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
------- |