In calendar year 1976, there were 32 active Sec- 
tion 103 disposal permits and the Corps of Engineers 
undertook 72 authorized projects.** The Corps’ 
dredging activities are exempted by MPRSA, al- 
though it is required by regulation to apply the same 
criteria to its projects as required for the Section 
102 permit applications. 
In 1975, 95 permits were issued, of which 42 were 
holdovers from 1974. There were no denials of per- 
mits by the Corps during fiscal years 1974 and 
1975.°° In calendar year 1976, 65.5 million cubic 
yards (93.8 million tons) of dredge material were 
dumped in marine waters. While this represents a 
decline over previous years, it probably does not in- 
dicate a long-term decreasing trend in the amount of 
annual dredged material being deposited in the 
oceans. In the last 4 years, the amount appears to 
remain fairly constant. The Gulf of Mexico (49 per- 
cent of 1976 material) is the most active region over- 
all; the Atlantic Region (33 percent) is the second 
most active. The New York Bight was the most 
active site nationwide. Over 90 percent of 1976 
material was dumped off the coasts of 10 States 
(Washington, Oregon, California, Texas, Louisiana, 
Florida, Georgia, S. Carolina, N. Carolina, New Jer- 
sey) and over 55 percent of the material was depos- 
ited beyond the 3-mile territorial sea.*? (For a dis- 
cussion of dredge and fill regulations under Section 
404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
Amendments, see Chapter IV.) 
Sewage Sludge and Ocean Outfalls 
Sewage sludge disposal presents a different pic- 
ture. It is now limited to the Atlantic region, where 
the amount disposed is increasing slightly. The in- 
crease is due to a rise in population as well as the 
requirement for secondary sewage treatment, which 
yields more sludge. The Atlantic area has failed to 
develop alternatives to ocean disposal and shows a 
historical usage of this method of disposal due to 
lack of availability of onshore dumpsites and cost 
factors. The New York/New Jersey metropolitan 
region, Philadelphia, and Camden are using three 
active sites. One is in the New York Bight apex (7.2 
million cubic yards in 1974 #1), one is 90 miles east 
of Cape May, and one is about 50 miles southeast of 
the mouth of the Delaware Bay.*? Philadelphia’s 
third interim permit, issued in February 1975, con- 
tains a mandatory phase-out to eliminate this ocean 
dumping by January 1, 1981. New York City’s 
dumping is to end December 31, 1981. Camden, 
N. J., was operating under an emergency permit is- 
** U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1976 Report to Congress on 
Administration of Ocean Dumping Activities. Washington, D.C., 
Government Printing Office, 1977, p. 66. 
* U.S. Congress, op. cit. note 32, p. 89. 
“U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, op. cit. note 38. 
sued after a buildup of sewage sludge in tanks was 
declared a public health hazard. This permit expired 
at the end of 1977.*% 
Waters of the New York Bight region, already 
under heavy daily pressure from municipal and in- 
dustrial wastes as well as massive ocean dumping 
operations, have significantly declined in quality over 
the years. In addition to permitted sludge, New York 
City discharges some 500 million gallons of raw 
sewage every day through Gateway Park, and about 
35 percent of sewage solids for the year are flushed 
out during rain and do not receive treatment.*# 
Industrial Wastes 
Nine ocean sites are designated for industrial 
waste disposal. These sites receive industrial chem- 
icals, which include such things as hydrochloric acid 
byproducts; inert ore slurry from titanium dioxide 
pigments; residues from galvanizing and plating op- 
erations; liquid wastes from textile manufacturing, 
etching and photographic processes; water solutions 
of inorganic salts; and other byproducts from various 
manufacturing processes.*® 
EPA’s annual report does not normally list actual 
constituents of the wastes, thus making it difficult to 
assess potential effects. Industrial dumping occurs 
primarily off the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts 
—a reflection of population and industrial concen- 
tration. In 1976, 2.7 million tons were dumped, with 
by far the largest amount going into the Atlantic. 
The amount of industrial waste dumped decreased 
by about 1 million tons from 1975 to 1976, because 
five of the seven original permittees found alternative 
methods of disposal.*® 
Since the Ocean Dumping Act was enacted, EPA 
has authorized dumping through interim permits 
where no feasible alternative existed. Most of EPA’s 
assessments have dealt with the avail. bility of alter- 
native disposal methods rather than the potential 
adverse effects of all alternatives. One criticism has 
been that the agency has forced adoption of alter- 
natives to ocean dumping without weighing the ef- 
fects. The other side of the issue is the criticism 
that issuing interim ocean dumping permits allows 
discharge of wastes that may be harmful and that 
may contain higher levels of toxic materials than 
would normally be permitted.‘ 
“U.S. Congress, op. cit. note 32. 
# U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, op. cit. note 38. 
* U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries. NACOA—Sea Grant—Ocean Dumping. Hearing be- 
fore Subcommittees of the House Committee on Merchant Ma- 
tine and Fisheries, 94th Cong., Ist sess. Washington, D.C., Gov- 
ernment Printing Office, 1977, p. 587. 
“U.S. Congress, op. cit. note 32. 
* U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. Report to the Con- 
gress on Ocean Dumping Research January through December 
1975. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1976, p. 33. 
* U.S. Congress, op. cit. note 32, p. 49-52. 
* Tbid. 
VI-13 
