147 
criteria would be met, thus avoiding the need for a waiver. Also, the Corps practice 
has been to make full disclosure to an applicant at the outset regarding the waiver 
procedure so that an applicant is fully aware of what would be involved in request- 
ing a waiver. 
The waiver provision was considered in the case of dredging the entrance channel 
at Calcasieu, LA when ocean disposal was the only economically feasible alterna- 
tive. The EPA Region rejected ocean disposal based solely on the fact that labora- 
tory tests indicated the potential for bioaccumulation. However, the tests were 
found to be faulty. The material was tested again and found to be acceptable for 
ocean disposal. Accordingly, the waiver provision was not actually required. 
The waiver provision was a potential consideration in the case of dredging in New 
York Harbor when the material was found to contain PCB concentrations. A contro- 
versy developed with EPA over the interpretation of test results, but the matter was 
favorably resolved, avoiding the need to pursue a waiver. 
Question. How many have been denied because of the adverse impacts? 
Answer. No permits have been denied because of adverse impacts. A number, 
mostly from the New York Harbor, have become quite controversial as stated above. 
Permits for the ocean disposal of dredged material are quite hard to get due to 
the exacting alternatives analysis and stringent and costly testing requirements im- 
posed for decision making. In some instances, the difficulties encountered cause pri- 
vate applicants to withdraw or simply stop pursuing a permit before any decision is 
made. This may have nothing to do with whether or not there are any anticipated 
adverse impacts—the applicant simply gets worn down and gives up. 
Question. Do you have any operational concerns with the sections of the proposed 
amendments that pertain to site designation procedures, prudent and feasible alter- 
natives and the definition of degradation? 
Answer. Yes. The terms “degradation” and “prudent and feasible alternatives,” 
as defined and used in the proposed amendments, would increase the restrictive reg- 
ulation of the ocean environment at the expense of other dredged material disposal 
media, including estuaries and wetlands. The expanded environmental factors of the 
proposed amendments, which must be considered for all wastes proposed for ocean 
dumping, would result in prohibiting the ocean disposal of most, if not all, dredged 
material. Research has shown that most ocean dredged material disposal results in 
a localized and predominantly physical perturbation to the marine environment. 
While research has shown that this perturbation is only temporary, it would be pro- 
hibited under a strict interpretation of “degradation” as defined. Since the econom- 
ics of ocean disposal are not a primary consideration in the determination of “pru- 
dent and feasible alternatives” within the proposed amendments, either a signifi- 
cantly greater use of the dredged material waiver would be required for ocean dis- 
posal, based solely on national interest considerations, or a significantly increased 
need for land-based alternatives would result. In many coastal areas, these disposal 
ahernaliyes are not available for the large quantities of sediments that must be 
redged. 
Available scientific data clearly demonstrate that, for many dredged materials, 
land disposal in many cases represents the mest environmental damaging disposal 
alternative. These data strongly suggests that, to insure equal consideration of, and 
equal environmental protection to all disposal media for dredged material, ocean 
disposal regulations should require that no “unreasonable degradation”’ is permitted 
outside the boundaries of established ocean disposal sites. Further, economic factors, 
as well as other public interest factors, should be given equal consideration to envi- 
ronmental factors in the overall assessment of dredged material disposal impacts 
and in the evaluation of “prudent and feasible alternatives.” 
Available research also indicates that, in evaluating “prudent and feasible alter- 
natives” for disposal of contaminated materials, land-based alternatives may, in 
many cases, offer little, if any, improved protection to human health as compared to 
aquatic disposal options. Land-based alternatives have often been found to drastical- 
ly change the geochemistry of dredged sediments, with a subsequent enhanced re- 
lease potential of chemical constituents. The Corps is conducting research on inno- 
vative aquatic disposal alternatives such as capping to assess the utility of these 
measures in isolating contaminated sediments from the aquatic environment, and, 
in turn, to “rapidly render harmless” the contaminants associated with these sedi- 
ments. The international scientific community has strongly encouraged the pursuit 
of and experimentation of such innovative aquatic disposal options for contaminated 
dredged material. Representatives to the LDC feel that the pursuit of these and 
other innovative aquatic disposal options is within the legal restrictions of the LDC. 
Therefore, strong consideration should be given to providing sufficient flexibility in 
amendments to the MPRSA to insure the continued experimental evaluation of 
