Ocean Dumping Regulation

The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) — commonly called the Ocean Dumping Act — regulates the deliberate disposal of materials into ocean waters. Since 1972, the law has progressively tightened restrictions, culminating in a near-total ban on sewage sludge and industrial waste ocean dumping after December 31, 1991.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 33 U.S.C. § 1401 — Congressional finding, policy, and declaration of purpose (declares U.S. policy to regulate all ocean dumping and prevent or strictly limit dumping of harmful materials)
• 33 U.S.C. § 1411 — Prohibited acts (makes it unlawful to transport material from the U.S. for ocean dumping, or to dump into U.S. territorial waters, without a permit)
• 33 U.S.C. § 1412 — Dumping permit program (authorizes EPA to issue permits after public hearings; prohibits permits for radioactive waste, chemical/biological weapons, and medical waste)
• 33 U.S.C. § 1413 — Dumping permit program for dredged material (authorizes the Army Corps to issue permits for ocean disposal of dredged material when it will not unreasonably degrade the marine environment)
• 33 U.S.C. § 1414 — Permit conditions (establishes conditions that must be included in dumping permits)
• 33 U.S.C. § 1414b — Ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste (phases out and then bans all ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste after December 31, 1991)
• 33 U.S.C. § 1414c — Prohibition on disposal of sewage sludge at landfills on Staten Island (site-specific prohibition)
• 33 U.S.C. § 1415 — Penalties (civil penalties up to $50,000 per violation; $125,000 for medical waste violations; criminal penalties for knowing violations)
• 33 U.S.C. § 1417 — Enforcement (authorizes EPA and Army Corps enforcement actions)
• 33 U.S.C. § 1419 — International cooperation (directs U.S. participation in international ocean dumping agreements, including the London Convention)
• 33 U.S.C. § 1441 — Monitoring and research program (requires ongoing monitoring of ocean dumping effects)
• 33 U.S.C. § 1443 — Research program on ocean dumping and waste disposal alternatives

Key Numbers

• December 31, 1991: the hard statutory deadline after which all ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste became illegal — a ban that ended decades of New York City's practice of dumping millions of tons of sewage sludge at the "12-Mile Site" in the New York Bight and forced every coastal city to invest in land-based alternatives
• Civil penalties: up to $50,000 per violation for general dumping violations; up to $125,000 per violation for illegal ocean dumping of medical waste — the higher rate reflecting the particular public health threat from improperly disposed medical waste washing onto beaches
• Absolute bans (no permit possible): radiological waste, chemical and biological warfare agents, high-level radioactive waste, and medical waste; these bans reflect both domestic policy and U.S. treaty obligations under the London Convention (1972) and London Protocol (1996)
• Dredged material volume: U.S. ports and waterways require dredging of approximately 150–200 million cubic yards of sediment per year to maintain navigation channels; ocean disposal at designated sites remains the dominant method for the share that doesn't qualify for beneficial reuse — making the Army Corps dredge-and-dump permit system the largest remaining legal ocean disposal program in the U.S.
• Beneficial reuse rate: approximately 30–40% of dredged material is now beneficially reused (beach nourishment, wetland creation, habitat restoration) rather than open-ocean dumped; the Army Corps's Beneficial Use Interagency Working Group tracks progress toward increasing this share
• Atlantic coast legacy: the New York Bight ocean disposal area — used for decades for municipal garbage, construction debris, sewage sludge, and dredged material — is one of the most studied marine waste disposal sites in the world; after the 1991 ban, EPA monitoring showed significant recovery of bottom communities within a decade
• London Protocol carbon sequestration exception: the 2009 London Protocol amendment authorized marine geoengineering and sub-seabed CO2 injection under permit — relevant to emerging carbon capture proposals that would inject CO2 into offshore geological formations, which technically constitutes placing material into the ocean environment

How It Works

The Ocean Dumping Act creates a two-track permit system. The EPA administers permits for all ocean dumping except dredged material — covering industrial waste, sewage sludge, construction debris, and other materials. The Army Corps of Engineers administers permits specifically for the ocean disposal of dredged material from harbor and channel maintenance. Both agencies must consider environmental impact criteria before issuing permits.

The law's most significant feature is its progressive tightening over time. When originally enacted in 1972, it established a permit system that allowed regulated dumping. The 1988 amendments (Ocean Dumping Ban Act) then imposed a hard deadline: after December 31, 1991, all ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste became illegal, period. This phaseout forced major coastal cities — New York City was the largest — to find land-based alternatives for millions of tons of sewage sludge.

Certain categories of material face an absolute prohibition with no permit possible: radiological waste, chemical and biological warfare agents, high-level radioactive waste, and medical waste. These bans reflect both domestic policy and U.S. obligations under the London Convention on ocean dumping.

For dredged material — the one remaining category where significant ocean dumping still occurs — the Army Corps must determine that disposal "will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment." The Corps must apply EPA's environmental criteria and consult with EPA before issuing permits. Dredged material dumping remains common because harbor and waterway maintenance generates enormous volumes that must go somewhere, and designated ocean disposal sites are often the most practical option.

The Act also establishes a research and monitoring framework. Federal agencies must monitor designated dumping sites for environmental effects and conduct research into alternative disposal methods. The goal is to continue reducing ocean dumping as better alternatives become available.

How It Affects You

If you work for a port authority, harbor agency, or the Army Corps of Engineers on a dredging project: Dredged material ocean disposal remains the primary legally active area of MPRSA permitting. Before ocean disposal of dredged material from a harbor maintenance or channel deepening project, you need an Army Corps permit (Section 103 of MPRSA) in addition to a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit. The Corps must apply EPA's environmental criteria, test the dredged material for contamination (especially metals, PCBs, and PAHs), and show that ocean disposal won't "unreasonably degrade" the marine environment. Contaminated sediment from urban industrial harbors often fails the testing criteria and cannot be ocean-dumped — which is why ports like New York Harbor, Baltimore, and Los Angeles face expensive confined disposal facility or beneficial reuse requirements for their most contaminated dredged material. The permitting timeline for major dredge projects typically runs 2-4 years from application to permit issuance, including NEPA review, biological assessment for ESA-listed species, and coastal zone consistency review.

If you operate a coastal wastewater treatment facility: The 1991 ban permanently ended ocean dumping as a sewage sludge disposal option — a change that forced every coastal treatment plant to develop land-based alternatives. The practical options are: landfill disposal (the default, but increasingly constrained as landfills reach capacity and permitting for new ones is difficult), incineration (capital-intensive), land application (composting and biosolids application to agricultural land — restricted in many states by PFAS contamination concerns in biosolids), and advanced treatment to produce Class A biosolids suitable for unrestricted beneficial reuse. PFAS contamination in municipal sewage sludge has become the new headache: several states have placed moratoriums on land application of biosolids containing PFAS, pushing treatment plants toward more expensive disposal options. The upstream source of the PFAS problem is industrial dischargers to the sewer system — but the disposal cost falls on the treatment plant and ultimately on ratepayers.

If you're a commercial fisherman or aquaculturist working near coastal dredge disposal sites: Designated ocean disposal sites — identified on NOAA charts — are where the Army Corps disposes of dredged material that meets the environmental criteria. These sites are periodically monitored by EPA and Army Corps for biological effects. The environmental review process for a new disposal site or expansion of an existing site includes fisheries impact assessment, which fishing industry representatives can participate in during the NEPA public comment process. If you fish near an existing disposal site and believe it is causing fisheries harm, EPA's MPRSA monitoring program is the reporting channel — EPA can require additional monitoring or impose disposal restrictions on specific sites if evidence of unreasonable degradation develops.

If you work in coastal infrastructure or climate resilience: The shift toward beneficial reuse of dredged material represents the most significant evolution in ocean dumping management in decades. Instead of simply dumping dredged sediment at designated ocean sites, the Army Corps's Beneficial Use Interagency Working Group now actively promotes using dredged material for beach nourishment (restoring eroding shorelines), thin-layer placement on subsiding marshes (to keep pace with sea level rise), habitat island construction, and living shoreline stabilization. These beneficial reuse applications are generally authorized under the same MPRSA and Clean Water Act framework as traditional disposal — the key difference is that the material goes to a use rather than simply being deposited. If your state or community is working on a coastal resilience project that requires large volumes of clean fill, beneficial reuse from a nearby dredging project may be a cost-effective source worth exploring with the Army Corps district office.

State Variations

This is exclusively federal law — no state variations apply. The Act preempts state law regarding ocean dumping in federal waters (beyond 3 nautical miles from shore). States may impose additional restrictions on dumping in their own territorial waters (within 3 nautical miles), and many do. Ocean dumping is prohibited within national marine sanctuaries. State coastal zone management programs under the Coastal Zone Management Act also interact with ocean dumping permit decisions. The Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act provide complementary regulatory authority over discharges and obstructions in navigable waters.

Implementing Regulations

• 33 CFR Part 336 — Factors Considered in Evaluating Army Corps of Engineers Dredging Projects Involving Discharge into Waters of the U.S. and Ocean Waters. Key provisions:

  • § 336.0 — General: because CWA jurisdiction extends to all waters of the U.S. (including the territorial sea) and the Ocean Dumping Act (ODA) extends over ocean waters including the territorial sea, both statutes can apply simultaneously to the same Corps dredging project; Part 336 establishes rules for how both regulatory schemes are applied to Corps civil works projects
  • § 336.1 — CWA § 404 discharges (domestic waters): although the Corps does not issue permits for its own activities in its own civil works projects, it must authorize its own discharges of dredged or fill material by applying the same standards as it would apply to private applicants under CWA § 404 — including public interest review (33 CFR Part 320), the Section 404(b)(1) EPA guidelines (40 CFR Part 230), and NEPA; the Corps is effectively its own permitting authority for its own dredging, but cannot evade the substantive standards
  • § 336.2 — ODA § 103(a) ocean disposal (ocean waters): when Corps dredged material will be transported to ocean disposal sites, the Corps must: (a) make a determination that the disposal will not unreasonably degrade the marine environment, applying EPA's environmental criteria (40 CFR Part 227); (b) provide notice and opportunity for public hearing; (c) notify EPA of the proposed disposal site; if EPA determines that the use of a proposed site will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the marine environment, the Corps cannot issue the permit for that site — EPA has effective veto power over ocean disposal site selection; the Corps must also seek the least costly environmentally acceptable alternative

  Part 336 is the legal scaffold for the regulatory reality described in the ocean dumping context: the Corps is simultaneously subject to both CWA § 404 and MPRSA § 103 for the same dredging projects, and must self-apply both sets of requirements. EPA's veto authority under § 336.2 for ocean disposal site selection is distinct from (and in addition to) EPA's § 404(c) veto authority under the CWA — giving EPA two separate leverage points over major Corps dredging operations.

• 40 CFR Part 228 — Criteria for the Management of Disposal Sites for Ocean Dumping (13 sections — EPA's environmental criteria for designating, evaluating, and managing ocean disposal sites under MPRSA § 102; these criteria govern which ocean sites may be designated and how EPA periodically reviews and modifies site designations):

  • § 228.1 — Applicability: the criteria apply to all proposed ocean dumping under MPRSA Title I; any proposed disposal of material in ocean waters must be evaluated against Part 228 before EPA can issue a permit or the Army Corps can authorize disposal; the criteria govern both initial site designation and ongoing site management
  • § 228.4 — Site selection criteria: EPA evaluates proposed disposal sites based on: (a) geographic position, depth, and distance from coast and shipping lanes; (b) physical and chemical oceanographic conditions (currents, dispersion rates, salinity stratification); (c) characteristics of the material to be dumped and its anticipated behavior; (d) biological and ecological conditions at the site (presence of sensitive marine habitats, fisheries resources, marine mammals); (e) potential for site recovery and restoration
  • § 228.5 — Evaluation of disposal impact at designated sites: designated sites are evaluated periodically; monitoring data is compiled and submitted as part of EPA's Annual Report to Congress; the evaluation determines whether continued use of the site is consistent with MPRSA requirements
  • § 228.6 — Continuing evaluation criteria: for sites already receiving material, EPA evaluates whether (a) the material being dumped is within previously analyzed composition and quantity; (b) oceanographic conditions have changed materially; (c) monitoring shows unexpected adverse effects on marine ecology or water quality; (d) the site's physical capacity is being approached
  • § 228.10 — Evaluating disposal impact: EPA periodically evaluates the cumulative impact of all disposals at a designated site; if evaluation reveals unacceptable adverse impacts, EPA may modify, restrict, or terminate site use
  • § 228.11 — Modification in disposal site use: withdrawal of designated sites from use or changes in the quantity or types of material allowed require the same rulemaking process as initial designation (notice, public comment, EPA determination); EPA may also make temporary modifications based on emergency conditions
  • § 228.12 — Preventing degradation: if monitoring reveals a site is experiencing degradation inconsistent with MPRSA's "unreasonable degradation" standard, EPA must act to prevent further degradation — either by restricting the quantity or type of material being disposed, requiring enhanced monitoring, or imposing operational modifications on permit holders

  The Part 228 criteria establish the scientific and procedural framework for the ~100 ocean disposal sites designated in U.S. waters. Most active ocean disposal occurs at sites designated for dredged material from harbor and waterway maintenance; a small number of sites remain designated for other permitted materials. EPA's Regional ocean managers maintain site-specific monitoring programs that generate the data used in the Part 228 periodic evaluations. Most recent Federal Register activity: 60 FR 57174 (1995) — refinements to site evaluation procedures.

Pending Legislation

• HR 1390 (Rep. Peters, D-CA) — Strict pollution limits and ocean monitoring for San Diego wastewater discharge. Status: In committee.

Recent Developments

Beneficial reuse of dredged material has moved from aspiration to policy priority. The Army Corps's 2022 Campaign Plan committed to increasing the share of dredged material placed beneficially — for beach nourishment, wetland restoration, and habitat creation — from the historical 30-40% toward a higher national target. Individual districts have implemented project-specific beneficial use programs: the New York District uses dredged material from New York Harbor maintenance for marsh restoration projects in Jamaica Bay and the Meadowlands; the Jacksonville District supplies beach nourishment programs along the Florida east coast with material from maintenance dredging of St. Johns River. The economics favor beneficial reuse when there are willing recipients nearby and the dredged sediment meets quality standards — it reduces disposal site costs for the Corps while providing fill material that coastal communities would otherwise have to purchase commercially.

The intersection of ocean dumping regulation and climate-driven infrastructure needs is becoming increasingly apparent. Container ships have grown dramatically in the past decade — the largest vessels now require channel depths of 50+ feet — forcing major port authorities to pursue deepening projects that generate huge volumes of dredged material. The Savannah Harbor Expansion (completed 2022), Miami Harbor, and ongoing Baltimore, Charleston, and Norfolk deepening projects each moved millions of cubic yards of sediment. Simultaneously, sea level rise is increasing the frequency of maintenance dredging needed to keep channels at authorized depths. This means both the supply of dredged material and the demand for coastal fill (for beach nourishment and marsh restoration against sea level rise) are increasing simultaneously — creating alignment between infrastructure needs and environmental restoration opportunities that the beneficial reuse framework is designed to capture.

The London Protocol's 2009 amendment authorizing sub-seabed CO2 sequestration has gained new relevance as carbon capture and storage moves from concept to commercial deployment. Offshore carbon storage projects — injecting CO2 into geological formations beneath the seabed — technically involve placing material into the ocean environment and require compliance with both the London Protocol and MPRSA. The U.S. has ratified the London Convention but not the 1996 London Protocol (which is stricter), creating potential legal uncertainty for U.S. offshore CCS projects that want international regulatory clarity. This is an emerging compliance frontier: EPA and the Army Corps are working through how MPRSA applies to sub-seabed geological storage, which is categorically different from surface ocean dumping but falls within the statute's broad definition of "disposal" in "ocean waters."

Trump energy dominance and LNG dredging fast-track (2025): The Trump administration's energy dominance executive orders directed federal agencies to expedite permitting and environmental review for LNG export terminal construction and expansion. Several LNG facilities — including projects in Louisiana, Texas, and Maryland — require deep-water channel dredging subject to MPRSA § 103 permits (for ocean disposal of dredged material) and Army Corps Section 10 permits. The administration directed the Army Corps to prioritize LNG-related dredging permitting; critics argue this rushed approach shortchanges ocean-quality sediment analysis that protects marine habitat. The practical effect: LNG-related dredging projects are moving faster through the Corps' MPRSA compliance process than comparable non-energy projects.

Dam removal and sediment management — dam removal wave continues (2025): The largest dam removal in U.S. history was completed in 2024 — the Klamath River dam removal in Oregon/California, removing four dams and releasing millions of cubic yards of stored sediment. The sediment release required Army Corps monitoring under MPRSA-adjacent water quality frameworks; downstream ocean sediment effects are being studied. The Trump administration has generally opposed dam removal (viewing dams as water storage and hydropower assets), but projects with pre-existing federal approvals have proceeded. Sediment management from dam removal — where the released material can affect coastal receiving environments — is an emerging intersection between MPRSA's ocean dumping framework and dam management policy.