902R80001
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
for
106-MILE OCEAN WASTE
DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
February 1980
vVEPA
Prepared Under Contract 68-01-4610
T. A. Wastler, Project Officer
for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Oil and Special Materials Control Division
Marine Protection Branch
Washington, D.C. 20460
LIBRARY
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EDISON, N. J. 08817
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON
THE 106-MILE OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL
SITE DESIGNATION
Prepared by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oil and Special Materials Control Division
Marine Protection Branch
Washington, D.C. 20460
Approved by:
T. A. Wastler Date
Project Officer
-------
SUMMARY SHEET
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
106-MILE OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
( ) Draft
(X) Final
( ) Supplement to Draft
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OIL AND SPECIAL MATERIALS CONTROL DIVISION
MARINE PROTECTION BRANCH
1. Type of Action
(X) Administrative/Regulatory action
( ) Legislative action
2. Brief description of background of action and its purpose indicating what
States (and counties) are particularly affected.
The proposed action is the designation of the 106-Mile Ocean Waste
Disposal Site for continuing use. The site is approximately 130 nmi
(240 km) east of Cape Henlopen, Delaware, and is used by industries in
the New Jersey-Delaware area. The purpose of the action is to provide an
environmentally acceptable area for the disposal of wastes which (1)
comply with EPA's marine environmental impact criteria, or (2) must be
ocean-disposed until a suitable land-based disposal method is available.
-------
3. Summary of major beneficial and adverse environmental and other impacts.
The 106-Mile Site has been used for ocean disposal since 1961. Since
that time, it has received a wide variety of waste materials with no
apparent long-term adverse impact. Short-term impacts of current dumping
are known to occur - primarily on the plankton in the barge wake. Other
impacts are still subjects of research studies underway at the site.
EPA's site management policies mitigate adverse impacts by regulating
amounts and kinds of wastes, and discharge frequencies and rates. None
of the environmental impacts of waste disposal at the 106-Mile Site is
known to cause irreversible damage to the site environment.
4. Major alternatives considered.
The alternatives considered in this EIS are (1) no action, which would
require the use of land-based methods or the shutdown of the waste
producing manufacturing processes, and (2) use of another ocean site for
these wastes - the New York Bight Acid Wastes Site, the Delaware Bay Acid
Waste Site, or the Northern and Southern Areas near the Hudson Canyon.
5. Written comments were received from the following:
Federal Agencies and Offices
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the
Environment
U.S. Department of Army
Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Commerce
Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Maritime Administration
VI
-------
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Public Health Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of Transportation
Coast Guard
States and Municipalities
State of Delaware
Office of Management, Budget, and Planning
State of Maryland
Department of Economic and Community Development
Department of Natural Resources
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of the Public Advocate
State of New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania State Clearinghouse
Commonwealth of Virginia
Council on the Environment
State Water Control Board
Monmouth County, NJ
Ocean City, MD
VII
-------
Private Organizations
Delaware River Basin Commission
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc.
Greenstone and Sokol, Counselors at Law
League of Women Voters
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
National Wildlife Federation
6. Comments on the Final EIS must be received by '"'
Comments should be addressed to:
Mr. T.A. Wastler
Chief, Marine Protection Branch (WH-548)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Copies of the Final EIS may be obtained from:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Marine Protection Branch (WH-548)
Washington, D.C. 20460
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II (25A-MWP)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10007
Vlll
-------
The Final EIS may be reviewed at the following locations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Library
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Library, Room 1002
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Woodbridge Ave.
GSA Raritan Depot
Edison, N.J.
NOAA/MESA NY Bight Project
Old Biology Bldg.
State University of New York
Stony Brook, N.Y.
IX
-------
SUMMARY
This environmental impact statement (EIS) provides
documentation of data and analyses supporting the formal
designation of the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site for
continued ocean waste disposal. It evaluates the types of
industrial and other materials which may be disposed of at
the site, presents rationale for consideration of the site as
an alternate site for the emergency disposal of sewage
sludge, and provides guidance for EPA management of the site
through the ocean dumping permit program.
ORGANIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The EIS has three levels of detail: This summary highlights significant
points of the chapters, thereby permitting readers to understand major points
without reading the entire text. The main text contains additional technical
information, with full discussions of the alternatives and choices. The
appendices contain supplemental technical data and information which amplify
and support the preferred alternative. It is not necessary to read the
appendices to understand the rest of the document.
Five chapters comprise the main body of the EIS:
Chapter 1 specifies the purpose of and need for the proposed action
and presents background information relevant to ocean waste
disposal. The legal framework by which EPA selects, designates, and
manages ocean waste disposal sites is described.
Chapter 2 presents alternatives to designating the 106-Mile Site,
outlines procedures by which alternatives were chosen and evaluated,
and summarizes the relevant comparisons of all alternatives.
Chapter 3 describes the environmental features of the 106-Mile Site
and the alternative sites. The history of waste disposal and other
activities in the site vicinities are fully described.
Chapter 4 discusses the environmental consequences of waste disposal
at the alternative sites and at the proposed site.
Chapter 5 discusses the feasibility of sewage sludge disposal at the
106-Mile Site.
XI
-------
Five appendices are included to support the text:
• Appendix A is a compendium of environmental data and information on
the 106-Mile Site.
• Appendix B discusses in detail current and historical waste disposal
practices at the 106-Mile Site.
f* Appendix C provides information on present monitoring practices at
the site, and defines general guidelines for future site monitoring.
• Appendix D presents Chapter III of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement on the Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in the New York
Bight (EPA, 1978), describing alternatives to ocean dumping of
sewage sludge.
• Appendix E contains; written public comments and public hearing
testimony received on the Draft EIS and EPA's responses.
PROPOSED ACTION
EPA proposes to designate the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site (Figure
S-l) for continuing use. This action will satisfy the need for a suitable
location off the Middle Atlantic States for the disposal of certain wastes
which satisfy the criteria for ocean disposal under EPA's ocean dumping permit
program. The criteria are based on a demonstrated need for ocean disposal in
preference to land-based alternatives, and an evaluation of the potential
impact on the marine environment.
As this EIS demonstrates, ^here is a present need for ocean disposal of
some industrial chemical wastes and municipal sewage sludge in the north-
eastern United States. This need comprises four categories of materials:
(1) Materials which comply with the marine environmental impact criteria
and for which land-based disposal alternatives are less acceptable
than ocean disposal
(2) Materials which comply with the impact criteria and for which land-
based alternatives are under development
(3) Materials which do not comply with the impact criteria but for which
land-based alternatives will be implemented by 1981
XII
-------
41°
40°
75°
1. New York Bight Acid
Wastes Dispoal Site
2. Northern Area
3. Southern Area
4. Delaware Bay Acid
Waste Disposal Site
5. 106-Mile Ocean
Waste Disposal Site
(Proposed)
74°
73°
72°
39°
38°
41°
40°
39°
38°
75°
74°
73°
72°
Figure S-l. Proposed Site (106-Mile Site) and All Alternative Sites
Kill
-------
4) Materials which must; be ocean-dumped under emergency conditions
because they represent a health hazard and because no feasible
alternative disposal method is available at the time of the
emergency.
The 106-Mile Site was first used for waste disposal in 1961. In 1973, the
site was designated by EPA for disposal of industrial wastes on an interim
basis, pending completion of i:rend assessment surveys. Designation of the
site for continuing use will permit approved disposal of industrial wastes
presently dumped there and will provide for a disposal site for new wastes
judged acceptable for disposal.
More than 100 industries previously dumped wastes at the 106-Mile Site, but
only four industrial permittees now remain: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
(Edge Moor and Grasselli plants), Merck and Co., and American Cyanamid Co. Of
the four, Du Font-Edge Moor, Merck, and American Cyanamid are scheduled to
cease ocean disposal by the end of 1981, when they will complete imple-
mentation of land-based alternatives. Du Pont-Grasselli, the remaining
permittee, will be permitted to continue ocean disposal, since no viable
land-based alternatives to ocean disposal are presently available which are
more environmentally acceptable, and because the waste presently complies with
EPA's marine environmental impact criteria.
Municipal sewage sludge has 'seen dumped at the 106-Mile Site. Th£ City of
Camden, New Jersey, used the site during 1977 and 1978; digester clean-out
sludges from New York/New Jersey metropolitan area wastewater treatment plants
have also been dumped there. Future use of the site for additional sewage
sludge disposal will be considered only if it is determined by EPA that the
existing New York Bight and Philadelphia Sewage Sludge Disposal Sites cannot
safely accommodate any more sewage sludge without endangering public health or
degrading coastal water quality,,
xiv
-------
OVERVIEW
Ocean dumping, particularly in the heavily populated northeast, has been
used as an ultimate means of waste disposal for generations in the United
States. Before the early 1970's, there was very little regulation of ocean
waste disposal. Limited regulation was provided primarily under the New York
Harbor Act of 1888, which empowered the Secretary of the Army to prohibit
disposal of wastes, except from streets and sewers, into the harbors of New
York, Hampton Roads, and Baltimore. The Refuse Act of 1899 prohibited the
disposing of materials into navigable waters when disposal impeded safe
navigation. Under these Acts, selection of disposal locations by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (CE) and the issuance of permits for ocean disposal
were based primarily upon transportation and navigation factors rather than
upon environmental concerns.
Public interest in the effects of ocean disposal was aroused in 1969 and
1970 by a number of incidents involving the disposal of warfare agents in the
ocean. Simultaneously, studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and several universities identified potentially adverse
effects of sewage sludge and industrial waste disposal in the New York Bight.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 1970 report to the President
identified poorly regulated waste disposal in the marine environment as a
potential environmental danger.
CEQ's report, and the increasing public awareness of the potential
undesirable effects of poorly regulated ocean waste disposal, were primarily
responsible for the enactment of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, the primary U.S. legislation now regulating
barged waste disposal in the ocean. In the fall of 1972, when it became
apparent that Congress would promulgate an act to regulate ocean disposal, EPA
began developing criteria to provide an effective technical base for the
regulatory program. During the development of the technical criteria, EPA
sought advice and counsel from EPA marine scientists, and from marine
specialists in universities, industries, environmental groups, and Federal and
State agencies. The criteria were published in May 1973, finalized in
xv
-------
October 1973, and revised in January 1977. The criteria are used in
evaluating the need for ocean waste disposal and potential impact on the
marine environment.
Ocean disposal became an international topic of concern and discussion in
this same period. An intergovernmental conference, held in London in the fall
of 1972, developed the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. This Convention regulates ocean waste
disposal at the international level with provisions for prohibited materials
and regulation of dumping by participating nations. The MPRSA was amended in
March 1974 to bring the national legislation into full compliance with the
Convention.
The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria contain provisions for
selecting, designating, and managing ocean disposal sites, and for issuing
permits to use the sites for waste disposal. Fourteen interim municipal and
industrial waste disposal sites (most of them located in the U.S. mid-
Atlantic) were listed in EPA'is Final Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria
published in January 1977. Through this and other EIS's, EPA is conducting
in-depth studies of various dump sites to determine their acceptability in
keeping with the criteria. The agency has designated a number of existing
dump sites on an interim basis for use pending completion of the studies and
formal designation or termination of the sites. (See 40 CFR §228.12, as
amended January 16, 1980 [45 Fed. Reg. 3053].) The 106-Mile Site is included
in these interim designations.
The subject of this EIS is the proposed designation of the 106-Mile Ocean
Waste Disposal Site for continuing use and a determination of the types and
quantities of wastes which can be disposed of at the site in an environ-
mentally acceptable manner. The Draft EIS was issued for public review and
comment in June 1979. A public hearing to solicit additional comment was held
in August 1979.
xvi
-------
MAJOR ALTERNATIVES
The major alternatives to designation of the 106-Mile Site for continuing
use are: (1) no action, thereby requiring current permittees to use other
disposal methods (primarily land-based), or, in the absence of non-ocean
alternatives, forcing shutdown of activities which generate wastes presently
dumped at the site; and (2) use of an alternative ocean disposal site for
106-Mile Site wastes - either an existing site or a new one. The mid-Atlantic
Continental Shelf and Slope were evaluated for potential alternative disposal
sites. As a result of this evaluation, four locations were selected for
detailed evaluation as possible alternative sites: the New York Bight Acid
Wastes Disposal Site, the Delaware Bay (formerly Du Pont) Acid Waste Disposal
Site, the New York Bight Southern Area, and the New York Bight Northern Area
(Figure S-l). Each alternative was evaluated for environmental acceptability,
monitoring and surveillance requirements, associated economic burden, and
logistics problems, and compared to use of the 106-Mile Site. As a result of
this evaluation, the 106-Mile Site was judged the best location.
Of the eight existing waste disposal sites in the mid-Atlantic, two were
considered viable alternatives to the 106-Mile Site - the New York Bight and
Delaware Bay Acid Waste Sites. The remaining sites are used only for disposal
of non-industrial wastes, are small, and are in heavily utilized areas.
Two other alternative locations on the mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf were
also examined in detail: the so-called Northern and Southern Areas, located
mid-way between the nearshore alternative sites and the 106-Mile Site.
Although not previously designated disposal sites, these areas were surveyed
by NOAA and EPA to provide background environmental data for assessing the
advisability of using one of the locations for sewage sludge disposal. As a
result of this analysis, a small portion of the Northern Area is now a
designated alternate sewage sludge disposal site.
xvi i
-------
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The 106-Mile Site is in the mid-Atlantic just beyond the edge of the
Continental Shelf. The site is oceanic in nature; it is deep (1,400 m to
2,800 m) and the water masses and biology of the area are more like the open
ocean to the east than the coastal environment to the west. Typical of
surrounding waters, the site does not appear to be highly productive. The
bottom terrain is a vast plain sloping to the east, punctuated by several
submarine canyons. The site is currently used primarily for ocean disposal of
industrial chemical .wastes and its use is managed by EPA Region II. From 1961
to 1978, approximately 5.1 million metric tons of chemical wastes, 102
thousand metric tons of sewage sludge, and 287 thousand metric tons of
digester residue were dumped at the site. An inactive munitions disposal site
is located within the boundaries of the 106-Mile Site and an inactive
radioactive waste disposal site is 10 nmi (18 km) south of the southern edge
of the 106-Mile Site. Results of surveys conducted at the site are summarized
later in this section.
The New York Bight Acid Wastes Site and the Northern and Southern Areas are
in the New York Bight, over the Continental Shelf. The sites are shallow (25
to 53 m), and the water and biota are characteristic of the Shelf region. The
Hudson Canyon separates the Southern and Northern Areas and terminates near
the Acid Site. Potentially valuable biological resources exist near the Acid
Site and Southern Area. Mineral resource development is occurring near the
Southern Area. Waste disposal in the Acid Site and Southern Area could
conflict with these other uses. Activities which could conflict with waste
disposal operations are not expected to occur in the Northern Area.
Among the New York Bight alternatives, only the New York Bight Acid Wastes
Site, 15 nmi (28 km), offshore las been used for ocean waste disposal. From
1958 to 1978, 45.2 million metric tons of acid and caustic wastes were
released at the site. After numerous special studies and a continuing
environmental monitoring program, only short-term adverse effects from waste
XV 111
-------
disposal have been observed. Long-term adverse effects of waste disposal at
the Acid Site may be masked by the presence of many more significant sources
of contamination in the Bight. Because of the difficulty of differentiating
the effects of the different pollutants, no long-term effects unique to the
acid waste have been identified, nor is it known if any significant long-term
effects of this waste exist. Waste disposal has not occurred in either the
Southern or Northern Areas, although the Alternate New York Sewage Sludge Site
has been designated for use, if required, and comprises a small section on the
eastern edge of the Northern Area.
The Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site is just south of the New York Bight,
approximately 30 nmi (55 km) off the Delaware coast. The site is located on
the Continental Shelf and is shallow (38 to 45 m). Water and biota in the
site vicinity are typical of other mid-Atlantic Shelf regions. Bottom
sediments are medium to fine sands; the relatively smooth topography is
punctuated with sand ridges and swales. Valuable shellfish resources exist in
and near the site, however, their exploitation is currently restricted because
the area is closed to shellfishing due to dumping at the Philadelphia Sewage
Sludge Site, located only 5 nmi (9 km) south. From 1973 to 1977, 2.3 million
metric tons of Du Font-Edge Moor acid wastes were released at the site; it has
been inactive since March 1977 when Du Font's dumping was transferred to the
106-Mile Site. Environmental studies and monitoring for impacts of acid
disposal on the environment have been inconclusive. Preliminary studies
identified elevated vanadium concentrations in shellfish from the site
vicinity; however, no direct link has been established between these
observations and the acid waste disposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Environmental consequences of industrial waste disposal at the proposed
site and alternative sites were assessed. The total environmental conse-
quences of industrial waste disposal at the 106-Mile Site are uncertain
despite several years of study; however, continuing to use this site for waste
xix
-------
disposal is judged acceptable, given the alternatives. Two characteristics of
the 106-Mile Site make it the best ocean location for disposing of industrial
wastes: good dispersion and dilution characteristics and low biological
productivity.
The depth of the 106-Mile Site is its greatest advantage over all
alternative sites, which are shallower. This permits materials dumped at the
site to disperse widely and dilute rapidly. As long as a waste resides in the
water column, it is subject to horizontal dispersion. If the waste reaches
the seafloor, it may persist in one location and perhaps accumulate there.
Studies at the site have shown that the wastes currently dumped are generally
restricted to the water column above the seasonal or permanent thermocline and
do not reach the seafloor in measureable quantities.
The standing crop of organisms at the 106-Mile Site is often less than the
standing crop on the Continental Shelf, therefore the total damage to
organisms from dumping will be less at the 106-Mile Site than at alternative
sites. However, studies show that some oceanic organisms are more sensitive
to wastes than similar organisms taken from heavily used coastal areas.
Therefore, while waste dilutions are sufficient to minimize adverse effects in
the water, effects on indigenous organisms are more likely at the 106-Mile
Site than at alternative sites*. Although less total damage will occur at the
106-Mile Site than at alternative coastal sites, the potential for adversely
affecting the resident fauna is probably greater.
Known negative consequences of ocean disposal are expected at the 106-Mile
Site; however, these negative factors (primarily economic), do not outweigh
the potential negative environmental consequences of using alternative sites:
• The distance of the 106-Mile Site from ports, requires (for disposal
and monitoring) t'le use of vessels with extended sea-going
capability. Increased wages, fuel costs, and other operating
expenses, make waste disposal at a distant site economically
disadvantageous to both waste generators and researchers, compared
to disposal at nearshore sites.
• Unless automatic surveillance is developed and implemented,
surveillance at the 106-Mile Site will usually require the use of
shipriders.
xx
-------
• Laboratory and field studies indicate that acute short-term
mortality of sensitive plankton will occur immediately upon
discharge of wastes; however, mortality will be mitigated by the
rapid dilution and dispersion of wastes in seawater within the site.
Short-term plankton mortality would be expected at any ocean
disposal site; however, oceanic organisms may be more sensitive to
stress than coastal organisms.
The state of knowledge on adverse dumping effects at this site, especially
long-term effects, is incomplete. Several years of background work were
necessary before studies of specific long-term effects could be initiated.
During that time, successful techniques for tracking and sampling the waste
plume were developed. These refined sampling techniques and the past data on
background environmental conditions at the site, will permit future studies at
the site to concentrate on effects of the waste on the biota in the waste
p1ume.
SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL
The feasibility of using the 106-Mile Site for municipal sewage sludge
disposal is addressed as a special case. It is acknowledged that the only
reasonable long-term solution for disposal of harmful sewage sludge is by
means of land-based processes; however, adverse conditions at the existing New
York Bight or Philadelphia Sewage Sludge Sites could require moving sludge
disposal to another site. Effects of past sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site
and at other sludge disposal sites were evaluated to provide a basis for
determining impacts from future sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site. On this
basis, use of the site for sludge disposal is determined to be feasible,
provided that monitoring of short- and long-term effects is instigated
concurrent with sludge dumping and that chemical wastes and sewage sludge are
separated. Other conditions are treated in Chapter 5.
xxi
-------
CONCLUSIONS
After carefully evaluating all reasonable alternatives, EPA proposes that
the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Di.sposal Site receive final designation for
continuing industrial waste disposal in accordance with the EPA Ocean Dumping
Regulations and Criteria. However,'in keeping with the MPRSA, exploration of
alternatives to ocean disposal should continue, and such research and
development should be conditions imposed on waste generators receiving ocean
disposal permits.
Industrial wastes permitted for disposal at the site should have the
following characteristics:
• Aqueous, with concentrations of solids sufficiently low, so that
waste materials are dispersed within the upper water column
• Neutrally buoyant or slightly denser than seawater such that, upon
mixing with seawater, the material does not float
e Demonstrate low toxicity and low bioaccumulation potential to
representative marine: organisms
• Contain no materials in concentrations prohibited by the MPRSA or
the London Ocean Dumping Convention
• Contain constituents in concentrations which are diluted such that
the limiting permissible concentration for each constituent is not
exceeded beyond the disposal site boundaries during initial mixing
(4 hours) and not axceeded inside or outside of the site after
initial mixing
• Dischargeable from a moving vessel, to enable rapid and immediate
dilution.
Each waste load should be sufficiently small to permit adequate dispersal
of the waste constituents before disposal of the next load, and to prevent
accumulation of waste materials due to successive dumps. Vessels releasing
wastes simultaneously should be located in different quadrants of the site, to
provide for maximum dilution of wastes within the site boundaries.
xxn
-------
All future permits should contain the following conditions:
(1) Independent shiprider surveillance of disposal operations will be
conducted by the USCG or an objective observer (the latter at
permittee's expense) with a program goal of 75% surveillance,
assuming that surveillance would be increased with the implemen-
tation of ODSS by the USCG.
(2) Comprehensive monitoring for long-term impacts will be accomplished
by Federal agencies and for short-term impacts by permittees or by
environmental contractors (the latter at permittee's expense). All
permittee monitoring studies are subject to EPA approval.
Short-term monitoring should include laboratory studies of waste
characteristics and toxicity, and field studies of waste behavior
following discharge and the effect of wastes on local organisms.
Long-term monitoring should include studies of chronic toxicity of
the waste at low concentrations and field studies of the fate of
materials, especially any particulates formed after discharge.
(3) EPA will enforce a discharge rate based on the limiting permissible
concentration, disposal in specified quadrants of the site, and
maintenance of a 0.5 nmi (0.9 km) separation distance between
vessels.
(4) Key constituents will be analyzed routinely in waste samples, at
frequencies to be determined by EPA on a case-by-case basis, but
sufficient to evaluate accurately mass loading at the site.
(5) Routine bioassays will be performed on waste samples using
appropriate sensitive marine organisms.
It is further proposed that use of the site for sewage sludge disposal be
decided by EPA case-by-case, and on the basis of severity of need. Any permit
issued should include provisions for adequate monitoring and surveillance to
ensure that no significant adverse impacts result from disposal. Sludge
disposal should be allowed at the site only under the following conditions:
• Provided the existing Sewage Sludge Site cannot safely accommodate
more sludge disposal without endangering public health, severely
degrading the marine environment, or degrading coastal water
quality.
• Independent surveillance by the USCG or an unbiased observer (the
latter at the permittee's expense) will be conducted with a program
goal of 50% surveillance, assuming that surveillance would be
increased with the implementation of ODSS by the USCG.
xxi 11
-------
• Monitoring for short- and long-term impacts will be accomplished by
Federal agencies and environmental contractors (the latter at the
permittee's expense). This monitoring must include studies of the
fate of solids and sludge micro-organisms, inside and outside of the
site, and a comprehensive: analysis of environmental effects.
• Vessels will discharge the sludge into the wake so that maximum
turbulent dispersion occurs.
• Vessels discharging sludge will be sufficiently separated from
vessels discharging chemical wastes to prevent the two types of
wastes from mixing.
• Key constituents of the sludge will be routinely analyzed in barge
samples at a frequency to be determined by EPA on a case-by-case
basis, but sufficient to evaluate accurately mass loading at the
site.
• Routine bioassays will be performed on sludge samples using
appropriate sensitive marine organisms.
xxiv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page
SUMMARY xi
ORGANIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xi
PROPOSED ACTION xii
OVERVIEW xv
MAJOR ALTERNATIVES xvii
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT xviii
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES xix
SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL xxi
CONCLUSIONS xxii
1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND CONTROL PROGRAMS 1-3
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act .... 1-5
Ocean Disposal Site Designation 1-9
Ocean Dumping Permit Program 1-13
INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 1-15
2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-1
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2-2
CONTINUED USE OF THE 106-MILE SITE 2-3
Environmental Acceptability 2~4
Environmental Monitoring 2-7
Surveillance 2-8
Economics 2-8
Logistics 2-10
USE OF ALTERNATIVE EXISTING SITES 2-11
New York Bight Acid Wastes Disposal Site 2-13
Delaware Bay Acid Waste Disposal Site 2-19
USE OF NEW SITES 2-23
Locations on the Continental Shelf 2-23
Locations Off the Continental Shelf 2-29
SUMMARY 2-30
XXV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Title Page
BASES FOR SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED SITE . 2-31
Geographical Position, Depth of Water Bottom
Topography and Distance from Coast 2-35
Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery,
Feeding, or Passage Areas of Living Resources in
Adult or Juvenile Phases 2-35
Location in Relation to Beaches and
Other Amenity Areas 2-36
Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed to be
Disposed of, and Proposed Methods of Release,
Including Methods of Packing the Waste, if Any 2-36
Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring 2-36
Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical
Mixing Characteristics of the Area, Including
Prevailing Current Direction and Velocity 2-37
Existence and Effects of Current and Previous
Discharges and Dumping in the Area
(Including Cumulative Effects) 2-37
Interference with Shipping, Fishing, Recreation,
Mineral Extraction, Desalination, Fish and Shellfish
Culture, Areas of Special Scientific Importance,
and Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean 2-38
The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Site
as Determined by Available Data or By Trend
Assessment or Baseline Surveys 2-38
Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of
Nuisance Species in the Disposal Site 2-38
Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any
Significant Natural or Cultural Features of
Historical Importance 2-38
CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED ACTION 2-39
Types of Wastes . 2-39
Waste Loadings 2-40
Disposal Methods 2-41
Dumping Schedules 2-41
Permit Conditions 2-41
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
THE 106-MILE SITE 3-1
Physical Conditions 3-1
Geological Conditions . 3-4
Chemical Conditions 3-5
Biological Concitions 3-6
Waste Disposal at the Site 3-7
Concurrent and Future Studies 3-7
Other Activities in the Site Vicinity 3-8
xxv i
-------
JABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Title Page
ALTERNATIVE SITES IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT 3-11
Physical Conditions 3-12
Geological Conditions 3-12
Chemical Conditions 3-13
Biological Conditions 3-15
Waste Disposal at the New York Bight Acid Wastes Site . . 3-16
Concurrent and Future Studies 3-24
Other Activities Within the New York Bight 3-25
DELAWARE BAY ACID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE 3-36
Physical Conditions 3-36
Geological Conditions ... 3-36
Chemical Conditions 3-36
Biological Conditions 3-36
Waste Disposal at the Site 3-37
Concurrent and Future Studies 3-40
Other Activities in the Site Vicinity 3-40
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 4-2
Commercial and Recreational Fish and Shellfish 4-2
Navigational Hazards 4-7
EFFECTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM 4-9
Plankton 4-12
Nekton 4-16
Benthos 4-17
Water and Sediment Quality 4-19
Short Dumping 4-28
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
AND MITIGATING MEASURES 4-30
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN USE OF THE SITE
AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 4-31
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES .... 4-32
5 SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL AT THE 106-MILE SITE 5-1
AMOUNTS OF SLUDGE DUMPED 5-6
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY 5-6
Fate of Sewage Sludge 5-9
Effects upon Water Chemistry 5-12
Interactions with Industrial Waste 5-16
Effects upon Organisms 5-17
Survival of Pathogens 5-18
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING . 5-22
SURVEILLANCE 5-23
ECONOMICS 5-23
XXV11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued!
Chapter Title Page
LOGISTICS 5-24
SUMMARY 5-24
CONCLUSIONS 5-25
6 LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1
7 GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES 7-1
GLOSSARY 7-1
UNITS OF MEASURE 7-18
REFERENCES 7-19
APPENDICES
A ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 106-MILE
OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITE A-l
B CONTAMINANT INPUTS TO THE 106-MILE OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITE ... B-l
C MONITORING C-l
D CHAPTER III, FINAL EIS ON OCEAN DUMPING OF
SEWAGE SLUDGE IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT D-l
E RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENT AND PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
ON THE THE DRAFT EIS E-l
ILLUSTRATIONS
Number Title Page
S-l Proposed Site (106-Mile Site) and All Alternative Sites xiii
2-1 Proposed Site (106-Mile Site) and All Alternative Sites 2-5
2-2 Categories of Existing Disposal Sites in the Mid-Atlantic 2-12
3-1 Alternative Disposal Sites 3-2
3-2 Location of the 106-Mile Site 3-3
3-3 Oil and Gas Leases in the New York Bight 3-9
3-4 Benthic Faunal Types in the Mid-Atlantic Bight 3-10
3-5 Distribution of Surf Clams, Ocean Quahogs, and Sea Scallops
in the Mid-Atlantic 3-17
3-6 Total Commercial Landings of Marine Finfishes
in the New York Bight Area, 1880-1975 3-26
3-7 Total Landings of Commercial Marine Shellfish in the
New York Bight Area, 1880-1975 3-27
3-8 Location of Foreign Fishing off the U.S. East Coast 3-28
3-9 Gravel Distribution in the New York Bight 3-31
3-10 Navigational Lanes in the Mid-Atlantic 3-32
3-11 Ocean Disposal Sites in the New York Bight Apex .... 3-34
3-12 Oil and Gas Leases Near Delaware Bay 3-42
5-1 Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal Sites 5-2
xxviii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
TABLES
Number Title Page
1-1 Responsibilities of Federal Departments and Agencies for
Regulating Ocean Waste Disposal Under MPRSA 1-7
2-1 Comparison of Contaminant Inputs to the New York Bight, 1973 . . . 2-14
2-2 Summary Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Industrial
Waste Disposal Sites 2-32
3-1 Amounts Dumped at the New York Bight Acid Wastes Disposal Site . . 3-18
3-2 Reported Dilution Values for Wastes Dumped at the Acid Site .... 3-20
3-3 Estimated Amounts of Trace Metals Released Annually at the
New York Bight Acid Wastes Disposal Site 3-21
3-4 Mass Load's of Trace Metals Entering the New York Bight, 1960-1974 . 3-22
3-5 Total Landings in 1974 of Five Major Commercial Finfishes
in the New York Bight 3-26
3-6 Total New York-New Jersey Commercial Landings in 1974
and 1976 of Important Shellfish Species in the New York Bight . . . 3-27
3-7 Quantities of Waste Dumped Annually at the Delaware Bay
Acid Waste Disposal Site 3-38
3-8 Estimated Quantities of Trace Metals Dumped Annually at the
Delaware Bay Acid Waste Disposal Site 3-39
3-9 Commercial Landings of Three Major Species of Finfish
for the Delaware Region, 1974 3-41
4-1 Characteristics of the Total Metal Analyses Used in
Studies at the 106-Mile Site 4-21
4-2 Worst-Case Contribution of Waste Metal Input to the Total Metal
Loading at the New York Bight Acid Waste Site 4-24
4-3 Round-Trip Transit Times to Alternative Sites (in Hours)
Based on Varied Vessel Speeds 4-30
5-1 History of the Proposal to Relocate Sewage Sludge Disposal
to the 106-Mile Site 5-4
5-2 Comparison of Typical Physical, Chemical, and Toxicological
Characteristics of Sewage Sludge and Industrial Waste
Dumped at the 106-Mile Site 5-7
5-3 Estimated Quantities of Sewage Sludge to be Dumped by
New York-New Jersey Permittees 1979 to 1981 5-8
5-4 Worst-Case Projections of Metal Loading Due to Sewage Sludge
Disposal in a Quadrant of the 106-Mile Site 5-15
5-5 Worst-Case Projections of Inorganic Nutrient Loading Due to
Sewage Sludge Disposal in a Quadrant of the 106-Mile Site .... 5-16
5-6 Important Sludge-Associated Human Pathogens ... 5-19
5-7 Factors Identified as Contributing to the "Die-Off" or
Decline of Sewage Pathogens 5-21
xxix
-------
Chapter 1
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
EPA proposes to designate the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal
Site for continuing use in accordance with the January 11,
1977 EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria. The site is
needed because land-based disposal methods for some
industrial wastes are not presently available. Chapter 1
defines the action to be taken, discusses the history of the
regulation of ocean disposal, and summarizes the legal regime
for identifying and evaluating viable options.
Disposal of waste materials in the ocean has been practiced for generations
on an international scale. Since enactment in the early 1970's of U.S.
legislation and international agreements controlling ocean disposal, the
numbers of industries and municipalities dumping wastes in the ocean have
decreased dramatically due to development of land-based disposal alternatives.
However, some industries and municipal waste treatment facilities produce
wastes that cannot, using current technology, be treated or disposed of safely
or economically on land, but can be disposed of in the ocean without, seriously
degrading the marine environment. Most of this waste-generating activity is
centered around the heavily populated and industrialized East Coast. To help
safely accommodate this need for ocean waste disposal, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to designate the 106-Mile Ocean Waste
*
Disposal Site (hereafter 106-Mile Site ) for continued use.
The 106-Mile Site has been used intermittently for ocean disposal since
1961. A wide variety of waste materials has been released within and near the
site. These included munitions, radioactive materials, acid, nonspecific
chemical wastes, sewage sludge, and residues from sewage sludge digesters. In
1973, EPA designated the site primarily for the interim disposal of industrial
chemical wastes, while studies of the effects of waste disposal at the site
*Also known elsewhere as Chemical Waste Site, Deepwater Dumpsite 106, Toxic
Chemical Site, and Industrial Waste Site.
1-1
-------
were underway. These research studies have continued since the spring of
1974. After five years of intensive study, no significant adverse effects
have been demonstrated from disposal of any of the waste materials.
More than 100 different dumpers have used the 106-Mile Site for waste
disposal since 1961. At present only four permittees are using the site (E.I.
du Pont de Nemours and Co. (Edge Moor and Grasselli plants), Merck and
Company, Inc., and American Cyanamid Co.). Despite this large decrease in
ocean disposal activity at the site, a present and future need exists for its
continued use. The reasons for this continuing need are four-fold: (1)
although three of the four current permittees (Du Font-Edge Moor, American
Cyanamid, and Merck) will cease ocean disposal within the next two years, they
must continue to dispose of their wastes in the ocean while alternative
land-based disposal methods are under development; (2) there are some Du
Pont-Grasselli wastes which cannot be disposed of by land-based methods, but
which can be dumped safely at the 106-Mile Site without degrading the
environment; (3) some municipal permittees dumping sewage sludge at the New
York Bight or Philadelphia Sewage Sludge Sites may be required to move ocean
disposal operations to the 106-Mile Site if public health is endangered or
marine water quality at the existing sludge sites is severely degraded; and
(4) a site of known environmental characteristics is required for disposal of
some wastes under emergency conditions.
By January 1, 1982 only wastes that can be demonstrated to comply with
EPA's environmental impact criteria and cannot be disposed of on land or in
inland waters, will be permitted to be dumped in the ocean. For the short
term, however, while land-based disposal methods are being developed, some
industrial chemicals and sewage sludge must continue to be disposed of in the
ocean, even though these materials have not been demonstrated to meet the
impact criteria. Neither Merck, American Cyanamid, nor the municipal sludge
permittees have demonstrated compliance with the impact criteria; however,
because they have demonstrated an adequate need for ocean disposal,
accompanied by a schedule for developing suitable land-based alternatives,
these dumpers are permitted to use the ocean for waste disposal on interim
bases.
1-2
-------
As part of its decision-making process, EPA has investigated all reasonable
alternatives to the continued use of the 106-Mile Site. Two broad categories
of alternatives exist: (1) take no action, thereby requiring use of other
disposal methods, or, if other disposal methods are unavailable, causing
cessation of the waste-producing processes; or (2) designate and use another
ocean location for disposing of these wastes. Based upon a careful review of
the alternatives, EPA feels that designation of the 106-Mile Site for
continued use is the preferred alternative.
The Draft EIS was published in June 1979 and circulated for public review.
A public hearing was held in August 1979 to solicit additional comment. In
response to the comments received, EPA has provided additional information
within the Final EIS to better assist decision-makers in addressing the
proposed site designation.
Therefore, based upon the continued need for ocean disposal, the lack of
any significant adverse impact as determined by the research studies conducted
at the site, and the lack of a better alternative to designating this
particular site, EPA proposes to designate the 106-Mile Site for continued
use. Continued use of the site will allow approved dumping of the wastes
released there under current ocean dumping permits, and will provide for the
disposal of new wastes which the EPA deems acceptable for ocean disposal. EPA
Region II will manage the site; regulate times, rates, methods of disposal,
and quantities and types of materials disposed; develop and maintain effective
monitoring programs for the site; conduct disposal site evaluation studies;
and recommend modifications in site use or designation as necessary.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
Before the early 1970's, there was little regulation of ocean waste
disposal. Limited regulation was provided primarily by the New York Harbor
Act of 1888, which empowered the Secretary of the Army to prohibit disposal of
wastes, except from streets and sewers, into the harbors of New York, Hampton
1-3
-------
Roads, and Baltimore. The Refuse Act of 1899 prohibited the disposal of
materials into navigable waters when disposal impeded safe navigation. Under
these Acts, selection of disposal locations by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (CE) and the issuance of permits for ocean disposal were based
primarily upon transportation and navigation factors rather than upon
environmental concerns.
Public interest in the effects of ocean disposal was aroused in 1969 and
1970 by a number of incidents involving the disposal of warfare agents in the
ocean. Simultaneous studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and several universities identified potential adverse
effects of sewage sludge and industrial waste disposal in the New York Bight.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 1970 report to the President,
identified poorly regulated waste disposal in the marine environment as a
potential environmental danger.
CEQ's report and the increasing public awareness of the potential
undesirable effects of poorly regulated ocean waste disposal were primarily
responsible for the enactment, of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972 (PL 92-532, as amended) , the primary U.S.
legislation now regulating barged waste disposal in the ocean. Seeking advice
and counsel from EPA marine scientists, and from marine specialists in
universities, industries, environmental groups, and Federal and state
agencies, EPA developed criteria which would provide effective technical bases
for the regulatory program required by the Act. The criteria were published
in May 1973, finalized in October 1973, and revised in January 1977. The
criteria are used to evaluate the need for ocean waste disposal, and the
potential impact of disposal on the marine environment.
The Clean Water Act: (CWA) of 1977 (PL 95-217) amended and replaced earlier
legislation which established a comprehensive regulatory program to control
discharges of pollutants from outfalls into navigable waters of the United
States, including ocean waters. The primary objective of the CWA is to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
nation's waters. CWA regulates discharges by the promulgation of criteria to
1-4
-------
prevent degradation of the marine environment (Section 403), and the
application of the criteria in the issuance of permits (Section 402). Thus,
CWA and MPRSA are the primary Federal legislative means which are used to
control ocean waste disposal, via ocean outfalls or by dumping at offshore
disposal sites.
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT
The MPRSA regulates the transportation and ultimate dumping of waste
materials in ocean waters. The Act is divided into three parts: Title
I - Ocean Dumping, Title II - Comprehensive Research on Ocean Dumping, and
Title III - Marine Sanctuaries. This EIS concentrates on Title I, speci-
fically Section 102(c), which charges EPA with the responsibility for
designating sites and times for dumping.
Title I, the primary regulatory section of the Act, establishes the permit
program for the disposal of dredged and non-dredged materials, mandates
determination of impacts, and provides for enforcement of permit conditions.
Through Title I, the Act provides a procedure for regulating ocean disposal of
waste originating from any country, into ocean waters under the jurisdiction
or control of the United States. Any transport for dumping in U.S. waters
requires a similar permit. Title I requires that a permit be obtained by any
person of any nationality wishing to transport waste material from any U.S.
port or under a U.S. flag with the intention of disposing of it anywhere in
the world's oceans.
Title I prohibits the dumping in ocean waters of certain wastes, among them
biological, radiological, and chemical warfare agents, and all high-level
radioactive wastes. Title I was further amended in November 1977 (PL 95-153)
*
to prohibit dumping of harmful sewage sludge after December 31, 1981. The
Harmful sewage sludge is defined by PL 95-153 as sewage sludge that "may
significantly degrade or endanger human health, welfare and amenities, the
marine environment and ecological systems, or economic potential."
1-5
-------
provisions of Title I include criminal fines of $50,000 maximum and jail
sentences of up to one year for every unauthorized dump or violation of permit
requirement, or a civil fine of $50,000 maximum. Any individual may seek an
injunction against any unauthorized dumper with possible recovery of all costs
of litigation.
Title II of MPRSA provides; for comprehensive research and monitoring of
ocean dumping effects on the marine environment. Under Title II, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) ocean dumping program has
conducted extensive survey and laboratory investigations over the past several
years at ocean waste disposal sites in the North Atlantic Ocean. This work
aids EPA in site management by providing data for site-use decisions.
Several Federal departments and agencies share responsibilities under the
Act (Table 1-1). The major responsibilities are mandated to EPA to review,
grant, and enforce dumping permits for all wastes except dredged materials,
and to designate and manage all disposal sites. In October 1973, EPA
implemented its responsibility for regulating ocean dumping under MPRSA by
issuing final Ocean Dumping Emulations and Criteria (hereafter the "Ocean
Dumping Regulations"), which were revised in January 1977 (40 CFR, Parts 220
to 229). These regulations! established procedures and criteria for:
designating and managing ocean disposal sites (Part 228), reviewing ocean
disposal permit applications and assessing impacts of ocean disposal and (Part
227), and enforcing permits. Interim disposal sites were authorized pending
final designation for continuing, or a decision to terminate use. The 106-Mile
Site was one of 14 municipal and industrial sites approved for interim use.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE) issues permits for disposal of
dredged material after determining compliance of the material with EPA's
environmental impact criteria (40 CFR 227). Compliance with the criteria is
subject to EPA's concurrence. The CE is responsible for evaluating disposal
applications and granting permits to dumpers of dredged materials, whereas
dredged material disposal sites are designated and managed by EPA.
1-6
-------
TABLE 1-1
RESPONSIBILITIES OF FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
FOR REGULATING OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL UNDER MPRSA
Department/Agency
Responsibility
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Issuance of waste disposal permits,
other than for dredged material.
Establishment of criteria for
regulating waste disposal.
Enforcement actions.
Site designation and management.
Overall ocean disposal program
management.
U.S. Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
Issuance of dredged material
disposal permits.
U.S. Department of Transportation
Coast Guard
Surveillance.
Enforcement support.
Issuance of regulations.
Review of permit applications,
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Research on alternative
disposal techniques.
ocean
Long-term monitoring and research.
Comprehensive ocean dumping impact
and short-term effect studies.
Marine sanctuary designation.
U.S. Department of Justice
Court actions.
U.S. Department of State
International agreements.
1-7
-------
Under MPRSA, the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is assigned
responsibility by the Secretary of Transportation for conducting surveillance
of disposal operations to ensure compliance with permit conditions and to
discourage unauthorized disposal. Violations are referred to EPA for
enforcement. Surveillance is accomplished by means of spot checks of disposal
vessels for valid permits, interception or escorting of dump vessels, use of
shipriders, aircraft overflights during dumping, and random surveillance
missions at land facilities. An automated Ocean Dumping Surveillance System
(ODSS) based on electronic navigation has been field-tested and evaluated by
the USCG for future use in routine surveillance. For the present, shipriders
are the primary means of surveillance at the 106-Mile Site.
Under Title II of MPRSA, NOAA conducts comprehensive monitoring and
research programs on the effects of ocean dumping on the marine environment,
including short-term effects and potential long-term effects of pollution,
over-fishing, and other man-induced changes in oceanic ecosystems. Title III
of MPRSA authorizes NOAA to designate coastal marine sanctuaries, after
consultation with other affected federal agencies, and to regulate all
activities within the sanctuaries.
The Department of Justice initiates relief actions in court, at EPA's
request in response to violations of the terms of MPRSA. When necessary,
injunctions to cease ocean dumping are sought. Fines and jail sentences may
be levied, based upon the magnitudes of the violations.
The Department of State seeks effective international action and
cooperation in protection of the marine environment by negotiating inter-
national agreements which further the goals of MPRSA. The most significant
international negotiation with respect to ocean dumping is the Convention on
the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter
(hereafter the "Convention" or the "London Dumping Convention") which is
discussed later in this chapter.
The MPRSA has been amended several times since its enactment in 1972. Most
amendments provide for annual appropriations for administration of MPRSA.
1-8
-------
However, two of the amendments are noteworthy. First, passage of an amendment
in March 1974 (PL 93-254), brought the Act into full compliance with the
Convention. Second, an amendment (PL 95-153) passed in November 1977,
prohibits disposal of harmful sewage sludge in ocean waters after December 31,
1981.
OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
Under Section 102(c) of the MPRSA, the EPA Administrator is authorized to
designate sites and times for ocean disposal, provided that the waste does not
contain prohibited materials, and will not significantly degrade, or endanger,
human health, welfare, and amenities, the marine environment and ecological
systems, or economic potential. In response to this mandate, EPA established
criteria for designating sites in its Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria
(Part 228). These include criteria for site selection and procedures for
designating the sites for disposal. Through this and other EIS's, EPA is
conducting in-depth studies of various dump sites to determine their
acceptability in keeping with the criteria. The agency has designated a
number of existing dump sites on an interim basis for use pending completion
of the studies and formal designation or termination of the sites. (See 40
CFR §228.12, as amended January 16, 1980 [45 Fed. Reg. 3053].) The 106-Mile
Site is included in these interim designations.
General criteria for selection of sites, as provided in the Regulations,
are:
(a) The dumping of materials into the ocean will be
permitted only at sites or in areas selected to minimize the
interference of disposal activities with other activities in
the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of
existing fisheries or shell fisheries, and regions of heavy
commercial or recreational navigation.
(b) Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so
chosen that temporary perturbations in water quality or other
environmental conditions during initial mixing caused by
disposal operations anywhere within the site can be expected
to be reduced to normal ambient seawater levels or to
undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before
1-9
-------
reaching any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known
geographically limited, fishery or shellfishery.
(c) If at anytime during or after disposal site evaluation
studies, it is determined that existing disposal sites
presently approved on an interim basis do not meet the
criteria for site selection set forth in [Sections] 228.5 to
228.6, the use of such sites will be terminated as soon as
suitable alternate disposal sites can be designated.
(d) The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in
order to localize for identification and control any
immediate adverse impacts and permit the implementation of
effective monitoring and surveillance programs to prevent
adverse long-term impacts. The size, configuration, and
location of any disposal site will be determined as a part of
the disposal site evaluation or designation study.
(e) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping
sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf, and other
such sites that have been historically used. [Section 228.5]
Factors considered under the specific criteria for site selection relate
more closely to conditions at the proposed sites by treating the general
criteria in additional detail. A proposed site which satisfies the specific
criteria for site selection conforms to the broader general criteria. The
factors to be considered are:
(1) Geographical position, depth of water, bottom topography
and distance from coast:;
(2) Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery,
feeding, or passage areas of living resources in adult or
juvenile phases;
(3) Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas;
(4) Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed
of and proposed methods of release, including methods of
packing the waste, if any;
(5) Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring;
(6) Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing
characteristics of the area, including prevailing current
direction and velocity, if any;
1-10
-------
(7) Existence and effects of current and previous discharges
and dumping in the area (including cumulative effects);
(8) Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral
extraction, desalination, fish and shellfish culture, areas
of special scientific importance, and other legitimate uses
of the ocean;
(9) The existing water quality and ecology of the site as
determined by available data or by trend assessment or
baseline surveys;
(10) Potentiality for the development or recruitment of
nuisance species in the disposal site;
(11) Existence at or in close proximity to the site of any
significant natural or cultural features of historical
importance [Section 228.6a].
These factors are addressed relative to the 106-Mile Site in Chapter 2.
Once designated, the site must be monitored for adverse impacts of waste
disposal. EPA monitors the following types of effects to determine the extent
of marine environmental impacts due to material released at the site:
• Movement of materials into estuaries or marine
sanctuaries, or onto oceanfront beaches, or shorelines;
• Movement of materials toward productive fishery or
shellfishery areas;
• Absence from the disposal site of pollution-sensitive
biota characteristic of the general area;
• Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in water quality or
sediment composition at the disposal site, when these
changes are attributable to materials disposed of at the
site;
• Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in composition or
numbers of pelagic, demersal, or benthic biota at or
near the disposal site, when these changes can be
attributed to the effects of materials disposed of at
the site;
• Accumulation of material constituents (including without
limitation, human pathogens) in marine biota at or near
the site [Section 228.10b].
1-11
-------
EPA has established impacl: categories in its Ocean Dumping Regulations
(Section 228.10) which specify impacts, detected by means of site monitoring,
which require modifications in disposal site usage:
(1) IMPACT CATEGORY I: The effects of activities at the
disposal site shall be categorized in Impact Category I when
one or more of the Jfollowing conditions is present and can
reasonably be attributed to ocean dumping activities:
(i) There is identifiable progressive movement or accumu-
lation, in detectable concentrations above normal ambient
values, of any waste or waste constituent from the disposal
site within 12 nautical miles of any shoreline, marine
sanctuary designated under Title III of the Act, or critical
area designated under Section 102 (c) of the Act; or
(ii) The biota, sediments, or water column of the disposal
site, or aay area outside the disposal site where any waste
or waste constituent from the disposal site is present in
detectable concentrations above normal ambient values, are
adversely affected by the toxicity of such waste or waste
constituent to the extent that there are statistically
significant decreases in the populations of valuable
commercial or recreational species, or of specific species of
biota essential to the propagation of such species, within
the disposal site and such other area as compared to
populations of the same organisms in comparable locations
outside such site and area; or
(iii) Solid waste material disposed of at the site has
accumulated at the site or in areas adjacent to it, to such
an extent that major uses of the site or of adjacent areas
are significantly impaired and the Federal or State agency
responsible for regulating such uses certifies that such
significant impairment has occurred and states in its
certificate the basis for its determination of such
impairment;; or
(iv) There are adverse effects on the taste or odor of
valuable commercial or recreational species as a result of
disposal activities; or
(v) When any toxic waste, toxic waste constituent, or toxic
byproduct of waste interaction, is consistently identified in
toxic concentrations above normal ambient values outside the
disposal site more than four hours after disposal.
(2) IMPACT CATEGORY II: The effects of activities at the
disposal site which are not categorized in Impact Category I
shall be categorized in Impact Category II [Section 228.10c].
1-12
-------
OCEAN DUMPING PERMIT PROGRAM
EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations establish a program for the application,
evaluation, and issuance of ocean dumping permits. When a site is selected
and duly designated, permits for the use of the site can be issued by CE for
dredged material dumping and by EPA for other dumping. The Ocean Dumping
Regulations are specific about the procedures used to evaluate permit
applications, and the granting or denial of such applications. EPA and the CE
evaluate permit applications principally to determine whether there are (1) a
demonstrated need for ocean disposal and proof that no other reasonable
alternatives exist (40 CFR 227 Subpart C) , .and (2) compliance with the
environmental impact criteria (40 CFR 227 Subparts B, D, and E).
Compliance with EPA's environmental impact criteria ensures that the
proposed waste disposal will not "unduly degrade or endanger the marine
environment," and will not cause unacceptable adverse effects on human health,
the marine ecosystem, or other uses of the ocean. The criteria are too
lengthy to include here; however, the relevant points are briefly summarized
below.
• Prohibited Materials: High-level radioactive wastes; materials
produced for radiological, chemical, or biological warfare; unknown
materials; persistent floatable materials which interfere with other
uses of the ocean
• Materials present as trace contaminants only: Organohalogens; mer-
cury and mercury compounds; cadmium and cadmium compounds; oil;
known or suspected carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens
• Trace contaminants in the liquid fraction must neither exceed the
marine water quality criteria, nor exist in toxic and bioaccumu-
lative forms after initial mixing
• Bioassays on the suspended particulate or solid fractions must not
indicate occurrence of significant mortality or significant adverse
sublethal effects, including bioaccumulation due to waste dumping
• When bioassay methods are unavailable: Maximum concentrations of
mercury and cadmium apply; organohalogen concentrations must be less
than is known to be toxic to organisms; oils in the waste must not
produce a visible sheen on the water
1-13
-------
• Trace contaminants must neither render edible marine organisms
unpalatable nor endanger health of humans, domestic animals,
shellfish, or wildlife.
Six types of ocean dumping; permits may be issued: Interim, Special,
General, Emergency, Research, and Incineration-at-Sea. With few exceptions,
EPA has issued only Interim Permits. These permits are valid for one year
maximum. They are issued when the permittee cannot demonstrate compliance of
the waste with the environmental impact criteria, but can demonstrate that the
need for ocean disposal is of greater significance to the public interest than
possible adverse environmental impacts. Moreover, Interim Permits cannot be
issued to applicants who were not issued dumping permits before April 23,
1978. Holders of present Interim Permits must have a compliance schedule
which will ensure either the complete phaseout of ocean dumping or compliance
with the environmental impact criteria by December 31, 1981. After that date,
EPA will not issue Interim Permits and ocean disposal of harmful wastes will
cease. At the 106-Mile Site, American Cyanamid and Merck are dumping under
Interim Permits.
Special Permits, which are issued when the applicant can adequately
demonstrate compliance of the wastes with the environmental impact criteria
and can demonstrate a need for ocean disposal, may be issued for a maximum of
three years. Holders of Specisl Permits are not subject to the 1981 deadline
for cessation of the ocean disposal of harmful wastes. Some industrial
permittees have been granted Elpecial Permits. Specifically, at the 106-Mile
Site, Du Font-Edge Moor and Du Pont-Grasselli are holders of Special Permits.
General Permits may be issued for ocean disposal of small amounts of
materials which will have minimal adverse effects upon the environment.
Examples of materials which warrant a General Permit include human remains or
ashes for burial at sea, target vessels for ordnance testing, and derelict
vessels transported for scuttling.
Emergency Permits may be issued for ocean disposal of materials which pose
an unacceptable risk to human health, and for which there is' no other
reasonable disposal technique. Emergency Permit requests are considered
1-14
-------
case-by-case by EPA on the basis of the waste's characteristics and the safest
means for its disposal.
Research Permits may be issued for dumping material into the ocean as part
of a research project, when the scientific merit of the project outweighs the
potential adverse impacts of the dumping. EPA designates the disposal site(s)
to be used by Research Permit holders on the basis of the nature of the study
project.
Incineration-at-Sea Permits are either Research, Interim, or Special
permits. Current Incineration-at-Sea permits are Special Permits, issued for
disposal at the New York Bight Wood Incineration Site. As Special Permits,
they are issued for a maximum of three years. Burning is conducted under
controlled weather conditions; the ash is transported back to shore and used
as landfill. Research and Interim Permits have been issued by EPA in the past
for the incineration of organochlorine wastes, but not in the New York Bight.
INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The principal international agreement governing ocean dumping is the
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter (London Dumping Convention), which became effective in August
1975, upon ratification by 15 contracting countries. Designed to control
dumping of wastes in the oceans, the Convention specifies that contracting
nations will regulate disposal in the marine environment within their
jurisdiction, disallowing all disposal without permits. Certain other
hazardous materials are prohibited, such as biological, radiological, and
chemical warfare agents and high-level radioactive matter. Certain other
materials (e.g., cadmium, mercury, organohalogens and their compounds, oil,
and persistent synthetic materials which float) are prohibited, except when
present as trace contaminants. Other materials - arsenic, lead, copper, zinc,
cyanide, fluoride, organosilicon, and pesticides - while not prohibited from
ocean disposal, require special care. Permits are required for at-sea
disposal of materials not specifically prohibited. The nature and quantities
1-15
-------
of all waste material, and the circumstances of disposal, must be periodically
reported to the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO)
which is responsible for administration of the Convention. Effective in March
1979, the Convention was amended to incorporate regulations for control of
incineration of wastes at sea to be enforced nationally.
1-16
-------
Chapter 2
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
Some industrial waste products, which cannot be disposed
of using land-based methods, can be safely dumped in the
ocean until other disposal alternatives are developed. To
meet the need for a suitable oceanic location for waste
disposal, EPA has evaluated five sites for environmental
acceptability, feasibility and ease of monitoring and
surveillance, economic burden, and logistics. Based upon
this evaluation, the 106-Mile Site is judged to be the
preferred alternative for disposal of the industrial wastes
under consideration. As a special case, EPA has evaluated
the feasibility of using the 106-Mile Site for sludge
disposal. It is judged that, upon a threat to public health
or water quality from sludge dumping at existing sites, the
106-Mile Site could provide an alternative location for
short-term sewage sludge disposal.
After reviewing the alternatives, EPA proposes that the 106-Mile Ocean
Waste Disposal Site be designated for continuing use. The following
alternatives were considered:
• No Action.
• Proposed Action: Designate the 106-Mile Site for continuing use.
• Use of Other Sites: Designate a site other than the 106-Mile Site.
Evaluation of the alternatives was based upon several factors:
• Environmental acceptability
• Feasibility and ease of monitoring
• Feasibility and ease of surveillance
• Economic burden
• Logistics
This EIS does not specifically address land-based alternatives to ocean
disposal because the feasibility and availability of land-based disposal
2-1
-------
processes is assessed on a case-by-case basis as part of EPA's ocean dumping
permit process. For example, Merck, American Cyanamid, and Du Font-Edge Moor,
presently authorized to dump wastes at the 106-Mile Site, are only using ocean
disposal pending development, of land-based processes which will permit
reclamation or disposal of the wastes. However, present-day technology is
inadequate to supply land-based disposal alternatives for Du Pont-Grasselli's
waste. Du Pont-Grasselli has; demonstrated that its waste satisfies EPA's
environmental impact criteria, thus EPA has authorized disposal of this waste
at the 106-Mile Site, with the stipulation that Du Pont continue to seek
land-based alternatives for the waste.
Use of the 106-Mile Site as; an alternate site for sewage sludge disposal
was addressed in the Final EIS on the Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in the
New York Bight (EPA, 1978). The present EIS presents additional consider-
ations about the environmental acceptability of sewage sludges at the 106-Mile
Site (Chapter 5) and includes Chapter III - Alternatives to the Proposed
Action - of the above EIS as Appendix D. Land-based alternatives for sewage
sludge disposal are discussed in Appendix D.
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No-Action alternative would result in canceling or postponing the
designation of an industrial waste disposal site off the Middle Atlantic
States, thus requiring disposal of industrial wastes by other means; or, if
other means of disposal were unavailable, would require termination of the
waste-producing processes. This alternative would be preferred under certain
conditions: (1) existence of technologically, environmentally, and
economically feasible land-based disposal methods; or (2) evidence that ocean
disposal causes sufficiently adverse environmental consequences to preclude it
from consideration. Neither of these No-Action conditions applies to the
proposed use of the 106-Mile S:.te for waste disposal.
In Chapter 1, a need was established for designating the 106-Mile Site for
continued use. EPA evaluates the feasibility of land-based disposal methods
when evaluating applications Jior ocean dumping permits, and permits are not
2-2
-------
issued if a waste can be disposed of safely on land. Therefore, the present
106-Mile Site permittees have adequately demonstrated that land-based disposal
is currently unfeasible for their wastes. The consequences of terminating the
waste generation, because no disposal methods were available, would be
dramatic. In the case of American Cyanamid, for example, shut-down of the
Warners plant would result in the direct loss of 850 jobs, valued at
$14,000,000 annually (Reid, 1978). The impact would have other effects.
American Cyanamid is the sole U.S. producer of malathion, a nonpersistent
insecticide, which is widely used for protection of crops and eradication of
several disease-causing insects. Termination of malathion production would be
felt around the world. Shut-down of any of the other permittees could create
additional negative consequences.
Most important, past dumping at the 106-Mile Site has not appeared to cause
sufficiently severe adverse effects to preclude use of the site for waste
disposal. This subject is treated more fully in Chapter 4. The short-term
dumping effects on organisms at the site are generally known. In the initial
stages of waste dilution, acute plankton mortality occurs as the pH of the
receiving water changes. But this effect is mitigated by the subsequent rapid
dilution and neutralization which occurs as the waste is dispersed throughout
the mixing zone. After dumping, levels of trace elements in the water are
elevated for a period of time; however, barge speeds and waste discharge
rates, which are stipulated in the dumping permit, ensure that waste
concentrations do not exceed the limiting permissible concentration at any
time. Studies are still underway investigating the subtle and long-range
effects of dumping at the site.
CONTINUED USE OF THE 106-MILE SITE
The proposed action is to continue use of the 106-Mile Site for waste
disposal. This section summarizes anticipated impacts, forming the basis for
comparison with the other alternatives (discussed later in this chapter).
The 106-Mile Site was established in 1965 for the disposal of industrial
wastes not suitable for land disposal. It is located approximately 110 nmi
2-3
-------
(200 km) southeast of Ambrose Light, New York, and approximately 130 nmi
(240 km) east of Cape Henlopen, Delaware (Figure 2-1). The site covers almost
. 2 2
500 nmi (1,700 km ) on the Continental Slope and Continental Rise, and its
latitudes and longitudes are 38°40'N to 39°00'N, and 72°00'W to 72°30'W,
respectively. Water depths at the site range from 1,440 m (in the topo-
graphically rugged northwest corner) to 2,750 m (in the relatively flat
southeast corner). An inactive munitions waste disposal site is within the
site boundaries, arid an inactive radioactive waste disposal area is 10 nmi
(18 km) due south.
NOAA, assisted by other government agencies and academic institutions, has
been surveying this site for many years, and has published its observations in
two summary reports (NOAA, 1975, 1977), several memoranda, public hearing
testimony, and in its annual report to Congress (NOAA, 1978). A private
contractor, acting on behalf of the permittees, has been monitoring the site
for two years.
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY
Continued use of the 106-Mile Site for waste disposal will not directly
endanger public health. The site is not in a commercially or recreationally
important fishing or shellfishing area. Most mid-Atlantic fishing is on the
Continental Shelf or along the Shelf/Slope break. Infrequent domestic and
foreign fishing occurs at or near the site, but usage is variable and
dependent on occurrence of water masses or eddies which affect fish abundance
and distribution. There is a slight potential that some of the nekton caught
at or near the site may have accumulated low levels of trace contaminants from
wastes dumped at the site. However, the low level of fishing activity in the
area, in combination with the extreme conditions necessary for bioaccumulation
of contaminants in amounts which are unhealthy to man, make the potential
threat to human health from dumping at this site slight.
Thus far, no studies have shown long-term adverse effects on water and
sediment quality or on the site biota. The natural variability of the water
at the site, resulting from the interaction of three major water masses,
causes much greater changes in the biotal assemblages of the site and vicinity
than waste disposal.
2-4
-------
41°
40°
75°
1. New York Bight Acid
Wastes Dispoal Site
2. Northern Area
3. Southern Area
4. Delaware Bay Acid
Waste Disposal Site
5. 106-Mile Ocean
Waste Disposal Site
(Proposed)
74°
73°
72°
39J
38°
41°
40°
39°
38°
75°
74°
73°
72°
Figure 2-1. Proposed Site (106-Mile Site) and All Alternative Sites
2-5
-------
Routine laboratory bioassay tests performed on the waste, together with
/••
field dispersion data, indicate that levels of contaminants in the waste are
rapidly diluted upon discharge, and concentrations of the waste contaminants
do not remain elevated long enough to cause significant mortality in
organisms. Field monitoring by NOAA (1975, 1977) has confirmed these
observations. Laboratory studies on wastes currently being released at the
site have shown adverse effects only at concentrations much higher than those
occurring in the site. Although laboratory studies cannot be directly
extrapolated to the ocean environment, the differences between the concen-
trations found at the site and the very high concentrations required for
measurable effects in the laboratory, provide safety factors for short-term
and long-term adverse impacts. Detailed discussions of environmental
consequences of waste disposal at the site appear in Chapter 4.
The wastes presently permitted to be dumped at the site are primarily
aqueous solutions and are discharged relatively slowly over a large area; thus
there is extensive dilution and dispersion of disposed wastes. Monitoring by
acoustic means has shown that pycnoclines act as barriers to downward movement
of waste materials. Consequently, adverse bottom impacts are highly unlikely.
This conclusion has been corroborated by benthic investigations at the site.
Future wastes, with chemical and physical properties similar to present
wastes, are expected to behave in the same manner, thus causing no adverse
impacts.
The debate is long standing on whether containment or dispersal is the
preferred method of managing wastes at an ocean disposal site. At several
locations in the ocean surrounding the U.S., toxic wastes have been deposited
in barrels which are now on the sea floor. However, in the case of industrial
wastes of relatively low toxicity, dispersing mechanisms have been employed to
disperse and dilute the material widely and quickly. This is the procedure
that has been followed in the past at the 106-Mile Site.
Observations from field studies of wastes dumped at the site have justified
the concept of waste dispersal being preferred to containment for aqueous
wastes dumped at this location, The rate of dumping for each waste can be
gauged to the chemical and physical character of material, to ensure that
2-6
-------
sufficient dilution occurs to keep waste concentrations below the limiting
permissible concentration after the period of initial mixing. Thus there is
no reason to change the waste management practices in future use of the
106-Mile Site, given the same kinds of wastes as those presently dumped.
Sewage sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site will be considered only upon a
finding by EPA that the existing sewage sludge sites cannot safely accommodate
additional sludge release without endangering public health or unacceptably
degrading coastal water quality. The alternative sites discussed later in
this chapter would be designated for industrial wastes, not sewage sludge.
Chapter 5 discusses in more detail the environmental acceptability of
releasing sewage sludge at the site; the major findings are summarized here:
• Volumes of sludge requiring ocean disposal will increase 150% from
1978 to 1981.
• Settling of sludge particles would be strongly inhibited by the
seasonal and permanent pycnoclines at about 10 to 50 m and 100 to
150 m depth, respectively.
• Horizontal dispersion would probably exceed vertical settling by at
least two orders of magnitude.
• Sludge would add only 1% additional nitrogen to the site.
Therefore, excessive phytoplankton blooms are not expected.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
The purpose of monitoring a waste disposal site is to ensure that long-term
adverse impacts do not develop unnoticed, especially adverse impacts which are
irreversible or irretrievable. As NOAA has observed in its baseline report on
effects of dumping at the 106-Mile Site, monitoring is more difficult at sites
beyond the Continental Shelf:
This is due to factors such as greater depths of water and
distances from shore and also to the general paucity of
environmental and biological information in off-the-shelf
areas. In the case of [the 106-Mile Site], this situation
is further complicated by the interactions of major water
masses, Shelf Water, Slope Water, and Gulf Stream eddies.
The [site] is a complex oceanographic area in which to
assess natural environmental conditions and the impact of
man's activities upon those conditions (NOAA, 1977).
2-7
-------
Another problem in monitoring involves assessing the interaction of liquid
wastes with the surrounding water and marine life. Under the dynamic
conditions at the 106-Mile Sil;e, long-term impacts will be nearly impossible
to measure because affected plants and animals will most likely have moved out
of the area, either by swimming or drifting with the water. The difficulty of
monitoring long-term impacts in the water column is inherent in aqueous waste
disposal at any oceanic site. Monitoring at the site is further complicated
by the presence of sunken munitions within the site boundaries and radioactive
waste barrels just outside the southern site boundary. Any benthic sampling
near these locations must be conducted carefully.
SURVEILLANCE
Nearshore sites permit \.se of patrol vessels and helicopters for
surveillance; however, until other techniques are developed, surveillance at
the 106-Mile Site will require use of observers (shipriders) because the site
is located outside the range of other means of surveillance. The USCG has
stated that the program goal for surveillance at industrial waste sites is 75%
coverage of all industrial dumping operations.
ECONOMICS
TRANSPORTATION COSTS
The cost of barging chemical wastes to the 106-Mile Site is estimated to be
in the range of $8.80 to $11.00 per metric ton ($8.00 to $10.00 per ton).
Therefore, the total cost of industrial waste disposal at the site in 1978
(730,000 metric tons) was about $6.4 to $8.0 million for all permittees. The
port of departure affects the costs somewhat because vessels transiting from
ports in Delaware River and Bay must travel a greater distance to the site
than vessels coming from New York Harbor. The total cost of disposal at the
site will drop as some permittees phase out ocean dumping; however, the costs
to individual permittees will rise as a result of inflation and increased fuel
prices.
2-8
-------
MONITORING COSTS
The costs of monitoring at the 106-Mile Site are high compared to other
areas, because of the complexity of the environment and distance from shore.
NOAA is responsible for comprehensive and continuing monitoring. A cost to
NOAA of $1 million per year has been estimated to conduct seasonal monitoring
surveys, based on a cost ranging from $200,000 to $300,000 for EPA or NOAA
baseline surveys (Breidenbach, 1977). The cost to permittees for monitoring
is high, primarily due to the site's great distance from shore.
If new materials, industrial and/or municipal sludge for example, were
permitted to be released at the site, monitoring costs would increase
substantially. The new permittees would be required to perform dispersion
studies and other investigations concerned with short-term effects of waste
discharges, which would augment the existing monitoring program. NOAA would
have to intensify its monitoring to determine if the biota is affected by
interactions between waste types, and to assess long-term trends.
SURVEILLANCE COSTS
The current U.S. Coast Guard Instruction regarding surveillance and
enforcement of dumping at ocean disposal sites establishes a goal of observing
75% of all industrial waste disposal operations (USCG, 1976). Surveillance
activities include stationing a shiprider onboard the vessel to observe the
disposal operation, conducting random spot checks before the barge leaves
port, and checking vessel logs for departure and arrival times. The USCG
presently assigns several full-time people to the surveillance of disposal
activities in the Bight, including the 106-Mile Site. Use of shipriders at
the 106-Mile Site represents the most efficient (and least expensive) means of
surveillance at this site. Use of shipriders results in a lower cost per
mission than other means of surveillance. However, distance of a site from
shore greatly affects the length of each mission and therefore impacts
associated costs.
2-9
-------
LOSS OF BIOTIC OR MINERAL RESOURCES
Almost all U.S. fishing activities are located over the Continental Shelf.
Wastes dumped at the site would be extremely dilute, when and if they reached
the Continental Shelf. Therefore, it is unlikely that stocks would be
adversely affected by disposal operations.
Red crabs on the Continental Shelf/Slope break near the site represent a
potentially valuable resource which may be exploited further in the future.
However, no crabs of commercial size occur in the site and the adult crabs are
taken sufficiently far from the site that wastes released at the site are not
likely to reach them.
Foreign ships fish along che edge of the entire Continental Shelf from
Georges Bank to Cape Hatteras, especially during the late winter and early
spring. However, the site is not a unique location for foreign fishing, nor
does it obstruct migration routes of species valuable to foreign fishermen.
Therefore, the probability of foreign fish stocks being affected by disposal
operations at the site is extremely remote.
Future oil and gas development is possible near the site, although
virtually no mid-Atlantic oil exploration occurs presently off the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf. Waste disposal would not interfere with petroleum
exploration or production activities. The only potential navigational hazard
would result from barge traffic to and from the site.
LOGISTICS
Use of the 106-Mile Site presents some logistics problems. A distant
disposal site requires careful transport operation planning. Weather
conditions in the mid-Atlantic are subject to rapid change, and must be
carefully monitored for adequate passages to permit a barge or tanker to
complete transits in safety. Emergency discharge of wastes prior to reaching
the legal site (called "short dumping") becomes more likely in transit to a
distant site, as the length of time spent at sea increases.
2-10
-------
The site is outside the heavily used transit lanes to New York Harbor, and
is convenient to the ports of New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. This
location has advantages over several existing nearshore New York Bight sites
which are near the entrance to New York Harbor, an area congested with ship
traffic of all types. Therefore, the dumping operation (which can take 5 to 6
hours) at the 106-Mile Site is less likely to impact other ship traffic
adversely.
USE OF ALTERNATIVE EXISTING SITES
Eight municipal and industrial waste disposal sites (aside from dredged
material sites and the proposed site) exist presently in the mid-Atlantic
(Figure 2-2): six in the New York Bight, and two near Delaware Bay. Two of
the sites discussed in this section have been used for industrial chemical
waste disposal (the New York Bight and Delaware Bay Acid Wastes Sites) and
were considered viable alternatives. The other existing sites were eliminated
from further consideration for several reasons:
• None of the sites has ever been used for industrial waste disposal.
• All of the sites are small and additional activity would create
logistics problems.
• The small size of the sites might preclude safe accommodation of
more waste material.
• The sites are all located close to shore in areas which are heavily
used for a wide variety of activities.
Consequently, most of the existing sites were eliminated from consideration
for dumping the industrial wastes presently permitted at the 106-Mile Site.
A discussion of the New York Bight and Delaware Bay Acid Wastes Disposal
Sites follows; these sites are compared individually with the 106-Mile Site.
2-11
-------
74°
73°
72°
41° -
40' -
39'
38°
1. DREDGED MATERIAL
2. CELLAR DIRT
3. SEWAGE SLUDGE
4. ACID WASTES
5. SEWAGE SLUDGE (Alternative)
6. WRECKS
7. WOOD INCINERATION
8. INDUSTRIAL WASTES
9. ACID WASTES
10. SEWAGE SLUDGE
NEW JERSEY
y
DELAWARE f j>J
BAY
KILOMETERS
o so
NAUTICAL MILES
L^.
TOO
50
4V
40°
39°
38°
75"
Figure 2-2. Categories of Existing Disposal Sites in the Mid-Atlantic
2-12
-------
NEW YORK BIGHT ACID WASTES DISPOSAL SITE
This disposal site was established in 1948 for the disposal of acid wastes
generated by industries in the New Jersey-New York areas (Figure 2-1). The
site is situated on the Continental Shelf 14.5 nmi (27 km) from the New Jersey
22
and Long Island coasts, and covers 12 nmi (41.2 km ). The site boundaries
are latitudes 40°16'N to 40°20'N, and longitudes 73°36'W to 73°40'W. The site
bottom is relatively flat, with an average depth of 25.6 m (84 ft).
The primary waste dumper since the site was first established has been NL
Industries, Inc., which presently dumps about 95% of the site's total annual
volume. The only other active permittee is Allied Chemical Corporation. Du
Pont-Grasselli released some caustic wastes at this site until 1975, when the
disposal operation was moved to the 106-Mile Site.
The effects of waste disposal on the Bight Apex, including those at the
Acid Site, have been investigated extensively by the NOAA-Marine Ecosystems
Analysis Program (MESA) New York Bight Project, the NFMS-Sandy Hook Labora-
tory, and the permittees. The site environment, the history of waste disposal
at the site, and the primary waste constituents presently dumped there are
described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 includes a description of the environmental
consequences of acid wastes disposal at this site.
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY
Several materials are present in wastes currently barged to the 106-Mile
Site which are not presently released at the Acid Site or at any other
location in the New York Bight Apex. These include nonpersistent organo-
phosphate pesticides; surfactants; and by-products from the manufacture of
rubber, mining, and paper chemicals. Since such waste materials are not known
to be entering the Apex from other sources, if released at the Acid Site they
would represent an additional contaminant load on the environment of that
area.
2-13
-------
Several waste constituents dumped at the 106-Mile Site are present in
wastes discharged at the Acid Site. Compared to the present mass loading of
wastes at the Acid Site, significant amounts of cadmium, mercury, oil and
grease, and petroleum hydrocarbons would be added by dumping 106-Mile Site
wastes at the Acid Site. However, additional loading of these contaminants at
the Acid Site would be a small fraction of the total amount of material
already flowing into the area from rivers and land discharges (Table 2-1).
TABLE 2-1
COMPARISON OF CONTAMLNANT INPUTS TO THE NEW YORK BIGHT, 1973
Contaminant
Cadmium
Mercury
Oil and Grease
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(Metric Tons/Day)
All Sources
2.4
0.52
782.7
No Data
Acid Site
Permittees
0.001
0.02
0.1
0.08
106-Mile Site
Permittees
0.0003
0.0002
0.09
0.2
Source: Adapted from Mueller et al., 1976.
The Acid Wastes Site is in relatively shallow water. Hence, the potential
for accumulation of waste constituents in shellfish and other organisms
marketed for human consumption exists, and would be aggravated by further
waste discharges in the area. However, to date, benthic populations at the
Acid Site have not shown evidence of uptake as the site is presently used.
Additional discussion of this subject appears in Chapter 4.
Considering environmental acceptability, disposal at the New York Bight
Acid Wastes Site of wastes Erom the 106-Mile Site must be discouraged for
several reasons:
• Materials not presently entering the Bight Apex would be introduced,
thus possibly placing greater strain on a system which is already
impacted by man's wastes.
2-14
-------
• Significantly greater amounts of waste constituents, which are
presently disposed of at the site, would be introduced.
• Some constituents of the wastes presently dumped at the deepwater
106-Mile Site, could adversely affect the bottom dwelling organisms
at the shallow Acid Site.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
The Bight Apex, including the Acid Site, is one of the most intensively
studied regions in the world. Beginning in 1973, the NOAA-MESA New York Bight
project has coordinated the study of all oceanographic disciplines within the
Bight and has provided data and guidance for environmental management
decisions (NOAA-MESA, 1977). Numerous other studies of the Acid Site
environment and the effects of waste disposal have continued since 1948
(Redfield and Walford, 1951; Ketchum and Ford, 1948; Ketchum et al., 1958b,
1958c; Vaccaro et al. , 1972). The current permittees, in compliance with
conditions of their permits, are sponsoring a monitoring program to evaluate
the short-term effects of their waste discharges.
Relocating wastes from the 106-Mile Site to the New York Bight Acid Site
would cause difficulty in monitoring waste effects at the site. The three
decades of studies of the Acid Site provide an excellent historical baseline
for acid dumping, particularly by NL Industries. If subtle long-term changes
are taking place as a result of acid waste disposal, other waste discharges
would complicate the use of the data base for detecting such changes.
Long-term environmental changes caused by acid dumping would be difficult, if
not impossible, to differentiate from impacts caused by the new waste
materials.
SURVEILLANCE
The Acid Site is adaptable to surveillance. The proximity of the site to
shore permits use of patrol vessels and aircraft to conduct surveillance and
record dumping vessel sightings, activities, and positions. Shipriders,
although effective as a means of surveillance, are rarely used at this site
2-15
-------
because of the significant commitment of manpower and the adequacy of other
surveillance methods. Any additional surveillance, however, would require
additional operating hours, fuel, and man-hours.
ECONOMICS
Transportation Costs
The costs of barging wastes to the Acid Site are estimated to be in the
range of $0.90 to $2.50 per metric ton ($0.80 to $2.25 per ton). The total
cost of ocean disposal in 1978 for 106-Mile Site permittees leaving New York
Harbor (360,000 metric tons), would therefore have ranged from $324,000 to
$900,000 at the Acid Site. For permittees leaving Delaware Bay, the Acid Site
is about the same distance as the 106-Mile Site, and the barging costs would
not be significantly reduced by using the Acid Site instead of the 106-Mile
Site. Using the previously calculated costs for disposal at the 106-Mile Site
($8.80 to $11.00 per metric ton), the 1978 barging cost from Delaware Bay to
the Acid Site would have been in the range of $3.3 to $4.1 million. Thus, the
total annual transportation ccst to the permittees barging from Delaware Bay
and New York Harbor would range from $3.6 to $5.0 million at the Acid Site.
In the future, this total cost would drop as some permittees phased out ocean
disposal; however, the cost to individual permittees would rise as a result of
inflation and increased fuel prices.
Monitoring Costs
As previously noted, several groups are presently studying the effects of
waste disposal in the New York Bight Apex. Unlike the permittees' programs,
the other monitoring programs are riot specifically oriented to evaluating the
effects of acid waste disposal. However, if new wastes were released at the
site, NOAA and EPA programs would probably conduct special studies at the
site. New permittees would be required to conduct dispersion studies and
participate in an existing monitoring program to evaluate short-term effects
of waste. Since other types of wastes are released at the site, a rigorous
monitoring program would be required to distinguish the effects of the new
chemical wastes from the effects of acid wastes presently permitted at the
site.
2-16
-------
The cost of monitoring at this site cannot be estimated reliably. Although
the site is shallow and located close to shore, the costs would still probably
be substantial. The Bight Apex has numerous sources of contaminants, and
other waste types are released at the site; consequently, a substantial effort
would be required to evaluate the effects of new wastes. The cost would be
borne by the permittees, in determining waste dispersion and short-term
effects, and the Federal government, in investigating trends and chronic,
long-term effects.
Surveillance Costs
The cost of surveillance for additional waste disposal operations in the
Bight Apex would be relatively low. The site is well within the normal range
of Coast Guard ships and aircraft, and surveillance is routinely carried out
for the permittees now using disposal sites in the Bight Apex; however,
additional surveillance would require additional operating hours, fuel, and
man-hours.
Loss of Biotic and Mineral Resources
Except for whiting, the most valuable commercial fish and shellfish taken
in the New York Bight are either not present near the site, would not be
affected by the chemical waste, or have been contaminated by other pollutants.
Disposal of additional chemical wastes at this site would threaten the
commercial whiting fishery near the site during the late autumn and winter.
No dollar value of these resources can be estimated accurately since the
magnitude of the fishing effort near the site is unknown.
More important, the Bight Apex is a highly stressed ecosystem (NOAA-MESA,
1978), and adding new contaminants would increase the stress. Since other
disposal sites are nearby, interactions between different waste types could
cause unpredictable adverse effects on the ecosystem. It does not appear that
fishery resources, in addition to these already mentioned, would be
threatene; however, the possibility of a significant, deleterious change in
the total Bight environment would exist with additional waste loading at the
site.
2-17
-------
Acid-iron wastes released presently at the Acid Site have been reported to
attract bluefish (a popular sport fish) and, during spring and summer, the
area is a popular fishing grcund (Westman, 1958). If bluefish are, in fact,
attracted to the site, the release of additional wastes could cause several
problems: (1) fishermen might avoid the area because of the increased barge
traffic and the presence of wastes which are perceived as more toxic than
those currently permitted at the site; (2) the fish might no longer
concentrate in the area; or (3) the fish might accumulate contaminants from
the new wastes, causing the area to be closed to fishing to protect public
health. The loss of this fishing area would cause significant economic impact
on the charter and party fishing boats which presently use the area.
Potential mineral resources in the Bight Apex have been contaminated by other
pollutant sources, therefore there would probably be no additional loss from
additional industrial wastes.
LOGISTICS
The present permittees using the New York Bight Acid Wastes Site and the
106-Mile Site barge wastes approximately once daily. Use of the Acid Site for
the wastes presently being dumped at the 106-Mile Site would double the
disposal activity at the Acid Site, thereby increasing the navigational
hazards to waste disposal vessels and other shipping, since the site is
situated across the outbound lane and separation zone of the Ambrose-Hudson
Canyon Traffic Lane. (See Chapter 3, Figure 3-10.)
OVERALL COMPARISON WITH THE 106-MILE SITE
Permitting 106-Mile Site industrial permittees to use the New York Bight
Acid Wastes Site instead of the 106-Mile Site would result in decreased
transportation costs for most dumpers, easier surveillance of the disposal
operations, and, possibly, a greater ease of monitoring total impacts.
However, the ability to monitor the specific impacts of the existing wastes
released at the site would be degraded, and there would be a significantly
increased shipping hazard. Mo,3t important, contaminants not presently dumped
2-18
-------
in the Bight Apex would be discharged, and these wastes could cause additional
damage to an already highly stressed ecosystem. Therefore, this alternative
is rejected in favor of the 106-Mile Site.
DELAWARE BAY ACID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
This interim disposal site, centered approximately 35 nmi (65 km) southeast
of Cape Henlopen, Delaware, is bounded by latitudes 38°30'N and 38°35'N, and
longitudes 75°15'W and 74°25'W (Figure 2-1). It encompasses a rectangular
.22
area of about 51 nmi (175 km ), with depths of water ranging from 38 to 45 m
(125 to 150 ft). The Philadelphia Sewage Sludge Site is 5 nmi (9 km)
southeast of the site.
Du Font-Edge Moor dumped acid-iron waste at this site from 1969 to 1977,
when the operation was moved, at Du Font's request, to the 106-Mile Site.
During this period, the Edge Moor plant's titanium dioxide manufacturing
process changed from a sulfate process to a chloride process, producing
different acid wastes.
Du Pont sponsored several monitoring surveys at the site between 1969 and
1971. In 1973, EPA Region III initiated a monitoring program at the site and
the nearby sewage sludge site. EPA still maintains historical stations in and
around the site which are sampled twice yearly to monitor the site's recovery
towards natural conditions. Since September 1979, EPA and NOAA jointly
monitor the acid waste and sewage sludge disposal sites.
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY
Use of the Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site for disposal of wastes presently
dumped at the 106-Mile Site would not be environmentally acceptable.
Industrial wastes dumped at this shallow site could reach the seafloor which
is inhabited by potentially valuable fishery resources (primarily surf clams,
ocean quahogs, and scallops). However, the area is presently closed to some
shellfishing because of the threat of bacterial contamination from the nearby
sewage sludge disposal site. Past studies on benthic organisms from the
vicinity of the Acid Site reported uptake of vanadium in scallops from the
2-19
-------
area. The acid waste dumped at the time of the study contained large amounts
of vanadium, whereas the sewsge sludge dumped nearby contained significantly
lesser amounts of this metal. A link between the elevated vanadium
concentrations in tissues and the acid waste was not clearly established;
however, renewed industrial wsste disposal at the site is not prudent in light
of this observation.
Use of the Acid Site for industrial waste disposal, instead of the 106-Mile
Site, would require transit by dump vessels from New York Harbor along the
coast of New Jersey. Any emergency short dumping along this route could cause
adverse impacts to beaches, coastal industry, or the extensive commercial and
recreational fishing along this coast.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
Several years of background environmental data exist at the Delaware Bay
Acid Waste Site. Pre-dumping surveys provide a marginal basis for comparison
with post-dumping surveys, primarily because the latter work was much more
extensive and more quantitative. However, there are enough data from the area
to provide the basis for comparison.
Monitoring of the Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site would be complicated by the
proximity of the Philadelphia Sewage Sludge Site. The primary net water
movement in the area is to the southwest; however, storms may affect the
direction of water movement, causing water from the vicinity of the sewage
sludge site to migrate northward. Therefore, it would be difficult to
differentiate the effects of proposed industrial waste disposal, and previous
acid waste disposal, from that of municipal waste disposal.
SURVEILLANCE
Since the Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site is presently inactive, USCG surveil-
lance activities in the vicinity involve only the nearby sewage sludge site.
The current USCG policy is to monitor 10% of the sludge disposal operations,
and 75% of the industrial waste discharges. Therefore, a substantial increase
in surveillance activities would be necessary if the Acid Site were
2-20
-------
reactivated for industrial waste disposal. However the increase in
surveillance at the Acid Site would incur a decrease in surveillance at the
106-Mile Site.
ECONOMICS
Transportation Costs
The site is close to Delaware Bay, thus the hauling costs for vessels
leaving New York Harbor will be significantly higher than for vessels from
Delaware Bay. The site is about the same distance from New York as the
106-Mile Site, and the annual barging costs for dumpers in the New York area
will probably be about the same - $8.80 to $11.00 per metric ton, or $3.2 to
$4.0 million. The round trip would take between 54 and 72 hours (average
speed 5 to 7 kn) through the coastal waters off New Jersey. The cost would be
much less for vessels coming from Delaware Bay. Based upon the respective
distances to the Acid Site and the 106-Mile Site, barging costs would be from
$2.20 to $2.75 per metric ton, or $0.8 to $1.0 million annually. Thus, the
.annual total transport cost for this site would be about $4.0 to $5.0 million.
The total cost of disposal at the site would decrease as some permittees
phased out ocean dumping; however, the costs to individual permittees would
rise as a result of inflation and increased fuel prices.
Monitoring Costs
The monitoring cost for the Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site is difficult to
estimate, but would probably be lower than the cost of monitoring the 106-Mile
Site. Effects of industrial wastes on the environment would have to be
separated from the effects of nearby sewage sludge disposal and from the
effects of water flowing out of Delaware Bay. EPA Region III and NOAA are
currently jointly monitoring the sewage sludge site, and these surveys could
be expanded at an additional cost to evaluate long-term effects of industrial
waste disposal. Since the site was used until 1977, and was surveyed several
times, sufficient data exist to recognize long-term environmental changes;
extensive additional surveys would not be required.
2-21
-------
Surveillance Costs
The Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site is near the limits of the range for Coast
Guard ships and aircraft normally used for ocean dumping surveillance.
Surveillance would require shipriders on some of the disposal vessels.
Loss of Biotic or Mineral Resources
Commercial surf clam beds exist in the vicinity of the Delaware Bay Acid
Waste Site, but not close enough to be adversely affected by industrial waste
disposal. Other shellfish, such as sea scallops and ocean quahogs, are
abundant in the area, and scallops are presently being harvested. The site is
sufficiently shallow, so that wastes could reach the bottom, perhaps
contaminating these shellfish. At this time, the site is still closed to
shellfishing by FDA because oi: the proximity of the sewage sludge site.
Mineral resources are not present at the site. Industrial waste disposal
at this site would not interfere with oil and gas exploration and development
east of the area.
LOGISTICS
The Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site is outside major shipping lanes, and daily
use, if maintained at the level occurring presently at the 106-Mile Site,
would present few, if any, navigational .hazards to the dumping vessels within
the site. However, the site's great distance from New York Harbor would
necessitate careful planning and scheduling of trips.
OVERALL COMPARISON WITH THE 106-MILE SITE
The Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site is more convenient to one of the
permittees using the 106-Mile Site, but little economic advantage would be
gained by moving waste disposal operations from the 106-Mile Site to this
location. The risks associated with renewed industrial waste discharges at
the Acid Site and the possible adverse impact on potential fishery resources
in the area make this alternative less preferable than continued use of the
106-Mile Site.
2-22
-------
USE OF NEW SITES
New, sites on or beyond the Continental Shelf (Figure 2-1) provide alterna-
tives to disposal at the 106-Mile Site. Sites in the New York Bight and over
the Continental Slope along the eastern edge of the Bight were considered. A
new site for ocean dumping must meet the site selection criteria in Part 228
of the Ocean Dumping Regulations. The site must not conflict with other uses
of the area, such as resource development or commercial fisheries, nor
endanger human health or amenities, and should be located within the range of
the current fleet of waste disposal vessels in order to make ocean disposal
economically feasible.
LOCATIONS ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF
The New York Bight is one of the busiest oceanic regions in the world; uses
include extensive commercial shipping, fishing, shellfishing, recreation,
resource development, and waste disposal. In selecting a site within the
Bight for ocean waste disposal, other conflicting activities in the area were
evaluated for potential effects on disposal operations and vice versa.
Additionally, adequate background environmental information on the area must
presently exist to provide firm bases for projecting impacts of waste
disposal.
Most of the survey work in the Bight has centered around existing disposal
sites. However, two candidate areas for sewage sludge disposal have been
studied extensively: the so-called Northern and Southern Areas (Figure 2-1).
These areas were selected for study by NOAA, in part to avoid conflict with
living marine resources (NOAA-MESA, 1976) and, therefore, were concluded to be
the most reasonable new candidate locations for industrial waste disposal.
Within the large areas suggested by NOAA for consideration, two smaller areas
were studied in detail, the Northern and Southern Areas discussed below.
2-23
-------
SOUTHERN AREA
The Southern Area (Figure 2-1) Ls square, centered at latitude 39°41'N and
2 2
73°18'W, with an area of 144 nmi (484 km ). The average water depth in the
area is 40 m (130 ft).
Environmental Acceptability
The Southern Area contains presently and potentially valuable commercial
fishery resources. The surf clam, sea scallop, and ocean quahog are often
found in numbers suitable for commercial harvesting. Therefore, there exists
significant risk in using the Southern Area to dispose of industrial wastes,
since they contain elements which could be assimilated by organisms.
Environmental Monitoring
Due to the existence of the NOAA data base on predisposal conditions in the
Southern Area, monitoring would be feasible. This site is outside the heavily
contaminated Bight Apex, thus monitored waste disposal impacts at the site
would not be confused with contaminants from other sources.
Surveillance
The Southern Area is outside the range of USCG patrol vessels and aircraft
normally used for ocean dumping surveillance, therefore shipriders would be
required. This would not result in a much shorter transit time or fewer
shiprider hours per trip than surveillance at the 106-Mile Site.
Economics
Transportation Costs - The costs of transporting wastes to the Southern
Area would be intermediate between those for a nearshore site and one beyond
the Continental Shelf. The estimated barging costs for vessels leaving New
York Harbor for the Southern Area would be $2.70 to $10.00 per metric ton, or
$1.0 to $3.6 million annually. A round trip would take from 38 to 44 hours
(average speed from 5 to 7 kn) through the coastal waters off New Jersey.
2-24
-------
Permittees' barging costs from Delaware Bay would probably be about
three-quarters of the cost of barging to the 106-Mile Site (based on the
distances to the respective sites), i.e., $6.60 to $8.25 per metric ton, or
from $2.4 to $3.1 million annually. The travel time would be 38 to 48 hours
(average speed from 5 to 7 kn).
The total annual transportation cost for all waste disposal at the Southern
Area would range from $3.4 to $6.7 million. The total cost of waste disposal
at the site would decrease as some permittees phased out ocean dumping;
however, the costs to individual permittees would rise as a result of
inflation and increased fuel prices.
Monitoring Costs - Monitoring costs at the Southern Area would probably be
lower than at either a nearshore or an off-Shelf site. Since NOAA has
completed predisposal studies in the area (NOAA-MESA, 1976), and other
contaminants are not present, monitoring would be fairly uncomplicated.
Surveillance Costs - The site is outside the range of Coast Guard ships and
aircraft normally used for ocean dumping surveillance; therefore, surveillance
of actual ocean disposal operations would require shipriders. Surveillance of
this site would require fewer man-hours than surveillance of the 106-Mile
Site, since the transit time is less than that required for the 106-Mile Site.
Loss of Biotic or Mineral Resources - Biological and mineral resources
exist near the Southern Area. The potential loss of the former could be sub-
stantial. Economically important finfish (sculpin and whiting) and shellfish
(lobster, surf clams, scallops, and ocean quahogs) inhabit the area. Since
the area is in shallow water, wastes may reach the bottom and shellfish may be
contaminated. Finfish may avoid the area or accumulate contaminants from
wastes. Thus, use of this location for industrial waste disposal could cause
a significant adverse economic impact on living resources, although the impact
could not be estimated reliably because the actual amount of fish and
shellfish taken from the area is unknown.
2-25
-------
Use of the Southern Area for industrial waste disposal would not be
expected to affect nearby mineral resource development.
Logistics
Navigation of dump vessels Ln this location might be complicated by traffic
(e.g., work boats, supply ships, oil tankers) associated with development of
nearby oil and gas Lease tracts (see Chapter 3, Figure 3-3). The likelihood
of these hazards occurring would depend upon the speed and scope of oil and
gas development in the area and upon the magnitude of ocean dumping at the
site.
Overall Comparison with the 106-Mile Site
Waste disposal in the Southern Area would present some advantages over the
106-Mile Site, mainly in the ease of monitoring the site and in reduced
transportation costs. However, the existence of a fishery resource in the
area, the possibility of adversely affecting that resource, and the economic
consequences of such an impact, make this alternative less favorable when
compared to the 106-Mile Site.
NORTHERN AREA
The Northern Area (Figure 2-1) is a rectangle centered at approximately
2 2
latitude 40°10'N and longitude 72°46.5'W, comprising 224 nmi (770 km ).
Water depths in the area average 55 m (180 ft). The inactive Alternate Sewage
Sludge Disposal Site is within the Northern Area at latitudes 40°10.5'N to
2
40°13.5'N, and longitudes 72°40.5'W to 72°43.5'W, comprising an area of 9 nmi
(31 km2).
Environmental Acceptability
Although the Northern Area is not known to be fished, it contains sea
scallops and ocean quahogs which may be caught in the future. The shallowness
of the site makes bottom effects from waste disposal possible, and there are
2-26
-------
slight to moderate possibilities of modifying the benthic community of the
area, and/or causing bioaccumulation of contaminants in benthic organisms.
Environmental Monitoring
An adequate data base on predisposal conditions at this site exists for
monitoring. Possible sewage sludge dumping near one edge of the study area
could complicate the differentiation of industrial waste effects from sludge
effects.
Surveillance
The Northern Area is outside the range of USCG patrol vessels and aircraft
normally used for ocean dumping surveillance, thus shipriders would be
required for surveillance. Surveillance at the Northern Area would require
fewer shiprider hours per trip than for surveillance of the 106-Mile Site
since the transit time to the Northern Area is less.
Economics
Transportation Costs - Transportation costs for the Northern Area are
similar to those for the Southern Area. The costs for hauling waste material
to this site would be intermediate between those for a nearshore site and
those for an off-Shelf site. Estimated barging costs for vessels leaving New
York Harbor are $3.60 to $7.50 per metric ton, or $1.3 to $2.7 million
annually. A round trip would take between 38 and 44 hours (average speed 5 or
7 kn), through the coastal waters off Long Island.
The cost to permittees barging from Delaware Bay would be about the same as
present transportation costs for ocean disposal at the 106-Mile Site, since
the Northern Area is about the same distance from the mouth of the Bay as the
existing site. Thus, the estimated cost per metric ton would be $8.80 to
$11.00, or $3.3 to $4.1 million annually. A round trip would take 54 to 72
hours.
2-27
-------
Total annual transportation costs of all waste disposal at this site would
be from $4.6 to $6.8 million - slightly greater than costs for the Southern
Area. Total cost would decrease as some permittees phased out ocean disposal,
although the costs to individual permittees would rise as a result of
inflation and increased fuel prices.
Monitoring Costs - Monitoring costs for the Northern Area would probably be
similar to those for the Southern Area and less than those for a site off the
Shelf or a nearshore site with other sources of contaminants nearby.
Surveillance Costs - The site is outside the range of Coast Guard ships and
aircraft normally used in ocean dumping surveillance, thus surveillance of
actual disposal operations would require shipriders. However, surveillance of
this area would require fewer man-hours per mission than for the 106-Mile
Site.
Loss of Biotic or Mineral Resources - The Northern Area is within the
normal range of surf clams, but they are not abundant at the site. Ocean
quahogs and sea scallops are abundant, and industrial waste disposal could
possibly impact the development of these potentially valuable crops by
affecting populations or by providing contaminants for uptake by the
organisms.
Ocean disposal in the Northern Area would not interfere with the
development of mineral resources. The site is approximately 60 nmi (110 km)
northeast of the oil and gas lease tracts identified on the mid-Atlantic Shelf
(see Chapter 3, Figure 3-3). Industrial waste disposal would not interfere
with exploration or development of the oil and gas reserves which are presumed
to occur in the vicinity of the Southern Area.
Logistics
No significant logistics problems would be expected in using the Northern
Area for industrial waste disposal unless the Alternate Sewage Sludge Site was
activated. The large volume of sludge that is presently dumped in the Bight
requires a steady sequence of trips to the 12-Mile Site. If sewage sludge
2-28
-------
disposal operations were transferred to the Alternate Site, barge/vessel
traffic in the Northern Area would increase. Thus use of this area for sludge
disposal and industrial waste disposal would present problems in scheduling
and navigation.
Overall Comparison to the 106-Mile Site
Use of the Northern Area for industrial waste disposal would have an
economic advantage over the 106-Mile Site in transportation costs. However
potential sludge disposal at the Alternative Sewage Sludge Site in addition to
industrial waste disposal would create monitoring and logistics difficulties.
Lastly, the Northern Area would not be environmentally favorable over the
106-Mile Site because of the presence of a potential shellfish resource which
could be adversely affected by industrial waste disposal.
LOCATIONS OFF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF
Information on the mid-Atlantic Continental Slope and Continental Rise is
generally lacking except for the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site (TRIGOM, 1976).
The 106-Mile Site is the closest point to New York Harbor beyond the
Continental Shelf (Figure 2-1). Hudson Canyon is immediately north of the
site, and is believed to be a major migratory route for fish entering the New
York Bight. Waste disposal near the Canyon would be environmentally
unacceptable primarily because migrating organisms could accumulate toxic
constituents from the waste, presenting a potential health hazard to humans
consuming the contaminated animals. The environment immediately southwest of
the 106-Mile Site along the Continental Slope is unknown. Designating a site
for waste disposal in that area would require extensive baseline survey work.
There are no data indicating that the 106-Mile Site is over or near a
unique portion of the Slope or Rise. The same physical processes affect this
entire region and the benthos is uniform over large horizontal distances at
these depths. Other localities, farther northeast or south of the 106-Mile
Site, would add considerably to round-trip distances to the site without any
clear environmental benefit. The increased travel time would raise the
probability of emergencies occurring, which could result in short dumps.
2-29
-------
OVERALL COMPARISON WITH THE 106-MILE SITE
The 106-Mile Site is clearly the best alternative for an ocean waste
disposal site beyond the Continental Shelf for a number of reasons. Unlike
other areas off the mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf, the 106-Mile Site has been
studied extensively, so more information exists for projecting impacts of
disposal activities. Use of any other Continental Slope area would require
extensive survey work to produce the quantity of data presently available for
the 106-Mile Site. The site :.s over that portion of the Continental Slope
closest to New York Harbor (Figure 2-1), and thus is the Continental Slope
location most convenient to potential users of an off-Shelf site. In
conclusion, no advantage would be gained by favoring another off-Shelf
location over the 106-Mile Site.
SUMMARY
Several alternative locations on and off the Continental Shelf were
evaluated as potential industrial waste disposal sites. A number of features
of the 106-Mile Site make it the best choice among the alternatives examined:
• The site is in deep \cater, so dilution and dispersion of introduced
wastes are enhanced.
• The site is not in an area of significant commercial or recreational
fishing or shell fishing.
• The site is convenient to the major ports in the Middle Atlantic
states.
• The site conforms with the MPRSA directive to locate ocean disposal
off the Continental Shelf whenever feasible.
• The site has been studied extensively for many years.
• Only limited adverse environmental impacts of waste disposal have
been demonstrated at the site.
2-30
-------
Thus, in considering all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action,
the proposal of designating the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site for
continued use is the preferred alternative for the foreseeable future.
There are risks involved in this action (discussed in detail in Chapter 4);
however, the environmental risk of waste disposal at this site is judged to be
less serious than the risk of disposing of these industrial wastes at
locations on the Continental Shelf or at other locations the Continental Slope
or Continental Rise. If subsequent monitoring at the site shows negative
impacts resulting from waste disposal to be greater than anticipated, EPA may
discontinue or modify use of the site, in accordance with Section 228.11 of
the Ocean Dumping Regulations.
Table 2-2 presents the comparative evaluation of the possible effects of
industrial wastes at the alternative sites discussed in this chapter. The
*
effects on environmental acceptability, environmental monitoring, surveil-
lance, economics, and logistics are summarized.
BASES FOR SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED SITE
Part 228 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria describes general
and specific criteria for selection of sites to be used for ocean waste
disposal. In brief, the general criteria state that site locations will be
chosen:
"...to minimize the interference of disposal activities
with other activities in the marine environment..."
"...[so] temporary perturbations in water quality or
other environmental conditions during initial
mixing...can be expected to be reduced to normal ambient
seawater levels or to undetectable contaminant
concentrations or effects before reaching any beach,
shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically
limited fishery or shellfishery."
2-31
-------
3
55
Pti
W <
rC W
O
W <
rj- W
O
-S
DELAWARE BAY
l ACID WASTE SITE
H H
CJ) CO
Qi co
3 Q
W M
22 cj
S
H
1— <
to
X.
1
0
H
CJ
C i
1 QJ 00
^ >i 4-1 d
QJ r4 O O QJ
T3 C 1) Q. I-H r;
0 V4 Q > w
E O 4-J QJ
O 4-J • 00 r-l O
Cfl tfl "£ r^H > CO
4J r-t Q. r—l CO T) 4J
rd 4J £ CO Cfl O •
oo d H d) o ca £
r-l QJ f, 4J JH Q- d)
r-4 4J QJ O E *-*
a rj >H ,d >i
QJ4-J'Tj-jrH1-|QJG
> « „ a » ^ .,
QJ 4-1
4-J r4 • 00 1 QJ
_d QJ OO H 00 _d
oo > d --i d 4-j
r-l -Q H tfl O
1-1 -iH 4-J I-l
X O 4-j O en
M 4-1 4-1 4-4 4-1
QJ d -J3 cj •
> r-H O 00 r-l CO E
CO r-l ro G. QJ
O r-l 01 r-l r-l g 4-J
C CJ C r*>
d 4J Q. C 4-J J-. 0
Z P. H > D, 4-i GJ
QJ >.
tO QJ O
1H O3 1-1
QJ J-i 4H U to 1 QJ
T3 QJ 4-J C CD oc J=
O > 00 "1 0 4J G 4-J
co -i-t 4J 4-t i-i r-H £
O X QJ H CTJ (LI O
O r4 4-1 | ^ CD O en
-C O O O G •
H CD d gr— lUcflQ-i)
01 O 4J IH C r-l-— IQ QJ U
1
i_ _ _, OC r-l G
to 4-t 4-t ,d H aj d -< "TD o aj
-^^a.^flSS-aoc'ra2^^
OOEOJHrJddiwOOC
r-t f 1
00 CO 00 i O
£ d r-l tO CJ
O cfl •— ' C QJ
4-J JH IH en cj
OO >, O QJ
•— ' O 4J C QJ O co H
ca J-i G
QJ H QJ r4 P
E 4-i u tn 4-j 4.J 5 e
OJ £ -1 r-H H C ,
J-I QJ
QJ 4-J
> cfl
QJ
j: cj
00 >
•H -o
r-l Cfl
>, O
QJ
D
0 r-4
d
d 4j
0 0
•z. o.
QJ
Cfl QJ
IH en
Very si»ight to mode
potential for adver
QJ
S-i
QJ dJ
QJ -a
r* Cfl
QJ
Q
0 iS
4-1
QJ ca
Cfl 4-1
QJ CD
O O
QJ
4-1 V-1
•gj «
r-H CO
X C
CD
> r- 1
O r-
c
QJ QJ
d 4-t
0 O
*,f C
s
r-)
U
CO
p-
SB
o
CO
H
CJ
Hi
to
4J
G
a
E
•r-t
CD
r-l
CD
>
T3
cfl
to
G
tfl
•H
impacts .
4-1
u
to
C-
£
4-J
G
CL
£
O rH
T-I 4-. CU CD. C
' c: •" o 'S 4-»
O 4n G 4-J en
•H -H -IH,
4-J -0 M 0 X
Cl- QJ Cfl •— 1 QJ
£' 4-i O.
5, d en CD en co
C; .,-1 -H H QJ
CJ E 4-1 >, 4-t JH
O Cfl r-l l— 1 T— 1 Cfl
T) J-i C QJ Cfl QJ QJ
o o o ^ H ,d ^
S 4-1 CJ U3 G CO 4J
E; i en X
c: QJ T) to
o o « co u d
'-M QJ rJ Cfl
4-4 IH (-i QJ
cfl g CO
•H c: ,C CD O -r-l
•*-* O J) J2 U 4-i .
d r-l H 4-1 ^
dJ 4.J 4H d) 4-1 CO
4J p. ^ « > C -H
CL ;j 0) j: T) r-H
3 c: cfl en 4-j 3 d)
q o d H o -Q j=:
O [= 1
Moderate potential
consumption of cent
inated fish or shel
fish as commer cia 11
abundant resources
exist near the site
»-i i
O i- '
i—l fj 0)
H U tO
C 4-1 IH
QJ O O
4-1
o r; ^
CL 13 tn
•rH -r-l
QJ 4J 4-1
>H 3 QJ •
•a c to tn
o o d H
i i d d
d i—1 QJ O
0 1 r-l G -H
U .5 QJ — i d 5C
"0 X cfl O QJ
r-l 4-J CT H G JH
0 " 0
4-1 0 VJ r-l 4J 03
rJ D en o tn
4-1 H CJ r-l d
d - 4-1 .r-l
QJ O co oc
4-1 -H t) CO d "O
O -1 QJ r-t QJ
O 3 d -H H IH
-?; .0 r-l m 4H 4-J
-o
d
Cfl r-l
•H QJ
r-i \n
o
u
00
•H
QJ
>
O
c
c
4-1
00
H
r-l
QJ
>
O
QJ
Q
4-t
00
r-l
en
>,
J-i
QJ
>
O
G
d
o
z
IH
C
•-1
H
4-1
d
QJ
4-J
o
D-
dJ
4-1
cfl
r-l
QJ
1
QJ
tn
SH
CD
T3
tO
CD
4-1
QJ
4-1
0
a.
o
Zl
•o
d
cfl
en
ft.
tO
o
4-1
tO
OJ
1-1
o
QJ
erf
OJ
IH cfl CC
a) q; e
ca d
QJ
SH J^ QJ
0 4J J3
CO
to d
H CO O
*-t 4-1 >-,
d o QJ
O 4-1 '-0
QJ
to
)H
CD QJ
> QJ f
CO 4-J
-a
r-l QJ d
O G 0
•H QJ
r-H CO _Q
cfl
r-t CO CO
C G
QJ CD cfl
4J 4H CD
O 4n J-i
CL QJ cfl
QJ
potential for adver
effects as the area
is beyond the norma
OC
o
d
tD
0 4-1
rC U
03 d)
4H
QJ 4-1
CO QJ
IH
CD S
"O QJ
QJ
G
QJ QJ
QJ ,C r-t
-a o
QJ d
U O QJ
d >. oo
•r-l QJ d
03 ,O cO
4-1 -H r-H
G cO
QJ QJ E
4H H C
dJ en C
dJ
CO
QJ
J
QJ
IH
Cfl
i-l
O
00
cfl
to
4-1
O
QJ
00
c
cfl
IH
cfl
g
O
C
00
H
•g
•r-t
4H
4-1
03
O
QJ
00
d
tD
rJ
d
cfl
e
CD
H
to
c
O
•H
4-1
cO
.
OC
d
H
•H
4-1
Cfl
o
4-J
OO
QJ
1-,
.C
00
'w
>,
IH
QJ
>
T3
IH
ffl
N
cfl
a:
cO
c
o
4J
tfl
00
-H
tO
«
d
cO
JH
4-J
03
|
CO
QJ
OO
cO
3
E
to
IH
QJ
OO
"
,_|
tfl
•H
at
r4
QJ
rC
Cfl
QJ
IH
OO
QJ
4-1
4-1
o
«
3
cd
G
QJ
•°
00
03
4-t
00 •
O to
r- QJ
,£ rH
4-J tfl
jj
to d
o
d
QJ
S 2
O QJ
T3 r-j
r-t 3
> s:
QJ
)H
O
03 d
o !c
QJ 3
o -u
r-i dJ
cfl
T3 cj
CD O
ffl
o d
4-J
• H
aj
4J
0
QJ
C
to
T)
r-l 03
accident could occu
near fishing ground
G
H
4-1 ^
rfl JH
IH O
tfl OJ
I-" 2
4-J
d o •
QJ 4-1 J-I
U O
QJ d r-4
X cfl cfl
4-1 QJ
OO JH
03 TJ
tfl
O
4-t JH
O
rd
00 T-H
r-l CO
r-H -rJ. CO
tO 4-J 4-»
C G
>, CD cfl
IH 4-J O.
QJ 0 E
>• CX -H
4J d)
00 JH
-H QJ
r-l >
cfl
o
o
4-1 4-1
,r
00 r-H
r-t Cfl
r-H H 03
C O
>i CD Cfl
JH 4-J Q,
QJ O E
> a -H
1
JH
Very s light to mode
ate potential for
adverse impacts .
QJ
•u
E r4 •
O en
O 4-1 4-1
4-J G
4J Cfl O-
oo d -H
r-t dJ
r-l 4J QJ
03 O CO
D- r-l
>, OJ
S-i QJ >
QJ 4-1 T)
•U 4-1
d G
QJ Cfl
t!
4-1 QJ
•§,£
r-i QJ
•— I >
cfl
JH JH
dJ O
>UH
y.
H
in
CO
O
CJ
W
u
H
rS
O
H
CJ
PLI
r
c
QJ
£ 3
at tn
1 CJ
O 4H
.E: QJ
QJ
rC r-l
OO QJ
•r-l >
r-4 TJ
d
d
QJ tO
1 G
4-J dJ
JH <4n
O 4H
rd QJ
QJ
00 3J
H >
C/l cfl
c
Slight short-te rm
adverse effects whe
d
QJ
E 3
QJ Cfl
4-1 0)
O 4H
-C QJ
QJ
4-1 0)
J^ 1-1
M QJ
r-l >
C/5 CO
QJ
l C
4-t 0
IH J^
O
CO
rC G
00 QJ
en CD
QJ OJ
> ^
o
P-.
d 3
QJ £
O u E
tJ- G cfl
M £ ' C
I s 1 8
QJ Cfl 4H
4J "O O
03 dJ 4-t
co w o d
3 cf o
dv r— t T-l
QJ r-H Cfl 4-1
,£ dJ -r-f CO
C 3
CD E
O O E
O- G cfl
3J Cfl 4J
^ .r: d
co 4J (D O
•H E U
co 3 O
QJ en 4-i
4-1 -d o
0" QJ 4H
CO 03 O d
3 Cfl O
0) r-t -H
,£: QJ -H CD
the wastes are
released, with poten
tial of some accumu
lation of contami-
i i
d QJ d
QJ r-l O
O 03
a. 4-1 4H
IH 0 QJ
QJ O
tO "O r-l
4J -0 IH CO
tfl CU O r- '
Cfl tfl 4H -J
3 eo g
QJ r-l 3
ffl QJ r-l U
-U. IH 4-1 CO
D £
G cfl
cfl d
4J 0
,d IH G
OC O
r-t O
CD C
> r-i O •
IH 4-1 H to
at d -1-1 ^
> QJ cfl d
4J rH CO
O O 3 d
4-t CL E -H
"
cfl
d
03
d
-o
c
•H
nants .
o
OJ
3
TJ
d
to
d
E
CO
cfl
3
QJ
o
3
O
QJ
3
QJ
3
0
2-32
-------
•o
0)
a
a
a
o
u
cs
I
CM
as
06
w <
X W
CO
w <;
x w
H OS
oi <
z
w
H
>-< I-H
< to
S
W H
Ptf CO
rJ O
Q <
w
H H
33 rH
O to
t^ H
Dd CO
O 4H
CO
•H 4-1
4-1 O
C
QJ C
4J O
O H
Q, 4-1
CO
4-1 i— 1
oo E
r-l O
cO
QJ O
to
4-1 O
c
QJ C
4-1 0
O -H
4-1 rH
•Si
H 3
i/> O
Li Li
0) O
^
tO
•r-l M-l
4-1 O
C
4-1 O
CO
£1
•H 3
rH U
cO
Li Li
QJ 0
C
QJ C
4-1 O
CU 4-1
.C 3
oc £
'M rj
CC
> -4H
0
0)
(2
cO
•r-l
4J
o
o
4-1
Cl
CO
c
• r4
e
cO
4J
O
o
4-1
c
tO
c
E
4J
c
o
o
nants .
e
to
4~!
c
o
V)
C
cO
c
E
CO
4-1
c
o
QJ
Li
CU QJ
co -a
-O Li
4-1 4J 4J
& C u
00 QJ QJ
rH O "-t
CJ
Li
QJ QJ
H <0
QJ
O O
o <-<
4-1 CO -
4J 4J 4-1
rC C CJ
00 QJ QJ
r-l O WH
to a. QJ
LI
o
4-1
cO
H
C 4-1
QJ U
4-" QJ
O 4-1
a 4H
QJ
QJ
rt w
QJ QJ
T3 >
S tr,
QJ
O 4-i co
M-l H H Jl
r-l CO
(U QJ QJ
C -U 4-1 QJ _Q
CJ O ^H Li
4-1 QJ iH QJ CO
O M-I "O cn QJ
P. 'W r- C
QJ O QJ
QJ 4-1 > Li
4-1 QJ -a oj oo
n! K 4-i nj rC C
H l-< rH 4J -r-l
OJ OJ 3 E O O-
tJ > u o E
O "d r-l r-l M-l 3
X tQ 4-1 M-l O 13
a*
re
L" 3
u -a o
4-1 Q) O r-l
C H
4J 0) 3) "^
O Ll 3 OJ
O. QJ ro 4-)
> U CO
O "O QJ co
2= co JZ 3
0
C1J
c
01
o co >,
C OJ L.
O 4J QJ
u w >
a
C S rC
•H 4-1
C -iH
OJ QJ 3
Li -O
4-1 O 0]
,C -.-I tO
GO 4J QJ
rH Ll QJ
CO 4J rH
c
QJ
O W X
C QJ Li
O 4-1 QJ
U W >
cO
C 'H
QJ QJ 3
H 'S -
4-J O W
_C -H tO
00 4-1 QJ
1— 1 r-l QJ
C/j JJ Li
c
QJ
O U) >,
C QJ L"
O 4-1 QJ
0 W >
•H 4-J
C r-l
01 QJ 3
L. T)
4J O «
_C H cfl
00 4-1 OJ
•ft CO rH
rH L. QJ
tO 4-1 Ll
c
C 01 Li
O 4-1 QJ
C 3 f.
C 'H
QJ OJ 3
•H i -
Li -O
C QJ
rC -H CO
M 4-J QJ
r-l tO rH
rH Ll QJ
CO 4J L.
^.
C 3
QJ
3 id"
C QJ
O co
QJ H QJ
H CO 0)
4-1 C W
f. QJ OJ
00 U 4J
rH O CO
to u 3
>.
•1-1
_,
CO
o*
Li
QJ
CO
O I
CO TJ OJ
4-1 Li
O QJ 4H
0- 4J O
rC OJ O rH
00 00 H QJ
rH O CO QJ
Li
O I
•H O rH
4-i E X)
c E
QJ E co
O QJ M-l
D. 4-1 O
4-1 L. C w
rC QJ O rH
00 OC -H QJ
r- i O tO QJ
O '
H 0 'rH
C E
O QJ 4-1
C- 4J O
4J Li C W
rC QJ O *->
00 00 H QJ
rH 0 CO OJ
O •
M-l 4-1
cO Td QJ
rH O H
^ E-i
QJ e co
u S
O QJ 4H
P- 4-1 O
j-j LI c; w
f. QJ O rH
00 00 H QJ
-t C 4J >
rH O CO QJ
^
tO 1 4-1
•H T3 C
4-i O QJ
C E H
4-j E E
0 t CO
&- QJ
4-1 O
00 O) C
H 00 O
In o jj w
rH CO rH
^ U QJ
Lt Ll -rH >
QJ O ^H QJ
> 4-1 rH rH
01 00
cO O
QJ
o •-<
4-J CO
•H
J2 C
t>0 QJ
rH O
CO D-
1
0) 00
-u C
cO O
QJ
T) L.
O O
O i-H
JJ (0
•H
rC P
00 CJ
rH O
C/J D-
w
O
M-l
rH ra
4J E
C 3
OJ O
4-1 O
O to
G-
O1 H
CO 4-1
QJ 00
O O
S ^
O M-l
Q
cO
r-l •
4J W
C 4J
Q) U
4^ OJ
O "4H
&. «4-t
OJ
OJ
U CJ
tO
LI Li
O> QJ
T) >
O T3
& (0
O W
u
rH QJ
CO l*H
4-1 QJ
C
4-1 O
0 rH
&. QJ
>
K cO
^
^
ra
Jpj,
4-1
e
•o
OJ
c
o
-H
i
E
3
Li •
TJ QJ 00
4J CO ,£ C
3 E o a
o o E
H Ll 4H 3
"4-4 MH o "O
QJ
. : oo
- E
QJ
O
CO
• H
c
QJ
O >i
a. u
c
jj (U
x: oo
00 Li
rH E
to a)
o o
M-t D-
01 H
nl 3 4J
•H Cfl 1
4-1 O T3
C QJ C
QJ JD 3
O >^ rH
a. o
4J QJ E
•H OJ 4-J
CO Q) QJ
r-l
to
H QJ O
4- U W
c c
QJ -r-t QJ
o o
D- >i rH
0 0
4-J C
rC OJ O
00 00 W
H Li
r-J QJ «
>> QJ
Ll rH 4-1
QJ O -H
> MH w
Ll M-l
o o
4-1 a
Ol T-t
cO 3 -LI
4J O T]
C QJ C
QJ rQ 3
4J O
a- o
4-1 QJ E
^C 00 QJ
00 Li Li
r4 QJ 4-t
CO QJ OJ
00
C
a.
E
3 •
Q
£
o
_C
CO
- „•
QJ 0)
Li -H
4J QJ
•0,C
QJ rH C VI
4-1 CO 05 -H
C COrH
O QJ -H CO
4-J 4J U C
O rH O
QJ &- QJ r-t
C QJ E cd
W > 0
H QJ O OJ
-O CO 4J IH
QJ
Li
0
O O
• « »
4-1 Ll rH
r4 f. Ll
Ul 4J CJ
O 4J «
CO MH
QJ U
4J C E O
-a w o co
E
QJ
iJ
1
C 4J
o
>> -C
j_i co
u C
UH O
rH iJ
c
Z E
s
Li
QJ
4-J W
u c1
4H O
r-l 4J
o o
2 E
• H
o
E
H 01
4J
>, 1
3 O
H cn
4-1 00
Li
55 4J
P
!rC
0 C
« o
11
E
OJ
's "S
MH H
QJ H
E c
to e
CJ
0
H
O
£
j
H
Z
Z
0
cti
Z
w
OJ 1
• -H 00 QJ
QJ 4-J C U
4J rH O C
CO 3 «— 1 -H
3 H 00
4H C CO
O '-H 4-1 £
TD O QJ
(J -C QJ
OJ 00 -O E
MH* 'rH C QJ
QJ C/J -H 4J
H QO
c
M 6 H
QJ Li 4-i
• H OJ W
MH rH [J
"S " M S
CO -H
4-1 4J 4J CO
U -C O -O
4-i rH QJ Ll
QJ CO -d 4J
W rH QJ
• rH M
4J O 0 rC
ra 4-1
3 4-1 00 QJ
•H c. y
4H T3 -H C
QJ CJ W
4-J CO 4J W
QJ S -H 4J
,
C 4J
rH -|H
« E6
CJ rH QJ
• H QJ CL
OJ 4J 4J
4J rH 1 Ll
to o d rC
O H 00 Jl
WJ -H
(J Li o "O
QJ CO Td 4J
OJ 3 C
C QJ
01 S 2 ^
™ M s «
O LI -i
QJ E Ol
4H Q) 0 >
QJ 4-1 MH w
l_,
O
CO QJ
00 QJ
S r-
H CO
-H QJ
CJ 03
a;
•114-1
3 E L> -rH
QJ O OJ en
UH u 4j
rH QJ
QJ OJ CO OC
CO CO 4J CO •
Li MH QJ QJ
a g> H M u
O Li QJ Q) H
MH o 4J W 4J
co o r-i ca 01
-O S a. c: H
c
tO QJ
QJ CO
33
cO
>> w
rH O
w a-
O -H -
> rQ
D- rC QJ
W C
C/3 O
S ffl H
"O -iH
s £
OC
QJ -u „* x
4J C 03 ^
•rH QJ
_C tC rH 03
4-1 4-J 3 CJ
rH 4-J O
S 0 -H 3 -H
1^
QJ QJ 00
C 4J O OO
C to to co
a! 1 e to ^
4-1 Q- C 4-1 -O
•o w M a to
QJ
•H ro
E M
•(H O
x a
Ll -H
QJ L.
T— t J_l
O O
2-33
-------
TJ
0)
§
•rt
4J
g
U
CM
CN
§
S3
H K
§•*
to
1 <
£3
O
55
UJ
H
UJ
U H
OC CO
W M
a u
-a
c
4-1
4-1
CO
to
0
to
•rH
cO
X
43
X
'(U
4J tn
•S, h
1 00 41 •
1_| -H J> -U 01
O rH TJ C 01
a. to to o) o
en w to
C ^ cj 3
cO • O to O
O rH Of) ^
CO 0 co d
« C 4-t 4-1 'I
)-i O C O 41
T) 4-1 4-1 4H '(/I
0 cO O 4-1 .rH
g 4-1 a co '4-i
C- Mil
cO C O
•H -H Jj
4-1 4-1 3
coo
41 41 en
4 4-1 4-1 41
O 4-1 I-i
X
4J X r-l
00 CO 4^
rH J-i -rH
TJ QJ
-1 • CO J-I
( 4-1 3
TJ en to 4J
1 8£>2
Q.rH
C -C to x
cO 00 41 to
to rt > 4)
4-1 rH TJ cj
O 4H 4-»
• O •
4-1 C 00 W
tn O X C QJ
O -rH 4-J -r-i O
O 4J >H 4-J 1-1
CB rH O 3
,C 4-1 H 41 O
OO >-i 43 4H 01
•H O 'Hi <4H 41
p^ D- w cO to
to -H
O i cn >,
G, rH W ,— 1
01 -H O 4) X
C 41 G. cn M
nJ > r-i QJ
i-i Vj 4.1 oi 42
-U 3 rC > W
C/1 00 TJ -i-1
4-1 -r-4 (0 4H
O TJ rH
C C/l -JH 00 *
4J CO O C W
s c . •»•£ a
O O QJ 4-1 O 3
•H 0 -H 4J O
3 4-> c r-i 4-< en
O CO CO -H 4H CO
r-3 i-l -H J3 CO rH
i i y
C C -H 0
l-i E C en
4J O 41
T) O en
4-i C 3
to 0 J2 co
O -H • 4-1 41
O 4-1 00 O l-i
X 4-J -H f
00 VH to 4-> 41
•HO Q -H 4±
X D. 4-1 3 4J
W
U
IH
X
0
8
W
O I
r- y o)
• -H C.
OJ M tO
4-) rH
4) 4.1
o> E
43 W
to QJ
O 41 4-1
T) O 3
41 O
4-J ~to
nj o 0
•rl
4-J C
woo
c
o -o
O 4-i 41
\I3 4-1
• y M
fl -H O
to Q.
CU 4) C
43 E CO
Q V-1 4J
4-1 CO
D- en
4) O 4J
4-J ITl 01
E r* 3
.,_!
4-1 rH
(0 0 O
O
4-1
TJ
O C 4)
CO O 4-1
• 4-1 rH
CO O
O O.
•rH cn
0) M C
-D 4-1 CO
o E 4-1
4->
iH CO
TJ 41 01
4) (3- 4-1
4-J 01
CO O CO
E03
•iH
« rH O
O
cn
• o
O 'rH
4) 01
-D E
O to
Q.
•D
4J O
g -M
CO
oi E
to
O 41
4-1 C3-
T3 O
cu O
CO rH
4-J C
woe
4-J 4-1
0 0
C X
O 00
H to
cO C
0 •
01 U
c c
CO rH
I-I —s
to
o
4-1 y oo
O -H C 41
CO 4H -rH 3
M 4-1 to -H
•H -ri O tO
Q TJ 4-1 >
0 1
4-t -r-t to
d CO
TJ O rH
Q) E rH QJ
4-1 O — <
CO
CO
3
cO
O I
4-J -H r-l
TJ O rH
4-1 O
QJ O
rH X Z P
X rH rH
•-13 • -D
4-i y oo co
41 4-1 -H -r-<
to 4n to cO
H -H O r»
O TJ 4-1 CO
M 41
O 3
O 4-1 rH
4-1 -H CO
C r>
TJ O
4) E M
4J CO
CO 4-1 rH
41 O
X rH O rH
rH 3 Z 43
4J 0 CO
CO 4H • -H
rJ W-H 00 CO
•H -H C >
Q TJ ft T!
to CO
0 3
O 4J rH
4-1 -H CO
d >
TJ O
eu E rH
4J CO
CO ^ rH
41 O
4-1 CO
•-• 3 Z 43
4-J y co
O -H rH
41 4H • TH
to 4-i 00 CO
H -H C >
Q TJ -H CO
4-1
0
u
00
c
to
o
4-1
• H
c
o
s
t/3 41
co to
0 CO
O rH
0) CO CO rH
0) S 4J
01 TJ H CO
rH 4» O (X
C 4-1 C
QJ g TJ CO
> QJ -H 3
•H r-t M U
CO Q. 4-1
C E 3 4-J
CO -rH O 01
&- CO
X 01 tn o
CO
C/J CO
tn to
Q to
O rH
W CtJ CO r-l
W E 4-1
QJ TJ H CO
C 4-1 C
3 C "O
41 CO rH
> QJ -H 3
•H rH en u
01 PL 4-1
C E 3 4-i
4) -rJ. O en
a- co
X cn cn q
CO CO 41
c/j E en c
Q o c: -H
O tO 41
O- 4)
01 • Ql -H
CO TJ en
rH. QJ 4H
C 4J O r-l
3 C 4)
41 c f:
at E o 4J
p> 41 -H O
•H rH 4-J
oj CL CO O
C E 00 4-1
4> r-l -H
o. 4-J a)
X cn TH 3
CU -rH E T3
rH
4) 1 -H
ft) to CO
C 41 >
41 &- rJ
CX O cO 3
cO nj V
rH en C
CfJ O 41 -rH
C D- 4Z 4J
O cn HJ 3
•rH -rH O
4-» TJ C r-l
QJ X O
y C c/i oo
X tO C to
QJ E O 41
•H TJ
O w 4-J C
CO O
tO CO 1 rH
Q O to 4-i
O C O tO
rH C O.
eo CO TJ
0) TJ TJ J-i
rH QJ -rH CO
C 4J W 3
3 c: 4-1 o
QJ 3
41 E O 4-J
> QJ en
•H rH 01 CtJ
W 0. -H O
C E o
41 -H CO
Q. QJ rH
& " S g
J.J
to
0
QJ
o
c
0)
3
QJ
3
C/l
ranges
01
4)
00
C
cO
to
to
4)
)-i
CO
4)
O
C
cO
en
41
00
C
CO
i to 0}
O 4-1 QJ
O M cO l-i
QJ rH y 3
n 0) > cO -H O
4J -H 4-1 01
y TJ 4-) -H co
QJ C C C tn
4-1 co CO 00
J 4H 4-1 H 4H
CO Q.
0) y 4H c
cn l-i 4-J o O
rH 3 rC ••-*
CO 0 00 cn 4-1
•rH > en H cn to
rH TJ CO rH O O
4J
,£ 01 QJ
00 en y
•H 0 to
^ g
rH 01
X O CO
to 4-t l-i
41
> rH 41
CO to
O -H 3
4J 4-1 4-1
C 3
41 4) UH
C 4-1
O 0 *W
z o- o
J-I
O t
4-1 E
rH 0 U1
CO .H
•>H CO 44
4J tl rH
C 3 rH
CO 4-J QJ
4J 3 rC
O 4-1 01
Q- CO
4-t rH O
4J O to to
4S >H 3
00 cn y O
H co M cn
rH o 41 QJ
C/} rH E -H
O 4J
4-1 C
CO 1 W
rH (J 41 QJ
co -H to y
4J -H QJ 3
C C rH O
CO 00 en
4_l .r-t <4H OJ
O cn o -H
D.
4-1 O O cO
4= r-i C
00 01 4-1 O
•rH 01 to -H
(n Q. ( rrj
en O 1 C co 41
O O, X 4) U r4
rH CU 4-1 C
41 O CO l-i
M y 4-t CL v* O
O C O co
4H H C 0 4-1 to
en z M 4) •
rH CO CO 4-1 X
CO CO l-i 4-1 (ft )ri
4-1 to 41 H O 42
C 3 W rH rH W
41 O Ci 43 M-l H
4-1 01 O CO O W <*-t
O 4) rH 4-1
D. U 4-1 r-t -H _n 43
CO O cO 4J co
K: o a a 4-1 3 o
01
cu
y
l-i
3
O
CO
u
H
4-1
O
• H
CQ
O
0
1-J
4-J
-ob
•r-t
X
u
41
I J
Possib
confli
4-1
y
4-t
d
o
o
4-1
O
4H
C
O
y
O
Z
nflict.
o
u
o
y
• H
C
o
o
cy
u
3
0
01
cS
CO
I-I
41
c
s:
14-1
o
0)
01
O
rH TJ
CO C
•rH CO
C rH
CO
4-1 4J
O C
O- 41
4^ O
00 rH
rH >
en QJ
TJ
QJ cO
> 00
4-1
•H
3
4-J
y
H •
rH 00
4-1 C
o a-
y a.
•H
O 4=
00
d
H 0)
rH en
3 3
co y
4= CO
0 43
en
41 CO
4-1 -H
CO 4-1
41 3
TJ TJ y
O C! -H
rS CO WJ
4= H
4-1
•s s
00 T-4
conflict
• shippin
se the s
to 3
CO CO cO
§rC y
*J 4>
cn o 43
1 4-1
00 "4-1 O
H TJ CO
3 rH 3
TJ CO a]
QJ C y
43 O 4>
y H 43
01 4-1
CO en
CO to 4)
4-1 QJ r-t
co a. 4-1
rH O rH
41 3
TJ T) y
O d -rH
S CB 4H
to
u
rH
H
CO
M
O
3
3 0
41 o
z y
E O
o z
4H
CO to
y o
C -Q
4-1 CO
en pa
•H
TJ -^
4-1 O
0 >>
y
•H
cO
r-l
4J
to
C
•H
T)
41
locat
zone .
W
y
i— i
MH
C
O
Z
0)
i rH
00
41
4J
S-i
cO
rH CO
M-l C
00
C
•H
D.
•H
rC
4-1
•H
3
2-34
-------
"[site sizes] will be limited in order to localize for
identification and control any immediate adverse impacts
and permit the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-range
impacts."
"EPA will, whenever feasible, designate ocean dumping
sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other
such sites that have been historically used."
The 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site complies with all of the above
criteria.
Eleven specific site selection criteria are presented in Section 228.6 of
the Ocean Dumping Regulations. The following discussion consolidates the
information for the 106-Mile Site, demonstrating the site's compliance with
the site selection criteria. Additional information is provided in Chapter 3
(Affected Environment) and Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences).
GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION, DEPTH OF WATER,
BOTTOM TOPOGRAPHY AND DISTANCE FROM COAST
The 106-Mile Site is beyond the mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf, over
portions of the Continental Slope and Continental Rise (Figure 2-1). Its
coordinates are latitudes 38°40'N to 39°00'N and longitudes 72°00'W to
72°30'W. Water depths at the site range from 1,440 m (in the topographically
rugged northwest corner) to 2,750 m (in the relatively flat southeast corner).
The nearest point of land is the New Jersey coast north of Cape May, located
approximately 120 nmi (220 km) from the northwest corner of the site.
LOCATION IN RELATION TO BREEDING, SPAWNING, NURSERY, FEEDING,
OR PASSAGE AREAS OF LIVING RESOURCES IN ADULT OR JUVENILE PHASES
All of these activities occur in some measure within the oceanic region
along the Shelf break which contains the 106-Mile Site; however, no feature of
the life history of valuable organisms is known to be unique to the 106-Mile
Site or its vicinity.
2-35
-------
Rare or endangered species may be present occasionally at the 106-Mile
Site. However, the site is not a concentration point for these animals, which
are migratory and would be present for only a few hours. Turtles (e.g.,
hawksbill and leatherback) and whales (e.g., sperm and right) may occasionally
pass through the site. The possibility that these animals would be affected
by a waste disposal operation is remote. Rare or endangered birds are not
present at the site (Gusey, 1976).
LOCATION IN RELATION TO BEACHES AND OTHER AMENITY AREAS
The site is 90 nmi (170 km) from the nearest point of land, the coast of
New Jersey. This distance is adequate to provide for extensive dilution and
dispersion of wastes before reaching shore. Therefore, use of the site should
not impinge on recreation, coastal development, or any other amenities along
the shoreline.
TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF WASTES PROPOSED TO BE DISPOSED OF, AND PROPOSED
METHODS OF RELEASE, INCLUDING METHODS OF PACKING THE WASTE, IF ANY
Wastes to be disposed of at the site must meet the EPA environmental impact
criteria outlined in Part 227, Subparts B, D, and E of the Ocean Dumping
Regulations, or, as in the cases of some of the present permittees using the
site, dumping of wastes not complying with the impact criteria must be phased
out by December 31, 1981. In all cases, a need for ocean dumping must be
demonstrated in accordance with Subpart C. Upon site designation, types and
quantities of wastes presently dumped will apply. At this time, no new permit
applications are anticipated. All wastes expected to be disposed of now, and
following final site designation, will be aqueous industrial wastes (and
possibly municipal sewage sludge.) transported by vessels with subsurface
release mechanisms. None of the wastes will be packaged in any way.
FEASIBILITY OF SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING
Both activities are feasible at the 106-Mile Site, although costly. This
subject was addressed earlier in Chapter 2.
2-36
-------
DISPERSAL, HORIZONTAL TRANSPORT AND VERTICAL MIXING CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE AREA, INCLUDING PREVAILING CURRENT DIRECTION AND VELOCITY
The physical oceanographic characteristics of the 106-Mile Site are
described in detail in Appendix A. Waste dispersal is discussed in Chapter 4
and Appendix B.
EXISTENCE AND EFFECTS OF CURRENT AND PREVIOUS DISCHARGES
AND DUMPING IN THE AREA (INCLUDING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS)
Chapter 4 and Appendices A and B provide additional details on effects of
dumping at the site. This EIS is limited to discerning effects of industrial
waste dumping. The effects of past munitions disposal within the site are
unknown. Likewise, the effects of radioactive waste disposal outside of the
site are unknown.
Based on survey work conducted at the 106-Mile Site and at other sites
where acid-iron wastes are dumped, short-term adverse effects of waste dumping
are generally known. These effects consist of plankton mortality in the waste
plume immediately upon discharge from the barge, pH changes within the plume,
increased concentrations of some waste constituents in the upper water column,
and possible avoidance of the area by fish. Short-term effects are mitigated
by rapid dilution and dispersion of the wastes within the period of initial
mixing.
Other investigations of dumping effects have been made, but the studies are
still at a preliminary stage. Some observations include possible occurrence
of abnormal fish eggs and embryos in the waste plume, ingestion of waste
particulates by zooplankton, inhibition of organic carbon assimilation by
bacteria, reduced feeding rates in copepods, stimulation of diatom growth in
low waste concentrations and growth inhibition in elevated concentrations, and
possible transport of waste materials by vertically migrating zooplankton.
Most of this work has been hindered by the difficulty of tracking the plumes
and performing time-series sampling within plumes. These effects and others
are subjects for future research on waste disposal at the site.
2-37
-------
INTERFERENCE WITH SHIPPING. FISHING, RECREATION, MINERAL
EXTRACTION, DESALINATION, FISH AND SHELLFISH CULTURE, AREAS OF
SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC IMPORTANCE, AND OTHER LEGITIMATE USES OF THE OCEAN
Present use of the 106-Mile Site interferes with none of the listed
activities, nor is future use of the site for dumping likely to cause an
obstruction. Most resource exploitation occurs on the Continental Shelf, so
use of a site off the Continental Shelf is not likely to influence such
activities adversely. The only relevant consideration is the effect, if any,
of transit to and from the site. Emergency waste dumping could cause wastes
being transported to the site to be short-dumped in an area where other
activites are occurring; however, such a situation would be expected to cause
only short-term interference anc. short-term adverse impacts, if any.
THE EXISTING WATER QUALITY AND ECOLOGY OF THE SITE AS DETERMINED
BY AVAILABLE DATA OR BY TREND ASSESSMENT OR BASELINE SURVEYS
No known pre-disposal baseline data from the site vicinity exist; however,
trend assessment surveys and limited laboratory studies have been conducted
since waste disposal began at the site. This work is detailed in Chapter 4
and Appendix A.
POTENTIALITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OR RECRUITMENT
OF NUISANCE SPECIES IN THE DISPOSAL SITE
In several years of site survey work, since waste discharging began, no
development or recruitment of nuisance species has been observed.
EXISTENCE AT OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE SITE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT
NATURAL OR CULTURAL FEATURES OF HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE
No such features are known to exist at or near the site. The site is
sufficiently distant from shore, so that wastes will not affect national or
state parks or beaches.
2-38
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED ACTION
All future use of the 106-Mile Site for ocean waste disposal must comply
with the EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria - a requirement which also
brings prospective dumping into compliance with the MPRSA and the London Ocean
Dumping Convention. EPA determines compliance with the Ocean Dumping
Regulations on a case-by-case basis as applications for disposal permits are
evaluated. This section offers general guidelines for determining accept-
ability of applicant wastes when a clear need for ocean disposal has been
demonstrated, due to a lack of land-based disposal methods.
TYPES OF WASTES
Waste materials similar to those presently dumped at the site (see
Appendix B) will be provisionally acceptable, -since no significant adverse
environmental effects have yet been demonstrated from dumping these wastes.
If adverse effects are observed in later monitoring, dumping must be altered
(reduced or stopped) according to Section 228.11 of the Ocean Dumping
Regulations until such effects do not occur. For the present, however,
industrial wastes having the following characteristics may be released at the
site:
Aqueous, with solids concentrations sufficiently low, so that waste
materials are dispersed within the upper water column
Neutrally buoyant or slightly denser than seawater, such that, upon
mixing with seawater, the material does not float
Demonstrate low toxicity and low bioaccumulation potential to
representative marine organisms
Contain no materials in concentrations prohibited by the MPRSA or
the London Ocean Dumping Convention
Contain constituents in concentrations that are diluted, such that
the limiting permissible concentration for each constituent is not
exceeded beyond the disposal site boundaries during initial mixing
(4 hours), and not exceeded inside or outside of the site after
initial mixing
2-39
-------
Sewage sludge represents a special category of waste being considered for
dumping at the site and is discussed in additional detail in Chapter 5.
WASTE LOADINGS
Since cumulative effects of past waste loading have not been demonstrated
at the site, no upper limit can be defined beyond which effects could occur.
(See Appendix B.) The maximum historical input, roughly 800,000 metric tons
of industrial wastes and sewage sludge in 1978, has not caused observable
long-term adverse effects. However, the critical element for evaluating the
effects of waste loading at the site, is not the total annual input, but
rather the input of each individual dump. The rate of release of each waste
load must not be greater than the ability of the water to dilute it to
acceptable levels within a short time. Compliance with Section 227.8 of the
Ocean Dumping Regulations (limiting permissible concentration) should ensure
that the marine environment will not be adversely or irreversibly impacted.
The total assimilative capacity of the site is unknown because the physical
conditions which cause waste dispersal there are still not well understood.
Therefore, making accurate predictions of maximum permissible waste loading is
impossible at this time. However, the emphasis of future NOAA research at the
site is to define the physical characteristics of the site and its action on
the waste in more detail. Each waste proposed to be dumped must be evaluated
individually, and in relation to other wastes being dumped, for dispersion
characteristics and input of toxic elements to the environment of the area.
In the absence of more accurate information, waste loadings increased above
the present level may be permitted as long as the site is carefully monitored
for adverse effects. However, the amount of material dumped in each barge
load must not be greater than chat amount which can be reduced to acceptable
levels within the period of initial mixing (4 hours). EPA establishes the
size of barge loads and rates of release of materials at the site to meet this
objective.
2-40
-------
DISPOSAL METHODS
Present disposal methods practiced by permittees at the site appear to be
acceptable for future waste disposal. Wastes are transported to the site in
specially constructed barges, or in self-propelled tankers, and discharged
from underwater valves while the barge/vessel is underway within the disposal
site boundaries. The turbulence created in the barge/vessel wakes causes
immediate dilution of the waste. This method (or any other method that
maximizes initial dilution upon discharge) is recommended for all future
disposal.
DUMPING SCHEDULES
EPA presently manages the disposal operations, such that different
quadrants of the site are used seasonally by each permittee. This plan
minimizes contact of wastes being released within the site at the same time
and maximizes the dilution of wastes by using the entire site for dumping.
When two or more waste vessels are discharging wastes simultaneously, the
vessels should be separated by the maximum possible distance (at least
0.5 nmi) within the quadrant to allow for adequate dilution of the wastes.
PERMIT CONDITIONS
EPA specifies special conditions for inclusion in individual permits as
necessary. All future permits should minimally contain the following
conditions:
(1) Independent shiprider surveillance of disposal operations will be
conducted by the USCG or an unbiased observer (the latter at
permittee's expense), with a program goal of 75% surveillance,
assuming that surveillance would be increased with the implemen-
tation of ODSS by the USCG.
(2) Comprehensive monitoring for long-term impacts will be accomplished
by Federal agencies and monitoring for short-term impacts will be
accomplished by NOAA and the permittees (or by environmental
contractors at the permittee's expense). All monitoring studies of
permittees are subject to EPA approval. Short-term monitoring
should include laboratory studies of waste characteristics and
toxicity, and field studies of waste behavior upon discharge and its
2-41
-------
effect on local organisms. Long-term monitoring should include
studies of chronic toxicity of the waste at low concentrations and
field studies of the fate of materials, especially any particulates
formed after discharge.
(3) EPA will enforce a discharge rate based on the limiting permissible
concentration, disposal in quadrants of the site, and maintenance of
a 0.5 nmi separation distance between vessels.
(4) Key constituents of the waste will be routinely analyzed in waste
samples at: a frequency to be determined by EPA on a case-by-case
basis, but sufficient to evaluate accurately mass loading at the
site.
(5) Routine bioassays will be performed on waste samples using
appropriate sensitive: marine organisms.
2-42
-------
Chapter 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This Chapter describes the environments of the proposed
site and the alternative sites. The 106-Mile Site is in deep
water off the Continental Shelf, thus it exhibits
environmental features different from the alternative sites,
which are in shallow water over the Continental Shelf. These
unique features of the 106-Mile Site make it a better
location for industrial waste disposal than any of the
alternative sites.
THE 106-MILE SITE
Detailed information on the 106-Mile Site (Figure 3-1) is given in
Appendix A. The following discussion is excerpted from Appendix A.
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
The site is beyond the edge of the Continental Shelf within the influence
of the Gulf Stream (Figure 3-2), therefore surface water at the site may
belong to any or all of three different water masses, each having distinct
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics: Shelf Water, Slope Water,
and Gulf Stream Water. Slope Water normally occupies the site; however, when
the Shelf/Slope front migrates eastward, Shelf Water of equal or lower
salinity and temperature spreads over Slope Water, forming a relatively thin
surface layer. Occasionally, warm-core rings of water (eddies), break off the
Gulf Stream and migrate through the site, entraining Shelf Water or Gulf
Stream Water. The latter is of higher temperature and salinity than Slope
Water. Such eddies do not pass through the site on a seasonal basis, but they
have been observed to touch or completely occupy the site for about 70 days a
year (Bisagni, 1976).
As the surface waters of the site warm in late spring, the water stratifies
within 10 to 50 m of the surface, forming a seasonal thermocline. Stratifi-
cation persists until mid or late fall, when cooling and storm activity
3-1
-------
75
1. New York Bight Acid
Wastes Dispoal Site
2. Northern Area
LONG ISLAND *
3. Southern Area
4. Delaware Bay Acid
Waste Disposal Site
5. 106-Mile Ocean
Waste Disposal Site
(Proposed)
38° -
73°
72°
Figure 3-1. Proposed and Alternative Disposal Sites
3-2
-------
74°
72°
70°W
KILOMETERS
0 ' 100
NAUTICAL MILES
0
50
v
HUDSON
CANYON
O
40°
39°
38°N
Figure 3-2. Location of the 106-Mile Site (Shaded)
Source: Adapted from Warsh, 1975b.
destroy it. From fall through winter and into early spring, the temperature
of the water column is the same from the surface to a depth of approximately
100 m. At 100 to 150 m depth, however, a permanent thermocline exists,
dividing the water column into upper and lower regimes. Water below the
permanent thermocline is uniformly lower in temperature than water above the
thermocline. The different water densities of these regimes (caused by the
differences in temperatures) prevent large-scale mixing of the layers. Large
storms passing through the area will only disrupt this feature temporarily, if
at all. Physical characteristics of the site greatly influence the ultimate
fate of aqueous wastes dumped there.
3-3
-------
Few current measurements exist for the site; however, the literature
indicates that water at all depths in this area tends to flow southwest at a
speed of less than 0.2 kn, genera]ly following the boundary of the Continental
Shelf and Continental Slope (Warsh, 1975b). Occasionally, the water flow may
change direction, particularly when Gulf Stream eddies pass through the area;
this effect has been observed at great depths at the site.
Physical and chemical characteristics at the site introduce biological
complexity because each water mass possesses unique associations of plants and
animals.
GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
The Continental Slope within the disposal area has a gentle (4%) grade,
which levels off (1%) outside the site in the region of the upper Continental
Rise. Sediments within the site are principally sand and silt, with silts
predominating (Pearce et al., 1975). Sediment composition is a major factor
determining the amounts and kinds of animals capable of colonizing the bottom
of the site. Generally, g.reater diversity and abundance of fauna are
associated with fine sediments (e.g., silt) than with coarse sediments (e.g.,
sand), although unusual physical conditions may alter this. Fine-grained
sediments are more likely to contain higher concentrations of heavy metals
than coarse sediments. Sand, gravel, and rocky bottoms rarely contain these
elements in high concentrations.
Continental Slope sediments in various parts of the site are subject to
different dynamic forces. The Upper Continental Rise is an area of tranquil
deposition, and the Lower Continental Rise is an area of shifting deposition.
Erosional areas (caused by currents) lie between these two provinces.
Depositional processes would determine the ultimate fate of any waste products
which reached bottom (anticipated to be quite small). In areas swept by
currents, waste products would be carried out of the disposal site by
currents, and greatly diluted. In areas of erosion and shifting deposition,
the same situation would esist, although the waste material could be
temporarily deposited before movement. With tranquil or slow deposition,
waste products would be buried slowly.
3-4
-------
CHEMICAL CONDITIONS
The amount of oxygen dissolved in seawater is a general indicator of the
life-supporting capacity of the water. Dissolved oxygen levels below 0.5
ml/liter stress some oceanic animals (Banse, 1964). Dissolved oxygen
concentrations at the 106-Mile site range from 4.6 to almost 7.5 ml/liter in
surface water.
Dissolved oxygen levels are minimum at depths of 200 to 300 m (averaging
3.2 ml/liter), and slowly increase vertically (shallower or deeper) from the
stratification line. Summer and winter dissolved oxygen gradients at the site
are similar, the main difference being the higher surface concentrations
during winter. Any waste material which undergoes oxidation in seawater will
consume oxygen, thus lowering the quantity of dissolved oxygen present in
seawater.
Chemical research and monitoring surveys at the 106-Mile Site have analyzed
trace metal levels in the sediments, water, and selected organisms. Metals in
the sediments and water represent contaminants potentially available to site
organisms, and could possibly be assimilated (bioaccumulated) and concentrated
in toxic quantities within tissues.
Numerous metals are naturally present in seawater. Only concentrations of
metals which exceed natural background levels and approach known or suspected
toxicity levels would be expected to threaten marine organisms and man. The
most recent studies of trace metal levels in the water of the 106-Mile Site
found background levels typical of other uncontaminated Shelf-Slope regions
(Kester et al., 1977; Hausknecht and Kester, 1976a, 1976b).
Concentrations of trace metals in sediments all along the Continental Slope
and Continental Rise (including the site area) are generally elevated in
comparison to Continental Shelf values (Greig et al., 1976; Pearce et al.,
1975). This difference in concentrations is due partly to particle size
differences between Shelf and Slope sediments, since contaminants are usually
3-5
-------
more concentrated in finer grain sediments characteristic of the Slope region.
Thus, elevated values appear to be ubiquitous off the Shelf, and therefore are
not attributed to waste disposal activities at the site.
Analyses of trace metal concentrations in organisms at the site revealed
high cadmium levels in three swordfish livers, mercury levels above the Food
and Drug Administration action level ("unfit for human consumption") in most
fish muscle samples, and low to moderate copper and manganese concentrations,
similar to those in New York B^ght finfish (Greig and Wenzloff, 1977; Greig et
al., 1976). However, ocean waste disposal at the site was not linked by
investigators to the metal concentrations found in any of the analyzed benthic
and pelagic organisms because the organisms were transients and not confined
to the site vicinity (Pearce et al., 1975).
BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Plankton are microscopic plants and animals which drift passively with the
current or swim weakly. Plankton are divided into plants - the phytoplankton,
and animals - the zooplankton. Plankton are the primary source of food in the
ocean, so their health and ability to reproduce are of crucial importance to
all life in the ocean, including fish and shellfish of commercial importance.
Plankton at the 106-Mile Site are highly diverse due to the influence of
the Shelf, Slope, and Gulf Stream water masses, as previously discussed in the
section on physical conditions. High-nutrient Shelf Waters primarily
contribute diatoms to the site, while the low-nutrient Slope Waters contribute
coccolithophorids, diatoms, dLnoflagellates, and other mixed flagellates
(Hulburt and Jones, L977). Mixed assemblages of zooplankters, common to the
different water masses, occupy the site during winter, spring, and summer
(Sherman et al. , 1977; Austin, L975).
Fish have been surveyed at various depths within the site. The diversity
and abundance of fish found only in surface waters are similar inside and
outside the disposal site (Haedrich, 1977). The fauna found primarily at
mid-depths (mesopelagic fish), are dominated by Slope Water species with Gulf
3-6
-------
Stream eddies contributing some north Sargasso Sea species (Krueger et al.,
1975, 1977; Haedrich, 1977). At some depths, particularly in the lower water
column, the density of mesopelagic fish has been lower at the site, compared
with control areas (Krueger et al. , 1977). -Several migratory oceanic fish,
usually associated with the Gulf Stream, are often found at midwater depths
within the site. Benthic (bottom) fish in the site are similar to assemblages
in other Slope areas (Musick et al., 1975; Cohen and Pawson, 1977).
Abundance and diversity of invertebrates at the 106-Mile Site are similar
to those in most other mid-Atlantic Slope localities. As in similar areas,
the invertebrates on the bottom (the epifauna) of the 106-Mile Site are
dominated by echinoderms (e.g., brittle stars and sea urchins), while
segmented worms (polychaetes) are the dominant burrowing organisms.
No mammal sightings have been reported at the site, although the site is
within the distribution range of several species of whales and turtles, some
of which are rare or endangered. These animals tend to be wide-ranging, using
Slope Waters as a migratory route between northern summering grounds and
southern wintering grounds. However, disposal activities at the 106-Mile Site
would not obstruct migrations nor harm these animals in any forseeable way
since, as migrants, they would only be in the site a few hours, at most, and
would tend to avoid dump vessels. Additional information in the Draft EIS is
provided in Appendix A within the subsection entitled "Nekton".
WASTE DISPOSAL AT THE SITE
Waste disposal at the 106-Mile Site is discussed in detail in Appendix B.
CONCURRENT AND FUTURE STUDIES
NOAA plans to continue monitoring the 106-Mile Site. All permittees are
required to monitor waste discharges. Current permittees have contracted with
a private company to conduct yearly monitoring.
3-7
-------
OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THE SITE VICINITY
Few activities occur in the site vicinity other than waste disposal
operations at the site. A large area immediately south of the site has been
proposed for at-sea incineration. There are no other ocean disposal sites in
the vicinity. Oil and gas lease tracts are west and north of the site, along
the outer Continental Shelf (Figure 3-3). The Hudson Canyon Navigational Lane
crosses the Continental Slope north of the site, but no major shipping lanes
approach 106-Mile Site boundaries (Figure 3-4).
Limited fisheries resources occur at the 106-Mile Site and vicinity. Most
commercially important species of finfishes in the mid-Atlantic prefer to live
and spawn in Shelf areas and along the crest of the Continental Shelf-Slope
break (NOAA-MESA, 1975; BLM, 1978; Chenoweth, 1976a). Consequently, most
foreign and domestic fish trawling is conducted at depths shallower than 1,000
m - much shallower than the 106-Mile Site. Waters near the site have been
used for the commercial longliae fishing of marlin, swordfish, and tuna (Casey
and Hoenig, 1977). However, only 1,264 fish of these species were reported
caught between 1961 and 1974 i:i a large ocean area, of which the 106-Mile Site
is a small part (Casey and Hoenig, 1977). Unknown additional quantities of
these species were caught by foreign fishermen. The commercial longline
effort is variable and dependent on the presence of eddies or other water
masses near the site that create interfaces between water masses which are
favorable to fishing (Casey, personal communication). In general, catch
statistics for Continental Slope areas are incomplete because fishing vessels
move from Shelf to Slope areas;, mixing catches; landing records usually fail
to separate Shelf species from Slope species.
The red crab (Geryon quinquedens) is among the several species of crabs
collectively important to mid-Atlantic fisheries. The red crab is presently
considered a feasible fishery only when simultaneously collected with other
more commercially valuable species (Gusey, 1976). Adult red crabs have been
found to depths of 4,000 m and juvenile red crabs have been found from depths
of 500 to 1,000 m (Wigley, personal communication). Thus, the 106-Mile Site
occurs within the depth range of the species.
3-8
-------
41°
40°
75°
DCS
LEASE SALE NO. 49
| OCS LEASE
SALE NO. 40
1. NEW YORK BIGHT ACID SITE
2. NORTHERN AREA
3. SOUTHERN AREA
4. DELAWARE BAY ACID SITE
5. 106-MILE SITE
NEW JERSEY
74°
73°
72°
39'
38° -
41°
40°
39°
0 50 100
NAUTICAL MILES
6 ' 50
38°
75°
74°
73°
72°
Figure 3-3. Oil and Gas Leases in the New York Bight
Source: Adapted from EPA, 1978.
3-9
-------
LONG ISLAND SOUND
1. NEW YORK BIGHT ACID SITE
2. NORTHERN AREA
3. SOUTHERN AREA
LONG ISLAND
4. DELAWARE BAY ACID SITE
5. 106-MILE SITE
SAND FAUNA
SILTY-SAND FAUNA
SILTY-CLAY FAUNA
DELAWARE
0 50 100
NAUTICAL MILES
38° -
Figure 3-4. Benthic Faunal Types in the Mid-Atlantic Bight
Source: Adapted from Pratt, 1973.
3-10
-------
The commercial fishing effort for red crabs is concentrated at depths of
300 to 500 m and does not presently occur at the 106-Mile Site or in water
depths similar to those at the site (Wigley, personal communication). The
greatest densities and biomass of red crabs occur at intermediate depths of
320 to 640 m (Wigley et al., 1975). Additional sampling is necessary to
verify the depth relationship between adult and juvenile crabs; however,
Wigley et al. (1975) found that some upslope migration of juvenile red crabs
occurs with increased age (size). The presence of adults to at least 4,000 m
depth suggests that downslope migration may occur. It is not known if
recruitment of red crabs exploited by the commercial industry is solely
dependent on individuals migrating from deeper water. Adequate abundance and
size-class data for the red crab are not presently available and additional
studies are needed (Wigley, personal communication). The effect of disposal
operations on the planktonic larvae of red crabs is unknown, but is expected
to be localized.
The commercial fishery for lobster (Homarus americanus) is one of the most
important fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic. Offshore fishing occurs to at
least 300 m depth and even with recent exploitation of lobsters on the
Continental Shelf, domestic catches of lobster have been declining since 1970.
Reported foreign catches are relatively small (Ginter, 1978). Lobsters occur
from the low intertidal down to at least 700 m, with the potential resource
occurring from 90 to 450 m depth (Larsen and Chenoweth, 1976; Gusey, 1976).
Lobster fishing is not presently conducted at or near the 106-Mile Site or in
water depths similar to those at the site (1,440 to 2,750 m). Lobsters prefer
habitats ranging from rock crevices to sand and mud burrows. The substrate at
the 106-Mile Site is predominantly silt, and therefore probably does not
provide adequate shelter.
ALTERNATIVE SITES IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Three New York Bight sites (Figure 3-1) - the existing New York Bight Acid
Wastes Site, and the proposed alternative Northern and Southern Areas - were
3-11
-------
evaluated as alternative sites for the disposal of industrial wastes. Overall
conditions for the New York Eight are described below, emphasizing conditions
which are unique to each site.
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
The physical characteristics of the New York Bight are complex. Seasonal
patterns of temperature, salinity, insolation, and river runoff are compli-
cated by strong meteorological events and intrusions of Slope Water (Bowman
and Wunderlich, 1977).
The hydrography of the New York Bight exhibits definite seasonal cycles in
temperature and salinity (hence density) structures. Two distinct oceano-
graphic regimes, with short transition periods, prevail during an annual
cycle. Early winter storm mixing and rapid cooling at the surface create a
well-mixed, unstratified water column. A moderate stratification develops in
early spring, which intensifies during summer (Charnell and Hansen, 1974).
The rapid formation of the se.isonal thermocline divides the water column into
upper and lower layers. Bottom waters remain stable until storms break up the
thermocline in the late fall.
Conditions at the New York Bight Acid Wastes Site are more extreme than
conditions at the Northern or Southern Areas because the site is close to
shore and is affected by the fresh water outflow from New York Harbor. The
site receives a greater influx of fresh water and suspended particulate matter
(discussed below) than Shelf areas farther offshore, due to its proximity to
Hudson River drainage. The site experiences colder winter water temperatures,
since the site water lacks the tempering effect of deep waters and receives
substantial cold-water runoff during the winter season.
GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
The New York Bight Continental Shelf is a vast sandy plain, underlain with
clay (Emery and Schlee, 1963; Milliman et al., 1972). Sand is the most
abundant textural component on the Shelf, and significant deposits of gravel
and mud are also present. Surface sediments of the Acid Site and the Northern
3-12
-------
Area contain small percentages of mud, while the latter contains some gravel.
Surface sediments of the Southern Area are principally sand. The most
prominent feature of the bottom sediment in this area is a band of coarse
gravelly sand near the northeast rim of the Southern Area, parallel to the
Hudson Shelf Valley.
Suspended particulate matter includes fine material from natural and
man-made sources, which is suspended in seawater for long periods and may be
transported for some distance by waves and currents before sinking to the
bottom. After reaching the bottom, the material may be resuspended by bottom
currents or wave action and transported to other areas. A number of potential
environmental effects have been attributed to suspended particulate matter.
Higher levels of this material can increase the turbidity of the water,
thereby significantly limiting the depth at which plants can photosynthesize.
Suspended particulates can have toxic effects, or can bind or adsorb toxic
materials which are eventually carried to bottom life. While suspended in
water or lying on the bottom, the toxic material can be consumed by marine
organisms, or taken up by absorption.
The highest concentrations of suspended particulate matter in New York
Bight waters occur near shore. The New York Bight Acid Wastes Site, in
particular, has high levels of suspended particulate matter due to its
closeness to the coast and Hudson River runoff, a major source of this
material. Lower levels of suspended particulates are transported to and from
the Northern and Southern Areas by means of currents moving to replace water
which has moved out of the area.
CHEMICAL CONDITIONS
The coastal metropolitan area is the primary source of heavy metals
entering the New York Bight (Benninger et al., 1975; Carmody et al., 1973).
Concentrations of dissolved heavy metals in the water of the New York Bight
vary seasonally; background (natural) concentrations, however, are generally
higher than those reported for the open ocean (Brewer, 1975). Heavy metal
concentrations in bottom sediments are not uniformly distributed throughout
the New York Bight, but vary according to sediment grain size, quality of
3-13
-------
organic material present, mineral composition, and proximity to the metro-
politan area. In general, concentrations of dissolved heavy metals are
highest in the Bight Apex, where man's influence is greatest.
Concentrations of heavy metals in sediments and water of the Northern and
Southern Areas are low compared to those found in the Bight Apex, but all
other chemical parameters are typical of the New York Bight. Higher levels of
heavy metals have occasionally been found in the water of the New York Bight
Acid Wastes Site (Segar and Cantillo, 1976), and metal concentrations in the
sediments of the site are generally half as high as concentrations in Hudson
Submarine Canyon sediments. Normally, waste material dumped at the site is
confined to the watesr column; however an iron flocculent, which forms as the
acid-iron waste reacts with seawater, has contributed to high sediment-iron
concentrations in the site vicinity.
Surface waters of the New York Bight are saturated or nearly saturated with
oxygen. Dissolved oxygen levels in bottom waters begin to decline in spring
as the the surface mixing layer (thermocline) develops; by late summer, the
oxygen levels reach the lowest values. Oxygen saturation increases in the
fall, following breakup of the surface mixed layer, and continues to increase
as greater mixing occurs (Segar et al., 1975). Dissolved oxygen concen-
trations in surface, mid-depth, and bottom waters in the Northern and Southern
Areas are moderately to highly saturated during winter, spring, and critical
summer conditions. The saturation value for oxygen at these sampling depths
probably does not fall below 50% at any time of year, and is usually much
higher (75% to 110%).
Suspended particulates which may trap and transport toxic substances, are
found in highest concentrations near areas of wastewater discharge (outfalls)
and sewage sludge, dredged material, and cellar dirt disposal sites. All
three alternative sites display low levels of total organic carbon. No
comprehensive studies of chlorinated hydrocarbons exist for the New York
Bight, but dredged material and sewage sludge disposal are probably major
sources of these materials in the Bight (EPA, 1975; Raytheon, 1975a, 1975b).
Industrial chemical waste generally contains low levels of chlorinated
hydrocarbons.
3-14
-------
BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
During most of the year, the ranges of daily phytoplankton production for
inshore and offshore areas of the New York Bight do not differ significantly
from one another (Ryther and Yentsch, 1958; Yentsch, 1963). Total annual
production, however, is higher in coastal waters. In broad terms, phyto-
plankton populations are dominated by diatoms during cold months and
chlorophytes during warm months in the Hudson River estuary and Bight Apex,
and by diatoms in the outer Bight. Zooplankton populations are dominated by
copepods and larvae of vertebrates and invertebrates during summer only in the
estuary, and by copepods in the outer Bight.
The fish population in the New York Bight includes nonmigrating species,
migrating species, and seasonal migrants (NYOSL, 1973). Many species of
coastal fishes use the New York Bight as a spawning ground, although no
specific location is used exclusively or consistently by any one species. The
benthic fauna show a subtle gradient in the offshore direction, from sand
fauna, to silty-sand fauna, to silty-clay fauna, as the sediments become more
fine-grained (Figure 3-4).
At present, 21 species of finfish and 15 species of shellfish are commonly
harvested in the New York Bight, and several other species are potentially
important to future fishing. Fish exhibit unrestricted movement, thus
locations where specific finfish are caught vary considerably from year to
year. Fish mobility and the understandable lack of a requirement for
fishermen to report specific fishing grounds, makes mapping of "finf isheries
nearly impossible.
Locations of specific shellfishing grounds in the mid-Atlantic are largely
unknown. However, since shellfish movement is restricted, assessment surveys
by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are useful for locating
areas inhabited by shellfish in marketable quantities. High densities of
three of the most heavily utilized Bight shellfish resources - the surf clam,
sea scallop, and ocean quahog - are shown in Figure 3-5. The assessment
surveys which provided these data were conducted in 1974 and 1975; actual
3-15
-------
locations and densities of the shellfish may have changed since that time. In
addition, EPA (1973) reports that ocean quahogs are numerous around the
Northern area. The Northern Area was not sampled in the NMFS assessment
surveys.
Minor commercial fishing occurs around the New York Bight Acid Wastes Site.
A seasonal whiting fishery exists along the edge of the Hudson Shelf Valley
near the site during the wintsr, and lobster are taken inshore of the site.
Most of the Bight Apex is closed to shellfishing because of contamination from
the sewage sludge and dredged material sites, and the numerous effluent
outfalls along the Long Island and New Jersey shore.
Surf clams, sea scallops, and ocean quahogs inhabit the Northern and
Southern Areas on a nonexclusive basis for most (or all) life stages. Surf
clams are more prevalent in the Southern Area and scallops are more prevalent
in the Northern Area. However, neither area is known to be actively fished at
this time.
WASTE DISPOSAL AT THE NEW YORK BIGHT ACID WASTES SITE
The New York Bight Acid Wastes Site was established in 1948 for the
disposal of waste generated ay industries in the New Jersey and New York
areas. The present site, designated as an interim disposal site by EPA in
1973, is bounded by latitudes 40°16'N to 40°20'N and longitudes 73°36'W to
73°40'W.
f
RECENT DISPOSAL PRACTICES
Three permittees were using the New York Bight Acid Wastes Site when it
came under EPA regulation in April 1973. In 1974, the Du Pont-Grasselli waste
disposal operation was moved to the 106-Mile Site. Two permittees - NL
Industries, Inc., and Allied Chemical Corporation - are currently using the
3-16
-------
41°
75°
1. NEW YORK BIGHT ACID SITE
2. NORTHERN AREA
3. SOUTHERN AREA
4. DELAWARE BAY ACID SITt
5. 106-MILF SITE
Illllllllllil OCEAN QUAHOG
SEA SCALLOP
E%%%3 SURF CLAM
74°
72°
40°
39°
38°
41°
40°
39°
KILOMETERS
0 50 100
NAUTICAL MILES
0 ~^ '"" ' " 50
38
75°
74-
72°
Figure 3-5 .
Distribution of Surf Clams, Ocean Quahogs, and
Sea Scallops in the Mid-Atlantic
Source: Adapted from NOAA-NMFS, 1974, 1975.
3-17
-------
Acid Wastes Site. The volume of waste discharged at the site decreased 65%
between 1973 and 1978 (Table 3-1), due to three factors:
(1) Du Pont-Grasselli abandoned the site in late 1974. Graselli waste
accounted for 5% of the total quantity disposed in 1973 and 1974.
(2) Allied Chemical shut down certain manufacturing processes, causing
the waste volume to decrease 74% between 1973 and 1978.
(3) NL Industries (the primary waste discharger) was either shut down or
operating at a reduced capacity (due to a strike) for an extended
period from 1976 to 1977. Normally, NL Industries contributes more
than 90% of the waste volume.
TABLE 3-1
AMOUNTS DUMPED AT THE NEW YORK BIGHT ACID WASTES DISPOSAL SITE
(Metric Tons)
Permittee
NL Industr ies
Allied Chemical
Du Pont-Grasselli
TOTAL
Year
1973
2,300,000
59,000
142,000
2,505,000
1974
1,987.000
56,000
78,000
2, 121,000
1975
1,842,000
48,000
—
1,890,000
1976
1,234,000
47,000
1,281,000
1977
605,000
29,000
634,000
1978
849,000
15,000
___
864,000
Total
8,822,000
254,000
220,000
9,295,000
NL Industries
NL Industries, in Sayreville, New Jersey, disposes of wastes generated
during the manufacture of titanium dioxide, an inert, nontoxic white pigment,
prepared in various grades for use in the paint, paper, plastic, drug, and
3-18
-------
ceramic industries. The waste consists of approximately 8.5% (by volume)
sulfuric acid (H SO ) and 10% (by volume) ferrous sulfate (FeSO,) dissolved in
fresh water. When the waste is dumped, the ferrous sulfate colors the water
light green. Shortly thereafter the barge wake turns brown as the ferrous
sulfate is oxidized to form ferric hydroxide (rust). Insoluble materials
(e.g., silica and unrecovered titanium dioxide) are also present in the waste.
NL Industries waste represented 97% of the total material dumped at the Acid
Site between 1975 and 1978.
Allied Chemical Corporation
Allied Chemical, in Elizabeth, New Jersey, discharges wastes from the
manufacture of fluorocarbons. The waste material consists of approximately
30% hydrochloric acid (HC1), 2% hydrofluoric acid (HF) - both by volume - and
trace constituents in aqueous solution. The principal trace metals in the
waste are chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. Allied Chemical wastes
represented 3% of the total material dumped at the Acid Wastes Site between
1975 and 1978.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
Dispersion studies have been conducted periodically on NL Industries wastes
since waste disposal began in 1948. Table 3-2 summarizes results of
dispersion studies for NL Industries and Allied Chemical wastes, showing that
the wastes are diluted rapidly after discharge. Redfield and Walford (1951)
reported that the maximum volume of water having an acid reaction was
3
162,000 m (640 m long, 23 m wide, and 11 m deep); the acid was neutralized
within 3.5 minutes after discharge. Recent EG&G studies (1977a, 1977b)
reported that the wastes did not penetrate the summer thermocline at 10 m, and
initial mixing was rapid. A detailed description of the dumping operation is
provided by Redfield and Walford (1951) and Peschiera and Freiberr (1968).
Trace Metals
The quantities of eight trace metals released at the Acid Site during the
years 1973 to 1978 are summarized in Table 3-3. Only chromium, vanadium, and
3-19
-------
w
H
H
O
W
Oi
s
Q
CM W
I H
CO CO
O
M
t-l
O
w
2
c
o
i — 13
O X
O ui
1- dJ
3 -J
i — C
o i;
O *o
53
CD
•—
O O
30 O
. — CM
S
LP
£
O
CM
„
177
r-
0
im ttee
erence
CJ i!
O_ a£
0
;z
o
o
o
o
CTi
1 §
^ CO
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
§
,-"
o
0
"C
-
o
r~*
^
c ^ — •--
4! ' — "CO —
— T: ___ cri u
1 ||| |l 11 4§
I
o
0
0
r*~i
_
0
0
CO
o
o
<~1
-'
-O
„
o
~
(J
3 c
CJ C
OJ C ^
— C. --Or-.
— O ~J O C^
< 0 Q£ 1-1 —
'
,
O 13
> 3
§ ^
1, ».
O •O
C 3J
!_ — OJ
c —
^ >
t r-
^ O *J
L, " 1^1
*J ° =
«i C =
OJ O ' —
cr +->
CJ TT C
9 •" =
^ - =
3-20
-------
zinc are present in large quantities, and if the total contaminant inputs to
the Bight are considered, inputs of these three metals from acid wastes are
insignificant. The total mass loads of several trace metals released annually
into the New York Bight from various sources are listed in Table 3-4. Wastes
discharged at the Acid Site contribute significant amounts of vanadium, iron,
and possibly nickel to the Bight. Redfield and Walford (1951) reported that
the amount of iron barged to sea for disposal was about equal to the amount
discharged in the Hudson River outflow. Recent work (NOAA-MESA, 1975)
indicated that the Hudson estuary discharge is a major source of dissolved and
suspended particulate metals, particularly iron and manganese. The Acid
Wastes Site ranks fourth or fifth among the five possible sources of most
metals introduced to the Bight; ocean dumping at other sites (principally
dredged material and sewage sludge) and outflow from New York Harbor are the
dominant sources of contaminants.
TABLE 3-3
ESTIMATED AMOUNTS OF TRACE METALS RELEASED ANNUALLY
AT THE NEW YORK BIGHT ACID WASTES DISPOSAL SITE
Metal
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Metric Tons/Year
1973
0.9
30.7
15.3
5.7
0.0
13.3
215.5
52.7
1974
0.9
25.5
6.5
2.6
0.1
14.3
127.7
42.5
1975
0.1
19.2
8.8
2.5
0.0
9.6
112.5
33.5
1976
0.3
5.4
2.1
3.0
0.005
3.8
NA
13.6
1977
0.1
58.3
2.2
0.9
0.003
3.4
NA
10.9
1978
0.2
8.2
3.1
1.3
0.004
4.8
NA
15.2
Total
2.5
147.3
38.0
16.0
0.1
49.2
NA
168.4
Average
0.4
24.5
6.3
2.7
0.02
8.2
NA
28.1
NA = Not analyzed
3-21
-------
TABLE 3-4
MASS LOADS OF TRACE METALS ENTERING THE NEW YORK BIGHT,
1960-1974
Metal
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Metric Tons
Ocean
Dumping*
30
880
2,573
1,993
10
NR
NR
Atmosphere
20
27
146
2,154
NR
NR
NR
Transect
Zonet
13
803
2,263
2,117
94
NR
NR
New Jersey/
Long Island
Coastal Zone
5
81
54
32
7
NR
NR
Acid
Waste
1
31
15
6
0.01
13
216
Total
769
1,822
5,051
6,302
111
NR
NR
* Dredged Material and Sewage Sludge Sites
T Outflow from New York Harbor
NR = Not reported
Source: Adapted from Mueller et al., 1976,
Acid
The acid in NL Industries wastes is neutralized within a maximum of 40
minutes after discharge (EG&G, 1977a). Redfield and Walford (1951) calculated
that upon discharge, the sulfuric acid would be immediately diluted to 2 parts
in 10,000 and the seawater pH would not fall below 4.5. The actual pH
depression observed two minute's after discharge was 6.9. The pH returned to
normal level (8.2) within seven minutes. The EG&G (1977a) study found only
two stations where the pH was depressed more than 0.1 units 40 minutes after
the disposal of NL Industries waste.
In Allied Chemical waste dispersion studies, EG&G (1977b) reported a
minimum pH of 5.95 four minutes after disposal began. The pH increased (6.6 at
22 minutes, 7.3 at 37 minutes) and returned to ambient levels within one to
three hours.'
3-22
-------
EFFECT ON ORGANISMS
Before regulation of ocean dumping by EPA, numerous laboratory and field
toxicity studies had been performed on the wastes dumped at the Acid Site.
Observations of relatively slight effects have been reported by Redfield and
Walford (1951), PHSSEC (1960), Ketchum et al. (1958b, 1958c), Vaccaro et al.
(1972), Wiebe et al. (1973), Grice et al. (1973), and Gibson (1973). In
contrast, NOAA-NMFS (1972) reported severe effects due to acid waste disposal.
However, the NMFS methods and conclusions have been criticized (Buzas et al. ,
1972).
A variety of phytoplankters and zooplankters collected in the wake of an
acid waste discharge have been analyzed. Animals may be immobilized
immediately after disposal but recover quickly when the waste is diluted with
an equal volume of seawater. Several investigators reported that the
gastrointestinal tracts of copepods and ctenophores collected at the site
after a discharge contained iron particles from the waste, but the animals did
not exhibit any ill effects.
Laboratory work indicates that phytoplankton are unaffected by a concen-
tration of acid waste four times higher than concentrations observed in the
field. Zooplankton are chronically affected by concentrations of one part
waste in 10,000 parts seawater, ca sing impaired reproduction and retarded
development. However, this concentration of waste persists only for a few
minutes after disposal, and is a strictly local phenomenon. Investigations
have show that the pH change causes the adverse effects rather than toxic
elements in the waste. Neutralized acid waste is not toxic to the test
organisms.
When the site was first established, there was controversy over possible
adverse effects on the migratory fish in the New York Bight. Westman
periodically surveyed the site and other fishing areas in the Bight (Westman,
1958, 1967 1969; Westman et al., 1961), and concluded that bluefish and
yellowfin tuna are attracted to the site, and that an active pelagic fishery
exists in the area; however, fish attraction was not demonstrated by
3-23
-------
comparative sampling, and increased catches of fish in the site may be related
to increased turbidity, with consequent decreased recognition and avoidance of
fishing gear.
The acid wastes do not appear to be toxic to bottom-dwelling animals. The
site supports a typical sand-bottom community, with biomass and species
diversity comparable to a control area (Vaccaro et al., 1972); however, the
total numbers of individuals of all species are significantly less than at the
control area. Other investigators (Westman, 1967, 1969; NOAA-NMFS, 1972) have
reported variable benthic comniunities at the site. Recent samples (Pearce et
al., 1976a, 1976b, 1977b) show that there is a wide natural variation at
stations in and around the site, and that such variability is common for
sand-bottom assemblages.
CONCURRENT AND FUTURE STUDIES
Several organizations are currently conducting research and survey
activities in the New York Bight. The MESA-New York Bight Project is
sponsoring work by a variety of Federal and academic investigators. This
phase of the project is scheduled to end in 1981. After 1981, less intensive
monitoring will continue under NOAA sponsorship.
The NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory at Sandy Hook, New
Jersey, is periodically sampling and evaluating the Bight as part of the Ocean
Pulse Program, designed to monitor and assess the health of the ocean's living
resources on the Continental Shelf of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. This
program includes, as one of its objectives, the study of the effects of
pollutants on important marine species.
EPA requires Acid Site permittees to perform waste dispersion studies and
site monitoring surveys as permit conditions.
3-24
-------
OTHER ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
Extensive finfish and shellfish fishing occurs in the New York Bight. Most
finfish fishing grounds are over the inner Continental Shelf or near the edge
of the Shelf. Most indigenous Bight shellfish exist throughout the Bight, but
certain species (e.g., lobster) are most abundant in Hudson Canyon or outer
Continental Shelf areas.
Domestic
Table 3-5 shows the 1974 total yield and dollar value for the five major
species of commercial finfish in the New York Bight. The stock of most
commercial species is still substantial, but there has been an overall
decrease in annual yields of finfish over the last two decades (Figure 3-6),
with commercial landings of certain over-fished species (e.g., menhaden)
declining. The yield of the domestic shellfishery has increased greatly since
1960 (Figure 3-7). The once-important surf clam is becoming increasingly
scarce, and other shellfish species have recently begun to be exploited (e.g.,
red crab and ocean quahog). Table 3-6 shows the total annual values in 1974
and 1976 for the more important shellfish species. The American lobster is
the most important species fished along the Continental Shelf/Slope break, and
is quickly becoming the most important fishery resource of the New York Bight
(Chenoweth, 1976a).
Foreign
Nearly all foreign fishing in the north and mid-Atlantic regions of the
United States is conducted on the Continental Shelf, with the majority of
foreign vessels trawling in the outer Shelf region (Figure 3-8). Peak foreign
fishing activity in the New York Bight occurs during spring and early summer,
when the fleet moves south from its winter fishing grounds on the Georges
Bank. The foreign fleet greatly increases in size during this period in order
to harvest the greater numbers of fish which congregate at spawning grounds.
3-25
-------
TABLE 3-5
TOTAL LANDINGS IN 1974 OF FIVE MAJOR COMMERCIAL
FINFISHES IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Species
Fluke
Menhaden
Scup
Striped
Bass
Whiting
New York
000 Lb
2,487
576
3,635
1,409
1,955
$000
846
18
832
533
250
New Jersey
000 Lb
3,499
107,307
6,040
714
7,022
$000
1,153
2,735
880
177
587
Total
000 Lb
5,986
107,883
9,675
2,123
8,977
$000
1,999
2,753
1,712
710
837
Source: Adapted from NOAA-NMFS, 1977a.
30
25
I 20
O
$15
i/i
O
§10
O
I- 5
0
TOTAL MINUS SURF CLAM
1880 1890 1900 '910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Figure 3-6. Total Landings of Commercial Marine Food Finfishes
in the New York Bight Area, 1880-1975
Source: McHugh, 1978.
3-26
-------
35
30
ir
"j 25
z
o
^ 20
O
O
I 10
0
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Figure 3-7. Total Commercial Landings of Marine Shellfish
in the New York Bight Area, 1880-1975
Source: McHugh, 1978.
TABLE 3-6
TOTAL NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY COMMERCIAL LANDINGS IN 1974 AND 1976
OF IMPORTANT SHELLFISH SPECIES IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Species
American Lobster
Hard Clam
Surf Clam
Oyster
Sea Scallop
Blue Crab
1974
000 Lb
1,922
9,769
26,608
2,563
1,228
2,864
$000
3,312
15,164
3,667
4,778
1,689
725
1976
000 Lb
1,117
10,072
9,493
2,256
1,953
407
$000
2,368
19,396
3,299
5,642
3,170
123
Source: NOAA-NMFS, 1977a, 1977b.
3-27
-------
41°
75°
1. NEW YORK BIGHT ACID SITE
2. NORTHERN AREA
3. SOUTHERN AREA
4. DELAWARE BAY ACID SITE
5. 106-MILE SITE
74°
73°
72°
40°
39°
38°
41°
40°
39"
50
38°
75°
74°
73°
72°
Figure 3-8. Location of Foreign Fishing off the U.S. East Coast
Source: Adapted from Ginter, 1978.
3-28
-------
An annual average of 1,000 foreign vessels fish along the mid-Atlantic
coast (Ginter, 1978). Foreign fishing in the New York Bight is dominated by
the Soviet Union, followed by East Germany, Spain, and Japan. Major foreign
fisheries are herring, silver and red hake, and mackerel. The seasonal
migrations of these species account for the north-to-south movement of the
foreign fleet throughout the year. New fishing efforts have been developed
recently for squid, butterfish, tuna, and saury; this has moderated the strict
north-south movement of foreign vessels.
Foreign vessels are prohibited from fishing such exclusive United States
fishery resources as lobster, but are not required to report the magnitude of
their annual harvest from United States waters. Consequently, no compre-
hensive foreign catch statistics are available.
RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
Most recreational fishing in the New York Bight is confined to inner
Continental Shelf Waters, since this area is the most accessible to the
public, and most sport species are found there (Chenoweth, 1976a). The
important species are striped bass, weakfish, bluefish, and mackerel. The
sport catch often equals or surpasses the commercial landings of certain
species (e.g. striped bass), and has contributed significantly to the
economics of several coastal areas. In 1970, for example, 1.7 million anglers
caught 2.7 million pounds of fish from the North Atlantic coast. Recreational
species fished further offshore are limited primarily to bluefin tuna, marlin,
and swordfish. No accurate catch statistics exist for these species.
SAND AND GRAVEL MINING
Sanko (1975) states that since 1963 the largest single source of sand for
New York City has been sand deposits in the Lower Bay of New York Harbor.
This is the only area in the New York Bight where sand is presently mined;
however, recent geological surveys show that sand could be mined nearly
anywhere in the New York Bight, with current technology limiting the outer
boundary to the 50-m (165-ft) isobath. There is an estimated area of over
2 2
780 nmi (2,680 km ) suitable for sand mining between the 50-m isobath and the
3-29
-------
Long Island shoreline (Schlee, 1975). Most of this sand is of a uniform
grain-size, and contains a low percentage of fine particles. Gravel deposits
in the New York Bight have a much more limited distribution than sand.
Potential mining areas for gravel are fewer and are principally off the
northern coast of New Jersey (Figure 3-9).
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT
There are no present or future oil and gas lease tracts in any ocean
disposal site (Figure 3-3). The U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) completed its first sale of oil and gas leases on the
Mid-Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf in August 1976 (Outer Continental Shelf
[DCS] Sale No. 40). Exploratory drilling at six of the 93 tracts leased in
OCS Sale No. 40 began in the spring and summer of 1978. On May 19, 1978, BLM
published a draft EIS on the proposed OCS Sale No. 49, which includes 136
tracts totalling 774,273 acres (313,344 hectares). Sale No. 49 was held in
1979. A third sale (No. 59) is under consideration, tentatively scheduled for
August 1981 (BLM, 1978).
SHIPPING
The major trade routes charted by NOAA to serve the New York-New Jersey
area coincide with three major shipping lanes designated by the USCG: the
Nantucket, Hudson Canyon and Barnegat Navigational Lanes (Figure 3-10).
Hudson Canyon Lane lies across the New York Bight Acid Wastes Site, and the
other lanes straddle the Northern and Southern Areas. The trade routes within
the navigational lanes are usually the safest routes for shipping traffic, and
the Coast Guard recommends that they be used by all major shipping traffic.
3-30
-------
75°
74°
73°
72°
41°
1. NEW YORK BIGHT ACID SITE
2. NORTHERN AREA
3. SOUTHERN AREA
4. DELAWARE BAY ACID SITE
5. 106-MILE SITE
40°
39°
38°
KILOMETERS
0 50
NAUTICAL MILES
41°
40°
39°
100
50
38°
75°
74°
73°
72°
Figure 3-9. Gravel Distribution in the New York Bight
Source: Adapted from Schlee, 1975.
3-31
-------
41°
75°
I
1. NEW YORK BIGHT ACID SITE
2. NORTHERN AREA
3. SOUTHERN AREA
4. DELAWARE BAY ACID SITE
5. 106-MILE SITE
PRECAUTIONARY
ZONE
74°
73°
72°
40°
39°
38°
41°
40°
39°
KILOMETERS
0 50 100
NAUTICAL MILES
6 ' 50
38°
75°
74°
73°
72°
Figure 3-10. Navigational Lanes in the Mid-Atlantic
3-32
-------
OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL
The EPA permits ocean disposal at seven sites in the New York Bight (Figure
3-11), The Acid Wastes Site is considered in this EIS as a possible
alternative site for the industrial wastes presently released at the 106-Mile
Site.
New York Bight Sludge Site
There are 13 permittees dumping sewage sludge at this site, with the City
of New York discharging the largest percentage of the waste. The total volume
of sewage sludge to be disposed of by the 13 permittees in 1979 is estimated
3 3
to be 7,772 m , and is expected to reach 9,895 m by 1981. Sludge dumped at
this site is composed of municipal sewage wastes resulting from primary and
secondary treatment.
New York Bight Dredged Material Site
Several locations have been used historically as sites for the disposal of
material dredged from navigable waterways in the New York-New Jersey
metropolitan area. The present site was designated in 1940 as the exclusive
disposal site for this material. Until 1973, ash residues from fossil-fueled
power plants were also permitted to be dumped at 'the site.
Each year, the volume of dredged material dumped at this site exceeds that
of material dumped at any other disposal site. The average annual volume of
dredged material dumped at the site from 1960 to 1977 was approximately
6 million m . The annual volume is estimated to increase by 46,000 to
54,000 m . The dredged material dumped at this site is composed of
particulate solids which, because of the proximity of the dredging sites to
large metropolitan areas, contains higher levels of metals than any other
material dumped in the Bight.
3-33
-------
75°
74°
73°
72°
41°
1. DREDGED MATERIAL
2. CELLAR DIRT
3. SEWAGE SLUDGE
4. ACID WASTES
5. SEWAGE SLUDGE (ALTERNATE)
6. WRECKS
7. WOOD INCINERATION
40°
39°
38°
NEW YORK
BIGHT APEX
NEW YORK
BIGHT LIMIT
41°
40°
39°
38°
75°
74°
73°
72°
Figure 3-11.
Ocean Disposal Sites in the New York Bight Apex
(Boundary Shown by Dark Line)
3-34
-------
New York Bight Cellar Dirt Site
The history of this site is similar to the history of the Dredged Material
Site. The Cellar Dirt Disposal Site has been relocated several times
toprevent excessive local build-up of material; it has occupied the present
location since 1940. Relatively inert materials from land-based construction
projects (demolition wastes) are dumped at the site, including excavated
earth, broken concrete, rock, and other solid materials. The average annual
3
volume of cellar dirt dumped at the site from 1960 to 1977 was 450,000 m .
The average annual volume will continue to fluctuate from year to year
according to the activity of the construction industry.
Wreck Site
The Wreck Site was designated by EPA for disposal of derelict and wrecked
vessels. The site has been used infrequently for the past 17 years, and was
moved to a new location outside major navigational lanes in 1977.
Wood Incineration Site
The EPA designated this site for burning scrap wood from decaying
structures and construction sites. The site is used as needed, and only the
combustion products reach the ocean; the remaining ash is landfilled.
Alternative Sewage Sludge Site
This site was designated by EPA in May 1979 as an alternative to the
12-Mile Site for dumping sewage sludge. It has never been used.
MARINE RECREATION
The New York Bight encompasses many Federal and State beaches and wild life
refuges, located on the coast and on offshore islands. Activities in these
areas include swimming, hiking, and fishing.
3-35
-------
DELAWARE BAY ACID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
Like the New York Bight, t:he physical environment offshore of Delaware Bay
experiences marked changes with season. Warming of surface waters in late
spring creates a strong thermocline which becomes more pronounced as summer
progresses. Spring is associated with a flow of low-salinity water out of
Delaware Bay, which lowers the salinity of the site water. In late autumn and
winter, temperature and salinity values stabilize throughout the water column
from surface to bottom. The net current flow at the site is to the southwest.
Occasionally, strong summer winds reverse the surface flow.
GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
The Continental Shelf bottom off the Delaware coast is a gently sloping,
relatively smooth plain superimposed with low elevation sand ridges and
swales. Other small-scale relief is superimposed on the ridges, possibly due
to the cumulative effects of seasonal storms or the effects of a particular
storm. The sediments are composed of fine- and coarse-grained sands.
CHEMICAL CONDITIONS
Despite temporary, localized fluctuations, dissolved oxygen levels of
waters off Delaware Bay show seasonal patterns and values typical of the
Continental Shelf. Values near peak saturation are found throughout the water
column during winter; the summer thermocline separates the saturated surface
layer from a relatively depleted bottom layer.
Discussions of sediment and water column trace metal chemistry for the site
appear in Chapter 4,.
BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
The phytoplankton communities off Delaware Bay are dominated by dino-
flagellates in the summer and by diatoms in the winter (Smith, 1973, 1974).
3-36
-------
Zooplankton communities off Delaware Bay are similarly characteristic of the
New York Bight (Falk et al., 1974; Forns, 1973). Copepods are the most
diverse and abundant taxon, with abundance peaking in summer and fall.
The benthic macrofauna in this area are characteristic of the firm sand-
shell-gravel community existing elsewhere in the mid-Atlantic (Pratt, 1973;
Falk et al. , 1974; Lear et al., 1974). Annelid worms dominate in abundance
and numbers of species. The offshore area probably serves as an incidental
spawning ground for several commercially important species of fish found
generally throughout the mid-Atlantic; however, the site supports no known
finfishery at this time. Sea scallops have been harvested near the site, and
the ocean quahog is abundant throughout the area.
WASTE DISPOSAL AT THE SITE
HISTORY
The E.I. du Pont de Nemours plant, Edge Moor, Delaware, was the only
permittee using the so-called Du Pont Disposal Site after implementation of
the ocean dumping permit program in 1973. Du Font-Edge Moor began to
discharge acid wastes at sea on a temporary basis in September 1968, in an
area centered about 10 nmi (19 km) southeast of the more recently used site.
This alternative site was used until July 1969, pending completion of the pre-
disposal surveys in the primary area. Surveys were conducted in May and June
of 1969, and barging began in the designated site in July 1969.
RECENT WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
The volume of aqueous waste released at the Delaware Bay Acid Site
decreased 92%, from 867,000 metric tons in 1973, to 69,000 metric tons in the
first quarter of 1976. Actual amounts discharged by Du Pont from 1973 to 1976
are shown in Table 3-7. The waste disposal operation was relocated to the
106-Mile Site in March 1977.
3-37
-------
TABLE 3-7
QUANTITIES OF WASTES DUMPED ANNUALLY AT THE
DELAWARE BAY ACID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
Year
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Amount
(Thousand Metric
867
614
365
430
69
Tons)
In 1973, Du Pont waste consisted of an aqueous solutions of iron and
miscellaneous chlorides, sulfates, and sulfuric and hydrochloric acid. The
waste was 17% to 23% sulfuric acid, and 4% to 10% ferrous sulfate. The waste
was generated from the production of titanium dioxide (TiO~) by the chloride,
sulfate, and color pigment processes. The waste was modified as manufacturing
changed from a sulfate process to a chloride process. By 1976, the waste
consisted of an aqueous solution of iron, miscellaneous chlorides, and
hydrochloric acid. The material at that time ranged between 7.3% and. 16%
hydrochloric acid formed from the chlorine used in the manufacturing process.
The process modification resulted in a decrease of waste production from 1,300
to 3,000 metric tons per day to 1,500 to 2,000 metric tons per day.
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
Analyses of barge loads dumped from 1973 to 1976 indicated a range of
specific gravity for Du Pont waste of 1.043 to 1.204; the specific gravity of
seawater is 1.025.
The behavior of the Du Pont ferrous sulfate waste in situ was investigated
at the site from spring 1969 to spring 1971 by Falk et al. (1974). The waste
did not penetrate the thermocline during summer, spring, and fall, but during
the winter a portion of the waste did reach the seafloor as a result of
barging procedures used at that time. The water column pH was depressed
following discharge, but returned to ambient levels within four hours. Iron
was used to trace the waste up to 10 nmi (19 km) from the discharge point.
3-38
-------
'Falk and Phillips (1977) reported on a waste dispersion study conducted at
the site in September 1976 by EG&G. Dispersion of the ferric chloride waste
was similar to that of the ferrous sulfate waste previously tested.
Heavy metals were the most significant waste constituents, both in terms of
amounts present and potential toxicity. From 1973 to 1977, the individual
proportions of metals discharged to the total volume of discharged material,
remained relatively constant (Table 3-8). The total mass loading of each
metal decreased in a range from 28% to 76%. From 1973 to 1977, the most
prevalent heavy metals in the waste, in order of decreasing mass load, were
chromium, zinc, lead, nickel, copper, cadmium, and mercury.
TABLE 3-8
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF TRACE METALS DUMPED ANNUALLY
AT THE DELAWARE BAY ACID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Metric Tons/Year
1973
0.1
54.4
5.8
10.6
0.035
8.0
34.2
1974
0.3
44.0
2.2
6.8
0.01
5.1
21.4
1975
0.001
38.6
1.6
7.5
0.001
2.8
15.6
1976
0.001
81.4
2.0
10.4
0.001
5.8
41.0
1977
0.001
9.8
0.3
3.3
0.001
0.7
4.0
EFFECT ON ORGANISMS
Routine 96-hr bioassays and special chronic toxicity studies were used to
investigate the toxic effects of Du Pont waste on diatoms, opossum shrimp,
grass shrimp, brine shrimp, copepods, sheepshead minnows, and hard clams (Falk
3-39
-------
and Phillips, 1977). The waste concentrations which caused significant
mortality, or other effects, were much higher than the concentrations which
occurred at the site after initial dilution. Long-term tests produced reduced
growth and decreased hatching success in minnows and shrimp. However, these
effects were believed to be caused by the presence of a waste flocculate in
the test water which impeded feeding, rather than by toxic chemical
constituents in the waste (Falk and Phillips, 1977).
Field studies at the site did not detect any effect of the waste on water
column organisms or benthic communities. However, elevated vanadium values
were observed in scallops collected in the site and southwest of the site
(Pesch et al. , 1977). Iron floe was believed to be observed overlying
sediments in the vicinity, although the floe did not appear to harm organisms.
CONCURRENT AND FUTURE STUDIES
Intensive monitoring work at the Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site was concluded
with cessation of dumping; however, EPA Region III still samples historical
stations at the site with NOAA's assistance as part of the study program at
the nearby Philadelphia Sewage Sludge Disposal Site.
OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THE SITE VICINITY
COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
The area of the north and middle Atlantic, from Georges Banks to Cape
Hatteras, represents "one large...fish-producing unit", with few species of
fish migrating into or out of this area (McHugh, 1978). Consequently, most of
the species of finfish harvested in the New York Bight are caught near the
Delaware Bay Acid Waste Disposal Site, although smaller domestic harvests are
reported for the latter (Table 3-9).
The narrowness of the Continental Shelf in this region enables more recrea-
tional fishermen to reach the rich Shelf/Slope fishing grounds than in areas
farther north. Fishermen in the Delaware region are known to travel great
3-40
-------
TABLE 3-9
COMMERCIAL LANDINGS OF THREE MAJOR SPECIES OF
FINFISH FOR THE DELAWARE REGION, 1974
Species
Menhaden
Striped Bass
Wh i t i ng
000 Lb
13
212
8
$000
0.5
65
1
Source: McHugh, 1978.
distances offshore in order to fish for large game fish, but no recreational
fishing has been reported at the Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site. In 1976, 1.8
million anglers landed more than 246 million pounds of fish in the mid-
Atlantic (Chenoweth, 1976a).
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Figure 3-12 shows the offshore oil and gas leases granted by OCS Sale
No. 49.
SHIPPING
Delaware Bay is a major seaport, receiving nearly as much traffic as New
York Harbor. Figure 3-10 shows the two major shipping lanes into Delaware
Bay. The axes of these lanes are directed well to the north and south of the
Delaware Bay Acid Waste Disposal Site, and neither shipping lane extends
offshore as far as the site. The Barnegat Navigational Lane passes to the
east of the site. Vessels sailing north or south along the mid-Atlantic coast
use either the Barnegat Navigational Lane, or a corresponding southern lane,
to either of the access routes into Delaware Bay, not normally entering the
waters of the Acid Site. Limited ship traffic crossing the Continental Shelf
is likely to enter the site waters.
3-41
-------
75°
74
LONG ISLAND SOUND
1. NEW YORK BIGHT ACID SITE
2. NORTHERN AREA
3. SOUTHERN AREA
4. DELAWARE BAY ACID SITE
5. 106-MILE SITE
LONG ISLAND
DELAWARE
BAY
NAUTICAL MILES
38° -
72°
Figure 3-12.
Oil and Gas Leases Near Delaware Bay
Source: BLM, 1978.
3-42
-------
OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL
The Philadelphia Sewage Sludge Disposal Site is southeast of the Acid Waste
Site and is the only other disposal site in the vicinity. The Sewage Sludge
Site received an annual average of 604,000 metric tons of anaerobically
digested sewage sludge from 1973 to 1977.
3-43
-------
Chapter 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Use of the 106-Mile Site will have some environmental
consequences; however, most of these effects would occur at
any ocean location used for disposal of these wastes. The
extreme depth of water and low biological productivity of the
106-Mile Site preclude many effects that would be expected at
a shallower site. Adverse effects at the site are mitigated
by the rapid dilution and dispersion of the wastes. In all,
the potential environmental consequences of continuing to use
the 106-Mile Site for disposal of wastes are judged less
serious' than the potential environmental consequences of
dumping at the alternative sites.
This chapter describes the scientific and analytic bases for evaluating
alternatives discussed in Chapter 2. The discussion includes potential
environmental impacts of the various alternative sites considered in
Chapter 2, together with any- adverse environmental effects which cannot be
avoided should the proposed action be implemented. The relationship between
short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of
long-term productivity and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of
resources which would be involved in the proposal are considered.
The chapter first addresses the effects on public health, specifically
by commercial or recreational fisheries and navigational hazards. Next, the
environmental consequences of chemical waste disposal at each alternative site
are assessed, including effects on the biota and on water and sediment
chemistry of the site. Effects of short-dumping in non-designated areas are
also addressed.
A large body of data was examined to evaluate the potential effects of
chemical waste disposal at these sites. The principal data sources for each
area are:
106-Mile Site: NOAA surveys, starting in 1974; waste dispersion
studies and monitoring of short-term disposal effects sponsored by
the permittees; and public hearings concerning relocation of sewage
sludge disposal sites and issuing of new permits.
4-1
-------
New York Bight Acid Wastes Site: NOAA-MESA studies beginning in
1973; NMFS/Sandy Hook Laboratory study from 1968 to 1972;
site-specific studies sponsored by NL Industries, Inc., beginning in
1948; and routine monitoring surveys sponsored by the permittees.
Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site: EPA surveys beginning in 1973, and
studies sponsored by Du Pont, beginning in 1968.
Southern Area: NOAA survey in 1975, and public hearings concerning
the disposal of sewage sludge in the New York Bight.
Northern Area: NOAA and Raytheon surveys in 1975, and hearings
concerning the disposal of sewage sludge in the New York Bight.
Data from these and other sources were collected and compiled into an
expensive data base dedicated to ocean environment data management and
evaluation. The following discussion is based on an evaluation of the
available data.
EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
The possible direct or indirect link between man and contaminants in the
waste is a primary concern in ocean waste disposal. A direct link may affect
man's health and safety. An indirect link may cause changes in the ecosystem
which, although they do not appear to affect man, could lead to degraded
quality of the human environment.
COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL FISH AND SHELLFISH
The most direct Link between man and waste contaminants released into the
marine environment is through the consumption of contaminated seafood.
Shellfishing, for example, is automatically prohibited by the Food and Drug
Administration around sewage sludge disposal sites, or in other areas where
wastes are dumped which may contain disease-producing (pathogenic) micro-
organisms. In this way, the consumption of uncooked shellfish which may be
contaminated with pathogens is either eliminated or minimized. Harmful
effects caused by eating fish containing high levels of mercury, lead, or
persistent organohalogen pesticides have been documented (Subcommittee on the
4-2
-------
Toxicology of Metals, 1976). Certain compounds (e.g., oil) have been shown to
make the flesh of fish and shellfish not only unhealthy, but unpalatable.
Therefore, ocean disposal of wastes containing heavy metals, organohalogens,
oil, or pathogens are carefully evaluated with respect to the possible
contamination of commercially or recreationally exploitable marine animals.
A foreign longline fishery exists on the Continental Slope, but most U.S.
fishing in the mid-Atlantic is restricted to waters over the Continental
Shelf. Commercial fishing and sportfishing on the Shelf are wide-ranging and
diverse; both finfish and shellfish (molluscs and crustaceans) are taken. The
New York Bight is one of the most productive coastal areas in the North
Atlantic, and the region may be capable of even greater production when new
fisheries develop.
Important spawning grounds and nursery areas exist within the Bight, but
critical assessments of the effects of man-induced contamination on fish and
shellfish populations are lacking. Many factors complicate the collection and
assessment of these data. For example, normal short-term and long-term
population cycles are not well understood, catch data are generally inadequate
for reliable assessments, and the complete life cycle and distribution of the
stock may be unknown. Natural population fluctuations, overfishing, and
unusual natural phenomena may have greater influences on the health and extent
of the fisheries resource than man-induced contamination. Therefore,
assessing the effects of ocean disposal includes uncertainties due to
inadequate existing fisheries information.
106-MILE SITE
Waste disposal at this site will not directly endanger human health. The
site is not in a commercially or recreationally important fishing or
shellfishing area. Infrequent domestic and foreign fishing occur at or near
the site; however, the usage is variable and dependent upon occurrence of
water masses or eddies that affect fish abundance and distribution. The fish
larvae occurring near the site are not well known, but the site is within the
range of commercially and recreationally valuable species (Casey and Hoenig,
1977). Disposal activities at the site will have an unknown but probably
4-3
-------
localized effect on the larval stages of these species. The NOAA resource
assessment surveys do not ext=nd beyond the Shelf; however, the densities of
fish eggs and larvae are thought to be low. Bioassays to determine the
effects of waste disposal on these species or their prey have not been
conducted; however, the results of toxicity tests on EPA-approved organisms
suggest that disposal operations will have an insignificant effect on the
biota at the site.
A small commercial fishery for the deep sea red crab (Geryon quinquedens)
is concentrated in depths of 300 to 500 m, and does not presently exist at the
106-Mile Site or in water depths similar to those at the site (Wigley,
personal communication). Greatest densities and biomass of red crabs exist at
intermediate depths of 320 to 640 m (Wigley et al. , 1975). The extent of
recruitment of red crabs used by the commercial industry is dependent on
individuals migrating from deeper water. Adequate abundance and size-class
data for the red crab are not presently available and additional studies are
needed (Wigley, personal communication). The effect of disposal operations on
the planktonic larvae of red crabs is unknown but is expected to be localized.
Lobsters (Homarus americanus) are found from the low intertidal to at least
700 m, with the potential commercial resource occurring from 90 to 450 m
(Larsen and Chenoweth, 1976; Gusey, 1976). Lobster fishing does not presently
exist at the 106-Mile Site or in water depths similar to those at the site.
As with finfish, the probability of the wastes affecting benthic animals,
including red crabs or lobsters, is extremely low. Therefore, disposal at
this site does not directly endanger human health by contaminating edible"
organisms.
NEW YORK BIGHT ACID WASTES SITE
There is a real, albeit low, potential for endangering public health from
additional industrial waste disposal at this site. The site location was
chosen 30 years ago because it had no history as a point of concentration for
fish or productive fishing (Westman, 1958). Since that time, the site has
apparently become a sportfishLng area because the discoloration of the water
4-4
-------
caused by acid-iron waste disposal either attracts fish or increases success
of catching available fish, including bluefish, a prized sport fish.
During winter, a commercial whiting fishery exists near the Acid Site and
the site continues to be fished by recreational fishermen. There is a
potential health prob n if additional wastes are released. Increased waste
disposal at the site could lead to accumulation of materials in toxic
concentrations within the tissues and organs of these fish, and subsequent
consumption of contaminated fish could pose a threat to the public health. No
health problems associated with sport fish caught at the site have been
reported. Although adverse effects have been observed in fish eggs exposed to
moderately high concentrations of acid waste (Longwell, 1976), tainting or
harmful accumulations of waste components in the flesh of fish taken from the
area have not been reported.
Lobsters are the only shellfish which can be exploited near the site.
Waste constituents could reach bottom at this shallow site and be incorporated
by the animals, but other sources of contamination (e.g., sewage sludge) are
probably more significant. The New York Bight Sewage Sludge Site is located
only 5 km from the Acid Site.
DELAWARE BAY ACID WASTE SITE
A potential exists for endangering public health from chemical waste
disposal at this site. Although the s_ite and vicinity do not support a
finfishery, a potentially valuable ocean quahog resource exists to the
southwest. As a result of the decline in the surf clam (Spisula solidissima)
fishery, the National Marine Fisheries Service has encouraged development of a
market for the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica), another clam which is
abundant in the coastal area containing the disposal site (Breidenbach, 1977).
In addition, sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus) are harvested. The
extent of past fishing from the immediate vicinity of the disposal site is
unknown. The FDA has banned shellfishing in the area because of the presence
of the sewage sludge disposal site nearby.
4-5
-------
Effects due to acid waste disposal are difficult to discern from effects of
sludge disposal, but there are relative differences in the chemical
composition of these wastes (e.g., higher concentrations of iron and vanadium
in the acid waste) that may he useful as environmental tracers. There are
several indications that disposal of acid-iron wastes in shallow water may
result in some waste constituents reaching the seafloor: (1) reports of
acid-iron floe on the bottom at acid waste sites (Folger et al., 1979; Vaccaro
et al., 1972), (2) elevated iron concentrations in sediments (Lear et al. ,
1974; Falk et al. , 1974), and (3) elevated concentrations of vanadium in
scallops collected near the sice (Pesch et al., 1977).
The site has been closed to some shellfishing for several years because of
concern for potential bacterial contamination resulting from nearby sewage
sludge disposal. Scallops are not included in the ban because the parts
consumed (muscle tissue) are not known to concentrate contaminants from sludge
disposal. Although there are no established links between elevated vanadium
concentrations such as those measured in scallops near the site and threats to
public health, renewed industrial waste dumping does not seem prudent in
shallow areas such as the Delaware Bay Site (40 m depth) which may be subject
to the accumulation of floe or other waste-generated particulates.
SOUTHERN AREA
There is a moderate potential for endangering public health from chemical
waste disposal at this site. Surf clams, ocean quahogs, and scallops are
abundant in the Southern Area, although most present commercial shellfishing
occurs far to the west, near the New Jersey coast. However, declining
harvests may cause the Southern Area to be exploited in the future (EPA,
1978). Recreational fishing is unlikely at this site due to its distance from
shore and the competition prcvided by equally attractive sportfishing areas
closer to shore. If this area were used as a disposal site for wastes similar
to those presently being disposed of at the 106-Mile Site, the potential for
an accumulation of waste constituents on the seafloor and in the flesh of
shellfish would be greater because of the shallow water depth at this site
(40 m).
4-6
-------
NORTHERN AREA
It is probable that disposal of aqueous chemical wastes in this area would
not directly endanger public health. This site is not in a known area of
commercially or recreationally important fishing or shellfishing, although
scallops may be present in commercially exploitable numbers. If this resource
is developed in the future, disposal operations could result in the
accumulation of some waste constituents in the organisms. Water depths at the
site are shallow (55 m) and disposal operations would be associated with the
same risk of floe accumulation as noted for the Delaware Bay Acid Site and the
Southern Area.
NAVIGATIONAL HAZARDS
Navigational hazards may be separated into two components: (1) hazards
caused by the movement of transport barges/vessels to and from a site, and (2)
hazards caused by barge maneuvering within the site.
If an accident caused chemical wastes to be released, the effects from the
dumped waste would probably be equivalent to a short dump. The effects of
colliding with another ship would depend upon its cargo, and could be severe
if the barge collided with an oil or liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanker.
There is a possibility of loss of life in any collision.
The following discussion concentrates on the barging operations from New
York Harbor, since most traffic to the 106-Mile Site originates in New York
and New Jersey. Du Font-Edge Moor is the only permittee transporting wastes
from other areas. The most serious hazard from any ocean dumping activity
would be an accident occurring close to shore where ship traffic is
concentrated. The ramifications of a spill from a waste barge or tanker are
most serious. This hazard is one that is associated with all ocean dumping,
no matter where the disposal site is located, since all trips to an ocean
disposal site begin in a coastal port. Accordingly, this section discusses
only the relative risks associated with transporting wastes beyond the coastal
ports to each of the alternative disposal sites, and the risks associated with
on-site disposal operations.
4-7
-------
The hazards associated with increased usage of the New York Bight Acid
Waste Site are the most severe, due to the heavy snipping traffic associated
with New York Harbor. Hazards could increase in the Southern Area as mineral
development proceeds in that area. The 106-Mile Site is the preferred choice,
because if any accident occurred at; the site, wastes would not be released
into coastal waters (possibly threatening fishing or other activities), but
much farther offshore where shipping activity is limited.
106-MILE SITE
Barges in transit to the 306-Mile Site from New York Harbor use the
Arabrose-Hudson Canyon traffic lane for most of the journey. Compared to a
coastal site, there may be a slightly greater risk of collision during the
round-trip transit to the 106-Mile Site because of the additional distance
travelled. If danger to life results from a barging accident, the greater
distance offshore would result in longer search and rescue response time than
for accidents closer to shore.
Hazards resulting from maneuvers of vessels within the site are negligible.
The site is extremely large, and permittees are required to use different
quadrants. The frequency of all barging is low, averaging only 2 to 3 times
per week. A moderate increase in frequency of dumping at the site would not
significantly affect navigational difficulties.
NEW YORK BIGHT ACID WASTES SITE
The New York Bight Acid Wastes Site is situated across one of the outbound
traffic lanes from New York Harbor, but the current barging operations within
the site are designed to minimize interference with traffic. The permittees
using the site barge wastes on an average of once or twice a day. Additional
use of the site would increase the possibility of collisions either between
barges or the heavy shipping traffic, into and from New York Harbor, since the
site is rather small. There is a risk that any accidents would be close to
New Jersey or Long Island beaches.
4-8
-------
DELAWARE BAY ACID WASTE SITE
Use of the Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site would not be expected to pose
significant navigational hazards, aside from accidents which might occur
during round-trip transit from New York Harbor. Any accidents could release
wastes in the coastal waters off New Jersey where fishing and swimming are
prevalent.
SOUTHERN AREA
The Southern Area lies outside the traffic lanes for New York Harbor,
therefore use of this site would pose few navigational hazards for shipping.
However, additional ship traffic resulting from offshore oil and gas
development would increase the hazard. The degree and extent of such hazards
would depend upon the rate and magnitude of the oil and gas development in the
area. Any accidents would probably take place in the heavily fished coastal
waters off New Jersey.
NORTHERN AREA
The Northern Area lies outside the traffic lanes for New York Harbor, thus
use of this site poses few navigational hazards. Mineral resources are not
located in the area, so there is no probability of increased hazards due to
future resource development. Any accidents would occur near coastal waters
off Long Island.
EFFECTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM
The adverse effects of ocean disposal on the ecosystem can be subtle, and
may not exhibit obvious direct effects on the quality of the human environ-
ment. These subtle adverse impacts can accumulate over the long term with
consequences as serious as any readily observed direct impacts. For example,
an organism may accumulate waste constituents in its tissues at concentrations
that do not cause its immediate death but, instead, act at the sublethal or
chronic level. Such adverse sublethal effects may reduce reproduction, reduce
4-9
-------
health of eggs and larvae, slow development of juveniles, or affect other
facets of the life cycles of individual organisms and may ultimately result in
adverse changes in the entire population of this organism. The population may
eventually be eliminated from an area, not because it was immediately killed
by a single waste discharge but because of the accumulation of sublethal
effects over time. If that population were a major human food source or part
of the food chain for an organism which was exploited commercially, man would
lose the resource. This scenario is vastly simplified, and is not a
projection of current events resulting from industrial waste disposal in the
ocean; however, it does illustrate that man, as an integral part of a complex
ecosystem, may ultimately fee]- the results of adverse impacts on other parts
of the ecosystem.
The magnitude of the effects of waste disposal on the marine ecosystem
depends upon several factors: (1) the type of waste constituents, (2) the
concentration of toxic waste materials in the water and sediments, (3) the
length of time that high concentrations are maintained in the water or in the
sediments, and (4) the length of time that marine organisms are exposed to
high concentrations of these materials. Present 106-Mile Site disposal
techniques for aqueous chemical wastes maximize the dilution and dispersion of
the wastes, thus minimizing :he chances for wastes to remain in the water
column or to reach the bottom in high concentrations.
Dispersion studies (discussed further in Appendix B) have been conducted on
most of the wastes presently clumped at the site. In all cases, high initial
dilution occurs as the materials flow from the moving barge and are mixed in
the turbulent barge wake. After the period of initial mixing, a plateau
concentration is reached which persists for about a day (NOAA, 1978). Little
data exist Cor the dilution after this time period. Laboratory studies of the
effects of the wastes on organisms have shown that adverse effects occur only
at concentrations several times higher than concentrations which are believed
to persist for any length of time at the site.
Each of the Du Pont wastes forms a particulate floe when mixed with
seawater. These particulates are believed to provide surfaces for adsorption
of some trace metals. For example, laboratory studies have shown that the
4-10
-------
floe which forms when Grasselli waste is added to seawater contains 20% of the
copper, approximately 40% of the cadmium, and most of the lead in the original
liquid (Kester et al. , 1978). Particulates may be consumed by organisms at
the site, thus providing a mechanism for uptake of some metals.
Dispersion studies at the 106-Mile Site have successfully tracked the
floe-forming wastes by using acoustic devices to locate the particles (Orr,
1977a). Upon release from the barge, the wastes have been observed to form
thin layers along isopycnal structures, such as those associated with
thermoclines, rather than mixing uniformly throughout the water column. The
wastes .have also been observed to distribute in diffuse patches in water of
nearly constant density. The floe from industrial waste was observed to
disperse generally above the seasonal thermocline in summer, and to descend
only as far as the permanent thermocline in winter. Because thermoclines are
characteristic areas of association for some plankton and nekton, the degree
of exposure of these organisms to waste particulates may be increased over
exposure in the waters above the thermocline. Specific effects of this
exposure on organisms are unknown, but because the wastes are retained in the
upper layers at the site, the organisms most likely to be affected by the
waste are those in the upper waters.
Bisagni (1976) described the occurrence of Gulf Stream eddies at the
106-Mile Site, which form the bases of the following discussion.
Wastes dumped at the site when a Gulf Stream eddy is present may be
entrained by the eddy. However, the infrequent occurrence of eddies at the
site (approximately three per year), and their large size, suggest that eddies
will not act as significant waste-concentrating mechanisms. Residence times
of eddies reported at the site during 1974 and 1975 ranged from 2 to 55 days.
The mixing zone represented by an eddy is roughly 60 nmi (110 km) in diameter
and 1,000 m deep - a volume of about 1 x 10 liters for potential dilution,
or roughly 1,000 times the mixing volume provided by a quadrant of the site
under worst-case conditions.
4-11
-------
A hypothetical worst-case situation can be constructed, based on the
following factors:
• A stationary eddy 60 nmi in diameter and 1,000 m deep (volume
1 x 10 liters).
• Normal waste dumping for 55 days (using projected 1979 values
from Table B-2 in Appendix B; approximately 1 x 10 liters).
Based on these factors, the ratio of total dilution volume (1 x 10
Q
liters) to 55-day waste input (1 x 10 liters) is 100,000,000:1, a significant
dilution factor.
PLANKTON
The plankton consist of plants (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton)
which spend all or part of their lives in the water column. Aqueous wastes
primarily affect the water column, thus plankton represent the first level of
the ecosystem where the effects of waste disposal are likely to be observed.
Accordingly, numerous studies on planktonic organisms have been conducted at
ocean disposal sites,,
106-MILE SITE
Numerous field investigations of plankton at the 106-Mile Site have shown
the normal assemblage to be highly variable, primarily due to the presence of
several water masses, each with somewhat different species (Austin, 1975;
Sherman et al., 1977; Hulburt and Jones, 1977). Because of this high natural
variability, long-term changes in plankton species composition, abundance, and
distribution, even if caused by waste disposal activities at the site, may
never be demonstrated. Future field studies of plankton will concentrate on
plankton present in the waste plume to determine the extent of localized
effects.
Some field work at the site has concentrated on specific plankton
population components rather than considering whole populations or assem-
blages. Preliminary studies of fish eggs and embryos collected from the site
when sewage sludge and acid waste were present showed severe effects on the
4-12
-------
chromosome and mitotic apparatus of the dividing embryos and malformations in
the more developed embryos (Longwell, 1977). The field sampling routine did
not, however, result in the collection of samples large enough to permit
statistically valid conclusions.
Field and laboratory studies have assessed the effects of waste on the
native bacteria populations from the site (Vaccaro and Dennett, 1977). These
investigators tested the hypothesis that bacterial species at the site would
be more tolerant of environmental changes than those outside the site. Field
collections showed no tolerance differences in bacteria taken from inside and
outside the disposal site; however, laboratory "exposure of mixed bacterial
populations to. ..Cyanamid waste resulted in...pure cultures showing an
increase in waste tolerance." Du Pont-Grasselli and American Cyanamid wastes
inhibited assimilation of organic carbon by bacteria. Additional work with Du
Font-Edge Moor and Du Pont-Grasselli waste indicated that "the principal toxic
components of Edge Moor waste are trace metals, whereas organic species appear
to dominate with regard to Grasselli waste" (Vaccaro and Dennett, 1978). The
investigators did not attempt to correlate the laboratory work with actual
conditions at the site.
Laboratory studies of the toxicity of 106-Mile Site wastes to plankton have
been performed by many investigators (Murphy et al. , 1979; Capuzzo and
Lancaster, 1978; Lawson in Capuzzo and Lancaster, 1978). Studies have been
made on effects of acid-iron wastes which are similar to Edge Moor waste and
dumped at the New York Bight Acid Site (Grice et al. , 1973; Vaccaro et al.,
1972). Additionally, 96-hr bioassays are routinely conducted using
EPA-approved species in accordance with the special conditions of each ocean
dumping permit. In all, a variety of planktonic species have been tested for
effects: Diatoms (e.g., Skeletonema costatum, Thalassiosira pseudonana, and
Emiliana huxleyi) and several copepods (e.g., Acartia clausi, Centropages
typicus, Calanus finmarchicus, Pseudocalanus sp., Pseudodiaptomus coronatus,
Temora longicornis, and Artemia salina).
In general, significant mortality occurs only at waste dilutions several
times higher than those observed to persist longer than a few minutes at the
site. Hulburt and Jones (1977) reported that at least half a dozen cells of
4-13
-------
several species showed no effects after being kept in barge water for
approximately six hours. However, sublethal effects, such as decreased
feeding rates, have been observed at lower concentrations (Capuzzo and
Lancaster, 1978), and require further investigation. Low concentrations of
Grasselli waste were observed to stimulate growth of diatoms; higher
concentrations of the same waste inhibited growth (Murphy et al., 1978).
In tests wit clones of oceanic and neritic diatoms, variable sensitivities
to Grasselli waste have been observed (Murphy et al., 1979). None of the
clones were inhibited at the highest waste concentration which persists for
any length of time at the situ. Clones of species taken from coastal waters
were more tolerant of higher concentrations of the waste than clones of the
same species taken from ocean water. Thus, phytoplankton at the 106-Mile Site
may be more sensitive to waste inputs than nearshore phytoplankton. Studies
on the subject will continue.
Results of routine bioassays of barge samples are discussed in Appendix B.
Most of the results show wide ranges of 96-hr LC50 values. The results of
these studies demonstrate that little is known about the interaction of
plankton and chemical wastes ir marine waters. Furthermore, the comparability
of controlled laboratory experiments to the conditions existing at the
disposal site during waste release is unclear, as are the mitigating effects
of the rapid dilution and dispersion of the waste. It is difficult to make
unequivocal predictions of long-term consequences of waste discharge on
plankton at this site; however, the short-term effects are generally known and
limited to the waste plume. Future time series phytoplankton studies in waste
plumes may answer some of these questions.
NEW YORK BIGHT ACID WASTES SITE
The effects of past waste disposal on plankton at the New York Bight Acid
Wastes Site have been studied extensively. Field studies during waste
discharges have shown that NL Industries and Allied Chemical acid-iron wastes
do not have a significant adverse effect on zooplankton populations (Wiebe et
al. , 1973; Redfield and Wai ford, 1951). Evidence of chromosomal damage in
mackerel eggs collected in the site vicinity has been reported (Longwell,
4-14
-------
1976), but the cause of the damage could not be definitely linked to the
disposal of acid wastes. Interpretations of field results from this site are
difficult; changes in plankton populations resulting from acid waste disposal
at the New York Acid Waste Site cannot generally be distinguished from changes
caused by pollutants introduced from other sources within the New York Bight.
Laboratory studies show that the acid wastes presently released at this
site can cause chronic effects in zooplankton after prolonged exposure to
waste concentrations greater than those encountered under field conditions
(Grice et al., 1973). Sublethal effects (e.g., failure to reproduce and
extended developmental times) have been demonstrated in the laboratory after
21 days of exposure to waste in concentrations that persist for only minutes
after actual discharge of wastes at the site (Vaccaro et al., 1972).
As in the case of the 106-Mile Site, long-term effects on plankton caused
by dumping 106-Mile Site wastes at the nearshore site are difficult to predict
at this time. Excluding differences in sensitivity between plankton at this
nearshore location and plankton in the open ocean, the effects at the two
sites would be comparable. However, if the plankton inhabiting waters at the
Acid Site were less sensitive to contaminants, the effect of the waste input
on indigenous plankton could be less at this site than at the 106-Mile Site.
Even so, the number of organisms affected might be less at the 106-Mile Site
because of the reduced biomass at the offshore environment in comparison to
the nearshore environment.
DELAWARE BAY ACID WASTE SITE
No long-term effects of acid waste disposal on plankton at the Delaware Bay
Acid Site have been demonstrated. Elevated concentrations of certain trace
metals (nickel, mercury, and manganese) were observed in zooplankton collected
in the area (Lear et al. , 1974), but the values were extremely variable. As
in other alternative sites, future chemical waste disposal at this site should
not have any demonstrable long-term effects on plankton species composition,
distribution, or abundance. The likelihood and magnitude of effects on other
plankton parameters would depend upon the disposal volumes and frequencies.
4-15
-------
SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN AREAS
Industrial waste disposal at either the Southern or Northern Areas would
not be expected to have significant long-term effects on plankton. These
areas are outside the highly stressed New York Bight Apex; therefore,
indigenous biota are less likely to be adapted to many man-induced environ-
mental factors. Specific effects would depend upon the nature and volume of
the waste and the frequency of disposal. Based on the existing wastes and
volumes, any effects would be difficult to demonstrate since plankton
populations are so variable.
NEKTON
The nekton include animals (e.g., fish and mammals) capable of swimming and
migrating considerable distances.
106-MILE SITE
Continued disposal of chemical wastes at this site should not significantly
affect nekton other than causing temporary avoidance of the area. The results
of field investigations of effects of dumping on fish populations at the
106-Mile Site have been inconclusive because the field work has been conducted
primarily during the infrequent presence of Gulf Stream eddies.
NOAA (1977) reported that total fish catches were comparable inside and
outside the disposal site; however, midwater fish were more abundant outside
the site boundaries. The lowest catch rate occurred on a night following a
dump, but it is not known where the tows were located relative to the waste
plume.
Investigations of histopathoLogy in fish collected from the disposal site
have been inconclusive (NOAA Pathobiology Division, 1978). Although lesions
were observed in some fish, the sample sizes were too small to permit
statistically valid conclusions. High cadmium levels were found in the livers
of three swordfish from the site area, and high mercury levels were observed
in muscle of almost all fish that were analyzed (Greig and Wenzloff, 1977).
4-16
-------
However, the elevated concentrations were not attributed to disposal
operations at the 106-Mile Site because of the low amounts of these metals
added to the area by disposal and the wide-ranging movements of these fish.
The effects of waste disposal on the site micronekton are unknown. Since
micronekton constitute a food source for the large predators, it is
conceivable that micronekton could uptake contaminants and transfer them
through the food web. However, the trophic relationships within many
biological systems are not well understood, nor are the rates and mechanisms
of uptake and transfer of contaminants. Therefore, no reliable prediction of
long-range effects can be made, and future studies should address this
subject.
ALTERNATIVE SITES
None of the numerous studies on nekton at the New York Bight Acid Waste
Site have detected long-term effects attributable to acid waste disposal. As
a result of the many other contaminant inputs to the Bight Apex, in addition
to those at the Acid Site, it is unlikely that any deterioration of fish
health or populations could ever be demonstrated to be solely due to acid
waste disposal. Therefore, the effects of additional chemical waste disposal
on fish populations at this site are difficult to predict. However,
considering (1) the dilution and dispersion of wastes presently released,
(2) the absence of dead fish in the wake of disposal barges, and (3) the
ability of fish to move away from temporarily stressed areas, it is unlikely
that disposal of other chemical wastes (which comply with the impact criteria)
at the New York Bight Acid Waste Site would have any demonstrably adverse
effects. This same conclusion also applies to the other alternative sites.
The risks associated with the consumption of sportfish taken from the New York
Bight Acid Waste Site were previously discussed.
BENTHOS
The benthos consists of animals living on (epifauna) and in (infauna) the
sediments. Epifauna at the sites are represented primarily by echinoderms and
crustaceans, whereas the infauna primarily include small annelid worms and
4-17
-------
molluscs. Benthic organisms can be important indicators of waste-related
impacts because they are sedentary, and thus incapable of leaving a stressed
environment. Many are commercially valuable (e.g., shellfish), or serve as
food sources (e.g., worms) for valuable species.
106-MILE SITE
No effects of chemical waste disposal on the benthos at the 106-Mile Site
have been observed. The species composition and diversity at the site are
similar to those observed in nearby Continental Slope areas (Pearce et al.,
1975; Rowe et al., 1977). Analyses of trace metal contents in benthic
invertebrates indicate values within the range of background values (Pearce et
al. , 1975). The results are expected since the low density liquid waste
should not reach bottom in measurable concentrations, because of the
tremendous dilution due to the depth and movement of water at the site.
Therefore, continued disposal of low-density aqueous wastes should not affect
benthic organisms at or near the site.
NEW YORK BIGHT ACID WASTES SITE
The New York Bight benthos exhibits natural temporal and spatial
variability which is substantially greater than any changes resulting from the
disposal of acid wastes (Pearce et al. , 1976a, 1976b). Any effects arising
from acid waste disposal are probably overshadowed by effects from the
numerous other contaminants introduced to the New York Bight, particularly
from the Sewage Sludge and Dredged Material Sites and water flowing into the
Bight from New York Harbor. Due to the complex relationship between natural
variability and contaminants Introduced by other sources, it is extremely
difficult to isolate and quantify effects at the site caused solely by the
disposal of acid waste. Consequently, it is also difficult to predict the
consequences of releasing wastes from the 106-Mile Site at the New York Bight
Acid Waste Site. The ecosystem of the Bight Apex is already highly stressed,
and disposal of additional materials may increase that stress, perhaps causing
significant environmental consequences.
4-18
-------
DELAWARE BAY ACID WASTE SITE
Investigations of trace metals in organisms in and around the Delaware Bay
Acid Site showed elevated vanadium in the viscera of sea scallops south of the
site in the direction of the net current flow (Pesch et al., 1977; Reynolds,
1979). Du Font-Edge Moor wastes were still being released at the site when
these surveys were conducted. Because Edge Moor waste is high in vanadium,
and because there are no other known significant anthropogenic sources of
vanadium in this area, vanadium is felt to be a tracer of these acid wastes.
SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN AREAS
The benthic organisms at Southern and Northern Areas are similar to those
observed at the Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site. Since the sites are similar,
especially the shallow water depth, analogous effects are anticipated to occur
if industrial waste disposal is initiated there.
WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY
The Ocean Dumping Regulations address changes in the quality of water and
sediments in a disposal site and in adjacent areas. When these changes can be
attributed to materials dumped at a site, EPA must modify site use. This
section discusses field studies of water and sediment quality conducted at the
106-Mile Site. Field studies conducted at the New York Bight and Delaware Bay
Acid Sites are discussed as they pertain to predicting the effects expected if
•
106-Mile Site wastes were dumped at the shallow sites rather than the deep
oceanic site. Predictions of the environmental consequences of using either
the Northern or Southern Areas are based primarily on the studies of the two
other shallow sites.
106-MILE SITE
Water and sediments at the 106-Mile Site were sampled as part of NOAA's
baseline research program in an effort to define the natural variation of site
characteristics over space and time. NOAA has sponsored studies of the
behavior of the major wastes being discharged at the site, including dilution
4-19
-------
and .dispersion of materials, and the effect of dumping on selected water
column parameters. Considerable experimentation and refinement of field and
laboratory techniques have been required, since normal concentrations of many
of the parameters are barely detectable, and little comparable historical work
has been done at similar locations so far from shore.
In addition to NOAA1s studies, the permittees have contracted with
Hydroscience, Inc., to conduct quarterly monitoring surveys. This monitoring
program concentrates on the short-term fate of the dumped materials in order
to confirm compliance with the Ocean Dumping Regulations with respect to
dilution of wastes upon initial mixing.
Emphasis is placed on the NOAA and Hydroscience work at several places
within this EIS. Appendix A describes the environmental characteristics of
the site and details specific studies of the environmental effects of dumping.
Appendix B provides a detailed discussion of the major wastes being discharged
at the site, with descriptions of the chemical characteristics and behavior in
the water after release. Appendix C describes the monitoring program
sponsored by the dumpers.
Trace Metals
Trace metals are the most potentially harmful components of industrial
wastes. The wastes dumped at the 106-Mile Site contain metals in concen-
trations several times higher than background levels in the water at the site.
Past work at the site has J:o"cused on determining the normal ranges of
background concentrations and the effects of waste dumping on these
concentrations. Despite conflicting observations of background concentrations
of water column trace metals in the early site surveys (Hausknecht, 1977;
Brezenski, 1975), refinement of sampling techniques during later surveys
yielded background levels within the range of values reported in the
literature for similar regions (Hausknecht, 1977; Kester et al., 1978;
Hausknecht and Kester, 1976a,b).
Kester et al. (1978) discussed the accuracy and precision of values of
metal concentrations analyzed in samples taken at the 106-Mile Site
4-20
-------
(Table 4-1). Detection limit was defined as twice the variability introduced
by the analytical instruments. Reference samples (blanks), which were
determined by re-extracting seawater samples, accounted for metals added with
analytic reagents and handling procedures. Extraction efficiency was
determined using radioactive tracers which were added to a series of seawater
samples. Precision was based on analyses of triplicate samples to provide a
range of concentrations.
Considerations of accuracy and precision are useful for interpreting
variations in metal concentration data, whether by several investigators, or
within data generated by an individual investigator. Examination of Table 4-1
shows that the zinc analyses are not as reliable as those of the other metals
because of the low extraction efficiency and relatively high variability in
blanks and samples. The reagents appear to affect the iron blank, causing it
to be high; however, values are reasonably consistent within a data set. In
reporting values for iron, lead and zinc, the investigators have not corrected
the measured values for the blank values because the sources of the blanks are
still under assessment; thus, the reported values for these metals represent
the oceanic concentration plus the analytical blank. The cadmium blank has
been ignored because it is so low. Copper values have been adjusted for the
blank.
TABLE 4-1
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOTAL METAL ANALYSES USED IN
STUDIES AT THE 106-MILE SITE
Metal
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Iron
Zinc
Detection
(ng/kg)
1
5
5
30
8
Blank
(ng/kg)
1 +_ 1
16 _+ 10
15 +_ 19
230 +_ 36
400 +_ 230
Efficiency
(%)
90 +_ 1
99 +_ 3
97 + 2
92 + 1
48 +_ 2
Precision
for a range
(ng/kg)
+2 for 6-20
+20 for 100-400
_+20 for 50-200
+60 for 400-1,400
^140 for 500
Source: Kester et al. (1978).
4-21
-------
Kester et al. (1978) reported the results of field studies of several waste
dumps. A Grasselli waste dump resulted in concentrations of dissolved copper
and cadmium, and particulate lead, which were elevated in comparison to values
from water outside of the site. However, these elevated values are within the
range of natural variability observed for the area. Monitoring of an Edge
Moor dump yielded elevated concentrations of iron throughout the 27-hour
period studied after the dums. Total and particulate copper, cadmium, and
lead concentrations were also, altered. Hydroscience (1978 a-h, 1979 a-d)
reported no mercury or cadmium values exceeding the limited permissible
i
concentration after initial mixing upon discharge.
Disposal of Du Font-Edge Moor or Grasselli waste in seawater results in the
formation of a precipitate or floe composed primarily of ferric hydroxide or
magnesium hydroxide. Kester et al. (1978) concluded that dispersion of the
floe would occur in the water column above the seasonal or permanent
thermocline, thereby restricting the impact, if any, to water column organisms
since the material would not settle to the seafloor in measurable quantities.
Potential consequences of floe formation are increased adsorption of toxic
metals by the waste particles, and increased turbidity in the water column.
Kester et al. (1978) concluded that the Edge Moor and Grasselli floes
provide adsorptive surfaces for some metals which can be toxic if taken up by
planktonic filter feeders and transferred through the food chain.
Water column samples analyzed following disposal operations indicated
significant increases in total particulate iron, copper, cadmium, and lead,
total suspended matter (TSM), and a high correlation of iron with lead,
cadmium, copper, and TSM (Kester et al. , 1978). However, copper and cadmium
are primarily associated with the liquid phase thereby reducing availability
for uptake by organisms. Lead is associated with the particulate phase,
although it does not appear to be concentrated above the level contributed by
the waste. Cadmium persists for a longer period of time in the water column
than iron due to the association of cadmium with the soluble phase, whereas
particulate iron settles out at a faster rate.
4-22
-------
Laboratory analyses of Grasselli waste mixed with seawater indicate that
20% of the copper, 40% +_ 10% of the cadmium and most of the lead (80%) are
associated with the floe. Formation of these precipitates may be increased by
deposition of calcium carbonate (CaCOo). Near-surface waters are generally
supersaturated with CaCO which may cause the floe and associated metals to
be fairly persistent.
Total iron concentrations in the water column were determined to be a good
indication of the persistence of acid waste. Elevated concentrations of
particulate iron, copper, cadmium, and lead were measured up to 27 hours after
disposal operations were initiated (Kester et al., 1978). Orr (1977a) used
acoustic monitoring to determine that the particulate phase (floe) of
Grasselli waste persisted for 74 hours at one station. The effect of the floe
on marine organisms characteristic of the site has not been investigated
thoroughly; however, only low concentrations of contaminants are available for
uptake by organisms, and the results of bioassays with selected species
suggest that waste disposal operations do not significantly affect biota at
the site (Falk and Gibson, 1977; Grice et al., 1973; Wiebe et al., 1973).
Table 4-2 presents an estimate of the potential effects of disposal-related
metal input on the total metal concentrations in the water at the 106-Mile
Site. This estimate is based on "worst case" conditions of low average flow
rate (10 cm/sec) during a period of low mixing with a well-developed seasonal
thermocline at 15 m depth. For the five metals examined, the greatest
possible percentage increase in concentrations as a result of waste disposal
is less than 3.2%. Thus, even in a hypothetical worst-case condition, the
total input of metals from waste disposal is within the range of natural
variability at the site.
Metal concentrations in sediments of the 106-Mile Site were measured in
1974 by Pearce et al. (1975), and in 1976 by Greig and Wenzloff (1977). The
trace metal contents of sediments taken beyond the Continental Shelf appear to
be elevated relative to sediments on the Shelf/Slope break, but the elevated
metal concentrations are not attributed to present disposal practices at the
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-2
WORST-CASE CONTRIBUTION OF WASTE METAL INPUT TO THE
TOTAL METAL LOADING AT THE 106-MILE SITE
Background
concentration (|ug/l)
Average
Range
Total Amount (g) in
i ? •&/*
7.8 x 101Z liters
Estimated 1978
106-Mile Site
industrial waste
input (g)
Estimated input
during 14 days
(g)
Percent of loading
due to dumping
during 14 days
Cadmium
0.37
0.05-0.60
2.9 x 106
1.7 x 105
6.5 x 103
0.2
Copper
0.9
0.2-1.7
7.0 x 106
1.9 x 106
7.3 x 104
1.0
Lead
2.9
0.8-6.1
2.3 x 10?
1.3 x 107
5.0 x 105
2.2
Mercury
0.72
0.04-4.0
5.6 x 106
11.0 x 103
4.2 x 102
0.008
Zinc
8.0
1.6-21.4
6.2 x 107
5.3 x 107
2.0 x 106
3.2
* From Hausknecht (1977)
** The total volume of one quadrant: of the 106-Mile Site to 15 m depth.
t The maximum residence time for a water parcel at the site assuming a flow
rate of 10 cm/sec and a distance of 32 nmi in a diagonal across the site.
106-Mile Site, since they are not unique to the site vicinity. Therefore,
there is no evidence that the wastes released at the site have affected the
sediments (Pearce et al., 1975).
4-24
-------
Continued use of the site for industrial waste disposal will probably
produce similar results for measurements of the water and sediments. As NOAA
(1977) stated, background values of trace metals at the site are of the order
of parts per billion. Sample collection, storage, treatment, and analytical
procedures can introduce contamination, which affects the resultant values.
Consequently, slightly elevated values due to dumping may be masked by the
contamination introduced from sample handling or by the analytical detection
limits. Projections of disposal effects on the water column and sediments of
any disposal site are based on present technology, with allowances for
inherent weaknesses.
Turbidity
Following a disposal of Edge Moor waste at the Delaware Bay Acid Site, the
1% light level decreased (turbidity increased) from a depth of 45 m (150 ft)
to 15 m (50 ft) in the visual center line of the plume (Falk et al. , 1974).
Turbidity caused by acid-iron floe persisted up to 5 hours in the winter and
up to 20 hours in the summer, even though the concentration of iron had
decreased significantly. Falk and his co-workers suggest that light
penetration may be reduced, even by small amounts of floe, until iron
concentrations return to near background levels. The effect of temporary
increases in turbidity at the site on marine organisms such as visual
predators and phytoplankton is unknown. Decreased growth rates in Cyprinodon
exposed to chronic levels of Edge Moor waste were presumably related to
decreased feeding efficiency caused by decreased visibility (Falk and
Phillips, 1977). Earlier observations (reviewed by NL Industries, 1977) that
disposal enhanced turbidity serves as a concentrating mechanism for bluefish
have not been thoroughly documented by conducting abundance surveys. Some
fish may be caught more often when decreased visibility reduces their chance
of sensing and avoiding fishing gear.
pH Changes
Short-term changes in pH occur at the site when acid or alkaline wastes are
discharged. The most drastic pH changes are confined to the immediate area
around the discharge nozzle. As the waste mixes with seawater, the pH rapidly
4-25
-------
returns to ambient levels. In tests with Edge Moor wastewater, the pH in
waters above the thermocline returned to normal about 3 hours after the dump,
while water below the thermocline remained unaffected (Falk and Phillips,
1977). Grasselli wastewater did not cause a measurable change in the pH of
water in the barge wake (Falk and Gibson, 1977), nor did American Cyanamid or
Merck waste (Hydroscience, 1978 e-h, 1979 c,d).
Waste Interactions
EPA manages dumping operations at the site to ensure that the potential for
wastes to mix is minimal. Examples of these management policies include
confining simultaneous use to different quadrants of the site, regulating
barge speeds and discharge rates to ensure adequate waste dilution, imposing a
requirement for monitoring on all dumpers, and including in dumping permits
special conditions for controlling dumping which are specific for each waste.
In addition, dumping at the site is infrequent, averaging 2 to 3 dumps per
week. This relatively light dumping schedule and the management policies just
described provide for little or no potential for waste from one.dump to mix or
interact with wastes from another dump.
NEW YORK BIGHT ACID WASTES SITE
Investigations of the effects of waste disposal at the New York Bight Acid
Wastes Site have continued for more than 30 years, yet no changes in the water
or sediments at the site have been definitely linked to acid waste disposal.
The New York Bight Apex is a difficult region in which to assess impacts
because of the variety of anthropogenic inputs and the existing high levels of
many contaminants.
Most concentrations of water column parameters at the Acid Site are within
the range of values found within the Bight Apex. Reduced surface salinity at
the site, compared with a control area, has been reported (Vaccaro et al.,
1972). Turbidity is greater at the site because of the iron floe which forms
when acid-iron waste reacts with seawater (NOAA-MESA, 1975).
4-26
-------
Most studies of trace metals (e.g. mercury, copper, lead, cadmium, and
pzinc) in the Bight have analyzed the levels in the sediments. High sediment
metal concentrations in the Bight Apex occur near the Dredged Material and
Sewage Sludge Sites (Ali et al., 1975) and values at the Acid Site are much
lower compared with these disposal sites. Some workers have reported
concentrations of trace metals in Acid Site sediments which were elevated when
compared with sediments from supposedly uncontaminated areas (Vaccaro et al. ,
1972; EG&G, 1978). However, these values have been generally within the range
of values from other locations in the Bight.
The effects of moving industrial wastes, which would otherwise be dumped at
the 106-Mile Site, to the New York Bight Acid Waste Site are difficult to
predict. Some wastes presently released at the 106-Mile Site, if relocated to
the Acid Site, would deliver new contaminants to the Bight. Therefore, no
background information exists on which to base an estimate of the effects of
dumping these materials. Du Pont-Grasselli used the Acid Site to dump part of
its wastes from 1973 to 1975 with no known adverse effects. In addition to
new materials, the relocation of 106-Mile Site wastes would introduce greater
amounts of materials which presently enter the Bight Apex from other sources.
The New York Bight Apex is already a stressed environment, and increasing the
waste load could produce additional degradation of the ecosystem.
DELAWARE BAY ACID WASTE SITE
Most values of water chemistry parameters measured at this site during past
survey work were comparable to values measured in similar areas within the
mid-Atlantic region (Falk et al., 1974). All metals, except iron, have been
present at ambient seawater concentrations, with little seasonal or depth
variations. When acid-iron waste was released at the site, iron levels were
initially very high. In summer, when the seasonal thermocline reduced
vertical dispersion of the waste, iron levels remained elevated up to 20 hours
after disposal. In winter, with the thermocline absent, values returned to
ambient levels within four hours. Large amounts of waste metals are dumped at
the nearby sewage sludge site, thus water column effects of industrial waste
disposal could be difficult to distinguish from effects of sewage sludge
disposal.
4-27
-------
Concentrations of several metals have been reported in sediments at the
site and its vicinity (Johnsion and Lear, 1974; Lear and Pesch, 1975; Lear,
1976; Lear et al., 1977). The range of natural variations in metal
concentrations for this area is still undetermined, although high sediment
concentrations have been observed at several stations in and near the site
(Lear, 1976; Lear et al., 1977). Sea scallops were observed to have elevated
concentrations of vanadium (Pesch et al., 1977). Thus, it appears that past
acid waste disposal at this site may have affected the sediments and benthos
by elevating concentrations of some metals. The ecological effect of
accumulating trace metals other than mercury and cadmium is generally unknown.
Relocation of industrial waste dumping from the 106-Mile Site to the
presently inactive Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site could cause additional
accumulations of metals in the sediments and organisms. In addition, other
effects could occur after such a move because some of the 106-Mile Site wastes
have never been released into a nearshore marine environment. Thus, shallow
water dumping of these wastes is not recommended.
NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN AREAS
The Northern and Southern Areas are in shallow water like the Delaware Bay
Acid Waste Site. Therefore, relocation of 106-Mile Site wastes to the
Northern or Southern Areas would probably cause effects like those observed at
the Delaware Bay Site when industrial waste was dumped there, with potentially
serious consequences for nearby shellfisheries.
SHORT DUMPING
The Ocean Dumping Regulations specify that, in emergency situations, the
master of a transport vessel may discharge the vessel's waste load in any
location and in any manner in order to safeguard life at sea. Emergency
situations may result from severe weather conditions typical of the North
Atlantic in late fall, winter, and early spring, from vessel breakdowns,
equipment failure, or collisions with other vessels or stationary objects.
4-28
-------
The potential for illegal short dumping exists, although the USCG ocean
disposal surveillance program is designed to discourage such illegal
activities through use of shipriders, patrol vessels, aircraft overflights,
and vessel log checks. Twelve violations of permit provisions for alleged
short dumping, sufficient to cause subsequent actions, were reported by the
Coast Guard to EPA Region II between 1973 and 1977 (EPA, 1978). Seven
violations were due to disposals outside of an authorized disposal site. Two
other violations were referred to EPA Region II (from NASA and the Army Corps
of Engineers) for disposal outside authorized sites. Of the nine charges, one
was upheld and a civil penalty assessed, two were pending in late 1978, and
the charges were withdrawn for six others.
The probability of an emergency situation increases in proportion to the
round-trip transit time. (See Table 4-3 for estimated transit times.) Thus,
the decision to locate a site far from shore entails an increased risk of
emergencies and resultant short dumping. The severity of effects caused by a
short dump of toxic waste materials would depend upon the location of the
dump, and in particular, the water depth. Industrial wastes are liquid and
are rapidly diluted upon discharge, therefore a single pulse of waste input to
an area might cause local acute effects, but should not cause any long-term
adverse effects. Effects of emergency dumping during inclement weather would
be mitigated by the rapid dilution caused by storm activity.
Use of any of the alternative sites introduces the possibility of legal or
illegal short dumping. Based upon distance of a site from port, the
probability of a short dump is highest for the 106-Mile Site or the Delaware
Bay Acid Waste Site and lowest for the New York Bight Acid Wastes Site;
intermediate probabilities are associated with the Northern and Southern
Areas. Except for the nearshore sites, the effects of a short dump should be
temporary, with rapid recovery of the ecosystem. Short dumping at the New
York Bight Acid Wastes Site or the Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site would cause
more concern because of the close proximity to shore, and the possibility of
waste materials reaching the New Jersey or the Long Island shoreline.
4-29
-------
TABLE 4-3 i
ROUND-TRIP TRANSIT TIMES TO ALTERNATIVE SITES (IN HOURS)
BASED ON VARIED VESSEL SPEEDS
Site
106-Mile Site
NYB Acid Wastes Site
Delaware Bay Acid
Waste Site
Southern Area
Northern Area
New York Harbor
5 kn
(9 km/hr)
46
7
48
22
21
7 kn
(13 km/hr)
32
3
36
16
16
Delaware Bay
5 kn
(9 km/hr)
48
45
14
36
51
7 kn
(13 km/hr)
34
32
10
26
36
* Does not include time in transit from the loading dock to the
Rockaway-Sandy Hook transect (New York Harbor) or from ports in Delaware
Bay to the Cape May-Cape Henlopen transect (Mouth of Delaware Bay).
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES
Some unavoidable adverse environmental effects would occur upon disposal of
aqueous industrial wastes in any oceanic site designated for use. These
effects occur immediately upon release of the wastes, and are mitigated by
rapid dilution of the wastes after release. Based on field and laboratory
observations, the most significant short-term impacts of waste disposal at the
106-Mile Site are:
• Acute mortality in plankton
• Rise in the concentrations of some waste constituents in the upper
water column
• Increased turbidity
• Changes in pH
• Possible avoidance of. the area by some fish
4-30
-------
Other effects have been observed, but their extent and significance are not
yet known. These include:
• Possible occurrence of abnormal fish eggs and embryos in the waste
plume
• Ingestion of waste particulates by zooplankton
• Inhibition of organic carbon assimilation by bacteria
• Sublethal responses, e.g., reduced feeding rates in copepods
• Stimulation of diatom growth in low waste concentrations and
inhibition of growth in elevated concentrations
• Possible transport of waste materials by vertically-migrating
zooplankton
These effects, and others, will be subjects for future research on effects
of waste disposal at the site. It must be noted that most of these effects
would be expected to occur at any ocean site where industrial wastes were
dumped. The only unique factor of a location like the 106-Mile Site is that
individual organisms in such a relatively unstressed oceanic area may be more
sensitive to wastes than organisms from a stressed coastal area.
Mitigating measures beyond enhanced dilution are not presented here because
most of the waste effects which are documented persist only for a short period
(e.g., pH changes in the water). Because this site has been in use for many
years, EPA has already incorporated mitigating measures into its permit
requirements for individual dumpers. As less-understood waste effects become
better identified in future research, additional controls will be adopted when
appropriate.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN USE OF THE SITE AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Continued use of the 106-Mile Site is not expected to have a significant
adverse impact on the long-term productivity of the area. The site is outside
the range of most commercial and recreational U.S. fishing and significant
mineral resource development. To date, no studies have been conducted on the
4-31
-------
long-term effects of waste disposal on biological productivity of the area.
Effects are probably limited to the waste plume, and are mitigated by the
rapid dispersion and subsequent dilution of the plume.
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
Several resources will be irreversibly or irretrievably committed upon
implementation of the proposed action:
• Losses of energy in. the form of fuel required to transport barges to
and from the site. Transport to distant sites requires more fuel
than to nearshore sites.
• Losses of valuable constituents in the waste, (-e.g., metals), some
of which are available in the U.S. only in short supply. However,
present technology is not adequate for metal recovery before
dumping.
• Losses of economic resources due to the high costs of ocean disposal
at sites far from land. Some ocean disposal costs, however, may be
lower than alternative land-based disposal costs, resulting in a net
economic gain.
4-32
-------
Chapter 5
SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL AT THE 106-MILE SITE
While it is acknowledged that the only reasonable
long-term solution for disposal of harmful sewage sludge is
by land-based processes (summarized in Appendix D), adverse
conditions at the existing New York Bight Sewage Sludge Sites
could require relocation of the disposal operation to another
site. Use of the 106-Mile Site for sewage sludge disposal
would be technically feasible, but economically unrealistic
for large-scale disposal. However, the 106-Mile Site could
provide an alternative location for short-term disposal of
sewage sludge if threats to public health or water quality
from dumping at existing sludge sites resulted in a need to
relocate sludge dumping.
Disposal of sewage sludge, a product of wastewater treatment, is
accomplished by two broad classes of methods: (1) ocean disposal by barge or
outfall, and (2) land-based treatment and disposal. Barged ocean disposal of
sewage sludge in the New York Bight has occurred since 1924. It is acknow-
ledged that the only reasonable solution for long-term disposal of environ-
mentally harmful sludge is by land-based processes (addressed in a previous
EIS [EPA, 1978] and presented within Appendix D of the present EIS). However,
there is an immediate need for ocean disposal while land-based alternatives
are being developed and field-tested. This need will last at least until
December 31, 1981, when ocean disposal of sewage sludge which does not comply
with EPA's environmental impact criteria will cease as mandated by law (PL
95-153).
The question of where to dispose of sewage sludge (either on land or in the
ocean) from the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area or from Philadelphia,
pending implementation of land-based alternatives, has received much attention
at scientific meetings, court hearings, Congressional committee meetings, and
in the press. One EIS (EPA, 1978) has been prepared on the subject and has
resulted in designation (F.R., May 18, 1979) of an area 60 nmi (111 km) from
New York Harbor as an alternative sludge disposal site, for use only if
environmental conditions at the New York Bight Sewage Sludge Site are
5-1
-------
41°
75°
1. NEW YORK BIGHT
SLUDGE SITE
2. NEW YORK BIGHT
ALTERNATE SLUDGE
SITE
3. 106-MILE SITE
74°
73°
72°
40°
39°
38°
41°
40°
39°
KILOMETERS
0 50
NAUTICAL MILES
100
50
38°
75°
74°
73°
72°
Figure 5-1. Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal Sites
5-2
-------
sufficiently adverse to require relocation of the disposal operation
(Figure 5-1). EPA (1978) also addresses the feasibility of using the 106-Mile
Site as an alternative sludge disposal site.
The 106-Mile Site would be used primarily for disposing of industrial
chemical wastes in the foreseeable future, but it is conceivable that severely
degraded environmental conditions, or threats to public health, could require
relocation of sewage sludge disposal to an alternative site beyond the
Continental Shelf. The 106-Mile Site is the only off-Shelf location in the
mid-Atlantic used historically to dispose of sewage sludge, thus it would be a
logical choice for an alternate location. Table 5-1 summarizes the history of
the proposal to relocate sludge disposal from the New York Bight to the
106-Mile Site.
The 106-Mile Site has been used in the past for limited disposal of the
City of Camden sewage sludge, under Interim and Emergency dumping permits. In
addition, small amounts of sludge digester cleanout residues from treatment
plants in the New York City area have been dumped at the site since 1973. No
adverse effects of this sludge disposal have been demonstrated; however,
studies of effects of sludge dumping at the 106-Mile Site have been limited.
"Sewage sludge" is a generic term for the dark, humus-like waste material
produced by municipal wastewater treatment processes which treat wastes from
domestic and industr al sources. It is a mixture of sewage and settled solids
removed from raw wastewater during treatment. Sludge currently ocean-dumped
is primarily a combination of products of primary and secondary wastewater
treatment. The degree of treatment that the material receives determines its
ultimate composition. Primary treatment removes 50% to 60% of the suspended
solids from raw wastewater. Secondary treatment removes approximately 85% of
the suspended solids. Sludges produced by secondary treatment are usually
subjected to anaerobic digestion to decompose the organic materials.
5-3
-------
TABLE 5-1
HISTORY OF THE PROPOSAL TO RELOCATE
SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL TO THE 106-MILE SITE
February 1976: The Draft EIS on the ocean disposal of sewage sludge in the
New York Bight was released for public review and comment.
July, August 1976: Long Island beaches bordering the New York. Bight were
contaminated with sewage-related material and other wastes propelled onshore
by unusual summer winds. Waters off the New Jersey coast experienced a
massive algal bLoom and depletion of oxygen in bottom waters which severely
affected benthic marine organisns, especially surf clams. Blame for these
events was directed at sewage sludge disposal operations in the New York Bight
Apex, although later investigations revealed that sewage sludge was not the
cause of the incidents. Noietheless, consideration of moving sludge disposal
operations farther offshore was advanced by adverse public comment directed at
the nearshors disposal site.
May, June 1977: EPA Headquarters held a public hearing in Toms River, New
Jersey, to consider the possibility of relocating sewage sludge disposal
operations from the existing disposal site in the New York Bight Apex and the
existing disposal site off the coast of Maryland (the Philadelphia Sewage
Sludge Disposal Site) to a site farther offshore, possibly the 106-Mile Site.
Many government, public, and academic critics and supporters of the prop-
osition presented arguments, data, and opinions (EPA, 1976).
July 1977: EPA Headquar:ers awarded a 3-year contract to Interstate
Electronics Corporation to perform environmental assessments and prepare EIS's
on the designation of ocean disposal sites for different types of wastes. The
106-Mile Site EIS was assigned high priority.
September 1977: The hearing officer for the Toms River public hearing issued
his report, recommending that neither the New York area nor the Philadelphia
sewage sludge disposal operations be moved from the existing disposal sites.
With respect to the 106-Mile Site, the hearing officer stated that "sludge
dumping at the 106-Mile S:.te is not feasible because of the unknown but
potentially adverse environmental consequences and the inability to monitor
the site effectively." However, the same report recommended that "Preparation
of an environmental impact statement on the issue of relocating the
sludge...to the 106-Mile Site should begin immediately" (Breidenbach, 1977).
5-4
-------
TABLE 5-1. (Continued)
November 1977: Congress amended the MPRSA to require that ocean disposal of
harmful sewage sludge be phased out by December 31, 1981 (PL 95-153).
March 1978: EPA Assistant Administrator Jorling issued a decision on the Toms
River public hearing, stating that the New York Bight and Philadelphia Sewage
Sludge Disposal Sites should continue in use, pending the phase-out of harmful
sewage sludge disposal in 1981. The decision directed that an assessment of
sewage sludge disposal be included in the EIS on the 106-Mile Site (Jorling,
1978).
September 1978: EPA issued the final draft of the EIS (EPA, 1978) on ocean
disposal of sewage sludge in the New York Bight, including an assessment of
the feasibility of using the 106-Mile Site. The site was not judged favorable
for sludge disposal based on an evaluation of several factors. The major
limitations cited in the use of the 106-Mile Site were the unknown environ-
mental effects of disposal and the greater associated costs of using the site
as compared to other sites. The EIS recommended the designation of a site
farther offshore on the Shelf for use if conditions at the existing site
required it. That EIS drew heavily on the material presented at the Toms
River public hearing. No new data on sludge disposal affects at the 106-Mile
Site were presented.
May 1979: EPA published notice of the final designation of the existing New
York Bight Sewage Sludge Disposal Site and the Alternate Sewage Sludge
Disposal Site for use if the existing site cannot safely accommodate any more
sewage sludge.
June 1979: The Draft EIS on the 106-Mile Site designation was issued for
public review and comment. The site was judged acceptable for continued
industrial waste disposal and snort-term sewage sludge disposal.
August 1979: EPA Headquarters held a public hearing in New Jersey to receive
comment on the proposed designation of the 106-Mile Site and the Draft EIS
supporting designation.
5-5
-------
'By 1981, most of the waste treatment plants which serve the New York
metropolitan area and currently practice ocean disposal are expected to
provide secondary treatment. Thus, the character of dumped sewage sludge will
gradually change over the next few years as present wastewater treatment
plants are upgraded and new facilities are constructed to provide secondary
treatment. Table 5-2 compares the physical and chemiial characteristics of
present New York City sewage sludge with the industrial chemical wastes
presently dumped at the 106-Mile Site. New York-New Jersey sludge is
emphasized in the rest of this chapter because the amount dumped is so much
greater than the amount Philadelphia dumps.
AMOUNTS OF SLUDGE DUMPED
From 1960 to 1978, the amount of sewage sludge dumped annually in the New
York Bight ranged between 2.5 and 6.4 million metric tons. By 1981, the amount
of sludge dumped in the Bight is expected to be about 10 million metric tons,
or one and a half times greater than the 1978 amount. Table 5-3 presents the
estimated amounts from the individual waste generators expected to dump in the
Bight between 1979 and 1981. Projections of the effects of sludge disposal at
the 106-Mile Site are based on anticipated 1981 New York-New Jersey sludge
volumes, but do not preclude disposal from any other area.
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY
The City of Camden's relatively brief use of the 106-Mile Site provided
little, opportunity to study the impacts of sewage sludge disposal there. In
lieu of adequate experimental data on the site, projections of the effects of
potential future sludge disposal must be based on data from studies of other
wastes at the site, and on data obtained from studies at other sewage sludge
ocean disposal sites.
5-6
-------
TABLE 5-2
COMPARISON OF TYPICAL PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND TOXICOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF SEWAGE SLUDGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE
DUMPED AT THE 106-MILE SITE
Characteristic
Specific gravity
pH
Suspended Solids
(mg/liter)
Oil and Grease
(rag/liter)
Arsenic (pg/lite*")
Cadmium (pg/liter)
Chromium (pg/liter)
Copper (pg/liter)
Iron (mg/liter)
Lead (pg/liter)
Mercury (pg/liter)
Nickel (pg/liter)
Vanadium (pg/liter)
Zinc (pg/liter)
96-hr LC50:
Atlantic silversides
(M. menidia)
(pi/liter)
96-hr EC50:
Diatom
(S. costatum)
(pi/liter)
New York City
Sludge*
1.009
ND
25,000
4,900
1,000
2,700
59,000
82,000
ND
66,000
800
17,000
2,000
160,000
7,200 - 16,000
39 - 1,000
American
Cyanamid
1.028
2.7 - 8.3
300
(60 - 21,000)
900
(10 - 6,214)
600 .
(20 - 2,600)
4
(1 - 50)
600
(45 - 4,900)
400
(1 - 4,100)
ND
100
30
(1 - 200)
1,000
(145 - 6,400)
ND
600
(7 - 5,160)
0.24 - 2,900
10 - 1,900
Uu Pont
Edge Moor
1.135
(1.085 - 1.218)
0.1 - 1.0
2,000
4
(1 - 24)
nO
300
(20 - 900)
270,000
(52,600 - 900,000)
3,000
33,000
(14,500 - 54,800)
41,000
(2,700 - 76,000)
30
(1 - 200)
29,000
(200 - 65,000)
120,000
(80,000 - 250,000)
101,000
5.000T
712 - 3,450
Uu Pont
Grasselli
1.109
(1.036 - 1.222)
12.4 - 13.6
800
(5 - 15,090)
17
(0.4 - 108)
NU
200
(3 - 700)
300
(10 - 3,500)
330
(25 - 1,470)
ND
900
(10 - 4,900)
7
(1 - 20)
700
(30 - 2,000)
ND
500
(30 - 2,700)
560 - 6.950T
s
160 - 8,600
Merck
1.2o
5-7
1,000
80
200
50
500
400
NU
1,500
50
2,600
1,000
400
650 - 100.000T
05 - 12,UUO
* Data from Mueller et al., 1976.
t Aerated
ND = Not determined
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-3
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF SEWAGE SLUDGE TO BE DUMPED
BY NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY PERMITTEES, 1979 TO 1981
Waste
Generator
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners
City of Long Beach
Middlesex County Sewerage
Authority
City of New York
Modern Transportation Co.
Bergen County Utilities
Authority
Linden-Roselle & Rahway
Valley Sewerage Authorities
Joint Meeting of Essex and
Union Counties
Nassau County
Westchester County
City of Glen Cove
General Marine Transport Corp.
Modern Transportation
TOTALS
Amount in Thousands of Metric
and (Thousands of Tons)
1979
36
767
9
767
4,364
108
230
252
334
418
533
13
11
•',842
(40)
(844)
(10)
(844)
(4,800)
(119)
(253)
(277)
(367)
(460)
(586)
(14)
(12)
(8,626)
1980
42 (46)
1,007 (1,108)
9 (10)
915 (1,007)
'4,634 (5,097)
234 (257)
261 (287)
334 (367)
435 (479)
683 (751)
13 (14)
18 (19)
56 (60)
8,641 (9,502)
Tons
1981
48
1,007
9
926
5,904
239
270
334
453
703
13
18
56
9,980
(53)
(1,108)
(10)
(1,019)
(6,494)
(263)
(297)
(367)
(498)
(773)
(14)
(19)
(60)
(10,975)
Use of an off-Shelf site for sludge disposal can have several environmental
advantages over disposal at a Shelf site:
(1) Except in an area of upwelling, biological productivity is generally
much lower in off-She!.f waters than in Shelf waters.
(2) In a site located far from shore, wastes are diluted before they can'
impact coastal fisheries or shorelines.
(3) Bottom impacts are less Likely at a site located in sufficiently
deep water because sinking particles undergo rapid horizontal
dispersion as they descend slowly, ensuring that very little
material sinks directly to the bottom.
(4) Any material that eventually reaches bottom will be so widely
dispersed that a substantial build-up of elevated concentrations is
highly unlikely.
5-8
-------
Several concerns about potential effects of sludge disposal at the 106-Mile
Site were raised at the Toms River Hearing. Among them are the following:
• Accumulation of undecayed materials which could ultimately float up
to contaminate seas and beaches
• Development of deep-sea anaerobic environments
• Damage to organisms which are adapted to the stable conditions of
the deep ocean environment
• Long-range adverse effects on marine biota which remain undetectable
until the impact becomes irreversible
• Persistence of pathogens for long periods of time
The above issues and others are addressed in this section. Based upon the
present knowledge of the physical characteristics at the 106-Mile Site, and
the characteristics of the sludge proposed for disposal at the site, no
significant adverse impacts are anticipated.
FATE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
The fate of dumped sludge in the water column at the site is important in
order to understand the potential chemical and biological effects of sludge
disposal. The nature of impact from dumped material is determined in large
part by the behavior of the waste in the water mass. The material may sink
directly to the bottom, as do coarse construction materials and dense dredged
materials, or it may remain in the water mass for a long time, dispersing
slowly or rapidly throughout all or part of the water column. Shallow water
makes the likelihood of bottom contact in a relatively short time more
probable. Deep water offers a lower probability of rapid bottom deposition
due, in part, to complex changes in the environmental conditions vertically
throughout the water column. The 106-Mile Site is a dynamic region,
therefore, its natural complexity limits the predictability of events which
may ensue from waste disposal.
Attention must be focused on the interaction of the ocean environment with
the dumped sludge. The best evidence of the mechanical settling and
dispersion is from direct observation of the sludge after it is released from
5-9
-------
a barge. Orr (1977b) had ths opportunity to track the early stages of a
Camden sludge dump at the 105-Mile Site, via acoustic means. From these
observations, the points most cogent to the influence of environment on the
dumped material are the movement of material to about 60 m depth and the
evidence of a strong vertical shear at about 28 m, which cause the upper and
lower portions of the dumped material to be rapidly spread over large
horizontal areas. It should be noted that Camden sludge received only primary
treatment, thus particles were heavier than those in sludge from secondary
treatment. Therefore, secondary sludge may disperse differently.
The depth of the seasonal pycnocline in the offshore area ranges between 10
and 60 m, forming a density surface which acts to restrict settling of near
neutrally buoyant material such as sludge. The depth and intensity of this
pycnocline varies with season and storm activity, but is quite pervasive,
extending over the several water masses (although perhaps not well developed
in Gulf Stream eddies). A permanent pycnocline, between 100 and 150 m (on
average), will act as another barrier to settling material. While neither
density surface is impenetrable, the retardation of settling will keep the
dumped material in the upper surface waters for longer periods of time. The
dynamic activity of surface waves, internal waves, shears, and small-scale
turbulence enhance this suspended state. Where a variety of water masses
interact, fronts and shear lines are commonplace and represent regions of
spatially varying speeds and increased turbulence. These conditions increase
dispersion of the material in both the vertical and horizontal, thus further
reducing the settling rate. This is an anisotropic dispersion (ichiye, 1965),
where horizontal dispersion ra'ies exceed those of the vertical by as much as
two orders of magnitude.
With inc eased residence time in surface waters, the material is subject to
transport by near-surface currents which normally move at higher speeds than
currents at greater depths. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution records of
currents measured at Site D, about 110 nmi (204 km) east-northeast of the
site, represent an approximate description of conditions at the site. Records
collected during a 261-day period in the surface waters to depths of 150 m
show an average current movement to the west and north of 6 to 11 cm/sec. On
a larger scale, this means an average of about 3 to 5 nmi (5 to 10 km) per day
5-10
-------
of translational movement, with brief periods of faster and slower speeds.
Warsh (1975b) suggests that currents follow the bathymetry, and move to the
south and west at the 106-Mile Site. In contrast, Bisagni (1976) reported a
mean residence time of 22 days for anticyclonic eddies passing through the
site.
In oceanic conditions, a typical sludge settling rate was determined by
Callaway et al. (1976) who monitored dispersion of sludge dumped in the shoal
waters of the New York Bight Apex. Nonflocculated particles, comprising most
of the dumped material, had settling velocities of 0.01 to 0.30 cm/sec or
less. If the material is dispersed throughout the upper 60 m of the water
column, this settling rate provides a mean time to the 60-meter depth of 0.2
hour to 7 days, in which time the material could be transported a maximum of
21 to 35 nmi (40 to 65 km). In that time, this waste fraction is assumed to
have reached the density interface at 60 m where it may accumulate for an
unknown time. The waste fraction should eventually pass through, settling to
the next interface at approximately 100 to 150 m depth. Assuming a linear
descent to 100 m depth, the range of time is about 0.33 hour to 12 days. In
the longer period, at a mean speed of 3 to 5 nmi (5 to 10 km) per day, the
finer fractions could travel a total of 36 to 60 nmi (70 to 110 km) from the
site.
Values used here for the purpose of discussion may vary significantly
without detracting from the observation that waste material will spend long
times in the water column undergoing dispersion, transport, and degradation by
chemical and biological processes. Orr (1977b) is presently analyzing data on
the horizontal dispersion of the sludge during a 32-hour experiment in which
the sludge had, at the end of the experiment, dispersed along several density
interfaces within 45 m of the surface but did not penetrate the 60-meter
depth. This experiment adds credibility to the use of a time interval greater
than three days for settling to 60 m and to a long residency in surface
waters.
A worst-case estimate for bottom areas where particles may fall is based
upon approximation techniques of Callaway et al. (1976). Assuming a point
source dump (with no associated turbulent diffusion as from a discharge in the
5-11
-------
wake of a moving barge), a 6 cm/sec horizontal current (U), and a particle
settling velocity (W ) of 0.1 cm/sec, the size of the settling area at the
s
106-Mile Site will be proportional to the depth change of the existing
disposal site (depth = H = 22 m) to the 106-Mile Site. Particles will sef.le
over the length L = UH/W . The 106-Mile Site has an average depth of about
S
2,000 meters. Solving the equation for L yields 120 km. If a circular
2
settling patch is assumed, the 106-Mile Site yields 45,216 km . Assuming an
even distribution of solids within the computed area, the accompanying
decrease in solids per unit area relative to the New York Bight Sludge Site is
of the order of 3,000. Based on current sludge volumes, this results in a
bottom accumulation of 0.6 micron - an infinitesimal amount. Therefore,
disallowing horizontal and vertical dispersion, density gradients, or
degradative processes normal to the 106-Mile Site, and assuming an unre-
stricted fall of sludge parcicles from surface to bottom, insignificant
amounts of sludge would be deposited on the bottom under the worst conditions.
EFFECTS UPON WATER CHEMISTRY
Sewage sludge produced by secondary treatment contains low concentrations
of organic matter. Anaerobic digestion reduces these concentrations even
further, but detention time is generally insufficient to remove the
slower-degrading constituents: lipids, lignins, celluloses, and industrial
wastes (e.g., PCB's, phenols, and pesticides). These materials will most
likely not accumulate at the site but will disperse rapidly in the surface
waters above the pycnocline where they may be subjected to various degradative
processes, including microbial degradation.
Recent in situ studies conducted by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
(Wirsen and Jannasch, 1976; Jannasch and Wirsen, 1973, 1977), suggest that
bacterial activity decreases significantly with lower temperatures and the
greater pressures characteristic of the deep-sea environment. Although the
depth range of the 106-Mile Site (1,400 to 2,800 m) falls generally within the
depth range of the degradation studies (1,800 to 5,300 m) conducted by
Jannasch and Wirsen (1973, 1977) and Wirsen and Jannasch (1976), the
thermocline/pycnocline barrier at the site is expected to encourage horizontal
5-12
-------
dispersion of the sludge above 100 to 150 m depth. Actual rates of
decomposition at this depth are not known and can, at best, only be
extrapolated from some of the above referenced studies.
Chemostat studies, conducted under atmospheric pressure, have demonstrated
reduced rates of microbial degradation when substrates are diluted beyond a
critical point (Jannasch and Mateles, 1974). Such experimental evidence has
been proposed for explaining the ubiquity of certain pollutants in the oceans
(Jannasch, 1979). Preliminary studies of organic wastes in the deep sea,
however, have implicated a combined role of micro-organisms and higher animals
in removing organic wastes (Jannasch, 1979). Metabolic processes in higher
animals are instrumental in transforming and degrading some organic
pollutants. The combined microbial activity in the intestinal tracts of some
higher animals and fish have been implicated in similar transformations
(Jannasch, 1979).
Based on the initially low concentrations of slowly degrading organic
material associated with the sludge and given the highly dispersive
environment at the 106-Mile Site (previously discussed), accumulations of
large amounts of undecayed organic matter and the subsequent creation of an
anaerobic environment are highly unlikely. Only insignificant amounts of
material requiring oxidation will sink to depths of limited dissolved oxygen.
Sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site will introduce metals, inorganic
nutrients, suspended solids, and chlorinated hydrocarbons to the water column.
However, since the waste will be introduced into the barge wake, rapid initial
dilution will occur. Further dilution and dispersion will occur as the
material sinks and the water mass acts upon it.
The following discussion is based in part on the projections made by
Raytheon (1976) on the effects of sludge disposal at the Alternate Sewage
Sludge Site in the New York Bight. The potential effects on water chemistry
at the 106-Mile Site and the Alternate Sludge Site are comparable. Bottom
chemistry effects are not discussed since, as indicated earlier, the sludge is
not expected to reach the bottom in significant proportions.
5-13
-------
Most of the heavy metals introduced by sludge will occur in the particulate
fraction. In Table 5-4 the present metal content of sewage sludge has been
applied to a worst-case model of nondispersive, nondiluting physical
conditions at the site, with sludge dumped in the water column contained
within an areal quadrant to a depth of 15 m in a 14-day period. Under such
strict conditions, the accumulative concentrations of some metals will be
double the low background levels. However, in observed typical conditions,
with the pycnocline near 60 m depth and water flushing through the quadrant in
3 days at the rate of 10 cra/sez, the percent metal loading within the quadrant
due to sludge dumping is a small fraction of the worst-case value. This
suggests that any future sludge disposal at the site should occur under the
most dispersive conditions, to avoid elevated concentrations in the water
column. Amounts of sludge dumped at a time can be regulated to permit
adequate dilution and dispersion so that concentrations within the site do not
remain elevated.
Chlorinated hydrocarbons (e,,g., PCB's) and other toxic organic materials in
sludge will be introduced to the site in association with particulates in the
sludge. However, the concentrations of these materials in the sludge are
relatively low (Anderson, personal communication) and are not expected to
increase levels significantly at the site as long as inputs to the sludge are
controlled.
Nutrients in the form of inorganic nitrogen (NO., , N0_ , and NH- ) and
inorganic phosphorus (PO, ) would be introduced to the site by sludge
disposal. Table 5-5 presents an evaluation of worst-case conditions. Only
phosphate is added in significant proportions. Most primary production in the
ocean is limited by the amount of inorganic nitrogen in the water, and even in
the worst case, sludge would introduce insignificant amounts of nitrogen.
Dumping sludge at the site would neither significantly increase productivity
nor support plankton blooms.
5-14
-------
TABLE 5-4
WORST-CASE PROJECTIONS OF METAL LOADING DUE TO SEWAGE SLUDGE
DISPOSAL IN A QUADRANT OF THE 106-MILE SITE
Metal Load
Background
concentration
(yg/liter) Average
Range
Total amount
(g) in
7.7 x 1012literst
Estimated metal
input (g)
**
in 1981
Estimated input
. .. , tt
in 14 days
Percent of loading
due to sludge
dumping during
14 days
Cadmium
0.37
0.05 - 0.6
2.8 x 106
3 x 107
1.1 x 106
39
Copper
0.9
0.2 - 1.7
6.9 x 106
8.9 x 108
3.4 x 107
49
Lead
2.9
0.8 - 6.1
2.2 x 107
6.6 x 108
2.5 x 107
113
Mercury
0.72
0.04 - 4.0
5.5 x 106
8 x 106
3.1 x 105
6
Zinc
8.0
1.6 - 21.4
6.2 x 107
1.6 x 109
6. 1 x 10?
98
* From Hausknecht (1977).
t Volume based on one-fourth of the total area of the sice and a minimum seasonal
theraocline of 15 m.
** Based on sludge metal concentrations from Mueller et al. (1976) and EPA (1978) volume
estimates.
tt Based on the length of time taken for a water parcel to cross the site at 10 cm/sec.
5-15
-------
TABLE 5-5
WORST-CASE PROJECTIONS OF INORGANIC NUTRIENT LOADING DUE TO
SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL IN A QUADRANT OF THE 106-MILE SITE
Background
concentration (|Ug/l)
Total amount in
7.7 x 10Uliters (g)f
Estimated input during
1981 (g)
Estimated input in
14 days (g)
% total nutrient load
due to sludge
Nitrite and Nitrate
19.2
1.5 x 108
4.0 x 107
1.5 x 106
1
Phosphate
114
9 x 108
4.0 x 109
1.5 x 108
14
* From Peterson (1975;. Concentrations at 15 m depth,
t Volume of a quadrant of the site to 15 m depth.
The heavier particles in the suspended solid fraction are quite inert,
mainly silt and sand washed into sewage treatment plants. Such particles can
provide sites for biological growth and will sink fairly rapidly. Finer
particles, e.g., clays, will remain in the water column for long periods of
time and will provide charged sites for bonding with ionic materials (e.g.,
heavy metals) in solution, and for bacterial growth, which can remove ionic
matter from solution.
INTERACTIONS WITH INDUSTRIAL WASTE
Whenever chemically diverse materials are mixed, the potential for
interactions exist. For example, combining sludge with strong acids can cause
5-16
-------
heavy metals to desorb from sludge particles. Conversely, the particles in
sludge can provide nuclei for adsorption of contaminants in chemical wastes.
The potential for interaction of chemical wastes with sludge dumped at the
106-Mile Site is slight. EPA imposes that simultaneous dumps be in separate
. 2
quadrants of the site, with each quadrant large enough (150 nmi ) to dilute
significantly the material within its boundaries. Sludge and industrial
wastes at the site would thus be separated by a sufficient distance to prevent
the materials from mixing. Sludge at the New York Bight Sewage Sludge Site is
presently dumped only 2.7 nmi (5 km) from the New York Bight Acid Site. No
interactions between sludge and acid waste have ever been recorded.
EFFECTS UPON ORGANISMS
Many components of sewage sludge can adversely affect organisms. Some of
these constituents (e.g., nutrients and heavy metals) are necessary to sustain
marine life, but become toxic at the high concentrations found in undiluted
sludge. However, rapid dilution and dispersion of the sludge at the site will
mitigate all but short-term acute effects on organisms inhabiting the upper
water column. Due to the rapid vertical dilution of waste throughout the
water column, benthic organisms in the vicinity should not be affected.
Limited biological studies (Longwell, 1977) have been conducted during
sludge disposal operations at the 106-Mile Site. Fish eggs were collected
inside and outside the sewage sludge plume to study effects upon developing
fish embryos. The fish embryos were examined for cell and chromosome damage.
Too few fish eggs were collected to permit quantitative comparisons. However,
sewage sludge appears to be toxic to fish eggs in the early developmental
stages, as indicated by adverse effects on the chromosome and mitotic
apparatus of embryos undergoing cell division. No effects of any waste,
either industrial or municipal, have been demonstrated on fish populations
because of the high natural variability of such populations. Most populations
of fish taken commercially in the mid-Atlantic spawn over the Continental
Shelf, rather than in off-Shelf water such as the 106-Mile Site. Therefore,
although sewage sludge may cause short-term effects on early stages of fish
embryos, measurable long-term effects on fish populations are unlikely.
5-17
-------
SURVIVAL OF PATHOGENS
Sewage sludge contains many types of pathogenic (disease-causing)
organisms, reflecting both the infection and carrier status of a particular
population. Sludge pathogens may be classified into four general groups:
bacteria, viruses, protozoans, and helminths (Table 5-6).
Of all pathogenic organisms associated with sewage sludge, the greatest
public health concern is for viruses, particularly the enteroviruses. This
concern is justified by a number of observations:
(1) Most enteric viruses are more resistant to sewage treatment and
disinfection processes than enteric bacteria (Akin et al., 1975).
(2) Response to the most common disinfectant (chlorine) varies greatly
among the enteroviruses - some types exhibiting much greater
resistance than other viral types (Liu et al., 1971).
(3) Enteric viruses, along with enteric bacteria, can become con-
centrated in shellfish tissues (Mitchell et al., 1966; Liu et al.,
1966; MetcaLf, 1974).
(4) The lack of adequate viral isolation techniques and low recovery
efficiencies of existing methods have produced data with only
relative value. Reported densities are most likely underestimates
of actual populations in the environment.
Secondary treatment of sewage is highly variable in effectively reducing or
inactivating many of these organisms (Akin et al., 1977). Depending on
factors such as treatment facility conditions, resistance of organisms, and
waste composition and degree of degradation, the microbial content of sewage
is reduced anywhere from 25% to 99% (Geldreich, 1978). Sewage treatment
processes are generally most effective in providing effluents of acceptable
quality. Sludges, on the other hand, are reservoirs for many sewage
pathogens.
Most sewage coliforms (50% to 75%) are associated with particulates having
sizeable settling velocities (Mitchell and Chamberlin, 1978), resulting in a
"die-off" due to sedimentation rather than an actual loss of cell viability.
Viruses rarely occur as free individuals and are generally adsorbed to, or
5-18
-------
embedded in particulate matter. This phenomenon only increases the weight and
bulk of the infectious unit (Akin et al., 1977). Persistent bacterial spores,
parasite cysts, and eggs ultimately become sludge constituents because of
their relative densities.
TABLE 5-6
IMPORTANT SLUDGE-ASSOCIATED HUMAN PATHOGENS
ORGANISMS
DISEASE
1. ENTERIC BACTERIA
Salmonellae species
Shigellae species
Escherichia coli
2. ENTERIC VIRUSES
Enteroviruses (67 types)
Hepatitis A virus
Adenoviruses (31 types)
Rotavirus
Parvovirus-types
3. PROTOZOANS
Entamoeba histolytica
Giardia lamblia
Balantidiutn coli
4. HELMINTHS (Worms)
a. Nematodes (Roundworms)
Ascaris lumbricoides
Ancyclostoma duodenale
Necator americanus
Enterobius vermicularis
Strongyloides stercoralis
Trichuris trichiura
b. Cestodes (Tapeworms)
Taenia saginata
Taenia solium
Hymenolepis nana
Typhoid Fever
Salmonellosis
Shigellosis
Gastroenteritis
Gastroenteritis
Meningitis
Others
Infectious hepatitis
Respiratory disease
Conjunctivitis
Others
Gastroenteritis
Gastroenteritis
Amoebiasis
Giardiasis
Balantidiasis
Ascariasis
Ancyclostomiasis
Necatoriasis
Enterobiasis (pinworms)
Strongyloidiasis (threadworms)
Trichuriasis (whipworms)
Taeniasis (beef tapeworm)
Taeniasis (pork tapeworm)
Taeniasis
Source: Akin et al., 1977.
5-19
-------
A number of factors responsible for the decline of sewage pathogens have
been identified and studied. Table 5-7 lists the mechanisms most often
implicated in "die-off" observations. Although any one of these factors may
be effective under particular circumstances or conditions, solar radiation and
the adsorption and sedimentation of contaminating micro-organisms with
particles in suspension have frequently been suggested as the most effective
means of natural pathogen reduction in the ocean (Mitchell and Chamberlin,
1978). Synergistic effects, particularly with physical-chemical parameters,
have also been shown to limit the existence of micro-organisms in the marine
environment (Brock and Darland, 1970; Cooper and Morita, 1972; Jannasch and
Wirsen, 1973).
As part of the monitoring program in the New York Bight, EPA Region II, in
response to public concern for sludge disposal and transport of contaminants,
initiated a bacteriological monitoring program which included total and fecal
coliforms, pathogenic bacteria, and enteric viruses (EPA, 1977a). This
twelve-month study emphasized the need to establish standard permissible viral
levels for water and shellfish and the necessity for including enteric virus
testing in monitoring programs. Results of this investigation showed the
presence of human pathogenic viruses (coxsackie, ECHO, poliovirus) and
bacterial pathogens (Salmonella enteritidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa) in New
York Bight waters. The data strongly suggest that the sources of these
contaminants are Hudson-Raritan Bay discharges, rather than dumping at the
sewage sludge disposal site.
There is little information on the survival of sludge pathogens at the
106-Mile Site. In one study, conducted during a Camden sludge disposal
operation, surface and substrface water samples were collected from a
stationary ship and analyzed for total and fecal coliform bacteria (Vaccaro
and Dennett, 1977). Within the first hour of sampling inside the waste plume,
surface water samples produced positive results for total and fecal coliforms.
All of the subsurface samples yielded negative results for both tests.
5-20
-------
TABLE 5-7
FACTORS IDENTIFIED AS CONTRIBUTING TO THE
"DIE-OFF" OR DECLINE OF SEWAGE PATHOGENS
Cause
Adsorption and Sedimentation
Solar Radiation
Predation and Bacterial
Parasites
Bacteriophage
Nutrient Deficiencies and
Competition
Toxins and Antibiosis
Heavy Metal Ion Toxicity
Seasonal Temperature
Variations
Physical and Chemical
Characteristics
Reference
Orlob, 1956
Rittenberg et al., 1958
Gameson and Gould, 1975
Harrison, 1967
Reynolds, 1965
Mitchell, 1972
Mitchell et al., 1967
Carlucci and Pramer, 1960
Carlucci and Pramer, 1960
Jannasch, 1967
Jannasch, 1968
Moebus, 1972a
Won and Ross, 1973
Aubert et al., 1974
Mitchell, 1971
Moebus, 1972b
Sieburth, 1968
Jones, 1964
Jones, 1967
Jones and Cobet, 1974
Moebus, 1972a
Carlucci and Pramer, 1959
Jannasch and Wirsen, 1973
Jones, 1971
MacLeod, 1968
Accumulation of sludge on the ocean bottom at the 106-Mile Site is highly
unlikely (see previous discussion on dilution and dispersion). The depth of
the site and the thermocline/pycnocline barriers will restrict the settling of
sludge and encourage horizontal dispersion throughout the water column. The
chance of contamination of bottom sediments by pathogenic organisms is fairly
remote and not a primary issue. Pathogens attached to particulate sludge
material suspended in the water column will be vulnerable to predators,
toxins, solar radiation, and a number of other factors contributing to
5-21
-------
inactivation of disease-causing organisms. The potential for causing disease
along coastal waters is seemingly remote; however, the actual survival of
sludge-associated human pathogens dumped at an oceanic site so far from shore
is still relatively unknown. Therefore, in accordance with Section
227.7(c)(l) of the Ocean Dumping Regulations, if the 106-Mile Site is used for
future sewage sludge disposal, the monitoring program accompanying the
disposal must address these questions.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
The feasibility of monitoring for impacts of sewage sludge disposal at the
106-Mile Site was addressed at the Toms River Hearing. Opinions expressed at
the hearing varied on monitoring feasibility, but all agreed that monitoring
the 106-Mile Site, to detect and control short- and long-range impacts of
sludge dumping, would be most difficult (some felt it would be impossible).
NOAA stated that such a program would be technically possible, but very
expensive:
The techniques required for a monitoring program are
available. It is, however, more time-consuming and thus more
expensive to monitor a site which is 100 miles from shore and
2,000 meters deep than one which is nearshore and shallow.
An effective monitoring program would be built upon our
existing knowledge. Initial work directed specifically at
sewage sludge would be. to define the volume of water through
which the sludge settles, the area of the bottom accepting
the waste, the rate of water renewal, and rates of deep-sea
sludge oxidation. The effects of sludge on deep-sea biota
would be addressed through field sampling and by application
of specialized techniques for observation at low temperature
and high pressure. It is estimated that such a program would
require about $2.5 million for each of its first two years
and, thereafter, about $1.0 million per annum (Martineau,
1977). [All of the New York Bight monitoring currently costs
about $1 million per year.]
Considering the dispersion data from the site, which indicate that the
major potential effects of sludge dumping would occur in the water column
above the thermoclines (seasonal or permanent), monitoring could be simpler
than originally estimated because extremely deep sampling would be
unnecessary. However, the wider dispersion of materials in the upper water
column, would necessitate monitoring over a larger area.
5-22
-------
SURVEILLANCE
Surveillance of sludge disposal operations at the 106-Mile Site is feasible
although it would place an additional burden on the Coast Guard, requiring
allocation of additional personnel (Mullen, 1977).
ECONOMICS
EPA (1978) presents a thorough overview of the economic issues imposed by
using the 106-Mile Site for sewage sludge disposal. The salient points of
that discussion are presented below.
The most severe economic hindrance to transferring all sludge disposal
operations from existing sewage sludge sites to the 106-Mile Site is the size
of the existing fleet of sludge dump vessels. The increased costs of using
the 106-Mile Site rather than a nearshore site are caused by two factors: (1)
transport to the 106-Mile Site takes so much longer that additional vessels
are necessary to carry the same amount of material since existing vessels are
fully engaged in transit and disposal operations at present sites, and (2) the
time required for discharge will increase because the rate will be based on
the limiting permissible concentration rather than the present average dumping
rate of 5 hours.
Assuming equal discharge rates, the cost of using the 106-Mile Site would
be about twice the cost of using the Alternate Sewage Sludge Site, and six to
eight times the cost of continuing to use the New York Bight Sewage Sludge
Site. By 1981, the estimated annual cost to municipal permittees for
transporting sludge to the 106-Mile Site is estimated to be within a range of
$124 million to $154 million. Many present at the Toms River Hearing felt
that such a prohibitive expense to the municipal dumpers would divert funds
into ocean disposal which might otherwise be used to develop land-based
disposal alternatives, thus perpetuating ocean disposal (NOAA, 1977; Forsythe,
1977; Kamlet, 1977).
5-23
-------
The projected cost of monitoring sludge disposal is discussed above. A
portion of the monitoring cost would be passed on to the permittees, further
increasing their economic burden. Similarly, the cost to Federal agencies
monitoring the site would be substantial.
Surveillance costs would be high if the 106-Mile Site were used for sludge
disposal. The USCG monitors sludge disposal operations at the New York Bight
Sludge Site with helicopters .and p>atrol vessels. The 106-Mile Site is beyond
the normal range of this equipment, thus shipriders would be required, at an
additional expense to the USCG.
LOGISTICS
Use of the 106-Mile Site for sludge disposal would be logistically feasible
although initial delays of several months (primarily for obtaining suitable
vessels), would probably be necessary before implementation. Increased
traffic at the site would present additional navigational hazards; however,
dumping in quadrants of the site would tend to mitigate many of the hazards.
The Third Coast Guard District strongly recommended that the total amount
of dumping time per day be restricted to the 5-hour rate to avoid vessel
congestion at the dumpsite. Because of the increased transit time to the
106-Mile Site over the time to the existing site, the 12 vessels which now
comprise the fleet would be inadequate to handle the sludge volumes;
therefore, additional vessels would be necessary. These additional vessels
would cause further traffic congestion in the 106-Mile Site area, thus posing
a greater risk of collision.
SUMMARY
Use of the 106-Mile Site for sewage sludge disposal would be environmentally
acceptable under carefully controlled conditions (outlined below), and
accompanied by a comprehensive monitoring program. However, substitution of
5-24
-------
the 106-Mile Site for existing Shelf sites would impose severe economic
burdens, surveillance and monitoring difficulties, and logistics problems.
Therefore, the following conclusions are made.
CONCLUSIONS
It is proposed that use of the 106-Mile Site for sewage sludge disposal be
decided case-by-case by EPA, on the basis of severity of need. Any permit
issued should include provisions for adequate monitoring and surveillance, to
prevent significant adverse impacts resulting from disposal. Sludge disposal
should be allowed at the site only under the following conditions:
• The existing sewage sludge sites cannot safely accommodate more
sludge disposal without endangering public health, severely
degrading the marine environment, or degrading coastal water
quality.
• Independent surveillance by the USCG or by an unbiased observer (the
latter at the permittee's expense) should be conducted with a
program goal of 50%, assuming that surveillance would be increased
with the implementation of ODSS by the USCG.
• Monitoring for short- and long-term impacts should be accomplished
by federal agencies and environmental contractors (the latter at the
permittee's expense). This monitoring must include studies of the
fate of solids and sludge micro-organisms, inside and outside the
site, and a comprehensive analysis of environmental effects.
• Vessels should discharge the sludge into the wakes so that maximum
turbulent dispersion occurs.
• Vessels discharging sludge should be separated from vessels
discharging industrial wastes, so that the two types of wastes do
not mix.
• Key constituents of the sludge should be routinely analyzed in barge
samples at a frequency to be determined by EPA on a case-by-case
basis, but sufficient to evaluate mass loading accurately at the
site.
• Routine bioassays should be performed on sludge samples using
appropriate sensitive marine organisms.
5-25
-------
Chapter 6
LIST OF PREPARERS
Preparation of this EIS was a joint effort employing many members of the
Interstate Electronics Corporation scientific and technical staff and EPA
Region II. This chapter summarizes the background and qualifications of the
primary preparers of the document.
KATHLEEN M. KING
Ms. King is the principal author of the EIS. She is a marine biologist and
Manager of the Biological Sciences Branch within the contractor's Oceanic
Engineering Division. She holds a B.S. in Biological Sciences from the
University of California and an M.A. in Biology (with emphasis on marine
biology) from California State University, Long Beach.
Ms. King prepared Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 5 of this EIS. As the Coordinator
of the entire document, she directed writing efforts on other sections of the
EIS, edited all chapters, and maintained liaison with EPA Headquarters and
Region II.
JOHN R. DONAT
Mr. Donat, an Associate Oceanographer at Interstate Electronics, holds a
B.S. in Chemical Oceanography from Humboldt State University and is presently
continuing study in preparation for an advanced degree in chemical ocean-
ography.
Mr. Donat prepared Appendix B and several sections in Appendix A of the
106-Mile Site EIS.
6-1
-------
WILLIAM DUNSTAN
Dr. Dunstan, the Program Manager for the EPA program on Ocean Disposal Site
Designation, holds a B.S. in Engineering from Yale University, an M.S. in
Marine Biology from Florida Estate University, and a Ph.D. in Biology from
Florida State.
Dr. Dunstan prepared Appendix C and conducted extensive initial editing of
the other chapters and appendices.
MARSHALL HOLSTROM
Mr. Holstrom is a marine biologist and staff EIS coordinator at Interstate
Electronics. He holds a B.A. and M.A. in Biology from Stanford University.
He has completed several years of graduate work in marine biology at the
University of Southern California.
Mr. Holstrom authored sections in Chapters 2 and 4 of the EIS.
RANDY MeGLADE
Mr. McGlade, a marine biologist; at Interstate Electronics, received his
B.S. and M.A. in Marine Biology from California State University, Long Beach.
Mr. McGlade prepared Chapter's 3 and 6 of this EIS, and participated in the
preparation of Appendix A.
STEPHEN M. SULLIVAN
Mr. Sullivan, a Biologies! Oceanographer at Interstate Electronics,
obtained his B.S. in Oceanography from Humboldt State University and has since
completed graduate courses at Scripps Institute of Oceanography and California
State University, Fullerton.
Mr. Sullivan prepared the biology sections of Appendix A.
6-2
-------
Chapter 7
GLOSSARY, UNITS OF MEASURE, AND REFERENCES
GLOSSARY
Abundance
Abyssal
Accuracy
Acute effect
Adsorb
The number of individuals of a species
or taxon inhabiting a given area.
Pertaining to the great depths of the
ocean beyond the limits of the
Continental Slope, generally from 2,000
to 5,000 m depth.
The extent to which the results of a
calculation or the readings of an
instrument approach the true values of
the calculated or measured quantities,
and are free from error. When applied
to methods of analysis, accuracy is a
measure of the error of a method and may
be expressed as a comparison of the
amount of an element or compound
determined or recovered by the test
method and the amount actually present.
The death or incapacitat ion of an
organism caused by a substance within a
short time (normally 96 hours).
To adhere in an extremely thin layer of
molecules to the surface of solid
bodies.
Alkalinity
The sum of anions of weak acids in
seawater plus hydroxide ion (OH ) minus
hydrogen ion (H ) concentrations.
Alkalinity can usually be calculated by
the empirical equation of alkalinity
[milliequivalent/kg = 0.061 x salinity
(g/kg)].
Ambient
Pertaining to the normal
conditions of the
environment.
or unaffected
surrounding
Amphipods
A large order of predominantly marine
crustaceans ranging from free-living
planktonic and benthic forms to
parasitic groups. Body shape in
free-living forms is usually laterally
compressed or shrimplike.
7-1
-------
Anaerobic digestion
Anthropogenic
Antibiosis
Anticyclonic
Anticyclonic eddies
Apex
Appropriate sensitive
benthic marine
organisms
Appropriate sensitive
marine organisms
Aqueous
Assemblage
Background level
Bacteriophage
Digestion of organic matter by bacterial
action in the absence of oxygen.
Relating to the effects or impacts of
man on nature.
Antagonistic association between two
organisms whereby one is adversely
affected.
Clockwise rotation around a high
pressure zone (winds) or around a warm
core (ocean currents) in the northern-
hemisphere.
Mesoscale (50 to 100 km) features of
oceanic circulation in which water flows
in a circular (clockwise) pattern around
warm core waters.
See New York Bight Apex.
Species representing a range of bottom-
feeding types (filter-feeding, deposit-
feeding, burrowing) chosen from a list
of the most sensitive species recognized
by EPA as being reliable test organisms
to determine the anticipated impact on
tne site.
Species representative of phytoplankton
or zooplankton, crustacean or mollusc,
acid fish chosen from a list of the most
sensitive species documented in
scientific literature or recognized by
EPA as being reliable test organisms to
determine the anticipated impact on the
sLte.
Similar to, containing, or dissolved in
w.ater.
A recurring group of organisms having a
common habitat.
Tne naturally occurring level of a
measurable parameter within an
environment.
Virus affecting specific bacteria.
7-2
-------
Baseline surveys
Benthos
Bight
Bioaccumulate
Bioassay
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD)
Biomass
Biota
Biotic groups
BLM
Bloom
Boreal
°C
C/N
Surveys conducted to collect information
prior to the initiation of actions which
have the potential of altering an
existing environment.
All marine organisms (plant or animal)
living on or in the bottom; also, the
floor or deepest part of the ocean.
A slight indentation in the shore line
of an open coast or of a bay, usually
erescent-shaped.
The uptake and assimilation of
materials (e.g., heavy metals) leading
to an elevated concentration of the
substance within an organism's tissue,
blood, or body fluid.
Determination of the toxicity of a
substance by its effect on the growth or
survival of an organism; usually
calculated as LC50 or EC50.
The amount of oxygen consumed by micro-
biological organisms while assimilating
and oxidizing organic (and some
nitrogenous) materials in water or
wastewater under specified environmental
conditions and time periods.
The amount (weight) of living organisms
inhabiting a given area or volume.
Collectively, plants and animals of a
region.
Organisms which are ecologically,
structurally, or taxonomically similar.
Bureau of Land Management.
Relatively high concentrations of
plankton in an area resulting from their
rapid growth and reproduction.
Pertaining to the higher northern
latitudes, as opposed to tropical.
Degrees Celsius.
Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio.
7-3
-------
Carcinogen
CE
Cephalopods
CFR
Chaetognaths
Chemostat
Chlorophyll
Chlorophyll a
Chronic effect
cm
cm/sec
Coccolithophorid
Coelenterate
Coliforms
Compensation depth
A substance or agent producing cancer.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Members of the phylum Mollusca,
including squid, octopus, or cuttlefish.
Code of Federal Regulations.
A phyLum of small, elongate, trans-
parent, wormlike invertebrates, also
known as arrow-worms., which are
important carnivores in the zooplankton
c ommun i t y.
Ar apparatus for the continuous culture
oi bacterial populations in a steady
state; rate of growth is governed by the
rate at which fresh nutrients flow into
the system.
A group of green plant pigments which
receives and transforms the light energy
used in photosynthesis and primary
production.
A specific green plant pigment used in
photosynthesis and used as an indication
of phytoplankton biomass.
The sublethal effect of a substance on
an organism which over a long period of
time alters the normal processes and
functions of the organism.
CentimeterC s).
CentimeterCs) per second.
Ultra-microscopic planktonic algae, the
cells of which are surrounded by an
envelope of small calcareous discs.
A animal phylum which includes hydroids,
sea anemones, jellyfish, and corals.
Bacteria residing in the colon of man
and animals; indicators of fecal
pollution.
The depth at which photosynthetic oxygen
production equals oxygen consumed during
respiration in a 24-hour period.
7-4
-------
Continental Margin
Continental Rise
Continental Shelf
Continental Slope
The zone between the shoreline and the
deep ocean floor; generally consists of
the Continental Shelf, Continental
Slope, and the Continental Rise.
A transitional zone between the
Continental Slope and the ocean floor
which is less steeply sloped than the
Continental Slope.
Part of the Continental Margin extending
seaward from the coast to a variable
depth, generally 200 m.
The steeply descending slope lying
between the Continental Shelf and the
Continental Rise.
Contour line
Copepods
A chart line connecting points of equal
elevation above or below a reference
plane-, such as sea level.
A large group of usually small,
planktonic crustaceans that are an
important link in the oceanic food
chain.
Coriolis effect
Crustaceans
Ctenophores
Current meter
Current shear
An apparent force resulting from the
earth's rotation which deflects moving
particles in the northern hemisphere to
the right, and in the southern
hemisphere to the left.
Invertebrates with jointed appendages
and a segmented exoskeleton. The group
includes barnacles, crabs, shrimps,
lobsters, copepods, and amphipods.
Predominantly planktonic marine
invertebrates, commonly referred to as
comb jellies or sea walnuts.
Any device for measuring and indicating
speed, flow, volume, or direction of
flowing water.
The measure of the spatial rate of
change of current velocity with units of
cm-sec"^ nTl .
Decapods
The largest order of crustaceans in
which the animals have five sets of
locomotory appendages, each joined to a
7-5
-------
Demersal
Density
Diatoms
Diffusion
Dinofl age Hates
Discharge plume
Dispersion
Dissolved oxygen
Dissolved solids
Diversity
Dominant
organisms
Dry weight
segment of the thorax. Includes crabs,
lobsters, and shrimp.
Living at or near the sea bottom.
The mass per unit volume of a substance.
Single-celled, primarily planktonic
plants with a cell wall made of silica.
They are abundant world wide and are
Important elements in many food chains.
Spontaneous mixing of particles in a
Liquid under influence of a concentra-
:ion gradient, with net movement from an
area of higher to lower concentration.
Single-celled, planktonic organisms with
Elagella, which are an important part of
marine food chains.
The region affected by a discharge of
waste such that it can be distinguished
from the surrounding water.
The movement of discharged material over
Large areas by the natural processes of
mixing.
The quantity of oxygen dissolved in a
unit volume of water; usually expressed
in ml/liter.
The dissipation of solid matter in
solution, such as salt dissolved in
water.
A measure that usually takes into
account the number of species and the
number of individuals of each species
present in a given area.
A species or group of species which
strongly affect a community because of
their abundance, size, or control of
energy flow.
The weight of a sample of organisms
after all water has been removed; a
measure of biomass.
7-6
-------
EC50 (Effective
concentration 50)
Echinoderms
Ecosystem
Eddy
Effluent
EIS
Endemic
Enteric
EPA
EPA Headquarters
EPA Region II
Epifauna
Epipelagic
Estuary
In bioassay studies, the concentration
of a substance which causes a defined
effect in 50 percent of the test
organisms during a given time (usually
96 hours).
A phylum of benthic marine invertebrates
having rigid calcareous plates and
spines or calcareous plates embedded in
the skin. This group includes starfish,
sea urchins, sea lilies and sea-
cucumbers .
The organisms of a community together
with their physical and chemical
environment.
A water current moving contrary to the
direction of the main current,
especially in a circular motion.
Liquid waste from sewage and industrial
processing.
Environmental impact statement.
Restricted or peculiar to a locality or
region.
Referring to the intestinal tract of man
and animals.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II, New York, N.Y.
Animals which live on the surface of the
sea bottom.
Ocean zone extending from the surface to
200 m in depth.
A semienclosed coastal body of water
which has a free connection to the sea
and within which the sea water is
measurably diluted with fresh water.
7-7
-------
Euphausiids
°F
Fauna
FDA
Flocculate
Flora
FWPCA
, 3
g/cm
Gastropods
Geostrophic current
Gulf Stream
Heavy metals or
elements
Helminths
High-level radioactive
waste
Histopathology
Hydrography
Shrimp-like, planktonic crustaceans
which are widely distributed in oceanic
warers. These organisms, also known as
krill, may grow to 8 cm in length and
are an important link in the oceanic
food chain.
Degrees Fahrenheit.
The animal life of a particular
location, region, or period.
Food and Drug Administration.
The process of aggregating a number of
small, suspended particles into small
masses.
The plant life of a particular location,
region, or period.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Grams per cubic centimeter.
Molluscs that possess a distinct head
(generally with eyes and tentacles) and
a broad, flat foot, and which usually
have a spiral shell.
A current resulting from the balance
between gravitational forces and the
Coriolis effect.
A relatively warm, swift, northward
flowing ocean current which flows
through the Caribbean and up the North
American east coast.
Elements which posseses a specific
gravity of 5.0 or greater.
Parasitic worms.
The aqueous or solid waste resulting
from the reprocessing of irradiated fuel
from nuclear power reactors.
The study of tissue changes associated
with disease.
The measurement and description of the
ph/sical features of bodies of water.
7-J
-------
Ichthyoplankton
IEC
Indigenous
Infauna
In situ
Insolation
Invertebrates
ISC
Isobath
kg
kg/day
km
LC50 (Lethal
concentration 50)
Limiting permissible
concentration (LPC)
LORAN-C
m
m
m/sec
Planktonic fish eggs and weakly motile
fish larvae.
Interstate Electronics Corporation.
Having originated, or naturally
occurring, in a particular region or
environment.
Animals which live in or burrow beneath
the surface of the sea bottom.
(Latin) = in the original or natural
setting.
Solar radiation received at the earth's
surface.
Animals without backbones.
Interstate Sanitation Commission.
A line on a marine chart joining points
of equal depth below sea level.
Kilogram(s).
Kilogram(s) per day.
Kilometer(s).
In bioassays the concentration
of a substance which causes 50%
mortality in the population of the test
organisms during a given time (usually
96 hours).
A concentration of a waste substance
which, after initial mixing, does not
exceed marine water quality criteria or
cause acute or chronic toxicity.
Long Range Aid to Navigation.
Meter(s).
Cubic meter(s).
Meter(s) per second.
Micron(s); 10 meter.
Microgram(s) per kilogram, or millionth
gram per kilogram.
7-9
-------
ug/i
Macrozooplankton
Marine
MARMAP
Mesopelagic
mg
mg/1
mi
Micro-organisms
Mid-Atlantic Bight
Mixed layer
ml
2
ml/m /hr
unrn
Monitoring
mph
MPRSA
Mutagen
Mi 2rogram(s) per liter, or millionth
gram per liter.
Pl.mktonic animals with sizes between
200 and 2,000 microns (10~6m), usually
composed of copepods, chaetognaths, and
larval forms.
Pertaining to the sea.
Marine Resources Monitoring, Assessment,
and Prediction Program.
Relating to depths of 200 to 1,000 m
below the ocean surface.
Milligram(s), or thousandth gram.
Milligram(s) per liter
Mile(s).
Microscopic organisms including bac-
teria, protozoans, and some algae.
The Continental Shelf extending from
Cape Cod, Massachusetts to Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina.
Th.2 upper layer of the ocean which is
well mixed by wind and wave activity.
MilliliterCs), or thousandth liter.
Milliliter(s) per square meter per hour.
Millimeter(s), or thousandth meter.
As used here, to observe environmental
effects of disposal operations through
biological, physical and chemical data
collection and analysis.
Mile(s) per hour.
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act.
A substance which increases the
frequency or extent of mutations.
7-10
-------
Myctophids
Nanno p1ankt on
NAS
NASA
Nekton
NEPA
Neritic
Neuston
New York Bight
New York Bight Apex
NJDEP
nmi
NOAA
NOAA-MESA
A group of small mesopelagic fish which
possess light-emitting organs and
undergo daily large-scale vertical (deep
to near-surface) migrations.
Minute planktonic plants and animals
which are 50 microns or less in size.
Individuals of this size will pass
through most plankton nets and are
therefore usually collected by
centrifuging water samples.
National Academy of Science.
National Aeronautics and
Administration.
Space
Free-swimming animals which move
independently of water currents.
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969.
Pertaining to the region of shallow
water adjoining the seacoast and
extending from low-tide mark to 200 m
depth.
A community of planktonic organisms
which are associated with the surface
layer of water; mainly composed of
certain copepods and the eggs and larvae
of fish.
The Continental Shelf which extends from
Montauk Point, Long Island to Cape May,
New Jersey.
A portion of the New York Bight bounded
by 40°10'N latitude and 73°30'W
longitude.
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection.
Nautical mile(s).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration-Marine Ecosystems Analysis.
7-11
-------
NOAA-NMFS
NSF
Nuisance species
Nutrient
DCS
ODSS
Organophosphate
pesticides
Ortho-phosphate
Oxygen minimum layer
Parameters
Particulates
Pathogen
PCB
Pelagic
Perturbation
pH
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
stration-National Marine Fisheries
Service.
National Science Foundation.
Organisms without commercial value which
out-compete or harm commercially
important species.
Any substance which promotes growth or
provides; energy for biological
processes.
Outer Continental Shelf.
Ocean Dumping Surveillance System.
A phosphorus-containing organic pesti-
cide, such as parathion or malathion.
One of the possible salts of ortho-
phosphoric acid; an essential nutrient
for marine plant growth.
The depth in the water column where the
lowest concentration of dissolved oxygen
naturally occurs.
Values or properties which describe the
characteristics or behavior of a set of
var tables.
Fine solid particles individually
dispersed in water.
Producing or capable of producing
disease.
Polychlorinated biphenyl.
Pertaining to water of the open ocean
or organisms inhabiting this region
including plankton, nekton and neuston.
A disturbance of a natural or regular
system.
A term used to describe the negative
logarithm of the hydrogen ion.
Conventionally, pH 7 is considered
neutral, less than 7 is acidic,and
greater than 7 is alkaline. Range 1 to
14.
7-12
-------
Photic Zone
Phytoplankton
The layer in the ocean from the surface
to the depth where light is reduced to
1% of its surface value.
Planktonic plants; the base of most
oceanic food chains.
Plankton
Polychaetes
ppb
ppm
ppt (o/oo)
Precipitate
Precision
Predator
Usually small passively floating or
weakly motile animal or plant life
occurring in a body of water.
The largest class of the phylum Annelida
(segmented worms), distinguished by
paired, lateral, fleshy appendages
provided with bristles (setae) on most
segments.
Parts per billion. A unit of
concentration of a mixture indicating
the number of parts of a constituent per
billion parts of the entire mixture.
Parts per million. A unit of
concentration of a mixture indicating
the number of parts of a constituent per
million parts of the entire mixture.
Parts per thousand. A unit of
concentration of a mixture indicating
the number of parts of a constituent per
thousand parts of the entire mixture.
A solid separating from a solution or
suspension by chemical or physical
change.
When applied to methods of analysis,
precision is a measure of the
reproducibility of a method when
repeated in a homogeneous sample under
controlled conditions, regardless of
whether or not the observed values are
widely displaced from the true values as
a result of a systematic or constant
errors present throughout the
measurements. Precision can be
expressed by the standard deviation.
An animal which eats other animals.
7-13
-------
Primary production
Protozoa
Pycnocline
Quantitative
Recruitment
Release zone
Runoff
Salinity
Sea state
sec
Shelf Water
Shellfish
Shiprider
The amount of organic matter photo-
synthesized by plants from inorganic
substances per unit time per unit area
or volume.
Microscopic, single-celled organisms
which include the most primitive forms
ot animal life.
A vertical density gradient in some
layer of a body of water, positive with
respect to depth and much greater than
the gradients above and below it.
Pertaining to the
oca parameter.
numerical measurement
Addition to a population of organisms by
reproduction or immigration of new
individuals.
An area 100 m on either side of the
disposal vessel extending from the point
of first waste release to the end of the
release.
The portion of precipitation on the land
tiat ultimately reaches streams or
oceans.
Tie amount of dissolved salts in
seawater measured in parts per thousand.
The numerical or written description of
o:ean roughness.
Second(s).
Water which originates on or can be
traced to the Continental Shelf. It has
characteristic temperature and salinity
values which make it identifiable.
Any aquatic invertebrate having a shell
or exoskeleton, esp cially any edible
mollusc or crustacean.
An observer aboard ship assigned by the
Coast Guard to assure that ocean
disposal operations are conducted
according to the permit specifications.
7-14
-------
Short dumping
Significant wave
height
Slope Water
Sludge
Species
Specific gravity
SPM
sq
SS .
Standing stock
Stress
Surfactants
Surveillance
Suspended solids
The discharge of waste from a vessel
prior to reaching a designated disposal
site. This may occur legally under
emergency conditions, or illegally if
done under normal conditions.
The average height of the one-third
highest waves in a given wave group.
Water which originates on or can be
traced to the Continental Slope. It has
characteristic temperature and salinity
values which make it identifiable.
A precipitated solid matter produced by
sewage and chemical waste treatment
processes.
A group of morphologically similar
organisms capable of interbreeding and
producing viable offspring.
The ratio of the density of a substance
relative to the density of pure water at
4°C.
Suspended particulate matter.
Square.
Suspended solids.
The biomass or abundance of living
material per unit volume or area.
A effect or series of effects which
disrupt the normal ecological
functioning of an area.
An agent which lowers surface tension
(e.g., soap, bile and certain
detergents).
Systematic observation of an area by
visual, electronic, photographic, or
other means for the purpose of ensuring
compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, and permits.
Finely divided particles of a solid
temporarily suspended in a liquid (e.g.,
soil particles in water).
7-15
-------
Synergistic
Taxon (pi. Taxa)
TCH
Temporal distribution
Teratogen
Terrigenous sediments
Thermocline
TKN
TOG
Trace metal or
element
Trend Assessment
Surveys
Trophic level
Turbidity
Describing an ecological association in
which a process or behavior of an
organism is enhanced by the presence of
another organism; describing an action
where the total effect of two or more
active components is greater than the
sum of their individual effects.
A taxonomic group or entity sufficiently
distinct to be distinguished by name and
to be ranked in a definite category.
Total carbohydrate content.
The distribution of a parameter over
time.
A chemical
developmental
monstrosities.
agent which causes
malformations and
Shallow marine sedimentary deposits
composed of eroded terrestrial material.
A sharp temperature gradient which
separates a warmer surface water layer
from a cooler subsurface layer, and is
most pronounced during summer months.
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen.
Total organic carbon.
An element found in the environment
extremely small quantities.
in
Non-seasonal surveys conducted over
long periods to detect shifts in
environmental conditions within a
region.
Feeding levels in the food chain of a
community which determine the flow of
energy and materials from plants to
herbivores to carnivores and
decomposers.
Cloudy or hazy appearance in seawater
caused by a suspension of colloidal
liquid droplets, fine solids, or small
organisms.
7-16
-------
Turnover rate
USCG
Virus
Water mass
Water type
Wet weight
Zooplankton
The time necessary to replace the entire
standing stock of a population;
generation time.
U.S. Coast Guard.
An agent capable of infecting
plants and bacteria which is
dependent on living cells
reproduction.
animals,
totally
for its
A body of water usually identified by
its temperature, salinity and chemical
characteristics and normally consisting
of a mixture of water types.
Water defined by a narrow range of
temperature and salinity.
The weight of organisms before drying
them to remove the internal water.
Cubic yard(s).
Usually small, passively floating or
weakly swimming animals which are
important in many marine and freshwater
food chains.
7-17
-------
UNITS OF MEASURE (ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS OF METRIC UNITS)
Metric
English
centimeter (cm)
meter (m)
kilometer (km)
2
square meter (sq m; m )
2
square kilometer (sq km; km )
gram (g)
kilogram (kg)
metric ton (tonne)
liter (1)
3
cubic meter (cu m; m )
centimeters/second (cm/sec)
kilometers/hour (km/hr)
Celsius (°C)
.2,
0.4 inches (in)
1.1 yards (yds)
0.6 statute miles (mi)
0.54 nautical miles (nmi)
3
1.2 square yards (sq yd; yd )
0.29 square nautical miles (sq nmi; nmi^)
0.035 ounces (oz)
2.2 pounds (Ib)
1.1 short tons (2,000 Ibs)
0.26 gallons (gal)
3
1.3 cubic yards (cu yd; yd )
0.39 inches/second (in/sec)
0.54 knots (kn), nautical miles/hour
9/5 °C + 32 Fahrenheit (°F)
7-18
-------
REFERENCES
Akin, E.A., W. Jakubowski, J.B. Lucas, and H.R. Pahren, 1977. Health
hazards associated with wastewater effluents and sludge:
Microbiological considerations. Pages 9-10 in B.P. Sagik and C.A.
Sorber, eds. Proceedings of the conference on risk assessment and
health effects of land application of municipal wastewater and
sludges. Center for Applied Research and technology. University of
Texas at San Antonio. 329 pp.
Akin, E.W., W.F. Hill, Jr. and N.A. Clark. 1975. Mortality of enteric
viruses in marine and other waters. Pages 227-236 in A.L.H. Gameson,
ed. Discharge of sewage from sea outfalls. Pergamon Press, Oxford
England.
Alexander, J.E. and E.C. Alexander. 1977. Chemical properties. MESA New
York Bight Atlas Monograph 2. New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany,
New York.
Alexander, J.E., R. Hollman, and T. White. 1974. Heavy metal
concentrations at the Apex of the New York Bight. Final Report
4-35212. New York Ocean Science Lab. Long Island, New York.
Ali, S.A., M.G. Gross, and J.R.L. Kishpaugh. 1975. Cluster analysis of
marine sediments and waste deposits in New York Bight. Environ. Geol.
1:143-148.
Anderson, P.W. Personal communication with Kathleen King (IEC), November
1979.
Arnold, E.L. and W.F. Royce. 1950. Observations of the effect of
acid-iron waste disposal at sea on animal populations. U.S. Dept. of
the Interior, Spec. Sci. Rep. - Fisheries No. 11. Washington, D.C.
12 pp.
Aubert, M., D. Pesando, and M.J. Gauthier. 1974. Effects of antibiosis in
a marine environment. Pages 191-197 in A.L.H. Gameson, ed. Discharge
of sewage from sea outfalls. Pergamon Press, Oxford, England.
Austin, H.M. 1975. An analysis of the plankton from Deepwater Dumpsite
106. Pages 271-357 in NOAA. May 1974 Baseline investigation of
Deepwater Dumpsite 106. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 75-1.
Rockville, MD. 388 pp.
Backus, R.H. 1970. The distribution of mesopelagic fishes in the western
and tropical North Atlantic Ocean. J. Mar. Res. 28(2):179-201.
Banse, K. 1964. On the vertical distribution of zooplankton in the sea.
Pages 55-125 in M. Sears, ed. Progress in oceanography. Vol. 2,
Pergammon Press.
7-19
-------
Beardsley, R.C., W.C. Boicourt, and D.V. Hansen, eds. 1976. Physical
oceanography of the Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and New York
Bight. Special Symp. Vol. 2. Am. Soc. Lira, and Oceanogr.
Beardsley, R.C., and C.N. Flagg. 1976. The water structure, mean
currents, and Shelf Water/Slope Water front on the New England
Continental Shelf. Pages 209-225 in Mem. Soc. Roy. Sci. Liege 10.
Benninger, L.K., D.M. Lewis, and K.K. Turekian. 1975. The uses of natural
Pb-210 as a heavy metal tracer in the river-estuarine system - marine
chemistry in the coastal environment. Amer. Chem. Soc. of. Special
Symposium #18, Washington, B.C.
Bewers, J.M., B. Sundby, and P.A. Yeats. 1975. Trace metals in the waters
overlying the Scotian Shelf and Slope. ICES 63rd Statutory Meeting,
Montreal, Sept. 1975.
Bigelow, H.B. 1933. Studies of the waters on the Continental Shelf. Cape
Cod to Chesapeake Bay, I. The cycle of temperature. Pap. Phys.
Oceanogr. Meteorol. 2(4):135.
Bigelow, H.B. and M. Sears. 1939. Studies of the waters of the
Continental Shelf, Cape Cod to Chesapeake Bay. III. A volumetric
study of the zooplankton. Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool . , Harvard.
54(4):183-378.
Bisagni, J.J. 1976. Passage of ariticyclonic Gulf Stream eddies through
Deepwater Dumpsite 106 during 1974 and 1975. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation
Report 76-1, U.S. Dept of Commerce Publications. 39 pp.
1977a. Deepwater Dumpsite 106 bathymetry and bottom morphology. Pages
1-8 in NOAA. Baseline report of environmental conditions in Deepwater
Dumpsite 106. Volume I: Physical characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite
Evaluation Report 77-1. Rockville, MD. 218 pp.
1977b. The physical oceanography and experimental studies at
Deepwater Dumpsite 106 during June 1976. Atlantic Environmental Group
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 55 pp.
BLM. See Bureau of Land Management.
Boicourt, W.C. 1973. The circulation of water on the Continental Shelf
from Chesapeake Bay to Cape Hatteras. Ph.D. Thesis, Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, Maryland. 183 pp.
Boicourt, W.C. and P.W. Hacker. 1976. Circulation on the Atlantic
Continental Shelf of the United States, Cape May to Cape Hatteras.
Mem. Soc. R. Sci. Liege Ser 6. 10:187-200.
Bowman, M.J. and P.K. Weyl. 1972. Hydrographic study of the Shelf and
Slope Waters of the New York Bight. Technical Report #16. Marine
Sciences Research Center, State Univ. of New York. Stony Brook, New
York. 46 pp.
7-20
-------
Bowman, M.J., and L.D. Wunderlich. 1976. Distribution of hydrographic
properties in the New York Bight Apex. Pages 58-68 in M.G. Gross, ed.
Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and New York Bight. Special Symp.
Vol. 2. Am. Soc. Lim. and Oceanogr.
1977. Hydrographic Properties. NOAA-MESA New York Bight Atlas
Monograph I. New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany, New York.
Bowman, I.E. 1971. The distribution of calanoid copepods of the eastern
United States between Cape Hatteras and southern Florida. Smithson.
Contrib. Zool. Vol. 96. 58 pp.
Breidenbach, A. 1977. Report of the Hearing Officer. Public hearing on
relocating sewage sludge ocean dumping sites, Toms River, New Jersey,
May 31-June 1, 1977. U.S. EPA, Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials, September 22, 1977.
Brewer, P.G. 1975. Minor elements in sea water. Pages 415-496 in J.P.
Riley and Skirrow, eds. Chemical Oceanography. Academic Press, New
York, N.Y.
Brezenski, F.T. 1975. Analytical results for water-column samples
collected at Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Pages 203-215 in NOAA. May 1974
baseline investigation of Deepwater Dumpsite 106. NOAA Dumpsite
Evaluation Report 75-1. Rockville, MD. 388 pp.
Brock, T.D. and G.K. Darland. 1970 Limits of microbial existance:
temperature and pH. Science 169:1316-1318.
Brower, W.A., Jr. 1977. Climatic study of New York Bight. Pages 117-218
in NOAA. Baseline report of environmental conditions in Deepwater
Dumpsite 106. Volume I: Physical characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite
Evaluation Report 77-1. Rockville, MD. 218 pp.
Bryan, G.W. 1971. The effects of heavy metals (other than mercury) on
marine and estuarine organisms. Proc. Soc. London B. 177:389.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 1978. Draft environmental impact
statement - proposed Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas lease sale
offshore the Mid-Atlantic States. New York, N.Y.
Buzas, M.A., J.H. Carpenter, B.H. Ketchum, J.L. McHugh, V.J. Norton, P.J.
O'Connor, J.L. Simon, and O.K. Young. 1972. Smithsonian Advisory
Committee report on studies of the effects of waste disposal in the
New York Bight. Submitted to Coastal Eng. Res. Cen., U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Washington, D.C. 65 pp.
Callaway, R.J., A.M. Teeter, D.W. Browne, and G.R. Ditsworth. 1976.
Preliminary analysis of the dispersion of sewage sludge discharged
from vessels to New York Bight Waters. Pages 199-211 in M.G. Gross,
ed. Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and the New York Bight.
Special Symp. Vol. 2. Am. Soc. Lim. and Oceanogr.
7-21
-------
Capuzzo, J.M. 1978. The effects of pollutants on marine zooplankton at
Deepwater Dumpsite 106 - preliminary findings. First International
Ocean Dumping Symposium, Univ. Rhode Island, October 1978. 14 pp.
Capuzzo, J.M. and B.A. Lancaster. 1978. The effects of pollutants on
marine zooplankton at De'epwater Dumpsite 106. Prepared for National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Final Report. 14 pp.
Carlucci, A.F. and D. Pramer. 1959. Factors affecting the survival of
bacteria in sea water. Appl. Microbiol. 7:388-392.
1960. An evaluation of factors affecting the survival of Escherichia
coli in seawater. II. Salinity, pH, and nutrients. Appl. Microbiol.
8:247.
1960. An evaluation of factors affecting the survival of Escherichia
coli in seawater. IV. Eacteriophages. Appl. Microbiol. 8:254.
Carmody, D.J., J.B. Pearce, and W.E. Yasso. 1973. Trace metals in
sediments of New York Bight. Mar. Poll. Bull. 4(9) : 132-135.
Casey, J.G. Personal communication with Dr. Andrew Lissner (IEC), October
1979.
Casey, J.G. and J.M. Hoenig. 1977. Apex predators in Deepwater Dumpsite
106. Pages 309-376 in NOAA. Baseline report of environmental
conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volume 2: Biological
characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1. Rockville, MD.
485 pp.
CEQ. See Council on Environmental Quality.
Charnell, R.L. and D.V. Hansen. 1974. Summary and analysis of physical
oceanographic data collected in the New York Bight Apex during 1969
and 1970. MESA Report 74-3. NOAA-ERL. 44 pp.
Chenoweth, S. 1976a. Commercial and sport fisheries. Pages 10-1 to 10-83
in TRIGOM. Summary of environmental information on the Continental
Slope Canadian/United States Border to Cape Hatteras, N.C. prepared
for BLM, New York.
1976b. Phytoplankton. Section 7.1 in TRIGOM. Summary of environ-
mental information on the: Continental Slope - Canadian/United States
Border to Cape Hatteras, NC. The Research Institute of the Gulf of
Maine, Portland. (Also NT1S. PB-284 002).
1976c. Zooplankton. Section 7.2 in TRIGOM. Summary of environmental
information on the Continental Slope - Canadian/United States Border
to Cape Hatteras, NC. The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine,
Portland. (Also NTIS. PB-284 002).
7-22
-------
Chenoweth, S., S.K. Katona, and D.S. Brackett. 1976. Nekton. Section 7.4
in TRIGOM. Summary of environmental information on the Continental
Slope Canadian/United States Border to Cape Hatteras, NC. The
Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine, Portland. (Also NTIS. PB-284
002)
Cifelli, R. 1962. Some dynamic aspects of the distribution of planktonic
foraminifera in the western North Atlantic. Sears Found. J. Mar.
Res. 20(3):201-212.
1965. Planktonic foraminifera from the western North Atlantic.
Smithson. Misc. Collect. 148(4):l-36.
Clark, G.L. 1940. Comparative richness of zooplankton in coastal and off-
shore areas of the Atlantic. Biol. Bull. 78:226-255.
Cohen, D.M. and D.L. Pawson. 1977. Observations from DSRV ALVIN on
populations of benthic fishes and selected larger invertebrates in and
near DWD-106. Pages 423-450 in NOAA. Baseline Report of
environmental conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volume II:
Biological characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1.
485 pp.
Cooper, M.F. and R.Y. Morita. 1972. Interaction of salinity and
temperature on net protein synthesis and viability of Vibrio marinus.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 17:556.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1970. Ocean Dumping: A National
Policy. A Report to the President. U.S. GPO, Washington, D.C.
Drake, C.L., J.I. Ewing and H. Stockard. 1968. The Continental Margin of
the eastern United States. Can. Jour. Earth Sci., 5:993-1010.
EG&G. 1975. Summary of oceanographic observations in New Jersey coastal
waters near 39°28'N latitude and 74°15'W longitude during the period
May 1973 through April 1974. Submitted to Public Service Electric and
Gas Co. of New Jersey by EG&G, Environmental Consultants, Waltham,
Mass.
1977a. Dispersion in waters of the New York Bight Acid Dumpgrounds of
acid-iron wastes discharged from a towed barge. Prepared for NL
Industries, Inc., by EG&G, Environmental Consultants. Waltham, Mass.
1977b. Dispersion in waters of the New York Bight Acid Dumpgrounds of
by-product hydrochloric acid wastes discharged from a towed barge.
Prepared for Allied Chemical Corp., by EG&G, Environmental
Consultants. Waltham, Mass.
1977c. Measurements of the dispersion of barged waste near 38°50'N
latitude and 72°15'W longitude at the 106 Dumpsite. 261 pp.
1977d. Measurements of the dispersion of barged waste near 38°33'N
latitude and 74°20' W longitude. Prepared for E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Co., Edge Moor, Delaware.
7-23
-------
1978. Fall 1977 chemical oceanographic monitoring cruise, New York
Bight Acid Waste Dumpgrounds, cruise report. Prepared for NL
Industries, Inc., and Allied Chemical Corp., by EG&G, Environmental
Consultants. Waltham, Mass. 43 pp.
Emery, K.O. and J.S. Schlee. 1963.
Slope, a program for study.
Washington, D.C.
The Atlantic Continental Shelf and
U.S. Geol. Surv., Circular 481.
Emery, K.O. and Uchupi, E. 1972. Western North Atlantic Ocean:
topography, rocks, structure, water, life, and sediments. Am. Assoc.
Petroleum Geol., Memoir 17. 532 pp.
EPA. See U.S. EPA.
Falk, L.L., T.D. Myers, and R.V. Thomann. 1974. Waste dispersion charac-
teristics in an oceanic environment. Submitted to U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Monitoring, Washington, D.C. EPA-600/2-77-112 (NTIS PB
268157) 306 pp.
Falk, L.L. and J.R. Gibson. 1977. The determination of release time for
ocean disposed wastewaters. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
Wilmington, Del.
Falk, L.L. and F.X. Phillips. 1977. The determination of release time for
ocean disposal of wastewaters from manufacture of titanium dioxide.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. 306 pp.
Federal Register. 1979. Final designation of disposal sites for ocean
dumping. Vol. 44(98). May 18, 1979. p. 29052.
Fisher, A., Jr. 1972. Entrainment of Shelf water by the Gulf Stream
northeast of Cape Hatteras. J. Geophys. Res. 77(18):3248-3255 .
Fleischer, M., et al. 1974. Environmental impact of cadmium: a review by
the panel on hazardous trace substances. Environmental Health Per-
spectives. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 7:253.
Folger, D.W., H.D. Palmer, and R.A. Slater. 1979. Two waste disposal
sites on the Continental Shelf off the Middle Atlantic States:
Observations made from submersibles. Pages 163-184 in H.D. Palmer and
M.G. Gross, eds. Ocean dumping and marine pollution. Dowden,
Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, PA.
Forns, J.M. 1973. Zooplankton. Pages 54-64 in H.D. Palmer and D.W. Lear,
eds. Environmental survey of an interim ocean dumpsite - Middle
Atlantic Bight. EPA Region III 903/9-73-001-A. 134 pp.
Forsythe, E. 1977. Statement of Hon. Edwin Forsythe at Toms River Public
Hearing, May 31 - June 1, 1977. Toms River, New Jersey.
7-24
-------
Gameson, A.L.H. and D.J. Gould. 1975. Effects of solar radiation on the
mortality of some terrestrial bacteria in sea water. Pages 209-219 in
A.L.H. Gameson, ed . , Discharge of Sewage from Sea Outfalls. Pergamon
Press, Oxford England.
Geldreich, E.E. 1978. Bacterial populations and indicator concepts in
f eces , sewage, stormwater and solid wastes. Pages 51-97 in G. Berg.
ed . Indicators of viruses in water and food. Ann Arbor Science Publ.
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Gibson, C. 1973. The effects of waste disposal on the zooplankton of the
New York Bight. Ph.D. Dissertation, Lehigh University. Univ.
Microfilms Intl. Ann Arbor, Mich. 184 pp.
Ginter, J.J.C. 1978. Foreign fisheries. Pages 80-129 in J.L. McHugh, and
J.J.C. Ginter. Fisheries. MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 16.
New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany, New York. 129 pp.
Goulet, J.R., Jr. and K.A. Hausknecht . 1977. Physical oceanography of
Deepwater Dumpsite 106, update: July 1975. Pages 55-86 in NOAA.
Baseline report of environmental conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106.
Volume I: Physical characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report
77-1. Rockville, MD. 218 pp.
Graikoski, J., R. Greig, D. Wenzloff, B. Nelson, and A. Adams. 1974.
Trace metals in marine biota and sediments collected from offshore
waters of the New York Bight. NMFS, MACFC, Highlands, N.J. Informal
Report, No. 38. 5 pp.
Grant, G.C. 1977. Zooplankton of the water column and neuston. Pages 4-1
to 4-138 in M.P. Lynch and B.L. Laird, eds . Middle Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf environmental studies. Volume II-A: Chemical and
biological benchmark studies. Prepared for BLM by Virginia Institute
of Marine Science. Gloucester Pt . , VA. Contract No. 08550-CT-5-42 .
Greig, R. , Nelson, B.A. , J.T. Graikowski, D.R. Wenzloff and A. Adams.
1974. Distribution of five metals in sediments from the New York
Bight. NOAA Milford Lab. Informal Rep 36. Milford, Conn. 33 pp.
Greig, R. and D. Wenzloff. 1977. Final report on heavy metals in small
pelagic finfish, euphausiid crustaceans, and apex predators, including
sharks, as well as on heavy metals and hydrocarbons (0,,-+) in
sediments collected at stations in and near Deepwater Dumpsite 106.
Pages 547-564 in NOAA. Baseline report of environmental conditions in
Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volume III: Contaminant inputs and chemical
characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1. 798 pp.
Greig, R.A., D. Wenzloff, and C. Shelpuk. 1975. Mercury concentration in
fish, North Atlantic offshore water - 1971. Pesticides Monitoring J.
-reig, R.A. and J.B. Pearce. 1975. Further analyses of heavy metals in
sediments collected from the Outer New York Bight. NOAA Middle
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center, Ecosystems Investigations.
ReportNo 63. 20 pp.
7-25
-------
Greig, R.A., D.R. Wenzloff, and J.B. Pearce. 1976. Distribution and
abundance of heavy metals in finfish, invertebrates, and sediments
collected at a deepwater disposal site. Mar. Poll. Bull.
7(10) :185-187.
Greig, R.A., A. Adams, and D.R. Wenzloff. 1977. Trace metal content of
plankton and zooplankton collected from the New York Bight and Long
Island Sound. Bull. Env. Contain. Toxicol. 18:3-8.
Grice, G D. and A.D. Hart. 1962. The abundance, seasonal occurrence and
distribution of the epizooplankton between New York and Bermuda.
Ecol. Monogr. 32(4) : 287-309.
Grice, G.D., P.H. Wiebe, and E. Hoagland. 1973. Acid-iron waste as a
factor affecting distribution and abundance of zooplankton in the New
York Bight. I. Laboratory studies on the effects of acid waste on
copepods. Estuar. Coast. Mar. Sci. 1:45-50.
Gross, M.G. 1970. Analysis of dredged wastes, fly ash, and waste
chemicals - New York Metropolitan Region, Mar. Sci. Res. Cent., State
Univ. New York, Stony Brook, N.Y. Technical Report No 7. 33 pp.
Gusey, W.F. 1976. The fish &nd wildlife resources of the Middle Atlantic
Bight. Shell Oil Company. 582 pp.
Haedrich, R. 1977. Neuston fish at DWD 106. Pages 481-485 in NOAA.
Baseline report of environmental conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106.
Volume II: Biological characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation
Report 77-1. Rockville, MD. 485 pp.
Haedrich, R.L., G.T. Rowe, and P.T. Polloni. 1975. Zonation and faunal
composition of epibenthic populations on the Continental Slope south
of New England. J. Mar. Res. 33:191-212.
Harbison, R. , L. Madin, and V. McAlister. 1977. Gelatinous zooplankton at
Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Pages 305-307 in NOAA. Baseline report of
environmental conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volume 2:
Biological characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1.
Rockville, MD. 485 pp.
Harris, R. , R. Jolly, R. Huggett, and G. Grant. 1977. Trace metals.
Pages 8-1 to 8-57 in M.P. Lynch and B.L. Laird, eds. Middle Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf environmental studies. Vol. II-B: Chemical
and biological benchmark studies. Prepared for BLM by Virginia
Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Pt. , VA. Contract No.
08550-CT-5-42.
Harris, W.H. 1974. Sewage sludge expansion, migration, accumulation, and
identification - Nassau County, New York Inner Continental Shelf.
Pages 297-330 in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Works,
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution; sewage sludge hazard to Long
Island beaches: Hearing, 93rd Congress 93-H52.
7-26
-------
Harrison, A.P. Jr. 1967. Harmful effects of light, with some comparisons
with other adverse physical agents. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 21:143.
Harvey, G.R., W.G. Steinhauer, and J.M. Teal. 1974. Polychlorobiphenyls
in North Atlantic ocean water. Science. 180:643-644.
Hathaway, J.C. 1971. Data file, Continental Margin program, Atlantic
Coast of the United States. Vol. 2. Sample collection and analytical
data. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Tech Kept. 71-15. 496 pp.
Hausknecht, K.A. 1977. Results of studies on the distribution of some
transition and heavy metals at Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Pages 499-546
in NOAA. Baseline report of environmental conditions in Deepwater
Dumpsite 106. Volume III: Contaminant inputs and chemical
characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1. Rockville,
MD. 798 pp.
Hausknect, K.A. and D.R. Kester. 1976a. Deepwater Dumpsite 106 chemical
data report from USCGC DALLAS cruise 21 June-1 July, 1976. University
of Rhode Island, Kingston, R.I. 10 pp.
1976b. Deepwater Dumpsite 106 chemical data report from R/V KNORR,
August 27-September 7, 1976. University of Rhode Island, Kingston,
R.I. 10 pp.
•v
Heezen, B.C. 1975. Photographic reconnaissance of Continental Slope and
Upper Continental Rise. Pages 27-32 in NOAA. May 1974 Baseline
Investigation of Deepwater Dumpsite 106. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation
Report 75-1. Rockville, MD. 388 pp.
1977. Six dives to the Lower Continental Slope and Upper Continental
Rise southwest of Hudson Canyon: geological aspects. Pages 9-27 in
NOAA. Baseline report of environmental conditions in Deepwater
Dumpsite 106. Volume I: Physical characteristics NOAA Dumpsite
Evaluation Report 77-1. Rockville, MD. 218 pp.
Hollman, R. 1971. Nearshore physical oceanography. New York Ocean Science
Laboratory Tech. Rpt. No 0008. New York Ocean Science Laboratory,
Montauk, New York. 11 pp.
Hopkins, J., R. Freisem, L. Gigliotti, D. Groover, and R. Valigra. 1973.
Concentrations of chlorophyll a, b, and c. Pages 106-116 in M.A.
Champ, ed. Operation SAMS, A survey of three Atlantic Ocean disposal
sites. CERES Publication No. 1. The American University, Washington,
D.C. 169 pp.
Home, R.A. 1969. Marine Chemistry: The structure of water and the
chemistry of the hydrosphere. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 568 pp.
Hulburt, E.M. 1963. The diversity of phytoplanktonic populations in
oceanic, coastal and estuarine regions. J. Marine Res. 21:81-93.
1964. Succession and diversity in the plankton flora of western North
Atlantic. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf and Caribbean. 14(l):33-34.
7-27
-------
1966. The distribution of phytoplankton and its relationship to
hydrography, between southern New England and Venezuela. J. Marine
Res. 24:67-81.
1970. Competition for nutrients by marine phytoplankton in oceanic,
coastal and estuarine regions. Ecology. 51:475-84.
Hulburt, E.M. and C.M. Jones. 1977. Phytoplankton in the vicinity of
Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Pages 219-231 in NOAA. Baseline report of
environmental conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volume II:
Biological characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1.
Rockville, MD. 485 pp.
Hulburt, E.M. and R.S. MacKenzie. 1971. Distribution of phytoplankton
species at the western margin of the North Atlantic Ocean. Bull. Mar.
Sci. 21(2):603-612.
Hulburt, E.M. and J. Rodman. 1963. Distribution of phytoplankton species
with respect to salinity between the coast of southern New England and
Bermuda. Limnol. and Oceanogr. 8:263-69.
Hulburt, E.M., J.A. Ryther, and 'R.R.L. Guillard. 1960. Phytoplankton of
the Sargasso Sea off Beimuda. J. Du Cons. 25(2):115-128.
Hydroscience, 1978a. Ocean monitoring survey at "106" site of Edge Moor
barged wastewater, May 2.2, 1978. Submitted to E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Co., September 14, 1978.
1978b. Ocean monitoring survey at "106" site of Edge Moor barged
wastewater, July, 22, 1978. Submitted to E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Co.
1978c. Ocean monitoring survey at "106" site of Grasselli barged
wastewater, May 19, 1978. Submitted to E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Co.
1978d. Ocean monitoring survey at "106" 'site of Grasselli Barged
Wastewater, July 24, 1978. Submitted to E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Co.
1978e. Report on ocean monitoring cruise at the 106-Mile Deepwater
Dumpsite. Submitted to American Cyanamid Co., August 29, 1978.
1978f. Report on ocean monitoring cruise at the 106-Mile Deepwater
Dumpsite. Submitted to American Cyanamid Co., October 24, 1978.
1978g. Report on ocean monitoring cruise at the 106-Mile Deepwater
Dumpsite. Submitted to Merck and Co., Inc., Reheis Chemical Co., and
Crompton and Knowles, August 23, 1978.
1978h. Report on ocear monitoring cruise at the 106 Mile Deepwater
Dumpsite. Submitted to Merck and Co., Inc., Reheis Chemical Co., and
Crompton and Knowles, October 23, 1978.
7-28
-------
1979a. Ocean monitoring survey at "106" site of Edge Moor Barged
Wastewater. Submitted to E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
1979b. Ocean monitoring survey at "106" site of Grasselli barged
wastewater, October 25, 1978. Submitted to E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Co.
1979c. Report on ocean monitoring cruise at the 106-Mile Deepwater
Dumpsite. Submitted to American Cyanamid Co., February 2, 1979.
1979d. Report on ocean monitoring cruise at the 106-Mile Deepwater
Dumpsite. Submitted to Merck and Co., Inc., Reheis Chemical Co., and
Crompton and Knowles, February 2, 1979.
Ichiye, T. 1965. Diffusion experiments in coastal water using dye
techniques. Pages 54-62 in Symposium on diffusion in oceans and fresh
waters. Lament Geol. Observatory Columbia Univ., Palisades, New York.
Jannasch, H.W. 1967. Growth of marine bacteria at limiting concentrations
of organic carbon in seawater. Limnol. Oceanogr. 12:264.
1968. Competitive elimination of Enterobacteriaceae from seawater.
Appl. Microbiol. 16:1616.
1979. The ultimate sink. A.W. Bourquin and P.H. Pritchard, eds.
Workshop: Microbial degradation of pollutants in marine environments.
April 1979.
Jannasch, H.W. and R.L. Mateles. 1974. Experimental bacterial ecology
studied in continuous culture. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 11:165-212.
Jannasch, H.W. and C.O. Wirsen. 1973. Deep-sea micro-organisms: In situ
response to nutrient enrichment. Science. 180:641-643.
Jannasch, H.W. and C.O. Wirsen. 1977. Microbial life in the deep sea.
Sci. Amer. 236:42-52.
Jeffries, H.P. and W.C. Johnson. 1973. Zooplankton. Pages 4-1 to 4-93 in
S.B. Saila, ed. Coastal and offshore environmental inventory, Cape
Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals. Mar. Publ. Ser. No. 2. Univ. of Rhode
Island. 682 pp.
Johnson, P. and D. Lear. 1974. Metals in zooplankton. Pages 24-25 in
D.W, Lear, S.K. Smith, and M. O'Malley, eds. Environmental survey to
two interim dumpsites - Middle Atlantic Bight. EPA 903/9-74-010A.
141 pp.
Jones, C. and R.H. Haedrich. 1977. Epibenthic invertebrates. Pages
451-458 in NOAA. Baseline report of environmental conditions in
Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volume II: Biological characteristics. NOAA
Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1. Rockville, MD. 485 pp.
7-29
-------
Jones, G.E. 1964. Effect of chelating agents on the growth of Escherichia
coli in seawater. J. Bact. 87:483.
1967. Growth of Escherichia coli in heat- and copper-treated
synthetic sea water. Limnol,. Oceanogr. 12:167.
1971. The fate of freshwater bacteria in the sea. Devs. ind.
Microbiol. 12:141-151.
Jones, G.E. and A.B. Cobet. 1974. Heavy metal ions as the principal
bactericidal agent in Caribbean sea water. A.L.H. Gameson, ed.
Discharge of sewage from sea outfalls. Pergamon Press, Oxford,
England.
Jorling, T.C. 1978. Decision on proposals to relocate sewage sludge
dumping in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. U.S. EPA, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials. March 1, 1978.
Kamlet, K. 1977. Statement of Kenneth Kamlet for National Wildlife
Federation at Toms River Public Hearing, May 31 - June 1, 1977. Toms
River, New Jersey.
Kane, J.F. 1977. Statement before the ocean dumping permit hearing at 26
Federal Plaza, New York, New York. October 19, 1977.
Kapp, Raymond. 1974. Testimony on behalf of Dr. Michael Champ of American
University and the Marine Science Consortium to the EPA Hearing, Oct.
15, 1974.
Keller, G.H., D. Lambert, G. Rowe, and N. Staresinic. 1973. Bottom
currents in the Hudson Canyon. Science. 180:181-183.
Kester, D.R. and R. Courant. 1973. A summary of chemical oceanographic
conditions: Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals. Pages 2-1 to 2-36 in
S.B. Saila, ed. Coastal and offshore environmental inventory, Cape
Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals. Mar. Publ. Series No. 2. Univ. Rhode
Island. 682 pp.
Kester, D.R., K.A. Hausknecht, and R.C. Hittinger. 1977. Recent analysis
of copper, cadmium, and lead at Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Pages 543-546
in NOAA. Baseline report of environmental conditions in Deepwater
Dumpsite 106. Volume III: Contaminant inputs and chemical
characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1. Rockville,
MD. 798 pp.
Kester, D.R., R.C. Hittinger, and R. Mukherji. 1978. Effect of acid-iron
waste disposal on transition and heavy metals at Deep Water Dumpsite
106. Presented at International Dumping Symposium, October 9-13,
1978. University of Rhode Island. Unpublished draft. 34 pp.
Ketchum, B.H. and W.L. Ford. 1948. Waste disposal at sea. Preliminary
Report on acid-iron waste disposal. Submitted to National Research
Council.
7-30
-------
1952. Rate of dispersion in the water of a barge at sea. Trans.
Amer. Geophys. Union. 33:680-684.
Ketchum, B.H., J.H. Ryther, C.S. Yentsch, and N. Corwin. 1958a.
Productivity in relation to nutrients. Rapp. Proc. Verb. Cons. Int.
Explor. Mer. 144:132-140.
Ketchum, B.H., C.S. Yentsch, and N. Corwin. 1958b. Some studies of the
disposal of iron wastes at sea. Woods Hole Ocean. Inst. Ref. No.
58-57 Woods Hole, MA. Unpublished manuscript submitted to the
National Lead Company. 17 pp.
Ketchum, B.H., C.S. Yentsch, N. Corwin, and D.M. Owen. 1958c. Some
studies of the disposal of iron wastes at sea: summer, 1958. Woods
Hole Ocean. Inst. Ref. No. 58-55. Woods Hole, MA. Unpublished
manuscript. 59 pp.
Klein, L.A., M. Lang, N. Nash, and S.L. Dirschner. 1974. Sources of
metals in New York City wastewater. Dept. Water Resources, City of
New York. New York Water Poll. Control Assn.
Kohn, B. and G.T. Rowe. 1976. Dispersion of two liquid industrial wastes
dumped at Deepwater Dumpsite 106, off the coast of New Jersey, U.S.A.
Final report, DWD 106 Large-scale dumping study, 1976. Submitted to
Ocean Dumping Prgm., NOAA, Rockville MD. 35 pp.
Kopp, J.F. 1969. The occurrence of trace elements in water. Page 59 in
D.D. Hemphill, ed. Proceedings of the third annual conference on
trace substances in environmental health. University of Missouri,
Columbia.
Krueger, W.H., R.H. Gibbs, Jr., R.C. Kleckner, A.A. Keller, and M.J. Keene.
1977. Distributidn and abundance of mesopelagic fishes on cruises 2
and 3 at Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Pages 377-422 in NOAA. Baseline
report of environmental conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volume
2: Biological characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1.
Rockville, MD. 485 pp.
Krueger, W.H., M.J. Keene, and A.A. Keller. 1975. Systematic analysis of
midwater fishes obtained at Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Pages 359-388 in
NOAA. May 1974 baseline investigation of Deepwater Dumpsite 106.
NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 75-1. Rockville, MD. 388 pp.
Larsen, P.F. and S. Chenoweth. 1976. Benthos. Section 7.3 in BLM.
Summary of environmental information on the Continental
Slope - Canadian/United States Border to Cape Hatteras, NC. The
Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine, Portland, ME. (Also NTIS.
PB-284 002).
Lawson, T.J. 1976. Pollution at Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Report on
laboratory studies of the effects of Du Pont waste on plankton: Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution. Unpublished manuscript.
7-31
-------
Lear, D.W., ed. 1974. Supplemental report. Environmental survey of two
interim dumpsites - Middle Atlantic Bight. Operation FETCH Cruise
Report, 5-10 November 1973. 105 pp.
1976. Testimony for EPA Region III at Public Hearing, Ocean Dumping
Permit, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. Georgetown, DE.
October 13, 1976.
Lear, D.W., S.K. Smith, and M. O'Malley, eds. 1974. Environmental survey
of two interim dumpsites - Middle Atlantic Bight. Operation FETCH
Cruise Report, 5-10 November 1973. EPA-903/9-74-010a. 141 pp.
Lear, D.W., M.L. O'Malley, and S.K. Smith, eds. 1977. Effects of ocean
dumping activity - mid-Atlantic Bight. Interim Report EPA
903/9-77-029 168 pp.
Lear, D.W. and G.G. Pesch, eds. 1975. Effects of ocean disposal
activities on mid-Continental Shelf environment off Delaware and
Maryland. EPA 903/9-75-015. 203 pp.
Leavitt, B.B. 1935, A quantitative study of the vertical distribution of
the larger zooplankton in deep water. Biol. Bull. 68:115-130.
1938. The quantitative vertical distribution of macrozooplankton in
the Atlantic Ocean Basin. Biol. Bull. 74:376-394.
Liu, O.C., H.R. Seraichekas, E.W. Akin, D.A. Brashear, E.L. Katz, and W.F.
Hill, Jr. 1971. Relative resistance of twenty human enteric viruses
to free chlorine in Potomac waters. Proc. 13th Wat. Qual. Conf. ,
University of Illinois, Urbana p. 171.
Liu, O.C., H.R. Seraichekas, arid B.L. Murphy. 1966. Fate of poliovirus in
northern quahogs. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 121:601-607.
Longwell, A.C. 1976. Chromosome mutagenesis in developing mackerel eggs
sampled from the New York Bight. NOAA TM ERL MESA-7. Boulder,
Colorado. 61 pp.
Longwell, A.C. 1977. Report on work under contract for July 20-29, 1977
cruise to DWD 106. Milford Lab, Milford, Conn. Unpublished
manuscript. 20 pp.
MacDonald, A.G. 1975. Physiological aspects of deep sea biology.
Cambridge University Press, London. 450 pp.
MacLeod, R.A. 1968. On the role of inorganic ions in the physiology of
marine bacteria. Pages 95-126 in M.R. Droop and E.J.F. Wood, eds.
Advances in Microbiology cf the Sea. Academic Press, New York.
Malone, T.C. 1977. Plankton systematics and distribution. MESA New York
Bight Atlas Monograph 13. New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany, New
York. 45 pp.
7-32
-------
Marcus, S.J. 1973. Environmental conditions within specified geographical
regions offshore east and west coasts of the U.S. and in the Gulf of
Mexico. Final report. U.S. Department of Commerce. 735 pp.
Markle, D. and J.A. Musick. 1974. Benthic slope fishes found at 900 m
depth along a transect in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Mar.
Biol. 26:225-233.
Martineau, D.P. 1977. Letter from D.P. Martineau, Deputy Associate
Administrator for Marine Resources, NOAA, to Dr. A.W. Breidenbach,
Hearing Officer, Toms River Hearing. Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
Mayzaud, P. and J. Martin. 1975. Some aspects of the biochemical and
mineral composition of marine plankton. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
17:297-310.
McHugh, J.L. 1978. Historic fish and shellfish landings and trends.
Pages 4-79 in J.L. McHugh and J.J.C. Ginter. Fisheries. New York
Bight Atlas Monograph 16. New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany, New
York. 129 pp.
Mclntyre, A.D. 1969. Ecology of marine meiobenthos. Biol. Res.
44:245-290.
McLaughlin, D. , J.A. Elder, G.T. Orlob, D.F. Kibler, and D.E. Evenson.
1975. A conceptual representation of the New York Bight ecosystem.
NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL MESA-4.
Mero, J.L. 1964. Mineral resources of the sea. American Elsevier
Publishing Co., New York.
Metcalf, T.G. 1974. Evaluation of shellfish sanitary quality by
indicators of sewage pollution. Pages 75-84 in A.L.H. Gameson, ed.
Discharge of sewage from sea outfalls. Pergamon Press., Oxford
England.
Milliman, J.D. 1973. Marine geology. In S.B. Saila, ed. Coastal and
offshore environmental inventory - Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals.
Complement volume. Marine Pub. Ser. No. 3, Univ. Rhode Island,
Kingston, R.I. 02881.
Milliman, J.D., O.H. Pilkey, and D.A. Ross. 1972. Sediments of the
Continental Margin off the eastern United States. Geol. Soc. of Amer.
Bull. 83:1315-1334.
Mitchell, J.R. 1971. Role of predators in the reversal of imbalances in
microbial ecosystems. Nature 230:257.
Mitchell, J.R., M.W. Presnell, E.W. Akin, J.M. Cummins, and O.C. Liu.
1966. Accumulation and elimination of poliovirus by the Eastern
oyster. Am. J. Epidimiol. 84:40-50.
7-33
-------
Mitchell, R. 1972. Ecological control of microbial imbalances. Page 273
in R. Mitchell, ed. Water pollution microbiology. John Wiley, New
York.
Mitchell, R., S. Yankofsky, and H.W. Jannasch. 1967. Lysis of Escherichia
coli by marine microorganisms. Nature. 215:213.
Mitchell, R. and C. Chamberlin. 1978. Survival of indicator organisms.
Pages 51-97 in G. Berg. ed. Indicators of viruses in water and food.
Ann Arbor Science Publ. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Moebus, K. 1972a. Bactericidal properties of natural and synthetic sea
water as influenced by addition of low amounts of organic matter.
Mar. Biol. 15:81.
1972b. Studies on the influence of plankton on antibacterial activity
of sea water. Helgolaender wiss. Meeresunters. 23:127.
Mueller, J.A., J.S. Jeris, A.R. Anderson, and C.F. Hughes. 1976.
Contaminant inp>uts to the New York Bight. Marine Ecosystems Analysis
Program Office NOAA Technical Memo ERL-MESA 6. Boulder, Colorado.
347 pp.
Mullen. 1977. Testimony at Toms River public hearing to investigate the
desirability of relocating ocean dumping sites for the disposal of
municipal sewage sludge. May 31, 1977, Toms River, Del.
Murphy, L.S., P. Hoar, and R.A,, Belastock. 1979. The effect of industrial
wastes on marine phytoplankton at Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Prepared
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 21 pp.
Musick, J.A., C.A. Wenner, and G.R. Sedberry. 1975. Archibenthic and
abyssobenthic fishes of Deepwater Dumpsite 106 and the adjacent area.
Pages 229-269 in NOAA. May 1974 baseline investigation of Deepwater
Dumpsite 106. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 75-1. Rockville, MD.
388 pp.
NL Industries, Inc. 1977. Summary of studies made relating to NL ocean
disposal site. Prepared in support of Ocean Disposal Permit No.
NJ014. Unpublished manuscript.
NOAA. 1975. Baseline investigation of Deepwater Dumpsite 106. NOAA
Dumpsite Evaluation Report 75-1. May 1974. 388 pp.
NOAA. 1977. Baseline report of environmental conditions in Deepwater
Dumpsite 106. Vol. I. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1. 218 pp.
NOAA. 1978. Report to the Congress on ocean dumping research. January
through December 1977. Washington D.C. 25 pp.
NOAA-MESA. 1975. Annual summary of research results for fiscal year 1974,
MESA New York Bight Project. NOAA TM ERL MESA-2. Boulder, Colorado.
193 pp.
7-34
-------
NOAA-MESA, 1976. Evaluation of proposed sewage sludge dumpsite areas in
the New York Bight: NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL MESA-11, Marine
Ecosystem Analysis Program Office. Boulder, Colorado.
NOAA-MESA. 1977. New York Bight Project annual report for fiscal year
1976-1976T. NOAA Tech. Memo ERL MESA-25. Boulder, Colorado. 91 pp.
NOAA-MESA. 1978. MESA New York Bight Project annual report for fiscal
year 1977. Boulder, Colorado. 133 pp.
NOAA-NMFS. 1972. The effects of waste disposal in the New York
Bight - final report. Volumes 1-9. NOAA/NMFS/MACFC/Sandy Hook Lab.
Highlands, NJ.
NOAA-NMFS. 1974. Surf clam survey. Cruise report - NOAA ship Delaware
II. 13-28 June 1974 and 5-10 August 1974. Mid-Atlantic Coast. Fish.
Cen. Oxford Md.
NOAA-NMFS. 1975. Sea scallop survey. Cruise report - NOAA ship Albatross
IV. August 7-16, 1975 and September 27-October 3, 1975: Mid Atlantic
Coast. Fish. Cen. Sandy Hook Lab. Highlands N.J.
NOAA-NMFS. 1977a. Fishery statistics of the United States - 1974.
Statistical Digest No. 84. Prepared by J.P. Wise, and B.C. Thompson.
NOAA - S/T 77-3026. Washington D.C. 424 pp.
NOAA-NMFS. 1977b. New York landings. Annual summary, 1976. Current
Fisheries Statistics No. 7212.
NOAA-NMFS. 1977c. New Jersey landings. Annual summary 1976. Current
Fisheries Statistics No. 7213.
NOAA-Pathobiology Division. 1978. February 1978 Interim Report - DWD 106
- July 20-29, 1977. Cruise report. Washington D.C. Unpublished
manuscript, 8 pp.
National Academy of Science (NAS). 1976. Disposal in the marine
environment: An oceanographic assessment. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 76 pp.
National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering. 1974. Water
quality criteria, 1972. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.
New York Ocean Science Laboratory (NYOSL). 1973. The oceanography of the
New York Bight - physical, chemical, biological. Technical Report No.
00017.
Oceanographer of the Navy. 1972. Environmental condition report for
numbered deep water munitions dump sites. Pages 10-13 in Appendix C.
Dept. of the Navy.
7-35
-------
O'Connor, T. Personal comit.unication with Kathleen King (IEC), February
1979.
Orlob, G.T. 1956. Viability of sewage bacteria in sea water. Sewage Ind.
Wastes 28:1147.
Orr, M.H. 1977a. Acous:ic detection of the particulate phase of
industrial chemical waste released at DWD 106. Prepared for NOAA
under Contract 8501-6336-35181.
1977b. Qualitative dispersion characteristics of sewage sludge
released at DWD 106 in the presence of a shallow seasonal thermocline.
Ocean Engineering Dept., Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst., Woods Hole,
Mass. 2 pp. Unpublished.
Pacheco, A.L. 1974. Ichthyoplankton, finfish, and shellfish surveys.
Pages 291-296 in BLM. Marine environmental implications of offshore
oil and gas development in the Baltimore Canyon region of the
mid-Atlantic Coast. Proceedings of Estuarine Research Federation Outer
Continental Shelf Conference and Workshop. 504 pp.
Pearce, J., L. Rogers, J. Caracciolo, and M. Halsey. 1977b. Distribution
and abundance of benthic organisms in the New York Bight Apex, five
seasonal cruises, August 1973 - September 1974. NOAA DR ERL MESA-32.
Boulder, Colorado.
Pearce, J.B. 1974. Benthic assemblages in the deeper Continental Shelf
waters of the Middle Atlantic Bight. Pages 297-318 in BLM. Marine
environmental implications of offshore oil and gas development in the
Baltimore Canyon region of the mid-Atlantic coast. Proceedings of
Estuarine Research Federation Outer Continental Shelf Conference and
Workshop. 504 pp.
Pearce, J.B., J. Thomas, J. Caracciolo, M. Halsey, and L. Rogers. 1976a.
Distribution and abundance of benthic organisms in the New York Bight
Apex, 26 August-6 September 1973. NOAA DR ERL MESA-9. Boulder,
Colorado. 88 pp.
1976b. Distribution and abundance of benthic organisms in the New
York Bight Apex, 2-6 August 1973. NOAA DR ERL MESA-8. Boulder,
Colorado. 131 pp.
Pearce, J.B., J.V. Caracciolo, and F.W. Steimle, Jr. 1977a. Final report
on benthic infauna of Deepwater Dumpsite 106 and adjacent areas.
Pages 465-480 in NOAA. Baseline report of environmental conditions in
Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volume II: Biological characteristics. NOAA
Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1. Rockville, MD. 485 pp.
Pearce, J.B., J. Thomas, and R. Greig. 1975. Preliminary investigation of
benthic resources at Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Pages 217-228 in NOAA.
May 1974 baseline investigation of Deepwater Dumpsite 106. NOAA
Dumpsite Evaluation Report 75-1. 388 pp.
7-36
-------
Pequegnat, W.E. and D.D. Smith. 1977. Potential impacts of deep ocean
disposal of dredged material. Pages 43-68 in Second International
Symposium on Dredging Technology, 2-4 November, 1977, Texas A&M
University. BHRA Fluid Engineering, Cranford, Bedford, England.
Pesch, G., B. Reynolds, and P. Rogerson. 1977. Trace metals in scallops
from within and around two ocean disposal sites. Mar. Poll. Bull.
8:224-228.
Peschiera, L. and F.H, Freiberr. 1968. Disposal of titanium pigment
process wastes. J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed. 40:127-131.
Peterson, H. 1975. Micronutrient analysis of seawater samples taken at
DWD-106 May 1974. Pages 189-201 in NOAA. May 1974 baseline investi-
gation of Deepwater Dumpsite 106. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report
75-1. 388 pp.
Pratt, S.D. 1973. Benthic fauna. Pages 5-1 to 5-70 in S.B. Saila, ed.
Coastal and offshore environmental inventory - Cape Hatteras to
Nantucket Shoals. Marine Publication Series No. 2. Occasional
Publication No. 5, University of Rhode Island, Providence, RI.
693 pp.
Public Health Service Sanitary Engineering Center (PHSSEC). 1960. Acid
waste disposal in the New York Bight: A summary of information on
waste disposal in the New York Bight with recommendations of the
Technical Advisory Committee. Cincinnati, Ohio. 31 pp.
Raytheon. 1975a. Cruise 1 data report, baseline survey - New York Bight.
Volumes 1-5.
1975b. Cruise 2 data report, baseline survey - New York Bight.
Volumes 1-6.
1976. Environmental survey of a proposed alternate dumpsite in the
Outer New York Bight. Submitted to the U.S. EPA by Raytheon Co.
Redfield, A.C. and L.A. Walford. 1951. A study of the disposal of
chemical waste at sea. Report of the Committee for Investigation of
Waste Disposal. National Academy of Sciences, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C.
Reid, J.B. 1978. Letter to EPA Region II dated May 31, 1978 concerning
Ocean Disposal Permit II-NJ-001.
Reynolds, B.H. 1979. Trace metals monitoring at two ocean disposal sites.
Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Narragansett, R.I. EPA-600/3-79-037. 64 pp.
Reynolds, N. 1965. The effect of light on the mortality of E_. coli in
seawater. Pages 241-249 in Pollutions Marines par les micro-
organismes et les Produits Petroliers Symp. de Monaco.
Riley, G.A. 1939. Plankton studies. II. The western North Atlantic, May-
June 1939. J. Mar. Res. 2(2):145-162.
7-37
-------
Riley, G.A. and S. Gorgy. 1948. Quantitative studies of summer plankton
populations of the western North Atlantic. J. Mar. Res. 7(2) : 100-121.
Riley, G.A., H. Stommel, and D.F. Bumpus. 1949. Quantitative ecology of
the plankton of the western North Atlantic. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr.
Collect. 12(3):1-169.
Rittenberg S.C., T. Mittwer and D. Ivler. 1958. Coliform bacteria in
sediments around three marine sewage outfalls. Limnol. Oceanogr.
3:101.
Robertson, E.E., et al. 1972. Battelle Northwest contribution to the IDOE
baseline study. Page 231. 1972. IDOE Workshop.
Rodman, H.G. 1977. Report oa estimated costs and other factors involved
in barging to Site 106 instead of to 12-Mile Site. NL Industries,
Inc. Highlands, N.J. 8 pp. (includes deleted table containing company
proprietary information.)
Rose, C.D., W.G. Williams, T.A. Hollister, and P.R. Parrish. 1977. Method
for determining acute toxicity of an acid waste and limiting
permissible concentration at boundaries of an oceanic mixing zone.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 11:367-371.
Rowe, G.T., R.L. Haedrich, P.T. Polloni, and C.H. Clifford. 1977.
Epifaunal megabenthos in DWD 106. Pages 459-464 in NOAA. Baseline
report of environmental conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volume
II: Biological characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report
77-1. Rockville, MD. 485 pp.
Rowe, G.T. and R.J. Menzies. 1969. Zonation of large benthic
invertebrates in the deep sea off the Carolinas. Deep-Sea Res.
16:531-537.
Ryther, J.H. and C.S. Yentsch. 1958. Primary production of Continental
Shelf waters off New York. Limnol. Oceanogr. 3:227-235.
St. John, P.A. 1958. A volumetric study of zooplankton distribution in
Cape Hatteras area. Limnol. Oceanogr. 3:387-397.
Sanders, H.R. and R.R. Hessler. 1969. Ecology of the deep-sea benthos.
Science. 163:1419-1424.
Sanko, P. 1975. Sand mining in New York Harbor. Pages 23-26 in J. Schlee.
Sand and gravel. New York Bight Atlas Monograph 21. New York Sea
Grant Institute. Albany, New York. 26 pp.
Saunders, P.M. 1971. Anticyclonic eddies formed from shoreward meanders
of the Gulf Stream. Deep-Sea Res. 18:1207-1219.
Schlee, J. 1975. Sand and gravel. MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph
21. New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany, New York.
7-38
-------
Schroeder, W.C. 1955. Report on the results of exploratory otter-trawling
along the Continental Shelf and Slope between Nova Scotia and Virginia
during the summers of 1952 and 1953. Pap. Mar. Biol. Oceanogr. ,
Deep-Sea Res. 3(Suppl. 10):358-372.
Sears, M. and G.L. Clarke. 1940. Annual fluctuations in the abundance of
marine zooplankton. Biol. Bull. 79:321-328.
Segar, D.A., G.A. Berberian, and P.G. Hatcher. 1975. Oxygen depletion in
the New York Bight Apex, causes and consequences. Page 61 in
Abstracts from the Special Symposium on the Middle Atlantic
Continental Shelf and New York Bight, November 3-5. Amer. Soc. of
Limnology and Oceanography.
Segar, D.A. and A.Y. Cantillo. 1976. Trace metals in the New York Bight.
Pages 171-198 in M.G. Gross, ed. Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf
and the New York Bight. Amer. Soc. Limnol. Oceanogr. Spec. Symp. Vol.
2. 441 pp.
Shenton, E.H. 1976. Geological Oceanography. Chapters 1-6 in TRIGOM.
Summary of environmental information on the Continental
Slope - Canadian/United States Border to Cape Hatteras, N.C. The
Research Institute of The Gulf of Maine.
Sherman, K. , D. Busch, and D. Bearse. 1977. Deepwater Dumpsite 106:
zooplankton studies. Pages 233-303 in NOAA. Baseline report of
environmental conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volume II:
Biological characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1.
Rockville, MD. 485 pp.
Sieburth, J.McN. 1968. The influence of algal antibiosis on the ecology
of marine microorganisms. Adv. Microbiol. 1:63.
Smayda, T.J. 1973. A survey of phytoplankton dynamics in the coastal
waters from Cape Hatteras to Nantucket. Pages 3-1 to 3-100 in S.B.
Saila, ed. Coastal and offshore environmental .inventory: Cape
Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals. Univ. of R.I., Kingston, RI.
Smith, S.K. 1973. Phytoplankton. Pages 47-54 in Palmer, H.D. and D.W.
Lear, eds. Environmental survey of an interim dumpsite - Middle
Atlantic Bight. EPA Region III. 903/9-73-001-A. 134 pp.
1974. Phytoplankton. Pages 21-23 in Lear, D. , S.K. Smith, and M.
O'Malley, eds. Environmental survey of two interim dumpsites - Middle
Atlantic Bight. EPA Region III. 903/9-74-010-A. 141 pp.
Smith, C.L., W.G. Maclntyre, and R.H. Bieri. 1977. Hydrocarbons. Pages
9-1 to 9-170 in M.P. Lynch and B.L. Laird, eds. Middle Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf environmental studies. Vol. II-B: Chemical and
biological benchmark studies. Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Contract No. 08550-CT-5-42.
7-39
-------
Smith, D.D. and R.P. Brown. 1971. Ocean disposal of barge-delivered
liquid and solid wastes from U.S. coastal cities. Prepared for the
Environmental Protection Agency by the Dillingham Corp., La Jolla, Ca.
Contract No. PH86-68-203. 119 pp.
Steele, J.H., and C.S. Yentsch. 1960. The vertical distribution of
chlorophyll. J. Marine Uiol. Assoc. United Kingdom 39:217-26.
Stoker, H.S. and S.L. Segar. 1976. Environmental chemistry: air and
water pollution. Second edition. Scott, Foresman and Company,
Glenview, 111. 232 pp.
Stommel, Henry. 1960. The Gulf Stream, a physical and dynamical
description. Univ. of Cal. Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 202 pp.
Subcommittee on the Toxicology of Metals. 1976. Lars Friberg, Chairman.
Toxicology of Metals. Vol. 1. Report No. EPA-600/1-76/018. 269 pp.
Swanson, R.L. 1977. Status, of ocean dumping research in the New York
Bight. J. of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Division.
12722:9-24.
The Research Institute of the Gulf of Maine (TRIGOM). 1976. Summary of
environmental information on the Continental Slope - Canadian/United
States border to Cape Katteras, N.C. Prepared for Bureau of Land
Management. (NTIS No. P3 284 001-004).
U.S. Coast Guard. 1976. Commandant instruction 16470.ZB, dated September
29, 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency March 25, 1975. Memorandum from F.T.
Brezenski, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Surveillance and Analysis
Division, U.S. EPA Region II, Edison, NJ.
1976. Quality criteria for water. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
1977a. New York Bight Water Quality, Summer of 1977. U.S. EPA Region
II.
1977b. Ocean dumping: Final revision of regulations and criteria.
Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 7. January 11, 1977.
1977c. Public hearing transcript, Ocean County College, Toms River,
New Jersey, May 31, 1977.
1978. Final environmental impact statement on the ocean dumping of
sewage sludge in the New York Bight. U.S. EPA, Region II, New York,
New York. 226 pp. plus 11 appendices.
Vaccaro, R.F. and M.R. Dennett. 1977. The environmental response of
marine bacteria to waste disposal activities at Deepwater Dumpsite
106. Prepared for NOAA under Grant Number 04-7-158-44055. 15 pp.
7-40
-------
1978. The environmental response of marine bacteria to waste disposal
activities at Deepwater Dump Site 106. Woods Hole Oceanog. Inst.
Interim Rep. NOAA Grant 04-8-M01-42. Unpublished Manuscript. 25 pp.
Vaccaro, R. F. , G.D. Grice, G.T. Rowe, and P.H. Wiebe. 1972. Acid-iron
waste disposal and the summer distribution of standing crops in the
New York Bight. Water Res. 6:231-256.
Verber, J.L. 1976. oafe shellfish from the sea. Pages 433-441 in M.G.
Gross, ed. Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and the New York Bight.
Amer. Soc. Limnol. Oceanog. Spec. Symp. Vol 2. 441 pp.
Voorhis, A.D., D.C. Webb, and R.C. Millard. 1976. Current structure and
mixing in the Shelf/Slope Water front south of New England. Jour.
Geophys. Res. 81(21):3695-3708.
Wagner, E.O. 1977. Letter addressed to EPA Region II, dated December 1,
1977.
Warsh, C.E. 1975a. Physical Oceanographic Observations at Deepwater
Dumpsite 106 - May 1974. Pages 141-187 in NOAA. May 1974 baseline
investigation of Deepwater Dumpsite 106. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation
Report 75-1. Rockville, MD. 388 pp.
1975b. Physical oceanography historical data for Deepwater Dumpsite
106. Pages 105-140 in NOAA. May 1974 baseline investigation of
Deepwater Dumpsite 106. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 75-1. Rock-
ville, MD. 388 pp.
Waterman, T.H., R.F. Nunnemacher, F.A. Chace, and G.L. Clarke. 1939.
Diurnal vertical migrations of deep water plankton. Biol. Bull,
76(2):256-279.
Webster, F. 1969. Vertical profiles of horizontal ocean currents.
Deep-Sea Res. 16:85-98.
Westman, J.R. 1958. A study of the newly'created "acid grounds" and
certain other fishery areas of the New York Bight. Unpublished
manuscript. 50 pp.
1967. Some benthic studies of the acid grounds, July 26, 1967.
Unpublished manuscript. 6 pp.
1969. Benthic studies of the acid grounds, October 9 1969.
Unpublished manuscript. 8 pp.
Westman, J.R., J.G. Hoff, and R. Gatty. 1961. Fishery conditions in the
New York Bight during the summer of 1961. Unpublished manuscript.
10 pp.
Wiebe, P.H., G.D. Grice, and E. Hoagland. 1973. Acid-iron waste as a
factor affecting the distribution and abundance of zooplankton in the
New York Bight, II. Spatial variations in the field and implications
for monitoring studies. Estuar. Coast. Mar. Sci. 1:51-64.
7-41
-------
Wigley, R.L. Personal communication with Dr. Andrew Lissner (IEC), October
1979.
Wigley, R.L. and A.D. Mclntyre. 1964. Some quantitative comparisons of
offshore meiobenthos and macrobenthos south of Martha's Vineyard.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 9:485-S'3.
Wigley, R.L., R.B. Theroux, and H.E. Murray. 1975. Deep sea red crabs,
Geryon quinquedens, surv€'.y off Northeastern United States. Mar. Fish.
Rev. 37:1-21.
Windom, H., F. Taylor, and R. Stickney. 1973a. Mercury in North Atlantic
plankton. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 35(1):18-21.
Windom, H. , R. Stickney, R. Smith, D. White, and F. Taylor. 1973b.
Arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury, and zinc in some species of North
Atlantic finfish. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 4(13): 60.
Wirsen, C.O. and H.W. Jannascti. 1976. The decomposition of solid organic
materials in the deep sea. Env. Sci. Technol. 10:880-887.
Won, W.A. and H. Ross. 1973. Persistence of virus and bacteria in
seawater. J. San Eng. Div. ASCE 99:205.
Wright, W.R. 1976a. Physical oceanography. Chapter 4 in TRIGOM. A
summary of environmental information on the Continental
Slope - Canadian/U.S. Border to Cape Hatteras, N.C. The Research
Institute of The Gulf of Maine.
1976b. The limits of Shelf Water south of Cape Cod, 1941 to 1972.
Jour. Mar. Res. 34(1):1-4.
Yentsch, C.S. 1963. Primary production. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev.
1:157-175.
1977. Plankton production. MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 12.
New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany, New York. 25 pp.
7-42
-------
APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
106-MILE OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
-------
CONTENTS
Title Page
METEOROLOGY A-l
Air Temperature A-l
Wind and Storms A-2
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS A-4
Water Masses A-4
Current Regimes A-ll
Waves A-13
Temperature Structure A-15
Salinity Structure A-l9
GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS A-24
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS / A-26
Water Column Chemistry A-26
Sediment Chemistry A-37
Biological Chemistry A-39
BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS A-42
Phytoplankton A-42
Zooplankton , A-49
Nekton A-58
Benthos A-67
A-iii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
ILLUSTRATIONS
Title Page
A-l Temperature-Salinity Lines of Water Masses and
Boundaries between Surface Water Categories in the
Area of the 106-Mile Site A-6
A-2 NOAA National Environmental Satellite Service Observations
of Shelf, Slope, and Gulf Stream Waters Surrounding the
106-Mile Site Ln May 1974 A-9
A-3 Stylized Section from the•Continental Shelf through the Dumpsite
Eddy, Showing Surface Water Categories and Deeper Water Masses . . A-10
A-4 Marsden Square 116, Subsquares 81, 82, and 91, and the
106-Mile Site A-16
A-5 Average Monthly Sea-Surface Temperatures for
Subsquares 81, 82, and 91 in Marsden Square 116 A-l7
A-6 Monthly Averages for Temperature versus Depth
Marsden Square 116, Subsquare 81 A-18
A-7 Monthly Averages for Temperature versus Depth
Marsden Square 116, Subsquare 82 A-18
A-8 Monthly Averages for Temperature versus Depth
Marsden Square 116, Subsquare 91 A-19
A-9 Average Monthly Sea-Surface Salinities for
Subsquares 81, 82, and 9] in Marsden Square 116 A-20
A-10 Monthly Averages for Salinity versus Depth
Marsden Square 116, Subsquare 81 A-21
A-ll Monthly Averages for Salinity versus Depth
Marsden Square 116, Subsquare 82 A-22
A-12 Monthly Averages for Salinity versus Depth
Marsden Square 116, Subsquare 91 A-23
A-13 Bathymetry in the Vicinity of the 106-Mile Site A-25
A-14 Monthly Averages of Oxygen Concentration versus Depth
at the 106-Mile Site A-28
A-15 Station Locations of Major Phytoplankton Studies
in the Northeastern Atlantic A-44
A-16 Vertical Distribution of Chlorophyll a_ A-46
A-17 Summary of the Average Chlorophyll a Concentrations
at Inshore (less than 50 m) and Offshore (greater
than 1,000 m depth) in the Mid-Atlantic Bight A-46
A-18 Summary of Mean Daily Prinary Production per Square
Meter of Sea Surface at Onshore (less than 50 m),
Intermediate (100 to 200 m), and Offshore (greater
than 1,000 m) Sites in the Mid-Atlantic Bight A-47
A-19 Station Locations of Major Zooplankton Studies in the
Northeastern Atlantic A-53
A-iv
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
TABLES
Number
A-l Air Temperature and Wind Data for the 106-Mile
Ocean Waste Disposal Site ..................... A~3
A-2 Return Period of Maximum Sustained Winds at the 106-Mile
Ocean Waste Site ...... ................... A-4
A-3 Monthly Wave Height Frequency for the 106-Mile Site ....,,.. A-14
A-4 Return Periods for High Waves at the 106-Mile Site ......... A-14
A- 5 Average Surface Temperature Ranges and Months of Minimum
and Maximum Temperatures; for Subsquares 81, 82,
and 91 in Marsden Square ^16 ................... A-j.6
A-6 Average Temperature Ranges Between 100 and 500 M for
Subsquares 81, 82, and 91 in Marsden Square 116 .......... A-17
A- 7 Average Surface Salinity Ranges and Month of Minimum and Maximum
Salinity for Subsquares 81, 82 , and 91 in Marsden Square 116 . . . A~20
A-8 Average Concentrations of Five Trace Metals in Waters
of the Northeast Atlantic Ocean .................. A-32
A- 9 Average Concentrations of Nutrients at Various Depths
in the 106-Mile Site ................ ..... . . A-35
A-10 Average Concentrations of Six Trace Metals in che
Top 4 Centimeters of Sediments .................. A-38
A-ll Dominant Zooplankton Species in the Vicinity of the 106-Mile Site
(Number of Samples in Which the Species Comprised
50% or More of the Individuals of that
Group/Number of Stations Sampled) ................. A-50
A-12 Dominant Neuston Species in the Vicinity of the 106-Mile Site
(Number of Samples in Which the Species Comprised 50% or
More of the Individuals of that Group/Number of Stations Sampled) . A-52
A-13 Zooplankton Biomass in the Mid-Atlantic .............. A-57
A-14 Western Atlantic Cetaceans ..................... A-63
A-15 Threatened and Endangered Turtles Found in Mid-Atlantic
Slope Waters ........................... A-66
A-16 Average Number and Weight Per Tow of Demersal-
Fish Taken At Shelf Edge and Slope During Fall
and Spring Trawl Surveys, ^969 - 1974 ...... ..... ..... A-68
A-17 Benthic Infauna Collected at or near the 106-Mile Site ....... A-73
A-v
-------
APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
106-MILE OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
METEOROLOGY
The New York Bight receives air from several regions, but air from the
tropical Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico predominates during most of the year. The
Bight often receives storms which are pushed eastward by the "prevailing
westerlies" from midwest areas where polar and tropical air masses meet.
However, due to the influence of several physical factors, the Bight possesses
a more uniform climate than continental areas in the same latitude.
The seasonal location of the Bermuda High is a primary determinant of
general weather conditions in the Bight. When the Bermuda High is centered
over the eastern seaboard, as in summer and early autumn, the Bight
experiences its longest periods of stable weather conditions. During winter,
spring, and late autumn the absence of this high pressure zone allows storms
from northeastern and southern regions to move into the Bight, causing extreme
weather conditions. However, even in the presence of the Bermuda High,
tropical storms and hurricanes move northwards through the Bight during late
summer and early autumn.
Warm air from the Gulf Stream region is advected towards coastal regions
throughout the year. In the Bight, the air is quickly cooled by Shelf Water,
which causes humid summer conditions and persistent fog during warm and cold
months.
AIR TEMPERATURE
Marine surface air temperatures in the area of the Bight are buffered
throughout the year by the influence of the underlying Atlantic waters.
Summer temperatures are lower and winter temperatures are higher in the Bight
than on adjacent coastal land masses.
A-l
-------
At the 106-Mile Site, air tenperature data from 1949 to 1973 (Brower, 1977)
show that the mean maximum temperature ranged between 16.2°C in February to
29.9°C in July (Table A-l). The annual mean maximum temperature was 22.6°C.
The mean minimum temperatures for the same period ranged between -4.0°C in
February to 18.6°C in August. The annual mean minimum temperature was 5.7°C.
WINDS AND STORMS
Northwesterly winds prevail over the 106-Mile Site from October to March,
with average speeds approaching 19 kn. From April to September the prevailing
winds are southwesterly and reach an average speed of 11 kn. The percentage
of winds greater than 33 kn increases seaward throughout the year. At the
dumpsite, there is a maximum frequency greater than 5% from November through
April, with a peak of 8.5% in February; it is less than 1% from May through
August, with a minimum of 0.2% in June. These infrequent summer winds are due
to disturbances by tropical cyclones and severe thunderstorms. Return values
of maximum sustained winds are presented in Table A-2.
The storms sweeping over the New York Bight and the 106-Mile Site are of
two general classifications: extratropical cyclones, which form outside the
tropic regions in marine or continental areas, and tropical cyclones, which
form in tropical waters, such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea.
Prevailing winds and weather in the area of the New York Bight are quickly
altered by invading extratropic.al cyclones. Strong winds accompanying storms
often bring heavy rain or snow (Brower, 1977). Exceptionally cold north-
westerly winds are also characteristic of these storms. Nearly 600 such
storms were observed within the Bight region from May 1965 to April 1974.
Although tropical cyclones are infrequent in comparison with extratropical
cyclones, they are more destructive than any other type of storm (Brower,
1977). Wind speeds of tropical cyclones range from less than 34 kn to greater
than 63 kn. From 1871 to 1976>, 114 tropical cyclones entered the New York
Bight, although the force of several of these storms had been reduced to the
level of an extratropical storm by the time they reached the Bight. The
A-2
-------
f
vO
O
o
QJ
o
2
4-1
u
o
CL
CU
00
3
-^
n ,-H i r- ^>
\o r^-
O ^O CN ON i — I
CN CN — I .— < CN
tO LO
ON CM — I
^o r— * r-- ^> o co o -H 1 — ON
O -H 1 O
CN O U « >
j-j u< P. ex o ^ i-j
« QJ g S •— ' C CD
i-i to cu CD -r-t co
(U X) H H O- 3 Xi
ex o BO
& e e a; cu
CO "4~< 3 3 H U M-l
H O 0 S CO o
•H -H C M-l
)-• X C «0 M
•H o W -r-l QJ 3 O
< Zi S S S to 5=
^H LO CO
^D vO r^ 3
CN r-t ^
00
CO LO vO 3
CN —i a
CN CM
U ^ CO |J A! 0>
o) V 1
-------
TABLE A-2
RETURN PERIOD OF MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS
AT THE 106-MILE OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
Return Period
(Years)
5
10
25
50
100
Maximum Sustained
Winds (Knots)
72
79
90
99
111
*Period of Record: 1949-1973
Source: Brower, 1977.
greatest frequency of tropical cyclones in the New York Bight occurs during
late summer and early autumn. On the average, one tropical cyclone per year
has occurred in the Bight area over the past 106 years (Brower, 1977).
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
WATER MASSES
A water mass may be defined as a seawater parcel having unique properties
(temperature, salinity, oxyger content) or a unique relationship between these
properties. Each water mass thus defined is given a name which qualitatively
describes its location or place of origin. Water masses are produced in their
source areas by either or botn of two methods: (1) alteration of temperature
and/or salinity through air-sea interchange, and (2) mixing of two or more
water types. After formation, the water masses spread at a depth determined
by their density relative to "he vertical density gradient of the surrounding
water.
A water mass possesses unique properties, therefore physical oceanographers
have found it possible to represent any water mass by plotting data consisting
of two of three parameters (temperature, salinity, oxygen content) as
coordinates. In most cases, a temperature-salinity (T-S) diagram is
sufficient for the identification of a water mass. To construct such a
A-4
-------
diagram, water samples are generally taken from several depths at an
oceanographic station, and the temperature and salinity values for each sample
are determined. The values are plotted and a smooth curve is drawn through
each point, in order of depth. The water mass may appear as the entire curve
or as an area of the T-S diagram (Figure A-l). In cases of exceptionally
homogeneous water, a single point on the plot identifies the parcel, which is
then termed a "water type".
NOAA has characterized the physical oceanographic environment at the
106-Mile Site as extremely complex and variable in all but near-bottom water
(NOAA, 1977). Normally, the surface layer of the site is Slope Water, which
lies between fresher Shelf Water to the west and more saline Gulf Stream Water
to the east. However, conditions often change, periodically allowing Shelf
Water to enter the site from the west, or permitting Gulf Stream Water, in the
form of southward moving Gulf Stream eddies, to be present about 20% of the
time.
SHELF WATERS
The waters lying over the mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf are of three
general types: Hudson River Plume Water, surface Shelf Water, and bottom Shelf
Water (Hollman, 1971; Bowman and Wunderlich, 1977). Hudson River Plume Water
results from the combined discharge of the Hudson, Raritan, and various other
rivers into the northwest corner of the Bight Apex. This low-density water
floats over the Shelf waters as it moves into the Bight. During episodes of
high runoff, the plume may spread over large areas of the Bight and produce
large vertical and horizontal gradients of salinity. This water type persists
throughout the year, but its extent and depth are highly dependent on flow
rates of the Hudson and Raritan Rivers (McLaughlin et al., 1975). Generally,
the plume flows southward between the New Jersey coastline and the axis of the
Hudson Shelf Valley. Bowman and Wunderlich (1976) have found that the plume
direction is sensitive to wind stress and reversals in the residual flow.
Consequently, the plume may flow eastward between the New Jersey coastline and
the axis of the Hudson Shelf Valley, or may occasionally split and flow
eastward and southward.
A-5
-------
SALINITY (0/00)
33.0
33.5
U
ec
ew
5
26
1
14
12 -
10
NADW North Atlantic Deep Water
WNAW Western North Atlantic Water
NACW North Atlantic Central Water
DSLW Deep Slope Water
WATER CATEGORIES
,'*
/ /
SHW Shelf Water
SSW Summer Shelf Water
SLW Slope Water
EDW Eddy Water
GSW Gulf Stream Water
i
2 -1
/ o
Figure A~l, Temperature-Salinity Lines of Water Masses (dashed lines)
and Boundaries (solid lines) between Surface Water
Categories in the Area of the 106-Mile Site
Source: Goul=t and Hausknecht, 1977.
A-6
-------
With the onset of heavy river discharges in the spring, surface salinities
in the Bight decrease, and, initially, a moderate, haline-maintained (i.e.,
maintained by salinity differences) stratification occurs, separating the
coastal waters into upper and lower layers - surface Shelf Water and bo'_ '..'.-m
Shelf Water, Decreasing winds and increasing insolation increase the strength
of the stratification and cause it to undergo a rapid transition (usual b,
within a month) from a haline-maintained to a thermal-maintained (i.e.,.
maintained by temperature differences) condition (Charnell and Hansen, 1974s.
This two-layer system becomes fully developed and reaches maximum strength b/
August.
Surface Shelf Water is characterized by moderate salinity and high tempera-
tures in summer and low temperatures in winter. During the winter the wai er
column is vertically homogeneous over most of the Bight Shelf, Wjfh the rapid
formation of the surface Shelf Water layer during the spring, the botfor.
waters become isolated until sufficient mixing takes place the next winter.
Bigelow (1933) found that the "cool cell" (having temperature typically less
than 10°C) of the bottom Shelf Water layer extended from south of Long Is1 and
to the opening of Chesapeake Bay and seaward, nearly to the Shelf edge. Thif.
cold water persists even after the surface layers have reached the summe-;
temperature maximum. Bigelow (1933) observed that this "cool ceil" was
surrounded on all sides by warmer water.
The upper layer of the bottom Shelf Water is usually found between 30 and
100 m depth during the summer (Bowman and Wunderlich, 1977), Seaward, near
the Shelf edge, strong temperature, salinity, and density gradients occur
which limit large-scale mixing between the Shelf Waters and the waters found
over the Continental Slope. The mechanism by which bottom Shelf Water is
replenished is currently under study.
SLOPE WATERS
The Slope Water mass is a highly complex, dynamic body of water which
represents an area of mixing between Shelf Waters, which bound it on the north
A-7
-------
and west, and the Gulf Stream, which forms its southern boundary (Figure A-2).
These boundaries (frontal zones) are not stationary, but migrate seaward and
landward.
The Gulf Stream frequently migrates in such a way that anticyclonic
(clockwise) current loops are formed. Occasionally, these loops detach and
form separate entities known as eddies. The eddies are rings of Gulf Stream
Water surrounding a core of warm Sargasso Sea Water which originates to the
east of the Gulf Stream. Great amounts of this water may be advected to
depths as great as 800 to 1,000 m (NOAA, 1977). After detachment, the eddies
may migrate into the Slope Water region, usually in a southwesterly direction.
The eddies may interact with ShelE Water, causing considerable disturbance in
the water column within the 106-Mile Site (Figure A-2). While there appears
to be no seasonal pattern in the occurrence of the eddies, Bisagni (1976)
found that, based upon the trajectories of 13 eddies between 1975 and 1976,
the 106-Mile Site was wholly or partially occupied 20% of the time by eddies.
The eddies either dissipate or are reabsorbed by the Gulf Stream, usually in
the region of Cape Hatteras.
Periodically, a seaward migration of the Shelf/Slope Water boundary brings
highly variable Shelf Water into the upper waters of the disposal site,
thereby producing a complex vertical structure consisting of thin layers of
cool, low-salinity Shelf Water interspersed with warm, high-salinity Slope
Water.
Marcus (1973) found the Shelf/Slope front to be over the 200-m isobath
during summer, and north and west of this isobath during fall. Warsh (1975b)
reported winter and spring positions of this front ranging from the Shelf
break to 70 mmi (130 km) south and east of the Shelf break. The surface
waters of the Shelf are coo'ler than those of the Slope except during the
summer months, when the well-defined thermal front disappears. Fisher (1972)
has observed Shelf Water overlying Slope Water as far as 54 nmi (100 km)
seaward of the 200-m isobath. It was suggested that wind-driven advection may
be responsible for these migrations (Boicourt, 1973; Boicourt and Hacker,
1976). The onshore movement at lower depths of more saline Slope Water is
frequently associated with the offshore movement of low-salinity Shelf Water.
A-8
-------
SHF
SI.W.
G.S.
I I
SHF
42
41
40
39
76°
75°
74°
73°
72°
71° 70°
69°
Figure A-2. NOAA National Environmental Satellite Service Observations
of Shelf, Slope, and Gulf Stream Waters Surrounding the
106-Mile Site in May 1974
Source: Warsh, 1975a.
The combined effects of mixing, boundary migration, and the usual seasonal
distribution of river runoff and rain produce a multitude of different water
types which cause a confused, interlayered water column. Figure A-3 displays
a stylized representation of this complex arrangement.
As in many other deep-water sites, the water column of the Slope Water mass
can be divided into three general layers: the upper or surface layer where
variability is great, the thermocline region where temperature changes rapidly
with depth, and the deep water where seasonal variability is small.
In Slope Water, generally, stratification forms in the upper water column
early in May and persists until mid or late fall when cooling and storm
activity destroy the strata. The permanent thermocline is at a depth of 100
to 200 m. During the period when the surface layers are stratified, a
seasonal thermocline forms which reduces the mixed layer to surface waters
A-9
-------
FRESHER THAN
DSLW
WATER MASSES
NADW North Atlantic Deep Water
WNAW Western North Atlantic Water
NACW North Atlantic Central
DSLW Deep Slope Water
WATER CATEGORIES
Shelf Water
Summer Shelf Water
Slope Water
Eddy Water
Gulf Stream Water
SHW
SSW
SLW
EDW
GSW
Figure A-3. Stylized Section from the Continental Shelf through the
Dumpsite Eddy, Showing Surface Water Categories and Deeper
Water Masses
Source: Goulet and Hausknecht, 1977.
A-10
-------
above 30 to 40 m depth. From fall through early spring, the water column is
isothermal from the surface to depths between 100 and 200 m. At that point,
inversions are observed where low-salinity, cool Shelf Water flows under
warmer, high-salinity Slope Water.
The upper layer of the Slope Water maas is termed surface Slope Water. It
extends from the sea surface to a depth of about 200 m. The Shelf Water
extends seaward to the 200-m isobath, thus the vertical extent at the
Shelf/Slope interface is the same as that of the surface Slope Water mass.
Consequently, the seaward boundary of the Shelf Water mass borders only the
surface Slope Water mass; direct mixing between Shelf Water and the waters of
the permanent thermocline, below the surface Slope Water mass, does not
usually occur. However, mixing of waters across the Shelf Water/Slope Water
front may be caused by the strong circulation of eddies or meanders from the
Gulf Stream (NOAA, 1977).
The spillage of cooler Shelf Water into the relatively warm surface Slope
Water has been documented by numerous researchers (Bowman and Weyl, 1972;
Wright, 1976b; Bigelow, 1933). Wright (1976a) suggests that significant
interchange of Shelf and Slope Waters may occur by this method. Beardsley et
al. (1976) report that this process of cool water spillage, or "calving," may
be related to the occurrence of anticyclonic Gulf Stream eddies and subsequent
migration of eddies along the Shelf edge. Based upon an aerial survey of the
formation and subsequent behavior of an anticyclonic eddy, Saunders (1971)
found that bottom Shelf Water may have been pulled off the Shelf and displaced
at least 81 nmi (150 km) southward to the eastern edge of the eddy. The
amount of Shelf/Slope Water mixing promoted by this process and the frequency
of occurrence of this type of induced mixing is unknown (Beardsley et al.,
3 3
1976). However, estimates range from 300 km /year to 8,000 km /year (Stommel,
1960; Fisher, 1972; Beardsley et al., 1975).
CURRENT REGIMES
There are no major, well-defined circulation patterns in the surface layers
of the Slope Water region (Wright, 1976a). Large natural variability and lack
of many long-term current records limit the usefulness of any estimates of the
A-ll
-------
mean current for this region. The westward-flowing Labrador Current loses its
distinctiveness somewhere west of the Grand Banks. Current measurements have
been made by several researchers using neutrally buoyant floats, parachute
drogues, and moored current meters in the region of the Shelf break and Slope
south of New England (Webster, 1969; Voorhis et al. , 1976; Beardsley and
Flagg, 1976). The mean currents In this area flow westerly, generally of the
order of 0.2 to 0.4 kn (10 to 20 cm/sec), following the bottom contours. This
direction is similar to the direction taken by currents over the Continental
Shelf.
Wright (1976a) indicates that along the northern boundary, Slope Waters
flow slowly to the southwest, following the bathymetry to Cape Hatteras, where
they turn and flow seaward into the Gulf Stream. Evidence of a slow
northeastward flow along the Gulf Stream, in the southern part of the Slope
Water region, was also found. Wright (1976a) suggests that the Gulf Stream
and the Shelf Water form a cul-de-sac near Cape Hatteras, and, while some
interchange of water occurs across these boundaries, most of the water
entering the Slope Water region from the east probably exists along the same
path.
Beardsley et al . (1976) have studied the kinetic energy spectrum from
several sites over the Continental Shelf and Continental Slope. They found
that the considerable variance of kinetic energy in the Slope Water currents
was due to inertial periods of motion. This fraction of the variance in the
kinetic energy increased significantly towards the Shelf. From the long-term
records obtained at: a site 204 km northeast (39°20'N, 70°W) of the dumpsite,
Beardsley et al. (1976) found that at 100 m depth much of the observed
variance in kinetic energy is due to motions recurring at 30-day intervals.
Anticyclonic or warm water eddies form north of the Gulf Stream, and
entrain Sargasso Sea water during formation. Movement of the eddies is
generally to the west or southwest, but may be interrupted for extended
periods, during which the eddies appear to remain stationary (Bisagni, 1976).
The mean speed calculated ::or five eddies was 3.8 nmi/day, and a mean
residence time of 22 days was found. A mean eddy radius of 30 nmi has been
estimated.
A-12
-------
The Oceanographer of the Navy (1972) reported a mean surface current speed
of about 25 cm/sec for a region near the 106-Mile Site. The direction of the
flow was either east-northeast or south-southwest. No other current estimates
for the 106-Mile Site have been reported in the literature.
WAVES
Brower (1977) has compiled wave data for the New York Bight coastal region,
the disposal site, and adjacent waters. The data are taken from the MESA New
York Bight Atlas Monograph 7, Marine Climatology (December 1976) and from
published and unpublished data for the New York and mid-Atlantic Bights.
Observations for the period from 1949 to 1974 are discussed below.
Wave heights increase with distance from shore throughout the year.
Differences in height are smaller during summer. The average frequency of
observations reporting hazardous waves (wave heights greater than or equal to
3.5 m) is 5% to 6% from December through March. The frequency of hazardous
waves at two stations near the New Jersey coast varies from less than 0.5% in
summer, to approximately 1% to 2% in winter, and the frequency seaward at the
dumpsite area varies from about 1% in summer to more than 10% from November
until March, with a peak of 13% in January and February (Table A-3). The
frequency tends to increase northwest to southeast across the Bight throughout
the year.
The frequency of waves less than 1.5 m in height follows the same pattern.
Near shore, the frequency ranges from 70% in winter to 90% in summer.
Offshore, at the dumpsite, the frequency of occurrence ranges from 35% to 40%
in winter, to nearly 80% in early summer.
Table A-4 lists the mean return periods (recurrence intervals) for maximum
significant wave height and the extreme wave height in the dumpsite. The
maximum significant wave height is the average height of the highest one-third
of the waves in a given wave group. Thus, Table A-4 shows that, for example,
there will be a maximum significant wave height of 21 m (69 ft) within the
site area at least once in every 100 years. Similarly, an extreme wave height
of 38 m (124 ft) will occur at the site at least once every 100 years.
A-13
-------
TABLE A-3
MONTHLY WAVE HEIGHT FREQUENCY FOR THE 106-MILE SITE
Wave Height
WH < 1 . 5 m
WH< 2.5 m
WH S: 3 . 5 m
Number of Observations/Month
Jan
355
33.5
70.7
12.7
Feb
243
36,2
68.1
13.1
Mar
329
L
38.8
75.3
11.0
Apr
392
48 . 7
82.7
6.6
May
314
68.2
90.1
1.9
June
382
75.9
95.3
1.0
July
274
78.6
95.0
0.9
Aug
290
66.3
97.6
0.7
Sept
401
60.0
89.5
3.5
Oct
337
50.2
80.2
5.3
Nov
409
39.8
79,2
10,1
Dec
377
38.5
78.5
10.3
WH<1.5 M Percent frequency of wave height < 1.5m
WH<2.5 M Percent frequency of wave height<2.5 m
WH ^ 3 . 5 M Percent frequency of wave, height^ 3.5 m
Mean return periods (recurrence intervals) for maximum significant and
extreme waves; i.e., the wave value is that height which will be equalled or
exceeded, on the; average at least once during the period.
Source: Brower, 1977.
TABLE A-4
RETURN PERIODS FOR HIGH WAVES AT THE 106-MILE SITE
Return Period
(Years)
5
10
25
Maximum Significant
Wave in Meters
(Feet)
12.4 (41)
14.2 (47)
16.7 (55)
50 ! 18.8 (62)
100
21.0 (69)
1
Extreme Wave
in Meters
(Feet)
22.4 (74)
25.5 (84)
29.7 (98)
33.6 (111)
37.6 (124)
Source: Brower, 1977,
A-14
-------
TEMPERATURE STRUCTURE
The waters in and around the 106-Mile Site are subject to the sudden
changes in temperature that may occur between Shelf and Slope Waters. Shelf
Water is always much colder than Slope Water during the winter months;
however, during the warmer months of the year, peak surface temperatures of
Shelf Water exceed those of Slope Water. The horizontal temperature gradient
between the two water masses becomes less marked only during periods of
warming and cooling. The water masses are then best distinguished by salinity
differences (Warsh, 1975b).
Warsh (1975b) summarized hydrographic data collected by the USCG and the
NOAA Marine Resources Monitoring, Assessment, and Prediction (MARMAP) program.
These data were taken during all seasons over an area encompassing the
mid-Atlantic Shelf and the Slope, including the disposal site region. Monthly
summaries from Marsden Square 116, subsquares 81, 82, and 91 (Figure A-4) are
discussed below. Table A-5 gives the ranges of temperatures for each
subsquare. These areas, while differing in the month of minimum temperature,
had the same month of maximum temperature. Surface temperatures ranged
between 5.1°C (February, subsquare 82) and 25.0°C (August, subsquare 82).
Figure A-5 illustrates the average monthly sea surface temperatures for each
subsquare .
In the upper 50 m of the water column, a seasonal thermocline develops in
late spring (May) and is usually present through mid-autumn (October).
However, remnants of the thermocline may be present as late as November. By
December, the water is generally isothermal to a depth of 100 m, but
temperature inversions have been observed near 30 m. These inversions may
persist through April or May. The permanent thermocline is usually found
between 100 and 500 m. The temperature ranges between 100 and 500 m for each
subsquare are listed in Table A-6.
From 500 to 1,000 m, temperature decreases to a range of 4°C to 6°C. At
depths below 1,000 m, the temperature ranges from 2°C to 4°C. Figures A-6,
A-7 and A-8 display the monthly temperature profiles for each subsquare.
A-15
-------
8(
40°
35°
8
3° 75°
Hill:
1
0° 75°
7C
^
82
91
81
l°
40°
35°N
70°W
Figure A-4. Marsden Square 116, Subsquares 81, 82, and 91,
and t.he 106-Mile Site (Diagonal Lines in
Subsquare 82)
Source: Warsh, 1975b.
TABLE A-5
AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURE RANGES AND MONTHS OF MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM
TEMPERATURES FOR SUBSQUARES 81, 82, AND 91 IN MARSDEN SQUARE 116
Subsquare
81
82
91
Month of
Minimum
Temperature
January
February
March
Average Surface
Temperature
Range (°C)
7.8 - 24.9
5.2 - 25.0
5.4 - 24.5
Month of
Max imum
Temperature
August
August
August
Source: Warsh, 1975b
A-16
-------
30
E 25
LU
§20
oc 15
III "*
Q.
§ 10
M
M
0 N
D
Figure A-5. Average Monthly Sea-Surface Temperatures for
Subsquares 81, 82, and 91 in Marsden Square 116
Source: Warsh, 1975b.
TABLE A-6
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE RANGES BETWEEN 100 AND 500 M FOR
SUBSQUARES 81, 82, AND 91 IN MARSDEN SQUARE 116
Subsquare
81
82
91
Average
Ranges (°C)
5.0
4.8
5.0
Temperature
From 100 to 500 m
- 14.4
- 15.8
- 14.6
Source: Warsh, 1975b.
A-17
-------
0
10-
20-
30-
40-
50
60
70
80
| 90
I 100
£200
°300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2000
3000
TEMPERATURE (°C)
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
TEMPERATURE i°C)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
. . -?'APR.
[FEB! / |X--JUN_
MAR-h\ ^i/VI MAY _
JAN - JUN
i i i i i i i i_
Figure A-6. Monthly Averages for Temperature versus Depth
in Marsden Square 116, Subsquare 81
Source: Warsh, 1975b.
TEMPERATURE (°C)
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
24 6
TEMPERATURE (°C>
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Figure A-7. Monthly Averages for Temperature versus Depth
Marisden Square 116, Subsquare 82
Source: Warsh, 1975b.
A-18
-------
TEMPERATURE <°C)
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
TEMPERATURE (°C)
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 25
Figure A-8. Monthly Averages for Temperature versus Depth
Marsden Square 116, Subsquare 91
Source: Warsh, 1975b.
SALINITY STRUCTURE
The waters in and surrounding the 106-Mile Site are subject to the sudden
changes in salinity which may occur between Shelf and Slope Waters. Shelf
Water is always fresher than Slope Water during the winter months. During the
warmer months of the year, the two water masses are best distinguished by
temperature differences. During periods of warming and cooling, the water
masses are best distinguished by salinity differences (Warsh, 1975b).
Table A-7 provides ranges of salinity for each subsquare. The ranges of
surface salinity are quite variable, and are dependent upon the water mass
present (Shelf, Slope, or Gulf Stream) within each square. The values range
from 32.70 ppt in June (subsquare 82) to 35.75 ppt in April (subsquare 81).
Figure A-9 illustrates the average monthly sea-surface salinities for each
area.
A-19
-------
Salinity generally increase's to depths of 100 to 150 m, where the maximum
salinities are encountered. Values at these depths average approximately
35.75 ppt. Salinity then decreases with depth to about 400 m where the
minimum average salinity of 34.95 ppt exists. Below 400 m depth , the water
column is nearly isohaline, and salinity values may range between 34.90 ppt
and 35.05 ppt. Figures A-10, A-ll, and A-12 display the monthly salinity
profiles for each subsquare.
TABLE A-7 '
AVERAGE SURFACE SALINITY RANGES AND MONTH OF MINIMUM
AND MAXIMUM SALINITY FOR SUBSQUARES 81, 82, AND 91 IN MARSDEN SQUARE 116
Subsquare
81
82
91
Month of
Minimum
Salinity
January
June
May
Average Surface
Salinity Range
(ppt)
33.05 - 35.75
32.70 - 35.45
32.85 - 34.90
Month of
Max imum
Salinity
April
November
November
Source: Warsh, 1975b
36
3 35
o
t 34
z
$33
32
I
I
M
M
0 N
Figure A-9. Average Monthly Sea-Surface Salinities for
Subsquares 81, 82, and 91 in Marsden Square 116
Source: Warsh, 1975b.
A-20
-------
32
SALINITY (°/00)
33 34 35
36
33
u
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-p 100
JE. -
jE 200
Q.
LU
Q 300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
-
2000
3000
i i\J i _J
I \ B 4
— . • • * » *
JAN-*| MAR-\-\\
— * » • • 0
\ MAY -A H
\ juN-V"n\
^~ * • • •
\ \ \
\ U
. ...
\ \F
\ M
\ 1
\ 1 1
"™~ •_ •
x.
J
^
• — ^
• -^
/
-
I _
—
—
\ -
i "™"
i
V .' ~
\ .' ^ ' '
_ "N '"^
r™ t **/*y
i ///
• •• • •
/ ////
"•— • •* ••
I I
•™- •*
ii
i
•
i
i
i
__ •
i]
r 7
_ ji
•
JAN - JUN l
i i
• «
/
—
_
^_
—
—
—
^.
—
—
SALINITY (°/00)
34 35
36
u
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
•§ 100
jE 200
CL
UJ
Q 300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2000
3000
_ AUG IT SEP ~
— • •* • * — —
111 \
\ '
Ift \\
— — ••« • * — .
i \
\\ -
m. -
MOV— 4-U|( _
DEC — T*\\]
: >!' -
w
" ! I
- —
_ _
- —
_ —
_ —
- —
JUL- DEC"
I !
Figure A-10.
Monthly Averages for Salinity versus Depth
in Marsden Square 116, Subsquare 81
Source: Warsh, 1975b.
A-21
-------
SALINITY (0/oo)
34 35
V
\t
i \
'\ \
36
SALINITY (°/oo)
34 35 36
X. -\ u
^ 0 • 9
\
11
C eipo
\1!
|
T
-
-
2000
3000 h
JUL- DEC
Figure A-ll.
Monthly Averages for Salinity versus Depth
Marsden Square 116, Subsquare 82
Source.: Warsh, I975b.
A-22
-------
SALINITY (°/oo)
32 33 34 35
36
33
SALINITY-°/Po)
34
I \li\ll 1 I
10
20
30
40
50
'-*• a o e « r- -w«J 'I f 1
MAY-A\ \\ % 1
on
*Y\\- - JUN "" A!
\ \ \\ \ I ^
*%&. \ \ ~ I HKJ
^i •*. \ * »*••*
K\\ ! -,,
'"--<"* 3 499 « « «-^-' -J i
\ ^ \ \
\ S \ \
MU \\\\ -i 60
4 % -i •*
80
90
_^^ .„ ( -|— — j v -
X, V» ^ '- ":"'*::i'
\ '! V \
( « tv.^---> •., : '
\ l i\ •- ;
i|Jl J.AU '- -r-;
~ " ~ " i ;', 1 ! i
«, ' \ .• '
\ 'f i\ =
r '« (/"» _-,4 f ! "'•
'•'•''".' « V jij \ 5
"\ M\ \ ':
i. x ^ ' t
I * \ J f
\ VS\". '
\ \\\\ 1
"i - \ 'h '.
•A. '4\
u \m - £o^- \^-.
\ \i
\\ \l
-— innL *.* 8i* mn
F lwj vj'4, ~ ? 1°°
__£•-; •"*•••
-------
GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The 106-Mile Site covers portions of the Continental Slope and Continental
Rise (Figure A-13). Water depths within the site range from 1,440 m in the
northwest corner to approximately 2,750 m in the southeast corner. The
Continental Slope portion of the site experiences a 4% grade, whereas the
grade of the Continental Rise portion is 1% (Bisagni, 1977a).
Four submarine canyons incise the Continental Slope within the site: Mey,
Hendrickson, Toms, and Toms Middle Canyon. Numerous smaller canyons exist in
the Slope region west of the site. The massive Hudson Canyon is 32 nmi
(60 km) north of the site, and extends from the New York Bight Apex to the
edge of the Continental Slope.
The mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf is one of the best studied continental
margins in the world, yet few studies have concentrated on the Continental
Slope. Emery and Uchupi (1972) suggest that marine geologists may have found
the numerous submarine canyons which incise the Slope to be geologically more
interesting than the more featureless region of the Slope.
Based upon interpretation of bottom photographs, seismic reflection
profiling, and data from the Deep Sea Drilling Project, Heezen (1975)
concluded that the upper Continental Rise is a tranquil area of nearly uniform
sedimentation that, has existed for at least 1,000 years. The sediments are
characterized as a wedge of Mesozoic and Cenozoic sediment, which is up to
13 km thick near the Baltimore Canyon (Shenton, 1976).
A narrow transition zone of recent high erosion separates the upper Conti-
nental Rise from the lower Slope area. Sediment cores and seismic reflection
profiling in this area of the Continental Slope have shown that recent
sediments along with Pliocene or Holocene deposits were totally absent in the
area, apparently removed by current action since 1975 (Bisagni, 1977a).
Before that time, photographs showed that the bottom was covered by a soft
sediment of hemipelagic ooze and that significant currents were absent
(Heezen, 1975).
A-24
-------
72°50' W
39°30' N
38°30' N
^i/W^
72°00' W
39°30' N
- 38°30' N
72°50' W
72°00' W
Figure A-13.
Bathymetry in the Vicinity of the 106-Mile Site
Source: Bisagni, 1977a.
A-25
-------
The lower Slope and Rise, which Lies below 3,500 m depth, exhibits numerous
current-induced bedforms, formed by the southwestward-flowing Western Atlantic
Undercurrent (Heezen, 1975). The lower Slope and Rise may be thick prisms of
deep sea turbidites, clays, and slump deposits (Drake et al., 1968).
The recent sediments deposited on the Continental Slope and Rise are
primarily silt and clay (Milliman, 1973). Most of the sand in this region is
biogenic in origin, although patches of terrigenous sand occur in the axes of
some canyons (Hathaway, 1971; Keller et al., 1973). Sediments on the Slope
tend to be olive or brown in color (Milliman, 1973), which may be a function
of the high oxygen content oi: the Slope water and iron staining. Calcium
carbonate is a major component of Slope sediments, contributing as much as 75%
of the sediments in some areas. The carbonate grains are chiefly the tests of
planktonic foraminifera, benthoaic foraminifera, and echinoid plates.
Coccoliths are often common components, but are seldom abundant (Milliman,
1973).
Heavy minerals in the sand-sized fraction average less than 2% in Slope
sediments. Amphiboles represent 31% to 45% of the heavy mineral fraction;
epidote represents less than 10% (Milliman, 1973). The light minerals are
mostly quartz, feldspar and glauconite. The clay minerals, which are more
prevalent on the Slope than across the Shelf, are chiefly illite and
montmorillonite (Emery and U:hupi, 1972). Milliman (1973) reports illite
fractions which range from 30 to 40%, chlorite fractions of 10% to 20% and
kaolinite fractions ranging from 20% to 30%.
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
WATER COLUMN CHEMISTRY
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Oxygen is a fundamental requirement for aerobic marine life. It is
produced by photosynthesis in the photic (i.e., sunlit) zone, usually less
than 100 m in depth, and is used by animals in respiration and in the
decomposition of organic matter.
A-26
-------
The contrasting processes of photosynthesis and respiration are the main
causes of in situ changes in the concentrations of dissolved oxygen. In the
photic zone, photosynthesis by phytoplankton may predominate and lead to the
liberation of oxygen. Under optimal conditions, development of an "oxygen
maximum layer" in the surface waters will occur. Below this layer,
respiration and decomposition predominate and oxygen values diminish steadily
with depth. Another layer, where dissolved oxygen concentrations are at a
minimum, will form at depths varying between 150 and 1,000 m.
The ability of a water parcel to maintain certain minimal concentrations of
oxygen determines the survival of life in that parcel. The saturation level
of dissolved oxygen with respect to the atmospheric oxygen level in seawater
is dependent on the temperature, salinity, and barometric pressure of the wet
atmosphere at sea surface. The oxygen level at great ocean depths, where no
atmospheric phase exists, is determined by the temperature, salinity, and
barometric pressure before that water left the sea surface. Subsequent mixing
among different water masses and types, and in situ biochemical alteration
from phytosynthesis and respiration, modify the oxygen content of the water
under study.
At all depths, seawater is saturated with atmospheric gases with the
exception of those, such as oxygen, which are involved in life processes.
Oxygen concentrations below the saturation level suggest that biochemical
oxidation, including respiration and bacterial activity, is removing oxygen
faster than it is being replenished by mixing or other processes.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations are generally higher during the winter
months because of increased mixing in the water column. Increased plankton
populations during the spring result in a high fallout of dead organisms;
consequently, a higher oxygen demand exists in deeper water, due to microbial
decomposition of organic matter. As a result, bottom waters tend to have
lower dissolved oxygen levels at this time of year.
Warsh (1975b) summarized historical data for the water column within and
adjacent to the 106-Mile Site. Within the site, monthly average oxygen values
A-27
-------
at the surface range from 4.9 ml/liter in August to 7.5 ml/liter in April
(Figure A-14) . The oxygen minimum zone is between 200 and 300 m depth where
the oxygen values range between 3.0 ml/liter in February and 3.5 ml/liter in
September. The historical data for the site show the development of a
subsurface oxygen maximum zone during several months. Values varied from
approximately 7.0 ml/liter at 30 m depth during August to 8.2 ml/liter at 10 m
depth during February.
Monthly average oxygen values for surface waters adjacent to the 106-Mile
Site range from 4.6 ml/liter in October to 7.5 ml/liter in March. The oxygen
minimum zone in waters adjacent to the site occurs between 200 and 300 m
depth. Oxygen values in this zone show approximately the same range as the
waters within the 106-Mile Site.
0
10
20
30'
40
50
60
70
80
_ 90
.§ 100,
I 200'
S300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2000
3000
OXYGEN (ml/l )
4567
OXYGEN (ml/I )
4567
n n i r^
MAY—( MARA
- FEB - MAY
i i i i
Figure A-14.
Monthly Averages of Oxygen Concentration versus
Depth at the 106-Mile Site
Source;: Warsh, 1975b.
A-28
-------
Baseline investigation of the 106-Mile Site during May 1974 (NOAA, 1975)
found concentrations of dissolved oxygen at the surface ranging from
4.4 ml/liter to 6.9 ml/liter. The highest values occurred in areas over the
Continental Shelf and generally decreased seaward. An oxygen minimum layer
occurred between 200 and 400 m depth. Most of the values recorded for this
layer were about 3.2 ml/liter. The lowest value recorded for the minimum
layer was 3.1 ml/liter at approximately 300 m depth. At depths below the
oxygen minimum layer, values increased to slightly above 6 ml/liter. From
1,200 m depth to the bottom, the amount of dissolved oxygen fluctuated between
6.2 and 5.3 ml/liter. Hausknecht and Kester (1976a) reported oxygen values at
the 106-Mile Site taken during July 1976. Surface values averaged
5.3 ml/liter whereas concentrations at the oxygen minimum layer (300 m depth)
averaged approximately 3.5 ml/liter.
pH AND ALKALINITY
The expression pH is used conventionally to measure the acidity or
H +
alkalinity of an aqueous solution. The scientific definition is -log A , the
negative logarithm of hydrogen ion activity. A neutral solution normally has
a pH value of 7 at 25°C, while acidic solutions are lower than 7, and alkaline
solutions are higher than 7. The advantage of the pH scale is that its range
is only from 0 to 14, from 1-molar HC1 to 1-molar NaOH, where hydrogen
-14
activity varies from 1 to 10 . The pH scale can be smaller than 0 and
greater than 14 when HC1 concentration exceeds 1 mole (Du Font-Edge Moor
wastes contain 2- to 4-molar HC1), and NaOH exceeds a 1-mole concentration,
respectively.
Surface seawater pH is generally 8.2 + 0.4, thus slightly alkaline. This
narrow range is maintained by the global and geochemical silicate and
carbonate mineral equilibria. At sea surface, the air-sea exchange of carbon
dioxide tends to restore any perturbation of pH value back to approximately
8.2.
Hausknecht and Kester (1976a, 1976b) reported pH values for samples taken
during the summer at the 106-Mile Site. At the surface, the average pH was
7.9, while below 300 m depth, the pH decreased to an average of 7.6.
A-29
-------
The alkalinity of seawater is defined as the sum of anions of weak acids
present in seawater plus hydroxide ion (OH ) minus hydrogen ion (H )
concentrations. Alkalinity Is important for fish and other aquatic life
because it buffers pH changes which occur in nature, induced by photosynthesis
and respiration, or by ocean damping of acid and alkaline solutions. Carbonic
and boric acids are two major weak acids in seawater near the sea surface.
Alkalinity is increased by the dissolution of carbonate minerals, such as
limestones, and decreased by the precipitation of carbonate minerals, such as
oolite deposition over the Bahama Bank. Most of the time, alkalinity of
seawater can be calculated by the empirical equation of alkalinity
(milliequivalent/kg = 0.061 x salinity [g/kg]).
TRACE METALS
Trace metals are present in seawater in minute quantities. The signi-
ficance of a trace metal introduced by ocean disposal depends upon its
relationship to the biota; i.e., the concentration of the metal, the form in
which it exists, and how thesse two factors affect an organism. It is common
practice to use the term "heavy metal" and "light metal" in discussions of
trace metals. The terms originated from systems used to subclassify the known
3
metals. Heavy metals have densities greater than 5 g/cm , i.e., 5 times the
density of water at 4°C. Metals with densities less than 5 are properly
classified light metals.
The heavy metals (e.g., vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, and copper)
are usually incorporated into proteins, some of which serve as enzymes, or
biological catalysts. The light metals (e.g., sodium, maganesium, potassium,
and calcium) readily form ions in solution, and, in this form, help to
maintain the electrical neutrality of body fluids and cells and the proper
liquid volume of the blood and other fluid systems (Stoker and Segar, 1976).
Environmental persistence of some metals is a serious problem. As
elements, metals cannot be biologically or chemically degraded in nature,
unlike organic compounds. The toxicity of metal-containing compounds can be
altered by chemical reaction and/or complex formation with other compounds,
A-30
-------
but the undesirable metals are still present. In some cases, such reactions
produce more toxic forms of the metal. The stability of metals permits
transportation for considerable distances in the ocean.
One of the most serious results of metal persistence is the potential for
biomagnification of metal concentrations in food webs. Biomagnification of
metals occurs as small organisms containing metals in tissues are eaten by
larger organisms which in turn are eaten by still larger animals. As a result
of this process, the metals in the higher levels of the food web can reach
concentrations many tim s higher than those found in air or water. Thus,
biomagnification can cause some fish and shellfish to become health hazards
when used as food for human beings.
Metal pollution is complicated by the fact that some toxic metals are
needed in trace amounts by all plants and animals, thus a balance must be
reached between too little and too much of essential metals. However, in
seawater, insufficient amounts of these micronutrients are not normal
problems. Certain trace metals (e.g., arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, vanadium,
and zinc) are important because of their potential toxicity and/or carcino-
genic properties. The chemical behavior and the toxicity of a metal in the
aquatic environment depends upon the form (complex, absorbed, or ionized) in
which it exists, and whether the metal is present in solution or in colloidal
or particulate phases. For example, the toxicity of copper to some marine
organisms is controlled by the formation of copper-organic complexes.
Mercury, which is toxic in sufficient amounts of any of its forms (except the
metallic), is especially toxic when methylated by organisms.
Hausknecht (1977) reported metal concentrations from studies conducted at
the 106-Mile Site during May 1974 and February and August 1976. The average
metal concentrations for all samples taken during these cruises are presented
in Table A-8. For comparison, average metal concentrations for the New York
Bight Apex and Northwest Atlantic Ocean are included in the table.
A-31
-------
TABLE A-8
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF FIVE TRACE METALS IN WATERS
OF THE NORTHEAST ATLANTIC OCEAN
AREA
106-Mile Site:
May 1974*
February 1976*
August 1976*
New York Bight Apex:
Summer t
Fall**
Open Oceantt
Continental Slopett
Continental Shelftt
CADMIUM
(|ig/D
0.30
0.46
0.035
3.1
0.1
0.044
0.034
0.036
COPPER
(Mg/D
0.70
0.40
0.23
80.0
5.6
0.39
0.24
0.56
LEAD
(|ig/D
3.10
0.70
0.07
140.0
3.0
-
-
-
MERCURY
(Mg/D
0.63
0.17
0.008
0.008
0.041
0.122
ZINC
(jig/D
6.8
6.9
11.0
19.0
1.07
0.72
1.11
Sources: * Hausknecht (1977)
t Klein et al. (1974)
** Alexander et al. (1974)
tt Bewers et al. (1975)
The cadmium concentrations in samples taken during May 1974 and February,
1976 cruises were comparable; hwever, these cadmium values were an order of
magnitude greater than those found during the August 1976 cruise and the
cadmium values listed for the Shelf, Slope, and open waters of the Northwest
Atlantic. In comparison to the New York Bight Apex values for summer, the
106-Mile Site values for cadmium were as much as two orders of magnitude
lower.
The copper values for the three studies at the disposal site varied little,
and all fell within the same order of magnitude. These values were comparable
to the values found by Sewers et al. (1975) for the Northwest Atlantic. The
106-Mile Site copper concentrations are one or two orders of magnitude less
than those given for the New York Bight Apex.
Lead concentrations at the site showed a range of as much as two orders of
magnitude for the 1974 and L976 values. As with cadmium and copper, lead
values at the site were mucb lower than the concentrations found in the New
York Bight Apex.
A-32
-------
Mercury concentrations at the site varied slightly between 1974 and 1976
and were significantly higher than mercury values listed for the Slope and
open waters of the Northwest Atlantic. Concentrations of the metal were,
however, comparable to those reported for the Continental Shelf.
Zinc concentrations for the 106-Mile Site showed remarkable consistency
between 1974 and 1976. The values were higher than the Northwest Atlantic
values but an order of magnitude less than zinc concentrations in the New York
Bight Apex.
After undertaking an analytical program to produce highly reliable metal
analyses of seawater samples collected from the site, Kester et al. (1978)
concluded that the natural levels of cadmium, copper, and lead at the site are
comparable to other oceanic regions. Earlier samples were believed to be
contaminated and thus yielded high concentrations of these metals.
NUTRIENTS
In addition to the conservative elements (not involved in biological
processes; e.g., sodium, chlorine, bromine, strontium, and fluorine) and the
trace metals, nutrients in seawater are important for the growth of marine
phytoplankton. The major nutrients are inorganic phosphate, nitrate, nitrite,
ammonium, and hydrated silicate. Nutrients are consumed by phytoplankton only
in the upper layers of the ocean where light conditions permit photosynthesis
and growth. Inorganic phosphorus and nitrogen are generated primarily by
bacterial decomposition of organic debris and soluble organics. Silicate is
generated by the dissolution of the siliceous shells of diatoms, radiolaria,
and silicoflagellates.
Nitrogen exists in the sea in combination with other elements: in ammonia
(NH_), as urea [(NH.)-CO], and as oxides of nitrogen in the nitrite ion (N0? )
and nitrate ion (NO., )• Nitrogen enters into the composition of all living
things and is one of the nutrients used by pl'ants to form the complex protein
A-33
-------
molecules from which animals derive nitrogen. The complex nitrogenous
compounds found in plants and animals are decomposed by bacteria into
chemically simpler compounds after the organism dies.
Phosphorus has a biologically activated cycle involving alternation of
organic and inorganic phases. This cycle is similar to that of nitrogen,
except that .only one inorganic form, phosphate, is known to occur. Phosphorus
can be found in organisms, particulate and dissolved organic compounds, and as
phosphate. Phosphate is probably the only form used by plants.
The nitrogen-phosphorus ratio near the sea surface varies greatly.
Nitrogen and phosphorus are extracted from seawater by phytoplankton, but
phosphorus is regenerated more rapidly than nitrogen, thus causing nitrogen to
be the nutrient which limits phytoplankton growth. A phytoplankton population
will cease to grow when nitrogen is depleted. However, in coastal waters,
land run-off and sewage efflaents may provide excess nitrogen to the system.
When this situation occurs, phosphate becomes the growth-limiting factor.
The phosphate and nitrate contents of mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf and
Slope waters vary seasonally. Shelf and Slope waters are vertically mixed
during the winter. Consequently, phosphate and nitrate concentrations are
fairly uniform from the surface to the bottom. In spring, mixing is reduced
and the water column stratifies. Phosphate and nitrate concentrations
decrease in the surface layers due to increased biological activity and lack
of replenishment by mixing with nutrient-rich deeper layers. By the end of
summer, nitrate in the upper waters is depleted and phosphate is present in
low concentrations. Vertical mixing of the water column begins in the fall
and nutrients are transferred from subsurface to the surface layer (Kester and
Courant, 1973).
Peterson (1975) reported vertical profiles for phosphate, nitrate,
silicate, and ammonia, compiled for samples taken during May 1974 at the
106-Mile Site (Table A-9). Average concentrations of phosphate generally
increased with depth ranging from 0.1 mg/liter in the upper 15 m to
0.2 mg/liter at 500 m depth. Average nitrate concentrations increased with
A-34
-------
depth, ranging from 0.01 mg/liter in the upper 15 m to 1.22 mg/liter at 500 m
depth. Silicate was observed to follow the same profile as phosphate and
nitrate. Concentrations ranged from 0.09 mg/liter at the surface to 1.28
mg/liter at 500 m depth. Ammonia concentrations were quite uniform throughout
the water column, ranging only from 0.0071 mg/liter at the surface to 0.0068
mg/liter at 500 m depth.
TABLE A-9
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF NUTRIENTS AT VARIOUS DEPTHS
IN THE 106-MILE SITE
Depth
(meters)
Upper 15
100
500
Below 1,000
(mg/liter)
Phosphate
0.10
0.13
0.20
0.19
Nitrate
0.01
0.60
1.22
1.09
Silicate
0.09
0.39
1.28
1.28
Ammonia
0.0071
0.0066
0.0063
0.0070
Source: Adapted from Peterson, 1975.
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Organic compounds are numerous and diverse, with varying physical,
chemical, and toxological properties. Organics occur naturally in the marine
environment, resulting either from chemical/.biological processes or oil seeps.
However, anthropogenic sources (e.g., oil spills, urban run-off, or disposal
operations) provide the major oceanic inputs. Field work and laboratory
experiments have demonstrated acutely lethal and chronic (sublethal) effects
of organics on marine organisms.
One of the largest groups of organic compounds is the hydrocarbons, which
contain only the elements hydrogen and carbon. Tens of thousands of such
compounds are known to exist. They are found in all 3 physical states (gas,
liquid, solid) at room temperatures. The physical state characteristic of
each is related to the molecular structure, and particularly to the number of
carbon atoms making up the molecule. Generally, within this group, the
tendency to exist as a solid increases with increasing number of carbon atoms.
Hydrocarbons may be classified as "aliphatic" or "aromatic" on the bases of
A-35
-------
their molecular structures. An aromatic hydrocarbon contains, as a structural
unit, one or more 6-membered carbon rings. Aliphatic hydrocarbons lack this
characteristic ring structure.
Smith et al. (1977) reported levels of dissolved and particulate aliphatic
hydrocarbons in the waters cf the outer mid-Atlantic Bight just northwest of
the 106-Mile Site, The mean concentration was highest during winter with a
value of 7.6 fig/1, whereas in summer, the mean hydrocarbon concentration was
at a low of 0.22 fig/1. The mean concentration reported for spring was
0.53 jig/1.
Chlorinated hydrocarbons are basically composed of carbon-hydrogen
skeletons to which chlorine atoms are attached. The polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB's) are one type of chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds and have properties
similar to chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides. Theoretically, 210 different
PCB compounds can be formed by varying the number and position of the chlorine
constituents. Some of the compounds are more common than others. Commercial
mixtures, which generally contain many types of PCB's are usually in the form
of liquids or resins.
The PCB's are stable at high temperatures (up to 800°C), resistant to
acids, bases, and oxidation, and are only slightly soluble in water. These
properties make them quite adaptable to various uses, e.g., (1) heat transfer
fluids in industrial heat exchangers, (2) insulators in large capacitors and
transformers required by electrical power companies, (3) hydraulic fluids, and
(4) plasticizers in polymer liilms. PCB's have also been used as a constituent
of brake linings, paints, gasket sealers, adhesives, carbonless carbon paper,
and fluorescent lamp ballast;;.
PCB's were first identified in 1881, and have been widely used since the
1930's. The first environmental contamination was found in 1966, when PCB
residues were identified in fish. It is now apparent that PCB's are
distributed throughout the environment.
Most PCB's are introduced into the environment accidentally. Available
evidence indicates that the physiological effects of the PCB's are similar to
A-36
-------
those of DDT. As with DDT, long-term chronic effects appear to create more of
a problem than acute toxicity. The PCB's appear to be more effective enzyme
inhibitors than DDT. It is now believed that some eggshell thinning
previously blamed upon DDT may be caused by PCB's or synergistic PCB-DDT
combinations.
Harvey et al. (1974) measured PCB's in North Atlantic waters over the
Continental Shelf and Slope off the northeastern United States. The data show
widespread distribution in the North Atlantic, with an average PCB concen-
trations of 35 parts per trillion in the surface waters and 10 parts per
trillion at 200 m depth. A wide range of concentrations (1 to 150 parts per
trillion) was found, with extreme concentrations occurring only several
kilometers apart. No apparent relationship between PCB concentrations and the
proximity to land was observed, and it was suggested that the high variation
may be due to localized slicks, rainfall, or ship discharge.
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY
~~ »
Most of the sediment data collected at the site are derived from
photographs and a few grab samples (Pearce et al., 1975). Sediments within
the disposal site are mainly sand and silt, with silt predominating. Heezen
(1977) reported that the Continental Slope around the 106-Mile Site may have a
transitory blanket of hemipelagic ooze which, dependent upon the strength of
the bottom current, is either deposited or swept away.
TRACE METALS
Trace metals are conservative elements in sediments. Distribution and
accumulation of metals over background levels in sediments may delineate the
benthic area affected by disposal of waste. Recommendations have been made to
use either the individual metal concentration, or the metal-to-metal
concentration ratios, to trace a particular type of waste and separate it from
other wastes disposed nearby. These techniques have been applied to nearshore
disposal sites .
A-37
-------
Pearce et al. (1975) noted that the heavy metal content of sediment samples
taken in the vicinity of the 106-Mile Site appeared to be elevated relative to
uncontaminated Shelf sediments. The stations at which these elevated levels
occurred are located near the Hudson Canyon, therefore the investigators
suggested that materials wh:.ch had an elevated heavy metal content, and which
originated inshore, were tranported seaward via the Shelf valley and Canyon.
Greig and Wenzloff (1977) reported that heavy metal values, in deepwater
sediments collected in 1976 in and near the 106-Mile Site, were generally
similar (Table A-10) to those reported for collections made in 1974 (Pearce et
al. , 1975). Greig and Pe.irce (1975) reported concentrations for cadmium,
chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc in waters of the outer Continental
Shelf. Cadmium, chromium, and copper were rarely detectable in sediments;
nickel and zinc were usually measurable, but were present in very small
amounts relative to their abundance in Bight Apex sediments. Lead varied
somewhat, but was often undetectable. The values obtained were generally less
than those previously reported for sediments collected from the New York Bight
Apex (Carmody et al., 1973; Greig et al. , 1974). The concentrations found by
Greig and Pearce were also somewhat less than those reported for stations near
the 106-Mile Site.
TABLE A-10
AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF SIX TRACE METALS
IN THE TOP 4 CENTIMETERS OF SEDIMENTS
May 1974
Pearce et al .
(1975)
February 1976
Greig & Wenzloff
(1977)
Metal (mg/kg dry weight)
Cadmium
_.
1.4
Chromium
25.9
25.8
Copper
27.6
27.0
Nickel
25.2
31.5
Lead
28.7
13.2
Zinc
60.2
50.5
A-38
-------
Harris et al. (1977) analyzed sediment samples from the mid-Atlantic
Continental Shelf for barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, nickel, lead,
vanadium, and zinc. It was found that concentrations of iron, zinc, nickel,
lead, total organic carbon, and the percent silt-clay generally increased
seaward across the Shelf. These increases correlated with a decrease in the
average particle size of sediment grains across the Shelf. Metal concen-
trations, percent silt-clay, and total organic carbon showed a general
consistency from season to season.
ORGANICS
Hydrocarbon (C,, + ) concentrations, in and near t"he 106-Mile Site, were
found to be similar to those of Continental Shelf sediments from the Northern
and Southern Areas, which are assumed to be uncontaminated (Greig and
Wenzloff, 1977). The amounts (approximately 20 mg/kg) of C + hydrocarbons in
sediments from the area near the 106-Mile Site were much less than those found
in sediments at other disposal sites in relatively shallow coastal water,
viz., 6,530 mg/kg at the Dredged Material Site and 1,568 to 3,588 mg/kg at the
12-Mile Sewage Sludge Disposal Site in the New York Bight Apex.
Smith et al. (1977) reported levels of total aliphatic and aromatic
hydrocarbons in sediments of the mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf to be
generally less than 1 pg/g (1 ppm). The concentrations strongly correlated
with the amount of silt-clay in sediments, suggesting that, whether inputs are
general or localized, hydrocarbons accumulate primarily in locations where
fine-grained sediments are deposited.
BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
General observations on trace metal concentrations in phytoplankton can be
made despite the lack of specific data. The uptake of contaminants and
associated incorporation into the phytoplankton may have no apparent effect
upon the organisms or primary production; however, as the phytoplankton are
consumed, the contaminants can be transferred to and concentrated in consumers
at the next higher trophic level (biomagnification). The end result of this
accumulation through the food web is that higher trophic levels (and
A-39
-------
eventually man) may exhibit concentrations of contaminants far in excess of
ambient levels in the environment. This is considered to be a far less
important problem in the deep ocean than in nearshore waters since the
dispersed distribution and wide-ranging horizontal migrations of the
epipelagic nekton tend to retard the accumulation of contaminants in oceanic
nekton populations (Pequegnat and Smith, 1977). Other existing evidence
suggests that, aside from mercury and cadmium, few, if any, of the trace
metals are irreversibly accumulated by nektonic species.
Windom et al. (1973a), reporting on zooplankton samples collected between
Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras, found nearshore samples to be higher in mercury
than offshore samples. Species composition of the samples varied consider-
ably, although a general copepod dominance was maintained. However, the high
mercury concentrations measured did not seem as strongly correlated with
species composition as with sampling distance off shore.
Windom et al. (1973b) provide information on the cadmium, copper, and zinc
content (expressed as ppm dry weight) of various organs in 35 species of fish
obtained from waters of the North Atlantic. Cadmium concentrations in liver
tissue were generally less than 1.7 ppm, although one sample contained 5 ppm
cadmium. Cadmium levels in other organs and whole fish were usually less than
1 ppm; however, some species had values as high as 2.6 ppm. Copper levels in
the fish tissues sampled were, in most cases, less than 10 ppm. Zinc levels
were reported to be in the range of 10 to 80 ppm; however, a zinc level of
397 ppm was obtained for the bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli).
Pearce et al. (1975) reported that the levels of silver, cadmium, and
chromium did not vary greatly in most of the finfish and invertebrates
collected within and adjacent to the 106-Mile Site. The results did show,
however, that copper, zinc, and lead varied significantly, with lead showing
the greatest variation of all metals. Liver tissues from the deep-sea
slickhead (Alepocephalus agass Lzi) had the highest levels of silver, cadmium,
copper, and zinc. The values for these metals were several orders of magnitude
greater than the metal concentrations found in windowpane flounder
(Scopthalmus aquosus) taken from the sewage sludge and dredged material
disposal sites in the New York Bight Apex. The levels of the metals (as wet
A-40
-------
weight) in liver tissues from the slickhead were: cadmium 13.9 ppm, copper
28.6 pm, silver 1.2 ppm, and zinc 271.0 ppm. The copper concentrations in
other species of fish obtained were similar to the copper levels in fish
examined by Windom et al. (1973b).
Greig and Wenzloff (1977) found uniform metal concentrations in three
species of mid-water fish (Gonostoma elongatum, Hygophum hygomi, and
Monaconthus [=Stephanolepis] hispidus) during spring 1974, 1975, and 1976
studies near the 106-Mile Site; however, copper concentrations were highest in
fish taken in 1976. In Apex predators, such as sharks, cadmium concentrations
were generally less than 0.12 ppm in muscle tissue, but levels in the liver
were consistently higher, ranging from 0.28 to 7.2 ppm. Lancetfish, oil fish,
and dusky shark had similar cadmium concentrations.
Copper and manganese concentrations were low in the muscle of the sharks
and other fishes examined; levels were mostly below 1.5 ppm for copper and
below 0.5 ppm for manganese. With the exception of lancetfish, almost all
samples of fish muscle examined had concentrations of mercury which exceeded
the 0.5 ppm action level set by the Food and Drug Administration. Mercury
levels in lancetfish were most often below 9.23 ppm. Lead concentrations were
below the detection limit (about 0.6 to 0.8 ppm) of the method employed for
both muscles and livers of the fishes examined. Zinc concentrations in the
muscles of fishes examined were several orders of magnitude greater than the
cadmium, copper, manganese, and lead levels. Zinc levels ranged from 1.0 to
6.9 ppm and were about the same magnitude as those found in the muscle of
several finfish obtained from the New York Bight.
In another study, Greig et al. (1976) determined the concentration of nine
metals in four demersal fish species and three epipelagic fish species from
the outer Bight in water depths of 1,550 to 2,750 m. It was found that
mercury concentrations in deepwater fish muscle averaged three times higher
than muscle concentrations reported by Greig et al. (1975) from offshore
Continental Shelf finfish.
A-41
-------
BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The biota at the 106-Mile Site exhibit complex diurnal, seasonal, and
longer term cycles of species composition and abundance. Several factors
contribute to these cycles: the influence of various water masses, each with
its characteristic biota, the location of the site relative to the boreal
fauna found to the north and t:he temperate to subtropical fauna found to the
south, and the effects of unusual or non-periodic physical conditions.
The mid-Atlantic is biologically heterogeneous; this section, however,
discusses only the environmental aspects of the region which are directly
relevant to the specific conditions at the 106-Mile Site. The water column is
described first, then the benthic biota are characterized. For the benthos,
the discussion is confined to orga.nisms characteristic of fine silt and clay
bottoms at abyssal depths. A discussion of the biota typical of other
sediment types and other depths in the mid-Atlantic is not pertinent to this
EIS.
PHYTOPLANKTON
Phytoplankton are free-floating algae which produce the organic matter upon
which the rest of the marine food chain is built. Phytoplankton consist of
autotrophic algae which are represented by six taxonomic groups:
Bacillariophyta, Pyrrophyta, Cyancphyta, Coccolithophorida, Chlorophyta, and
Euglenophyta. The algal cells are commonly found in combinations of single,
filamentous, or colonial units of varying size in the euphotic zone (upper
100 m) and require sunlight, nutrients, and certain conditions of temperature
and salinity in order to synthesize organic matter. The various combinations
of these factors in the euphctic zone dictate the floral characteristics of
the waters at any particular time or place.
Few phytoplankton investigations have been performed at the 106-Mile Site,
and the available data indicate summer as the only season in which sampling
was performed. Hulburt and Jones (1977) found the phytoplankton abundance at
the 106-Mile Site to vary with depth from 100 to 100,000 cells/liter, with the
phytoplankton much more abundant in the upper 20 m than at 25 to 50 m depth.
A-42
-------
Abundance was greatly reduced at greater depths. The dominant species of
phytoplankton was a group of unidentifiable naked cells. Phytoplankton
populations at the 106-Mile Site were found to be composed of a mixture of
coastal and oceanic species, due to the location in a transitional area
between coastal and oceanic waters and in the path of meandering Gulf Stream
eddies.
Data from Hopkins et al. (1973) indicate the summer chlorophyll values at
the 106-Mile Site are highest at or near the surface, decrease to very low
levels at 100 m depth, and then slowly rise to a second maximum (much smaller
than the firet) at depths greater than 1,000 m. Steele and Yentsch (1960)
observed these chlorophyll concentrations at great depths and attributed these
higher concentrations to the sinking of phytoplankton until their density
equals that of the surrounding water. The subsurface accumulation of
chlorophyll occurs at depths where water density, inversely related to
temperature, is increasing most rapidly. This phenomenon becomes more
apparent as the summer progresses and is most distinct in Slope waters. This
midwater accumulation of chlorophyll disappears with the destruction of
stratification of the water column in fall.
More data exist on phytoplankton in mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf and
Slope waters than exist for the 106-Mile Site. The locations of the stations
from which phytoplankton samples have been taken are shown in Figure A-15.
The available information indicates that the phytoplankton population in the
mid-Atlantic is comprised mainly of diatoms during most of the year. Hulburt
(1963, 1966, 1970) described 33 abundant phytoplankton species, of which 27
were diatoms, 4 were dinoflagellates, and 2 were nannoflagellates. Hulburt
(1963, 1966, 1970) and Hulburt and Rodman (1963) found that Rhizosolena alata
dominates during summer, and Thalassionema nitzschioides, Skeletonema
costatum, Asterionella japonica, and Chaetoceros socialis dominate during
winter. Spring dominants include Chaetoceros spp. and Nitzschia seriata.
Thalassionema nitzschioides dominates in fall.
o /:
In several studies, phytoplankton densities ranged between 10 and 10
cells/liter, generally decreasing with distance from land (Hulburt, 1963,
1966, 1970). Major pulses in phytoplankton abundance were due to four neritic
A-43
-------
70°
60°
40'
NEW YORK
O RILEY (1939)
• HULBURT (1964)
A HULBURT AND
MACKENZIE (1971)
• YENTSCH (1958)
• KETCHUM, RYTHER,
YENTSCH AND
CORWIN (1958)
• HULBURT AND
RODMAN (1963)
• HULBURT (1963)
(1966)
(1970)
BERMUDA
40°
70°
60°
Figure A-15. Station Locations of Major Phytoplankton
Studies in the Northeastern Atlantic
Source: Chenoweth, 1976b
diatom species: Skeletonema costatum, Asterionella japonica, Chaetoceros
socialis, and Leptocylindrus danicus (Hulburt, 1963, 1966, 1970; Malone,
1977). Uniform distributions were exhibited by Rhizosolena alata in summer,
and Thalassionema nitzschioides in winter. The flagellates Chilomonas marina,
C. gracilis, Ceratium lineatum, Katodinium rotundatum, Oxytoxum variabile, and
A-44
-------
Prorocentrum micans were locally abundant, but rarely dominant during summer.
Maximum cell densities were observed in December, and minimum densities in
July (Malone, 1977). Major changes in species composition occur inshore to
offshore. Dominant coastal species are primarily chain-forming centric
diatoms (Smayda, 1973), which require relatively high concentrations of
nutrients to sustain high bloom populations and are subject to wide seasonal
variations in abundance and diversity. Of secondary importance in coastal
waters are the dinoflagellates and other flagellated groups. In contrast,
oceanic waters under some influence of the Gulf Stream carry a phytoplankton
community characterized by dominance of coccolithophorids, diatoms,
dinoflagellates, and other mixed flagellates (Hulburt et al., 1960; Hulburt,
1963), all of which require somewhat lower nutrients and are subject to
reduced or dampened seasonal variations in abundance.
Riley (1939) showed the vertical distribution of phytoplankton from a Slope
Water station adjacent to the Continental Shelf and a station near the outer
boundary (Figure A-16). The inner station is characteristic of Shelf Waters
having higher surface abundance (2.5 ug/liter chlorophyll a_) with the
phytoplankton disappearing at about 100 m depth. The outer Slope station
has relatively fewer surface phytoplankton (0.9 ug/liter chlorophyll a) but
cells are found at a greater depth (200 m). This illustrates the transition,
in terms of vertical abundance, between coastal and open ocean characteristics
within the Slope Water (Chenoweth, 1976b) . Mid-Atlantic Shelf Waters are
well-mixed during winter and strongly stratified during summer. This sharp
seasonal distinction is reflected in the seasonal changes in phytoplankton
abundance. During summer, diversity is high, while at other times, when
/
growth conditions are more favorable, diversity is lowered. In Slope Waters,
the seasonal cycle is characterized by two equally intense pulses of
chlorophyll - the spring and fall blooms (Yentsch, 1977). In Shelf Waters,
the fall bloom is the most intense feature of the seasonal cycle. Chlorophyll
concentrations vary regionally and seasonally from less than 0.5 mg/liter to
about 6 mg/liter (Smayda, 1973). The seasonal variations in mean chlorophyll
content for the inshore (less than 50 m depth) and offshore (greater than
1,000 m depth) stations are given in Figure A-17. The annual range in primary
production (Figure A-18) does not differ appreciably between inshore
A-45
-------
0
Chlorophyll a in
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7
I 1
h 100
V
"£
c
£• 200 -
o
300
Station 3532 (200 Km NNE of DWD-106)
Station 3528 (200 Km E of DWD-106)
Figure A--16. Vertical Distribution of Chlorophyll
Source: Riley, 1939
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
AVERAGE CHLOROPHYLL a /xg/l
^-INSHORE
-
—m r~
—
s?%
r
•X°° "'
^OFFSHORE
nn
SEP DEC FEB MAR APR JUL
1956 1956 1957 1957 1957 1957
Figure A-17.
Summary of the Average Chlorophyll a_ Concentrations at Inshore
(less than 50 m depth) and Offshore (greater than 1,000 m depth)
Sites in the Mid-Atlantic Bight
Sources: Ryther and Yentsch, 1958; Yentsch, 1963
A-46
-------
g CARBON/2/DAY
1.0
0.5
0
1.0
0.5
0
1.0
0.5
0
INSHI
<50
INTER!
" 100-
ORE
M
MEDIATE
200 M
OFFSHORE
" >1000 M
i r
~~!
— l
SEP DEC FEB MAR APR JUL
Figure A-18.
Summary of Mean Daily Primary Production per Square Meter
of Sea Surface at Inshore (less than 50 m depth),
Intermediate (100 to 200 m depth), and Offshore (greater
than 1,000 m depth) Sites in the Mid-Atlantic Bight
Source: Ryther and Yentsch, 1958; Yentsch, 1963
2 2
(0.20 to 0.85 g C/m /day) and offshore stations (0.10 to 1.10 g C/m /day)
(Ryther and Yentsch, 1958). However, the total annual production differs over
2
the Shelf and Slope, with an annual production of 160 g C/m at the inshore
2
stations (less than 50 m ) decreasing progressively seaward to 135 g C/m at
2
the intermediate locations (100 to 200 m depth), and 100 g C/m at the
offshore stations (greater than 1,000 m depth).
Ketchum et al. (1958a) indicated that the nutrient-impoverished offshore
areas (Slope Water) result in physiological differences between inshore and
offshore phytoplankton. Results of their light and dark bottle experiments
show differences in the ratio of net to gross photosynthesis; high ratios in
September and February indicated healthy, growing populations, whereas lower
ratios in December and March indicated less healthy populations. Geograph-
A-47
-------
ically, the low ratio of offshore populations indicated poorer physiological
conditons. Ketchum et al. (1958a) suggested that this variation of net gross
photosynthesis ratios may be the result of nutrient deficiencies, particularly
in the offshore waters.
The critical depth, the dep:h to which plants can be mixed and at which the
total photosynthesis for the water column is equal to total respiration (of
primary producers), accounts for the low total annual production in the
offshore waters. Although compensation depth and the critical depth for
mid-Atlantic waters are not precisely known, Yentsch (1977) estimates the
depths to exist between 25 and 40 m depth and at 150 m depth, respectively.
If this estimate is accurate, critical depths are not encountered on the
Shelf, since the average water depth is about 50 m. Beginning in fall,
extensive vertical mixing occurs with the cooling of surface waters and an
increase in wind velocity. Since Shelf Waters are mixed to the bottom during
fall and winter, the average plant cell within the water column receives
adequate light for production. In addition, the plants have access to the
nutrients dissolved within the entire water column, and, since production is
limited by light only, production can proceed at a moderately high level.
Concentrations of chlorophyll decrease during fall and winter, moving from
the Shelf to the Slope (Yentsch, 1977). As winter conditions intensify, Slope
chlorophyll concentrations become much lower than Shelf Water concentrations.
This is due to Slope Waters which are deep enough for critical depth
conditions to occur, since these waters are mixed to a depth of 200 m or more.
Therefore, although daily photosynthesis may equal or exceed that of Shelf
Waters (Ryther and Yentsch, 1958)., the average plant cell within the Slope
Water column does not receive sufficient light to grow, and production
proceeds at a low level.
In the spring, vertical mixing is impaired first in shallow waters and then
progessively seaward into deeper waters (Yentsch, 1977). Following the
development of the thermocline, there is a brief period of high production,
since cells above the thermocline are now exposed to much greater radiation.
Therefore, the spring bloom begins, and then is impaired, first on the Shelf
and, later, progressively seaward to the Slope. The spring bloom is of
A-48
-------
greater magnitude in Slope Waters than in Shelf Waters, since the nutrients
have not been depleted by growth during the winter. Oligotrophic conditions
prevail in Shelf and Slope Waters during the summer until the cooling and
mixing processes of fall destroy , the thermocline. The fall bloom occurs
during the transition from a stratified to a mixed water column.
ZOOPLANKTON
Zooplankton are the passively swimming animals of the water column and
contain members of nearly every phylum. Zooplankton represent the second
trophic level of the food chain, since the group is dominated by herbivorous
crustacea (copepods, euphausiids, amphipods, and decapods) which graze on the
phytoplankton. Zooplankton studies performed at the 106-Mile Site (Austin,
1975; Sherman et al., 1977; Harbison et al., 1977) have confirmed the variable
and transient nature of water masses in the area of the site. The composition
of the zooplankton population was found to be the result of mixing of the
Shelf, Slope, and Gulf Stream water masses. Even within areas for which the
water mass could be identified, Sherman et al. (1977) could not differentiate
species characteristic for the area. However, the contour of diversity
indices was such that a differentiation could be made between Shelf and Slope
Waters (Chenoweth, 1976c) . Copepod populations in Shelf Waters were dominated
by boreal assemblages characterized by high abundance and few species, while
the Slope Waters contained a mixture of subtropical and boreal assemblages
which resulted in lower abundance of individuals and a greater number of
species .
The seasonal zooplankton biomass range was 7.7 to 1,780 ml/1,000 m in
3
summer and 5.5 to 550 ml/1,000 m in winter. The displacement volumes are
comparable with the literature values for Shelf and Slope Waters. The
dominant zooplankton species found at or near the 106-Mile Site during various
seasons of the year are listed in Table A-ll. The most common copepod genera
are Centropages, Calanus, Oithona, Euaugaptilus, Rhincalanus, and Pleuromamma.
Centropages and Calanus predominate in the Shelf and also in areas where Shelf
Water intrusions occur in the Slope Water. Calanus is least abundant in the
offshore areas where water column stability suggests an oceanic origin.
A-49
-------
TABLE A-11
DOMINANT ZOOPLANKTON SPECIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE 106-MILE SITE
(NUMBER OF SAMPLES IN WHICH THE SPECIES COMPRISED 50% OR MORE
OF THE INDIVIDUALS OF THAT GROUP/NUMBER OF STATIONS SAMPLED)
Source: Austin, 1975.
GROUP
Cope pods
Euphausiids
Chaetognaths
Pteropods
SPECIES
Centropages spp.
C. typicus
Clausocalanus arcuicornis
Oithona similis
0. spinirostris
Pleuromamma boreal is
P. gracilis
Pseudocalanus ninut.us
Rhiricalanus cornutus
Temora longicornis
Euphausia americana
Meganyctiphanes norvegica
Nyctiphane couchii
Stylocheiron elongatum
Thysanoessa gregaria
Sagitta enflata
S. serratodentata
S . s pp .
Limacina helicina
L. retroversa
L. trochiformis
L. sp . (Juveniles)
Summer
1972
3/18
2/18
4/18
5/18
1/18
1/16
4/16
2/16
1/16
Winter
1973
4/16
5/16
1/17
4/17
4/17
Spring
1974
3/22
1/22
1/22
2/21
7/21
4/21
1/21
Winter
1976
2/22
1/22
10/22
1/22
2/21
2/21
3/21
3/21
Mixing of waters has been demonstrated by the presence of Gulf Stream Water in
the center of the disposal site study area, demonstrated by the abundance of
Rhincalanus, Euaugaptilus, Oithona, and Pleuromamma. A copepod common to deep
waters of the northwestern Atlantic, Euchirella rostrata, was found at all the
stations.
A-50
-------
The chaetognaths are dominated by Sagitta species and are most abundant
over the Shelf (greater then 23/m ) and least abundant beyond the Shelf break
(less than 10/m ). The euphausiids found at the 106-Mile Site are a mixture
of boreal-arctic and subtropical species which were dominated by Nyctiphanes
couchii, a cold-water form. Warm water species of the Euphausia and
Stylocheiron genera were also dominant. Pteropods were dominated by species
of Limacina.
Neuston organisms associated with the air-sea interface were sampled at the
disposal site during various seasons. The results are summarized in Table
A-12.
The zooplankton from Cape Cod to Hatteras have been studied more or less
continuously for the past 50 years; the stations studied are shown in Figure
A-19. However, results of many of these studies are not comparable due to the
use of different techniques for sampling and the varied ways of expressing
such parameters as abundance and biomass. Jeffries and Johnson (1973) point
out that most of the studies were, at best, of only a few years' duration.
Therefore, since few of the studies overlapped, the literature is sparse. The
data clearly show, however, that fluctuations occur not only in the total mass
of zooplankton, but in the abundance of some of the more common species.
The most striking feature of the mid-Atlantic zooplankton is the near-
complete dominance of calanoid copepods, both numerically and volumetrically
(Grice and Hart, 1962; Falk et al., 1974). Copepods also tend to show greater
diversity than any of the other zooplankton groups (Falk et al. , 1974). Nine
species of copepods have been found to dominate the zooplankton at various
times, viz., Centropages typicus, Metridia lucens, Paracalanus parvus,
Pseudocalanus minutus, Oithona similis, Acartia tonsa, Temora longicornis,
Clausocalanus furcatus, and Calanus finmarchicus. In addition, the ctenophore
Pleurobrachia pileus and the pelagic tunicate Salpa fusiformis occasionally
dominate.
A-51
-------
TABLE A-12
DOMINANT NEUSTON SPECIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE 106-MILE SITE
(NUMBER OF SAMPLES IN WHICH THE SPECIES COMPRISED 50% OR MORE
OF THE INDIVIDUALS OF THAT GROUP/NUMBER OF STATIONS SAMPLED).
Source: Austin, 1975.
GROUP
Cope pods
Euphausiids
Chaetognaths
Pteropods
SPECIES
Anomalocera patersoni
Calanus f intnarchicus
Candacia armata
Centropages typicus
Clausocalanus arcuicornis
Labidocera acut:.frons
Metridia lucens
Oithona similis
Pleuromamma gracilis
P. robusta
Rhincalanus nasutus
Eukrohnia hamata
Euphausia breviss
E. krohnii
E . spp .
Meganyctiphanes norvegica
Nematoscelis megalops
Nyctiphanes couchii
Stylocheiron robustum
Sagitta enflata
S. serratodentata
S . s pp .
Cavolina uncinaca
Creseis virgula conica
Limacina helicina
L. retroversa
L. sp. (Juveniles)
Summer
1972
3/18
1/18
5/18
1/18
4/18
1/13
7/13
1/13
1/13
1/13
Winter
1973
3/15
3/15
1/15
1/15
2/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
2/15
1/15
4/15
Spring
1974
4/12
5/12
1/12
1/12
Winter
1976
1/18
1/18
12/18
1/18
1/14
1/14
2/14
2/14
3/14
A-52
-------
70°
60°
40°
NEW YORK
BOSTON X CApE
COD
O CLARK (1940)
• GRICE & HART (1962)
• CIFELLI (1962, 1965)
--- ST. JOHN (1958)
A BOWMAN (1971)
• WATERMAN (1939)
A LEAVITT (1935, 1938)
O
•
BERMUDA
40°
70°
60°
Figure A-19. Station Locations of Major Zooplankton Studies in the
Northeastern Atlantic
Source: Chenoweth, 1976c.
The following information on the less abundant members of the zooplankton
was reported by Chenoweth (1976c):
Chaetognaths were the second most abundant numerically and
volumetrically in Grice and Hart's (1962) transect study. In
the four regions studied (shelf, slope, Gulf Stream, Sargasso
Sea), chaetognath concentrations were highest in the shelf
waters and lowest in the slope waters. The twelve species of
A-53
-------
chaetognaths found in the slope water were of three
distributional types: shelf species, Gulf Stream-Sargasso
Sea species, and endemic slope water species. Sagitta
elegans was the most abundant form in both the slope and
shelf water. The two species endemic to the slope water
(Sagitta 5_axinm and Eukrohni a hamata) were found at a number
of stations, mostly in March. They were cold-water forms
that have been reported at a number of cold, (approximately
7.4°C) deepwater slope areas along the East Coast. Grice and
Hart (1962) concluded that these species were indicative of
cold waters in general ,md slope waters in particular.
The foraminifera are more closely associated with the
hydrographic characteristics; of water masses than any other
zooplankton group and therefore, are often used as indicators
of water mass mixing. The faunal composition of foraminifera
included twenty recognizable species. The shelf and inner
slope was characteristically temperate throughout the year
and was dominated by species of Globigerina. Important
species were Globigerina bulloides, G^ pachyderma incompta,
G. inflata, and G_^ aff. quinqueloba. Towards the Gulf
Stream, the temperate fauna was gradually replaced by a
diverse southern group dominated by Globigerinoides ruber, G.
triloba, Globigerinella aequilateralis, Globorotalia
truncatuli, and Pulleaiatina obliquiloculata. The slope
water yielded the highest abundance of foraminifera all year
with the seasonal peak in the fall and the spring. The
poorest concentration was found in the summer.
Euphausiids were not an important part of the total
zooplankton collection of Grice and Hart, ranking fifth in
mean displacement volume. However, they were a relatively
important component in the slope waters (8.3 percent of the
zooplankton volume with an average numerical abundance of
2.2/m ). A succession of species indicated seasonal changes
in the euphausiid population. September and December
collections were characterized by a large number of diverse
forms. Of the eleven species recorded, 6 were most typical
of warmer Gulf Stream and Sargasso Sea water and indicated a
mixing of these warmer waters in the slope area (Euphausia
tenera, Stylocheiron abbreviatum, ^ affine, S^ carinatum, S_^
submii, and Nematoscelis microps). Two species were from
neritic waters (Meganyctiphanes norvegica and Thysanoessa
gregaria). Three species were practically endemic to the
slope area (Nematosce Lis aiegalops, Euphausia krohnii, and
Euphausia pseudogibba), N. megalops was found to be breeding
at most of the stations during March. The March and July
samples produced few species and lower abundance. In March,
the colder waters probably prevented the 6 warm-water species
from occurring, and in July, large collections of salps may
have affected euphausild abundance.
A-54
-------
Grice and Hart (1962) show that although the amphipods
represented relatively low volumes and numbers, they were
second only to the copepods in the number of species present.
The number of species increased seaward with 8 recorded for
the shelf, 15 for the slope water, 26 for the Gulf Stream,
and 46 for Sargasso Sea. They were, however, relatively more
abundant in the shelf waters than offshore. The most
frequently recurring shelf and slope species were Para-
themisto £ .^dichaudii and _P. gracil ipes. These were
seasonally augmented by the occurrence of Gulf Stream and
Sargasso Sea species.
Siphonophores were found to have more representation
offshore than inshore. Of the 30 species recorded by Grice
and Hart (1962), 17 were found in slope waters and only 4 in
shelf waters. Volumetrically, they were more important in
the Gulf Stream and Sargasso Sea. The molluscs are
represented pelagically by the pteropods and heteropods.
Grice and Hart (1962) reported 10 heteropod and 19 pteropod
species from their transect, with very few found in the
neritic environment. Of the cephalopods, squid larvae were a
widely-distributed group of the oceanic component. However,
their abundance never exceeded 6.2 per 1000 m^.
Early investigators found that certain species of zooplankton were
indicative of the continental region from which the samples were collected
(Bigelow and Sears, 1939; Clarke, 1940). Grant (1977), employing cluster
analysis, examined these indicator species and found that 3 distinct
communities are present throughout much of the year: a coastal community, a
central Shelf community, and a Slope boundary (oceanic) community. Grant
found that the coastal community is identified in all seasons except spring by
the great abundance of the copepod, Acartia tonsa. During spring, the coastal
community is characterized by the simultaneous occurrence of Centropages
hamatus and Tortanus discaudatus. Typical inhabitants of the central Shelf
community include Centropages typicus, Calanus finmarchicus, Sagitta elegans,
J3. tasmanica, Nannocalanus minor, and Parathemisto gaudichaudii. C. typicus
is the dominant organism, and, along with C. f inmarchicus and S. elegans, is
an indicator of this central Shelf community. A distinct faunal boundary
exists at the Shelf break (200-m contour), with the organisms occurring
offshore of this boundary being oceanic in nature. Useful indicators of this
offshore water type include Metridia lucens, Pleuromamina gracilis, Euphausia
krohnii, Meganyctiphanes norvegica, and Sagitta hexaptera. M, lucens has an
extended distribution over the Shelf during winter and spring, as does M.
A-55
-------
norvegica in spring (Grant 1977); however, other oceanic species are seldom
found more than 16 to 24 km inside the 200-m contour (Sears and Clarke, 1940).
Occasionally, Shelf Waters become temporarily "overridden" with an oceanic
species (i.e., Salpa fusiformis) which reproduces rapidly, but this is due to
local propagation and is not an indication of an unusually large mixture of
Slope Water with Shelf Water, since other oceanic species occur only as traces
(Sears and Clarke, 1940).
Although information is generally lacking, a preliminary description of the
zooplankton seasonal cycle can be given. Grice and Hart (1962) noted that
maximum displacement volume occurred in July (0.76 ml per m ) and a minimum
3
displacement in December (0,,04 ml/m ), a twenty-fold difference. Clarke
(1940) reported a ten-fold seasonal difference; however, Grice and Hart (1962)
considered their December values low because of a missing station and felt
3
that it should be closer to 10 ml/m , which would be comparable to Clarke's
value. The Shelf Water exhibited a much greater seasonal fluctuation (20- to
40-fold), whereas the Sargasso Sea volumes showed little seasonal variation.
Similarly, the numerical abundance of zooplankton varied seasonally in the
slope water but with lesser magnitude than neritic areas. Maximum average
3 . . . 3
values (571/m ) occurred in September and minimum values (36/m ) in July. The
3 3
March average (504/m ) was srnilar to that of the Shelf Waters (585/m ).
The available biomass data for the mid-Atlantic are summarized in Table
A-13. Grice and Hart (1962) determined that the mean zooplankton standing
crop in the Shelf Waters was about three times greater than in the Slope
Waters, wherein it was three to four times greater than that of Gulf Stream
and Sargasso Sea areas. If salps were included in the measurements, the Slope
zooplankton were four times less abundant than those of the Shelf and nine to
ten times more abundant than the zooplankton of the oceanic areas. This
compares with Clarke's (1940) estimates (salps included) of the Slope Water
zooplankton: four times less abundant than the Shelf zooplankton and four
times more than oceanic areas. Examination of the numerical abundance and the
displacement volumes of each taxonomic group indicates that this difference
between Shelf and Slope Waters is not due to the disappearance or decline of
any one group of organisms but apparently to the general reduction of
zooplankton in Slope Waters (Grice and Hart, 1962).
A-56
-------
TABLE A-13
ZOOPLANKTON BIOMASS IN THE MID-ATLANTIC
Region
Western North Atlantic
Coastal
Slope Water
(spring)
Slope Water
(summer)
Coastal
(yearly mean)
Offshore
(yearly mean)
Cape Cod-Chesapeake
Bay
Coastal
(summer)
(winter)
Continental Slope
38°-41° N (autumn)
New York-Bermuda
Coastal Water
(yearly means)
Slope Water
(yearly mean)
Displ. Vol.
ml/1000m3
8100
4300
540
400
700-800
400
328
1070
270
Wet wt .
/ 3
mg/m
430-1600
Net Mesh
mm
0.158
0.158
0.158
10 strands/cm
10 strands/cm
0.170
0.230
0.230
Depth Range
m
0-25
0-50
0-400
0-85
0-85
Variable
Variable
0-200
or less
0-200
0-200
Reference
Riley (1939)
Riley (1939)
Riley & Gorgy (1948)
Clarke (1940)
Clarke (1940)
Bigelow & Sears (1939)
Bigelow & Sears (1939)
Yashnov (1961)
Grice & Hart (1962)
Grice & Hart (1962)
Several authors have noted that the most productive area for zooplankton
seems to be near the edge of the Continental Shelf. The Grice and Hart (1962)
data show the most consistent peaks of either biomass or numbers to be at the
outer Shelf or inner Slope stations. During March, quantities for the inner
Slope exceed (in biomass and abundance) that of any other area. Riley et al.
(1949) also noted from their summary of existing data that the water at the
edge of the Shelf was unusually rich in zooplankton.
The published biomass and abundance relationships from coastal to oceanic
areas apply only to the surface zone since sampling in most surveys was at
A-57
-------
depths less than 275 m. Examinations of the vertical distribution and diurnal
migration of zooplankton in the Slope Waters indicates that significant
numbers of organisms reside below the surface zone (Leavitt, 1935, 1938;
Waterman et al., 1939). Leavitt's data show a series of peaks down to 2,000 m
depth - the largest occurring at 600 to 800 m depth. From these data it was
determined that between 40% and 90% of the animals were in depths less than
800 m; however, only one-half to one-fifth of the total volume occurred above
200 m depth. Waterman et al. (1939) determined that the malacostracan
Crustacea of the Slope Water migrated vertically from 200 to 600 m depth in
response to light stimuli. This implies that there are a large number of
zooplankton unaccounted for by the surface surveys. Leavitt (1938) concluded
that the deep water zooplankton maximum was not due to the occurrence of a
well-developed bathypelagic fauna, but was comprised of species such as
Calanus finmarchicus and Metridia longa, which are abundant in boreal surface
waters. He suggested that the deepest maximum resulted from the intrusion of
water masses which originated in shallow waters of higher latitudes.
The neuston (organisms associated with the air-sea interface) of the mid-
Atlantic comprise a unique faunal assemblage quite different from subsurface
populations. The neuston is dominated during the day by the early life stages
of fish, which are joined at night by the zoea and megalop stages of decapod
Crustacea, primarily Cancer sp., which migrate vertically into the neuston
(Grant, 1977). The euneustoi (organisms which spend their entire life cycle
in the surface layer) is usually less abundant than the "facultative" neuston
(organisms which spend only part of their life cycle in the surface layer).
The euneuston is dominated by pontellid copepods and the isopod Idotea
metallica.
NEKTON
Nekton are marine organisms (e.g., fish, cephalopods, and marine mammals)
which possess swimming abilities; sufficient to maintain their position and
move against local currents. Nekton can be subdivided into three groups:
micronekton, demersal nekton, and pelagic nekton. Micronekton consist of
weakly swimming nekton (e.g., mesopelagic fish and squid) which are commonly
collected in an Isaac-Kidd Midwater Trawl. Demersal nekton are the highly
A-58
-------
motile members of the nekton associated with the bottom, whereas pelagic
nekton inhabit the overlying waters. Nekton schools are highly mobile,
migrate over long distances, and have unknown depth ranges, thus information
on these organisms is limited and qualitative.
Investigations of midwater nekton at the 106-Mile Site by Krueger et al.
(1975, 1977) have shown the community to be dominated by micronekton,
gonostomatid, and myctophid fishes. During the day, most fishes are found at
considerable depths (greater than 200 m), while at night, large numbers of the
population migrate to the upper layers of the water column. During the day,
between 50% and 80% of the catch in the upper 800 m was composed of Cyclothone
species (family Gonostomatidae), while lanternfish (family Myctophidae) added
14% to 35%. Cyclothone species remain at depths greater than 200 m both day
and night, but lanternfish migrate upwards at night, at which time they
account for 95% of the catch in the upper 200 m. Above 800 m at night, the
proportion of the population of Cyclothone species decreases, with a
concomitant increase in the lanternfish portion, probably as a result of
lanternfish migrating from below 800 m and becoming more easily caught at
night. An estimated 20% of the population of lanternfish migrate from below
400 m during the day to the upper 200 m at night; one-third to two-thirds of
these reach the upper 100 m (Krueger et al., 1977).
Most of the Cyclothone catch at the 106-Mile Site was attributable to £.
microdon and C. braueri, the first and third most abundant species for all
areas and seasons. C. microdon is most abundant below 500 m, whereas C^.
braueri predominates above 600 m. Both species appear to occur generally
shallower in winter than in summer. Of the 50 species of lanternfish
captured, only four were abundant. Krueger et al. (1977) reported Cerato-
scopelus maderensis as the second most abundant species overall, but only by
virtue of a single extremely large sample. Otherwise, this species was only
moderately abundant during winter, and rare or absent during summer. Hygophum
hygomi and Lobianchia dofleini were moderately abundant during summer but were
virtually absent during winter. Adult Benthosema glaciale were abundant
during winter, but during summer, the species was only moderately abundant and
composed primarily of juveniles. Cyclothone and lanternfish contributed
between 25% and 70% of the total biomass in the upper 800 m depending upon
A-59
-------
area and diel period. Therefore, small numbers of larger species contribute
greatly to the total fish biomass. Krueger et al. (1977) found that the
larger fish inhabit depths greater than 300 m and speculated that these fish
can concentrate toxic materials as a result of feeding on smaller fishes and
larger zooplankton. Only five species, Benthosema glaciale, Lepidophanes
guentheri, Cyclothone pallida, C_. braueri, and C_. microdon, were taken in all
areas and seasons.
Krueger et al. (1977) concluded that the 106-Mile Site, in summer and
winter, was characterized by a Slope Water fish fauna, upon which a Northern
Sargasso Sea fauna, presumably transported to the disposal site by warm-core
eddies, was superimposed. The Sargasso Sea species which were present in
summer were less abundant in winter, suggesting that their presence and
abundance are dependent upon eddy size, age, and/or core temperature.
The most common pelagic nekton in the 106-Mile Site include tunas, bluefin
(Thunnus thynnus) , yellowfin (T. albacares), big eye (T. obesus), and albacore
(T_. alalunga), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), lancetfish (Alepisaurus spp.),
blue shark (Prionace glauca), mako shark (isurus oxyrinchus), and dusky shark
(Carcharhinus obscurus). All of these species are seasonal migrants north of
Cape Hatteras and prey upon a variety of organisms (Casey and Hoenig, 1977).
Approximately 50% and 30% oE the tuna diet consist of fish and cephalopods,
respectively. Crustaceans £.nd miscellaneous organisms comprise the remainder
of their diet. Swordfish feed on surface fish (e.g., menhaden, mackerel, and
herring) and a variety of deepwater fish and cephalopods. Lancetfish feed on
small fish and zooplankton. The blue and mako sharks feed mostly on small
fish and cephalopods, while other sharks feed mainly on teleosts.
A considerable amount of information is available for mid-Atlantic nekton.
The dominant micronekton groups are the (1) mesopelagic fish - myctophids,
gonostomatids, sternoptychids; (2) crustaceans - penaeid and caridean shrimps,
euphausiids, mysids; (3) cephalopods; and (4) coelenterates - medusae and
siphonophores. These organisms form one of the major links in the pelagic
food chain, since they provide forage for the animals of higher trophic
levels. The mesopelagic f:^sh occur in large schools which are continually
changing depths. Characteristically, these fish are in the surface layers at
A-60
-------
night and at great depths (1,200 meters) during the day. The general faunal
composition of mesopelagic fishes in the Western North Atlantic consist of a
few abundant and many rare species (Backus, 1970). Dominant, in terms of
numbers of species and individuals, are the fishes from the families
Myctophidae and Gonostomatidae.
The long-finned squid (Loligo pealei) and the short-finned squid (Illex
illecebrosus) are two of the most abundant cephalopod species found in the
mid-Atlantic. The former belongs to the family Loliginidae, which are
primarily Continental Shelf species, and the latter is a member of the family,
Ommastrephidae, which are oceanic squids. The long-finned squid migrates into
shallow water in April to spawn. In October and November, as temperatures
decrease in inshore areas, the long-finned squid moves offshore to the edge of
the Continental Shelf. The short-finned squid spends January through April in
rather dense aggregations along the outer Continental Shelf and Slope where
the water temperatures are relatively warm. In the spring (April to May),
when Shelf Waters begin warming, short-finned squid migrate shoreward. During
the summer, fall, and early winter, they are widespread throughout the entire
mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf. In November and December, they begin moving
to deeper, warmer, offshore waters. Short-finned squid range throughout the
water column to depths of at least 700 m.
The pelagic nekton include the large, oceanic fishes which are representa-
tives of the family Scombridae (mackerels and tunas), Xiphiidae (swordfish),
and Istiophoridae (marlins and sailfishes). The bluefin tuna (Thunnus
thynnus) and the white marlin (Tetrapterus albidus) are the dominant species
in the slope waters of the mid-Atlantic (Chenoweth et al., 1976a). Other
common species include the swordfish (Xiphias gladius), albacore (Thunnus
alalunga), and the skipjack tuna (Euthynnus pelamis).
The bluefin tuna is a highly migratory species which inhabits the waters of
the New York Bight during critical periods of its life cycle. Giant bluefin
(over 125 kg) pass northward annually through the Straits of Florida in May
and June during or just after spawning. They follow the Gulf Stream northward
and usually appear in mid-Atlantic Shelf Waters in June and July. Medium
sizes (35 to 125 kg), which are believed to have spawned in the mid-Atlantic,
A-61
-------
normally move inshore in June. All sizes have historically left these inshore
feeding areas with the arrival of autumn storms. In winter, the species has
generally been taken only oy long-line fisheries over wide areas of the North
Atlantic.
The movement of the white marlin follows a pattern similar to that of
tuna, in that they move up the Florida current and Gulf Stream, into the
mid-Atlantic Shelf and Slope Waters in the summer, and then return to the
Lesser Antilles through the open ocean in the fall. The greatest summer
abundance occurs off the New Jersey to Maryland coasts to about 1,800 m
(Chenoweth et al., 1976a) , These fish enter the area from the south about
June and July, concentrate in the area during August, and then move directly
offshore in September and October. The concentration of white marlin in
summer is probably related to feeding habits, since spawning occurs in the
Caribbean.
Swordfish range along the Shelf and Slope Waters of the mid-Atlantic coast
during the summer months. In winter, the fish are confined to the waters of
the Gulf Stream where surface temperatures exceed 15°C. In warmer months,
they range over a much wider area by following the northern movement of the
15°C isotherm. Several components of the swordfish population are related to
temperature. Females and larger, older individuals seem better able to
tolerate cooler waters than males or small individuals. Swordfish populations
at the edge of the Continental Shelf are, therefore, likely to consist
primarily of large females.
The cetaceans (whales and dolphins) are wide-ranging marine mammals which
transit mid-Atlantic Slope Waters. Data are sparse on species found in the
Slope Water and the role that this region plays in their life history. The
species of cetaceans found in the mid-Atlantic, with their range, distri-
bution, and estimated abundance are summarized in Table A-14. From the data
available on cetaceans in offshore waters, it appears that the Slope Waters
serve as a migratory route between northern summering grounds and southern
wintering grounds (Chenoweth et al., 1976). The proximity of rich feeding
grounds along a north-south migration route would make the Slope Waters an
extremely attractive region to the cetaceans. The 200-m isobath appears to be
the inshore boundary for the distribution of some of the larger species.
A-62
-------
TABLE A-14
WESTERN ATLANTIC CETACEANS
Fami ly
Balaenidae*
Balaenopteridae
Balaenopteridae
Balaenoptendae*
BalaenopteriHae
Balaenopteridae
Delphinidae
Common
Name(s)
Right
wha 1 e
Blue
whale
Se1
whale
Finback
whale
Minke
whale
Humpback
whale
Killer
whale
Species Name
Eubalaena
alacialis
Balaeno^tera
musculus
Balaenoptera
boreal is
Balaenoptera
physalus
Balaenoptera
acutorostra-
_ta
Meaaptera
novaeanaliae
Orcinus
orca
Western Atlantic
Range and
Distribution
New Enoland to Gulf
of Si. Lawrence;
Possibly found as
far south as Flori-
da
Gulf of St. Lawrence
to Davis Strait:
routinely sighted
on banks fringing
outer Gulf of Maine;
Population much
reduced from origi-
nal number of about
1,100 in western N.
Atlantic
New England to
Arctic Ocean
Population centered
between 41°21 'N and
57°00'N and from
coast to 2000 m con-
tour
Chesapeake Bay to
Baffin Island in
summer, eastern Gulf
of Mexico, north-
east Florida and
Bahamas in winter
Common near land
but can be found
in deep ocean
Tropics to Green-
land, Spitzbergen
Baffin Bay
Habitat
Pelanic and
coastal; not
normally in-
shore
Pelagic,
deep ocean;
however oc-
casional ly
approaches
land in deep
water regions,
e.g. the
Laurentian
Channel of the
St. Lawrence
River
Pelagic,
does not
usually
approach
coast
Pelagic
but enter
bays and
inshore
waters in
late sum-
mer
Pelagic, but
may stay
nearer to
shore than
other rorquals
(except hump-
back)
Approaches
land more
closely and
commonly than
other large
whales; also
found in deep
ocean
Mainly pela-
gic and
oceanic, how-
ever they do
commonly
approach
coast
Estimated
Abundance in
Western North
Atlantic
200-1000
Generally not
common; some
sightings ex-
pected in off-
shore regions;
no estimates.
1,570 off Nova
Scotia
7,200
No estimates
800 - 1,500
No estimates ap-
parently not seen
as commonly as in
more northerly
areas
A-63
-------
TABLE A-14. (continued)
Fami ly
Delphinidae
Oelphinidae
Delphinidae
Delphinidae
Physeteridae*
Physeteridae
Ziphiidae
Ziphiidae
Ziphi idae
Common
Name
Saddleback
dolphin
Atlantic
Pilot
whale
Bottle-
nosed
dolphin
Grampus;
Grey
grampus,
Risso's
dolphin
Sperm
whale
P/qmy
sperr>
whale
Bottle-
nosed
whale
True's
beaked
whale
Dense-
beaked
whale
Specie; Name
Delphinis
del phis
Globicephala
melaena
Tursicps
truncatus
Grampus
nriseus
Physe;:er
catadon
Kooia
breviceps
Hyperoodon
ampul latus
Mesoplodon
mirus
Mesoplodon
densirostris
Western Atlantic
Range and
Distribution
Caribbean Sea to
Newfoundland; very
wide rangino; may be
most widespread and
abundant delphinid
in world
New York to Green-
land; Especially
common in Newfound-
land
Argentina to Green-
land, but most
connon from Florida,
West Indies, &
Caribbean to New
England
Ranges south from
Massachusetts
Equator to 50°N
(females & juve-
ni les) or Davis
Strait (males).
Tropics to Nova
Scotia
Rhode Island to
Davis Strait
Northern Florida to
Nova Scotia
Tropics to Nova
Scotia
Habitat
Seldom found
inside 100 m
contour, but
does frequent
seamounts.
escarpments ,
and other off
shore features
Pelagic
(winter) &
coastal
(summer)
Usually
close to
shore &
near
islands ;
enters bays
lanoons,
rivers
Coastal
waters; ha-
bitat poor-
ly known
Pelagic,
deep
ocean
Pelagic in
warm ocean
waters
Pelagic;
cold tem-
perate and
subarctic
waters
Nothing
;s known
Probably
oelagic in
tropical and
warm waters
Estimated
Abundance in
Western North
Atlantic
Poorly known; pro-
bably more common
than available re-
cords indicate;
may be more
common in Mass-
achusetts Bay
no estimates
No estimates;
Most common
whale seen in
Cape Cod Bay;
Schools of up
to 300 on
Georges Bank
Rare, especially
in inshore re-
gions; no esti-
mates
Uncommon, but
possibly not rare;
no estimates
Estimated 22,000
inhabit North
Atlantic Ocean
Very rare; only
one record
Poorly known; be-
tween 260-700
taken annually in
North Atlantic
Ocean, 1968-70
Extremely rare;
poorly known
Extremely rare:
stray visitor
* Endangered Species
Source: From Chenoweth et al., 1976a.
A-64
-------
Five species of sea turtles are known to be associated with mid-Atlantic
coastal and Slope Waters (Table A-15). Three of the species (hawksbill,
leatherback, and Atlantic ridley) are endangered, and the remaining two (green
and loggerhead) are expected to soon be classified as endangered. Leather-
>
backs (Dermochelvy coriacea), loggerheads (Caretta caretta), ridleys
(Lepidochelys kempi), and green turtles (Chelonia mydas) are regular migrants
in East Coast waters, usually most numerous from July through October, at
which time, the turtles follow their primary food (jellyfish) inshore. The
exact migration route used by these organisms is not known.
The main components of the demersal nekton are flatfish (flounders,
halibut, plaice, and sole), cartilaginous fishes (skates, rays, and
torpedoes), and "roundfish" (cod, haddock, hake, and cusk). The diet of these
groups consists mainly of bottom-dwelling animals (e.g., crustaceans,
mollusks, echinoderms, and worms) although a number of the groundfish are
predaceous on other fish and shrimp. Spawning activity occurs generally near
the bottom, but in some cases the eggs, and in many instances the larvae, are
pelagic.
Markle and Musick (1974) found 29 species and 17 families of benthic fishes
in the Slope Waters of the region between Nantucket and Cape Hatteras. The
dominant demersal fish in the mid-Atlantic were reported to be the synapho-
branchid eel (Synaphobranchus kaupi), the macrourids (Mezumia spp.), the
long-finned hake (Phycis chesteri), and the flatfish (Glyptocephalus
cynoglossus). Schroeder (1955) reported that numbers and weights of fish
caught increased between 400 and 1,000 m depth. Slope levels below 1,000 m
were regions of reduced abundance, biomass, and diversity, with the 1,000-m
isobath being the point at which a significant change occurs. The most
significant species of demersal fish found in Slope Waters, and the average
abundance, are listed in Table A-16. Generally, the deeper-water forms (e.g.,
the macrourids [grenadiers], offshore hakes, batfish, and stomiatoids) are
found in low quantities scattered throughout the area. These species are
probably never as abundant as the shallower water forms which are found in the
upper Slope levels.
A-65
-------
I/l
ai
u
I
3
H
Z
5S
o
M
Ai§
w
pQ pg
H S
H
»-^
S
u
o
e
<
o
z
u
Q
W
Z
u
H
S
H
OI
c
•r-
r~~
U
o>
a
S-
o
^4—
c:
o
OI
rO
OI
Cf.
4-3
15
i-
£7
O
"J
5H
-;
I/I
QJ
•r—
O
OI
Ci
'J~l
E-
'O
^^
c
o
i^
[—
0
tj
^J
OI
4-1
•f—
o
1-~
a.
X
O'
>^
r—
•r—
>
ra
OJ
-C
c
-o
O)
(— I
c
ex
O)
O)
r—
r—
OJ
JC
(/i
i.
0
l+-
>^
.O
L.
OI
4—1
C
o-
3
rO
'—
to
OJ
£
0
to
>^
r—
r~
cn
•^
I/I
CD
cn
OI
~
c
OI
OJ
-C
I/I
r—
"*-
»•
U
r-
Cn
rO
r—
OI
to
'CJ
c
C 3
00 >,
!- JD
C 01
O C
•i- cn o
4-1 C -i-
U -I- 4-1
OJ 'O ra
^— OJ Cl
r™* OI OJ
0 t. S-
U Q Q.
>(
-C i —
C 1/1 4—*
o o •— t:
r- 't- O)
t/> O> >s 3
OI .— — OJ
oi oj 01 s—
" <"" Q.**- CL '-^ t4~
^
OJ
<^
c
• r -
OI
t-
ro
S..
•«
VI
t-
OI
L-l
tl
2
- —
13
'_J
• r~
a.
o
i.
i/i
^
OJ
-C
'j
o
~
4-1
OJ
i.
UJ
r—
r—
M C
r- c: to uj
!- ra •>-
i. — a 2
13 4-> C OI
LJ <: tj z
>•
, —
OI
r*
(_)
0
JW
OJ
0
u
13
O
S_
01
-C
13
OI
— 1
+
•a
O)
4-1
rO
•r—
u
o
to
I/I
ro
^x
—
O)
to
o
r—
( 1
*
C
£?
5
4-1
a
13
(O
OI
(J
ra
• r»
S_
O
U
OJ
4-1
i.
3
4-}
i
t_
cn 0)
= e
•' — cr
S- 3
3 tl
T3
to
to i-
!- 01
OJ +-1
4-1 ra
•o ~s
2
T3
OI C
Q C 03
O 0 —
i — >f— C'
tT 4-1 C
fTJ ' jlj
JT S-
4-> en 2
•r- r- OI
2 E ^:
OJ
tl
0
u
OJ
-C
s~
OI
01
C7^
o
— i
*
-^j
c
"3
to
C
0
0
u
13
l-
c:
. —
^
O)
4-1
C
cn
.,_
(A
C-J
•T—
4-1
C
ro
4-1
«r£
OI
4-1
13
i_
cn
•r-
^*_
•
C
C^
5
4-1
3
'O
4-1
4-1
O)
i-
ro
•J
OJ
f^
4-1
i-
73
4-1
to
O)
•*- -C r—
O O rtj
Cn C O) to 4-» O
CT O _Q ro C
1) •<- O OI C
*-> Cn U E 0
- u c a •!-
OI 3 -r- O O *->
. — <_ T3 +J i — O
a. +-> 01 01 3
o to OJ oi > ~o
oi oi s- 3 oj 01
o_ ~o .n TD ^o ^.
r
1/1 1
t. r— | tl
O' 13 i- ^
4-1 I- flj 2
13 O -C 13 OJ
2 4J 4_! c Q.
4-1 ro O
_ r , r_, rtj ( ^^
ra i — i — O i/)
4-J
n oi c .^ - — a.
ra i- 13 O i — OI
O O J= ra r- OJ
0 E 4-1 .0 .0 T3
2
OI
O Z
to C
ro •*—
Cn
S- C
13 OJ
VI OJ
r- (f>
0 >,
i. , —
'4- r-
•-^ 13
O C
4-J 0
• t—
t~> to
to 13
ra T3 O
O OI !_>
LJ C/l O
ra
*^-
c:
o
f—
OI
-C
0
c
o
OJ
s»
C3
*
to
"U
c:
o
i.
cn
cn
C
• r—
-a
0)
OJ
^
c
OJ
01
2
OJ
jQ
!/>
O)
4-1
rO
2
.
i-
Oi
< —
to
c
to
^.
OJ
4-J
ro
2
~CI
C
^~
cn
c
UJ
to
13
-a
^
~~
OI
r—
4—1
s_
33
-fJ
C
O
^— "^J
ro OI
•i~ C S-
O O O)
S- -i- T3
QJ 4-J C
£ fD H3
C "^ ^~~
0 -r- 0-
o o
I tO
-a o- cn
CX cn
ra OI OJ
to
-a
C r—
i — 3 ro
E ro O i-
ro t- I- 0
Oi O cn 4-1
i- 4-1 4-1
4-1 4-> cn .f-
oo •<- c: i —
r— .r_
^+— "O cu
c — "O O) S-
3 c: O) o
C3 ro >+- E
cn
c
• r— .
OJ S-
i- 3
13 "O
Oi
tr,
• O O)
tO 0 4-1
C ra
ro OI 2
OI CU
U ro T3
O O C
ro
. — H_ ^«
13 O CD
(J C
•i— -C LU
CL4->
0 i- 2
i- O O)
Z
ui
OJ
f~
(-)
o
•^1
• f—
Q.
OI
"*
^J
•f—
4_)
C
03
r— "
4->
^^
+
to
OJ
(J
ro
O)
CD
c
• ^
T3
ai
01
-^
i
s-
01
-C
4-1
ro
OI
C
ro
-C
4-J
~
O
-
T3
OI
to
o
CL
O
O.
A-66
-------
Water over the mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf contains few permanent
residents. The fish fauna is composed primarily of continuously shifting
populations which move north, many into the Gulf of Maine, during the warm
months, and retreat south during the cold months (Larsen and Chenoweth, 1976).
During the spring, along the Shelf edge and upper Slope, the weight and
numbers of fishes are far greater than in the fall. This is particularly true
of highly migratory forms such as silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis), spiny
dogfish (Squalus acanthias), and red hake (Urophycis tenuis). The overall
average of numbers of fish caught and their catch weight in the spring were
684 and 819 kg, respectively, in contrast to 374 and 140 kg in the fall.
BENTHOS
The benthos of the 106-Mile Site exists at abyssal depths on the lower
mid-Atlantic Continental Slope and Rise. Research on the Slope faunal
assemblages was begun only recently, and has centered around the contributions
of comparatively few investigators. This accounts for the sparse amount of
data with respect to Continental Slope benthic populations, particularly at
the 106-Mile Site. There is substantial evidence, however, that the major
components of faunal assemblages at various Slope depths do not change
significantly throughout the mid-Atlantic and neighboring areas (Larsen and
Chenoweth, 1976; Rowe et al. , 1977; Pearce et al. , 1977a) . Thus, it is
possible to use faunal data from adjacent areas in order to enhance the data
and interpretations associated with the disposal site fauna.
Variations in sediment types are generally recognized as primary factors
which influence benthic faunal distributions on the mid-Atlantic Shelf. These
factors, however, are of doubtful importance in influencing benthic faunal
distributions in the 106-Mile Site Slope area, due to minimal sediment
variations within similar areas (Rowe and Menzies, 1969). Temperature can be
discounted as an important factor since no seasonal changes or variations with
depth occur below 1,000 m (Larsen and Chenoweth, 1976; Rowe and Menzies,
1969). It has not been determined to what extent species interaction within
the site determines faunal composition and zonation, but competitive exclusion
may be a critical factor (Sanders and Messier, 1969).
A-67
-------
u
QJ
0.
O
C/)
Shelf Break
00
c
o.
CO
£
C
-H
^
o.
CO
CO
ra
en
0)
• H
O
0.
CO
"oo
.u
3
O
z ^
00
— ' « — t ' — * ' — t <3~ CM •- H cO <—t -$"
<—< -— I CN
CN LO LO LO •— i ^O
i~H i — 1
"~~~--^"--
•— \D CO
CM -— i
3 CO O
W 3 -r-l -H
CO >-l f— 1 -H
O OJ -r-l N
«•' CO r-t 4_t 4-1 -H
•H 3 GO a. g i-. u
r-i X3OOw3QJ(0
TO: 4_t en C •— < 3 4-iCX co
Q.' en C3>\>~»n cow t>0
C COCOCOCU4-I-H -HQJ CO
•r-i co -r^3cjco o—i C>-
•H 3 4-lrQ-H'H3rOV4 E Du3
-Ci J3 C g ^ j_, ,— » eg wwg
O COOAJQJCOUIO G3 i— i
cri « OO SX3 co O •— i to co
^I3wtoc0(0 coco O« C to C • H CQ 3 pfl
•HTJ-H-H 3 cyQJ3cOrOrGO4-i
O'H O 3 CO t-( 4_t 01 O i—l 4-1 r— 1 CD O--H P,
3i—lrC QJr-IJ3 C -H 4-1 OC > to O O *-!
^— I crj &, 4-1 CO p Oj2 Cli-H O OJ-H O V-i O
I-' O 301-tCXX^-i-r-l JnO3-— i
a> . j-i -crooot-iQJi-i -cubOcoj^
CO
-H
XT 4-1 c
•H (U JD -r-t -H
i-M pi O i"i J)
OJ l-i OS O O
CO 4-J £-14 J_IJ_. OO4J-I-I QM-IJ-i QJ
r- < 4-1 "O-i-lT-l O 4-1 QJ 4J CO M )-l S4-J *$ &
•HUH OJ.C CXcO 3 e-r-lr-i O4-J ^4 co cu l-t
t/) O Pti 3 tO ^ eQ «^ ^S CQ SZ CO ^ CQ CU O
A-68
-------
Deep-sea nutrition is probably the most important factor which influences
benthic faunal distributions in the site vicinity. Larsen and Chenoweth
(1976) hypothesize that the lower levels of available organic carbon at
greater depths are key factors which determine faunal biomass and density in
the deep benthos. The importance of competitive exclusion relates directly to
the abundance and distribution of nutrients.
Food materials consumed by the benthic fauna of the 106-Mile Site, the
associated food sources, and transport mechanisms are incompletely known.
Several dominant species of fish in the site are known to feed only upon
epibenthic and infaunal invertebrates, whereas other fish feed primarily on
pelagic items (Cohen and Pawson, 1977; Musick et al., 1975). Most of these
pelagic items were diurnal migrants, which correlated with the views of
Sanders and Hessler (1969) with respect to the importance of these migrants in
efficient transport of food from the euphotic zone to deeper layers. The
majority of fish at the site are probably generalized feeders, since this is
characteristic of the fish inhabiting greater depths (Haedrich et al. , 1975)
and many generalized feeding fish have been found at the site (Musick et al.,
1975).
The dominant epibenthic and infaunal invertebrates of the site are deposit
feeders whose abundance and distribution would depend upon the availability of
detrital food items (Jones and Haedrich, 1977; Pearce, 1974). It is generally
recognized that the food supply of the benthos originates from shallower
areas, particularly the euphotic zone (Sanders and Hessler, 1969), but the
primary mechanism by which the food is transported to the deeper layers is
uncertain. The most important mechanism transporting detritus to the benthos
of the site is probably the passive sinking of potential food items.
Turbidity currents may also play some part, but their role has been discounted
(Sanders and Hessler, 1969).
Many authors have recognized distinct quantitative and qualitative zones of
distribution for the benthic fauna of mid-Atlantic Continental Slope areas.
The number and demarcation of zones may vary between authors, but they all
center their zones on an axis horizontal or vertical to the Slope. Cohen and
Pawson (1977) describe a horizontal distribution pattern of benthic fish and
A-69
-------
invertebrates in the site. They observed great variance in the abundance of
the four most common epibenthic invertebrates from one site region to the
next, but were hesitant to label this distribution as patchy.
Vertical distributions are more commonly recognized in the site, the
general trend being one of decreasing numbers of taxa and individuals with
increasing depth (Cohen and Pawson, 1977; Pearce et al., 1977a; Musick et al.,
1975). This trend is typical for Slope and deep-sea areas (Haedrich et al. ,
1975; Rowe and Menzies, 1969; MacDonald, 1975). Musick et al. (1975)
recognize the Shelf-Slope break above the site as an area of increased
diversity, species richness, arid biomass of benthic fish populations. This
pattern remained stable down to the 2,200 m depth of the site, where it
rapidly declined. Haedrich et al. (1975) also recognized these two zones in
an area northeast of the site.
Surveys of the benthos in the site have found no species of present
commercial importance and only a few of potential importance. The shellfish
commonly harvested on the adjacent Shelf, including the surf clam, sea
scallop, and southern quahog, do not extend their range onto the Continental
Slope. The lobster, presently fished in canyon and Shelf areas above the
site, is not found in thevsite (Pratt, 1973). The red crab, Geryon
quinquidens, is a potential commercial species of the mid-Atlantic but is
found only in Slope areas shallower than the site (Musick et al., 1975; Pratt,
1973).
No demersal fishes of commercial importance are presently being harvested
from the site vicinity, and only a few potential species have been found
there. Two dominant site species, Coryphaenoides cupestris and Alepocephalus
agassizii, have been harvested experimentally by the Russian and British
fishing industries from areas outside the site. Waters containing the site
serve as a nursing ground for Glyptocephalus cynoglossus, the adults of which
support a fishery elsewhere (Musick et al., 1975).
Musick et al. (1975) reported 48 species of demersal fishes from 12 trawl
stations in and around the 106-Mile Site. They described the diversity of the
fish community as being higher than that of estuarine and Shelf communities.
A-70
-------
The dominant species of fishes were different at each deeper station within
the site: Synaphobranchus kaupi at shallower depths, Nezumia bairdii and
Antimora rostrata at mid-depths, and predominantly Coryphaenoides armatus at
the deepest stations. At increasing depths, the smaller species decreased in
number and the larger species increased in number. This resulted in the
steady level of biomass observed throughout the site, as mentioned above, but
with an increasingly smaller number of fish comprising the biomass at each
depth.
Cohen and Pawson (1977) observed 55 species of fishes during 9 dives in the
deep sea research vessel (DSRV) ALVIN. They described the overall distribu-
tion as patchy and noted that most of the species were rarely encountered.
The six most common fishes included two of the dominant species in the above
study: the eel, Synaphobranchus kaupi, and the morid, Antimora rostrata. The
other four species were the rattails, Nematonurus armatus and Lionurus
carapinus, the halosaur, Halosauropsis macrochir, and the lizard fish,
Bathysaurus ferox. Densities of fishes in two depth zones were estimated by
counting fish along six transects. There was a relative abundance of fish,
showing patchy distribution, from 1,720 to 1,819 m depth. The range of
2
densities for this depth zone was 5.7 to 32.8 fishes per 1,000 m . The
density from 2,417 to 2,545 m depth was lower, ranging from 1.83 fishes per
2
1,000 m , and the fishes were distributed more evenly. The dominant species
listed above are common dominants of the mid-Atlantic (Larsen and Chenoweth,
1976).
The epibenthic invertebrates of the 106-Mile Site have been described in
two studies, by Cohen and Pawson (1977) and Rowe et al. (1977), both of which
are based on visual and photographic observations from the DSRV ALVIN. These
studies were limited by the observers' abilities to detect epibenthic
invertebrates from the vantage point of the ALVIN'S viewports and in
photographs. Animals which avoid submersible vehicles will be consistently
missed by both methods. This is assumably what caused the "selectivity" of
the former study; Cohen and Pawson do not indicate if other detectable
invertebrates were selectively omitted from the report. Although it is
A-71
-------
unknown how many species may be missing, the reported results most likely
include all the dominant species and major contributors to the total biomass
of epibenthic invertebrates in the site.
According to Cohen and Pawson (1977), the four most abundant invertebrates
2
in decreasing order, and peak densities per 1,000 m , were Ophiomusium
(brittle star), 2,445; Cerianthus sp. (tube anemone), 813; Echinus affinus
(sea urchin) 259; and Euphronides (holothurian) , 101. Rowe et al. (1977)
reported identical results for numerical dominance with the exception of the
substitution of Phormosoma placenta (sea urchin) for Euphronides. The average
2 2
number of species was 2.36/m , ranging from 0.25 to 5.15/m . In studies of
similar areas to the north of the site (Jones and Haedrich, 1977; Haedrich et
al., 1975), OphiomusLum was consistently found to be the most numerically
abundant species, with Echinus affinus as a major contributor. The major
contributor to the biomass in each study was always one of the numerically
dominant species common to each site,,
It may be concluded, therefore, that there is little difference between the
major epibenthic invertebrate faunal components of the site and those of other
mid-Atlantic Continental Slope areas of similar depth (Jones and Haedrich,
1977; Haedrich et al „ , 1975). Echinoderms are generally the most important
faunal component of these areas.
The macroinfauna collected at or near the 106-Mile Site is presented in
Table A-17. The species are considered to be typical for the mid-Atlantic
Slope region (Pearce et al. , 1977a). Diversity and density of infauna
decrease with increasing depth and distance offshore. Polychaetes are the
*
dominant species, followed by bivalves, nematodes, and peracarids. Pearce et
al. (1977a) reported ci range of densities for 22 stations in the site vicinity
2 2
of 0 to 119 organisms/0.1 m . The number of taxa ranged from 0 to 34/0.1 m .
*Polychaetes and nematodes were common at all depths sampled, while peracarids
and molluscs generally occurred shallower than 768 m.
A-72
-------
Infauna data indicate that there are no significant differences in the
species richness or abundance between the 106-Mile Site and control stations
(Pearce et al., 1977a).
TABLE A-17
BENTHIC INFAUNA COLLECTED AT OR NEAR THE 106-MILE
TAXON
Anthozoa
Pennatulacea
Rhynchocoela
Nematoda
Oligochaeta
Polychaeta
Notomastus latericius
Heteromastus filiformis
Ampharete arctica
Ampharete sp. #1
Aricidea albatrossae
Aricidea sp. #1
Paraonis gracilis
Paraonis cornatus
Paraonis abranchiata
Paraonis sp. #1
Syllis (Langerhansia) #1
Polynoidae
Antinoella sarsi
Stenolepis tetragona
Orbiniidae
Phylo michaelseni
Ancistrosyllis groenlandica
Ancistrosyllis sp.
Glycera capitata
Goniada maculata
Poraxillella gracilis
Asychis biceps
Axiothella sp. #1
Leichone dispar
Paramphinome jeffreysii
Lumbrineris tetraura
Lumbrineris sp.
Armandia sp.
TAXON
Polychaeta (cont.)
Onuphis (Nothia) sp. #1
Drilonereis longa
Amaena trilobata
Polycirrus sp.ffl
Sabellidae #1
Tharyx sp. #1
Spiophanes wigleyi
Nicon sp. #1
Cossura longocirrata
Ownenia fusiformis
Myriochele danielsseni
Sipuncula
Goldfingia flagrifera
Crustacea
Peracarida
Amphipoda
Harpinia cabontensis
Harpinia n. sp.
Gastropoda
Olivella sp.
Scaphopoda
Dentalium occidentale
Dentallium sp. #1
Bivalvia
Malletia sp.
Nucula tenuis
Thyasira trisinuata
Ophiuroidea
Amphipholis squamata
Echinoidea
Spatangoidea
Holothuroidea
Chaetognatha
Source: Adapted from Pearce et al., 1977a.
A-73
-------
APPENDIX B
CONTAMINANT INPUTS TO THE
106-MILE OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
-------
CONTENTS
Title
HISTORICAL USAGE (1973-1978) B-l
PROJECTED INPUTS B-5
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS B-7
Du Pont-Grasselli B-12
Du Font-Edge Moor B-l 7
American Cyanamid B-19
Merck and Company B-22
ILLUSTRATIONS
Number Title Page
B-l Historical and Projected Dumping Activity at the 106-Mile Site . . B-2
TABLES
B-l Amounts of Material Dumped at the 106-Mile Site
from 1973 to 1978 B-3
B-2 Projected Amounts of Wastes to be Dumped During 1979-1980
at the 106-Mile Site B-5
B-3 Annual Estimated Mass Loading for Suspended Solids,
Petroleum Hydrocarbons, and Oil and Grease at the
106-Mile Site, 1973-1978 B-7
B-4 Concentrations of Suspended Solids, Petroleum Hydrocarbons,
and Oil and Grease in Industrial Waste Dumped
at the 106-Mile Site B-7
B-5 Suspended Solids, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, and Oil and
Grease Released at the 106-Mile Site, 1973-1978 B-8
B-6 Estimated Annual Industrial Trace Metal Mass Loading B-9
B-7 Average Metal Concentrations in Wastes at 106-Mile Site B-ll
B-8 pH, Specific Gravity, and Percent Solids in Industrial
Waste Dumped at the 106-Mile Site B-12
B-9 Characteristics of Typical Sewage Sludge
Digester Cleanout Residue B-12
B-10 Nonpersistent Organphosphate Insecticides Released by
American Cyanamid, 1973-1978, at the 106-Mile Site B-21
B-iii
-------
APPENDIX B
CONTAMINANT INPUTS TO THE
106-MILE OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
HISTORICAL USE (1973-1978)
The 106-Mile Site was proposed for use in 1965 by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service as an alternative to the inland discharge of industrial
chemical wastes which might contaminate potable water supplies. However, some
chemical wastes were disposed at the site during 1961, 1962, and 1963. From
1961 to 1978, approximately 5.1 million metric tons of chemical wastes,
102,000 metric tons of sewage sludge, and 287,000 metric tons of sewage sludge
digester cleanout residue were dumped at the site. In addition, munitions
were dumped in the past at a location in the northwest corner of the site.
During 1951 to 1956 and 1959 to 1962, 14,300 drums of radioactive wastes
containing 41,400 curies of radioactivity were dumped 10 nmi (18.5 km) south
of the southern edge of the 106-Mile Site.
When ocean waste disposal came under EPA regulation in 1973, 66 permittees
were dumping wastes at the site. Since 1973, the number of permittees has
steadily declined until, as of mid-February 1979, only four permittees
remained: American Cyanamid (Linden, N.J.); E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.,
Inc., Edge Moor Plant (Edge Moor, Del.) and Grasselli Plant (Linden, N.J.);
and Merck & Co. (Rahway, N.J.). Despite the decline in the number of
permittees, the amount of waste increased 134% from 341,000 metric tons in
1973 to 797,000 metric tons in 1978. The increase in amount was primarily the
result of the relocation of industrial waste generators from the New York
Bight Sewage Sludge Site in 1974, Du Pont-Grasselli from the New York Bight
B-l
-------
Acid Wastes Site in 1974, and :Du Font-Edge Moor from the Delaware Bay Acid
f
Waste Site in 1977. The latter Du Pont plant discharged 380,000 metric tons,
or 50% of total waste released in 1977, as compared to the previous year's
total of 375,000 metric tons for all permittees. Waste from the City of
Camden, New Jersey, was reloccited by court action to the site in 1977.
However, Camden contributed only 6% of the annual total or 48,000 metric tons.
In 1978, the amount of dumped waste totalled 797,000 metric tons representing
a 4% decrease from the high in 1977. Overall, approximately 75% of the waste
discharged from 1973 to 1978 was from three industrial sources: American
Cyanamid, Du Font-Edge Moor, and Du Pont-Grasselli.
Figure B-l illustrates the dumping trends at the 106-Mile Site from 1973 to
1978. The actual amounts dumped and percent contribution of each permittee
appear in Table B-l.
800
700
Q
S sj 600
il
H y soo
t/i 0£
< I-
> LU
O o 40°
O < 300
!1
< i
g t 200
H
100
NUMBER OF PERMITTEES
80
70
60
50 1
00
m
73
40 2
30
20
10
0
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Figure B-l. Historical and Projected Dumping Activity at the 106-Mile Site
B-2
-------
OO
f-
CO
M CO
M O
w
r-4
CO
4_)
O
H
OO
r —
o>
""
r-.
ON
\D
r— •
r-H
m
r-^
•— *
CM ON CM
s_x | . f v_^
1
cxi cM vD r~-~
r~^ r-«- i~H ON
-H r-
5 ^ _
C^ i ^ ^
1
O OO -H vD
I-H r*.
^£)
CM m
^n ^-x CH
CO 00 CM
,, , 1 ^___, ^ ,
1
m (TO ON «3 X 4-1
3 QJ -r4 -H O
Q 33 S3 S H
^^.
3
.*2
CO
a)
V4
4J
3
C
CO
3
03 >i M
.C C OJ
4J C 00
C QJ fJ
Q) PH 3
CQ *T3 CO
(X C *— •*
etJ
C 4)
• H * J-*
X -H
K V W
CO CO
H ^^ U3
CO
3 s e *->
e ai 'r4 .e
c z oo
CO -O -H
C CU 03
u-t --^ c
0 -rt Ji
T3 10 K
M <
00 CO U
CO o 3
iJ O • QJ
C i-H O Z
aj o
a co eo
Permittees' per
Small Industrie
Only Merck and
Permittees usin
* -i- *
B-3
-------
Over the years, Du Pont-Grasselli has been the primary contributor of waste
to the site, releasing 978,000 metric tons, or approximately 30% of the total
from 1973 to 1978. The amounts ranged from 107,000 metric tons in 1977 to
264,000 metric tons in 1975, averaging 163,000 metric tons annually, Du Pont-
Grasselli dumps waste seven to nine times per month.
Du Font-Edge Moor, the second major waste contributor, moved the dumping
operation from the Delaware Bay Acid Waste Disposal Site to the 106-Mile Site
in March 1977. Du Font-Edge Moor has been dumping at the site for only two
years; however, they have released approximately 752,000 metric tons, or 23%
of the total volume of waste dumped between 1973 and 1978. Du Font-Edge Moor
barges waste to the site an average of seven times per month.
From 1973 to 1978, American Cyanamid disposed of approximately 731,000
metric tons of chemical waste, averaging 122,000 metric tons per year.
American Cyanamid's volume constituted approximately 22% of the waste which
was dumped at the site during that period. The volumes ranged from 111,000
metric tons in 1978 to 137,000 metric tons in 1974. American Cyanamid waste
is barged to the site an average of seven times per month.
The mixed waste of a number of industries has been barged to the site. In
1973, 63 industrial permittees (besides the three already discussed) were
dumping at the site, but now only Merck and Co. remains. From 1973 to 1978,
approximately 371,000 metric tons of mixed industrial wastes were dumped,
comprising 11% of the total volume released during that period. The mixed
input ranged from 34,000 metric tons in 1973 to 85,000 metric tons in 1977,
averaging 62,000 metric tons per year. Dependent upon the barge and the
volume of waste, Merck's waste is dumped once or twice per month.
Sewage sludge has also been dumped at the site. The City of Camden sewage
sludge disposal operation was relocated to the site in 1977. Camden
discharged 102,000 metric tons, or 7% of the waste dumped during 1977 and
1978. Camden1s waste volume represented 3% of the total waste dumped at the
site from 1973 to 1978. Camden ceased ocean dumping on June 15, 1978.
B-4
-------
Sewage sludge digester cleanout residues from many New York/New Jersey area
municipal wastewater treatment plants were released at the site from 1973 to
1978. Approximately 287,000 metric tons were dumped, comprising 9% of the
total dumped during this period.
PROJECTED INPUTS
Table B-2 summarizes the projected dumping amounts and scheduled phaseout
dates for the current permittees at the 106-Mile Site.
TABLE B-2
PROJECTED AMOUNTS OF WASTES TO BE DUMPED DURING
1979-1980 AT THE 106-MILE SITE
Permittee
American Cyanamid
Du Font-Edge Moor
Du Pont-Grasselli
Merck
Scheduled Phaseout Date
April 1981
November 1980
—
April 1981
Yearly Totals
Thousands of Metric
Tons/Year
1979
123
299
295
36
753
1980
123
250
295
36
704
1981
30
0
295
10
335
Du Pont-Grasselli has investigated several land-based alternatives, two in
detail: biological treatment and incineration. These alternatives do not
comply with state and/or Federal environmental regulations and, therefore,
have been rejected in favor of ocean disposal. The waste has been demon-
strated to comply with EPA's marine environmental impact criteria; however,
EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) have
recommended further detailed investigations of alternatives by Du Pont.
B-5
-------
Du Pont-Grasselli has projected that its annual waste volumes will not exceed
295,000 metric tons. Du Pont-Grasselli's current permit expires January 14,
1981. It will be eligible for renewal at that time, assuming that Du Pont
continues to demonstrate compliance with EPA1s need and environmental impact
criteria.
Du Font-Edge Moor is currently complying with an EPA-imposed schedule to
cease ocean dumping by November 1980 in favor of other alternatives. The iron
chloride in the waste will be converted to ferric chloride and marketed as a
water treatment chemical. The company is constructing facilities which will
allow recycling of hydrochloric acid, a major component of the waste. The
concept has been tested in tne laboratory and at a pilot plant, and is
expected to be fully operational in 1980 (Kane, 1977).
American Cyanamid will continue to ocean-dump according to its compliance
schedule until April 1981, when the land-based treatment is operational. The
land-based alternative waste disposal method selected by Cyanamid basically
consists of (1) pretreatment of a portion of the waste, followed by off-site
biological treatment in a nearby municipal treatment plant, and (2) off-site
physical/chemical treatment in a company advanced wastewater treatment plant,
and off-site thermal oxidation of the balance of the wastes. Whether or not
these alternative treatment technologies can comply with environmental
regulations has not been determined at present.
Merck has determined that two feasible modifications of present ocean
disposal methods can be implemented: (1) on-site pre-treatment of existing
wastes followed by discharge to a municipal treatment plant, and (2)
manufacturing process changes which would produce wastes dischargeable
directly into a municipal treatment plant. Merck is complying with an
EPA-imposed schedule to cease dumping by April 1981.
B-6
-------
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
The characteristics of wastes dumped at the site since 1973 are summarized
in Tables B-3 to B-9. The future waste characteristics of the four remaining
permittees are expected to follow historical trends. Merck waste, previously
undifferentiated from the mixed industrial waste analyses, is characterized
separately as data permit.
TABLE B-3
ANNUAL ESTIMATED MASS LOADING FOR SUSPENDED SOLIDS, PETROLEUM
HYDROCARBONS, AND OIL AND GREASE AT THE 106-MILE SITE, 1973-1978
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Oil and Grease
Metric Tons/Year
1973
1,200
5
200
1974
400
30
200
1975
2,300
600
100
1976
10,400
30
200
1977
2,500
200
700
1978
4,300
50
100
TABLE B-4
CONCENTRATIONS OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS, PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS, AND OIL
AND GREASE IN INDUSTRIAL WASTE DUMPED AT THE 106-MILE SITE
(ing/liter)
Permittee
American Cyanamid
Du Font-Edge Moor
Du Pont-Grassel 1 i
Mixed Industries
Suspended Solids
Mean
312
2,192
760
81,000
Range
2-2,375
60-21,000
5-15,090
12-771,000
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Mean
314
<0.3
16
1,361
Range
5-5,270
—
1-108
1-57,600
Oil and Grease
Mean
872
4
17
1,088
Range
10-6,214
1-24
1-108
6-4,850
B-7
-------
TABLE B-5
SUSPENDED SOLIDS, PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS, AND
OIL AND GREASE RELEASED AT THE 106-MILE SITE, 1973-1978
(Metric Tons)
Permittee and Year
American
Cyanamid
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
Du Pont-
Edge Moor
1978
1977
Du Pont-
Grasselli
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
Mixed
Industries
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
Camden ,
N.J.
1977
Chevron
Oil Co.
1975
1974
1973
Hess
Oil Co.
1973
Total Suspended Solids
Amount
Damped
97
39
27
19
60
19
1,100
68
53
19
45
607
97
49
3,048
527
10,300
168
226
1,100
1,815
34
14
14
0.3
Permittee' s
Percent of
Annual Total
Dumped
2
1
1
1
15
2
25
3
1
1
1
26
24
4
72
21
99
72
57
93
74
1
4
1
1
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Amount
Dumped
34
100
15
55
18
NR
0.1
0.1
0.6
1
2
NR
NR
NR
12
9
12
551
7
5
93
35
2
NR
—
Permittee ' s
Percent of
Annual Total
Dumped
73
49
51
—
—
—
<1
1
Oil and Grease
Amount
Dumped
75
223
74
17
97
NR
1.6
0.9
1
1
6
2
3
2
6
2
NR
j
26
4
36
13
43 98
97
108
; 0.2
46
—
—
—
Permittee' s
Percent of
Annual Total
Dumped
65
30
43
12
46
—
2
1
2
1
1
4
1
—
31
2
56
69
51
—
I
505
22
68
15
3 i 1
2
214
—
—
NR - Not reported
B-8
-------
±
M
i
j
OT
CO
3
W
u
?r3
PQ H
3^
cq H
5
r-H
O
to
QJ
t*
/
/
/
/
r-* QJ
U B fr*
O 3 v^
H Q
OJ TJ /— x
B OJ OO
3 & j Q
TJ
co CX ^-x
•U E &*•*
O 3 x^
H Q
QJ TJ '-x
B 0) OO
r-H B x_ -
O 3
n) ex ^-x.
•M B ?*s
O 3 •—
H Q
QJ 13
1 a-
0 3 ^
r-H QJ
to tx
., cj _-.
4-> a /-—v
O 3 S^S
H 0 ^~
CU -O '-x
B QJ oo
30.^
O 3
> «
T3
r-l CU
CO CL , — ,
-u B Sxe
0 3 x_^
B 01 oo
3 ft- r^
'S 3 "^
rH CD
cfl CX , — \
O 3 .
H 0
Q
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ ^
/ 'w
OJ OJ
OJ -H
u 6
T3 S-i
V-t dJ
H (X
CN xj- in CT> t 1
ft r~* in ro 1 1
O CN CO 1 1
r-i m r-i in i |
V CN V ^O 1 f
-H m CO ON 1 1
V °0 CN 1 1
r-H U~l
rH i m ^t i i
V 1 —• 00 1 1
— ' 1 ft O 1 1
V 1 ft CO 1 1
VI O"\ V 1
-H 1 CN O r-l |
_H
r-H | r-H O1, r-H |
V 1 CTN V 1
—( | 0-s ^
•rH CU X QJ W
S S 3 3 -^ J3 cu
T3 < Q P S O -C
"
00
^
CN
CO
ft
CN
ft
O
in
-
^H
in
m
CN
J
H
O
H
cT> 1 1
ft cs — » 00 1 1
O 1 O> ^D 1 |
in | r-H -, &0 CO CO r-H
O 13 rH 3 'H
U O "O O
C 1 1 C --H
CO 4-J 4J M C -r-<
B o C C O O
3 -H O O T3 r-
••H |H PH PH dl > CO
O B 3 3 -H jn a)
W -3 O Q S 0 3!
xJ
0
CTi
aC
m
co
ft
r-.
tn
CN
^
o
r-
QX
sO
I —
sO
^j
>£> OO 1 1
OO O
CN
CN 1 CO O 1 1
ft 1 — 1 rH 1 1
-H i i 00 fO W rH
O T) rH 3 '*
W O -O O
C 1 1 C rH
CO 4J 4J M C -H
0 C C O O
•rH O O tJ rJ
H ! rH tX. tX CU > CO
OJ 01 X CU W
CX, E 3 3 -H js 0)
(X •< Q Q S U 33
O
of
ft
OO
t— r
m
en
sD
ro
in
ft
cs
CO
m
O
l
o
^
^J
H
O
H
B-9
-------
•a
*
/
w Q 6-<
o s *-•
H O
§ O
^H Q)
t-i a ^
03^
H 0
OJ T3 '-^
H QJ OO
~i e —
0 3
> O
rH 0)
CO CL,^
*j a ^
D T3
IH
CO P-
•u B '~N
036^
H Q -^
0) T3 ^
r-H 0 ^^
O 3
> a
•o
-u s s-e
03-^
H 0
a QJ &o
"H 6 -^
> Q
-o
nj O.-^
•M S ^c
H O
3 O, bO
r-« S JM
> Q
~~7
/
/ 4-1 QJ
4-J
OJ -rJ
O 0
CO rH
VH tU
H &H
r-H 1— CN r-H 1 1
oo m o> o i i
r^ CN O 1 1
m CN CN
CN
--H CT\ r-H -H | |
V CO II
CN C-O CO ^O 1 1
r-H
V 1 -H CO 1 1
CN | -^ CN 1 1
t 0 CN 1 1
r-H 00
r-l | VO CN --H |
— t | 00 r- r-H |
^H | CN -H ^O |
V 1 — ' co 1
^ ! £SS !
2 i S£-"~
r— i <± CN 1 1
O
--H | r-H QO -H t
1 O |
-H | CN CN -H |
i i
-J i -* -a- oo i
CN | CN O> r-l |
1 1
en l i
ro -H m r-H l |
-H en 1 O CN 1 1
CN | CN in I
^O 1 C^ OO CN |
mi CN 0 1 1
m i — i m i i
CN | -J ^D 1 1
r-t | CN I-- r-H |
VI O v I
oo i t— t !~-- en |
— i 1
-------
vO
O
^
M
^
V)
OJ
4j
If)
3
-o
-a
QJ
X
£
• .-i
i — i
OJ
tft
CO
^J
o
c
o
a.
Q
o
0
s
QJ
3C
U
4-1
C
o
D
P
-a
H
e
c
n]
t_J
C
ra
o
i-i
OJ
1
0)
00
c
CO
OS
c
QJ
S
OJ
00
c:
cO
c£
C
CO
QJ
QJ
DO
C
CD
C
GJ
£
DC
C
CO
C
a
QJ
a>
c
OJ
i_j
OJ
QJ
Crf
e
0
l-l 4-1
QJ CO
4-1 S-.
CO 4-*
3 C
CD 0)
QJ U
CO C
o
u
,__!
CO
4J
QJ
£
o
0 0
0 0
o o
1 — 1 I — 1 — 1
1 1 1
— t O
O
o
1
, — *
V
0
o
o
CN
, — I
0
CN
ON
cO
4-1
QJ
C
0
to
^j
OJ
0
ON
0
1
un
o
o
X
D
CJ
S-i
aj
o
0
LO
A
CO
O
CN
O
O
ON
^jT
O
0
o
CN
1
O
CO
0
I--,
o
0
0
1
o
0
CN
O
0
ON
CN
O
O
,.
^c
1
0
o
-
0
o
o
o
rO
LA
1
O
, — i
O
ON
O
O
~*
0
u-i
„
LTN
1
O
LO
^D
ON
CU
w
0
u
c
Csl
B-ll
-------
TABLE B-8
pH, SPECIFIC GRAVITY, AND PERCENT SOLIDS
IN INDUSTRIAL WASTE DUMPED AT THE 106-MILE SITE
Permittee
American Cyanamid
Du Font-Edge Moor
Du Pont-Grasselli
Merck
_. -
pH
Mean
5.0
0.6
12.9
Range
2.7 - 8.3
0.1 - 1.0
12.4 - 13.6
5 - 7
Specific Gravity
Mean
1.028
1.135
1.109
1.28
Range
1.015 - 1.055
1.085 - 1.218
1.036 - 1.222
-
Percent
Solids
0.03
0.16
0.07
0.08
TABLE B-9
CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPICAL
SEWAGE SLUDGE DIGESTER CLEANOUT RESIDUE*
Specific gravity
Total solids (mg/liter)
Volatile solids (mg/liter)
Petroleum hydrocarbons (mg/liter)
Liquid cadmium (mg/liter)
Solid cadmium (mg/kg)
Liquid mercury (mg/liter)
Solid mercury (mg/kg)
1.016
52,400
38,500
16
0.2
45
0.002
0.39
*From the barge analysis of Nassau County sewage
sludge dumped on 10/26/78.
DU PONT-GRASSELLI
The principal process generating the Du Pont-Grasselli waste is the
production of DMHA (N,0-dimethylhydroxylamine) and anisole. The Grasselli
plant is authorized to dispose of approximately 295,000 metric tons annually
(Table B-2). Disposal is accomplished by subsurface release of the waste at a
rate not exceeding 200,000 Liters (52,000 gallons) per nautical mile. This
rate permits complete dumping of an average barge load of 1.5 million liters
in approximately 70 minutes (assuming a barge speed of 6 knots), over a linear
distance of approximately 7.4 nmi.
B-12
-------
The major trace metals present in Grasselli waste, in decreasing order of
input volume, are: copper, lead, nickel, zinc, chromium, and mercury.
The organic portion of the Grasselli waste is composed of sodium methyl
sulfate (up to 50% of the organic phase), methanol (20%) and
N,0-dimethylhydroxylamine (DMHA) plus other amines (1%). The remainder is in
the form of phenols, anisole, and other compounds.
DMHA has been monitored in the Grasselli waste since 1975. Concentrations
have ranged from 20 to 364 mg/liter, averaging approximately 115 mg/liter.
Annual inputs average 17,000 kg annually, ranging from 10,000 kg in 1978 to
27,800 kg in 1977. Since the first report of volumes of the compound in 1975,
Du Pont-Grasselli has released 69,000 kg of DMHA at the 106-Mile Site.
Monitoring of anisole also began in 1975. Concentrations in the Grasselli
waste have ranged from 1 to 14 mg/liter, averaging approximately 5 mg/liter.
Annual volumes have ranged from 600 kg in 1978 to 1,700 kg in 1975. The
average annual input is 900 kg. The Grasselli plant has released
approximately 3,000 kg of anisole at the 106-Mile Site since 1975. Du Pont-
Grasselli is the only known source of anisole at this site.
Phenols have been monitored in the Grasselli waste since 1973.
Concentrations have ranged from 0.2 to 3,550 mg/liter, averaging 209 mg/liter.
Yearly inputs have ranged from 200 kg in 1978 to 204,000 kg in 1975. The
average annual input of phenols by Grasselli is 45,000 kg. Du Pont-Grasselli
has disposed of approximately 226,000 kg of phenols at the 106-Mile Site since
1973.
TOXICITY
Results of bioassay tests, which were conducted between 1973 and 1977, show
that the toxicity of Grasselli waste to brine shrimp (Artemia salina) has
varied between 48-hour LC50 values of 3,250 to 100,000 ppm. This variation
may be due primarily to a change from nonaeration to aeration of the samples
rather than to changes in the toxicity of the material. Bioassays conducted
B-13
-------
since 1977 with Atlantic silversides (Menidia menidia) yield 96-hour LC50
values ranging between 560 ppm and 6,950 ppm for aerated tests and between 660
ppm and 6,170 ppm for nonaerated tests. Bioassays on diatoms (Skeletonema
costatum) produce 96-hour EC50 values between 160 ppm and 8,600 ppm. Tests
with copepods (Acartia tonsa) give 96-hour LC50 values ranging between 57 ppm
and 238 ppm. Some of the observed variations may be due to differences in the
character of the individual barge loads, despite originating from the same
waste source.
In 1976, Du Pont sponsored an extensive series of studies to describe the
in situ dispersion characteristics and biological effects of ocean-disposed
wastewaters from the Grasselli plant (Falk and Gibson, 1977). The studies weie
prompted by Du Font's desire to demonstrate to EPA the validity of the
time-toxicity concept, i.e., determining the maximum length of time in which
wastes would remain at a sufficiently high concentration to cause acute toxic
effects, considering wastewater dispersion and toxicity as functions of time.
The studies demonstrated thac:
(1) Under oceanographic conditions least likely to enhance dispersion,
the peak wastewater concentration in the barge wake is, initially,
about 450 ppm one minute after release.
(2) Wastewater concentrations decline to a peak of about 80 ppm within 4
hours after release, arid to about 60 ppm after 12 hours.
(3) In 178-day chronic toxicity tests, the no-effect level for opossum
shrimp (My sidopsis b ah i a) and sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon
variegatus) wasfound to be 750 ppm.
(4) The wastewaters are not selectively toxic to a particular life stage
of CyprLnodon or Mysidopsis.
(5) There is little difference in the toxicity of the wastewater to
several species of marine organisms.
These results supported the discharge of Grasselli waste into the site over a
5-hour period, at a barge speed of 5 knots, without adverse impact.
B-14
-------
DILUTION AND DISPERSION
Mixing of waste with seawater is a function of prevailing meteorological
and oceanographic conditions. After discharge from the barge, immediate
mixing (within the first 15 minutes) occurs primarily as a result of
barge-generated turbulence. After immediate mixing, wind, waves, currents,
and density stratification components dictate the rate and direction of
dispersion and dilution.
Bisagni (1977b) studied the behavior of Du Pont-Grasselli waste dumped at
the 106-Mile Site in June, 1976, using Rhodamine-WT dye mixed with the waste
as a tracer. Water column profiles showed that the surface mixed layer
extended down to a depth of 20 m. Below the surface mixed layer, a seasonal
thermocline was found between 20 and 50 m depth. The permanent thermocline
was between 200 and 350 m depth. The waste remained in the upper 60 m of the
water column.
The initial concentration of the undiluted waste within 15 minutes after
release was 19.3 ppm. Water samples collected within an hour of commencement
of dumping indicated that the dilution ranged from 18,000:1 to 4,600:1. After
70 hours, dilution was estimated to range from 210,000:1 to 45,000:1. During
a second dilution study performed in June, minimum factors of 54:1 to 100:1
occurred within 10 minutes after the dumping had begun. After 30 hours, a
dilution of about 110,000:1 was estimated.
Ori (1977a) tracked the precipitate formed by the Grasselli waste during
June and September 1976, using a multifrequency acoustic backscattering
system. In June, a sharp density gradient in the water column was at a depth
of 10 m. The data indicated that the particulates separated into two
components: a lighter phase which was trapped in the upper 10 to 20 m of the
water column, and a heavier phase which sank to the base of the mixed layer.
These phases were observed to behave in two different ways: collecting in a
thin layer on an isopycnal surface (i.e. a plane surface of equal density) or
appearing as a diffuse cloud within patches of water having nearly constant
density.
B-15
-------
The study conducted in September 1976, by Orr (1977a) used an acoustic
system with improved sensitivity. In this study, acoustic and dye measure-
ments were collected simultaneously. The waste was observed to spread over an
2 2
area of 4 nmi (13.7 km ) by both methods. The results of this study show
that the residence time of the suspended matter can exceed 24 hours. The
particulates were heavily concentrated in the upper 15 m of the water column.
The waste settled from an initial uniform distribution to collections of
particles in dense layers. The particles which were trapped in the seasonal
thermocline outlined the associated isopycnal surfaces, and were from 15 cm to
5 m in thickness. In at least one instance, particulates associated with the
seasonal thermocline were observed to have penetrated it and appeared as a
diffuse cloud extending down to a depth of nearly 80 m. The data also
indicated that particles which penetrated the seasonal thermocline and were
trapped at the base of the mixed layer, spread horizontally much faster than
particles trapped by the seasonal thermocline.
Kohn and Rowe (1976) studied the dilution and dispersion of Du Pont-
Grasselli waste during September 1976, using Rhodamine-WT dye as a tracer.
Dispersion of the waste was monitored by means of two fluorometers, one
drawing water from a depth of 5 m and the other drawing from a depth of 10 m.
Data were gathered for a period of 19 hours following the start of discharge.
The initial dilution of the waste was 4,250:1 at 5 m, while after 17 hours the
dilution was 12,500:1. The waste plume movements following the dump were
estimated on the basis of the movements of "window shade" current drogues and
from fluorometer readings. In general, the plume moved in a semicircular
path, returning to the starting position after about 20 hours. The Du Pont
waste was observed to pass through the upper 5 m of the water column and
stabilize between 10 m depth and the top of the thermocline.
Falk and Gibson (1977) described a dye dispersion study conducted by EG&G
on the Grasselli waste in September 1976, during a time when ambient
conditions at the 106-Mile Site were least conducive to waste dispersion
(i.e., calm seas, light winds, strong thermocline present). The results of
the survey indicated that the waste material was limited to the surface mixed
layer by the strong thermocline. The horizontal extent of the waste ranged
from 35 m in width initially, to 300 m after 2 hours, to 600 m after 8 hours,
B-16
-------
and to 1,000 m after 11 hours. Minimum waste dilutions were 5,000:1
initially, 15,000:1 after 2 hours, and 15,000 to 30,000:1 after 11 hours. The
average waste dilutions were 10,000:1 initially, 20,000 to 40,000:1 after 2
hours, and 30,000 to 80,000:1 after 11 hours.
Hydroscience (1978c, 1978d, and 1979d) monitored dumps of Grasselli waste
in May, July, and October 1978. In all surveys, the wastewater concentration
after 4 hours was well below the chronic no-effect level for appropriate
sensitive marine organisms of 750 ppm, a dilution of 1,300:1.
DU FONT-EDGE MOOR
Du Font-Edge Moor waste is generated by the manufacture of titanium dioxide
using the chloride process. The waste consists principally of an aqueous
solution of iron and miscellaneous chlorides, and hydrochloric acid.
Du Font-Edge Moor is authorized to dump approximately 299,000 metric tons
during 1979 and 250,000 metric tons during 1980 (Table B-2). Disposal of the
waste is accomplished by subsurface release at a rate not exceeding 140,045
liters (37,000 gallons) per nautical mile. This rate permits complete dumping
of an average barge load of 3.8 million liters of waste in approximately 4.5
hours (assuming a barge speed of 6 knots), over a linear distance of
approximately 27 nmi (50 km).
Ten trace metals are usually reported in the analyses of Du Font-Edge Moor
waste. Ranked by decreasing input volume, these are: iron, titanium,
chromium, vanadium, zinc, lead, nickel, copper, cadmium, and mercury. Organic
components are present in insignificant amounts of Edge Moor waste
(Table B-4).
TOXICITY
Bioassays conducted since 1977 with Atlantic silversides (Menidia menidia)
yield 96-hour LC50 values greater than 5,000 ppm for aerated tests and between
5,000 ppm and 14,400 ppm for nonaerated tests. Bioassays on diatoms
(Skeletonema costatum) produce 96-hour EC50 values between 712 ppm and
3,450 ppm.
B-17
-------
In 1976, Du Pont sponsored an extensive series of in situ studies to
describe the dispersion characteristics and biological effects of ocean
disposed waste waters from the Edge Moor plant (Falk and Phillips, 1977). The
dispersion studies were conducted at the Delaware Bay Acid Waste Disposal
Site.
A series of laboratory toxicity experiments conducted with the Du Pont-Edge
Moor wastes gave the following results:
1. In 200-day chronic toxicity tests, no-effect levels for opposum
shrimp (Mysidopsis b ah i a) and sheepshead minnow (Cyprinidon
variegatus) were found to be in the range of 25 to 50 ppm.
2. pH-adjusted waste produces mortalities only at concentrations
several orders of magnitude above the unaltered waste.
3. Pulsed exposure of grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio) to initial
wastewater concentrations of 250 ppm, followed by dilution slower
than that observed Ln the barge wake, produced no mortalities.
4. Maximum waste concentrations in the barge wake were calculated to be
approximately 150 ppm within two hours, and about 5 ppm within eight
hours. The two-hour calculated wake concentrations is well below
the acute LC50 value range of 240-320 ppm and the eight-hour wake
concentration is well below the calculated chronic no-effect level
of 25 to 50 ppm for unaltered waste.
Based upon these results, Falk and Phillips (1977) reached the conclusion
that the Edge Moor wastewaters can be discharged into the marine environment
over a 5-hour period, at a barge speed of 6 knots, without adverse impact, and
without violating the requirements of Section 227.8 of the EPA Ocean Dumping
Regulations.
DILUTION AND DISPERSION
In September 1976, EG&G conducted a dispersion study of Edge Moor
wastewater at the Delaware Bay Acid Waste Site (EG&G, 1977). A well-defined
thermocline was present at a depth of 20 m, winds were blowing at 8 to
12 m/sec (15.5 to 23.2 kn), aad waves were 1 to 2 m. The waste concentrations
were monitored over 8 hours using pH and iron concentrations. Minimum
B-18
-------
dilutions were 7,000:1 within 2 hours and 200,000:1 within 8 hours. The
2-hour concentration was well below acute LC50 values reported for the
organisms tested, and the 8-hour concentration was well below the chronic
no-effect level of 25 to 50 ppm (dilutions of 40,000:1 and 20,000:1,
respectively).
In May 1978, Hydroscience, Inc. (1978a) studied the dilution and dispersion
of the Du Font-Edge Moor waste following its release at the site. A weak
thermocline was present at a depth of 13 m. Based upon a comparison of
undiluted and post-dumping (after 4 hours) seawater concentrations of
particulate iron, minimum dilutions were estimated at 75,000:1. Measurements
indicated that the Du Font-Edge Moor waste did not significantly penetrate the
seasonal thermocline and the waste was diluted and dispersed only within the
upper 13 m of the water column. Surveys conducted during July and October did
not yield dilution values; however, the waste was estimated to have been
diluted below the chronic no-effect level (Hydroscience, 1978b, 1979a). These
observations are compatible with observations made at the Delaware Bay Acid
Waste Site while Edge Moor was still dumping its waste there (Falk and
Phillips, 1977).
AMERICAN CYANAMID
American Cyanamid produces industrial wastes which are generated during the
manufacture of approximately 30 different organic and inorganic compounds.
The broad categories which comprise the waste are approximately 25% chemical,
35% equipment and floor wash, 25% vacuum jet condensate and 15% from overhead
and bottom distillate units. The chemical products manufactured include
rubber, mining and paper chemicals; nonpersistent organophosphate
insecticides; surfactants; and various intermediates.
American Cyanamid is authorized to dispose of approximately 123,000 metric
tons annually (Table B-2). Disposal is accomplished by subsurface release of
waste through automatic and/or manual vent valves at a rate not exceeding
113,500 liters (30,000 gallons) per nautical mile. This rate permits complete
offloading of an average barge load of 1.5 million liters of waste in
approximately 2 hours (assuming a towing speed of 6 knots), over a linear
distance of approximately 13.5 nmi (25 km).
B-19
-------
American Cyanamid waste is routinely analyzed for trace metals. In order
of decreasing input volume, they are: nickel, arsenic, chromium, zinc, lead,
copper, mercury, and cadmium.
Because the American Cyanamid waste mixture is complex, it is extremely
difficult to characterize all of the organic compounds present in the waste.
Thus, the organic content of American Cyanamid waste is known only in general
terms. Table B-10 lists the various nonpersistent organophosphate insecti-
cides released by American Cyanamid since 1973.
TOXICITY
Bioassays conducted from 1973 to 1977 with brine shrimp (Artemia salina)
yielded 48-hour LC50 values of 670 ppm to 21,000 ppm. Results of bioassays
conducted since 1977 show that the toxicity of the waste to Atlantic
silversides (Menidia menidia; has varied between 96-hour LC50 values of 0.24
ppm to 2,900 ppm for aerated tests and between 0.10 ppm to 2,900 ppm for
non-aerated tests. Bioassays on diatoms (Skeletonema costatum) gave 96-hour
EC50 results which varied between 10 ppm and 1,900 ppm. Additional tests with
copepods (Acartia tonsa) gave 96-hour LC50 values which varied between 19.5
ppm and 3,500 ppm.. These variations may be due to the differences in the
toxicity of the individual barge loads, although from the same waste source.
However, such variation is not outside the ranges applied to bioassay results
of this type.
DILUTION AND DISPERSION
In August 1976, Kohn and Rowe (1976) studied the dilution and dispersion of
the American Cyanamid waste after release at the site. Enough Rhodamine-WT
fluorescent dye was added to the waste in a barge to yield an undiluted dye
concentration of 9.36 ppm. For 17 hours following the start of the waste
discharge from the barge, a continuous flow of water was pumped from a depth
of 5 m into an onboard fluorometer. The initial dilution of the American
Cyanamid waste was 115:1, and the dilution after 17 hours was 2,500:1.
B-20
-------
TABLE B-10
NONPERSISTENT ORGANPHOSPHATE INSECTICIDES
RELEASED BY AMERICAN CYANAMID, 1973-1978, AT THE 106-MILE SITE
Constituent
Malathion
Thimet
Counter
Abate
Cytrolane
Cygon
Cyolane
Description
General Insecticide
Systemic Insecticide
Soil Insecticide
Manufacturing
Concentrate
Insecticide
Technical Systemic
Insecticide
Systemic Insecticide
Technical Systemic
Insecticide
Metric Tons/Year
1973
188
92
0
0
15
73
0
1974
183
133
0
0
9
54
0
1975
13
12
2
0
0
12
0
1976
39
34
37
0
18
0
0
1977
117
73
28
14
3
2
0
1978
10
11
3
0
3
0
1
The waste plume movements following the dump were estimated from the
movements of "window shade" current drogues and from the fluorometer readings.
In general, the plume moved in a semicircular path, returning to the starting
position after about 20 hours. American Cyanamid waste remained in the upper
few meters of the water column.
Hydroscience, Inc. (1978e, 1978f, 1979c) studied the dilution of the
American Cyanamid waste in several seasonal surveys. Comparisons of undiluted
waste concentrations and postdump concentrations 4 hours following the dump
indicated minimum dilutions of approximately 25,000:1 in May, 14,000:1 in
July, and 9,200:1 in October. Hydroscience (1978f) studied the dispersion of
the waste in July 1978, using Rhodamine WT dye. The maximum distance that the
plume traveled from the dump location was 675 m in 4 hours, and at this point,
the concentration of the waste was near detection limits.
B-21
-------
MERCK AND COMPANY
Merck's aqueous waste is generated in the. manufacture of thiabendazole, a
pharmaceutical product. Previous discussion in this appendix included Merck
among the mixed industrial wastes permittees.
Merck is authorized to dispose of approximately 36,300 metric tons
annually. Disposal is accomplished by subsurface release of the waste at a
rate not exceeding 378,000 liters (100,000 gallons) per nautical mile. This
rate permits complete dumping of an average barge load of 5.7 million liters
in approximately 6 hours (assuming a towing speed of 6 knots), over a linear
distance of approximately 38 nmi (70.3 km).
The six major trace metals present in the Merck waste are, in order of
decreasing input volume: nickel, lead, vanadium, beryllium, chromium and
cadmium.
TOXICITY
Bioassays conducted on mixed industrial wastes between 1973 and 1977 with
brine shrimp (Artemia salina) yielded 48-hour LC50 values of 1,525 ppm to
100,000 ppm. Bioassays conducted since 1977 with Atlantic silversides
(Menidia menidia) give 96-hour LC50 values ranging between 650 ppm and
100,000 ppm for aerated tests, and between 150 ppm and 100,000 ppm for
non-aerated tests. Bioassays on diatoms (Skeletonema costatum) produce
96-hour EC50 values between 65 ppm and 12,000 ppm. Tests with copepods
(Acartia tonsa) yield 96-hour LC50 bioassay values ranging between 29.7 ppm
and 5,300 ppm. Some of the observed variations may be due to the differences
in the characteristics of the individual barge loads.
DILUTION AND DISPERSION
Hydroscience, Inc. (1978g) performed the dilution study in May 1978 for the
mixed industrial waste generated by Merck and Reheis Chemical. Based upon
comparisons between the concentrations of aluminum and carbon in the barge
wastes and the concentrations of these same parameters found in the seawater
B-22
-------
samples collected after 4 hours following the disposal, minimum dilution
factors of 20,000:1 and 52,000:1 were observed. A July 1978 survey yielded a
minimum dilution at 4 hours of 150,000:1; the plume was barely detectable at
1,000 m from the site of release. An October survey also yielded a minimum
dilution of 150,000:1 after 4 hours (Hydroscience, 1979d).
B-23
-------
CONTENTS
Title Page
SHORT-TERM MONITORING C-2
LONG-TERM MONITORING C-4
TABLES
Number Title Page
C-l Short-Term Monitoring Requirements C-3
C-iii
-------
APPENDIX C
MONITORING
The Final EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR 220 to 229)
discusses monitoring requirements (Section 228.9):
(a) The monitoring program, if deemed necessary by the
Regional Administrator or the District Engineer, as
appropriate, may include baseline or trend assessment
surveys by EPA, NOAA, other Federal agencies, or
contractors, special studies by permittees, and the
analysis and interpretation of data from remote or
automatic sampling and/or sensing devices. The primary
purpose of the monitoring program is to evaluate the
impact of disposal on the marine environment by
referencing the monitoring results to a set of baseline
conditions. When disposal sites are being used on a
continuing basis, such programs may consist of the
following components;
(1) Trend assessment surveys conducted at intervals
frequent enough to assess the extent and trends of
environmental impact. Until survey data or other
information are adequate to show that changes in
frequency or scope are necessary or desirable,
trend assessment and baseline surveys should
generally conform to the applicable requirements
of Section 228.13. These surveys shall be the
responsibility of the Federal government.
(2) Special studies conducted by the permittee to
identify immediate and short-term impacts of
disposal operations.
(b) These surveys may be supplemented, where feasible and
useful, by data collected from the use of automatic
sampling buoys, satellites or in situ platforms, and
from experimental programs.
(c) EPA will require the full participation of other
Federal and State and local agencies in the development
and implementation of disposal site monitoring
programs. The monitoring and research programs
presently supported by permittees may be incorporated
into the overall monitoring program insofar as
feasible.
C-l
-------
Further in Section 228.10, the Ocean Dumping Regulations delineate specific
types of effects upon which monitoring programs must be built:
(1) Movement of materials into estuaries or marine
sanctuaries, or into oceanfront beaches, or shorelines;
(2) Movement of materials toward productive fishery or
shellfishery areas;
(3) Absence from the disposal site of pollution-sensitive
biota characteristic of the general area;
(4) Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in water quality or
sediment composition at the disposal site, when these
changes are attributable to materials disposed of at the
site;
(5) Progressive, non-seasonal, changes in composition or
numbers of pelagic, demersal, or benthic biota at or near
the disposal site, when these changes can be attributed to
the effects of materials disposed of at the site;
(6) Accumulation of material constituents (including
without limitation, human pathogens) in marine biota at or
near the site.
Thus, the regulations identify two broad areas which must be taken into
account in monitoring:
(a) Short-term or acute effects immediately observable and monitored at
the time of disposal, and before disposal of the waste itself.
(b) Long-term or progresisive effects measurable only over a period of
years and indicated by subtle changes in selected characteristics
over time.
SHORT-TERM MONITORING
The permit program administered by EPA Region II has provided the means for
monitoring immediate effects of disposal. The program acts as an important
check on the variable chemical characteristics of the waste, the biological
influence as measured by bioassays and the cumulative totals of known
potential toxicants (see Appendix B, Tables B-5, B-6, and B-7). This program
provides information about tha environment at the time of disposal and the
dispersion and dilution of the wastes under varying oceanographic conditions.
Table C-l summarizes the parameters measured at sea for each permittee.
C-2
-------
TABLE C-l
SHORT-TERM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Permittee
Parameter to be Monitored
All Dumpers
Merck
Du Pont-Grasselli
Du Font-Edge Moor
American Cyanamid
General
Temperature
Dissolved oxygen to 100 m
Conductivity
PH
Chlorophyll a
Total mercury
Total cadmium
Total organic carbon
1, 15, 30 m
Secchi disk to extinction point
Special
Sulfonate
Phenol
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total iron
Total vanadium
Pesticides in the waste at the
time of the dump
In 1978, three seasonal surveys were made at the site:
• May - no upper thermocline
• July - strong upper thermocline (28 m)
• October - weak upper thermocline (68 m)
A dye dispersion study was made for each waste type during the July survey
(see Appendix B, page B-13, for results). For each survey a drogue was set at
the thermocline in the waste plume, where the wastes were expected to
accumulate. Samples were taken at 4-, 6-, 8-, and 10-hour intervals at
various depths (Table C-l). Two stations were sampled immediately before the
waste release to establish the background levels. Samples from the barge were
analyzed for the same parameters, so that minimum dilution factors could be
calculated.
C-3
-------
This program will be continued as one of the permit requirements. The
sampling program is the minimum design sufficient to detect changes resulting
from the disposal of chemical wastes. The effects documented at the site are
transitory (see Chapter 4), and have not caused measurable long-term damage to
populations of organisms indigenous; to the site or adjacent areas. This
sampling program periodically confirms that the wastes are diluted well below
the chronic "no-effect" concentrations (as determined by the monthly
bioassays) within the allowable short period of initial mixing.
The physical and chemical variables monitored were chosen, based upon the
composition of the wastes and the possible effects of waste discharge. Water
column sampling is adequate to detect unusual, adverse effects of disposal;
benthic samples are not required since the wastes apparently do not penetrate
the thermocline, and would not reach the bottom in measurable amounts at this
deep site. Therefore, no changes in the existing permittee monitoring program
are recommended.
LONG-TERM MONITORING
As discussed in Chapter 3 and Appendix B, extensive research effort has
been directed to determine the fate of wastes released at the 106-Mile Site.
Nevertheless, there are many aspects of waste disposal at this site which are
poorly understood and which must be refined before a meaningful trend
assessment and long-term monitoring program can be accomplished. Studies must
provide further information on the following factors:
• The penetration of seasonal and permanent thermoclines by different
wastes
• The fractionation of wastes in the water column and the association
of potentially toxic substances with different fractions
• The fate of wastes related to Gulf Stream eddies and general current
patterns
• The refinement and selection as monitoring tools of acoustical
tracking, dye or trace metal dispersion data, and organic markers
(methyl sulfate)
C-4
-------
Studies on these and other important aspects of monitoring at the 106-Mile
Site are part of a continuing effort of NOAA's Ocean Dumping Program (National
Ocean Survey), supplemented by permittee-supported work.
Further impetus to a formal monitoring program resulted from the passage of
PL 95-273, which empowers NOAA to develop a five-year plan for ocean pollution
research and monitoring. On a broader scale of time and space, the "Ocean
Pulse" program of the National Marine Fisheries Service should provide
valuable monitoring data. Thus, long-range monitoring and trend assessment of
waste disposal in complex deep oceanic regions (e.g., the 106-Mile Site) are
feasible only through the combined resources of several agencies under the
future NOAA five-year plan.
C-5
-------
APPENDIX D
CHAPTER III, FINAL EIS ON OCEAN DUMPING
OF SEWAGE SLUDGE IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
-------
CONTENTS
Title Page
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION D-l
OCEAN-DUMPING ALTERNATIVES . D-2
LAND-BASED ALTERNATIVES . D-17
ILLUSTRATIONS
Number Title Page
8 Coliforms in New Jersey Coastal Waters D-4
9 Coliforms in Long Island Coastal Waters D-5
D-iii
-------
APPENDIX D
CHAPTER HI, FINAL EIS ON OCEAN DUMPING
OF SEWAGE SLUDGE IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
This Appendix is Chapter III of the Final Environmental Impact Statement on
sewage sludge dumping in the New York Bight (EPA, 1978). It is reproduced
here to document the earlier considerations of using the 106-Mile Site as an
alternate sewage sludge site. Included are discussions on land-based
alternatives to ocean dumping of sewage sludge.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
•\llt>ri-Mti\e- to the proposed action considered in (his EIS trill into tvso categories: other oc ean-dumpmK
alternatives ^hort-tonm and land-b.^ed sludge disposal alternatives (long-term).
Since implementation of land-based disposal methods in the metropolitan area is still some years off, a
suitable interim ocean dumping alternative is needed. In addition to the proposed action, the ocean-dumping
alternatives are.
— Continued use of the existing dump site (No Action or Phased Action),
— Use or an alternate dump site other than the Northern or Southern Area, including sites off the
continental shelf, and
— Modification of dumping methods to mitigate potential marine and shoreward impacts.
The land-based sludge disposal alternatives are:
— Direct land application,
— incineration,
— Pyrolysis, and
— Use as a soil conditioner.
These land-based alternatives have been studied by the Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC) under a grant
from EPA. The ISC sludge disposal management program was issued in October 1976. Since that time, EPA
has awarded grants to most of the ocean dumping permittees for specific studies of land-based sludge
management alternatives within their geographic areas. The EPA has also placed a condition on the ocean
dumping permits issued in August 1976, requiring that ocean dumping be phased out by December 31,
1981. This phase-out date was legislatively mandated in November 1977, by amendment to the Marine
Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
Alternatives to the proposed action are discussed in Chapter III.
D-l
-------
CHAFFEH III
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Generally, sewage sludge can be either dumped in the ocean or disposed of by land-based methods.
The latter constitute the only legitimate long-range solution to the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area's
sludge disposal problem, and they will have to be implemented as ocean dumping is phased out The back-
ground studies for land-based sludge disposal management m the metropolitan area were completed by ISC
in 1976. The testing and implementation phases have begun. Current predictions are thai land-based sludge
disposal methods can be implemented in t me tc meet the December 31. 1981 deadline for phasing out
ocean dumping of sewage sludge.
Until this full-scale, land-based sludge disposal program can be implemented, however, ocean dumping
will continue to be the only practical method of disposing of the volumes ot sludge produced m the metro-
politan area. Within the ocean-dumping alternative, options are available with regard to where the sludge is
dumped and how it is dumped. The proposed aciion, immediate designation and use of an alternate dump
site in either the Northern or Southern Area is described m detail m Chapter IV Chapter III discusses the
other ocean-dumping alternatives and summarizes the results or the ISC studies of land-based sludge disposal
methods.
OCEAN-DUMPING ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the proposed action, the ocean-dumping alternatives considered m this EIS are: 1>
continued use of the existing dump site (No Action and Phased Action), 2) use of an alternate dump site
other than the Northern or Southern Area, and 3) modification or dumping methods to mitigate potential ma-
rine and shoreward impacts. The phasing out of ocean dumping bv the end of 1981 would not be compro-
mised under anv of these alternatives.
Continued Use of the Existing Dump Site
The NO Action alternative involves cortinued use of the existing dump ->ite until land-based methods of
sludge disposal can be implemented. Under this alternative, the existing dump sue would have to accommo-
date m 1981 more than one and a half times the volume ot sludge dumped m 1977, moreover, the site
would have to accommodate the increased volume without endangering public health or the marine envi-
ronment. The primary argument for the No Action alternative is that it limits environmental impacts to the
existing site rather than spreading them to another area of the marine environment.
The original argument for moving the sewage sludge dump site was that greatly increased volumes or
sludge might impair the recreational qualitv of Long island and New Jersey's beaches. As discussed below,
current studies tend to show that this argument is largely invalid, lending support to the No Action alterna-
tive.
A variation on the No Action alternative is the Phased Action alternative, under which sewage sludge
would continue to be dumped at the existing site until a comprehensive monitoring program indicated an
impending hazard to public health or damasie to recreational water quality Under the phased alternative, an
alternate dump site would have to be designated and held m reserve for possible future use Since this
alternative >.vould maximize use or the existing dumo site, adverse impacts on an alternate dump site would
be minimized, and sludge hauling costs would not be increased unnecessanlv
D-2
-------
This was the alternative recommended in the draft EIS. However, when the fish kill and beach closure
incidents discussed in Chapter II occurred, doubts were raised aboui the acceptability of continuing to use
the existing dump site Studies of the fish kill and beach closure incidents found that sludge dumping was at
most a minor contributing factor. Those findings were reconfirmed at a public hearing held in Toms River,
New lersey. on May 31 and )une 1, 1977, to consider possible relocation of the New York and Philadelphia
sewage sludge dump sites. On the basis of the evidence presented, the hearing officer recommended that
neither dump site be moved.
With specific reference to sludge dumping in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area, the hearing
officer also recommended: *< strict enforcement of existing phase-out schedules and deadlines, 21 inclusion
in the sludge dumping EIS being prepared by EPA-Region II of specific criteria for determining the need for
relocation of the dump site, 3) intensified monitoring of the existing dump sue, and 4) immediate designation
of the alternate 60-mile site (this would be the site in the Northern Area recommended m the draft EIS). The
report of the Toms River hearing officer, which was issued on September 22, 1977, is presented m Appendix
C.
On March 1, 1978, the EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials issued his
decision on proposals to relocate the New York and Philadelphia sewage sludge dump sites. The decision
report is presented m Appendix D, In all important respects, the Assistant Administrator's decision is in
agreement with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Toms River hearing officer:
It is my determination that sewage sludge dumping by these municipalities [in the New York-New Jersey
metropolitan area) should not be relocated at the present time; however, efforts should begin immedi-
ately to designate the 60-mile site for the disposal of New York/New Jersey sewage sludge m the event
such sludge cannot be dumped at the New York Bight site for public health reasons pnor to December
31. 1981.
In accordance with this decision, EPA intends to designate the existing site for continued use, as well as
the 60-mile site in the Northern Area for possible future use. An intensified monitoring program has already
been implemented; it is described in detail in the Monitoring and Surveillance section of Chapter XI. Criteria
that can be used to determine whether public health reasons require moving sludge dumping operations
from the existing to the alternate site at any time between now and December 31, 1981 have been drawn
up bv EPA-Region II. and are presented m Appendix E. Finally, a Regional Enforcement Strategy, designed to
insure that ocean dumping of sewage sludge is replaced by environmentally acceptable land-based disposal
methods bv the legislatively mandated deadline of December 31, 1981, has been developed by EPA-Region
II. and IN presented in Appendix F
EPA Monitoring Studies. In April 1974, EPA initiated a program to investigate the quality of the water
and bonom sediments in the New York Bight and along the Long Island and New jersey beaches (USEPA,
!uK 1974, April 1975' Data from the surf and near-shore waters indicate that water quality remains ex-
cellent in terms o? total and fecal coliform density, and that it is acceptable for contact recreation (Figures 3
and 9) Although the data show a few random elevated coliform counts, no violation of state standards is
indicated nor does there appear to be any systematic degradation of water quality. Sediment data indicate
slightly elevated bacterial counts at certain near-shore sampling stations, but these can be attributed to inland
runoff or to wastewater outfalls.
Sampling is continuing along transects between the existing dump site and the following points the
Long Island shore, the entrance to New York Harbor, and the New Jersey shore. Results to date indicate that
a clean water and sediment zone, about 10 to 11 km (5.5 to 6 n mi) wide, separates the area affected bv
sludge from the Long Island coast. As a supplement to the sampling program, EPA has expanded the moni-
toring and review process to insure protection of public health and welfare and prevention of coastal water
quality degradation (set* the Monitoring and Surveillance section of Chapter XI).
NOAA-MESA Studies. On the basis of two comprehensive reports prepared by NOAA-MESA (March
1975. February 1976), there seems to be no significant accumulation of sewage sludge at the existing dump
site, although some sludge particles may be mixing with natural fines in the Christiansen Basin, northwest of
D-3
-------
2
2
GEOMETRIC MEAN
NUMBERS
3
3
3
37
H 25
• 19
13
i 16
50
GEOMETRIC MEAN
NUMBERS
22
11
ill
HI
SAMPLING STATIONS
NEW JERSEY
STATE STANDARD
110
NO NEW JERSEY
STATE STANDARD
40 40 20 9 20 40 40
FECAL COL I FORM TOTAL COL I FORM
(MPN/100 ML) (MPN/100 ML)
COLIFORMS IN NEW JERSEY COASTAL WATERS
TO 20
KIlOMCTEftS
10 20
SOURCE: USEPA,APRIL 1975-
MILES (STATUTt)%;
20
MILES NAUTICAL
D-4
FIGURE 5
-------
FECAL COLIFORM(MPN/IOOML) TOTAL COLIFORM(MPN/IOOML)
o
o
o
*rt
_J
o
«n
1
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
NEW YORK STATE
STANDARD
•r
z
UJ
2 CO
1s
C CD
£ i
o z
UJ
NEW YORK STATE
STANDARD
Z
UJ
2 co
i". c
r uj
cr m
t- 2
UJ 3
O
£ UJ
COLIFORMS IN LONG ISLAND
COASTAL WATERS
10 0 10 20
10
KILOMETERS
10 20
10
10
STATUTE MlL£S
20
••• NAUTI CAL"MILE3
SOURCE: USEPA, APRIL 1975-
D-5
FIGURE 9
-------
the site. Both reports also note that the general ecological etrVt ts oi si-wage sludge dumping .trv i
able from those associated with other ;,ource<> of pollutants m the Bight Apex ithe dumping of dredged
material and acid wastes, contaminants from the plume of the Hudson estuary, shore-zone pollutant con-
tributions, and atmospheric fallout of contaminant*).
However, sludge dumping does exert significant local effects. The catch of groundfbh appears to be
reduced in areas with high-carbon sediments, such as the area of (he existing sludge dump sue. Furthermore.
it is apparent that very few surf clams reach commercial size withm the area now impacted bv sludge
dumping. Although some fish in the Bight Apex are afflicted with fin rot, this disease is not thought to be
attributable solely or even primarily to sludge dumping.
The NOAA-ME5A reports do not indicate anv shoreward movement of coliform contamination as a
result of sludge dumping at ihe existing sue, but they do note the apparent persistence of coliform bacteria in
the vicinity, especially m bottom sediments. There is no evidence that under current FDA regulations the
cessation of sewage sludge dumping at :he existing site would permit reopening of the immediate area to
shdlfishing. The complete text of NOAA-MESA's conclusions and recommendations from the February 1976
report is presented m Appendix G.
At the Toms River hearing in 1977, NOAA concurred with EPA's recommendation of continued use of
the existing dump site based on the fact ihat there is no demonstrated need for relocation (see Appendix G
Related Studies. The most recent vudy or the area (Mueller et si., 1976) indicates that sludge dumping
accounts for 0.04 to 11 percent, at most, of the total pollutant loading m the Bight Apex; pollutant loadings
from non-dumping source* iwastewater discharges, runoff, and atmospheric fallout) far outweigh those from
all current ocean-dumping sources (sewage sludge, dredged material, acid wastes, and cellar dirt)
A study bv the Town of Hempsteacl U974) supports the conclusion that sewage sludge dumped at the
existing site does not significantly affect the quality of the waters or beaches of Long Island.
Use of an Alternate Dump Site Other Than the Northern or Southern Area
Besides the Northern and Southern Areas, possible locations for an alternate sewage sludge dump site
include: the other existing dump sites in the Bight Apex (the dredged material, acid wastes, cellar dirt, and
wreck sites); other areas m the New York Bight; and areas off the continental shelf, notablv the chemical
wastes dump site. These locations are discussed below,
Other Existing Dump Sites in the Bight Apex. Dumping sewage sludge at one of the
other existing sites in the Bight Apex (the dredged material, au
-------
Island and New lersev coasts, and in deep enough w.iiei. to minimize potential impacts on public health and
marine life.
Areas Off the Continental Shelf. In the draft EIS. the alternative of dumping sewage sludge m areas
off the continental shelf, such as at the existing chemical wastes (Jump site, was quickK dismissed because or
the prohibitive transportation costs and because ot the unknown effects ol dumping sewage sludge in those
waters. Developments since that time, the 1976 fish kill and beach closure incidents isee Chapter lli and the
1977 public hearing on possible relocation of sludge dump sites (see Appendices C and 0). have indicated
the need for a more extensile evaluation of this alternative
The decision report issued by EPA-Headquarters on proposals to relocate the New York and Philadel-
phia sewage sludge dump sites specifies six major factors that must be considered in determining the feasibil-
ity of using an off-the-shelf site for sewage sludge disposal: known environmental acceptability, ability to
monitor impact, surveillance of dumping activities, economic burden, logistics, and the effect of utilizing
such a site on the ability of dumpers to meet the December 31, 1981 deadline for the termination of harmful
sewage sludge dumping (Appendix D). Briefly, the chemical wastes site does not appear favorable on any of
these six counts. The environmental acceptability of dumping sewage sludge there is unknown, and scientific
opinion by and large recommends against use of this site for sludge dumping. Monitoring and surveillance
capabilities are substantially reduced, primarily because of the great distance to the chemical wastes site.
Distance is also the primary factor in making the chemical wastes site economically and logistically disadvan-
tageous. The prohibitive cost in turn diminishes the ability of dumpers to meet the 1981 deadline by divert-
ing the available economic resources from the development of acceptable land-based disposal methods.
Each of these factors is explored in more detail below.
Environmental Acceptability - Although the MPRSA recommends that the dumping of wastes be
done in areas off the continental shelf, wherever feasible, the limited information available on this area
suggests otherwise. At a 1971 ocean disposal conference, cosponsored by the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution (WHOl) and the COE, the panel on biological effects stated:
Disposal should not occur in the deep sea, '.a. beyond the continental shelf. A fundamental reason for
this suggestion is the following. The deep sea is an area where biological decomposition rates are ap-
parently very low in comparison with other ocean regions. It is an area ot great constancy with respect to
the physical-chemical environment and it is thought that the fauna living there is finely tuned to small
environmental changes. Thus, the fauna may be quite susceptible to large environmental perturbations
such as might be expected with the introduction of dredge spoils. If deletenous effects occur in the deep
sea, the opportunities to alter the course of events is [sic] minimal. We therefore suggest that the deep
sea should be off limits for disposal activities at least until other information is brought to bear which
would render the possible dangers non-existent. (WHOl, 1971).
A similar view was expressed at a 1974 workshop at Woods Hole, sponsored by the Sational Acad-
emy of Sciences (NASi:
Data for the evaluation of the deep sea as a disposal site are inadequate. This is due to: difficulties in
conducting bioassays; slow rates of mixing and diffusion potentially resulting in anaerobic conditions:
slow organic degradation; and narrow tolerance ranges for sensitive assemblages of organisms. Al-
though the area is relatively stable in comparison to the shelf and nearshore. the much greater scientific
uncertainty, and consequently increased nsk associated with off-shelf disposal, dictate that any but the
most innocuous use of the area should be approached with extreme caution. (NAS, 1976).
In 1974, NOAA, in cooperation with EPA and with several academic/research institutions, began gath-
ering background information on conditions at the chemical wastes site Three baseline survev cruises (1974,
1975, and 1976) and several field studies (February, )une, August, and September 1976; July 1977; and
February and April 1978) have been conducted. A report on the baseline survey cruises has been published
(NOAA, June 1977); the Introduction and Summary from that report, which deals with the chemical wastes
D-7
-------
Site's physical, biological, and chemical characteristic* and its ujnummdMi inputs, art- ^rt-v.-nU'd in Appendix
H.
The chemical wastes site has been in use since I9b5 Therefore, at the time at NOAA's first baseline
survey cruise, the site had been in use 'or about nine years, making it impossible tor NQAA to obtain a pure
pre-dumping baseline. Most of the data gathered by NOAA concern chemical wastes dumping by American
Cyanamid and by DuPont's Grasselli Plant since these two companies accounted for 80 percent of the total
volume of material dumped at the chemical wastes site. The applicability of these data to an assessment of
sewage sludge dumping at the chemical wastes site is limited because paniculate sewage sludge bears little
resemblance to dissolved chemical wastes.
After EPA authorized the dumping of sewage sludge from Camden, \ew lersev, at the chemical wastes
site in early 1977, NOAA began making plans to study the possible effects. That opportunity to study the
possible effects of sewage sludge dumping at the chemical wastes site ended on lune 1 2, 1978. when Cam-
den terminated its ocean dumping operations, a few days short ot the expiration of its permit. Camden now
disposes of its sludge through a comporting process that is described later m this chapter (see the section on
Land-Based Alternatives).
While Camden was using the chemical wastes site. NQAA conducted a colif'orm test and a tracking
study. Although data collection and analysis are in a preliminary stage, some information on sludge dumping
at the chemical wastes site has been furnished by NOAA.
In June 1977, researchers from WHOl collected samples of seawater during, and for some time after,
the release of primary sewage sludge from Camden, New Jersey The samples were tested for the presence
of total and fecal coliforrn bacteria:
Positive results were limited to the first hour of surface sampling from within the plume area.
Regarding total coliforms, 75 percent of the samples collected proved positive and gave a most proba-
ble number range of 1-240 total cells per 100 ml. Measurements on these same samples for fecal
coliforms were positive at the 25 percent level and provided a range of 1-120 cells per 100 ml
No positive results from either test were obtained from any of the subsurface samples. Possibly
th«s« results might nave differed given the opportunity for continuous sampling over the entire plume.
However, the necessary gear was not available at this time and we had to rely on a stationary ship to
acquire water samples from beneath the surface.
There are strong indications that the bactenal population associated with sewage sludge is rapidly
dispersed by the turbulence and sinking associated with sludge release Most of the bactenal load ap-
pears to remain associated with solid material which rapidly descends to the deeper portions of the
water column where a positive sampling becomes highly dubious. (Vaccaro and Oennet, 1977).
In )uly 1977, sewage sludge released at the chemical wastes site was acoustically monitored to deter-
mine its qualitative dispersion characteristics. Preliminary results of the tracking study show a slow, wide
distribution of the waste material:
A sharp thermal gradient CTC/m) existed between 13 and 24 m The waste field on either side of the
dump axis was observed to be distnouted through the first 13 m of the water column On the dump axis.
the waste was observed to penetrate to a depth of 60 m. The deeper penetration was of limited horizon-
tal extent, conical :n shape (apex at the point of deepest penetration), and was distributed continuously
from near the surface to the 60 m depth. The heaviest particle concentration appeared to be m the first
40 m of the water column. A shear with a velocity maximum between 15 and 20 m advectsd the waste
fiekl in the horizontal. Thus, the waste was slowly distnbuted over an increasing area as material sank
from the mixed layer to the seasonal thermoclme. Ounng the 32 hr experimental period, the particle field
became distnbuted over the first 4i5 m of the water column. The distribution was not uniform. Heavy
concentrations of backseattenng, henca particles were found to be associated with one or two strong
thermal gradients (sicj. The thickness of the heavy scattenng areas ranged from S to 10 m The layers
were periodically displaced by as much as 15 m by the internal wave field. The horizontal distnoution of
the waste field will be determined as: our data reduction progresses. The column of material which pene-
trated to 60 m was observed several hours after the dump. There appeared to be little change in its
deptn of penetration or size. (Orr, unpub.).
D-8
-------
Although increased dilution and dispersion are ^t-nereiiK t onsidfrcd to be positive aspects of dumping
in deeper waters, there are serious drawbacks a» well. In testimony at the Toms River hearing in 1977, Dr.
Carol Litchfield. a marine microbiologist, cautioned that mm ing thf dump site to deeper waters would signif-
icantly increase the time required for sludge decomposition:
The vary factor which is appealing to many people in moving and relocation of the dump site in
the deeper waters is the very factor which is going to assure that there will be a longer residence time of
the sludge and a greater accumulation of the material that is dumped
Another concern...is what happens to the organisms that are introduced along with the sewage
sludge.
Unfortunately, there is very little information on the survival of conforms in deeper waters.
It has been repeatedly shown, however, that decreased temperatures aid the survival of conform
bactena in the increased salinities and slightly increased pressures that they would encounter at the
deeper dump site, therefore, automatically assuming that deeper waters will "take care of" potential
pathogens more efficiently than that which occurs at the present location, could lead to a very false
sense of security.
In summary, based solely upon the scientific data available through numerous other studies we
know that only about ten percent of the problem would be relieved by moving of the dump site.
This would probably have little positive effect on decreasing the survival of potentially pathogenic
micro-organisms, and would definitely result in slower decomposition, and hence, greater accumulation
of the dumped organic matters, (in USEPA, June 1. 1977; see also Appendix C).
Another point that must be considered is the unknown consequences of dumping sewage sludge and
chemical wastes at the same site. As previously mentioned, combining different types of wastes at one dump
site makes it extremely difficult to isolate thf true cause of any adverse environmental effects. This would be
an especially difficult problem at the chemical wastes site because the effects of chemical wastes dumping
alone are not yet well understood:
The chemical behavior of the substances discharged at DWD-106 [the chemical wastes site] and
their impact on the marine environment are unknown. A research group consisting of investigators from
Woods Hole Oceanograpnic Institution, University of Rhode island. National Marine Fisheries Service.
and the Smithsonian Institution have developed a multidisciplmary oceanographic study at 0WO-106 to
consider the physical, biological, and chemical factors associated with dumping of chemical wastes The
pnmary chemical questions to be considered in this program are-
1. Does the discharge of wastes at DWD-106 produce elevated concentrations of potentially
toxic metals in the seawater^
2. What are the horizontal and vertical extents of chemical impact at the dumpsite7
3. What are the chemical forms of metals which may be toxic to marine organisms?
4. To what extent are the metals discharged at DWO-106 taken up by organisms, suspended
particles, and seafloor sediments?
Answers to these questions will provide a basis for evaluating the consequences of chemical
waste disposal at DWO-106 and for designing a future monitoring program to assure that this ocean
dumping does not materially degrade the quality of the marine environment. (Hausknecht and Kester.
December 1976).
Despite the limited information available on the chemical wastes site, it has been suggested as an alter-
nate sewage sludge dump site. The hope of avoiding a recurrence of the lish kill and beach closure incidents
discussed in Chapter II is the reason most often cited for this suggested move. However, as reported in
Chapter II, results of the studies of the fish kill and beach closures have shown that both incidents were
basically the result of atypical atmospheric and hydrography conditions, and that sludge dumping was at
most a minor contributing factor. Therefore, moving the sludge dumping operations to the chemical wastes
site would have no value as a preventive measure.
During its investigation of the fish kill and beach closures, EPA-Region II sought the opinion of other
federal and state agencies about the relationship of sludge dumping to these incidents. Specifically, EPA-
Region II asked NQAA, the USCC, FDA, ISC, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the New York State Department
D-9
-------
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEiO, and N|D£P whether they thought sludge dumping was responsible
for the incidents and whether they would recommend relocation of the dump site:
In that during this past spring and summer, there have been several environmental episodes, mainly the
wash-up of Moatables and trash on Long Island and New Jersey beaches, an extensive kill of benthic
organisms in the New York Bight, and considerable press and political pressure to associate dumping
practices as a direci cause of these episodes, we would appreciate your comments regarding the fol-
lowing:
1. Does your Agency believe that dumping is the direct cause of these episodes? If so. do
you have any technical evidence to support this claim?
2. Oo you maintain, as you have indicated in the past, the position that sludge dumping at the
existing site should be continued? If not what would be your position on moving to either of the two sites
studied by NOAA and located roughly 60 miles offshore? What would be your opinion of moving the
dump site off the Continental Sheli to the present chemical wastes site? if you believe that the dump
site, on the basis of the recent incidents, should be relocated, what environmental factors do you con-
sider appropriate in that decision? (See Appendix I.)
In general, there was a lack of enthusiasm for any move from the existing dump site. Only one agency,
NJDEP, favored relocation; it recommended a gradual shift to the chemical wastes dump site, but only after
a thorough evaluation of the potential impacts in accordance with NEPA. Copies of the individual responses
can be found in Appendix I.
At the Toms River hearing in 1977, N|DEP restated its recommendation for a gradual shift to the chemi-
cal wastes site after a thorough environmental assessment of the consequences. At the same time, NOAA
slightly modified its position. In general, NOAA continues to strongly recommend against any move from the
existing dump site based on the fact that there is no demonstrated need for such a move. Nevertheless, if an
alternate site must be chosen, NOAA would prefer the chemical wastes site to a site in either the Northern
or Southern Area. However, NOAA's acceptance of the chemical wastes sue as an altemate sludge dump
site is conditioned on the demonstration thai: "the net adverse environmental effects are (or are likely to be)
less as a result of dumping the materal at (DWO-106 [the chemical wastes site) than at the original dump
site." (in USEPA, May 31, 1977).
After reviewing all of the testimony submitted at the Toms River hearing m 1977,.,the hearing officer
briefly recounted the reasons why sludge dumping at the chemical wastes site would be environmentally
unacceptable:
The preponderance of informed scientific opinion urges extreme caution in dumping wastes m the
deep ocean, particularly wastes containing solid materials, because of the many unknowns about this
part of the environment There is a strong feeling among manne scientists that it would be possible to
stan long-range trends which would be undetectable until it was too late to take corrective measures.
Specific concerns with the dumping of sewage sludge in the deep ocean are the possible persis-
tence of pathogens for long periods of time, the accumulation of biodegradable materials which could
ultimately float up undecayed to contaminate seas and beaches, the development of anaerobic deep
sea environments, and the damage-to deep sea organisms which are used to extremely stable condi-
tions.
Based on this informed scientific opinion, it is concluded that dumping of sewage sludge at the
106-mile site [the chemical wastes site) has a potential for irreversible, long-range, and therefore unrea-
sonable degradation of the marine environment, and that the use of this site for this purpose would be
contrary to the intent of the Act (the MPRSA] and the Convention (the international Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter!. (See Appendix C.)
Monitoring and Surveillance - Although precise information is not available, indications are that both
monitoring and surveillance of sewage sludge dumping at the chemical wastes site would be more difficult.
far more expensive, and perhaps less -eliable than at the existing site. As NOAA observed m its baseline
D-10
-------
survev report on the chemical wastes site, monitoring is far more complicated at off-the-shelf sites:
The environmental effects of disposal in deeper waters are...more difficult to measure and, hence, to
predict This is due to factors sucn as greater depths of water and distances from shore and also to the
general paucity of environmental and biological information in off-the-shelf areas. In the case of OWO-
106 [the chemical wastes site] this situation is further complicated by the interactions of major water
masses. Shelf Water, Slope Water, and Gulf Stream eddies. The DWD-106 is a complex oceanographic
area in which to assess natural environmental conditions and the impact of man's activities upon those
conditions (NOAA, June 1977; see Appendix H).
In testimony at the Toms River hearing, Kenneth Kamlet. representing the National Wildlife Federation,
expressed serious doubts about the feasibility of monitoring sludge dumping operations ai the chemical
wastes site:
Relocation of sludge dumping to the 106-site [the chemical wastes sitej would essentially deny
the opportunity to monitor the situation and render it vitually impossible to alter the course of events
should corrective action be necessary.
This is a frequently cited concern. For example, at the EPA workshop on "Evaluation of Ocean
Dumping Catena" convened at Airlie House, August 31 - September 1, 1973. a group chaired by Or.
Edward 0. Goldberg, and including among others, Ors. Dean f. Bumpus, Gilbert T. Rows, and David
Menrel, concluded that, although off-Shelf dumpsite locations "would be amenable to mixing of liquids, it
is not possible to predict the effect and fate of solids at great depths and it would be difficult to monitor
thetr effects." Dr. Holger Jannasch has pointed out that "the feasibility of short-term studies (on deep-
sea btodegradation) is very limited," and that, for this and other reasons, "it will probably be difficult or
impossible "to show" — not because there will be no harm..." (but because) (scientific evidence for or
against such an effect will be very difficult to obtain" (in USEPA, May 31, 1977).
In connection with the Toms River hearing, NOAA was asked by the hearing officer to provide informa-
tion on the feasibility of developing a program to monitor the effects of sludge dumping at the chemical
wastes site. In reply, NOAA stated that such a program would be possible but also very expensive:
The techniques required for a monitonng program are available. It is. however, more time-consuming
and thus more expensive to monitor a site which is 100 miles from shore and 2,000 meters deep than
one which is nearshore and shallow.
An effective monitonng program would be built upon our existing knowledge. Initial work directed specifi-
cally at sewage sludge would be to define the volume of water through which the sludge settles, the
area of the bottom accepting the waste, the rate of water renewal, and rates of deep-sea sludge oxida-
tion. The effects of sludge on deep-sea biota would be addressed through field sampling and by applica-
tion of specialized techniques for observation at low temperature and high pressure.
It is estimated that such a program would require about S2.5 million for each of its first two years and.
thereafter, about S1.0 million per annum (Martineau. October 11, 1977).
After evaluating all of the information presented at the Toms River hearing, the hearing Officer con-
cluded that it would not be feasible to design an effective monitoring program for sewage sludge dumping at
the chemical wastes site (see Appendix C).
Similar problems arise in terms of surveillance at the chemical wastes site. As previously reported, the
USCC has responsibility under the MPRSA for surveillance and other appropriate enforcement activitv with
regard to ocean dumping, and the USCC - Third District is responsible for surveillance ot ocean dumping m
the New York Bight.
At the Toms River hearing. Commander Mullen, representing the Third Coast Guard District, testified
about the difficulties of conducting a thorough surveillance program if sludge dumping is moved trom the
existing site to either the 60-mile site or the chemical wastes site:
D-ll
-------
Surveillance of sewage sludge disposal operations at the New York Bight Site (11-mile site) >s
conducted by four Coast Guard vessels which are of the 82 foot and 95 foot classes. These are rela-
tively small vessels.
An average of four vessel patrols per week are conducted at this site. The patrols occur both
daytime and nighttime and are intended primarily to detect and to deter dumping outside of the dump-
sites, although other EPA requirements, affecting rate of discharge, discharge of floatables. and so forth
are also monitored.
In addition, a daily schedule of multi-mission helicopter patrols by Coast Guard Air Station Brook-
lyn is also conducted which in part, monitor the same activities.... [The helicopters used in this program]
are of the type HH-52A, with an operational limitation of approximately 25 miles from shore.
Surveillance at tha Industnal Waste Site (the chemical wastes site) is conducted by shipnder.
Currently, five petty officers at New York and two at Philadelphia are involved, it should be noted
at this point that the departure times of the vessels and barges are subject to substantial changes as a
result of mechanical failures or weather and tidal conditions.
As a result, shipriders are often tied up for considerable periods of time awaiting departure for a
particular disposal tnp.
Considerable time is also involved in transporting the shipnder to the barge, which requires a
vehicle and an additional man.
Coast Guard National Policy is to provide 75% surveillance of toxic chemical dumps which are
disposed of at the Industrial Waste Site. With regard to surveillance of sewage sludge and other material
ocean dumped. Coast Guard policy is to provide 10% surveillance.
Now let us consider the feasibility of surveillance at each of the alternative sewage sludge dis-
posal sites.
As I mentioned earlier, surveillance at the 106-mile site [the chemical wastes site] is conducted
entirely by shipnders. Disposal of all the area's sewage sludge at the 106-mile site would cause a dra-
matic increase in the number of dumps occurring there.
In order to provide the 10% level of surveillance presently maintained over sewage sludge. Coast
Guard shipriders would have to be utilized for these additional missions.
This would require the allocation of new personnel at the Captain of the Port offices and exten-
sive use of reserve petty officers.
The use of reserve petty officers as shipnders is a concept that has recently been tested by the
Captain of the Port. Philadelphia. Some of the problems encountered included a lack of expertise with ail
types of navigational equipment
The reservists generally have to be provided with refresher training in the use of Loran A, Omega,
dead reckoning etc. Delays m vessel and barge departures due to weather and mechanical failure
caused the reservist to spend considerable time in stand-by status.
This tends to be a senous problem in terms of manpower utilization due to the short active duty
period of each reservist.
Helicopters would have the capacity to check vessels m transit to the 106-mile site, but surveil-
lance at the dump site is beyond tha capabilities of the shore based HHQ52A [sic].
In the near future, we hope to implement an automated ocean dumping surveillance system.
This system is presently being field tested. Such a system would greatly facilitate our ability to
monitor dumps at any of the dump sites far offshore.
It is anticipated that regulations requinng installation of OOSS will be issued within six months.
Three modes of surveillance are being considered for the 60-mile sits [in the Northern or South-
em Area], should sludge dumping te moved there. Shipnders could be utilized as at the industrial Waste
Site and essentially the same problems would be encountered.
Although the time required to comolete a mission would be less, the departure delays and time
required to transport the shipnder to and from the vessel would still exist.
In considenng use of the 95 and 32 foot patrol boats for surveillance at the 60-mile site, new
problems anse that do not exist for surveillance at the present sludge dump.
The 82 and 95 foot class vessels are til adapted to cruising dunng rough waters encountered on
the high seas.
Larger class vessels have been committed to offshore fisheries patrol and are fully utilized while
assigned to that program. While the possibility exists that the larger vessels used on fisheries patrol
could occasionally aass in the vicinity of the 60-mile dump site, it is unlikely that the frequency of this
happening could result in an effective surveillance program.
The proximity of the 11-mile site [the existing sewage sludge dump site] to Grouos Sandy Hook
and Rockaway allows for easy access to the site and keeps the 82 and 95 foot patrol aoats "close to
home" in an excellent position to respond to other missions most importantly search and rescue.
D-12
-------
It is important to note, that the 82 and 95 foot patrol boats are the primary SAR (search and
rescue] boats for Coast Guard Surveillance goal of 10% [sic].
As mentioned earlier, Coast Guard safety policy is to utilize the HH-52A helicopter up to 25 miles
from shore.
The proposed 60-mile site is 33 miles from Long Island. 8 miles beyond the aircraft's normal
range. In other words, the HH-52As could be used for occasional surveillance of barges and vessels in
transit to the 60-mile site, but actual surveillance of disposal operations at the site would by necessity be
limited.
The Automated Ocean Dumping Surveillance System (OOSS) once available, would provide an
additional alternative to monitoring at the 60 mile site
In conclusion, the resulting surveillance programs for sewage sludge dumped at either the 60 mile
site or the 106 mile mile site would not be as effective as they are presently, unless sufficient lead time
were available to acquire additional shipriders. or unless implementation of the automated ocean dump-
ing surveillance system were to first take place.
In the intenm penod, while attempts are being made to obtain additional resources, it is recom-
mended that a requirement be added to all permits issued for the 60 or 106 mile site for daytime and
nighttime that the master of the ocean dumping vessel prepare at the time of occurrence a navigational
overlay of the dumping vessel's trackline dunng the dumping operation, indicating the times and posi-
tions at entry and exit of dumpsite and beginning and end of dump.
It is our intention to make every effort to acquire the needed extra persons as soon as any
decision is made to move the sludge site, but the extent of lead time needed to actually obtain the
needed resources is not known at this time (in USEPA, May 31, 1977).
In summary. Commander Mullen's assessment was that there would be no insurmountable technologi-
cal problems associated with providing the standard 10 percent surveillance of sewage sludge dumping, at
the chemical wastes site. However, until the electronic surveillance device being tested by the USCC is
approved and installed on vessels engaged in ocean dumping, an effective surveillance program would be
economically and logistically burdensome, requiring substantial increases in equipment and personnel as well
as the lead time to acquire the needed equipment and to adequately tram Coast Guard reservists m its use.
In his report on the Toms River hearing, the hearing officer acknowledged the difficulties pointed out by
Commander Mullen, but concluded, "there is no indication that surveillance of dumping at the 106-mile site
[the chemical wastes site| would not be feasible" (see Appendix C).
Logistics and Economics - Even if there were enough data to determine the potential effects on the
marine environment of dumping sewage sludge at the chemical wastes site, and even if those effects were
found to be acceptable, the logistical and economic drawbacks associated with the distance to the chemical
wastes site would probably preclude this alternative. At its closest point, the chemical wastes site is 210 km
(115 n mi) from the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect. The limitations of the existing fleet are such that a
maximum distance of 120 km (65 n mi) was made one of the criteria for selecting an alternate sewage sludge
dump site. Transporting sludge to the chemical wastes site or to some other area off the continental shelf
would necessitate upgrading and expansion of the existing fleet.
As shown in Table 7, only twelve vessels are actually m use in the New York Bight, and one of those,
the barge Westco I, is not seaworthy for use beyond the existing sludge dump site. This reduces the total
fleet to eleven and the total carrying capacity to 41,374 cu m (54,112 cu yd) or about 91 percent of the
carrying capacity of the full thirteen-vessel fleet.
At an average speed of 13 km/hr (7 knots), a tanker would take approximately 54 hours to make a
round trip to the chemical wastes site (see Table 29). At an average speed of 9 km/hr (5 knots), a barge
would take approximately 72 hours. These time estimates include 10 hours per trip for docking and loading
and 5 hours per tnp for discharging the sludge. The 5-hour discharge limitation was imposed by the USCC
for safety reasons at the existing dump site. It is used here to facilitate time comparisons between the existing
dump site and the chemical wastes site. If the chemical wastes site were actually to be used, the time
required for discharge would be substantially greater because the USCC safety limit would not apply and the
discharge rate would have to be established in accordance with section 227.8 of the current ocean dumping
regulations (see Appendix 8). Thus, the round trip time to the chemical wastes site would be 54 hours plus
D-13
-------
for a tanker and 72.hours plus for a barge. A round trip to the existing sewage sludge dump site takes about
26 hours for a tanker and 30 hours for a barge.
Given the time constraints associated with the chemical wastes site and assuming that necessary over-
hauls would put each vessel out of service lor about one month per year, the maximum number of annual
trips to the site would be 147 for each tanker and 111 for each barge. It is most unlikely that the maximum
number of trips could actually be made, however, because this would require that each vessel be in round-
the-clock service for the other eleven months of the year.
Even if optimum conditions prevailed, the total volume of sludge that could be transported to the
chemical wastes site by the available eleven-vessel fleet (six tankers and five barges) would be 5.0 million cu
m (6.6 million cu yd) per year. Almost 4.0 million cu m (5.3 million cu yd) of sludge were dumped at the
existing site in 1977, and over 6.0 million cu m (7.9 million cu yd) are projected to be dumped in 1978 (see
Tables 6 and 9).
The situation could be improved somewhat by the addition of the Liquid Waste No. 1, which is now in
use in Puerto Rico. This would bring the number of vessels to twelve (six tankers and six barges) and the total
hauling capacity to about 5.3 million cu m (7.0 million cu yd) per year. However, since this volume will
probably be surpassed in 1978, fleet augmentation cannot be avoided if a site off the continental shelf is
chosen for sludge dumping.
The sludge dumping fleet could be enlarged either by hiring or by constructing the needed vessels. Both
of these options would be prohibitively expensive, and the latter would also be infeasible considering the
time required to construct the needed vessels and the scheduled phase out of ocean dumping in 1981.
Expanding the fleet of dumping vessels and increasing the travel time for each vessel in order to make
use of the chemical wastes site would dramatically raise the cost of sludge dumping for those municipalities
that now hold ocean dumping permits (see Table 6):
Cost p«r
Dump Site Wet Ton
Existing $1.25
Northern or
Southern Area 4.00 to !i.OO 6.30 to 7.80 4.70 to 5.90
Chemical Wastes 8.00 to 10.00 12.50 to 15.60 9.40 to 11 80
Thus, the cost of using the chemical wastes site would be twice the cost of using a dump site in the Northern
or Southern Area, and six to eight times the cost of continuing to use the existing sewage sludge dump site.
Had the chemical wastes site been used for sludge dumping in 1977, it would have cost the municipal
permittees somewhere between $49.0 million and S61.0 million instead of the $7.6 million that it cost to use
the existing site. By 1981, use of the chemical wastes site for sludge dumping would cost the municipal
permittees somewhere between $124.0 million and $154.0 million. The cost to New York City alone could
be as much as $64.0 million; currently, sewage sludge dumping at the existing site costs the city $2.2 million
per year (Samowitz, June 14, 1977).
Other costs would rise as well, including the cost of monitoring the dump site and the cost of the
USCC's surveillance operations.
Its dubious environmental acceptability and its extreme cost are the major but not the only drawbacks
to dumping sewage sludge at the chemical wastes site. Greater navigation hazards would result from the
dumping vessels' increased travel time on the open ocean. Short dumping, including emergency dumping,
would almost certainly increase. Added to this is the fact that using the chemical wastes site for sludge
dumping would be of negligible benefit to the water quality of the Bight Apex. Of all of the pollutant sources
in the Bight Apex, sludge dumping is hardly the most significant, and its removal to the chemical wastes site
could not by itself effect a substantial change in water quality.
Effect of Using the Chemical Wastes Site on the Ability of Dumpers to Meet the December 31,
1981 Deadline • The prohibitive cost associated with using the chemical wastes site for sewage sludge
disposal would threaten the ultimate objective of terminating sludge dumping by December 31. 1981. The
D-14
-------
economic resources of the communities involved are finite, and if they are spent on transporting sludge to
the chemical wastes site, they will not be available for implementing land-based disposal methods. This
particular aspect of using the chemical wastes site is a matter of concern not only to the communities that
would have to bear the cost, but to federal agencies, to environmental groups, and to some of the Congress-
men who were instrumental in amending the MPRSA to specify the 1981 deadline (see Appendices C and
D)
Although NOAA would prefer that the chemical wastes site rather than a site in the Northern or South-
ern Area be used in an emergency between .now and 1981, NOAA opposes summarily moving sludge
dumping from the existing site to the chemical wastes site:
NOAA is not in agreement with the proposal to move the sludge dump site which serves the New
York-New Jersey metropolitan area from the Apex to the deep water site at 106 miles [the chemical
wastes site).
Our position is that no need has been established to require moving the existing dump site, and
that alt sewage sludge dumping should be halted by 1981
We are concerned that an open door policy of sewage sludge could ultimately lead to the situa-
tion in which most or substantial amounts of east coast municipal and industrial waste dumping is earned
out at that site.
Sue* a policy would seriously undermine efforts to encourage ocean dumpers (o seek land based
alternatives to ocean dumping (emphasis added] (in USEPA, May 31, 1977).
A similar view was expressed by Kenneth Kamlet, representing the National Wildlife Federation, at the
Toms River hearing in 1977. In responding to the argument that the increased cost of using the chemical
wastes site would make land-based disposal more cost-competitive with ocean dumping and therefore more
attractive to the municipalities involved, Mr. Kamlet stated:
In the first place, any significant increment between now and the end of 1981 (the deadline for
completing the phase-out of sewage sludge ocean dumping) m the cost of sewage sludge disposal could
as easily discourage as encourage the expedited phase-out of sludge dumping. // it had the effect of
diverting into continued ocean dumping limited funds which would otherwise be available to implement a
dumping phase-out [emphasis added].
In the second place, if the cost increment for relocating the dumpsite were not substantial
enough to jeopardize the implementation of land based alternatives, chances are they would also not be
substantial enough to provide much if any incentive to accelerate a dumping phase-out (in USEPA, May
31, 1977).
Congressman Edwin Forsythe, the ranking minority member of the House Subcommittee on Oceanog-
raphy, also testified against moving sludge dumping to an alternate site, particularly the chemical wastes site:
A decision regarding the location of municipal sewage sludge dumping is a critical resource
management problem. Since the environmental and fiscal resources at stake are extremely valuable, our
decision-making must be based on rationality. Attempts to sensationalize the issue, and politically expe-
dient pressure to move the problem "out of sight", "out of mind", must be resisted.
The net effects at present of a dumpsite move would be the following: a new site would be
contaminated, with little recovery of existing dumpsites.
Municipalities will exhaust their financial resources on increased transportation costs and ocean
dumping barge construction while alternative treatment methods go unfunded [emphasis added]. The
government will investigate and monitor new dumpsites at the time when Congress has reaffirmed its
unequivocal intent to end ocean dumping of sewage sludge by 1981.
Finally, responsible parties seeking permanent solutions to the region's waste disposal problem
will have their efforts diffused if a quick-fix, "out-of-sight", "out-of-mind" non-solution is adopted.
I am particularly concerned about the possiblity of dumping sewage sludge at Oeepwater dump-
site 106 [the chemical wastes site].
The sensitivity of biota, the likely impact on fishenes, the difficulty of policing, the high probability
of short dumps, and the impossible task of thoroughly monitoring adverse impacts at the site clearly
indicate that dumping at the 106-site could be an environmental nightmare (in USEPA. May 31, 1977).
D-15
-------
Congressman Forsythe and the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Oceanography later reiterated
these same concerns during EPA's 1978 ocean dumping authorization hearings (see Appendix D).
The estimated cost to municipalities of using the chemical wastes site for sludge dumping is shown in
Table 30. An increase of 64 T to 800 percent over the cost of using the existing dump site between 1978 and
1981 is projected. This large an increase would almost certainly detract from the search for alternative land-
based disposal methods. As the hearing officer's report for the Toms River hearing concludes:
Nona of the municipalities stated that they could not meet the added costs, but they did point out
that there would be difficulties in funding, and that these costs might have to come from funds presently
allocated for implementing alternatives (emphasis added). (See Appendix C.)
Modification of Dumping Methods
Current sludge dumping procedures, as set forth in each ocean dumping permit, require that the sludge
be discharged within the designated dump site, at a uniform rate of 15,500 gallons per n mi (27,441 liters
per km) and a speed of at least 3 knots (5 km/hr). Vessel traverses must be at least 0.5 n mi (1 km) apart.
These requirements have been stipulated by the USCG for safety reasons in this heavily trafficked area. They
would not be applicable if sludge dumping were moved to a site outside the Bight Apex.
Methods of sludge release considered in this EIS include simple overboard dumping, jet discharge, and
discharge in the vessel's wake (the present method).
Overboard Dumping. This method consists of simply releasing the sludge from the vessel; the material
descends by its own momentum. Since its vertical motion is affected by buoyancy, the initial distribution is
mainly within the surface water layers.
Jet Discharge. This method involves pumping the sludge from the vessel through an opening
beneath the surface. It is effective in passing the material through the surface layers, but it results m a more
confined initial distribution, usually at the depth of neutral buoyancy of the sludge.
Discharge in the Vessel's Wake (Present Method). This method results in high initial mixing and
dilution, but the sludge's vertical motion is still dependent on density differences between it and the receiv-
ing waters.
Considering the 30 to 60 m (100 to 200 ft) depths and the flow patterns in the Northern and Southern
Areas, the present dispersive method of sludge dumping should be continued at an alternate dump site for
the following reasons:
— Sewage sludge dumped at or near the surface will settle over a wide area because of its low bulk
density, 1.01 g/cu cm.
— Differences in the thermohaline (temperature and salinity) density structure of the ocean would
probably slow the settling of sludge under stratified conditions and would negate the effective-
ness of a pumped subsurface discharge.
— Dispersion at either the Northern or Southern Area is primarily a function of sea state, depth, and
water mass movements. A<; such, it is not likely to be improved by altering the present dumping
technique.
— Given the volumes of dumped sludge projected through 1981 and the limitations of the present
fleet, use of sophisticated dumping techniques would probably be both technically impossible
and economically prohibitive. Moreover, such techniques would be of little value in improving
dispersion patterns.
— Monitoring of the dump site would be facilitated if dumping were limited to a specific surface
area.
D-16
-------
LAND-BASED ALTERNATIVES
Although an immediate changeover to land-based disposal of sewage sludge m the Ne* >ork
iff«.e\ metropolitan area is not feasible, current predictions are that land-based methods can be implemented
in time to meet the December 31, 1981 deadline for phasing out ocean dumping of sewage sludge.
In lune 1975 and'lune 1976, ISC issued reports on Phases 1 and 2, respectively, of a three-phase
sludge management study funded by EPA. In October 1976, the study was completed with the publication
of ISC's sludge disposal management plan for the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. The study's
purpose was to describe the feasible land-based alternatives for sludge disposal and methods of implement-
ing them. As the study progressed and more information was gathered, ISC modified its recommendations
accordingly; the final report, published in October 1976, sets forth ISC's current position on the question of
sludge management in the metropolitan area.
ISC Phase 1 Report
The Phase 1 report was primarily concerned with the following land-based methods of sewage sludge
disposal: direct land application, incineration, pyrolysis, and use as a soil conditioner or fertilizer.
Direct Land Application. Sewage sludge in its liquid form can sometimes be applied to the land as a
soil conditioner or fertilizer. Those characteristics of sludge that affect its suitability for direct land application
include the organic matter content, the available nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, and trace
elements), the quantities of heavy metals, and the toxic organics (especially chlorinated hydrocarbons). In
general, three factors limit the immediate implementation of direct land application of metropolitan area
sludge.
First, the sludge generated by metropolitan wastewater treatment facilities contains high concentrations
of heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc) and significant quantities of
toxic organics (chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, lindane, and mirex). If these substances leached into
the soils underlying a land-application site, they would be harmful to adjacent streams and groundwater
aquifers.
Second, metropolitan area sludge is low in nutrients (as are most domestic sewage sludges) in compari-
son with commercial fertilizers.
Finally, land is not available in the metropolitan area for a large-scale land-application program. The
cost of transporting large quantities of sludge to suitable sites outside the metropolitan area appears to be
prohibitive.
Incineration. Sewage sludge incineration results in waste gases, particulates, and a relatively small
quantity of sterHe ash that retains most of the heavy metals originally present. Air pollution controls, such as
wet scrubbers, are necessary to remove the particulates, odors, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile toxic
organics, and airborne heavy metals (cadmium, lead, and mercury). Multiple-hearth incineration has the least
potential for air pollution; it can burn without auxiliary fuel (gas, oil, or coal), and it is compatible with a
phased change-over to pyroiysis. The ash, of course, which contains heavy metals, must ultimately be dis-
posed of in an environmentally acceptable manner.
To bum without auxiliary fuel, sludge must generally be dewatered, that is, the liquid content must be
reduced from its usual range of 93 to 97 percent to less than 65 percent.
Although the air pollution problems posed by this method of sludge disposal could be minimized by
incinerating the material on ships or offshore platforms, the costs cannot be justified since other, more eco-
nomical, methods of sludge disposal are available.
D-17
-------
Pyrolysis. Destructive distillation, or pyrolysis, is the process of breaking down organic matter, such as
sewage sludge, by heating it in the absence of oxygen. The resulting bv-products are A numbe-- of gases, a
carbon/ash char, and a liquid waste containing a wide variety of organic compound1) Pyrolv^ is ^pnerjUv
cheaper than incineration because t produces fewer particulates and thus requires less m the way or air
pollution controls. The by-products, char and gases, can be used as fuels. To date, however, no large-scale
pyrolysis tests have been conducted on sewage sludge alone, so prior to implementation of this alternative, a
pilot demonstration plant would have to be built and successfully operated.
Use as a Soil Conditioner. Problems with the use of sewage sludge as a soil conditioner or fertilizer
are much the same as those with direct land application: the high concentrations of heavy metals and toxic
organic compounds must be removed or reduced. In addition, the sludge must be dried to 5 or 10 percent
moisture content and fortified with nutrients before it can be used as a fertilizer. Finally, there is the problem
of promoting consumer acceptance.
Conclusions and Recommendations. The ISC Phase 1 report (1975) drew the following conclusions
regarding land-based sludge disposal methods for the metropolitan area and the eventual, phased implemen-
tation of those methods.
The most feasible alternative to ocean dumping would be pyrolysis (the sludge having been dewatered
with filter presses). This conclusion was based on considerations of environmental impact, economic feasibil-
ity, and energy recovery. Pyrolysis has the least potential for negative impacts on water, air, or land re-
sources. It could be implemented within ten years.
Multiple-hearth incineration could be implemented sooner than pyrolysis, and the incinerators could be
converted to pyrolysis units once that process was demonstrated to be successful. Incinerators, however,
would face more difficult siting problems because of their potential for air pollution and because of the
possibility of local community resistance. The incinerators needed to handle the volumes of sludge projected
for the year 2000 would cost on the order of 5400 to S500 million (in 1975 dollars).
Direct land application could be implemented only in fringe areas (outside the metropolitan area),
where population density is low and large tracts of land are available, and where agricultural enterprises
would provide a market for sludge-based fertilizers and soil conditioners.
A small-scafe pilot study should be undertaken immediately with the aid of an equipment manufacturer
who is familiar with both pyrolysis technololgy and multiple-hearth furnace construction. The purpose would
be to identify and define the required engineering parameters prior to full-scale demonstration plant con-
struction.
The complete text of the Phase 1 report's conclusions and recommendations is presented as part of
Appendix J.
ISC Phase 2 Report
The object of the Phase 2 report (ISC, 1976a) was to develop and recommend a specific, coordinated
disposal program based on the technical findings of the Phase 1 report (ISC, 1975). In sum. the Phase 2
report recommends the construction of regional pyrolysis plants at six separate locations in the metropolitan
area and only limited land application of sludge.
Incineration and Pyrolysis. To date, pyrolysis of sludge alone has been studied only in pilot-scale tests;
large-scale demonstrations have utilized solid wastes. The ISC's Phase 1 report indicated that multiple-hearth
furnaces could be built by 1981, initially operated as incinerators, and then converted to pvrolysis units as
that technology developed. Between the publication of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports, it was learned that
such furnaces could be designed and constructed as pyrolysis units directly during the same time span;
incineration was therefore not considered further.
The ISC evaluated the retention of anaerobic digestion capabilities at individual plants because a num-
ber of operating wastewater treatmem plants have, or plan to construct, these digesters, it was found that
maintenance of existing anaerobic digesters was cost-effective, but that new digesters should not be built if
sludge was to be pyrolyzed.
D-18
-------
Land Application, Composting, and Landfilling. Land application and composting are feasible sludge
disposal alternatives for outlying plants in the metropolitan area. These plants could form regional groups lor
direct land application or for sludge composting.
Landfilling of stabilized, dewatered sludge is cost-effective only for the smaller suburban wastewater
treatment facilities, and only if landfill sites are available. Landfilling, however, should be considered a short-
term solution, to be used while long-term direct land application or composting programs are instituted. In
addition, landfilling was found not to be feasible for sludges produced by treatment plants in highly urban-
ized portions of the metropolitan area because of the larger quantities of sludge produced and the limited
lifespans of available landfill sites.
Sludge Management. The plan recommended in ISC's Phase 2 report calls for pyrolysis of sludge
produced in urban treatment plants and land application or composting of sludge produced m outlying
plants. The recommended pyrolysis sites and areas to be served are:
1. Port Newark (New Jersey regional), serving Bergen, Hudson, and Union counties, and the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners.
2. Sayreville, serving the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority.
3. Cedar Creek, serving Nassau County.
4. Twenty-Sixth Ward, serving Coney Island, Jamaica, Rockaway, and Twenty-Sixth Ward.
5. Hunts Point, serving Bowery Bay, Hunts Point, Tallmans Island, and Wards Island.
6. Fresh Kills (New York regional), serving Newtown Creek, North River, Owls Head, and Port
Richmond.
Conclusions and Recommendations. Pyrolysis is favored as a particularly promising means of dispos-
ing of the large volume of municipal sewage sludge expected to be produced by the year 2000. The ISC
Phase 2 report concludes that if future federal policies prohibit or significantly curtail the ocean dumping of
sludge, pyrolysis is the best alternative for its disposal. The report also recommends the construction of six
regional pyrolysis facilities (listed above). Only limited amounts of sludge are seen as suitable for direct land
application.
The ISC concludes that direct land application of either treated or untreated sludge in quantities suffi-
cient to dispose of the expected volumes would be dangerous because of the large heavy metal and toxic
organic content, and the threat of surface and groundwater contamination. Pyrolysis is also preferred to
incineration because units could be more easily decentralized. While pyrolysis equipment capable of reduc-
ing sludge is not yet in commercial operation, recent technological advances make it appear that the method
could be in practical use by the early 1980s.
While the ISC acknowledges the urgent need for the cessation of ocean dumping, it considers EPA's
phase-out date of December 31, 1981 to be somewhat optimistic.
The complete text of the Phase 2 report's summary chapter is presented as part of Appendix j.
ISC Sludge Disposal Management Program
The latest ISC report (1976b) presents ISC's plan for sewage sludge management in the New York-New
Jersey metropolitan area. It combines the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports with an examination of legal-
institutional implementation problems.
In general, the sludge management plan currently recommended by ISC is very similar to the one
recommended in the Phase 2 report. The maior difference, is that ISC now places a greater emphasis on
composting followed by land spreading. The sludges produced by several treatment plants in the metropoli-
tan area are now suitable for composting and land spreading. Other sludges are still unsuitable, primarily
because of their heavy metal and synthetic organics content. However, pretreatment of industrial wastewa-
ters could resolve these problems.
D-19
-------
Relative to pyrolysis, the ISC recommends five facility sites rather than the six given in the Phase 2
report:
1. Port Newark (New Jersey region.il), serving Sergen, Hudson, and Union counties, and the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners.
2. Sayreville, serving the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority.
3. Cedar Creek, Serving Nassau Countv.
4. Twenty-Sixth Ward, serving Newtown Creek, Owls Head, Cuney Island, Ian-Mica. Rockawav,
and Twenty-Sixth Ward.
5. Hunts Point, serving Bowery Bay, Hunts Point, Tallmans Island, and Wards Island.
The ISC makes no recommendation relative to the North River or Red Hook treatment plants that are being
constructed in New York City; both plants are scheduled to go into operation m the mid-1980's.
The complete text of the summary chapiter of the October 1976 report is presented as pan of Appendix
J.
Testing and Implementation
As noted at the start of this chapter, the testing and implementation phases of the sludge disposal
management program have begun. Since no arge-scale pyrolysis test had been conducted on sewage sludge
alone. ISC recommended, in its Phase 1 Report, that a pilot demonstration plant be built and successfully
operated. In 1976, EPA funded such a pilot test. Nichols Engineering and Research Corporation was con-
tracted to test sludge pyrolysis at its Belle Mead, New Jersey, research facility. Sludges from several treat-
ment plants were chemically conditioned, dewatered, and pyrolyzed under various design conditions in a
Nichols Herreshoff Multiple Hearth Furnace. Nichols has reported that pyrolvsis can be used as a commer-
cially feasible and cost effective thermal destruction method for sludge disposal without using fuel, including
afterburning at 759'C (1400'F) (ISC 1978).
In December 1976, a sludge composting project in Camden, New lersev, was funded by EPA and
NIDEP. This project uses a technique developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's experimental sludge
composting station in Beltsville, Maryland. During the process, which takes a total of thirty days, dewatered
sludge is mixed with a bulking agent, such as wood chips, corn cobs, or waste paper, and stacked m piles.
The piles are blanketed with an inert material, and air is drawn through the piles. Aerobic biological degrada-
tion increases temperatures within the piles to 82*C (180*F), thus destroying most pathogenic bacteria.
The Camden composting facility, which was dedicated m lune 1978, established several major en\ iron-
mental precedents. It is the largest composting operation of its type m the United States, it is also the first
such municipal undertaking in the New York-New Jersey area. Most important, it is the first instance of
cessation of ocean dumping by a large municipal sewage treatment plant (58,118 cu m or 76,471 cu yd per
year).
All municipal permittees in EPA-Region II are required by permit condition to select and implement an
environmentally acceptable alternative to ocean dumping on or before December 31, 1981. Each permittee
has been given a final phase-out date based upon the individual permit implementation schedule. Each of the
permittees is on a strict implementation schedule, and is closely monitored by EPA-Region II. All permittees
are afforded the opportunity to comply with this condition using federal funds available through the PWPCA
(the Clean Water Act), and most have chosen this path. Examples of the technologies being considered or
currently being implemented are:
Camden
Middletown Township
Northeast Monmouth Composting
Linden-Roselle
D-20
-------
Nassau County
Bergen County
joint Meeting of
Essex and Union
Counties
Rahway Valley
Wayne Township
Lincoln Park
Pequannock Township
Pompton Plains
Oakland
Middlesex County
Glen Cove
New York City
Westchester County
Composting of sludge and use as landfill cover as an interim solution;
co-recovery with solid wastes as a long-term solution
Incineration
Multiple hearth incineration or starved air combustion
Co-incineration with solid wastes
Composting or landfilling of digested dewatered sludge as an interim
solution; utilization of other technology (pyrolysis, co-recovery, etc.) or
shipment out of the city area for composting as a long-term solution
Use of existing excess capacity in solid waste incinerators and com-
posting of remainder
D-21
-------
APPENDIX E
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENT
AND PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
ON THE DRAFT EIS
-------
CONTENTS
Title Page
COMMENTERS OF THE DRAFT EIS E-2
LETTERS COMMENTING ON THE EIS E-9
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENT E-79
RESPONSES TO HEARING TESTIMONY E-103
E-iii
-------
APPENDIX E
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENT
AND PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
ON THE DRAFT EIS
The draft EIS (DEIS) was issued on June 25, 1979 and a public hearing was held
on August 21, 1979 at Mercer County Community College, New Jersey. The public
was encouraged to participate in the hearing and to submit written comments.
This appendix contains copies of all verbal and written comments received by
EPA on the DEIS. There was a great variety of comments received, thus EPA
presents several levels of response:
• Comments correcting facts presented in the EIS, or providing
additional information, were incorporated into the text without
further response. Most of Du Pont's and NOAA's comments were
handled in this manner.
• Specific comments, which were not appropriately treated as text
changes, were numbered in the margins of the letters, and responses
prepared for each numbered item.
• Comments orginating at the public hearing were excerpted from the
hearing transcript, and responses prepared.
Some written comments were received after the end of the comment period and
the close of the public hearing record. In order to give every consideration
to public concerns, the Agency took all comments received up to the date of
final production of the final EIS under advisement.
The EPA sincerely thanks all those who commented on the draft EIS,
especially those who submitted detailed criticisms that reflected a thorough
analysis of the EIS.
E-l
-------
COMMENTERS OF THE DRAFT EIS
The following persons submitted written comments:
Edwin B. Forsythe
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation
and the Environment
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Room 1334 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(August 24, 1979)
P.A. DeScenza
Chief, Engineering Division
U.S. Department of the Army
New York District, Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
(August 2, 1979)
Sidney R. Caller
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs
U.S. Department of Commerce
Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology
Washington, D.C. 20230
(August 31, 1979 September 11, 1979)
P. Kilho Park
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Survey
Rockville, MD 20852
(August 10, 1979)
George C. Steinman
Chief, Environmental Activities Group
Office of Shipbuilding Costs
U.S. Department of Commerce
Maritime Administration
Washington, D.C. 20230
(July 26, 1979)
E-2
-------
Allen E. Peterson, Jr.
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Federal Building, 14 Elm Street
Gloucester, MA 01930
(August 28, 1979)
David W. Saxton
Center for Environmental Assessment Services
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Data and Information Service
Washington, D.C. 20235
(August 15, 1979)
Frank S. Lisella
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Bureau of State Services
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Public Health Service
Center for Disease Control
Atlanta, GA 30333
(August 21, 1979)
Larry E. Meierotto
Assistant Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of the Secretary
Washington, D.C. 20240
(September 14, 1979)
R.L. McFadden, LCDR
Chief, Surveillance and Monitoring Branch
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
Washington, D.C. 20590
(August 13, 1979)
F.P. Schubert, Captain
Chief of Staff
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
Third Coast Guard District
Governors Island
New York, NY 10004
(September 10, 1979)
E-3
-------
Nathan Hayward III
Director
Delaware, State of
Executive Department
Office of Management, Budget, and Planning
Dover, DE 19901
(August 6, 1979)
Edward H. White III
Development Officer
Maryland, State of
Department of Economic and Community Development
Division of Local and Regional Development
2535 Riva Road
Annapolis, MD 21401
(July 19, 1979)
Thomas A. Deming
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Council to Secretary
Maryland, State of
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
(August 21, 1979)
Lawrence Schmidt
Chief Office of Environmental Review
New Jersey, State of
Department of Environmental Protection
John Fitch Plaza
P.O. Box 1390
Trenton, NJ 08625
(September 21, 1979)
Marwan Sadat and Theresa Van Rixoort
New Jersey, State of
Department of Environmental Protection
Office of Sludge Management and Industrial Pretreatment
Trenton, NJ 08625
(August 21, 1979)
Sandra Ayres
Assistant Deputy
Public Advocate
New Jersey, State of
Department of the Public Advocate
520 E. State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
E-4
-------
Terence P. Curran
Director
Division of Regulatory Affairs
New York, State of
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(September 6, 1979)
Richard A. Heiss
Supervisor
Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania State Clearinghouse
Governor's Office
Office of the Budget
P.O. Box 1323
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(August 24, 1979)
J.B. Jackson, Jr.
Administrator
Virginia, Commonwealth of
Council on the Environment
903 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, VA 23219
(August 8, 1979)
Dale E. Wright
Pollution Control Specialist
Bureau of Surveillance and Field Studies
Virginia, Commonwealth of
State Water Control Board
2111 Hamilton Street
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230
(August 2, 1979)
Robert D. Halsey
Director of County Planning
Monmouth County Planning Board
Court Street and LaFayette Place
Freehold, NJ 07728
(October 7, 1979)
Harry W. Kelley
Mayor
Ocean City, Town of
Mayor and City Council
Ocean City, MD 21842
(August 3, 1979)
E-5
-------
Martin Neat
Grantsman
Ocean City, Town of
Mayor and City Council
Ocean City, MD 21842
(July 24, 1979)
Gerald M. Hansler
Executive Director
Delaware River Basin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton; NJ 08628
(August 14, 1979)
H.W. McDowell
Environmental Coordinator
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
Grasselli Plant
Linden, NJ 07036
Chemical Dyes and Pigment Department
(August 24, 1979)
L.L. Falk
Engineering Service pivision
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
Wilmington, DE 19898
Engineering Department
Louviers Building
(September 26, 1979)
Leon J. Sokol
Greenstone and Sokol
Counsellors at Law
39 Hudson Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
(August 21, 1979)
Kathleen H. Rippere
Natural Resources Chairman
League of Women Voters
Monmouth County, NJ
934 Navesink River Road
Locust, NJ 07760
(August 10, 1979)
John C. Bryson
Executive Director
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Room 2115 Federal Building
North and New Streets
Dover, DE 19901
(October 4, 1979)
E-6
-------
Kenneth S. Kamlet
Counsel, and Assistant Director
for Pollution and Toxic Substances
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th St., N.W.
Washington, B.C. 20036
(August 31, 1979)
The following persons attended the hearing held August 21, 1979 at Mercer
County Community College, New Jersey:
Thomas O'Connor
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Survey
Rockville, MD 20852
Norma Hughes
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oil and Special Materials Control Division
Marine Protection Branch
Washington, D.C. 20460
T. William Musser
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oil and Special Materials Control Division
Marine Protection Branch
Washington, D.C. 20460
Barbara Ramsey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oil and Special Materials Control Division
Marine Protection Branch
Washington, D.C. 20460
Alan Hill
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oil and Special Materials Control Division
Ocean Programs Branch
Washington, D.C. 20460
Peter W. Anderson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II, Surveillance and Analysis Division
Edison, NJ 08817
Paul Bermingham
Regional Hearing Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, NY 10007
E-7
-------
Theresa Van Rixoort
New Jersey, State of
Department of Environmental Protection
Office of Sludge Management and Industrial Pretreatment
Sandra T. Ayres
New Jersey, State of
Department of the Public Advocate
520 E. State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
D.W. Bennett
American Littoral Society
Highlands, NJ 07732
William M. Dunstan
Interstate Electronics Corporation
1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 601
Arlington, VA 22202
Kathleen M. King
Interstate Electronics Corporation
707 E. Vermont Ave.
P.O. Box 3117
Anaheim, CA 92803
Kenneth S. Kamlet
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phyllis Allen
Plainfield, NJ
E-8
-------
LETTERS COMMENTING ON THE EIS
8V
n
U 0)
ll
2 e X
*i e
1 " I y
- 5 o ^
; s S fa
ilfl
^ ** H
.=> -T "^
If 1
s s §
^lu
u y 01
Cl O >-* -C
r- -4-i (B U O
O O rj C ^
CX &j 3 V-i O
-U Q fN
* •—' ^9
'si £ •-< u :
n3 c u CJ
S 0 Oi -P
C- -P
I a g
C rf
i||
55S
f
3";
E-9
-------
o 3 m
n /-^
•85
tf >,
l-i ' 0
O E5 C
4J £ CD J-i U
i M O C
>-) 4J O H -H
2 4.J *rl X
• p. O > co
Vj IU ""e C tt)
S Q " W 3
0 4J i-t 6
q) ^-t n) -H
p. W C 4-1 •
B O -rl C
•3 ^J -^ ^, o
Cfl 4J CTJ -rl
T-H CO (0 S 4J
cD O S fO
4-> (^ QJ *-*
c w T3
B O 4J -i-t
5 T) CO
O OJ S C C
M 4J o td o
•H 05 ^ O
> ctf U^ C
c 3: o ^
0) W *H 3
§4J 4J O
C flJ >-,
U-l Q) 0) VJ
J-i O 1 « O
T3 5 -r4 ^U
QJ O C
^ H -H T3
^J -rl T3 B (U
0 2 0) *6 T>
Ss 1 « < H
vO O (0
o o i-t o &
4_j ,_) u .,-( £
= C h O
CU CD CD ^
0 * -C
C T) 0) &, CU
Q) = < O
CD M C • -H
j- CU C *O 4J
pd C O C CO
-H 4J -H CO ^
d 4J 4J
)4 cn a) 03 o to
S *H 0 C *i-l -H
(U (JO C C
f-i cn u -H m .H
CB •!-( rtj W % IU
ty a:
T) O 4J
•H 4J
> tW
O , cn cj
4J CO
•H (fl ^-^
§CO
M-l -"-^
4J 0
O 0) JJ •
Ou^3 bO 4J
ex -H c
O i-l Q) 0)
rH S
C -i-l bO CD
«J 3 C 4J
.HO)
CO CU > 4J
3 CX-H CO
0 0)
bOj3 0 4J
C 0) u
•H CU J-i Ctf
> s a.
•H ,
O CO Qu S --1
>> 4J Clj C 0)
C O J-i
X. 0) T> M CD
C S i-( -H O
« e s > c
X 0 0 C i-i
H O 3 CD G 4J
^~^ r-4 CO C
i-H 4-t CD
5 ttf co B
X O *H C
3 co o
5 • co H
e-7^ Pd < •!-)
3 >i x c
^7 S^w
(V3 S-S
VOw Q •"
>
•H
C 4J
eg o
a **
•H r-4
CD 03
U C 13
O <
4-1
Q H PJ to
E-10
-------
E
o
u
W'S o
si™
<-o^
s^°
a E s
IH
4-t
C
QJ
E
C
O
H
C
Vx
o
4-1
&
ro
4-1
0)
r-, U
Q) Q)
rH CO
ra P
O C
• 4-»
K (0
>i W
Q) in
C < CO
H >, rH
co P ra
3 4-i
• QJ 4-1
14 01 <
Q Q
«
0
fa
D
a
2
S
O
E
E
01
X!
4J
o
1+4
4-)
c
a>
E
0)
CO
4-)
U
ra
a
£
n
__,
ra
c
£
C
0
>
c
H
4-1
4H
1-1
Q
A.
-P
U
•§
tn
c
o
>H
4-t
ro
c
•H
rH rH
S 0)
I C
vc 3
o 1-3
rH '
CP
C
H
3
O
rH
0
QJ
4J
C
ra
T3
a>
3
01
>
0)
c
QJ
XI
U)
ra
OJ
o
P
o
to
0)
^
c
o
£
ra
T3
H
CO
C
8
O
M
0
IH ro
13 (0
4-t ro
-H
e c
3 -H
in 4-i
ra
OJ r4
V-i 0)
ro c
•H
w u
OJ
0
U rH
H
4J
0
0)
C X)
o w
o
O 0)
XI
44 fH
o
>< £
•H
4J 4-t
ra
44
0 C
Q) rH
r4
4-) 0)
P U
c
t OJ
OJ
Cn W
O H
QJ QJ
4J a
o
(0 H
4J 3
M *0
•H
4-t
T3 W
rH (O1 5
in xi o
o ra u
a
in w >
H -H C
H OJ O
rH $ £
4-1 C
O -H
SH -H O
OJ X C
5 P H
3 4J a
c
4-1 O
CM
1
tn
C TJ
O 0)
H U
ra o
0 ra
c in
P
tp in
c ra
4->
ra 4-i
c
V4 O
U 4-) 1
c ra •
•H V4
Q)
13 C
Q) H ,
C C \,
Q) -r4 J
ra4>^
0 ^
>i ^
c 8
QJ 4-1
U C
QJ o r-
o,
o
o
a>
-H
H 4-1
> tn
H 0
P U
u
1 < C -H
A W 0 H
3 t» n x:
'XfJ W 0
VJ
-5 § x: UH
~^^o u o
{«)
V x
4H •"3-
m >i
r4 1 U
0 £ C
-P 5 (D
-P W
tn c C
•H O O 0
C H -H \£>
-H 4J 4-> T
E ro o o
T3 r4 QJ rj
4-1
4-1 a o •
P 4-1 O r4 U
OJ C &H
X! ra E * 4J
P^ -P (9 rH O 4J
to M ra 01
i -H tp 4-1 •• XI
E-t tn o c c as
tn M QJ O
x: c tn r-i
0 >1 r4 0 C S
ID 4J QJ M H
3 4-) H X r4
. a ra > to ro
r< oi 2 c ra o)
S Q W 3 Q
0
rH 4->
4-1 0) t3 r-
C > C cr>
QJ -H fO iH
E 4-1
c ra *• -
O -H C rH
>H (I) C ro
> H 4-1
C >i-P W
Q) u ra 3
C C tP
4-> Q) DI 3
ro < to
1-f 0) 44
T3 C Q 0
O
QJ -H QJ )4
,C P 4-> OJ
4-) U rH 4J
Q) CO -P
'O 4-1 QJ
Q) O -H -H
3 1-1 fO
Q) fc CO V4
•H 03
> -H a O
0) ra in
r4 4-1 H C
C Q r4
QJ Q)
U 6 QJ 3
-4 C 4-1 O
OJ o tn >i
E M ra
O > -P
CJ C C
44 QJ 4->
0 0) U C
x: o QJ
C QJ 1
OJ >irH 0
E XI -H U
4J S
rH 4J 1 T)
ra c & oj
QJ £ rH ^
Q QJ c Id
4-1 3
QJ ra QJ i-i
x: 4-) x: o
EH W 4-1 44
CO
U
• H C
x: o
3-H
QJ £
O O
i— 1 44
0) C
> H
0)
ro
to c
(0 O
x: -H
4-1
C -H
O TJ
4-1 ro
E to
V4 H
O x!
4H E-. .
C C
rH O
• -H
rH 4-1 4-1
ra u ra
C 0) JH
O r-i QJ
•H 0 TJ
4-> V4 -H
T3 C
-a QJ o
,
•P 4-t
C r4
4-1 QJ O
x: H
r4 QJ
a 01 J4
u a, oj
•H in 4-i
CO H 0
3
QJ
H
>
0>
M
0
4-1
•H
C
3
4J
O
a
a
0
0)
x;
4J
QJ
o
UH
O
C
QJ
0)
X!
QJ
ro
x:
o
'U 4-J
OJ C
(ft QJ
ra E
a) QJ
rH 4J
a. ra
P
QJ CO
ra to
•H
Q) x:
2 4-1
C QJ
o x:
(ft CO
'.Sg
i ra i
E-ll
-------
ophosphate
all., 128,
o •
o o
CQ
C -
CO
01
o
TJ OJ
.12 N
C
01 01
-i 3
1-
osphorus ,
example,
O. Li
o
C •
x: L< o
VJD
O
^
u-1
fC
4-1
ti
a
g
x: « u
4-13 3
Li C
^ en i)
O oo
,c • o
^ -H 4J
O H 4-1 C
0- TO E crj
-H 00
^ LI > 3
rtr
g>
C
H CD
ca
* c
CO •
crj O
a c
ct
a;
UJ
^
Yentsch, e
jr -a o
*J OJ
4-1 QJ
H L.
LI x;
a ^ H
-H "^
i-H ra Li
cO 00 W
CO M
_G U-. P,
4J O
O *J f!
-1 XI il
4J nj GO
IS,
3 C U
en cn eu c
•a a. u
QJ C C c/i
(H CTJ Ot O
c tJ 3 ra
to 13 H o
3 O u-
4i -a O en
& c e c
H cO 3 QJ L
* X) CQ
o a c
H TJ 4) a
e CTJ w c oj
Xi 6 ,- crj ai
QJ c s a a.
-a c n.
3 G l-i OJ O
a o a c PI-
- s
^U
S
1
CN
Pi
S
S
41
c
E
*
01
Q
• 0
fl E
~ £ u
cn -a 'j o •—
C
- cQ O
-H CTv • C - r-i 01 O 1
ca r-
.r
< •
c
C U fl) • - -H
0 iH 3 U -£>
^ O '--i O 3 CT*
COO O rH
"a a a 2 c co
1J 4-1 H U OO O
,c c '0 a. L.
a CTJ LI co w
Ll X C 3 r-
-3 x; o o
6 0, a < en
i
m"
co :
O -
; . o
q S
O ^-\ £
J Li O
LJ U T3
J U C
; rSS6- s . .
eanog
• 3 0
G
o
cu ca o
H -a 1
o c H
^
C
cO
O
T>
C
rn •—
-i C .-
CN C C
0
>' 1
CO! rHCTjN E J3^0JO)U-i
•r-(3lJO Ll OrHU] (0 C -H C 4J
:5fs|5|g3^|sj|:
« H S £|g "-3.2.^ ^|5 i 2
LiCcocvocooenx:c>OL.^rHC
OXIL.4-iaJUC 41 O OC3COCTJ
•H4-icO OCOHXOO -HXlOiJL.
T3UC03UCJQJLI-H M U-l H ^
001) l-OrHCOai ' 00 >, rH
ai,
0^ «
,; :
^ r-<
r-i >
;;
i 5 d Si
CO E 'o OJ
rH m U-1 OS r-l
M:EL
OJ .c, C
3 O •
£
-^
00
CTJ
. £.2 S £8 » S Si's § 8-5 B
e" > 3nljcoT34J£"HH:oia'5
ajS-Sosaoi-SS^^o-H^^*
u cn 41 -Q .H LI LI L< C 3 "0
XI rH 41 13 — 1 4JH41H CN
" 3 *g-SJi ""-0 g „£ S ".c
C 13 3 U-" T-I 41 O S 4J i-i CO C XI -H
MX: H 3XlrH'o^i Q> n Li -.-4 rH Ll C 41
i^s-§s5t;^^s-s^^s§s
CM
OO
I
oo
QJ
cn
'^
C u-i
ai ON
8 rH
c -~^
o
C 1
OJ -T
C
s
OJ •
x: en
4-1 41
EC
C.
si
U
T-H •
Ll -D
d w
60 *2
••-i x;
•H -H
rH .
5*
Li 41
60 CU
CO <£>
u
01 >
0)
4-1 Ll
O Li
G 0
•H H
rO
ro
00
u'
00
0
c
cC
OJ
O
-3
rH
I
3
,-H
CD
w
OJ
Q!
0
OJ
e«J
0
cfl
41 -O X
x: c co
w TO B
3 r>S
rH • 0
C en
H • H
CO CO 01
cn c
TJ H
rH oi en
3 J=
O 4-J ^~,
w C r-
0 | ~
i H m
• cO 1
00 (J CO
O. iH
- 0
rH 00 C"
B y •
4J U 01
o o
CO QJ C
L. C CD
4J 4J 4)
U
ceo
O H
-a
C d
--* o o •
M 4J Kl 0
OC 41 O
0, XI l-l -
H >. •
a -H
(X D. CO
to
--• 0 41
.n x: fi
3 G
OJ
• 4J 3
TJ CO W
3 CX 5E
O CO
U-i O -
x: -o
o) a. G
XI O
-a B
o c -o
01 3 E
u B
£r la ""^
iH C
CO G cQ
41 41 01
>% QJ O
> X) cO
01 P. >
x: -H oJ
C "M
4J O QJ
G 4-1 (B
rH rH a
CL OJ CO
O Li >H
XrH ^
XI cfl C
a u cu
H U
>i B JO
C S
I U £
O CO
O 00
Tj
•H ,fl
U-i - OJ
41
01 M ifl
•sis
x:
>. 4-1
> C
3 4-1
T) CO
O 4-1
a.
4)
x x;
Li H
e
Li 01
a. c
o
oi en
Li 41 Ll
O rH 00
U-i tO
U Li
c x: a.
o ex
HO
CD 4-1 H
,-v cn u
r^ LI o
^ o
"- TJ -H
-^ u w
1 TJ
-T H
01 CO
Ll rH
3 >H
§4-1 0)
CO C
•H Li 0
4J 4) H
CO W Li
Li CO -H 41
O H rH 4-1
a. to
o cn 4-1 <
c cn 3 to
H H a-
C 41 U-i
Li cQ TJ O
•H 00 CO
41 Li C OJ
X: O H 4J
a) c LI
•u x; «
c 4-1 x:
tO OJ 4J
c c 3
--. o o o
x;
^ C 41
i-i -H
« 01 co a,
co x: x
c en ot
•H >, H
S CQ Li
cfl 5 cn o
C C 4J
O O 3 -
o *J oo Q
J, CJ
a. x: cu •
3 a. M >.
Li QJ
CJJ o o >
x: u u LI
:H 5 H in
m
a:
x;
CO
C
O
u
-4
4-1
QJ
41
O
TJ
cO
U
c
Li
CD
CO
CO
OJ
OJ
Xi
a
w
•H
T)
cn
41
•H
QJ
en
TJ
C
3
O
41
3
cn
T)
3
O
D.
S
X
01
4)
JS
o
CO
CT%
-3-
CN
-
T)
C
cO
O
TJ
CQ
41
CO
W
C
o
CD
C
QJ
c
O
a
o
4-1
P.
QJ
U
Oj G
•O H
e
i
41
In OC
3 a
CO H
s §
4J XI
H CJ
-H
4J CJ
3 00
tr o
13 O
crj H
cq
C
CO
H
'
O
B C
3 (0
rH Ul
O C
LJ 3
OJ
CX •
O ^«
U OJ
4-1 •
OJ W
4) 0>
x; 4-1
^-v co
1 O
< M-l
\o -a
i en
3
00 (0
"O
01 ,£.
•H T3
3
Li O
41 £
fl 0
4) 4-1
41 CD
cn a.
3 O
'J) >>
TJ CX
^
o
ca
4J
3
o
P-.
c
r
c
TJ
Li
o
CJ!
Q
••
J^"
•^
u-l
O
»
n
K
O
H
CQ
^
£
r-i
^
(N
H
cn
r—
X
C
o
V.
01
^
-)
TJ
c
cO
OI
4)
-J
f*.
cti
-------
rH Cd
U -H 4J O
- -ri 00 Cd 4-1
CO 00 O X! 41 ^,
-HO -H 4J H B
CO rH O O cd ed
a o 4-i -H d rH
1 Xi TJ -H ri O
S 41 O tn cfl 14
O tJ H CO r-t 41
* d w M 41 3 S
41 CO 4-1 Xi O. -H 41
w 4i 41 04-1 x:
CO TJ M 4H -H IJ 4J
M -H O CO
41 O Cd E X ,Q
4J M O 4-1 d -H
41 O 4J d cj
> d 3 CL 41 41 CO
d O 0 -H > 4-1 41
4-1 O U 00 CO
X! 4) tl) CO S 0) O
CO Cfl 4_l TJ -H 3 CO B
-Ho TJ to
4H en fj oi IH u en
•> x: en o TJ x: oi o
d 4J -H c/i to u x: -o
0 0) 4J
4J - U H TJ X-
B w TJ E 4) rt o cO
rH in 41 -H H » 00
0. M u H W cd
41 (0 ed -H M
4J r-l 41 i • rl ed
X S: H 0 4) CJ CJ
4J 1 MH CO 41 -H CO
>£> a w oo x; -H
ooo • -H 3 3 x:
d -H u cj e 8->
•H CU iH CO -H »
M 41 TJ nj -rt 01
C 4-1 S O « rt rH
00 M -H 4) 4) IH
O 4-1 4-1 X> rl 41
S " .S 3 -o " §• 2
H 4-1 4-t TJ rH 41 Cd CO
CO Cd 3 O> CL CL
E -H IH O O 41
ffl X O rl X! rH T3 1
X! 41 4H O CO W r~
4J UH >-, |
to d (o rH H m
M 01 0 •< CU cO rH
x: 4-1 4J x eo d u 01
SM eg -H I-H ot -H cd
P S TJ Xi E 00 CM
4J C d a -H o
O W fil 4J rH
TJ 4H CL CO E O
ffl -H *
>
x; M
01
en B
CO 41
4-1 tO
§3
CJ
ss
o >
11
E •
3 co
O 4)
CL
U CO
Is.
41
4-1 rH
rH
UH cO
O CJ
-H
II
CL 41
0 o
CO
cd
3
4-1
rH
,A
o
4)
§
•H
1
cd
4)
CO
1
gj
o
ter Dumpsite
41
41
Q
o
Ol • B
M E>, CO VI
4-1 O O -H
TJ 4-i M d d to cfl
4) B 4) *H O fl> 41
CJ TJ M -H H O CJ
4) E .O > Xi 41 4)
rH 3 o da. P,
rH X> rH TJ 41 CO M
CJ CO Cd 41 rH TJ
>, rt co co 41
41 rH 4) 3 -H H
l-l l-l XI 4J d O 4)
3 rH 3 W 01 E
3 co a. d g to
to -H • 3 cj O d
•H 4J 01 TJ CJ Ol
UH t-» 4) CO
d cd 4-1 41 oi o -a
•H O. Cd X! 4-1 4-1 d
41 Xi CO 4-1
H rl 01 E 3 (J 4)
cd 41 4-1 -H ta IH
M 41 > 3 U -H
41 J4 E CJ (d 4H
B Cd -H CJ 4-1 O
i x; o-o
o 4-1 x; 4J
O T) d O O. 41 E
,-< ed 4J W 2 IH B
co n TJ oo oo 4J
14 x: o tu , X 4J O 4)
UH iH H 4) co eo x:
O Xi rH cO H
CO O rH "
41 00 O CO 41
1 1 | * 3 £
rH CD 0 M sf r< CO
CL O CO 4) rl
at co 41 41 x; rt
Xi 1 - OO 4-J O
4J 4-1 *4-( TJ rt •
rH o -H a. •- TJ
4-i 41 3 eo 41 f-^
ed xi a er d E w i
xiEoacoooco o
4-> C -H CL
0) cO 4-1 B -H cO
4J 41 r-l ed E 4-1 AJ
M CO CO - 4-1 O d
o > f> x> « UH cd
O. M rl Cd rH
ri i-t -j u <: a x>
•H 13 -H
41 U C >
IJ 01 cd -H
O CL -O
B to 4) d
(0 -rj CO 3
41 41 4-14-1
O 4) 4-1 E 0)
4) 00 4J
O. C Pi CU 4-1
eo d l-i x! td
•a 3 4J
4) d T-) >,
CO 41 B -rH
O -H p"i iH
X! 41 •-( fO
O CO CO B
4-i W X > 4)
O 4J H B
4) '3
d • co cj n
O Tj U E 4-)
•H CU 4) O 41
•H rH 3 n3
M CJ B • rH
O d B 3
if) -H 3 O O
TJ 41 rH 4-1 >>
X) CO 41 H
41 Xi r-l 4J H
S 4-1 CJ 3 -H 21
O CO p CL Ul
rH d rH
• i-t CU -H •
T) 4J M B «
41 cd 41 -H 1 CU
B TJ -H d O O
ffl rH > 01 rH 4)
Cu 3 M O. b
X O 3 41 cu eo
41 x: w x: x:
CO 4J 4-1 TJ
41 0)
4J rH CJ ffl CO
TJ -H CO CO 41
i— ( ui x: CL w M
P 3 & 4) 4J
O 4-1 -H 00 U)
X cO 4-i IH
to X! ~O ed >!
H 00 rH Xi rH
13 P -H 3 CJ 41
E CJ rl O Cfl M
ffl cj U -H 41
CU X! H 41 Qi
CO 4-1 p O S3
01 H > S
TJ 41 Xi -H P CO
CO AJ CJ TJ rH rH
-H rH CO -H > 3
4J
3
indicate
rH
r-i
CU
41
i-H
00
O
3
01
x:
H
Ed*
a
CO
fl
0(
cd
PH
3 41 1 O
0 4-< £ 4-1
H -H O
>, 41 O 4)
X -H ^ ffl
i 4-1 TJ
rH |H )H
41 i E cu
4) O 3 (0
l-i 4-1 Xi 3
cd
CO - W
Scd cj 3
H CO 0
|_l (j ,_( ,-H
CO CLrH
TJ cO
M 01 C rC
Ot rl T* W
found in deep
herefore, any
be harvested
opulations In
XJ O
ed E -H
4) H 0
TJ TJ P M
U 0 3 B
in' E
n
l
•*
r-
in
t--
ug
U u
DC »
ri
E £
o E
0 5
n. ^ o
O .H US
L. « *" ^
|iSs°
& jjs« S
<
1 cfl {H
rH B" W
4> CO
0 -H
§41
X!
c ^ «
4) -H
§ "S ^
4-1 -rt 4)
2 S -S
a a
S E
•9 jj o
tO -H
rH X- 4J
eO 4-t ed
•U "Z.
S 0 41
I '4-1 4-1
o cd
•H &0 Xl
> -H
E CO 13
4) 41 41
£ ai a
CO 4-1 O
TJ C/l M
0) rH B •
X! ,
o
4-1
CO
4) 4)
4) M ri
4J ffl CO
-H
CO IJ TJ
4) B •
eu 4-i cO to
rH CO W
•H 3 - 41
S CL CO 4-1
1 rl T3 0)
•n B B
ffl TJ
eu X B B
4-t 41 ffl ed
to xl
cO eo d 4J
3 4) O
4-1 -H CU
rH -H 4-1 >
SCO P -H
rH 4J
•H B -H CJ
B rd TJ 3
Xl U IH O
CJ O O r4
4-1 CL
4-J 41
X. -H cd H
4-1 4-1 -H rH
S4J ffl
d u
41 M 41 -H
rl 41 4-1 00
ffl r-l Q.I-H
CO O
>, l-l -H
H O 01 X
rl 4t 41 CO
4) rH l-l 41
S "ffl ^^
OO rl ffl >i
4) H
4) UH 41 rH
3 41 T) ffl
CL > 41
W l-l 41
•H CL 00
OB G -H
C04-ITJT3O «-H 4-101
414-1C041-H T3CL ej>
x;a.O4JtJrH COOT3 fflcO
S'Hcd'H-O4) OrH 41XIE'
41-H4J-rlrH>,Erl CLCLOO tO HCU
4-1 CJOCLrHOP OXC] OW014J
COdrHtOOE O O.4-I 4JUrHW
eOrHCOOCUfflO. >.U fflffl
4JCJOeO 3 X* 4)i— I-H OB 41
cfl-rtcj MCT-XiOffl X1XH 4-lCUOrH
4H 4)CU4)U 4-1 4J604-I IH 4-1 -H
co-Hnjcnx:co3rHffl aw TJ S
4-)B4-iB4-)GtOcOTJ OOO) 4)3OOI
cJOOffl4)lHO x! 4-) i-l M 4J4)E^C
ffl-HQD.3U4-l4-l4l O -Hfa-HO
Q.CO XUH BeUrH coxitn B E-H
B 41 cdi-HX)0)4JCO H-H
HO' d'Mlcd > H-fflOl
di3i34)at*r(X>rH -HCOX! cuwx;
uieu^fflXi-HSeoco co 3 dl-Hcu
CU3p>iCO O*-tO tJ 4-1 Xi O
>eOCJ4->c04J4-)S 41 -Ho OICOCO
T3CJOrHXlffl MX! 4JC041 OlrHBrH
COOJO3 4-IQ>4-l rHO,N > -ri O CL
iH 0)-HOG'HI3 plO Xil4-ll-l
nJtJ>4H'HI-i!i<00 rHT3 ^OCL
•Hfflffl4H4-l414ld"O ffl eO -O-HrH
4-lX!Xi-rtt04J OOl -HCU4-I 4-lrH)-trH
S4-I TJp4-l>,rHUl 4JrHH IH O-H
4) 4JfflrH [0 drf ffl41l03
4JTJd01-HCL4-lm41 41SOO- CLXiCU
oeuoxiw doco UIBW 4-iTJp-i
3 tUOHtOcO O.O4-J41 eo-BXl
41C04J>4-iX!-H)H4J rH-HM O4)>H4J
4-icoxi rOcjeUr-i rHcu-H -H ca 4J
4-141 rH 4-lCU cOXirHCU 41Cn4)ffl
4-lfi C0.3C04H4J 4-1 > XiO.'HXi
c04i-3WeJ4-i4lc8 co O-H 4J g O 4-i
XicUCUfflcOI-icO p C0004-I4-1 3d
C04IMCJ ffl4t O-r-lEP O -HrH
"(OTjXlCO 41OTJ C04-I01T3 4H4-1CJ4I
|-iffl 4H4J-HCB -Hcd>O u-H,iitrrHXl OrH 4-1 4JX1TJC
J41Xi3'HTJ-H4J MtOrH 01 OtCOOO
•H^axtoxio eo 3-H I i EW
.mj-4101 d rHx: eo B SCU-H-H
-TJ-Hd41rH4J41B -HOOBO O OXiTJ
>4-IB BX!4JO 4HO-H&D td-H
eUfflOIEOOO4-l X34-IO CJ OtflOO
•H4-lTjCUBO "W C/14-ltOrH -H -HCOCUCll
eUM XI >-• U E td
-------
1
S a!
lj n!
•H
QJ (-1
4-1 O
U
- Cu
CO OS
> d
£ *
QJ
4-1 £'
"o tt W
4J 0
S !> *
0) X O
co en >H
•H tH
M 4-( 3
& H
O S3
r^ H
rH >,
rH o £:
a cu
& i-f CA
00 W
C ft EH
4-t 1-1
0 01
C d w
•H >
rH QJ H
(HI Ed
CU d H
•H -d <
CO M
QJ OCI
.a QJ
4-1 M
O
d
rH
d
OJ
d
CO
-d
QJ
CO
M
0)
4-)
d
s
00
d
d
0-
a
cO
CU
CJ
0
cu
rC
H
O
-H m
4-1
•H •
T3 d
C! M
0 crj
0 0
rH -
CO -J-
U rH
O
i-H Ol
o on
CQ (2
r>l .d •
rH 00 4J
13 -H d CO
QJ ca d Q)
tH ^ 4-1 M
CO M CO
S O QJ 42
>• H
cfl 3 § 1
XI 0) rH
Z CO (J
QJ O) 3 CO
•H X! CU
O 4J 4-1 CO"
Q) CO
O. d 01 rH
CO -H > d
co co d o
.d to
4-1 rH ftC Q)
CJ O .d
*° 1 ^
OJ a- o
o
fi d &-S W
d co O [d
4-1 QJ •* U
MO ^
O O >, td
trH ,0
CO M 0
r^ d w
•C O
EH O) M O
01 CO 4J f-t
o eg • cfl Z
ri S ^O CU Ed
D r— S S
O OJ
E^ ti T3 fe
CU 3 QJ 3
03 H 1 & -
1
o
o
QJ
a
o
UH
i
QJ
d
01
4-1
•H
01
0)
CN
cO
0) (J
4-1 CO
en
Q> -J-
1 QJ
\D 01
o d
rH fL,
QJ 4-1
£ >> w
5 -°ii
•a
QJ co *•
o d
O 01 O
4-1 4-1 -H
-d - 'cfl «
oi p". d
4-1 n P-I a
O QJ rH M
QJ ji .a H
& -H -H ^
4J QJ H 4-1 T3
d ^ Cfl'-H U
QJ O d
(-1 4-> 4-1 "d O.
d o cu d
eo d W -H
QJ 4-» -r<
4-) -rl tn B Q)
•H 3 -H C ^
a j3 tn -o
01 01 d rH
rH )-l M W 3
•H CJ -H O
S rH O
id -a tn
O 4J M "-^ rH
CU QJ QJ -H S
QJ 4-1 rC T3 d 0(
,d O 4-1 O 4J 4-1
UH 01 >
o y> -H u cj co
4-1 O) -H O
x: d ji 4J a
Sd ?• d o
M QJ QJ Q QJ
o xi .d
d QJ •• QJ 4J
•r-j (-1 QJ CO d
TD CO W 4J |> d
d o -H M o
4-i S cO
T3 3 C d rH CO
d £1 Ol H JJ
d 42 o o
- 4J 0) -H 0)
d QJ rl 00 ti 4-1
•H(J 3 rl O <*H
CD. o d
3 « cO
O d -rl rH
UJ -H T3 Q.
o -d QJ QJ en
O £. > -H
d O 4.) -H 4J
rH rH -H 3 t>0 W
^ £ ^ rH1 0
4-1 Cfl 01 i-H QJ OJ
^ 0. Sj! o M w £
d -H \D &, -H CO 6
CO rH O cfl CO t5
o -H -HO
g « £ | g S 5
Ulli^
QJ iw -H T3 4J CU 4->
•HO. O O d
"d if"^ ^ y o MJ
£ w 0) 6 ^
§M rl U O J3
oJ d co oo
i-i > §" . ,5 d
d -H CO Q) 3 -H M
tO 1-1 ,d -H 'rl XI
M S d *0 T)
4J w p», d
W d 01 rH d •
tj O 3 B S H
QJ O d 4-1 S o d
S X i-j d u ti -H
QJ 0 0 X g W
CO 4-1 QJ O - *d
01 4-1 -d S Q]
•H -H 4J AJ
C n) C ID o o) oJ
QJ a. M
4-1 -H rH QJ
•H -D
>. O QJ
•H • CU
X 00 Ol V-. •
§* 0 w 3 P.
o H ca o en
ai d u
» »I1I
4-) H en O (3
4-1 d d C
en -H r-i o
d d d en -H
S 0) M rj
^ 0 3 0 lu
o d tn a)
•H 4-1 G rH
01 eo w o W
Jilii
O O CO 4-1
•H 4-1 -H
S O -H 0) -H
rH ^ ^ "O
(O d 2
H 3 H 4-1
O O QJ
QJ d DO
OJ d d rH QJ
4J en 4-i 4-i
oo
i
E-14
-------
QJ
X) r-
•i— C
0
C •!-
3 -P
i— C
i- QJ
XI U
•P O
QJ
3 QJ
CT-P
QJ VI
-0 3
3
3"
O O
4- 3
O O
O
-P QJ
u .0
•P -C
O r-
.Q .c
r> V)
.O QJ
4-> QJ
3 t
CD
E U
•P C
•r- U
XI 0
•o
• QJ
to -P
O QJ
CJ
LC. O
CJ i.
> o
O 4-
5 fs
4- C
O ro
.C
£*
cn-M
c:
O CU
«— -O
ro -w
1- 3
°E.
oo o
QJ V)
Q.
ro QJ
QJ
cn - c
C 00 0
i~ C oo
uj 3
-C cnx) -i— trj
•P c o E c vi o
C •— 4-) i- ro E r-
"- VI X 3 QJ O 00
LU C - QJ -Q to S_ U
S- -r- QJ S- QJ O QJ
• 3 O O • — -T- U 4-
C r— C QJ C 0 .C
•r-r— (JS-OroS-PO
r— ro ^QJ.,-S- O EZ •«-
(J JZ CLJZ. 4-1 4-> f— QJ _c
O V) 1 4-J rO •— -Q 4-J
C 00 S- CD (O C
>)<: O 00 C-P- VI f— .&
C- i_ r- CJ CX -i~
O O E -P -Q ra
QJ CJ C 3 «£ O QJ
-P nj . VI U l O 3
QJ L, iO 4- • C
>>uai3CJOvio^iin
J2O4J 4-> CJCO-P
X3 Q.-I— . ro 4-> to cni—
QJQJ333O1QJC O
-PCJ O CU-r-OJ4->
•i- XI C .— QJO-P-C
•i— QJ 00 Q- QJ CTJ
r— JZ E >i QJ S- 4- ro
-P O S- -P QJ U 4— • -t->
QJ -PQj-i— Q-T-fOOJC
-Q C 4-J > 00 C 3rO
• i— O QJ ro 10 i — >
O -Q4->i — £ QJ 3 ro XJ
4-J QJ VI r— 3 (O
C QJ 3 ro r- O 4->
00 -i- -C r-) O .— 4-)
QJ U 00 fO - CE'r-QJ
OJOO-r- (OOOS-
toc-P i- cn -t-Jt-cn
U 4-1 QJ C "-POj
c a. 3 "~ fO CL u .0 t
X ra Q) QJ 3 QJ OJ S- -PCCJIO3 O
C QJ 4-J C O -i-
•r- u in •<- >, QJ o -tz oo
^
4-J
U
XJ
o
CSJ
•p 1
^ S- to JZ
jr QJ 3 V)
1 — OO "O
to £ C
c -P ra -r-
CJ O O> C
4-> -f- S- ro
4- J3 O QJ
CJ to O
QJ £1 3
4-J 4-> O QJ
•i— C _C
to O QJ -P
4-J cn
O QJ X) CJ
f— C C QJ
Q -D -P
3 c: QJ
0 CJ 0 J3
cn
4- ro - >i
0 E S- -P
CLX) > >
cn O C
C -P QJ
X! QJ 4-
C .C r- 4-
a£i £
jz QJ O cn
4-J JZ QJ
QJ I Jd
£°^
"•"S-S
4- JZ -r-
cn
c
3 t
C
ro
QJ
U
O
0
1
ro
XI
QJ
JZ
4->
CJ
00
O
E
oo
S-
QJ i—
r— ra
•r- O
O a. E
J= O
QJ H-
.c to o
to .Q i-
CJ O)
to 4-J C
3 c
^ QJ J-'
ro .a QJ
4-J
> QJ
U JC -I-
QJ E
4- •— QJ
CJ 3 -C
O 4J
(j 3
4-J O
-G "D V>
C -i-
C ro
g«o
QJ QJ
j= J U
4- C 3
QJ QJ
4-> C
QJ O
i QJ ro
Q. > £
0 -C
> QJ j3
V) J— J=
•i- QJ "
V) C QJ
•r- -r- >
QJ
O C O
QJ
E -a
o
4- S~ O
QJ r—
QJ 4->
QJ
oo c: Q>
.Q ro i —
o -i-
C to
QJ d. O
S- CJ Q.
ra QJ
Q-XJ to
Q. -r-
•r- to ra
^ II
-4J^-
S- -P
QJ .
00 4-> 00
•^- •!- QJ
ro >!
S- JD
-D
S- O
ro S-
E -P
QJ
C i—
oo C
O QJ
4-> -C
CJ
>
S S
QJ ra
00
QJ ro
S- 4-J
E rd
O
ro X!
QJ
0 3
+J
J5^
O QJ
JZ E
i-.
U 4-
C C
QJ .*:
o ra
_c
OJ
^ gi
4- ro
QJ C
QJ CJ
N -P
C
cnto
3 O
O i—
c
CJ -P
QJ
00 QJ
QJ -r-
4-> i—
X
QJ QJ
Cj|
OJ
c ra
o
•r- 00
•p -p
XI 4-
ai
ra QJ
ra
4J f—
ro
JZ T3
O -r-
S. 3
QJ -P QJ
QJ 4-J VI
QJ
4-> U
"O 4-
QJ
-04-^-
S- 0
C -r- S-
E cn o
QJ O U
XJ 0 O
QJ i-
QJ C O
rjj CJ
> C ro
rO O
^1 XI to
4-J C i—
(J •(- C
QJ QJ ^D
4-
QJ 4-> .
O to
0 C C
c o
CT> r-
si!
4-> ro 4J
4- (— XI
-EZ •(- 4J
h- CD to
O ra
o
•i- 4-
3 Cn-P QJ
.a o -i- 4-J
||fei
4J CJ
>! e c u
'c X3 4- -Q
O O.
ro £ QJ
C 4-> 3
04- - 4-
(- ro to
QJ S- -O
O >, QJ O
LJ ro S- S-
i- C •.- QJ
X QJ CJ 3 -P
E QJ QJ QJ 3
fO i +J -i— (J
CJ to C
10 s "" 1 a.
QJ -P XJ .£3
-P E -c
ro D -C O
C 4-> C >!
r- 3 QJ T- i—
Cra-M^^
C ^00 2r-
>^ C C 10
ra O to O O
E -P >— E
E 4- U •—
3 4-) 4- O -i-
s^~
.0;,-
QJ
_a
QJ 3
4-> -P
V) CJ
tO 4J
O
QJ
Q) 3
4-> to
O r—
C ra
S- 4-J
O C
CJ
t- U
CJ
.C V)
QJ -C
O
on =
uj cn
•i- E
-C 3
•,- ra
QJ
QJ 0
3 O
•i- O
4-
ro C
S- O
C 4-1
QJ ra
0 U
o
QJ i—
o
fO
QJ ^Z
S- h—
rO
QJ >i
!J 4->
QJ >
3 -r-
CT-P
QJ (J
0 0
C-) S-
a.
ro 3
C CO
O ^^
r- X>
> C
LU
£Z O
0 -r-
-P
r- 3
X r-
QJ X)
cn
(0 -C
0
cn i.
ro
QJ
O
4J QJ
3 4->
O ro
C Q.
O O
VI i-
rO CL
CJ CL
QJ
•r- fO
QJ -r-
4->
X QJ
QJ -P
0
QJ i —
S-
•r- 4-J
3 ro
QJ =
QJ
O i.
C CJ
O oo
4-
O H-
0
ro O
> ra
QJ -—
QJ ~
S- 4-
i- 0
S- (NJ
.C
•r- O
QJ VI
oS
(0
QJ
QJ JZ
QJ h-
S-
+J
C
CJl O
C -r-
•r- ZJ
E to
there.
ason
lectior
QJ QJ
S- XJ QJ
4- O -C
O 4->
XJ C
•r- rO O
cr cn4->
to C C
QJ i
ro 4-1
_C •>- 4-J
0 C
-cz to
3
O -P QJ
^ O '1—
CJ ro I
S- O-
ro C QJ
3 QJ
QJ O XJ
QJ ^ S-
C QJ
ro V) -C
fO O
•-3 J= C
O rO
Ol £ S~
3 = QJ
O >
.C 4- O
•P O
ro — - r-
^— cn
4-J C
(J C -i-
ro O 10
4- oo O
£. £! "5
Q.
E QJ i.
•^ ^: o
to |— 4-
CJ
!- QJ
E QJ
•P H-
i- C
10 — .
00 LO
u
•i- O
ra
3 QJ"
QJ |—
vi c
QJ O
-- 4J
QJ
O
oo E
QJ (J
>
4-J >r-
ro 4-
QJ QJ
•P O-
CJ 3
JZ 0
4-J
QJ
0 ^
QJ
0 -r-
C
4- 0)
O JZ
4-J
4-
QJ
ro
VI
GJ
QJ
4-
O
VI
3
Cn
C-
£1
O
C
0
c
c
QJ
OJ
4-1
QJ
QJ
O
QJ
3
to
CJ
c
QJ
O>
OJ
OJ
-p
oo
CO
S
c
QJ
00
CJ
i.
a.
QJ
x:
I—
QJ
a.
oo
QJ
-p
o
c
4J
••-
S-
QJ
zc
ro
a
a.
QJ
3
L.
Q
4-
X)
QJ
VI
QJ
-Q
XJ
o
C
ro
QJ
O
4-
r- S-
QJ
*X>
S- S-
QJ O
!•£
o
n: QJ
u
c:
• O
QJ
S- VI
O
S- X>
Q. C
a. 3
ro O
C 4-
•i- O
S-
rc
C
O -£T
to 3
oo to
3
(J -C
X) 3
QJ i—
•r- QJ
C
QJ O
•P -P
X
QJ <
Q-
OO LU
0
C -P
QJ
QJ -P
1- C
CJ T-
QJ
QJ .C
3 4J
X/l V)
•P 0
CJ VI
Q. r-
QJ T3
S-
O 4-=
f 3
QJ C
U ro
C QJ
O
C C
o .,-
XJ S-
QJ QJ
-P O
OJ -
-Q t/)
-P ra
QJ C
i— 0
" 4-1
• — a
.Q ra
CSJ
ro cn
C E
QJ O
cn u
QJ 4-J
JZ S-
•P O
4-
QJ
4-1 CJ
ra _c
3
X) C
QJ -i-
O
S-
o
Q_
S-
o
c
o
o
QJ
S-
CJ
c
LU
XJ
ro
.—
Ul
J3
C
O
4~>
ro
C
Cn
QJ
x;
CJ
40
'«
QJ
JD
-
U
ZJ
x>
c;
CL
TJ
c
ro
O
3
cn
-C
"
c
o
ro
QJ
5- ,
X)
o
O
cn
o
3
QJ
-C
1—
ra
u
QJ
rO
C
QJ
4->
ro
ro
O
4-J
4-J
CJ
Ql
."^j
LD
o
QJ
O
jz:
CL
QJ
X>
CJ
-EZ
1—
to
ro
3
cn
o.
E
XJ
H-
O
QJ
"•P
O
_aj
-Q
O
QJ
1—
CD
ra
c
XJ
ro
QJ
4J
CJ
S-
cn
00
•r-
oo
O
«
^
oo
C
X
QJ
QJ
S-
o
4-
OJ
^
X)
ro
c:
o
S-
QJ
C.
XJ
QJ
XJ
3
QJ
QJ
U
O
•r-
ra
QJ
QJ
4->
0
4-J
C
•p
u
c
3
"o
(J
QJ
4-J
3
OJ
Jd
4-J
C
co
•.-
QJ
3
Cn
c
O
<:
c
o
-p
3
•5
vi
s_
QJ
D-
£
O
O
4-
QJ
QJ
c
O
S-
0
CJ
J3
to
c
O-
QJ
-P
3
O
C
o
"ro
3
(J
-a
ro
c
o
'£,
o
QJ
C
0
,^
QJ
4J
O
QJ
ro
2J
QJ
GJ
OJ
3
cr
c
o
cr
X
i
ra
c
o
S-
0
E-15
-------
th is very important. Physical dispersi
c processes. Horizontal dispersion is
DWD-106, The nature and magnitude of
dispersion data at the site are yet to
o>
•• o :
Zi'
»— Ql I
.Q S-
.22
O 3
C T-
•r~ OJ C
r- 3 3
XI
X r- C
QJ
Ol
al diffusion an
ned.
.,- E
•U -M
y OJ
X)
4-* -Q
r— QJ 4->
3; o c oj
wElt
"§£58
o re re
3 4-J 4-*
4- re c
O QJ OJ
S- ,C l/l
a. c =
ro s- c
CO Ol
>> s- -o t-
__J 4- Qt O
4-J
. c ro 10
s- O c: 3
J* E c
o c re QJ
C O U C
-5 >, E """
J- .C o 4-J
0 0, S- 0
(J 4- Ol
< C C 4-
o re *«-
•-- .c ro
•• 4J 4-J
cn 3 0
QJ 4-J tO >,
^ c 5 'QJ
X) ""* O •<-
U 4-> r-
CTI _c QJ in
ro JD QJ
c: oi4-> •
•r- 0 0. •
i— C QJ •
ro u =
" QJ 10
X O (0 O
QJ
ta for predicting
Although a gooa Dit
cally accurate long-
"O •!-
4- U 4-J
O -J C
•Q QJ
4-> S, U
•— u
_Q D IO
ro tj o
OJ ~ -M
r- U 0
- jO
«3" ill IO
4-> 4 3 to
QJ -r-
i— ,- QJ
-Q 1/1 C
4J O
- (J c-
E g
c O
•r- (U **-
r— !- C
X 4- O
S,
ro
s-
ro
QJ
a
Q.
ro
OJ
OJ
c:
Q.
E
XJ
4-
0
ro
1-
3
0
o
(J
XI QJ
i- 3
CL4-J
S- OJ
4-> CL
"Jo w £«
,c ro o QJ
3 CL Ol 10
XJ 1
QJ O.
U "O
•r- f= QJ S-
4-j ro 4-> o
•i- rO 4-
S_ QJ 4->
3 r- XI
O X! U O
E QJ ra 4-
l/l 4-
-C O 01
Ol Q. (0 C
3 O cn r-
O S- C X>
-C Q. r- f-
QJ E O
C 4J T3 Q.
O
10 C QJ >,
ra QJ S- .a
QJ OJ 3
•^Ili
0 -Q i.
<§ 0-.—
6, bullet 5:
he relationshi
• instance, WOL
loactive waste
o ro r-
C -Q r-
r- QJ S-
i— xi o- .c QJ
, — iyi 4-J 4J
•• 3 QJ U
> 1 3 0 ,0
OJ
Ol
ra
c o
re -c
JT i/l
QJ O
> -r-
may be more sensit
ess, observed dilul
at DWD-106
Neverthe
E QJ
i , 1 me 6-12 . Orgams
ose at alternative si'
adequate.
X 4-» -Q
OJ
Ol
OJ
S-
ro
L.
QJ
C
QJ
XI
3
QJ
QJ
OJ
CX
CVJ
CSJ
OJ
X
OJ
Ol
ra
OJ
IO X!
X» i/l t-
r- QJ
3 4- X)
0 0 T-
QJ IO
4-J -O r~
r~ C
s- ro cn
QJ 10 4-J
4-1 QJ m
-C C
4-> - OJ
•• in QI
csj QJ S-
1 C Ql
4-J " C
QJ r- O
3 OJ OJ
- 3 XI
IT) JD r-
ro c O
0 J=
QJ
r- Ol CJ
•i— 4-J 4-J
x to o.
QJ
Ol
, bottom-
ro
L.
1
QJ -
"O QJ
u
4- QJ
O .C
CU QJ
QJ <_)
H- ,—
Q_
O.
QJ I-
XJ QJ
CL
10 D,
4-> O
<£> QJ
O 0
r— -O
:s e
Q to
C
r^. cn
L-
QJ O
•r- oT
r— C
X XI
OJ
Ol
O 3
o ro
0 C OJ
vo E
4-J O O
-o
3 4-J 0
ra -i-
QJ _c in
(0 U t-
ro QJ O
QJ >r- C •!-
4-J I/I O XI
U D- C
O) £ to -.-
QJ X* O QJ
QJ ' — to
QJ -C 4- ra
> 4-J QJ 3-
ra f-
-C 4- OJ
O 4-J 4-J
QJ i— ra
12 "0 4-> C
r- 3 O,
•cr 4J "° s?
3 « Q,
QJ u re
f— 4-> OJ
's *° 4- 0
t/1 QJ
csj re re -r-
•— 4-1 O
I -D C -C
cn c QJ o
ra E
QJ O- S- O
r- 3 OJ X3
ra
- i. >,
r- QJ 1 4-J
OJ
en
ro
OJ LTJ QJ
-T- cr\ oo
C\J QJ i—
ID QJ C •
CSJ ^ ^J
_J C XI
Q_ "O Cn C
QJ -r- ro
.a1 re ^ E
-O - OJ
" C *-> >
3 E CJ -M
>, O CD O.
C C i- W
"" >^ i.
O 4-> U -^
is mandated
ng program.
s an interage
coordinate tht
ii, lines 26-27: NOA/
comprehensive monitor
A's approval . There
tween EPA and NOAA to
ge 1-6, lines 7-13.
X rO U-l -Q Q.
OJ
CN
, Section 201, NOAA Oc
ng trend assessment su
isited DWD-106 site 9
1976, August-September
-il 1978, June 1978,
"or September 1979.
assessment.
ro 4-> o» G. xi
i 3 re 3 QJ QJ
csj x) -C '"a "i— t.
Cn C CO 3 +->
o
D. O r^ i— -C 4->
i/i ^ cn u -f
S o m i— 3 -r- 3
•i- QJ 3 (- -O
C > l/i -U- > O
XI Q I- r-* >> 3 <:
I- QJ CT» S- in <£
U c: 4-> 3 •*-> z,
U T- O >, C X
ro i- ro ro QJ _c
0 X) SI rj c +->
C 4J C T-
C 1- 1^- -C
o 10 ro r-- i— i—
S^T S?? .1
C Q -C >,O%
oj ro 3: t — i — • r^ in
C Q 3 Ol -i£
•r- C7> O r- i-
«— C 4-> . O
^ ro 10 -r- 3
•i- 3 01 .(- cn o.o_
0)
Ol
re
Q.
"adjacent off-shelf
ocation o
11: Please give the 1
, has been evaluated.
r— 4->
•r- ro
O)
cn
o_
es not mean there is
as not recognized well
y, arbitrary sampling
!n addition, as "it is
OJ > £
C +-> 31
QJ C
0-22: The sentence gi\
Biological sampling L
distribution of waste
wi thi n thp s1' te are no'
O) O OJ C
c re i- c>
•(- Q- U -r-
^- E in 4-
" "~ xi i,
X O C>
ro
Q-
o
ro o
OJ •<—
£Z
i- -r-
OJ P-
c
4-
ro o
re u
t, e
4-J *—
LD 10
CSJ >,
O) IP
cn c
Q_
4-J CJ
t- -r-
o. o"
OJ i—
t- o
QJ QJ
4-J E
C O>
•r- 4-J
OJ O
U in •
i-
QJ QJ 3
f grammatica
tement uses
ghly product
4-J SI
QJ l/l
3 QJ O
QJ O i-
•i— D, (/i
4- QJ
•i- t. OJ
§" j=
QJ *~
U tn to
c: 0) >>
QJ Q.-O
•r- re «
i^ "o
tl £
«^~ QJ OJ
CSJ O_ >
1 O.-^
QJ ra-"
QJ
- c OJ
X O -C
ra
0-
4- 4J
^- U 10
4-J OJ QJ
QJ 4- XI
l/l QJ IO
-C (-
t. 4-J OJ
Ql 4-J
QJ i-
> QJ
OJ 4J
ra OJ •
JD -C C
O to QJ
QJ J3 Ol
-O Ol Ol l/l fc.
c c -^ ra 4->
4- -^- -r- OJ O
O •
3 X> 4-
0 0
£ 'ro
ro 4-> >,
4-J (J 4->
-C J3 C
I— 3 ro
o
• OJ •(-
C QJ
ro c u
QJ r- O
u
O X) in
OJ .1-
•r- ra QJ
IO •!— .C
3 h-
re E =
U t-
QJ O 4-
e..." The
comparisor
trating it
r- C C
4-> i- O
3 >> I
XI i— XJ
0 S-
i_ ro QJ
Q.I— (0
>-, U X)
.C O-T3
QJ - QJ
JD QJ >
> •!-
O •(— to
4-J 4-> 3
SE 0
D. P.
>i
4-J (- 4->
0 Ql 3
3
O C
XI
-C 3
1 s
paragraph
ive wastes
.c: u
o
CSJ J-
CO XI
r— C
ra
OJ
c c
•r- o
4-J
Q. E
S*5
CL
X -C
QJ
E
J? -M*
XJ •r- QJ
> r—
O -r- r-
0 4-> E
m o
- ro r—
•* o re
CVJ S- 3
1 4- C
cn o
m o
ther concern
o
XI
c
s
LLJ
C 3 -
ro u 10 ID
o o
id oo i—
in o csj i
i ^j- r-- o
cn -s3- c
cn
01 C Z
c -,
•f- C C3
S- -.- ro
3 rOO
XI 4-> CO
c m
- O
u U -o
re cu 4-)
l/l t/l 4-J
rt £,2
t- Ol 4~»
O > ro
>i 0 E
•r- XI X)
•.- i- QJ
U t-
• r- 4- QJ
4-J
4-
O
a
X)
QJ
C
OJ
jr
3
O
QJ
4-
3
O
E -—
3 •'-
10
ro to
QJ -I-
O -*:
S-
O) O
omprehensi
s. Their
encies have been carrying out a c
study of these radioactive waste
.
QJ •,-
ro 4— c
S- QJ -r-
QJ 4J
X) C71 C
OJ c: o
QJ in E
-C OJ 3 i—
4-> i- i — ra
Q- U
" M 01 5
4-1 4-> ••—
4J to i.
•-. 0 fO 0
• QJ QJ O
4-J > C C
0 -.- 0
QJ 4-> (O
S- ^- O
O QJ QJ
U i- >,+J
C 4-> T-
C i —
^"5,J5^
QJ 3 l/>
S- X) 10 4-
OJ O O
^14-0.
O QJ
C Q> NJ
cu >,^: r-
3 QJ T-
QJ CT N -£I
4J QJ -r- a.
o i- E ra
C 4- •(- i.
4-> c cn
o QJ •— o
o .c: E QJ
H- 4-> Ol
QJ TD U OJ
I— ro -c h-
.. Oj i. .
QJ E QJ S-
c CL 3 4->
4-J O
O o O ra
4-
QJ QJ j;
- N E 4->
OJ
Ol
re
O,
E-16
-------
at
.c v>
r- -—
QJ ra
S- JZ
at 4->
E J-
o at
.— -4-J
ra QJ ro
4-1 4- C
3 £r-
U JZ O
a
c >,
oj* E CL
at o
en 4-J 1/1
3 at
(/} c:
,- at
•• (J 4-1
i c: at
U3 (J -M
at 4->
C r— Ol
i— c at
o o.
1 QJ -r-
J_ 4-1 C
4-> m -i- QJ t-
c at TD o
at a. v, i-
u Q-4J in ^
at ^- s- QJ
L S at
c o QJ
,- QJ *~ . 4- '.-
ro :> * QJ O •*-»
O > 10 QJ TO
c: QJ ~o .c
o o 3 QJ s- 4->
-P •*- O -C O
£Z 3 O> r-
0 •— 4-1 JZ
•r- (J . 3 4-«Xl
4-1 c: T3 o E
.— U r^ U, ,-
3 fl3 3 O
*^£ ^iz" "^
4-J O
j~ - 0 -2 00
.j-i 4_> ro c ra
aj ••— ro 3 pi— at
> OO i — -C i~
•i- 3 QJ 4-> CL
en QJ u -t-J i— LO
OJ 4-J (O -Q 4-J
i/i u *(- at o
ro o s- E c
f— JZ 1/1 .— LO
at xi O
•• o c: o 4-*
r— S-. -,- -i-> 00 QJ
i i- 3 QJ 3 •—
C
0
0 •>•
4-> C
VO S_
oo E
0
C O
0) O
Dlr—
o^ QJ
2
Ol r-
4- 3
o o
Cn •
r- i-
Ot O
3: i-
Qj QJ
\~ c:
QJ
01 _Q
cxi
QJ 4-1
co CL
i Q-
cxi ro
Sc
OJ
QJ
1"
°-
o r
u[u
i- r
o c
at c
JZ>
r- J
d T
^4
i-
1/1
et
O 4.
O =
QJ
ro
JZ 4-
QJ
r— C
1 i
D Q.
•J UJ ct
at cc
- -en o
r^ zj
j ra
1 i- a'
o at a>
"1 4-J 00 C
CL O
rt) • QJ
j en s- &L
i_ C QJ QJ -
r- 4-> -C CL •
>•> 4-) LO 4-J D_ •
2 s- ra o uj .
D 4J JZ £
a ^ G 5 ^ m
Z QJ O O i-
/I 4-> _Q C C
C JZ S- QJ -
-• JD ! 3 CM en
D CO C QJ CXI
Or- LO C
~ C CO
o oo ra
- ^- O
3 cil-5 ^1
E+J LO J^.JDCLQJ-C]i->-,
-C i— E C >> QJS C r — S-3 Qj4-JQjO
raOr-S- 4-J4- Ol3 34->"QJ
TT3roC3QJ ^--t-JQJ U>^OC4-1 3 S- Ot r-
4-JC 4-> QJS-E QJZ1T3QJTD OraO.
C"O ocn >-,4_> i — ura 4-JU3CJ1
r-vroOl-3 1-3QJ t/i O a. Q i- Q) (J i — 4-JQj
i — 5-jCTlC +J 4-> i— "r-un-D -4-ZDCf-
•~O "O " m • r— >- 1- OO r— --M
QJ r- S- £ - "OS-3 QJ i- r- _C-3Ur-
j^l_crouai -as- raatc 3 -a -t-> ^4- ro
Q_ U-^JZ C JZOC OOtZr~i3 4- JZC
Z)QJ4->(Zt/lCX CT> r- r— "O O.iyiQ QJ C O
JZ: 4-4-' 3 S-QJ34-J (B Qj t- L CL JZQJi/i>1
co^S'^l ^°^ ^"IbS ^l""^
>>CS-ro JZ 4_i ^ 4-OJ-Qj_C
ca;c'S^cx cc?3 c^o,^-C '="-5"'Sr~
-So^-S -Solj -^S?£ -S = tJS^
cia5_Sfe.f c^S:!^ ci°S£S ci 3 Sto =
c
ro QJ
(13 1— r—
E
at oo QJ
QJ -a
•M 4- 10
S~ T— 1-
CL O
>« 4J (~ 4->
JD ZJ O S-
JD r- O
Ol 4-J JZ
C C ft) 00
r- 0 i-
J- -1— 4-J O
O -M C O
4-> r- QJ 4->
C O tZ QJ
O O- O JJ
O >i
-. ° 4^j E
CXI OO 1/1
QJ ra >,
r — CLT- i/i
i*- 4- at O
— 0 U r-
X O LO
QJ QJ 4_ QJ
tX • — i/i i-
1 C ~C "°
f^ E 3
O S- JZ
at l- 3 i
c; 4- LO «d-
"~£ i c
-4- QJ
r— QJ O !-
0
at
'£
at
TD
3
-C
at
rs
+j
5i
QJ
t
ra
QJ
LO
cxi
QJ
(Z
r-
-
c
CL
3
-a
ra
at
u
o
at
oo
c
at
JZ
£
O
-o -o L/i
at "o ot
S- TD
at 3
1 4->
QJ LD O
00 4-
-a .r- e
C r— i_
ro at
CJ 1
- s-
r- 0
UD
OO i C
QJ jZ] -T3
•r- (—-*->
r— U
x 7 1
C
ro 4-J
L/I ai
u 4-
at QJ
4- E
ai s-
at
£ "V
QJ +->
1 O CXI
4-1 -c. n
O 1
JZ QJ CXJ
i/i ^: en
- ' .. °-
. 4-
•a •
o
4- cxi
• o
•— c
r— LO O
~c oi "o
O QJ
E J=>
w, S-
at QJ "O
r- 1 4-J
i — en ro
c: "o
c: o tr
QJ i — ra
at E
3 r—
jn -M
• at "o
^"o 5
4-> O
u a. • s-
•a i- CL. oo t/i u_ -a
C T3 UJ _g <-< r—
U C O •(- • r-
4- O at CLI— cxi 3
> o o
1— 1/1 4-J JZ 4-> O -r-
•r- 13 CX) 3 U S-
00 3 oo Ol QJ rtJ
C 4-J r- IT! 4- I/) U
1/1 QJ i— O~l i . — r-
QJ > ro • —
to ec D_ O CJ r-
QJ CI eC Q, (— 4-J
QJ 4-> "O Ct U1
QJ CL QJ 4- C Q_ S-
> E O O ro LO CL
^ o s- at «
Ol U QJ •— i O i — <£,
E O Q-
cxi i_ E QJ It uj
ro jO O i— enr—
o c o ra o
O S- i— -C 3
_J -r- 4-1 O 3 4->
Q_ 4-J tZ 4- Cn r- tZ
ft) QJ QJ S O
. r- +J r— -0 4-J
r— to ro "2 o c c
1 OJ O- LO 4- S- CTl LO
CXI > QJ C CU r— C
r— LZOOLOULOO
i- CL E C cu f-
0-1 O oo LO O T3 4->
ai "a 4-J QJ (— <-J ro
c: — l_ c QJ en
at ai -^ aj
i c 4- a. o _c c
•Q
QJ
at LO
at QJ
QJ
LO O QJ
QJ 4-J
QJ 4-J O
4-J r-
oo O
QJ 4-
QJ Q-
c. o
o >-,
= at -D
1 3 X3
en jz
ro c
CJ O CL
4- E
-a 3
QJ oo "O
4-1 4^
Ol 1_ r-
3 CL at
-D i
rn -LJ -Q
fT r- QJ
C S-
f- >, 0
3
*> "O UJ
1 C >i
CI r— QJ
U J^ i —
r— ra o
O c
00 4-J i-
r- C S-
Q QJ
"O S CJ>
c c
4-J -O
at
at 4- >-,
4-1 fO r—
O C r— .
- & e
LO D- E -i£
at E o
LO 3 O CO
3 T3 r—
ra oo S-
CL ro QJ ~O
3 JZ j—
QJ C 3
JT at -i- o
4-J > JZ
3 o QJ at
O .- S- 4-J
ro -C E
S- 4-1 O
cxi ro LT-
O QJ "
QJ 4~> r- .—
i— 3 at c
E -c: ^
i 0 4- C
CX1V_ o O
o
c
CTl
00
QJ
LO
£
Ol
ra
JT
QJ
JV-
00
4-J
^
CXI
^_
CXJ
QJ
tz
•
txj
a> is >!
QJ r— i—
JD O <-
Q- s- re c
i/l O "O QJ
ra "O 4- QJ
ra jz r-
ai 10 QJ
s- c: ^ >, >
gj ro 4- i — ra
-C. CL r— jz
4-j ra at ra
4-J QJ -r- QJ
3 CT) C 4-> 4->
•r— Q. at ro
at 3 ra
4-J i — QJ at
•- U « 4-J S-
CLT- r- t- JZ
E ^r— Cn 3
-0 £~ CJ E 00
O) -r- 4- oo 4->
JZ QJ r- -O CL
-i-> S- (_) r- QJ
o QJ 3 -a
C. 4- 0- CT
C C 4-J
"O O 4- JZ QJ
C ••— i — 4-J QJ
C -M "S >,
r- "~ O -Q
O LO -i— QJ oo
r— T- LO -Q O
4~J CL
S- .— JZ .— 4-1
CL 4J O en
i— i/i E
>1 >lJ=
QJ £} i— •— 1 C
jc •- z re
4- 0 C LA E
Q,'r~ -O JZ
• C r- CTJZ
ID t3 4- LO i-
oj
fO
3
i
o
o
c
"S
JD 4-1
0
•o at
at ^ 4-
LO o at
at E
-a •— at
E • en
i- o c:
QJ LO O
1 OO '
d C
O oo
i— -r- C
- JZ 3
4-J O
QJ C LO
at ro
to O) QJ
e >
O -4-J JZ
C C tn
QJ QJ
ro QJ TD
JZ O 3
TZi 4-J
3 00 ^
Ol "
QJ -r- S-
U i/l to
QJ 3
3 I—
O -
1 i— T3
,— QJ
QJ • 4J
r— 4-J S-
U QJ
- QJ 4-J
f 4- QJ
is
£Z
j_
ZJ
at
j-
QJ
at
o.
at
a.'
"CJ
c
• •
. c
- 0
4- vi
C QJ
3
CT4->
O
QJ d
ro >,
QJ re
•— E
+j
1—1
at •
c •
r- CT)
- O
1 4-J
cxj co
E-17
-------
QJ
c O
~i/1 O
4-1 CO
«i
o
r— CU
O O.
XI ,
rd
r-- -M
O
QJ ro
c
• t/i
co 5
QJ
4-
O
TJ
o;
QJ
£
QJ
S_
3
QJ
O
CL
CL
c
**
CNJ T3
QJ
ro" 3
I- QJ
CTi J3
ro
Q. 3
O
- JZ
UD 1/1
i — 4-)
r- 0
CZ
QJ
C CM
» C
ro £
'line 27)
for "greater
quantifica-
; J_ CL)
4-J p—
1- -0 fl
QJ O QJ
> e •— •
T3 S- S- CTi
4J QJ O1-,-
ro jz QJ sz
CTi fZ E
= QJ •
4-» 3 QJ -i-
i/l 4-J QJ
FJ,'^ ^5 5
oiro i/i
ZJ >,
^^ QJ «—
2; i/i r—
. . -° io "3
O 40 JZ
T3 4-> S- (-
C £Z QJ O
ro QJ -iz 3
U 01
r-. cz F— cu
CNJ O -C in
QJ JZ -O 4-1
c CTI c:
•F- ,- ro 4-
• c cz
CO " £
QJ -
U CTi
o ~-,
TJ -
QJ 4->
t- CTl
QJ -.-
CU 3
CL S-
QJ •
C 4-> Q
QJ JZ
01 CTi CZ
X QJ
0 3 TJ
QJ
T3 1- t/1
QJ O 3
r- "to
S QJ "^
£ •£ i."
-Q r— Qj
4- F— -f-
0 E •—
r~ QJ E
c E
3 3 •
QJ O E
JZ > 3
(Z Qj >
0 >
O S-
QJ
•• QJ >
cn
-d 3
ro £ °
t-
JZ CTl
+-> QJ i-
F— cu i — ro
QJ JZ ra _l
r— <->
JD
. QJ V.
CZ fZ CT 3
QJ .- QJ
JZ -r- C O
4-1 -a QJ T3
>
EZ >, QJ C
T) CL i~
rzn OJ E ^
X i — O 4-
(— ro o F—
£ O CNJ T3
O •— 3 O
EZ E 1- 4J
4-J QJ
CZ t- CTl >
O O C
i/i c rr ro
QJ F- QJ
QJ .—
F— cz c: E
CNJ JD O i~
'l 3 S- >
CT> 4-J QJ QJ
F— -C 3
QJ 4-> O
QJ ro 4->
c u cz
r- l/l Qj
- CT»E -
ro * S.i
-CZ
*J
Q.
3
S-
T3
^
L.
S-
O
i
QJ
>1
tz
o
•—
•i—
3
L,
"CTI
l/l 4-
Q_
flj
£ 3
S- 4-J
°£
QJ
JZ
U
O QJ
0) **-
CZ 0
0
QJ
QJ S-
-- C
0 E
CL i/i
£ r-
4-J JZ
O O
CZ QJ
E
4-1
3 QJ
-O JZ
O cn
't/i •-
t/> F^
CTi QJ
cr 4-J
r- QJ
C 1/1
F- QJ
i — >
i- OJ
a> --)
4-) O
t/i >,
O =3
J- 4-J
ntinental
IT fference.
QJ
QJ .-
OJ to
4J OJ
QJ •—
Jt3 U
,— S-
QJ ro
> Q.
QJ
i— O
Ut
C CL
QJ
C l/l
S.
QJ to
^ QJ
0 E
QJ
,— QJ
QJ
r- C
* QJ
S i:
Ij
ii
1§
0 8
c
ro 0
QJ 4-1
i_j
o| c
< 'el
o
^ E
- cn
4-J O
4->
i/)
T3 •—
O
QJ -M
C
Q) "D QJ
4-> E F—
QJ s:
QJ F- O
> QJ
OJ CZ C
C F- r-
F- 1- S-
4-J 4->
' f- F-
, 0 0
CZ C
ro^
QJ
S-. O
3 4-1
4-)
1- QJ
OJ CTl
CL CZ
E ro
QJ JZ
4~> U
4- QJ
C T3
O r—
F- 3
(j _^
3
M 10
CU
vi "c
QJ -
O
O
CNJ 3
QJ
QJ JZ
•— to
f. ^"
O JZ
1 QJ
^GJ >,
U S
X -S
O
4-> QJ
C
QJ -, QJ
ro o
E 4-J 10
GJ QJ
O > >,
C C 4^
CJ •-- i-
sz cu ro
3
jz i ro
1 — • QJ
C
O O
1 QJ -
CO 4-J l/l
QJ 3 QJ
, ,—
•• C r-
cn o o
1 3 CL
.- c o
>, iC o
c^ 3 JZ'S
QJ to 1/1
4J -F- QJ i-
trt 4-1
>,JZ 'o 5
rO 4-*
"Q Ol*~3
CU CZ C
1- FT3 r- " T3
QJ O ^^ i-
Q 4-J >> QJ
S- ro jz
JZ CZ 4-1 r- O
F— ro u QJ
3 -.- E QJ
-0 r- JZ
>, ro TJ C
jz c: tz o
fo" s^ S m - -
S- O O CO
CTIJZ 4-) c r^.
i- a jz t- ro
CL QJ 3 rv.
QJ E C3
"JZ O
C3 4_) to 4- • •
<^1 O - — •
1 4-J QJ "3-
LTl 13 -C "O - — •
10 - QJ
QJ CU "O - •
cz c 3 TJ ~a
•r- O F— C CU
' ~° cz _Jz: LL"
-r— F- r—
1 QJ O CZ 1-.
S- 0
c E
3
O CL
t/i QJ
r- ro
•- 3
3
C
QJ 4->
i- 3
t/1 >,
O -M
4-J l/l
CZ 1/1
ro QJ
CX 1-
O CU
>,
-IZ QJ
CL £
F— 4->
£ ro
QJ
cz O
QJ "O
CJD
4~>
CNJ
ro 3
CM
QJ to
r- O
«• ta
O F-
4 I
o
(TJ
~a
cu
u
c:
c
cu
Wl
T3
^
o
4J
QJ -£3
- 13
1- ro
E "3
3 CU
i/i cn:
CU Q..C:
c cn
O C r-
"O O F—
OJ C i—
3 0 QJ
• • «3 t
ro i_ 4.1
i (U X
CNJ -o ai
Q» w ~
1 — t—
ro to «
1 CU (Z
C\j 4_> g
O Wl r—
CU U
ro jz
1 4J
CM
E
>,
<-~
u
TJ
ro
i — CU
a> w
V 3
3
i/> CU
"•F^
O U
r- 0
4- *F-
OJ i-
» CZ
E ro
4-> O
O -F~
J2 4->
ai c
JT zj
4-> E
J- +J
CU
r— JZ
Q- cn
ro o> .
C\J C CTi
•F- C
0) O CL
C 4-> E
•F- -i- 3
CO TO
rO T3 QJ
1 C U
CM rtJ O
OJ
cn
ro
CL.
I
F— i 4- QJ
o .a
= to "O •
• 4-1 r— XJ
13
> 4- JZ S-
QJ at i/i
o jz m
JZ QJ QJ QJ
r- 1- 4-J
3 QJ 1 QJ
= -Q •-- re
T3 O i. JZ
QJ TJ
4-> 4-J QJ l/l
4-> 0 QJ
i/i "D CJ 4-
C F— O 4-
O 3 QJ
E 0 4->
= QJ 4-> =
QJ to tzn
4-J ( — r- i— 4->
J2 O 3 T3
ZJ I. C OJ
•• O I- ra QJ
CM 4- Q 3 -D
-^ T3 QJ "O
QJ O C > QJ
cz o ro F— sj
•- •— 4-J r-
+-> c ro F-
" O QJ O 4-J
cn c s- -F- 3
CO I- -0 t_
1 O 3 ro U
CNJ "O U S- i/l
QJ
CTl
rO
CL.
J- 4-J
4J O
~C 10
• QJ
IE 4-> •
CJ to W
C. ra QJ
(.1 CTl QJ
c3 SZ 3
<.J -i— CT
"O CU
.c: -r- tz
4-J 4- 0
c: QJ ro
•- 3 QJ
0 E
u rc c
O
-C 5-
F~ • F-
QJ >
4-> C
LTl tO
QJ
4-' CU >
Ql JT ro
i— -M JZ
Zi 4- O
-Ci O 4J
•• QJ 4-J
>£ 4-J C
r- 3 F-
0 3
l/ O
•- 3
4- ro
r— c QJ
«* QJ E
i QJ ro
QJ
ro
Q_
_,_>
QJ
QJ T3
CTi QJ QJ
ro 4-> 4-1 o.
> 13 ro cu
0 3 T3
F^ 5 4- 4-J
•F- O O
QJ 3 C
S- 4-1
QJ e i- i/i
JZ O O r-
•F- CL
QJ 3 C S-
> F— ro 3
.- -r- S- O
4-< i- c ^r
QJ 4- QJ !-
E £ QJ
QJ E >
4-J O QJ O
CZ QJ -r-
JZ QJ QJ F—
f— £ 3= 2T
E QJ C
Q. QJ 4-J 4-J
ra !- O S-
S- QJ C O
CnjZ ro CL
2 >, JZ -^
u 3 F—
* ra QJ
7 S ^ -^ 4^
QJ 3 4J
to > cu J~
QJ F- QJ j; O
tZ 4-J CZ 4-» CL
- £ C 3 S_
CNJ r- i- O 4-1
-3- to X S-
1 10 r- JZ C
CM < E 4-> O
QJ
CTl
CL.
4->
ro
ra.
E
E
QJ
O
o
TJ
TJ
QJ
S-
3 •
O
QJ C
tZ QJ
•- E
QJ 0
>
• • QJ
TD
QJ tZ
C ro
' ^
-0
CM J3
QJ
cn
Q-
QJ
4-J
QJ
CL
QJ S-
i- CL
CL
3 ct
O CL
t- LU
O
QJ +J
CZ 4-J
QJ U
4-> CU
CU JH
QJ
CTl-i- QJ
c E ro jz
O S- 4-J 0
Lt, £ JT 4J £
CL 1- QJ C
O QJ 4-J QJ QJ
f— 4-> O TJ JT1
00 ra C
• — QJ to F— 3
JZ O OJ QJ 3
LO CX- 4- =
QJ r— CTl
CU i- 4- TJ
4- s- dj o ro
O CL >^ QJ
c s- i — QJ CL
O QJ i/l l/l
-M o u ro QJ
rrj ra £ >
S- O 4- O
•- 3 QJ
£ 1_ Ul 4-J
aj ro •
TJ 4-1 C 3 TJ
i_ ro ••- QJ
ro rz JZ QJ i/i
10 .— >! JZ QJ
LO > QJ 4-J
t— 4-1
QJ
cn
a_
S-
QJ
ro
3
QJ
QJ
JZl
-o
O
S-
QJ
ro
3
S-
QJ
JZ
QJ
CZ
f~
ro
ro
QJ
Cn
Q_
QJ CU C?
£ jz ro
O 4-1
QJ S- cn
-Cl O ret
4- CL
"~~ *"
o 4-> cn
4- L,
- CJ-
• QJ i/1
QJ 3
TJ ro tz
m *~
• 40 <1J
• QJ ro
t- u 3
QJ C
4-1 -F- Q>
ro to u
O QJ 3
S- .— Qj
QJ O JZ
>5 O -M
QJ O
CZ 4-J CT>
E r- .,-
= s *
QJ to
ro tz
tz cn c
•— •- £
E O
co = a.
QJ
a.
E-18
-------
6
ro
JZ
o
Q_
QJ
TJ
O
Q
S_
„
Zl
QJ ro
t— -i-
cxi
c:
• cn
CNJ 00
1 ttJ
to
i
CD
3
ro
QJ
e
C
QJ
D_
r--.
£
oo
CN]
QJ
Oi Cn
> Cn
CD
CD oo
0
•— o
'^=1
!•=
c-g
S§
«- "•
.,-<•>
ro i- QJ
"CD "z.
^ s-°
ro -5 CD
O QJ to
-i- C cn
co c: QJ
CNJ ro •—
s
4- QJ
ro ~c
-o CD
QJ.4-.
QJ •—
QJ ro
0 Zl
QJ Cu
4-> "O
CD
C
4-> T3
QJ
ro o
4-> QJ
QJ
CD C
.0
3 Oj
>~> ra
E: oo
O 4-J
QJ S-
C CD
4-1 QJ
O
S- O
O >,
NJ si
1 O
T3
U 40
C QJ
CL i-
E •*->
a c
c: QJ
QJ t—
c
JZ >
4- CL
£
QJ QJ 3 i/l 4- i — U!: -i- Zl S- VI -C
^""Sfefc c£Sj|g|
i — QJOdO-QJOO • Q C 4-* to
I§s5:p|||gis
ro •— s- jz ro s- -O4-
QJ QJCX) O >, Z) CD
C C CU O C i — O QJ -C (J
(J r- r- 0 S- C71 l/l VI *- 3 UJ
i^rorovuzr-.-aju cu o
u (_4~: != QJ " c ^ CDJZ ro t
ou>s-3+->rroLororo QJ
cx,^ mo a 0 ^ 0_£ =^ n
- « S^-g1?^ g1- 3 . ^
- 4-JQOcOi — QJi — .— QJ i —
1 JZ Zt E 3 -i- 3 O'r- v- C O 3
QJ
QJ
CX
O
cn
E
"O
C
4-J
t S!
"2 0
t/) _L
O
>-,
0 ^
U
cncn
ro L
S- CD
to QJ
"- U
QJ
r— t—
un QJ
i -a
QJ -a
r--. CD
> QJ 4-
" jy^
s- c x:
CU QJ 4-J
> >
QJ r- QJ
QJ C
u c ro
tz o S-
ro to
C QJ OO
o s- ro
-M CD O
Zl OO
O to
C 5-
i/l QJ QJ
QJ ZJ '
-Q O
3 4- f
-o •-
Cr--0
U d
zi c:
o
4-> T:
-^ QJ •
C U T3
ro zi i-
CL. QJ ro
>i OJ >>
CXI— i—
CD O
S- S-
ro zi 4-1
CL O O
o
QJ
ro
QJ
>,
E
CD
flj
—
i_
ro
5
r-
-^
C
OJ
O -M
O
QJ 1
4-> O
QJ
5u
i- QJ
QJ _Q
-C
-M OJ
4- C
4-J
QJ C
>>
°
I -
QJ Oj
K"?
C
r— U
QJ a>
QJ •
7 ro "^
QJ -4-1 QJ
«— O
- CD C
co jz ro
0 0
4-J -i-
'zi CD
ro r-
u .a
o
-O c
JD
* QJ
4- O.
^- QJ
4-J GJ
QJ
U O
!_> O
ro CD
QJ JT:
O QJ
3:
C
CU -M
"^ S- .
Z) QJ CL
-Q "O O
- ZJ QJ
40 TD
QJ T3 C
r— QJ
QJ 10
CO C
i i/i aj
I
i
QJ JZ
5 Q.
4-J
CD C
ro r-'-cl
ro i s-
QJ
CL
3 • •—
O E ro
tO r- 4-j
QJ O
u c: c
O zj ro
4- J^
QJ 4-J
o cu
1C -M >
O r-
-D 4- ^
O 4- VI
O CD tz
^ CD
QJ 00
4- jz
O 4-1 QJ
L.
jz o E
a_
|.-?fe
>j i~ VI
4-J -t-J O
U CL>—
O QJ U
CD Zl i—
ro jz o s-
0)
O OJ
QJ r—
r- Y—
S-
QJ C CU
CU •— QJ
i— +-> O
C t/1 TD
cn r-
O "O QJ
QJ QJ
1- 4-1 C
c ro o
cu 3
QJ 3
.O L4- O
O C
O QJ to
c: s- aj
Z! r-
-*= c -^
4-1 QJ
3 t- CD
m -5 °
CO C
i CD O
CNJ JZ 4-1
ro
i= ^-R
i— O O
•— c: 4-J
^"ao.
4- 5*5
OJ
cn
D-
0^
ro •
cn cn
i- C
O t—
Zl i-
QJ Q.
E
r- -0
"O C
CD ro
"O O
e Q
i- O
QJ
3 J-
O Zl
QJ O
c: r-
r^ CL
-*-> S-
^ ^
-o
CO >, Cu
Zl TZJ
oo 4-J ro
QJ 1/1
C QJ
•r- 4-> _O
1 0 -C
QJ
CD
CD
4- >, ZJ 1
^ 7T o
i- 4-*
3 O S^ S-
O 4-> QJ QJ
"^ o£ 5
O -1-J oo
4- O r—
c: QJ -a
tZ > QJ
4-J J_
r- - "a CD
3 - c -a
4-> • O QJ
. r- U 3
- > _Q cn
= c
c: E J^
QJ s- at
E o s- oo
aj c ro ro
ro c. jz cu
QJ r- 3 4J
jz 3 u
\— 00 QJ
QJ 4-> 4-*
S- C OJ
• - ro QJ ~o
LO Z5 C
I/I 4-J Z(
C Zi 4-> QJ
VI QJ O
CU JZ QJ t—
d 4-> VI
r- O 4-
f— cnjr o
c: 4J
i zi c •-
OJ
Ol
cx
S-
QJ
O
3:
4~
O
C
C O
QJ i
to i
ro ro
3 -C r—
vi cn E
r— c: I-
-13 'CL c
•a 40
•r- O O
QJ S-
u -C
QJ 3 O
JZ O i/l
1— IT 4-> -r-
C JZ
Zl 1—
o
i cn to
V) C i- i-
QJ i- ro -M
c r— ro
•r- 5-
i— -*J ro 4-J
u c
1 O -O O
QJ
cn
D_
QJ
QJ
40
u
CD
QJ
-o
-o
13
O
QJ
O
°
QJ
QJ
S
CNJ
CD
C
r-T
^
cu
D-
cn
x
E
CU
-I-J
s-
QJ
C
o
c
o
0
2
cu
o
JD
00
O
"ro
40 .
QJ O
O QJ
S- C
> 40
CD 4~>
31 JT O
- 0 Q
cn S- s
•r- 4-J
-a 4-
ro QJ o
QJ 4J
r— ro ro
•r- 3 J-
E £ ro
CD O QJ
S_ U JZ
VI O 4->
r— 4-> O
QJ C
E i >,
o -a
= i — -a
QJ i QJ
4-> ro 4-
v» O
i- VI
3 T3 QJ
= 4-J S-
ru ro
CD E
to C
QJ c ro
JZ CD
I— > QJ •
• -0 3rQJ
" OJ W 0
at to E
c: ro at
r- 3 QJ 4-J
r— 3 ro
OJ i—
4^="S S
4)
Cn
ro
a,
-a o.
£to ^
•o L •— ro
•i- ro ro 4-> o
o cn c
O J3 O 4- 3
CLi— O O
QJ CL O JZ
_Q T- C -r- -^ JZ
z) QJ ro QJ
E S- cn. f- JD
ro c o
c- to 4-> CL ro
IT) QJ
E +-> x. -a J-
Qj u) QJ c ro
r- £ ro r—
_Q 4_> O
O 4-> O C E
s~ ro c o
4-J r—
•- ro >, c
4- QJ QJ 4-
C JZ (J O
0 QJ -M C
r- JZ O C
4-J I — C LJ O
C OJ (Z 4-J 4->
r- • E o ro 3
E QJ S- 0
4-J .0 Q c c cn
c ro c QJ QJ
O 4-> D- U C
O C I/) CD C O
0 0 "° S £
•• E -Q oo c:
CO 5- 4-* 00 ro
C C 4- _^ 0
CU t- LU t- >,
c 4-> QJ jz:
•^ o • — - a. a.
i— c: c • a.
O 4-> 0 -M
- V) r- (J U O
4J
cn
s.
4)
ct: QJ
i ro
o s-
r- QJ
oo Q-
•r- Ci-
> ZJ
CD
S- QJ
c
0
o cz
V- CU
Zt
QJ 4-J
4-> C
IO O
QJ U
.. *
CNJ 4-
o
QJ l/l
r— O
ZJ -i—
" +J
OJ
rz c
r- O
r— O
- QJ ro
QJ
cn
D-
E-19
-------
we suggest the following pH definition, "A
the hydrogen ion activity in minus logarit
s considered neutral, less than 7 acidic,
e."
•r- C
£ls!
• • t/> ro
ro QJ *•
O -— C
QJ C: JZ
C XJ O 4-J
•r- QJ -r-
"" 3 C QJ
* QJ 4-J
CM £ > ro
r- 1- C QJ
1 QJ O I-
r- 4-> o cn
cn
ro
ent scientific
e references
or instance,
cited exactly
•- QJ QJ
££ • "°
QJ LA C
CL4- i- ro
O OJ O
4- -C
O r— 4-1 =
«— O -O
01 ro ro
•r- QJ JD 1-^.
•i— U QJ QJ
QJ 3 S_ "
> TO QJ O QJ
c: o_ c: LA zi
QJ ro ro o
4-1 O l/l
•• 3 4J U QJ
i i-, in v -i
01 S QJ
Q- LA - S-
O L) r— O C
r— QJ U 01
1 4- QJ -
rv. a; i_ j_ >,
s- O.Q jt>
ro
QJ +J
O 1— CIJ
E - Q>
S- QJ (Tl
<- ro QI
i QJ E
ro s Q
QJ 4-J ft
> c S
r- Q)
01 u a
QJ •— > Q.
LA "O -C
Q, T- i—
QJ QJ
CM S
-a o
cn t- QJ
a. 5 i- S
co CLJZ 4-
r— O 4-J -r-
1 i — 4->
4-1 QJ
QJ £= ? i-
c ro o
LT> QJ i — T3
1 -C r- C
QJ
cn
e of this parag
atement leading
C +J LA
QJ (t)
4-1 t- S-
QJ CL I-
dJ QJ
l/l U
S- i
-C
QJ
JZ 0.1 5-
h- i- QJ
.. Q.' r- T3
0. -0
-C -C QJ OJ
CL 4- JZ Q,
rtJ 4-J c:
£5 ^f
01 "S L !^
8£ ro U
un ro QJ o
LJ E O
i/l QJ =
QJ QJ 4-J
C -O QJ
— TJQ-v
1 JZ C C
QJ
01
-o
o
o
-C
4-
O
C
o
4-J
O-
s_
u
QJ
QJ
Ol
QJ
QJ
QJ
4-J
CM C
y anaerobic org
these anaerohi
II
•-' QJ
O
1- OJ
QJ JZ
"O LA
QJ !Z
"O O
QJ r-
QJ cn
C QJ
QJ O
cn c
X
t^ .
3
C
o
QJ
4-
O
OJ
>
c
f—
1
c: QJ -c
QJ S S
QJ JZ C
QJ QJ
r- QJ QJ
t_ JZ
evel in seawat
arometnc pres
great depth of
QJ
Cn rtJ
X "i
c'i S
E OJ
4-> LA
determined by t
fore that water
fferent water
on, both phyto-
i/i -o -a 4-J
QJ cn i-
i — S- C QJ
i QJ
S- Olr-
QJ r- U
>> •- r- E
xists, Us o>
and barometr
Subsequent n
n-situ bioche
i/) p- U C
ro z) QJ
QJ
ro
3
QJ
+J
O
4-J
O
Ol
>,
E
C
o
CL
¥
i- CMX> OJ JT i- +J i- >,-O
1_ O
3 O
cn
- "
QJ
QJ QJ
-^ E
CM TD 01
1 C (-
«=C d O
S,
c
.
•a:
QJ
cn
CL
O E QJ
4-1 QJ S_
£ JT £
s- o ro
QJ Ql QJ
Q- ZS C
-S Q^ ol
E 4- LA
*t
j= J-
C ~O
ow the saturati
i ng_ resjri ra t i on
u
c tz
Q,' i~
0 0
QJ
QJ JZ
-M O
(- _O
gen units are u
A-28 and "mg/li
unit, either
r weight/weight
X QJ r—
O cn cn -
ro c —
O Q- -r- CO
f— c: r
r- ro "1 0) C
E CM 4-J O
QJ i QJ QJ JZ
i- ta . f r—
ro i 03 — -
• 4-1 i — • QJ
QJ r- i- S CM ZJ
QJ Ol S- 34-i(i —
c cn QJ cn eC o
"i— -Q "JZ (O E
( QJ (Z 1 C C O
Ql OJ
o> cn
T3 C
3 >i
§O
J?
OJ
•§"£
3 QJ
^«
ro 4-
c:
o
o •
4-* E
fO r-
-C t-
4-1 CL
C 4-
j_ ro
QJ
4-» JZ
0 4->
c -o -
ro oj oj
<-> Wl JD
•— 0. 0
• • -o -a
CO •—
•— >, 3
r r~ 0
01 (O •!-
OJ S-
c >,
•~ fe-g
cr. o
r o> s-
QJ
cn
Q_
ro
-a
•^
J^
•o
3
O
0
cn
c
4-J
QJ
QJ
-a
QJ
tz
o
u
0)
D-
1
QJ
C
•-
.
O
QJ
cn
Q-
ro5 ^ '•
r— T3 i- (J
ro i- cu -r-
o *-> a.
Jrt «Jj 0
^ C 4-J
c > o
0 E •— w
i- >,r- (O
aj ro ri
a- 3: u c
i3 "" S "i
LA to ^
0 -^ CL
1Z C "T-
rd O C -C
OJ -i- O h-
O 01 -r- =
O S- ol
QJ S_ 01
^- a. aj -r-
fO 01 O-
CZ -r- l/l QJ
O "O -f- cn
•r- -a c.
OJ 4J (O U
Ecu
-,.- o .- -o
TJ N 4-» QJ
QJ t- QJ 01
-C C Ol
4-J T3 ro 3
tZ rC VI
x: " s_ 3
4-> 0 OJ 0
•r- Dl
t/> a. s~
•r- o ro •
t- r- cn
C O QJ •<-
-i- in TJ x
§|3'i
£' r^1 ro*-™
JZ E •+•*
i. cn -^
3 -r- H- c
E
O) 'i-
JZ
4-J T3
OJ
S|
QJ Ol
e QJ
QJ 4-J
4J 01
to ro
S-
4-
"a
XJ QJ
O 4-1
QJ
ro c •
i~ QJ 01
ro QJ
E QJ **-
Q_r—
VH t-D
QJ •
• • QJ
r- 4-J
1 QJ l/l
C
QJ QJ i-
C U S-
r- C 3
•• OJ Q»
O 4- Q.
i— 4- O
QJ
Ol
a_
i:
o
CJ
s.
ex
TJ
c:
fr
tj
QJ
t
Qi
C
I.
Q
a.
i
QJ
ro
ro
QJ
cr
O-
c:
O
4-J
C
QJ
C
O
.s
£
QJ
QJ
J^
0
c .
o
QJ
i.
Q.
J
•a 4
>i
ro
s-
3
ro
QJ •
l_ L
QJ
-o
o
u
QJ
n: •
Q-
1
QJ
ro
t .
OJ
cn
D_
-> r— QJ
.&£;=
IT- • CL
- QJ
?14-l 4- QJ
•r- o E
- \ (D ifl
o cn cn
E C QJ
>> fO JZ
y CM s- h-
J ^ *"
n jz +J
0 4- 4-J ZJ
„ ° -r~ °
J C TO
J O 4-> QJ
^ •!- C .
3 4-J QJ i —
J ro O QJ LA
- C O-
QJ ai
c
O O "O
o . —
QJ ZJ O
J-J fp f-
fO -O LA
I- (0
c o
19 c o
Q--I—
ol 4-
QJ ^ i—i
r- QJ
S- S- •
4-> O- !-
C QJ 4-J QJ
- C -u» --, JZ
r> z> (o cn CL
S- Qj O
, cn i- **• JZ
, (_) LA •
r ro 4-J cn o
O i/l
II QJ
CM
C!. ^
• O
cn r-
"fl
Ql 3 4-1
I- 0
aj i- O
JZ o cn
C CL +J
> O O
O C
•r- QJ >,
ro O
4-J *3"
QJ •!— 1
ro QJ
jz QJ c:
O
jc: -c -
0,4-1 ^r
QJ S 1
4-J <_> cn
T- r- no
C T3 Q_
LA i- C
34-1^
.— C
(J OJ
QJ >
-M 0 r-
•r- -r- 01
E ^
QJ r-
_^
O
QJ
T3
4-
O
QJ
C
-Q
O
QJ
•a
QJ
Ol
ZJ
QJ
m
Q)
£=
„
'Y
QJ
Cn
0 QJ 1-
C OJ Zi JZ 3 4-J
3 O JC r— C =
4- CL o cn s-Lc
O Zi O --O QJ 4-J
U ul 01 JZ QJ i— 4-J
QJ 4-J 4-J 3 ro c
o QJ u •— ro O 3 i-
4-1 QJ CT LA QJ 4->
~a i- QJ 1/1 1 o
LA r— QJ • T3 C = C
r- 3 4- ixi ro o
0 QJ •— r- JZ -
^S0^^™^"^ _ §
QJCi-4-'Qj4-'O cro
JZQJQJ CC4- EOJ
4J4->4->4-Qj.^ 3t/l
C 4J O Ol QJ .—
c QJ ro i— jz o c
Oi/>Ei'lQjra4-> Or-
Ct- 3
(JJZ-r-r- UO OJr—
C+-JJZ4-J4-'rtJ 4-J-^
4^t=l^ajl~4~u ai^
QJ . T- »- 3 QJ CT
LA c: QJ >^ 4- o -c
OOCTDr-LA 4-J4~
OEtAQi LAC 4-JQJ
QJ S- 4-» O r- ZJ -r-
j^,- r-LACJlO L/lE
JZ O.T- S- JZ OO C
i -o c: c 4-> 4- o •• i-
fl S- T- (J S- r— O
Ol QJ 4-J QJ i-
,-OJt-S_Z>CQJ f- l=
cxro4~ro£oj ajc
-t- CS-QJ4- -cnE
Tc'r-4-r-4-J TQJO
QJ QJ
cn 01
?
E ^
O r-
r- E
•t^ :
c o
o c
u
QJ QJ
o •—
S-
c: QJ
0 CL
u
>> E
r^ i-
3 cn
H- O
QJ i-
0 E
-o
QJ
C J-
ro "O
Q. 3
X 0
OJ JZ
Si ~
QJ -^
s: S
ro
QJ
C QJ t-
-r- C QJ
"]. '"rC
O
CM ai s-
1 1 QJ
QJ QJ
Ol Ol
ro ro
E-20
-------
_
o o
C 4-
S a
ro O
>- 3
-^ C
FO "-
X
t/> E
QJ
cn.— .-
V) C -Q
t— (O
a. E
m 4-
CM OJ
i/i t-
-c t 7
01
O- > * QJ U aj
v: ro ocxi/iOLTi-c:
C S- LD QJ i/l • • • ~O
Ol — TZ> E QJ 3 " >— T3
= t-ror-Qj E J- • i
QJ 4- C i— QJ X r- -C "
r— jr i. -i- o i- Q.-O a: E
Q. 4-> £ a>CT. 4-J Q. c ^^ ^
4-< J_ U -L. i— i — OJ11
g Si^iSlCG"?^
QJ 4-> 1- QJ •— -tZ O O *
1— -.- O OJ 3 vi S- O
i- - O tZ O C
£ gg^^-^f-go
•r— r- 4-J -•-, 4- "O i/l S- ro i —
^ coC5oj-«->i"Qjaj'i/iaj
ct ,J-U.M0.2o
QJ OJ
ro ro
4-J O
O p- C
ro S- O
S- to >,
ro 3 S-
QJ U
O QJ
m r> m
n (— i
QJ 40 £
> QJ 0 QJ
'S.S*' -
ra c s_ o
D- C Q
Ti^iS
ro O. i 3
--C QJ L
m JD ^
e£ 0 h- -0
>, QJ =x
i giro"
E o
"^ c —
> r- ZJ
r- 4J O
ai ro £Z
tz
QJ ,- 4J
QJ a>
n q_i "*
^3£
21 QJ , VI
ra QJ
S- u
ZJ fO
!_) >•>
c
c
Si!
O- QJ
4-J QJ
VI T3
r- JZ)
QJ VI
1- -fZ
>!
ZJ
VI
c
c
S
QJ
Q
a
o
3
GJ
f) C
QJ -
ra10^
Q_ CO
(— CO 1-
CQ QJ 4-
01
cu ro +->
S- 0. 0
n c
Cn • "
U_ r- -M
- QJ Ol
1 .- QJ
QJ - S-
cxi i — zj
CO C
VI O
C T
— 01 QJ
CO D- :
QJ «•
ro i
QJ C IZ
s- i- ro QJ
0 Q. ^ QJ
tn i/! t^ ^
3 QJ cn >
CnO i- CTl
cxi ro ^
O 4-J
O O ra O
U~) -0 0
-co
+J 0. QJ —
r- E C VI
O " -t-1
CXI QJ VI r-
U3 >,4-> CD
C 0= «3
.— c c
• QJ
r~, 4-> r~ c
CQ s- E u
ra
c
o
u
^
-^
VI
^
QJ
r-
^
ro
co"
ex
'~-
Co
CSJ
—
O)
Ul
•*•
LO
^
4-
O
QJ
n
f 1
-^
TJ
-c
QJ
ro
a-
ro
4->
(1)
^
r-
F
i-i
Ql
^
,—
QJ
O.
"S
' — -
S-
QJ
S
c
,-_"
ri^
O •+->
-CXI
U s_
LJ O
C Q)
"0 3
C"
o c -t;
D-
C1"0 QJ
S- _C
4-J QJ
QJ i—
t— • O
• QJ
CO S- OJ
! S^ =)
CO O r—
QJ >
ro QJ QJ
O. O
•^ (0 r~
r- +J QJ
CQ c: 4-1
Ol
C r— O -t-J -r- •
Q>
3 c
OJ
VI
U 01
Q.
I- O
U 4—
T3 QJ
40 i-
C ^^
3 il
ift -a
CU
O,CTi
a. •
Ol 4-
OJ °
. . ro
o >
CT> QJ
l/l >-,
(_>
Cxi S-
c: CM
<
• QJ
4- fX
0
C
5 c
-C ••-
4-i Ol
3 vi
-C
cn c=
cxi o
QJ (Z
Ol-i-
iX C
o
C D-
tu s-
•r- U
a>
4J
QJ QJ
ss
i- u>
Q. •
ro
QJ (Z
O,
et O
L, V) l/l
> OTUJ
i/l 3
VI -JZ
C QJ ^
ro 4-
0 OJ
cn QJ
ro E "O
S- Qj gj
r- 4-t
1— •- -O CL
CXI C QJ ro
QJ -Q S-
rO VI 4->
ro Z3 D-
rQ QJ J_ i—
CX CZ CU 1
- S- S-
(A T3 CTl ^
C l^ O O
.— O r— 1
rs o «a;
i!!!1
-O 4-J r— 4- r- ro vi
UE .J=QJ>,(JOQJC:
4- 4-> cn c: cz u
S-4-fn OQJ-OQJ---
Z3 i- 4-> F- 01 >^r- +-» S-
S£°^r52ojE-br5
4-> cn at <- 3 -Q c;
QJ O QJ c o O
C - .— ^ QJ 3: QJ
LJ t- QJ ^ ro
viro >-,c3l o^z c: 3
OJ O O i— _C -C 5-
^S-vi^^^z^- i- =:
CC34-S-I 40QJ
Cr- OOroOrorzn
fZt O QJ O i- LLJ
o 4->ziO4-JF — Qjtr
— >, f— r- C r— JDO
St^ S^ScSEc^
is^s^?:^
f ^^os!,!
QJ
QJ
Q-
O
ro
QJ
U
u
ro
K
O
C r— _C
r- 0
_2 'g QJ
i 0 t
^ 0)^ =
^ ro ^
JC O •
Ol i~
O 4~> r-
cxi CD
-o
CO QJ i —
QJ ro QJ
4- C r-
vi E QJ
a: -•- c
o. o
QJ -Q
£ ro S
ro 3 c
S- QJ
QJ ro -»->
i7> £ vi
ZJ
i-
Q.
>,
QJ
s_
4-1
O
4-1
QJ
- CO
X
O 40
•5 o
O
-Q O
ro ^
0 -Q
c3
U
ro4-
1 C
4-s_Ci-ro i. j_ o i- >i
>, S-U-O-CLJ E -r-
C V1O OTDE4-- -t-
r-ZJ4"OJZ. OQj Cjrra
ro r- S^ 4-J TD rO roOCQ
O- 4-J C-QrOE f~
E2I C VI Or-^j ro i— J^ QJO
Qjcorai-orooQjQjzjii
4-> — E O CXI— O CZ Q-4Jr- Cn
r- I/I r- O fO J£
i- -r- V!jZlZ3-t-*>QJlZ
C 1-4J Q>ro-— Uc/l-QC CT)
4- >,C4- l/l ZJ QJ i— "O •(— (_)••—
QJJ^r-ZJr-.— S-TDaj-*-* 3
T3 i — ^Ji/iOro Vir-S-O~
QJS- VIVli — 1-jDTZI Q)E
3-OCUOr- QJCI-4->1
4- l_<*-X^roQJUQJV)i-i —
>, QJ ro- 4J^r_r_
CQJO4JU QJ Evir— 4-
aK"-«s-a = s^y
0 r- >^ «
>i= -^ 4->
ro QJ o
o a. ro vi
OU|J
T3 t- T— r—
O IZ jn
3 QJ ZD VI
3 4-J "
QJ = -Q
QJ = ro
VI C 4-» =
J^ O O X
o -5 = e
Cn"O O =
C £Z C
TJ u vi
o on o c
<_) flJ 3
(J ^ = , Q
O
•• ZJ 40 CX ro
*tf- cn u
~ S Si 5 a
E-21
-------
_o
*c
4-*
I-H
-£ >
i
Cl, a. o
cj d oo i-i
- C o C S
IM (0 M -H
OJ H -H 43 >H
•H CO > CO CO
«w
CU
43
O
3
H
>
OJ
4-J
•H
13
OJ
rH
a.
s
o
a
artment
o,
OJ
Q
•H
ware
CO rH
•rt Ot
Q Q
u d
Ji CU
i) 3
t* 4-1
CU
iO
OJ
43
Cl
4-1 a
4->
0. 0
e -H
4- CO
cC C
01
rH CU
rt O
4J
(3 01
vironm
sal Si
o
CU
G
H
00
d
0
•a
G
!>i
i3
C
0 0
es the rationalt
esignating site
tement provic
equen ces of c
CO O
o
rH
fl H
Lronmen
ronmeu^s
c >
oi d
4J 0)
d rl
B oi
lemental enviror
at time . We ha"\
need for sup;
ermined at tl
cu cu
4= T3
CU
T3 43
CO H
rH
» -H
•H 3
CO
Ct) CO
-case
at emen
„.
cO
0»
cn co
CJ
mental consequer
ons and eventua.
d its enviror
i te des igna t
a.
d B
0 3
•H -a
cj 0)
cO to
T3 X!
OJ 4J
0 X!
•o
oi d
co eo
d 4-1
O C!
w S
-H 0
•H
the programs anc
commend that en\
antly affect
oweve r , we re
T-t
-H •
G 4-1
00 G
ar to s:
3epar tme
fx en
CX. TH
CO 4=
iJ
ssess
of
>, -H
•H G
3
t applications J
ting or proposec
future p erm:
cting on exis
en o.
43 -H
at ion o
ntial fc
cumen t
e pote
cO
01
L(
(0
x
13
CU
G
•H
B
OJ
CO
>,
cO
PH
H
cO
G
(0
35
OJ
mpact
01
4J
3
cu
-H
CU
0
4J
4-1
•H
G
3
O
O.
a.
o
CU
o
3
O
d
(0
0 •
wish
atemen
o
z „,
O u
t- I
M
4J m
G
§£
0)
4J
cO •
4-1 d
to o
4-1 4-1
33
f £
rf a
m
4j aj
§ H
O i-H
% «
> 0
c a.
13 CO
cO
CU ^
x:
cO
T3 CU
3 O
•H CU
ai H
> o
X!
01
0) 43
a)
o
o>
to
-d
4-1
cO
OJ
X
X)
3
OH
ai
43
O
cO
X!
CU
Xi
d
o
ca
o
co
TJ
a>
4-1
CO
S
(0
O
I
"s
i
vO
O
0)
0)
>
cu
cU
X)
3
CU
x:
c
x:
4J
CU
J_l
T3
§
01
o
a.
S
rH
rH
3
d
a
CJ
O
13
CO
•F-4
x:
c
TH
•a
OJ
CO
0
a.
o
CL
(0
4-1
01
1
1
4J
g
a
n)
o
•H
B
0)
x:
M-l
O
c
o
(U
E
(J
43
13
O
>
n]
0
I-I
OJ
CU
3
O
4-1
O
OJ
u
rH
3 OJ
O 4-t
xi ca
en co
3
B
CO T3
H -H
00 U
O T)
M
Q. 1-1
O
00
G CU
-H 00
1-1 TJ
O 3
4J rH
-H CO
i «
4-1
to rt
f-H
O» rH
(0 0
O)
rH 0.
cu o
.
01 CJ
•H
> 60
C
C r<
M >
O
cu c
B «
cu
0) -H
ca 3
en co
CO V-"
en cu
O 43
•H 3
13 UH
s
a
g
-H
13
3
O
x:
en
cu
4-1
•H
CO
5
IH
O
?-.
•H
C
eJ
OJ
X!
(3
•rH
d
o
d
o
01
•H
00
O
rH
S
CU
4-t
G
U
o
0)
•H
4-1
B
•H
01
OJ
IW
>>
4J
•H
G
3
4-1
H
O
CU
4=
4J
j-i
O
O
cfl
X!
H
•a
0)
d
•H
•H
4J <~
-H "*
S 2
x: 3
3 o-
>,
c >*
41 rH
Ol k-
cO O
4-1 G
1— 1 w
2
•H
ai
43
o
o
cO
00
d
•iH
O)
01
a>
cO
o
0
CO
V4
TH
CO
\1 ° "^
•} £ «
\ *->
\\\ - G
Nj- « 0)
<1> O
•H -H
^ J B
is-"-
M G oi
M rt -H
u £6
Q
w
0)
u
-H
£»
x:
t-H
cO
01
rH
cO
4J
G
o :
-H
> 1.
W CQ
E-22
-------
H U -rl SJ >*H • 3 rH ~
3 -H QC04J4J cnmoi
03 V4 1> S » UH 4-1
O 4) O S C U «J r~ fi
>u in 4) c mane ffl 10
.Q*r<0>V4gG
•dO 4>-r4rH01fl4-'OD'~ •
3 *<9 E -H b. oi o » 41 X *-
4) S L l-i > 4) 4-i
41 TI <» x o co«-rtai to
X)rH'O4JIdl041rH M 11 4-* •«
3O 41 S 01 T3 4J £ fl
S a> rH S o S q C ^
cEaer-o>>'di) .-rip
*dO gO> e 4) Q) ft S
H -r( IH <3 rH >1 S >1 & 4) 4J g
P 4J « M a rH OS XI a 3 -M 3 4)
p « x 8 B n ocm-do
0 "d 4J -H fl 0> CO Vl -rt C
SOW 0>XrHId4JfJ)Sj
0 01 C 4-1 0 C rH Cn rH
C. g C &j XI V) « 0 -H "O r-l
Ox: >i -H « i|j 1 rH 4)
4->0) 0> B C 4> OHO L
•H H •* Vl (UrH'O-H3'-0)3
rH C33--af«C4JO CH CO
-H n H 4-> to x « « x 4> fl
,0 -H « s to -d > -o 01 x * <«
«j x t! *- a H co c 43410
ft F -^ o d m u a) u Sy4J H
U a « S-.H'dllwflfDftl
• -H 4> fl +J — 1 0 D M >
*JW'mH1^ 8.
S to wo-SH-riViXas
1 a -S 5 0? jjj u 'S a ** -d ** x
O a CJ -5 U torji04->XO<34J
«W C C -H C <« 4J HJ
q u to 41 Hi x -H 4J ai H x
« O rH rH rH EH OH T5 WTJ U 0 4J
» §333 9 $ £-§ §*%
HJrHdrHO) . TJ C CP 3 rH >i a
'H'H&"dElr! 3 rH rH rH 4>
04i3>3a)rHxmc4)ax
>,£
M rH IM
> 0
£3 S
Q cj 41
to a c
g " s
4J O 4J
0 W -H
41 U
c o
0 -d 4)
i < S
n co
H « -d
&>& S
0) E
• 0
< m u
« 4> 41
« to v,
01 R .
ffl 03
301 rH
C 0)
nftn
•H g 4)
•O 9 >
iri >i
*~ C
C7> ca
£co
0)
"d
• T3
w
Ed
<:
%
S
U)
5
CO
a
§
H
EH
U
U
g
H
S
T]
-H
•H
4J
C
O
4-1
U
V
U)
B
O C
•H t-l
H rd
p -d
a H
01 0
rC
egulates
te dumpin
VH "3
ll
-d
Is
B Cr
C
^ "rf
5 g
•0 -O *
c £ h
O rH B
fd »
4> -H
XI tH C
4) «
t< 4J 41
U fl O
< B 0
•H 4J
4J C
•H 4)
rH g T3
X) U fl
C t-i C
p c o
a 41 --H
(0 4-1
41 >i «
*— « &
O CO 41
U 4> *H
Ifl U
D 41 4)
srs
4J 0
41 O 4J
S4-1
s-t
t H
«- 4) 0
a irj "^
O ^H
41 fl
I- S
1 H rH
CO 4)
0) 5
rH 01
S 5 *
rQ 'rH
c *d >
D H -H
3 4-1
0 "H
• x: u
•o1 to n)
X 41
4-1
fl O
5 ^
4) 4)
4J -H
T) M
sa
-d c
13 1
x S
en vj
t 4)
• 01 0
fl
0 41
O
•as
i rd H
M rH
rjv -H
Vi >
cl y
4-1
n to
£ W
^S
1
4) UH
•H Q
•d v,
M C fl
5 -S M
u
4J 0> 0)
CO > W
fl fa
q x 41
O x:
CO 4-1
which the
sibilitie
Guard by
e
A a m
3 ll
V
B4> 4)
« X
H 41 4J
SO
4J
4) xl C
X 4J fl
T3 C
O ra 6
4J 4-1 4)
4> fl X
Vi Vi 4J
U 4)
01 ft 0
ffl 0 4J E
•d co
IB D
01
V. |
•d rQ
0)
11
U 3
H
01 :
H TJ 4)
1 ss
4) rH
T CO 4-1 H
T W 4)
t- 41 >
: at S
TI en
C rH
0 I) 01
••-< c
4) 14-1 -H
U 4-1
C C 3
SO) o
4) IH
C XI
S « 5
It
•d X o>
C m
o e 3
U 3
0)4-10)
W W H
D 4) CO 4-1
- -H
d -P rJ
H . F 0
-• vD s UH
-j
a o
4) rH
U it
C Q
fd &
rH §
Surve
progr,
C QJ
0 JC
-a"
fd re
&£
id
in T3
&li
4J
X W
4-1
W
UH rd
0 -C
4) U
U U
C Wl
Ol D
C 41
01 .C
in P
In -d
rH 4)
4)
n
o
• X
fd
0
&
rd
8
>
o
CJ
in
is
en
41
4-1
i
5
c =
in
4-1 C
ra o
01 10
veillan
ping mi
P1 I
« -d
•M
rH
a
fl
8
fl
0)
4-1
41
4-1
0
•a
fl
tp
id
a
c
en
4J
O
o
4) •
CO ft
E Xl
4-1
01 in ^
V- fl 4)
n ^ ^
3 rH
S in u
0 r! 0)
u 6 Xi
fN Ol 3
I X 0
01 4-1 ,C
w
T3 4)
c -d m
fl f4 H
» X
- 4J P
co d
fN O
! .
CN VI 11
- C
(N fd Vl
^ 0!
m" £ 2
IN fl U
r h
CN tn M
v 4-1
S^-B
fl rO
• X p
•j;0
53?
g S
U U lO
0) 41 -
•a S g
:S it
; J S .s
41 -H X
> -H > CO
H X C fl
- U W S
n -o
X 4.
4-1 01 M
O 4J 4J
&rd c
•d 3
q 4-)
4J « tr
s &s
S-S B
0 0) rH
M O rH
-3 o
> 01 ^
fi -rl 4)
W £
fl fd
o g^
41 CO fl
X -rl 4J
EH p 01
So)-
5 *
3 41 rH H rH ,
&E
4)
ftl
SS
o) 41
4J Wi S
cvx:
(0 l-i (0
) o o 4J 4)
0> Q
•O *
« c
U 0
"ij *c
«1 rH
§•«!
•d -d
' EO tji C
'§^3
4.« §
" ° K
S*$:
i >,t >
JS §5
i id « «
i -^ C -p
x O n
sia.
a s-s-
S " S
-|a
d f 5-
.11'
'4J 3 CO ,
§!''
e 4J n
•iss
8«°
S" ti
0 -H Id
U38'
: 41 co
-d X 41
1 ft 4J U
" ° S
rH 4> 0)
•as M
TJ M
c o a
o d -H
"3-S
8^4-
10 8,1
S ll
a* s
«1.
VI X
o
!r
Ir-
= s
O 4J
,8 fl .
5 a
S n
1 °
6 -a
^ §
*£
! r~ -M -
to >
tji -o
' B 41 «
1 -rl 4J
: > to UH
i n jd o
i $* 4<
' Xt rH U
' °5^
o d .
o 6
I §'
as
g'g
0 S
38^3:
to > <0 rrj
^ .SI
•8s | «
5 S 5 g' S
U "C • O -H 0)
•H 0> > 4J rl -
•d M H B V -H 10
rH 5, 3 -rl V| d C
3 -H 4J Qi tr o
0 X « * ft * -H
* O C XI 0 H -P
4-> Vl H
§ 8.1
!i
E-23
-------
•H H
H
a
o> «
•O tT1 >
4 4 8
S3 o w
£co
S 41 rH
C CO T?
0 *- tJ
•HIT).
C rH
3 U
CP B rH
s *„
W H
sis
41 to 41
IIs
CO -H 41
M-l U-l 4-1
*W fl
O M 4-1
3 M S
rH -
«J U +J
to H O
a 3
WOT)
O in rH 41 0) C Ot
-H 01 rH tP (Q 8 &
•d -H c at a 5
c h « S ,c cu 3
•
H tji
3 c
-
CJ - U
« T) W
4) fl
tn > a (
.5 •as;
S I »•!
0) -H D1
> 4-1 rH
rH O1 -H rH
- ' E £ .
£Ti
« °-3 S
h W & TJ
O C 01
•S R " ^
CO -H
1
g-zs,
g-
a
4) 'J 4>
AJ *J C (0
C -M U C
•H a .j Q
C h
O 4) ill 41
*
01 >
C r-<
•ss
: -H 3 w
3 & R) 3 ^
4 5 O t?
•* v v
4 ft Q « J3
4! d 4J
S o *.S -
•f CCOC
C -H "> -S
• o o o •*-•
t -H -H M U
i y
15 a-
8, JT 4)
O ft tj
§•§•4
ft -O r-H
I S3
1.S*
rH fl
CJi 4>
S3
£ g
r
•H -r-( Q
•H tO 4J
rs-
§••3
41 CJ
TJ -H
•3 S
o ft
S co
I i
5 4J »
5 C?
'MOO
i « a E
I O CO 4J
I H CO
i +* £ Si
I 10 p S
fl
18^8
I ^
_ S i
° fS.fi
£ a
-o y -
'I SS
" « S
c d
o o a
•H -r< Q
U ft 41 4)
O C D1 4) lH
£ o p -P
-H J3 rH 4J •
iw T tr to -
Vi C 4)
O O 0 to
e cu
3 DI 4J l-i C
10 S -H
tf 0) -H -H JJ
Vj tji Q *J CO
fl fl D
3 a> "2 c* c1
tO fl -H 0
4J 3 ft O
W M O B
fl O P rH
5 1W 4-> Tl 0)
CO W
cu B o o a*
J= to U >
E^ fl 4J
J3 TJ C -O
u h 3 -M
. « H O 0
>• 3
S*0
ft 4J M
fl >
83 °
H 0)
flJ 4) O
w 4-j 3
•rJ Oj W
§fl
4)
0 tJ
E u
s.g
4) 4J
X O1
4-1 cr 0)
C «
E -H
O O1 0
h fl -P
0) 0) 0
to J3 C
p
tfi T3 fO
0 0 41
: -H M en
i jj OH nj
Q 7
i T3 fl a)
' C CD
: 3 to
. h tO 4-1
^- >*H -C E
E-24
-------
§sa
«:c
c u o
t DC -
^ « S
4j tr L-
J= 0 "
o-S^
l|8
i_ ?
O (/i
_ a o>
u c >
C ^ t
si
§1
s!
V
. -C
K°
S£
ES5~8 o
•ssic
sli«
-S el s-
. U £
4J <-• 2
' i/l ^" O
V (b T3
| ^ £ 3
M|J!
nJ " # "ti
E > ^
•*-• 3 "S 3
s"?l
.= ??§s
^ « -
>, o £
« -S t
E "
^^ 1
§^c
-n ° ffl
2*5
01 OJ
?i > ^
-£°
•« c
•*H • O
i- a.
>, fl)
— - c
<£< fl
K x -a
100% surveillance, it would be necessary to remo
areas, such as pollution prevention and response,
already critical. A requirement of 100% survei
performing other priority missions when conflicts
mendatlon restricts surveillance to shipriders, wh
available which could provide the USCG with signi
savings. One such method is the Ocean Dumpl
which you briefly mention in the EIS on page 1-8
device could provide almost 100% surveillance \
aircraft/vessel patrols. The ODSS has been succf
used in actual surveillance operations beginning m
we do not feel that this recommendation is justifu
^i
S
i.
c
O
•P
(0
u
3
S
i/i
S
u
^:
•4-*
^ o o
*^ C ">
^ 0 2
-SE
0; N >^
c S "
^3 3^ §
"S 0 a.
> >.„
5^0
fc§*
cSd
Q. fij
•s « 5
,
O
rt
OC
C
0
O
CL
c
X3
(0
D
O
rt
o
U
. t-
|°-g^
L- rt ^
2 „, 3
operation of motorboats and yachts, as well as fo:
regulations governing the operation of motorboa!
Auxiliary are not vested with any law enforcement
£t— rt36'"^^^l-ofl
tO^J^^^fl * = M
1L-S*-"O^TJ^:«^^JC
"-og-g-H^S-gsf g 8
MU-ISg^ra^^o
^|^e-o|,-gc3 s
"S^ajj^^jo- S
« o-'S - S -o S t; 2
MdJ.S«gcj^,g ,„
" a % UcU "o'S2 "
S «3^i « u .a1 -5 ^
^u-^S-Sd'S^ i
°S^S£s;"S2a,^ 2
"S4)'/)>,«oaJmT- vi
tfl_,4JJ3_.XlCl.u - o
o -3 oo i •a « o o ,,3 —
o.4j-oajy) — i u cr
|£2S8.j«ii^!! «
Pages xu, xiv and Section 5 of the EIS consider
106-Mile Site if adverse health or other environm
disposal at the existing New York Bight Sewage 5
Site is recommended on pages xiv and 5-20 on a <
certain conditions be met, one of which is that dis
the Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary. As sta-
goal of 10% surveillance of sewage sludge dispo!
would be maintained regardless of the disposal si-
the 106-Mile Site would probably necessitate
compensate for the extra transit time to this site,
shipriders with resulting strain on Coast Guard r
would also cause further traffic congestion in t
c
o
"o
u
'o
J*
V
a
u
ob
£ §2
ES™
I|l
£2 I
^ *- rt
C C ^
4J n] ai
•^ t -°
111
|2£
1-1
oj tT ^H
o > "o
£ -°
^ ^
> <3
o E
°-c
•si
"1 -C
O ac
u£
2t
C D
41 £
E
a; o
b-°
c —
The current program of surveillance over near-sh
synerglsm of our "Multi-mission" concept. Howe
clearly that the extension of dump sites this far
by new fully-dedicated resources. Thus, the
equivalent oversight of the dumping program w
apparent to you at this juncture.
-.3.
§
5 »»
o °
i
j
t^
§&
£<
iSs
Jl§
i fco-u
C u 'M O
» - = c
• SSl
.c
•*-•
00
c
s.
a;
a.
c
g
n)
1
8 „
£ £
Coast Guard Dist
(DEIS) for 106-Mi
ollowing comments
Traffic Managen
Ij
^-1
22
i
£j
a; j«
^ i
a; o
S <"
\C M
o c
—< rfl
-C t
w- 1
"§!*
= i
83
at >
* V,
" 41
*rJS
C 0
8- 3
-D 0
§§
ivigational safety s
alternative. Based
g „
_ £.
™ (t
E£
0 j;
||
2 o
.c
8 2
~ fl
§ S
S 2
>f\
M ^
0*
^ u
*"* D
c £
« <
& u
Er-c
n) *"*
•0 c
11
-B a
, towing chemical
e conducted from f;
t*
»!
3 2
Ȥi
1 a *
i £ *> s .-fii
s a -. •; >
s:sifs§i«g „
S.*feji8ll.£ = S
&So|-s|-Su? I
l^sSr-f^ 1
"§IE -o
w&o^S^ucftJ — ~
r-l
E-25
-------
d i o;
Q o >- 5
° ? uS
III!
>•« fi— S
fl
Is
4>
- s
"(3
(.) to
(0
s-s
c £
_fl Q.
•=3 _C
3 O
fl ^
g^'fl
-!2 u
«_, fl
i!
P
b
00 "o
rlS
sl
00 C
03 o
Q. U
ro
1
CN
O
4)
U
g
J2
s
-C
^d
a
fl
u
•5
4)
idditional wa
4.
3
§
a
o
0>
surveill
*cl
>>
"S
"S
i
0
«
o
u
4»
-C
I
TJ
C
fl
7
a.
problems"
create
c o
o u
1) O
-•o
*-• c
u 3j
sl
1i_a
v i
-o""S
fe "J
E "•
&^
D TJ
-°3
continue to
vetllance wo
3 S
c
fl-6
r^ "D
s "
£ fl
D -C
E
T)
C
(TJ
U
e
00
c
fl
41
Q.
O
"fl
C
o
T3
TJ
ffl
4)
3
cr
I
4>
U
fl
^
4)
L.
dttional SL
l forwarc
c
D.
fo
Hi
1/1 *~l "O
4) D fl v)
^ oo 5 o
^ fl < £
|
4)
H.
0
u
D you upon
E
IS
4>
(TJ
C
a>
fe
^~
c.
4>
£
1
1
c
4>
•5
3
S
OJ
£
00
(N
CN
C
fl
u-\
(N| ^_
cation oi
o
13
•£
c
s
c
fl
u
IM
c
fl -t-1
U OJ
fl ^
"0 0
.C <_j
— 4J
IS) U
^ s
s "™
vi-i "!
opo ~
0
c
5
T3
3
0
»
41
4>
-C
00
S
00 g-
*
I
£^
*J -H
jrveillance a
i the 106-Mi
"1 ii
s|
manpower
nt travel
fl
• U "3
3 2
1
c
o
4)
fl
E
V)
C
4J
4J
•S
•H
c
o
u
g
o
41
fl
§
C
1
o
z
fe
C
Southei
4J
o be accur
fl
o.
Csl
E-26
-------
I s
xi
o
c
rt
(H
(D
C.
0
-H
-P
U
QJ
4-1
O
CD &<
rH
4-) Q)
in G
rd -H
fd
.
fj
c
OJ
en
ri}
c
0 o
H VD
4J ^
U 0
0) CM
-p •
0 S
rH • •
ft W CJ
rH - O
•t-J QJ -
C QJ C
OHO
co H en tn
T 0 C
in rH £ H
i -H x:
tc > rH m
5 c o «
--' [q -a- s
M
QJ
.H
4-1
tn
rd
S
S-i
E
SH
rt
Q)
Q
State of Maryland to commi
Statement concerning the
Designation. I regret th,
iding today ' s hearing in
: would have made at the
: be made part of the
ie 106-Mile Site designatu
QJ CD CD QJ P
x; -P P P in 4-i
4J O H -p 4-* 4J t7>
rt en fd c CD c
UH fi QJ rH -H
o e rH a i c
H fd o S m SH
4-4 tn SH O -H QJ
•H rH o UH U x: U
fd rt cx -P d
x: P w CD CD o
Qj G -H g x: -P u
XI QJ G -P rt
C d CD QJ 4H 4-> S-i
0 O P 4-) 0 O
SH tn G -P U
tj\-<-\ rt QJ 3 in QJ
C > S > Q) CD SH
H q CD H 3
4-1 H c s-i iH tr Qj
H fd a. QJ >
SH -P Q) C S-i H
S 4-i rj QJ H 4-1
rt o rH H rt
£ SH 3 SH
^ ^ ,H '(jj £ &, tn
H QJ -H XI 0 d -H
X: S 0 4-1 -H C
4J 1 tn G In H
vo Q) rt E
G o >i in Q) 'Q
0 rH g EH XI ft)
rt QJ CT O SH U
WrHtnCDH O tH 13 C
>iO4-ioctninc .rtQ)
rHDjPSHX!HJ-| HQJ CP^rG^i
rHinri4-)GDUCDdQJd axoc-H H
rtHrH V-ttnQJUrt4-iOT3rt'O-HQJrHin>
•H OCU- OUe04->QJ=QJQJdOrt
tHCDWHC-POOO rtE iHt^O-H-PCD
en SHOrtd QJUSQrH S-i4HCDrH
O H
w-HxixlE -^ S >i i3a-CQj>itn
tn-P rt13ft3QJtni QJrH4-iQJWQ)DJ>'H
en i-iSHd63-P1«>-Prtx: eort>
MQ)T3Q)en< TJUO-HC WQJT) Q)
WCnOJ>0 13 rtrH4-iCU4-l-HrHQJ XI-
rtXi-Hv-t rHQjfi rtintnrHOSH- -P
PJlHCCpj •3-PgQ)dOJrtXl4HQJrH4HE:
4HQJ3 Q)0-HHX!SHS-iOrtCD4H(dOQJ
rtin-pcntn-POen 4-iCDCi,U4JXi4H[n 6
s-i tn-c-H ^P w notnn
TJyn-H g r-itn4-j^D Q)4-irH in en QJ in in DjiHTJ
OT30r4 HOrHtdrtH- en inoiQj
-P4-»fdQJHrHrtQJin EUrtrH'OX! rHOJ
U^XIC XIXlrJtJrH-rHlHfdQJ QJ Xl
Crt POQJ-P-PQJQJQJX:>(CDCDQ)CniH4->
•HQJT3 gX! >-P4-i3SHrHU4-Jn3QJ
E d -P -P t3 o QJ tn i rtOO-H3x:d
rt iH C4-J'O S-itJilnCJ1 GDj tO -H
XlrH>-(D^r4fd3rHHtJiOT34-lQJ Cii £TJ
-Pfd^CO -Hrt 3XI34HQ)Q)giH d
•H itj.H tr H otn >iw wrHQXi >3o-P rt
13-PEEdrtcOrH in HT) d
01 C 0 O in O CXiXl T3* in^JP 4JrdX!
inoi o ouin-HrtCDQJCDrtrt>irHUtn
rt4-> -xitnpj -Hinx!rHtniHx;s-irt3-H-H
OJOCD-P- tniO4H -GO tntn
iHrtEtDC'HXiiHOOQjQj'a tn
TJTj-HijooHtn njrjj g4JrtiC
CQJE SHOSH -S ^HQ-H x; -HH
fdinic|4-i rtend cfOtninuiPd-H
rHin^o 4-iQjq^ rttfl 3 Ort^J
>iQJO-HOOX;-HO • OGDjOPHOC
rt^3 rtrtin4J4HXrtxitnQjpQjx!rt4-JO
S'OQJE 4-irtHdtn •HU'OE-PfOtn4H
rtxiPtnuxixi^OfaTJO a TO-H
P O SH rt 4-1 en &IH s C " SH .p C
in M-irtiOj v-tin3Qjoj>i HtrfdQj
rt4-iCCi)gOCOHOXlX:fdCHCD4-)QJ
XI rt H >-|rH4-l Q4-HT3 S4-J4-JS •HMT3 tnJ2
C -i- CJ) c -a r- •- o
-M r- J^
£(D (J O
•r- C «£)
Q- i- fl ^
0) S_ O
i— -M CO CO
-2 s: c •
c o *j
a) i— -i-
E -o -M -
C -1- U C3
o u a;
i, CU +•» -
«- a. p c
•r- VO QJ
U r- *->
OJ i-
i- J- TO
O D.
C **- QJ
•r- O
E oo a;
O) C
+-> o
ID -r-
E-27
-------
Qi
d QJ
4-1 -H d
C 0) rrj rH 4-' -H
0 X: 73 W rH
CJ >iT3 O QJ D1" ifl
dX)-H ;>, d 73 CM .-H
QJ U Q) 73 73 73 O r-i XI
73 3 d d d a rji 4-1
ra fd Q) ra tn d
> - g rH -H O tjl
IH C -^ fO g >it3 In d
4J o x: t> rd G to 4->
3 tJ SH a QJ £ to tu
4-* O rH M OJ 73 0)
(fl 73 3 OJ * O rH g
to QJ 2; rd U IH 0 4->
rH X 4-1 H O 4H XI 0
cri ft a IH 3 (0
tH 01 >i a QJ *H
X) rH i*-i rd X! O t3 4-J
Q) -HO EH C d
XI QJ M Q) W ffl QJ
73 E 4-1 4-1 • 0) --r-l
4-1 3 -H -H 10 d rrj »H
x: w a -H QJ JH x: o
4-1 a> M -H a o
CJ T3 X. C tji'+H rH
Offlg -H 0 Q) 73 fjj
•PQJfOOra 4-ii-HQ
rfl to M tn >i -H
73 Q) 4-i QJ Xj 4-i XI QJ
G IH rH rH 3 ft XJ
QJ 0 H tO Q) 73 0
g rdQJT3Q)XllWP
E -H 3 W 4-1 rC 0 0
0 (0 3 -H a G
OCO W rd 0 0) >i C
00 • to d 73 c 4J D
MatOQJOfflrHrH J
tO H r-f -H 3 O
-T3tfl tniHCQJft
O d O rH 3 tO 4-)
H fd QJ Q) CTI -P
OOrjQJUUidl4H4J
QJ
iH
4J
3
ra -H
14 Pi
73
§en
0) -
M x: g
4-> G
tO H QJ
P x:
•r-i C 4-1
O
c to x:
3 -P
- o
0) tO 73
O -H 0>
3 0
0 QJ d
W X!
4-J 01
>i XJ
C >i
ffl XJ 13
O 0) O
IH 4J x;
I4H 10 U]
OJ
Q) tn4-i
T3 3
3 to «•
rH 73
tO tO M
•rH (0
Q) Cn
(T> CO Q)
ifl fO IH
CD >i to
10 4-J H
•H x;
IW
0) O
fl fd ^H
'3 IH ro
-t tr
O QJ
44
0
O
>iT3
H p
QJ
o a
1 5
3 U
o
rH
rH -H
P d
tP O
id cj
fjj c;
&:
0
4J 4-
4-
0> J-
g Q.
01 t*-
XJ 0
to
C
IH
QJ
U
C QJ
Q c/) tp
QJ rH
x: o) cj
rd E-'
o
en c QJ
QJ TJ -H
SH QJ W
73 Q)
fd 0 -H
H -H
C 1
0) O
O -H
•H PC QJ
4J X
HH EH
C OJ
C ^ 4J
•H Cn ro
O H 4-J
H 3 en
O id C
S in rj
W
to
O QJ
d rH
(fl
W
OJ iH
4J fd
a
U 0
O H
P-i-H
-H CJ
id O
c
g 'H
C X!
0 4-1
QJ 4-'
0) OJ
QJ
rH rH
0 XJ
3
O
73 IH
ra
-H
a
0)
ro
r-t
£
QJ
TJ
4-J
0
4-1
'fl
4-1
4-1
to
QJ
tr
CJ
•H
3
4-1
O
OJ
a
0)
rH
3
O
•a
c
rd
>>
ro
O
3
U
d
0
u
£
M
4J
tn H
C CO o
d QJ 4-1
o o
C 4-> M
O ffl 'JH
u x:
C tn
O 01 73
4-1 rrj rH
O U to
73 QJ
SH H ra
0 3
4-1 >i QJ
ra rH en
3 "fl QJ u-<
tO rH O
XJ H
3 £ rH
UD CO
>.o 0
(fl 10
QJ H
73 £ 73
d 4->
fC SH
UH 0
WO1*-!
M
w d o
0 rH
d rd 4J
H d -H
14-1 en 3
H tn
QJ CO
x; QJ w
4-1 73 H
x:
4J
0
QJ
H
4-1
C
QJ
4-)
id
p
4J
1
4J
0
. QJ
-P a
H rd
o o
-
0 O
4-J 4-1
to fd
• o a
u QJ
Q
ffl M
e >i •
tji r-f In
I
in
QJ XJ
4-1 73
CJ
0 fO
c
OJ E
> rd
oj d
in o
XJ O
O
d
d QJ
OJ 0)
OJ XJ
XI
(0
QJ QJ
rH QJ
0
4-1 d
H
QJ
(d -H
3 rH
H QJ
4-1
ifl -
g
rH 0
ra 4-1
-H 4-1
IH O
QJ XJ
4-1
fd d
E rd
o>
IM U
0 O
O 73 W
H ra 3 d
d x: o QJ
0) H QJ
Cn co In XJ
0 CQ ra
Xi U > 73
fd QJ x:
G QJ QJ
- E x: -P
QJ 3 4-1 -H
73 O tw
3 O 0 Q-
rH g
to IH 4J 3
QJ rH TJ
QJ 4J 3
x: fd to >i
4-) 3 QJ fd
O QJ
4-1 XC fd QJ
4.J QJ
OJ 10 (0
rH g ffl U
XJ 0
4-> UH 2 x;
3 rfl 4-1
X) 73
r-i fJJ - T3
JH 4J 0) G
4-1 rO 4-) 3
4J rH H 0
ro O W r-i
to fd
tn H tu
g x: fO
H QJ i-(
G QJ 4-1 fd
ra Xi ffl
O"i OJ
o fd o) H
x: 4-1 3
O td
•H tO rH (0
CEO
QJ tO tO tO
tjl H 'H 4-J
0 d o
fd S-| QJ g
73
O QJ
0) 3 QJ
g IH
4-14-10)
O 73 73
x: a QJ x:
4-1 E r-t
H XJ .C
4-i ro U
(fl rH H -r4
(d o x:
QJ 4-1 QJ 3
rH C )H
(fl E a QJ
(H d ra 4-i
HO H
rO SH >i co
> H C
(0 > fd QJ
C H
C QJ O H
O -P E
4-> fd QJ '-D
0 -H CT1 01
<*H to aj x:
d 73 4->
H 4-1
ro •• -ui
• 4-i in
tn 01 4-*
C 73 4-i d
H d OJ
x; to 4J E
'H >, 0 O
m n x; ^
rH ffl LO -H
a; o) d
x: o x: cj
CJ
0 73 In d
4-1 QJ QJ H
-P > M
T3 rfl O m
QJ 0 E,
W H -.
O "D 4-J Q,1
rH d 0 X
IH
(C
QJ
rH
0
W
QJ
4-1
W
ffl
rH
U
-H
E
QJ
x:
u
o
•H
X
4J
H
x;
tn
H
x:
73
QJ
QJ
U
QJ
JJ
id to
QJ 73
u d
O 0 3
"4H £-! rd
O 4-1
to • rrj
4-1 P^( QJ
fd 13 O H
Q. K
E tn 4-1
•H H to a
E 0 fd
o 4-J x: QJ
d x:
r-t d 0
c d > (fl
fd O QJ OJ
•H a rfl
fO QJ
4J 4J tO Q)
d -H Ifl X!
> OJ Xi U
d a to rH
u m o
QJ rH tO
W OJ rH QJ
QJ 4-i x:
> to tn
73 4-- O
QJ rH -H 3
EH tO C
H O O
IH
3
QJ
4J
o
o
rH
4->
H
>
to
ffl
0
C
QJ
0
OJ
4J
aj
"3
H
OJ
x;
<4H
H
C
(d
-P
0
QJ
g
o
H
jj
O
0)
Q)
ra
rH
rH
0
w 0)
x:
«J
H >,
D >
2 O
CO
&.< -H
C) tn
x; o
4-1 X!
rrj
QJ
• O
C C
r- 73
0) rd
D ffl
H rH
4J 3
1
H-£j
H
^
rO
tn"~" 4H
C CN O
C wi CJ
4-) d
U - H
< rH
4-J d
CJ
IH -H tj
XI fl
0) ra o:
> d o
0 0 Q.
w -
QJ D1 4-
o d c
JH O 0,
1 c
O ft
H 0)
0 >i H
4-> H 0)
W -P 0
0 QJ
4J x:
rrj -P
K
tn o
d QJ
H rji 4J
< g
T3 -H
* C >i
CO -P
to tfl
E 0 XJ
0 r-H JJ
1-1 rH pi
XI QJ
tn-H H
C W
4-1 QJ H
•H QJ
W >
P QJ
C
CTl XC 0
rH (fl L)
o
H
4->
Q) 0
P
Cb 0
01 (0
- rd
O rd QJ
-P QJ >i
WOW
QJ 4-» >!
JH d XI
-H (D
3 iH C
O1 4-t QJ
QJ g d
QJ
4J 0) 0)
IH X X3
O CJ
O d >
H fd
rd QJ
ai d o
4H (0 XI
E co
d H d
O O (0
H 4-t
QJ 4J O
a w o
;>, 0) rH r-H
73 in -C d 3
d ifl 4-i - rd -HO
ro tOcOH -"3373 Q) tn.
>iQJfrJftQ)XJO^&i flMffl-H MHifl tJ^'H
I-|4-1X:WO rHrH4-> OlrHtHfOOr-H d4->
rouH-P QjrH cyoiHrjXjQJd OJ--HC
£H InCfd ^73(00)= aard4->gox!3
XI4JO trjrHtan-iXl -H rHWUJtBOO
XIWHyHtiJO ^ B QlJH>i.H4JCTirdO
-P g In axl -HOiQJ ••'OQJl4-HCrH4-»O
HtUJSCjrdEfluxJXjrjdiflCnrafto 4-i'Si
3XI34J •H^-ft4JtUOrHd£ O -ifl
01 t8 M fl HJ Q-H-HO rH rH
0)73 -H-H £>id CflXl-H .tOmWfd
0>i-(13rHQ)CJ XJO>iHft '4-101 OJlH
iH^rHaOJCnU-l XI O 10= lOOrH-HQ)
tnOPO^tJOtTi^i QJUH 4-t-HrOQJ4-'d
(OX:OrH p) CH4J73OIHCX XJrHQJ
tOtfl3a4-irHC-H-H3 OQJQJOJgrflO
-H a-H to o fa > o 4J >^I«H IH cj QJ d
73 Cn73 (fl -H S id (C4-1 QJtnhOQJO)
dd w,HW3Qj'ax:-HG<4H(DaQjax:
OrHrdQJdO'H'ax;QJ4-)O4-l14HOQJD 4-1
parHJ3OlMU to H-HT^Q IK
S>1 -H QJOJ73fdlMCJt073 QJOtO
(fl3jH734JfO)73CT>QJXlOX: >i4->Xl H
iU73(flrHO4-i 13 -H a 4JtO>i4Jd4-i73
3 £3iflH-H3rH 0 HrH-HO) OlJi
CQJ O [/J,fO--iQj(ycN-i-ix;QJrHtr)73OC
Htn-3-H ccriiHXJ fa-p>-HCdrd-H
4-tT3>i fflOJH Qjx: XJOO-HXJ
d 3fH4-t drHM-l O tnT3 tH4-t4J OJ rHU >,,-H J-(
OrHQj-HO-H tPdrHffl rdXJefl Q)QJ3
Ot04-t -H£lOffl-H3Qj>. (0(OXIX4J
(fl>i4-)IH3HO -POJ4JO-H -HW
d; to HXI-HLDX: QJ IH 34-i -H tnx: ax; triH H
•HgWfO HQJ d73^Hg QjaXlOJ
4Jx:l;d 01 4-llHHQJ-HtO X!73g4JlH
rda-HOr-tx; IOOP44JCO C0f03 O
XlrH COQJ4J .O4-lgfdtOOJO3'HT3X:£
4JQJOira> rflOfOpOOCrir-ttn-H 4-i
734JQJQJlHHrH(-|T3.H[^o-H-H
ftrHO 3734-lHaO tOO OJ4-J
tn -HjHQi rd grHxroiJ-irj^j.mxio
lOrH£4-l^QJrHtOf3o) rH -H tOtOO-HfO
rrJQ)ltntONHrHi<'acnrD >iOJ* (fl
x:u3 rHHxird rd33crg cnD to c
-c-poQj3-Hftco4-irHx: c tn d^ffl
C'QJrHMaO OdHEnOJ-H -3QJOQJ
>x; to xi^aicx: rnaoieoxiHcx:
CJ3QJ 34-)OO-Pft QJgg 4-JtO-HO
X;QJO3 Into -XIPH73 drH3
M 4-J M d fd >i a~H 4JO4-lT34JrH *0)73W
0) CJ 4-t Wrflco 3rH4-!rd
>ox:ooHcwx:cr,M-ioj4HO'H,«;aio
O4J4->4-14-l(J O
-------
x:
01 >
T1 rH
tJ rH
OJ T)
s
o ot
QJ
C TJ
O rH
rH >
(0 VJ
O
i-H O
to
13
C QJ
O tn
H 3
4-1
^
a~
H
w at
n] 4J
O
OJ <
X3
4-> kl
H
lo<
c
o> nj
E Oi
U} CJ
• to
4J Vj
C 0)
to 'O
rH OJ
ftttj
x: 0) i w 01 -< 4-1 0)
>i 4> 6 Xl>iC Oi 13 4-1
O 'rH rH 4_] r-l 4-> 4-J 3 rH X M C
VJ Vj "H C r4 U rHOO4-J4-tQ)O-H
c 3 o rH 3 >ix; at to E o at 4-1
o < H y_i .£ -P E x: c vj o x: ro
UlVj^aO'D^OOJ 4-1 a -H
ECf(j4->4J>30i at <0 3 4-J
Qj U3 Cn r-i Vj -H rtj C rH E 01 QJ !* rH C
UfOOj£EO>U14>Oul rHtO
rH ;>-! 3 4-J C Q) H 4-1 VJ 01 >1 13
fO 01 rH CI H X rH VJ ro 3 VJ I-H U)
O rH OCV-iVJCrHrj]C/)x:O4-JrP
4j £> o i—< O Oj4n O CT> U) r-i 4) m D
t) U Ul -H .H o> O> 4-) H <0 £H u)
W 4-1 "4JUH ftOJSOJ ' 3 OJ
OJui ui O 13 « Vj EoiO4-i
x; atvjrHVj
O rH^o4)£<;ojCn4J33fOUVJVJ
uiot£i-j(otnrac fdotp-
XjU) -rfPj > C -r-l - Ul VJ 4-J
ro to ro QJ fi 3 4J VJ - 3U]tO-
o 4-j >ix: fO Q) >, O ---1 £ c
4-iato oi OrHOiotHOJ4-iuio)
x: rO> VjJ3C3sV4VJC-HrH
>i 4J en O H •4-jrO,HOOOrox:O
u vjrijjui s u re x: 4H C 4-J
tOCOtVJO'DOIOC 4J at -rH -
mrH4J010JVjrjir-|rH DVJEC?
Ul in ft (4-1 (0 tJ <-H •ix: p x;
CO i-l 0 4-1 34J 4-t 13 O >, 4J
4-10104-lUlOJEC'U C rH H
>, <0 41 4H X;-HQJOlCtOrjrHj
4->VJVj >< Ul 4-J X £ 4J O H «J
•H 01
U C 4-J QJ 3 >i O1 £ UJ r-l IQ >, -H -
(OH v-i o io c atftoi'UOrHroo
ftUO-OVjroHOJO>EU)3Q) 30D
ro c x: 4-1 ai o 4-) x: uio ro4-i ft o rH o->
cjrH4J m E-P to 4-> ro o .Q cn UI-PUI^-H
Df the
/ sound
retreat-
ation
entail
rial p
Clement
ivironm
indust
£ 0) <4H
O
OJ 4-1 4-1
x: ro
4J -P
tfl H VJ
x: > ro
Ul rH
ro
rH tO rH
U VJ rH
Cn to
4-J 0 3
These examples make
istrial Pretreatment Pi
ge disposal. It is ec
C rH
complet
iterim
ng or
5sH
ot ro
Ul 'O rH
4J rH
o ro
c w x:
»W 3
• U)
u ro xi
o
at 13 c
VJ VH ft
•-3 3
rH 'D
O) 4J C
is not implemented, l
intolerable enivornmer
it ions to the 1981 oce<
C >,rH
41 M 0
contam-
term
:ause s
sleeted
Oi w
solutions
the use of
-manent
srevent
age , become f inal , pe
it levels cont inue to i
0 C
x: *
jj >.
41
>i at ui
Ul -H OJ
H C Ul
ro oi
0) -rH
.rH 0) rH
T3 O
2 quality o
: sewage si
swerage aut!
x: o ui
= g"S
O -H
4-1 VJ
it ions, a severe impact
d result . Even compos
been chosen by a numb*
rH 3 CO
O 0 «S
01
!
E
>
0)
remove the
4-1
4-J
C
ependent on a commitnw
~ce .
ui O
t Progra
c
01
1 Pretr
ro
the Industr
o
c
o
With the implementat
4-1 C
to
0)
rH 4)
ro
3 »
; water
urgest
X3 rH
01
c x:
•H jJ
-P E
01 VJ
0>
c impr
ef flue
would expect a dramat
it , which receives the
g H
New
Sewerag
Joint
eys in
Valley
zabeth
Vj U rH
3 "i"1 W
ui ro
Ul •>
ro PJ -H
It 0) O
Ex: x:
4-t 4J
01 01
4J ft Ot
C E CO
ro 0
ft 4)
surveys
netals i
such
4t 4J
01 > x:
x: at
>,-r4. 4)
4-1 r-H
••H C QJ
Vv O JJ
tilities Authc
r-fold reduct
j sludge. We
3 01
York Sewage treatment
ey have been partially
nissioners, Rahway Val
.ing , and the Bergen Cc
cate that, in general
Levable, for both effl
* S o
8*8 u
*
VJ
c
cessit
he oce
bly eliminate the ne
: sewage sludge in t
w en
Q C
ft-rH
ft
aminant reduct ions maj
^gorical ban on the dux
oro
rH CU
4-1
Ul 0)
ro c
S H
Vj
• ro
< x
H tw
OJ
4-) 'O
rH VJ 01
E ft-<
8oj en
VJ
ftrH
ui ro
x: c o
ot ft
c E «
O 41 -H
•H 4-1 O
4-t ro
CJ 4-1 01
at en jj
4-1 Ul
o 4-) ro
V4 0 S
cu ro
ft c
rH E (0
(0 I-H OJ
4-1 O
C rH O
0) tO
£ 4J 0)
O C rH
vj at -H
•^ E s:
c o ^
U VJ O
rH rH
0 C OJ
t3 x:
4-1 4J
C 4-1
01 4-4 O
E ro 4-t
VJ D TD
ro vj
ft 01 ro
a> x: U1
Ul 4H
Q j-j
01 4J
4-1 » H
ro oi s
4-1 -H
en > <
QJ QJ
0> VJ U
x:
H ui at
4J x:
rH 4J
'O >i
0) jQ
0)
x:
4-1
4-1
O
to
01
Ul
4H
0)
01
o
01
Ul
4-1
c
O)
E
£
o
01
4-1
fc
01
0)
Ul
4J
U-l
0
4-1
D
Ul
41
ro
in
<
f. ocean
o
Ul
•H
01
4J
C
o
ro
E
ft
01
4J
C
O)
Ul
VJ
Ul
4J
c
OJ
VJ
ro
a
OJ
Q
Ul
>
4J
q
OJ
4J
i— (
ro
01
Ul
i
13
ro
c
ro
ft
E
3
U
4-1 3 1 C C
Cri O CT C ro ui OJ
C 41 O ^ E
Qj4Jro-i-trHC4-!in
E U C > rH -H Ot
T3 ft w -H E ro ui
E >i 4-1 3 x: ro
DI at o 41 c
•^ QJ 4J Ul C QJ 3
3>r04-iuifO>O
rH rH C C 01 4) 01
01 4J 3 0) U -rH VJ
ro 4J e ui o •-» 3
14-1 rH VJ 4-J 'rH 01 O
O 01 0 r4 «4H XI
vj kp. ro cn o
4J C (XrH 0) •
UOt30tUUl,St/l
(0 x: Q 4J M
ft 4-1 Ul 4-t O W
E -H XUH 0) '
•H 4H 41 rO 4H Ul rH
o ui ui vj 4H ot ro
01 01 VJ Q 0) > C
.C Ot > 0) -H -rH
4-> 3-Hl-} U] 014-I&J
Ul 4-1 -H £ HJ
uiuiro^x:4-)catu]
ot'-*cai4-i vj£*
Ul VJ OJ 4J 0 4J rH
4) 4) 4J 41 It! rHCrH
uii3rHx:x: c ro-H o
vjrouiCHotaJ^
cnjQoi'H o v* 01 -iH 41
M in -H ro to 13 ui
ta QJ ro 4J 4-1 ftxi o> ^
x; xi M -H E i E ai
4-1 4-t i ui o 13 01 rj
4H t> O O C VJ
ro *• c • ft to f
S-i Oj ro 4J rOrHOiO)
Q *J rH C Ul X) Z
OJUlrOEC3OrOVJ
x: c 3 o o --* o
•-H O 4J 4-1 C 0
cnec o)SEui3
3 rH Ul 4J ft U)
OU3ftrHOO!O>lUl
xroExivjj-trHU-H
4-lrH34-10-iO)01C
rH U rH > 0) U)
<0> CrHft41HrH
^C-HflJErofjj;;
4-1 ro 4-t O -H 4J
S0> C O OJ UH
4-t Ot E x: 0> 4H
roorogrHjjroQ
0)
4J
ro
ro
•D
VJ rH
ro X3
0) C
Vj 0
ft U]
ro
Ul O)
0) VJ
•rH
D ro
3
4-1 Ul
Ul 3
4J C
C 4t
at >
E-H
at CP
ro ui
ro x:
E
Ul
Cn 01
3 E
rH 3
Ul T3
*4H C
o ro
01
» u
at o
> Ul
at -
Ot
o> in
x: u
H 0)
at
c
O VJ
o
c
"ft-D
E at
3 ft
rH
C 0>
ro >
oi at
o
c
4-4 01
O 4)
J5
c
O at
"H >
4-1 tO
cn
cn in
a> at
ro
OJ E
x: H
in
0
U 4-t
ro c
ft OJ
E E
•-H C
O
01 VJ
x; -rH
4-1 >
c
o
Ul
c o>
at 4->
£ ro
Ul 4-1
ui cn
Ot
01 VJ
W 3
to o
o
4J 01
ro x:
at
C 01
•rH >
o o
, C JD
en VJ
C -H
4-1
at a)
oi x:
£ 4->
4J U-l
C 0
O JJ
ri c
O!
x: 4J
4-1 C
0) O
XI 0
to
N 13
•>H ro
W rH
'D 0)
Ul 4-1
ft at
o ui
ft ro
VJ
ot
4-1 rH
01
ro H
x: 4-1
at 4-i
rH 4)
ft
E rH
« rH
at 3
£
O
U
UH
01
4-)
O
Oi
ft
at
Ul
>-H
01
>
at
iH
Vj
01
>
o
00
0
fN
O
HP
rH
VJ
x:
4J
O
c
to
x:
4J
4)
XI
N
-•H
U
4H
o
>,
4_J
H
U
• rH
3
C
O 13
-rH tO
4-> 41
10 rH
4-1 01
C rH
OJ XI
u ro
c %
O 0
O rH
4-1 tfl
c
OJ E
H 3
•85
ro x
ro
0) E
x:
x:
at 4-t
Vj
x: o
Ul
C VJ
0 x:
ro o
O -V
4J
4H
- o
01 0)
o ui
3 O
O x
Ul 0)
VJ C
0) rH
x:
4-J 01
0 XI
healtl
major
C UJ
to o
E
3 0>
JC XI
HH O
0 JJ
c x:
rH 3
4J O
O C
Ot OJ
o x:
ft-rH
x:
at
x: 4.
VJ 0
o w
ro
VJ rH
rfl rH
Ul -H
01 *
at
U rH
OJ 0)
c >
01
o
rH £
(0 H
VJ £
4J 13
c ro
4) U
o
C 4t
0 £
0 EH
01
x:
4-t
o
01
4-> x: 4-1
4-1 E H
o
13 Vj H
0) 0 >
4J 4-J
4J to 41
•H Vj X3
E 01 JJ
at c
•H C
.ro O rH
ro c
S,~"2
01 01
Ot "H £
4-t JC ft
. ro -P o
D «4J 01
O 0 >
rH 41
M 0
(0 -H rH
ftjj ro
0> VJ VJ
X3 OJ J-1
JJ ft Ul
O 3
at 13
vj at c
ox:-*
E 4J
VJ C
0) 6 H
x: o ro
3 OJ
VJ
OJ 0)
c a 3
VJ U) -H
QJ O O
C E QJ
O 4-1 Vj
O tO ft
I
E-29
-------
5- i E
OJ
01 CU
01 *O
,-H
3 01
2 E
c d>
i
W IJi
3 C
0
Ll r-H
0
U-l 14-1
O
t-i
0) C
TJ O
Li H
0 4->
C 4J
jj £
05 01
J3 iH
E
C
O> Oi
E .C
E 4J
o
O Li
0) O
Li U-j
TD C
.-H ifl
o a ••
4->
CO
3
T3
0)
ra
E
0
CU
4J
05
0)
E
D
01
n
4->
4-1
TJ
I-H
1
(0
4->
c
Oi
E
CU
E
•-1
CU
4J
CU
4->
CU
tf
c
T3
nj
c
4J
4J
c
E
4J
4-1
01
a
01
1-1
u
01
.£
O
[-^
o
c
0
o
CO
>1
XI
4J
(0
TJ
E
nj
E
VJ
O
Li
J=
4J
0
C
o
•0
c
CU
>
g
i01OE-i05 01CU &
O 4-1 rH O JO t3 W
3j=Li -EnjC *CU4-ij^
C OOOLi O^OJC
C'J-iEJ^M-iJ-'TJCdtO H
Ot-HU-lO CU .C rHOlLj
cc^C4J ojcr'aojro
Ea>cncu> o^o 01
CU "^On-i4-i4-iO -Ot/ini
i-HOIOl1*-! Ll? i— 1 0 >-H CT
OW O<-HOI 'DI4-' 13-QrOOgrHOj CUE
O>O'-*^4J^H -H — C
^3CrH4JI~SLlQ— IHjQ JJ
HCO H E ij C -H O ftf
4-1 3 CU !U C > -H OJ J^ -H 3
5 S 2 ^ ii 5 «* S w o SJ5 "S
4J
C 01
3 4J
4J C W
Li O> 0) 41 i-H
H x: M o]
w £ --•
jC • «-i JJ Oi
QJ CU < .C 4->
c 01 Pa a>
(0 fO T3 ^
OJ 4-1 -P E
•H 4-» C ft O
> -H 0 H JJ -
o -H o f
Ll »4-l 4J -H L) >
a o 03 .u o
-H C >
T5 01 O "J fO *
3 01 Li 0) T3 --1
O >i QJ H C j3
J2 rH ft 01-1
C M Li 01
OJ TO Li -HO
0) 3 OJ PJ
t-* C 10 M (0
go] 01 U C
Ll tTi Ot 'H 'O
OJ Li Li tO C
X HJ, OH 0
C 4J M
<0 0) O O OJ >i
^-1 4J £ r-(
4J Q. a) 4-1 i—t
^5 O W 4J 4J jj
EH O H we
0 '-I
SJ O
a w
CN
rn
VO
E-30
-------
C
JT: QJ
1)
-C 01
*-i E
,— 01
roxima
ntal a
uld be apo
envi ronme
(_j i-
CL QJ
O
5-
3
-a
QJ 3
4-J Qj
4-J O
-0 F
C
•- E
U 3
*i
4-J C
CD 4-J
S~ 0)
O 4-1
QJ
S- Q
QJ L/}
QJ
QJ >
=-£
-o zc
QJ
Q) -
r- ^
CL 4-J
O L-
0 0
jZl
4-J JZ
O 4-1
C
.1= "0
-0 -Q
icular
lercury
fec
J= QJ
4->
C
E
O
o_
o
QJ
Q-
GJ
•-
5
OJ
E
QJ
i/l
O
C
4-
CJ
-o
rd
.3
"O
ie
s materia
ludges an
QJ
-TJ x.
>, GJ
F— S-
QJ t:
Qi
o —
QJ QJ
Q, C
m 3
QJ
QJ en
Z3
11
C O
O -t-J
QJ
• Oj -
4-J 3 CO
3 ->D "~
^- _Q r-
ro ro QJ EQJ4- tZ QJ QJ i — Qj rOCD4-
OJ S O O_4- 4-J O) c O 4-J £ 03 i/J F—
iyiiyiOjri/i4-Jcrc:l>1^>> OS- ••— 3 _cz
"C t~OQJ i/iroE » .C: 4-1 1/1 C 4-J 4-
QJ s~ o C •— C -O CT> en 3 Q- -c cz ro
JZ QJ _C .- 01 O 3 3: i— 0 QJ JZ QJ 40 -,- QJ
40 r— 1-3 on ,— > r— QJ - S--+J_c:404-JQEu
O O QJ • 4- re QJ £Z i- 4-'DlE>j'Ci~i-ajaj
CLO C C c E ^ Oro QJ CO o ^ £ S_ 4-J JZ cn aj 40 QJ " >,.—
4->O^!Z^-rotaaJ4-•.— 4-J-O S- QJi — >-, QJ .£} >i QJ
QJ 3 E QJ J^ c QJ O 40 i — QJOroE'F-S->£:"O
O4-Jcroz>CO-Cr>(UC 5-3OrO JZ 1/1 U rO
-C C E i/J r— OS- E i/l 4-J CO "O QJ
-t-Jr— i-Vf-^F— CQJfOC: CZ +0 Z: Q- QJ >, fO 4-
40 c c C 3 o LU4- QJ cojcoi-Erotzn
•a C +-J QJ c: QJ • s- 40 _c 40 >, Q? 40 > £ cx
i — i- QJ JD QJ C 1 . — JD QJ <— O C i — e£ QJ -J-J Z3
O- O CO F— 03 S- QJ 4-1 OJ 3 Q) HJ 4O JZ 4-J
O. T3 QJ 4-J E — F—
CU1 ET- 4- O O OJ QJ O "U O JH ro _d i/i 1/1 O •>- 1-
||K|||e|g|| Itlllllsl
S-
QJ
O
O.
O
w Jersey
ol utions :
"-40
3 CJI
V g
i- OJ
QJ cn
!- 3
£ E
' QJ
4-1 -U
O
tz 4-
c
5 »
"O QJ
C F—
E E
O "~
S- 4-J
F— O
QJ r-
^ Cl_
E E to
S- O rO
OJ O- I-
s-
5- O O
QJ C QJ
QJ 3
sis
O. 4J
QJ
QJ
4-1 QJ r^.
rQ -i£ O
-O 4J X3
QJ 1~ C C
E ~CJ r-
cC QJ >
0- -O O/) O
LO ~O
QJ ~CJ "Cl QJ
-C 5^ QJ 4-J
ro ro c: QJ
f^ "£ E 0-
"CJ
3
r- en
S 1
4-
c:
O QJ
-M +-1
i- £_
QJ QJ
"O "O
o -
O W
QJ
t/1 "O
QJ 4J
S- -F-
c ••-
O r-
c
B-
-a co
,
D- CTi
ZD CL i/>
QJ 13 O
-C T3 r-
ra QJ C
£= U O
h- 0 U
fAJ
QJ
3
!
C
XI
OJ
JZl
QJ
Zi
-o
c
t/1
Q.
QJ
"^
4J
Q)
C
QJ O 3
QJ C
QJ .C rcj
£*" S
O O
r— S- Qj
C ro >
O r-
"S S £
300
O a- c
4J C
C7) O
d 4- LJ
•- 0
i-
O-
E
T3
F— C
C .C
0 en
UJ S-
o
ineration .
Inner New
C QJ
O C
01
£ 3
O QJ
O O
•5?
"*
ro
1
•K*
i- -c
Q 4->
QJ 4-
JT O
O •-
11
O QJ
4-> -C
4-)
C -F- T3
3 C 3
O O
o 8 S1
^ t^ w
•— - o
3 QJ I/I
E 0
i/l QJ O-
fQ i-
^ QJ
T3 4-J -C
£0. s-
£ 0
S_ i— OJ
3 QJ
>i C i—
-C C O
1— UJ r-H
l^ O
ra QJ
QJ fO 4-J
) congratula
omprehensi ve
e dumping at
O -O 3
ro LO
o -o s~
r~ QJ O
U ^
-u 40 c
ro. 4-J
QJ re
ro 4-> Qj
C C F~
E ° C
O 0 U
I- c
cz ct E
LU O
QJ C
4- J=. O
O 4-J U
QJ
C O "D
QJ CZ
E 4- ro
40 4-
QJ C
>,40 c
QJ C > •
•"3 OJ C OJ
QJ O QJ (SI
I— ro O £
c r- -a
O -d i — i-
"3 4-J C EZ "O QJ 4-J
QJ"O JZ ra~aQJOCLn
f-l-QJQ. 3O- 4->4OQJC
EeriQjQj O. E QJ >— LO o QJ
QJ-C-O E3-C-O ^
^£3"O O"O40-a>-)3O
ro -C ^ en C F- >,i— 4-
QJ-t-> , — Cr- !ZroQJ3
^CQJrOC7>F— Qji/lrO3-Ci/l
40QJ40JZcs--Qi:= O--t->
£ r- C/) r- QJ O4-J 1/1
4->Ci^ 3GJ>,i-ra!LOQJ
lOO QJcC4->4Jj^QJ4->F—
t.QJJZ^i-F-i-4-14-1 4-J
Cn>>- CCCC-OS4-J4-1
T3c:ETz>QQJiaOCJ r-c1"^
^!^S£la"l§^!«
r04-JX:rO^ ^gu-t-1 -C
i/14->4-OJ O (5"OO > t-
O-t-)ruEGJ3F— QJi— O
4--0 ^- r- JZr3E>-I=>t*-
C^ro =3r~4->4J ^ ^ g3 oj'o,OJ-O
-OQJ - ^ QJCLJ E-tZ4J
JZ •>, S- S_ +J ^ -- +J V)
^4o5aJo^ei,,E^|3£^i?
rOO' — Uni3>1n3S-4-i O-—
4-JF-QJ >OJ-r-l— OCX
<-.— -or---r-ro^:~aj^: -r-Qj
CCra-— i QJ 4-J| — OQjQJrO
•i-ro QJi/)4-'i/) >-JC^;^
(JQJQJi — -fZI3 Or—
F-Q C34-JQj>%cn!^aj3
LUCJZ1-OLA4- E "O O. QJ
•r-OQJ CES^-QJ
40n-^-oX >CSJ33O)U^
O O -C O -C C 01 -C QJ QJ
fO
QJ TJ >-, C:
-C QJ QJ QJ
40 -O QJ QJ
iT3 1 -D
E T3 QJ UJ
3 C JZ
Cn c ^ su
•a .c
ro C 40
fO O 3 4O
Q. O
E *+- O C
r- O TD O
5 If S
QJ •- E
o jr 4- c
i/l 4-J O
O OJ 0
F— QJ -Q 4->
OF-, —
S- OJ F—
O i- 4-J ra
4-> -a cz c
UJ -Q O O
4- -C 3 >
S- i/> l_J
Q - r-
^Z - OJ
§"^1 C -5
1
rH
E-31
IT,
o QJ
> QJ ••
QJ E 1/1
"O QJ 3
S- 0
^2 >,
rO 3 QJ
O i/l
CTIJC S-
C VI QJ
Q. >~,
£03
TZI QJ "Z.
C U S-
ro F- O
O r- LA
^Z F-
QJ ro JZ
4- 4->
OJ >
JZ QJ 4-1
r— QJ
4- QJ £
arison r
s. We t
n assess
E > O
U -Ti S-
"3 ^3
rO C O
4-J UJ
QJ n3 C
Q. C QJ
C 4- C
f
Ou
E
3
QJ
1»
j
.a1
•o
Oi
CL
OJ
Q.
.?
5
C
QJ
QJ
cn
1
3
S
OJ
,.
o
c the cessati
been develop
>
QJ S
-C r-
4- LiJ
O
4-> -
QJ C
QJ O
QJ QJ
S- -
3 QJ
(J-}
F— S-
easona
q on o
,S
C C
£
cu
o
c
+J
^
c
o
4->
QJ
T3
propose
QJ
JZ
Q.
C3 40 r-
s_
QJ C
C JZl C
^ QJ "O OJ
QJ 4J QJ
isl i_ QJ •—
3 O
4- 4-J O
O C .— OJ
>, O fO I—
4-J Ci
£ JZ
QJ O -r- -M
40 re ro
0 §£ C
ro 3 E
O 4- 3
QJ -O O
QJ XL S-
4-> O JZ O
S- 3 QJ
4-> 4- 4-> -*->
QJ TD 4- S-
O (J i/l QJ
Q. QJ 4->
"O X O
QJ QJ "- >i
i/l S- i— QJ
_c
TZ1
-a
QJ
JH
S-
QJ
0
1
^
QJ
O
e
4~
O
-Q
O
3
S_
i/> O
O 4-J
C F— 3
-eclude certa
" pollution c
"ovide the di
JZ QJ 3
r- 40 -O
^4- |
« I -S
c: ^
0 - 3
^IS
5 o) -
4- 4-J
° 4- S
C O QJ
£ >,<3
QJ T- t-
Q_ 0 QJ
JZ QJ
4-) JZ QJ
§=5
4-J -O
i- QJ 3
JZ O-T3
Q- O QJ
O QJ O
" J3 'oj E
40 3 QJ 3
n this incine
sludge, whic
mercury to e
amount of me
S- O C _C
4- QJ h-
CO-- •
F- 4- -O
i— i- T3
e •— c c
C ro 0 LO
5 °^
ro QJ
QJ 1~ t/i Qj
CT QJ 3
S- QJ C
O
-------
§
u
UJ
"S
I I
w *
II
CD re
o o re c •
r-t H S CD U
4-" 4-J £
O
' " ft rt 4-1
• O
•-T)
1 Impact Statement
6-Milc Ocean Waste
e Des ignat ion .
/•ironmentc
S) for 1C
posal Si
1 #012-00(
PJ ^o d
UJ
Q:
•o
CD
4-J
0)
P.
O
u
rt
rt
o
onservat
ronmenta
istler :
ipartment of Env
QJ
rt
QJ
Q
4-J O
C 4-)
QJ
3 C
O •-*
13 4-J
3
QJ i-H
-rt o
13 T3
rt c
o
t/1 0
rt rH
X .0
0
C ft
rt
4-J _C
CD
O 0
ft 4-J
QJ £
o
QJ X
QJ S:
rt i— <
3 t-
rH QJ
O
rt ft
4-> O
rt
QJ T3
liable,
ut ion
> 0
nj in
X r4
rH QJ
C 4-*
QJ O
3 rt
in C
-native
"epres e
4-J
i rt
iH +->
>cean c
vided
rH CD
CO 4-*
TJ QJ
S.S
O l
r4 X
CD ftrH CD
JH QJ ,rt
CD
re rt
X U
CD Cti
CD -H
(H U
too CD
rt ft QJ «
o rt
rt QJ
QJ 4-J
,Q 4-J rt
rt T-4 t/1
O
QJ rt ft
QJ 13
0 rt QJ
its review
to be accu
proper was
QJ -H
i/l QJ
_rt rt
Concern o
ous waste
"imary
hazarc
ft rt
CD 4-J
f— CD
JH
CD
r-t QJ
rt 4-J
rt
O «
EX H
irious dis
'e landbui
> 3
u
CD CD
4-1
considerin
we feel the
•r-1
CD
QJ
r. CD
CD 13
QJ C/l
S rt
0 0
X U
CD
O H
rt
3 (f>
o o
U, 4-J
• QJ
CD 4-J
QJ
C
• QJ
>
H QJ
-M C
rt o
rt
CD H
4-J
t-H X
QJ
CD rt
If) JH
TJ 4-J
c rt
re CD
QJ
scrut mi
any perm
ley find
ste mana
arefully
r one cornj
r-t O
rt CD
O ,0
G 3 4-* rH
rt O rt rH
CJ J=; 5-4 H
U t/) CD S
O ft
T-H O QJ
C rt 5-4
rt i/) QJ CD
4-J ft 4-J 4-J
4-> O
C
3 X
QJ rH
r4 Q.
ra S
rH ;/>
re
O rH
ft 3
i/) O
13 1/5
re w
H
t/1 ^
re H
t icular
onf iden
re
ft 5n
3
MH o
0
re u
QJ rt
CD 4-J
O QJ
rt o>
H
QJ
too
T3 rt
3 H
rH rt
CD
QO
!£ QJ
CD 4-J
in re
4-J
0
rH 5n
O
ft S
i/i o
Ocean
concern fo
CD
r4
re
e
H
U
C
QJ
•H
CD
ft
X
>H
rt
CD
0)
O
c
•H
hes is
mergenc
manner .
re +-•
QJ X C
rO rt CD
re CD ft
rH fn
01 o re
CD C
rt CD
O -C 13
4p C rH
•H ft
O 5-< O
X 3 (J
X4-J oo rt
bO-H Oj
0 rH MH
rt cr 4-»
itment tec
CD
4-J
CD
re
jTj
TJ
c
rt
rH
rt
o
^ a £
E- O
i- C
ft O
• H
rt ^H 4-J
o o rt
CD ft
if> CU O
r-l C
.rt rH
4-J C rt
progress n
especially
ocean dispc
O
i — "O
CU t)
-C
•=C
QJ ^J
-o cu
13 _C
4- -31
0«
C
i- >1
Q.J2
^ "O
c -o
QJ -H
O
>,
0) r-
4-> OJ
0
r- 4-J
-2 ^
<_) Q.
>,
i I
QJ C
4->
OJ
i -4-J
O i/l
S- -U
cu
TD CU
O
QJ S-
[D CTi Q.
.0 -a
C r- 4-J
o a °
i— C
C — r-
ft) Q.
CLi
O ~O O
r- C Cl
O T3
cu QJ
3-0-0
O C 3
C E 1/>
— ' ^M-
OJ CU OJ
S- U 01
-a QJ c
fO -4-> £
-l-J
a;
£
c
4-J
O
ex
4-J
i-
o
(-J
-a
--> QJ
'^ X
•4-* "O
4-> Z)
x:
ai t/i
en
13 r—
" «
o s-
c
^ 4-i
D. 1—"
E
ZJ
-o
O i/l
o
-*-> H3
o
r- O
S~ i^
E 0)
.- ^
n3
r- 0
QJ
> U
CU r-
O
-C CU
X) 4-
Z) TO
0
S "
!_
ra QJ
-C >,
QJ QJ
Cn CL
TD
•— C
u
r- O
i -^
in E
OJ OJ
1 — i-
Z!
O
cr>
T3 tSI
QJ =>
t^ r-
^
B QJ
-a 3
D c/>
/l O
u 4-i
5 O
;i QJ
JJ O
4->
6
diSDOSal or
i- QJ
^ OJ O
L -a
r- 13 C
-M
QJ •- ~
S- 13 I7>
l-o i
aj >, •-
QJ ^ .:L
> QJ 0
(O -r- OJ
_iZ
ay also pose
pretreatmen
S 3nd with 4
-U O
t/l o ti
C X
+J
Ifl •
* 5
V I/I
o-o
rtJ "O
1- i —
O O
C t-
CJ
O -p-
OJ ro
•4-J C
1/1 OJ
QJ •—
E
IX) r-
O -Q
-C CD
ro
>>
QJ r—
-a 4-j
r- -.- -a
•r- r^
C re O
3 d. S-
O -M
C O
r— U T3
envi ronitient
the Atlant
f rranaged a
5- -O 4->
aj s- d
-U O GJ
CJi W
_C t/l
4- 3 03
° t/) S-
-*-> OJ Q.
O- t^ O.
O
i — CU oi
> O 4->
cu ^r
-O 4-) -M
n
QJ S- O
J= O -C
E TO
i 5
O" QJ
C
J=
4-> O
c_) *+-
QJ
.0 QJ
O -C
C1) i-
C F
i— -Q
E CD
OJ
ro O
' OJ CU
>, C r- I
E-32
-------
HJ (0
§*£ .
H -H 0) O
+j to g •
U H g Q
0) U O
O CU H C
n w > O
CU C 4J
T3 U Cji
ID c: c
C (0 • H
•H **-i in H
r
L J
4-> O CO
J CO O O
J DM
rH ^ i
CO (U i
o z:
re o T) -M
a a, c
4) V) n) vi
) T3 -P rt
l (D -i
E-33
-------
<
^—*
£
**N
> I
V ^
o
-5 c
£_ a.
(_> O
S-
c >
2i5
OJ
OJ 4-J 4-1
U l/>
i— 4-> O
'fO TO •—
IS Q. r-
E u
Ll- 13
F— O
"O T3 CJ
C OJ -
Q: ° £
i- 0.
S. C O
S LjJ CD
tf
C
5 co
CO OJ
O TO
4- C
O CD
^ r
l/l E QJ
o o;
-C E
c u TO
55 S
QJ
t/1
O
Q.
Q
QJ
W
tJ
QJ
U
0
QJ
E:
0
I/T
UJ
Q
£
o
QJ
-cr
OJ
(0
_c
QJ
oo
UJ
QJ
U
OJ
QJ
OJ
QJ
O
rO
OJ
-C
T3
3
2
OJ
ta
as 4J
ta £
S- S
O O
umping of Aqueous Chemical
primarily have short term
m appropriate to protect
e effects of the dumpings.
-o o>
-O QJ
4J O I/I
3 c
4-1 O
ID QJ ••-
jz: 4-> 4-1
U O O
,- Q. U
cz .- s-
en
CD
C
*~
O
4-1
C
i
>>
OJ
OJ
jz:
X
) O
o
QJ
TO
Q.
-o
i- "O — C
CD OJ TO
£ 2 S 0 ? C
-a r—
O O
,- i— 4-
-M at QJ
-c jz:
QJ ir
> t.
C i- QJ
fO E Q-
4^ E '""
— C C
CT Z3 r-
^ S3
QJ
TO
also be routinely
impacts.
-a QJ
•— CD
3 C
-£Z 5-
CD
4-> O
tz
T3 ^
TJ OJ
•i- CU
4-J tSi
Z3 O
E
5 o
O 4->
0
QJ
i- O
E* "E
QJ O
co E
Cs^
so be established
eloped. This would
TJ QJ
-o
i — QJ
Z3 JZ1
O
Z3 -M
r- U Ul
O)
-C C O.
W QJ i
(Jj 4J T3
4-J TO OJ
CL-C
T3 4-?
C O 4-
>-, i- O
-Q tJ >,
•M S-
QJ O QJ
r- O
QJ
CU fO
O r—
•* ° ^
ro
d facil i tate a more
upact at sites beyond
xpensive could be
i — -i— QJ
O QJ OJ
QJ E
•r- O -C
SI i~ -C
"3 i— c:
rt! ro
ro QJ *4-
O U QJ
Q--I- -C
r- r-
OJ QJ 4-J
cn-r- cz
"O (J OJ
r> io ci
1/1 -C 4-1
OJ Z3 O
? O QJ
cv -c jz:
^
QJ
0
TO
4-1
ED
CQ
O
^ C
o
OJ i-
5 s
o •—
OJ trt
> o
0 Q,
OJ .-
j: i—
jz:
i — (O
•r- C
- <=
c c
OJ O
maintaining a routine
, surcharges should be
he site to cover the
o
c
o
s
IO
_E
4->
~a
OJ
rsi
fO
E
c
QJ
QJ
J3
M
£
Lf)
i- CD
(/I CZ
I'i
OJ (^
QJ
O CZ lO
*~ CD
E QJ O
S- 0 0-
CD-C
O 4-> OJ
Q.-M QJ
C TO *4-
«- "O trt
s- > cx
Z3 OJ X
V) r— QJ
.
51
CN
CM
OJ
I
CN
CM
CO
I
CM
CM
CM
CM
I
CM
CM
CM
CN
>-'*^
— ^_
> 5
^ I
ffi §
8
u o
S.S c
£
c
1
jj
re)
U
CD
3
OJ
S
QJ
H
OJ
0
jJ
4J
H
q
3
4-1
o
0
CD
JJ
O
3
O
ia, the Council c
c
0
CD
0
0
0>
Jj
o
-H
oj
CD
C
o
C
i
U
4-1
t)
U
OJ
%
M
QJ
OJ
Ul
CD
JJ
U-i
O
CD
U
C
CD
OJ
4J
C
OJ
C
Jj
CD
0,
c
0]
0)
TJ
CD
03
H
TJ
U
c
C
O
c
Q)
jj
f Marine Sciences
o
3
4-J
H
4J
U)
c
nJ
H
c
H
CP
QJ
4J
TJ
C
TJ
rd
O
CQ
O
C
0
u
OJ
4J
03
CD
+J
03
JJ
UJ
H
H
01
0
in
a
4J
C
o
•o
OJ
JJ
c
o
u
o
Ul
03
01
0
a
01
Q
OJ
JZ
o
c
0
H
c
H
01
QJ
TJ
-------
I
^ls<
'S
m
* 3
5 "i s "•
•i^srlS
Si IE sis?3
SielMlS*
i — O O -C *-• O
3 CO 4-> ui O-— CQ-—
- 03 4-1 ro •
3 — O — -C
i) fl CO OJ fO ^
- 3
Q. QJ
E Z
Ot QJ
i O —
U .0 C U 4J
Q. C G ro O
C QJ 1/1 —
O O
1 C
0) O
-D 03
. - C
' c ro
O ~
i ng
ore
-C —
.- O -
OJ Q)
O —
E "> E c
E U 3>
O i- U O
til
o
Si
JSr
3
Q
S
QJ 0) -3-
sss
c c
01 O
E -
C 4-J
O 03
O QJ !
Q_ 4-1 U- U O 0) —
i O -"
• c >-
i O -Q -
4-J O
X CL
OJ Q.
Q) -O E •
-C C OJ •
4-1 ro -
i 3 O
T" <: 4-1
QJ O
C C > O l_
E 1 Q ^ 'ro
1 K*
i uo.
2 >_
S s
rn
CN
< a: E +J
3 — 3 u c o 3 —
D -u ro ro
C i- QJ —
— D 1
I
CO
CM
•— r— i^ ro
E-35
-------
>
OCEAN CIT
IL
0
z
0
1-
I^Hri
^^Q
J
U
z
D
0
u
u
IT
0
^
2
•
*
*
OF OCEAN CITY
V
MARYLAND
21842
£
01
^
00
X
rH
3
»->
ti
o
•H
01 X
r
n Branch
terials Control Divi
tal Protection Agenc
Q) 0 eg G
Q O
•H CO
• U M
H (fl -H •
S E 0 D
Final D^.^iyi»a L J-OIA
Chemical Water Ocean
te
^^c^
h.^M
K (0
§n
0
<4- rH a
ff W
^ ^ -H
C 0 Q
s s
s
00
O
p
d
0
O)
c
•H
03
which was received fj
he impact which such i
City, we are very in-
am requesting that w*
nt.
& ^
the referenced sumpia
nghouse. Because of
D TJ M
H 0(0
P f U
W D r-»
CO -HO
s >
D 0)
• M P
h 03
S 0) 4->
> LO
M CO
CO £ M
0) 2
Q HO
SH i
a resort such as Oce
matter . Therefore ,
ete copy of the docu
W rH
C -H d
O.C E
0. P 0
3 0
0 -H 03
>
CO T) -0
& CD D
P TJ
+J to -H
^ 1) >
0) M 0
•HUM
§ 4^ Q,
d
0
TJ
d
(D
•H
8
M
0
the time allowed us
CD
A
TJ
TJ
CO
4-1
Ol
t— 1
i
-P
X
M
D
>
W
•rl
CO
CQ
0
a
0
M
a)
"5
1
4-J
8
+J
(J
D
W
CD
® J~
to
§
•H
4J
W
a
3
O1
X
d
CO
>
CO *
•s ^
goo
co n
X I 'n
CTi X
(w co g
M 00 S
•o-
CN
d o
X 0 W 3
H -H O O
TJ -P QJ X
4-1 -H -H (DO
(0 iH TJ Ol
0) 0 H u]
D, Q, 1) 3 C
D Ol CO
tJ TJ TJ d 0)
W
S J^
•P M
Q 0
CO 0
4J H
CO
CD -H E
X'H ,C
e to o
TJ QJ X
C tl .Q
, o M
X O U
b H «
M CO 0
0) 01 O 1
P O W Ul
(B t*-( 'rt ffl
^ 0 d
TJ O
duo
S 0 W M
H D -
M MO
CO CD QJ
Q HOC
^ §
o c
cU
•n i>
& 4-1
cn p
feelings on thi
elopment of alt.
Sincerel
>
M ID •
3 -0 -H
0 CD
D W
M 4-i Q,
•H W
i*H D *H
IH 0 TJ
CO M
D 0 0)
12 i
X
0)
\ rH
S^ o,
"*^^-u 1 1
X*u\ Ol
l/N^^ 3 CT
•^__^\ CO C CO G
^"~"* 0 ffl
U OJ
si
^ (w*
1
» £6
•n
I 8
S
Q->
4-i
partment of Sta
eston St.
D H
d n
CD 01
rH 3
X
M M
IS
0
1
r-l
X
1
oT
0
R
H
CO
CQ
-} =i| M Iftlf ;^ II
rH
I
LO
CM
E-36
-------
lit".
'-
< £
K-- 8'
g- a "Si
Z
z:
o
U D
^ ID
hj o
E-37
-------
o
U 2
O
^ H
K tn U 2
O K H H
S Q S co
S EH '-O Q
U o
W < rH W
O ft EH
S ft" H
EH H O 03
§ i-l ^ rH1
ft rtj •— • rtj
E-J W W
P 2 M 0
Q W W ft
S — co
H O EH Q
tf 2
• H W W
W > E EH
2 W to
fa W EH <
O < 3
C/3 O W 2
M U
g O
ft)
U
E
QJ
U
o
fd
01
0
a
to
QJ
4-1 4J
C =
QJ
o x;
U 4-1
QJ
rd
E
tn
H
4J
c
0)
E
QJ
4-1
fd
4-1
01
at
x:
EH
rH
fd
H
,4
at
4J
fd
E
UH
O
QJ
a
4J
QJ
4J
0
x;
4-1
3
C
o
H
4-1
id
c
•H
-I
0
u
q
H
in
QJ
4-1
01
rd
H
QJ
O
G
H
C/)
0)
CJ
4J
U
rd
a
QJ
rH
X>
01
QJ
T3
a
S
fd
M
QJ
C
QJ
t7>
cn
H
4H
O
QJ
01
0
a
tn
•H
c
QJ
QJ
4-J
O
C
0)
fd
QJ
4-1
tn
rd
rd
o
H
u
fd
M
QJ
q
QJ
tn
C
0)
at
a
x
QJ
O
C
C
at
OJ
X]
01
rd
at
IH
x:
4-1
•H
n
QJ
U
rd
fd
U
QJ
QJ
tn
tn
C
OJ
0
u
at
03
H
QJ
EH
H
E
i
o
rH
a>
4-1
4-1
ra
rd
0}
0
a
01
H
O
UH
0)
fd
X
p
o
10
01
QJ
-p
in
fd
3
rH
rd 0)
•H 4-J
rH H
4-J 01
•+H
O
W
C
O
•H
rd
OJ
O
c
o
u
tn
H
q
0
H
4-1
fd
0)
o
o
OJ
4-1
01
•H
Q)
x:
H
g
4J
C
OJ
u
0)
a
rH
q
x:
4J
01
en
0)
OJ
fd
QJ
c
0)
tn
T3
rH
P
O
x;
tn
cn
r-i
o
tn
M
0)
OJ
M
H
I/I
13
H
0
in
0
•H
•rl
Q)
a
01
4-1
o
C!
0'
c
•c
4-
OJ
4-1
1
O
•H
QJ
x:
EH
q
o
-H
4J
fd
13
C
QJ
U
OJ
01
x;
4-J
O
in
H
01
rd
XI
OJ
x:
o
c
o
-p
c
OJ
rH
rH
0)
U
CJ
tn
en
Cn
OJ
tn
13
•rH
rH
O
tn
T3
0)
•a
c
QJ
a
tn
P
in
4->
C
OJ
u
QJ
a
rH
rd
M
QJ
It
cn
0)
d>
q
o
•rH
i-l
fd
H
rH
tn
P
0
rH
x:
CO
in
cn
QJ
tn
rd
OJ
a
0)
tn
P
rH
cn
^
QJ
D
in
QJ
a
fd
IH
QJ
0)
en
tn
C
•H
c
•H
rd
jJ
C
O
o
OJ
4J
4-J
in
cw
o
iH
fd
01
0)
a
cn
•H
'O
in
•H
cn
H
r-H
H
0)
tn
01
M
O
4-1
C
o
p
Q
cn
fd
x;
u
P
en
to
T3
H
0
en
Q>
•H
O
en
cn
•H
T3
1
m
in
QJ
tn
fd
a
q
0
cn
td
TJ
•H
a
0)
4J
•H
P
cr
0
cn
rH
rd
1
CO
x:
0
M
S
4J
QJ
H
O
E
QJ
XI
q
o
H
4-1
rd
T)
q
at
0
at
4-1
tn
H
OJ
x:
4J
rd
x:
4J
4-1
in
QJ
tn
Cn
p
01
QJ
S
q
at
u
q
O
u
01
rt)
•H
rH
o
01
T3
at
o
tn
01
•H
•a
VH
0
13
0)
tJ
q
at
a
w
p
en
rd
XJ
4-1
0)
4-i
fd
4-1
en
o
4-1
0)
QJ
>H
QJ
•H
o
X!
O
C,
01
£
tn
•H
QJ
X)
-P
0
rH
0
x:
01
cn
c:
o
-rH
4-1
fd
rH
Q
o
at
rd
S
0)
4-1
en
fd
<*H
o
q
o
i-|
tn
OJ
a
cn
•H
0)
x:
4-J
•H
*
rH
q
rtj 01
U 4J
•H q
>4H QJ
-H p
C -P
tn -H
•H 4J
cn 01
01
4-i in -H cn
u
o
T3 C -
C P C C C
< D 0 0) 0
rH QJ rH
. . 4-JrH 4J
S S ox: u
01 4-> 0)
. . rH frj H
A- S W X W
CO
§
x; >,
0 U
c q
fd at
H (P
eg <
c q
o o
•rH. -H
•P 4-1 O
O U \D
QJ at T
4-1 4-1 O
M O 0 (N
0) i-i h
rH ft ft
4-> CJ
cn at rH Q
rd q rd
S-H -P -
n q q
• rd 0) O
< S E 4-1
q tn
• - o q
EH 4H H H
QJ -H x;
. H > tn
M X! q rd
QJ
rH
4-1
cn
fd
&
M
s
fd
at
for comments on "Environmental
106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal S:
•P M
en 0
Q) tw
P
cr —
QJ 03
in M
O 4J
QJ
OJ g
tn QJ
q 4J
O fd
a4J
en 01
at
rH 4-»
IP.
C, rrj
H r-l
Q
en
H -P
u
01 rd
H &
to note the conclusion, that no
been demonstrated at the site
T3 QJ
0) >
U- 113
fd ,q
rH
p M
O -P
U J
0) I-H
M
QJ 'D
M
fd 'U
m
QJ l-l
S
i3
= id
O ("
H d
-P tj
rrj «rH
C 4H
'•H \",
tn CP
0) rH
•H
td
cn
O
a
tn
-H
T3
QJ
4-1
rd
S
0
0)
01
P
O
S
ed herewith. Of particular conc<
x:
u
B
4->
rrj
QJ
fd
01
4-1
C
O
V
T3
OJ
rH ••
-H QJ
rd iH
4-1 rrj
OJ
rrj 01
p
rH
5 9,
and other characteristics of
n Table 5-2 (page 5-6) and on
tn -H
>.
rd C
tn at
01 >
(0 -rH
H
XI en m
q QJ i
0 4J CQ
fd
fd S T3
4J QJ C
fd 4-1 rd
13 in
rd (N
4-1 S fH
O 1
QJ 4-J CQ
n q
0 ft Q)
u tn
q P ra
H Q a
3 that the Delaware Bay Acid Was
shellf ishing because of previou:
(N O 4-J
1 -P C
(N 0
QJ QJ
rji tn p
fd o Q
u ^
q xi
O tn
G S 4-1
0 H
•P 4-1
rd -H 4-i
O W rd
H x:
H rH 4-1
a fd
E tn IH
H o O
a
QJ 01 Q)
x: -H tn
EH Q P
ges xiii and 2-41) on industrial
which, if adopted, would exclude
or Du Pont wastewaters. These
cation so that the site can con-
rd 4n H
a to UH
— U rH -H
•H rd 13
01 4-i tn o
q en o E
o H a
H M 01 13
4-1 QJ -H OJ
fd 4J rQ OJ
TJ U C
q fO q
at s-i fd cn
Ex: u o
o y o -H
U -P
a> V4 IH rd
H 0) O 13
q td QJ QJ
H ? tn e
fd 0> P £
4-1 4-> 0
JH cn- OJ O
0) rd x: CJ
U 3 4-1 l-l
al of wastes which have no signi:
tn
0 •
a4J
tn u
H rd
rrj Ci
E
SH H
0
4H rH
fd
^ -P
o) q
01 0)
p E
QJ O
H
0 >
4-1 q
QJ
QJ
P 4J
q q
-P O
comment on the draft EIS.
o
4-J
4J
H
q
4-1
M
O
a
a
o
0)
x: w
4-J rH
p
01 O
4J >i
ra
U rH
Q) P
a 4-i
a
QJ QJ
o
H
03
H
Q
W
U
H
K
03
M
fX
W
•H
U
2
E-38
-------
rH X: 01
e organisms a1
q
•H
rH
rd
in
M
i3
13
q
fd
u
•H
q
0
4J
c
fd
r-4
a
d>
a
in
•rH
d>
rd
d)
at
•H
U
rd
CO
q
0
H
4-1
ITJ
IH
4-1
C
O
O
o
IH
01
4-1
id
227, Subpart 1
4-1
fd
a.
u
o
in
C
o
•H
rd
rH
d)
iH
W
s with certau
rH
id
d>
c
o
4J
rd
13
C
dJ
O
(J
d)
,c
4-1
H
*4H
d)
EH
d)
H
X)
0)
rd
d)
XI
fd
4-1
u
0)
4-1
d)
ID
01
XI
-p
o
c
t5
0
x:
tn
x:
0
x;
o
in
H
d)
4-1
MH
rd
in
0
q
H
x:
•H
4J
•H
10
4-1
QJ
H
tn
3
O
e clarified.
X>
0
•H
4-)
rd
q
QJ
0
0)
W
x:
4J
4-1
d)
tp
3
If!
an outside thf
01
e
rH
rH
rd
in
0)
H
rH
4-1
r-t
in
fli
T)
di
rH
t^
X
at
elease? What
0)
4J
fd
tn
M
3
O
x:
0)
4-1
in
0)
i-H
-H
o
rH
O
QJ
M
QJ
01
C
H
Q)
XI
(D
id
in
q
OJ
3
4->
-H
•P
in
q
o
u
rd
in
q
o
H
4-1
fd
QJ
o
01
rH
id
q
0
•H
-P
H
'O
ra
TJ
0>
d)
q
d)
H
es that monitoring (at
4->
fd
u
H
TJ
q
H
01
10
0)
4J
4H
O
q
0
u
0)
in
OJ
,q
EH
X)
t)
3
O
x:
in
in
-P
o
rd
1
01
4->
4->
IH
O
x:
M
o
di
W
0)
a
x
di
in
dJ
d)
4-1
E
C
a
in
QJ
d)
4J
4-1
•H
e
0)
a
H
m
IH
u
rd
M
-P
q
0
u
rH
rd
C
01
O
q
0)
XI
ing, the permittee should
IH
•M
q
0)
4J
O
Tt
o
4J
T3
a>
•H
*4H
•H
r-H
rd
tr
4-1
•H
O
13
O
4-1
TJ
d)
0
rH
rd
e second recommendation
X!
q
•rH
•U
rH
0
5
4J
in
rd
rH
d)
4-1
O
d)
IH
in
0
U
water mixture."
i
o>
in
0)
4-1
tn
rd
2
c
S
0
4-1
10
ffj
E
O
WH
rH
rs
1
in
rH)
r-
r-
CTi
rH
l+H
O
i
d)
0)
4->
«
U
H
•a
q
•H
W
0)
C
•H
rH
4J
W
rH
H
d>
x:
EH
3
0)
M
rC
d)
x:
in
XJ
rd
4-1
in
QJ
T)
q
fC
q
o
4J
nj
rH
10
•H
tn
01
in
d)
H
rO
0)
0)
o
fd
a
QJ
IH
XI
rd
H
id
q
o
4-1
in
d)
tn
H
rd
x:
o
in
•H
q
H
rH
8
4-1
q
o
o
rH
0
-
IH
tn
O
r-l
IH
O
rd
rH
ally, such a program was
3
u
w
i-H
rd
3
O
0
in
d)
4-1
ra
4-1
c
.q
3
o
0
1
CN
cn
KH
XI
rH
01
d)
fd
IH
0)
T3
d)
Pn
d>
x:
4-1
4-J
rfl
01
x;
in
•H
rH
X)
•p
tn
0>
trol Act was amended in 1!
q
o
u
q
0
•H
4-1
3
rH
rH
o
AH
d)
4-1
rfl
2
rd
d)
T)
d)
ch regulatory programs fo]
3
13
fU
x:
in
0)
4-*
rd
w
tn
iH
d)
4-1
SH
3
fM
CN
r-
CTl
0
4-1
J_t
O
H
in
fd
01
q
fd
E
mile site is located 167 I
i
O
rH
01
x:
4-1
tn
0
rO
O
H
13
q
•H
4-1
X
d)
4-)
x:
EH
lopen , Delaware . Scaling
site on Figure 2-1 shows
q QJ
» 4J
0) MH
D- 0
U >i
m rd
0 T3
C
-P 3
W 0
rd Xl
01
q
— - JH
•H 01
E •*->
in
. 01
q S
0 dJ
cn x:
•— jj
•H in
in o
01 XJ
. e
c n
OJ «*n
a
O w
rH rH
q
01 4-1
m -H
QJ q
O- rd
rd xl
0 +J
o a>
ex
tf) rH
nj q
01 a>
K
•H QJ
E H
fd
• U
q
E
^D O
CN IH
£ 01
5 x:
-p
ro fd
CN *W
in tn
•rH -H
gj
21
OJ
Xl
m
M
OJ
4-1
rd
3
Q)
4-1
U)
rd
3
QJ
x:
4J
t)
4J
tn
H
0
4-1
ra
q
01
o
o
iH
T)
U
tn
QJ
r-t
0)
4J
id
3
rO
d)
in
q
•H
-P
C
rd
>»
o
p
X)
>1
0)
^
4-1
fd
0)
r-t
m
IH
O
>i
r-H
rd
4-1
dJ
q
OJ
in
rd
E
4J
-H
C
0
4-1
T3
QJ
E
O
j^
in
rH
4J
4-1
d)
a
0)
•p
QJ
<
O
4-1
fd
3
tT
d)
>i
4J
H
>
fO
SH
Cn
O
UH
(J
a
rO
~,
x:
o
x:
M
d)
3
QJ
in
fd
0)
X!
4-)
0
q
4J
fd
JJ
4-1
Cn
H
iH
C1J
J
fd
O)
O
4-)
id
x:
q
rd
4-1
in
01
fO
QJ
Cn
IH
O
C
O
H
4J
rd
T3
q
0)
i
0
u
SH
in
.q
d)
fd
in
O
4-1
><
id
OJ
4-1
4->
d)
Xl
fd
i
iH
ro
,c
U
SH
0)
4J
fd
3
QJ
4-1
in
td
3
at
x:
4J
4J
fd
X
w
H
c
H
4J
fd
13
C
d>
0
di
13
4-)
d)
EH
>
rH
-P
fO
4J
C
OJ
m
QJ
iH
a
01
rH
o
4J
>i
4-1
U
X
o
£
o
rH
0)
fd
M
4J
q
13
in
o
•H
tn
H
JH
0)
U
U
H
X
0
4-1
0>
EH
in
in
C
rd
tn
O
01
H
rH
id
id
SH
d)
T!
13
fd
O
H
0
4-1
rd
a
i
rd
iH
4-1
C
d)
o
q
0
L>
in
4-1
H
0
c
o
H
u
c
3
rd
H
SH
0)
4-1
fd
5
0)
4J
fd
*
fO
m
4J
u
QJ
4H
QJ
I
in
H
TJ
iH
0)
4~>
fd
3
d)
4-1
in
fd
f
m
o
4-1
di
^H
U
rH
0
01
x:
-p
01
0
d>
SH
01
q
o
-H
4-1
T3
0)
>
0)
H
x:
u
fd
q
o
H
4-1
3
H
T3
0)
.q
4-1
c
0
T3
C
d)
0)
C
ft)
QJ
U
o
d)
x
q
-H
O
dJ
in
a
01
H
T3
OJ
0>
a
m
0)
fd
XI
td
in
fd
0)
0)
o
01
4-1
id
QJ
-p
o
c
0
4J
U
q
rd
q
rd
^
rH
fd
tn
•O
0)
rH
0)
>
fd
SH
4J
01
q
fd
4J
H
0
4J
-H
q
iH
01
a
0)
10
rd
a)
d)
iH
10
0
4-1
QJ
4-1
ra
IH
4J
in
q
o)
T)
r-
tn
0.
rH
-H
T3
fd
_,„;
ra
T3
q
id
r-
CTv
•-*
c
0
in
X!
-H
O
di
4-1
tn
fd
S
iH
O
0
S
d)
tn
•U
W
1
4-1
(^
Q
tJ
H
rH
W
rd
O
4-J
q
O
Q
4J
O
Xl
0
><
XI
T3
01
a
o
01
>
OJ
T)
d)
XI
q
fd
QJ
u
0
4-1
rd
q
0)
u
q
0
i
ai
E
H
fd
4J
fd
>i
q
rtJ
4-1
fd
in
q
0
H
4-1
fd
M
4-1
q
01
u
0
o
4-1
x:
3
QJ
0)
fd
0)
rH
0
IH
0)
a-
0
Cn
q
•rH,
TJ
q
o
a
in
0)
in
iH
0
O
0)
X
4-»
3
0
rH
XI
4-1
QJ
X]
q
to
o
01
in
rd
o>
IH
01
UH
d>
E
•H
0)
0)
to
0)
E
•H
dl
in
di
0
0
4-1
2
4-1
q
QJ
O
q
0
u
4-1
U
01
UH
a>
u
r-H
0
4-)
ro
M
fd
a
T3
c
CN
CN
0)
tn
fd
a
M
W
rH
CN
r-
Q.
4-1
in
H
rH
O
q
d)
lH
L*H
d)
r-l
f"
1
CQ
q
rd
rH
CQ
tn
0)
rd
a
w
w
Tl
c
rC
fd
tn
UH
O
iH
d)
4J
fd
S
QJ
4-1
tn
fd
^
>i
q
fd
0
13
01
rH
O,
a.
XI
q
fd
u
-P
01
q
o
u
e
rd
cn
01
x:
t-
di
10
rd
O
rH
QJ
SH
QJ
4->
rd
H
IH
a-
0
IH
a
a
rd
ra
o
0)
3
^
XI
4J
U
••H
g
4-1
C
4-1
tn
rd
QJ
in
ro
0)
0)
i-i
QJ
X
4-)
JH
0)
£
0
0)
.q
>i
H
U
H
0
x:
4-1
IH
d)
tn
QJ
x;
0)
2
q
rfl
0)
U
O
IH
o
in
u
•H
E
0
q
o
u
d)
TI
q
in
u
4-1
in
rH
O
a>
x:
0)
in
O
0)
M
x;
rtJ
C
O
H
4-)
ro
13
q
01
o
d)
>H
d)
x:
EH
10
q
q
H
E
01
01
13
d)
x:
-P
0)
u
d)
X)
rd
10
0
&
in
H
4-1
q
rO
>
01
0)
M
4J
0
q
rd
in
Q)
' ro
j-
«
x:
^
X)
'O
0)
*j
rd
•H
•H
0)
XI
4-1
r-l
U
X
o
4J
d)
x:
4-1
x:
4-1
tn
4-1
q
ra
QJ
rH
0)
tn
g
4-1
CO
d)
tn
D1
3
in
QJ
^
01
VH
o
UH
01
IH
x:
in
01
iH
U
rrj
IH
a
q
o
• r-l
W
QJ
a
en
-rH
JH
0)
o
QJ
t)
rH
>
o
t-l
a
o
4->
13
QJ
•rH
(M
•H
"O
0
E
QJ
X)
O
•H
4J
13
O
01
iH
•a
•rH
x:
_£
4-1
4J
X!
•P
QJ
>
•H
4-1
ra
•p
q
0)
CO
QJ
in
a
0)
iH
•8
>i
•rH
O
•H
B
S
0
131
c
H
4J
I-l
-U
to
c
e
•o
0
E-39
-------
agraph indicates the
03
T>
c
0
D
QJ
in
QJ
0
QJ
c
rH
4-1
to
rd
QJ
EH
rthwest corner of tht
0
OJ
4-1
0
4-1
-P
M
QJ
rH
OJ
TJ
C
iH
U~i
0
4-1
-H
0
0
£
4-1
U-l
H
03
3
03
H
E
C
o
o
o
(N
W
0)
4-t
-H
W
OJ
rH
•H
g
l
o
r-t
m
OJ
ft
l
M
O
O1
-H
Cn
e
0
M
0
T)
U
01
r-l
a
4-1
QJ
JH
fO
CJ
C
H
E
C
o
CTi
1
l>
rH
in
H
OJ
u
c
4J
in
H
T3
u
Q)
O
D
QJ
rC
4->
should be corrected
QJ
o
G
03
4J
to
H
TJ
E
o
iH
01
1 §
J3
o
(N C
0) 0
X .£
H in
D
1
rd
o
o
H
G
03
CP
0
4-1
rG
4-1
3
o
x:
to
o
4-1
10
in
H
OJ
XI
o
4J
Q)
O
G
0
QJ
C
P
P
P
.Q
CP
H
CQ
O
QJ
x:
rH
0
UH
C
QJ
H
CP
CO
QJ
•H
in
id
c
0
rQ
QJ
4J
C
o
QJ
X!
E-"
s
o
ro
r-
0
(*•>
QJ
X)
TJ
rH
o
X!
in
0)
P
H
01
OJ
P
to
fd
2
'O
H
O
<
03
01
in
G
o
4->
CJ
r-t
4-1
01
CO
fd
cn
TJ
fd
o
rH
0)
rC
4-1
£
TJ
rH
O
x:
to
•*r
ro
OJ
rH
XI
OJ
H
-P
S
QJ
rC
E-*
C
rH
CP
0>
rQ
13
P
O
rC
Ul
CP
a
c
0
OJ
c
-H
iH
4-1
01
rH
H
0)
E-1
als released annually
4-J
0)
£
0)
U
-p
2
QJ
QJ
m
UH
0
TJ "•
03
0
rH
to o
01 4J
03 C
E -»
H
4-1
M
a
o>
4-1
O
c
T3
•H
TJ
r-
rH
rH
03
4->
0)
M
QJ
rH
O
UJ
01
Ul
H
M
QJ
x:
at 230 metric tons/dc
-
CO
OJ
iH
XI
rd
EH
-H
0)
4-1
0)
OJ
in
•H
TJ
0>
EH
UH
0)
CP
rH
id
03
01
OJ
M
0)
4-t
•P
id
.4-1
01
4-1
C
01
01
TJ
-rH
rH
0
rH
x;
u
H
U
rH
fd
u
TJ
C
03
01
03
rH
P
01
•H
TJ
0
in
C
O
ipex. Those probably do come from lane
ra,
4-1
x:
CP
•H
ffl
X
r4
O
OJ
:et salting) and other sources in the
;a .
off (eg, stre
ropolitan arc
C 4-»
P 01
iragraph, change "sulf ide" to "sulfate ,
a
0
u
01
in
01
rC
C
H
ragraph is the statement : "Preliminary
; al. (1977) indicates that previous
03 0)
ft
H-l O
0} 01
rH OJ
H rn
OJ XI
x:
rH
H §
>sal has contaminated scallops near th«
a
to
•H
TJ
QJ
4-1
in
TJ
H
U
OJ
rH
01
XJ
to
o
4-1
OJ
in
0
O
01
01
•iH
QJ
CO
Q)
x:
jj
to
x;
QJ
4-1
CO
Q
Xl'
c
X,
01
•H
QJ
4-1
O
P
CP
OJ
c
H
QJ
O
G
OJ
4-1
G
OJ
to
4-1
cn
H
UH
O
X!
4J
3
4J
U
strongly obje
OJ
3
T3
3
Q)
x;
E<
T)
C!
0
U
OI
a.'
Xi
4-1
14-
C
c
c
0]
a
H
P.
E
a;
XI
in
03
rH
rH
at
m
rd
> that FDA closed the area because of
tence implies
c
OJ
to
to
3
TJ
•H
0
CO
o
H
01
IH
a
0)
x:
E
o
iH
x;
10
•H
rH
OJ
10
tamination oi
c
o
o
illy, closure was because of bacterial
posal . ActUc
in
H
TJ
0)
4J
rH
tn
oj
01
a
cn
H
TJ
0)
CP
03
(0
XI
IH
03
01
G
*d
tamination at
G
O
U
rH
0)
3
01
ft
0
rH
rH
rd
U
in
4-1
fd
x:
4J
01
4J
03
to
4-)
O
TJ
•H
TJ
iH
rj
in
OJ
QJ
x:
4-1
M
P
-P
03
rC
-p
TJ
OJ
4J
td
O
-H
TJ
•H
01
X!
EH
in
OJ
01
03
TJ
U
rrj
ntaminated" t
o
o
03
TJ
QJ
TJ
•H
8
a
p
H
TJ
.-d
03
CP
01
10
4-1
G
QJ
p
•H
•P
in
U
QJ
-P
in
OJ
G
•H
03
+J
M
OJ
0
^
O
01
G
0
H
4-1
fd
u
0
rH
TJ
C
p
0
>1
OJ
£
OJ
4->
cn
03
3
H
O
03
0)
.C
4-1
O
UH
CP
fd
H-l
03
OJ
(0
G
H
cn
O
•H
4-1
fd
iH
4J
C
0)
o
o
•H
T3
fd
C
OJ
M
01
X!
CP
X!
•H
rH
OJ
u
•H
to
-H
4J
03
4J
0)
H
QJ
4-1
in
OJ
S
TJ
U
s
01
in
id
3
03
01
a
4-»
rG
UH
Hops south c
fd
u
to
Philadelphia Sewage Sludge Site as well
n
OJ
OJ
c
4-1
TJ
03
QJ
01
0
x;
\D
QJ
iH
CP
•H
IH
•H
OJ
rG
4J
OJ
OJ
01
OJ
4-1
•H
in
0)
4J
03
OJ
-P
C
H
in
03
01
ft
0
rH
rd
u
01
QJ
rG
4-)
03
x:
4-1
C
OJ
4J
in
O
G
TJ
e
hors , howevei
P
03
rC
10
•H
rH
QJ
x;
01
s
;?
•H
to
O
rH
0
rd
x;
-p
x:
u
p
in
TJ
OJ
e "contaminal
rH
OJ
3
TJ
OJ
TJ
OJ
0)
vesting was i
iH
s
e
x:
u
•rH
x:
3
C
o
ft
p
in
•H
01
3
OJ
rC
4-t
•H
U
OJ
ft
in
CO
H
x:
4-1
03
X!
0)
CP
rH
P
01
to shellfishing, both here and on
O)
-rH
0)
4-1
TJ
01
01
O
rH
u
E-40
-------
•s I
X 0> QJ .
U 10 Q QJ
4-1 01 —
C XI
Q) 0 E
QJ P 01 TJ COQJC04J
QJ QJ E X
X) QJ CO
Xl Q)
SH X Q)
O TJ -U XI
fO cfl Cn to W
CO rH X >i rH
QJ to rcj rH
Cn TJ
QJ
ft -P
ft fd
O ?
O ft •
QJ U CO QJ
H - C QJ -P
W JH QJ X
QJ JH -P -P
QJ X QJ O O
X id o
W U 01
XI
OJ
CP TJ
TJ 01
TJ
O
S QJ JH
QJ M 4H fO
01 id 0 Cu
analys:
correc
r4
OJ
01
X)
0
Conseqi
ro
£
4H
gj
SI
U
H
M
O
X
U
o
)H
TJ
>!
X
01
tfl
TJ
QJ
tn
01
QJ
SH
ft
X
QJ
TJ
•H
U
id
4J
QJ
O
QJ
Q.
0
4J
r>
TJ
C
QJ
U
rH
C
UH
O
tn
TJ
to
O
X
CP
H
X
rH
id
JH
O
X)
id
tn
3
0
X
CO
CO
ro
QJ
rH
X)
ro
EH
cn
C
H
TJ
p
U
C
•H
>!
XI
TJ
QJ
01
P
ffl
U
TJ
QJ
>
0)
•H
QJ
XI
01
•H
H
X
r-
cn
H
U
d
H
N
C
to
4-1
JH
OJ
U
C
rH
CO
tfl
4-1
QJ
0)
Ul
O
4-1
iH
o
tn
01
CO
ro
to
x
Cn
H
X
rH
in
p
o
to
E
O
c
to
!
td
JH
4-1
C
QJ
U
C
O
O
rH
QJ
^
U
•H
d
QJ
X
P
O
H
U
QJ
£X
to
OJ
Xl
Q
CO
QJ
ft
E
id
tn
QJ
JH
fO
Xl
7
VD
CO
QJ
cn
E
O
SH
MH
QJ
4-1
cn
0
ft
E
O
0
QJ
4-)
TJ
T
QJ
Cn
JH
fd
Xl
C
cn
C
o
H
4-1
JH
QJ
4-)
fd
0)
in
0>
0
TJ
P
P
C
Cn
rd
E
O
Ul
JH
QJ
TJ
JH
O
0
3
5
C
id
x
QJ
o
E
QJ
JH
fO
•a1
0
4-1
1
q
QJ
O
q
O
o
u
H
N
QJ
X
r-H
tP
C
JH
P
TJ
tn
QJ
rH
E
fd
01
SH
cn
p
o
o
c
fd
X
3
.H
T
TJ
id
O
iH
U
d
H
N
OJ
X
p
TJ
d
id
CO
QJ
XI
r-H
rH
£
TJ
id
O
rH
rH
QJ
U
H
C
cn
rH
to
d
O
-p
U
H
JH
P
QJ
0
U
r-.
r-H
id
P
01
x
u
CO
QJ
d.
•P
fO
P
OJ
-p
-p
01
TJ
rH
P
0
X
to
-p
X
QJ
•P
01
X
EH
JH
QJ
>
QJ
3
o
X
cn
Q)
4J
to
id
3
4->
d
o
(X
p
Q
JH
O
UH
cn
id
-P
tfl
id
H
TJ
id
d
to
>
TJ
QJ
JH
QJ
TJ
rH
CO
QJ
X
4J
•P
id
fd
01
o
ft
10
rH
TJ
QJ
4-J
01
id
3
4J
tn
td
_ft
4-1
id
X
4-1
Q)
o
iH
ft
4-1
0
c
TJ
•H
TJ
QJ
X
E
0
m
to
ft
0
fd
o
CO
d
to
QJ
>
OJ
E
P
-H
TJ
id
TJ
4-1
td
>
QJ
rH.
OJ
TJ
QJ
01
p
ro
O
QJ
4-1
Ul
c
H
01
rH
OJ
QJ
rH
H
TJ
10
d
td
c
o
p
rd
TJ
o
c
TJ
X
QJ
X
fd
QJ
IH
QJ
X
•P
CJ
JH
O
E
C
QJ
X
4J
ffl
01
o
ft
01
•H
TJ
MH
0
4J
ro
4-1
in
01
X
0
4->
0
•rH
SH
ft
to
ft
O
rH
(0
U
(0
_
c
o
H
4-1
P
XI
H
SH
4->
CO
•H
TJ
~H
TJ
to
d
fd
_>
>£>
Ql
in
p
tn
•H
d-
JH
QJ
X
-P
UH
0
C
0
•H
p
id
d
-H
Q)
0)
JH
QJ
3
to
OJ
p
rH
to
•H
TJ
fd
C
to
OJ
X
Cn
H
X
01
X
4-1
id
x
P
o
at
iH
4J
0
C
01
QJ
0
TJ
•H
C
fO
4J
H
4-J
0
rH
id
01
O
ft
to
-H
TJ
d
tfl
OJ
u
o
d
id
X
M
QJ
X
4-)
0
01
QJ
to
p
id
u
e
0
SH
>4H
d
iH
td
Q)
•H
0
-P
TJ
OJ
4J
U
td
4J
C
0
o
QJ
Xl
TJ
p
0
X
CO
<
(X
M
M
QJ
4-1
id
»
QJ
4->
cn
ra
3
QJ
T)
•H
X
0
•H
TJ
TJ
QJ
to
fd
QJ
O
4-1
C
0
ex
p
0
OJ
u
d
•H
CO
TJ
0)
CO
fd
Q}
SH
O
0)
TJ
OJ
>
tO
X
01
rH
0)
>
QJ
iH
•H
TJ
id
d
id
?>
-H
01
r-t
OJ
>
Q)
UH
M
QJ
4-1
H
01
4-1
CO
to
S
TJ
U
to
M
ro
3
ro
rH
OJ
Q
QJ
X
-P
UH
O
QJ
CO
3
rH
ffl
rH
iH
4-1
to
3
TJ
C
•H
d
ro
x
4->
1-4
-------
c
I
ro
C
co in
QJ QJ
QJ OJ
4-J 4J
4-1 4J
H -H
Ot Q)
a a,
^O rH
Q) 01
M rH
QJ QJ
3 3
QJ QJ
QJ 0)
45 45
4-1 4-1
0) OJ
-P 4J
ra ra
4J 4J
to tn
rH **
1 1
CQ CQ
QJ QJ
ft ft
to
G
OJ
§
4-1
ro
w
0)
to
QJ
45
4-1
OJ
r-l
ra
o
4-1
vo
II
TJ
o o-
G 4J
0 C
•H QJ
•P 4-1
c w
e w
QJ
45
CO
Q)
in
in
P
u
in
•H
TJ
H
QJ
-P
^
a
ra
Cn
fd
4-1
in
QJ
45
M
3
QJ
cn
w
rd
S_i
o
Q)
in
ra
a
H
C
fd
o
45
4-1
0
c
o
4J
CO
o
OJ
o
g
c
.3
-P
O
Q-
O
W
O
W
M
QJ
EH
QJ
in
ra
a
QJ
o
r-t
G
O
CO
OJ
o
4J
OJ
U
c
tn
fc
u
G
-H
to
H
-H
TJ
•H
C
0)
e
E
M
>
CH
rd
-P
ra
rd
in
ra
o
CQ
$
c
0
CN
1
m
QJ
43
fd
EH
W
O
to
J5
OJ
0
O
j5
•H
QJ
0
ra
QJ
4->
§
E u>
in OJ
to nj
r-l
O OJ
4-> l"3
c
o 0
in G
.-. ra
-- 1 Lf]
",. QJ
(0 4J
r- M
r- 0
cn IH
rH
Cn 3
H ra
p to
TJ O
0
cn
4-1 •
CO CO
QJ
4J C
0
o to
m >i
i-J rd
E-< in
to
QJ O
— 43
H
O,
o
o
O
o
rH
O
M
4H
TJ
QJ
cr
c
ra
S-i
m
o
in
u
w
0
1
cn
O QJ
4->
G
3 >i
O rH
in -H
cn
E in
a o
a a
in QJ
rd
ra
TJ H
C TJ
ra H
co OJ
4H £
0
M
tn o
OJ MH
rH W
ro o)
> P
rH
0 >
0
0) in
£ "
n
o
>H
4J
ra
•o
>i
CO
01
ra
o
•rt
43
0)
(fl
3
ra
3
43
4-1
o
43
ra
0)
£
O
o
at
45
>i
ra
g
0)
-p
ra
0)
4-1
Ul
ra
tn
ra
c
0)
^
4->
CQ
»
4->
C
ra
0
•H
$
'Z
ti
s
ro
4->
n
•H
a
Ul
r-t
M
3
ra
•rH
T)
0
U)
O
>i
4J
•H
U
•H
X
o
44
1
4J
•H
U
-H
X
O
4J
10
4->
H
G
3
cn
4-1
10
QJ
4-)
ra
at
4J
45
U
to
QJ
TJ
OJ
.^
0)
0)
to
-H
CO
0
0
QJ
Cr
G
ra
QJ
45
4-1
C
H
to
ra
rH
TJ
H
C
0>
s*
£
•p
H
0
H
X
o
44
rH
Cn
C
•H
Cn
ra
0)
>
ro
•H
X
E
o
m
ro
H
IH
TJ
C
ra
rH
rH
ra
4-»
OJ
0)
•H
QJ
E
Tf
0)
C
•H
rd
X
0)
at
>
5
at
3
QJ
4-1
ra
3
•H
•H
at
m
CO
O
o
in
ra
m
ra
o
•H
43
O
•P
ro
OJ -H
U TJ
C -H
a> G
rH OJ
at E
0)
o o
C -P
•P O O
4J CO C CO
cn H
O ( C 1
u c
CN D> to
cn o) rH
W 43
o ra w
•P < rd
co o) w w
QJ > 0)
D -H 0 P
rH tP 4-1 rH
fd rd
> to T) ;>
-HO)
O 4-J O
O QJ H U
IJ -P E W
ra 43
JH 3 3 4-1
P QJ in o
0 4J
45 in in QJ
l ro -P U1
to 3 JH C
cn O fd
•nan
*4-t rH OJ
o «H K ra
OJ
QJ to 3
rji tn = o
c ra • 45
ra M Cr tn
M O X
QJ M tr r-
45 O E cn
EH m E rH
C
ra
>
OJ
ra
JH
QJ
OJ
4-1
in
0)
4J
fd
3
OJ
4-1
CO
ro
3
0
O
s
at
Cn
TJ
= QJ
45
rH 4-1
_P 0
G G
OJ p
>
H QJ
Cn g
ro
in cn
H
0) 45
Cn -P
c
ra c
OJ C
5 g
45
4-> W
P
.Q QJ
43
\ TJ
Cn rH
p p
0
G 45
H in
S i
> -P
•H
Cn OJ
45
•H
at
P rH
> E
f>.
TJ
0)
C
H
E
M
QJ
4-1
QJ
TJ
4-J
O
G
"
r-|
o
"S
4-1
O
OJ
4-1
QJ
4-1
O
C
C
id
e
a
w
OJ
0
C3
«3
o
4-J
C
g
QJ
4-1
W
rH
4J
M
TJ
QJ
-H
QJ
>i
rH
QJ
4->
QJ
g
0
U
H
in
•H
Q
O
CQ
OJ
•H
45
3
to
CO
H
C
ra
Cn
r-(
o
rH
fd
o
Cn
rH
0
H
43
0
U
-H
E
43
TJ
0)
CO
C
0
u
c
QJ
Cn
>•,
X
0
1
0
4-1
C
QJ
E
O
in
T)
C
id
'"
H
C
id
Cn
0
Cn
C
rH
N
-H
TJ
X
O
TJ
C
ra
Cn
G
4-i
rd
rH
•H
-H
CO
tn
ra
i
H
U
QJ
a
to
0)
Tl
C
P
0
-4J
I
4-1
to
ro
3
O
M
QJ
4-1
ro
3
G
•H
in
(d
-H
QJ
4-J
E
CO
p
o
c
Ot
to
TJ
O
•H
rH
OJ
a
QJ
E
4-1
T)
c
o
H
4-1
-H
TJ
c
o
U
ro
4J
c
QJ
G
0
rH
•H
>
C
TJ
OJ
•H
4H
rvivo:
P
CO
QJ
D
P
Tl
QJ
>•,
H
M
ra
to
QJ
O
Q)
4J
0
G
CO
QJ
O
Tl
4-1
U
0)
QJ
O
H
C
0
M
45
U
<
QJ
>
ro
45
Tf
p
0
o
0
u
c
ro
4-1
in
43
in
ra
45
4-1
QJ
•H
43
ra
>
H
OJ
O
d
o
u
to
H
4-1
M
-H
45
in
r-t
0
a
H
45
in
r-i
0
>
E
P
to
4J
O
QJ
U-t
rd
4-1
O
cn
OJ
o
TJ
,G
u
H
45
3
4J
O
QJ
0
•H
C
O
In
45
U
fd
lutio!
o
S
UH
O
in
to
01
u
o
M
QJ
O
45
3
QJ
45
4-1
•H
01
in
ra
QJ
IH
U
C
•H
0)
Ot
4-1
45
Cn
•H
6
U
H
C
O
M
45
U
-------
' z z £
= £2 o<
Al AN PRICAL (N Y N J
AND FLA, BAR) OF COUNSEL
August 21, 1979
z
-i u
<
0 o
* s
£ 5
H
G
C
O
•H
4J
U
o
rH
4-1
C
G
O
M
-H
>
G
4->
13
G
P
-H
C
, Chief , Marine Protection Branch
TAL IMPACT STATEMENT
an Waste Disposal Site Designation
^ B G
G W y
rH gO
tO O G
!£ H H
> S
rt CO U ^0
• T O
O O 1 fa
§ v h II So
in o S — Q "w
Utilities Authority, the following
ntioned draft proposal regarding
ite.
>i
P
§
o
u
c
G
VH
G
W
G
CQ CN 4-1
O • P •• i-i O
H U 4-1 G G
U D 4-> rH
G to fd
4-i •• fd X!
0 C £ G
G C1 SO
C -H
H x: rH
M w rd
rd td G
G W
§^
M fd
O «
y-l O
en
G -H
XI Q
4-1
0)
G 4-1
0 CO
fd
13 S
G
G fd
MH G
8S
fd-H
Ul 1
4-t \C
C o
G rH
E G
o x:
study include the environmental
hich would carry sludge from
tudy should include the economics
omics can be made more favorable
reatment plants utilize the pipelir
3 to
3 G to
O 4-) -H
>i H x:
EO H
p
rd G
x: x! •
4J O C
to 4-> fd
G rH
tP G
3 C 4J
tO -H C
G G E
S &4J
•H fd
PJ G
rH fd 4-)
«4-t >1
o n
P T3
U C
fd O
a u
E o>
C 4-1
o
u n
G G
3
G G
X! to
4J
CM o
•H
M
rQ G
G43
3
•* C
G
C G
H
£L< id
C
43 H
U >
3 fd
crt XI
•H >H
ur staff of a pipeline which would
orities in Northern New Jersey in-
e as low as $62.00 per dry ton
ost of the pipeline which is es-
billion dollars. This estimate
dy , and a summary of the estimate
o
43
q
o
4->
0
rrj
0
G
H
H
<
P
ro rH x;
3 4J
m O
G O »H
3 0
G CO
0 U 4J
-i—i fd
fd rH N
E id -H
UJ P
H rd
-p x:
TJ rd 4->
G x:
N 4-J rji
H C
rH tfl iH
H G T3
O O
C tO =
3 =
CM ui
O X
(0 rd 13
en v-t c
X (U QJ
G Pu <
C rH W
•H rd rd
H
rH G 4-t
3 -P M
in G
43 3
O G
4J id x:
u
TJ W rQ
G G P
E 10
•H tfl U)
f a pipeline is farfetched to some
11 possibilities should be explorec
G 4-1
o ro
H x:
4-> 4-1 •
0 >i
C OJ 13
> 3
OJ G P
A -H to
G 0)
4-1 43 >
rd -H
4J 3 C
G
H J3 M
O G 0
0 E u
G -H
S-i 4-> fd
S -H rj
x: 3
4-) C
tjl
c
-M
O
QJ
C
id
Li
4J
0
UJ
u
-H
1
0
u
G
G
x:
P
4J
fd
4-1
10
OJ
4-1
0
c
4-1
*s
r-l
G
g
d
en
CM
CN
I
0
O
US
£
D
o i
£ ;
0
D.
03
CN
^
0 1 rH U
£ o 0 43 <^
a) O Q 1 rH
C QJ C
0) — . 4J o 4J
E to w H in
C M rrj 4-» 3
O U S rd Cn
V4 — C 3
H C CP<
> 4-1 Id H
c c G en -
fjj G O Q) CP
E 0 Q C
P G H
m 4-J G G r-l
M P H H G
Q W S W K
G
i
'O
in H
3 C
O G
i£> rtj
H
G C
4: G
-P g
G
0 in
0)
P t)
C H
E G
0 >
0 rH
•H
O c.1
4->
U
CO P
3 rd
rH
G 4-»
G 4-1
C H
0 3
QJ CO
G >i
rH Id
G tO
-P CO
id o
H H
> 43
13 G
OJ X!
U Q
CO M
T3
G G
to rd
0
in
r-q
f<
T3
fd
U
P
M
G
43
4->
m
o
rH
ffl
G
!H
CQ
in
G
CP
id
C
O
G
P
J-i
0
G
M
G
t-i
id
w
G
fd
>
G
to
G
M
C
O
C
H
)H
OJ
43
U
•H
a
43
4-1
ro
w
4-1
C
8
tn
43
c
4-1
G
E
rd
c
G
>i
0
P
13
G 4-»
t> to
3 rH
rH fN
rH
G 3
rH CP
G 3
3 <
U
H
C
0
V4
P
O
G
H
G
4-1
fd
P
in
S-i
G
p
c
M
""
w
4-1
rd
T)
G
43
4-»
MH
0
M
G
a
QJ
G
4-»
+J
ro
X!
4-»
0)
G
H
rH
G
43
G
E-43
G
3 •
rO 0)
> 3
rH
ord
in>
EH o
in
G -J
4J
G 0
-P 43
M 1
O '-o
QjCTi
G
O
O G
r-l G
0 fd
M M
V-l
G G
x:
rH 4J
rO
O tP
-H C
X! H
fd M
r-4 0
O G
D. V-i
>i
P C
H
id
4-t
G C
rd u
E -H
X
M O
G 4J
X!
4-J "C
•H M
Q) fd
"8
§3
H in
4-t
id Q)
M 43
0 -P
O O
H
1
00
CN
G
1 3
C rH
O fd
G >
0 u-
MH J
H
e
O.P
Q. CO
G
*£> O
. ,H
G
TI x:
C 4-1
rd
G
tn 4->
10 O
G H
4J ^
c
TJ H
G
P td
fd 4-1
H rd
Q) W
id
0 O
E -
a,4J
Q, 0
G
• r-l
•H O
U
CO
G 4->
3 0
rH C
rd
> G
G rd
§U)
4-»
M tO
G
M P
G
3T3
0 G
rH P
rd
G U
43 G
E-<
G
4-»
G
rd
4-1
G
43
CP
-H
X!
Q)
H
O
0
rH
P
3
O
43
rd
0
QJ
T3
3
4-1
H
E
0
M
G
TJ
o
a>
01
M
43
4-»
G QJ
43 >
0
043
4-* rrj
UJ
U
H
C
O
O
G
M
G
P
fd
P
to
M
G
P
M
0
-p
to
p
G
G
0
O
G
X!
4J
O
c
ro
G
to
G
43
P
H
3
to
0
4->
C
a.
G
S
W
4-1
ra
0)
43
4-1
O
4-t
H
4-)
•H
M
0
M
4-J
0
CJ
-
-------
X
0
o
Q
2
UJ
O
a.
O
ntal Protection Agency Page 2 August 21, li
QJ
§
0
-H
d
w
in
0)
4-1
rd
4J
Cfl
TJ
0)
H
d
106 -mile site are almost prohibitive because
ease in costs compounded by the limited number
el to that location. We would, therefore,
study be made of potential means of trans-
QJ
x:
-P
0
-P
Qj
"2
rH
W
OJ
tn
fd
J-i
QJ
S
in
u >
0 £ rH
H 4-J d
o
H d H
rrj rd 4J
HUH
*J TJ
d x: TJ
(0 U ffl
4-> H
WX! d
xi 3 fd
3
in in 4J
a fd
u H x;
x! x; 4J
4-) in
^
o o fd
s expensive.
0}
OJ
rH
0)
M
fO
O
.c
d
o
•H
4J
4~>
M
O
ft
cean-going vessels be somehow utilized to
the 106-mile site? Can the sludge be towed
or can it be taken on board as either ballast
partments? If anv of these ideas are feasible
an-going traffic to handle the volume of sewer;
s area?
o
c
fd
o
01
e
fd
X
0)
VH
0
TJ - g
d in o
o n u
>, OJ
QJ £ OJ
xi H tn
fd fd
0) 4J M
tn d o
3 o in
rH
tn rH >1
r3 4J
4-J W &
r-l 0 E
O QJ QJ
PJ tn
w H d
d TJ H
fO
H d H
4J H O
QJ H
u x:
O -P
-P d
d -H
-H TJ
O 0)
H 4J
4-4 fd
D 0)
tn d
QJ
0) D1
0) QJ
x: en
4-1 ^0
3
H en
trial pretreatment requirements be relaxed
ible method of disposal at the 106-mile site
could have serious economic consequences for
in tn in
3 fd H
TJ 0) x;
d 4-1 EH
H
d -H 0.
fO -H TJ
u fd 01
u a
H 0
• fc rH
ro 0 QJ
d >
O 0)
OTJ
QJ
QJ
d -Q
rO
d
4-f td
H U
n some cases, the requirement of industrial
jnerous burden on small and medium sized
it additionally difficult for this area to
•H u in
d oj
QJ fd x
u fd
C tn E
H QJ
tn u in
rd H
4d rH x:
O & EH
-H
tr» 4-J
QJ C •
H 01 in
E QJ
tn 4-J in
H fd W
x: QJ QJ
-P n d
4-> H
n QJ in
0 H 3
<44 Qj X)
ro
1
s investment, and we would note that this
xperience a net outflow of industrial jobs ove:
to QJ
Q)
d o
H 4-1
(0
3 TJ •
QJ H QJ
d 4J >i
d
V-i 0 o
O O fN
(n 4->
-P .d fd
QJ Qj
a id
E l> 01
o M x:
U fd 4-1
an environmentally sound method of disposal
s costly in the aggregate, including cost to
s well as cost to industrial users, then the
active. In any event, we would like to have
evaluation.
Very truly yours,
GREENSTONE & SOKOL
d tn rtj M VH
H OJ 4-1 O
rrj H H 4-1 U-i
-P rH fd
d >! QJ QJ
H rH J >!rH
rd QJ MX)
E 4-) 0] 01 fd
fd fd > -H
d E H
fd H >i QJ rd
U 4-J 4-1 J3 >
rH H fO
0) 3 M TJ
3 0 rH fd
tn x! 3 4-)
U-l H -M O fd
M 3 O TJ
U d QJ
x: x! rH o
3 -P a E
en u
8°
3U !
U t
(N
E-44
-------
§ *
C C
o o o
•H -HMD
O O O
CD CD OJ
+J +J
4 O O •
80J H Q
C rt
a -H +> -
^ C c
• TO QJ O
^ S f -P
C UO
- - o c
EH *n J^H
4J -H X
c
>» Q)
rH X «H
CO S O
>
"4 O W
•P f1- C
O O\ CD
Cd rH CJ
H
C CD 4°
CD O -H
.Q.H °
W 0)
cd UO P
X C
>>'ft 0
"*"* §
O -H
O £ 4^
cd c
X QJ 0)
3 0^>
O ro
§ °
§ •£
c
*H -H O
O +1 +J
cd
W H 'd
J-i CD 0)
CD ^ H
•P H
O (0 Cd
> e o
0)
OJ ,Q CO
6 0 ^
O !M -H
"* P, >> >i
to 4-* cd
O -H ,O
S E
C -H CD
CD O 4J
X tn
^ CD
O 4J O
CO 'H
CD CO
4>H fc
O O
to x
H C CO
•H
X C
•P 0) ti
3 -H CD
O X
S 4-> +*
C H ^
*" CD
QJ M CD
C X -H
rH CO CO
CO C
C CO
>> rt +»
H CD X
ft O CD
Q) O
SgS
d o
to
4^ C
*d -i-f rt
3»4.
CD 5?"8l
'H {Q "H
*H ^ pa
cd
C
•rH
CO
W}4-> C M £ C) ,0
rt) £ p,
TJ i
CD QJ *d
.C C
CD UC
O 'd
C 3
OH
O CO
« s
•P C CD
C -H E.
3
0 >>QJ
O -P X
C -P
co 3
X O O
4J O -P
CO
tl
o
cci
s
3
•H -
WCX
3 QJ
•H rt -d
4s O
X C CD
4^ In
TJ
C -H 4J
c
OS"
•H >>
rt o 4->
•H X CO
•H Cd
P - PH
H
-P ^
H""* i
Up-H
CO t-l GJ
3 cd 4>
d°X C
,3 0,3
X 4J
4J t,
3 1-4 £
0 0
,O CO CD
CD 0)
•H X
•d 5
- C en
QJ P 5 -d
X X o
•H C 4->
'H ft
4J X rt
CO 3 0
O CO ft
ft= 4-3 CO
TJ X o1
4-* CO QJ
CO r(3 4J
ttD'XJ rt rt
3-d *d tn
tO H rt 4^*
Q) C tlQ rt
X-H C
S C 4^
•-H 3 -H CO
s fei 3
4J
-d 14 JH -H
CO O tn C
O CD
O H O CD
CD O
C H +1 >
o cd co
CO CO O
*>.S OH
C 4^ rt 3
So >
QJ O :
CO 4^ S *n
CD 1
UO S
3 OJ_ O
4^ V, -p
X cd
^ C 5
0
rt 3 CH
H C
D O m
X P, 0)
4J O
t, o
•d -H
CD Pi^H
•H H
cd to
0) CQ
4-> CD
rt >i en
(.% o CD
CO -H
OH43
X ^ -C
fcj) cd C
d
C rt'^
b H P
4-1 ft
• H 'O
C o a
S tf
OT CO
>> ft
H rt --
•H to-P
•a to ^
alternati
ei.erated
bo
c
rt >»
M H
o
to
o o
ftp
o
ft a)
-p rt
4-> -H
o o
o ri
P<
co rt
,0
to
-p
>>-H
S C
4J CD
CO X
4J 3
O
FH 0
0) X
ft V-1
4°
H
CO
H
O
CD
4^
<1)
3
ft
0
1
W)
C
•H
O
S
M
C
O
01
-P
QJ
^
rt
cd 3*X to
T3 X O 41 O
S T) P 4^ -H
- 0 C rt T3
£-1 4-> rt QJ H
CD -P O TJ
> CO (O H CD QJ
Q> 'd iH W (-1 3
1 rt rq ft c
OS QJ ft-rt
C -C -H y
• O P S O O
•H -H O rt O
P W H 4^
• rH cd T3 QJ
tO X Q) QJ **• ^
O SH X O
ft CD CD P •
O > 0) C
CD C O 4J t. O
S d o p co -H •
rt > O X 4' CD
ri c; cd o i
U) -H bJ>H
H tH ftT? C H >>
nP 3 C ft ft C
H 'O -H S rt CD
H QJ C bO'O *d f~t
o -o1 cd c CD
X CO C H rt P
T3 O <1) rt H CO
O O O CD 3
4^ 0 ,0 -P O ^
bT'H O 4^ O
CD O W rt ^
•H 4J CO O --H ^
p cd ft co -P rt
C X >» bo co rt co
0 4^ P TJ 4J C CO
O CO O S^ CO
•P O H CO CO CJ
CO O i S Vi P CD
5 rt 4^ 0 J CO X QJ QJ -rH
H X P CD X S
rt bO QJ to X
o co C h bO UO
•H 4-1 -H O Ei -P -r)
co rt 4^ c -H rt m
rt "H rt o f-> X
fl) O C O O 41 0
CD-H -P X
^ P CD -H +> +>
ft-H SCO
P,H O O Cd C
rt CO 10 E: 'H -iH
X C,
>i tn o o co
H "-t t-i O >
H 'M H C "H
CO > CO 4->
H 4J C l~< -H
o rt co cu to
In X *M C
S flj s^c tn
S *d -*-1 ft
O QJ 3 CO
O > H C LJ
CO H O S
H H ft CO
P ,a cd -H X
•H en P
rH tO T3
• H -H a) C
>> OHO
H P > -H
CD -H rt s w
> 1 CD
•H CD O\O >
4-> CO 4^ O -H
Cd 3 H 4->
CD O H CO S
J-i QJ -H C", ti
^D ,D 4^ 3J
^ "d S CO H
0 C > rt
X rt ^ o
tO H J-. C
rt -P ft ^ -
t/J CO C P-. CD ^H
rt ^ CD rt X H
X rt -H 4^> CD
O 0 3 X
X QJ -H 4> Or/1
CJ X Vt tO
•H -p IH ;>, ,_(
X 3 >H ^ rt
5 C to rt o P
••H en c
X QJ tO C CD
O CD k OJ S^ C
J-i *H d O CD — 1
rt -^t co X 4^>
CO H X C +> ^
CO bj} ^ O
CD 0 3 4^ 0 0
[-, -H O H C
X ^ CD
C 4^ X H 0 >
CO OJ 4J -°
•d ^ b^tt-i o
QJ C t< 3
to CO "H CO CO T5
rt H co ? X o
'-q p to 4-1 ^
rt rt ••H ft
3 ft4^ 0>
H C '0
cd C CD o C
> -H C 4^ Cd
O) >j 4-> OJ
P X -H X
en rt P
r-^ 3 tJ O O In
X CT1 OJ P 4J X CO
P CO rH UDTJ
•d H "O OJ 3 C
X rt rt CD o o 3
p
•H UO
•H
40 rQ
rH >
X o
0) tl
ft
Cfi
6 o
H
P JJ
o to
Sj O
ft 0
hO CD
H P
c to
')j '
c rd
o o
0 O
4^ CO
p] t-t
X QJ
C
tO 3
3
O >t
H H
>-H
O H t- X
C H 4^ H -H
o P w ri rt
H t'l -H !J)
W 4J P
CD ^i [P tO
^ rt •;
cd rt oj aj
*^ rj C H -H
H -H H tO
4^ H H
0 (0 CO -P OJ
UO cl > 01 H
rt o rt H
co 4-= o r
-IX PJ 4J 0
-p -P CX.rH H
d ^
F rJ en o X
OX 0 4^
tn P 'M
o w co
tn ry -H to
rt O QJ X "3
S 0 CJ -fj
PC o
p cd 4^ 4J
IH >^rH rt
Tl H X W
. C H P ft
ai rt QJ -iH
O tO > hf)X*
C ^ C CD
^a -d rt 4-> 3 -H
o rt H cd to -"^ co
OJ
p
4-> tO
•H O
"
QJ CO
> >
0) -H
q cc
CD
H
aj
H C N
• F-l CD O -H H
CD S-, -H O tv
> rt c; ft o
^ H O ftX
3 H ^ rt 4°
to -H 4J tO 3
> o »H rt
C C rH 0
rt rt co to P
F: -H
C H O P rt
H ,Q t|-t 1— * 'Jl
ft S 0
ft QJ 13 -ft
•H cn
S
S
i:
§
S 2
E-A5
-------
CO rd Q
>> QJ O
i/J t, rH -H
O cd rD H-5
4-1 C/J O Cd
CO 73 rH S
a o ft cd
^ O rH
OJ rH U
0) t-,' Cd O
CO P rH
3 >> £
OJ i-H QJ -t-
i^ C rd
O --H 0 4-s
rd H
T5 OJ > 0
(U CJ O
•H 4-> d
CJ LI -H
-H a> o 4-j
O ' CJ
s-: o -i; x
O 0) -P +1
.Q ,H
'j £ -
n rHi w o
C
rO cd o
a o 4J
O TJ
U rH G) fcl
rH P C
J '' > H Li
ft '"
(J -rH TJ b£
a) In
rH * cd 4'
rH CO 3
-•j.0 4-> "-:
rH -rH C
J W CD 0>
V, CO £ JH
cj o QJ cd
5-. P ri cj
•H 4->
TJ
O
O
ft
cd
ft
I_)
CJ
H
aj
0
rd
U)
o
CJ
d
j-
•rH
CJ
,£-
rH
iH
1 OJ
< •
4'
TJ 0
fd rH
id rJ
P W rO
•0 o b]
rH 0
ft r H
P ,i_ OJ
.C cti
HJ o X
rH 0)
CD 4J -
(M O •
0 t-0
01 C
ri ti
x >.,
'.iD CJ
fl 4> O
• H rJ o
rH rt
— ' to
ft 1 O
i3 C 4J
u! ft QJ
CJ i 3 4J
0 U r-l
SH -r3
P-i O
T CJ
X ;•{ to
•*•> -H rt
X 0
41 CJ (t t
•H 0
'-' ''J
".1 i
^ P rH
-P O £
cd o
SH rJj
CJ C,1} -H
4-> -H x
cd P
-P -H CJ
4->
O 0 C
O O i— t
QJ
P •
y -~^
cox
0 rH P
O rH O
t, 01 F:
r> £'•
,3 Q -
rH 'O Cd
rH t, 0,
•H -H rH
OJ Cd 3
5n X O
-J P
P rH ^
fd rQ O
X Cd rH
4' f, rH
o
TJ OJ '
rH -H
air"
d
CJ
4J X
£i
o
L'J
3 c:
•H Q)
OJ +1
>
o
CJ
OJ QJ
rH 3
,0 rH
cd CM
•H -H
3 01
0)
TJ O
Q) C
TJ CO
•H p.
) C 0
0 rH
O -H
CJ
o cd
4->
CD o
i P
O O tn
M 0
W CJ
CJ CO O
o o G
tH O
QJ Cd CJ
o
o o
OJ
o
ft t: 4->
H O
CU bJ3 tl
£ cj
CO TJ
O
4-1 P QJ
cd
. > .
O X "H
0-H -P
C a>
cd '-i, w
O QJ
4-> rH O
0 rH
b.,1 cd
r «H
•H cd CJ
•H QJ C7
§£ X
. 0 4-3
H ' -H i',
C, c
QJ P
*H 0)
(H CO
tJ O
p
£ a)
rH _D
W HO
O -H
U
0) ~i
4-1 13
LJ
q S)
rj I~;
SH 4»
X t)
4-> cj
-[^ ^i
C C)
R C-
-H ;
u> a'
0) 4-
^3 C
r-l
TJ 1
s: Mrb
rl -H
M p Q/)
0) Q) £
^^ cd
• p
F rH
o ri
Tf-H
' c? cti
.rl+> OJ
X CO rH
4^> -H
O j; \o
co cd o
0) rH
<;.; " o
OJ
P
CJ
QJ
'+-t
Kl
"H
i1^
'd
O
i-i
(3
J", -P
4J W
O
C OJ CJ 0)
cd co cj r^ P
to H TJ"
p 3
-H bf
1 OJ Q £
X ft-H
-p >
4-' O
UO O P
f. '"
OHO
£d rH CM
> to
X
rJ t"
oi rd
ai hj)
c/i
nl -
2 a>
«l 4'
o
0
CJ
CJ
o
-p
-H
cd
OJ
fl
o
6
(J
to
cu
CO
4J
bO
C
>
^
cd
O
CJ
a
cd
rH
O
OJ
cd
O
0)
0)
-p
(r-l
QJ
•H
cd
o
CO
CM r;
OJ
01 E:
3 O
tfl c,
3
O
£ Vi
O
rH
TJ Cd
QJ SH
X CJ
oj rt
rCJ S
, 0 P
QJ
C -H
cd QJ
0) >
4' 0»
rH
OJ
rH
CJ
c
r/1
i rt rtJ .C to u)
(.. > aJ to !> o (H 4-
4J
§C 1
HJ rHJ 3 O
0^4^ .rH
»C
TJ O H O
ri ft+* .
(3 O O
SlH
-P r^-0
H 0)
O -P O rH
0 JS C
•H 4* 0>
O -H 3 W
W)-r( *'
CO C
CO H +*
'« C?^ £
0) -M Q a>
rHrH ft
(-1 O "H O
aj HJ g
ra to
<1) «H TJ >
CD 3
C CO rH
M 0) S
cd £
ft ft-P rf QJ OJ
S o w +»
X TJ •
** rH
^* ^
+>
6 &
sl
W)
- c
>>-H
3
O
-C
n
Jed
T)
o
-p ft
-5 v
"H CD tlO
O rH 0)
O
H o X
rH C CO
Cfl C rH
C id o rJ
4) O -H
rH P.S
W N O
g .C 0
IH
0) rH
QJ Cd
SCO
O rH
CD
•H H-3
rH C!
o
TJ
£ 0) QJ*
« P rQ
QJ rH Cd
"O-rH §
3 ttn O
w 3
M - rH
CO rH
0) to cd
O -rH 3
K) rH rH
O OJ
C £
•H • O
TJ O
S rH iH
rH O "H
W)
3 >,
rH rH
CO t)
o
O QJ
ft CO
W 3
c
(d QJ
p
O CO
p
CO
£ -rH.
QJ
I-P
OJ cd
rH X
3
SH -H
>>
UO OJ
CJ CO
0)
QJ CJ
P 0
0) -H
TJ 0)
•H rH
CO
C QJ •
O P CO
O -H .H
CO Cfl
o cd
P CO rO
rH
TJ -H F1
0) 6 "H
QJ 1 r-J
CVD QJ
0) H C
X -rH
X d
-P Cd
O C
P 0
VO
rH O O
cu cu tiO
x to c
TJ .
O P rH
txO
C 4->
rd cu X
"S c 2
•H
O -H
0 TJ 5
a> C
rQ -H bfl
CO -H
CO ,0
H OJ
-"E 0)
TJ -H ~£~,
Cd C SH
rH CTJ
QJ O C
X ca
P >5rH
0 H^-
X cd
4-1 Q) (U
C H Cd
o to
CJ QJ
a o
.p
• IH Qj r
OJ O X
d w
H X
^,-H -fj
d -H -
S -"H o '
4J & CJ
P X d
t-; 4-1 rH
t ft
!>» I> O
•H CJ O
n LI
e o
OJ 1^
0
O X
H
cd o •
0 cQ
iO rH 3
H ,O rH
CO
O O O
CO fafl
o d H
X ft
CJ (H 3
d o a
0
en to o
4-> CH
Cfl Ti 0
X 0
4-1 Cd
C OJ
-H tn -P -H C QJ
• H -H
4' rH
llO ^3
i~; to
o id o
• H rH
O >> ij
11 rH >
CO J
IH 0 -
(d -H T3
C1' rQ rj
O
4J a
O CO ft
d -H H
C) X -5
n FHT!
-P -H 0
cd CD cti
CO SH -P
QJ
£ cd
QJ QJ rH
o 4^ -a
*'£ a)
S^ "H tO
O d
d ON
rH -rH
r* CD
fclO In CJ
Q) U X
rH ,11 +'
• H Q -P
4-> 0) | 3 4^ d
rH r^COlH bfl rOOCJtO X
Q) CJ OJ 'H E O O -H " " O crt 4J
fHiDOCOD^PrH ftQJ " tOrH
X ft td QJ d o co o id QJ cd CJ
CjP ^tnXP3G; QJSn ii
•d o rH e ,Q CH -H ra PH+J
aitoCajtoni oo>i^il us
cocdiuoo-p ^s^d K
o 4-1 &.4-1 -H aj d cj -H (,•) -a co
o-Hwa;i~ sso -rHoo
4JIH rH O dr^rQ S 3rHfH
«aj O CJ X O >> C .Q CD CO -H -rH UJ
3 30J4JO OO4> CO 0> IH
tf, tO CT'X O 4-' r-i -H JH O 4° rH ,Q 4-* CJ
CO 4-1 O 4J P< TJ Cti OJ H ,'.'.
>> 0) TJ X W r-i -H X > +-> 41
rQrH^JbJ}4J.iH TJQJO50JO'd
O,] IH O • 4 5 4^ 6 O H-1 E tj rd O
-d?T) 'H O '.OOIH40 C
•H'jOCOlHC r3 CuPf-i QJJ
-H >, 3 IH ti -H rH Ci CH 0 rJ (0 si.
CO bO H ^ H -H g UD C O -rH £ "4
ocjo cjo QJ OJ aJ^Ocy
QJ C Q) F ^ ttflrH D rQ Cd I-i O ft
4->COrHrH ^C5i4 OrHu
CO -H -H rH O -iH O O 'CJ ^ X !H
0 Q ^ n QJ d -H 4-* C rH (J -H ^ 0)
O -H r-( | X 3 rH ^J d X ,CJ t'J
d^3 4->C53O ^T)GJ4J^
x o aj H 'd -p ;^; o ^ o
QJ onJOO) CU 4'O
td ><; SH H-1 uj 4-= x o QJ f C 5 to ','
Q O in TJ 4-1 TJ -H -H 3 -H
SH x:4->OJt;C Od? 5: 4 =
CtJ CJ TH: cd ,C Oj *H rH £-1 £! cd rH 0) (i-H >-.
^H H 4-* .(H 4-' rH i" O (U
X -CO ^^4^ - CT ^ CU Ai +-1
X 3 X 3 d 3 C tlD Q> -•• tU 'n O ^.
( r 1 H
d C.T > P "J4
hJ O QJ IH C O
^} p., CM o
rH ^ Cd H O 0
,J CJ X O ':J
OJ 4J .0 F ") r;
L d H o «: rH
X rH ^ W>
a; 4J jj r ' ,^:
4J -0 M r-l rH
d ai rH ' o > :
rH X .M
^ T) o < ; o
- CQ rH " H M
CJ '0 U <--,'
c C S-i d : j v •> ,n J-i
0 rf IJ iJ 0
L< - ' -H O H J
a! H 41 -r-i 4J
rH ^ 0 0 '
tO 5l ^ (J 1' H ' J
" "1 u) ^ 0> JH Q
3 x; E-; cu -i
TJ il 4-1 - O -H ^
ul IH CJ LO CH
T? 3 C O H ?! rJ
.-* t, ' CJ r'-l i)
i-l O - O t.1 rH
SH ^4^0'
G) PH • l 1 -r' ','
T-> uJ 4i 1 "-f ri -1
£ 4J i ! r-4 >
•fl 4' f) - - C> "
d cd x /J o -i
o -* o a
In '-> L-i,'C ..
d O rH ' rH S-i t
' -H n rH i
w o ; i r ) ^-1 r-i -'
--: -c 4-' ri n -
T< "S J-, r- . '
OJ "3 ,> \
''"* '• ' * i *r '
CJ
"
^
4-
r-H
rH
O
p.
^
S-,
-j
i
'-'
O
o
-J
c.
E-A6
-------
QJ I- -C i—
T— IO 40 3
O O
o> c: c: .c
at QJ 10
J C 10-40
(O OJ -i-
O 40 -C Oi
CL O tO 40
E c-.- c
•i- W^- (O
-* "0 C
O) J- t- -r-
S» rt) O E
E <-> C ro
O O> 3 QJ
at +J ai at c
S- - CL (- O
ro C X ra •!-
00) 4->
i at ra ta t-
J- c s- a>
3 O O -to
CTI at
•i- O
to Ol
O CL
.— tO
: t. at CTI 1-1 at CL
o
o
UJ
O
£ I* 8
o
<
_j
H
<
V,
V
o •*
4- 1.0
s- n;
O 3
(O "~"
S- to
to O
C 40
•r- (T3
E t-
O
40
c E
OJ
0
S-
a. o
10
rO O
4-> CM
C
QJ O
C
s_ c
"> °
(-O I/)
*ry concerned
o
c
o
OJ
E
at
ra
c
s:
t.
QJ
10
O
•i-
4-> -M
at i
a;
.
z: -c
ra
QJ
en
O c
QJ (O
i— - ai
fO
at
t. QJ
C
r- 3 0)
C J-
(U CT) 3
O S_ O
—i 01 -M
X! C.
ro E Ol
QJ QJ J-
0) C
C CO -r-
'"" c: cr>
en o r-.
r- t/) ,-H
a.>— i
E LlJ «
•a QJ <\J
-c
ra to
04-3
•r- o en
E 3
.C CL
CJ O
-C (O "O
c: at
0 ••-> 10
J3 -Q ro
?r the
ive reques ted
iem to be on
perso nnel
o at
•U *J CL
c c o o
i- (O C S-
QJ a.
IJ CT) O
c c "O at
O «- -C
U CL.— 4J
-a 3 -r- >,
LO C 4->
i- a> 3 c
X O 10 C
QJ Ol ro
>j CT> U
10 10 -C O
O -i-
•r- S- -O +J
s- 10 o s- at
CL-r- CL4J 4->
4- O O
OJ i- •— • QJ
> c a. s-
-C 4- • O
•M O 4-> U
QJ U 10
3 ro ~a -i- at
-c: E E
3 O C rO
O i — <4- -i— E
+j at
O O .11 O
Ol
c
)
to
•r- O
(O -Q
E
QJ
> at
-r- -C
to 4-
C O
OJ
OJ
4-> CL
•r U
Q. 1-
O O
CL"O
CL C
iccumulati ng
:remely remote
X
-C Ol
•i- 10
4~ ^
4- ro
O Ol
i — O
fO -C
-Q 4->
O
s- E
Q- 0
OJ 4-
1/1 C
-*-» E
O d
ro
4-
*J O
O trt
OJ OJ
QJ
1 — U
O
i seem to depe
ii grations .
3 O)
O .C
3-t->
10 4-
•i- O
-C
r— 4->
C
at
-C X
4- at
QJ 4_>
•(-> -D
o
rO
I- S-
3 ra
4->
>,
I- C
O •!-
13 to
S- C
cri O
t- -I-
ro
CD-M
-c: QJ
QJ c:
-C 0
o c
4->
C 3
QJ O
X
QJ 4J
at JT
c >
3
0
C **-
O
0
o
QJ ro
QJ QJ
to O
ro QJ
-C 3
i- QJ
O S-
at
O
QJ T-l
^
4-> 01
- +_>
O
I- C
4- .,-
t- to
^Z r-
ro QJ
4-
4-
tfl lO
QJ ra
OJ r-
o. at
t we a re adv i sed 1
durinn the wintel
ot i-
>, 0)
4-> 3
r- CL
QJ QJ
-Q
0 O
C 40
.— OJ
r- >
r- 0
E -c
OJ to
r- T-
O QJ
CLl—
ro
01 ra
E
3 -C
to U
tO 3
le important
; a means to
-M QJ
3 CT)
o -a
QJ
•- 3
o
0 ^
H-
QJ
QJ ^~
3 ro
QJ C
QJ ro
• at
40 OJ
O
i/l S-
o
QJ
4^ ro
0 i-
40 S_
ro
CT) to
IO
3
O
3
QJ
O
Q.
CJ
40
3
O
s_
QJ1
40
O
~o a;
ro -C
•i- QJ
E 40
QJ
£T r—
w
-C Q.
r-
rtJ CL.
QJ ro
CL Ot
D--C
E-47
-------
Q
fQ
v ** m
ten [-•
— . o\
Q} *
"n
^^ CO
CD *
Nil* to
u- a
3
<
CD
v+—
T3
£
03 §
c c
.0 °
4—* u
03 I
z g.
— 5
z
Il'lfen £
00
m
I
5 c
5 0)
M tr>
pa •<
c c
o o
•H --H
• -H > rH
M .C C 0
S 0 W*
I
C
to
10
S
CQ
g
41
O
O
41
-r-t
£
1
O
.H
O
W-rl
H 4>>
H «l
C-H
4J
C 4
U 4)
!£ ID
Z S
c
o
•H
4->
«J
M
rH
O CN 4J H
C G
H W
-P G
nj E
0) Q 0
tj o
0)
01
•H
rH
rH
•H
rH
(8
g
•H
4J
id
1
01
n ^
U) (0
rH
U 0)
S ffl
4) H -P
« E rt
U
a
&
4J
U 0)
0) 10
•n 0)
35
u
HI O
5 v
u
o c
•p at
H->
0) to
to fl
O to
a
to a)
a g
.5 .
4-1
n c
8§
84-)
U
•P 4) 4->
3 1 °
3 0 M
"3. 4-)
P C
0) C -H
.c a> o
4J 10 S.
01
•p M >
J*s
4J . >
4-» • tO
ffl 2;
01
."c-S
fv o e
2 4->
55 C 13
H M
x; «J
x: -H fo >
4J H O
X! G *
>i 0 C
E flj 10 rH -H C
H tt O J3 'D 41
O g
rH 3 T3 M
o a* rt H
nJ 0 13
x; O
C G -rl
4-> 0 4J
-H o u id
flj 0) O-H
5 ^ S
o> *a
u • -P
•H C -H X
O W O
WH 1 3
H 4J \£> tfl
U ffl 0
"BH8
0) O 0) «W
5 c5 c
-H O
O "H -H
-P rH 0 4J
3 HI
0 01 O -H
•H B -H 1H
U 10 4J
M -H -H -n
>i tO
3 > 13 -P
OrH 3
"W U id tT
O E 01
tQ
S a° o.
>1 M
M oi a>
01 > W
<3 X!
oi a to -P
4J 01 01
•H M 4-» Q)
W £X-rt iH
tQ 13
xj oi tr>4J
4-> -H W
in O S 3
0 -H O
4-1 T3 iti -H
§1 x
0) C
H M 3
W U
W *H >i
0) M O H
x: M
4J >^ 0) flj
Sr^SS
C 0) O-H
•H 'O T3 4J
e o> «
• nj iJ
— 0)
u >*-)
'O 01
<0 to -
fa 01 W 01
a* c5
4-> rH -H 4-1
X) 4J W
C ID <0
•H tPXl
13 > -H
C-S Q^
tfl rH 0) rH
01 rH 4-* -H
M -H -iH 4->
O
4-1
rH
0)
O
O
to
•H
H
0>
M
CU
01
5
3.5 U
« ,
- — - C ^^^
01 it)
•H to i
Si _~^V
•00 >i ^si
CO rH ^
-^ 13 M i
4) 4) ^taM
to ^ o r\
to o G m
41 15 -H 1 I
h -P Ul *
•D 4J
•0 ra >. <
ffl V '
rts AS
rH 4J ^"^
•H
S C
•H
U)
H T3
W 0)
to
rH -H
(0 Id
G ^
•H
h to
0) r-t U)
X! 0* 4^
4J O -H
|8I
*J OH Ed
3
4J O T3
10 -H 0)
3 h-g
M (0 G
-P > 01
H 0) (X
s *
0)
"85
4J -H 0)
§4J ID
P U
4J i-H C
D] tH (0
H-» -H O -P
•-t to ^
Sow
« TltH
> C U
• S H-H
•4M OX
1 -4J 0
5.-I 0 EH
4) 0)
4> to M 'O
C C'H C
C 3 Q 5
0) O
K U
•«*.
M
C O
O C
n S
M O
0) U
T3 -
s°
to
M nj
HI g
•P O
g ..
I °°
4J
4J U
< U
m
k.
£«
yj
5S
Is
Si
5
tt
J= C
al
§1
s
•o
1
VII
"e
E
o
<*~
i 1
•? ">
VI 3
VI S VI C M °
3^5 gt 2-S
C *- ^ "5> -O U «
C U r-r- E O 41
^
t-
1
ex
f. 41 ^
•jf <5s5'£"»f
r- jc o. "x: 5
4) >>JkC*C 5 >, k.
a "tt O (d T3 -» 41
£^S^«SO^
4*
«
-o
C
.C
-c:
if
«
O
VI
S- 1
3 C •*->
«•£ • C
*o> at vi S
•—«/»«*
^^
fill
To
ai
I-E jj
L. E *a
E .c
^^ i- H- ••-
u* a c c
•— at x *
t— u c a. c
4)
5 |
E ?.
2 S
0 *^
ll
« S «
oca
C 4J C
CO -C O
OI
41 ••-
5|
4J tf)
(O •*-
X CL
S5
41
U
4-*
,!
VI VI U
vi 3
|t|
« V> fl
&O.x:
535
-C
4->
C
*~
•?
£ j-
c •*-
C O-^r-
1
^l
a»
41 VI
id o
L. O
a. c
§|
Itatrlx
Ippurus
ii
h
j.
II
5§
ai
at T3
l|
4J "O
II
§
vi 0>
r— C
•ss
0^
-O >
£ £
ll
* 4-> 3
3 U 3 -C •
c
C 4-»
E
3 C
*vi at Of
£ O^j 0 S
o5^<^
at
3
2
3§ "
at x 10
o ••-» S
c
**
« c a>
4-» f- VI
Sill
S5:§!
VI
c
(O
u
c
c
1
£
k.
g
S
n
•a
J3
a
•*•* *Q
CL e
k. ID
S 0
c
"i
^
^-r^C
'fe^ 3
'c "*
4-> T3
1
01
•a
c
t_
5
-a
1
~£
Oi
S1
^
c
-------
C
o
~a
CD
CD
M—
T3
C
o 2;
(X O
2; o H
O Cn ir<
H i<
EH EH 2i
< !S U
S W H
W £ tO
Q W W
W EH D
EH W
W CO E-i
CM H
H EH W
rH U
H £ CO r-
£ H O °^
Ck rH
r3 ,-; to
2; EH Q 2:
O Z D
EH g E-i
S3 O <
« S
W H
E-< 5 <
W K
&4 CJ
O EH O
w S j
a G H
W . E
O EH 0
U rH
c m
(0 Q) QJ 0)
w en o rH 10 QJ
0 fC 0
M .£ XI U QJ fn **
b-i c_) 4-H I-H u to ar--
D 0 (0 O E C1* '
t QJ W rH -H P rH 4-1
*— ' rH 4.J c fO TJ tJ a
•H CO a-H (fl QJ
C 1 0) -H 4-1 Q) C
0) ^C t> tO rH Q) O
§0 . 3 QJ XI -H *
rH -H C 13 > 4-i en
4-i g fO C QJ >i rd rd
fOflJ *Q)'HrHrHHQ)
4-) X; C U 1 rH 0 M
t/} 4J o ^ s to a <
o o o u M
4-) 14-1 G~i j-i rH-HOU
(0 !>i >4-i <0 »• O Xi
a OJ M w to 4-i en p
gcnrjjroQHtncjrd
H p 4J QJ aW-H-H M
tfl (0 W Q X! C CT
rH CT E 3 -|H- O O
rd C -H UQJOMQJ
4-1 -H X C XI W 4-1 U
QjClHQJX; fOOJ-O
g -.-( aXJ -P C rHQJ
5 4-1 a -H 0) W -P
0 C (0 10 M > O
MO tOQl3rtJQJQJ
•H U 13 X! *W Q) x; 4-1 rH
> tt) C rd 0)
CM-PQJ>iOW4JW
WOteJ-PrH-H0co
UH U -H -H 4-> > l-i C
4-) 0 tO r-i C -H Q) -H
4H C rH fll 4JEa en
id M a o x - o
Q) C to SO) QJlO
x; en • •» Q)|u>
EH -H rH QJ—^ X; to|-H
0) W n) 1 p -H
13 0 ? CQ O X! -0)
a id x: QJ 4J
QJWrH •4JrO4-1CO
x: -H QJ a -H cj -H to
4-1OO^-'i< tOWS
rH
1
CM
CO
QJ
x;
OJ
w
•P
u
CO — .
•u •*
QJ QJ
4-> U
(0 t)
S c
u
0 tfl
m u
>1 M
c e
H Q)
4-> 4->
M
U^H
o
CJ O
4-) S
XI
o
tO QJ
— -H Xi
ss a
- -P rO
, \
M « 4J
o x; o
S3— *0
Cr Q)
C 4-1
-H tfl
a QJ P
§ * oT
O -rl
0 rH
P C
U C -H
QJ -H |
3 4-> 1
0 C (0
rH O V-t
C 4-1
QJ fO -n
U
E C
UH -iH
QJ -H 0^
c E
rH 00
0) CTi C
4J QJ
OJ O
EH D XI
Xi -P
• Q) X
(N -H -H
rH
V£> 0>
—• rd
QJ -H
M 4J a
>i ro U
en
-H
4->
QJ
1
t,
0
4-1
•H
H
X,
C
c
c
o
4-1
01
c
01
•H rH C
CO QJ H
t QJ fO =
tO 4-1 -rl CO
QJ C O OJ
CO -H tfl =
rH o tn
U 4J JH QJ
o a oj 4->
C QJ C H
H 1j S-i IT.
4-> O
C JH U CJ
CJ -P 4^ E-i
tC CO
Q) Es. O
x; 5- •
• 4-1 0)
IH OJ in C
0 Cr O H
IH C O
C rH 0)
0 XI 4J
•H >,4J W
M 0) C QJ
O > -H XJ
a 4-1
en en a
w -H M o
IH CJ CO
01 ^ 4->
> c QJ a*
O rd E x:
U 4J
QJ O
QJ CO 0 C
H ex "
Cfl rH 10
O to E CJ
x: 4J o -P
£-< C Vi 0)
QJ 4-i E
•H QJ in
-P tJitN
C Ci^
O (0 -
O M M
QJ
QJ >
rH H
0 4J
~$. 4-1
QJ 4-1
X^ C
c cr
rt
x; o
4-J C
V-i W
OJ 0)
(0 >
rH 0
" M •
4-1 o QJ
0
c x; o)
•H O
- ffl
"CO 4-1
'S &H 3
• x: -
C EH QJ
MH -P
•H
» • U]
•H Q) CJ
a
Xi O
0) -H C
V-t PQ 0
(0 H
A -P
CD ^ rO
U 0 E
4-1 ro IH c
•H 1-3 p T
tn 10
E -H 4J c
P C '
13 tn CJ QJ
HE01
C en K 3
td rd co
u en o
0 § M c-
•H (0 K
£ rH 0
4-1 C 4-J
en c tU ro
rd -H >-i C
QJ C 6
to ro !H C
P 0 O
C -U
13 O CJ
0> C In
•H -H O 0)
4-J CX ^ W
C g (C 3
0 § XI
4- C
H )H 0 -H
O O D
0 -H
OJ 13 -r- 4-1
-P QJ -P C
H > CD O
CO O rH O
14 a
QJ a E JH
x; a o o
4-1 tO U 4-4
•H 0)
M CJ
-P X
H
0
VI 4-1
X. 4-1
-P O
c
-H 0
0) SH
4-> OJ
U rt!
CP VH
C O
a
g oj
L M
O
rO
CD C
U -H
O
C
C rO
CJ E
r4 Ctl
iH rH
O -H
rH
QJ -H
XI 3=
»n W
•P
to ro
E -P
0)
4-1 "Q
0)
0 >
x: o
-P VH
a
>i a
CQ to
CQ
CO XI T3
C M
X! QJ
4-) CO
P t
VH
O VH 0)
4-1 0 g
U- H
a 13
OJ CJ 4-1
U > 0
X G
0) r-l 13
a o
• in a)
• H a.
C 4-1
o, o x:
rH -P
QJ
>> en tn
SH P t.
P CP H
C C p
r-j p
C -P
•H 4-1 W
C tn
U' O
C U CO
-H -H
^ SH x;
•H O 4-1
X G
— a>
> c
CO C O
rt rH H
tO ft-P
0) C. (d
>i 10 tr
CJ W 3
OJ O E
S-. 4-1 O
XI -H >-|
-P w] a
o
0
r
M a «
-
e -H
M •-( rH
E-49
-------
tn to
q NQJ
O 'O -H tfl
•H C rH 0
4-1 id fd o
rH rH rG
OJ G QJ D
tn o q
W -H QJ W
to ro
O O r* fd
tn 4-j c
P G fd 0
rH -rH rH 4-1
U X3
o a> c QJ
o 4-1 a) e
tn ai ai
G QJ S (!)
cj -H a)
2 T3 Xi W
4-1 C H
OJ p 13 W
rQ C 0
G td
QJ OJ 0> •
U OJ •• ,C QJ
0 -P 0 -H
rj X3 4-1 C fO
tc o c
0) * p -H M
rG in rH w CJ
G > p rH
q ot OJ o oJ 13 -H a)
H 4-1 C *O >
tn to id -H
4-1 0) 4->
*. tfl w to td
-P -H -H E
rH Tl tfl O G
0 QJ >i 0) 0
rC 4-1 rH H 4-1
w c io a G
OJ G -H
C g tO 'O
H 3 G tfl
U rH (Q Cfl
OP QJ
tj H
G P
q
«• H
o
a o
G
X O
3 -H
tn
O P
CO
-P T3
q
QJ to
H 4-J
•H
IH q
QJ -H
W rH
id
CO -H
H O
W QJ
to
QJ QJ
EH 1
to
W
at
rH
td
-a
-p G to
tO 01 QJ td w
rG rH P
CP4-i td >i u
q rH tO
rH 0 VH G T3
rH O Q)
o q -P to c
ID O U 0) QJ
•H <0 JH QJ
0 <0
EH C QJ (n 0)
tr tn QJ >
M -H 01 4-1 tD
0 to rC to -q
-P 0) 4J fO
tO 'U 3 T!
rH 4-, rH
4-1 QJ O rH p
in .q mo
q q j-j tn
'Q 0) "" p G
at • G
4-1 rH rH H -
C tO 0)
id o w 0) 4-1
4-J 4-t 0 -G -H
w tx-p to
-H ce in
CO Ol T3 O c
< rH rH
< C CP C 0)
W (JlrH E ^
•D G tn o 4-1
OJ H 4-t fO
rH M 0>
.c at id rH QJ
O rG £ rQ a
-H 0! fd E
IS QJ -H "0
> M rH
tn -H o a >i v
O Id rH [t
4-1 CO 0) tO C
a} O -H I-H 4-> c.
l+- EH tO rH C rG
Id OJ 4-1
(U Q) l£> p .p
£ rG 0 cr 0 G
4-J 4-1 rH 0) a-H
id .c
[0 [J
Ot rG
a to s
CO QJ
-H > »
0) H
4J 4-1 £
? - U
QJ g
OJ -P |"
rC -H
4-1 C/J ly
tn "lO r~
Q) O 4J
N rH (d
•H H
10 QJ 4-1
XT -P 0
a u
CJ
w c
H 0 CJ
(J-J -H 4-'
4-1 U)
Q) fO nj
4-t QJ
a c;
QJ O 4.1
rH
S -r-l
01 l-i
>1 (ft
rH O
rH 4-1 4-
tO r-
O T3 C
•H -H _C
4-t rd W
H CO
O >
Qj W rH
CO W C
H -rH
c -a
id QJ
rC Ot
o u
CJ X
g 3
!
p
4J
4-1 C7> £
tn G C -H
C td -H
O g -P Oi
O 3 id C
o -P tn
H tTi q 10
X G 0) tO
o -H o a
4-1 T3 C
P O G
C rH O -H
H U
q rC o
4-> H CJ 4J
H P
p >i to TD
tn rH QJ
QJ rH 4-J *U
rH tO O P
•H rH
-H G CD fO
P O rH
o 4-J a >>
U O E rH
fit ru MH "
rG X CJ QJ
0 -W-H M
* & •* 1
q >t G td EM
O -C QJ
H 0 rC ^
co -H tn £4-
tn P 0
OJ O O IH
rC rH lH O W
•P O 0) C
4-1 XI C i -H
td td. o 4-i
Hitj tfl O
i at
4-> H G 1 W
MO) g *O
0) 4J •» H CJ
0 QJ O C QJ
O fd 4-1
SO] 4-f >C 4-1
4J (C u fd
rH G o> a> u
rd 0) tn g to
Ul
4-J
c
OJ rH
P 4H rH
4-t O 1
Sri«
0 -H rH
U MH I
(N
0) 0)
4-t D •
en
VH 4-> c
4J W QJ
G G tO
at o at
0 U rH
c a
o u
U-H CJ
X w
— O fO •
fd 4-t to -—
rH P-
G 1
T3 C
p td •>
O --H r-)
G -H 1
•H O f$
10 QJ
4J f VH 1
G -H o C P
0) X 0 O G
P 0 £ 4J -H
•P M Tp tO 4-J
•H T3 OJ 0) -H C
4-> >, cn a cn o
10 rd T3 e rH O
c w 3 QJ
o o T3 a -p
O -H 4-> W
H G »• 0 0
U M 0 O 4-1 E
H Q) ft O r-H
G <4-j p rH q (d
td C 4J 3
tn QJ 0 G
M > IH W G id
O -H O -H X
ry tn en £-* tn o
q rd at -H
4-1 • " O
tn QJ -H o> — C
rH rC 4J 4-" "3- OJ
4-i id 0) 03 Q)
0) rC P U
g 4J tr QJ 4-1 a
O j£ 0> 4-1 Q)
X C P 4-> 10 4J •
4-1 -H K tn 4J
o x -^ &• -^ 'H
QJ g tn rd rQ
G rH 4H P >i g -H
O a O T3 tC W
td o •-* at rH >i a
G C 01 fO 4-t rd
0) tO VH r* ** 0)
U >1 1 rH
C 0 td QJ rH ro
O 4-t 'U 0) >i
CJ Cn -H > 44 M
c to x at o oi
— 0 0 >
rQ -H 'O -H 01 10
as to o
rH VH E M -H U
SO 3 0) rH O
4-i -H > QJ rH
to u to
o 4-i at rH tn
>,rH -H rG 0 P
OJ
tjl «
G g
o w
rH -H -0
0 G QJ
a tn to
rH 1 01
•0 0 1 rH
c o to u
tO r4 CJ G
O rH -H
10 -rH U
4-1 g -H 0)
c 4-> m
CO U rH (0
P -H tO
4.) c a oj
•HO) 4J
4-i Cn O -H
CO O -H 10
c rG q
O 4-1 (d QJ
CJ flj Cjlrq
QJ O
tn o &i4-i
to q
S TQ -H 10
C -P G
D td id O
H C 'H
X tO rH -P
4-t G TJ
Q) £ tJ
0 4-J -H
•H 3 0)
G -P tn
o w c 'a
-H G 0 P
4-1 0-HrH
fd O 4-1 (0
M fd
4J OJ -H 0)
G to u tn
QJ Q) O rt)
q -p to QJ
O rt) W
O I4H
O rH WH
— H -H
CJ QJ QJ
0 -C" >1
G 4-1 rH
OJ rH
4-1 -G fd
U pi-H
H p O
w o at
IH H a
CJ -q in
tn
c to
0) QJ
P tn
4-1 0 f^ •
-H -P 0) .—
tn rG S N
c to o i
0 -H G -31
u -
CJ IH rt) en
-P O rH
to IH 1
rtl tO rH -^J1
£ at a)
•H tfl -
U U -P T
•H QJ -H 1
x a ^
o to to
4-J H -
U-l q rH
O fO 0) 1
q -p
O I4H -
•H o -P m
4-i rd —
C OJ-H
0) ,q 4-t to
4J 4-1 O 4-)
o td >)
O tP 4-J
-— G C
^ 4-1 -H O
•-H a u
p g
QJ t3 QJ
M rG
q 4-1
to fd o
0)
to u q
rd O -H
to
4-1
QJ
•H rH rH
-P 4J 1
in -H co
G U
0-H -P
0 rH (d
a
0 G G
•H ffl O
•P g 0
rO C
M OJ CJ
4-i a .q
G -P
01 M
U O G
C -H
0 rH
cj fd >i
C rH
* 0 G
0) W O
rO
0) tJ
to 0)
CO
QJ in
-C p
-P 0
to
4-1 -H
rd tJ
I
CM
I
CM
ro
(N
CN
ro
WrCG'-H rt) CLPO) U4-1 —
OlO-POCOH fH WrHr-( C 0
,G a UOiO)*HtH rH -HtOOJ QJC~^
4-t W rH W 4J-H —
•HOOI -H iHCot* a> to (d
4J coatai rH*GQJ4-Jatxci£'
GW-H4-linOtOrHO Cj4Htfl — e (\i
airtt-a— ••Hnjtfl'oo 9y-lc 3 IN
•OIH W 0) Oi at r-. rH -H O W -H G G T3 l«
T3O 4-* H4-I tn -HOOOtdC
rtt ,—t .^ (^ cj • — 'OOJC* 4-taat-H to *
4-lrHtOc^)(/}C 4JIO-H • (fl CO Qj4J .* l«
Oai-JGO4JfdOl>4JOrH QJOtCtn"
-H g e -H -H rG T3 it! -H fO 0) ^G 13 -H rH O
tp-H a<" tQJJ rH fO C arC-G4J-H M td
HflJ4J3GH4-1 Otg-SnJ tpC-PU'f
-4-J? gMOJ-HtOOJO) -"OOOC-H
•HO- -rl QJ V) 0) Ot 4-t fO -H M •• (0 '-
CO *C3rji-r-t4JgUr44-JfC 0)733 10
OJ-OD1 p-HEOIfroa rHCO4J
0*0 4-irH-GOt-H mCstdTjl >IJ
fOOtWO 4-JNr-t^OlOtP HN3 0) QJ 14 -i
QJrHQjatOl q i-H-HtO • U M 4-i
4HO-Hat4-tCrC!-Q O0)q e(Nrd
OCtOtfl 04-1 ,H MOt3'i MC^
W •C-H4-t CtJ^'Htd-r*
0) rH rj rrj -r) -H -H P -H > *. -H p CJ 41
•Hrt)3-H3: _tC4-t'tJOiE4-'>i>4-ini
4-irHOaJU-Q -0) C4-)W4-'CrOtfJME
r-tlflrHa'O • (M (0 .10 to ^ .G 4-t'HOO
(B-HrtJ MOO rHO)E-iO)(DrH c •>
c -HCutN tioga tn«4JOr
0) S E (0 O C W -,H -H .-, -H 0) -H t
C WC a rt( 0) 4-J — -P QJ a-H 4-J r^
OT) OC'TJWlJrC fC T) XiUC.
H G W -H -H K 0) -H -H 4-t W -— W fd -H 0) C
•H ftj rfl 4-> • -H 13 UH g lO -H M -H to 4H r- •
r* 0)n]rOPt|i4H •>H4JfD« *— ' O M id 4H •— •— •»
C*>r4pil«-HG4J-Hr4CO OltoQJ r~-
4-t fdU a)QJtl)CO(N4-'O'HiHfDO)-— -
O'M 0 S-D^ WO-H ftftwi «+J uTgra^
0)
XI
4-t
tfl
Cfl
p
U
tn
•H
'O
rH
QJ
-P
aT
tO
4J
0
G
to
CJ
0
£
rH
0)
ra
C
P
M
O
4-t
q
p
CO
w
Q
EH
fi
0
U
(0
(U
to
(3
0
a
CJ
C)
)-|
s
0'
fd
01
OJ
rH
£
0
rH
O
CO
w
o
at
.c
4H
O
to
6
t3
••H
O
•H
-P
•H
M
CJ
U
•H
-H
O
OJ
&
v<
Q
2
H
i-l
Z
W
H
E;
>^
g
W
£H
O
H
g
E-.
o
to
O
to
H
Q
EH
rH
P
K
y
CO
^
2
s
D
p
S
H
sq
EH
H
s
0) CO-HIQJ * 4nOJ >i 0)1
> WrHifdQJ rGrHo _Gtn444-ito to
HO *OlflrHCU'OrHlfl4->CU-H-HfJJUa) 10-HWrO
Qto3:4-iidGx^ OTH^CJHJ O£,S-piowcnistC4J|
rG^">£3^4JiW^|HETOC°USw^Wrda)i2
WOp-HM4-itT1CtCA;iOtiJrO'OrQtn-H CO CJ4-J(d
T34-'OPttja-r-l06(n 4-1G HE'OHtOCn-HfdrHrH
M u1 a-H TJ-H gtotnroai4-i io)rcGC4JrH^)aj
idotca) )H toco •HragratocQVD4-i o-HnpU'a
tppHJHGU'O'HlHtO 5 HfO OrdO'H4~lft)g-r-(C
OtrH -HtOGrjItjatQJ QJSQJXrHSH4-)4-JCJa34-JP
C tOGM QJ 0)tOrG_qidO4-lCX^4-''OHQJOtOaG
4-i4-)34->qpt/]4-i p -QJtdOOiaC C-HUOOfO
id-HQJtOOeQt OltJ-^tn 0)><4JtOtO-H G Ti
ME-HE-H j^tjir-f m-Hior-,fd H-H 'HOi'CrC.o
•Ci-HQjOfdGC'HrCotiS) p t7i4-JC4JrH tnapg
CM4-i Gcp'O^'H 13 aG I-HO a-H o -H 4-> to 3 u
tfl>i'H-H4-' tO" «• OtO)prGC-P4-itOUVJT33:U
OJOU W C O O-PrHOJgXO-P-HrotHtOQJQJ oro
•H 01X^730 OC-*X^ro4-J-H {Ofn-pj-i a1*-1 0) M
i-HO)tn4-i 4-i £4-J idto qoo QJO-H.-O
tjXIfO 0>C.'JrHO)JO ••lW4J-H'O^rd*4-,G 4J4-1FJ1
•H4-irHtP4-JrHO'-tri;Gl^>Ofi C>iqC "OJ -HGrji.
•H QjqHW4~iXiaJOI OrCfdrH-H-H>itO>C4-J-HC
S_>,4J-HtOQ4-|fd -HrsGOD Mg •-Htd-'-'OC &-H
r-iCrH ataM4-l 0 H >i (fl (3 C3 rH 4-1 -H (d £ 4->
rHC-HrHrdO) tdOO »-HCJrG-PrH4-i-HidtOt04Jpptd
C ra4H4H4-)r-i XWCfl Gg04-i-POP'H -H
O4nCrHO 4Jk 0) ptdQJp-Hcj rH-rigOJiHiHE
•HOtdP _q4-10) «rG 'U^pgtO 4H-H4-i3HidO-H
4-1 4-JrODi'HCU4-ia(0 Wg CO>WO 4-1 CO
fd4->U GprHGH a-H OWO 0 0) COCtO
QJgX) rH4-14-1 P •|rHQJGCJH04-Jfd 4-1 (71 .* 4J m U
x^3p4-JrorHutflaa)tn|or-ira-HWH4-j 4-i-HGtflao-p
EHUaiHrHfdQJ U'rO mQ4-i-H*qW-H4-iQ) QJ
0 OQJ rHqoiqoilCftito-H fdrHtoo acuo
13OXC "•4H-HrGQJ OJH-H4-10)E HGQJgOJGrH -
4-JCOOJ>iO) 4->rH -.-HQJ CXlH «.W-HrC3p-HXlcn
VH rjirH MG OOt4-'4HWai4-iOOl 4-14-1^04-1 rdC
OTJI-) rH OCP^OICQJ'H-H n_(4JQ)^ HQjaO
OGtfl Cid4-)-HCO) cnOJrHXi UG G-HXl Q)-P4H-PrGfO-H
CM
CO
E-50
I
CM
ro
I
CM
I
CM
CO
00
I
CM
CO
CM
ro
-------
W >-i
M 4J 10)
rH fC -H in CTI GOX!
Ai QJ -p VH ft 3G-HinQ)inV)4-i
rd 4J W 4J ft QJ4J6Q)C:CVH4->-H W C tji
in 4-t -H ra c ro xiraEE*i-ioo)-H;>o)Qj-HC
-H VH U} QJ Q) 4-1 QJ O G ra W S GrH-H -H
QJIrHUC JH U O 4-t Id — CD OJ 4-1 S-H VH
4-) 13 \£> O 4-J tT> p G QJ 1C W XJ'H3rd
3 rH ra VH in 4-1 -H > u W4-ira 3 u K
QJ-H VH ra 4H c Q) roucn-po
s T3 QJ 4-1 ;* U 0) -.HQJWXlftVH-HCVH OJ
• rH x: 3 oj u ui -P a)4-ittj E-HOWX;
tT 3 4J 0 4-1 13 -HOJCC4J Q) C 53 > ft -P 4->
Co xira 4H in QJ ro w tr>i3 o x; -H ft u
ft O -H 4-> ra • O3UUSOO)4->I IPO
§w & x: G u M o E x; -.H r-i ro ,-H 4-t
H>I in 4-> o tr w b^ri34-)inroGraQ)r-
13 W 4J «- VH -H C-HOJftC OU3E °°
tj)4-t -H ra u c ro ra ^- 13 E • S >i -H o r~
UG-Qura-H OJ r- ip 3wiHUx:4HE-H
3 QJ (0 -r-i IP in 13 Kr-OCrCMrdO)ftO r4 •
rH in 4-1 E ® °^ -H = QJ 01 13 QjQJft
W QJ -H <3J V-t -. W Oi rH U) 4-J O QJ >iX; 4-J ft
QJ ft W fj -r-irH ft 4->-QJQ)O£inra4-l-H i-l*
CP TOrHO CN C: W -HU > T3 OJ rH
ro QJ 13 rH E ro rH 4HCNQJWWC13-HO-HC13
? x; c ro -H ft o t>o>4->ra ai4-> 4J ra EH
Q) -P ro -H X U VH M O U Q) C 0 -H IP I-l
in S-i -H QJ 4-> 4-lQJWOrourarH4-lW".-HCQ
•p >i4-t in ft c M.QCrHftoaJOuCin n
rH ro 4-1 in wo QEOJP x
4-1 4-J rH 13 XI t QJ QJ 4-1 QJ tP 0> W GCW
P -H C -P 1 VH iXftMCrHQJMHSOJ4-iraOJ
C w xi -H c a QJ ft-H roi3oovHGx;>in
ro 3 H wo o>wftc-p rH ro o CD to
x; w M en -H o> x, — ro M c: o >i .C-P
OroOOJWX! -P QJOJ4-JVH>i4-irHrH4-tT0
o 4-t o 13 u -Gracg-HSo^tn^j QJ
QJ tp'DQJrC £>i-rH VH O O > QJ C QJ ft
VH J-| W 4-1 4-t - 4-H -H l34-Jg4-|r-HuraO)4-»OJ
QJ ft C H ft< G PiXQJ QJ M
aju°n!WO ScolSSaScrtSS1
4J -H 4-» 44 CQ -P 4-i EHfHXraWO-H^E^'O'a
ids of issues the
y failed to deal
itional Wildlife
•H QJ 2
VH ot
QJ « x;
lustration of tl
addressed, but '.
T 2, a copy of \
ser ' s Report as an il
3nt DEIS should have
. I append as EXHIBI
2 $5
O ft S
4-1
O En
O
in
75 x
Ol 4-J O
H
in 4J j
ra QJ H
3 W
CP4J W H
C W C W
ra ro u o
o> tr c -H
U gj
0) C 0) EH
> ra w
•H QJ M
« VH X: EH
0 -P -=C
in IP 3
ox; w <
H 0 S S
oj JD u
Ix: 13 o
4-t w ra E-i
4J
cation's testimony at
i discuss the argumen
Bite.
The Final EIE must
3. THE DEIS FAILS
3-H^
PH ?rH
PRESENTLY
s
" WASTE CONFTITUI
j-l
THE PROPERTIES OF THE SPF
i CAPACITY TO
§
w
a
o
o
DUMPED THERE AND IN RELAT
)TENTIALLY
OH
HES PRESENTLY AN!
to
£
ASSIMILATE OR ACCOMMODATE
tr •» o) QJ 4-J i 13
4-)*-O4-) 4-iUO&iQJ 4-1 t"
M-HrH -rH QJftQJCOWC-PCiP
raxiQJ i33-Q*n ro rox^vn
4-14-lrHOGO WC 4JfttJitJ'WE
4-1QJ3WH] MX; J-tOrH
-rHo-nrow 4-(4J^-x;j-iQJOJ
we c roo) 4-)c*o xJ-H
Ci-H 'rorHCOJ " -H OJXJW4-1 W
OJQlS-HUE U O'HrH 13CX;
4-J-H4Jra4-l4-lHip 4-1 4J4->O
tO 4J -H C 4-i ra 4-> -H U -H «.
"4-, OJCMC CO3ra "t/134-iOJ
OQJ4-JOUU .M rHXJO 13 -H 4-1
xirau co >1ra4Ji3i^'EC'H
C OOJOXJhJ ••rHOl4-)OrHO-H
O O l-i (B QJ X rji£3 4-* W W X; C QJ 4-1
XIClJ 4JOJ rHinCS XJUGU
M -H fj 0 4-1 >t (U -H >i4JQJ-HO)
ro4-*ccra4Jcu VHI-H ftEtx
O4-) H'HQ4HX;CrarH(OO E
inrar*4-)o)o 34HEDiOro
XJ-HQJO4J X3C4-iC-HOtn-HT3W
13raOV4-'Hi3 4-1313M ro£O4-J
W XIOO W CrH>O WrH 2=
X -H -H U ft C -H ra 4-1 4J
EH ixra x >, -Hcyrjs c
E raftft 4->ft O4-J •Hcuo'p
I
CN
I
CM
4-, C
0 S
Cji4-i U
coo
x; -H
•H ft o x: •
c 4-1 ra c i
O SH O O
H 4-> 4-1
4J m c c -
U X, 0) 0 L/)
0) 4-1 O -H r-i
C C 4-1 1
q Q) o -H t*
o 'd u 10
u fd O -•
c 6 -^I&'Y
•rH >
UJ O rH fO X
Ifl -H rH O
2 4-) -H -H .-
U ft ^ 4-1 rH
WE -H i— t
H 3 QJ G 1
r3 in c trim
Ifl -rH -H
4-> ra rH W •»
0 O o^
C QJ O Cji I
x; E G in
C 4-1 fi 'n
QJ 4-J XI G rU
U 3 4-J QJ
0 QJ Q) CO
u -x; M r-,
Ul 4-> ft t.
in 0) Q
-H 4J 4-1 >i
XI W (C -Q •>
4-i ra QJ
S in w QJ
W 4J QJ W
•H rH C 4-1 —
ra OJ m
rH VH -P S •
0 w 4J u 0
3 W -H 4-1
4-1 13 C X 4-1
0 C 0 0 0
X H U -P &
1
c c
o S
rH ^ U
ro G o
U rd o
H rH
P O G
Q) 0 H
> N 4-1
QJ T3 t-4
X! C 4-1
4-i ro G
0>
44 — U
o ^ c
UJ O
-P 1 U
rH <• O
3 I -H
p 1 >1
ro rH
•• rd
U) O -H
ra fi 4-1
1 t,
G fN QJ
O 4-1
-H -P C
p. ^ 1
CMC
QJ K -H
G — U
0 0
u x: E
O « S
H -H Q)
CQ 4-1 x:
4-J
4-1 0 CJ
x;
G -P
o
•H x:
4J D1
M 0
tr M
•H x:
E -P
t
0)
4)
QJ
4-1
ro
rH
3
u
u
4-1
c
ro
c
H
13
QJ
4-1
rtl
r-
aj
f
JJ
c.
01
rH
o
4-)
2
IT
d)
in
13
i 1
U Q) 0
4-i in 1 rr
P. -H CN |
ro 4-i ^r
•a CD i o-)
> in >r
rH Ip 4-1
o iiN
4-* E *•
C £ rH
o c c i
•P Xi QJ U
m
r^
1 1
ro <
•H O
E 01
1
ra
-p -p
o
N -
VH M
0 fr4
x; Q
0)
x; w
4-i ra
0)
«H rH
o ra
4-J en
D 'H
W ft
QJ 6
ro
QJ
m x:
fU 4-1
G 4H
o o
•H
RJ 3
VH 0
QJ C
o ro
c
o c
CJ H
H
o
c
o
•H
T-l C
LT)
tJiU 1
•H U
rH C 4->
4-J ro ro
4-* x;
OJ C -
in QJ to
H
ra x: a
ra x; w
rH 4J E
CP-H K
S -H
QJ C
4-1 OJ CJ1
rH i-l
4H ft O
O 3
o ra
4-1 0 OJ
QJ O OJ
S-l 4-1 OJ
-P rO
ro o
•Q *p
Ifi O
ra c
ro in
C Q) QJ
O U -H
•H 0 4-»
ra Ot rH
JH x; -H
0) 0 ft
u 4-i ra
c u
O in
U QJ tr
4J C
^- ra -H
o x:
•H 4-t
4-1 ra
in cr
ftl3
0
4H O
O 4-1
1
>1
>irH
ra rH
E -H 13
4H x; 4-1 o)
O U rH 0)
•H ra o) c
c x; ftx;
OS EH G
-H 13 O
•P O C C
M -H WE
Q) X W Q) 0
ft 0) 4-J -H G
0 S C U OJ
ra c x;
QJ 4- C QJ ft
Xi O -H 13
4-j e c ra
£ rH 4-J 4-> x:
tP 3 G U
3 CJ O QJ 3 •
o u > w —
M 0) -H r-
x: x! 13 w c i
3 QJ
C C O ft W "•
o -H xi w oj m
•H 1 -H -H 1
4-1 QJ OJ 13 13 <
SH O U QJ 0) *
4-J XI -H > 01
C 4-1 4-1 -H E 1
OJ M 4-t fd 01
u o ra ra oj
G 4-> ft P rH 4-1
0 0) 4-t rO
ra c o *
QJ I-H ro >P w
XI E u w 3 W
•H -H -H -H O Q
w en x> Is ~-
in o M 4H
o E x; o) o 13
0^ w ftx: oj
4-> O 4J 0) W
*— C M O r-i in
X 0) 13 O3
tl >,4J M U
H XI U W
3 ro o> -H
•H QJ XJ
ft ra 4-> -H aj
8M C W Xi
4-1 3 W
rH G 0 0 0
K o) u 0,4-1
tn ^r
0) rH
•H 4J I
rH in x: 01
OJ OJ CT'
x: in -H v
H QJ 01
4-1 P X 1
O rH CN
4J C O
C -H >H ^
4-t XI ? rH
VH U OJ 1
O -H f, IN
ft-G
>4H 4-1 CN
4-t 0 1
0 C**
>i 0
4-1 C ^ ft
•H 0) OJ ft
C 3 4J
-H tr-H *
-H JH ftH
> 4n e W
QJ QJ 13 ^
x: xi
4-1 4J 0) in
— X5 C
C -P 0
•H Cji -H
C O 4->
G -H 4-1 ra
o a o
•H E OJ 0 •
nj T! C 01
Ml ro 4n 01
C l-( 10 QJ ~- W rH
rH 4-t a ID -
rH 0) XI H
3 (-j +J CN
(QUO!
OJ C CN
J-i -H 4J
ro »
rax: «.
4-1 13 rH
W -H C 1
ra s ra 01
rH
.. 4J ra 4J
CTI ra w in
c x: o ro
•H 4J ft O
rH in rH
0 CN 13 4->
ID iH ra
£
4-1 *—
ra VH G
•P QJ *P -H
in i; 4J
•H 3 oj ra
C rH 4-1 S-|
•H O -H QJ
E C W 13
T3 O -H
H C
-P >i 0) 0
c rH x: u
ro M w
en rj QJ
•H -H x: c
W 4-1 4J O
< O >P 13
(D Ip QJ
4-i ft 0 in
x; cxi
4-> " ra
13 O tj^Xl
QJ -H G
0 -H W rH
R
QJ T3 4-1 Xi
Xi 0 w
13 OJ >i OJ
rH > 4-1 D-
3 -H -H 13
O « r-l 3
X! -H rH
§-H
Ul OJ
i— i EH ro tr>
OJ n)
w 4H ?
-rH 0)
xi oi w
X!
C 4-1 4-f
•H s O
O 0
4J m
>i OJ
•P C C
•H tj O 'H
rH -H i-l
JQ § +j'S
(0 C-H OJ
o ffl*a
•- u
4J rH
•rH. ... XI CO
•H 0) 3 r-H
XI -H W
n3 4-> -
4-> -H tTrH
ft > Cm
0) -H -H
O 4J N H
ra ro rH xi
rH tP 4-1 OJ
RJ C 3 O
C ft 4-4 Q
63 Ot
c 13 4-i x;
O U 4-»
rH 4-1 0)
-H O H-i 4->
> 4-i 0)
oi o e
c ro -c o
3 rH 4-1 -P
c -H u in
^4 0) C VH
£ ft
w in w §
M O U
0 -»-H
4J 4-1 4-1 ip
u u w o
ffl (fl -H
e o 4J
H -H rH -H
O rH
-1-1 rH — -H
fO O C -Q
E -P QJ ro
•H13
X C VH QJ
•H 0 DrC
w E -Q -P
PO
,_l
•^
1
CN
ro
-------
TJ O
rd 4-> O) TJ 01
rrj £ d) X!
T3 X! M 4-> C 4-1
•H 4-1 3 -r-l W
H 0 **4 rd •, C
-P at 01 at id -H
•H M 44 E XI tO >,
S rd O W W U
ft to >, rrj fd
01 £ 10 Q) rH O rH
4J 0 -H tO C -H
CQ CJ 10 10 0 Xl 4-1
rd rd rd 3
^ >i£t C 41 XJ
rH 0> (D U 1
0) OJ 0> -P U rrj i
to 4-> x; IB X! rO
rfl (fl 4-J M 0) ft-H
XI -H 3 tJ1 1 M
ft W C U TJ 73 4*
1 ft 0 U P -H 4-1
•HO rd rH rH -H
rH ftrH C W U EH
3 ft-P < 0) 2
E rd U D> >i t? W
C -H nj td C Z
ra -H M • £ T> -H g
4-J W OJ ^ ft O
0) -H (d rH p
tn to to TJ *tJ w
3 W 4-J id ft O C O
M -P W O E W H
to c ra -H 3 to 0) 2
0» S XI TJ 4-1 U <
01 G 1 rH O IH1
CPU rH 4) C 3 iJ
id a rd to rd to ai M
3 g -H rfl 41 0) X.' • U
W U 4-J ft O V> M
W 1 0) C -H S
IH 0) 3 01 44 x; -H i
C -P TJ 4-J 0 4-1 "">
rd C rd TJ •
J^rH-HrH^COIP T
•P 3 3 4J O -H fO
•H rj TJ U M tw ~-
U -H -H -H O t) -H
•H 4-J 3 4-> -H 0) U W
OrO-HrdOroaW
•P ft -H ft 4-J X) 10 O
Q
CN
'
co
o
rH
SE.S
fn O -P
M
4-1 10
r-
rH G 1
ft rd CN
M
O »CTl
to i
M 0) u^
01 M
XI 3 -
§tn^
•H 1
C (H n
fU 4-1 -
G 0> t
0
-P 44 •
fi 44 ft
01 -H ft
4-1 TJ
W *
10 0) M
G (H fc
O £ C
U 4J ~—
G
-H to to
4> M
W TJ Q)
WOE
a m
4-1 5 n
£^ ..
4-> 4-J ^
tO TJ
to m c
Ot 0) rd
;> rH rH
rt
tn4-) 4-1
id co
S— 0)
M
rH at m
ra M 4>
o c
4-> x:
M W 0
• O 01
O) IH U
-H ra
rH 0) P
U 4-J W
O -H H
E to fa
P
x: x; .^
4-> 4-J .u>
-P «H 'D
C 0 .3
0)
G tO 0
« 0) ,J
E o
G C i3
0) ra iD
to d
CD -H 4J
x; TJ o
4-J
4J 0
44 G H
O 4> r>J
X! Ol tf
4-J 44 fj
ai -H x;
Tt TJ 3
rH
CM
|
CN
CO
ro C
1 0
CN U4
«• C
tr 3
1
CM Q)
• C
ft rd
ft-P
to
»-H
rHTJ
* a>
ft M
-5
4J W
0) 1
0) 0
x; 4J
w r
4-1
N w
M 4)
e o
E rH
P U
CO
0)
-XI
H
w a>
*- 3
10 TS
0) rH
rH p
•H O
e •£
to
rH CQ
rH H
rH
fO
0 C
cn -H
E
M XI
<44 tr<
•H
£
4J
CO
•H
to
C
0
u
c
rd
4J +J G g CD
•HO -HO x: 01
D1 ft rd TJ O G 4-J
G 01 CO -H 44 0)
0).r-t to 4-> r-- x; o 4-i c
,C 4-i w en s 10 -H
4J CH U 0) rH >,-H XI
tO -H Qj 0) W M -H C-H
-HftE-P4JWrHOS
g -H C -H -(HO
* 3 -H 4-> J3 c tn
o TJ c> ccfO-HC
4-> C OJ 4) 0) 4-J -H
CJ -H l-i 41 W -H 0) ft
TJtr>fto;saipx;E
4> TJ E E •*-> >H W 4-> 3
•033 41 ft TJ
3 rH TJ W XI 0* CTi
rH W -H 01 X! G at
rH 0) >iX! 4-> -H -P
fO rH 4J < O 4-J TJ W
rd W ft G tP-H rO
>i-H Id H 0) TJ G O S
TJ 4J S 4J C -H >
fOG 4J 10 IB T3 fO rH
D 01 rH rd H M fd
rH O-H4-1 CH tn-H iHLQ
ra&,)H OWO) 4-lH
4-> 0) U M W W fq
"•4-|tOgC4-> -H3
>i033-HGtO TJ4J
U Tttfl 01C4-JGG
01 -H -H (B O CT-H W
4-1 CO 0> 10 G T) 01
•HrH OrH OXlrHXi fd ft
W rd G C P U 4-)
GGCOrdtOC CTJTj4J-PO
M C1J H -H 0» -H fd TJ
OlXCOTJ MX:tQ3
IH 4-J -H 01 O rH 01
•H4->X;>-H010>r3
Ttf04-»«jft;)HrHa)«
CN
CN
CM
en
3
4) 0)
x: 3
4-J G
•H
M -P
OJ G
38
to
C M
O O
U M-)
>i 41
rH 4J
0) -H
-P W
td
3 ^3
cro
tU rH
TJ
id c
x;
O 4J
rH -H
-H 4-1
<4-4 C
0-H
01 If.
rfl T3
01
H
W 4-1
O
44
rd 4-)
a
0)
X! -H
G
a>
re
01 (D TJ
Q,4J rH 0)
e c a w
3 fd X fd
T1 rH OJ -Q
ft 1
1 55
0) 4-> CO TI
G C H
O 0 tt 4-)
ft O
>i 3 01 C
rH c x: c
C 4-> rd
O Qj rj
x: to
rH -P tl) -H
CO 0 rH
rH OJ 01
4-1 )H tO
0) -H 0 «
BtO 53 fO
M
U VO C
4J rH — 4J
rd <^ G
4^x: i P-
o tr> •«
InJ C m 4-1
*H-H 1 rd
| CQ CM X!
at 3 4->
x: •*
IH rH -H
rH -P J-l
CP W - W
•H W ft)
rH rH M
C -H Q 4-1
-H S *— -H
4-> Tl
o at
C 4)
G G
fd o
4) TJ >
O rH
s *
to M
4-1 x: o»
H tr G
p 4)
4! 0 DI
P x;
G -P CO
H rH -
4-1 IB CO
C M
0 »W
U Ti
C G
0 «C O
4J -H
-P
OJ • C
rH O CO
(H 0>
fd --TJ
01 1 0)
••H
4JJ-. W
3M 4-J
X
S-P 4J
rd
G
C to -H
ra H +J
oi—o
•H
G C +J
at a oi
rH 3 (d
fB TJ 4-1
CO
CN
1
CN
CO
CJ ra
atJ 01
>i
§4) O rH
41 O XI
T) G O
i 4-J T!
GO) 0)
nj x; c/i p
U W -H
O 0^ 4->
G w u-* IH
•H C
TJ O "TJ
c o at at
•H 4J x;
to at o 4->
CJ CO rH
COO)'?
4.J W 4J 3
CO -H
3 4-) 0 >H
M G C «
rH 4-1 IJ
X! -H G 0
4-> -P |ji U
C-H I
i-H 0) W C
rd to TJ G
4J QJ
S 0) C
C 0) G -H
•H CO ftj —
tO 0) OJ U
Ol 0 ft 4>
TJ -P o T:
rd H IH re
0
>i N
M at
Jj
-H 0)
rH 4J
O'H
x: x;
IH tj>
•H
4^ tO
^ 3
rd
0) C
4J .p
c
C 0
0 U
G 4J
ftjj
i IB
4J
4-i y
0 -P 3
C t3
4t -P (0 C
x: x; 4J o
•P Cr ^ 0
•H 0
ojrH a«g
id c-rl
3 -H >i
rH G -P
ro at rd -H
> 4-1 rH
4) -H 4-1 -H
W ra X)
>i ax; -in
rH E 4J tO
cu 3 ra
4-J TJ rt) 01
rd -H 44
PGM
& ra 41 at
$ 4) 4->Xi
TJ O -H 4-J
rfl O J-i
u to
4-> ra (TI
C 41
10 tO -H 4J
rH rd ft-H
•H E w
rtJ 4) 3 CL
•H 3
CO CO G TJ
H VD 01 ra
D 0 0
rH O CP
lU-< IH rH
rH O 0 fd
rH >
rO >i-P 0)
G -P G
•H H 4> C
PH H S -H
•H S
XI M M
IB -H 0
-P 3 4J
3 cy rd
W H 44
-d-
CM
1
CM
CO
to
•H
0-H
S*
id -D
4-> G
G rd
4>
P 0)
CJ 1
OrH
TJ O
>
x:
U 01
rH
rH 0)
•H x:
4->
0) U-i
•0 0
G -P
•O-H
0) >H
^c
01 -H
U H
0 *0
*a n
a)
01 01
A o
4J
WrH
«
at-H
G U
T3 ft
C (0
(d ai
T3
0) 4)
U ft
rd to E C
rH H 3 -rl
ftW TJ
&H OlrH
G rd X) 0)
•H G >
X -H 4J Ifl
5fct W VH
3 -P
10 (U X!
TJ *• -P Id
w m c
** B" § S
ft-H rd
3 4J G JH
rO
01 G 4-» W
G 0 rl rd
— 6 rd S
< ft
CJi rd 0)
•rt • M 4-1
9 i . (d
TJ ra ? 44
o
C -PX! >
S *-n5
o - w
H O *>
O C-H C
*"* TJ 0
>< -H
0 01 O -P
C -P 4J rd
0> -H rH
3 CO M Q)
Cf tJ M
0)1141
MX! 4) C
CN
1
CN
rd
W
to
G
O
•H
4-»
0
rd
4-)
•H
0)
4->
to
41
rH
m
to
a>
•a
3
t3
•H
O
> •
o
O rM
4J 1
tn
4> -
O-v
+J
rH Ot CJ
rH x! x) at
rd
MH
0
•H
4)
a
0
&
4-1
10
3
O
to
-H
TJ
S
to
TJ
a>
0)
c
CO
H
rH
td
•H
j§
EH
4-1 M
>t id
4-1 C)
id JC 01
O i
41 rH-H
ft rH 4-J
S-H ft
o o
(D C 3
Q 0) 10
4->
0 w S
4J -H O
W ffi
TJ *-»
OJ rj)
O W
0) » C
ft O O •
x K-HX:
a) jj 4J
4J >tC 44
G p O
•H 4-1 ? rd
*H -H O
•H CO M -H
G
J
r~i
CN
en
1 -c rd
ra 41 O
rH C I
•H C -P
§ JO M
•rl rH M
W D, 0
to ?
IB TJ rH
C C rd
rH rd 0 4-J
H ft 0
fd 4J p 4-1
M C s
at a> TJ
> w at oj
o a» w x:
M rd -P
0) ft -Q
4-J 0) 1 rd
W 4-1 Xi
tO O 'H -P
tOrH £
0» U-H G
M rH O
to £
rtj O tO 4J
x; -H JH
0 X! 0)
4-> TJ 4-J 10
G to
to n x; m
IS (U ro 4J
rj) 4-1 0 re
C -H M rH
CO ft*t-
Sft
u> rd to
rH O
rrj rH .H W
,H H
CO 01 -H W
M XI > Q
to a>
•H 4-1 at x
Cu 4-> "j .
•H d tO
41 O H G
J3 ra 0*0
G
0) -
to C G
•H at o
> 4-1
— G tr
CN o C
•«*• O -H
i x;
,
4-> M M
•H iB U
W rH
0) D -H
•P 4-t ^
M 4-1
>H rd G
O ft O
IE
4J +J 10
•H 3 ,H
U 0 .G
rd 1 P
rd 0 k
O 0 4)
0 at H
>rH M
•HXJ fO
4J iti '11
to
a>
H
0)
-p
to
rfl
at
TJ
ro
S1
>1
4>
4-1
41 >t
4-> 4-1
E U
•rl ftf
•P ft
41 y
>i OJ
rH >
'H -H
T3 -P
rd id
0) rH
M -H
ol
4-> tO
to
4> nj
EH ft -H rO 4-1 rH
ra .71 4J H ft «; xi E
o fl ft-H at ri! ra 3
•H E
> £ V.
•H 'J to
4-t ^] rd
E y o
•H y S3
to id
« c :>.
rH
1
CN
ro
41-H
41 -H
r* E
to
G
0 1 0
•H M 4J
4J 0)
y T) 4-J T)
fO C1 C 4)
0) 0> ra
4-> TJ 41 C
•H W X) 'H
G -H tO
at o to tu
4-1 CJ 10 T!
w o
ra 01 ft 41
iw 0 G O
0 to -rt 4J
10 rO p TJ
01 rH 4)
y 4-J o c
C to G G
at 3 -H IB
3 g 1 rH
cr i ft
at to ^
tO 4J LO iB
c y rH at
o rd i M
«!""
C rd 0
ra 0) -H
> - 4-1
M-H . ra
O 4-t «H M
4H nj y to
rH C
rH P --rH
•H 3 i c
4-1 O PQ -H
G
41 TJ - G
4-> GrH rH
4J4-1 WU OJ-H y^--4J MOrHC
(0-H CJ XlrH 'lO-H ODjOJtB
4J tjt Olt0^4-ij3G CT-rH O M Ai {J1
COWGOJ4-!>iO OCI-H GJ3-HM
•H -H Xl tO Id -H G C/J -H CQ X 4) C ft rH O
rd 4J NX: <* =CrHEf^ ErCCwC
M-HCCn-H -G 3'HrHO) 3-HiflO)
O -H -H O -H X! 0) CC 41 O CO W L/j -H
XiOO4JtOtOHrd OI-P4-JE 4-i W iTJrd 0) OtH
OX!3-OtO QJItO-HLO-H tOXO
tO CrH4-iOtO)C 0 tqtOVMfO W
H OtrB'&jriifl i— t -H WrHGX) ro
ypx: oroXiird x: -H-PO -H
MC OfB4-J IOHES-H-H 10 OlrH
Xl 0 4->(B -HCQUC »MC4)rH-H
3 G -H -H -iH rH QH W -H E X ^1 tO 4J
OI4JO -HG -HWpWGOrrjTJytOaJ
tO C-P OtTJ O S4-1Q Qj H (TJ ftt7^4t-H rdXJ
O COC-HO-H-— 4JCO MCLftO4J
to x:y ro -Sxi|ox:o-p 3-PXioi
0 4H 4-J 1 IB rH 10 rH pJ-H tO £ fd TJ 4-J
gO 4-14-JprBf CJtO 4-JWCDItOaifd
tOlOrdCU IOTJ rHWG6X^4-J
WtO Cfd-HJJO-HftO OlOfdrOTJ
0313 idmnj-H -3 to OM4J3
OICOOCC 4-JtOrHOXlGrOrO W>i
OTJ XlUrHOI4J44 •HCQ-P>Mf04-l
OlfJ rrjrjiBO'^E''JH -HOfljro
COMf044X;G'H 4J3rOW ".-PXiEOJ
4->rHMa)rHUGU>4t04-l 4JtOjHCOtJi
E«wrO-HXr04J»HfOOytH4JlOG^4J
CTi
t—i
|
CN
CO
0
•H
to 01
to xi
3 E^
O
to
•H •
"°?
QJ -H
X. ft
•p e
3
C T3
H
01 TJ
W 3
P rH
•H 5-1
E O
0
to OJ
rH 4-1
(0 -H
LO
01
rO o
to
4J 0)
3 -P
W
0)
-------
or example,
f barge-loac
CM 0
M "H
O ft
rfi
0)
4-J 0)
•H A
3 4-1
En
c n
3 O
UH
M TJ
M 0)
ffl M
rH TJ
U -H
in o-
•H 0 0)
U 4J
4-> M
•H iy itj
X) 3
0) QJrH
OP ra
-P W-H
ry \o ttJ
4-J o in
ro ra
3 at i
-C O
4-> 4-t q
3 r-l M
3 0
rO 0
G Xi<4H
10 en o
3 XlrH GO)
4-J Ti O rH
4-J 0) -H -H
•H, cp+j 4J g
q ro G ra 7
>vH 01 0 GO
A « ft tn^o
3 3 0) to --H
IH H W 01
C IH W 0) >
•H O rf TJ -H
ra (i, co 01 4-t
H >nW r- In «J
ft4-j cr» q
M -rH H -H CJV M
•H 4-1 ra 0"i 4-1
0 Xl 4H rH rH •
4-J -H ra q ro rji
tn -H ro q
4J w * q -H
a o oi ~- c ro ft
•P 01 3 ------ C 13
4-J X! H -iH ra
ro 4J in *-H — G
w -H ra
TJ ^ at at •*•* at a>
rH 0) tn > 4J O
§TJ ro -H TJ -H 0
•H 3 pi G 05
x; in oi ra 01
tn q in in tn t^
0 g •* G TJ
•H (Ji 4-1 -H §
-H ra c ra 4-t TJ o)
G ra ft-— G at ro
•rH g -H iH tJl 3
fc o 9 — o) TJ at
4-> TJ 4-J 3 W
at ra rH rH
x: >i o) oi ra m at
S-P -H gi 4-> 3
G G -P
— 0) O A ft W 4H
U 4H 4-J £ 01
Ot 3 rH M
q 0) T! TJ ft O
4-t 0) 4H
13 -H 4-1 at o)
01 w u tnx; ,-,
§ai TJ 4-i ro
U3 T-l 3 03
Ot 0 at rH rH m
4J ra rH CN
H 0 1
q *
0 <0 0) -
g M x: •»
— - 01 q -o-
— - -H v
3 W ro
at a L
iH Q) ^
-
O 4J rH
•H ro CN
A 4-» 1
3 M ^
etal contenl
vy metals ai
The data
x: w
> G
01 3-rH
x: o -P
VH ro
0) 01 H
4J S q
S 0)
w u
(ft G
3 • C
0 0) U
•H in »
TS
W O 3
Q O 43 •
01 - * 0)
XI W rH TJ
— - IH g O
^ W ft
3 C
TJ -H 01
H 4-J
G TJ
h~t 0) rH
2; w 3
oi o
iw H x;
o ft m
•H
c
CN
r-H
§
T
S
o
c
O
4-J
CN
G ro
0 H
tr
0) O
U -H
G rH
01 43
01 0)
4J
01
x: q
^rrj
o
OJ
0)
4-t
0
q
in
tn
•rH
£
X
ft
q
0
u;
M
EM
OJ
4-J
4-J
X
3
G
•rH •
O
0)
ra
0)
u
13
c
at
*<
port catch
passes the
ct, a receni
ecreational
tn ^ ro i-t
w oi
o> q x;
-P O
4-J
ra
ro 4J O -H
ft W -H
4-J -H 4-1 (J
4-> Ot X
M 0
H >-t 0
W 3
at tjijs
0) ,S C
x: -H G
~!ro 'ft
— c x:
-H rH 10
ra x
•H w S
4H Ot
•— ' U "Z
f 5 (check 1
implication;
should be
he Bight mai
s not afforc
O 4J QJ
o> tn o
H XI 4-1 C TJ
O EH O-H
cj ft w q
ra • e ra -H
0) M [fi
ra u tr ro -H
•H G 4-1
t>iUJ -H q iH
A o |"rt'a1
•P U 0)
O O -P -H
•H -P 01
rH *G in 4-J £
E -H Ot ra u
0 O
VH ro xi
ot o 4J «:
4-J 0 - Ptt
TJ 0) W 0) 0)
0) C M 4->
OtO rQ
ro at 01 o)
4J -H W O
A x: at rH
u x; -P VH o
4-t4J TJ
o 3 o ra 43
^^
G
01
in
44
q
o
ra
0)
>H
at
o
•P
o
u
0)
o
ft
u
6
w ra
4-i OJ 01 3
O tH S 4H 0)
0) O W
g X >!
ffl 3 43 C x;
rH C 4-J
0 -H' 13 -P 3
H rH 3 ra
ft ra 4-J c TJ
•H tn -H a>
O U g 4-J
P ft 0> 4-t -H
in o q o 0
at 3 u in
N -IH tn
•H *-. [ m ra
g -V < CJ
-H | < PH W
C m o H
•H 24-1
g • W -P
ft < 01 XI
>i — -H tji
rH > -H
Xi at • ra CQ
4n 3 G In
•H rH )-| 0) O
4-> cn a) x; >H
M O 4-J
3 0) G 3
« ra u ra K
33 XI
at CD 4-j a)
03 tn H x:
H ra in P
W 4-1 01
Q o w 4-j q
at ra -H
at q -p o
A o ro -H in
4-t 3 C G tn
— ra u -H 01 c
g JH at TJ E
ro ro A 0) 3
4-1 ft U W T)
C 4J
o at ro g 01
u uifrj o tn
W 3 T3 4-J 3
U rH q 0 rH
PH in ra Xj in
W r-,
Ot ft
4-> q
ra at
q
q 4J
O H
rH ^
4-t
01 tn
-P ra
0)
in M
fc, 01
4n 0)
0 4J
tn u
4-1
01 4-1
ft
tn 01
ra m
0
•H x:
ro
tn
UH H
Q
£• _£
G
-H
M
ra
u
x;
cance of iti
iphatic
•H rH
4-1 (C
•H
(4 0)
•H ro
W rH
0) O
x: H
4-1 -P
q ra
•H ft
ra
ft C
x ra
0)
ti
4-J 0)
0 >
q M
o
tn in
0 rH
w 0
H JJ
w
r- in
01 ro rH
fj ', ^
01
— ' — ' G
0 M
G td.
01 U
M O
0) M
0) >i
M .C
r- in
i 4-J q
CN 3 -H
o 01 ra
o" £ ra
rH G
i -H 4-1 in
M C
ra ra tn g
o c 3
» -H fji
U3 4H -H i-(
U 4-1
Q >rrH 4-t
~-* 4J q tn
rH O 01
3 E tn
• O q
01 -H >i O
4-1 >H rH ,H
l/l -H ra tn
T3 H
01 3 01
xl QJ u x:
EH 4-t
ra ro o
• ft
tr.— 01
•H rH G O
M i ra
o •* w
•rH - flj
q «) u -
O -H G —
E I ra -H
CN rH -rH
q »-H
ra
01 1 M
q w w
ro •> M
rH 1 4J Q
•H CN ra — '
01 3
H 0) Ot 4-J
3 1 "O -H
w CN ra w
01
4J
0
G
ra ro w .
3 ft n
•H rH 0
in o ro -P
• ft
Cn at c
•5 A tl -H
a4-J VH
§0)
4- • 4-t
q n
C Ot-H U
o at -H
o at x: x;
H 01 M
4-i > 4-J
01 0> tX G
4-J -H O
•H 4-1 M -H
3 o q
4-J u E-H at
ra -H 4->
X! 4H 0) 4-J
4-1 4H A ra
•H -P
4H TJ H
O -P Ot
at H1 ra
tn -H *< at
0 [t, tn
Cr, 4-1
•H q o >
4J O -H
3 C
at 01 at rH
H 0 C 0
O- M O A
ft ra U m
c
at
u
0
o
c
ro
4-J
q
at
g
u
rH
ro
q
•H
4J
H
T!
TJ
ra
ra 4- c
4-1 0) 0 -H
0 M I
ra q i
c o -P
O OJ -H A
•H CJ 4-1 D1
4-J ra fC -H
ro M-I u CQ
C W -H
•H in q M
in -HO
0) rH >4
TJ ro q
3 ra 3
o> -P at
A U A &
4-t ra 4-j
H 01
>i in 3 rH
4-14-1 0
-P i q 3
tn i o
3 01 rH 4-1
-n-P ra C
•H
4-1 U] - 4-J
in q ra
e o > 4-1
rH -H
w TT -H
-p-a 3
rH
ra 01 TJ w
q x rH at
•H -H 3 in
pis rH O fH
XJ ft
a- oi to £
EH -H tn U
— a r-t ro
ro g -H 01
•"Ben
TJ ro
0)
tn m tn
3 (0 M
o 3x;
5 tn
0 3
G C 0
o) -H x:
M TJ -H 4-J
01 c ra
4-J ra T! -H
•H at T3
CJ 1 -H g
tP -H -H
G • rH
•rH ft >,
ft ft OJ q
§ q
Q O «H rH
rH O
c q -H M
ro o 3 -P
at -H s q
U W 0
O w tn rj
3 at
0) O N Ti
A in-H q
4-1 -H tn ro
4H at G
O 4-J -P O
3 -rH -H
4-J O W -P
ex: ro
01 4-1 rH U
§ 3 W 4H
JH O -H
•H >i a 4-J
D14-t -H 0)
at 01 TJ T!
H -rH -H
4-> rQ (Q M
•H x: o
•H 0) 1
rH -P 1 O>
ft 0 W N
X C H-H
i c ra
at ~ u
A* Ol 0
4-1 T3 XI rH
— 4J
4H m o
O • U-t 4->
co O
•P CN M
xi CN CN 0)
tn f*1 TJ
-H Wl ) rH
rH "^ CN O
1
0) O
> rH
•H
4-J 0>
tj in
0) rH
4-1 QJ
ro
0 -P
c
C OJ
o >
H 0)
ro ft
4-1
C O
a) 4-1
3 tn
rH g
ft H
SrH
cr
O
x; ft
4-t
0)
•H C
g ra
W rH
O> rH
ft-H
0)
ro 3
En
in e
u c «
ro ro 4-J
a u
•S q1 ft
•H g
at H H
in o
rH 4-1 0)
at -H tn
> c q
ro g w
0 ,
> VH V4
q -H oil
O > TJK^
u E cf
s OJ 31 •
Cu
a> q w
rC 3 0> -
-P O 4-J H
c w at
o x ra 4-J
4-J 3 4-J
4-J QJ
in o 0) rH
at g
U O1 O rH
ra 4-J tn nj
rH -rH 4-1
0 -H
rH ra E
« rH W
M 01 ro c
01 tn tn ra
> 3 0 -H
0) ft-P
in H in
O -H 4J
-H 01
tn M x: K
at ra
0) -H O •
h ra 4H •
w ra tn *
H U
W 0> -H W
Q > -p q
ra w o
01 x: -H -H
A r4 -P
EH O 0) -H
*-» u 'H
x, T) ra o
" 0) iH U
ai ra
q x: >
u u
q rH 0)
•H ra cn
3 4J M
q G oj
•H 0) g
4-J g Ol
ISCUSS
*o
TJ
3
0
A
(A
H
PH
rH
fa
0)
CN
I
rH
„
H
rH
H
.
ft
ft
yi
a
D
o
(0
H
ra
0)
ot
~*
prohib:
ergenc-
1415 (I
0 G 0
-P ra •
3 w
4J C •
ra -H *D
4-J e
K ro
4-J ro
01 d
rC 0) .-
4J U ^
o in
4-J G rH
x: -H
tr ft c
-H £ O
TJ 4-1
q u
ra w
4-> 0)
q o
s •
4-J >i 0)
ro o in
-P C
W 0) 4-1
tn ro
•H 01 0!
x; g 4-4
4-1 0) -H
4-!
O 4-1 TJ
4-> q ro
q -H 3
o> ra tn
4J FTI 0)
c ra 1 -P
ra q rH q
o • o>
S-H ft • >
-p *- ft q
ra — o
m »H q u
JH in o w
0) -H -H H Ot
4H tn4-J W X!
01 at c Q .P
iH rH 01
> 01 A
>i • c x; 4J
rH C/; O 4-J -H
W • U 3
a & q
at DI ra 4-1
c c q at -rH
O -H O rH g
rH C 4J X! O
O>-H ra 3 4-1
M q at c
w XI in tn o
H Ot rH CJ
W W 4-1 OJ
a ra q 01
•r4- t) >
01 < Ot 0)
x; w oi 4J -H
EH ffi Xi O -G
— S ro T*
fj x; >i r-
--- 01 4-1 rH 001
x; -H 4-1 4J rH
•P 3 U
0) TJ Xi
4-4 0) JH 0) o
O O IH G M
4-i ro o -H s
0) rH tn Ol C
g ft ra TJ -H
•q- cn. w w
rH G ft O =
I H J-l ftrH
•H ft O VH ra
4-1 g U 3 -H
O • 3 ft U
in -— 4-i 3 ft
ft G ra w
H in ro TJ «H t
o 4-1 0) at
U -H U W rH TJ
g o o ro at
at C ft G JH
x; 01 s ft o a>
4-1 ft E O -H *O
-H 4-J -H
O tji 1-1 in ra w
4J c 0! ra c q
•H 4J H O -—
w ft q < ai u .
ot 3 s w G at 4-J
O) T) JH g
w C G 0) M W EH
ro ra TJ o ft at
>, QJ C 4H M ft
rH U e 3 o
in o -H >iU e
3 ra tJlrH iH
at ra u -H o x: VH
a -H at ft—' -P 01
0 U ft | C
M fts TJ • o tn
01 tn c 4H «
coo
W 4H 0) 4-1 -H iH O
M o at 4-J ra -P
M W 1* r"l U >
C ft ( 4-i rH -H 0 TJ
at at q TJ M at
01 TJ 43 O W ft W
XI rH -H ft 0
EH O G W M ro ft
-^ -H -H -n tj> O
TJ W 4-> rHJ C
— ro o ft M -H m
G ft at ft ro
in -H ra at g i
in 4-J G 3 1
0) in tn -H TJ ^
0) -H 4-J tn 4->
C Tf -H C TJ -H
•H g W rH g
tn at C 3 C
c x: at 4H p 01
W EH ft O 3 ft
. at TJ
CN o 4-1 ra 4->
fS rH C O -H
ro -H 3
P 4H -H OJ
X3 -H XI
4-J 4H G T)
•H O tnrH >i
Oi in 0 E
q 3 4-i w 01
•H O 4-J
ft 0> 4-J -H
Oi j-i at H to
0) 3 n
X -P 0) v£>
3X! • 0
C 4H -P W rH
•H 01
01 tji 4-J 0)
•• x: c in x!
13 4-J -H ro 4-1
rH ft 3
3 G g in
o o 3 u QJ
in w x S
C 0) O 4-t
w ox; 4-1
W 4-1 - -P
•n c 4-J w
•H TJ o c ro
ro q 01 3
q o 10 4J
•H O 4-J W 4-J
CM G-ri ra
>i-H W A
a> 4n ra i-i 3
Xi -H M 0)
EH U 4-J ft *
--~ ft C 4H TJ
at w o o VH
— up
m 3
• G - 4-1
rH C 0
T( U
-------
cj
QJ rS C
>i in • o 01 •
M C Q W X! ^
C. 000)>'HrC4-'C
H rH 4J 4-* l*H ElJ iH QJ O
XJ C 4-> C CO C) a O -H 4J
Xi-H C id rH |- g a <0
POJ OJrH-fHWDOOO'O>
4->Xl gardOJiNOHOtrH
w -HXIHO a > o)
E rHtU rH*rd rH K
tP 0 0) >i 3 o 0) O G
en aMrHo=ojHx:>o
•H «w XOCWrNO-PGU
13 0> O 0) UH -H
p E - K • x; >i
rH to rH M 4-) a en 4-1 co 4->
CJ -«H O QJ O -H a-H -H QJ C
QJ o 0 -H G (d p tn £ -H p
M -H U rH 4-> MWrtJ 4-J O
a-P fd-H- 3 • .Q nj rH cj
•H < O r-l t} 4-> pH 0)3
>iM -H o C ro O>UO)
£0 VH X! -H SSr/1 C rH -H O
• -H 4-1 rX tf> O MH rH
C CO tn a 3 -ro to > MH C
O P P g rc >i « TJG-HO
•H o >H OJ GO) "•JH-H'OE;
H
CJ
d
•«.
i£)
t3
PH
CN
CO -H Ordp4->|O 0)
•H tn fl) >i-H W CKW W OJ P.
o QJ x; x} UH m to nj ]IH EX;- rH
QJ in 4-r -H O ••-. H 1 rtj
VH >H CU C C QJ X) tJ QJ
J
rH
C]
H
0)
)-|
E
C
tr
4-
(1)
0
i?
S
m 0 0) 4J QJ 0 N • 4-1 0 C > • O
O ID M -H -H -rt > 1 2 14 fd -H > IS
W C O U 4-> H XJ a -P
woi a E fl -H - oj cj c -H
oirH+Jp ». M 4-> u — rC QJ JH u
aaw- TJ -H UOM o arao
H
0
OJ
c
OJ
0
CJ
T3
w
0)
•H
o
0)
Cr
id
siste
0
CO
*-)
a
x
OJ
p*
M
01
O -O
C OJ
0 -P
O fd
p
0) rH
3 >
rd 0)
U
4J rH
rd rH
x; p
4-i MH
10 0)
C >
0 fO
-H X
-H 4-)
a o
0 C
O TO
e
(d
4-1 >i
rd O
T3 C
at
C n]
4-> a>
o x:
•H 4-1
rH
c ra
O 4-1
4J
•H
4-1
C
rH
01
JJ
rH
fd
4-1
td
4J
U
QJ
O
0>
0
0
Cn
0)
CO
g
QJ
x:
^}
0)
M
O
C
•H
QJ
X!
QJ
fa
M
•H
U
4-)
M
CO rH
C rH
0 . 1
a o
CO rH
OJ co
rH rH
C •»
•H rH
o
CO 00
•H rH
in
>i CJ
rH K
rd W
m tN
X< rH
tJ
> QJ
rH C W
a o P
g
H
CO
4-1
o
G
fd
0> C
M <
X! >
4J
™ 4J
?
0
•H
U
QJ
rH
o
u
id
LO
•H
rH
OJ
+J
(d
p
4-1
O
C
p
H
W
4-1
IJH
rd
M
Q
4-)
QJ
in
QJ
rH
3 QJ
rH (H
0
0 0
O 4->
O tji
C C
4J -H
'U O
c w
01
rH M
id
In O
QJ-H
C UH
0) -H
tn-P
G
0 QJ
O -H
4-» U
CO
QJ XI
p cr
Cn P
id o
> c
QJ
0 f
= -H
(0
QJ 4-1
rH C
(d 0
O
U 0
•H 4J
a 3 w
OJ
H
CO rH
4-r rtj
C 4-4
•H
0)
UH
o
13
01
'H
01
x;
H
4-1
•H
rH
A
0
a
M
rd
rH
CJ
•H
4J
rd
a
o
CO =
in QJ
•H en
0)
4-1
-p
OJ
XJ
0
T3
iH
rH
•H
CO
M
rH
C
•H
tu
4-1
4-1
CO
P
M
*
CJ 0>
QJ a
; ax
W 01
•H id
in -H
rd M
in in
rd c w oj -H to
HJ M 4-J W 0)
CD W rd a-P • I
S >i Q -P g -H -0
• SJ»
I cy 4 w c id x: CP o
•1-H4J OJrH (U JJ -H Xi r
14-4 c M o o w 4-1 i
> M tJ
MH 4-)
c id
CO M
0 U
•n 4J E-< >i x:
XI W 4-J '_ ._
>i CP C XJ M i
H C • T3 0) >W
! rd XI
Ot4H(d30)fdroOi COCO
M-rH
0) CO
rH 4-J
•0 J
rH "4H '
•H o ;
I T3 H 4J QJ Q) 0
OJ4-1 0-HrHrOT)rHrH
I 4-» Id 4-* rH C 0) r
I 4-> G 4-1 fd QJ 0) T3 '
rDrH4-'triTJG6
••-
'>-
aJcni
•H Q
T3 G
C p
H^i'
M -H
(d g
in G
i ^ D
i >i?>
QJprJiMP
i o
: 0> CO
n 0) id
4-i4J
4J4J
O r'
& QJ I
id -P
J
Q) 4J i
•o rd >iT3
ro 4-1 rH fN
W O
C G I
i ot x; -r
M rH >
Xi C
CJ 0 W
id rd
x: 4J
iH 0) 01
ot "o x:
0) iH <
Oi CO H J
C CJ '
0) r
3-Sim11
01 O
W CJ
a o i
a a o:
o
30 X) 5 fa
*
•O -P rH "
^ o «J >
G at TJ
rd C g
, o -P
. . OJ tt)
r- 3 Q
gu
tn 13 p o <1> fO
(]j -H a ^ t:
> > -H 4J 3
o
o - —
-H 4J g
>l O
+j u aj i
ai a-H
>1 W >W [
IN QJ
J= 01
<* -P M
H 01
O > 01
•H (i
O -U
m g W
CM
I
CM
ro
E-54
-------
2-?
E-55
-------
t^
t-
h greater sc:
u
I
4)
Jl
in comparison to the shelf and nearshore, •
0
S
•o
4J
13
o
w
s
.M
•3
•d
4)
iO
nl
to
d
o
u
Tf
g
£
a
'S
t;
0)
y
d
3
V
£)
4>
£
*t-4
0
u
in
CUOUS U;
1
*j
O
1
+J
n
K
y
«
1
1
*M
0
a>
w
T3
4)
!
1
-M
10
(n
M
0*
13
OAA points out that, in comparison to shelf w;
a
!3
in
t-,
CJ
Id
t:
t,
d)
d,
4»
41
T1
". . . the environmental effects of disposal in
o
4i"
o
d
4)
Jd
•o
g
correspondingly more difficult to measure.
•s
V)
Jl
D.
4)
TJ
greater
4)
W
rt
X
u
3
(0
h
0
1
o
4)
•g
(0
•(H
to
g
y
3
£
n.
ome samplin
umbers
water and distances from shore, involving c
o
M
in
o
p.
y
3
D.
rt
Si
o
0>
bo
.3
a
4)
3
o
FH
a
T3
9
(0
V
0
g
•s
g
r
0
.9
VI
4)
§•
4)
•3
y
U
5
o
J3
TJ
g
•s
s
and also to the general paucity of environme
er compli-
If Water,
3
£
O
j:
(0
4>
Jl
i
o
4)
5
.3
d
I
fi
I
1
J2
to
d
o
•rH
OJ
^
to
n
£
CO
o
Q
B
V
3
U
4)
£
,3
4)
3
VI
4)
cated by the interaction of major water mass
M
4)
n,
a
o
u
>-,
"w>
1
Slope Water and Gulf Stream 2ddies.
"The DWD-106 is, therefore, an excee
1 conditions
inmenta
1
4)
n
V)
0)
to
s
o
ij
g
S
S
o
1
fc,
o
9
V
y
O
CO
CO
01
CO
i
VI
d
o
i
g
y
V
w
o
JJ
-»J
g
p.
3
S
a
1
•3
E
4)
^
4)
9
^ssed concen
S
&
01
Dr. Carol Lichfield, a marine microbiologis-
contained
I
OT
Kn
)ut the survival in the deep ocean of micro -or;
sewage sludge:
•q a
V
.c
c
0
d
o
3
a
g
"Unfortunately, there is very little infoi
survival of coliforms in deeper waters.
CO
l>
E-56
-------
screased temperatures aid the
13
r*
43
w«ver
S
o
.c
[n
a
$
J3
0)
d
4i
jti
^ed salinities and slightly in-
n
41
tt
o
g
41
43
g
rt
survival of cohfonn bacteri
u
t
•g
14
V
P.
1
01
41
5
M
01
cj
o
d
4>
TJ
1
creased pressures that they
Vi
o
V
a
o
41
1
tn
^
41
1
h
01
s-
0)
TJ
S
"*"*
I
therefore, automatically as:
hat which occurs at the present
ri
a
5
b
0)
o
d
potential pathogens more ef:
to
CO
i
^
tH
8
41
O
V
d
01
1
t
0>
t>
d
O
13
JU
•d
u
d*
.2
"cd
u
.3
deration (NWF) includes as ex-
41
0)
3
al Wil<
The statement of the Nation
lumber of highly respected marine
d
»n
0
V)
o
3
its statements and published
43
A
1
•o
9
to
ti
01
•o
d
3
^
g
0
m
d
o
•H
t3
O
O
u
3
£
4J
1
U
H
in
i*
a
S
43
O
•6
to
-H
"
t3
41
H
u
529-687). The NWF statement
enial Impact of deep ocean dumping
P.
10
1
W
"1
ti
41
S
d
01
g
41
0
O
P.
01
•8
«M
0
bfl
g
§
o
•§
B
o>
£
amanzes its concerns aboul
g
this fashion.
.g
r,
o
•s
a
4>
d
t<
«s
s
q>
o
01
41
g
5j
a
4)
43
-H
fr
O
s
s
tn
d
4)
1
3
effects of pollutants in it, we
TJ
g
u
s
1
13
continental shelf areas, an
;he edge of the continental shelf.
!*J
o
tn
d
o>
13
g
0)
icnow even less for deep oc
•3 £
0)
J3
•M
d
01
«
3
t>-l
H
ra
S
r)
41
1
&
a
t<
01
1
o
3
9
bn
d
0
&
•a
3
n
&
S
*
3
t,
i)
t
nl
a
o
i
t-i
0
43
O
t-1
e extent 51
43
+«
o
i
4>
43
•a
-K
d
g
^
o
o
4)
5
d
o
g
43
a
O
b
4)
(H
5
oT
o
(d
g
41
43
d
«
41
TJ
ew hundr'
rt
|
*
M
41
1
Q
a
t>^
g
•~t^
ziuushec
3
&
%
V
&
4)
41
1
S
ri
L.
of biodeg:
01
Id
ti
m
•H
o
4)
&
O
d
o
VI
rt
4)
M
t)
0
•H
d
41
g
o
•3
B
•duction in
V
[^
d
•g
a
o
V)
a
41
3
O
U
ossible
cu
43
S
r J annas
4>
bo
&
M
D
b~.
studies b;
1
Extensi
g
|
3
5
3
d
o
B
o
a
d
41
10
VI
d
4)
1
•
u
1
41
O
•3
P
^1
31
41
a
:ed that
1
3
o
41
d
d
o>
s betwe
at
t
"cd
tt
43
P<
O
1
bo
M
1
^
^
'S
tn
4>
TJ
3
n)
b
P,
ll
w
•2
•S
EJ
controls.
4)
.g
g
B
^
41
?
^g
OJ
T)
i
ri
a
to
£•
«
41
43
O
4>
tn
3
41
X
a 2 8
E-57
-------
s a
"V
41
h
a
a
VI
,2
•a
9
4>
J3
.3
g
(U
5
.3
V
u
g
u
m
V
I
1
that might I
1 .5
! g
' i
3
U
0}
I
g.
•a
s
£
iw waters could have se
3
•g
•M
t
1.
1
1
i
"jj
n
&
•s
1
a
I
1
. Wiebe of Woods Hole
W
l>.°
ioneern is shared by Dr
u
•H
8
T)
_£
3
J3
n
1
4!
I
1. p. 1-5), although he
n
+»
B
\
a
£
I
it- that deep sea populati
1
1
B
r metals and other
S
4)
J3
te artificial transport o]
ja
H
^
Jen ocean off tee ed
O
(0
4)
U
d
'I
vt
g
o
4>
.G
W
4)
!
ch constituents in these
known.
source of su
which are un
(Exhibit, B-2), "the
:oasial areas bv nvers
& §
o M
S S
ited out by Dr. Ralph V;
load transported into m
As poir
heavy nietal
i
: «
i a
o
> CJ
4)
S3
I
1
a
4>
««-<
o
1
is quickly precipitated i
and streams
scluded from the c«an
!>-,
I
sediments and is effect!
bound to the i
> only major natural Dat
.c
3
mg atmospheric "fall -01
3
a
I
£
s in the open ocean.
•3
S
a
£•
rt
4>
.d
9
G
<*-«
O
g
••H
n
O
P.
01
•S
V
a
it
•s
r
3 and other chemicals.
•a
«
a
=ct introduction of such
i
u
fi
nronment as a result
•haps catastrophic
6 S
« D.
W t)
s g
microorganisms, into t;
ling could have severe s
as well as of :
of ocean dump
consequences.
T
1
C
U]
1
S
O
o
•o
41
t!
ge particles and associ;
T)
1
S
<£
C
i I
' C
1 0
in
&
3
1
jd
o
1
ned in the Gulf Stream \
become entrai
i
1 0
i a
>
g
rd
5
' S
•3
I
b/i
•3
01
0
•o
(1)
t:
o
p.
V)
It
_D
TJ
3
4)
••H
W
4)
1
}
1
i-
I
Newfoundland.
E-58
-------
^
0
I
d
o
o
W)
g
1
si
"o
4)
W
0>
It
P.
have
o
w
-a
•o
8
t!
In
Ul
01
1
O
4t
Si
o
tin
id
Fi
4)
n.
o
a
M
p
•t)
o
0»
9
5
0)
t
p
«*-.
o
In
O
u
n
11
4>
rj
S
El
E
R
Tt
:omate
m
s
0
l_,
41
D,
1
O
1
t)
rt
o
41
3
01
si
4>
(.<
&
Q)
L,
1
S
rn
0>
15
§
In
a>
0
ft
bo
f4
S
m
Q)
o>
o
CO
§
4)
^
•a
a
8,
rt
I,
S
rt
•a
3 fl
•s a 1 2
a- i 1 s
•s g ^ «
^ ^ ? ^
JS d ? rf
Cl
oo
4)
in
tn
1
•*-•
o
d
5
4»
44
3
U)
0)
M
0)
+J
1/3
d
F^
D
U]
3
o
-o
g
0
rt
5
4>
-5
g
eveloping r
•o
4>
J^
4J
P
4>
Si
&
ot
§•
4>
(-.
4)
1
SJ
4'
43
^
4)
-M
p
O
4)
4^
4->
O
d
£
fi
CO
to
Pi
1
<7>
W
•^j D.
£ S
4) 43
3 &
^ W
co d
£ |
ansp
B 3
••J ^
§ S
& 3
01 O
n p,
•a S
1 S
s
r
." o.
•o j!
a a
13 17
E-59
-------
in
CO
1
TJ
g
s
41
m
01
1
(0
o
It is unlikely that sludge dumping at th<
tn
rt
fc
t<
31
O
g
U
OT
Ol
XI
O
rt
>
•d frequenc
41
"}
expressed, however, concerning the increa
bn
tj
a,
e
•g
&
TJ
rP
'in
dumping expected to be attendant upon a mo
TJ
q
ra
tn
G
O
5
eather com
^
41
V)
f.,
Ol
>
TJ
rt
Vj
O
-M
g
41
In
rt
OT
rt
rJ
41
.s
o
d
tn
rt
p. iu>. rhe prooability of such occurrence:
n
%
.d
tn
in
^
O
TJ
il
f-,
o
0)
w
0)
X3
tn
w
01
71
in contaminauon of shellfish by pathogens.
«J
.3
n
U
ti
u
Oi
XJ
TJ
g
U
were closed to snellfishing by the FDA, tner
J4
OT
£
1
:he concom
TJ
tion of some shellfish from time to time, an
rt
tn
4)
•3
3
4->
0
d
o
&
o
tf
of harvesting them. The results of the SPA
S
o
w
n
>-i
o
Vj
•a
o
^
01
D,
x:
on
3
o
d
persist in the marine environment for long e
41
3
O
41
x;
OT
w
5
19
to
to
a
r-*
CO
W
U)
0)
u
g
OT
=3
Vi
o
to
a>
o
a
o
w
d
o
H
§•
f-i
unknown p
o
X}
^
41
x:
a
X3
3
D.
O
+.«
TJ
a
9
Cl
rt
0)
X)
TJ
§
U
0>
[.
Ol
XJ
CJ
4)
XJ
Ol
from short dumping en route to the 106 -mile
d. Social
at
.d
3
0
tements ab
rt
Concern has been expressed in several s
d
01
tn
Ol
M
P,
x:
a
s
U-.
bfl
a
general public reaction of moving sludge dum
4)
3
4)
X)
41
x:
d
o
TJ
41
W
rt
X)
o
tn
sites to the 106-mile site. These concerns a
o
•S
dumping
o
a
Q)
jj
G
fl
O
O
4)
x!
N
XJ
0>
[j
o
_n
41
.n
TJ
g
K
;j
x:
ft
a
x
01
XI
w
4)
^
S
U
•M
>i 1
3
41
XJ
ipalities pointed out t
'OTtrr.-ui
tJ
o
4)
X
0
S,
n
X)
o
i"1
OT
W
41
e additional funds nee
g
Wl
i
XI
OT
O)
I
Fi
41
^
d
o»
fl
-31
ct.
g
S
d
g
g
1
1
in
fv,
g
t3
HJ
d
01
n
493). The- 2flK5Lcorn
m*
't
-J'
TJ
-3
41
bfl
B
41
0
OT
O
O
0>
x;
g
CO
0)
o
TJ
d
4)
41
XI
TJ
9
|
a
a)
S
•M
TJ
QJ
5
4)
B-
0)
4>
x:
s,
rt
t-,
u
U
ai
rt
as easily discourage
TJ
p
O
O
q
bfl
divert in
'o
u
Ol
01
4)
TJ
rt
x:
-M
Si
bn
S
aa
a
•a
Oi
Wi
TJ
J3
m
o
t;
01
X)
ai
O)
x:
o
TJ
I
.-<
"te
m
TJ
d
TJ
Ol
|
W)
g
u.
El
p
T)
3
4»
O
°'i
TJ1
t-
s
u
o
tn
rt
D,
bn
g
n.
(I
•S
rt
ti
Oi
n
4)
g
q
n dj rt
E-60
-------
C 'o
O i
"O
O)
CS(
j O £ D
tt D t-3
CL D W
J "Z W
n rt^ < O
E^ W <
g; U 3:
4 W O W
i
> < n
fc u u
W O H
tic; o w Pi s: - ^
H • PS
h E-i D En &- W I
O < O O >
2 W H rH
EH ffi >H iJ tf f*1
2; W & H <
W EC M CO W >H
3S E-" H J O £ <
W K M PH O E
EH PH O CD U3 EH
-------
81
osl
o
4-»
rH
0)
c
p
o
u
H
4-1
01
to
X!
4J
0)
C
c
0>
CQ
•H
0)
C
ac
^
c
0
•H
4-1
ro
OJ
0)
0)
•H
r0
rH
•H
a
rH
c
o
H
fd
2
0)
4J
4J
£
4J
•rH
tn
0
rH
0
H
X3
M
O
C
0
• rl
4-1
rtj
M
0>
C
0)
4->
M
4J
tn
01
fd
tn
C
0
•H
4J
C
J3
M
rd
XI
•a
0)
<4H
C
0)
tn
C
0)
M
4-1
in
O
4J
tn
4-1
M
O
>4H
4-J
0)
C
H
T!
C
fO
4-1
tn
C
O
rH
0]
C
O
4J
rd
Oi
•a
01
0
1
01
M
1)
-J
o
1-4
o
4-t
-a
rd
to
CL)
U
•rH
4-)
1}
f3
M
CL
tr
c:
•H
a
•0
nj
O
O
P
cn
0
M
0
rd
C
•H
tn
C
• rH
a
T)
c
u
0
rH
P
rd
X!
rH
rH
rd
-H
4J
4-1
0
a
o
o
4-1
T3
0
-P
01
M
0)
XI
0)
M
rd
0)
0
c
1
rH
rH
0)
0)
M
rd
«l
0>
•H
KJ
£
(H
a>
rt
c
rfl
01
U
0
D
TJ
0)
0>
tn
o
s
4J
tr
4J
rd
CJ
0
Oi
0
4-1
-H
rH
X)
fd
01
*
M
01
a
c
0
4J
4-1
o>
C
O
f~\
i-H
•rl
e
rH
01
E
O
01
OJ
4-1
rt
0
u
01
4-1
0)
o
4-1
rd
U
o
m
M
01
4J
rfl
rH
rd
4J
cn
rfl
0
O
O
4-1
W
C
rd
C
•H
4-1
C
0
u
•H
U
M
CO
rd
C
rd
01
TJ
rH
•H
x;
a-
0)
x:
4-1
0
w
rrj
U
01
X!
4-1
C
-H
OJ
M
rd
rH
0>
Q
C
fl
c
rd
M
s;
o
>H
0)
2
0>
-P
U-l
0
01
cn
rfl
U
0>
x;
4-1
H
0
0)
c
rd
01
tn
M
0>
^
0)
2
O
E
rH
rH
c
fd
W
01
•H
O
rrj
4-1
U
0
0)
cn
0)
4-1
H
to
4-"
c
0)
0)
M
a
|
0)
x:
rH
rd
Ul
01
tn
o
cn
0)
4-1
rrj
•H
c
rtj
0
H
M
a
0)
EH
0)
4J
U
0)
a
cn
0)
M
m
4J
D
0
xt
rfl
0)
rd
U
0
s
0)
4J
•H
tn
01
•H
O
13
01
rd
U
1
O
01
01
4-1
0)
M
rd
U
0
rH
01
4-1
•H
cn
0)
rH
E
o
r-H
£
T3
0>
rH
<0
U
O
cn
01
X!
4-1
tJ
C
fd
rd
cn
H
c
o
0)
M
fO
rd
01
Q
C
01
a
0
c
0>
w
0)
a
ro
u
o
cn
rd
0)
0)
3
0
01
XI
Cl
cn
cn
p
u
tn
H
O
to
01
D
X!
M
0
rH
rH
dl
cn
4-1
C
rd
C
H
0>
C
cn
0
•H
4-1
rd
CJ
O
c
H
E
p
QJ
P
rH
W
c;
•H
01
tn
C
rd
U
c
fd
4-1
cn
a
r(
fd
Cn
rd
0)
CN
Cl
O
-H
4-1
O
C
M
0)
-P
W
•H
CJ>
0)
oi
rH
rd
M
0)
01
f-n
r~-
r-
rH
rd
n
4J
tn
•rH
W
tn
C
•H
M
rd
Oi
0)
tn
0)
X!
-p
o
tr
c
•H
o
0)
X
4-1
0)
u
c
p
0
c
fd
u
•H
>
'
•
c
o
4-1
§
•o
g
c
0)
4->
•rt
W
O
£
•H
4->
O
O
rH
PS
0
u
0
M a
c a
O P
jj
a c
g -H
ca u
< 6
O
u i
"H P
* y
0)
01
01
s
c
a
•o •
4H •
0) •
rC
1
4H
O •
>1 •
cn
c •
01
tJ •
rd •
>t •
4J
•H
> <4H
•H rH
4-1 01
T3
M X!
a-p
r4 C
0) O
rfl 4)
M -H
0 rH
1 •
01
cn
•H
U '
M
01
|g
0 En
IH >,
O XI
c -a
0 01
•H tn
•P 0
fd rH
M U
0
4J en
« 0)
01
•H 4-1
E rfl
oi tn
ac
•H
rH XI
•H -H
0)
•a
•rt T2
t> 01
0 cn
tJ t3
rH
C 01
•rH 4-1
6 'D
-a a
rd
(1) O
0 -P
o
01
m >
0 -H
4-»
4J C
CA 0>
O U
0 C
•rH
CO X!
0> -H
ti cn
•H M
a>
rH a
is-o
•
•
01
>
rfl
G
M
0)
H
U
rO •
0)
C
cn •
•H
en •
•H
*W •
0) •
M
P •
4-1
3 •
UH
T3
•H *
O
> •
a
(U tn
X! C
rH W
•H rH
S u
c
tn
ai -H
U *4H
T3 rH
01 01
M X!
cn
0) XI
cn 4->
rtJ-H
rfl 13
•H 0)
CL rd
rH -H
3%
rfl 01
rH W
•H rd
X!
ft U
4J
0) U
5 QJ
•rt
x;
•H 0»
X x:
•
G
O
4J
rd
•H
5
0
O
c
0
rH
•P
rd
CJ
0
di
M
-rH
P
tr
(U
fO
s
4J
M
0
tn
a
•o
rfl
0
O
4-1 •
C
01 •
tn
01 •
M
a •
•P •
rfl
01
u
rd •
•H
H •
>1 '
0 •
Oi •
4J
rd •
U
<4-( •
0
01
cn
rfl 0)
01 -H
XI cn
0)
4-1
-H
w
o
0>
X!
0
C
o
•H
4-»
rO
8
H
01
B;
4J
CO
c
rd
rt
cn
4-)
|
tn
M
4-1
0)
4-1
rd Oi
£ XI
•P
4-)
X O
01 C
H
M rH
01 -H
x; *
4-1
01
O) 0)
01 C
rd -H
0) rH
JH ^
U rfl
C 0)
•H -Q
>i-P
rH P
Xt 0
rd 0)
•H cn
01 X!
M a
a
a4J
rd G
0)
H p
IS U
en
p
o
M
OI
cn
>1
•H
01
o
a
'O
c
rfl
c
s
o
c
X
G
p
c
•rt
i-H
p
cn
0)
M
H
X
tn
0)
u
c
OI
3
er
01
CO
c
0
o
rH
rO
c
at
0
M
c
u
0)
> *
•H
-p •
u
01 •
M
M •
o
T3 •
c
fO •
fjl •
c
M
0 •
4-1
H •
c
0 •
E
O)
T3
o
0) W
M 0>
a M
p
H 0)
x e
•
0>
X!
fd
M
•H
01
0)
T3
c
p
UH
T3
0
O
x;
H
i-t
01
X
0)
x;
•P
0)
en
o>
u
c
•H
H
•H
tn
G
a
4J
M
O
X!
cn
a>
4-1
H
w
0)
H
X
l£)
OI
X!
4-J
O
-P
4J
C
rd
>
M
01
T3
•H
U
G
O
cn
C
O
•H
4J
rfl
T3
C
01
O
U
O)
TJ
rd
cn
C
0
•H
cn
p
rH
U
O
E-62
-------
Cn
G
H
>i O
rH £
in H
3 > TJ
O C rH
-rH 0 0)
> O -H
01 X
VH TJ
Cb C r-t
VJ S
B at in
rH CU
at u -P
TJ 4-1 Ui
3 d
rH 0) TJ
tn tn aj
01 B -H
B TJ -rH
5 0) HP
01 4-> 3
tn B
•H >,
4-4 -P rH
O -H CO
C 3
0i -H O
•H 01 > TJ
DJ »Q 0> d
E VH B
3 4-J O.
TJ 0
rt o -P
IT) TJ -rl
0) rH 4-J 4-1
U 3 C 01
o o ot q
-CEO)
at tn c xi
x; o
-P C TJ -P
0 C C
4-> -H (d 0)
B 4J Xl -H
x: B B B
E- U >
O 4-J -H
—• rH -U
3 0) B
-P
O
0) B
XJ U
4-1 tP
o c.
C M
•o E
rH 3
3 TJ
O
.d X^
10 O
3
at in
tp
TJ 4-4
3 O
tn in
0)
0) O
tP C
B at
S 3
oi tr
m ot
in
4-1 C •
O O T)
U 0)
tP VH
C Ol O
•H ,d 4J
QH-P H
6 C
TJ U E
H
c x: TJ
B 3 C
at B
0 0
O 4J TJ
0)
01 cn 4->
x; B o
4-t H
in T3
4-1 0) 0)
B VH
xi a
T C
o
' tn
-- 01
: ai
Xl
0)
•P
H
CO
o
rH
01
4J
O
4-J
0
•H
4-t
B
U
O
H
O
•P
i-i
0
Q
3
W
d
•iH
C
0)
tP
<
0) rH
rH (d
rH C
cn CJ
B C "-o
Ol rH O
d
01 CJ ^
> -p
M XH -
0) 4-1 4H
x; -H
= o x;
10
- o
o TJ x:
4-1 O 4J
B
VH 01 q
4-1 x: o
tn 4-J
H 0)
C TJ M
rH C B
E 0
TJ >i tn
< 01 01
XI 4J
at -H
4-1 0) Qj
4-1 E '
to B 3 u-i
0) U TJ -H
MO 0)
H rH O) X:
3 tT> W
tr tn 13
01 0) 3 O
M -P rH X
rH cn -P
a) in
4-1 QJ DIH-I
3 E C 0
(d TJ 4-1 O)
4J tn tji
in c -H TJ
(d x ai
O) 0) (D
x: o 01
H 0 0 X
S -P
• 01 4-1
rH 4-1 4-1
(TJ 01 4-1
c x: o
•H tn
cn -~ H
0) H-H
TJ rH 0)
0) 4-t
ox:-*
-p in cn
01
.c
4J
0
H
— '
td
(N
O
rH
d
O
•H
4-1
U
tn
C
rH
cn
0)
a
a
0)
H
-p
o
01
•rH
TJ
o
4-1
3
4-1
B
4J
tn
cn
H
x:
tH
cn x;
i
TJ *4-i
OJ M-i
T) 0
0)
x: o
CJ 0)
xi tn
3
4-1
in oi
3 ^
E B
OJ rH
0) 0)
XI H
H in
m
td vo
01 O
4-1 rH
OJ
0) XJ
0)
S 0
rH W
C 3
O
CP
TJ C
0) H
cn VH
3 0)
01 H
X) in
c
•P O
tn o
3
e d
H
01
Ot 0)
4-1 -P
•H B
Ul -H
VH
x; a
D O
3 VH
cn DJ
a
B
0) C
3 B
tr cn
oi «
VH 0)
u
o> at
3
>-H cn
0 H
to
X3 -P
(TJ M
at
4-1
•H
0)
4-1
B
x:
c
o
•H
tn
3
U
c
o
u
3
0
C
tn
0
O
U-l
x;
o
H
x:
cn
tn
B
C
(d
Qi
£
0)
cn
Xl
VH
B
0)
E
4-1
4-1
C
0>
cn
01
a
01
x:
(d
4J
B
O
O
rH
CJ
O
XI
0
OJ
4-1
(0
E
3
0)
3
rH
in
tn
d
o
•rH
4-J
a
to
cn
B
O
•H
(0
B
XI
tP
C
•H
0
rH
rH
0
0)
x:
4-1
c
o
a
3
eration does not and
n dumping criteria ai
and that , therefore ,
•H 01 -
tn U 4-i
C 0 C
0 Oi
o oi e •*
.c 2 0)
VH 4-J O •-*
01 VH Xl
T) 4-1 -H B
C 0) > VH
3 01 C -H
£ 01 cn
01 0)
tJ>-~ CJ T)
TJ 0) C C
3 VH -H 3
I-H 3 VH
Cfl 4-1 (d CO
3 E -H
0) 4-i '
B 01 .C C
ox) a
ui fO O E
01 -P 3
0) 01 TJ
x: in rH
H-i 0) 3 C
VH «-i (d
-P 0 E OJ
td 4-( i-i u
X BO
EH oi x:
— 4-1 - 0)
rH -P 3
d u d
H OJ-H
— 4-1 4-1
d
•P d o
o -H u
d - in
nj in H-i
U H H
ce for the terminatit
f not generous) and
most dire emergency;
V-4 -H
0—01
CJ 4-1
C rH
•H Xl H-l
B O
rH O -P
4-t cn h
c B o
01 at x3
VH VH U
VH
3 O tP
O VH C
B -H
in jC
0) tn 4-1
c d >i
H -H d
rH DJ B
0) TJ O
d
01 B T3
.C 0) 01
•POX
o (d
4-J rH
td i 4-1
C Cn
i
H 4-1
4J DH-H
-C 3 H
EH TJ XI
(TJ
— G C
m B -H
0)
O — .
O TJ
0)
0) C
tP-H
3 B
•H E
tn -H
sites should not be
believing that the
s with use of new as
DJ M tn
e o 01
TJ
in >i
0) -rH rH
CP to Xi
TJ B B
3 Xt -H
rH U
cn oi o>
rH VH
QJ XI DJ
CP B DJ
(TJ C B
& 0
01 tn cn
cn B H
0)
H-1 l-l W
C 4-»
0) B U
VH B
VH tn Qj •-
3 -H E cn
O H OJ
CJ -P
01 VH 0) -H
x: 01 tn cn
•p x: VH DJ
•P tn E
4J > 3
(d in TJ TJ
x: cn B
H d TJ
rH VH rH
— - C 0 0
O
T! rH 4J
0) TJ
4-1 rl T3
B -P Ot
u d tn
O 0) 0
rH 4J Qj
0) 0 DJ
V4 DJ 0
E-63
-------
c
o
>1
rH
0)
O
T3
QJ
G
•H
E
M
OJ
P
01
TJ
Oi
XI
rH
-H
CO
P
0
tn
r-H
ra
ra
P
0)
0
SH
ra
o
u
ra
>
CO
<
o>
•rH
01
U
o
OJ
rH
0
x:
to
ra
0)
G
!H
O
4H
13
01
4J
ra
• rH
4-t
q
^j
tn
XI
P
to
particula:
ra
en
c
-H
p
M
o
ft
to
G
ra
M
P
P
x;
P
P
u
QJ
(H
IH
QJ
CP
G
rH
CP
ra
•o
tn
01
OJ
x:
P
IH
IH
0
T3
ra
C
O
r-H
ra
p
CP
at
0)
CO
•rH
3
M
x;
P
o>
;o sludge
en
0)
•rH
P
>
•rH
4-1
•H
to
C
QJ
w
E
c
CP
H
c
QJ
O
G
0)
JH
at
IH
•H
T3
01
O
c
0)
tn
-H
CO
IH
at
c
ra
0)
•H
O
G
Ol
P
cr
OJ
M
*H
E
CP
C
•rH
ft
P
rH
ocean~dumj
UH
0
CO
p
o
01
4H
IH
0)
T3
G
ra
QJ
0)
x:
IH
o
iH
o
ra
G
r-t
QJ
CP
ra
P
c
fO
>
TJ
fO
-p
c
01
ra
ft
(d
P
M
OJ
c
o
rd
CO
QJ
-H
P
•rH
CO
c
at
T3
E
in
•-H
Cn
O
: alone
M
0
-p
0
id
tn
xi
HJ
•P
-
QJ
•H
-p
•H
iination
s
p
c
o
0
TJ
0
0
4H
ra
0)
tn
O
P
rH •
XI --
0 P
in o
0) P -
P Ol
H C P
in o H
•H ifl
4J P 1
at ^ o 01
CO P rH >
01 W -H
JH -H OJ P
ft c x: o
•H P ra
0> E
x: T3 JH IH
P < 0 O
E CP 0) C
0 P P O
rJ ^ .rH -H
UH Q 10 P
ra
CP TJ 0) JH
C C r-H 0
•H ra >H P
E Tj 1 Ol
3 O 0 rH
fa 13
0> 01 C
dumping oi
c
ra
01
u
o
c
o
CP
c
•H
S-i
fO
a>
x:
>i
o
P
rd
4-1
O
c
X)
c
•H
rfl
0>
P
„
ra
x!
ft
Cn
E
O
M
m
to
OJ
Cn
C
ra
-
i
rH
CJ
*H
OJ
Tl
H
CO
QJ
-H
O
3
O
XI
ra
G
ra
ra
__,
c
•H
0)
Ol
OJ
rH
P
ft
at
P
0
o
o
r-H
a>
percent
m
•v
>,
at
P
ra
E
•H
X
O
JH
ft
a
ra
^
o
IH
CO
: United
UJ
XJ
P
c
•H
13
QJ
P
CO
OJ
>
M
ra
x:
to
rH
0)
0)
p
0
4-t
Q)
P
-H
E
•H
id
3
P
(H
•H
e
Cn
G
•rH
o -a -H
QJ ai oi
c w to
o o o o
U C CP4
O 01 C i
rH 0) H
o) x» x: ;
M in ;
Q) -H i
0) ftf rH I
x: x: -H i
EH Q) i
• o tn
I U OJ CJ
0) OJ
^
rH
-H
C
0) O
C ft
•rH td
ra IH
E o
•P U
ra io
4-1
o "S
t-H
3:
*
O w
O
4-1 d
-H ai
c'S
0)
tJ
a to
>i 0)
•P x;
-H 4->
•H C
-P 0
O
3 M
13 OJ
H rc
ft 0)
M
OJ Cn
EH M
rd
• IH
c
x; at
CO P
cr
oi at
5 to
c
o
G 0
01
T3 rH
O X)
o id
•H -H
r-t W
QJ OJ
X 13
•H C
•H 3
M 0)
at u
p 3
at o
CP ft
<
x>
T3
Ot
X!
tn
•H
rH
3
ft
to
ft
s
01
P
G
O
0)
u
0
XI
0>
o
•H
4-J
o
to
H
ra
o
•H
H
XI
3
ft
IH
0)
to
1
MH
O
O
4-t
G
01
U>
a
o
o
>t
M
P
»
U
Xj
Jj
to
a>
iH
U
CO
TJ
(N
r-
rH
J-l
Q)
U
QJ
Q
a
•H
•rH
QJ M
C O
•H
M
a o to
E IH P
M to
• -H
IH to P
o M ra
Q P
P to
C
01 E CO
O • -H
0) rH P
ft QJ
o to ft o
esi rtt
p O -H
> 0 ,5 P
o xi w
H ra ai at
ft x: P
rH 0)
to P IH Q)
P ra o >
-•H M ra
> P QJ X!
C X)
rt oi oi —
« O -H m
C 2 1
WO CJ
fB CJ tJ
C P
Cn to fd H
G -H X!
•H -. -H
ft 0) 0) X!
§**H ;* x
•HOW
T3 rH K —
•H
01 C
G 3 QJ
H XJ
M rH H
r- U 0)
01 S ft C
3 -I
rH -H CO
P 3 w
1 — ' I>H ra G
u E o
W '0 O .0
T) 3 -H W
•H xi ra
o ;>i — cj
XJ rH
rH CO rH
>< (d to
O P Q)
c ra > -c
A; JH -H
O P QJ
ra ra ra co
•— rH 0)
x at x:
x: P
P -H 0) P
> x; ra
x: -H P
CP P P
3 U M C
O P O QJ
X3 -U >4H CO
P 0 01
•H 1-4 rH (H
id ft o ft
E 0) W -v
x: at ai
C P -H 6
OJ o 3
> JH 0) rH
•H O ft 0
Cn IH to >
to
4-1
rH
ra
ft
QJ
4J
rH
fO
IH
O
to
OJ
ttt
tn
r~H
id
0)
c
•rH
P
G
0
^
OJ
p
0)
X)
-rH
U
to
0)
to
c
p
0
JH
<
ro
0
CO
OJ
u
0
in
tn
ra
C
ra
e
o
p
P
G
fa
P
0
ft
e
•H
>i
P
U
QJ
•H
t)
to
0
E
to
ft
id
x;
ft
CO
ra
ra
OJ
D)
Q)
x:
4-1
0
p
rd
at
JH
=
QJ
x:
P
0
P
P
x;
P
QJ
rH
ft
X
QJ
IH
0
P
P
0
CP
c
p
G
O
ft
CO
CP
C
•H
x:
.p
rH
ra
•H
JH
at
p
o
1
rH
rH
ra
x;
to
rH
0)
H
P
ra
OJ
01
x;
P
0
at
G
•H
IH
C
O
O
at
SH
fd
T)
rH
0
Q)
x:
P
o
in
at
•H
JH
01
X!
to
H
IH
x:
4-1
c
QJ
ft
ft
ra
to
OJ
4-1
•H
P
M
O
x;
CO
c
H
=
CO
01
rH
QJ
in
ra
4J
c
at
c
H
G
0
O
at
rC
p
at
0
to
at
P
ra
^
^
0)
0
e
0>
XI
13
r-H
3
0
J.
ra
p
D1
01
CP
c
OJ
XJ
CO
CP
G
-H
p
r-H
ra
CP
G
a
E
3
TJ
C
rO
QJ
O
O
Q)
x:
to
i
G
O
rH
ra
CJ
-rH
E
0
c
0
o
0)
p
u
ra
ft
E
H
>i
0>
in
rH
QJ
•o
ra
ra
•rH
P
G
0)
p
R
t)
G
ra
M
at
p
c
p
o
o
c
0)
0
4-J
•H
IH
0
c
Itf
-C
4-1
IH
OJ
X!
01
p
G
O
to
0)
•H
U
ft
CO
G
•H
JH
fO
E
4J
G
P
O
ft
E
•H
?
U
P
H
XI
•H
x:
id
P
o>
0
1)
u
CJ
B)
XI
4J
3
0
-d
o>
P
H
0
ft
C
QJ
0)
XI
ra
x;
w
P
c
01
CJ
c
0
P
fd
u
0
at
xi
CO
1
o
p
ra
o
o
M
P
ra
QJ
H
C
a>
QJ
x:
P
0)
p
SH
O1
x:
4-J
x;
P
to
•H
C
0
p
fO
p
u
QJ
ft
X
rH
p
o
E
p
o
XI
p
ra
TJ
01
4-1
p
ra
0)
x:
4-1
x;
P
•H
CP
C
O
i-H
ra
i
c
0
0
p
01
H
p
(0
01
IH
rH
13
OJ
X
M
(XJ
E-
to
ra
at
4-J
•rH
rrj
P
G
r-H
3
p
s
in
ra
•H
XJ
0
to
QJ
•H
4J
•H
P
C
ra
p
cr
13
3
s
tn
o
•H
4-t
id
at
13
-H
to
C
O
u
p
H
CO
c;
OJ
13
tl
G
ra
•>!
-H
-H
p
CJ
p
0
ft
ra
en
c
o
•rH
P
fd
U
0
r-H
0)
to
p
o
c;
G
ra
o
at
G
O
CO
E
tn
-H
q
ra
o
01
X
p
G
0
to
o
1C
ft
•H
r-H
•H
c
OJ
O
ft
«H
01
QJ
P
C
M
4-1
tn
3
CfJ
E-64
-------
1
o
u
o
td
0)
to
to
d
R.
o
4J
"0
XJ
•H
XI
id
4-1
to
0>
0)
X)
3
O
0
T3
•H
VH
0
id
.C
u
c/)
0)
-p
•rH
CD
•O
13
0>
d
o-
•rH
ta
id
at
-p
o
-P
0)
3
O
VH
d
o>
c
•H
a
-P
VH
0
to
o
4-1
at
TJ
0
4J
M
d
•H
4J
rH
rH
(0
O
a>
o
0
0)
u
d
-H
10
0)
CO
g
d
0)
01
0)
XI
'O
3
O
•*
at
•p
-rH
to
0)
E
i
o
0)
•p
0
•p
d
0
•H
<0
0
o
rH
0)
—
0
+J
d
•rH
u
•rH
QJ
4-1
-rH
TJ
at
at
XI
d
•H
•P
•H
0)
to
d
0
•H
i-l
3
O
0
•p
4J
H
E
-H
at
x:
4-1
•p
d
-rH
•O
a>
Oi
T)
3
rH
tn
UH
d
0)
at
*
0
fd
Cu
VH
•H
4-1
0)
4-1
'a
01
•rH
in
4J
(d
-P
at
to
S
•P
•H
0)
-H
i— I
0)
4-1
13
at
M
to
Jq
id
13
-P
id
0)
VH
at
;*
01
-p
•H
in
nt
-rH
X!
a
01
•D
rH
-rH
x:
ft
d reopening of the
d
•d
>i
VH
a>
>
o
o
at
VH
UH
"H
d
>
at
d
id
01
VH
id
VH
4-1
O
d
id
o
4-1
TJ
0>
4J
aj
o
o
rH
Li
0)
id
0
-P
VH
0)
id
d
•rH
XJ
•P
•H
13
01
0>
rH
a
8
Xl
rH
13
rH
O
u
Oi
d
•H
CO
•iH
"4-1
rH
0)
10
0
4-1
0)
•P
•H
W
m
VH
at
CN
rH
(M
o
-P
4-1
10
at
X)
rd
en
-
at
0
0)
a
o
r-H
3
XI
0)
•H
UH
rH
id
x:
i
id
•O
01
rH
TJ
at
XI
u
ta
to
-H
d
•rH
a
•a
at
XI
•P
0)
VH
O
in
0)
Xl
(Q
0)
•rH
id
01
Xi
o
3
01
tn
3
H
tn
•rH
UH
,_!
at
U-i
o
•H
O
01
o
CD
t-H
O
Tt
d
at
0)
•P
XI
0)
•H
— *
>i
d
id
at
VH
•H
4-1
d
0)
-P
3
0
I
0)
id
cL
at
XI
0
4-1
tn
(d
at
IN
rH
1
CN
VH
O
id
0)
VH
id
OJ
rH
•H
E
0)
VH
id
O1
to
0
r-
iti
d
0)
a
o
OJ
VH
O
rH
X)
•H
to
CO
XI
-p
H
E
(N
rH
1
0
a
VH
O
§
0
13
0)
to
0
o
o
4-1
01
d
id
u
d
•H
tn
CO
0)
u
OJ
c
0)
XJ
•p
•H
e
•P
•H
4-1
3
XI
e end of 1981) a brand'
X!
4-1
O
4J
VH
U
>
O
0)
tp
d
x:
u
0)
-C
4.)
S
U-t
0
•rl
VH
OJ
0)
-d
•P
0!
L.
to
id
(1)
0)
id
QJ
•iH
E
OJ
VH
(0
3
O*
1
o
CO
?
01
d
more distant off-
cost of continued
centive to sludge
y their efforts to
d UH
O 0) -H -H
•P XJ »
jj d d •
o> id o) 01
d o> -P QJ
•H to 01 d >
O, id 13 -H -H
§at -«H -P
VH > Tt «J
T3 U 0 C d
d VH id M
rO >, *4J rH
3 rH 0) * Id
en d o 01 -a
rd «M rH at
UH o 0) Ol W
0 'H rH 0 1$
UH 0) O XI
d -H x: id i
o d -P -o
•H Oi O d
4-1 -H •* -P tO
m co 13 PH
O rH W
O 13 3 0) 4-1
r-H rH O -H d
01 3 ^ 4-1 OJ
4t d cd rH
E-t 01 -HE
4-1 O> CJ -H
• -rH C -rH
T ta -H d TJ
EX a 3 d
SEE id
'O rd Oi (i
d o
at d -H rH
VH « a at
o at E >
x: u 3 o)
en o T3 i3
1
0)
•p
ICJ
4J
W
4-1
O
«
&
H
rH
id
•P
d
o
VH
•H
>
d
w
4J
UH
id
VH
at
U-t
0
V
0)
VH
3
-H
fa
T)
d
o
01
rH
id
4-1
£
S
0)
at
XI
•P
•H
0)
•-H
W
at
w
0
d
•rH
d
id
OJ
u
o
QJ
XI
•P
d
o
4-1
d
at
E
at relocating New
XI
.P
0)
-P
(d
u
-rH
13
d
•rH
-
I
a
a
w
M
Q
Oi
rH
>1
•P
-H
CO
01
rH
•H
E
t
o
"0
0)
ta
o
o
VH
a
01
XI
•p
at
XI
4->
M
•P
d
0)
0
0)
a
0)
E
O
ta
VH
O
d
o
rH
•H
E
m
rH
id
QJ
d
Xt
rH
00
rH
c;
r-.
01
rH
Xt
ta
jj
10
0
u
d'
•rH
3
id
at
T3
3
rH
ta
-
4J
•H
at
rH
•H
I
U>
O
H
QJ
XI
4J
O
4J
0)
id
E
01
VH
•j
4-1
ta
tly increase
u
•H
d
•H
10
4J
g
T3
3
O
%
tn
o>
-X
d
nt
•P
o
CO
Q)
O>
id
Xt
(0
u
VH
QJ
O
U
id
01
x;
4-1
•H
CQ
^
0
0)
0)
X!
4-1
d
•H
d
•H
E
3
0)
o
o
UH
O
0)
ta
3
U
at
CQ
id
0)
VH
id
VH
(Q
rH
3
U
V4
-r-t
U
o>
d
x:
to
i-H
at
x;
00
o
•a
01
ta
0
rH
0
O
(T\
i-H
d
d
o
•P
VH
3
to
o
rH
0
CO
•H
XI
4-1
0
13
0)
TJ
13
id
0>
0)
tn
a>
rH
-H
E
QJ
VH
id
to
o
0
r-H
rH
id
at
d
M
0)
XI
4-1
o
S
at
4-1
•H
to
a
•b
tp
id
ta
0)
in
VH
0)
0)
•o
•o
d
iH
CO
H
d
o
^
0
to
4)
U
VH
3
0
to
to
to
a
o
d
0)
o
4J
•*
r-
d
•rH
id
at
M
id
id
3
O1
ta
i
rH
r-
fd
d
•H
XI
ta
•H
rH
rH
at
en
•p
13
0)
in
O
u
Q
QJ
XI
4-1
r-
rH
VH
Q)
0
0)
Q
q
H
4J
d
Q)
•-H
0)
VH
QJ
x;
4J
0
d
a
XJ
•H
d
o
rH
id
at
•p
to
a
•n
re
••H
XI
0)
TJ
id
i-H
•H
XJ
0)
XJ
•p
Oi
c
•H
to
ta
id
a
g
at
id
at
10
at
rH
•H
E
V.
•H
CQ
a
T)
id
-H
0
4J
G
O
ft
3
Q
0)
•P
d
•H
13
d
3
0
VH
3
to
0)
N
-H
ta
rH
n]
3
tr
at
UH
o
0)
id
VH
0
«H
*o
0)
CO
3
rH
at
o
=
•P
•H
Q
id
PH
01
id
QJ
Q
E
QJ
x:
4-1
id
x:
O
ra
OJ
g
•p x: \
O -P ro ta
o) at
UH 10 - --H
UH to -— o >< 4-i
D Q) m r- id -H
•H r- & £ >
Q) Ol rH -H
XI - rH 10 4->
4-1 in >, at O
r- >i id 4-) n)
O rH S CO Ol
VH d CL d
UH d "H g -rH
rH -H 3 XI
>, — 01 *o in
rH >1 d -H
d id 4-i xi d rH
at 3 -H w a) rH
•iH d w -H in QJ
u id *H QJ x:
IW id rH PJ
UH d XI 01 13
3 O 4-1 X! OJ 01
to tn xJ T3
O> -P 4-1 d
13 d id o at
0> -rH 4J tP CU
VH rd Oi C en
a> m d to -H 3
> -H -H 4-1 4-> Ol
o UH a -H (0
O rH 6 E U >,
Ot rH 3 -rH O rH
VH at T3 rH rH 4-1
xi i a> d
TJ W UH UH VH QJ
id o UH VH
XI O O 4-1 VH
-P d rt 3
at o 13 xi o
Oi 13 -H OJ 4-1
^O o) -P VH 0)
rH O W rH Oj 0
in & w u o io
o oi 01 x:
0) 01 U 13 en in
rH -rH (d -H 0)
0) DJ tn xi VH M
id 3 id VH CQ 1
rH T) Q) 0) 0) O
rH >, 4-> > rH
ft O CN (d tji fO
d
MO -P
W d TO -P rH
Ol H E 3
4-> a) 01 o> tn
•H Li 3 U 01
in 13 id VH
tX d *O rH
E oi rn a >i
3 E 3 W rH
T3 C o at TJ xi
0) S -rt d id
at xj H-) o xi
o> tn oj -rH u o
TJ -H H-t > at n
3 U-l vH -rH W DJ
rH rH 10 4-1
10 rH rj 01 T3
at 4-1 id x: rH
01 XJ .d 4-1 3
xi en CP tj> o
•p H d d »
U-t tfl CX -
O -H A; g Q)
U M 3 • -P
C VH 0 13 0) -H
o at >H o< in
•HP at id i
•p e .* 01 s «>
id o at 13 a> o
o u 2 3 tn rH
0 rH
•H o at in 13 at
at -P x: oi x;
VH 4-J UH W 4J
4-1 o id
4-1 --H UH XI O
0 U-< o d I -P
fO QJ O 0>
U-H d at -rH VH o>
Q) VH 4-1 O d
u-t XJ 3 id xi -H
o to u in a
0 0 O |
d U Q) O 13
•H i-i VH
OOQJ CO 0)
a xi x: a) o>
01 4-1 4-1 O1 13
d r-H -H H 3
M 4-1 S rd rH
4-) at xJ tn
•H O d U
rH id at en UH
4-1 rH > -rH O
Q) rH d
E OJ -P -P T3 O
E H tn D at ri
O >t VH at 3 -P
CJ -H IH C id
rQ H_( »4-i -H O
rH 01 4-> 0
3 01 d rH
o x: d o o>
j 4.1 -H O H
O
GO
at
H
QJ
13
0)
-rH
1
Oi
d
0
0)
rH
rl
E
i
o
at
d
id
UH
D
at
X!
x7
01
H
p
0
rH
U
d
•H
MH
0
0)
4-1
3
O
l-i
OJ
XI
4-1
d
0)
OJ
OJ
XI
cd
i-l
at
o
Q)
XJ
•p
c
•H
-P
d
m
01
a
0)
o
•H
O
0
0)
H
S
0>
ifl
3
in
d
o
-rH
3
X)
-H
VH
tn
••H
T)
at
x;
13
d
to
0)
•rH
1/5
1
VJD
0
0)
x:
•U
0
•P
4J
XI
tp
Ol
CO
VH
0
VH
rH
at
id
VH
4-1
at
VH
-------
Uj
o
4J
G
01
t/1
0)
in
a
c
o
,_,
•H
E
0
F
O
QJ
rH
X)
fd
M
Q
QJ
0>
tfl
01
rO
^
X
in
X)
TJ
01
TJ
S
OJ
Cn
TJ
tfl
01
D1
•j
0)
t/1
0
to
G
0
4J
4J
QJ
3
en
JH
O
TJ
0)
4-)
U
QJ
0
iH
^
C
o
H
rH
H
E
01
o
o
o
o
o
4J
UH
4-'
C
QJ
4J
G
0
U
w
TJ
0
01
fd
c
o
TJ
01
fO
0
a
0)
!_,
0
o
TJ
3
x;
o
|
rH
f0
3
C
C
fd
E
3
E
X
(0
£
fd
0
4-1
0)
01
H
iH
Q)
>
Cn
-d
3
O
3
"~~
fd
OJ
S-i
OJ
ft
c
2
Til
O
o
o
o
o
C
OJ
01
fd
XI
TJ
G
fd
01
M
rO
E
x:
Cn
•H
E
01
H
x;
01
H
x;
q
O
4J
>i
TJ
01
a
o
0
c
OJ
E
01
J
H
(/I
4J
fd
M
OJ
q
H
O
c
H
0
4-)
QJ
>
4-1
fO
Oi
JH
w
JH
QJ
Cn
H
rd
X!
OJ
E
0
(ji
4J
01
QJ
4->
O
0)
>
4-1
U
fd
SH
4J
fd
fd
01
o
w
x:
4J
0
4->
>i
r— 1
4J
c
fd
o
H
H
Cn
H
01
TJ
TD
rd
o
q
TJ
0
3
4J
0)
'fd
01
TJ
C
fd
q
H
JH
TJ
O
01
-H
01
r-H
IH
3
w
in
01
D"
JH
fO
XI
0)
01
0
TJ
C
fd
C
0
4-1
U
H
a
a
fd
•a
c
id
0
Ul
in
a>
c
>
4-1
U
fd
4J
rd
o
H
E
0
0
O
a.
p>
4-
rd
C
JH
QJ
4->
rO
>
4J
O
a>
QJ
4J
01
o
O
tf]
0
E
OJ
x:
4->
fC
Cn
C
H
a
E
3
'fd
0)
u
0
OJ
fd
QJ
rH
3
QJ
X
G
fd
4J
01
Cn
JH
fO
Ui
o
ft
H
01
1-1
OJ
x;
4->
0
_E
QJ
x;
4J
IH
H
TJ
TI
C
rH
(N
LO
OJ
ft
QJ
X!
rC
IH
W
U-i
0
4-'
rd
4J
c
QJ
E
01
O
c
H
0)
x:
4->
01
XI
H
01
rrj
QJ
W
QJ
>
0
iH
ft
01
E
0
to
X)
TJ
4J
fd
o
o
T)
rd
O
rd
0
a
ft
rd
iH
4J
c
fQ
4J
01
X)
3
01
OJ
XI
T)
3
0
a
0)
4-1
H
to
a
E
3
TJ
q
fO
QJ
U
O
4J
c
fd
4->
•H
TJ
OJ
in
O
E
fd
4J
Cn
C
H
3
x:
QJ
1
0
4-1
IH
a
01
c
fO
01
3
T3
QJ
JH
IH
QJ
x;
4J
JH
p
Ti
3
0
3
01
•H
x:
c
0
T)
0)
a
o
fd
«
0)
w
OJ
>
rH
fd
d
u
QJ
4J
fd
TI
0)
to
to
XI
TJ
C
fd
o
G
O
H
4-1
fO
4J
C
0)
E
QJ
ft
G
H
01
x;
4->
01
4-1
rO
JH
0)
U
U
O to
1 H in
UH 4J 0)
UH iH rj
O T3
G 3
4J O 01
COS
rO
4-J QJ UH
01 XI UH
•H 4-1 O
TJ
IH fj]
QJ O rH
0 C rH
E O -X
H
C -P XI
4-> H tO
U-l iH
Cn QJ <4H
c a
H QJ TJ
CL JH £
e ro
3 UJ
T! O Ai
!H
QJ X 0
Cn w >-i
TJ -H
3 >H 3
rH QJ
tO OJ S
x:
UH 4-1 C
O H
QJ
G U 01
O 3 Cn
H TJ G
4-> QJ H
rd JH 01
O O
0 TJ rH
rH rH U
QJ 3
JH 0 rC
3 U
OJ fd
x: 01 oi
t-t OJ X!
-U
•HO*
in 01 4-) in
QJ ijj
E TJ g
3 01 g
TJ --H 3
01
U Xl
O -H 01
x: x: fd
>-
01
01
M
QJ
ri
3
0)
&
TJ
C
rd
-X
O
3
Oi
Z
q
3
OJ
t,
fd
ft
O
ft
TJ
QJ
C
0
I
o
u
OJ
H
4_J
0)
tn
QJ
3
l-j
0)
3
(fl
4J
to
rH
0
to
4J
G
01
TJ
H
U
C
H
•H
X
x;
01
-H
UH
TJ
G
rd
C
H
01
0
U
x:
u
rd
QJ
X)
01
x;
4-J
fd
0)
-H
E
rH
01
4-1
4J
fd
QJ
Cn
T3
3
01
OJ
Cn
fd
3
0)
01
UH
0
Cn
C
H
a
E
3
TI
q
OJ
u
o
QJ
x:
o
a
rd
4-1
X!
,H
£
rH
rO
3
4-1
U
rd
<4H
rd
to
fO
XI
OJ
OJ
XI
w
H
x;
4-1
4J
fd
x;
4->
4-1
c
QJ
4J
X
QJ
OJ
4-1
0
E->
OJ
4-1
01
4-1
Cn
H
X
0
3
QJ
x;
4-1
q
a
E
Ti
OJ
x;
4J
01
o
E
C
rd
U
01
C
0
OJ
0
X!
0)
UH
O
QJ
4-1
3
0)
c
o
H
Jj
rd
T)
3
O
tn
IH
QJ
3
W
4J
tn
rO
U-J
0
c
o
H
H
4J
QJ
a
QJ
in
a
01
£>
3
>i
QJ
0)
Wl
QJ
01
TJ
q
rd
OJ
4J
QJ
4-1
tn
fd
OJ
w
3
rC
O
4-J
0
c
TJ
TJ
tn
q
H
a
E
3
T3
OJ
Cr
Ti
3
W
UH
H
C
01
W
w
OJ
0
QJ
3
0
a
o
OJ
rO
G
3
4-1
JH
UH
C
3
3
QJ
x:
4J
c
H
o
0)
o
TJ
TJ
3
0
U
4J
•H
W
Cn
d
•H
rH
3
0
,c
u
rd
OJ
X!
C
fd
W
rH
x:
w
W
0)
3
01 *-' 4-J
CP
d
•H
O
lfl
o
o
rH
re
C
01
iH
U
C
x:
4J
TI
0
X)
H
Q
Oi
4->
0
cn
M
0
U
u
(0
—
01
0
4J
to
JJJ
4J
U
0
3
01
ys
IH
0
4J
cr>
O
O
01
x:
0)
•rH
U)
0>
rH
-H
E
1
o
0)
o
4->
4-1
3
O
0
4)
x:
4-1
S
d
O
E
O
4J
x:
4-1
0)
rH
XI
3
O
T)
3
O
XJ
(d
OJ
TJ
•d
3
g
i*
3
O
4-1
0)
O
Q)
0)
4-1
n
0
u
01
XI
4-1
O
d
TJ
rH
O
3
Cfl
CP
IH
rd
XI
4-)
3
O
0)
4-1
Cfl
x:
o
0)
3
OJ
•H
cn
0)
rH
a
CO
(0
G
•H
ft
P
Ti
d
(0
(U
u
o
01
u
c
w
01
4-1
H
w
ft
n
TJ
C
•rH
4-1
Cfl
•H
01
01
x:
T3
c
o
OJ
X)
01
u
G
ffl
cn
•H
TJ
d
id
•s
n
XI
i
Is
(d
d
4J
rH
Cfl
O
0
to
Q)
rH
rH
q
id
u
•H
UH
•H
d
H
CO
Cfl
TJ
0)
U
H
U
ft
>i
4-1
C
IH
O
tives
0)
o
d
•H
o
— t
d
o
o
01
OJ
in
OJ
ft
r-H
0)
rH
A
rd
M
a
CP
QJ
0)
01
CO
Ul
0)
•rH
0)
r-f
rd
tinuation
d
o
o
V
A
tP
G
0
0
ft
o
to
4-1
••H
rH
n
•rH
O
c
3
E
c
a
TJ
01
TJ
3
i-H
CO
M
0
4-1
•H
X
0)
0
G
C
Q
0)
y
D
"•H
•3
JJ
ID
0
U
CJ
x;
M
Ql
Xl
tfi
If
c
4-
di
4J
01
0)
X!
0
4J
CP
q
-H
ft
TJ
id
0)
o
o
UH
0
CP £3 X!
fi W 4J
•rH H -H C
S 1 * $
2 g S1 5
u u o a>
C 0 rH Xt
4-1
d P TJ TJ 0)
ns 01 ai E
>i 4J W 3
0> d G X) U
4J tt -3 1 C
10 "i* -5 c
a o rH nj 4J
g g O O d
(!) U -H tT1
CP ^ 3 4-) -H
G O T) fd tfl
H G 0) 4-1
O 4-1 01 E i * 0 *H
X) C S QJ ft
C 4J
0) 4J (d TJ tO
cfl -H to 0) ^
(d TJ O ft -•"!
01 TJ ft X **H
JH rfl W OJ
U -H 0)
d 01 TJ o x;
-H X! 4-1 4J
4J iH
oi o 0) d
X! > M
W 4-1 -H
T! d) C 4J ' •
•H u oi d cn 4-1
3 C E 01 01 d
O rd -P O > 0)
O 4-1 (d C -H g
CP -H IH to »d o
d TJ 4J -H C U
•H -O IH
ft rH TJ 01
TJ X! rH 4J fd
O
3 fl O O
O <0 TJ 4-1 4J
4O 4-> 4J U
ft 3 3 W 0
n oo o d d » -
C 4-1 -H XI 0)
•H 41 -H O
0) rfl flj G CO rH
rH S Qj -H -H ft
ft 01 X -P 3
E W 0) r< rJ TJ
o oi 01 d
o UH oi > x: o
o x; --H -P u
M 4-1 t3 O 0)
O 4-> tO
UH tfl 0) UH TJ
O Cn 0 --H o>
OJ O ro 3 XI
•H 01 3 U S
«-» x: o 01 c
TJ 4J O UH £ H
(0 d UH U
Q) d 0) 0) -H
TJ -H XI *
10 0) 3 -P
01 ^ fd XI 3
X! C" 4J tfl 0
-' -H tr T) C 0)
ft (d rd 3 Ul
fH g M XI UH rtj
CD 3 3 x:
tfi TJ O 4-1 TJ --ft
rH U -H OJ
d Cfl 4-J CP
UH rrj -H VH -H d
O 0) TJ -•-( E •"-*
U -3 ft
o) at -H d tp T)
CP to -H d
01 TJ rd ft -H id
X! 3 0) E ft
TJ fd TJ 0)
d QJ o E
(d CP TJ CP d ffl
S > 3 a 01 ft
O QJ 0 rH U E
d to o co o --H
x:
cn
0
C
«
-rH
d
to
•§
CO
4->
0
c
01
0)
01
•H
to
a
T)
01
X!
Cn
d
•H
4-1
ro
O
0
•H
0)
M
0
4-)
01
IH
U
q
M
hances
u
n
•H
4-1
d
M
4-1
rH
rd
-•8
W
(0
rO
1
TJ
d
(d
rH
UH
O
C
O
•H
rd
OJ
ft
E
•H
01
x:
o>
N
•rH
iH
ft
O
0)
0
4J
d
o
H
d
o
•H
rH
>H
•*4
°
w-
1
1
IH
(d
0)
rd
C
O
•rH
•H
E
w-
IH
O
un
*n
4-1
d
0)
u
d
4-1
Cfl
O
0
'-
3
E
•H
X
rd
^*
E-66
-------
r-l i
0
Xl
H
4-)
rd
0
a
QJ
r-
r-
M
(d
QJ
rH
c
•rH
H
S-I
S
w
cn
O
2
XI
M
1
c
QJ
TJ
H
U
C
0
4J
4J
r-l
rH
q
rO
0
QJ
x:
4-1
x:
QJ
•0
u
q
0
XJ
ro
p
0
u
(Ti
i-H
c
q
rH
cn
x:
o
QJ
XI
01
O
x:
cn
01
tn
(d
o
to
0>
x:
x:
4J
X)
LO
S
a
a
o
rH
O
QJ
o
o
in
0
q
H
0)
4-)
rO
QJ
2
0)
o
in
QJ
x:
-p
0
c
0
0)
x;
0)
§
4-1
a
q
0
H
4-J
P
•H
4-1
TJ
QJ
i-H
,Q
4-)
in
to
TJ
QJ
0
TJ
0
VH
C
QJ
0
O
q
OJ
XI
QJ
q
0
rH
o
tn
H
_p
•H
en
TJ
P
0
S-i
rO
3
O
C
H
a
QJ
QJ
U
•H
TJ
fO
QJ
4-1
cn
XI
0
4-1
rH
QJ
Q.
a
rO
T3
P
0
0)
SH
QJ
x:
4J
*
p
£
FH
0)
XI
QJ
P
IH
O
O
H
q
QJ
>
QJ
q
cL
p
•a
QJ
U)
ra
4H
o
c
o
H
4-1
fd
D
0
OJ
c
a>
TJ
in
rO
OJ
H
p
tr
0)
>H
0
p
u
rH
4-)
1
1
QJ
1-1
o
in
o
QJ
x:
-p
P
0)
4-1
(0
u
0
>1
rH
ra
4-)
0
-P
0
If!
O
in
QJ
QJ
cn
H
e
o
a
E
O
O
?
E-67
-------
^
0)
4-t
* TJ rfl
CO C rH
CO rd
01 Ol
0 in XI
U 0 -H
'W ft ft tO
0 ft W
C 3 O
en o to ft
f-H -H
at 4J TJ ro
> CO rH
0> 01 3 in
•H Cn o 0
E TJ
CO 01 X
-H 01 S H
ex: o
ro 4-t 0) ?
M G -H G
0 -H J3 3
o So
M CO M
O C Cn
•rH O
g -H 0) 0)
•P Cn X!
at id • TJ 4-*
x: o 3
JJ -H rH >,
u-i to id
at -H H
O TJ 0)
3 o x: o
T) E 4J -P
0>
IJ 4^ 4H [ft
Cn 0 -P
03 H
4-J O Cn o
rj G
>i x: E
rH 10 -P 1
-P -H -H
c f: m
OJ ft rrj 01
M i— f Cn
^ 01 rH id
3 TJ rH M
O id 01 3
rH S 0
0) -H 0
i-i x; w c
0)
£
-H
CO
-P -H
ox: e>
-P
a) -P
fO O
0)
OJ TJ C
3
-~~ OJ ItJ
NX) O
fd TJ rH
W rH 0)
CO 3 -H
01 O „.
ox: £
0) W 2
c 3
0) rj1
0) JJ 0)
> rfl r4
0 0
IH O rfl
0) VH
O rH 0)
4-1 4-1
O -H
OJ 4-1 M
rH O
at G
SO Cn
rH C
-P W H
(OH ft
x; o £
4-1 01 3
TJ TJ
rH .H C
— it) rd
c at
C -rH U
O <-H O
-P id ot
(d x:
O J-> EH
rH 4- •
at 4-t r-
TJ
0) CD
•P TJ
H fij
CO 3
ft f)
3 at
01
at
•H 4-
CO
o
ft
4 E
3 O H
cr
01
4-1
•H
= CJ 0) 0) -H —
H i-i w x: w
0
tp
0)
4-1
fd
u
id
H C
M j:
0) 4.
4-1
H
O
3 4-1
J 01
i o
-i 3
^ 0)
s CO O
<4-l
0
0)
3
4-1
>
>1
XI
01 -
4-t CQ
•H QJ
W 4->
ft H
E CO
3 ft
TJ £
C TJ
id
0) 01
U CO
O
Cn u
ro OJ
3 CO
Oi X)
en 0
-P CO
C JJ
i 0
-i id
: ft
Q E
rj -H
a
H
O
Cn
0)
•P
rd
CJ
id
a
,H
.G
o
• rH
x:
CO
01
C 4-1
H
J CO
ft
J E
x: 3
0)
rH
e
0
CU
4J
C
OJ
4-1
H
0)
H
rH
rH
H
x;
M
0
CQ
n
rH
CJ
ai
4-'
c.
0
c
o
0
CO
c
0
•H
4J
TJ
c
0
O
C
3
'•a
OJ
to
X)
CO
-p
o
rd1
ft
E
-H
H
>i
O
4-1
O
0
X.'
CO
O
4-1
id
OJ
ft
ft
to o
(d
x: cj 01
ft rH CT
_Q TS
Cn fd 3
H ro 4-t en
ft O H
E to u-.
3 CU ft 0
TJ U E
33 C
rH CO TJ 0
4-1 CU W 4~>
O E H fd
4-1 U
CU to O
Xi O CU
4-1 f > iH
O O CU
4-14J OJ
l-i U QJ 4-1
O fd rH H
x: ^ xi to
co ft fd
4-J CU
>1 ft rH
-HO) H
rd c o E
H O O 1
rH fd rH
01 01 >H
-p x: o
rH 4-1 4-1 CU
o - en 4-1
— 01
x; rH H o
jj QJ co
4-J CJ
in fd cu cn
O H co fd
TJ CU O
— 01 x:
CJ E -P 01
rH Id
CJ C
CO rH i/\ M
fN XI -P
OJ H O
co fd
iff] CO ft 4->
0 g • C
UH a H c Qj
O O E
— . O C 4J 0
> c -H rd cj
— — 0 0
3 O
C 3 QJ O
^
0>
JJ
o fd
4-i Cn ? en
G CU rH
c ft w fd
oi E id u-i
E 3 3 4J
c T: 3
o 01 o
H 01 fd TJ
> x: s 01
c -p CD cn
ai o w fd
Xi
fd fd
CU rH CU -H
O 0 -P £
4-) ft O
tfl M >i i-i
0) rH *+-!
^ CU 0)
D1 4-1 4-1
O TJ fd rC
4-1 QJ p Cn
T3 TJ QJ ffl
QJ TJ
4-t W rd X
O rrj C M
CU HO
ft cn ><
x G co
01 O rrj £
rH CJ
CJ Cn E:
£1 cn c
rrj 0 0)
(H - 4-1
Xi G w
rrj O rd O
G -H 4J
0 -P TJ C
tfl -H C H
rrj TJ fd
OJ G M
S-i O * 3
U >i 0
-P X3 ft
0 CU In
C rH rrj O
C XI 0) 4-1
rrj fd C
O 4-1 W
ft QJ a)
CT CU 3 3
G U C C
rH O H H
CL fd 4-1 4-J
E C C
3 G O O
Cn T3 --H
ro CJ W
£ x:
CU O 4H
co co o
LH 0) G
o x: o
4J rH
C ^ ro
HOW
T3 en
rrj CU QJ
!H E O
X 0
CO M
H O
0
at
x: TJ *
•P 0> 0)
-P 4-t
«H 0) rrj -H
O O -^ w
3 O ft
4-1 at to 3
u n)
TJ 1 4J
Ot rH Q} G
x: 3 cn 0)
J-i 0 T3 to
3t 3 01
XJ tn to a
0>
Cn-P >. Ol
G -H XI 43
•H CO 4J
ft ft C
% I-H *O
TJ TJ 4-1
rd N
at 01 G 4-J
4? 0 E G
3 X! rd -H
rH CO 4J O
eO >w c -H
UH O >
-H 01 -H
X X!
rH C 6
aj id tn
T) E -H
id 3 C
-H x: *
•H cn
x: o u
a* 4-1 o
cteria!
XI
G
01
ft
•H
O
G
•rH
c
•H
4-1
rrj
cn
c
5
rd
id
JJ
0>
O
CO
cn
c
•iH
C
G
H
01
X)
01
43
JJ
TJ
C
(Q
CO
rH
4-1
iH
i-i
0)
4-1
0
C
0
•H
C
-H
4-1
C
O
o
micro-
3
E
fO
X!
O
jj
•H
rH
H
XI
ro
•H
01
XJ
4J
O
•H
x:
c
•H
x:
4-t
-H
01
3
W
O
in
G
O
•H
•P
rd
t-H
3
3
O
O
rO
nj
*rH
x:
ft
rH
0)
TJ
rO
rH
•H
01
x:
jj
WH
o
H
c
H
O
H
0>
43
*J
G
rH
TJ
0)
TJ
iH
U
G
rH
(LI
JJ
Xi
tn
•H
E:
CO
E:
VI
•H
c;
rrj
r.
C
tn
rd
x:
43
cn
rH
rH
0)
X!
CO
0
C
0
•H
4-1
(0
G
•H
jJ
G
0
O
rH
0
CU
UH
.C
Cn
3
0
rH
<.
0)
4-1
•rH
CO
a
TJ
OJ
TJ
3
CO
rH
id
&
o
H
rH
X)
3
ft
CO
3
O
•H
0)
CO
ra
4-1
x:
jj
-P
c
•H
0
ft
x:
o
TJ
0)
W
CO
0)
rH
O1
O
ft
jJ
Ol
^
O
rH
JJ
C
CU
a-
ft
0)
-H
en
rH
-H
O
0)
43
-p
4-1
ro
C
•H
ft
TJ
id
CD
U
o
OJ
3
G
H
4J
G
O
0
CO
CO
H
X
OJ
iH
4-1
G
01
W
QJ
ft
4-1
id
0)
x:
jj
0)
rH
3
TJ
0)
U
0)
x:
4-1
•a
c
id
O
c
c
0)
0)
4-1
01
X)
id
O)
M
x:
4J
ro
x:
o
3
CO
0
4J
0)
•H
S-i
01
•H
Cn
rH
Ol
3:
TJ
rH
3
8
rrj
X!
O
3
E
en
c
H
s
o
c
cn
id
0)
rH
1
d>
G
•H
ft
TJ
cn
ro
H
x:
ft
01
TJ
rO
x;
MH
O
G
0
H
4J
(0
w
en
0)
o
0)
x:
jj
01
jj
ra
o
0
r-t
CU
LH
O
4-1
c
0
•H
en
•H
U
01
TJ
(0
4J
G
0)
£
OJ
ft
E
•H
O
JJ
QJ
o
E
O
In
0)
(0
QJ
ro
JJ
TJ
rH
3
O
0
4J
H
3 -H ro
TJ CU
oi 4-t en
o id ra
0 ^
rH TJ C
ft 01 0
g rH
4J H fO
fO C
0) TJ H
M QJ g
x; 4-1 ro
JJ rO 4J
H C
XJ 4-1 O
4J -H CJ
rH C
fO -H C
01 H
XI 43
0 U
rH rH TJ
XI 3 O
3 O O
a x: x!
QJ QJ
C X!
•H CU EM
TJ 4J
C 4-1
fO 0) C
JJ 0)
CU U g
4-J O O
rH rH U
cn at
ft rH
3 O
TJ 4J
0
E
0)
x; oi 4J
•PCX:
O Cn
W -H
•H en m
H
at x; x
4J 4-1 r4
•H 0
en IH >^
o
id MH 3
H 01
x: jj z
ft cn
rH Id 01
0 01 .C
TJ rH JJ
rH JJ -
•rH fd 01
x: 4J
G tfl
0) O
XI rH 4-1
-P 4J X!
id cn
4J U -H
ro 0 CQ
CT> OJ J^
•H 0
ft U~J JH
E O
TJ M 01
O 2
CJ >
TJ W .C
3 4J
•H G .
CO H ^
O
TJ 4-1 01
OJ C CO
3 01 (0
G E O
H 3
4-1 Cn 01
C l-i 43
0 ra -P
O
<*H C H
0 H —
4J -H
rH CU
3 ft 01
ifl E -P
at o H
U O CO
rH 4-1 fd
O
01
Xi
E-68
-------
•a
c
o
c <
g5
J 0) 01
x: M e
j o a
: 3 a o>
E-69
-------
y be far more sensi'
shore counterparts-
ole Oceanographlc
e ocean floor below
g QJ 4-'
M CO
tO rfl T3
e CP o -
co d o -—
H S fl
fd H ty •
CP QJ x: ft
J-i XJ -P
O 4-1 -
G RJ O
M XJ CO
rd 0) -rH
6 to TJ xi
RJ U id x!
OJ id M X
CO ft W
E TJ
ft H M
a fd cp
0) CP S 0)
Q C O CO
rH E ^
~ ft
xi e
TJ Q 0
H
d >> 4-1
RJ XI 3
0) 4-1
O TJ -H
O 0) 4-1
4-i in
O O C
4J G H
bility" in which
s, and other factor;
ly unvarying and ha^
n millions of years
Rj G rH 01
4J O fd >
CO -H -rH o>
4-1 4J
QJ r( £ T3
rH Tj QJ £
XJ. d CO rfl
rd Q to
H 13
fd d OJ d
E QJ ^ Rj
X CO 0
4H O U XJ
0 CV 4J
4-1
d >i R) >i
0 4J 5 d
H H fd
Cn C M £
0) H QJ
r-l rH S iH
RJ O CP
fd W rH >
= i-H 0
M Q) XJ 01
H rH CO rH
3 4-1
0) 4-1 O 4-1
G fd 4-1 -H
•rH rH rH
rH 01 4-1
U ft to TJ
o e RJ QJ
E Q) H CP
rH — 4-1 G
CP 4-i G rd
XJ •— • O XJ
H-i s O U
predictability over
o
G
RJ
U
p
ul
rj
D
D
H
,J
•H
0
'J
I1J
,4
CJ
j;
OJ
0)
£
•H
TJ
0>
rH
0
QJ
RJ
QJ
H
QJ
-P
e
to
0
-H
CP
ft
CP
G
0
rH
rH
rH
RJ
O
•H
CP
O
rH
o
Q)
RJ
M
O
O
0>
g
QJ
CO
CO
ell
to
d
QJ
CO
.d
(U
id
u
13
f0
d
(U
C1
O
0)
0)
rQ
G
O
x:
o
-H
CO
QJ
U
d
rd
Q)
rH
0
U-l
0
QJ
CP
O
id
c
M
QJ
RJ
4J
H
!*
CO
rH
O
c
0
-H
4-J
XJ
01
ft
^
QJ
rj
G
OJ
tr
0)
CO
o
RJ
QJ
rH
•H
CP
rd
M
CO
0
E
G
XI
O
4-1
CO
CO
QJ
rH
TJ
c
QJ
XJ
fd
H
rd
OJ
5
£
H
OJ
o
c
u
rH
•rH
H
UJ
0)
rH
4-1
4J
rH
rH
01
rd
-G
4->
CP
H
4-1
x:
4-1
rd
4->
o
to
ft
RJ
01
ft
TJ
rd
0)
OJ
01
CO
CP
rH
3
O
CJ
M
CP
•P
RJ
^
0
rH
CO
OJ
XJ
RJ
4J
U
•H
T3
01
rH
a
p
X)
0)
VH
RJ
CO
£
M
CP
U
O
a
CO
H
XJ
=
rd
tp
01
QJ
CP
TJ
Q)
4-1
d
rH
to
d
0
rH
rd
U
H
ft
E
H
OJ
CP
3
O
x:
rH
RJ
LH
rH
a
rH
1
to
-p
XI
rH
X
QJ
O
SG
CO
O
0
4n
0
01
XI
CD
H
-U
Oj
RJ
01
CO
ft
OJ
QJ
OJ
x;
4-1
4-1
fd
x:
4J
t?
rH
QJ
4J
C
0
OJ
E
4-1
RJ
rd
4-1
CO
QJ
CP
TJ
QJ
rH
O
C
O
RJ
QJ
-rH
RJ
IH
U-l
01
CO
O
rH
rO
rH
ft
0
ft
4-1
G
0)
-P
•rH
CO
G
0
U
CP
TJ
rH
tfl
0)
rH
X)
M
to
0)
TJ
3
%
TJ
G
OJ
0
JS
CP
0
XJ
rH
0>
XJ
to
QJ
XT
4->
O
d)
CO
QJ
XJ
4J
•rH
CO
4-1
d
OJ
4-1
-rH
CO
d
o
0
o
3
CO
0
rH
Q
4J
0
QJ
d
•H r-
o
to
»
d
0
d
3 t
>i
1 rH
u
cr
w
H
3
H CO
CJ tjj
J M
1) -p
s M
> d
rj fd
U
^ (0
rH
P 0>
2 >
rH
CO
4-J
G
CJ
e
H
13
OJ
CO
Q)
x:
4J
o
4J
d
3
0
XJ
CO
CD
e
0
o
XI
1)
ro
J3
>i
ti
e
M
-------
&OI
rH
4) O 0>
-o ft x:
UH en
0 4J
>i 0
4-i Se 4->
•H C
> UH d)
-HOE
V £
•H CD H
en XI E
C Q) 1
tn a u
Ll 13 Ll
-P 13 >
rt o
0)
Li 0) C
tP § fl
O e
4) (X
4J - en
« C
4-> -H rt
Ll tP
Ll
CP O ft)
01 Li C
n « o
O "*H
x: u -P
4J (0 3
XJ Lt >
*-" O rt
to *-,
E f*i
tn t
•H O
c
fl 4J
CP -H
Ll X)
0 -H
x:
rt X
01 w
tn ^-
C
(0 iH
0) 0! O
tn -a -H
o c m
o w x;
a
4J QJ ' — •
a> x;
>! 4-» U
-H
C X -P
4-i en
en
Ll 0)
x tu x;
0 > 4J
O 0> «J
XI 3 Li
0
01 X •-.
r— - XJ
t TH
c x:
4) CP -P
303
rt 0)
U Ll -P
o> c
XI O 41
tl 4J
* 01
K 4) «
•H X! C
en EH 0
0! U
x:
4-1 * tn
0 • -H
& u
& 41 CO
* XI en
en 3 4)
LI tn ^
d) 4-1
TJ in o
W 4-1 J5
ca
4J
a
4)
•a
u
•H
c
fl
u
0
4-1
0)
Ll
CP
4J
ffl
4-1
C
11
tn
0)
a
tn
01
E
-H
tn
d)
Ll
CP
C
Tl
4-1
to
•rH
d)
T)
C
O
1
rH
^
U
OJ
a
u
0
e
c
o
V
r-t
d)
M
C
M
u
rH
fl
fi
O
•H
4-1
•O
fl
d)
01
•H
t
O
d)
4-1
p
rt
0)
o
ft
tp
•H
-X
rt
4-*
c
H
ft
o
E
s
u
u
-H
X
0
p
C
o
•rt
§
c
fl
0)
CJ
0
fej
TJ
01
0
4->
C
-H
tJ
O
3
I?
•H
l
fl
E
•rt
a
3
T3
0)
-a
3
Ul
-rt
4-1
C
rt
tn
3
4-1
O
4-1
C
01
E
d)
O
c
0
u
d)
-p
XJ
c
d)
E
u
X
^J
4-1
.C
4-1
•H
£
r.
C
•rt
U
tn
i— t
ro
-p
E
0)
x:
CP
3
0
P
ro
-P
c
rt
o
•rt
rt
c
-rt
en
d)
>
a>
r-f
X3
3
i-t
tn
C
•rt
4J
C
0
to
0)
Ll
ft
^
rH
rH
r-l
XI
rt
X)
0
a
0)
M
3
0
1
rH
0>
•P
C
fl
rt
o
•rt
E
cD
x;
u
d)
E
5
u
nd
3
3:
(U
tP
•a
3
rH
VI
x:
H
•rt
C
U
tn
E
11
4J
tn
rt
d)
Li
0)
.c
£
C
o
*4H
QJ
XJ
4-1
3
T3
[/I
4)
-P
fO
>4-l
c
LJ
0}
UH
4H
•H
•O
|M
O
*M
OJ
x
E
-C
3
O
tn
•rt
JC
in
d)
fl
•H
3
U
•rt
4-i
rt
a
a>
XI
3
0
in
c
o
c
tn
fl
c
•H
0
0
4-1
O
3
f
0
Ll
4J
C
•rt
x:
4J
•rt
c
01
o
c
0
u
4)
4-1
rt
d)
tp
to
rt
x:
di
a
o
tn
o
rt
a
E
•rt
13
rt
•
di
o
4-1
T)
d)
g
O
4J
3
O
U
fl
C
3
4-i
C
0)
o
c
0)
rt
o
4-1
c
en
E
Ul
C
rt
CP
0
o
u
•rt
E
c
0)
rt
>M
C
OJ
c
u
en
X
4-1
4-1
U
01
IH
d>
o
r--
CM
C
•rt
rt
H
Li
H
Li
U
C
rt
CU
T)
C
rt
QJ
u
o
01
.c
EH
E
tn
•rt
C
fl
CP
^
0
•rt
•rt
rH
tP
C
•H
-rt
rt
4-1
O
u
in
4)
Ul
0
3
>4-l
O
tp
•rt
C
rt
01
D
0
d)
CP
C
•rt
13
01
0)
XI
en
Ul
rt
M
0
Lt
01
O
0
4-1
rH
rt
0>
fl
x;
Ll
(U
c
rt
'O
c
0)
'O
3
o
x;
o
S
CP
a
•H
U
3
0
-P
C
rt
Li
0
CO
rt
D
rt
d>
u
0)
c
•H
C
3
G
-H
'O
fl
CP
0)
en
c
0)
CP
o
4J
(13
o
0)
tP
fl
0)
4-1
en
4-1
0
fl
E
rH
rt
4-1
c
01
4->
O
ft
41
fl
OJ
q
rt
0
4J
W
0
c
01
tp
c
rt
4J
o
tn
0)
-rt
o
0)
a
en
0)
XI
rt
•rt
>
4-1
rt
XI
u
fl
0)
.c
EH
C
S
o
c
c
3
4)
JH
rt
E
rt
c
fl
CP
0
o
Li
U
rt
E
0)
tn
QJ
p
CP
c
u
3
13
0
P
O
+J
4)
£
C
0)
XI
4)
fl
*
•rt
0)
CP
3
CO
c
T3
O
o
en
4-1
C
3
0
rH
rt
E
in
d)
•rt
4-1
fl
d)
C
0
rt
4-1
fl
4-1
•rt
4-1
0
4-1
O
•rt
M
ft
o
•H
Ll
p
Ll
^
to
>i
01
•rt
4-1
fl
d)
D
rt
D
O
d)
4J
rt
Ul
I
O
rH
d)
x:
4-1
:*
at
2
C
ro
rt
x
ft
rH
01
T3
fl
rH
X
X)
tp
G
•rt
tn
TJ
3
rH
QJ
U]
C
01
4J
QJ
q
0)
in
QJ
-U
C
H
O
H
3
0
»
en
0)
T3
0>
CP
3
(Q
3
0)
c
4)
en
d)
,c
•P
C
rt
T3
fl
rt
4J
CO
4-1
tn
0)
tp
CP
3
in
en
C
ro
0)
E
O
XI
Li
o
•H. Cn P3
E-71
-------
ft
u
3
w
C
O
•rH
4J
U
(TJ
M
01
4J
C
•H
H
M
C
0)
4J
X
0)
<4-l
o
0)
u
c
0)
M
In
3
T3
•H
3
0
*
(U
4-»
-H
W
1
u>
o
rH
0)
x:
4J
o
4J
&i
c
-H
a
'O
41
o
T3
3
iH
»
*W
O
C
0
-H
4J
id
u
0
rH
0)
«
m
tor the situation and rei
-H
C
0
-p
>1
•P
i-t
C
3
4-»
M
O
a
a
0
,
C
0)
t3
>i
rH
rH
(T)
•H
JJ
C
4)
TJ
3
O
X
U]
u
4J
C
0)
>
(U
4n
0
01
VI
M
P
O
O
0)
.c
4->
1-1
0)
4J
(0
s
0)
•H
,Q
•H
01
w
o
a
E
H
>i
rH
rH
•«J
3
-i-i
>
>i
1-4
d!
[Q
U
a>
u
o>
c:
at
ja
c:
o
H
-P
U
(0
01
>
H
4-1
O
OJ
rH
[fl
-P
c
01
c
o
a
E
0
o
rH
fl
V4
0)
>
0>
U}
V]
«3
X
C
i-l
01
0
u
u
Ul
•H
x:
£-^
fl
u
in
H
X
tn
L^
0
4J
c
0
4J
>i
4J
H
C
p
4J
^
O
a
a
o
0>
X
4J
W-i
0
rH
(T3
•H
C
0)
Q
(0
at the EPA workshop on
01
rH
Q-
x
0)
VH
O
g
C
M
0)
U
C
0
U
0)
•H
0
>i
4J
c
01
3
•
a
T3
H
.
01
•rH
(0
.£
O
Cu
o
M
tT1
r-
iH
0)
-a
0)
rH
4J
w
a
o>
.Q
•H
H
IJ
W
3
Q4
m
in
D
^
a
i/i
I -<
(U
4J
ID
T
q
["
•rH
CJ
r^
V
E:
ft!
C"
"Ci
E-72
-------
«n nJ H
E-73
-------
II
tr
T)
(N
1
rrective
o
u
4)
X
4
-P
O
4-1
4-1
rH
3
0
•rH
<*-)
-r-i
TJ
4)
M
p
O
rH
(0
[0
H
+J
H
£
nearshore
C
-H
TJ
0)
C
•H
id
4-1
C
o
u
C
4)
£
4)
>
0>
1
I
ti
a
41
u
4>
Xi
4J
c!
•rH
CO
0)
4->
CO
ft
S
M
O
4-1
01
1
4J
rH
3
O
•H
IH
4-1
TJ
(D
4->
C
4)
M
U
C
•H
4)
£
EH
TJ
C
ti
C
o
(0
0)
-p
CO
nj
j
lH
0
X!
P
4-)
id
C
Id
.C
4-1
0)
4J
•H
w
yj
o
rH
4)
X!
P
4J
id
to
0>
M
3
CO
id
41
£
XI
O
3
to
cn
C
X
al signif icanci
u
•H
4->
u
id
IH
a
41
rH
4-1
4-t
•H
0)
>
fd
x;
>i
id
E
0)
4J
H
(0
0)
rH
H
p
o
T
0)
J5
4J
4J
id
>i
rH
VH
(d
3
U
•H
jj
V-i
sure that
4->
0
C
41
M
4t
*
-rH
>1
C
0
4-1
C
id
>
4)
r-l
41
M
4-t
jq
41
3
M
FH
U
>i
C
id
4)
to
3
m
u
4-»
C
o
s
TJ
C
id
4J
3
O
1
0>
CO
(d
.c
a
>,
id
rH
Ol
TJ
C
§
0)
4J
•H
W
to
O
»H
01
J3
4-1
0
4J
4>
>
O
e
CO
0>
0
•H
U
id
M
a
4J
c
4)
(0
0)
M
a
£
id
£
4J
e
id
£
01
^
erf erpnrp
jj
C
H
TJ
C
(d
C
0
H
4J
O
(0
H
01
4->
C
•H
O
<4-l
rH
(0
-rH
4J
C
4J
>
-H
D1
4)
4->
•H
(fl
4)
rH
•H
e
i
rH
4J
C
01
m
0)
M
a
01
Xi
4->
4J
id
G
•H
W
1
to
o
rH
01
x:
4J
4->
IT)
M
0)
4-1
ItJ
0)
M
CJi
O
c
acfi vi i- 1 es
t^
c
-H
4-1
3
rH
O
QF
M
0>
x;
4-1
O
TJ
C
(d
(p
c
-H
a
TJ
o
>i
4-t
•H
CO
IH
G
>
•H
TJ
TJ
C
fl
>i
4->
•H
CO
C
0>
TJ
0)
41
XI
P
4J
id
TJ
H
id
>
u
M
0
E
01
X)
>i
id
E
c
M
0)
O
c
0
u
0)
X!
H
4-t
x!
tn
•H
ra
x
M
o
fH
S
(U
2
O
X!
4J
longer
o
c
CO
H
*J
C
o
c^
3
a
4-1
«3
x;
4-1
*
O
G
>i
rH
M
(0
rH
3
U
4-1
M
id
a
4t
P
H
01
a
T3
id
•H
xi
a
0)
tj
id
-H
E-74
-------
M
^
O
a
•H
£.
&
at
0
4-i
0)
43
4J
•H
•o
0)
N
rH
id
c
rt
cn
O
4J
u
rt
0)
4->
0
•H
M
at
43
4-1
O
(0
a
•d
0)
•o
3
rH
CO
C
•H
4J
GO
•H
M
0)
0)
43
4-1
O
0)
43
+1
-H
01
q
-P
rt
4-1
01
3
rH
q
8
0>
m
XJ
cn
•H
C
0
•H
tn
H
U
q
O
u
to
01
6
•H
4J
4J
a
0)
in
01
M
a
at
43
rt
13
at
id
g
desirability o
•a
c
id
M
O
MH
•a
0)
at
c
o>
rH
X)
rt
rH
tn
q
E
rrj
MH
O
0
rt
rH
01
43
4-1
O
O
01
in
01
1
ca
3
O
-H
rH
at
n
rH
rH
-H
C
0)
4-1
0
4J
43
•rH
4-»
01
O
C
3
01
43
0)
at
•H
ID
01
H
•H
O
V£>
0)
43
-P
O
0)
•H
a
0
rH
0>
-p
M
01
43
-H
Ot
O
G
O
•H
rt
0
o
rt
o
0
c
0)
0)
4-1
g
c
o
1-1
4->
id
u
o
rH
0)
M
*4H
o
u
a
at
•H
rt
cn
0>
C
rH
rt
C
at
0
MH
*O
at
01
c
0)
•p
13
•H
3
O
W
0)
-H
rH
13
rt
at
4J
o
1
0)
cn
rt
a
Cn
-H
4J
tn
1
rt
0)
4J
-H
CO
1
0
rH
0)
o
0)
•a
3
r-t
n
rt
•d
"a
rH
0)
T3
rH
MH
O
q
O
•H
O
0
I
<£>
o
at
43
iH
o
at
rH
•H
g
1
0
VD
«
43
rH
0)
43
•H
0)
O
4J
01
3
U
0)
VH
Ot
0)
rt
43
U
3
m
o
1
•H
rH
0)
•H
rH
Ot
43
•
at
-P
•H
rH
a 4
o
VH H
a
a
4
01
£=
O
u
0)
43
C ^
43
-P 4
4
H
It
rt
0)
rH
rt
1 43
H tn
71 -H
03
a
J "S
) 0
n >"<
L) S
H 0)
3 2
j
3 at
H 43
4J
u
a -H
d
U (3
u rt
n 43
I) -P
-H
D C
H 0
U 4J
3 rt
J 3
Federation resp
0)
•H
rH
t)
rH
•H
rH
c
0
•H
4-)
BB
0)
43
4-1
r*H
rH
Cn
q
13
0
0
<
*
•s.
q
(8
M-t
O
q
o
-H
id
M
rt
a
0)
rH
a
01
43
S
rt
•H
4-1
-H
q
•rH
rH
0)
4-1
id
•H
13
01
•H
rH
3
O
x;
tn
q
+J
cn
u
iH
0
01
43
4-1
CD
at
m
CO
0)
rH
13
rt
rH
H
O
43
q
0)
4-*
rC
4-1
4-1
0
rt
a
H
rt
4-1
q
0)
0
H
>
•H
in
Ot
•H
f
VO
O
0)
5
q
0)
4-1
•H
tn
ot
iH
E
i
o
UJ
0)
4J
4-1
o
XI
o
4-1
C
0
-rH
rt
o
o
rH
O
•H
rH
at
-a
43
U
3
tn
o
cn
c
o
o
c
w
0
M
a
rH
4J
(3
0)
o
J-|
•rH
q
0)
c
rt
U
01
•H
•rH
4-1
cn
•n
O)
X)
rH
3
-rH
CO
o
a
o
4~>
U
01
a
CO
Ot
VH
4-1
•H
0)
§
q
0)
01
X)
in
rt
w
•H
-P
0
0)
E
0
w
c
0
4-1
u
«
o
0)
tn
3
q
•H
0)
4-1
•rH
W
0)
•H
1
O
0)
o
4-1
cn
q
-rHj
13
0)
Cn
13
3
4J
43
•rH
03
0
0)
z
«H
0
13
O
•H
rt
U
O
r-t
O
-P
0
0>
0)
TJ
rH
O
u
PM
W
H
H
q
0
H
0)
tt
W
3
XH
01
4-1
W
id
0)
3
cn
in
w
H
H
D
0)
4J
3
43
0)
•H
tn
i
o
0)
5
q
rt
rt
a
rH
01
13
rt
•H
CM
r.
0>
0
U
o
•P
H
tn
-rH
43
T3
q
a
I
o
a
o
q
01
01
j-i
q
o
•H
4-1
0)
•H
CG
q
0
u
o
rt
E
0)
u
0
0
rt
4-1
4-J
O
rt
at
43
0
4-1
in
01
-P
0)
0)
4-»
in
r-l
a
0)
4-1
43
4-1
O
tn
0)
4-1
•rH
in
tn
•rH
43
4J
id
0)
u
rt
rH
id
t)
0)
T3
01
•o
q
3
r^
rH
in
3
0
•H
01
J-l
a
w
*
q
o
•H
4-1
rt
rt
f currei
0
0)
to
3
q
0
•a
q
43
0
4J
q
o
n
01
J-H
C
•H
rH
rH
o -H a
in — &
o
H
a
E-75
-------
J=
o
rO
C
-rH
Ek
-o
0)
T3
C
id
a
x
(U
G
id
1-1
0
0)
o
c
id
3
Cfl
in
•H
0)
x;
4-1
x:
3
O
iH
x;
rH
E
-3
CU
C
0
13
01
XI
4J
0
c
13
rH
3
O
CO
x:
4J
H
»
13
0)
3
in
CO
•H
at
X)
4-J
co
r-l
-H
H
13
T3
rd
OJ
4J
•H
W
&
13
(3
•H
x;
a
rH
0)
TJ
|Q
rH
H
x:
PJ
01
x:
4->
4-1
(0
>i
M
rH
U
•H
fl
a.
c
o
4-1
•H
C
O
E
*
at
3
G
-H
4-1
C
0
U
13
rH
3
0
X!
0}
01
4J
"r-t
01
0)
rH
•H
E
1
V0
o
0)
4J
ti
rH
id
3
•H
4J
1-1
rd
£
0
£
t^
a>
in
3
in
13
id
o>
id
M
0)
-rH
•H
c
0)
C
•rH
id
4-1
rd
>i
rH
x>
01
lH
0.
13
0)
a
u
i
G
id
0)
o
o
«4H
0
rH
rd
•H
4-1
C
0>
4-1
O
a
13
03
fd
a>
x:
o
3
13
0)
4->
U
M
O
W
•c
0
x:
(A
CO
4-1
H
0
IN
*4H
CU
0)
CO
0>
x:
H
^
•H
M
O
l-i
x:
tr
•H
x;
rrj
C
01
•H
XI
•H
0
x:
w
01
13
rH
CO
01
4J
c
o
0
rH
id
•H
XI
O
M
U
rH
E
01
x:
4-1
0)
u
3
13
01
M
0
cn
4-1
a
3
0)
n
4-1
M
id
rH
3
U
H
JJ
rd
a-
01
3
O
•H
C
OJ
o
4J
to
D1
3
rH
to
rH
rt
M
O
CO
O
MH
0)
c
id
0)
3
CO
O)
tj>
rd
0)
(0
(0
•H
a
01
rd
x;
0
4-»
C
01
E
4-1
rd
01
M
4-)
01
rH
a
>1
X)
cn
01
to
4-1
c
rd
G
"g
4-1
c
o
o
rH
u
rH
u
o
CO
0>
0)
rH
H
0)
x:
13
3
O
CO
OJ
TJ
3
CO
0>
rd
0
CO
4-1
H
p
01
tr
•rH
a
rd
0
0
0)
3
4-1
3
fc
01
X!
4->
0
4-)
C
0
-H
4-1
rrj
U
0
0)
rH
E7>
C
H
)H
•H
3
D1
0)
H
4-1
O
0
•H
4-1
O
01
tn
o
01
ai
rf
4J
x;
H
01
a
CO
s
3
O
CO
o
rH
-H
CO
ul
O
DJ
H
rd
01
U
H
0
C
to
rO
t3
O
C
O
i
H
u
0)
a
w
0
CO
rd
•H
Cfl
a
3
13
0)
JC
0
4-1
rH
C
H
U
•H
OJ
x;
4-1
c
H
x;
CO
•H
rH
0)
x:
H
tn
0)
0)
rH
CO
3
VH
H
0
0
•H
0
u
01
o
0
H
rO
U
0
0)
rO
OJ
•H
4-1
3
x:
o
H
x;
>i
rH
CO
CO
01
M
a
x
01
13
3
0
XI
CO
VI
Cn
C
H
in
rfl
0)
x:
OJ
01
01
^
4J
-H
S-l
(D
a,
In
3
4->
3
•H
fO
4->
In
QJ
-P
C
0)
T3
rH
3
0
x:
to
T3
C
rO
G
0
•H
4-1
rO
U
O
0)
0>
rH
3
4-J
i2
O
01
c
0)
rH
XI
cn
o
a
j*
w
CO
01
13
J=
cn
01
•rH
4-J
fd
a
0)
4-1
4J
O
0)
•r~i
XI
3
W
CO
H
x:
c
0
CO
c
01
H
rd
0
0)
U
C
13
•H
rH
rrj
C
c
(d
CO
Cn
C
rH
M
rcj
0)
X!
4->
G
01
CO
0)
VH
a
0)
x!
4-1
4-(
0
13
O
D
0)
)-i
x:
c
0
H
G
0)
4-1
4-)
rd
W
O
4J
rH
rH
id
u
o
4-1
13
rH
3
cn
•H
x:
cn
c
H
13
01
0)
U
O
i-l
a
4-1
01
a
u
3
W
UH
0
4J
a
01
rd
o>
Xt
tn
rH
rO
T)
rH
3
O
x:
in
0)
u
a>
XI
•H
H
13
C
rd
C
01
x:
cn
CP
c
rC
0)
x:
0)
x:
-p
3
HH
13
0
XJ
O
4-1
13
0>
01
_£
0>
id
-H
XI
0
G
o
4J
U
O
rH
OJ
XJ
H
rH
X
u
H
O1
'O
CU
01
0
0
a.
0
M
id
in
cn
0)
u
0)
c
E-76
-------
u
0)
A
3
4-t
•H
ft
•H
£
M
0
C ~->
0 (N
•H P-
4-> Ol
FTJ —
10
M rH
01 rH
tJ
H 4)
id o
-H C
-Q V
O-H
rH U
o to
-ri
* 0)
• n
id a
o>
.p Q>
4) TJ •
•* 0) rH
* A r-
2E 4-1 m
EC C
-H -
•* Ol
,G M rH
CJ 0)
CO 4-> •
Id 4-> rQ
G tQ 4)
G E fc
^ O
•H in
C r-
rd 1
0i
3
cr
00
o>
0
•H
M
CP
C
•H
a
TJ
id
o>
a
\ O-
O
H - C t
O -P O
•H C -H
E 4) 4J
I 'H
rt .2 to
4) U O i
w-H a
1 M €
a G 01
01 4) U
01 4)
Q -P O
G
^ 0)
C-H rC
4) IH • U
n +j .— u
M 3 HI id
-H C r- G n
H 01 C
O rH Id
• -P *~) J
O - -J
• 0) rH
CJ W rH £
O rG
c >i a -—
0) M id C
H Id M 0 — — 0) tO
4) 3 D> -H 4-1 4-1 -HIT) C fn
• <4H r4 0 -P W W rH rH H OO .C 5
H C .Q Tl C id -H -H M m id -P 4-t Z
J O 4> G id M -P 4-> - -H > C 4)
0 U &4 « 4) 4) C G'-- *< • TJ O T) C-P
rH O 4) TJ 0) 01 E CP W • -HO) C "HH
• rH «• £r>O 4-t 0) -H -iH id -P 3 . — . -P-P OliQ
fl IB C C rob O CJ M rd ril * >, id <0 « M
0 coowoi H to torj- MJG M rH ro
L( O'HrH U4) O a - Q CX 0)3 O
H a-P ? O O'H -H MM O id fd -DO -POl
> » 3 4) W W-rl O O (X X-H>irH 4) M .G
5-rH 4-> rS CO rH -H -H W M ,Q 0i Cn-H -—4-)
O-H CO < Tl C CrH ^4)O O M
4J 0) T3 rH 4) 4>« W-P-OC 01— OC
- G W rG 0 M-H W WtO O-HOJid "*H KO
d idc-po os • 6 SMiHO) -H •* s
J 4) H n, * P HmHa CJ-HU r-ir- •— en
OO°4> — Id KCh K-iH 01C71J3 rHrH £-H
!• -HjG G SrH^Q UCOiH -H U-P
j^- (H^a-P oo *~^ ^— O-HO Sv toe
u vo oa-H J-I-H - c coaot CN idcy
3r- (0 ^ T3 (d-P wvocofl GEOIG «H CE
Oi tOlnCOG Old 3fN 30) O3-PO fO>i CE
jrH t^cnMid oss a au aa-p-H CM 3-rH3 ICE3 -^3'-' —
-P *OldGrH C C iH CQr3{ |C^ldg-P 4JC-P •
- CX 4)4)04) • O CX CX fXO)O-H fO ffl C S -^r
01 C ••Hfl) 4) U a 0) tn tfl •«; « W H U U -P {3 ^D Q) " r^
0) T30>iKW o O w C C k fc O m Ewoi
Q G ft id W*- OI-H rC RJ -> " C a C U-i - E 4) rH
id H) Zl TJiH r4 -.
rH
•H
M
<
CN
1
<
• M « •
* m
• 3 •*
W JJ 1 OH
-H rH •
*• to T o
u c
W -H •• G •
flj 0 4)
G » co u
C tflrH M
£§« £
•H O
G G 7
id 0>
rH U {
O CO t
m ^-
1 l
< <
HCO OH idW 4)QO)*H *H(OCO C-rH O(^
H! "034) K-H Qw Q-G OG^a OaiH EC
uo gx:*n c "z cj owa -Hgo
Jco O ta 4-t O gC 6"^" g — ' (O-H OH -P3y~i gc
ICO rH"O 04) O O C-PJrH -H^ Of]
3 MHOtHtD WQ- iHTD MM* Old'-'U CO W M»T)
•• O 4) & W CN IHH UHOlrn HP Ul OC4-J V(
J" -PSTJM Or- 0) rHr-WrHro aflw
HOi a CO* rH -P O> M W M -P O^ p (ti r- "• 4)H M -— -
-^- tH4)3UC 01 rH 0) OlCflrH rH>CTit7i VO-P flit-
dO OlrC O -P--- 4-t Id -P« OWrH^ u-' 0 G 4->S-
JirH U4J»»-H JJ4J- 4->M -PS" C 0) (TJ 4) 4-JZ —
H X I-HC4-1 OltOCO 4)id 01 r- OG-J2 Mfd-H Ot'^'C
3- W-Pr-O3 tJ-HfN rJJa ^. CJOrH-cJ Q4)U J O
JJ BJO^TH4-J 4J M i<4J rH 10(0 -P-H
3U rHW-H C1 to -na tp 3a o>o EW
3 ftlro-HC U01 0 03 041- Olffi So
o*« ^ r4 3 •
M O -n a
o) t) a
c -
rH Id •< >
Id rX H
O 'O W
•H O
C O -P rH
-C Cn id 0
CJ >
01 " >i
EH CO C -
TJ O 4->
4j Q g a
CO 0 -H -H
rd [n 4-» M
01 CO O
J2 0 01 W
•H rH
• 4J rH Id
io H 10 am
Oi G -H rH r-
E rd > Ol 01
!d W Id *D rH
i-) Q fl
J^ » rH "
• CO C -H (N
-P H O -C (N
a<4H -H (X
(d rH -p >1
cj rH id c rd
0) M O £
x: -p — •
XW 10 CP
rH| -r( C rH
- c -H r-
4-1 -H M
•H £ RJ -
C 'O 4) co
D < J3 vo
JC3 M M •
-P O 4) rH
0) 4-t 4-t 4)
G m id to
c u s
01 -H *
3 C 10
0 T-I id to
•U rrj 0)
id M tO
C -H
0 < < 13
4J W C
id o *
U 4)
H M • Cn
C O g C
3«H 1 0
| 4) O U
0 -Q T3
U -P 3 rH r-
M id E rQ cr.
0) a S 3 -i
_Q 0) 4-1 (X
IH IH iO -
^ r- -— E u
en in E r4
to rH r- o id
4) Oi CJ E
(8 oo o)
1-3 rH * 4J 0
CN Id rH
• >lOJ C 1
-p ttj 4) iH
as: >iw o
nj id rH
•p — c"01
4> O •
\rH tj.H a
CN g c -P a
3-H 3
&C M rH -
Id rH 0
. 0) O rH
LO J^ IX £
4->
4)
G
C
4)
O
+J
C
O
•H
id
u
•H
C
3
0
U
rH
0
M
4)
fX
M
41
A
4)
• r^
J r-
W rH
0)
§ CO
r? rH
HJ id
as
CJ *
4)
to
M •
C 4) O
id g •
01 1 Q
O 3
O W •-
G
IH 0) 0
0 rC 4->
4J Cr
4) C
id C .C
U -H CO
0) M id
Q 3 £
-a
rH C
C rH
0 0) T)
•H .G rH
-PI/10)
id .C
C D
M -H a
4) 4-) O
-P C rC
C id co
M rH X
\ -P M
C < 0
O S
•H 0)
4J rH Id
C -H O
3 £
0 4J '-
&4 0) M VO
rG 0 r-
4) 4-) a Oi
U 41 rH
ceo;
0) O — ' -
U Id — -rH
rH 0 cn G
fd C rH Id
0 • m
. -H - > rH
T3 4-1 C O
H id o as M
2-H— 0)
-P rQ
x \ « « o
O 01 u
rH rH O
a
X 4-t c a •
PS id id — 4-1
GO) U
- Oi CJ «J O
G to O 0)
O M 13 •
•H >t C < 4) ^
4-i 4) O tfl r~-
CJ 10 rH -rH [-•
41 M 4J 10 > Oi
4-> 01 C -P 01 rH
O *-> 4) CO M
M I «
0* O CJ v£> (N
(d -H U Ol •
-P 0) > -H rH C
C .C C -P fO
0) 4-1 W G - f-3
6 id r-
9 O 0) rH
O -P X 4J -CO
rH -P < 4-> 0)
H C O-H
> O TJ 01 O -P
C H C .C M
W CO ft) 4-t CO id
01 o) a
4-m 0) G O
O fc M -H M t3
Xt 3 30)
4-t 3 -P CO O 4-1
C tO rH 01 W CO
0) 3 -H 0) 0)
S M O ^0 tf M
4J O H 4) 4)
J_ 4-) H g M -P
ta tr 0) 0) c
a c < o; -P H
0) -H fO
Q TJ - TJ 5 0
M >i G -P
o> m v-t o TJ
(0 0) W 4)
rH M C 0) C 4J
4) 4) W CO O 4-1
1-3 G 3 -H -H
0 C « CO £
> -H 0 U -H CO
a) to > G
Z W 0) G -H (d
•H 0> 0 Q VH
vc|E 4-> 4-t 01
0 0 O >icn
4-t U fX ^ rH
Ol
41
t— -
rH
0)
G
3
0
•H
4J
i— i
0
(X
u
0)
CQ
T)
C
to ~
H 4J
tp 0
c a
O 41
J K
» rH
< id
< -H
0 0
a o)
a
r^l"
"-"
M id
Id r* 4J -
•P M C >i
CO 41 M
0) r* GO
E HI -H 4-t
H J CN 4-> 10
TJ 4) 1 C-H
0) 2 (N O K
to o u
41 rH rH
c -C cj id
• H JJ •• -H M
M U T> 3
41 TJ 0)
rH rH a-H (0
« fd W 35 3
M -P £
aO) - C
g • 0 G
E M id
4) >i O> g O
4-> > O 3 -H
(0 C -H VH
G rG 0) O E
rd CJ a -3
4-t O E
rH G >1 *•
rd 4) • W -P
H E «H rC
-P H 0 4t Cr
a 01 ES 4-t CD
CO CO -H
•"0 0 M
• C • 0 •
K rd O CO ^ —
S co w c * r-
0) -H 0) Oi
" -H • T3 Z -H
W U g 0
•H rd < 0) 4t v
M *H o .C in
M - O -P 1
(d 0) X rH m
B N 01 tX T)
-H a— c M
\ co (d id oi
oo| l — - ^
M -H rH rG O
cji m *— to rS
E-77
-------
u
XI
3
w
• *J
O a
5 « 8.
a c fe
SI
0 *J
o u •w
W fl
— B T3
O •" C
a a a
3 u
— '-H a
034)
w a --»
O 0
o o -a
a ~ c
>» *
• r~ -
•-* £
JZ 0
a -a
«"* «
• o
g C-H
0 * ti
U 1 O
i
f. o» o
M C > ^
§-H O O
c < m
ffl E 5 1)
3 O fl W
a o -H
e— > a
3 « 4)
03 -w OS 4)
r- Q
ft, i-t O •*-"
O O
E3 » O3
S(N (0
(S fc 4-t
Q • 0
< At
§C • Ct>
fl < «
k4 ^ <
Ut -* i: on)
« fa O CO
3^".H « O
(9 >• -t
•*J 0 0
« U -l
u at
14 f-J
V -
to in
L)
M 3
U 4-1 (0
a IM
x c
T C
s
-------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENT
The following comments are keyed to the preceding letters which have been
numbered and coded for easy reference. The first digit refers to the letter
number and the second digit refers to the specific paragraph/comment within
the letter:
1-1 EPA shares these concerns. Therefore, the Agency is continuing
the policy expressed by Mr. Jorling in his decision on relocation of
sewage sludge disposal in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (March 1, 1978) and
as expressed in this EIS. In accordance with this policy, sludge
dumping will be relocated only on demonstration of a public health
problem or degradation of coastal water quality due to disposal
activities. This policy, of course, recognizes the short time
period (until 1982) that sewage sludge dumping can occur.
1-2 EPA is fully committed to ensure environmentally sound methods of
waste management. As a result of the Agency's efforts to end ocean
dumping, most dumpers have been phased out of ocean disposal since
1973. Those remaining dumpers, who are not on a phase-out schedule,
are required to investigate and implement land-based disposal
methods, if environmentally and economically feasible.
4-1 Unless otherwise noted, all specific comments were treated as
text changes in the Final EIS. The EIS does not debate the relative
merits of ocean disposal in comparison with other methods of waste
management. EPA's ocean dumping permit program determines the need
for ocean disposal for each permittee on an individual basis. There
are presently no viable alternatives to ocean disposal immediately
implementable for the four permittees dumping wastes at the 106-Mile
Site. Thus the main issue in the EIS is to choose the best ocean
location at which to dump the wastes, and not whether to designate
an ocean disposal site for these wastes.
E-79
-------
4-2 No relationship between past munitions and radioactive waste
disposal is anticipated in future industrial waste disposal.
Industrial wastes are not expected to reach the bottom at the
locations where munitions and radioactive waste barrels were dumped.
4-3 EPA requires permittees to monitor impacts occurring within the
period of initial mixing. The agency relies upon NOAA's monitoring
and research programs to provide information on effects occurring
both during and after the period of initial mixing. NOAA's
comments, although valid, describe studies that are primarily
research studies, and are therefore beyond the limit of reasonable
requirements of the permittees. It is hoped that NOAA will be able
to do the suggested research.
4-4 The procedure for obtaining "...2 percent additional nitrogen to
the site..." involved a worst-case analysis based on several
factors:
• A mixing zone comprising one-fourth of the area of the site
to a depth of 15 m.
• Background concentrations obtained from NOAA field studies
reported by (NOAA, 1977).
• An input based on projected 1981 total volumes of New York
sludge and weighted average concentrations of nutrients
reported for ocean dumped sludge by Mueller et al. (1976).
• A 22-day residence time for dumped materials based on the
length of time a parcel of water crosses the site diagonal
at the lowest speed a warm core eddy has been observed to
transverse the site.
The worst-case analysis has been recalculated in the Final EIS
using an average residence time of 14 days. The residence time was
adjusted after a determination that presence of an anticyclonic eddy
does not represent a worst-case condition because of the potential
for vertical mixing throughout the eddy. Instead, an observed
average current speed of 10 cm/sec was used. Recalculations based
on this factor yield a 1% increase of nitrate and a 14% increase of
E-80
-------
phosphate due to sludge dumping.
4-5 See Response 7-8. See comment 4-2 for munitions and radioactive
waste discussion.
4-6 Whether or not ocean disposal is less expensive than land
disposal, it still results in expense to the dumper. This cost
represents an irretrievable commitment of economic resources. It is
immaterial that the amount of money spent to dump waste in the ocean
is less than the amount that would be required to use it for
landfill; in either condition an economic resource has been
committed.
4-7 The range of pH values reported in Table 5-2 comes from analyses
of barge loads. It is not meant to represent solely the pH of the
acidic portion of the waste, but rather the acidity of the bulk
mixture. It is true that Edge Moor waste often contains extremely
concentrated hydrochloric acid; however, this acid is combined with
other materials and the resultant mixture is dilute by comparison.
The analytical detectability limit of the techniques specified by
EPA in the disposal permit is 0.1 pH units. In general, the
analytical techniques specified by EPA are those described in 40 CFR
136 "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of
Pollutants."
4-8 The added sludge will increase the nutrient levels in seawater at
the site by a negligible amount. However, the overall effect of
this small nutrient enrichment on the biological productivity of the
area is unclear, because of the great diversity of water conditions
at the site - high-nutrient coastal waters mixing with low-nutrient
oceanic waters. There are two reasons to discourage nutrient
enrichment in any area: (1) conditions may favor a particular
planktonic organism and lead to a drastic increase in its abundance;
to the detriment of other normally competitive organisms, and (2) a
severe bloom can change the water chemistry of an area to such a
degree that large organisms are adversely affected. Because of the
E-81
-------
high dilution of waste materials discharged at the 106-Mile Site,
the threat of severe plankton blooms is not a reality for that area.
5-1 There is presently no plan to use the 106-Mile Site for at-sea
incineration. A potential incineration site in the vicinity of the
106-Mile Site is now under consideration and an EIS is being
prepared specifically for that site.
5-2 The text in the Final EIS has been amended to include this infor-
mation.
7-1 The Final EIS has been modified to clarify the uncertainties of
the biological effects of waste dumping at the site. See Chapter 4.
7-2 The proposed action is to designate an already existing ocean
disposal site (of prescribed site boundaries) for continued use.
Changing the size of the site is not considered in this document,
since a site of such large dimensions is deemed necessary to ensure
that wastes are quickly dispersed after dumping. Usage of different
quadrants of the site precludes mixing of wastes, limits possible
synergistic impacts, and facilitates monitoring.
7-3 The section discussing the 106-Mile Site in Chapter 3 begins with
a reference to Appendix A and, in fact, states that the material
presented in Chapter 3 is excerpted from Appendix A. Continental
Slope waters are never described in the EIS as biologically
"depauperate". The Draft EIS does say that Continental Slope waters
may exhibit reduced productivity in comparison to Continental Shelf
waters.
7-4 It is true that larvae of economically important species have
been observed at the site; however, the site is not unique as to the
occurrence of the said larval forms. The larvae are found all along
the mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope. Dumping operations at
the site may kill or otherwise affect larvae in the waste plume, but
E-82
-------
a noticeable effect on the overall population of any particular
species is not expected. It is important to note that larval
attrition is naturally high, due to predation, normal die-off, or
changing physical environment.
7-5 In the Draft EIS, rare and endangered species are treated in
additional detail within Appendix A in the subsection entitled
"Nekton."
7-6 Additional information on the red crab fishery has been provided
in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS within the discussion related to the
106-Mile Site entitled "Other Activities in the Site Vicinity."
7-7 Chapter 3 in the Final EIS has been modified to better reflect
the relative importance of the ocean quahog as a commercially
exploited organism.
7-8 The primary data base for the EIS is the culmination of more than
three years investigation, primarily by NOAA. There are certainly
some deficiencies in the data basej primarily because of the
difficulties in sampling sufficiently to detect adverse effects at
the site. EPA encourages NOAA to continue and expand its
investigations at the site. However, the proposed action cannot be
delayed until such additional studies are completed. Also, to the
best of EPA's knowledge only one present permittee will continue
dumping at the site after 1981. Such dumping will, of course, be
permitted only if the applicant can demonstrate that such activities
will not unreasonably degrade the marine environment.
8-1 Most of these comments request a level of detail not pertinent to
this EIS. This appendix supplies information auxiliary to the main
body of the EIS. It is not meant to represent a complete literature
review of all subjects mentioned within it.
8-2 Appendix A in the Final EIS includes this information in the
subsection entitled "Nutrients."
E-83
-------
8-3 This subject has received additional attention in the Final EIS
within Chapter 5.
9-1 A regular monitoring program is one of the requirements of site
designation and usage. As noted in the text, NOAA is mandated under
MPRSA to conduct such monitoring. It is EPA's understanding that
NOAA plans to continue its research studies of dumping effects.
10-1 There are no existing or proposed units of the National Park
System located at or near the proposed waste disposal site.
However, if such units are developed, they will be evaluated in the
permitting process,
11-1 The text in the Final EIS has been modified in response to all
comments contained in this letter.
12-1 The requirement for 100% surveillance of disposal operations has
been deleted in the Final EIS in view of the points raised in this
letter.
12-2 The proposal for use of the Coast Guard Auxiliary in surveillance
has been deleted in the Final EIS.
12-3 The cost estimates were not available for inclusion in the Final
EIS.
12-4 The text in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS has been changed in
response to this comment.
14-1 The State of Maryland has not informed EPA of any conflicts
between designating the 106-Mile Site for continued waste disposal
and the state's present plans for economic development.
15-1 The proposed use of the 106-Mile Site for sewage sludge disposal
is not intended to be limited to sludge from the New York/New Jersey
metropolitan area. EPA thanks the State of Maryland for bringing
E-84
-------
this oversight to its attention. The Final EIS has been modified in
Chapter 5 to clarify potential candidates for sludge disposal at the
site.
16-1 Discussion of land-based sewage sludge disposal alternatives is
not pertinent to this EIS. The chapter on land-based alternatives
from the EIS on sludge disposal in the New York Bight appears as
Appendix D in the Draft EIS. It has been included to provide
supplemental information. Sewage sludge is presently permitted to
be dumped in the ocean when there is no reasonable land-based
alternative immediately available. The environmental acceptability
of the land-based alternative is evaluated by EPA and State
regulatory agencies before it can be implemented.
16-2 Pretreatment standards are presently being promulgated by EPA and
NJDEP.
16-3 Organic materials, e.g., organohalogens, are permitted to be
dumped only as trace contaminants, in accordance with Part 227,
Subpart B of the Ocean Dumping Regulations. The Regulations further
state:
These constituents will be considered to be
present as trace contaminants only when they are
present in materials otherwise acceptable for
ocean dumping in such forms and amounts in
liquid, suspended particulate, and solid phases
that the dumping of the materials will not cause
significant undesirable effects, including the
possibility of danger associated with their
bioaccumulation in marine organisms [Section
227.6(c)].
Materials which exhibit a tendency to bioaccumulate in bioassays
with approporiate sensitive marine organisms are prohibited. In the
absence of appropriate bioassay procedures, the Regulations state
that organohalogens may be permitted for dumping only when "the
total concentration of organohalogen constituents in the waste as
transported for dumping is less than the concentration of such
constituents known to be toxic to marine organisms," calculating
E-85
-------
that these constituents are all biologically available, i.e., are
not rendered inert in any manner [Section 227.6(e)]. If an
applicant can demonstrate that, upon dumping, the wastes are rapidly
rendered non-toxic to marine life, or rendered non-bioaccumulative
in the marine environment by chemical or biological degradation in
the sea, a permit may be granted for their disposal [Section
227.6(f)].
16-4 During the ocean dumping permit application process, prospective
permittees must provide EPA with sufficient documentation to
adequately describe the impact of the waste on the marine
environment. The State is routinely requested to comment on the
adequacy of the data presented by the applicant.
17-1 See Response 16-1.
17-2 Industrial pretreatment standards are presently being promul-
gated.
17-3 EPA must comply with PL 95-153 (which EPA supported and continues
to support) which states that ocean dumping of harmful sewage sludge
will cease by December 31, 1981. The sewage sludge presently dumped
in the ocean by New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania communities
does not comply with EPA's environmental impact criteria; thus,
ocean dumping of this waste must cease according to law. Dumping of
such sludges after 1981 can only be accomplished by direction of the
Congress or a Courc, regardless of the site.
22-1 See response 9-J.
22-2 No accumulations of waste constituents are likely to result from
dumping; the EIS clearly establishes this point and provides
supporting information. Therefore, the great expense associated
with collecting benthic organisms (at depths of 2000 m) and
analyzing their tissues is not warranted. EPA feels that it is
better to put effort into monitoring the elements of the environment
E-86
-------
where potential effects are more likely to occur.
22-3 As a result of the practice of assigning dumpers to different
quadrants of the 106-Mile Site and rotating each permittee
seasonally, a rotation system to another off-Shelf site is not
necessary to allow recovery of the dumpsite. NOAA has established
that the observable short-term effects are transient; long-term
effects are unlikely, considering the volume of the mixing zone and
the flushing rates of water at the site.
22-4 There is no evidence to support the contention that relocation of
sludge dumping from the Bight Apex would significantly improve water
quality since other pollutant sources would remain.
22-5 Congress has assigned the Coast Guard responsibility for
conducting routine surveillance of ocean dumping under MPRSA. The
present Coast Guard program goal is to observe 75% of all industrial
waste dumps and 10% of all municipal waste dumps. Any extra
surveillance required by EPA will be conducted either at the
permittee's expense or by the Coast Guard.
23-1 EPA is strongly committed to enforce existing compliance
schedules for the development of land-based alternatives by December
31, 1981. For example, two Monmouth County municipalities (Asbury
Park and Atlantic Highlands) are required to cease ocean disposal in
1978-80, and two others (Middletown Twp. and NE Monmouth SA's), in
1981.
24-1 The period for public review of a draft EIS - 45 days - is
prescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality. In the case of
this EIS, EPA accepted all comments received until the production of
the Final EIS, a period of almost 5 months.
25-1 EPA's Regulations state provisions for determining which
materials will be permitted to be ocean dumped, based upon the
nature of the materials, demonstration that their dumping will not
E-87
-------
unreasonably degrade the marine environment, and upon demonstration
of adequate need to ocean dump. Only in the absence of feasible
land-based waste disposal alternatives, can materials be considered
for ocean disposal. Even after ocean disposal permits have been
granted, permittees must continue to seek land-based alternatives.
28-1 This item was corrected in the Final EIS.
29-1 The plan proposed on behalf of the Bergen County Utilities
Authority presents an alternative means for disposing of sewage
sludge at the 106-Mile Site. Such a proposal is not evaluated as
part of the site designation process - the subject of the EIS - but
would be properl}r evaluated by EPA in the permit procedure based
upon data provided by the applicant.
29-2 The EIS provides information to the public on the present
projected costs of using the 106-Mile Site for waste disposal.
Studies on cost-effectiveness of the different methods of using the
site are the responsibility of each individual permittee.
29-3 Pretreatment regulations apply nationwide according to law. The
regulations apply to all cases unless a waiver is granted (highly
unlikely for the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area).
30-1 EPA recognizes the concerns expressed by this commenter. As
indicated in the EIS, the Agency does not plan to relocate sewage
sludge disposal in the Bight Apex unless a public health problem
arises or coastal water quality is impaired by dumping activities.
EPA is committed to ensuring that all ocean disposal of sewage
sludge ceases on or before the December 31, 1981 deadline mandated
by Congress.
31-1 The bioassay data collected on "appropriate sensitive marine
organisms" during the period 1977-78 are summarized in Appendix B.
31-2 Concentrations of waste contaminants at the 106-Mile Site do not
E-88
-------
appear to remain high after initial mixing. Among other factors,
bioaccumulation in fish and other organisms is partially dependent
on sufficiently long exposure to high concentrations of materials
which may be accumulated. Fish at the site tend to be transient,
thus it is unlikely that they will be exposed long enough to permit
detectable uptake.
31-3 The 106-Mile Site is known to be outside important fishing areas.
This information is presented in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 of the Draft
EIS.
31-4 Bioassay procedures are not presently available for the fish
named in this list. For the present, appropriate sensitive (though
not necessarily indigenous) species are used for bioassays. As
additional bioassay techniques are developed in the future, other
organisms will become candidates for study. It should be noted that
fish, in general, are not as sensitive as invertebrates.
32-1 The Draft EIS states that munitions have been dumped within the
106-Mile Site and that radioactive wastes have been dumped at a
nearby radioactive waste disposal site. (See Chapter 2 within the
subsection entitled "Continued Use of the 106-Mile Site.") The 1973
report cited here does not say that low-level radioactive wastes and
high explosives have been dumped historically within the site.
2
32-2 The area of the site, approximately 1,700 km , is stated in
Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS, within the section entitled "Continued
Use of the 106-Mile Site."
32-3 Interim designations for selected ocean disposal sites were
extended by EPA after the Draft EIS was published. Refer to
Chapter 1 of the Final EIS for a description of the extension.
32-4 The legal framework of the proposed action is thoroughly
discussed in Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS. The reader is referred to
the EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria for the complete
E-89
-------
legal details of the site designation.
32-5 The EIS conforms with the CEQ requirements for preparation of
EIS's (40 CFR 1500) and the guidelines on site designation set forth
in the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR 228). Appendices have been
added in order to provide additional information which EPA deems
pertinent.
32-6 Sections of the Final EIS have been modified to aid understanding
by the general public. EPA feels that the document provides all the
information necessary for decision-making or for gaining a full
knowledge of the issues involved in designating the 106-Mile Site.
32-7 The Final EIS discusses the concepts of waste dispersal and waste
containment in Chapter 2 within the section entitled "Continued Use
of the 106-Mile Site.."
32-8 The information contained in Appendix B is supplemental to the
main body of the EIS, but considered to be an integral part of the
document. The Appendix is referenced at many places in the body of
the EIS: The Summary, Chapter 2 (within the sections entitled
"Basis for Selection of the Proposed Site" and "Recommended Use of
the 106-Mile Site"), Chapter 3 (under "Waste Disposal at the Site")
and throughout Chapter 4. Much of the information contained in
Appendix B appears in the main body, e.g., the Summary, Chapter 2
(within the Section entitled "Continued Use of the 106-Mile Site"),
Chapter 4, and Chapter 5. Besides containing relevant data on
dumpers presently using the site, the Appendix presents a
compilation of data on historical dumping at the site. This
information, although not entirely germane to future use of the
site, is, however, important as the historical record of the site
use.
32-9 Discussion of potential for waste interactions has been added to
Chapter 4 of the Final EIS within the section entitled "Water and
Sediment Quality." Total quantities of industrial and municipal
E-90
-------
wastes dumped are listed in Appendix B of the Draft EIS. The
assimilative capacity of the site is addressed in Response 32-17.
32-10 The EIS strives to present information in a logical and
understandable fashion, without burdening the reader with large
amounts of technical detail. All statements have been carefully
documented throughout the text and the appendices present additional
information. Areas of incomplete or inconclusive information have
been discussed; EPA based its judgment to support site designation
on the available information, mindful of subjects where information
is yet lacking.
32-11 See Response 32-13.
32-12 Potential waste-concentrating mechanisms operating at the
106-Mile Site have been studied in NOAA1s dumping research program.
The Draft EIS discusses these studies primarily within Chapter 4 and
Appendix A. The Final EIS discusses this work in additional detail.
The items addressed by NWF are answered below individually or
collectively as appropriate.
NWF offered many examples of potential waste-concentrating
mechanisms believed to receive inadequate attention in the Draft
EIS. Most of the points raised are research topics best addressed
as part of NOAA's ocean dumping research program. The mechanisms of
concentrating trace contaminants are complex, and depend upon
concentrations of the contaminants in seawater, the length of time
elevated concentrations are maintained, chemical state of the
contaminants, (i.e., whether bound in complexes or in ionic form),
and the ability of organisms to concentrate particular trace
contaminants in tissues. The wastes dumped at the 106-Mile Site are
dispersed quickly, and are not present after the initial mixing
period in concentrations exceeding limiting permissible concen-
trations determined by bioassays with appropriate sensitive marine
organisms. Floe from mixing of Du Pont-Edge Moor and Grasselli
wastes with seawater may persist beyond a day; however the
E-91
-------
significance of this observation is unknown. The existence of
several unknowns related to use of the site is acknowledged, but EPA
feels that restricting the use of the site until research studies
are conducted is not justified, based upon the information generated
by the studies which have already been conducted on effects of waste
disposal at the sit.e.
Specific responses follow.
a) The total organic component of the industrial wastes
discharged at the 106-Mile Site is minimal: 0.5% to 1% from
Du Pont-Grasselli and 1% to 2% from American Cyanamid. Of
the 34 million gallons of organic materials estimated to be
disposed of in 1978, less than 50% of the waste was water
insoluble and a much smaller amount could be considered
lipophilic.. Some of the latter may be converted to
solubility by surfactants contained in the waste.
Generally, however, the lipophilic organics - oil and
greases - can be considered negligible since NOAA studies
have failed to report visible sheens.
b) Laboratory studies have been conducted on the floes which
form when Du Font-Edge Moor and Grasselli wastes mix with
seawater, to determine if waste constituents adsorb to the
particle surfaces. This subject is discussed within Chapter
4 of the Final EIS in the section entitled "Effects on the
Ecosystem."
There is no evidence that floe is present continuously in
water at the site. However, persistence of floe formed by
wastes dumped at the site is not well understood, in part
because of the difficulty of accurately tracking the various
components of the waste plume. The NOAA- sponsored research
program has made several advances in refining tracking
techniques, especially in the area of acoustic monitoring.
As these techniques are refined further to provide highly
E-92
-------
reliable estimates of waste behavior after discharge, EPA
can apply this information to its site management strategy
and thus better ensure that these materials disperse
sufficiently between successive dumps.
c) Concentrations of toxic waste constituents are addressed in
Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS within "Effects on Water and
Sediment Quality." This section has been expanded in the
Final EIS.
Persistence of pathogenic micro-organisms through
association with particulates is not an important issue.
However, mention of this subject has been added to Chapter 5
("Survival of Pathogens") of the Final EIS. Particulate-
associated pathogens suspended in the water column are
vulnerable to predators, toxins, effects of solar radiation
and other factors which contribute to inactivation and
reduction of these organisms.
d) It is true that bluefish and yellowfin tuna have been
reported to be attracted to acid wastes disposal at the New
York Bight Acid Site (Westman, 1958). However, Westman
acknowledged that it is possible that increased turbidity in
the water after a dump disguises fishing gear, thus making
certain fish more easily caught. Therefore ocean dumping
may not, in fact, attract fish. No fish attraction has been
reported from studies at the 106-Mile Site, or at any other
ocean disposal site.
e,j) The significance of waste particulates being associated with
pycnoclines is unknown, a point that is acknowledged in
Chapter 4 of the Final EIS. Many organisms are found in
association with thermal and density gradients, and there is
potential for ingestion of particles where organisms and
particles are found together. It should be noted, however,
that any "build-up" of waste constituents at the thermocline
E-93
-------
is a temporary occurrence lasting only until turbulent
forces disperse the waste plume.
Collection of industrial waste constituents along the
thermoclines is described in the Draft EIS within
Appendix B. No assumption is made in the EIS that "trapping
of constituents at the thermocline will avoid concentration
of toxic wastes by preventing significant deposition on the
ocean bottom." Rather, the observation is made in Chapter 4
of the Draft EIS that density gradients in the water column
prohibit the downward movement of waste particles, so that
accumulation on the seafloor is unlikely.
f,i) Concentration of elements from water into tissues of
organisms is dependent on a number of factors: the amounts
of input elements in comparison to values normally present
in the water, the length of time that elevated concen-
trations are retained, the chemical state of the elements
(whether present as free ions or in complexes) and the
proclivity of organisms in a waste plume to concentrate
elements. Transfer of trace contaminants by vertically or
horizontally migrating organisms is feasible, but difficult
to test. Investigations of similar questions are part of
NOAA's continuing research on dumping effects at the site.
g) The Draft EIS discusses in Chapters 2 and 4 the potential
for 106-Mile Site wastes impacting fisheries. Additional
information is provided in the Final EIS. Additional
information is provided in the Final EIS. Fishing near the
106-Mile Site is variable and dependent on the occurrence of
water masses or eddies which affect fish abundance and
distribution. Shelf fisheries are sufficiently far from the
site, so that wastes will be adequately diluted before
reaching the location of any significant fishing.
h) The potenticil for concentration and enhancement of
E-94
-------
persistence and toxicity of organic constituents as a result
of diminished biodegradation in the deep ocean is discussed
in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS, specifically as regards
sewage sludge. Additional information has been provided in
the Final EIS, also in Chapter 5 with the subsection
entitled "Effects Upon Water Chemistry." The organic
component of most of the industrial waste dumped at the site
is minimal. The only dumper with significant organic waste
is American Cyanamid; however, the organics in that waste
are principally nonpersistent organophosphate pesticides.
k) Gulf stream eddies occupy the site about 20% of the time.
Their roles as potential waste-concentrating mechanisms have
never been studied. Eddies move through the site at
approximately 3 cm/sec, whereas the normal mean current-
speed is approximately 10 cm/sec. Therefore horizontal
flushing rates at the site may be less than normal where an
eddy is present. However, eddies can change the vertical
characteristics of the water column, disrupting physical
features which normally inhibit downward movement of wastes
(e.g., thermoclines and pycnoclines), providing more water
than normal in the vertical dimension for mixing. This
subject has been added to Chapter 4 of the Final EIS.
1) Short dumping is possible at any ocean disposal site, no
matter how close to shore the site may be. However, it is
true that the possibility of short dumping increases with
distance from shore. Most important mid-Atlantic fisheries
are in the coastal waters over the Continental Shelf. The
alternative sites for the 106-Mile Site are located in the
Shelf area where commercial and sport fisheries are
prevalent; thus, the potential adverse effect of short
dumping at the alternative sites is great, and may be
greater than the effect of short dumping in transit to the
106-Mile Site.
E-95
-------
32-13 The Draft EIS bases its evaluation of the proposed 106-Mile Site
designation on five of the six major factors cited by Asst.
Administrator Jorling; environmental acceptability (Chapters 2 and
4), ability to monitor impact (Chapters 2 and 4), surveillance of
dumping activities (Chapter 2), economic burden (Chapter 2), and
logistics (Chapter 2). The sixth factor - the effect of using such
a site on the ability of dumpers to meet the December 31, 1981
deadline for the termination of harmful sewage sludge dumping - was
not addressed for two reasons: (1) the deadline does not apply to
industrial waste disposal, and (2) relative to sewage sludge
disposal this factor *?as already addressed in the EIS on sewage
sludge disposal in the New York Bight (EPA, 1978). Sewage sludge
dumping would only be permitted at the 106-Mile Site to relieve
adverse environmental conditions at the nearshore sites. Therefore
economics would not be an issue.
EPA's decision to propose the designation of the 106-Mile Site
for continued use does not conflict with Asst. Administrator
Jorling's decision, wherein he stated (in reference to the Toms
River Hearing):
I am impressed by the concern expressed by
many reputable scientists about the potential
for adverse environmental impacts from sludge
dumping at the 106-Mile Site. Nevertheless, I
would not regard these concerns as preventing
use of the 106-Mile Site if a sound predictive
judgement could be made concerning the impact of
dumping at the site and an effective monitoring
program could be established (Jorling, 1978).
The basis of the ultimate: decision to discourage relocation of
nearshore sludge disposal was the conclusion of the Toms River
Hearing Officer (Breidenbach, 1977), who indicated that there was a
"potential for irreversible, long-range, and therefore unreasonable
degradation of the marine environment" which was coupled with the
unfeasibility "of designing an effective monitoring program to
evaluate the impacts of sludge dumping at the site."
E-96
-------
The decision to discourage relocation of sludge dumping from the
Philadelphia Sewage Sludge Site to the 106-Mile Site was based on
the speculative nature of the state of knowledge available at that
time, and on the prohibitive cost of mounting an effective
monitoring program (estimated by NOAA to be about $2.5 million per
year) compared to the resources available between 1978 and January
1, 1981, when Philadelphia will cease ocean dumping.
During the evaluation of the 106-Mile Site designation for
continued disposal of industrial wastes, the Toms River Hearing
testimony, Report of the Toms River Hearing officer, and Asst.
Administrator Jorling's decision were considered. At the time the
Draft EIS was prepared (two years after the Tom's River Hearing, and
one year after Jorling's decision was published), additional
information was available with which to evaluate the impacts of
waste disposal at the 106-Mile Site. After careful consideration of
this additional information and the previously available infor-
mation, EPA believes that use of the 106-Mile Site is feasible and
currently preferable to all available alternative sites.
32-14 At the time of the Toms River Hearing, little information existed
on which to base sound predictions of the fate and effects of sewage
sludge dumped at the 106-Mile Site. Thus, much of the testimony
presented at the hearing was speculative. Since the hearing,
additional information has become available on the fate of materials
dumped at the site, as new procedures for tracking these materials
have been tested. The most promising technique appears to be the
acoustic monitoring method, which can track some sizes of
particulates in waste. This technique has been used successfully
for sewage sludge (Orr, 1977b) and industrial waste (Orr, 1977a).
The most significant observation in these studies was retention of
waste material in all cases in waters above the permanent
thermocline/pycnocline (100-150 m) and, in some cases, in waters
above the seasonal thermocline/pycnocline (10 to 50 m). Thus,
horizontal dispersion may be a greater factor than vertical
E-97
-------
dispersion, and wastes are not expected to sink to the bottom of the
site in detectable amounts.
Residence of wastes in surface and near-surface waters is
relevant to some of the major concerns expressed at the Toms River
Hearing, especially the effects of the material on benthic
organisms, and the potential for inadequate biodegratdation of the
waste organic fraction. However, if wastes do not reach the bottom
in significant amounts, adverse effects on the benthos should be
negligible. Retention of wastes in the upper water column increases
the potential for dispersion through mixing and biodegradation.
It is important to note that EPA is not presently proposing to
relocate sludge disposal from any existing disposal site to the
106-Mile Site. However, in considering the 106-Mile Site for
limited sewage sludge disposal under the conditions described in the
draft EIS, the Agency retains an important alternative location for
dumping this material off the Continental Shelf. The only other
alternative is to relocate sludge disposal to another shallow water
site on the Continental Shelf.
The documents appended as Exhibits 1 and 2 were carefully
examined during preparation of the draft EIS. Since Exhibit 1
(Report of the Hearing Officer) consists of a summary of the
comments raised in Exhibit 2 (NWF testimony), the latter reference
is addressed in this response. Many points presented in these
references were found to relate solely to relocation of sewage
sludge disposal. The Draft EIS did not evaluate the 106-Mile Site
in relation to other sewage sludge sites, but instead evaluated the
site on the basis of its individual merits as an ocean disposal
site; therefore these points were not applicable.
The remaining points raised in the NWF statement are treated in
the Draft EIS or in the Final EIS as indicated:
E-98
-------
The directive of MPRSA to designate ocean disposal sites off
the Continental Shelf whenever feasible (NWF, p. 3; DEIS,
Chapter 1).
The lower biological productivity in Continental Slope
waters in comparison with Shelf Waters. (NWF, p. 4; DEIS,
Chapter 4 and Appendix A.)
The potential for interactions between different wastes
dumped at the site (NWF, p. 18; FEIS, Chapter 4, Chapter 5,
Response 32-18).
The potential for entrainment of wastes in t e Gulf Stream
(NWF, p. 18; FEIS, Chapter 4).
The feasibility of monitoring the site (NWF, p. 20; DEIS,
Chapter 2, and Chapter 4).
The likelihood of short-dumping upon use of the site (NWF,
p. 24; DEIS, Chapter 2, Chapter 4, Response 32-12 [e]).
32-15 Appendix B provides information on all wastes presently dumped at
the 106-Mile Site, and limited information on historical dumping at
the site. The information was generated primarily from EPA permit
files. Individual barge analyses were tabulated to provide
quarterly estimates of waste constituents loading. The chemical,
physical, toxicological, and dispersive characteristics of the
wastes are all discussed. This appendix is referenced at several
places in the Draft EIS (e.g., Chapters 2, 3, and 4) and excerpted
information is included in the text of the DEIS (e.g., Chapter 4
[Environmental Consequences]).
The fate and effects of dumping the present wastes are treated
extensively in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS and some additional
information has been included in the same chapter within the Final
EIS.
Management of dumping operations at an ocean disposal site is the
responsibility of the EPA management authority. As such,
determination of separation distances for dumpers is not a subject
addressed in an EIS on site designation, but is properly addressed
as part of the ocean disposal permit and site management processes.
E-99
-------
32-16 The properties of all wastes presently expected to be dumped at
the site are thoroughly discussed in the Draft EIS within Chapter 4
and Appendix B, particularly with respect to toxic effects.
Persistence under worst-case conditions is addressed in the Draft
EIS within Chapter 4, wherein the total waste loading at the site is
evaluated in relation to a minimally dispersive environment.
Susceptibility of wastes to bioaccumulation is assessed for
individual wastes as part of the ocean dumping permit process. The
Ocean Dumping Regulations state that wastes containing constituents
which may be bioaccumulated are prohibited except as trace
contaminants.
"These constituents will be considered to be
present as trace contaminants only when they are
present in materials otherwise acceptable for
ocean dumping in such forms and amounts in
liquid, suspended particulate, and solid phases
that the dumping of the material will not cause
significant undesirable effects, including the
possibility of clanger associated with their
bioaccumulation in marine organisms" [Section
227.6 (b)].
32-17 The meeting at which NOAA scientists estimated the minimum
assimilative capacity of the 106-Mile Site, was held at the same
time the Draft EIS was issued. Thus, this estimate was not
available to the EIS preparers. The estimate put forth at the
meeting has yet to be verified.
Defining assimilation to comprise the combined effect of
physical, chemical, and biological processes which render a waste
material harmless, the true assimilative capacity of the 106-Mile
Site is unknown. At the meeting to which NWF refers, NOAA
scientists proposed a maximal continuous release rate based on a
dilution factor of 10 and a surface gyre flow rate of 2 x 10
3
m /sec (O'Connor, personal communication). Under these conditions,
6 x 10 tons of waste material could be dumped annually at the site.
E-100
-------
However, it is important to note that this number does not allow for
assimilation, but is based solely on dilution. Less than 1 x 10
tons/year are dumped presently at the site.
32-18 Waste disposal operations at th 106-Mile Site are managed in a
manner to avoid the possibility of waste interactions. Based on
present knowledge, the large surface area provides ample space for
simultaneous large dumps, with slight potential for mixing of
different waste plumes.
The potential for 106-Mile Site wastes interacting with an
incineration area to the south is presently being evaluated in the
EIS under preparation for the incineration site; thus, it is not
discussed in this EIS on designation of the 106-Mile Site. However,
interactions between wastes at the two sites would be expected to be
minimal, because of the extreme dilution of the wastes, especially
the residues produced by incineration.
32-19 The comment on Du Pont-Grasselli bioassay data resulted from a
mistake in the text which has been corrected in the Final EIS.
It is true that oceanic organisms may be more sensitive to ocean
dumped toxicants than estuarine or nearshore organisms. The Final
EIS discusses this subject in Chapter 4. However, bioassay methods
for oceanic organisms are not available at this time. When methods
are developed, the bioassay requirement will be modified
accordingly. Meanwhile, NOAA is supplying information on the
sensitivity of the organisms indigenous to the site as part of the
ocean disposal research program.
32-20 The text in Chapter 5 of the Final EIS was modified in response
to this comment.
32-21 The depth of the permanent thermocline is variable in the
literature, hence the seeming inconsistency in the Draft EIS. For
discussion purposes, the Final EIS adopts a depth ranging from 100
E-101
-------
to 150 m for the permanent thermocline.
The Final EIS has been changed in response to the comment on
inconsistency in distances.
32-22 For industrial waste and sewage sludge disposal the evaluation is
based on environmental acceptability, feasibility of monitoring,
surveillance, economics, and logistics. The Draft EIS deals
primarily with the use of the site for industrial waste disposal.
Potential sewage sludge disposal is treated as a special case; the
site would be considered as an alternative location for sludge
disposal should adequate need arise.
32-23 If the site were not designated for continued use, disposal would
terminate with the end of the interim designation. This alternative
is rejected because of the need to ocean-dump some waste materials,
and the suitability of the 106-Mile Site for such purposes. The
site is needed not only for Du Pont, but also for emergency dumping
(e.g., the Maria Costa permit in 1979) or for future applicants who
can demonstrate compliance with the Criteria.
During the permit application process, Du Pont-Grasselli
adequately demonstrated a need to ocean-dump, based on the lack of a
feasible land-based alternative. The waste complies with EPA's
environmental impact criteria, thus the Agency will permit it to be
dumped in the ocean until a more environmentally acceptable and
economically reasonable land-based alternative is developed. As a
condition of the Du Pont permit, the company must continue to seek
land-based alternative:?.
32-24 The Draft EIS demonstrates that surveillance and monitoring are
feasible at the 106-Mile Site. The associated costs are acknow-
ledged to be high, primarily due to the distance of the site from
shore. However, the environmental effects of continued use of the
site are estimated to be slight in comparison to alternative
nearshore sites (see Chapter 4).
E-102
-------
32-25 a) The size of the 106-Mile Site is an advantage in comparison to
2
the alternative sites. The ample area (approximately 500 nmi ,
roughly 3% of the total area of the New York Bight), permits
rapid waste dilution without impinging on fisheries or other uses
of the ocean and accommodates long barge tracks, thus further
enabling dilution of the dumped wastes within the site along
track lengths. A similar site would not be possible in coastal
waters because its use would conflict with other uses of these
waters. The excerpt from the Ocean Dumping Regulations applies
to sites where materials which contain large amounts of solids
are dumped. At such sites, the objective is to localize the
wastes, thus the area of the site is limited. However, such size
limits do not apply at sites receiving aqueous wastes of low
toxicity which are intended to be diluted quickly.
b) The "emergency conditions" quoted from the EIS text and the cover
letter refer to the adverse environmental conditions in the New
York Bight, which would require emergency relocation of the
sludge dumping operations to another site.
c) This typographical error was corrected.
d) The text in Chapter 1 of the Final EIS has been changed in
response to this comment.
e) Only wastes expected to be dumped at the site have been evaluated
in the EIS. The environmental effects of new wastes would be
assessed on a case-by-case basis during the permit application
process.
f) See Response 32-13.
g) The "undocumented assertions" referenced to on these pages cannot
be identified.
h) The Draft EIS discusses the heavy metal content of NL Industries'
E-103
-------
waste in Chapter 3 within the subsection entitled "Waste Disposal
at the New York Bight Acid Wastes Site."
i) The Final EIS text has been changed in response to this comment.
.1) The text has been changed in response to this comment.
kj The information described in this comment was unavailable while
'..he Draft EIS was under preparation. However, the EIS has
already made a strong case for not relocating 106-Mile Site
wastes tci the New York Bight.
I) EPA acknowledges that PCB's are present in sewage sludges
currently dumped at the New York Bight Sewage Sludge Disposal
Site and that the potential for bioaccumulation of such materials
in marine organisms exists. For this and other reasons, EPA has
advocated strongly that environmentally sound land-based disposal
methods be developed and implemented by the end of 1981, at the
latest. (See 40 CFR 220.3[d]).
m) NWF testimony at the Toms River Hearing was utilized during
preparation of the Draft EIS. NWF's testimony drew information
from a wide variety and large number of different sources. In
pieparing the Draft EIS, the authors sought the original sources
and NWF was therefore not cited.
n) The information was provided to inform the public. Based upon
further evaluation, information on aliphatic hydrocarbons is
deleted in the Final EIS because oil pollution is not relevant to
discussions of waste dumping at the 106-Mile Site.
J2--26 Every EIS on an ocean disposal site discusses unique issues,
because each disposal site is different. While one EIS may act as a
model for another in fcrmat or approach, EPA's ultimate decision on
whether to designate a site for ocean dumping is made on a
case-by-case basis.
E-104
-------
RESPONSES TO HEARING TESTIMONY
The following comments were excerpted from the statements presented at th'-
hearing on the Drart EIS held on August 31, 1979, at Me,:c>"- Bounty Conw>uui.tv
College, New Jersey.
COMMENT: The EIS conclusion that sludge dumping is feasible -I > o<: .'JX-M • ;-
Site should not be interpreted as sanctioning continued inJef frr! t-, off -,
disposal of sewage sludge. (NJ Public Advocate)
Response: Congress has mandated that ocean dumping of harmful se/at:? si,idr;f
will cease by December 31, 1981 (PL 95-153). Use oi the . ;>o-M:'1.' ••;-;;•
for sludge disposal would be limited by this date, as would \ic-<^ o>
other ocean site for disposal of sewage sludge. EPA is exeicicins •; /: ,,-.,
commitment to enforce compliance with this law,
COMMENT: A major flaw in the EIS is that it fails to examine the en^ii;,-
mental and legal necessity of using the 106-Mile Site for ae.frvigc " '.*.:i', •'
disposal as opposed to the existing site. (NJ Public Advocate)
Response: Comparison of use of the 106-Mile Site for sludge disponai v-.' ;.h I.M-
of the existing site is not warranted in this EIS. The \Q6-JiiK .-..,,-'
would only be used if use of the 12-Mile Site were terminated, 71- <:.--:
already established that relocating disposal operations fron the- I? -".';'.-?
Site to any other site would riot cause significant in.prov^m'-r, t ,-.
conditions at the existing site because of the existence c; ;•*.<••'-
significant sources of contamination, e.g., contaminant? cuter i:v- i'*:-.
Bight via the Hudson River outflow and land runoff, (B? eid."!nbot:h , :') '•' ~> ;
Jorling, 1978)
COMMENT: EPA should not evaluate use of the site for sludge riumpinr t ?
case-by-case basis. (NJ Public Advocate)
Response: Use of any site for waste disposal is evaluated on t c,Tse-by"-.:.,-j«!
basis in accordance with EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations, Thus, appli--
E-105
-------
cations to dump sludge at the site would be treated the same as
applications to dump any other waste and would be evaluated individually.
Of course, if the 12-Mile Site were closed, all permittees would be
relocated concurrently after evaluation of available alternative sites.
COMMENT: The EIS states that sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site is
feasible. Thus, EPA has no discretion under the MPRSA to allow continued
use of the 12-Mile Site. (NJ Public Advocate)
Response: It was established at the Toms River Hearing that there is
presently no advantage to be gained by moving sludge dumping from the
existing 12-Mile Site to any other location. By evaluating and
designating the 106-Mile Site for potential sewage sludge disposal, EPA
is providing one more alternative location for disposing of sludge.
Designation of the site for sludge disposal does not imply that EPA must
use the site; rather, it is available for use if adequate need arises.
COMMENT: The criteria for an EPA case-by-case determination are ambiguous.
It is not clear what severity of need must be shown to direct one dumper,
and not another, to the 106-Mile Site. (NJ Public Advocate)
Response: The Ocean Dumping Regulations (Part 227) outline the criteria for
evaluating applications for ocean dumping permits. The MPRSA requires
that EPA consider the environmental impact of proposed dumping, the need
for ocean dumping, non-ocean dumping alternatives, and the effect of the
proposed dumping on esthetic, recreational, and economic values, as well
as on other uses of the ocean. Since individual circumstances vary, EPA
cannot grant permits on other than a case-by-case basis.
COMMENT: It is unclear whether the EPA-designated 60-Mile Site on the
Continental Shelf remains a viable alternative to use of the 106-Mile
Site. Use of such an alternative would not be in compliance with the
MPRSA (NJ Public Advocate).
Response: The designated Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal Site (60-Mile
Site) is considered by EPA to be both a viable alternative to the 12-Mile
E-106
-------
Site and in compliance with MPRSA. Designation of the 106-Mile Site for
sewage sludge disposal does not preclude the possibility of using the
60-Mile Site. The MPRSA does not require that ocean disposal sites be
located beyond the Continental Shelf; instead the Act merely encourages
use of such sites "whenever feasible."
COMMENT: EPA's conditions for stopping disposal at the 12-Mile Site ignore
the fact that the marine environment at, and surrounding the 12-Mile Site
is being severely degraded. In addition, EPA's plan to take action only
when a public health emergency exists presents an unacceptable risk to
the health and welfare of New Jersey residents, and to the State's
tourist and fishery industries which support our economy. The MPRSA
imposes a duty upon the EPA to protect against such happenings, not
merely to act once damage has occurred. Pursuant to that, EPA must move
the present disposal site before such catastrophic events occur. (NJ
Public Advocate)
Response: EPA based the decision to reject relocation of sludge dumping from
the present site to another location on several factors, which are
summarized in the published decision (Jorling, 1978). Central to the
decision, was EPA's belief that the 12-Mile Site is sufficiently impacted
by other sources of pollution that only slight improvement in water
quality would occur if sludge dumping were terminated at the site
(Breidenbach, 1977). Thus, there would be no environmental benefit to be
achieved by relocating sludge dumping from this site.
EPA acknowledges the potential for a public health hazard developing as
volumes of sludge dumped at the 12-Mile Site increase between now and
1981. Accordingly, the Agency has taken steps to monitor the situation
closely, and thereby safeguard public health. The Agency has implemented
a two-part program for assessing ambient water quality conditions during
peak summer months, the period of least dispersion. The assessment
includes sampling and evaluation of microbiological parameters and
dissolved oxygen depletion rates, both of which can be related to
existing and legally enforceable Federal and State water quality
standards. Designation of the 60-Mile Site for sludge disposal, and
E-107
-------
proposed designation of the 106-Mile Site, are additional precautions
against any possible public health effects that might result from
overloading the existing disposal site. If monitoring indicates that
significant health hazards exist with use of the 12-Mile Site, EPA will
move the dumping operation to another location.
COMMENT: EPA is not rigorously enforcing permit schedules for development of
environmentally sound, land-based disposal methods. (NJ Public Advocate)
Response: EPA is rigorously enforcing permit schedules for implementation of
land-based alternatives. Whenever the Agency determines that a permittee
is in non-compliance or cannot meet the 1981 phase-out date, it takes
appropriate enforcement action. For example, the City of New York has
been referred to the Justice Department, court action was brought by the
Justice Department in April 1979 at EPA's request, and the City of
Philadelphia is under a court order to cease ocean dumping by December
1980.
COMMENT: Pretreatment programs must be implemented by EPA on an expedited
basis, in order to ensure that sewage sludges from the highly indus-
trilized New York/New Jersey Metropolitan area do not pose a threat to
the environment and public health when disposed of on land. (NJ Public
Advocate)
Response: Pretreatment standards are presently being promulgated by both EPA
and the State of New Jersey.
COMMENT: EPA must designate the 106-Mile Site for interim ocean disposal, and
further direct its use by all permittees as soon as possible, and in no
event later than 1981 (NJ Public Advocate).
Response: When the 106-Mile Site: is designated for continued use, permits
will be granted after a case-by-case evaluation of individual applicants,
based on need and potential impact. In accordance with PL 95-153,
disposal of harmful sewage sludge at any ocean disposal site will not be
permitted beyond 1981.
E-108
-------
COMMENT: Will the EPA consider the 60-Mile Site in its case-by-case
determination of a dumping site for sewage sludge disposal? (NJ Public
Advocate)
Response: Yes.
COMMENT: In its case-by-case determination, how will EPA decide which
disposer, as opposed to another, should stop dumping at the 12-Mile Site,
and go to the 106- or 60-Mile Sites? (NJ Public Advocate)
Response: As outlined in its Ocean Dumping Regulations, EPA will base
case-by-case determinations on severity of need, availability of
land-based alternatives, and potential impacts of the individual wastes
on the environments of the proposed sites.
COMMENT: In preparing the Final EIS, will the EPA compare the disposal
effects at the 12-, 60- and 106-Mile Sites? If not in the Final EIS,
otherwise? (NJ Public Advocate)
Response: The Final EIS on proposed 106-Mile Site designation will address
exclusively the effects of sewage sludge disposal at that site. Effects
of sludge disposal at the three sites were addressed previously by EPA in
its 1978 EIS on relocation of New York Bight sludge disposal.
COMMENT: Which permittee in EPA's opinion may not make the 1981 deadline?
Why not? (NJ Public Advocate)
Response: EPA answered this question at the public hearing. Refer to the
transcript of the hearing.
COMMENT; What is EPA'S best estimate as to when, after 1981, the permittees
will be able to implement environmentally sound land-based alternatives?
(NJ Public Advocate)
Response: This question was addressed at the public hearing. Refer to the
transcript of the hearing.
E-109
-------
COMMENT: The EIS should discuss the economic impact of sludge dumping on
renewable living resources at the 12-Mile Site. (American Littoral
Society)
Response: Discussion of the economic impact of dumping sludge at the 12-Mile
Site is not relevant co an EIS addressing designation of another site.
Irrespective of the economic impact of sludge dumping at the existing
site, EPA has determined that the existing site will be used for sludge
dumping unless a public health hazard or a significant decrease in
coastal water quality due to dumping at the 12-Mile Site requires
relocation.
COMMENT: The EIS should discuss less expensive alternative methods of
transporting wastes to the 106-Mile Site. (American Littoral Society)
Response: The subject of this EIS is designating the 106-Mile Site for
continued use. Alternative methods of waste transport to the site are
not evaluated in an EIS on site designation, but are best evaluated in
the permitting process by the prospective dumpers who must bear the costs
of the dumping operation.
COMMENT: The EIS should discuss less expensive alternative methods of
surveillance at the 106-Mile Site. (American Littoral Society)
Response: The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible under MPRSA for surveillance of
ocean disposal sites. In exercising this mandate, the Coast Guard
evaluates alternative methods of surveillance and uses the most
appropriate method - whether patrol boat, helicopter, or shiprider - for
each disposal site.
COMMENT: The EIS should provide more financial information. (American
Littoral Society)
Response: This comment is too general to permit a specific response. The EIS
provides all available economic information which is known and relevant
to the proposed action.
E-110
-------
COMMENT: The EIS implies that sewage sludge dumping was the cause of the 1976
fish kill in the New York Bight. (American Littoral Society)
Response: The EIS states that there was no relationship between barged sludge
disposal and the occurrence of decreased oxygen concentrations leading to
the fish kill.
COMMENT: The EIS seems to state that the effects of sludge dumping on the
environment of the 106-Mile Site are well known. (American Littoral
Society)
Response: The EIS acknowledges that several aspects of waste disposal at the
106-Mile Site are unknown or inadequately known (See Chapter 5 and
Appendix C.)
COMMENT: The EIS implies that sludge dumping at the 12-Mile Site would
significantly increase productivity and that one advantage of moving
sludge dumping to the 106-Mile Site is that it would decrease the
likelihood of plankton blooms occurring in nearshore waters. (American
Littoral Society)
Response: The EIS does not address effects of sewage sludge dumping at the
12-Mile Site. An earlier EIS (EPA, 1978) on sludge dumping indicated
that the nutrients added to the Bight from sewage sludge dumping are a
small fraction of the total nutrient loading. It also indicated that
moving sludge dumping from the Bight to the 106-Mile Site would have no
noticeable effect on occurrence of plankton blooms in coastal waters.
•U.S. GOVERNMENT PHINING OFFICE : I960 0-620-228A075
E-lll
------- |