Download US Policy on Ocean Dumping The Honorable

U.S. Policy on Ocean Dumping
The Honorable Constance A. Morella
Member of Congress, U.S.A.
and other
1. In the United States, ocean dumping of sewage sludge
materials has gone on since the 1920s.
regulate
2. It was not until 1972 that the United States began to
the dumping of these materials. In the Marine Protection,
Ocean
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, commonly called the
of the
Dumping Act, the Congress declared that it is the policy
rials
United States to regulate the dumping of all types of mate
into ocean waters.
The Ocean Dumping Act implements the United States'
conform
responsibilities under the London Dumping Convention. To
3.
mful
to the LDC, the Act prohibited the dumping of certain har
al
substances, including radiological, chemical, and biologic
r
warfare agents and high-level radioactive wastes. All othe
was
materials could be dumped in the ocean provided a permit
(or, in
obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
of
the case of dredged materials, from the U.S. Army Corps
Engineers).
To dump low-level radioactive wastes requires an EPA
permit plus Congressional consent.
4.
In the United States, the most controversial aspect of ocean
dumping has been the question of sewage sludge dumping.
In a
series of amendments to the Ocean Dumping Act in 1977, Congress
imposed a statutory deadline of December 31, 1981, on the dumping
of sewage sludge.
However, "sewage sludge" was defined to mean
sludge which "unreasonably degraded the marine environment."
5.
As a result of the 1977 amendments, over 150 U.S.
municipalities, including the City of Philadelphia, shifted to
land disposal of sludge.
But, New York City, a major user of the
ocean for sewage sludge disposal, and eight other New York and
New Jersey municipalities, argued that they should be able to
continue to dump sludge in the ocean because it did not
"unreasonably degrade the marine environment."
[[
6. New York City and the other dumpers were successful in
persuading a federal judge that their interpretation of the 1977
amendments was the correct one, and they continued to dump their
sewage sludge in the ocean under court order until the U.S.
Congress once again in 1988 amendments to the Ocean Dumping Act
ended the practice once and for all.
In the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988, which amended the 1972
on
Ocean Dumping Act, Congress established a direct prohibition
the dumping of all sewage sludge and industrial waste in the
7.
ocean by U.S. citizens and municipalities as of December 31,
1991. The prohibition was imposed regardless of the harmful
effects of the sludge on the marine environment.
8. By the time of the passage of the 1988 Act, in response to
n for
public pressure, the two U.S. companies still using the ocea
e
disposal of industrial wastes had voluntarily agreed to ceas
dumping their waste in the ocean.
other
9. Under the Ocean Dumping Ban Act, New York City and eight
New York and New Jersey municipalities, which continue to dump
a
nearly 9 million wet tons of sludge each year in the ocean at
site at the edge of the U.S. continental shelf, known as the
ts
106-Mile Site, were forced to enter into enforcement agreemen
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under which they
agreed to phase out ocean dumping of sewage sludge by the 1991
a
deadline. Stiff civil penalties were imposed, of up to $600
dry ton, for failure to meet the deadline.
All remaining U.S. municipal dumpers have now entered into
s
enforcement agreements with EPA, and have begun to develop plan
to end the ocean dumping of sewage sludge. The New Jersey
10.
communities are looking to incineration of their sludge as the
preferred alternative to ocean dumping.
New York City, which
dumps nearly 5.8 million wet tons of sludge a year at the
106-Mile Site, has agreed to phase out ocean dumping of 20% of
its sludge by the 1991 deadline, with the remainder out by June
30, 1992 (subject to the payment of civil penalties).
The City
is studying all possible options for long-term management of its
sludge, and design of eight dewatering facilities, a first step
to land disposal of its sludge, is underway.
11. The U.S. Congress was forced to take the approach it did in
the Ocean Dumping Ban Act by a combination of constituent
pressure and a sense of Member frustration that the remaining
U.S. dumpers were not making any good faith efforts to end this
practice.
The constitutent pressure, from fishermen,
environmental groups, and concerned citizens, developed as a
result of several, serious coastal pollution incidents in the
summers of 1987 and 1988.
Those summers witnessed a spate of
Atlantic beach closures, medical waste wash-ups, and an unusually
large number of dolphins dying and washing ashore on the Atlantic
seaboard.
Although there may have not been .a close, scientific
correlation between these pollution events and the ocean dumping
of sewage sludge
if one existed at all
, in the public's
mind, the incidents were connected, placing pressure on the
Congress to act.
The Ocean Dumping Ban Act was passed in response to this
rtainty
pressure, notwithstanding a high degree of scientific unce
marine
about the actual effects of sewage sludge dumping on the
12.
Fishermen were convinced that sewage sludge dumping
at the 106-Mile Site was contributing to shell disease in
lobsters and the decline of fish generally. Scientists
environment.
opinions
representing environmental organizations presented their
and
of the potential harmful effects of dumping on marine life
from
the ecosystem at the 106-Mile Site. But, most scientists
their
U.S. government agencies and private institutions stated
ing
opinion that dumping in the ocean was less harmful than putt
ress
the sludge on land. In the face of this uncertainty, Cong
Perhaps
acted with caution and passed the Ocean Dumping Ban Act.
ed
unwittingly, Congress was acting on what has come to be call
ntial
the Precautionary Principle: when in doubt about the pote
to ban
harmful effects of dumping, the cautious approach may be
the dumping outright.
h
Although U.S. communities appear to be making a good fait
ther
effort to get out of the ocean, it remains to be seen whe
To do so, requires siting
they can all meet the 1993 <1ftaH1i nft
13.
of dewatering and other land-based facilities, such as
these
incinerators, in coastal communities. Some residents of
rome
communities already appear to be acting on the "NIMBY" synd
Not In My Backward
in response to the proposed siting of
these facilities.
Concerns also have been raised by
environmental groups to the air quality effects of emissions from
incinerators.
14.
For now, the United States has placed the ocean off limits
for the dumping of sewage sludge.
Hopefully, we will be able to
develop innovative and environmentally sound ways to dispose of
sewage sludge other than by dumping it in the ocean, where the
effects on marine life could haunt us in the future.
One
solution certainly is to have better "pretreatment" of industrial
and other wastes that go into sewage treatment plants so the end
product, the sludge, can be safely and productively used (e.g.,
as landfill, land cover) or recycled (e.g., bricks, paving
materials).
15.
Our attention is now turning to the more complicated
questions of what to do about (a) contaminated sediments in
materials dredged from our ports and harbors, (b) substances
directly discharged into U.S. coastal waters and estuaries from
pipelines, and (c) nonpoint sources of pollution, such as urban
and agricultural runoff.
The latter two are examples of
land-based sources of pollution.
logy
According to a report from our Office of Techno
of dredged
Assessment, an average of 180 million wet tons
about 2/3 in
material is disposed in the marine environment:
16.
open ocean. The
estuaries, 1/6 in coastal waters, and 1/6 in the
by the Ocean
ocean dumping of dredged materials was not banned
Dumping Ban Act of 1988.
ce of
There is growing public concern about the presen
from ports and
contaminated sediments in the materials dredged
als and organic
harbors. The sediments are contaminated by met
17.
discharges and
chemicals that settle as a result of industrial
examine the issue
runoff of pollutants. Congress is beginning to
onal controls on
of contaminated sediments to determine if additi
their ocean disposal is necessary.
pollution are
18. In the United States, land-based sources of
under the Clean
regulated, not under the Ocean Dumping Act, but
l of "zero
Water Act. The Clean Water Act sets a policy goa
have imposed
discharges," but this is yet to be attained. We
from pipelines
rigorous limits on discharges of toxic materials
t beginning to
into waters of the United States, but we are- jus
nt sources of
address the more complicated question of nonpoi
off).
pollution (e.g, from urban and agricultural run
19.
This year, Congress is examining the question of imposing
additional controls on nonpoint sources of pollution.
Coastal
protection legislation (H.R. 2647, Studds et al.) has been
reported by one House Committee, and has been the subject of
hearings in another House Committee. Senator Mitchell from Maine,
also the Senate Majority Leader, is the sponsor in the Senate of
a major piece of coastal protection legislation, which will
require the states to impose additional controls on nonpoint
sources of pollution and also impose more stringent controls on
the disposal of contaminated sediments.
I am hopeful that we
will pass this legislation this Congress.
20.
In conclusion, the United States Congress is paying
particular attention to the environmental quality of our oceans
and nearshore waters.
As a representative of the State of
Maryland, which shares with Virginia the beautiful estuary of the
Chesapeake Bay, as well as shorefront along the Atlantic Coast, I
am particularly mindful of the importance of a healthy marine
environment, not only for beachgoers to enjoy, but also because
of the necessity of providing a safe environment for marine life,
including our lovely Chesapeake Bay crabs.