Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.