OCEAN DUMPING IN THE UNITED STATES-1977 Fifth Annual Report of the Environmental Protection Agency on Administration of Title I Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Washington. ».<;. 20460 ------- OCEAN DUMPING IN THE UNITED STATES-19 7 7 Fifth Annual Report of the Environmental Protection Agency on Administration of Title I Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries A«t of 1972, as amended January - December, 1976 MARCH 1977 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTON A01NCY (Kike of Water ted Hazardous Materials Washington, & C. 20460 ------- itD S1q ____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (pqØ J • WASI-IINGTON, D.C. 20460 JUL 1 9 1977 THE ADMINISTRATOR Honorable Walter F. Mondale President o± the Senate Washin ton, DC. 20510 Dear Mr. President: Section 112 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to submit an annual report on the administration of the ocean dumping permit program authorized under Title I of the Act. The fifth annual report for this program is transmitted with this letter. The ocean dumping permit program became effective April 23, 1973, and final re u1ations and criteria were published October 15, 1973, Revisions to those re ulations arid criteria were published on January 11, 1977. This report covers activities during caleiidar year 1976. The dumping into ocean waters of all materials is re u1ated by EPA permits except dredged materials, for which the tJ. S. Army Corps of Engineers issues permits. We believe that the permit pro raxn has brouqht the previously unregulated practice of ocean dumping under strict control. Sinc ely yours, Do alas M. Costle Enclosure i ------- o sp 47 ____ UNITED STATES ENVIRO LMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 JUL 1 91977 THE ADMINISTRATOR Honorable Thomas P. O’Neill Speaker of the House of Representatives Washino’ton, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker: Section 112 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Aqericy (EPA) to submit an annual report on the administration of the ocean dumping permit program authorized under Title I of the Act. The fifth annual report for this program is transmitted with this letter. The ocean duxnpin permit program became effective April 23, 1973, and final regulations and criteria were published October 15, 1973. Revisions to those regulations and criteria were published on January 11, 1977. This report covers activities during calendar year 1976. The dumping into ocean waters of all materials is re ulated by EPA permits except dredged materials, for which the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers issues permits. We believe that the permit program has brought the previously unregulated practice of ocean dumping under strict control. Enclosure ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa e No. I. Introductionandsummary . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. 9 The Permit System 10 Analysis of Existing Dumping Activities ii Enforcement 27 III. ImportantEventsofl976 ....... 33 International Ocean Dumping Convention 33 Publication of Revised Regulations and Criteria 35 Ocean Incineration Inve sti ations 36 New York and New Jersey Coastal Pollution Problems Durin 1976 38 IV. Baseline and Monitoring Surveys of Dump Sites . . . . . . . . 41 V. Ecolo ical Effects Research in 1976 . . . . 51 VI. Alternatives to Ocean tYimpin . . . . . . 57 Appendices A. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 and Amendments B. Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (Ocean Dumpins Convention) C. Ocean Dumping Convention Reporting Forms V ------- LIST OF TABLES Page No. 1. Ocean Dumping Calendar for 1976 2 2. Ocean Dumping, 1973-1976 7 3. Ocean Dumping Activity: Types and Amounts; 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976 13 4. Permit Activity - Calendar Year 1976 15 5. Ocean Dumping Permits Not Granted or Phased 19 6. Permittees on Implementation Plans to Phase OutOceanDumping..... 24 7. Ocean Dumping Sites for Municipal and Industrial ‘ T astes . . . . . . 29 8. Enforcement Actions - 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9. Governments Which Have Ratified or Acceded to theConvention 34 10. Dump Site Designation and Monitoring . . . . . 42 11. Major Projects Funded in Municipal Sludge Technology and Health EPA R&D Programs .. 61 12. Status of Step I Construction Grants Funding Sludge Management Studies . . . . . . . . 63 LIST OF FIGURES I Ocean Dumping by Types of Wastes . . . . . . 14 II Ocean Dumping by Coast . . 25 lit Ocean Dump Sites of the United States 28 vi ------- CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This is the fifth annual report of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Congress on the implementation of Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (referred to in this report as “the Act”). See Appendix A. The Act became effective April 23, 1973, and since that time all ocean dumpinE of waste materials transported for the purpose of dumping has been regulated under permits issued by EPA except for dredged material, which is regulated by the U. S. Army Corps of Eri ineers (COE). This report covers EPA Headquarters and Regional permit operations, research projects by EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), and other program activities during the calendar year 1976. A calendar of Headquarters and Regional activities during 1976 is provided as Table 1. Previous annual reports by EPA included information on COE activities related to the issuance of permits for the ocean dumping of dredged material and on surveillance and monitorin activities of the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG) on ocean dumping operations. Under amendments to the Act passed in 1976, both the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Coast Guard will submit separate reports of their activities in implementing Title I of the Act. This EPA report, therefore, does not contain a discussion of the activities of these two agencies under the Act, except as these activities impact the responsi- bilities of EPA. Program responsibilities under the Act are divided among EPA Headquarters and the seven EPA coastal Regions and sup- ported by related ORD research activities. The Regions are responsible for all activities relating to the issuance of special and interim permits for dumpin in the respective Regions. The Regions are also delegated some responsibility for the management of ocean dumping sites. EPA Headquarters is responsible for all other program activities,includin the designation of ocean dumping sites, issuance of emergency, research, and #eneral permits, and coordination of Regional activities. 1 ------- TABLE 1 Ocean Dumping Calendar for 1976 January 21 Public Hearing, Region III, City of Philadelphia (Pa.) Ocean Dumping Permit Application for Municipal Sewage Sludge, Philadelphia, Pa. 23 & 29 House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Ocean Dumping Oversight Hearings, Washington, D.C. February 17 Public Hearing. Region VI, Shell Chemical Company (Deer Park, Texas) Ocean Dumping Permit Application for Biological Sludge, Houston, Texas 27 House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Ocean Dumping Oversight Hearings, Washington, D.C. 27 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Issued, Region II, Ocean Dumping Sewage Sludge in the New York Bight March 5 House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Ocean Dumping Oversight Hearings, New York, N.Y. 15 Emergency Permit Issued, Antilles Shipping Corp., San Juan, Puerto Rico, Disposal of Water Damaged Food Cargo 17 Public Hearing, Region II, Columbia Corrugated Container Corp. (Syosset, New York) Ocean Dumping Permit Application on Decision to Deny Permit, New York, New York 24-25 Public Hearing, Region II, Regarding Draft EZS on Sludge Dumping in New York Bight, New York, N. Y. 25 Meeting of Interagency Advisory Committee on the International Ocean Dumping Convention, Washington, D.C. 25 Public Hearing, Region VI, Ethyl Corporation (Baton Rouge, La.) Ocean Dumping Permit Application for Metallic Sludges, New Orleans, La. 29 Public Hearing, Region III, Regarding Draft EIS on Sludge Dumping in New York Bight, Toms River, N.J. 2 ------- TABLE 1 - Continued April 1 Public Hearing, Region II , Regarding Draft EIS on Sludge Dumping in New York Bight, Mineola, N. Y. 2 Public Hearing, Region III, City of Philadelphia (Pa.) Ocean Dumping Permit Application for Municipal Sewage Sludge, Philadelphia, Pa. 12 Senate Commerce Committee, Ocean Dumping Oversight Hearings, Washington, D. C. 21 Emergency Permit Issued, Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, (San Juan, P.R.), Disposal of Deteriorated Chlorine Cylinders 23 Draft EIS Issued, Designation of an Ocean Incineration Site in the Gulf of Mexico 28 Emergency Dumping to Safeguard Life at Sea, Acid Wastes, Dumped After Collision at Sea, New York Bight (no permit required) May 1 Public Hearing, Region II, 14 Municipal Ocean Dumping Permit Applications in New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area, New York, New York 10 Court Decision in State of Maryland vs Train that EPA Need not Prepare ETS Be ?or Designating a Dump Site or Issuing a Permit, Baltimore, Md. June 15 Long Island Beaches First Closed from Washup of Floating Material 28 Ocean Dumping Proposed Revision of Regulations and Criteria Published in Federal Register 29 Public Hearing, Region VI, Shell Chemical Company (Deer Park, Texas) Ocean Dumping Permit Application for Ocean Incineration of Organic Chloride Wastes, Houston, Texas 30 P. L. 94-326 Passed, Extension of the Authorization for the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act July 1 Emergency Permit Issued, Panama Canal Company, Canal Zone, Panama, Disposal of Sunken Vessel M/V TAIRONA (permit not used) 3 ------- Table 1 - Continued July 1 Emergency Dumping to Safeguard Life at Sea, Frozen Chicken Dumped by Sinking M V Taurus, off Puerto Rico (no permit required) 4 Fish Kill in Atlantic Ocean off Coast of New Jersey First Reported 13 Public Hearing, Region I, Safety Projects and Engineering, Inc. (West Quincy, Mass.), Ocean Dumping Permit Application for Laboratory Wastes, Boston, Mass. 14 Final EIS Issued, Designation of an Ocean Incineration Site in Gulf of Mexico 21 Public Hearing, Region III, City of Camden (N.J.) Ocean Dumping Permit Application for Municipal Sewage Sludge, Georgetown, Delaware. 23 Draft EIS Issued, Proposed Revisions to Ocean Dumping Criteria 24 House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Ocean Dumping Oversight Hearing, Hempstead, N. Y. August 17 Meeting of Interagency Advisory Committee on the Inter- natIonal Ocean Dumping Convention, Washington, D. C. September 15 Designation in Federal Register of Ocean Incineration Site in the Gulf of Mexico 15 Public Hearing, Region II, 8 Puerto Rico Industrial Ocean Dumping Permit Applications, Arecibo, Puerto Rico 20 Public Hearing, Region 11, ].3. ustrial Ocean Dumping Permit Applications in New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area, New York, New York 20-24 First Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to International Ocean Dumping, Convention, London, England 30 House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Ocean Dumping Oversight Hearings, Washington, D.C. 4 ------- Table 1 - Continued October. 13 Public Hearing, Region III, Dupont Company (Edge Moor, Del.) Ocean Dumping Permit Application for Acid Wastes, Georgetown, Delaware. 15 Ocean Incineration Special Permit Issued to Shell Chemical Company (Deer Park, Tex.) by Region VI for Incineration in the Gulf of Mexico 19&20 Technical Workshop on Ocean Dumping Criteria, Washington, D. C. November 11 City of Camden Ocean Dumping Permit for Municipal Sewage Sludge Expired 22 Public Hearing, Region 11, Dupont Company (Edge Moor, Del.) Ocean Dumping Permit Application for Acid wastes, New York, Ne*York 29 “O ean Dumping in the United States” 4th Aiiñual Report Transmitted to the Congress December 7 Issuance of Court Order Granting City of Camden (N. J.) Request for Ocean Dumping Permit for Sewage Sludge, Camden, N. J. (Court ordered EPA to issue emergency permit) 10 Emergency Permit Issued, Cit of Camden, N. J., for Municipal Sewage Sludge (court-ordered permit) 10 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends closure of Region fl! sludge (Philadelphia site) and acid wastes (DuPont site) dump sites to sheilfishing. 17 Erzzergency Permit Issued, U. S. Coast Guard (Washington, D. C.) for Disposal of vessel, ARGO MERCHANT (permit not used) 30 Oeean Dumping rinal Revision to Regulations and Criteria signed by EPA Athninistrator (published in Federal Register on January 11, 1911). 5 ------- During 1976, the amount of ocean dumping declined s1i htly from the level in 1975. The most active area was Revlon II (New York) which issued permits for the dumpin of municipal sewage sludge, construction debris, and industrial wastes in the New York Bight and off the north coast of Puerto Rico. All permittees now dumping under interim permits have been directed to find alternatives to ocean dumping- and to implement those alter- natives by 1981 at the latest. A comparison of thmpin activity since the permit program be an in 1973 is shown in Table 2. Several emergency permits were Issued for the ocean disposal f materials which were an Imminent hazard to public health and for which there was no feasible alternative for disposal, includinc Ieakinø chlorine cylinders and wrecked vessels which were endan er- inc shorelines. No research permits were issued, but a new zeneral permit was issued for the disposal of wrecked vessels after appropriate c1eanin . The first Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (Ocean Dumping Convention) was held in London durin t September of 1976. At this meetin i requirements for reporting ocean dumping activities to the Secretariat were developed, and steps were taken to clarify provisions of the Convention. Major revisions to the Ocean Duxnpin Re ulatlons and Criteria were developed during 1976. These re ulations now brln dred ed material under the same criteria that are applied to other dumped material and establish procedures for the designation and cOntinuinc! management. of ocean dumpin sites. The revisions also require a thorough evaluation of the alternatives to ocean dumping as part of the permit application evaluation procedure. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the revisions to the Criteria also was published. A major pro raxn effort during 1976 was the development of the EIS ’s for ocean duxnpin sites. A Draft EIS on slud e dumping’ in the New York Bight was published, and both Draft and Final EIS’s were published on the Gulf Ocean Incineration Site. The Gulf Ocean Incineration . Site became the first gite t,o be formally designated asan approved ocean dumping site. Baseilne surveys continued on two other sites, and additional studies were conducted on former radioactive waste disposal sites. 6 ------- TABLE 2 Ocean Dumpin 1973 - 1978 (in approx. tbi is) WASTE TYPE TOTAL 1973 i9 74 ‘1975 1976 Industrial Waste 5, 050,800 4,592,000 8 ; 446, 000 2,133,500 Sewa e S1üd e 4,898, 900 5, 10, 000 6, 039, 600 5, 270, 900 Construction and 873,700 770 4O0 395, 900 314,600 Demolition Debris Solid Waste 24G 200’ 0 0 Explosives 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 10,923,640 10,372,600 8,881,500 8,319,000 .7 ------- Looking toward the future, EPA is developing new technology for monitoring the impact of ocean dumping and techniques for determining the efficiency of at-sea incinerators. EPA is parti- cipating in efforts to develop criteria for ocean incineration under the Ocean Dumping Convention. There are also continuing research efforts to improve existing bioassay procedures and to develop new ones. Two pieces of legislation were enacted in October 1976 which have implications for the EPA ocean dumping permit program. These are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, which includes a permit system for hazardous waste management and provides for developing criteria and guidelines for acceptable land utilization and disposal practices for municipal sewage sludge, and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which provides for controlling the manufacture and disposal of toxic substances. Considerable effort will be taken by EPA to integrate these Acts with the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, so that the various regulatory authorities complement each other in providing environmental protection. 8 ------- CHAPTER II PERMIT O ERATIONS.. It is the policy of the Act to regulate aU ocean dumping and to prevent or strictly limit the ocean dumping of any material which would adversely affect the marine environment. To implement this policy, Title I of the Act establishes a system of permits to be administered by EPA and the COE to control dumping in ocean waters. The transportation from the TJnited States of any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agent or high-level radioactive wastes for dumping in ocean waters, the territorial seas, or the contiguous zone is prohibited. Trans- portation for the purpose of dumping of other materials, except dredged material, is prohibited unless the Administrator of EPA has issued a permit. The Administrator is empowered to issue a permit considering the criteria outlined in Section 102 of the Act and after determining that the dumping vlll not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health or the marine environment. The dumping of dredged material Is regulated by COE in accor ance with EPA and COE developed criteria. An analysis of ocean dumping of dredged material In 1976 is found n a COE separate report. Title I also requires the Administrator to promulgate criteria for reviewing and evaluating permit applications, which must include an examination of the need for the proposed dumping and the alternatives available to the proposed dumping. In addition, the Administrator is anthorized to designate areas wheve ocean dumping may be permitted and to designate criti.cal areas where dumping may be prohibited. Before any permit is issued, EPA. must also give notice and allow opportunity for public hearing. EPA has the authority to revokeor modify permits,, to assess civil penalties for violation of permit co ditions, and tç initiate criminal action against persons who knowingly violate the Act. Under Title I of the Act, the Coast Guard has been delegated the responsibility for conducting suvveiUance and other ap ropx late enforcement activity to prevent unlawful ocean dtmiping. More specifically, the USCG ensures that ocean dumping occurs under a valid permit and that the material is dumped at the location and in the manner specified within the permit. The USCG has pre- pared a separate report on its activities in 1976. 9 ------- Title II of the Act requires the National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration (NOAA) to conduct a comprehensive program of research and monitoring re ardin the effects of the dumping of material into ocean waters. Title UI gives to NOAA the authority to establish marine sanctitarles. A summary of these pro rams in 1976 will be found In separate reports prepared by NOAA. The Permit System The Ocean Dumping Permit Program first went into effect on April 23, 1973. Final reEulations and criteria were published in October 1973. Si niftcant revisions to the Ocean Dumping Re ’ulatioña and Criteria were proposed in June 1976 and published in final form in January 1 977. The re ’ulations provide for a permit system with six categories of permits’ general, special, emer ency, interim, research, and incineration at sea. General permits may be issued for small quantities of material which will have a minimal adverse environmental impact, especially if dumped trnder presci’ibed conditions. Examples include burial at sea of human remains or ashes, transportation of target vessels by the Dej’artment Of Defense with the intent of slnkin the vessels, and transportation and disposal of sunken vessels, particularly when the vessels pose a threat to navigation. Special permits may be issued for the dumping of materials which satisfy the criteria and then only for a maximum duration of three years for each permit. In 1976 special permits were issued for at-sea incineration of certain or anochlorine wastes, for dIspo al of construction rubble and demolition debris, and for the dumping of certain aqueous dye production wastes and miscellaneous laboratory wastes. Emer ency permits may be issued for disposal of materials which pose an unacceptable risk relating to human health and for which there is no Other feasible Solution. Erner ency permits in 1976 included the dumping of badly deteriorated chlorine as cylinders and water damaged ship carp o unacceptable for land disposal au e to the possibility of disease contamination. 1.0 ------- Interim permits may be lssuçd prior to April 23, 1978, to dump materials which are not in compliance with the environ- mental impact criteria or for dumping at a dump site designated only on an interim basis. However, no interini permit will be issued for the dumping of wastes from a facility which has not previously ocean dumped. Most of the current ocean dumping permits are interim permits, largely because most dump sites have only been approved on an interim basis and because some materials which do not satisfy the criteria are being ocean dumped while alternate disposal methods are under development. Research permits may be issued for dumping materials into the ocean as part of a research project when it is determined that the scientific merit of the proposed project outweighs the potential environmental damage that may result from the dumping. No research permits were Is sued in 1976, but a research permit issued in 1974 provided the opportunity to investigate the feasibility of incineration at sea as a method of disposal. The last type of permit is a permit for incineration at sea, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. Specific criteria are currently being developed for incineration permits. Permits for incineration at sea were issued in 1976 for the disposal by incineration of organic chloride wastes and for incineration of driftwood, pilings, derelict vessels, and other wooden materials collected in the New York Harbor and environs. Analysis of Existing Dumping Activities During the four years that the Act has been in effect all previously uncontrolled dumping of wastes Into ocean waters has been strictly regulated by the Ocean Dumping Permit Program. The level of dumping activity that has occurred under EPA permits since the program became operational is indicated in Table 3, There has been a decline in dumping each year since the permit program went into effect. The absence of complete and accurate dumping recordeprior to the implementation of the permit program makes any compari- son with ocean dumping activity of past years difficult. It is evident from available data, however, that ocean dumping of wastes was increasing when the Act was passed.. In addition, both the 11 ------- Senate and House versions of this Act reflected the concern that those pollutants previously discharged into the Nation’s territorial waters or air and now restricted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and the Clean Air Act, not end up indiscriminately being dumped in the ocean. The data in Table 3 and Figure I show a decrease from 1973 to 1976 in the dumping of industrial wastes, construction debris, and solid waste, a slight increase In the dumping of sewage sludge, and no appreciable dumping of explosives. Since the permit program went into effect in April 1973, the data from that year reflect eight months of dumping activity extrapolated for 12 months to arrive at an estimated annual rate. In 1976, ocean dumping permits were issued by five of the seven EPA coastal Regions and by EPA Headquarters. Table 4 lists by Region those permits in effect during 1976, the type of permit, the material authorized for dumping, the effective dates of the permit, and the amounts actually dumped. In implementing the ocean dumping permit program, EPA requires a thorough evaluation in all applications of the need for ocean dumping and the availability of alternate methods of disposal. This approach has required all municipal and industrial dumpers to seek other alternatives. Since the permit system went into effect, 248 former or potential ocean dumpers have ceased ocean dumping or been denied permits (Table 5). On the Atlantic Coast alone, 104 former dumpers phased out ocean dumping either by the time the Act went into effect or after having initially received permits. Another 138 industries or municipalities have either withdrawn their applications or been denied permits. A total of 155 dumpers ceased ocean dumping or were denied permits during 1976, and 16 more are scheduled to cease in 1977. Other permittees on implementation plans to phase-out ocean dumping are shown in Table 6. As shown in Table 3 and Figure II, the amount of industrial wastes dumped in the Gulf of Mexico, under ocean dumping per- mits declined In 1976 to 7 percent ofthe amount dumped in 1973 under the first year of the permit program. This decrease is due largely to the fact that five of the seven original permittees had implemented alternatives to ocean dumping by the end of 1975. Although a number of industrial dumpers have ceased ocean dump- ing off the Atlantic Coast, the amount of dumping has only decreased 12 ------- TABJ1 3 0C A* IflaFmM, TTTP AJ97 ?1401i!rn, 197V, 191k”, 1975”, .in4 1916” Emnt . *ii’ x.) - TOTAl. 9.515.400 9.443.400 5,151.900 5,215,700 • E Regional Office. Unpebthuhedreport$. 1973; updated hformatlon. 1816 (1 montI e o dumping acttiitie.. M .y to December 1973 under pern Lta inaled by Ocein Dtepoaa l Progrom extrapolated for 12 months to provide an wmual rate). $$ EPA R gicna1 Offices. ijnpubitehed reporte. 1974. 1935 le7$ updated informatIon. 1918 (12 monthe of duinpiu$ ctivli3r). 1.405.009 050.000 123.700 100.300 240 200 WASTE TYPE AThANTIC 1973 1 974 l o iS 1070 1913 1974 GULF PACIFIC 1975 1076 1973 1974 1975 1976 1973 1974 bidaitriniWsutd 3, 142,lóo 3.64L000 3 322300 2.933.200 1.400.0OG95 .000 123.700 100.300 0 0 0 0 5,050,800 4.592.000 3.445.000 2.733,500 Sewage S1n t 4 998.800 5 010.000 5,039.800 5.270.900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 908 000 010 000 5 039,600 270 eosielructiunmwi Demolition rin 973 ,100 770,400 395,900 314.800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 973. 700 770,400 305,000 314,600 Solid Waste 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 200 0 0 240 200 0 Exptos ivce 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL. 1076 0 0 10.923,640 10.372,500 8,891,500 5,319,000 ------- Figure I OCEAN DUMPING BY TYPE OF WASTE OTHER _____ INDUSTRIAL WASTE iT j.SEWAGE II SLUDGE U) C 0 I- 4- 0 (I) C ‘U V i) 0 I- I E 0 4 41 C 0 E 4 ‘4 ------- Permittee; Location Type Permit Reylon I Safety Projects & Ene. W. Q lncy, Mass. Special Revlon fl Berqen Co. Sew. Auth. Little Ferry, N.J.; Interim Joint Meethia of Essex & Union Counties Irvinaton. N.J.; Interim Linden Ro eUe-Rahway Valley Sewage Auth., Linden, N.J.. Rahway, N.J., Interim Middlesex Co. Sew. Auth. Sayrevlile, N. .7.; interim Middletown Twp., Sew. Auth. Belford. N.J.; Interim Passaic Valley Sew. Contm. Newark. N.J.; Interim City of Glen Cove Glen Cove, N.Y.; interim City of Long Beach Long Beach. N.Y.; Interim Nassau County D. P. W. East Rockaway, N.Y.; Interim Westchester County D.E.F. Yonlc.rs, N.Y.; Interim West Long Beach Sew. Diet. Atlantic City. N.J.; Interim New York City D. W. ft. New York. N.Y.; interim Modern-PC ! Modern - PCI. S. IC.srny. N.J. W. Caidwell, N.J. interim American Cyanamid. N. J. Princeton, N.J. interim Whippany Paper Board; Whippany, N.J.; Interim General Marine Transport Corp. General Marin* Transport Corp.. N.J.; Bayonne, N.J., interim S. B. Thomas. Inc.; Totowa, NJ; interim Caidwell Trnck- lfl Co.; Fairfield. N.J.; Interim TABLE 4 PERMiT A TIVITY - CALENDAR YEAR 1978 Material Effective Dates Dumped of 1978 Permits misc, lab - reagents. alkali rneta.l cmpda. and explosives sewage sludge & septic tank wastes 7/1/75—7131/76 8/1/76—7/31/77 waste activated 11/10/75-6/30/76 sludge sludge from 1i/20/75—j/9/7 5 paper mill waste sewage sludg. and 7/1/75—7/3.1/76 .septt tank sludge •8/jt!Tt_7/3l/77 wastes sludge from treat- ment of bakery wastes sewage sludge Actual Qua.nt. Dumped (1978 ) 228. 000 wet T. 184, 000wet 1’. 6/24/75—8130/76 9/26/78—11 / 1/77 9.378 wet T. 246, 000 wet T. 88,000 wet T. ft U ft ft II I, I, ft I, Is I , I I I I I, U ‘ I U It -fl 7/ 1 175—7 131/76 8/1176—7/31/77. 300,000. wet T. 18,000 wet T. 579, 000 wet T. 7, 200 wet T. 6.600 wet T. 401.000 wet T. 138. 000 wet T. 1.200 wet T. 2. is?. 000 wet T. 4L 000 wet 1’. 11/20/75—8/31/78 1lJ20I7 —7/3i/76 15 ------- Rehets Chimical Co.; Berkeley Heights. N.J.; Interim M & M/Mars; Hackett$tOwn. N.J.; interim The Coco-Cola Co; Hlghtst own. N.J.; interim Curtiss -Wright Corp; Faixfisld, N.J.; Interim Norda Inc.; East Hanover. N.J.; interim 8.3. Penlck & Co. Montvllle. N. .7.; Interim Pfizer Inc.; Prnippany, N.J.; Interim 3. T. Baker Chemical Co.; PbIll.tpsburL N.J.; interim .Frltzsche Dodge Si Olcott; East Hanove?. N. J ; interim SCeuffel Si Easer Co.; Rockaway , N. S.; interim Croutptofl Si Knowles Corp.; Birdsboro, Pa.; special Actual Quant. Dumped (i975 ) 52. 00.0 wet T. p.rmittee; Location Type Permit I , ‘I Aliléd Chemical Elizabeth. N.J.; interim NL Industries Sayreville. N. S.; interim DiaPont-Grs. 5 5el1.t L.Ind.i. N.J.; Interim Moran Towing Corp. New York, N.Y.; special American Cyanemid Linden. N. I.; interim Modern Tranep. Co. S. Kesray , N.J.; interim Merck Chemical; R*hwIy. N. .7.; Interim International Wire Products; Wyckoff. N..?.; Interim Arrow Group Industries; Haskeil. N.J.; interim 1. 360, 000 wet T. 180. 000 wet T. 147. 000 yd 3 131. 000 wet T. 59. 000 wet 1’. TABLE 4 (CONT’D) PERMIT ACTIVITY - CALENDAR YEAR 1976 Materral Effective Dates Dumped of 1916 Permits by-product 11 120/75 1 19 177 hydrochloric acid spent sulfate aol: inert ore slurry chemical wastes construction ii/20/7511/ 19/78 rubble chemIcal 8/25/75—9/14/78 wa teI 9/15116-9114177 chemical 11120/75—1/917 ? waStS s residual sludge i1/20 175—1 1119/76 from wire drawing process residual sludge 1t/20 1754/30/76 from i alvaAizIng and piatine operation s residual sludge i1/2Q/75—119/77 from pharm. manf. liquid organic 11 120(75.ll/19/76 wastes from candy manufacturing residual liquid waste from prod. of beverages residual aqueous waste from rinsing of metal parts aqueous waste from 11 120/7511 119 178 manufacture of flavors and fragrances aqueous waste from ii120175-1I9/77 prod. of plant extracts aqueous waste from manuf. of cosmetics liquid waste from prod. of magnesium carbonate aqueous wastes from ii/20/7511/19/77 manuf. of flavoring chemicals aqueous mixture of residual coating so1.. chemical wastes 11120 175 —6 11/76 11/20 175—1 19/77 2/17/76—2/16/79 ftelllAs Environ Services, chemical wastes Bridgeport. N.J.; interim 5/ 1175-4 130/78 1.6 ------- TABLE 4 (CONT’D) PERIvflT ACTIVITY - CALENDAR YEAR 1976 Permittee; Location; Material Effective Dates Actual Quant. Type of Permit Dumped of 1976 Permits Dumped (167$ ) PcI InternatIonal 360. 000 Wet T. Areelbo. Puerto Rico UpjohnManuf. Co.; neutrallzedphsrm. 1 1/11/75-12/31/76 Barceloneta. P. R.; waatei interim Abbott Chemicals, Inc.; 11/11/75-10/31/76 Barceloneta. P. R.; interim Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; l1/llI75-12/31f76 Barcelonets, P. P..; Interim Merck Sharp & Dohme Quimica de Puerto Rico; Barc.loneta . P. P..; interim Oxochem Enterprise; waste waters from prod. Pennu.laj. P.R.; interim of o*o-alcohola Puerto Rico Olefins Co.; waite waters from eas Peonuelas , P.R.; interim canstic scrubberu Bristol Alpha Corp.; neutralIzed pharm. Barceloneta. P. P..; Interim wastes Sherio Corporation; Manati. P.R.; Interim U.S. Army COB Incineration of 6/1/76-5/31/77 1.3?0 d New York. N.Y.; interim driftwood, timbu’, pilings Antilles Shipp1n Corp; crushed bones. 3 11517 6-3/30/7 6 700 T. San Juan Puerto Rico; casio., etc. Zmerqency Puerto Rico Aqueducts & cylinders contain- 4/22/76-4/30/73 26 cylInders Sewers Auth.; Sari Juan. ln pressurized Cl 2 (3504 lbs. CLtu) Puerto Rico; Erner ericy ai General Marine Trans. Corp. 5.000 IMC Chemical Group chemical wIatel i1/20F75-12/31/75 (Sobin); Newark, N.J.; Interim Nassau Co. Dept. Public lZid’istrislwastes 219176-ii/19175 WOrks; Nassau C0.e N.Y.; Interim 1.7 ------- Perniittee; Location; Type of Permit Region IT ! E.I. DuPont de Nemours &Co.;Edge Moor. DeL; Interim City of Camden; Camden. N.J.; Interim City of Philadelphia. Ph Iladelphia. Pa.. interim TABLE 4 (CONT’d) PERMIT ACTIVITY - CALENDER YEAR 1976 Material Effective Dates Dumped of 1976 Permits 11/13/75—11/13/76 11/23/76—2/28/77 iilii/7511111/76 2/14/75-2(13/76. 2/14/76-5/13/76 5/ 14/16-614/76 6/5/76-6(4/77 Region I V APM Manufacturing Co.. Augusta. Ca. special Region V I Ethyl Corporation; Baton Rouge, La.; interim Shell Chemical Co.; Deer Park. Texas; special Shell Chemical Co.; Deer Park Texas; special Chemical wastes sodium calcium sludge aerobic treatment system biosol ida incineration of chlorinated organ.tcs 611/75—611/78 3/12/75—3/11/76 7/1/76-6/30/77 2/20/75-2/19/76 2/24/76-81 15/77 10/15/76-4/15/79 OT. 1.100 wet 1’. 99, 200 T. 0 T. Region DC Shell Oil Company; Moustoyt. Texas; special form. cuttings. drilling mud, non- perishable solid waste from explora- tory oil drilling 11/18/7612/1/77 0 T. Headguarte ii . U.S. Coast Guard; Washington. D. C.; emergency Panama Canal Company. Panama Canal. Zone. Panama; emergency City of Camden; Camden N.J.; emergency sewage sludge titanium dioxide wasteS sewage sludge sewage sludge Actual Quant. Dumped (1976 ) 476. 200 wet T. 62. 500 wet ‘1’. 831, 400 wet T. ARGO MERCItANT M/V TAIRONA 12/17/78-12/31/76 0 T. 7/1/75—10/1/77 12/10/76-3 16/77 8,000 wet T. 18 ------- TABLE 5 OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS NOT GRANTED OR PHASED OUT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 58. 57. 58. 59. 60. Company II Benjamin Moore & Co. II Chester Packing Co. • Inc. II Childers Products Co. II Clairol, Inn. II Debell & Richardson II Dow Chemical Service TI T)rake Bakeries II Drew Chemical U Electro-Nueleonies, Inc. II En e1hard Industries U Fedders Corp. II Ford Motor Co. II Camlen Chemical Co. U Heinzelmen & Sons II B. Horstmann Co. TI I. C. I. America, Inc. U International Paper U Ivers-Lee Co. II Koppers Co., Inc. II Lehn & Fink, Co. II L & M Trucking Corp. II Makar Trucking Co. U National Can Corp. II NL Industries, Inc. II Norton & Sons, Inc. II New York Twist Drill Mt g. Corp. II The Parker Co. II C. Redner, Inc. II Sandoz-Wander, Inc. II Three Star Anodizing Cor ,. II Universal Oil Products VI B. I. duPont de Nemours fl **pratt & Whitney fl **Biocraft Corp. fl ** , Ucholac, Inc. U **Everlon Fabrics Corp. U **The Ansul Co. I I eConsolidated Edison Co. II **BASF Wyandotte Corp. II **fl e Clorox Co. II Gaesa Environmental Services Corp. II Bell Telephone Laboratories U Amerada Hess Corp. II Rie el Products Corp. II General Color Co. II J. M. Huber Corp. II Lily-Tulip II The National Lockwasher Co. II Howniedica, Inc. U Celanese Coatings Co. U American Cyanamid Co. II Green Village Packing Co. II The Mennen Co. XI Weyerhaeuser Co. II Wilson Products Co. II American Cyanamld Co. II Kimberly-Clark Corp. II St. Regis Paper Co. II Hercules, Inc. It Dow Chemical Location Newark 1 N. J. Chester, N.Y. Bristol, Penn. Stamford, Conn. Enfield, Conn. Stonehaxn, Mass. Wayne, N.J. Boonton, N. J. Fairfield, N. J. Newark, N. J. Edison, N. J. Mahwah, N. J. Elmwood Park, N. J. Carlstadt, N. J. East Hanover, N. J. Bayonne, N.J. Whlppany, N.J. W. Caidwell, N.J. Kearny, N.J. Belle Mead, N. J. Kenilworth, N. J. Mendham, N.J. Piscataway, N.J. Pedriclctown, N. J. Bayonne, N.J. Ramsey, N.J. Wayne. N.J. Wanaque, N. J. East Hanover, N. J. Beacon. N.Y. East Rutherford. N. 3. La Place, La. East Hartford, Conn. Waidwick, N. J. Ossirig, N.Y. Closter, N.J. Marinette, Wise. NewYork, N.Y. So. Kearny. N.J. Jersey City, N.J. Passaic, N.J. Whippany, N.J. Woodbridge, N.J. MiLford, N.J. Newark, N.J. Edison, N.J. Rolmdel, N.J. North Branch, N. 3. Rutherford, N.J. Belvidere, N.J. Pearl River, N.Y. Ozeen Village, N.J. Morristown, N.J. Closter, N.J. Neshanic, N.J. Sound Brook, N.J. Spotswood, N.J. West Nyack, N.Y. Kenvil, N.J. Mt. Holly, N.J. Date Phased Out or Denied before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 beforà April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 before April 1973 Nov. 1973 Feb. 1975 Sept. 973 Sept. 1973 Dec. 1973 Aug. 1973 April 1974 April 1974 April 1974 Nov. 1974 Aug. 1974 Oct. 1973 Aug. 1974 April 1974 April 1974 April 1974 April 1974 April 1974 April 1974 April 1974 April 1974 April 1974 April 1974 April 1974 April 1974 ‘April 1974 April 1974 April 1974 April 1974 * denied ** withdrawn application ‘9 ------- TABLE 5 (CONT.) OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS NOT GRANTED OR PHASED OUT Region Company 61. DC H-b Water Taxi 62. VI. E. I. duPont de NemourS 63. LI City of Stamford 64. VI GAP Corporation 65. I Pine State By-Products 1 Inc. 66. VI El. dupontdeNemOUrs 67. VI B.!. duPont de NemourE 68. II Blue Ridge-Wthkler Textiles 69. II The Nestle Co., Inc. 70. U 17. S. Radium Corp. 71. 1.! Tenco Division of the Coca-Cola Co. 72. 11 Warner-Lambert Co. 73. U Myca.lex Corp. i . ii Worthington Biochemical Corporation 75. II Howmet Corp. 76. II Sherwin Williams Co. 77. III *7 r Jersey Zinc 78. III Sun Oil Company 79. II *Solvents Recovery Services 80. LI *Eagle Extrusion Corp. 81. U Chevron Oil Co. 82. VI **Cjty of Houston 83. II Water Tunnel Control 84. II Arrow Group Inc. 85. LI Coca-Cola Foods Division 86. II Curtiss-Wright Corp. 87. U *Chemical Recovery Corp. 88. II Evor Phillips Leasing Co. 89. II Fritache Dodge & Olcott 90. II **FMC Corp. 91. II *fl ternational Wire Products Co. 92. II *M&M/Mars 93 fl *14ox’da, Inc. 94. II ** oh & Haas Co. 95. II * cjentifiC Chemical Processing Inc. 96. II Abbott Chemicals. Inc. 97. II American Cyanaxnid Co. 98. II *Columbia Corrugated Contanier Corp. 99. II sChem-TrOl Pollution Services Inc. 100. II **Dj pOsal at Sea, Inc. 101. U **Town of Yorktown 102. II **NYC Police Dept. 103. II **IJS Customs Service 104. II Rollins Environmental Services Inc. 105. II **LL Tungsten Corp. 106. II S. B. Thomas, Inc. 107. II Airmarine Electroplating Corp. 108. II Amperex Electronic Corp. 109. U B & B Electroplatere. Inc. 110. U General Instrument Corp. iii. II John HaaseU, Inc. 112. U Uth-Kem Corp. 113. U Semimnetals Inc. 114. U Weksler Instruments Corp. Morris Plains, N.J. Morris Plains. N.J. Clifton, N.J. Freehold, N.J. Dover, N.J. Newark, N.J. Gloucester City, N.J. Marcus Hook, Penn. Linden, N.J. Dover, N.J. Perth Amboy, N.J. Houston, Texas New York, N.Y. Haskell. N.J. HightstOwTl. N.J. Fairfield, N.J. North Brunswick, N.J. Old Bridge. N.J. Clifton, N.J. Baltimore, Md. Carlstadt, N. 3. Barcelonela, P. R. Princeton, N.J. Syoaset, N.Y. Model City, N.Y. Bayonne, N. J. Yorktown Heights, N.Y. New York, N.Y. New York, N.Y. BridgepOrt, N.J. Glen Cove, N.Y. Totowa. N. J. Date Phased Out or Denied May 1975 July 1975 July 1974 June 1974 July 1975 Mar. 1976 Mar. 1976 Oct. 1975 May 1976 Nov. 1976 April 1976 May 1976 May 1978 Mar. 1976 July 1975 Oct. 1976 Jan. 1978 Nov. 1976 Nov. j976 Feb. 1975 Max. Oct. 1976 June 1976 May 1976 Max’. July 1975 Dec. 1978 Dec. 1975 Jan. 1976 April Oct. 1975 Aug. 1976 Nov. 1976 Nov. 1976 Nov. 1976 Nov. 1976 Nov. 1976 Nov. 1976 Nov. 1976 Nov. 1976 $ denied ** withdrawn application Location San Pedro, Calif. Belle, W. Vs.. Stwford. Conn. Texas City, Texas S. Portland, Maine LaPorte. Texas Beaumont, Texas Bangor, Penn. Freehold, N.J. HackettstOWn. N.J. Sept. Oct. Dec. Dec. Jan. Jan. Feb. July July May July May July 1974 1974 1974 1974 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 Wyckoff, N.J. Hackettatown, N.J. E. Hanover. N.J. PaulaborO, N. J. Freóport, N.Y. Hickavifle, N.Y. Preeport, N.Y. Hickavilli, N.Y. Weatbury N. Y. Lynbrook. N. Y. Weetbury, N.Y. Freeport , N.Y. 20 ------- TABLE 5 (CONT.) OCEAN DUMPLNG PERMITS NOT GRANTED OR PHASED OUT 115. II 116. 1.1 117. I I 118. U 119. II 120. U 121. U 122. II 123. II 124. U 125. II 128. II 127. U 128. II 129. 11 130. II 131. II 132. I I 133. II 134. II 135. U 136. I I 137. II 138. U 139. U 140. II 141. U 142. U 143. U 144. II 145. U 146. H 147. U 148. U 149. II 150. II 151. U 152. II 153. II 154. II 155. II 156. U 157. U 158. II 159. II 180. U 161. U 162. U 163. U 164. 11 165. U 166. U 167. I I 168. U :189. U 170. U Location Date Phased Out or Denied Nov. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Oct. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug . 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug . 1976 Aug. 196 Aug.. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. l&16 Aug. 1978 Aug. 19 8 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Dec. 1976 Aug. 19’ 6 Aug. 1976 Septa 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug 1976 Aug. 1978 Aug. 1976 Aug 1976 July 1978 Aug 1976 Aug.. 1976 Aiig. 1976 Aug. i9 Aug. l9 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1976 1978 Aug. 1976 Aug. ‘1978 Aug 1976 Aug 1976 Aug. 1978 Aug. 1976 A1 g 1976 Region Company USEC, Inc. *Coflthgswood STP *Ma)dm Sewerage Corp. Western Momnouth UA *Norwood STP *Old Tappan STP *Rlngwood STP *Riverdale STP *Saddle River STP *Skyline Lakes STP *Upper Saddle River STP *West Milford STP *‘Wycloff STP *Diamoñd Hill STP Far Hills STP *Mt. Olive STP Baldwin’s Run STP *Peapack Gladstone STP *Alpine STP eCupsaw Lakes STP *Ergkjne Lakes STP *Fayson Lakes STP *Greenwood Lake STP *Harrjngton Park STP *Haskefl STP *Kjmn elon STP *Lake Edeninald, STP *Nórthvalg STP Wynnewood Sewage Co. *Faiz. Lawn STP *Dover STP Long Branch Sewerage Auth. *pennsauken Sewerage Auth. *Bordentown STP *Dea], STP *Bradley Beach STP *Long Beach Sewerage Auth. Point Pleasant Beach STP *Bay Head STP *Ma pasquan STP *Neptune City STP *Sea Girt STP *Spring Lake STP *Brick Township MUA *No .th Wildwood STP eHaddon Heights STP *Audubon STP *Nor.th Bergen STP *LavaJ , e e STP *Sea Bright STP *Seaside Heights STP *Hlflsborough STP *Maple Shade STP *Clexnenton Sewerage Auth. *Mt. Ephriam STP *Burljngton STP Woodbury, N. Y. CoUI .ngswood, N. J. Union, N.J. Marlboro, N.J. Norwood, N. J. 014 Tappan. N. J. Ringwood. N.J. Riverdale, N.J. Saddle River 1 N.J. Skyline, N.J. Upper Saddle River, N.J. West Milford, N. J. Wyckoff, N.J. Hackettstown, N. J. Far Hills, N.J. Mt. Olive Township, N. J. Cawden, N. J. Peapack, N. J. A.lplne, N.J. Cupsaw Lakes, N.J. Erskine Lakes, N.J. Fayson Lakes, N. J. Greenwood Lake. N. J. Harr ngton Park, N. J. Haskell, N.J. Kimznelon. N. S. Lake Ederuneld, N. J. Northvala, N.J. Freehold, N.J. Fair Lawn N.J. Tome River, N.J. Long Branch, N. J. Pennsauken, N. J. Bordentown, N.J. Deal, N.J. Bradley Beach, N.J. Brant Beach, N. J.,. Point Pleasant Beach, N. J. Bay Head, N.J. Manasquan N. S. neptune City, N. J. Sea Girt, N.J. Spring Lake, N. J. Brick Township, N.J. North Wildwood, N.J. Baddon Heights, N.J. Audubon, N.J. North Bergen, N.J. LaveLtette 1 N.J. Sea Bright, N.J. .Seasle Heights, N. J Hi borough, N.J. Maple Shade, N. S. Clernenton, N. S. ML Ephrian , N.J. Thngton, N. S. • * denied * 4. withdrawn application 21 ------- TABLE 5 (CONT.) OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS NOT GRANTED OR PHASED OUT Region 171. 1.1 172. II 173. II 174. II 175. II 176. II 177. TI 178. II 179. U 180. II *Eaat Hanover STP *Hajnmofltofl S1’P *South Ainboy STP *Wall Township STP *Atlantic City STP *Ailentowfl STP *Bridgeton STP *Mt. Holly STP *Sayrevifle STP *Rutherf6rd-Ea$t Rutherford Lyndhurat Joint Meeting 181. TI *East Windsor STP 182. U *Hightstowfl STP 183. II *Jersey City Sewage Auth. 184. U *Rockaway Valley Sewerage Auth. 185. TI *Morrjstowfl STP 186. II *Moorestowfl STP 187. II *Livingstofl STP 188. II *Sernarda STP 189. U *Soxnerset-Rarftafl Valley Sewerage Auth. 190. II *Berkeley Township Sewerage Auth. 191. TI *North West Bergen County Sewerage Auth. 192. II *Raritan Township STP 193. I I ePrinceton STP 194. II *Clintofl STP 195. U *Edgewater STP 196. U *Hoboken STP 197. 11 *Bayonne STP 198. II *Secaucug S’I? 199. II *Woodbridge STP 200. U *Perth Amboy STP 201. U *FreeholdSTP 202. II *West Long Branch Sewer Dist. 203. It *Barnegat STP 204. U *Wildwood STP 205. II *Cape May Court House STP 206. U *Cape May STP 207. U *Bayshore Regional Sewerage Auth. 208. U *Ewing-LawreflCe Sewerage Auth. 209. II *Bridgewater STP 210. II *Lindenwold Borough MUA 211. U *Highlands STP 212. U *Seaside Park STP 213. II Berkeley Chemical Corp. 214. U Exxon Corp. 215. II Stone Hedge Corp. 216. U Autocar Trucks 217. II Hoffman-LaRoChe 218. U Monroe Chemical 219. II Mrs. Smith’s Pies 220. II Scott Paper Co. East Rutherford, N. J. East Windsor, N.J. Hightstowfl, N.J. Jersey City, N.J. Boonton, N.J. Morristown, N. J. Moorestowfl. N.J. Livingston, N. J. Bernards Township 1 N. J. Bound Brook. N.J. Berkeley Township, N. J. Waiwick, N.J. Raritan Township, N. J. Princeton. N. J. Clinton, N.J. Edgewater . N.J. Hoboken. N.J. Bayonne, N.J. Secaucus, N.J. Woodbridge, N.J. Perth Ainboy, N.J Freehold, N.J. West Long Branch, N.J. Barnegat. N.J. Wlldwood, N. J. Cape May Court House. N.J. Cape May 1 N.J. Union Beach, N. J. Trenton. N.J. Bridgewater. N. J Lindenwold. N. J. Highlands. N.J. Seaside Park, N.J. Berkeley. N.J. Linden, N.J. N.J. Exton, Pa. Belvidere, N.J. Eddystone. Pa. N.J. Essington, Pa. Date Phased Out or Denied Aug. 1978 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1978 Aug. 1978 Aug. 1978 Aug. 1976 Prior to April 1973 Prior to April 1973 Prior to April 1973 Prior to April 1973 Prior to April 1973 Prior to April 1973 Prior to April 1973 Prior to April 1973 *denjed **viyjthdrftwfl application Company Location Burlington, N.J. Hammonton, N.J. South Aniboy, N. J. Wall, N.J. Atlantic City. N. J. Allentown. N.J. Bridgeton. N.J. Mt. Holly, N.J. Sayreville. N.J. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. 1976 1976 1976 1976 1978 1978 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1978 1976 1976 1976 1976 Aug. 1976 Aug. 1978 Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. Aug. 1976 1976 1976 1976 1976 1978 1976 1976 1978 1978 1976 1978 1976 1976 1976 1916 22 ------- TABLE 5 (CONT.) OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS NOT GRANTED OR PHASED OUT Date Phased Out Region Company Location or Denied 221 II Thomas Closeure (VAC) Northvale, N.J Prior to Apr11 1973 222 II Welles Mfg. Co. N.J. Prior to April 1973 223 II Cross County LandflU Mt. Vernon. N.Y. Pri or to April 1973 224 II Sun Oil Co. - Yabucoa Yabucoa, PR Prior to April 1973 225 II RCA de Caribe Inc. 8arceloneta. PR Prior to April 1973 226 U Nassau Chrome Corp. Mineola, N.Y. February 1976 227 II Lee Ronel. Inc. Hlcksville, N. Y. February 1978 228 U Ducon Co., Inc. Mineola., N.Y. ‘ebruary 1978 229 II South Shore Plating Long Island, N. Y. February 1978 230 U *Mathey Bishop Malvern. Pa. March 1976 231 II * p, Inc. Carlstadt, N.J. March 1976 232 U *Kawecki-Berylco Industries, Inc. Bristol, Pa. March 1976 233 U *Superior Tube CollegeviUe, Pa. March 1976 234 U *Njce Chemical Co. N.J. March 1978 235 II * Liquid Removal Services - Wyeth Labs Philadeiphi a, Pa. March 1976 236 II *Vamp Chemical Corp. Middlesex, N.J. March 1976 237 U *Harshaw Chemical Corp. Gloucester City. N. J. March 1976 238 U *Carpenter Technology Philadelphia. Pa. March 1976 239 U *Curtiss.Wright Corp. N.J March 1976 240 U *Union Carbide N. J. March 1976 241 U *Stauffer Chemical N. 1. Maróh 1976 242 U *Toms River Chemical Toms River, N.J. March 1978 243 II *Ajr Products & Chemicals Middlesex, N. J. March 1976 244 II *N. L. Industries Pedricktown, N. 3. March 1976 245 II *Chemical Leahman Croydon, Pa. March 1976 246 U *Glenbrook Labs - dlv. of Sterling Labs Trenton, N. J. March 1976 247 II *Bethlehem Steel Bethlehem, Pa. March 1978 248 U *Armstrong Cork Pa, Ma h 1976 *denjed **withdrawn application 23 ------- TABLE 0 PERMIT I’EES ON IMPLEMENTATION PLANS TO PHASE OUT OCEAN DUMPING _____ Company ,ocation Phase Out Date American Cyanamid Co. Linden. NJ 1980 Middletown Sewer Authority BeI.ford, NJ 1981 Passaic Valley Sew. Comm. Newark 1 NJ 1981 Allied Chemical Corp. Morristown. NJ 1981 The Upjohn Manuf. Co. Baçceloneta. PR 1979 E. I. duPont de Nemours Linden, NJ 1981 City of Long Beach Long Beach NY 1981 Middlesex Co. Sew. Auth. Sayreville. NJ 1981 New York City New York. NY 1981 Merck & Co., Inc. Raliway, NJ 1981 NL Industries. Inc. So. Amboy. NJ 1981 Modern Transportation Co. So. Kearny. NJ 1978 Bergen Co. Sew. Authority Little Ferry, NJ 1981 Linden Roselle-Rahway Valley Sew. Auth. Linden, NJ. 1981 Joint Meeting Elizabeth, NJ 1981 Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Barcelofleta, PR 1979 Merck Sharp & Dohme B rce1oneta. PR 1979 Ccunty of Nassau Mineola, NY 1981 County of Westchester White Plains, NY 1981 West Long Beach Sew. Dist. Atlantic Beach, NY . 1981 Oxochem Enterprises Ponce, PR 1977 Puerto Rico Olefine Co. Pence, PR 1978 Whippany Paper Board Co. Whippany. NJ 1977 IMC Chemicals Co. N,wark, NJ 1977 City of Glen Cove Glen Cove. NY 1981 Reheis Chemical Company Berkeley Hta., NJ 1978 Bristol Alpha Corporation Barcelofleta. PR 1979 S. B. Penick & Co. Montville, NJ 1977 Pfizer, Inc. ParsippaflY. NJ 1977 J.T. Baker Chemical Co. Phillipsburg. NJ 1977 Keuffel & Easer Morristown NJ 1977 Schering Corp. Manati Pa 1979 General Marine Bayonne. NJ 1978 Crompton and Knowles Reading. PA 1979 City of Camden Camden. NJ 1977 E.I. duPont de NeinourS Edge Moor, DE 1980 Caidwell STP CaldweU. NJ 1978 Kearny STP Kearny. NJ 1981 Matawan Township MUA Matawan Township. NJ 1977 Neptune Township STP Neptune Township, NJ 1978 Ocean Grove STP Ocean Grove, NJ 1978 West New York SI’? West New York. NJ 1981 Wood-Ridge STP Wood-Ridge, NJ 1981 Oakland STP Oakland, NJ 1978 Pompton Lakes STP Pompton Lakes. NJ 1978 Wanaque STP Wanaque. NJ 1980 Wayne STP Wayne, NJ 1978 Cedar Grove STP Cedar Grove, NJ 1981 Chatham STP Chatham Township. NJ 1981 Fairfield STP Fairfield. NJ 1977 Morris STP Morris Township, NJ 1981 Pequannock. STP Pequannock. NJ 1980 Roxbury STP Ro bury Township, NJ 1981 Totowa STP TotoWa. NJ 1981 Lincoln Park STP Lincoln Park. NJ 1979 Warren STP Warren Township, NJ 1977 Washington MUA Washington Township, NJ 1981 West Milford MUA West Milford, NJ 1977 Spring L.ake Heights STP Spring Lake Heights, NJ 1977 MontviUe Township MUA Mon viUe, NJ 1977 Wynnewood S. U. Co. Freehold. NJ 1977 Asbuzy Park STP Asbury Park. NJ 1981 Avon by_theSeaSTP Avon_by theSea, NJ 1977 Beirnar STP Belznar. NJ 1977 Atlantic Highlands STP Atlantic Highlands. NJ 1981 Wast Paterson STP West Paterson, NJ 1980 Passaic Township STP Passaic Township. NJ 1981 Washington Township MUA Washington Township, NJ 1981 Noa-theast Morunouth County Region Sewerage Auth. Monniouth Beach, NJ 1981 UI City of Philadelphia Philadelphia, PA 1981 24 ------- Figure II OCEAN DUMPING BY COAST (I ) C 21QOOo 5000 0 I PACIFIC GULF’ ATLANTI C IuhjJIIurE 0- 1973 1974 1975 1976 25 ------- slightly since those phased out have been primarily small volume dumpers. The remaining industrial permittees include a number of large volume dumpers who are developing alterna- tives to ocean dumping. The slight increase in the amount of sewage sludge being ocean dumped off the Atlantic Coast is due primarily to addi- tional levels of treatment for municipal waste, not to an increased number of municipal dumpers. About 5 million tons of municipal sludge were dumped in the New York Bight in 1976. Upgrading present treatment facilities to secondary treatment to obtain a 90% reduction of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids, plus treatment of the present raw sewage discharges, will significantly increase the volume of sludge to be handled. Until environmentally acceptable alternative sludge disposal methods are developed, ocean dumping is the only practical means of disposing of the present and projected increased volumes generated by existing dumpers. The decrease in construction rubble ocean dumped In 1975 and 1976 was due primarily O the cessation of the work on the Harlem River Water Supply Tunnel. The construction debris from this project had been transported to the ocean and dumped. As indicated in Table 3 and Fl ’ure II, ocean dumping of barged wastes is currentlyutilized as a disposal technique predominantly on the East and Gulf CoastS for industrial wastes and on the East Coast alone for sewage sludge. This iS not because these areas have failed to fully pursue alternatives to ocean dumping, but rather a combined result of historical usage pf ocean dumping and the immediate unavailability of alternate methods of disposal. Both the use of ocean outfall pipes and the availability of land for disposal on the West Coast have made the barging of wastes to the ocean unnecessary. Inland disposal of municipal effluents and sludges in the Gulf Coast states has precluded the develop- ment of ocean dumping of municipal wastes into the Gulf of Mexico. On the other hand, it has been those areas open to the sea with a high density of population and industrial development such as metropolitan New York-New Jersey and Philadelphia that have turned to ocean dumping. Now these industries and municipalities are being required to evaluate alternatives to ocean dumping to determine what is the most etwfrontnentallY acceptable method of disposal. 26 ------- In 1976, 11 ocean disposal sites were in active use (Figure III) for municipal and industrial wastes. The primary type of wastes being dumped at each site, as well as the projected phase-out dates for the current permittees at each site, are indicated in Table 7. Enforcement The USCG’s present enforcement program objectives are 75 percent surveillance of the transportation and. dumping of materials at EPA’s mixed Industrial waste sites and 10 percent surveillance of other disposal operations involving sewage sludge construction rubble, acid wastes, and dredged materials. Some surveillance methods currently being used include escort or interception of dumping vessels by USCG vessels or aircraft, comparison of dumpers’ logs with permits and with USCG notification and sight- ing logs, and use of shipriders to ascertain position and dumping rate. Other operationally available methods include the use of shore-based vessel traffic services (VTS) radar, in-port board- Ings and Inspections and a sample verification program. An on-board electronic surveillance device is under development to supplement the other methods. In 1976 the Coast Guard received reports from permittees of 250 dumping operations Involving mixed Industrial wastes and 4, 606 dumps of other permitted materials. otal of 806 surveil- lance missions were: conducted by the Coast Guard of these disposal operations, 140 for Industrial wastes and 666 for other materials, in some cases observing more than one dumping vessel on each mission. Of the 806 missions conducted, 149 were performed by vesselé, 507 by aircraft, 90 by shipriders, and 60 by radar tracking of vessel traffic (VTS). In addition to boardings conducted in conjunction with the shiprider program, there were 123 In-port bOardings conducted to check for valid permIts, examine logs arid records, and to verify compliance with other permit provisions such as vessel marking and equipment requirements. During 1976, 33 cases were reported to EPA by the Coast Guard consisting of 422 separate alleged violations of the Act, permit conditions, and EPA regulations. The majority of these alleged violations, 411 of the 422, involved a failure to properly provide the Coast Guard with advance departure notification. Of the remaining eleven violations, six involved off-site dumping, two dumping without a permit, two failure to havean effective permit on board the vessel, and one failure to maintain radio contact with the Coast Guard. 27 ------- SITE Current N.Y. Sludge Site Galveston Site “1O6 ’ Site Philadelphia Sludge Site DuPont Site N.Y. Acid Site Mississippi River Site Region I Ind. Waste Site Puerto Rico hid. Waste Site 1O.N.Y. “Cellar Dirt” Site 11.Gulf Incineration Site 12. N.Y. Wreck Site TENNESSEE FIGURE III OCEAN DUMPING SITES OF THE UNITED STATES FOR MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS ,WRECKS SEWAGE SLUDGE, GARBAGE 0 INDUSTRIAL WASTES U 28 ------- TABLE 7 Ocean Dumping Sites For Municipal And Industrial Wastes Phase Out Date for Site Location Primary Use Current Dumpers at Site 1. Region II Sludge 40° 22’30”N to 40° 25’OO”N municipal sewage sludgeDeceniber 1981 (N.Y. Sludge Site) 73° 41 ‘30”W to 7 45 ’OO”W 2. Region U Industrial 27° 12 ’OO”N to 27° 2800W industrial wastes Dumpers under strict implementation Wastes Site 94° 28’OO ”N to 94° 44’OO”W plan to develop alternatives to ocean dumping (Galveston Site) 3. Region II Industrial 38° 40 ’OO”N to 39° 00’OO”N industrial wastes December 1981 or bring waste within limitations Wastes Site 72° 00’00 5 W to 72° 30’OO”W of criteria (all but 2 dumpers out by May 1980) (‘106’ Site) 4. Region III Sludge 38° 20’OO”N to 38° 25’OO”N municipal sewage sludge January 1981. Site (Philadelphia 74° 10’OO ”W to 74° 20 ’OO”W Sludge Site) 5. Region III Acid Site 38° 30’OO”N to 38° 35’OO”N acid wastes May 1980 (DuPont Site) 74° l5’O0” V to 74° 25’QO”W 6. Region II Acid Site 40° 16’OO”N to 40° 20’OO”N acid wastes December 1981 or bring waste within limitations (N.Y. Acid Site) 73° 36 ’OO”W to 73° 40 ’OO”W of criteria 7. Region VI Industrial 28° 00’OO”N to 28° l0’OO’N industrial wastes Dumper under strict implementation plan to Wastes Site 89° 15 ’OO”W to 89° 3000”W develop alternatives to ocean dumping (M is sis sipppi River Site) 8. Region I Industrial 43° 22’30”N to 40° 25’OO”N industrial wastes Dumper under strict implementation plan to Wastes Side 73° 41 ‘30”W to 73° 45’OO”W develop alternatives to ocean dumping 9. Region II Industrial 19° l0’OO”N to 19° 20 ’OO”N industrial wastes November 1979 Wastes Site (Puerto 66° 35’OO”N to 66° 50 ’OO°W Rico Site) 10. Region II Construction 40° 23’OO”N 73° 49’OO”W Construction or None Debris Sites (NY 0.6 nautical mile radius demolition debris “Cellar Dirt” Site) 11. Region VT Gulf of 27° 0612 “N, 93° 24’lS”W at-sea incineration Site designation approval expires Mexico Ocean 26° 32’24 ”N, 93° 15’30”W September 1981 Incineration Site 26° l900”N, 93° 5600”W 26° 52’40”lT, 94° 04’40”W 12. Region II Wrecked 40° I0’OO”N. 73° 42’OO”W wrecks None; use authorized under .general Vessel Durn Site 0. 5 nautical mile radius (NY “Wreck ‘ Site) permits 29 ------- When alleged violation’s are reported by the Coast Guard, the appropriate EPA Regional Office follows up on the case. Warn1n letters were sent in 22 of the cases involving failure to notify the Coast Guard In advance of departure. The Regional offices inves- tiEated all other cases and, where a violation was substantiated, issued notices of violation under EPA enforcement regulations. In addition to surveillance provided by the Coast Guard, alleged violations sometimes are detected by EPA and occasionally reported to EPA by other organizations or citizens. From these reports, EPA issued notices of violations in 1976 in 8 other cases in which penalties have been assessed or final determinations are pending. Enforcement actions taken by EPA durln 1976, as well as the disposition of each case, are shown in Table 8. 30 ------- TABLE 8 ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS - 1976 ORDER RESPONDENT’S REFERRAL TYPE OF NOTICE OF DISPOSAL NO. NAME FROM VIOLATION VIOLATION DISPOSITION SITE Re rion II 76-i. Scherin Corp. EPA Permit 6 /29/78 Pertdinq Chemical reporting wastes requirement P.R. 76-2 Frltzche D&O EPA Permit 6/29/76 Final Chemical reporting Order- wastes requirement 9/1/76 $500 penalty payment 76-3 Whlppany Paper- EPA Permit 6/22/76 Pendin Sewage board Co.,, Inc. reportins? s ludoe requirement 76-4 S,B. Thomas, Inc. EPA Permit 7/22/76 Final Sew-ace reportlrni Order- s1ud e requirement 9/9/76 $500 penalty payment 78-5 International Wire EPA Permit 7/22/76 Final Chemical Products. Inc. reporting Order- wastes requirement 9/20/76 $1. 000 penalty payment 76-6 Spentonbush USCG No permit 7/22/76 Final Order- Chemical Transport aboard towing 9/30/76 wastes Services, Inc. vessel $200 penalty payment 76-7 General Marine USCG Failure to 7/22/76 Awaiting Chemical Trans. Corp. properly Hearing wastes notify Coast Officer’s Guard of determina- sailing t ion 76-8 WMppany Paper- EPA Failure to Waived Final Order- Sewage board Co., Inc. file timely 10-18-76 s1ud e application $3,500 penalty payment 76-9 Gates Construe- COE Dumped out- 10/ 21/ 76 Pending Dredged tion Corp. & side authorized Material C. H. Towing Co. site, dumping iloatables, trans- porting floatables for purpose of dumpiri 78-10 Allied Chemical USCG Dumped out- 11/12/76 Pending Acid Corp. side authorized wastes dump site 76-il The City of New USCG Dumped out- 11/12/78 Pending Sewage York side authorized s ludqe site 31 ------- (TABLE 8 CONT’D) ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS - 1976 Revlon IV - Elco James, Port Richey, Fla. - Oceanic Operations Corporation - Walter Byrd, Byrd Commercial D1vin Company Key West, Fla. Failure to adhere to compliance schedule and reporting requirements 11117/76 Pending- Adm. Law Judge recom- mended $225, 000 penalty TJSCG fliegal dumping 8 /24/76 without permit of F/v HI-MAX in Gulf of Mexico, 25 miles west of Hudson, Fla. tJSCG megal dump- ing without approval of houseboat In Gulf of Mexico, 12 miles offshore on Pineflas Co. artificial fishing reef USCO Illegal dump 5/5/76 ing without per- mit of planks and other material In Atlantic Ocean off St. Lucie Inlet USCG fllegalDUmP 12/28/76 ing without per- mit of derelict barge in Atlantic Ocean 3 miles off Fowey Rock Liqht No penalty assessed since vessel remains were re- moved Final Order- Atlantic 6/7/76 Ocean $i,000 penalty paid Pending Atlantic Ocean Region VI Failure to USCO maintain radio contact with Coast Guard Violation occurred Jan. 1976 while permit- tee was install- ing equipment required under 1975 enforce- ment actions no penalty assessed No penalty Central assessed; Coast Gulf Guard given authority under permit to send barge back to port ORDER RESPONDENT’S NO . — NAME Region m - City of Philadelphia B.EFERRAL TYPE OF FROM _ VIOLATION NOTICE OF VIOLATION EPA DISPOSAL DISPOSITION SITE Ralph Rawson City of Manager Madiera Beach, Fla. Philadelphia Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico 8/24/76 Noperialty assessed since effort was made to contact appro- priate agency USCG Dumped out- side authorized dump site - Ethyl Corp. - Ethyl Corp. Central Gulf 32 ------- CHAPTER III IMPORTANT EVENTS OF 1976 International Ocean Dumping Convention The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution By Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter became effective on August 30, 1975. See Appendix B. By the end of 1976, approxi- mately thirty nations had ratified or acceded to the Convention (Table 9). In accordance with the provisions o Article XIV(1) of the Convention, the first meeting of the contractina parties was held In London, England on December 17 and 18, 1975, and included delegations representing 22 contracting parties, 50 observer states, and 13 observer organizations. The contracting parties adopted resolution LDC(7) Rev 1 which designated the Inter- governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) to be responsible for Secretariat duties in relation to the Convention. In view of the importance attached to the Ocean Dumping Convention, the U. S. Department of State established a sub- committee within the Shipping Coordinating Committee to ensure coordination arnon government agencies and to provide for public comment on U. S. positions re ardin the implementa- tiön Of the Convention. In addition, the first meeting of the Advisory Committee on Ocean DumpinE, consisting of Federal Agencies and private organizations also appointed by the State Department, was held on March 25, 1976, and was chaired by EPA. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain comments on the draft U. S. submission to IMCO on the proposed agenda for the first consultative meetinr in September 1976 at IMCO Headquarters. The First Consultative Meeting was held in London, England, on September 2 0-24, 1976. Delegations representing 14 of the 29 contracting parties, 23 observer states, and 9 observer or aniza- tions attended the meetin . Menda items included reporting’ requirements (Appendix C), interim procedures for emerq ency situations, and the position of the Convention re ardjn incineration at sea. Other areas of high priority for constderation at subsequent meetin g include a definition of “trace contaminants,” the position of the Convention on radioactive wastes disposal, and revisions to the reportin requirements. 33 ------- TABLE 9 Governments Which Have Ratified or Acceded to the Convention Afghanistan Byelorussian SSR Canada Cuba Dominican Republic Denmark Guatemala Haiti Uruguay Iceland Jordan Kenya Mexico New Zealand Nigeria Norway Panama Philippines Spain Sweden Thnisia Ukrainian SSR USSR UnIted Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Yugoslavia Zaire H in ary German Democratic Republic France Morocco Cape Verde 34 ------- Publication of Revised Regulations and Criteria The Ocean Dumping Permit Program went into effect April 1973 under interim regulations and criteria. Final regulations and criteria were published on October 15, 1973. Operating experience, recent advances in scientific knowledge, and comments and petitions for changes all indicated that the regulations and criteria needed revision and a proposed revision to the Regulations and Criteria was published on June 28, 1976. In compliance with the EPA’s policy of voluntarily preparing EIS’s on certain regulatory actions, aDraft EIS was prepared on the proposed revisions to the criteria and released in July 1976. Over eighty sets of comments were received on the proposed revisions and on the Draft EIS. In order to resolve some of the scientific questions on the criteria, EPA convened a 2-day technical workshop in Washington D. C. in October 1976. The subsequent Final Revision of the Regulations and Criteria was signed by the Administrator of EPA on December 30, 1976, and published in the Federal Register on January 11, 1977. A Final EIS was prepared to support the finalized revisions. The final revisions to the ocean dumping regulations and criteria affect both the procedures to be followed in reviewing applications for ocean dumping permits and the substantive criteria to be applied in evaluating those applications. The Agency believes that changes in the regulations were appro - priate for several reasons: Operating experience of EPA pointed to several ways in which the regulations required modification. There was a need to specify in more detail the factors which will be considered by EPA in determining whether to issue a permit. The former regulations did not adequately address the regulation of ocean durnpin sites. Also, the former regulations required clarification with respect to the disposal of dredged material. A petition for additional rulemaking by the National Wildlife Federation was received in April of 1974 which pointed out several areas in which the regulations then in force required changes if they were to completely satisfy the Act, the Ocean Dumping Convention, and th Amendments to the Act in light of the Convention which were brought about by P. L. 93-254 (March 22, 1974). •The final regulations reflect agreements on procedures reached at the first Consultative Meeting of the Convention. 35 ------- In addition to the petition from the National Wildlife Federation, one individual had requested that the emergency permit provisionS contained in the re ulatiofls be modified to require more adequate public notice and opportunity for hearing prior to issuance of those permits. EPA has thoroughly revised and expanded the ocean durnpin re ulatlonS and criteria to allow for greater public participation in the entire pro raxn. The Agency held several major hearin s on applications to dispose of materials. The experience of these hearir’ s and that of the Re ’ional Administrators in reviewinP applications prompted several su estiOflS as to ways in which the former rec ulations and criteria could be improved to more adequately address the implementation of the Act and Convention, and to address pro- blems encountered by the Regional Administrators. The criteria have been modified to reflect recent advances in scientific knowled e, but there is no change in EPA’S intent to end the ocean dumping of unacceptable materials as rapidly as possible. Ocean Incineration Investi atiOl? Since September 1974 EPA has construed the Act as re tulatin ocean Incineration. Therefore, ocean incineration requires an ocean dumpln permit from EPA and involves the desi natiOfl of an ocean disposal site where incineration is authorized. EPA believes that ocean incineration is an acceptable alternative, under carefully con- trolled conditions, to the direct dumping of the material into the marine environment. Ocean Incineration is a waste burning process whereby chemical wastes are taken aboard specially designed and equipped vessels and transported to specified locations in the ocean for disposal by incineration under carefully controlled conditions. On October 4, 1974, a public hearln was held in response to Shell Chemical Company’ s application for a permit to incinerate or anochlOrifle wastes In the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of the hearing, Shell Chemical Company was granted a research permit authorizlfl at-sea incineration of 4,200 metric tons (one ship load) of or anochlorlne wastes subject to specific conditions and monitorifls activities. A second research permit was issued on November 27, 1974, and an interim permit was Issued on December 11, 1974, for incineration of an additiOnal 8,400 metric tons of waste. The incineration of Shell wastes was completed on January 7, 1975, and EPA published a final report on the results of the research burns In July 1975. In October1976, a 3-year special permit was issued to the Shell Chemical Company for incineratiOn at sea of Its or anochlorifle wastes in the Gulf of Mexico. 36 ------- During the or anochlor1ne waste incineration tests in the Gulf of Mexico, EPA undertook a sampling and analysis program to acquire the data necessary for evaluating the efficiency of the incineration for those particular wastes. Although these efforts provide an assessment of the acute effects of Incinerating organochlorlne wastes, a better understanding of the potential long-term effects of ocean incineration Is needed. Evaluation of lon ’-term effects is, in turn, dependent upon the advancement of at-sea monitoring technology which is currently In Its early stages of development. To enable refined analysis of the potential for long-term impacts of ocean incineration, EPA is developing a test program which will: I. Evaluate a test protocol for ocean incineration based on a similar protocol developed for land incineration. If successful, the test protocol may then be used to standar- dize equipment and techniques for monitoring ocean incineration. 2. Conduct tests to determine if additional criteria for stack gas emissions are needed which could serve as guidelines for limiting emissions. 3. Acquire additional Information to determine if further assessments and evaluations of potential long-term Im- pacts to the environment are required. The test program being developed for the incineration process at sea Is based on recent studies of land-based incinera- tion sponsored by EPA. These studies have resulted In the development of a methodology to characterize the emissions from organochlorlne incineration and the adequacy of new waste incin- eration technology. This new methodology, if successfully applied to ocean incineratton, would extend the current state-of-the-art to the monitoring of incineration at sea. Each new incinerator design and each category of waste with different thermochemical properties could then be evalu ated by a single standard or protocol, thus providln a uniform basis of comparison of the projected impacts to the environment. On January 9, 1975,. the U. S. Air Force applied for an ocean dumping permit for the ocean Incineration of its stocks of Herbicide Orange. The Air Force also requested EPA to assist them In explorln the feasibility of reformulation or reprocessing. 37 ------- Public hearin S were held on the permit application in Honolulu Ofl April 25, 1975, and in San Francisco on April 28, 1975. At these hearings the Air Force presented extensive testimony indicatin that the proposed ocean Incineration would do no harm to the marine environment or cause any effects in the air. They also indicated an intent to lnvesti ate reproceSSifl proposals by conducting pilot plant studies on a small amount of Herbicide Oran e to see whether the claims made by the reproceSSifl firms were valid. They requested a reconven- in of the hearing in Washin tOfl, D.C., at a later date, after the pilot plant studies were completed. The pilotplant studies were initiated by the end of 1975. Several attempts at reprocesSifl the Herbicide Oran e were conducted in 1976. By the end of the year, however, it became apparent that there were problems with reproceSSifl and that ocean incineration mi ’ht once again become the best alternative for disposal of Herbicide Orange. New York and New Jersey Coastal Pollution Problems Diirin 1976 Two incidents occurred In 1976 that drew considerable attention to EPA ocean dumping permits, for municipal sewac!e sluds e. These permits re ulate the ocean dumpln of gewa e glud e at two ocean dumping sites in the Atlantic Ocean - one 12 miles out from the entrance to the New York Harbor off the coasts of New York and New Jersey and the other 40 miles off the e1aware Maryland coast. Barcted disposal of sewage sludge occurs only in the Atlantic Ocean and then only from municipalities in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area and Philadelphla Camden area. One incident was the washup of “fioatables” on New York’s Lon Island beaches in late sprini and early summer of last year. The other was the extensive fish kill that occurred off the coast of New Jersey last summer. Some people charged that sewage sludge ’ dumpIng was responsible for these incidents. However, the results of several scientific lnvestl atiOflS by Federal and State agencies and by academic and private groups found that sludge dumping would have been no more than a minor contrlbutifl factor. 38 ------- Long Island Beach Pollution Most of New York’s Long Island beaches were closed during part of June 1976 due to trash and other materials which floated onto the beaches with the winds and the currents. The beach pollution began in early May when large quantities of grease and tar balls washed upon the shore shortly alter an oil spill from a fuel barge in Upper New York Bay. Although this pollution was cleaned up, other events occurred in May and early June which caused farther problems. An oil storage tank in Jersey City, New Jer ey, spilled large quantities of oil into the Hackensack River. Two sewage sludge storage tanks exploded at the west end of Long Island and spilled over a million gallons of sewage sludge into the water. Pier fires in Weehawkin, New Jersey, and Manhattan, New York, dumped tons of debris in the nearby waters. Meanwhile, the flow of the Hudson River remained above normal for most of May proiiiding greater flush- ing action in the estuary. Finally, the month of June was charac- terized by predominately s utherly winds. On June 14, the U. S. Coast Guard station at Fire Island received reports of unusual amounts of floatable washing upon the beaches. These materials included grease and tar balls, plastics, rubber, charred wood, and general trash- -such as cigarette and cigar tips, paper, bread wrappers, soda cans, and vegetable wastes, The major sources of the floatable materia;1 were raw sewage discharge, inadequately treated wastewater discharges, • combined sewer overflows, urban runoff, and solid wastes barg- ing operations in New York Harbor. Minor contributions were made by discharges from vessels in the area, ocean dumping of sewage sludge and dredged materials, sanitary landfill operations, and beach litter. These floatables were pro- pelled onto Long Island beaches by the relatively strong and persistent southerly winds. A Federal task force composed of EPA, NOA.A, the Coast Guard and the National Park Service was created after the first reports to determine the cause of the pollution, and Federal, State and local agencies met to discuss the problem. Although total coliuorm levels were e rtremely high in the grease balls which were examined, water samples during the Incidence showed total coliform levels weU within the New York State standard for swimming. By July 1, beach conditions had returned to normal. 39 ------- New Jersey Fish Kill Reports during the July 4th weekend of 1976 from sport divers indicated observations of dead fish and invertebrates on or around shipwrecks off the north Jersey Coast. Initial Investigations show depressed levels of dissolved oxygen. This anoxic condition expanded and moved southward in August. At the same time, unusual concentrations of fish were found near the beach and in the bay and estuaries, most likely avoiding the anoxic area. Extensive mortalities occurred in surf clams, quahogs, lobsters, and other demersal fish and invertebrates. The fish kill resulted from the extended period of low oxygen concentrations in the bottom water below the approximate depth of the thermoclifle (the interface between the warmer surface water and the cool bottom water). The low dissolved oxygen condition was caused by the degradation of dead organisms resulting from a massive phytoplanktofl1 1 (microscopic algal) bloom. The major component was identified by NOAA as ceratium . A combination of climatic conditions and the addition of plant nutrients to the ocean waters off New Jersey from a variety of sources led to the algal bloom. Sewage sludge Is not among the major sources of plant nutrients, and no study on the fish kill found a direct association of sludge dumping and the offshore algal bloom. 40 ------- CHAPTER IV BASELINE AND MONITORING SURVEYS OF DUMP SITES Section 102(c) of the Act authorizes the Administrator to designate recommended sites and times . for dumping, considerinE the criteria of Section 102(a). When the, interim regulations were published, a list of interim dump sites was included. These sites were selected from existing information on ocean dumping and were selected based on historical usage, not on environmental criteria overnin the selection of sites to minimize damage to the marine environment. This was recognized as a temporary expediency, and EPA has since made the commitment that it will comply with EPA’ s re u1atory EIS procedures in the designation of ocean dumping sites for continuinE use. The revised re ulations establish the procedures by which ocean dumping sites will be des1 nated for continuin use. These procedures include the preparation of an EIS for virtually all ocean dump sites designated on a permanent basis. The requirements of the Act and the EPA policy on EIS’s on ocean dumping sites make necessary the collection of a lar e amount of environmental data, at the site itself and in nearby areas, to form the basis for an environmental assessment of the site and to predict the impact of dumping on the site. The data collection requirements needed for an environmental assessment of a dump site have been formalized into a standard baseline survey guideline. This baseline survey ‘uideline was developed in consul- tation with NOAA and will serve as the basic plan for all baseline surveys, with appropriate modifications being made to meet special situations. The basic plan in any baseline survey is to take samples of both water and sediments to determine the levels of specific chemical parameters in and near the dump site. Of particular interest are trace metals and persistent .or anic compounds that might be present in wastes dumped at the site. Samples are also taken of livinE organisms at and near the site in the water column, at the bottom, and in the sedlmenta. This broad scale sarnplin is needed to provide data on the widest possible range of ecological features at the dump site so that an accurate assessment can be made of the possible impact of pollutants at the dump site. Before any acceptable appraisal of conditions at. a.dump site is possible, the full range of seasonal or other periodic variations in conditions must be observed. The baseline survey program began during FY 1974, and additional studies have been conducted on a continuing basis since that time (Table 10). A brief synopsis of each baseline survey presently being conducted follows. 41 ------- TABLE 10 Dump Site Designation and Monitoring Site• Accomplished to Date Remains To Be Done N.Y. S1ud e Site Monthly surveys since monitoring surveys April 1974 Proposed Alter- 3 surveys completed quality control studies nate N.Y. Sludc!e Site N. Y. Acid Site None 4 surveys N.Y. “Cellar None 2 surveys Dirt” Site Site 3 surveys completed monitoring surveys (NOAA) Philadelphia 8 surveys completed + 5 2 surveys + monitoring Sludge Site special surveys completed studies DuPont Site 8 surveys completed + 5 monitoriric studies special surveys completed, combined with Phil. Site Surveys Puerto Rico Site None 3 surveys Galveston Site None 3 surveys (NOAA) Mississippi River None 3 surveys Site Gulf Incineration 4 surveys completed; Site 2 EPA, 1 contract, 1 by Shell Chemical Region I Industrial None 3 surveys Site SPECIAL STUDIES Accomplished todäte Remains To Be Done Biotal Ocean Two sizes of prototypes Design and test benthic Monitor System designed and tested at sea model; develop biolo i- Development cal test procedures. 42 ------- 1. Sewage Sludge Dump Site in the New York Bight Sewage sludge from the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area is currently being dumped at a site approximately twelve miles from shore. While no impact on the shores has yet been indicated in EPA studies from sludge dumped at this site, increased sewac e treatment in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area will result in greater volumes of sludge to be disposed of during the next few years. Much of this sludge may have to be ocean dumped at this site as an interim measure until an alternative form of ultimate disposal is selected and Implemented. In early 1974, EPA requested NOAA to recommend other areas in the New York Bight for study as alternate sludge dumping sites. NOAA recommended two areas, one north and one south of the Hudson Canyon. EPA has completed studies, by contract, of the north area recommended by NOAA about 60 miles from shore. The first survey was conducted during September and October 1974; the second during January and February 1975; and the third survey during July and August 1975. EPA also supported studies by NOAA in other parts of the New York Bight and used the results of these studies, as well as its own studies, to prepare an EIS on ocean dumping of sewage sludge in the New York Bight. This EIS was made available, in draft form, for public comment in February 1976. The conclusions reached in the EIS were that dumping should continue at the existing site, that a comprehensive monitoring prograiu should be main- tained for the existing site, and that the alternate site should be designated so that It can be used when and if the monitoring program Indicates that the existing site cannot safely accommodate any more sewage sludge. Steps are now being taken to implement the conclusions reached in the EIS. 2. Philadelphia/Camden and DuPont Dump Sites off Delaware Bay. There were two active disposal sites in Region III during 1976, both located approximately 40 miles off the Maryland/Delaware coast (Sea Figure III). The site designated as the DuPont site was recommended by the U. S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in 1968. Ocean disposal of’DuPont’s wastes began in September 1968, In an area centered about 10 nautical miles southwest of the designated site on a temporary basis. This alternate area (later designated as the Philadelphia! Camden site) was used until July 1969, pending completion of predisposal surveys in the designated site. The surveys were completed in June 1969, and bargingbegan In the DuPont site In July 1969, Monitoring and dispersion studies were conducted 43 ------- under EPA grants at the DuPont site between 1970 and 1976. The Philadelphia/Camden site was designated in May 1973 with the be innin of the Ocean Dumping Permit Program. Prior to May 1973, the Cities of Camden and Philadelphia utilized a site approximately 11 miles seaward of the mouth of the Delaware Bay. EPA Region III, in May 1973. initiated a field monitorinE pro- gram on the two active dumpsites. The program was designed with emphasis on the lon er term, more persistent effects, especially on the benthic environment, as contrasted to the more transient effects in the water column. To supplement the field monitoring, special studies were conducted to determine such things as waste dispersion and transport, in situ waste toxicity and bacterial decay. Since the last annual report, cruises were conducted in December 1975, June 1976 and August 1976. About 20-25 histori- cal stations were sampled on each survey. An intensive bottom sampling rid, with stations one mile apart, was also part of the surveys in the sewage slud e site. Special studies conducted in 1976 included the following: a description of inferred bedload transport in the dump areas; the development of a mathematical model of dispersion and settling of sewage sludge in the Philadelphia site; a descrip- tion of surface and mid-level circulation in the disposal area; and the initiation of an extensive and exhaustive compilation of data and literature pertinent to the area. It is EPA t s intent to begin preparation of a detailed environmental assessment of ocean dumpinE at the Philadelphia dump site. 3. Mixed Industrial Wastes Dump Site, East of Cape Henlopen, Delaware. (tt 106 t1 site) This dumpsite is located 106 nautical miles southeast of Ambrose Light (at the entrance to New York Harbor) and approximately 90 nautical miles due east of Toms River, New Jersey. The area is bounded by 38°40’N to 39°00’N and 72°OO 1 W to 72°30’W. The site is off the continental shelf at depths ranging from 1, 550 nieters(m.) in the northwest corner of the site to 2, 750 m. in the relatively flat southeast corner. 44 ------- The bottom, for the most part, is characterized by a ru ed topography. A major topo raphic feature of the re rion, the Hudson Canyon, is to the north, northeast, and east of the dump site. This site is used by over 17 different permittees primarily in the New Jersey area for the disposal of Industrial chemicals. Typical waste materials include water solutions of Inorcranlc salts with trace amounts of or anic materials, liquid wastes from manufacture of non-persistent or anophosphate pesticides, liquid wastes from textile manufacturing, residual sludcies from pa1vanizin and platino operations, and similar materials result- in from diverse manufacturing processes. Containerized radioactive wastes were dumped in a location just south of the present site several years a o and prior to enactment of the Act. In May 1974 NOAA be ’an a series of baseline surveys of this dumpsite in cooperation with EPA, the Vir inla Institute of Marine Sciences, the Woods Hole Oceano rraphic Institution, the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University, and the Smithsonian Institution. The cruise report has now been completed. Additional cruises were conducted in July 1975. The July cruise made use of the manned submersible ALVIN, and data were also collected at the radioactive waste dumping area south of the dump site. The hydrography of the dump site area Is complex and the currents are seasonally variable. Any one of three water masses may be present at different times or at different levels in the water column; shelf, slope, and Gulf Stream water have all been identified. Circulation patterns are affected by mixing across frontal zones. Currents run predominantly southward along the coast, while the Gulf Stream runs generally northeastward. The slope water may circulate In a cyclonic ‘yre. Surface circulation is primarily a function of season. In addition to hydrography, studies have also been made In the water column of the occurrence and, In some cases, relative abundance of nutrients, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton, and nekton. The ocean bottom at the dumpslte has also been lnvestl ated by means of echo-soundlri , photo raphy, trawlin , and quantitative samplln in order to describe aspects of ‘eblo y, øeochemistry, and benthic fauna. !nvesti ations have been made of heavy metal and other contaminants In water, sediments, and In the tisaue of larger benthic fishes and Invertebrates. 45 ------- In February 1976, NOAA and EPA sponsored a third baseline study cruise of the 106-mile dump site, using the NOAA R/V OREGON II. A variety of environmental data was collected under winter conditions to define statistically spatial and temporal marine environmental variations. Selected research was also conducted on the reactions of specific pollutants being dumped. Primary support was provided by scientists at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, by the University of Rhode Island, and by NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service laboratories. These efforts will be combined with other seasonal surveys to develop as environmental baseline of the 106-mile dump site. Two large-scale experimental studies were also carried out at this site later in 1976; one in June using the USCG cutter DALLAS and the submersible ALVIN; and one in August usIng the Woods Hole ship R/V KNORR. These studies included the tracking of waste materials using acoustic methods and investigatiOns of biological effects. Scientists have been able to follow plumes of pollutants dumped at the site for up to 24 hours. Some low-density wastes mixed rapidly with surface waters, while other wastes sank more rapidly and formed layers in varioué regions of discontinuity (pycrocline). The presence of waste layers poses concern of possible effects In two major components of the food web: planktonic animals and small vertically migrating species of fish, None of the wastes dumped at the 106-mile site apparently reaches the bottom in that vicinity. Findings to date are Indicative of the difficulties inherent in measuring and predicting waste disposal effects in areas off the Continental Shelf. Conditions such as depth, distance from shore, swift and complex ocean currents, and different water mass boundaries make for both effective waste dispersal and difficult monitoring of effects. NOAA and EPA are now entering a monitoring phase in this area leading to assessment and pre- diction of ocean dispersal effects. 4. Gulf Incineration Site As a result of two burns under research permits and two burns under an interim permit of the organochlorine wastes from the Shell Chemical Company, environmental data on the site and on the impacts of burning at the site were collected. A report on the entire program of this incineration has been published, and about 2, 000 copies have been distributed. 46 ------- Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements have been published re ardins the site, and the designation of the site for ocean incineration of or anoch1orine wastes was published in September 1976. With that final designation, this site became the first ocean dump site that has been approved on other than an interim basis. The designation provides for a period of use: through September 1981. 5. Radioaëtive Waste Dump Site Surveys Since 1974 the EPA Office of Radiation Pro ramg has con- ducted a program of environmental assessment surveys at three of the four primary radioactive waste disposal sites used between 1946 and 1970. Although ocean dumping of radioactive wastes by the United States was discontinued in 1970, recent problems with existing land burial sites and a national policy decision to look at all radioactive waste management alternatives has resulted in renewed consideration of the ocean disposal option, for which EPA has the regulatory authority. As a result of surveys of the Pacific dump sites at depths of 900 m. and 1700 m. off the California coast, and the Atlantic 2800 m. dump site off the Maryland-Delaware coast, two basic conclusions have emerged: (1) Techniques formerly used to package the radioactive wastes for ocean disposal were, in general, not adequate to insure that the wastes would remain Isolated from the surrounding environment. (2) If ocean disposal of low-level radioactive wastes were to commence in the future, the technology currently exists to pre - cisely survey or monitor a deep Ocean site to detéctthe possible release and movement of selected radionuclides and to recover waste packages disposed at depths up to 2800 m. A. Farallon Islands 1700 m. Dump Site The EPA Fourth Annual Report on Ocean Dumping discussed the preliminary findin s of plutonium contamination in the sedi- ments at the 1700 m. site atlévels comparable to those found at the 900 m. site in a 1974 survey. Since that time the radio- analysis of sediments from the 1700 m. dump site has been completed and all of the samples analyzed showed pltttonium -239, -240 concentrations in surface sediments at levels 3 to 30 times higher than the maximum expected concentration that could have resulted from weapons testing fallout alone. Plutonium-238 was also detected in the surface sediments but at concentrations lower than the phitonium-239, -240 concentrations. However, 47 ------- one sediment sample taken close to a visibly imploded container showed plutoniurn-23 8 contamination at a level four times higher than the h1 hest p1utonium-2 39 -240 concentratiOn, further con- firming that the radioactive waste containers have been the source of the plutonium release at this site. Althou ’h the concentrations of plutonium detected in the Pacific dump sites so far do not represent a risk to man or the marine environment, the dump site does represent a unique study area to develop a radionuclide transport model based on measured processes rather than postulated conditions. B. Atlantic 2800 m. Dump Site The EPA Fourth Annual Ocean Dumping Report also discussed preliminary evidence of a measurable directional bottom current in this site. Since that time the first quantitative bottom current measurements in the dump site were made for a three month period from August throtwh October 1976. Initial results indicate the presence of a measurable current with an average velocity of approximately 10 cm/sec and a maximum velocity of 50 cm/sec in the northeast corner of the site- -a velocity of sufficient maE- nitude to transport radioactive materials in solution and adsorbed to sediments. Longer-term measurements must be taken to corro- borate what appears to be an anticycloflic pyre -like movement of the bottom water around the dump site and to determine whether si nific ant seasonal variations in the velocity exist. A comprehensive survey of the dump site was conducted dur- mE July-AuEust 1976, usinE the deep submersible ALVIN. A pro ram of sediment coring at precisely located positions both throuEhOut the 100 square mile dump site area and relative to specific radioactive waste containers was successfully completed. The cores are beinE analysed to determine: (a) the extent and direction of radlonuclide contamination of the sediments, partic- ularly cesium-i3 7 , (b) the bioloEical infauna populations within the site, and (c) the sediment retention characteristics at the site. Of particular siEnificance during the 1976 survey was the recovery of an 80-Eallon radioactive waste container from a depth of 2800 m. (9300 feet). The container was dumped approximately fifteen years ago. This recovery is unique and required a specially-desiEned container attachment device, a computerized precision naviEatiOfl system, and a special synthetic lift line. The recovered packaEe consisted of a mild-steel container filled with concrete in which the radioactive waste material was 48 ------- imbedded. The package is being analyzed for metal corrosion rate, and matrix degradation and leach rates. Preliminary evi- dence su ests that the recovered container has withstood the ri ors of its immersion surprisin ’ly well. There appears to be limited surface corrosion and the concrete matrix seems to have cured, becoming more durable although still permeable. The other major dump site requlrin a site-specific study is the Atlantic 3800 m. site located approximately 200 miles east of the Maryland-Delaware coast. Between 1957 and 1959 this site received approximately 15, 000 drums of radioactive waste with an estimated activity of 2100 curies at the time of packa in . This site has become more Important recently since it would closely approximate conditions at and below 4000 m., which is the mini- mum acceptable disposal depth currently bein considered internationally for radioactive waste disposal pursuant to the International Ocean D mpin Convention. Sl nificant progress has been made in the environmental assess- ment surveys of the Pacific Farallon Islands 900 m. and 1700 m. dumpsites and the Atlantic 2800 m. site. A comprehensive report on the results of the 1974-1975 surveys will be Issued next year with a report on the above 1976 Atlantic 2800 m. dump site survey scheduled for 1978. The results of U. S. east and west coast assessment surveys will provide a major part of the technical basis for determjnjn the feasibility of ocean disposal of low-level radioactive wastes in an environmentally acceptable manner. This survey informa- tion will also be used in the preparation of a enerlc Environmental Impact Statement relative to any proposed revisions of the ocean dumping regulations and criteria re ardin disposal of such low- level radioactive wastes. ------- CHAPTER V ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS RESEARCH IN 1976 EPA ’s Office of Research and Development has continued to support the mandates of the Act, with an ag resslve research program. In Fiscal Year (FY) 1976 the level of effort was directly Increased through the allocation of additional money by the Congress for research in the area of ocean disposal. This has allowed a variety of new studies to be started and has increased the level of in-house support. The most noteworthy progress made in FY 76 was the revision of the Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria. These revisions have clarified the criteria by whièh environmental acceptability is evaluated and allowable waste concentrations are determined. EPA and the COE were jointly responsible for the development of the procedures and methodologies by which these determina- tions are made. One major change effected by the new regulations Is In terms of criteria which require liquid, suspended particulate, and benthic bioassays for many of the waste classes. The Office of Research and Development also supports the permit and enforcement aspects of the program through Its ability to supply technical experts to review permit applications and testify In legal proceedings. The following descriptions of research projects represent only those specifically responsive to The Act. Development of Benthic Bioassay Techniques A bioassay procedure for evaluating the effects of dumping using representative benthic or anlsms has been established. T ie survival of the component species will be lnvestj ated and related to sediment changes resulting from various depths of introduced materials. Experiments will be performed with natural sediments, polluted sediments and sediments of different particle sizes. Organisms will include polychaetes, amphipods and inolluscan species. 51 ------- • Assessment of the Near-field Dilution and Dispersion of Sewage Sludge in the Wake of Discharging Barges . Two studies were undertaken, one to examine the physical processes within the water column, the other to examine chem- ical partitioning and trophic level accumulation of trace metals. The physical study sought to determine the dispersion of sewage sludge from dumping operations in the New York Bight area. Sludge vessels from metropolitan New York were monitored under controlled discharge conditions while underway and while stopped. Salinity, temperature and depth (STD) and percent light transmission were measured continuously to define the vertical and horizontal limits of the sewage field in space and time. Cor- relations between extinction coefficients and total suspended matter (TSM) were also made providing a continuous trace of TSM. Labor- atory measurements of the physical characteristics of the sludge were determined from samples collected from the sewage vessels. Four data reports are in the final stages of publication and an analysis of the study has been published. The chemical studies resulted from cruises that examined sludge disposal practices outside the immediate New York Bight area. Serial water samples were taken in the middle and lateral portions of the sludge plume. Conservative constituents of the waste were determined to reveal particulate/dissolved phase partitioning, dilution rates, and physical behavior. The results of these inves ,- tigatlons will be used to Investigate metals accumulation in several trophic levels of biota and to compare sediment geochemical data. The interactions between sediments and bottom fauna will also be studied. Influence of Sewage Sludge and Dredged Material Disposal on Trace Metal Assimilation by Organisms . This research effort assessed the sediment water exchange rates of metals and nutrients in clean and polluted sediments and studied the influence of bioturbation on the exchange rates. Methods to measure these rates at disposal sites were investigated. Initial results, from measurements of sediments, interstitial, and over- lying water reveal that organic leaching rates may control the rate at which metal species become available. In highly polluted areas metals tend to be retained as sulfides, whereas sulfates would exist in less polluted areas where higher. oxygen levels prevail. Future work will be initiated to measure the actual flux from dredged material and from clean sediments where organic loadings are essentially absent. 52 ------- • The Problems of Ocean Dumping Stability and Resiliency in Experimental Ecosystems Exposed to Constant and Time- varying’ Stresses . Research was intiated to elucidate the lono -term consequences resultinc from the dlschar e of complex wastes, such as sewacre slud ’e, on marine ecosystems. Experimental microcosms are used to study the tolerance, structural chan eg and metabolic dynamics of an imposed sewa e sludcie stress. Resiliency and recovery thresholds are also belnc examined. • Dredcted Material and Sewage Sludge in the Trace Metal Bu&,et of Estuarine and Coastal Waters . The primary objective of this project is to determine the rate and chemical nature of heavy metal releases from polluted sedi- ments to estuarine and coastal waters. The approach is to analyze sediments, Interstitial and overlying waters in selected sample locations (from the head to the mouth of the Hudson River estuary) for several heavy metals and a number of stable radioactive tracers 4 Nutrient budgets and metal cycles will be determined to. aid develop.-: ment of meaningful dred 4n policies for the Hudson estuary and to advance knowledge of the behavior of toxic metals at the critical fresh water/salt water interface in an urbanized estuarine system. • Environmental Monitorlnr Us1ns Molluscan Shell-Growth and Life History Data . The project focuses on the development of a manual of teóh- niques describing methods for extractln molluscan life history data from shell structures or death assembla es. illustrations. of the shell growth technique as an indicator of environmental stress will be made at the Brenton Reef, R. I., dredged material site us1n the bivalve, Arctica islandica , while populationstatistics of several short-lived species will be examined at the New Haven Conn., dredged material site. . The techniques and Illustrations will substantially aid our ability to assess lon -term impact. on marine benthic populations by dreds In operations. 53 ------- • Indi enou8 Shellfish Species as indicators of the Bioavailabilityl. of Sewacte and Industrial Waste Contaminants Disposed at Sea . Clean, healthy sea scallops from unpolluted waters have been placed in non-metallic cages on the sea floor for periods of 3 months in areas down current and upcurrent from two disposal sites. Subse- quent to recovery, tissue analyses for metals associated with disposed wastes are performed in order to assess both bioavailabilitY and uptake rates. Parallel analyses of sediments are made to determine if accumulation patterns are revealed in the substrate and thereby indicate longer term potential availability to benthic populations. Collections of two commercially-valued shellfish, the sea scallop ( Placo ectefl ma ellanicuS ) and the maho any clam ( Arctica islandica) , are being made in and around two ocean dumpsites on the continental shelf. Tissue analyses revealed si nificaflt accumulations of metals closely associated with the dumping activity both directly beneath the actual sites and in down-current regiOns many tens of kilometers away. Patterns have been shown to persist in collections made on several research cruises. Results have been used extensively in public hearing testimony pertainir1 to renewal of ocean dumping permits. Assessment of Ecosystem Impact Along Gradients from Stressed to Uiistressed Environments Using Introduced Species as Biological Monitors . Both short and lone-term trends within estuarirle and marine eco- systems will be examined in a series of coordinated projects that will use various sensitive but common species introduced into stressed areas as biological monitors. In the Narra aflSett Bay p’radient, particular emphasis will be placed on trends resultifls from episodic events such as storm runoff, passin t ship turbulence, and seasonal temperature fluctuations as well as outfall impacts. Caped mussels and scallops will be examined for a broad series of physiolOc?iC and biochemical parameters subsequent to controlled exposure. Loncter term events and trends will be assessed under a o’rant where mussels from a variety of coastal zones nationwide will be examined in depth for indicators of prolonged impact. 54 ------- • Spatial-temporal Variations in the Structure of Macrobenthi.c Communities in the New York Bight South of Fire Island . To define annual, seasonal, and spatial variations in the species composition, dominance, density, and diversity of benthic communities in the New York Bight, five replicate Smith-McIntyre benthic grab samples are collected quarterly at 15 stations in the study area. Specimens retained on a 1. 0 mm screen are identified to the species level. and enumerated. Data analysis involves a variety of structural parameters. Surveys have been conducted since December 1972. A report on spatial temporal heterogeneity Is In preparation. • Methodology for Ecological Investigations of Environmental Perturbations . Studies have been initiated (1) to assess the applicability, efficacy, and problems of interpretation of multivariate analysis in aquatic ecological assessments of environmental perturhat ons and (2) to assess spatial and temporal parameters In several ways to determine the Impact of single sources of pollution on otherwise unaffected offshore areas. These studies should provide for the development of guidelines and for the selection of appropriate methods based on practicality, theoretical considerations., and ecological relevancy. . • Biological Analysis of Primary Productivity and Related Processes in New York Harbor as Reflective o Changing Water Quality . This four-year study of New York Harbor and adjacent waters by the Louis Calder Conservation and Ecology Center of Fordham University was initiated in 1974 in conjunction with the New York Ocean Science Laboratory. Project objectives are: (1) to provide information relevant to the kinds of treatment necessary for municipal waste discharge Into coastal waters and how the various treatments might influence water quality, Including how changes in water q iality may lead to massive algal blooms (noxious and/or toxic) In these waters; (2) to determine whether the quality of the waters in New York Harbor is being affected or would be affected by materials flowing into the area from the current offshore sludge dumping sites or from proposed alternate sites and how the toxigeriicity of these materials to the primary producers Is reflective of changing water quality; and (3) to construct a dynamic and predictive màdel system to be used in the economic, sociological, and scientific planning for the future development of water resources in this area. 55 ------- • Revision of the Koh-Chaflg Barge Model for DispersiOfl Dredged Material! . The Koh-Chang Barge Model is being evaluated and modified based on field and laboratory studies to improve its predictive capabilities for open water dredged material disposal. The model is also being simplified to tatiilltlate its use by EPA regional personnel the COE, and other pt ospective users. The output of the model should provide data itt a format usable by biologists in making assessments of potential ecological effects. • Chemical Effects of Waste Disposal . Two studies have been initiated to address chemical aspects associated with ocean disposal of wastes. One study will develop predictive models for impact assessment relating to the chemical behavior of metals and for regulating disposal activities. The technical approach involves improvement of an existing model developed for ocean outfalls. This study will attempt to predict partitioning of the dissolved and particulate phases upon disposal and the long-term mobilization potetttlal of sedimetited metal species and will seek to identify Valid tracers to measure fates of various waste constituents. The econd study will assess the accumulation characteristics attd biological consequences of trace organic compounds (chlorinated hydx’ arbonS and high molecular weight aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons) in estuarine ecosys- tems as a function of the input me haniBmS, the circulation characteristics, and the primary productivity of the area. 56. ------- CHAPTER VI ALTERNATIVES TO OCEAN DUMPING In its first four years of regulatory authority over ocean dumping, EPA has taken a hiEhly restrictive approach toward applying the criteria embodied in the Act by requirln all dumpers to actively seek alternatives to ocean dumplnp even when their wastes have met the published EPA criteria for lssuln permits. During these four years EPA has brought all ocean dumping in the United States under full regulatory control and has required many dumpers either to stop dumping immediately or to phase out their dumping activities within the next few years. EPA has taken this approach because of the general lack of specific knowledge about the impacts of waste materials on marine ecosystems. As the results of research now underway become available, it may 1 e possible to become more selective in per- mittin the digposai o some wastes by ocean dumping, if it can be demonstrated t at the disposal will not cause unreasonable de ra- dation of the marine environment. EPA has published revisions to the ocean dumping criteria in January 1977. Thø e revisions do not chance the regulatory approach used in the program, but they provide an additional measure of enviroziznental safety, as well as additional flexibility in the lor term mana ement of ocean dumpln sites. The criteria establish levels of impact which define t unreasonable degradation” on a quantitative bagis based on monitorin of each dump site. The criteria allgw EPA, to modify the use of any site to avoid unreasonable de radatton. By using this approach it will be possible to permit some ocean dumpini of certain materials which meet the criteria without causing ai, n1ticaiit damage to the marine environment. However, at the present time some of the wastes being dumped do not meet the criteria, and, as a consequence, the dumpers of these wastes are beft e required to seek other alternatives for ultlr iate dispos 4, of w astes which nii ht cause unreasonable de adation to the marine environment. In particular, It is the intent of EPA Regions U and III to phase out the current dumpln of sei a e sludge In the ocean by 1981, since the slud e does not meet the criterla ., 57 ------- Alternatives for Municipal Sludg Disposal The City of Philadelphia is required to end ocean dumping of sewage sludge by or before 1981. To meet the 1981 dead- line, Philadelphia has developed a 10-point master plan to select and implement alternatives. EPA Region III is cooper- ating with the City of Philadelphia, the U. S. Department of Agriculture t s Agricultural Research Service in Beltsville, Md, and others to determine metals uptake from the application of sludge to cropland, involving both composting and liquid appli- cation projects. The City has begun small scale liquid sludge application on city lands. EPA has funded feasibility projects to use sludge in strip mine reclamation, including research by the University of Pennsylvania that is monitored by the State of Pennsylvania. Franklin Institute in conjUflCtiofl with EPA is studying the environmental acceptability of ECO Rock, a high- way aggregate made from sludge, to determine whether this material in its final form has any appreciable leaching of heavy metals and to test it for specific uses; i. e., as base- rock for road foundations. In addition, the City has begun a sludge give -away pro- gram (Phiorganic) using aged lagooned sludge as a source. Following installation of dewatering equipment they hope to use stabilized daily_generated sludge as the source. This is sludge that is now being ocean dumped. Philadelphia has promulgated pre-treatment regulations effective July 1977 in order to reduce concentrations of heavy metals entering the sludge. In December 1976 EPA Region II approved a $1.3 million grant to the City of Camden under Construction Grant funding to construct sludge composting facilities as an immediate alternative for sludges presently ocean dunipéd. This will allow Camden to phase out ocean dumping during 1977 and will demonstrate that technology exists for the composting of large volumes of municipal sludges. Cook College (Rutgers University) is heavily involved in the evaluation of producing and utilizing the compost product. Meanwhile, incineration, pyrolysis, and land appUcation are being examined in more detail. All other barged ocean dumping of sewage sludge is by municipalities located in EPA Region II. To meet the goal of ending the dumping by these municipalities by 1981, EPA Region U in conjunction with the States of New York and New Jerèey has initIated a comprehensive program for development of land-based alternatives to ocean dumping for these municipalities. The first phase of the study, a technical examination of applicable alternative 58 ------- methods, was completed in June 1975. The contractor’s report recommended that the most desirable alternative to ocean dumping for the urban metropolitan area was dewatering of the sludge with filter presses followed by pyrolysis. Current estimates indi- cate that the implementation of this process would cost one -half billion dollars. The report also recommended that a smaU- scale pilot study be started immediately to develop engineering design parameters needed prior to full-scale demonstration, since pyrolysis of sewage sludge is still under development. In their Phase II report which was completed in June 1976, the contractor developed in specific terms a recommended technical plan for sludge management on a regional basis for the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area. This plan included recommended site locations, capital and operating costs, energy recovery, and an environmental impact assess- ment for the processes recomm nded In Phase I. The third phase, completed in October 1976, addressed the legal and Institutional arrangements for authorization and administration of the operating program identified in Phases I and IL The completion of this three-phase comprehensive study provides the framework for implementation of a potential program of land- based alternatives to ocean dumping of sludge in the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area. ORD has awarded a contract to Nichols Eri ineerin to eval- uate an existing GSA multiple hearth incinerator located in Belle Meade, N. J., as a pyrolysis unit for pyrolizing secondary sludge, to set design parameters, and to investigate any previously unforeseen environmental consequences. Similar work was done at Concord, California, with a Step I Construction Planning Grant. ORD is also evaluating a new pyrolysis process developedby Union Carbide. Finally, most of the ORD technological activities focus on develop - Ing management schemes which will permit land application practices commensurate with the goals of EPA; I. e., econo- mically feasible and environmentally sound. The marine environment Is, however, only a part of the total environments which must be used for the ultimate disposal of wastes, and problems which affect the marine environment and solutions to these problems must be viewed in terms of their interrelation with the total envii ’onmènt. F r example, EPA under the mandate of the Act Is in the process of phasing out ocean dumping of materials ‘whith do not meet the criteria, but this creates other envirOnmental problems. Some alterna- t1ve forrn of dieposal must be. deve pped for each waste that is 59 ------- phased out of ocean dumping. Considerable research is going into the development of alternative methods of disposal which will reduce the environmental, effects of the ultimate disposal of the unavoidable residue - be it solid, liquid, or gas either on the land, in the water, or in the air. EPA is concerned particularly about the problem of the ultimate disposal of sewage sludge, which will be produced in ever Increasing quantities as municipalities install more advanced forms of sewage treatment. EPA, continuing the work of its predecessor agencies, has been developing environmentally acceptable methods for the disposal and management of municipal sludge since the enact- ment of the first Federal water pollution control laws. The study of alternatives to ocean dumping of municipal sludge normally has been funded not through the ocean dumping program, but under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), since municipal sludge is a by-product of the sewage treatment process. The initial phases of the research program were concerned with the characteristics and dewateriflg properties of primary and secondary sludge because of the need to dewater sludge before its ultimate disposal. The current research. and demon- stration program emphasis has shifted toward development of improved technology for returning sludge to the environment in an ecologically acceptable manner. In FY 76 nearly $3 million was allocated on such programs, including secondary health and ecological effects of the alternatives to ocean disposal (Table 11). The emphasis of these projects was on beneficial utilization, i. e., land application for soil enhancement, crop production and reclamation of disturbed lands, the production of energy, and resource recovery. EPA plans to continue its comprehensive program for muni- cipal wastewater sludge management, including the development of a strategy to coordinate the various Agency activities regarding sludge management. This program will concentrate on demonstra- tion of new technologies which will recycle or reuse sludges, or recover residuals contained in the sludges. For example, new technologies are being examined to determine if there are cost- effective methods for producing or recovering marketable products in the processing of sludge. These products include metals recovery, organic acids, fertilizer bases, soil conditioner, methane, and the recovery of process heat. The program will also provide guidance for controlling unacceptable land disposal practices under the Resource Conservation and. Recovery Act of 1976. 60 ------- TABLE 11 Major Projects Funded in EPA R&D Programs for Municipal Sludge Technology & Health Effects Task Description Fundin Level FY75 FY76 FY77 Te 1i io1o y R&D (Contracts & Grants) Processing & Treatment a. Disinfection/StablizatiOn $665K $300K $29 1K (Includes irradiation and corriposting) b. Dewaterin 265 120 - c Metals Extraction Processes - 155 100 d Heat Treatment 138 190 50 e. En ineerin , economic, sociological evaluations, and guidance documents (EESE, CD) 285 Conversion Processing a. Fuel substitution 380 - b. Pyrolysis 205 350 - c. Non-thermal Processes 450 100 61 d. EESE, GD 8 - - e. Environmental Effects - 200 Utilization on Land a. Agricultural Land 231 526 416 b. Renovation of Improverished 100 100 100 Land c. Non-Food Crops 78 78 - d. Disposal 50 82 50 e. EESE, GD - 50 75 Other Projects 89 132 Technology R&D (In-House) 510 630 565 Sub Total of Technology R&D $3, 080K $2, 770K $2, 325K Health Effects R&D• 68K 558K 620K Total $3,148K $3,328K $2,945K 61 ------- Health effects research will include investigations into land applicatiOfl disinfection, and composting. The health effects of airborne ontarnjflafltS from incinerators and the improved technology for reducing or eliminating pollution emissions will be evaluated. It is also EPA’ s intent to continue cooperative agreements with other Federal, State and local agencies. In addition to research and demonstration programs, EPA is undertaking pilot studies for the design of new and Innovative technologies for sludge as well as studies of regional solutions to sludge issues. Presently over $17 miflion has either been obligated or is in the process of being committed for such studies (Table 12). This work is being done under the FWPCA. One alternative showing particular promise is the composting of sludge with various bulking agents such as wood chips, bark or solid waste. EPA has a joint project with the AgricultUral Research Service at Beltsville, Maryland and is conducting a composting demonstration program in Bangor, Maine. CompostiflE processes stabilize the sludge and, when properly operated can kill pathogenic organisms In the process. The land area required for composting as a means of stabilizing sludges is small, and In some cases an energy saving can be realized by using this method. The product resulting from composting has been shown to be an excellent soil conditioner. Another alternative being used by many cities is the direct application of liquid or dewatered sludge to farm land or forests. EPA estimates that about 25% of the municipal sludges are currently being disposed of in this manner. This method has been frequently used to provide all or part of the fertilizer requirements for growing forage crops and grain. Such direct applications of sludge have also been used to reclaim strip mined or otherwise disturbed lands (shifting sand dunes, mine spoi1 s, etc.). EPA has initiated studies to survey the results of such programs in an effort to more adequately document the current nationwide practices in land application of sludges. 62 ------- TABLE 12 Status of Step I Construction Grants Funding Sludge Managm ent Studies * Region I - Greater Boston (MDC), Mass. (facility plan, EIS) . . . $ 136, 000 — Putnam, Conri. • • • • • • . . . . . • • • • . . . . . 7, 500 — Paris, ]Vlaine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,000** approx, Region II - New York/New Jersey Metro Area (ISC) . . . . . . . 4, 500, 000*** Region HI - Beltsville, Md. (Composting Facility) . . . . . . . 1, 067, 250 - Washington, D.C. (Finished.Dec. ‘75) • . . . . . . 100,000 Region IV - Daytona Beach, Fla. . . . . . (facility plan) . . . ** - Lee County, Fla. . . . . . . (facility plan) • • . 79, 800** - Jacksonville, Fla. . . . . . . (facility plan) . . . 50, 000 - Winston/Salem, N. C., possible In future Region V - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minn. . . . . . . . . . . . • 319, 714 — Detroit, Mich. . . . . . . . . (W/Eis) . . . . . . 750, 000** — Greeneville, Ohio . . . . . . . (into Step II & III) - Sandusky, Ohio . . . . . . . . . (into Step II & III) — Chicago,(MSD),fll. ................ 1,734,000** — Madison, Wiac. . . . . . . . . .(w/EIS) . . . . . . 160, 000** — Hammond,Ind. .................... 30,000** Region VI - Houston, Texas . . . . . . . . . (mostly sludge) . . 1,000, 000 - San Antonio, Texas, possible in future Region VII - Kansas City, Mo. . . . . . . . . (partially sludge) Region VIII - Metro Denver, Co. . •1 • • .. • • . . . . . 124, 950 Region IX - Los Angeles/OMA, Calif. • . . . . . . . . 2, 000, 000 - Bay Area, Calif. . . . . . (mci. Contra Costa). 2, 000, 000 - Orange Co.JPL, Calif. . . . . . . . ,.. . . . 2,000,000 Region X - Seattle, Wash. . . • . . . .(park devel.) . . . 565, 318 (forest appi.) . • 234, 000 * Step I Construction Grants funds or related Federal/State matching funds ** Grant Award Pending *** Nearly $1, 500, 000 is pending award 63 ------- Utilization of compost and-direct land application of sludges are examples of alternative methods of sludge management where the nutrient and soil conditioning values of the sludge are being used. Several firms are attempting to fortify sludge with nitrogen to make it a high grade fertilizer. Another practice that has been accepted in several areas of the country for many years involves the commercial operator who simply bags dried sludge and sells it as a soil conditioner. However, any disposal/management alternative which results in sludge being applied to the land creates the potential for pollutants, particularly trace metals and persistent organics, to leach into ground water or enter the food chains and land application may not be the best alternative for some sludges formerly ocean dumped. In urban areas where the scarcity of open land inhibits the employment of any alternatives using land application, pyrolysis may be the answer. Pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition of materials into gases, liquids, and char under low oxygen conditions. The gases and liquids can be used as a fuel, while the char is generally amenable to landfill disposal. A pilot facility at Orange County, California, is being tested in an effort to convert the sludge pyrolysis char into activated carbon. The carbon will then be recycled to treat the sewage. In this way it may be possible to upgrade the convention i activated sludge system to achieve a substantial reduction in the quantity of sludge. Another pilot study was undertaken at Contra Costa County, California, where sludge and refuse-derived fuel (RDF), were co-pyrolyzed to produce the energy needed to operate the facility. Such a system may also produce some e ccess power. In another program, a pilot pyrolysis plant converting solid waste has been built by EPA in conjunction with the City of Baltimore, Maryland. At present, the ope ration of the plant is awaiting the correction of technological problems encountered during the plant’s trial run. Another pyrolysis system using solid waste, sludge,and coal is being developed in South Charleston, West Virginia with the aid of an EPA grant. Finally, EPA Region II has provided a grant of $69, 000 to the Interstate Sanitation Commission for the cQnv r, iOfl of an existing sludge incinerator into a pilot pyrOi3Sia plant for sewage sludge. Once constructed, It is expected that the plant should significantly reduce air pollution prg 1ems, and the residue should be of better quality for landfill disposal. However, until pyrolysis is perfected, traditional sludge incineration may be the best sludge disposal alternative for those urban areas without air pollution problems. 64 ------- At present, the elimination of unacceptable ocean dumping is a laudable goal. The pursuit of alternative methods of waste disposal must be continued. However, there are many remaining unanswered questions regarding the overall problem of the pollution of the marine environment, what is known about it, and what are the Impacts of alternative methods of disposal. There may be circumstances where ocean dumping of certain wastes may cause no harm to the ocean or may be the most overall environmentally acceptable solution. Thus, while EPA is continuing to scrutinize careftilly all applications for ocean disposal permits to insure that harmful dumping is eliminated as rapidy as possible, it is Investigating the broader issue of sludge utilization or disposal to develop the most environmentally accepted waste management program. The general problem of pollution of the marine environment has numerous components, of which pollution by ocean dumping is only one. Other significant sources of pollution are ocean outfalls, discharges from offshore platforms, and land runoff from rivers and estuaries. Most forms of pollution from these sources are regulated under the FWPCA Amendments of 1972 through the National Pollutant D LSÔharr e Elimination System, and specifically Section 403(c) hic h requires the setting of bcean discharge criteria for ocean outfalla. In 1ookjn to the future, it can be expected that increases in population and industral growth in coastal areas, which historically tend to grow more rapidy than inland areas, will result in greater pressures for ocean disposal either by outfall or by dumping, in addition to much larger quantities of effluents being discharged in rivers and estuaries. AU these sources of pollution of the tharine environment must be regu- lated and strictly controlled to limit adverse impacts and to insure that the best environmental alternatives are chosen. 65 ------- APPENDIX A Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 and Amendments Public Law 92-532 jp Yj 92nd Congress, H 4 R. 9727 October 23, 1972 n it - — 86 STA ’P. 1052 ‘i” rrgul ,ite. thr tra q s ,rtiiti n i r 1uiupLu5. ntai the tit ping, nt aat , ’riaI into lfliflhI Va ters, HIICI f4)r otIn r 1)l Ei $e . lie i emwk,I by f lie .Seni4e aad 110)18?’ 0/ Repi ’e.teiitatii’e of tlft’ I iilted iiiIe of A eriea in Congi’e. a. emb1ed, That this Act may i1ai .ne Protec— he tited ts the Marine Protection, Research, and S ietuaries Act of tion, Kesearoh, 197 ”. and Sanotuariae YINDIXG POLICY, .tND PURPOSE Aot of 1972. SEC. 2. (a) lureguhtted diunping of material into oeen waters endangers human health, welfare, and amenities. and the miujue envi— - ronment ecological systems. and economic potentialities. (h) Tbe Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States to regulate the dumping of all types of inater als nito 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 nmrine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities. To this end, it is the purpose of this Act to regulate the transporta- tion of material from the Vnited States for dumping into ocean waters. and the drunping of material, transported from outside the Vnited States, if the dumping occurs in ocean waters over which the rnited States has jurisdiction or over which it may exercise control, tinder accepted principles of international law, in order to protect its territory or’ territorial sea. DEFINITh)XS Src. :3. For the purposes of this Act the term— (a) “Administrator” means the Administrator of the Environ- mental Protection Agency. (b) “Ocean waters” means those waters of the open seas lyhig sea- ward of the base line from which the territorial sea is measured, as l) O uled for in the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Con tignons Zone (1 tST 1606; TIAS 6689). (c) “Material” means matter of any kind or description, including, but not limited to, dredged material, solid waste. incinerátór residue. garbage, sewage, sewage slu4e, inumtrons, radiological, chemical, and biological warfare agents, radioactive materials, chemicals, biological and laboratory waste, wreck or discarded equipment, rocl4 sahd; exea- \ atnon debi is, and industrial, municipal, agricultural, and otJ er aste, but such term does not mean oil within the meanmgof seetion 11 of the Fedei’al Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (38 V.8.0. 1161) , . 816. and does not mean sewage from vessels within the meaning of section 13 of such Act (33U. .C.iI63).. (d) ‘Tmted States” includes the se eral St ites, the D stnct of Columbia. the C’ommonuealth of Puerto Rico, th6 Cai al Zone, tire tei ritor ies and possessions of the United States, and the ‘X’tuat Tar- rrtori of the Paenfk tsland& (e) “Person” means any prii ate person Or entity, or any o tteer, employee, agent, department, agency, or Iiistrumentaflty of the Federal O-over’nznent, of any State or local unit of govCramei t, or of any foreign iroverument. (f) “Dumping” means a disposition of material: Pro ,ided, That it does not mean a disposition of any effluent from any outfall structur to the extent that such disposition is regulated under the provisions of the Federal ‘Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (3fl7.S.C. n j— 1116), under the provisions of section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act ------- Pub. Law 92-532 October 23, 1972 86 STAT, 1053 30 Stat, 1152. of I 99, us ;uJn(Wded (33 .S.C. 4(iT) , Or undri the provi zions of the 68 Stat, 92k. Atornir Energy Act of 1954. as ani iided (4 U.S.C. O11, et seq.), nor does it meai a routine, discharge of effluent incidental to the propul- sion of, or operation of motor—driven equipment eu, vessels; vded fuit.¾er, That it does not mean the construction of any fixed structure or artificial island nor the. intentional bucemcrit of any device in ocean waters or on or in the submerged and beneath such waters, for a purpose other than disposal, when such couustinction or such placezuwat. is otherwise regulated by Federal or State law or occurs pursuant to an authorized Federal or State program : Anti provided further, That it does not include the deposit of oyster shells, or other materials when such deposit is made for the pmvose of developing, maintaining, or I in rvest lug fisheries resources and is other- wise regulated by Federal or State law or occurs pursuant to an author- ized Federal or State program. (g) “T)istrict court of the United States” includes the District. Court of Guam. the District Cowt of the Virgin Islands. the I)istrict Court. of Puerto Rico. the District Court of the Canal Zone:uincj in the case of American Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. the District Court of the United States for the l)istrict of Hawaii. which court shall have jurisdiction over actions arising therein. (Ii) “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Army. (i) “Drecird material” means any material excavated or dredged from the navigable waters of the I ited States. (j) “High-level radioactive waste” means the aqueous waste result- ing from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system. or equuivaleuit. and the concentrated waste fro p subsequent extraction cycles, or eqiti ’aleiut. in a facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuels. or irradiated fuel from nuclear power reactors. (k) “Transport” or “transportat]on’ refers to the carriage and related handling of y material by a vessel, or by any other vehicle. iucluduug aircraft. TITLE I—OCEAN DUMPING PROIIIBtTED ACTS Szc. 101. (a) No shall transport from the United States any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agent or any high-level radioactive waste, or except as may be authorized in a permit issued under this title, and subject to regulations issued under section 108 hereof by the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, any other material for the PUFPOS of clumping it into ocean waters. (b) No person shall clump any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare aFent or any high-level rachoactive waste, or,. except as may be authorized in a permit issued under this title, any other materia’, transported from any location outside the United States, (1) into the territorial sea of the I T nitecl States, or (2) into a zone contiguous to the tei rjtoii 1 sea of the United States, extending to a line twelve nautical miles seaward from the base hiiw from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, to the extent that it may afFect the tern- tonal sea or the tent’itnrv of the United States. (c) No officer. employee, agent, department. agency, or iuistrumen— tality of the United States shall transport from any location outside time Uniteil States any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agent or any high-level rndioactwe waste, or. except as may be author- ized in a permit issued under this title, any other material .for the iuvpose of thumping it into ocean waters. A-2 ------- October 23, 1972 Pub. Law 92-532 86 STAT. 1054 EXVIlmN 1ENrAy. PHOTE(rIox (;EXCY PERMITS SEC. 10g. (a) Except in reThtion to dredged material, as pi ’ovjcled for in section 103 of this title, and in relation to radiological, chemi- cal, and biological warfare agents and high-level radioactive waste, as provided for in section 101 of this title, the Administiatoi. may issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearings, for the transportation from the United States or, in the case of an agency or instrumentality of the United States, for the transporta- tion from a location outside the United States, of materia.1 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 Admin- istrator determines that such dum 5ing will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine en ri ronmejit, ecological systems, or economic Potentialities. The Administrator shaif establish and apply criteria for reviewhig and evaluating such permit applications, and, in establishing or revising such criteria, shall consider, but not be limited in his eonsideratjoii 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, plank- ton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shore lines and beaches. (D) The effect of such clumping on marine ecosystems, par- ticularly with respect to— (1) the transfer, concentration, and dispersion of such material and its byproducts through biological, physical, and chemical processes. (ii) potential changes in marine ecosystem diversity, pro- ductivity. and stability, and• (iii) species and community population clyI)amjcs , (E) The persistence and permanence of the effects of the clump- ing. (F) The effect of dumping particular volumes and concentra.. tions of such materials. (G) Appropriate locations and methods of disposal or recy- cling, including land-based alternatives and the probable impact of requiring use of such alternate locations or methods upon con- siclerations affecting the public Interest. (H) The effect on alternate uses of oceans, such as scientific study, fishing, and other living resource exploitation, and non- living resource exploitation. (I) In designating recommended sites, the Adminjst.rator shall utilize wherever feasible locations beyond the edge of the Con- tinental Shelf. In establishing or revising such criteria, the Administrator shnlj con- sult with Federal. State, and local officials, and interested members of the general public, as may appeal’ 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 ermits the Admin- istrator shall make such provision for consultation with interested Federal and State agencies as he deems useful or necessary. No per- mit shall be issued for a dumping of material vluch will violate app)j cable. water quality standards. (b) The Administrator may establish and issue various categorIes of permits, including the general permits described in seCtion l 4(c). A-3 ------- A?. 1055 Pub. Law 92-532 October 23, 1972 (c) The lininistiator i nav. consitlerinir the criteria estubhsheil jnir nant to subsection (a) of this section, designate recommended sites or times for dumping and, when he finds it necessary to protect critical areas, sJiaI1 after consultation with the Secretary. also designate sites or times with n which certain materials may not be clumped. (t I) No pei nit is required imder this title for the transportation for dumping or the dumping o 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 I’nvironment, or ecological systems in ii specific location. Where the Admziustrator makes such a finding, such material may be deposited only as authorized by a permit issued by the Administiatoi’ nuder this t ct ion. coars (11 E tUXEER$ I’EIiMJTS Si e. 103. (a) Subject to the provisions of subsections (b), (c). and (d) of this section, the Secretary may issue permits. after notice anti oPportunity for public hearings, for the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of clumping it into ocean waters. svhere the Secretary determines that the dumping will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human lcealth, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems. or economic potentialities. (b) Iii making the determination required by subsection (a). the Secretary shall apply those criteria, established pursuant to section 102(a). relathig to the effects ofthe dumping. Based upon an evalua- tion of the potential effect. of a permit denial on navigat.ion economic and indnsti1al development, and foreign and domestic commerce of the i”nit d States, the Secretary sh li mnke an independent determi- nation as to the need for the dumping. The Secretary shall also make an independent, determination as to other possible methods of disposal and as to ftppropriate locations for the dumping. In considering appro-’ priate locations, he lhiii, to the extent feasible, utilize the recom- mended sites designated by the Administrator pursuant to section 102(c). (c) Prior to issuing any permit under this section, the Secretary shall first notify the Administrator of his intention to do so. Tn any ease in which the Administrator disagrees wth the determination of the Seerettuy as to compliance ssth the criteria established pursuant to section 102(n) relating to the effects of the dumping or with the restrictions established pursuant to section 1 02 (ç) relatm to critical nreas the detei min ion of the Administrator shall prevail r less the Administrator grants a waiver pursuant to subsection (d), the Secre. tnry sh il not issue. a permit which does not comply with such criteria and with such restrictions. Waiv p 1 (ci) If, in any case, the Secretary finds that, in the disposition of dredged materj 1, there is no eeonomreafly feasible method or site a’ inlahie othei than a. dumping site the utlll7atTon of which would i esnit ni non rompbnnce with the c i iteria established pursuant to sec- tion l02(a) telatnig to the effects of dumping or with the restrictions established pursuant to section 102 (c) ielatmg to critical areas, he shall so certif arid request a waiser fiom the Administrator of the specific 1eqi irenient8 iniolved Within thirti days of the receipt of the w izis er i equest imlees the Aciministi ator nds that the dumprng of the mat ’i ial will result in an unacceptably ads c i se impact on inunici- pal w atei su ipphes shell fish beds w iidhfe, lisheries (nic’huhng spawn- ing and bi eding arena), or recreational areas, he shall grant the svaiver. A-4 ------- October 23, 1972 Pub. Law 92-532 — — 86 STAT. 1056 (a) In connect ion with Federal l)Jojects involving dredged material, the Seuetary may, in lieu of the permit procedure, issue regulations which will require the application to such piojects of the same criteria, other factors to be evaluated, the same procedures, and the seine re.quirements which apply to the issuance of permits under subsections (a), (b), (c),and (d) ofthissection. i’F.RMIT CONDITIONS SEC. 1O4 . (a) Permits issued under this title shall designate and include (1) the type of material authorized to be transported for dump- ing or to be dumped (2) the amount of material authorized to be transported for dwnpmg or to be dmnped; (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 tiidtheir 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 Secretary, as the case may be, deems appropriate. (b) The Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be. may prescribe such processing fees for l)e)m its and such reporting require- ments for actions taken pursuant to permits issued by him under this title as he deems appropriate. (c) Consistent with the re uiieinents of sections 102 and 108k but in lieu of a requirement for specific permits in such case, the Admmistra- tor or the Secretary, as tile case may be may issue general permits for the transportation for dumping, or dumping, or both, of specified materials or classes of materials for which he ma ’ issue permits, which he determines will have a mnininmal adverse envwoiunental impact. (d) Any permit Issued under this title shall be reviewed perioilica l ly Review. imd, if appropriate, revised. The Administrator or the &cretary, as the case may be, may limit or deny the Issuance of permits, or lie 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 materia1s where he finds that such materials c nnot be dumped consistently with the criteria and other factors required to be applied in evaluatin 4 g the per- mit application. No action shall be taken under this subsection uiilseg the affected person or per lnittee shall have been given notice and oppor- tnnikty for a hearing on such action aspro osed (e) The Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may bet, shall require an applicant for apermit under this title to provide such infoi’- mation da he may consider necessary to review and etalnate auch application. (I) Information received by the A xnIn1Btrator or the Secretary, as Publie the case may be, as a part of any application or in connectic with any intomation. permit granted under tins title shall be available to the public as a matter of public reco4 at every stage of the proceeding. Tbà final cletermhiation of the Acimunstrator or the Secretary, as the cass may be, shall be likewise available. (g) A copy of any permit Issued under this title abali b pjec.d jn a conspicuous place in the vessel which will be used fox th tran pozts. tion ot dumping authorized by ich.permit,.andanadditIo ial copy shall be furiñshed by the issuing ofilcial to the Secretary of the depart. ii ient in which the Coast Guard Is operating, or its designee. A-5 ------- 86 STAT. 057 Pub. Law 92-532 - October 23, 1972 P LTIE5 SEC. 1O $. (a) Any person who violates any provision of this title, or of the regulatmus promulgated under this title, or a permit issued under this title sbaW be liable to a civil penalty of not more than $ O,O00 for each violation to be assessed by the Administrator. No penalty shall be assessed until the person charged shall have been given notice and an opportunity for a hearing of such violation. In deternumng 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 Adininistrator. For good cause shown, the Administrator may remit or mitigate such penalty. Upon failure of the offending party to pay the penalty, the Aciminis- trator may request the Attozney General to commence an action in the appropriate district court of the United States for such relief as may be appropriate. (b) In addition to any action which may be brought under sub- section (a) of this sect oii, a person who knowingly violates this title, regulations proniuigated under this title, or a permit issued tinder this title shall b F n d not more than $50,000, or imprisoned for not, more than one yMr t both. (c) For the purpose of i o itig civil penalties and criminal fines mider 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 immiu nt or continuing violation of this title, of regulations promulgated under this title 2 or of permits issued under this title, and the (liStrWt courts of the United States shafl ha,ye jurisdiction to grant such relief as the equities of the case may require. Mablitty. (e) A vessel, except a public vessel within the meaning of section 13 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (38 U.S.C. p..816. 1163), used in a violation, shafl 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 jurischction 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 con- senting party or privy to such violation. PP. 1054, (f) If the l) OV1S OflS of any permit issued under section 102 or 103 1055, are violated, the Administrator or the Secretary, a .s the case may be, may revoke the permit or may suspend the permit for a specified period of time. No permit shall be revoked or suspended thiless the per- mittee shall have bé n given notice and opportunity for a hearing on such violation and 1 fropoaed suspension or revocation. (g) (1) Except as provided niparagraph (2) of this subsection any person may commence ft ciVil eu!t on his own behalf to enjoin any person 4 including the United States and any other governmental instrumentality or agen6y (to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution), who is alleged to be in violation of any prohibition limitation, triterion, or permit established or issued by or under this title The di tr t courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount iii controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce such prohibition, iini tation, criterion, or permit, as the case maybe. . .. A-6 ------- October 23, 1972 Pub. Law 92 53Z — 86 SlAT. 1058 (2) No action may be comme iced— (A) prior to sixty days after notice of the violation has been given to the Administrator or to the Secretary, and to any alleged violator of the prohibition, limitation, criterion, or permit; or (B) if the Attorney General has commenced and is d iligenily prosecuting a civil action in a court of the tnited 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 (1)) if the United States has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a criminal action in a court of the United States or a State to redress a violation of this title. (3) (A) Any sUft und r this subsection may be brought in the judi- cipj district in *1u qh the violation occurs. (B) In any e eh s lt ender this subsection in which the United States is not A. paii the Attorney General, at the request of the Administrator o secretary, may intervene on behalf of the United States as a matter of rig4it. (4) The cou t , in 1 sttn ihy final order in any suit brought pur- suant to paragraph 1) of Uiis s bsection may award costs of litigation (including ea on b è 1 tM hAy A.nd expert witness fees) to any party, whenever the court dM*t’ Mnes 8uch award is appropriate. (6) The injunctive 161i%f provided by this subsection shall not restrict any right which any person (or class of persons) may have under a iy statute or common la’$c to seek enforcement of any standard or limitation or to seek atiy other relief (including relief against the Administrator, the Seoteta . , or a. State agency). (h) No person shafl be subject to a civil penalty or to a criminal Ex ption, fine or imprisonment for dumping materials from a vessel if such mate- rials are dumped in an emergency to safeguard life at sea. Any such emergenc y dumping shall be reported to the Administrator under such conditions as he may prescribe. RELJTIONSKI? TO OTHSR LAWS Ssc. 106. (a) After the effective date of this title, all licenses, per- mite, and authorizations other than those issued pursuant to this tit]e shall be void and of no legal effect, to thee extent that they purport to authorize any activity regulated by this title, and whether issued before or after the effective date of this title. (b) The provisioM 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 181 )9 (80 Stat. 1181), as amended (88 U.S.C. 401 et. seq.). (c) Prior to issuing any pern4t under this title, if it appears to the Administrator that the disposition of material, other than dredged material, may adversel ’ 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 artifioi ’I island on the Outer Continental Shelf, the Administrator shall consult with the Secretarl and no permit shall ------- 86 STAT. 1059 PUbe Law 92-532 October 23, 1972 be h sned if the Seeretarv detet’inines that navigation vil1 be unreason. ably impaired. (d) After the effective date of this title, no State shall adopt or enforce any rule or regulation relating to any activity regulated by this title. Any State may, however, propose to the Administrator cri- teria relating to the ilumping of materials into ocean waters within its jurisdiction, or into other ocean waters to the extent that such dumping may adfect waters within the jurisdiction of such State, and f the Adiniiiistrstor determines, after notice and opportunity for hearing, that the l)I oPosed criteria are not inconsistent with the purposes of this title. may adopt those criteria and may issue regulations to imple- ment such criteria. Such determination shall be made by the Admmis- trator within one hmidredand twenty days of receipt of the proposed “State.” criteria. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” means nay State,. interstate or regional authority, Federal territory or corn- monwenitli or the District of Columbia. (e) Nothing in this title shall be deemed to affect In az y manner or to any extent any provision of the Fish and Wildlife loordmation 60 Stat. 10eO Act as amended (18 U.S.C. 661—666c). 72 Stat. 563. E YORCEMENT Si c. lOT. (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 reimbursable or a nonreimbursable basis, in carrying out his respon- sibilities under this title, (b) The Administrator or the Secretary may delegate responsibility ond authority fgr reviewing and evaluating permit apphicatioiis, including the decision as to whether a permit will be issued, to an officer of his agency, or he may delegate, by agreement, such respon- sibility amul authority to: the heads of other Federal departments or itgenc es, whether eu a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis. (c) The Secretary of the department. in which the Coast Guard is operating shall conduct surveillance and other app pnate enforce- ment activity to prevent, unlawful transportation of matermi for dumping. or unlawful dumping. Such enforcement activity shall include, but not be limited to, enforcement of regulations issued by _____ him pursuant to section 108, relating to safe transportation, handling, inrriage, storage, and stowage. The Secretary of 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 as they may require in carrying out their duties relative to penalty assess- ments, cnmma l prosecutions, or other actions involving litigation pur- suant to time provisions of this title. REGrr .ATIONS Six 108 In eari ing out the responsubibties and authont tonferred 1w this title,. the Administrator, the Secretary, and the Secretary of tc 15 department in which the Coast Guard is operating are authorized to issue such regulations as they may deem appropriate. ------- October 23, 1972 Pub. Law 92-532 86 STAT. 1060 iX1ERNAT10 AL COO1 ERATiO SEC. 109. The Secretary of State,iii consultation with the A(lnhims- trator, shall seek effective international action and cooperation to insure protection of the marine environment, and may, for this iur- pose, formul ate, present, or support specific ptoposals in the United N ations and other competent international organizations for the development of appropriate international rules and regulations in support of thepolicy ofthisAct. EFFrcT1Y1 DATE Ai D SAVINGS FROYISIONS SEc. 110. (a) This title shall take effect six months after the date of the enactment of this Act. (b) No legal action begun, or right of action accrued. prior to the effective date of this title shall be affected by any provision of this title. Szc. 111. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated not to Approprtation. exceed $3, OO,000 for fiscal year 1973, and not to exceed $5,50Q oO0 for fiscal year 1974, for th purposes and admuiistration of this title, and for succeeding fiscal years only such sums as the Congress may authorize by law. SEC. 11g. The Administrator shall report annually, on or before Annt 1 report June 30 of each year, with the first report to be made on or before to Congrese. .Tune 30, 1973 to the Congress, on his administration of this title, including recommendations for additional legislation if deemed neces- sary. TiT A 11 —COMPREHENSIVE RESEARC] ’ OX OCEAN DUMPING SEC. O1. The Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Report to Secretary of the Department in which tbe.Coast Guard is operating Congress. and with the Administrator shall, within six months of the enactment of this Act, initiate a comprehensive and continuing program of monitoring and research regarding the effects of the dumping of material into ocean waters or other coastal waters where the tide ebbs and flows or into the Great Lakes or their connecting waters and shall • report from time to time, not less freq uent]y than annually his findings (including an evaluation of the short-term ecological skeets and the social ancieconomic factors involved) to the Congress. SEC. 20g. (a) The Secretary of Commerce 2 in consultation with other appropriate Federal departments, agencies, and instrurnentali- ties shall, wìthin six months of the enactment of this Act, initiate a comprehensive and continuing program of research with respect to the possible long-range effects of pollution, overfishing, and man. induced changes of ocean ecosystems., In carrying out such research, the Secretary of Commerce shall take into account such faders as existing and proposed international policies affecting oceanié prob- lems, economic considerations, involved in both the protection and the use of the oceans, possible alternatives to existing programs, and ‘ VLVs in which the health of the oceans may best be preserved for tbe benefit of succeeding generations of mankind. (b) In carrying out his responsibilities under this section; the Sec- retary of Commerce, under the forsign policy guidance of the Presi. dent and pursuant to international itgreexnents and treaties made by Ib-455 0- - 2 ------- 86 STAT, io Pub. Law 92-532 October 23, 1972 the President with the advice and c nseiit of the Senate, may act alone or in conjunction with any other nation or group of nations and shall make known the results of his activities by such channels oI communication as may appear appropriate. Annual report (c) In January of each year the Secretary of Commerce shall report to Congress, to the Congress on the results of activities undertaken by him pursuant to this section during the previous fiscal year. (d) Each department, agency, and independent instrumentality of the Federal Government is authorized and directed to cooperate with the Secretary of Commerce in earPying out the purposes of this sec- tion and, to the extent permitted by law, to furnish such infounat.ion as may be requested. (e) The Secretary of Commerce, in carrying out his responsibilities agreements, under this section, shall, to the_extent feasible utilize the personnel, services, and facilities of other Federal departments. agencies amid instrumentalities (including those of the Coast Guard for monitoring purposes), and is authorized to enter into appropriate inter-agency agreements to accomplish this action. Fede .1—Sta te SEC. 203. The Secretary of Commerce shall conduct and encourage, oooperation, cooperate with, and render financial and other assistance to appropri- ate public (whether Federal, State, interstate, or local) authorities, agencies, and institutions, private agencies and institutions, and mdi- viduals in the conduct of, and to promote the coordination of researdi, investigations, experiments, - training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies for the purpose of determining neans of minimizing or ending all dumping of materials within five years of the eftective (late. of this Act. Approprtatjon, SEC. 204. There are authorized to be appropriated, for the first fiscal year after this Act is enacted and for the next two fiscal years there- after such sums as may be necessary to carry out this title, but the sums appropriated for any suëh fiscal year may not exceed $( ,OOo,OOo. ‘rITLE Ill—MARINE SANCTUARIES Sac. 801. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (h) of sec- tion a of this Act, the term “Secretary”, when used in this title, means Secretary of Commerce. Sac. 30 2. (a) The Secretary, after consultation with the Secretaries of State, Defense, the Interior, and Transportation, the Administra. tot’, and the heads of other ‘interested Eedera agencies, and with the approval of the President, may designate aS marine sanctuaries those areas of the ocean waters, ‘as far seaward as the outer edge of the Continental Shelf, as defined in. the Convention of the Continental 15 US? 471. Shelf (15 U.S.T+ 74; TIAS 5578), of otherecastal waters where the tide ebbs and flows, or of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, which he determines necessary - for the purpose of ‘ preeervmg or reator- ing such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values. The consultation shall include ‘an opportunity to review and comment on a specific proposed designation. (b) Prior to designating a marine sanctuar3r w hmch includes waters lying within the territorial limits of any State or superlacent to the subsoil ,in 1 seabed witlun the seaward boimdary of a coastal State, as that boundary is defined in section 2 of title I of the Act of May , 43 USC 1301. 1953(6? Stat. 29), the Secretary shall consult with, and give due con. sideration to the views of, the responsible officials of the State involved, As to such waters, a designation under this section shall become effec. A-lU ------- October 23 1972 Pub. Law 9 2 ..532 86 STAT. 1062 tive sixty days after it is published, unless the Governor of any Stito involved shall, before the expiration of the sixty-day period,_certify to the Secretary that the designation, or a specified portion thereof, is unacceptable to his State, in which case the designated sanctuary shall not include the area certified as unacceptable until such.time as the Governor withdraws his certification of unacceptability. (c) When a marine sanctuary is designated, pursuant to this sec- tion, vhich includes an area of ocean waters outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, the Secretary of State shall take such actions as may be appropriate to enter into negotiations with other Governments for the purpose of arriving at necessary agree- ments with those Governments, in order, to protect such sanctuary and to promote the purposes for which it was established. (d) The Secretary shall submit an annual report to the Congress, Annual report on or before November 1. of each year, setting forth a comprehensive to Congreas. review of his actions during the previous fiscal year undertaken pur- suant to the authority of this section, together with appropriate rec- ommendation for legislation considered necessary for the designation and protection of marine sanctuaries. (e) Before a marine sanctuary is designated under this section, the H.&I’ingi. Secretary shall hold public hearings in the coastal areas which would be most directly affected by such designation., for the purpose of receiving and giving proper consideration to the views of any interested party. Such heanngs shall be held no earlier than thirty• days after the publication of a public notice thereof. (f) After a marine sanctuary has been designated under this see- Regule ions, tion, the Secretary, after consultation with other interested Federal agencies, shall issue necessary and reasonable regulations to control any activitie permitted within the designated marine sanctuary, and no permit, license, or other authorization issued pursuant to any other authority shall be valid unless the Secretary shall certify that the permit ted activity is consistent with the purposes of this title and can be carried out within the regulations promulgated under this section. (g) The regulations issued pursuant to subsection (f) shall be applied in accordance with recognized principles of international law, including treaties conventions and other agreement. to which the United States is signatory. Unless the application of the regulations is in accordance with such principles or is otherwise authorized by an agreement between the United States and the foreign State of which the affected person is a citizen or, in the case of the crew of a foreign vessel, between the United States and flag State of the vessel, no regulation applicable to ocean waters outside the territorial uris- diction of the United States shall be applied to a person not a citizen of the United States. SEC. 3 O 3 . (a) Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United Penalties. States who violates any regulation issued pursuant. to this title shall be liable to a civil penalty of not more than $ O,OOO for each such vio- lation, to be assessed by the Secretary. Each day of a continuing viola- tion shall constitute a separate violation. (b) No penalty shall be a ssessed under this section until the person charged has been given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Upon fai]ure of the offending party to pay an assessed penalty, the Attorney General, at the request of the Secrota.ry shall commence. action in this appropriate distriit court of the United States to collect the penalty and to seek such other relief as may be appropriate. A—li ------- 86 STAT. 1063 Pub. Law 92-532 October 23, 1972 (c) A vessel used in the violation of a regulation issued pursuant to this title shall be liable in rem for any civil penalty assessed for such violation and m iy be proceeded against in any district court of the United States having 3urisd.iction thereof. Juriadiotion. (d) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to restrain a violation of the regulations issued pursuant to this title, and to grant such other relief as may be appropriate. Actions shall be brought by the Attorney General in the name of the United States, either on his own initiative or at the request of the Secretary. Appropriation. SEc. 304. There are authorized to be appropriated for the l ecal year in which this Act is enacted and for the next two fiscal years thereafter such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title, including sums for the costs of acquisition, development, and operation of marine sanctuaries designated under this title, but the sums appro- priated for any such fiscal year shall not exceed $10,000,000. Approved October 23, 1972. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY : HOtYSE REPOR?Si No. 92—361 (Comm. on Merehant flarine and Fisher..) and No. 92—1546 (comm. of Ccnfereno.). SENATE REPORT No. 92—451 (Comm. on Ccen ,neroe). cON(iRi SsJONAj. RECORDS Vol. 117 (19fl) Sept. 8, 9, oonaid.r,d and pasa.d Ho is.. Nov. 24, considered and paaa.d Senat., anended, Vol. 118 (1972): Oot. 13, Senate and Houje agreed to oonfere,io, report. WEEGa CQ’!PILATION OP PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 8, No. 44 (1972): O.t. 28, Presidential etatsamnt. A-12 ------- Public Law 93-254 93rd Congress, H. R. 5450 March 22, 1974 fl (t To amend the Marine Protection, lteaearch, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, In order to Implement the provisions of t e CouventIon on the Prevention of MarIne Pollution by DumpLng of. Wast and Other Matter; and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the 8en zt and Hôuie ,, :Repreèe,. jvea of the United 8tate.. 0/ 4rnerica in’ Con reas’u8embled, That the Marine ai1ne Prot.o- Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1052) tion, Reseai .oh, is amended as follows: . and Sanotuariss (1) Section 2 is amended by deleting the last sentence thereof and Act of 1972, by aldin a new subsection tor d fo1l w : “(c) It is the purposeofthis,Acttd regulate (1) the transportation by any person of material from the tTnit.ed States and, in the case of United States ‘essels 1 aircraft or ag ncies, the transportation of mat.eriaj from a locat,oii. ‘o JtsiJe the United States, when in either case the transportation Is for the purpose of dumping the material into ocean waters, and (2) the dumping of material transported by any person. fromaloation outside the United States, if the dumping occurs in the tethtoria sea or the contiguous zone of the United Stati s.”. (2)Section3isan ended—-. . 33 Usc 1402. (A) in subsection (c), by deleting “oil within the meaning of section 11 of the Yederal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (‘33 U.S.C. 1161),’ and does riot mean sewa rorn vessels within the mea ung Of section 13 of such Act (38 U.S.C. 1163).”, and inserting in lieu thereof “sewage from ve sels within the 88 STAT. 50 meaning of section 312 of the Fôderal Water Pollution Control STAT. 51 Act 1 as amended (33 U.S.C 1322). 011 within the meanin of 86 Stat. 871. section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control , as amended (33 U.S.C. 1321), shall be included only to the extent 86 Stat. 862; that such oil is taken on board a vessel or aircraft for the purpose 87 Stat. 906. of dumping.”; (B) in subsection (f), by deleting “(33 U.S.C. 1151—1175)”, and inserting in lieu thereof ‘ (33 U.S.C. 1251—1376)”; and (C) by adding a new subsection to read as follows: “(1) ‘Convention means the Convention on the Prevention of “Convantion.” Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter.”. (3) Section 101 is amended to read as follows: 33 usc 1411. ‘ a) Except as may be authorized by a permit issued pursuant to section 102 or section 103 of this title, and subject toregulntions issued 33 USC 1412, pursuant to section 108 of this title 1413. “(1) no person shall trañ ortlññii The United States, and 33 Usc 1418. “(2) in the case of a vessel or aircraft registered n the Uni1 ed States or flying the tJ.rnte d States flag or in the case of a United States department 6r nstrumenta1ity, no person shall transport from any location any mnteri 1 for the purpose of duuping it into ocean waters. (b) Except as may. b& authorizs by,a permit issued pursuant to section 102 o this title, and subject to regulations Issued pursuant to section 108 of this title, no person shall dump any material transpo d from a location outside the United States (1) 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 territorial sea is measured, to the extent that it may affect the territorial sea or the territory of the United States.”. A—13 ------- Pub. Law 93-254 - 2 - March 22, 1974 88 STAT. 51 86 Stat. 1054. (4) Section 102 is amended— 33 Usc 1412. (A) insubsection (a)— (i) by deleting the words “as provided for in section 101 of this title,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “for which no permit may be issued,”; (ii) by adding, after the phrase “instrumentality of the United States,”, the words “or in the case of a vessel or aircraft re stered in the United States or flying the United States flag, and (iii) by a ding at the end of the subsection the following sentence: “To the extent that he may do so without relaxing the requirements of this title, the Administrator, in estab- lishing or revising such criteria, shall apply the standards and criteria binding upon the United States under the Con- vention, including its Annexes.” (B) by adding a new subsection to read as follows: “(e) In the case of transportation of material, by a vessel or aircraft registered in the United States or flying the United States flag, 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 winch 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.”. Effective SEC. 2. The amendments made by subparagraph 1(4) (A) (iii) and dat e .. paragraph 1(4) (B) of this Act shall become effective on the date that the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dump- ing of Wastes and Other Matters enters into force for the United States. In all other respects, this Act shall become effective on the date of enactment. Approved March 22, 1974. LEGISL.ATIVE HISTORY : HOUSE REPORT No. 93-568 (Comm. on )leroharrti Marine and ?i.h.ri.a). SENATE REPORT No. 93—726 (Comm. on Commsros). CONCHES S 0NAL RECORD: Vol. 119 (1973), Ost. 16, considered and paised Houls. VoL. 120 (1974): Mar. 8, considered and passed S.nsts. A-14 ------- Public Law 93 -472 93rd Congress, H. R. 15540 October 26, 1974 fl tt 88 STAT. 1430 To extend for one year the authorization for appropriations to implement title I of the M rthe Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Be it enacted by the Senate and House o/ Representatives o/the United States o America in Congress assembled, That section 111 of the Marine Protection Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Public Law 92—532; 86 tat. 1052) is amended by striking “fiscal 33 USC 1420. year 1974,” and inserting in lieu thereof “fiscal years 1974 and 1975,”. Approved October 26, 1974. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY$ HOUSE REPORT No. 934269 (Comm. on Merohant Maaine end Fisheries). S ATE R 0RT No. 93—1279 (Comm on. Commerce). CONGRESSI 1AL RECORD, Vol. 120 (1974)1 Aug. 19, considered end passed House. Oct. 35, considered end passed Senate, ------- Public Law 94-62 94th Congress, H, R. 5710 July 25, 1975 n’ ft To amend the Marine Protection, Research, and -Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to authorize appropriations to carry out the provisions of such Act for fl cal year :1976 and for the transition period following such fiscal year, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and If ouee of Representatives o/ thi e United States of America in. Congres8 assembled, Thatsection 111 of Marine Protec- the Marine Proteètion, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, a tion Research, amended (33 U.S.C. 1420), is amended by striking out “and not to and Sanctuaries exceed $5,500,000 for fiscal years 1974 and 1975,” and inserting in lieu Act of 1972, thereof the following: “not to exceed $5,500,000 for each of t’he fiscal years 1974 and 1975, not to exceed $5,300,000 for fiscal year 1976, au 1 ’S oz zation. and not to exceed $1,325,000 for the transition period (July 1 through September 30, 1976),”. SEC. 2. Section 202(c) of the Marine Protection, Research 1 and Report to Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (83 tJ.S.ü 1442(c)) is amended by striking Congress. out “January” and inserting in lieu thereof ‘March”. SEC. 3. Section 204 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1444) is amended by addiiig at the end thereof the following new sentence: “There are authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $1,500,000 for the transition period (July 1 through September80, 1976).”. SEC. 4. Section 304 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanc- tuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1434) is amended to read as follows: “SEC. 804. There are authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975, not to exceed $6,200,000 for fiscal year 1976, and not to exceed, $1,550,000 for the transition period (July 1 through September 80, 1976) to carry out the provisions of this title, including the acquisition, development, and operation of marine sanctuaries designated under this title.”. Approved July 25, 1975. LECISLATWE HISTORY : H JSE REPORT No. 94-217 (Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries). SENATE REPORT No. 94-271 (Comm. on Commerce). CONGRESS1 4AL RECORD, Vol. 121 (1975): May 19, considered and passed House. July 11, considered and passed Senate. 89 STAT. 303 A-16 ------- public Law 94-326 94th Congress, S. 3147 June 30, 1976’ n ct To extend the Marine Protection, Research, and Banctuar es Act for two 7eara. Be it enacted y the. Senate and House of Repreientativea o/the United States of America in Congress a88em led That section 111 of MarIne Pro- the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (38 tect loii, U.S.C. 1420) is amended— Research 1 and l) by striking out “and” immediately after “fiscal year 1976,”; SanCtuarIes (2) by adding immediately after “September 80, 1976),” the extension. following: “and not to exceed $4 800,000 for fiscal year 1977,”. SEC. 2. Section 112 of the Marine rotection, Research, and Sanc- tuaries Mt of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1421) is amended— (1) by striking out “Admuiistrator shall” and inserting in lieu thereof ‘Admuustrator the Secretary, and the Secretary of the department, in which the Coast Guard is operating shall each individuafly” (2) by striking out “June 30 of each year” and inserting in lieu thereof “March 1 of each year”. SEC. 3. The last ‘sentence of section 204 of the Marine Protection Research 2 and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1444) is amendei by inserting inunediately before the period the following: “, and not to exceed $5,600,000 for fiscal year 19W’. Sac. 4. Section 304 of the Ma riiie Protection, Research, and Sanctu- aries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1434) is amended— (1) by striking out “and” immediately after “fiscal year 1976,”; and (2) by adding immediately after “September 30, 1976)” the following “, and not to exceed $500,000 for fiscal year 1977”. Approved June 30, 1976. LECISLATWE HISTORIc SENATE PEPORT No. 94-860 (Comm. on Commerce). Ca GRESS1CtJAL RECORD, VeIl. 122 (1976)t May 21, 25, considered and passed Senate. Jun. 17, consIdered and passed Houss. 90 STAT. 725 A-li ------- APPENDIX B CON EXTJON ON THE PREVENTION OF MARINE P0L,LtT10N flY Dti PINo OF WASTES Ai D OThER MATIER The Contracting Parties to M8 Convention, Recopnizing 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 if is so.thanaged that its quality and resources are not impaired; Recogiiizing 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 own environmen- tal policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their junsdiction or control to not cause daniag to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the hmits of national jurisdiction; Reca1litng Resolution 749 (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 throu h 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 dig- posed 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 lVizhing to improve protection of the marine environment by en- couraging States with a com non interest in particu1a geographical areas to enter into appropriate agreements supplementary to this ConveiitiOfl Have agreed as follows: ARTICLE j Cont acting Parties shall in dlvIdUftll3’ and collectively promote the effective control of all source of pollution of the inarme ei vironment, and p]ed e themselves especially to take all practicable steps to pre- vent the ‘olhition of the sea by the dumping of waste and other mattei that is liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living re- som ces and marine life, to damiige amenities or to intez fere with other legitimate uses of the sea. ARTICLE Ii ontrncting Parties shnll as provided for m the following Articles, take effective measures individually, according to their scientific, tech- meal and economic capabilities, and collectively, to prevent marine pollutiOn caused by dumping and shall harmonize their policies: an this regard. B—i ------- ARTICLE III For th purposes of this Convention: 1. (a) “Dumping” meii ns: (i) any deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made struc- tures at sea; (ii) any deliberate disposal at sea of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-rn ade structures at sea. (b) “Dumping” does not include: (i) the disposal at sea of wastes or other matter inciden- tal to, or derived from the normal operations of vessels, air- craft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea. and their equipment, other than wastes or other matter trans- ported by or to vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man- made structures at sea, operating for the purpose of dis- posal of such matter or derived from the treatment of such wastes or other matter on such vessels, aircraft, platforms or structures; (ii) placement of matter for a purpose other than the mere disposal thereof, provided that such placement is not contrary to the aims of this Convention. (c) The disposal of wastes or other matter directly arising from, or related to the exploration, exploitation and associated off-shore processing of sea-bed mineral resources will not be cov- ered by the provisions of this Convention. 2. “Vessels and aircraft” means waterborne or airborne craft of any type whatsoever. This expression includes air cushioned craft and floating craft, whether self-propelled or not. - 3.’ Sea” means all marine waters other than the internal waters of States. 4. “\Vnstes or other matter” means matenftl and substance of any kind, form or description. - - 5. “Special permit” means permission granted specifically on application in advance and in accordance with Annex II and Annex III. - 6. “General permit” means permissiOfl granted in advance and in accordance with Annex IlL 1. “The Orga.nisatiOn” means the Organisfmtiofl designated by the Contracting Parties in accordance with Article XIV (9). ARTICLE IV 1. In accordance with the provisions of this Convention Contract- ing 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 J)ermit shall be issued only after careful consideration of all the factors set forth in Annex III, including prior studies of the char- acteristics of the dumping site, as set foithinSections B and C of that Annex. 0 - 3. No provision of this Convention is t6 be interpreted as prevent- ing a COntracting Party from prohibiting, insofar as that Party is concerned the dumping of wastes or other matter not mentioned in Annex I. That Party shall notify such measures to the. Organisation. ARTiCLE V 1. The provisionS of Article IV shall not apply when it is necessary to sccure the safety of human life or of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea in cases of force nvajeure caused by stress of weather, or in any case whch 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 conse ent upon such dumping will be less than would otherwise occur. Such cliunping shall be. so conducted as to minimise the likelihood of damage to human or marine life and shall be reported forthwith . to the OrganiSatiofl. .2. A Contracting Party may issue a special permit as an exceptrnn to Article IV (1) (a), in emergencies, posing unacceptable risk relat- i ’n to human health and admitting no other feasible solution. Before domg so the Party shall consult any other country or countries, that are hkely to be affected and the Organisat.ion which, after consulting other Parties, and international organisations 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 gen- eral obligation to avoid damage to the marine environment and shall inform the OrganisatiOn of the action it takes. The Parties pledge themselves to assist one another in such situations. 3. Any Contracting Party m y waive its rights under paragraph (2) at the time of, or subsequent to ratification of, or accession to this Convention. ARTIOLE VI 1. Each Contracting Party siall aesigiiate an appropriate authority or authorities to: . . . . (a) issue special permits which shall, te required prior tg, and for, the dumping of matter hated n .Aime II and i i the cir- cumstanceS provided for in Article V(2); (b) issue general permits which sball be required prior to, and for, the dumping of all other matter; (c) keep records of the nature and quantities of all matter per- nutted to be dumped and the locatrnn, time and method of clnm,ping; . . (d) monitor individually, or .with other Parties and competent International Organisations, .the condition of the seas for the purposes of this Convention. B—3 ------- 2. The appropriate authority or authorities of a Contracting Party shall issue prior special or general permits in accordance with para- graph (1) in respect of matter iptended for dumping: (a) ]oaded in its territory; (b) loaded by a vessel or aircraft registered in its territory or flying its flag, when the loading occurs in the territory of a State not party to this Convention. 3. In issuing permits wider sub-paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) above, the appropriate authonty or authorities shall comply with Annex III, together with such additional criteria, measures and requirements as. they may consider relevant. 4. Each Contracting Party, directly or through a Secretariat estab- lished under a regional agreement, shall report to the Organisation, and where appropriate to other Parties, the information specified in sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) of paragraph (1) above, and the criteria, measures and requirements it adopts in accordance with paragraph (3) above. The procedure to be followed and the nature of such re- ports shall be agreed by the Parties in consultation. ARTICLE VU 1. Each Contracting Party shall apply the meaSUres required to implement the presept Convention to all: (a) vessels and aircraft registered in its territorY or flying its fiao; ‘b) vessels and aircraft. loading in its territOry or territorial seas matter which isto be dumped; - (c) vessels and aircraft ana fixed or floatingplatforms under its jurisdiction believed to be engaged in dumping. 2. Each Party shall take in its territory appropriate hieasures to. prevent and punish conduct in contravention of the provisions of this Convention. 3. The Parties agree to co-operate in the developmefl .t of procedures for the effective application of this Convention particularly on the high seas, including procedures for the reporting of vessels and air- craft observed dumping in contravention of the Convention. 4. This Convention shall not apply to those vessels and aircraft entitled to sovereign immunity under international Jaw. 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 Conventiofl, and shall mforin the Organisation accordingly. 5. Nothing in this Convex tion shall affect the right f each Party to adopt other measures, in accordance with the pr ncipl S of inter- national law to prevent dumping at sea. ARTICLE VIII In order to further the objectives of this Convention, the Contract- ing. Parties with common interests to protect in the marine environ- ment in a given geographical area shall endea.V011r, taking into ac- count characteristic regional features. to enter into regional agreements consistent with this Convention for the prevention of pollution, espe- B -4 ------- daily by dumping. The Cont .rac ing P rt.ies to the prcscnt Convention shall endeavour to act consistently with the objectives and provisions o such regional agreementS. wlikh shall be notified to them by the Organisation. Contrncti ng Parties shall seek to co-operate with the Pnrhes to regional agreemente in order to develop harmonized pro- ceclures to be followed by Contracting Parties to the different con- vent30nS coflcPrfled. Special attention shall be ive .n to co-operation in the field of manitoring and scientific research. ARTICLE I X The Contracting Parties shall prornote tb rough collaboration within the Organisat ion and other international bod I es. support. for- those Parties which request. it for: (a) the training of sc cntific and technical perso nel (b) the supply of necessary equipment and facilities for re— se.arch and monitoring; (e) the disposal and t.reat.ffient of waste and: other measures to’ prevent or mitigate pollution caused by dumping; preferably within the countries coti erned, so furthering the aims and purposes of this Convention. ART IOLEX In accordance with the principles of international law regarding State responsibility for damage to the environment, of other Sttites or to any other area. of the environment, caused by dumping of wastes and other matter of all kinds, the Contr ctin Parties undertake to develop procedures for the assessment of liability and the settlement of dis- putes regarding dumping. ARTICLE XI The Contracting Parties shall at their first consultative meeting con- sider procedures for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpre- tation and application of this Convention. AT TiCLE XII The Contracting Parties ]e .dge themselves topromote, within the competent speciahised agencies and other international bodies. mens- ui es to pi otect the mai ins envii onmettt against pollution caused by (a) hydrocarbons, inchiding oil, and their wastes, (b) other noxious or 1ia ttrdous matter transported by vessels for purposes other than dn 1ng (c) wastes generated in the coutse of operation of vessels, air-S craft platforms and other rnan-tflede structures at saa;. (ciS radio-active pollu ants ftom all sources, including vessels; (e) agents of chemical and bølogicai warfare; (/) wastes or other matter ditect.ly arising from, or reba.ted.tG the explorat ion exploitatiol aM associated on-shore processing of sea-bed mineral resourceL ------- The Parties will also promote, withiw the appropriate international organisat.ion, the codification of ignhils to be used by vessels engage& m dumping. ARTICLE - Nothing i this Convention shall,, prejudice the codification and de- velopment o.f the law of the sea by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea convened pursuant to Resolution 2Th0 C (XXV) of the Gei era1 Assembly of the United Nations nor the pres- ent or future claims and legal’ views of any State concerning the laW’ of the sea and the nature and extent of coastal and flag State juris- diction. The Contractin Parties agree to consult. at a meetm to be’ convened by the Orgamsation after the Law of the Sea Conference,. and in any case not later than 1976, with a view to defining the nature and extent of the right and t.he responsibility of a coastal State to apply the Convention in a zone adjacent to its coast. ARTICLE X1V 1. The Government of the United Kin adorn of Great Britain and, Northern Ireland as a depositary shall cal’ a meeting of the Contract- in Parties not later than three months after the entry into force of this Convention to decide on organisational matters. 9. The Contracting Parties shall designate a competent Orgamsa- tion existing at the time of that meeting to be responsible for Secre- tariat ‘duties in relation’to this Convention. Any Party to this Con- vention not being a member of this Or anisation shall make an ap- propriate contribution ‘to the expenses incurred by the Organisation in performing these duties. ‘ 8. The Secretariat duties of the Organisation shall include: (a) the convening of consultative meetings of the Contracting Parties not less frequently than once every two years and of spe- cial meetings of the Parties at any time on the request of two- thirds of the Parties; (b) preparing and assisting, in consultation with’ the Contract- ing Parties and appropriate international Organisations, in the development and implementation of procedures referred to in sub- paragraph (4) (e) of this Article; (c) considering enquiries by, and information ‘from the Con-’ tracting Parties, consulting whh them and with the appropriate International Organisations, 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 re- ceived by the Organisation in accordance with Articles IV(3),. V (1) and (2), VTE(4), XV, XX and XXI. Prior to the designation of the Organisation 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 spec aI meetinp of the Contracting Parties shall keep under continuing review the implementation of this Convention and may, inter a ia: ( ) review and adopt amendments to this Convention and its Annexes in accordance with Article XV; (b) invite the appropriate..scientific body or bodies to collab- orate with, and to advise the Parties or the Organisation 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 organisa- tions concerned with the prevention of marine pollution; (e) develop or adopt, in consultation with appropriate Inter- national Organisations, procedures referred to in Article V(2), including basic criteria for determining exceptional and emer- gency situations, and procedures for consultative advice and the safe disposal of matter in such circumstances, including the desig- nat.i9n of appropriate dumping areas, and recommend accord- ingly; (/) consider any additional action that may be required. . The Contracting Parties at their first consultative meeting shall establish rules of procedure as necessary. ARTICLE XV 1. (a) At meetings of the Contracting Parties called in accordance with Article XIV amendmentsto this Convention may be adopted by a two-thirds majority of those present. An amendment shall enter into force for the Parties which have accepted it on the sixtieth day after two-thirds of the Parties shall have deposited an instrument of ac- ceptance of the amendment with the Organisation. Thereafter the amendment sha]] enter into force for any other Party 30 days after that Party deposits its instrument of acceptance of the amendment. (b) The Organisation shall inform all Contracting Parties of any request made for a special meeting under Article XIV and of any amendments dopted at meetings of the Parties and of the date on which each such amendment enters into force for each Party. 2. Amendments to the Annexes will be based on scientthc or tech- nical considerations. Amendments to the Annexes approv d by a two- thirds majority of those present at a meeting called in accordance with Article XIV shall enter into force for each Contracting Party immediately on notification of jts acceptance to the Organisation and 100 days after approval by the meetmg for all other Parties except for those which before the end of the 100 days male a declaration that they are not ab’e to accept the amendment at that time. Parties should endeavour to signify their acceptance of an amendment to the Organi- sation as soon as possible after approval at a meeting. A Party may at any time substitute an cceptance for a previous declaration of objection and the amendment previously objected to shall theieupon enter into force for that Party. B—7 ------- 3. An acceptance or declaration of objection under this .rtic1e shall be made by the deposit of an in trument with the Orgrtmsatiort. The Orgamsation shafl notify. all Contracting Parties of the receipt of such instruments. 4. Prior to the designation of the Organisation, the Secretarial func- tions herein attributed to it, shafl-be performed temporarily, by the Government of the United I ingdorn of Great Britain and Northern Ire land, as one of the depositaries of this Convention. ARTIcLE XVZ This Convention shall be open for signature by any State at Lon- don, Mexico City, Moscow and Washington from 29 December 1912 until 31 December 1913. ARTICLE XVU ‘This Convention sIu il be subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Governments, of Mexico the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United I i.ngdom of dreat Britain and Northern Ireland, and t.he United States of America. ARTICLE xV After 31 December 1913, this Convention shall be open for accession br any State. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the (iovernments of Mexico? the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United ICingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. ARTICLE lIZ 1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day follow- ing thedate.of deposit of the fifteenth instrument of ratification or accession. 2. For each Contracting Party ratifying or acceding to the Conven- tion *fter the deposit of the fifteenth instrument of rati cation or acce ion. the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such Party of its i.nstrunient of ratification or accession. ARTICLE Xl Thedepositaries shall inform Contracting Parties: (a) of signatures tà this Convention and of the de osat of in- Struments of ratification, accession or withdrawal, in accçrdance • with Articles.XVI, XVII, XVIII and XXI, and (b) of the date on which this Convention will enter into force, in accordance with Article XIX. ARTICLE IlI Any Contracting Party may withdraw from this Convention by giving six monthi notice in wiiting to a depositary, which shall promptly inform all Parties of such notice. 3 —8 ------- ARTICLE XXU ‘lie oriainal of this Convention of which the English, French, Rus- sian and spanish texts are equally authentic, 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 ljnited States of America who shair send certified copies thereof to all St ites. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiarles, be- ing duly authorised thereto by their respecti’ e Governments have si o ned the present ConventIon. 1DONE in quadruplicate at London, Mexico City, Moscow and Washington, this twenty-ninth day of December, 1972. ------- A EXE8 AXN I 1. Organohalogen compounds. 2. Mercury nd mercury compounds. 3. Cadmuirn and cadmium compounds. 4. Persistent plastics and other persistent synthetic materials, for example, net.t.ing and ropes, whic.h may float or may remain in suspen- sion in the sea in such a manner as to interfere materially ‘icith fishing, iavigation or other legitimate uses of the sea. 5. Crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, and lubricating oils, hydraulic Thuds, and any mixtures containing any of these, taken on board for the purpose of dumping. 8. High-level radio-active wastes or other high-level radio-active una.tter defined on public health, biological or other grounds, b the competent international body in this field, at present the International Atomic Energy Agency, as unsuitable for dumping at sea. 7. Materials in wbatever form (e.g. solids, liquids, semi-liquids, a s or in a liring state) produced for biological and chemical war- fare. 8. The preceding paragraphs of this Annex do not apply to sub- stances which are rapidly rendered harmless by physical, chemical or biological processes in the sea provided they do not: (1) make edible ni anne 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 Annez does not apply to wastes or other materials (e.g. sewage sludges and dredged spoils) containing the matters referred to in paragraphs 1.-S above as trace contaminants. Such waste shall be subject to the proYisions of Annexes II and III as appropriate. ANXEX 11 The following substances and materials requiring special care are listed for the purposes of Article VI(1) (a). A. Wastes containing significant amounts of the matters listed below: arsenic lead . and their compounds copper zinc 4Q. ------- organosilicon compounds cyanides 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 astes of the substances lis , ed in paragraph A and to the fol- lowing additional substances: beryllium chromium and their compounds nickel vanadium C. Containers, scrap metal and other bulky -*astès liable to èink to the sea bottom which may present a senous obstacl,e 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 durnpin of this matter, the Contracting Parties should take, full. accoimt of t e recommendatior s of the competent international body n this field, at present the Inter- national Atomic Energy Agency’. ANN X lU Provisions to be considere4 in establishing criteria governing the issue of permits for the. dumprng of matter at sea, taking into account Article IV(2),include: A Charactethtws a id co mpos ti on of the matter 1 Total amount and a erage composition of matter dumped (e g peryear). 2. Form, e.g. solid, sludge, liquid, or pseous. 8. Properties: physical (e.g. solubihty and density), cl?emical and biochemical (e g oxygen demand, nutrients) and biologcal (e g pres- ence of viruses, bacteria, yeasts, parasites). 4. Toxicity. 5. Persistence: physical 2 chemical and biological. 6. Accumulation and biotransformation in biological materials or sediments. 7. Susceptibility to physical, chemical and biochemical changes and interaction in the aquatic. environment with other dissolved organic and inorganic materials. 8. Probability of roduction of taints or other changes reducing marketability of resoñrces (fish, shel]fi h, etc.). B. Characteristics of du ’mping site a 4 method of depo8it 1. Location (e.g. co-ordinates of the dumping ai ea, depth and distance from the coast), location in. : relation to other areas (e.g. amenity areas, sp twning, nursery arid fishing areas and exploitabTe resources). 2. Rate of disposal per specific period (e.g. quantity per day, per ‘week, per month). B -11 ------- 3. Me.tiiods of packaring and containment, if any. 4. Imtial dflutión a biov d by propdsed method o release 5. Dispersal characteristics (e.g. effects of currents, tides and wind on horizontal transport and ‘vertical mixing). 6. Water characteristics (e.g. temperature, pH, ’ salinity, stratifica- tion, oxygen indices of pollution—dissolyed oxygen (DO), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochen ical oxygen demand (BOD)—- nitrogen present in organic and mineral form including ammonia, susyended matter, other nutrients and productivity). : Bottom characteristics (e.g. topography, geochemical and geo- logical charactenstics and biological productivity). 8. Existence and effects of other dumpino’s which have been made in the dumping area (e.g. heavy metal ba&ground reading and or- ganic carbon content), 9. In issuing a permit for dumping, contracting Parties should consider whether an adequate scientific basis exists for assessing the coi ’isequences of such dumping, as outlined in this Annex, taking into account seasonal variations. C. General con8ideratio1 - ,9 and conditione 1. Possible effects on amenities (e.g. presence of floating or stranded rnater al, turbidity, objectionable odour, discolouration and foam- ing). 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, interfer- ence 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 mat- ter ]ess harmful fordumping at sea. B—12 ------- APPENDIX C Ocean Dumping Convention Reporting Forin LMCO Report on Ocean Dumping CY 1. Issuing authority: United States Environmental Pro’tection Agency Region 2. Date Issued: 3. Country of origin of material: Port of loading (activity location): 4. General description of material, and process from which derived (industrial or municipal process, municipal source): 5. Form in which material is presented for disposal (i. e., solid, liquid, sludge): 6. Total quantity (in metric units - volume and we zht) authorized by the permit: 7. Period for which permit is valid: C—’ ------- 8. Expected frequency of dumping:. 9. Chemical compositiOn of the material: 10. Biological properties of the material: a) Toxicity Organism TLm (96hr ) b) Other significant biological properties: 11. Physical properties of the materIal: Percent solid material. _______________ Density (g/ee) _______________ pH Interaction with seawater to form precipitate: yes ____ no Nature of precipitate: C- 2 ------- 12. Method of packaging (e.g., bulk, container): 13. Methodandrateof release: 14. Procedure and site for subsequent barge/tank washing: 15. Approved dumping site: a) Geographical position : Latitude Longitude b) Depth of water (meters): c) Distance (kilometers) from nearest coast: 16. dditional information: C! 3 •u.5• GOV RP1MCNT P INTIP4G OPF$CIi I 77 Z4IO$7/4$ ------- |