to coincide with S402 jurisdictional control the FWPCA, and possible extension of section 3 of the FWPCA responsibility for oil spills to the OCS as well. Extension of jurisdiction will require additional appropriations and manpower to provide for increased surveillance and enforcement under the Act or Acts. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has not treated the problems of jettisioned gear from whatever source in its OCS orders or other regulations. The one exception is OCS order #3-1 which requires a lessee when permanently abandoning and when abandoning a lease site to clean the seabed to cut off all well stumps below the seabed to prevent interference with fishing (43 CFR 3307.3-6). We would like to have these comments included in the record of your hearings and hope that they will be useful to the Committee, the EPA and Coast Guard in their Ocean Dumping program. Sincerely, Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, LAWRENCE MALLON, Marine Policy & Ocean Management. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, Washington, D.C., May 30, 1975. Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letter of 21 May 1975 to LTG Gribble concerning the Corps' implementation of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. The following answers to your questions are provided. It is understood that you intend to insert them in the official record of the hearings: Question 1. Have the dredged material disposal criteria caused any delays in Federal dredging projects? If so, have these been isolated local delays or a general national delay of the overall dredging program? Answer. Up to the present the Corps has not experienced any unacceptable delays due to the criteria. Some Federal dredging projects have, however, been seriously delayed due to litigation involving environmental concerns. I will cite three examples: (1) The maintenance dredging of New Haven Harbor main channel was delayed for one year by court injunction on the finding that an impact statement was not available prior to award of contract. The Corps argued that there was no identifiable significant or adverse impact and that CEQ policy guidance allowed this as an ongoing maintenance project. Added cost of dredging was $172,800. (2) Channel improvement of Providence River to 40-foot depth was halted by injunction after 99 percent of 20 million dollar project was completed and more than nine million yards were dumped at sea. Action was brought by fishermen to restrain use of the same dump for the remaining 100,000 cubic yards, mostly rock, to complete the project. An injunction was granted on the basis that no hearing had been conducted as required by Section 103 despite a Corps plea that this was a continuing project. The delay was 19 months and added costs are estimated in excess of $500,000 for dredging. (3) The U.S. Navy, Corps, and EPA were joint defendants in an action brought by environmental groups over issuance by the Corps of a permit to dredge New London Harbor for the SSN688 class submarine, and to dump in approved ground in Long Island Sound. The Court found for the agencies against enjoining the work. Fully 2 years of coordination between the agencies and the public preceded the decision and about $100,000 in preliminary studies was spent. An additional $500,000 is being spent by the Navy to monitor work in progress. Question 2. Have any delays resulting from the criteris established under this Act created any actual impariments to navigation and commerce? Answer. None sir. Recent impairmants to inland navigation, specifically the Southwest Pass of the Mississippi, has been the result of excessive run-off and funding problems vice the criteria. During the 20 May 1975 Oversight Hearings you requested of BG McIntyre to submit any suggested changes to the Act which the Corps felt appropriate. Having carefully reviewed the Act and its implementation to date we offer no recommended changes at this time. On behalf of the Chief of Engineers I thank you for the opportunity to provide comment regarding this important Act. Please contact me if I may be of any further assistance. DEAR SENATOR HOLLINGS: The enclosed material is in response to your letter of May 21, 1975, requesting additional information on this agency's implementation of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. Sincerely, Enclosure. ROBERT M. WHITE, 1. In carrying out its research function under Sec. 201, does NOAA place equal emphasis on studying the effects of materials disposed of through ocean outfalls as well as by materials that are actually dumped?" Section 3(f) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act specifically excludes from the definition of ocean dumping the disposition of effluent from any outfall structure to the extent such disposition is regulated under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500). Outfall discharges are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System established pursuant to Section 402 of the FWPCA. Accordingly, NOAA has taken the position that the Section 3 (f) exclusion applies with equal force to Section 201, and that EPA exercises full responsibility for both regulation and the conduct of necessary research on the effects of effluent discharged through ocean outfalls. Nevertheless, NOAA has a responsibility under Section 202 of the Act for conducting or sponsoring research programs to examine the long-range effects of ocean pollution without regard to the source(s) of such pollution. For example, the NOAA MESA Project in the New York Bight has recently conducted under contract an inventory of non-dumped pollutants and the sources thereof. 2. What have been NOAA's activities in carrying out Sec. 203? Section 203 of the Act calls for the Secretary of Commerce to conduct and encourage, cooperate with, and render financial assistance to public and private agencies for the purpose of determining means of minimizing or ending all ocean dumping within five years of the effective date of the Act. The reduction or cessation of ocean dumping depends on the availability of alternative methods of disposal and the economic and environmental costs associated with these alternatives. Research and development activities directed toward improved, less wasteful, industrial processes should result in diminished volumes of residuals requiring transport and disposal. The same is true with respect to municipal wastes. In short, technological factors that result in a reduction of waste materials now dumped in our coastal waters will contribute to a decrease or possible elimination of ocean waste disposal. In our judgment, the principal scientific and technical expertise for development of these alternatives is located within the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers. Both agencies have active programs underway in this area. These agencies also have the capability to implement these alternatives through regulatory activities and through such programs as EPA's grants for municipal wastewater treatment plants. We believe that building similar capabilities in the Department of Commerce for studying alternative waste disposal methods to ocean dumping would be duplicative of existing Federal programs. Thus, the Department of Commerce, through NOAA, has placed first priority in implementing Section 201 of the Act-studies to determine the environmental effects of ocean dumping. We recognize the importance of Section 203 as an essential element toward eventual elimination of offshore dumping. NOAA expects to play an increasingly active role in coordinating programs related to the objectives of Section 203 as those programs of EPA and the Corps of Engineers mature and yield results. We have already initiated coordinative action with these agencies. 3. Is there disagreement between EPA and NOAA concerning the relative safety of the present New York sludge dumpsite? There is general agreement between the two agencies that the sewage sludge dumpsite does not at present constitute a threat to public health or to the adjacent beaches. The NOAA MESA Project has determined that a homogeneous sludge mass or "sludge bed" as such does not exist in the Bight. Instead, we have evidence that thousands of years of natural sediment discharge and the release of sewage material from both shoreline outfalls and 50 years of barge dumping have combined to produce a well-established, rather stable distribution of organic-rich muds in the New York Bight. Pockets of mud near the beaches are a common natural occurrence and appear to be mainly of natural origin with, perhaps, small admixtures of material derived from sewage. These patches have almost certainly existed for a long time. In general, we do not believe that this organic-rich material is moving, although temporary resuspension in the water column by the action of storm waves can occur. Possibly, because of storm-wave and current actions. as well as differing settling characteristics of sludge components, isolated mud packets containing sewage sludge material in varying proportions may be found in areas in the proximity of the sewage sludge dumpsite. These findings are not consistent with the concept of a "sludge bed" and mass movement thereof. The EPA decision to relocate the sewage sludge dumpsite in 1976 was based more on evidence that the site has been utilized at or near its capacity rather than out of concern that it constitutes a clear and present danger to human health. 4. What conclusions are available about the effects of deep ocean dumping? Is deep ocean dumping not scientifically prudent or is il not ecomomically feasible for the dumpers? A major determinant of whether deep-ocean dumping is feasible or not is the environmental impact of such dumping. This must be ascertained on a case-bycase basis with thorough analysis and understanding of the living resources and other natural processes occurring in the deeper areas. In May 1974, NOAA conducted a baseline investigation of the "Deepwater Dumpsite" located 106 n mi southeast of Ambrose light. This was the first of three seasonal baselines to be obtained in the area. The second, a summer baseline, will be conducted during July/August 1975, and a winter baseline survey is planned for February 1976. NOAA plans to make recommendations to EPA in August of this year concerning the advisability of deep-ocean dumping of sewage sludge at the edge of the New York Bight. With respect to the effects of deep-ocean dumping, our preliminary findings in the "Deepwater Dumpsite", where industrial chemicals are disposed, indicate the possibility that the wastes disperse in the water column so completely that they do not reach the bottom of the dumpsite area in detectable amounts. Apparently, the wastes are dispersed rapidly and almost completely by complex near-surface and mid-water column currents and circulation patterns. However, we need to complete the seasonal baseline work before these observations can be confirmed. Our current position regarding deep-ocean dumping is that it may be a scientifically prudent alternative to dumping in more shallow waters, but no final conclusions can be made at this time. With respect to economic feasibility, it appears that the costs in dollars per ton of dumping at the edge of the continental shelf are not prohibitive and may be competitive with the currently available land-based disposal alternatives. Other factors of concern to NOAA are the technical difficulties and the greater costs involved in conducting monitoring operations at deepwater sites. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letter of 21 May 1975 which transmitted follow-up questions to the 20 May hearings on the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Total compliance with an ocean dumping permit by the permittee cannot be determined without sampling of the material to be dumped, with samples drawn from each tank or compartment on the transporting vessel, and possibly at various levels within each compartment. As we related to Senator Magnuson in our letter of 13 March 1975, personnel safety was a prime factor in our decision not to encourage Coast Guard sampling (unless a violation is suspected or a specific request is received from EPA). Another factor, however, is that we have interpreted our monitoring, surveillance and enforcement responsibilities to primarily encompass the transportation for dumping and the dumping itself. As a special condition of dumping permits, EPA requires that the permittee or dumper shall have analyzed representative samples from each barge load and "an appropriately composited sample from all barge loads in each 30-day period." Thus, analysis is being conducted, and the results provided to EPA. It appears, however, that a weakness may exist in that the sampling can be conducted with no direct federal control. Cost effectiveness and the avoidance of duplication of effort would appear to dictate the expansion of EPA analytical facilities rather than new development of an equivalent capability by the Coast Guard. It is estimated that three men, provided with suitable transportation, could witness the sample-taking of approximately 10 percent of all materials other than dredge spoils to ensure that a true representative sample is sent to the laboratory. Such a program of random supervision should provide adequate assurance of compliance with permit conditions. Standard sampling techniques would be required whether the dumper/permittee or Coast Guard personnel actually draw the samples. Subject: Reply to Senator Hollings letter of 21 May 1975 which transmitted follow-up questions to the 20 May hearings on the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 It is our understanding that EPA is standardizing such techniques in conjunction with its development of standard analytical methods. If, for some reason, the samples would have to be drawn by Coast Guard personnel, we expect that these sampling techniques would provide sufficient guidance for a safe and efficient operation. In summary, we feel that Coast Guard activities with regard to the analysis of material to be disposed of in ocean waters should be limited to random supervision of the sample-taking utilizing EPA-developed standardized techniques. We anticipate meeting with EPA in the near future to discuss sampling/analysis responsibilities, and we intend to request the necessary supplemental resources through the budget cycle. We hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C'. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of May 21, 1975, containing questions concerning the Environmental Protection Agency's Implementation of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Our responses to the questions are enclosed. I hope this information will be helpful to you and the members of the Senate Commerce Committee. Sincerely yours, RUSSELL E. TRAIN, Enclosure. Question 1. Minimizing or ending the dumping of toxic wastes is a clear intent of the Act. However, while ocean disposal of industrial wastes in the Gulf of Mexico was reduced from 1973 to 1974, ocean disposal of industrial wastes in the Atlantic increased by over 345 tons. What accounts for this disparity? Answer. Since the beginning of the permit program, EPA has required a thorough evaluation in all applications of the need for ocean dumping and the availability of alternative methods of disposal, in addition to effects on the marine environment. This approach has encouraged a number of industrial dumpers to seek other alternatives. The two years from 1973 through 1974 represent, in most cases, the time that is has taken industrial dumpers to seek out other alternatives and build treatment plants or implement other methods or waste disposal. On the Atlantic Coast alone, 47 former dumpers have ceased ocean dumping either before the Act went into effect or after having received permits. Another eight companies have withdrawn their applications or have been denied permits. At least 14 current dumpers on the Atlantic Coast are scheduled to cease ocean dumping in June, 1975, and another eight in June, 1976. The increase in amount of wasters dumped in the Atlantic does not represent new dumpers, but rather industrial growth during which time the companies have been seeking alternatives to ocean dumping. Question 2. The ocean dumping of sewage sludge has increased by over 1.1 million tons in the Atlantic, but there is no ocean dumping of sewage sludze other than by the cities of New York and Philadelphia. Are the alternate disposal methods of other cities more environmentally sound than ocean dumping, or are they just polluting in a different way? Answer. Because the sewage sludges tested to date exceed the ocean dumping criteria specified in 40 CFR 227, ocean disposal of sludges from the New York Metropolitan area, Philadelphia, and Camden, New Jersey, is permitted only on an interim basis. This is being done primarily to give these municipalities time in which to seek alternatives other than ocean dumping or, to initiate those programs which would eliminate from the sludge those materials which are harmful to the marine environment. A phase-out date of January 1, 1981, for the State cessation of ocean dumping has been issued to Philadelphia. Region III is reviewing the City of Camden's permit for those alternatives described above. Region II has established a goal of cessation of ocean dumping of sludge by 1981. Under proper supervision, the use of sludge to make compost, to reclaim strip mined lands, and to make low grade fertilizers, are options to ocean dumping which have proven successful in many instances. We are also studying the use of sludge as a direct application soil conditioner on agricultural lands growing both food and non-food crops. The cities of Chicago, Houston, and Milwaukee are already employing combinations of these disposal alternatives to avoid the discharge of sludge into the Nation's waters. At the present time, we do not feel that the land based alternatives to ocean disposal constitute a form of pollution "in a different way" when carried out under properly designed and supervised progreras. In summary, determining alternatives to ocean dumping of sludge is an inportant, and time consuming problem requiring significant research and study. Recognizing the importance of this problem, the EPA is expending funds in excess of $2.5 million annually to investigate the problem of sludge utilization. Question 5. Philadelphia was placed on a phase-out plan for sludge dumping. Has such an imposition been placed on New York? Are grants availabe for research to help New York solve the problem? Answer. EPA Region II has set a goal for phasing out dumping by New York municipalities by 1981. Region II is funding the Interstate Sanitation Commission in the order of $0.5 million to investigate alternatives to ocean dumping of sindze, Question 4.a. EPA has monitored the incineration of wastes at sea, and required permitting for such activities under the Act. Has a legal analysis been made concerning EPA's authority to regulate ocean incineration under the Ocean Dumping Act? Answer. The Office of Enforcement and General Counsel of EPA made the determination that an ocean dumping permit is required for ocean incineration of wastes. This opinion is based, in part, on the recommendations by the counsel to |