10 



The Corps of Engineers estimates that about 34 per cent (13 million tons) 

 of this material is polluted. Disposal of this material at sea can be a serious 

 source of ocean pollution. Dumping of unpolluted material can also be harmful 

 particularly if it occurs in biologically active areas such as shellfish beds. 



Present regulatory control over dredge spoil disposal is vested in the Corps, 

 both as a consequence of its authority to regulate dredging and dumping in navi- 

 gable waters, and as a result of its self-regulation of the dredge spoil produced 

 by its own activity. 



Granting EPA a permit authority over the dumping of dredge spoil, even 

 where it is generated by the Corps' own activities, would allow EPA to phase 

 out the ocean disposal of polluted dredge spoils and to base selection of disposal 

 sites for unpolluted material primarily on environmental factors, with a result- 

 ing considerable gain in alleviating marine environmental degradation. 



The policy on dumping dredge spoil which the legislative proposal is designed 

 to implement may result in carrying out fewer and smaller dredging operations. 

 Most polluted dredge spoil may be appropriate for disposition at land sites, and 

 development and use of these sites would involve greater costs than ocean or 

 other marine dumping sites. Greater disposal costs may be incurred for even 

 unpolluted dredge spoil. Appropriate dumping sites may not exist in close prox- 

 imity to the dredging area and considerable costs may be incurred in transporting 

 the spoil to suitable areas. 



Reducing the amount of dredging miay be of some benefit to the environment, 

 for dredging normally involves increasing the turbidity of the relevant waters 

 and suspending some of the pollutants which are present in material being 

 dredged. This would also have a beneficial effect in reducing dredge spoil that 

 might be dumped on coastal marsh areas which are often unique and productive 

 of waterfowl and other shore birds and often serve as the nutrient base for food 

 chains of valuable estuarine living marine resources. 



The proposal would allow implementation of the Council's recommendations 

 to bar as soon as possible the dumping of industrial wastes, especially those 

 which are toxic, and undigested sewage sludge. Dumping of digested or other 

 stabilized sludge would be phased out as environmentally-sound land-based 

 alternatives were developed. 



Other land-oriented materials which under the proposal and new anti-dumping 

 policy could not be dumped at sea or in similar waters include high-level radio- 

 active wastes and chemical warfare agents. Dumping of other materials, such 

 as explosive munitions, would be phased out. 



(2) Adverse environmental effects which cannot T)e avoided, should the Mil te 

 enacted 



(a) Each decision not to permit the dumping of material in the ocean or simi- 

 lar waters would to some degree enhance the quality of those waters. Yet, the 

 waste disposal problem would only shift to another part of the environment if 

 long-term alternatives cannot be developed to increase recycling of waters, to 

 conserve resources, and to manage solid wastes effectively from an economic and 

 environmental standpoint. 



Nevertheless, the bill seeks to vest the permit authority with the Administra- 

 tor of EPA, who, because of his responsibility in the areas of air and water 

 pollution control, radiation standard-setting, and solid-waste management re- 

 search, is probably better qualified than any other Federal government official 

 to choose between competing disposal modes. 



(6) Arguably, the assumption of an active regulatory role by the Federal 

 government would lead States and local governments to abandon their current 

 efforts to control dumping. However, State and local regulatory efforts of a 

 comprehensive nature have only begun to be develojped, and the bill would ex- 

 plicitly save these nascent efforts from preemption. 



In California, for example, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Quality Control 

 Board has passed stringent anti-dumping rules which were effective January 1, 

 1971. These efforts, and those of a similar nature, could be revised to reflect the 

 newly strengthened Federal authority. 



(c) The bill would repeal or restrict the scope of several existing Federal 

 statutes and add requirements to others. These actions are not expected to have 

 adverse environmental effects. 



In its subsections 11(a) and 11(b), the bill would repeal the Supervisory 

 Harbors Act of 188S, as amended (33 U.S.C. §441^51b), and the provision of 

 the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 418) which preserves the Super- 



