" / United States
j Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and Development
Washington DC 20460
May 1979
600/8-79-012
v/EPA
Workshop on National
Needs and Priorities
for Ocean Pollution Research
and Development
and Monitoring
Committee on Ocean Pollution
Research and Development
and Monitoring
November 14-16, 1978
Tysons Corner, Virginia
-------
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL NEEDS AND PRIORITIES
FOR OCEAN POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AND MONITORING
NOVEMBER 14 TO 16, 1979
TYSON'S CORNER, VIRGINIA
COMMITTEE ON OCEAN POLLUTION
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
AND MONITORING
-------
ABSTRACT
The Workshop on National Needs and Priorities for Ocean Pollution
Research and Development and Monitoring was organized in response to the
National Ocean Pollution Research and Development and Monitoring Planning Act
(PL 95-273).
This Act calls for the enactment of a comprehensive, five-year Federal
plan addressing ocean pollution research and development and monitoring.
Identification of national needs and problems associated with ocean pollution
is the first step in establishing a realistic, balanced program in these
areas.
The Workshop brought together a variety of users of ocean pollution
information. They were to identify and rank information needs for considera-
tion in the development of the Plan.
The six panels were organized along ocean use lines: Energy Generating
Systems, Living Resources, Transportation, Waste Disposal, Mineral Resources
and Coastal Development and Recreation. Each panel discussed in varying
levels of detail the level and location of activity, its value, environmental
consequences of pollution, decision processes relating to ocean pollution and
1imiting factors.
Concern for more knowledge on fate and effects of toxic pollutants,
extrapolation of laboratory findings to on-site realities, and fundamentals
of marine ecology, chemistry and physics pervaded all discussions. Several
specific priorities addressed the problem of evaluating the oceans' capacity
to assimilate degradable materials. A better understanding of the economic
aspects of effects and alternatives, a clarification of the institutional
structures and functions relating to ocean pollution and the development of a
more effective public awareness program was also called for.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract iii
Tables vii
Section 1. Introduction 1
Ocean Pollution and Ocean Use 1
Actions by Congress 1
Purpose of Workshop 1
Workshop Organization and Tasks 1
Setting Priorities 2
Workshop Products and Suggestions 2
Section 2. Summary and Conclusions 5
General Conclusions 5
Energy Generating Systems 5
Living Resources 6
Transportation 6
Waste Disposal 6
Mineral Resources 7
Coastal Development and Recreation 7
Section 3. Introductory Remarks - Charles Warren 9
Section 4. Energy Generating Systems Panel Report 15
Introduction 15
Description of Energy Generating Systems 15
Level and Location of Activity 15
Value and Importance of Activity 16
Environmental Quality Concerns 16
National Decision Processes Related to the Activity 17
Limiting Factors 17
Conclusions and Recommendations 18
Identification of Energy Technologies Associated with
the Marine Environment 18
Criteria Ranking 19
Needs and Priorities for Research and Development
and Monitoring 19
Section 5. Living Resources Panel Report 23
Introduction 23
General Approaches to the Effects of Pollution
on Marine Resources 23
Specific Program Recommendations 24
Monitoring 24
Rates and Interactions 24
Effects 25
General Information Needs 25
Specific Problems and Research Needs 27
Fisheries Waste Processing 27
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section 5. Living Resources Panel Report (Continued)
Disease Transmission 27
By-Product Development of Useful Substances from Present
Processing Waste Loads 27
Screening Marine Ecosystems for Unknown Effects: A Tiered
Approach 27
Sediment Kinetics of Pollutant Transport 28
Standardization of Marine Pollution Analysis Methodologies .... 28
Inadequate Bioassay Methodology 28
Reference Compounds , 28
Fisheries Resources Management 29
Damages Created by Resource Harvesting 29
Priorities for Research, Development and Monitoring 29
Section 6. Marine Transportation Panel Report 31
Introduction 31
Description of Marine Transportation 31
Hazardous Substances Spills from Marine Transportation 31
Level and Location of Activity 31
Value and Importance of Activity 31
Environmental Quality Concerns 31
National Decision Processes Related to Activity 31
Limiting Factors 32
Information Needs 32
Oil Pollution Resulting from Marine Transportation 32
Level and Location of Activity 32
Value and Importance of Activity 32
Environmental Quality Concerns 32
National Decision Processes Related to Activity 32
Limiting Factors 33
Conclusions and Recommendations 33
Needs and Priorities for Research and Development and Monitoring . . 34
Section 7. Marine Waste Disposal Panel Report 37
Introduction 37
Description of Marine Waste Disposal Activities 37
Level and Location of Disposal Activities 37
Value and Importance of Marine Waste Disposal Features 38
Environmental Quality Concerns 38
National Decision Processes Related to Marine Waste Disposal ... 39
Limiting Factors to Making Decisions Regarding Marine Waste
Disposal 40
Recommendations 41
Needs and Priorities for Research and Development and Monitoring . . 41
Section 8. Mineral Resources Panel Report 43
Introduction 43
Description of Marine Mineral Resources Activities 44
Level, Location and Value of Activity 44
Oil and Gas 44
Deep Sea Mining 44
Sand and Gravel 44
Environmental Quality Concerns 44
National Decision Processes Relating to Marine Mineral
Resources 44
Conclusions and Recommendations 45
Needs and Priorities for Research and Development and Monitoring . . 45
Section 9. Coastal Development and Recreation Panel Report 49
Introduction 49
Specific Needs by Activity and Type of Information 52
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section 9. Coastal Development and Recreation Panel Report (Continued)
Scientific Data, Information and Technology 52
Economic Matters 53
Social and Institutional 54
Conclusions and Recommendations 54
Physical, Biological and Chemical Research 54
Economic and Institutional Research 55
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 MODEL MATRIX OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION PANEL
FOR THEIR DISCUSSIONS OF INFORMATION NEEDS 50
2 SIGNIFICANT POLLUTANT SOURCES IN COASTAL REGIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES 51
VII
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
OCEAN POLLUTION AND OCEAN USE
Ocean pollution is the inevitable result of
human activity. While most ocean pollution
comes from sources which are dissociated from
direct ocean use—from urban and agricultural
runoff, for example--some is directly linked to
man's exploitation of the ocean and its coasts
for food, energy, avenues of commerce and
esthetic enjoyment.
Unlike land-based resources, where property
rights exist, the oceans are a commons and
government is the custodian for society. Most
decisions about ocean space thus rest with
government, particularly with the Federal
government. A recent study of United States
ocean policy conducted by the U.S. Department of
Commerce identified some 21 organizations in six
departments and five independent Federal agen-
cies involved in decisions on how ocean space is
used. These agencies preside over 200 separate
statutes in the U.S. Code.
All three branches of the Federal govern-
ment have involved themselves with issues relat-
ing to ocean pollution. The Executive Branch
has influenced such matters as permits to
dredge, dump or discharge waste materials. The
Legislative Branch has passed laws which affect
the use of the marine environment. The Judicial
Branch has been evaluating the adverse conse-
quences of certain kinds of ocean use; for exam-
ple, those which sometimes result from transport
of hazardous materials. In many cases, these
decisions have suffered from the lack of objec-
tive information to support them.
ACTIONS BY CONGRESS
Wise use of the oceans is directly depen-
dent upon a knowledge of the consequences of
each use. Unfortunately, whereas Federal
government both nurtures and initiates extensive
ocean pollution research, development and moni-
toring which can yield such knowledge, these
activities are often uncoordinated and can
result in duplication of information or in
information which is not available when or where
it is needed.
Therefore, in the spring of 1978, Congress
enacted the National Ocean Pollution Research
and Development and Monitoring Planning Act
(PL 95-273). The Act mandates development of a
five-year plan for an inclusive Federal program
in ocean pollution research and development and
monitoring. This calls for:
1. An assessment and ordering of national
needs and problems pertaining to ocean
pollution research and development and
monitoring
2. An inventory of existing Federal pro-
grams, resources and facilities
3. Policy recommendations
4. A budget review
The plan generally seeks to assure that the
Federal program for ocean pollution research,
development and monitoring provides the know-
ledge which all concerned groups would need in
order to make better decisions on ocean-use
activities that may pollute.
PURPOSE OF WORKSHOP
This workshop was conducted to gather
information on national needs and priorities.
It brought together representatives from the
public and private sectors—Federal, state and
local representatives; representatives from
industry, as well as from citizens groups—who
are users of information on pollution in the
marine environment. Drawing from their experi-
ence, the user groups were to articulate the
kinds and importance of information and data
needed. The information gained from the Work-
shop, along with information from scientists and
the Federal agencies, was to be used to develop
the Federal Plan.
WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION AND TASKS
At the outset, the following six ocean-use
categories were identified:
Energy Generating Systems
Living Resources
Marine Transportation
Waste Disposal
Mineral Resources
Coastal Development and Recreation
These activity areas provided the basis for
organizing the Workshop into panels. Prior to
the Workshop, background information on national
-------
needs and problems for each area was distributed
for the panels' consideration.
A statement of needs and problems for any
area of ocean use should focus on the informa-
tion requirements that would improve our under-
standing of the consequences of decisions. To
be useful for planning, this statement should
include the following considerations:
1. Level and Location of the Ocean-Use
Activity
Ocean-use activities that cause pollu-
tion vary in space and time. The
intensity of an activity such as ocean
dumping or oil and gas development
varies with the coastal region in ques-
tion, and pollution problems are often
region-specific. Research and monitor-
ing programs are usually regional as
well. The immediacy of an activity and
related governmental decisions are
important to research planning. The
lead time granted and available for
adequate research and development pro-
grams on such ocean-use activities as
DCS leasing and waste disposal permits
is often stinting.
2. Value and Importance of the Ocean-Use
Activity
Knowledge of the relative value that
society assigns to ocean-use activities
is essential for determining what com-
promises have to be considered between
ocean uses and pollution consequences.
3. Polluting Consequences of the Activity
Identifying the polluting consequences
of each activity is intrinsic to ana-
lyzing the total risk posed to the
environment and defining the ultimate
losses that society may suffer.
4. Factors Limiting Good Decisions
Major decisions about activities that
may cause pollution are made in a cli-
mate of uncertainty. This occurs
because a full understanding of the
amount or risk of a pollutant's dis-
charge, transport, transformation,
environmental vulnerability, technology
development and the socioeconomic
aspects of potential damage is lacking.
Limitations on the quality of decisions
may fall into the following catego-
ries:
A. Scientific Data and Information--
Knowledge of conditions and trends;
physical and chemical processes;
structure and dynamics of vulner-
able populations; tolerance to pol-
lution; ecosystem dynamics; and
risk analysis.
B. Technology--
Instrumentation; engineering risk
analysis; research platforms; and
analytical and quality control
techniques, pollution treatment or
mitigation developments.
C. Economics--
Value of resources; costs of abate-
ment and prevention; projections of
resource supply and demand; and
activity analysis.
D. Social and Institutional Factors--
Jurisdictional problems; public
awareness; governmental authority
and function; quality of life.
SETTING PRIORITIES
One of the most difficult tasks in any
planning process is setting priorities among
needs. Because many of the needs for research,
development and monitoring are interrelated, it
would be arbitrary to say that one is more
important than another. It is also difficult to
distinguish the wants of researchers from the
needs of society. Each facet of the polluting
process—sources, fates, effects, damages—may
be the subject of research, development or
monitoring. In addition, it may be difficult to
weigh the threats from one form of ocean use
against another. For instance, how does one
determine whether the pollution threats from OCS
activities are greater than those from oil tank-
ers? In considering priorities, the Panels were
asked to take into account the following:
1. Intensity and regional distribution of
the activity
2. Value and importance of activity
3. Value and vulnerability of resources at
risk
4. Immediacy of threats
5. Extent to which research, development
or monitoring efforts may contribute to
improved decisions
6. Time required to develop useful infor-
mation.
WORKSHOP PRODUCTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Ocean uses are interrelated, and therefore,
pollution caused by one of them may have a
synergistic effect on others. Since the panels
were organized along ocean-use lines, their dis-
cussions often overlapped. The Marine Waste
Panel mentioned riverine pollution, which had
been assigned principally to the Coastal Devel-
opment and Recreation Panel. The Living Resour-
ces Panel dealt with waste disposal, transporta-
tion and energy systems, often not confining
discussion to the effects of these activities on
living resources. The Coastal Development and
Recreation Panel covered most of the same topics
considered in the other panels, but related
these to the coastal zone. The needs developed
in each panel reflect this interrelationship and
are therefore often repeated.
-------
The panels were given considerable freedom
to develop a panel report which provided a
statement of needs for research and and develop-
ment and monitoring. Although they were asked
to consider the factors mentioned above (level
and location of activity, limiting factors,
etc.), they did not have to bear with a formal
structure which could inhibit creativity.
Naturally, this resulted in six different panel
reports with six differing levels of detail.
Also, despite the fact that the panels were
given general guidance regarding criteria for
ranking needs, each chose its own method; the
most elaborate of which was generated by the
Energy Generating Systems Panel. Other panels
such as Mineral Resources chose to rank only
those needs which the panel members could evalu-
ate within the context of their own expertise.
Many panels identified areas of expertise not
represented on their panels and recommended
that the preparers of the Federal Plan consult
suitable representatives from them.
In general, the panels suggested that
future workshops consider the following:
• Adequate notice of the meeting should be
given to the participants and sufficent
time provided for review of briefing
materials
• Since the needs generated by the panels
may already be fulfilled by ongoing
work, background information on the cur-
rent program should be given to partici-
pants. This kind of information was not
available for distribution to the Work-
shop participants
-------
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
All panels agreed that continued public
participation in the development of the Federal
Plan for ocean pollution research and develop-
ment and monitoring, and its bi-annual revision,
is essential. In particular, they proposed that
this initial five-year plan be reviewed criti-
cally and intensively by all affected parties,
and modification made. Most Workshop partici-
pants expressed a desire to remain involved.
Some suggested methods for increasing public
participation, e.g., briefings on the Plan, and
its review by an audience broader than that
represented at the Workshop.
In addition, the panels stated that the
capabilities and research of industry and acade-
mia, as well as that of international organiza-
tions, should be considered in the preparation
of the Plan.
Regarding the users of research, develop-
ment and monitoring information, several panels
noted that while the requirements of those who
make decisions are important, public awareness--
providing knowledge to broad sectors of the
public—is also of value. An effective public
awareness program would alleviate public mis-
understanding or mistrust of scientists, indus-
try and government officials.
The Panels' research, development and moni-
toring needs evolved from consideration of the
larger, societal context of marine-related
activities. They were not limited to science
and technology alone. Thus, several panels
listed as needs a better understanding of eco-
nomic aspects of effects and alternatives, and
clarification of the institutional structure and
functions particularly given the maze of Federal
agency mandates. The breadth of approach was
further evident from the willingness of some
panels to relate marine pollution effects to
land activities. Economics of landfill disposal
and viability of pathogens in river waters are
diverse examples of the connection between land-
based processes causing eventual marine pollu-
tion.
Regarding research, development, and moni-
toring specifically keyed to science and tech-
nology, the panels uniformly took note of the
need for more and better information on which to
base rational decisions. Less well recognized
was the evolutionary nature of scientific under-
standing and of technology as related to socie-
tal and institutional stability. The need for a
flexible institutional process was articulated.
While the panels arranged varying priorities on
research and development according to their
topical assignments, they voiced deep concern
about the need for more knowledge of fate and
effects of toxic pollutants, extrapolation of
laboratory findings to on-site realities, and
fundamentals of marine ecology, chemistry and
physics. Many specific research priorities
implicitly address the problem of evaluating the
capacity of the oceans to assimilate degradable
materials.
The fact that monitoring needs were not
always distinguished clearly from research and
development needs may reflect the panels' appre-
ciation of the interrelationship among those
activities. Uniform monitoring standards and
better monitoring indices were listed as high
priorities in most panel reports.
ENERGY GENERATING SYSTEMS
After registering concern about the dangers
of focusing too closely on the needs of govern-
ment officials, the Panel assigned priorities to
eleven technologies to be addressed in their
discussions. These were initially ranked
according to the immediacy of their application
in the marine environment. The top six were:
nuclear-fuel-powered plants, fossil-fuel plants,
geothermal plants, pumped storage systems, the
OTEC system and marine biomass. The remaining
five were waves, tides, currents, salinity grad-
ient and satellite power systems. The group
also ranked the eleven technologies according to
their probable environmental impact.
Some 55 research and development and moni-
toring needs were identified and ranked. The
basic criteria of immediacy of technological
application, scale of probable environmental
harm, and existing knowledge of pollution
effects were used to assess these needs. Thir-
teen needs were assigned a high priority, 20
medium, and 22 low. The highest priority needs
were those associated with coastal energy gener-
ating systems for fossil- and nuclear-fueled
plants, both on and offshore. These needs
focused on thermal effects, the effects and
behavior, of radionuclides, and low-level and
chronic effects from the operation of these
-------
plants. The need both to develop methods for
measuring effects more accurately and to look at
aggregated effects 1n addition to localized
site-specific conditions was pinpointed.
LIVING RESOURCES
The scope of recommendations from the Liv-
ing Resources Panel extended well beyond pollu-
tion from the seafood industry—their Initial
working concept of this use. Interactions of
living marine resources with other uses of the
oceans were discussed. A list of pollutants was
scanned and ranked according to research needs.
Synthetic organic and toxic metal compounds were
viewed as pivotal. General and specific pro-
grams for research, development, and monitoring
needs were recommended.
Three broad areas of research which should
be synchronized were identified:
• Description and measurement of critical,
functional components of undisturbed and
perturbed ecosystems
• Measurement of rates and interactions
associated with processes and fluxes
within individual organisms and 1n major
ecosystems
• Determination and evaluation of impor-
tance of effects, both acute and chron-
ic, on components, processes and fluxes
that constitute significant alterations
in organisms and ecosystems
Thirteen specific needs and problems were
Identified and given priority rankings. The
highest priority projects concerned: 1) stan-
dardization of marine pollutant analysis
methods; 2) source control of hazardous materi-
als before release; and 3) distribution, nature
and impact of certain pollutants.
Decisions about the environment should be
founded on knowledge of existing contamination,
Its rate of increase or decrease, and its
effects on organisms and ecosystems under dif-
fering environmental conditions. Pollution-
oriented research activities should be organized
around a closely-coordinated, Interactive pro-
gram of monitoring and research. Information
must be made available to and utilized by appro-
priate regulatory, environmental and industrial
officials.
MARINE TRANSPORTATION
Although they concurred that fate and
effects are crucial areas, particularly for oil
and hazardous substances, the Marine Transporta-
tion Panel felt unqualified to develop 1t 1n
depth. Rather, the panel identified needed pre-
vention and mitigation work in the marine trans-
portation of hazardous substances, broadly
defined to Include every stage of handling in
connection with such transportation.
It was agreed that any effective regulatory
regime required: 1) the control and limitation
tff normal discharges from everyday operations;
2) the prevention or mitigation of accidental
discharges; and 3) the assurance of an effective
liability, cleanup and compensation regime for
victims of marine transportation-related pollu-
tion damages.
In examining and listing prevention and
mitigation needs, the Panel divided marine
transportation consequences into hazardous-
substance spills and oil pollution. The major
need in the area of hazardous-substance spills
was defined as better spill information and
trend analysis. Only after such analyses would
1t be possible to regulate transportation activ-
ities rationally. In general, the Panel
expressed more concern about chemicals than
oils.
A 11st of needs in the area of pollution from
marine transportation was devised featuring
eight major categories: cargoes, vessels/equip-
ment, personnel, terminals, environmental
operating conditions, communications/navigation,
institutional and legal ramifications, and acci-
dent response. Within these categories, several
needs were ranked in terms of high, medium or
low priority. The Panel emphasized the Impor-
tance of personnel and the institutional and
legal ramifications of the issue. A profile of
standard requirements, a study of owner/crew
relationships, reasons for failures, and
examination of normal and emergency procedures,
and procedures for training and regulating
pilots were cited as personnel needs. Institu-
tional and legal needs included: salvage law
compensation, better monitoring capability for
operational discharge, substandard ship identi-
fication, international enforcement capability,
and liability compensation.
MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL
The Panel accepted a broad definition of
marine waste disposal which encompassed disposal
of all sludges, dredged materials, radioactive
wastes, point and non-point sources, and river-
ine pollution. Ocean dumping, ocean outfalls,
and riverine pollution received particular
emphasis. Radioactivity was seen as a separate
category of both waste and process.
The Panel also discussed statutory authori-
ties and agencies Involved in decisions about
marine waste disposal and environmental quality
considerations. The Interaction between land
and marine waste disposal and the need for a
balanced consideration of both approaches were
discussed Intermittently.
In developing a Federal research, develop-
ment and monitoring program pertinent to waste
disposal, the Panel recommended:
• Development of an Inventory of the sour-
ces of pollutants by location and type
of discharge
-------
• Quantification measurement of the
amounts, rates and types of pollutants
added to the marine environment, includ-
ing riverine sources
• Evaluation of effects, with more on-site
data collection
• Definitions of the assimilative capacity
for degradable materials in relation to
other uses of the marine environment
• Development of institutional frameworks
to regulate marine environmental uses on
the basis of assimilative capacities
• Improvement of public awareness as a
facet of all Federal ocean pollution
programs
Seventeen research, development and moni-
toring needs which bear upon ocean dumping, out-
falls, radioactive wastes, and riverine pollu-
tants were identified and prioritized. The six
needs assigned a high priority in all four cate-
gories were:
• Evaluation of potential health effects
of persistent pollutants and nuclear
wastes (including carcinogens, terato-
gens and mutagens)
• Evaluation of distribution, persistence
and pathways to man of pathogens
• Development of better analytical quality
control and standardized monitoring
methods
• Development of public awareness pro-
grams
• Development of feasible methods for les-
sening the amounts and types of mater-
ials reaching the ocean in excess of the
capacity of the ocean to assimilate
those materials
• Monitoring of existing ocean disposal
sites according to requirements of EPA
criteria
Research and development needs were not
clearly distinguished from monitoring needs,
which reflects the interrelationship of these
activities.
MINERAL RESOURCES
The Panel discussed a wide range of mineral
resource extraction activities and identified a
variety of minerals whose extraction processes
cause ocean pollution. Discussion focused to a
great extent on information needs for DCS oil
and gas extraction and deep seabed mining. A
limited discussion of sand and gravel mining
also ensued.
The Panel identified Federal agencies and
other organizations involved in decisions about
mineral resources and noted that much informa-
tion already exists in reports on technologies.
Singular emphasis was placed on generating
a list of needs. Because the Panel did not con-
sider itself qualified to address relative pri-
orities among all mineral areas, they assigned
priorities only within the oil and gas and deep
seabed mining categories.
Highest priorities for oil and gas extrac-
tion were identified as:
t Research and development related to
catastrophic oil spills and blowouts,
particularly in the Arctic
• Determination of effects of long-term,
low-level, chronic pollution resulting
from spills, production and operational
discharges; and development of predic-
tive models
• Development of bioassay techniques for
on-site monitoring
Highest priorities for deep seabed mining
were identified as:
• Determination of the fate and effects of
surface discharged sediments
• Evaluation of the necessity for shunting
discharges below the euphotic zone
Additional needs were identified for sand
and gravel mining, desalination and salt dome
extraction.
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION
The Coastal Development and Recreation
Panel discussed: 1) point sources of pollution,
2) non-point sources of pollution, 3) habitat
alteration and destruction of biota, 4) water
diversion, 5) shore stabilization, and 6) facil-
ity siting. National decision processes for
managing the coastal zone were also discussed.
Research, development and monitoring needs
were .divided into 1) physical, biological and
chemical; and 2) economic and institutional.
Physical, biological and chemical needs were
further subdivided into information on: pollu-
tant discharge, transport and fate, and effects.
High priority was assigned to: developing meth-
ods for estimating pollutants such as synthetic
organics and heavy metals in existing and future
pollutant discharges from municipal and indus-
trial outfalls, and agricultural runoff; models
which incorporate cumulative pollutant effects
and ambient ecological conditions; human health
effects of microorganisms and synthetic organic
compounds; evaluations of indicator organisms;
and procedures for detecting microorganisms,
fossil fuel compounds, heavy metals and synthe-
tic organics.
General economic and institutional needs
were identified but not allocated priority
order. These included the study of costs of
alternative pollution control plans and regional
temporal and demographic factors affecting them.
The benefits derived from goods and services
whose production might be controlled by these
plans for environmental purposes were also
cited. Management-model structure, the decision
process and the performance effectiveness of
of existing institutions and programs were also
discussed.
-------
-------
SECTION 3
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
CHARLES WARREN, CHAIRMAN
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Tyson's Corner, Virginia
November 14, 1978
There is doggerel by Christopher Morley
which says:
"If you haven't any ideas
Don't worry.
You can get along without them--
Many of the nicest people do."
While this may be a harmless way to approach a
social event, it definitely will not do for a
productive workshop, especially on a subject as
portentous as identifying the national needs and
problems associated with ocean pollution
research and development and monitoring.
The National Ocean Pollution Research and
Development and Monitoring Planning Act of 1978
lays out a formidable task which you are to
tackle. As you know, the Act requires the for-
mulation of a comprehensive five-year plan to
identify those national needs and problems,
relating to ocean pollution which presently
exist and will arise during a five-year period;
and to establish priorities based upon the value
and cost of information which can be obtained
from specific ocean pollution research and
development and monitoring programs and pro-
jects. As if this weren't enough, the Act
generously gives you everything from the coastal
zone to the high seas to be concerned with.
With such a task before you, I suggest that
"if you haven't any ideas" you are entitled to
worry, no matter what the poem says. The task
is not only broad but astoundingly complex.
The earth is a dynamic entity—an inter-
locking system of land masses, the atmosphere
and the oceans. The fundamental problems affect-
ing the world's oceans cannot be viewed from the
marine perspective alone. For example, we are
concerned with oil spills not only in the water
but on beaches and in marshes as well. Like-
wise, fifty million metric tons of particulate
pollutants from industry fall out of the atmos-
phere onto the surface of the world's oceans
each year. Still another example is the exces-
sive erosion and runoff of soils—resulting from
failure or neglect of careful husbandry of the
land—which constitute a major part of the
twenty billion metric tons of suspended solids
that the world's rivers pour into the oceans
each year. By the remarkable perversity of
Mother Nature, we manage to create still another
problem when the dams we build retard the natu-
ral flow of silt and sands, causing sand starva-
tion and beach erosion.
Consequently, my first suggestion to you is
to think globally—be expansive in identifying
the problems we ought to be concerned with.
Recognize that the oceans are part of a global,
interconnected system. Your responsibility does
not stop at the water's edge.
Let me offer a striking example. CEQ, with
the assistance and cooperation of many other
federal agencies, is engaged in a massive
assessment of trends in the world's resources,
population, and environment up to the year 2000,
and of our government's ability to make useful
projections of these trends. This Global 2000
study has identified the accumulation of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere as potentially the
foremost environmental problem of the coming
decades. This observation is certainly not
unique to us--I bring it up to indicate that
even this problem, which is typically viewed as
an atmospheric problem, is fundamentally linked
to land and water. A land-use issue--
specifically, loss of the world's forests—has
now come to occupy a large part of the scien-
tific and policy deliberations for the potential
buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
But another component, which certainly relates
to your task, is the role of the oceans in the
-------
transport and sequestering of atmospheric C02.
Over geologic time, the ocean's role is of major
consequence. However, considering the extremely
rapid pace of human modifications of the global
carbon cycle, the time scale of ocean effects
may be too long to be of immediate significance.
A high priority on this particular problem would
have to be weighed in the value and cost crite-
rion of the Act. However, its consideration
suggests a scale against which the enormity of
man's actions on the marine environment can be
measured.
The participants in this Workshop represent
a broad spectrum of disciplines, home institu-
tions and types of professional responsibility.
The wording of the Act itself encourages you to
adopt an expansive view of your task. The phase
"research and development and monitoring" makes
it clear that an integrated spectrum of activi-
ties is to be addressed in identifying national
needs and problems. As was shown in this
nation's attempt to develop our DCS oil
reserves, development cannot proceed without an
adequate information base generated by a moni-
toring program. In turn, a monitoring program
which will be useful for problem solving and
decision making must be derived from an appro-
priately designed research program. There is a
tendency for the practitioners of these various
arts not to look past the bounds of their own
immediate responsibilities. An engineer can
plan for development without environmental data.
A marine scientist can create an experimental
design of narrow academic interest. The regula-
tory scientist can gather voluminous data which
narrowly satisfies regulations. Not only can
these actions take place, we all know they do
take place; but in isolation they are inadequate
to the formulation of national policy. The Act
provides the participants of this Workshop with
a unique opportunity to synthesize the policy
options in research and development and monitor-
ing and to formulate a statement of national
needs and priorities which surpasses the paro-
chialism of your own professional disciplines or
the limited missions of your respective agencies
and institutions.
Let's consider research.
One of the great strengths of this nation
has been the ability of its academic institu-
tions to not only respond to national needs, but
in fact, to lead in the identification of these
needs and be truly responsive to fulfilling
them. Satisfaction of parts of the five-year
plan to a large extent will fall upon our aca-
demic scientists. There is sometimes a rather
narrow view of the role of scientific research
which is not immediately directed at applica-
tions. Historically as a nation we have reaped
huge practical benefits from allowing the
research community to identify and solve the
problems it considers to be important. It is
useful, however, for researchers to be aware of
the overall objectives of our society—that is,
national policy—in formulating their research
programs. A major benefit of the Plan to which
this Workshop is contributing will be that it
provides a context in which the planning of
marine research can take place.
The linkage between policy and research
works both ways. Not only should the researcher
recognize the possible social importance of his
work, the policymaker should recognize that in
an area as technically complex as marine pollu-
tion, his decisions are strongly based on state-
of-the-art technology. A good example can be
found in the detection and measurement of pesti-
cides. The development of the gas chromatograph
with an electron-capture detector provided the
scientists with the tools, and the policymaker
with the information, to recognize and begin to
correct the environmental degradation due to
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide pollution.
When it was found that the pesticide dieldrin
could not be separated from degradation products
of DDT with available gas chromatography, new
column coatings were developed to distinguish
between the chemicals. Other improvements
enabled separation of PCBs and other chlorinated
hydrocarbons. All these technological improve-
ments were the result of painstaking research.
If this research had not been done, our ability
to define the nature and extent of the PCB prob-
lem in the ocean or to monitor in the marine
environment the results of DDT production
declines would be far less sophisticated, if it
existed at all.
Therefore, to balance my suggestion to the
technical participants to be goal-oriented and
policy-aware, I also am advising the partici-
pants in this Workshop who represent the marine
policy community to recognize that the five-year
plan must accommodate the laborous block by
block building of our technical capability,
which, in turn, rests upon the work of the
research scientist.
Let's consider development, and its rela-
tionship to ocean pollution research and moni-
toring.
A major reason why the passage of the
National Ocean Pollution Research and Develop-
ment and Monitoring Planning Act of 1978 is so
timely is the pressures for development in the
world's oceans are increasing at an alarming
rate. Development affects the marine environ-
ment both passively, in that the ocean is the
recipient of our technological debris ranging
from chlorinated hydrocarbon molecules to plas-
tic six-pack dispensers, as well as actively, as
by our extraction of marine resources.
A topic such as ocean mining where many
fundamental policy issues are still being formu-
lated poses great difficulties for you in trying
to assess national needs and problems priori-
ties. The technology of marine mining ranges
from shore-side processing of minerals to deep-
ocean extraction, from oil well pumping to
nodule extraction. Our current knowledge and
10'
-------
ability to identify and deal with many of the
inevitable development problems leaves a great
deal to be desired. For example, the 1977 report
of UN marine pollution experts says "Present
estimates of pollution from marine mining are
largely unsubstantiated. In some cases they are
reasonable deductions from established facts; in
others, extrapolations—sometimes unjustified--
have been made from studies in other fields.
Other less obvious impacts may be disclosed by
field investigations of specific activities."
It also states that, "the biological effects of
marine mining are very site-specific. In many
cases intensive and long-term study would be
required to develop adequate measurement and
prediction capabilities."
In that report the footnote relating to
special pollution considerations covers three
and a half pages. Possible causes for alarm for
extracting different mineral ranges from con-
struction of large artificial islands to the use
of potassium cyanide.
In defining needs, we must keep in mind not
only the integral nature of the problems we
face, but also the links to policy. Let us take
offshore development of oil and gas as an illus-
tration. Oil pollution of the oceans and coast-
al waters has been relatively well studied—
although of course gaps in knowledge remain, and
the book on marine oil pollution is far from
closed.
Designing further research on the existing
foundation, to guide decisions on where and how
to drill for oil offshore, takes an understand-
ing of oil technology and government regulation
of the industry, as well as biology. For exam-
ple, if we are planning to drill in a harsh
environment such as Alaska's arctic and subarc-
tic water, we need more than an inventory of the
local birds and marine animals, plus general
observations on how oil spills affect these
creatures. We need specific information on
where and when valuable crabs spawn, or rare
birds nest. Such information lays the basis for
regulations that keep drilling platforms out of
sensitive areas, or suspend the operation of
helicopters and workboats at sensitive times.
Control of oil pollution from tankers also
rests on a broad, interdisciplinary research
base. Of the estimated 5 million metric tons of
oil entering the world's oceans every year as a
direct result of human activities, about 2 mil-
lion comes from tankers. To name a few of the
specialists contributing toward measures to stem
the effects of this outflow, there are: orni-
thologists, recording the decline of puffins,
razorbills, and auks in the great tanker routes
of northern Europe; insurance accountants,
tallying worldwide tanker accidents; naval
architects, designing ships that keep oil out of
the ballast water and tank washing which are
discharged into the oceans; marine engineers,
fisheries scientists, and international lawyers.
Given the dynamic policy situation for
fuels and non-fuels minerals in the marine
environment, coupled with the pressures for
large-scale development and the present inade-
quate state of assessment knowledge, this may
prove to be one of the more knotty areas for you
to deal with in laying out national needs and
priorities.
The extraction of energy minerals from the
ocean floor is not the only burden that energy
technology places on the marine environment.
Our continuing appetite for energy, if not curb-
ed, may lead us to place still additional bur-
dens on the marine environment. Off the coast
of my home state, California, scientists are
investigating the harvesting of algae to see if
this might become a source of gas by bioconver-
sion technology. While one can conceive of
potential environmental problems resulting from
large-scale ocean farming for biomass fuels,
there are other energy technologies under con-
sideration which warrant your even closer atten-
tion.
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) uses
the temperature difference between surface and
cold, deep ocean water to produce electric
power. Suitable sites exist 140 miles off the
west coast of Florida, around Hawaii and Puerto
Rico, off Brazil and a somewhat less desirable
site off Louisiana.
Allow me to quote from recent DOE testimony
before the Subcommittee on Advanced Energy Tech-
nologies.
"Further environmental investigations
in two major categories are required
for large-scale (several 300 MW plants)
deployment of OTEC. These are:
1) Biological/Ecological Issues.
Consideration must be given to the
possible impact on ocean flora and
fauna due to large volume discharge
of potentially toxic cleaning
agents. Intrainment and entrapment
on OTEC intake screens also pose
problems to be addressed.
2) Physical/Climatic Issues. The
potential alteration of the thermal
structure in ocean basins such as
the Gulf of Mexico could lead to an
alteration of the present equilib-
rium in the air/sea exchange process
which in turn could affect climate.
Injection of nutrient-rich bottom
water into near-surface zones could
have either beneficial (mariculture)
or detrimental (eutrophication)
effects."
I think it premature to guess whether or
not OTEC will ever contribute significantly to
this nation's energy needs. What is important
to you, however, is that research will be pro-
gressing during the term of the five-year plan.
11
-------
The potential impacts on the marine environment
are large, and the research lead time to address
these problems is long.
I mention OTEC only as an example of how
new and changing technology can have a major
impact on the formulation of any plan embodying
national needs and priorities. Unfortunately,
it is very easy to find examples of unknown
impacts of future technology.
I have devoted this much time to develop-
ment pressures because the range of these
activities will make the setting of needs and
priorities difficult.
A word about monitoring.
The Act very wisely identifies monitoring
as a subject equal in importance to both re-
search and development. I am also pleased to
see that the Task Force has established a major
subcommittee to address the topic. Monitoring
tends not to be a glamorous subject. In activi-
ties less wisely structured than this, it tends
to achieve a low priority and not fare well in
budget considerations. The inevitable result of
this is that, when information is needed to make
decisions on environmental problems, it does not
exist.
Monitoring is very important in the marine
environment. Because of the physical magnitude
of the oceans and the enormous time scale of
some natural marine processes, the detection of
man-induced change and the following consequen-
ces throughout the marine ecosystem requires a
strong exercise of ingenuity by scientists.
Man's activities result in a ten-fold
increase of many naturally-occurring minerals
entering the world's oceans. We have introduced
a billion curies of radioactivity. The annual
production rate for individual classes of halo-
genated hydrocarbons is measured in thousands of
tons per year each, much of which eventually
winds up in marine environment where its persis-
tence permits it to accumulate. When one con-
siders that some marine organisms can accumulate
pollutants many thousandfold over ambient con-
centration, it is not difficult to assess the
importance of monitoring the marine environ-
ment.
There are a variety of monitoring activi-
ties taking place. Some such as Mussel 1 Watch
are very broad in design and purpose. Others,
such as self-monitoring by waste dumping permit-
tees, are much more narrowly conceived.
Monitoring cuts across all the major issues
which will be dealt with by this Workshop. As
you begin your discussion of each of the straw
documents that will form the basis of your agen-
da, be sure to establish clearly the role that
monitoring will have to play over the next five
years. Otherwise, in retrospect this Workshop
may be viewed as having laid out the problems,
but not identifying the means of providing
information to solve them.
Lastly, a word about problem-solving.
I have been using examples which might make
it appear that some problems are primarily
research problems; others, development; and
still others, monitoring problems. This is, of
course, rarely—if ever—the case. Rather,
problem identification and solution requires
continuous interaction among government policy-
makers, those engaged in development activities,
and of course, scientists involved with research
and monitoring.
The dumping of debris into the oceans pro-
vides an interesting blend of research, develop-
ment, and monitoring with substantial overtones
of public awareness, governmental policies, and
economic costs. An examination of the map of
U.S. ocean-dumping sites reveals such interest-
ing names as the Philadelphia Sludge Site, the
New York Acid Site, the Gulf Incineration Site,
and the New York Cellar Dirt Site.
The problems of ocean dumping have received
their share of policy-level consideration. In
our country, the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972; the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act of 1976; and the Clean
Water Act enable the federal government to regu-
late ocean dumping activities. Internationally,
the Convention on Prevention of Marine Pollution
by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (Ocean
Dumping Convention) has been in effect for three
years.
Progress has been made insofar as all
municipal wastewater treatment plant sludge
dumping should be terminated by the end of 1981
according to the most recent EPA report under
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act. During 1977 there was a 12 percent drop in
ocean dumping, and by the end of that year, the
the last permittee having an interim dumping
permit ceased dumping in the Gulf of Mexico.
Despite all this progress, 1977 also saw
more than seven million tons of waste dumped
into the ocean by the U.S. Five million tons of
this was sewage sludge, with the New York Bight
receiving most of this material.
The importance of a multi-year plan to
establish priorities is well exemplified by the
New York Bight. Despite the 1683 ordinance of
the New York City's Common Council which pro-
hibited fouling the harbors with "any dung,
draught, (or) dyrte," New York was dumping
refuse off Long Island before 1900. Things got
to the point that in 1931 the Supreme Court
forbade further discharge by New York of float-
able wastes. Scientists have identified pollu-
tion damage to marine biota off New York since
the 1880's. By the late 1960's and early 70's
the scientific community was questioning the
extent and nature of serious environmental
12
-------
contamination in the Bight. In 1970 the first
instance of closure of a fishery for shellfish
on the Continental Shelf took place in a circle
six nautical miles around the New York Bight
dump site.
In 1973-74 the press started referring to
the Bight as a "dead sea," predicting that
Sludge would soon be washing on the beaches and
advised of potential serious health hazards.
While balanced scientific opinion was available,
the public did not have ready access to it. As
a result, the public's immediate view of policy,
research, and monitoring priorities was somewhat
distorted by lack of information. The National
Environmental Policy Act resulted in a planning
process which put priorities and alternatives
into perspective and contributed to the present,
more reasonable regulatory/research/monitoring
environment. As a result, EPA has now stated
that "there is no present evidence that dumping
at New York Bight has caused any damage to pub-
lic health, or that such damage is likely to
occur before the dumping of sewage sludge ends
in 1981."
The point of this extended example is that
here we have a case history of three quarters of
a century of known marine pollution in which
integrated planning of regulatory actions, moni-
toring, and research did not occur until after a
very bad situation was created. Given the
sophistication of contemporary technology and
the speed with which development can take place,
it is crucial that planning be put on the front
end of further marine pollution activities
rather than the hind end. That is why the for-
mulation of this five-year plan with associated
setting of priorities is of such importance.
Even with ocean dumping highly regulated
and already the object of extensive monitoring
and research activities, the need for future
research and monitoring programs is still very
great. The New York Bight itself will provide
fertile grounds for decades of fruitful research
on microorganism survival, heavy-metal dynamics,
and ecological processes. The alternatives to
dumping, principally incineration, pyrolysis,
surface land application and landfill disposal
all have substantial environmental effects which
will have to receive close and immediate exami-
nation.
The relationship among policy, research,
development, and monitoring in our efforts to
protect the marine environment will have to con-
tinue to remain closely linked.
I have tried to encourage you to be innova-
tive in your task of the next several days. If
you are not, no doubt you will produce a plan
which will be perceived as satisfactory and ade-
quate, but one which--unfortunately--will not be
able to stand up to the unpredictability of
future change in public policy and scientific
knowledge.
Assume this Workshop took place 10 years
ago. Would you have included as a priority item
an early-warning monitoring capability which
would have identified the Kepone problem sooner?
How would the marine PCB problem have fared at
such a workshop 10 years ago? What topics would
have been identified as research or monitoring
priorities associated with sludge dumping?
You face a similar hazard now. Although it
is more comfortable to deal with the problems
that have been identified and studied _up_ to now,
the plan you are contributing to is a pTTn for
the future.
Concerning such effort, I extend to you our
gratitude for your participation and our best
wishes for your success.
Thank you.
13
-------
-------
SECTION 4
ENERGY GENERATING SYSTEMS
PANEL REPORT
PANEL MEMBERS
DR. JAMES I. JONES, Chairman
Director, Mississippi-Alabama
Sea Grant Program
Ocean Springs, Mississippi
DR. THOMAS HOPKINS
Brookhaven National Laboratories
Upton, New York
DR. LLOYD LEWIS
ETS Program Manager
Department of Energy
Washington, DC
MR. LOUIS RODDIS
Consultant
Charleston, South Carolina
MR. ROBERT H. STOCKMAN, Rapporteur
Office of Policy and Planning, NOAA
Washington, DC
INTRODUCTION
The Energy Generating Systems Panel agreed
that not only dominant energy technologies, but
those not yet operational on a significant scale
should be discussed. Environmental assessment
performed prior to the widespread application of
an energy technology may avoid undesirable con-
sequences, and indeed, may provide grounds for a
decision not to apply the technology itself in
any form.
The marine environment is a source of
energy that can be transformed into electricity
through four basic means:
• Exploitation of offshore oil and gas
• Exploitation of kinetic energy
• Exploitation of potential energy
• Exploitation of marine thermal energy
differences
Offshore oil and gas exploitation will be
considered in the marine minerals section.
Exploitation of kinetic energy is carried out
through generators driven by ocean currents,
tidal currents, or waves. Exploitation of poten-
tial energy covers three basic methodologies:
storage of water pressure head in natural embay-
ments with extreme tidal range, pumped storage
of water using power generated during off-peak
loads, and exploitation of the salinity grad-
ient. The latter is seen as the largest poten-
tial energy source in the oceans, but extraction
technology is the least developed. Problems
with this technology include the potential for
serious pollution from salt concentrations
(brines).
Exploitation of marine thermal energy dif-
ferences refers to the ocean thermal energy con-
version (OTEC) systems for electrical or chemi-
cal energy production (e.g., hydrogen).
The marine environment is also a source of
fuels for energy generating systems. One such
fuel source involves marine biomass cultivation,
either for electricity or chemical fuel (meth-
ane). The burning of marine biomass for conver-
sion to electricity is not practical or effi-
cient; fuels may, however, be produced from the
biomass (electricity is not directly produced in
any sense). Another source of energy is marine
or coastal geothermal systems. The marine
environment also serves as a sink for waste heat
in conjunction with cooling systems for electri-
cal power plants.
DESCRIPTION OF ENERGY GENERATING SYSTEMS
Level and Location of Activity
Marine thermal gradient systems such as
OTEC would utilize the temperature difference
between warm surface water and cold, deeper
waters, principally in tropical areas. The tem-
perature difference would be used to vaporize a
working fluid (e.g., propane or ammonia) which
would be condensed back to fluid (closed cycle)
after being used to drive power plant turbines.
It is noted here that the kind and quality of
pollution are very different between systems,
i.e., closed versus open OTEC systems. Consid-
eration of alternative cycles is significant in
determining the level and location of activity.
Remaining technological and economic problems
and uncertain environmental consequences have
resulted in a cautious, exploratory development
program.
15
-------
Marine kinetic systems include various
schemes to harness ocean currents and waves.
Because the vast energy of fluid motion is not
concentrated in limited areas, there is a prob-
lem of scale for conversion technology. For
example, if the energy from waves is harnessed,
hundreds or thousands of discrete conversion
units may be required to produce enough power to
compete with existing energy sources.
Marine potential energy systems involve
coastal embayments where the tidal range is
usually great. These areas provide opportuni-
ties for the use of tidal power to fill a dam
mechanism analogous to a hydroelectric reservoir
on a river. The only operational systems are
Ranee Estuary in France and Kislaya Bay in the
USSR. Potential sites in the United States are
Passamaquoddy Bay in Maine and Cook Inlet in
Alaska. High technological costs and distance
from large energy markets indicate that tidal
power systems are only local substitutions for
present technologies of power production. Other
marine energy systems of potential use include
salinity gradients and pumped storage.
Other energy production systems associated
with the marine environment are at conceptual
stages of development. Marine biomass fuels
production systems, geothermal systems (with
brine effluents in coastal waters) and nuclear
fusion systems have been proposed. Although
these systems are not likely to contribute to
energy supplies significantly in the foreseeable
future, they should be considered in order to
determine their potential polluting characteris-
tics should they be utilized.
Approximately two-thirds of the 774 fossil -
fueled and 65 nuclear-fueled power plants gener-
ate electrical power in United States coastal
areas. Over 100 additional plants (fossil and
nuclear) are expected in U.S. coastal counties
between 1978 and 1995. Inherent to steam tur-
bine generating technology is the requirement
for substantial plant cooling capacity and the
attendant loss of unrecovered energy during
transformation of heat to electricity (always in
excess of 60 percent). Effluent heating during
the cooling process may range from a few degrees
to 20° Centigrade, depending upon plant technol-
ogy, site and other factors.
Offshore electrical power generating plants
(nuclear and fossil fuel), either fixed or
floating, have been considered feasible enough
to warrant advanced development commitments by
utilities and manufacturers because onshore
sites adjacent to energy consumption centers are
frequently unsuitable. Offshore floating nuclear
power plants may be operational by 1990, and as
many as 10 may be operating by the end of the
century. Advantages include relatively large
supplies of available marine cooling water.
Value and Importance of Activity
It is difficult to project U.S. demand and
supply of total energy because of the economic,
technological and social factors affecting
energy consumption. Recent trends of increasing
absolute and per capita energy demand are likely
to continue into the foreseeable future (albeit
possibly at lesser rates of increase). The
total U.S. energy consumption (including oil,
gas and other energy forms) in 1977 subdivides
as follows:
residential and commercial 19%
industrial and miscellaneous 25%
transportation 26%
electricity 30%
Electrical energy is the only usable form
for many socially-valued energy applications.
Other energy sources could be substituted for
electricity; however, it should not be presumed
that all present electrical energy applications
will continue.
By any index, the generation of electricity
produces significant benefits for society.
Fossil- and nuclear-fueled plants produce 75
percent of the total supply of electricity in
the U.S. (1977). Electricity is consumed as
follows:
residential
commercial
industrial
other
33%
23%
40%
4%
Capital requirements for energy technolo-
gies from 1978 through 1995 are approximately
$209 billion for electrical generating plants
(fossil and nuclear) as compared to $156 billion
for all other oil, gas, coal and new sources
combined. Inherent limitations to the efficien-
cy of electrical transmission technology and the
unabated tendency for population to aggregate in
coastal areas will probably result in additional
dependence upon power plants in coastal sites.
As other social needs compete for coastal space
and resources, reconciling energy plant needs in
the coastal zone will become increasingly diffi-
cult.
Environmental Quality Concerns
In a sense, each generating system associ-
ated with the marine environment represents
unique technological and site characteristics.
It is possible, however, to identify categories
of environmental alteration grouped under the
broad heading of: (1) thermal effects, (2) other
chemical effects, (3) other physical effects,
and (4) biological effects.
Thermal effects resulting from unavoidable
discharge of unrecoverable heat during plant or
ocean cooling from heat extraction are difficult
to assess. They may be beneficial or deleterious
depending on the extent or the level of change
they create. Warmer water increases fish meta-
bolism and stresses life processes. It may,
therefore, lead to lethal or sublethal conse-
16
-------
quences (particularly during early life stages).
Thermal stress on life functions is often exa-
cerbated by chemical pollutants contained in ef-
fluents. An increase in water temperature may
result in an ecological shift in species compo-
sition, e.g., a proliferation of pests. Extreme
temperature changes have caused heat kills and
cold kills of marine animals at several power
plants.
Chemical effects may result from any of the
following:
• Use of biocides to reduce system fouling
• Low-level irradiation and chemical
changes in nuclear systems
• Chemical discharges from geothermal sys-
tems
• Release of dissolved gases (especially
C02) in open-cycle OTEC
Physical effects include:
• Damage to organisms entrained in cooling
system by physical barriers, strainers,
filters, etc
• Localized scouring of benthic habitats
from cooling system flows
• Altered sediment transport regime
• Altered biological effects due to large
pressure changes
• Local development of secondary circula-
tion patterns
Biological effects include changes in bio-
logical community structure because of thermal,
chemical, or physical effects. Different and
less desired biological populations may dominate
the new ecological equilibrium. At the intake,
plants and animals also are harmed by being
drawn into the cooling water system or otherwise
removed from the ecological community.
National Decision Processes Related to the
Activity'
Because of the scale, critical importance
and potential hazards of energy production sys-
tems, complex public controls are applied to all
phases of the establishment and operation of
these systems. Controls are imposed at the fed-
eral, state and local levels. The variety of
purposes includes utility pricing, land use,
public safety, occupational health, environmen-
tal protection and public utility organization.
A number of Federal agencies have authority
over electrical plants in coastal areas. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, regulates
the intake and effluents of plants by a permit
process [National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES)] based upon technological
performance standards [e.g., Best Available
Technology (BAT)]. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) controls nuclear plant siting
from the standpoint of public safety. The U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) considers energy
planning, technological improvement and environ-
mental protection aspects of electrical power
generating systems and promotes new technolo-
gies. Other federal agencies regulate business
aspects of the electrical industry which have
indirect effects upon where power is generated
in the coastal zone.
Implementation of Federal regulatory and
administrative authority requires broad informa-
tion about risks, effects, costs, benefits and
unintended consequences. Pervasive uncertain-
ties, lack of available information, and the
inherent problem of weighing incommensurable
factors complicate decisions. Public policy and
regulatory processes at the Federal level
involve complex interactions among the Execu-
tive, Legislative and Judicial branches, as well
as a spate of public-interest groups and private
interests. Timely availability of information
and evidence may contribute to the quality,
effectiveness and legitimacy of the whole deci-
sion process.
Limiting Factors
Limiting factors have been organized into
three major categories. The first is specific
to steam turbine power plants; the second, to
OTEC; and the third, to other systems. Within
each category, scientific, technological, eco-
nomic and sociological factors are enumerated.
Steam Turbine Power Plants--
Scientific limiting factors—The Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500) speci-
fies that permit applicants "assure the protec-
tion and propagation of a balanced indigenous
population of fish, shellfish and wildlife in
and on the body of water." Because features of
each plant site are unique, it is difficult to
predict environmental consequences of alterna-
tive effluent control technologies with confi-
dence. Improved knowledge from retrospective
study of existing facilities and modeling of
ecological risk may help to reduce uncertainty.
Knowledge of the actual extent and character of
effects depends upon more fundamental study of
causal relationships and general ecosystem
behavior under particular stresses (heat,
contaminants, etc.) It is often difficult to
discriminate between natural and man-caused
changes.
Technological limiting factors--P.L. 92-500
sets technological standards for cooling system
performance. High costs and the characteristics
of financing cause a conservative bias against
technological innovation in power plant systems.
Technological problems include:
t Entrapment, impingement and entrainment
of organisms
• Biocide poisoning
• Heat and cold and nitrogen kills
• Scouring of bottom life
-T7
-------
Technological solutions include intake and
outfall diffuser innovation and more fundamental
changes in design. The uncertain performance
and reliability of new technologies are also
1imiting factors.
Economic limiting factors—These include
deficiencies in cost-benefit and risk-benefit
analytical methods. Among these are problems of
non-economically valued parameters and incommen-
surables, and an insufficient account of the
financial considerations necessary to capitalize
expensive facilities which often require invest-
ments a decade or more prior to system opera-
tion. Reassessment of economic regulation
policy for electrical utilities is needed in the
light of adverse technological and siting impli-
cations. For example, antitrust provisions may
preclude regional power system development that
could eliminate the need for marginal sites in
certain jurisdictions. Another limiting factor
lies in economic uncertainty, both domestic and
foreign.
Sociological limiting factors—These may
include:
• Public perception of the risks of
fossil- and nuclear-fueled power
generating technologies
• Public reaction to power pricing conse-
quences of environmentally beneficial
technologies
• Basic public attitudes toward power con-
sumption and the amount of time neces-
sary for attitudinal change
• "Boom-town" effect during system con-
struction
OTEC—
Scientific limiting factors—These may
include:
• Ecological, oceanographic and meteoro-
logical effects of redistribution of
great quantities of ocean water (10
times as much as conventional power
plants)
• Effects of chlorine discharged as a bio-
cide
• Effects of discharges of large quanti-
ties of nutrient-rich, deep water into
near-surface layers
• C02 discharge for open-cycle OTEC
Technological 1imiting factors—These
include considerationoflarge quantities of
water necessary for system operation and the
antifouling methods needed to preserve the per-
formance of the heat exchangers.
Economic limiting factors—These include
the costimplications ofalternative OTEC sys-
tems, associated controls to "solve" problems,
as well as the inadequate basis for cost/benefit
and risk/benefit accounting.
Sociological limiting factors—These
include:
• Possible conflict with other ocean uses
• Perceived system vulnerability because
of offshore site
• Potential socio-legal international
questions and problems
Other Energy Generating Systems—
The limiting factor for these systems
involve their experimental nature and the fact
that knowledge of their ultimate utility is gen-
erally lacking. The systems considered include:
Biomass
Coastal geothermal
Tides
Waves
Currents
Salinity gradient
Satellite power system (SPS)
Of these six, biomass and coastal geothermal
would presently appear to have the greatest
potential application in the foreseeable
future.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Identification of Energy Technologies Associated
With the Marine Environment1
The Panel discussed the various energy
technologies associated with the marine environ-
ment and agreed upon the following characteriza-
tions:
A. Technologies ranked by descending order
in terms of the immediacy of their
application to the marine environment.
1. Nuclear-fueled plants
2. Fossil-fueled plants
3. Geothermal plants
4. Pumped storage systems
5. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
(OTEC)
6. Marine biomass systems
7. Wave systems
8. Tidal systems
9. Current systems
10. Salinity gradient systems
11. Satellite power systems (SPS)
Note: In listing technologies in approximate
order of immediacy of application to the marine
environment, the Panel wished to emphasize that
the technologies ranked fifth to eleventh would
probably only be feasible in the distant future.
On the other hand, the first four technologies
seemed relatively more certain to be applied.
B. Technologies ranked by descending order
in terms of their potential environmen-
tal impact.
1. Satellite power systems (SPS)
2. Fossil-fueled plants
18
-------
3. OTEC
4. Nuclear-fueled plants
5. Geothermal plants
6. Salinity gradient systems
7. Marine biomass systems
8. Tidal systems
9. Wave systems
10. Pumped storage systems
11. Current systems
Criteria—
The Panel agreed that explicit criteria
would be prerequisites for any consideration of
priorities. The following criteria were identi-
fied as the basis for an assessment of priori-
ties for research, development and monitoring in
marine energy:
t Immediacy of technological application
(1 = least immediate; 7 = most immedi-
ate)
• Scale of probable environmental impact
(1 = least impact; 7 = greatest impact)
t Level of existing knowledge pertaining
to pollution effects (1 = least know-
ledge requirement; 7 = greatest know-
ledge requirement
For the last criterion, the Panel consider-
ed several elements to be important. However,
it was unable to differentiate among those
elements in the specific cases of information
needs. For the record, the Panel requested that
the following elements of knowledge be identi-
fied:
• Data base
• Scientific assessment
• Predictive modeling
• Monitoring capability.
Assessment of Priorities--
The Panel assessed the priority information
needs using the following procedure:
t Each Panel member rated each information
need in terms of the three criteria on
an ascending scale of 1 to 7
• For each information need, the raw cri-
terion score was weighted 40 percent for
immediacy (criterion 1); 40 percent for
environmental impact (criterion 2); and
20 percent for knowledge level (crite-
rion 3)
• The average aggregate score for each
information need was determined from the
responses of each Panel member
Summary of Priority Assessment--
The 55 information needs which the Panel
ranked in priority order are listed in the fol-
lowing table. Thirteen needs were considered to
warrant highest priority; 20 needs, medium pri-
ority; and 22 needs, lowest priority. The
actual aggregate score for each need is reported
for further reference.
NEEDS AND PRIORITIES FOR OCEAN POLLUTION
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND MONITORING
Score
Rank (1-7)
Information Need
1 6.7
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.3
6.0
6.0
8 6.0
9 5.9
Develop mechanisms for evaluating
environmental stresses based on mul-
tiple activity assumptions measuring
the aggregate of impacts of combined
activities within a single region.
Identify those activities which may
be best combined for enhanced envi-
ronmental, economic or social attri-
butes.
Develop predictive techniques for
environmental forecasting. This
need be done for both stressed and
unstressed natural systems, to les-
sen lead-time study requirements and
to provide objective criteria for
decision-making. Note that a great
deal of additional knowledge of all
biological systems is required for
this to be achieved.
Determine the potential ecological
and health impacts of large-scale
accidental releases of contaminants
from energy generating facilities.
Develop ecosystem monitoring techni-
ques for evaluating environmental
quality stability.
Determine the hydrothermal, biocidal
and radioactive pollutant discharge
effects of coastal zone and offshore
nuclear power plants.
Measure the pollution effects of
biocides (chlorination products) and
chemical effluents from offshore and
coastal-zone located fossil fuel
power plants.
Determine the relationships and
reactions between selected environ-
mental parameters and discrete popu-
lation elements (bioindicators) as a
means of measuring the health of an
ecosystem.
Determine mechanisms of radionuclide
assimilation, accumulation and
excretion in exposed biota.
Evaluate the comprehensive environ-
mental and other effects resulting
from temperature changes induced by
10 years operation of many OTEC
plants (100-100KW plants) in the
Gulf of Mexico. Estimate tempera-
ture increase in the Gulf of Mexico
basin.
-------
Score
Rank (1-7)
Information Need
10 5.8
11 5.7
12 5.6
13 5.6
14 5.5
15 5.5
16 5.5
17 5.3
18 5.2
19 5.2
20 5.2
Measure the increased impact of
thermal stress when exacerbated by
addition of effluent chemical pollu-
tants from an offshore nuclear power
plant (synergistic effects).
Determine the pollutant potential
for geothermal energy systems,
including such variables as brine
types and content, temperature vari-
ation, heavy metal concentrations
and corrosion potential, for inner
shelf (open circulation), estuarine
(restricted circulation) and coastal
zone locations.
Determine the alterations to sedi-
ment transport, current distribu-
tion, and biotic impact anticipated
by constructing an offshore fossil-
or nuclear-fuel power plant, includ-
ing the transmission cable sub-
system.
Measure the environmental stresses
from both fossil-fuel and nuclear
coastal-zone and offshore located
power plants.
Determine the environmental impact
of the high volume of water flow
associated with OTEC, noting that
this flow level is several orders of
magnitude greater than that for con-
ventional plants.
Assess geologic and oceanographic
characteristics of proposed energy
generation sites.
Develop criteria for energy genera-
tion site selection to ensure ade-
quate consideration for environment,
health, safety and socio-economic
aspects.
Determine the environmental impact
of a major marine biomass farming
and processing activity (use site-
specific cases).
Determine the pollutant effect of
antifouling biocides on biota.
Determine the effects of increased
biologic productivity resulting from
nutrient enrichment due to OTEC
transfer of deep water to surface
layers.
Determine the overall environmental
effects of a chemical production
OTEC plant (as opposed to electric
transmission plant). (Note that
limits for electric transmission are
Score
Rank (1-7)
21 5.2
22 5.1
Information Need
approximately 20 miles for AC and
150 miles for DC, due to cable
transmission limitations.)
Assess and predict effects of weath-
er on proposed facilities, including
wave effects under severe storm con-
ditions.
Determine and evaluate the complex
estuarine/oceanic hydraulic rela-
tionship as a means to identify pos-
sible sites for ocean energy struc-
ture emplacement (siting). Use this
knowledge to identify "minimum
obstruction siting" criteria.
Measure and evaluate the pollutant
potential created by using antifoul-
ing additives, materials, coatings,
etc. on OTEC and other offshore
energy structures.
Determine the effects of continuous
use of biocides as antifouling
agents for OTEC heat exchanger.
Evaluate the pollutant potential of
gas production in open-cycle OTEC;
determine the probable effects of
degassing.
Measure the alteration and modifica-
tion of biotic processes and func-
tions (at a sublethal level) within
the effluent stream (hydrothermal
plume) of a nuclear offshore power
plant.
Evaluate the pollution potential of
leakage of OTEC contained chemicals
(note very large surface area of
heat exchanger and related increased
leak potential because of it).
Evaluate the safety problems asso-
ciated with the location of an off-
shore nuclear- or fossil-fuel power
plant from the standpoint of vessel
navigation and collision potential.
29 4.9 Measure the overall environment
effects of thermal shock resulting
from an offshore nuclear plant ther-
mal plume.
30 4.7 Determine the environmental problems
associated with eutrophication in
biomass conversion processes.
31 4.6 Measure and evaluate ocean/atmos-
pheric interaction processes to pro-
vide minimal disruption criteria for
ocean and estuary energy structure
emplacement.
23 5.1
24 5.1
25 5.1
26 5.1
27 4.9
28 4.9
20
-------
Score
Rank (1-7)
Information Need
32 4.6
33 4.6
34 4.4
Given that the chemical OTEC plant
will produce ammonia and hydrogen,
and may also produce aluminum and
"Sea Chemical," determine the envi-
ronmental effects of this production
and release or treatment of the
associated pollutants that would
accompany it.
Enumerate and evaluate environmental
issues related to the "chemical pro-
duction plant" aspects of an
ammonia/hydrogen producing OTEC
plant, stressing problems of storage
and transportation of the products.
Determine and measure the broad
scale environmental consequences of
oceanic current speed change and
configuration alteration caused by
ocean turbine structures in offshore
locations.
35 4.4 Evaluate mechanisms for energy
recovery over extensive areas of
coastline, as would be necessary
using wave movement for power gener-
ation to determine optimal minimum
space requirements and polluting
characteristics.
36 4.4 Determine the effects of local
(microclimatic) weather alterations
induced by hydrothermal and other
effects of an offshore nuclear- or
fossil-fuel power plant (evaluate
probable fog development conditions
in particular).
37 4.3 Measure and evaluate the results of
restricted flushing capability due
to emplacement of an ocean turbine
system (tidal dam) in an estuary.
38 4.3 Evaluate the international aspects
of OTEC structures located beyond
U.S. territorial sea.
39 4.1 Determine the environmental impacts
(space, wave modification, influence
on air-sea interaction processes,
navigational hazard, etc.) of a
satellite power system antenna field
at sea (marine-based solar energy
transformation system).
40 4.0 Evaluate the navigation hazard of
offshore energy generating struc-
tures.
41 3.9 Measure the effect on the marine
biota (pelagic) due to entrapment/
impingement/containment properties
of OTEC.
Score
Rank (1-7)
42 3.9
Information Need
Evaluate the pollution characteris-
tics and costs of cable transmission
of electricity from OTEC offshore to
onshore power grid.
43 3.8 Determine the effects of "wave
energy" power generating devices on
coastal sediment transport due to
altered wave-field relationships.
44 3.8 Determine the environmental effects
of circulation restriction/alter-
ation resulting from transport and
storage requirements of potential
energy utilization
45 3.7 Identify the hazards to navigation
resulting from ocean or estuarine
turbine (tidal dam) or other struc-
ture emplacement.
46 3.6 Determine the probable altered
microclimatic characteristics
resulting from changed current mean-
der patterns and distribution,
including other eddies and gyres
produced by ocean turbine structures
(site-specific).
47 3.6 Measure the environmental effects of
water impoundment (pumped energy
applications) and release.
48 3.6 Determine the environmental effects
of effluent discharge resulting from
salinity gradient energy produc-
tion.
49 3.5 Determine the environmental effects
of releasing the effluents and con-
taminants resulting from membrane
cleaning (salinity gradient pro-
cess).
50 3.2 Evaluate the legal, social and eco-
nomic effects (problems) of ocean
turbine structures located in inter-
national waters.
51 3.1 Determine the pollutant effect on
biota of lubricants used in ocean
turbines.
52 3.0 Determine the "reef" effect of ocean
turbines and associated (similar)
structures.
53 2.9 Determine the negative aesthetic
aspects of OTEC and other offshore
energy facilities (both shore visi-
ble and shore non-visible).
54 2.8 Evaluate quantitatively the effects
of ocean turbines on the entrapment
and impingement of pelagic organisms
21
-------
Score
Rank (1-7) Information Need
55 2.7 Determine the impact of the "bow
wave" effect produced by alteration
of the general wave pattern as a
result of ocean turbine or other
structure emplacement.
22
-------
SECTION 5
LIVING RESOURCES
PANEL REPORT
PANEL MEMBERS
ROY MARTIN, Chairman
National Fisheries Institute
Washington, DC
DR. DONALD C. MALINS
Director, Environmental Conservation Division
Northwestern and Alaska Fisheries
NMFS, NOAA
Seattle, Washington
DR. DAVID ADAMS
Assistant Secretary for Resources Management
Department of Natural and Economic Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina
WALTER YONKER
Vice President for Research
National Food Processors Association
Washington, DC
EDWARD TOLLEY
Executive Director
Shellfish Institute of North America
Baltimore, Maryland
RIMMON C. FAY
Pacific Biomarine Laboratories
Venice, California
JOHN GATES
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode Island
CHARLES LARSEN, Rapporteur
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA
Washington, DC
INTRODUCTION
A developing world is going to change the
marine environment. It will not be possible in
the future to regulate or manage for a zero im-
pact. The need is to develop utilization pro-
grams which are the least disruptive to the
coastal and ocean areas and afford optimum pro-
tection for the living resources and for man-
kind.
Research and monitoring information must be
made available and useful to those who make
decisions about the marine environment. Adverse
effects on resources are of particular concern
to Regional Fishery Management Councils (in man-
agement of fish stocks); to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (especially in matters concerning
dredge spoil disposal); to the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (especially in developing
and enforcing regulations concerned with ocean
disposal of wastes); to the Federal Food and
Drug Administration (in matters of chemical con-
tamination of edible products and shellfish
sanitation); and to the states (in managing
their territorial waters).
General Approaches to the Effects of Pollution
on Marine Resources
The term pollution describes a wide variety
of interacting gross and subtle human-induced
alterations in the marine environment. Unravel-
ling this complexity requires sophisticated
thinking and research. Since the sheer numbers
of pollutants and environmental factors make
investigation of all compounds and all sites
impractical; a generic approach must be used.
Principles should be developed that enhance an
understanding of effects from different types of
pollutants under different environmental condi-
tions. Based on these considerations, three
broad areas of research should proceed simulta-
neously in an integrated, complementary way:
• Description and quantification of criti-
cal, functional components of undisturb-
ed and perturbed ecosystems (e.g., phys-
ical parameters, chemical components,
population, and tropic levels) in estu-
aries, the coastal zone, and continental
shelf
• Measurement of rates and interactions
associated with processes and fluxes
within individual organisms and in major
ecosystems; for example, changes in
metabolism of normal and affected
organisms, and the transfer of chemical
contaminants through food webs and
relationships between trophic levels
such as primary, secondary, and tertiary
productivity
• Determination and evaluation of effects
of changes—both acute and chronic—on
components, processes and fluxes that
23
-------
constitute significant alterations in
organisms and ecosystems; for example,
normal fluctuations resulting from vari-
ations in annual recruitment into fish
populations, reduced fecundity of fishes
caused by chlorinated hydrocarbons and
the possible induction of cellular ano-
malies in fishes exposed to environmen-
tal teratogens, mutagens or carcino-
gens
To achieve the desired interaction among
research components, continuous, broad-scale,
interdisciplinary, resource and environmental
monitoring should be carried out in harmony with
field and experimental laboratory programs aimed
at elucidating processes and effects. The lat-
ter research should focus on problems identified
through monitoring. It should stress identifi-
cation of contaminants that produce the most
severe effects, at environmental concentrations,
on resource species and food webs. Conversely,
insights from laboratory studies should be veri-
fied in the field and applied to understanding
events in polluted coastal and estuarine envi-
ronments.
Because marine environments often contain
complex mixtures of pollutants and naturally-
occurring chemicals, special consideration
should be given to the impact of multiple compo-
nents on marine organisms and ecosystems; i.e.,
antagonistic and synergistic effects.
Seldom are management decisions regarding
the effects of environmental pollution based on
unequivocal evidence; rather, balanced judg-
ments are made (or should be made) after the
available scientific evidence is considered.
Research which provides scientifically credible
and legally viable data and recommendations that
make for good management decisions should be
conducted. Short-term cosmetic approaches are
inadequate to preserve the nation's resources
and are invalid in light of the complexities
inherent in both normal and polluted marine sys-
tems. Although short-term progress can be made
in some cases with little effort, our under-
standing of the chronic aspects of pollution
will only be realized through a substantial and
continuous national program.
SPECIFIC PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
Pollution-oriented research should be
closely coordinated and interactive with moni-
toring. Decisions on the environment should be
based on knowledge of existing levels of con-
tamination, their rates of increase or decrease,
and their effects on organisms and ecosystems
under different environmental conditions.
In developing a research and development
and monitoring program, it is recommended that
priority be assigned to identified pollutants as
follows:
1. Organics, especially synthetics
2. Metals
3. Halogen products
4. Fossil fuel
5. Radionuclides
6. Microorganisms
7. Dredge and waste disposal
8. Biostimulants
9. Litter
Monitoring
A balanced, symbiotic relationship must
exist between the monitoring and experimental
phases of the program. Monitoring programs
should be directed toward understanding changes
in undisturbed and perturbed biological sys-
tems.
Projects should include qualitative and
quantitative analyses of contaminants, their
chemical states and macromolecular complexes.
Competence in analytical chemistry should be
expanded to permit the broadest possible per-
spective on components of pollutant systems. It
is essential that we distinguish between the
presence of a material, the form that the mate-
rial takes in the environment, its biotransfor-
mations, and most significantly, its biological
impact. Presence does not imply harm in every
instance. Attention should also focus on
increasing our breadth of perspective of envi-
ronments under our jurisdiction by establishing
indices of pathological, behavioral, physiologi-
cal, biochemical, genetic, and immunological
changes in normal and altered systems. A major
objective of monitoring programs should be to
establish relationships between biological
changes and pollutant profiles and to minimize
the areas adversely affected.
Because limits have to be established in
the overall monitoring effort, the choice of
sites should be based on certain, carefully-
conceived priorities; for example, areas of
planned changes in human activities that may
influence living marine resources, areas that
have a history of continuous monitoring, areas
where investigations of pollution problems are
(or have been) a major activity, and areas of
important resource production.
Rates and Interactions
The study of rates, processes, and fluxes
involves more than simply identifying and quan-
tifying contaminant concentrations; the informa-
tion derived is critical to an understanding of
normal and human-induced alterations in the
marine environment. Decisions about priorities
in researching the impacts of rates, processes,
and fluxes should be based on:
• The importance of the resources affect-
ed
24
-------
• The toxicity and persistence of the
pollutants
• The potential for expanding scientific
understanding of marine systems through
the acquisition of generic information
• The public health significance of
natural populations of living organisms
as early warning systems sensitive to
disturbance by pollutant
Once decisions have been made about groups
of contaminants to be studied, their precise
chemical form becomes significant because toxic
properties are intimately associated with mole-
cular structure and the formation of chemical
complexes with a variety of matrices. Particu-
lar emphasis should be placed on interactions
among multiple pollutants on pollutant inter-
actions with components of biological systems.
Despite its importance, this area has been neg-
lected. Conversion products of contaminants
arising from chemical and biological processes
are sometimes more toxic than parent compounds.
A significant emphasis must therefore be placed
on determining the structure, concentration,
rates of conversion, persistence, bioavailabil-
ity and biological impacts of them.
The transfer of pollutants, their degrada-
tion products through food webs, and their
interactive effects with natural factors in the
environment (e.g., nutrients, salinity, tempera-
ture) should also be studied, as should physical
concentration systems created by water current
patterns. The environmental impacts from trans-
port, recycling or immobilization of pollutants
(e.g., trapping in sediments), together with
their accumulations in the biota, are important
processes to include when alterations in organ-
isms and ecosystems are assessed.
Descriptive and mathematical ecological
models relating to physical, chemical and bio-
logical processes are useful in describing and
predicting pollutant effects. These models must
rely on real field operations. They currently
exist, or are being developed, and they are con-
structed at various levels of complexity; for
example, biological models may include processes
at the organism, population, community and eco-
system levels. Some of these models have
already been used to describe and predict
effects of environmental alterations and popula-
tion. Others have potential if further develop-
ed. Modeling, as described, should be consider-
ed in the overall assessment of pollutant
effects in the marine environment. It is to be
used as one tool to aid the ecologist in better
understanding ecosystems.
Effects
A major responsibility should be to under-
stand how pollution affects fisheries and their
supportive ecosystems. This goal can only be
reached if high priority is given to the study
of biological effects. The broadest, most
meaningful set of indicative criteria must be
employed if balanced judgments are to be made
about alterations in marine biota. Acute and
chronic effects should be evaluated in the labo-
ratory and in field studies using broad, inter-
disciplinary research on life stages of fish,
invertebrates, and organisms in their food web.
Some obvious sublethal effects include:
• Physiological and biochemical changes
resulting or associated with reduced
growth or inhibition of spawning
• Behavioral anomalies often influenced by
changes in sensory systems
• Pathological alterations in tissues that
suggest changes in function(s) of organs
or viability of animals
t Genetic changes
Because chronic effects (e.g., neoplasia)
often have long, latent periods, every effort
must be made to identify early signs of damage.
Suggested approaches include examinations for
preneoplastic changes of tissues, for ultra-
structural alterations of cells, for damage to
DMA, and for alterations in the competence of
immune systems.
Field experiments are bridges between the
laboratory and contaminated environments. With
natural systems, there are obvious difficulties
in limiting the numbers of experimental varia-
bles so that effects can be understood. Thus,
field studies must operate in concert with labo-
ratory studies that identify and pinpoint
indices of perturbation. Pathology, behavioral
biology, and physiology are particularly useful
for assessing damage in the context of the field
studies.
Alterations in ecosystems are particularly
difficult to identify and evaluate. Primary
production, reflecting the lowest trophic level
for marine systems in the upper water column,
can be affected by pollutants. Also, changes in
abundance of organisms at any trophic level may
affect abundance at other levels, and some spe-
cies (as well as some larger phylogenetic
groups, such as the Crustacea and pleuronec-
tids), are more sensitive than others to certain
classes of contaminants.
GENERAL INFORMATION NEEDS
Living resources are menaced most inten-
sively by the following processes in the envi-
ronment:
• Long-lived, synthetic, biologically-
active organic substances
• Heavy metals
• Power plant cooling water
t Sludge discharges
• Loss of habitat
Additional information is needed on the
present distribution , nature, and impacts of
synthetic organic chemicals as well as the
anthropogenic introduction of heavy metals.
25
-------
There are also a number of public health
elements in these recommendations.
At present, sludge discharges or dumping
are a major problem for the health, integrity
and productivity of coastal living resources.
Accidental oil and chemical spills and dis-
charges threaten living marine resources. The
impact, fate and longevity of chemical residues
in marine waters deserves more attention. Pro-
tection, rather than cleanup, must be the
approach. However, the impact of cleanup tech-
nology on the living resources must be studied,
since we do not know if physical removal is the
best protocol in all instances. We must develop
ecologically valid recommendations based on
actual field data.
Additive and synergistic impacts where mul-
tiple wastes, include cooling waters from power
plants, are discharged is a growing problem
because of increasing population and increasing
industrial and transportation use in the coastal
zone.
Monitoring the impacts of pollutants in
marine waters must include comparisons of refer-
ence populations of marine organisms in unim-
pacted areas with those found in areas where
waste is discharged. Strategies and priorities
of approaches to such studies deserve immediate
attention.
Trends in deterioration of quality and pro-
ductivity of land renewable resources, as these
relate to marine resources, need evaluation.
Among the subjects to be considered are:
• Loss of soil
• Loss of soil nutrients
t Increase in atmospheric COg concentra-
tion
• Increases in air pollution burden
(S02, NOX, particulates, hydrocar-
bons)
• Shoreline modifications resulting in
loss of habitat; e.g., loss of wetlands,
and increases in turbidity and
sedimentation
The economic, commercial and recreational
importance of preserving and enhancing produc-
tion of living marine resources should be con-
sidered. Whereas the U.S. once exported fish
and fisheries products, it now imports on the
order of 60 percent of its fishery products.
Protection and enhancement of renewable marine
resources may provide additional employment
opportunities as well as improve this aspect of
the balance of payments problem. Consuming
high-quality low-fat, low-cholesterol seafood
may prove to be a significant public health
benefit.
Improvements in the effectiveness of source
control of environmentally hazardous matrials
before they are released to the environment is
urgently required. Strategies and techniques to
enforce this provision of waste water quality
control deserve highest priority. Too many
treatment plants suffer upsets, water reclama-
tion programs are disrupted, and pollution
events result from excessive loads of hazardous
materials arriving in treatment plants.
Increasing use of coastal waters for cool-
ing purposes presents a problem. In some areas,
investments in operation and maintenance requir-
ed to restore and maintain receiving water qual-
ity in treatment plants may be negated when
these same receiving waters are used for cooling
purposes. This is especially critical where
reproductively isolated populations or organisms
may be found and when the larval and juvenile
stages of local fauna may be adversely affected
by passing through a power plant.
Many coastal water masses appear to have
low rates of turnover and are thus susceptible
to being saturated with waste discharges. Waste
discharges should be controlled so that the
critical substances or impacts (e.g., thermal)
are added at a rate less than that of the rate
of turnover of the receiving waters.
Alternative uses, such as recycling of
wastes now discharged to the ocean, especially
those of sewage sludge, deserve urgent atten-
tion.
The above recommendations are offered in
the context of improving and protecting the
quality of coastal waters. They are also meant
to assure the productivity of renewable natural
resources for commercial and recreational fish-
eries and to protect public health.
Some of the information recommended above
has been collected; in other cases, data need to
be gathered, organized systematically, and ana-
lyzed to discern trends. Techniques and tech-
nology are available to accomplish most of these
tasks. Managerial strategies, enforcement,
monitoring and implementation may sometimes be
verydifficult;forexample, as it is with
sludge disposal on land. Also, when a receiving
water is saturated or used to capacity, as with
thermal discharge for cooling purposes, denying
expanded use of such waters may be very diffi-
cult.
Protection of coastal waters from pollu-
tants and excessive use as well as land-use
restrictions for habitat protection may repre-
sent massive expenditures of public funds and an
enormous commitment of time and labor. It could
all be misspent if a massive accident such as a
huge oil spill occurred. Every means available
should be taken to prevent such an accident. At
present, control over the movement of hazardous
cargoes is inadequate in the world's coastal
waters. Means for achieving better control of
these movements is urgently needed. At a mini-
mum, any cargo or tanker vessel approaching
within 50 miles of the coastline or within 50
26
-------
miles of a known hazard to navigation should be
given navigational assistance which parallels
bridge control of the vessel. Vessels approach-
ing within six miles of restricted channels and
bays should be subject to port traffic control
in addition to bridge control. The expenses and
damages now occurring, together with the scale
of damage resulting from accidental collisions
or grounds, are massive. The unregulated move-
ment of vessels of commerce in the coastal
waters of the U.S.A. should, therefore, not be
permitted to continue.
Information on the occurrence and distribu-
tion of hazardous materials in the marine envi-
ronment can be useful to state and federal water
pollution control agencies , wildlife management
agencies, public health agencies, marine biolo-
gists, fisheries operations, and the public.
Alternatives to marine disposal of sludge
may be useful in alternative energy production,
aquaculture, agriculture, silviculture, and
horticulture.
Problems of once-through cooling water pas-
sage in power plant operation and limitations of
receiving water capacity are important to marine
biologists and agencies involved in power plant
siting and water quality control.
Control of commercial vessels is important
to the vessel operators, the U.S. Coast Guard,
oil spill cleanup contractors, wildlife protec-
tion agencies, fishing operators, and coastal
recreational interests.
SPECIFIC PROBLEMS AND RESEARCH NEEDS
Fisheries Waste Processing
Besides possible disease transmission,
fisheries wastes have only one currently identi-
fied problem—adequate dilution. If facilities
have appropriate outfalls to allow proper dilu-
tion, they should not be required to waste money
and energy for sophisticated waste treatment.
If facilities are poorly sited, low-cost
treatment methods are suggested as a research
need. Pollution from these sources is a func-
tion of organic loading and recycling of nutri-
ents and does not involve toxic and bioaccumula-
tive substances.
Disease Transmission
Neoplasia in shellfish and fishes in the
Great Lakes and coastal areas may, in some
cases, have a viral etiology. Pollutants may
aggravate the prevalence and severity of the
disease. In addition, contaminated materials
released from processing facilities may aid in
transmitting the infection. Bacterial, fungal,
and parasitic diseases may be supported by pro-
cessing facilities.
Fish processing wastes may also result in
the concentration and spread of anisakiasis, an
infection of nematodes, in fishes. Humans who
eat these fish may become infected (Sinderman,
C.J. Principal Diseases of Marine Fish and
Shellfish, Academic Press, New York, 1969).
Users--
The processing facilities should know if
this exists, so that it can be controlled. This
information should be disseminated to the user
group if it becomes a problem (Information
Exchange and Transfer).
Time—
This program can be designed, conducted,
and completed in three years.
Current Research--
Research currently focuses only on the
infected organisms and not on waste treatment.
By-Product Development of Useful Substances from
Present Processing Waste Loads
Where natural environmental effects, i.e.,
inadequate tidal flush, do not permit ease of
disposal, it would be prudent to investigate the
possible by-products that would be economically
derived from processing wastes. Closed loop
utilization could result in water and energy
conservation as well. Little, if any, data or
research exist in this area.
Time--
This program would take five years.
User--
Seafood processing industry could use it if
it were economically viable, i.e., if a minimum
return could meet expense.
Screening Marine Ecosystems for Unknown Effects:
A Tiered Approach"
It is impossible to predict all environmen-
tal disasters. Therefore, a low-cost environ-
mental "watch" for pending disasters is recom-
mended. This could be a series of regular ben-
thic collections for key species. Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project
(SCCWRP) has developed a system of monitoring
based on 25 easily-identified species represen-
tative of different feeding types and a predic-
tive stream model based on chironimid larvae.
If a concentrated effort were based on ecologi-
cal relationships, a simple early-warning system
using a few species could protect living resour-
ces.
This approach should be tiered to maximize
information, minimize collection, and analyze
costs. If changes are seen relative to refer-
ence stations, then more comprehensive work, for
example, GC/MS, is suggested. If there are no
changes in the community's natural fluctuation,
then more comprehensive analyses are not
needed.
27
-------
User--
EPA would use it as an enforcement tool;
NOAA for ecosystem research alert; industry for
identification of research and treatment needs.
Time--
This program would take two years to imple-
ment.
Sediment Kinetics of Pollutant Transport
Two fractions of solids input require
concentrated research because in many cases they
have a dominant impact on living resources:
t Flocculant organic materials (floe)
transported across the continental
shelf
• Fines fraction of marine sediments
Floe settles in the swales and is eaten by
sand dollars, polychaete worms, foraminifera,
amphipods, isopods, and a host of organisms at
the bottom of the food chain. This material is
highly organic and has a gelatinous structure
with many charged active sites. This property
enables the material to be an active scavenger
for heavy metals (in most of their forms),
slightly soluble organics (for example, carcino-
genic polynuclear aromatics), and bacterial and
viral particles. Disease, toxicants, or bioac-
cumulative materials may enter the marine eco-
system through this material.
Fines are highly charged silt and clay par-
ticles that are ideal substrates for bacteria.
Like floe, they attract charged ions. Bacterial
slime (the gelatinous matrix surrounding many
bacterial cells) scavenges for organics and
metals as the particles move through the water
column.
Benthic organisms eat these particles and
are eaten, in turn, by other living things. The
movement of pollutants is basically that of
sediment transport.
Information Needs—
The equilibrium, absorptive capacity of the
floe and fines must be determined for organo-
metallics, ionic metal species, synthetic organ-
ics, etc. In addition, the adsorption, desorp-
tion kinetics and bioavailability of these mate-
rials to benthic organisms must be determined.
These data will foster an understanding of
primary pollutant transfer. They would aid
marine pollution specialists in understanding
ecosystem dynamics.
Current Collection--
A well-defined, systematic study of these
mechanisms is necessary, but none is in pro-
gress. The study should not be conducted in
isolated segments.
Examples studies should be noted:
Galloway, J.N. 1972 "Man's Alteration of
the Natural Geochemical Cycle of
Selected Trace Metals," University
of California, San Diego, 143 pp.
Peterson, L.L. 1974 "The Propagation of
Sunlight and the Size Distribution
of Suspended Particles in a Munici-
pally Polluted Ocean Water," PhD
Dissertation, California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, 174 pp.
Standardization of Marine Pollution Analysis
Methodologies
There are no preferred methods for marine
pollution monitoring—the marine equivalent of
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and WastewateriIf many laboratories are per-
forming the same analyses, then the data gener-
ated must be equivalent. Therefore, methods
with known precision, accuracy, and inter-
laboratory calibration are essential.
User--
All laboratories performing marine pollu-
tion monitoring would require this assurance.
Time--
This can be accomplished within two years.
Inadequate Bioassay Methodology
Acute and chronic testing of pollutants is
generally conducted on the individual organism,
in a manner which is irrelevant to environmental
exposure, and in artificial conditions. These
data are almost irrelevant to the real world!
A community bioassay approach conducted
under realistic exposures (e.g., decay of con-
centration with time) are sorely needed. Refine-
ment of such studies as larval recruitment, suc-
cession, and benthic communities would yield
more valuable information than the standard
EC5Q or LC5Q.
Users--
Marine pollution specialists wishing to
predict the real inpact of pollution on living
resource communities would have a need for com-
munity bioassays.
Time--
The program would take three years to
imp!ement.
Reference Compounds
In order to calibrate analytical techni-
ques, standard reference materials are needed.
The National Bureau of Standards should be fund-
ed to provide standard reference materials for
marine nutrients, organometallics, polynuclear
aromatics and other important pollutants.
Users--
All researchers in marine pollution would
need to calibrate analytical methodology.
28
-------
Time--
Ongoing as new needs are discovered.
Fisheries Resource Management
Overfishing of many organisms is a serious
problem. We must seek optimum ways to control
overfishing in order to preserve an adequate
stock of marine resources. Therefore, we must
continue to develop international relations,
positions, and economic incentives so that other
governments will develop prudent harvesting
policies.
Users--
Negotiating teams.
Benefits--
All users of marine resources, including
state, local and regional fishery councils.
Damages Created by Resource Harvesting
The harvesting of living resources disrupt
local ecology. For example, scalloping turns
over the continental shelf at least once every
five years. We should determine the impact of
these operations on the marine ecosystem, espe-
cially when we try to segregate the effects of
pollution from resource harvesting.
Users--
All pollution monitors.
RANKING OF PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT
AND MONITORING
The Living Resources Panel concluded its
discussions with a Priority Ranking System in
which a numerical factor of 7 was the most
important and 1 the least important. The pro-
jects and their averaged rank follow:
Point
Rank
Priority 1 - 7
1 6.3 Standardization of marine pol-
lutant analysis methodologies
1 6.3 Source control of hazardous
materials before release
2 6.0 Need for information on distri-
bution, nature, and impact of
certain pollutants
3 5.5 Screening/Monitoring marine
ecosystems for unknown effects
4 5.3 Fisheries waste processing -
low-cost treatments needed
4 5.3 Sediment kinetics of pollutant
transfer
5 5.2 By-Product development of use-
ful substances from wastes
6 5.1 Effect of synergistic inputs to
a marine system
7 5.0 Longevity of chemical residues
in the marine environment
8 4.8 Fisheries resource management
9 4.7 Disease transmission—viral,
parasitic, etc.
10 4.5 Recycling of sludge wastes
10 4.5 Inadequate bioassay methodol-
ogy
11 4.3 Effect of losses of quality and
productivity of land resources
12 4.0 Need for analytical reference
compounds
13 3.8 Minimization of any damage
caused by resource harvesting
29
-------
-------
SECTION 6
MARINE TRANSPORTATION
PANEL REPORT
PANEL MEMBERS
WILLIAM 0. GRAY, Chairman
Exxon Corporation
New York, NY
GEORGE IRELAND
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Washington, DC
JAMES BARNES
Center for Law and Social Policy
Washington, DC
VIRGIL KEITH
ECO, Inc.
Annapolis, MD
PETER JOHNSON
Office of Technology Assessment
U.S. Congress, Senate Annex
Washington, DC
DIANE GONCALVES
Policy and Planning
The Transportation Institute
Washington, DC
PETER J. LUCIANO
Director, Policy and Planning
Transportation Institute
Washington, DC
JOSEPH L. VALENTI, Rapporteur
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Washington, DC
INTRODUCTION
The Transportation Panel was charged with
producing a list of information needed to regu-
late ocean uses and to prevent or minimize pol-
lution, including a description of who needs the
information, why it is needed, in what time
frame, whether it is being adequately compiled
now, and any serious problems anticipated in
obtaining it.
DESCRIPTION OF MARINE TRANSPORTATION
Hazardous Substances Spills from Marine Trans-
portation
Level and Location of Activity--
The problem of hazardous spills resulting
from marine transport is worldwide, but no good
data are available on the kind, quantity, or
location of spills. The bulk shipment of chemi-
cals is an extensive operation, warranting care-
ful research and monitoring.
Value and Importance of Activity--
Bulk shipment of chemicals is economically
necessary, and hazardous substances cargoes
(shipped via tank vessels and barges) are essen-
tial to commerce and industry. There is a need
to examine whether it would be worthwhile to
transport certain hazardous substances which are
extremely damaging to the marine environment and
the population on land using rail, highways or
pipeline, rather than on water.
Environmental Quality Concerns--
Chemical properties and environmental fac-
tors affect the nature of spill damage. When
chemicals are examined, their toxicity to marine
biota, their solubility, biodegradation poten-
tial, vapor pressure, density and other basic
properties should be understood. Environmental
factors to be considered include wind, tempera-
ture, water depth, location and biological popu-
lations at risk.
Damage from spills can have short- or long-
term effects. Short-term effects may be that a
chemical exerts acute, toxic action, after which
it disperses or degrades, as is the case with
formaldehyde or sulfuric acid. Long-term
effects may be seen when a material resides in
environmental "reservoirs," and exerts a chron-
ic, toxic effect, as is the case with DDT,
Kepone, PCBs or Mercury.
National Decision
Activity--
Processes Related
to
The relationships and responsibilities of
government agencies such as the Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Transportation,
and Council on Environmental Quality need to be
developed. Consideration should also be given
to the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative
Organization's (IMCO) standards for hazardous
cargo shipment and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, PL 92-500, Section 311, as amended.
31
-------
Limiting Factors--
Limiting factors can be separated into the
scientific, technological and legal categories.
Scientific limitations include the lack of know-
ledge about ecosystem behavior and the effects
of most chemicals transported. The methodology
for monitoring and detecting hazards for Tnost
chemicals transported is inadequate.
The basic technological limitation is the
lack of developed new technologies and logistics
for spill cleanup of hundreds, possibly thou-
sands, of compounds with a wide spectrum of
physical and chemical properties. The possibil-
ity and effects of treating certain chemical
spills with other chemicals, i.e., using a base
to treat an acid spill, should be investigated.
Legal limitations were imposed while the
hazardous substances program was blocked by
Federal court decision, but these were lifted as
of October 15, 1978.
Information Needs—
Information needs include a requirement
that spill information be reported to the
National Response Center. A trend analysis of
spill data is needed.
Oil Pollution Resulting from Marine Transporta-
tion
Level and Location of Activity--
The frequency of spills is fairly consis-
tent from year to year and can be analyzed by
classical statistical methods. The total number
of spills from all sources is approximately
10,000 per year. In 1977, the regional distri-
bution of spills by percentage was as follows:
Atlantic Coast
Pacific Coast
Gulf Coast
Great Lakes
Inland
21.6%
16.3%
29.2%
4.7%
28.2%
The volume of oil spilled, however, varies
from year to year, and a few large spills
account for the major portion. Spills of over
100,000 gallons make up less than one percent of
the total number, but 70% of the volume.
Although small volume spills can be treated by
classical statistical methods, the few large
spills cannot. Bayesian statistical methods
have been suggested for analyzing large spills.
The range in volume of spills from 1973 to 1977
was 15 to 23 million gallons. The range by
region for 1973 to 1977 is as follows:
Atlantic Coast 1.6 - 8.8 million gallons
Pacific Coast 0.5 - 1.6 million gallons
Gulf Coast 2.5 - 7.0 million gallons
Great Lakes 0.3 - 0.7 million gallons
Inland 3.1 - 8.3 million gallons
Oil accounts for roughly 80% of reported
spills, both in frequency and volume.
In the 1973 to 1977 period, spills were
more frequent in May, July and August, but
spills of large volumes occurred in January,
October and December. Vessels (1977 figures)
were responsible for 33.1% of all spills and
66.1% of the total volume spilled. Causes of
vessel spills are:
• Grounding and strandings in 67% of all
cases
• Collisions in 19%
• Structural or mechanical failure in 14%
One must also consider port calls, traffic
density, vessel type and specific port in order
to examine the total activity properly.
Value and Importance of Activity-
Tankers are the only means of moving for-
eign oil to the United States. This imported
oil constitutes greater than 50% of the U.S.
supply annually. Barges provide economical bulk
transport of refined products.
Environmental Quality Concerns--
Various conditions affect oil spill impact;
these include:
• Volume spilled
• Type of oil (refined, crude, etc.)
• Location of spill (the importance to
man's welfare and the biological popula-
tions at risk)
• Environmental conditions at the time,
such as wind, temperatures, water depth,
currents, turbidity, etc.
Spills may damage fish and wildlife, wet-
lands and nursery areas, beaches, commercial and
recreational fishing, tourism, human health
(through consumption of contaminated seafood)
and public or private property.
Processes
Related
to
National Decision
Activity—
Decision-making processes related to marine
transport take the form of international legis-
lation and agreements, and United States legis-
lation. A number of international conventions
have focused on this activity; they include:
• Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by
Oil (1954)
• Safety of Life at Sea (I960 + 1974)
• Amendments to Oil Pollution Convention
(1962)
• Load Line Convention (1966)
• Amendments to Oil Pollution Convention
(1969) - limits operational discharges
to 15 ppm within 50 miles of land
• Intervention Convention (1969) - invoked
in Argo Merchant disaster
• Compensation Fund Convention (U.S. has
not ratified)
• 1973 Marine Pollution Conference -
action pending
• International Conference on Tanker
Safety and Pollution Prevention (TSPP,
32
-------
February 1978)
- improvements inspection and certifica-
tion
- improvements vessel construction and
equipment
• International Convention on Standards of
Training, Watch Keeping, and
Certification of Seafarers (June 1978)
United States legislation dealing with
marine transportation includes:
t Oil Pollution Control Act of 1961 (PL
89-167)
• Oil Pollution Act Amendments of 1966 (PL
89-551)
• Intervention on High Seas Act (PL 93-
248)
• FWPCA of 1972 (PL 92-500) - §311
• Clean Water Act 1977 Amendments to §311
• Marine Protection Research and Sanctuar-
ies Act (PL 920-532, amended by PL 93-
254)
• Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972
• Ports and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 (PL
95-474)
Limiting Factors--
Limiting factors are of a scientific, tech-
nological, economical and political nature.
Scientific constraints include the lack of
information on the long-term ecological impact
of spill events in differing geoclimatological
zones. Another limitation is imposed by the
inadequacy of present biological cleanup agents
(packaged bacteria, fungi, etc.).
Technological constraints are apparent in
the following areas: structural and mechanical
failure, governed by economics as well as tech-
nology; collision avoidance systems which are
not accepted worldwide; spill cleanup systems
which are inoperable beyond very modest sea-
state; burning techniques which require further
development; and the need to reexamine the use
of dispersants for offshore oil spills when
standard cleanup systems are inoperable.
Economic constraints and uncertainty of
effectiveness impact the rate of acceptance of
alternative features. Such constraints affect
use of double bottoms, segregated ballast tanks
and other design features as well as advanced
navigational and communication systems, back-up
propulsion and steering systems. Economics also
places limits on vessel size, type, use of spe-
cific ports, and crew training.
Political limitations center around the
view that oil is an instrument of national poli-
cy and security.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND
MONITORING NEEDS
Although much information is obviously
needed on fate and effects of oil and hazardous
substances that enter the marine environment,
the Panel did not formulate a list of national
needs with regard to those factors. Rather, the
discussion was restricted to the transportation
of hazardous substances by water, broadly defin-
ed to include every state of handling in connec-
tion with such transportation (terminals, car-
goes, vessels, personnel, communication/naviga-
tion, environmental operating conditions, acci-
dent response, contingency planning and cleanup,
and the institutional/legal framework). It was
noted that marine transportation includes 60,000
ocean-going vessels worldwide, a minority of
which (10%) carry oil and hazardous substances.
All vessels should be viewed as possible pollut-
ing sources, or as capable of contributing to
the accidental release of oil or hazardous sub-
stances from those carriers. There are also a
substantial number of inland vessels to be con-
sidered.
In general, the panel expressed greater
concern about chemicals than about oil and noted
that no legislation at the Federal level pres-
ently requires that spills of all hazardous sub-
stances be reported. Obviously, products that
are moved, the method used to move them, the
risks associated with transportation of those
materials, and details of all spills need to be
known. Disclosures should be required of owners
of materials to governments and to transporters,
even if arguably proprietary. Similarly, noti-
fication requirements for vessels in danger,
including information on their cargoes, need to
be instituted so that adequate responses can be
made quickly. There was complete consensus that
the prevailing rules and practices regarding
salvage are inappropriate for modern conditions,
and that a high priority should be placed on
developing new international salvage rules.
A complete list of potentially dangerous
hazardous substances should include such items
as spent nuclear fuel rods, fertilizers, certain
ores, and many other commodities and chemicals.
Research on the danger of such spills to humans
and to the marine environment should be linked
to information about the authority, if any,
which is regulating the pertinent activities,
the degree of regulation, etc. Only after such
analyses will it be possible to determine
rational strategies for new transportation
requirements.
Any complete regulatory framework must
include rules and enforcement capability regard-
ing operational handling and discharges, preven-
tion and mitigation of accidents (including ves-
sel design, technological features and personnel
training), cleanup and liability/compensation
regimes to cover accidents.
A general risk analysis of the various
available transportation alternatives is neces-
sary to an evaluation of value and importance of
an activity.
There are instances in which uncoordinated
efforts and indecision within federal, state,
33
-------
and local governments inhibit progress.
Need
Priority
The attached preliminary list of needs is
subdivided into eight major categories. The
Panel also identified areas of need within each
category, and assigned preliminary priorities to
each area. Due to the haste with which the work
was accomplished, the Panel is concerned that it
may have missed some very important needs.
The Panel quickly concluded that it had
little or no expertise in the fate and effects
of pollutants. Accordingly, it felt that its
greatest contribution would be in addressing how
pollution incidents can be prevented or mitigat-
ed within the marine transportation mode. All
this notwithstanding, the Panel stated that the
performance of needed research on the fate and
effects of hazardous pollutants cannot be over-
emphasized and is of the highest priority.
While the list of needs includes a number
of high priority projects, the Panel felt that
the most important areas in marine transporta-
tion are:
a. Personnel, and
b. Institutional and legal ramifications.
Time restraints also prohibited the panel from
fully discussing the needs in terms of user of
research, purpose, time-frame, adequacy of pres-
ent information and data acquisition. In clos-
ing, the Panel expressed the desire that future
marine transportation panels include someone
with expertise in chemical carriers.
NEEDS AND PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOP-
MENT AND MONITORING
Need
Priority
CARGO
Profile Projection of Marine Trans-
port High
Identify for All Cargoes:
- Volumes
- Location (Routes, Ports)
- Type Vessel(s) Used Size, etc.
Purpose:
Trend analysis for identifying
future problems
Data Acquisition:
Government, - Much raw data
Industry available
- Little digested
analysis
- Com./DOT/DOE et al,
DOD/Treas.
- Associations/COS
Impact High
Identify for All Cargoes:
- Hazard(s) to Personnel
- Hazard(s) to Marine Environ
- Possible Traffic Impact
- Air Quality
- Other Industries
Purpose:
Fundamental data needed to assess
risks associated with transportation
of each substance
Data Acquisition:
Oil - Much data on short-
term effects
- Less data on latent
effects
Hazardous
Polluting
Substances - Some data on short-
term effects
- NIL data on latent
effects
- Significant short-
term data gaps
- Very dynamic situa-
tion and high growth
rate of new substances
- Little knowledge of
interactive effects
Sources - Scientific community
in Govt/Industry/
Academia Gesamp/Inter
VESSELS/EQUIPMENT
• Oil in Water Monitor High
• Profile Projection of Vessels High
- Nos., Sizes, Types, Flag
- Ocean/Inland
- Applicability of TSPP Reqts.
• Emergency Cargo Transfer Capability Medium
• Redundant Equipment Medium
- Nav./Commun.
- Propulsion
- Steering
• Vessel Design Mediurn
• Nuclear Propulsion Med i urn
- Hazard to Environment
PERSONNEL
• Profile of Various STD/Requirements High
- Education
- Training
- Experience
- Manning
- Certification
34
-------
Need
Priority
Need
Priority
Degree of Implementation/
Enforcement
Owner/Crew Relationship
- Familiarity
- Continuity
- Motivation
Reasons for Failures
- Human Error
- System Error
Procedural
- Normal Operations
- Emergencies
• Pilots
- Training
- Regulation
TERMINALS
• Site Selection for Certain Cargoes
• Reception Facilities
• Onshore vs. Offshore Terminals
• Litering
• Air Emissions
• Port/Channel/Bridge Configuration
and Location/River Dikes
ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING CONDITIONS
• Current Predictions
- Accuracy/Availability
• Weather Data
- Arctic
- Other areas
COMMUNICATIONS/NAVIGATION
t Vessel Traffic Service
- Evaluation
- Future Needs
- Various Levels
• Language
• Electronic Navaids
- Satnav
- Loran/Decca
- Omega
- Collision Avoidance Aids
High
High
High
High
High
Hi gh
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Med i urn
Medium
High
High
High
t Charts High
• Traffic Separation Medium
• Rules of the Road Med i um
- Evaluate Colreg '72
• Short-Range Navaids Med i um
INSTITUTIONAL/LEGAL
• Salvage/Law Compensation High
• Better Monitoring Capability for
Operational DischargesHigh
- Type Pollutant
- Flag
- Area
• Substandard Ship Identification High
- Owner
- Age
- Flag
• International Enforcement Capability Hi gh
- Resources
- Experience
• Pilotage
• Liability/Compensation
- Oil
- HPS
• Flags of Convenience
ACCIDENT RESPONSE
t Better Salvage Arrangements
- Legal
- Operational/Technical
t Adequacy of Salvage Equipment
- Tugs
- Lighters
- People
t Spill Response Capability
- Cleanup
- Containment
- Dispersal
- Mitigation for HPS
High
High
High
High
High
High
35
-------
-------
SECTION 7
MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL
PANEL REPORT
PANEL MEMBERS
RICHARD C. BROWNE, Esquire, Chairman
Washington, DC
LLOYD L. FALK
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company
Wilmington, DE
THOMAS WRIGHT
Waterways Experiment Station
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Vicksburg, MS
RICHARD WELLS
Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc.
Wellesly Hill, MA
CLIFTON CURTIS
Center for Law and Social Policy
Washington, DC
KENNETH KAMLET
National Wildlife Federation
Washington, DC
BRENDA TREMPER
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
ANGUS MACBETH
Department of Justice
Washington, DC
ELAINE FITZBACK, Rapporteur
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
INTRODUCTION
The materials of concern with regard to
marine waste disposal fall into the categories
of sewage sludge, industrial waste, dredged
material, radioactive waste, municipal waste,
pollution from non-point sources, and atmospher-
ic input. The disposal processes by which these
materials enter the marine environment are ocean
dumping, ocean incineration, deep ocean waste
emplacement, ocean outfalls, and riverine
inputs.
DESCRIPTION OF NEEDS
Level and Location of Disposal Activities
In 1977, sewage sludge accounted for
5,134,000 tons of ocean-dumped materials. Sew-
age sludge dumping was confined entirely to the
New York and Mid-Atlantic Bights. By compari-
son, 1,783,600 tons of industrial waste were
ocean dumped, again mostly in the Mid-Atlantic
Bight. While 60,200 tons of industrial waste
entered the Gulf of Mexico or the Pacific Ocean
in 1978.
By far, dredged material accounts for the
greatest amount of ocean-dumped waste. If a
conversion factor of 1.43 tons per cubic yard is
applied, a total of 59 million tons of dredged
matrial was marine-disposed in 1977. Dredged
material disposal was distributed as follows:
20.7 mill ion tons -
18.0 million tons -
20.3 million tons -
Atlantic Ocean
Gulf of Mexico
Pacific Ocean
There has been no United States sea dispos-
al of low-level radioactive wastes since 1970.
However, four sites of previous low-level radio-
active waste disposal exist. Two of these are
in the Pacific, 40 and 50 miles off the coast of
San Francisco, and two are in the Atlantic, 120
and 200 miles off the coast of Maryland and
Delaware. Some European countries continue to
ocean dump radioactive waste, and Japan plans to
utilize sea disposal in the future.
Ocean incineration is a disposal process of
somewhat less concern than dumping. The Panel
had insufficient information to fully analyze
the significance of incineration. So far, ocean
incineration has been used primarily to dispose
of industrial waste. Since 1974, 34,443 metric
tons of organochloride wastes and 12,112 wet
tons of herbicide orange have been incinerated.
Deep ocean waste emplacement has been con-
sidered primarily as a disposal option for high-
level radioactive waste, but this activity is
prohibited by the Ocean Dumping Act.
Ocean outfalls comprise a large and diverse
category of disposal processes. Uncertainties
37
-------
in the inventory of outfalls arise from the lack
of information on location of outfalls and
inadequate computer files. Approximately two
billion gallons per day are discharged into the
territorial sea and the contiguous zone, and
some 170 municipal and 80 industrial dischargers
are contributors. Half of the total is contrib-
uted by four outfalls in California alone. In
addition to these, a far greater but less well
defined number of outfalls dispose a somewhat
smaller volume into the bays and saline estuar-
ies of the U.S. The total estimated flow is
3,500 MGO.
According to a recent EPA survey, "Economic
Impact Analysis of Ocean Discharge Regulations,"
the location and total MGD of ocean outfalls are
given by EPA region in the following list:
Region IX (California, Hawaii) - 1455 MGD
Region II (New York, New Jersey
Puerto Rico) - 225 MGD
Region IV (Florida) - 206 MGD
Region X (Pacific Northwest) - 24 MGD
Region III (Mid-Atlantic) - 5 MGD
Region I (New England) - 2 MGD
These figures do not take into account outfalls
discharging into bays and estuaries. (Power
plants are not included in the industrial cate-
gory, since most discharge into bays and estuar-
ies.) Section 301(h) of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act may include dischargers in
Alaska, Washington, Delaware, Virginia, Massa-
chusetts and Connecticut, which are not included
in the figures above. Some 133 municipal dis-
chargers produce total effluent of approximately
1,600 MGD, and industrial and other dischargers
produce effluent in excess of 400 MGD. The
level of treatment is not differentiated in
these data.
Among sources of riverine pollutants are
areawide runoff, salt brines from oil wells and
natural seeps, pollutants in industrial and
municipal wastewater, irrigation return flows,
stormwater overflows, and oil and hazardous
material spills. The Waste Disposal Panel was
concerned with riverine pollutants only to the
extent that they contribute to ocean pollution
and recognized some overlap with the Coastal
Development and Recreation Panel activities.
Value and Importance of Marine Waste Disposal
Features
Several physical, chemical and biological
features make the ocean a unique and valuable
resource for waste disposal. The surface area
of 361 million square kilometers and volume of
1370 million cubic kilometers offers space in
which to dispose of wastes without direct inter-
ference with other human activities. Because
water is kept in motion by the forces of the
earth's rotation and by wind and tidal forces,
waste entering oceans and nearshore waters is
transported away from the area, dispersed and
diffused. A large portion of the ocean floor
is at depths exceeding 10,000 feet. Near-
freezing temperature, immense pressure, stabil-
ity, and isolation may be valuable features for
the disposal of some forms of waste, but unsuit-
able for others.
The chemical composition of seawater, a 3%
solution of mineral salts, is significant to
waste disposal, because it augments the trans-
formation of many types of materials of natural
or synthetic origin into other forms available
for recycling through food and technological use
chains. The buffering capacity of seawater
allows strong acids and alkali to be assimilated
with only localized impacts on pH. Biological
characteristics favoring utilization of oceans
for disposal include the food value of certain
wastes for marine biota and capacity for biolog-
ical degradation as a means of waste treatment.
The oceans' assimilative capacity is large but
not infinite. Limitations on assimilative
capacity are dependent upon type of pollutants,
time, and other factors.
Environmental Quality Concerns
There are many concerns for environmental
quality involving marine disposal. The smother-
ing of bottom communities by large quantities of
solid, especially dredged material, is an
obvious concern. Pathogenic organisms can also
be introduced into the ocean. Changes in con-
centrations and speciation of toxic materials--
including carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens
in sediments—can give rise to subsequent con-
tamination of marine food chains, including sea-
food for human consumption.
Long-range impacts of dumping synthetic
toxic materials require special consideration.
Ocean dumping may be only one of many sources.
Accumulation of toxic substances over long
periods of time may ultimately degrade large
parts of the ocean despite its vastness. Poten-
tially, after perhaps hundreds of years, toxic
materials deposited in the deep ocean under a
"cold storage" regime can be mobilized and can
return to the biosphere via currents moving
toward the surface or via benthic organisms. As
in all environmental systems, there may be
effects on particularly sensitive biological
communities, such as coral. Radioactive waste
must be considered in many of the same ways as
toxic materials. There are possible health
effects if large volumes of nuclear waste result
in radionuclide transmittal through the food
chain to man. Sediment resuspension from off-
shore disposal sites is also possible.
Ocean outfalls present problems. They are
stationary and discharge into nearshore waters
where biological activity is high and where
their effects are most likely to compound those
of other human activities. Because they dis-
charge into nearshore waters, ocean outfalls al-
so have a more immediate effect on human activi-
ties such as fishing or water contact sports. A
significant potential for environmental damage
38
-------
exists from both short- and long-term effects.
Chemical properties of the receiving waters can
be altered and biological communities seriously
endangered. The effects can result either from
an influx of conventional pollutants at a more
rapid rate than can be assimilated by the ocean,
or by long-tern accumulation of pollutants. Tha
fact that effects of discharge are poorly under-
stood is exemplified by the controversy regard-
ing the relative sensitivity of estuaries as
opposed to the open ocean.
National Decision Processes Related to Marine
Waste Disposal
A considerable body of Federal laws and
regulations, as well as state laws, are concern-
ed with marine waste disposal directly or indi-
rectly. The Panel did not make an exhaustive
study of these laws, but in its discussions
attempted to highlight some examples of legal
constraints on the decision-making process.
The permit program for ocean dumping is
mandated by the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended. This
domestic legislation implements the internation-
al Ocean Dumping Convention. It regulates ocean
dumping, including incineration at sea and deep
sea emplacement of waste. Responsibility for
administration is shared by EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers (COE). COE is responsible
for issuing permits for ocean disposal of dredg-
ed materials, while EPA is responsible for issu-
ing permits for other than dredged materials,
for establishing criteria for ocean disposal,
and for designating disposal sites for all
materials.
Several aspects of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(FWPCA), relate to marine pollution. Section
402 requires point source dischargers of pollu-
tants to obtain permits to discharge. These may
be issued and administered by the state into
whose waters the pollutants are to be discharg-
ed, if that state has been given authority by
the EPA Administrator. The majority of states
have been delegated this authority. EPA review
rights may not be waived if the discharge is to
marine waters, and under 309 of FWPCA, EPA
retains the right to enforce the permit either
civilly or criminally. Permits almost univer-
sally require permittees to sample discharges
and report pollutant levels; they also require
that the permittee report compliance with sched-
ules for attainment of required effluent goals.
Permits to municipalities require that the
municipality control industrial discharges to
their systems. Permits may also be written for
aquaculture projects and sewage sludge dispos-
al.
Ocean outfalls are addressed in the FWPCA.
Section 301(h) requires publicly-owned treatment
works to conduct marine monitoring programs.
They must also satisfy a number of other
requirements as a condition for temporary exemp-
tion from the mandatory secondary-treatment
requirement, with exemptions to extend no longer
than 1983. The monitoring programs provide con-
tinuing documentation that the permit modifica-
tion is not causing adverse environmental
impacts in each specific case. Furthermore, it
will provide EPA with environmental observations
which, when assembled and evaluated, will aid in
decisions about whether the law should be chang-
ed or the exemption extended. Under Section
403(c), EPA will propose more stringent require-
ments for writing permits for ocean discharges
into territorial seas and beyond. Regulations
under Section 403(c) have not yet been promul-
gated. One possible regulatory approach will
require monitoring similar to that done for
ocean outfalls. It would be conducted so that
waivers could be received under Section 301(h)
and so that damage to the marine environment
could be identified by such monitoring and addi-
tional treatment prescribed.
With respect to regulation of dredged and
fill activities, permits are required under Sec-
tion 404 of the FWPCA and by the Rivers and Har-
bors Act. In traditional navigable waters, the
COE has responsibilities for dredge and fill
programs, while in other U.S. waters, the states
may be delegated the responsibility for the
deposition of dredged and fill material. The
role of EPA has been to provide an overview of
all permitting and to authorize states to
establish programs for traditional non-navigable
waters.
Other statutory authority relating to
marine waste disposal includes:
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act
--Sewage Treatment Construction Grants
Program
—Section 311
—Section 208 Planning
Sea Grant Program
International Treaties
Coastal Zone Management Act, Management
Plans
Deep Water Ports Act
OCS Lands Act
National Environmental Policy Act
Regulation of radioactive waste disposal to
oceans is primarily an EPA function. Regarding
low-level waste, EPA is required to establish
interim regulations by 1980 under the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA), as amended. These regulations are to
include acceptable criteria for site selection,
site designations themselves, packaging crite-
ria, a listing of potential classes of accept-
able waste, and an acceptable monitoring pro-
gram. Final criteria are due in 1983-85,
depending upon resources and manpower. In ful-
filling its responsibility, EPA must take note
of the Ocean Dumping Treaty to which the United
States is a signatory. Specific regulations for
sea disposal of radioactive wastes have been
promulgated by the International Atomic Energy
39
-------
Agency. That Agency has been designated the
competent international body in this field pur-
suant to Annex I of the Treaty. The Ocean Dump-
ing Treaty requires a minimum disposal depth of
4000 meters (recently changed from 2000 meters);
no dumping north of 50 degrees of N latitude or
south of 50 degrees S latitude; that all inland
seas, areas of trans-oceanic cables, known ener-
gy and mineral exploration areas and commercial
fishery areas are excluded. Release rate limits
and containment recommendations are included in
the treaty; predumping notification and consul-
tation procedures are also designated. EPA is
also the lead agency for a NEPA-required state-
ment on radioactive waste disposal. Ocean dump-
ing of high-level radioactive waste, including
sea bed emplacement, is prohibited under MPRSA.
The ocean dumping of high-level radioactive
wastes is similarly prohibited under the Ocean
Dumping Treaty.
Limiting Factors to Making Decisions Regarding
Marine Waste Disposal
As in other areas of environmental activi-
ty, the decision-making process is impaired by
factors relating to scientific and technical
understanding, and to economic and policy
issues. First of all, scientific knowledge is
lacking about actual effects of marine waste
disposal; the impacts of certain wastes need to
be defined and reversibility determined. The
assimilative capacity of the marine environment
is poorly understood, and comparative scientific
data is lacking about the relative impacts of
alternative methods and locations of waste dis-
posal and recycling. Most research focuses on
understanding fundamental processes and minimal
efforts have been undertaken for study on conti-
nental shelf areas where nearly all pollution
problems exist. Criteria for regulating dispos-
al of wastes in the ocean were originally set on
a "best guess" basis because of this lack of
knowledge. The regulatory approach is still
based largely on extrapolations from laboratory
test procedures to actual impacts on the marine
environment. Therefore, criteria used to phase
out dumping may actually be more stringent than
needed to protect the environment. The data
base necessary to analyze effects and fates of
riverine discharges is also inadequate.
The research has also been limited and
inadequate on such topics as the fate, behavior,
and effects of radioactive waste which has been
dumped. Pathways to man, deep sea current mea-
surements, sediment resuspension, core sediment
sampling, multiple-barrier approaches to con-
tainment, and bioassay techniques for radionu-
clides and toxic waste need further investiga-
tion.
The data base for evaluating and predicting
effects of ocean discharges is meager. Special
emphasis should be placed on baseline studies of
biological communities, effects of exposure to
pollutants on individual species, and physical
aspects of ocean discharges. Such studies
should account for regional variations result-
ing, on the one hand, from current, temperature,
topography and species type, and on the other,
the effects of particular pollutants discharged
in a given area.
Assessment of ocean dumping impacts is
especially compromised by a lack of scientific
knowledge, which is at a more elementary level
for dredged material than for any other current-
ly ocean-dumped waste. The gaps in knowledge
regarding ocean dumping are more scientific than
technological, whereas technological limitations
are greater with respect to better land-based
disposal. There are limitations on coastal and
inland engineering technology and management
controls required to minimize sediment movement
into navigation channels. Progress in this area
would reduce the need for dredging and subse-
quent ocean disposal of dredged material, as
well as limit non-point source discharges into
rivers.
Economic factors influence decision-making.
Alternative methods of disposal are almost
always more expensive than ocean disposal, and
in some cases, prohibitively so. Frequently,
land-based methods have environmental effects
which can be as deleterious as those of ocean-
based methods. The environmental and economic
costs of land-based and ocean disposal vary
according to the location. A mechanism for con-
sidering various alternative means of disposal
already exists in some cases (e.g., 201 facili-
ties planning process for ocean outfalls). Lack
of adequate data about environmental effects of
a method or location of disposal can, however,
reduce the validity of economic choices. In
addition, current policy regarding construction
grants for publicly-owned treatment works biases
a choice of alternatives toward relatively
capital-intensive solutions. The potential haz-
ards in the disposal of radioactive waste dic-
tate that economic considerations might—or
should—not be the primary determinant.
Several sociological factors impinge on the
decision-making process. No one owns the
oceans; therefore, marketplace realities do not
apply. There is considerable public skepticism
regarding reuse of sludge and wastewater.
Public perceptions of ocean disposal, how-
ever, are such that the ocean dumping alterna-
tive may not receive full consideration. Dis-
chargers do not necessarily bear the consequen-
ces of the impacts of ocean disposal; although
they reap the benefits, impacts are borne else-
where. Government jurisdiction over the oceans
is widely accepted.
The public perception of radioactive waste
disposal is such that it is necessarily treated
differently from other wastes.
Scientific constraints to be considered are
insufficient knowledge of marine ecological sys-
tems and insufficient information about relative
40
-------
environmental costs of ocean and land-based dis-
posal methods. Differences among regions com-
pound the problem. As a consequence, environ-
mental waste disposal decisions tend to be
influenced by whose "ox is being gored."
The policy, institutional, and legal j-ami-
fications are complex. Currently, land-based
alternatives are emphasized. Construction
grants policy presently favors a selection of
capital-intensive waste treatment alternatives.
Policy decisions should be made with a degree of
conservatism proportionate to the degree of risk
involved or the availability of information
about the consequences of the decisions. The
less information available or the greater the
potential risk, the more conservative should be
the chosen alternative. State and local laws
may limit alternatives for waste disposal. For
example, states currently prohibit nuclear waste
disposal within their borders, and state water
quality and land-use regulations limit alterna-
tives.
Several aspects of monitoring must be con-
sidered in the decision-making process. There is
a need for a consistent national methodology for
all studies. Standardized techniques for moni-
toring the marine environment and ecosystems are
needed so that relative effects in polluted and
nonpolluted areas can be determined. Good
science, defensible in court, and requirements
for chain of custody are legal aspects of the
monitoring problem. Continuous monitoring using
sealed recorders for parameters such as dissolv-
ed oxygen, pH, conductivity and temperature is
necessary. Calibration is a problem for such
systems. There is a need for better analytical
techniques. Though standards exist for trace
metals and petroleum hydrocarbons, laboratories
should, nevertheless, intercalibrate; and care
should be taken to prevent overlap and duplica-
tion in the development of analytical tech-
niques. ASTM should be of service in this area.
Guidelines and standards for monitoring should
be developed. Monitoring should be carried out
by an organization other than the discharger,
but funding should be by the discharger--
proportionate to volume or effects of waste dis-
charge.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To develop a rational program for ocean
pollution research, development, and monitoring
relative to marine waste disposal, one must:
1. Quantify regionally, and preferably
synoptically, the sources and rates of
addition of significant pollutants and
other materials which reach the marine
environment as a result of human activ-
ity.
2. Evaluate the effects of the quantified
materials on marine resources and uses
thereof. Included here is the evalua-
tion of the fates of the materials.
3. For materials which have greatest
actual or potential impact on uses of
marine resources, establish the quanti-
ties which will interfere with those
uses, both spatially and temporally.
In other words, establish the marine
environment's "assimilative" capacities
for those materials for beneficial
uses.
4. Develop the institutional framework
required to allocate assimilative
capacities among the various users of
the marine environment. Take into
account the scientific, political,
social, economic, technological, envi-
ronmental, institutional, policy, and
legal factors which are to be balanced
during the allocation process.
5. Contribute, through Federal programs,
to the public appreciation of the rela-
tive value and importance to society of
marine waste disposal activities and
their alternatives.
The research and development and monitoring
needs, prioritized for the four major sources of
marine pollution, are summarized below. Some
members of the Panel felt that determination of
persistence and bioavailability and development
of improved chronic toxicity and bioaccumulation
tests were high priority needs for all catego-
ries; thus, they chose to emphasize the health
implications.
NEEDS AND PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOP-
MENT AND MONITORING
Priority
HighMediumLow
Need
OD
OF
RI
OD
OF
R
RI
OD
OF
R
RI
OD
(High for
some sub-
stances;
Low, for
others)
OF
R
R
OF
OD
Evaluationofpotential
health effects of persistent
pollutants and nuclear waste;
evaluation of ocean pathways
to man.
Evaluation of the distribu-
tion and persistence of
pathogens and toxics pathways
back to man (carcinogens,
mutagens, teratogens).
Development of analytical
quality control methods for
use on a routine basis and
standardization of monitoring
techniques.
Determination of persistence
and bioavailability of syn-
thetic materials in the
marine environment, including
specific analyses of trophic
level transfers (food chain,
etc.).
Development of improved meth-
ods of continuous long-term
biological monitoring.
41
-------
Priority
High Medium Low Need
R5SCombined laboratory and field
OF bioassay studies to relate
present bioassay techniques
to field impacts.
R OD Development of improved
OF chronic toxicity and bioaccu-
mulation test procedures for
use in monitoring on a rou-
tine basis.
R RI OD Physical dispersion charac-
OF teristics, i.e., areas of up-
welling, currents, sediment
resuspension, velocity; long-
er term cycling of radioac-
tive material and other per-
sistent pollutants.
OD Improvement of technology for
incineration at sea.
RI OD Evaluation of limiting nutri-
OF ent species in particular
coastal areas.
R Development of isolating
media (impermeable to high
pressures, chemical dissolu-
tion).
OD Development of criteria for
assessing sediment quality
for routine use to determine
suitability of methods of
disposal.
Priority
High Medium Low
Need
R OD Development of acceptable
methods for seabed emplace-
ment of hazardous materials.
OD Development of public aware-
R OF ness programs.
RI
OD Development of feasible
OF methods for altering the
R volume and kinds of materials
RI reaching the ocean.
OD Monitoring of existing ocean
OF disposal sites according to
R requirements of the EPA ocean
RI dumping and site selection
criteria (40 CFR, Sections
227 and 228).
OD OF Evaluation of recovery rates
of impact areas.
KEY: OD = Ocean Dumping
OF = Ocean Outfalls
R = Radioactive Waste Disposal
RI » Riverine Pollutants
42
-------
SECTION 8
MINERAL RESOURCES
PANEL REPORT
PANEL MEMBERS
RICHARD BURROUGHS, Chairman
Marine Biology Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA
PETER E. BLAU
Petroleum Information Exchange
Washington, DC
JOHN A. BURGACHER
Shell 011 Company
New Orleans, LA
ED DANGLER
Ocean Minerals Company
Mountain View, CA
JOHN C. EMERICK
NOAA - Marine Ecosystems Analysis
Boulder, CO
NANCY G. HARDIN
United States Geological Survey
National Center
Reston, VA
GERALD D. RHODES
United States Geological Survey
National Center
Reston, VA
ELLEN WINCHESTER
Sierra Club
Tallahasee, FL
DON WOMACKS
Ocean Minerals Company
Chicago, IL
REBECCA L. WRIGHT
D1ckste1n, Shapiro and Morln
Washington, DC
BARBARA PIJANOWSKI, Rapporteur
NOAA - Office of Ocean Engineering
RockvUle, MD
INTRODUCTION
The Mineral Resources Panel adopted a vari-
ety of definitions or boundary conditions. In
discussing "ocean pollution," it chose to empha-
size deleterious anthropogenic activities, rath-
er than strictly adhering to to the definition
provided 1n the law, i.e., "any short-term or
long-term change in the marine environment."
Although the Great Lakes were to be includ-
ed 1n the Panel's deliberations, this Panel did
not survey pollution problems of the lakes in
detail. It did indicate, however, that taconlte
tailings In the Great Lakes may require special
research, development and monitoring activi-
ties.
The Panel also considered the question of
research into geologic hazards. While it is
only an indirect cause of ocean pollution, the
presence and effect of geological hazards are
extremely Important in the permitting process
governing extraction of mineral resources.
Inadequate understanding of geologic hazards may
result in the failure of mineral extraction
equipment which 1n turn may cause significant
marine pollution.
Finally, the Panel debated the distinction
between assessment, survey, mapping, baselines,
or benchmarks; and noted that baselines and
benchmarks are usually not sufficient to
describe or understand the environmental proces-
ses in specific geographic areas. Research, as
defined 1n the workshop documents, included sur-
veys, and therefore, an all-inclusive approach
seemed warranted. Needs were thus considered
1n the survey, experimentation and Investigation
areas.
Three kinds of mineral resources whose
extraction may cause ocean pollution were dis-
cussed: manganese nodules (ocean mining); oil
and gas; and sand, gravel and shells. There are
a number of other mineral resources whose
extraction may also cause ocean pollution, and
these should, therefore, be considered. A 11st
of those minerals might Include, but not be
limited to:
• Salt, bromine and Iodine (obtained
through evaporation)
• Gold, tin and diamonds (placer mining)
• Sulphur (Frasch process)
• Aluminum (electrolytic)
43
-------
• Manganese and sulfides (subsea crustal
mining)
• Carbonate sands and phosphates (shelf
mining)
• Fresh water (desalination)
One other operation which might be included in
the category of mineral resources is the strate-
gic storage of petroleum in salt domes, with its
resulting discharge of concentrated brines into
the ocean during filling of the storage caverns.
DESCRIPTION OF MARINE MINERAL RESOURCES
Level, Location and Value of Activity
Oil and Gas--
Oil and gas extraction occurs on all shores
of the continental United States. At present,
more than 3,400 leases, totalling 16 million
acres, have been issued. By the end of 1977
there were almost 8,000 operative wells on 2,200
offshore platforms. In addition, more than 100
mobile rigs were operating as far as 150 miles
offshore in depths to 2,000 feet. Future sales
can be anticipated, since less than 5% of the
potentially productive area of the DCS has been
leased. The total lease revenue in 1978 was
over $1 billion; subsequent royalties will be
substantially greater.
Deep Sea Mining--
Manganese nodules and crusts which contain
copper, cobalt, nickel and manganese are the
focus for this activity. They are found on sea-
beds throughout the world, in fresh and salt
water, primarily in areas beyond national juris-
diction. Commercially exploitable deposits,
however will be limited to the eastern equatori-
al Pacific in the foreseeable future. Although
commercial-scale mining is not expected to take
place before 1985, estimates of world reserves
are on the order of 1,700 billion metric tons.
The concentration of metals in some nodules may
be several hundred times their concentrations in
land-mined ores. Thus, if technological and
political barriers can be overcome, deep seabed
nodule mining can be an important activity to
the United States, both economically and strate-
gically.
Sand and Gravel--
Sand and gravel mining for beach stabiliza-
tion and construction aggregates occurs in
several nearshore areas throughout the country.
Most sand and gravel operations are located
along the Northeast and California coasts. The
volume of material recovered is projected to
increase from 44.5 to 82 million tons from 1973
to 1985 and to double again by the year 2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONCERNS
Potential pollution consequences can readi-
ly be seen through an explanation of the tech-
nology associated with each mineral extraction
process. The technologies and their potential
impact are available in a variety of reports
dealing with oil and gas or ocean mining.
NATIONAL DECISION PROCESSES RELATING TO MARINE
MINERAL RESOURCES
The principal users of research on ocean
pollution will be Federal and state agencies.
Other users include conservationists and indus-
try.
Department of Interior
USGS - manages oil and gas exploration,
development and production activities on the
outer continental shelf and provides the Bureau
of Land Management and other Federal agencies
geological and engineering advice and services
in the management and distribution of public
lands. It evaluates the probable environmental
impacts of exploration, development, and produc-
tion and prepares for circulation an Environmen-
tal Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with
the requirements of National Environmental Poli-
cy Act (NEPA). As part of its management func-
tion, it also consults with coastal states and
coordinates coastal state review of the onshore
and nearshore impacts of exploitation of mineral
resources. It prepares and distributes summary
reports of OCS oil and gas information designed
to assist state and local governments in plan-
ning for impacts of offshore oil and gas activi-
ties.
Bureau of Land Management - prepares a
defendable EIS for each proposed OCS lease sale.
This EIS forms the basis of the Secretary's
decision as to whether a sale should be made
final and with what limitations (removal of
environmentally sensitive tracts, mitigating
stipulations, etc.).
Fish and Wildlife Service - may need
research on the impact of OCS activities on the
biota, in order to comment on the adequacy of
the draft EIS.
Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA issues NPDES discharge permits
covering exploration and development activities
in the OCS. As part of this procedure, the
Agency prepares an Environmental Assessment.
Research may also contribute to assessments of
the adequacy of the draft EIS and to the pre-
paration of effluent guidelines.
Corps of Engineers
Before issuing a blanket construction per-
mit, the COE must prepare an Environmental
Assessment of any major activity. While this
assessment will be based largely on the EIS,
research in certain areas may be helpful in this
process.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
In addition to commenting on the draft EIS,
44
-------
NOAA is involved in coastal zone management
activities, deep seabed mining, environmental
and economic studies, and the preparation of
position papers relating to the protection of
designated marine sanctuaries. Such management
activities and subsequent limitations which may
be imposed upon industry would benefit greatly
from information gathered through improved
research, development and monitoring.
National PCS Advisory Board
This Board is composed of appropriate Fede-
ral agencies and representatives from the coast-
al states. Research may satisfy some of the
information needs of the affected states. It
has been proposed that this Board assume the
responsibility for selecting pipeline routes to
the shore. Thus, information on the impacts of
pipelines on the beaches, estuaries and marshes
would be extremely beneficial.
State Agencies
According to 30CFR 250.34, an Environmental
Report must be prepared by the lease holder
prior to the initiation of either exploratory or
development and production activities. This
must be approved by affected states.
Leaseholders
In addition to the Federal and state agen-
cies mentioned above, a secondary beneficiary of
research will be the oil and gas leaseholders.
If adequate research and monitoring information
is available to decision makers--
• Delays in the DCS leasing process may be
avoided
• Unnecessary lease stipulations and dis-
charge permit limitations can be elimi-
nated
• Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
can be more accurately and efficiently
prepared
In addition to the more specific informa-
tion needs detailed in the following pages, the
Panel discussed several issues that, while not
direct information needs, were felt to be
extremely important and should be considered in
the overall planning effort—among them, coordi-
nation of Federal marine pollution products and
accessibility of data.
A very high priority was placed on the need
for studies resulting in predictive models rath-
er than reports of existing conditions. With
this in mind, it was noted that perhaps some
consideration should be given to undertaking
hindcast studies, in much the same manner as
weather hindcasting, which has led to improved
weather forecasting.
With respect to oil and gas lease areas,
some assessments should be made about the impor-
tance of requiring biological studies prior to
lease sales. The high cost of carrying out such
studies before the area has proven to be oil
producing should also be considered. Addition-
ally, attempts should be made to coordinate
leasing schedules with research timetables.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Panel identified and assigned priori-
ties to a list of specific information needs for
DCS oil and gas activities and deep seabed min-
ing. Although some needs for sand and gravel
mining, desalination and salt dome extraction
were identified, the Panel felt it did not have
sufficient representation from these industries
to define precise requirements or set priori-
ties; and they strongly recommended that addi-
tional advice be sought from knowledgeable mem-
bers of those industries before the final plan
is formulated.
The Panel concluded that in the OCS oil and
gas area, the most pressing information needs
are related to catastrophic oil spills and
blowouts—particularly in the Arctic; determina-
tion of the effects of long-term, low-level,
chronic oil pollution; and the development of
bioassay techniques for on-site monitoring. In
the deep seabed mining area, the highest priori-
ty needs were related to assessing the effects
of the surface discharged sediment plume and the
necessity for shunting the discharge below the
euphotic zone. It is recommended that these
areas be carefully reviewed to determine the
timeliness and effectiveness of past and present
programs to provide the needed information in
these areas, and that the Federal Plan be
designed to address the identified needs which
are not now being met.
NEEDS AND PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOP-
MENT AND MONITORING
Relative
Priority
Information Needed
GENERAL INFORMATION NEEDS
(Relating to All Mineral Resources
Activities)
• Biological Effects
a) Determine long-term, low-level,
chronic effects through several
generations on the food chain
and eventual impact on man, ma-
rine mammals, fish and birds
b) Determine short-term, acute
effects on fish, man, marine
mammals and birds
c) Determine impact on fisheries
resulting from nearshore mine-
ral extraction activities,
including support services and
waste disposal
45
-------
Relative
Priority
Information Needed
d) Determine assimilative capacity
of receiving waters for dilut-
ing and removing wastes and
develop techniques for evalua-
tion of assimilative capacity
• Design of Information Gathering
Programs
a) Develop strategies for carrying
out and accumulating meaningful
data for ecosystem impact and
monitoring studies with empha-
sis on providing predictive
model s
b) Develop techniques and strate-
gies for relating lab studies
to field work. Emphasize field
studies whenever possible to
evaluate entire systems rather
than isolated components
c) Develop systems for making
existing scientific information
available in relevant and use-
ful forms so that public, state
and local concerned groups and
decision makers can access
usable information
• Support Development
a) Develop analytical instrumenta-
tion techniques and standards
for cost effective, reliable
trace metal and synthetic
organic measurements
b) Develop measurement and sampl-
ing strategies to obtain suffi-
cient, relevant, high-quality
data
c) Develop materials and equipment
testing concepts
d) Develop improved understanding
of materials sciences related
to toxicity of antifoul ants,
coatings, sealants, corrosion
products, metal dissolution and
outgassing, etc.
• Risk Analysis
a) Develop risk analysis and pro-
cedures as tools for decision-
making relative to environmen-
tal pollution. These techni-
ques should include the poten-
tial for human error, social
and economic factors, and eval-
uation of potential consequen-
ces for compromises consider-
ed
Relative
Priority
Information Needed
High
High
High
SPECIFIC INFORMATION NEEDS
011 and Gas
• Catastrophic Oil Spills and Blow-
outs--
a) Develop reliable models for
predicting oil spill trajec-
tories
b) Develop techniques for rapid
deployment of containment and
cleanup capabilities
c) Evaluate the environmental
acceptability of chemical dis-
persants for oil cleanup by
considering:
1) Short- and long-term
effects on ecosystems
2) Dispersants with minimal
negative impact
3) Guidelines or criteria
for selection of disper-
sants under various con-
ditions
d) Develop standardized strategies
and techniques for monitoring
the environmental effects of
spills so that ecological,
social and economic information
from different sites can be
Interrelated
e) Develop techniques for predict-
ing the effects of spills on
fisheries, particularly in the
highly-productive Georges' Bank
area, independent of natural
fluctuations
High
High
High
High
Medium
Low
• Special Information Needs for
Arctic Oil and Gas--
a) Determine the transport path
and effect of spilled oil under
1ce, particularly as it accumu-
lates in leads and brine ponds
with potential effects on
migrating marine mammals and
birds
b) Develop the capability to stop
blowouts immediately under
adverse weather and ice condi-
tions. If techniques for imme-
diate capping cannot be devel-
oped so that blowouts can be
capped before the winter ice
pack moves in, techniques must
be developed for capping blow-
outs under ice
c) Determine the strength of ice
against grounded objects
• Exploratory and Development Drill-
ing--
a) Determine the community-level
effects of discharged drilling
46
-------
Relative
Priority
Information Needed
Low
muds and drill cuttings on (1)
coral, (2) shellfish and shell-
fish spawning grounds, and (3)
benthic organisms and community
structure in the vicinity of
drilling platforms
b) Determine the transport path
and fate of drilling muds and
their chemical constituents
discharged under various ocean-
ographic conditions typical of
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and
Alaska lease areas:
1) Develop dispersion models
including the effects of
shunting to various depths
2) Determine uptake and bio-
magnification in food chain
organisms
3) Determine toxicity of chem-
icals used in drilling
muds
c) Evaluate alternative disposal
methods for drilling muds and
drill cuttings considering:
1) Storage and transport from
drill site
2) Technologies and need for
reconditioning or cleaning
muds
3) Onshore disposal
d) Determine fate and effects of
residual chlorine in cooling
water
Relative
Priority
Information Needed
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
High
• Production--
a) Determine chemical and biologi-
cal effects of structure place-
ment
b) Determine long-term effects of
brine discharges and small
chronic spills
c) Evaluate need for on-facility
deck drainage and brine treat-
ment in sensitive areas
d) Determine the fate and effect
of vented gas
• Transportation--
a) Assess the environmental impact
of pipeline construction on
beaches and wetlands and the
resulting disruption of biolog-
ical communities
• General--
a) Determine the effects of long-
term, low-level chronic pollu-
tion from spills, releases,
transportation, and production
on:
1) highly productive estuaries
and wetlands
2) highly productive fishing
areas such as Georges' Bank
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
High b) Develop predictive models for
long-term impact on food chain
and higher organisms
High c) Develop bioassay techniques and
identify test organisms for in-
situ monitoring
Medium d) Determine appropriate informa-
tion for geological considera-
tions prior to leasing:
1) geological hazards
fault recurrance
sediment instability
permafrost levels
ice gouging
sedimentary processes on
sea floor
Low e) Determine the relative impor-
tance of the bubble burst pro-
cess in transferring pollutants
to the air
Deep Seabed Mining
• Surface and Water Column Effects —
High a) Determine the fate and effects
of surface discharged sedi-
ments:
1) characterization of parti-
culate material with
respect to size distribu-
tion and chemistry
2) determination of physical
distribution of sediments
with time
3) determination of possible
pathways allowing bioaccu-
mulation or incorporation
into food chain of trace
metals
4} determination of effect of
discharge on photosynthe-
sis, ingest ion by fish and
zooplankton
High b) Evaluate necessity for shunting
discharge below euphotic zone
Medium c) Develop in-situ bioassay tech-
niques for use in the water
column
t Benthic Effects--
Medium a) Determine the biological signi-
ficance of abyssal benthic
environments, and the sensitiv-
ity of benthic biota to mining
activities
1) obtain inventory of organ-
isms disturbed by dredge
2) determine impact of dredge
on benthic organisms, i.e.,
masceration, covering by
sediment, having food sup-
ply covered by sediment
3) determine recolonization
rate of benthic biota
47
-------
Relative
Priority
Information Needed
b) Define physical area disturbed
by the dredge
1) depth of penetration
2) sweep efficiency
c) Define geological significance
and sensitivity of abyssal ben-
thic environments
d) Develop instrumentation for
better sampling and measurement
in the deep ocean environment
e) Develop in-situ bioassay tech-
niques
• Processing--
Medium a) Define viable processing op-
tions and identify the chemical
and physical properties of the
processing wastes
b) Determine fate and effect of
processing wastes disposed of
on land and at sea
• Overall Concerns--
Medium a) Develop predictive models con-
sidering ecologic, social and
economic factors for the long-
term global effects of
commercial-scale mining activi-
ties on the marine environment
Sand and Gravel Mining
• Determine Generic Dredging Effects
in Coastal Areas—
a) Characterize offshore sediment
dynamics for deposits of eco-
nomic importance
b) Determine effects of mining on
beach stability
c) Develop and refine sediment
dispersion models to predict
discharge plume advection and
dispersion
Relative
Priority
Information Needed
• Assess Potential Effects of Dredg-
ing—
a) Characterize toxic and nutrient
materials in sediment
b) Determine effects of toxic
materials on biota impacted
c) Determine effect of high-
suspended solids concentrating
on plankton, benthic organisms,
habitat destruction
t Determine Impact Resulting From On-
shore Storage of Recovered
Minerals—Leachates, Etc.—
Fresh Water Extraction: Desalination
• Evaluate Air Pollution Consequences
of Evaporation—
• Evaluate Consequences of Dike Fail-
ure Releasing Large Amounts of
Brine—
• Evaluate Alternatives for Salt
Residue Disposal —
Salt Dome Extraction
• Determine Effects on Marine Organ-
isms of Concentrated Brine Dischar-
ges—
48
-------
SECTION 9
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION
PANEL REPORT
PANEL MEMBERS
JOHN ARMSTRONG, Co-Chairman
Coastal Zone Laboratory
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
SAMUEL BLEICHER, Co-Chairman
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Conmerce
Washington, DC
EDWARD LINKY
Administrator
Office of Policy & Planning Analysis
New Jersey Department of Energy
SARAH CHASIS
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
New York, NY
JOHN KRUTILLA/ELIZABETH WILMAN
Resources for the Future, Inc.
Washington, DC
EDITH MCKEE
Consultant
Winnetka, IL
ERIC VAN LOON
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Environmental Affairs
Boston, MA
CATHERINE MORRISON
Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, DC
BOYD T. BASHORE, Rapporteur
Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, DC
INTRODUCTION
The Coastal Deavelopment and Recreation
Panel agreed that the following uses of the
coastal zone are of interest and should be fur-
ther considered within the scope of their dis-
cussions:
Beaches and recreational uses
Industrial and commercial uses
Urban uses
Recreational development
Agriculture and silviculture
The Panel agreed that the following were
major considerations and warranted development
of a matrix for discussion (Table 1):
Point sources of pollution
Non-point sources of pollution
Habitat alteration
Water diversion
Shore stability
Facility siting
Pollutant sources associated with the first
five categories and the significance of each of
these in different United States coastal regions
are shown in Table 2.
The Panel discussed regulatory officials
and the decision chain; and the following ele-
ments were mentioned:
t EPA-NPDES permitting process
• Corps of Engineers - Dredge and Fill
permits
• Land and water use decision-makers
- coastal zone programs
- local governments
• Federal land managers
• Financial assistance and development
programs
• Judiciary
Two principal limiting factors in the decision
process were identified; i.e., inadequate time
for research after issues arise, and inadequate
use of information in the decision process.
Possible approaches to solving the problem of
inadequate lead time for research are:
• Conduct research in anticipation of an
issue
• Delay making a decision on an issue
until adequate information is available
49
-------
TABLE 1. MODEL MATRIX OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION PANEL
FOR THEIR DISCUSSIONS OF INFORMATION NEEDS
"""" -^^^ Types of
Significa^:^^mation
Activities in """^^^^
Coastal Zone ^""""-^••^
1 . Point Sources of
Pollution Contamination
2. Non-Point Sources
of Pollution
3. Habitat Alteration
and Destruction
4. Water Diversion
5. Shore Stability
6. Siting
Scientific
Data & Info
Technology
Economic
Matters
Social and
Institutional
50
-------
TABLE 2. SIGNIFICANT POLLUTANT SOURCES IN COASTAL REGIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES
Drrinuc
North
POLLUTANT SOURCES Atlantic
Municipal Outfalls x
Industrial Outfalls x
Urban Runoff x
Agricultural Runoff x
Dredging Operations/Spoil
Disposal
Electric Power Generation x
Nearshore Mineral Mining
Nearshore Oil & Gas Development x
Port Operations/Tanker Discharges x
Recreational Activities x
South Gulf of
Atlantic Mexico
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
x x
x x
Great
Lakes California
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
Pacific Pacific
Northwest Alaska Islands
x
x
x
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
-------
• Conduct generic research that will be
useful for specific decisions
Environmental Impact Statements, information
from NPDES and other permit applications and
scientific government expertise should be relied
on more in the decision-making process.
SPECIFIC NEEDS BY ACTIVITY AND TYPE OF INFORMA-
TION
The Panel identified six general activities
in the coastal zone and four general types of
information for the model matrix in Table 1.
This section lists specific research, develop-
ment and monitoring needs for the combinations
of activities and information types shown.
Scientific Data, Information and Technology
Point Sources of Pollutant Contamination--
Point sources of pollution in the coastal
zone need to be inventoried for the following:
Domestic wastewater treatment plants
Industrial discharges
Septic system cleaners and other home
products
Landfill leachate
Energy facilities
Nearshore and offshore drilling and min-
ing
• Spills of oil and other hazardous mate-
rials
Wastewater effluents need to be sampled and
analyzed for:
Coliform bacteria
Oxygen-demanding substances
Nutrients (nitrogen)
Heavy metals
Microorganisms
Suspended solids
Others: virus, sediments
Synthetic organics
Models for transport of pollutants to
marine waters via the ocean and groundwater
underflow need to be developed. Data bases for
existing geologic and meteorologic conditions
are needed for these models; data needs include:
• Rock or sediment-forming land mass on-
shore and offshore
• Surface water and groundwater invento-
ries
• Erosion/deposition patterns
• Non-wind forces affecting currents
• Meteorologic data for nearshore current
patterns throughout water column includ-
ing:
- wind forces
- temperature
- other local factors which create,
accelerate or decelerate currents
Ecosystems of affected areas need to be
identified and described. Habitat requirements
of potentially affected species--i.e., food
chain, reproductive behavior, etc.--should be
delineated, as should the sensitivity of species
to pollutants and the regenerative capability of
ecosystems.
Non-point Sources of Pollution—
Non-point sources of pollution in the
coastal zone need to be inventoried for the
following:
Stormwater runoff
Animal wastes
Cesspools and septic tanks
Agricultural runoff
Boat discharges
Construction, site work activities
Sand and gravel mining
Rainwater
Leakage from sewer systems
Viruses in aquatic systems
The Panel recognized that obtaining reli-
able data on viruses is hampered by:
• Sampling difficulty
• Lack of standard methods for detection
and identification of species
• Lack of epidemiological data concerning
waterborne transmission of the many
viral groups.
The types of pollutants in need of
identification for non-point sources are:
Coliform bacteria
Nutrients
Heavy metals
Suspended sol ids
Pesticides
Fertilizers
Pathogens
Oil and grease
Models for transport of pollutants need to
be developed for:
• Groundwater flow to marine waters
• Filtration through soils and uptake in
plants
• Hydrologic cycle: precipitation, evapo-
transpiration, recharge to groundwater,
runoff
• Ocean transport (see Point Source Sec-
tion)
• Nearshore transport—flushing action of
bays and estuaries
• Coastal - ocean exchange
Ecosystems of affected areas need to be
identified and described. Habitat requirements
of threatened species and their sensitivity to
pollutants should be delineated. The regenera-
tive capability of ecosystems needs more
research.
52
-------
Habitat Alteration and Destruction-
Two types of habitat alterations with dif-
ferent research needs have been identified:
wetlands and offshore habitat alterations.
Wetland
habitat alteration—Potential
sources need to be inventoried; examples are:
• Filling of wetland areas for the siting
of residential, commercial or industrial
development
• Dredging and spoil operations, channeli-
zation, creation of new inlets, pipeline
construction, bulkheading
• Inland water diversion projects affect-
ing stream flow into marshes, bays and
estuaries; i.e., stream augmentation,
irrigation
• Thermal pollution by power plants
The following direct impacts of the altera-
tions should be identified:
• Loss of wetland area, loss of habitat,
loss of storm absorptive capacity, loss
of filter capacity
• Alteration of salinity regime
• Alteration of water levels, construction
of nutrients, chemicals, etc.
• Alteration of temperatures
• Behavioral alteration of species; i.e.,
destruction of nesting habits due to
pipeline construction, etc.
Transport model and ecosystem-effect
research needs are the same as those for non-
point pollution sources.
Alteration of offshore habitat—Potential
sources of offshore habitat alteration need to
be inventoried. These include:
• Artificial islands and reefs
• Floating power plants
• Oil rigs and production platforms
Direct impacts of alterations need to be,
identified and located; specific examples are:
• Changed current patterns
• Loss of habitat space, spawning and
feeding areas
• Artificial reef effects on the distribu-
tion of species
• Effects on migratory patterns of marine
species
Water Diversion--
Water diversion activities in the coastal
zone and the attendant research needs are dis-
cussed in the habitat alteration and shore sta-
bility sections.
Shore Stabil ity—
Structures used to stabilize a shoreline
need to be identified and described; examples
include groins, piers, jetties, seawalls,
riprap, revetments, bulkheading, breakwaters,
construction on or in front of primary dunes,
structure on shore bluff faces. The impacts of
off-the-road vehicles on shorelines need to be
determined. Attention to shore drainage pat-
terns is needed.
The direct impacts of any alterations on
normal coastal erosion, as well as instability
and the loss of storm absorptive capacity, need
to be identified.
Techniques are needed to describe the
effects of currents and waves on coastal beaches
and bluffs and to estimate rates of erosion.
Interactions of erosion, shore structures, and
use-patterns need to be determined. Data bases
for existing geological, meteorological and bio-
logical conditions of shorelines are needed;
specific examples are:
• Surface and subsurface characteristics
of rocks and sediments comprising shore
and offshore ground mass, including sand
bars or reefs
• Dynamic characteristics of along-shore
currents and waves related to beaches,
bars, erosion
• Rain/snow precipitation patterns
• Wind patterns
• Wind-generated waves and currents
• Vegetation - providing protection from
wind and rain
Ecosystem-effects needs for shore stability
activities in the coastal zone are the same as
those for habitat alteration needs
Siting—
The scientific data information and tech-
nology requirements relative to siting are
reflected in the following sections:
t Point sources of pollution contamina-
tion
• Non-point sources of pollution contami-
nation
• Habitat alteration and destruction
The Panel recognized the visual aesthetics
of a power plant and other types of facilities,
but did not consider the issue in detail.
Economic Matters
Coastal and marine environments are centers
for many services which have no market price,
but which, nevertheless, have economic value.
To make benefit-cost comparisons, consistent
economic values for these services are needed.
A basic question is: What are the costs of
pollution compared with the costs and benefits
of pollution control?
The types of unpriced environmental ser-
vices that can be affected by point source pol-
1ution are:
53
-------
Recreation
- beach activities
- fishing
- boating
Human Life Support
- clean air for breathing
- clean water for drinking
Aesthetic Appreciation
Marketable Goods
- fisheries resources
Value must also be attached to our desire
to maintain certain aspects of the environment
in their current state, for instance, wildlife
species and wetlands. In order to determine
whether any or all of the above categories would
be impacted severely by pollution the following
questions need to be answered:
• What environmental services are current-
ly being used in a coastal area?
• Are there potential future uses (i.e.,
aquaculture) which would be precluded or
made less efficient by the impact in
question?
Social and Institutional
Basic research questions for all six uses/
activities in the coastal zone include:
• What are the current legal and institu-
tional mechanisms for dealing with pol-
lution and impacts from these uses/
activities? Example mechanisms for
point sources of pollution are EPA-NPDES
permitting system and land and water use
decision officials (coastal zone pro-
gram, local governments, Federal land
management programs and financial assis-
tance development programs). Examples
for habitat alteration and destruction
are wetlands legislation, coastal-zone
management legislation, local land-use
legislation, and Estuarine Sanctuaries
Program
• In economic terms, regulation attempts
derive the greatest social value from
our coastal and marine resources. To
what extent do the current regulating
mechanisms achieve this, i.e., in
appropriate regulations, monitoring,
programs, enforcement?
• What new institutional mechanisms might
be proposed to help achieve a more
socially valuable combination of uses of
coastal and marine resources? For
example, the current institutions cannot
deal with non-point source pollution.
• How do these affect research and data
collection efforts?
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Physical, Biological and Chemical Research Needs
Pollutant Discharges--
Methods need to be developed for estimating
existing and future pollutant discharges (parti-
cularly synthetic organics, heavy metals and
fossil fuel compounds) by region from the fol-
lowing prioritized sources:
Priority
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Source
Municipal outfalls
Industrial outfalls
Agricultural runoff
Urban runoff
Dredging operations and spoils dispo-
sal
Electric power generation
Nearshore mineral mining
Nearshore oil and gas operations
Port operations and operational tank-
er discharges
Recreational activities
Regional significance of these pollutants is
presented in Table 2.
Transport and Fate--
Empirical and analytical techniques (in-
cluding models of physical, chemical and biolog-
ical processes) that relate pollutant discharges
from multiple sources to ambient conditions and
exposures are needed. Prioritized needs for
transport and fate models are shown below:
Priority
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Model
Models for synthetic organics
Models of heavy metals, particularly
organometallic speciation
Models of fossil fuel compounds
Models of radioactive materials
Models of microorganisms
A state-of-the-art assessment of transport and
fate models, uncertainties involved in their
use, and a survey of applications would be par-
ticularly helpful to coastal zone managers.
Effects-
Information on the effects of pollutants
from all listed activities and of ambient envi-
ronmental quality on human health and welfare,
marine organisms, and marine ecosystems is need-
ed. Particular emphasis is placed on low-level,
long-term, chronic, cumulative effects. Speci-
fic research needs and their priorities are:
Priority
High
High
Medium
Research Need
Determination of human health effects
of microorganisms and synthetic
organics entering the marine food
chain
Evaluation of indicator organisms and
test procedures for detecting micro-
organisms, fossil fuel compounds,
heavy metals and synthetic organics
in coastal waters
Determination of the relationship
between microorganisms (primarily
from sewage sludge and dredged
54
-------
Priority
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Research Need
spoils) and recreational water users
Determination of the relationship
between physical modifications (e.g.,
dredging, channelization) of the
coastal environment and marine eco-
systems and processes
Determination of the effects of
altered hydrologic regimes (e.g.,
salinity changes) on coastal ecosys-
tems and processes
Evaluation of the reversibility of
pollution-related changes to coastal
ecosystems and processes
Determination of the ecosystem
effects of oil spills and operational
discharges in Arctic environments
Identification of particularly pollu-
tion-sensitive ecosystem components
Determination of the variability of
natural and polluted ecosystem by
region, space and time, identifying
relevant scales of these processes.
Economic and Institutional Research Needs
Economics--
Estimates of the costs, benefits and risks
associated with potential actions is of direct
value to management decision-making and to
devising alternative pollution control strate-
gies. Costs of alternative pollution control
strategies, the distribution of costs geographi-
cally over time and among demographic groups,
and the benefits of goods and services whose
production might be subject to control for envi-
ronmental purposes must be studied. Specific
needs are:
• Development of methods for estimating
the value of environmental services of
the coastal region, e.g., as a living
resource habitat, as a receptacle for
waste disposal, as a recreation
resource, as an aesthetic resource,
etc.
• Development of economic damage functions
relating time and spatial patterns of
ambient concentrations of pollutants to
resulting impacts on receptors--humans,
marine organisms — in physical, biologi-
cal and economic terms (the latter typi-
cally unavailable, but critical for
pollution control purposes). Examples
include amounts of oil on beaches relat-
ed to losses in recreational values or
levels of pesticides in coastal waters
related to losses in wetland or fisher-
ies values
• Development of methods for assessing the
costs of pollution control versus bene-
fits derived; examples include: the
costs of reducing the probability of
tanker oil spills relative to the recre-
ational benefits derived or the costs of
reducing ocean dumping discharges com-
pared to the fishing benefits
• Refinement of methods to predict spatial
and temporal distribution of both land-
based and offshore economic activities
in coastal regions, particularly mineral
development, energy development and pro-
duction, and recreation
• Refinement of methods to predict second-
ary impacts (physical, biological and
economic) of major coastal and offshore
development projects (e.g., deepwater
ports, LNG facilities, onshore process-
ing facilities required for deep ocean
mining). For example, the special prob-
lems that arise when large-scale devel-
opment takes place in a relatively
undeveloped area (e.g., Alaska) need to
be assessed
• Determination of the economic incentives
which can be used to ensure rational
development of ocean resources. For
example, economic incentives (e.g., mar-
ketable discharge rights, effluent char-
ges) that minimize coastal pollution
need to be discovered, and the adminis-
trative costs of using economic incen-
tives versus more traditional regulatory
tools (permits, licenses) need to be
assessed
Institutions--
Institutional research must have two dis-
tinct orientations: (1) technology transfer by
decision-making institutions and agencies is
needed; and (2) analyses of the effectiveness of
decision-making institutions and their programs
are needed. The Panel cited the following spe-
cific needs and priorities:
• Pollution Management models structured
so that legislators and public execu-
tives get the information they desire,
i.e., information on effects, costs and
benefits—and their distribution rela-
tive to constituent groups of interest.
What model structures facilitate commu-
nications among decision-makers?
• Ocean pollution decision-making systems
which are assessed from the standpoint
of their ability to analyze each
decision-maker's attitude toward risk.
What investments in information develop-
ment would narrow the range of uncer-
tainty for the whole set of decisions to
be made?
• Effective processes for making fundamen-
tal decisions about levels of ocean pol-
lution that balance risks with tradi-
tional goals of economic welfare. What
problems exist with legislative struc-
tures, the changing nature of adminis-
trative laws, the role of the courts in
reviewing actions of executive agencies,
the jurisdictional level at which pollu-
tion control decisions are made?
• Documentation on the performance of
existing institutions in terms of
addressing issues, e.g., regional fish-
eries management councils, state CZM
55
-------
programs, state water pollution control
agencies
Analyses of the effectiveness and costs
(both direct and indirect) of existing
pollution control programs, e.g., dredg-
ing permits programs, state NPDES pro-
grams, wetland protection programs. How
is performance of these programs measur-
ed? How is enforcement carried out?
What sanctions exist for violations?
Investigations of new institutional
structures (or modifications in existing
ones) that will enable better management
of coastal and marine resources
56
------- |