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$7/4$
------- |