FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR THE INCINERATION
OF WASTES AT SEA UNDER THE 1972
OCEAN DUMPING CONVENTION
U.S. DEPARTMENT Of STATE AND THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FEBRUARY 1979
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
INCINERATION OF WASTES AT SEA
UNDER THE 1972 OCEAN DUMPING CONVENTION
Prepared Jointly
by
Department of State
and
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 1979
-------
SUMMARY
STATEMENT TYPE: Final Environmental Impact Statement
PREPARED BY: The Department of State and the U". S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Attention: Mr. William Mansfield, in
Office of Environmental Affairs
Room 7820
Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
1. Type of Action: Acceptance of amendments to a treaty
2. Brief Description of Proposed Action:
Ti2e proposed actiort is to accept amendments to Annexes I and II
of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
of Wastes and Other Matter. The amendments establish international
regulations for the incineration of wastes at sea to be enforced
nationally by setting standards to minimize adverse impacts on the
oceans and atmosphere from incineration at sea.
The United States participated in negotiations initiated during the
Third Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the Convention
held in London, October 9-13, 1978. The Meeting adopted by con-
sensus a Resolution on Incineration at Sea, the amendments to the
Annexes and the attached mandatory regulations, pending correction
for linguistic and editorial consistency in all official languages, to
be carried out by the Secretariat.
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environmental
Effects:
Some largely local impacts on air and water quality from at-sea
incineration are unavoidable in the burn site. Analysis of sea water
samples for organochlorines during at-sea incineration resulted in
values below the 0. 5 ppb limit of detection. Surface water samples
collected showed no significant differences in trace metals between
test and control stations. Aerial monitoring showed that the
maximum concentration of hydrogen chloride in the air five miles
downwind of the burn site was on the order of 0. 1 ppm, much lower
than the Threshold Limit Value of 7 mg/m . Eight miles downwind
the concentration was below detection limits --lower than the con-
i
-------
centration of other acidic components allowed under the most
stringent air standards for either SOxor NOx. At a distance greater
than 10 miles, the effect would be even less with continued dis-
persion and neutralization of that hydrogen chloride which contacts
the ocean or reacts with naturally occurring ammonia (20 ppb) in
the atmosphere. For these reasons the acidity of rainfall on coastal
locations would not be increased due to at-sea incineration in the
approved site.
On biological specimens (phytoplankton and zooplankton) taken an
examination of chlorophyll-a (an indicator of phytoplankton activity)
levels, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) levels in the specimen
showed no deleterious or subtle adverse impacts. Various fish
species exposed to the plume showed an elevation in the activity of
P-450 enzymes. However, when exposed fish were left in clean
water for a few days, the enzyme activity reverted to that of control
organisms.
Environmental damage resulting from a marine accident to a
ship loaded with chemical wastes or from spillage during loading
and transfer could have moderate or serious consequences. A major
spill near shore affecting an estuary would destroy many organisms
(including bottom-living forms) and contaminate the area for a sub-
stantial period of time. A spill on the continental shelf could have
significant short-term impact on local organisms; however, as the
wave and current actions would greatly disperse the contaminant
and the large volume of water would dilute the contaminant, the
long-term impacts at the site would be significantly reduced. How-
ever, the probability of accidental discharges is greatly reduced by
current regulations and design standards for the control of the
transfer and transport of chemicals in bulk.
4. Summary of Major Alternatives Considered:
The alternative to the proposed acceptance of the amendments to
the Convention establishing international regulations for at-sea
incineration is to reject the amendments. If the amendments are
rejected, the alternatives are: (a) to seek no action for the control
of at-sea incineration, (b) to rely exclusively on national regulation,
(c) to promote regional regulation, (d) to seek international enforce-
ment of the regulations and (e) to prohibit at-sea incineration.
5. Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were
received from the following Federal agencies. States, and
private organizations:
U. S. Department of Commerce
Maritime Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ii
-------
XJ. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Public Health Service
Center for Disease Control
U. S. Department of the Interior
Office of the Secretary
U. S. Department of Transportation
Coast Guard
States of: Alabama, Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, Virginia,
Washington
Manufacturing Chemists Association
6. Date Draft EIS was made available: October 4, 1978
Date Final EIS was made available: February 9, 1979
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary i
Table of Contents iv
List of Appendices vii
I. Proposed Federal Action
A. Description 1-1
B. Background for Proposed Action 1-7
1. Brief History of Incineration at Sea
in Europe 1-7
2. Description of Incineration at Sea
in the United States I-10
3. Projection of Type and Quantities of
U.S. Wastes Which Might be
Incinerated at Sea 1-12
4. Proposed Actions for the Construction
of a U.S. Incinerator Vessel 1-13
II. Alternatives to the Proposed Pederal Action
A. No Action . II-1
B. National Regulation HE-3
C. Regional Regulations II-4
D. International Enforcement II-5
E. Prohibit At-Sea Incineration II-6
III. Relationship of the Proposed Action to International
Agreements
A. Agreement Pertaining to Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping of
, Wastes III-l
B. Agreements Pertaining to the Marine
Environment IH-5
IV. Relationship of the Proposed Federal Action
to Domestic Legislation
A. The Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 IV-1
iv
-------
1. Types of Wastes Which May Be
Incinerated and Emission Products . . . VI-3
2. Incinerator Efficiencies VI-8
3. Incinerator Flame Temperatures .... VI-9
4. Environmental Impacts of At-Sea
Incineration VI-10
C. Air Quality Effects VI-10
D. Water Quality Effects VI-13
E. Socio-Economic Effects VI-15
1. Beach and Shoreline Recreation .... VI-15
2. Recreational Characteristics VI-15
3. Population Characteristics VI-16
4. Economic Impact ............ VI-17
5. Impact on Land Use and Land Use
Trends VI-18
6. Public Service VI-18
F. Technical Alternatives to Incineration
at Sea . . VI-18
1. Chemical Landfills and Potential
Environmental Impacts VI-18
2. Land-Based Incineration VI-21
3. Feasible Methods of Waste Recovery -
Chlorolysis VI-22
VII. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses
of the Environment and Enhancement of Long-
Term Productivity VII-1
VIII. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which Cannot
be Avoided
A. Emissions from Incinerators ....... VIII-1
1. Impact on Air Quality ......... VHI-1
B. Deterioration of Water Quality VIII-2
C. Accidental Spillage VIII-3
IX. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment
of Resources
A. Commitment of Physical and Biological
Resources IX-1
B. Commitment of Other Resources IX-1
X. References X-l
vii
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Adopted Resolution and Amendments to
the Convention A-l
B. Proposed Technical Guidelines on the
Incineraiton of Wastes and Other Matter B-l
C. Text of the Convention on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter C-l
D. Text of the Marine Protection, Reseach and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended
{PL 92-532) D-l
E. Comments on the Draft EIS E-l
F. Department of State and EPA Response
to Comments on the Draft EIS F-l
vii
-------
I. PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION
A. Description
The proposed Federal action is to accept the regulations for
incineration of wastes at sea contained in amendments to Annexes I
and II of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by-
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. * The alternative is to reject
the amendments. This is a change from the proposed Federal Action
called for in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),
reflecting forward movement in the international negotiations. At
the time of the DEIS, the proposed Federal action was to negotiate
and adopt certain amendments, proposed by the United States,
to /.nnexes I and II of the Convention to establish regulations
and guidelines for incineration of wastes at sea.
Since the preparation of the DEIS, the international negotiations
for the preparation of the regulations have progressed. At the
Third Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Con-
vention (see Section III of this Final Environmental Impact Statement)
regulations for the control of incineration at sea were adopted and
incorporated into amendments to the Convention. The regulations
are mandatory and would be adopted as amendments to the Annexes
of the Convention. Under Convention procedures (see Appendix C,
Article 15) for adopting amendments to the Annexes, they enter into
force for each Party either on notification of their acceptance or, in
any case, 100 days after approval at the meeting for all Parties except
'¦-Referred to hereafter as either "the Convention'' or "the Ocean
Dumping Convention"
1-1
-------
those who have expressly declared they cannot accept them. The
100-day period expires March 10, 1979, and the amendments
become effective on March 11, 1979.
While the international regulations will become binding on the
United States, additional steps will be taken by the Environmental
Protection Agency. The Agency will publish the regulations as
minimum national standards to be included as requirements in all
incineration at sea permits before promulgating final national
regulations. During the interim period, EPA will include these
requirements as permit conditions before authorizing incineration
at sea. EPA must also designate all specific burn sites for at-sea
incineration. EPA will prepare environmental impact statements
before promulgating interim or final national regulations
and designating each new burn site.
The regulations are based on existing scientific knowledge on
the incineration process and current technology. Experimental
incineration of liquid organohalogen wastes at sea has enabled
specific guidelines to be developed covering the incineration of
such wastes, but there are other types of wastes where information
is insufficient at present. However, scientific work is proceeding
in several countries and the guidelines will be revised as the
results of further research and investigation become available.
The regulations apply to wastes referred to in paragraph 1 of
Annex I (organohalogen compounds) and pesticides and their by-
products not covered by Annex I.
In addition to the wastes specified in the regulations, all wastes
1-2
-------
listed under the Convention must be disposed of in a manner consis-
tent with the procedures of the Convention; specifically, disposal of
Annex I substances will continue to be regulated by paragraphs 8
and 9 of the Annex.
For the purpose of applying these requirements, the following
definition of incineration at sea has been adopted:
(1) "Incineration at sea" means the deliberate combustion of
wastes or other matter on marine incineration facilities
for the purpose of their thermal destruction. Activities
incidental to the normal operation of vessels, platforms
or other man-made structures are excluded from the
scope of this definition.
This definition is broader than is necessary to cover the
existing vessels which load wastes for the purpose of incineration
and is so drafted to ensure that controls on incineration at sea
should apply also to any incineration vessels, platforms, or other
man-made structures and, at some future date, vessels which may
conduct factory operations at sea and generate wastes which could
be incinerated at sea.
The amendments to the Convention as adopted include the
following significant requirements. *
(1} A provision which requires that every marine incineration
facility be evaluated to ensure that during the incineration
of waste combustion and destruction efficiencies are in
*For full text see Appendix A
1-3
-------
excess of 99.9 percent.
(2) A mandatory provision which specifies that when an
appropriate authority proposes to permit the incineration
of wastes or other matter over which doubts as to the effi-
ciency of combustion exist the incineration system shall be
subject to the intensive stack monitoring associated with
the initial vessel survey.
(3) Mandatory provisions which emphasize control of the
incineration operation include the following:
a) the operation of the incinerator shall be controlled so
as to ensure that the incineration of wastes does not
take place at a flame temperature of less than 1250
degrees centigrade except where it has been demon-
strated that the required destruction efficiency can be
achieved at a lower temperature.
b) the combustion efficiency shall be at least 99. 9 + 0. 05
percent;
c) there shall be no presence of black smoke or continuous
or intermittent flame extension above the plane of the
stack.
(4) Mandatory provisions specifying that in selecting a site for
incineration of wastes or other matter the appropriate
authority shall give the following factors, in addition to
those listed in Annex III of the Convention, careful consid-
eration:
1-4
-------
a) the atmospheric dispersal characteristics of the area --
including such parameters as wind speed and direction,
atmospheric stability, frequency of inversions and fog,
precipitation types and amounts, humidity --in order
to determine the potential impact on the surrounding
environment of pollutants released from the marine
incineration facility, giving particular attention to the
possibility of atmospheric transport of pollutants to
coastal areas;
b) oceanic dispersal characteristics of the area in order
to evaluate the potential impact of plume interaction
with the water surface;
c) availability of navigational aids.
The mandatory provisions were based on research studies by the
United States and other countries. These studies primarily focused
on incinerator efficiencies, operating temperatures, incinerator
controls and fail-safe devices in order to establish best practicable
technology. Current research by EPA on the destruction of pesti-
cides (organohalogens) has indicated that most pesticides can be
destroyed at 1000 degrees centigrade with incinerator efficiencies
of about 99. 99 percent (Ref. 20). The proposed 1250 degrees centi-
grade requirement for incinerator vessels includes a safety margin
of 250 degrees centigrade. It should be noted that the minimum
operating efficiency of 99. 95 + 0. 05 percent represents state-of-the-
art monitoring capabilities and is for regulatory purposes only and
1-5
-------
does not reflect the efficiency of at-sea incinerators which is about
99. 99 percent.
In addition to establishing the best practicable technology for at-
sea incineration, the United States and other countries have also
evaluated the impacts of the emissions on the marine environment
and found that the proposed mandatory requirement for controlling
the incinerators and its operations are sufficient to protect the
marine environment from adverse impact. To provide a further
safeguard, the mandatory provisions also include special provisions
relating to disposal site selection such as evaluation of atmospheric
dispersal characteristics of the area.
The Contracting Parties emphasized within the adopted Resolu-
tion the need to consider advancements in waste disposal technology
by recognizing "present methods of incineration at sea as being an
interim method of disposal pending the development of environ-
mentally better solutions, considering at all times the best available
technology. " They also affirmed that adoption of the mandatory
regulations is not intended to increase the amounts and kinds of
wastes incinerated at sea "for which there are available practical
alternative land—based methods of treatment, disposal or elimina-
tion. "
The Draft EIS referred to technical guidelines as being included
with the proposed amendment to the Annexes. Since the technical
guidelines are intended to be used only as recommendations, the
Contracting Parties decided not to include them in the amendment.
1-6
-------
Further revisions will be made on the guidelines and presented to
the Fourth Consultative Meeting for consideration.
The amendment to the Notification Procedures was also adopted
at the Third Consultative Meeting and is included as Appendix A
with the adopted Regulations.
B. Background for Proposed Action
Prior to the passage of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) in 1972 {P. L. 92-532), it was common
practice to dump organochlorine wastes directly into the sea. With
the prohibition of such disposal methods by the MPRSA and the
Convention, alternative technologies for proper disposal practices
had to be developed. Land-based incineration, deepwell injection
and landfill methods are primarily used in the United States; how-
ever, in Europe, in addition to land disposal methods, at-sea
incineration technology was developed. Since 1974, the United
States has on three occasions used at-sea technology and found it
to be a viable alternative. At the first meeting of the Contracting
Parties to the Convention, it was suggested that this technology
should be regulated internationally through the mechanism of the
Convention.
1. Brief History of Incineration at Sea in Europe
Organochlorine wastes have been destroyed by at-sea incineration
in European waters since 1969. The disposal area in the North Sea,
often referred to as the Dutch Incineration Area, is in the neighbor-
hood of latitude 42° 16' N and longitude 03° 45' E.
1-7
-------
Initial efforts were carried out by S. B.B. Stahl und Blech Bau
GmbH, a German company, using the MATTHIAS I, a small tanker
of approximately 1000 metric tons (MT), fitted with an incinerator.
This vessel was decommissioned in 1975. A second tanker, the
MATTHIAS II, of approximately 3500 MT, was similarly modified
and continues to burn wastes in the same area. Data from the
monitoring of burning organochlorine wastes by this ship are
reported in References 1, 2, and 3.
The MATTHIAS H was tested during 23-25 April 1978 while
burning organochlorine wastes of European origin resulting from
production processes for chloroprene, trichlorobutene and propylene
oxide. Chlorine content of these liquid wastes was approximately
40%. Preliminary data from the tests in Ref. 3 indicate the com-
bustion efficiency to be 99. 9%, with qualifications that: (1) the
hydrocarbon content of the effluent stack gases, normally 5 to 10
mg/m , occasionally rose to 50 mg/m ; and (2) at times, black
smoke was observed in the stack. The burn was carried out with
a 100% oxygen excess at a temperature greater than 1200 - 1300
degrees centigrade as determined by wall thermocouples.
In early 1975, the MATTHIAS IH, a tanker of 19, 300 MT, was
modified in the Rendsburg, Germany, shipyards and commissioned
as an at-sea incineration ship. The vessel was designed to carry
15, 000 MT of liquid wastes in its tanks and several thousand 55
gallon drums on its main deck.
1-8
-------
The MATTHIAS III was tested during two burns in the North
Sea, the first from May 31 to June 4, 1976, and the second from
August 30 to September 3, 1976. The first burn was carefully
monitored by a team of scientists from the French Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC). Analytical data obtained from this burn are
reported in Ref. 4. During the second burn, routine analyses for
C02, CO, and 02 were made by Dragerwork AG, West Germany,
(Ref. 5). Both burns were observed by a U. S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency contractor.
The first burn, actually a "shakedown" cruise, was not success-
ful. Although the second burn at times demonstrated combustion
efficiencies of 98. 75 to 99. 99%, flames and black smoke were visible
above the stack of the incinerator during much of the burn. Because
of technical problems with the incinerator design, the MATTHIAS
III was decommissioned in April 1978.
The M/T VULCANUS, a Dutch-owned incineration ship, has also
burned organochlorine wastes in European waters. Monitoring of a
burn in the North Sea was carried-out by scientists of the French
AEC (Ref. 2), and by scientists from the Center for Studies and
Research in Biology and of Oceanographic Medicine (CERBOM)
(Ref. 6). Effluent gases of the VULCANUS North Sea incineration
were analyzed by the Central Laboratory (TNO), Delft, Netherlands
(Ref. 7), and by the French AEC scientists.
The M/T "VULCANUS is a converted cargo ship of 4768 metric
1-9
-------
tons with a waste tank capacity of 3503 cu. m. Waste is burned in
two incinerators that have a combined maximum feed rate of 25 MT/
hour. A crew of 18 mans the ship, 12 to operate the vessel and 6
to operate the incinerators. The M/T VULCANUS meets all appli-
cable requirements of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
Organization (IMCO) concerning transport of dangerous cargo by
tanker.
2. Description of Incineration at Sea in the United States
The first officially sanctioned at-sea incineration operation
conducted in the United States was performed aboard the M/T
VULCANUS, in the Gulf of Mexico, during October 1974 through
January 1975. Four shiploads, about 4, 000 metric tons each, of
toxic organochlorine wastes from the Shell Chemical Company,
Deer Park Manufacturing Complex, were incinerated under per-
mits granted by EPA at a Federally approved incineration site 143
nautical miles (305 kilometers) southeast of Galveston, Texas, and
165 nautical miles (352 kilometers) south of Cameron, Louisiana.
The site was beyond the continental shelf, in water depths of 914 to
1829 meters (3000 to 6000 feet), outside all major shipping lanes,
and well beyond commercial shrimping and fishing depths.
The wastes, which had resulted from the production of glycerin,
vinyl chloride, epichlorohydrin, and epoxy resins, were a mixture
of chlorinated hydrocarbons with trichloropropane, trichloroethane,
and dichloroethane predominating. The first two shiploads were each
incinerated under an EPA Research Permit; the second two shiploads
were burned under an EPA Interim Permit. Composition of the waste
1-10
-------
feeds was similar during the two research burns: both contained 63%
chlorine, 29% carbon, 4% hydrogen, 4% oxygen, and traces of heavy
metals. Combustion chamber flame temperatures ranged from
1340 - 1610 degrees centigrade. Combustion efficiencies, i.e., the
percentage of hydrocarbons combusted, ranged between 99. 92 and
99. 98 percent. For the most part, the uncombusted hydrocarbons
were not organochlorines. Efficiency of destruction of organochlorines
averaged 99. 995 percent. Reference 8 contains a detailed account of
the operation.
A second at-sea incineration operation took place during the
period of March to April 1977, under an EPA Special permit.
Organochlorine wastes generated by the Shell Chemical Company
were destroyed by the M/T VULCANUS in an incineration area
located 130 miles south of Sabine Pass, Texas, in the Gulf of
Mexico. A total of approximately 16, 000 metric tons of wastes
were destroyed in four burns. The first burn was monitored by
a team of scientists and engineers from TRW Inc., Redondo
Beach, California. Average waste feed rate was 22 MT/hour.
Combustion efficiency was 99.95 percent. Pertinent data are
summarized in Ref. 9.
The third and most recent incineration at sea of organochlorine
wastes occurred during the period of July 14 to September 2, 1977,
on board the M/T VULCANUS under contract to the U. S. Air Force.
The operation was carried out in three consecutive burns, the first
under an EPA Research Permit and two under a Special Permit, at
a designated area in the Pacific, approximately 200 miles west of
Johnston Atoll. These burns were monitored by a team of scientists
1-11
-------
from TRW, Inc. During the first burn, a U. S. EPA observer was
present. A U. S. Air Force officer, as a working member of the
analytical team, was present during all three burns.
This operation required special monitoring and safety procedures
because the waste was Herbicide Orange* and contained 2, 3, 7, 8-
tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) as an impurity to the extent of
an average 2 parts per million. Because of the extremely high
toxicity of TCDD, special precautions were placed in effect during
all loading and operating procedures on the ship.
All burns were successfully completed. Average feed rate was
14. 5 MT/hour. Destruction efficiencies for 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T
were greater than 99. 999 percent. Average combustion efficiency
was 99. 99 percent. Average destruction efficiency of TCDD was
99. 93 percent. Results are reported in detail in Reference 10.
3. p - - 1 Quantities of U. S. Wastes Which Might
The quantities of organochlorine wastes which will be available
for incineration at sea have been the subject of study by the U. S.
Maritime Administration (Ref. 21). Data in the following table
are taken partly from this study and partly from other sources.
^Herbicide Orange is basically a mixture of equal parts by volume
of the n-butyl esters of 2, 4-dichlorophenoyacetic acid (2,4-D) and
2, 4, 5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2, 4, 5-T).
1-12
-------
Estimates of National Organic Chemical Production
and Corresponding Wastes
Total organic chemical
production
Total organic waste
Available to Gulf/East
Coast Ports
Total organochloride
production
Total organochlorine
waste
Metric Tons x 10
IW3
328
606
3
rm
wn—
93,435 143, 578 201, 254
2, 302 4, 249 6, 354
245/30 569/69 851/103
13, 340 20,500 28, 740
907
4. Proposed Actions for the Construction of a U. S.
Incinerator Vessel
The Maritime Administration is presently considering the
development of a U. S. flag operated at-sea incineration vessel. One
or more incinerator vessels may eventually be in operation nationwide.
This project is in harmony with the intent of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act and the proposed Federal action.
A U. S. flag incinerator ship would be subject to extensive design,
construction, and operational requirements. Most important are those
of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency concerning the incinera-
tion system, and the U. S. Coast Guard regarding the vessel itself.
1-13
-------
H. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION
The proposed action is to accept and adopt amendments to
Annexes I and II of the Ocean Dumping Convention to establish
international regulations for incineration of wastes at sea. The
alternatives to this action is to reject the amendments. The alter-
natives for rejecting the amendments include taking no action to
regulate at-sea incineration, developing national or regional reg-
ulations, seeking international control, and prohibiting waste
incineration at sea. The implications of each of these alternatives
are discussed below. The technical alternatives are discussed
in Chapter VI.
A. No Action
This alternative assumes that it is not necessary to adopt
international regulations and for at-sea incineration because the
Ocean Dumping Convention already prohibits the dumping of the toxic
substances listed in Annex I (including organohologen compounds)
unless they are present only as "trace contaminants" and requires
prior special permits for the dumping of materials listed in Annex
II. Because incineration constitutes "dumping" within the meaning
of the Convention, Contracting Parties wishing to burn wastes con-
taining Annex I materials at sea are already obligated to ensure that
the controlled materials reaching the ocean from the incinerator
plume do not exceed "trace" amounts and to take special care in
incineration of Annex II materials.
If no action were taken to establish international regulations,
countries would develop their own regulations nationally. They
H-l
-------
might also cooperate regional for the same purpose. The present
situation therefore already provides significant environmental
protection.
But many of the Convention's Contracting Parties, including
the U. S., are concerned that, as more countries turn to at-sea
incineration to dispose of wastes, national regulation alone may
not ensure the desired degree of environmental protection, partic-
ularly as countries may not adopt standards as rigorous as the
United States considers desirable for full compliance with the
Convention's obligations. Mandatory international regulations will
provide more effective environmental protection by requiring all
Contracting Parties to apply stringent standards uniformly, not
only for the design, certification and operation of marine inciner-
ation facilities, but also for the installation of the critical control
and monitoring equipment that determines whether the required
combustion efficiency is being met.
The current effort to develop international regulations has
already fostered cooperative research, an important consideration
in view of the work that remains to be done on the incineration of
highly toxic and persistent substances. Moreover, the proposed
international regulations contain special requirements for the
monitoring and control of experimental incineration of wastes such
as PCB's where the information on combustion efficiency is cur-
rently considered inadequate. Incorporating the regulations in the
Convention Annexes enables them to be amended more easily to
II-2
-------
keep abreast of current technology than would be possible on a
country-by-country basis for national regulation. For these
reasons, the proposed international approach would, from the U.S.
viewpoint, have advantages over the status quo that would result
from no action.
B. National Regulation
Under this option the United States would adopt its own standards.
Indeed, on some past occasions the United States has perferred to rely
on national regulation for its own environmental protection because it
regarded international standards as inadequate or believed their accept-
ance might limit its right to set stricter standards. Neither of these
concerns is valid in this case. The U.S. has played a leading role in
developing the international regulations, which are based largely on
U S. experimental work. Nor do the regulations contain any provisions
limiting the right of nations, including the United States, to require
stricter standards for at-sea incineration operations under their
jurisdiction or to make stricter standards a condition for entry of
their ports by foreign-flag incineration vessels.
Unilateral action by the U. S., while perhaps easier to accom-
plish, would not be as effective a way of meeting our interest in
protecting the world's oceans as the adoption of stringent inter-
national standards through the amendment of the Convention's
Annexes. At-sea incineration is at present an international oper-
ation, with specially designed ships calling at ports throughout the
industrialized world to load toxic wastes and then incinerating the
H-3
-------
wastes at designated sites in open ocean areas that are usually-
well beyond territorial waters. Thus, countries might find inciner-
ation operations taking place off their coasts which they cannot
control through national regulation, although this would be unusual
in the U.S. case because such operations off U.S. coasts would
almost always involve wastes of U.S. origin loaded in U. S. ports.
The proposed Federal action would, however, ensure that any
incineration off U.S. coasts by other countries party to the Conven-
tion would be in accordance with international standards.
Additional advantages of an international approach to at-sea
incineration have already been cited under the "no-action"
alternative.
C. Regional Regulations
Regional approaches to environmental protection have proven
effective, in part because countries in a region frequently share
problems, perceptions and priorities. A number of regional marine
pollution conventions deal with ocean dumping and work on at-sea
incineration has been carried out under at least one -- the convention
signed at Oslo in 1972 by the countries bordering the northeastern
Atlantic. But a regional approach has limitations in meeting what
is potentially a global problem. ISlot all countries are served by
regional arrangements, and there may be differences and possible
incompatibilities in regional approaches.
The only global instrument open to all potential users of at-
sea incineration is the Convention under which the proposed Federal
n-4
-------
action would be carried out. Working through this Convention is
thus a more efficient way to regulate at-sea incineration and
ensures a more uniform application of the standards. Moreover,
the overlapping membership between the Ocean Dumping Conven-
tion and various regional marine protection conventions and the
resulting interest in harmonizing standards and procedures sug-
gests that work done under the global convention will also benefit
regional conventions.
D. International Enforcement
Unlike the proposed action and the Convention itself, which
depend on national enforcement of international standards, this
alternative would involve international enforcement of the
regulations for at-sea incineration. The Inter-Governmental
Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), which provides the
Convention's Secretariat, might agree to take on enforcement
responsibilities for at-sea incineration if requested by the
Contracting Parties, but to do so it would need an expanded staff
and budget. The creation of a new international organization for
this purpose would be even more costly. Governments, more-
over, would be unlikely to concede enforcement control to an
international body. There is no assurance that international
enforcement would necessarily provide better environmental pro-
tection, particularly as the international body involved would
ultimately depend on national governments for its information and
financial support.
II-5
-------
Experience to date with the Ocean Dumping Convention and
regional conventions related to ocean disposal has demonstrated
that despite differences in the effectiveness of enforcement by
various countries national enforcement can provide the desired
protection, especially where there are adequate review and dispute
settlement procedures. There would appear, therefore, to be no
significant advantages over the proposed action and some dis-
advantages to full international regulation.
E. Prohibit At-Sea Incineration
This alternative presumes that the risk of environmental damage
from at-sea incineration is so great that it should not be permitted.
While the long-term effects of at-sea incineration need to be closely
monitored; so that appropriate action can be taken if environmental
damage is detected, there has been no evidence to date of such
damage from the trace amounts of toxic substances reaching the
ocean from the incinerator plume.
A ban on at-sea incineration would, moreover, eliminate a
disposal option for toxic wastes at a time when landfill procedures
are coining under growing question. Land-based incineration is
a technically acceptable method for destruction of toxic wastes;
however, these facilities are not, as yet, regulated to the same
level as incineration at sea would be under the amendments;
in addition, malfunctions could pose a more serious local
environmental threat than at-sea operations (especially for the
II-6
-------
more toxic wastes) because the facilities are closer to populous
areas. Additionally, other factors such as site selection,
storage of wastes, and capital cost become important since it
would require about ten land-based facilities to provide the same
rate of destruction as a single incinerator vessel.
Thus, the disadvantages of this alternative do not appear to
be offset by clear and significant environmental benefits.
H-7
-------
m. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
A. Agreement Pertaining to Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Waste
The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter was negotiated in London in
November 1972, and came into force on August 30, 1975. Under
the Convention, nations agree to regulate all ocean dumping through
national administrative authorities. Dumping is not allowed without
a permit. The disposal of wastes or other matter directly arising
from or related to the exploration, exploitation and associated off-
shore processing of seabed mineral resources is not covered by the
provisions of this Convention.
"Dumping, " as defined by the Convention, means: (a) any delib-
erate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels,
aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea; (b) any
deliberate disposal at sea of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other
man-made structures at sea. Dumping does not include: (a) the dis-
posal at sea of wastes or other matter incidental to, or derived from
the normal operations of aircraft, platforms or other man-made
structures at sea and their equipment, other than wastes or other
matter transported by or to vessels, aircraft, platforms or other
man-made structures at sea, operating for the disposal of such
matter or derived from the treatment of such wastes or other
m-i
-------
matter on such vessels, aircraft, platforms or structures; (b)
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.
The Convention requires each contracting nation to regulate the
dumping of all material loaded in its ports for the purpose of being
dumped at sea or loaded on a vessel or aircraft of its flag or
registry in the territory of a nation not a party to the Convention.
Participating nations are further required to maintain records con-
cerning the nature and quantities of material which they permit to
be dumped and the circumstances of such dumping. They must
report this information periodically to the Inter-Governmental
Maritime Organization (IMCO), the organization responsible for
administration of,the Convention. Contracting Parties are also
to promote, the disposal and treatment of wastes and other
measures to prevent or mitigate pollution caused by dumping
During the First Consultative Meeting of the Contracting
Parties held on September 20-24, 1976, a resolution was adopted
which requested the Secretary-General of IMCO to undertake the
following:
(l) examine those provisions of the Convention on the Preven-
tion of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter which are applicable to at-sea incineration opera-
tions;
IH-2
-------
(2) consider and draft any special provisions with a view to
preventing marine and atmospheric pollution from
incineration operations at sea, and to submit them to the
next Consultative Meeting.
At the Second Consultative Meeting, which was held on
September 26-30, 1977, the Contracting Parties approved draft
technical guidelines on the control of incineration at sea and adopted
a Resolution recommending to governments their implementation.
By that Resolution, the Parties also decided the provisions for the
control of incineration at sea should be implemented on a mandatory
basis in the form of a legal instrument, to be adopted within the
framework of the Convention.
The regulations were redrafted as a legal instrument
at an IMCO intersessional technical meeting in June 1978 for pre-
sentation at the Third Consultative Meeting on October 9-13, 1978.
To a large extent, the draft regulations are based on the research
work of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
At the Third Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties
to the Convention, held in London, mandatory regulations for
the control of incineration at sea were adopted and incorporated
in amendments to the Convention. The Consultative Meeting
also approved recommendatory interim technical guidelines
on at-sea incineration. Proposed revisions to the guidelines
are shown at Appendix B. They treat more tentatively
less-researched technical problems and will
in-3
-------
be revised more frequently by the Parties. An inter sessional
meeting of an IMCO ad hoc group will develop them further, and
will present them for consideration to the Fourth Consultative
Meeting of the Contracting Parties in October 1979. They will be
established as soon as possible.
It was agreed that the regulations, which are mandatory, would
be adopted as amendments to the Annexes of the Convention.
Article 15 of the Convention provides an expedited procedure for
adopting amendments to the Annexes; two-thirds of the Contracting
Parties present concurring, they enter into force for each Party
immediately on notification of their acceptance and in any case 100
days after approval at the meeting for all other Parties except
those who have expressly declared they are unable to accept them.
The expedited procedures period began on December 1, 1978, and
the 100-days period will conclude March 11, 1979, when the inter-
national regulations go into effect except for those Parties which
have expressly not accepted them.
To implement the international regulations the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency will publish them as minimum national
standards to be included as requirements in all incineration at sea
permits issued by the Agency. Before promulgating final national
standards for incineration at sea, EPA will prepare an environ-
mental impact statement on the regulations. During the interim
period, EPA will include these requirements as permit conditions
III-4
-------
before authorizing incineration at sea. In addition, EPA will also
prepare environmental impact statements on all new specific burn
sites for at-sea incineration.
B. Agreements Pertaining to the Marine Environment
In addition to the foregoing international agreement, the
following international conventions dealing with maritime safety and
with protection of the marine environment, primarily from vessel-
source pollution, would apply to incineration at sea;
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollu-
tion from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL) [not ratified by the U. S. ,
not yet in force, amended by the 1978 Protocol]
Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (not
ratified by the U. S., not yet in force]
International Convention Relating to Intervention on the
High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969
[ratified by the U. S., in force]
Protocol relating to Intervention on the High Seas in
Cases of Marine Pollution by Substances Other Than Oil,
1973 [ratified by the U. S. , not yet in force]
International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, 1974
(SOLAS) [ratified by the U.S., not in force}
Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention
on Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 [not ratified by the U. S.,
not in force]
IH-5
-------
The commitments which would be undertaken by parties to the
proposal in the Federal action would be consistent with the obli-
gations under the international agreements listed above.
m-6
-------
IV. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED FEDERAL
ACTION TO DOMESTIC LEGISLATION
A. The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972 (MPRSA) (P. L, 92-532)
This Act, enacted on October 23, 1972, provides for the
regulation of ocean dumping, research on ocean dumping and other
man-induced changes to the ocean ecosystems, and the designation,
acquisition, and administration of marine sanctuaries.
Title I of the MPRSA provides for a regulatory scheme to control
all materials transported from the United States for the purpose of
dumping into ocean waters. In addition, the Act controls the dumping
of material originating outside of the United States, if that dumping
takes place in ocean waters subject to the jurisdiction or control of
the United States. Finally, consistent with the declared policy, the
Act also regulates the activities of Federal departments and agencies
transporting material for dumping into ocean waters, regardless of
the location from which the transportation is initiated.
Title I requires that no person, regardless of his nationality, may
depart a United States port with material intended for dumping anywhere
in the world's oceans, unless he has first obtained a Federal permit.
The MPRSA also has a total prohibition against the dumping of radi-
ological, biological, and chemical warfare agents, or any high-level
radioactive wastes. These hazardous substances may not be dumped
IV-1
-------
or transported for dumping, and no permit can be issued for
their disposal.
The regulatory provisions are enforceable by fines of up to
$50, 000 and a year in jail for each unauthorized dump. In addition,
a civil penalty of up to $50, 000 may be assessed administratively
for each such act. The MPRSA contains a "citizens suit" clause
pursuant to which any person may seek injunctive relief against
an unauthorized dumper and may even recover his attorney's fees
and other costs of the litigation.
The EPA has permit-granting authority with respect to all ocean
dumping except dredged material; this permit authority includes
incineration at sea. The dumping of dredged material requires a
permit from the U. S* Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The EPA
Ocean Dumping Regulations, 40 CFR Parts 220-228 (Ref. 12) describe
the procedures relating to application for, issuance of, and denial
of permits for ocean dumping. Criteria for evaluation of permit
applications are also included.
The more significant provisions of the EPA regulations which
relate to incineration at sea are as follows:
(1) Permits for Incineration at Sea. Permits for incineration
of wastes at sea will be issued only as Research Permits or
as Interim Permits until specific criteria to regulate this
type of disposal are promulgated, except in those cases
IV-2
-------
where studies on the waste, the incineration method and
vessel, and the site have been conducted, and the site has
been designated for incineration at sea in accordance with
the procedures established within the regulations.
(2) Special and Interim Permits. Areas where ocean dumping
is permitted, subject to the specific conditions of individual
Special or Interim Permits, will be designated based on
environmental studies of each site, regions adjacent to the
site, and on historical knowledge of the impact of waste
disposal on areas similar to such sites in physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics. All studies for the evaluation
and potential selection of dumping sites will be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the regulations.
(3) The EPA Administrator may, from time to time, designate
specific locations for temporary use for the disposal of small
amounts of materials under a Special Permit only without
disposal site designation studies when such materials satisfy
the Criteria, and the Administrator determines that the
quantities to be disposed of at such sites will not result in
significant impact on the environment. Such designations will
be for a specified period of time and for specified quantities
of materials.
IV-3
-------
After adoption of the proposed international requirement for regu-
lating incineration at sea, EPA would amend 40 CFE Parts 220-228 to
implement the international regulations and guidelines when they are
adopted. Currently, EPA regulates incineration at sea in a manner
consistent with the intent of the Convention and the MPRSA, by includ-
ing the provisions as special conditions in the Incineration Permit.
B. Other Statutes Relating to the Proposed Federal Action
1. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
(P. L. 9W30T
The purposes of this Act are: to declare a national policy which
will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and
his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate
damage to the environment and biosphere, and stimulate the health
and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological
systems and natural resources important to the nation; and to esta-
blish a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA and the amended CEQ Guidelines, as
published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1973, require all
Federal agencies to include, in every recommendation or report
on proposals for legislation and other Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement
on the environmental impact of the proposed action. Underlying the
IV-4
-------
preparation of such environmental impact statements is the mandate
of both NEPA and Executive Order 11514 of March 5, 1970, that
all Federal agencies, to the fullest extent possible, direct their
policies plans and programs to protect and enhance environmental
quality.
EPA will conduct environmental impact assessments for all dis-
posal sites and publish environmental impact statements (EISs)
prior to designating a site for incineration at sea. This will consti-
tute compliance with the EPA regulations on ocean dumping. The
EPA published a Final EIS for an incineration site in the Gulf of
Mexico on July 8, 1976, and is currently preparing an EIS for the
Atlantic site, commonly known as the "i06 industrial waste site. "
2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
(P. L. 94-580)
The purpose of RCRA is to provide technical and financial
assistance for the development of management plans and facilities
for the recovery of energy and other resources from discarded
materials, for safe disposal of discarded materials, and to regu-
late the management of hazardous waste. The Act requires the
Administrator of EPA to promulgate regulations establishing per-
formance standards for the treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste.
Although the provisions of this Act are applicable to incinera-
tion at sea, this method of hazardous waste disposal is adequately
IV-5
-------
regulated through the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972 (MPRSA) and, because of the interrelationship between
the MPRSA and the Convention, regulations developed under RCRA
will not be used to control incineration at sea. However, RCRA
will regulate land-based transport and storage of hazardous wastes
permitted to be incinerated at sea, as well as the land-based alter-
natives to incineration at sea, and will promote resource recovery.
3. Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PWSA)
(P. L. 92-340)
The Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 was amended during
1978 by the Port and Tanker Safety Act. This new law provides a
stringent and comprehensive program dealing with the design, con-
struction, operation, equipping, and manning of all tank vessels
using U. S. ports to transfer oil and hazardous materials. The
design, construction, and equipment requirements contained in this
law are, for the most part, in agreement with the results of the
1978 Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention. This
Conference resulted in the adoption of Protocols of two of IMCO's
most important Conventions, 1973 MARPOL and 1974 SOLAS
(mentioned in Chapter III, B).
This Act is intended to promote the safety of ports, harbors,
waterfront areas, and navigable waters of the United States. It
consists of two sections.
IV-6
-------
Title I of the PWSA gives the Secretary of the Department in which the
Coast Guard operates the authority to take means to prevent damage to,
or the destruction or loss of, any vessel, bridge, or other structure on
or in the navigable waters of the United States, or any land structure or
shore area immediately adjacent to those waters; and to protect the
navigable waters and the resources therein from environmental harm
resulting from vessel or structural damage, destruction or loss.
Title II provides for the establishment of comprehensive minimum
standards of design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance
and operation to prevent or mitigate the hazards to life, property
and the marine environment. These standards will apply to all
vessels documented under the Laws of the United States on entering
the navigable waters of the United States.
Incineration vessels will need to comply with the design and con-
struction requirements under Title II, as well as U.S. Coast Guard
requirements (46 CFR, Part 153) which implement the IMCO Chemical
Code. These Coast Guard requirements, as well as the IMCO Chemical
Code, are based upon the philosophy of relating cargo containment features
of vessel design, construction, and operation to the hazards of various
chemicals. The key provision of these requirements as they relate to
dangerous cargoes specify three different levels of vessel construction,
containment system, and containment system location within the vessel:
IV-7
-------
Type I - a containment system to transport products which
require maximum prevention measures to preclude their release;
Type II - a containment system to transport products which
require significant preventive measures to preclude their release;
Type III - a containment system to transport products which
require moderate preventive measures to preclude their release.
These three containment systems specify the location of the
cargo tanks and piping withm the ship and place minimum require-
ments for damaged and intact vessel stability. These assignments
to containment system types take into account the nature and severity
of the product's hazards if released.
The highest standard of cargo containment, Type 1, is placed on
those cargoes that on release could have the most wide- reaching
effect beyond the immediate neighborhood of the vessel. No portion
of the Type I cargo containment system may be located closer than
one-fifth the vessel beam from side of the vessel or a distance equal
to one-fifteenth the vessel beam above the vessel keel. The vessel
with a Type I containment system must be designed to withstand pre-
scribed damages (two-compartment standard of subdivision and damage
stability throughout its length). In addition, to prevent the large-scale
release of Type I cargo in event of rupture of the containment system,
the size of each tank is limited to 1,250 cubic meters.
IV-8
-------
Cargoes with significant hazards, but whose release would not
have far reaching effects, are carried in Type II containment systems.
A Type II containment system must be located a minimum distance of
760 mm from the vessel side and beam/15 above the vessel's keel.
These requirements should provide cargo protection against low-
energy collisions and groundings associated with vessels in port.
In addition, vessels greater than 150 m. long must have a two-com-
partment standard of subdivision and damage stability throughout
their length. Vessels less than 150 m. must meet a two-compart-
ment standard of subdivision and damage stability in the cargo
containment portion of the vessel and a one-compartment standard
for the engine room. To prevent the large-scale release of a Type H
cargo, the individual tank size is limited to 3,000 cubic meters.
A Type III containment system is prescribed for products with
lesser hazards. No separation of the cargo containment system from
the ship's hull is required. However, increased damage stability,
in excess of that required for a typical tanker, is required. Vessels
greater than 125 m. with a Type III containment system must be able
to survive damage to any position except an aft machinery space.
To determine the survival capabilities of the vessel hypothetical
damage is assumed.
4. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, As Amended (P.L. 92-500)
In Section 311 of this Act Congress declared that it is the policy
IV- 9
-------
of the United States that there should be no discharge of oil or
hazardous substances into, or upon, the navigable waters of the
United States, adjoining shorelines or upon, or into, the waters of
the continguous zone.
Some essential features of the Act relating to spills include a
revolving fund for cleanup operations, a national contingency plan
for control of spills of oil and hazardous polluting substances, and
authority to remove polluting spills of oil and hazardous substances.
In addition, the President shall issue regulations consistent with
maritime safety and with the marine and navigation laws: (1) esta-
blishing methods and procedures for removal of discharged oil and
hazardous substances; (2) establishing procedures, methods and
requirements for equipment to prevent discharges of oil and haz-
ardous substances from vessels and from onshore facilties and
offshore facilities.
The Clean Water Act of 1977 (P. L. 95-217) further amended the
FWPCA with respect to liability for oil and hazardous substance
spills. Most notably, the CWA extends U. S. national jurisdiction
for water pollution control to the ocean beyond the contiguous zone
where fisheries and other natural resources of the U.S. may be
adversely affected.
Section 311 of the FWPCA was again amended on November 2,
1978, when H. R. 12140 was signed into law.
IV-10
-------
5. Intervention on the High Seas Act, as Amended (P.L. 93-248)
The purpose of this Act is to implement the International
Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil
Pollution Casualties and Marine Pollution by Substances Other than
Oil. The Act authorizes the Department of Transportation (U.S. Coast
Guard) to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate pollution or threats of pollu-
tion on the sea by oil and other substances which results from a ship
collison, stranding or other incident of navigation.
In the event that an incineration vessel while transporting hazard-
ous wastes became involved in a marine disaster, the U.S. may take
appropriate measures to eliminate an imminent danger to U.S. coast-
lines or related interests of the United States.
IV-11
-------
V. DESCRIPTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
For convenience, the marine environment may be grouped into
two major categories: the coastal ocean and the open ocean. The
coastal ocean includes estuaries and adjacent wetlands, lagoons,
waters over the continental shelves, and marginal seas. The
open ocean lies seaward of the continental shelf.
There is no clear-cut boundary between the coastal and open
oceans; but for this environmental impact statement, water deeper
than 3, 000 feet is considered to belong solely to the open ocean.
Consideration of ocean conditions is necessary in order to make
predictions of the movements and eventual fate of pollutants that
may be spilled or discharged and to consider other environmental
impacts arising from the operation of waste incinerator ships.
Information contained in the following paragraphs A through G
along with additional detailed description is found in Reference 11.
A. Open Ocean
Beyond the continental shelves, the open ocean is relatively
unaffected by the continental boundaries or the ocean bottom. Over
most of the open ocean, warm surface waters are separated from
the cooler deep waters by what is known as the pycnocline, a rapid
increase in density that more or less separates surface ocean
waters from deeper waters. The deeper waters are known to move
sluggishly after forming in the polar regions (primarily the Ant-
arctic) and to return to the surface about 600 to 1, 000 years later.
V-l
-------
Away from the continents that interrupt surface water movements,
ocean currents are primarily directed east-west. Only in the areas
of the continental boundaries are the currents deflected to the north
or south forming major boundary currents. Open ocean currents
generally move surface waters at speeds of a few miles per day.
In the boundary currents such as the Gulf Stream or the Kuroshio
Current, the waters move at speeds of ten to a hundred miles per
day.
Winds blowing across the ocean set the surface waters in motion.
In the open ocean where tidal currents are relatively weak, these
wind drift currents account for about 40 percent of the surface currents.
B. Coastal Ocean
The coastal ocean is the water adjacent to the shore; there the
adjacent land boundary, freshwater runoff from the land, and local
atmospheric conditions contribute significantly to the movement and
mixing of the waters. The width of the coastal ocean varies, and its
outer boundary is not well defined. It may be quite narrow along coasts
where the continental shelf is narrow and where oceanic conditions and
"permanent" currents come close to shore. Conversely, where the
continental shelf is wide, the coastal ocean may be ten or even
hundreds of miles wide. The coastal ocean does not, however, always
coincide with the continental shelf. Where the shelf is very narrow,
the coastal ocean may extend beyond the edge of the shelf, or where
the shelf is very wide, the coastal ocean may extend out from shore
for only a part of the shelf width.
V-2
-------
Although making up only 12. 5 percent of the ocean surface, coastal
ocean waters are vitally important. Heavily used for waterborne
commerce, coastal waters are also used for recreational fishing and
boating, commercial fishing, and waste disposal. Despite these heavy
and often conflicting uses, coastal waters are still the most productive
part of the world's ocean --an estimated 90 percent of the world's
marine food resources are harvested there.
C. Geological Setting
The continental shelf is defined physically as the zone extending
from the line of permanent immersion around a continent to the depth
where there is a marked or rather deep descent toward the great
depths. In 1970, the Hague Conference defined the continental shelf
as:
. .the area between the mean low water line and the
change in the inclination of the ocean floor, from about
one-eighth of one degree to more than three degrees,
that marks the beginning of the continental slope. This
occurs at various depths, usually between 130 and 200
meters; but it can occur as shallow as 50 meters and
as deep as 500 meters. The continental shelf ranges
in width from zero to 1500 kilometers. "
Geographically, the continental shelf is a subpart of the con-
tinental margin, a zone separating the submerged part of a continent
from the deep-sea bottom. The other subparts are the continental
slope and the continental rise.
The continental slope is the declivity from the outer edge of
the continental shelf into the great depths. There exists a great
variation in the steepness of the continental slope. The base of
V-3
-------
the slope is marked by the continental rise. The rise is a gently
sloping and smooth surface formed by the joining of a number of
deep-sea fans.
D. Biological Setting
The offshore environment is broadly divided into the pelagic and
benthic realms. The pelagic realm includes 'all ocean water above
the bottom. Over the continental shelf, the waters constitute the
neritic province. Waters over the slope and deep ocean bottom
constitute the oceanic province. The biota of the pelagic division
is generally subdivided into plankton and nekton. The benthic
division includes the sea bottom and sub-bottom environment, and
its biota is called benthos.
Microorganisms are present £n large quantity in the ocean.
According to information provided by NOAA, microorganisms can
constitute up to 50 percent of the marine pelagic biomass and up
to 90 percent of the benthic biomass. Furthermore, they perform
important processes in the marine ecosystem such as nitrogen and
carbon cycling and decomposition.
1. Pelagic Realm - Plankton
All mobile aquatic organisms, plant or animal, whose powers
of locomotion are too feeble to resist the set and drift of currents
are termed plankton. The plankton is divided into several different
types on the basis of physiology and life history.
V-4
-------
Phytoplankton includes the acellular (unicellular) floating plants
and all floating multi-cellular plants, such as Sargassum. As plants,
all phytoplankters are capable of producing their own food from raw
materials by photosynthesis. The ubiquitous distribution and occur-
rence in pelagic waters is influenced by several factors. Both the
horizontal and vertical distributions of phytoplankton are dependent
on: (a) population origin and life cycles; (b) supply and level of nu-
trients and growth factors; (c) physiological requirements and adapt-
ability; (d) salinity and temperature, and (e) grazing pressure by
herbivores (plant-eating animals). In addition, vertical distribution
alone is influenced by: (a) vertical water mixing, diffusion, and
water stability; and (b) depth of the light zone.
The animal plankters are called zooplankton. Zooplankton dis-
tributions and occurrences are also relatively continuous in pelagic
waters. In general, they are influenced by the same factors that
affect phytoplankton distribution and occurrence. Inorganic nutrients
and depth of the light zone are not as immediately important to zoo-
plankton as to phytoplankton, but these factors affect distribution
and abundance in that greater availability of nutrients and light
allow higher primary productivity and consequently a greater food
supply for zooplankton.
2. Pelagic Re aim-Nekton
Organisms which remain suspended in water and whose powers
of locomotion are great enough to resist the set and drift of cur-
V-5
-------
rents, being subject only to large-scale physical forces, are called
nekton. Nekton for the offshore waters are represented by five
major taxonomic categories - marine mammals^ marine reptiles,
the fish, the cephalopod molluscs (octopus and squid), and certain
crustaceans (shrimp and swimming crabs). Individuals of this group
commonly, but not always, range over broad areas, thus participating
in several biotic communities. For example, shrimp have a pelagic
planktonic larvae, an estuarine juvenile, and pelagic adult. However,
most nekton are limited in geographic and vertical ranges by the same
environmental conditions as less mobile organisms, i.e., temperature,
salinity, available food, and types of bottom.
The neltfonic component of the environment can be divided into
open water nekton and nekton which spend some portion of their
lives in nearshore, estuarine, or marsh waters. Examples of the
latter are shrimp, drum, croaker, menhaden, flounder, seatrout,
salmon, etc. Many finfish of commercial and sportfishing import-
ance, however, are strictly open water residents, such as red
snapper, various groupers, sailiish, and marlin,
3. Benthic Re aim-Benthos
Organisms (plant or animal) which, as adults or in sessile
stages of their life cycles, live on the bottom are called benthos.
The benthos is characterized by the large numbers of sessile or
relatively inactive animals which exhibit marked zonation in the
V-6
-------
inshore region. The organisms are generally distinct for each of the
three zones of the neritic province (supratidal or suppralittoral, inter -
tidal or littoral, and subtidal or sublittoral). Zonation is characterized
more by dominant species than by distinct assemblages of numerous
species.
E. Estuarine Circulation
Most of the world's existing ports and harbors are located on
estuaries. Despite their variety of shapes and sizes, estuaries com-
monly exhibit similar physical and biological processes. An estuary
is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water that has a free connection
with the open sea. Within an estuary, seawater is measurably diluted
with fresh water which runs off from land. Four types of estuaries
can be distinguished; drowned river valleys, bar-built estuaries, fjord-
like estuaries, and estuaries producted by tectonic processes.
F. Shores and Beaches
The shore is a narrow strip of land bordering the ocean that is
alternatively exposed or covered by waves or by the changes in water
level due to the tide. Where wave action is relatively vigorous and
the supply of sand (or gravel) is adequate, the shore is marked by
a beach, i.e., a movable deposit of loose sand (or gravel). In more
protected areas, wetlands (either marshes or swamps) border the
shoreline. In those areas where the land is rising due to mountain
building (tectonism) or the recent retreat of continental glaciers,
the shore may be marked by a rocky coastline, such as the New
England coast (north of Cape Cod) or parts of the Pacific coast of
the lT. S. and the shores of Puget Sound.
V-7
-------
Rocky shores are typical of steeply sloping coastal land areas
where the sea acts directly on resistant rocks. In many of the
areas used for deepwater ports (especially fjord-like estuaries),
rocky shorelines are common owing to the effects of glaciers that
provided deep waters near shore needed for deep draft vessels.
In such areas, marine organisms typically attach themselves to the
rocks which support extensive communities for animals and plants.
G. Wetlands
Tidal channels and low lying areas around lagoons, estuaries,
and behind barrier islands are covered, either permanently or inter-
mittently, by seawater. These areas, known as wetlands, are most
common along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of the U.S. but also occur
on the Pacific and Alaskan coasts. Because of the shallow water in
the associated lagoons, sounds, and the waterlogged soils of the
regularly or intermittently flooded portions, wetlands have distinc-
tive types of vegetation.
Wetlands are extensively used by wildlife such as waterfowl and
aquatic mammals such as muskrats. Plants growing in wetlands
are highly productive and constitute important food sources for
marine organisms. The vegetated shallow water areas provide pro-
tection and act as hatching or nursery areas for many species of
marine organisms important for commercial or recreational fish-
eries.
V-8
-------
H. Nature of the Gulf of Mexico Incineration Site (Reference 18)
The location of the incineration site is centered 355 km ENE of
the Texas-Mexico border, 315 km SSE of Galveston, Texas, and
350 km S of Cameron, Louisiana. The site occupies an area of
approximately 4900 square kilometers. Water depths within this
perimeter range from near 1100 m to more than 1835 m and the
seafloor gradient for this portion of the outer continental slope is
somewhat uniform and gradual. The site is seaward of Gealy's
"hummocky zone" in an area of relatively low relief where the
surface is cut by steep-sided troughs that extend down-slope.
Alaminos Canyon and Ida Greene Canyon, probable extreme com-
ponents of the trough zone, flank the area of the proposed site on
the west and the east, respectively.
The Gulf of Mexico is a semi-enclosed sea with an approximate
surface area of over 1, 600, 000 square kilometers and a maximum
depth of about 3, 840 meters. Most of the oceanic input is from the
Caribbean Sea via the Yucatan Strait (160 km wide and 1650-1900
meters deep) with outflow being primarily through the Florida
Straits (less than 160 km wide and only around 800 meters deep).
The facts that both of these connections with the parent Atlantic
are confined to the southeastern sector and that runoff from
approximately two-thirds of the United States and more than half
of Mexico also empties into the basin contribute greatly to the
characteristics of the Gulf in general and the western Gulf in
particular. Those vastly different influences are used as a basis
V-9
-------
for dividing the Gulf into two major provinces: a carbonate
province to the east and a terrigenous one, containing the pro-
posed site, to the west (Uchupi, 1967). These provinces are
delineated by De Soto Canyon in the northeast quadrant and by
Campeche Canyon off the Yucatan Peninsula in the southwestern
region (Antoine and Bryant, 1968). Significant characteristics of
this basin are the great width of the shelves, the steepness of the
lower part of the continental slope (the scarps) and the flatness of
the floor of the main basin with its exceptionally thick sequence
of sediments.
1. Physical and Chemical Properties of the Water
The incineration site is located in oceanic water and the physio-
chemical parameters of the site's water column are typical of that
found in the west central Gulf. The site's water column, as well
as that of the west central Gulf, is vertically layered with five
recognized water masses which are distinguishable by distinct
values or gradients in specific parameters. Of these five layers,
the upper-most, Surface Mixed Layer, undergoes greater seas-
onal changes in physio-chemical parameters than do the deeper
water masses. However, the seasonal changes in the site's
Surface Mixed Layer are muted in comparison to waters closer to
shore.
Wind, waves, and currents prevail to the west-northwest with
the calmer period of the year being June - August.
V-10
-------
2. Pelagic Biota of the Gulf Coast Incineration Site
The data available for the incineration site show that it is not
within as productive an area as either the adjacent continental
shelf of upper continental slope regions. Such a finding holds
true for both the phytoplankton and zooplankton components of the
pelagic realm. Data show the relative adundance of phytoplankton
cells collected within the limits of the area to be from one to four
orders of magnitude less than counts obtained from the vicinity of the
continental shelf break and landward. Constituents of the nekton,
i. e., fishes and cephalopod mollusks, tend to concentrate in areas
of abundant food supply since they are free-swimming forms. It
seems likely that a number of the less important nektonic species
inhabit the incineration site waters as year-around residents, whereas
many predatory species of commerical and sport's interest (e. g.,
billfishes, tuna, dolphin) are probably only seasonal transients in
the area, but little direct information on this point exists.
3. Benthic Biota of the Incineration Site
The benthic environment is in general affected and defined by
the same factors that influence the waters above the bottom.
Additional factors to consider for the sea bottom alone are; (1)
nature of the substrate; (2) nature of the sediment; and (3) sub-bottom
temperatures, salinity, oxygen and pH. The substrate may be hard
or soft depending on the amount and nature of the sedimentation,
and the degree of scouring by horizontal currents. Sediment type
is usually described by percentages of carbonates, evaporites, sand,
V-ll
-------
silt, and clay. Sub-bottom temperature, salinity, oxygen, and pH
can be much different than overlying waters, especially the oxygen
and pH values. The benthic environment becomes more stable at
greater depths, i. e., it is less affected by physical forces such as
currents, waves, and storm surges. Temperature and salinity data
tend to fluctuate less and have smaller ranges of values than in
shallow water areas closer to the air-sea interface.
Whereas the plankton biota of the surface waters over the site
may be viewed primarily as transitional between that of the shelf
and that of the deep Gulf, such is probably not the case with the
benthic fauna. Most of the benthic inhabitants of the slope are not
found elsewhere, and together they constitute a complex, true slope
fauna. Major depth-related faunal breaks were cited between 175-
225 m, 50-550 m, and 750-800 m on the upper continental slope,
along with speculation of additional assemblages of the deeper slope
beyond the depth range of their study. Unpublished data from benthic
stations near the incineration site tend to verify further zonation with
faunal breaks around 1000 m (550 fm), between 1450-1750 m (800-950
fm), and near 2500 m (1350 fm). That is to say, there are probably
two different benthic assemblage zones occupying the depth range
of the site.
I. Proposed Atlantic Incineration Site - 106 Industrial
Waste Site
This disposal site is located 106 nautical miles southeast of
V-12
-------
Ambrose Light {at the entrance to New York Harbor) and approxi-
mately 90 nautical miles due east of Cape May, New Jersey, The
site is off the continental shelf at depths ranging from 1, 550 meters
in the northwest corner of the site to 2, 750m in the relatively flat
southeast corner. The bottom is generally characterized by a rugged
topography. A major topographic feature of the region, the Hudson
Canyon, is to the north, northeast, and east of the dumpsite.
The hydrography of the dumpsite 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.
In addition to hydrography, studies have also been made in the
water column of the occurrence and, in some cases, the relative
abundance of nutrients, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton, and nekton.
The ocean bottom at the dumpsite has also been investigated by
means of echo-sounding, photography, trawling and quantitative
sampling in order to describe aspects of geology, geochemistry,
and benthic fauna. Investigations have been made of heavy metal
and other contaminants in water, sediments, and in the tissues
of larger benthic fishes and invertebrates. (Ref. 22)
EPA is currently evaluating the data collected during these
investigations for the purpose of preparing an EIS for the proposed
incineration site.
V-13
-------
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
—ANb TECMOX ALTERNATIVES
One of the key considerations for minimizing environmental
impact is proper selection of the site for treatment and disposal of
wastes. Marine incineration sites should not interfere with shipping,
fishing, mineral extraction, fish and shellfish cultures and areas of
special scientific importance. Of equal importance is the regulation
of emissions from the incinerator, control of operating procedures,
and requirements for equipment and devices to minimize malfunctions
of the system. The proposed Federal action will ensure that these
types of considerations and regulations will be applied uniformly by
all Parties to the Convention.
A. General Site Selection (U. S. Procedures)
Sites for the direct dumping into the ocean are selected to mini-
mize the interference of disposal activities with other activities in
the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of existing
fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial or
recreational navigation.
Locations and boundaries of a disposal site will be so chosen
that temporary perturbations in water quality or other environmental
conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal operations any-
where within the site can be expected to be reduced to normal
VI-1
-------
ambient seawater levels or to undetectable contaminant concentra-
tions or effects before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine
sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery.
If at anytime, during or after disposal site evaluation studies, it
is determined that existing disposal sites presently approved on an
interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet the criteria for site
selection, the use of such sites will be terminated as soon as suit-
able alternate disposal sites can be designated. To the extent
possible, sites for incineration will not be located within disposal
areas designated for direct dumping of waste and the criteria for
selection of incineration sites will also include consideration of
atmospheric dispersal characteristics, adverse weather condi-
tions and migratory bird flyways.
The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to lo-
calize for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts
and permit the implementation of effective monitoring programs to
prevent adverse long-range impacts and surveillance for enforce-
ment purposes. The size, configuration, and location of any disposal
site will be determined as a part of the disposal site evaluation or
designation study.
The results of a disposal site evaluation and/or designation
based on the EPA criteria will be presented in support of the desig-
nation promulgation as an environmental assessment of the impact of
VI-2
-------
the use of the site for disposal, and will be used in the preparation
of an environmental impact statement for each site where such a
statement is required by EPA policy. An environmental impact
statement (EIS), in draft form, will be made available for public
comment not later than the time of publication of the site designation
as proposed rulemaking, and a final EIS will be made available at
the time of final rulemaking.
B. Environmental Impacts Resulting from Emission from
Incinerator Vessel in Compliance with International Standards
1. Types of wastes which may be incinerated and emission products
a. Organochlorine Wastes
Industrial wastes which may be incinerated at sea are principally
organic chemicals. Such wastes will usually be liquid, although
certain organic solids may be candidates because they are soluble
in the waste or in fuel oil. Furthermore, the wastes may be "wet"
or emulsified in water.
In general, these wastes will be organochlorine compounds whose
principal combustion products are COg, H £>, and HC1. However,
there is no reason to exclude hydrocarbons or oxygenated organic
compounds such as alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, ethers, acids and
esters, provided that they are combustible and do not contain materials
which are prohibited by current statutes and regulations. Principal
combustion products from these non-chlorinated materials are CO> and
HO,
2
VI-3
-------
A basic characteristic of at-sea incineration is that the com-
bustion products of the waste go directly from the stack of the
incinerator into the air and the ocean without any further treatment.
For land-based incinerators, emission control devices, such as
scrubbers, are required to eliminate impacts on air quality resulting
from toxic gas (HC1), vapors, mist and particulates. The conse-
quences of these impacts are dependent upon the chemical nature
of the pollutant and the assimilative capacity of the air environment.
Since at-sea incineration sites are selected by also taking into
account the atmospheric and meteorological conditions of the area,
emission control devices are not required for incineration vessels.
The emissions enter the sea and are neutralized and dispersed.
The addition of a scrubber on an incineration vessel would concen-
trate the stack emission and could cause the localized stresses at
the point of discharge; however, for fixed incineration facilities
located on an offshore platform, it may be necessary to install
scrubbers and diffusors.
The stack emissions contain the major products of combustion -
COg, HrP, and HC1; certain minor constituents which reflect the
minor components of the waste; and whatever unburned waste which
remains plus any organic materials which may have been synthesized
VI-4
-------
during the incineration process. Trace metals which may be present
in the waste will appear in the effluent gases as particulates. Phos-
phorus, sulfur, and much of the combined nitrogen will appear as
SOxand NCK Certain other minor constituents caused by equi-
librium conditions in the furnace and stack, i.e., CO, Clg, and Hg,
-5 "8
may also be present to the extent of 10 to 10 mole fraction.
In general, organic wastes of high inorganic content such as
heavy metals are not suitable for at-sea incineration. Since
inorganic substances are not destroyed by incineration the amount
of an inorganic substance in a combustible waste will need to be
evaluated in accordance with the criteria controlling direct disposal.
If levels of an inorganic substance are unacceptable for direct dump-
ing then they would also be unacceptable for incineration at sea.
Organochlorine wastes are generally produced during chemical
manufacturing and other industrial processes. Specific categories
of compounds include a large number of pesticides (e. g., DDT,
2,4, 5-T, aldrin, dieldrin, kepone, etc.) which may have been off-
specification or in surplus; a series of aliphatic low molecular
weight chlorinated hydrocarbons produced as nonsaleable by-
products during organic synthesis reactions; and wastes from the
VI-5
-------
plastics industry
-------
of incinerators burning PCBs. Regulations based on the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 will require additional con-
tinuing and intermittent monitoring equipment.
Based on EPA's ocean dumping regulations, special studies may
be required prior to the issuance of a permit for incineration at sea,
to determine the impact of human health and/or marine ecosystems,
if candidate wastes are shown to contain carcinogens, mutagens, or
teratogens.
c. Combustible Waste Containing Metals
Presence of trace metals in liquid organochlorine wastes has been
demonstrated. Metal content will appear in the stack gases (and thus
the plume) as particulate matter. The quantity of metal salts or metal
oxides in the plume is independent of combustion efficiency and is
directly proportional to the metal content of the waste itself. Control
of the metal content of waste material accepted for at-sea incineration
becomes the responsibility of regulatory agencies to ensure that wastes
with unacceptably high metal content are not approved for burning at
sea. Control must be implemented, however, by restrictions based
on the air and water quality requirements. Metal content permitted
in waste thus becomes a function of the plume model and of the at-
sea incineration process, e.g., dilution in the plume, feed rate
of waste, air feed rate and the speed of the incineration ship.
VI-7
-------
d. Solid Wastes
The acceptability of burning solids at sea remains to be deter-
mined because of the current unavailability of the MATTHIAS III.
During past burns on this ship, entire drums of wastes were fed into
the incinerator. There were indications of high particulate emissions.
These emissions are due to the quantities and nature of inorganic con-
stituents contained in the wastes and/or to the drum itself.
2. Incinerator Efficiencies
Combustion efficiency (CE) and destruction efficiency (DE) are
two parameters often used to describe an incinerator's effectiveness
in disposing of organic wastes. The CE value for a certain burn is
based on measurements of CO and COg concentrations of the hot gases
leaving the combustion chamber. The expression which, is usually
used to make this determination is:
C - C
CO. CO
CE (%) = 2 x 100
c
co2
where
C = measured concentration of carbon dioxide
co2
C = measured concentration of carbon monoxide
CO
Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide concentrations must be
expressed in the same units.
VI-8
-------
Destruction efficiency is basically a measure of the difference
between the amount of wastes being fed to the incinerator and the
amount of waste contained in the exiting gas stream. A variety of
sampling, analysis, and calculation procedures can be used to deter-
mine the destruction efficiency of a particular burn. References 9
and 10 describe these procedures in detail based on data obtained
during the March-April 1977 burn in the Gulf of Mexico and the
the July-September 1977 burn in the Pacific. For an organochlorine
waste,
Total organochlorine fed - organochlorine in exit gases
DE =
total organochlorine fed
This method was also used by the French scientists who monitored
the MATTHIAS III during the June 29, 1976, burn in the North Sea
(Ref. 4).
Combustion efficiencies of 99. 99% and destruction efficiencies of
99. 999% were demonstrated with organochlorine wastes on the M/T
VULCANUS (Ref. 10).
3. Incinerator Flame Temperatures
During the recent organochlorine waste burns at sea, flame
temperatures were measured in the incinerator by means of an opti-
cal pyrometer. Wall temperatures were also measured by means of
thermocouples reaching to within a few centimeters of the interior
firebrick walls of the incinerator (Refs. 9 and 10).
VI-9
-------
At the start of each burn, the two furnaces of the M/T VULCANUS
were heated by fuel oil until a flame temperature of 1280 degrees
centigrade was reached; at this point the burners were successively
switched to waste feed. Permit requirements were thus met in all
cases.
The flame temperature is maintained above 1280 degrees centi-
grade at all times during the incineration of organochlorine wastes.
During a typical burn in the South Pacific in July 1977, flame temper-
atures ranged from 1375 degrees centigrade to 1610 degrees centigrade
over a ten-day period.
4. Environmental Impacts of At-Sea Incineration
Analysis of environmental impacts resulting from at-sea incinera-
tion has been based on the results of models which are used to estimate
the effects of plume constituents in air and water quality. Air quality
simulation methodology is described in Ref. 16.
C. Air Quality Effects
Major input parameters for air quality simulation are: effective
stack height (or plume rise), wind speed, and the atmospheric sta-
bility category which is applicable. Values for these parameters
selected for use in simulators are considered to be generally repre-
sentative of conditions likely to occur over the ocean under real
world circumstances. In general, simulation parameters used in
this section are based on information obtained in connection with the
VI-10
-------
incineration of Shell wastes on board the M/T VTJLCANUS in
March 1977 (Ref. 9).
Effective stack height calculations are based on data obtained
during this burn. Wind speed and atmospheric stability categories
used were selected after review of measured and statistical data for
shore locations in the general vicinity of a burn zone located off the
Gulf Coast. (Measured wind speed data are not available for the
proposed offshore site; therefore, data from the nearest shore-
based meteorological stations are used instead.)
Wind speed (i. e., speed of the diffusing layer) is an input
parameter which significantly influences predicted downwind pollutant
concentrations. Generally, increasing wind speed decreases down-
wind concentration. When an incinerator ship is moving, the relative
wind speed, as measured at the stack, may be greater than the speed
of the diffusing layer. However, relative wind speed is not used as
an input to the diffusion modeling performed here, because the mate-
rials emitted will assume the average speed of the diffusing layer
shortly after they are discharged to the atmosphere. One result is
that downwind concentrations near the source may be lower (due to
the additional mechanical turbulence from the ship velocity) than
estimated in this study. Downwind concentrations will also tend to
be decreased by the fact that a moving source distributes its emis-
sions into a larger volume of air per unit time (i.e., if the relative
wind speed is greater than that of the diffusing layer).
VI-11
-------
The diffusion model assumes that the chemical species emitted
remain airborne and are not removed from the atmosphere by either
chemical or physical processes. There are a variety of technical
arguments against this assumption. For example, particulate matter
will be removed by gravity, and there will "undqubtedly be acid-base
interactions between airobrne dropletes of ocean water and HC1. In
addition* if the plume does loft, the HC1 will disperse into the
atmosphere and ultimately come down into the sea with rainfall.
However, the data required to take pollutant-marine boundary layer
interactions into account are not available.
Estimates were made assuming feed rate and emissions
characteristics of the M/T VULCANUS furnaces. Emissions data
for particulates were not obtained during the March 1977 burn.
However, data were available describing waste composition
and emissions of various inorganic constituents. These data
were converted to mass emissions rates and summed in order to
derive an estimate of expected particulate emissions. Based
upon worst case calculations the maximum sea level concentration
of inorganics in the ambient air would be about 26 microgram
per cubic meter which is ten times lower than the EPA primary
or health standards for particulates. It should be noted that
these results compare favorably with the analysis data indicating
a loss on ignition value of 99. 8% for the waste (Ref. 9).
A Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 7 mg/m 3 has been esta-
blished for HC1. This level represents the maximum allowable
VI-12
-------
HC1 concentration for humans in a work area. Excursions beyond
this level for periods greater than 15 minutes result in either
intolerable irritation, or chronic or irreversible tissue damage
(Ref. 17). The maximum ambient HC1 level of 4.4. mg/m pre-
dicted as a result of at-sea incineration is below this TLV.
D. Water Quality Effects
Estimation of the effects of at-sea incineration on ocean water
quality were generally obtained by using a diffusion model to identi-
fy the ocean area affected by the plume and by determination of the
water concentrations of plume constituents. The concentrations were
determined by assuming that ail of the material in the plume dissolved
in a prescribed depth of the affected water area,
HC1 concentrations in the plume are high because the combustion
gases are not scrubbed. However, because of its buffering capacity,
one cubic meter of ocean water is capable of neutralizing 80 gm of
HC1 {80, 000 ppb) {Ref. 14). Thus, the 197 ppb contribution of HC1
from plume touchdown would never be detected by a pH change and
the corresponding" quantity of chloricte ion would be negligible
compared with the 19, 000 ppb chloride background of the ocean.
During the 1974 burn of organochlorine waste onboard the M/T
VULCANUS, water samples were obtained in the vicinity of plume
touchdown (Ref. 8). Analysis of these samples showed no signifi-
cant difference in pH and copper (the most abundant heavy metal
VI-13
-------
constituent of the waste) as compared with samples from control
areas. Organochlorine wastes were undetected at the 0. 5 ppb
level.
Biological specimens (phytoplankton and zooplankton) were also
taken during the 1974 burn (Ref. 8). Examination of chlorophyll-a
(an indicator of phytoplankton activity) levels, and adenosine
triphosphate (ATP) levels in the specimen showed no deleterious or
subtle adverse impacts.
A series of biological tests were also associated with the March
1977 burn. Various fish species were exposed to the plume of the
M/T VULCANUS during the incineration. Exposure was accom-
plished by using a device called a biotal ocean monitor (BOM), which
allows specific organisms to be exposed under field conditions and
then retrieved. The BOM tests which represent a worst case
condition showed an elevation in the activity of P-450 enzymes.
However, when exposed fish were left in clean water for a few days,
the enzyme activity reverted to that of control organisms (Ref. 15).
The experimenters concluded that the overall effects were
localized and temporary and do not represent drawbacks to the use
of incineration at sea for organochlorine waste disposal (Ref. 15).
VI-14
-------
E. Socio-Economic Impacts
Selection of an appropriate disposal site is implicit in control-
ling the environmental impact and the socio-economic effects which
may result from an incineration at sea process.
1. Beach and Shoreline Recreation
No impact on beach and shoreline recreation activities would be
expected to result from incineration at sea in a properly selected
disposal zone. If the site chosen is suitably located away from the
nearest coastline it is doubtful that incineration at sea will have any
adverse effects upon the coastal water or beach areas. However,
a possible adverse effect could be produced by an accidental spill in
port or while the ship is underway near the coast. Any ship operating
under an EPA permit to incinerate chemical wastes must meet Coast
Guard regulations requiring protection appropriate to the hazardous
cargo, which minimizes loss of cargo resulting from collisions
or stranding and reduces the likelihood of sinking.
2. Recreational Use
The sites chosen for at-sea incineration are in areas where sport
fishing is known to be minimal. The incineration site should be away
from major shipping lanes where feasible. Accordingly, pleasure craft
are also not likely to transit this area- Even if such vessels stray
into the area during a burn, existing observations during test burns
show that the concentrations of toxic materials at any one point near
the water surface are such that no harm will result. Warnings of action
VI-15
-------
which may be dangerous are also circulated and the disposal site
is usually shown on a chart. Permits require the incineration vessel
to position itself downwind from any vessels other than those engaged
in environmental monitoring. Thus, the impact of incineration at sea
will have little or no effect on pleasure craft.
One possible impact of incineration at sea on recreational values
would be from accidental discharge of chemical wastes while the ship
is in transit to the site. Such an accidental discharge, if in signifi-
cant quantity, could result in a localized kill of marine life. For
this reason, the route of the ship to the site will be controlled so
as to minimize vessel transport through recreational areas. In
addition, the design of the ship will meet the Coast Guard require-
ments for carrying hazardous cargo, thereby minimizing the
probability of the discharge of the cargo even if the ship is involved
in an accident at sea.
3. Population characteristics
Neither the incineration operation nor the use of a disposal site
will have demographic effects of any significance. The only ship
currently in operation which has performed incineration of chemical
wastes and can reach the United States is the M/T VULCANUS,
which carries a crew of 18. The ports in which the ships would
be fueled and loaded are major seaports, so that the effect of the
use of this ship would not significantly affect the population of land-
based support personnel.
VI-16
-------
4. Economic Impact
The short run economic impact of the site designation and its
use will be minimal. The ship VULCANUS, which has been utilized
for such incineration, already exists and is of foreign registry with
a foreign crew. The loading of the ship will utilize existing dock
facilities and employees in the United States and the additional load
on these facilities is minimal due to the small amount of such waste
products relative to the tonnage of commodities already handled by
these facilities. For example, in 1974, the Port of Houston alone
handled in excess of 34 million short tons of cargo in foreign trade.
Approximately 3. 4 million short tons, or 10 percent of this total,
were chemicals. These figures, of course, do not include the large
amount of domestic cargo handled by the Port. Moreover, by the
very nature of the cargo, the incinerator vessel will take on waste
at the chemical plant's private dock.
Neither the incineration operation nor the use of the burning zone
will have any measurable economic impact on commercial fishing
and shrimping. Observations from both the MATTHIAS HI and the
VULCANUS indicated no interference with commercial fishing
activities. In addition, the concentrations of wastes remaining in
the stack emissions after a properly carried-out incineration are
so small that it is highly unlikely that any damage would be done to
any fish in the immediate area.
VI-17
-------
5. Impact on Land Use and Land Use Trends
Neither the incineraiton operation nor the use of the burning
zone would have a significant impact on existing land use or trends
in land use. Mo additional land is required for the project. The
existing port facilities are adequate for the loading of the wastes.
Land-based disposal methods require substantial land use; incin-
eration at sea does not. Designation of proposed sites could open
the way for incineration'at sea of suitable materials that are now
disposed by incineration on land or by deep-well injection. Also, as
a beneficial impact, improved air and water quality is expected when
land treatment is shifted to incineration at sea.
5. Public Service
Neither the incineration operation nor the use of a properly
selected burning site will have impact on required public service.
The loading in all probability will be carried-out from existing
facilities using the existing labor force. Thus, no additional public
services will be necessary.
F. Technical Alternatives to incineration at Sea
1. Chemical Landfills and Potential Environmental Impacts (Ref. 19)
Landfills operate on the following principles:
a) utilization of the adsorptive capacity of the soil,
b) storage of wastes so that they are isolated from man and the
surface environment, and
c) to a minor extent, biodegradation.
VI-18
-------
The typical landfill methods currently utilized for disposal of
hazardous waste include subsurface injection, isolation, burial, sur-
face adsorption, and direct landfill. Each of these methods results
in the underground emplacement of wastes. The amount and type of
cover varies with the method, which, in turn, is determined by type
of waste. A relatively shallow cover of impermeable material may be
used in surface adsorption and direct landfill, whereas isolation burial
and subsurface injection generally involve deeper underground place-
ment of the waste materials. In isolation burial, the wastes are often
surrounded by an impermeable layer of soil, as well as covered by it.
The landfills meeting the most stringent requirements for hazardous
waste disposal are called "secure landfills", and are generally the
only landfills considered adequate to prevent environmental damage
to all media. The secure landfill is designed to provide complete
protection for all of the quality of ground and surface waters from
the disposed wastes. Measurement and analyses of leaching rates
at experimental waste disposal sites indicate that secure landfills
of untreated hazardous wastes can be constructed such that adverse
impacts will not occur.
In recent years, the more stringent regulation of discharges of
toxic pollutants into air and water has precipitated a growing trend
to dispose of hazardous wastes on land. Because of inadequate
legal restrictions and economic factors, the prevailing methods of
land disposal of hazardous wastes have often been inadequate.
VI-19
-------
Various damage incidents have resulted from cases of improper
land disposal. The damage has occurred via groundwater contami-
nation, surface water contamination by runoff, air pollution from
open burning, evaporation, sublimation and wind erosion, poison-
ings by direct contact and through the food chain, and fires and
explosions at land disposal sites. Landfills and surface impound-
ments thus may constitute sources of environmental damage.
Certain materials of high-toxicity and poor biodegradability are
being excluded from disposal in landfills. These materials include
specific organochlorine compound types, e.g., polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and hexachlorocyclopentadiene (C-56). Thus,
landfills may have inherent problems as alternatives for disposal of
organochlorine wastes for the following reasons.
o Organochlorine wastes are not readily biodegradable and,
thus, remain in-situ,
o Landfills may cause pollution of ground water aquifers by
percolation and surface water contamination through cir-
cumstances over which the responsible agencies have no
control, e.g., flooding and earthquakes,
o Landfills may cause air pollution through evaporation and/
or wind erosion.
On the other hand, landfill methods have certain advantages, such
as:
o relatively low cost
o minimal energy requirements
VI-20
-------
o low capital investment in equipment and machinery
o simplicity of operation
Secure landfills must be considered as alternatives to at-sea
incineration, although they appear to possess disadvantages which
may make them less desirable for organochlorine waste disposal
than more positive methods such as incineration or chlorolysis.
2. Land-Based Incineration
Land-based incineration requires two basic components, a
combustion chamber and a gas scrubber. Typically, land-based
disposal processes use liquid incinerators where the liquid waste
is atomized to increase the surface area available for thermal
destruction just as in the case of at-sea incineration.
Combustion products of heavily chlorinated organochlorine wastes
are usually passed through a scrubber after leaving the combustion
chamber. Such scrubbers are designed to remove primarily partic-
ulates and HC1, but other combustion products may also be abstracted.
The most common type of scrubber system consists of a Venturi scrubber
followed by a packaged tower or a separator tank with a demister.
The efficiency of waste destruction in a land-based system has been
shown to be in most cases on the order of 99. 99 percent. Waste constit-
uents were not found in the stack gases being vented to the atmosphere.
The maximum ground level concentration of HC1 is several orders
of magnitude lower than the TLV of 7 mg/m 3,
The wastewater from the scrubber will contain suspended par-
VI-21
-------
ticulates, dissolved HC1, trace quantities of organic materials and
waste constituents and trace metals which were in the waste stream.
It may need treatment before it is returned to the environment. Land-
based facilities utilizing alkaline scrubber water may contribute
additional total dissolved solids (TDS) to water resources. Depending
on the organochlorine waste incinerated, the scrubber wastewater
could have TDS values higher than seawater. For inland areas,
discharge of wastewater with TDS values approaching or higher than
seawater will have a more significant impact because there is not an
ocean nearby to serve as an appropriate sink.
Solid residues appear to present only a minor problem. Analysis
of solid residue from hexachlorocyclopentadiene showed mostly carbon
and no measurable quantities of this waste.
Land-based incineration is considered a viable alternative to at-
sea incineration for the disposal of organochlorine wastes. However,
in case of catastrophic or periodic malfunction accidents at either
facility, the potential for acute adverse effects on the environment is
greater at the land-based facility due to its close proximity to pop-
ulation centers and areas of environmental concern.
3. Feasible Methods of Waste Recovery -- Chlorolysis
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 requires
that recovery of useful components of waste be undertaken before
final disposal. Recycling, fractionation and chemical treatment
are potential alternatives to gross disposal. However, these
VI-22
-------
methods are dependent upon energy requirements and on the eco-
nomics of the recovery process.
One of the currently attractive methods of waste recovery is
chlorolysis. In this process, the waste is treated with chlorine to
produce carbon tetrachloride. While this process will produce a
useful material as an end product, it is ultimately dependent on the
market for carbon tetrachloride. The process also requires a
"clean waste" stream and, thus, is expected to be applicable to
only approximately 10 percent of the organochZorine wastes which
are available. Furthermore, chlorolysis uses elemental chlorine
which not only requires electrical energy for its production, but
is also competitively sought by other processes in the chemical
industry.
For chlorolysis, the predicted maximum ground level concen-
trations of hydrogen chloride, chlorine, carbonyl chloride, carbon
tetrachloride, and sulfur dioxide are all several orders of magnitude
lower than their respective TLVrs. Emissions from chlorolysis are
lower than those from at-sea incineration, and are also lower than
those from land-based incineration with the exception of hydrogen
chloride emissions. Environmental impacts associated with the
chlorolysis process should, therefore, be lower than those associ-
ated with the other two disposal processes.
Chlorolysis is a viable alternative for the treatment of some
organochlorine wastes before ultimate disposal of non-recoverable
residues.
VI-23
-------
VII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF
THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
productivity
During the organochlorine waste incineration tests in the Gulf of
Mexico, EPA undertook a sampling and analysis program to acquire
the data necessary for evaluating the incinerator waste destruction
efficiency. Although these efforts provide an assessment of the
acute effects of incinerating organochlorine wastes, a better under-
standing of the potential long-term effects of jat-sea incineration is
needed. Evaluation of long-term effects is dependent upon the
advancement of at-sea monitoring technology which is in its early
stages of development. Therefore, the use of a disposal site may
be limited or terminated based on the impact of disposal at the
site.
The procedure and criteria for evaluating the disposal site
impact are specified in the EPA regulations for ocean disposal
of waste. The basic rationale for the impact classification system
is that some changes in the composition of water and sediments
may be tolerated, but any significant sign of damage to any of the
biota may be a forerunner of adverse changes affecting the entire
ecosystem and steps should be taken to reduce waste loadings to
levels at which no changes in the biota are detectable. Thus, EPA
recognizes that there is some impact on the biota that may presage
some form of significant long-range impact and regards this level
of impact as being "unreasonable degradation" and will take
VII-1
-------
appropriate steps to preclude this from happening.
Research will be conducted to develop better models to predict
plume dispersion and impact on air quality, Continued research
will be conducted on the marine environment (such as use of the
BOM discussed in Chapter VI, section D) to determine azty long-
term impacts resulting from stack emissions.
The Convention does not require the development of procedures
and criteria for evaluating the impact waste disposal at designated
sites; however, the Convention does require the parties to monitor
the condition of the seas and take all practicable steps to prevent
harm to living resources and marine life. Based on results of
future research conducted in the atmosphere and marine environ-
ments as previously outlined, the U. S. will recommend to the
Contracting P^rties any necessary changes to the incineration at
sea regulations.
VII-2
-------
VHI ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT
BE AVOIDED
A. Emissions from Incinerators
1. Impact on Air Quality
Some largely local impacts on air quality from the at-sea
incineration process are unavoidable in the burn site. Among these
are the large output of hydrogen chloride with far lesser amounts
of carbon monoxide, chlorine, and unburned organochlorines. At
99. 96% destruction efficiency of the waste, the maximum predicted
concentration of organochlorines would be approximately 2. 75 ug/m3,
In the March 1977 Gulf burn, the maximum air concentration of
hydrogen chloride found was 10 ppm (one occasion only). Most
frequently, values ranged from 0-5 ppm. Sea-level concentrations
of hydrogen chloride generally were in the range of 1-2 ppm several
kilometers down-wind during the October 1974 burn. These low
atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen chloride posed no hazard
to birds or personnel in the area. The concentrations of carbon
monoxide and chlorine in the atmosphere are negligible.
Within 5-10 miles of the incinerator ship, acid rain from incin-
eration could equal or exceed that normally produced when rain
\
washes out the naturally occurring acidic sulfur (SC^) and nitrogen
(NO*) as well as chloride in salt spray. In this case the acid rain
would be neutralized immediately by the natural carbonates in the
ocean (Ref. 14).
VIH-1
-------
Beyond ten miles, any hydrogen chloride remaining in the air
would be so diluted that it would be insignificant compared to
naturally occurring acidic components of the atmosphere. Aerial
monitoring of at-sea incineration in 1974 showed that the maximum
concentration of hydrogen chloride in the air five miles downwind
was on the order of 0. 1 ppm. This concentration is much lower
than the TLV. Eight miles downwind the concentration was below
detection limits (0. 005 ppm). This concentration is lower than the
concentration of other acidic components allowed under the most
stringent air standards for either SOxor NOx,
At any greater distance than ten miles, the effect would be even
less with continued dispersion and neutralization of the hydrogen
chloride which contacts the ocean or reacts with naturally occur-
ring ammonia (20 ppb) in the atmosphere. For these reasons, the
acidity of rainfall on coastal locations would not be increased due
to at-sea incineration in the proposed site.
B. Deterioration of Water Quality
The ability of sea water to assimilate hydrogen chloride without
measurable change is well known. Analysis of sea water samples
for organochlorines daring organochlorine burns resulted in values
below the 0. 5 ppb limit of detection. In addition, surface water
samples collected during burns showed no significant differences
in trace metals between test and control stations under normal
meteorological conditions.
VIII-2
-------
A "worst case" condition would be the rapid fallout of HC1 caused
by rainfalL Rainfall occurs less than 25 days per year at the Gulf
of Mexico burn site. If rainfall occurred in the immediate vicinity
of the incinerator vessel, it is estimated for a typical organochlorine
waste (63% chlorine) that the maximum fallout rate of HC1 would be
between 30 and 60 grams per square meter of ocean surface. A
depression in pH would occur but would have short-term and local
effects since neutralization would occur within the first few meters
of the water column. If the rain occurred directly downwind at a
distance of 5-10 miles from the incinerator vessel, acid rain would
be neutralized immediately by the natural buffering capability of the
ocean. At distances greater than ten miles, acidity due to input
of HC1 from incineration of organochlorines would be neutralized
by ambient ammonia in the atmosphere.
C. Accidental Spillage
Even though incineration at sea has been found to have no
demonstrable deleterious effects upon the upper portion of the
water column and its biota, potential for environmental damage
resulting from an accidental collision, stranding, or sinking
while loaded with chemical wastes is of considerable environ-
mental concern. Such an accident could occasion moderate or
serious consequences, depending in large measure upon where it
occurred. For instance, a major spill near shore affecting an
estuary would destroy many organisms (including bottom-living
forms) and contaminate the area for a substantial period of time.
VIII-3
-------
A spill on the continental shelf could have significant short-term
impact on local organisms; however, as the wave and current
actions would greatly disperse the contaminant and the large
volume of water would dilute the contaminant, the long-term
impacts at the site would be significantly reduced.
In addition to the possibility of collision and catastrophic
marine accidents, spillage may result from improper loading and
transfer operations. The U. S, Coast Guard data on spills of oil
and other matter indicate that about 34 percent of such spills
occur in port and harbor areas. However, of these, only 2 7 per-
cent occur at marine transfer facilities.
In order to reduce the potential for such discharges, the
Coast Guard conducts surveillance flights at ports handling over
10 million tons of petroleum products annually and flights are
conducted in all coastal waters. Specific coastal surveillance
areas are determined by pollution potential expected as a result
of vessel density studies and historical spill data. The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act requires polluters to report spills, and
non-spilling industries and the public are encouraged to report spills
to augment this mandate.
The Coast Guard enforces regulations that protect the marine
environment against pollution from chemical carriers. These
fall into several categories: standards for design and construction
of navigating vessels, cargo containment and fire protection
VIII-4
-------
requirements, navigating equipment necessary for safe operation,
and cargo transfer regulations and procedures for notifying proper
authorities if a spill occurs.
Since most liquid bulk chemical carriers are a special form of
tanker designed to safely transport hazardous bulk liquid cargoes,
they must meet the construction and operation requirements of all
applicable U. S. Coast Guard tank vessel regulations, as well as
the special requirements for the specific bulk cargoes to be
carried when transporting flammable and combustible liquid car-
goes in bulk. The terminology "chemical carriers" includes ships
which may also carry bulk chemicals not in liquid form and petro-
leum products in addition to liquid bulk chemicals. In any event,
the Coast Guard requires that adequate pollution control measures
for cargoes carried must be incorporated in the design of the ship,
its cargo tanks, cargo transfer equipment and other protective
auxiliary equipment.
The Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) is responsible for
general port safety and enforcement of pollution prevention regulations.
His staff daily inspects vessels, facilities, and anchorages. The pur-
pose of these inspections is to safeguard vessels, harbors, ports,
and waterfront facilities by enforcement of hazardous material reg-
ulations and other related safety regulations. The COTP is also
responsible for establishing, coordinating, and, if necessary, put-
ting into effect emergency contingency plans in the event of a major
casualty in the port.
VIII-5
-------
During the transfer and transport of Herbicide Orange, special
precautions were taken to reduce the potential for spillage. A
contingency plan was drawn up by the Air Force, EPA, and the
Coast Guard. The contingency plan defined precautions to be taken
to prevent spills of herbicide and the countermeasures to be taken
if a spill occurred during any stages of the disposal operation, in-
cluding emptying of the drums and moving the contents to the dock
in Gulfport, Mississippi; loading the herbicide into the VULCANUS;
ocean transit; transit of the Panama Canal; and operations at Johnston
Island. Organization of the operation was to be under the direction
of an Air Force project director or his deputy; the director or his
deputy was on call 24 hours a day, either at Gulfport or at Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Preventing spills and taking
appropriate measures in the event of a spill were the responsibility
of the Air Force On-Scene Coordinator, who was at Gulfport and
Johnston Island during operations there. The contingency plan also
listed government agencies and commercial salvage firms that could
be called for assistance and government agencies to be notified in
the event of a spill or any other accident.
It is to be anticipated that similar precautions would be taken
when loading, transferring and transporting hazardous wastes
for incineration at sea.
VIII-6
-------
IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT
OF RESOURCES
A. Commitment of Physical and Biological Resources
The conversion and operation of at-sea incineration ships involves
the use of mineral resources, some of which cannot be recovered. In
the construction of the vessel, coal, limestone, and other materials
are used to produce steel and other materials used in construction.
While many materials are recoverable, such as steel used in con-
struction, other materials are not. The character of these materials
is not unique, nor will the quantities used be such that their use is
significant in terms of our national resources.
The loss of thermal energy due to waste combustion is a signifi-
cantly large irretrievable resource. A typical organochlorine waste
would be rated at 11630 kilojoules/kg. At a waste destruction rate of
25 metric tons/hour, this figure represents a loss of energy to the
environment of 290 x 106 kilojoules/hour.
At the present time, the highly corrosive nature of the effluent
gases (which may contain 5% HC1) at an estimated 1000 degrees
centigrade, makes recovery of the energy for propulsive or storage
use a major and expensive undertaking.
B. Commitment of Other Resources
The proposed Federal action would not involve the irrecoverable
use of resources other than fuel, that quantity required for transport
IX-1
-------
of the waste and the amount required to bring the incinerator to
proper operating temperature. A preliminary study of incinera-
tion at sea (Ref. 23) indicates that for transport and destruction
of wastes in the Gulf of Mexico it would require about 0.1 metric
tons of fuel per metric ton of waste destroyed.
IX-2
-------
REFERENCES
1) "incineration at Sea of Industrial Wastes Containing Chlorine --
Report on Experiments Relating to the Activity of the Incinerator
Ship MATTHIAS II Operated by INCIMER, Inc., " French Ministry
of the Quality of Environmental Life, 7 May 1976.
2) "Characterization of the Various Levels of Pollution Possible in
the Plumes of Two Marine Incinerators, the 'MATTHIAS II' and
the 'VULCANUS,1 in the North Sea;11 French' Atomic Energy
Commission (CEA), Department of Protection, May 1974.
3} "Current Research Work on Incineration at Sea in the Netherlands
-- Preliminary Observations, " TNO, Division of Technology for
Society in the Netherlands, pa. rented as Agenda Item 2, Joint Ad
Hoc Group on Incineration at Sea, London Dumping Convention,
Oslo Convention, London, 21-23 June 1978.
4) 'Status of Ocean Incineration of Organic Chlorides Aboard
MATTHIAS EQ as of 29 June 1976, " H.J. Fisher, TRW, Inc.,
Contract No. EPA/68-02-2165, July 1976.
5) "Status of Ocean Incineration of Organic Chlorides Aboard
MATTHIAS III as of 3 September 1976, " H.J. Fisher, Ibid.,
12 November 1976.
6) "Effect on the Marine Environment of the Combustion at Sea of
Some Industrial Waste, " M. Aubert and Staff, Center of Biolo-
gical Studies and Research and of Oceanographic Medicine
(CERBOM), for INCIMER, Rotterdam, Netherlands, January
1974.
7) "On the Occurrence of Organic Chlorides in the Combustion Pro-
ducts of an EDC Tar Burnt by the Incinerator Ship VULCANUS:
A Preliminary Investigation, " H. Compaan, Central Laboratory
T1SO, Delft, Netherlands, April 1974.
8) "Disposal of Organochlorine Wastes by Incineration at Sea, " T. A.
Wastler, C.K. Offutt, C.K. Fitzsimmons, P.E. Des Rosiers,
EPA-430/9-75-014, July 1975.
9) "At-Sea Incineration of Organchlorine Wastes Onboard the M/T
VULCANUS, M J.F. Clausen, H.J. Fisher, E.L. Moon, C.C.
Shih, R. F. Tobias, andC.A. Zee, TRW, Inc., Contract No.
68-01-2966, EPA-600/2-77-196, September 1977.
x-i
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
10) "At-Sea Incineration of Herbicide Orange Onboard the M/T
VULCANUS, " D. G. Ackerman, H.J. Fisher, R.J. Johnson,
R.F. Maddalone, B.J. Mattews, E.L. Moon, K. H. Scheyer,
C.C. Shih, and R.F. Tobias, TRW, Inc., Contract No. 68-
01-2966, EPA-600/2-78-086, April 1978.
11) "Final Environmental Impact Statement -- Maritime Admini-
stration Chemical Waste Incinerator Ship Project, " Vol. 1,
U.S. Maritime Administration, MA-EIS-7302-041F, 2 July 1976.
12) U.S. EPA - Ocean Dumping, Final Revision of Regulations and
Criteria, FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 42, No. 7, January 11,
1977.
13) "Environmental Assessment: At-Sea and Land-Based Incinera
tion of Organochlorine Wastes,11 S. F. Paige, L. B. Baboolal,
H.J. Fisher, K. H. Scheyer, A.M. Shaug, R. L. Tan, andC.F.
Thorne, TRW, Inc., EPA Contract No. 68-02-2660, April 1978.
14) Extract from ''Possible Effects of Burning Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons At-Sea" - included in Appendix N of Final Environ -
mental Statement; Disposition of Orange Herbicide by Incineration,
Dept. of the Air Force, November 10 76.
15) ''Development and Application of a Biotal Ocean Monitor System
to Studies of the Impacts of Ocean Dumping, " Willis E, Pequegnat
and staff, TerEco Corporation, EPA Contract Nos. 68-01-2893
and 68-01-4797, December 1978.
16) "Comparative Cost Analysis and Environmental Assessment of
Disposal of Organochlorine Waste, " C.C. Shih, J.E. Cotter,
D. Dean, S.F. Paige, E.P. Pulaski, andC.F. Thorne, Draft
Final Report, TRW, Inc., EPA Contract No. 68-02-2613, Task
12, June 1978.
17) Committee on Medical and Biological Effects of Environmental
Pollutants: Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride, National Academy
of Sciences, 1976.
18) "Final Environmental Impact Statement Designation of a Site
in the Gulf of Mexico for Incineration of Chemical Wastes"
U.S. EPA, Division of Oil and Special Materials Control,
Office of Water and Waste Management, with contractual
assistance from Texas A&M University (EPA-E1S-WA 76x-
054) July 8, 1976.
X.-2
-------
REFERENCES (Continued)
19) "Evaluation of Emission Control Criteria for Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities, " K.E. Green, R.J. Johnson, S. F.
Paige, G. Richard, K. Slimak, M. Yamada, J. Spraul, TRW,
lac., EPA Contract Tfo, 63-01 -4645* April 1978.
20) "State-of-the-Art Report: Pesticide Disposal Research, "
R.R. Wilkinson, G.L. Kelso, F. C. Hopkins, Midwest Re-
search Institute, Kansas City, MO, EPA Contract No. 68-
03-2527, May 1978.
21) nA Study of the Economics and Environmental Viability of
U. S. Flag Toxic Chemical Incineration Ship, " Preliminary
Draft, Vol. I, Global Marine Development Inc. , Newport
Beach, CA, U.S. Mar Ad Contract No. 7-38029, June 1978.
22) Baseline Report of Environmental Conditions in Deepwater
Dumpsite 106: NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1,
3 vols. , NOAA/NCS, Rockville, Maryland. June 1977
X-3
-------
APPENDIX A
ADOPTED RESOLUTION AND AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION OF MARINE
POLLUTION BY DUMPING OF WASTES AND OTHER MATTER
-------
XWUJJJUiKATlUiM AX O-CJi
Resolution adopted on 12 October 1976
TEE THIRD CONSULTATIVE MEETING,
RECALLING Article I of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution
by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, which provides that Contracting Parties
shall individually and collectively promote the effective control of all sources
of pollution of the marine environment,
HAVING NOTED the use of incineration at sea as a means of disposal of
wastes containing highly toxic substances and the consequent risks of marine
and atmospheric pollution which may result from this process,
DESIRING to prevent such pollution and to minimize the risk of hazards
to other vessels or interference with other legitimate uses of the sea which
could arise from incineration operations at sea,
RECOGNIZING present methods of incineration at aea as being an interim
method of disposal of wastes pending the development of environmentally better
solutions, considering at all times the best available technology,
AFFIRMING that the intention of the adoption of mandatory provisions for
the control of incineration at sea is not to increase the amounts and kinds of
wastes or other matter incinerated at sea for which there are available
practical alternative land-based methods of treatment, disposal or elimination,
HEAFFIPMIHG -that, in accordance vith Article IV(3) of the Convention,
Contracting Parties can apply additional regulations for incineration at sea
on a national basis,
NOTING that Article VIII of the Convention encourages Contracting Parties,
within the framework of regional conventions, to develop further agreements
reflecting the conditions of the geographical area concerned,
RECALLING the decision of the Second Consultative Meeting that provisions
for the control of incineration at sea should be implemented by Contracting
Parties on a mandatory basis in the form of a legal instrument adopted within
xhe framework of the Convention (LDC Il/ll, 'innex II).
HAVT5TG CONSIDERED the proposed amendments to the Annexes of the Convention
for the control of incineration at sfa contained in the Report of the Ad Hoc
Group of Legal Experts on Dumping,
A-l
-------
.ADOPTS the i< i Lowing ar-<-.ndr.cnta the /jinexes to the Convention in
accordance with Articles XIV(4)(a) and XV(2) thereof:
(a) addition of a paragraph 10 to Annex 1;
(b) addition of a paragraph E to Annex II; and
(c) addition of an Addendum to Annex I, containing Regulations for
the Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other Matter at Sea,
the texts of which are set out m Attachment to this Resolution,
ENTRUSTS the Intor-Governncntal Maritime Consultative Organization with
the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the Governments of France, Spain,
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom, that the texts
of the above Amendments are drawn up by 1 December 1978 in all official
languages of the Convention with the linguistic consistency in each text,
which would then become the authentic text of the Annexes to the Convention
in the English, French, Russian and Spanish languages,
RESOLVES that for the purposes of Articles XIV(4)(a) and XV(2) of the
Convention, 1 December 1978 shall be treated as the date of the adoption of
the amendments,
REQUESTS the Secretary-General of the Organization to inform Contracting
Parties of the above-mentioned amendments,
REQUESTS the Ad IIcc Group on Incineration at Sea to prepare draft Technical
Guidelines for the Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other Hatter at Sea
with a view to adoption by the Fourth Consultative Ileetmg,
INVITES Contracting Parties to implement, as an interim measure, the
existing Technical Guidelines (LDC Il/ll, Annex II, with amendments (IAS/9,
Annex IV)) and the notification procedure set outm Annex 2 to LDC IIl/l2.
A-2
-------
Attachment
AMENDMENTS TO ANNEXES TO THE CONVENTION
ON THE PREVENTION OP MARINE POLLUTION
BY BUMPING OP WASTES AND OTHER MATTER
CONCERNING INCINERATION AT SEA
The following paragraph shall be added to Annex I:
10. Paragraphs 1 and 5 of this Annex do not apply to the disposal of v;astes
or oilier matter referred to in these paragraphs "by means of incineration at sea.
Incineration of such wastes or other matter at sea requires a prior special
peruit. In the issue of special permits for incineration the Contracting
Parties shall apply the Regulations for the Control of Incineration of \Taotea
and Other Flatter at Sea set forth in the Addendum to this Annex (which shall
constitute an integral part of this Annex) and take full account of the
Technical Guidelines on the Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other I-atter
ai. Sea adopted by the Contracting Parties in consultation.
The following paragraph shall be added to Annex lit
E. In the issue of special permits for the incineration of substeivjes and
materials listed in this Annex, the Contracting Parties shall apply the
Regulations for the Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other Matter at Sea
set forth in the Addendum to Annex I and take full account of the Technical
Guidelines on the Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other Matter at Oea
adopted by the Contracting Parties in consultation, to the extent specified in
these Regulations and Guidelines.
A-3
-------
ADDEKDDW
REGU^TIOrS FOR THE CONTROL OF INCINERATION OF
Ui'fSTES AID OTHER NATTER AT SEA
PART I
REGULATION 1
Definitions
For the purposes of this Addendum:
(1) "Iferine incineration facility" means a vessel, platfom, or other
nan-made structure operating for the purpose of incineration at sea.
(2) "Incineration at sea" means the deliberate combustion of wastes or other
natter on marine incineration facilities for the purpose of their thermal
destruction. Activities incidental to the nomal operation of vessels,
platforms or other man-made structures are excluded from the scope of this
definition.
REGULATION 2
A^pli cotion
(1) Part II of those Regulations shall apply to the following wastes or other
natter:
(a) those referred to in paragraph 1 of Annex I;
(b) pesticides and their by-products not covered in Annex I.
(2) Contracting Parties shall first consider the practical availability of
alternative land-based methods of treatment, disposal or elimination, or of
treatment to render the wastes or other matter less harmful, before issuing
a permit for incineration at sea in accordance with these Regulations.
Incineration at sea shall in no way bo interpreted as discouraging progress
towards environmentally better solutions including the development of new
techniques.
(3) Incineration at sea of wastes or other natter referred to in paragraph 10
of Annex I end paragraph E of Annex II, other than those referred to in
paragraph (l) of this Regulation, shall be controlled to tho satisfaction
of the Contracting Party issuing the special permit.
(4) Incineration at sea cf wastes or other matter not referred to in
paragraphs (l) and (3) of this Rogula .ion shall be subject to a general permit.
A-4
-------
(5) In the issue of percdt3 referred to in paragraphs (3) and. (4) of this
Regulation, the Contracting Parties shall take full account of all applicable
provisions of these Regulations and the Technical Guidelines on the Control of
Incineration of Waste and Other Matter at Sea for the waste in question.
PART II
REGULATION J
Approval and Surveys of the Incineration Systen
(l) The incineration system for every proposed narine incineration facility
shall be subject to the surveys specified below. In accordance with
Article VIl(l) of the Convention, the Contracting Party which proposes to issue
an incineration pern.it shall ensure that the surveys of the narine incineration
facility to be used have been conpleted and the incineration systen conplies
with the provisions of these Regulations. If the initial survey is carried out
under the direction of a Contracting Party a special pernit, which specifies
the testing requirenents, shall be issued by the Party. The results of each
survey shall be recorded in a survey report.
(a) An initial survey shall be carried out in order to ensure that
during the incineration of waste and other natter conbustion and
destruction efficiencies are in excess of 99 • 9 per cent.
(b) As a part of the initial survey the State under whose direction
the survey is being carried out shall:
(i) approve the siting, type and nanner of use of tenperature
neasuring devices;
(ii) approve the gas sampling systen including probe locations,
analytical devices, and the nanner of recording;
(iii) ensure that approved devices have been installed to autonatically
shut off the feed of waste to the incinerator if the tenperature
drops below approved oininun tenperatures:
(iv) ensure that there are no neans of disposing of wastes or other
natter fron the narine incineration facility except by neans
of the incinerator during nornal operations;
(v) approve the devices by which feed rates of waste and fuel are
controlled and recordei;
A-5
-------
(vi) confirn the performance of the incineration systen by testing
under intensive stack nonitoring, including the neasurenents of
0^, CO, C02, halogenated organic content, and total hydrocarbon
content using wastes typical of those expected to "be incinerate
(c) The incineration systen shall be surveyed at least every two years tc
ensure th-ic the incinerator continuos to ccrvply with thoac Regulations,
rho scoyo of the bionnial survey ohall be baaed upon En cva.luc.tion of
operating data Md naintenanco records for the preview two years*
(2) Following the satisfactory completion of a survey, a forn of approval shall
be ic3ued by a Contracting Party i;7 the incineration eysten io found to be in
conpliar.ee with tho3c Regulations „ A copy of the survey report shall be
attached to the forn of approval, A fom of approval iosued by a Contracting
Party chall bo recoGnized by other Contracting Parties unless there are clear
groundc for believing that uhe in;: oration ayeten is not in conpliancc with
these Regulations. A copy of eacxi forn of approval and 3urvey report shall be
r.ubnitted to the Orcaniaation*
(3) After anv survey has been conplebed, no significant changes which could
affect the perfor-nn.ee of the incineration oysten shall bo nado withe "t
approval of the Centreot±ri(£ Party uhic2i has isaucd ilr.o fozo of approval,
HEGULATION 4
Wastes Requiring Special Stullca
(1) Where a Contracting Party hac doubts as to the thercal destructibility of
tV another naxter proposed for incineration, pilot scale tests shall bo
undertaken.
(2) Where a Contracting Party proposes to pernit incineration of wastes or
other natter over which doubts as to the efficiency of ccnbustion exist, the
incineration systen Bhall be subject to the sane intensive st?ck nonitoring as
reouired for the initial incineration eysten surrey. upside.'... iicn shall be
given to the eanpling of particulate a, taking into occount the nolid content of
the wastes.
(5) The nininun approved flane trnjperature shall be tjir.t npociiied in
Regulation 5 unlean the result:: of on the Darin*? incineration facility
: coonsirate that the rcqv.ired co-.r Lien end destruction efficiency can be
achieved at a io'.ror t~nporr:turo.
A-6
-------
(4) results of special studies referred to in paragraphs (l). (2) and (3)
of this Regulation shall "be recorded and attached to the survey report. A
copy shall "be sort to the Organization,
REGULATION 5
Operational Requirenents
(1) The operation of ^he incineration system shall "be controlled so as to
ensure that the incineration of wastes or other natter doee not take place at
a flar.c temperature loss than 1250 degrees contigrade, except as provided for
in Regulation 4.
(2) The conbustion efficiency cliall be at loast 99.95 - 0.05?o baaed on:
°C0 ~ CC0
Combustion efficiency -- * x 100
n
co2
where CCQ = concentration of carbon dioxide in the combustion gases
CpQ = concentration of carbon nonoxide in tho conbus-cion gases,
(;>) There nhall bo no black ar.oke nor flanc extension above tho piano of bhe
otack,
) The narine incinoraxion facility ohall reply promptly to ra^lo calls at
ell tinec during the incineration-
REGULATION 6
ftocordin/y Devicoc and Records
(l) Marine incineration facilities Lirali. utilize recoiling devices or jethoda
approved under Regulation % As a iiiniosc, tho folic wing da:-.-i ehall be
recorded during each incineration operation and retained for in': poet ion by thj
Contracting Party \ho ha3 issued the peroit:
(a) continuous temperature nc-cr.urenGnto by approved temperature
measuring devices;
(b) date and "lire during incineration and recci.i of vcate being
incr derated;
(c) yjucc-1 poniticn by appropy'ato navigniio;:.- " ,jr:on3.;
A-7
-------
(&) feed rates of vastc and fuel - for liquid wastes and fuel the flow
rate shall bo continuously recorded; the latter requirement does not
apply to vessels operating on or before 1 January 1979;
(e) CO and CO^ concentration in combustion gasee;
(f) vessel'3 course and 3peed,
(2) Approval foxes issued, copies of survey reports prepared in accordance with
Regulation 3 and copies of incineration permits issued for the wastes or other
natter to be incinerated on tho facility by & Contracting Party shall be lcept at
the marine incineration facility,
mGULATIOll 7
Control over the Nature of Wastes Incinerated
A perait application for the incineration of wastes or other natter at sea
shall include information on tho characteristics of waates or other natter
sufficient to comply vith the requirements of Regulation 9»
1 .EkjJj AT 1-j 0
Incineration Sites
(1) Provisions to be considered in establishing criteria governinG the
selection of incineration site3 shall include, in addition to those
listed in Annex III to the Convention, the following:
(a) the atcoapheric dispersal characteristics of the area - including wind
speed and direction, atmospheric stability, frequency of inversions
end fog, precipitation types and amounts, humidity ~ in order to
determine the potential impact on the surrounding environment of
pollutants released from tho marine incineration facility, Giving
particular attention to the possibility of atnosphoric transport of
pollutants to coaatal areas;
(b) oceanic dispersal characteristics of the area in order to evaluate
the potential impact of plume interaction with the water surface;
(c) availability of navigational aids.
(2) The coordinates of permanently ' oaigiated incineration sonos shall be
vidoly diRaetiinatod and coummicatcc. to the Qrcanization.
A-8
-------
EEGULATIOK $
Notification
Contracting Parties shall comply with notification procedures adopted
by the Parties in consultation.
***
A—9
-------
NOTIFICATION OF SPECIAL PEHKITS TO EfCINERATE
WASHES im OTHER MITER AT SEA
The Organization shall "be notified immediately following issuance of a
special permit to incinerate wastes or other catter at sea. The form of
report for notification is given in the Appendix.
APPENDIX
The notification shall contain the following information for each
opecial permit:
(a) issuing authorities;
(b) date issued;
(c) period for which the permit i3 valid;
(d) country of origin of wastes and port of loading;
(e) total quantity of wastes (in metric units) covered by the permit;
(f) form in vhich the waste is presented (bulk or containers; in the
latter case, also size and labelling);
(g) composition of the waste (physical form; specific gravity;
viscosity; water content; principal organic components;
organohalogens; main inorganic components; (radioactive or not)
solids in suspension; caloric value; other properties such as,
if necessary, toxicity and persistence; specify whether the
analysis relates to dry or wet weight; give the above-mentioned
information in ppm in the c0.se of low concentrations);
(h) industrial process giving rise to the waste;
(i) name of the marine incineration facility and state registration;
(j) area of incineration (geographical location; distance from the
nearest coast);
(k) expected frequencies of incineration;
(l) special conditions such as tc the operation of ths marine
incineration facility outside those specified in the Regulations
or Technical Guidelines.
-y-y-v.
A-10
-------
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED TECHNICAL GUIDELINES ON THE
CONTROL OF INCINERATION OF WASTES AND
OTHER MATTER AT SEA
-------
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED TECHNICAL GUIDELINES ON THE CONTROL OF
CINE ration of wastes and other matter at sea
In addition to the regulations contained in the Addendum to Annex I,
the Contracting Parties should take full account of these Guidelines
when issuing permits for incineration at sea and undertaking surveys
of marine incineration facilities.
A. Incinerator Operations
1. Waste type and feed rate to the incinerator.
(a) Continuous flow measuring devices should be installed
on existing vessels by (January 1, 1980). Interim
methods of control should te based on a continuous
display of the waste and fuel pump status supplemented
by manual checks of the amount of waste burned every
hour, to be recorded in the ship's log,
(b) Where solid wastes are burned, the waste type and rate
of input should be recorded.
2. Control of the air feed to the incinerator.
(a) The amount of air entering the incinerator must be suffi-
cient to ensure that a minimum of 3 percent excess oxygen
is present in the combustion gases near the incinerator
stack exit.
B-l
-------
(b) Excess air should be monitored by an automatic oxygen
analyzer to routinely record the oxygen concentration.
(c) Although existing incinerator vessels employ a fixed air
input rate, marine incineration facilities may in the
future use a variable air feed in which case this rate
should be recorded.
3. Control and recording of temperatures.
(a) Temperature controls and records should be based on
the measurement of wall temperature by thermocouples.
The appropriate authority should establish the relation-
ship between the readings of each wall thermocouple and
the flame temperature to define the position and type of
control thermocouples required. Unless otherwise deter-
mined by the appropriate authority, there should be three
or more control thermocouples for each incinerator.
(b) From the relationship between wall and flame tempera-
tures, the authority should define the wall temperature
below which the flow of waste to the incinerator shall be
automatically shut off by approved equipment.
(c) If a correlation between wall temperature and flame
temperature has not been satisfactorily established, a
minimum wall temperature of 1200 degrees centigrade
should be applied.
B-2
-------
4. Residence time of incinerator.
(a) The residence time of all wastes in the incineration should
be of the order of one second or longer at a flame tempera-
ture of 1250 degrees centigrade.
B. General Controls on the Marine Incineration Facility and Its
Operation
1. Disposal of residues.
(a) There should be no discharge of wastes or other matter
from +he marine incineration facility except by means of
the incinerator during normal operations.
(b) Tank washings should be incinerated at sea, in accordance
with the regulations in the Addendum to Annex I or with
these guidelines, or discharged to port facilities in
consultation with the relevant national authorities.
(c) In the combustion of containerized solid wastes, certain
residues may remain as ash in the incinerator. Such
residues should not be removed from an incinerator vessel
except while the vessel is in harbor and they should be
recovered for safe on-land disposal. They should not be
dumped in the sea from the marine incinerator facility.
2. Loading of waste.
(a) Liquid wastes should not be transferred from barfes or
other vessels outside harbor limits.
B-3
-------
(b) Solid wastes in damaged containers should not be taken
on board.
(c) Unless the regulations in the "International Maritime
Dangerous Goods Code" prescribe otherwise, containerized
solid waste should be stowed on the tween-decks or, in the
case of new incinerator vessels, in the lower hold. With
existing incinerator vessels where storage below deck is
not possible, containers stored on deck must be held
securely within special enclosures to be approved by the
Contracting Party or appropriate authority,
(d) Measures should be taken to ensure that containers loaded
on board are adequately labeled. Containers and their
contents should only be discharged by the incinerator.
3. Prevention of hazards to vessels.
(a) In licensing the incineration of wastes on approved marine
incineration facilities, the appropriate authority should
have regard to the need to avoid hazards to vessels by
appropriate location of the incineration zones concerned
and by ensuring that the relevant maritime authorities are
notified of the vessel's date of sailing and intended
schedule, as well as its intended movements durinf in-
cineration (whether underway, at anchor, etc. ).
B-4
-------
(b) The coordinates of permanently designated incineration
zones and recommended off-shore incineration routes
should be widely promulgated, and be designated on
navigational charts.
(c) Regular radio warnings should be broadcast during the
period of incineration. The marine incineration facility
should reply promptly to radio calls at all times during
the incineration.
Construction of marine incineration facilities.
(a) For the carriage of liquid wastes, an incinerator vessel
must carry a valid "Certificate of Fitness" as required
under the IMCO Code for the Construction and Equipment
of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk.
(b) An incinerator vessel should comply with the require-
ments for a Type II ship of the IMCO Code and should
adhere to such other provisions as may be specified for
the carriage of dangerous chemicals.
Data recording.
(a) In addition to the records required by the Addendum *o
Annex I, marine incineration facilities should also
record:
(1) oxygen concentration in the combustion gases;
(2) meteorological conditions, e. g. wind speed and
direction;
B-5
-------
(3) tank from which the waste is taken;
(4) rate and type of waste input to the furnace.
(b) Parameters which may be required in the future, subject
to satisfactory technical develpment, include routine mea-
surement of destruction efficiency and total particulate
matter in the combustion gases.
C. Nature of Waste and Notification
1. Characteristics of Waste.
(a) A permit application for the incineration of waste or
other matter at sea shall include information on the
characteristics of the waste suffi:ient to fulfill the
requirements of paragraph D. 2(a).
(b) Where possible, the chemical and physical transforma-
tion of the waste after incineration, in particular,
subsequent formation of new compounds, composition,
of ashes or unturned residues, shall be determined.
(c) [Where doubts exist as to the thermal destruction of
the waste, pilot scale tests should be undertaken. ]
2. Notification.
(a) Contracting Parties shall comply with notification
procedures adopted by Special and Consultative
Meetings.
B-6
-------
APPENDIX C
TEXT OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION OF
MARINE POLLUTION BY DUMPING OF WASTES
AND Or HER MATTER
-------
APPENDIX C.
CoX\E\TlOX OX THE PnE\ENT10N OF MARINE POUXTION BT DOMPINC
of Wastes aKd Otiieh Matter
The Contracting Parties to this Convention,
Recognizing that the marine environment and the living organisms
nhich it supports are of vital importance to humanity, and all people
have an interest in assuring that it' is so. managed that its quality and
lesources are not impaired;
Recognizing that the capacity of the sea to assimilate wastes and
render thein harmless, and its ability to regenerate natural resources,
is not unlimited;
Recognizing that States have, in aocoi dance w ith the Charter of the
United Nations and the principles of international law, the so\ereign
1 ight to exploit their ow n resources pursuant to their own environmen-
tal policies, and the responsibility to ensuie that acti\ ities within their
]in isdiction or control to not cause damage to the environment of other
Slates or of aipas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
Recalling Resolution 2749 (XXV) of the General (Assembly of the
United Nations on the principles governing the sea-bed and the ocean
fiooi and the subsoil theieof, beyui - . no limits of national jurisdiction;
Noting that matine pollution eliminates in many sources, such as
dumping and dischaigcs thiough the atmosphere, rivers, estuaries,
outfalls and pipelines, and that it is important that States "use the best
practicable means to prevent such pollution and develop products and
processes winch will reduce the amoiinl of harmful w.istes to be dis-
posed of;
Being convinced that international action to contiol the pollution of
the sea by dumping can and must be taken without delay but that this
action should not pieclnde discussion of measures to control other
souices of marine pollution as soon as possible; and
Wishing to improve piotection of the marine enviionrnent bv en-
coiuaging States with a common interest in particular geographical
aieas to enter into appropriate agicements supplementary to this
Convention;
Have agieed as follows:
article i
Contacting Parties shall individually and collectivel}' promote the
effective control of all sources of pollution of the marine environment,
and pledge themselves especially to take all practicable steps to pre-
vent the pollution 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 res and marine life, to damage amenities or to intei fere with other
legitimate uses of the sea.
©
article n
Conli acting Paities shall, as provided for in the following Articles,
f nke efTectrv e measures individually, according to their scientific, tech-
nical and economic capabilities, and collectively, to pievent marine
pollution caused by dumping and shall haimonize their policies in
this regard.
C-l
-------
Ali flCLE 311
For the purposes of this Convention:
1. (a) "Dumping" means:
(i) any deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter
from vessels; aiicraft, platforms or other man-made struc-
tures at sea;
(ii) any delibeiate disposal at sea of vessels, aircraft,
platfoims or other man-made structures at sea.
(b) "Dumping" does not include:
(i) the disposal at sea of wastes or other matter inciden-
tal to, or derived fiom the noimal bpenvtions 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, aiicraft, platfoims or other man-
made structures at sea, opeiating for the purpose of dis-
posal of such mattei 01 deihed fiom the treatment of such
wastes or other matter on such vessels, aiicraft, platforms
or structures;
(ii) placement of matter for a purpose other than the
mere disposal thereof, p-v ded that such placement is not
contrary to the ~ r tuis Convention.
(c) The disposal of v ->s 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 bv the provisions of this Convention.
2. "Vessels and aircraft'5 means waterbome r- airborne craft of
any type whatsoever. Tins expression includes :ur cushioned craft
and floating craft, uhethei self-piopelled or not.
3.' Sea" means all marine waters other than the internal waters
of States.
4. "Wts'cs or other matter" means material and substance of
any kind, form or descnption.
5. "Special permit" means permission granted specifically on
application in advance and in accordance with Annex II and
Annex III.
6 "Gencial peimit"' means pei mission granted in advance and
in nccni dnnce
-------
2 Any pcinnl sliall be issued only aftci careful considci ntion of all
the fictois set forth in Anne* TIT, including prior studies of the char-
acteristics of Hie dumping site, as set forth in Sections B and C of that
Annex.
3 No provision of this Comention is to be interpieted as pretent-
ing a Contracting Party fiom 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.
CUTICLE V
1 The pio> isions of Article IV shall not apply when it is necessary
to secure the safety of human life or of vessels, aiiciaft, platfoims or
othei man-made structures at sea in crises of force majeure caused by
stress of weather, or in any case winch constitutes a danger to human
life oi a leal tlneat to vessels, nnciaft. platforms or other man-made
sti urtiiies at pea, if dumping appears to be the only way of avciting
the tin cat and if tliei e is ei ei y pi obability that the damage consequent
upon such flumping will be less than would otherwise occur. Such
rtnmpinc shall be so conducted as to minimise the likelihood of damage
to human or marine life and shall be reported forthwith to the
Organisation.
2~ A Contiacting Party ina^ issue a special permit as an exception
to Article lV(l){a), in emei^encies, posing unacceptable risk relat-
ing to human health ard admitting no other feasible solution. Before
dom" so the Tarty shall consult aTiy other country or countries that
me likely to he aflected and the Oiganisation which, after consulting
other Partiesf and international oiganisations as appropriate, shall
in accordance with Article XIV promptly recommend to the Party
the most appiopnate pioceduies 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 Oiganisation of the action it takes The Parties pledge
themselves to assist one another in such situations.
3. Any Contracting Party ma}' waive its rights under paragraph
(2) at the time of, or subsequent to ratification of, or accession to this
Convention.
ARTICLE VI
] Each Contracting Party shall designate an appropriate authority
or authorities to:
(a) issue special peimits which shall be required prior to, and
for, the dumping of matter listed in Annex II and in the cir-
cumstances provided for in Article V(2) ;
(i>) issue general permits which shall be required prior to, and
for, the dumping of all other matter;
(c) keep lecords of the nature and quantities of all matter per-
mitted to be dumped and the location, time and method of
dumping;
(d) monitor individually, oi in collaboration with other Parties
and competent International Organisations, the condition of the
seas for the purposes of this Convention.
C-3
-------
2. The appiopi iate nuthoiity 01 authonties of ft Conti acting Party
shall issue prior special or general pcimits in accoidance with para-
graph (1) in 1 aspect of matter intended for dumping:
loaded in its territory;
(d) 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 under sub-paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) above,
the appropriate authority or authorities shall comply with Annex III,
together with such additional ciitena, measures and requirements as
they may consider relevant.
4. Each Conti acting Party, directly or through a Secretariat estab-
lished under a legional agreement, shall report to the Oigamsation,
and where appioprinte to other Parties, the infotmation specified in.
sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) ofpaiagiaph (1) above, and the criteria,
ineasuies and lequirements it adopts in accordance with paragraph
(3) above. The procedure to be followed and the nature of such re-
ports shall be agi eed by the Parties in consultation.
arhcle vn
1. Each Contracting Party shall apply the measures required to
implement the present Convention to all:
(a) \essels and aiicraft registered in its territory or flying its
(&) ¦vessels and aircraft loading in its territory or territorial
seas matter which is to be dumped;
(c) vessels and aii craft and fixed or floating platforms under
its jurisdiction believed to be engaged in dumping.
2. Each Paity shall take in its teintory appiopnate measuies to
pi event and punish conduct in contra\ention of the provisions of this
Convention.
3. The Parties agiee to co-operate in the development of procedures
for the effective application of this Convention particularly on the
high seas, including procedures for the leporting of vessels and air-
craft obsen ed dumping in contravention of the Convention.
4. This Convention shall not apply to those vessels and aircraft
entitled to sovereign immunity under international law. However each
Party shall ensure by the adoption of appropriate measures that such
vessels and an ciaft owned or operated by it act in a manner consistent
with the object and purpose of this Convention, and shall infoim
the Organisation accordingly.
5. Nothing in this Convention shall affect the right of each Party
to adopt other measures, in accordance with the principles of inter-
national law. to pievert dumping at sea.
AJITICLE VLTI
In order to fuither the objectives of this Convention, the Contract-
ing Parties with common interests to piotect in the marine environ-
ment in a given geographical area shall endeavour, taking into ac-
count characteristic > egional features, to enter into regional agreements
consistent with this Convention for the pievention of pollution, espe-
C-4
-------
cially by dumping The Contacting P.iihes to the picsent Com cntioit
slinll cndc>a\oiii to act consistenth with the objectives and provisions
of such ie«ioral agieemenfs. which shall be nofifipd to them by the
Oiganisation. Contacting Paities shall seek to co-opei .ite with the
Parties to iegion.il agi cements in older to develop harmoimed pro-
cedmes to be followed bv Conliacting'Paities to the diffeient con-
ventions cono'ined. Special attention shall be given to co-operation'
in the field of m mitoring and scientific icsearch.
article IX
The Contacting P.utips shall piomote. tlnongh collaboiation
within the Oiganisation and other inteinational bodies, support for
those Paities which lequest it for:
fa) the hainmgof scientific and technical personnel;
(5) the supply of necessaiy equipment and facilities for re-
search and monitoring;
(c) the disposal and tieatment of waste and other measures to
pievent or mitigate pollution caused by dumping;
pieferablv within the conntiies concerned, so furthering the. aims and
puipo=es of this Com ention.
article x
In accoulance with the piinciples of intoinational law legarding
State responsibility- for damage to the envn onincnt of other States or
to any other area of the environment, caused by dumping of w astes and
othei matter of all kinds, the Contracting Parties undertake to develop
procedures for the assessment of liability and the settlement of dis-
putes legaiding dumping.
ARTICLE XI
The Conti acting Parties shall at their first consultative meeting con-
sider pioceduies for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpre-
tation aDd application of this Convention.
A ETICLE XII
The Conti acting Paities pledge themselves to piomote, wilhin the
competent specialised agencies and other international bodies, mens-
uies to piotect the marine envnonment against pollution caused by:
(p) hydrocarbons, including oil, and their wastes;
{£>) other noxious or hazardous matter trajispoited by vessels
for pui poses other than dumping;
(c) wastes generated in the course of operation of vessels, air-
ciaft, platforms and other man-made structures at sea;
{(I) ladio-active pollutants from all sources, including vessels;
(e) agents of chemical and biological warfare;
(/) wastes or other matter dnectly arising from, or related to.
thp exploration, exploitation and associated off-shore processing of
sea-bed mineral iesou»ces.
C-5
-------
The Paitics will also piomote, within the appiOpriate international
oignnis,it>on, the codification of signals to be used by vessels engaged
in dumping.
article xin
Nothing in this Convention shall piejudice the codification and de-
velopment of the law of the sea by the United Nations Conference
on the Law of the Sea convened pursuant to Resolution 2750 G
(XXV) of the General Assembly of the United Nations nor the pres-
ent or future claims and legal views of any State concerning the Jaw
of the sea and the nature and extent of coastal and flag State juris-
diction. TIib Conti acting Parties agree to consult at a meeting to be
convened by the Organisation 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 the responsibility of a coastal State to
apply the Com ention in a zone adjacent to its coast.
ARTICLE XIV
1. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Noithem Ii eland as a depositary shall call a meeting of the Contract-
ing Paities not later than three months after the entry into force of
this Convention to decide on organisational matters.
2. The Contracting Parties shall designate a competent Organisa-
tion existing at the time of that meeting to be responsible for Secre-
tariat duties ni relation to this Convention. Any Party to this Con-
vention not being a member of this Organisation shall make Jin ap-
propriate contribution to the expenses incurred by the Organisation,
in pei forming these duties.
3. The Seci etariat duties of the Organisation shall include:
(~) 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;
(~) preparing and assisting, in consultation with the Contract-
ing Parties ana 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 fiom the Con-
tracting Parties., consulting with them and with the apptoprinte
International Oiganisations, and providing recommendations to
the Part ies on questions related to, but not specifically coveied by
the Convention.;
(d) conveying to the Parties concerned all notifications re-
ceded by the Organisation m accordance with Articles IV(3),
V (1) and (2), VI(4), XV, XX and XXI.
Prior to the designation of the Oigsmisation 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
C-6
-------
4. Consultative oi special meetings of the Contracting Parties sliall
keep under continuing review the implementation of this Convention
and may, inter alia:
(a) leview and adopt amendments to this Comcntion and its
Annexes in accordance with Article XV;
(J) invite the appiopriate scientific body or bodies to collab-
orate with and to advise the Parties or the Oiganisation on any
scientific 01 leclmical aspect relevant to this Convention, including
particularly thecontent of the Annexes;
(c) receive nnd consider reports made pursuant, to Article YT
(*); . ,
(d) promote co-operation with and between legional organisa-
tions concerned with the prevention of marine pollution;
(e) develop or adopt, in consultation with appropriate Inter-
national Organisations, piocedures referred to in Article V(2),
including basic ciiteria for determining exceptional and emer-
gency situations, and pjocedwes for consultative advice nnd the
safe disposal of matter m such circumstances, including the desig-
nation of appiopriate dumping aieas, and recommend accord-
ingly;
(/) consider any additio ,al action that may be requited.
5. The Contracting Parties at their first consultative meeting shall
establish rules of pi ocedure as necessary.
ARTICLE XT
1. (a) At meetings of the Contracting Parties called m accoi dance
with Article XIV amendments to this Convention nay be adopted by
a two-thirds majority of those piesant An amendment shall enter into
foice 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 shall 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
lequest made for a special meeting under Article XIV and of any
amendments adopted 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 scientific or tech-
nical consideiations Amendments to the Annexes approved by a two-
thirds majority of those piesent at a meeting called in accordance
with Article XIV shall enter into force for each Contracting Party
immediately on notification of its acceptance to the Oigamsation and
100 days after appioval by the meeting for all other Parties except
for those which before the end of the 100 days make a declaration that
they are not able to accept the amendment at that time Parties should
endear our to signify their acceptance of an amendment to the Organi-
sation as soon as possible after appioval at a meeting A Party may
at any time substitute an acceptance for a pieiious dcclamtion of
objection and the amendment previously objected to shall thetenpon
enter into force foi that Paity.
C-7
-------
3. An acceptance or decimation of objection under this Article shall
be made by the deposit of an instrument with the Organisation. The
Orgmisation shall notify nil Contracting Parties of the receipt of such
instruments.
4. Prior to the designation of the Organisation, the Secretarial func-
tions heiein attributed to it. shall-'be performed temporarily by the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, as one of the depositaries of this Convention.
ARTICLE IVI
This Convention shall be open for signature by any State at Lon-
don, Mexico City, Moscow and TTashingfon from 29 December 1972
until 31 December 1973.
article xvn
This Convention shall be subject to ratification. The instruments of
ratification shall be deposited with the Governments of Mexico, the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Iieland, and the United States of America.
article xvm
After 31 December 1973, this Convention shall be open for accession
by any State. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the
Governments of Mexico, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the
United States of America.
ARTICLE XII
1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day follow-
ing the date of deposit of the fifteenth instrument of ratification or
accession.
•2. For each Contracting Party ratifying or acceding to the Conven-
tion after the deposit of the fifteenth instrument of ratification or
accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day
after deposit by such Party of its instrument of ratification or
.accession.
ARTICLE XI
The depositaries shall inform Contracting Parties:
[a) of signatures to this Convention and of the deposit of in-
struments of ratification, accession or withdrawal, in accordance
with Articles XVI, XVII, XVIII and XXI, and
(b) of the date on which this Convention wiU enter Into force,
in accordance with Article XIX.
ARTICLE xn
Any Contracting Party may withdraw from this Convention by
giving six months1 notice in writing to a depositary, which shall
promptly inform all Parties of such notice.
C-8
-------
ART/CLE XXU!
The original of this Convention of which the English, French. Rus-
sian and Spanish texts are eqlially 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
United States of America who shall send certified copies thereof to all
Stales.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, be-
ing duly authorised thereto by their, respective Governments have
signed the present Convention.
DONE in quadruplicate at London, Mexico City, Moscow and
"Washington, this twenty-ninth day of December, 1972-
C-9
-------
Akxexes
ANNEX 1
3. Organohnlogen compounds.
2. Mercury/ina mercury compounds.
3. Cadmium and cadmium compounds.
4. Persistent plastics and of her peisistent synthetic materials, for
¦example, netting and ropes, which may float or may remain in suspen-
sion in the sen in such a manner as to interfere materially with fishing,
navigation or other legitimate uses of the sea.
5. Ci ndc oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, and lubricating oils, hydraulic
fluids, and any mixtures containing any of these, taken on board for
the pin pose of dumping.
6. High-level ladio-active wastes or other high-level radio-active
matter, defined on public health, biological or other grounds, by the
competent international body in this field, at present the International
Atomic Eneigy Agency, as unsuitable for dumping at sea.
7. Materials in whatever foim (eg. solids, liquids, semi-liquids,
or a living state) pioduced for biological and chemical war-
fare.
8. The pieceding paragraphs of this Annex do not apply to sub-
stances v hich are rapidly rendered harmless by physical, chemical or
biological processes in the sea provided tliey do not:
(i) make edible marine organisms unpalatable, or
(ii) endanger human health or that of domestic animals.
The consultative procedure provided for under Article XIV should
be followed by a Party if there is doubt ,ibout the haimlessness of the
substance.
9. This Annex does not apply to wastes or other materials (e.g.
sewage sludges and dredged spoils) containing the matters referred to
in paragiaphs 1-5 above as tiace contaminants. Such wastes shall be
subject to the provisions of Annexes II and III as appropriate.
AKXEX n
The following substances and mafeiir.ls requiiing special care are
listed for the purposes of Article VI(1) (a).
A. "Wastes containing significant amounts of the matters listed
below:
arsenic
lead I an(j (heir compounds
copper
zinc
C-10
-------
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, considelation shall be given to the possible presence
in such ¦wastes of the substances listed in paragraph A and to the fol-
lowing additional substances:
beryllium \
nickelmm | ^ comPolull^s
vanadium /
C Containers, scrap metal and other bulky wastes liable to sink to
the sea bottom ulnch may present a serious obstacle to fishing or
navigation.
D Radio-active wastes or other radio-active matter not included in
Annex I. In the issue of permits for the dumping of this matter, the
Conti acting Parties should take full account of the recommendations
of the competent international body in this field, at present the Inter-
national Atomic Eneigy Agency.
annex rn
Piovisions to be considered in establishing criteria governing the
issue of psi mits for the dumping of matter at sea, taking into account
Article IV (2), include:
A. Characteristics and composition of the matter
1. Total amount and average composition of matter dumped (e.g.
per year).
2 Foim.eg solid, sludge, liquid, or gaseous.
3. Properties: physical (eg. solubility and density), chemical and
biochemical (eg oxygen demand,nutrients) and biological (e.g. pres-
ence of viruses, bacteria, yeasts, parasites).
4. Toxicity.
5 Persistence: physical, 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
arid inorganic materials
S Piobability of pioduction of taints or other changes reducing
inai ketabihty of lesouices (fish, shellfish, etc.).
B. Characteristics of dumping site and method of deposit
I. Location (eg co-ordinates of the dumping aiea. depth and
distance from the coast), location in relation 1o other areas (e.g.
amenity nieas, spawning, nuiseiy mid fishing areas and exploitable
resouices).
2 Uate of disposal per specific period (eg. quantity per day, per
week, per month).
C-ll
-------
3. Methods of packaging and containment, if any.
4. Initial dilution achieved by proposed method of 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—dissolved oxygen (DO), chemical
oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)—
nitrogen present in organic and mineral form including ammonia,
suspended matter, other nutrients and productivity).
7. Bottom characteristics (e.g. topography, geochemical and geo-
logical characteristics and biological productivity).
8. Existence and effects of other dumpings which have been made
in the dumping area (e.g. heavy metal oacKfjround 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
consequences of such dumping, as outlined in this Annex, taking
into account seasonal variations.
C. General considerations and conditions
1. Possible effects on amenities (e.g. presence of floating or stranded
material, turbidity, objectionable odour, discolouration and 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 less harmful for dumping at sea.
C-12
-------
APPENDIX D
TEXT OF THE MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH,
AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED
(PL 92-532)
-------
AJr-rtiWUiA W?
Public Law 92-532
92nd Congress, H. R. 9727
October 23, 1972
(incorporates all amendments through November 4, 1977)
AN ACT
To regulate the transportation for dumping, and the dumping, of material
into ocean waters, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled. That this Act may be cited
as the "Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972."
FINDING, POLICY, AND PURPOSE
Sec. 2. (a) Unregulated dumping of material into ocean waters
endangers human health, welfare, and amenities, and the marine
environment, ecological systems, and economic potentialities.
(b) The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States to
regulate the dumping of all types of materials into ocean waters and to
prevent or strictly limit the dumping into ocean waters of any material
which would adversely affect human health, welfare, or amenities, or the
marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities.
(c) It is the purpose of this Act to regulate (1) the transportation by
any person of material from the United States and, in the case of United
States vessels, aircraft, or agencies, the transportation of material from
a location outside the United States, when in either case the transportation
is for the purpose of dumping the material into ocean waters, and (2) the
dumping of material transported by any person from a location outside the
United States, if the dumping occurs in the territorial sea or the
contiguous zone of the United States.
DEFINITIONS
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act the term
(a) "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
P. L. 93-254, March 22, 1974
P. L. 94-62, July 25, 1975
P. L. 94-326, June 30, 1976
P. L. 95-153, November 4, 1977
D-l
-------
(b) "Ocean waters" means those waters of the open seas lying seaward
of the base line from which the territorial sea is measured, as provided
for in the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (15
UST 1606; TIAS 5639).
(c) "Material" means matter of any kind or description* including but
not limited to, dredged material, solid waste, incinerator residue,
garbage, sewage, sewage sludge, munitions, radiological, chemical, and
biological warfare agents, radioactive materials, chemicals, biological
and laboratory waste, wreck or discarded equipment, rock, sand,
excavation debris, and industrial, municipal, agricultural, and other
waste; but such terms does not mean sewage from vessels within the
meaning of section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended (33 U.S. C. 1322). Oil within the meaning of section 311 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U. S. C. 1321), shall
be included only to the extent that such oil is taken on board a vessel
or aircraft for the purpose of dumping.
(d) "United States" includes the several States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, the
territories and possessions of the United States, and the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands.
(e) "Person" means any private person or entity, or any officer,
employee, agent, department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal
Government, of any State or local unit of government, or of any foreign
government.
(f) "Dumping'means a disposition of material: Provided, That it does
not mean a disposition of any effluent from any outfall structure to the
extent that such disposition is regulated under the provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S. C. 1251-1376),
under the provisions of section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899,
as amended (33 U. S. C. 407), or under the provisions of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S. C. 2011, et seq.), nor does it mean a
routine discharge of effluent incidental to the propulsion of, or operation
of motor-driven equipment on, vessels: Provided futher, That it does not
mean the construction of any fixed structure or artificial island nor the
intentional placement of any device in the ocean waters or on or in the
submerged land beneath such waters, for a purpose other than disposal,
when such construction or such placement is otherwise regulated by
Federal or State program: And provided futher, That it does not include
the deposit of oyster shells, or other materials when such deposit is made
for the purpose of developing, mantaining, or harvesting fisheries
resources and is otherwise regulated by Federal or State law or occurs
lyrsuant .o an authorized Federal or State program.
(g) "District court of the United States "includes the District Court of
Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, the District Court of
D-*2
-------
Puerto Rico, the District Court of the Canal Zone, and in the case of
American Samoa and Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the District
Court of the United States for the District of Hawaii, which court shall
have jurisdiction over actions arising therein.
(h) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Army.
(i) "Dredged material" means any material excavated or dredged from
the navigable waters of the United States.
(j) "High-level radioactive waste" means the aqueous waste resulting
from the operation of the first cycle solvent extraction system, or
equivalent, and the concentrated waste from subsequent extraction cycles,
or equivalent, in facility for reprocessing irradiated reactor fuels, or
irradiated fuel from nuclear power reactors,
(k) "Transport" or "transportation" refers to the carriage and related
handling of any material by vessel, or by any other vehicle, including
aircraft.
(1) "Convention" means the Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Waste and Other Matter.
Sec. 4. (a) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(hereinafter referred to in this section as the "Administrator") shall end
the dumping of sewage sludge into ocean waters, or into waters described
in section 101 (b) of Public Law 92-532, as soon as possible after the date
of enactment of this section, but in no case may the Administrator issue
any permit, or any renewal thereof (under title I of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972) which authorizes any such dumping
after December 31, 1981.
(b) For purposes of this section, the term "sewage sludge" means any
solid, semisolid, or liquid waste generated by a municipal waste-water
treatment plant the ocean dumping of which may unreasonably degrade or
endanger human health, welfare, amenities, or the marine environment,
ecological systems, or economic potentialities.
TITLE I—OCEAN DUMPING
PROHIBITED ACTS
Sec. 101 (a) Except as may be authorized by a permit issued pursuant to
section 102 or section 103 of this title, and subject to regulations issued
D - 3
-------
pursuant to section 108 of this title,
(1) no person shall transport from the United States, and
(2) in the case of a vessel or aircraft registered in the United
States or flying the United States flag or in the case of a United
States department, agency, or instrumentality, no person shall
transport from any location
any material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters.
(b) Except as may be authorized by a permit issued pursuant to section
102 of this title, and subject to regulations issued pursuant to section 108
of this title, no person shall dump any material transported from a 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.
(c) No officer, employee, agent, department, agency, or instrumen-
tality of the United States shall transport from any location outside 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, any other material for the purpose of
dumping it into ocean waters.
EVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PERMITS
Sec. 102. (a) Except in relation to dredged material, as provided for in
section 103 of this title, and in relation to radiological, chemical, and
biological warfare agents and high-level radioactive waste, for which no
permit may be issued, the Administrator may issue permits, 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,
or in the case of a vessel or aircraft registered in the United States or
flying the United States flag, for the transportation from a location outside
the United States, of material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean
waters, or for the dumping of material into the waters, described in
section 101 (b), where the Administrator determines that such dumping
will not unreasonably degrade or endander human health, welfare, or
amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic
potentialities. The Administrator shall establish and apply criteria for
reviewing and evaluating such permit applications, and, in establishing or
revising such criteria, shall consider, but not be limited in his
consideration to, the following:
D-4
-------
(A) The need for the proposed Humping.
(B) The effect of such dumping on human health and welfare,
including economic, esthetic, and recreational values.
(C) The effect of such dumping on fisheries resources, plankton,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, shore lines and beaches.
(D) The effect of such dumping on marine ecosystems, particu-
larly with respect to
(i) the transfer, concentration, and dispersion of such
material and its byproducts through biological, physical, and
chemical processes.
(ii) potential changes in marine ecosystem diversity,
productivity, and stability, and
(iii) species and community population dynamics.
(E) The persistence and permanence of the effects of the dumping.
(F) The effect of dumping particular volumes and concentrations
of such materials.
(G) Appropriate locations and methods of disposal or recycling,
including land-based alternatives and the probable impact of requiring
use of such alternate locations or methods upon considerations 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 Administrator shall
utilize wherever feasible locations beyond the edge of the Continental
Shelf.
In establishing or revising such criteria, the Administrator shall consult
with Federal, State, and local officials, and interested members of the
general public, as may appear appropriate to the Administrator. With
respect to such criteria as may affect the civil works program of the
Department of the Army, the Administrator shall also consult with the
Secretary. In reviewing applications for permits, the Administrator
shall make such provision for consultation with interested Federal and
State agencies as he deems useful or necessary. No permit shall be
issued for a dumping of material which will violate applicable water
quality standards.
D-5
-------
To the extent that he may do so without relaxing the requirements
of this title, the Administrator, in establishing or revising such
criteria, shall apply the standards and criteria binding upon the
United States under the Convention, including its Annexes.
(b) The Administrator may establish and issue various categories
of permits, including the general permits described in section 104 (c).
(c) The Administrator may, considering the criteria established
pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, designate recommended sites
or times for dumping and, when he finds it necessary to protect critical
areas, shall, after consultation with the Secretary, also designate sites
or times within which certain materials may not be dumped.
(d) No permit is required under this title for the transportation for
dumping or the dumping of fish wastes, except when deposited in harbors
or other protected or enclosed coastal waters, or where the Administrator
finds that such deposits could endanger health, the environment, or
ecological systems in a specific location. Where the Administrator makes
such a finding, such material mav be deposited only as authorized by a
permit issued by the Administrator under this section.
(e) In case of transportation of material, by 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 which otherwise could have been issued
pursuant to subsection (a) hereof, shall be accepted, for the purposes
of this title, as if it were issued by the Administrator under the
authority of this section.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITS
Sec. 103. (a) Subject to the provisions of subsections (b), (c), and
(d) of this section, the Secretary may issue permits, after notice and
opportunity for public hearings, for tho transportation of dredged
material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters, where the
Secretary determines that the dumping will not unreasonably degrade
or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine
environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities.
(t) In making the determination required by subsection (a), the
Secretary shall apply those criteria, established pursuant to section 102
(a), relating to the effect of the dumping. Based upon an evaluation of the
potential effect of a permit denial on navigation, economic and industrial
development, and foreign and domestic commerce of the United States, the
Secretary shall make an independent determination as to the need for the
dumping. The Secretary shall also make an independant determination as
D-6
-------
to other possible methods of disposal and as to appropriate locations,
for the dumping. In considering appropriate locations, he shall, to the
extent feasible, utilize the recommended 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. In any
case in which the Administrator disagrees with the determination of the
Secretary as to compliance with criteria established pursuant to section
102 (c) relating to the effects of the dumping or with the restrictions
established pursuant to section 102
-------
(b) The Administrator or the Secretary, as the case be, may
prescribe such processing fees for permits and such reporting
requirements for actions taken pursuant to permits issued by him
under this title as he deems appropriate.
(c) Consistent with the requirements of sections 102 and 103,
but in lieu of a requirement for specific permits in such case, the
Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be, may issue
general permits for the transportation for dumping, or both, of
specified materials or classes of materials for which he may issue
permits, which he determines will have a minimal adverse environ-
mental impact.
(d) Any permit issued under this title shall be reviewed period-
ically and, if appropriate, revised. The Administrator or the
Secretary, as the case may be, may limit or deny the issuance of
of permits, or he may alter or revoke partially or entirely the
terms of permits issued by him under this title, for the transportation
for dumping, or for the dumping, or both, of specified materials
or classes of materials, where he finds that such materials cannot
be dumped consistenly with the criteria and other factors required
to be applied in evaluating the permit application. No action shall
be taken under this subsection unless the affected person or permittee
shall have been given notice and opportunity for a hearing on such
action as proposed.
(e) The Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be,
shall require an applicant for a permit under this title to provide
such information as he may consider necessary to review and evaluate
such application.
(f) Information received by the Administrator or the Secretary,
as the case may be, as a part of any application or in connection
with any permit granted under this title shall be available to the public
as a matter of public record, at every stage of the proceeding. The
final determination of the Administrator or the Secretary, as the
case may be, shall be likewise available.
(g) A copy of any permit issued under this title shall be placed
in a conspicuous place in the vessel which will be used for the
transportation or dumping authorized by such permit, and an additional
copy shall be furnished by the issuing official to the Secretary of
the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, or its designee.
Sec. 105 (a) Any person who violates any provision of this title,
or of the regulations promulgated under this title, or a permit issued
under this title shall be liable to a civil penalty of not more than
$50, 000 for each violation to be assessed by the Administrator. No
penalty shall be assessed until the person charged shall have been
D-8
-------
given notice and an opportunity for a hearing of such violation. In
determining the amount of the penalty, the gravity of the violation,
prior violations, and the demonstrated good faith of the person
charged in attempting to achieve rapid compliance after notification
of a violation shall be considered by said Administrator. For good
cause shown, the Administrator may remit or mitigate such penalty.
Upon failure of the offending party to pay the penalty, the
Administrator may request the Attorney General to commence an
action in the appropriate district court of the United States for such
relief as may be appropriate.
(b) In addition to any action which may be brought under subsection
(a) of this section, a person who knowingly violates this title,
regulations promulgated under this title, or a permit issued under
this title shall be fined not more than $50, 000, or imprisoned for
not more than one year, or both.
(c) For the purpose of imposing civil penalties and criminal fines
under this section, each day of a continuing violation shall constitute
a separate offense as shall the dumping from each of several vessels,
or other sources.
(d) The Attorney General or his delegate may bring actions for
equitable relief to enjoin an imminent or continuing violation of this
title, of regulations promulgated under this title, or of permits issued
under this title, and the district courts of the United States shall
have jurisdiction to grant such relief as the equities of the case may
require.
(e) A vessel, except a public vessel within the meaning of section
13 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33U. S. C.
1163), used in a violation, shall be liable in rem for any civil penalty
assessed or criminal fine imposed and may be proceeded against
in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof;
but no vessel shall be liable unless it shall appear that one or more
of the owners, or bareboat charterers, was at the time of the
violation a consenting party or privy to such violation.
(f) If the provisions of any permit issued under section 102 or
103 are violated, the Administrator or the Secretary, as the case
may be, may revoke the permit for a specified period of time. No
permit shall be revoked or suspended unless the permittee shall have
been given notice and opportunity for a hearing on such violation and
proposed suspension or revocation.
(g) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subjection
any person may commence a civil suit on his own behalf to enjoin
any person, including the United States and any other governmental
instrumentality or agency (to the extent permitted by the eleventh
D-9
-------
amendment to the Constitution), who is alleged to be in violation
of any prohibition, limitation, criterion, or permit established or
issued by or under this title. The district courts shall have
jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or the
citizenship of the parties, to enforce such prohibition, limitation,
criterion, or permit, as the case may be.
(2) No action may be commenced —
(A) prior to sixty days after notice of the violation has
been given to the Administrator or 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
dilengently prosecuting a civil action in 'a court of the United
States to require compliance with the prohibition, limitation,
criterion, or permit; or
(C) if the Administrator has commenced action to impose
penalty pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, or if the
Administrator, or the Secretary, has initiated permit
revocation or suspension proceedings under subsection (f) of
this section; or
(D) if the United States has commenced and is 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 suit under this subsection may be brought in the
judicial district in which the violation occurs.
(B) In any such suit under this subsection in which the
United States is not a party, the Attorney General, at the
request of the Administrator or Secretary, may intervene
on behalf of the United States as a matter of right.
(4) The court, in issuing any final order in any suit brought
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may award costs of
litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees)
to any party, whenever the court determines such award is appro-
priate.
(5) The injunctive relief provided by this subsection shall not
restrict any right which any person ( or class of persons) may have
under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any
standard or limitation or to seek any other relief (including relief
against the Administrator, the Secretary, or a State agency).
(h) No person shall be subject to a civil penalty or to a
crimiral fine or imprisonment for dumping materials from a
D-10
-------
vessel if such materials are dumped in an emergency to safeguard
life at sea. Any such emergency dumping shall be reported to the
Administrator under such conditions as he may prescribe.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS
Sec. 106. (a) After the effective date of this title, all licenses,
permits, and authorizations other than those issued pursuant to this
title shall be void and of no legal effect, to the extent that they
purport to authorize any activity regulated by this title, and whether
issued before or after the effective date of this title.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to actions
taken before the effective date of this title under the authority of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (30 Stat. 1151), as amended
(33 U. S. C. 401 et„ seq.)
(c) Prior to issuing any permit under this title, if it appears
to the Administrator that the disposition of material, other than
dredged material, may adversely affect navigation in the Terri-
torial sea of the United States, or in the approaches to any harbor
of the United States, or may create an artificial island on the Outer
Continental Shelf, the Administrator shall consult with the Secre-
tary and no permit shall be issued if the Secretary determines that
navigation will be unreasonably 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
criteria relating to the dumping of materials into ocean waters
within its jurisdiction, or into other ocean waters within the juris-
diction of such State, and if the Administrator determines, after
notice and opportunity for hearing, that the proposed criteria are
not inconsistent with the purposes of this title, may adopt those
criteria and may issue regulations to implement such criteria.
Such determination shall be made by the Administrator within one
hundred and twenty days of receipt of the proposed criteria. For
the purposes of this subsection, the term "State" means any State,
interstate or regional authority. Federal territory or Common-
wealth or the District of Columbia.
(e) Nothing in this title shall be deemed to affect in any
manner or to any extent any provision of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act as amended (16 U. S. C. 661-666c).
D-ll
-------
ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 107. (a) The Administrator or the Secretary, as the case
may be, may, whenever appropriate, utilize by agreement, the
personnel, services and facilities of other Federal departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities, or State agencies or instrumen-
talities, whether on a reimbursable or a nonreimbursable basis, in
carrying out his responsibilities under this title.
(b) The Administrator or the Secretary may delegate respon-
sibility and authority for reviewing and evaluating permit appli-
cations, including the decision as to whether a permit will be issued,
to an officer of his agency, or he may delegate, by agreement, such
responsibility and authority to heads of others Federal departments
or agencies, whether on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis.
(c) The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating shall conduct surveillance and other appropriate en-
forcement activity to prevent unlawful transportation of material
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, carriage, 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 theu- duties
relative to penalty assessments, criminal prosecutions, or other
actions involving litigation pursuant to the provisions of this t:'tle.
REGULATIONS
Sec. 108. In carrying out the responsibilities and authority
conferred by this title, the Administrator, the Secretary, and the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
are authorized to issue regulations as they may deem appropriate.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Sec. 109. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the
Administrator, shall seek effective international action and co-
operation to issue protection of the marine environment, and may,
for this purpose, formulate, present, or support specific proposals
in the United Nations and other competent international organizations
D-12
-------
for the development of appropriate international rules and regulations
in support of the policy of this Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS
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.
Sec. 111. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated not
to exceed $3, 600, 000 for fiscal year 1973, not to exceed $5, 500, 000
for each of the fiscal years 1974 and 1975, not to exceed $5, 300,000
for fiscal year 1975, not to exceed $1, 325,000 for the transition
period (July 1 through September 30, 1976), not to exceed $4, 800,000
for fiscal year 1977, and not to exceed $4, 800, 000 for fiscal year
1978, for the purposes and administration of this title, and for suc-
ceeding fiscal years only such sums as the Congress may authorize
by law.
Sec. 112. The Administrator, the Secretary, and the Secretary
of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall each
individually report annually, on or before March 1 of eachyar,
with the first report to be made on or before June 30, 1973 to the
Congress, on his administration of this title, including recommen-
dations for additional legislation if deemed necessary.
TITLE E— COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH ON OCEAN
DUMPING
Sec. 201. the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
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 frequently than
annually, his findings (including an evaluation of the short-term
ecological effects and the social and economic factors involved) to
the Congress.
D -13
-------
Sec. 202. (a) The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with
other appropriate Fede^aal departments, agencies, and instrumen-
talities shall, within 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 factors
as existing and proposed international policies affecting oceanic
problems, economic considerations involved in both the protection
and the use of the oceans, possible alternatives to existing programs,
and ways in which the health of the oceans may best be preserved
for the benefit of succeeding generations of mankind.
(b) In carrying out his responsibilities under this section, the
Secretary of Commerce, under the foreign policy guidance of the
President and pursuant to international agreements and treaties made
by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, may act
alone or in conjunction with any other nation or group of nations,
and shall make known the results of his activities by such channels
of communication as may appear appropriate.
(c) In March of each year, the Secretary of Commerce shall
report 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 independant instrumentality of
the Federal Government is authorized and directed to cooperate with
the Secretary of Commerce in carrying out the purposes of this
section and, to the extent permitted by law, furnish such infoimation as
may be requested.
(e) The Secretary of Commerce, in carrying out his responsi-
bilities under this section, shall, to the extent feasible utilize the
personnel, services, and facilities of other Federal departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities (including those of the Coast Guard
for monitoring purposes), and is authorized to enter into appropriate
inter-agency agreements to accomplish this action.
Sec. 203. The Secretary of Commerce shall conduct and encour-
rage, cooperate with, and render financial and other assistance to
appropriate public (whether Federal, State, interstate, or local)
authorities, agencies, and institutions, private agencies and insti-
tutions, and individuals in the conduct of, and to promote the coor-
dination of, research, investigations, experiments, training,
demonstrations, surveys, and studies for the purpose of determining
means of minimizing or ending all dumping of materials within five
years of the effective date of this Act.
Sec. 204. There are authorized to be appropriated for the first
D-14
-------
fiscal year after this Act is enacted and for the next two fiscal years
thereafter such sums as may be necessary to carry out this title,
but the sums appropriated for any such fiscal year may not exceed
$6, 000, 000. There are authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
$1, 500, 000 for the transition period (July 1 through September 30,
1976), not to exceed $5, 600,000 for fiscal year 1977, and not to
exceed $6, 500, 000 for fiscal year 1978.
TITLE m—MARINE SANCTUARIES
Sec. 301. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection (h)
of section 3 of this Act, the term "Secretary", when used in this
title, means Secretary of Commerce.
Sec. 302. (a) The Secretary, after consultation with the
Secretaries of State, Defense, the Interior, and Transportation, the
Administrator, and the heads of other interested Federal agencies,
and with the approval of the President, may designate as marine
sanctuaries those ares of the ocean waters, as far seaward as the
outer edge of the Continental Shelf, as defined in the Convention of
the Continental Shelf (15 U. S. T. 74; TIAS 5578), of other coastal
waters where the tide ebbs and flows, or of the Great Lakes and
their connecting waters, which he determines necessary for the
purpoce of preserving or restoring such areas for their conserva-
tion, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values. The consul-
tation shall include an opportunity to review and comment on a
specific proposed designation.
(b) Prior to designating a marine sanctuary which includes
waters lying within the territorial limits of any State or super-
jacent to the subsoil and seabed within the seaward boundary of a
coastal State, as that boundary is defined in section 2 of title I of
the Act of May 22, 1953 ( 67 Stat. 29), the Secretary shall consult
with, and give due consideration to the views of, the responsible
officials of the Stace involved. As to such waters,, a designation
under this section shall become effective sixty days after it is
published, unless the Governor of any State 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
section, which includes an area of ocean waters outside the terri-
torial jurisdiction of the United States, the Secretary of State
D-15
-------
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,
on or before November 1 of each year, setting forth a comprehensive
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 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 inter-
ested party. Such hearings 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
section, the Secretary, after consultation with other interested Federal
agencies, shall issue necessary and reasonable regulations to control
any activities 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
permitted 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 reconized priciples of international law,
including treaties, conventions, and other agreements to which the
United States is signatory. Unless the application of the regulations
is in accordance with such principles or is otherwise authorize.J 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 juris-
diction of the United States shall be applied to a person not a citizen
of the United States.
Sec. 303. (a) Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States who violates any regulation issued pursuant to this title
shall be liable to a civil penalty of not more than $50, 000 for each
such violation, to be assessed by the Secretary. Each day of a con-
tinuing violation shall constitute a separate violation.
(b) No penalty shall be assessed under this section until the person
charged has been given notice and opportunity to be heard. Upon
failure of the offending party to pay an assessed penalty, the Attorney
D -16
-------
General, at the request of the Secretary, shall commence action in
the appropriate district court of the United States to collect the
penalty and to seek such other relief as may be appropriate.
(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 may be proceeded against in any district court of
the United States having jurisdiction thereof.
(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.
Sec. 304. 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, not to exceed $1, 550, 000 for
the transition period {July 1 through September 30, 1976), not to
exceed $500,000 for fiscal year 1977, and not to exceed $500,000 for
fiscal year 1978, to carry out the provisions of this title, including
the acquisition, development, and operation of marine sanctuaries
designated under this title.
D -17
-------
APPENDIX E
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
-------
At\
V®/
December 11, 1978
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary *or Science end Technology
Washington 0 C 2Q230
(30S) 377-SK1 4335
Mr. William H. Mansfield
Office oE Environmental Affairs
Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Mr. Mansfield:
This is in reference to your draft environmental Impact
statement entitled "The Incineration of Wastes at Sea
Under the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention." The enclosed
comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Maritime Administration are for-
warded for your consideration.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these ]..
comments, which we hope will be of assistance to you.
We would appreciate receiving twelve (12) copies of the
final statement.
Sincerely,
Sidney R. Caller \J
Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Environmental Affairs
Enclosure Memos from: Capt. George Stelnman
Maritime Administration
Mr. Douglas LeComte,
Mr. Eldon V. C. Greenberg, and
Mr. Frank Hebard
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
E -
November 17, 1978
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Maritime Administration
Washington ~ C 20230
MEMORANDUM FOR Dr Sidney R Galler
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Affairs
Subject Draft Envi rcmnienta 1 Impact Statement for the
Incineration of Waste at Sea Under the 1972
Ocean Dumping Convention
The subject document has been reviewed as requested by
your memorandum of October 12, 1978 MarAd has a special
interest in this matter since it directly affects the
MarAd Chemical Haste Incinerator Ship Project Our
comments are as follows
1. Summary, page 1
Under item 3 "Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse
Environmental Effects", the following corrections should
be made
a The Threshold Limit Value is 7 mg/m3,
not 7/mg/m^
b. The reference to the "proposed site" should
be changed to the "approved site."
2 Description, pages 1-1 to 5
a It 1s recommended that the reference to
"the Convention" In the first sentence on
page 1-1 include the year of adoption,
i e , 7972
b This discussion should include a listing of
those wastes to which the subject International
regulations and guidelines apply as indicated
in Appendices A and B
3 Routine Analyses, page 1-7
The last sentence on this page discusses routine analyses of
exhaust gases The monitored gases should read "COj, CO,
and 0 2 -"
-------
4. Incineration in the United States, page 1-9
2
It is recommended that the first sentence of the second
paraqraph conclude with the word "predominating "
5 Estimates of Chemical Production and Corresponding
Wastes, pages 1-11 and 12
a The reference on page 1-1) is 21, not J)
b The quantities of commodities listed on page
1-12 should be "Metric Tons *. lo'."
6 International Agreements, pages 111-3 and 4
It is recommended that the list of international agreements
include the following
o International Convention on Safety of Life
at Sea, 1974
o Protocol of 1978 relating to the International
Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, 1974
In this regard, it is further recommended that the words
"maritime safety and with" be inserted after the words
"dealing with" in the first sentence of the third paragraph
on page III-3
7 HEPft. page 1V-4
It is stated here that "the amended CEQ Guidelines were
published on August 1, 1973 " It should be noted that these
Guidelines have recently been revised.
8 Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 [P L 92-340),
pages IV-6 to"?
a It is recommended that this discussion note
that the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of
1972 was amended during 1978 by the Port and
Tanker Safety Act This new law provides a
stringent and comprehensive program dealing
with the design, construction, operation,
equipping, and manning of all tank vessels
using U S ports to transfer oil and hazardous
materials The design, construction, and
3
equipment requirements contained in this law
are, for the most part, in agreement with
the iesults of the 1978 Conference on Tanker
Safety and Pollution Prevention This Conference
resulted in the adoption of Protocols to two of
IMCO's most important Conventions, 1973 MARPOL
and 197 4 SOLAS
b The Coast Guard requirements which implement the
IMCO Chemical Code are contained in Title 46 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, primarily in
46 CFR Part 153 It is suggested that this
6. (con- information be included in the second paragraph
timed) on page IV-7. These Coast Guard requirements,
as well as the IMCO Chemical Code, are based
upon a philosophy of relating cargo containment
features of vessel design, construction, and
operation to the hazards of various chemicals
c In the first paragraph on page IV-8, the
limiting size of a tank for Type I cargo should
be 1,250m3
d In the second paragraph on page IV-8, the
limiting size of a tank for Type II cargo should
be 3,000 m3.
9 Clean Water Act of 1977 (P L 95-217), pages IV-9
and 10
The Clean Water Act of 1977 amended the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FUPCA). With respect to oil and hazardous
9- substance liability, it specifically amended Section 311
of the 1972 FUPCA Amendments (P L 92-500] The essential
features of Section 311, as discussed on pages IV-9 and 10,
were originally part of P L 92-500 P L. 95-217 is most
notable because it extended U S national jurisdiction for
water pollution control to the ocean beyond the contiguous
zone where the fisheries and other natural resources of the
If S may be adversely affected It is, therefore, recommended
that pages IV-9 and 10 be revised to include a discussion of
Section 311 of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments (P L 92-500) In
this regard, it should also be noted the Section 311 of the
FWPCA was amended once again on November 2, 1978, when the
President signed H R 12140 into faw
E- 2
-------
4
10 Marine Environment, page V-l to 12
a The third paragraph on page V-l should be
rewritten as follows"
10. "Information contained ir the fallowing
paragraphs A through 6 is found in
Reference 11."
b It is recommended that Chapter V be expanded
to more comprehensively describe the marine
environment Pages 11-1 to 13 of the Reference 11
in conjunction with the descriptions of the
incineration sites on pages V-8 to 1? would
provide useful information
11. Emission Products, pages Vl-3 to 5.
a. In the last paragraph on page VX-3, the principal
combustion products of organochlor1nes should be
11. CO2, H2O. and HC1 It Is also recommended that
the last sentence of this paragraph be rewritten
as fol1ows.
"Principal combustion products from these non-
chorinated materials are CO2 and HjO."
b In the second paragraph on page VI-4, other
minor constituents should be CO, CI2, and Hz
c In the third sentence of the first paragraph
on page VI-5,the word "organochlorides" should
be "organochlorines ."
12.
12 Combustible Waste Containing Metals. VI -7
What is meant by "total combustion of air" in the first paragraph7
13. Incinerator Efficiencies, page VI-S
In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the word "amound"
should be 'amount."
13. 14 Air Quality, page VI-11
Tn the second sentence of Che first paragraph, ifte nor
-------
To: Bill Arm
SeUaet: KIS For th* faelaamie* of Hntas at
£u^>fiV rumrtlm (mo.lt)
1978
1972
15.
16.
¦CM has tvo short
rtginKi| aAHct OtIS:
fcoald t* addmsatfoadar <*¦ MolottcaI.J*tUng;
p Ca SOX of Mm mpimi peligte ttww 'mt i? to
qbu* roniinpitf inqr pcrTcn vponwfc
as acocntM «c*£» sltrogw mi carta* cytHag.
1)' Mooorgurfsas staid
tbay c» constitute op
9CX of tfec btathlc M
IHWom 1n tte ar)n MtntM
tmd decavosftfon.
2) Tte loRj-tcra l^iMatlnti of X WiOii chnical lerfhi 1* tte
*ici«ity of tfta focloeratloa Mtaa iMd&h* dtsensad. E«b tt
a 99.9rf destruction mffidtnty, tlHi^> fWetliB (10O.4M9.9x).
tjart will Mt Into t*a wrtreeeev irtte qptHrtHlos to b« faetaama
mr tta lo^rtere «r».«rita Inge. MftiR laae-tani loading to
mqfita aay also be qpite l«rga. Iltffiat naods to t» uttmiit.
NOV 2 19/Q
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ekvirqkmsntal data service
Washington DC SOS33
October 30, 1978
TO A/PP - Vfilliam Aroif,
FROM: OA/Dx61 - D&ug
Lliam Aroo- f r
Douglae^LeCotnte
SUBJECT DEIS 7810.16 - The Incineration of Wastes at Sea
Under the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention
General Coogn^Tic-B
It is not clear whether or not oceanographlc and meteorological condi-
tions were considered when the Gulf ef Mexico and Atlantic lncinera-
17. tion sites were selected Draft Regulation 9 (page A-ll), for
Instance) states that atmospheric dispersal characteristics of the
3rea should be given careful consideration, but the D.E.I S. does not
Indicate if this vas the case.
Shore weather data used for diffusion modeling may riot be representative
Of ocean sites, b^t several publications give offshore data for are^s
18* O.ose to the selected incineration sites. One is Environmental Con (Volume 3)
AD-A-00SB16/1SL, and (Volucie 4) AD-A-003689/aSL.
E - 4
-------
UNITED STAGES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Rockville Maryland 20852
November IS, 1978
TO.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PP - Dr. William Aron
GC - El don V. c. Greenberg
State/EPA DEIS on Ccean Incineration ftnendmejjts to
Ooean Dunping Oonvention
ISSUE:
You asked me to review the Craft Bwirormental Impact Statement,
No. 7810.16 ("the DEIS"), issued by the Department of State and
Environmental Protection agency (EPA) on incineration of wastes at
sea under the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention. I have accordingly
considered the merits of the proposed action as well as the
adequacy of the DEIS itself.
CONCUJSICN5 :
I conclude that there are significant unresolved issues in the
proposed action, as well as significant defects in the DEIS.
BAO
-------
-3-
During the First Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties to
the Convention in 1976, a resolution was adopted which requested the
Inter-goverrrental Maritime Consultative organization (IMCO), viiich
serves as the Secretariat Bar the Convention pursuant to Article XIV
(2) of the Oonvention, to consider the relation of incineration at
sea to the Convention and draft provisions, if necessary, to
regulate such incineration. At the Second Consultative Meeting,
in 1977, the parties approved draft technical guidelines for the
regulation of lr.cirreration at sea and reconnected their implementation.
Ttiey also decided to pursue a mandatory regulatory regime tD be
established vithir* the provisions of the Oonvention. See DEIS, at
III - 2-3.
The action proposed at this tune is to participate m international
negotiations to emend the Oonvention bo add language to Annex I
that would specifically permit incineration of certain Annex I
substances and regulate certain aspects of their incineration at
sea, and add larg*jage to Annex II that would create a regulatory
regime for incineration at sea of Annex II substances. An addend or.
to Annex I would specify regulations applicable to incineration at
sea and describe technical guidelines for such operations. Ttiis
Addend lid would apply to both Annex I ard Annex II substances.
C. Technical
Incineration at sE;a is usually carried out in specially constructed,
reconstructed, or fitted vessels. Operations to date have resulted
in incineration termperatures of 125CP C. or more, and nearly
complete ccntxistion of the wastee incinerated (99.9%). itie primary
products of the incineration process are HjO and 00,. When
incineration is of chlorinated hydrocarbons, significant amounts
of HC1 would also be produced. See generally 1-5 jif.. However,
the quantity of Hcl produced and deposited into ooean waters
would certainly be completely neutralized by the waters. See CEIS
at VI-13. Tt> the extent that trace metals are contained in the
wastes, they would appear as particulates in the plune resultirg
from the incineration. See DEIS at VT-4, VI-6. Host such
particulates would be deposited in ooean waters, but because of
the dispersion caused by wind and the movement of the vessel during
the incineration qperation the concentration of such substances
reaching ocean waters would be beneath acceptable thresholds. See
DEIS at . Furthermore, incinoeration operations are usually,
conducted in waters cwerlying the ocean basin and away frcm the
continental shelf or store. Locations are also generally chosen
to avoid any accidents caused by the presence of other vessels in
the area.
Hie proposed amertjments to the Cbnvention would apply uniform inter-
national standards, to be achiinistered by the national authorities,
to such incineration operations, including standards concerning the
-4-
location of the site, specification and performance standards for
the incinerator, and standards concerning the characteristics of the
vessel. Incineration of substances identified in paragraphs 1, 5,
and 1 oE Ann® I — i.e., organchalogen compounds, oils and oily
mixtures, ard materials m any form produced for biological and
chemical warfare — would specifically be subject to an Addendum
to Annex I vtiich would prescribe regulations for such operations
and lay out technical guidelines for consideration in their imp]e-
nentation. Other Annex i substances would not be affected by the
amendment; incineration of such substances would be controlled
only "to the satisfaction of the Contracting Party issuing the
special permit." "Draft Pegulatlorts for the Control of Incineration
of Wastes and Other Matter at Sea" ["craft Regulations"3 , Regulation
2(2).
Anne* II would also be anendect to include a clause under which the
incineration regulations o£ the Adderrium to Annex I vould be applied
to Annex II substances, and the technical Guidelines of the Addendum
stould be applied, but only "to the extent specified in the Regulations
ard Guidelines." Hie incineration of other wastes would be subject
to general permits issued by national authorities. Regulation 2(3).
However, in issuing general permits or special permits for Annex I
and Annex II substances not subject to the entire regulatory regime
of the Addendum, permitting States would still be obliged to take
full account of all applicable previsions of the Draft Regulations
and the "Technical Guidelines on the Cbntrol of Incineration of
Wastes and Other Matter at Sea" ("Technical Guidelines").
Regulation 2(4).
"Iricineratio- at sea" within the rtaft Regulations and Technical
Guidelines is defined to mean;
the deliberate combustion of wastes or other matter on
marine incineration facilities for the purpose of their
thermal destruction. Requlation 1(1).
Other contoustion incidental to vessel operations is excluded.
"Marine incineration facility" refers to any
...vessel, platform, or other man-made structure iiiiich
carries out incineration at sea. Regulation 1(2).
The ftraft Regulations generally require:
(1) That the construction of incineration vessels comply with
applicable international standards relating to construction, equipment,
and design. Regulation 3(1). This is interpreted to mean that the
provisions of the IMOO code on vessels transporting hazardous
substances would apply, at least for states adhering to this code.
See DEIS at IV-7.
E - 6
-------
-5-
-6-
(2) That initial and biennial surveys of the incineration equipment
be corducted by national authorities and certificates of compliance
with explicable standards be issued. The surveys would be based on
performance and specification standards. Performance standards
would include combustion and efficiences in excess of 99.9%, an
adequate supply of air, and a minimum 125CP C. flame temperature.
Specification standards would include national standards on the
design of monitoring thermocouples, gas sampling system, shut-off
temperature system, waste and fuel flow monitoring devices, stack
monitoring devices, and provisions ensuring that no waste can be
discharged from the tanks during normal operations except through
the incinerator. Regulation 4.
(3) That preliminary stack monitoring be conducted as part of the
initial survey when incineration of wastes "over vdiich doubts as
to the efficiency of combustion ocist" is contemplated. Examples
are PCB's, PCT, TODD, DDT, and other organohalogens. Consideration
is also to be given to sampling particulates where incineration of
liquid of semi-liquid wastes is contemplated. Regulation 5.
(4) That certain performance standards be met, including no discharge
during normal operations except through the incinerator, maintenance
of 1250Pc. flame temperature, and ccmbustion efficiency of 99.95-
0.05%, and an absence of black sroke or flame extension above the
stack. Regulation 6.
(5) That certain data be recorded during operation and records be
kept of this data. Regulation 7.
(6) That wastes to be incinerated be identified and that the
by-products of incineration also be identified "where possible".
Regulation 8(l>-(2).
(7) That certain factors be taken into consideration in site selection
and that notification procedures be followed. Regulations 9, 10.
A recommendation has been made on notification. Under the reccinmerel-
ation, notification of incineration operations would be post facto
and compiled by IMOO into anrual simmaries. See ftnendment to
Interim Notification Procedures; Annex I, DEB at A-20. Notifications
by national permitting authorities should include information
concerning the nature of the waste, the processes generating it,
its form, and the area and frequency of incineration. See Appendix
A to Draft Regulations, DEIS at ft-21.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed amendments to the Ocean Dumping Convention raise issues
concerning both the merits of the proposal and the adequacy of the
DEIS. While these issues overlap somevtiat, I will discuss them
here according to whether they are primarily issues as to the merits
of the proposal or the adequacy of the tEIS.
A. Substantive Issues
(1) Under the Convention there is considerable uncertainty as to
vhat constitutes a permissible "trace contaminant" of certain Annex
I substances and when certain substances are "rapidly rendered
harmless" by discharge into ocean waters. Inorganic substances
present in wastes to be incinerated will not be destroyed by
19. incineration, and will appear as particulates in the plume resulting
fron incineration. See EEIS at Vi-4. The proposed amendments
specifically carry over the exemption of substances rapidly rendered
harmless or present as trace contaminants frcm the prohibition of
Annex I on introduction of such substances into the marine environment.
Thus inorganic canponents of the incinerated waste could be discharged
into the oaean, provided they were in amounts that qualify for one of
the exemptions.
(2) There is apparently little basis for the distinction between
matters oontained in the Kraft Regulations and those contained in the
Technical Guidelines. The Tfechnical Guidelines contain important
regulatory items not addressed in the Craft Regualtions, including
percentage of excess oxygen present in the combustion gases near
the stack exit; the residence time of wastes in the incinerator;
standards on disposal of residues including tank washings and ashy
deposits; provisions on loading of liquid wastes at sea, container
integrity, stowage, and labelling; specific measures on prevention
of maritime hazards, including notification of route and location
of operations aid ongoing radio warnings; specific application of
the IMOO Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying
Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk; and provision for pilot tests in
certain instances (bracketed).
20. There is also some ambiguity concerning the legal effect of the
distinction between the Draft Regulations and the Technical Guidelines.
According to an anendment to Annex I, parties "shall apply the
Regulations.. .and take full account of the Technical Guidelines"
for incineration of enumerated An not I substances; "shall apply the
Regulations...and take full acount of the Technical Guidelines...to
the extent specified in these Regulations and Guidelines" for Annex
II substances; and "shall take full account of all applicable
previsions of these Regualtions and the Tfechnical Guidelines" for
incineration of suhstances not included in the foregoing as well as
for substances subject only to general permits. However, the intro-
ductory paragraph to the Technical Guidelines states that parties
"should take full account of these Guidelines". It is inclear
whether there is a distinction in meaning between whether a party
"shall" take the Tfechnical Guidelines into consideration, or "should"
take them into consideration.
E -
7
-------
(3) Under Regulation 2(2) , incineration of wastes subject to special
permits, other than Annas I wastes specifically enumerated in Regulation
2(1) (a), or Annex n wastes outside the 9cope of the controls imposed
under the amendment to Anna II, "shall be controlled to the satis-
faction of the Contracting Party issuing the special permit." Hi is
appears to leave us worse off than under the present regime.
Whereas under the Convention in its present form the terms of the
Convention W3uld apply to such substances provided they were
deposited in sufficient quantities to cause measurable changes in
the ooean ert/irorment ard (in the case of Annex I substances) were
not rapidly rendered harmless or present only as trace contaminants,
these substances would under the proposed amendments not be subject
to any international regulatory regime.
This would include substances containing mercury, cadmiun, and their
compounds, persistent plastics or other persistent synthetic materials,
as well as Annex Ii substances to which the Draft Begulations and
¦technical Guidelines do not specify their applicability. See Annex
II, Par. E. This last clause appears to leave consideritole doubt as
to the applicability of the Draft Regualtions and the Technical
Guidelines to specific Anne* II substances. Furthermore, it appears
to plaoe the burden of proof on a party seeking to show that a
specific substance should be oovereJ by the Draft Begulations and
technical Guidelines, and not on a party attempting to exclude it
from coverage.
(41 Regulation 2(l)
-------
-9-
would result in generation of significant quantities of KC1 gas.
Ttse HE 13 concludes that there would be negligible results on ocean
\eters Ercrc the [CI discharge. Hie DEIS also states that the localized
concentrations of FC1 will not exceed acceptable maxima. IDBIS at Vl-12.
The DEIS does not, however, consider the effects of release of HC1 on
the atmosphere as a long-term matter.
(b) The DEIS states that evaluation of long-term effects of incineration
operations on ocean waters depends on continued advances in oaean
monitoring technology. DEIS at VII-1. It further states that although
scree changes in ocean chenistry may be tolerated, any effects on biota
might signal unacceptable changes in the ecosystem. EPA regulations
on domestic operations are said to incorporate these considerations.
DFIS at VII-1.
These effects are not satisfactorily dealt with by the proposed
amendhients, fctuch contmus to allow trices of Annex I substances to
be deposited into the oaean as a result of marine incineration, and
in addition allow disposition of "harmless" amounts of such sutstances.
Regulation 8(3). according to the Cbnvention in its present form,
harmless amounts are those vJiich do not cause unpalatability in
seafood or detrimental effects to humans or domestic animals. The
Convention, Annex I, Par. 8. The proposed amendments therefore do
not ^>pear to regulate long-term changes in the ocean environment
resulting from disposition of small amounts of prohibited substances.
(c) Hie EE IS fails adequately to assess the risks posed by navi-
gational hazards. Hie DEIS does not consider the effects of a
spill of hazardous materials fran an incinerator vessel in any
detail, nor does it discuss the satisfactoriness of currently
available regulations, including construction and equipment standards,
that affect navigational safety. It simply lists presently available
measures, including Coast Guard regulations and the IMOO code on
transportation of hazardous substances. Here is no evaluation of
the probable frequency of accidents. See CEIS at VI11-3 ff..
(2) The DEIS falls to discuss meaningfully the alternatives to the
proposed action.
(a) Hie DEIS fails to identify significant alternatives. For
example, the proposed ameminents would not require stack scrubbers
for incinerator vessels. DEIS at Vl-13. Stack scrubbers would remove
virtually all the HC1 produced by combustion of chlorinated hydro-
carbons. Hie re is no etplanation cf why this presumably technically
feasible alternative has been emitted.
In part this defect may relate to the stage of negotiations presently
reached or to other political considerations. Howver, this point
is not discussed in the CEIS.
-10-
(b) Hie DEIS fails adequately to consider the possible advantages of
the ro-act ion alternative. In discussing the no-action alternative,
the DEIS states that if this alternative were selected, nations would
proceed with domestic enforcement inder the Qorr.-ent 10n as presently
in effect. Hie DEIS makes the questionable statement that incinceration
at sea is definitely within the terms of the Cbnvention. DEIS at II-l.
Hie DEIS also states that a uniform international reguatory regime
would, however, probably lead to better regulation. Hi is is probably
true.
However, the CEIS does not discuss to what extent legitimizing marine
incineration by providing a specific regime of regulation within the
provisions of the Cbnvention would foreclose future options that may
be more desirable. Premature adoption of marine incineration as a
disposal cption for the wastes likely to be incinerated may freeze
technology and remove the incentive to devise other technical options.
Such options could include reprocessing, deactivation through
bacterial action or the like, as -well as other forms of disposal.
A "delay" alternative could be chosen which would await such develop-
ments. These issues should be discussed further in the DEIS.
(c) Hie CEIS fails bo consider land incineration adequately. Land
incineration, because of the probable relative proximity of settlements
and absence of the amounts of water that could neutralize certain
wastes, e.g. FJC1, would probably utilize stack scrubbers that would
be virtually completely effective in renewing fCl and particulates.
DEIS at VI-21. land incineration would alsD involve an entirely
different transportation network. Hie relative dangers of land
and sea transportation to the incineration site have not been
addressed. Instead, the DEIS merely states that catastrophes at
land sites would be more dangerous, since they would likely be
closer to populated areas. DEIS at VT-22. While this may be
true, it must be balanced against the fact that most transshipnent
of wastes for marine incineration operations would occur at busy
ports. DEIS at VI-16.
-------
-11-
Many unsupported factual statements are made. For example, it is
3 3
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, DC 20240
PEP ER 78/973
NOV 3 0 1978
Mr William H. Mansfield
Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of State
Washington, D C. 20520
Dear Mr. Mansfield
The Department of Interior has completed its review of the
draft environmental impact statement for the Incineration
of Wastes at Sea Under the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention
Generally, the statement appears adequate from our area of
concern, however we do have the following minor comments
Please note that the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
listed on page n, is now the Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Service.
We suggest that you change the last paragraph on
page VI - 15 to read as follows "For this reason,
the route of the ship to the site will be con-
trolled so as to keep the vessel out of recreational
areas." The sentence now says that the route of the
ship should be controlled.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft
statement.
Sy1cera?y,
if
nerputy Larfy E. Meierotto
Al&lBtant SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
MAILIISO ADDRBSS .
US COAST OUARD (G—WEP— 7/73)
WASH IKO TON DC 10390
phonb 202-426-3300
2 1 NOV 1978
•Mr. William H. Mansfield
Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Mr* Mansfield
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
The concerned operating adminlstrations and staff of the U.
S« Coast Guard have reviewed the draft environmental impact
statement for Incineration of Wastes at Sea Under the 1972
Ocean Dumping Convention. We offer the following comments
for use in developing the final statement*
Page 1-3, paragraph (4)(a)« This paragraph apparently
prohibits other discharges of facility wastes such as
bilge pumping* sewage discharge, and trash and garbage
dumping when they are authorized. A definition of
"waste, excluding these other materials, would be
helpful in removing this ambiguity.
Page 1-4, paragraph (5)(c)« We suggest using the term
"navigational aids* in lieu of navigational controls
since vessel navigation is not really controlled.
Page IV-8. 1,250 m and 3,000 m should read 1,250 cubic
me t e r s and 3,000 cubic me t e r s~
Page V-8. It would be helpful to describe the Gulf of
Mexico site in regard to size, location and distance
from major ports as is done regarding the 106" site
on pages V — 11 and V-12.
Page V1-2, paragraph 2. The statement describes "moni-
toring surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-
range impacts.' We suggest this terminology be changed
to "monitoring programs to prevent adverse long-range
impacts and surveillance for enforcement purposes.
Page VI1I-4, paragraph 2« Surveillance flights are
conducted at ports handling over 10 million tons of
petroleum products annually and flights are conducted
in all coastal waters. Specific coastal surveillance
areas are determined by pollution potential expected as
a result of vessel density studies and historical spill
55
E - 11 • J" "¦
can itv* with
-------
data, and flights are not restricted ro high-pollution
areas. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
requires polluters to report spillsj and non-spilling
industries and the public are encouraged to report
spills to- augment thi s mandate*
Pa&e A-8, Regulations 5, line 6. "Initial vessel sur-
vey** should read "initial incineration survey."
Page A-9, Regulation 6 (1) and Page A-1 5, B.l.(a). The
same comments hold here as for page I~3«
Pase A-15 B.2 . (a) . We suggest the wording here be
changed to "liquid wastes in bulk should not
This will allow use of small, specially designed tanks
or drums for transfering wastes should an offshore in-
cinerator facility be established.
The opportunity to review the draft environmental impact
statement is greatly appreciated.
2
STATE OF ALABAMA
ALABAMA DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
GEO AGE C WALLACE R C "RED" 0AMBERG W M "BSLL" RUSHTON
GOVERNOR DIRECTOR „ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
December 8, 1978
Mr William H Mansfield, III
Office of Envirormental Affairs
Department of the State
IdiohaelR "Aaos" Administrator
State Clearlnghouse
State Planning Division
KtAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Applicant Department of the State
Project Draft Environmental Irrjjact Statement for the
Incineration of Wastes at Sea under the 1972
Ocean IXmping Convention.
State Clearinghouse Cbntrol Number AD0-033-78
Hie Draft Qivirocmental Impact Statement for the above project has been
reviewed by the appropriate State agencies in accordance with Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-95, Revised.
The carments received frem the reviewing agencies are attached.
Please contact us if we may be of further assistance. Correspondence
regarding this proposal should refer to the assigned Clearinghouse Number.
A-95/05
Attachments
Agencies contacted for ccnment.
Eiiv irorjiental Health Administration
ADO - Sternenberg
FHOM
SUBJECT
3TJ4 ATLANTA HIGHWAY • MONTGOMERY. ALABAMA
MAILING ADDRESS STATE CAPITOL-MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA-36110
(205) 832 £810
-------
REqUEST FOR REVIEW OF PROJECT hQC I CAT [OH
TO
Mr. W. T. Willis
Environmental Ilealth Adm.
Cll Number ADO-033-78
Applicant Dept of tho State
DATE
Program Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Incineration of Hastes at Sea undor the 1072 Ocean tXznping
Conventloo.
October 23, 1978 Return Prior to ASAP
Date
Please review the attached Environmental Impact Statement and indicate your
conment with respect to any environmental impact involved
Conments {Please check one block )
No conment (Environmental Impact Statement is in order and no
additional conments are offered )
Conments {Elaborate below )
Conment here
/,
¦' i Li '
Signalure
Please Return Original to
Alabama Development Office
Office of State Planning
State Clearinghouse
c/o State Capitol FORM CH-2a
Montgomery, Alabama 36130 8/71
OFFICB OF THE GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
JAY S HAMMOND, Governor
Phone 445-3512
Pooch AD - Juneau 99811
December 11, 1978
Mr. William H. Mansfield
Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of State
Washington, D,C. 20520
Subject Incineration of Wastes at Sea
State l.D No. 78102403
Dear Mr. Mansfield
The Alaska State Clearinghouse has completed revlev on the subject
project.
The State Clearinghouse has no comment on this project.
This letter will satisfy the revlev requirements of the office of Managenent
and Budget*9 Circular A-95.
^^¦Incerely,
Jerry Mad3en
State-Federal Coordinator
JM/cz
E - 13
-------
OFFICE OF THE SECHE.TARV
RESOURCES BUILDING
1*16 NINTH STREET
9SB14
<916) 445 5656
D*D«rlm«nl ol Cantarvjtlon
D*partrr»»nt of Fltn ana Gimi
Otpartmtnt o 1 Forestry
Oaoartmanl of Navhftatlon and
CKijii C*v4lOPminl
0«Mrtm.ol of PjiUt tna R*crMtlon
Oaparlmant ol Watat RawurCM
EDMUND G BROWN JR
GOVERNOR OF
California
THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA
Air RaiCurcai BoarO
Coil!») CommlMlcm
California Cont*fvatton Co>ot
Colorado nivar Board
Cnarfy Ratoajrcat Coniarvallon ana
D*»aioprn«rt| Commltilon
Rafllonai WaLar Quality CoMioi Board*
San Franchco Bay Conurvtdor. ana
O*v*loom«nl Commiulort
SoHd Wasta Manavamani Board
Slaia Coastal Cont*t<«4ricv
Slaca Land* Cornmlitlon
Slata Rcciamillan Board
Siata Waiar flatouicai Control eoiio
1978 DEC 1 3
Mr. William Mansfield, III
Office of Environmental Affairs
Room 7820
U. 3. Department of State
Washington, D. C. 20520
Dear Mr. Mansfield:
The State of California has reviewed the "Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Incineration of Wastes at Sea Under the 1972
Ocean Dumping Convention", prepared by the Environmental Protection
Agency and submitted through the Office of Planning and Research
in the Governor'3 Office.
The only comment received from the reviewing State offices was that
of the State Water Resources Control Board, as follows:
On page VI-1U, the DEIS mentions that fish exposed to plume
fallout exhibit higher activity of P-4-50 enzymes than control
48. organisms do, but It does not discuss the toxlcologlcal
significance of this. The final EIS should discuss the
significance of increased P»450 activity.
The Board has designated 3^ Areas of Special Biological
49. Significance which require protection of species or biological
communities to the extent that alteration of natural water
quality is undesirable (report attached). Similar protection
may be afforded off-shore areas of other states or countries.
Therefore, the Board recommends that proposed regulations
require that designation procedures for disposal sites and
transportation routes for toxic wastes consider potential
impacts on such areas and appropriate measures to prevent
input of toxic 3pllis to them.
Questions concerning these comments should be directed to
Dennis Corcoran at (916) 322-9875-
Mr. William Mansfield, III
Page 2
The State1b review fulfills the requirements of Part II of Office
of Management and Budget Circular A-95 and the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969. It was coordinated with the Depart-
ments of Conservation, Fish and Game, Navigation and Ocean Develop-
ment, Parks and Recreation, Water Resources, Food and Agriculture,
and Transportation; the Air Resources and Water Resources Control
Boards, and the Coastal, Energy, Public Utilities, and State Lands
Commissions.
We appreciate having been given an opportunity to review this
document.
Sineerely,
L. FRANK GOGDSON
Assistant Secretary for Resources
Attachment
cc: Director of Management Systems
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(SCH 78110658)
-------
State of Oelawabe
£x£ConvE Department
Office of Management Budget and planning
OP«Ct rie THE Doi/Lo 0
-------
Loring Lovell, Chief
Page Two
December 19, 1978
2. The Incineration of heavy metals represents a long terra concern
of this proposal Increased combustion efficiency does not
significantly reduce the amount of metal salts and metal oxides
being emitted from the stack It has been noted that "the con-
vention does not require the development of procrdures and criteria
for evaluating the impact (of) waste disposal at designated
sites . " (pag€ VII-2). Therefore, we are encouraged that EPA may
require special studies to be performed prior to the issuance of
permits for the ocean incineration of certain wastes The
monitoring of Incineration operations of questionable wastes, only,
basically provides after-the-fact data It is hoped that the
special studies aspect will tie elaborated upon in the final EIS
We are interested in knowing what criteria or standards would be
used to determine, "unacceptable high metal content," and what
other components of questionable wastes EPA anticipates as candidates
for special study
Ocean incineration appears to be a viable alternative to ocean
dumping, landfill disposal and deep well injection ffe would like
to review the final EIS when it is available ffe appreciate the
oppoitunity to comment on this environmental document
Sincerely,
Intergovernmental Programs
Review Section
JBO/hdk
STATE OF FLORIDA
Ft G Whittle. Jr
run rj*mnc owecic*
Department of &bmini$ttation
Division of State Planning
Room 530 Carlton Building
TALLAHASSEE
32304
(004) 488-1115
Reubln O D Askew
(4VI »0<
WilUcr W HnwiOTon
December 12, 1978
Mr William H Mansfield
Office of Enuironnental Affairs
Department of State
Washington, D C 20520
Dear Mr Mansfield
Functioning as the State Planning and Development Clearinghouse
contemplated in U S Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95, we
have reviewed the following draft Environmental Impact Statement
Incineration of Hastes at Sea Under the 1972 Ocean Dunping Convention,
SAI 79-0718E
During our review we referred the environmental impact statement
to the following agencies, which we identified as interested Department
of Environmental Regulation, Department of Natural Resources, Oepartment
of Legal Affairs, Department of State, Game and Fresh Mater Fish Corrmlssion,
and Department of Administration's Bureau of Land and Mater Management
Agencies were requested to review the statement and comment on possible
effects that actions contemplated could have on matters of their concern
During the review period the above agencies either did not comment, or
submitted letters of no cojiment If any agency should submit a letter of
comnent regarding this document, we will forward it immediately
In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines
concerning statement On proposed federal actions affecting the environment,
as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and U S
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95, this letter should be
appended to the final environmental impact statement on this project
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this draft statement
We request that you forward us copies of the final environmental Impact
statement prepared on this project
RGWjr Kuti
cc Ken Tucker J W Landers, Jr Harmon Shields
Loring Lovell H E Wallace L Ross Worrell
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
RG Whi Ir
BUTE HMO> . .
department of &&mmttftratton
Division of State Planning
Room 5J0 Carlton Building
TALLAHASSEE
32304
(004) 488-1115
December 26, 1978
fleubln O D Askew
«0V|IM0»
WilUcr W Hendmoo
HCM1UI 0» MBJHIfTUMOi
Mr William H Mansfield
Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of State
Washington, 0 C 20520
Dear Mr Mansfield
Reference our December 12, 1978, letter of response to your draft
Environmental Impact Statement, Incineration of Wastes at Sea under the
1972 Ocean Dumping Convention SAI 79-0718E, attached for your consider-
ation is a letter of coirment from our Department of Environmental Regu-
lation We request that you consider these cormients as part of our
earller response
Thank you for your cooperation
RGWjr King
Attach.
cc J W Landers, Jr.
OEOflQE R AR1Y0SHI
OOVtPNOft
RICHARD I C CO KNELL
OAECTGM
TELEPHONE HO
MMB13
STATE OF HAWAII
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
MO HALDUUWIA ST
RO0W301
HONOLULU HAWAII QH13
January 5, 1979
Mr William Mansfield, III
Office of Environmental Affairs
Room 7820
Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Mr. Mansfield
SUBJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
INCINERATION OF WASTES AT SEA UNDER THE 1972
OCEAN DUMPING CONVENTION
We have reviewed the subject document and offer the
following comments for your consideration-
1. The draft EIS indicates that incernation will be done
in less travelled areas of the open ocean. The EIS
should also consider avoiding the migration paths of
whales.
2. The EIS does not discuss the treatment of containers
which contain hazardous materials for incineration.
Will the containers be washed on board the ship' Where
will the containers be disposed7
3. Although the appendix includes information on the
disposal of residue in the "Technical Guidelines on
the Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other Matter
at Sea," there is no discussion on the disposal of
harmful residues such as from dioxins. Only on-site
disposal is considered. Such land disposal of the
residue could be hazardous and this problem should be
discussed in the EIS.
E - 18
-------
Mr Wi.liam Mansfield, III
Page 7
January 5, ]9J9
h'e "--ust th_t these comments will be helpful to you in
prepar the final ETS Us tha.ak you foe the opportunity to
review this document and request that a copy of the final EIS
i>e provided to js when, it be coxes available
Richard L. O'Come 11
Director
cc DPED
©STEP
OFFICE OF SCIENCE. TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
£dwln ff Edwante Governor
Lee W Jrnuings tljrectar
October 20, 1978
Mr. William H. Mansf-ieZd
Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of State
Washington, D.C. 205J0
RE: Incineration of Wastes at
Sea Under the 1972 Ocean
Dumping Convention
Dear Mr. Mansfield:
The above-referenced matter concerning environmental quality has
been received and reviewed by the fetaff of the Office of Scietice,
Technology and Environmental Policy. From the information contained
in the package sent "to our office, the staff of OSTEP issues & no
obiectipn on this particular project. The rules and regulations
governing this project should continue to be in full compliance
with all State and Federal regulatory agencies.
The staff of OSTEP appreciates this opportunity to participate in
the review process.
Sincerely,
vs
William Jr'Ytollere
Manager, Administration
Operations
nd
WJM/cdh
Mr. George Gullett, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Planning and Technical Assistance
Department of Uirban and Community Affairs
BTjtTE CAPITOL BUILDIKC pQST OFFICE BO » 440*5. n ATOM ROUCE. L A. IfcjCH <400 15*29-4*
KAIio.NAL EPACE TCCaiNOLOCn' U*B0XAT0RIUKSTL STATION Mississippi <«0J> «A«-JOOJ
-------
F/NC
I
w*n - w
OFFICE OF THE OOVEBMOB
Planning 6 Coordination
1503 W«lt«r 8'tltra Building
JACKSON MISSISSIPPI W01
3*4 roia
CUFF FINCH JAMEJ A FLCMIW
GOVERNOR DIRECTOR
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE FOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS
7Q Department of State
Office of Environmental Affairs
Washington, O.C. 20520
Attn William H Mansfield
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER
78101812
DATE November 7, 1978
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Incineration of Wastes at Sea Under
the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention. The United btates will participate 1n negotia-
tions to amend the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
of Wastes and Other Hatter to establish internationl regulation and guldlines for
the incineration of wastes at sea to be enforced nationally -Nationwlde-
The State Clearinghouse, in cooperation with the state agencies interested
or possibly affected, has completed the A-95 review of the project described
above.
None of the state agencies involved in the review had couments or recommenda-
tions to offer at this tune This concludes the State Clearinghouse review,
and we encourage appropriate action as soon as possible
A copy of this letter is to be attached to the application as evidence of
compliance with the A-95 requirements
Lester Howell, Coordinator
Clearinghouse for Federal Programs
&tdtr nf ?iriii .IJrrsrii
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
PormriA a SlIETMON 1" WEST STATE SHEET
COMM»SSvONCR POST OFFICC BOX
TRENTON N J 0J6JS
Occobcr 19, 1978
Mr Donald R King, Director
Office of Environmental Affairs
Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Department of State
Washington, D C 20520
RE OSRC-FY-79-463
Dear Mr King
This will acknoVledge receipt of your recent Project Notification
for an [incineration
-------
Department of Land Conservation and Development
1175 COURT STREET N E , SALEM OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-4926
November 22, 1978
Mr William Mansfield, III
Office of Environmental Affairs
Room 7820
Department of State
Washington, 0 C 20520
Dear Mr Mansfield
We have briefly reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement (DEIS)
prepared by the Department of State and the U S Environmental
Protection Agency for the incinerations of wastes at sea under
the 1972 ocean dumping convention Our comments are with respect
to Section IV a through IV-4 of the report
The State of Oregon's Coastal Zone Management Program has been
approved containing statewide planning goals and special statutes
Permits and licenses issued under the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act having an impact on the State are required to be
consistent with the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program The
Ocean Resources Goal included in the Program addresses the issues
in this report A copy of all Coastal Resource Goals has been
submitted with these comnents *
Thank you fcr this opportunity to corrcnent
Sincerely,
James H Claypool
State Agency Coordinator
JHC cf
*Attachment "Statewide Planning and Guide-
Enc linos 16, 17, 18, A 19 for Coastal Resources",
Effective 1 January 1977
cc Jon Chnstensen
OREGON PROJECT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Interqovernment.il Relation* Division,
306 State Library Uuildinc, Salem, Oregon 97*nn
Ph 378-3732
Project § Return Dace
1 NYli 0». 'LSITAL _UliY.LT PLVJiW IT'^l &UD <,
] A response is £Ciiun cd^ to all notices dqucstirg environmental review
? OMB A-95 (Revised) piovidcs for a 30-day extension of time, if
nocossa ry If you cannot rosj'oivl by tho ibovo return date, please
call the State Cl^n jnghouse to jLiamje for an extension
. _,
1 »\V I RONMTNTAl, fMPACT HLVIIW j, x-
Dihsl 1' STATCM* t_H J
( ) 'Ihi i nrojcct doi , not have si'jn l fica 11 onvj ronincntal impact ^ /'
fli I
t ) The envjionmcni. iL mpact i;» adequately described 1 ' '
{/) We suggest thut do following points be considered in the prepara-
tion of a I in*il j nv ironmental Impact ftaternont regarding this pto-
}ec L
{ ) fio comment
L
o c_
3y - / / !
( r,\j
-------
Department of Land Conservation and Development
1175 COURT STREET N E . SALEM OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-4926
November 22, 1978
Mr Wi11 lam Mansfleld, [II
Office of Environmental Affairs
Room 7820
Department of State
Washington, D C 20520
Dear Mr Mansfield
He have briefly reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement (DEIS)
prepared by the Department of State and the U S Environmental
Protection Agency for the incinerations of wastes at sea under
the 1972 ocean dumping convention Our conroents are with respect
to Section /V a , through JV-4 of the report
Ttie State of Oregon's Coastal Zone Management Proqram has been
approved containing statewide planning goals and special statutes
Permits and licenses issued under the Marine Protection* Research
and Sanctuaries Act having an impact on the State are required to be
consistent with the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program The
Ocean Resources Goal included in the Program addresses the issues
in this report A copy of all Coastal Resource Goals has been
submitted with these comments
Thank you for this opportunity to comment
Sincerely,
James H Claypool
State Agency Coordinator
JHC cf
Enc
cc Jon Chrislensen
E
2
OREGON PROJECT notification and review system
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Intorqovernmcnt.il Halations Division
306 State Library Ruildincj, Salem, Ore'qon 97310
Ph. 378-3732
EJ1.JLS
R E V 1 F VI
Project i
Return Date
EH^ir^N?lLMAL_IHnACJ_-£lLVllW__r.rsOCnDURE^
1. A response is roomiod to all notices requesting environmental review.
2 OMB A-95 (Revised) piovidcs foi a 30-d.iy f*xtent»ion of time, if
noccqsary If you cannot respond by the <«bove return date, please
call the State Clou jnghouse to arrange for an extension
1 rViRONMi:NTAL IMPACT RLVFIW
DRAPl SfATnil 1}T
( ) This nioject iloi i, not have significant, environmental impact
( ) The environmental impact is adequately described
( X ) We suggest th-at the following i>oints be considered m the prepara-
tion of a Final i nvironmcntal Impact Statement regarding this pro-
3 ect
( ) No comment.
REMARKS
56
U it IS 4rue f a.s ¦Uae. drccf4 E./S "fkoj
Our Con4-arv>,vML.^ts Art de4ecfr«* \evtls
'y 6oJr"e/ 4i\cu«. It rtv\< (f s -frfrvm. -Uvt iutt
-ffom. -wi Jn / u _ de.fecfa-t>/t Izvil uocJ-er
n no - * '
wLj IS if risk. -k\A- "W- 1 t-f 4t>k/C-
^Ul bs s +& 5e^. -L i«c i n e r«.f C tr
0.rt liutd $iles in -k%'i t ( (u^| cfatri, i»>-W ja/c
ivKCi^6.ra.be« ecu.id -4
-------
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
OOLPH BRISCOE
governor November 30, 3970
Mr Donald R King, Director
Office of Cnvi/onmental Affairs
Departoentlof /state
Washington! y C 20520
Dear Mr King
The "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the incineration of Wastes
at Sea Under the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention" has hecn reviewed by the
Budget and Planning Office and by interested and affected State agencies
The comments of the reviewing agencies are enclosed to assist your
planning effort If this Office can be of further aaslstnnce, please
contact ua
Sincerelyt
Roy Hogan, Assistant Director
Budget and Planning Office
Enclosure
EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
411 WEST 13TH STREET
AUSTIN TEXAS TS701
II \ ^ Hi 'MIIUI M (1| v\ • I K 1 \ m ' nf „
I (III s I ll J.tv |\» IP
\ • "n ! k i t
11 \ « y, M I \l l»l 1 II { 4»MI Ml' M I»
> I Im. I
U il It ki o.i
11!i . i , \>u
r H ' , h
v I . V M i . \ >
ImiiI K . \
November 9, 1978
' « I I *'] VS|l IV
I i
1 n B K
wi °s
Nr Charles C Tiavi . Director
never"j> 's St doe: ! •""'.iiuinj CTice
7J0 r*L utive uffice Buildup
411 Ir 51 13th Str"et
Austin, Tex?s 7f.701
'car '-"i Travis
Subject U S Cepir trcent of StaW'J S En, i ronnental Protection Agency
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) -- Incineration of
tastes at Sea Under the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention
[September 1078)
In response to jour October 31 tnoinorandum, the Texas Department of Water
Resources (TOUR) las reviewed the subject 0E1S on proposed amendments to
the Convention or. the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
and Other Hatter (December 20. 1972) in order to establish international
regulations and guidelines for the incineration of wastes at sea to he
enforced nationally The proposed regulations (see DEIS at Appendix A),
provide standards to minimize adverse impacts on oceans, atmosphere, shipping,
and other legitimate uses of sea which could result from the mcinerano.i of
wastes and oUer natter at sea (Activit.es incidental to normal operation
Ci~ snips, or platforrs, are "xcluded fron the proposed definition of
'incineration it ¦ ca " 'Also, see Article 111 l(b)(i) of "Convention" m
DEIS at Appendix B. pige B-2 )
TDNR lias reviewed the subject DEIS from the standpoint of its statutory,
Statev.'do p'annirig, ri^ielo'jrsnt, and 'eg'i'a'yij responsibilities relative
to resource"; .-.ater qoality, wujtp cater, aid ind'rs'.rial r>~ hazardoi %
solid lasies t'T in i n thrs Ituirrt icne of r'nw, 7 DHRoffc" i"f- folto-nng
itat f revu < cc er ¦ j
Page , I -a* J--' 11-3, I - , an I -]_C
TDtJR b'litvi's thet tfe ¦ r.,oied a"vnd^ents ,-r«- iruiually bereficia:
ind c;nsis r_nt *ith reicvuit otiectT.es, goals, <.n.l auti.ii.ies uf
¦> > j 11 jf Te. "f ic ."l- 'O cn 'i1 'hi. o» -
all r,t'i ra' ovalua'mr ' js.'J .)n tin' foiled re,, m
n - 23
-------
Charles D Travis
ge Two
vember 9, 1978
a ireinera:tc" of wastes already 'art iniernationa)
E>pera:icr, specially-desioied shut- call at »>orl Ioj
toxic wastes for incineration in o:.ean -areas usually beyond
territorial waters [ntlS at pagos T[-3-4 ]
i> The jrandstory provisions of the ajrojiosed regulations are
ieaIistic m that they incorporate results of studies. «jhich
"foe'--3ed on Incinerator efficiencies, coeratiny temperatures,
inci'isrator ccritrols and fail-safe dewices in o*c£r to
establish best practicable technology " fD?fS at pages l-i
to 1-5, emphasis added ) In addi tiori. it has been concluded
that the proposed mandatory requirements for incineration
operations "are sufficient to protect the marine environment
from adverse impact " (DEIS at pacje 1-5 )
c Two Official ly-permltted incineration Operations involving
toxic organochlorine wastes have been successfully performed
in the Gulf of Mexico, i e , 16,000 metric tons, 113 miles
southeast of Galveston, Texas during October 1974 - January
1975, and, 15,000 metric tons, 130 miles south of Sabine Pass
Texas during March to April 1977 (OEtS at pages 1-9 and -10
d The need for developing and applying at-sea monitoring
technology to evaluate long-tem effects is recognized
(DEIS at page Vll-1 )
e Specially-designed arts) operated V S flag incinerator ships
for nation-wide operations are planned (DEIS at page 1-12,
IV-4 to IV-10 )
Z Pages V-2 to V-10 ("Description of the Marine Environment")
TDWR believes that in an appropriate place in the comparative
descriptions of "open ocean" (pages V-l, -2), "coastal ocean"
(pages V-2, -3), "biological setting" (page V-4), "estuarine
circulation" (pages V-6, -7), and "nature of tfie Cuff of Mexico
Incineration Site" (pages V-6 to V-ll), special mention should be
made that from a scientific standpoint, the waters of the oceans,
bays, estuaries, and near-shore coastal areas, are often quite
different from one another and from fresh waters in their ability
to assimilate wastes The chemical, btological, and physical
characteristics of waters of the marine environment require
specialized knowledge to keep discharges of some materials (e g ,
copper, or aieke]-bearing materials, and other trace mateiials)
from becoming particularly harmful pollutants (See DEIS at
pages V]-6, and -7, pages Vll-1, and -2, and pages Vlll-2, and -3
Mr Ctiorles 0 Travis
Page Two
November 9, 1978
1DWR appreciated the opportunity to revieu the subject DEIS which sopears
to fblfil". adequately the admin i strati ve , analytical, and coordi native
requirements of Section TC2(?](C) of the National Ervircrunental Policy .Act
of 1959, and Circular 1o Jl-95 of the Office of Management and Budget
Please advise if «e c.an be of further a-ssistance
Sincerely yours, (
CDx
Harvey Davis
Executive Director
-------
Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department
o i
lOUlS I bTU 'J
S-»ik % Iii j
ja A s n «V ' o
f * slirtj
rLtin> n i &«,.>
I •>! I VAioi i li
KECEIVfC
0E.C 1 1516
? dggi/f-jJir-.*
Re Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Incineration of Wastes at
Sea under the L972 Ocean Dumping Convention
Dear Mr. Coessling
The subject document has been reviewed by this agency and the following
comments ere offered for your consideration.
Although at sea Incineration of wastes in the described manner is preferable
to the past dutaping of unburned and untreated wastes directly into Gulf
waters, fish and wildlife resources can be adversely affected if such
activities are not tightly controlled and fton toted, therefore, this agency
vill eupport any regulations designed to achieve this purpose*
On page VI-22 of the document, it is noticed that "the economics of the1
recovery process" will help to determine the use of feasible methods of
waste recovery as on alternative to gross disposal. It is reco^nendcd
that the economic feasibility of such recover> processes be determined on
a long-term bagis in view of potential long-term cumulative environmental
damages from alternative disposal processes. Often suet considerations
are based only upon short-term economic concerns and disregard cfie scononic
consequences of long-term environmental damages.
Since it is Likely thai tSc greatest environmental damages from the described
incineration can be brought about by accidental spills oi the wastes during
o^'Missnwins
PFftRCi john-sow
JOC rt. FULTON
Vict Chairn Lubho
john m cnrc-N
a< ujnvyol
MfcNMN 0 RLMKt . r
i c
Autun T< » j* IB t' 1
November 30, 1978
Mr. Ward C. Coessling, Jr., Coordinator
Natural Resources Section
Governor's Budget and Planning Office
Executive Office Building
<~11 West 13th Street
Austin. TCNiis 78701
Mr. Ward C kocgsling, Jr , Coordinator
Page Two
November 30, 1978
transit, it is assumed that stringent, enforceable regulations vill apply
to such activities.
We appreciate £he opportunity to comment on this document.
Sincere 1y,
HBB JR bp
E - 25
-------
General
Land Office
AUSTIN TEXAS 78701
BOB ARMSTRONG COMMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL M/VIAGtKL.'IT
1700 North Congress
Austin. Texas 78/01
(51?) 475-1539
Itr Teiry Leifeste, Coorainator
Budget and Planning Office
Office of the Governor
411 West 13th Sfect
Austin, Texas 787 11
Dear Mr Lei feste
;,UV
o.Q
r,\r,.V
Members of the General Land Office have reviewed the report on,
"The Incineration of Wastes at Sea Under the 1972 Ocean Dumping
Convention" We offer Lhe following conmen.s
1 That the incineration plumes, especially diift, pose no
tnrcat to hurra ¦ life, health, activities or property
2 That occurence and levels of toxic and/or persistent com-
pounds in the fiord and fauna of State-uwM^d lands doe^
not increase as a result of incineration at Sea
3 That no precaution be overlooked with rcg ¦> d to preventing
accidental spi1lage
60.
Ue appreciate the opportunity to submit our comments
Cordially,
A J Bishop
Administiative Assistant
E
i to \
V-X-V
COMMONWEALTH of V1RQINIA
CoUHt li OH fil'J LlV irOflHU'lll 903 NIN7M street office buildjng
RICHMOND 23219
304 -*86-4500
November 29, 1978
Mr Donald R King
Director, Office of Environmental
Affairs
Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific AffaLrs
Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
SUBJECT Incineration of Wastes at Sea Under the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention
Dear Mr King
Thank you for t' • opportunity to review the subject Draft Environmental Impact
Statement The Virginia State Water Control Board has commented that the use
of scrubbers to remove particulates and HCL was mentioned in the discussion
of land based Incineration The impact statement should explain why scrubbers
are not considered for use in the incineration of wastes at sea The Board
has also commented that it might be useful to address the advisability of a
waiting period for commercial fishing activities after each burn.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about these
comments or if I can be of assistance in any way
Sincerely,
'
flackson, Jr
Administrator
JBJ mlt
cc Honorable Maurice B Rowe, Secretary of Commerce and Resources
Mr Ray Bowles, State Water Control Board
26
-------
?J££ri,?rT™ DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
WASHINGTON CHynw Wmhmg-on ¦?&». XW7S3 2 800
Dwy Lee Ray Mail Stop PV~H
Governor
November 14, 19 78
Mr. MiKe Mills
Office of Financial Management
House Office Building (AL-01)
Olympic, Washington 98501
Dear Mike:
Thank you for the opportunity to review a copy of the
draft environmental impact statement prepared jointly
by the Department of State and the Environmental
Protection Agency on "Incineration of Wastes at Ses
Under the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention."
I arti attaching a memorandum from a member of our
Hazardous Waste Section in which he offers some very
cogent comments for inclusion in your review letter to
the Department of State.
Should you have questions, please contact me at 753-6890.
Yours very truly.
Peter R. Ha skiri
Envirownental Review Section
PRH bjw
Attachmen t
E
^3* 3
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Dixy Lee Ray
Governor
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Olyntpu Washington 96504 20V753 2BCO
MEMORANDUM
November 13, 1978
TO Hike Mil Is
Office of Fiscal Management
THRU Pete Haski£3^7T
FROM Jim Knudson QK.
Hazardous Waste Section
SUBJECT Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Incineration of Wastes at Sea Under the 1972 Ocean Dumping
Convention
This El S covers the establishment of international regulations and
guidelines for the incineration of highly toxic, persistent organic
wastes at sea These would be developed under the 1972 Ocean Dumping
Convention
The Department of Ecology has developed regulations that designate
halogenated organic wastes as extremely hazardous waste under UAC 173-302.
This is because such wastes are persistent, tend to bio-accumulate in
living organisms and may be chromcally and acutely toxic to wildlife
and humans These wastes will by law have to (1) be shipped to the
Hanford Reservation, or (2) detoxified or (3) shipped out-of-state
Because the incineration at sea would accomplish {2) and (3) above, our
main comnent is to strongly support the concept of incineration as opposei
to land disposal and long term care It should be pointed out that the
Hanford Reservation could serve as a storage and collection center for
such wastes prior to seaport delivery and at-sea incineration Our
proximity to Canadian waters and shipping lanes is reason enough to
recommend the chosen alternative of international regulation and guide-
lines
Ore other minor comment
The discussion about controlling the emissions of the incinerator by a
sea water or alkaline scrubber should be discussed A scrubber would
remove hydrochloric acid and some metal oxide particulates depending
upon scrubber design; dispersion of the resulting effluent would be
quick given the vast quantities of ocean water This would avoid having
to dispose of any ash in land-based facilities
JK c!rs
O- =
-------
November 29, 1978
Mr William H Mansfield
Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of State
Washington, D C 20520
Dear fir Mansfield
Review of the draft environmental impact statement for Incineration of
Hastes at Sea Under the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention has been completed
by agencies of the State of Washington The review was coordinated by
the Office of Financial Management, as the designated State clearinghouse
Comments were received from the Department of Ecology The Department
strongly supports the concept of incineration as opDOsed to land disposal
and long term care It should be pointed out that the Hanford Reservation
could serve as a storage and collection center for such wastes prior to
seaport delivery and at-sea incineration The Department cites Washing-
ton's proximity to Canadian waters and shipping lanes as reason enough
to support the chosen alternative of international regulation and guide-
lines We understand that the Department of State will respond directly
to the Department of Ecology's comments
Thank you for the opportunity to review the document We hope you find
the conments useful in preparing the final statement
Sincerely,
Thomas A Mahar
Assistant Director
TAM db
Enclosure
MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION
1825 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW WASHINGTON DC 20009
[ELEPHONE (202) 328-42CO
TELEX 89617 (MCA WSH)
December 14, 1978
Mr. William Mansfield, III
Office of Environmental Affairs
Room 7820
Department of State
Washington, D. C. 20520
Dear Mr. Mansfield:
In response to your request, we have reviewed the
"Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Incineration
of Wastes at Sea Under the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention,"
October 1978. We support the proposed federal action to
negotiate and adopt amendments to the ocean dumping con-
vention so as to establish international regulations and
guidelines for incineration of wastes at sea.
The Manufacturing Chemists Association is a nonprofit
trade association having 192 United States company members
representing more than 90 percent of the production capacity
of basic industrial chemicals within this country. Its mem-
ber companies operate about 1,500 plants in nearly every
state.
We have followed closely the experimental incineration
of liquid organohalogens, using ships fitted for trial
burns. Even though those ships were not specifically designed
for the difficult task, results show incineration at sea to be
a promising waste disposal method that should be encouraged
and supported in ways that would make it more readily accessible
to a broad spectrum of waste generators.
Sincerely,
O (a.
C. A. Gosline
Secretary, Environmental
Management Committee
CAG/cmc
THE WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUVBER IS (202) 3284244.
-------
APPENDIX F
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND EPA
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS
-------
1. Corrections made
2 Corrections and suggested change made in text
3 Correction made
4 See revised text. Chapter I, section B 2.
5 Corrections made
6 See revised text, Chapter III, section B
7 Corrections and suggested changes made in revised text. Chapter
IV, section B 1.
8 Corrections and suggested changes made in revised test. Chapter
IV, section B. 3
9 See revised text. Chapter IV, section B 4
10 Suggested change made During preparation of site specific EISs.
more detailed description of the marine environment will be
included within the documents
11. Corrections and suggested changes made in tevt.
12. Text has been revised to "air feed rate "
13 All corrections noted in comments 13-16 are made in text
14 Correction has been made to change D.2(a) to C. 2(a).
15 See additions to text, Chapter V, section D
IS At this time there is insufficient data to project long-term impacts,
further monitoring and research will be undertaken if incineration
at sea is carried out more routinely in the US A study conducted
in 1977 showed a slight change in the activity of P-450 enzymes,
however, the effects were only temporary.
17 Both conditions were considered in the Gulf incineration site
selection The Atlantic incineration site EIS has not been completed,
these conditions will be considered in its preparation
18. During preparation of EISs for designation of specific sites, these
documents will be considered.
F - 1
19 This conclusion Is correct and procedures for determining
"trace contaminants" and concentrations of substances which are
"rapidly rendered harmless" are currently being developed by the
Contracting Parties to the Convention. With respect to inorganic
substances the U S. will apply the same criteria that is used to
evaluate a waste for direct ocean dumping to evaluate waste which
may be incinerated at sea.
20 The regulations specify the most important provision for ensuring
proper control of incineration at sea operations and the technical
guidelines include other desirable provisions which are of interest
from the standpoint of design and operation of the incinerator For
example, if the incinerator complies with the combustion efficiency
there is no need to provide additional monitoring equipment to mea-
sure excess oxygen. Residence time is primarily for design pur-
poses and is not an important parameter if all the provisions in
the regulations have been met The U. S and Canada have submitted
suggestions to the Secretariat which would revise the technical
guidelines shown in Appendix B of this FEIS. The suggested revisions
state that the Contracting Parties "shall take full account . "
21 This analysis is incorrect since a Contracting Party must still comply
with the terms of the Convention for such wastes and paragraphs 8 and
9 of Annex I are applicable
-------
26 See response A" S
27. cse response "16
28 The amount of waste transported for incineration at sea is quite
pmall and th^re have been no reported spills or accidents associated
with incineration at sea. IMCO is currently evaluating design and
construction requirements for ocean dumping vessels and incineration
vessels Until this study is completed the present IMCO chemical
code will be applicable
29 A discussion explaining why scrubbers are not used for at-sea
incineration has been included in the FEIS at Chapter VI, section B 1
30. Incineration at sea is currently carried out with no international
controls, therefore, to fail to adopt the requirement would not result
in less incineration at sea. Also, the adopted Resolution and
regulations do provide for and encourage technological improvement
in disposal of such waste (see revised text at Chapter I, section A)
31. See response #29
32 The volume of waste suitable for chlorolysis is quite small compared
to that which may need to be destroyed on land or at sea There is
no simple solution for disposal or reprocessing of industrial waste
and consideration must be given to reprocessing as well as thermal
destruction.
33 The answer is no. Additional EISs will be piepared on specific
sites for incineration at sea.
34 See response #33
35 The present EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria require
that such considerations be given in site selection
36. The main constituents of the waste were trichloropropane and
dichloropropene
37. Correction made
38. Text revised, see Chapter VI, section E. 2
F - 2
39. The mandatory regulations adopted at the Third Consumptive
Meeting are a revision of those that were presented m the Draft
EIS. The concerns noted in this comment are covered by the
adopted regulations, the text of the Final EIS is revised accordingly.
40. See comment #39
41. Correction made
42. Text revised as suggested, see Chapter V, section H
43. Text revised as suggested, see Chapter VI, section A.
44. Text revised as suggested, see Chapter VIII, section C.
45 See comment #39
46 See comment #39
47 The draft technical guidelines were not acted upon as noted in the
revised text (Chapter I). This comment will be taken into consi-
deration when preparing further revisions to the guidelines
48. The activity of some enzyme systems may be either increased or
decreased by the presence of certain toxic materials within an
organism The P-450 system activity is increased by the presence
of certain toxic organic materials, this process is reversible at low
concentrations of toxicants, and no permanent change in the P-450
system or adverse toxicological effects would be expected at low
concentrations
49 The U S has ocean dumping regulations dealing with site selection
which will take into consideration the nature of toxic wastes This
will also be emphasized in the U. S. regulations for incineration
at sea
50. Section 22 2 3 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria
provides for publication and review of the notice of tentative deter-
mination regarding the issuance or denial of a permit application;
Section 228 4-228 6 provides criteria for site selection, including
preparation of an environmental impact statement to be made
available for public comment
We agree with the concerns expressed over the risk of accidental
discharge of certain wastes prior to incineration. All possible
precautions will be taken to avoid spillage of hazardous wastes
during all phases of each incineration project.
-------
51 The U S will apply the same criteria to evaluate wastes for at-sea
incineration as is applied under the Ocean Dumping Regulations and
Criteria to evaluate wastes for direct ocean dumping
52 Consideration of possible effects on marine life must be taken into
consideration id site selection These and other requirements are
adequately covered-under Annex Hi to the Convention
53 The treatment of containers is a matter Jot each Contracting Parry
ic determine -inter its domestic ^egulaUons Any disposal of wash-
ings from containers wculc.be regulated as an operational discharge
ufider 1he LS73 M AH POL. Convention Dumping of containers al sea
would be subject to the provisions of Annexes I. I], an<3 HI c: the
Lender. Dumping Convention), any disposal en Land uou\d be subject
to the domestic i-egulations of the Stats .rhere ihs disposal occurs.
54 In previous tests it has not been demonstrated that residues result
from at-sea incineration. However, since these regulations are
international and apply to various countries, any residue from other
wastes incinerated in the future would be subject to land disposal
regulatons of the country conducting the incineration at sea
55 All coastal states' programs will be taken Into account in consider-
ing permits for incineration at sea. The states will hare eta
opportunity for review as explained in response #50.
56 There are land transportation risks, regulatory arid other problems
associated with land based and all hazardous waste disposal methods
These regulatons are not intended to promote incineration at sea. but
to regulate and consider this along with other methods of waste dis-
posal and recovery.
57 Each part of the marine environment has its own apeciaf charac-
teristics The EPA site selection criteria enumerate eleven
different site characteristics to be considered in designating
ocean dumping aites (including ocean incineration 3ites) As
discussed in Chapter VI the EIS points out that thQre are
site specific factors which are to be considered on a case-by-
case basis. Since ocean incineration sites will always be in the
open ocean far from land, a detailed discussion of the differences
between various parts of the marine environment would not be
pertinent to the purpose of this EIS
58. This point is discussed in part in Chapter VI Additional
research is continuing.
59 There are international and domestic regulations dealing with
these issues, sse Chapter m, section B and Chapter VIII,
section C.
F - 3
60 A discussion explaining why scrubbers are not used for at-sea
incineration has been included in the Final EES at Chapter VI
section B 1 In selecting sites for incineration at sea consider-
ate") ig given to commej-ical fishing activities and in the tj S.
the sites will be outside ary csmmencal fishing area
61 A discussion of why sci-ubbers are not used for at-sea incineration
ha9 been included m the Final EES at Chapter VI B, 1 U £.
experience with incineration ol liquid organcchlorine waste indicates
that thsre will be no res-dual ash requiring disposal
------- |