. 4 I N {.2 
LC W. I75/“XV!

' P 01:: «op
F OLIN’

 

0
40 ‘J “‘ *3’ *?f'.<t*»-“: 
  3,: ;:n.__.-..,:- .3

7‘.
1:.
2 f  . ~ L '.*

 

T  

»   IIIIIIIW I w°uiuiiifl@@[m‘iflfliiimiT:»::mi

‘ o1o-103
SERVICE %   ‘

LIBRARY OF
CONGRESS , ‘ %

    

SLUDGE: DISPOSAL AND USE

ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB77067

AUTHOR:
Relscn, Mark B. Anthony

Environmentax and fiatural Resources Policy Divxsion

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

HAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM

DATE ORIGIHATED Qggggggz
DATE UPDATED Qjzggggg

FOR ADDITIONAL IHFOBMATIOH CALL 287-5700

0103

cns- 1 1377057 UPDATE-01/02/30

3§§§_2§££!£$£Q§

uunicipal sewage sludge is a broad term for the solids removed from
aastewater as it goes through a municipal treatment plant. The amount of
sludge to be disposed of has increased enormously in) recent years as the
federal Water Pollution Control Act has been implemented. contemporaneously,
other pollution control laws have limited traditional means of sludge
disposal, bringing some cities to a crisis situation. While sludge has
several land improvement characteristics and can also be a source of energy,
analyses have revealed the presence of toxic materials and pathogens,
sometimes at high levels. Is legislation therefore needed to deal with this
new environmental problem?

Q5QééfiQQ§Q_é§2.29L£Ql-A§éLl§£§

Sludge is the mud-line residue consisting of the solids removed from the
Hasteuater of various municipal, industrial, and mining operations, and from
air and water pollution control. This paper discusses municipal sewage
sludge, the solid matter that settles to the bottom, floats, or becomes
suspended in the sedimentation tanks of municipal uastewater treatment
plants. This sludge must be disposed of by filtration and incineration, or
by transport to appropriate disposal sites.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that sludge currently
*2 being disposed of in the following ways:

QEEQQQ a &.$Q$éL_§Q§£§££éL-§LQ2§§

Ocean Disposal 15

incineration 33

Landfill 25

Land Application y 25
(croplands) (20)
(others)   ( 5)

Capital and operation and maintenance (053) costs for sludge management
vary widely and are dependent «on numerous factors including energy,
transportation, land, and manpower costs, as well as monitoring costs and the
requirements or Federal, State, and local regulations. from 30 to 50% of the
total capital costs of a treatment plant are for sludge management.  EPA
estimates that current sludge practices cost $900 million per year, of which
Ooh cost $400 million.

To a great extent the Federal Water Pollution Control Act QFWPCA) is the
cause of the sludge disposal difficulty since it directed and financially
assisted municipalities across the nation to. clean up the waters. Their
s tcess in doing so has resulted in enormous quantities of sludge: over 5
million dry tons per year, projected to reach 16 million tons by 1990.
Sludge is rarely dry, though, and another current estimate is that about) 300
million net tons per year are generated.

c3s- "2 IB77067 UPDATE-O1/O2/8,0

The regulation of sludge disposal has been perceived by many as a major
legislative gap in the Nation's pollution control scheme. This gap is to
some extent filled by the provisions of P.L. 94-560, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which defines sludge as a solid waste
and hence, to the extent sludge contains toxic contaminants, it may be
controlled under the hazardous waste management subtitle of that Act.
Regulations are due April 1978. However, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act imposes many other duties on EPh‘s Office of Solid wastes, and
the whole program has been funded at a relatively low level. Consequently, a
number of bills have been introduced in the current Congress to deal with

«various aspects of the sludge disposal problem.

QE§.=.§1.1-1.’l-§E9§.§J.-

About"15t of municipal sludge is disposed through ocean dumping, by barge

‘for several cities in the Northeast, and through underwater outfall pipes on 

the west Coast. Under the harine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(Ocean Dumping Act), all barged dumping is prohibited except that authorized
by permit from EPA or the 0.3. Army Corps of Engineers. And, subject to
regulations issued by EPA on Jan. 11, 1977, all ocean dumping of municipal
sewage sludge is to be phased out by Dec. 31, 1981. P.L. 95-153, which
authorized FY78 appropriations for the Ocean Dumping Act, made this 1981
deadline mandatory for phasing out the ocean dumping of sludge that may
unreasonably degrade or endanger health or the environment.. -

The major sludge disposal area off the Atlantic coast is in the New York
Bight where over 70% or the total amount of sewage sludge that is ocean
dumped is disposed. In addition to the dumped material, however, there me‘
be an equal amount of sludge entering the bight from other sources. New Yoil
City discharges some 500 million gallons of raw sewage each day‘ through

ysateway Park, and an estimated 35% of the sewage solids for the whole year

are flushed out during a rain and do not get to the treatment plant.

Over the past few years, two major areas of concern have arisen regarding
the dumping of sewage sludge in the flew Iork Bight. one is the possibility
that sludge is seriously degrading the marine environment.

.Various symptoms suggest that the bight's ecosystem is not healthy. One
commentator has gone so far as to say that the dumping has created “a ‘dead
sea‘ over a 20 square-mile area of seabed in ywhich oxygen saturation had
dropped virtually to nothing, pollution-tolerant nematode worms had been
Killed off, crabs and lobsters were diseased, and fish were dying of fin
rot.“ Surveys by the national Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NCAA)
indicate that there are problems, but do not prove that dumping itself is the

primary cause. The large amounts of contaminants entering the Dight~ from

sources other than dumping make analyses difficult.

In the summer of 197b a massive fish kill was observed on the middle
Atlantic Shelf, south or Long Island and east of New Jersey. Scientists
attributed the phenomenon to anoxia, in which oxygen in the water drops to
extremely-low levels. The fish affected were predominantly those associated
with rough bottoms. At a subsequent workshop sponsored by the National
science Foundation, authorities said that sewage sludge dumping and 1 x
discharge of nutrients through the Hudson estuary contributed to the oxygen
depletion, but the respective importance or man-induced and natural factors
was uncertain. A later report by NOAA ‘said that the ocean-dumped sludge
contribution to this incident was minor, but could have added to the severity

CBS- 3 IB77067 UPDATE-O1/OZ/80
of the problem.
Another cause of concern was the discovery in December 1973 of masses of

“Ludge-like materials orf the coast of Atlantic Beach, Long Island, raising
_ears that the dumped sludge is creeping toward land. The origin of these

1 sludge masses was vigorously debated, and they were. finally thought to be

from a variety of sources.

Then, in June 197b, approximately 70 miles of Long Island‘s beaches were
closed to the public for a snort period as a result of debris washing up onto
the shore area. materials which fouled the beaches included tar balls,

lcnarred pier wood, garbage, and various municipal wastes. In subsequent

hearings held by the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, at least
six sources were identiried as contributing to the wash-up. NOAA later
concluded that less than 12% of the seaborn litter could have come from the
sludge dumpsite.

The role of the Federal Government in assisting the clean-up was discussed
immediately. Specific mention was made of the provisions under section 311
or the FHPCA which states that the U.S. Government is responsible for the
immediate removal of oil and designated hazardous materials. However,g the
EPA hegional Administrator stated that sewage and sewage sludge are not
appropriate candidates for designation as hazardous materials since the Act
calls for the designation of “elements and compounds," and not mixtures such
as sewage. AS a result the New mYork Department of Conservation was
designated the lead agency to coordinate the clean-up tasx.

A comprehensive study addressing possible alternatives to ocean dumping in

the flew York-new Jersey metropolitan area was published in June 1375. The.

 commendation was tor a combination of incineration and pyrolysis (heating
in an oxygen-starved atmosphere) which, it was estimated, would take 8 to 10
years to place in operation from the time small-scale plant studies were
commenced. V C

Camden, New Jersey, has also been dumping sludge in the Atlantic at a site
about 35 miles off the Delaware-Maryland resort coast and shellfish
harvesting grounds. In 1975 (after the passage of the Ocean Dumping Act)
Camden received its rirst interim permit to dump, and in 1975 a 1-year
extension was granted on the condition that five alternatives to dumping be
examined and reported on. This stipulation was not met, however, and on Oct.
1, 197b, EPA advised the city that its permit would not be‘ renewed when it
expired on Nov. 10, 1970.

Camden subsequently went to court and received an emergency 90-dayi permit
on Dec. b because the city‘s sludge storage tanks were nearly full and a
danger to public health appeared imminent.

on Dec. 23, EPA announced the granting of $1.289 million to Camden vfor a
sludge composting program. The composting facility, to which the city will
contribute $500,000, is based on a process developed by the U.S. Department
of agriculture (USDA) at its Beltsville, haryland, research station. The

sludge is dried, mixed with wood  chips, and composted to produce a

rertilizer—soil conditioner.

A new, nonrenewable dumping permit was subsequently issued to Camden which
limits the amount of sludge that can be dumped and which expires Dec. 31,
1977. The permit requires that plans and specifications oft the composting
project be approved by Apr. 15, 1977, and that construction begin by June 15.

CRS- 4 IB77067 UPDATE—01/02/80

Several issues are raised by these two cases. If ocean dumping is to be
phased out by 1381 (which some experts do not believe possible), then it
appears that much Federal assistance will be necessary. .New York Cityi i
scarcely in a financial position to shift to significantly more expensive
sludge disposal methods without outside assistance. The interim permit,
which EPA has called its ‘most effective tool‘ in forcing compliance, was
revealed as little more than a moderate negotiating instrument in light of
the court order in the Camden case. Further, the impasse was resolved only
when Federal money was forthcoming.

The Long Island wash-up revealed a gap in the FHPCA clean-up provisions.
The incident led to the introduction of legislation to cover this
circumstance and also to provide liability and compensation procedures. This
is not just a short-tern problem since wash-ups of sludge and other materials
Bill remain a possibility even after the end of ocean dumping.

£E§$E§£§Eé9E

About 35% of sludge is currently incinerated. Because of its very high
water content, sludge incineration is essentially a two-step process
involving drying and combustion. Thus it generally requires a substantial
energy input, although newer systems such as the fluidized bed incinerator
reportedly require less in the way of auxiliary fuel, and other energy
recovery techniques are also being used to improve the total energy balance
of available incinerator technologies.

Clean Air Act compliance is also an encumbrance to sludge incineratior
The quantity and size of particulate emissions leaving the furnace of k
incinerator vary widely, depending on such factors as the sludge being fired,
operating procedures, and completeness of combustion. Incomplete combustion
can form objectionable intermediate products, such as hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide. There is also the potential for discharge of air pollutants such
as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and metals such as mercury and cadmium.

Despite the high cost of air pollution control and energy requirements,
for some large cities incineration can be the most economical and
environmentally acceptable means of disposal. Ash from the incineration
process is free of pesticides, viruses, and pathogens, and metals in the ash
are approximately at the same ratio as those in the raw sludge, except that
after incineration the metals are in the less soluble oxide form. Further,

vthe ash remaining is only 5%-10% of the original volume of sludge.

1-.<:=1.I.12£.i_l.i.

Landfilling sludge is an acceptable alternative where suitable sites are
available; 25% of sludge is disposed in this manner. It is sometimes
combined with municipal solid waste (garbage). some states have regulations
and certain restrictions; in others there is rlittle control. Landfilling
avoids the direct public health issues posed by pathogens and heavy metals,
but there is danger to groundwater if substantial leachates are produced.
Recent data suggest this may not be an uncommon problem.  And, as with * 2
other alternatives, gaining public acceptance of potential sites can be very
difficult, especially in metropolitan areas.

cns- 5   IB77067 UPDATE-0 1/02/30
Lé§Q-éEBl;§e£l9£

of the four major methods of sludge disposal, land application (accounting
‘or 25% of municipal sludge) provides the most beneficial reuse. In addition
-0 supplying the growth-promoting ingredients of nitrogen (N), phosphorous
(P), potash (K), and certain trace elements, sludge increases the humus
content and fertility of the soil, increases its water-holding capacity, and
improves the soil structure (tilth). The N, P, and K content of sludge is
low, however, compared to commercial fertilizers, and even if sludge is
available free, transportation and application costs can make it expensive if
long distances are involved. Nonetheless, it can be a valuable fertilizer
supplement and soil conditioner, and has been so used for decades. At
present some so» of the smaller communities, including over 400 towns in

‘Illinois and 250 in Ohio, apply sludge to land, and many more make it

available to the public to haul away for their own use.

Several cities, including Milwaukee, Chicago, and Houston, have been able
to market dry sludge as a fertilizer—soil conditioner. In general, this has
not been a profitable activity, but rather one whose cost is competive with
other means of disposal. Similarly, composting of sludge has not been
successful because of lacx of public demand. Despite these drawbacxs,
several cities have recently adopted ithe new USDA procedure described
earlier. In hPA's view the most important problems yet to be overcome in
maxing composting a workable sludge disposal alternative involve establishing
operating credibility and reducing operations and maintenance costs.

Based on 1370 data, the land requirement for sewage sludge application is
less than 1% or the Nation's total land area currently under cultivation. By
1985 the figure would be about 2%. In heavily populated areas like New

;rsey, however, 27; of the cropland would have been required in 1970, and
55% in 1985. In some areas, then, the amount of land available could be a
limiting tactor.

other problems have to do with distribution, economics, public acceptance,
and possible dangers from pathogens and heavy metals. The first three
factors are frequently inter—related and arise from the fact that large
cities have to transport sludge to rural areas for agricultural use. Odors
from poorly managed systems and perceived odors from anything that has to do
with sewage may be the largest single problem. fieluctance of rural areas to
recieve urban wastes until adequate economic incentives are offered is also a
significant factor.

vPathogenic organisms can and do survive sewage treatment and sludge
digestion, and can remain in the soil for months, but if properly treated and

ihandled they do not present a threat. The last incident of disease in humans

traceable to sludge occured in 1919. The lack of public health problems
since then is due to adherence to the general recommendation of not applying
liquid sludges to root crops or crops intended for human consumption in the
raw form. No adverse arrects to livestock grazing on lands which have
received digested sludge, or even raw sewage, have been reported.

 Groundwater contamination does not. appear to be a serious threat if
sludges are applied properly. Surface waters can be endangered if there is
R tect runoff from the sludge spreading operation, or if there is erosion due
Le rainrall or snowmelt. Careful site management) can generally eliminate

ithis possibility.

Pathogens can also be reduced or eliminated by adding lime to the raw

cns- 6 1377057 UPDATE-0}/02/80

sludge, hy ~pasteurization, by chlorine treatment, hy storage, or by
suhjecting the sludge to radiation.

The concern over the last decade with trace elements or heavy metals ha’
arisen hecause of discoveries associating them with harmful effects on human
and animal life, with concommitant ohservations of higher levels in the land,

heater, and air. Their presence in sludge derives not only from industrial

wastewaters, hut also from such individual activities as household and
automobile operation and maintenance. Analyses of sludges have shown
concentrations of heavy metals to range from low to extremely high.

There are many unanswered questions regarding their impact. The trace
elements in sludge may appear in a variety of forms and compounds, and
depending on the presence of other metals (either naturally occurring in the
soil, or in the sludge) their effect may he intensified or ameliorated. Soil
type and pH, climatic conditions, and the water tahle are other factors.

If sludge is applied in modest amounts crop productivity can he maintained
and even improved for a number or years. For most sludges it could he a
matter of decades hetore the heavy metals were present in amounts sufficient
to he toxic to plants.

however, heavy metals may he picked up in sufficient amounts to adversely
affect animals and humans that eat the plants. Under certain conditions the
quality of feeds and foods could he improved, while under others detrimental
effects may he encountered. Molybdenum and selenium are noted as possible
threats to llVeStOCK, and cadmium is a potential threat to humans. A May
1977 General Accounting Office report revealed that some sludges sold or
given away for agricultural use, including home vegetable gardens, contained
cadmium levels as high as three to seven times the maximum level recommend
hy the Food and Drug Administration. EPA responded that it will puhlish an
information hulletin for hoth municipalities and the general puhlic that
addresses the question of home vegetable garden uses of sludge.

with respect to groundwater, availahle information indicates that, with
the possible exception of horon, the soil acts as a  purifier provided the
water tahle is not too shallow. Since the trace elements remain in the upper
levels of the soil, pollution of surface water from runoff is a more
immediate danger. Certain aquatic organisms are sensitive to even minute
quantities of some elements, so runoff must not he permitted.

There is little agreement on what is a safe level of application, and
insufficient information on the hehavior of heavy metals under different
conditions of soil, climate, etc. Ahout the only point on which~ there is
agreement is that more research is needed. Unfortunately, since the argument
is over long-term adverse effects, ohservation and experimentation over a
long term is required, unless there should he some hreaxthrough enabling the
metals to he removed or neutralized.

The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, composed of 18
agriculture-related professional societies, has suggested designating certain
lands as “sludge farms“ on which repeated applications would he made. This
would facilitate management and monitoring, vis-a-vis applying lesser amounts
to many farms. The impact of heavy metals in sludge could he further redur 1

‘Dy proper selection of crops to be grown. e 

The scientific dispute also has political implications. Those involved in
water pollution control and hurdened with the necessity of finding an

CRS- 7   IB77067 UPDnTE—01/O2/80

ultimate means of disposing of sludge tend to minimize the potential dangers

of land application. Those directly concerned with public health and food

safety argue for a more cautious approach until more is learned about toxic

cetals and ways are found to safely treat sludge before land application or
cher means of dealing with it (e.g., pyrolysis) are perfected.

Additional alternatives exist, and some have great promise. Land
reclamation (e.g., of strip-mined lands) is possible if economics permit and
local residents do not object. Pyrolysis is being tested at a full-scale
demonstration. hioconversion into methane and other gases occurs naturally
during sludge digestion; this low-grade fuel has been employed around
wastewater treatment facilities for decades, and research is underway to

improve the technology. other possibilities like conversion to animal feed,’

or the use of water hyacinths, may have applications in certain situations.
It does not appear likely that any will prove to be a widespread solution to
the sludge disposal problem in the near future, although the perfection of
pyrolysis does not appear to be too far off.

.§;.<2e11.-!§.£s£-.e2t Oi 7977

The Clean Water Act of 1977 imposed significant new sludge management
requirements on industry and municipalities. Sludge disposal was brought
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and EPA
was directed to develop regulations governing the issuance of NPDES permits
by Dec. 28, 1976. The regulations must identify uses for sludge, including

.sposal methods; must specify factors to be considered in determining the
“measures and practices“ applicable to each use or disposal method; and must
identify concentrations of pollutants that interfere with use or disposal.
Local authorities are specifically given the choice of methods, and once the
option is chosen no industry may discharge any toxic pollutant that would
prevent that disposal mode. If necessary the industry must pretreat its
toxic pollutants so that the sludge will conform to the EPA regulations.

Another provision of the Act authorizes EPA to impose “best management
practices“ regulations on industry for on-site sludge management. It applies
only to toxic and hazardous pollutants that threaten ‘navigable waters, and
the regulations will be enforced through the industry's NPDES permit. EPA‘s
authority is discretionary and is to be based on whether the Administrator
believes such control is necessary to protect the water. i

1 A report by EPA on potential utilization of sludge for productive purposes
is called for by Oct. 1, 1978.

P.L. 95-155 (H.B. 4297)

Extends funding for marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act.
lpsendment by hr. Hughes makes mandatory the Dec. 31, 1981 deadline for
} lsing out ocean dumping of sewage sludge that may unreasonably degrade the

wenvironment. (Similar bills: 3. 1425 and S. 1527). Reported to the House

from the Committee on merchant uarine and Fisheries, amended, on nay 16, 1977
(H. Bept. 95-J25 Part 1) and from the Committee on Science and Technology,

CBS- 8 IB77067 UPDATE-01/O2/80

amended, on nay 20, 1977 (H. Bept. 95-325 Part 2). Passed by the house on
Oct. 14, 1977. Passed by the Senate on October 20. Signed into law flovember
4. 7

5.3. 651 (Drinan)/S. 103d (Bibicoff)

sludge management Act. Calls for research into effects on agricultural
lands, particularly with regard to heavy metals; the comparative effects of
various disposal options, with particular attention to pathogens; the
reclamation of marginal lands with sewage sludge; new and improved methods of
dealing with sludge; and the restoration of the water quality and other
ecological features of bodies of water that have been damaged by the
discharge of sludge and sewage. The publication of model codes and
guidelines for sound methods of sludge disposal and surface landspreading is
also called for. Grants and technical assistance to State and local
authorities for removing sludge or other solid waste that has affected their
navigable waters or shorelines may be made in amounts of up to 40% of the
cost of removal. Finally, a task force is to be created to alert areas whose
waters or shorelines may be in danger from sludge and to provide technical
assistance in its removal. H.B. 851 was introduced on Jan. 4, 1977, and
referred to the Committee on Public works and Transportation. 5. 1098 was
introduced on mar. 43, 1977, and referred to the Committee on Environment and
Public worms. (Identical or similar bills: B.R. 6189, H.R. 6190, 3.3. 7333,
H.a. auso.)

fl.B. 1246 (Roe).

Contains all provisions of H.h. 851 and also calls for the ‘identification
of hazardous sludges, defined as those which “may cause...an increase in
mortality or *an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitati.
reversible, illnesses....* Hazardous sludges would be subject to a permit
program governing their disposal, utilization, processing, transportation,
and storage. states could take over the program upon a showing of
equivalency with the Federal requirements. Introduced on Jan. 4, 1977, and
referred to the Committee on Public works and Transportation.

H.B. 1247 (Roe)

Provides $100 million for 751 grants for the construction or acquisition
of facilities for the use of sewage sludge, or for the land disposal of
sludge. Under Title II of the FHPCA some sludge management activities are
already eligible for funding; this bill would provide additional money and
authorize other programs for the same purpose. Introduced on Jan. 4, 1977,
and referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation.

H.R. 3513 (Howard)

Calls for a study of the effects of sewage sludge disposal in the waters
of the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and the ocean. Along with
other topics of investigation (primarily the economic and environmental
effects of dumping), the study is to include an analysis of the potential for
the migration of dumped sludge into “zones which may affect human health

(including effects on fish, shellfish, and the human food chain).“

Subsequently, and based on the study,’ EPA is to designate new dumpJ”1
locations, none of which is to be closer than 25 miles from the coastlih .
An authorization of $25 million is made to assist States and localities in
meeting the additional costs incurred by having to dump farther out-
Introduced on Feb. 1b, 1977, and referred to the Committee on Public Works

CBS- 9 IB77067 UPDATE—O1/02/B0
and Transportation.
H.B. 3514 (Howard)

Authorizes the Small Business Administration to maxe loans with respect to
disasters resulting from any sewage or sludge deposit, fish kill, or oil
spiil. Introduced on Feb. 1b, 1977, and referred to the Committee on Small
Business. (Identical or similar bill: H.B. 5185)

H.8. 4715 (Forsythe)

Ocean bumping Amendments Act of 1977. Prohibits EPA from issuing permits
for materials not meeting EPA criteria after Dec. 31, 1981. Any such permits
issued before that date would be restricted to applicants already dumping who
have no immediately available alternative. Permit recipients are required to
expend adequate funds, as determined by EPA, on research into an ocean

dumping alternative designated by EPA, or on disposal methods which meet EPA,

criteria. “Adequate funds‘ may not be less than the money a permit recipient
would save by continuing ocean dumping rather than using the alternative
method designated by EPA in the permit. Introduced on aar. 9, 1977, and
referred to the Committee on merchant marine and Fisheries. (Identical or
similar bill: H.n. 5851)

fl.B. b777 (Hughes)

marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act Amendments of 1977.
Prohibits the issuance of any permits for the dumping of sewage sludge after
Dec. 31, 1981, and creates a new Title IV in the Act which would estal blish
a revolving “Sludge Removal Compensation Fund.“ The fund would be created by

isessing a fee on the dumper at the rate of $10 per ton of sludge. The fund
could be used to reihbruse both the costs of cleanup and of damages suffered.
Included in the list of recoverable damages are losses of real and personal
property, loss of income for up to 5 years, and loss of tax revenues to
governmental jurisdictions. Any monies remaining in the fund after such time
as EPA determines there is little likelihood of further claims against it,
would be returned on a pro rata basis to those who paid in the fees.
Introduced on Apr. 29, 1977, and referred to the Committee on Merchant marine
and Fisheries.

5. 107: (Hilliams)

amends the narine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 in
order to provide additional control over and eventually terminate the dumping
of sludge into the oceans off the United States." Introduced June 10, 1977
and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

§§.A.§.1.3£i§§

0.3. Congress. house. Committee on herchant Marine and
Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Environment and Subcommittee on
oceanography. Ocean dumping. Joint hearings, 94th
Congress, 1st session. Apr. 24-25, 1975. Washington,
0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 171 p.

“H.R. 5710, a bill to authorize appropriations for
Fiscal Year 1976 for the purpose of carrying out Titles
I and III of the harine Protection, Research, and

-+-- Ocean dumping —— part 2.

U:
u

CBS-10 IB77U67 UPDATE-01/O2/60
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, and H.R.
to extend the marine Protection, Research,
Act for two years.‘

serial no. 94-10.

b282, a bill
and Sanctuaries

Joint hearings,
DISC  

94th Congress,

za session. OfI., 1976.

3781p.
Hearings held Jan. 23, 29, Feb. 27,

D.C.; mar. 5, 1976, New iork, N.Y.
Serial No. 94-25.

uashington,

1976, Washington,

Ocean bumping - part 3. Joint hearings, 94th Congress,
za session. uasnington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976.
290 p. ‘

"oversight of the marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act or 1972, and investigating the waste
disposal in the New York area.“

Hearings held July 24, 1976,
Sept. 50, 1976, Washington, D.C.

Serial no. 9u—41.

Hempstead,"N.Y.;

Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works.
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution. Sewage sludge
hazard to Long Island beaches. Hearing, 93d Congress,
ZQ session. Aug. 2, 1974, Jones Beach, Long Island,
N.I. iasnington, 0.5. Govt. Print. off., 1974. 398 p.

Serial No. 93-H52.

§£Q§$§-§!2-§Q!§§§§§LQ!§L-DQQQHE!$§

U.S.

—-———0cean dumping regulation:

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.
Environment and natural resources policy dlViS10n.
Environmental protection affairs of the Ninety-fourth
Congress; report...f0r the Committee on Environmental
and Public works, 0.3. Senate, at the request of
Senator Edmund S. nusxie. Hashington, U.S. Govt.
Off., 1977. 723 p.

“Serial No. 94-3.‘

A1: head of title:
Committee print.

Chapter 3: Ocean dumping, by S. William Becker.

Print.

95th Congress, 1st session.

an appraisal of implementation.
Prepared at the request of Hon. Barren G. hagnuson,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, and Hon. Ernest F.
Hollings, Chairman, fiational Ocean Policy Study tor
the use of the Committee on Commerce and the National
Ocean Study Policy pursuant to 3. Res. 222. Hashington,
U.S. Govt. Print. off., 1976. 69 p.

At head of title: 94th Congress,
Committee print.

2d session.

Environmental protection affairs of the Ninety-third
Congress; a report...for the Committee on Public worms,
U.S. Senate at the request of Senator Edmund S. huskie.
Washington, u.s. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 330 p.

cas-11 1377067 UPDATE-01/02/80

“Serial no. 94-2.’

At head of title: 94th congress, 1st session.,
Committee print. *

Chapter 3: water Pollution and Ocean Dumping, by
S. William Becxer. ’

---- Science Policy Division. Congress and the oceans:

marine affairs in the 94th Congress.  Prepared at the

request of Hon. warren G. hagnuson, chairman, Committee

on Commerce, science, and Transportation and the National

Ocean Policy Study. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,

1977. 335 p.
At head of title: 95th Congress, 1st session. Committee print.
Chapter 5: marine Environment. ~

---- Effects of man|s activities on the marine environment.

Prepared at the request of Hon. warren G. hagnuson, chairman,
Committee on Commerce, and Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,

chairman, National Ocean Policy Study. Washington, U.S.

Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 135 p.

At head of title: 94th Congress, 1st session. Committee print.

§§§Q!QLQGY-0F EV§§$§

1%/04/77 - P.L. 95+15J was enacted, maxing mandatory the 1981
deadline for phasing out ocean dumping of sludge
that may degrade or endanger human health or the
environment.

01/11/77 - Final revision of regulations and criteria for ocean

dumping permits was published. New provisions

required evidence of ecosystem impact rather than
examining deviations from normal ambient values,

as vas previously the case. Also established

deadline of 12/31/81 for ending dumping of

municipal sewage sludge not meeting EPA's environmental
protection criteria.

10/21/7b --Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (nCRA),
P.L. 94-560, became law, creating permit program
for hazardous waste management (Subtitle C — criteria

‘ for identification and first listing of particular

hazardous tastes to be published by Apr. 21,.1978) and
requiring that open dumps be either closed or
upgraded to sanitary landfills by Oct. 21, 1983.

00/30/70 -- First evidence discovered of a massive fish Kill
off the coast of New Jersey; sludge dumping and
sewage discharges thought to be contributing
factors.

06/15/7b-U7/0%/7o —~ 70 miles of Long Island beaches closed
. because of debris washing up on the shore; sludge
dumping and sewage discharges identified as
contributing factors.

10/15/73 --Criteria published for issuing permits for ocean

cns-12 IB77067 UPDATE—01/02/80

dumping, pursuant to Title I of Ocean Dumping Act;
and guidelines published for issuing permits for

discharges of non—dredged materials from on-shore
outrall pipes, pursuant to FHPCA Sections #02-403.

10/23/72 ——-marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act), P.L. 92-532, hecame
lav, outlawing all ocean dumping except that
authorized by permit from EPA or the Corps or
Engineers.

10/18/72 —— Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
» or 1972 (FHPCA), P.L. 92-500, became law,
authorizing $18 billion to assist municipalities
in constructing sewage treatment facilities.

12/31/70 -- Clean Air Amendments of 1979. P.L. 91-o04, created
requirement for new source performance standards
and primary and secondary national ambient air
quality standards for six major pollutants..

é22£E£QfléL-§§§§§§!§§-§Q93§§§

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST).
Application or sewage sludge to cropland: Appraisal
of potential hazards of the heavy metals to plants
and animals; report no. 64. Ames,.Iowa State University,
Dept. 0 Agronomy, 1970. 63 p.

acuulty, Hester and Lois Sharpe. Current focus: municipal
sludge: what shall we do with it? Washington, League
of Women Voters, 1976. 8 p.

national oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report to
the Congress on ocean dumping research -- January-December
1976. July 1977. 21 p.

Bapoport, Daniel. Sludge ——-now that we've got it,
what are we going to do with it? National Journal,

0.5. Environmental Protection Agency. municipal sludge
management:A EPA construction grants program: an
overview of the sludge management situation.

.Washington, 0.5. Environmental Protection Agency,
1976. on p. qEPA—#30/9-76-009; nCD—30)

----Ocean dumping in the United States - 1975: Third Annual report
of the Environmental Protection Agency on administration of
Title I, narine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act or
1972, as amended. Hashington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1975. 56 p.

0.5. General Accounting Office. Problems and progress in
Aregulating ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial
wastes, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
Transportation; report to the Congress hy the Comptroller

General or the United States.

“CED-77-18, Jan. 23,

Natlonai Oceanlc and Atomospneric Admlnistratlon.
to the Congress on ocean dumping research:

through December 1975.
1970. 39 p.
“NCAA-S/T 76-21:3"

cas-13 1377067 UPDATE—o1/oz/ao

Wasnlngton 1977. 61 p.

1977“

Report
January
Washington, 0.3. Govt. Print. 0rf.,

LIBRARY
OF

WASHINGTON
UN!VERS!TY
ST. Lquys - MO.