SEPA
200,
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Water
(WH-556F)
EPA 503/9-89/009
June 1989
March 2830, 1989
Ocean City, NJ
^*sl^'-l%is-i§;S?TJijirv
Pnnted 0/7 Recycled Paper
-------
-------
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
OCEAN DUMPING WORKSHOP
106-MILE SfTE
held
March 28-30, 1989
Ocean City, NJ
Conducted by
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
Washington, DC,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Washington, DC,
and
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
Washington, DC
-------
-------
This document was prepared with the assistance of a working group consisting of representatives of
the US EPA, NOAA, and US Coast Guard. The working group included
David Redford, US EPA, OMEP
Susan Hitch, US EPA, OMEP
Barry Burgan, US EPA, OMEP
Darrell Brown, US EPA, OMEP
Frank Csulak, US EPA, Region II
Harold Stanford, NOAA, OAD
Tom O'Connor, NOAA, OAD
Stan Chanesman, NOAA, NMFS
John Pearce, NOAA, NMFS
Roger Hutchinson, NOAA, NMFS
Richard Lyons, USCG
Prepared under EPA
Contract No. 68-03-3319
and
68-C8-0105
-------
PREFACE
«
This report presents the organization, conduct, and results from a workshop convened by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
and United States Coast Guard (USCG) on ocean disposal of sewage sludge at the 106-Mile
Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site (106-Mile Site). The document conveys the findings of the
workshop. The materials presented here bring together the essence of the workshop findings and
recommended strategies.
EPA and NOAA began developing a monitoring plan for the 106-Mile Site in late 1985. EJetween
October 1985 and March 1988 iterative drafts of a monitoring plan and an implementation plan were
developed and reviewed by EPA. In March 1988 a Draft Final Monitoring Plan and Draft Final
Implementation Plan were accepted by EPA
Using workshop findings and other information, EPA . NOAA, and USCG will develop a monitoring,
research, and surveillance strategy for the 106-Mile Site and regions surrounding the site. The
existing monitoring and implementation plans will be revised to reflect this strategy. A separate
report describing the overall strategy for monitoring, research, and surveillance at the 106-Mile Site is
being prepared. An independent report discussing the monitoring program for the Middle Atlantic
Bight will also be prepared for submission to Congress in November 1989.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ocean dumping of sewage sludge has occurred in the inner New York Bight since 1924. Much of
this disposal occurred at a location known as the 12-Mile Site. The Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA, PL 92-532) was passed to regulate the disposal of wastes in the
ocean. As amended, MPRSA is the primary legislative authority directly related to ocean dumping.
Under MPRSA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for issuing permits for
sewage sludge disposal and for managing and monitoring ocean disposal sites. Surveillance of
operational aspects of the permit conditions and enforcement of permit conditions is a joint
responsibility of EPA and the United States Coast Guard (USCG). MPRSA assigns the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) the responsibility for monitoring effects of wastes
dumped into the ocean and continuing research programs on long-range effects of pollution and
human-induced changes on the marine environment.
In 1984, EPA designated the 106-Mile Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site (105-Mile Site), located 120
nautical miles southeast of Ambrose Light, New York, and 115 nautical miles from the nearest
coastline, as a replacement for the 12-Mile Site for disposal of municipal sewage sludge. Nine
sewerage authorities from the New York City/Northern New Jersey area began dumping activities at
this site in 1986. Since 1984, EPA has conducted eight surveys at and in the vicinity of the 106-Mile
Site. In 1987 and 1988, NOAA conducted 13 biological survey cruises in the Mid-Atlantic Bight area
that includes the 106-Mile Site.
Several recent marine pollution events focused the attention of many legislators, the news media,
and the public on a potential relationship between environmental degradation and dumping activities
at the 106-Mile Site. In response to public concern, Congress passed the Ocean Dumping Ban Act
of 1988 (ODBA) to end ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste by December 31,
1991. ODBA also requires that EPA, in cooperation with NOAA, design by November 1989 a
monitoring program for the region near the 106-Mile Site and including other disposal sites in the
Middle Atlantic Bight such as the now abandoned 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Dump Site, the industrial
waste sites, and other areas that may have been impacted by dumping. According to ODBA the
monitoring program must include (1) sampling of an appropriate number of fish and shellfish species
and other organisms to assess the effects of environmental conditions on living marine organisms in
these areas; and (2) use of satellite and other advanced technologies in conducting the program.
EPA, NOAA, and USCG convened a workshop in Ocean City, New Jersey on March 28 - 30, 1989 to
address concerns about potential effects on fisheries and human health risks resulting from disposal
of sewage sludge at the 106-Mile Site, and to assist in the process of identifying critical monitoring,
research, and surveillance needs relative to the 106-Mile Site. The goals of the workshop were (1) to
assess what is known about the transport and fate of the sludge; (2) to assess potential impacts on
living marine resources and on human health from disposal of sewage sludge at the 106-Mile Site;
and (3) to develop recommendations for future research, monitoring, and surveillance activities at the
106-Mile Site and in surrounding areas potentially impacted by sludge disposal at the site. Workshop
participants included representatives of Federal agencies and state governments, the scientific and
technical community, citizen groups, congressional staffs, and sewerage authorities. Four
management questions were addressed at the workshop:
1. What is the physical and chemical fate of the sewage sludge dumped at the 106-Mile
Site?
2. What is the effect of the sludge dumping at the 106-Mile Site on living marine resources?
3. What is the effect of the sludge dumping at the 106-Mile Site on human health?
iii
-------
4. Are there changes in site designation, permits, or surveillance that can provide better
protection of the environment, living marine resources, and human health?
The workshop participants assessed what is known about each of these questions; identified
additional needs for monitoring, research, and surveillance at the 106-Mile Site; and made
recommendations concerning strategies for conducting monitoring, research, and surveillance.
Several genera! conclusions were reached regarding sludge transport, impacts of sludge disposal on
living marine resources and public health, and management of the 106-Mile Site. These included the
following:
« Based on existing studies, sewage sludge is unlikely to move onto the shelf or
onto beaches nor is sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site likely to affect the
nearshore environment and beaches.
Existing studies have found no measurable effects of sewage sludge dumping
on living resources at the 106-Mile Site.
Existing information does not support allegations that seafood from the Middle
Atlantic Bight is unsafe for human consumption because of dumping at the 106-
Mile Site.
There is no evidence from existing studies that dumping of sewage sludge at the
106-Mile Site poses a threat to human health, either directly through recreational
or other water-related activities or indirectly through the consumption of seafood.
With regard to the movement of sludge from the 106-Mile Site, the workshop recognized that the
existing monitoring efforts at the 106-Mile Site should be expanded. Recommendations for continued
monitoring included use of the following:
Lagrangian drifter studies using satellite-tracked surface drifters to determine
current movements.
Real-time satellite imagery programs to evaluate shelf-front, Gulf Stream, and
warm core ring dynamics.
Eulerian current meter measurements to determine the transport vectors of
sludge in the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site.
Sediment trap studies to evaluate the settling of sludge from the surface ocean.
Use of recently acquired physical oceanographic data and available circulation
and sludge transport models to determine whether better predictions of siudge
transport can be made.
The workshop also recommended that the relative contribution of all contaminant sources to the
Middle Atlantic Bight be evaluated and ranked. Participants identified additional data needs relative
to nearfield movement of sludge within the 106-Mile Site. These included developing information on
the sludge settling behavior immediately after disposal and penetration through the pycnocline.
IV
-------
With regard to effects on living marine resources, the workshop recommended that monitoring and-
research be increased to determine the possible effects from sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site on
fish and shellfish. These recommendations Included:
Develop information on the exposure to and contaminant levels in less-well-
characterized, resident pelagic species and vertically migrating fish in and near
the 106-Mile Site.
Develop information on the level of pathogens and contaminants in
commercially important demersal fish (e.g., tilefish) and benthic organisms (e.g.,
lobster, red crabs, bivalves) inshore from the 106-Mile Site.
Perform short-term toxicity testing near the 106-Mile Site using marine species
from the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site when these tests are developed and have
been verified.
Evaluate the relationship between dumping and pathogens in marine organisms.
Conduct studies of the benthic communities on the continental shelf and slope
in the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site to determine potential alterations in community
structure.
Preliminary conclusions from an inter-agency group studying chitinoclasia, or shellfish disease, were
also presented to the participants. The conclusions indicate that chitinoclasia occurs naturally but
the incidence may be increased under environmental stress. The workshop recommended that
studies be implemented to determine the incidence and distribution of this disease and to determine
the cause/effect relationship to pathogens and contaminants.
From the perspective of human health; .several work groups recommended that the quality of
commercially important fish and shellfish from the area of influence of the 106-Mile Site be monitored
to assure the public that seafood remains safe for consumption. Studies recommended by the
workshop include
Increased monitoring for disease in fish and shellfish.
Increased monitoring for toxic chemicals and pathogens in commercially important
species.
Definition, quantification, and communication to the public of the risks from direct and
indirect exposure to sludge dumped at the 106-Mile Site.
Evaluation of relative risks from other potential exposure pathways in the Middle
Atlantic Bight.
The workshop also discussed EPA's tiered approach to monitoring the 106-Mile Site as presented in
the EPA monitoring and implementation plans. Participants were informed that this approach
provides a conceptual framework within which monitoring activities can be conducted in a cost-
effective sequence. The plan allows monitoring to be conducted in a sequential or parallel manner,
depending on the management questions being addressed, and as such is not a traditional
sequential pass-fail decision-making tiered framework.
-------
Wrth respect to the site regulation, surveillance, and monitoring, the workshop participants found the
tiered monitoring approach being used by EPA at the 106-Mile Site to be appropriate and adequate.
However, the participants strongly recommended that implementation of farfield fate and long-term
effects monitoring be accelerated. The workshop participants judged that conformance to regulatory
criteria was good but noted that violations have occurred. This, combined with concerns of the
fishing industry over out-of-site dumping, resulted in participants recommending that the operational
effectiveness of the Ocean Dumping Surveillance System be improved.
A common theme in all work group deliberations was the need to continue efforts to reduce
contaminant loads in sewage sludge through pre-treatment control programs.
The workshop recommended that results from recent and ongoing monitoring, research, and
surveillance actMties be summarized in both technical and public information documents. In
addition, the participants recommended that additional procedures be implemented to keep the
public aware and informed of activities and events both at the 106-Mile Site and Middle Atlantic Bight
in general. Other general recommendations included (1) formation of a "blue ribbon" panel as a
mechanism to enhance the participation of scientists and technical experts from the Federal
government in the review of the monitoring, research, and surveillance activities at the 106-Mile Site
and (2) integration of activities being conducted by the various Federal agencies currently involved
with the 106-Mile Site to eliminate overlap and to optimize agency roles.
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE H
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Hi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION, FOCUS, AND CONDUCT 2
1.1.1 Presentations 2
1.1.2 Management Questions .. 5
1.1.3 Key Technical Issues 6
2.0 SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP PRESENTATION 7
2.1 LEGISLATION AND MONITORING, RESEARCH, AND
SURVEILLANCE RESPONSIBILITIES 7
2.1,1 The Marine Protection,, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 7
2.1.2 Other Relevant Legislation 7
2.1.3 Ocean Dumping Ban Act 9
2.2 SURVEILLANCE OF DISPOSAL OPERATIONS 10
2.3 HISTORICAL INFORMATION 11
2,3.1 106-Mile Site History and Related Issues 11
2.3.2 Overview of Physical and Chemical Oceanography
Related to the 106-Mile Site 13
2.3.3 Overview of Living Marine Resources in the Middle
Atlantic Bight 13
2.4 PERSPECTIVES OF OCEAN DUMPING, FISHING INDUSTRY, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS 16
2.4.1 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries 16
2.4.2 Environmental Groups 16
2JS RECENT MONITORING RESULTS 17
2£.1 Overview of the EPA 106-Mile Site Monitoring Program 17
2L5.1.1 Development of the Monitoring Plan 17
2.5.1.2 Use of Monitoring Results 18
2.5.2 Recent Results of the Monitoring Program 21
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.0 DISCUSSION OFTHE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS ..................... ..... 24
%
3.1 QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL FATE OF THE
SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPED ATTHE 106-MILE SITE? ... .............. ... 24
3.1.1 Sludge Composition and Characteristics ......... ____ . ..... . 24
3.1 2 Short-Term Behavior .................................. ..... 25
3.1.3 Compliance with Ocean Dumping Regulations ............... _____ 27
3.1.4 FarfieW Fate ........................................... ... 27
Models ..................................... . ____ ..... ... 29
3.2 QUESTIONS WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING
ATTHE 106-MILE SITE ON LIVING MARINE RESOURCES? .......... . _____ 29
Characteristics of the Sewage Sludge ................... . ..... 29
3.Z2 Baseline Data on Living Marine Resources ........ . .......... ____ 31
3.2.3 Short-Term Effects at the 106-Mile Site ................ . ........ 31
3.2.4 Chronic Exposure, Bioaccumulation, and Long-Term Effects ........ 31
3^L5 Shell Disease ............. . ................ . ........... . . 32
3.2.6 EPA Monitoring Plan-Biological Effects ............... . ........ 33
3.3 QUESTIONS: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF SLUDGE DUMPING AT THE
106-MILE SITE ON HUMAN HEALTH? ......................... ...... 34
3.3.1 Potential for Direct Human Exposure ................. ____ . ____ 34
3.3.2 Potential for Indirect Human Exposure ......................... 35
3.3.3 Harvested Resources of Concern ....................... . . ____ 36
3^.4 Conclusions Based Upon Available Information ..... . ____ . ____ ... 36
3.4 QUESTION 4: ARE THERE CHANGES IN SITE DESIGNATION, PERMITS,
OR SURVEILLANCE THAT CAN PROVIDE BETTER PROTECTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENT, LIVING MARINE RESOURCES AND HUMAN HEALTH? ..... 37
3.4.1 Regulatory Requirements . ............... . ........ . ......... 37
3.4.2 Site Monitoring ............. . ....... . ..................... 37
3.4.3 Site Designation ..... . . ........ . . ......................... 38
3.4.4 Management Tools/Methods for Site Evaluation ............... ... 38
4.0 IDENTIFIED NEEDS AND RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES ............... , .... 39
4.1 QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL FATE OF
THE SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPED ATTHE 106-MILE SITE? ............... 39
4.1.1 Sludge Composition and Characteristics .................... ___ 39
4.1.1.1 Data/Information Needs ......................... ... 39
4.1.1.2 Recommended Strategies for Addressing Sludge
Composition and Characteristics Needs ................ 39
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.1.2 Short-Term Behavior 40
4.12.1 Information Needs 40
4.122 Recommended Strategies for Addressing the Short-Term
Fate Needs 40
4.1.3 Farfield Fate ... . 41
4.1.3.1 Information Needs 41
4.1.3.2 Strategy for Addressing the Farfield Fate Needs 41
4.1.3.3 Public Communication 42
4.1.4 Models 42
4.1.4.1 Information Needs 42
4.1.42 Strategy for Addressing the Modeling Needs 42
4.15 General Strategies 43
42 QUEST1ON2: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING
ATTHE 106-MILE SITE ON LIVING MARINE RESOURCES? 44
4.2.1 Characteristics of Sewage Sludge 44
42.1.1 Toxicity Tests 44
42.12 Pathogens 44
422 Baseline Data on Living Resources 44
42.3 Short-Term Effects 45
42.4 Chronic Exposure, Bioaccumulation, and Long-Term Effects 45
42£ The EPA Monitoring Plan 45
42.6 Living Marine Resources 45
42.6.1 Farfield Effects .' 45
42.62 Public Education 45
42.6.3 Short-Term Effects . I 47
42.6.4 Oversight of Monitoring and Research Activities 47
4.3 QUESTIONS: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF SLUDGE DUMPING AT THE
106-MILE SITE ON HUMAN HEALTH/? 48
4.3.1 Potential for Direct Human Exposure 48
4.3.1.1 Information Needs 48
4.3.12 Direct Exposure Information Needs 48
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.3J2 Potential for Indirect Human Exposure 48
4.3J2.1 Information Needs 48
4.3.12. Indirect Exposure Needs 49
4.&&S Consumer Concerns ' 49
4.4 QUESTION 4: ARE THERE CHANGES IN SITE DESIGNATION.
PERMITS, OR SURVEILLANCE THAT CAN PROVIDE BETTER
PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT. LIVING MARINE RESOURCES.
AND HUMAN HEALTH? 50
4.4.1 Recommendation for Regulatory Issues 50
4.4.2 Recommendations for Surveillance 50
4.45 Recommendations for Monitoring . 50
4.4.4 Recommendations for Site Designation 50
4.45 Recommendations for Management Tools/Methods for
Site Evaluation - 51
4.5 FUTURE DIRECTIONS 51
5.0 REFERENCES : -.. ^
APPENDIX A. LIST OF PERSONS 1NVTTED TO THE 105-MILE SITE WORKSHOP A-1
APPENDIX B. REPORTS OF WORKGROUP CHAIRPERSONS B-1
APPENDIX C. REPORTS OF WORKGROUP STRATEGISTS C-1
APPENDIX D. RECOMMENDATIONS OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHIC AND MODELER
SUBWORWNG GROUP D-1
APPENDIX E. TABLES - ISSUES IDENTIFIED FOR DISCUSSION E-1
APPENDIX F. SUMMARY OF NATIONAL UNDERSEA RESEARCH PROGRAM
' RESEARCH ACTIVITIES F-1
APPENDIX G. SUMMARY OF CHITINOCLASIA WORKGROUP PRESENTATION .... .... G-1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1. LIST OF PRESENTATIONS AND PRESENTERS FOR THE
106-MILE SITE WORKSHOP, MARCH 28-30, 1989 3
TABLE 2. MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE 106-MILE SITE
WORKSHOP, MARCH 28-30,1989 4
TABLE 3. BACKGROUND SUMMARY OF STUDIES CONDUCTED IN THE VICINITY
OFTHE KB-MILE SITE 14
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF REPORTS OF MONITORING STUDIES CONDUCTED
UNDER THE EPA 106-MILE SFTE MONITORING PROGRAM 22
LIST OF FIGURES
RGURE 1. MIDDLE ATLANTIC BIGHT AREA SHOWING LOCATION
OFTHE 106-MILE SFTE 12
RGURE 2. INFORMATION ON CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE AND OF
THE SLUDGES WILL BE USED TO PREDICT POTENTIAL IMPACTS
OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL AT THE SITE 19
RGURE 3. MONITORING TIERS ADDRESS PERMIT COMPLIANCE AND IMPACT
ASSESSMENT 20
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Ocean dumping of sewage sludge has occurred since 1924. The Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA, PL 92-532) was passed to regulate the disposal of wastes in the
ocean. As amended, MPRSA is the primary legislative authority directly related to ocean dumping. It
is commonly referenced as the Ocean Dumping Act, and is the domestic legislation implementing
the London Dumping Convention. Under MPRSA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is assigned responsibility for issuing sewage sludge disposal permits and for managing the ocean
disposal sites. Surveillance of operational aspects of the permit conditions and enforcement of
permit conditions is a joint responsibility of EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). MPRSA assigns
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) the responsibility for monitoring
effects of wastes dumped into the ocean, and for continuing research programs on long-range
effects of pollution and human-induced changes in the marine environment.
EPA designated the 106-Mile Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site (106-Mile Site) to receive municipal
sewage sludge in 1984. The 106-Mile Site is located 120 nautical miles southeast of Ambrose Light,
New York and 115 nautical miles from the nearest coastline. Nine sewerage authorities from the
New York City/northern New Jersey area began dumping at the 106-Mile Site in 1986. Beginning in
late 1985 and continuing through 1988, EPA developed and revised a draft monitoring plan for the
106-Mile Site to focus monitoring activities regarding the potential effects of sludge dumping on
marine life and human health, and to gain information regarding continued site management and
permitting activities. Since 1984, EPA has conducted eight surveys at and in the vicinity of the 106-
Mile Site. Early surveys focused on collecting baseline information. Subsequent surveys assessed
nearfield fate, short-term effects, and farfield fate of sewage sludge. In 1987 and 1988, NOAA
conducted 13 biological survey cruises in the Mid-Atlantic Bight area that includes the 106-Mile Site.
The surveys examined ichthyoplankton, zboplankton, pelagic juvenile bluefish, and bottom fish.
During some of these cruises and during six other NOAA surveys to the area, measurements of
oceanographic conditions and circulation were made in the area. In addition, sediment samples
were taken during three of the NOAA surveys.
Several recent marine environmental events focused the attention of many legislators, the news
media, and the public on an alleged relationship between environmental degradation and dumping
activities at the 106-Mile Site. These events included decreases in offshore fisheries catches, dolphin
kills, diseases in crabs and lobsters, and floating debris washing up on New York and New Jersey
beaches. The perceived problem of seafood contamination led to a decrease in seafood sales. In
response to public concern, Congress passed the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 (ODBA) to end
ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste by 1991 or as soon after as possible. Any
municipalities using the 106-Mile Site beyond the 1991 deadline will be required to pay substantial
penalties. ODBA also requires the following:
By November 1989, EPA, in cooperation with NOAA, must design a monitoring
program for the 12-Mile Site, the 106-Mile Site, the industrial waste sites, and
other areas that may be impacted by dumping. The monitoring program is to
include (1) sampling of an appropriate number offish and shellfish species and
other organisms to assess the effects of environmental conditions on living
marine organisms in these areas; and (2) use of satellite and other advanced
technologies in conducting the monitoring program.
The payment of fees and penalties, a portion of which will go to EPA and NOAA
to conduct monitoring and research, and to the USCG to conduct surveillance
operations.
1
-------
. EPA is to prepare annual reports to Congress on the progress made in ending
the dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste.
. EPA is to prepare annual reports to Congress, in cooperation with NOAA, on the
results of environmental monitoring.
. By May 1989, EPA in cooperation with the USCG, is to prepare a report
regarding progress made using electronic surveillance equipment and other
methods to detect dumping outside the 106-Mile Site.
In oartial response to the ODBA requirements and consumer concern about the safety of seafood,
EPAT NOAA, and USCG convened a workshop to address concerns about potential risks to fisheries
and human hearth of disposing sewage sludge at the 106-Mile Site and to asstotathe process of
identifying critical monitoring, research, and surveillance needs relative to the 106-M.le Site. The
workshop was held in Ocean City, New Jersey on March 28-30,1989. To gam a broad under-
standing regarding the potential effects of municipal sludge disposal at the site, representat.ves from
Federal agencies and state governments, the scientific and technical community, citizen groups,
congressional staffs, and sewerage authorities were invited to-participate in this workshop. Appendix
A lists persons invited to the workshop. Approximately 100 persons attended the workshop.
The goals of the workshop were to (1) assess what is known about the transport and fate of sewage
sludge; (2) to assess potential impacts on living marine,resources and human health from disposal of
sewage sludge at the 106-Mile Site; and (3) to develop recommendations for future research,
monitoring, and surveillance at the 106-Mile Site.
During the workshop, participants
Assessed available information concerning the site .and dumping activities.
Examined the potential effects on marine life and human health risks associated with
sewage sludge dumping at the 106-Mile Site.
. Discussed whether changes in the existing monitoring, research, and surveillance
efforts are needed in order to implement more effective approaches and techniques.
Provided recommendations for modifying EPA's existing monitoring plan, and identified
research and surveillance needs.
1.1 WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION. FOCUS. AND CONDUCT
1.1.1 Presentations
The workshop was convened by Tudor Davies of EPA, Charles N. Ehler of NOAA, and David L
Folsom of the USCG. In the first session of the workshop, participants were provided with
background information on the history, use. and monitoring of the 106-Mile Site plus an
understanding of the role of each Federal agency (Table 1). The remainder of the workshop focused
on four management questions 0"able 2) related to the monitoring plan for the 106-Mile Site and to a
broader monitoring program for the Middle Atlantic Bight, including the New York Bight Apex, the
-------
TABLE 1. UST OF PRESENTATIONS AND PRESENTERS FOR THE 106-MILE SITE WORKSHOP,
MARCH 28-30, 1989.
PRESENTER
TOPIC
Craig Vogt, EPA
Tudor Davies, EPA
Charles N. Ehler, NOAA
David L Folsom, USCG
John Everett, NOAA
Richard Allen, AOFA
Boyce Miller,
Oceanic Society
Darrell Brown, EPA
Frank Csulak, EPA
Tom O'Connor, NOAA
John Pearce, NOAA
David Redford, EPA
Frank Csulak, EPA
Lee Follwein, USCG
Terry Whitledge, U. of Texas
Larry Swanson, State U.
of New York, Stony Brook
Angela Cristini, Ramapo
College of New Jersey
John Pearce, NOAA
Thomas Billy, NOAA
Robert Wetherell, FDA
Deny Bennet
American Littoral
Society
Introduction of Workshop Staff and Organizers
Convenor
Convenor
Convenor
Workshop objectives and related products
Perspectives on Ocean Dumping at the 106-Mile Site
by Commercial and Recreational Fishermen
Perspective on Ocean Dumping at the 106-Mile Site
by Environmental Groups
Legislation Concerning Dumping at the 106-Mile Site
Overview and History of Dumping at and Management and
Surveilleance of the 106-Mile Site
Overview of Physical and Chemical Oceanography Related to the
106-Mile .Site
Overview of Living Marine Resources in the Middle Atlantic Bight
Overview of the EPA 106-Mile Site Monitoring Plan
Recent Monitoring Results from the 106-Mile Site
Overview of Ocean Dumping Surveillance
Chairman, Question 1
Strategist, Question 1
Chairman, Question 2
Strategist, Question 2
Chairman, Question 3
Strategist, Question 3
Chairman, Question 4
William Muir, EPA
Strategist, Question 4
-------
TABLE 2. MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE 106-MILE OTE
WORKSHOP, MARCH 28-30, 1989.
1. What is the physical and chemical fate of the sewage sludge dumped at the 106-Mile Site?
2. What is the effect of the sludge dumping at the 106-Mile Site on living marine resources?
3. What is the effect of the sludge dumping at the 106-Mile Site on human health?
4. Are there changes in site designation, permits, or surveillance that can provide better
" protection of the environment, living marine resources, and human health?
-------
industrial waste site, and other areas of potential influence from sewage sludge dumping. In addition,
the participants addressed broader issues relative to the ocean dumping of sewage sludge, including
(1) the potential for onshelf sediment and food-chain contamination, especially by pathogens, (2) the
potential for long-term/farfield toxic effects in the deep water column, and (3) the need to define the
contribution of 106-Mile Site dumping relative to other stresses to existing and potential problems in
the New York Bight.
1.1.2 Management Questions
To address the four management questions (Table 2), a series of specific issues and questions was
identified and made available to the participants in advance of the workshop (Battelle, 1989a). At the
workshop, participants were organized into four work groups composed of representatives of the
various agencies, scientific disciplines, and environmental groups. This organization maximized the
opportunity for interaction between persons with various backgrounds and interests. Each work
group was led by a chairperson who was assisted by a strategist and a rapporteur. The chairperson
directed the activities of each work group, summarized known information about the various issues,
and identified additional information needs relative to the management questions being addressed.
The strategist was responsible for identifying monitoring, research, and surveillance strategies
resulting from the discussions. Each work group addressed each of the four of the management
questions.
The discussion of each management question was structured as follows: the questions and issues
associated with each management question were presented by one of the work group chairpersons
in a plenary session to the workshop participants; and the work groups were given a specific set of
issues to address, along with the options of adding other issues or discussing issues assigned to
other work groups. Discussions of each work group session focused on assessing the current level
of understanding about the effects of dumping in relation to the workshop .questions, and developing
recommendations for inclusion in the comprehensive research, monitoring, and surveillance plan.
After the group discussions were concluded, each work group chairperson presented summary
findings of their work group to all of the participants. The session chairperson presenting the
question then prepared a written summary of the results of discussions from the four work groups.
These summaries are included in Appendix B. The strategists for all groups worked together to
develop strategies for addressing the identified needs for each management question. On the last
day of the workshop, each of the strategists presented summaries of the recommended strategies.
These are included in Appendix C.
During the workshop, the physical oceanographers and modelers convened an independent session
to elaborate on questions concerning the transport and fate of the sludge. A list of
recommendations developed by this group is included as Appendix D.
Summaries of the presentations from the plenary session can be found in Part 2. The major findings
of the workshop relative to the four management questions, plus workshop recommendations to
include in a research, monitoring, and surveillance strategy for managing the 106-Mile Site, are
presented in Parts 3 and 4. The interested reader will find different formats for the summary of the
workshop discussions in the chairmen and strategists' reports that are included in the appendices.
These various presentations which sometimes appear to be different, if not at odds, were used to
develop the overall summaries that appear in the document. Part 3 of this document summarizes
background data and information relative, to the management questions plus additional information
from the workshop. Section 3.1 (page 24), Section 3.2 (page 29, Section 3.3 (page 34), and Section
3.4 (page 37) address questions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Discussion of the monitoring needs and
-------
strategies recommended for addressing these needs are presented in Part 4. Questions 1, 2, 3, and
4 are addressed in Section 4.1 (page 39), Section 4.2 (page 44), Section 4.3. (page 48), and Section'
4.4 (page 57), respectively. The findings and recommendations will be used by EPA, NOAA, and
USCG to jointly develop an overall strategy for monitoring, research, and surveillance in the Middle
Atlantic Bight This strategy will be incorporated into a comprehensive research, monitoring, and
surveillance plan for the 106-Mile Site.
1.1.3 Key Technical Issues
Prior to the workshop, numerous questions relevant to the four management questions were raised.
These questions, plus monitoring and management concerns identified by the convening agencies,
were complied into a series of brief statements and were included in the background document sent
to the workshop participants. These issues are summarized in Appendix E. Workshop participants
were able to add to and discuss additional issues.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS
2.1 LEGISLATION AND MONITORING. RESEARCH. AND SURVEILLANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
The MPRSA, P.L 92-532 as amended, is the primary legislative authority regulating ocean dumping
at the 106-Mile Site. It is commonly referred to as the Ocean Dumping Act and is the domestic
legislation implementing the London Dumping Convention. The MPRSA has been amended several
times in the years since it was originally passed, most recently by ODBA. The provisions of the
ODBA are discussed in Section 2.1.3.
2.1.1 The Marine Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) administer the permit programs under the
MPRSA. EPA issues disposal permits for all materials except dredged material. The USAGE issues
all dredged material disposal permits. Surveillance and enforcement of permit conditions is the joint
responsibility of EPA and USCG. EPA designates disposal sites and is responsible for site
monitoring and management. USCG is assigned responsibility for surveillance to ensure that
operational aspects of the permit conditions are met. NOAA is responsible for research programs on
long-range effects of pollution and anthropogenic changes to the marine environment. The major
sections of the ocean dumping regulations that administer the MPRSA are summarized below.
40 CFR Part 227 Criteria for Evaluation of Permit Applications for Ocean Dumping of
Materials
This part of the ocean dumping regulations develops criteria for determining
acceptability of materials, evaluating environmental impact, determining materials that
are prohibited as other than trace contaminants, and developing limits for disposal
rates and quantities.
40 CFR Part 228 Criteria for Management of Disposal Sites for Ocean Dumping
This section of the ocean dumping regulations deals with the selection, designation,
and management of ocean disposal sites. Three functions address management: (1)
site designation, (2) permit terms, and (3) site monitoring. These functions consist of
conducting disposal site evaluation and designation studies, and recommending
modifications in site use and/or designation (site designation); regulating times, rates,
and methods of disposal, and quantities and types of materials that can be disposed
(permitting); and developing and maintaining effective monitoring programs for
dumpsites (site monitoring). The three management functions are interdependent and
are intended to prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment resulting
from ocean disposal of wastes.
2.1.2 Other Relevant Legislation
EPA has additional legislative authorities that relate to the oceans, sewage sludge, and hazardous
and toxic substances. These include:
-------
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Acti Amendments of 1972. and Waiter
Quality Act of 1987 (Amends Clean Water Act)
Section 104n: EPA has the responsibility to conduct and promote studies of pollution in the
estuaries and estuarine zones of the United States.
Section 301 h: EPA may allow variances from secondary treatment for sewage discharges into
marine waters, if the applicant for a variance satisfactorily demonstrates that the discharge
meets certain criteria intended to protect the water and ecosystem.
Section 311: EPA has the responsibility to define the quantity of oil that may be harmful if
released into navigable waters of the United States (up to 200 miles offshore). EPA has the
responsibility to require certain onshore or offshore facilities to prepare and implement a Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan to prevent the unauthorized, unpernnitted
release of oil into navigable waters of the United States.
Section 312: EPA has the responsibility to promulgate standards of performance for marine
sanitation devices.
Section 320: Establishes the National Estuary Program.
Section 403: EPA has the responsibility to evaluate the impact of pollutants on marine
ecosystems prior to issuing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
The evaluations include such factors as pollutant dispersal and persistence, presence of fish
spawning or nursery areas, and ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability.
Section 404: The Secretary of the Army has the responsibility for issuing permits for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters of the United States. The EPA
Administrator is authorized to prohibit the specification of any defined area as a disposal site
whenever he determines that the disposal of material into the area will have an unacceptable
adverse impact on. municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas, or recreational
areas.
Toxic Substances Control Act fTSCA)- This Act requires the EPA Administrator to maintain a
current list of chemicals in use in the United States and to review any new chemical
substances to protect public and environmental health from the adverse effects of chemical
exposure. Based on this review, EPA may prohibit or condition the manufacture, distribution,
and use of such chemical substances that, as determined by the agency, pose an
unacceptable risk to health and the environment.
Federal Food. Drug, and Cosmetic Act- The purpose of this Act is to ensure that food is safe,
pure, and wholesome; that human and animal drugs, biological products, and therapeutic
devices are safe and effective; and that radiological products do not result in unnecessary
exposure of humans to radiation.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-This Act requires complete tracking of
hazardous waste from its origin to disposal. An enforcement mechanism ensures compliance
with record-keeping procedures and that disposal of hazardous waste is accomplished without
contamination of the environment
-------
Clean Air Act- The 1970 Amendments of the Clean Air Act authorize EPA to set National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to achieve protection of public health. The States are
required to design, seek EPA approval for, and enforce state implementation plans (SIPS) to
ensure attainment of the NAAQS. These amendments also require EPA to set National
Emissions Standards for new stationary sources. With the 1977 Amendments, sanctions and
implementation strategies were introduced for areas of non-attainment of the NAAQS.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) was introduced for attainment areas as a means
"of controlling emissions.
NOAA also has additional research responsibilities to protect the nation's oceans. Legislation that
defines these responsibilities includes the following:
The National Ocean Pollution Planning Act of 1978-This Act assigns NOAA
responsibility for establishing a coordinated program for ocean pollution research,
development, and monitoring, and for preparing, every three years, a coordinated five-
year Federal marine pollution, research, and monitoring plan. The plan, which includes
identification of and recommendations for meeting research needs, is prepared by
NOAA with the assistance of an interagency committee.
The Fish and Wildlife Act-This Act requires NOAA to manage, conserve, and protect
fishery resources.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act-This Act requires NOAA to conserve and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to investigate effects of pollutants on
living resources.
The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended-This Act
requires NQAA to conduct a comprehensive program of fishery research to determine
impacts of pollution on marine resources and effects of habitat degradation on
abundance and availability of fish.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act-Under these Acts
NOAA's stewardship responsibilities are extended to all living marine resources, and
include designating and protecting their critical habitats.
2.1.3 Ocean Dumping Ban Act
During November 1988, the MPRSA was amended to require an end to ocean dumping of sewage
sludge and industrial waste by December 31, 1991. The key provisions of ODBA include the
following:
« No new dumpers of sewage sludge or industrial waste.
No dumping of sewage sludge or industrial waste without a permit and compliance or
enforcement agreement.
» Dumping fees imposed starting 270 days from enactment of the Act and continuing
until December 1991.
« Financial penalties imposed for dumping after 1991.
9
-------
Under ODBA sewage sludge dumping must be conducted under permits. Permits will authorize
municipalities to dump sewage sludge in the ocean under specific dumping conditions that specify
quantity of sewage sludge dumped, dilution and dumping rates, location of dumping and surveillance
and monitoring activities. Consent decrees contain the municipal dumper's plans and schedules for
implementing sludge disposal alternatives to ocean dumping. Compliance and enforcement
agreements will also specify the financial and accounting arrangements for the municipal dumper's
payment of fees. Every municipality that disposes of sludge by ocean dumping must pay a special
fee which will increase over time, for every dry ton of sewage sludge that is dumped into the ocean.
The fees will be used as financial assurance that an alternative to ocean dumping is provided within a
reasonable time period. EPA, NOAA, and USCG will each receive five dollars per dry ton from the
fees paid to support monitoring, research, and surveillance activities. Part of the fees must be paid
into a trust account, established by the dumper, set aside to hold the funds until needed to pay For
development of an alternative waste management system. Other parts of the fees must be paid to
EPA, to a State Clean Oceans Fund, and to a State's Water Pollution Control Revolving Loan
Program. If the State has not created a Clean Oceans Fund or a Water Pollution Revolving Fund,
that portion of the fees will be paid to EPA, to be held in escrow for up to one year. The fees may
then either be paid to the State or placed in the U.S. Treasury. Fee payments are to be distributed
by the EPA.
£2. SURVEILLANCE OF DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
The Ocean Dumping Surveillance System (ODSS) is currently used to track disposal operations at
the 105-Mile Site. Sixteen barges have been equipped with the ODSS. Only these barges are
permitted to carry sludge to the 106-Mile Site. The ODSS allows tracking the position of the barge,
and determination of the rate of sludge disposal (through pressure sensors located on each barge,
and information on barge configuration and capacity). The ODSS design uses off-the-shelf
components whenever feasible and has a design specification of 95 percent accuracy. This
specification is judged sufficient to eliminate the need for ship riders. Data from the ODSS is
transmitted via radio to a shorebased relay station located at the USCG Electronics Shop Group,
Sandy Hook, NJ. From the relay station the data is transmitted to the USCG NY Operations Center,
Governors Island, NY. USCG submits ODSS data to the EPA for review and regulatory actions.
Because the radio transmissions are line-of-site, USCG remains in direct contact with the barges for
only two-thirds of the distance to the 106-Mile Site. Data from beyond the transmission range is
stored onboard the ODSS. Once the barge returns to the communication range of the system, the
stored data are sent to the base station. Present plans entail examining the possibility of using
GEOSTAR to achieve-continuous contact with the barges.
Operationally, ODSS data are available from approximately 50 percent of the barges going to the
106-Mile Site. Operational status of the ODSS is not known to the barge operators at any time. The
data availability goal for the ODSS is 80 percent coverage of all barge transits to the 106-Mile Site.
Because of recent concerns about sludge transfers from feeder barges to the ODSS-equipped
barges within local harbors, EPA is installing seals on all valves on each barge and is instituting a
sludge manifest system to track all sludge movement between the loading point and the 106-Mile
SKe.
10
-------
2.3 HISTORICAL INFORMATION
2.3.1 106-Mile Site History and Related Issues
The area originally known as the 106-Mile Site was bounded by 38°40'00" to 39°00'00" north latitude
and 72°00"00" to 72°30"00" west longitude. Approximately 500 square nautical miles in size, it was
used from 1961 to 1963 as a site for disposal of chemical wastes. In 1965 the site was proposed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an alternative to inland disposal, which might result in
contamination of drinking water supplies. From 1961 to 1978, approximately 5.1 million metric tons
of liquid chemical wastes, 102,000 metric tons of municipal sludge, and 287,000 metric tons of
municipal sludge digester cieanout residue were disposed of at the site.
When ocean dumping came under EPA regulation in 1973, 66 permittees were dumping wastes at
the site. By 1979, this number had decreased to four. During the same period, the amount of waste
increased from 341,000 metric tons in 1973 to 797,000 metric tons in 1978.
From 1973 to 1978, approximately 287,000 metric tons of digester cieanout residues from the New
York/New Jersey metropolitan area were dumped at the site. Municipal sludge disposal at the site
was limited during this period. Between 1978 and 1979, only the city of Camden used the site for
municipal sludge disposal.
In 1982, EPA published its intention to formally designate the site formally for disposal of industrial.
wastes and municipal sludge (47 FR 56663), and the site was proposed to receive sewage sludge for
5 years, pending environmental studies. However, concern that mixed dumping of industrial and
municipal wastes would complicate monitoring efforts led to a decision by EPA to designate two
smaller sites within the larger one. On May 4, 1984, the Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site (Figure 1)
was designated (49 FR 19005). It is approximately 100 square nautical miles, with boundaries at
38°40'00" to 39°00'00" north latitude and 72°00'00" to 72°05'00" west longitude. The second site,
designated on May 4, 1984, was to receive aqueous industrial wastes. This site has not been used
since 1987 and is not further discussed in this document.
Designation of ihe Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site was linked to EPA's decision to end municipal
sludge disposal at the 12-Mile Site, located within the New York Bight Apex. That site had been used
for sludge disposal since 1924. It was given an interim designation for sludge disposal in 1973 and
was formally approved for use in 1979. The interim designation of the 12-Mile Site expired in 1981.
However, in accordance with a 1981 court order, the Site continued to be used pending an EPA
decision on redesignation of the Site (City of New York v. EPA, 543 Supp. 1084).
EPA announced its intention to deny petitions to redesignate the 12-Mile Site concurrent with the
formal designation of the 106-Mile Site for disposal of municipal sludge. The final decision to deny
these petitions was published in 1985 (50 FR 14336). This action ended the court order allowing use
of the 12-Mile Site and shifted disposal operations to the 106-Mile Site. All sewerage authorities
using the 12-Mile Site at the time it was closed were allowed to shift operations to the 106-Mile Site.
Under the court order, EPA and the sewerage authorities involved negotiated a schedule to phase in
operations at the 106-Mile Site. The phase-in was initiated on March 17, 1986, and completed on
December 15, 1987. The nine sewerage authorities are
Westchester County Department of Environmental Studies, New York
Bergen County Utilities Authority, New Jersey
11
-------
71 '00'
70 '00'
- 42-00'
- 41-00'
- 40*00'
3S-00'
31-00'
M -00
73 -00
n -oo
71 -00
70 '00
FIGURE 1. MIDDLE ATLANTIC BIGHT AREA SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE 106-
MILE SITE
12
-------
Joint Meeting of Essex and Union County, New Jersey
LJnden-Roselle Sewerage Authority, New Jersey
Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority, New Jersey
Middlesex County Utilities Authority, New Jersey
« Passaic Valley Sewerage Authority, New Jersey
Nassau County Department of Public Works, New York
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, New York.
It is now estimated that 8 million wet tons of sewage sludge are dumped at the 106-Mile Site
annually.
2.3.2 Overview of Physical and Chemical Oceanography Related to the 106-Mile Site
The 106-Mile Site and areas of potential impact have been studied during several recent programs
(Table 3). The results of studies conducted through 1983 are summarized in Pearce et al. (1983).
More recently, a summary of results from studies conducted in the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site has
been compiled for EPA (Battelle, 1988b). The literature cited in these reports may be referenced for
detailed discussions of the results from these studies.
The 106-Mile Site is located in a dispersive environment. Evidence from studies of acid iron waste
' disposal at the 106-Mile Site illustrates that dilution may be affected by the seasonal pycnocline and
that once the rapid mixing caused by barge momentum stops, additional dilution resulting from
oceanic processes is slow. Furthermore, the evidence from the acid iron waste studies indicated
while long-term transport may be to the southwest, individual plumes will be transported from the site
in all directions. Relative to the farfield distributions of the sludge, simple model calculations indicate
that dilutions on the order of > 500,000:1 will occur in the farfield. Because of this dilution, the
sludge signal cannot be easily detected against the background concentrations in the surface waters
of the ocean. Therefore, monitoring programs designed to detect the sludge in the farfield must
focus on gradients emanating from the site and must use parameters that are characteristic of the
sludges, if the sludge is to be successfully detected in the farfield. Calculations suggest that the flux
of sludge to the sediments may be detected using sediment traps, if the rate of sludge settling is
relatively high. However, the flux of contaminants to the sediments from the sludge disposal may be
less than the background flux. The complexity of the ocean dynamics at the 106-Mile Site and many
of the difficulties encountered in evaluating the fate of sludge disposed at the 106-Mile Site were
highlighted during this presentation.
2.3.3 Overview of Living Marine Resources in the Middle Atlantic Bight
Information on living marine resources available through 1980 in the area potentially affected by the
disposal of sewage sludge at the 106-Mile Site is summarized in Pearce et al. (1983). This report
includes results from two NOAA programs, Marine Resources Monitoring Assessment and Prediction
(MARMAP) and Northeast Monitoring Program (NEMP). The report includes information on nutrient
distributions, dissolved oxygen concentrations, phytoplankton biomass and community structure,
13
-------
TABLE 3. BACKGROUND SUMMARY OF STUDIES CONDUCTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE 106-
MILE SITE.
Study
Sponsor
Prime
Contractor
Study
Dates
Mid-Atlantic Slope and
Rise Physical Oceanography
Study (MASAR)
Shelf Edge Exchange
Processes Program
(SEEP)
Study of Biological
Processes on the U.S.
Mid-Atlantic Slope
and Rise
Analysis of Trace
Metals in Bottom
Sediments on the
U.S. Mid-Atlantic
.Slope and Rise
Study of Biological
Processes on the U.S.
North Atlantic Slope
and Rise
Analysis of Trace
Metals in Bottom
Sediments on the U.S.
North Atlantic Slope
and Rise
Four Studies of
Baseline Conditions
at the 106-Mile Site
Study of Baseline
Conditions at the
North Atlantic
Incineration Site
D0la, MMSb SAIC°
DOEd
DOI, MMS
DOI, MMS
DOI, MMS
DOI, MMS
EPA"
EPA
BNLe, L-DGOf
Battelle
USGS9
Battelle
USGS
JRB'
Battelle
Battelle
Battelle
Battelle
9/83-9/86
1982-1992
3/84-7/86
3/84-7/86
11/84-4/87
11/84-4/87
7-8/84
8/85
2/86
8-9/86
11/B5
14
-------
TABLES. Continued
Prime Study
Study Sponsor Contractor [Dates
Current Meter EPA Battelle, SAIC 9/86-4/87
Measurements at the
106-Mile Site in
Support of
Municipal Waste Disposal
Analysis of Circulation NOAAj EG&G 1968-1981
Characteristics in the
Vicinity of Deepwater
Dumpsite 106
Warm-Core Ring Program NFS Various
1981-1982
aDOI = Department of Interior
MMS = Minerals Management Service
SAIC = Science Applications International Corporation
dDOE = Department of Energy
eBNL = Battelle Northwest Laboratories
L-DGO = Lamont-Dougherty Geological Observatory
9USGS = United States Geological Survey
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
'JRB = JRB Associates
JNOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15
-------
zooplankton standing stock and species, fish eggs and larva, benthic fauna, fisheries stocks, marine
mammals, and birds.
Few data are available from regions seaward of the shelf slope break. The majority of results
discussed in Pearce et. al. (1983) is limited to areas landward of the shelf slope.break. Thus
information on living marine resources from the immediate vicinity of the 106-Mile Site is limited,
especially for commercially important species.
Commercially important species are not typically fished within the boundaries of the 106-Mile Site
and the domestic fisheries do not normally extend beyond the shelf break. Rshenes of '"V*""
In the Middle Atlantic Bight include the yellow-tail flounder, red hake, Atlant,c mackerel, sp.ny dogfish,
tilefislvand shellfish (lobsters and red crab). Other species that may be found in the area include
the loggerhead turtle and bottlenose dolphin. Landing statistics show a downward trend that
predates the sludge disposal activities at the 106-Mile Site, for yellowfin, silver hake, and haddock.
During this plenary presentation, data were presented that showed temporal variations ,n abundance
of commercial stocks and variability in yearly landings, the cause of which ,s not known. Studies ,n
the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site during the summer of 1989 include conduct of a midwater trawl
reconnaissance survey in June 1989 to assess the feasibility of a myctophid sample collection
program for determination of contaminant levels in these fish.
2.4 PERSPECTIVES OF OCEAN DUMPING. FISHING INDUSTRY. AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
Representatives from the recreational and commercial fisheries and from environmental groups^were
asked to present their perspectives on the ocean dumping of sewage sludge at the 106-Mile Site.
Summaries of these presentations are provided below.
2.4.1 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
In general, the fishing industry views ocean dumping as a threat to their livelihood The threat stems
from consumer perception that the quality of fish from the Middle Atlantic B.ght ,s being degraded by
ocean disposal of the sludge. These perceptions have negative economic impacts on the fisheries
industry through reduced prices and sales volumes.
The major concerns of the fishing industry are the fate of the sludge in the ocean and adherence to
regulations requiring disposal of sludge within the 106-Mile Site. A fishing industry representative
slated "that the sludge must go somewhere in the ocean." That sludge transport vectors and fate
are not known with confidence has increased the concern of the fishing industry relative to the
impact of the sludge. This uncertainty contributes to the fishing industry's belief that sewage sludge
disposal is bad for the ocean and not beneficial to the fishing industry.
2.4.2 Environmental Groups
Environmental groups are concerned over the use of monitoring data, contaminant accumulation in
biological communities, parameters that should be included in the mqnitoring program, and permit
conditions. These groups recognize the need for active use of monitoring data to manage the
disposal operations and to modify government policies regarding the disposal of the sludge.
Environmental groups do not want the monitoring data used only to document changes in the
system. They believe that the environment at the 106-Mile Site is already stressed and therefore any
16
-------
incremental changes in the system that may result from sludge disposal could lead to significant
environmental impacts. Concern about the lack of pre-disposal baseline data for the ecosystem and .
marine resources was expressed.
Environmental groups suggest that additional biological measures be added to the monitoring plan
so that changes at and near the 106-Mile Site can be documented. Suggested additional parameters
include species diversity in the zooplankton and benthos, fish species, measures of reproduction,
and concentrations of contaminants in tissues.
Regarding the permits for disposal of sludge at the 106-Mile Site, environmental groups recommend
that the permits be creative to allow active regulation of the sludge disposal both with respect to
dumping rates and loading at the disposal site. Creative options presented include (1) suspension or
cancellation of dumping if significant effects are detected and (2) linking conditions for disposal to
requirements for reducing toxic compounds in the sludge.
2.5 RECENT MONITORING RESULTS
The MPRSA and ocean dumping regulations require assessments of the effects of disposal of wastes
at sea on public health and the marine environment before disposal sites can be selected, before
permits to use the site are issued, and while a designated site is in use. Each of these management
activities-site designation, permitting, and monitoring-are designed to ensure that unacceptable
impacts do not result from disposal of wastes at sea. Monitoring programs conducted under the
MPRSA and the ocean dumping regulations are designed (1) to verify compliance with conditions set
to restrict disposal activities, and (2) to verify that compliance with permit conditions does in fact
protect the environment. Beginning in late 1985, EPA began designing a monitoring program to
meet these objectives for the 106-Mile Site. A brief description of the draft plan completed in March
1988 is provided below.' -
2.5.1 Overview of the EPA 106-Mile Site Monitoring Program
2.5.1.1 Development of the Monitoring Plan
EPA has developed a monitoring plan (Battelle, 1988b) and an implementation plan (Battelle, 1988c)
as part of its monitoring program for the 106-Mile Site. Information on site and waste characteristics
provide the framework for monitoring of the site. Development of the monitoring plan benefited from
information on the physical, chemical, and biological conditions in the vicinity of the site available
through the site designation process and additional baseline monitoring conducted by EPA and other
Federal agencies (NOAA, 1977; Pearce, et al., 1983; EPA, 1980; Battelle, 1988a, 19886). Because
potential users of the site had previously disposed of sludge at the 12-Mile Site, information about
the sludge to be disposed is also available (e.g., Santoro and Suszcowski, 1986). This information,
plus more recent site characterization data, are being used to set permit conditions and to predict
whether adverse impacts are likely to result from sludge disposal at the site.
The ocean dumping regulations define several specific areas of potential impact that must be
addressed in any monitoring plan developed for ocean disposal sites. These include
Impingement of sludge upon shorelines.
Movement of sludge into marine sanctuaries or fishery areas.
17
-------
Accumulation of sludge components in marine organisms.
Progressive changes in water quality related to sludge disposal.
Progressive changes in sediment composition related to sludge disposal.
. Impacts on pollution-sensitive species or life-cycle stages as a result of sludge disposal.
Impacts on endangered species as a result of sludge disposal.
« Progressive changes in biological communities as a result of sludge disposal.
In addition, the ocean dumping regulations require that permit conditions ensure that marine water
quality criteria and toxicity-based limiting permissible concentrations are not exceeded in the site
within 4 hours of disposal or outside the site at any time. These regulatory requirements were used
to develop a series of predictions of potential impacts relative to the disposal of sludge at the 106-
Mile Site (Figure 2) These predictions formed the basis for developing specific questions relating to
compliance and impact assessment. After identifying, specific questions, testable null hypotheses
relating to compliance, fate, and effects of sewage sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site were
developed. The hypotheses were organized into logical categories or monitoring tiers. For the 106-
Mile Site monitoring program, the null hypotheses were grouped into the following hierarchy of four
tiers (Figure 3).
Tier 1-Sludge Characteristics and Disposal Operations
Tier 2-Nearfield Fate and Short-Term Effects
Tier 3-Farfield Fate
Tier 4-Long-Term Effects
The arrangement of monitoring tiers and hypotheses are used to direct the level of monitoring
activity that is conducted. Within each tier, explicit objectives and endpoints guide the selertion of
monitoring activities. Data collected within each of the hierarchy of tiers form the foundation for the
design and conduct of activities to be implemented in the next tier. The tier monitoring approach is
not a decision-tier system that requires a pass-fail determination for conducting additional work under
higher monitoring tiers. Although monitoring activities are generally implemented in a stepwise
manner, testing of hypotheses in more than one tier may proceed concurrently, if required to
address important questions. This approach ensures that necessary information for making
decisions about continued monitoring or about site designation or permitting is gathered (2!eller and
Wastier, 1986).
2JL12. Use of Monitoring Results
Results from the 106-Mile Site monitoring program are intended to help EPA make decisions about
issuing permits for site designation and continued monitoring. Because sludge disposal at the site
began under court order, in advance of issuing permits, monitoring results are being used to set as
well as to modify permit conditions. Information from Tier 1, Waste Characteristics and Disposal
Operations, and Tier 2, Nearfield Fate and Short-Term Characteristics, is being used to revise and set
18
-------
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Physical Oceanography
Hydrography
Currents
Water Masses
Bottom Characteristics
Sediment Grain Size
Sediment Composition
Baseline Chemistry Data
Sediments
Water Column
Water Quality
- Mvtals
Organic Compounds
Microbiology
Baseiine Biology Data
Plankton
Endangered Species
Benthic Communities
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
Physical Characteristics
Settling Data
Chemical Characteristics
Priority Pollutants
" Conventional Pollutants
Toxicology
Bioassays
Disposal Operations
Quantity of Material
« Method of Release
Frequency and Duration
CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Shoreline impingement
Movement into Marine Sanctuaries
Effect on Commercial Fisheries
Accumulation in Biota
Changes in Water -Quality
Changes in Sediment Composition
Effects on Sensitive Speci.es
Effects on Endangered Species
Effects on Biological Communities
FIGURE 2. INFORMATION ON CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE AND OF THE
SLUDGES WILL BE USED TO PREDICT POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF
SLUDGE DISPOSAL AT THE SITE
19
-------
ASSESSMENT OF PERMIT COMPLIANCE
- Melhods ol Disposal
- Sludge Constituents
Disposal Rales
Limiling Permissible Concentrations
Water Quality Criteria
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Shoreline Impingement
Movement into Marine Sanctuaries
Ellecl on Commercial Fisheries
Accumulation in Biota
- Changes in Water Quality
Changes in Sediment Composition
Absence ol Sensitive Species
Absence o! Endangered Species
Changes in Biological Communities
TIER 1
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS/DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
Assessing information on the characteristics ol
the sludge and on the disposal operations.
TIER 2
NEARFIELD FATE 4 SHORT-TERM EFFECTS
Assessing late and ellecl ol sludge wilhin and
in (he vicinity ol the site.
TIER 3
FARFIELD FATE
Assessing direction and areal extent ol transport
ol sludge beyond the site and over the long term.
TIER 4
LONG-TERM EFFECTS
Assessing long-term ellects that are a result ol
sludge disposal at the site.
FIGURE 3 MONITORING TIERS ADDRESS PERMIT GQMPUANCE AND IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
-------
allowable dumping rates. Ongoing collection of information on waste characteristics will be used to
update allowable dumping rates on a quarterly basis.
As monitoring results are generated, they become part of the body of information used to make site
management decisions. Information on short-term effects from Tier 2 studies are used for
determining whether adverse effects do result from sludge disposal at the site. Information from Tier
3 on the farfield transport and fate of sludge constituents allows estimation of the transport direction
and areal distribution of sludge constituents. Conclusive information on long-term effects of sludge
disposal may not be complete by 1991. Impacts that occur shoreward from the site will be difficult
to separate from other, pollutant inputs in this region of the ocean; impacts seaward of the
continental shelf may prove difficult to measure. However, sufficient information will be available to
support the site management decisions and to refine impact predictions made within the monitoring
plan.
Monitoring results will also support decisions concerning continuation, modification, or termination of
the monitoring program. Because of public concern, escalating importance of commercial interests,
and expanding regional issues, modification of the 106-Mile Site monitoring program to include the
interests of these groups is likely. Decisions regarding the direction, extent, and duration of the 106-
Mile Site monitoring program will need to be assessed on a continuing basis.
2.5.2 Recent Results of the Monitoring Program
A number of reports discussing the results of the EPA monitoring program for the 106-Mile Site have
been completed (Table 4). Summary discussions of the monitoring results were included in the 106-
Mile Site Workshop background materials (Battelle, 1989a). A synopsis of the results, as they relate
to monitoring, research, and surveillance for sewage sludge at the 106-Mile Site, is presented in the
discussion'of'the four management questions addressed by the workshop.
21
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF REPORTS OF MONITORING STUDIES CONDUCTED UNDER THE EPA
106-MILE SITE MONITORING PROGRAM.
Battelle 1988a. Final Report of Analytical Results of the 106-Mile Deepwater Sludge Durnpsite
Survey-Summer 1986. A report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment 1-31.
Battelle 1988b. Rnal Report for Nearfield Monitoring of Sludge Plumes at the 106-Mile Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Site: Results of a Survey Conducted August 31 through September 5, 1987.
A report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-
3319. Work Assignment 1-63.
Battelle. 1988C. Site Condition Report of Nearfield Fate Monitoring at the 106-Mile Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Site: Winter 1988 Oceanographic Survey March 1-5, 1988. A report
submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work
Assignment 1-105.
Battelle. 1988d. Final Report of 106-Mile Deepwater Dumpsite Winter 1988 Survey. A report
submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work
Assignment 2-105.
Battelle. 1988e. Initial Survey Report of the Summer 1988 Oceanographic Survey to the 106-Mile
Site September 10 to 20,1988. A report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment 1-118.
Battelle. 1988f. Rnal Survey Report of the Nearfield Fate Monitoring at the 106-Mile Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Site: Winter 1988 Oceanographic Survey March 1 - March 5, 1988. A report
submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work
Assignment 1-105.
Battelle. 1987a. Analysis of Baseline Seawater and Sediment Samples from the 106-Mile Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Site. A report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment 21.
Battelle. 1987b. Evaluation of and Recommendations for Bioaccumulation Studies for the 106-Mile
Deepwater Municipal Sludge Monitoring Program. A report submitted to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment 47.
Battelle. 1987c. Strategy for Plume Tracking Methods at the 106-Mile Site. A report submitted to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment
63.
22
-------
TABLE 4. Continued
Battelle. 1987d. Analytical Procedures in Support of the 106-Mile Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site
Monitoring Program. A quality assurance plan submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment 21.
Battelle 1987e. Final Report on Analytical Results of Samples Collected During the 1986 North
Atlantic Incineration Site (NAIS) Survey. A report submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment 5.
Battelle. 1987f. Site Condition Report for Plume Tracking Survey for the 106-Mile Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Site Monitoring Program in Support of the EPA 106-Mile Site Monitoring
Program. August 29 - September 5, 1987. A report submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment 1-63.
Battelle. 1987g. Initial Survey Report for Plume Tracking Survey for the 106-Mile Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Site in Support of the EPA 106-Mile Site Monitoring Program August 29-
September 5, 1987. A report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment 63.
23
-------
3.0 DISCUSSION OF THE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS
3 1 QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL FATE OF THE SEWAGE SLUDGE
" ~ DUMPED AT THE 106-MILE SITE?
Question 1 was concerned with the fate of the sludges disposed of at the 106-Mile Site. Background
material for this question that was provided to the participants included information on sludge
composition and characteristics, short-term behavior after disposal (0-24 hours), compliance with
ocean dumping regulations, farfield fate, and sludge transport models.
3.1.1 Sludge Composition and Characteristics
Sludge characteristics data are reported to EPA quarterly by the municipal authorities. For most
parameters, the characteristics are reported for whole sludge. Concentrations of selected
parameters are reported for the liquid (dissolved) phase as it is defined in the regulations. Reporting
requirements include concentrations of general sludge characteristics such as settleable solids, total
solids, pH, ammonia, selected metals and organic compounds, and toxicity to representative marine
organisms. State environmental protection agencies also require sewerage authorities to submit
sludge characteristics data. Reporting requirements differ between the state and Federal agencies.
Some results of sludge analysis are summarized below.
Summary of Results . .
Conventional parameters, e.g., nutrients, solids content. pH
Settleable solids as defined in the ocean dumping regulations are not present. This definition
does not preclude the possibility of settling of the sludge particles in the ocean after disposal.
Total suspended solids content varies with treatment process.
Total suspended solids content varies with plant operations.
Total solids concentrations range from 2 to 10 percent.
Over time, the solids content of the sludge within a plant ranges over a factor of 2 to 5.
An independent analysis conducted by EPA in August 1988 (Battelle, 1988f) found solids
concentrations are within a factor of 2 to 5 of those reported to EPA by the municipal
authorities.
Metals
Concentrations of metals depend on the industrial and domestic mix in the community
served by the sewerage authority.
Variability in metal concentrations across treatment plants is large.
Within-plant variability is within a factor of 3 or less over an annual cycle.
24
-------
independent analysis conducted by EPA confirmed metal concentrations are within a
. factor of 2 .to 5 of those reported to EPA.
More than 95 percent of the metals in the sewage sludge is associated with particles.
Partitioning of metals to the dissolved phase may occur after disposal.
Organic compounds
PCB concentrations in sludges are generally less than 25 ppb.
Pesticide concentrations in.sludges are generally less than 250 ppb.
PCB and pesticide concentrations in the water column are at least 5 times less than
marine chronic water quality criteria 4 hours after disposal.
The work groups concluded that composite sludge samples collected at the inlet of the feeder pipe
to the barges will be representative of the sludge composition. However, participants felt that more
extensive information is needed on the chemical and physical properties of sludge particles and on
the behavior of pathogens in the sludge. Participants also felt that analytical procedures used for
sludge analysis should be standardized to eliminate data variability and to enhance comparability
among sewage treatment facilities. The independent sludge analyses conducted by EPA (Battelle,
1988f) were judged to be adequate confirmation of sludge composition.
Workshop participants also expressed a need for identification of a reliable tracer specific to the
sludge dumped at the 106-Mile Site. Such tracers as tomato seeds or other large particles, while
relatively unique to the sludge in the 106-Miie Site environs, may not effectively track the fate of
sludge which has been shown to settle slowly at the 105-Mile Site. On the other hand, chemical
tracers of sludge such as coprostanol may be difficult to accurately separate from background
concentrations present in the receiving waters. Other sources of contamination (e.g., the Hudson-
Raritan estuary, ocean-going vessels, other dumpsites on the continental shelf, and atmospheric
inputs) contribute to pollution loading to the Middle Atlantic Bight. The participants, therefore,
agreed that tracing the specific source of any contaminant in the region may be difficult.
3.12. Short-Term Behavior
For convenience, short-term has been defined as the 24-h time period after the initiation of disposal
operations. Behavior of sludge in this time period involves initial dilution, settling, and usually
movement beyond the disposal site boundary. The following summary results reflect data collected
during EPA monitoring surveys conducted in 1987 and 1988:
« Initial dilution (at 15.500 gal/min)
Dilution is 1000- to 2000-fold immediately in the wake of the barge.
Dilution of sludge parcels during weak mixing conditions is as low as 4000:1 4 hours after
disposal.
Plume-averaged dilutions (based on plume dimensions and transmissometry data) exceed
dilutions within parcels of seawater by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude 4 hours after dumping.
25
-------
. Variations in dilution due to barge type, sludge characteristics, dumping method, and
oceanographic conditions are not yet completely understood.
Settling
Laboratory studies suggest the bulk of the sludge particles will settle slowly (1 to 2 m per
day); a small, unknown fraction of large particles may settle at« 50 m per day.
Reid observations of sludge particle settling support laboratory findings of slow setting rates
(<10 m/day).
Reid studies at the 106-Mile Site have not detected two particulate phases observed in
laboratory studies.
Settling below the pycnocline has not been detected in the nearfield within 8 h following
dumping.
Seasonal differences in sludge settling are not evident.
Sludge settling rate depends on the dumping rate (e.g., flocculation).
Freshwater content of sludge (90-95 percent) sometimes causes plumes to rise after
discharge.
* Transport out of the site
Near-surface currents have been observed to be highly variable in speed and direction.
Plumes have been observed leaving 'the site in less than 4 h.
Workshop discussions provided the following insight concerning the short-term behavior of sludge:
Although field measurements at the 106-Mile Site indicate that in the near term, sludge
particulates are confined to the mixed layer above the pycnocline, reports at the previously
used 12-Mile Site suggest movement of the sludge to depths greater than 20 meters in short
time periods.
Short-term nearfield current measurements plus broad-scale circulation patterns near the 106-
Mile Site indicate that sludge disposed of at the site will be dispersed into the farfield even
under calm conditions. Storms and other large-scale events occurring at the site may
increase the dispersion. In either case, the dispersion will act to dilute sludge concentrations
after disposal.
Advection events would rapidly displace a sludge plume, but may not increase the short-term
mixing.
Certain physical features (e.g., pycnocline, fronts) of the water column at the 106-Mile Site
tend to collect particulates.
Participants also questioned how interactions of sludge particles with seawater and biota in the area
would affect settling and dispersal of the sludge.
26
-------
3.1.3 Compliance with Ocean Dumping Regulations (at 15.500 qal/min)
Compliance with the ocean dumping regulations includes conduct of disposal operations within
permit conditions and meeting the limiting permissible concentrations and water quality criteria after
the 4-h initial mixing period.
information available to the workshop participants included
Chronic marine water quality criteria (WQC) and toxicity-based limiting permissible
concentrations
Rapid transport from the site can cause WQC to be exceeded at the site boundary.
WQC can be exceeded after the 4-h initial mixing period.
Copper and lead are the most likely toxic compounds to exceed WQC.
Mercury concentrations can be within a factor of 2 to 3 of WQC 4 h after dumping.
Some contaminants have been observed above background levels in the surface waters
and at the pycnocline in the site.
Dissolved oxygen and pH reductions in the sewage plumes are minimal and not
biologically significant during the initial mixing period.
Disposal operations
Apparent short dumping (i.e., dumping outside the site) has been detected on two occasions
during survey operations in the area.
The ODSS is installed on 16 barges.
It was noted at the workshop that copper and lead are frequently associated with drinking water
distribution systems. It was also pointed out that copper levels from this source may be controlled
through pH adjustments in drinking water supplies. Further consideration of compliance with the
ocean dumping regulations can be found in Section 3.4.
3.1.4 FarfieldFate
Farfield fate involves transport and fate of sludge more than 24 h after disposal and beyond the site
boundary. Assessment of fate involves determination of both vertical, and horizontal movement of
the sludges. Movement of water masses and currents, and the density structure of the water column
are considered. Results presented to the workshop participants included the following:
Horizontal transport
Although monthly or yearly averaged currents are toward the southwest, individual sludge
plumes may be transported in any direction.
27
-------
After dumping, sludge may recirculate through the site for days to months.
Slopewater intrusions can influence the transport of sludge.
Warm-core eddies may cause sludge to be transported toward the continental shelf;
however, the volume of water involved in such movements is not well understood.
Vertical transport
Sludge settling rates are slow.
Vertical transport is dominated by dispersive processes and hindered by the pycnocline.
Ongoing activities
A current-meter mooring was deployed at the 106-Mile Site on January 23, 1989 and is
now acquiring real-time data on surface (30 m) currents.
A near-surface satellite drifter program will be initiated by EPA in the summer of 1989 to
collect farfield trajectory information. Continuation of this activity is proposed as a
monitoring responsibility for those permitted to dispose sludge at the 106-Mile Site.
Work group discussions provided the following insight concerning the farfield movement of Kludge.
Some of this information results from preliminary interpretation of the four satellite-tracked drifters
deployed at the 106-Mile Site in September 1988. Other information comes from ongoing programs
conducted under NOAA funding.
Deployment of four near-surface drifters has indicated a possible water flow from the 106-
, Mile Site toward the shelf break front (i.e., a possible convergence zone). .
One of the surface drifters looped back toward the continental shelf after reaching the
Gulf Stream. This may indicate a large-scale gyre between the Gulf Stream and shelf
waters.
Observations from satellites and from the field have been coupled successfully with
interactive modeling to predict the location and behavior of the Gulf Stream. The Navy
GEOSAT satellite passes directly over the 106-Mile Site every 17 days and active
microwave sensors can penetrate cloud cover.
Two NOAA polar-orbiting satellites pass over the site twice each day, obtaining thermal and
visible observations for routine, biweekly seasurface temperature, and Gulf Stream feature
analyses.
Participants recognized the difficulty encountered in trying to detect and measure sludge
components above background concentrations in the farfield. Several tracers for tracking the
movement of sludge in the nearfield and farfield, including transmissometry, metals, dyes, drogues,
and acoustics, were suggested by participants.
28
-------
3.1.5 Models
Several existing transport models may be useful for evaluating the fate of sewage sludge disposed at
the 106-Mile Site. Some of these models may also help determine exposure of living marine
organisms to the sludges and aid in evaluating risks to living marine resources and human health. In
addition, several circulation models for coastal regions off the U.S. coast and continental shelf,
developed for MMS, may be useful in assessing regional movements. Sandia National Laboratory
has also developed circulation models for this region of the ocean.
Generally, the workshop participants recognized that these mathematical models exist that they and
can be useful tools for evaluating transport and fate of the sludge. The participants also recognized
a need for improvements and validation of the models, and incorporation of recent data from the
106-Mile Site monitoring studies into existing models. No consensus on which model(s) were most
appropriate was sought.
3.2 QUESTION 2: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING AT
THE 106-MILE SITE ON LIVING MARINE RESOURCES?
Question 2 addressed the effect of sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site on living marine resources.
Background information for this question summarized the lexicological characteristics of the sludge,
pathogen content of sludges, baseline data on living marine resources, short-term effects, and
chronic exposure, bioaccumulation, and long-term effects. Also considered at the workshop was the
design of the EPA monitoring plan (Battelle, 1988a) with respecttb living marine resources. The
summary background information and new information presented by participants is discussed below.
3.2.1 Characteristics of the Sewage Sludge
The sludge characteristics considered include the parameters that may affect living marine resources.
They include tests of the toxicity of sludge to representative marine organisms and other more
specific- parameters. Sludge characteristics data are presently reported to EPA on a quarterly basis.
Generally, the characteristics are reported for whole sludge. Information available to the participants
prior to the workshop is summarized below.
Sludge toxicity varies among treatment plants.
Within-plant toxicity varies over a factor of 2 to 5 during an annual cycle.
The LCgQ for mysid shrimp Mysidopsis bahia ranges from w 0.1 to 3.0 percent whole
sludge from the various treatment plants.
Toxicity of sludge to rnysid shrimp is greater than to the fish Menidia sp. and is least toxic
to the diatom Skeletonema costatum.
29
-------
Standard toxicity tests indicate sludge may be up to 10 times more toxic to indigenous
zooplankton than to mysid shrimp.
Based on acute bioassay toxicity tests, dilutions required to meet limiting permissible
concentrations at the 106-Mile Site range between 5,000 and 60,000:1.
Representatives of the sewerage authorities noted that results varied between analytical laboratories,
confounding the ability to achieve standardized results.
Pathogens
The pathogens found in sewage sludge are reviewed in "Development of a Quantitative
Pathogen Risk Assessment Methodology for Ocean Disposal of Municipal Sludge" (EPA
ECAO-CIIsM93, May 1986) and "Pathogen Risk Assessment Feasibility Study" (EPA 600/S6-
88/003). The summary below is from Fradkin et al. (In press). Their report indicated that the
concentrations and types of pathogens in sludge from a given municipality depend on two
principal factors: the incidence of infection within that municipality and the type of treatment
sludge receives. Other major factors that influence the pathogen input to a waste water
treatment plant include season, climate, population density, ratio of children to adults, and
sanitation practices.
Municipal sludges can accumulate microorganisms capable of causing serious illness and
mortality in man because enteric viruses bind strongly to particles. Viruses and other
microorganisms may be concentrated in sludge during primary settling. The microorganisms
that are accumulated in sludge and that can be pathogenic to man include bacteria, parasites
(protozoans, helminths), fungi, and viruses. .Representative pathogen species are generally
tracked in waste streams due to lack of appropriate or simple measurement methods for ail
pathogens. Typical concentrations (numbers of pathogens per g dry weight) for secondary
sludges are: viruses, 3x102; bacteria, 2x102 to 8x10 ; and parasites, 1x10 to 1x10 . Although
more than 100 different viruses may be present in raw sewage, most knowledge on viruses
pertains to those associated with gastroenteritis.
Bacterial pathogens in sewage may cause the following clinical illnesses: typhoid,
paratyphoid, bacillary dysentery, gastroenteritis, cholera, and Weil's disease. Only four of the
common protozoan species that may be found in sewage sludge are believed to be
significant in disease transmission. All four cause mild diarrhea. Helminths, including
nematodes (round worms) and cestodes (tapeworms), may occur in domestic sludges. Many
of the common helminths are pathogenic to domestic animals, but not to humans. Finally,
fungi including yeasts and filamentous molds found in municipal sludge may cause
respiratory infections, candidiasis, subacute chronic meningitis, ringworm, athlete's foot,
infection of hair follicles, and deep-tissue infections.
In general, the survival of pathogens in seawater and sediments is not well understood.
However, pathogens that reach the sediments may survive for periods of months to years.
Specific studies of the pathogens in sewage sludge after disposal at the 106-Mile Site have
not been routinely conducted. However, because Clostridium perfringens is considered a
conservative tracer of pathogens and is relatively easy to measure on board survey vessels, it
has been routinely measured on the EPA surveys of the site. Available data on C. perfringens
concentrations in the sewage plumes from the site indicate that concentrations may not reach
ambient concentrations in the 4-h initial dilution period.
30
-------
3.2.2 Baseline Data on Living Marine Resources
The baseline data available from the 106-Mile Site and immediate environments are summarized in
several reports listed in Table 3. Of primary interest to the 106-Mile Site are the results of the MMS
program conducted during 1984-1986. This study represents the most complete set of benthic data
in the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site prior to the initiation of sewage sludge disposal activities.
Information on other marine resources is found in Pearce et ai. (1983).
During the workshop, information was presented on studies conducted in the vicinity of the 106-Mile
Site by the National Undersea Research Program (NURP) during the summer of 1988 (Appendix F).
These studies were conducted in response to requests from the recreational and commercial fishing
industries to address their concerns about decreasing fish and shellfish catches. Submersible survey
activity was directed towards an overall assessment of the ecology of lobsters, crabs, lobes,
flounders, and tilefish over a depth range of 200 to 1000 meters. The surveys were conducted in the
general vicinity of Block-Hudson-Toms Canyons and the adjacent slope area between the Hudson
Canyon and the 106-Mile Site.
A total of 16 dives was made in August and September 1988. Two submersibles (DELTA,
JOHNSON-SEA-LINK) made 1 to 4 km transects over the ocean floor in areas specified by the
fishing industry. These areas were located where evidence of sludge impact, as perceived by
fishermen, might be found. Box cores, punch cores, video documentation of aerial-substrate
associations, and visual observations were collected/made during each traverse.
In general, the dives showed the ocean floor megabenthic communities and their associated habitats
to be quite normal (Dr. Richard Cooper, personal communication, 106-Mile Site Workshop, March 29,
1989). No obvious-signs of sludge impact were observed or suggested from sample analyses or
video'examination. Lobsters and tilefish appeared in relatively low densities. The low population of
lobsters may have been due to emigration, a result of behavior or avoidance of environmental
contamination. Extensive fishing is probably the reason for the low numbers of tilefish observed.
Hake, flounder, jonah crab, red crab, goosefish, squid, mud arenaceous, brittle starfish, redfish,
black-bellied nosefish, ocean pout, and sculpins appeared in expected densities, and their behavior
and habitat association seemed normal.
3.2.3 Short-Term Effects at the 106-Mile Site
Limited measurements of sludge toxicity are available from the field. Acute toxicity tests, using
mysid shrimp and indigenous zooplankton, were conducted at sea on sewage plumes at the 106-Mile
Site. The tests have shown no toxicity 4 h after disposal (Battelle, 1989b).
3.2.4 Chronic Exposure. Bioaccumulation. and Long-Term Effects
The only direct tests involving chronic exposure of organisms to sludge at the 106-Mile Site were
conducted using a rapid-chronic toxicity test with sea urchin sperm. The preliminary results from this
study indicate toxicity to the sea urchin sperm immediately after sludge disposal. The response of
the organisms returned to predisposal levels within 4 h of disposal (Battelle, 1989b).
31
-------
To date, short-term bioaccumulation studies proposed in the draft monitoring and implementation
plans have not been conducted within the sewage sludge plumes at or near the 106-Mile Site.
Contamination of samples during collection probably would preclude these measurements. Similarly,
long-term effects studies, that link between biological effects and contaminant input at the 106-Mile
Site or other sources to the region, have not been conducted. A preliminary long-term
bioaccumulation study in red crabs and tilefish collected from canyon regions shoreward of the 106-
Mile Site has been conducted (Dr. Larry Swanson, State University of New York, personal
communication, 106-Mile Site Workshop, March 29, 1889). In this study, analysis of red crab
digestive glands did not detect any anomalous concentrations of metals or selected organic
contaminants.
At the workshop, several study designs for evaluating bioaccumulation in important commercial
species were presented. These plans included additional studies during the summer of 1989 by
NURP and by the Northeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The
projected NMFS studies include conducting a reconnaissance, mid-water trawl survey at four slope
water stations from a point 180 km northeast to a point 180 km southwest of the 106-Mile Site
(Robert Reid, National Marine Fisheries, Sandy Hook Laboratory, personal communication, March
29, 1989). As of preparation of this report, samples of myctophids have been collected from four
stations and are in the process of analysis for selected contaminants. In addition, NURP is planning
a survey of selected benthic stations in the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site. Included in the plans is
collection of samples to evaluate community structure and bioaccumulation of contaminants in
selected species.
3.2.5 Shell Disease
The findings of an EPA-sponsored work group established to review and evaluate the data on the
status of disease and mortality in commercially important shellfish were summarized during the
presentation on living marine resources. The presentation (EPA and NOAA, 1989) appears in
Appendix G. Principle findings included the following:
Shell disease is a natural phenomenon in crustaceans but it may occur with higher
prevalence and greater severity in polluted areas. Shell disease represents a stage in the
natural relationship between crustaceans and chitin-utilizing bacteria and fungi. The3
balance between metabolic processes associated with new shell formation and infection
by microbes capable of utilizing chitin may be disturbed by environmental changes
affecting normal shell formation or favoring the growth of chitin-utilizing microbes. Such
disturbances can be consequences of pollution.
« Some evidence exists for an association of shell disease with habitat degradation.
Prevalence of disease has been found to be high in crustaceans from polluted sites.
Patterns show trends similar to those of the black-gill syndrome, which is also a
statistically associated with pollution. Experimental exposures of crustaceans to
sediments contaminated with heavy metals, biocides, petroleum, and petroleum
derivatives can result in the appearance of the black-gill syndrome, often accompanied by
shell disease.
» The work group analyses suggest that prevalence of less than 5 percent may represent
expected background levels of shell disease in inshore populations, probably related to
mechanical damage or wound healing. Prevalence of over 15 percent, as noted in some
inshore samples of lobsters and rock crabs, may reflect pollution-related disease
superimposed on the natural occurrence Of shell disease.
32
-------
Shell disease occurs in deepwater crustacean populations, including those in shelf
canyons, but data are limited and there is no conclusive evidence that would associate
shell disease in such populations with pollution of offshore habitats.
Mortalities from shell disease have been observed, occasionally at high levels, in
laboratory-held and impounded crustacean populations. Destruction of gills and
adhesions of the exoskeleton which prevent molting have been considered to be
responsible factors, as have secondary systemic infections that develop after perforation
of the chitinous integument. There is no specific evidence, however, that would link
crustacean population fluctuations in the New York Bight with the presence or severity of
shell disease. Shell disease may predispose crustaceans to mortality, but there is
currently no available method to separate disease-caused mortality from that caused by
other influences. Additionally, there are no discernible trends in either lobster or crab
abundance in the Middle Atlantic Bight in the past decade. If anything, there seems to be
a slow increase in lobster abundance inshore and offshore.
The work group surmised that shell disease may be a perceived problem with respect to the crab
and lobster catch because the marketability of diseased crab and lobsters may be affected.
However, the group indicated there is no conclusive evidence now available to associate shell
disease in offshore populations with sludge dumping activities at the 106-Mile Site.
3.2.6 EPA Monitoring Plan-Biological Effects
The EPA monitoring plan contains components to evaluate short- and long-term biological effects in
the water column and the sediments in and near the 106-Mile Site.-Measurements will include
evaluation of changes in the phytoplankton community in the area; and measurements of
bioaccumulation by commercially important species found in and near the site; measurements of
benthic community structure; and analysis of sensitive lifecycle stages of fishes. One work group
found that not enough consideration was given to monitoring the 106-Mile Site for biological
baselines prior to the start of dumping. In general, sludge-associated changes to the living marine
resources at the 106-Mile Site will be difficult to detect.
33
-------
3.3 QUESTIONS: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF SLUDGE DUMPING
AT THE 106-MILE SITE ON HUMAN HEALTH?
Question 3 addressed the effects of sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site on human health. Three
areas were considered: the potential for human exposure to pathogens through direct or indirect
pathways; the potential for effects from exposure to toxic chemicals; and evaluation of risk to human
health from the activities at the 106-Mile Site. Background data as related to the 106-Mile Site are
limited. A recapitulation of the literature on the exposure and effects of pathogens and toxic
chemicals on human health was not attempted for the background materials. Thus, participants
were required to depend on their own experience and expertise to address this question.
At the workshop, a new Federal study to provide more extensive inspection of all seafood, whether
Imported or of domestic origin, was reported. This study, authorized by Congress, is to provide
better information on seafood safety and other concerns. Under this legislation, a comprehensive
review of seafood safety is being conducted by NOAA, in cooperation with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This study, called the National
Seafood Surveillance Project, is underway. An interim report to Congress is due in October 1989
and the final report to Congress is scheduled for January 1991.
The considerations of the participants with respect to sludge disposal and human health risks are
summarized below.
3.3.1 Potential for Direct Human Exposure
Persons who may have a direct exposure to the pathogens and toxic materials in sludge dumped at
the 106-Mile Site include the haulers/dumpers, commercial and recreational fishermen, crews of
passing vessels, and swimmers in the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site. The workshop participants
discussed the following information:
* Epidemiologists usually can attribute a viral infection to contact with another infected
person, and not to water or aerosol exposure. However, other exposure pathways
cannot be ruled out
« Swimming is not the only route by which pathogens can infect humans; inhalation of
aerosols during dumping may expose humans to the pathogens.
* Viruses, bacteria, protozoans, and parasites are present in sludge.
* Viruses cannot survive in open seawater for long periods unless they are associated with
sediments.
» Technologies for measuring viruses are very new. Methods for detecting viruses in water
require filtration of hundreds of gallons of water.
Material dumped at the 106-Mile Site may come in contact with humans through
mechanisms such as dumping operations, swimming, inhalation of aerosols, and fishing
activities (e.g., a fisherman may come in contact with sludge in water in the vicinity of the
site).
34
-------
No studies have been conducted on the group of people (barge workers, researchers)
with the highest potential for exposure at the site. Studies of workers within sewage
treatment plants have been conducted.
The ability to differentiate between effects of sludge dumped at the 106-Mile Site and
effects of nearshore influences (CSOs) is limited.
« Unlike viruses, bacteria can grow in water if sufficient nutrients are available.
Bacteria can transfer drug resistance through reproduction.
« The risk of direct exposure to general human health is minimal:
The risk of exposure to pathogens at the 106-Mile Site is low, and is not
sufficient to warrant extensive application of limited resource dollars at
this time.
Potential for effects from direct exposure to toxic chemicals is less
than that from pathogens.
The work groups concluded that available data indicate there is no evidence of human health
problems associated with direct contact with sewage sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site.
3.3.2 Potential for Indirect Human Exposure
During discussion of the potential for indirect exposure to pathogens and toxic chemicals through
.consumption of fish and.shellfish, participants were informed that FDA considers three factors in
determining indirect exposure: contamination level, toxicity, and relative level of consumption. There
are no regulations for pathogens in fish. FDA does apply action levels or tolerance levels for certain
contaminants in fish and shellfish.
The results of the discussions of indirect exposure included the following:
Shellfish from the 106-Mile Site are not consumed by humans, primarily because no shell
fishing occurs at the site. Scallops are caught in the area of potential influence of the
106-Mile Site but these organisms are usually not eaten raw.
Thorough cooking of fish and shellfish kills pathogens.
The heat and pressure treatment processes for sludge used by one sewerage authority
using the 106-Mile Site kills pathogens. Storage of sludge for several days will kill
pathogens.
An indirect risk of exposure through the consumption of fish and shellfish is a remote
possibility if seafoods are not thoroughly cooked.
The discussions concluded that there is no plausible likelihood that seafood is unsafe to consume
because of dumping at the 106-Mile Site.
35
-------
3.3.3 Harvested Resources of Concern
This topic, not considered in the background materials, was added at the workshop by the session
chairman. Discussions of this information provided the following understanding:
. Fteh species harvested on the continental slope and shelf near the 106-Mile Site represent
an extremely small fraction of the total U.S. supply of commercial fish. About 56 percent
of seafood consumed in the United States is imported (NOAA, 1989).
. Lobsters annually migrate in an inshore, offshore direction. Generally, lobsters with
evidence of shell disease are less likely to be placed on the market, lessening human
health concerns. An additional market factor may be the procedure of removing claws or
tails and selling the meat as "shack lobster."
. Generally crabs are fished at the heads of canyons from depths no greater than 400 m.
These locations are well inshore of the 106-Mile Site.
. Tuna are migratory and are generally fished off the shelf break. They are generally not
found closer to shore than the 50 fathom (100 m) isobath. Also, tuna are known to be
very temperature sensitive. Thus, changes in temperature in the ocean may influence the
locations where tuna are found.
. Tilefish are not migratory. They are found primarily near the heads of submarine canyons
in the 120 to 250 m depth range. Tilefish tend to remain within several hundred meters in
large grottos excavated from the sediments. If the tilefish habitats were located down-
current of the 106-Mile Site, these grottos could serve as natural sediment traps. Thus, .
these individuals may be candidates for exposure to contamination. However, mixing of
new and old material in the burrows will complicate the interpretation of results. No more
than 20 percent of the tilefish population north of Cape Hatteras is found in the area that
may potentially be impacted by disposal activities at the 106-Mile Site. However, because
of the proximity of other potential contaminant sources (disposal areas in the New York
Bight and in the upper Hudson Canyon) in the vicinity of the tilefish habitat, assignment
of cause and effect to the 106-Mile Site may be difficult.
Recently, squid caught off the northeastern United States have been in demand for
human consumption. The market is primarily for foreign consumption, but the domestic
demand is growing.
. Like the tuna, shark and swordfish show migratory patterns that encompass large areas
and may be found in the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site. Exposure of these species to
sludge disposed at the 106-Mile Site may be limited. Therefore, sources of any
contamination found in these animals cannot be traced effectively.
3.3.4 Conclusions Based Upon Available Information
It is extremely difficult to determine whether any contamination in commercially important fish and
shellfish organisms results directly from the dumping activities at the 106-Mile Site. The workshop
concluded that no evidence exists to indicate that ocean dumping at 106-M.le Site poses a threat to
human health.
36
-------
3.4 QUESTION 4: ARE THERE CHANGES IN SITE DESIGNATION. PERMITS.
OR SURVEILLANCE THAT CAN PROVIDE BETTER PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
LIVING MARINE RESOURCES AND HUMAN HEALTH?
Question 4 addressed the management of the 106-Mile Site. Topics considered in the background
document included conformation to regulatory requirements, monitoring, site designation, and
management tools/methods for site evaluation.
3.4.1 Regulatory Requirements
The regulatory requirements for management of the 106-Mile Site are based on protecting the marine
environment. The regulations provide two mechanisms for managing the disposal site: (1) permits
and the conditions listed therein and (2) site selection and designation.
Monitoring of sludge disposal operations at the 106-Mile Site has shown that disposal usually occurs
within the site and at the prescribed disposal rate. Out-of-site dumping has been observed on two
occasions and disposal above the court-ordered rate has been detected once. Numerous
administrative violations, such as dumping less than one-half mile from the previous disposal plume
and crossing of plumes, have been noted within the site. Of the sewage plumes monitored,
approximately 50 percent have had at least one contaminant that exceeded WQC when the sludge
plume moved outside the site boundary. As a result, EPA has proposed lowering the disposal rates
at the 106-Mile Site to ensure that disposal operations conform to the requirements of the MPRSA.
The workshop participants judged -that conformation to regulatory criteria was good, but noted that
violations have occurred during dumping operations. Several workshop participants observed that
neither the site configuration nor the areal extent of the site could be changed because the length of
time required to make changes to the site and that this action is unlikely to be undertaken by EPA
prior to December 31, 1991.
Workshop participants recommended that the operational effectiveness of the ODSS be improved.
Participants believed that the ODSS should be able to track all barges at all times, even in the event
of a barge breaking loose from its tow.
3.4.2 Site Monitoring
The EPA 106-Mile Site monitoring plan consists of two documents: the monitoring plan (Battelle,
1988a) and an implementation plan (Battelle, 1988C). A third document, the permittee monitoring
requirements (Battelle, 1989c), describes the proposed monitoring requirements to be undertaken by
those with permits to dispose sludge at the 106-Mile Site. The participants generally supported the
tiered approach to monitoring, but supported the acceleration of the implementation of Tier 3
(Farfield Fate) and Tier 4 (Long-term Effects). The participants indicated farfield, long-term research
should be based on science, not on public perceptions of the problem.
The workshop deliberations resulted in a series of recommendations for monitoring the 106-Mile Site.
These are
Monitoring should consider two issues: biological impacts and habitat modification. The
habitats to be monitored should be surface waters, the pycnocline, and the bottom.
37
-------
. The trajectories of the paniculate matter in sludge as it moves away from the disposal site
should be monitored to predict locations for observing potential effects of the sludge.
. Nutrient loading and its effect on plankton and potential to allow pathogen survival, both
within the site and outside the site boundaries should be monitored.
Bioaccumulation of contaminants in important species should be monitored.
. Dumpers should be encouraged to reduce toxicity from sludge to gain the benefit of
faster dumping rates and alternative disposal options. EPA should consider seeking
regular decreases in toxic chemicals in sludges each year so that loadings of toxic
compounds at the 105-Mile Site decrease.
Monitoring of indices of finfish and shellfish disorders was considered important.
The monitoring plan should undergo peer-review.
3.4.3 Site Designation
The consensus of most participants was that, if EPA were to expand the site, expansion must be in
an offshore direction. The workshop concluded that the data, needed to decide on expansion of the
size of the present 106-Mile Site, are not likely to become available in time for full notice, comment,
and preparation of supporting documentation.
3.4.4 Management Tools/Methods for Site Evaluation
Workshop discussions provided several recommendations relative to the available tools for site
management. These included changing dumping rates; site designation or dedesignation; and
improved pretreatment The recommendations for site evaluation included the following:
Routine monitoring of the site perimeter for toxicity and contaminants.
« Review and comment on proposed permits by all agencies and special interest groups.
. Enhancement of Federal coordination through formation of a Blue Ribbon Panel of
scientists to review the plans for monitoring, research, and surveillance and to adjust
future activities in relation to the data generated by the monitoring program.
Development of monitoring plans that include costs on a priority basis.
* Use of ships of opportunity, including fishing vessels, as platforms for sample collection
or for release of drifters.
38
-------
4.0 IDENTIFIED NEEDS AND RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES
Each work group was asked to identify monitoring, research, and surveillance needs for the 106-Mile
Site. From these discussions, the work group strategists identified and proposed strategies for
addressing the needs. This section presents the needs identified by the workshop and the proposed
strategies for addressing these needs. The information in this section is organized according to the
major issues identified in the background document supplied to the participants (Appendix E).
4.1 QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL FATE OF THE SEWAGE SLUDGE
DUMPED AT THE 106-MILE SfTE?
4.1.1 Sludge Composition and Characteristics
This section lists information needs identified by the workshop regarding sludge composition and
characteristics and the recommended strategies for addressing these needs.
4.1.1.1 Data/Information Needs
The workshop participants determined that standardized analytical methods for sludge were
necessary. Standardization will increase the comparability of data from all sewerage authorities and
improve the reliability of the bioassay tests.
In addition, the participants expressed the need to
Determine the physical characteristics of sludge particles, particularly their size distribution
and density by size class.
Determine the long-term variability of the physical and chemical composition of sludge.
Participants also determined that previously reported sludge characteristics data should be examined
to determine whether relationships among the chemical, physical and biological (toxicological)
properties of the sludge and long-term effects can be found.
4.1.1.2 Recommended Strategies for Addressing Sludoe Composition and Characteristics Needs
The following strategies were recommended:
Select and require standardized analytical and sampling procedures for sludge analyses
including better quality control and quality assurance on bioassays.
Select analytical parameters that reflect potential for biological impacts (including pathogens)
and that are useful for tracing and modeling.
39
-------
. Conduct research on the physical and chemical partitioning of sludge particles in marine
systems to improve understanding of fate caused by physical/chemical/b.olog.cal processes.
. Conduct physical/chemical partitioning studies in seawater.
A.1.2 Short-Term Behavior
This section discusses strategies for addressing the identified needs for evaluating short-term
behavior of the sludge.
4.1.2.1 Information Needs
The participants determined that a better understanding of dispersion of sludge at the 106-Mile Site is
neededT including data on the vertical distribution and transport of sludge parties ,n sludge plumes.
Participants identified the need for further information on the interactions between sludge and
seawater. e.g., flocculation or absorption, as they relate to settling at the tone of discharge Jhese
data are needed to better understand the potential for transport of sludge below the seasonal
pycnocline. Participants also felt that state-of-the-art acoustic techn.ques (especially the newer
digital technology) could be used to define subpycnocline distributions.
The following areas were also identified as important for evaluating the short-term behavior of the
sludge:
. Determination of sludge characteristics that could be used as tracers. .
. Determination of bioaccumulation in zooplankton and phytoplankton within the sludge field.
. Determination of the uses for bioaccumulation data as indicators of contamination of habitats.
4.1 JL2 Recommended Strategies for Addressing the Short-Term Fate Needs
The workshop recommended several strategies to address these needs:
. Acoustical sludge tracking studies to supplement transmissometer studies to define and
quantify partitioning, particularly around the pycnocline.
. Use of neutrally buoyant acoustically tracked drifters to evaluate subsurface sludge
movement
. Evaluation of xylem trachea, plant seeds (e.g., tomato seeds), and coprostanol as tracers of
the sludge.
40
-------
4.1.3 FarfieMFate
This section considers the strategies recommended for addressing the identified needs for assessing
the farfield fate of the sludge.
4.1.3.1 Information Needs
The participants recommended that the following additional information on the transport of sludge in
the upper mixed layer of the ocean be collected to help determine the farfield fate of the sludge:
Evaluating the vertical transport of the sludge away from the 106-Mile Site.
Obtaining additional current flow and velocity information by a coordinated effort using
Lagrangian surface drifters and Eulerian measurements coordinated with satellite imagery.
Determining sludge transport below the seasonal pycnocline.
The participants believed that physical oceanographic measurements should be coordinated with
other measurements being made at and near the 106-Mile Site.
Construction of a mass balance for contaminants entering the inner New York Bight and off-shelf
areas was recommended. This need requires evaluation of all sources of contaminants to the Middle
Atlantic Bight, including atmospheric deposition.
4.1.3.2 Strategy for Addressing the Farfield Fate Needs
The recommended strategies for addressing the farfield fate of the sludge included design of the
following field programs:
Determination of ocean currents and circulation using an Eulerian current meter program
and Lagrangian drifters. The minimum recommended study period for this program was
one year. To provide statistical coverage for the time scales of events occurring in the
region, weekly measurements were recommended. These data would help address
questions concerning (1) gyres (warm core eddies) and oceanographic recirculation and
(2) convergence zones.
Integration of real-time remote sensing data (on the Gulf Stream, warm-core eddies, etc.) into
the analysis of water movement.
Design and implementation of a sediment trap study to measure settling of sludge particles or
sludge tracers. Horizontal and vertical placement of the sediment traps was considered
important, particularly with respect to the position of the pycnocline.
Analysis of microorganisms as well as contaminants of concern.
In addition, the workshop recommended that the strategy for evaluating farfield fate include
determining gradients in contaminants both along and toward the continental shelf. A mass balance
for contaminants entering the Middle Atlantic Bight would estimate mass loadings from sources that
may influence the 106-Mile Site, e.g., inner shelf vs. outer shelf vs. offshelf. The sources
recommended for inclusion in this evaluation included the Hudson River plume, Delaware Bay plume,
41
-------
New York Bight Apex sources (disposal sites and coastal discharges), atmospheric inputs, and
disposal at the 106-Mile Site.
Also recommended was an assessment of the variability in water column chemical baseline data in
the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site.
Finally it was recommended that a review article on the status of knowledge of the physical
oceanography at and near the 106-Mile Site be prepared as part of the process of evaluating the
farfield fate monitoring program. This report would be the equivalent of the 1983 NOAA 106-Mile Site
Characterization Update (NOAA, 1983).
4.1.3.3 Public Communication
The workshop recommended that communications with the public concerning the fate and effect of
the dumped sewage sludge be improved. Critical to this effort was the identification of the most
appropriate communication mechanisms.
4.1.4 Models
This section considers the needs and strategies for predicting sludge fate using models.
4.1.4.1 Information Needs
The workshop recommended that the available circulation-and transport models be examined in
more detail and that an appropriate field validation program be designed. The workshop identified
the need for
* Modification of circulation and particle transport models of slope/shelf interactions as
necessary to include mean flow, seasonal changes, and events caused by such factors as
storms and warm-core eddies.
Development of models that address the role of the pycnocline as a barrier to particle settling
and as a surface for lateral spreading of the sludge.
4.1.4.2 Strategy for Addressing the Modeling Needs
The recommended strategy was to incorporate new and existing data in nearfield models to enhance
existing monitoring strategies. Existing farfield data and models should be evaluated to determine
their effectiveness and applicability to the 106-Mile Site. Changes to models should be made if
necessary to improve their predictability for sludge transport. Extensive modeling efforts were not
recommended until evaluations of existing models could be completed and the necessity for
additional modeling determined.
42
-------
4.1.5 General Strategies
Several general strategies were recommended as a result of the workshop discussions. These
included the following:
Preparation of a synthesis report integrating existing data and biological, chemical, and
physical studies to assess ecological and public health effects.
Establishment of a blue ribbon panel, including representatives of the public, to assess the
research, monitoring, and surveillance program and redirect it if necessary.
43
-------
42. QUESTION 2: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING AT
THE 106-MILE SITE ON LIVING MARINE RESOURCES?
This section lists information needed about sludge composition and characteristics, and the
strategies recommended for addressing these needs.
4.2.1 Characteristics of Sewage Sludge
Information needed about characteristics of sewage sludge, including toxicity and pathogens, is
discussed in this section.
4J2.1.1 Toxidtv Tests
The participants recommended that research associated with the toxicity tests used to characterize
the sludges include species indigenous to the 106-Mile Site and that population response models be
developed A review of the reliability of the laboratories conducting the toxicity testing was
suggested. Concern was also expressed about the implicit assumption, that negative toxicity results
are equated with no effects.
i
4.2.1.2 Pathogens
The workshop recommended'that additional information on effects of pathogens on marine mammals
and birds be collected. Also recommended were laboratory studies to
« Determine the relationship between dumping and pathogens in marine organisms.
« Determine the effects of sludge on potency of certain bacteria.
* Postulate relationships between bacteria in sludges causing illness and disease in marine
organisms.
* Investigate survival of pathogens associated with sewage sludge after various disinfection
techniques.
Finally, the workshop recommended increased monitoring for diseases in marine fishes and
Invertebrates at and in the vicinity the 106-Mile Site.
4^2 Baseline Data on Living Resources
The workshop recommended that more research be conducted on both the shallow and deep
benthic communities that may be impacted by the disposal of sludge at the 106-Mile Site. A time-
series study of the benthic communities should be initiated. This study should obtain appropriate
samples to determine whether the organisms have been exposed to sludge and, if so, the degree of
exposure.
44
-------
Additional studies of the following living resources were recommended:
Characterize finfish populations.
Increase evaluation of pelagic species, i.e., squids.
Investigate possible behavior modifications in species that swim near and around plumes.
* Increase site-specific egg and larval fish studies.
Development of information on commercial fish landings of catches from the vicinity of the 106-Mile
Site was also believed important to the assessment of effects from the sludge dumping.
4.2.3 Short-Term Effects
The workshop recommended that information on resident, and vertically migrating species (i.e.,
lantern fish, hatchet fish) be developed. Data on populations and contaminant burden in the
organisms should be collected. Also recommended was routine performance of toxicity tests in the
water column in plumes and at the perimeters of the site.
4.2.4 Chronic Exposure, Bioaccumulation. and Long-Term Effects
The deliberations of the workshop made clear the need for better characterization of the sludges and
measures of contaminant bioaccumulation in resource species. These measurements were deemed
necessary to help allay public misperceptions and wariness about fish/seafood consumption.
4.2.5 The EPA Monitoring Plan
Recommendations regarding the EPA monitoring plan were primarily to accelerate the
implementation of the long-term effects studies planned (Battelle, 1988c). The workshop
recommended that existing monitoring information be presented to the scientific community and to
the public to make clear the status of the environment at the 106-Mile Site. The workshop
recommended that a group of experts be established to review details of present and future
monitoring plans and make recommendations regarding monitoring activities.
4.2.6 Living Marine Resources
This section describes the strategies recommended by the workshop for addressing the need to
monitor and research living marine resources near the 106-Mile Site.
4.2.6.1 Farfield Effects
Strategies for determining farfield effects were diverse and included studies of bioaccumulation,
disease, community structure as well as toxicity testing. Recommended bioaccumulation studies
45
-------
included use of modeling and hydrographic measurements as well as results from sediment traps to
design and implement collections of key target organisms for bioaccumulation and long-term effects
research and monitoring. As part of the overall strategy for studying the living marine resources in
areas potentially affected by the disposal of sludge at the 106-Mile Site, the workshop recommended
using commercial and recreational fishing vessels to supplement Federal survey activities whenever
possible.
Bioaccumulation
For bioaccumulation studies, removal of appropriate organs for autopsy and contaminant
analyses was recommended. The suggested target species included myctophids (lantern
fish) and other vertically migrating species as well as midwater species such as squid
(Lojjgo), demersal fish, and shellfish. As part of these studies, examination of the
organisms and selected organs for disease was strongly recommended.
Shell disease
Recommended shell disease studies included a census of shellfish for incidence and
distribution of disease. Organisms should be collected at the 106-Mile Site and in areas
(midshelf and canyons, plus outershelf and continental siope) potentially affected by
dumping at the 106-Mile Site. The strategists recommended that these studies be
coordinated with sediment trap data. In addition, it was recommended that the
organisms, material in the sediment traps, and the sludges be analyzed for pathogens,
especially Vibrio, thought to be causative agents for chitinoclasia and finrot.
Population dynamics and community structure
" Collection of time-series data on the benthic community (including commercial species, e.g.,
lobsters, red crabs, bivalves) and demersal fishes, (e.g., tilefish, Antimora) was recommended
so that a baseline could be established for evaluating changes in these populations. This
strategy requires that data be collected and arrayed to allow modeling of population
dynamics essential to hazard assessments per EPA protocols (i.e., waste characterization,
habitat characterization, etc.).
Toxic'rty
The workshop concluded that toxicity testing should include indigenous species from the
vicinity of the 106-Mile Site (rnid-water and vertical migrators). The data were
recommended to "calibrate" or relate existing toxicity tests to biological effects. In situ
tests were also recommended. Toxicity testing in waste plumes and at stations located at
edge of plumes and at the boundary of the disposal site were recommended.
In addition, a research strategy, using laboratory and field research to evaluate the effects of
dumping on the function of immunological systems, was recommended.
4.2.a2 Public Education
As recommended in the strategies for monitoring the fate of the sludge dumped at the 106-Mile Site,
the strategy for studying the living marine resources included a recommendation that a definitive "lay
language" report on existing studies and historical modeling activities be prepared. In addition, the
strategists recommended preparation of a definitive interpretative "lay language" report of our
present understanding of the effects of ocean dumping at 106-Mile Site on living marine resources.
46
-------
Use of existing data and generic information should be included. The emphasis of the report should
be potential effects on the quality of living marine resources for human consumption.
4.2.6.3 Short-Term Effects
The recommended strategy for evaluating short-term effects included continued studies in the
nearfield for short-term effects. Implementation of additional verification procedures were suggested,
if the survey(s) show any short-term impacts from ocean dumping of the sludge. If verification
studies show definitive effects, the workshop recommended that steps be initiated to relocate the
106-Mile Site further offshore (i.e., in Gulf Stream or beyond).
4.2.6.4 Oversight of Monitoring and Research Activities
The primary strategy developed by the workshop addressing monitoring and research activities was
establishment of a permanent "Blue Ribbon Committee" of experts. This committee would
Review any monitoring plan developed by the concerned Federal and state agencies.
Review ongoing monitoring results, make recommendations for adjustments to the
monitoring program, provide for rapid responses to sudden events, and establish
procedures to evaluate the efficiency of monitoring and enforcement of dumping
protocols and regulations.
It was recommended that the committee be empowered to add members (based on their interests in
living marine resources) or to call upon other experts to testify, draft white papers, or evaluate
findings of any monitoring and research conducted.
47
-------
43 QUESTIONS: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF SLUDGE DUMPING
AT THE 106-MILE SITE ON HUMAN HEALTH?
4.3.1 Potential for Direct Human Exposure
4.3.1.1 Information Needs
The following information needs were identified for evaluating human health impact:
Definition of the terms risk, relative risk, and perceived risk
Development of an actua! risk number applicable to the 106-Mile Site rather than
depending on terminology that indicates the risk is minimal. The strategists
recommended that the number be developed from existing literature. Before proceeding
with the evaluation, the research money required to derive this number should be
determined.
Preparation of a definitive statement on public health risks to lessen public concerns
about sludge dumping at the 106-Mile Site. The public must be informed of the
differences between various contaminant sources in the Middle Atlantic Bight and risks to
the public associated with each source.
The workshop suggested that agencies acknowledge to the public that, while they should have
concerns about bathing water quality, problems are less likely to result from the activity at the
106-Mile Site, and more likely to result from other sources (i.e., shoreline activities).
4.3.1.2 Direct Exposure Information Needs
Two strategies were recommended to address data needs for human exposure:
1) Incorporation into a physical oceanography study, the mechanisms necessary to determine
frequency of exposure of sludge components on the shoreline.
2) Development and implementation of a coastal monitoring program to assess effects of
discharges from outfalls and CSOs, and to compare these effects to those from sludge
disposal at the 106-Mile Site.
4.3.2 Potential for Indirect Human Exposure
4.3.2.1 Information Needs
To address public perceptions and concerns, there is an immediate need for an analysis of indirect
human exposure from sludge disposed of at the 106-Mile Site. This would include analysis of
exposure pathways for edible seafood from the Middle Atlantic Bight for chemicals, e.g., heavy
metals, toxic chemicals, and pathogens.
48
-------
4.3.2.2 Indirect Exposure Needs
The strategy recommended for addressing these needs includes analysis of chemical contaminants
in musculature tissues of commercially important fishes from near the 106-Mile Site. The data will be
used to determine if chemical contaminants have accumulated in the tissues.
Station locations shpuld be based on past monitoring activities and be arrayed along gradients
extending from the 106-Mile Site towards canyons and across the continental shelf. The gradient
approach was recommended to establish traceability and relevancy between dumping at the 106-Mile
Site and nearfield survey results.
4.3.2.3 Consumer Concerns
Because consumer concerns are great, the strategists recommended a mechanism to address issues
or events as they occur. The workshop believed this mechanism should anticipate potential issues
and help develop appropriate responses, in addition to providing a means for conveying information
to consumers in a timely manner. As part of this mechanism, a plan should be developed to ensure
that, as events occur, facts are ascertained from appropriate authorities, not from media or other
second-hand sources.
The strategists for this question also recommended establishment of a Blue Ribbon Committee to
review the monitoring, research, and surveillance activities at the 106-Mile Site and to assist in the
release of information to the public. Formation of this panel should include a mechanism to involve
the participation of scientists and'technical experts, industry and consumer representatives, and
Federal managers.
Finally, a strategy for reducing (removing) contaminants of concern (i.e., Cu, Pb, organic toxins)
-through pre-treatment mechanisms was recommended. It was recommended that this strategy
include a public education program that addresses sludge, not only as an ocean issue, but as a
societal issue. This program should encompass comparisons of the relative risks associated with
currently available alternatives for sludge disposal, i.e., landfilling, composting, incineration, etc.
49
-------
44 QUEgnON 4: ARE THERE CHANGES IN SITE DESIGNATION. PERMITS.
OR SURVEILLANCE THAT CAN PROVIDE BETTER PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
LIVING MARINE RESOURCES. AND HUMAN HEALTH?
During the workshop, specific needs were not identified for this question. Rather, a series of
recommendations resulted from the workshop deliberations and are discussed in this section.
4.4.1 Recommendations for Regulatory Issues
The workshop recommended development of consistent analytical procedures for toxicity tests
required by the regulations, including quality assurance plans. Also, the workshop believed
incorporation of offshore organisms into the toxicity test procedures was vital.
4.4.2 Recommendations for Surveillance
Recommendations for site surveillance focused on improvement to the ODSS system to provide
more timely and accurate information on dumping activities and to make this information readily
accessible to the public. The workshop recommended the system provide sufficient redundancy to
assure, as a minimum, 95 percent effectiveness instead of the 80 percent .as proposed by the USCG.
4.4.3 Recommendations for Monitoring
Several recommended strategies for monitoring were developed by the workshop. These included:
» Development of physical transport models for mixing and movement of material from the
106-Mile Site, with emphasis on determining the ultimate fate of the sludge.
* Implementation of the farfield monitoring studies simultaneously with Tier 1 and 2 studies
of the EPA Monitoring Plan to address immediate public concerns.
Development of a formal clearing house for the research and monitoring currently being
conducted on 106-Mile Site and outer shelf area.
Reassessment of the nearfield 4-hour mixing period for the 106-Mile Site. This was
recommended as a specific research effort The workshop believed studies should
include several dumping and mixing scenarios.
Setting aside of separate funds (possibly as a separate escrow account) for a long-term
monitoring program to evaluate site recovery once disposal operations cease.
4.4.4 Recommendations for Site Designation
The process of designating disposal sites requires long time frames. Thus, the workshop believed
designation of a new disposal site would not make effective use of Federal monies. ODBA has
provided for the end to ocean dumping. The workshop recommended that the sewerage authorities
50
-------
using 106-Mile Site be required to implement extensive pretreatment to reduce waste toxicity.
Assessment of the site configuration was briefly considered, with support for enlargement of the site
in the seaward direction, should EPA determine that such reconfigurations were necessary.
4.4.5 Recommendations for Management Tools/Methods for Site Evaluation
The workshop recommended the following for management of the site:
« Integrate the Federal agency programs currently involved with the 106-Mile Site to
eliminate overlap and optimize agency functions.
« Establish a Blue Ribbon Panel to assess effectiveness of the monitoring programs.
« Develop mechanisms to coordinate policy and management activities within the Federal
and state agencies, and to provide for adequate public involvement.
After developing the optimum monitoring program for near and farfield assessments,
prioritize and implement recommendations as funding levels allow. Provide feedback to
Congress as needed. '
4.5 FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The 1'06-Mile Site workshop was a major step toward developing a comprehensive research,
monitoring, and surveillance plan for the 106-Mile-Site. During the summer of 1989, EPA, NOAA, and
the USCG will use the recommendations from this workshop plus other information to formulate a
research, monitoring, and surveillance strategy for the 106-Mile Site and areas of potential impact
from the sludge disposal operations. This strategy will form the basis of memorandum of
understanding (MOUs) between these agencies regarding future studies and monitoring of the 106-
Mile Site. Based on the strategy and MOUs, these agencies will modify the existing EPA monitoring
and implementation plans to reflect the present needs in this important region of the ocean. The
revised monitoring plan is due in November 1989. Many of the recommendations from the workshop
have already entered the planning or implementation stage. The products of this workshop were key
toward continuing the monitoring evaluation of the impact of sewage sludge disposal at the 106-Mile
Site on the marine ecosystems, important fisheries, and for addressing human perceptions and
concerns for the coastal waters.
51
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
Battelle 1988a. Final Draft Monitoring Plan for the 106-Mile Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site. A
report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-O3-3319.
Work Assignment 1-22.
Battelle 1988b. Results of Studies Conducted in the Vicinity of the 106-Mile Site-Mile Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Site. Final Report Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment 1-22.
Battelle. 1988c. Rnal Draft Implementation Plan for the 106-Mile Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site
Monitoring Program. A report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment 1-22.
Battelte 1988d. Final Report on Analysis of Baseline Seawater and Sediment Samples from the 106-
Mile Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site. A report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment 1-21.
Battelle. 1988e. Rnal Report of Analytical Results of the 106-Mile Deepwater Sludge Dumpsite
Survey-Summer 1986.. A report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment 1-31.
Battelle. 1988f. Characteristics of Sewage Sludge From the Northern New Jersey-New York City
Area, August 1988. A report submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assignment 2-111.
BatteHe! 1989a. Workshop Materials for the Ocean Dumping Workshop 106-Mile Site, March 28-30,
1989. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3319.
Work Assignment 2-206.
Battelle. 1989b. Results of the September 1989 EPA Survey of the 106-Mile Site. In preparation for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-C8-0105. Work Assignment 4.
Battelle. 1989c. Permittee Monitoring Requirements: 106-Mile Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site
Monitoring Program. Prepared-for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No.
68-C8-0105. Work Assignment 7.
EPA. 1980. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site
Designation. Rnal. Oil and Special Materials Control Division, Marine Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA and NOAA. 1989. Shell Disease of Crustaceans in the New York Bight. A report prepared by a
Working Group on Shell Disease. A Product of the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary
Program Management Conference.
Fradkin et al., In press. Potential Public Health Concerns from Pathogens in Municipal Wastewater
Sludges. J. Environ. Health.
NOAA. 1977. Baseline Report on Environmental Conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volumes I-
III. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1. 798 pp.
NOAA. 1983. The 106-Mile Site Characterization Update. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS
F/NEC-26.
52
-------
NOAA. 1989. Fisheries of the United States 1988. Current Fishery Statistics No. 8800. 116 pp.
Pearce, J.B., D.C. Miller, and C. Berman. 1983. Northeast Monitoring Program 106-Mile Site
Characterization Update. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-26. US Department of
Commerce.
Santoro, E.D. and D.J. Suszcowski. 1986. Current status: Phase-out of ocean dumping of sewage
sludge in the New York Bight Apex, Sixth International Ocean Disposal Symposium, Asilomar
Conference Center, Pacific Grove, California, April 21-25, 1986.
Zeller and Wastler. 1986. Tiered Ocean Disposal Monitoring will Minimize Data Requirements.
Oceans' 86 Volume 3, Monitoring Strategies Symposium.
53
-------
-------
APPENDIX A.
UST OF PERSONS INVITED TO THE 106-MILE SITE WORKSHOP
(* INDICATES PERSONS WHO ATTENDED)
-------
-------
Kevin Aiello*
Middlesex Co. Utilities
PO Box 461 Chevaier Avenue
Sayreville, NJ 08872
201-721-3800
Dick Alien, Vice Pres.*
Atlantic Offshore
Fishermens Association
Broadway Sta. Box 3001
Newport, Rl 02840
401-849-4982
Paul D. Boehm*
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Marine Sciences Unit
25 Acorn Park
Cambridge, MA 02140
617-864-5770
Donald Boesch
LUMCON
Cocodrie Star Route
Box 541
Chauvin, LA 70344
Robert Alpern, Prog. Director
Coalition for the Bight
101 East 15th Street
New York, NY 10003
Daniel J. Basta
NOAA
N/OMA-31
11400RockvillePike
Rockville, MD 20852
Deny Bennet, President*
American Littoral Society
Hartshorne Drive, Building 18
Highlands, NJ 07732
201-291-0055
Thomas E. Bigford*
NOAA Fisheries
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
617-281-3600
Thomas J. Billy*
NOAA Fisheries
1335 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20210
301-427-2351
Suzanne Bolton*
NOAA/Legislative Affairs
Room 5222
Herbert C. Hoover Bldg.
Washington, DC 20203
202-377-2727
Joan Bondareff*
HMMFC
House Annex 2 Room 575
Washington, DC 20515
202-266-2460
Marci Bortman*
Congressman Hughes
341 Cannon Bldg.
Washington.DC 20515
202-225-6572
Randy Braun*
US EPA/Region II
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
201-321-6692
M.J. Brinker, Jr.
Executive Director
Joint Union of Essex and
Union Counties
500 South First Street
Elizabeth, NJ 07202
A-1
-------
Lawrence M. Brooks*
US Coast Guard
COTPNY c/o USCG Group
Governor's Island
New York, NY 10004-5098
212-668-7834
Tom Brosnan*
City of New York DEP
Bureau Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island
New York, NY 10035
212-860-9378
Darrell Brown*
EPA OMEP (WH556F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
John C. Bryson*
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Room 2115
300 S. New Street
. Dover, DE 19901 .
302-674-2331
Jerry Burke, Act Dir.
Food and Drug Administration
Office of Physical Sciences
200 C Street, SW HFF-400
Washington, DC 20204
Brad Butman
US Geological Survey
Woods Hole, MA 02543
Victor Cabeili*
University of Rhode Island
Department of Microbiology
Kingston, Rl 02882
401-792-1000
John Calder*
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, NW Room 609
Washington, DC 20550
202-357-7910
Judy Capuzzo
Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.
Water Street
Woods Hole, MA 02543
Richard Caspe, Director
EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212-264-1865
Jim Chambers
NOAA Fisheries
1335 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Michael Champ
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street, NW
Room 1121
Washington, DC 20550
Stan Chanesman*
NOAA Fisheries
1335 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-427-2883
James Churchill*
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Water Street
Woods Hole, MA 02543
508-548-1400, Ext 2807
A-2
-------
Randy Collins
State of Maryland
Office of the Governor
444 N. Capitol Street, NW
Gordon C. Colvin, Director
New York State DEP
Div. of Marine Resources
Building 40-SUNY
Peter Cornillon
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett Laboratory
South Ferry Road
Narrgansett, Rl 02882
Congressman Jim Courier
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dr. Rita Colwell
University of Maryland
Biotechnology Institue
Room 1123
Gabe Csanady
Old Dominion University
Department of Oceanography
Norfolk, VA 23529-0278
Michael Connor*
Massachusetts Water RA
100 First Avenue
Charleston Navy Yard
Charleston, MA 02129
617-242-6000
Frank Csulak*
EPA Region II
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
26 Federal Plaza, Room 837
New York, NY 10278
212-264-1865
Richard Cooper*
National Undersea Center
University of Connecticut
Avery Point
Groton, CT 02634
203-445-4714
Jack Clifford*
EPA HW WQ
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Angela Cristini*
Ramapo College of New Jersey
505 Ramapo Valley Road
Rahwah, NJ 07430
201-529-7224 or 7734
Christopher Daggett
New Jersey DEP
401 State Street, Floor 7 E
Trenton, NJ 08625
Tudor Davies*
EPA OMEP (WH556F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-382-7166
Mario Del Vicario, Chief
EPA Region II
Marine and Wetlands Protection
Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
A-3
-------
Richard Dewling, P.E.
Metcalf and Eddy
PO Box 1500
Somerville, NJ 08876
Lynn Edgerton
Natural Resources Def. Council
122 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10168
John Downing*
US Departmnet of Energy
C02 Research Division
901 D Street, SW
370 L'Enfant Promenade
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20024
202-646-5232
David B. Duane*
NOAA
6010 Executive Blvd.
RISE 2, Room 805
Rockville, MD 20852
301-443-8361
Lee W. Ellwein*
US Coast Guard
Commandant (G-MPS-1)
2100 Second Street, SW
Washington, DC 20593
Rick Erdheim
Senator Lautenberg's Office
Washington, DC 20510
Eric Evenson, Acting Dir.
Div. of Water Resources
401 East State St. CN-029
Trenton, NJ 08625
Iver Duedall
Florida inst of Technology
Dept of Oceanography and Eng.
150 W. University Blvd.
Melbourne, FL 32901
John Everett*
NOAA Fisheries
1335 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-427-2250
William Dunstan
Old Dominion University
Department of Oceanography
Norfolk, VA 23529-0278
Steve Fangmann, Dep. Director
Bureau of Public Works
Nassau County Exect. Bldg.
1 West Street
Mineola, NY 11501
Richard Ecker*
Battelle Northwest
439 West Sequim Bay Road
Sequirn,WA 98382
206-683-4151
Gary Fare, Exec. Dir.
Linden-Roselle Sewerage Aui:h.
PO Box 124
Linden, NJ 07036
Charles Ehler*
NOAA
6001 Executive Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20852
Bridgett Farren*
EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
212-597-3361
A-4
-------
John Farrington
University of Massachusetts
Harbor Campus
Boston, MA 02125-3393
Jack Gentile
EPA NERL
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rl 02882
Thomas Fazio*
Food and Drug Administration
200 C Street, S.W.
HFF-400
Washington, DC 20240
202-472-5182
Sagar Goyal*
University of Minnesota
Veterinary Diagnostics
1943 Carter Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
612-625-2714
Charles Flagg
Brookhaven National Lab
Building 318
Upton, NY 11903
Larry Flick
HMMFC
House Annex 2, Room 537
Washington, DC 20515
David L Folsom*
US Coast Guard
Coast Guard Building
408 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02210-2209
Larry Fradkin
EPA/ECAL
26 Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Henry Frey
NOAA/NOS
EOPB-N/OMA 13
6001 Executive Blvd. R419
Rockville, MD 20852
Spencer Garrett, Dir.
NOAA/National Seafood Lab.
PO Drawer 1207
Pascagoula, MS 39568-1207
Fred Grassle*
WHOI
Water Street
Woods Hole, MA 02543
508-548-1400, Ext 2338
D. Jay Grimes*
University of New Hampshire
Institute of Marine Sciences
Durham, NH 03824
603-862-2995
Bruce Hallgren, Chief
Bureau of Marine Fisheries
Div. of Fish and Wildlife
CN-400
Trenton, NJ 08625
Peter Hamilton*
SAIC
4900 Waters Edge Road
Suite 255
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-851-8356
David Hansen
EPA NERL
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rl 02882
A-5
-------
Jamison Hawkins*
NOAA/NESDIS
FB4 Room 2065
Herbert C. Hoover Bldg.
Washington, DC 20233
George P. Howard, Dir.
New Jersey DEP
Div. of Fish, Game, and Wldlfe
501 State Street, CN-400
Trenton, NJ 08625
Richard Hires
Stevens Inst. of Technology
Dept of Civil and Ocean Eng.
Castle. Point Station
Hoboken, NJ 07030
Alan Hirsch
Dynamac Corporation
Dynamac Building
11140 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Joe Hudek*
US EPA
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
Stephen V. Hughes*
US Coast Guard
Commandant (G-MP8-1)
2100 Second Street, SW
Washington, DC 20593
202-267-0495
Susan Hitch*
EPA OMEP
401 M Street, SW
WH556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-7-178
Charles Hoffman*
EPA Region It
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212-264-5170
Robert Hoskins
FDA (HFF-400)
OFfice of Physical Sciences
200 C Street, SW
Washington, DC 20204
Robert Houghton*
Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory of
Columbia University
Palisades, NY 10964
914-359-2900 Ext 328
Congressman William Hughes*
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 21515
Kent Hughes
NOAA/NESDIS/NQDC
E/OC Universal Building
1825 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, DC 20235
Carlton Hunt*
Battelle Ocean Sciences
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
617-934-0571
Roger Hutchinson*
NOAA/Fisheries
1335 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-427-2253
A-6
-------
Merton Jngham*
NOAA Fisheries
Narragansett Laboratory
RR 7A Box 522A
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rl 028582
401-782-3310
Mary Hope Katsouros, Chief
National Research Council
Ocean Studies Board
2001 Wisconsin Avenue
Washington, DC 20007
Dana Kester
University of Rhode-Island
Narragansett Laboratory
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rl 02882
Renata Kimbrough
EPA HQ A-101
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC .20460
Bruce Kiselica
EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Karen Klima*
EPA OMEP
WH556F
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-7130
Dane Konop*
NOAA Public Affairs
Herbert C. Hoover Building
Washington, DC 20203
202-377-8090
Frederick Kurtz, Chairman
Middlesex County Util. Auth.
PO Box 461 Chevalier Ave.
Sayreville, NJ 08862
Thor Lassen*
National Fisheries Institute
2000 M Street, NW
Suite 2000
Washington, DC 20036
Thomas J. Lauro*
Westchester County Department of
Environmental Facilities
148 Marline Avenue, Room 400
White Plains, NY 10601
914-285-2480
Senator Frank Lautenberg
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 21510
Sally Lentz
The Oceanic Society
1536 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
John Lishman*
EPA/OMEP
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-7177
Roger Locandro
Rutgers University
PO Box 321, College Center
Cook College
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Michael Ludwig (F/NER742)
NOAA/NMFS
Milford Landing
212 Rogers Avenue
Miiford, CT 06460
A-7
-------
George Lutzic
City of New York DEP
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island
New York, NY 10035
George McCann
New Jersey DEP
Div. of Water Resources
401 Trenton Street, CN-029
Trenton, NJ 08625
Richard Lyons*
USCG Headquarters
2100 2nd Street S.W.
G-MPS-1
Washington, DC 20593-0001
202-267-0495
Melvin Marietta*
Sandia National Laboratory
Div. 6334
PO Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185
505-844-7665
D.C. Marshall, Exec. Dir. '
New England Fish. Council
5 Broadway (Rte. 1)
Saugus, MA 09106
Peter Marx
HMMFC
Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515
Scott McDowell*
Battelle Ocean Sciences
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
617-934-0571
J. Messer, Prog. Dir.
EPA ORD Envir. Monitor/Assess.
Office of Modeling, Monitoring
and Quality Assurance
Research Triangle Pk, NC 27711
Boyce Miller*
Oceanic Society
1536 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
202-328-0098
William Muir*
EPA Region 111
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelpha, PA 19107
215-597-2541
Jim Matthews*
Congressman Manton's Staff
327 Cannon Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-3965
Fred Munson*
Greenpeace USA
96 Spring Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10012
212-941-6075
Garry Mayer
NOAA/Sea Grant
WSC 5 Room 804
Rockville, MD 20852
Robert Murchelano*
NOAA Fisheries
Woods Hole Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA 02543
508-548-5123
A-8
-------
Owen Murphy*
The Environmental Response Network
PO Box 105
Ocean View, NJ 08230
609-398-4030
Fran Puskas*
NJ Fisheries Development Comm.
PO Box 191
Barneget Lt, NJ 08006
609-494-2625
Jerry Neff
Battelle Ocean Sciences
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
617-934-0571
John Pascucci*
Bureau of Public Works
Nassau County
1 West Street
Mineola, NY 11501
516-535-4156
Joel O'Connor*
EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
212-264-1303
Thomas O'Connor*
NOAA/NOS
Rockwall Bldg.
6010 Executive-Blvd
Rockville, MD 20852
301-443-8655
Jacob Patnick*
USCG
Commandant (G-ECV/5)
2100 Second Street, SW
Washington, DC 20593
202-267-1955
John Paul*
EPA NERL
South Ferry Road
'Narragansett, Rl 02882
401-782-3037
Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr.
US House of Representatives
1207 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515
William Palumbo, President
Atlantic Offshore Fisherman's
Association
Broadway Station Box 3001
Newport, Rl 02840
Paul Kilho Park*
NOAA
Office of Chief Scientist
Washington DC 20230
202-377-1532
John Pearce*
NOAA Fisheries
Woods Hole Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA 02543
508-548-5123, Ext 261 or 284
Judith Pederson*
Massachusetts CZMA
100. Cambridge Avenue
Boston, MA 02202
617-727-9530
Geroge Pence
HMFFC
Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
A-9
-------
Carmine Perrapato, Dir.
Passaic Valley Sewerage
Authority
600 Wilson Avenue
Newark, NJ 07105
David Bedford*
EPA OMEP
401 M Street, SW
WH556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-7179
Allen Peterson, Director
NOAA/NMFS
Northeast Region
Woods Hole Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA 02543
Robert Reid*
NOAA Fisheries
Sandy Hood Fishery lab
Highlands, NJ 07732
301-872-0200
Jeff Peterson
Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee
Cannon Building
Washington, DC 20510
Helen Chase Pettit*
New Jersey DEP
Pretreatment and Residuals
401 East State Street CN029
Trenton, NJ 08625
609-633-3823
Robin Rice*
Congressman Saxton's Office
US House of Representatives
324 Cannon Bldg.
Washington, DC 21515
202-225-4765
Gabe Rosa
House of Public Works Com1:e
8307A Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515
Steve Phillips*
Sport Rshing Institute
1010 Massachusetts Avenue
Suite 100
Washington, DC 20001
David Rosenblatt *
New Jersey DEP
Bureau of Monitoring and Management
400 State Street CN029
Trenton. NJ 08625
609-292-0427
John Proni*
NOAA/AOML
4301 Rickenbacher Causeway
Miami, FL 33149
305-361-4312
Gil Radonski, Exec. Dir.
Sport Fishing Institute
10.10 Massachusetts Avenue
Suite 100
Washington, DC 20515
Thomas Rossby
University of Rhode Island
Narrgansett Laboratory
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rl 02882
Robert Runyon
New Jersey DEP
Bureau of Monit. and Management
400 State StreetCN-O29
Trenton, NJ
A-10
-------
Joseph Sargent, Jr.*
US Coast Guard
Commandant (G-ECV/5)
2100 Second Street, SW
Washington, DC 20593
202-267-1864
John Scott*
SAIC
c/o EPA ERL
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rl 02882
401-838-6000
Thomas Sawyer*
Rescon Associates
PO Box 206, Turtle Cove
Royal Oak, MD 21662
301-745-5669
Jerome Sheehan, Director
Bergen County Utilities
PO Box 122
Foot of Mehrhoff Road
Little Ferry, NJ 07643
Congressman H. James Saxton
U.S. House of Representatives
324 Cannon Building
Washington, "DC 21515
Paul Scarlett*
New Jersey DEP
Bureau of Marine Fisheries
PO Box 418
Port Republic, NJ 08241
(609) 441-3292
Robert Shokes*
SAIC
4224 Campus Court
San Diego, CA 92121
619-535-7586
Carl Sindermann*
NOAA Fisheries
Oxford Fish. Lab
Oxford, MA 21654
301-266-5193
Larry Schmidt, Director
New Jersey DEP
Planning Grp. CN 402
401 State Street, 7th Floor E
Trenton, NJ 08652
Dave Smallen*
Public Works
2165 Rayburn Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-4472
Robert Schoelkopf*
Marine Mammal Stranding Center
Box 773
Brigantine, NJ 08203
609-266-0538
Malcolm L Spaulding*
University of Rhode Island
Ocean Engineering
Kingston, Rl 02881
401-792-2537 or 789-1584
Jerry Schubel, Provost
SUNY
Stony Brook, NJ 11794-7012
George Stafford
New York DEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
A-11
-------
Hal Stanford*
NOAA/NOS
6001 Executive Blvd.
Washington Science
Center No. 1
Room 317
Rockville, MD 20852
301-443-2357
William Steinhauer*
Battelle Ocean Sciences
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
617-934-0571
Lance Stewart*
National Undersea Center
University of Connecticut
Groton, CT 06430
203-44S4714
Torn Stokes*
City of NY DEP
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Ward Island
New York, NY 10035 . ,
212-860-9378
Larry Swanson*
SUNY
DepL of Marine Science
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000
516-632-8704
Rick Swartz
EPA PERL
Hatfleld Mar. Science Center
Newport, OR 97365
James Thomas*
NOAA Rsheries
1335 East-Wst Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
John Tiedemann*
NJ Sea Grant Extension Service
Ocean County Extension Center
1623 Whitesville Road
Toms River, NJ 08753
201-349-1210
James R. Thomas*
National Marine Fisheries Service
1335 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-427-2319
Richard Tokarski, Dir.*
Rahway Vail SA
Foot of Hazelwood Avenue
Rahway, NJ 07065
201-388-0868
Christopher Toulou
Congressman Carper's Office
131 Cannon Building
US House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Robert Tucker*
NJ DEP
Office of Science and Research
401 E State Street
Trenton, NJ 08652
609-984-6070
Ken Turgeon
Minerals Management Service
MMS-MF-644
12203 Sunrise Valley Drive
Herndon, VA 20240
Craig Vogt*
EPA OMEP
401 M Street, SW
WH556F
Washington, DC 20460
202-475-7130
A-12
-------
Edward O. Wagner
City of New York DEP
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island
New York, NY 10035
George Whidden*
Coalition to Cease Ocean Dump
PO Box 541
Narragansett, Rl 01760
401-789-5650
Hal Walker*
EPA NERL
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rl 02882
401-838-6000
Edward Watson
F.V. CHARLES DALTON, Inc.
28 E. Atlantic Avenue
Villas, NJ 98251
Lee Weddig, Exec. Director
National Fisheries Institute
2000 M Street, NW
Suite 2000
Washington, DC 20036
Roberta Weisbrod*
New York DEC
47-50 21st Street
Long Island City, NY 11101
718-482-4992
Terry Whttledge*
Univeristy of Texas Austin
Marine Sciences Institute
PO Box 1267
Port Aransas, TX 78373
512-749-6769
Sam Williams
EPA HQ ORD RD-682
401 M Street. NW
Washington, DC 20460
Doug Wolfe
NOAA/NOS
Rockwall Building
6010 Executive Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20852
David Young
EPA ERL
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
Christine Werme*
Battelle Ocean Sciences
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
617-934-0571
Adam Zabrinski, Director
Wastewater Treat, for
Westchester County
400 County Ofice Bldg.
White Plains, NY 10601
Robert Wetherell*
Food and Drug Administration
NETech Services
Construction Battalion Center
HFH-410, Building S-26
Davisville
North Kingstown, Rl 02852
401-294-2561
Robert Zeller*
EPA/OMEP
401 M Street, SW '
Washington, DC 20460
202-382-7166
A-13
-------
Cindy Zipf*
Clean Ocean Action
PO Box 505 Sandy Hook
Highlands, NJ 07732
201-872-0111
Michael Zsabados
NOAA/NOS
Building 1, Room 103
6010 Executive Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20852
A-14
-------
APPENDIX B.
REPORTS OF WORKGROUP CHAIRPERSONS
-------
-------
CHAIRPERSONS REPORT-QUESTION 1
QUESTION 1-WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL FATE OF THE MATERIAL DUMPED AT THE
106-MILE SITE?
1. Physical and chemical characteristics of sludge
What we know (this is in addition to results listed in text on Pages 4-2 through 4-9)
A. Composite samples 'taken at the inlet on feeder barges are probably good indicators
of sludge composition and retain the ability to also track the sludge to its source.
The independent checks confirm the sludge composition adequately (within a factor
of 2-5).
B. Pretreatment can probably be used to reduce the concentration of some toxic
constituents in the sludge.
C. Some metals and toxicity are the parameters that exceed Marine Water Quality
Criteria (MWQC).
What we need to know
A. Standardized chemical analytical methods are needed for sludge so that data from
all plants in NY and NJ are comparable.
B. What are the physical characteristics of sludge particles, particularly their size
distribution and density by size class over an extended period of time?
C. What is the long-term variability of the chemical composition of sludge?
D. Dispersion of sludge in marine waters is not adequately known.
E. What additional information can be learned from previous studies about the chemical
and physical properties of sludge on its biological and long-term effects.
F.' Could compaction of sludge and the discharge of solid material that will sink rapidly
to the bottom be an alternate strategy in deep waters like the 106-Mile Site?
2. What are the water current regimes at the site?
What we know
A. Near-surface drifter deployments (4 in September 1988) have indicated a possible
water flow from the 106-Mile Site toward the shelf break front (i.e., a possible
convergence zone).
B. One of the surface drifters looped back toward the shelf and may be an indicator of
a large-scale gyre between the Gulf Stream and shelf waters.
B-1
-------
C. Observations from Navy GEQSAT satellite and from the field have been coupled
successfully with interactive modeling to predict the location and behavior of the Gulf
Stream. The Navy GEOSTAT satellite passes directly over the 106-Mile Site every 17
days and the active microwave sensor can penetrate cloud cover.
D. Advection events would rapidly displace a sludge plume, but may not increase the
short-term mixing. Under normal conditions the ocean is a dispersive environment.
E. The pycnocline is at 10-20 m depth in summer, but in winter it will be considerably
deeper.
F. Freshwater content (90-95 percent) of sludge sometimes causes plumes to rise after
sewage disposal.
What we need to know
A. More complete velocity studies with Lagrangian surface drifters to obtain flow and
coupled with Eulerian measurements for velocities. Deployment of surface drifters
weekly for a year would cover the appropriate time scale of events (wind-induced,
rings) and would be statistically significant in addressing the question of (1) gyres
and recirculation and (2) convergence zones.
B. Data on vertical transport-of sludge particles are critical and should be obtained.
C. Neutrally buoyant acoustically tracked drifters would be an expensive, but very
appropriate instrument to better understand where sludge may be transported below
the seasonal pycnocline. .
D. More detailed examination of the available circulation and passive transport models
is needed in addition to the design an appropriate field validation program.
3. What do the sludges do at the site?
What we know
Reid measurements indicate sludge particulates at the 106-Mile Site are confined to
the upper mixed layer above the pycnocline. Some reports at the 12-Mile [Jump Site
indicated bottom deposition occurring in short time periods. The ocean is a
dispersive environment even under calm conditions at the 106-Mile Site and
becomes even move dispersive under normal and stormy conditions. There are
some physical features (pycnocline, fronts) that tend to collect particulates.
What we need to know
A. We need to know about the interactions of sludge with seawater and biota at the
time of discharge, e.g., flocculation or absorption that would affect settling.
B. Can moored and free-floating sediment traps be deployed in concert with physical
oceanographic instrumentation to better define movement of sludge particles? Initial
installations should be in the nearfield with later deployments in the downstream
farfield.
B-2
-------
C. What other instrumentation in addition to those determined can be used to detect
sludge particulates and follow their distribution? Possible instruments include
acoustic techniques and in situ undulating particulate (plankton) samples.
D. Can organisms, such as salps, whose feeding mode concentrates small particles, be
utilized to collect samples for detecting the presence of sludge materials?
E. What constituents of sludge can be used as tracers (xylem trachea, coprostanol) of
sludge on the bottom?
4. Are there adequate mathematical models of water circulation?
What we know
Mathematical models exist but improvements and validation are needed.
What we need to know
A. A need exists for circulation and particle transport models of slope/shelf interactions
in response to mean flow, seasonal changes, and events caused by such factors as
storms and warm-core rings.
B. Models are needed to address the question of the pycnocline as a barrier to particle
settling and interactions of particle fields with bioaccumulations.
5. What techniques are being used to track sludge?
What we know
A. Nearfield plume monitoring is adequate and should continue, but should break
sludge into subfields.
B. Sludge is difficult to detect above background, especially in particulate matter in the
farfield.
What we need to know
A. Can weekly drogues be deployed and remote sensing from satellites be used to
define sludge transport in the upper mixed layer?
B. What acoustic techniques (especially the new technology) can be used to define
subpycnocline distributions?
C. The vertical distribution of the particle plumes is needed.
D. Bioaccumulation of sludge particles needs more study to examine its use as an
indicator of the presence of sludge.
E. Use submersible and microtopography technology to sample sediments that are
impossible to collect from surface ships.
F. What active and passive optical techniques can be used to follow sludge particles?
B-3
-------
G. Phytoplankton and zooplankton in the sludge field should be studied with respect to
bioaccumulation.
Can physical data serve as a surrogate measurement for sludge movement?
What we know
Possible surrogate measurements are transmissometry, metals, dyes, drogues, and
acoustics.
What wa need to know
A. Emphasis needs to be placed on vertical measurements.
B. There is a need to better interface physical oceanographic measurements with other
measurements being taken at the 106-Mile Site.
7. Can sludges from the KXMUile Site be accurately detected to affirm or deny their influence on
shoreline, beaches, or natural resources?
What wa know
No additional needs were identified by the workshop.
What we need to know
A. Study benthic organisms (tilefish, red crabs, and other long-term residents).
B. Deploy sediment traps.
C. Construct a mass balance for the inner Bight and offshelf areas.
D. Other sludge tracers (silver, cellulose, plant products?).
a What are the relative amounts of other sources of pollutants to the Bighl?
What we know (m tentative ranked order)
A. Hudson-Rarrtan Estuary
B. Delaware Estuary
C. NY Bight Apex (12-Mile Site, acid waste site, cellar dump site)
D. 106-Mile Site
E. Outfalls
F. Atmosphere
B-4
-------
9. What is the magnitude of atmospheric deposition in the Bight at the 106-Mile Site?
What we know
Atmospheric deposition can be a potential source of some contaminants (e.g.,
chlorinated hydrocarbons, etc.)
What we need to know
Atmospheric deposition should be studied with regard to relative magnitude and
effects compared to sludge disposal rates.
B-5
-------
CHAIRPERSONS REPORT-QUESTION 2
QUESTION 2: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING AT THE 106-MILE SITE ON
UvTNG MARINE RESOURCES?
1. Characteristics of sewage sludge
1.1 ToxfcHy Tests
What is known (pg. 4-10 in the background document)
What we need to know
A. Expand the toxicity tests to include species indigenous to the 106-Mile Site.
B.. Develop population response models.
C. Review the reliability of labs doing the toxicity testing.
Concern was expressed about the implicit assumption that negative toxicity results equat
with no effects in the ocean.
1.2 Pathogens
What is known (pg. 4-11,4-12)
What we need to know
A. Additional information on effects of pathogens on marine mammals and birds.
B. Increased monitoring for diseases in marine fish and invertebrates in and
around the 106-Mile Site.
C. Laboratory studies:
a. Relationship between dumping-Vibrios are stress in marine
organisms.
b. Effects of sludge on lethal concentrations of certain bacteria.
c. Relationship between bacteria in sludges and disease in marine
organisms.
D. What are the pathogens associated with sewage sludge that are present even
after disinfection?
2, Baseline data on living resources
What is known
Several new studies were identified.
B-6
-------
What we need to know
A. More work on both shallower and deeper benthic communities-time series to
include sediment traps studies and data.
B. Characterization of less well-known fishes.
C. Enhance work on pelagic species, i.e. squids.
D. Work on possible behavior modifications in species swimming around plumes.
E. Enhance site specific larval fish studies, i.e., icthyoplankton
F. Additional information needed on commercial fish landings of catches near
the 106-Mile Site.
3. Short-term effects
What is know (pg 4-13)
What we need to know
A. Look at resident and vertically migrating species (i.e., lantern fish, hatchet
fish).
B. Perform toxicity tests at the perimeters (boundaries) of the site and plumes.
4. Chronic exposure, bioaccumulation and long-term effects
What is known (pg 4-13, 4-14)
What we need to know
A. Better characterization of sludges and their chemistry.
B, Identify "markers" in sludge for bioaccumulation and effects.
C. Establish a sampling program:
for: a. vertically migrating fishes.
b. benthic fish and shellfish studies correlated with
sediment trap data
c. mid-water organisms, i.e., squid?
measure:
a. bioaccumulation
b. patent external disease
symptoms
c. microscopic indications of disease
D. Measurements of bioaccumulation should be used to allay public
misperceptions and wariness about fish/seafood consumption.
B-7
-------
EPA monitoring plan
What is known
Not enough consideration given to monitoring prior to dumping started-detection of
changes are therefore difficult
What we need to know
A. Existing information should be packaged and presented to scientific
community and public to present clear picture at 106 situation.
B. Create a (small) group of experts that will be mandated to review details of
present and future monitoring plans and make recommendations.
C. Continue monitoring of deep-sea community and key target species.
B-8
-------
CHAIRPERSONS REPORT-QUESTION 3
QUESTION 3: WHAT IS THE EFFECT ON HUMAN HEALTH OF DUMPING AT THE 106-MILE SITE?
Introduction
With the passage of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988. it is essential that we step back to reevaluate
the public health risks associated with dumping sludge at the 106-Mile Site. Congress declared in the
original legislation that.."it is the policy of the United States to regulate the dumping of all types of
materials into ocean waters and to prevent or strictly limit the dumping into ocean waters of an material
which would adversely affect human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological
systems, or economic potentialities". This reevaluation will permit both an assessment based upon what
is known at this point and form the basis for recommending further research as part of the monitoring
requirements of the 1988 legislation.
The public is becoming increasingly concerned about the safety of seafood and the inadequacy of
government inspection efforts. There are a number of reasons, not the least of which are consumer
perceptions about ocean dumping and pollution. These perceptions are developed from a wide variety
of sources and represent a wide spectrum of understanding including the effects of dumping sludge at
the 106-Mile Site. US consumers have been bombarded with information, frequently incomplete or
inaccurate, about the risks of consuming fish and shellfish. Concerns have also been expressed about
reported increased frequency of chitinoclasia in several species of shellfish, beach closures, medical
wastes washing up on beaches and recent whale and dolphin die offs along the Atlantic coast.
These concerns and perceptions about seafood 'safety have not been limited to the US, there are several
examples of serious questions being raised or restrictions imposed on US expprts of fishery products.
All this has leci groups like Public Voice to call for new legislation to authorize more extensive inspection
of all seafoods, whether imported or of domestic origin. Congress, to get a better handle on the
problems with seafood safety and other concerns, authorized and funded a comprehensive review of this
issue by NOAA, in cooperation with FDA and USDA. This study, called the National Seafood Surveillance
Project, is well under way and an interim report to Congress is due in October, 1989. The final report to
Congress is scheduled for January, 1991. This workshop is both timely and essential to providing a clear
understanding of current knowledge about public health risks associated with ocean dumping,
particularly at the 106-Mile Site, and the identification of further research needs. In addition, it will provide
new insight in terms of public understanding and perception as a basis for informing and educating the
public. In examining the public health concerns, the workshop participants were encouraged to consider
the information and issues from two viewpoints, first as a public health official and second as a
consumer.
Potential for Direct Human Exposure
The possibilities for direct exposure to the pathogens and toxic materials in sludge being dumped at the
106-Mile Site include the haulers/dumpers, commercial and recreational fisherman, crews of passing
vessels, and swimmers.
What is known
Summer in 1987 reported many cases of gastroenteritis, lesions, in New Jersey
swimmers.
B-9
-------
Presence of warm-core eddy brought water to within five miles of the shore-highly
unusual.
Epidemiologists will usually attribute a viral infection to contact with another infected
person, and not to water or aerosol exposure. Until some investigation is done, risks
cannot be ruled out
Viruses are present in sludge.
Viruses cannot survive in open seawater for long unless they are associated with
sediments.
Technology involving viruses are very new-i.e., methods for detecting viruses in
sediments, hundreds of gallons of water must be filtered to detect viruses.
Material dumped at the 106-Mile Site could have come in contact with humanss
through mechanisms such as
actual dumping
swimming
aerosol
Fishing (i.e. in the site, fisherman touches sludge in
water)
No studies have been made on the group that has potential for exposure at the site:
barge workers, fisherman, researches.
We do not have the technology to differentiate between effects of sludge dumped at
the 106-Mile Site and effects of shore influences (CSOs).
Given nutrients, bacteria can grow in water, unlike viruses. Bacteria can transfer
drug resistance through reproduction.
Risk to general heath is minimal.
Greatest risk is at the site, but no suitable host is present at the site.
Chances of exposure to pathogens at the Site are low, and not enough to warrant
research.
Swimming is not the only route by which pathogens can infect humans-inhalation of
aerosols during dumping (oral, through eyes).
Potential for effects from exposure to toxic chemicals.
-Direct contact with toxic chemicals is even less likely than
pathogens.
B-10
-------
Needs
Define: Risk, Relative risk, and Perceived risk
We need a risk number. Do you spend research money to come up with this
number?
If a number can be reached by analyzing the existing literature, this is preferred over
just saying that the risk is minimal.
e Definitive statement on public health risks
The public is confused. The public needs to be informed of the
differences between various sources and their risks.
Need to acknowledge to the public that they should have concerns about bathing
water quality. Inform the public that the issue is less likely to be the 106-Mile Site,
and more likely from other sources (i.e., shoreline activities).
Conclusions based upon available information
Pathogens and toxics in sludges dumped at the 106-Mile Site carry no appreciable
risk to public health through direct exposure.
Potential for Indirect Human Exposure
What is potential for indirect human exposure?
A. Pathogens
B. Toxic Chemicals
FDA considers:
- -contamination level
-toxicity
-relative level of consumption
Pathogens-no shellfish from the 106-Mile Site are consumed by humans. No
regulations on fish-only levels in shellfish.
Do not know of any impact on human health. Cooking kills pathogens.
Scallops are in the 106-Mile Site area of influence, but not eaten raw.
Some dumpers kill pathogens with heat, also storage for several days will kill
pathogens.
Yet, potential is there for incremental increase in background.
evidence is in liver, not in muscle. May not relate directly to the
106-Mile Site, but any in toxic levels in seawater potential.
B-11
-------
Needs
Medical waste-is going out illegally-not on barges. Different issue.
Risk is greater than direct because foods are not always cooked thoroughly-i.a
crabs cooked only until they turn pink.
If the sludge disposed at the 106-Mile Site reaches shore, we should worry about all
viruses because you would have the combination of high risk (pathogens) and many
hosts (swimmers). It will be up to the physical oceanographers to tell us
probabilities of onshore impacts.
. We recommend immediate analysis to satisfy public perception? Yes.
-UNJ already has data for nearshore-should utilize.
1. What species?-decide in further
discussions.
2. What chemical?-pick those most likely
suspect
Now broader than the 106-Mile Site-look for everything-sample edible seafood from
Mid-Atlantic Bight, and analyze for sludge components and other chemicals. (Heavy
metals, toxic chemicals, and other potential health hazards).
Use existing data on" fish.
Use standard list of metals and organics. Don't rely on
covariance.
. Recommend that some type of analyses be conducted on fish and shellfish as part
of the monitoring program.
. More species should be collected and analyzed for presence of toxic levels of
pathogens, metals, and organics.
Conclusions based upon available information
. There is no information to suggest that seafood is unsafe because of dumping at the
106-Mile Site.
Harvested resources of concern
. Species harvested from near the 106-Mile Site represent an extremely small fraction
of the U.S. supply. About 65% of seafood consumed is imported.
. Hudson-Raritan Estuary Basin Coastal NY and NJ-major sources of pollutants in NY
Bight
B-12
-------
Did 12-Miie Site have public health risks?
areas were closed to commercial shellfish (825 km2) and no
immediate plans to reopen these beds in the near future.
Lobster
Extensive migrations annually (esp. 1-2 Ib. size) inshore-offshore,
canyon-canyon.
Potential vectors of contaminants.
Market discrimination against lobsters with shell disease
therefore human health concerns are lessened because people
won't buy scarred lobsters.
Often claws or tails are pulled off and sold as lobster meat
(rather than whole lobster)-"shacked lobster."
Shell disease more inshore problem than offshore-problem may
be more subtle.
Interaction with red crab during inshore-offshore migration
(predator/prey interface).
Generally no deeper than 400m (at heads of canyons).
No evidence of contamination directly.from the 106-Mile Site-it would be extremely
difficult to determine yes or no.
Tuna
Tuna are very sensitive species, generally are not found closer
than 50 fathom bath (very temperature sensitive)
Tilefish-tend to be less migratory
If in downcurrent, primary candidate for contamination.
Range is within several hundred meters in grottos.
Move tons of sediment yearly during normal behaviors.
Piscaries (young tilefish, redfish, small lobsters eaten).
400 ft to 800 ft range-not near 106-Mile Site proper.
Grottos prime area for trapping sediments.
Highly contaminated gradient moving into Hudson Canyon from
12-Mile dumpsite (as far as 25 nmi into canyon from 12-Mile
Site).
B-13
-------
Test tilefish in area of slope break vs. tilefish in Georges Bank-if
both have same levels, can be concluded there's no
contamination (body burdens within background).
In this area, no more than 20% of population north of Cape
Hatteras is found in the area under discussion and may
potentially be impacted.
Squid (lllex)-US production is primary bait (low human health concern)-pelagic
Shark, Swordfish, Tuna-large migratory patterns
Tilefish metals, PCBs content from Georges Bank area is available
Tunas fished off shelf break
Conclusions based upon available information
There has been no evidence that ocean dumping at the 106-Mile Site poses a threat to human health.
All other vectors of exposure to disease are extremely low.
Other concerns and needs
' The monitoring to date has triggered several new regulations and permits.
1. Regulate dumping on site.
2. Rates of dumping.
3. Better control of sludge content
Lack of up-to-date consumption information. Need to monitor.
Encourage public to participate.
B-14
-------
CHAIRPERSONS REPORT-QUESTION 4
QUESTION 4: ARE THERE CHANGES IN SITE DESIGNATION OR PERMIT CONDITIONS THAT CAN
PROVIDE EVEN BETTER PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, LIVING MARINE RESOURCES, OR
HUMAN HEALTH?
A. Regulatory Issues
Generally, conformation to regulatory criteria were judged to be good, noting, however, that
violations have occurred in dumping too close to previous plumes and the fact that half the
plumes monitored have at least one contaminant that exceeds EPA chronic water quality
criteria when crossing the site boundary.
It was agreed that neither the site configuration nor the area! extent of the site should be
changed. Also, it would take a number of years to make such changes and EPA will
probably not take that approach.
It was understood that the ODSS is being improved. It should be to be able to trace all
barges all the time, even if they break loose. Also, there was support for using XBTs from
barges.
B. Monitoring issues
1. The tiered approach to monitoring is supported, but Tiers 3 and 4 should be pressed
now; no need to wait for Tiers 1 and 2 to be completed.
2. Monitoring should consider two things: bioaccumulation and habitat destruction.
The habitats to be monitored should be: ocean surface, at the pycnoclihe, and on
the bottom.
3. Monitoring's first priority should be a determination of the trajectories of participate
matter off site.
4. Nutrient loading should be monitored, especially for its effect on plankton and on
increase in pathogens, both on and off site.
5. The four-hour test for toxicity should be revisited. Dumpers should be encouraged to
remove toxicity from sludge to benefit from faster dumping rates. And, should not
EPA consider seeking regular decreases in toxics in sludges each year so that
loadings of toxics at 106-Mile Site decrease.
6. There is not (and should be) farfield, long-term research based on science, not on
public perceptions of the problem; the monitoring plan needs to be peer reviewed.
C. Site designation issues
1. There are relatively few data to permit a decision to be made as to whether or not to
expand the size of the present 106-Mile Site.
B-15
-------
3.
Need: Increased pre-treatment to allow contaminant reduction in
waste so that dumping can occur within the presently
defined 106-Mile Site.
If EPA decides to expand the 105-Mile Site, the consensus was to expand in an
offshore direction.
Any expansion or redesignation would require the full legal process, including an
EIS.
D. Management Tools/Methods for Site Evaluation
1. The frequency of sludge characteristics monitoring is proposed to be monthly with
quarterly analysis of data to develop average composition characteristics of sludges.
Recommendation: There should be routine monitoring of the
site perimeter. All agencies and interest
groups should carefully review and
comment on proposed permits.
2. At present, there are two monitoring cruises per year, one summer, one winter,
measuring plume dispersion, compliance with water quality criteria (WQC) after four
hours, and field toxicity.
bioassay, core sampling
Recommendation: Need to tighten up coordination regarding
policy direction as well as the already
conducted work of one Blue Ribbon Panel
of scientists. .
3. EPA site monitoring budget is $1.1 million; one cruise and data work up costs
$450,000.
Recommendation: Responsible agencies should develop
monitoring plan for what is needed including
costs. Then, apply available funds to the
highest priority needs.
Recommendation: Further explore ships of opportunity,
including fishing vessels, as platforms for
sample collection.
B-16
-------
APPENDIX C.
REPORTS OF WORKGROUP STRATEGISTS
-------
-------
STRATEGISTS REPORT-QUESTION 1
WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL FATE OF THE MATERIAL DUMPED AT THE SITE?
1. What are the physical and chemical characteristics of the sludges?
a. Select standardized analytical and sampling procedures for sludge analyses to
provide comparable information among dumpers.
Select analytical parameters that reflect potential for biological impacts (including
pathogens) and that are useful for modeling and tracking purposes.
b. Conduct research on physical and chemical partitioning of sludge particles in marine
systems to improve understanding of fate (caused by physical/chemical/biological
processes).
c. Conduct physical/chemical partitioning studies using seawater flow tanks (using up-
to-date sludges).
2. What are the water current regimes at the site?
a. Design and implement an Eulerian current measurement program coupled with a
Lagrangian drifter experiment. Lagrangian drifters should be released on a weekly
basis over a period of one year. Sludge vessels could deploy drogues. See Q# 1-3
. . . also. . .
b. Integrate real time remote sensing data (Gulf Stream, warm core rings, etc.) into the
analysis of Q# 1-1 above.
3. What do the sludges do at the site?
a. Design and implement a sediment trap study to measure settling of sludge particles
or sludge tracers. Horizontal and vertical placement importantparticularly with
regard to the location of the pycnocline. Consider floating and fixed traps. As a
beginning, a trap should be fixed directly below the pycnocline for a point dump.
Analyze collected materials for micro organisms as well as contaminants of concern.
b. Conduct acoustical sludge tracking studies to supplement transmissometer studies
to better define and quantify partitioning particularly around the pycnocline.
4. Are there any adequate mathematical models available to estimate where, how long, and in what
concentration constituents of the sludges are transported?
* a. Implement the use of existing data in near field models to help develop appropriate
monitoring strategies.
* b. Assess existing far field models for effectiveness and applicability to the 106-Mile
dumpsite.
C-1
-------
a What techniques are being used to trade the sludges now?
See Question Q# 1-3-b.
6. To what extent can easy-to-obtain and inexpensive physical data serve as a surrogate
measurement for movement of the whole sludge? Is there a chemical that meets theses
requirements?
a. Continue to develop unique characteristics of whole sludge.
* b. Prepare a review article on the status of knowledge of the physical oceanography at
and near the 106-Mile Site. Use this to help design measurement program in Q 1-2-
a.
7. Can those 106-Mile Site sludges be detected accurately enough at a distance to affirm or deny
their influence on shorelines, beaches, or natural resource areas?
* a. Scientific community must communicate with the public concerning the fate and
effect of the dumped sewage sludge. Use the Sea Grant public outreach program.
8. What are the relative amounts of other sources of sewage sludge to the Bight?
* a. Conduct estimates of mass balance loadings which influence the 106-Mile Site. Inner shelf
vs. outer shelf vs. offshelf. Quantify sources including Hudson Plume, Delaware Plume,
Apex Sources, coastal discharges, atmospheric inputs, 106. See Hydroqual Study (1989)
conducted as part of the NY Bight Restoration Plan.
* b. Prepare an assessment of the water column chemical baseline data in the vicinity of
the 106-Mile Site to determine variability and to be used in development of the
monitoring program.
c. ' Develop techniques for determining contaminant gradients along and toward the
shelf. Consider
1. Sediment traps (Q# 1-3-a).
2. Biornonitoring of tilefish-a good long term resident population
biomonitoring of red crab and lobster
9. What is the magnitude and effect of atmospheric deposition of contaminants in the Bight? Does it
reach the' 106-Mile Site?
* a. Consider conducting research to determine estimates of atmospheric loading on and
off the shelf. This may be extremely expensive and not the best use of resources.
Review data available from Bermuda as a beginning.
GENERAL
* a. Write synthesis report integrating existing data and the biological, chemical, physical
studies to assess ecological and public health effects.
C-2
-------
b. EPA should establish an advisory committee to monitor the research, monitoring, and
surveillance program. Include public etc.
"These topics relate to use and assessments of existing data. These are probably high priority, first
order task for EPA and NOAA to undertake with the initial funds derived from fees for dumping at 106.
-------
STRATEGISTS REPORT-QUESTION 2: EI-hECTS ON LMRs
1 Using previous modeling, modeling data, and hydrographic measurements, as well as analyses
(chemical, microbiology, etc.) from sediment traps, design and implement collections at key target
organisms for bioaccumulation and short-term effects research and monitoring:
1.1 Appropriate organs are removed from target species for contaminant analyses!
and autopsy, seeking evidence for patent disease and relationships of these and
other abnormalities to wastes and contaminants dumped at the 106-Mile Site.
1.2 The foregoing would include a census of chitinoclasia (incidence and distribution)
at 106 and areas (midshelf and canyons) potentially affected by dumping at the
106-Mile Site.
1.3 Data from aforementioned census to be analyzed and correlated with sediment
trap data collected concomitant with census.
1.4 Target species biota, sediment trap matter, and dumped wastes studied for
pathogens, especially Vibrio, and other micoorganisms know to be involved for
chitinoclasia and finrot
1.5 Foregoing efforts and short-term monitoring to be expedited during expanded
"assessment cruises" to include the 106-Mile Site area with analyses of
myctophids (lantern fish) and other vertically migrating species as well as
midwater species such as squid (Loligo).
Moreover, commercial and recreational fishing vessels will be used for correlative
activities during assessment intercruise periods.
1.6 Benthic (lobsters, red crabs, bivalves) and demersal (tile fish, Antimora) species,
and communities, will be used in establishing a time-series baseline for
monitoring.
1.7 Species from 106-Mile Site (mid-water and vertical migrators) will be used to
"calibrate" existing toxicity tests for biological effects; in situ bioassays will be
performed.
1.8 Foregoing studies to be accomplished so that data will be collected and arrayed
in a manner which will allow their use in modeling of population dynamics
essential to hazard assessments per US EPA protocols (i.e., wastes
characterization, habitat characterization, etc.).
1.9 Laboratory and field research to be done on effects of dumping (and associated
wastes), or stress, on function of immunological systems, as a bioassay tool.
1.10 Hem 1.9 and other bioassays of toxic effects to be performed in waste plumes and
at stations located at borders of plumes and the disposal site.
2. A definitive report on the usefulness of existing physical studies and historical modeling activities
to be prepared in "lay language".
C-4
-------
3. A definitive interpretative report of our present understanding of the effects of ocean dumping at
106 on LMRs, using existing data, generic information and reports, and publish characterizations,
emphasizing effects and the potential for dumping to affect their wholesomeness for human
consumption, to be prepared in clear, concise "lay language".
4. If survey(s) of short-term effects shows impacts by ocean dumped materials, then immediately
implement verification procedures, and take steps to relocate site 106 to preselected further
offshore site (i.e., in Gulf Stream or beyond).
5. A permanent "Blue Ribbon Committee"' of "experts" should be established to
5.1 review any monitoring plan developed by the concerned federal and state
agencies, and
5.2 to review ongoing monitoring results, make recommendations for adjustments to
the program, provide for "red flag" responses to sudden events, and establish
evaluation procedures in regard to the efficiency of monitoring and enforcement
of dumping protocols and regulations.
5.3 This "Blue Ribbon Committee" will be empowered to add members (based on
their interests in LMRs) or call upon other experts to testify, draft white papers, or
evaluate findings forthcoming from monitoring and research commissioned by the
concerned agency.
C-5
-------
STRATEGISTS REPORT-QUESTION 3
EFFECT OF SLUDGE DUMPING AT 106-MILE SFTE ON HUMAN HEALTH
Potential for Direct Human Exposure
1 Incorporate in a physical oceanography study (See Questions 1 and 2)
mechanisms to measure frequency of exposure of sludge components on the
shoreline, i.e., quantify dilutions and dispersions.
2 Develop and implement a coastal monitoring program for impact of discharges
from outfalls and CSOs, relative to the 106-Mile Site sludge, etc.
Potential for Indirect Human Exposure
1 Per Item 11 of Strategies, Question 2, samples are collected during assessment
cruises, fish musculature tissues are autopsied for chemical analyses to determine
if contaminants have accumulated in commercially important fishes from the 106-
Mile Site. .
2. Fish from middle Atlantic Bight (stations selected based on past monitoring
endeavors) collected for analysis for contaminants:
2.1 Fishes with high and" moderate levels of lipids are analyzed for
organic and inorganic xenobiotics.
2.2 Stations arrayed along gradients extending from 106-Mile Site up
canyons and across the shelf used to establish relevancy of 106-Mile
Site data and effects of 106-Mile Site per se.
What are the harvested resources of concern
1. See 4 below.
What are the consumer concerns
1 Establish a mechanism that will address issues or events as they occur;
anticipates potential issues and develops appropriate responses; provides the
means for getting such information to consumers (public) in a timely manner.
(See Question 2 - #5).
2. Develop plan that will ensure that when events occur the facts are ascertained
directly, not from media or other second hand sources.
3 incorporate in the operation of a Blue Ribbon Committee, a mechanism (Question
2 - #5) that ensures the participation of scientists and technical expertise as well
as industry and consumer representatives in the review of the monitoring and
surveillance activities on the 106-Mile Site before the reports on such activities are
released to the public.
C-6
-------
4. New or renewal permits should include requirements for further pre-treatment
mechanisms to reduce (remove) contaminants of concern (i.e., Cu, Pb, organic
toxins).
5. Develop a public education program that addresses the issues of sludge, not as
an ocean issue, but as a societal issue which encompasses a comparison of the
relative risks associated with currently available alternatives, i.e., landfill,
composting, incineration.
C-7
-------
STRATEGISTS REPORT-QUESTION 4
ARE THERE CHANGES IN THE SITE DESIGNATION, PERMITS, OR SURVEILLANCE THAT C/kN
PROVIDE EVEN BETTER PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, LIVING MARINE RESOURCES ON
HUMAN HEALTH?
A, Regulatory Issues
1. Develop better analytical procedures for bioassays, including QA/QC, that would
attempt to assess the true toxicity of wastes. Also, incorporation of deep seat
organisms into the bioassay procedures is vital.
2. The ODSS system must be improved to give timely and accurate information on
dumping. This information must be accessible to the public. The system must
provide redundancy to assure as a minimum 95% coverage instead of the 80% as
proposed.
3. The long-term monitoring program must include separate funds to be set aside for
site recovery, possibly as a separate escrow account.
B. Monitoring Issues
1. The nearfield four hour mixing zone formulation must be reassessed as a specific
research effort. Design and implement a detailed study utilizing a number of
different dumping and mixing scenarios. .
2. As stated previously, the first priority is to develop the physical transport models
for mixing and movement of material from the site with' emphasis on the ultimate
fate of the material.
3. Implement the farfield monitoring studies simultaneously with the Tier 1 and 2
studies.
4. Develop a formalized clearing house on research currently being conducted on
106-Mile Site and outer shelf area.
5. Require that each barge going to the 106-Mile Site have a separate tracking
device attached.
C. Site Designation Issues
1. Due to the size limitation of the Site, require permittees to immediately implement
extensive pretreatment in order to reduce waste toxicity.
2. Assess the site configuration as part of the redesignation process. Conduct
nearfield sampling to determine best site configurations.
-------
D. Management Tools/Methods for Site Evaluation
1. Integrate the Federal Agency Programs currently involved in any fashion with the
106-Mile Site including fisheries, physical oceanography, etc., to eliminate overlap
and optimize agency functions.
2. As suggested previously, establish a Blue Ribbon Panel to assess effectiveness of
the monitoring programs.
3. Must have better coordination of policy and management within the federal and
state agencies and have adequate public involvement.
4. Develop the optimum monitoring program for near and farfield assessments,
prioritize and implement as dollars allow and as a feedback to Congress as'
needed.
C-9
-------
-------
APPENDIX D.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHIC AND
MODELER SUBWORWNG GROUP
-------
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS
Tier 2
Maintain current meter mooring at 106-Mile Site to develop statistics on near-surface
currents and horizontal transport of sludge out of the site. Consider addition of near-
surface transmissometry, salinity and temperature sensors, and current meters to
mooring.
e Conduct profiling operations within additional sludge plumes to determine the
immediate settling characteristics of sludge. Transmissometers and/or digital,
acoustic profiling systems should be used to resolve vertical settling behavior and
direct water sampling for post-survey laboratory analysis of particle size distributions.
Laboratory studies of sludge settling in seawater flocculation can be simulated.
If future models require accurate statistics on near-surface current shear at the site,
. a moored, upward-looking acoustic doppier current profiler would be most useful.
Costs for this system are high, but NOAA/NOS may be able to provide
equipment/technology.
TierS
A Lagrangian drifter program is highly recommended for determining the pathways
of sludge transport from the 106-Mile Site. One surface drifter should be released
per week at the site for a period of one year. Drifter's should be tracked by ARGOS
satellite for a minimum of four months each.
High-resolution surface thermal images of the 106-Mile Site and adjacent regions
should be obtained from AVHRR sensors on NOAA satellites. One to two images
should be processed per week for the duration of the Lagrangian drifter program.
NOAA, satellite processing facilities in Maryland and Narragansett should be
considered as sources of images.
An array of moored, sub-surface sediment traps should be deployed to determine
whether sludge particles are deposited on the seafloor at the 106-Mile Site or further
inshore. An array of eight measurement sites with three traps per mooring would
provide adequate horizontal and vertical resolution.
A farfield water column survey should be conducted in summer to obtain water
samples from the vertical particle maximum in the pycnocline. Trace metals
analyses of collected particles should distinguish sludge accumulation from natural
particulates.
Subsurface thermal data obtained from XBT (expendable bathythermograph) profile
measurements between the 106-Mile Site and the Continental Shelf would provide
useful data on water mass boundaries and processes affecting sludge transport.
Measurements could be conducted from sludge barges or ships-of-opportunity
associated with on-going NOAA programs.
Accurate, three-dimensional models of the circulation within the slope sea region
(including the 106-Mile Site) do not exist, nor could they be developed and validated
D-1
-------
in time to be of use to the 106-Mile Site program. It is recommended that the field
results from the physical measurements programs be used to test and validate
existing models of farfield sludge transport.
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E.
TABLES - ISSUES IDENTIRED FOR DISCUSSION
-------
-------
TABLE E-1. ISSUES IDENTIRED FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THE 106-MILE SITE WORKSHOP
QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL FATE OF THE MATERIAL
DUMPED AT THE SITE?
AREA ISSUES
SLUDGE COMPOSITION
AND CHARACTERISTICS Parameters to include in permittee monitoring requirements.
Data quality requirements.
Sludge phases that must be monitored.
Sampling and reporting frequency.
Inconsistencies between measurements by the ocean dumping
regulations and those accepted in the water quality criteria documents.
SHORT-TERM BEHAVIOR Resolution of all factors that significantly affect the rate of sludge
dilution/settling.
Adequacy of the field methods to detect sludge settling.
Appropriate laboratory methods for assessing sludge settling- and their
applicability to the 106-Mile Site.
COMPLIANCE Significance of exceeding WQC in the nearfield.
Operation and effectiveness of the ODSS.
Buildup of contaminants in the pycnocline.
Application of WQC at a point versus an average duration.
E-1
-------
TABLE E-1. Continued
AREA
FABFIELD FATE
MODELS
ISSUES
Likely transport pathways for sludge leaving the site.
Importance of the pycnocline as a barrier to sludge transport.
Frequency of recirculation through the site.
Frequency of on-shelf transport and duration of everts.
Likelihood of sludge reaching the continental shelf.
Likely depositional sites for the sludge.
Suitable field methods for measuring the transport and deposition of
sludge.
Spatial scales and sampling frequency to employ to detect long-term
changes in contaminant concentrations outside of the site.
Importance of biotransport processes.
Identification of the appropriate transport model.
Identification of the appropriate exposure and effects assessment
model.
Data required to validate models.
Design of field programs to validate models.
E-2
-------
TABLE E-2. ISSUES IDENTIFIED FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THE 106-MILE SFTE WORKSHOP
QUESTION 2: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE SLUDGE DUMPING AT THE 106-MILE
SITE ON LIVING MARINE RESOURCES?
AREA
ISSUES
CHARACTERISTICS OF
SEWAGE SLUDGE
TOXICI7Y TESTS
Relevance of toxicity tests to long-term protection of living marine
resources.
Appropriateness of the test species used for toxicity testing.
Relationship between these toxicity tests and potential impacts at the
106-Mile Site.
Limitations of toxicity tests.
PATHOGENS
Understanding the survival rates of sludge bound-pathogens during
storage and transport.
Understanding of survival of sludge-bound pathogens in seawater and
sediments.
Adequacy of C. perfringens to represent other pathogen survival and
transport (i.e., adequacy as pathogen surrogate).
Improvements to and standardization of methodologies for tracking
pathogens.
Transport of pathogens onshore and into sediment.
Transfer of pathogens into living marine resources.
Effects of pathogens on living marine resources.
Understanding of environmental significance of multiple pathogens
(pathogen synergy).
E-3
-------
TABLE E-2. Continued
AREA
ISSUES
BASELINE DATA ON
LIVING RESOURCES
Sufficiency of baseline data to assess changes in the communities in
the area and outside of the site in response to sludge disposal.
Type and level of monitoring required to determine community changes
in the water and sediments in the area.
Most effective region to focus monitoring/research money.
SHORT-TERM EFFECTS
ACUTE TOX1CITY
TESTS
Approriateness of these tests.
Extrapolation of these results to other populations.
Ecological significance of short-term effects.
Toxicity during stagnant periods.
CHRONIC EXPOSURE
BIOACCUMULATION Occurrence of bioaccumulation of sludge-derived contaminants.
Effectiveness of bioaccumulation studies in linking cause and effect.
Linkage of bioaccumulation to 105-Mile Site and other activities.
LONG-TERM EFFECTS
Identification of potential effects that may result from sludge disposal
activities.
Relative importance of 106-Mile Site to other sources in region.
Linkage between sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site and decline in
shellfish and fish catch from adjacent canyon areas.
E-4
-------
TABLE E-2. Continued
AREA ISSUES
Linkage between present sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site and
declining fish stocks in the entire New York Bight/Mid-Atlantic Bight
Relationship of reported chitinoclasia outbreak to sludge disposal at the
106-Mile Site.
Occurrence of ecosystem effects/alteration.
EPA MONITORING PLAN
Appropriateness of the communities targeted for evaluation.
Practicality of measuring significant changes in these communities and
relating them to the sludge disposal activity.
E-5
-------
TABLE E-3. ISSUES IDENTIFIED FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THE 106-MILE SITE
WORKSHOP. QUESTION 3: WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE SLUDGE DUMPING AT
THE 106-MILE SFTE ON HUMAN HEALTH?
AREA ISSUES
HUMAN HEALTH PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WTTH SLUDGE DUMPING
Potential tor human exposure to pathogens, direct and indirect
Transport to recreational areas in quantities sufficient to cause risk from direct exposure.
Transport and transfer of pathogens into living resources.
Direct exposure to pathogens through commercial and recreational fishing and
shellfishing.
Indirect exposure to pathogens through ingestion of contaminated fish or shellfish.
Linkage between sludge disposal at 106-Mile Site and direct and indirect exposure to
pathogens.
Risk to human health from ingestion of organisms exhibiting signs of chitinoclasia.
Transfer of critical information to public.
Potential for effects from exposure to toxic chemicals.
Transport/exposure of contaminants to living resources.
Occurrence of bioaccumulation/biomagnification of sludge contaminants.
' Risk to human health from bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals by important commercial
fish.
Relative importance of 106-Mile Site versus other sources in the New York !3ight region.
Linkage of bioaccumulation to 106-Mile Site activities.
Risk evaluation to human health from activities at the 106-Mile Site.
Level of effort required.
Models to apply (pathogen versus toxic chemicals).
E-6
-------
TABLE E-4. ISSUES IDENTIFIED FOR DISCUSSION OF QUESTION 4 PRIOR TO THE 106-MILE SITE
WORKSHOP. QUESTION 4: ARE THERE CHANGES IN THE SITE DESIGNATION,
PERMrrS, OR SURVEILLANCE THAT CAN PROVIDE EVEN BETTER PROTECTION OF
THE ENVIRONMENT, LIVING MARINE RESOURCES. OR HUMAN HEALTH?
AREA ISSUES
REGULATORY ISSUES; CONFORMATION TO REGULATORY CRITERIA
Appropriateness of site configuration.
Appropriateness of areal extent of the site.
Appropriateness of disposal rates for the site.
Appropriateness of permit conditio.ns for protecting living resources.
Appropriateness of the permit conditions for protecting human health.
Appropriateness of marine water quality criteria at the site.
Effectiveness of the Ocean Dumping Surveillance System.
Restrictions on dumping during stagnant conditions or periods of northerly flows. '
MONITORING ISSUES
Implementation of the tiered monitoring approach.
Adequacy of nearfieid data.
Appropriateness of the farfield monitoring design.
Relationship between 106-Mile Site monitoring plan and regional monitoring/research
needs.
SITE DESIGNATION ISSUES
Adequacy of monitoring information to redesignate, dedesignate, or alter the site.
Need for a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
E-7
-------
TABLE E-4. Continued
AREA
ISSUES
MANAGEMENT TOOLS/METHODS FOR STTE EVALUATION
Nearfield monitoring and effects.
Level of nearfield monitoring necessary to ensure permit compliance.
Level of monitoring necessary to evaluate short-term effects.
FarfieJd transport.
Design of appropriate farfield transport studies for the 106-Mile Site.
Design of effective long-term effects program.
Integration of regional monitoring and research programs.
Definition of agency responsibility for regional monitoring.
Design of regional monitoring plan/program.
E-8
-------
APPENDIX F.
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL UNDERSEA RESEARCH PROGRAM RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
-------
-------
National Undersea Research Program (NURP), University of Connecticut at Avery Point (UCAP) Research
on Ocean Dumping/Site 106.
Dr. Richard Cooper-March 29,1989
PROGRAM SUMMARY/RATIONALE
w>
In 1988, NURP-UCAP responded to direct requests from the recreational and commercial fishing
industries to address their concerns about decreasing fish/shellfish catches coincident with sewage
sludge dumping at the 106-Mile Site. NURP responded by diverting ship and submersible time to the
general vicinity of Block-Hudson-Toms Canyons and the adjacent slope area between Hudson and the
106-Mile Site. Specifically, research submersible time was directed towards an overall assessment of the
ecology of lobsters, crabs, lobes, flounders, and tilefish over a depth range of 200 to 1000 meters.
Two submersibles (DELTA, JOHNSON-SEA-UNK) made 1 to 4 km transects'over the ocean floor in
industry specified areas where evidence (perceived by fisherman) of sludge impact was observed. Using
this scenario our diving activities in 1988 were directed towards the "worst case scenario". Box cores,
punch cores, video documentation of aerial-substrate associations and visual observations were
made/collected during each traverse accomplished. A total of 16 dives was made in August and
September.
In general, the ocean floor megabenthic communities and their associated habitats appeared to be quite
normal. No obvious signs of sludge impact were observed or suggested from sample analyses or video
examination. Lobsters and tilefish appeared in relatively low densities. In the case of lobsters the low
population level may have been a direct result of emigration, a result of rational behavior or avoidance to
.environmental contamination. In regard to tilefish, extensive fishing pressure is probably the cause for
the few tilefish seen. -
Hake, flounder, jonah crab, red crab, goosefish, squid, mud arenaceous, brittle starfish, redfish, black
bellied nosefish, ocean pout, and sculpins appeared in expected densities and their behavior and habitat
association seemed normal.
Plans for 1989 are as follows:
I. Alvin will be used at the 106-Mile Site to study the bio-geochemistry of the sediment
water interface, to judge whether sludge materials reach the bottom and the likely
impact, if any, on the benthos. Cruise date will be in late September. Sediment and
animal samples will be collected for contaminant analyses. Video documentation will
record species abundance and community structure of the megabenthos; bottom
currents and suspended sediment samples will be obtained by an array deployed by
Alvin. Colonization experiments are also planned using sludge which will be carried
to the bottom.
II. The Johnson-Sea-Link will be used along parallel transects (600 ft., 3000 ft.) running
ENE and SW of Hudson Canyon for distances through and beyond the hypothetical
zone of potential impacts ("Jelly Bean" zone). Box cores, punch cores, video,
35mm and visual observations will be made at specific intervals/locations along
these transects. Surface sediment and archival tissue samples will be analyzed for
trace metals, PCBs, etc. We will be looking for gradients in contaminant levels
moving away (ENE, SE) from the Hudson Canyon. As with the Alvin cruise to the
F-1
-------
105-Mile Site, very precisely collected "fluff layer samples will be taken and analyzed
for recently settled sludge material.
The program is supported by NOAA's Office of Undersea Research. 1989 level of
funding for Alvin and JSL combined (dive operations) is approximate $387,000.
Another $200,000 is expected to support the science, i.e., sample analyses, current
measurements, sediment trap operations, Sea Beam profiling etc.
F-2
-------
APPENDIX G.
SUMMARY OF CHmNOCLASIA WORKGROUP
PRESENTATION
-------
-------
NOTES ON SHELLFISH DISEASE WORKING GROUP
RNDINGS
Dr. Carl Sindermann
The Working Group met in November and December 1988, and again in January and February 1989 to
review and analyze published and unpublished data on the status of disease and mortality in
commercially important crustacean resources, including those from areas beyond the New York Bight.
In February, an additional meeting was convened by New Jersey Sea Grant to gain information from
commercial fisherman and representatives of other organizations.
Data on crustaceans from the continental shelf break and the 106-Mile Site-were found to be extremely
limited. Nevertheless, in order to assess the possible impacts of pollution on commercial species, the
Working Group reviewed the available data on lobster, red crab, rock crab, Jonah crab, and blue crab
regardless of the geographic source of the data.
Despite the scarcity of information on crustacean health in offshore waters, some tentative conclusions
were reached and recommendations proposed.
Principle findings of the study are the following:
1. Shell disease is a natural phenomenon in crustaceans but it may occur with higher
prevalence and greater severity in polluted areas. Shell disease represents a stage
in the natural relationship between crustaceans and chitin-utilizing bacteria and fungi.
The balance between metabolic processes associated with new she'll formation, and
infection by microbes capable of utilizing chitin, may be disturbed by environmental
changes affecting normal shell formation or favoring the growth of chitin-utilizing
microbes. Such disturbances can be consequences of pollution. '
2. Some evidence exists for an association of shell disease with habitat degradation.
Prevalence has been found to be high in crustaceans from polluted sites;
prevalence shows trends similar to those of the black-gill syndrome, which also has
a statistical association with extent of pollution. Experimental exposures of
crustaceans to contaminated sediments, heavy metals, biocides, petroleum, and
petroleum derivatives can result in the appearance of the black-gill syndrome, often
accompanied by shell disease.
3. Our analyses suggest that prevalences of less than 5 percent may represent
expected background levels of shell disease in inshore populations, probably related
to mechanical damage or wound healing. Prevalences of over 15 percent, as noted
in some inshore samples of lobsters and rock crabs, may reflect pollution-related
disease superimposed on the natural occurrence of shell disease.
4. Shell disease occurs in deepwater crustacean populations, including those in shelf
canyons, but data are limited, and there is no conclusive evidence that would
associate shell disease in such populations with pollution of offshore habitats.
5. Mortalities from shell disease have been observed, occasionally at high levels, in
laboratory-held and impounded crustacean populations. Destruction of gills and
adhesions of the exoskeleton which prevent molting have been considered to be
responsible factors, as have secondary systemic infections which develop after
perforation of the chitinous integument. There is no specific evidence, however, that
would link crustacean population fluctuations in the New York Bight with the
G-1
-------
presence or severity of shell disease. Shell disease may predispose crustaceans to
mortality, but there is no currently available method to separate disease-caused
mortality from that caused by other influences. Additionally, there are no discernible
trends in either lobster or crab abundance in the Middle Atlantic Bight in the past
decade; if anything, there seems to be a slow increase in lobster abundance inshore
and offshore.
Concerning the situation in the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site, shell disease may be a problem insofar as
the marketability of diseased crab and lobsters is concerned. However, there is no conclusive evidence
available now to associate shell disease in offshore populations with sludge dumping activities at the
106-Mile Site.
Shell disease in crustaceans, therefore, resembles fin-rot disease in finfish-a natural phenomenon
exacerbated by stressors found in degraded habitats. The consequences are the inability to maintain an
Intact Integument as a defense against invasion by facultative microorganisms. The results of this are
gross abnormalities that we recognize as "disease."
G-2
-------
-------
------- |