United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Exploratory
Research
Washington DC 20460
Research and Development
EPA-600/S6-84-001 Jan. 1984
Project Summary
Assessment for Future
Environmental Problems—
Ocean Dumping
C.A. Menzie, F. Babin, J. Cura, and G. Mariani
The objective of this research is to
provide the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's Office of Strategic As-
sessment and Special Studies with a
technical basis for making decisions on
research priorities and resource alloca-
tion as these relate to the question of
ocean dumping. The problem was or-
ganized into four tasks. First, historical
trends in waste generation, disposal,
legislation and technology (as of 1982)
were reviewed to indicate the likelihood
that a particular waste type would be
ocean dumped in the future. Second,
the environmental implications of land-
based alternatives were reviewed to
provide background on the nature of
risks associated with these alternatives.
Third, the environmental implications
of ocean disposal were reviewed for
wastes and their constituents. Finally,
based on the information generated in
the first three tasks, recommendations
are provided on future research needs
and these are assigned either high,
moderate, or low priority status.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Office of Exploratory Re-
search, Washington, DC, to announce
key findings of the research project that
is fully documented in a separate report
of the same title (see Project Report
ordering information at back).
Background
Implementation of the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) has
focused and will continue to focus atten-
tion on various wastes and alternatives
for their disposal; for some wastes, ocean
dumping may be a better alternative than
land-based disposal options. As increased
emphasis is given to the use of coal over
oil for power generation, there will be an
increase in coal ash and slag; the U.S.
may wish to consider ocean dumping of
this waste as is presently being done by
the United Kingdom. For certain wastes
there has been increased international
(through the Intergovernmental Maritime
Consultation Organization [IMCO]) and
national interest in incineration at sea.
The U.S. discontinued ocean dumping
of low level radioactive waste (LLW) in
1970. However, other countries (e.g.,
England, Belgium, France, Switzerland,
and the Netherlands) have continued to
dispose of LLW in the northeast Atlantic
under the review of the Organization of
Economic Cooperative Development
(OECD), Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA).
Japan, which is also a member of NEA, is
considering ocean disposal of LLW in the
Pacific. Although the London Convention
and U.S. regulations prohibit ocean dis-
posal of high level radioactive waste, the
convention and U.S. regulations also call
for the issuance of permits for the disposal
of radioactive matter other than high
level. In issuing such permits, the con-
tracting parties should take full account
of the recommendations of the competent
international body in this field, at present
the International Atomic Energy Agency.
There is still interest in the United States
for future ocean disposal of LLW.
Among the factors related to future
consideration of ocean dumping as a
waste disposal alternative is the assimi-
lative capacity of the ocean for pollutants.
It is presumed that the oceans can accept
-------
or assimilate certain pollutants at some
rate of disposal in particular areas. Deter-
mination of these levels through technical
means (e.g., studies of fates and effects
combined with appropriate modeling tech-
niques) then provides a basis for per-
mitting or restricting discharges. Prelimi-
nary efforts to assess the assimilative
capacity of the ocean were made at the
Crystal Mountain Workshop held by
NOAA in December 1979. A panel on
sources attempted to identify anticipated
amounts and types of industrial, agri-
cultrual, and domestic wastes for which
disposal in the ocean might be considered.
Six other panels studied the assimilative
capacities of water bodies. Two of those
considered problems related to estuaries
and the coastal and open ocean. The four
remaining panels studied the site-specific
problems of Dumpsite 106, Puget Sound,
and New York Bight, and the Southern
California Bight. While the workshop
indicated that evaluating the assimilative
capacity of the ocean was useful in
determining limits on discharges, the
inadequacies of present-day models to
predict impacts to ecosystems, with re-
spect to long-term, low-level effects, was
well recognized. The long-term chronic
effect of marine pollution also was identi-
fied as a primary concern in the Global
2000 Report to the U.S. President pre-
pared by the Council on Environmental
Quality.
Introduction
An initial task in this study was to
determine classes or types of wastes
which might be considered for future
ocean dumping. Several criteria were
used to select the wastes considered in
this study:
1. The study included wastes permit-
ted for ocean dumping by the Lon-
don Convention (Table 1) but not
those prohibited (Table 2). There-
fore, wastes such as organochlor-
ines, which are prohibited from
ocean dumping but which may be
incinerated at sea, are not dis-
cussed. The incineration-at-sea al-
ternative, which would be used for
wastes generally prohibited from
ocean dumping, is not discussed in
this report.
2. The study considered classes of
wastes that, if disposed of at sea,
would be typically ocean dumped
(e.g., sewage sludge) as opposed to
discharged (e.g..effluent from coast-
al treatment plants). The former
classes of wastes and disposal
methods are presently regulated
under the Ocean Dumping Permit
Program, the latter under the NPDES
Permit Program.
3. The study included nonhazardous
wastes that, because of their high
volume and characteristics, may
pose problems for land disposal
(e.g., sewage sludge and fly ash);
the study did not consider low
volume nonhazardous wastes.
4. The study included wastes defined
as hazardous under EPA's hazard-
ous waste criteria but which are not
excluded from ocean dumping by
the London Convention (Table 2).
Survey of U.S. EPA Regions
In an effort to assess likely trends in
ocean dumping practices, a survey was
conducted of all U.S. EPA Regional Ocean
Dumping Coordinators in EPA Coastal
Regions I, II, III, IV, VI, IX, and X (Figure 1).
The survey results (Table 3) indicate likely
trends for ocean dumping based on the
historical perspective and current activity
in the regions. The significance of these
projections must be viewed in light of the
history of ocean dumping in each region,
as well as the current and projected
industrial and population growth of major
economic centers within each region.
Discussion
This study was organized into four
tasks. First, historical trends in waste
generation, distribution among alterna-
tive disposal methods, and disposal costs
were reviewed, and legislative, techno-
logical, and economic factors that may
influence these were examined. This task
served to indicate the likelihood that a
particular waste type would be ocean
dumped in the future. Second, the envi-
ronmental implications of land-based
alternatives were reviewed to provide
background on the nature of risks associ-
ated with these alternatives. These risks
would have to be considered during
formal cross-media risk analyses. Third,
the environmental implications of ocean
disposal were reviewed for the selected
wastes and their constituents. This review
Table 1. Materials That Require Special Care or Permits for Ocean Dumping. (Annex II of
London Convention)
T. Wastes containing significant amounts of the matters listed below:
and their compounds
2.
arsenic ~\
lead (
copper (
zinc )
organosilicon compounds
cyanides
fluorides
pesticides and their by-products not covered in Annex I (see Table 112).
In the issue of permits for the dumping of large quantities of acids and alkalies, consideration
shall be given to the possible presence in such wastes of the substances listed in Number 1 and
to the following additional substances:
beryllium \
chromium (
nickel (
vanadium )
and their compounds
3.
Containers, scrap metal, and other bulky wastes liable to sink to the sea bottom which may
present a serious obstacle to fishing or navigation.
Radioactive wastes or other radioactive matter not included in Annex I. In the issue of permits
for the dumping of this matter, the recommendations of the competent agencies in this field
should be considered.
5. Dredge spoils.
6. Substances that, though of a non-toxic nature, may become harmful due to the quantities in
which they are dumped, or that are liable to seriously reduce amenities.
7. Titanium dioxide (specified by Council of European Communities). ••
-------
Table 2. Materials Generally Prohibited from Ocean Dumping*'*' (Annex I of London
Convention)
1. Organohalogen compounds and compounds that may form such substances in the marine
environment, excluding those that are non-toxic, or that are rapidly converted in the sea into
substances that are biologically harmless.
2. Organosilicon compounds and compounds that may form such substances in the marine
environment, excluding those that are non-toxic, or that are rapidly converted in the sea into
substances that are biologically harmless.
3. Substances that are likely to be carcinogenic under conditions of disposal.
4. Mercury and mercury compounds.
5. Cadmium and cadmium compounds.
6. Persistent plastics and other persistent synthetic materials that may float or may remain in
suspension in the sea so as to interfere materially with fishing, navigation, or other legitimate
uses of the sea.
7. Crude oil. fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, and any mixtures
containing any of these, taken on board for the purpose of dumping.
8. High-level radioactive wastes or other high-level radioactive matter, defined on public health,
biological, or other grounds, by the competent international body in this field, at present the
International Atomic Energy Agency, as unsuitable for dumping at sea.
9. Materials in whatever form {e.g., solids, liquids, semiliquids, gases, or in a living state)
produced for biological and chemical warfare.
'This table does not apply to substances that are rapidly rendered harmless by physical.
chemical, or biological processes in the sea. provided they do not:
(i) make edible marine organisms unpalatable, or
fii) endanger human health or that of domestic animals.
''This table does not apply to wastes or other materials (e.g., sewage sludges and dredged
spoils) containing the matters referred to in Numbers 1-7 above as trace contaminants.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Offices
MONT. ~~
MAINE
CONN.
New York
lodelphia
HAWAII
Figure 1. Map of U.S. EPA standard federal regions and regional offices.
aided in identifying technical areas where
there was a lack of information, research,
or analytical techniques for evaluating
environmental impacts associated with
ocean disposal.The final task was to
provide recommendations for future re-
search.
The following waste types were con-
sidered in this program: sewage sludge,
dredged material, fly ash, flue gas de-
sulfurization (FGD) sludge, gypsum, acid
iron waste, industrial sludges, and low-
level radioactive waste (LLW). All of these
types are expected to increase in volume
in the future. With regard to the prob-
ability that these wastes will be ocean
dumped in the future, the review of
trends in disposal as well as legislative,
economic, and political factors suggests
the following: sewage sludge (moderate-
high probability), dredged material (high
probability), fly ash (moderate probability),
FGD sludge (moderate probability), fly ash
(moderate probability), FGD sludge (mod-
erate probability), gypsum (low-moderate
probability), acid-iron waste (moderate-
high probability), industrial sludges (low-
moderate probability), LLW (moderate
probability).
A review of land based alternatives
indicated that no alternative is risk free,
although some alternatives pose greater
risks than others. The information pre-
sented underscores the need for a cross-
media risk analysis approach to waste
management. The following land-based
waste disposal alternatives were exam-
ined: landfills and land burial (sewage
sludge, dredged material, some industrial
wastes, LLW); land spreading (sewage
sludge, dredged material, some industrial
wastes); incineration (sewage sludge,
some industrial wastes); solidification
(some industrial wastes); and deep well
injection (some industrial wastes).
The fate and effects of ocean dumped
wastes were reviewed in general and a
more detailed review was provided on the
fate and effects of specific classes of
contaminants. Special attention was giv-
en to specific constituents because 1)
major concerns regarding long-term ef-
fects of ocean dumping arise from questions
related to the persistence and biological
fate and effects of particular contami-
nants within the wastes; 2) many wastes
have a number of contaminants in com-
mon (e.g. chlorinated hydrocarbons, heavy
metals) and by focusing on these it is
possible to formulate research recommen-
dations that address one or more types of
wastes; and 3) some wastes are highly
variable and an evaluation of the effects
of such wastes requires an understand-
-------
ing of the major constituents: nutrients,
metals, halogenated hydrocarbons, poly-
nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and ra-
dionuclides.
Recommendations for future research
are presented for twelve general categor-
ies of studies. Relative priorities (high,
moderate, low) are assigned for each
category of study for each waste type. For
example, studies on uptake, storage, and
depuration of metals are assigned a high
priority status for industrial sludge but
moderate priority status for other waste
categories. The categories of studies
assigned high priority status for two or
more types of wastes include physical
fate of particulate materials; uptake,
storage, depuration of halogenated hydro-
Table 3. Results of Telephone Survey of U.S.
Waste
carbons; effects of sediment alteration on
benthic larval settlement; site monitor-
ing; inventory of waste constituents; and
methodologies for cross-media risk as-
sessment. Particulate recommendations
within these and other lower priority
categories of studies are presented.
EPA Regional Ocean Dumping Coordinators
USEPA Regions
7
2
3
10
Remarks
I
Sewage Sludge
Dredged Material
Fly Ash
RCRA Driven Chemical Waste
Gypsum Sludge
Low-Level Rad Waste
Ocean Incineration
Construction/Demolition Debris
Cannery Waste
NSSC Liquor
Secondary Sludge from Pulp and NR NR
Paper
I
I
I
I
1
1
NR
1
1
1
NR
NR
1
1
1
1
1
S
NR
NR
S S NR S S
I I I I I
I NR I S NR
I I
NR I I NR NR
S NR NR NR /*
NR NR NR 1 NR
NR NR NR NR I
NR NR NR NR I
Phosphate Mining
Drilling Muds
Deep Ocean Mining
Tires
Vessels
NR NR NR I NR NR NR
NR NR NR I I I NR
NR NR NR NR NR I" NR
I I I D NR NR NR
S S S S NR NR S
*Region 2 believes 1977 regulations will prevail and
continue to prohibit this disposal.
'S.W. Ind. Growth
'Deepening Projects.
Region JO has very little now.
Also avoiding pretreatment requirements.
Gypsum sludge parallels the increase in chemical waste.
Ships being built for operation in any region.
*Primarily from Alaska.
Only reported in Region 9.
Only reported in Region 10.
Only from Region 10.
Reported only in Region 4, uncertain whether O.D.
permit will be required
Likely only where nearby deep water is available.
"May or may not be an Ocean Dumping permit.
Principally as proposals to construct fish reefs.
Vessels will continue to be scuttled for various reasons.
I = Increase
D= Decrease
S= Same
NR= Not Reported
-------
C. A. Menzie. F. Babin, J. Cura, and G. Mariani are with EG&G Environmental
Consultants, Waltham, MA 02254.
Marvin Rogul was the EPA Project Officer (for present contact see below).
The complete report, entitled "Assessment for Future Environmental Problems—
Ocean Dumping, "(Order No. PB 84-126 770; Cost: $16.00, subject to change)
will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
For information contact John W. Reuss at:
Office of Exploratory Research
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
PS 0000329
U S ENVIR PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5 LIBRARY
Z30 S DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO IL 60604
4 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984-759-102/838
------- |