 4ITATIC S .
a. The gional P in.istrators for Pegions II, III, and V niist consult with
the Msistant ? ininistratcr for Peseard and ve ç nt or his designee prior
to the a roval of a project.
b. The Pegional ninistrators of Pegiais II and III will coordinate with
the Pegicna.l Mministratcr of Pegiort V on the terit, location, tix ing, and
t of pt o6ed projects in order to athieve the i st effective utilization
of available ftr ds and the benefits of coordination with other ongoing prcgra s
includir thcGe of interest to Canada.
4. AL7 PflY . This authority my not be redelegated.
E— 43
-------
TI
JUL 25
C N AC :
2-31. Great Lakes (Th.itiative) P L
1. M7 RIT( . b a rove grants to State water po11utio rt o1 agencies,
interstate agencies, other p.tUc or z ofjt private agen, institutions,
organ zati.ons and indivi 1 pz uant to the Clean Water Act (Ca), Secticn
104(b) (3).
2. 1O giccal P ninistrator for gi i V as atia,a1 P U
Manager for the Great Lakes (Initiative) Prc w .
3. t1T ATIC S .
a. Award authority is specific to pr pirsuant to , Section 104(b)(3),
for activities in the Great Lakes Basin and in supçcrt of the US. - Canada
Great Lakes Water Q.iality gre nt. &id activities include survei1lan and
nitoring of Great takes water q a1ity and land use activ ities .
b. Awards will be ziade C Great Lakes (Initiative) f ds
ninistered £ s .w gion V.
4. This authority ay r t be redelegated.
E—44
-------
D .EGATIONs UAL
7—11—88
CLEAN WATER ACT
2—42 National Estuary Pro rarn Assistance
1. AUTHORITY . To approve grants or cooperative agreements
to carry out projects under the National Estuary Program pursuant
to Section 320(g) of the clean Water Act, as amended. These
projects include research, surveys, studies and modeling and
other technical work necessary for the development of
conservation and management plans.
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED . The Assistant Administrator for Water.
3. LIMITATIONS .
a. The Assistant Administrator for Water may exercise this
authority for estuaries having a Management Conference convened
by the Administrator and in accordance with the National Estuary
Program policy, guidance and criteria.
b. The Assistant Administrator for Water’s authority is specific
to activities identified in estuary annual and 5—year work plans
or State/EPA Conference Agreements approved by the Management
Conference.
c. Approval of any research project will be given only with
the assurance that recipients, when conducting such projects, will
utilize research protocols commensurate with those developed by
the Office of Research and Development.
4. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY . This authority may be redelegated
to the Director, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection.
5. ADDITIONM REFERENCES . 40 CFR Parts 30, 33, 35 and 40;
any pci.icy or guidance developed for the National Estuary Program;
Policy on Performance - based Assistance, May 1985.
E—45
-------
.TI IS 5/31/84
2-46. thesareake Bay Prcçram ants and ( x rative e r nt
1. ? ZJI RITf . To p cve cns tati antsfc erative reer nts to State
a cies to u derta3 pilot proects and other activities related to dc .station
of U.utia trol ted niq s designed to in!prove the present iti of
the Otesapeake Bay, pt suant to the C.ean S’ ter Act (O’JA), Section 104(b) (3).
2. ‘ 10 WFCtI Regia al Ac ninistratcr for Regi x III .
3 • ____________
a. Approval auticrity iS S fLC tO p ra pzstiant tO C .
Section 104(b) (3), and to activities in the C esapeake Bay basin riducted by
the Bay States ( .rylath, Pennsylvania, Viririia, and the District of Colin bia).
b. As arde of these ants/cxxperative agreer nts will be rede fran esapeake
Bay PrCr fi. ds Td.nistered fran Raiat III.
c. rant/c rative eit projects will be sistent with the
re2nthtiQ s set forth in the Ote peake Bay Rep rt, ‘Tr i ork for Acticrt,
and ogian .ii nce i.ssued by the 0 fice of ‘hter.
d. A rds of th e azxts/cc erative &greei nts st with the
z NiSiOr1S of 40 ‘R Part 30, 40 Part 40, and any special nditicns the
R icxial Mministrat uay in rp rate in the Assistar e A eer nt/An x !ettt
as edditicital rajuir ents.
4. AX7I DRIT’f . This it1crity ay not be redelega ted.
5. A DITI L R!T . A er4 auticrity for these ants/ rative
reerentS is delegated to the Regiaial A riistrator for Regicit III cider the
O apter 1 del egaticri entitled “Assistance A e nta.”
E—46
-------
DEL ATI 4S M NTJAL
6/21/85
C AN 4ATE ACr
2—48. Estuarine Management Crarits and Ccooeratjve Agreements
1. AIJr oRrTY . To approve grants or cooperative agreements to State Water
pofluti.on control agencies, interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit
private agencies, organizations, institutions, and individuals for projects
related to improving the erwicn ntaj conditions of selected estuaries as
authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWPL), Section 104(b)(3). These projects
include but are rto limited to identifying problem areas and conducting
research, investiçations and surveys, public participation and education
programs.
2. To HCt1 DEz:ATED . The Assistant Administrator for Water.
3. L.IMITATICNS .
a. Approval authority is specific for activities idé’rttified in approved
estuazy work plans develcped under the C çrehenzive Estuarine Maclagexrent
program.
b. Under this authority, approval of any research projects must be. with
the understanding that the Assistant Administrator for Water will ensure that
recipients, when conducting such projects, will utilize research protoc ls
cat uensurate with those developed by the Off ice of Research and Develo rent•.
c. The Assistant Administrator for Water must notify the Assistant
A nthistratcr for External Affairs when awards have been executed for grants
or cooperative agreements related to public participation.
d. This authority does not affect any other delegations for Q A
Section 1.04 C b) (3) grants and cooperative agreements, such as the chesapeake
Bay Prcgram.
4. R ELECATICN NJThORITI . This authority may be redelegated to the Office
Director level.
5. ACDITIC&AE. REFERENCES . 40 CFR Part 30; 40 CFR Part 40; the Chapter 1
delegation entitled Assistance Agreements. N
E— 47
-------
DEEGATIONS NUAL . 1200 TN 181
7—11—88
CL M WATER ACT
2—53. Assistance Acreements for Near Coastal Waters (NCW) Proiec s
1. AUTHORITY . To approve grants or cooperative agreements to
State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other
public or nonprofit private agencies, Institutions, organizations,
and individuals for projects related to improving the environmer.:a:
conditions of NCW pursuant to Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean
Water Act. These projects include but are not limited to NCW pilot.
projects to demonstrate iruiovative management actions for address g
identified environmental ality problems in selected NCWs, NCW
assessments, and the Gulf of Mexico Initiative.
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED . The Regional Administrators.
3. LIMITATIONS . Approval of any research project will be given
only with the assurance that recipients, witen conducting such
projects, vii ]. utilize research protocols commensurate with those
developed by the Office of Research and Development.
4. REDELGATION AUTHORITY . This authority may be redelegated
to the Division Director level.
5. ADDITIONAL REFER CES . 40 CFR Parts 30, 33 and 40. Policy
on Performance—Based Assistance, May 1985. Authority to execute
(sign) these financial assistance agreements is delegated to the
Regional Administrators under Delegation 1-14, “Assistance
Agreements”. NCW Strategic Planning Initiative, August 13, 1986.
E— 48
-------
DELEGATIONS t NUAL
8/9/8
CLEAN WATER AC
2-72. Estuary Manage en Conferences
1. AUTHORITY . To convene a management conference pursuant to
Section 320(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Water Act, as amended. The
Conference may also be extended or reconvened at any time
thereafter as may be necessary pursuant to Section 320(e) of the
Clean Water Act, as amended.
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED . Assistant Administrator for Water.
3. DELEGATION AUTHORITY . This authority may not be redele-
gated.
4. DDITONAL REFERENCES . National Estuary Program policy and
guidance.
E— 49
-------
DELEGATIONS MANUAL
8/9/88
CLEAN WATER ACT
2 -75. Marine CSO Grants
1. AUTHORITY . To approve and execute grants from sums reserved
under Section 205(1) of the Clean Water Act, as amended, to
address water quality problems of marine bays and estuaries
resulting from combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED .
a. The authority to approve funding priority is delegated to
the Assistant Administrator for Water.
b. The authority to conduct other approval activities and to
execute grants is delegated to the Regional Administrators.
3. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY . The authority delegated to the
Assistant Administrator for Water may not be redelegated. The
authority delegated to the Regional Administrators may be
redelegated to the Division Director level.
4. ADDITIONAL REFER CES . 40 CFR Part 30, 40 CFR Part 33, 40
CFR Part 35 Subpart I, EPA Assistance Administration Manual;
Marine CSO Guidance; additional regulations and guidance as may
be issued by the Administrator.
E—50
-------
DELEGATIONS NUAL
8/9/88
CLEAN WATER ACT
2-77. Boston Harbor and Adiacent W aters
1. AUTHORITY . To approve grants or cooperative agreements to
the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority pursuant to Section
513 of the 4ater Quality Act of 1987.
2. TO WHOM DELEGATED . Regional Administrator, Region I.
3. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY . This authority may be redelegated to
the Division Director level.
4. ADDITIO ThL REFERENCES . 40 CFR Parts 30, 33, and 35 Subparts
A and I, and 130; EPA Assistance Administration Manual; Authority
to execute (sign) these financial assistance agreements is
delegated to the Regional Administrator under Delegation 1 14,
“Assistance Agreements.”
E—5 1
-------
OMEP MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
The Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP) uses two automated
tracking systems to monitor activities. The first, the Ocean Data Evaluation
System (ODES), is a data storage and archival system with tools available for
analysis and interpretation of the contained information. The second, the
National Estuary Program (NEP) Tracking System, is a management system that
matches the achievement of milestones with negotiated schedules for individual
estuary programs. Each of these systems Is discussed in more detail below.
Ocean Data Evaluation System
The ODES is a user—friendly, menu—driven software package developed by
OMEP for storage and analysis of marine environmental data and information on
discharges to the marine environment. Implemented on the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) National Computer Center mainframe in Raleigh, North
Carolina, it is accessible by terminal from any part of the country. Its
purposes are to provide a central location for the archival of data generated
through monitoring programs implemented as part of the 301(h) Programs and to
provide tools for the analysis of the data. The System is being expanded to
be used by other OMEP activities, such as the 403(c) Program, the Ocean
Dumping Program, and the National Estuary Program, as well as the Near-Coastal
Waters Program. The data, once entered, are available to anyone interested in
analyzing the information.
Each of the above—mentioned programs has or viii have a requirement that
any information generated is reported in the National Oceanographic Data
Collection format, a standard developed by the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration for storage and archival of marine data in general.
These reported data are then checked with several quality control steps before
they are entered into the computer.
Data from monitoring programs are stored in individual files organized by
the site or location of the site. Each site has a facility for generating
geographic plots of the data in and adjacent to the point of disposal (dis-
charge or dumping). This facility enables (or will enable) determination of
the general zones influencing discharges or dumping activities.
E— 53
-------
Data that can be entered include water column and sediment chemical,
physical (currents, density structure [ caused by salinity and temperature]),
and biological (species identification, numbers, and biomass of infaunal
species, demersal and pelagic fish, macrobiota, plankton, and nekton)
parameters: essentially the full range of data required to determine the
impacts or effects of disposal to the marine environment.
The analytical tools available include:
• Summary Statistics
• Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
• Regressions
• Correlations
• Power Series
• Time Series
• Deposition models.
These tools can be used to determine the general changes of disposal material
over time in estuarine or marine environments, or the impacts of disposal.
They also allow comparison of parameters in geographic areas close to and far
from point of disposal to determine the magnitude of discharge effects.
National Estuary Program Tracking Database
The NEP Tracking Database is a system recently developed by OMEP for use
by Headquarters and Regional staff in monitoring progress of individual estu-
ary programs. A user—friendly, menu—driven system designed for implementation
on PC or PC—compatible computers, it is intended for use only by EPA staff
involved in the NEP. The Database, currently being installed at Headquarters,
and will be transferred to the Regions as the need develops.
In the NEP, EPA negotiates with each estuary program management confer-
ence to determine a timetable for meeting a series of standard milestones
related to the seven purposes of a management conference as specified in the
Clean Water Act. These negotiations, codified in 5-year EPA/State conference
agreements, are entered into the NEP Tracking Database. In general terms, the
E—5 4
-------
milestones indicate the progress to be made in identifying problems in an
estuary, determining the causes of those problems, and developing a compre-
hensive conservation and management plan to alleviate or eliminate adverse
impacts caused by pollution or overuse. As appropriate, the system can also
be used to monitor the implementation of management programs once the compre-
hensive conservation and management plan is approved by the Administrator.
During the course of each estuary program, frequent contact is maintained
by Headquarters with Regional staff and by Regional staff with those involved
in each management conference. This information is used to update the
database, allowing the comparison between expected and actual achievement of
negotiated milestones. If a particular milestone is not achieved when antici-
pated, a new target date can be negotiated with the management conference and
then entered into the database. There is also a limited facility to track
slippage in milestone achievement for each estuary program, with the original
date of the milestone being kept until it has been changed twice.
When this system is fully implemented, a series of reports will be
generated on a periodic basis that will allow the NEP to determine, at a
glance, the overall status of the program and the status of each management
conference. The system will, thus, be an integral part of NEP management.
E— 55
-------
Program Fact Sheets
t II’ A JAN 3 (989
- ,
EPA’s Near Coastal Waters Program
is part of a long-range initiative by
the Agency to restore and protect the
water quality and natural resources
of the nation’s coastal areas. The
Office of Marine
& Estuarine
Protection, in
EPA’s Office of
Water, is working
with other federal
agencies, coastal
states, and EPA regional personnel to
design and implement a wide range
of activities to achieve this goal. The
major activities at present are the
Pilot Project Program, the Near
Coastal Waters Assessment,
Technology Transfer activities, and
Coordination Strategies.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
E—5 7
-------
WHAT ARE NEAR COASTAL WATERS?
Near coastal waters encompass inland waters influenced by tides
and ocean areas impacted by land-based pollution. They include
estuaries, bays, lagoons, salt ponds, coves, salt marshes, mangrove
swamps, tidal creeks, sounds, gulfs, the coastal ocean, and the
1,600 mile long freshwater sea known as the Great Lakes.
WHY ARE THEY IMPORTANT?
Near coastal waters are highly productive, unique habitats forming
dynamic interfaces between the land and the high seas. They are
spawning and feeding grounds for many commercial and sport fish
and they support the great bulk of the nation’s clam, oyster, lobster
and mussel harvests. They are home to a wide variety of migratory
birds and waterfowl, a number of endangered species, and other
kinds of wildlife. At the same time, these areas are used exten-
sively for tourism, shipping, recreation, and aquaculture. Addi-
tionally, the Great Lakes hold 90% of the nation’s fresh water.
WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS?
Despite their ecological and commercial importance, most of the
nation’s near coastal waters face major problems. Their location at
the “end of the line” means that near coastal waters receive sewage
and industrial effluent, urban and agricultural runoff, and contazni-
nated groundwater from point and nonpoint sources upstream as
well as on the coast. The toxics, sediments, pathogens, and
nutrients from these sources tend to accumulate in near coastal
waters, degrading waler quality and impairing ecological func-
tions. Waterfront construction and dredging for shipping channels
also affect the coastal environment. The cumulative impacts of all
these activities now threaten the ecological, economic, and
aesthetic integrity of coastal water systems throughout the United
States.
WHAT IS THE NEAR COASTAL WATERS PROGRAM?
The NCW Program was initiated as part of EPA’s first strategic
planning process in 1986. The Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection (OMEP) developed a 10-15 year strategic plan for EPA
to improve its management of near coastal water environmental
quality and identify ways to improve coordination with ocher
federal, stale, and local offices with responsibilities for coastal
programs. The Program is now focused on implementing and
refining techniques for protecting and enhancing the environmental
quality of near coastal waters specifically to
• identify threatened and impaired c criil waters
• encourage and assist managers to more efficiently use their
existing regulatory authority and resources to solve environ-
mental problems
• help federal, state, and local officials explore new manage-
ment tactics and to achieve measurable improvements in near
coastal water quality
E—5 8
-------
WHO Is INVOLVED?
Planning and implementing the Near Coastal Waters Program
involves a wide range of coastal experts and interested federal,
state, and local managers, EPA regional and headquarters staff,
scientists, environmental groups, and citizens .
WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEAR
COASTAL WATERS PROGRAM AND THE NATIONAL
ESTUARY PROGRAM?
The Near Coastal Waters Program is EPA’s most recent and
encompassing step in its continually evolving coastal wateibody
management program. It has a broader scope than the National
Esuiaiy Program (NEP), in terms of both the physical definition of
the waters to be protected and the levels of management effort.
The NEP, started by special Congressional appropriation in 1985
and reinforced by a new statutoTy authority under the Water
Quality Act of 1987, supports five-year planning and management
efforts for a limited number of estuaries. Estuaries, however, are
only one type of near coastal waterbody, and while many NCWs
require special management attention, it may not always be at the
level supported by the NEP. Thus, EPA initiated the NCW
Program to develop a broader framework within which so promote
coastal water protection efforts. The Program is building on the
lessons learned through the NEP and other EPA coastal manage-
ment programs, such as the Chesapeake Bay Program and the
Great Lakes Program; developing new techniques; and providing
greater flexibility to tailor protection efforts to the needs of other
coastal waters.
WHAT ARE THE CURRENT MAJOR PRoJEcrs OF THE
NCW PROGRAM?
Pilot Projects
• Near Coastal Waters Assessment
• Technology Transfer
• Coordination Strategies
E— 59
-------
PILOT PROJECT PROGRAM
NCW pilot projects arc joint EPA-State efforts that address
environmental problems in selected near coastal waters. Their
purpose is to demonstrate innovative management actions that can
be applied in other areas of the country. Pilot projects were
selected on the basis of innovanveness, action-orientation, applica-
bility to other near coastal waters, likelihood of success, firm state
and local commitment, strong public interest, and estimated
completion within one to two years. The following three projects
were chosen in 1988:
DECISIONMAKING INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR
DELAWARE’S IA NI) BAYs
This project will develop a computerized Mvancc Information
System (AIS) to help officials quickly and accurately assess the
impacts of proposed actions on natural resources. The MS will
integrate and graphically display technical, ecological, and
regulatory information from a vaiiety of sources, providing a
comprehensive, readily accessible database. EPA expects that this
system will serve as a model for managing conflicting coastal
resource uses.
OREGON COASTAL RESOURCE ACTION PLAN
This project will develop a comprehensive action plan for
Oregon’s coastal watersheds, focusing on developing interagency
management coordination to protect near coastal waters from point
and nonpoint sources of pollution. This approach will be tested in
the course of implementing different pollution control techniques
in Coquille Estuary. EPA expects Oregon’s comprehensive
approach, which involves the public as well as many stale and
local agencies, will serve as a model watershed management
program for oTher areas.
PERDIDO BAY COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT PROJECT
This project will develop a framework for management action
strategies for the protection and enhancement of Florida and
Alabama’s Perdido Bay. This will be accomplished through a
cooperative effort with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and an
intergovernmental and community advisory task force. A coalition
of local groups will organize a citizens monitoring program to
promote public awareness and actions needed to protect the bay.
EPA expects the project to be a model for involving local interest
groups, industry, and government agencies in cooperative, pro-
active environmental management.
E—60
-------
NEAR COASTAL WATERS AssEssMEwr PROJECT
The goal of the NCW Assessment is to identify near coastal waters
needing management attention. To do this, EPA is working with
other federal and state agencies to bring together all available
information on near coastal waters.
WHAT ARE THE CURRENT ACTIVITIES?
• Federal - State Coordination
The Water Quality Act of 1987 requires states to identify waters
impaired or threatened by nonpoint source and toxic pollutants.
Because states historically have focused mostly on fresh inland
waters, the NCW Program is working with the states to ensure that
they include near coastal waters in their assessments. This
coordination includes ongoing information exchanges as well as
technical assistance and guidance on near coastal waters.
• Regional Assessment Reports
Although infonnation is available on some near coastal areas, most
of it is not organized to support management decisions. EPA’s
coastal regions are preparing reports that highlight problems in
specific coastal areas. These reports will provide a fotmdation for
future assessment activities by identifying data, management, and
planning requirements. They will also be used to develop a
national summary report on coastal problems.
I Susceptibility Classification
The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
and the University of Delaware completed a preliminary assess-
ment of the relative susceptibility of selected U.S. estuaries to
nutrient and toxic pollutants. The study shows that estuaries can
be grouped according to their susceptibility to these pollutants.
Additionally, when specific pollutant loadings are available, it is
possible to estimate the expected pollution status of a waterbody.
This kind of information will help officials to focus their monitor-
ing and management strategies and to justify increased protection
efforts.
• Northeast Case Study
NOAA and EPA are working to complete a case study of near
coastal waters in the Northeast United States. The study illustrates
the kinds of data available for assessing coastal resources. Se-
lected analyses of the toxics and nutrient data will demonstrate
how these kinds of data can support water quality assessments
required of each state under the Water Quality Act of 1987.
• Defining NCW Segments
To organize information and data about water quality, many of the
rivers and estuaries of the United States have been broken down
for study into smaller sections or segments. Such segmentation
allows studies to focus on specific areas of threatened or degraded
bodies of water, and provides consistent, detailed information over
time that can be very useful in making management decisions.
Aside from estuaries, however, few near coastal waters have been
E— 61
-------
segmented this way. To address this problem, each EPA coastal
region is proposing a scheme for segmenting their NCWs. These
segmentation schemes will serve as the basis for future water
quality reporting, which in rum will be used to support NCW
management plans.
I Federal Data Base Inventory
Cuirendy, there is no single guide to federal data available to
support near coastal water assessments. The NCW Program is
conducting an inventory of federal data bases to identify sources of
data on five major coastal problems, (eutrophication, toxics
contamination, pathogens, changes in living resources, and habitat
modification). Results of the inventory, including the sources of
the data and appropriate contacts for more information, will be
made available to coastal resource managers.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
WHAT IS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER?
Technology transfer is the exchange of information on the latest
management techniques, technical developments, reports, or data.
This process is especially important to the NCW Program because
of the breadth of its activities and the diversity of participants.
How IS IT ACCOMPLISHED?
Together with other programs in OMEP, the NCW Program has
established a network of federal, regional, and state water quality
experts, scientists, public interest representatives, and industry
representatives to provide a forum for information exchange.
These network participants provide a wide range of expertise and
perspectives and often suggest diverse and innovative approaches
for implementing the NCW Program.
OMEP also organized a four day technology transfer conference
in June, 1988 to promote discussion and sharing of techniques
among EPA coastal regions concerning in-place toxics, water
quality and living resources. Participants included staff from
regional and state coastal and estuaiy programs as well as other
experts in coastal management issues.
WHAT ARE sor m TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PRODUCTS?
• ‘“The National Estuary Program Primer”: This primer is
intended to help the public understand and become involved in
the planning and implementation of the National Estuary
Program.
I “Saving Bays and Estuaries: A Handbook of Tactics”: This
handbook presents examples from around the country of
successful management strategies used to improve or protect
estuarine environmental quality.
I Alternative Financing Methods: OMEP developed and the
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation wrote “Financing
Marine and Estuarine Programs: A Guide to Resources”. This
primer provides state near coastal waters managers with
E—6 2
-------
information concerning possible financing mechanisms to
implement coastal programs.
COORDINATION STRATEGIES
WHY CooRDINA1 WITH OTHER EPA On IcEs?
The authority to control pollutants and conduct research in near
coastal waters falls within the jurisdiction of other EPA offices. In
many cases, the special needs of sensitive near coastal areas may
not be recognized within these offices’ existing framework. The
NCW Program is working with the other offices to incorporate
more protective measures in guidance and policy documents.
WHAT ACTIVITIES ARE OCCURRING?
I OMEP is identifying marine dischargers regulated by other
offices and determining their potential impacts on coastal and
marine environments.
• The Office of Water Regulations & Standards and OMEP
have completed a draft report, “Overview of Methods for
Assessing and Managing Sediment Quality”, that describes
biological measures of impacts from chemical mixtures in
marine sediments.
• The Office of Water Regulations & Standards will be includ-
ing a new section concerning estuaries and coastal waters in
its 1988 national report that summarizes state water quality
reports, (Ic., the 305(b) report). In addition, OWRS’ guidance
for preparing the 1990 waler quality report emphasizes the
need to report on quality in estuaries and other coastal waters.
I Under the guidance of the EPA Risk Assessment Council,
OMEP, the Office of Water Regulations and Standards, and
the Federal Food and Drug Administration developed a
guidance manual for assessing human health risks from
chemically contaminated fish and shellfish. The manual
describes assessment and documentation procedures and
summarizes assumptions and uncertainties.
• OMEP worked with the Office of Solid Waste & Emergency
Response to revise the Superfund tlazard Ranking System to
include potential impacts on marine and estuarine ecosystems.
I OMEP is participating in a Nonpoint Source (NPS) Task
Force, sponsored by the Agency’s Office of Water. This task
force is setting the national agenda to address nonpoint source
pollution and is helping states develop and implement non-
point source programs required by the Water Quality Act.
• The Office of Research and Development has included near
coastal waters in their 5-year applied research plans. Cur-
rently, a major project is to develop a suite of efficient, cost-
effective methods to monitor the marine environment for
management purposes.
E—63
-------
WHAT NEXT?
EPA is planning a series of workshops around the county to
exploit the development of Near Coastal Water Regional strate-
gies. Also, we anticipate funding a new round of pilot projects for
next year. The Office of Water has begun a new NCW workgroup
to assess opportunities for incorporating protection of coastal water
ecosystems into its current regulatory programs.
FOR Mo INFORMATION CONTACT:
Katherine A. Minscti
Office of Marine & Estuarine Protection
U.S. EPA (WH-556-F)
401M.StreetS.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475- 9552
Mary Lou Soscia
Office of Marine & Estuarinc Protection j
U.S. EPA (WH-556-F) I i n\
401M.Street,S.W.
Washington, D.C 20460 p
(202)475-7109
/
I; I
E—64
-------
EPA
Office of Water
Othce of Marine and Estuarine Protection
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
Estuaries—where rivers meet the sea, and fresh water mixes with salt—are among the
earth’s richest and most productive habitats. They serve as the principal spawning
grounds and nurseries for at least two-thirds of our Nation’s commercial fisheries,
provide irreplaceable recreational and aesthetic enjoyment, and are home to valuable
and diverse species of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
They are also home to people. Already, 70 percent of the U.S. population lives withir
50 miles of a coastline, and that number is growing. But with people comes pollution,
and our estuaries are clearly in trouble, threatened by toxic and bacterial contamination,
sewage discharges and agricultural runoff, oxygen-depleted waters, and loss of fish and
wildlife habitat.
There are no easy answers to these problems, but we have learned some lessons.
One is that estuaries are complex ecological systems with subtle dependencies among
many species and habitats. If conditions change in one area, they will also change in
others. In estuaries, there are very few purely local effects.
We’ve also learned that conventional, “end-of-pipe” pollution controls are not
enough. Agricultural runoff and other nonpoint sources contribute pesticides and
excess phosphorus and nitrogen to bays hundreds of miles away; the wind carries in
toxics that contaminate bottom sediments in otherwise pristine waters. Yet how do we
regulate homeowners who put too much fertilizer on their lawns? How does one State
control air pollutants coming from another country?
Finally, we’ve learned that saving our estuaries and coastal waters is a long-term
process. It will demand heavy commitments of time, money, and support from everyone
who affects or uses or benefits from their resources. Just as important, it will require a
fresh approach to solving environmental problems, one that recognizes we are dealing
with integrated ecosystems, not clusters of isolated problems.
EPA’s National Estuary Program provides an opportunity to apply these hard-won
lessons. Under the law, its mission is to protect and enhance water quality and living
resources in estuaries by helping States to develop and carry out basin-wide, com-
prehensive programs to conserve and manage their estuarine resources.
E—65
-------
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
In 1987. Congress amended the Clean Water Act with the
Water Quality Act (WQA), formally establishing the National
Estuary Program. The purpose of the National Estuary
Program is to identify nationally significant estuaries,
protect and improve their water quality, and enhance their
living resources. Estuaries are to achieve these goals
through collaborative efforts called comprehensive
conservation and management plans (CCMPs);
development of CCMPs is carned out by oversight
committees called management conferences. Section 320
of the WQA allows the governor of any state to nominate an
estuary and request that a management conference be
convened to develop a comprehensive conservation and
management plan for the estuary.
The Administrator of EPA selects estuaries for the program
in response to nominations by State governors, or at the
Agency’s initiative, in the case of interstate estuanes.
Estuaries are selected based on their potential to address
issues of significant national concern, as well as their
demonstrated institutional, financial, and political
commitment to carry out protective actions. Once an
estuary is selected, the Administrator formally convenes a
management conference.
The development and implementation of a CCMP are the
key products of a successful management conference.
Strong public support and subsequent political
commitments are needed to accomplish the actions agreed
upon in the CCMP. Congress realized
that success will not happen overnight, and gave a five-year
lifespan to these management conferences. During these
five years, the management conferences will initiate priority
clean-up strategies in addition to building the framework for
continued actions to correct the problems of the estuary.
Congress required EPA to give priority consideration to
twelve estuaries. In the Spring of 1988, the agency
convened management conferences for six of these
estuaries: Albemarle/Pamlico Sound, Buzzards Bay, Long
Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, Puget Sound, and Sari
Francisco Bay. By May 1988, EPA had received
governor’s nominations for the remaining estuaries given
priority consideration: Delaware Bay, Delaware Inland
Bays, Galveston Bay, New York-New Jersey Harbor, Santa
Monica Bay, and Sarasota Bay. EPA convened
management conferences for these six estuaries on July
18, 1988.
An open process that involves all concerned parties in each
phase of the program is crucial to the success of a
management conference. A management conference
consists of federal, state, and interstate agencies, as well
as interested academic and scientific institutions, industries,
and citizen groups. Through a consensus building
approach, the management conference establishes
program goals and objectives, then identifies and selects
the problems to be addressed in the CCMP, and designs
pollution control and resource management strategies to
meet each objective.
What a Management Conference Does
A management conference is a committee convened for a specific estuary
by the Administrator of EPA to decide what actions to take to protect or
restore the estuary. Under the law, a management conference must carry
out seven major tasks:
• assess trends in the estuary’s water quality, natural resources,
and uses;
• identify causes of environmental problems by collecting and
analyzing data;
• assess pollutant loadings in the estuary and relate them to observed
changes in water quality, uses, and natural resources;
• recommend and schedule priority actions to restore and ma ntain the
estuary, and identify the means to carry out these actions (this is called
a comprehensive conservation and management plan);
• ensure coordination on priority actions among Federal, State, and local
agencies involved in the conference;
• monitor the effectiveness of actions taken under the plan; and
• ensure that Federal assistance and development programs are
consistent with the goals of the plan.
E—6 6
-------
NE? Estuary Descriptions
Pu et Sound
Puget Sound supports a rich and diverse commercial and sport
fishery for fish and shellfish. Its 2,200 square miles of bays
and inlets and over 2,000 miles of shoreline embrace industrial
and commercial activity, shipping, and international commerce.
Puget Sound is a major recreational attraction that contributes
significantly to growing tourism in the area.
Over the past three decades, environmental programs designed
to protect this area have controlled many conventional pollutants
and maintained Puget Sound in relatively good health. However,
continuing development of the region has imposed growing demands
on the estuary. This growth is accompanied by increasing
evidence of serious water and sediment quality problems,
biological stresses, and limitations on beneficial water uses.
During the 1980’s, significant concentrations of toxic
contaminants have been found In the sediments of a number of th
Sound’s urban and industrial embayments. These include highly
toxic and very persistent chemicals. Field surveys have
identified abnormalities in bottom dwelling communities,
increased Incidence of disease in fish caught in parts of the
sound where sediments contained high concentrations of chemicals,
and sufficiently high levels of PCB’s in the edible tissue of
fish and shellfish harvested there to be of concern.
Further, nonpoint source pollution from rural septic systems
and farm practices appear to be a major source Of bacteria. In
developing urban areas, stormwater is contributing additional
bacterial and toxic contamination. As a result of these combined
high levels of bacteria and toxicants, many productive shellfish
areas are being closed.
The Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP), started in 1985, has
been jointly managed by EPA’s Seattle Region (Region X), the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and the Washington State
Department of Ecology. The Puget Sound Program has successfully
completed major steps toward identifying problems, characterizing
the estuary, and planning for and developing action programs.
The Puget Sound Estuary Program has identified three
pragmatic management objectives for the purpose of focusing its
resources:
• Prompt action to address presently known, acute
environmental problems associated with chemical contamination in
the Sound.
• A decision base that incorporates scientific data on
estuarine processes, current environmental conditions, and
spatial and temporal changes in those conditions.
• A coordinated approach to estuarine management for the
effective and timely resolution of environmental problems.
A highlight of the Puget Sound work has been the Urban Bay
Toxics Action Program. Concentrating limited resources first in
the areas needing them most, the Program designed and is
Implementing toxics action programs for the urban industrial
bays. Based on existing information, these programs call for
early action to prevent further chemical contamination and
environmental degradation. Special action teams of enforcement
and compliance Investigators are assigned to each bay by the
Washington Department of Ecology. These teams investigate high
priority areas to identify and control sources of contamination.
E—6 7
-------
The Puget Sound Estuary Program has also produced the Puget
Sound Environmental Atlas, a series of 500 maps with up-to-date
information on pollution sources, resource distribution within
the estuary, and current environmental conditions; and the
Protocols Manual, developed with the Army Corps of Engineers,
which recommends techniques for the sampling and analysis of
variables In the Sound. Approximately 50 other technical reports
and manuals have been produced by PSEP since the program started
in 1985.
A draft 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan has
recently been produced. The stated purpose of the plan is to
restore and protect the biological health and diversity of Puget
Sound. Action plans cover the protection and enhancement of
three resources: the Sound’s water arid sediment quality; its
fish and shellfish; and its wetlands. The final plan or CCMP is
scheduled for release in 1991.
Long Island Sound
The Long rsland Sound Is a 110 mile long estuary with 1,300
square miles of water and 577 miles of coastline populated by 5
million people. To many, the Sound is a favorite spot for
sportfishing, sailing and swimming. To others, it is a vital
transportation route or the home of commercial fisheries.
Approximately 200,000 boats are registered and operate on Long
Island Sound; the commercial catch of lobsters, finfish and
shellfish exceeds $20 million annually.
Bordered on one end by New York City, the Sound is
surrounded by 14.6 million people. As a result of the
populatIon, 86 sewage treatment plants discharge processed
effluent and wastes into waters entering Long Island Sound, as do
many industries.
Noripoint source runoff from land surrounding the Sound also
contributes to pollution, not all from local sources. Eighty
percent of the fresh water entering Long Island Sound comes from
rivers that drain states as far north as Massachusetts, New
Hampshire and Vermont.
This program is unique, among the original six estuary
programs, in that two EPA regions in Boston and New York, and two
states, New York and Connecticut, share leadership responsibility
for the management coalition.
In 1985, based op substantial input and review by diverse
Interests, the program selected two priority problems for major
study: low dissolved oxygen, or hypoxia, and the distribution
and impacts of toxic substances. The program is also addressing
the need to protect living marine resources.
The Long Island Sound Study is working to determine:
1) The scope of the sound ’s toxic contamination and low
dissolved oxygen problems,
2) The year to year trends of toxic pollution and nutrient
input, and
3) The specific effects of these toxic contaminants on the
living resources of the 5ound, including fish and shellfish
destined for human consumption.
E— 68
-------
Trends in and around Buzzards Bay include increased
development, accompanied by additional pollution pressures on the
estuary.
The Buzzards Bay Program began in 1985, as a joint pro ect
of EPA’s Boston region and the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs. This program is focusing on three priority
problems n the Bay:
1) Closure of shellfish beds,
2) Contamination of fish and shellfish by toxic metals and
organic compounds, and
3) High nutrient inputs and their potential pollutant
effects.
As part of the goal to protect shelifishing waters,
researchers have been using Buttermilk Bay, a small embayinent
within Buzzards Bay, as a model study to gain an understanding of
the sources, distribution and significance of coliforms and
nutrients. Results to date show that stormwater runoff, carried
through storm drain systems to the shores of the Bay, is a manor
source of coliform inputs. The marshes, incoming streams, and
the debris, such as beach wrack, also contribute to the coliform
problem in Buttermilk Bay. EPA is providing additional support
for an “action plan” to assist in minimizing these inputs to the
Bay.
The location of an EPA Superfund site in the Acushnet River
Estuary has raised concerns among citizens about PCB and metal
contamination in fish and shellfish caught In Buzzards Bay.
Several studies indicate that while the edible tissue of lobster,
clams and flounders taken from Buzzards Bay generally have,PCB
levels below the FDA limit, some samples are dangerously close to
exceeding this limit.
Nutrients enter Buzzards Bay from a variety of sources--
sewage treatment plants, residential and agricultural runoff, and
ground-water flow that carries nutrients from septic systems to
the Bay. Research in the Bay has indicated that nutrient loading
has not yet caused serious problems in the deeper offshore areas
of Buzzards Bay but that there are some early signs of
degradation due to nutrient enrichment in shallow areas along the
Bay.
The ultimate goal of the Buzzards Bay Project is the
development of management recommendations and plans for their
implementation —- the Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan. This plan, to be finalized in early 1990, will provide for
systematic, technically sound, region-wide protection of the
water quality and marine resources of Buzzards Bay.
Nprragansett Bay
Narragansett Bay, the dominant natural feature of the state
of Rhode Island, is 30 miles long and ranges in width from 3 to
12 miles. The Bay is a shipping center, a fisheries center and a
popular resort and boating center. As the State’s most valuable
natural resource, the Bay is subject to intense use by varied ond
often conflicting interests.
The living marine resources of Narragansett Bay have changed
dramatically during the last several decades, reflecting the
stresses on organisms and habitat from both pollutant inputs and
overfishing. Oysters have virtually disappeared from this once
valuable fishery; crabs, scallops, and commercially important
finfish have declined. Approximately one third of the bay is
closed to hard clam shelifishing_becalise of bacterial pollution.
E—6 9
-------
Because Rhode Island is a center for jewelry manufacturing,
heavy metals have historically been dumped into Narragansett Bay.
Although now reduced, due to the effectiveness of pretreatment
programs, contamination from these heavy metals continues to be a
major concern for the Bay.
The Narragansett Bay Project, jointly managed by EPA’s
Boston office and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management, is tackling seven priority problems:
• Management of fisheries
• Nutrients
• Impacts of toxic contaminants
• Health and abundance of living marine resources
• Health risk to consumers of contaminated seafood
• Land use
• Recreational uses
Ongoing initiatives include the development of computer
models to relate nutrient inputs from sewage treatment plants to
water quality trends in the bay. A project is also underway to
complete a detailed, scientific trend characterization of the
overall ecology of the bay, and In particular Its quahog
population. A highlight of the study has been its public
outreach and participation program. Two major efforts, a public
opinion survey and a goals workshop, have been undertaken to
ensure citizen concerns are being addressed.
In 1986, the state’s citizens voted to pass the Rhode Island
Clean Water Act Trust Fund, which contains provisions for
$500,000 to help support the development of the CCMP.
Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds
The Albemarle Pamlico Estuary dominates the North Carolina
coast and covers more than 2,900 square miles of lagoons and
rivers bordered by beaches, marshes, and swamp forests. A
nursery for both estuarine and oceanic species, the Albemarle
Pamlico Sounds also have attracted a steadily increasing human
population, now growing at the rate of more than 18,000 per year.
The Sounds provide the region’s key resource base for commercial
fishing, tourism, recreation, and resort development.
As human use has increased, and changed, concern has grown
over the effects of conflicting human activities on the estuary.
With the growing population have come more wastewater treatment
plants and industrial discharges. The estuary’s finfish fishery
has generally declined over the past six years. Catches of
striped bass, shad, and river herring have decreased dramatically
in the last decade. Fish diseases like red sore disease plus
large scale fish kills thoughout the region suggest that human
use may be exceeding acceptable environmental tolerances. The
mean annual salinity seems to have declined by almost 50 percent
between 1960 and 1980, a period of extensive agricultural
clearing and drainage. The disappearance of some oyster beds may
be related to changes in salinity as well as sedimentation
E—70
-------
resulting from agricultural use. Farming operations and
commercial development may also have closed some 50,000 acres of
shellfish waters since 1970.
The management coalition of the Albemarle-Pamlico Study has
adopted two pragmatic principles to direct Its work:
• The environmental problems of the system result directly
and indirectly from human activities.
• Estuarine management initiatives should be focused on
management problems that are likely to be solved.
Current work is centered around ten conflicting uses of the
estuary system. Six of these uses directly or indirectly affect
the ecology of the system: waste disposal, agriculture,
forestry, residential and commercial development, mining, and
national defense. Four of these uses are primarily affected by
the health of the estuary system: commercial fishing, wildlife,
natural resources, and tourism and recreation. This project is
jointly managed by EPA’s Atlanta office and the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
San Francisco av/San Joapui.ri Delta
The largest estuarine system on the Pacific coast of the
Americas, the San Francisco Bay estuary encompasses more than
1,600 square miles and drains more than 40 percent of
California’s surface. The six million people who live in the 12
counties surrounding the estuary drink its water and use it for
industry, navigation and recreation. A key diversion point for
water projects, the estuary supplies water for agriculture in the
San Joaquin Valley, and for cities and Industry in southern
California. The estuary also supports a large commercial and
sport fishery, as well as the habitat for Pacific flyway
migratory waterfowl and resident species.
More than 150 square miles of the bay’s original 750 square
miles have been filled In; only 59 square miles remain of the
original 313 square miles of tidal marshlands, as much of the
delta has been farmed. Nearly 65 percent of the flow entering
the bay in 1850 is now used by agriculture, cities, and
industzie5.
Population of several species of fish, which once supported
thriving commercial fisheries, have not returned to historic
levels. Although an active sportfishing industry exists,
individual fish often exhibit symptoms of poor health, including
parasites and lesions. The wetlands have been reduced to 10
percent of their historic extent.
Using a survey to identify technical and management issues,
the estuary program reached consensus on five basic priori..’ -’
problems that affect the beneficial uses, public health, and
living resources of the area:
E—7 1
-------
• Decline of biological resources
• Increased point and nonpoint source pollution
• Reduced freshwater inflow and salinity
• Increased waterway modification
• Intensified land use
The San Francisco Estuary Program will characterize the
estuary focusing on the project’s management issues through
status and trends reports. Reports will be prepared on
pollutants, wetlands, land use, dredging, and flows. The flow
report will be coordinated with work on flow and salinity being
done currently by the California State Water Resources Control
Board and the results of the Board’s Bay Delta Hearing process
held In 1987. The objective of this hearing process was to
achieve revised standards to protect beneficial uses of the
estuary system. The project has developed a data and information
management system, which allows local data entry and analysis, as
well as support to the Bay-Delta Hearing testimony.
The San Francisco Estuary Project is managed by EPA’S San
Francisco office at the Association of Bay Area Governments in
Oakland.
1988 Additions to the National Estuary Proaram
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act and 1988
Appropriations Act directed EPA to give priority consideration to
including an additional six estuaries in the national program.
These six estuaries were added to the program In 1988. They are
New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey; Delaware
Bay, Delaware and New Jersey; Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware;
Sarasota Bay, Florida; Galveston Bay, Texas; and Santa Monica
Bay, California.
The major environmental problems, probable causes of the
problems, and preliminary program issues for these new programs,
as stated in the Governor’s nomination packages, are described in
the following paragraphs:
New York — New JerseY Harbor
TheiNev York State Department of Environmental Conservation
and the tlev Jersey Department of Environmental Protection propose
broad goals and objectives, to be refined later by the Management
Conference, for the maintenance and enhancement of the existing
water quality of New York-New Jersey Harbor. The nomination
acknowledges the need to go beyond secondary treatment and deal
with combined sewer overflows to achieve the proposed goals.
These goals are as follows:
• Protect and improve water quality in the New York-New
Jersey Harbor portion of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary in order to
ensure that a healthy diverse marine community is maintained;
E— 72
-------
Minimize human health risks associated with consumption
of shellfish and finfish;
• Maximize opportunities for water contact recreation; and
• Ensure that citizens of New York and New Jersey realize
to the fullest extent possible the social and economic benefits
associated with the New York-New Jersey Harbor.
The States of New York and New Jersey propose to address a
wide range of problems and an ad hoc management committee has
begun the process of setting priorities. The broad problems to
be addressed by the Management Conference are pathogen
contamination, toxic contamination, changes in living resources,
habitat loss and modification, eutrophication, and floatable
debris.
Delaware BaY
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Regulation, and the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection propose broad goals, to be refined later
by the Management Conference, for the enhancement of the existing
water quality In the Delaware Bay. The program goals include
providing for the restoration of the living resources of the
Delaware Estuary, reducing and controlling point and nonpoint
sources of pollution, protecting public water supplies, managing
the economic growth of the Delaware Estuary, and promoting
greater public understanding about the Delaware Estuary and
participation in decisions and programs affecting the estuary.
Delaware Inland avs
The State of Delaware considers the Inland Bays to be waters
of exceptional recreational and ecological significance.
Problems affecting the Inland Bays include increased growth due
to the relatively low cost of land and building construction, and
the accessibility of the beaches to a large population, as well
as nonpoint pollution problems due to the extensive agricultural
interests, specifically poultry farming. With poor flushing
capabilities and low freshwater input, the geologic and
geographic characteristics of the Inland Bays contribute to their
vulnerability.
The State of Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control sets broad goals and objectives for the
maintenance or enhancement of the existing water quality of
Delaware Inland Bays. These goals include strategies to develop
more complete information about the Inland Bays, to build better
cooperation and coordination between different Federal, State,
and local agencies, to increase public participation and
education, and to build comprehensive strategies for regional
planning, for wastewater and drinking water management, and for
managing fertilizer, herbicide, and sediment controls.
E— 73
-------
Sarasota Bay
Sarasota Bay is a small, subtropical, relatively pristine
bay located in one of the nation’s fastest growing areas arid thus
i - increasingly threatened by residential and commercial
development and overuse. It has been designated by the State of
Florida as an Outstanding Recreational Water, provides critical
-habltat for endangered species such as manatees and loggerhead
sea turtles and generates millions of dollars annually through
recreational uses and tourism. Local government support for the
Bay has been demonstrated through many water pollution abatement
and natural resources management programs, which would only
benefit from coordination through a management conference.
Sarasota Bay offers an excellent setting in which to develop and
evaluate management tools focusing on development and overuse
Impacts.
The State of Florida has Identified four priority
environmental problems to be addressed through the program:
beach/inlet/channel management; stormwater runoff, which
contributes excessive nutrients and sediments to the Bay;
aquatic habitat loss from extensive shoreline alterations and
turbidity; and lack of access to Bay resources, both visual and
physical, from waterfront construction. The State has also
-establlshed six goals linked to the environmental problems and
causes, with specific action-oriented objectives and benefits
1dentified for each. The six goals are as follows:
1) Improve water transparency in the Sarasota Bay Study
Area to the maximum allowable by Gulf of Mexico and local weather
conditions;
2) Reduce the quantity and improve the quality of
stormwater runoff to Sarasota Bay;
3) Prevent further losses of seagrasse and shoreline
habitats and restore lost habitats;
4) Coordinate beach/inlet/channel creation and maintenance
“activities to reduce dredging, eliminate conflict, and enhance
the Bay;
5) Provide Increased levels of managed access to Sarasota
Bay and Its resources; and
6) Establish a vertically integrated management system for
Sarasota Bay.
Galveston Bay
A large number of development and water resource enhancement
projects are currently in progress or proposed in the Galveston
Bay area. Issues associated with these projects are:
E— 74
-------
1) Potential water quality changes in the Bay and its
tributaries, which transport nutrients and both treated and
untreated wastewater discharges to the Bay;
2) Potential reductions In freshwater inflow in the Bay
system and its associated wetlands, and potential changes in Bay
salinity;
3) Possible increased turbidity, resuspensioriàLtoxic or
hazardous chemicals, and potential changes In Bay circulation and
salinity profiles;
4) Possible loss of contiguous wetlands due to subsidence,
erosion, decreased sediment transport or shoreline development;
5) Oil and gas exploration/production, including seismic
activities in the Bay environment; and
6) Ecosystem interconnection between the riverine systems,
the Bay system and the Gulf of Mexico.
The Texas Water Commission sets broad goals and objectives,
to be refined later by the Management Conference, to maintain or
enhance the existing water quality of Galveston Bay. The
proposed goals Include the maintenance of water quallty..,and the
enhancement of estuary productivity in the shallow bays, the
prevention of water quality deterioration in the Houston Ship
Channel, the examination of current wastewater treatment programs
and dredge spoil disposal methods, the development and analysis
of baseline toxics data, and the prevention of man—induced
wetlands losses and the control of shoreline erosion in the four-
county area.
Santa Monica BaY
Santa Monica Bay is one of the most heavily utilized areas
In California. Approximately 8 million people live near..the Bay
and use it for bathing, boating, sport fishing and other forms of
recreation. Many marine species may be impacted by current
practlce5, including at least five Federally-listed,endangered
species. Some of the problems facing the Bay Include the
following:
• Two of the largest treated sewage discharges, in the
nation are within the study area.
• Sediments around the Los Angeles County outfall contain
high levels of DDT, other organics and trace metals.
• There have been several sewage spills to Ballona Creek,
usually during storms and power outages.
• Substantial pathogen contamination has caused the
temporary closure of many beaches in the Bay.
E— 75
-------
Broad environmental goals proposed by the State for the
Management Conference include:
1) Restoring past beneficial uses of the Bay and protecting
present and future uses of the Bay;
2) Improving or eliminating discharges to the Bay
environment that may adversely affect wetlands, biologically
sensitive sites, or areas important for water contact sports or
sport fishing; and
3) ImprovIng water quality to a point where Indigenous
marine species are not degraded and human health is not
threatened.
From these general goals, specific objectives will be
developed In the comprehensive plan to address problems related
to storm drain discharges, sediment quality, fish tissue body
burdens, pathogen contamination, and others.
the Q ean Dumping Ban Act of 1988
In 1988, the Ocean Dumping Ban Act identified four new areas
which must be given priority consideration by EPA for inclusion
in the National Estuary Program. These four areas are:
Massachusetts Bay; Barataria - Terrebone Bay, Louisiana; Indian
River Lagoon, Florida; and Peconic Bay, New York.
Other Neax CoastaI _ Waters Initiatives
OMEP completed a strategic plan for Near Coastal Waters at
the EPA Administrator’s request in 1987. This long term plan is
the logical extension of experiences and success achieved through
the Great Lakes, Che5apeake Bay and The National Estuary Program.
It provides a franievork for management attention to complete
coastal ecosystems and to the thousands of square miles of near
coastal waters that are exhibiting the same and/or similar
prob1em q found in the current estuary programs. The goal for
the p1a 1 to maintain and where possible enhance near coastal
water e j onaental quality. A wide range of coastal experts,
includin federal, state and local managers, EPA regional and
headquarters staff, scientists, environmental groups and citizens
participated in the development of the plan.
OMEP’s current approach for Implementing the plan is to
identify those coastal areas requiring additional management
attention, encourage federal and state managers to more
efficiently use their existing regulatory tools and resources :‘.,
solve problems, and help Federal, State and local officials
implement new management tactics that will achieve measurable
environmental improvements in these coastal areas.
E—7 6
------- |