745 
Answer. EPA requires the permittees dumping municipal sludge at the 12 mile 
site to report daily on their monitoring for impacts to the beaches of New York and 
New Jersey only during the summer months. This information has been submitted 
daily over the telephone. 
It is true that the written reports and laboratory data required of the permittees 
have, at times, been submitted late. We discussed this situation with the permittees, 
and determined that it could be corrected without the need for enforcement action. 
Permittee reports are currently all up to date. 
Question. Is an EIS required for all proposed ocean dumping sites? 
Answer. EPA regulations require the Agency to prepare EISs for site designations 
“where such a statement is required by EPA policy.” 40 C.F.R. § 228.6(b). EPA pub- 
lished a “Statement of Policy” on May 7, 1974, announcing its intention to prepare 
voluntary EISs on a number of activities, including the designation of ocean disposal 
sites under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). On Oc- 
tober 21, 1974, the Agency published a “Statement of Procedures” for implementa- 
tion of its voluntary EIS program. Both policy statements explicitly state that they 
do hor subject EPA to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA). 
Also, EPA has agreed to a “stipulation of settlement and dismissal” in National 
Wildlife Federation v. Train, Civ. No. 80-0405 (D.D.C. 1980), which provides that 
EISs must be prepared on a number of specific ocean sites for the disposal of 
dredged and nondredged material. 
Apart from the obligations it has voluntarily undertaken, EPA is not required by 
either the MPRSA or NEPA to prepare an EIS for the designation of ocean disposal 
sites. See Maryland v. Train, 415 F. Supp. 116 (D. Md. 1976). However, under 
MPRSA, EPA is required to consider a wide range of environmental factors and pro- 
vide for adequate public participation in the site designation process. 
Question. With regard to the past site designation process, who chose the site to 
be studied and who carried out the data collection activities—EPA, NOAA, or the 
applicant? 
Answer. EPA has generally selected the sites to be studied. Since primarily his- 
torical sites have been used to date, applicants have not generally played a large 
role in site selection, although recommendations and information from applicants 
have always been welcomed. 
Data needed were obtained by field surveys and by using available data from 
other federal agencies and potential permittees. For example, NOAA has provided 
data to EPA for site designation purposes on the New York Bight and the 12 mile 
site and the Corps has provided data on dredged material sites. 
Question. To what extent does NOAA get involved in the site designation process? 
Answer. NOAA’s involvement in the site designation process is fairly indirect. 
Where NOAA has conducted or is conducting relevant studies, data on sites under 
consideration are provided. 
Two notable exceptions to this “indirect involvement” are NOAA’s (a) current re- 
search and preparing reports for a proposed 65-mile sewage sludge site in the New 
York Bight, and (b) current studies associated with establishment of a dredged mate- 
rial site off Norfolk, Virginia. 
Question. In the future, does EPA plan to study and designate sewage sludge sites 
on its own or do you expect to look at new sites when you receive applications from 
the prospective dumpers? 
Answer. In the absence of a perceived existing or anticipated demand, EPA has 
no current plan to designate any ocean dump sites. However, there may be environ- 
mental advantages to designating sites for projected needs, to determine in advance 
the best sites for particular types of wastes and to provide adequate lead time for 
full scientific investigations. This is currently the case in the Agency’s review of 
sites suitable for ocean incineration. EPA will respond to anticipated need, and may 
not always wait until a formal application is received to initiate the site selection 
and designation process. 
Question. Do you think the existence of a Commission would encourage or discour- 
age research by your Agency? 
Answer. We believe that the establishment of a Commission would probably have 
the effect of discouraging research with respect to municipal sludge dumping. It 
would be difficult to fund such projects within the Agency if a separate organiza- 
tion, the Commission, were responsible for conducting and funding similiar research 
on its own. Moreover, Agency resources would probably be diverted to reviewing 
Commission research results, thereby further reducing the Agency’s own research 
activity. 
