Ocean Dumping: A Time to Reappraise?

OCEAN DUMPING: A TIME T O REAPPRAISE? ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB81088 VPDATFD 95/07/84 AUTHOR: Martin Lee Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED 05/18/81 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0507 CRS- 1 I S S U E DEFiNITION By adopting t h e Ocean D u m p i n g Act i n 19.72, Congress strictly limited o r prohibited most ocean dumping practices. Recognizing that l i t t l e w a s k n o w n of t h e ocean's assimilative c a p a c i t y , C o n g r e s s g a v e the o c e a n s special protective c o n s i d e r a t i o n , stressed alternative land and air d i s p o s a l , and arged z n a t :>e oceans z e ,set for ' i a s ~ ed ~ s p o s as ~n l - ~as a lasc r ? s o r z . Now, over ten years l a t e r , a reappraisal of the o r i g i n a l "strictly l i m i t o r prohibit"' policy may Se'necessary due to problems associated with two substances which comprise t h e bulk of ocean-disposed materiais: s e w a g e s l u d g e and dredge spoils. T h e December 1 9 8 1 phaseout d a t e f o r harmful municipal s e w a g e sludges w a s not met by a number of East C o a s t municipalities, According to accountirig for a l m o s t 50% of t h e siudges n o w ocean disposed. E P A , 8.3 miiiion cons of s e w a g e sludges were ocean disposed i n 1 3 8 3 , a l m o s t t w i c e the a m o u n t disposed i n 1973. T h e v o l u m e of ocean-dumped d r e d g e s p o i l s , representing approximately 9 0 % of a l l substances ocean-disposed, has not been significantly decreased in the ten y e a r s s i n c e t h e Ocean Dumping Act w a s adopted. On Apr. 2 4 , 1 9 8 4 , EPA designated a n e w s l u d g e dumping s i t e , 106 miles off t h e coast, essentially ending sewage sludge disposal a t the historical 1 2 m i l e New York B i g h t s i t e , i n u s e . since 1924. D r e d g e spoil d u m p i n g will continue a t t h e 1 2 mile s i t e , however. Equally significant i s t h e current heightened public a w a r e n e s s o f , a n d sometimes opposition t o , the siting of a l t e r n a t i v e land disposal f a c i l i t i e s , including s l u d g e a n d dredge d u m p sites. Major. i n c r e a s e s i n land acquisition and facility construction c o s t s , coupled with public r e s i s t a n c e t o land d i s p o s a l , have m a d e ocean disposal even more attrac.tive than i n t h e early 1970s. B u t , a l m o s t a decade of research on the f a t e and effects o f ocean-dumped pollutants h a s n o t offered congressional a n d Administrative . policymakers c o h e s i v e d a t a upon which to evaluate current and proposed o c e a n dumping policies. T h e l a c k of sound and clearly i n t e r p r e t a b l e information 2 s crucial t o this entire issue. Of immediate significance to the Congress a r e t h e proposed F Y 8 5 c u t s i n t h e National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) o c e a n dumping research and monitoring program. T h e proposed F Y 8 5 l e v e l i s a l m o s t half the current funding. Coupled with this i s t h e elimination of t h e S e a G r a n t P r o g r a m , a program which h a s fostered considerable university research o n o c e a n dumping a n d t h e effects of marine pollution. C o i n c i d e n t a l l y , o n e of t h e very f e w program i n c r e a s e s i n the Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency's (EPA) F Y 8 5 budget i s f o r a cross media. assessment o f waste d i s p o s a l to determine f o r which w a s t e s ocean dumping might be m o r e environmentally beneficial. F o r the 9 8 t h C o n g r e s s , t h e main issue w i l l b e t o r e a p p r a i s e c u r r e n t policy with options o f either continuing efforts towards phaseout or r e d u c t i o n s , o r completely r e v a m p i n g policy i n l i g h t of phase-out and land disposal problems. S i n c e t h e foundation of future policy w i l l h a v e . t o r e s t o n sound d a t a , research r e s u l t s and needs will clearly h a v e to b e ascertained. CRS- 2 BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS Congress adopted the Ocean Dumping Act, the f i r s t two titles of the Marine P r o t e c t i o n , Research a n d Sanctuaries Act of 1 9 7 2 (33 U.S.C. 1401-1444, P.L. 95-532), partly in response to the Executive recommendations contained i n a T h e Act Council on Environmental 3uality r e p o r t , "Ocean D u n p i n g , 1970." ~ z s e i f 2anned z h e dumplng cf radiologicai, z 9 e m ~ c a l ,and biological xariare a g e n t s , and high-level radioactive wastes. T h e decision o n whether o t h e r substances were harmful and should b e banned was l e f t to the Administrator o f he ~ c was t signed the same week a s t h e the Environmental ~ r o t e c t i o n ~ g e n c y . Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1 2 5 1 et seq.), which established a multi-Sillian dollar sewage treatment construction ?rogram. T h e relationship between more advanced treatment of sewage and greater a m o u n t s of sewage sll~dge for ocean disposal was recognized early on. The of Ocean Dumping Act viewed ocean disposal a s the "last resort" method d i s p o s a l , after other alternatives had been evaluated. Through t h e establishment of a n Environmental Protection Agency permit p r o g r a m , the transportation of most materials for ocean disposal w a s regnlated. Certain specific macerials, including mosc nuclear and chemical warfare a g e n t s , were totally banned. EPA was to regulate a l l materials, except dredged m a t e r i a l s , which remained under the Corps of Engineers (COE). However, EPA had to review all dredge disposal sites including ocean,. i n l a n d , and wetland sites. Research on the effects of ocean disposal was addressed by the secon-d T i t l e , giving t h e National Oceanic a n d Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) authority.over effects-research and monitoring the pollutants. Research o n alternatives to ocean dumping rested first with NOAA b u t was later transferred to EPA. Implementing a n ocean dumping p o l i c y , for which scientific information w a s s c a r c e , proved difficult. Regulations on ocean dumping criteria took Considerable time to develop and w e r e based on controversial bioassay and bioaccumulation tests of specific marine organisms. T h e major problem has centered on municipal sewage sludge, growing i n volume and degree of pollutants d u e to more advanced treatment. Several East Coast municipalities were simply n o t ready t o halt s e w a g e sludge disposal because of extreme difficulties i n designing facilities and obtaining sites. EPA initially issued tfinterim" permits and finally mandated December 1 9 8 1 a s a phaseout d a t e f o r a l l municipal sewage s l u d g e which unreasonably degraded the that i s , did not meet EPA criteria. In P.L. 9 5 - 1 5 3 , Congress environment statutorily adopted t h i s phaseout date. Actually, the a m o u n t of s e w a g e in t h e New York Bight g r e w by 1.6 million tons o r sludge ocean disposed 24% between 1 9 8 1 and 1983. -- -- -- D r e d g e spoils high i n contaminants have jeopardized several major dredging projects and many more minor o n e s , d u e to the f a c t that t h e spoils w e r e unacceptable f o r ocean disposal. T h e Corps of E n g i n e e r s must use a n EPA designated and approved dumpsite for dredge spoils. In-place contaminants such a s polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and toxic heavy metals i n t h e Hudson River and other areas still make f u t u r e dredging decisions uncertain. S o m e of the major problems associated with the Ocean Dumping Act a r e t h e 1981 phaseout d a t e f o r municipal sewage sludge, ocean disposal of highly CRS- 3 IB81088 UPDATE-05/07/84 -- particularly from New York Harbor -- and contaminated dredged s p o i l s development o f , a l t e r n a t i v e s , a s well a s the status o f . e f f e c t s and alternatives research. A sleeper of a n is,sue concerns t h e nuclear wastes dumped i n t o t h e ocean between 1 9 4 6 and t h e mid-1960s. C o n c e r n exists over exactly h o w much material w a s \ d u m p e d , t h e l o c a t i o n s of t h e d u m p sites, and the condition of the dumped cannisters. Phasing O u t Sewaqe Sludqe Dumping Most E a s t Coast municipalities dumped the sludge from their' municipal treatment plants into o c e a n waters because i t w a s economical a n d convenient. not only i n more Population gr3wth and m o r e advanced creatnent resulzed sludge but a sludge w h i c h , due to advanced treatment, contained higher to munic~paliry. degrees of c o n t a m i n a n ~ s . Sludges vary from municipality For i n s t a n c e , industrialized areas such a s Philadelphia and New York produce sludges high i n mercury and c a d m i u m , while the Washington, D.C., area produces sludges low i n contaminants. T h e former presents p r o b l e m s for both land and ocean disposal, while'the latter a v a i l s itself t o t h e al'ternatives of c o m p o s t i n g , dewatering, and incineration. While many municipalities have phased o u t their ocean d u m p i n g a c t i v i t i e s , a GAO study ("Some Communities May Not B e Able to Meet t h e December 3 1 , 1 9 8 1 Ocean D u m p i n g Phase O u t Deadline f o r Municipal Sewage S l u d g e , " CED 79-119) expressed doubt that New York, Westchester, a n d Middlesex C o u n t i e s , which account f o r 50% of ocean-disposed s e w a g e s l u d g e , would b e a b l e to meet t h e deadline. According t o E P A , only New York was a b l e to d e c r e a s e t h e a m o u n t of sewage s l u d g e ocean disposed (-6%) between 1 9 8 1 a n d 1 9 8 3 , w h i l e Westchester County's a m o u n t has increased 1 1 3 % a n d Middlesex County's 1 % i n t h e same period. Showing the g r e a t e s t i n c r e a s e i s P a s s a i c Valley, w h o s e contribution h a s increased 267% a n d n o w accounts for 26% of a l l ocean disposed s e w a g e sludges. F u r t h e r , G A O noted that communities t h a t will o r might meet the deadline f a c e problems such a s public opposition, a n d difficulties i n obtaining dewatering equipment and storage sites. Under pressure to c e a s e ocean d u m p i n g and i n t h e f a c e of resistance to f a c i l i t y s i t i n g , many municipalities have chosen interim alternatives such as landfilling, composting; o r storage. G A O noted that these interim measures were n o t o n l y more expensive than o c e a n dumping but they " p o s e certain environmental a n d practical problems which may only transfer problems from t h e ocean to other disposal m e d i a , such a s land and air." A f e w communities cited in the 1 9 7 9 G A O study have m a d e progress toward meeting t h e phaseout date. These i n c l u d e several counties i n New Jersey. However, t h e Court recently ordered that New York's Westchester County continue dumping until April 1984 pending completion of a r e s o u r c e recovery A Federal C o u r t J u d g e ruled o n Apr. 1 4 , 1 9 8 1 (City o f -New York v. plant. E P A , 80-Cir-16771, t h a t EPA had misconstrued t h e purpose o f the phaseout mandate by including sludges that may n o t b e harmful. On Nov. 2 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e District C o u r t Judge (U.S. District C o u r t f o r t h e Southern D i s t r i c t of New The agreement York) approved a final agreement between New York and EPA. a l l o w s t h e December 1981 deadline f o r the phasing o u t of s e w a g e s l u d g e to remain i n effect, but o n l y for o c e a n dumping which may "unreasonably d e g r a d e the environment a t a particular o c e a n dumpsite." T h e c u r r e n t r e g u l a t i o n s on a revision t h a t "may n o t ocean d u m p i n g were r e m a n d e d to EPA f o r revision a conclusive pr.esumption of unreasonable degradation of t h e establish environment based solely upon a f i n d i n g that a permit a p p l i c a n t ' s ' s l u d g e violates t h e environmental impact criteria," according to t h e Court's ruling. While progress toward phasing o u t c o n t i n u e s , activities representing 50% o f -- CRS- 4 IB81088 UPDATE-05/07/84 a l l . m u n i c i p a 1 sewage sludges continued afte'r t h e December 1 9 8 1 phaseout date. But the l a r g e and unaddressed question i s t h e adequacy of facilities to handle f u t u r e sewage sludge growth. GAO recently found that sewage treatment plants had s e r i o u s operating problems. S o m e think that the answer to the sewage sludge i s s u e l i e s i n t h e development of sound, economical, and environmentally acceptable a l t e r n a t ~ v e s . Composting and incineration a r e t h e most v i a b l e ones. Many sludges h a v e value for sail enrichment, although capital- izvestnent a n C ~ r a n s p o r z a t ~ o ccscs n i n a ~ ec n ~ sa n expensive proposlzlon. ,nclneracion nas proven very e f f e c t ~ v ebut problems with air pollution and facllity s l t i n g a r e involved. Others a r g u e that perhaps ocean d u m p i n g of some sewage s l u d g e s i s better than more sxpenslve and sometimes envrronmentally degrading land disposal. Dredged Spoils -- -- Dredged s p o i l s comprise the g r e a t bulk almost 90% of ocean-disposed materials and pose certain unique problems i n relation to criteria Actual dredging operations a r e under development and disposal methodology. 1251, the jurisdiction of t h e Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. P.L. 9 2 - 5 0 0 , section 404). L i k e w i s e , disposal within the territorial limits i s covered by t h e F W P C A , while t h e Ocean Dumping Act covers t h e material when transported to the high seas for d u m p i n g purposes. E P A ' m u s t concur i n t h e C O E ' s c h o i c e of sites and materials for disposal. Disposal i s governed by a EPA/COE developed manual ( " E ~ o l o g i c a l ' ~ ~ a l ~ a t ofi ~ n Proposed D i s c h a r g e of D r e d g e Material Into Ocean Waters") and the material must be evaluated using EPA criteria contained in 4 0 CFR pts. 220-228. T h e evaluation of samples, bioassays, biaccumulation t e s t s , elutriate t e s t s , and i n i t i a l mixing a r e covered by this manual. Dredged spoils from highly urbanized areas o f t e n contain cadmium, m e r c u r y , and heavy metals from runoff and other nonpoint/untreated sources. Maintenance dredging i s not a n o p t i o n but a regular necessity for most ports i n the United States. It continues to be cheaper to ocean dispose most dredged s p o i l s than to f i l l near-shore areas or land sites. In heavily urban a r e a s it i s grossly cheaper to barge the wet s p o i l s to ocean sites. New York a l o n e dumps 1 0 million cubic yards per year and the viability of t h e New York/New J e r s e y ports ($40 billion i n trade per year) and hinterlands d e p e n d s on regular dredging. New York, however, i s n o w t h e center o f a controversy. D u e to the presence of P C B s i n t h e upper Hudson R i v e r , t h e spoil from New York harbor and berthing areas i s unusually high in P C B contaminants. A $20 million effort i s underway to clean u p 4 0 hot s p o t s in the upper r i v e r , but this will not totally s o l v e the lower river problem. In 1 9 8 0 , permits f o r crucial dredging were delayed because PCB-contaminated material did n o t meet ocean dumping criteria. I n a n eleventh hour d e c i s i o n , t h e C o r p s of E n g i n e e r s and t h e Environmental Protection Agency adopted a n "interim decision matrix" using marine worms for bioassays. While section 1 1 5 of t h e Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides t h e EPA and t h e Corps of Engineers t h e authority t o clean u p in-place t o x i c pollutants l i k e P C B s , n o f u n d i n g h a s million P C B r e m o v a l been granted f o r specific projects except for a $1.5 effort in t h e Waukegan, Illinois, Harbor. Looking to t h e f u t u r e , these persistent problems w i l l undoubtedly continue, a n d new o n e s may be o n t h e horizon if dredging plans of several potential Coal port$, including Baltimore, Hampton R o a d s , and t h e lower Mississippi, a r e undertaken. The environmental problems associated with the a c t s of both dredging a n d ocean dumping w i l l undoubtedly be critical to t h e final decisions o n these CRS- 5 projects. Land Disposal, Incineration, and Other Alternatives A key to the resolution of the ocean dumping problem rests with developing the alternatives of land disposal or incineration which have their own problems. Composting treated sewage sludge has not become a generally accepted alternative. It involves high capital costs, usually partially (FWPCA). Dewatering fnnaea cnrough che Feaerai Xater P o l l u t ~ o nC o n ~ r o lB c c of the sludge is necessary before land application. . Public resistance, resulting from growing public fear due to hazardous chemical waste sites, is fast becoming the major factor related to tnis alternative. The other major a l t e r n a t ~ v e , ~ n c i n e r a t i o n , requires less land but is also capitally intensive. The Tri-State Sanitary Commission, representing New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, adopted this as the most viable alternative. For dredged spoils, the alternatives are n e a r - s h m e , onshore, and sometimes diked disposal sit.es. Baltimore, now facing the need for a major a proposal facing dredging project, proposea a dike in Chesapeake Bay considerable public and environmental opposition. Los Angeles, after 1 6 years of planning, is only now beginning a $61 million dredging project, landfilling 191 acres with the fill. One of the major holdups for this project was the environmental concern over nearby wildlife. -- Other types of chemicals normally dumped have been significantly diminished due to recovery by industry. And a viable alternative for chemical dumping is ocean based incineration. EPA announced Apr. 2 3 , 1984, that it recommended delaying the issuance of permits for commercial permits for burning 79.7 million gallons of toxics in the Gulf of Mexico until EPA also recommended that regulations are promulgated in December 1984. research permits be granted now for 3.3 million gallons. Nuclear Disposal in the Ocean While nuclear ocean disposal was stopped in the 1960s, interest in the exact locations and well-being of the .nuclear cannisters continues. The Ocean Dumping Act prohibits only the dumping of high-level nuclear wastes, not low-level wastes, which have been prohibited by EPA regulations. Low-level wastes were disposed of in deepwater sites near the Pacific's farallon Islands and in the 2800 meter location off the Delaware Coast. During the 96th Congress, the House Committee on Science.and Technology heard testimony casting doubt on the condition of disposed cannisters, the exact location and volumes of previously disposed nuclear agents, and questioning the role of the Department of Defense.' No precise accounting of past activities has yet been assembled. European nations, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Great Britain regularly dump low-level wastes in the North Atlantic. With increased opposition to land-based nuclear disposal sites, some interest in U.S. investigation of nuclear ocean disposal has been suggested. Therefore, monitoring of cannisters already dumped and of the European experie-nce could be worthwhile if the current Administration ban on all nuclear disposal is to be upheld or reassessed. Two major Federal projects demonstrate that the oceans as a depository for nuclear waste is not a idea dead of utilizing the issue. The Navy CRS- 6 IB81088 UPDATE-05/07/84 recently announced i t s intention to begin preliminary studies o n t h e submarines f e a s i b i l i t y of scuttling approximately 100 decommissioned nuclear over t h e next three decades. T h e Department of Energy i s engaged i n a multi-million dollar study of the feasibility of deep seabed emplacement of high-level waste cannisters. Effects Research -- t h e Heart of the Issue :n aur ~ n o w i e a g e 3 5 cne Congress c1ear;y rec3gnlzea c n e d a c a sap ?x;sc;ng effects of ocean dumping activities. T o a great d e g r e e , that g a p still e x i s t s , leaving congressional pollcymakers without clearly lnterpretable d a t a upon Which to direct or assess current ocean dumping policy. P o s s i b l e effects of ocean disposal i n c l u d e the introduction of p a t h o g e n s , toxic heavy metals, a n d chlorinated organic chemicals into t h e marine environment where they mlgnt affect humans a n d marine life. The introduction physical alteration of the ocean environment of harmful substances and ~ h e can harm marine l i f e and f a u n a , jeopardizing commercial shellfish a n d fish. Other potential effects include purely physical changes in water columns, s e d i m e n t s , and the formation of Unsightly slicks and fouling of beaches. T h e dynamics of the marine environment and the g r e a t differences a m o n g d u m p s i t e s make a s s e s s m e n t of these possible effects difficult. S o m e tests have been developed, t o assist'administrative de-cisionmaking, to a s s e s s t h e immediate biological effects a s well a s a n y accumulated effects o n marine life. D i s p o s a l methodologies and site characteristics a r e a s important a s t h e relationship between substances and marine life. Mixing and d i s p e r s i o n , which c a n alter t h e toxicity of substances, vary from s i t e to site. Only a f e w s i t e s have been investigated to a n y degree to determine their acceptability for w a s t e disposal. P a r t of the f a i l u r e of research to a r r i v e a t useful d a t a i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to t h e Federal policy of phasing o u t or r e d u c i n g most ocean dumping. This phaseout policy has n o t encouraged funding for research. T h e danger of infective and toxic a g e n t s , contained i n sewage s l u d g e s and dredged spoils, h a s n o t been precisely gauged. Until these potentialities a r e more clearly addressed and outlined for C o n g r e s s , i t w i l l remain difficult to arri've a t a well-defined ocean dumping policy to protect human heahth and the marine environment. Issues f o r Congress Within t h e framework of the ocean dumping problems discussed h e r e , a r e several issues that might be of interest to the 9 8 t h Congress. appear to be seven policy a r e a s , and several major .questions addressing: (1) T h e prime i s s u e of deciding whether t o continue the "strictly l i m i t or prohibit" policy o r to reassess this policy i n l i g h t o f social, e c o n o m i c , a n d environmental problems associated with land a n d a i r disposal alternatives and with implementing Current policies. there There worth CRS- 7 IB81088 U P D A T E - O ~ / ~ ~ / (2) What will be the effect of the major reductions in NOAA's research and monitoring budget, and t h e elimination of t h e -Sea Grant P r o g r a m ? (3) D o e s Congress want to insist o n the phaseout policy, a l l o w w a i v e r s , or a d o p t a completely n e w approach t o s e w a g e sludge disposal? In relation to sewage s l u d g e , what i s the f u t u r e for t h e funding of f a C l i l = l l s :haL a r e v ~ e w e aa s cruclal to phaslng o u z = h e ocean d u m p i n g of sewage sludge? Will t h i s redirection a f f e c t ocean d u m p i n g , perhaps making ocean disposal even more inviting? (4) ( 5 ) Dredged spoils and what to d o with them i s another i s s u e - f o r Congress. With the a m o u n t s of spoils likely to i n c r e a s e , n e w disposal activity will be necessary. What i s the e f f e c t of ocean dumping regulation on proposed energy-related d r e d g i n g projects? (6) Alternatives have included land disposal and i n c i n e r a t i o n , both of which have experienced their own problems. Does moving ocean disposal to land and a i r really lessen environmental harm or merely complicate it? I s our waste disposal policy balanced o r biased in favor of marine protection a t the expense of other disposal media? (7) Where a r e the disposed nuclear materials and how a r e they faring? In l i g h t of t h e European experience i n dumping low-level nuclear w a s t e s , i s this a n option f o r t h e United States? A n d , a r e the o c e a n s a n a p p r o p r i a t e and environmentally sound alternative for disposal of high-level wastes? (8) F i n a l l y , where a r e w e i n respect to effects and f a t e research? D o e s Congress have reliable information t o m a k e d e f i n i t i v e ocean w a s t e disposal policy? LEGISLATION H.R. 1 5 4 7 (Scheuer) Reauthorizes the Title I1 research provisions of t h e Marine P r o t e c t i o n , Research and Sanctuaries Act a t a level of $ 1 2 million f o r F Y 8 4 , and FY85. T h e bill a l s o would require NOAA to define harmful q u a n t i t i e s , and t h e ability of marine waters to a s s u m e waste materials. EPA would b e required t o a s s e s s regional waste disposal plans a n d report t o C o n g r e s s o n s l u d g e disposal i n t h e New York area. Introduced Feb. 1 7 , 1 9 8 3 ; referred to t h e House Committees o n Merchant Marine a n d F i s h e r i e s , a n d Science and Technology. Reported from Committee o n Merchant Marine a n d F i s h e r i e s (H.Rept. 98-186) May 1 6 , 1983. H.R. 1 7 6 1 (D'Amours) Reauthorizes t h e Title I permit provisions of t h e Ocean D u m p i n g Act a t $4.2 million for F Y 8 3 , a n d FY84. Additionally; i t would change some technical d e f i n i t i o n s , require extensive site study before a n a r e a could be CRS- 8 IB81088 UPDATE-05/07/84 designated f o r ocean dumping, expand t h e concept of monitoring a n d provide a m o r e thorough program of site monitoring. Introduced Mar. 2, 1 9 8 3 ; referred to Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Reported (H.Rept. 98-200) May 1 6 , 1983. Passed House Oct. 3 1 , 1983. am am ours) H.R. 4 8 2 9 Reauthorizes Title I ($4.8 million f o r FY85) of t h e Marine P r o t e c t i o n , Research and Sanctuaries Act to establish permi: f e e s , site selection criteria and end dumping ac z n e New Jorx aignc Apex. introduced Zeo. 9, 1 9 8 4 ; referred to Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. S. 1 2 8 2 (Chaffee) Reauthorizes Title I and I 1 of t h e Marine Protection Research Sanctuaries Act. Introduced May 1 6 , 1 9 8 3 ; referred to C o m m i t t e e Environment and Public Works. Reported ( S - Z e p t . 98-88), May 1 6 , 1983. HEARINGS U.S. Congress. House. Committee o n P u b l i c Works and Transportation. Ocean dumping. Hearing, 97th C o n g r e s s , 2nd session, o n H.R. 6113. J u n e 1 6 , 1982. Wash., U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1982 2 4 4 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Environmental effects of sewage s l u d g e disposal. Hearing, 97th Congress, 1 s t session. May 2 7 , 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 109 p. REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic a n d Atmospheric Administration. Assimilative capacity .of U.S. coastal w a t e r s f o r pollutants. B o u l d e r , NOAA Environmental Research Laboratories. December 1979. 2 8 4 p. U.S. National Advisory Committee o n Oceans and Atmosphere. The r o l e of the ocean i n a waste management strategy. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. January 1981. 103 p. + Append. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 04/24/84 -- 03/07/84 -- 03/01/84 -- 12/07/83 -- EPA announced designation of 1 0 6 mile sludge d u m p s i t e , a n d closing of 1 2 mile site f o r sludge disposal. Subcommittees on F i s h e r i e s , Wildlife Conservation a n d Environment, and on Oceanography approved H.R. 4829. House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries held hearings on ocean dumping of municipal sewage sludge. House Committee on Merchant Marine a n d Fisheries held hearings o n incinerating toxic wastes a t sea. ane on CRS- 9 IB81088 UPDATE-05/07/84 07/21/83 -- H o u s e C o m m i t t e e o n P u b l i c Works h e l d h e a r i n g s o n Ocean Dumping Act,Arriendm.ents. 05/25/83 -- H o u s e ' c o m m i t t e e on Merchant Marine a n d F i s h e r i e s held. h e a r i n g s on ocean dumping of m u n i c i p a l sewage s l u d g e . 05/12/83 -- House Committee on.Merchant Marine and F i s h e r i e s c o n d u c t e d h e a r i n g s on H.R. 1 7 0 0 , T i t l e I reauthorization. 04/21/83 -- House Committee on Merchant Marine a n d F i s h e r i e s h e l d h e a r i n g s on H.R. 1 7 6 1 , t h e Ocean Dumping A c t Amendments. 03/21/83 -- H o l ~ s eC o m m i t t e e o n M e r c h a n t X a r i n e a n d P i s h e r i a s h e l d h e a r i n g s on H.R. 1 5 4 7 , T i t l e I1 r e a u t h o r i z a t i o n s , and o t h e r marine p o l l u t i o n S i l l s b e f o r e t h e Committee.