93d Congress \
 lot Session  j
    COKHTTTEE PBIOT
             ANNUAL REPORT
       BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
           PROTECTION AGENCY
                    ON
     ADMINISTRATION OP THE OCEAN
        DUMPING PERMIT PROGRAM
                   UNDER
    PUBLIC LAW 92-532, "THE MARINE PROTECTION,
     KESEAECH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1972"
 Printed for the use of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
 23-473
C.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTETG OFFICE
     WASHINGTON : 1918

-------
         COMMITTEE ON MEBCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES
              LEONOR C. (MRS. JOHN B.) SCLLIVAN', Missouri, Chairman
 FRANK M. CLAHK. Pennsylvania
 THOMAS L. ASHLEY. Ohio
 JOHX D. niXGELL. -Michigan
 THOMAS X. DOWNING, Virginia  •-
 PAfi, G. ROGERS, Florida
 FRAXK A. STCBBLEFIELD. Kentucky
 JOHX M. MCRPHY, X«w York
 WALTER B. JOKES, Xortli Carolina
 ROBERT L. LEOGETT, California
 ilARIO BIAGOI, Xew York
 GLEXX M. AXDEESON, CaliJornla
 E (EIEA) C£ LA GARZA, Texas
 PETER N. EYROS, Maine
 HALPU H. METCALFE, Illinois
 JOHN B, B REACX, Louisiana
 FRED B. BOONEY, Pennsylvania
 BOB ECKHARDT, T«as
 PAUL S. SAHBANES. Maryland
. BO OINN, Oeonrin
 OERRY E. STUODS, Mjvssachosetla
 I>AVIO 8. BOWEN,
JAMES R. QROVEH, JR., New York
WILLIAM S, 1IAILL1A RD, Calilornia
CHARLES A. KOSHER, Ohio
PHILIP E. RUPPE, Michigan
GEORGE A. GOODLWG, Pennsylvania
PAUL N. McCLOSKE Y, JR., California
GENE SNYDKR, Kentucky
EGBERT H. STEELE, Connecticut
EDWIK B, FOHSYTHE. Hew Jersey
PIERRE S. (PETE) nw PONT, Delaware
WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maina
TRENT EOTT, Mississippi
DAVID C. TREEK. Louisiana
JOEL PRITCHARD, Washington
ED YOU.VG, South Carolina
DON YOUNG, Alaska
ROBERT E. BAUilAN, Maryland
                           KsNEfft J. CORBAM, Chief Coanirl
                              KfUNCts Stltt, ChiifClnli
                              NEB P. EVBEETt, ClMtWt
                            FKANCUD. HETWABD, Counsel
                            F*ANK M. POTTEE, J«., Cou.mil
                        RICHABD N. SHABOOD, MinorUv Cmuutt

-------
                LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
                U.S. ENVIBONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
                             Washington, D.C., October 18,197$.
Hon. CARL B. ALBERT,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
  DEAR MR.  SPEAKER:  The  Marine Protection, Research,  and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-532) requires an annual report
from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on
his administration of the ocean dumping permit program authorized
under the Act, The first annual report for this program is transmitted
with this letter.
  The ocean dumping permit program became effective April 23,1973;
the report covers  activities up to June 23, 1973. In addition to the
issuance of permits during  this period, EPA has made considerable
progress in  developing  the interagency  basis for the continuing
operation of the program and the report also deals with the develop-
ment of the programs for evaluating disposal sites and for monitoring
the effects of dumping.
      Sincerely yours,
                                      RUSSELL E. TEAI *,
                                               Administrator.
                             on)

-------
t,•*->.-.
                               CONTENTS
         I. Summary.	.	.	.	     1
        II. Introduction	..........	.........	..	—	—*	....     1
       III. Pollution at Sea	...     2
       IV. Legislative Summary.	...	.—._..„     *
        V. International Convention...	.	     5
       VI. Program Strategy			     6
      VII. Elements of the Permit Program	.—     8
     VIII. Present Status of the Permit Program	    10
       IX. Research Strategy	^	_	    18
        X. Monitoring Strategy..	    19
       XL Conclusion...:	.__...	-	"   23

-------
              ANNUAL REPORT
                     ON
  ADMINISTRATION OF THE OCEAN DUMPING
              PERMIT PROGRAM
                    under
Public Law 92-532, "The Marine Protection, Research, and
             Sanctuaries Act of 1972"
                    by the
  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              WASHINGTON, D.C.
                 August 1973

-------
                        I. SUMMARY

  The Marine Protection, Research  and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
Public Law 92-532, established a program for the regulation of ocean
dumping through the issuance of permits by EPA for the dumping in
the ocean of materials other than dredged spoil.  Dredged spou is
regulated by permits issued by the Corps of Engineers and subject to
review by EPA. This is a water qualit3'-based program oriented toward
a no harmful discharge goal. This program regulates all dumping sea-
.ward of the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured; discharge
through outfalls into ocean waters M regulated under the FWPCA
using  the same  criteria  applicable  to  the  ocean  dumping pennifc
program.
  On August 3,1973, the Senate ratified the international ocean dump-
ing convention. When this convention has been ratified by 15 nations
it will come into force as an international instrument for the regulation
of ocean dumping. The regulations under which the ocean dumping
permit program operates  are fully  consistent with the intent and  the
language of the convention.
  The program has been  operational only^ since April 23, _1973; since
that time 75 applications  have been received and 47 permits granted.
Four permits have been denied and several applications withdrawn.
The major activity has been in the northeastern part of the United
States where the dumping of municipal  sewage, sludge and industrial
wastes and sludges into the ocean  has been going on for many years.
Over 80 percent of the permits issued have been to municipalities or
industries, in the New Y*ork and Philadelphia areas.
   An interagency  coordinating committee consisting of  EPA (chair-
man), NOAA, Coast Guard, and Corps of iingincers has been formed
to coordinate all activities under the Act.  This committee  has  de-
veloped draft research strategies  and  monitoring strategies and is
currently working on standard procedures and methods for carrying
out monitoring and studies of disposal sites.
   The interim regulations and criteria under which the  program  has
been initially operating are now being revised based on public comment
 and upon the operating  experience of  the  first few months of  the
program. Final regulations and criteria are to be published in the near
future.
                     IL INTRODUCTION

   April 23,  1973,  marked the end of unregulated  disposal of waste
 material under the control of the United States into the territorial
seas, waters of the contiguous zone  of the United States and the oceans.
Laws passed in October,  1972 by  the Congress of  the United States
regulate the disposal of wastes into the marine environment and have
as the ultimate goal a complete control  and limitation of the disposal
of harmful materials in the marine environment.
                              (!)
      2S-475	73—2

-------
                              '2

  The, passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments o( 1972 (Public Law 92-500) and  the Marine Protection, .Re-
search and Sanctuaries Act of  1972 (Public Law 92-5.12) has estab-
lished a Federal program of marine pollution abatement and control.
Responsibility for different aspects of the program  is split amongr
several different agencies, particularly the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, ami (he
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NCAA). The role
of EPA is to set criteria to govern the disposal of wastes to the marine
environment, and to issue permits for the discharge, transportation,
and dumping of  all waste materials into  the  marine environment
except for dredged  material, for which  the Corps of  Engineers will
issue permits for dumping based on EPA criteria.
   Permits  are issued for ocean discharge through outfalls under the
National Pollutant  Discharge Elimination. System (NPDES) permit
program established as authorized under Section 402  of Public Law
92-500, using the criteria developed under Section 403, and for ocean
dumping  under  the separate  permitting authority  of  Public Law
92-532.
   The authorities delegated by these two Acts provide a broad base
upon which effective control of marine pollution can be built. Thia
report, which is the first annual report required on administration of
Title I of Public Law 92-532, covers the status of the program up to
June 23,1973, including two months of the issuance of ocean dumping
permits.  This report outlines the extent of  the problem of marine
pollution, describes the statutory authorities presently  available to
control it, describes how the ocean dumping permit program operates,
and outlines the overall program strategy being used to turn the legis-
lative authorities into an effective program to protect  the marine
environment from degradation through control of ocean dumping.

                   HI. POLLUTION AT SEA

   The marine environment has become increasingly polluted because,
in  the advancement of technology, man has not addressed  all the
environmental ramifications of his scientific and engineering pursuits.
The evolution of every new marketable product, service or process
generates some form of waste product. This  waste can range from a
simple heat increment to complex combinations of inorganic-organic
industrial wastes. In the past, little attention was given to the environ-
mental effects of the waste product, much less to ascertaining the reuse
potential or alternative use capability. The minimal technological
effort  directed at the waste end of the product cycle endeavored to
seek out "hiding places"  for  spent materials,  locations affording
minimal impact on  the immediate environmental system. The coastal
region is the ultimate receptacle for most durable waste. The obvious
size and assumed mixing properties of the oceans have led some to
believe that here lies the supreme "hiding place".
   Contrarily, available pollution statistics  now  show  the  marine
environment has become fouled in places and is becoming increasingly
so. Some of the symptoms of this fouling are shown in concentrations
of heavy metals, oxygen depletion, bacterial growth, and accelerated

-------
 ,.j biostimnlation. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in
   its  1970 ocean dumping report to the President, describes the degra-
   dation of the marine environment.'In 1968, 38 million tons of dredged
 :,  spoil  (34 percent polluted), 4.5 million tons of industrial waste*;, 4.5
S-million  tons  of sewage sludge (significantly contaminated  by heavy
   metal fractional, and 0.5 million tons of construction uml demolition
   debris were deposited am! concentrated in, the coastal ocean environ-
   ment. These 48 million tons of materials constitute less than 2 percent,
   of the total volume of  wastes generated yearly in the United Slates.
   But,  coupled only with trends in  population growth in the coastal
   zone, the  volume  of  marine dischargcable  material,  extrapolated
   optimistically, would increase 70 percent by 1980.
     The. effect of concentrating pollutants can be tragic as in the case
   of Minimata Bay, Japan. Here, mercury concentrations as great as
   10 ppb led to 43 deaths and unnumbered cases of blindness, neuro-
   logical diseases, and brain, disorders within the  Japanese population.
   Another example indicates that an estimated 20 percent of the  U.S.
   shellfish beds, valued at 63 million dollars,  lie closed because of con-
   centrated pollution.
     Finally,  attention is drawn to  the case  of the New York Bight,
   New  York City's "dump". The past forty-year period indicates that
   the oxygen concentration as a percent saturation in the near bottom
   waters  declined  from  61 percent in  1949 to 59 percent in 1964. In
   1969  the oxygen concentration dropped to 29 percent in the sludge
   dump area and was as low as 10 percent in the center of the dump.
   This  observation indicates that delicate thresholds of waste assim-
   ilating capacity exist in the  environment beyond which  the addition
   of more waste results in rapid degradation of marine water quality.
     The sum total of pollutants in marine wate,rs  is not known, largely
   due to the size and complexity of the problem, but some quantitative
   estimates of toxic constituents are impressive. The National Academy
   of Sciences reports the flux of petroleum products to the marine
   environment may reach 100  million tons per year; pulp mill effluents
   2 to 4 million tons per year; heavy metals greater than 1 million tons;
   organic chemicals greater than 100,000 tons per year.
     There is little information about the fate of waste materials  dis-
   carded by man after they reach the open ocean, but a few illustrations
   show that man's methods of wastes disposal  are impacting there as
   well.  Dr. Thor Heyerdahl reports  that in a 57-day voyage across
   the Atlantic his crew was rudely greeted on 43 days with  varied types
   and  quantities of  floating  materials discarded  by man. Further
   evidence of  global ocean contamination  is  brought forth  in  the
   article,  "Plastics on the Sargasso Sea Surface",  from Science, (1972).
   The  authors report  concentrations  of  plastic particles  at  3,500
   pieces or 290 grams  per square kilometer over an area  bounded
   within seven degrees of latitude by five degrees  of longitude. Plastics
   have  only  been produced in quantity since World War II, again
   reinforcing the acceleration  and  resultant timeliness of the ocean
   pollution problem.
     A more recent survey covering some 700,000 square miles of ocean
   from  Cape Cod to  the Caribbean Sea revealed that oil and plastic
   materials in ocean waters were distributed far more widely  than had
   previously been suspected. Analysis of the distribution of the plastic

-------
contaminants .^howed a 20 percent occurrence in samples collected in
the Caribbean .Sea, and a 50 percent occurrence in samples collected
in the  Antillcan Chain and the continental shelf between Cape Cod
sirul  Florida, The. heaviest concentrations  were  from Florida to the
Chesapeake Bay. and near Long  Island, The plastic scraps  were
white  or  opaque spheres or  discs,  speck to  pen-sized, And  were
identified as polystyrene.
  Previous hypotheses of  not  being  able to contaminate the ocean
were obviously incorrect, and the problem must be addressed. Steps
are  being  taken through  the marine  Protection,  Research,  and
Sanctuaries Act of  1972 (Public Law 92-532), the  Federal Water
Pollution  Control Act Amendments of  1972 (Public Law 92-500)
the Convention on  the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
of Wastes  and Other Matter,  and the Intergovernmental Maritime
Consultative Organization.

                IV. LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY

  Title I  of PubE.c Law 92-532, the Marine Protection,  Research,
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, is designed to regulate the dumping and
transportation for dumping of waste material  within the  territorial
and beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, Title I
bans the dumping of all chemical,  biological, or radiological warfare
agents, and high level radioactive wastes. The Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency  is authorized to issue permits for
the transportation for the purposes of dumping  or for dumping of all
material except for dredged material which will be handled by the
Corps of Engineers consistent with EPA criteria. Civil penalties may
be assessed by the Administrator, after notice and  opportunity for a
hearing, and an action may be brought to impose criminal penalties
when the provisions of this title are knowingly violated. Title II  of
the bill.authorizes the Secretary of Commerce  in coordination with
the  Coast Guard and EPA to initiate a comprehensive program  of
research on the effects of ocean dumping and  on pollution of the ocean
in general. Title III allows the Secretary  of Commerce  to designate
as marine sanctuaries those areas of ocean waters  to the outer edge
of the Continental  Shelf for the purposes of preserving or restoring
such areas for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic
values.
  Section  403 of Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, provides that the Administrator
shall, within 180 days after enactment and from time to time there-
after,  promulgate guidelines for determining the degradation of the
waters of  the  territorial seas, the contiguous  zone,  and the oceans
including the effect of disposal of pollutants on human health and
welfare, on marine  life, and on aesthetic, recreational and economic
values as well as guidelines for determining the persistence of pollutants
and other possible locations/or their disposal. No permit under Section.
402 for a discharge into the territorial sea, the waters-of the contiguous
zone,  or the oceans shall be issued, except in compliance with the
guidelines. The Administrator shah* not issue a permit unless adequate
information exists on any proposed discharge to make  a reasonable
judgment on any of the guidelines.

-------
   Sw.lion  404 of Public Law 92-500 deals with a separate permit
 program for the discharge of dredger! and fill material into the naviga-
. ule waters, administered by the Corps of  Engineers. Disposal  sites
 will be specified for each  permit by  the  application  of  guidelines
 developed by the Administrator in conjunction with the Secretary of
 the Army arid by consideration of the economic impact of ihc site. The
 Administrator is authorized to deny or restrict the use of any area for
 specification as a disposal site.
   Section 405 of Public Law 92-500 provides that, in am- case where
 the disposal of sewage sludge which results  from the  operations of
 treatment works (including removal of in-place sludge from one. loca-
 tion and its deposit at another location) would result in  any pollutant
 from that  sludge entering the navigable waters, such disposal is pro-
 hibited except in accordance with a permit issued under this Section,
   It is the  goal of both pieces of legislation that the marine environ-
 ment  be  protected from the  disposal  of materials into it, whether
 dischargeu  from barges or through continuous outfalls. Both peices of
 legislation also require the setting up of a continuing program of ocean
 disposal within which ocean  dumping  which does not damage the
 marine environment can be carried out on a continuing basis, not onh*
 in this generation but also in succeeding ones. It was therefore es-
 sential that the criteria developed  prevent  the  use of the marine
 environment as a hiding place for highly conservative wastes on other
 than an interim basis. On the other hand, the criteria developed should
 permit disposal to the marine environment of waste products which are
 either innocuous or beneficial in  that environment, and  provision had
 to be  made for revision of criteria to incorporate  the impact of ad-
 vancing waste disposal technology.

             V. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

   The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
 of Wastes and Other Matter was developed at the Intergovernmental
 Conference held at London in the fall of  1972. It became open for
 signature December 29, 1972, at London, Mexico City, Moscow and
 Washington. The Senate ratified this Convention on August 3, 1973.
 After  15 nations have ratified it, it will be in  effect.
   As soon  as the Convention becomes effective, legislation lias  been
 introduced to amend the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctu-
 aries Act of 1972 (Public La\y 92-532)  to require the Administrator
 of the Environmental Protection Agency to implement the statute in
 a manner consistent with the Treaty.
   The Interim Regulations for the Transportation for  Dumping,
 and the Dumping of Material into Ocean  Waters, and  for other
 Purposes, which were published in the Federal Register on  Thursday,
 April  5, 1973, and the Interim Criteria under which permits may be
 issued, as required  by the  terms of Public Law 92-532, which  were
 published  in  the Federal  Register on May  16, 1973, were written
 with the language  of the  Treaty in mind. Thus,  ratification of the
 Treaty should not  require any drastic changes in these Regulations
 and Criteria or in the operation  of the Permit Program.

-------
                 VL PROGRAM STRATEGY

  The legislation establishing the ocean dumping permit  program
imposes on EPA a commitment to a part of the environment .in which
controls have been lacking in the past and in which the piesent state of
knowledge is extremely deficient. The near shore waters of the oceans
have been used in recent years as the final repository of  a variety of
wastes which could not be disposed of conveniently or legally into more
strictly regulated parts  of  the environment, such as inland waters.
Concurrently, the oceans have been  the domain of the  deep-sea re-
search o'ceanographers  who were more  interested in  understanding
fundamental processes than in meeting real-time needs for regulatory
control.                                                      '
  The past approach, to combatting marine pollution problems has
beea one of responsive enforcement, i.e., an environmental damage is
recognized and  action is taken to  abate the  source of  pollution,
wherever such, authorities existed,  such  as within the  territorial sea.
Outside of the territorial waters, however, no authority to combat
marine pollution existed, and even  responsive enforcement action
could not be taken.
  A solely responsive approach to  the abatement of pollution is not,
however, sufficient to cope with the  existing and potential pollution
problems of the oceanic environment. The effects of pollutants hi this
marine environment, pay go unnoticed until vast areas are irreversibly
damaged. This condition is a result of  the subtle interaction of pol-
lutants in the coastal zone and in the zone of tidal mixing and of the
great distances pollutants dumped at sea may travel in  the ocean in
the absence of land barriers.
  The strategy necessary to cope with such problems must therefore
be one of seeking out and correcting potential pollution problems be-
fore they occur as well as making  a. direct and immediate  attack on
the problems that already exist.
  The new authorities embodied in the  Marine Protection,  Research,
and Snnctunries Act of 1972 and in the Fedt-ml Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972 extending water pollution control au-
thorities to the contiguous zone and  the oceans inttke it possible for
EPA to carry out the (nil range of  program activities necessary to
accomplish this in the near-shore oceanic"environment.
  In passing the Ocean Dumping Act, Congress established the basis
for strong regulatory control of ocean  dumping, but  made  the Act
effective long before much of the information needed for its continuing
implementation could  be obtained nnd even before  the  necessary
studies could be planned, much less  carried  out. In establishing the
legislative base for the program, Congress took the view  that protec-
tion of the  marine environment  was  of immediate concern, and
required that criteria be developed  based on the presently known
impnct of waste materials on the marine environment.
  This approach is analogous in concept to the setting of water
quality criteria, and then developing  discharge standards  to meet
those criteria. In the Ocean Dumping Act, however, the  criteria con-
cern the entire marine ecosystem, not  just  water quality, and  the
critical parts of the ecosystem are the disposal sites themselves, since
they are the first parts of  the ecosystem to  be impacted, by wastes.
In  terms of inland waters, a plant dumping wastes into a stream is
analogous to a barge dumping wastes into the ocean.

-------
   When the water quality standards program was established in 1960,
then? had already been some 40 years of research and field survey of
the impact of wastes on streams, and a definitive body of data already
existed. When the Ocean Dumping Act wi\s passed, however, only 10
of the 200 dumping .sites in use had ever been studied, and only a few
of these in any systematic manner. Even in these fins- cases there is
insufficient information  to determine what  the quantitative impact
of wastes on the marine environment  actually is. There is, conse-
.quently, a great dearth of knowledge on the impact of wastes which
must be rectified at the same time the permit program is in operation:
   In starting the program, EPA has sot highly restrictive limitations
on the types of materials which can be dumped on a continuing basis
wifh reasonable assurance, of negligible environmental damage. At
the same  time a system for the issuing of interim special permits for
waste!? not meeting the limitations was established, and dump sites
now in use were approved on an interim basis. Thus, while the mech-
anism for issuing permits is established and operating, there is no basis
for knowing nt the present time how much or what kind of wastes
have been dumped, what their impact on the environment may be, or
exactly what restrictions should be placed on dumping to protect the
environment.
   The program strategy includes full implementation  of the permit
program on a continuing basis,  the evaluation and approval of some
disposal sites for dumping on a continuing basis and  termination of
dumping at  others, research and monitoring to improve knowledge of
the impact of ocean dumping and the ability to regulate it effectively.
   The following Chapters- describe the  operation and present status
of the permit program and  the research and monitoring strategies
through which mteragency cooperation will be sought and these goals
achieved.
   Since so little work has been done on the study of  the impact of
ocean dumping on the marine environment and particularly on the
impact of 'wastes on specific dumping sites, the use of existing dumping
sites for continued dumping for an interim period was desirable for
the following reasons:
       1. If an existing dump site has already been irreparably damaged
     by dumping, little additional impact on the marine ecosystem
     will occur by continuing to dump at that location; whereas it may
     be true that arbitrarily  shifting to  a new site could  result in
     irretrievable damage to two areas.
      2.  If an  existing dump  site is gradually being degraded by
     dumping, careful monitoring of the site and the  nature of the
    .wastes  being dumped will  provide valuable information on the
     impact  of wastes on the marine environment without having to
     devote an undamaged part of  the ecosystem for this purpose.
      3. The resources available for carrying out the necessary field
     surveys are quite limited; by limiting the universe necessary to
     study tiie areas known to be already stressed by ocean dumping,
     these resources can be committed  to solve the problems where
     they exist rather than dispersing  them on a random search for
     new dump sites.
   At the present time only general evidence is available to determine
the impact of dumping on  many of these sites. Until sufficient evi-
dence is accumulated  and guidelines are prepared on the use of indi-

-------
                               8

vidual sites, evaluation of permit applications must be based upon a
consideration  of tho general lypi's  of characteristics of dump  sites
desirable  for  minimising the  effects  of wasto  materials  on  the
environment.
   The evaluation and approval of disposal sites is therefore a critical
part of the entire strategy. It is here that the decisions must be made
as to whether or not waste materials can be dumped without harm to
the ocean environment, and, if they cannot, what part of the marine
environment should be reserved for this purpose. Jbor this reason the
chapter on monitoring strategy deals in some detail with tho pro-
cedures to be  used in evaluating disposal sites.

        VH. ELEMENTS OF THE  PERMIT PROGRAM

   The  Ocean Disposal Permit Program incorporates the use of five
types of permits; the general permit,  the special permit, the interim
special permit, the emergency permit,  and the permit  to handle
dredged materials.
   The ^general -permit is  essentially a determination made by the
Administrator that a class of materials is to be considered harmless
 and innocuous and treated in a prescribed fashion. The determination
 and  handling instructions  are formally  published  in  the Federal
 Register, This type of permit will be used  to regulate such activities
. as the dumping *of galley waste and refuse from naval, merchant, and
passenger vessels  durinig routine  operation,  removal of  wrecked
 •vessels from navigation channels and their dumping in the ocean, and
 burial at sea.
   The special permit regulates all materials not covered by; tho general
 permit and strictly regulates the disposal of such materials when, it
 can be demonstrated that the quantities, nature of wastes and methods
 of disposal will not result in irreparable or irrevocable harmful effects
 on the marine environment. Bioassays and other testa as appropriate
 made by approved techniques will be required by the Environmental
 Protection Agency prior to  the issuance of a special pwmit.
   An vntr-nm special permit may  be  granted  when » waste violates
 the  criteria,  but  when  there  is  no  economically  feasible  present
 alternative to the ocean disposal of the waste. In such cases a permit
 may be granted, but only contingent on the development of a satis-
 factory implementation plan,  either  to  bring the waste into com-
 pliance with the criteria or to'eliminate it from ocean dumping entirely.
   An emergency permit will be issued only when, there is a danger to
 human health involved and there  is no feasible alternative to ocean
 dumping. This type of permit requires consultation with the Depart-
 ment of State since it deals with materials which will be prohibited
 under  the international ocean dumping convention.
   The dredged material permit issued and administered by the  Corps
 of Engineers is specifically  geared  to dredged spoils and requires the
 same careful testing  as for those materials addressed by the EPA
 special permit. The Administrator will recommend appropriate sites
 and has the right to review permits issued by  the Corps of Engineers.
   With the initiation of the permit program on April 23,1973, anyone
 who wishes to dispose of waste in the ocean  must make application
 for a permit by submitting a letter of application to the EPA Regional
 Administrator responsible  for  the port of exit to the disposal site
 under consideration.

-------
                                  9

    The letter must include the origin of the waste (manufacturing process);
  the nature of the waste (physical, chemical description); amount; the
>  menns of conveyance to the dump site; usual location of vessel; uftrao
  •of person or iina Applying for application and sixe selection. The appli-
  cant  will also be  asked to submit information concerning alternate
  methods open to him for disposal, and n stroni: mso for ocean dumping
  on the pan of the applicant should he prepared prior to submission of
  application letters.
     If, and only if, the information in the application letter is, complete,
  and if through the proper testing  the material is shown  to meet the
  criteria, will a permit be issued to the applicant describing in detail
  the site to be used, the time of dumping and the prescribed method
  for release of the waste into the sea.
     A processing fee of $500.00 is charged for processing each applica-
  tion for a special permit for dumping (no foe is charged for a general
  permit)  and if the  applicant wishes to  use a site  other than those
  fisted by EPA  as approved sites, an additional fee  of $1,000.00 is
  charged. Renewal of special permits is $200.00 Agencies of the United
  States are  not required to pay a fee.
     The tentative decision to issue or deny a permit is prepared in writing
  within 10 days after receipt of an application letter. If the  tentative
  determination is to issue a permit the following information is for-
  warded to the applicant:
         1. proposed time limitations, if any;
         2. proposed dumping site, and
         3. a brief description of an}* other proposed  special conditions
       determined to be appropriate for inclusion in the permit.
     Public notice of all completed applications is circulated widely for
  public information.  Specifications of the application and permit are
  posted  and further information can be found at the office of the Re-
  gional Administrator. Notice is mailed to any interested party upon.
  request and shall be considered a standing request.
     The states (water pollution, control agency) are notified and certifi-
  cation by  the state contiguous to the territorial sea used as a dump
  location is requested. State certification is not required in the waters
  outside the territorial waters of the United States.
     In addition to  the public  and the states, the Corps of Engineers,
  Department of Commerce, NOAA and the Coast Guard receive a
  copy of the application for comment to the issuing office of EPA within
  30 days.
     The  Department of Interior also receives notification as  required
  by provisions of  the  Fish  and Wildlife Coordination Act  and the
  Marine Production, Research and Sanctuaries Act.
     If  enough interest is shown by the public, a hearing  will be  held.
   Requests for the hearing must be in writing and submitted within 30
  days of notice to  all parties.  The  Regional Administrator or designee
  wiu designate a time and place to air all comments or objections to the
  issuance of any permit. The Administrator may also determine that
  the request does not merit a  public hearing and in such a case he will
  advise the requestor in writing of his action and continue to process
  the application.
     Anyone receiving a permit must maintain a complete record of his
   dumping activities and shall make it available for inspection  upon the
  request of the Administrator or his designee. The information should

-------
                              10

reflect the instructions found on the permit and any deviation from the
permit instructions,
  A report of the information in the records is required, the periodicity
of winch is made part of the. permit instructions.
  If an emergency at sen occurs and dumping is required without a
permit,  the dumper must report nil particulars to the Administrator
within 30 days of the dumping.
  Under the hiw the U.S. Const. Guard will patrol and monitor dump-
ing activities. Penalties for violation of  the law  can run as high as
$50,000 for each violation. Anyone, violating the law will have a trial-
type hearing  and within 30 days following adjournment a determina-
tion will-be made by the Administrator based on the facts and findings
a$ presented by the hearing officer.

  VIII. PRESENT STATUS OF THE PERMIT PROGRAM

  The ocean dumping permit program became operational April 23,
1973, the effective date of Public Law  92-532  Since that time  the
seven EPA coastal regions have issued 47 permits for ocean dumping.
Table I presents pertinent data on the permits issued  as of June 23,
1973.
  N"o major problems in administration of the. program have  ap-
peared. The  limited periods for public  comment on specific permit
application* in the initial stages of the program has caused some ad-
verse public  comment, but this was an  interim  measure required by
the time constraints inherent in the initiation of the program.
  Because  of these constraints it was necessary to publish  interim
regulations and criteria as a basis for operation in the first few months
of the program. Periods for public comment on the regulations and
criteria expired June 23, 1973. Based on these  comments, research
presently under way, and operating experience  during the first  few
months of the program, the interim regulations and criteria will be
revised and final regulations will be promulgated in the fall of  1973.
   Interagency coordination on a national scale is being achieved by
an interagency coordinating committee composed of EPA,  NOAA,
the Const Guard, and the Corps of Engineers. Interagency agreements
and guidelines for operation are now being developed.
   The Coast Guard is informed of  all permits issued  and the  condi-
tions imposed, so that suitable surveillance operations can be conducted..
The Coast Guard has  not advised EPA of any violations of the Act
as of June 23, 1973.
   The responsibility for issuing special permits has been delegated to
EPA  regional offices.  Brief summaries of the activities (through
June 23, 1973) of each region follow.
Jiegion 1 (Jtoston, Masnachusetts)
   Region I issued its first ocean dumping permit May IS, 1973_, to the
New England Division of the Corps of Engineers for the sinking of a
barge at the Foul dump site in Massachusetts Bay.
   The region has  also received three other formal applications for
disposal at sea. Safety Projects  is an  industrial refuse collector o£
hazardous and toxic chemicals in small  quantities.  They provide
some neutralization or encase  these materials in concrete.  The region

-------
                                     11

     has broken this application into two parts. The first section will deal
 - •* with  the disposal of earth metals1 (Ctilcium, Sodium,  Lithium, and
•     Potassium) which have been stored on. site and have  an immediate
     explosive risk. A public hearing was held June J9, 1973,  at the John F.
 ;>•*' : Kennedy Federal Building. The rest of the application will be handled
 -••   as a typical ocean disposal operation. Another hearing: will have to be
     scheduled to decide whether this operation should continue and, if
     »o. what limitations and monitoring schedules should be developed.
        The other  two applications are by Pfi/.er Chemical Company and.
     AitS  Transportation Company, Tin1 Pfixer application  is for the dis-
     posal of a culture medium used  in the processing of their product. This
     material was originally disposed of in Long Island Sound. An enforce-
     lucnt conference  terminated that operation, and a land disposal site
     was used. Local discontent has forced them to find another allerna-
     tive;  ?o, once again they propose ocean disposal. A&S Transportation
     has been contracted by the Citj- of Stamford, Connecticut, to dispose
     of sewage sludge off the coast of New York. This will be a temporary
     procedure until the construction of an incinerator is completed witliin
     the year.
        The regional office has also been contacted regarding the disposal of
     two  fishing boats.  Copies of the regulations have been  sent to  the
     prospective permittees,  and the region is awaiting the applications.
     Btgion II (A'eu' York, New York)
        In  January of 1973 Region II received from the Corps of Engineers
     a list of the permits the Corps had issued to municipal  and industrial
     ocean dumpers. lu addition to  this list of names, the region prepared
     a list of those organizations they felt would be potential ocean dump-
     ers. The Regional Administrator sent a letter to every potential ocean
     dumper on these lists. The letter outlined EPA's responsibilities under
     the ^.larine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act cf 1972 and
     requested information necessary for evaluation of a permit application.
        Although several speeches and  papers had been given in the region
     tc groups which  represented potential applicants,  many prospective
     applicants  were uncertain exaetlj- what would  be  required  of them.
     Because of this, meetings were scheduled  with  each industrial appli-
     cant  following  receipt of the requested information. The EPA pro-
     gram was outlined and the draft regulations and  criteria discussed.
     Applicants were asked whether they were currently disposing of their
     wastes in  the ocean, if they had  been doing it.  a long  time, why the
     waste was not being disposed of elsewhere, what the process was
     giving rise  to the waste, how long, they proposed to continue to clump
     in the ocean, what they could do to reduce the  levels of toxic or
     unacceptable materials in their waste, and what their implementation
     plan was for  the future. Because of the lack of time, municipal appli-
     cants were  contacted by telephone. If any severe problems arose, they
     came in to discuss them.
        Following these meetings, public notice of 21 complete applications
     was printed in the New York Times along with notice of pumic hear-
     ings to be held  within 5 to 7 days. At the same  time letters were sent
     to the applicants  giving  them the time and date of  their  hearings.
        Each public  hearing was attended by  a hearing officer from  the
     Enforcement Division,  his  technical  aide, two  Surveillance and
     Analysis Division representatives and representatives of the applicant,

-------
                               12

permit holder, and the general public. With the exception of a rep-
resentative of one environmental group who attended  each  hearing
and objected to each permit application, there was very little written
or oral comment from the general public fit the hearings.
   Following  the hearing*, meetings* were held by the Regional Ad-
ministrator's staff to discuss comments nuule at the hearing and  Jo
make A judgment as to whether lo change the conditions of the permit
and whether to issue or dony the permit. If the. decision WAS imuU* to
issue  the permit, it- was  signed by the Regiontil Administrator nnd
notification sent to the applicant that  it was approved.
   The time  constraints of issuing permits by April  23 presented a
great problem for Region II. In addition to contacting each applicant
and holding  separate meetings with them, public notices had  to  be
written and public meetings attended. Too, much effort was put into
selecting the  appropriate parameters used for monitoring of the wastes
aud the methodology by which the analyses of the wastes would  be
done. Meetings were held with the applicants, dumpers and analytical
laboratories to discuss these methods.
   Following issuance of the permits, several barge companies objected
to the specifications in the permits that dumping be done in daylight
hours only since the maritime industry works around the clock. As a
result of this  objection, it was agreed that dumping at night could  be
done if necessary; however, if more than 25,percent of  the dumping
were done after dark, the application would come up for reconsideration.
   The region is currently discussing with e.ach permittee alternatives
to ocean  disposal. Various municipalities  who are dumping sewage
sludge are contacting industries in their jurisdictions to get them to
reduce by pretreatment their discharges of toxic or harmful material.
   Among Region IPs applicants are two companies who pick up wastes
from  a number of locations,  including some tracking "middlemen."
On one occasion one of these middlemen picked up a load of wastes
intended for land disposal and they ended up in the trucking company's
wastes to be  disposed of hi the ocean.  A member of  the Surveillance
and Analysis  Division was checking the manifests of truckers bringing
waste in for ocean disposal and noted that the generator of the wastes
intended for  landfill was not on the list of customers whose wastes
were approved for ocean disposal. As a result this particular middleman
was not permitted to contribute his truckload of wastes to those being
disposed of in the ocean. This  type of surveillance  is continuing as
personnel are available.
  In addition, one  of the companies  was  requested  to drop two of
his customers since one had wastes containing a high percentage of
mercury and  the  other would not identify his wastes, his process or
his products.
  For the most part the applicants  and  dumpers  have been very
cooperative. They seem to be aware that their wastes may be damag-
ing tho environment and are cooperating fully with the region.
  A meeting  with the Coast  Guard to discuss surveillance indicated
that Coast Guard was waiting for guidance from their Head quarters;
further meetings are planned.
  Region  II  has been cooperating with NOAA for the past year in
the MESA project in the New York Bight area. They have attended
all meetings  and agree with KOAA  that this  area deserves high.
priority.

-------
                               13

  Tin; KI'A  coiislui Pollution  Research  Laboratory ill Corvnllis is
currently making u. study in Region II on tost site selection and pro-
site evaluation for testing of an experimental dump site off Firn Island.
Information on the microbiology of the writer column is being gathered
by  Region II personnel. A decision  will  be  made  within the next
six months on whether the site, is to be used.
  During May and June of this year Region II personnel are collecting
general chemical background  data on dump  sites  in  the Bight to
support evaluation  of their permit requests in line with the criteria.
Both the sludge dumping grounds and the acid dumping grounds will
be covered from 4 to 6 times each.
Region III (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
  On April 23 Region III issued ocean disposal permits to the City
of Philadelphia  and the  Edge Moor  facility  of  E.I. duPont.  Phila-
delphia was  granted a permit to dump  no more  than  75  million
gallons of sewage sludge in the six month period ending October 23
at a site 50 miles from shore. The City has been requested to  do ex-
tensive analyses of their sludge and will be required in the future to
initiate  studies  to  determine  lethal  effects, bioaccumulation  and
degradation.
  JDuPout's  permit was for no more than 20  million  gallons of a
15 to 20 percent acid liquid during the six-month term of the permit.
The company is presently, com pi ying with EPA requests for analyses
and monitoring.
  The region has also received a number of other permit applications.
The Sun Oil Company  of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania,  submitted
au  application on April  18  to  dump approximately 6,000 barrels a
month of white water and 17,000 barrels a month of spent caustic
at a site approximately 100 miles-off Cape Hatteras. Several meetings
were held with  the company, and a  public hearing i.s scheduled for
July 13 with an alternative site proposed.
   Rollins Environmental Services, Inc., of Wilmington,  Delaware,
applied for a permit on  March 29 to dump approximatel}' 2 million
gallons of a contaminated brine solution  once every seven weeks.
Although additional supportive data were submitted on April 30,
the  region requested further information  on May 1. The company is
presently supplying this information.
   Modern Transportation Company of  Philadelphia  applied for a
permit on April 11  to dump approximately one million gallons of a
mixture  of industrial wastes and  sewage 'sludge, septic wastes  and
digester  cleanotit. A hearing was  scheduled for July 12.  A meeting
was held on  June 21 to discuss future permits for segregated wastes.
  Four  other  permit  applications have been  received; three are
awaiting additional technical  information  from the applicants,  and
 the  fourth was withdrawn upon receipt of a request for supplemental
information.
   As a result of the hearings and evaluation of all pertinent informa-
tion on  the  City of Philadelphia's application, Region III decided
 to move the City's dumpsitc from its existing location 12 miles off-
shore  to another existing site 50 miles offshore. Prior  to the City's
dumping at  the new site, the region carried out a baseline survey of
the site.

-------
                               14

Regimi IV (Atlanta, Gforgia)
  Region IV has not received any Applications  for ocean dumping
permits.  The region has sent letters to all State and Federal agencies
which  \voiild h.ave knowledge of ocean  dumping activities,  and till
responses have been negative.
  Several inquiries from  potential  permit applicants  have  been
answered,
Jtftjiitn \'I (Dallas. Texas}
  Region VI is strictly regulating ocean  dumping in the  Gulf waters
adjacent to Texas nnd Louisiana by imposing restrictions designed
to minimize the effects of dumping on the marine  environment and at
the snme time allow studies to begin leading to an understanding of
the fate of waste materials. Each  ocean dumping permittee is required
to conduct toxicity studies of their waste using  appropriate marine
species so the. acute damage can be minimized during future operations.
  The most important and most, difficult  requirement of the permittee
is in-situ bioaecumulation  studies that  will reveal the  uptake and
magnification, if any, of their waste in  the marine organisms that
inhabit the clump area at any stage during their life cycle.
  In addition to regulating dumping and requiring studies, Region VI
has required the permittee to record the water depth during dumping
operations, permanently label all  drums and provide a spill prevention
containment  and countermeasure plan to safeguard aquatic resources
if an unplanned discharge occurs outside the approved dumping zone.
  Ocean dumping personnel are actively compiling data on the poten-
tial deep water  fishery that  is being developed  through the efforts
of the  National Marine Fisheries Service- and Texas Parks and  Wild-
life.  Exploratory fishing  is  taking  place on  the Continental  Slope
from 100 to  1,000 fathoms and  potential commercial concentrations
of royal-red shrimp, tilefish,  hake,  and  deep-water crabs have been
discovered.  Information related  to  this new fishery  necessitates u
re-evaluation of the approved dump sites and dictates the. need for
deeper sites as well as requirements for treatment- schedules in lieu
of dumping.
  A meeting  was held with the  Coast, Guard  to determine their
capability for surveillance and to include within future  permits any
special requirements that would apply.  As a result of the meeting,
additional requirements were added to  the twenty-four hour  notice
from the permittee to the local Captain  of the Port and  EPA.
  Numerous meetings have  been held  with  each applicant  of an
ocean dumping permit to gather  data and resolve differences between
what is best for the environment and what is best for the applicant.
  The region has eight (8)  complete applications and two (2) incom-
plete applications to date. Of the eight complete  applications Region
VI has issued six permits, denied one, and is still  processing one.

-------
                               15

 Region IX (San Francisco, California)
   Region IX has received two completed Applications for ocean dump-
 ing permit*!. The H-10 Water Taxi Compnny, Ltd.,  of  San Pedro,
 California, collects and disposes of Chips' galley wastes front vessels
 in the Los Angeles-Long Bench Harbor nre«. Wastes «m>  transported
 to a site about 7 miles east of Catulinu Island. Public notice will be
 published and transmitted for review before the end of •Juno- 137S.
  . The Los Angeles Police Department I'e.qtiested a permit u> dispose
 of the collection of contrabtiud and unclaimed weapons each year
 between July 1  and 10 as required by the State Penal Code. Public
 notice was published and transmitted for review on June 5. On June 15
 the applicant withdrew the application stating that it has located a
 metal recycling  facility which will accept the estimated 5.5 tons of
 material for disposal.
   An  application  was received from California Salvage Company,
 Wilmington, to  dispose of four to five tons of material, the majority
• being  Lithium salts, with smaller portions of pure Sodium and Potas-
 sium,  at a site about 13 nautical miles southwesterly of  Los Angeles
 breakwater at a depth of about 485 fathoms. Additional  data on this
 application is forthcoming.
   Informal contact was made with  three other potential applicants.
 In all cases they will probably resort to other methods of disposal.
 Regi&n X (Seattle, Washington)
   Region X has received one letter of application and three inquiries
 requesting information.
   Monsanto  Industrial  Chemicals  Company  applied  to  discharge
 150,000 barrels  a month of vanillin black liquor from a barge to  the
 Strait of Juan  de Fuca.  The determination was  made that  those
 waters are  presently classified as internal waters and  are not subject
 to controls on ocean disposal under Public Law 92-532.
   The U.S. Forest Service,  Alaska (The South  Tongass National
 Forest)  is  inventorying the beaches and adjacent uplands for dis-
 carded equipment  left  over from  past logging  and  development
 activities. As monies become available they plan to barge dump this
 scrap iron at several open water locations in at least 200 feet of water.
 At this  point a question remains as to whether these locations  are
 governed by the  ocean  dumping permit program or Section  402 of
 Public Law 92-500 .
   The titanium tetrachloride plant of Oregon Metallurgical Corpora-
 tion, Albany, Oregon, is currently shut down, but recent favorable
 market forecasts have generated an interest in returning to production.
 Proposed waste material would be a sludge produced from titanium
 tetrachloride production. Proposed disposal would be off the  mouth
 of the Columbia River.
   Mr. L. F. Brown, Portland, Oregon, has inquired about the ocean
 disposal  of 30,000 or more  rubber tires, probably weighted with
 concrete.

-------
                                                      TABLE I.-OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS GRANTED, APR. 23-JUNE 23. 1973
Applicant
Material dumped , '
Date
Issued Amount dumped'
Frequency
Turn
(djys)
      I.-O.S. Army Corps ot Engineer!	i	  Barge	  May  18  I	 I	.		        SO
Region!!:                                                    '
    New York City (H pistils):
       Roekaway sewaje treatment planHSTP).		Municip»l sewwe Sludge	, Apr. 23  S.OOOcu.yd	4 loads in90 days	        90
       26th ward STP	do	(to..-  I3,000cu,yd	6 loads in 60 days	        60
       Wards Island STP....               ..       .   .     do	,	do,.,. 166.000cu. yd.	37 loads in $0 days	        60
       Port Richmond STP._    .                    .    .   do..	_.,do.... 3,000cu.yd	 12 loads in 90 days	        90
       Tallman Island STP	       ...  	do	 ,	do	6S.OOQcu.yd	_ 17 loa
-------
County ol Wetlefi«tter ................................
Gityol Cemdln ............................. '.
Middlelown stwtri js authority ................ .
Cily ol Long B»ich ......... ,
Joint meelinj of (smind Union ceuntlis
Chf vron Oil Co.. Perth Acnboy.NJ.. ................. ..
West Long Bsacn i«w»r district .......... - .............
Modern Transportation, 5. Keirny^.MmVnlClptt)
Modern TrentporUtten.S. KflfW, N.J. (Industrial). ......
Jonat Ditpoul,  Inc., Cildwtll True kin j. Wm. Schaeler

H«ss Oil) Woodbrldtt, IU .............................
CHy «l P«tsrjori PdllM Diptrtmint .....................
Nev/ YorK Cltf Pollca Dtpsftminl.., ...................
U.S. Army Corpl et Engin»ars. N.Y. IJIKricL .............
 Municipal MI»E« sludge
    do
    do
    do .................. . ...... .
    do _____ .....................
Sp»nl ciuslic toltilion .............
municipal sevraje sluilw.  ____ .............. ..
    do ..........
tadunrlal wsslo ..      .............. .
Municipal, septic tank, indutlilaUMgt

Spent caajlic lolulian ______ ............... ....
GUM ........
Osnjetoui weapons or objeclj
Tyg >nd  any »dditloi«l sunken vesseti obstructing
  Aaviiitltm.
Apr, W  25.OOQCH.yd
  do — 17,125 eti. yd
  do ____ 5,550 CM. yd,...
  do ---- 6,009cn.yd
  do — 35.580 eu. yd ...... .
  do..,. 6300cu.>d
M»y  4  9t5c«,yd ....... ......
  do ____ 59,160 cu. yd ....... .
  do ____ 35,000tu. yd
  do — 116 ,000 en. ft

H»y 30  3.000 Id I.MO w, y< ........... J to 5 loidi In M dsyl
M»» 31  4»(lton) ................... I toad In JO diyJ
  do
                                                                                                                                       13 load! In 80 dtyl
                                                                                                                                       I toad in 30 days
                                                                                                                                           to
                                                                                                                                       S loads In 90 6tr»
                                                                                                                                       I loads In 55 d«j«
                                                                                                                                       3 fosds In 90 dtys
                                                                                                                                       t  bid In 83 <3(yi
                                                                                                                                        10 loads In B ii»y»
                                                                                                                                        1 teidt In 90 days
                                                                                                   .do
                                                                                                          13 torn .................... , ....... do
      Prttt & Whlltrty, L Hirtford, C9nn ................. SlodH from «feclni-theralc«1 mtthlnlnl ................... 5,300  cu. yd .................. 3 leidi In 90 d»ys
     111:
 Cily ol PhilidllpWi ................................... Oigert«d «w»£» sludS*
.LI, duPont .................... < .............. ...... ftcirtlMstti
                                                                                                  Apt. 23   75.OXI.ODa J«l B« yiM ......... 38loi'Jfh IJOdm
                                                                                                    do.... 129,000,000 JBl()»r month ...... 20load» ji»r fnanth
.

 €.1  duPont,B(«lilTi0iil*aHti« ........................ Chirrtlwl wistes .............................. Miy   I   I44.0001»iil' ................. Z4.0M font per monlh I
 E. I. duPonl, Ho«Ji8» (Itant ...... . ............. . ............ M .......................................   do —  210.000 low' ................. 3WK) !on» pef montfe •
 E. I. duPont, Bdlli plinl .................................. ,.dft ............... ' ........................... do....  IS.OOfl toni» ............ . ..... S.Mfl teni pn monih'
 G.A.F .............................................. llidliltrl«t/tli«raital wastes ...................... May  II   IS.OWHorts' .................. 18.240 Ictii rer ir,»nlh '
 £. I. duPont, PonchirtnlB .................................. do ....................................... May  2Z   S.OCati'iirslit ................. l.OM berruli psr msnUi«
 £lhyl Corp., Baton Rou|«, U ........................... Soiliwn/cslciura sludge ........ . ................ May  25   3,503 btrrttt'. ................ 703 k»rr«t»p»r mpetbi
                                                                                                                                                                             JO
                                                                                                                                                                             SO
                                                                                                                                                                             93
                                                                                                                                                                             90
                                                                                                                                                                             93
                                                                                                                                                                             8D
                                                                                                                                                                             W
                                                                                                                                                                             SO
                                                                                                                                                                             W
                                                                                                                                                                             39
                                                                                                                                                                             30
                                                                                                                                                                            Itt
                                                                                                                                                                            t$-5
                                                                                                                                                                            110
                                                                                                                                                                            1M
                                                                                                                                                                            183
                                                                                                                                                                            US
                                                                                                                                                                            IE6
                                                                                                                                                                            155
i During term at permit.
* I yesr.
> The permit WM denied bectuie the waitj contained loo much oil, chromium, and volatile solids.
                                                                                        «E. I. duPcnt'a Bsaumont wofki *!» applied lor i permit thct «w!3 cw«r thtmt'^l cf »ny in»U(1d
                                                                                       In in emergency situation. This ippllution was denied.
                                                                                        ' Not to excnd.

-------
                               18

                 IX. RESEARCH STRATEGY

  The ocean  damping program strategy,  described  on  page  6,
prescribes an integrated approach to achieving the goals of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Public Law 92-532,
and the related goals with  the Federal VValer Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-500. As outlined, the program
st.rategy includes the rapid development of criteria to guide the evalua-
tion of permit applications, the implementation of a permit program,
the evaluation of existing disposal  sites and  the  monitoring and
surveillance of sites. To date, actions have proceeded to allow each of
these components to be initiated with all possible speed by participat-
ing agencies in the interest, of rapid implementation. However, experi-
ence to date has demonstrated that the technical information which
must serve as  a basis foe each of these components in  the broad
strategy is less than adequate. For example, in the development of the
regulations and criteria for implementation of Public Law 92-532, the
available information for setting criteria for evaluating permits was
found to be sparse and that  which existed was focused on problems
other than those related specifically to ocean dumping on the marine
environment. Consequently,  recognition of the need to develop the
scientific information to guide the implementation of the  legislation
has increased, rapidly  during the early stages of the program. The
development of this scientific information is the primary goal of the
ocean disposal research program.
  The objectives designed  to achieve the goal of the ocean  disposal
research  program  form a matrix of support for the components of
the broad program strategy,  while seeking  to develop the  mandated
information necessary  to t>e considered in the execution of the pro-  .
gram. The objectives are cross supportive and interdependent because
of the complex nature of the  actual problems. The specific objectives
are as follows:
       1. Develop the scientific information necessary  to establish
     and revise criteria for evaluating ocean disposal permit appli-
     cation as described in Section 102 of Public Law 92-532.
       2. Develop the analytical methods, techniques and  systems
     necessary to  characterize waste  materials, to deterinme effects
    in the marine environment, to characterize existing sites and to
     monitor existing and alternate sites.
       3. Develop an understanding of the effects  of past practices
     on existing sites and  methodologies for evaluating the desira-
     bility of continued dumping at existing sites or initiating dumping
     at new sites.
       4. Develop procedures for handling, transporting and dumping
     wastes to minimize overall effects of disposal actions.
       5. Develop  an understanding  of  the  effects of extraneous
     influences  (airborne pollutants,  river  and estuarine  discharges
     and ocean outfalls) in relation to direct ocean dumping.
       6.  Develop alternatives to ocean dumping and information on
     the benefits of selective disposal actions.
       7.  Develop methodologies  for assessing  the effectiveness of
     the overall program through monitoring and other methods.
       8.  Develop  the scientific expertise to  support enforcement
     actions.

-------
                                19

""  The clorwiUs of the .strategy to achieve these objectives »ire depend-
 wut-on the ellwtiyt! cooperation of the Federal agencies.directly involv-
 ed in implementing ihe respective- acts nnd other agencies conducting
'"research in the marine cnvivoninent. An  effective research program
 will require the integration of other agency activities as they relate,
 to the ocean disposal program while maintaining the mission  respon-
 sibilities  of each  agency. The  principal  elements of  the strategy
 consist of the following:
       1. Continuation of existing research programs in  associated
     agencies  with the  recognition of the need for e«rly integration
     into the overall planning for the ocean disposal research.
       2. Establishment of n mechanism for interageney coordination
    s of those research programs capable of contributing to the needs
     of the ocean disposal program.
   .  -. .3. Development of an overall interagency strategy to guide the
     development,  of ocean disposal research plan and specific agree-
     ments to implement the program.           •
   ..:   4. Early identification of gups in existing programs to establish
     Ithe basis for long term resource requirements.
     .  5. Development of a formal system for reporting,  assessing and
   :  assimilating research information with the needs of  the overall
     ocean disposal program.          .   .
   Programs have been initiated  by  the  agencies with research ca-
 pabilities which will contribute to the objectives of the ocean -disposal
 research program. EPA is conducting studies to determine the fate an
-------
                               20

        an  approach will make it possible to use the full range of
 Federal capability nml n*sources in .satisfying the marine monitoring
 needs of thus 
-------
                                  21
   djspotm! conditions, and th« designation of critical areas and tiru&s at
. .ji which dumping may not occur is, however,  an EPA r«sponsibDily.
•'-.';. Full use will bo made of the facilities of other Federal  agonciea in
   doiug tliis, insofar us these can. be made available, bnS it is sip to EPA
   to determine what  information  is required for its purpos&s and tJaa
   conditions? under which it should IMS obtained.
      Dumping rnny be done only at  approved locutions, Some existing
   dumping site* him* been approved hy KPA in the ivgul tit inns for use
   on an interim basis pending the development nnd evaluation of the
   information necessary to approve dumping site* for use on » continuing
   ba^is. Sites will be approved through publication in the  Ftiieral Heyis-
   ttr and approval wil! be based  on a thorough evaluation  of suffie-ient
   data to determine the probable impact of wastes on the proposed si'cs.
      Should an applicant request, use of a dump site  not already desig-
   nated as an approved dumping area, the applicant  will be responsible
   for providing to EPA data sufficient (o evaluate the ecological value
   of the proposed site and the impact of waste materials upon it.
      Dumping sites will not be approved for  dumping on a permanent
   basis.  Each site will be subjected to an initial baseline survey prior
   to approval for continuing use and will then be carefully monitored
   and resurveyed on  a continuing busis. In general, sites in use will be
   approved for continuing use as long us they exhibit negligible damage
   from the wastes dumped at them and as long as the effects of the wastes
   do not impact other areas. If a site begins to exhibit degradation, then
   its- use for dumping will be terminated permanently or until it recovers,
      la approving a  site  for continuing use, the  approach will be to
   prepare a  full enviornmental evaluation of the present conditions of
   the site and the probable impact of  dumping upon it. This will be
   based on the volumes and nature of the waste material dumped within
   its boundaries and upon one or more baseline surveys of the site. Such.
   surreys would not  be of the level of effort  needed "for n thorough re-
   search study, but would give the data necessary to determine present
   conditions and probable impact of wastes on the site. Such a survey
   should include measurements of chemistry of the water column at
   and near the site;  current structure and water mass movement and
   characteristics,  bottom  sediment geology, chemistry, and physical
   characteristics, bathymetry; nature and diversity  of biota, including
   plankton  and  other* floating life, pelagic, mid-level,  and  demersal
   crustaceans and fish, shellfish, and benthic  organisms.  Such a survey,
   repeated at periodic intervals would enable EPA to determine whether
    or not a site is being adversely affected and  termination of its use is
    indicated.
      The technical report on the baseline studies will servo an the basis
    for  the environmental  assessment and will be combined with other
    information on site use to provide an analysis of the overall environ-
    mental impact of the designation of the site as approved for continuing
    use.
      The actual  approval [of  a site will bo done through  promulga-
    tion in the Federal Register according to standard  administrative
    procedures.
      There have been 119 dumping sites approved on an interim basis.
   This approval has been based only on their prior use for the dumping
    of wastes. Within  this list axe sites which are heavily  used at the
    present time and also sites which are not being used at all right now.

-------
                                22

_   Among those 119 Kites arc those which should bo evaluated as rnpidly
 sis-possible to determine whether or not their use can he continued or
 whether or not alternate sites must be selected and dumping  at the
 existing sites terminated.  Because of  the. limited resources avuHnbU;
- for carrying out site evaluation  studies,  the evaluation  of some siies
 must be deferred until a later time. The. basis for setting priorities for
 site evaluation studies is as follows;
 1. -Sites Presently in Use
   The approved interim  dumping sites  are of the. highest order of
 priority for evaluation. Each site presently in use must be evaluated
 and  either approved  or disapproved  for continuing use. Where dis-
 approval of an existing site is indicated  as a result of an evaluation,
 the selection and approval of an  alternate site becomes of a high order
 of priority, depending on the nature and extent of the damage -as<-
 sociated with  the existing site.
   Among the  sites  presently  approved on an interim basis,. the
 following  orders of priority  in disposal site evaluation are indicated:
        (a) Sludge dumping and industrial waste dumping sites in use
      and close  inshore,  t,e,, within or immediately  adjacent  to, the
      contiguous zone;
        (b) Sludge dumping and industrial waste dumping sites in use
    .  farther offshore  than in La.;         -                 : '  •'.;
        (c) Inshore dredge.d spoil  disposal  sites in use;            .  ,-,
        (d) Offshore dredged  spoil disposal sites in use;
        (e) Garbage and refuse disposal sites in use;
        (f) Construction and demolition debris disposal sites in  use.;.  ,
        (g) Other sites in use.                  ,      .       ,    .
 2. Alternate Sites
   When a disposal site evaluation study of  an  interim  approved site
 indicates  that  use of that  site  should  be suspended or terminated
 immediately, an  alternate site should be selected  and evaluated as
 rapidiy as possible, and the priority for the selection of an alternate site
 should be the same as for the evaluation of the original site. The follow-
 ing results of a disposal site evaluation would provide strong indication
 that use of the site should be discontinued as soon as possible:
        (a)  Movement of  waste  materials dumped at  the site into
      estuaries or onto ocean/rent beaches or shorelines;
        (&) Movement of waste materials  dumped at the site into pro-
      ductive fishery or shellfishery  areas;
        (c) Degradation of the ecosystem at  the dump site which ap-
      pears progressive and which might result hi complete sterilization
      of the dump site if dumping is allowed to continue.
   If the biota at an existing dump site are completely wiped out and
 if this condition is confined to the immediate vicinity of the dump site,
 the selection of an alternate site may not  be of a high order of priority,
 since the use of an alternate dump site may only result  in completely
 damaging two sites instead of one, A  preferred approach would  be to
 phase out dumping of the materials causing the damage as rapidly as
 possible.
 S. Interim Approved Sites not in Use
   Sites approved  on  an interim basis but not currently being used
 should be surveyed  to determine  the extent of damage and  rate of
 recovery from past damage. Such sites may be approved as possible

-------
                               23

alternate sites,used as control sites, or recommended to XOAA for
detailed research  study to determine long-range impact* of ocean
dumping.
  Priorities among these sites will be set according to  how recently
dumping at the site was discontinued and the type of wastes dumped
(hero. The highest priority would bo assigned to sites at which sewage
sludge and/or industrial wastes wore inosl recently dumped.
4. Control Sitfs
  As part of the long-range research and monitoring required to deter-
mine the impact of wastes on  the marine environment, several control
sites not impacted by wastes will he selected off each major coastal
area; these will  be surveyed on a routine continuing basis as a means
for  tying together all disposal site evaluation studies, particularly in
regard to normal fluctuations  over a period of years.

                       XI. CONCLUSION

  Since the enactment of the  Marine  Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-532), on April 23, 1973, the
previously  uncontrolled practice of  transporting  and  dumping of
wastes in ocean waters has come  under control. A permit program
under which each permittee is required to provide & detailed descrip-
tion of  the waste material,  method of  disposal,  and  disposal  site
location has been implemented and is now operational. An interagency
coordinating committee consisting of EPA (chairman), NOAA,  Coast
Guard,  and Corps of  Engineers has been  formed  to coordinate all
activities under the Act, This committee has developed draft research
strategies and  monitoring strategies and  is currently working  on
standard procedures and  me'thods  for carrying out monitoring  and
studies of disposal sites.
  During Fiscal Year 1974, field investigations of existing dump sites
wilt be conducted as a first step in determining the impact of permitted
ocean dumping activities on the ocean environment. Standard pro-
cedures for sampling and monitoring will be initiated, and the interim
regulations and criteria will be revised.
  In the conduct of the  dump  site investigations EPA will,  to  the
fullest extent practicable, utilize the marine facilities of other Federal
agencies.
  ,    •                        o

-------