397 
“Subject to the provisions of Sec. 103(d), ‘trace amounts’ when used in the context 
of this section means the presence of constituents in the material to be dumped in 
quantities and concentrations that will not be rapidly rendered harmelss upon dis- 
posal and that, notwithstanding the use of ‘special care’ measures in dumping or 
site designation, will cause ‘unreasonable degradation’ of the marine environment’ 
C. Final Site Designation and Permit Conditions.—Sec. 102(c)(1), pp. 9-10, of the 
Discussion Draft provides for the Administrator’s designation of sites for ocean 
dumping. Sec. 103(b)(3), p. 12, further provides that a dredged material permit may 
be granted only at a site designated by the Administrator under Sec. 102(c)(1). 
Under Sec. &(c), pp. 12-18, this final designation requirement also applies to present 
dumpsites that have only interim designation. 
Under Sec. 102(c)(1), no site designation may be made until the Administrator 
“gndertakes and completes’ an analysis of the environmental effects which will 
likely result from the dumping. Sec. 102(c)(3) further requires the Administrator to 
“continuously monitor” the effects of dumping at designated sites, a burden which 
Sec. 104(b)(3), p. 14, proposes to impose upon the permit applicant in the form of a 
“special fee” to carry out these activities. 
The AAPA submits that these site designation requirements are unreasonable 
and should be changed for a number of reasons. 
First, to prohibit ocean dumping until final site designation, with no provision for 
interim use of a site prior to completion of site studies, may work an unintended 
hardship upon affected ports in the event that the Administrator is not able to com- 
plete final site designation in time for needed port dredging activities to be carrried 
out. This concern, the AAPA submits, is a very real one, since these site designation 
requirements are proposed at a time of massive budget and manpower restrictions 
on the part of the various Federal agencies involved. Coupled with these restraints 
is the likelihood of a significant increase in dredging activity, especially in connec- 
tion with the many proposals for the deepening of major channels to 55 feet to acco- 
modate increased coal shipments in the future. The cumulative effect of these fac- 
tors is to make the proposed site designation requirements wholly unrealistic. 
The requirement for “completion” of analysis of environmental impacts at the 
site may also raise an issue as to when a site study is “complete”. Some may insist 
that site studies are never “complete”. This could result in interminable delays in 
site desigantions, to the detriment and hardship of affected ports. This concern 
might be remedied by providing that “completeness” shall be determined by the Ad- 
ministrator; or by establishing fixed deadlines for the completion of site designa- 
tions, with provision for interim use of a site by affected ports if the Administrator 
is not able to complete the site designations in a timely manner. 
The imposition of “continuous monitoring’ costs in the form of a “special fee” 
will also seriously impact ports. Because of the “public” nature of most ports, and 
the funding limitations inherent in their status as “‘public bodies”, the unqualified 
imposition of such additional costs would be unreasonable and, in many cases, 
might well prevent the orderly conduct of needed port operations. The proposal for 
such additional costs is also particularly ill-timed, when the current Administration 
is seeking to impose “cost sharing’”’ upon ports for new construction and operation 
and maintenance dredging activities. Ports can not afford the imposition of still fur- 
ther charges for environmental fees and monitoring. Again, if experience is to be a 
teacher, the lesson to be learned is that requirements for environmental studies 
very frequently are urged and argued to the point of requiring virtual “blank 
checks” for compliance—a requirement with which AAPA member ports simply 
cannot live. 
If a continuous monitoring requirement is to be imposed upon ports as a “special 
fee’, provision should be made that the amount and appropriateness of such a fee 
shall be determined in each case by the Administrator, after a consideration of all 
relevant factors relating to the effect of such fee upon the affected port and its oper- 
ations. 
Sec. 104(c)(2) of the Discussion Draft, p. 15, would require, as a condition to an 
interim permit (i.e., a permit for dumping which will cause “degradation” of the 
marine environment but for which there is not “prudent and feasible alternative’), 
that to the maximum extent practicable the permittee ensure that reasonable and 
accustomed used of the marine environment will continue and that the site will be 
able to restore itself to its environmental, ecological, esthetic [sic] and economic pos- 
ture in effect before the dumping commences. The AAPA has previously urged that 
such provisions be deleted from the concept of “degradation” under the MPRSA. 
(See Part A, supra). Such requirements would impose significantly greater costs 
upon affected ports for purposes which go beyond protection of the marine environ- 
ment from “unreasonable degradation” and seek to enforce a policy of ‘‘no degrada- 
