OCEAN DUMPING: A TIME T O REAPPRAISE?
ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB81088
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
r e v a m p i n g policy
i n l i g h t of phase-out
and land disposal
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.
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.
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
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
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 .
Pollution Control Act
1 2 5 1 et
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.
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
p r o g r a m , the transportation of most materials for ocean
disposal w a s
Certain specific macerials, including mosc nuclear
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
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
T i t l e , giving t h e National Oceanic a n d Atmospheric Administration
authority.over effects-research and monitoring the pollutants.
Research o n
alternatives to ocean dumping rested first with
NOAA b u t was
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
bioaccumulation tests of specific marine organisms.
T h e major
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.
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
that i s , did not meet EPA criteria.
In P.L. 9 5 - 1 5 3 , Congress
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.
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
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
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
degrees of c o n t a m i n a n ~ s . Sludges vary
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
i n a ~ ec n ~ sa n expensive
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
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
Dredged s p o i l s comprise the g r e a t bulk
materials and pose certain unique problems i n relation
Actual dredging operations a r e under
development and disposal methodology.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
It involves high
capital costs, usually
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
The Tri-State Sanitary Commission, representing New York, New
Jersey, and Connecticut, adopted this as the most viable alternative.
spoils, the alternatives are n e a r - s h m e , onshore,
sometimes diked disposal sit.es. Baltimore, now facing the need for a major
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
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
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.
Ocean Dumping Act prohibits only the dumping of high-level
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
increased opposition to land-based nuclear disposal sites, some interest in
U.S. investigation of nuclear ocean disposal has been suggested.
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
of utilizing the
i t s intention to begin
studies o n t h e
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.
t h e Heart of the Issue
:n aur ~ n o w i e a g e 3 5
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.
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
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
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.
f e w s i t e s have been investigated to a n y degree to
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.
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
(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
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
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?
( 5 ) Dredged spoils and what to d o with them i s another i s s u e - f o r
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
(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.
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
(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?
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
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.
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
for F Y 8 3 , a n d FY84.
i t would
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
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
1 9 8 4 ; referred to Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
S. 1 2 8 2 (Chaffee)
I 1 of t h e Marine Protection Research
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.
Committee o n P u b l i c Works and Transportation.
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.
2 4 4 p.
Committee on Science and Technology.
Environmental effects of sewage s l u d g e disposal.
97th Congress, 1 s t session.
May 2 7 , 1981. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 109 p.
REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS
Department of Commerce.
National Oceanic a n d Atmospheric
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
2 8 4 p.
National Advisory Committee o n Oceans and Atmosphere.
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
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.
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.
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 .
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
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
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.