" /  United States
        j  Environmental Protection
           Office of
           Research and Development
           Washington DC 20460
May 1979
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

                   OF THE
               AND MONITORING
          NOVEMBER 14 TO 16, 1979
              AND MONITORING

     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

     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.

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


Number                                                                  Page



                                              SECTION 1


     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.


     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
      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.

     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.

      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

         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

         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-

         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.


     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
     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-


     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
      •  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-

     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

     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.


     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.


     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
     •  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


     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

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.


     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

     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
     •  Development  of  public  awareness  pro-
     •  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

     Research  and  development   needs  were  not
clearly  distinguished  from  monitoring  needs,
which  reflects the  interrelationship  of these


     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

     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


                                             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

     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-

     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

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

     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

     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-

     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-

     "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)

     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.

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

     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-

     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

     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

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-

     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
     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.


                                              SECTION  4

                                   ENERGY GENERATING SYSTEMS
                                            PANEL  REPORT

DR. JAMES I. JONES, Chairman
Director, Mississippi-Alabama
Sea Grant Program
Ocean Springs, Mississippi

Brookhaven National Laboratories
Upton, New York

ETS Program Manager
Department of Energy
Washington, DC

Charleston, South Carolina

Office of Policy and Planning, NOAA
Washington, DC


     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

     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

     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.

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

     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
     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-

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-

 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

     Chemical  effects may  result from any of  the

     •  Use of biocides to reduce system fouling
     •  Low-level   irradiation   and   chemical
        changes in nuclear systems
     •  Chemical discharges from geothermal sys-
     •  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

     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

     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

     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

     Sociological  limiting  factors—These  may

     •  Public   perception   of  the   risks  of
        fossil-    and     nuclear-fueled    power
        generating technologies
     •  Public reaction  to  power  pricing conse-
        quences  of  environmentally  beneficial
     •  Basic public attitudes toward power con-
        sumption  and  the amount  of  time neces-
        sary for attitudinal change
     •  "Boom-town"  effect during system  con-

     Scientific   limiting  factors—These   may

     •  Ecological,  oceanographic  and  meteoro-
        logical   effects  of  redistribution  of
        great  quantities  of  ocean  water  (10
        times  as  much  as  conventional  power
     •  Effects of chlorine discharged as a bio-
     •  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
     •  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:
        Coastal geothermal
        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


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-

     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
         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

         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

     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-
     •  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-

     •  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.
Rank (1-7)
         Information Need
  1   6.7
  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-

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

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

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-

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

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

Determine  the  overall  environmental
effects  of  a  chemical   production
OTEC  plant  (as opposed  to  electric
transmission  plant).    (Note  that
limits for electric  transmission are
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-

            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

            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

            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
                                                        23   5.1
                                                        24   5.1
                                                        25   5.1
                                                        26   5.1
                                                        27   4.9
                                                        28   4.9

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
 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

 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-

 41    3.9   Measure  the   effect  on  the  marine
            biota  (pelagic)  due  to  entrapment/
            impingement/containment   properties
            of OTEC.
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

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-

49   3.5   Determine  the environmental effects
           of  releasing the effluents  and  con-
           taminants   resulting   from   membrane
           cleaning   (salinity   gradient   pro-

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

52   3.0   Determine the "reef"  effect  of  ocean
           turbines  and  associated  (similar)

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

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.

                                              SECTION  5

                                          LIVING RESOURCES

                                             PANEL  REPORT

ROY MARTIN, Chairman
National  Fisheries Institute
Washington, DC

Director, Environmental Conservation Division
Northwestern and Alaska Fisheries
Seattle, Washington

Assistant Secretary for Resources Management
Department of Natural  and Economic Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina

Vice President for Research
National Food Processors Association
Washington, DC

Executive Director
Shellfish Institute of North America
Baltimore, Maryland

Pacific Biomarine Laboratories
Venice, California

University of Rhode Island
Kingston, Rhode  Island

National Marine  Fisheries Service, NOAA
Washington, DC


     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-

     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
     •  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
     •  Determination   and evaluation  of effects
        of  changes—both acute  and chronic—on
        components,  processes  and  fluxes  that

        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-

     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-

     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.


     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
     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


     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-

     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-

      •   The   toxicity  and  persistence  of  the
      •   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.


     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

      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.


      Living resources are menaced  most  inten-
 sively  by  the  following  processes  in the  envi-

      •  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.

     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

     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

     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-
     •   Increases   in  air    pollution   burden
         (S02,   NOX,   particulates,   hydrocar-
     •   Shoreline  modifications   resulting  in
        loss of habitat; e.g., loss of wetlands,
        and    increases    in   turbidity    and

     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

     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-

     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-

     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

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

     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.


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).

     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).

     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.

     This  program  would take five  years.

     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-

     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

     EPA  would  use  it  as  an  enforcement  tool;
NOAA for  ecosystem  research  alert;  industry for
identification of research and treatment needs.

     This program would take two years to imple-

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
     •  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

     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

     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.

     All  laboratories  performing  marine pollu-
tion monitoring would require this  assurance.

     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.

     Marine  pollution   specialists  wishing   to
predict the  real  inpact  of pollution  on living
resource communities would  have  a  need for  com-
munity bioassays.

     The  program  would  take  three  years   to

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.

     All  researchers  in  marine  pollution  would
need to calibrate analytical methodology.

     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

     Negotiating  teams.

     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.

     All pollution monitors.


     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:

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
   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-
  11       4.3   Effect of  losses  of quality  and
                 productivity of  land resources
  12       4.0   Need  for  analytical  reference
  13       3.8   Minimization   of   any   damage
                 caused  by  resource  harvesting


                                               SECTION  6

                                       MARINE TRANSPORTATION

                                              PANEL  REPORT

 WILLIAM 0.  GRAY,  Chairman
 Exxon Corporation
 New York, NY

 Commander,  U.S.  Coast Guard
 Washington,  DC

 Center for  Law and Social  Policy
 Washington,  DC

 ECO,  Inc.
 Annapolis,  MD

 Office of Technology  Assessment
 U.S.  Congress,  Senate Annex
 Washington,  DC

 Policy and  Planning
 The Transportation Institute
 Washington,  DC

 Director, Policy  and  Planning
 Transportation  Institute
 Washington,  DC

 JOSEPH  L. VALENTI, Rapporteur
 Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
 Washington,  DC


      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.


Hazardous  Substances Spills from  Marine   Trans-
 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
Processes   Related
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.

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-

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
     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
     •  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.
National Decision
     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
     •  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,

        February  1978)
        - improvements  inspection  and  certifica-
        - improvements  vessel  construction  and
     •  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
     •  Oil Pollution Act Amendments of 1966  (PL
     •  Intervention  on High  Seas Act  (PL  93-
     •  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-
     •  Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972
     •  Ports and Tanker Safety Act  of 1978  (PL

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.


     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-

     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

     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,

and local governments inhibit progress.
     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.

   Profile Projection of Marine Trans-
   port                                   High

   Identify for All Cargoes:
   - Volumes
   - Location (Routes, Ports)
   - Type Vessel(s) Used  Size, etc.

   Trend analysis for identifying
   future problems

   Data Acquisition:
   Government, - Much raw data
   Industry      available
               - Little digested
               - Com./DOT/DOE et al,
               - Associations/COS

   Impact                                 High

   Identify for All Cargoes:
   -  Hazard(s)  to Personnel
   -  Hazard(s)  to Marine Environ
   -  Possible Traffic Impact
   -  Air Quality
   -  Other Industries

   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
   Substances  - Some data on short-
                 term effects
               - NIL data on  latent
               - 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


•  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


•  Profile of Various STD/Requirements    High

   - Education
   - Training
   - Experience
   - Manning
   - Certification

Degree of Implementation/

Owner/Crew Relationship

- Familiarity
- Continuity
- Motivation

Reasons for Failures

- Human Error
- System Error

   - Normal Operations
   - Emergencies

•  Pilots

   - Training
   - Regulation


•  Site Selection for Certain Cargoes

•  Reception Facilities

•  Onshore vs. Offshore Terminals

•  Litering

•  Air Emissions

•  Port/Channel/Bridge Configuration
   and Location/River Dikes


•  Current Predictions

   - Accuracy/Availability

•  Weather Data

   - Arctic
   - Other areas


t  Vessel  Traffic Service

   - Evaluation
   - Future Needs
   - Various Levels

•  Language

•  Electronic Navaids

   - Satnav
   - Loran/Decca
   - Omega
   - Collision Avoidance  Aids

                                          Hi gh






                                         Med i urn


t  Charts                                 High

•  Traffic Separation                    Medium

•  Rules of the Road                     Med i um

   - Evaluate Colreg '72

•  Short-Range Navaids                   Med i um


•  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







                                               SECTION  7

                                       MARINE  WASTE  DISPOSAL

                                             PANEL REPORT

 RICHARD  C.  BROWNE,  Esquire, Chairman
 Washington, DC

 E.I. DuPont de Nemours  and Company
 Wilmington, DE

 Waterways Experiment Station
 U.S. Army Corps of  Engineers
 Vicksburg, MS

 Temple,  Barker and  Sloane, Inc.
 Wellesly  Hill, MA

 Center for Law and  Social Policy
 Washington, DC

 National Wildlife Federation
 Washington, DC

 Environmental Protection Agency
 Washington, DC

 Department of Justice
 Washington, DC

 Environmental  Protection Agency
 Washington, DC

     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

 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

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
     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

 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

     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-

     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

     Other   statutory   authority   relating   to
 marine waste disposal  includes:
     •  Federal Water  Pollution Control Act
        --Sewage Treatment Construction Grants
        —Section 311
        —Section 208  Planning
        Sea Grant Program
        International  Treaties
        Coastal Zone Management Act, Management
        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

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-

      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

     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

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-

     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-


     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-
     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
     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

     (High for
     some sub-
     Low, for
    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

    Determination  of  persistence
    and  bioavailability   of syn-
    thetic  materials   in   the
    marine environment, including
    specific analyses of  trophic
    level  transfers  (food  chain,
Development of improved meth-
ods  of  continuous  long-term
biological monitoring.

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-

 OD                Development  of criteria  for
                   assessing  sediment   quality
                   for routine  use  to determine
                   suitability  of   methods   of
High  Medium  Low
  R            OD  Development   of   acceptable
                   methods  for  seabed  emplace-
                   ment of hazardous materials.

 OD                Development  of  public aware-
  R     OF         ness programs.

 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

                                              SECTION  8

                                         MINERAL  RESOURCES

                                             PANEL  REPORT

Marine Biology Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA

Petroleum Information Exchange
Washington, DC

Shell 011 Company
New Orleans, LA

Ocean Minerals Company
Mountain View, CA

NOAA - Marine Ecosystems Analysis
Boulder,  CO

United States Geological Survey
National  Center
Reston, VA

United States Geological Survey
National  Center
Reston, VA

Sierra Club
Tallahasee, FL

Ocean Minerals Company
Chicago,  IL

D1ckste1n, Shapiro and Morln
Washington, DC

NOAA - Office of Ocean Engineering
RockvUle, MD


     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-

     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

     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)

     •  Manganese  and  sulfides  (subsea  crustal
     •  Carbonate  sands  and  phosphates  (shelf
     •  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.


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-

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.


     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.


     The principal  users  of  research  on ocean
pollution  will  be  Federal  and  state  agencies.
Other users  include conservationists and indus-

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-

     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

National  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

      In addition to commenting on the  draft  EIS,

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.

     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
     •  Unnecessary  lease  stipulations  and dis-
        charge permit limitations can  be elimi-
     •  Environmental  Impact  Statements  (EIS)
        can  be more accurately  and efficiently

     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.

     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.
Information Needed
          (Relating to All Mineral Resources

          •  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

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

             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
             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-
Information Needed



          011 and Gas

          •  Catastrophic Oil  Spills  and  Blow-
             a)  Develop  reliable   models  for
                 predicting  oil  spill  trajec-
             b)  Develop  techniques  for  rapid
                 deployment  of containment  and
                 cleanup capabilities
             c)  Evaluate    the   environmental
                 acceptability  of  chemical dis-
                 persants  for  oil  cleanup  by
                   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-
             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
             e)  Develop techniques for predict-
                 ing  the effects  of  spills  on
                 fisheries,  particularly  in the
                 highly-productive Georges' Bank
                 area,  independent  of  natural
          •  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
             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-
             a)  Determine  the  community-level
                 effects of  discharged drilling

           Information  Needed
       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
       3)  Determine toxicity of  chem-
           icals   used   in   drilling
   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
       3)  Onshore disposal
   d)  Determine  fate  and  effects  of
       residual  chlorine  in  cooling
                                                                  Information Needed
•  Production--
   a)  Determine chemical and biologi-
       cal effects of structure place-
   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
       1)  highly productive estuaries
           and wetlands
       2)  highly  productive  fishing
           areas such as Georges'  Bank
 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-
                  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
                  4}   determination  of effect   of
                      discharge  on  photosynthe-
                      sis, ingest ion  by  fish and
High          b)   Evaluate necessity for shunting
                  discharge below euphotic  zone
Medium        c)   Develop in-situ  bioassay  tech-
                  niques   for  use   in  the  water
          t  Benthic Effects--
Medium       a)  Determine the biological signi-
                 ficance   of  abyssal   benthic
                 environments, and the sensitiv-
                 ity of  benthic  biota to mining
                 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

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-

          •  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
Information Needed
                                             •   Assess  Potential  Effects of  Dredg-
                                                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

                                             •   Evaluate  Alternatives   for   Salt
                                                Residue Disposal —

                                             Salt Dome  Extraction

                                             •   Determine Effects on Marine  Organ-
                                                isms of Concentrated Brine  Dischar-

                                              SECTION 9

                              COASTAL  DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION

                                             PANEL  REPORT

Coastal Zone Laboratory
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI

Deputy Assistant Administrator
Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Conmerce
Washington, DC

Office of Policy & Planning Analysis
New Jersey Department of Energy

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
New York, NY

Resources for the Future, Inc.
Washington, DC

Winnetka, IL

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Environmental Affairs
Boston, MA

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


     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-
        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
     •  Land and water use decision-makers
        - coastal  zone programs
        - local governments
     •  Federal land managers
     •  Financial   assistance   and   development
     •  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
     •  Delay  making  a  decision  on  an  issue
        until adequate information is  available

"""" -^^^ Types of
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
Data & Info



Social and


                   OF THE UNITED STATES
Municipal Outfalls x
Industrial Outfalls x
Urban Runoff x
Agricultural Runoff x
Dredging Operations/Spoil
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
Lakes California



Pacific Pacific
Northwest Alaska Islands


     •  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.


     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
        Landfill leachate
        Energy facilities
        Nearshore and offshore drilling and min-
     •  Spills of oil and  other  hazardous mate-
     Wastewater effluents need to be sampled and
analyzed for:
        Coliform bacteria
        Oxygen-demanding substances
        Nutrients (nitrogen)
        Heavy metals
        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-
     •  Erosion/deposition patterns
     •  Non-wind forces affecting currents
     •  Meteorologic  data  for  nearshore current
        patterns throughout water column includ-
        -  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

Non-point Sources of Pollution—
     Non-point  sources  of   pollution   in  the
coastal  zone  need  to  be  inventoried  for  the
        Stormwater runoff
        Animal wastes
        Cesspools and septic tanks
        Agricultural runoff
        Boat discharges
        Construction, site work activities
        Sand and gravel mining
        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
        Heavy metals
        Suspended  sol ids
        Oil  and grease
      Models  for transport of pollutants  need  to
 be  developed for:

      •   Groundwater  flow to  marine waters
      •   Filtration   through  soils  and  uptake  in
      •   Hydrologic  cycle: precipitation,  evapo-
         transpiration,  recharge to groundwater,
      •   Ocean transport  (see  Point  Source  Sec-
      •   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

Habitat Alteration and Destruction-
     Two types of  habitat  alterations  with dif-
ferent  research  needs  have  been  identified:
wetlands and offshore habitat alterations.
habitat    alteration—Potential
sources need to be inventoried; examples are:

     •  Filling of wetland  areas  for the siting
        of residential, commercial or industrial
     •  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,
     •  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

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

     The scientific  data  information  and  tech-
nology  requirements   relative   to   siting   are
reflected in  the following sections:

     t  Point  sources  of  pollution  contamina-
     •  Non-point sources of pollution  contami-
     •  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:

        - 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

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
     •   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?


 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:



Municipal outfalls
Industrial outfalls
Agricultural  runoff
Urban runoff
Dredging operations and spoils dispo-
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:


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.

     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:

                        Research Need
Determination of human health effects
of   microorganisms   and   synthetic
organics  entering  the  marine  food
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







            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

     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,
     •  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

     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

programs, state  water pollution control
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