393 
ceptable adverse effect on marine environment, ecological systems, or economic po- 
tentialities, and, after a consideration of the criteria established pursuant to Sec. 
102(a)(3), the Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be, concludes that the 
dumping would not, on balance, be in the public interest.” 
Reliance upon the concept of “unreasonable degradation” is also necessary to 
avoid the overt bias against ocean dumping proposed in the Discussion Draft. This 
bias is evident in the prohibition against dumping if there is any alternative which 
offers an equal or lesser adverse impact (regardless of comparative considerations of 
“costs’”’), or if there is any alternative which is cost-effective and energy efficient 
(without any consideration of relative adverse impacts). This bias, in the case of 
dredged material, wholly ignores the data and experience developed over the past 
several years which indicate that the effects of ocean disposal upon the marine envi- 
ronment are not nearly as adverse as had originally been believed. This has prompt- 
ed a recent call for a “holistic” approach to waste menagment, under which ocean 
dumping would receive equal consideration with all other means of disposal as part 
of an overall waste management strategy. This was the recommendation of the Spe- 
cial Report to the President and the Congress presented by the National Advisory 
Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere [NACOA] (January 1981) °, entitled “The 
Role of the Ocean in a Waste Management Strategy”. It was also the conclusion 
reached in a recent study prepared by Dr. Robert M. Engler, United States Army 
Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory, 
Vicksburg, Mississippi, entitled “Impacts Associated with the Discharge of Dredged 
Material: Management Approaches”; and in the paper recently prepared by Dr. 
Willis E. Pequegnat, as special consultant to the International Association of Ports 
and Harbors (the IAPH), entitled “Special Care Methods in the Disposal of Polluted 
Dredged Material.” Dr. Pequegnat’s paper was presented by the IAPH to the Ad 
Hoc Scientific Group of the London Bumping Convention (the “Convention’’) (to 
which the United States is signatory) and has received favorable comment and ap- 
proval, on a test basis, by both the Scientific Group and the Contracting Parties at 
the Sixth Consultative Meeting held in London, England, during October 1981. 
On the basis of these recent data, the EPA has also announced its intention to 
commence additional rulemaking to revise and amend the current Sec. 102 criteria 
to reflect recent advances in knowledge concerning the effects of ocean dumping.7 
This developing experience with ocean dumping of dredged material, and the emerg- 
ing scientific consensus for equal consideration of dumping at sea, should be recog- 
nized—not ignored—in these reauthorization proceedings. 
B. THE CRITERIA APPLIED IN EVALUATING DREDGED MATERIAL PERMITS 
() The Evaluation Criteria of Section 102(aX3).—Under Sec. 102(a)(8) of the Dis- 
cussion Draft, the Administrator is required to establish and apply criteria for re- 
viewing and evaluating applications for permits under Sec. 102, including (but not 
limited to) his consideration of the factors specified in Sec. 102(a)(8)(A)-(I). Under 
Sec. 103(a), the Secretary is required to apply these criteria in evaluating dredged 
material permits. It is on the basis of these criteria that the Administrator, or the 
Secretary, as the case may be, is to determine whether “degradation” of the marine 
environment will occur from the proposed dumping. These criteria are also to be 
taken into account by the Administrator in his analysis of environmental effects in 
connection with designation of sites for ocean dumping. (Sec. 102(c)(1), pp. 9-10). 
In connection with the AAPA’s recommendation that amendments to the MPRSA 
continue to focus upon “unreasonable degradation” (based upon a balancing process 
utilizing the Sec. 102 criteria), the AAPA urges that the provisions of Sec. 102(a)(3) 
relating to the criteria be changed to require a consideration of all factors effecting 
the “public interest’’ as the basis for determining whether “unreasonable degrada- 
tion” will occur and for dumpsite designation. Such a change is necessary in the 
Discussion Draft because Sec. 102(a)(3) would rely solely upon “environmental” con- 
cerns in making these determinations.§ 
6 This Special Report was prepared and submitted in response to NACOA’s legislative man- 
date, Public Law 95-63, to undertake a continuing review, on a selective basis, of national ocean 
policy, coastal zone management, and the status of the marine and atmospheric science and 
service programs of the United States. 
ee Reporter [BNA], Current Developments, May 30, 1980 (p. 146) and January 23, 
p. ; 
® The Discussion Draft quite openly proposes to delete “the need for the proposed dumping” 
from the current provisions of Sec. 102(a)(A), as one of the factors to be considered in the crite- 
ria. 
11-267 O—82——26 
