ocean disposal
OF BARGE-DELIVERED
LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES
FROM U. S. COASTAL CITIES
-------
-------
ocean disposal
OF BARGE-DELIVERED
LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES
FROM U. S. COASTAL CITIES
This publication (SW-19c) was written for the
Solid Waste Management Office
by DA VID D. SMITH and ROBERT P. BROWN
Applied Oceanography Division,
Dillingham Corporation, La Jolla, California
under Contract No. PH 86-68-203
Agency.
LV
1 i . •. • ^" 1 j'o
Chicago, Illinois 6Q6Q6
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Solid Waste Management Office
1971
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
An environmental protection publication
in the solid waste management series (SW-19c).
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402- Price $1.25
Stock Number 5502-0035
-------
FOREWORD
WHAT GOES INTO THE SEA is everybody's business. At present, solid and
liquid wastes are being shipped to sea for disposal in such quantities that marine
disposal has become an important subject for investigation. These barged wastes
are the ones that would place a heavy burden on the land if they were discharged
to community sewer systems, to streams, or to the land surface, and thus are
those for which the cost of sea disposal is accordingly attractive.
With increasing restrictions on air and water pollution, and as land disposal
activities are upgraded, communities and industry have been looking more to the
sea for ultimate disposal of their wastes. On contract to the Federal solid waste
management program, the Dillingham Corporation has completed a baseline
survey of the subject. This study provides an inventory of: the composition,
amounts, and origins of wastes regularly transported by ships or barges to
offshore disposal areas from principal U.S. coastal cities; the characteristics of
disposal areas and observed effects of waste disposal on the marine environment;
the Federal, State, or municipal agencies currently responsible for regulation and
surveillance of present disposal activities; recommendations for activities to be
undertaken in the area.
This is just the beginning of a body of information that must be accumulated
and studied before we will know whether or not we can use the ocean as a waste
receptacle and still protect it as a resource. The opinions expressed by the
authors, as well as mention of any commercial products, in no way imply
endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-RICHARD D. VAUGHAN
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste Management
ill
-------
CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Objectives 1
Approach 1
Special Review Panel 2
Acknowledgements 2
II. CURRENT MARINE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS 3
Description of Wastes 3
Dredge Spoil 3
Industrial Wastes 3
Refinery Wastes 3
Spent Acids 3
Pulp and Paper Mill Wastes 4
Chemical Wastes 4
Oil Drilling Wastes 4
Waste Oil 4
Sewage Sludge 4
Refuse 4
Radioactive Wastes 4
Construction and Demolition Debris 4
Military Explosives and Chemical Warfare Agents 4
Miscellaneous 4
Location of Disposal Areas 5
Selection of Disposal Areas 5
Disposal Methods and Cost 5
Dredge Spoil 9
Industrial Wastes 9
Refuse and Garbage 12
Sewage Sludge 12
Construction and Demolition Debris 14
Military Explosives and Chemical Warfare Agents 14
Radioactive Wastes 15
Miscellaneous Wastes 20
Tonnage of Current Disposal Operations 20
Dredge Spoil 20
Industrial Wastes 22
Refuse and Garbage 22
Sewage Sludge 22
Construction and Demolition Debris 23
Military Explosives and Chemical Wastes 23
Radioactive Wastes 23
Miscellaneous Wastes 23
References 23
HI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF BARGING WASTES TO SEA 25
Observed Effects of Waste Discharge Operations 25
Dredge Spoils 25
Bottom Sediment Buildup 25
Turbidity 25
Industrial Wastes 27
Waste Acid 27
Paper Mill Wastes 29
Chemical Wastes 29
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 29
iv
-------
Page
Waste Liquor 30
Ammonium Sulfate Mother Liquor 30
Sodium Sludge 31
Pesticides 31
Drill Cuttings and Drilling Muds 31
Waste Oil 32
Discussion 32
Sewage Sludge 32
Refuse 33
Radioactive Wastes 34
Military Explosives and Chemical Warfare Agents 38
General Considerations 38
Principal Areas of Environmental Research Needs 39
Baseline Environmental Data 39
Laboratory Studies of Waste Toxicity 39
Fate of Wastes and Effects on the Biota 40
Waste Dispersion 40
Effects on the Biota 40
Possible Beneficial Uses of Solid Wastes in the Marine Environment 40
Introduction 40
Artificial Habitats for Fish 40
Fishing Pressure 40
Lack of Natural Habitat 41
Current Status 41
Availability of Potentially Suitable Solid Waste Material 41
Estimated Costs 45
Other Beneficial Uses of Solid Wastes 46
Surfing Reefs 46
Floating Breakwaters 46
References 46
IV. MONITORING OF MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS 51
Regulatory Monitoring 51
Current Status 51
Record Keeping 51
Inspection 51
Environmental Monitoring 52
Current Status 52
Technical Aspects of Monitoring 52
Variability of Disposal Operations 53
Baseline Studies 53
Operational Aspects of Enforcement Monitoring 54
Delineation of Disposal Areas 54
Inspection of Disposal Operations 54
Research Needs Associated with Monitoring 55
Regulatory Monitoring Needs 55
Environmental Monitoring Needs 56
References 57
V. INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 59
Summary of Trends 59
Last Twenty Years 59
Future Trends 60
Municipal Wastes 60
Refuse 60
Sewage Sludge 60
Industrial Wastes 60
Institutional Factors in Sea Disposal 60
Regulation and Enforcement 61
Problem Areas 61
Legal Aspects 61
Documentation of Existing Disposal Operations 62
Evaluation of Environmental Effects 63
Recommendations 64
References 64
APPENDIX A. STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRE 65
APPENDIX B. CHARACTERISTICS OF MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS .. 69
-------
Page
Atlantic Coast Disposal Areas 71
Pacific Coast Disposal Areas 74
Gulf of Mexico Disposal Areas 76
APPENDIX C. THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND SOLID WASTES 81
Introduction 81
Physical Oceanography 81
Distribution of Temperature, Salinity, and Density 81
Water Masses 82
Ocean Currents 82
Density Currents 83
Wind Stress Currents 83
Tidal Currents 83
Wave Induced Currents 84
Turbidity Currents 85
Some Observations of Bottom Currents 85
Importance of Currents 85
Stirring and Mixing 85
Geological Oceanography 87
Continental Borders 87
Continental Shelf 87
Continental Slope 89
Submarine Canyons 89
Deep Ocean 89
Trenches 89
Sedimentology 89
Deposition, Transportation, and Erosion 90
Erosion and Depositional Features 90
Flocculation of Fine Grained Sediments and the Nepheloid Layer 91
Interaction with the Benthos 92
Areas of Known Marine Geology 92
Chemical Oceanography 92
Factors Affecting Seawater Composition 94
Major and Minor Constituents 94
Gases in Solution 94
Nutrients 94
Radiochemistry and Isotopes 94
Oxidizing Environments 94
Reducing Environments 95
Biological Oceanography 95
Marine Plants 95
Marine Animals 95
Food Chain 96
References 97
APPENDIX D. WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT-A
LITERATURE REVIEW 101
Water Quality Requirements 101
Physical Parameters 102
Chemical Parameters 103
Biological Parameters 103
Species Diversity Indices 104
Bioassays 104
References 105
APPENDIX E. LEGAL ASPECTS OF WASTE DISPOSAL AT SEA 109
General Statement 109
Current Authorization Procedures 109
Existing Legal Framework 110
International Law 110
Current International Law Applicable to Actual Waste Disposal Ill
Current Federal Laws 113
State Laws 116
California 116
New York 116
Louisiana 117
Washington 117
VI
-------
Page
Agencies Involved in the Administration of Statutes Governing the Disposal of
Wastes at Sea 117
International Agencies 117
Federal Agencies 118
Department of the Army 118
Department of Interior 118
Department of Commerce 118
Department of Transportation 118
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 119
Department of State 119
State Agencies 119
Conclusions 119
FIGURES
1. Pacific Coast disposal areas 6
2. Atlantic Coast disposal areas 7
3. Gulf of Mexico disposal areas 8
4. Seagoing hopper dredge Langitt 9
5. Waste disposal barge Sparkling Waters 11
6. Acid disposal barge 11
7. Sea disposal of barreled sodium sludge 13
8. Loading garbage aboard a U.S. Navy Y-G scow 14
9. Sewage sludge disposal barge 15
10. Loading construction demolition debris aboard hopper barges 16
11. U.S. Navy CHASE vessel scuttled in the Atlantic Ocean 16
12. Method used to package radioactive wastes for sea disposal 17
13. Partially crushed drum resting on the bottom 20
14. Schematic presentation of the considerations which should be made in evaluating
the suitability of any marine locale as a receiver of nuclear wastes 36
15. Kelp bass and sheephead investigating a recently dropped automobile body in a
man-made fishing reef off California 42
16. Remains of an automobile body used to construct an artificial fishing reef after
four years of submergence 42
17. Kelp bass and black perch attracted to recently dumped quarry rock 43
18. Experimental reef designed to test the effectiveness of utilizing artificial algae
(plastic strips) as a means of allowing full utilization of the water column by the
fish 43
19. Black sea bass and various marine invertebrates attracted to a discarded tire in 70
feet of water off Jacksonville, Florida 44
20. A 30-by40-by48-inch bale of refuse weighing about one ton before implantation
for observation in 45 feet of water off Sandy Hook, New Jersey 44
21. Method used to implant junked cars 45
22. The variation of temperature and salinity with depths for an area in the vicinity of
the Hawaiian Islands 82
23. The Ekman spiral showing the effect of surface winds on drift currents 83
24. Orbital motion in waves 84
25. Well developed longitudinal ripple marks showing bottom currents 86
26. Diagramatic cross section illustrating relationship of major continental border and
oceanic features 88
27. Hjiilstrom curves showing approximate regimes for erosion, transportation, and
deposition and the relation of particle size to stream velocity 91
28. Present state of knowledge of the geology of the continental shelves of United
States 93
29. A generalized representation of the food chain or food web 96
TABLES
1. Number of Marine Waste Disposal Areas (By Region and Waste Type) 5
2. Average and Reported Range of Costs per Ton for Marine Disposal of Wastes in
U.S. Coastal Waters, 1968 10
3. Summary of U.S. Navy Chase Disposal Operations, 1964-1968 18
4. Summary of Type, Amount, and Estimated Costs of Wastes Disposed of in Pacific,
Atlantic, and Gulf Coast Waters for the Year 1968 21
5. Polluted Dredge Spoils 22
6. Total U.S. Sea Disposal of Radioactive Wastes (1946 through 1967) 23
7. Duplicate Sites 27
8. Summary of Environmental Studies on Industrial Waste Discharged at Sea 28
9. Marine Disposal Tonnages by Region in Five-Year Periods from 1949-1968 59
10. Depth and Areas of Major Bathymetric Ocean Divisions 87
vii
-------
SUMMARY
In 1968, approximately 62 million tons of wastes
were disposed of in the ocean at an estimated cost of
$37 million. Most of this was spoil from U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' harbor dredging operations,
which accounted for more than 52 million tons and
$23.5 million. Industrial waste tonnage and costs
ranked second with 4.7 million tons discharged at a
cost of nearly $8 million. Sewage sludge was third
with 4.5 million tons at $4.4 million (all tonnages are
on a wet basis).
During the period June 1968 through October
1969, the Dillingham Corporation conducted a field
and literature study on the oceanic disposal by barge
of solid and liquid wastes from 20 United States
cities. This work was carried out under contract (PH
86-68-203) with the Solid Waste Management Office,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Objectives of
the study were to inventory present disposal prac-
tices, evaluate regulatory monitoring and available
information on environmental effects, summarize the
legal framework within which the operations are
conducted, to identify problem areas, and to make
appropriate recommendations.
The 20 cities considered in the survey included
Seattle, Portland (Oregon), San Francisco, Los
Angeles, San Diego, Galveston, Texas City, Houston,
Port Arthur, Beaumont, New Orleans, Pascagoula,
Mobile, St. Petersburg, Charleston, Norfolk, Balti-
more, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.
In addition to the specific waste categories indi-
cated above, refuse and garbage accounted for 26,000
tons; construction and demolition debris—574,000
tons; outdated military explosives and chemicals-
15,200 tons; and miscellaneous-200 tons. There was
no sea disposal of radioactive wastes from the United
States in 1968, although European nations still use
this method. The United States resumed the disposal
of radioactive wastes in 1969.
Of the waste categories studied, the industrial
discharges are the most significant. In 1968, these
included 2.7 million tons of waste acid; 560,000 tons
of refinery wastes, 330,000 tons of pesticide wastes;
140,000 tons of paper mill wastes; and 940 tons of
other materials. Although most industrial wastes
originate from the coastal areas, increasing amounts
from interior areas of the Nation are barged to sea.
More than half the total pesticide wastes originate
within the Mississippi Valley, and one proposal was
made for the marine discharge of industrial wastes
from the upper Ohio basin in West Virginia.
Unit costs of disposal range from $0.20 per ton for
dredge spoil to $600 per ton for miscellaneous
wastes. Sewage sludge was disposed of for $0.80 to
$1.20 per ton ($18 to $27 per ton dry weight).
Industrial waste costs ranged from $0.60 per ton for
bulk shipments to $130 per ton for containerized
wastes.
The environmental consequences of barging wastes
to sea are not known, although a few pioneer efforts
have been made to determine short-term effects of
industrial discharges, and major studies are currently
underway to evaluate long-term consequences of
marine disposal of sewage sludge. Certain inert waste
materials may be used to advantage in water; dis-
carded automotive bodies and tires have been used
for artificial fishing reefs. It has been proposed that
other structural uses of solid wastes be investigated,
including artificial islands, breakwaters, and offshore
bars (the latter to develop breakers and improve
surfing). The rather speculative suggestion that baled
municipal refuse could provide both shelter and food
for marine fish has been made; experience with
environmental damage near the sewage sludge
dumping grounds in the New York Bight indicates
that much research, development, and demonstration
is required before this method of recycling waste
materials could be considered on a significant scale.
The recycling of materials is becoming accepted as
a national goal that would conserve all resources,
including environmental ones. Meanwhile, coastal
communities have the immediate problem of in-
creasing solid waste disposal requirements and in-
creasing competition for funds. Until recycling be-
comes a reality, many of these communities may look
to the sea for disposal, and the potential effects of
proposed discharges therefore must be known.
Vlll
-------
Monitoring and data management for present
marine disposal operations are unsatisfactory because
of lack of funds, personnel, and clear-cut responsi-
bility. There is existing legislation that provides for
regulating waste disposal activities resulting in pollu-
tion within the terr'lorial sea and inland waters of
coastal States. There is, however, no provision for
specific procedures to control and enforce disposal
requirements beyond the 3-mile limit. Within the
provisions of existing inadequate law and regulation,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides such
guidance as exists. There are variations in effective-
ness in controlling barge disposal of wastes in
different Corps of Engineer districts. These result
from inadequacies in Federal law. The formation of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in De-
cember 1970 provides hope for control and guidance
in the area of marine disposal.
In order to conserve and utilize the environmental
and other resources of the sea, it is recommended
that:
1. The Federal Government, in conjunction with
the coastal States, evaluate existing conven-
tions, treaties, laws, and regulations pertaining
to marine waste disposal and adopt appropriate
legislation and regulations to establish an effec-
tive legal framework.
2. The Federal Government establish uniform
application and review procedures for marine
waste disposal permits and minimum standards
for baseline surveys, monitoring procedures,
and related data management and dissemi-
nation.
3. The Federal Government support and partici-
pate in environmental research leading to
effective functional designs and operating cri-
teria for beneficial or nondamaging disposal of
wastes into the marine environment and to
specifically probe those items known to cause
environmental problems.
4. The Federal Government support engineering
research, development, and demonstration of
marine waste disposal systems, those classes of
wastes which do not damage the environment.
This should include optimization of materials
handling, processing, and transportation facili-
ties and monitoring systems and procedures.
IX
-------
-------
ocean disposal
OF BARGE-DELIVERED
LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES
FROM U.S. COASTAL CITIES
THIS REPORT summarizes the results of a field
survey of twenty U.S. coastal cities to appraise the
national status of oceanic disposal of solid wastes and
industrial sludges from ships and barges. The work
was carried out by the Applied Oceanography Division
of the Dillingham Corporation during June 1968 to
October 1969, under contract with the Solid Waste
Management Office, EPA. The inventory of solid
wastes and industrial sludges included construction
and demolition debris, dredge spoils, sewage sludge,
and spent acids. The cities considered in this inven-
tory were Seattle, Portland (Oregon), San Francisco,
Los Angeles, San Diego, Galveston, Texas City,
Houston, Port Arthur, Beaumont, New Orleans,
Pascagoula, Mobile, St. Petersburg, Charleston, Nor-
folk, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.
BACKGROUND
In general, disposal of waste materials at sea begins
with an application to the District Office of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. This application is then
circulated by the Corps to the other Federal (and, in
some cases, State) agencies concerned with various
aspects of water quality, including public health,
recreation, fisheries, etc., for review and comment. If
the various agencies are reasonably agreeable, the
Corps issues a "letter of no objection," which, in
essence, is an authorization to undertake the disposal
operation. In addition, the Corps may specify certain
regulatory procedures to be followed in connection
with the proposed disposal activities. This process will
be radically changed when applications are screened
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Because of increasingly strict water and air pollu-
tion laws, the loss of land areas now used for solid
waste landfill and ponding of liquid wastes and the
anticipated growth in population and industry within
our coastal cities over the next 10 years, it can be
predicted that the disposal of wastes at sea will
increase materially or be stopped in the future. In this
regard, some major cities (including San Francisco
and Philadelphia) have already shown substantial
interest in proposed programs for sea disposal of
municipal refuse; such considerations may be com-
pletely altered by regulations from the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the study were: (1) to de-
termine the nature and magnitude of present
oceanic disposal practices from major U.S. coastal
cities; (2) to evaluate what is known regarding the
effects of these wastes on the marine environment,
and particularly, the biota; and, (3) to summarize
the legal framework under which these disposal
operations are carried out; (4) to determine the
status of regulatory monitoring of these opera-
tions; (5) to identify those aspects of marine
disposal which are problem areas and make
appropriate recommendations.
APPROACH
Because of the key position of the Corps of
Engineers, initial contact points were the various
District Offices of the Corps. Interviews with the
1
-------
District Offices' personnel responsible for issuing
"letters of no objection" provided background infor-
mation on marine disposal operations in their re-
spective areas of control. This background informa-
tion provided the basis for planning and carrying out
a series of interviews with waste producers, disposal
operators, and pertinent municipal, State, and
Federal agencies. A comprehensive questionnaire
(Appendix A) regarding marine waste disposal activi-
ties was utilized as a guide for conducting and
recording each interview. Integrity of proprietary
information was maintained. For large industrial
firms producing wastes destined for sea disposal, the
usual procedure was to carry out an initial interview,
leave a copy of the questionnaire (or mail it to the
industrial firm) for subsequent completion and re-
turn. This procedure was useful because the indi-
viduals interviewed generally did not have the details
of the disposal operations immediately available. With
few exceptions, questionnaires handled in this fashion
were completed and returned with a minimum of
delay.
SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL
In order to insure an objective evaluation of the
results of the Dillingham city-by-city field survey
program, the Applied Oceanography Division ar-
ranged a one-day special panel meeting in La Jolla,
California, on 17 July 1969, where representatives of
regulatory and resource agencies, the research com-
munity, various interested industrial firms, and the
Bureau of Solid Waste Mangement reviewed the
findings. The specific objectives of this meeting were
to critically evaluate each of the principal classes of
wastes currently being discharged in U.S. coastal
waters in terms of: engineering and economic ac-
ceptability of present disposal methods; present
status of environmental monitoring to determine the
effects that the wastes have on the marine environ-
ment; status and effectiveness of regulation and
surveillance of present disposal operations. In addi-
tion, the panel was to recommend areas in which
additional information and research are required. The
results of discussions on present concepts, practices,
and problems associated with marine disposal of the
various classes of wastes are incorporated in the
appropriate chapters of this report.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In a national study of this type, it is not possible
to acknowledge all the individuals, agencies, and
organizations that provided information and assis-
tance to the Dillingham staff during the course of this
work. The following organizations were particularly
cooperative: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, U.S.
Public Health Service, National Oceanographic Data
Center, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and the
National Academy of Engineering. Many State and
municipal organizations also participated. Robert C.
Baxley of the legal firm Jones, Baxley, Crouch and
McCarty of San Diego, was responsible for preparing
the section on legal aspects (Appendix E).
In addition to the above, the writers acknowledge
the following individuals for their cooperation or
participation and for the information they supplied
so willingly during the course of the study: Jack
Balsamo, Charles Bulla, Leonard Burtman, David
Clark, John Clark, Dr. William D. Clarke, Clarence C.
Clemmons, Fred H. Dierker, Alfred Fernandes, F. H.
Freiherr, Richard Grigg, Dr. M. Grant Gross, Charles
G. Gunnerson, J. E. Hollis, Dr. Edward R. Ibert,
LCDR Charles W. Koburger, Jr., Dr. Alan Longhurst,
Dr. Robert H. Meade, John Merrell, M. Miskimen,
Dennis O'Leary, Dr. Jack Pearce, Capt. Walter
Putnam, W. E. Reece, Alan H. Rice, J. H. Rook, E. H.
Shenton, Harvey F. Soule, Dr. Jerome E. Stein, Dr.
Lyle St. Amant, Frank C. Small, Richard Stone,
Charles Turner, Dr. Lionel A. Walford, and Robert H.
Wuestefeld. The Solid Waste Management Office of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wishes to
thank Capt. James L. Verber, Food and Drug
Administration, Public Health Service, U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, for his
careful review of, and certain revisions to, the
manuscript and his compilation of Appendix B.
-------
II. CURRENT MARINE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
The major objective of this investigation was to
inventory major classes of wastes being barged to sea.
These findings were summarized in topical discussions
of a description of the various major types of waste, a
summary of the principal offshore disposal sites; a
discussion of disposal methods, amounts, and costs.
DESCRIPTION OF WASTES
Wastes currently being transported aboard barges
and ships for disposal at sea from the U.S. coastal
cities surveyed have been summarized into seven
major categories and ranked according to total
volume: (1) dredge spoil, (2) industrial wastes, (3)
sewage sludge, (4) refuse, (5) radioactive wastes, (6)
construction and demolition debris, (7) military
explosives and chemical wastes, and (8) miscel-
laneous.
For detailed information regarding the characteris-
tics and problems associated with the disposal of
these wastes, the reader should consult the following
references: American Petroleum Institute, Revelle
and Co-Workers, Tarzwell, Moss, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Coast Guard, Kurak, Sax, California
State Department Public Health, Burd, and Sittig,
National Academy of Sciences, and American Burd,
and Sittig, National Academy of Sciences, and
American Chemical Society.1"15
Dredge Spoil
Dredge spoil consists of sediments containing
various concentrations of alluvial sand, silt, clay, and
municipal or industrial waste sludges dredged to
improve and maintain navigation channels. It is these
sludges which put the Corps of Engineers into the
municipal and industrial waste disposal business,
giving the Corps a responsibility neither within its
charter nor desired by that agency. Most of the
dredging operations are conducted by the Corps with
seagoing hopper dredges. These spoils are normally
disposed of in open coastal waters generally not more
than three to four miles from the dredging site.
Industrial Wastes
Industrial wastes originate from a variety of
manufacturing and processing operations including
petroleum refining, steel and paper production, pig-
ment processing, insecticide-herbicide-fungicide
manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, oil-well
drilling operations, and metal finishing, cleaning, and
plating processes, as well as many others. A brief
description of several types of industrial wastes
currently being disposed of at sea follows.
Refinery Wastes. Wastes from petroleum refining
operations are produced during the chemical refining
processing used to extract various products from the
crude oil. These include spent caustic solutions,
sulfuric acid sludges, dilute process water solutions,
spent catalysts, petrochemical wastes, and chemical
cleaning wastes. In many cases solid wastes, such as
spent clay, catalysts, and sludges are slurried with
liquid chemical wastes for disposal at sea.1"3 The
spent caustics and acid sludges also contain varying
amounts of contaminants including: sulfides, sulfates,
phenolates, napthenates, sulfonates, cyanides, heavy
metals, mercaptides, chlorinated or brominated
hydrocarbons, and other organic and inorganic com-
pounds.
Spent Acids. Large quantities of spent sulfuric acid
and ferrous sulfate are produced by steel mills. The
acid, or "pickle liquor," is usually withdrawn from
the operation and disposed of when one-half or
two-thirds of the acid is converted to ferrous sulfate.
Typical wastes contain up to 7 percent free acid and
up to 30 percent ferrous sulfate. In recent years some
steel mills have converted a portion of their pickling
operations to hydrochloric acid which has resulted in
reduced volumes containing spent hydrochloric and
sulfuric acids.
Another major waste results from titanium pig-
ment manufacturing in which the ore, with iron as a
principle impurity, is digested with sulfuric acid. The
wastes include the liquor with 7 to 9 percent free
sulfuric acid and 8 to 10 percent ferrous sulfate and a
mud slurry with 15 to 20 percent inert solids.
-------
Pulp and Paper Mill Wastes. Pulp and paper mill
wastes include the organic constituents of wood being
pulped, dissolved salts from the digestion process,
undigested pulp, and fibers that escaped processing.
Depending on the process, the wastes may contain a
sulfate cooking solution (calcium, magnesium or
ammonia), "black liquor" (sodium hydroxide, sul-
fide, sulfate) and organic constituents including
lignin, hexose and pentose sugars.
Chemical Wastes. Chemical manufacturing, chemi-
cal laboratories, metal cleaning finishing and elec-
troplating processes, and a variety of other industrial
operations all produce a host of complex waste
chemicals. These include murcuric or arsenical com-
pounds, organic acids, pesticide chlorinated hydro-
carbons, alkalaes, anilines, cyanides, and other highly
toxic substances. Chemical industry wastes are parti-
cularly complex in their composition and behavior.
Oil Drilling Wastes. Oil-well drilling wastes dis-
posed of at sea consist primarily of drilling muds
containing barite and diatomaceous clays and cuttings
(rock chips) from the drill hole. This type of waste is
physically similar to dredging spoils.
Waste Oil. These wastes consist principally of oil
sludge that remains after any re-refining process. In
the case of oil tankers, the wastes are oil residues
resulting from tank cleaning operations (butter-
worthing). Sources of waste oil are numerous, diverse,
and include service stations, ship tanks, tank cars, etc.
At present, the Oil Pollution Control Act of 1961
restricts the disposal of these wastes at sea to areas
beyond the 50-mile limit.
Sewage Sludge. Total solids in sewage include large
and small suspended particles as well as matter in true
solution. The weight of these solids is usually 0.03
percent or less of the total sewage solution by weight.
Solids are removed and treated by screening, grit
removal, primary sedimentation, final sedimentation,
anaerobic digestion and thickening. Thickened
sludges currently being disposed of at sea from barges
generally range between 3 to 5 percent solids by
weight.
Refuse
The survey revealed that only limited disposal
of refuse and garbage at sea occurs. These wastes
originate primarily from canneries and from com-
mercial and naval vessels. Cannery wastes consist
of ground fruit pits, skins, etc., and are disposed
of on a seasonal basis. The composition of vessel
refuse depends on the type of vessel, geographic
location, and season, and consists of varying-
amounts of food, paper, plastics, metal, glass, and
similar wastes.
Radioactive Wastes
The nuclear energy industry produces high activ-
ity, intermediate activity, low activity, and so-called
nonactive wastes. Activities range from hundreds of
thousands of curies per gallon for high activity wastes
to microcuries per gallon for low activity wastes.
Solid wastes include contaminated laboratory or
process equipment, clothing, and other items. Be-
tween 1946 and 1967 the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) disposed of limited quantities of
solid packaged radioactive waste materials at desig-
nated disposal sites in the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans. In most cases these wastes were packaged in
weighted 55-gallon drums. Most of these wastes are
now disposed of on land. Nuclear vessels regularly
discharge low-level liquid coolant wastes at sea under
strict AEC regulations.
Construction and Demolition Debris
Typically, these wastes consist of masonary, tile,
stone, plastic, wiring, piping, wood, and excavation
dirt. At the present time, the only sea disposal of this
type of waste is from New York City.
Military Explosives and Chemical Warfare Agents
This category includes unserviceable or obsolete
ammunition such as shells, mines, solid rocket fuels,
propellents, agents. Until 1964, the disposal of
explosives was conducted primarily from barges and
ships. Since then, gutted World War II Liberty ships
have been utilized, being sunk with the wastes aboard
in water depths greater than 6,000 feet.
Miscellaneous
Included in this category are various types of
rejected or contaminated products, such as food-
stuffs, appliances, small batches of toxic wastes
(usually barreled) such as pesticides and complex
chemical solutions. Wastes in this category are usually
disposed of in small lots, and records regarding their
disposal are difficult to obtain as the disposal
operations are not often sanctioned by any regulatory
agency.
-------
Location of Disposal Areas
During the Dillingham study, 281 ocean areas
designated for the disposal of wastes were identified.
Data on locations and characteristics of these sites for
Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf coastal waters were identi-
fied (Appendix B) when the regional distribution of
disposal areas for the principal waste categories was
summarized (Table 1).
TABLE 1
NUMBER OF MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS
(BY REGION AND WASTE TYPE)*
Disposal areas
Waste type
Dredge spoil
Industrial waste
Sewage sludge
Refuse
Radioactive waste
Explosive and chemical
ammunition
TOTAL
(no duplicates)
Pacific
15
9t
0
3t
lot
19t
54
Atlantic
83t
15f
2
0
25t
19t
135
Gulf
63
16
0
0
2
11
92
Total
161
40
2
3
37
49
281
* Revised and updated by James L. Verber, Food and
Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. (See Appendix B.)
t Areas used for two or more types of wastes.
It was evident that the number of disposal sites for
dredge, spoil, industrial wastes, and explosives was not
equal for the three coastal areas (Table 1) (Figures 1 -3).
Most radioactive waste disposal sites are located off the
Atlantic Coast. Disposal sites for refuse were found on
the Pacific Coast and those for sewage sludge, only on
the Atlantic Coast. The Atlantic Coast has 48 percent
of all disposal sites. Differences of location, shown in
Appendix B, are the result of specific locations of some
wastes, whereas other sites are shown as center points
of large dump areas.
Sixty percent of the dredge spoil areas are located
within 3 miles of the coast in water depths less than
100 feet. Most, but not all, of the radioactive and
explosive waste disposal areas are situated at depths
of 6,000 feet or more. Ocean depths of this magni-
tude are located 10 or more miles from the Pacific
coast and 100 or more miles from the Atlantic and
Gulf coasts. The explosive disposal areas are identi-
fied on U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts, and in
some cases these also serve as disposal areas for toxic
industrial waste material.
Industrial and municipal waste disposal areas are
situated at distances from 15 to 100 miles offshore
depending on the type of waste and established
regulatory procedures. For example, acid wastes are
disposed of in a designated area 15 miles from the
coast of New York City; by contrast, the disposal site
for certain toxic chemical wastes is nearly 125 miles
offshore. Most industrial waste disposal operations in
the Gulf of Mexico are conducted beyond the
400-fathom line (2,400 feet), which off Galveston
requires disposal about 125 miles off the coast.
Selection of Disposal Areas
Results of the present study show that past
determinations of whether or not a given offshore
area was suitable for waste disposal have been based
primarily on the following considerations: (1) the
disposal area should be far enough away from the
coast and/or have an ocean depth deep enough to
ensure that no identifiable wastes return to public
beaches or interfere with fishing or recreation in
coastal areas; (2) the disposal areas should be within a
reasonable distance from the coast so that the costs
of tug and barge operations are minimized.
In a small number of cases, the potential harm to
the environment and the restrictions that the waste
disposal operations might place on future exploita-
tion of natural resources (i.e., fishing, minerals, oil
research) were taken into consideration. Some studies
have been conducted of various environmental
aspects of individual disposal operations; these, how-
ever, have been limited in both scope and duration
and in most cases were conducted after the disposal
operations were in progress.
Disposal Methods and Costs
Methods employed for sea disposal of the various
wastes consist primarily of transporting the wastes in
bulk or containers aboard towed or self-propelled
barges. Dredge spoil is handled routinely by U.S.
Corps of Engineers aboard their oceangoing hopper
dredges. Bulk wastes are normally discharged from
tank barges while underway. Containerized wastes
might, depending on local practices, be weighted and
sunk, or ruptured at the sea surface by axes or rifle
fire and allowed to sink. In a few cases highly toxic
chemical wastes such as arsenic and cyanide are
carried to sea regularly as deck cargo on merchant
ships. The containers are then discharged overboard
in undetermined areas once the ship is at least 300
miles from shore. In addition, an accepted method of
disposal of spent caustics from oil refineries is as
ballast on outgoing crude oil tankers that is dis-
charged far at sea.3
-------
Pacific Coast Disposal Areas
and
Artificial Reefs
D Dredging Spoils
E Explosives and Toxic Chemical Ammunition
Explosives and Toxic Chemical Ammunition, Inactive Site
G Refuse
I Industrial Waste
R Radioactive Waste
Rj Marker includes more than one site
Artificial Reef
Marker includes more than one reef
INSET MAP
Los Angeles
See inset map
I
Figure 1. The Pacific Coast was the only U.S. coast where authorized refuse disposal sites were found.
-------
Atlantic Coast Disposal Areas
and
Artificial Reefs
LEGEND .
Jacksonville
\ . tin e^9 .
D Dredging Spoils
© Dredging Spoils, Inactive Site
E Explosives and Toxic Chemical Ammunition
© Explosives and Toxic Chemical Ammunition,
Inactive Site
I Industrial Waste
R Radioactive Waste
S Sewage Sludge
02 Marker includes more than one site
ft Artificial Reef
H&y Marker includes more than one reef
Nautical Miles
Figure 2. Sewage sludge disposal sites were only found on the Atlantic Coast, where most radioactive waste
disposal sites were also located.
-------
Figure 3. Most industrial waste disposal operations in the Gulf of Mexico are conducted beyond the 400-fathom
line (2,400 feet), which off Galveston requires disposal about 125 miles off the coast.
-------
Dredge Spoil
Corps of Engineers hopper dredges resemble small
tankers in general appearance except for a large
amount of deck equipment (Figure 4). The Corps
presently owns and operates a fleet of 15 hopper
dredges in U.S. coastal and inland waterways. Hopper
dredges load by sucking up the bottom sediments
through drags, or underwater pipes, while underway
in the dredging area. In general, the hauling distance
to the spoil disposal areas averages 3 to 4 miles,
although in the New York area the trip to the
designated offshore disposal area is more than 30
miles. An excellent description of hopper dredge
disposal techniques has been presented by Mauriello
and Caccese along with detailed information on the
vessels and equipment used.16 The 1968 costs per
ton for dredge spoil disposal, ranged from 20 to 55
cents per ton, representing the reported total cost of
the dredging operations and converting cubic yards to
tons by utilizing a factor of 1.2 tons per cubic yard
for average sediments consisting of a mixture of sand,
silt, and clay (Table 2). Tonnages were generally
based on average annual discharges, reflecting the
years 1967 through 1969.
Industrial Wastes
Bulk industrial wastes are most commonly trans-
ported to sea in tank barges ranging in capacity from
1,000 to 5,000 short tons (Figures 5 and 6). These
barges must be of double-skinned bottom construc-
tion and certified for ocean waters by the U.S. Coast
Guard, which also promulgates regulations regarding
the bulk shipment of chemicals by water.8 The
recently built $850,000 five-thousand capacity barge,
Sparkling Waters was designed to handle insecticides
and other toxic chemical wastes and operates out of
New York (Figure 5).17 Sparkling Waters reportedly
can be emptied in 30 minutes. Discharge rates of
conventional waste disposal barges vary between 4
lif _
m "liP&-"-'"~-3^S;
(/i- t^~~—f, |
• ' '-
FIGURE 4. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, New Orleans District-Seagoing Hopper Dredge
Langfltt enroute to dredging site in Southwest Pass, Mississippi River. (New Orleans District
Corps of Engineers Photo).
-------
LJ
CO
(0
o
O
14-
3
o
Coast
Atlantic
j-j
s
6
U
ti-
'o
£
t/i
D
I
c
o
(U -W-
C fll
a?
0) o
8 <
CD
Ol CM
O
. N
,. *-j
f -w-
§ '
in
II
5 N-
§ 0
a 2
1 -W-
o .
CD '
ft 1
C
o ,-
i 1
•— » lO
8
•
1 8
8 ft
I 1
N. >
— CM
(0 T>
(U 0)
Industrial wast
Bulk
Contatneriz
o
J>
•tf*
1
w
0
i
in
$l5/ton
Refuse and
Garbage
0
CM
•— •
±
CD
I
r—t
8
1
O
00
•tft
o
1
Sewage sludge
in
CO
^_,
1
1
o
1
in
N
ft
in
CO
i— •
i
o
•w-
1
ft
.2
C r!
Construction a
demolition del
o
i
in
1
in
Explosives
8
ft
i
in
I
•w-
o
o
1
in
$l5/ton
Miscellaneous
10
-------
FIGURE 5. Automated chemical waste disposal baige, Sparkling Waters, under tow with a
load of wastes for disposal beyond the Continental Shelf. (Photograph from Chemical
Week.")'
FIGURE 6. Acid disposal barge under tow off New York City (Photograph by Dr. J.
Pearce, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife).
11
-------
and 20 tons per minute. The depth at which the
wastes are discharged is typically between 6 and 15
feet, and towing speeds from 3 to 6 knots are
normally used during the discharge operations.
Oceangoing tugs used to haul the barges to the
disposal areas are generally of the 1,000- to 2,000-hp
class (Figure 6).
Average and reported range of costs for disposal of
bulk industrial wastes were computed on the basis of
the weight of the volume of water in which the
wastes were contained (Table 2). Costs varied accord-
ing to geographical area, type of waste, distance to
the disposal area, and annual volume of wastes
handled. Disposal costs estimated by the Dillingham
Corporation for industrial wastes (Table 2) represent
a synthesis of the data supplied from three sources:
(1) published, (2) waste producers, and (3) barging
firms. These figures represent actual barging costs and
do not include other costs incurred by the waste
producers for treatment, storage, loading, etc., of the
wastes. Although attempts were made to verify the
"ball park estimates" supplied by interviewees, when
discrepancies between the three sources could not be
reconciled, costs reported by the waste producer were
used.
Toxic industrial liquids and sludges are also dis-
posed of at sea in containers, usually 5 5-gallon drums,
either routinely or on demand. These wastes are
transported to sea as deck cargo on either merchant
ships or contract disposal vessels. Once at sea, the
barrels are jettisoned. Depending on local practices
the barrels may be weighted for sinking or ruptured
at the sea surface (Figure 7).
The wide range in the reported costs for disposal
of containerized industrial wastes reflects the dif-
ferences between regular ongoing disposal operations
and those where occasional disposal of toxic or
hazardous wastes is required by a waste producer
(Table 2).
Refuse and Garbage
Refuse and garbage originating from naval and
commercial vessels are transported to sea in various
versions of the U.S. Navy's YG class scows (Figure 8).
Load capacity varies between 25 and 136 tons.19
About one trip per week of a 136 ton scow is the
average for these disposal operations at San Diego,
California. Disposal areas are located at least 20 miles
from the coast as prescribed by California law. Once
at sea, flood gates are opened, and the refuse is
discharged on the sea surface. Upon completion of
the unloading, the tanks are hosed out, and the vessel
returns to port. The average total round trip time is
six to eight hours depending on sea conditions.
Cannery wastes are disposed of at sea on a weekly
basis from the San Francisco area from June to
October each year. The wastes are taken to sea
aboard a 1,000-ton capacity barge and discharged at
the sea-surface as a slurry consisting of seawater and
wastes. Discharge operations are conducted at least
20 miles from the coast while the barge is under tow.
The average costs for the disposal of refuse and
garbage are about twice the figure usually found
quoted for various proposed schemes involving the
disposal of municipal wastes at sea (Table 2).19
Sewage Sludge
About one half of the total tonnage of sewage
sludge disposed of at sea from the New York area is
handled by a fleet of five self-propelled barges
operated by the city of New York at a reported
annual cost of $1.25 million (Figure 9). These barges
have capacities of between 1,200 and 3,200 tons.
In addition, contract firms regularly transport
sludge to sea from various outlying communities in
the New York-New Jersey area. Equipment owned by
these independent firms ranges from 3,000 to 6,300
tons capacity. The largest is the Ocean Disposal No. 1
which is 226 feet long, 56 feet wide and has a 20-foot
draft.21 The unloading and tank cleaning operations
are radio controlled from the towing barge, and the
6,300-ton load reportedly can be discharged in 30
minutes.
The round-trip distance to the offshore sludge
disposal area from the New York City area averages
about 30 miles, although it varies depending on the
location of a particular treatment plant.
In contrast to the large-scale sludge disposal
operations from New York City, sewage sludge from
Philadelphia is handled by a single converted tank
barge having a capacity of 2,700 tons.22'23 Total
annual cost of this barging is $336,000. About 150
trips a year are made to the disposal area situated
about 10 miles off Cape May, New Jersey. The
round-trip barge-haul to this area is 227 miles and
takes about 30 hours.
Average and reported ranges of costs for sludge
disposal at sea reflect the variations in hauling
distances, annual amount of wastes handled by
12
-------
FIGURE 7. Photographic sequence showing the disposal of barreled sodium sludge at sea in
the Gulf of Mexico. Note the protective clothing and use of the screen. (From Stein,
JE.18)
13
-------
FIGURE 8. Loading garbage aboard a U.S. Navy Y-G scow for sea disposal. (Photograph
from Marlin and Pomeroy. '9 )
private contractors and the capacity of individual
barges (Table 2).
Construction and Demolition Debris
Construction and demolition debris from the New
York City area is disposed both in landfill and at sea.
Sea disposal is conducted with 3,000 to 5,000-ton -
capacity hopper barges (Figure 10) that are towed to
the offshore disposal area situated nine miles seaward
of the Sandy Hook Light or some 15 to 20 miles off
New York City.
Costs for the disposal of these wastes is from $.70
to $1.35 per ton and averaging $.75 per ton (Table
2). Variations in cost are due to differences in
quantities and the length of barge haul.
Military Explosives and Chemical Warfare Agents
Deep-water disposal of outdated munitions and
other dangerous military explosives has been prac-
ticed for many years. Prior to 1964, the wastes were
loaded aboard various types of barges and towed to
sea for disposal. It has been estimated that it costs
$78 per ton to dispose of explosives by this method.9
The method was hazardous because of repeated
handling of the wastes both onshore and at sea.
In 1963 the U.S. Navy conceived the idea of the
CHASE (Cut Holes and Sink Em) disposal program.
The inspiration for this method came from the U.S.
Army, which in 1958 scuttled the obsolete World War
II vessel, S.S. Wtn. Ralston, with 8,000 tons of
mustard and lewisite gas aboard.9 The CHASE
14
-------
"
FIGURE 9. Sewage sludge disposal barge discharging its load in the New York Bight disposal area.
(Photograph by Dr. J. Pearce, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife).
program obtains obsolete, surplus World War II cargo
ships (Figure 11), which are stripped of any useable
equipment or machinery, filled with explosive wastes
and towed to sea to be sunk by flooding in the
designated deepwater disposal sites. Through 1968,
12 such disposal operations have been conducted.
These disposal operations have not been con-
ducted without problems.24 Two disposal ships have
unexpectedly exploded upon contact with the sea
floor. In addition, as part of the AEC's Vela Uniform
seismic test series, the S.S. Robert L. Stevenson,
loaded with 2,400 tons of explosives, was scuttled in
1967 in 4,000 feet of water off Amchitka, Alaska,
with her cargo set for detonation at middepth.
Instead of sinking as planned, she drifted and
eventually sank in water shallower than that required
to trigger the hydrostatic detonator. Although sub-
sequent search located the vessel, attempts to deto-
nate her cargo were fruitless.24 The Navy terminated
the operation on the basis that the detonation
attempts indicated that the hulk was no longer a
threat. Hydrographic notices and charts now inform
interested mariners of the exact location of the
Stevenson.
Cost figures are available for the disposal of
explosive wastes for the CHASE operations, involving
the S.S. Mormactern and S.S. Richardson, respec-
tively, which were scuttled in the Atlantic Ocean
during 1968 (Table 3). A detailed cost breakdown for
the eleven CHASE disposal operations conducted
from 1964 through 1968 is also available (Table 3).
Radioactive Wastes
The disposal of low-level radioactive wastes has
utilized weighted containers carried to sea on the
decks of barges or ships. The most common methods
of packaging has been to encase the wastes in
concrete contained in 55-gallon steel drums (Figure
12). Atomic Energy Commission regulations require a
minimum weight of 550 pounds to ensure sinking.
Pressure tests on the various types of containers
have been conducted in the past both in the
laboratory and at sea to determine if the containers
15
-------
FIGURE 10. Construction and demolition debris from New York City being loaded aboard
hopper barges for sea disposal. (Photograph courtesy of Jack Balsamo, Moran Towing
Corporation).
FIGURE 11 U.S. Navy CHASE vessel scuttled with a load of explosives in the Atlantic
Ocean. (Official U.S. Navy Photograph. Source: Mr. A. Fernandes, Navy Ordnance Systems
Command).
16
-------
would rupture under increased water pressure as a
result of air voids inside the container.25'27 The
results of these tests have shown that although
physical deformation of the containers does occur,
the containers maintain their integrity in containing
the wastes (Figure 13).
Low-level radioactive wastes resulting from the
operation of U.S. Navy nuclear submarines are
regularly discharged at sea from the submarines
themselves and from storage tanks aboard submarine
repair ships. For example, the U.S.S. Sperry has three
15,000-gallon tanks for this purpose; the wastes in
FIGURE 12. Methods used for packaging low-level radioactive wastes for sea disposal.
A)—solid material, B) and C)-liquid wastes. (Source: Pneumo Dynamics Corporation,28 )
17
-------
1
1
> §
i!
ji
w
00
o
**
1
1
w
z
o
N
e
o
->
H W
C/5
£
U
^
Z
CO
P
u.
o
>•
s
an
1
CD
* 0)
r-
> §
*r~'
lO
*~* 0)
^f
»— « CO
"
CD
0)
T—
se Nunnber
r
<0 n)
H 0)
O >
J
£ o
s §
Ȥ5
. 0)
W 5)
U)
O 4J
(0 T5
(d c
(fl (0
" N
«j S
o
O)
(C
s (fl
C (0
«J -5;
in 0
• "ra
(/) -
in
13
h
o .5
i.
rt\
rn
*— •
—
^
in
in
IL
££
o o
• (0
in -c
in
0)
(fl
8
0
4J
8
CD
CD"
CO
o
o
o
in
N
o
4->
in
•^
^
00
o
4-1
0
s
8
o
4-1
in
CO
in
N"
8
o
4-1
0)
0)
N
0)"
O
cn
0
«— '
4J
0
O
4-)
CM
CO
CM"
8
£
m
CM
CD
CO
o
o
0)
CM
C
0
c
1
c
8
D
Explosive
4->
f
4->
23
o
O
c
8
Q.
4-.
O
o
'o
(0
QL
^
(/J
(0
o
o<
*f~
Jrt
(u
j_(
<
4J
S
(U
o
0
Atlanti
4-1
0)
(d
0
O
Q
?
Id
4^
<
4->
0
O
o
u^
?
Q.
QJ
Z?
- O
CM CO
to **
Dl
i C
(0 O
J J
Z CD
w°in
D CM
CO i-
00 ••
tcjo
^
ZI! ••
CD
OJ
CO ••
O)
•M C
(0 O
J J
Z ^
CM W
T-O
D j*
jl C
(0 O
J J
j,
7 ^
^— *
K ^"
CD '-
0 W
CO ••
(0 O
J J
Z .
o w
°*°cv
•'
i- ?
(« O
J J
(d
0)
15
CO
R
W)
5
m
CO
CD
CO
in
o"
in
in
CO
CM
CM"
S
0)
in
§
CD
co"
0)
#1
£
c
o
. Preparati
t
^ in
3 O
I O
i — i
XI
i — i
o
8
*
0)
CO
/~*>
O)
0^
!
^s
m
o
*
T—
•tf)1
§
*
§
Q
*t
S
0
8
in
2
4->
(fl
O
O
O)
«J
F
i
5>
•W-
0)
CO
M
^—
CD
CM
M
CD
T—
•f/)*
CO
N
0)
CM"
05
in
CO
CM
co"
in
•t
CM
O
4->
(fl
O
O
£
(Q
o
CD
CO
CO
in
in
in
0
CM"
CM
CM
•t
T—
CO
^^
0)
in
0)
0)"
CO
CO
CO
M
CM
CD
0
r-
a>
*t
T—
PAL COST
r^
j?
CO
CM
•W-
0)
O
CM
^ft
CO
•tft
OJ
Oi
0
CT
U— (0
o 0
c 0)
O 4-1
4J (/I
fl) ^
a ^
»— •
4-> (H
(0 4J
0 0
0 F
18
-------
rt
CO
2
i
S
o>
»«H
(^
M
i
a.
"8?
3 3<
II
TB
u^
Nj ^
i/5
3
tt.
O
<
S
3
X en
*•"
« °o
x 8
X i
x 8
2 N
K-, CD
> 8
ase Number
ar
£ 0)
0 >
0
"P
(0
(S) o
oi £
c
L
O
^ 8
js
(D 5
n\
Jl
«•§
L. *
O
10
(d
Monah
W
in
.S. Corporal
ric G. Gibson
in iu
Q)
in &
w
U)
0)
>
s
N
CO
<*
N
S
Q
4J
CO
CD
N
N
o
r^
O3
ol
M-
o
4J
CO
CO
CO
2
o
4->
•tf
8
d>
£
o
4->
CO
CO
o
•i
CD
0
Ol
(0
O
"io
o
F
CO
0
4->
CO
CO
jQ)
3
(C
0
.Q Q-
2 ^
1
known
c
o
o
4-J
CM
t Explosive
j^)
2
0 TO g
0 "0°
4-< rn ..
^ v. ^ ••
S . 01
5^ S
< j j
0?CM
°0§°°
'•g CO ••
4J CQ O
^. _J _1
i
ffl ^
8 ^ S
S co ••
|ic?
4-> fl5 O
< -i j
18 -7 ?
" 4^
CM
ift
CD
0 ^
CD <»
ift
0
Ol
u_ (0
h OQ
s s a>
R ° «
^ c 05
^>
f fs
O o o
h 0 h
|
•
q
Q
§
4->
5
a
^
:ems Command,
•*-•
t^1
0)
"P
£
5
in
Source : U
i—i
iH
8
f^»
aJ
8
u
Q.
U)
'~
O
•«
Q*
;5
2
S ?
"io "2
Q. ^
i1-!
3d Deep Water [
set to shipyard,
4J ?-•
C d)
1 »
Ul
||
to §
> 2
0) g
Tow distant
Cost includ
r~i r~~i
£n!i
19
-------
FIGURE 13. Partially crushed disposal drum resting on the bottom at a depth of 8,400 feet
off the Farailon Islands, California. Object in center of the picture is a camera tripping
device. (From Pneumo Dynamics Corporation. 2 '•)
these tanks must be disposed of at sea in accordance
with specific requirements such as depth and rate of
pumping.28
Miscellaneous Wastes
Various types of wastes including barreled chemi-
cals and sludges, defective Industrial products, etc.,
are transported to sea on the decks of barges and
ships. In some areas these wastes are "added" to a
regular load of wastes whose disposal has been
sanctioned by a regulatory agency. As might be
expected, no records are kept regarding these opera-
tions. The costs to handle disposal of wastes in this
manner are strictly based on individual cases. For
example, it was noted during one interview that a lot
of five barrels of highly toxic chemical sludge had
been disposed of at sea along with a regular disposal
load at a cost of $50 per barrel, equivalent to
approximately $200 per ton wet weight.
TONNAGE OF CURRENT DISPOSAL
OPERATIONS
During 1968 some 6 2 million tons of wastes from
the civilian and military sector were disposed of at sea
at an estimated cost of $37 million (Table 4). If
dredging spoils are excluded, this estimate is reduced
to 9.8 million tons disposed of at a cost of roughly
$13.7 million. Excluding spoils, the tonnage from
Atlantic coastal cities is more than eight times that
from either the Pacific or Gulf coastal cities.
Dredge Spoil
Although dredge spoil is by far the largest of the
waste categories being discharged at sea, it does not
rank low on the scale with respect to producing
adverse effects on the marine environment. Dredge
spoil discharged at sea off the Pacific Coast is about
one-quarter that disposed off the Atlantic and more
20
-------
3
H
"c3
0
H
V)
O
.S
O
c/>
cd
o
C
**
<-
cd
O
11
< 2
•g
•ats
I g
ts °
w
—3
1 S1
C C
o o
oo
"
o
o
p
*n^
en
01
O
in
1
1
"3.
w
o
o
r-H
o
o
r-T
en
en
en
O
O
(N
oo
°\
VO
0
o
p
Os
5-
o
o
p
^
en"
I— 1
o
§
T-H
CO
fsT
(N
0
^r
Os"
w-)
Os
oo"
en
o
o
o
Q
m"
8
es
ital, all wastesW
f2
cd
0
•d
O)
bo
cd
00
'53
^5
cd
OJ
^
P.
•s ^
1 1
Jjts
•a -^
C cd
||
• o"7 .
mi
S *± c g
1^ C O
I -a "i"^r
> ^ O bO
S 2 |g
.S rt 2 (2
T3 ° 3 —
u J-H S3
3 *2 c .5
•S § < .§>
C O J> 0
8C "0
c cd GJ
•8 .2 > t.
g -g < S
^x^l
s."2 J s
? 1 It •
^ & 3 -^-
c 1 1-a * S
C cfl
S s ^ "1 s ^
o o * & o =
M < H OS W 05
cS J3 0 -O » #
21
-------
than one-half off the Gulf Coasts. The reason for this
is the practice in the State of California of returning
sand and other sediments dredged from harbor
entrances to the land for beach restoration or landfill
operations. By estimates from the Corps of Engineers
nearly 34 percent of the dredge spoils are polluted
(Table 5).
TABLE 5
ESTIMATED POLLUTED DREDGE SPOILS*
Area
Altantic
Gulf
Pacific
Totals
Total spoils
(tons)
30,880,000
13,000,000
8,320,000
52,200,000
Estimated
percent of
total polluted
spoils
45
31
19
34
Total polluted
spoils
(tons)
13,896,000
4,030,000
1,580,800
19,506,800
* Source: Council on Environmental Quality. Ocean
Dumping; A National Policy; a Report to the President.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. p. 3.
Table revised and updated by James L. Verber, Food and
Drug Administration.
Industrial Wastes
After dredge spoil, industrial waste tonnage and
costs are the second largest waste category. The 4.7
million tons of bulk industrial wastes (10 percent of
the total tonnage) discharged at a cost of nearly $8
million (27 percent of the total cost) by 50 separate
industrial waste producers was distributed as follows:
Percent of total
industrial wastes
Major Types of Industrial Waste
Waste acid
Refinery wastes
Pesticide wastes
Paper mill wastes
Others
(Tons)
58
12
7
3
20
$
59
7
15
7
12
Most of the pesticide wastes are from the
Mississippi Valley, principally the Memphis area. An
estimated 14,000 tons per month are loaded onto
barges and shipped, not through New Orleans but via
the intra-coastal canel to Beaumont. From here they
are shipped to approximately 100 miles offshore and
discharged into 200 fathoms of water.
In a similar vein, proposals have been made for
barging down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and
ocean disposal of industrial wastes originating in West
Virginia. Digested and dried sewage sludge is being
barged via the Mississippi and Gulf of Mexico to users
in southeastern states. These events are significant
because they demonstrate that marine disposal of
wastes is, in the minds of authorities, within the reach
of most major urban and industrial areas of the
United States.
When coastal cities disposing of more than 12,000
tons of industrial waste per year at sea are ranked
according to tonnage, New York's operations are
more than four times as great as Los Angeles, and
nearly one-third more than the total tonnage of the
other eight areas considered.
Industrial Waste
New York City
Los Angeles
Houston-Galveston-
Beaumont, etc.
New Orleans
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Seattle
Norfolk
Mobile
(tons per year)
2.700,000
660,000
320,000
300,000
290,000
200,000
120,000
60,000
12,000
Waste acid makes up over 90 percent of the total
industrial wastes going to sea from New York City. In
contrast, the bulk of the tonnage discharged from Los
Angeles consists of sediment- like oil drilling muds
and cuttings. Both of these have been considered to
be relatively harmless in terms of environmental
pollution.
Refuse and Garbage
The total volume of refuse and garbage currently
being disposed of at sea is small (less than one percent
of tonnage and cost) compared to most other wastes,
and is confined to the Pacific coast. Major sources are
from naval and commercial vessels and cannery
operations.
Sewage Sludge
Sewage sludge from New York and Philadelphia
ranks third in importance with 7 percent of the
tonnage and 12 percent of cost. The total amount of
sludge from the New York area is about ten times as
great as that discharged by the city of Philadelphia.
Both these operations are projected to increase
significantly during the next ten years. In addition,
22
-------
the city of Baltimore is planning to dispose of some
400,000 tons of sewage sludge per year in 1970 in the
disposal area now used by the city of Philadelphia.2 9
The permit for this disposal is now pending and may
be withheld.
Construction and Demolition Debris
The disposal of these wastes at sea occurs only
from the city of New York and represents an
alternate solution to offset the lack of available
landfill. In 1968, 574,000 tons were disposed, how-
ever, yearly quantities of these wastes vary consider-
ably in accord with construction operations.
Military Explosives and Chemical Wastes
The total tonnage of military explosives disposed
at sea in 1968 represents the total cargo that was
sunk during CHASE operations XI and XII (Table 4).
The disposal of these wastes at sea is intermittent and
depends on the backlog of outdated munitions that
develops at individual military ordnance depots.
(Table 6). The U.S. disposed of 3.6 tons of solid
wastes in 1967 with a total activity of 61.8 curies. In
contrast, barrelled radioactive wastes from member
countries of the European Nuclear Energy Agency are
still being disposed of at sea, so that in 1967, "some
11,000 tons of solid wastes with a total activity of
approximately 8,000 curies were deposited at a depth
of 5,000 meters in the eastern Atlantic Ocean."
TABLE 6
TOTAL U.S. SEA DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES
(1946 through 1967)*
Number Byproduct Source
Disposal area of material material
containers (curies) (pounds)
Pacific Ocean
Atlantic Ocean
Gulf of Mexico
TOTALS
52,538
33,998
1
86,537
14,708
79,484
10
94,202
1,895
Unknown
Unknown
1,895
* Source: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of
Operational Safety.
Radioactive Wastes
These wastes were not considered for 1968 since
for all practical purposes the disposal of radioactive
wastes at sea from the United States was almost
nonexistent in that year. As a basis for comparison,
however, the sea disposal of U.S. radioactive wastes
from its inception in 1946 to 1967 (prepared from
data supplied by the AEC) has been summarized
Miscellaneous Wastes
The data available for this type of waste are only
crude approximations (Table 4). It is known with
certainty that small volumes of wastes such as toxic
chemical sludges, rejected industrial products, etc.,
are being disposed of at sea on a clandestine basis, but
no clear picture as to tonnage or cost is available
because of the nature of these operations.
REFERENCES
1. AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, DIVISION OF REFINING. Manual on
disposal of refinery wastes, v. 3. Chemical wastes. New York, 1960. 93 p.
2. AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, DIVISION OF REFINING. Manual on
disposal of refinery wastes, v. 6. Solid wastes. New York, 1963. 51 p.
3. AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, DIVISION OF REFINING. Manual on
disposal of refinery wastes. Volume on liquid wastes. New York, 1969.
4. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COMMITTEE ON EFFECTS OF ATOMIC
RADIATION ON OCEANOGRAPHY AND FISHERIES. The effects of atomic
radiation on oceanography and fisheries. National Research Council Publication
551. Washington, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council,
1957.137 p.
5. TARZWELL, C. M., Comp. Biological problems in water pollution. Transactions of the
Second Seminar on Biological Problems in Water Pollution, Cincinnati, Apr. 20-24,
1959. Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, 1960. 285 p.
6. MOSS, 1. E. Character and control of sea pollution by oil. Washington, American
Petroleum Institute, 1963. 122 p.
7. U.S. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE. Proceedings; Federal Inter-Agency
Sedimentation Conference, 1963. Miscellaneous Publication No. 970. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. 933 p.
23
-------
8. U.S. COAST GUARD. Chemical data guide for bulk shipment by water. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. 132 p.
9. KURAK, S. Operation chase. United States Naval Institute Proceedings, 93(9):40-46,
Sept. 1967.
10. SAX, N. I. Dangerous properties of industrial materials. 3d ed. New York, Reinhold
Book Corporation, 1968,1,251 p.
11. CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH. California solid waste
management study (1968) and plan (1970). Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office. (In press.)
12. BURD, R. S. A study of sludge handling and disposal. FWPCA Publication No.
WP-20-4. Washington, U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1968.
326 p.
13. SITTIG, M. Water pollution control and solid wastes disposal. Park Ridge, N.J., Noyes
Data Corporation, 1969. 244 p.
14. COMMITTEE ON POLLUTION. Waste management and control. National Research
Council Publication 1400. Washington, National Academy of Sciences-National
Research Council, 1966. 257 p.
15. AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY COMMITTEE ON CHEMISTRY AND PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT. Clean-
ing our environment. The chemical basis for action. Washington, American
Chemical Society, 1969. 249 p.
16. MAURIELLO, L. J., and L. CACCESE. Hooper dredge disposal techniques and related
developments in design and operation. In U.S. Agricultural Research Service.
Proceedings, Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, 1963. Miscellaneous
Publication No. 970. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. p.
598-613.
17. At sea about chemical wastes. Chemical Week, 101(16):133-136, Oct. 14, 1967.
18. STEIN, J. E. Observations on the disposal of sodium sludge in the Gulf of Mexico.
Unpublished data [Project 147, Reference 56-36T]. College Station, Texas A&M
Research Foundation, 1956. 7 p.
19. MARLIL AND POMEROY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS. Engineering study of refuse
collection and disposal at San Diego area naval installations; report to Southwest
Division, Bureau of Yards and Docks, U.S. Navy, San Diego, Calif., 1966.
20. METCALF AND EDDY/ENGINEERS. Report to the New York State Pure Waters
Authority on rail-haul disposal of solid wastes for Westchester County, New York.
Unpublished report. New York, Feb. 17, 1969.
21. New sludge barge enters operation for ocean. Disposal company in New York area.
Maritime Reporter and Engineering News, p.8, Apr. 15, 1969.
22. Sludge disposal at sea. Civil Engineering, 38(8):62-63, Aug. 1968.
23. GUARINO, C. F. Sludge disposal in Philadelphia by barging to sea. Presented at 38th
Annual Conference, Pennsylvania Water Pollution Control Association, Pennsyl-
vania State University, University Park, Aug. 3-5, 1966.
24. DAUGHERTY, F. M., JR., and J. C. CARROLL. Search for the "Stevenson." UnderSea
Technology, 9(4):26-30, 46, Apr. 1968.
25. PNEUMODYNAMICS CORPORATION, ADVANCED SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION. Technical Report. Sea disposal container test and evaluation. ASD
465 2-F. Atomic Energy Commission research and development report. UC-70
Waste Disposal and Processing. TID-4500. 16th ed. San Francisco, U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission, June 15,1961. 132 p.
26. PNEUMODYNAMICS CORPORATION, ADVANCED SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION. Technical report. Survey of radioactive waste disposal sites.
TID-13665. Washington, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, July 15, 1961.
27. PEARCE, K. W., and J. D. VINCENT. Investigation into the effects of deep sea
pressures on waste materials and disposal containers. AERE-M-1254. Harwell,
England, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Sept. 1963. 29 p.
28. Personal communication. George D. Ward and Associates, Consulting Engineers, to D.
D. Smith, Dillingham Corporation, June 16, 1969.
29. WHITMAN, REQUARDT & ASSOCIATES. Report to the City of Baltimore Bureau of
Sewers on future disposal of digested sludge from the Back River Sewage Works.
Baltimore, Dec. 1965. 70 p.
24
-------
III. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF BARGING
WASTES TO SEA
Little is known about the immediate effects of
solid and liquid wastes on the marine environment,
even though a number of pioneer studies have been
carried out. Even less information is available on
long-term or genetic effects.
An adequate understanding of the response of the
marine environment to solid and liquid wastes barged
to sea requires continuing investigation programs. To
date, funds have been available only for short-term
studies often directed to specific questions such as
maximum permissible barge discharge rates.
More attention has been paid to the disposal of
sewage and sewage sludges, both raw and treated,
because of the well-known ability of shellfish to
concentrate pathogenic bacteria for human con-
sumption. Sludges barged and discharged to the New
York Bight have resulted in high levels of fecal
coliform contamination in surf clams' and the Food
and Drug Administration has recently closed affected
areas to further harvesting.40 In contrast, some 400
tons per day of sewage solids, of which approxi-
mately one-fourth is organic, have been discharged
through submarine outfalls into Santa Monica Bay,
California, with no apparent effects on fish abun-
dance.2'3 Although the fish were able to avoid
possibly harmful concentrations, studies of other
Southern California receiving waters indicated severe
effects on giant kelp (Macrocystis). The discharge
attracted scavengers (sea urchins) that grazed on the
mature plants and increased turbidity so that the
young kelp did not develop.4
The great differences in effects of waste disposal at
sea underscore the need for broad and critical
research. A brief review and discussion of the
literature on environmental effects of waste disposal
at sea is presented in Appendix D. Information
summarized on the following pages summarizes the
state of knowledge of the effects of barged wastes
and provides a basis for identifying further research
needs. [James L. Verber has revised, updated, or
compiled several of the tables in this report. He
estimates that nearly 78.5 percent of all wastes
discharged at sea are polluted.--Ed.]
OBSERVED EFFECTS OF WASTE
DISCHARGE OPERATIONS
For ease of discussion, the waste categories are
presented in the same order as in the preceding
chapter: Dredge Spoils, Industrial Wastes, Sewage
Sludge, Refuse, Radioactive Wastes, and Explosives.
Dredge Spoils
The discharge of dredge spoils at sea results in
anomalously rapid sediment build-up at the disposal
site, in addition to temporary discoloration of the
water by turbidity. The sediment build-up would be
expected to have significant effects on bottom-
dwelling organisms and the life forms dependent
upon them in the food chain. Turbidity may be
expected to affect various aspects of the water
column and the contained biologic assemblage. Re-
views of the literature5'6 regarding the effects of
turbidity on marine fish and crustaceans in coastal
waters indicate that, prior to Saila's work on a
Narraganset Bay dredge spoil disposal site, there was
virtually no information available on the subject.
Consequently, much of the following discussion is
based on the work by Saila, Polgar, and Rogers.5
Bottom Sediment Build-Up. The effects of fish
and shellfish of rapid local build-up of sediment as
the result of dredge spoil disposal can include
destruction of spawning areas, reduction in food
supplies and vegetational cover, trapping of organic
matter (with resultant development of anaerobic
bottom conditions), and the absorption or adsorption
of organic matter (including oil).
Turbidity. The effects of turbidity on fish and
crustaceans can be direct or indirect. Direct effects
25
-------
cause an immediate response or even mortality by
suffocation; turbidity can also result in reduced
growth and decrease survival of larval stages of fish
and shellfish. Saila and co-workers summarized the
possible indirect effects of turbidity (and siltation) as
follows: (1) reduction in light penetration resulting in
reduced photosynthesis; (2) reduction of visibility to
some feeding organisms; (3) destruction of spawning
areas; (4) reduction of food supplies; (5) reduction of
vegetational cover; (6) trapping of organic matter,
resulting in anaerobic bottom conditions; (7) floc-
culation of planktonic algae; (8) absorption or ad-
sorption of organic matter (including oil) or inorganic
ions.
The effect of dredge spoils depends in large part
on the location and characteristics of the disposal
site. For example, if dredge spoils are discharged in
inshore waters normally quite turbid because of wave
action or the tidal flushing of turbid waters out to
sea, then the effects of the associated turbidity (but
not necessarily the sedimentation) would almost
certainly be negligible.
The situation would be significantly different
where spoils polluted with oil, sewage, chemicals etc.
are dredged from channels and the confines of
harbors and transported to sea for disposal. Once
these sediments are discharged in other locations, the
resulting turbidity (and associated pollution) can be
spread extensively by coastal currents. In this regard,
Biggs estimated that disposal of spoils from the
approaches of Chesapeake Bay increases the turbidity
of the water over an area of about 1 to 1.5 square
nautical miles around the disposal site, and that
discharged solids are dispersed over a bottom area at
least five times that of the defined disposal area.7
Saila and co-workers investigated the effects on
local fishing resources (particularly the northern
lobster) of increased turbidity and siltation in relation
to the disposal of dredge spoils in 100 feet of water
off Narragansett Bay.5 The results of biological assays
and field experiments showed that adult lobsters were
able to tolerate, with no adverse effects, turbidities as
high or higher than those actually encountered in the
disposal area for periods of time equivalent to those
during which the spoils seem to remain in suspension.
The one case of high mortality observed in the
laboratory bioassay tests was believed to be the result
of an unidentified toxic substance contained in the
dredging spoil, rather than the concentration of
suspended particles.
Interpretation of turbidity measurements at the
point of discharge by the same investigation revealed
that a fraction of the total turbidity cloud consisting
of oils and/or light organic material remained near the
surface. If present in sufficient quantities for an
adequate length of time, this material could pose a
possible pollution threat to the adjacent shore area,
particularly during the summer season when a drift
from the disposal site is predominately shoreward.
The dispersion rate of the remaining turbidity cloud
was sufficiently rapid that no direct adverse effects to
marine resources of economic importance would be
expected.
Comparison of the bottom topography before and
after the disposal operation indicated that the volume
of sediment added to the volume of excess material
present in the site was about 2,004,000 cubic yards,
which compares favorably with the 1,960,000 cubic
yards dredged by the Corps of Engineers; on the basis
of this comparison, most of the dredging spoils
remained within the designated disposal area. On the
basis of the biological and physical data obtained
prior to and during the December 1967 to July 1968
Narragansett disposal operation, Saila and co-workers
concluded that the spoil disposal site was acceptable
from the point of view of minimizing the damage to
locally important marine resources.5
Another aspect of dredge spoil disposal has been
discussed by Gross, who showed that the volumes of
dredge spoils and other sediment-like wastes (con-
struction and demolition debris) disposed of in Long
Island Sound and the New York Bight disposal areas
represent the largest single source of sediment enter-
ing directly into the Atlantic Ocean from North
America.8 From Corps of Engineers records, Gross
estimated that the mass of waste solids from the New
York City area disposed at sea increased from an
average of 6.8 million tons per year during 1960 to
1963 to 8.6 million tons per year for the period 1964
to 1968.
Most of the disposal sites referred to by Gross are
in areas where there is little natural deposition of
sediment to dilute or bury the man-moved solids that
in many cases consist of highly polluted harbor
sediments. The effect of these sediments on the biota
is not well understood at this time. Gross also points
out that disposal of spoil from barges or dredges is
significantly different from natural processes whereby
river borne sediment is deposited on the ocean floor.
Disposal operations are highly 'localized and involve
the instantaneous release of several thousand cubic
yards of spoil, which produces a thick layer of
26
-------
sediment that may or may not subsequently be
dispersed over a wider area by current action.
Gross emphasized the lack of knowledge regarding
the deposits formed by the present disposal opera-
tions and the absence of comparative data on existing
conditions before disposal operations began. Along
these lines, he points out that the present disposal
operations are, in effect, gigantic, unplanned experi-
ments and, if treated as such, much could be learned
from them.
The Corps of Engineers had earlier recognized the
growing need to determine the environmental impact
of waste disposal on coastal areas.9 In 1968, the
Chief of Engineers authorized a study of various
disposal sites in coastal waters in order to determine
the environmental effects produced by the disposal of
wastes at sea in these areas. The New York Bight
disposal areas were chosen for the initial research
because of the large volume of wastes currently being
discharged there.
The Coastal Engineering Research Center was
responsible for defining the research program. As part
of this program, the Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory
of the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has
undertaken an intensive two-year biological-chemical
field sampling program of the mud, cellar dirt, sewage
sludge and acid disposal grounds in the New York
Bight, with the Lamont Geological Observatory of
Columbia University carrying out supporting research
on water transport and diffusion. [Cooperatively, the
Food and Drug Administration has been conducting
bacteriological and chemical studies in the same
area.--ED.]
Industrial Wastes
The industrial wastes to be discussed below in-
clude waste acids, paper mill wastes, chemical wastes,
oil drilling wastes, and waste oil. These wastes are
typically dissolved or suspended in a water media for
bulk discharge at sea from tank barges. In some cases,
the material is barreled and dropped over the side.
The majority of studies of the environmental
effects of industrial wastes in the sea have been
carried out in Gulf of Mexico waters, because the
Galveston District of the Corps of Engineers requires
filing of laboratory and field studies of the wastes in
support of disposal applications. In order to facilitate
comparison of the environmental studies of the
various types of industrial waste disposal operations.
key information from the study results has been
summarized (Table 8).
Waste Acid. Studies of the dispersion and environ-
mental effects of acid-iron wastes discharged from
barges in the New York Bight disposal area have been
investigated by Buelow, Redfield and Walford,
Ketchum and Ford. Ketchum, Yentsch, and Corwin,
and most recently, by several research workers at the
Bureau of Sport Fisheries' Marine Laboratory in
Sandy Hook. New Jersey.1'10"13 These wastes
consist of ferrous sulfate and spent sulfuric acid in a
freshwater solution, and are the byproducts of a
titanium paint pigment manufacturing process.
TABLE 7
DUPLICATE SITES*
Atlantic
Areat Indus- Ex- Radio- _ , . _ ,
Lat.N. Long.W. trial plosive active Dred^ Refuse
44° 26'
44° 24'
42° 25'
38° 54'
38° 30'
38° 05'
41° 33'
37° 40'
37° 35'
67° 46'
68° 55'
70° 35'
73° 17'
72° 06'
73° 24'
65°33'
123° 25'
122°50'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pacific
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Compiled by James L. Verber, Food and Drug
Administration.
•f Sites usually 25 or more square miles.
The studies reported here showed that the toxic
effects of these wastes are minimal. Laboratory
toxicity tests conducted by Ketchum and co-workers
to determine if the acid-iron wastes had any effect on
the growth of green plankton algae showed and
concentrations of wastes which severely limited
growth are found only close to the discharge barge
and are diluted rapidly at sea.12 Zooplankton from
samples immediately behind the barge were temporar-
ily immobilized, but recovered rapidly on dilution
with unpolluted water a short distance astern of the
disposal barge.10
Additional findings of the study by Ketchum and
co-workers showed that the accumulation of iron
hydroxide, resulting from the chemical reaction of
the wastes with seawater, was about twice as great in
1957 as that observed in 1948, and 50 percent more
27
-------
tn
Oi
8 S-s
§ "Si
5 j2~
«-j
.S
§
•B
C
tj 3 O 0
*o .2 o
*J CM rt ob
rt ^ i.
.2? i e
» s».
ll§l-l
e "
X •
m a a
^NO §
53l
o
X
u I
C jd
II
5 "5.
O in
^. od
£ af
NO r-
00 O
u
S3
'i •§§•§§
Beta-chloropropylene (22%),
trichloropropane (5%), iso-
propylchloride (38%), allyl-
chloride (11%), misc. chlor-
ides (33%), heavy ends (3%),
pH - 9.8, specific gravity
-0.9 - 1.34.
NO
«
S
^-i
rJ
C
O
t-i
r~{
*
r/>
ON
Z
NO
°t-
rJ
8
r-i
^-H G"
° 2
S ^ «
sj£
_
w
rt , 2
u^ °
UT3 6
3 5 J2
s^ MD-
Q
||||
I°.l2
SS
p
^ ^ o
o §
o'Sl
o 6
|S .
« 2 2
.S-^-1*
S"5."a
111 S
Z ^
1I"C .^>
ag"5"!
E§ .7
-0-g.iB
g ^ O '3 tj
tlzlFs
NO
«
S
<4-«
O
C
2
§
CO
"""*
*
m
ON
Z
NO
I>
M
8
rg
-cT
w§
ill
u
Jtf
, ^)
•"" ^"^^N.
^Sg
a, ""
X
'y
'x
2
3
1
00*^*0
X ^" rt
j ts 2
3
5* W p"13
2f &S
CX.B
E E
k. ^
VI ^
S g .
c > °"
Ammonium sulfate (23%),
nitrogen (8%), carbon (12%),
organics (29%) (alcohols,
esters, amides), IOD-90
MG/L, BOD5 57,000 ppm,
pH-4.3, S.G. 1.23.
*
-
c
o
8
TH
"o
rs
in
Os
Z
v>
°^
(N
I
.
N*- J-
rri ^j O
i 2
6 as o
|2E^
w 2 u d
•g-3s5|
ri rt rt o ^
— '*" Sj'Q .
NO
Si
c
0
I
fS
?
ON
z
00
0
t^
S
o\
4_r
kd
o
'og-S
« a S
o tt. H
sl
t« O"
s«
x u c
|M .
® "O 23 ^
"2I
ISII
| as
, > S O
o 2
A * ' ^
x S g 'C
«I v. .0.
•§12 SI
S o-S c-S
(Organic waste) chlorinated
organics (10-15%), inorganic
salts (Na2SO4) (5-6%);
(acid) chlorinated organics
(1%), sulfuric acid (10-15%),
nitric acid (0.1%).
si
•"§!
si!
1/5 .— .
CT3
2 X
II
i-( O.
"NO
O\
Z
NO
°J^
(N
8
<*-, c"
O O
W « W
m *^ ^
T3
rt
SSs
Metallic sodium (75%), cal-
cium (24%), barium, rnagnes-
i mm, potassium (1%).
o
T-H
u
1
i
?•
^
1
P
•36-39
ooo c -
£|g.|
•* S ° °-
~NO
m
ON
Z
^O
m
r™
r-l
a
"S °
^ S «
o-lg
-OH
§ "~*
S "S
_^ «
c u *rj
l-o1!
C/5
8 E
3 O
:~.53
i rt rt
H O^
15.
o
mo!'§
•? CO 3
^-J= c' A j3 A |=
# 3|icsf*
l^il'ili!
Anilines (chlordaniline, mo-
, nochlorobenzene), liquid or-
ganics (methanol, p-xylene,
chlorobenzene), dry chemi-
cals—insoluble (thiram, thi~
\ ram-E, thionex, zineb, fer-
bam, momtron carbon disul-
fate).
r^
111
" E o
Q
o
-------
i
T
en
H
en
D
en
en
eo
W H
3 en
CQ =>
Z
O
en
en
Z,
td
O
D:
O
;*
oi
•<
S
S
_j
en
IM W
« §
1
j3
C
O
X
•o
c
O
1
fi
y
00
is
s
>ervations
^
O
3
b
•a
S
8.
OS
u
d.
X
I
eg j
•1-JiS
QSS
— c
3.9
;*3 c
*" T3
Observed effects
"<3
*5b
o
03
.a
Physical -Ch«
"rt
£J
3
T3
C
^"
O *t
-rl
w ^ c
js £ o ^
Mixing and diffusion of wastes occurs rapidly in t
wake of the barge. No evidence to indicate adve
effects. Each new proposed waste disposal operati
needs careful study prior to allowing ocean dispos
o
X
N
O
in
^
!§£4!
Water discoloration, plank
temporarily immobile,
settled rapidly from sur
layer, no appreciable accum
tion of iron found in bot
sediments.
X t/TX
b Eb
* g~
"^ &>•%
c °-~
•*-S'f>
£.00.
§ * a
c c "S
S 3 2 «•§ |
C 2;* C i t_T £
x * rt 8 1 1
lisa's
^ C O vT _J
u
I s|
g£S
m
C C W £ C
rt o »Q u •"
Disposal of "black liquor wastes" in the deep sea c
be accomplished without determinable effects
marine biota. Ultimate disposal is expected to
accomplished by bacteria. Advisable to monitor ea
separate load of waste to determine toxicity
laboratory.
H
x 2
§|ig
h* .— u go N_*- p
u
rt
-H JD
^2s
111
fM
§.§
No undesirable effects were observed. Diffusi
great enough to ensure good dispersion to minim
harmful effects to biota.
0
X
ex
.f-jj*
No fish mortality. No floa
oil. Bulk of waste sank. M
mum waste concentration
depth.
B
O
e
c
1
o
CJ
if
£S
« "M"
A O
Q. 3
3 f
ar
Ammoni
(mothel
04
e
Disposal should produce no significant mortality
the biota, nor any prolonged effects.
6 o
O O w
o"8"^
r^ rt S
"x
rt
No evidence of subsurface m
mum waste concentration.
<•* £ .^
1 1|
0
JX .-q
5 £ 1 -o
§.sg
sa.|
C X, O
Se
C 1>
8^.3;^
ai^i
|S&6
3
Waste liq
o
r- (/I o i
S "" J3 '3
No significant mortality would be expected fr<
disposal of this waste in the open ocean. It
suggested that a full-scale disposal operation
properly monitored and continued to verify prelir
nary study results.
_. 0
2 §•
« ^:
•S»
° a
S5
S
.•§•§3
Explosions caused by reaction of sodium w
seawater had no significant effects on sargassum a
zooplankton populations. Absence of fish-kiln v
probably due to barrenness of disposal area.
16^-8
No mortality to fish. Flj
debris hazardous to disposal
sonnel. 30% mortality to pla
ton due to collection meth
i.
j= .
£ OJ
c 9
o c
IB
£!
Q
O T3
I-&1
1^2
w
•*
G^t K C U "
o ° S — ."3 5
Consideration of available toxicity and diffusi
data from literature sources indicate that the zone
water containing toxic concentrations of wa
surrounding each disposal drum will be limited
extent and duration and will not endanger mot
aquatic life in the disposal area to a signifies
degree.
2
X
8
o
«
2
w
T>
J!
£Z
Limited scale (one day) of survey precluded a
significant results. Recommend future surveys
conducted on 3-day basis for better results.
S i~
I -~
0 x!
o-
c w ®
2- £V
•* CL-. M"
S S"S*F
xx g
^O rt
^1s
-S.C
S! S
1^
His
r* « 5 «
«
Caprolact
wastes
28a
-------
-------
than that observed in 1950.12 This was less than
might have been expected, however, from the in-
crease in the discharge rate that had occurred over the
same period. No evidence was found to indicate that
the general turbidity of the waters caused by the iron
precipitate has increased outside the general disposal
area. Ketchum14 and Wuestefeld9 reported that,
since establishment of the acid-iron disposal opera-
tion in 1948, a concentration or bluefish has devel-
oped on the outer boundaries of the disposal area,
thus creating a highly popular sport fishery that did
not previously exist.
Paper Mill Wastes. This waste is the so-called
'black liquor' produced by the sulfate process
used in paper manufacture; it includes sodium
carbonate, sodium sulfate, sodium hydroxide, and
other chemicals. The wastes described by Hood
and Abbott15 were discharged off the Texas coast in
1955 and contained about 45 percent solids, were
water soluble but quite viscous, and had a pH greater
than 13. Laboratory studies using four species of
phytoplankton showed the concentration of black
liquor affecting photosynthesis (i.e., threshold toxi-
city) was about 0.05 grams per liter, and the lethal
concentration was on the order of 1 gram per liter.
Tests on zooplankton produced no acute toxicities in
concentrations up to 0.4 grams per liter; greater
concentrations were not tested because it was impos-
sible to observe the zooplankton as a result of the
opaque characteristics of the wastewater mixture.
Visual observations at sea confirmed the non-toxic
character of the wastes, as zooplankton in samples
taken immediately astern of the discharge barge were
observed to be swimming about normally.
Field evidence also showed that the absorbent
component of the waste sank almost immediately,
leaving only a slight discoloration at the surface that
was visible for only 30 to 40 minutes after discharge.
A minimum dilution ratio of waste to water immedi-
ately behind the barge was calculated to be on the
order of 1 to 300,000 or a concentration of 0.03
grams of waste per liter, which is well below the
values given previously for threshold and acute
toxicity on phytoplankton. Bacterial action should
result in the ultimate disintegration of the organic
components of the black liquor wastes while the
inorganic• fraction, principally sodium sulfate, would
rapidly lose its identity when mixed with seawater.
Chemical Wastes. For convenience of discussion
here, the chemical waste subcategory is divided into
chlorinated hydrocarbons, ammonia sulfate, waste
liquor, sodium sludge, and pesticides.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons. The chlorinated hydro-
carbon waste category includes betachloropropylene,
trichloropropane, isopropylchloride, allychloride,
miscellaneous chlorides, and other constituents dis-
charged by chemical and petrochemical plants. The
disposal operations discussed here are confined to the
Gulf of Mexico. Although wastes containing various
percentages of chlorinated hydrocarbons are dis-
charged off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, their
environmental effects have not been investigated
primarily because in those areas such studies are not a
prerequisite for obtaining a disposal permit.
Four separate chlorinated hydrocarbon disposal
operations in Gulf waters have been studied by Hood
and his associates16"18 at the Texas A & M Research
Foundation. Their work included field and laboratory
investigations of the effects of these wastes on various
marine organisms, with emphasis on phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and fish. Observed effects at the dis-
posal site included sinking of the bulk of the waste,
discoloration of the water, and the death of fish and
plankton on direct contact with the undiluted waste.
After two to four hours, the surface waste field was
found to be sufficiently diluted so that no effect on
marine life was observed.
Because the inherent patchy distribution of the
microorganisms at sea makes it difficult to obtain
statistically significant results, the effects of various
toxicity levels on phytoplankton and zooplankton
were tested by Hood under controlled laboratory
conditions. Inhibition to photosynthesis and respira-
tion caused by the wastes was determined by using
standard oceanographic procedures for measuring
carbon-14 uptake and oxygen evolution. Comparison
of the results with those obtained from uncon-
taminated control samples maintained under identical
laboratory conditions provided an index of inhibi-
tion. Acute toxicity tests were also conducted on the
plankton and various species of fish. Results of the
laboratory toxicity studies showed that the inhibition
to photosynthesis and respiration is a much more
sensitive and meaningful measure of the toxic effects
of organic contaminants in seawater than acute
toxicity tests on organisms such as fish.
The effects of wastes on organisms endemic to the
disposal sites was assessed in the field by examining
the flora and fauna associated with the seaweed,
Sargassum, present both within the outside of the
disposal area. It was found that direct contact with
29
-------
the undiluted hydrocarbon wastes at the point of
discharge was generally lethal to the small crabs,
shrimp, fish, snails, etc., but in most cases samples
taken in the disposal area showed conditions had
returned to normal within three to eight hours.15"19
With regard to diffusion and dispersion of the
hydrocarbon wastes. Hood and Stevenson estimated
that about seven square miles of surface area would
be affected by a single disposal operation.17 Further
their work indicated that within three to nine hours,
the wastes in the surface layers were diluted to levels
below the limit of detection by the analytical method
used.1 8'19 In contrast to this, slow dispersion of the
wastes occurred at depths from 50 to 500 feet. For
example, at one station the waste concentration at
500 feet was roughly equivalent to that observed at
the surface in the actual disposal wake 42 hours
earlier.16 Because of the possibility of these waste-
laden waters working their way shoreward to bottom
fishing areas or regions of upwelling, it was recom-
mended that future disposal areas should be located
seaward of the 400 fathom line.
Hood concluded that chlorinated hydrocarbon
wastes could be discharged at sea with only minor
adverse effects on marine organisms within the
dispersal area.18'19 It should be pointed out,
however, that Hood's work did not examine the
possible effects of the wastes at depth or of bottom
contamination on benthic organisms, even though
samples of bottom mud within the disposal area
contained from 10 to 100 percent of the original
surface concentration of hydrocarbon waste.16
Ibert, Wilson, and Harding carried out laboratory
tests on the toxicity of two chlorinated hydrocarbon
wastes produced by a chemical plant; this study was
in preliminary support for an application for marine
disposal off the Texas coast.20 The tests, which used
top-water minnows, brine shrimp, and various phyto-
plankton, measured both the median toxicity level at
24 hours and the critical concentration range, defined
as that dilution range between which there is no
mortality on the one hand and no survival on the
other. In the case of the test plants, 50 percent
survived at concentrations of 0.05 to 0.5 percent by
volume on 24-hour exposure to the hydrocarbon
wastes, and the waste, which included dilute sulfunc
acid, was somewhat more toxic, i.e., 50 percent
survival at concentrations of 0.02 and 0.05 percent
by volume. This greater toxicity should be greatly
reduced in a marine disposal operation because of the
rapid neutralization of sulfuric acid which occurs in
sea water.10
Ibert and associates estimated that the waste
would be diluted below the 0.006 percent concentra-
tion range within an hour by using a pumping rate
between 8 and 15 tons per hour while underway at
five knots, and concluded that no significant mortal-
ity would be expected from the disposal of either
waste in the open ocean.
Waste Liquor. Ibert and Harding carried out
laboratory and field studies on an industrial waste
liquor being discharged off the Texas coast.21 The
waste consisted of various compounds of sodium,
hydrogen, and sulfur, along with sodium chloride in
an aqueous solution (specific gravity greater than
1.25) that was completely miscible in seawater. On
the basis of the laboratory toxicity studies, they
concluded marine disposal would produce no signifi-
cant mortality, nor any prolonged deleterious effects,
nor would the concentrations of the waste persist
beyond two hours after discharge.
Because the wastes were about 25 percent more
dense than seawater, the bulk of the materials sank
rapidly from the surface layer, but to the depth
covered by sampling (164 feet) there was no evidence
of plunging of the wastes in an undiluted stream.
Further dilution and dispersion of the wastes were
expected to occur on the bottom but sampling was
not carried out to confirm this fact.
The reported maximum value of the waste con-
centration 1.5 miles astern of the barge was less than
one in 10s (.001%), which was within a factor of two
of the minimum value of TL(y| reported earlier for the
phytoplankton used in the toxicity tests.21 In spite
of these favorable results, it was recommended that
future operations use a significantly reduced pumping
discharge rate per mile of vessel track in order to
insure adequate dispersion under all oceanographic
conditions.
Ammonium Sulfate Mother Liquor. MacSmith
studied the effects of ammonia sulfate mother liquor
on brine shrimp and minnows in the laboratory, as
well as the diffusion of these wastes during dis-
charge.22 This waste material is saturated with
ammonium sulfate and contains about 10 percent
organic carbon as alcohols, amides, esters, etc.; it is
generated in obtaining ammonium sulfate from sul-
furic acid in a fertilizer manufacturing process.
Smith's work included chemical analyses, biodegrad-
abihty and toxicity studies, and preliminary diffusion
30
-------
calculations, as well as sampling at sea to determine
actual diffusion.
On the basis of the preliminary diffusion and
toxicity studies, it was concluded that the wastes
would not produce adverse effects on the environ-
ment or organisms within the disposal area. A trial
disposal operation verified the predictions that dif-
fusion would be sufficiently rapid to minimize the
harmful effects to the biota.
Sodium Sludge. Stein reports a study of the
disposal of sodium sludge off the Texas coast.2 3 The
sludge consisted of approximately 75 percent metallic
sodium and 24 percent metallic calcium, and was a
waste product from a petrochemical plant. The
barreled sodium sludge was punctured and dropped
overboard; when seawater made contact with the
sodium, the drums exploded (Figure 7). Field obser-
vation and sampling indicated that the explosions and
elevated pH (resulting from the interaction of the
sodium with seawater) had no significant effects on
the Sargassum and zooplankton communities as
compared to those in the control area. An absence of
floating dead fish may have been due to the barren-
ness of the area.
Corps of Engineers records indicate that on two
occasions unpierced barrels loaded with sodium
sludge have been retrieved from Gulf waters by
fishermen. In these cases, it is almost certain that the
disposal operators did not dispose of the barrels in
the designated disposal area.
Pesticides. Waller studied the probable environ-
mental effects of the proposed marine disposal of
wastes from a Gulf Coast plant that manufactures
herbicides and fungicides.24 The waste included
chemicals of the following types: anilines (primarily
chloroaniline and aniline with small amounts of
monochlorobenzene); liquid organic solvents
(methanol, p-xylene and chlorobenzene); and dry
chemicals including Thiram, Thiram- E, Thionex,
Zineb, Ferbam, Monuron, and carbon disulfate. Be-
cause of their toxic nature, these wastes are disposed
of in weighted steel drums. To facilitate discharge and
dispersal along the bottom, a small air space is left in
each drum to ensure deformation and rupture of the
drum on the ocean floor.
Waller evaluated toxicity data on these waste
materials on the basis of the available literature, and
concluded that:
The herbicides and fungicides are generally more
toxic than the liquid organics. These dry chemi-
cals, however, have a very low solubility so that
once in solution a relatively low dilution ratio (on
the order of 100:1) will reduce the concentration
below the median tolerance limits (TLj^). . . In
addition, the susceptibility to biodegradation and
chemical instability in an aqueous environment
would further reduce localized toxic conditions.24
A mathematical model was developed by Waller to
consider the dissolution of the slightly soluble solid
material with subsequent diffusion into the surround-
ing seawater and simultaneous chemical degradation.
He calculated that, at a discharge rate of one barrel
every two minutes from a barge moving at three
knots, the drums would be spaced at 600-foot
intervals on the ocean floor. In the case of a waste
material dissolving over a period of one year, calcula-
tions showed that, based on an eddy diffusion
coefficient of 2 cm2/sec, a 100 to 1 dilution is
reached at a maximum distance of 54 feet, 30 days
after discharge. He considered this approach to be
conservative in that no allowance was made for
biological degradation or strong currents that could
greatly increase the dispersion.
No actual at-sea tests were conducted on this
disposal operation. Therefore a follow-on at-sea moni-
toring program would be highly desirable, particularly
in light of potential adverse effects.
Drill Cuttings and Drilling Muds. The rock chips
produced by the bit in drilling an oil well are termed
drill cuttings. On offshore drilling platforms along the
southern California coast, these cuttings are generally
washed and discharged below the rig. Although the
resulting solid waste accumulation is volumetrically
of little significance because of its possible effect on
marine life it has been discussed by Turner, Carlisle,
and Ebert who reported that the cuttings were found
to have no effect, either adverse or beneficial, on the
environment.25'26 Turner and co-workers suggested
that, if the cuttings were to be disposed of several
hundred feet away from the drilling platform and
capped with stones or other rubble, they could
provide an artificial habitat for sport fishing.25
The disposal of drilling muds and cuttings in deep
water from a barge has also received cursory investiga-
tion by the THUMS Long Beach Company in
cooperation with several Federal and State agencies,
including the Corps of Engineers.27 Observations on
the disposal operation consisted of aerial photographs
and visual inspection at the sea surface to assesss the
extent of surface contamination. On the basis of the
31
-------
one-day study, it was concluded that the disposal
operation posed no threat to the environment.
Waste Oil. Although environmental studies have
not been made on the single industrial waste oil
disposal operation noted during the survey, some very
significant work has been carried out on the wastes
from tank cleaning operations conducted by oil
tankers at sea. Based on the earlier work of ZoBell
regarding the oxidation of hydrocarbons by marine
bacteria, Moss has shown the importance of dis-
charging these wastes in a finely divided or atomized
form in order to optimize bacterial degradation.28'29
Moss' calculations show that the full quantity of
waste oil (at an average concentration of 0.13
milligrams/liter) resulting from cleaning the tanks of a
45,000 dwt tanker underway at 16 knots would be
oxidized by bacteria in 2 to 4.5 days, depending on
whether the wastes were discharged continuously
over a 24-hour period, or discharged as fast as the
tanks were cleaned.29 The broader aspects of the
environmental effects of oil in the marine ecosystem
have been summarized recently by Holcomb and
Blumer.30'31 Holcomb concludes that ". . .little is
known about the long-term effects of oil in the
marine environment."30' P- 204
Discussion. The information indicated in the pre-
ceding paragraphs when summarized represents
virtually everything we know of the environmental
effects of industrial wastes discharged at sea from
barges (Table 8). This minute body of information is
totally disproportionate with both the amounts of
wastes handled and the potential damage that these
wastes can do. It should be noted that the limited
scope of the work accomplished to date reflects the
economic and environmental constraints which have
been applied in the past. There is abundant evidence
that these constraints are changing so that it is
reasonable to assume that future marine disposal of
wastes will be limited to those operations which have
been shown not to cause damage.
Sewage Sludge
Sewage sludge discharged at sea is the residual
from municipal sewage treatment plants and is
generally 3 to 10 percent solids by weight. It is
discharged from tank barges at one disposal site in the
New York Bight and another off Cape May, New
Jersey. There are no similar operations on the Gulf or
Pacific coasts, although large volumes of sludge are
discharged in southern California coastal waters
through submarine outfalls.
The effects of sewage sludge on the marine
environment have been investigated by Buelow and
associates,1' 32-34 an(j for the southern California
outfalls, by Carlisle, North, Pearson, Rittenburg,
Gunnerson, Brooks, and Grigg and Kiwala and many
others.3'4-35'39
The environmental effects of barge disposal of
sludge in the designated sites in the New York Bight
and off Cape May, New Jersey (Figure 2) were
studied by Buelow and associates at the U.S. Public
Health Service's Northeast Technical Services Unit,
FDA Laboratory.40 This study was the outgrowth of
the increased concern by Federal and State health
agencies and the shellfish industry over the possible
contamination of the commercial surf clam beds
adjacent to the sewage sludge disposal grounds. Of
particular concern was the possibility that the surf
clams might accumulate and concentrate bacteria,
viruses, and other toxic substances present in the
sludge; these substances could, in turn, be transmitted
to consumers of the shellfish. Results of this study
indicate that sludge settles rapidly to the bottom and
that, except in the immediate wake of the barge
discharge, the highest coliform contents occurred in
the samples from the near-bottom water.
Because of the preliminary nature of their field
investigations, Buelow and co-workers were unable
either to approve the present disposal sites or to
recommend their relocation. Preliminary results, how-
ever, of the current Corps of Engineers study of the
New York City sludge disposal area indicate that,
because of the high bacterial contamination found in
surf clams adjacent to the sludge disposal grounds40
harvesting clams should be prohibited from within a 6
mile radius of the center of the disposal grounds.
Buelow has also concluded that the sludge from
the disposal area off Cape May poses a potential
threat to existing commeicial surf clam beds and
shellfish beds located to the south and west of the
present disposal site, as they are in a direct line to
receive sludge carried by the prevailing tidal currents.
In addition, Buelow pointed out that the location of
the New York sludge disposal area within a few miles
of the head of the Hudson Submarine Canyon, and
the apparent southerly drift of the sludge on the
bottom towards the head of the canyon, constitute a
potential threat to the lobster and red crab popula-
tions which may breed in the shallower portions of
the canyon.1
The work on several major southern California
submarine sewage outfalls by the various investigators
32
-------
cited above demonstrated the presence of coliform
concentrations in the upper layer of bottom sediment
adjacent to the outfalls. In connection with these
studies, Gunnerson has divided the various factors,
which are important in reducing bacterial populations
in seawater, into three categories37: (1) bacteriologic
factors endemic to the marine environment- these
include competition for food, predation, salinity,
sunlight, temperature, pressure, etc. All of these
factors may be combined into a single factor—
namely, mortality; (2) settling behavior of suspended
solids-this is dependent on the size, shape, floc-
culating characteristics, and density of the sludge
particles, which, in turn, are a function of the type of
sewage treatment process. Particle characteristics are
also important because the bacteria are concentrated
within or on the particles; (3) dispersion of the
effluent field-this takes place as the sludge field
moves downstream from the outfall.
Gunnerson set up a simple mathematical expres-
sion relating these three factors.37 Using this relation-
ship in an investigation of the persistence of coliform
bacteria in the primary effluent from the Hyperion
Outfall off Los Angeles, he showed that sedimenta-
tion is, by far, the most important factor in the
disappearance of coliform bacteria from the surface
layer of the water column.
The results of work by North and by Grigg and
Kiwala to investigate the environmental effects of
sewage disposal from the Whites Point outfall in 65 to
195 feet of water off Los Angeles reveal that,
shoreward of the 10-fathom curve, large-scale ecologi-
cal changes have occurred.4'39 For example, many
species that normally occur over rocky substrates at
these depths (e.g., kelp, lobster, abalone, and many
species of fish) are either rare or no longer present.
The length of coastline affected by the sludge deposit
has spread from two miles in 1954 to six miles in
1969, at least a three-fold increase in length in 15
years. In contrast, Carlisle reports that sewage sludge
disposal from the Hyperion outfall in 320 feet of
water m Santa Monica Bay has apparently had no
measurable effects on fish abundance.3
In summary, studies have indicated that sewage
sludge in large concentrations destroys the marine
habitat in the immediate vicinity of the sludge field;
that the sludge drifts slowly along the bottom
because of currents; that coliform and related toxic
substances are potential threats to shellfish within a
radius of 5 to 10 miles of the site; that the toxic
substances and coliform bacteria associated with the
sludge are concentrated in bottom sediments; and
that a great deal more field and laboratory work is
required to accurately predict the detailed behavior
of the sludge and the probable environmental re-
sponse .
Refuse
Although there have been no sizeable municipal
refuse disposal operations at sea from the United
States in the past 25 years,41 several U.S. coastal
cities (including New York, Oakland, and San Diego)
had previously dumped their refuse at sea. These
operations were generally unsatisfactory because of
the associated fouling of beaches and resultant public
disfavor and eventual preventative legal actions. The
results of the present survey show, however, that in
1968 there was small- scale disposal at sea of refuse
from military installations in Long Beach and San
Diego and from a cannery in the San Francisco Bay
area (Chapter II). Black also reports that the city of
Charlotte Amalis on St. Thomas Island, Virgin Is-
lands, in 1962 began disposing at sea a daily average
of 280 cubic yards of refuse.41
Studies associated with the past disposal of refuse
at sea have been either investigations to establish the
sources of wastes found on public beaches, or
examinations of the economic and technical feasi-
bility of conducting such disposal operations.
Only in the last two or three years have there been
serious attempts to determine the possible environ-
mental effects of disposal of refuse and related solid
waste in the ocean. These studies42"44 are an
outgrowth of the several new methods that have been
proposed to facilitate effective marine disposal.45"50
Probably the most comprehensive study to date is
that directed by Dr. Melvin W. First and conducted
jointly by the Harvard School of Public Health and
the University of Rhode Island's Graduate School of
Oceanography with funds from the U.S. Public
Health Service and the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion.42'51 Systems analysis techniques were em-
ployed in this study to evaluate several distinct but
interrelated aspects of the feasibility of utilizing
shipboard incinerators in connection with marine
disposal of refuse from Boston.
Besides defining costs and operating characteristics
of the incinerator vessels, the study examined what
effects the incinerator residues would have on a
variety of marine organisms. Both acute and chronic
toxicity tests were carried out on species ranging
33
-------
from phytoplankton and lobster larval to flounders
and clams. Oceanographic studies were made in order
to predict the movement of incinerated solid wastes
along the bottom under various conditions. Meteoro-
logical studies were conducted to determine safe
burning sites for every weather pattern likely to be
experienced in the general offshore region proposed
for the disposal operations.
Oviatt has summarized the studies on the toxic
effects of incinerator residue on selected marine
species.43 Short- and long-term toxicity tests were
performed on a series of organisms including clams,
shrimp, scallop, lobster larvae, and fish. The quahaug
(Mercenaria mercenaria) was the most resistant;
90-day quahaug bioassays in residue concentrations
up to 10 percent by weight failed to produce
mortalities or significant changes in growth. The
common mummiehog survived with no mortalities in
40-day bioassay tests with residue concentrations up
to 30 percent by weight. First- and second-stage
lobster larvae and the common prawn did not
experience significant mortality in residue concentra-
tions of 1 percent or less. Of all the fish species
tested, the juvenile menhaden was the most sensitive
with less than 50 percent surviving 50 days of
exposure to the incinerator residue in concentrations
exceeding 1 percent by weight. The sea scallop was
the most sensitive bottom organism tested and
significant mortality occurred in concentrations
greater than 3 percent by weight. Additional work
has been described by Rogers.44
The toxicity effects reported were not considered
a serious drawback to the proposed disposal program
because calculations show that about 25 years of
daily disposal of 500 tons over a 1-square-mile area
would be required to equal the toxic level of one
present residue concentration.
Oceanographic studies showed that incinerator
residue (including cans) in 50 feet of water would
drift under storm conditions with the net movement
caused by the combined effects of the wave orbital
velocity associated with passing waves and the tidal
currents found in the area.5 2 Once the cans and other
debris begin to rock back and forth as a result of
wave orbital motion, weak but steady tidal currents
cause a net movement in the direction of the current.
Calculations indicate that wave heights greater than 3
feet can move debris down to 50 feet, wave heights
above 9 feet can move debris at 100 feet, and wave
heights above 12 feet can move debris at 200 feet. On
the other hand, burnt cans disintegrate at a fairly
rapid rate so that, at depths beyond 100 to 200 feet,
disintegration was likely to occur long before the
object moved a significant distance.
Observations on a simulated incinerator residue
disposal site in 180 feet of water were conducted in
1968 with the aid of a research submarine. Some 25
dives were conducted to observe and photograph
marked objects planted on the bottom and the effects
of actual incinerator residue deposited earlier in the
study area.53 The general conclusion was that in-
cinerator wastes on bottom in 100 to 200 feet depths
off Boston would not drift significantly.
The disposal of municipal refuse and garbage at sea
(baled or otherwise caused to sink) has received
serious consideration in the past year by such major
U.S. coastal cities as New York, Philadelphia, and San
Francisco,49 and increasing pressure for marine dis-
posal is a certainty as the coastal population grows.
At present, virtually no information is available on
the probable effects on the marine environment of a
large- scale disposal operation. Considerable work
would be necessary before undertaking such disposal.
In this regard, it is worthwhile to note that the results
of a recent study on the disposal of solid wastes from
Westchester County, New York, conducted for the
New York State Pure Waters Authority,54 showed
that barge-haul and disposal of baled refuse at sea was
technically feasible and less costly than rail-haul and
sanitary landfill or incineration. At-sea disposal was
not recommended, however, ". . because of the
difficulty in proving that it will not unbalance the
ecology of the area. . ,".53 In Philadelphia, a well
publicized application for a permit to dispose of
refuse at sea was prepared. No action has been taken
on this proposal.54 p- 4
In considering the uncertainties inheient in evalu-
ating the ecological impact of solid waste disposal at
sea, it is important to note that the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife (under a cooperative agreement
with the Bureau of Solid Waste Management) is
investigating the beneficial uses of marine disposal of
refuse specifically, the costs and benefits of building
artificial fish habitats from wastes such as rubber tires
and baled refuse.56 Such baled refuse might also
provide food for fish.
Radioactive Wastes
The environmental effects and dispersion of radio-
active wastes in the ocean have been the subject of
considerable research over the past 20 years. Al-
34
-------
though containerized radioactive wastes were not
disposed of at sea in 1968, much of the knowledge
stemming from previous research is pertinent to an
understanding of the environmental effects of present
marine solid waste disposal operations. Disposal at sea
resumed in 1969, therefore, even though a compre-
hensive review of the voluminous literature on the
subject was beyond the scope of this study, selected
basic studies particularly pertinent to other marine
disposal operations were reviewed and are discussed
in this section. The reader interested in more detailed
information is referred to the references cited later in
this section.
In 1956, the National Academy of Sciences-
National Research Council (NAS-NRC) organized a
series of committees to study the various aspects of
the biological effects of atomic radiation. In the
report of the Committee on Oceanography, Revelle
and associates presented a critical evaluation of the
state of knowledge available at that time regarding
the physical, chemical, biological, and geological
processes involved in the interaction of radioactive
wastes with the marine environment.57 On the basis
of this evaluation, it was concluded that most of the
physical and biological processes in the ocean were
too poorly understood to permit precise predictions
of the results of the introduction of a given quantity
of radioactive materials at a particular location in the
sea. The Committee proposed that several basic
problem areas should be attacked in the future, in
order to obtain the necessary knowledge required for
assessing the effects of radioactive waste disposal in
the ocean. These include: dispersion in the upper
mixed layer of the sea; circulation in the intermediate
and deep ocean layers; exchange of water properties
between the surface and deeper layers; sedimentation
processes; effects of biosphere on the distribution and
circulation of elements; uptake and retention of
elements by organisms used as food for man; effects
of atomic radiation on populations of marine organ-
isms.
In 1958, the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and the Office of
Naval Research jointly requested that the NAS-NRC
Committee on Oceanography undertake a detailed
evaluation of the problems of disposal of both liquid
and solid low-level radioactive wastes into the ocean
off the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf coasts of the
United States. The primary objectives of this program
were to provide estimates of the level of radioactive
wastes that could safely be disposed of at sea, and the
most satisfactory locations and methods for disposal
to insure that the present or future use and enjoy-
ment of the resources of U.S. coastal areas would not
be impaired.58
Of the several potential hazards accompanying sea
disposal of radioactive wastes, the most critical from
the point of view of the NAS-NRC program is the
possibility of return of the radioactivity toman. Next
in importance is the possible damage to marine
organisms from exposure to radioactive wastes. Two
avenues through which damage could possibly occur
are: (1) transport of the radioactive wastes from the
disposal sites to the coastal zone, thereby curtailing
the present or future use and enjoyment of the
resources of the region; (2) uptake of the radioactive
wastes by one or more of the trophic levels in the
marine biota, with possible return to man via com-
mercially important fish and shellfish.
Three reports have been published as a result of
the NAS-NRC studies.5 8-60 Carritt and co-workers
studied physical diffusion of low-level radioisotopes
from containerized waste disposal areas located in
relatively shallow waters on the continental shelf.5 8
Pritchard and associates investigated the problem of
physical diffusion associated with the disposal of
low-level liquid radioactive wastes discharged in the
surface layer of the sea from nuclear vessels.59 The
study by Isaacs and co-workers concentrated on the
biological aspects of the problem, including the
possibility modification of the ecological regimen; in
particular they considered the effects of the con-
tainerized wastes in attracting fish and other marine
organisms, and the subsequent transfer of the wastes
from the deeper waters via biological processes.60
The Pritchard report summarized the key factors
that determine the fate of radioactive material intro-
duced into the marine environment and showed a
schematic presentation of the step- by-step considera-
tions that should be made in evaluating the suitability
of any marine locale as a receiver of nuclear wastes
(Figure 14). The general procedure is the same
whether the evaluation concerns containerized wastes
or liquid wastes discharged from outfalls and vessels.
A similar sequence of considerations is appropriate in
the evaluation of potential oceanic sites for non-
radioactive solid waste disposal.
In the Carritt study, a series of 28 shallow water
disposal sites were proposed for the Atlantic and Gulf
coast area.58 For these sites, the maximum allowable
annual rate of disposal for a site two miles in
diameter was calculated to be 250 curies of stron-
35
-------
*0
ft
o
o;
|
vt
i
i.
t>
Q.
E
E
x
o
-
-D
J
A
I
*
I
ft
O
U
O
t>
1
o
D
O
O
o
V
t
'«
•*'••-
%
*
'x
c
o
*
0
y
c
o
_c
u
ft
o
_c
i
I
t
E
o
"- -0
— c
O D
•!i ft
i s
-C *
U "ft
-o ^
5 o
"o «
« s
x J
0. *0
ft
CJ>
o
u
•ti
o
c
c
E
^....
^
*
*
:
t-
•
-o
,'
*
0
o>
c
o
-C
u
c
TJ
3
"o
c
c
o
1
Q
ft
c
„
5
"o
c w
£ c
¥ «
• 1
"^ 2
5 >
o ^
A
t
t
*
*
„....
6
T3
o
t.
*0
ft
M
o
H
o
o
or
C
u
c
o
U
Io
•~
1
Q.
-
3
E
'x
o
5
o
»
M
E
o
M
£
U
c
o
D
0
I
M
O
motei
o
u
o
'
t
ft
o
o
J?
c
c
o
o
i:
-
*0
M
O
tfl
3
0
V.
O
S :
w c
1 !
.E *
"~ M
§ E
— o
|i
3 _C
M •£
S £
i
J
A
"" c
_c o
* E
*• £
i :
« 8
^ •
2 -
3 cS
^ &
^ a
4-» nj
C3 ^
£ °
s =
•2 o
cd *^
s >
•a 'S
'53 o
o *•*
o «
C-u JM
-*-• (D
>. s
jp o
Pj ""^
^ i
1 E
"o c
1 "s
1 3
si
£ ft
(U
3 a
E
V
o
ft
o
TJ
§1 •
Z'l
J *0
O «)
n u
a 5
— 0
D V)
O —
....^
S
T) 4,
V)
"o °
£ t
§1- -5
sl S .
o _£
"o ~ _
.2 * S
t « a.
o j: .!?
......
c
c
o
:£
ft
o
c
0
o
ft
p
0
..
„
.
s
c* -^
= -8
0
c
0
c
£
o
0 • *-
....^
8
o
U
-O
*M
M
i
a.
E
3
'x
O
5
0
5
o
m
O
D_
M
3
O
0
C
c
o
o
c
o
u
_c
u
">
c
ft
E
c
o
c
LU
c
o
_Q
5 ^
E o
0 "
•- jc
3 J
0 *.
3 •£
^ * ft
2 ™ r^
E E fe
36
-------
tium-90 or its equivalent. This value is based on a
modification of the diffusion equation for the con-
tinuous release of a contaminant at a known rate,
under a steady-state condition of supply from a
ruptured container containing not more than two
curies of strontium-90 or its equivalent. The effects
of adsorption by bottom sediments and uptake by
marine organisms are not considered in this equation.
The Isaacs report set the maximum permissible
number of disposal sites off the U.S. and Canadian
Pacific coast at 40, with a maximum of 20 between
the Mexican border and the Columbia River. In
determining the allowable rate of disposal for the
recommended sites, Isaacs and associates considered
two general situations. For each disposal site located
below the region of growing marine plants (euphotic
zone), yet within the vertical range of human food
fish and other human food organisms, they
recommended that packaged radioactive wastes
(Figure 12) can be disposed of ".. . at a rate
equivalent to 150 curies per year of material that has
a maximum permissible concentration in sea water
(MPCC) of 1.5 X 10~s microcuries per kilgram, with
soluble isotopes not exceeding 40 millicuries per
drum and insoluble isotopes not exceeding 0.5
millicuries per drum on an average basis."60
In depths below the vertical limit of human food
fish, the annual limit for radioactivity in each disposal
area was given as:
Q = 5 X 106 (MPCQ(d-b)
where Q is the maximum disposal quantity of the
isotopes in curies per year, MPCC is the weighted
mean allowable concentration (in micro curies per
kilogram) of the isotopes in seawater, d is the depth
of the disposal area in meters, and b is the limiting
depth of a human food organism in meters. On the
basis of this relationship, a disposal location situated
in 4,400 meters (14,436 feet), with b set at 2,400
meters (7,874 feet), would have an allowable disposal
of 150,000 curies per year.60
From an evaluation of the environmental data
associated with the two existing disposal sites (one
off San Francisco in the vicinity of the Farallon
Islands and one in the Santa Cruz Basin), Isaacs and
colleagues recommended that the Santa Cruz basin
site should be relocated to the Santa Barbara basin.60
This change was on the basis of the latter's anaerobic
properties, higher rate of sedimentation, bottom
characteristics and sparce amount of benthic life, and
water circulation. This example points out the fact
that the deepest location farthest from shore is not
necessarily the best site for disposal of a given waste
material.
All of the past efforts to assess the potential
hazards of radioactive disposal at sea have been
hampered by lack of factual data and the complexity
of the physical and biological processes in the ocean.
As a result of these limitations, the calculations
expressing safe disposal concentrations contain an
additional safety factor to allow for the deficit of
information on this problem. Each of the NAS-NRC
studies cited recommended that further research be
conducted in the seven categories cited earlier.
Because of the 1963 curtailment of marine discharge
of radioactive waste, relatively little of this research
has been carried out.
Another recommendation of importance concerns
the necessity for monitoring and maintaining records
of the amount and location of radioactive waste
disposal operations. Both the Carrit and Isaacs studies
also pointed out the need for periodic observation of
the disposal sites in order to document the distribu-
tion of nuclear activity and its effects on the biota,
and to provide an indication of whether or not the
original assumptions made to determine allowable
discharge rates are valid.58'60 Isaacs and his associ-
ates recommended that the monitoring and observa-
tion program be conducted by an agency other than
the AEC or its contractors.
To the writers' knowledge, only three sites used
for disposal of containerized radioactive wastes have
actually been resurveyed by the AEC (or with AEC
funds). These are: (1) a site off the Farallon Islands
near San Francisco;61 (2) the aforementioned site at
the Santa Cruz basin, some 70 miles west of Los
Angeles;60 (3) a site about 130 miles east-southeast
off Cape May, New Jersey.13'38'62 For the two West
Coast sites, the results of beta-gamma counting of
sediment samples indicated that no radioactivity
above natural background levels was present. Similar
counts for the site off Cape May, however, produced
indications in 1961 of possible leakage of radioactive
materials from the containers.13'62 Despite these
findings, no further investigations of the disposal
areas have been reported. The need for, and the
problems associated with, ongoing environmental
monitoring of marine waste disposal operations are
discussed in more detail in Chapter IV.
37
-------
Military Explosives and Chemical
Warfare Agents
Surplus or obsolete explosives and chemical and
biological warfare agents (CBW) have been disposed
of at sea for many years. Summaries by Busby, Hunt,
and Rainnie and by Kurak indicate the extent of
recent oceanic disposal operations including the
Navy's CHASE program (discussed in Chapter
J\T) 63,64
Although the environmental effects of explosives
disposed in the ocean are probably quite limited, they
certainly pose hazards to man and his equipment.
Busby and co-workers discussed the hazards that
explosive wastes present to operations conducted
with research submarines and indicated that, although
most of the explosive disposal sites (Figures 1-3) are
situated in at least 6,000 feet of water, large amounts
of explosive ordnance have come to rest in the
shallow waters of the Continental Shelf as a result of
combat operations.63
CBW agents, on the other hand, because of their
inherent toxicity, constitute potential hazards of
considerably greater significance. Unfortunately, the
nature and scope of these hazards are not well
understood. In a recent study by a special panel of
the National Academy of Sciences to consider pro-
posed marine disposal of CBW agents by the Army, it
was noted that while
".. . various chemical warfare agents have been
repeatedly disposed of in the oceans by the United
States and other nations. . . we have no informa-
tion regarding possible deleterious effects of these
operations on the ecosphere of the seas."65
According to Boffey and to Ludwigson, on three
occasions in the past the U.S. Army had disposed of
chemical weapons in the ocean, but had made no
effort to determine whether or not there would be
harmful effects on the environment.66'67 These
reported instances do not include a 1958 disposal
operation in which the Army disposed of 8,000 tons
of mustard and lewisite gas by loading it aboard a
surplus vessel, towing her to sea, and scuttling her.64
The CHASE disposal operation represents a
decided improvement over the previous method of
barging explosive wastes to sea, but its use for
disposal of CBW agents is questionable because of the
possibility that detonations of the associated explo-
sives in the cargo after sinking would liberate the
CBW material. In this regard, at least two of the
vessels sunk in the CHASE program have not deto-
nated according to plan.67'68
The National Academy of Sciences' special panel
on disposal methods for CBW agents stated that
certain CBW agents already embedded in concrete
could be disposed of in the sea without serious
environmental effects, but specified that this was
accepted as a last resort solution in the event land
disposal would pose unnecessary hazards to disposal
personnel.65 The panel also recommended that in the
future the Army should assume that all chemical
weapons will require eventual disposal and should,
consequently, build disposal facilities that will not
require dumping at sea.
General Considerations. Our present understanding
of the short- and long-term responses of the more
important marine food chain organisms to various
types of waste is extremely limited. For example,
wastes may have a detrimental effect through altera-
tions in the natural environmental conditions (i.e.,
temperature, pH, etc.) or through physiological and
other changes resulting from the addition of the
wastes, or through both. Thus, in determining the
toxic effects of wastes, it is important to consider
environmental, physiological, and accumulative ef-
fects. Not only are marine organisms directly affected
by wastes, but also indirectly through their inter-
action with other forms of organisms which comprise
their food, competition, and predators. The situation
is further complicated by the fact that different
species and different developmental or life stages of
the same species may vary widely in sensitivity or
tolerance to different wastes. Thus, unfavorable
conditions which may be tolerable for long periods
by adults may be entirely unfavorable for spawning,
and thus possibly endanger survival of the species.
From the foregoing, it can be seen that a great deal
of work remains to be done in order to establish both
the short- and long-term environmental effects of
various classes of wastes in the marine ecosystem.
Laboratory tests on specific organisms, both on a
short- and long-term basis, are required in order to
establish safe discharge rates of the various wastes.
The results of these tests must then be tested in the
field to determine their adequacy for protection of
marine life in the disposal area.
The latter requirement will involve extensive re-
search, both on the organisms themselves and on
effective sampling and bioassay techniques. For
example, Hood and co-workers have shown that field
sampling utilizing standard oceanographic techniques
38
-------
was inadequate for the purpose of obtaining test
organisms in the Gulf of Mexico.1 s'19 Furthermore,
samples collected periodically on this basis reflect
only the conditions at the time that they were
collected, and there was no way to determine if the
organisms were endemic to the disposal area or
migratory in nature. Similarly, there is no way to
determine v/hether or not the wastes are responsible
for more subtle sublethal effects on the biota as the
waste field moves out of the original area under the
influence of ocean currents.
PRINCIPAL AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH NEEDS
Substantial research efforts related to the environ-
mental effects of waste in the sea are required in
three major areas to insure that the ocean environ-
ment is not damaged by discharges of waste and that
the pollution problems that currently exist in most
major U.S. rives, lakes, and estuaries are avoided.
These three areas are: development of baseline
environmental data, laboratory studies of waste toxi-
city, and studies of the fate of wastes in the
environment and its effects on the biota.
Baseline Environmental Data
In order to properly evaluate the effects of
introducing any given foreign substance into the
marine environment, it is essential to have an ade-
quate understanding of the various natural fluctua-
tions of the biota and water mass characteristics that
are normal for the area in question. Without such an
understanding, it is impossible to distinguish between
normal variations and those resulting from the pres-
ence of the pollutant.
Baseline studies carried out prior to discharging
wastes are the most effective means of providing
reference data for use as a standard in measuring the
effects of introduction of wastes. For an existing
discharge, a control study area is set up in the general
vicinity of the disposal operation but far enough
removed so that it is not affected by the discharged
material. In either case, a broad-spectrum study
program is required. Physical and chemical studies of
the control area serve to identify the natural pro-
cesses responsible for the observed distributions of
oceanographic properties, such as temperature, salin-
ity, etc. Biological studies concentrate on both the
quantity and quality of the biota, as well as the
natural diversity of the fauna in the area.
Laboratory Studies of Waste Toxicity
The bulk of the toxicity test programs carried out
to date on the various wastes being discharged at sea
are discussed in Appendix D; they are limited both in
scope and number. It is sometimes overlooked in
establishing concentration limits based upon deaths
of natural organisms that we don't want sick ones
either. Substantial additional work is required not
only on acute toxicity, but on chronic or sublethal
toxicity as well, particularly for industrial wastes.
Nearly all toxicity bioassay experiments per-
formed to date have been acute toxicities (TLM5Q)
which are only 96 hours in duration. Little has been
done to observe the survival, reproduction, and
behavior of successive generations to determine
chronic toxicity levels of various wastes. Data result-
ing from some acute tests indicate although test
animals survived certain concentrations, there was
little or no reproductive capability in the first or
second generation.
Because of the diversity of the marine fauna and
the wide variety in types of wastes disposed at sea,
short-cut methods are needed for determining the
toxic effects of wastes both on a short- and long-term
basis. For example, at the National Marine Water
Quality Laboratory in Kingston, Rhode Island, toxi-
city studies have been centered around those organ-
isms which comprise the largest percentage of the
biomass in the marine environment. Another short-
cut used at this laboratory is to determine which of
the abundant organisms is most sensitive to each
particular waste. These organisms are then used in
tests to determine the long-term effects of the wastes.
Another important item for research is the devel-
opment of standard test procedures which can easily
be performed without expensive or elaborate instru-
mentation or highly trained personnel. The Marine
Water Quality Laboratory has developed a bioassay
technique that uses brine shrimp (Artemia) whose
eggs are easily obtainable throughout the country. To
further standardize these tests, sea-salts now on the
market in convenient packages are recommended for
the preparation of artificial seawater.
Research m toxicity effects on the marine environ-
ment resulting from barge disposal is nonexistent and
urgently needed. Results of investigations around
submarine outfalls in 400 feet of water or less over
39
-------
the past 20 years cannot be extrapolated to the much
deeper truly oceanic conditions. Nevertheless, the
data from the outfall studies provide useful guidance.
Fate of Wastes and Effects on the Biota
Understanding the fate of the waste after discharge
requires an understanding of how the waste physi-
cally mixes and disperses in the sea, how the waste
degrades chemically and biologically, and what com-
ponents of the waste tend to concentrate either in the
bottom sediments or in various plants and animals in
the food chain.
Waste Dispersion. At present, the understanding of
how wastes mix and disperse after discharge at sea is
limited; generalized theoretical models are too im-
precise to allow effective prediction for a specific
disposal situation. Environmental studies are required
to verify predictive models. Present disposal opera-
tions afford excellent opportunities for conducting
important full-scale, at-sea experiments on mixing.
Improved sampling methods and equipment
should be developed in order to obtain the necessary
synoptic data to verify mixing models at all depths in
the sea.
Because of the irregular frequency of many dis-
charge operations, and the high costs of ship time for
monitoring programs, research is also required to
determine the most desirable spatial and temporal
at-sea sampling patterns for various types of dis-
charge operations.
Effects on the Biota, The research studies cited in
earlier sections of this chapter constitute the bulk of
the work on biologic response to barge-discharged
wastes carried out to date. Although this work is
extremely valuable, the fact remains that it merely
scratches the surface of the problem. It is not an
exaggeration to state that the environmental effects
of past and present discharges are , with essentially no
exceptions, not even qualitatively known, let alone
measured. It follows that a major research effort in
this area is essential.
POSSIBLE BENEFICIAL USES OF SOLID
WASTES IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Although there are severe problems caused by tug
and barge disposal of some classes of wastes, a large
portion of solid wastes could be disposed of at sea so
as to derive benefit. The greatest potential appears to
lie in providing artificial habitats for fish.
The coastal zone of the United States is a
relatively narrow strip of land bordering our coasts
(and the Great Lakes) that contains nearly half of the
Nation's population. As our economy and population
expand, the coastal zone is becoming increasingly
subject to conflicting uses of the relatively limited
marine resources available. These uses include fish-
eries, recreation, fossil fuel and mineral resources
development, marine transportation, real estate devel-
opment, and the disposal of a variety of solid and
liquid wastes. Few of these uses are compatible, let
alone complimentary. The question of beneficial uses
was investigated in the present survey, and results
indicate that the only volumetrically significant
beneficial use of solid waste in the marine environ-
ment is in the construction of artificial reefs for fish
habitats. In addition, some suggestions have been
made for using selected solid wastes for the construc-
tion of breakwaters or islands.
According to current estimates, 82 million persons
(12 years of age or older) reside in the marine coastal
zone of 23 States.69 This population is forecast to
increase by 17 percent to 96 million by 1980.
However, the total number of ocean-oriented recrea-
tion "occasions" such as sportfishing, boating,
swimming, and surfing are forecast to increase from
1.8 billion in 1965 to 2.4 billion in 1980, a 30
percent increase. Total expenditures associated with
these activities are expected to nearly double from
$13 billion to $23.6 billion over the same period.
Artificial Habitats for Fish
At present, there are some 104 artificial habitats
or reefs along the U.S. coasts (Figures 1 to 3). Most
of these are experimental in character and have been
established either by research scientists or local
sportfishing interests. Typically, they are relatively
small features made up of a variety of solid waste
materials including cars, tires, etc., often placed near
wrecked vessels. A discussion of various aspects of the
potential for large-scale use of solid waste for
construction of such artificial habitats follows.
Fishing Pressure. As the number of sport fisher-
men in the United States continues 1o grow at the
rate of ten to fifteen percent annually, it is evident
that the fish population that attracts these enthusiasts
cannot remain static. According to Winslow and
40
-------
Bigler in 1965, at least 40 percent of the 80-odd
million* coastal zone population participated in
sportfishing from the shore and small craft in U.S.
coastal waters.69 The threat of widespread over-
fishing is significant. In 1965, sportfishing in coastal
waters represented a significant fraction of the $108
billion water-oriented recreational industry. Some
areas are already heavily overfished. For example, the
sheepshead and weakfish have nearly disappeared
from the waters off New York and New Jersey.70
Similarly, populations of black seabass, sheepshead,
abalone, and lobster have been seriously reduced as
the result of increased fishing pressures off the
Southern California coast. It may be that artificial
habitats will increase fisheries resources so as to
minimize or reverse the effects of overfishing.
Lack of Natural Habitat. Most of the continental
shelf within reach of sport fishermen and skin divers
operating from small craft is an unproductive, flat,
lifeless, sandy desert with very few relief features.
Sport and commercial fishermen have known for
years that naturally-occurring banks, pinnacles, and
hills as well as shipwrecks on an otherwise featureless
sea floor attract a variety of fish. These areas of high
relief, whether natural or artificial, furnish a firm
substrate for the encrustration of organisms, such as
barnacles, mussels, and coral, and also provide the
necessary protection, food, and spawning areas for fin
fish. There is substantial evidence that in nearshore
areas where junked cars and rubble have been
dumped by man fishing has improved.2 6
Current Status
Recent studies conducted by the California De-
partment of Fish and Game and the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife's Sandy Hook Marine Labora-
tory have shown that properly constructed habitats
are a very effective means in congregating the
available fish from a given area.26-71 It has been
postulated that the artificial habitats constructed
with solid waste serve to increase the populations of
other migratory fish by providing additional spawning
* This number is significantly higher than the popular
often-cited figure of eight million salt water fishermen, but
appears to be reasonable and consistent with a national
percentage of fishermen compared to total population.
Further, these figures do not include the additional popula-
tion that also participated in sportfishing aboard chartered
fishing vessels.
sites for adults and protection and food for the
juveniles.7 *
At the present time, because of the ease in
handling, availability, long-life, and low cost, auto-
motive tires are the most attractive material for
constructing artificial reefs. Research at the Sandy
Hook Marine Laboratory has shown that of several
materials tested (wood, glass, concrete, metal, etc.) in
the environment, rubber was found to be the most
desirable substrate for colonization by the majority
of invertebrate organisms in the area.71 During 1969,
over 30,000 tires were implanted on three different
experimental reefs. Each reef is being inspected by
biologist-divers to assess the effectiveness of the tires
in increasing the productivity of the area and to
inspect the development of new fish around the
habitat. Support for this program has been supplied
by the Bureau of Solid Wastes Management. Several
types of artificial habitats have been constructed with
such wastes as car bodies, tires, and rubble, and the
various marine life have been attracted to them
(Figures 15 to 20).
A report describing the characteristics of the
various existing artificial reefs off die Atlantic and
Gulf coasts is currently being prepared by the Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife's Sandy Hook Marine
Laboratory.
It has been suggested that baled refuse would
provide both food and habitat as a means of
enhancing the production of the environment. The
Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory has been carrying on
an experimental program to monitor the effects
observed in placing baled refuse in shallow water
(Figure 20). The initial experiment was inconclusive
because of storm damage, but further observations of
various types of bales are scheduled.
Availability of Potentially Suitable
Solid Waste Material
With regard to the availability of wastes suitable
for use in construction of artificial habitats, of the
110 billion tons of solid waste generated annually in
the United States, it is estimated that 10 million tons
of construction debris, 9 million junked cars, and 100
million old vehicular tires are disposed of annual-
ly 72,73 Although a portion of the cars and tires are
reduced and converted into usable scrap, it is likely
that a significant fraction of the scrap cars, tires, and
debris produced in the populous coastal zone must be
disposed of. For example, 20,000 abandoned cars
41
-------
FIGURE 15. Kelp bass and sheephead investigating a recently dropped automobile body in
a man-made fishing reef off California (California Department of Fish and Game photograph
by Charles H. Turner, Marine Resources).
FIGURE 16. Remains of an automobile body used to construct an artificial fishing reef
after four years of submergence. Photograph by Charles H. Turner, Marine Resources,
California Department of Fish and Game.
42
-------
FIGURE 17. Kelp bass and black perch attracted to recently dumped quarry rock.
(Photograph by Charles H. Turner, Marine Resources, California Department of Fish and
Game.)
. ,
'•^ir:x;
FIGURE 18. Experimental reef designed to test the effectiveness of utilizing artificial algae
(plastic strips) as a means of allowing full utilization of the water column by the fish.
(Photograph by Charles H. Turner, Marine Resources, California Department of Fish and
Game.)
-------
FIGURE 19. Black sea bass and various marine invertebrates attracted to a discarded tire in
70 feet of water off Jacksonville, Florida. Photograph by Tony Chess. Supplied by Richard
Stone, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.)
FIGURE 20. A 30-by40-by48-inch bale of refuse weighing about one ton before
implantation for observation in 45 feet of water off Sandy Hook, New Jersey. (Photograph
courtesy of Jack Balsamo, Moran Towing Corporation.)
44
-------
were reported by the city of Philadelphia and over
36,000 by the city of New York in 1968.74 Sittig
reported that 5,000 tons per day of construction
demolition waste are deposited in sanitary landfills
operated by Los Angeles County.75 During the
present survey, it was determined that New York City
annually disposes of over 500,000 tons of demolition
and construction debris in landfills and ocean disposal
sites.
Estimated Costs
Although evidence gathered over the past 10 years
shows that artificial habitats constructed of solid
wastes substantially increase sport fishing produc-
tivity in local sites, no large-scale program has been
undertaken. In examining some ot the reasons, it is
seen that the cost of preparation and emplacement of
the junked cars was relatively high and that the metal
was corroded in 3 to 5 years with resulting loss of the
reef (see Figure 16). Estimates made by researchers at
the Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory indicated that
the cars cost from $70 to $100 each because of the
cost of handling, barging, and implanting (Figure 21).
Although the use of concrete culvert was favorable as
a habitat, it too was considered too expensive and
heavy to be feasible for reef construction.
Over the last three or four years, experimental
work with rubber tires showed these cost less than a
FIGURE 21. Method used to implant junked cars for establishment of an artificial fishing
reef in shallow water off the New Jersey coast. (Photograph courtesy of Richard Stone,
Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory.)
45
-------
dollar each, and could be assembled and implanted by
local fishing and diving clubs. One method uses four
to seven tires joined with steel rodding and weighted
with concrete ballast. These units become useful fish
habitats after one to two years, when they are
thoroughly encrusted with marine growth.
Although it is possible to construct effective
artificial fishing reefs from certain types of solid
wastes, present practice favors disposal in landfills or
recycling as scrap steel. It is conceivable, however,
that in only a few years, land values and the volume
of solid wastes will make extensive reef construction
attractive. In this regard, the controlled building of
these reefs in the marine environment for the benefit
of sport fishermen would be analogous to the onshore
reclamation of canyons and undesirable parcels of
land utilizing sanitary landfill techniques for the
purpose of creating parks, golf courses, etc. In any
event, there is an immediate and continuing need for
research and development related to this area.
Other Beneficial Uses of Solid Wastes
Other potential beneficial uses of solid waste
materials in the marine environment include its use as
a building material in artificial islands, surfing reefs,
and floating breakwaters.
Surfing Reefs. Grigg has proposed that demolition
rubble be used for constructing artificial surfing reefs
off the California coast to supplement the natural
reef or shoal areas now heavily congested with an
estimated 600,000 surfers.76 With proper construc-
tion, he envisions that these reefs could also serve
sport fishermen and skin divers. Grigg estimates that a
prototype surfing reef constructed of quarry stone
off the coast of Southern California would cost about
$150,000. Compared to other environmental im-
provement projects undertaken by the Corps of
Engineers, this figure does not appear excessive. For
example, $330,000 was spent on sand dredging last
year for beach replenishment in the area of Newport
Beach, California.76 Grigg points out that at present
there are no definitive studies to guide the design and
construction of multiple-use artificial reefs close to
shore, and that further research should be conducted
to evaluate their potential.
Floating Breakwaters. Another concept noted dur-
ing the survey was the proposed use of scrap tires for
the construction of a moored, floating offshore
breakwater to attenuate wave action.77 This struc-
ture would consist of large truck tires joined to form
flexible floating barrier. Related experimental work
has been carried out by Uniroyal using a series of
baffles to break up the orbital motion of waves, thus
dissipating the energy offshore. Costs for the mate-
rials for a floating breakwater constructed of used
tires are estimated at $600 per 100 lineal feet. Costs
for anchors and related mooring tackle, and for
installation and maintenance will piobably be many
times the cost of the basic materials.
Additional research on this concept may find a
way to successfully combine the surf ing/fishing reef
with the breakwater and use both construction rubble
and tires.
REFERENCES
1. BUELOW, R. W. Ocean disposal of waste material. In Transactions; National
Symposium on Ocean Sciences and Engineering of the Atlantic Shelf, Philadelphia,
Mar. 19-20, 1968. Marine Technology Society, p. 311-337.
2. HUME, N. B., and W. F.. GARBER. Marine disposal of digested screened wastewater
solids. In J. P. MAROTO, and F. JOSA, chairmen. Advances in water pollution
research, v. 3. Washington, Water Pollution Control Federation, 1967. p. 243-262.
3. CARLISLE, J. G., JR. Results of a six-year study in an area of heavy waste discharge,
Santa Monica Bay, California. California Fish and Game, 55(l):26-46, Jan. 1969.
4. NORTH, W. J. Ecology of the rocky nearshore environment in Southern California and
possible influences of discharged wastes. Journal of Air & Water Pollution.
7(6/7):721-736,Aug. 1963.
5. SAILA, S. B., T. T. PALGAR, and B. A. ROGERS. Results of studies related to
dredged sediment dumping in Rhode Island Sound. In Proceedings of the Annual
North Eastern Regional Antipollution Conference, University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, July 22-24, 1968. p. 71-80.
6. Panel reports of the Commission of Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, v. 1.
Science and environment. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.
364 p.
7. BIGGS, R. B. Environmental effects of overboard spoil-disposal. Journal of the Sanitary
Engineering Division, Proc. ASCE, 94(SA3):477-487, June 1968.
46
-------
8. GROSS, M. G. New York City-a major source of marine sediment. Marine Sciences
Research Center Technical Report No. 2. Stony Brook, State University of New
York, Sept. 1969. 24 p.
9. WUESTEFELD, R. H. Waste disposal in the coastal waters of New York harbor.
Unpublished data. New York, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1968. lip.
10. REDFIELD, A. C, and L. A. WALFORD. A study of the disposal of chemical waste at
sea; report of the Committee for Investigation of Waste Disposal. National
Research Council Publication No. 201. Washington, National Academy of
Sciences, 1951. 49 p.
11. KETCHUM, B. H., and W. L. FORD. Rate of dispersion in the wake of a barge at sea.
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 33(5):680-684, Oct. 1952.
12. KETCHUM, B. H., C. S. YENTSCH, and N. CORWIN. Some studies of the disposal of
iron wastes at sea. Reference 58-7. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1958.
17 p. (Unpublished manuscript.)
13. SCHUYLER, S., and G. HEIMERDINGER. Continental margin data collection pilot
project; a Division of Research and Development open-file report (CT-02-6945).
[Cincinnati] U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970. [81 p.]
[Restricted distribution.]
14. KETCHUM, B. H. Marine pollution problems in the North Atlantic area. In C. M.
TARZWELL, ed. Biological problems in water pollution. Transactions of the
Second Seminar on Biological Problems in Water Pollution, Cincinnati, Apr. 20-24,
1959. Robert A.Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, 1960. p. 212-217.
15. HOOD, D. W., and W. ABBOTT. A study of the disposal of paper mill wastes at sea.
Unpublished data [Project 112, Reference 5542T]. College Station, Texas A&M
Research Foundation, 1955. 30 p.
16. HOOD, D. W. The disposal of chlorinated hydrocarbons at sea. Unpublished data
[Project 69, Reference 54-47T]. College Station, Texas A&M Research Founda-
tion, 1954.33 p.
17. HOOD, D. W., and B. STEVENSON. The disposal of chlorinated hydrocarbons at sea.
Unpublished data [Project 69, Reference 55-23T]. College Station, Texas A&M
Research Foundation, 1955. 40 p.
18. HOOD, D. W., B. STEVENSON, and J. B. SMITH. The disposal of chlorinated
hydrocarbons and other chemical wastes at sea. Unpublished data [Project 69,
References 57-20T]. College Station, Texas A&M Research Foundation, 1957. 30
P-
19. HOOD, D. W., B. STEVENSON, and L. M. JEFFREY. Deep sea disposal of industrial
wastes. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 50(6):885-888, June 1958.
20. OCEANONICS, INC. Toxicity study for General Aniline and Film Corporation.
Unpublished data. Houston, [1967].
21. OCEANONICS, INC. Report Phase II waste disposal study for the Lubrizal Corpora-
tion. Unpublished data. Houston, [1967].
22. MACSMITH, W., JR. Offshore disposal of industrial waste. Presented at 42d Annual
Conference, Water Pollution Control Federation, Dallas, Oct. 5-10, 1969. 8 p.
23. STEIN, J. E. Observations on the disposal of sodium sludge in the Gulf of Mexico.
Unpublished data [Project 147, Reference 56-36T]. College Station, Texas A&M
Research Foundation, 1956. 7 p.
24. WALLER, R. Deep sea disposal of drummed wastes. La Porte, Texas, E. I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company, Inc., 1968. 12 p. Unpublished manuscript.
25. TURNER, C. H., J. G. CARLISLE, JR., and E. E. EBERT. Offshore oil drilling, its
effect upon the marine environment. Unpublished data. California State Depart-
ment of Fish and Game, 1958. 3 p.
26. CARLISLE, J. G., JR., C. H. TURNER, and E. E. EBERT. Artificial habitat in the
marine environment. Resources Agency of California Fish Bulletin 124. Sacra-
mento, California Department of Fish and Game, 1964. 93 p.
27. THUMS LONG BEACH COMPANY. Disposal of drilling waste m the San Pedro
Channel. Unpublished data, 1966. 6 p.
28. ZOBELL, C. E. The occurrence, effects, and fate of oil polluting the sea. Journal of Air
& Water Pollution, 7(2/3):173-197, May 1963.
29. MOSS, J. E. Character and control of sea pollution by oil. Washington, American
Petroleum Institute, 1963. 122 p.
30. HOLCOMB, R. W. Oil in the ecosystem. Science, 166:204-206, Oct. 10, 1969.
31. BLUMER, M. Oil pollution of the ocean. In Water pollution-1969;hearings before the
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, 91st Cong., 1st sess., S.7 and S.544. pt. 4. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1969. p. 1485-1489.
32. BUELOW, R. W., B. H. PRINGLE, and J. L. VERBER. Preliminary investigation of
waste or installation disposal in the New York Bight. Unpublished data.
Narragansett, R. I., Northeast Marine Health Sciences Laboratory, Jan. 1968. 33 p.
47
-------
33. BUELOW, R. W., B. H. PRINGLE, and J. L. VERBER. Preliminary investigation of
sewage sludge dumping off Delaware Bay. Unpublished data. Narragansett, R.I.,
Northeast Marine Health Sciences Laboratory, Jan. 1968. 20 p.
34. VERBER, 3. L., R. W. BUELOW, and B. H. PRINGLE. Ocean disposal of waste
material-off Delaware Bay and New York Bight, in Proceedings; Second
Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference, Drexel Institute of Technology, Nov.
18-20, 1968. Philadelphia, 1969. p. 127-153.
35. PEARSON, E. A. An investigation of the efficacy of submarine outfall disposal of
sewage and sludge. State Water Pollution Control Board Publication No. 14.
Sacramento, California State Water Pollution Control Board, 1956. 154 p.
36. RITTENBERG, S. C. Studies on coliform bacteria discharged from the Hyperion
Outfall; final bacteriological report. Submitted to Hyperion Engineers, Inc., by
University of Southern California, Aug. 29, 1956. 72 p.
37. GUNNERSON, C. G. Sewage disposal in Santa Monica Bay. Transactions of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, 124:823-851, 1959.
38. BROOKS, N. H. Diffusion of sewage effluent in an ocean-current. In E. A. PEARSON,
ed. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Waste Disposal in the
Marine Environment, University of California, Berkeley, July 22-25, 1959. New
York, Pergamon Press, 1960. p. 246-267.
39. GRIGG, R. W., and R. S. KIWALA. Some ecological effects of discharged wastes on
marine life. California Fish and Game, 56(3): 145-155, 1970.
40. Personal communication, J. L. VERBER, Northeast Health Science Laboratory, to R.
P. BROWN, Dillingham Corporation, 1968.
41. BLACK, R. J. A preliminary report on the proposal plan to dump refuse at sea by the
City of San Juan, Puerto Rico. Unpublished data. U.S. Public Health Service,
Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection. Mar. 1963. 16 p.
42. FIRST, M. W. Systems analysis for shipborne municipal incineration. In L. W. LEFKE,
Comp. Summaries of solid wastes research and training grants-1968. Public
Health Service Publication No. 1596. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1968. p. 22.
43. OVIATT, C. A. The effects of incinerator residue on selected marine species. In
Proceedings of the Annual North Eastern Regional Antipollution Conference,
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, July 22-24, 1968. p. 108-110.
44. A progress report on studies to determine the effects of suspended solids on marine
fishes, with special reference to the effects of finely divided incinerator residue on
selected inshore species. Unpublished data. [Cambridge,] Harvard School of Public
Health, Environmental Health Sciences Laboratory, 1968. 24 p.
45. DUNLEA, J. V., JR. Method of bulk rubbish disposal. U.S. Patent 3,330,088, July 11,
1967.
46. Dillingham investigating solid waste disposal at sea. Seahorse, 3(5):1, 1968.
47. BALBI, V. L. U.S. Patent application on refuse disposal system and apparatus. Daly
City, Calif., 1966. 8 p.
48. SMITH, R. A. Deep sea refuse disposal. U.S. Patent 3,395,663, Aug. 6, 1968.
49. Everybody produces it; nobody wants it. Seashore, 3(8):6, 1969.
50. Where to dispose of our refuse? Some say in the sea. New England Marine Resources
Information 2, June-July 1969. Narragansett, R.I., New England Marine Resources
Information Program. 2 p.
51. SILVERMAN, L. Incineration of solid wastes at sea. APWA Reporter, 31:2,4, July
1964.
52. Progress report-systems analysis for shipboard municipal incineration. Unpublished
data, May 1, 1967-Apr. 30, 1968.
53. PCSB's job for Harvard's School of Public Health. Ocean Science News, 10(48):3, Nov.
29, 1968. (Abstract.)
54. METCALF AND EDDY/ENGINEERS. Report to the New York State Pure Waters
Authority on rail-haul disposal of solids wastes for Westchester County, New
York. Unpublished report. New York, Feb. 27, 1969.
55. Personal communication. C. G. GUNNERSON, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, to
R. P. BROWN, Dillingham Corporation, 1969.
56. STONE, R. B. Summary cruise report R. V. Challenger. Unpublished data. Highlands,
N. J., U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory,
1968. 3 p.
57. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COMMITTEE ON EFFECTS OF ATOMIC
RADIATION ON OCEANOGRAPHY AND FISHERIES. The effects of atomic
radiation on oceanography and fisheries. National Research Council Publication
551. Washington, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council,
1957. 137 p.
58. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY. Radio-
active waste disposal into Atlantic and Gulf coastal waters; a report from a
48
-------
working group of the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of
Sciences-National Research Council. National Research Council Publication No.
655. Washington, National Academy of Sciences, 1959. 37 p.
59. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COMMITTEE ON EFFECTS OF ATOMIC
RADIATION ON OCEANOGRAPHY AND FISHERIES. Considerations of the
disposal of radioactive wastes from nuclear-powered ships into the marine
environment. National Research Council Publication 658. Washington, National
Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1959. 52 p.
60. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY. Disposal
of low-level radioactive waste into Pacific coastal waters. National Research
Council Publication 985. Washington, National Academy of Sciences—National
Research Council, 1962. 87 p.
61. PNEUMODYNAMICS CORPORATION, ADVANCED SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION. Technical report. Survey of radioactive waste disposal sites.
TID-13665. Washington, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, July 15, 1961.
62. U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY. Sea disposal of low-level packaged
radioactive waste. Unpublished data [Coast and Geodetic Survey Project
10,000-827] 1961.
63. BUSBY, R. F., L. M. HUNT, and W. O. RAINNIE. Hazards of the deep. Pt. 2. Millions
of tons of explosives comprise the greatest hazard to submersible operations.
Ocean industry, 3(8):32-39, Aug. 1968.
64. KURAK, S Operation chase. United States Naval Institute Proceedings, 93(9):40-46,
Sept. 1967.
65. BOFFEY, P. M. Academy changes army gas dump plan. Science, 165:45, July 4, 1969.
66. BOFFEY, P. M. CBW: Pressures for control build in Congress, international groups.
Science, 164-1376-1378, June 20, 1969.
67. LUDWIGSON, J. O. Washington report-nerve gas. Oceans, 2(5/2/6): 72-75, Nov.-Dec.
1969.
68. PHILIPS, R. H. View from the west coast-U.S. agencies among polluters. National
Fisherman, p. 6-A, Oct. 1969.
69. WINSLOW, E., and A. B. BIGLER. A new perspective on recreational use of the ocean.
UnderSea Technology, 10(7):51-55, July 1969.
70. STONE, R. B. Artificial reef study. Unpublished data. Highlands, N. J., U.S. Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory, 1968. 8 p.
71. WALFORD, L. A., comp Atlantic marine game fish research. In Progress in sport
fishery research, 1967. Resource Publication No. 64. Washington, U.S. Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968. p. 167-188.
72. BLACK, R. L, A. J. MUHICH, A. J. KLEE, H. L. HICKMAN, JR., and R. D.
VAUGHAN. The national solid waste survey; an interim report. [Cincinnati,] U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, [1968]. 53 p.
73. AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY COMMITTEE ON CHEMISTRY AND PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT. Clean-
ing our environment; the chemical basis for action. Washington, American
Chemical Society, 1969. 249 p.
74. Abandoned cars: a dilemma of our times. Solid Wastes Management/Refuse Removal
Journal, 12(2)-4243, Dec. 1969.
75. SITTIG, M. Water pollution control and solid wastes disposal, 1969. Park Ridge, N.J ,
Noyes Data Corporation, 1969. 244 p.
76. GR1GG, R. Artificial reefs. Surfer, 9(6):48-49, Jan. 1969.
77. STITT, R. L. Introducing wave-maze (floating breakwater). Unpublished brochure.
Tern pie City, Calif., 1967.
49
-------
-------
IV. MONITORING OF MARINE WASTE
DISPOSAL OPERATIONS
Monitoring of waste disposal operations at sea may
be subdivided into two major categories: regulatory
monitoring and environmental monitoring. Regula-
tory monitoring is concerned primarily with opera-
tional matters while environmental monitoring deals
with the interaction of the waste with the ocean
environment.
REGULATORY MONITORING
The objective of regulatory or enforcement moni-
toring is to ensure that disposal operations are carried
out in the designated area and in the manner specified
in the authorizing permit or letter of no objection. As
such, regulatory monitoring normally consists of: (1)
record keeping by the waste producer and disposal
operator for submission to a regulatory agency. These
include monthly, quarterly, or annual summaries of
disposal operations describing the type and amounts
of waste discharged. In addition, towboat logs,
fathograms and photography of the vessel's radar
screens are also submitted. In essence, this is self-
enforcement supported by documentary evidence
proving compliance; (2) inspection or surveillance on
site or in transit by vessels or aircraft of the
regulatory agencies.
Current Status
On the basis of the survey results, the current
status of monitoring marine waste disposal operations
in the United States for regulatory purposes is as
follows.
Record Keeping. Three separate types of record
keeping (or documentary monitoring) practices were
encountered during the survey. The first is that used
in the New York and Norfolk areas where disposal
operators are required by the Corps of Engineers to
submit regular (monthly, quarterly, etc.) summary
data regarding the type and amount of wastes
discharged at sea.
Annual summaries of the operations are main-
tained and updated regularly by the Corps. Although
similar data on disposal operations are obtained from
disposal operations in the Philadelphia area, it is
strictly on a cooperative basis, as that particular
District Office of the Corps claims no jurisdiction
over disposal operations beyond the 3-mile limit.
The second type of record keeping situation was
found in the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles, San
Diego, Boston, and New Orleans. In this case, the
submission of regular data on individual disposal
operations is required by the regulatory agencies, but
there is no evidence that the data are evaluated. As a
consequence, the responsible regulatory agency in
these cities is generally unable to provide an overall
description of the disposal operations conducted
under its jurisdiction.
The third type of practice is essentially one of no
records; after initial approval of a disposal operation
by the District Office of the Corps of Engineers, no
additional records are required or maintained by the
regulatory agencies. This situation holds for the
Seattle, Charleston, Mobile, and Galveston districts so
that, as a result, the present status or changes to the
original waste disposal plans are unknown. In some
cases, the Corps officials were unable to advise
whether firms that had received permission 10 to 15
years ago were still disposing of wastes at sea in 1968.
This is in contrast to dredge spoil disposal data, which
are up-to-date in all District Offices of the Corps.
Inspection. New York City is the only major U.S.
city in which marine waste disposal operations are
subject to regular surveillance, while in transit to the
disposal area. In order to ensure that barge operators
disposing of sewage sludge, chemicals, dredge spoils,
and construction and demolition debris have traveled
51
-------
the required distance to the disposal areas, surveil-
lance is conducted by recording the times of de-
parture and return; this is done by government vessels
stationed in lower New York harbor. A similar
situation exists in San Diego where staff members of
the Regional Water Quality Control Board ac-
company each load of barreled industrial wastes to
sea. In both cases, the frequency of disposal varies
from one to four times per year. It is not known
whether the regulatory agencies involved plan to
maintain this thorough operational surveillance in the
event of future increases in sea disposal of wastes.
Incidential surveillance from aircraft and patrol
boats is sometimes conducted in California and
Louisiana by State fisheries agencies during their
normal activities.
In summary, the level of documentary monitoring
of operational practices of sea disposal of wastes is
inadequate for the number and scope of disposal
operations (see Chapter II).
Environmental Monitoring
The objective of environmental monitoring with
respect to marine disposal of wastes is to determine
both the short- and long-term effects of a given
disposal operation. The monitoring results are es-
sential for establishing water quality criteria appli-
cable to the disposal of wastes, for assessing trends
and changes, and for the identifying problem areas
that require the attention of cognizant research and
regulatory agencies.
Environmental monitoring includes periodic field
observation and sampling, supported by laboratory
testing and analysis. The objectives of environmental
monitoring require a much more complex and costly
program than regulatory monitoring, and necessitate
specialized personnel and equipment for both the
at-sea phase and the shore-based laboratory facilities
and staff.
In some cases, regulatory and environmental moni-
toring programs compliment each other in that water
quality data obtained as a regulatory requirement by
the disposal operator are of value to the environ-
mental monitoring phase of the waste disposal oper-
ation. As both McKee and Gunnerson have shown,
however, this has been the exception rather than the
rule.1'2
Current Status. The present study has shown that
ongoing monitoring of current waste disposal opera-
tions (at sea or in the laboratory) for assessing
potential environmental effects is clearly insufficient.
Even in the case of the Galveston District of the
Corps of Engineers, which probably has the most
stringent requirements for environmental studies to
be carried out prior to disposal authorization, lack of
Federal and State funds for environmental control
monitoring programs the necessarily limits their
capability to verify original study results.
The foregoing situation exists in spite of the fact
that the critical need for environmental monitoring of
waste disposal has been emphasized in most of the
literature reviewed. In particular, see the reports of
McKee, McKee and Wolf, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, Stein and Denison, Com-
mission on Marine Science, Engineering and Re-
sources, Ketchum and Ford, MacSmith, Pearson,
Carritt, Pritchard, and Isaacs, and their respective
co-workers.1'3'12
Technical Aspects of Monitoring
The types of wastes being barged to sea are, in
many cases, similar to those discharged into streams,
rivers, bays, estuaries, and coastal waters. Accord-
ingly, a monitoring program established to regulate
and assess offshore disposal operations should be able
to utilize at least some of the sampling, analytical,
and evaluation information developed from estuaries
or coastal waters.
Unfortunately, this extention of knowledge and
technology has critical limits because of the logistic
requirements for monitoring environmental effects of
wastes discharged at sea. Few of the many wastes
recognized as potentially toxic to freshwater organ-
isms have been studied sufficiently to establish their
maximum allowable concentrations under marine
conditions.4 Further, costs of a vessel, equipment,
and personnel required to sample offshore disposal
areas can run as high as $2,000 per day. As a result of
these costs, the ultimate fate of the waste fields from
disposal barges is unknown. Further, environmental
and regulatory monitoring programs by their very
nature require data collection on a long-term basis.
Monitoring programs must be flexible. Initial sam-
pling should determine which variables are significant
and which, if any, can be safely ignored. Gaining even
this level of understanding poses measurement prob-
lems that are not simple. For example, most of the
effects of waste discharge operations observed in this
study (Chapter III) were hampered by sampling
52
-------
problems which precluded a definitive analysis of the
disposal operation.
Variability of Disposal Operations. Marine disposal
operations vary in time, space, and materials. Moni-
toring the effects of wastes on the marine environ-
ment must be adjusted to frequencies of disposal,
which can range from daily to weeks or even months.
For example, waste acids and sewage sludge are
disposed of daily in separate disposal areas located in
the New York Bight. By contrast, toxic pesticide
wastes are discharged some 100 miles at sea from
New York at two-to-three-month intervals.
The problem of monitoring offshore disposal areas
is further complicated by the fact that, with the
exception of a few localities such as New York City,
the wastes disposed at any one site commonly are
dissimilar in character because they originate from
more than one type of source. For instance, off
Galveston, refinery wastes, pesticides, black liquor,
and other industrial wastes are all disposed of in the
same general area about 100 miles offshore. The
frequency of disposal for a given operation in this
area varies from weekly to once every two or three
months. Thus, depending on the time that the area
was sampled, the results could reflect the effects of
all of the disposal operations or only that of the most
recent discharge.
Another complicating factor is that the waste field
developed either within the water column or on the
bottom is not static, but is subject to progressive
modifications by chemical, physical, and biological
processes (see Chapter III). Under the influence of
currents, the effects of a waste discharged in a given
area will extend over a much broader area. The acute
effects within the waste field will depend on the
toxicity of the wastes, dilution, etc.
An important consideration here is that a drifting
waste field, inadequately diluted, can pose a possible
barrier to migration and free movement of marine
biota. Spawning migrations may be blocked or
diverted to unfavorable areas. Similarly, if the waste
field entered a heavily spawned area and mixed with
waters containing large concentrations of eggs and
larvae, conditions unfavorable for survival could be
produced. Depending on the scale of the phenomena,
this could seriously cripple the survival of a given
year-class for valuable coastal fisheries.
The present state of knowledge regarding mixing
and diffusion of wastes at sea is generally inadequate
for the purpose of establishing safe disposal areas,
rates of disposals, and routine at-sea procedures for
discharging the waste (i.e., de,pth of discharge, towing
speed, etc.). As mentioned earlier, the investigations
on the diffusion of wastes at sea have been restricted
primarily to the surface layer. Studies by Hood and
MacSmith on the disposal of chlorinated hydro-
carbons and ammonia sulfate wastes, respectively,
showed that diffusion and dilution of the submerged
waste field is less rapid than that observed in the
surface layer.13'8 In order to verify existing models
of diffusion and to develop new models, physical and
chemical data are required that will allow for a
description of the waste field three dimensionally in
space over a sufficient period of time to observe
changes that occur in the original waste concentra-
tion. Explicit to the collection of these data is the
requirement for rapid sampling techniques that will
allow for the development of a synoptic picture of
the waste field.
Baseline Studies. Clarke and Neushul have
pointed out that, in order to properly monitor and
evaluate the effects of pollution and to establish
effective control measures, researchers must develop
the background knowledge required to be able to
separate the natural fluctuations that occur in marine
communities from those induced by the activities of
man.14 This requirement has been highlighted over
the last few years with the occurrence of major oil
spills from tankers and offshore drilling rigs. In both
cases, the assessment of the adverse effects of the oil
on the environment was hampered by the lack of
ecological reference or base-line data which could be
used as a standard from which changes caused by the
oil could be measured. The same requirement applies
equally to measuring and understanding the environ-
mental effects of liquid and solid waste in the sea. To
date, however, with the exception of research work
carried out in connection with various U.S. fisheries*
and on the possible effects of radioactive materials in
the sea,15'16 base-line ecological studies have not
been made, primarily because of lack of funds.
The Commission on Marine Science, Engineering,
and Resources has recognized this need for base line
studies and their report recommends:
"Specific representative sites should be selected
for careful prolonged study to permit the accumu-
* The California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investiga-
tion (CCOFI) program has regularly sampled an extensive
network of stations off the coast of California for plankton
and physical oceanographic data since 1949.' 9
53
-------
lation of basic knowledge essential for under-
standing the statics and dynamics of the coastal
regime."6
Broad-gauge research programs that would provide
valuable reference data have been proposed for the
Gulf of Mexico by the Gulf Universities Research
Corporation (GURC), and for the California near-
shore waters by Clarke and Neushul.17'14
An engineer or scientist seeking marine data for
assessing the natural environment in the region from
the shoreline out to 50 to 100 miles is invariably
surprised by the extremely limited amount of system-
atic environmental sampling in this geographic zone.
In comparison to its potential use by man, far less is
currently known about the nearshore and coastal
zone than about the deep ocean. At present, the
National Oceanographic Data Center is actively con-
sidering developing a Continental Shelf Data Bank to
pull together all of the available data and literature
regarding this region.18
Operational Aspects of Enforcement Monitoring
Delineation of Disposal Areas. From the informa-
tion gathered during the survey, it is apparent that
the determination of the physical limits of most
marine disposal areas has been handled in an arbitrary
fashion without any real consideration of the natural
resources in the area or the constraints typically
imposed by the very nature of the disposal operation.
For example, most industrial or sewage sludges are
discharged while underway at maximum speed; this
provides the greatest initial dilution and minimizes
acute effects. At the same time, the utilization of
specific areas for successive discharges maximize
chronic effects. Thus, in establishing disposal require-
ments for these wastes, such factors as total load,
discharge rate, and towing speed should be considered
in order to better define the outer limits of the
disposal area. This is particularly important where the
natural resources of an area are being harvested or
have a future potential for exploitation.
In discussing discharge methods, Buelow points
out that the size of the present sewage sludge disposal
areas in the New York Bight and off Cape May, New
Jersey, are incompatible with the methods of dis-
charge.20 Under the present system, a barge operator
must discharge his load within 10 minutes at top
speed, or turn around and make another run through
the disposal area. This situation often leads to
continuation of discharge outside the designated
disposal area. Where shellfish sanitation is concerned,
a mile or two discrepancy in the disposal of these
wastes is important. In one discharge operation
observed off Cape May, approximately two-thirds of
the load was discharged outside of the prescribed
area.
This problem arises from the lack of clearly
marked disposal areas and the inadequate navigational
aids used by the disposal operators. Most disposal
operators in the New York Bight area utilize radar
fixes on prominent land features to establish their
position relative to the disposal area. For disposal
areas further offshore, as in the Gulf of Mexico,
either dead reckoning or celestial navigational
methods are used. None of these methods provide
highly accurate results and, thus, positioning for most
of the disposal operations is quite crude.
Not all of the responsibility lies with the disposal
operators, however, as in many cases the description
of the disposal areas provided by regulatory agencies
is so broad that it is impossible to define a given area.
For example, such descriptions as "at least 20 miles
from the coast," or "beyond the 400 fathom curve"
require further delineation for identifying the area in
which wastes are to be discharged and monitored.
Inspection of Disposal Operations. Inspection of
disposal operations to ensure that operational require-
ments are being met is virtually nonexistent although
examination of the operators' disposal records and
observation of actual operations are prerequisites for
staying ahead of potential problems.
A discussion of the problems of monitoring waste
disposal operations for regulatory purposes raises
more questions than answers. For example, how
frequently should the disposal operations be in-
spected? What form of inspection is required-
examination of vessel logs and fathograms, on-site
visual inspection of the operations, or a combination
of both? If a site inspection is to be made, what
sampling and analytical procedures should be used?
All of these monitoring problems require adequate
funds and personnel for research and development
and for regulation. At the present time, examination
of the records from current disposal operations is
essentially perfunctory.
Regulatory monitoring of disposal operations
raises questions regarding the procedures for proving
violations. For example, what evidence is required to
establish that a disposal operation was conducted in
violation of requirements. Aerial photographs are one
means of documenting such operations; in order to be
54
-------
effective, however, disposal operations must be moni-
tored in this fashion on a regular basis.
Fathograms submitted by the disposal operator in
most cases provide a means of verifying only that a
tugboat traveled the required distance offshore; they
do not necessarily provide information as to where
specifically the operation took place. Besides, it is
doubtful if anyone would submit such records if they
were deliberately in violation of disposal procedures.
What is needed is a tamper proof, automatic system
that could be placed aboard a tugboat that would
provide a data record adequate for determining just
where and when the disposal operation took place.
Regulatory agencies are also faced with the task of
ensuring that established water quality criteria are
being met by the disposal operators. Information
from the original producer of the wastes, verified by
sampling of the barge loads, is required to provide
data as to the character of the wasteloads and to
establish if the required dilution of the wastes is
actually achieved in the wake of the barge. Sampling
must provide statistically sound data in order to
adequately take into account the variability of both
oceanographic factors and disposal procedures.
At the present time, however, the biggest draw-
backs to proposed schemes for regulatory monitoring
of marine waste disposal are the facts that: (1) the
legal jurisdiction to regulate the disposal of wastes at
sea to beyond the three-mile limit is not covered by
Federal regulations; (2) there are no water quality
criteria for ocean waters beyond the 3-mile limit. It is
clear that, until such time that the power to regulate
the disposal of wastes at sea is firmly established by
Federal Law, the development of effective enforce-
ment programs and the means for their implementa-
tion will not come to pass.
Research Needs Associated with Monitoring
Requirements for improved sampling to collect
both research and regulatory data have been empha-
sized at various points in the foregoing sections of
this chapter. These requirements and the research and
development programs needed to fulfill them are
discussed below.
Regulatory Monitoring Needs. In connection with
regulatory monitoring, present inspection of disposal
operations is inadequate. To correct this situation, an
improvement in documentary monitoring, by means
of an automatic tamper proof vessel log similar to
that utilized by airlines and trucking firms, appears to
be a partial solution to the problem. Such a system,
consisting of readily available components, could be
utilized in conjunction with a subsurface sonar
beacon located on the bottom within a disposal area.
One such system would work in the following
manner:
The disposal area would be marked with a trans-
ducer-type "well-head" pinger or other similar sonar
device with an operating range of approximately five
miles. The pinger would respond to the vessel's
fathometer output signal. A small receiver mounted
on the towing vessel would pick up the pinger signal
and feed it into the fathometer recorder. Thus, when
in range of the bottom pinger marking the disposal
area, a distinct trace would be visible on the towing
vessel's fathometer record, indicating the vessel and
barge are within the designated limits of the disposal
area. In order to avoid engineering design problems,
the operating frequency and repetition rate for such a
pinger should be about 12KC and once per second,
respectively. Average life of these beacons on the
bottom is envisioned as between 12 to 18 months,
which is within the state-of-the-art of present instru-
mentation.
In order to monitor the discharge rate of the
disposal operation, a simple monitoring system could
be incorporated in the barge pumping system. This
monitor would record the pump speed (revolutions
per minute) and the total elapsed time of the
pumping operation.
A recording "pitlog" or a venturi-type hull speed
sensor could be used to record hull speed through the
water. Depending on the accuracy required, a study
of surface currents in the area can be made and these
data then used for interpolation to obtain true hull
speed of the towing vessel over the bottom. All three
of the foregoing monitoring records can be auto-
matically stamped with data and time to provide
correlation of towing speed, elapsed time in the
disposal area, and the duration and rate of discharge
of the waste.
Compliance with stated water quality criteria
requires additional on-site sampling techniques. Along
these lines, research is required to develop a simple,
self-contained sampling device that can be towed at a
given distance astern of the disposal barge. The
purpose of this sampler would be to record only
concentrations of the wastes which are above the
specified limits of dilution. In this manner, a quanti-
tative evaluation of the disposal operation could be
made in terms of overall compliance with established
55
-------
water quality criteria. In some cases, it might be
desirable to tag the wastes with a fluorescent dye or
other tracer which can be easily measured with
standard techniques.
The feasibility of utilizing remote sensors such as
airborne fluorometers, radiation-thermometers, etc.,
for both regulatory and research monitoring pur-
poses, holds exciting possibilities. Stoertz, Hemphill,
and Markle recently have shown that, in extremely
turbid waters in San Francisco Bay, an experimental
airborne fluorometer was capable of sensing concen-
trations of Rhodamine WT dye in concentrations of
less than five parts per billion.21
The use of airborne sensors for detecting and
monitoring waste discharges at sea is timely in view of
the recent plan outlined by the U.S. Coast Guard for
a systematic air patrol to detect oil pollution in
selected areas off the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf
coasts.22 Under this proposal, the Coast Guard would
patrol some 2,000 miles of coast three times a week.
The five-year cost of this program is expected to be
about $29 million. With effective interagency co-
operation, this program could be expanded to include
monitoring of marine waste disposal operations.
Special regulatory and environmental sampling on
a regular basis could best be accomplished by placing
qualified observers aboard the disposal tug. Portable
sampling systems, easily transported aboard the tug,
could be constructed for this type of operation. In
this way, no special vessel would be required, and the
only cost involved would be for sampling equipment
and personnel.
Environmental Monitoring Needs. Current tech-
niques for monitoring environmental effects of wastes
on the marine ecosystem are inadequate for both
regulation and research. One monitoring method that
looks promising for marine use is the collection of
sedentary animals and plants that attach themselves
to artificial test plates placed at various depths on a
simple taut-wire buoy system. Such plates have been
maintained in shallow coastal areas for nearly 20
years for the purpose of obtaining data on the
productivity of the environment in relation to
oceanographic changes.4 It is envisioned that, because
of the known ability of most attaching organisms to
accumulate various components of waste (i.e., pesti-
cides, heavy metals),5 this method will be extremely
useful to monitor the biological effects of pollution
caused by the various waste disposal operations, both
on a short- and long-term basis.* For example, plates
could be changed at regular intervals and the organ-
isms counted, volumetrically measured, or chemically
assayed to provide a quantitative index of their
relative abundance obtained. Comparison with sam-
ples obtained in control areas would allow for a
realistic appraisal of the environmental effects of the
wastes. Another favorable aspect of this monitoring
method is that it would facilitate the collection of
specimens for use in laboratory bioassay tests ashore.
The implementation of the foregoing method will
require research to determine the best material for
the test plates, the size and shape of the test plates,
the optimum sampling interval and laboratory tech-
niques, and the design and cost of the buoy system.
Research to develop methods and equipment
adequate to sample the waste field produced by a
disposal operation is required in order to obtain data
for the verification of existing mixing models and to
develop better models. The use of airborne sensors in
conjunction with rapid surface and subsurface sam-
pling techniques can provide the synoptic data that
are required for this purpose. In the past, research
efforts have been hampered because it has not been
feasible to utilize several vessels to sample the waste
field simultaneously. New research efforts should be
directed towards the development of instruments
(preferably with in-situ sensing capability) that can be
attached at various depths to lightweight buoy
systems for rapid deployment by a surface vessel.
Thus, a single vessel could make several rapid tra-
verses across the waste field to deploy the sensor
systems for later retrieval at a predetermined time. In
this manner, any number of almost synoptic cross
sections of the waste field could be obtained at less
than the'expense of several sampling vessels.
Shipboard sampling systems are also required that
will collect in the wake of the barge physical and
chemical data from the waste field while the research
vessel is underway. Every effort should be made to
design this system so that it is as automated as
possible in order to reduce the number of technical
people involved in the collection and processing of
the data.
* The potential application of this method to pollution
monitoring of nearshore and coastal waste disposal opera-
tions was suggested by Dr. Donald Mitchell of the Biome
Company, Huntington Beach, California. Dr. Mitchell also
serves as a member of the California State Water Quality
Control Board, Region No. 8.
56
-------
A point to note is that the development of
instrumentation and techniques for the purpose of
studying the mixing and diffusion of wastes at sea
most certainly would provide a substantial part of the
monitoring information that is required by regulatory
agencies to ensure that disposal operations are con-
ducted in the prescribed manner.
Because the data obtained from an effective
environmental and regulatory monitoring program
have the potential for multi-use by many Federal
research and regulatory agencies, it is logical to
suggest that the cost of the research required to
develop these capabilities also be shared on an
interagency basis. For example, long-term environ-
mental monitoring data from control areas would
provide data both for evaluating the biotic potential
of the area, as well as physical and chemical time-
series data for oceanographic studies.
REFERENCES
1. MCKEE, J. E. Parameters of marine pollution-an overall evaluation. In T. A. OLSON,
and F. J. BURGESS, eds. Publication and marine ecology. New York, Interscience
Publishers, 1967. p. 259-266.
2. GUNNERSON, C. G. Optimizing sampling intervals. In Proceedings of the IBM
Scientific Computing Symposium on Water and Ak Resource Management,
Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, N. Y., Oct. 23-25, 1967.
Harrison, N. Y., International Business Machines Corporation, 1968. p. 115-140.
3. MCKEE, J. E., and H. W. WOLF, eds. Water quality criteria. 2d ed. Publication No. 3-A.
Sacramento, State Water Quality Control Board, 1963. 548 p.
4. U.S. FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION. Water quality
criteria; report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of
the Interior. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. 234 p.
5. STEIN, J. E., and J. G. DENISON. Limitations of indicator organisms. In T. A.
OLSON, and F. J. BURGESS, eds. Pollution and marine ecology. New York,
Interscience Publishers, 1967. p. 323-335.
6. Panel reports of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, v. 1.
Science and environment. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.
364 p.
7. KETCHUM, B. H., and W. L. FORD. Rate of dispersion in the wake of a barge at sea.
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 33(5):680-684, Oct. 1952.
8. MACSMITH, W., JR. Offshore disposal of industrial waste. Presented at 42d Annual
Conference, Water Pollution Control Federation, Dallas, Oct. 5-10, 1969. 8 p.
9. PEARSON, E. A., P. N. STORRS, and R. E. SELLECK. Some physical parameters and
their significance in marine waste disposal. In 1. A. OLSON, and F. J. BURGESS,
eds. Pollution and marine ecology. New York, Interscience Publishers, 1967. p.
297-315.
10. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY. Radio-
active waste disposal into Atlantic and Gulf coastal waters; a report from a
working group of the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of
Sciences-National Research Council. National Research Council Publication No.
655. Washington, National Academy of Sciences, 1959. 37 p.
11. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COMMITTEE ON EFFECTS OF ATOMIC
RADIATION ON OCEANOGRAPHY AND FISHERIES. Considerations on the
disposal of radioactive wastes from nuclear-powered ships into the marine
environment. National Research Council Publication 658. Washington, National
Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1959. 52 p.
12. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY. Disposal
of low-level radioactive waste into Pacific coastal waters. National Research
Council Publication 985. Washington, National Academy of Sciences-National
Research Council, 1962. 87 p.
13. HOOD, D. W. The disposal of chlorinated hydrocarbons at sea. Unpublished data
[Project 69, Reference 54^7T]. College Station, Texas A&M Research Founda-
tion, 1954.33 p.
14. CLARKE, W. D., and M. NEUSHUL. Subtidal ecology of the southern California coast.
In T. A. OLSON, and F. J. BURGESS, eds. Pollution and marine ecology. New
York, Interscience Publishers, 1967. p. 29-42.
15. LEWIS, G. B., and A. H. Seymour. Distribution of zinc-65 in plankton from offshore
waters of Washington and Oregon, 1961-1963. Ocean Science and Ocean
Engineering, 2:956-967, 1965.
16. OSTERBERG, C. Radioactivity from the Columbia River. Ocean Science and Ocean
Engineering, 2:968-979, 1965.
57
-------
17. Marine resources activities in Texas. Industrial Economics Research Discussion,
National Science Foundation Sea Grant Program, Texas A&M University, 1969.
202 p.
18. SCHUYLER, S., and G. HEIMERDINGER. Continental margin data collection pilot
project; a Division of Research and Development open-file report (CT-02-6945).
[Cincinnati], U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970. [81 p.]
[Restricted distribution.]
19. U.S. BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES. Report of the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries for the calendar year 1966. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1968. 141 p.
20. BUELOW, R. W. Ocean disposal of waste material. In Transactions; National
Symposium on Ocean Sciences and Engineering of the Atlantic Shelf, Philadelphia,
Mar. 19-20, 1968. Marine Technology Society, p. 311-337.
21. STOERTZ, G. E., W. R. HEMPHILL, and D. A. MARKLE. Airborne fluorometer
applicable to marine and estuarine studies. Marine Technology Society Journal,
3(6):ll-26,Nov.-Dec. 1969.
22. Coast Guard outlines proposed oil surveillance plan. Air/Water Pollution Report,
7(50):438, Dec. 15,1969.
58
-------
V. INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this chapter is to review and
summarize trends in marine disposal of solid wastes,
to examine technological and institutional problems
associated with marine disposal operations, and to
make recommendations as to future legal, administra-
tive, environmental research, and engineering devel-
opment actions required in connection with marine
disposal of solid waste.
SUMMARY OF TRENDS
Last Twenty Years
Analysis of historic data on waste disposal at sea
for the 20-year period from 1949 to 1968 shows a
four-fold increase in tonnage. Tonnages disposed at
sea increased from an average of 1.7 million tons per
year from 1949 to 1968 to 7.4 million tons per year
for the 1964-68 period (Table 9). Atlantic coast
discharges of industrial wastes and sewage sludge are
five times as large as the operations on the Pacific and
Gulf coasts combined.
It is emphasized that the tonnages shown on Table
9 do not include dredge spoil, explosives, and
radioactive wastes. In compiling this table from
Corps of Engineers records, it was assumed that once
a given disposal operation was initiated, it continued
unchanged over the ensuing years. Caution should be
exercised in use of the data prior to 1959; Atlantic
Coast tonnages are based on extrapolation of recent
data and arbitrary doubling of the figures contained
in the 19511 NAS-NRC report on the disposal of acid
wastes by Redfield and Walford.
TABLE 9
MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL TONNAGES BY REGION IN FIVE-YEAR PERIODS FROM 1949 1968*
PACIFIC COAST
Total
Average/year
ATLANTIC COAST
Total
Average/year
GULF COAST
Total
Average/year
TOTAL U.S.
U.S. Average/year
1949-53
487,000
97,400
8,000 ,000t
1,600,000
40, 000 §
8,000
8,527,000
1,705,400
1954-58
850,000
170,000
16,000,000*
3,200,000
283,000
56,000
9,133,000
1,826,600
1959-63
940,000
188,000
27,270,000
5,454,000
860,000
172,000
29,070,000
5,814,000
1964-68
3,410,000
682,000
31,100,000
6,200,000
2,600,000
520,000
37,110,000
7,422,000
* Figures do not include dredge spoil, radioactive
wastes, and military explosives. Values are short
tons.
t Based on data contained in the 1951-NAS-NCR
report by Redfield and Walford.1
* Based on an arbitrary doubling of the 1949-53
tonnage figures which fits a linear projection
connecting with the detailed data available from
1949 onwards.
§ On-going disposal operations in the Gulf of
Mexico originated in 1952.
59
-------
The largest factor contributing to the 27.5 percent
increase in tonnage from 1959-63 to 1964-68 was the
increase in disposal of industrial wastes and sewage
sludge. Fairly reliable data show that in 1959
industrial wastes discharged at sea amounted to about
2.2 million tons. In 1968, industrial wastes amounted
to some 4.7 million tons or roughly double the 1959
disposal rate. Similarly, the amount of sewage sludge
disposed at sea increased from 2.8 million tons in
1959 to 4.5 million tons in 1968.
Future Trends
It is almost certain that under prevailing condi-
tions there will be increasing pressures to use the sea
for disposal of the municipal and industrial wastes
generated in rapidly expanding coastal zone metro-
politan and industrial areas.
Municipal Wastes. According to the National
Estuarine Pollution Study recently published by the
FWPCA, the population of coastal counties in the
United States increased by 78 percent during the
period 1930 to 1960, as compared to a national
growth rate of 46 percent.2 Data from a variety of
sources indicate that the population in the coastal
zone will continue to grow at a rate substantially
higher than the national population growth rate.3'4
The coastal zone population is expected to more than
double between 1960 and the year 2020, from 60
million to 139 million persons. This massive buildup
in the coastal zone population will bring with it
corresponding increases in generation of refuse, com-
mercial wastes, demolition wastes, and sewage sludge.
Refuse. Conservative estimates indicate a national
average of 6 to 7 pounds per person per day of
municipal refuse (excluding sewage sludge) presently
being generated; This totals over 256 million tons per
year for the Nation as a whole.5 Current population
estimates indicate that at least 40 percent of this
tonnage originates in the coastal zone.
Assuming that per capita waste production will
increase at the same growth rate (4%) as that
predicted for production of consumer goods, the
amount of materials to be collected by municipal and
private agencies is expected to rise to 8 pounds per
day per person by 1980.5Assuming a marine coastal
zone population of 96 million residents by 1980,3
over 140 million tons of municipal solid wastes will
be collected. It is estimated that the amount of land
necessary to dispose of these wastes will nearly
double from 1966 to 1976.2
Sewage Sludge. According to the results of the
National Estuarine Pollution Study the amount of
settlable and suspended solids (sludge) in municipal
sewage generated from coastal areas served by sewers
will increase from 1.3 million tons per year (dry
weight) in 1960 to over 1.7 million tons per year in
1980, or an increase of over 400,000 tons.2 These
figures do not take into account suburban and rural
populations not served by sewers. For example, the
amount of sewage sludge generated annually in the
Baltimore-Washington region is expected to increase
from 70,000 tons (dry weight) in 1968 to about
166,000 tons in 1980.6 By comparison, the amount
of sludge barged to sea annually by the metropolitan
area of the City of New York is expected to increase
from 99,000 tons (dry weight) in 1960 to 220,000
tons in 1980, or an increase of 122 percent.7
Industrial Wastes. At present, the coastal counties
contain 40 percent of all the manufacturing plants in
the United States. Over half of these plants (totaling
one-fifth of all the manufacturing plants in the
United States) are concentrated in what amounts to
the Boston-Norfolk coastal zone.2 Major increases in
the production of industrial waste in coastal areas are
expected.
The growth potential for certain industries cur-
rently using marine disposal for a portion of their
wastes (such as the chemical and oil refining indus-
tries) indicates that their projected growth rate for
the '70s is considerably higher than the national
growth rate. According to Aalund the growth rate of
the petrochemical industry required to satisfy the
demands for synthetic chemical products during the
next decade will be double the national industrial
growth rate.8 Stormont has forecast a major increase
in oil refinery capacity in order to keep pace with the
projectd 1980 demand of 21 million barrels per day.9
Geographically, the Gulf Coast area will probably
remain the center for construction of new refinery
and petro-chemical plants during the 70s, although if
Alaskan and Canadian oil can be delivered cheaply to
the Atlantic coast, a major expansion can also be
anticipated there.
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS IN
SEA DISPOSAL
Both precedent and practice are resulting in
growing interest in sea disposal of solid and liquid
wastes. There are concurrent increases in coastal zone
municipal and industrial waste production and
60
-------
marked decreases in the number of presently ac-
ceptable alternatives for disposal of these wastes. This
reduction results from increasingly strict water and
air pollution laws, and from the loss of land areas
now used for solid waste landfill and for ponding of
liquid wastes because of expansion of residential areas
and increasing property values in industrial areas. As a
result of this situation, the economics of sea disposal
of municipal refuse are becoming increasingly attrac-
tive. Groups in major cities including San Francisco,
New York, and Philadelphia have already shown
substantial interest in proposed programs for ocean
disposal of these wastes.
Marine disposal of various types of industrial
sludges is also an economically attractive proposition
to industrial plants in both coastal and midcontinent
areas, even though costs of as much as $130 per ton
wet weight have been reported (Table 2). During the
last two years, there has been a marked increase in
the number of inquiries to regulatory agencies by
various industry representatives regarding the pro-
cedures involved in obtaining permission to dispose of
wastes at sea. As noted in Chapter II, one proposal
came from as far inland as West Virginia in the upper
Ohio basin; here, cost studies showed it was cheaper
to barge the wastes to sea than to treat them so as to
meet the local stream standards. In addition, re-
presentatives from industrial firms already practicing
marine waste disposal have indicated that unless other
solutions to their waste disposal problems become
available, they expect to continue their present
marine disposal practices.
In summary, the present level of 62 million tons
per year of wastes being barged to sea for disposal is
expected to increase in the immediate future.
On the other side of the coin, the progressive
increase in coastal zone population also creates
increasing pressure for other uses of the sea, parti-
cularly the shallower nearshore areas. These uses
include all types of water-oriented recreation (which
in itself is a multimillion dollar industry), commercial
fishing, various aspects of scientific research and
engineering development, and in selected localities,
the potential for development of offshore petroleum
and mineral resources.
On a global scale, the role of the sea in maintaining
all life is unknown, but it is considered a vital
"balance wheel" by an increasing group of ecologists
and conservationists. There are some marine waste
disposal operations that are demonstrably or intui-
tively incompatible with maximum utilization of the
sea. By contrast, there appear to be other cases where
disposal of selected wastes will enhance or at least not
damage the marine environment. In any event, it is
clear that a substantial initial opposition to marine
disposal can be expected because of potential conflict
with other uses of the sea and the public's current
concern with conservation of the environment. It is
apparent that the burden of proof for the accept-
ability of marine disposal will rest on those proposing
such programs.
Regulation and Enforcement
Perhaps the single most significant trend that will
influence disposal of wastes at sea over the next
decade is the keen and increasing public sensitivity to
the need for protecting and preserving the environ-
ment. As a result of this situation there will be a
definite trend toward stricter laws and enforcement
procedures, backed by sizeable penalties governing
the disposal of wastes. Therefore, obtaining authori-
zation for new or expanded marine disposal opera-
tions in the future will require a major effort.
Industries and municipalities seeking such authori-
zation can anticipate requirements for comprehensive
environmental research, development, and demonstra-
tion programs to prove that the selected ocean floor
sites and the overlying water column can receive the
proposed waste tonnages without damage.
PROBLEM AREAS
Areas of existing or potential problems associated
with marine disposal operations include: legal aspects,
documentation of existing disposal operations, and
evaluation of environmental effects.
Legal Aspects
International law dictates that the high seas shall
remain free for the use of all nations, beyond the
outer limits of a coastal nation's territorial sea. This is
clearly stated in international conventions to which
the United States is a party. The Convention of the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone proclaims
that a coastal nation shall have limited jurisdiction on
the high seas to a maximum limit of 12 miles from
the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured
(the United States exercises sovereignty only to the
3-mile limit.) The language is ambiguous, however,
61
-------
and must be interpreted to accord with a nation's
international as well as national policies.
Legislation, which is fairly specific, has been
established to regulate disposal activities resulting in
pollution within the Territorial Sea and Inland Waters
of coastal states. To date, however, there is no
legislative enactment which specifically provides that
any agency, department or official of the United
States is vested with authority to prevent pollution of
the seas from the discharge of solid waste beyond the
outer boundaries of the Territorial Sea. Specific
legislation is imperative if the resources of the oceans
are to be preserved for future generations.
The lack of authority has resulted in uncertainty
as to how much, if any, responsibility should be
assumed by individual Federal agencies with an
interest in marine disposal of wastes. This vacuum has
been filled in some cases by State agencies. A partial
compendium of Federal and State laws and agencies
has been compiled (Appendix E).
Until recent legislation created the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the Corps of Engineers
had the broadest authority at least to the three-mile
limit. Some Corps districts have acted on the assump-
tion that they have jurisdiction; other districts con-
tend that they do not have such jurisdiction. In other
instances there is a question of overlap of jurisdiction
wherein a Federal agency and a state agency may
both have responsibilities and authority related to
marine waste disposal operations in a given area. Such
regulations as exist pertaining to marine disposal
operations are scattered among various Federal laws.
These regulations are generally not clearly defined
and do not set forth precisely what is and what is not
allowable as far as marine disposal is concerned. As a
result, what may be considered acceptable disposal
practice in one Corps district would not be autho-
rized in another district.
The lack of explicit jurisdictional authority is
reflected by the absence of effective monitoring and
surveillance of tug and barge waste disposal activities.
After the occasional initial studies conducted either
by industry or interested regulatory agencies, only at
New York have there been follow-on enforcement
monitoring programs. Thus, present compliance with
whatever disposal procedures that regulatory agencies
set up when an applicant is granted permission to
dispose of wastes at sea is primarily a matter of
cooperation. Efforts at operating control are essenti-
ally limited to occasional fines in the New York area
only. No instance could be found where a permit has
ever been rescinded or not renewed because of past
infractions of prescribed disposal procedures.
Even though water quality standards have been
established in some cases, they are for the most part
based on fragmentary evidence and more concerned
with protecting the aesthetic enjoyment of the
environment (e.g., color, floatables, aquatic growths,
etc.) than with potential larger-scale effects on the
marine food chain.
As a consequence of both the unclear legal aspects
and the lack of effective water quality standards, very
few applications for marine disposal authorization are
denied, even though in some cases strong disapproval
of the proposed operation has been voiced by several
conservation agencies.
Documentation of Existing Disposal Operations
Documentation of existing disposal operations
varies widely, and in some Corps districts effective
record keeping is lacking. It is apparent that record
preparation and maintenance by agencies responsible
for marine disposal is an essential first step in
enforcement monitoring of disposal operations.
Equally important is a formalized reporting system
that would result in the preparation of regional and
national summaries on an annual or biannual basis.
Such documentation is essential to many aspects of
solid waste research, operations, and management.
It has been found that exchange and dissemination
of information on solid waste marine disposal opera-
tions is poor. For example, most Corps of Engineers
district offices have only a general idea of how a given
problem is handled by another district, even though
in some cases the distances separating them may only
be a few hundred miles. Similarly, while there may be
several Federal, State, and local agencies involved in
various aspects of barge-delivered oceanic disposal of
wastes from any one city, the survey indicates that
rarely would more than one of these agencies have a
reasonably comprehensive picture of the total activi-
ties in that city or coastal area. This lack of
communication between agencies and the restriction
of interest in a given agency to only certain types of
wastes indicates the need for an effective information
management system.
The present lack of effective data management
seriously hampers agencies handling applications for
offshore disposal authorization with resulting delays
in processing and announcement of decisions. For
example, industrial firms commonly must wait for
62
-------
periods up to a year for decisions on requests to
dispose of their wastes at sea even though the same
wastes may be sanctioned for disposal in a city only
200 miles away.
The technical evaluation and management of
marine disposal of solid wastes is a relatively recent
development which cuts across several technical
fields, and which has the characteristic problems
typical of developing interdisciplinary technical areas.
The pertinent literature is widely scattered in rela-
tively obscure journals or in institutional reports of
very limited distribution.
Because of the lack of information regarding
current disposal activities and their environmental
effects, regulatory or conservation agencies respon-
sible for passing on applications for new marine
disposal operations commonly are faced with autho-
rizing or rejecting the application on the basis of
totally inadequate technical information.
Industrial firms are also hampered by this same
lack of information in evaluating marine disposal as a
potential solution to their waste disposal problems.
It is evident that as ocean disposal activities
expand, effective reporting, documentation, sum-
mary, and information dissemination procedures
must be put into effect. Such procedures would
substantially benefit all parties concerned.
Evaluation of Environmental Effects
Information presented on the environmental ef-
fects of barging wastes to sea demonstrates the lack
of adequate technical data on short (Chapter III) and
long-term responses of the marine environment to
oceanic disposal of solid waste. Environmental effects
of past and present discharges are not even qualita-
tively known, let alone measured. The major ex-
ception to this is the well-known propensity of
garbage and similar materials to float; if these wastes
are barged to coastal waters, they float shoreward.
The survey of current monitoring practices and
needs (Chapter IV) indicated that there is no effective
ongoing monitoring to determine environmental ef-
fects of disposal activities. Limited initial studies of
short-term environmental effects sometimes con-
ducted either by industry or interested regulatory
agencies are not followed up. Thus, there is a serious
knowledge gap regarding both the short- and long-
term effects that ocean waste disposal operations
have on the marine environment. This lack of
knowledge results in the previously noted situation
wherein responsible officials must evaluate applica-
tions for disposal authorization without adequate
factual background. Even more important, it is not
possible to assure either the discharger or the public
that effects of marine disposal activities are not
damaging.
With the possible exception of radioactive mate-
rials (including fallout), there is sufficient water in
the lower layers of the ocean to dilute waste materials
below detectable concentrations. It follows that
waste should be discharged as deep as possible and
should be dispersed as much as is feasible in order to
hasten dilution and subsequent assimilation. How-
ever, there are almost certainly some wastes where sea
disposal presents a greater hazard than the alter-
natives. For example, refractory organic pesticides are
concentrated in the food chain; for this class of
materials, pyrolysis is the preferred disposal method.
As indicated, there are a number of important
basic oceanographic and ecologic questions that must
be answered before we have an adequate under-
standing of the ocean's environmental response to
waste disposal. (Chapter III). These include; the
character of dilution and dispersion of a waste field in
the upper (mixed) layer of the sea, circulation in the
intermediate and deeper ocean layers, exchange of
water between the surface and deeper layers, behavior
and fate of pollutants in the marine environment,
uptake and retention of specific elements or com-
pounds by food chain organisms, and sublethal or
chronic long-term effects of waste materials on
various biologic organisms.
It is significant that a virtually identical list of
principal unresolved problems was prepared by Re-
velle and the NAS-NRC Committee on Oceanography
in 1956 in connection with a study of the biological
effects of atomic radiation.12
For areas where baseline environmental data are
adequate, accurate prediction of the suitability of sea
floor disposal sites should not be particularly dif-
ficult. There is a further need to demonstrate and
verify the ocean's capability for assimilating solid
waste. Good environmental engineering practice de-
mands that adequate preliminary studies be carried
out to evaluate the response of the marine environ-
ment prior to undertaking large-scale disposal opera-
tions. Marine waste disposal may be economically
desirable, but it must also be environmentally ac-
ceptable.
In order to carry out such technical studies,
substantial funding will be required. Because of the
63
-------
magnitude of the funds required for such technical
work, it is doubtful that a given municipality could
pay for this research. Thus, it would appear that the
Federal Government should continue to underwrite a
substantial portion of such research work. There are
existing provisions for such support by the office of
Solid Waste Management.
In addition, industry must be prepared to fund
technical evaluations in connection with their own
disposal activities. To date, most of the work funded
by industry on the environmental effect of waste
disposal have focused on initial studies to determine
short-term environmental response. There is an even
greater responsibility to conduct comprehensive
long-range studies so as to insure an understanding of
possible long-term deleterious effects on the biota.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to conserve and utilize the environmental
and other resources of the sea, it is recommended
that: (1) the Federal Government, in conjunction
with the coastal States, evaluate existing conventions,
treaties, laws, and regulations pertaining to marine
waste disposal and adopt appropriate legislation and
regulations to establish an effective legal framework;
(2) the Federal Government establish uniform appli-
cation and review procedures for marine waste
disposal permits and minimum standards for baseline
surveys, monitoring procedures, and related data
management and dissemination; (3) The Federal
Government support and participate in environmental
research leading to effective functional designs and
operating criteria for beneficial or nondamaging
disposal of wastes into the marine environment; (4)
the Federal Government support engineering re-
search, development, and demonstration of marine
waste disposal systems, for those classes of wastes
that do not damage the environment. This should
include optimization of materials handling, pro-
cessing, and transportation facilities, and monitoring
systems and procedures.
REFERENCES
1. REDFIELD, A. C., and L. A. WALFORD. A study of the disposal of chemical waste at
sea; report of the Committee for Investigation of Waste Disposal. National
Research Council Publication No. 201. Washington, National Academy of
Sciences, 1951.49 p.
2. The national estuarine pollution study; report of the Secretary of the Interior to the
U.S. Congress pursuant to Public Law 89-753, the Clean Water Restoration Act of
1966, 91st Cong., 2d sess. v. 2. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1970. p. 59-340.
3. WINSLOW E., and A. B. BIGLER. A new perspective on recreational use of the ocean.
UnderSea Technology, 10(7):51-55, July 1969.
4. Panel reports of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, v. 1.
Science and environment. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.
364 p.
5. BLACK, R. J., A. J. MUHICH, A. J. KLEE, H. L. HICKMAN, JR., and R. D.
VAUGHAN. The national solid waste survey; an interim report. [Cincinnati], U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, [1968], 53 p.
6. BECHTEL, INCORPORATED. FWPCA waste management study, v. 1. The waste
management concept; inland and ocean disposal of selected wastes. San Francisco,
1969.167 p.
7. Personal communication. N. NASH, Division of Plant Operations, New York City
Bureau of Water Pollution, to R. P. BROWN, Dillingham Corporation, May 1,
1969.
8. AALUND, L. R. Forecast for the seventies-petrochemical. Oil and Gas Journal,
67(45):172-174, Nov. 10,1969.
9. STORMONT, D. H. Forecast for the seventies-refining. Oil and Gas Journal,
67(45): 167-171, Nov. 10, 1969.
10. Everybody produces it; nobody wants it. Seahorse, 3(8):6,1969.
11. Where to dispose of our refuse? Some say in the sea. New England Marine Resources
Information 2, June-July 1969. Narragensett, R. I., New England Marine
Resources Information Program. 2 p.
12. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COMMITTEE ON EFFECTS OF ATOMIC
RADIATION ON OCEANOGRAPHY AND FISHERIES. The effects of atomic
radiation on oceanography and fisheries. National Research Council Publication
551. Washington, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council,
1957. 137 p.
64
-------
APPENDIX A
STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRE
INVENTORY OF OCEANIC DISPOSAL PRACTICES
FOR SOLID WASTES AND INDUSTRIAL SLUDGES
-------
FORM APPROVED
BUDGET BUREAU
No. 85-S 68011
INVENTORY OF OCEANIC DISPOSAL PRACTICES
FOR SOLID WASTES AND INDUSTRIAL SLUDGES
A. General Information
1. Date: Year Month Day
ewer
tarted
ewee name:
Time completed
Number:
zation name:
ss:
5. Title:
8. Address:
B. Federal, State and Municipal Agencies or Organizations
1. What information can you supply regarding where, when, and how often oceanic disposal is taking
place from your city?
2. What organizations or companies do you know of that are involved in each dumping activity?
3. What is the nature of the material being dumped (i.e. a description of the physical and chemical
composition), and the approximate weights or volume of material involved in each operation?
4. What is the approximate location of the existing offshore dumping sites? (Can you supply information
as to the distance from the coast and water depths where the dumping takes place?
5. Is the actual dumping concentrated in a specific area or is it scattered at random?
6. What organizations are currently responsible for regulation and surveillance of dumping operations?
7. What means exist for determining that dumping is, in fact, carried out beyond the three mile limit or
in the areas (and depths) specified in questions 4 and 5?
8. What is the approximate cost of each of the dumping operations, and what is the size and type of tugs,
barges and loading equipment used?
9. What is the history for each dumping operation? Specifically, when begun and what variations have
occurred with respect to present operations in regard to nature and volume of material frequency of
dumping, etc.?
10. Have there been any other dumping operations undertaken in the past ten years which are not now
active—if so, please specify where, when, by whom, volume, etc.?
11. What evidence is there which indicates the fate of the dumped material or of the effects that the waste
material has had on the environment, (i.e. presence of garbage on beaches, discoloration of water,
odors, etc.)?
66
-------
12. Are there any proposed new marine solid waste disposal activities under development in your city,
state or adjacent areas?
13. What other Federal, State or Municipal agencies, organizations, commercial companies or private
individuals might have additional pertinent information on oceanic dumping activities?
14. What reports, publications or other pertinent literature have you released concerning past, present or
future marine solid waste disposal within your area of operations?
C. Commercial Companies and Private Individuals
Information supplied for this portion of the questionnaire is considered to be confidential and will be used
only to prepare summaries of various regional operations. The information you provide and the identity of
individual companies and operations will not be disclosed.
1. What is the nature of the material (i.e. a description of the physical and chemical composition) and the
approximate weight and volume of the material involved in each operation?
2. At what estimated distance from the coast and in what water depths does the dumping actually take
place?
3. Is the material usually dumped in one specific area or is it scattered at random?
4. What organizations are currently responsible for regulation and observation of your dumping
operations?
5. What means exist for determing that dumping is, in fact, carried out beyond the three mile limit or in
the areas (and depths) specified in questions 2 and 3?
6. What is the approximate cost of each of the dumping operations, and what is size and type of tugs,
barges, and loading equipment used?
7. What has been the history for each dumping operation? Specifically, when begun and what variations
have occurred with respect to present dumping operations in regard to nature and volume of material,
frequency of dumping, etc.?
8. Are you aware of other dumping operations undertaken in the past five years which are not now
active - if so, specify where, when, by whom, volume, etc.?
9. Is there any evidence indicating the fate of the dumped material or of the effects that the waste material
has had on the environment, (i.e., presence of garbage on beaches, discoloration of water, odors, etc.)?
67
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
CHARACTERISTICS OF MARINE
WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS
This appendix was compiled by
JAMES L. VERBER
Food and Drug Administration, Public Health Service,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
-------
NOTES
1. Spoil Area—separated by channel or adjacent to each other, not considered two sites.
2. Spoil Zone, paralleling channel, may be several miles in length and/or consist of many small areas.
3. Discontinued for use shown.
4. Center point of large disposal area, 25 square miles or more.
5. Data supplied from Dillingham file, site not verified.
6. Position approximate.
7. Duplicate site.
This compilation of sites does not include locations dicsontinued for 20 or more years.
Abbreviations: CE-Corps of Engineers records
C&GS-Coast and Geodetic Survey chart
AEC—Atomic Energy Commission
NAS-NRC-National Academy of Science-National Research Council
70
-------
APPENDIX B
CHARACTERISTICS OF MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS
Atlantic Coast Disposal Areas
Latitude
North
Longitude
West
Depth
Fathoms
Distance
N. Miles
Chart
Source
Note
Comment
Dredging Spoils
44° 26'
44° 24'
44° 14'
44° 12'
44° 07'
44° 16'
43° 56'
43° 40'
43° 38'
43° 40'
43° 34'
43° 19'
42° 50'
42° 27'
42° 21'
42° 32'
42° 30'
42° 16'
42° 33'
42° 16'
41° 38'
41° 36'
41° 36'
42° 00'
40° 45'
41° 21'
41° 34'
41° 23'
41° 21'
41° 11'
41° 18'
41° 18'
41° 16'
41° 13'
41° 16'
41° 11'
41° 14'
41° 13'
41° 04'
41° 11'
41° 10'
41° 09'
41° 07'
41° 01'
41° 04'
41° 00'
41° 04'
40° 59'
40° 59'
41° 01'
40° 59'
40° 24'
40° 23'
40° 13'
40° 06'
39° 21'
67° 46'
68° 55'
68° 55'
69° 01'
69° 03'
68° 58'
69° 24'
70° 10'
70° 10'
70° 08'
70° 02'
70° 27'
70° 34'
70° 44'
70° 40'
70° 40'
70° 46'
70° 41'
70° 47'
70° 34'
70° 02'
70° 17'
70° 41'
70° 34'
70° 50'
70° 06'
70° 50'
71° 18'
71° 21'
71° 31'
71° 55'
72° 00'
72° 05'
72° 05'
72° 11'
72° 14'
72° 20'
72° 31'
72° 35'
72° 43'
72° 48'
72° 53'
73° 02'
73° 07'
73° 12'
73° 13'
73° 17'
73° 20'
73° 26'
73° 27'
73° 31'
73° 51'
73° 49'
73° 46'
74° 02'
74° 25'
22
23
16
31
24
18
17
16
17
12
24
14
29
25
29
30
20
14
11
29
5
5
3
14
32
8
3
18
18
21
18
12
11
8
14
20
19
19
19
12
12
11
11
26
11
18
11
15
24
13
18
15
17
36
3
3
4
3
6
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
8
1
7
5
7
3
2
3
1
7
1
1
1
1
30
3
1
5
5
1
2
2
2
5
1
6
2
2
2
4
5
5
4
2
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
10
10
11
1
1
1201
1205
1203
1203
1203
1203
313
325
325
325
1204
1205
1206
1207
1207
1207
1207
1207
1207
1207
114SC
114SC
1210
1208
1107
1209
252
1210
1210
1210
116SC
116SC
1211
1211
1211
1211
1212
1212
1212
1212
1212
1212
1212
1212
1213
1213
1213
1213
1213
1213
1213
1215
1215
1215
795
1217
7
7
Cape Split, Me. (C&GS)
Belfast, Me. (C&GS)
#1 Camden, Me. (CE)
#2 Camden, Me. (CE)
#3 Rockland, Me. (CE)
#4 Lincolnville, Me. (CE)
#5 Round Pond, Me. (CE)
Portland, Me. (C&GS)
#6 Portland, Me. (CE)
Portland, Me. (C&GS)
Portland, Me. (C&GS)
#7 KennebunkPort, Me. (CE)
Portsmouth, N.H. (C&GS)
#10 Boston, Mass. (CE)
#13 Boston, Mass. (CE) Prov. #11
#8 Boston, Mass. (CE)
#9 Boston. Mass. (CE)
#11 Boston, Mass. (CE) Prov. #13
#12 Boston, Mass. (CE)
Boston, Mass. (C&GS)
Monomoy Is., Mass. (C&GS)
Hyannis, Mass. (C&GS)
W Falmouth, Mass. (C&GS)
#14 Plymouth, Mass. (CE)
Martha's Vineyard, Mass. (C&GS)
#15 Nantucket Is., Mass. (CE)
#16 West Island, Mass. (CE)
#17 Narragansett Bay, R.I. (CE)
Narragansett Bay, R.I. (C&GS)
#18 Block Is., R.I. (CE)
Stonington, Conn. (CE)
North Dumpling, Conn. (CE)
New London, Conn. (CE)
Little Gull Is. (CE)
Niantic Bay, Conn. (CE)
Orient Pt., L.I., N.Y. (CE)
Cornfield Shoal (CE)
Clinton Harbor, Conn. (CE)
Mattituck, L.I.,N.Y. (CE)
Falkner Island, Conn. (CE)
Branford, Conn. (CE)
New Haven, Conn. (CE)
Milford. Conn. (CE)
Port Jefferson, L.I., N.Y. (CE)
Bridgeport, Conn. (CE)
Smithtown, Bay, L.I., N.Y. (CE)
Southport, Conn. (CE)
#23 S. Norwalk, Conn. (CE) Prov. #19
South Norwalk, Conn. (CE)
South Norwalk, Conn. (CE)
Stamford, Conn. (CE)
Sandy Hook, N.J. (MUD) (CE)
Sandy Hook, N.J. (CELLAR) (CE)
Ashbury Park, N.J. (WRECK) (CE)
Manasquan Inlet, N.J. (CE)
Absecon, N.J. (CE)
71
-------
Atlantic Coast Disposal Areas-(Cont.)
Latitude
North
38° 55'
38° 56'
38° 55'
38° 58'
37° 00'
36° 48'
34° 39'
34° 39'
34° 39'
33° 48'
33° 11'
32° 40'
32° 09'
32° 05'
31° 58'
31° 57'
31° 04'
31° 02'
30° 42'
30° 42'
30° 41'
30° 23'
28° 23'
27° 27'
25° 46'
25° 45'
25° 45'
Longitude
West
75° 00'
75° 01'
74° 54'
75° 03'
75° 40'
75° 54'
76° 40'
76° 42'
76° 43'
78° 02'
79° 08'
79° 47'
80° 36'
80° 36'
80° 43'
80° 45'
81° 15'
81° 18'
81° 24'
81° 21'
81° 22'
81° 21'
80° 34'
80° 15'
80° 05'
80° 06'
80° 07'
Depth
Fathoms
4
1
4
8
11
7
8
9
9
7
3
6
4
6
9
8
5
6
6
7
6
8
<3
6
11
5
3
Distance
N. Miles
2
2
1
3
27
4
3
4
4
3
2
4
6
8
6
5
10
8
1
3
3
6
1
1
1
1
1
Chart
Source
1219
1219
1219
1219
1222
1227
1234
1234
1234
1236
1237
1239
1240
1240
1240
1240
1242
1242
1242
1242
1242
1243
1245
1247
1248
1248
1248
Note
3
3
3
3
Comment
Crow Shoal, N.J. (CE)
Crow Shoal, N.J. (CE)
Cold Spring, N.J. (CE)
Cape May, N.J. (C&GS)
Norfolk, Va. (CE)
Virginia Beach, Va. (CE)
Beaufort, N.C. (C&GS)
Beaufort, N.C. (C&GS)
Beaufort, N.C. (C&GS)
Cape Fear, N.C. (CE)
Winyah Bay, S.C. (CE)
Charlestown, S.C. (CE)
Port Royal, S.C.-A (CE)
Port Royal, S.C.-B (CE)
Savannah, Ga. (CE)
Savannah, Ga. (CE)
St. Simons, Ga. (CE)
St. Simons, Ga. (CE)
Fernandina Beach, Fla.-A (CE)
Fernandina Beach, Fla.-B (CE)
St. Mary's River, Fla. (C&GS)
Jacksonville, Fla. (CE)
Canaveral, Fla. (CE)
Fort Pierce, Fla. (CE)
Miami Beach, Fla.-A (CE)
Miami Beach, Fla.-B (CE)
Miami Beach, Fla. (C&GS)
Industrial
44° 26'
44° 23'
42° 25'
41° 03'
40° 34'
40° 20'
38° 56'
38° 54'
38° 32'
38° 30'
38° 22'
38° 10'
37° 20'
36° 55'
32° 43'
67° 46'
68° 50'
70° 35'
71° 29'
71° 57'
73° 40'
74° 07'
73° 17'
74° 20'
72° 06'
74° 15'
73° 22'
74° 44'
74° 53'
79° 00'
22
23
52
26
34
13
21
35
24
1240
29
980
26
16
14
4
3
10
17
30
15
40
80
37
123
47
97
55
40
43
1201
1203
1207
1211
1000
1215
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1001
7
7
7
5
4
5
4,7
4
7
4
4,7
4
Cape Split, Me.
Belfast, Me.
Boston, Mass.
Montauk Pt., L.I., N.Y.
MontaukPt., L.I.,N.Y.
Sandy Hook, N.J. (CE)
Cape May, N.J.
Cape May, N.J.
Cape May, N.J. (CE)
Md.-Del. State lane (CE)
Cape May, N.J. (CE)
Cape May, N.J. (CE)
Norfolk, Va.
Norfolk, Va.
Charleston, S.C.
Explosives and Toxic Chemical Ammunition1
42° 25'
41° 33'
40° 44'
39° 38'
38° 53'
38° 49'
70° 35'
65° 33'
70° 51'
71° 00'
72° 23'
72° 14'
52
1305
35
1250
1286
1280
10
196
45
97
100
105
1207
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
4,7
4,7
4
4
4
7
Boston, Mass.
Cape Cod, Mass.
Montauk Pt., N.Y.
Montauk Pt., N.Y., CHASE X,
VIII, XII, CHASE XXI2
Cape May, N.J., CHASE XXII2
Cape May, N.J. .CHASE II
1 Shown on C&GS Charts.
'Projects conducted in 1969 and 1970.
72
-------
Atlantic Coast Disposal Areas-(Cont-)
Latitude
North
38° 30'
38° 05'
37° 19'
37° 12'
37° 11'
36° 30'
32° 15'
31° 40'
31° 40'
30° 33'
29° 20'
28° 15'
25° 28'
Longitude
West
72° 06'
73° 24'
74° 15'
74° 21'
74° 26'
74° 18'
78° 41'
77° 00'
75° 56'
79° 52'
76° 00'
77° 51'
79° 40'
Depth
Fathoms
1240
1061
730
1093
1005
1243
225
1175
1450
171
2630
560
397
Distance
N. Miles
123
83
64
63
64
80
59
145
168
81
244
137
24
Chart
Source
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1001
1001
1001
1001
1001
1001
1002
Note
3,4,7
7,4
4
4
3,4
4
3,4
4
4
3,4
Comment
Md.-Del. State Line
Delaware Bay, N.J.
Cape Charles, Va.
Norfolk, Va.,, CHASE III
Norfolk, Va., CHASE IV
Va.-N.C. State Line CHASE VII
Charleston, S.C.
Savannah, Ga.
Savannah, Ga., CHASE IX
Jacksonville, Fla.
Cape Kennedy, Fla., CHASE X*
Cape Kennedy, Fla.
Miami, Fla.
Radioactive
43° 49'
42° 25'
42° 07'
41° 33'
38° 41'
38° 30'
37° 50'
37° 07'
36° 56'
36° 20'
34° 32'
34° 15'
33° 55'
32° 52'
32° 50'
32° 33'
32° 30'
31° 53'
31° 35'
31° 32'
31° 27'
31° 27'
31° 10'
31° 05'
29° 38'
45° 00'
70° 35'
45° 00'
65° 33'
45° 00'
72° 06'
70° 35'
45 ° 00'
74° 23'
45 ° 00'
76° 40'
76° 35'
75° 11'
75° 52'
75° 20'
75° 54'
75° 45'
76° 28'
76° 12'
76° 30'
81° 10'
76° 48'
76° 31'
76° 35'
77° 27'
>2000
52
>2000
1305
>2000
1240
2084
>2000
945
>2000
10
14
1897
1600
2125
1450
1606
1340
1440
1460
< 10
1350
1550
1600
495
>800
10
>800
196
>800
123
208
>800
78
>800
10
27
83
205
230
230
140
220
235
220
—
215
257
250
200
- _ -
1207
...
1000
—
1000
1000
—
1000
...
1233
1001
1001
1001
1001
1001
1001
1001
1001
1001
1001
1001
1001
1001
1001
7
7
7
6
6
Central Atlantic (AEC)
Boston, Mass. (AEC)
Central Atlantic (AEC)
Cape Cod, Mass. (NAS-NRC)
Central Atlantic (AEC)
Maryland-Del. State Line (AEC)
Md.-Va. State Line (AEC)
Central Atlantic (AEC)
Norfolk, Va. (AEC)
Central Atlantic (AEC)
Beaufort, N.C. (AEC)
AEC information shows site at 35° 15'
(on dry land) could be area shown (NAS-NR)
Cape Lookout, N.C. (AEC)
Charleston, S.C. (AEC)
Charleston, S.C. (AEC)
Charleston, S.C. (AEC)
Charleston, S.C. (AEC)
Savannah, Ga. (AEC)
Savannah, Ga. (AEC)
Savannah, Ga. (AEC)
Sapelo Is., Ga. (AEC)
Savannah, Ga. (AEC)
Jacksonville, Fla. (AEC)
Jacksonville, Fla. (AEC)
St. Augustine, Fla. (AEC)
Sewage Sludge
40° 25'
38° 46'
73° 45'
74° 47'
12
11
12
12
1215
1219
New York City, N.Y. (CE)
Cape May, N.J. (CE)
73
-------
APPENDIX B
CHARACTERISTICS OF MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS
Pacific Coast Disposal Areas
Latitude
North
Longitude
West
Depth
Fathoms
Distance
N. Miles
Chart
Source
Note
Comment
Industrial
48° 20'
48° 10'
37° 35'
37° 35'
37° 42'
33° 40'
33° 38'
33° 37'
32° 45'
124° 5 3'
126" 00'
122° 50'
122° 51'
122° 40'
119° 32'
118° 25'
118° 40'
117° 36'
130
643
44
45
18
1060
485
459
580
5
75
20
14
9
33
11
15
20
6102
6102
5502
5072
5072
5101
5101
5101
5101
6
6
7
5
6
Straits of Juan de Fuca, Wash.
Cape Flattery, Wash.
San Francisco, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif.
San Francisco, Calif.
Port Hueneme, Calif.
San Pedro, Calif.
Santo Cruz Is., Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
Dredge Spoils
46° 56'
46° 42'
46° 14'
46° 12'
46° 11'
45° 34'
44° 36'
44° 01'
43° 40'
43° 21'
43° 07'
42° 24'
40° 46'
37° 47'
37° 46'
124° 07'
124° 10'
124° 10'
124° 07'
124° 09'
123° 59'
124° 05'
124° 09'
124° 14'
124° 22'
124° 27'
124° 29'
124° 16'
122° 32'
122° 38'
*Entrance Channel
5-6
15
21
23
21
12
3
10
15
13
6
11
28
8
13
0.5
7
4
7
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
10
6002
6185
6151
6151
6151
6112
6055
6023
6004
5984
5971
5951
5832
5502
5502
Gray's Harbor, Wash. * (CE)
Willipa Bay, Wash. (CE)
Columbia River, Ore. B (CE)
Columbia River, Ore. A (CE)
Columbia River, Ore. F (CE)
Tillamook, Ore. (CE)
Yaquina River, Ore. (CE)
Siuslaw River, Ore. (CE)
Umpqua River, Ore. (CE)
Coos Bay, Ore. (CE)
Coquille River, Ore. (CE)
Rogue River, Ore. (CE)
Humbolt, Calif. (CE)
San Francisco, Calif. (CE)
San Francisco, Calif. (CE)
Explosives and Toxic Chemical Ammunition1
59° 04'
54° 57'
54° 45'
51° 22'
48° 51'
48° 16'
39° 33'
37° 40'
37° 25'
37° 10'
37° 00'
36° 22'
36° 00'
34° 38'
33° 17'
32° 55'
32° 45'
32° 42'
31° 40'
144° 37'
134° 30'
134° 40'
178° 19'2
126° Stf
126° 59'
125° 46'
123° 25'
125° 30'
123° 23'
124° 00'
125° 30'
123° 37'
121° 48'
118° 48'
118° 53'
117° 36'
117° 37'
118° 26'
803
426
1175
1000
878
1430
1950
1201
2400
1759
1911
2480
2000
2144
650
945
580
602
1020
55
43
52
30
34
66
75
45
126
47
78
162
88
58
34
52
20
20
85
8500
8500
8500
9000
8500
8500
5002
5502
5002
5002
5002
5002
5002
5002
5101
5101
5101
5101
5002
4
3,4
4
4
3,4
4
4,7
3,4
3,4
4
4
3,4
4
3,4
4
4
3,4
4
Cape Suckling, Alaska
DaU Is., Alaska
Dall Is., Alaska
Amchitka Is., Alaska CHASE VI
Cape Flattery, Wash.
Cape Flattery, Wash.
CHASE XVI3 , XVII3 ,XVIII3 , XIX3 , XX3
CHASE V
San Francisco, Calif. CHASE I
San Francisco, Calif.
Pigeon Pt., Calif.
Pigeon Pt., Calif.
Point Sur., Calif.
Point Sur., Calif.
Pt. Arguello, Calif.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Los Angeles, Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
Punta Bunta, Mexico
1 Shown on C&GS Charts.
2 East Longitude.
3 CHASE projects conducted in 1969 and 1970.
74
-------
Pacific Coast Disposal Areas—(Cont.)
Latitude
North
Longitude
West
Depth
Fathoms
Distance
N. Miles
Chart
Source
Note
Comment
Radioactive
52° 05'
51° 30'
50" 56'
40° 07'
37° 39'
34° 58'
33° 39'
32° 00'
30° 43'
21° 28'
140° 00'
136° 31'
136° 03'
135° 24'
123° 26'
174° 52'
119° 28'
121° 30'
139° 06'
157° 25'
2030
1965
2040
1090
1229
3055
1060
1207
>2500
2000
430
320
285
500
45
425
33
215
850
70
8500
8500
8500
9000
5002
9000
5101
5020
9000
9000
7
Cape Scott, Canada (AEC)
Cape Scott, Canada (AEC)
Cape Scott, Canada (AEC)
Cape Mendacino, Calif . (AEC)
San Francisco, Calif. (AEC)
Midway Island (AEC)
Port Hueneme, Calif. (AEC)
San Diego, Calif. (AEC)
Los Angeles, Calif. (AEC)
Oahu, Hawaii (AEC)
Garbage (Refuse)
37° 35'
33° 17'
32° 27'
122° 50'
118° 10'
117° 16'
44
409
25
20
22
8
5502
5101
5101
7
6
San Francisco, Calif.
Catalina Is., Calif.
San Diego, Calif.
75
-------
APPENDIX B
CHARACTERISTICS OF MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS
Gulf Coast Disposal Areas
Latitude Longitude
North West
29° 20' 88° 39'
29° 11' 94° 30'
29° 10' 93° 40'
29° 07' 94° 26'
29° 05' 88° 00'
29° 02' 94° 39'
28° 59' 94° 35'
28° 39' 88° 50'
28° 10' 89° 25'
27° 57' 94° 37'
27° 48' 94° 54'
27° 49' 94° 30'
27° 36' 94° 36'*
27° 33' 94° 57'
27° 35' 95° 20'
27° 30' 94° 10'*
Depth
Fathoms
Distance
N. Miles
Chart
Source
Note
Comment
Industrial
40
9
10
8
400
9
10
500
655
50
160
120
400
400
460
455
60
19
35
21
70
18
22
24
53
85
90
90
110
110
100
121
1007
1007
1007
1007
1007
1007
1007
1007
1007
1007
1007
1007
1007
1007
1007
1007
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Pascagoula, Miss.
Galveston, Texas
Sabine, Texas
Galveston, Texas
Mobile Bay, Ala.
Galveston, Texas
Galveston, Texas
South Pass, Miss. Delta, La.
South Pass, Miss. Delta, La.
Galveston, Texas
Galveston, Texas
Galveston, Texas
Galveston, Texas
Galveston, Texas
Corpus Christi, Texas
Galveston, Texas
* Area 15 by 20 miles used by several companies and, in general, agreed upon by letter of no objection from Corps of
Engineers, Galveston District.
Explosives and Toxic Chemical Ammunition Comment1
29° 52' 89° 40'
29° 22' 87° 15'
28° 30' 89° 10'
28° 25' 88° 55'
27° 40' 94° 30'
27° 39' 85° 15'
27° 05' 96° 00'
27° 00' 86° 00'
24° 16' 84° 35'
24° 04' 81° 37'
23° 54' 81° 37'
1
290
335
650
455
253
450
1750
1605
475
675
1 Shown on C&GS Chart.
0.5
57
28
38
88
120
72
180
185
69
79
1268
1003
1003
1003
1007
1002
1007
1003
1002
1002
1002
3,4
3,4
4
3,4
3,4
3,4
4
4
4
3,4
Lake Borgne, La.
Pensacola, Fla.
South Pass. La.
South Pass La
Matagorda Bay, Texas
Tampa, Fla.
Corpus Christi, Texas
Tampa, Fla.
Cape Sable, Texas
Cape Sable, Texas
Cape Sable, Texas
Radioactive
27° 14' 89° 33'
25° 40' 85° 17'
1055
1795
109
190
1007
1007
South Pass. Miss. Delta, La. (AEC)
Cape Romano Fla. (AEC)
Dredging Spoils
26° 39' 82° 18'
27° 33' 82° 51'
27° 35' 82° 45'
27° 46' 82° 47'
27° 58' 82° 50'
28° 07' 82° 49'
28° 58' 82° 50'
29° 08' 83° 05'
29° 12' 83° 05'
<3
6
5
< 1
<1
< 1
<3
<3
< 1
3
7
1
1
1
1-3
1-7
1-2
1-2
1255
1257
1257
1257
1257
1257
1259
1259
1259
2
2
2
2
2
2
Punta Gorda, Fla. (C&GS)
St. Petersburg, Fla. (C&GS)
St. Petersburg, Fla. (C&GS)
St. Petersburg. Fla. (C&GS)
Clearwater, Fla. (C&GS)
Tarpon Springs, Fla. (C&GS)
Yankeetown. Fla. (C&GS)
Cedar Keys, Fla. (C&GS)
Hog'. Is.. Fla. (C&GS)
76
-------
Gulf Coast Disposal Areas-(Cont.)
Latitude
North
29° 16'
29° 18'
29° 25'
30° 03'
29° 54'
29° 53'
29° 50'
30° 23'
30° 17'
30° 16'
30° 09'
30° 16'
30° 21'
30° 17'
30° 12'
30° 20'
30° 18'
30° 10'
30° 10'
30° 10'
30° 10'
30° 08'
29° 32'
128° 52'
29° 03'
29° 15'
29° 17'
29° 15'
29° 17'
29° 43'
29° 30'
29° 42'
29° 42'
29° 45'
29° 45'
29° 35'
29° 27'
29° 30'
29° 33'
29° 37'
29° 37'
29° 40'
29° 04'
29° 17'
29° 20'
29° 19'
29° 22'
28° 55'
28° 55'
28° 54'
28° 24'
27° 49'
36° 34'
26° 04'
Longitude
West
83° 08'
83° 11'
83° 17'
84° 11'
84° 31'
85° 32'
85° 30'
86° 31'
87° 19'
87° 20'
88° 06'
88° 16'
88° 17'
88° 33'
88° 37'
88° 47'
89° 03'
88° 56'
88° 59'
89° 33'
89° 21'
89° 33'
89° 11'
89° 31'
88° 58'
89° 36'
89° 41'
89° 55'
91° 27'
92° 06'
92° 19'
93° 21'
93° 20'
93° 20'
93° 20'
93° 17'
93° 42'
93° 45'
93° 49'
93° 50'
93° 48'
93° 51'
94° 35'
94° 40'
94° 40'
94° 40'
94° 43'
95° 17'
95° 17'
95° 16'
96° 18'
97° 01'
97° 15'
97° 07'
Depth
Fathoms
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
8
7
<1
4
6
7
<1
<1
<1
7
<1
<1
4
5
<1
<1
<1
<1
32
35
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<3
<3
<1
<1
<3
<5
<5
<5
4
5
2
9
6
5
6
2
<3
<3
<3
<3
5
6
9
Distance
N. Miles
1-2
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
7
7
1
2
3
4
5
1-3
14
5
1-3
1-5
14
14
1
4
1
1-21
5
6
1
1
2
1-16
1
2
7
7
1
1
14
15
11
7
3
3
1
21
7
5
5
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
cChart Note
Source
1259 2
1259 2
1260 2
1261 2
1261 2
1263
1263
1264 1
1265 3
1265
1266
1267 2
1267 2
1267 2
1267
1267 2
1267 2
1267
1267
1268 2
1268 2
1268 2
1270 2
1272
1272
1273 2
1273 2
1273
1276 2
1277 2
1277 2
1278
1278
1278
1278
1278
1279
1279
1279
1279
1279
1279
1282 3
1282
1282
1282
1282
1283
1283
1283
1284
1286
1287 1
1288
Comment
Hog. Is., Fla. (C&GS)
Hog. Is., Fla. (C&GS)
Horseshoe Beach, Fla. (C&GS)
St. Marks, Fla. (C&GS)
St. James Is., Fla. (C&GS)
Port St Joe, Fla. (CE)
Port St. Joe, Fla. (CE)
Valparaiso, Fla. (C&GS)
Pensacola, Fla. (C&GS)
Pensacola, Fla. (CE)
Mobile, Ala. (CE)
Bayou La Batre, La. (C&GS)
Bayou La Batie, La. (C&GS)
Pascagoula, Miss. (C&GS)
Pascagoula, Miss. (CE)
Biloxi, Miss. (C&GS)
Gulfport, Miss. (C&GS)
Gulfport, Miss. (CE)
Gulfport, Miss. (CE)
Pearl River Is., Miss. (C&GS)
Pearl River, Miss. (C&GS)
Pearl River Is., Miss. (C&GS)
Miss.-Gulf Outlet Canal, La. (C&GS)
SW Pass, Miss., River Delta, La. (CE)
SE Pass, Miss. River Delta, La. (CE)
Pelican Is., La. (C&GS)
Grand Bayou Pass, La. (C&GS)
Barataria Pass, La (C&GS)
Atchafalya Bay, La. (C&GS)
Mud Point Bay, Vermilion Bay, La. (C&GS)
Freshwater Canal, La. (C&GS)
Calcasieu Pass, La. C, (CE)
Calcasieu Pass, La. (C&GS)
Calcasieu Pass, La., A (CE)
Calcasieu Pass, La., B (CE)
Calcasieu Pass, La.. D (CE)
Sabine, Texas, E (CE)
Sabine, Texas, D (CE)
Sabine, Texas, C (CE)
Sabine, Texas, A (CE)
Sabine Texas, B (CE)
Sabine, Texas (C&GS)
Galveston, Texas (C&GS)
Galveston, Texas C (CE)
Galveston, Texas, B (CE)
Galveston, Texas, A (CE)
Galveston, Texas (C&GS)
Freeport, Texas, A (CE)
Freeport, Texas, B (CE)
Freeport, Texas, C (CE)
Port Lavaca, Texas (CE)
Corpus Christi, Texas (CE)
Port Mansfield, Texas (CE)
Brownsville, Texas (CE)
77
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
AND SOLID WASTES
-------
-------
APPENDIX C.
THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
AND SOLID WASTES
This appendix is a review and summary of physi-
cal, chemical, geological, and biological oceano-
graphic principles and processes and is intended as an
introduction to the marine environment for the
nonspecialist. The emphasis is on the relationships
and processes most directly related to behavior of
solid and liquid wastes discharged at sea.
PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
Physical oceanography is that branch of oceano-
graphy concerned with the description and inter-
pretation of the physical state of the sea and its
variations in space and time, and of the physical
processes occurring in the sea. This science deals with
water masses and how they are formed, the major
current systems dispersing and mixing these masses,
and the motions and interactions of oceanic energies.
It also includes the study and prediction of tempera-
ture, tides, currents, and waves.
Various types of currents may transport waste
materials laterally in the water column over great
distances, as well as moving materials which have
settled to the bottom. Of special significance with
respect to waste liquids and sludges is the process of
mixing in which dissimilar liquids diffuse into each
other-the mixing rate determines how rapidly a
waste will be diluted.
Waters of the oceans are typically characterized by
their temperature, salinity, and density so that
oceanographers can identify both the sources of the
water masses and the degree of mixing. A brief
discussion of these properties is necessary before
considering the ocean's dynamic processes such as
currents and mixing.
Distribution of Temperature, Salinity,
and Density
Water temperature and salinity are two of the
basic physical properties used to measure and de-
scribe the processes and circulation of the sea.
Density, the third basic property, is a nonlinear
function of temperature, salinity, and pressure, and
thus changes in these three properties result in
changes in water density.
Sea temperature has been measured for centuries
and is relatively easy to determine. It varies with
time, depth, latitude, incoming radiation and, as
discovered more recently, may be subject to varia-
tions at some depths because of internal waves. In a
very general way, the ocean can be considered a
three-layer system: the thin, warm surface layer
which is isothermal in the winter; the main thermo-
cline separating a transition layer about 1,500 to
3,000 feet thick where the temperature drops from
about 17 C to 5 C, and underlying nearly homo-
genous cold, deep water extending to the bottom.
During summer months, warming tends to develop
stratification in the surface layer, but little seasonal
effect penetrates below 600 to 900 feet.
Salinity, generally speaking, refers to the total
concentration of dissolved solids in the ocean? it
increases with depth and varies with time, latidude,
and to some extent with local mixing. Variations in
salinity (and in temperature) generally occur in the
upper layers of the sea and decrease with depth.
Temperature and salinity data are usually plotted on
a T-S curve (Figure 22) as developed by Helland-
Hanson.1
Density of seawater is defined as the mass per unit
volume expressed in grams per cubic centimeter.
Variations in density are a function of variations in
81
-------
TEMPERATURE (°C)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
~ roo
E
- 800
t 900
0 1000
8 12 16 20 24 28 32
i i i i i i
TEMPERATURE
SALINITY
I I I i I I I
340 .4 8 350 .4
SALINITY (%o)
"I 1 I 1 T
340 4 8 350 .4
SALINITY (%=)
FIGURE 22. The left diagram illustrates the variation of temperature and salinity with
depths for an area in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands. The T-S curve (right diagram)
illustrates temperature vs. salinity in profile with depth. This curve identifies a water mass
which helps in tracing the origins of distinct layers. (From Williams. 2 )
temperature, salinity, and pressure, and values typi-
cally range from 1 for freshwater to 1.07 for the
greatest depths. The vertical stability of the sea is due
to the increase of density with depth. Calculations of
density are made indirectly through measurement of
temperature, salinity, and pressure (depth). Through
the determination of layers of equal potential densi-
ties, calculations of water circulation are possible
since water moves along these surfaces.
Water Masses
The term "water mass" refers to a more or less
discrete body of ocean water defined on the basis of
its physical and chemical characteristics, most typi-
cally expressed in terms of temperature-salinity rela-
tionships. A water mass thus indentified can be traced
from its source area as it moves into adjacent oceanic
areas. Subsurface water masses form because surface
water in a given area becomes dense enough through
evaporation or cooling to sink and spread in layers
according to their densities.
A water mass is usually made up of several water
types, which are represented by single temperature-
salinity values. There are many different water masses
in the ocean, but in general they may be grouped into
five major categories: surface or near surface water
(maximum depth approximately 900 feet), central
water (900 to 1,500 feet), intermediate water (1,500
to 3,000 feet), deep water (3,000 to 12,000 feet),
and bottom water. Within the five broad categories,
there are over 23 major water masses known.3
Discharges of large volumes of waste materials in a
given area may produce a small water mass whose
characteristics could be used to describe the ultimate
fate of the wastes. For example, off the New York
City area the local effect of acid waste disposal on
water color, pH and salinity are identifiable and
provide a means of tracing the wastes.
Ocean Currents
Both the nearshore local currents and the per-
manent major ocean currents are likely to play a role
in the ultimate distribution of finer or lighter
fractions of such wastes as dredge spoil and industrial
chemicals once discharged at sea. Because local
currents are somewhat stronger, they may be import-
ant in carrying materials from the disposal site into
shallower or deeper water. Deeper currents offshore
at mid-depths can move suspended materials and thus
prevent them from reaching the intended sea floor
site. Recently collected evidence from great depths
using bottom photographs of ripple marks, scouring,
and absence of few sediments on high points, has
shown that bottom currents have sufficient strength
to move sizable particles and thus shift comparable
waste solids discharged into the particular site.
The major circulation of the oceans involves
large-scale currents of a permanent nature, such as the
Kuroshio, Gulf Stream, and Equatorial Currents. The
driving force for these currents is caused primarily by
differences in density. In this type of water flow, the
effect of the earth's rotation, called Coriohs force, is
82
-------
also a significant factor that causes a deflection of the
currents. The nonpermanent currents, which are more
localized, are related to winds, tides, and waves.
Sverdrup, Johnson, and Fleming as well as Johnson
have discussed the following types of currents in the
oceans: currents related to the distribution of density
in the sea, currents induced by wind stress, tidal
currents and those associated with internal waves,
currents of new transport induced by surface gravity
waves, and boundary currents associated with fresh-
water.3'4
Density Currents. Density currents develop be-
cause of differences in water density over horizontal
distances where water tends to move down a density
gradient. By measuring a vertical profile of tempera-
ture, salinity, and pressure at many ocean stations,
the calculated densities provide the basis for dynamic
computations that show the field of relative motion
in a fluid. This technique is known as the geostrophic
method and gives a broad picture of the total
steady-state ocean circulation. Measurements by cur-
rent meters, drogues, and neutrally buoyant sonar
floats have confirmed some of these calculations.5
Further, although direct measurements of current at
sea are difficult and time consuming, such measure-
ments have resulted in some discoveries such as
finding counter-currents flowing in the opposite
direction below many of the major currents. The
existence of such counter-currents was not indicated
by geostrophic calculations, which had satisfactorily
defined ocean circulation patterns.
Wind Stress Currents. When winds blow over the
sea surface a stress is exerted that causes wind drift of
a thin layer of surface water. This transport in turn
tends to alter the density distribution and may lead
to the formation of density currents as described
above. In 1902, Eckman made theoretical calcula-
tions and experiments that showed that a current
induced by a surface wind would decrease with depth
to a point where the frictional forces would become
negligible .In developing the concept of the Eckman
Spiral effect (Figure 23), he concluded that because
of Coriolis effect (the apparent deflecting force
resulting from the earth's rotation) in the Northern
Hemisphere the wind-blown surface waters move at
45 degrees to the right of the wind direction. As the
current velocity decreased with depth, the current
direction deflected progressively to the right, so that
at a particular depth the mass transport would be at
right angles to the wind direction. Experiments have
shown that actual wind drift was 3 to 5 percent of
the wind velocity and from 30 to 60 degrees of wind
direction. The magnitude of those wind stress cur-
rents depends on wind speed and duration. Current
velocities range from 005 knots to 2 knots.7
FIGURE 23. The Ekman Spiral showing the effect of
surface winds on drift currents. Because of Coriolis force,
the net mass transport is 90 degrees to the right of the wind
direction in the Northern Hemisphere. The length of the
arrows represent current velocities, which decrease with
depth as a result of friction.'
Near coasts this mass transport of water at right
angles to the wind direction becomes extremely
important (for example, along the coasts of California
and Peru). In both cases, warmer, lighter nearshore
water is moved away at right angles from the coast,
and colder, deep water is drawn up in the process
known as upwelling. Valuable nutrients are brought
to the surface during the summer months aiding in
the productivity of fisheries. Upwelling is also a
possible mechanism which could bring dissolved
traces of wastes originally discharged in deep water
back to the near surface waters where man's activities
are concentrated. Examples of upwelling have been
discussed by La Fond.8
Tidal Currents. Currents caused by the astro-
nomical forces of the moon and the sun can be
extremely strong in certain restricted areas, but for
83
-------
the most part these currents do not bring about the
transport of water over large distances. Strong tidal
currents move large volumes of sediment along the
bottom, although because of alternating directions of
the ebb and flood, the net transport is small. Such
currents may have important effects on some near-
shore disposal grounds by thorough repeated frequent
stirring, mixing and winnowing of the wastes.9'1 °
In the open ocean, tidal currents generally are
rotational either on a 12—(semidiurnal) or a 24-hour
(diurnal) basis with rotational effects depending on
Coriolis force. Theoretically, according to Sverdrup,
the tidal current runs in the same direction and with
the same velocity from surface to bottom.3 Actually,
this holds true only in shallow water to about 60 to
90 feet off the bottom. In coastal areas, tidal
velocities up to several knots are reported. In an area
such as San Francisco Bay, tidal currents approaching
5 knots on the surface with 3 knots along the bottom
have been observed.11; while in Cook Inlet, Alaska,
where tides are higher, currents may be about 8 knots
or more.
Associated with tidal currents is the occurrence of
internal waves, which are subsurface waves found
between layers of different density as described by
LaFond.19 In deep water these waves may be several
hundred feet in height and could be responsible for
considerable water mixing and transport, although it
has been difficult to measure effects from these
waves. Velocities resulting from internal waves may
be sufficient to prevent sediment deposition on
topographic prominences on the sea floor.
Wave-Induced Currents. Surface gravity waves
caused by wind stresses have an advancing orbital
motion that produces a small net drift or wave drift
of water masses in the direction of wave advance.
Surface waves in deep water have an orbital
motion, which decreases with depth, while in shallow
water, the motion becomes elliptical and, at the
bottom, oscillatory (Figure 24).12 Oscillatory cur-
rents on the bottom become significant at depths less
than half the wave lengths. These cause sediment
ripples and sorting at depths up to 600 feet.
Streamlines and orbits in a wave traveling to the right in deep water.
' ' \ i. L ' ]
7*~-~'-<
Orbital motion and positions of water filaments in a progressive wave
traveling to the right in shallow water.
FIGURE 24. Orbital motion in waves, after Defant.12
84
-------
Currents resulting from wave action in the surf
zone occur when waves breaking at an angle to the
shore induce a longshore current, or littoral drift.
This current forms parallel to the beach and proceeds
until a natural break, or passage, occurs allowing
return of the water in a rip current. Both of these
wave-induced currents are very local, but in times of
large storm waves they can be responsible for
nearshore movement of large amounts of sediment or
waste materials.
Turbidity Currents. When sediment is suspended in
water, the combination is denser than water and this
mixture will flow downslope;classic laboratory exper-
iments carried out in 1950 by Kuenen show the
nature of such turbidity currents.13 In the past, these
currents were believed to be a major cause in the
erosive formation of submarine canyons that extend
across many of the continental shelves of the
world.14 Shepard pointed out that few, if any,
turbidity currents have ever been observed or mea-
sured, but it is certain that such currents exist.n
Recent evidence presented by Shepard and Dill
indicated that although turbidity currents are un-
likely explanations for the erosive formation of
submarine canyons, they may move large volumes of
sediment out through these canyons.15 According to
Shepard, probable velocities in turbidity currents are
not greater than those found in lower reaches of
rivers. These have been reported by Leopold and
Maddock to be generally between 2 and 10 feet per
second.16
From the standpoint of marine waste disposal, it is
possible that the introduction of high density sludges
and chemicals could initiate a turbidity current and
carry a slurry of the sediment and waste mixture
away from the disposal area and far out to sea.
Some Observations of Bottom Currents. Although
bottom currents are known to operate in both
shallow and deep water, relatively few in situ mea-
surements have been made. This is primarily because
in the past, instrumentation was inadequate. Shepard
mentioned reports of strong bottom currents associ-
ated with topographic highs in the Gulf of Mexico.11
Photographs of seamount tops disclose absence of
sediment, or evidence of current motion in depths
greater than 6,000 feet. Off the east coast of the U.S.,
deep-current measurement have shown maximum
velocities of 0.8 knots at 12,000 feet, although most
observations indicate velocities far lower.17>18 Obser-
vations from deep submersibles have given reliable
current measurements. LaFond indicated velocities of
0.1 to 0.2 knots at depths of 3,000 to 3,500 feet.19
There appeared to be no limiting depth to bottom
currents in photographs by Cousteau showing a
scoured, bare rock bottom in 23,000 feet. Ripple
marks are made by currents at 16,000 feet (Figure
25). The observations of Piccard and Dietz in Dive 70
of Trieste I confirmed the presence of life requiring
oxygen at the greatest depth of any trench (35,590
feet), thus indicating some kind of circulation to
provide oxygen at these depths.21
Importance of Currents in Dispersion of Solids
As more direct current observations are made, it is
apparent that mid-water and bottom circulation
occurs in many more areas and deeper than was once
thought. Strong current action along the continental
shelf can move sizable particles (as described in the
next section). Further, the somewhat slower circula-
tion in deeper areas of water over the bottom can be
important as a dilution factor. The movement and
dispersion of dissolved materials (including any
wastes which are present) are controlled by the water
circulation in any adjacent to the disposal site and the
natural turbulent mixing processes in the sea. Along
the beaches, or littoral areas, and on most of the
continental shelf, a mixture of tidal and wind
currents with some wave-induced effects will be the
most important forces. Off the shelf and down the
continental slope, currents become noticeably
weaker with occasional turbity current action in
submarine canyons. Finally, at great depths currents
appear to move fine grained sediment but are less
understood as to origin, duration, or measured
velocity.
Stirring and Mixing
In looking at the effect of stirring and mixing of
two fluids, Eckart uses as an example an experiment
which mixes coffee and cream.23 There are three
distinct observable stages that are analoguous to the
introduction of one fluid of differing density into
another (or of a sludge or chemical into the sea).
These three stages are: (i) an initial stage in which
rather large volumes of the different fluids are
distinctly visible with sharp gradients at the inter-
faces. If no motion is induced, the boundaries persist
for some time; (2) an intermediate stage that con-
tinues after stirring of the two liquids, is induced. The
contrasting masses of fluid are distorted, increasing the
extent of the interfacial areas having high concentra-
85
-------
86
-------
tion gradients; (3) the final stage in which the
gradients disappear quite suddenly, and the liquids
become homogenous. This stage is usually referred to
as mixing (to distinguish it from stirring); according
to Eckart, this is presumably caused by diffusion.
Thus, it is likely that after the introduction of one
fluid into another, the two may show distinct
boundaries which persist until stirring motions change
the average gradients and mixing results.
GEOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
Geological oceanography, sometimes called sub-
marine geology or marine geology, is that branch of
the science that includes the study of coasts and
shorelines; the continental shelf (the broad platform
surrounding most coasts); the continental slope lead-
ing from the shelf edge down to the deep ocean; and
the deep ocean floor with its occasional basins and
trenches. It also considers the nature and origin of sea
floor topography and sediments and includes geo-
physical studies that provide information about the
earth's crustal structure beneath the sea floor.
By examining the regions bordering our conti-
nents, we can understand the physical description of
areas where waste materials are now being discharged,
or will be in the future. Further, we find that the
same forces that act on natural sediments, either
those derived from land or the ocean, act equally on
many waste materials, particularly sludges and dredge
spoil. Thus, bottom currents that can suspend and
transport sand grains, will move equivalent size
particles of waste material.
Continental Borders
In the world ocean, the continental land masses
are fringed by shallow continental shelves of varying
width. At their outer edges the shelves steepen
abruptly into the continental slope that extends
down to the deep ocean floor. These features and the
basins and trenches, which mark the ocean floor and
constitute its major bathymetric divisions, have char-
acteristic depths and areas Table 10) (Figure 26).
The geologic development of the edges of the
continents is complex and involves a combination of
repeated sea-level changes and sedimentation pro-
cesses that have built the continental shelves. The
geologic development of the ocean floor with its deep
basins and trenches is probably even more complex
and includes possible drift of the continental masses
associated with sea floor spreading and build-up of
major ranges of submarine volcanic mountains.
TABLE 10
DEPTH AND AREAS OF MAJOR
BATHYMETRIC OCEAN DIVISIONS
Depth Total ocean area
(feet) (%)
Continental shelf
Continental slope
Deep ocean
Ocean basins and
trenches
0-
600
3,000
18,000
-600
-3,000
- 18,000
-35,000
7
13
80
1
Continental Shelf
The shallow platform surrounding the continents
forms the continental shelf which comprises 18
percent of the land area and 7 percent of the ocean's
total area. The shelf generally terminates seaward
with a distinct increase in slope called the shelf-break
or shelf-edge. As a matter of convenience and because
early navigation charts only showed 10, 100, and
1,000 fathoms, the figures of 100 fathoms (600 feet)
historically was the definition of the shelf edge.24
Most workers agree that shelves can vary in edge
depth from 60 to 1,800 feet with a world average of
430 feet.
The average bottom gradient for all shelves is 12
feet per mile (or an angle of seven minutes), which is
a slope less than the human eye can detect. The width
of continental shelves varies markedly, ranging from
zero to 750 miles, with an average width of 44 miles.
The shelf off the east coast of the United States
ranges in width from a mile or two at Miami to over
200 miles off Newfoundland. On the west coast, it
varies from 2 to 15 miles. Detailed information is
available on the topography of most of the world
shelf, but similar detailed data on the nature and
extent of the sediment cover is known for only about
one quarter of this area. The geologic structure and
bedrock relationships are known for less than 10
percent of the shelf area. In general, the continental
shelves may be viewed as depositional environments
where sediments eroded from the continents over
millions and millions of years have been built-up in
enormous volumes.
Emery has classified the continental shelf into six
types on the basis of origin.24 These are: (1) tectonic
dams-formed by geological uplift or lava overflow as
on the west coast of North and South America; (2)
87
-------
•o
c
ed
.
IH Qrt
o >, «>
xi 3 jj
c a
Sg*
<« o'S
O U §
o. 2 g
•-H i^-H D
Hi
.
T3 (D ^
.> O ™
°zl
3 s §>
. U -a
SO .5 o
-------
reef dams—created by marine organisms, as in the
Carribbean; (3) the Diapir dam-formed by salt
domes damming sediments, in the West Gulf of
Mexico; (4) no dams—simply sediment layers, such as
most of U.S. East Coast; (5) ice-eroded-ice erodes
any of the above, as in the Arctic and Antarctic; (6)
wave-eroded—waves erode any of the above, as on the
west coast of North and South America.
Continental Slope
The continental slope is the important transition
zone between the two general levels of the earth's
surface; namely, the continental surface, which more
or less approximates sea level, and the vast ocean
floor, which averages about 13,000 feet below sea
level. The upper border of the continental slope
begins at the shelf break; the lower limit is less
clearcut because the slope grades into the surface of
the deep ocean floor. The average gradient for the
continental slope has been estimated as on the order
of 4 to 5 degrees (about 400 to 500 feet per mile),
but slope gradients as steep as 45 degrees may occur,
and 25 degrees may be common.11'25 Slope gradi-
ents vary by region; the Pacific Coast slopes are
steeper than the Atlantic Coast. About half the slopes
terminate in bordering trenches and depressions,
while the rest end in sediment fans, or a rise. Shepard
has recommended that this lower region where it
approaches the deep ocean floor be called the
continental rise.11 The general width of all conti-
nental slopes is 10 to 20 miles disregarding the rise,
which would considerably extend the width.
Continental slopes can be irregular in profile and
have such features as hills and basins, plateaus and
terraces. With respect to the sediment cover, struc-
ture, and bathymetry much less is known about the
continental slope than for the shelf.
Structurally, the crustal material beneath the
continental slope thins from the continental to the
oceanic crust. As with the continental shelves, the
slopes do not all appear to have the same origin.
Possible causes for the formation of slopes include;
wave-built terraces, deltaic beds, down-warped conti-
nental sediments, and fault zones.1'
Submarine Canyons. These canyons are certainly
the most distinctive topographic features on the shelf
and slope. Shepard and Dill have examined the
canyons throughout the world ocean, concluding that
they are not all of one origin, but likely result from
several causes.15 They have classified the canyons
into five types: (1) V-shaped valleys with winding
courses and dendritic tributaries; (2) straight-walled,
trough-shaped valleys, cut with unconsolidated sedi-
ments; (3) winding valleys with tributaries cut into
sediment fans on slopes; (4) valleys, which run along
faults and commonly parallel the coast; (5) conti-
nental shelf valleys not extending to slopes. It is
interesting that these canyons function as channels
that funnel large sedimentary loads from nearshore
areas downslope into deep water.
Deep Ocean
The Deep Ocean is usually classified as extending
to 18,000 feet and covering 80 percent or the greatest
part of the total ocean floor. This provinces within it
are the abyssal hills, which stick up through layers of
sediment of varying thickness, and the abyssal plains,
a generally smooth, featureless floor with low slopes.
The plains usually begin at the base of the continental
rise and extend seaward into the hills.26
Trenches
Although trenches and basins make up only about
1 percent of the total ocean area, the trenches form
exceptionally striking features in the floor of the
Pacific Ocean and to lesser extent in other oceans.
More than 10 major trenches exist in the Pacific, 2
with depths to 35,590 feet. Piccard and Dietz
described echo-sounding bathymetric surveys and
manned submersible exploration of several of these2'
According to Shepard, trenches have narrow, flat
floors several miles wide, generally composed of
diatom ooze and gravel.11 The deepest Pacific
trenches are located along the west margin of the
Pacific Basin and are associated with the arc-shaped
chains of islands such as the Aleutians, Kuriles, and
Marianas where earthquakes are frequent. Trenches
generally contain some benthic organisms, but have a
relatively low modified density.
Sedimentology
The sedimentary materials normally entering the
sea from the land, as well as those originating in the
sea, are highly varied and include: detrital material
from land, sub-aerial or submarine volcanic products,
organic and skeletal matter, inorganic precipitates,
products from chemical reactions, and extraterrestrial
materials. These input materials result in four basic
89
-------
types of bottom sediment: (1) pelagic sediments
(organic ooze); (2) terrigenous sediments (silt and
clay); (3) marine glacial sediments (sand and gravel);
(4) volcanic sediments (ashes and pumice).
The behavior of several types of solid waste
materials discharged at sea is nearly identical with
that of sediment particles carried to the sea or
precipitated in the water column. These particles
settle at calculable rates dependent on water char-
acteristics and on the properties of the particle. These
computations allow a general determination of the
amounts of a given material that should reach the sea
floor more or less immediately, or should remain in
suspension for a long time. An understanding of the
marine conditions governing sea floor erosion, trans-
portation, and deposition is important in order to
appreciate what forces may effect solid waste mate-
rials.
Deposition, Transportation, and Erosion. The sedi-
mentary debris that has been transported to the sea
settles through the water column, at the same time
being carried laterally by the effect of currents. The
settling velocity of a sedimentary particle depends
upon the specific gravity, size and shape of the
particle, as well as the viscosity and specific gravity of
the water. This relationship is defined in Stokes' law,
which states that the settling velocity varies in
direction proportion to the square of the particle
diameter.27
Most of the fine materials (silt, clay and colloid-
size particles) are affected by ocean currents during
settling; their effective settling velocities probably
range from 3 feet per day to many thousand feet per
day. In the absence of currents, a particle measuring 4
microns (or coarse clay) settles at a rate of 3 feet per
day,3 and in deep water may be carried about for
many years before reaching the bottom. Revelle and
Shepard have shown that fine silts and clays may be
carried away from shore by large-scale horizontal
eddies, such as those occurring off the Southern
California coast; they estimate a settling velocity of
50 feet per day for sediments of these sizes.28
Resulting rates of sediment accumulation may vary
from 0.5 mm per year along some abyssal plains to
the relatively slow accumulation of 1 to 10 mm per
1,000 years in red clay deposits of the deep ocean.29
After sediment settles to the bottom, it may be
picked up and carried along by currents over great
distances before coming permanently to rest. Thus,
the presence of sediment types in one locality may
not correctly indicate that sediment of this type is
actually being deposited there; it could easily have
been eroded, transported, and redeposited from
another bottom area. The factors operative in this
connection are (1) mass movement of unconsolidated
sediments by mud flows and slides on slopes; (2) the
movement of individual particles by rolling, sliding,
and jumping (traction) along as a result of bottom
current forces; (3) the effect of turbulence, mixing,
and diffusion.3
Hjulstrom has described the relationship of the
three processes of deposition, transportation, and
erosion, and represented this in a classic series of
curves (Figure 27).30 Study of these curves shows
that a particle size of 0.5 mm (medium sand) is most
easily eroded and requires a velocity of less than 0.4
knots. For larger particles, measuring perhaps eight
mm (equivalent to a small pebble) the required
velocity approaches 2 knots. Erosive pick-up of very
small particles (such as fine silt measuring 0.01 mm)
requires current velocities of more than 1 knot.
Sverdrup concluded that velocities required for ero-
sion and transport of particles of 2 to 3 mm only
occur along the bottom in shallow waters, while in
deeper water currents are only strong enough to
transport fine-to-silty sand.3 Heezenn reported cur-
rents near the bottom of up to 0.4 knots east of Cape
Cod and southwest of Cape Hatteras.17 This velocity
is sufficient for erosive pickup of medium sand, as
well as the transport of all sediment types found on
the continental slope and rise.
Erosional and Depositional Features. Such sedi-
ment surfaces features as ripple marks and scour
marks (similar to ripple marks seen on many beaches)
are produced by selective erosion, transport, and
deposition of sediment particularly by wave and
current forces. In the course of deposition, a series of
laminae or layers build up in the sediment: these are
termed current bedding structures.
Inman defined a certain threshold velocity for the
initial movement of grains as a fluid flows over a
sediment bed.31 As this velocity increases, a few
particles lifl off the bottom into suspension. As the
fluid with particles in suspension forms vortices, the
characteristic current ripple marks develop on the
sediment surface. These are usually asymmetric in
cross section with the long, gentle slope in the upcur
-rent direction, and steep slope facing downstream.
Thus, ripple marks indicate current direction.
Another type of current feature, longitudinal ripples,
also indicates current direction; in this case the
90
-------
5
o
O
ELOCITY IN CM /SEC
ITHMIC SCALE
o
O
-
O
AVERAGE V
LOGARI
—
O
o
EROSION
DEPOSITION
:ooi .01 o.i i.o
DIAMETER IN MM
LOGARITHMIC SCALE
10
100
FIGURE 27. Hjulstrom curves showing approximate regimes for erosion, transportation,
and deposition and the relation of particle size to stream velocity. Note that medium sized
sediments (sands) are more easily eroded and transported than fine clays or coarse cobbles
(see reference 30).
current parallels the crest direction of the much larger
symmetrical ripple (Figure 25).
A number of other types of ripples were described
by Van Straaten that can also be used to determine
flow direction. Further, direct observations of large
areas using side-scan sonar equipment have revealed
large sand ribbons indicating the one-way sand
transport by tidal currents.33
Flocculation of Fine Grained Sediments and the
Nepheloid Layer. Most marine sediments contain a
portion of clay minerals. These form the finest
particle size ranging from 4.0 to 0.2 microns (1/200
to 1/4036 mm). The principal clay groups are:
kaolinite, montmorillonite, and illite. The chemistry
and physics of these complex groups have been
described by Grim, and Whitehouse and Jeffery.34-35
The platelike crystal units of clay tend to stick
together, or coagulate in a process called flocculation.
Flocculation is enhanced by thee presence of salt
water; the rate of flollulation may depend on the
salinity. Thus, the fine-grained materials that would
settle very slowly in a single-grained condition,
according to Stokes' law, tend to settle faster when
flocculation occurs.36
Within recent years, layers of very fine-grained,
suspended sediment have been detected near the
bottom in waters several thousand feet deep along the
continental slope and rise off the northeastern United
States.37 This layer, measuring 500 to 650 feet thick,
has been called the nepheloid layer. Ewing and
91
-------
Thorndike suggested the layer has its origin in the
resuspension of clay-size particles by turbulent flow
stirring up the bottom. Gunnsrson and Emery re-
ported the occurrence of concentrations of suspended
sediment and plankton near the bottom of San Pedro
Basin, California.38 They believed it to be a residual
layer formed by a turbidity current, possibly due in
turn to internal waves. Observations of a similar layer
of suspended materials have been made by deep
submersible pilots.2 * >39
Interaction with the benthos. Open ocean or
pelagic regions are inhabited by floating (planktonic),
or swimming (nektonic) organisms. The bottom or
benthic regions are inhabited by sedentary, crawling,
or creeping organisms. Among the animals of the
benthos are the infauna, which live in the sediments,
and the epifauna, which live on the surface or are
attached to rocks.
Benthic organisms are involved in a number of
sedimentation processes.3 The larger forms both
destroy organic matter as well as ingest sediment
causing mechanical abrasion and chemical reactions.
In addition, the multitudes of burrowing organisms
destroy laminations and related depositional features.
Observations from the submersible Deepstar con-
firmed this type of extensive reworking of the upper
layers of sediment in the 500- to 2,000-foot-depth
range in the Gulf of Mexico.39 It appears that such
reworking may make a significant modification to the
surface layers of the lower continental shelf and
continental slopes. This reworking by marine animals
should also hold true for waste materials overlying or
mixed with the sediment.
Areas of Known Marine Geology. The Study of
marine geology had its formal beginning with the
exploratory work of Sir John Murray, resulting from
the voyage of the HMS Challenger in the last quarter
of the 19th century. Since that time, a great volume
of sounding, bathymetry, sediment sampling, and,
more recently, geophysical exploration has occurred
on worldwide basis. Yet, conservative estimates are
that less than 5 percent of the marine geology of the
oceans is known at this time. Quite clearly the areas
best known are the continental shelves, where there
has been greatest activity; in the United States, the
entire continental shelf along the east coast, the Gulf
of Mexico, and the west coast south of Point
Conception are considered in the best known cate-
gory (Figure 28). The only other areas in a similar
category are the shelf areas off Alaska, the British
Isles, Southeast Asia, Japan., and a small portion off
Venezuela.
The most extensive exploration and mapping of
sea floor stratigraphic and structural geologic relation-
ships has been carried out on shelf and upper slope
areas by private industry in connection with petro-
leum exploration and by government agencies.
Institutional groups conducting deep ocean work
generally have been less interested in precise geologic
mapping. Most information from exploratory work
by geophysical companies is proprietary and, thus,
unavailable for other uses.24
In summary, though the continental shelves off
the United States are relatively well known geologi-
cally, additional detailed investigation of the sedi-
mentation processes operating at each proposed
disposal site are necessary in order to forecast the
ultimate fate of the waste.
CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
Chemical oceanography is that branch of the
science concerned with the description, interpreta-
tion, and prediction of the chemical properties and
processes of the sea and their interaction with the
physical, biological, and geological processes opera-
tive in the marine environment. It involves study of
the composition of seawater, and its dissolved gases
and nutrients, as well as the use of radiochemical/
isotope technology. A comprehensive discussion and
review of chemical oceanography has been presented
by Hood.40
Chemical oceanography and, in particular, an
understanding of the various chemical processes
operative in the water column and at the bottom are
basic essentials in predicting the fate and effects of
waste materials discharged in the sea. These processes
are closely interrelated with sedimentation processes
and the functions of living organisms in the marine
environment. Chemical nutrients and the gases in
solution are vital to all life in the sea. In this
connection, careful study must be given to the
various chemical processes that may affect or be
affected by marine waste disposal operations.
The chemical properties and relationships in the
sea are such that they are not readily susceptible to
direct measurement in situ. This is due in part to
certain constituents occurring in high concentrations
and others in extremely low concentrations; thus, the
former tend to mask the latter. Further, ordinary
laboratory techniques for analysis of water samples
92
-------
$
o
>-
o
z
•X.
l_
en
UJ
DO
I—
<
cc.
UJ
Q
o
s
III 1 III
Ml II
niint
>
_1
o:
o
o
CL
m
CO
tu
^§lfl=f
o
O ^5 o>
.— H a>
^ .
5 s c*
013 Si
E-S o>
93
-------
are generally inadequate for measuring most of the
important but low concentration constituents. In this
regard, an acceptably precise technique for the direct
measurement of salinity using electrical conductivity
was developed only recently. Prior to this develop-
ment, all such measurements were chemically titrated
(a precise measuring technique) and related to stan-
dard values for the relationship of the total dissolved
solids to the chloride ion concentration.
Factors Affecting Seawater Composition
During the 19th century in an attempt to describe
the major constituents of the sea, scientists dis-
covered that the total salt concentration was quite
uniform. Dittmar in 1887, after a thorough analysis
of 77 sea water samples collected from all over the
world by the Challenger Expedition, concluded that
the ratio between the more abundant substances was
virtually constant. For this reason, the chloride ion is
always 55.25 percent of the total dissolved solids.
With only minor changes, this relationship—the law of
relative proportions-has been proven consistent up to
the present.
While the relationship of constituents is consistent
on a worldwide basis, local factors have some effect.
Thus, snow, ice, rain, evaporation, river runoff,
biologic activity, and particulate absorption all have
effect in peripheral areas, but the total overall change
to the ocean is not measurable.
Major and Minor Constituents. Common table salt
makes up over 80 percent of the elements occurring
in solution in seawater. The first 10 of these are the
major elements, and the remaining are considered
minor constituents. The major ones are chlorine,
sodium, magnesium, sulfur, calcium, potassium,
bromine, carbon, strontium, and boron. The minor
elements vary from silicon at 4 mg per Kg to gold at
0.000006 mg per Kg.
Gases in Solution. Atmospheric gases dissolved in
the ocean are oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide,
argon, helium, and neon; oxygen and carbon dioxide
are the most important to the sea and to the life
involved. Oxygen is produced by plants in the sea in
the photosynthetic process; it also is replenished from
the atmosphere in surface exchange. The concentra-
tion of oxygen varies from 0 to 9 me per liter (0 to
14 mg per liter). Carbon dioxide, on the other hand,
is not dependent on surface exchange as the major
source, but it is derived from the carbonate system in
the form of bicarbonates of sodium, potassium, and
calcium. The phytoplankton tend to use carbon
dioxide and the zooplankton or animal life produce it
through respiration. In addition, the ph (or acidity)
of sea water is closely tied to the carbon dioxide
system equilibrium.
Nutrients. Among the substances essential to
primary production of phytoplankton are the nutri-
ents, such as phosphates and nitrates. Nutrients are
also referred to as the nonconservative solutes. These
solutes are present in sea water in low concentrations,
but a major fraction of this amount enters and leaves
the particulate phase each year. Both the phosphates
and nitrates have a cycle of replenishment that is
directly related to plant production. The biochemical
cycle includes a net downward motion of particulate
matter that is essentially balanced by a net upward
flux of these constituents in solution as a result of
water circulation, particularly by vertical upwelling or
by the addition from sources outside the oceans.
Radiochemistry and Isotopes. Radioisotopes have
been used to study various phenomena and problems
associated with marine waste disposal. For example,
the addition of radioactive tracers to wastes such as
the effluent from submarine sewer outfalls has
assisted in the study of mixing processes. Consider-
able effort has been given to monitoring the uptake
of radioisotopes by living organisms some of which
tend to concentrate certain isotopes. Isotopes are also
used to study the movement of beach sands and to
determine Ihe age of sediments.
Oxidizing Environments
An oxidizing environment is characterized by an
oxygen-breathing biologic assemblage living in a
relatively oxygen-rich water column and sediment
cover on the sea floor. Oxidizing environments are
typical conditions of open circulation and, thus,
predominate over most of the ocean. Although most
near-surface marine sediments are generally in the
oxyginated state,41 nearshore areas with high biologi-
cal productivity are characterized by anerobic sedi-
ments.
In chemical terms, oxidation is a reaction in which
electrons are given up. For sea water and sediments, it
is generally expressed in terms of electrical potential
or Eh. More specifically, Eh is the oxidation-
reduction potential (which is also referred to as the
REDOX potential). By measuring the electrical
potential of sea water or sediments, the state of
oxidation can be determined. For sea water, the Eh is
positive or, by definition, oxidizing.
94
-------
Reducing Environments
A reducing environment is characterized by ana-
erobic or anoxic conditions, that is, conditions
without oxygen. These conditions develop when the
accumulation of organic matter is so great as to
deplete the available oxygen or when the oxygen
supply in the water is diminished by other demands.
Such conditions generally occur in relatively re-
stricted areas and are indicative of stagnant water
found in oceanic basins with limited circulation. Such
anaerobic environments usually have high concentra-
tions of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide, and the
sediments are typically black muds containing sul-
phate reducing bacteria.
Chemically, reduction is a reaction in which
electrons are taken on. The Eh values for a reducing
environment are,by definition, negative.
There are two major types of oceanic basins-the
open type, which has outflow over the sill or basin
lip; and the closed type with a very shallow sill, which
restricts outflow. As would be expected, There are
many examples of stagnant basins with shallow sills
where all outflow is prevented. The 4,500-foot deep
Cariaco Trench off Venezuela is one such basin and
has been described by Richards and Vaccaro.42
Off Southern California, Emery showed that the
bottom water flows between basins in a north-
westerly direction.43 Because variation in sill depths
allows sequential flow, most of the basins in this area
have sufficient inflow and outflow to maintain
oxidizing environments. Emery has calculated that
the Santa Barbara basin appears to have a complete
exchange of its water mass in about a two-year
period.44
Even in regions of oxidizing conditions, ZoBell has
shown that in many localities samples from a few
centimeters below the water-sediment interface show
that the sediments contain no free oxygen, and in
many cases there is a deficit of oxygen.45 In the zone
of 5 to 10 cm where the bacterial activity is greatest,
reducing conditions are typical.
and sediments, and the chemical constituents. All
these factors interact vitally with the ocean [s vast
biologic assemblage. Not only does marine life de-
pend on the particular physical and chemical char-
acteristics of sea water, but also on light, depth,
pressure, and water movement.
The animal and plant life in the sea can be broadly
pictured as two interrelated series of zones: vertical
zones, which range from the intertidal to the deep
bottom or abyssal zone, and geographic zones ranging
from tropical to polar. The reader is referred to
Moore's study on marine ecology for a discussion of
the progressive biologic variation along these two
principal gradients.46
Marine Plants
Inasmuch as light for plant growth penetrates sea
water only to depths of 600 to 700 feet, only this
thin near-surface band (the euphotic zone) can
support plant growth. There are two major groups of
marine plants: the attached forms and the floating or
planktonic forms. The attached forms are con-
centrated because they must attach to the bottom.
These are the blue-green, green, brown, and red algae.
The floating or planktonic myriad forms of micro-
scopic primary producers, which serve as feed for the
lower animals. Prominent among these are: the
diatoms, whose siliceous shells form much of the
sediment or diatomaceous ooze on the sea floor; the
dinoflagellates, which are important to filter and
detritus feeders; and the coccolithophores that are
important both as a food and as calcareous contribu-
tions to bottom sediments.
In the open ocean, the distribution of phyto-
plankton communities tends to be patchy and irregu-
lar. Areas such as the Sargasso Sea are notably sterile.
Phytoplankton occur in greater numbers in coastal
waters where there is more nourishment. Concentra-
tions of enormous abundance coincide with those
coastal areas characterized by upwelling of nutrient-
rich cold water.
BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
Biological oceanography is that branch of the
science concerned with the sea as a biological
environment—it is a study of the plants and animals
of the sea.
The previous discussion has covered the nature of
sea water itself, its physical behavior, the sea floor
Marine Animals
The marine animals range from the microscopic
zooplankton to the leviathan mammals such as the
whales. The smallest animals, the zooplankton, are
floating forms unable to propell themselves against
currents. There are two distinct types: the holo-
plankton, which spend their entire life in the plank -
95
-------
ton community, and the meroplankton, which are
larval forms of larger animals that leave the plankton
group at maturity. Probably the two most populous
members of the holoplankton group of zooplankton
are the copepods and euphausids, which feed on the
phytoplankton and in turn are the basic food for
larger animals. The zooplankton do not move hori-
zontally any great distance, but some species migrate
vertically in a diurnal cycle moving from a depth of
roughly 1,000 feet during the day to the surface at
night.
At the other end of the scale are the nekton, or
free swimmers, which are the most highly specialized
group of marine animals and include the vertebrates
and some invertebrates. Fish are the largest group
among the nekton; they are divided into the sharks
and rays (the elasmobranchs) and the true (or bony)
fishes (the teleosts). Many of the fish are limited to
zones determined by pressure, temperature, and
salinity. Depth is probably the greatest limitation and
keeps the fish with swim bladders from large vertical
migrations. Besides vertical zonation, fish concentra-
tions vary with season, distance from shore, relation
to upwelling, and other less understood causes.
Of special interest to the problem of disposal of
wastes heavier than sea water is the benthic or
bottom community, which includes a number of
different phyla of which the most important are
sponges (porifera), corals (coelenterata), certain
colonial animals (bryozoa), starfish (echinodermata),
clams and oysters (mollusca), and lobster and shrimp
(arthropoda). These forms exist in varying numbers
from shallow to great depths with the littoral zone
having the largest benthic population.
Food Chain
The relationships of predator and prey in the
ocean is referred to as the food chain or web in which
each group feeds on the next lower group, thus
making up the many links in the chain (Figure 29).
The basic driving force of the web is the sun's
radiation, which penetrates the euphotic zones. The
plants use this energy along with various nutrients
and carbon dioxide in their growth process, and
produce oxygen as a byproduct. These plants in the
form of phytoplankton are grazed upon by the
zooplankton, which in turn are fed on by larger
invertebrates, which after many sequential predations
become the food of the larger vertebrates. Classically,
the efficiency of the web has been given as 10
percent-that is-for every 10,000 grams of phyto-
plankton, 1,000 grams of zooplankton are fed, and so
on, although it has been also suggested that this
efficiency may be closer to 15 or 20 percent.
•*» "*^ <^»*. 0^°* %XI I
* £ " "PH^TOPLANKTON
•f<> °-!r\~T*^.i«Ji;
..' ZOOPLANKTON '
.•' ABYSSAL FISHES
.' ,<3^<
'•' •'ZOOPLANKTON . .:
BACTERIA' .'- . ••• • • •; •'•*'•'•' BENTHOS
96
FIGURE 29. This is a generalized representation of a food chain or food web
showing the primary producers, the phytoplankton, and the animals that feed
on these and in turn are food for higher animals. Note the flow of the nutrients,
oxygen, and carbon dioxide as elements of this relationship. *•
-------
REFERENCES
1. HELLAND-HANSEN, B. Nogen hydrografiske metodoi skana. Oslo, Naturforsker
Mote, Knstiania, 1916.
2. WILLIAMS, J. Oceanography; an introduction to the marine sciences. Boston, Little
Brown, 1962. 242 p.
3. SVERDRUP, H. U., M. W. JOHNSON, and R. H. FLEMING. The oceans; their physics,
chemistry, and general biology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1942. 1087 p.
4. JOHNSON, J. W. Ocean currents, introduction. In Encyclopedia of Oceanography. New
York, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1966. p. 587-590.
5. DEFANT, A, Physical oceanography, v. 1. New York, The Macmillan Company, 1961.
729 p.
6. EKMAN, V. W. On the influence of the earth's rotation on ocean-currents. Arkiv foer
Matematik,AstronomiochFysik, 2(ll):l-52, 1905.
7. BRETSCHNEIDER, C. L. On the generation of wind-driven currents over the
continental shelf. In the new thrust seaward. Transactions of the Third Annual
MTS Conference & Exhibit, San Diego, June 5-7, 1967. Washington, Marine
Technology Society, p. 97-113.
8. LaFOND, E. C. Internal waves. In Encyclopedia of oceanography. New York, Reinhold
Publishing Corporation, 1966. p. 402-408.
9. HUME, N. B., R. D. BARGMAN, C. G. GUNNERSON, and C. E. IMEL. Operation of a
7-mile digested sludge outfall. American Society of Civil Engineers Transactions,
126(pt.3): 306-331,1961.
10. HUME, N. B., C. G. GUNNERSON, and C. E. IMEL. Characteristics and effects of
hyperion effluent. Water Pollution Control Federation Journal, 34(l):15-35, Jan.
1962.
11. SHEPARD, F. P. Submarine geology. 2d ed. New York, Harper & Row, Publishers,
1963. 557 p.
12. DEFANT, A. Physical oceanography, v. 2. New York,The Macmillan Company, 1961.
598 p.
13. KUENEN, H. Marine geology. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1950. 568 p.
14. HEEZEN, B. C. Corrientes de turbidez del Rio Magdalena, Columbia. [Turbidity
currents of the Rio Magdalena, Columbia.] Boletin de la Sociedad Geografica
Colombia, 14(51 and 52):135-143, 1956.
15. SHEPARD, F. P., and R. F. DILL. Submarine canyons and other sea valleys. Chicago,
Rand McNalley & Company, 1966. 381 p.
16. LEOPOLD, L. B., and T. MADDOCK, JR. The hydraulic geometry of stream channels
and some physiographic implications. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953. 57 p.
17. HEEZEN, B. C. The atlantic continental margin. In a coast to coast tectonic study of
the United States. UMR [University of Missouri at Rolla] Journal, No. 1:5-25,
1968. (V. H. McNutt-Geology Department Colloquium Series 1.)
18. HEEZEN, B. C., and C. HOLLISTER. Deep-sea current evidence from abyssal
sediments. Marine Geology, 1:141-174,1964.
19. LaFOND, E. NEW diving log. No. 1, 1966.
20. COUSTEAU, J. Y. Calypso explores an undersea canyon. National Geographic
Magazine, 113(3):373-396, Mar. 1958.
21. PICCARD, J., and R. S. DIETZ. Seven miles down. New York.G. P. Putnam's Sons,
1961. 249 p.
22. Reference deleted.
23. ECKART, C. An analysis of the stirring and mixing processes in incompressible fluids.
Journal of Marine Research, 7(3):265-275, 1947.
24. EMERY, K. O. The continental shelves. Scientific American, 221(3):107-122, Sept.
1969.
25. TRUMBULL, J. Continents and ocean basins and their relation to continental shelves
and continental slopes. //; Trumbull, J., J. Lyman, J. F. Pepper, and E. M.
Thomasson. An introduction to the geology and mineral resources of the
continental shelves of the Americas. Geological Survey Bulletin 1067 Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1958. p. 1-26.
26. HEEZEN, B. C., and M. THARP. Physiographic diagram of the Indian Ocean. The
Geological Society of America, Inc. Abstracts for 1964. Special Papers, No. 82.
New York, 1965. p. 88-89.
27. RUBEY, W. W. Settling velocities of gravel, sand, and silt psulicles. American Journal of
Science, 25:325-338, 1933.
28. REVELLE, R., and F. P SHEPARD. Sediments off the California coast. In Trask, P.
D., ed. Recent marine sediments; a symposium. Tulsa, Okla., American Associa-
tion of Petroleum Geologists, 1939. p. 245-282.
29. FAIRBRIDGE, R. W. Marine sediments. In Encyclopedia of oceanography. New York,
Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1966. p. 469473.
97
-------
30. HJULSTROEM, F. Transportation of detritus by moving water. Part 1. Transportation.
In Trask, P. D., ed. Recent marine sediments; a symposium. Tulsa, Okla.,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1939, p. 5-31.
31. INMAN, D. L. Ocean waves and associated currents. In F. P. Shepard., ed. Submarine
geology. 2d ed. Chap. 3. New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1963. p. 49-81.
32. VAN STRAATEN, L. M. J. U. Rhythm patterns on Dutch North Sea beaches. Overdruk
uit, Geol, en Mijnbouw, NS., 15(2):31-43, 1953.
33. BELDERSON, R. H., and N. H. KENYON. Direct illustration of one way sand
transport by tidal currents. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 39(3):1249-1250,
Sept. 1969.
34. GRIM,R. E. Clay mineralogy. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1953. 384
p. (Shrock, R. R., ed. McGraw-Hill Series in Geology).
35. WHITEHOUSE, U. G., and L. M. Jeffrey. Chemistry of sedimentation. In Study of
nearshore recent sediments and their environments in the Northern Gulf of
Mexico. American Petroleum Institute Research Project 51, 3d Quarterly Report,
1 Jan.-31 Mar. 1953, Report No. 8, Apr. 1953, p. 27-29; 4th Quarterly Report, 1
May-30 June 1953, Report No. 9, July 1953, p. 31-37.
36. GRIPENBERG, S. A study of the sediments of the North Baltic and adjoining seas.
Fennia, 60(3):1-231,1934.
37. EWING, M., and E. M. THORNDIKE. Suspended matter in deep ocean water. Science,
147(3663):1291-1294, Mar. 12,1965.
38. GUNNERSON, C. G., and K. O. EMERY. Suspended sediment and plankton over San
Pedro Basin, California. Limnology and Oceanography, 7(1):14-20, 1962.
39. GAUL, R. O., and W. D. CLARKE. Gulview diving log, May 27-June 12,1967. College
Station, Texas, Gulf Universities Research Corporation, 1968.
40. HOOD, D. W. Chemical oceanography. In Barnes, H., ed. Oceanography and marine
biology; an annual review. London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1963. p. 129-155.
41. OPPENHEIMER, C. H., and L. S. KORNICKER. Effect of microbial production of
hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide on the pH of recent sediments. Publications
of the Institute of Marine Science, University of Texas, 5:5-15,1958.
42. RICHARDS, F. A., and R. F. VACCARO. The Cariaco Trench, an anaerobic basin in
the Caribbean Sea. Deep-Sea Research, 3:214-228,1956.
43. EMERY, K. O. Source of water in basins off southern California. Journal of Marine
Research, 13(1):1-21,1954.
44. EMERY, K. 0. The sea off southern California. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1960. 366 p.
45. ZOBELL, C. E. Occurrence and activity of bacteria in marine sediments. In Trask, P.
D., ed. Recent marine sediments; a symposium. Tulsa, Okla., American Associa-
tion of Petroleum Geologists, 1939. p. 416427.
46. MOORE, H. B. Marine ecology. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958. 493 p.
47. CHAPMAN, V. J. Seaweeds and their uses. New York, Pitman Publishing Corporation,
[1949].287 p.
98
-------
APPENDIX D
WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT-A LITERATURE REVIEW
-------
-------
APPENDIX D.
WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT-A LITERATURE REVIEW
Environmental effects of marine disposal of solid
and liquid wastes from barges and other vessels may
be divided into physical and chemical aspects, bio-
logical aspects (including public health) and their
interrelationships.
At present, we have a theoretical understanding of
mixing and diffusion phenomena which tells us where
the waste material should go. In addition, we have a
rudimentary understanding of the probable effects
of a given waste concentration on certain organisms.
By contrast, we have only a very limited under-
standing of how the waste actually disperses and how
the ecosystem actually responds to the presence of
the pollutant.
A series of carefully conducted laboratory bio-
assay tests is generally the first step in defining the
level of dilution that is safe for a given set of
conditions. Unfortunately, there are significant prob-
lems associated with achieving successful test results,
and there are more difficult problems associated with
effective prediction of the actual mixing or diffusion
rate to be expected at the disposal site.
The broader aspects of oceanic circulation were
discussed in Appendix C, as are the marine ecological
interrelationships generally known as the food chain.
More detailed considerations are presented below.
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
A water quality standard is a plan established by
governmental authority as a program for water
pollution abatement, and includes water use classifi-
cations, water quality criteria necessary to support
these uses, and a plan for implementation and
enforcement. Water quality criteria are the scientific
requirements on which a decision or judgement may
be based concerning the suitability of water quality
to support a designated use.1 In essence, water
quality criteria are the parameters or measuring sticks
used to evaluate whether the specified water quality
standards are being met.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended by the Water Quality Act of 1965,2 autho-
rized the States (and the Federal Government) to
establish water quality standards for interstate (in-
cluding coastal) waters. Specific guidelines for the
establishment of these standards are contained in the
Act. If a given State fails to adopt standards
consistent with these guidelines, the Secretary of
Interior is authorized to develop the necessary water
quality standards for the body of water in question.
Water quality criteria for the coastal waters (ex-
tending out to 3 miles) have been established by most
coastal states. There are no water quality criteria for
waters beyond the 3-mile territorial limit of the
United States. Where they exist, these criteria are
generally of a descriptive nature, and specific allow-
able waste concentrations and other quantitative
measures are rarely included. Exceptions to this are
the several California State Water Quality Board
Resolutions which specify limits for such measures as
pH, dissolved oxygen, and waste concentration at
given distances from the waste disposal barge.
Water quality standards and criteria depend upon
the beneficial uses of the water, which for open
coastal waters include: (1) propagation of fish, shell-
fish, and other marine life; (2) boating and naviga-
tion; (3) esthetic enjoyment; (4) commercial and
sport fishing; (5) skindiving; (6) transport, dispersion,
and assimilation of wastes; (7) bathing. The relative
importance of these beneficial uses varies geographi-
cally and seasonally. In considering the level of water
101
-------
quality required for the various uses by marine life,
man, or industry; water quality criteria are typically
defined on the basis of physical, chemical, bacterio-
logical, or biological characteristics or parameters.3
Many of these same parameters are used in research
studies designed to assess the probable effects of
waste discharge in marine waters.
PHYSICAL PARAMETERS
The principal physical parameters include color,
odor, turbidity, particulate matter (i.e..floatable and
suspended solids), transparancy, salinity, tempera-
ture, and density of the water column (which is a
function of temperature and salinity). Also included
are hydrodynamic characteristics such as eddy dif-
fusivity, and geological characteristics such as the
composition, grain size, and distribution of bottom
sediments.
As McKee has pointed out, physical parameters are
most often used to assess the changes that take place
in well-defined environmental relationships as a result
of the addition of potential pollutants.3 For example,
the addition of waste material contained in large
volumes of fresh water media will alter the horizontal
and vertical salinity distribution. This will in turn
change the existing vertical stability of the water
column, which could have a direct effect on ihe
ultimate mixing of the wastes.
There is a substantial body of published work
dealing with general problems of mixing, diffusion,
and dispersion in marine waters and in related topics
(in particular see Orlob, Okubo, and Foxworthy.4'6
Numerous factors control the dilution and disper-
sion of the waste, including such large-scale oceano-
graphic features as density distribution, permanent
currents, and tides, as well as local morphology, wind
currents, mass transport, and wave action.
In general terms, currents move the water mass
containing the waste field away from its point of
origin while dilution and dispersion of the waste field
take place more or less contemporaneously. When
waste material is discharged at sea, components
heavier than sea water sink and the lighter fractions
float. Dispersion or lateral spreading of the waste is a
function of the sinking rate of that waste, and the
interaction of forces producing lateral movement.
The nature of the sinking action depends on whether
or not the waste is a solid or a liquid.
Solids sink (or settle) according to Stokes' law7
except for modifications introduced by the hydro-
dynamic shape of the body or particles, and the
horizontal forces of currents. The behavior of solids
with densities (or bales of solids with composite
densities) close to that of sea water is somewhat more
complex and need not be discussed here.
Liquid wastes discharged in sea water are diluted
and dispersed by the initial dilution of the waste, and
subsequent dispersion of the diluted waste field. The
denser components of the liquid sink with some
attendant dispersion until they encounter a density
level in the water column equal to Iheir own. At this
depth, a submerged waste field forms with sub-
sequent mixing and lateral dispersion according to
isentropic principles.8 For the components with
densities close to sea water, mixing and dispersion
take place predominately in the surface water layer
under the influence of turbulence produced by winds,
waves, currents, and the passage of the disposal tug
and barge.
For engineering purposes associated with the
disposal of wastes at sea, the turbulent mixing
phenomenon or eddy diffusion is best approximated
by a modification of Pick's Law,9-10 which holds
that the turbulent mass transfer of a property of a
fluid (i.e., temperature, salinity, etc.) per unit of time
is proportional to the average concentration gradient.
The proportionality constant is called the coefficient
of eddy diffusivity; it is not a physical constant but
depends on the nature of the turbulent motion.
Since the coefficient of eddy diffusivity is funda-
mental to an accurate understanding of mixing,
considerable attention has been given to the deter-
mination of the appropriate value of this coefficient
for various mixing situations found in the ocean.
Most investigators have limited their studies to the
horizontal component of eddy diffusivity in the
surface layer of the sea.
Pearson and Orlob each assembled values of the
eddy diffusivity coefficient obtained by several in-
vestigators;9'4 the broad range of values (between
Id4 and 106) has caused several investigators to
suggest that the Fickian equation may be an in-
adequate model for completely describing eddy dif-
fusion processes.5 >6
Although there has been considerable disagree-
ment in the literature on how to formulate a
diffusion law adequate to describe oceanic inking
processes, it is generally evident from the values
summarized earlier and in more recent work11 that
the magnitude of the eddy diffusion coefficient
increases greatly with the scale of the disturbance
102
-------
being considered. For further discussion, the reader is
referred to the references cited.9'4'11
Specific studies of the mixing of barge-delivered
waste in the sea suggest that mixing and diffusion of
wastes generally takes place rapidly in the wake of
the disposal barge.12"14 This mixing is hastened by
the added turbulence associated with the passage of
the tug and barge and the pumped discharge of the
waste. The precision of the diffusion coefficients
calculated from studies of various disposal operations
is somewhat doubtful because it is difficult to
distinguish between the natural diffusion of the waste
and that induced by the barge effect just mentioned.
From the experimental work at sea, it was estimated
that the effect of the barge was to increase average
mixing rates by a factor of three,13 although stirring
by the barge produced highly irregular patches of
relatively undiluted waste, which is in agreement with
the description of the mixing process presented by
Eckart. How long these discrete patches may retain
their identity is not known, but is is probably on the
order of 3 to 4 hours. Hood, Stevenson, and Smith
emphasized that the actual pattern of diffusion in the
wake of a barge will be understood only through
additional experimental work at sea.15
In connection with studies of the disposal of paper
mill wastes off the Texas coast, Hood and Abbott
developed a predictive equation for diffusion.16
Using this equation, good agreement between the
predicted and observed waste concentration in the
wake of a chlorinated-hydrocarbon disposal barge 5
minutes after discharge were obtained.13
CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
The chemical measures used in defining water
quality criteria were summarized by McKee.3 They
include: hydrogen ion concentration (pH); dissolved
gases (oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc.); chlorinity; nitro-
gen analysis (ammonia, nitrites, nitrates); organic
carbon (COD) and total carbon; biochemical oxygen
demand; nutrients (phosphates, nitrates, silicates,
etc.); heavy metals (copper, lead, zinc, etc.); oily
substances (hydrocarbons of industrial origin); trace
organics (pesticides, detergents, etc.).
In the past, determinations of most of the fore-
going chemical measures have resulted in only micro-
quantities for which the effects on beneficial uses are
difficult to establish. Chemical analyses of the
bottom sediments have, however, often proven useful
in assessing the overall impact of pollution, owing to
the integrating characteristics of sedimentation and
biological accumulation. Generally, the first seven
parameters establish the numbers of organisms which
are found in the marine environment. The last three
may be more critical, for they may either preclude
the existence of any life or may so alter the
ecosystem that only undesirable forms can survive. It
is these compounds whose biological effects must be
characterized.
BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
In a highly simplified way, the biological as-
semblage in the sea can be subdivided into three
zones: the flora and funa which live in the surface
and near surface (euphotic zone) waters; the as-
semblage living in the mid-water zone; the bottom (or
benthic) dwellers.
The surface and near-surface waters are by far the
most heavily populated zone; phytoplankton abound
and the fauna range from the microscopic zooplank-
ton up through the food web to the large fish and
mammals. Within this zone the greatest concentra-
tions occur in relatively shallow coastal waters; these
concentrations include our commercial and sport fish
as well as sharks, seals, and whales. Also found at the
surface are seasonal concentrations of fin fish and
shellfish larvae that spawn in open water to return
later to near-shore and bottom waters.
The mid-water depths (or mesopelagic zone) are
characterized by a low animal population. Nearly all
the planktonic forms are absent, which results in
attendant limitation of the higher orders in the food
web. There is a sparse population of nonfood fish and
invertebrates such as giant squid, viper fish, anglefish,
and octopus.
The bottom or benthic animals are found in
somewhat increased numbers relatively nearshore,
since the bottom is able to nourish more life than the
water column by accumulating all the debris that falls
from the surface. Benthic animals can be divided into
two basic groups: the epifauna or animals that live on
top of the sediments, such as lobster, shrimp, and
flounder; and the in-fauna or those living within the
sediments, such as clams, worms, and other bur-
rowing organisms.
The principal biological parameters used in de-
fining water quality criteria so as to protect the
biological assemblage include: species diversity in-
dices, median toxicity tolerance (TLM) limits from
bioassay tests, fish catch statistics, principal species
103
-------
tabulations from plankton and trawl hauls, and
measures of primary productivity. Species diversity
indices and bioassay tests are becoming increasingly
important while the other parameters are less useful
in marine environmental control.
Species Diversity Indices
Ecologists have long identified polluted environ-
ments with a decrease in the number of species,
although the total number of organisms of a given
species may increase because of reduced competition.
Thus, an examination of the diversity of the organ-
isms in an area may provide a measure as to the
general health of the environment. Any organism
capable of avoiding the waste field, or which spends a
limited portion of its life cycle in the test area, is
considered of questionable value as a suitable indi-
cator organism. For this reason, sessile forms or
organisms that have little motility (such as bi-valves)
are generally used. Stein and Denison evaluated the
relative merit of "diversity indices" and concluded
that the use of biological indicators are superior to
chemical and physical measurements used alone.
They strongly emphasize, however, the need for
quantitative sampling techniques for the proper devel-
opment of biological indices for evaluating pollution
effects.17
Bioassays
The bioassay method consists of preparing a series
of test solutions of the waste in water at various
selected dilution levels, adding the population of test
organisms, and observing their reactions and survival
for definite time periods. Certain specifications such
as temperature control, number and size of test
organisms, volume of test solution, and maintenance
of dissolved oxygen are usually incorporated in the
test procedures.
Although there are several types of bioassays, two
are in general use: (1) the acute static bioassay, in
which the test solution is not changed during the
duration of the experimen; and (2) the flow-through
bioassay, in which the test solution is continually
renewed. Trie advantages and disadvantages of these
methods have been discussed by McKee, McKee and
Wolf, Hueck and Adema, and Hood, Dube, and
Stevenson.3'18"20 It is generally agreed that the flow
through bioassay provides a more realistic appraisal of
the actual short- and long-term toxicity of a waste in
terms of reproduction and growth; however, because
of the requirements for complicated equipment,
including metering devices and the provision for a
large volume of the waste, this method is not as
widely used as the acute static bioassay.
Thus, most of the present criteria for the toxicity
of wastes are based on static bioassays conducted for
each specific situation according to standard pro-
cedure establishment by the American Public Health
Association.21 Toxicity data generally are reported as
the median tolerance limit (TLM), which is the
concentration of waste that kills 50 percent of the
test organisms within a specified time span.
It should be noted that the acute TLM value does
not represent a "safe" concentration, as believed by
manu, but merely the levels at which half the test
organisms are killed. In contrast (o acute bioassays,
some investigators have conducted bioassay experi-
ments on planktonic organisms, which are interpreted
in terms of the concentrations of wastes that inhibit
physiological processes (photosynthesis or growth) by
50 percent, rather than the concentration required to
cause a 50 percent mortality of the test orga-
nisms.3'17'20 In many cases, significant differences
have been found between the acute TLM concentra-
tions and those that are low enough to permit normal
reproduction and growth.
To allow for these unknown effects of wastes, the
National Technical Advisory Committee on Water
Quality proposed that, in the absence of toxicity data
other than acute TLM values an "application factor"
should be applied to the TLM values in order to
obtain permissible concentration of wastes that can
be discharged at a given location. The application
factor is defined as ". . . the concentration of a
material or waste that is not harmful, divided by the
96-hour TLM value for that material."1 In practice,
very few application factors have been determined for
the numerous types of wastes and, as a consequence,
the Committee has suggested the use of interim
application factors until test data become available.
These are given as: 1/100 of the 96-hour TLM for
pesticides, metals, and other persistent toxicants;
1/20 for ammonia, sulfides, and other unstable or
biodegradable materials; and 1/10 for waste materials
with noncumulative toxic effects. When two or more
toxic materials that have possible additive effects are
present in the same waste, a simple additive mathema-
tical relationship is used to determine the permissible
concentration.1
104
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. Water quality criteria. Report of
the National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. 234 p.
2. U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. Federal Water Pollution Control
Act-Oil pollution control act. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1967.24 p.
3. MCKEE, J. E, Parameters of marine pollution-an overall evaluation. In Olson, T.A.,
and F. J. Burgess, eds. Pollution and marine ecology. New York, Interscience
Publishers, 1967. p. 259-266.
4. ORLOB, G. T. Eddy Diffusion in homogeneous turbulence. Journal of the Hydraulics
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
85(HY9):75-101, Sept. 1959.
5. OKUBO, A. A new set of oceanic diffusion diagrams. Technical Report 38, Reference
68-6. [Baltimore], Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, June
1968. [51 p.] (Unpublished manuscript.)
6. FOXWORTHY, J. E. Eddy diffusivity and the four-thirds law in near-shore coastal
waters. Allan Hancock Foundation Reports 68-1. Los Angeles, University of
Southern California, 1968.72 p.
7. RUBEY, W. W. Settling velocities of gravel, sand, and silt particles. American Journal of
Science, 23:325-338,1933.
8. MONTGOMERY, R. B. Circulation in upper layers of southern north Atlantic deduced
with use of isentropic analysis. Papers in Physical Oceanography and Meteorology,
6(2), Aug. 1938. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute. 55 p.
9. PEARSON, E. A. An investigation of the efficacy of submarine outfall disposal of
sewage and sludge. California State Water Pollution Control Board Publication No.
14. Sacramento, 1956. 154 p.
10. BROOKS, N. H. Diffusion of sewage effluent in an ocean-current.In Pearson, E. A., ed.
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Waste Disposal in the Marine
Environment, University of California, Berkeley, July 22-25, 1959. New York,
Pergamon Press, 1960. p. 246-267.
11. LE GROS, P. G., E. F. MANDELLI, W. F. MCILHENNY. D. E. WINTHRODE, et at. A
study of the disposal of the effluent from a large desalination plant. Office of
Saline Water, Research and Development Progress Report No. 316. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1968. 491 p.
12. KETCHUM, B. H., and W. L. FORD. Rate of dispersion in the wake of a barge at sea.
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 33(5):680-684, Oct. 1952.
13. HOOD, D. W., B. STEVENSON, and L. M. JEFFREY. Deep sea disposal of industrial
wastes. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 50(6):885-888, June 1958.
14. MACSMITH, W., JR. Offshore disposal of industrial waste. Presented at 42nd Annual
Conference, Water Pollution Control Federation, Dallas, Oct. 5-10, 1969. 8 p.
15. HOOD, D. W. The disposal of chlorinated hydrocarbons and other chemical wastes at
sea. Fourth disposal operation, June 12-14, 1956. A & M Project 69, Reference
57-20T. College Station, The A. &M. College of Texas, June 1957. 30 p.
16. HOOD, D. W., and W.. ABBOTT. A study of the disposal of paper mill wastes at sea.
First disposal operation, June 2-6, 1955. A & M Project 112, Reference 55^2T.
College Station, The A. & M. College of Texas, Dec. 1955. 30 p.
17. STEIN, J. E., and J. G.. DENISON. Limitations on indicator organisms.In Olson, T. A.,
and F. J. Burgess, eds. Pollution and marine ecology. New York, Interscience
Publishers, 1967. p. 323-335.
18. MCKEE, J. E., and H. W. WOLF, eds. Water quality criteria. 2d ed. California State
Water Quality Control Board Publication No. 3-A. Sacramento, 1963. 548 p.
19. HUECK, H. J., and D. M. M. ADEMA. Toxicological investigations in an artificial
ecosystem. A progress report on copper toxicity towards algae and daphniae.
Helgolaender WissemchaftlicheMeeresunters, 17:188-199, 1968.
20. HOOD, D. W., T. W. DUKE, and B. STEVENSON. Measurement of Toxicity of organic
wastes to marine organisms. Water Pollution Control Federation Journal,
32(9):982-993,Sept. 1960.
21. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water
Pollution Control Federation. Standard methods for the examination of water and
wastewater; including bottom sediments and sludges. 12th ed. New York,
American Public Health Association, Inc., 1965. 769 p.
105
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
LEGAL ASPECTS OF WASTE DISPOSAL AT SEA
This appendix was compiled by
ROBERT C. BAXLEY
Jones, Baxley, Crouch and McCarty, San Diego
-------
-------
APPENDIX E.
LEGAL ASPECTS OF WASTE DISPOSAL AT SEA
GENERAL STATEMENT
The legal framework governing the disposal of
solid waste in marine areas adjacent to the coasts of
the United States is unique in its jurisdictional
complexities. This is due to overlaps of International,
Federal, State and local legal systems, each with
corresponding enforcement and regulatory agencies.
Claims of jurisdiction and control over the waters
adjacent to the coast may not be consistent with
claimed jurisdiction over the land submerged beneath
it. In effect, it may well be said that no uniform
system of law prevails since the purpose, authority,
responsibility and enforcement practices of each of
the legal systems varies substantially.
The purpose of this chapter is to: (1) outline the
international, Federal, and State legal systems, and
identify and define their boundaries; (2) discuss the
role of their respective regulatory and enforcement
agencies; (3) summarize marine waste disposal laws in
four coastal States that exercise a measure of control
over marine disposal operations. California, New
York, Louisiana, and Washington were the states
selected.
CURRENT AUTHORIZATION
PROCEDURES
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the
direction of the Secretary of the Army, is empowered
to permit the discharge or deposit from or out of any
ship or barge, any refuse matter of any kind or
description "whenever in the judgment in the Chief
of Engineers, anchorage and navigation will not be
injured thereby," in the navigable waters of the
United States (Title 33, United States Code, Section
407 [1964]). Under this authority, the Secretary has
exercised jurisdiction and established procedures for
obtaining permits for disposal of solid wastes.
The Secretary is also:
. .. authorized and empowered to prescribe regula-
tions to govern the transportation and dumping
into any navigable water, or waters adjacent
thereto, of dredgings, earth, garbage, and other
refuse materials of every kind or description,
whenever in his judgment such regulations are
required in the interest of navigation. 33 U.S.C. K
1 (1964).
As a matter of actual practice, application is made
to the nearest district office of the Corps of Engineers
for a disposal permit. After the Corps consults with
local, state or other federal authorities and deter-
mines that the activity is not objectionable, rather
than issue a permit, a letter of "no objection" is given
by a majority of district offices. If objection is found,
the letter may be denied.
The difficulty with this procedure is manifold. The
letter of "no objection" is not a permit but rather a
promise by the Corps that they will not challenge the
disposal activities. Furthermore, no other Federal,
State or local agency is legally bound by the decision
of the Corps to issue a letter of "no objection." Thus,
the procedures established do not insulate the dis-
poser from criminal or civil liability.
Limitations on the Corps' authority to issue
permits may derive from the definition of "Navigable
waters of the United States" found in Title 33 of the
United States Code and regulations promulgated
thereunder as "those waters of the United States,
including the territorial seas adjacent thereto, the
general character of which is navigable. . . ." (33
109
-------
U.S.C. K 1 (1964), see 33 C.F.R. K 2.205-5 (Supp.
1970)); and as "all portions of the sea within the
territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and all
inland waters navigable in fact in which the tide ebbs
and flows." (33 U.S.C. K 432(c) (1964)). Moreover,
the recent case of Zabel V. Tabb 296 F. Supp. 764
(M.D. Fla. 1969), held that the Secretary of the Army
was not vested with discretionary authority to deny
an application for a dredge and fill permit when the
proposed construction would not interfere with
navigation. It was stressed that interference with
navigation must be shown.
Therefore, even though the authority of the
Secretary of the Army to prevent obstructions to
navigation has been specifically extended to artificial
islands and fixed structures on the outer Continental
Shelf, 43 U.S.C. K 1333(f) (1964), it has not been
extended in any other respect beyond the three-mile
territorial zone. Within the zone, interference with
navigation must be shown before the Secretary,
through the Corps of Engineers may properly deny a
permit. The only exception might be based on 33
U.S.C. K 1 (1964) which creates a duty in the
Secretary of the Army to prescribe general regula-
tions for the use, administration and navigation of the
navigable waters of the United States when public nec-
essity requires for the protection of life and property.
EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Few of the laws enacted deal directly with solid
waste disposal at sea. The major part of anti-pollution
legislation, as well as all international treaties and
agreements dealing with pollution are concerned with
two separate problem areas: 1) oil pollution in ocean
waters; and, 2) pollution resulting from the explora-
tion and exploitation of the natural resources of the
sea bed and the subsoil of the Continental Shelf.
The Continental Shelf in a geographical-geological
context is the continental land mass, sloping gradu-
ally from the low-water line until there is a marked
increase in slope to the depths of the sea. Legally,
however, it is divided so that the seaward side of the
low-water line is the territorial sea (in the United
States a three-mile zone bordering the coast). Beyond
the territorial sea lie the outer Continental Shelf and
the high seas.
International Law
The Continental Shelf harbors vast wealth in the
form of oil, minerals, and natural resources. Aware of
increased activity on the shore and of advanced
technological developments making the exploitation
of oil and minerals economically feasible, a Pro-
clamation was issued by President Truman in 1945,
stating:
The Government of the United States regards the
natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the
contnental shelf beneath the high seas but con-
tiguous to the coasts of the United States as
appertaining to the United States, subject to its
jurisdiction and control (59 Stat. 884, 10 Fed.
Reg. 12303(1945)).
This proclamation was based upon the theory of
contiguity and is commonly regarded as the first of
any magnitude to deal with the Continental Shelf. It
was preceded by the United Kingdom-Venezuela
Treaty of 1942, which provided for the division of
the sea bed of the Gulf of Paria between Venezuela
and Trinidad. This Treaty, however, was not ex-
pressed in terms of the Continental Shelf (Grunawalt,
The Acquisition of the Resources of the Bottom of
the Sea-A New Frontier of International Law, 34
Milt. L. Rev. 101, 111 n. 34 (1966)).
The Truman Proclamation made it clear that the
character of the high seas, as well as navigation and
fishing rights above the shelf were to remain unaf-
fected. The Proclamation is often described as having
extended jurisdiction horizontally (See e.g. Note, 6
San Diego L. Rev. 487 (1969)). The justification for
the Proclmation was that the shelf was a natural
extension of the land mass and the oil and minerals
and other resources already claimed in the submerged
land to a pomt three miles beyond the low-water
mark oftentimes extended into the outer Continental
Shelf. The Proclamation itself did not define the term
"continental shelf but a press release on the same
date by the State Department indicated that the shelf
was delimited by the 200 meter isobath or depth
contour, (13 Dept. of State Bull. 484 (1945)).
Other nations quickly followed suit by claiming
jurisdiction and control over shelf areas adjacent to
their coasts, but beyond three miles. The claims
ranged from declarations of rights in the subsoil, sea
bed, waters and the air space above the waters, to
declarations similar to that of the United States. The
extent of coastal nations' claims to the Continental
Shelf caused apprehension in the international com-
munity that the freedom of the seas would be
unreasonably affected by unilateral acts of coastal
nations.
110
-------
The International Law Commission was authorized
to draft a codification of international law in 1949.
The four conventions voted upon by the states in
attendance at the United Nations Conference on the
Law of The Sea, at Geneva, Switzerland, from
February 24 to April 28, 1958, were developed by
the Commission between 1949—1958.
The 1958 Conference on the Law of the Sea
resulted in: (1) The Convention on the Continental
Shelf, Sept. 15, 1958 [1964] 1 U.S.T. 471, T.I.A.S.
No. 5578; (2) The Convention on the Territorial Sea
and Contiguous Zone, Sept. 15, 1958 [1964] 2
U.S.T. 1606, T.I.A.S. No. 5639; (3) The Convention
on the High Seas, Sept. 15, 1958 [1962] 13 U.S.T.
2312, T.I.A.S. No. 5200; and, (4) The Convention on
Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the
High Seas, Sept. 15, 1958 [1966] 17 U.S.T. 138,
T.I.A.S.No.5969.
The purpose of the International Law of the Sea
Conference and the adoption of the several conven-
tions was to give international legal definition to the
claims of coastal states. In this regard, it was agreed
that the territorial sea began at the low-water mark.
But, the breadth of the territorial sea remained
unspecified: "The outer limit of the territorial sea is
the line every point of which is at a distance from the
nearest point of the base line equal to the breadth of
the territorial sea." (Convention on the Territorial
Sea, Article 6).
The Continental Shelf doctrine, Shelf Convention,
Article 2, proclaimed that the resources of the sea
bed and subsoil of the areas adjacent to the coastal
state are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction and
control of the coastal nation for the purposes of
exploration and exploitation. In defining the shelf,
the convention agreed:
The term continental shelf is used as referring (a)
to the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas
adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the
territorial sea, to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond
that limit to where the depth of the superjacent
waters admits of the exploitation of the natural
resources of the said areas; (b) to the sea bed and
subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the
coast of islands (Shelf Convention, Article 1).
Thus, the territorial sea begins at an agreed upon
point but is unspecified in its breadth. Likewise, the
outer limits of the Continental Shelf are defined
merely as 200 meters plus the depth of exploitability
[200 meters plus X]. The rights of the coastal state
over the Continental Shelf were defined as sovereign
rights for the purpose of exploitation and exploration
(Shelf Convention, Article 2).
Referring to the jurisdiction over the waters, the
contiguous zone was defined as a zone contiguous to
the territorial sea which "may not extend beyond 12
miles from the base line from which the bed of the
territorial sea is measured." (Convention on Ter-
ritorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, Article 24).
Jurisdiction within this area may be exercised to:
(a) Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal,
immigrational and sanitary regulations within its
territory or territorial seas; (b) punish infringe-
ment of the above regulations committed within
its territory or territorial seas.
Thus, the jurisdiction exercised over the water area
is limited to 12 miles beyond the base line. The
boundaries of jurisdiction over the land are as yet
imprecise.
The Convention on the High Seas merely re-
emphasized the freedom of the high seas, which are
open to use by all nations, and as meaning, "all parts
of the seas that are not included in the territorial sea,
or in the internal waters of a state.' (Convention on
the High Seas, Article 1).
The failure of the Geneva Conference on the Law
of the Sea in 1958 to reach an agreement on several
important points, including the breadth of the ter-
ritorial sea and the extent of fishing rights in the
contiguous zone moved the United Nations to con-
vene a second Conference on the law of the Sea in
1960. At the 1960 conference, the United States, in
conjunction with Canada, was willing to suggest a
territorial sea of 6 miles plus the contiguous zone of 6
miles in which coastal states would enjoy exclusive
fishing rights (Second U. N. Conf. on the Law of the
Sea. Off. Rec. Nos. 1173 (I960)). The compromise
was not accepted and the international legal situation
remained the same (See, The Second Geneva Con-
ference on the Law of the 5ea,54 Am. J. Intl. L. 751
(I960)).
Current International Law Applicable to Actual
Waste Disposal. Although the conventions resulting
from the 1958 Geneva conference dealt limitedly
with pollution of the oceans, the only international
agreement dealing exclusively with the prevention
and control of ocean pollution was the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea
by Oil. (May 12, 1954, [1961] 12 U.S.T. 2989,
T.I.A.S. No. 4900, amended in 1962). This conven-
111
-------
tion creates prohibited zones, generally 50 miles
wide, bordering the coasts of all signatory countries
in which it is unlawful for any ship, including tankers,
to discharge oil or oily mixtures into or upon the sea.
The prohibited zones are sometimes expressly stated
to be more than 50 miles and in some instances may
be unilaterally extended to a maximum of 100 miles
by a state which is party to the convention. States are
required to take all steps necessary to provide
facilities for the reception of residues and oil mix-
tures from ships in port. The convention is applicable
to all ships registered to a contracting government
and unregistered ships having the contracting govern-
ment's nationality, except tankers under 150 tons
gross tonnage, other ships under 500 tons gross
tonnage, whaling ships, ships on the Great Lakes, and
naval ships. Further exceptions are created in case of
need to secure the safety of a ship, or prevent damage
to a ship or cargo, or to save a life at sea. The United
States became a party to theconvention but reserved
freedom of legislative action in territorial water,
including the application of existing laws (S. Rep. No.
666, 87 Cong. 1st Sess. 1961, U.S. Code Cong, and
Adm. News 2395 2398 (1961)). The Convention
further required that all ships carry an oil record
book which shall list the circumstances, reasons, and
date of discharge or escapes of oil or oily mixtures.
Article 24 of the Convention on the High Seas
requires the states parties to the convention to
promulgate regulations to prevent pollution by the
discharge of oil or pipe lines resulting from the
exploitation and exploration of the sea bed and its
subsoil. The Convention on the Continental Shelf,
Article 5, also provides that the living resources of the
sea, including the fish, shall not be harmed or
interfered with as a result of the exploitation and
exploration of the sea bed and subsoil of the shelf.
Article 24 of the Convention on the High Seas relates
to nuclear or radioactive waste pollution.
Aside from pollution resulting from exploitation
of the sea bed and subsoil of the continental shelf or
radioactive pollution, the only other sections which
might find application would be: Article 2 of the
Convention on the High Seas providing that freedom
of the high seas "shall be exercised by all states with
reasonable regard to the interests of other states in
their exercise of the freedom of the high seas," and,
Article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea
and Contiguous Zone, which authorized a coastal
nation to prevent infringement of its sanitary regula-
tions within its territory or territorial sea, and to
punish such infringement when committed within its
territory or territorial sea.
Unfortunately, it is unclear whether the sanitary
regulations referred to are those enacted to apply to
the territorial sea and which may be extended to the
contiguous zone, or whether they are regulations
applicable within the territorial sea only. The Panel
Reports of the Commission on Marine Science,
Engineering and Resources state that no domestic
legislation presently asserts power to punish an act of
pollution occurring beyond the three- mile zone that
was in the contiguous zone (Volume 3 Marine
Resources and Legal-Political Arrangements for Their
Development, Panel Reports of the Commission on
Marine Science Engineering and Resources H-87
(1969)). Furthermore, the Secretaries of the Interior
and Transportation have recommended in a report
to the President, February 1968, that national legisla-
tion be amended to assert such a power (Oil
Pollution, a Report to the President, A Special Study
by the Secretary of the Interior arid the Secretary of
Transportation, February 1968).
It is interesting to note that Section 18 of
Restatement, Second Foreign Relations Law of the
United States (1965) provides:
A state has jurisdiction to prescribe a rule of law
attaching legal consequences to conduct what
occurs outside its territory and causes an effect
within its territory, if either (a) the conduct and
its effect are generally recognized as constituent
elements of a crime or tort under the law of states
that have reasonably developed legal systems, or
(b) (i) the conduct and its effects are constituent
elements of activity to which the rule applies; (ii)
the effect within the territory is substantial, (iii) it
occurs as a direct and foreseeable result of the
conduct outside the territory; and (iv) the rule is
not inconsistent with the principles of justice
generally recognized by states that have reasonably
developed legal systems. (Quoted in, W. Friedman,
0. Lissitzyn and R. Pugh, INTERNATIONAL
LAW (1969).
Recently, as a result of the Maltese proposal (U.N.
Dec. A./6695, 18 Aug. 1967) for the "reservation
exclusively for peaceful purposes of the sea-bed and
of the ocean floor, underlying the seas beyond the
limits and present national jurisdiction, and the use of
their resources in the interest of manking," the
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and
the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National
112
-------
Jurisdiction has prepared a number of working
papers. Among these, U. N. Doc. A/Ac. 138/7
proposes as a principle that "pollution of the waters
of the marine environment, specially radioactive
contamination, shall be avoided by means of inter-
national cooperation" (fden., Chap. Ill (12)). Fur-
thermore, it is suggested that states "shall adopt
appropriate safeguards so as to minimize pollution of
the seas and disturbance of the existing biological,
chemical and physical processes and balances'" (Iden)
Furthermore, a Report to the Secretary General on
Marine Science and Technology, U.N. Doc. E/4487,
sets forth the need for international action relating to
the prevention of the pollution of the sea.
Realizing that marine pollution is an urgent
international concern, the Report nevertheless states
that national agreements are supposed to take
measures against pollution, leaving as the rule of
international organizations "to help governments to
obtain the necessary scientific and technical informa-
tion and also to provide the necessary legal and
political framework for reaching such agreements."
(Iden. at Annex XIV, p. 1).
It is hoped that such agreements may be reached
as a result of the Food and Agricultural Organization
of the United Nations, Technical Conference on
Marine Pollution and its effects on living resources
and fishing, to be held in Rome, Italy, on December
9, through 18,1970.
Current Federal Laws
Through federal legislation dealing with public
lands, Title 43 U.S.C. (1964), the United States has
extended its legal system for territorial waters to the
Continental Shelf:
The Constitution and laws and civil and political
jurisdiction of the United States are extended to
the subsoil and sea bed of the outer Continental
Shelf. . . .
[Tjhe civil and criminal laws of each adjacent
state. . . are declared to be the law of the United
States for that portion of the subsoil and sea bed
of the outer Continental Shelf. . . and would be
within the area of the State if its boundaries were
extended seaward to the outer margin on the outer
Continental Shelf. ... (43 U.S.C. K 1333 (1964)).
Public Lands include:
[Tjhe surface and sub-surface resources of all such
lands, including the disposition or restrictiion on
disposition of the mineral resources in lands
defined by appropriate statue, treaty, or judicial
determination as being under the control of the
United States in the outer Continental Shelf (43
U.S.C. K 1400(g) (1964)).
It is, therefore, necessary to include federal acts
relating to public lands even though they were not
originally intended to provide for marine areas on the
Continental Shelf. It should first be noted that' no
single law or regulation deals with all aspects of
pollution of navigable waters from watercraft; they
are inadequate and ineffective for control of the
problem as a whole, although they do provide for
control of many of its parts." (Report of the
Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, to the Congress 41, August
7. 1967; 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Doc. No. 48, Reprint).
The first act dealing specifically with pollution is
the New York Harbor Act of 1888 (33 U.S.C. KK
441-451b (1964)). This Act creates authority in the
Secretary of the Army to prohibit the discharge or
deposit of refuse, dirt, ashes, cinders, or any other
matters of any kind, except that flowing from streets
and sewers in a liquid state into the harbors of New
York, Hampton Roads and Baltimore.
More general in its application is the Rivers and
Harbors Act of March 3,1889, (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.
(1964)), which creates authority in the Secretary of
the Army to prevent obstructions to navigation in the
navigable waters of the United States.
A portion of the Rivers and Harbors Act, known
as the Refuse Act of 1899, (33 U.S.C. KK 406409,
411, 419 (1964)), makes it unlawful to dump refuse
matter of any kind, other than that flowing from
sewers in a liquid state from any vessel into navigable
waters of the United States if navigation would be
impeded or obstructed thereby.
In 1924, the Oil Pollution Act of June 7, 1924,
(33 U.S.C. KK 431 et seq. (Supp. 1970)). was
enacted to protect navigation from obstruction and
injury by preventing the discharge of oil into the
coastal navigable waters of the United States. The Act
provided that the Secretary of the Army was em-
powered to prescribe regulations specifically per-
mitting some discharges into the coastal navigable
waters of the United States by vessels. Emergencies
imperiling life or property, unavoidable accident,
collision or stranding were also excepted from the
Act. In 1961, and for the purpose of implementing
the International Convention for the Prevention of
113
-------
Pollution of the Sea by Oil, the Oil Pollution Act of
1961 (33 U.S.C. KK 1001-1015 (1964)), was passed
to prohibit discharges of oil into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States. Discharges
were prohibited within 50 miles of the United States
coast line. The Oil Pollution Act of 1961 was
amended in 1966, (80 Stat. 372 (1966)), to accord
with the 1962 amendments to the International
Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the
Sea by Oil.
The Fish and Wild Life Coordination Act of 1958
as amended (16 U.S.C. KK 661 et seq. (1964)),
provides in Section 662(a) that:
[WJhenever the waters of any stream or other
body of water are proposed or authorized to be
impounded, diverted, the channel deepened, or the
stream or other body of water otherwise con-
trolled or modified for any purpose whatever,
including navigation and drainage, by any depart-
ment or agency of the United States, or any public
or private agency under federal permit or
license,. . .
the United States Fish and Wild Life Service, Depart-
ment of the Interior, shall first be consulted so as to
be able to determine the possible damage to fish and
wild life resources with a view to the conservation of
wild life resources. Reports made by the U.S. Fish
and Wild Life Service,
. .. shall be made an integral part of any report
prepared or submitted by any agency of the
federal government responsible for engineering
surveys and construction of such project when
such reports are presented to the Congress or to
any agency or person having any authority or the
power by administrative action or otherwise, (1)
to authorize the construction of water-resources
development projects or (2) to approve a report on
the modification or a supplementation of plans for
previously authorized projects. ... (16 U.S.C. K
662(b)(1964)).
This Act read in conjunction with the Rivers and
Harbors Act has often been thought to provide a veto
power in the United States Fish and Wild Life Service
over applications for permits from the Corps of
Engineers, Department of the Army for dredging,
filling, or otherwise modifying waterways. However, a
Federal District Court in the case of Zabeb v. Tabb
269 F. Supp. 764 M. D. Fla. (1969), has held that
there is no such veto power in the Fish and Wild Life
Service.
The purpose of The Submerged Lands Act of May
22, 1953, 43 U.S.C. KK 1301 et seq. (1964) as stated
in the prologue, (67 Stat. 29,) is:
To confirm and establish the titles of the states to
lands beneath navigable waters within state boun-
daries and to the natural resources within such
lands and waters, to provide for the use and
control of said lands and resources, and to confirm
the jurisdiction and control of the United States
over the natural resources of the sea bed of the
continental shelf seaward of state boundaries.
The effect of this Act is to grant title to the lands
underlying the territorial waters. That is, the coastal
state has title to all lands and resources three miles
seaward of the low-water line. An exception is
created for states bordering on the Gulf of Mexico.
Title is confirmed in those states for three marine
leagues or nine geographical miles seaward of the
low-water mark. The United States retains rights and
powers of regulation and control of the submerged
lands beneath the navigable waters for the specific
purposes of commerce, navigation, national defense
and international affairs. Furthermore, it should be
noted that The Submerged Lands Act does not
provide for state jurisdiction and control of the
waters above the submerged lands. The philosophy of
the Act appeared to be to recognize the historic
boundaries of the states as they were at the time they
entered the Union (1 A. Shalowitz, Shore and Sea
Boundaries 125 Coast and Geodetic Survey Pub. 10-1
1964).
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of August
7, 1953, (43 U.S.C. KK 1331 et seq. (1964)), is a
declaration of the policy of the United States that the
subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf
outside the area of lands beneath navigable waters
appertained to the United States and were subject to
its jurisdiction, control and power of disposition.
Again, the character of the high seas, as well as
navigation arid fishing rights, were to remain unaf-
fected (43 U.S.C. K 1332(b) (1964)). However, 'the
Constitution and laws and civil and political jurisdic-
tion of the United States" were extended to the outer
Continental Shelf—the subsoil and sea bed--as well as
to all artificial islands and fixed structures erected on
the outer shelf for the exploration and exploitation,
development, removing and transportation of re-
sources "to (he same extent as if the outer conti-
nental shelf were an area of exclusive federal jurisdic-
tion located within a state.. . ." (43 U.S.C. K
114
-------
1333(a)(i) (1964)). More specifically, the Secretary
of the Army is authorized to prevent obstructions to
navigation, (43 U.S.C. K 1333(0 (1964)); the Secre-
tary of the Interior may lease portions of the
Continental Shelf for oil and mineral exploitation,
(43 U.S.C. K 1334 (1964), 43 C.F.R. K 3380.0-3);
and the Coast Guard is authorized to regulate
maintenance of artificial islands and fixed structures
on the Continental Shelf (33 C.F.R. KK 140-146
(1968)).
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to
prescribe rules and regulations "to provide for the
prevention of waste and conservation of the natural
resources of the outer Continental Shelf" as well as
"to cooperate with the conservation agencies of
adjacent states." To delimit the jurisdiction of adja-
cent states for purposes of identifying its laws and
agencies, the President is authorized to determine the
lateral boundaries of the state and to project them
seaward to the outer margin of the Continental Shelf.
Once the boundaries are determined, he is required to
publish them in the federal register (1 A. Shalowitz,
Shore and Sea Boundaries at 197).
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1961,
(33 U.S.C. KK 466, et seq., (1964), was amended by
the Water Quality Act of 1965, (Public Law 89-234),
and by the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966,
(Public Law 89-753), and has as its purpose to
' enhance the quality and value of. . . water resources
and to establish a national policy for the prevention,
control and abatement of water pollution" (33 U.S.C.
K 466 (1964)). This Act sets up the Federal Water
Quality Administration now under the authority of
the Secretary of the Interior, for the purposes of
coordinating activities for the prevention and control
of water pollution in cooperation with other federal,
state, and local agencies.
The Act enables federal and state funds and
energies to be coordinated for the purpose of research
and development relating to the prevention and
control of water pollution. But further, the Act
provides that the "pollution of interstate or navigable
waters in or adjacent to any state or states. . . which
endangers the health or welfare of any persons, shall
be subject to abatement. . . ." Federal enforcement
action to abate such pollution shall not displace state
or interstate action in that regard. Thus, it provides
for state regulation of federally controlled territorial
waters adjacent to the coast of states. A proposed
law, (R. R. 4148 91st Cong. 1st Sess.), a bill to
amend the Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
January 23, 1969, would require marine sanitation
devices on all vessels operating in the navigable waters
of the United States and would provide that anyone
who discharged or contributed to the discharge of oil
or any matter into or upon the navigable waters of
the United States or adjoining shorelines or beaches,
"or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone"
shall notify the appropriate authority. Failure to do
so may result in a fine of not more than $5,000.00 or
imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. It
is an Act of strict liability providing exceptions only
for emergency and imperiling life, and for acts of war
or sabotage, or for an unavoidable accident, collision
or stranding. Civil penalties of not more than
$10,000.00 for each offense are also provided.
Interestingly, the Act requires that:
[Tjhe owner or operator of any vessel who, either
directly or through any person, whether or not his
servant or agent, concerned in the operation,
navigation, or management of the vessel, willfully
or negligently discharges or permits or causes or
contributes to the discharge of oil or matter into
or upon the navigable waters of the United States,
or adjoining shorelines or beaches or into or upon
the waters of the contiguous zone, (Iden. at 12(e)).
shall immediately remove such oil or matter
himself. If it is necessary that the United States
remove the oil or matter, the owner or operator shall
be liable to the United States for the full amount of
the costs incurred in the removal. Liability for costs
for removals shall not exceed $15 million dollars, or
$450.00 per closed registered ton of the offending
vessel, whichever is the lesser amount {Iden. at
12(d).*
The Solid Waste Disposal Act of October 20,1965,
(42 U.S.C. K 3251 (Supp. 1970)), defines solid waste
and authorizes the research and development program
for solid waste disposal on land and at sea. Responsi-
bility for mineral and agricultural wastes is assigned
to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Agriculture, and all other solid waste disposal is
assigned to the Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare. Research under the Act was to be carried out
for a period of four years ending June 30, 1969. The
Act however was amended in 1968 to provide a
one-year extension of the 1965 Act so as to terminate
research on June 30, 1970.
* Note added in Proof. The Federal Water Control Act
signed into law in April 1970 postdates the completion of
this report and thus its contents are not considered here.
115
-------
The Water Quality Act of 1965, in reality an
amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, sets forth water quality standards and creates the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration to
administer the Act.
The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, (Pub.
L. 89-753), again an amendment to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as well as an amendment to
the Oil Pollution Acts of 1924 and 1961, deals
primarily with oil pollution and extends the protec-
tion from oil pollution to all of the navigable waters
of the United States. Further, the Secretary of the
Interior with the assistance of the Secretary of the
Army, through the United States Corps of Engineers
and the Coast Guard, is authorized to administer the
Oil Pollution Act.
Federal regulations have been promulgated under
the authority of the United States Code and include
authorization for the Coast and Geodetic Survey to
establish dumping grounds and to prohibit dumping
in specified areas on the Continental Shelf. These
regulations are found at 33 C.F.R. K 205. Regula-
tions governing all pollution within 50 miles of the
nearest land, are found at 33 C.F.R.,Subchapter 0. In
addition, 9 C.F.R. Section 94.5 prohibits the dis-
charge of garbage containing meats of foreign origin
into any territorial waters of the United States, and 7
C.F.C. 330.400, declares that garbage from any
conveyance arriving in the United States must be
disposed of in such manner as to prevent dissemina-
tion of plant pests.
State Laws
The state laws dealing with the regulation of water
pollution are variously characterized as laws regarding
water quality, conservation, off-shor leasing, health
and safety, and public utilities. The laws are appli
cable to all of the state's inland waters, the sea bed
and subsoil of the Continental Shelf, and, under the
Federal Pollution Control Act, to the waters of the
territorial sea as well. Any disposal of waste at sea
occurring in the area between the outer margin of the
territorial sea and the low-water mark along the
coastline is governed by both federal and state laws.
In order to understand the extent to which some
states have legislated in the area of the regulation and
enforcement of waste disposal at sea, it will be
necessary to specifically examine the laws of several
of the coastal states.
California. The final report of the study panel to
the California State Water Resources Control Board,
March 1969, stated that "the enforcement provisions
in the current Water Quality Control Act are totally
inadequate." (Iden. at 19). Much of the law governing
water quality control in California was covered by
Assembly Bill 413, effective January 1, 1970. This
Act affected large portions of the Water Code,
Business and Professions Code, Government Code and
Health & Safety Code of the State of California.
Under this Act, the legislature found "that the state
must be prepared to exercise its full power and
jurisdiction to protect the quality of waters in the
state from degradation originating inside or outside
the boundaries of the state...." (A.B. 4133 K 13000
(1970)). The Act defines the boundaries of the state
as extending seaward for three miles. (Iden. at K
13200(i)) In addition, the Act held that:
Any person discharging waste or proposing to
discharge waste within any region that could affect
the quality of the waters of the State. . . and any
person who is a citizen, domiciliary or political
agency or entity of the State discharging waste or
proposing to discharge waste outside the bound-
aries of the State in a manner that could affect the
quality of the waters of the State within any
region, shall file with the regional board of that
region a report of the discharge, containing such
information as may be required by the board. (Id.
K13260(a)).
Additionally, it is stated that "nothing in this
section shall limit the power conferred by this
chapter to regulate the disposal of waste into ocean
waters beyond the boundaries of the State." (Id. at K
13200). The Act is to be administered by the State
Water Resources Control Board which is divided on a
regional basis into nine separate water quality control
boards.
New York. In New York, classifications and
standards of quality and purity for New York State
are set forth in Part 700-703, Title 6, Official
Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations,
November 1968, (Pamphlet, Classifications and
Standards of Quality and Purity for Waters of New
York State, Waters Resources Commission, New York
State, Department of Health, November 1968). The
standard of quality and purity varies according to the
use and the source of the water supply which is being
regulated. These classifications and standards are
enforced by the New York State Department of
116
-------
Health. In addition, New York is a member of the
Tri-State Compact between New York, New Jersey
and Connecticut (Tri-State Compact for Pollution
Abatement, Interstate Sanitation Commission, New
York, New Jersey, Connecticut, (1936)). The Com-
pact sets up the Interstate Sanitation Commission for
administrative purposes and provides:
Each of the signatory states pledges each to the
otehr faithful cooperation in the control of future
pollution and agrees to provide for the abatement
of existing pollution in the tideland and coastal
waters in the adjacent portions of the signatory
states. . . . (Tri-State Compact at 7, Article XI).
New York also provides for the issuance of permits
for dmas, impoundment structures, artificial obstruc-
tions, docks, piers, and wharfs. These permits are
issued by the Water Resources Commission and may
be denied if the health and welfare of the people of
the State or the natural resources, including soil,
forest, water, fish and aquatic resources are likely to
suffer from any such construction or modification.
However, before the permit may be denied, a public
hearing in connection with an application for a
permit must be provided (N.Y. Water Resources Code
K 429). New York Water Resources Commission, Part
611, Rules and Regulations, Issuance of Permits
under Conservation Law, Article V, Part III-A, Sec.
429, as amended March 20, 1967, sets forth the
procedural requirements for the issuance of a permit,
objecting to the issuance of a permit, and hearings
before the commission on the question of permit
issuance.
Louisiana. In the State of Louisiana, Water Quality
Standards were promulgated in 1968, by authority of
56 L.R.S. K 1439. These water quality criteria were
to be applied to the streams, coastal waters, and
streams discharging into coastal waters of the State of
Louisiana. (Water Quality Criteria and Plan for
Implementation, State of Louisiana, Louisiana
Stream Control Commission, 1968)
Insofar as the coastal waters are concerned, the
Stream Control Commission anticipates that the
coastal waters shall be used to carry treated municipal
and industrial wastes and sets forth as a general
criteria:
No wastes after discharged to the coastal waters
shall create conditions which will adversely affect
the public health or use of the waters for
propagation or aquatic life, recreation, navigation,
or other legitimate uses not prohibitied by high
natural mineral content. (Iden. at 78).
In 56 L.R.S. Section 362, the standard of
prohibited pollution in the waters in the State of
Louisiana is "any substance which kills fish, or
renders the water unfit for the maintenance of the
normal fish life characteristic of the waters, or in any
way adversely affects the interests of the State." For
the purpose of this section, 56 L.R.S. K 355 defines
waters as both inland and coastal waters. Application
may be made under 56 L.R.S. KK 241-449 for leasing
of "water bottoms" of any of the waters of the State
for the purpose of oyster cultivation only.
Washington. The discharge of any matter that shall
cause or tend to cause pollution in the waters of the
State is prohibited (R.C.W. 90.48.080 (1967)). Per-
mits from the Pollution Control Commission of the
State of Washington must be obtained before any
disposal of solid or liquid waste materials may be
made into the waters of the State (R.C.W. 90.48.160
(1969)), and the permits shall not be valid for more
than five years from date of issuance, shall be subject
to termination upon 30 days notice and shall be
notifiable or subject to the imposition of additional
conditions. (R.C.W. 90.48.180-90148.195(1967)).
An example of municipal legislation controlling
the pollution of waters and the disposal of waste is
the Harbor Code of the Seattle Police Department,
Seattle, Washington, authorizing the Port Warden to
enforce ordinances prohibiting pollution of the
waters of the harbor. Ordinance No. 87983, Sections
43 and 44, prescribes pollution by way of discharge
of oil, sunken vessels, watercraft and refuse of all
kinds. The ordinance provides that the person dis-
charging oil or refuse shall remove the oil and refuse,
and upon failure to do so, shall be liable for payment
of all costs of removal by the Port Warden. The
payment of the sum or the abatement of a nuisance
for discharge shall not excuse the responsible party
from prosecution.
AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF STATUTES
GOVERNING THE DISPOSAL
OF WASTES AT SEA
International Agencies
International agencies concerned with the prob-
lems of investigation and control of marine pollution
117
-------
are coordinated under the United Nations Adminis-
trative Committee on Coordination (ACC). The
groups primarily concerned with the problem are:
The Intergovernmental Maritime Consultive Organi-
zations (IMCO): The World Health Organization
(WHO): The Food and Agricultural Organization
(FAO); The Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO); and, The International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Report of U. N.
Secretary General, Marine Science and Technology;
Survey and Proposals E/4487, April 24,1968, at 83).
The action now actively under consideration
covers the joint provision of scientific and techni-
cal advice exchange and dissemination of informa-
tion and future international legislation for the
control of pollution. (Iden. See also, Idem at
Annex XIV).
Federal Agencies
Various federal agencies are involved in the en-
forcement and the administration of the federal
statutes governing the disposal of waste at sea. The
several titles of the United States Code and its
sections provide specifically for enforcement of those
sections by and through designated agencies. The
functions discussion of the specific statutes. General-
ly speaking, the jurisdiction of the agencies enu-
merated in the United States Code extends to the
outer boundary of the territorial sea. Beyond that
limit on the Continental Shelf, the Constitution,
Federal and State laws, have been specifically ex-
tended to the submerged land, subsoil and sea bed as
well as artificial islands and fixed structures on the
shelf by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. K 1333 (1964)).
In addition, several federal agencies have assumed
regulatory functions over activities taking place on
the outer Continental Shelf. These agencies include
the Departments of the Army, Interior, Commerce,
Transportation, Health, Education and Welfare, and
State.
Department of the Army. For example, the
Department of the Army, United States Army Corps
of Engineers regulates navigation, transportation and
dumping into the waters of the outer Continental
Shelf (1 Public Land Law Review Commission, Study
of Outer Continental Shelf Lands of the United
States, October 1968). This function of the Corps of
Engineers has been extended by the Outer Conti-
nental Shelf Lands Act, but only insofar as the
regulations and enforcement govern activities of
exploration or exploitation of the outer Continental
Shelf (43 U.S.C. K 1333(f) (1964)).
Department of Interior. Functions of the Depart-
ment of the Interior necessarily include some regula-
tion of both the Continental Shelf and the water
overlying it. The Bureau of Land Management is
empowered to lease portions of the outer Continental
Shelf. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is
involved with the policies and procedures necessary
to protect and conserve fishing resources. The Federal
Water Quality Administration, transferred to the
Department of the Interior in 1966, claims regulatory
powers over the waters to a distance of 12 miles from
the base line to prevent infringement of sanitary
regulations. The interpretation of this particular
provision of the Convention on the Territorial Sea
and the Contiguous Zone providing jurisdiction over
the waters is at best inconclusive.
Dealing with conservation and preservation of the
land areas of the outer Continental Shelf, the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe
regulations relating to national underwater preserves,
such as the Key Largo Coral ,Reef Preserve (Pro-
clamation No. 3339; 3 C.F.R. 195901963 Comp., p.
71 (1960); 25 F.R. 2352).
Department of Commerce. Under the Department
of Commerce, the Environmental Science Services
Administration administers the Coast and Geodetic
Survey, and the Weather Bureau, both of which are
concerned with mapping, charting, warning, predic-
tion, and research. Weather and tide research and
prediction, as well as warnings of storms and extreme
tides or waves include consideration of the waters
overlying the Continental Shelf. However, it does not
appear that they have any authority to regulate or
enforce disposal of waste in the waters.
Department of Transportation. The United States
Coast Guard operates under the Department of
Transportation for the purpose of enforcing or
assisting in the enforcement of:
. . .all applicable federal laws upon the high seas
and water subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States; [and] shall administer laws and promulgate
and enforce regulations for the promotion of
safety of life and property on the high seas and on
waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States covering all matters not specifically dele-
gated by law to some other executive depart-
ment. .. . (14 U.S.C. K 2 (1964)).
118
-------
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
This department conducts research in marine science
activities under the Public Health Service, the Na-
tional Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug
Administration, to determine the effect of pollution,
poisons, toxins and diseases on the marine environ-
ment, the shellfish and the fish resources.
Department of State. The Department of State
operates as a coordinating agency,
. . .to achieve broadly acceptable international
arrangements that will encourage the development
and use of the resources of the ocean and that will
avoid dangerous conflicts among nations exploit-
ing these resources. (Statement of Herman Pollack,
Director of International Scientific and Technolog-
ical Affairs, Hearings on Implementation of the
National Marine Sciences Program before the
Subcommittee on Oceanography of the House
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
90th Cong. 1st Sess., 480 (1967) (See 22 U.S.C. K
2556)).
State Agencies
State agencies involved in water pollution control,
conservation, solid waste disposal, and health and
sanitation cooperate with their respective Federal
agencies in the inland waters of the State, and
seaward to a distance of three miles from the base
line, so as to permit the greatest possible fulfillment
of the purposes, regulatory measures, and enforce-
ment practices of both State and federal legislative
enactments.
Most States have a designated water pollution
control or water quality control board or commission
which operates regionally. For example, the San
Diego Port Authority has established effective regula-
tions concerning pollution in San Diego Bay and
contiguous waters. Although most States have
adequate legislation in the areas of conservation and
public health and sanitation, few States have specific
legislation governing solid waste disposal. Even where
solid waste disposal is specifically regulated by state
statutes, it is doubtful that the authority to prevent
or punish wrongful disposal under the State statutes
extends beyond the 3-mile limit. For this reason, it is
essential that the State act in cooperation with the
Federal agencies, so that even though no specific
legislation is in force and effect, the assumption by
Federal authorities of jurisdiction over the waters of
the contiguous zone can simultaneously implement
the purposes and provisions of State laws.
CONCLUSIONS
International law dictates that the high seas shall
remain free for the use of all nations, beyond the
outer limits of a coastal nation's territorial sea. It has
been so stated in international conventions to which
the United States is a party.
The Convention of the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone proclaims that a coastal nation shall
have limited jurisdiction on the high seas to a
maximum limit of 12 miles from the baseline from
which the territorial sea is measured (the United
States exercises sovereignty only to the 3 mile limit).
However, the language is ambiguous, and must be
interpreted to accord with a nation's international as
well as national policies.
To date, there is no legislative enactment which
specifically provides that any agency, department or
official of the United States is vested with authority
to prevent pollution of the seas from the discharge of
solid waste beyond the outer boundaries of the
Territorial Sea. Unregulated disposal beyond the
three-mile limit can imperil the waters, resources and
beaches of the nations. Therefore, specific legislation
is imperative if the resources of the oceans are to be
protected.
P 0 itfj2
119
-------
ntal Protection
; " "- •-- ; _
hicago, Illinois 60606
_
------- |