Ocean Disposal; Temporary Modification of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site in Massachusetts Bay, 44369-44375 [2017-20326]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
opinion, the Register concluded that
‘‘nothing in the statute limits the
[Judges] from considering comments
filed by non-participants if those
nonparticipant commenters argue that
the proposed provisions are contrary to
statutory law.’’ Id. According to the
Register’s Opinion, which is binding
precedent for the Judges, the Judges may
decline to adopt portions of the agreed
regulations that would be ‘‘contrary to
the provisions of the applicable
license(s) or otherwise contrary to
statutory law.’’ Id.
The Judges received two comments on
the proposed rules before the June
deadline. Joint Sports Claimants (JSC),4
participants and the proponents of the
settlement, supported adoption of the
final rule and offered a correction of a
misstated cross reference within the
rule.
Major League Soccer, L.L.C. (MLS)
also commented. In the present
proceeding, MLS did not file a Petition
to Participate; thus MLS is a not a
participant.5 Nonetheless, MLS states
that it would be ‘‘[a]ffected by these
proposed rules and their terms.’’ MLS
Comment at 2. MLS contends that, even
though it is not a participant in this
proceeding, it clearly meets the [Judges’]
description of ‘Joint Sports Claimants’ 6
in that MLS owns copyrights in ‘‘live
telecasts of professional teams’ sports
broadcasts by U.S. and Canadian
television stations. . . .’’ Id. As MLS
asserted in its comment, the definition
of ‘‘eligible professional sports event’’
‘‘unfairly excludes MLS, and any other
[unnamed] eligible, professional league
that broadcasts live team sports.’’ Id. at
3. In its comment, MLS contends that its
omission results in unfair treatment. Id.
at 2, 4.
According to MLS, ‘‘[s]ince JSC are
representatives for, and custodians of
the funds of, all programs falling within
that agreed [Joint Sports Claimants]
category, [JSC] should represent the
interests of the entire category, not only
802(f)(1)(D). Decisions of the Register are binding as
precedent upon the Judges in proceedings
subsequent to the Register’s opinion. Id.
4 The Joint Sports Claimants (JSC) consists of
Major League Baseball, the National Basketball
Association, the National Football League, the
National Hockey League, and the Women’s National
Basketball Association.
5 MLS asserted without evidence that it made
‘‘attempts to join the JSC ‘‘on a formal basis,’’ but
that it had ‘‘not yet been recognized as a JSC
member.’’ MLS Comment at 2.
6 See Notice of Participant Groups . . . and
Scheduling Order, Consolidated Proceeding No. 14–
CRB–0010–CD (2010–13) (Nov. 25, 2015), Ex. A. By
its terms, this order limited application of the
agreed participant groups to the proceeding in
which it was adopted. The Judges nonetheless
consider the categories informative for purposes of
determining distribution in the present proceeding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Sep 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
those it deems members. The benefits of
the regulation should apply to a [sic]
who fall into the Joint Sports Claimants
category.’’ Id. at 3.
Although MLS generally states that
adoption of the proposal would be
unfair or inequitable to MLS and certain
other omitted professional leagues that
broadcast live team sports, MLS does
not expressly contend that the proposal
is ‘‘contrary to the provisions of the
applicable license(s) or otherwise
contrary to statutory law,’’ which, under
the Register’s Opinion, would permit
the Judges to decline to adopt portions
of the agreed regulations. In the interests
of developing a more complete record to
support the Judges’ decision, however,
the Judges seek further comment
specifically addressing the issue of
whether they must adopt the rules as
contained in the settlement agreement
and published for comment in May
2017, consistent with Section
801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act, or
whether any provision in the proposed
rules is contrary to the provisions of the
applicable license(s) or otherwise
contrary to statutory law.
The Judges hereby solicit Reply
Comments limited to legal analysis of
the issue as the Judges express it. Any
party in interest may file Reply
Comments addressing the issue the
Judges present in this Notice.
Commenters that believe any provision
of the proposed rules is contrary to the
provisions of the applicable license(s) or
otherwise contrary to statutory law
should specify the provision or
provisions in question, explain why the
provision(s) is contrary to the applicable
license or applicable statutory law, and
provide supporting legal analysis. Reply
commenters should focus particular
attention on whether any entities not
expressly addressed in the proposal
would nonetheless be bound by the
rates and terms of the proposal or
otherwise affected by the proposed rules
and how, if at all, the affect should
dictate action by the Judges. If any
entities other than those expressly
included in the proposed provisions are
bound by the proposal, are the Judges
effectively adopting a zero sports
surcharge rate with respect to those
entities? If so, what factors justify the
different rates for the entities that would
have a zero rate from those that would
receive the proposed sports surcharge
rate?
Any commenter may thereafter file
Surreply Comments addressing
specifically the legal analysis of a party
or parties filing Reply Comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44369
Dated: September 18, 2017.
Suzanne M. Barnett,
Chief U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2017–20190 Filed 9–21–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228
[EPA–R01–OW–2017–0528; FRL–9967–82–
Region 1]
Ocean Disposal; Temporary
Modification of an Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site in
Massachusetts Bay
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
temporary modification of the currentlydesignated Massachusetts Bay Dredged
Material Disposal Site (MBDS) pursuant
to the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA).
The purpose of this temporary site
modification is to allow for the
environmental restoration of a particular
area adjacent to the currently-designated
MBDS (Potential Restoration Area) by
temporarily expanding the boundaries
of the existing MBDS. The temporary
expansion is a circular area that
contains the Potential Restoration Area,
which includes most of the historic
Industrial Waste Site (IWS). Decades
ago, the IWS was used for the disposal
of barrels containing industrial,
chemical and radioactive waste, as well
as for the disposal of munitions,
ordnance, construction equipment, and
contaminated dredged material. The
proposed modification of the disposal
site boundary will enable the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to place
suitable dredged material from Boston
Harbor generated during the Deep Draft
Navigation Project at the Potential
Restoration Area in order to cover the
barrels and other wastes disposed there
in the past. The Deep Draft Navigation
Project includes maintenance dredging
in the inner harbor, which includes the
expansion of a confined aquatic
disposal (CAD) cell and will generate
approximately 1 million cubic yards
(cy) of dredged material, as well as
improvement dredging of the main ship
channel, which will generate
approximately 11 million cy of dredged
material. The existing MBDS will
continue to be used for disposal of other
dredging projects as usual. The
expansion area would be permanently
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM
22SEP1
44370
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
closed upon completion of the Boston
Harbor maintenance and improvement
projects, while the existing MBDS will
remain open for the disposal of suitable
dredged material. Like the MBDS,
however, the expansion would be
subject to ongoing monitoring and
management to ensure continued
protection of the marine environment.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 23, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–
OW–2017–0528, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: Publically available docket
materials are available either
electronically at regulations.gov or on
the EPA Region 1 Ocean Dumping Web
page at https://www.epa.gov/oceandumping/managing-ocean-dumpingepa-region-1. They are also available in
hard copy during normal business hours
at the EPA Region 1 Library, 5 Post
Office Square, Boston, MA 02109.
The supporting document for this site
modification is the Draft Environmental
Assessment on the Expansion of the
Massachusetts Bay Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site (ODMDS),
September 2017, which was prepared by
EPA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alicia Grimaldi, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code:
OEP 6–1, Boston, MA 02109;
telephone—(617) 918–1806; fax—(617)
918–0806; email address—
grimaldi.alicia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Sep 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
I. Potentially Affected Persons
The expansion of the MBDS is a
temporary modification made in order
to improve environmental conditions at
the Potential Restoration Area by
allowing suitable dredged material from
the USACE Boston Harbor maintenance
and improvement projects only to be
placed over wastes dumped in the past
at the historic IWS. Therefore, the
persons potentially affected by this
action would be limited to the USACE,
who are responsible for the Boston
Harbor Deep Draft Navigation Project
and the disposal of dredged material
into ocean waters under MPRSA. The
existing MBDS will continue to be used
for the disposal of dredged material
suitable for ocean disposal pursuant to
the MPRSA.
II. Background
A. History of Disposal Sites in
Massachusetts Bay
The IWS is a disposal site in
Massachusetts Bay approximately 20
nautical miles (nmi) east of Boston that
was used in the past for disposal of a
variety of wastes that would not be
permitted for disposal today. The IWS is
a circular cite with a center of 42°25.7′
N., 70°35.0′ W. and a radius of 1 nmi.
It is believed that disposal of derelict
vessels, construction debris, commercial
waste, and dredged material at the area
may have begun as early as the early
1900s. There are records dating back to
the 1940s for the disposal of radioactive,
chemical and hospital waste, ordnance,
munitions, etc. Use of the IWS was
discontinued in 1977 and the site was
officially de-designated in 1990 (55 FR
3688). From 1977 through 1993, there
was an Interim Massachusetts Bay
Disposal Site for dredged material
disposal with a center 1 nmi east of the
IWS at 42°25.7′ N., 70°34.0′ W. and a
radius of 1 nmi. In 1993, the existing
MBDS was designated by EPA with a
center at 42°25.1′ N., 70°35.0′ W. and a
radius of 1 nmi, an area of 3.14 nmi2,
and depth ranges from 82 to 92 m. The
MBDS overlaps the IWS to the south,
but avoids the known densest
concentration of barrels, also known as
the barrel field. The MBDS is used
solely for the disposal of dredged
material, primarily from Boston Harbor.
The USACE will begin the Boston
Harbor maintenance and improvement
dredging projects in the fall of 2017. The
project is expected to generate
approximately 12 million cubic yards of
dredged material consisting primarily of
Boston blue clay. EPA and USACE are
proposing to use this dredged material
beneficially by covering the area in and
around the historic IWS barrel field.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
This will be accomplished utilizing a
method of disposal developed and
tested by the USACE, which is designed
to prevent direct impact of sediment
onto waste containers, which could
potentially break them or cause the
resuspension of potentially
contaminated sediment on the seafloor.
Before any entity can dispose of
dredged material at the MBDS, EPA and
the USACE must evaluate the project
according to the ocean dumping
regulatory criteria (40 CFR 227) and
determine whether to authorize the
disposal. EPA independently evaluates
proposed disposal projects and has the
right to restrict and/or reject the
disposal of dredged material if it
determines that the environmental
protection requirements under the
MPRSA have not been met. This
proposed modification to the MBDS site
boundaries does not constitute an
approval by EPA or USACE for open
water disposal of dredged material from
any specific project.
B. Location and Configuration of
Modified Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site
EPA proposes the temporary
expansion of the MBDS boundaries to
include the Potential Restoration Area,
which encompasses the IWS barrel
field. The expansion will be temporary,
opening upon the effective date of the
Final Rule and closing upon completion
of the Boston Harbor maintenance and
improvement dredging projects. The
temporarily expanded site will consist
of two overlapping circles:
• Center 1—42°25.1′ N., 70°35.0′ W., 1
nautical mile radius (existing MBDS)
• Center 2—42°26.417′ N., 70°35.373′
W., 0.75 nautical mile radius
(temporary expansion)
The area of the temporarily modified
MBDS is 4.60 nmi2 and the western
edge is approximately 19 nmi east of
Boston. Water depths at the modified
site range from 70 to 91m. Like the
existing MBDS, the modified MBDS will
not overlap, and is not expected to
impact, the Stellwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS).
C. Management and Monitoring of the
Site
Under the proposal, there would be
two distinct areas of the modified
MBDS: The existing MBDS and the
temporary expansion. The existing
MBDS will continue to be utilized as a
dredged material disposal site for those
projects generating dredged material
suitable for open water disposal under
the MPRSA. The temporary expansion
will solely be used for the disposal of
E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM
22SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
suitable material generated during the
Boston Harbor maintenance and
improvement dredging projects.
Disposal of dredged material in both the
existing MBDS and temporary
expansion would be required to abide
by the Site Management and Monitoring
Plan (SMMP) for the MBDS. The SMMP
includes management and monitoring
requirements to ensure that the any
dredged material placed at the sites is
suitable for ocean disposal and that the
adverse impacts of disposal, if any, are
addressed to the maximum extent
practicable. The SMMP for the MBDS
includes restrictions on time-of-year for
disposal and disposal vessel speeds,
requirements for the presence of a
marine mammal observer for each
disposal event, and other guidelines to
minimize any potential conflicts with
threatened or endangered species.
D. MPRSA Criteria
EPA has assessed the proposed
temporary modification to the MBDS
according to the criteria of the MPRSA,
with particular emphasis on the general
and specific regulatory criteria of 40
CFR 228.5 and 228.6, to determine
whether the proposed site modification
satisfied those criteria. The Draft
Environmental Assessment of the
Expansion of the Massachusetts Bay
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
(ODMDS) provides an extensive
evaluation of the site selection criteria
and other related factors considered in
deciding to propose the modification of
the MBDS.
1. General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
(a) The dumping of materials into the
ocean will be permitted only at sites or
in areas selected to minimize the
interference of disposal activities with
other activities in the marine
environment, particularly avoiding
areas of existing fisheries or
shellfisheries, and regions of heavy
commercial or recreational navigation.
Since it’s designation in 1993,
disposal at the MBDS has not interfered
with other activities in the marine
environment. It is anticipated that this
will also be the case for the temporarily
modified MBDS. The IWS has been
closed by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) since 1980 to the harvesting of
surf clams and ocean quahogs. There is
also a warning from NOAA and the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on
all nautical charts against harvesting
fish and shellfish in the area. The
expanded MBDS area has low
recreational boater density and does not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Sep 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
overlap with the shipping lanes into and
out of Boston Harbor.
(b) Locations and boundaries of
disposal sites will be so chosen that
temporary perturbations in water
quality or other environmental
conditions during initial mixing caused
by disposal operations anywhere within
the site can be expected to be reduced
to normal ambient seawater levels or to
undetectable contaminant
concentrations or effects before reaching
any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary,
or known geographically limited fishery
or shellfishery.
The modified MBDS will be used only
for dredged material suitable for ocean
disposal under the MPRSA. USACE also
models disposal projects to evaluate
their potential to violate water quality
standards. The nearest shoreline to the
modified MBDS is approximately 8 nmi
to the north. The prevailing current is
not expected to transport dredged
material to surrounding beaches or
shores. Temporary changes caused by
the physical movement of sediment
through the water column will be
reduced to ambient conditions before
reaching any environmentally sensitive
area. SBNMS is immediately east of the
site, but a steep bathymetric rise
between the two features provides
containment of dredged material in the
deeper area containing the modified
MBDS, known as Stellwagen Basin.
There are no known geographicallylimited fisheries or shellfisheries in the
project area.
(d) The sizes of ocean disposal sites
will be limited in order to localize for
identification and control any
immediate adverse impacts and permit
the implementation of effective
monitoring and surveillance programs
to prevent adverse long-range impacts.
The size, configuration, and location of
any disposal site will be determined as
a part of the disposal site evaluation or
designation study.
The size and configuration of the
temporarily modified MBDS is
specifically designed to allow for the
IWS barrel field to be covered by
suitable dredged material generated
during the USACE Boston Harbor
maintenance and improvement projects.
The MBDS area has been monitored
under the USACE Disposal Area
Monitoring System (DAMOS) program
since the late 1970s. Monitoring will
continue at the MBDS and temporary
expansion to prevent adverse long-range
impacts.
(e) EPA will, wherever feasible,
designate ocean dumping sites beyond
the edge of the continental shelf and
other such sites that have been
historically used.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44371
The continental shelf is over 220 nmi
east of Boston. Therefore, transporting
material to, and performing long-term
monitoring at, a site located off the
continental shelf is not economically or
operationally feasible. The project area
has been used for ocean disposal since
at least the early 1900s.
2. Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6(a))
(1) Geographical position, depth of
water, bottom topography and distance
from coast.
The temporarily expanded MBDS is
located in an area of Massachusetts Bay
known as Stellwagen Basin and is
approximately 8 nmi from the nearest
coastline in Gloucester, MA. The depth
of the temporarily expanded site ranges
from 70–91 meters. The seafloor in the
area is primarily flat and primarily
made up of silt and clay. There are two
glacial knolls included within the
boundaries of the temporary expansion,
both roughly 20 m high. These knolls
are not included in the Potential
Restoration Area and, therefore, no
disposal will take place on them.
(2) Location in relation to breeding,
spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage
areas of living resources in adult or
juvenile phases.
The MBDS area contains Essential
Fish Habitat (EFH) for various fish
species, and certain threatened and
endangered species of whale and sea
turtle have been sighted in the vicinity
of the MBDS. Furthermore, the entirety
of Massachusetts Bay, and most of the
larger Gulf of Maine, are designated as
a critical foraging habitat for the North
Atlantic Right Whale by NMFS. At the
same time, NMFS has previously
determined that dredged material
disposal at the MBDS would not impact
any of these species and restrictions are
in place to ensure their safety, including
vessel speed and disposal time-of-year
limitations and the requirement that
marine mammal observers accompany
the USACE on vessels during disposal
operations. Furthermore, any risk of
contaminants entering the food web is
expected to be minimized by the
covering of the IWS barrel field.
(3) Location in relation to beaches
and other amenity areas.
The closest beach to the temporarily
expanded MBDS is 10 nmi away. The
SBNMS is just east of the MBDS. Past
dredged material disposal has not
impacted the SBNMS and no impact to
the SBNMS is expected with the
temporary expansion of the MBDS.
(4) Types and quantities of wastes
proposed to be disposed of, and
proposed methods of release, including
methods of packing the waste, if any.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM
22SEP1
44372
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
The MBDS is only to be used for the
disposal of dredged material that is
suitable for ocean disposal under the
MPRSA. The temporary expansion of
the MBDS will only be used for suitable
dredged material generated during the
USACE Boston Harbor maintenance and
navigation projects. Disposal within the
temporary expansion will utilize a
berm-building technique devised by the
USACE in order to minimize the risk of
barrel breakage or resuspension of
potentially contaminated seafloor
sediment.
(5) Feasibility of surveillance and
monitoring.
The MBDS is monitored through the
DAMOS program under the guidance of
the SMMP. Disposal is also monitored
through the National Dredging Quality
Management Program to confirm
accurate placement of dredged material.
The area of temporary expansion will be
included in the monitoring of the MBDS
under the DAMOS program from the
time of first disposal for as long as
MBDS monitoring continues.
(6) Dispersal, horizontal transport and
vertical mixing characteristics of the
area, including prevailing current
direction and velocity, if any.
Current velocities range from 0–30
cm/s in the MBDS area. Currents are
influenced by tides in a rotational
manner, but net water movement is to
the southeast. Regional dredged material
is primarily made up of fine sand, silt,
and clay. Dredged material generated
during the USACE Boston Harbor
maintenance and improvement projects
is primarily Boston blue clay, which is
cohesive and, therefore, settles rapidly.
Minimal horizontal mixing or vertical
stratification of dredged material occurs,
resulting in low suspended sediment
concentrations. Previous modeling of
initial disposal indicates no adverse
impacts in the water column or
violations of water quality criteria.
Previous studies have demonstrated the
relative immobility of dredged material
at the MBDS. Storms with the potential
to cause sediment resuspension are rare
in Massachusetts Bay.
(7) Existence and effects of current
and previous discharges and dumping
in the area (including cumulative
effects).
Beginning in the early 1900s, the
historic IWS was used for the disposal
of industrial, chemical, medical, lowlevel radioactive, and other hazardous
wastes, in addition to contaminated
dredged material, construction debris,
derelict vessels, etc. An Interim MBDS
was designated in 1977 for the disposal
of dredged material and it was closed in
1993, which is when the existing MBDS
was designated. Studies and monitoring
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Sep 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
of the area have shown no significant
impacts on water quality, sediment
quality, or marine resources. More
information regarding the effects of
disposal in the area can be found in the
Draft Environmental Assessment on the
Expansion of the Massachusetts Bay
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site.
The berm-building disposal technique
designed by USACE is intended to limit
the resuspension of potentially
contaminated seafloor sediment or
hazardous materials in the area.
Furthermore, placing dredged material
generated during the USACE Boston
Harbor maintenance and improvement
projects on top of potentially
contaminated materials dumped at the
IWS in the past will isolate these
potential contaminants under a
protective layer of suitable sediments,
consisting primarily of clay.
(8) Interference with shipping, fishing,
recreation, mineral extraction,
desalination, fish and shellfish culture,
areas of special scientific importance
and other legitimate uses of the ocean.
Extensive shipping, fishing,
recreational, and scientific research
activities take place in Massachusetts
Bay throughout the year. Dredged
material disposal operations at the
MBDS have not interfered with these
activities and the temporary expansion
of the MBDS would also not interfere
with these activities. Due to the
hazardous nature of material historically
disposed in the IWS, a warning to
fishermen against fishing and
shellfishing in the area is already
included on all nautical charts and the
area is closed for the harvesting of ocean
quahogs and surf clams. Therefore,
disposal operations in the area would
not interfere with any existing fishing
activity.
(9) The existing water quality and
ecology of the site as determined by
available data or by trend assessment or
baseline surveys.
Monitoring at the disposal area has
taken place since the late 1970s under
the DAMOS program. Surveys at the
MBDS have detected no significant
differences in water quality or biological
characteristics in the disposal site and
adjacent reference areas. A Baseline
Seafloor Assessment Survey for the
Proposed Expansion of the MBDS was
completed by the USACE in
anticipation of this project and it is
available on the USACE DAMOS site at
https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/
Missions/Disposal-Area-MonitoringSystem-DAMOS/.
(10) Potentiality for the development
or recruitment of nuisance species in
the disposal site.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
There are no known components of
dredged material or consequences of its
disposal that would attract or result in
the recruitment or development of
nuisance species at the expanded
MBDS. Nuisance species have not been
detected in any survey of the area.
(11) Existence at or in close proximity
to the site of any significant natural or
cultural features of historical
importance.
There are two known shipwrecks
within the boundaries of the existing
MBDS: A Coast Guard vessel and a 55foot fishing boat. Both were
intentionally sunk in 1981 and are not
considered to be historically significant.
Additional shipwrecks have been
revealed in the area during subsequent
surveys, although there are no identified
shipwrecks within the Potential
Restoration Area. Disposal operations
have avoided and will continue to avoid
any shipwrecks in the project area by
implementing a fifty-meter buffer
around known shipwrecks within
which no disposal will occur.
III. Environmental Statutory Review
A. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
Section 102 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to
4370f, requires Federal agencies to
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for major federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. NEPA does not
apply to EPA designations of ocean
disposal sites under the MPRSA because
EPA’s actions under the MPRSA are
exempt from the procedural
requirements of NEPA through the
functional equivalence doctrine.
Nevertheless, as a matter of policy, EPA
undertakes a NEPA review for certain of
its regulatory actions, including the
designation of dredged material disposal
sites under Section 102 of the MPRSA.
The EPA’s ‘‘Notice of Policy and
Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of
NEPA Documents’’ (Voluntary NEPA
Policy), 63 FR 58045 (October 29, 1998),
sets out both the policy and procedures
the EPA uses when preparing such
environmental review documents.
The EPA’s primary voluntary NEPA
document addressing the proposed
temporary expansion of the MBDS is the
Draft Environmental Assessment on the
Expansion of the Massachusetts Bay
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site
(ODMDS) [September 2017] (Draft EA),
prepared by EPA in cooperation with
USACE. Anyone desiring a copy of the
Draft EA may obtain one using the
methods provided above in the Docket
E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM
22SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
section. The comment period for the
Draft EA runs concurrently with the
comment period for this Proposed Rule.
The Draft EA provides the threshold
environmental review for the temporary
modification of the MBDS. Information
from the Draft EA is used in the above
discussion of the ocean dumping
criteria.
The proposed action discussed in the
Draft EA is the temporary modification
of the MBDS. The purpose of this
proposed action is to physically isolate
potentially contaminated material
dumped at the IWS in the past by
placing suitable dredged material
generated during the USACE’s Boston
Harbor maintenance and navigation
projects. By covering much or all of the
barrel field in and around the historic
IWS, environmental conditions at the
site will be improved.
USACE and EPA will continue to
evaluate all federal dredged material
disposal projects in the MBDS pursuant
to the EPA criteria set forth in the Ocean
Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 220–229)
and the USACE regulations (33 CFR
209.129 and 335–338). After compliance
with regulations is determined, USACE
issues MPRSA permits to applicants for
the transport of dredged material
intended for disposal. Under Section
103(c) of the MPRSA, EPA can
disapprove or add conditions to a
project proposing the ocean disposal of
dredged material if, in its judgement,
the relevant regulatory criteria would
not be met.
The following alternatives were
considered, but eliminated from
detailed evaluation, in the Draft EA:
1. Geographic Alternative 2: Expansion
Into Historic IWS
This Geographic Alternative would
have expanded the MBDS only to the
legal boundaries of the historic IWS.
The modified site would consist of two
overlapping circles, both with a radius
of 1 nmi centered at 42°25.1′ N.,
70°35.0′ W. (MBDS) and 42°25.7′ N.,
70°35.0′ W. (IWS). This Alternative
would have increased the size of the
MBDS from 3.14 nmi2 to 4.13 nmi2. The
western boundary of the modified site
would have been only 0.02 nmi from the
SBNMS. It also would not have
included a large portion of the barrel
field located just north of its boundaries,
leaving part of the Potential Restoration
Area with its waste barrels and
potentially contaminated sediment
exposed on the seafloor. As a result,
EPA rejected this alternative.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Sep 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
2. Temporal Alternative 2: Expansion
for Three Years
This Temporal Alternative would
have limited the expansion of the MBDS
to a three-year period, opening with the
publication of the Final Rule for the site
modification and closing exactly three
years later. The Boston Harbor Deep
Draft Navigation Project is contingent on
the availability of funding, various
approvals, technical planning, weather,
etc., making it difficult to estimate the
duration of the project. This uncertainty
could lead to delays in the maintenance
and improvement dredging and cause
the MBDS expansion to close before the
dredging project is complete. This could
leave a portion of the Potential
Restoration Area uncovered. The
remaining dredged material would be
disposed in the existing MBDS instead
of being used beneficially. For these
reasons, EPA rejected this option.
3. Temporal Alternative 3: Permanent
Expansion
This Temporal Alternative would
permanently expand the boundaries of
the MBDS. The dredged material from
the Boston Harbor maintenance and
navigation projects would be disposed
in the expansion, covering the Potential
Restoration Area. Once that disposal is
complete, the expansion could be used
in the future for dredged material
generated in other projects. Careful
planning to ensure dredged material is
not disposed directly onto waste
containers or potentially contaminated
seafloor sediment is necessary. In order
to limit this risk, it would be preferable
to cease disposal in the expansion after
the restoration project in the event that
individual barrels remain exposed. In
addition, EPA site selection criteria
favor minimizing the size of disposal
sites, in general. See 40 CFR 228.5(d).
Therefore, once the potentially
contaminated materials are covered,
EPA favors changing MBDS site
boundaries back to their earlier
configuration.
44373
Draft Navigation Project. This temporary
expansion consists of two overlapping
circles: 42°25.1′ N., 70°35.0′ W. with a
1 nautical mile radius (MBDS) and
42°26.417′ N., 70°35.373′ W. with a 0.75
nautical mile radius (expansion). This
area contains the entirety of the
Potential Restoration Area, which
means that the barrel field can be
covered. Keeping the expansion open
only during the Boston Harbor
maintenance and improvement projects
ensures that all of the suitable dredged
material can be used beneficially over
the Potential Restoration Area and the
area will not be subject to future
disposal with the potential to disturb
potentially contaminated areas outside
the Potential Restoration Area. For these
reasons, a site restriction is being put in
place directing that the expansion only
be used for the disposal of suitable
dredged material from the Boston
Harbor Deep Draft Navigation Project
using the berm-building technique
designed by the Corps and will
automatically close upon the
completion of that Project.
The Draft EA presents the information
needed to evaluate the suitability of the
proposed modification and is based on
a series of disposal site environmental
studies. The environmental studies and
final designation were and are being
conducted in accordance with the
requirements of MPRSA, the Ocean
Dumping Regulations, and other
applicable Federal environmental
legislation.
B. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation & Management Act (MSA)
EPA has integrated the EFH
assessment into the Draft EA, pursuant
to Section 305(b), 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2),
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as
amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801–1891d.
EPA is coordinating with NMFS to
ensure compliance with EFH provisions
and will attempt to incorporate any
conservation recommendations from
NMFS.
4. No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the
dredged material generated during the
Boston Harbor maintenance and
improvement projects would not be
used beneficially to cover the barrel
field in and around the historic IWS. It
would, instead, continue to be disposed
in the existing MBDS in multiple
mounds.
C. Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)
EPA has determined that the
proposed modification of the MBDS is
consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies
of the Massachusetts coastal
management program and has submitted
this determination to the State for
review in accordance with the CZMA.
5. Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Geographic and
Temporal Alternative would expand the
boundaries of the MBDS for the entire
duration of the Boston Harbor Deep
D. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The Endangered Species Act, as
amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1544,
requires Federal agencies to consult
with NMFS and the Fish & Wildlife
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM
22SEP1
44374
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Service (FWS) to ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by the
Federal agency is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of any critical
habitat. The EPA incorporated an
assessment of the potential effects of
temporarily modifying the MBDS on
aquatic and wildlife species, including
any species listed under the ESA, into
the Draft EA, and EPA has submitted
that document to NMFS and FWS. EPA
concluded that the proposed action
would not affect any threatened or
endangered species, nor would it
adversely modify any designated critical
habitat. EPA is coordinating with NMFS
and FWS to ensure compliance with the
ESA.
E. National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA)
The National Historic Preservation
Act, as amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470
to 470a–2, requires Federal agencies to
take into account the effect of their
actions on districts, sites, buildings,
structures, or objects, included in, or
eligible for inclusion in, the National
Register of Historical Places. EPA is
coordinating with the Massachusetts
State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) to ensure compliance with
NHPA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This rulemaking proposes the
modification of an ODMDS pursuant to
Section 102 of the MPRSA. This
proposed action complies with
applicable Executive Orders and
statutory provisions as follows:
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review; Executive Order
13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This proposed action is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 3, 1993) and is,
therefore, not subject to review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This
proposed site modification does not
require persons to obtain, maintain,
retain, report, or publically disclose
information to or for a Federal agency.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Sep 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires Federal agencies to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
of any rule subject to notice and
comment rulemaking requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
(businesses, organizations, or
jurisdictions). EPA has determined that
this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed action contains no
Federal mandates under the provisions
of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C.
1531 to 1538, for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. This
action imposes no new enforceable duty
on any State, local or tribal governments
or the private sector. Therefore, this
action is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the
UMRA because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small government
entities. Those entities are already
subject to existing permitting
requirements for the disposal of dredged
material in ocean waters.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed action does not have
federalism implications. It does not
have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of
government, as specified in Executive
Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action. In
the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between the EPA and
State and local governments, EPA has
coordinated with, and specifically
solicited comments from, State and
local officials with regard to this
proposed action.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed action does not have
tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The
modification of the MBDS will not have
a direct effect on Indian Tribes, on the
relationship between the federal
government and Indian Tribes, or on the
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian Tribes. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health &
Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866 and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed action is not subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355)
because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as defined under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards that
are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs
the EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards. This proposed action
includes environmental monitoring and
measurement as described in the MBDS
SMMP. The EPA will not require the
use of specific, prescribed analytic
methods for monitoring and managing
the MBDS. EPA plans to allow the use
of any method, whether it constitutes a
voluntary consensus standard or not,
that meets the monitoring and
measurement criteria discussed in the
SMMP.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629)
establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their
E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM
22SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States. The
EPA determined that this proposed rule
will not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations. This action is
expected to be protective of human
health because the potential
contaminants within the Potential
Restoration Area will be isolated under
a protective layer of sediment. This
should help prevent any accidental
recovery of barrels by fishermen and
prevent contaminants from the historic
disposal from entering the food web.
The EPA has assessed the overall
protectiveness of modifying the MBDS
against the criteria established pursuant
to the MPRSA to ensure that any
adverse impact to the environment will
be mitigated to the greatest extent
practicable. Indeed, no adverse impacts
are expected. The proposed action is
expected to improve environmental
conditions in Massachusetts Bay by
enabling contaminated material dumped
at the IWS in the past to be covered with
suitable dredged material so as to isolate
the former from the environment.
K. Executive Order 13158: Marine
Protected Areas
Executive Order 13158 (65 FR 34909,
May 31, 2000) requires EPA to
‘‘expeditiously propose new sciencebased regulations, as necessary, to
ensure appropriate levels of protection
for the marine environment.’’ EPA may
take action to enhance or expand
protection of existing marine protected
areas and to establish or recommend, as
appropriate, new marine protected
areas. The purpose of the Executive
Order is to protect the significant
natural and cultural resources with the
marine environment, which includes,
‘‘those areas of coastal and ocean
waters, the Great Lakes and their
connecting waters, and submerged lands
thereunder, over which the United
States exercises jurisdiction, consistent
with international law.’’
EPA anticipates that the proposed
action will afford additional protection
to the waters of Massachusetts Bay and
organisms that inhabit them. By
covering the barrel field and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Sep 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
surrounding seafloor sediment of the
historic IWS, potential contaminants
should be prevented from entering the
water column or food web in
Massachusetts Bay.
L. Executive Order 13547: Stewardship
of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great
Lakes
Section 6(a)(i) of Executive Order
13547, (75 FR 43023, July 19, 2010)
requires, among other things, EPA and
certain other agencies ‘‘. . . to the
fullest extent consistent with applicable
law [to] . . . take such action as
necessary to implement the policy set
forth in section 2 of this order and the
stewardship principles and national
priority objectives as set forth in the
Final Recommendations and subsequent
guidance from the Council.’’ The
policies in section 2 of Executive Order
13547 include, among other things, the
following: ‘‘. . . it is the policy of the
United States to: (i) Protect, maintain,
and restore the health and biological
diversity of ocean, coastal, and Great
Lakes ecosystems and resources; [and]
(ii) improve the resiliency of ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems,
communities, and economies. . . . ’’ As
with Executive Order 13158 (Marine
Protected Areas), the overall purpose of
the Executive Order is to promote
protection of ocean and coastal
environmental resources.
EPA anticipates that the proposed
action will afford additional protection
to the waters of Massachusetts Bay and
organisms that inhabit them. By
covering the barrel field and
surrounding seafloor sediment of the
historic IWS, potential contaminants
should be prevented from entering the
water column or food web in
Massachusetts Bay.
M. Executive Order 13771 Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This proposed action would not be a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 3, 1993) and is,
therefore, not subject to review under
Executive Order 13771. See OMB,
‘‘Guidance Implementing Executive
Order 13771, Titled ‘‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs’’ (M–17–21) (April 5, 2017), p. 3
(‘‘An ‘EO 13771 Regulatory Action’ is:
(i) A significant regulatory action as
defined in section 3(f) of EO 12866 that
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
44375
has been finalized and that imposes
total costs greater than zero . . . .’’).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228
Environmental protection, Water
pollution control.
Dated: September 6, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
1.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, title 40, Chapter I, of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as set forth below.
PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES
FOR OCEAN DUMPING
1. The authority citation for part 228
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
2. Amend § 228.15 by revising
paragraphs (b)(2)(i),)(ii), (iii), and (vi) to
read as follows:
■
§ 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a
final basis.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Location: Two overlapping circles:
Center of existing MBDS: 42°25.1′ N.,
70°35.0′ W., 1 nautical mile radius;
Center of temporary expansion:
42°26.417′ N., 70°35.373′ W., 0.75
nautical mile radius (NAD 1983).
(ii) Size: 4.60 sq. nautical miles.
(iii) Depth: Range from 70 to 91
meters.
*
*
*
*
*
(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be
limited to dredged material which meets
the requirements of the MPRSA and its
accompanying regulations. Disposaland-capping is prohibited at the MBDS
until its efficacy can be effectively
demonstrated. The temporary expansion
of the MBDS shall be used solely for the
disposal of suitable dredged material
generated during the Boston Harbor
Deep Draft Navigation Project using the
berm-building method devised and
tested by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The temporary expansion
will automatically close upon
completion of the Boston Harbor Deep
Draft Navigation Project.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2017–20326 Filed 9–21–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM
22SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44369-44375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20326]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228
[EPA-R01-OW-2017-0528; FRL-9967-82-Region 1]
Ocean Disposal; Temporary Modification of an Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site in Massachusetts Bay
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a temporary modification of the currently-designated
Massachusetts Bay Dredged Material Disposal Site (MBDS) pursuant to the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA).
The purpose of this temporary site modification is to allow for the
environmental restoration of a particular area adjacent to the
currently-designated MBDS (Potential Restoration Area) by temporarily
expanding the boundaries of the existing MBDS. The temporary expansion
is a circular area that contains the Potential Restoration Area, which
includes most of the historic Industrial Waste Site (IWS). Decades ago,
the IWS was used for the disposal of barrels containing industrial,
chemical and radioactive waste, as well as for the disposal of
munitions, ordnance, construction equipment, and contaminated dredged
material. The proposed modification of the disposal site boundary will
enable the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to place suitable
dredged material from Boston Harbor generated during the Deep Draft
Navigation Project at the Potential Restoration Area in order to cover
the barrels and other wastes disposed there in the past. The Deep Draft
Navigation Project includes maintenance dredging in the inner harbor,
which includes the expansion of a confined aquatic disposal (CAD) cell
and will generate approximately 1 million cubic yards (cy) of dredged
material, as well as improvement dredging of the main ship channel,
which will generate approximately 11 million cy of dredged material.
The existing MBDS will continue to be used for disposal of other
dredging projects as usual. The expansion area would be permanently
[[Page 44370]]
closed upon completion of the Boston Harbor maintenance and improvement
projects, while the existing MBDS will remain open for the disposal of
suitable dredged material. Like the MBDS, however, the expansion would
be subject to ongoing monitoring and management to ensure continued
protection of the marine environment.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OW-2017-0528, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: Publically available docket materials are available either
electronically at regulations.gov or on the EPA Region 1 Ocean Dumping
Web page at https://www.epa.gov/ocean-dumping/managing-ocean-dumping-epa-region-1. They are also available in hard copy during normal
business hours at the EPA Region 1 Library, 5 Post Office Square,
Boston, MA 02109.
The supporting document for this site modification is the Draft
Environmental Assessment on the Expansion of the Massachusetts Bay
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS), September 2017, which was
prepared by EPA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alicia Grimaldi, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail
Code: OEP 6-1, Boston, MA 02109; telephone--(617) 918-1806; fax--(617)
918-0806; email address_grimaldi.alicia@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Potentially Affected Persons
The expansion of the MBDS is a temporary modification made in order
to improve environmental conditions at the Potential Restoration Area
by allowing suitable dredged material from the USACE Boston Harbor
maintenance and improvement projects only to be placed over wastes
dumped in the past at the historic IWS. Therefore, the persons
potentially affected by this action would be limited to the USACE, who
are responsible for the Boston Harbor Deep Draft Navigation Project and
the disposal of dredged material into ocean waters under MPRSA. The
existing MBDS will continue to be used for the disposal of dredged
material suitable for ocean disposal pursuant to the MPRSA.
II. Background
A. History of Disposal Sites in Massachusetts Bay
The IWS is a disposal site in Massachusetts Bay approximately 20
nautical miles (nmi) east of Boston that was used in the past for
disposal of a variety of wastes that would not be permitted for
disposal today. The IWS is a circular cite with a center of
42[deg]25.7' N., 70[deg]35.0' W. and a radius of 1 nmi. It is believed
that disposal of derelict vessels, construction debris, commercial
waste, and dredged material at the area may have begun as early as the
early 1900s. There are records dating back to the 1940s for the
disposal of radioactive, chemical and hospital waste, ordnance,
munitions, etc. Use of the IWS was discontinued in 1977 and the site
was officially de-designated in 1990 (55 FR 3688). From 1977 through
1993, there was an Interim Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site for dredged
material disposal with a center 1 nmi east of the IWS at 42[deg]25.7'
N., 70[deg]34.0' W. and a radius of 1 nmi. In 1993, the existing MBDS
was designated by EPA with a center at 42[deg]25.1' N., 70[deg]35.0' W.
and a radius of 1 nmi, an area of 3.14 nmi\2\, and depth ranges from 82
to 92 m. The MBDS overlaps the IWS to the south, but avoids the known
densest concentration of barrels, also known as the barrel field. The
MBDS is used solely for the disposal of dredged material, primarily
from Boston Harbor.
The USACE will begin the Boston Harbor maintenance and improvement
dredging projects in the fall of 2017. The project is expected to
generate approximately 12 million cubic yards of dredged material
consisting primarily of Boston blue clay. EPA and USACE are proposing
to use this dredged material beneficially by covering the area in and
around the historic IWS barrel field. This will be accomplished
utilizing a method of disposal developed and tested by the USACE, which
is designed to prevent direct impact of sediment onto waste containers,
which could potentially break them or cause the resuspension of
potentially contaminated sediment on the seafloor.
Before any entity can dispose of dredged material at the MBDS, EPA
and the USACE must evaluate the project according to the ocean dumping
regulatory criteria (40 CFR 227) and determine whether to authorize the
disposal. EPA independently evaluates proposed disposal projects and
has the right to restrict and/or reject the disposal of dredged
material if it determines that the environmental protection
requirements under the MPRSA have not been met. This proposed
modification to the MBDS site boundaries does not constitute an
approval by EPA or USACE for open water disposal of dredged material
from any specific project.
B. Location and Configuration of Modified Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site
EPA proposes the temporary expansion of the MBDS boundaries to
include the Potential Restoration Area, which encompasses the IWS
barrel field. The expansion will be temporary, opening upon the
effective date of the Final Rule and closing upon completion of the
Boston Harbor maintenance and improvement dredging projects. The
temporarily expanded site will consist of two overlapping circles:
Center 1--42[deg]25.1' N., 70[deg]35.0' W., 1 nautical mile
radius (existing MBDS)
Center 2--42[deg]26.417' N., 70[deg]35.373' W., 0.75 nautical
mile radius (temporary expansion)
The area of the temporarily modified MBDS is 4.60 nmi\2\ and the
western edge is approximately 19 nmi east of Boston. Water depths at
the modified site range from 70 to 91m. Like the existing MBDS, the
modified MBDS will not overlap, and is not expected to impact, the
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS).
C. Management and Monitoring of the Site
Under the proposal, there would be two distinct areas of the
modified MBDS: The existing MBDS and the temporary expansion. The
existing MBDS will continue to be utilized as a dredged material
disposal site for those projects generating dredged material suitable
for open water disposal under the MPRSA. The temporary expansion will
solely be used for the disposal of
[[Page 44371]]
suitable material generated during the Boston Harbor maintenance and
improvement dredging projects. Disposal of dredged material in both the
existing MBDS and temporary expansion would be required to abide by the
Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the MBDS. The SMMP
includes management and monitoring requirements to ensure that the any
dredged material placed at the sites is suitable for ocean disposal and
that the adverse impacts of disposal, if any, are addressed to the
maximum extent practicable. The SMMP for the MBDS includes restrictions
on time-of-year for disposal and disposal vessel speeds, requirements
for the presence of a marine mammal observer for each disposal event,
and other guidelines to minimize any potential conflicts with
threatened or endangered species.
D. MPRSA Criteria
EPA has assessed the proposed temporary modification to the MBDS
according to the criteria of the MPRSA, with particular emphasis on the
general and specific regulatory criteria of 40 CFR 228.5 and 228.6, to
determine whether the proposed site modification satisfied those
criteria. The Draft Environmental Assessment of the Expansion of the
Massachusetts Bay Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) provides
an extensive evaluation of the site selection criteria and other
related factors considered in deciding to propose the modification of
the MBDS.
1. General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
(a) The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted only
at sites or in areas selected to minimize the interference of disposal
activities with other activities in the marine environment,
particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shellfisheries,
and regions of heavy commercial or recreational navigation.
Since it's designation in 1993, disposal at the MBDS has not
interfered with other activities in the marine environment. It is
anticipated that this will also be the case for the temporarily
modified MBDS. The IWS has been closed by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) since 1980 to the harvesting of surf clams and ocean quahogs.
There is also a warning from NOAA and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) on all nautical charts against harvesting fish and shellfish in
the area. The expanded MBDS area has low recreational boater density
and does not overlap with the shipping lanes into and out of Boston
Harbor.
(b) Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen
that temporary perturbations in water quality or other environmental
conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal operations anywhere
within the site can be expected to be reduced to normal ambient
seawater levels or to undetectable contaminant concentrations or
effects before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or
known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery.
The modified MBDS will be used only for dredged material suitable
for ocean disposal under the MPRSA. USACE also models disposal projects
to evaluate their potential to violate water quality standards. The
nearest shoreline to the modified MBDS is approximately 8 nmi to the
north. The prevailing current is not expected to transport dredged
material to surrounding beaches or shores. Temporary changes caused by
the physical movement of sediment through the water column will be
reduced to ambient conditions before reaching any environmentally
sensitive area. SBNMS is immediately east of the site, but a steep
bathymetric rise between the two features provides containment of
dredged material in the deeper area containing the modified MBDS, known
as Stellwagen Basin. There are no known geographically-limited
fisheries or shellfisheries in the project area.
(d) The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts
and permit the implementation of effective monitoring and surveillance
programs to prevent adverse long-range impacts. The size,
configuration, and location of any disposal site will be determined as
a part of the disposal site evaluation or designation study.
The size and configuration of the temporarily modified MBDS is
specifically designed to allow for the IWS barrel field to be covered
by suitable dredged material generated during the USACE Boston Harbor
maintenance and improvement projects. The MBDS area has been monitored
under the USACE Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) program since
the late 1970s. Monitoring will continue at the MBDS and temporary
expansion to prevent adverse long-range impacts.
(e) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites that have
been historically used.
The continental shelf is over 220 nmi east of Boston. Therefore,
transporting material to, and performing long-term monitoring at, a
site located off the continental shelf is not economically or
operationally feasible. The project area has been used for ocean
disposal since at least the early 1900s.
2. Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6(a))
(1) Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography and
distance from coast.
The temporarily expanded MBDS is located in an area of
Massachusetts Bay known as Stellwagen Basin and is approximately 8 nmi
from the nearest coastline in Gloucester, MA. The depth of the
temporarily expanded site ranges from 70-91 meters. The seafloor in the
area is primarily flat and primarily made up of silt and clay. There
are two glacial knolls included within the boundaries of the temporary
expansion, both roughly 20 m high. These knolls are not included in the
Potential Restoration Area and, therefore, no disposal will take place
on them.
(2) Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding,
or passage areas of living resources in adult or juvenile phases.
The MBDS area contains Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for various
fish species, and certain threatened and endangered species of whale
and sea turtle have been sighted in the vicinity of the MBDS.
Furthermore, the entirety of Massachusetts Bay, and most of the larger
Gulf of Maine, are designated as a critical foraging habitat for the
North Atlantic Right Whale by NMFS. At the same time, NMFS has
previously determined that dredged material disposal at the MBDS would
not impact any of these species and restrictions are in place to ensure
their safety, including vessel speed and disposal time-of-year
limitations and the requirement that marine mammal observers accompany
the USACE on vessels during disposal operations. Furthermore, any risk
of contaminants entering the food web is expected to be minimized by
the covering of the IWS barrel field.
(3) Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas.
The closest beach to the temporarily expanded MBDS is 10 nmi away.
The SBNMS is just east of the MBDS. Past dredged material disposal has
not impacted the SBNMS and no impact to the SBNMS is expected with the
temporary expansion of the MBDS.
(4) Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of, and
proposed methods of release, including methods of packing the waste, if
any.
[[Page 44372]]
The MBDS is only to be used for the disposal of dredged material
that is suitable for ocean disposal under the MPRSA. The temporary
expansion of the MBDS will only be used for suitable dredged material
generated during the USACE Boston Harbor maintenance and navigation
projects. Disposal within the temporary expansion will utilize a berm-
building technique devised by the USACE in order to minimize the risk
of barrel breakage or resuspension of potentially contaminated seafloor
sediment.
(5) Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring.
The MBDS is monitored through the DAMOS program under the guidance
of the SMMP. Disposal is also monitored through the National Dredging
Quality Management Program to confirm accurate placement of dredged
material. The area of temporary expansion will be included in the
monitoring of the MBDS under the DAMOS program from the time of first
disposal for as long as MBDS monitoring continues.
(6) Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing
characteristics of the area, including prevailing current direction and
velocity, if any.
Current velocities range from 0-30 cm/s in the MBDS area. Currents
are influenced by tides in a rotational manner, but net water movement
is to the southeast. Regional dredged material is primarily made up of
fine sand, silt, and clay. Dredged material generated during the USACE
Boston Harbor maintenance and improvement projects is primarily Boston
blue clay, which is cohesive and, therefore, settles rapidly. Minimal
horizontal mixing or vertical stratification of dredged material
occurs, resulting in low suspended sediment concentrations. Previous
modeling of initial disposal indicates no adverse impacts in the water
column or violations of water quality criteria. Previous studies have
demonstrated the relative immobility of dredged material at the MBDS.
Storms with the potential to cause sediment resuspension are rare in
Massachusetts Bay.
(7) Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and
dumping in the area (including cumulative effects).
Beginning in the early 1900s, the historic IWS was used for the
disposal of industrial, chemical, medical, low-level radioactive, and
other hazardous wastes, in addition to contaminated dredged material,
construction debris, derelict vessels, etc. An Interim MBDS was
designated in 1977 for the disposal of dredged material and it was
closed in 1993, which is when the existing MBDS was designated. Studies
and monitoring of the area have shown no significant impacts on water
quality, sediment quality, or marine resources. More information
regarding the effects of disposal in the area can be found in the Draft
Environmental Assessment on the Expansion of the Massachusetts Bay
Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site. The berm-building disposal
technique designed by USACE is intended to limit the resuspension of
potentially contaminated seafloor sediment or hazardous materials in
the area. Furthermore, placing dredged material generated during the
USACE Boston Harbor maintenance and improvement projects on top of
potentially contaminated materials dumped at the IWS in the past will
isolate these potential contaminants under a protective layer of
suitable sediments, consisting primarily of clay.
(8) Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas of special
scientific importance and other legitimate uses of the ocean.
Extensive shipping, fishing, recreational, and scientific research
activities take place in Massachusetts Bay throughout the year. Dredged
material disposal operations at the MBDS have not interfered with these
activities and the temporary expansion of the MBDS would also not
interfere with these activities. Due to the hazardous nature of
material historically disposed in the IWS, a warning to fishermen
against fishing and shellfishing in the area is already included on all
nautical charts and the area is closed for the harvesting of ocean
quahogs and surf clams. Therefore, disposal operations in the area
would not interfere with any existing fishing activity.
(9) The existing water quality and ecology of the site as
determined by available data or by trend assessment or baseline
surveys.
Monitoring at the disposal area has taken place since the late
1970s under the DAMOS program. Surveys at the MBDS have detected no
significant differences in water quality or biological characteristics
in the disposal site and adjacent reference areas. A Baseline Seafloor
Assessment Survey for the Proposed Expansion of the MBDS was completed
by the USACE in anticipation of this project and it is available on the
USACE DAMOS site at https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Missions/Disposal-Area-Monitoring-System-DAMOS/.
(10) Potentiality for the development or recruitment of nuisance
species in the disposal site.
There are no known components of dredged material or consequences
of its disposal that would attract or result in the recruitment or
development of nuisance species at the expanded MBDS. Nuisance species
have not been detected in any survey of the area.
(11) Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any
significant natural or cultural features of historical importance.
There are two known shipwrecks within the boundaries of the
existing MBDS: A Coast Guard vessel and a 55-foot fishing boat. Both
were intentionally sunk in 1981 and are not considered to be
historically significant. Additional shipwrecks have been revealed in
the area during subsequent surveys, although there are no identified
shipwrecks within the Potential Restoration Area. Disposal operations
have avoided and will continue to avoid any shipwrecks in the project
area by implementing a fifty-meter buffer around known shipwrecks
within which no disposal will occur.
III. Environmental Statutory Review
A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 4370f, requires Federal agencies to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
NEPA does not apply to EPA designations of ocean disposal sites under
the MPRSA because EPA's actions under the MPRSA are exempt from the
procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional equivalence
doctrine. Nevertheless, as a matter of policy, EPA undertakes a NEPA
review for certain of its regulatory actions, including the designation
of dredged material disposal sites under Section 102 of the MPRSA. The
EPA's ``Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of
NEPA Documents'' (Voluntary NEPA Policy), 63 FR 58045 (October 29,
1998), sets out both the policy and procedures the EPA uses when
preparing such environmental review documents.
The EPA's primary voluntary NEPA document addressing the proposed
temporary expansion of the MBDS is the Draft Environmental Assessment
on the Expansion of the Massachusetts Bay Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site (ODMDS) [September 2017] (Draft EA), prepared by EPA in
cooperation with USACE. Anyone desiring a copy of the Draft EA may
obtain one using the methods provided above in the Docket
[[Page 44373]]
section. The comment period for the Draft EA runs concurrently with the
comment period for this Proposed Rule. The Draft EA provides the
threshold environmental review for the temporary modification of the
MBDS. Information from the Draft EA is used in the above discussion of
the ocean dumping criteria.
The proposed action discussed in the Draft EA is the temporary
modification of the MBDS. The purpose of this proposed action is to
physically isolate potentially contaminated material dumped at the IWS
in the past by placing suitable dredged material generated during the
USACE's Boston Harbor maintenance and navigation projects. By covering
much or all of the barrel field in and around the historic IWS,
environmental conditions at the site will be improved.
USACE and EPA will continue to evaluate all federal dredged
material disposal projects in the MBDS pursuant to the EPA criteria set
forth in the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 220-229) and the USACE
regulations (33 CFR 209.129 and 335-338). After compliance with
regulations is determined, USACE issues MPRSA permits to applicants for
the transport of dredged material intended for disposal. Under Section
103(c) of the MPRSA, EPA can disapprove or add conditions to a project
proposing the ocean disposal of dredged material if, in its judgement,
the relevant regulatory criteria would not be met.
The following alternatives were considered, but eliminated from
detailed evaluation, in the Draft EA:
1. Geographic Alternative 2: Expansion Into Historic IWS
This Geographic Alternative would have expanded the MBDS only to
the legal boundaries of the historic IWS. The modified site would
consist of two overlapping circles, both with a radius of 1 nmi
centered at 42[deg]25.1' N., 70[deg]35.0' W. (MBDS) and 42[deg]25.7'
N., 70[deg]35.0' W. (IWS). This Alternative would have increased the
size of the MBDS from 3.14 nmi\2\ to 4.13 nmi\2\. The western boundary
of the modified site would have been only 0.02 nmi from the SBNMS. It
also would not have included a large portion of the barrel field
located just north of its boundaries, leaving part of the Potential
Restoration Area with its waste barrels and potentially contaminated
sediment exposed on the seafloor. As a result, EPA rejected this
alternative.
2. Temporal Alternative 2: Expansion for Three Years
This Temporal Alternative would have limited the expansion of the
MBDS to a three-year period, opening with the publication of the Final
Rule for the site modification and closing exactly three years later.
The Boston Harbor Deep Draft Navigation Project is contingent on the
availability of funding, various approvals, technical planning,
weather, etc., making it difficult to estimate the duration of the
project. This uncertainty could lead to delays in the maintenance and
improvement dredging and cause the MBDS expansion to close before the
dredging project is complete. This could leave a portion of the
Potential Restoration Area uncovered. The remaining dredged material
would be disposed in the existing MBDS instead of being used
beneficially. For these reasons, EPA rejected this option.
3. Temporal Alternative 3: Permanent Expansion
This Temporal Alternative would permanently expand the boundaries
of the MBDS. The dredged material from the Boston Harbor maintenance
and navigation projects would be disposed in the expansion, covering
the Potential Restoration Area. Once that disposal is complete, the
expansion could be used in the future for dredged material generated in
other projects. Careful planning to ensure dredged material is not
disposed directly onto waste containers or potentially contaminated
seafloor sediment is necessary. In order to limit this risk, it would
be preferable to cease disposal in the expansion after the restoration
project in the event that individual barrels remain exposed. In
addition, EPA site selection criteria favor minimizing the size of
disposal sites, in general. See 40 CFR 228.5(d). Therefore, once the
potentially contaminated materials are covered, EPA favors changing
MBDS site boundaries back to their earlier configuration.
4. No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the dredged material generated
during the Boston Harbor maintenance and improvement projects would not
be used beneficially to cover the barrel field in and around the
historic IWS. It would, instead, continue to be disposed in the
existing MBDS in multiple mounds.
5. Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Geographic and Temporal Alternative would expand the
boundaries of the MBDS for the entire duration of the Boston Harbor
Deep Draft Navigation Project. This temporary expansion consists of two
overlapping circles: 42[deg]25.1' N., 70[deg]35.0' W. with a 1 nautical
mile radius (MBDS) and 42[deg]26.417' N., 70[deg]35.373' W. with a 0.75
nautical mile radius (expansion). This area contains the entirety of
the Potential Restoration Area, which means that the barrel field can
be covered. Keeping the expansion open only during the Boston Harbor
maintenance and improvement projects ensures that all of the suitable
dredged material can be used beneficially over the Potential
Restoration Area and the area will not be subject to future disposal
with the potential to disturb potentially contaminated areas outside
the Potential Restoration Area. For these reasons, a site restriction
is being put in place directing that the expansion only be used for the
disposal of suitable dredged material from the Boston Harbor Deep Draft
Navigation Project using the berm-building technique designed by the
Corps and will automatically close upon the completion of that Project.
The Draft EA presents the information needed to evaluate the
suitability of the proposed modification and is based on a series of
disposal site environmental studies. The environmental studies and
final designation were and are being conducted in accordance with the
requirements of MPRSA, the Ocean Dumping Regulations, and other
applicable Federal environmental legislation.
B. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act (MSA)
EPA has integrated the EFH assessment into the Draft EA, pursuant
to Section 305(b), 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2), of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
as amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801-1891d. EPA is coordinating with NMFS
to ensure compliance with EFH provisions and will attempt to
incorporate any conservation recommendations from NMFS.
C. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
EPA has determined that the proposed modification of the MBDS is
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable
policies of the Massachusetts coastal management program and has
submitted this determination to the State for review in accordance with
the CZMA.
D. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to
1544, requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS and the Fish &
Wildlife
[[Page 44374]]
Service (FWS) to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried
out by the Federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat. The
EPA incorporated an assessment of the potential effects of temporarily
modifying the MBDS on aquatic and wildlife species, including any
species listed under the ESA, into the Draft EA, and EPA has submitted
that document to NMFS and FWS. EPA concluded that the proposed action
would not affect any threatened or endangered species, nor would it
adversely modify any designated critical habitat. EPA is coordinating
with NMFS and FWS to ensure compliance with the ESA.
E. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
The National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), 16
U.S.C. 470 to 470a-2, requires Federal agencies to take into account
the effect of their actions on districts, sites, buildings, structures,
or objects, included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National
Register of Historical Places. EPA is coordinating with the
Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to ensure
compliance with NHPA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This rulemaking proposes the modification of an ODMDS pursuant to
Section 102 of the MPRSA. This proposed action complies with applicable
Executive Orders and statutory provisions as follows:
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 3, 1993)
and is, therefore, not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This proposed site modification does not require persons to obtain,
maintain, retain, report, or publically disclose information to or for
a Federal agency.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires Federal
agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities (businesses, organizations, or
jurisdictions). EPA has determined that this proposed action will not
have a significant economic impact on small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed action contains no Federal mandates under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of
1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531 to 1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any
State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore,
this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205
of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities.
Those entities are already subject to existing permitting requirements
for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA
and State and local governments, EPA has coordinated with, and
specifically solicited comments from, State and local officials with
regard to this proposed action.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. The modification of the MBDS will
not have a direct effect on Indian Tribes, on the relationship between
the federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian
Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355) because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272),
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies.
The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed action includes
environmental monitoring and measurement as described in the MBDS SMMP.
The EPA will not require the use of specific, prescribed analytic
methods for monitoring and managing the MBDS. EPA plans to allow the
use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus
standard or not, that meets the monitoring and measurement criteria
discussed in the SMMP.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) establishes federal executive
policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
[[Page 44375]]
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA
determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations. This action is expected to be protective of
human health because the potential contaminants within the Potential
Restoration Area will be isolated under a protective layer of sediment.
This should help prevent any accidental recovery of barrels by
fishermen and prevent contaminants from the historic disposal from
entering the food web. The EPA has assessed the overall protectiveness
of modifying the MBDS against the criteria established pursuant to the
MPRSA to ensure that any adverse impact to the environment will be
mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. Indeed, no adverse
impacts are expected. The proposed action is expected to improve
environmental conditions in Massachusetts Bay by enabling contaminated
material dumped at the IWS in the past to be covered with suitable
dredged material so as to isolate the former from the environment.
K. Executive Order 13158: Marine Protected Areas
Executive Order 13158 (65 FR 34909, May 31, 2000) requires EPA to
``expeditiously propose new science-based regulations, as necessary, to
ensure appropriate levels of protection for the marine environment.''
EPA may take action to enhance or expand protection of existing marine
protected areas and to establish or recommend, as appropriate, new
marine protected areas. The purpose of the Executive Order is to
protect the significant natural and cultural resources with the marine
environment, which includes, ``those areas of coastal and ocean waters,
the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, and submerged lands
thereunder, over which the United States exercises jurisdiction,
consistent with international law.''
EPA anticipates that the proposed action will afford additional
protection to the waters of Massachusetts Bay and organisms that
inhabit them. By covering the barrel field and surrounding seafloor
sediment of the historic IWS, potential contaminants should be
prevented from entering the water column or food web in Massachusetts
Bay.
L. Executive Order 13547: Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the
Great Lakes
Section 6(a)(i) of Executive Order 13547, (75 FR 43023, July 19,
2010) requires, among other things, EPA and certain other agencies ``.
. . to the fullest extent consistent with applicable law [to] . . .
take such action as necessary to implement the policy set forth in
section 2 of this order and the stewardship principles and national
priority objectives as set forth in the Final Recommendations and
subsequent guidance from the Council.'' The policies in section 2 of
Executive Order 13547 include, among other things, the following: ``. .
. it is the policy of the United States to: (i) Protect, maintain, and
restore the health and biological diversity of ocean, coastal, and
Great Lakes ecosystems and resources; [and] (ii) improve the resiliency
of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, communities, and
economies. . . . '' As with Executive Order 13158 (Marine Protected
Areas), the overall purpose of the Executive Order is to promote
protection of ocean and coastal environmental resources.
EPA anticipates that the proposed action will afford additional
protection to the waters of Massachusetts Bay and organisms that
inhabit them. By covering the barrel field and surrounding seafloor
sediment of the historic IWS, potential contaminants should be
prevented from entering the water column or food web in Massachusetts
Bay.
M. Executive Order 13771 Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This proposed action would not be a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October
3, 1993) and is, therefore, not subject to review under Executive Order
13771. See OMB, ``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (M-17-21)
(April 5, 2017), p. 3 (``An `EO 13771 Regulatory Action' is: (i) A
significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of EO 12866
that has been finalized and that imposes total costs greater than zero
. . . .'').
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228
Environmental protection, Water pollution control.
Dated: September 6, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as set forth
below.
PART 228--CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN
DUMPING
0
1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
0
2. Amend Sec. 228.15 by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i),)(ii), (iii),
and (vi) to read as follows:
Sec. 228.15 Dumping sites designated on a final basis.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Location: Two overlapping circles: Center of existing MBDS:
42[deg]25.1' N., 70[deg]35.0' W., 1 nautical mile radius; Center of
temporary expansion: 42[deg]26.417' N., 70[deg]35.373' W., 0.75
nautical mile radius (NAD 1983).
(ii) Size: 4.60 sq. nautical miles.
(iii) Depth: Range from 70 to 91 meters.
* * * * *
(vi) Restriction: Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
which meets the requirements of the MPRSA and its accompanying
regulations. Disposal-and-capping is prohibited at the MBDS until its
efficacy can be effectively demonstrated. The temporary expansion of
the MBDS shall be used solely for the disposal of suitable dredged
material generated during the Boston Harbor Deep Draft Navigation
Project using the berm-building method devised and tested by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The temporary expansion will automatically
close upon completion of the Boston Harbor Deep Draft Navigation
Project.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-20326 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P