Unit*4
cnvironmtrral Prottctton
Qfftca o' W«tr 3»
-------
CONTENTS
SUMMARY xi
BACKGROUND . xi
PROPOSED ACTION . xii
MAJOR ALTERNATIVES xiii
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT rv
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..... xviii
• ORGANIZATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT xxii
1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 1-4
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND CONTROL PROGRAMS 1-6
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries- Act .... 1-7
Ocean Disposal Site Designation 1-9
Ac-Sea Incineration Permit Program 1-13
HISTORY OF THE U.S. AT-SEA INCINERATION PROGRAM 1-16
PROJECTION OF QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF U.S. WASTES WHICH
MIGHT BE INCINERATED AT SEA 1-21
2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-1
LAND-BASED DISPOSAL %: 2-2
Land-Based Incineration ' 2-2
Landfills .............. 2-4
Conversion of Wastes 2-5
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2-5
Gulf of Mexico Incineration Site Alternative 2-6
PROPOSED SITE 2-9
Environmental Acceptability 2-11
Environmental Monitoring 2-12
Surveillance 2-13
Economics . • 2-14
Loss of Biotic or Mineral Resources 2-15
Size and Configuration of the Proposed
Incineration Site 2-17
ALTERNATIVE SITES 2-16
106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site 2-19
Previously Recommended Northern Incineration Site . . . 2-21
Use of Other Mid-Atlantic Bight Regions 2-22
Use of New England Oceanic Region 2-23
Use of the South Atlantic Bight Region 2-27
Summary 2-29
DETAILED BASES FOR THE SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED SITE .... 2-32
ECONOMIC IMPACT 2-35
WASTE LOADING AT THE PROPOSED SITE 2-36
-------
~ ..~.. -. ~ -...
...." '
......._.";"',,,;,,..,._,,,-,,',--,',,..
. -._..'
.. ..' ...:. ,~., ~",.,:,
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Cba"ter
CONCLUSIONS
Types of Wastes
Waste Loadings.
Disposal Methods. .
Permit Conditions
Information Requirements. .
.....
. .
. . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .
. .
. . . .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. . . .
. . .
. .
3
AEFECT!D ENVIItONMENT' . . . . . . .
..........
. . . . . .
~
OCEANOGRAPHIC CRARAcnRISTICS OF THE PROPOSED AND ALTElWA'l'IVE
MID-ATLANTIC BIGB'l' SITES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Me teoro logy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....
Physical Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geological Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chemical Conditions . . . . . . . .
Biological Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONCURREN'r AND FU'!t1RE STUDIES. . . . . . . . . . .
OTHER AC'l'IV!'l'IES IN THE SITE VICINITY. . . .
u.s. Commercial Fisheries. . .
'Foreign Fisheries. . . . . . . . . .
Recreational Fisheries. ..........
Oil aud Gas Exploration and Development
Shipping. . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . .
4
ENVUONMEN'IAL CONSEQUENCES
. . . . .
. . .
.....
EFFEC'l'S ON. PUBLIC HEAL'l'R AND SAFETY. . . . . .
Public and Shipboard Personnel. . . . . . .
Coastal Recreational Areas. . ... . . . . . . . . .
Commercial and Recreational Fish and Shellfish
Navigational..Ra.zardS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
wASn COMPONEN'rS
EFFEC'l'S ON THE ECOSYSTEM. . . . . . . . .. ......
Air Quality . . . .. ..........
Water Quality . . . . . .. .....
Effects on Biota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary ....................
ACCIDENTAL SPILL Oil LEAKAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IMPAC'l'S ON LAND USE AND LAND-USE TRENDS. . . . . . . .
ECONOMIC IMPAC'l' .
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENV!RONMEN'IAL EFFECTS
AND MITIGA'l'ING MEASURES . . . . . .
Deterioration of Air Quality. . .
Deterioration of Water Quality
Effects on Marine Organisms
Accidental Spillage or Leakage. . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . . . .
. .
... .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
. ~ .
. .
. . .
.
.
xxvi
.. -- -... .. ~ ..
............ ...,...__..~. . + - ,
.., ,,-,._,.' -
",...' ,..'.
Page
2-38
2-39
2-40
2-41
,2-41
2-42
3-1
. .
3-2
3-2
3-4
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-10
3-11
3-11
3-14
3-17
3-17
3-20 I
. . .
4-1
. .
4-2
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-8
4-10
4-15
4-23
4-29 ,
4-30 '
4-31
4-3~
~
. .
. .
. .
. .
4-32
4-32
4-34
4-35 j
4-35
'.. _. _n".., ...
-------
--' -----. .., -
.~ .. - .--.. ._____"n .
. - -".... ......., .'- .
. ...._,-'.~...-..._-...'......_,. ....-.. ._.-
.. . '.. .... n..." ... .
. "
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
. "
Cha~ter
INTERFERENCE WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES AT THE PROPOSED
INCINERATION SITE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sb. i pp i ng . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Commercial Fishing. . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . .
Recreational Activities. . . . . . . 0 0 0 . . . . . .
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE SITE
AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
s
COORDINATION
..'.8. .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
6
GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
......
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
.0......
.........
......
. . . .
o . 0
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
UPENDUES
A.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED NORTH
ATLANTIC INCINERATION SIn. 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . . 0 .
AT-SEA INCINERATION REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES 0 . 0 0 .
B
C
D
E"
MONt.TORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MODEL £STIMATIONS. OF WASTE RESIDUE LOADING 0 . . . 0 . 0
SAFETY PLAN FOR:. THE INCINERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
ABOARD THE MIT VULCANUS 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . . .
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS
F
. ILLUSTRATIONS
Fhure
S-l Alternative Sites in the Mid-Atlantic Bight "Region . ~ 0 . 0 0 . .
1-1 Location of Proposed North Atlantic Incineration Site 0 0 0 0 . .
1-2 Vortex Liquid Waste Incinerators 00 0 . , . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . . . 0
1-3 Plume Dispersal (M/T VULCANUS) Gulf of Mexico Research
Incinerations, Research Burn II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2-1 Gulf of Mexico Incineration Site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0
2-2 Alternative Sites in the Mid-Atlantic: Bight Region 0 0 0 0 . . . 0
2-3 Existing Nearshore Disposal Sites in the Mid-Atlantic
Bight Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-4a Oil Lease Tracts and Territorial Cla~s O. 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0
2-4b Spawning Grounds on Georges Bank 0 . o' 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . . . . .
2-5 South Atlantic: Bight Region. 0 . . . 0 . 0 . . . 0 0 0 . . . . 0
3-1 General Air Flow Pattern of the North Atlantic. . . . 0 0 0 . . 0
3-2 Water misses and Current Flows of Northwest Atlantic Ocean,
Showing Gulf Stream Meanders and Anticyclonic: Eddy. . . . . . .
.3-3 Fishing Areas in the Northwest Atlantic Oc:ean for
Foreign Nations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%XVii
. --.. ..-~. .. .-... ....-...u_..,..---- ..~-_. ,. ..'... .. ..'.'
Page
4-3c
4-36
4-36
4-3i
4-38
4-38
5-1
6-1
6-1
6-16
A-l
B-1
C-1
D-1
E-~
F-1
Page
xix
1-5 ~
1-20
1-22
2-7
2-10
2-20
2-25
2-25
2-28
3-3
3-5
3-15
.- "...-. ~. .,-...... .--.. ...
-------
. - . ~ -- .
.-.' -~ ,--- . '. '--.' -. '.' "
, , " ,", , '
, ' , '
. "... '.t. ..,," , .......:.'.":,,,..,....:.',-~...._... ,.' " ....'., '''M~' ......
, . - --~ . .. . ...
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
ligure
3-4" Fishing Gear and Season Res~ric~ions by Fishing Area--Northwest
A~lantic Ocean Fishery .' .' . " , . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , .
3-5 Proposed Oil and Gas L~ascs in the Mid-Atlantic Area--OCS
Sale No. 59 . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-6 Active Oil and Gas Lease in the Mid-Atlantic Area--OCS Sale
No s. 40 and 49. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3-7 Ship 'traffic Lanes in the Mid-Atlantic... . . . , . . . . . . . .
4-1 Ship Beadings Relative to Wind Direction Which
,Avoid Plume 'Impact on Ship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~
TABLES
Number
S-1 Summary of Evaluation of Proposed Action and Alternatives. . . .
1-1 Responsibilities of Federal Departments and Agencies
for Regulating Ocean Waste Disposal Under MPRSA .
Defi~ition of Destruction Efficiency 'terms. . . . . . . . . . . .
PQten~ial U.S. Waste Quantities Available for
At-Sea Inciner.tion by Geographical" Location . . . . . . .
2-1 1974 Finfish and Shellfish Landing~ by States. . . .
2-2 Summary Evaluation of Alternative Disposal Sites for
A~-Sea Incineration. . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-3 Estimated Waste Loading at the Proposed Incineration Site. . . .
2-4 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site, Estimated
'trace Metal Kass Loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .
3-1 Quan~ities of Commercially Impor~ant Fishery Resources 'taken
by Specific Fishing Gear 'types Off New Jersey in 1974 . . . . . .
4-1 Major Components of 'Organochlorine Waste Material
in Research Burns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-2 Elemental Analyses of Waste in Research Burns I and ]1, 1974
4-3 Elemental Analyses of Waste Material arid Calculated
Approximate Emission Rates of Inorganic Elements
During Research Burn III. 1977 ...... -. . . . . . . .
4-4 Summary of Major Air and Water Quality Effects Associated
with At-Sea Incineration. . . . . . . . . . .
4-5 Literature Values for the Estimated Atmospheric
. Residence 'times for Chlorinated Hydrocarbons. . . .
Predicted Atmospheric Concentrations of Selected BeavyMetals
Predicted Fluxes of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons to the Ocean. . . .
Predicted Areal and Hourly Fluxes of Selected Heavy Metals.
Analysis of Trace Metals and Organochlorines in
Phytoplankton, Gulf of Mexico Research Burn II, 1974 . . . . . .
4-10 Analysis of Trace Metals and Organochlorines in
Zooplankton, Gulf of Mexico Research Burn II, 1974 .. . .
5-1 List of Preparers .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1-2
1--:3
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
,
.
xxviii
Page
3-16
, .
3-18
3-19
3-21
4-34
Page
xvi
1-9
1-19
"1-23
2-16
2-30
2-37
2-38
3-12
4-6 ~
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-13
4-15
4-16
4-22
4-24
4-25
5-1
" .~..,... "'--"---.-'--'.
,_.. - ..__..M, - . '.- ..
,~... .... '" ,...- ... ,. ... _.. 0- .
-------
... "'--"" -~. .-..,
. .._,-....
.... .-.-..
. .._..--- -.. .--...
._..__.-- ..--.-.-... .
.. ..- -. ..~.-.. . ..
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
FOR
NORTH ATLANTIC INCINERATION
SITE DESIGNATION
Prepared by: -U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria and Standards Division.
Washington. DC 20460
JI/~S)9L
Date
. .
; i i.
. . .'. ....u"."'" ---' -
~
.. . ..- . '..
--......-.__._."~- ..
-------
----..--. -".
"-.-" ...
. ,~""'-'.'" ....- -'.
.' .._~._-.- - _.- .....
SUMMARY SHEET
ENVT.RONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENT
fOR
NORTH ATLANTIC INCINERATION SITE
( )
(X)
( )
Draft
Final
'Supplement to Draft
ENVIRONMENTAL P~OTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER REGT~TIONS AND STANDAPDS
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION
1.
Type of Action
(x)
( )
Administrative/Regulatory action
Legislative action
2.
Brief background description of action and purpose.
The proposed action is the ~esignation of a North Atlantic lncineration
Site. The center of the' site is aporoximately' 140 nmi (260 \em) east of
Delaware Bay and 155 nmi (290 km) from Ambrose Light. The i site will be
used for the incineration of toxic organic wastes, principally organo-
halo~ens. generated in the mid-Atlantic states. The purpose of the action
,
is to provide an environmentally acceptable area for the thermal destruc-
tion of the wastes. in compliance with EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations.
3.
~ummary of major beneficial and adverse environmental and other impacts.
The most important. beneficial effect of this action is to provide the
least hazardous location for destruction of toxic organic wastes.
Previous incineration of such wastes in the Gulf of Mexico have proven
v
. ..... -,...
. ...-. _. ..----.--- .
-- - _..-~-
-------
--+-.--'-'-'.- -- .-w',. -..
--- .-. -. _.~
.- h_'_~- , ..
.- ----- ~_... .
.----- .-... ~
. ..._- ._-_..
_._~._.'~'" .. .
. ...- U. .'.'. . -......-.....;..,.- ._-.. _.
that: sbort-term effects of tbe burned wastes are transitory and minor.
Insufficient numbers. of
detect long-term changes
unlikely. Since before
inci~eration operatitJns have taken place to
in the environment; however, such changes are
1965
aqueous
industrial wastes
with
toxic
. constituents have been dumped in the area without detectable long-term
effects .
4.
Major alternatives considered.
The alternatives considered in this tIS are (1) no action, which would
require the use of land-based disposal methods, or the shutdown 'of the
waste producing manufacturing processes, and (2) use of an alternative
. ocean site for the disposal of these wastes (e.g., the l'06-Mile Ocean
Waste Disposal Site, the areas north and east of the l06-Mile Site, the
regions south and west of the proposed site, existing near-shore disposal
sites over the Continental Shelf, a New England oceanic location, the
South Atlantic Bight region, and the existing Gulf of Mexico Incineration
-Site).
5.
Unresolved environmental issues.
At-sea incineration is an emerging disposal technology; therefore,
certain specific environmental issues require further investigation to
more fully establish the acceptability of this practice. Questions-which
remain unanswered, but can be regolved during monitoring efforts a~e:
(1)
Bow do repeated exposures to toxic residues in the water affect
the various biological communities?
(2)
What are the effects on planktonic organisms due to prolonged
adverse exposures' when such organisms must drift with a
polluted watermass that maintains its int~grity for relatively
long periods?
(3)
,
What effects will stack emissions have on pelagic and migratory
birds?
vi
... ..... -... ......_._~_. "-.'."._-'--'~..""."-".
-------
.._-. ---'___"_4-
.-._- -.-- .-.....__.__n..
- .".-'.-oJ
6.
Comments were received from the following:
Federal A~encies and Offices
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Maritime Administration
Department of Defense
Administration (NOAA)
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of the Air Force
nepartment of Health and Human Services
~ublic ~ealth Service
Department of the Interior
Office of the Secretary
Department of State
States and Municipalities
Delaware. Maryland. New Jersey. Rhode Island. ~nd
Commonwealth of Virginia
Private Organizations and Citizens
Ironbound. Newark. New Jersey
. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.
Southeastern Waste Treatment, Inc., Dalton. Georgia
Waste Management. Inc.. Oak Brook. Illinois
R. limbach, B:ick, New Jersey
Robert F. Jambor. New Brunswick. New Jersey
George W. Li~gett. Mays Landing. New Jersey
vii
'...-. -.-._._....'--"~- ... -" . . .
'__'4'_"'_"~ .
.' .-_. ..~.... '... -"-"..---.---.,-----.--..-. .--
-------
-- -. .... . - ~ ...
M'_- .....'.. .-'-- .:.-- -".. .
.. ..
.. . ........ '.n_~' ~'--.".. 4'.~~. ... ~--"-" .- """.... - ... .
7.
'AN 1 7 1982
Comments are due on or about . but not later than 30 days from
the date of EPAos publication of Notice of Availability in the Federal
Register.
Co~ents should be addressed to:
William C. Shilling
Project Officer. Criteria
Environmental Protection
and Standards Division (~-585)
Agency
Washington. D.C.
20460
Copies of the Final EIS may be obtained from:
Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria and Standards Division (tVR-585)
Washington. D.C.
20460
Environmental Protection ~ency .
Region II (2SA-MWP')
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
26 Federal Plaza. Room 1642
New York. N.Y. .10278
-
viii
. '-',~ . d.'" .'-....-~ .,-_._--, -- h_n_____-'~ -----.------ ...
-------
, --.------,.;-- .
-... ..- - . ._---
- -. -. -. . -.
_...'--~- .--- ----_._-~'---"..
....'-. '.. .. -. -.
7
H
The final ,stat~ment may be reviewed at the followin~ locatior)s:
Environmental Protection Agency
Public 'Information Reference Unit, Room 2404 (Rear)
401 M Street, SW
Washin~ton, D.C.
20460
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Library, Room 1002
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y.
, I
10278
Environmental Protection Agency
Re~ion II, Library
Woodbridge, Ave.
GSA Raritan Depot
Edison, N.J.
08817
NOAA/RD/OHPA - North East Office
Old Biology Bld~.
State University of New York
Stony Brook. N.Y.
APPROVED BY:
11794
M~lh~~ ~)~JL...,
William c. Shilli~
Project Officer
/(I~/1/ I
Date
ix
.'w.:-- .~.. h'_. ., -_.....: -'..,.... ,--.. ....-
.,.... .
. .. -- - ."-- .-
. ------.-...-------.
. '
-. -.-- ~..-..._.:._._..__.,~.--_....--_.......__.._..--- ,.-.
-- .._- ...-. -.-.
-------
.. ._.._._~_._... ............ . .-..-
.- .... "".' - ----..-
. '" -......' .." . ."-- -.
..' ._. ..... ..' .
...h.__'.... ........ ._.' .-.:.-...
, ,
Chapter 1
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
tncineration is currently the most environmentally sound
means of ultimate disposal for some materials (e.g., toxic
organic cbemical wastes). Large volumes of industrial
cbemical wastes may become candidates for incineration at sea
witbin tbis decade, tbus tbe proposed Nortb At lant ic
Incineration Site may provide east coast industries witb an
effective area for disposal of cbemical wastes. This cbapter
provides background information on the po.1rpose of and need
for tbe proposed site designation. It seta tbe stage for
defining tbe action, the location' of the proposed site, and
the legal criteria wbicb identify and establisb viable
options.
The
oceans
bave
been used for waste dispos~l for' generations on an
In the early 1970's u.s. legislation and internation'al
international scale.
agreemen~s were enacted to contro~ waste disposal in the marine enviro~ent.
This legislation, concurrent witb tbe development of land-based alternatives,
bas led to a dramatic decrease in direct industrial and municipal' ocean
, ,"
dumping. However, industries still produce toxic organic chemical wastes
whicb require particularly safe and effective disposal procedures to prevent
(' release 0 f bazardous sub stances into tbe environment in' apprec iab le
quantities: High-temperature incineration is a technique which satisfies such
disposal requirements.
Much organic chemical waste generation is centered around the heavily
populated and industrialized east coast, and existing commercial land-based
incineration facilities are located near populated areas. The incineration of
some hazardous sub~tances, ~ucb as polychlorinated biphenyls (PC!), has in the
past created strong public opposition to incineration activities at commerci~l
facilities on land. Community attitude is that the' potential for envirotr.-
mental contamination 'from waste residues or accidents is too great a risk. If
these w-astes are environmentally unsuitable for land disposal then conven-
tional' methods of barging and dumping these types of wastes at sea are
probably prohibited under 5227.27 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations and
Criteria. Alternative disposal methods bave therefore been examined. Based on
~
1-1
.0'.' ...
. -..... -_......--....' -.".."."",,--...--,,-.'--"'-' -.. ...-.
.. ..-.-. ...
- .. - -_.._-..- --. .
-------
.-- - - ..-
.... ,.. -.---. -'_..W'. ."'. . .
.--
... . ,... .-.- ..-. ..w...
, ~ ...,.. ".'.'..
..-....-.. .,.,...... .w..- .'
. ,
results of research conducted in the Gulf of Mexico between 1974' and 1977 the
Environmental Protection Agency' (EPA) has established at-sea incineration as
an acceptable alternative disposal method for hazardous organic wastes.
Consequently, EPA has determined a ne~d for designation of an at-sea
Incineration Site in the northwest Atlantic. Ocean to serve industries located
on the U.S. east coast.
Final designation of the proposed site will create. the second permanent
U. S. at-sea ~ncineration Site for industrial chemical waste disposal. This
action will fill the need for a suitable locati~n off the middle Atlantic
.
~
states for the incineration of certain industrial chemical wastes which do not
.
comply wi th the criteria for direct ocean dumping under EPA Ocean Dumping.
Regulations, and where no environmentally sound land-based alternatives exist,
but may be acceptable for disposal by incineration at-sea, as regulated under
the Marine Protection" Research, and Sanctuaries Ace of H72 (MPRSA) (PL
92-532; 86 Stat. 1052, 33 USCAS 1401, et seq.).
At pr'esent,. while alt~~ative disposal methods are ,being developed., some
industrial wast~s, p~rticularly liquid organohalogen wastes, can be safely and
effectively disposed of by at-sea incineration.
Organohalogens encompass a broad c~tegory of synthetic organic chemical
comp0U;I1ds consisting of carbon, hydrogen, and one or more elements of the
halogen f ami ly: as tatine, bromine, chlorine, fluorine, and iodine.
Organochlorine compounds are a subcategory of organohalogens that contain the
4 .
halogen chlorine, in addition to carbon, hydrogen, and possibly oxygen,
. .
nitrogen, phosphorus, or sulfur. Metals are often associated with the organic
, .
compounds in trace quantities. The majority of waste organohalogen chemicals
are organochlorines. The percentage of chlorine in organochlorines is
variable. Some wastes contain less than l~%, whereas others ~ay contain up to
87%, by weight. The average chlorine content of organochlorine wastes
generated in 1975 was 60.6% (Paige et al., 1978).
The generalized combustion products of organochlorine are described by:
CRCICC12 + 202 - 2C02 + HCl + C12
.
.
1-2
.. .-.-W. - .--.....
..- ..'.,- .,..
.... ..~ \.~.-. -- ..-... .
.. ..'.... .""'" ,
-------
.. --- ~..
-. - ~..
. - . .. .._-
""""..'-' '...'
h'. ~_.. .~. .' . .._-'. ~.~ .-... .._~. .., --- ... .-.-...
. ...-.....-..... .. -. .
"
Under optimal combustion conditions the major products are carbon dioxide
(C02)' hydr.ochloric acid (BC1) , and. water (B20); gaseous chlorine (C12) is
produced in negligible amounts,.
The technical feasibility of destroying organic wastes at sea in high-
temperature furnaces has been proven (Wastler et a1., 1975; Clausen et a1.,
1977; and Ackerman et al., 1978). The low environmental hazard of atmosphe=ic
and marine pollution from inci~eration emissions has been demonstrated
(TerEco, 1975 and unpublished), and the economic feasibility of such
operations was examined and found to be justifiable (Ralebsky, 1978). All
factors indicate t~at at-sea incineration of certain wastes is a viable waste
elimination alternative to landfill,
dUmping.
l&nd-incineration, or direct ocean
An Interagency Review Board (Ill!) for the Chemical Waste Incineration Ship
Program (CWISP) has been established, comprising representatives from nine
Federal agenci.es. The primary agencies' involved' are EPA, u.s. Coast Guard,
Maritime Administration, and National Bureau of Standards. The Ill! will
, develop procedures, for the coordination of permits for. shore facilities. ship
certification, and incineration of wa~tes. AdQitionally, 'IRB Will evaluate
al"ternat ives to promote the construction of privately owned tJ. 5. flag
incinerator vessels.
At-sea incineration is viewed as a major element in an overall integrated
.
bazardous waste management matrix. In addition to at-sea incineration, IR!
. will evaluate the full spectrum of alternative technologies, including
recycling and land-based in~ineration, to a~hieve a balance of environmentally
sound disposal procedures. This is particularly important when disposing of
the most hazardous chemical wastes.
~
As part of the decisioamaking process for designation of the proposed North
A-tlantic Incineration Site, EPA investigated all reasonable alternatives to
selection of the proposed site. Two broad categories of alternatives exist:
(1) take no action, thereby requiring other means of disposai (e.g., landfill,
storage, or land-incineration), transport of these wastes to the Gulf of
Mexico Incineration Siee, or if other acceptable disposal methods are
unavailable, discontinue the waste-producing processes, and (2) consideration
1-3
.. -. . .. """'....
.--. -... -""'-----~-------.'."'-"~-".'''.'I''..' ,
~-...,.. -..-....... ...-_. - ....
-------
. .
.. . . ".. -,-~'. .~,- .............. ..... " .. .-
- .w..",. .,.... -'..
H'" ,......" .
of one or more alteruate ocean locations for incineration 0 f these wastes.
.
After a careful review of the alternatives, EPA concludes that designation of
the proposed North Atlantic Incineration Site is the most favorable course of
action.
-;:;....
Based on the continued need for at-sea methods of wa9te disposal, the lack
of significant adverse impact uom at-sea incineration (as deter.:nined by
research studies conducted in the Gulf of Mexico), and the lack of a better
alteruative site, the EPA proposes to designate the 'proposed North Atlantic
Incineration Site for industrial chemical waste incineration. Use of the site
will facilitate incineration of approved orga,nohalogen wastes under
appropriate ocean disposal permits and the disposal of other chemical wastes
the EPA determines to be acceptable for at-sea incineration. The EPA
Administrator or his designee will (;) manage the site and regulate the times,
methods of disposal, rates, quantities, and types of materials to be
incinerated, (2) develop and maintain effective monitor~ng programs for the
si.te, (3) conduct disposal site evaluation studies, and (4) recommend
modifications in site.usage or designati9n~ as required.
The center of'the proposed site is app~ximate1y 155 nmi east-southeast
of Ambrose Li~ht, and 140 nmi east of the Delaware Bay entrance. Site
I
coordlnates are 38800' to 38840'N, and 71850' to 72830'W (Fi~ure 1-1). The
proposed. Incineration Site is due south of the 106-Mile Ocean Wa~te
Disposal Site, with a contiguous border.
.. ,-_.
INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIO~S
The principal international agreement governing ocean dumping is the
Convention OB the Prevention' of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter (London Dumping Convention) (26 UST 2403; TLAS 8165), which
became effective in A~gust 1975 upon ratification by 15 contracting countries.
The Convention i.s designed' to control dumping of wastes in che oceans and
specifies
that contracting
nations
will
regulate disposal in
and prohibics disposal
the marine
without
environment
within
their
jurisdiction,
1-4
'.' .-.- . .-.. '" -" .-.- "'--"-'~'_. .---..
.. ..-.-.'_." ..- ..
. ,- """ ,,",.--. ""',..
-------
'..- .- "-'-'r"-. -
: :"":"'-;-:-:-'~'. -:",.'" ".'~'
.-.... - -. -_. ._~..
- . ~ ..... .._..... .
. .. ..- ---'._""-'~"----'''.'--'''''''- .. ..'
.. 0
.' - .-;.--.....:.. ..,.I.""~-"";'."""-"~"._.;."
..." ...-..." ......
11\-
.
,.
IllAUTICAi WlUS
.
IHCINER AnON
/ SITE
Jt
t
7T
7T
.,"
...
""
w
""
rigare 1-1. Locatiou'of P~opo8ed Horth Atlautic Iucineratiou Site
Bouuded by 38800' to 38840'H Latitudes aud 71850' to 72830'W Longitudes.
Di.tance from Ambrose Light to Center of Site i8 lSS ami.
p8rftics. "Certain hazardous materials are prohibited (e.g" radiological,
biolo~~cal, and chemical warfare a~ents, and hijEh-level radioactive matter).
Certain
cadmiUm,
(e.$t.,
other materials
I'IIercury,
or~anohalo~en.
and
their
compound.; oil; and persiscent, synthetic or natural materials Chat float or
remain in sU8pension.) are also prohibiced as other chan Crace concaminants.
Other
materia18
or~anosi licon,
(e.~., arsenic, lead,
and pestieid~s) are not
copper, zinc, cyanides, °fl uorides ,
prohibited from ocean elspoaal, but
re~uire special care. Permics are required for ocean disDosal of materials not
specifically prohibited. Amendments to Annexes I and II of the London Dumping
Convention adopted in 1<;78 establish reQuirement. which alLDw or"",,h.1~M"*,
1-5
-----..-.----. -
-._'-- .~--- ..
~ -~'~''''-"'''"i----
._-.' -- ....,----...---. -.-...-- --.-".'-'-"-"~-""
---"----
- - ...~..
-------
~ . ,,'.... . .'" - .
.,. . ._. "-.-' ,.-_._~-~-
..... ",,"':' -",~,._;,,,,,,:,,,,,,,:,""'...."'..~............_~..._."'"'''''' .',.. ... -...' ..
----. .-.,.- -
--...-- .
._---_...
pesticides, and crude oil derivatives ~o be incinera~ed at-sea, provided ~he
eaission products .of the substances en~ering ~he atmosphere and sea are
rapidly rendered harmless by physical, chemical, or biological processes, or
are present as trace contaminan~s. !he nature and quantities of all
incinerated wastes and the circumstances of disposal must be periodically
reported to the Intergov.ermoental Maritime Consul~a~ive Organiutiou. (IHCO),
whicb is responsible for administration of ~he Convention.
Appendix B presents the Annexes ~o ~he Convention, Mandatory .Regulations
with amendments, and Technical Guidelines to J,e followed by at-sea incin-
eration permittees.
FEDERAL L£GISLAnON AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
Legislation for the control of waate disposal into rivers, harbors, and
coastal waters dates back almost 100 years; however, ocean waste ~ispo8al
was nat sped fi.cally regulated in the United Statu. until the passa"ge. of
the. Karine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries. Act (MPRSA~ in. October'
1972 (PL-92-532). . This legislation is discussed here in detail together
with other relevant Federal legislation, Federal control programs 'initiated
. ,
by HPRSA, and EPA programs for ocean disposal site desi~nation and issuance
of ocean disposal permits. In 1974 EPA det~rmined that the HPRSA also
applied to at-sea incineration, thereby requirin~ a permit under the Act.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 .(PL 95-217) amended and replaced earlier
legislation, established a comprehensive regulatory program to control outfall
discharges Qf pollutants 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 wa~ers. CWA
.regulates discharges by setting criteria ~o prevent degradatiou of the marine
enviromoent (~ar~ 403), and to apply the cri~eria in the issuance of permits
. (Part 402). CWA and MPRSA are the primary Federal legislative "mesns 0 f
cOl1trolling ocean waste disposal from ocean outfalls and offshore disposal
sites.
1-6
.,' ..... '" '..
-. "'-."-"-'
. . .. . ~ '"''
-------
-~.- - ..--,.--.--.-.-...- _..'. ,h.",,- -
--. - '~"-' . .
- -.-.. .......
_.-....... ..-.__. ..-......- ". ~
.- - ...... .....-., '~'-'-".". -.'
. .
MAJmm PROTECTION, USEAllCR, AND SANCTUARIES ACT (KP1lSA)
The JoU'RSA re~'ulates the transportation and ul t imate dumpin~ of barged
materials in ocean, waters. The Ac t is divided into ehree parts: Title
I--Ocean Dumping, Title II--Comprehensive Research on Ocean Dumping, and Tiele
tII-Marine Sanctuaries. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) responds
to Title I, specifically Part '102(c), which charges EPA with the respon-
sibility for designating sites or ti=es for waste disposal.
Title I, the primary re~latory section of MPRSA, eseablishes' ehe permit
program for the disposal of dredged and nondredged materials, mandaees
determination of impacts anrl alternative disposal methods, and provides for
enforcement of. permit conditions. The purpose of Title I is to prevent or
strictly limit the dumping of materials that would unreasonably affect human
healeh, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environmene, ecological systems,
or economic poeentialities. Litle I ot' the Act provides proced~res for
regulatin~ the, transportat ion and disposal of materials into ocean waters
under the jurisdiction or control of the United States. Any person of any
nationality 'wishing to t'['a~sPo'['t waste .material from a .U.S. port" or from' any
port unde r ;i U. s. fla~'- to be dumped anywhere, in the' oceans of the war Id, is
required to obtain a permit.
Title I prohibits the dumping into ocean waters of certain wastes, includ-
ing radiolo~ical, biological, or chemical warfare agents, and all high-level
radioactive wastes. Title I was amended in 1977 to include prohibition of
dumpin~ harmful sewage sludge afeer December 31, 1981 (PL 95-153). Alleged
violations are referred to EPA for .appropriate enforcement. The. provisions
of Title I include a maximum criminal fine of $50,000 and a jail sentence of
up to one year for every unauthorized dump or violation of permit require-
ments, or a maxJ.mum civil fine of $50,000. Any individual may seek an
ictjunction' against act unauthorized dumper with possible recovery of all costs
of litigation.
Title II of, KPRSA provides for comprehensive research and monieoring of
ocean disposal effects on the marine environment. Under Title' II ehe National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) monitoring program has conducted
1-7
"'." _.~.__.. .--.-' --'.-
-'.....,-- ---'-.'_.' ..' ._-- -_. .-'.-..--..-------..-...... . - .
-0" . - -_.-
-------
. - .--', - -
._. ~,u._.-_.':~...'
-. "... ..." .;.-..., ........-..'
extensive survey and laboratory investigations over the past several years at
ocean disposal sites in the North Atlantic Ocean. !his work aids EPA in site
management by providing criteria for site use decisions.
Several ~ederal departments and agencies participate in the implementation
of MPRSA requirements with the major responsibility mandated to the F:I'A to
review, grant, and enforce disposal permits for all wastes, and to designate
and manage all disposal sites (Table 1-1). In October 1 q73 EPA implemented
its responsibility for regulatin~ ocean dumpin~ under MPRSA by issuing final
Ocean Dumping Regulat ions and Criteria which were revised in January 1977
(40 CFR Parts 220 - 229). The Regulations established procedures and
criteria for designatinR and mana~in~ ocean disposal sites (Part 228), evalu-
ating permit applications for environmental impact (Part 227), and enforcin~
permit conditions (Part 226).
Under MPRSA the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is assigned responsibility to
. conduct surv~illance of ~isposal operat~ons, to, ensure compliance with the
, ~ permit conditions, and. to discourage unauthorized disposal. Violations are
.
referred to EPA for enforcement. Su'rveillance is accomplished by means 0 f
spot-checks of disposal vessels for valid permits, interception or escorting
of disposal vessels, use of shipriders, aircraft overflights during dumping,
and random surveillance missions at land facilities.
NOAA conducts comprehensive monitoring and research programs under Title II
of MPRSA .with respect to the effects of ocean dumping on the marine
enviro~ent, including potential long-term effects of pollution, over fishing,
and man-induced changes in oceanic ecosystems. Some. of the responsibilities
for conducting field investigations of ocean waste disposal effects have been
shared with EPA. . Title III of MPRSA authorizes NOAA to designate marine
sanctuaries
after consul tation with other affected Federal agencies,
and to
regulate all' activities within such sanctuaries.
At the request of EPA, the Department of Justice initiates relief actions
in court in response to violations of the terms' of MPRSA. When necessary,
injunctions are issued t,o stop disposal. Civil and criminal fines, and jail
sentences may be levied, based on' the magnitude of the violation.
.
.
1-8
- .... - """."." "'''''-'--' .-
-------
. ~. " .
.. --.-..--.., ".....-. ,
..' n. .,- -. .~.'- -.-...
-. ..- . .."... - ...
. .....- . -- .," ..-
"""" ,...--. ,,"'''-''''''.''-'---''-.'''---' ."...'.,.
TABLE 1-1
. "RESPONSIBILITIES OF FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCI~S
FOR REGULA'IING OCUN WASTE DISPOSAL UNDER MPRSA
Department/Agency
Respons ibili ty
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Issuance of waste disposal permits,
other than for dredged material
Establishment of criteria
regulating waste disposal
for
Enforcement actions.
Site designation and management
Overall ocean
management
disposal
program
Research on alternative ocean
disposal techniques
u.S. Department of tbe Army
Corps of Enginee=s
Issuance of permits for :ransportation
of dred~ed material fo~ rlisposal.
Recommending disposal site locations
~U.S.'Department,of Transportation
"Coas t Guard
.
Surveillance
Enforcement ~upport
Issuance of regulations for disposal
Ivessels
.
Review-of permit applications
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Long-term monitoring and research
Comprehensive ocean dumping impact
and sbort-term effect studies
Marine sanctuary designation
U.S. -Department of Justice
Court actions
u.S. Department of State
International agreements
1-9
. "
.-.- --..-....'.-..u.-.---..
n. -~-.------_..--_.--..--
._---,-..---__...n~_- .,'
... ""'.-.,.-.-. -r'.- .
-------
. ..-.....
.. ;,.....-....,......."..,.
.~~..__...~. .-.,..t'... .."..
, . . ~. ,. .
,The MPRSA was amended in March 1974 (PL 93-254) to bring the Act into full
conformity with the Couveutiou. The t1uited States accepted amendments to
Anuexes I and II of the Convention dealing with international regulations for
the incineration of wastes at sea. Requirements established by the U. S.
regulations implemented both' the Act and the Convention (Chapter .1,
International Consideratious). These amendments became effective in March
1979 as minimum national requirements in all oceanic incineration permits.
OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION
Part 102(c) of the MPIlSA authorizes the EPA Administrator to designate
, .
sites aud times for ocean waste d~sposal, provided the waste does' not contain
prohibited materials and will not significantly degrade o:r endanger human
health, welfare, and amenities, the marine environment aud ecological systems,
or economic potential.
Land-based methods of disposal as alte~atives to ocean dumping are
thoroughly evaluated during the permir: application process. Th~ough this
.evaluation the applicant must prove a need for ocean disposal and evaluate
alternative disposal' means before a permit for ocean dumping is granted,
Since potential alternative disposal methods will vary J based on the' type ,0 f
waste, this issue is best resolved during the permit application stage.
Part 227 Subpart C of the Ocean Dumping Regulations specifies the
considered and 'the basis for determining r:he need for oceau dumping.
\
a permit is granted, EPA may require the permittee to:
factors
Even if
" .. . terminate all ocean dumping by a specified date, to
phase out all ocean dumping over a specified period or
periods,. to continue research aud development of
alternative methods of disposal and make periodic reports
of such research and development in order to provide
additioual information for periodic review of the need for
and alternatives to ocean dumping...1t
The' conditions apply even when the permittee has demoustrated compliance with
the requirements of Part 227 Subparts B, D, and E; prevention of environmental
impact (e.g., damage to aesthetic, recreational, or economic values, or
interference with other uses of the ocean)"
1-10
.. .' ..'"'~" ......._.~. -...- ... .
-------
+ ---~_._..
. ~ . ..... .. ~-.. _.... ~._-
... - . ..,-..,.+ ....
If
EPA has astablished criteria for designating sites in Part 228 of the Ocean
.
Dumping Regulations. These include criter,ia 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 dispcsal sites to determine their
accePfability in keeping with the criteria.
~
, General criteria for selection of sites, as provided in the Ocean Dumping
Regulations are:
Ca)
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' 01; shellfisheries,
and regions of heavy com:ercial or recreational navigation.
Cb)
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 disposa~ operations
. anywhere within the' .site, can be expected t'o be reduced to normal
ambient seawater levels or to undetectable contaminant concen-
~rations, or effects, before reaching any beach, shoreline, marine
sanctuary, or known geographically limited fishery or shellfishery.
Cc)
If at any time 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 [Section] 228.5 to 228.6 the use of such sites will be terminated
as aoon as suitable alternate disposal sites can be designated.
Cd)
The size of ocean disposal sites wiil 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.
1-11
. .. -.. -. -.- --...
.- - ------_.-.---- ~-~-_..-.-.__...._------_._-_..~-_. ...--..--. .
-------
I
II
(e)
. . _.-- --.. ._~ - ..
. .
.. h
. ... -0.. -'~-"'--' -~~ ,
," ,~: ...." ,..;:. -~".
",'-.-"'"""-,-_,__.4,,---,',, .." .
. ..
EPA wiU-; wherever feasible; desiguate ocean dumping sites beyond
the edge of the Continental Shelf. and otber sucb sites tbat have
been historically used. [5228.5]
In addition to the five general criteria established in the Ocean Dumping
Regulations and listed above. the amendments to tbe London Dumping Convention
include three general criteria specific to at sea incineration:
(a)
!he atmospheric dispersal characteristics of tbe area --.including
wind speed and direction. atmospberic stability. frequency of
inversions and fog. precipitation types and amounts. and bumidity --
in order to determine the potential impact on the 'surrounding
euviroament of pollutants released from tbe marine incineration
facility, giving particular attention to tbe possibility of
atmospberic transport of pollutants to coastal areas.
(ob)
Oceanic dispersal cbar~cter~stics of tbe area, in order to evaluate
tbe potential impact of plume inte~action witb tbe water surface.
(c)
Availability of navigational aids.
Factors considered under the specif~c criteria for site selection treat the
general criteria in additional detail. A proposed stte which satisfies the
specifit: criteria for site selection, will conform to the broader general
criteria. 2leven factors are considered:
(1)
GeQgraphical position. deptb of water, bottom topograpby 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 beacbes and otber amenity areas;
1-12
. -'....- - . .-- ...,,"..-... --.'.-'"
-p','" ~ . ....._-.-'." .. r ." . ".- .
-------
.+ . --_.~. ....-
(0)
(11.)
--~.. -.-.--- - -.
- _...........
, .
...-. . -
"" ..'-. .."'''.'':'...:. .-..-_... ..... ..
. - . .
(4)
Types and quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of, and
I
proposed 'methods of release, including methods of pac;king the
waste, if any;
(5)
Feasibility of surveillance and monitoring;
(6)
Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing character-
istics of the area, including prevailing current direction and
velocity, if any;
(7)
Existence and effects of current
and previous
discharges and
dumping in the area (including cumulative effects);
(8)
Interference with shipping,
extraction, desalination, fish
special scientific importance,
fishing, recreation, mineral
and shellfish culture, areas of
and oth~r legitimate uses of the
pceanj
(9)
The., existing water. quality 'and ecology of the site as. dete.rmined
by ,vailable data or by trend a&Sessment or baseline surveys;
?otentia~ity for' the development
species in the disposal site;
or recruitment o'f
nuisance
Existence at or in close proximity to the
significant natural or cultural features
site of any
of historical
~
importanc::e.
[5228.6]
These factors are addressed in detail for the proposed Incineration Site in
Chapter 2.
1-13
.' .-. ...", .-_..
-. _.-..... .... -- . .. -. ...-. ....".- .'....._n
-------
, - -~--- ~-- '.'.
--.- --.----.
- ~_.#' ----_. .
. -. .-". ...--,
..- ---.. .~-
.' -- -.... ..:. .....,
.... ....._.~......-..;";-~",,,~"""'_"..~.':~~""" H'-
A designated site must be mlZlnito-red for adverse disposal impacts. EPA
requires that the following types q£ effe~t's" be monitored in order to
determine the extent of marine environmental impacts occur-ring from material
disposal at other sites:
(1)
~
Movement of materials into estuaries or marine sanctuaries,
,
or to
oceanfront beacheal or sho-relines;
(2)
Movement of materials
toward productive
fishery or
shellfishery
areas;
(3)
Absence from the dispos'al site
characteristic of the general area;
of pollution-sensitive biota
(4)
t
p-rogressive,
c01llposition
attributable
non-seasonal, change$ in water quality or sediment
at the disposal site, when these changes are
to materials disposed of at the site;
(5)
. .
progreuive, . nO~-8easonal, changes in comp!,sition 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)
Accumulati~n of material constituents (including without limitation,
human pathogens) in marine biota at or near the site. [S228.10(b)]
AT-SEA INClNEXATION PERMIT PROG1Wf
EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations establ~sh a program for the application,
evaluation, and issuance of at-sea incineration pe1illlLits. When a site is
selected and duly designated, permits for .the use of the site will be issued
by the EPA.
Ocean Dumping Regulations are specific about the procedures used to
evaluate permit applications and the granting or denial of such applications.
EPA evaluates permit applications principally to determine (1) whether there
1-14
. -- ,., .. . ..-- .-
, ,. -_........,.~,.-._... ...-
-..,.. ~ .. .-...-..,- . ..
-------
. .
. -.__.~ . -. _.
. ~.. ... .. .
- . ... - ....... .', ~
I
-
. is a demonst~ated need for ocean waste disposal and ~hat no other reasonab le
alternatives exist (40 CFR 5227.14), and (2) cOMpliance with the environmental
impact qiteria (Part 227 'Subpart 3), Mandatory Regulations and Technical
Guidelines (Appendix 3). As prescribed 1;y 5227.6(h) of the Ocean Dumping
Regulations, the prohibitions and limitations of 5227.6(a) do not ap~ly to the
granting of permits for the transport of listed substances for the purpose 0:
incineration at sea if the applicant demonstrates that the stack emissions
consist
of
substances
which are rapidly rendered harmless by physical,
processes in the sea. Incineration operations shall
established on a case-by-case basis.
chemical, or biological
cOMply with requirements
Compliance with EPA marine environmental impact criteria ensures that the
proposed waste disposal' will not "unduly degrade. or endau.ger the marine
environment," and that disposal will not cause unacceptable adverse effects
upon human health, the marine ecosystem,. or other uses of the ocean. The
relevant points of these lengthy criteria as they relate to incinerable wastes
are briefly" summ~rized below.
.
Prohibited Materials
High-level
radioactive
was~es,
m
-------
- _"_'_n__.
~- ..h.__-..
. .. .--'-"'"'' .,'
."." ..1.-.-_.
-. . ..
-. -. - ...
-- . ..'-
" '
:. ~." _.: - .k .'--"""~' .""~'-' . '.- ... ..-
flame temperature shall be 1,2S0°C, unle~s the results of tests on
the marine incineration' facility demonstrate that the required
combustion and destruction efficiency can be achieved at a lower
temperature.
~
Research permits' will be issued during incinerator trial tests to ce~tify,
equipment performance acceptability and establish the destruction efficiency
for a specific type or mixture of organohalogen waste. Permittees incine-
rating wastes under research permits will be required to perform monitoring of
short-term effects on air and water quality, similar to monitoring conducted
in the. Gulf, of Mexico. Additionally, permittees will monitor incinera~or
stack emissions, as promulgated under Mandatory Regulations and Technical
Guidelines of the Convention. Permits will specify an expiration date no
longer than 18 months from the date of issue.
Special permits will be issued to allow incineration of approved wastes
when an incinerator has been certified. Short-term monitoring of air and
water quality impacts will not normally be required.' However, monitoring of
stack ami,ssions ~ll be required, as promulgated under Mandatory Regulations
and Technical Guidelines of the Convention. Permits will specify 'an
expiration date of no later than 3 years from the date of issue.
..
HISTORY OF THE U. S. AT-SEA INCINERATION PROGRAM
At-sea incineration of toxic wastes' has been practiced in Europe since
1969. The practice did not begin in the United States until 1974, when
permits were issued for incineration of Shell Chemical Company wastes in the
Gulf of Mexico. Between' October '1974 and January 1975. approximately 16,800
metric tons. (tonnes) of toxic organochlorine wastes from the Shell Chemical
Company, Deer Park. Texas facility were incinerated aboard the incineration
. vessel MIT VULCANUS at a designated site in the Gulf of Mexico during four
separate incineration operations. The first two "burns" (4,200 tonnes each)
. metric ton. tonne. 2.205 pounds (lb)
1-16
. . ,....-.--.-.--, ~ .. -- .." - .... ---- -- -.-... ... --. -..- - -.,. .
-------
...---. --..-. ...~----
. . . - ~_.
.. . - - ......- .'-
. .,. -.. -- ..- - ........__..._..;....:_,...,~,.~_.. .-.
It
were conducted UQder research permits; che second cwo burus (4,200 Connes
. .
each) were conducted under spec~al permics. Wastes were, composed of
trichloropropaue, trichloroechane, and dichloroechane. Monitoring resulcs
showed no detectable cbanges in che pH of che seawater where che incineration
plume cont~cted the water, surface (discussed in detap in Chapter 4)".
f.
Similarly, no adverse effects were detected in plankton samples (TerEco,
1975 ).
The third series of incinerations occurred between March and April 1977.
Approximately 16,800 tonnes of Shell Chemical Company wastes were incineraCed
aboard ,the MIT Vt7LCANUS at the Gulf. of Mexico Incineration Site during four
incineration operations (Clausen, et al., 1977). These operations were
permitted under' special permit. Waste material was similar to that burued
during the first incineration ope~ation in 1974 and 1975. Monicoring results
of these operations were comparable to the first burus, and no deleterious or
subtle adverse impac:s were detected. Field monitoring and laboratory studies
were" undertaken, exposing fish Co various. concentrations of Shell Chemical
C~pany wastes. It was concluded that .observed effects (Chapter 4), were
temporary "and presented no drawbacks to at-sea, incineration (TerEco,
unpublished; Clausen, et al., 1977).
The fourth and mos t
recent
at-sea
incineration of
organochlorine
waste
occurred in the Pacific Ocean near Johnston Atoll.
Approximately 10,400
tonnes of Herbicide Orange were destroyed in ,three incineration operations
aboard the WT VULCANUS. The first burn occurred under a re'Search permit and
,
the other. two under special permits., The primary toxic componencs of chis"
waste were TCDD (2,3,7,a-cetracblorodibenzo-p-dioxin), 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-T
(Ackerman et al., 1978). In the 'case of Herbicide Orange, the incineration
process appears to have been responsible for tbe' production of new compounds
, .
absent in tbe original waste material. Plankton samples were collected from
affected sea water to determine residue effects, but analysis results were
inconclusive due to the low biological productivity at the site.
~
, ,
A recent paper (Kamlet, S.K. 1978) presents a detail-ed discussion of the
events leading up to the use of at-sea incineration technology in the U.S.
In additio.n, discussion therein of the development of Mandatory Regulations
and' Recommended Technical Guidelines of the Convention i& informative.
1-17
. .-. ...
... ~ -.. -- -...-. .
'_'__h"_,~_-",- - ...
'--'-'-' ...
- __-n__~... -,.--....
-------
. ...--.---
...-~ - - -----
. -. ._._.~
."-.."-"." ..-.., - .., -
.-. - ... .. ~- -'
. ~.. .'L . .,.
"." ..---.......U..-.-.'.... ...
If
. I
of
Combustion efficiency (CE) and destruction efficiency (DE) are cwo measures
incinera:or effectiveness in disposal of. organic wastes. Combustion
efficiency is an index of the completeness bf combustion, based on the
i
concentration ratio of carbon monoxide co carbon dioxide, usually expressed
as:
C! (%)
.
CC02 - Cco
C
c02
x 100
~
where
C . measured concentration of 'carbon dioxide.
c02
Cco. ~ measured concentration of carbon monoxide
Regulations require incinerator vessel operators to moni tor and maintain a
minimum CE of 99.9% during incineration operations.
minimum CE of 99.9% produces a minimum DE of 99.99%.
It has been found that a
. .
Destrucdon
e.fficiency
(DE)
in all Gulf of Mexico
at-sea incineration
operations were determined to be 99.96% or better.
computed f:-om. the difference between the amount
Destruction efficiency is
of wastes fed into the
incine~ator and the amount of unburned residual wastes emitted from the stack.
,
Several alternative methods are used to determine destruction efficiency.
Table 1-2 lists four methods used in recent tests.
. .
-
Aboard the MIT VULCANUS wastes are incinerated in two identical refractory
lined furnaces at the stern. Each incinerator consists of two main sections,
a combustion chamber and a stack, through which the combustion gases pass
sequentially (Figure 1-2). ~r is supplied by large fixed-speed blowers rated
;t 90,000 m3/hr capacity for each incinerator. Liquid wastes are fed to the
incinerator by means of electrically driven pumps. There are no air pollution
control devices in the incinerators, but there is an emergency automatic waste
shutoff system, which prohibits the flow of waste to the burners if che
furnace temperature drops below a preselected level. Combustion temperatures
are between 1,200 and 3,000.r (650.C to l,650.C), but for maximal combustion
'efficiency the average is approximately 1,600.C. The average waste residence
time is 1 second. ~
1-18
,. .'_~h -- ..-..-:...-..-. .'-,-. ..-... . _..-p .
-------
, .
i
.-!
I I
.-,
\0:
,
!
i
I
I
!
i
j
I
i
1
i
I
1
i
I
i I
)
)
,
,
!
,
I
j ;
TABLE 1-2.
DE,INITION OF DESTRUCTION EffICIENCY TERMS,
Destruc t ion
Efficiency
Term
DETHC
Hethod of Effic~ency Calculation
Description of Heth~d
DECCIIC
DESC CI
) )
DE
. CCC)CI)
TIIC fed-THC on-line monitor
THC fed x 100
Total organic destruction efficiency bnsc:d .
on total hydrocarbons (TIIC) mc:asuf"ed by a
continuous on-line monitor onboard the
"/T VULCANUS.
i '
;
THC fed-THC in grab gas sample
TIIC fed
x 100
Total organic destruction efficiency based
on total hydrocarbons measured in the Tevlaf"
bag grab gas Bamples by CC/FID.**' ,
, ,
E#) fed-C)£!) in SASS* samples
C)CI) fed
i i
! I
, I
. ,I
x 100
Waste destruction efficiency based on tri-
chloropropane (a major waste constituent)
found in SASS* train samples. Trichloro-
. propane was identified and quantified by
CC/HSt.
I
I
I ,
: I
: ;
E#) fed - C]£!] in grab'gas samples
C)Cl) fed
Waste destruction efficiency
chloropropane (a major waste
found in grab gas samples by
Tenax concentration.
x 100
'.
based on t d-
constituent)
CC after
, I
, I
i i
,
; ,I
l I
~. i
l .;
i ~
I
* EPA Source Assessment Sampling System
** Cas chromatography/flame ionization detection (an analysis technique)
t Cas chromatography/mass, sp'ectrometry (an analysis' technique)
,$ource:
Clausen et aI., 1977
~ . I
i :;i
~ : I
; i
, I
, '
'i
1(.'
-------
,'..-4_'''-''
~ ~._- +-. +
- . -_.~. ..... ---
"+.' ..... .', ._.; ~.':";.::~'~.::-.:::':'.;'.,=~'::.;.:.... ..~+-.w.':::.
- "- - . ..
. t
, ./1
ANNULAR SPACE FILLED
WITH AIR UNDER
PRESSURE FOR TUYERES
~ EFFLUENT TO STACK
[L j, REFRACTORY. W AU .
BAFflE SHELL
AIR TUYERES
TUYERE AIR SHELL
AND PLENUM
GAS BURNER
RING
COOLING AIR PORTS
CAST IN REfRACTORY SLAB
COOLING AIR
(FORCED DRAFT)
AIR. TUYERES
TUYERE AIR SHELL
REFRACTORY WALL
BAFFLE SHELL
---
Pigure 1-2. Vortex Liquid Waste Incinerators
Source: Paige et al.', 1978 .
1-20
. ",' . '... -..-. .....- -
. .- -.. ~ .. " -. -.~.- ..
-------
.._- ~--- ._-
.- --...--.-- .
. --. ..--
. .--....... . .
. ..' .
..... .. "'~_. .."'..
. ... .' .- ..oJ'
...-.-. .-.--..... .....,r. --.. .:.. '" - ...-......
,
In organochlorine. waste incineration three residues are produced which
may adversely affect air and water quality: hydrochloric acid, unburned
or~anochlorine waste, and trace metals l.n a gaseous phase. Residues are
emitted from the incinerator stacks and rise into the atmosphere as a smoke
plume which mayor may not be visible, depending on atmospheric conditions.
The plume is rapidly dispersed in all directions (Figure 1-3). Initial sea
surface contact will occur within several hundred meters of the vessel's
stern, and at such distances residue concentrations will be low.
Research
operations indicate. (TerEco, 1975 and unpublished) that maximal sea-level
concentrat ions occur at 1,000 to 2, DOOm downwind of the vesse 1. Sea sur-
face concentrations will decrease with increased distance ttOtD the v~ssel.
Mathematical modeling predicts that maximal sea surface concentrations will
. occur approximately 4,000111 downwind of the vessel (Paige et al., 1978).
Modeling indicates that within 14 \em sea. surface residue concentrations
will be 50% of the maximum sea surface concentrations occurring at 4,000111.
.
PROJECTION OF QUANTITIES AND TYPES OF U:S. WASTES
WHICH MIGHT BE INCINERATED AT SEA
Ralebsky (1978) cOtDpiled data on U.S. manufacturing processes and estimated
the potential U.S. industrial chemical waste quantities which may be available
for at-sea incineration (Table 1-3). Wastes are grouped into four general
categories depending on the character of the waste material. Organic
chemicals, pesticides, and petroleum refinery wastes are considered acceptable
incineration candidates because in most cases they will burn efficiently and
produce resiiues which are environmentally acceptable (i.e., posse~s low
metals content). Inorganic chemicals as a rule have a high metal content
~
which prevent them from ful filling tbe regulations
under present technologies.
for at-sea inciner!!tion
Surveys of U.S. industrial waste generators indicate 90% of the U.s.
industrial chemical wastes are produced in Gulf coast. states, or can be most
economically transported to the Gulf coast for disposal. The remaining 10% of
the industrial chemical wastes are generated primarily in fpur east coast
1-21
, .
.. _. .....---..-..
... .- _.-......__._--...-~._._-_..., .-..",.....- .
:. ..- ... ,.
'........-..-----. .
-------
j
.
"
<
,~
I '
j :
I
J
',I
1
,\ '
j
I i
"i ~
1
I
j
!
r ':
,'I
I
,
i
"
"
,'J
I
1
....
I
N
N
--
. - -
-
-
I
~,
~
~('
PLAN VIEW
__ClIOHr\.
~".IILI
1801
II
lOG
"I
...
211
I
s
,6
, . 7
.
t
/
IOCAllOH Of ,.101(110
...,,'" IfA IIYII CONun
2,\ ) ."",
IOC..llOH Of ,.IDlCIIO 10C""ON 01 '8.01CIIO"".'MUM
MI..IUA".' U.. IIVII II.. IIVII COHClN18..IIOHI
COHC.It.8..IIOHS
Din AHCI a"..1
. Figure
1-3. Plume Dispersal (HIT VULCANUS) Gulf of
Research Incinerations, Research Burn II
incineration, the gaseous plume is virtually
Hexico
NOTE:
During actual
colorless and
.'
,
,
. I
I
\
I I
~ !
I I
: i
: i
!
II
12 11 14
IOC..IIOHO"8.DlCIIO /"
COHClNI...lIOftIlV"S .....
Of ..n...tUM Sf.. IIYII
COHC'NI...lIOHS
:1
~; I,
i.
i!
U
H
J !
I,
t I
? I
invisible
, ,
j j
~ :
:i
: !.
"",
1
j
-------
. i
I :
, '
, '
I '
J ;
i :
. )
,
! :
J '
i ~
i '
1 ~
i
TABLE 1-)
POTENTIAL U.S. WASTE QUANTITIES AVAILABLE
FOR AT-SEA INCINERATION BY GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
, (Thousands of'Tonnes)
i;
N;
w'
,1911 196) 1969
Total u.s. Cui f Cout East Coast Total U.S. Cui f Cout [ut Coast Totat u.s. Cui f Cout East co'st
Organic 645 566 59 1,496' I, )56 1)6 2,211 2,0)1 206
Chemicals
Pest icidE:8 )) 29 4 1Q.. 69 9 11) 100 I)
Inorganic 90 HI,. H/A 60) ' H/A HI A 181 H/A H/A
Chemicals
'.
-
Petrolf:tmI 161 149 18 392 350 42 480 428 52
Refining - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL ~35 164 81 2,,569 1,111 189 3,611 2,5S9 . 211
Ad8pted from lIalebsky, 1918'
HI A - Hot ap~licablE: to at-8ea inclneratio~ under prf:8ent technologies
1('
. !
I ,
i .
, .
.i'
I :
,
: t
, I
t
: ,
" ,
, .
: .'
, ,
: i
i'
i '
; .
-------
',' ...........',
... ~". -. ...... , :, ...
.' --....' .-. ._-- .' - ~.. --~. .
~ ,. .'...- ..- ... ,
states: Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia (Halebsky,
1978) . Specifically, estimates show, that only 9.2% of the potential total
U. S. ot'ganic chemical wastes, 11.8% 0 f the potential total U. S. pesticide
wastes, and 10.8% of the potential total U.S. pett'oleum refinery wastes are
considet'ed to be available ft'om the east coast for incineration at the Not'th
Atlantic Incineration Site.
Waste volumes are based on data limited. to several large pt'~ary waste
generating indus tt'i es . Secondary waste producing industt'ies are large in
numbe-r and collectively generate a large volume of hazardous wastes.
'therefore, substantially larget' volumes of wastes may become candidates for
at-sea incineration than indicated by Balebsky (1978).
In 1979 EPA recalled the pesticide, Silvex (2,4,5-TP), which is
chemically si~ilar to Herbicide Ot'ange (2,4,5-T). The toxic compound
Tetrachlot'o- dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is ct'eated in minute quantities during
the manufactut'ing process of these co~pounds. Presently an es.timated
700,000 gallons (approximately 2,400 tonnes) of 2,4,5-TP ar~ stot'ed for future
disposal. When the recall pt'ogt'am is complete an estimated total of
1.2 million gallons (4,100 tonnes), with an average TCDD content of 20 ppb,
will require safe disposal.
'the National Academy of Science (1979) reported that"between 1930 and 1975
the total U.S. commercial sales and imports of PC!'s was about 571,000 tonnes.
Since 1975 approximately 340,000 tonnes were still in use, and about
2S ,000 to~nes had been destt'oyed in land-based incinerators or otherwise
degraded. By 1978 an estimated 140,000 tonnes had been stored in landfills or
equipment dumps. It is estimated that 68,000 tonnes have already been
dispersed into the enviroament. 'the 340,000 tonnes still in use from 1975
will eventually have to be disposed of. Curt'ent Toxic Substances Control Act
regulations require incineration 'of bulk li,quid PC! and some solid mixtures.
No estimates are available regarding the amount of PC! wastes that will
ultimately become available for disposal on the east coast.
1-24
. ..' -- -. -_.'" .
... . "" " ... 00-'.... ...-.
_....- :..,-~ -.. .-~.-
-------
..' .
_._'-~---'-'.-'. _0.. ..-.- -0.' ~.--
-. .... ...- ---. - .~. .
~- ." - .,~.. -...-. ....".'-'...'-"""" .-...-..'~--_... ...",-..--., '-~-"."
. .
Karket~ng surveys indicate projected waste volumes exceed 1.1 million
tonnes. Such quantities wo~ld require several incinerator vessels operating
simultaneously, year-round, if at-sea incineration were used, and would
require several incineration sites to ensure that two or more vessels did not
occupy the same site simultaneously.
This EIS demonstrates the need for an at-sea Incineration Site off the east
coast of the United States. Short-term monitoring of research burns in the
Gulf of Mexico detected no measurable impact. during those operations (Wastler
et al., 1975; TerEco, 1975 and unpublished) indicating the environmental
acceptability. of this alternative disposal method. The existing quantities
and types of wast'e chemicals whic}1 require a safe disposal process, and the
. anticipation of annually increasing quantities (Table 1-3), indicate that in
the future land-based disposal practices may be unacceptable or inadequate to
accommodate the enormous amounts of accumulated wastes. In the past public
sentiment has opposed 'incineration of hazardous wastes, such as PCB or
2,4,5-T, near populated areas where spills, equipment malfunctions, or
.
residues ;nay lead' to contamination. Transport of wast.es g.e.nerated by east
coast . indust~ies to a m.ore .distant site (e.g.,. Gulf of Mexico Incineration
Site) is not a preferable alternative for several environmental and economic
reasons discussed in Chapter 2.
~
1-25
-- --'U_-_U_'-'
. .
.-..- -.... -._- - .-.........--- _u. .--..... -........-....-.... ...
-.- ..-. . -'.. .,.
. . -.- -.-_....--
....-~....... .-.. -
.""..,-, - .
... ---~.
-------
,- -.. ..........-....1--- .
... ..............._- -. . -
..-.--.- .~,. ..
. .--- - _. ~_....
- ..- ,. .....
. .. '-_..- .__.
-- ".- JoJ"""'~.'''_''''':_'.'''-'''-''--- ..-..:..--..
. .
. Chapter 2
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
Industrial wastes unsuitable for landfill can either be
stored on land or incinerated on land or at sea. Present-day
land-based incineration is costly and for some substances
public sentiment is strongly opposed to this method. '!he
proposed North Atlantic Incinere.tion Site offers a viable
alternative to land-based incineration. In addition to the
proposed site this chapter discusses several alternative
ocean. sites.
In accordance with the Council -on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) recommended
format, this chapter is the substance of the tIS. It is based upon the
information and analyses presented in the other chapters and in the
appendixes, particularly the chapcers on the affected environmenc (Chapter 3).
and the environmental consequences (Chapter 4).
This chap-"ter specifically discusses the. following alternatives:
.
No action
Use of Gulf of Mexico Incineration Site
.
Proposed .site
Alternative sites
l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site
PreviousLY recommended northern IncineratiQn Site
Other o~eanic regione
~
.
Eastern mid-Atlantic Bight region
Southern mid-Atlantic Bight region
New England oceanic region
South Atlantic Bight region
Land-based disposal methods are thoroughly evaluated during the permit
appl ication process. Through this evaluation the applicant must prove a
need for ocean waste disposal and evaluate al ternative disposal means be-
fore a permit
for at-sea
incineration is
granced.
Land-based disposal
methods are not discussed as alternatives to the proposed action, but
. .
introduced as considerations should the no action alternative be preferred.
, ",
2-1
. .. ._. .... -."'.'" _..~.. ....
'-'-------'-"-' ",...,.... .- .
-. ,....-.. "
.. .-... -_.
. ..-...-.".....
-;--..--. ..
'",""'."----
-------
----- -
-.--. -.- '-. -
- .. .---- -
~-~_._-,_. -, ~ ,;",->-",-~,.#-'..J,.'.~...t. ...,..
.. ... - -~",..., --. ..... '--' '.., ,...,;'.. 'A'_~""~:""''''.,,,-,,:, :~:....,--...-~.- .". . ,.
, ,
The environmental impacts of the pt"oposed action anti the alternative
s~tes have been thoroughly evaluated an4 are preset'lted. thus defining the
issues and providit'lg a clear basis for choice among options by the
decisionmakers and the public.
\
LAND.BASED DISPOSAL
~
Laud-based disposal of liqui'd organic wastes has been practiced for many
years. Numerous physical. chemical. and biological waste' treatment processes
have been evaluated. Several methods show promise for large-scale operations
capable of handling commercial quantities of hazardous wastes. but most are
impractical for projected future volumes. The EPA has published several
repor'tS in recent years dealing with these alternative methods of managing
hazardous waste (e.g.. Arthur D. Little (1~77). TRW (1976) J Versar. Inc.
(1977). Process Research. Inc. (1977). and Wilkinson et ale (1978».
LAND-BASED INCINDATIE>N
Ten basic types of incineration techniques are presently being used' or
developed fot: disposal of haz~rdous wastes (Scurlock et a1.. 1975). This
discussion concerns only liquid injection systems J the ~ost frequently us~d
technique for liquid organohalogen waste combustion. although a rotary kiln
system has beeu used in an experimental procedure to reclaim chlorine from
PCB's for-cement production.
All commercial incinerator facilities now certified
for incineration of
organohalogen wastes are located near. populated areas and are required to
comply with stringent environmental standards. The proximity to popula~ed
areas is a result of the need for access to truck and' rail transportation
facilities. and the proximity to waste generators. Facilities must guard
against accidental spill or leakage J and sabotage. Several facilities have
been used for experimental incineration of PCB's. with destruction ,effi-
ciencies greater than 99.99% when gas scrubbing equipment was used.
2-2
. .. .'. . . '. -" ...
. .......,.-~..,.------"..,.,.- .. .',' .. ..-.., "..
. ,-- -_. -..-----'"
----.-........ ...,-.- ......-.....-....,
, .. .__.~._. ~_. _~"_H-
-------
. - ----- --
'. .. --------...-
"-,--,,.~.., _..--
-.--. _.. . ------...
. .. -.. ----.-.-.---.-. ..-. ----....-- ...-_. ......
~ . -.oAJ ,."-'
. .
Land-based and at-sea incineration of organohalogen wastes are essentially
the same. The primary difference is in the treatment of gaseous emissions.
During at-sea incineration gaseous emissions are released ~ithout final
treatment., carrying combustion products and residues into the mari'ne
atmosphere and oceanic environment. Land incineration methods remove many of
the combustion products and residues by means of scrubber devices (e~g., water
or alkaline solutions), which capture much of the undesirable effluents.
Scrubber residue containing suspended particulates, dissolved (or neutralized)
hydrochloric acid (RC1), small quantities of residual. organic waste, and trace
metals, must still be disposed of in some environmentally acceptable manner.
Incineration
on land
h
a
viab le
'alternative
to
at-sea
incineration;
however,
in
the
event
of mechanical malfunction
( flameout
or
.inadequate'
combustion), the possibil~ty of acute adverse effect upon. the environment is
greater at land-incinerator locations, due. to nearby populated areas. Land
incinerators cannot process wastes as rapidly as at-sea incinerators; only
about 3 tonnes per hour can be burned on land, compared to about 20 to 25
tonnes per bour at sea.
Incineration on land
is
several times more expensive than at-sea incin-
reports that land-based incineration costs cif
eration.
Shib et .11.
(978)
organochlorine wastes ranges from $181 to $212 per tonne, or nearly two to
three times the cost of at-sea incineration, which was quoted at $80 to $91
per tonne in 1978 (excluding monitoring ~osts).
In summary, the advantages and disadvantages of land-based
compared to at-sea incineration are:
incineration
~
.
Advantages
Combustion residue
is
removed
from stack gases
by
scrubbers,
reducing atmospheric contmninant input and downwind land contami-
nation.
Small spills may be better contained and. are easier to clean up.
2-3
. .- . -.--.. ...-- -----_...
-- ._n.-.___.'."--------.'.
_..-...... -.. -- "..--.---.-. ... ..-..
-------
- -_._-~.
'.. ....-~_L.--4 4 .
, _.. ..---. "
'. . . .'~ "...,,". .," "
.
Disadvantages
Incinerators are ~enerally located near populated areas.
Contaminants escaping the scrubbing proces s may increase human
health risk due to repeated exposure.
Scrubber residue must still be disposed ofj this usually involves'
burial in sanitary landfill or storage.
~
Equipment malfunctions (e.g., flameouts.) have greater potential i
for adversely affecting public health and property through
exposure to high atmospheric concentrations of waste.
Catastrophic spills (especially with' fire) will have greate~
potential for affecting public health through exposure to high j
atmospheri~ or water concentrations of wastes.
- . Costs are higher per tonne. of waste handled (exclud:lng monitoring I
programs).
LANDFI1.LS
i
Land d~sposal of liquid organic wastes is widely practiced, and until
r.ecently required minimal handling and treatment ~ substantially reducing costs ~
a8 compared to incineration. HO'iever, recent. environmental concerns are
resulting in more stringent regulation of hazardous waste disposal c~nductedJ
in this manner. Requirements promulgated under the Resources Conservation and I
Recovery Act (RCRA) for improved landfill design, disposal procedures, and
e~vironmental' monitoring. are being impl emented. Therefore, stringent t
regul~tions, environmental concerns, and social or economic factors relating
to landfill may increase the attractiveness of incineration alternatives.
Certain materials (e. g., specific organochlorine compounds) are excluded I
from landfill disposal because of possible leaching and evaporative processes,t
thus restricting the method as a viable alternative. BUFial in sanitary
landfills is best-suited for relat~velY small quant~ties.. of wastes (e. g. , ~
domestic and agricultural wastes). Incineration has the advantage of
2-4
. . ,- "'" ",- ".. "...~
-------
~ . . . . ._~ - . I....
...-.... .... -.. ~-- ._- .
, ,
. .--__......_n__._..- ..'
... ..-...
.. .. _.. "'''..- .-. ..
...' .. . . .h.. '...'~ . ... .r . ',.
. .-- - '-.
accommodating the increasingly large quantiti~s of wastes industry is expected
to produce, which would otherwise significantly shorten landfill life spans.
CONVEXSION OF WAS'IES
, The RCRA requires industries to develop means of recovering useful
resources from waste materials. Chemical conversion 0 f organic wastes into
products of economic value is presentiy in the developmental stages and shows
great promise as an alternative disposal method.
The exhau,stive chlorination process (chlorolysis)
is useful'on many
organochlorine compounds. Using high preS8~re and temperature this proce~s
reduces wastes to carbon tetrachloride J phos,gene, and HCl. However. certain
limitations apply_.because compounds which
phosphorus adversely affect the process and
(Wilkinson, 1978).
contain
sulfur,
nitrogen,
and
restrict
the
app licabi li ties
The catalytic hydrode~hlorination process has potential as a waste
elimination alternative. .This process is still in the- developmental stage and
may be unavailable for large-scale ,use for several years. By using
high~pressure hydrogen gas in the presence of a catalyst, chlorinated
compounds can be dechlorinated. Consequently, the substance may be made less
toxic and more readily biodegradable than tbe original bigbly cblorinated
compound. Compounds which are capable of being completely dechlorinated. may
be useful as fuels, chemical intermediates, or solvents.
~
-.--.- ,..- . ...-
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The no-action alternative would cause postponement or cancellation of the
1 site designation for at-sea incineration opera.ticins off the middle Atlantic
I ' . .
, states, thus requ~r~ng ultimate disposal of toxic and persistent organohalogen
wastes by other means, or if land-based disposal methods are unavailable, it
would require termination 0 f the waste-producing process. This alternative
would only be feasib le under limited conditions: (1) existence 0 f tech-
nologically, environmentally,
and ec:on01;1lic:ally feasible lanq-based disposal
"
2-5
... -. '''''''.'-'--..'.'
. -.. _u.....-...
.--."-.-- . _"-"~''''-''...,.._..-_.-..'
_....._-.-.._-., .
. ..... ..-.--
-------
-. - '4- - 4- ..
. '. _..~......~--~:.... '..
4. ".-
. .-, -. .
. -., ....'..
........ "-'." . --'
methods, or (2) evidence that at-sea incineration causes sufficiently adverse
environmental consequences to preclude it from consideration.
The condition (U, listed above, has been met on a limited basis :,ecause
land-based incineration is tecbnologically ieasib le; aowever, several pas i:
attempts to obtain community approval for incineration 0 f wastes, such as
PC!' s at commercial waste disposal facilities, have met with public
resistance. The condition (2), listed above, has not been met; there is no
evidence that. controlled at-sea incineration would produce unacceptable
environmental risks.
GULF OF MEXICO INCINERATION SIn: ALTERNATIVE
As an alternative to no action or designation of a second U.S. Incineration
Site, transport
considered 1.n
of wastes
to
an
existin~
site
l.n
the
Gulf
of Mexico
is
this
section.
The
Gult
of
Mexico
Incineration
Site
was
designated in lQ76' (EPA, 1Q76b) primarily .for incineration of or~anochlorit\.e
I
wastes, although other wastes may be consider~d acceptable pending
documentation. The coordinates of this site are reported in the Federal
Register (1978) as: 26820'OO"H to 27.00'OO"Ni Q3.20'OO"W to ~4.00'00"w,
.occupying an area of l,R92 nmi2 (6,489 km2) (Figure 2-1). The original
designation terminated on September 15, 1981; however, EPA has published a
redesignation of the site for continuin~ use for an indefinite period of time.
transport of east coast-generated industrial chemical wastes to the Gulf of
Mexico Incineration Site is , potential environmental hazard and economically
expensive. The overland distance from New York to New Orleans is about 1,300
miles (2,400 km). The waste materials that would be transpo~ted are
hazardous. Accidents or spills along the national highways or rail lines
would pose serious risks to public health and create new disposal problems if
: '.
chemicals became mixed with soil or other solids during clean up. This
materi~l would then require disp?sal in a suitable landfill. Large quantities
of wastes must be in transit at all times to facilitate the relocation of the
volumes of wastes available for incineration. Waste shipments require
additional expenses (e.gOt manpower, fuel, and equipment maintenance) which
would not occur if wastes were incinerated on the east c~ast.
"
f
2-6
. .
...' - . ... ._.'. . -......,.-.. "."- -.. .'.
. .. . ~ N".- .."" .
-------
-.._u.-.-----..- .'
...------.
. -. ...- . ....- . .-
-.4'_'" . -.
II1oonet8n
0 -
. ,
. ~ MIles
0 '00
c,
'"
;.
...
L
o
u
I . S
A
N
3'.
A .:
"
C7~i../
\ ~.
~:(, " 30.
. '
'~.
..." .' ,1:-:'1 '"
. -- ...., 29.
. '"
28.
GULl OF MEXICO
INCINEIATiON SITE
cY.
27.
"""='-
96.
95.
94.
93'
92'
9"
90.W
Pigure 2-1.
Gulf of Mexico !QciQe~atiou Site
.- .-...- ... ... .--..
. .--. -- . -.
.---
....__'_0-
.-.. 0 . ..'
...
2-7
.... n-__.._-
--- _''''---P--..__oP.' .... --...
.. ... .... ..-.......-
.
-------
.- '--.'--'.'-'-'"
.--_..--~.. ... '.
.' _,.';,~,~":"""""_"...
. , .
"''''''~_'''h_,.._''
. " _u..- ,..,"- ....-_..
."..' ... ~ -.' . '... :.'.
.. ..,~ ..-. ~'.. ...". .
The altet'native of sbipping tbese wastes appt'oximately 2,500 miles
(4,600 lcm) by sea to tbe Gulf ~f Mexico t'equit'es significantly increased
tt'at1sit time. !be incineration'vessel would require 7 to 10 days to reach the
Gulf of Mexico Incinet'ation Site, but only sevet'al hours to reach the proposed
Nortb Atlantic Incineration Site. Incineration operations would require 7 to
8 days, and a retut'U tt'ip to New York would begin. !bus, a single shipload of
~astes
-------
. ~.._' _..,-ro.. - &. ....
. -- .'.-..'.
. .--.-.-.-..____..n._'.- ,..- .,.
All wastes would be incinerated at one site; thus, resource
requirements for monitoring and surveillance would be focused.
.
Disadvantages
Wastes must be transported long distances (either over land or by
ship) to r.each the disposal site, whil=h increases the potential
for accidental spills during transit.
Increased
futur~ us e 0 f
t,he
Gulf. si te
by Gul f
Coast
waste
generators will rapidly fill the maximum available use
(approximately 190,000 tonnes per year, c.f. page 2-36). '
level
,PROPOSED SITE
'!he proposed action is ,the designa"tipn of a North Atlantic, Incineration
Site for the purpose of at-sea 'incineration of hazardous industrial chemical
wastes. This section sU1IIIDari:z:es anticipated impacts and forms the basis 0 f
comparison with other alternatives.
The western
Cape Benlopen,
(4,250 km2) on
boundary of the proposed Incineration Site is 120 ami east of
Delaware (Figure 2-2, No. '1). ',The site covers 1,240 nm.i2
the Continental Rise, bounded by latitudes 38°00'N to 38°40'N,.
and longitudes 71°S0'W to 72°30'W. Water depths range from approximately
2,400111 at the northwest corner of the, site, to approximately 2,900m at. the
ea~tern edge.. The l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site lies due north of the
proposed Incineration Site, and an iflactive r~dioactive waste disposal site
exists inside the proposed Incineration Site, near the northern border, with
center coordinates 38°30'N, 72°06'W,(NOAA, 1975).
No baseline studies have been c~nducted within the proposed site for the
explicit purpose of developing baseline data. NOAA, assisted by other
governmental agencies and academic institutions, has been surveying the
l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site and adjacent areas for several years (NOAA,
.
2-9
--- _..._-~..---_._--
. .._-._---'.~-._-._-_. -."---'.'.'.'.""'" .
..- -.. .. --....--.--.-...
-------
? . -
-.,. ~ I..
.. - ..-. . ~... --~"- ..._- -
-.. -. ..'" --...-""
r .
o
IULOMETRS
I . . I 1 .
. .
- 100
41" -
o
NAUTICAL MIW
I .
sG
1. ~ IIIciMl'atioft Sile
Z. 1 Q6..Mile OCUli W ute
Olspoul Slle
3. ',..ioully ltecommerlCMd .
htew..ation Sile
4. wlem ...ion
S" Southern Resion
40"
NEW ~EISEY
3~'
i
4
38"
5
,
37"1
74"
73"
72"
71"
~ ~ ... .. --..
.Alternative Sites in tbe Mid-Atlantic Bigbt Region
... -_..
_0
i'igure 2-2.
'.
...-- ...- ..-.- . . --.- .-.-- ..- ...--..- ..,.
-.---.------ .-. ----.-.
. --. -....
... - . -
2-10
. ... .. "_..~.
... '"'..' "..-'h..
. "'. -", """Oo--,. -', ""_.. ..-...,
". ._....._.-......~:-~.~..:...r.-:-,,,r'":-_.'_.
-------
. ,- ....- ~.. .~ .- .-~ ...-.--.
. - --. ._- - '...
. .... ..- ..,.-...",--"-.-,-,.",, --.
-...----...--. - .
1975, 1977,. and 1978). Permittees using the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal
Site have employed a private cont.ractor to monitor that site, as one of the.
permit requirements. Physical, chemical, and biological data collected during
these studies can be applied to the pr~posed Incineration Site. A Final EIS
on the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site has been completed (EPA, 1980a).
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY
Previous EPA-permitted burns conducted. in the Gulf of Mexico have
demonstrated that no short-term adverse impacts are caused by incineration
(Chapter 4).
Materials considered for at-~ea incineration must
first meet
MPRSA criteria; only those materials which burn efficiently and produce
acceptable trace metal and organohalogen residual levels will be permitted.
Incineration operations must then be conducted as required by the Mandatory
Regulations and Recommended Technical Guidelines (Appendix B). The
criteria are designed
to avoid
occur!:'ence 0 f
uodesirable
short-term or
long-term adverse impacts due to incineration.
Waste" res i.dues enter the marine .environment as broad ly d is persed
atmospheric. fal1~ut; only the surface (to 20m) and near-sur~ace (20 to 100m)
waters are likely to be affected. Model simulation indicates that the most
severe impact from atmosphere-to-water exchange.occurs at approximately 4,OOOm
downwind of the incineration vessel, and particulates are contiTlually
dispersed and diluted until removed by precipitation or settling (Paige et
al.. 1978) ~ Atmospheric transport to coastal areas will be limited because
.the site is far from land ~nd prevailing winds move west-to-east, carrying the
.
waste plume seaward during periods of offshore flow. During these periods
residues will be partially removed from the a~osphere and remaining residues
will be diluted to background levels.
~
Waste residues are widely dispersed and diluted in the atmosphere and are
already diluted on contact with the. ocean surface. Acidity, the most
pronounced short-term effect (resulting from hydrochloric acid) J is rapidly
neutralized in seawater and the residual chloride is easily absorbed by the
water. Unburned organochlorine and trace metal constituents are quickly
diluted to ambient levels and further dispersed by ocean currents and water
turbulence.
2-11
i
.... .""'- - ...-. ."" ..
-------
.- _. -._---~.- -+-
. .
_.~. ~-~'"---........_~~,
- .'~" ----. .
'.+_. ,- ,. '., '. ..
" . ,-. .~ - - .-'- .~
Extreme water depths are expected to increase dispersion and dilution at
the site, thereby limiting any adverse bec.thic impacts. This conclusion is
supported by stud~es conducted at the 106-Mile Ocean Was te Disposal Site,
which receives liquid wastes in quantities many orders of magnitude larger
than the quantities which will enter waters at the proposed Incineration Site.
No detectable adverse benthic impact has been observed at the 106-Mil.e Ocean
Waste Dispos.al Site (EPA, 1980a).
-
;;;,..
Bird
region.
American
migration routes are broadly distributed across the mid-Atlantic
During autumnal migration large numbers of birds leave the North
Continent for areas in the Caribbean and South America. The effects
of incineration emissions on birds is unknown, but acid residue may provide
adverse impacts on low-flying birds.
!NV!RONMENIAL MON!~ORING
The purpose of monitoring waste disposal sites is to ensure that long-term
adverse effects do not develop unnoticed, especially irreversible effects. As
NOAA has observed in its baseline report on effects of dumping at the nearby
l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site, monitoring is more difficult at sites
beyond the Continental Shelf because of the distance from shore, greater
depths of water, and the general lack of background information on areas
beyond the Shelf..
Another problem involves the subtle interaction of wastes with the
surrounding .water and marine life. Given the dynamic conditions of the site,
long-term impacts will be difficult to measure. Affected organisms in the
water will most likely move out of the area by swimming actively or being
carried by currents. Monitoring will"be difficult until new techniques and
more precise measurements are available for detection of deleterious effects.
Present monitoring activities will involve periodic physical, chemical,
and
2-12
" . '..,...,-- .,.,.-, ~
-------
..... ...- .'- ,-----_.
- __....n-
. ..- - ...-. - -..
..- -.-.,-. ..
.
biological sampling of affected water within the disposal site and adjacen:
areas, in addition to atmospheric observations and sampling in the affected
downwind environment.
Monitoring at the proposed Incineration Site may be complicated by the
proximity of 'the l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site. Ocean currents in the
region move predominantly to the southwest.
Chemical wastes dumped at the
l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site may be transported through some portions
of the proposed Incineration Site, primarily in the northwest corner. 'Gulf
Stream eddies (Figure 3-2) could transport l06-Mi le Site wastes through
large areas of, the proposed Incineration Site,
or inc~neration residues
could be carried into the adjacent l06-Mi le Ocean Waste Disposal ~i te. t,n
the event of such minlltling of waste plumes it would be di fficult, if not
impossible, to distin~uish between chemically similar waste inputs,
although waste indicator compounds could possibly be identified and
monitored to eliminate mingling problems.
Expansion .of the l06-Miie Ocean Waste Disposal Site monitoring' program < to
include the proposed Incineration Site) would serve to integrate and unify
s8m,pling procedures with the advantages o'f possibly reducing problems created
by waste mingling, and ?y minimizing logistics problems and expenses.
StJRVEII.I.AHCE
Nearshore disposal sites facilitate surveillance by patrol vessels and
helicopters; however, the proposed Incineration Site may requ~re use of
shipriders because it is beyond the range of other effective means of
surveillance. In addition to, or in lieu of shipriders, electronic
surveillance equipment can be installed on incineration vessels (as has been
done in the past) to maintain accurate records of incinerator equipment
~
operations, meteorological conditions, and navigational positions.
Satellice
techniques.
surveillance may have
excellent
potential
in
lieu 0 f other
2-13
._'._.. -_._~_.. .
- -_-.-'-.n.
.. -. . ... .
- H. --.-' - -'.' .
-------
----....~
..-.-.-----
--- ..- ...~ _.,;.' -' - - -,---<..~ .'
- "-..-'-'-"..oC_...'-.t.. .- --~
.... "_h -
.
ECONOMICS
TRANSPORTATION COSTS
~
Ralebsky (1978) prepared a detailed economic report of at-sea incineration
based on uninflated dollars, projecting costs to 1989, and considered all
aspects of the operation, including procurement and conversion of a
t1.S.-owned-and-operated east coast vessel. It was concluded that at"'sea'
incineration will cost apiroximat'ely $63 per tonne in 1983, decreasing' to
approximately $55 per tonne by 1989 (as volumes increase). Costs are based on
transport from ~elaware Bay to the existing 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal
Site, due nor~h of and contiguous with the proposed Incineration Site.
However ,. estimates are based on burn rates and volumes which may not be
environment ally acceptab le, thus. reducing operat iona 1 e f fic.iency and
increasing costs (Chap:er 4).
.
By. comparison, the owners of the foreign-flag vessel M/T VULCANUS (as of
March 1978) wer,e charging $80 to $91 per tonne of waste for a minimum. of two
loads. . ,
Atlantic industries, where wastes are generated, and to port facilities.
The proposed site will be located' in a
region
convenient
to the mid-
MONITORING COSTS
The cost of monitoring the proposed Incineration Site wili be high because
of the complexity of the environment and distance from shot'e. NOAA has
estimated an annual cost of $1 million to per.form seasonal monitoring surveys
of the 106-Mile Ocean Waste iisposal Site. The proposed Incineration Site is
near the 106-Mile O~ean Waste Disposal Site, making it cost-effective to
expand monitot'ing operations to include both sites. The costs to permittees
for monitoring
incineration
activities
will
be
high
due
to
the
distant
location and depth of the site, as well as
compound concentrations in the atmosphere
deep offshore sites is feasible, but will
shallow nearshore sites.
the high cost of measuring organic
and water column. Monitoring 0 f
be more expensive than monitoring
2-14
-------
.. . . -.4...
SURVEILLANCE COSTS
USCG surveillance acti'Vicies include
a
shiprider ,aboard the
incinerator
vessel during disposal operations,
random spot-checks before a waste vessel
leaves port, and checking the ship log for departure and arrival times. The
USCG presently assigns several full-time personnel to survey disposal
activities in the New York Bight, including disposal operations at the
l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site. Many other existing ocean dump sites are
within the Bigh't Apex, and within the normal range of USCG vessels and
helicopters (excluding the l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site). Surveillance
of disposal activities at the proposed Incineration Site will consume a
significant amount of time and money.
LOSS OF BIOTIC OR MINERAL RESOURCES
Almost all U. S. fishing activities are over the Continental Shelf and
\
therefore should not be directly affected by the wasfe residues, Table 2-1
sh'ows the most 'economically important finfish' and shellfi,sh taken in the
'mid-Atlantic. Along, the edge of the Continental Shelf, fluke and ,lobster are
.
the only organisms on this list which occur anywhere near the proposed
, Incineration Site, aside from the highly migratory tuna and billfish specie~.
Waste residues would be extremely diluted when and if they reached the bottom,
where these animals dwell, and since these animals are demersal and' highly
mobile, it is unlikely that stocks would remain in a single location to be
adversely affected by incin~ration operations.' Red crabs on the Continental
Shelf/Slope break west of the proposed site repres~nt a potentially valuable
resource which may be further exploited in tbe future. How~ver, no crabs of
commercial size' occur in the pro'posed site, and the adult crabs are taken
sufficiently far from the proposed site so that waste residues released at the
site are 'not likely to reach them. Foreign ships fish along the edge of the
entir~ Continental Shelf from Georges Bank to Cape Hatteras, especially during
la'te winter and early spring. However, the proposed site is riot a unique
location for foreign fishermen, nor does it obstruct migration routes of
species valuable to foreign fishermen. Therefore, the likelihood of foreign
fish stocks being affected by incineration operations at the proposed !ite is
.
~
sligh;. ,
f '
2-15
- ..- ~_._- - ...-. -..-. . -
.. -.. - .-- ~.
-------
,.,---~... ..-.,... .
~" .-... ...,..,
.. ~... .,. ......- ....
~
New York New Jersey Delaware Total
lb $ lb . $ lb $ lb $
Finfish
Fl uke 2,487. 846 3,499 1,153 - - 5,986 1,999
Blue Fish 1,067 147 1,003 US . 6 1 2,067 263
Atlantic
.
Mackerel 322 39 774, 109 2. 1 11,098 149
Menhaden 576 18 107,;)07 2,735 13 0.5 107,896 2,753
Sea Bass 98 47 778 252 80 23 956 352
Sea Trout 1,427 341 2,686 312 281 64 4,394 717
Scup 3,635 852 6,040 880 - - 9,675 1,732
Ti1efish 49 23 838 263 - - 887 286
Bluefin
Tuna 10 4 872 232 - - 892 236
Whiting 1 , 955" . .250 7,022 587 8 1 8,985 838
Swordfish 1 2 7 12 - - 8 14
Shellfish I
,.
Lobsters 731 1,396 1,191 1,919 26 55 1,948 3,367
Red Crab - - 25 2 - - 25 2
.
Rock Crab - - 346 22 - - 346 22
Surf Clams 3,951 719 22,657 2,948 5,817 770 32,425 4,437
Scallops 884 1 ~ 15 8 . 344 531 - - 1,228 1,689
Other '
Squid 964 178 1,287 237 - - 2 ; 25 1 415
\
TABLE 2-1
1974 P'INP'!SR AND SHE1.LFISR LANDINGS BY STAns
(Thousands of Pounds, Thousands of Dollars)
Note: Landings are sh"wn in round (live) weight except
(total meat), and rcal10ps (edible meat).
for clams, lobsters
Source:
Adapted from NOAA-NMFS, 1977
II
t
tt
2-16
. ....- .~.._-, - .
-------
. .
. -. . _.- u.
During' thei'r
of sea turtles,
migratory periods four endangered and one threatened species
and six endangered species of cetaceans, are known to use the
occupied by the proposed Incineration Site, but are not unique
Incineration operations are expected to have no unacceptable
offshore region
to this region.
adverse impact on these organi$ms.
Waste incineration will not interfere with petroleum exploration or
production activities on the Continental Shel~. Personnel manning the
facilities will not be endangered because prevailing winds move west-eo-east,
and, in the event of temporary wind shifts, the nearest well platform will be
30 ami (55 km) west (Figure 3-5), where residue concentrations will be diluted
to undetectable levels. Although no II?-id-Atlantic oil. exploration presently
exists off the U.5. Outer Continental Shelf, the U.S. Geological Survey has
indicated that future exploratory drilling beyond the Continental Shelf is
possible (Figure 3-6). If off-Shelf drilling should occur within the site or
in a downwind locatiion, precautionary meas'ures will be required to protect
drillship and logistical support personnel frOll1 prolonged exposures. Normal
precautions will be required to avoid navigationa~ hazards presented by oil
prod~ction platforms which may be erected in transit paths to the site.
SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPOSED INCINERATION SITE
The size and configuration of the proposed Incineration Site were chosen to
accommodate the requirements of a continuously moving incinerator vessel. A
shipload of waste requires many hours to burn, which necessit:ates numerous
passes across the site. For example, with a burn rate of 25 tonne/hI', 5,000
tonnes of waste will require about 200 hours, or 8.3 days to burn; at a ship
speed of 5 kn (9.3 km/hr), 1,000 ami (1,850 km) must be traveled to cOll1plete ,
the incineration operation.. The proposed site is 31 nmi (57 km) by 40 nmi (74
1cm) square. Traveling the length of the site at 5 knots, .a ship will require
25 passes along the length of the site to cOll1plete the incineration operation.
Faster ship speeds wiU require more passes . Therefore ,. the site was giv~n
.la~ge dimensions for ease of ship-handling, and .to aid in dispersing waste
residues.
~
2-17
-- . ..----" ----..--..
-.- ..- ------.....
----- - . ." ..
, - --....-, .
." - -'-----' -.' .
-------
- -.... n.....--
... .' ... '.""".' . .......
The location of the proposed Incineration Site was selected on the basis of
several environmental and economic a~vantages; however, with this' choice some
disadvantages exist.
.
Advantages
The proposed site complies with .all regulations
selection criteria as shown in this chapter.
and
site
~
The proposed site is as close. as possible to waste material
loading ports without infringing on other uses of the ocean.
Environmental studies have been performed at the nearby 106-Mile
Ocean Waste Disposal Site and surrounding areas (including the
proposed site) ,i which can be readily applied to studies and
monitoring efforts at the proposed Incineration Site.
.
Disadvan'tages
. -
Waste material from the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site to the
north lI1ay be transported into the Incineration Site by ocean
currents moving southwesterly,' which could create monitoring
_.' difficulties at the site.
The designation of a new disposal site will
monitoring and surveillance efforts. These
costly.
require
efforts
expanded
will be
ALTERNATIVE SITES
The Regulations and Criteria provide general and speci.fic criteria by which
disposal sites are evaluated for proposed designation (Chapter 1). In
considering alternative incineration sites, . the feasibility of using" exiscing
waste disposal sites was evaluated. Only one existing site, one previous 1y
2-18
-- '''-'.. -.--~
, "
. -"-- ...
-------
r- -_. ...- .
. ~.. -~.~_. .~- .'- ..... ..... .
.. --~-~
- '.~._'-_._--_._--'. -... ..-
~~ - . --.. .
. --' ..--.
recommended site, and the areas east and south of the proposed site are viable
alternative incineration sites in the' mid-Atlantic Bight Region (Figure 2-2).
The two primary alternative sites are the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site
(Figure 2-2, No.2) and the site recommended by Paige et al. (1978) within
39°00'N to 39°40'N and 72°00'W to 72°30'W (Figure 2-2, No.3).
Other sites between Long Island and Cape Henlopen over the Continental
Shelf of the mid-Atlantic Bight (Figure 2-3) were eliminated from further
consideration for several reasons. The proximity of these sites to shore and
populated areas is of primary importance. Atmospheric transport 0 f waste
residues could. cause direct impacts on coastal communities. ,Other consider-
ations are the exte'nsive commercial and recreation.a.l use of Shelf areas and
resources and resul:ant heavy maritime traffic. These sites occupy areas
which are rich fish and shellfish food production regions, and the hazardous
nature of many wastes demands that the food chain bioaccumulation of residues
be minimized.
106-MILE OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITE '
The 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site (Figure 2-2, No.2) was established
in 1961 ~or ocean dispos~l of industrial wastes unsuitable for land-based
disposal. The site covers 470 nmi 2 (1,610 km2) due north of the proposed
Incineration Site. Physical, chemical, biological, and geological character-
istics greatly resemble those of the proposed Incineration Site. However,
plankton ~roductivity appear~ to be slightly .higher at the 106-Mile Site than
at the proposed Incineration Site. This is apparently related to more
frequent intrusions of Shelf water into the l06-Mile Site. The area has been
monitored by NOAA for several years and disposal operations have also been
monitored by permittees. EPA recently prepared a detailed Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the final designation of this site for continued
use (EPA. 1980a).
~
. 2-19
- --. -. ..-.
... ..--.-.-...- - ~ .
'-w.-....-' .....-
.- -..--..'-. _.-
. .--..--- ..
-------
NEW YORK
BIGHT APEX
Figure 2-3. Existing Netrshore Disposal Site*
in the Mid-Atlantic Bight Region
2-20
-------
areas, and offshore oil and gas lease areas on Che Continental Shelf (Chapter
3 and Appendix A). Furthermore, biological productivity increases substan-
tially near the Continental Shelf.
The only • other directions left to consider are further out to sea
(eastward) or further south (Figure 2-2). Either choice has the advantage of
diminishing (or eliminating) possible overlaps of contaminant loading from the
106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site. Meteorological phenomena will not change
to such an extent that they will decrease atmospheric impacts. Surface
physical oceanographic phenomena will be similar at any site chosen; the
primary differences will be a surface current-flow pattern shift to "a more
northeasterly direction and the proximity of the site to the Gulf Stream
(Figure 3-2). Gulf Stream Water and Slope Water will alternate more frequently
as occupants of an eastern or southern site due to . Gulf Stream meanders.
Biological characterization will not change significantly by moving the site
location up to 60 nmi (110 .km) east or south, since no major faunal breaks
occur within the gyre.
To position an incineration site within an alternative region east or
south, consideration should be given to the disadvantage of its possible
physical separation from the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site. Baseline
information from studies conducted at the 106-Mile Site would be less
applicable, additional site-specific baseline information would need to be
collected, and new monitoring programs would be established to study more
distant oceanic areas. The existing monitoring program at the 106-Mile Site
^
may be expanded to include the latter Incineration Site with comparative ease,
because many of the local characteristics of the proposed Incineration Site
have already been established.
USE 0? THE NEW ENGLAND OCEANIC REGION
The oceanic region southeast of New England beyond Georges .Bank was
examined as a candidate region for an alternative site location. Several
environmental and political aspects diminish the viability of this alter-
native.
2-23
-------
• 2 2
The region considered includes approximately 20,700 rmi (71,000 km ) in
the northwest Atlantic Ocean beyond the 2,000m contour of Georges Bank (Figure
2-4a). The western boundary of the candidate region lies approximately 160
nmi (300 km) east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The distance from Cape Cod to
the southeast corner of the region is approximately 330 nmi (610 km).
The entire area overlies the Continental Slope and Rise south of Georges
Bank and is usually occupied by the Slope Water mass of the North Atlantic
region. The southern area of the candidate region is frequently intruded by
the eastward flowing Gulf Stream which meanders to the north and south of its
historical axis .(Figure 2-4b). East of the candidate region, 60 to 100 nmi
(110 ka to 185 km), the Gulf Stream is found to begin large meanders and is
frequently highly diffuse, often appearing to split into several independent
currents (Stommel, 1960; Fuglister, 1963). The northern portion of the
candidate region is characterized by southwestward-flowing surface currents
(U-S. Naval Oceanographic Office, 1965). Little is known about the subsurface
currents. •
•
Surface water temperatures range from an average low of 4°C during winter
months to a high of 21°C during summer months (U.S. Naval Oceanographic
Office, 1967). Surface salinities range from 33 ppt to 36 ppt annually.
Average ,air temperatures range between lows of about 4°C to highs of about
22°C, although between October and March freezing temperatures (0°C or less)
are often observed.
Ship operating conditions are rigorous' during winter and spring months.
Winds are reported above 17 kn (15 mph) more than 452 of the time between
November and March (U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office, 1963). During this
period the predominant wind direction is from the north to east quadrant.
These winds result in heavy sea conditions, producing waves 3.7m (12 ft) or
more 102 to 202 of the time. Seas greater than or equal to 2.4m (8 ft) have
been observed 182 to 222 of the time. Between November and March successive
gales have been reported, within 7 days of one another 842 to 952 of the time,
and at a maximum of 23 days apart in a region southwest of the candidate
region (U.S. Navy, 1955). However, gales were observed to pass, within 1 day.
2-24
-------
I I
IT
Figure 2-4*. Oil Lease Tracts and Territorial Claims
Source: Finn, 1980
SPAWNING AttAS
5^3 coo
Ss HADDOCK
E2 lO«Ttt
SSCAUOK
StA HIRtlNC
WHTtlNC AND RfOHAKI
-------
The moat severe gale conditions occur from January Co March, where storms may
last up to 3 days. Extrapolating' these conditions to the more northerly
candidate region suggests that gale force storm conditions will be more
frequent and perhaps more intense and long-lived in the candidate region.
Low visibility in the candidate region is most often associated with low
cloud conditions producing rain or snow. As a result, visibility less than
5 nmi'(9 km) occurs 102 to 20Z of the year (U.S. Navy, 1955). The most severe
low visibility conditions occur from January to March and May to July. Rain
or snow accompanies winter weather patterns produced by westerly and northerly
winds 30Z of the time. During the warmer months of May through August
southerly and easterly winds are accompanied by rain 5Z to 251 of the time.
Transport of chemical wastes to a site southeast of New England would
require shipment of wastes 300 to 400 ami (560 km to 740 km) by sea. Weather
conditions in this region of the northwest Atlantic are often severe during
winter'months. Heavy weather may hamper incineration operations or endanger
* • • • * •
.the -safety of the vessel and crew. Additionally, the frequency and suddenness
of storms would limit the use of'auxiliary monitoring vessels.
In addition to the distant location from waste generating industries and
weather hazards of the candidate region, the enormously valuable commercial
fisheries industry of Georges Bank must be considered. Annual landings of
fish are valued at about $168 million, producing a net economic benefit of
over $1 billion to the New England regional economy (Finn, 1980). Thus, other
issues are currently focusing environmental and political concerns upon this
region. In 1979 the Outer Continental Shelf Lease Sale 42 was conducted for
tracts located on the southern edge of Georges Bank (Figure 2-4a), producing a
.furor among environmentalists and commercial fishery interests. Another issue
is an ongoing border claim dispute between the U.S. and Canada (Figure 2-4a).
No advantages are known in selecting a" New England region site over the
proposed site for incineration. The disadvantages are the distance from the
area of waste generation, increased weather hazards, and additional expense in
the form of man-hour requirements, equipment maintenance, and fuel.
2-26
-------
..-"-. ."
.- -.".-.... - J~ .. .. - --.........--'
--- - ".- ----
.". ,-.-..'
,"-'. -- -._" .- .-,
---.- ..-.. ".
Phytoplankton sampling conducted from the Shelf to tne Sargassq Sea shows a
general decrease in numbers of 'individuals and numbers of species with
increasing distance from shore; additionally, there is a change in dominance
of phytoplanktonic species (Hulburt and MacKenzie, 1971). Diatoms are
dominant in Shelf waters, dfnophyceanc and coccot"ithophores in Florida Current
waters, and coccolithophores in the Sargasso Sea. Emery and Uchupi (972)
reported priMary productivity in outer Shelf waters to be about 100 mgC/m2/day
as compared with 500 mgC/m2 / day in nearshore waters. Zooplankton hav:e not
been as thoroughly studied, but quantitative data show a decrease in standing
crop in the outer Shelf region, as compared to nearshore waters (VIMS, 1974).
No 'navigational lanes have been established for this region, but several
naval fleet operational areas and a National Aeronautics and Space Admini-
stration (NASA) operational area are located over much of the Continental
Shelf. Several historical d~p sites (~ll inactive) are located on and off the
Continental Shelf. Beyond the Shelf a site formerly used for dumpiC\~
chemicals and munitions is approximately 240 nmi (440 km) east of Daytona
. -
Be~ch, Florida. at latitude 29-20' N, longitude 76-05'W (Figure 2-5).
Ralebsky (978) reporu that - the majority of industrial chemical wastes
produced on the east coast originate in the states of New Jersey, Del'aware,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Therefore, wastes must be transported
several hundred miles overland or by sea to reach a site- in -the candidate
region. There are. no known advantages in selecting this region over the
proposed site for incineration. The disadvantage is the distance from the
area of waste generation. Transport" overland or by sea will .increase
incineration operation expenses in the form of manpower, equipment mainte-
nance, and fuel, without pr~viding any iMproved environmental quality in the
operation. If future opera dons require an additional incineration disposal
area, this region should be considered as a primary candidate. It is a large,
environmentally c~plex region; therefore, a detailed EIS will be n~cessary.
,
~
SUMMARY
Several
alternative
locations
and methods
were
considered
relative
to
at-sea
incineration
(Table
2-2).
In
c~parison
to
at-sei\
incineration
Ii
(
2-29
... . ... - . -_..~"' .- {-
-------
N
1
"'"
o
,
. ,
"
Location
rupo.eel Mortb At h"tle
lAclne~.tion Stte
Cull of lledeo
Incinel'.tion alte
~~-
106-HU. Oeu" II....
Diopoul She
I.I,tlna lIeec.hore
Shoo
',.vioula, RCCOOa8eod.d
She
Dth.r .leI-At \ont Ie
Oeu"lc ~.loA8
Nev In.a.nd
Oceanic 141,10111
BAutb At hnt I c 8i .bt
'II
SUMMARY
TABLE 2-2
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITES
FOR AT-SEA INCINERATION
l"vh"...."..1 AcupUbll It,
'._veel fr- populoteel
c_.orctoll, I.porunt
10cot.eI I" . ...10" of
p.ocIuc d" It,.
.r... .nd '1'0.
Sh.lf ....ouree.;
lov blolo.lul
, olt. bo. bee" eleel.".t.eI fOr et-
..a Inclaeratloo 0' b...rdoul VI'.'
cb..lcole; pre.e"tl, .voll.bl. for u..,
hoveve... "..t.. .uat b. trla.por'ed
obout 1,100.1 b, lenel, o. 2,SOO.1 b,
.e.. '1'08 an e.. 1 co..r. port ."cb ..
lIev Yo.." a
- ~,
COncurreDt V,'18 cbe.le.t dU8pla.
.octlvltlu .nel pute"tlal e,,,or.l.tlc
effect. of voet.. blnel.. the ebolc. of
tbl. .ite al 'Q .Itel'nlelve.
hool.h, to popuhtecl or...;
co....cl.ll, o"eI .ec...tloo.ll,
I.po.taot Sh.1f ..eou.... bl"elu
tb. choic. of tb... .It.. .. .It.ro.tl.....
hOII.It, to c_orclall, I.port.ot
Sh.lf .elou~c.., .0J~' .hlpplo. 1.0..,
."eI 011 .oel ... d.lliio. ope..tloo.
hloelor tbo .cllol.. of tblo .1.. .. ."
alternativ8a
the "I,ion. 8..t and louch 0' tb.
p.opo.cd .h. .pp... to b. .0yico_eoulI,
eccept.bl.. th... ~..Io"e po.ee.. tb.
.... b..le f..tu.e. 01 tb. p.opoe.eI
.ita. ~ut are te.. well-known due
to the ,re.ter dl.teoc.. f.o. tbe 106-
HII. sit..
U'I.rdoul "Intel' we.ther condltlona and
the p.oai.lt, to th. bl.hI, proeluctl". enel
conerov....i.t Ceo~l~e lank blDde~ tbe choice.
'..ell.ln.ry ....in..ioo indicate.
tbi. 1'.,100 i. envi,oR8cpcall, Icceptabl.
a. IQ .Iternative .ite locltlon. Iloveve~,
~altel au,t be tran.ported .bout 600 .i
by land o~ .el to ~each Ibi. rea ion vith
no ~e.uIClnt i.pruve.ent in environ.enta'
quatit, of Ih. operatione.
.bvlron.enllt IIonllori".
Monitorial i. polaibl'i ..peu.lve,
requl.loa the ..e. of .uolll..,
.e..,I..
Short-tar- .onl'o~in. bae bcen
conducted .urinl r..earch
Incineration 0""'1100.
Honlto..lol b., beeD COh'uclecl
for e.v.r~1 ,..rl. II b.1 proven
to be. elllUc..ft anel ..p.o.h.
due to tbe I"e.oll 10cltloD. U..
of the .Ita '0. I"cln..atlo" op..atlooa
viii ,...th.. e_pouoel .onhorln,
elUftcultl...
Mo"lto.lo. I. I... dlfflculc cba. .c
r.80te ocelnlc .lle..
.
Mo"lto.I", voulel b. co.p..abl.
to the p.opo.eel .Ic. o. tb. 106-"11.
Site. .
Monlco.lo, viii b. c08p...bl. to
the p.opo.e4 .Ite o. the 106-"11.
Site.
Monlto.lo. I. poa.lble but viii
often be b'.'l"dou. 01" preventld 'ue
to levere "Inter "ealhel' con'ltlon..
.
",)oitori"a vould bl cOtap....ble
to tbe propo.eel alt. or the 106-HII.
Slta. '.
ICOD08icI
I"cl"...clon ope.atlo". viii co.t
about '100 pe.. tODDI, plu. .onitoriaa
e.pene...
. ,
6hi,.eDt 01 e.., co.et-a.aereted
we.te. b, t.uck o. ..11 viii coet ae
.ucb o. 'ISO p.' to"o., I" aelelitlo"
to thl locl.erlto.. ....el In' .onl-
to.I",. o. .bl,.."t b, ... viii b.
obouc I' tl... lo~tb.. tb." tb. p.o-
po..eI loclo..acloo .It..
Tot.1 co.t. viii be .1.lla. to
tho.. lacur..ed at the ,ropo..d
.ha.
f"cl....,loD op...tlo.. will co.t
.bout 8100 p.' to"". plu. .0"lto.lo,;
hovevl... 'U8 10 tb. ...,..1.1 ne.rne..
10 .borl aad ab., 10"-1" "Iler deptbe.
.o"horlo. upa"... viII be Ic.. tb.n
-qul""lal .Ifo..te at rc.ote eil.'.
; I
; \
; I
- f
Tot.1 co.t. viii be .1.lla.
to tho.. locur..ed at the p..opo.ed
.il.:
Tout- eo.to will be .1.11.. to
Iho.. IACurr.. at lb. propoecd .il..
bove".., .eI'ltlo"al ....110. elata
are Dec....r, 10 be.te~ char.cterial
th.e. 1811008.
r
,
i I
i
Shl,.eot 01 vut.. will Involv. .
diatancI three 10 lour ti.c. 'a~tbcr
ch.. tb. propo.eel .Ite.
- i
I
5hl,-.1II1 0" ..1. coaer-,cRcrated
va.le. b, truck or r.11 viii COlr .a
auch .. SSO per lonne, ia addition
10 Ihe Incinerafor .....1 anJ .oni-
101'101, O~ .hlpaenr b, eea vi II
Involve. dlatanee about five ti.e.
larlhe.. tban the pcopo.cd incinc..tioA
.Ite.
- .
-------
It
.- ". .. .. .""'a__~
- ,--_.._,--".
-..-. - - ...-
, operations, land-based operations are considered po~e?~ially more
the event of acciden~al spill or incinerator malfunction, due to
populated areas, and are currently more exp~nsive. A number of
the proposed Incineration Si~e the best ,choice among the
examined:
hazardous in
proximity ~o
features make
al~ernatives
.
It conforms to the leg i s 1 ati ve (MPRSA)
designate off-Shelf sites, whenever feasible.
for EPA to
directive
.
The proposed Incineration Site has g'reat water depths; thus,
dilution' and dispersion of introduced materials are greatly
enhanced, and the Gulf Stream ensures good mixing.
.
The proposed Incineration Site is not in an area of significant
commercial or 'recreational fishing or shellfish harvesting.
i
.
The proposed Incineration Site is
to waste generating
convenient
,indus~ries and major mid-Atlantic ~orts.
.
Information already gathered in monitoring the nearby l06-Mile Ocean
, Waste Disposal Site can be applied to the proposed: Incineration
Site.
.
As opposed to land-based incinera~ion, mechanical malfunctions will
not po~e a threat to populated areas (excluding nearshore spill or
leakage).
~
.
The proposed Incineration Site can accommodate large quantities 0 f
wastes.
In considering all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, the
designation of the proposed Incineration Site as an cirganohdogen waste
incineration location is the most favorab le alternative. There are risks
involved in the use of any site (Chapter 4), but the environmental risks of
incinerating. organohalogens at the proposed site are c'onsidered to be less
environmentally and economically expensive 'than incinecatio.n on the
2-31
- -- ~.. ----- .
. .~----~_._,_.- .
. -. '--'''''''-'-''''.'''' ',"
'''. ." .-. -_n..... -,"" .'.
-------
. --... - .-_&.
....-....J.....--..._..._~...,
.. -~"----""-~_Loo-._. ...
_-....."":"'~-,_. -..".....-.-..- --.-
. ... --.'
,I
Continental Shelf or otber Continental Slope locations. If subsequent
monitoring at the sice shows negative effects from residues co be gre~ter chan
anc.idpaced, - EPA may discontinue or modify use - of Che sice I according co
40 CFR 5228.11.
DETAILED _~ASE~ fOR THE SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED SITE-
Section 228.6 of che Ocean Dum~ing Regulations (Chapter 1) describes the 11
"general and specific criteria for selection of sites to be used for
ocean-waste disposal." Each factor is briefly discussed here. More detailed
information is presented in ChapCers 3 and 4.
(1)
Geograpbical position, deptb of: water, bo.ttom topography, and distance
from coas t.
. The' proposed Indnerati~n stte is. beyond the mid-Atlantic Continencal
Shelf and over the Continental Rise (Chapter 1, figure 1-1). Geo-
graphical coordinates are 38°00'N co 38°40'N, and 71050'W Co 72°30'W.
Water depths range from 2, 400m ac the northwes t corner to 2, 900m . along
the. eastern border. The bottom is generally a flat or gently sloping
abyssal plain. The' nearest point of land is at the Delaware-Maryland
State .boundary, approximately 120 cmi (220 \em)' from"the northwest corner
of the site.
(2)
Location in relation to breeding, spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage
areas of living resoa~ces in adult or juvenile phases.
All of these activities occur in some measure within the oceanic region
along the Shelf Break near Che proposed and alternative mid-Atl.:1t:Ltic
.Bight Sites. Likewise, many noncommercially i~portant marine organisms
and migratory birds may periodically transit the site. No feature of the
- life history of these organisms are known to be unique to the proposed
Incineration Site or its vicinity (Appendix A).
2-32
. ...........-,~. -... . ,
. --'-,'---"""'---."""'--""-"'~'---'~fW""-..-"J"' '..-' ~...-._~..-
-------
If
- ,
(3)
Location in relation to beaches and other amenity areas.
Ihe proposed site is approximately 120 ami (220 km) from the nearest land
(i .e., the coasts of Delaware and Maryland). Prevailing winds are from
west-to-east (i.e., offshor~)i however, if wind directions reverse. the
distance from land is adequate to provide for, extensive dispersion and
dilution of a~ospheric waste residues before reaching shore. Therefore.
use of the propQsed site should not impinge on recreation, coastal
development, or any other amenities along the shoreline.' The same is
true for alternative mid-Atlantic Bight sites except those located over
the Continental Shelf.
(4)
Types anq quantities of wastes proposed to be disposed of and proposed
methods of release, including methods ,of packing the waste, if any.
Wastes to be incinerated at the proposed site must meet EPA' s man.ne
environmental impact c.riteria outlined ,in 40 erR Par,t 227,Subparts B.D.
and E. The principal types of ~astes antic~pated to be incinerated ,are
organochlorines, although other acceptable' organohalogens may eventually
be included. Previous burns have demonstrated the high destruction
efficiency of incineration (+99.96%). Thus, 0.04%, or less. o~ the waste
will be discharged into the environment. By 1989 approximately 271.000
tonnes of wastes requiring safe disposal may be accumulating on the .U.S.
east coast annually.
~
(5)
Fea~i~lity of surveillance and monitoring.
Although costly, both surveillance and monitoring are' feasible at the
proposed site and all alternative sites. Site characterization
information obtained from the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site will
reduce the cost of monitoring at the proposed site over that for
monitoring any site for which no baseline data exists.
2-33
". .0
.0. . "'~""---"'-'T-_.':7--":'.~' 1" "~'
--_0-- -..
-------
,;,...
. .-.....-..' ., . ;-.............;...--...--
-,-", "- . ....._..-
1
II
(6)
Dispersal, horizontal transpor~, and ver~ical mixing characteristics of
the area, including prevailing current direction and velocity.
'!he prevailing; winds and currents at the proposed site are sufficient to
promote effective dispersion and dilution of incineration residues.
'Meteorological conditions wi~l generally carry the plume seawards while
init~al dispersion is occurring. When fallout reaches the ocean surface
currents of the mixed layer will further dilute and disperse the wastes.
Prevailing winds move from west-to-east, with predominant velocities
between 6 and 17 kn (5 to 15 mph). Surface currents move predominantly
southwesterly at velocities of 0.2 to 0.5 kn (10 to 25 cm/s). Subsurface
currents are largely unknown.
(7)
Existence 0 and effects. of current and previous discharges and dumping in
the area ,(including cumulative effects).
No inciner~tion or recent ocean dumpi,n~ of wastes has occurr~d at the"'
proposed site. Tbe proposed site does encompass an inactive radioactive
waste disposal site, and the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site (which
has been used since 1961) is directly north of the proposed site. No
adverse effects are known to have occurred from either of these
waste-dumping activities. In view of the vast areas involved and the
enormous dilution which occurs, the likelihood of detecting cumulative
effects is remote.
'0
(8)
Interference with shipping, fishing, recreation, mineral extraction,
desalination, fish and shellfish cultur~, areas of special scientific
importance, and other legitimate uses of the ocean.
'!he proposed site (and most alternative sites) does not encroach upon
cammonly used shipping lanes or normal recreation, fishing, and fish and
shell~ish culture areas; the exception being the previously recommended
aite (Figure 2-2, No.3) and existing nearshore disposal sites (Figure
2-3). oil production may occur at the edge of the Continental Shelf, but
-.incineration operations are not expected to interfere with these
activities. '!he effects on future mineral extraction (de~p-ocean mining
, .
2-34
. ,.. ,i"" ',."""-'.'",-". ".-.." '" r'o '~.'
. . '.~' -.- -'j-
-------
. "'.'''.'.- .- ',p,' --.-.-
.'.'''--- --
~-- ------...........---..
or drilling) is unknown, but it appears to be minimal, if any. No areas
of special scientific importance' are known to occur in the area. No
desalination is practiced in the area, and no other legitimate uses of
the site are being made.
During ~heir migratory periods four endangered and one threatened species
of sea turtles, six endangered species of cetaceans, and one threatened
species of pelagic bird are known to use the offshore region occupied by
, .
the proposed Incineration Site, but are not unique to this region.
Incineration operations are
impact on ~hese organisms.
expected
to have no adverse
unacceptable
(9)
!he existing water quality and ecology of the site" as
available data or by trend assesgmen~.or baseline surveys.
determined by
Data have been collected extensively at the nearby lOG-Mile Ocean Waste
Disposal Site for trend assessment' involving aqueous waste disposal.
Because of the proximity: and similarity of the two sites, the existing
I
data may be used as baseline dat~ for the proposed site".
(0) Potentiality fo-; the development or recruitment of
tbe disposal site.
nuisance
species in
Incineration wastes are sterile, non-nutritive,wastes.
(11) Existence at or in c~ose proximity to the site of any significant natural
or cultural features of bistorical impor~~nce.
~
No such features are known to exist at or near the proposed site.
,
ECONOMIC IMPACT-
The economic impact of at-sea incineration was examined by Ralebsky (1978).
It was concluded that a.t-sea incineration is economically fe.asible I taking
into consideration the outfitting of U.S.-owned-and-operated sh~ps.
2-35
,~.. '--~r-'-- .
,., ,-,.-".
"".. "
'0 .,p- --.'.- -
. "
-------
.._""'~-"""-'--' ,'.....L< ~
~- --. ----
An !IS prepared by the u.s. Department of State and the EPA (1979)'
concluded that the economic impact of at-sea incineration would be minimal,
using existing foreign-owned vessels and existing u.s. loading facilities.
Neither the incineration operation nor the use of the Incineration Site
will have any detectable economic impact' on commercial fishing
limited fishin~ activity exists east af the Continental Slope.
s1-nce
WASTE LOADING AT TH'E PROPOSED SITE
~
As a result of incineration operations, several toxic waste residues will
affect the marine environment. The magnitudes of impacts will be directly
related to the amounts and rates of residue inputs. Table 2-3 pr,esents
estimated toxic residue inputs for the next several years. These estimaces
are based on data collected from research inci~erations performed in the Gulf
of Mexico, using Sbell, , Chemical Company organochlorine wastes and potential
waste quantities available for incineration (Table 1-3). The actual chemical
cOU1positions,
volumes
of
future wastes,
and
incineration
efficiency, will
affect these estimates.
'The "figures are useful only for estimations of waste
loading ,in the environment, and serve as bases of comparison wi th other
environmental waste-loading activities (e.g., disposal at the l06-Mile Ocean
Waste Disposal Site). No data on organ~halogen substances have been reported
(although some, were dumped) as waste constituents at the 106-Mile Ocean Waste
.
Disposal Site. The organohalogen residue volumes estimated ('rab 1e 2-3) are
based on emission rates given in Paige et a1. (197'8) and potential waste
volumes based on those reported .in' Ba1ebsky (l97~). Waste incineration volume
estimates range as high as 193,000 tonnes if incineration operations could be
conducted on a 24-hour basis 365 days a year, at an incineration rate 0 f
22 tonnes per hour., The specific nature of such organohalogens is as yet
undefined, but can be expected to vary greatly among manufacturers.
For comparative purposes, waste-loading data for the 106-Mile Ocean Waste
Disposal Site are presented in Table 2-4. Monitoring of wastes for 6 years
have shown no detectable adverse effects (EPA, 1980a). Due to the proximity
. .
2-36
-------
.. .. .-,~._. ---
..., ".--'''''''''.-
- - --""""...---- .
--~-----
---- .o.
.. -. -... --.--o..
.
Year 1977 1983 198~
To~a.1 Avaibb 1e Waste
(tonne/yr)* 81,000 189,000 193,000
Number of hours to burn
, @12 tonne/bor 3,682 8,591 8,773.
TABU 2-3
ASSmmD 'iA.S"!% 1:.0ADING A.T !HE P1l0Posn DlCIm2U'ION SIn .....
Estimated iesidue Loading as fallout (tonne/yr)
BCl ;52,100 121 t 600- 124,200
Unburned
organohalogen
(@99.96:t DEt) 31.4. 75.6 77.2
Total inorganics
(maximum estimate) 268 619 632
Particulates Contained in Total Inorganics
. '
fluoride
Chromium
Nickel
. Lead
Copper
Zinc
Ars'euic
Cobalt
3.7
14..9
7.5
1.5
2.6
2.6
0.4-
0.4
8.6
34.4
17'.2
3.4-
6.0 .
6.0 .
0.9
0.9
8.8
35.1
17.5
3.5
6.1
6.1
0.9
0.9
** Based on data limited to several 1ar~e waste generating industries
(see p 1-24).
* 1.0 tonne - 2,205 lb
t DE . Destruction Efficiency, minimum observed during research burns
~
Sources:
Pai~e et al., 1978; Ba.lebsky, 1978 .
of the l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site, the poten.tial 'for cumulative
effects must be acknowledged. However, the total assimilative capacity of the
marine environment has yet to be established. Thus, close monitoring of the
region (with.in site boundaries and ~lso dovu current) must be performed.
snould evidence of adverse impacts begin to materialiie, waste inputs must be
reduced or terminated until further asses~eut is made.
2-37
,---.'-- .'
. _..-.-....._.~_..
- _.-._-- .
..-. - ----
-------
.. .--. ....'... ,.~-"-"'''''''_._6
,,'--.----'-
. . ---...,...~ ~!---,.---....._,.'< .....~.."._............-~..........---_..
- .....---.
----
. . .-- .-.
. .
, 'Wu: 2-4
106-MII.E OCUB WASTE DISPOSAL SITE ES'rIMA'IED TRACE METAL MASS LOADING
(toune/yr)ir
-ry..
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
Inorganics 3 3 2.3 x'103 3 3 3.1x103,
1. 2 x 10 0.4 x 10 10.4 x 10 2.5 x 10
(as suspended
solids)
Me ta ls
Cadmium o. 211 5.516 19.503 0.213 0.812 0.124
Chromium 0.677 0.696 0.705 0.215 73.845 83.917
Copper 1.011 0.603 0.826 0.535 3 . 6'95 1. 407
Lead 0.251 0.933 1.085 0.928 15.336 10.316
Mercury 0.045 0.014 1. 626 0.964 0.010 0.005
Nickel 0.420 ' 0.355 0.785 0.571 8.009 9.352
Zinc 12. 125. 15.803 7.279 3.231 - 23.382 35.528
* Organohalogens are not reported
Source:
EPA, 1980a
Metals contained in estimated waste inputs at the~ praposed Incineration
Site', and in barged waste inputs at the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Dispasal Site,
are of comparable quantities (Tables 2-3 and 2-4). The EPA has prepared an
EIS far' designatian af the l06-Mile Ocean Waste Dispasal Si~e which
demonstrates that no. adverse impacts have been detected resulting fram the
disposal af approximately 3 million tannes of wastes since 1973 (EPA, 1980a).
Annual waste volume inputs at the l06-Mile Ocean Waste Dispasal Site are
decreasing, and this decrease will lessen the potential of adverse impacts
from cumulative deposits at the l06-Mile Ocean Waste Dispasal Site and the
proposed Incineration Site.
CONCLUSIONS
After examining other possible site alternatives, designatian af the
proposed Narth Atlantic Incineratian Site will best serve the requirements of
at-sea incineratian activities with minimal adverse environmental and econamic
co.nsequences. 'to. maintain the in.tegrity of the affected environment,
restri<:;tions must be placed an the use af the praposed site. ,~PA and London
2-38
. ,.. " .. -.. ... -.'-'
-------
. ...-"" _. -. ..
- -- ..~--- -
. --.----.... .---
...--."-.......----...
-----
. -......- . -
Dumping Convention Regulations have established guide!.ines for determining
acceptability of wastes for at-sea incineration. The following restrictions
and conditions will be applied to at-sea incineration operations, once the
. desirability for such op~~ations has been established over alternative
disposal methods.
.
TYPES OF WA.STES
The environmental acceptability of
wastes has been demonstrated (Wastler
incineration
of some. organochlorine
e tal. ,
1975;
TerEco,
1975;
TerEco,
will
only
burn
trace
amounts
of. other
toxic
unpublished). These wastes
substances ,(e.g., metals) and
contain
efficiently
with
lit tie
or
no
supplementary fuel. Due to the enormous variety of chemical compounds which
might be considered candidates for incineration, considerable testing will be
necessary to establish the acceptability of specific wastes. A.ll chemical
wastes approved for at-sea incineration will:
.
Contain no materials prohibited by Ocean Dumping
Annexes to the London Dumping '~nvention.
Regulati,ons
",r
.
Contain less than trace amounts of metals and uncombustibles.
.-.
Rave demonstrated thermal destructability.
.
. Have knowa combustion properties and products.
~
Presently wastes that may possess the characteristics necessary for
consideration are:
.
Organochl~rin~ pesticides containing acceptable metal concen-
trations.
.
Petroleum refinery wastes containing acceptable metal
tration8.
concen-
.
PCB wastes with concentrations less than 500 ppm~
. .
I,
(
2-39
.- --,......~-..--
. - --'. -.,
- ".---. -
-------
.. -'-.. t- ~. .-'... . ...
..........--..-.'....&"..... .
.....-----------.-...., ,-~ ..... .
...-...-..---
_._---"-
1
!I
.
Other organic chemical manuf~cturing wastes (e.g., wastes burned by
Shell Chemical Company in previous burns).
Wastes not meeting incineration requirements are:
.'
Substances containing high metal concentrations, ,particularly
inorganic compounds (e.g., chromium from chromium pigment
manufacture), arsenic from boric acid manufacture, or nickel from
nickel sulfate manufacture, and other heavy metals (Ralebsky, 1978).
~
Other wastes may be approved
for at-sea
incineration,
but only after
appropriate testing and research has been completed.
WASTE LOADUtGS
No incineration activitie~ have occur~ed at the proposeij Incineration Site,
thus cumulative' effects of waste loa~ing cannot. be demonstrated and no upper'
limit can presently be established with any certainty. By comparison, at the
nearby 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site, disposal of about 750,000 tonnes
(annual maximum, 1977) of industrial wastes and sewage sludge (containing
metals) have shown no observable adverse effects. However, the critical
element for evaluating the temporary effects of waste loading at the proposed
site is not the total annual input, but rather the input of each individual
in,cineration operation. The rate of input must not be greater than the
ability of the atmosphere and ocean to recover from temporary harmful effects.
Bioaccumulation and long-term ( cumulative) effects mus.t be minimized. The
, ,
actuality of environmental recovery and the lack of significant. bioaccumu-
lation must each be determinedb~ monitoring. The waste loading can be
partially controlled during eac,h burn by controlling the incineration flow
,
rate and the combustion process, 1 and by permitting only one incinerator vessel
to operate at the Incineration Site at any given time.
The total assimilative capacity of the proposed site is unknown because the
physical conditions (whic~ cause waste dispersal) are still poorly understood.
Therefore, it is impossible at),; this time, to make acccuratEf predictions of
I
2-40
-------
maximal permissible waste loading. Future research and monitoring- at the site
will further define the physical characteristics of the site and the
environmental effects of the waste. Each waste considered for disposal at the
site must be separately evaluated for inputs of toxic elements into the
environment. Year-round use will permit the incineration of about 193,000
Connss of chemical wastes (assuming a maximal burn-flow rate of 22 tonnes per
hour) if no more than one vessel is permitted to operate at any given time.
DISPOSAL METHODS
Wastes will be transported to the site in specially constructed ships and
oxidised matter will be discharged from incinerator stacks while the ship is
safely underway within the site boundaries. Atmospheric turbulence created in
the ship's wake will cause immediate dilution of the waste; final dilution
occurs in the atmosphere and ocean. . .,
Plume behavior is associated with the orientation of the ship with respect
to the wind. Thus, the ship must be maneuvered in order to maximize waste
dispersion in the atmosphere. Minimal adverse effects on localized water
* •
quality will occur when waste dispersion is maximized (Figure 4-1). This
occurs when Che ship moves at right angles to the wind, and to a lesser
extent, when the ship moves directly into the wind (Paige et al., 1978).
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of -1976 (RCRA) establishes
t . •
standards for control of hazardous waste from point of generation through
storage, treatment, and ultimate disposal via transportation manifests and
reporting. Owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous 'waste must comply with the standards promulgated under section •
3004 (40 CFR Parts 264 or 266). Section 3004 regulations, which sec
standards for hazardous waste facilities, establish proper treatment,
storage, and disposal practices; provide States with minimum standards to
receive EPA approval for this facet of their hazardous waste programs; and
provide Che technical hasis for EPA - issued facility permits in Scates thac
do not operate a RCRA program.
2-41
-------
Incineration operations will require shore-based support to receive, store,
and blend wastes prior to shipboard loading and transport to the authorized
Incineration Site. This facility will also serve as an off-loading location
in the event the incinerator vessel, is forced to return to port without
completing incineration operations.
PEBMIT CONDITIOHS
Permit conditions are set forth in the Convention, Mandatory Regulations,
and Technical Guidelines (Appendix B) , and were adopted and incorporated in
the MPRSA as nrvrn*"^ operating requirements for at-sea incineration practices.
All permittees will be required to conduct comprehensive monitoring of
short-term effects, which will be performed by environmental contractors at
the permittees' expense. All monitoring studies are subject to EPA approval.
Short-term monitoring should include laboratory studies of the nature and
toxicity of the waste, field studies of waste behavior upon discharge, and
effects on local organisms. Monitoring will include the downstream region, in
order to determine effects induced by transport of waste residues outside the
disposal site.
. * »
INFORMATICS SZQUIRZMEKTS
To perform meaningful monitoring at the proposed Incineration Site, certain
information must be developed to anticipate residue movement. This section
discusses: areas of existing information gaps.
4
Predicted environmental consequences due to incinerating organohalogen
wastes at sea (considering worst-case situations) are presented in Chapter 4
and Appendix D. Several assumptions are made in the Chapter 4 model which may
not occur in practice: (1) destruction efficiency is 99.962 rather than
99.99!, (2') all residues (HC1, metals and organohalogens) touch down within
several kilometers of the vessel rather than remaining suspended in the
atmosphere for longer periods, -and (3) residues are dispersed to a 20m depth,
rather than mixing to deeper depths.
Sampling procedures used during the Gulf of Mexico research operations are
discussed in Appendix C. These procedures were designed to track the stack
emission plume and measure short-term water quality impacts 'resulting from
waste residuals.
2-42
-------
.-. ...--. ..
. - -- --
,.
. .-- - .._- ... .-
!'be purpose of accurate long-term monitoring of the North Atlantic
Incineration Site is to follow the transport and accumulation of residual
materials in the marine environment, in order to eliminate long-term adverse
impacts. Transport is accomplished by physical and biological means. Wind
and ~ater currents will move residue materials away from the site. Organisms
(e.g., plankton) which may assimilate residues will act in a similar manner.
UltiJ;ately, persistent residues, may be'gin to accumulate in sediments or in
organisms of higher trophic levels, far from the Incineration Site.
Existing physical oceanographic processes near the site are po~rly
understood. In order to predict where accumulation may occur, and to monitor
such an occurrence requires an understanding of the fate of wastes. For
example, accumulations of waste residues in the benthic environment of the
site are unlikely. Rpwever, accumulation could begin if transport occurs
towards the C~ntine~tal Shelf, where water depths are much shallower (50 to
100m). A quantitative estimate of such an occurrence will require development
of a new model. The. mo~el will depend on comprehension of phenomena (e ~g.,
vertical current structure and mixing) .and ~he. processes which contribute tQ
dist:'ersion ami dilution; they are poorly known in the region,
and available
information is inadequate to support quantitative predictions of waste residue
movements.
Intrinsically, the waste is an important factor. Accurate predictions of
transport and accumulation of residues necessitate specific information
describing the components of the waste material, the incineration decompo-
sition products, and the amounts of waste residues available for transport and
accumulation. In the case of organohalogen residues, the degradability
potential of the original waste and partial decomposition products must be
known a8 to atmospheric, water, and biochemical processes (specifically,
~
whether the original waste or partial decomposition product is susceptibie to
photolytic, hydrolytic, or biochemical decomposition). In order to describe
atmospheric transport, the distribution of particle sizes must be initially
defined for organics and metals J to establish settling rates of residual
constituents. Metals and HCl are expected to' be removed rapidly; however,
volatilized organics may remain suspended for longer periods.
2-43
. . .-'..".- .-. ..
. .--~_....
-------
. ----..._,.~
...-.-,--..
..~----._- --
"
Durin~ incineration of or~anochlorine wastes stack emissions will include
CO, C02' H20, HCI, trace metals Ln a gaseous phase, and organic compounds.
Organic compounds wi 11 appear as waste residue intact and partially as was ce
residue which has not oxidized completely. The discussion of environmental
consequences of unburned organohalo~ens (Chapter 4) considers this cate~ory as
intact organohaloSten waste residue at waste volume of 0.04% or less. In
practice this is 'not entirely accurate. Laboratory test burn studies under
rigidly controlled incineration conditions reported by Duvall and Ruben (1976)
showed that compounds (e.g., Kepone. ~ Mirex., and DDT) achieve destruction
efficiencies of 99.998% at temperatures of 900°C, with residence times of
~
about 2
product.
PCB's,
seconds, and produce hexachlorobenzene as a. partial decompositi?n
Siuiilarly, laboratory test burns of biphenyl, several species 0 f
hex~chloro~enzene, dibenzofuran, and bibenzo-p-dioxin achieve
destruction efficiencies of 99.9995% at a' temperature of l,OOO°C, with
residence time of 2 seconds (Duvall and Ruben, 1977). In the case or ?CB' s
and similar compounds (ibid.), partial decomposition ~roducts were produced,
. , ~
but no analyses were p'erformed to iden~ify the.resultant compounds.
The disp'arity between destruction efficiencies of labo1;'atory and field
(vessel) incinerators can be explained as differences between their residence
times and degrees of volatil£zation of waste material. Whereas the laboratory
incineration tests are performed with a residence time of 2 seconds, residence
time in the field incinerator is about 0.9 second. The field incineration is
operated at tetDperatures of l,250°C to l,350°C, which are several hundred
degrees higher, than in laboratory tests. Laboratory samples are completely
volatilized before inj ection into the incinerator chamber, which introduces
single molecules of wastes to oxidation, but field incinerators ,simply inject
waste materials as groups of molecules, thus offering a smaller surface area
for oxidative reactions. Presumably, partial decomposition prod~cts of at-sea
incineration wi 11 be comparab Ie to partial decompo sit ion produc ts in
laboratory tests. In order 'to track, the transport and accumulation of residue
materials released into the marine environment, laboratory studies must be
performed to establish the destruction efficiency of specific wastes and the
associated partial decomposition products; these factors will facilitate
p,redictions .of the types, quantities, and partical sizes of waste residues
released.
2-44
~,..,..., 7"~~----.-.,-.. -
-------
!he EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio is currently
.developing the !hermal. Decomposition Analytical System (TDAS) for labora-
tory use. The system will enhance development of baseline data on the basic
decomposition products of wastes within a short period of time., thus
eliminating problems associated .with complex tests which could cause
environmental risks (Carnes, 1978,; Carnes et al., 1979). Another system being
.developed will include direct in-line sampling of waste res~due products
during incineration operations at various points of the incineration scream
(Carnes and Whitmore, 1979). The latter system is being designed for more
complex, land-based incineration, but the technology, once developed, can be
applied. to at-sea incineration.
Toxico logical studies (bioas says) need 'to be per formed to estimate
potential environmental impacts or uptake of waste residues, including residue
sub stances in marine organisms. representative 0 f the affected environment.
This procedure would be an extention of the residue identification process
discussed' above.
~
2-45
'.'----.".- '"
-------
Chapter 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Thia chapter describes the environment of the proposed site
and the general region of the mid-Atlantic. Topics discussed
• include the oceanographic environment and relevant related
activities near the mid-Atlantic sites. EPA'3 recently
produced EIS describing industrial waste disposal at Che
106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site (EPA, 1980a) is
significant in this discussion, because of the similarities
of metal content characteristics of the wastes, and the
proximity of the affected environment to those of this site.'
The 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site EIS is further
relevant to this EIS because the site occupies an oceanic
region with characteristics similar to those of the proposed
and alternative mid-Atlantic Bight incineration sites, and is
itself an alternative site. Further details of the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of the mid-Atlantic
Bight region are provided in Appendix A.
This chapter describes the environmental setting of the northwestern
mid-Atlantic oceanic region. The proposed site and all alternative
mid-Atlantic Bight sites are examined simultaneously, because this region of
the northwest Atlantic Ocean is considered to'be environmentally homogeneous
• v
in many respects. It is recognized that the Continental Shelf break to the
west provides for major environmental shifts in physical, chemical, and
biological oceanographic phenomena; whereas the Gulf Stream to the east causes
similar effects by serving as a buffer between the region and the Sargasso
Sea. Furthermore, gradients of environmental factors begin to occur as
distances from the Shelf increase. Environmental features of the greater
region are known to exhibit wide variations common to all possible mid-
Atlantic Bight sites selected as oceanic incineration alternatives. The most
notable exception is the site previously recommended by Paige et al. (1978),
in a region which is transitional between Shelf and Slope regimes, with
numerous adverse characteristics, untenable in incineration site candidacy.
(As explained in Chapter 2, the site was eliminated as an alternative site
candidate.)
Detailed information on the proposed site and the 106-Mile Ocean Waste
Disposal Site (Appendix A) is applicable to other mid-Atlantic geographic
3-1
-------
areas, including the eastern and southern regions, which are candidates for
Atlantic incineration sites. The following discussion is an excerpt from
Appendix A.
OCEANOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE MID-ATLANTIC BIGHTSITES
METEOROLOGY
The proposed North Atlantic Incineration Site is seaward of the Continental
Shelf, off the Delaware-Maryland coast (Figure 2-2, No. 1). The proposed and
alternative sites lie within a mid-latitude zone of prevailing westerlies,
where the daily wind flow generally moves from west to east (Figure 3-1).
Polar air dominates the region about 2 months each year, whereas annual wanner
tropical Atlantic air dominates during the other 10 months. In general, the
climate of the region-can best be described as modified continental, due tc
the greater influence ^of westward landmasses, as opposed to the eastward- ocean
(NOAA, 1977).
Marine air temperature is strongly influenced by the Atlantic Ocean.
During winter months - warm sea surface temperatures tend to increase air
temperatures proportionately with distances from shore. Summer • months are
conversely affected, thus, temperatures decrease proportionately with
distances from shore. Precipitation over the offshore regions is uncertain,
due to the lack of data. Most rainfall occurs between November and March,
s
generally associated with widespread storms, varying in intensity and
coverage. Cloudiness is minimal during late summer and early autumn, at which
times the Bermuda High dominates weather patterns, and is maximal during
winter months when northeasterlies prevail. Visibility depends on the
presence or absence of advection, fog, and haze. Visibility greater than
5 nmi (9.3 km) ranges from about 8QZ (late spring) to more than 901 (autumn
and winter) .
Meterological data (U.S. Navy, 1955) indicates that atmospheric temperature
inversions are weak and infrequent occurrences in the region of the proposed
3-2
-------
.....",
SO'
/'
/'
",\~"
~~~
90 t,p.'JI
,c~p.
,,/
40'
20"N
. 120"
100"
80".
60"
40'
20'
0'
20'W
A . FEBRUARY SURFACE WINDS
80'
60'
~
2O"N
120"
100"
80"
60"
400
20'
0'
10-W
8. AUCUST SURFACE WINDS
Figure 3-1
. .
~ral Ai: Plow Pattern of the Harth Aelmric
.- .......-_. ..- --
II
f.
3-3
-------
-._-.---
. ---~.o-.-- .
-------_.
----.
~ -_._.
site. Temperature inversio~s of 2°C, or greater.', rarely occur below 1,000m,
and are generally restricted to spring and summer. Above 1,000=, inversions
of 2°C, or more, occur less than 3% of the ti=e, year around.
Relative humidity is normally high. The ai1nua~ average value is 81%;
summer being slightly higher than winter due to persistent southerly winds.
mSICAL CONDITIONS
~
The proposed si~e, the 106-MilA Ocean Waste Disposal Site, and the eastern
and southern regions are beyond the edge of the Continental Shelf, within the
. .
easterly influence of the Gulf Stream '(Figure 3-2)". Surface water may be
derived from three different water masses, namely Sb"elf Water, Slope Water,
and Gulf Stream Water; each with distinctive physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics. Slope Water normally occupies the proposed site
.(Figure 2-2, No. 1) and 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site (Figure 2-2, No.
2), as well as the eastern (Figure 2~2, No.4) and southern regions (Figure
2-2, No. 5)-. When the Shelf/Slope ocean front migrates eastward, Shelf Waters
of equal or lower salinity. and tempera~ure mix with Slope Water, . causing
. ....
differing densities of water "masses to form separ~te layers within the wate~;
therefore, the mixing of waters at the site can be quite complex, influenced
by predictable seasonal factors and other highly unpredictable factors (Warsh,
1975b).
Sometimes warm-core rings. of water (eddies) break off from the Gulf Stream
and migrate through the proposed site region, entraining Gulf Stream water or
'water in the Sargasso Sea (Figure 3-2). Such eddies do not pass through the
proposed site on a seasonal basis, but have been observed to touch or
completely occupy the 106-Kile Ocean Waste Disposal Site for about 70 days per
year (Bisagui. 1976).
When surface waters of the region warm ~p in late spring, a phenomenon
occurs causing the water to stratify within 10 to sOm of the surface and to
form water layers having different temperatures, salinities, and densities. .
Stratification persists until mid- or late autumn, when cooling and storm
activity destroy the layers. From autumn until winter and early spring, the
3-4
..-.. ....
..., . .... . .-.. .... ..'.
''''. ..'-" . ... ..
-------
4T-
Ugend
Edg* o< ContincnUl Shelf
Boundary o( Water Ma««ct
Direction of How
(to knots) -4.0-
1. Piopoitd Indiwration Silt
2. 10*-Mil« Ocean Wactc Disposal Site
3. Pr*«iouily Rtcommended Site
Figure 3-2. Water Masses sad Current Flows of Northwest Atlantic
Ocean Showing Gulf Stream Meanders and Anticyclouic Eddy
(U.S. Coast Guard Weekly Current Charts)
3-5
-------
temperature of the water is the same from the surface to a depth of
approximately 200m. At 200m, however, a permanent stratification level
exists. Below that level, waters are always of lower temperatures. Such
physical characteristics are important because of their great influences on
the ultimate fate of waste residues at the sites'.
>.
There is a paucity of current measurements for the site; however, the
literature indicates that water at all depths in the area tends to flow
southwest, generally following the boundary of the Continental Shelf and
Continental Slope (Varsh, 1975b). Occasionally, water flow may change
direction, especially when Gulf Stream eddies pass through the area. This
»
effect has been observed in the deeper waters of the 106-Mile Ocean Waste
Disposal Site.
o
Physical and chemical characteristics of all candidate sites cause
biological complexities because each water mass possesses unique associations
of flora and fauna. t
GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
The Continental Slope within the proposed site area has a gentle. (4Z)-
grade, leveling to IX in the region of the upper Continental Rise. Sediments
within the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site are principally sand and silt,
with silts predominating (Fearce et al., 1975). Sediment composition .is a
major factor which determines the amounts and kinds' of animals capable of
colonizing the sea bottom at the site. Generally, greater diversities and
abundances of fauna are associated with finer sediments (e.g., silt), although
unusual physical conditions can play an important role. Thus, fine-grained
sediments are more likely to contain higher concentrations of heavy metals.
Sand, gravel, and rocky bottoms rarely contain metals in high concentrations.
Continental Slope sediments in various parts of the region are subject to
different dynamic forces. The upper Continental Rise is in an area of
tranquil deposition, whereas the lower Continental Rise is in an area of
shifting deposition. Several erosional areas (caused by currents) occur
between these two provinces. The different regimes will greatly determine the
3-6
-------
ultimate fate of waste products reaching the bottom, which are anticipated to
be quite small. In areas swept by currents, waste products would be carried
out of the limits of the disposal- site, dispersed, and greatly diluted. In
erosional and shifting depositional areas similar conditions would exist,
although the waste materials could be temporarily motionless before further
transport. In areas of tranquil or slow deposition, waste products would be
slowly buried.
CHEMICAL commons
The amount of dissolved oxygen in seawater is generally an indicator of the
life-supporting capacity of the waters. Dissolved oxygen levels below 4 mg/1
cause stress in animals. Dissolved oxygen concentrations observed at the
106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site are higher than 4 mg/1 in surface water,
and experience vertical gradients similar to the temperature gradients
described above. Thus, the permanent stratification level at 100 to 200m
divides the water column into upper and lower regimes. The different water
densities and salinities prevent the two layers from mixing, and thus
*
influence the distribution of dissolved oxygen concentrations. .Dissolved
oxygen levels are minimal at depths of 200 to 300m, 'and slowly increase with
distance (up or down) from the stratification boundary.
.Dissolved oxygen gradients during summer and winter at the proposed site
and the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site are similar; the main differences
being higher surface concentrations during winter. Any waste material which
undergoes oxidation in seawater will naturally consume oxygen, thereby
lowering the concentration of dissolved oxygen in seawater.
Chemical baseline and monitoring surveys conducted at the 106-Mile Ocean
Waste Disposal Site have examined trace metal levels in sediments,-water, and
selected organisms. Metals in the sediments and water are potentially
available to site organisms. Within the fauna these contaminants could
possibly be assimilated (bioaccumulated) , and concentrated in toxic
quantities.
3-7
-------
numerous metals are present as a natural occurrence in seavater; therefore,
only concentrations of metals exceeding natural background levels that
approach known or suspected toxicity levels would be possible threats to
marine organisms and mankind. During the most recent studies of trace metal
levels in the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site waters, background levels
typical of other uncontaminated Shelf-Slope regions occurred (Kester et al.,
1977; Hausknecht and Kester, 1976).
Trace metals in sediments all along the Continental Slope and Continental
Rise (including the proposed and 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site areas) are
elevated in comparison to Continental Shelf values (Greig et al., 1976; Pearce
Cfc
et al., 1975). However, since such values vary widely, the elevated values
are considered to be a natural occurrence and are not attributed to waste
disposal activities at the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site.
Analyses of trace metal concentrations in food chain organisms at the
106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site and surrounding areas 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 in
finfish, similar to those in New York Bight finfish (Greig and Wenzloff, 1977;
Greig et al., 1976). However, ocean waste disposal at the 106-Mile Ocean
Waste Disposal Site could not be linked by investigators to the metal
concentrations found in any of the analyzed benthic (bottom) or pelagic (open
ocean) fishes as they were transient species with probably only a short period
of residence in the site (Fearce et al., 1975).
BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Plankton are microscopic flora and fauna drifting passively with currents
or swimming weakly. Plankton are either plants (phytoplankton) or animals
(zooplankton). Since the plankton are primary sources of all food in the
ocean, their health and ability to reproduce are of crucial importance to all
life in the ocean, including fish and shellfish of commercial importance.
3-8
-------
Plankton at the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site and surrounding region
are highly diverse, due to the influences of Shelf, Slope, and Gulf Stream
vatermasses (see Physical Conditions section, above). The high-nutrient Shelf
Waters primarily contribute diatoms to the region, and the lover nutrient
Slope Waters contribute coccolithophorids, diatoms, dinoflagellates, and other
mixed flagellates (Hulburt and Jones, 1977). Mixed assemblages of
zooplankters common to the different vatermasses have been found to occupy the
106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site and surrounding areas during winter,
spring, and summer (Sherman et al., 1977; Austin, 1975).
Fish have been surveyed at various depths within the 106-Mile Ocean Waste
Disposal Site. The diversity and abundance of fish found only in surface
vaters are similar inside and outside the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site
limits (Haedrieh, 1977). Fauna found primarily at middepths (mesopelagic
fish) are predominately Slope vater species. Also, Gulf Stream anticyclonic
(clockwise) varm-core eddies contribute some north Sargasso Sea species
(Krueger et al., 1975, 1977; .Haedrieh, 1977). Several migratory oceanic fish
usually associated with the Gulf Stream often occur in midvater regions of tae
. proposed site, 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal 'Site, and eastern region.
Benthic (bottom) fish within the site are similar to assemblages in other
Slope areas (Musick et al.', 1975; Cohen and Pavson, 1977).
Numerous species of whales and dolphins (Table A-19) and five species of
turtles (Table A-20) are believed to transit the Slope and nearshore vaters of
the mid-Atlantic Bight region, as migratory routes. The whales and" dolphins
use the Slope vaters as a route between northern summering grounds and
southern wintering grounds. The route used by turtles has not been determined
exactly, but from July through October turtles follow their primary food
(jellyfish) inshore. Six species of whales (right, blue, Sei, finback,
humpback, and sperm) are classified as endangered throughout their range of
habitat. Among the turtles, four species (havksbill, leatherback, green, and
Atlantic Ridley) are classified as endangered throughout their habitat. The
loggerhead turtle is classified as threatened in its entire habitat.
Abundance and diversity of invertebrates at the 106-Mile Ocean Waste
Disposal Site are similar to most other Slope localities of the mid-Atlantic
3-9
-------
Bight. Aa in similar areas, the organisms on the bottom (the epifauna) of the
proposed site and 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site are dominated by echino-
derms (e.g., starfish), with segmented worms (polychaetes) as the dominant
burrowing organisms.
Many species of birds are known to frequent the offshore and coastal waters
of the mid-Atlantic Bight (Table A-21). Several pelagic species are regular
inhabitants of the oceanic region containing the proposed and alternative
sites. Other species are only occasionally observed. Summer months produce
the greatest number of pelagic bird sightings.
Birds migrate through the entire region. During September and October many
species of marine and terrestrial birds leave northeastern coastal areas for
southern wintering grounds. The actual numbers of species using the rouces
are still uncertain,' but a partial list and migratory route map are presented
on Figure A-12 and Table A-22., No species of migratory birds listed by the
Manomet Bird Observatory are considered endangered or threatened.
CONCURRENT AND FUTURE STUDIES
NOAA has been conducting surveys at the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site
* -
for several years. Many sampling stations are within and near the proposed
Incineration Site. The nearness of the proposed Incineration Site to the
106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site minimizes logistical monitoring problems,
and existing 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site.data may be used from within
the proposed site initially as baseline information, pending collection of
additional data at the proposed site.
In addition to future Federal surveys, incineration permittees will be
required to conduct short-term monitoring during incineration operations as
required by permits.
3-10
-------
OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THE SITE VICINITY
Few man-made marine activities occur near the proposed site. The 106-Mile
Ocean Waste Disposal Site, Immediately north of the proposed site, has been
used for approximately 18 years as an industrial chemical waste dump and some
municipal wastes (sewage sludges) have been dumped there since 1974. Foreign
fishing fleets operate along the outer Shelf (Figure 3-3). Oil and gas lease
tracts are west and north of the proposed site, along the outer Continental
Shelf (Figures 3-5 and 3-6). The Hudson Canyon Navigational Lane crosses the
Continental Slope to the north of the proposed site (Figure 3-7) , but no major
shipping lanes approach the proposed site boundaries.
P.S. COMMERCIAL
Limited fisheries resources exist at the proposed site and vicinity. Due
to deep waters in and around the proposed site, no commercial shellfish
species (commonly taken io the adjacent and shallower Continental .Shelf/ Slope
regions) inhabit the bottom. . Only limited finfish'ing occurs beyond the
Continental Shelf. Big eye, yellowfin, and longfin tuna are fished to the
2,000m contour. Sword fish may be taken at the 2,000m contour, but commercial
gear is usually set within the 600m contour.
Host commercially important fishery resources in the New York Bight
vicinity live and spawn in Continental Shelf waters, and along the crest of
the Continental Shelf /Slope break (NOAA-MESA, 1975; BLM, 1978; Chenoweth,
1976). Consequently, most foreign and domestic fish trawling is conducted at
*
depths shallower than 1,000m, much shallower than waters in the proposed
Incineration Site. Pelagic waters have been used for commercial long line
fishing of marl in, a word fish, and tuna (Casey and Hoenig, 1977). Catch
statistics for Continental Slope areas are generally incomplete because
fishing vessels wander from Shelf to Slope areas, mixing the catch of Slope
species with Shelf species; landing records have failed to separate Shelf from
Slope species. Table 3-1 presents catch statistics for specific types of
fishing gear used to land fishery resources off New Jersey.
3-11
-------
'I'
TABLI ]-1
QUANTITIES or COHHBRCULLY IHPORTART riSHERY RESOURCBS TADN
BY SPBCIriC fISHING GEAR TYPES orr HEW JlRSEY IN 1974
. (Thousands of Pounds)
. wi
I !
.... '
NI
I
Fish Lobster
Purse Otter Pound Fish Pots Pots and
Seine Trawl Nets and Traps Traps Gill Nets Lines Dredges
Finfish
Fluke - 3.481 11 - 0.5 - 0.5 -
Bluefish 1 362 12 - - 549 14 -
At lantic
Mackerel - 156 .- - 8 8 -
"
Menhaden 104,851 49 2.183 . ~ - 223 - -
Sea Bass . - 138 0.1 - - 3 1 -
Sea Trout 0.2 1.927 285 . 413 42
- - -
Scup - 6.0~9 2 8 - 0.2 - -
Titefish 1 - - - - - 831 -
Blue fin Tuna 810 0.1 - "- - 0.5 0.5 -
Whiting - 1.021 0.2 - - 1 - -
Swordfish - 0.1 - - - - 7 -
. .
Shellfish
Lobster - 551 - 1 633 - - -
Red Crab - 23 - - 2 - - -
Rock Crab - 146 - 1 199 - - -
Surf Clams - - - - - - ~ 22.657
Sea Scallops - 1 - - - - -' 321 .
. .
Others
Squid - 1 . 281 - - - - - -
.i
I
I ,
I .
. ~
-------
Benthic invertebrate resources range in depth from shallow nearshore waters
to the Shelf edge. Quahogs, surf clams, and scallops are caught on the Shelf;
no areas of abundance are known to occur on the Slope. Cancer crabs are
abundant on the Shelf from Mew Jersey to Nova Scotia, but have little value at
present and are essentially unexploited. Two species of squid are also
abundant and of immense economic potential to American fishermen. The winter
squid (Loligo pealei) are caught on the bottom to depths of 91m, and summer
squid (Illex illecebrosus) are found on the bottom to depths of approximately
481m. In 1979 foreign vessels caught 30,000 tonnes of squid from Cape Cod to
Cape Batteras, whereas domestic fishermen landed only 4,100 tonnes. . The
domestic effort was evenly divided between 0 to 3 ami and 3 to 200 nmt
'offshore. Lobster, one of the most valuable shellfish resources, occur both
on the Shelf and Slope, but generally not deeper than 500m. The red crab (a
potential fishery resource) is most abundant at depths between 310 and 941m,
with a maximum reported depth of 1,830m.
Important finfish (Table 2-1) of the Shelf area are generally not found in
water deeper than 1,000m, or fished 'in water deeper than 200m. Atlantic
mackerel (Scomber scombrus) occur in large schools that 'seasonally migrate
from the Shelf edge to nearshore areas. Spawning grounds occur from 10 to 50
nmi offshore. Silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis) is an underexploited
species, of great potential for American fishermen, which occurs to a maximum
depth of 750m off New England. The foreign fishing 'industry has routinely
taken silver hake in excess of 20 tonnes per tow along the 183m isobath.
Tilefish (Lopholatilus ehameleonticeps) are found in abundance from
Nantueket to Cape May, New Jersey between 91m and 145m. The species occurs
within a narrow depth and temperature range, associated with the-bottom, and
dependent on temperature influences of the Gulf Stream. In 1882 an estimated
1.5 billion fish perished, presumably due to temperature variation when the
Gulf stream shifted. A fish kill 170 miles long and 25 miles wide resulted
(Gordon, 1977). " '
Tuna are highly migratory pelagic species; therefore, they are not included
in the exclusive management authority of the 200-mile fishery conservation
zone (Federal Register, 1978). Several species occur along the northwest
3-13
-------
Atlantic Shelf, including blue fin, yellowfin, blackfin, bonita, bigeye, and
albacore. In general, tunas prefer warm seas and occur in the northern part
of their range in association with the Gulf Stream. The bluefin range extends
to southeast Newfoundland; yellowfin are uncommon north of Virginia; both
species have significant sport and commercial value.
Billfish are pelagic fish that are not dependent on the coast. Breeding
areas for swordfish, white marl in, and blue marl in are near the Lesser
Antilles, South America, and Puerto Rico, respectively. All three species are
bel-ieved to migrate seasonally, occurring off the mid-Atlantic states during
summer months. Saila and Pratt (1973) indicate that the summer distribution
of swordfish is variable off of the mid-Atlantic coast, with larger and more
t
stable population levels north of Hudson Canyon. White marlin are most
abundant off Delaware Bay during the summer, and head offshore hundreds of
miles during late fall. Blue marlin have major centers for sportfisheries off
of North Carolina.
FOREIGN FISHERIES
' •
Nearly all foreign fishing in the north and mid-Atlantic regions of the
United States occurs on the .Continental Shelf, at depths of 90m Co 180m,
within designated fishing areas (Figure 3-3) . The exception to this rule
is the tuna longline fishery (mainly Japanese), which follows the migration
associated with the Gulf Stream. Peak foreign fishing activity occurs in
late summer for short-finned squid, and in winter for long-finned squid, in
accordance with gear and season restrictions (Figure 3-4). The foreign
fleet is' dominated by Japan, Spain, and Mexico, which send 80 to 90 vessels
annually to fish along the Atlantic coast. The USSR (formerly the dominant
foreign fleet) has been prohibited from fishing in the economic resource
zone since late 1979. The major fisheries are directed toward squid and
hake (silver and red), with butterfish and other finfish (including sea
robins and flatfish) being of secondary importance. iHerring and mackerel
are minor components of the total incidental catch.
Pelagic tuna and billfish fishery efforts are widespread, including all
warm-water areas of the North Atlantic Ocean from the equator to Nova Scotia,
3-14
-------
.....- _._- .. .
- -.,._..._._0.. ~-.~~-~~_.
although the more northern area is less frequently :ished during winter than
summer. Catch statistics (Tables A-23 and A-24) reveal that yellowfin tuna
are the most frequently captured fishi followed by bigeye, albacore, and blue-
fin. Fishing effort expenditure varies from statistical area to statistical
area, and from year to year.
From available data it. can be concluded that the proposed Incineration Site
occupie's an oceanic area that may produce a portion of the annual foreign tuna
.
landing. However, the site itself occuries less than 2% of the Japanese catch
statistical area in which the site is located. Based on a comparison of
Japanese statistics of the region occupied b.y the proposed site and the area
to the east of. the proposed site, it can be concluded that the area occupied
NEW YORK
40"20'
1cr10'
40°13'
10"00'
40"20'
68°45'
C
40°50'
6rOG'
:l
40"30'
6rOG'
39"50'
10"00'
40"01'
~45'
~
PROPOSED
INCINERATION
SITE
. 35.,3'
15"06'
Figure 3-3.
Fishing Areas in the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean for Foreign Nations
Federal Register, 43(244):59302
Source:
3-15
. ... .-... _.. . ........
. P' ....... .
-. .. . ...
.-- .. .----... .~....... ..
...--.....-- .
-------
I~I
Off-BOTTOM GEAR
AREA
fEl
APR
JUN
! JAN
MAR
. MAY
JUL
AUG
SEP
1
:I
!1:,'!:""il'l:i~1!iii;.i.,I'li:I!:ill!~i::I.jl.'j'I:1ii.i
:I
4
5
1
AREA
wi
I 1
""1
0\,
:I
; :I
4
5
IOTTOM GEA~ AND Off-BOTTOM GEAR
'AN
fEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JU.L
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
11\\\\..'\\\\\'\\\:\\: :\\:\\\\\:::::! .::!:\:\!:!!:\:!::\\\;
. .,
Unless otherwise noted, seasons open at 0001 hoors loc~1 time on the-last day of the month and terminate at 2400 hours local time on the
last day of the month.
.Season begins at 0001 hours local time on June 15 and terminates at .2400 hours local time on September 15.
-
Denotes maximum open fishing seasons subject to possible earlier closure f~r some or all nations.
rigure
3-4. rishing Gear and Season Restrictions
Area--Northwest Atlantic Qcean rishery
Source: rederal Register, 43:59315
by rishing
-------
by Che proposed site is not unique to fishing effort or catch results, and the
site probably produces a catch proportional to its size—less than 22 of the
statistical area.
RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
Most recreational fishing in the New York Bight vicinity is confined to
inner Continental Shelf waters, which are most accessible to the public and
where moat sport species are found (Chenoweth, 1976). 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 1.7 million anglers caught 2.7 million pounds of fish in North
Atlantic coastal waters. Recreational species taken further offshore are
limited primarily to bluefin tuna, marlin, and swordfish. There are no
accurate catch statistics for these species or amount of recreational fishing
activity.
• »
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AHD DEVELOPMENT
Oil and gas lease tracts exist west and north of the proposed Incineration
Site (Figures 3-5 and 3-6). The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
completed the first sale of oil and gas leases on the mid-Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf in August 1976 (Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] Sale No. 40).
Exploratory drilling on tracts leased in OCS Sale No. 40 began in the spring
of 1978 and continue to date (1981). In September 1978, BLM published a
final EIS on the proposed OCS Sale No. 49, which includes 136 tracts
totaling 313,344 hectares* (774,273 acres); sale No. 49 occurred February
1979. A third Sale (No. 59) is under consideration (Figure , 3-5),
tentatively scheduled for December 1981 (BLM, 1978). The Final EIS was
issued in May 1981.
*1 hectare - 1 km - 2.47 acres
3-17
-------
PROPOSED
INCINER-
ATION
SITE
3TN
7TW
Figure 3-5. Proposed Oil and Gas Leases in Che Mid-Atlantic
Acea—OCS Sale Ho. 59 ,
Source: Date provided by New York BIX Office
3-18
-------
PROPOSED
INC1NSI-
ATION
srrc
TT 74- TT
Figure 3-6. Active Oil and Gas Lease in Che Mid-Atlantic
'-.. •*•.»».
Area—OCS Sale Noa. 40 and 49
Source: Adapted from EPA, 1978a •
3TN
3-19
-------
4.'.., ....--'.. ...-.--' .;, .'.
._...._...._---.....,.~. .
.--..........-- .t.
.... - ..,..~.._.......-..._.'_.."---------
- .- -----
...- - --- -
-.. _0'_.__.
Recent disclosures by the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that ex~loratory
drilling may be performed in Continental Rise waters between Maine and Florida
within the next decade.
SBIPPmG
The major trade routes charted by NOAA,. which serve the New York-New Jersey
areas, coincide with three major shipping lanes designated by USCG: the
Nantucket, Hudson Canyon, and Barnegat Navigatio11&l Lanes (Figure 3-7). The
trade route-s which lie within the Navigational Lanes are usually the safest
routes. for shipping -traffic t and USCG recommends that they be used by all
major shipping. traffic.
.. .
3-20
...- -l"'" -.... .,.-, .. ,'.~n_':'''''''''''r''-'- ".,~ .-- -... _.- -. ,.. .-'-' -~. .'. - -_.._.. ..h - -0 -.. . -. ..
----_..- - ...-~--_._. ~
-------
2. leWMOtOcnn
4.
$. Southern RnkM
FIVE FATHOM BANK
7T
71'
figure 3-7. Ship Traffic Lanes in the Mid-Atlantic
3-21
-------
,
. II
Chapter 4
,~9~~ALCONSEQUEN~ES
Based on research burns conducted in the Gulf of Mexico, the
projected environmental conse~uences of incinerating
indnstrial che8ical wastes at the ~roposed Incineration Site
are eDViroamentally acceptable.' Waste residues are dispersed
and diluted in air and vater, reducing concentrations to
'undetectable or near-background levels within hours of
88ission. , the consequences discussed here are valid for any
location selected in the mid-Atlantic Bight region bounded by
the Continental. Shelf on the west and north, and the Gulf
Stream on the east and south. Relocation of the site to the
vest (over the Continental Shelf) would create unacceptable
potential eavironment~l hazards.
this chapter details the environmental impact of waste disposal and the'
unavoidable adverse euvironmental consequences that will occur if the proposed
action is implemented. The first sections include environmental changes
directly affec,ting public h~alth, commercial or recreational fisheries. and
navigat~on; these are fo~lowed by environmental consequences of at-Sl!a
incineration. Waste. residues at the site ar~, assessed, and" a discussion on
the effects of waste residuals on air and water quality and mar~ne organisms
in the region is included. The chapter concludes with a discus~ion 0 f
unavoidable adverse eff~cts and concomitan~ mitigating measures, relationships
between short-tem uses of the environment, the maintenance and enhancement of
long-term productivity, and irreversible or irretrievable commitment of
resources.
Industrial wastes previously incinerated at sea are discussed in this
chapter; they were organ~hlorine chemicals produced by Shell Chemical Company
at Deer Park, Texas. A vast assortment of other organic chemicals (o'rg'ano-
halogens) may be considered as candidates for incineration in the future, but
data do not presently exist,to evaluate precisely any environmental effects
which they might produce. Incineration of o~her chemical wastes' using
different incinerator vessels would be possible at the proposed site; however,
burns' would be subject to the prescribed testing and monitoring requirements
of the MPRSA.
iJ
4-1
,....---- ....'.- ..0'-".-'" .".0..
,.-'.'."'" . -""
. .' .. .......... -.' ...
. _.- .....-..'--.. "'" . .... -... .. .
.. . ..... .. '.... '.
. . . .... .
. '--' --_..._.-. _._, .-. -.._... -..
. -.- -.-.
. ......,....-..,...., -t . " .
-------
If
EFfECTS ON PUBUC HEALTH AND SAfETY
Certain classes 0 f organohalogen wastes (e. g., 1?esticides), have' various
, ~
properties that may be particularl:y hazardous to human and/or marine life.
Wastes such as heptachlor or chl~rdecone (KePOl1e8) are knOw. to have toxic
properties that may lead to serious disorders in mammals (EPA. 1976a).
Herbicide Or.ange and other chemicals contain trace mDounts of toxic substances
.
(e.g., dioxin). which produce birth defects in maDDah.
However,
these
examples rep-resent extreme cases. and organohalogen wastes wi th such
properties or constituents. even though combustible by incineration. require
" .
specialized handling and monitoring procedures. ~ganohalogen wastes. may
contain metals. but ca~ be disposed of at, sea if the metals are pres~nt only
as' trace contaminants (as defined by the MPRSA and the, Convention).
It is important to note that although acceptable organohalogen wastes may
. .
have a relatively ,narrow range of elemental composition.' a wide range of
toxicities may. occ~. 'l'berefore. Shell ChellLical Company' wastes may not 'be
representative of residue toxicity.' specifically the toxicity of unburn~d
organohalogens.
Land-based il1cineration, especially in urban areas (Chapter 2), may be a
. .
greater direct threat ,to public health; consequently, remoteness of the
proposed site further ensures reduction of all potential' adverse impacts.
While at-sea incineration does not decrease the tox!city of waste residues.
the probability of short-term impacts or any direct threat to public health is
lessened by the extreme dilutions ,which occur through this disposal method.
PUBLIC AHD SBIP1S0ARD PDSORREL
.
;
'l'be MPRSA mandates that, when feasible, EPA should designat~ ocean disposal
sites which are bey,ond the, edge of the Continental Shelf. 'l'be proposed site
is located more than 100 ami (185 kID) offshore, to provide protection against
any direct public health hazards occurring in or near populated coastal areas.
Shipboard personnel who conduct incineration operations a~e cognizant of
safety procedures for the handling and transport of haza;.dous materials,
.. '
.
4-2
. ......~..-"._.. ~.
. ..- '-. I i- .'.. "7''''''''''~ .-' ",' ".~:7';"':"" ,....-.::...~
r": ~:-... ""~-"r'" ".
.. -,"-' ---
-------
'.'~ ~..- '''''' .~-_..-. .... .~. .
" ...-...a...""--~-'~- ;-
O'..--.. ..oo .. ~ ...- ".
promulgated by the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG). Atmospheric coucentrations of
residual materials will be high near the ~essel during incineration; thus, the
incinerator vessel must be downwind of all known maritime traffic to prevent
atmospheric contmnination f~ drifting over other ships. Due to the extreme
distance from shore, it is unlikely that any s=all recreational craft will be
transiting the area.
COASTAL IECUATIONAL ABEAS
'The only known or estimable effects on the commercial and recreational
value of coastal. areas, or on people using such areas during or after
incineratiou activities, would result from accidental discharges of wastes at
loading times, or during trausit to the disposal' site. Any discharges or
spills near coastal commercial and recreational' areas would, result in
localized destruction of marine organisms and possible widespread contmni-
nation. 'l'hti nature and maguitude of destruction of organisms and coutmni-
natiou would be depen4ent on the ~oxicity of each specific 'waste in the marine
8uviroameut, modes of effect, 'the degradabiiity (detoxicatiou) of the w~ste,
. ..
and the mnount discharged. CODsequently, the incinerator ship should be
routed to avoid' areas of high commercial and recreatioual value as much as
practicable. All EPA aud USCG precautions for the haudling of wastes must be
strictly observed.
COMHERCIAL AND IECUATIORAL 1'1S1I AND !mr.T.t.1I'ISB
the most direct' link betweeu man and waste contaminants released into
marine euviroameut is through the food chain, by humau consumption of coutami-
nated seafood. . Harmful effects caused by eating fish or shellfish which
contain high levels of mercury, lead, or persisteut synthetic orgaaic
substances, have beeu documented. However, comparative trace metal
quautities known to be released at the nearby l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal
Site. (Table 1-2) have caused no detectable accumulation of metals in marine
organisms (EPA, 1980a).
Waste disposal at the propo~ed Incineratiou Site will not directly eudauger
human health by contaminating edible organisms, because the site is not
.
4-3
."O"-....---' .
'O'-.. - ..-" _.O' .
- " .--.- - ~..
. . ....~-...,....-......~.-.
......:' .._..~~....~........,.-
. -...---- .._-~-.- .-..--
-.-oo-..... - ---...
-------
. . ................. ~ t. . .' .
." ,_..~-_......._. *
4'__""'~ .
....----_..
~..'"'--o..._-. -*--
.. -.. .. . .
~
located in any cOllll1ercially or. 'recreationally important fishing or shell-
fishing areas. Existing N9AA resource survey assessments do not extend beyond
the Continental Shelf, but densities 'of fish eggs and larvae are known to be
low beyond the edge of the Shelf (NOAA, 1977). Foreign fishermen in latG.
winter operate along the Continental Shelf break, approximately 30 ami (60 km)
west of the proposed site (Figure 3-3), and usually .catch highly migratory
finfish. The probability of migratory fish accumulating toxic levels of
contaminants from the waste is unknown, but assumed to be low. '!be waters are
extremely deep, thus the likelihood of adverse effects on benthic organisms is
/
remote. However, various physical and biological processes might eventually
introduce minutely diluted contaminant concentrations in benthic organisms,
which could increase with time to produce long-term sublethal effects.
KAVIGATIONAL 1U'1.AR1\S
incinerating hazardous chemical wastes must obey all USCG
are designed to reduce the likelihood of sinking and to
. .
minimize the loss of hazardous cargos caused by collisions o~ strandings. ~e
. .
greatest risks exist in or near harbors and n~arshore shipping lanes, where
possible collisions are the' most probable. On tbe bigh seas and in the
vicinity, of the proposed Incineration Site, collision risks are greatly
reduc ed.
U. S. flag ships
regulations, which
USCG casualty statistics for lar~e vessels' (1,000 ~r088 tOD8 or lar~er)
durin~ fiscal years 1974 through 1978 at fou~ major east coast ports show
that all collisions have occurred within inland waters. 'l'he four ports
were: (1) New York Barbor, (2) Camden, New Jersey, (3) Wilmington, New
Jersey, and (4) Wilmin~ton, North Carolina. Of 350 reported ~cident8, 73%
occurred in or near New York Barbor, 23% in the Delaware Bay region, and 3%
in or near the Wilmington Harbor, North Carolina (USCG, 1979).
Comparatively, records indicate that only 44 vessels reported damages
sustained in international waters of the northwest Atlantic Ocean (USCG code
areas T-23 and T-30).
Of the 44 vessels, none were involved in,collisions and
4-4
. -. ''''---~:--:'''---:-'-,'
. "''''--.'' - ......_--_._~,-
-------
..-.--.-.....' .. ...~-,-
,'-.',
none contained hazardous chemical cargos. Adverse weather conditions were
major contributory factors in vessel daaage in 34% of the reports. Mechanical
malfunctions accounted for 41% of the primary causes of damage. 14% were due
to personnel misjudgment. and the remaining 11% were due either to structural
failure or unknown causes.
The potential economic and .eaviroamental hazards created by spillage.
leakage due to collision, or grounding, greatly exceed the potential hazards
of at-sea incineration. Therefore, in accordance with the permit condition
requiring notification of regulatory agencies (e.g., USCG). shipments of
hazardous waste. materials will be protected against navigational hazards by
regul~tion of sailing times, advantage taken of optimal traffic and weather
conditions, and warning local shipping traffic 0 f the arovement 0 f an
incinerator vessel.
WASTE COMPONENTS
. .
. .
The major components of:' the organochlorine wastes produced by Shell
Chemicd Company are listed in Table 4-1. The wastes acc1Jll1ulate from the
1 manufacture of allyl chlor~~_e, epichl~ride, dichloride. and. vinyl chloride.
According to WastIer et a1. (1975) the organochlorine waste materials
cO'Dsisted primarily of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons of low molecular
weights, having a gross heat content of 3,860 Xcallkg (6,950 Btu/lb). Analyses
of the Shell Chemical Company wastes show that in addition to carbon.
hydrogen', and chlorine, several metals exist in the waste in trace concen-
trations (Table 4-1).
-<;,;-
Other waste.producti~ sources will generate different waste materials. but
any organochlorine waste conforming to EPA regulations (Appendix B) will have
similar elemental composition, and will produce similar waste residues. EPA
will ensure elemental compositions are within acceptable concentration limits,
although few specific limiting criteria have been established to regulate such
concentrations. . Bowever. variations in elemental concentrations may be
.-..
4~.5
. -..-. .....,.--------.
)
. ...~.- .. --....
.n ..':""""'.'t"-..,-
,r
-------
"h_'- --*--'..
. ..' ~..._- ..._~~,-
.-~_......
-_...._.._~.
. .
'rABLI 4-1
HA.roa COMPOBERTS 01' OKGANOCBLOUNE WAST! HM:'DIAL
III US1WI.CJI BUDS (Percent by Weight)
~
Percent
Clemical Research Research
Burn I Burn II
1,2,3~Trichloropropane 27 28
Tetrachloropropyl ether 6 6
1,2-Dichloroethane 11' 10
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 13 13
Dichlorobutanes, and heavier 11 10
Dichloropropenes, and lighter 20 22
Allyl chloride 3 3
Dich1orohydrin~ 9 8
- -
Total - 100
100
Specific gravity (25.1') 1.30 1.29
Source: . Wastler et al., 1975
TABLE 4-2
1r.T 1MorrAL ANALYSES 01' WAST!
III 'USEARCH BuaNS I and II, 1974'
Waste
Composition
Research
.Burn 1,
.
Research
Burn II
Noumetals (percent by weight)
Carbon
Hydrogen'
Oxygen
Chlorine
.' 29.0
4.0
4.0
63.0
'. 29.3
4.1
3.7
. 63.5
Metals (ppm)
Copper
Chromium
Rickel
Zinc
Lead
Cadmium
Arsenic
Mercury
0.51
0.33
0.25.
0.14
0.05
0.0014
0.01
0.001
1.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.06
0.001
0.01
0.002
Source:
Wastler et al., 1975
4-6
. .,.~...... -,., ,.' -.' '. ." ',. ,." '.. - -, "'---,""'"'''' -- '..' ,. .,.~,~-..,.....: -_....-
-------
.~ '.., . '
.......-..... .
--- "-- L ..
----- - - .------ .
, '
significant. For example, analyses. 0 f She 11 Chemical Company wastes
incinerated during Researcb Burns! and II (Table 4-2) show that metals were
found to be one to three orders of magnitude lower than comparable reported
metals found in wastes incinerated during Research Burn III (Table 4-3).
-
Evidence e,xists indicatin~ some wastes will produce organic residual
,
compounds which were not present in the original waste. After incineration
of Herbicide Orange waste in the Pacific Ocean, numerous (previously
unidentified) compounds were found in analysis of stack emissions (Ackerman
et a1., 1978).
Baaed on research burn data of Shell Chemical Company's waste incineration
in the Gulf of Mexico, Paige et ale (1978) estimated anticipated air and water
quality effects (Table 4-4) U8ing~emis8ion rates of Research Burn III. Stack
gas emissions which may damage the marine environment are HC1 (exhausted in
large quantities), unburned organochlorides, and trace metals.
'tABLE 4-3
ELEHD'IAL ANALYSIS OF WASTE HATEUAL Am) CAI.C1JLAIED APPROXIMATE
EHISSt01!l KATES OF IN01l.GAHIC n~s DURING USUJlCR BURN III, 1977
Concentration Calculated Concentration Calculated
in Waste !1IIi 88 ion in Waste Emission
Element (ppm) Rate (kg/hr) Element (ppm) . Rate (kg/hr)
Lead 5.0 - 20.0.. 0.1 - 0.4 Nickel 10.0 - 100.0 0.2 - 2.0
Barium 10.0, - 20.0 0.2 - 0.4 Cobalt 1.0 - 5.0 0.02 - 0.1
Iodine 2.0 - 4.0 0.04 - 0.09 Iron 30.0 - 400.0 0.7 - 9.0
Silver 1.0 - 8.0. o.of - 0.2 Manganese 1.0 - 5.0 0.02 - ,0.1
Molybdenum 10.0 - 20.0 0.2 '- 0.4 Chromium 5.0 - 200.0 0.1 - 4.0
Zirconium 1.0 - 5.0 0.,02 - 0.1 Titanium 10.0 - 20.0 0.2 - 0.4
Strontium ' 5.0 - 30.0 0.1 - 0.7 Scandium 0.1 - 1.0 0.002 - 0.,02
Rubidium 0.5 - 1.0 0.01 - 0.02 Potassium 300.0 7.0
Bromine 5.0 - 10.0 0.1 - 0.2 Sulfur 30.0 - 60.0 0.7 - 1.0
Selenium 1.0 - 5.0 0.02 - 0.1 Silicon 90.0 - 100.0 2.0
Arsenic 1.0 - 5.0 0.02 - 0.1 Aluminum 10.0 - 50.0 0.2 - 1.0
Gallium 0.5 - 2.0 0.01 - 0.04 Fluorine 10.0 - 50'.0 0.2 - 1.0
Zinc, 10.0 - 30.0 0.2 - 0.7 Boron 1.0 - 10.0 0.02 - 0.2
Copper 10.0 - 30.0 0.2 - 0.7 Lithium 0.5 - 2.0 0;01 - 0.04
~
4-7
... . - ~ .-, ..... -
-------
. -'---'--->-- '.
. ..
---~.._.
..---------.
. ,
---
Air Qualitya (~g/m3) Water Quality (ppb)
b Unburned d Unburned
RCl Inorganics c Copper gCl Wastes Copper
Wastes
4,422 22.49 2.75 0.22 197 Q.09 0'.04
TABU 4-4
SmefArl 01' !fA.JOR An AND WATn QUALITY EmC'rS .
ASSOCIATED WIn AT-'SEA IBCINERAnON
a.
Maxima for stipulated meteorological conditions:
125.5 m, wind spee~ . 4.0 mis, stable atmospbere.
effective stack beight .
b.
Based on summation of inorganic constituet'ts ,in wastes;
estimate of p~rticulate concentrations. .
provides
an
5-
c.
Based on lowest' average observed destruction efficiencies (99.96%),
determined by different analysis methods.
d.
,
Copper and zinc are the metallic waste constituents witb large emission
rates (Table 4-3).
Source:
Paige et al., 1978
EFFECTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM.
Before. substances are 'approved for incineration, tbe degradability and
. breakdown products of those substances must be determined, togetber with any
combustion products. 'l'he uncertain degradabilities o-f many organic' residue
substances, wbicn must be considered, cause possibilities of long-term .
accumulations. For example, substances such as PCB and DDT are known to
persist in the envirotlment for many' years, thus posing the potential for
direct tbreats to human healt~ when accumulated in the food chain. PCB's may
also be contaminated with highly toxic polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDF).
Some substances degrade into more toxic material than tbe precursors, and
others produce new compounds as a result of incineration. Therefore, each
waste material must be considered for incineration on a case-by-case basis. A
great deal of additional information is needed to make accurate predictions of
tbe fate and effect of organic residues (Chapter 2).
In addition to organ~c residues ,sev.eral i"norganic residues will result
from the incineration process. Otber comb~stio1i products associlLted with
I._A
-------
_.~._-_.
- -. ....---.-.......
. -.. ..4 .-
orRanochlorine
wastes are
carbon
monoxicie
(co),
carbon
dioxide
(C02)'
vater (H20), hydrochloric add' (HCl) , and chlorine (C12)' Emissions
from some wastes may contain Bul fur dioxide (502)" phosphorus pent oxide
(P20S), and/or .ni t ro~en oxides (NOx) and trace metals in a . gaseous
phase.
Puture incineration operations may result in the expansion of this
alternative when increasing quantities of hazardous wastes become available.
As a result, a mare continuous (chronic) stream of residue may be introduced
into the marine enviroument. This slow, continuous . input may produce subtle
enviroumental impacts, less noticeable than short-term, rapid (acute) inputs
. .
associated 'with individual operations.
By 1989 approximately 27.1,000 tonnes of organohalogen vastes may be'
available annually for .at-sea inciner.ation '0££ the east coast o£ the United
States (Table 1-3). Assuming a.m~imum Aelivery potent~al o£ 193,000 tonnes
. .
of wastes and a minimum 99.99% destruction efficiency, approximately 19 tonnes
of organohalogens could possibly be introduced into the marine enviroament
annually as atmospheric fallout from incineration. Research burns have shown
destruction efficiencies to be as low as 99.96%, in which case annual organo-
chlorine emissiona of about 77 tonnes may occur by 1989 (Table 2-3).
Residues from incinerated chemical wastes will be dispersed throughout vast
volumes o£ air and water. An assumed worst-case o£ 77 tonnes of organo-
chlorine residuals, resulting from a 99'.96% destruction efficiency (Table
2-3), will be distributed through about 32 x lOll m3 of water in the time
period required to buru the waste (8,773 hr), assuming a 17 =1 s average
surface current ve~ocity and nonstoP.' incineration operations for the entire
193,000 tonnes of waste material with mixing to 20m.; or with mixing to 100m,
waste will be distributed through about 66 x '1011 m3 of vater.
~
.Based on the Ekman Transport Model:
and Von Arx, 1961)
D
V . VoW 'IIJ"2
-Z1r
(l-el)
(Ekman, 1963, '.
4-9
.. 0"'" .,.... . ... '. ..
.. . . ...' -- . ... '"
. .. ..., ,.,
.... .... ,..
.-.. .. ... . .....".
._.-.-..-. ..
-------
. . ......., ...... .". .
. . .'
... .-..--".--.-.- '-". ...._._._----~..
. .---..-.
. .--'------
..-'----.
, -
An QUALm
-;;;..
Air quality will be affected by gaseous emissions (primarily RC1, unburned
organochlorines, and trace metals) produced during waste incineration.
Dispersal of emission material is part~al,ly a function of wind speed. The
emissions will rise into the atmosphere, forming a gaseous plume which will b~
transported by wind and dispersed by' diffusion processes (Figure 1-3).
Prevailing atmospheric conditions will affect plume behavior significantly.
Under stable atmosph~ric conditions (as in dispersion modeling) the plume
would upand in all directions above the ocean surface to a maximum of 32 mni
(59 km) from the point of origin (Paige et al., 1978). Rowever, recorded burn
observations 'reveal that the waste plumes behave erratically, contacting tbe
water surface in a random manner (TerEco, 1975), with initial contact
occurring as near as 0.2 ai (0.4 lcm) downwind of the incinerator vessel
(Wastler, et al., 1975). Maximal altitude obtained by, the plume during tbe
1974 Re~earcb Burn II was 850m, with maximal RCl concentrations occu=rins at
altitudes of 1()0 to 240m between the ship, and 400m downwind. The plume
-fanned'out horizontally to a width of 1,20Om at a distance of 2,400m downwind
from the vessel (Wastler et al., 1975).
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
Studies conducted during research burns of Shell Chemical Company wastes
showed that approximately 16 tonne/br of RC1 are released tnto the atmosphere
during, a burn of 2S tonne/br, of waste, having approximately 63% chlorine
content (EPA, 1976a). Monitoring during Gulf of ~ico Research Burns I and
II showed that maximal air/sea surface concentrations of RCl occurred 400 to
500m downwind of the incineration vessel in winds of 10 kn, and ,as far as
2,78Om in winds of 201m. Grasshoff (1974) calculated dispersal of RC1 in
moderate winds to be over an area of at least 250,000 m2, which is a highly.
. ,
conservative' estimate in comparison to the EPA (1976b) estimate of 22 x
106 m2.
Paige et ale (1978) produced simulation models of tbe behavior of waste
constituents, including RC1. The air quality simulation model predicts a
,maximal air/sea surface RC1, concentration of 2.9 ppm, at 2.2 mni (4 1'c:m)
4-10
. ...-- .-- ..
-------
. .4' ....... ...........
. -- -_._- .-. ---....,
. -. ,.-. -
downwind 'of the incinerator vessel.
Maximal concentrations were observed to
range from 0.01 to 7.0 ppm, at distances ranging from 0.25 to 0.5 ami (463 to
925m) from the incinerator vessel several minutes after stack emission during
the two 1974 research b,urus (Wastler et al., 1975). The predicted
- .
concentration is in close agreement with observed concentrations, indicating
the usefulness of the predictive models.
'!he most severe atmospheric acid fallout will occur during periods of
precipitation, but no calculated data are available to determine the effects.
However. concentrated acid wastes released at the Acid Waste Disposal Site in
the New York Bight dissipate rapidly (within hours), and have only transitory
adverse impacts on marine organisms (EPA, 1980b}.
tTNB11BN!D OB.GANOBALOGEHS
tTndestroyed (unburned) organohalogen wastes will ,be released with stack
emiss\ons at a rate of' 0.04% (or. le~s) of the waste-burn flow rate. For
example, if the ~aste flow rate is 22 toune/hr .(fo.r two incinerators).
.~pproximately 8.8 kg/hr of undestroyed "waste will be releas.ed into the'
enviroament. These compounds do not condense as rapidly as HC1, and therefore
require more time to' reach the water surface. permittin~ greater atmospheric
. dispersion (G~asshoff. 1974). The simulation model pres~nted by Paige et ale
(1978) predicted a maximal atmospheric concentration of 2.75 ~/m3 (0.51 ppb)
at the sea surface 4,000lIl downwind of the ship. EPA (1976b) predicted a
maximal sea surface concentration settling rate of 1 mg/m2/hr. if all unburned
waste residue settles within 1 hour after emission., based on a destruction
efficiency only of 99.9%.
~
Duce and Kester (Appendix D) coucluded that for residual compounds such aa
trichloroethane with emission rates. of ~.8 kg/hr, one shipload of waste will
contribute only about 10% of the quantity already existing within the
;
atmosphere of the site. However, for campounds such as PCB or DDT, a more
significant input is seen. The quantity of PCB released duriDg incineration
(assuming 99.96% DE) would be approximately 100 times greater than background
levels observed over the site, and a few tenths ofa percent of the total
content of the northern hemi~phere. lor DDT the resulting emissions would be
f'
, .
4-11
. -. ....-.. ..
... . ...__-e.
.. .. ." .. .-
~. .... -. .-. -.....-." - . -
... . ... .. .. .. .
... ----.-. --.
. ... -. -.... -,.
-. .~.-- - .- -- ..:.~ -,.- .
.~... >, - ""'----f"'"' ~ .....-...
.---- ... -p--
-----....----. --
-------
. .,"-.-.--.
..
. ..--u...----...~...I.
. -- ---..-.... ...... l..
.-.._.~~...
,--'...- .~.- J.__.- _._~._~_.
over 1,000 times the background level observed over the Incineration Site, and
about 10% of the estimated northern ~emisphere level. Clearly, wastes which
are to be considered for incineration must be assessed on a case-by-case
basis.
~
With res1>ect to the residence time of unburned chlorinated hydrocarbons in
the gas phase, the unburned compounds must first be identified. If the waste
material is Rerbicide Orange, which was the case during burns aboard the M/T
VULCANUS in the Pacific Ocean, it consistS of a mixture of equal parts by
volune of the n-butyl esters of 2,4-dichl?rophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and of
2,4,S-trichlorophenox.yacetic acid (2,4,S-T). Oth~r burns in the Gulf of
, .
Mexico' have been primarily of. such substances as 1,2, 3-trichloropropane,
dichloropropane, dichloroprope~e, trichloroethane, dichloroethane, and other
chlorinated hydrocarbons of low molecular weights (Paige et al., 1978). !here
is currently little information available on tbe atmospheric residence time
for most of the compounds listed above. However, estimates have been made for
other somewhat similar ciilorinated hydro'carbons. Some. general estimates 0;
. .
possible residence tim~s f~r the substances can be o~tained by 're~iewing the
. .
known residence times for the other chlorinated hydrocarbons and making some
simple comparisons with the chemical structure of the unknown compounds.
As pointed out by the National Academy of Sciences (1978), the chemical and
physical properties of low molecular-weight chlorinated hydrocarbons (Cl - C3)
are greatly different from ,the high molecular-weight chlorinated hydrocarbon
herbicides, pesticides, and industrial chemicals such as PCB's. Any low
molecular-weight chlorinated hydrocarbon containing unsaturated carbon-carbon
bonds (e.g., CRCl . CC12) will have brief residence times generally on the
order of hours in the atmosphere, due to their high rea~tivity (N~, 1978) and'
involvement in, photochelldcal smog-type reactions (e.g., NOX' 03' OR,. etc..).
Low molecular-weight chlorinated hydrocarbons with'saturated C-C bonds (i.e..
no double or triple bonds) will have much longer res,idence times, as hey ~re
quite' resistant to most chemical reactions. These substances are fairly
insoluble in seawater. It is generally believed that they are ultimately
destroyed in the atmosphere via reactions with the OR (hydroxyl) radical,
which is photochemically produced.
f'
4-12
-------
~. . -_.- -.. ., .
.....-....................
...- .---..... --....
. "----.. ......---,-....--':'-'- -.--
._.-.
---..-. - -....- ... -.- . .
Table 4:-5 presen~s es~ima~es for the atmospheric residence times of
trichloroethane .and several chlorina~ed methane compounds. While there are
considerable varia~ions in the estima~es for any individual substance, all of
the residence times are long in terms of. atmospheric ,transport processes,
ranging from 3 months to more than 10 years. For trichloroethane, one of the
substances which have been burned on M/T VULCANUS in the past, residence time
has been estimated at 1 to 11 years, with the higher .estimates obtained more
recently. Thus, it would be expected that many saturated low molecular-weight
chlorinated hydrocarbons injected unchanged into the atmosphere might have
atmospheric residence times on the order of months .to years, and could be,
subject to at least hemispheric, and perhaps global-scale transport.
.s
residence time of compounds'
2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. It is
fairly rapid hydrolysis: in
There are no data available on the atmospheric
limi~ar in s~ructure to the. a-butyl es~ers of
expected that the compounds Would be subjected to
tbe atmosphere.
TABLE 4-5
LI'I'E1LATO'RE VALUES FOB. pm. ES'rIHA'I'ED .
A'J:HOSPHERIC RESIDENCE 'rIMES FOB. cm.ORINA'I'ED RYDROCADONS
. .
Estimated
Formula Name Residence Time Reference
C~-CC13 Tricbloroethane .or 8-10 years Singh e~ al., 1979
metbyl chloroform
...6 years Derwent and Eggletou, 1978
1.1 years Cox et a1., 1976
11 years Chang and Penner, 1978
~Cl Me~byl cbloride ...3 montbs Atkinson et a1., 1976
2-3 years Singh et a1., 1979
2-3 years . Derwent and Eggleton', 1978
- 5 montbs Cox et a1.,~ 1976
.
I
CRC1) Chloroform -1 year Derwent and Eggletot1", 1978
... 3 mon~bs Cox e~ a1., 1976
C~C12 Metbylene dichloride -1 year Derwent and Eggleton, 1978
-4 montbs Cox et al., 1976
C12C1X pC! 1-3 montbs Bidleman et a1., 1976
- DDT 1-3 months Bidleman e~ a1., 1976
.
~
4-13
..... .... ..... .,.-,.,.. ..... .
..... .. ......
.. ..."...." .
. -. ~..-_. .- -
.. -.' '-:---.--"""--'-'-'1'"". ,..,.. ..' . .
. .... - -_. -- .~
-------
-- -". '.....". ,...'. ,., -.. .' . ~ '... ,-..
, ..- ,~-, ~-
. -
-. ''''''''.-.'''.'' -------
. ,...- ~
.' , '" '-'" ,_. .
The atmospheric residence time for PCB's has been estimated at 1 to 3
months. Similar residence times have been estimated for DDT. '!he unburned
components of Herbicide. Orange (2,4-D and 2,4,5-T) would be expected to have
residence t~es considerably less than this, perh~ps on the order of days. It
must. be emphasized, however, that no data are available on these compounds
(Duce and Kester, Appendix D).
~
Junge (1977) has pointed out that non-urban air compounds having vapor
pressures greater tnan 106 to 107 DIm Hg under ambient conditions will
.
generally be found primarily in the gas phase, rather than attached to
particles. The saturated vapor pre.sure of the n-butyl ester ~f 2,4-D at 27°C
is 4 x 103 DIm Hg (Que Hee et al., 1975). This material, and all the low
molecular-weight chlorinated hydrocarbons discussed previo~sly, should be
found' almost entirely in the v'apor phase in the atmosphere, rather than
attached to particles. Actual measurements' have shown this to be the case of
PCB's and DDT over the North Atlantic as well (Bidleman et al., 1976).
TRACE METALS
Metals in stack emissions are generally in the form of inorganic
particulates, such as salts or oxides. The quantity of metal salts or
'oxides in the plume ~s independent of combustion or desttuction efficiency,
and is direc.tly. proportional to the ori~inal metal content of the waste.
Worst-case calculations indicate that for wastes with metal concentrations
similar to Shell C21emical Company wasLes (Table 4-3), the maximal sea
surface concentration of inorganic particulates will be approximately 26
ug/m3 , or 10 times lower than EPA primary heal th standards for
particulates (U.S. Department of State and EPA, 1979). Metals will exist
in inorganic particulates in much lower concentrations. For example,
chromium is a pronounced constituent (Table 4-3), and is predicted to occur
at sea level concentrations of 1,200 ng/m3 (0.6 ppb) 4,000111 downwind of
the vessel. This concentration is found to be 25 to 12,000 times higher
than the expected background concentrations (Table 4-6). All metals are
found to exceed back~round level at the sea surface location of hi$thest
atmospheric concentration, 4,00Om downwind.
4-14
. ,- , .""'..
'. '.. "~-'-'~"'." - ,,-, ....'- ,,-.~, " ..- -
,- -~'------'
-------
.. ."'.4''''__- -.----........l.
......... '"'..-~'_.''' .... . .
-. . -'. .... ..
.""'.
TABLE 4-6
PUDIC"rED ATHOSPBEB.IC CONCDnAnONS OP' SE1.ECTED B;EAVY HETALS
Metal
Ezpected Background
Conce~tration
(ng/m at STP)
Model Predicted Maximum
Sea Leve13Concentration
(ng/m at STP)
Cu
Zn
Pb
As
Co
Cr
Hi
0.5 20.0
2.0 - 100.0
10.0 - 200.0
0.05 - 5.0
0.01 - 0.5
0.1 50.0
0.05 - 50.0
220
220
120
30
30
1,200
620 .
STP . Standard Temperature and Pressure
Source: Paige et al., 1978
Duce and Kester (Appendix D) estimated order of magnitude inputs of these
beavy metals by assuming tbat the major mass of these mc:als resides on
atmospbe~ic particles less than 1 pm in diameter, which probably have dry
de.position velocities of 0.05 .to 1.0 em/ s. 'l'tte. resulting. estimated areal
. fluxes are given in Table 4-7. .
WATER QUALITY
After introducti011 into aDd subsequent dispers~on by tbe atmospbere, tbe
vaste products are subject to removal from the atmosphere by two processes:
(1) precipitation (e.g., rain or snowfall), and (2) gravitational settling and
turbulent and diffusive transfer (e.g., dry deposition). As a result of tbese
processes, the residual materials will undergo tremendous dilution and will
descend and contact the vater surface downwind of the incinerator vessel. Tbe
previous discussion of air quality provides estimates of maximal concen-
.
trati011s ezpected to affect the vater surface. 'l'beoretical and observed
~
values are in close agreement.
Paige et ale (1978) empbasize their model is conservative and assume 100%
of the emitted plume constituents are dissolved in a specified volume of
vater. Under actual conditions, some. of the plume constituents remain
4-15
"
. ........ ....-......-...u.. ......-.........,
. . -... ..._. . .
... ..'."...'. - - --.-,-........ . '. . -........ . . . .
. .. ,... ..... -..
.. -.. - -- ,_._.~.-. .-.-. ,
.-+-:-... '.'''''''''''''--''- ,.'
-- -~-. ---' --
-------
TABLE 4-7
PREDICTED FLUXES OF CHLORIHATED HYDROCARBONS TO TEE OCEAK
Compound
Triehloroethane
PCB
DDT
Total Mass
Released at
Burn Site
(g/hr)
8,800
8,800
8,800
*Model Predicted
Maximum Concentration
(106g/m3 STP)
2.5
2.5
2.5
• Maximum Gas
Flux to the
Ocean
(g/cm2/s)
4 x 10-15
4 x lO'13
4 x 10-13
Total Flux
into the
Ocean
(g/br)
0.2
20
20
Sources: Duce and Kester, Appendix D; *Paige et al. (1978)
airborne for a substantial distance downwind, preventing interaction of wastes
with seawater in the vicinity of the vessel. If interaction of plume
constituents and seawater does take place farther downwind, constituent
concentrations will be lower than predicted. Comparatively, a water quality
impact estimation is presented for organohalogens, based on a waste loading
model which assumes dispersion of all residual wastes' over the entire surface
area of the site to a depth of 20m during the incineration of a shipload of
wastes. However, the model does not account for the transport of water or
"flushing effect" during the same period.
Duce and Kester (Appendix D) present a worst-case estimate of residual
. i
organohalogen loading in the water at the site, using a conservative model
which restricts residue dispersion and dilution within a small area of the
site, to a depth of 20m. This estimation predicts seawater waste residue
concentrations resulting during the 4-hour initial mixing period. Using this
model waste loading, estimates produce values several factors above EPA water
quality criteria (EPA, 1976a).
Should an eddy persist in the region for a prolonged period, several
successive incineration operations could allow residue input to be trapped
within a relatively small water mass, permitting cumulative loading within the
eddy.
4-16
-------
HYDROCHLORIC ACID (HC1) AND CHLORINE
Grasshoff (1974) presents anticipated HC1 emission concentrations for
\
burned wastes, and estimates the acid fallout per square meter of water
surface per hour. By modifying the estimates to fit previous Shell Chemical
Company waste quantities of 25 tonne/hr of waste burned, containing
approximately 632 chlorine, HC1 emissions would be approximately 16 tonne/hr.
The estimate is comparable to the calculated value of 17 tonne/hr reported by
EPA (1976b). Moderate wind speeds will disperse the waste plume over a sea
2
surface area of at least 250,000 m before HC1 condenses and falls to the
water surface. The estimates indicate that for a worst case approximately 65
g HCl/m /hr will fall on the affected sea surface.
One cubic meter of seawater is capable of neutralizing 80 g BC1 (80 ppm).
Paige et al. (1978) predicted that with a 20m mixed layer depth the resultant
HC1 concentration would be 0.197 ppm (neglecting neutralization). The
neutralization reaction results in carbon dioxide, boric acid, and chloride
ions through the following general reactions (Grasshoff, 1974):
. HC03" + HC1—r—C02 * HjO + Cl~
C03* + 2 HC1 ' C02 + HjO + 2 Cl"
Seawater pH normally ranges- between 7.8 and 8.4, Samples of seawater
collected at Research Burn I and II control stations showed ambient surface pH
values of 8.20 to 8.39. To 'determine the effect of waste plume acid on
ambient pH, water samples were collected at locations affected by the plume.
The pH values ranged from 8.28 to 8.39. Results of approximately'100 samples
showed no significant difference between affected areas and control station
area samples. The greatest change observed was 0.15 pH unit, which is well
within the acceptable water quality pH range of 6.5 to 8.5, or maximal change
from ambient value of 0.2 pH unit (EPA, 1976a).
4-17
-------
The maximal atmospheric concentration of HC1 detected during all monitoring
surveys was 7 ppm, which corresponded to a 1.9 x 10 molar HC1 solution with a
pH of 3.7. If equal volumes of atmospheric HCl and seawater at pH 8.2 and
alkalinity of 2.57 meq/1 are combined, the resultant solution will have a pH
of 7.4 and alkalinity of 2.34 meq/1. This example illustrates Che resultant
pH in the top several micrometers of sea surface, with no subsequent mixing or
dilution. This is clearly not the case. Turbulent motion will immediately
mix microdroplets of HCl into a volume of water with orders of magnitude
greater than a 1:1 ratio. Thus, no detectable pH shift is expected to occur,
and in the field only slight shifts were observed in a small number of
samples.
North Atlantic water contains an average of 20g chloride ions (Cl ) per
3 2
liter, or 20 kg/m . The 65 g/m of chloride ions due to acid fallout will
•>3
increase the chloride ion content of 1.0 m of seawater by a factor of 0.3Z,
which is insignificant in terms of the ambient chloride content (Grasshoff,
1974).
Turbulence in the ocean produces vertical mixing even in deep water,' which
greatly enhances the ability of. seawater to absorb the HCl flux rapidly.
During summer, when the mixed layer is shallowest, mixing may be limited to
the upper 20m; during winter, mixing may occur to a +100m depth.
Additionally, horizontal currents increase mixing, consequently, the quantity
of HCl falling hourly on the sea surface may be anticipated to disperse
through a volume, of water many times greater than its surface area (Grasshoff,
•
1974). The decrease in pH will be insignificant and well within acceptable
limits. Research burn studies show maximal decreases of 0.15 pH units below
ambient values, which is less than the EPA limit of 0.2 units.
Chlorine gas (Cl.) is produced during the incineration of organochlorine
wastes. Measurements in the Gulf of Mexico showed Cl. emissions ranging from
less than 10 ppm to 360 ppm, with an average concentrations below 200 ppm
(Wastier et al., 1975). At an incineration rate of 22 tonne/hr, less than 4.4
kg/hr-Cl. is anticipated to be emitted with other residues.
4-18
-------
After release, Cl- will be rapidly dispersed by atmospheric turbulence and
photochemically decomposed during daylight hours. Atmospheric turbulence will
promote the atmospheric suspension of Cl., reducing the exchange rate at.the
water surface. Under conditions of extreme calm (such as during a windless
night) only, will the relatively dense Cl.. concentrate near the water surface.
\
Zafiriou (1974) examined the photochemistry of diatomic halogens in the
marine atmosphere. He reported a calculated mean lifetime for Cl. of about
365 seconds (6 minutes), assuming there is overhead sun and unabsorbing
atmosphere. Under actual atmospheric conditions, photolytic dissociation
•rates may be more conservatively estimated as 10Z of dissociation rates under
ideal conditions, and predominant over absorption into aerosols. Conversely,
at night molecule-aerosol interactions become the dominant removal process.
Under nighttime conditions Cl- molecules may survive 1,000 to 2,000 seconds
before diffusion to a particle in a typical marine aerosol.
Dilution resulting from water circulation must be added to atmospheric
dispersion and dilution. Eddy diffusion and turbulence, created by ocean
currents will continually cause the -Cl- to be diluted. Although Cl. has .a
* — • * •
high solubility in seawater (50 g/1), it probably would enter the water column
slowly, either by diffusion across the air/sea interface, or as precipitation
with water droplets. The neuston and other near-surface organisms are the
most likely to be affected by the addition of Cl. to the water.
Toxicity of Cl. to organisms is a function of concentration and exposure
time. Exposure of marine organisms to Cl. concentrations of 10 mg/1 .or less
for prolonged periods will not present an adverse environmental condition
(EPA, 1976a). However, many planktonic organisms (such as fish eggs and
larvae) may be susceptible to concentrations lower than the EPA water quality
criteria. A survey of Cl. toxicity studies (NOAA, 1981) indicates that the
most sensitive planktonic organisms will exhibit severe and irreversible
damage when exposed to Cl. concentrations of 5 mg/1 after 48 hours-. In
studies of short-term (1 hour) exposures, lethal Cl. concentrations occurred
at 100 to 2,500 mg/1 for fish larval stages.
4-19
-------
A simple model can be constructed to approximate a worst-case example of
water column Cl, loading. In this model it is assumed that 1002 of the Cl.
generated (4.4 kg) during 1 hour of incineration (22 tonnes) is mixed in the
upper 10 cm of the water column within an elliptically shaped plume area of
10 2
2 x 10 cm . This worst-case scenario indicates that the Cl. concentration
within the neuston layer would be 22 mg/1. The resulting concentration is
220Z greater than the concentration permitted by the EPA water quality
criteria. However, in reality this concentration would never be obtained, and
would probably be several orders of magnitude lower, due to atmospheric
dispersion, photochemical dissociation, and water column dilution.
UOTDRNED ORGANOHALOGENS
o • .
j
Unburned organohalogens (including organochlorides) will reach the sea
surface in relatively high concentrations, but will then be diluted in the
seawater. Paige et al. (1978) predict a maximal air/sea surface concentration
of 2.75 ug/m (0.53 ppb) to occur 4,000m downwind of the vessel. On settling
in the water, Paige et al. (1978) calculate the residue will be diluted to
0.092 mg/m (0.092 ppb) if mixing is restricted to the surface area affected
during 1 hour of operations (3.6 x 10 m ) and a mixed layer depth of 20m.
Comparatively, if it is assumed that 100Z of the unburaed waste residue
generated in 191 hours of incineration operations (1,680 kg @ 99.96Z DE) is
a 1
diluted within'the upper 20m of the entire site (84.4 x 10 m ) after release,
a maximal concentration of 0.02 mg/m (0.02 ppb) will result from a single
shipload of waste, negating water transport during this period. Improving
destruction efficiency to 99.99* results in a maximal concentration of
0.005 mg/m (0.005 ppb). Results of research burn analyses show that
organochloride residue concentrations of surface water samples were always
below the minimum detection limit of 25 ppb.
By means of the plume model of Paige et al. (1978) and assuming: . (1) a
99.962 destruction efficiency, (2) a chlorinated hydrocarbon emission rate of
10 2
8.8 kg/hr, and (3) an elliptically shaped plume (area * 2 x 10 cm ) of high
concentration atmospheric chlorinated hydrocarbon residue over the ocean as a
result of incineration, Duce and Kester (Appendix D) predicted the maximum
areal and hourly flux of three chlorinated hydrocarbons into the ocean. These
fluxes are given in Table 4-7. ' ,
•
4-20
-------
. .. ~ .,' n.,'" -~. . . .
_.._---_.
Flax estimates indicate that airborne residues will require a substantial
period of time before the total mass released will actually settle into the
water column. Comparison with Table 4-5 suggests that 100% of the residual
materials will not settle out of the atmosphere for months or years, further
red~cing water quality impacts.
Water quality criteria established for several toxic organohalogens range
from 100 mg!m3 (2,4-D)to 0.001 mg/m3 PCB, DDT, 'Heptachlor, and others (EPA,
1976a) . '!'he maximal permissible concentrations can be maintained' during
incineration operations, by regulating waste concentrations taken aboard the
vessel and/or regulating waste burn-flow to rates permitting dest.ruction
efficiencies of 99.99% or more.
TRACE METALS
Quantities of trace metals co-ntained in wastes (considered passable for
ocean incineration) are clo.s~ly scrutinized ,and no permit is iss~ed for wa'ste '
which does not satisfy all criteria adopted by EPA. .
Using ,the model results of ~aige
tically shaped plume (area. 2 x
concentration forms over the ocean
et ale (1978) and assuming: (1) an ellip-
1010cm2) of high atmosphe'ric heavy metal
~_a result of incineration, and (2) heavy
metals concentrations in the elliptical region are approximately 80% of the
maximum .predicted by Paige et ale (197S) (Table 4-6), Duce and Kester
(Appendix D) predicted areal and hourly flux rates of heavy metals from
atmosphere to ocean. '!'he total masses of each heavy metal deposited in this
area by dry deposition and by rainfall in 1 hour are given in Table 4-8.
~
During Research Burn II copper was reported as the most highly concentrated,
metal present in the waste material, reaching '1.1 ppm. Seawater samples
collecte~ in control areas showed copper concentrat~ons ranging from Q.0046 to
0.0067 ppm, whereas samples collected in affected areas 3,34Om to 4,OSOm from
the incineration vessel ranged from 0.0022 to 0.0067 ppm. Results from
Research Burns I and II showed no statistically significant differences
between control and affected areas (TerEco, 1975).
II
(.
4-21
,- ,.., . ... ....". - ~ .. .. - .
. -- . .-., _..
.-- -- .--- ,-
'......-. .....--.....--..
-------
T
TABLE 4-8
PREDICTED AREAL AND HOURLY FLUXES OF SELECTED HEAVY METALS
Metal
Cu
Zn
Pb
As
Co
Cr
Nl
Areal Fluxes
Flux to Sea
Surface by Dry
Deposition
(ng/cur/s)
1.0 to 20
1.0 to 20
0.6 to 12
0.15 to 3
0.15 to 3
6.0 to 120
3.0 to 60
Flux to Sea
Surface by
Rainfall
(ng/cm2/a)
500 to 5,000
500 to 5,000
300 to 3,000
60 to 600
60 to 600
3.000 to 30.000
1.000 to 10,000
Hourly Fluxes
Flux into .Atmosphere'
from Burn Site
(g/hr)
700
700
400 .
100
100
4,000
2,000
Flux into Ocean
by Dry Deposition
(g/hr)
0.6 to 12
0.6 to 12
0.3 to 6
0.09 to 2
0.09 to 2
3.5 to 70
1.7 to 35
Flux into Ocean
by Rainfall
(g/hr)
300 to 3,000
300 to 3,000
200 to 2,000
40 to 400
40 to 400
2,000 to 20,000
1,000 to 10,000
tAdapted from Table 4-3
*Within a specified area of 2 x 10 cm2
Source: Duce and (tester, Appendix D
-------
ggygCTS OH BIOTA
Air and water quality are predicted to show no measurable adverse effects;
however, three waste residue constituents (HC1, unhurried organohalogens, and
metals) may have immediate (short-term), or delayed (long-term) adverse
impacts on organisms in the affected water.
Chlorinity, pH, organochlorines, and trace metals were monitored during
Research Burns I and II to evaluate both short-term and long-term effects on
organisms. . Additionally, chlorophyll _a_ and adenosine triphosphate (ATP)
concentrations were used to assess long-term effects. During Research Burn
III the enzymes catalase, ATPase, and Cytochrome P-450 were monitored to
evaluate short-term and long-term effects. The results of these analyses are
discussed below.
PLANKTON
Plankton consist of plants (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton) which
spend all or part of their lives floating or swimming weakly. Since
incineration effluents primarily affect the water, plankton represent the
first levels of the ecosystem where the biological effects might be observed.
Accordingly, studies of the effects of waste residues on planktonic organisms
have been conducted (TerEco, 1975).
Among the affected planktonic organisms, the neuston or near-surface
organisms are expected to be the most severely affected. Initial acid
neutralization and residue dilution will occur in the top few centimeters of
seawater; as mixing proceeds, dilution will increase. When mixing has
developed to approximately 20m deep, residues will be at or1 below detection
limits and concentrations of residual constituents will be orders of magnitude
below permissible potential short-term effect levels.
v
During Research Burns I and II short-term impacts on planktonic organisms
were inferred from changes observed in water quality parameters. TerEco
(197S) reported that no statistically significant differences were found
between control and affected water samples. It can be concluded that
4-23
-------
incineration will have no significant short-term adverse effects on planktonic
organisms. This conclusion is- supported by results of tests used to deduce
the long-term effects.
To determine long-term effects, the concentrations of copper, zinc, and
organochlorines were measured in phytoplanktonic samples collected in the
affected area of waste residue fallout (Table 4-9, Test 3). These were then
compared to the concentrations of the same parameters in phytoplanktonic
.samples from a control area (Table 4-9, Control 2). No significant
differences were observed between the affected area samples and the controls
(TerEco, 1975). .
V
Chlorophyll _£ and ATP levels in phytoplankton were examined to augment
long-term impact studies. Chlorophyll £ is a measurement of the phyto-
planktonic biomass; ATP is a biochemical substance essential to life processes
and is an indicator of the effect of pollutants* Phytoplanktonic samples
collected during Research Burns I and II showed no change in chlorophyll _a or
in ATP activity which co;uld be interpreted as deleterious long-term effects
produced by incineration activities (Wastler et al., 1975). .However, these
conclusions are based on samples with relatively low numbers of organisms (500
to 1,140 organisms per liter). Effects may be observable in samples with
TABLE 4-9
AHALYSIS OF TRACE METALS AHD ORGANOCHLORIBES IN
PEXTOPLAHEIOH, GULF 07 MEXICO RESEARCH BDRH II, 1974
Phyto-
planktonic
Sample
Test 3
Control 2
Whole
Sample
(g)
276
281
Total
Copper
(mg/1)
0.036
0.030
Total
Zinc
(mg/1)
0.09
0.08
Total
Whole Sample
Organochlorines
(ppm)
<3
<3
Source: Wastler et al., 1975
4-24
-------
... --...- ......
.. ,.~. . .-
- -- - -... ....--
.. .....- -
""
higher orgaaiwm counts (Wastler et al., 1975). Zooplankton were also analyzed
for copper, zinc, and organochlorines during Research Burn II to determine
long-term effects of wastes. Organisms collected from affected water. were
compared to organiwms from unaffected (control) areas (Table 4-10). No
significant differences were observed between samples.
NnTON
The nekton include animals such as fish and mammals capable of strong
swimming and migrating considerable distances. Included in this section are
pelagic organisms which inhabit oceanic waters beyond the Continental Shelf.
Sbort-t~rm adverse impacts on nekton' will be induced by sudden extreme pH
changes of seawater, acutely toxic levels of unburned organochlorines, or
trace metals. As discussed in the section on water' quality impacts t such
extreme fluctuations have never been observed; hence, short-term adverse
biological impacts in all analyses were not observed. HCl was neutralized.
. .-.... - ..~.~ ... .... ."
.". ..... ...
-
TABLE 4-10
AHALYSIS 01 TRACE METALS AND ORGANOCBLOR.DtES
IN ZOOPI.A!lrI'OH, GULl 01 HEnCO RESEARCH BUU II, 1974
Whole - Total
Zooplankton Sample Total Cu Total Organochlorines
Sample (g) ( ppm) Zn (ppm) ( ppm)
Tov 1
Test 1 454 85 19 <3
Tow 2
Control 1 716. 16 18 <3
Tow 3
Test 4 2,162 6 13 <3
Tov 4
Control 3 904 11 28 <3
~
Source:
Wastler et al., 1975
4-25
........... -. -..,...-...' ..
.- . .'-' '-'-'--~.'--'-'--'" --...- .
- - - ...- .----- .- -- .
. .,-. ....-. - ~~-- . '. -
-------
. '. ..... .......... -
..- .---.. - - .
. ---.--.--. - .
- - ..... . -..-'. .: .. - .
--.- . ..'." . .., .'.
rapidly upon contact with seawater and did not cause detectable pH changes in
the e~iroament. trace metals and unburned organochLorines were dispersed and
diluted in the atmosphere to nontoxic' levels before contacting the water
surface, then further dispersed and d~luted by the water.
During Research Burn III in March' 1977, a series of laboratory bioassays
were performed on fish, using various concentrations of Shell Chemical Company
waste (ter!co, unpublished). Fish were also exposed to plume-affected water
in the site. In the laboratory and field experiments, catalase, ATPase, and'
liver P-450 enzyme activities ,were measured to determine eff~cts of waste
'material. Only catalase and P-4.50 showed significant responses.
-s.-
Laboratory experiments,showed 50% mortality within 41 hours in fish exposed
to a concentration of 14 ppm raw organochlorine waste, whereas no mortality
was observed' among fish exposed to a concentration of ?4 ppm. Fish exposed
to a 1 ppm waste concentration showed marked responses in catalase and p-450
enzyme activities during exposure periods of 2. to 9 days. '!he changes in
. .
enzyme activity indicated physiological stresses which could lead to
. .' . .
deterioration of the metabolic system should such stress con~inue for a long
period 'of time.
!he field experiment revealed l increased p-450 enzyme activity in test
organisms, which indicated a stress response' to enviroamental conditions.
However, when-returned to the..labo~atory and placed in clean water for several
days, enzyme activity returned to levels exhibited in control organisms. It
.
was concluded that observed effects were local and temporary, presenting no
unacceptable threat to the nekton tterEco, unpubl-ished).
somes
Water depths encountered at the proposed Incineration Site minimize
.
potential adve~se. impacts on benthic organisms at the site, due to water
stratification and high dilution factors whichdiuipate contaminant levels.
However, potential 'downstream accumulation sh~uld be studied in shallow-water
organisms of the Continental Shelf during monitoring programs.
4-26
.- . . ......0." .
'.'.' 0 --. - 0..
..,... .......~. . ._"0 _'0.....,-,...,."".."'. -....".. .
. ... .:.~ .- .0'" ,
._.,..~.- .-..,"" '. -/'T' ,'V "'..."
-------
...---.-.... -
. .-_.-- _. ..
--.--.- -
.... - - - ... .
,,-.....
B11U)S
the welfare of marine bird life must be considered because emissions into
the atmosphere may produce avian physiological responses, or otherwise affect
migratory patterns adversely.
'!'he designation of a North. Atlantic Incineration SLte will create the
greatest potential effects on two groups of birds: seasonally migratory and
pelagic (opeD-ocean) birds. All birds can be directly affected by short-term
atmospheric contamination, primarily by RCl, or be indirectly affected by
consumption of organisms which have assimilated waste residues, th~s affecting
the food chain adversely.
Broad migratory routes exist throughout this region of the north Atlantic
Ocean (Williams and Williams, 1978a; Williams et al., 1977; and McClintock and
Williams, 1978). As many as 100 ~illion birds may leave North AmericA du=ing
autumnal migrations (September and October) for the Caribbean Islands or South
America (Figure A-l2). Migrations may cover extremely long distances (up to
3,000 laD) sometimes including 4 days of nonstop flight, and' appear to be .
associated with the passage of northwesterlies. A return migration over the
Gulf of .Mexico occurs during spring (April and May)'.
~gr~tion altitudes of 2,OOOm are frequently observed over oceanic regions
and occasional s,ooOm altitudes have been detected by radar observations near
the Bahamas (Williams and Williams, 19!8b). iadar observations indicate that
birds migrating to South America slowly gain altitude after leaving the
,
coastal U.S., reach maximal altitudes.over the Bahama and Caribbean Islands,
and then begin to descend during approaches to South America. Migration
altitudes near the proposed site are known to be leu than 2,OOOm and, the
greatest numbers of birds appear in the first l,OOOlD of aititude (T. Williams,
. *
personal communication) .
~
*Dr. Timothy Wi 11iams t
Swarthmore, peunsylvania.
Professor of Ornithology, . Swarthmore College t
4-27
..- - -..
........".-. - ......,..
. ...' . -... ., ...,
. .. .'- ," .... ....
...-.'.--.- -.
-- -. - .. - --.-h-'_-'--- -. ,
-------
..---......-.- .
~
During migration through the area, birds may be affected by short-term
atmospberic contamination near tbe v~ssel, when tbe emission plume diffuses
into tbe atmosphere. !he problem will be most pronounced during periods of
intense autumnal migration. Migrating birds have been observed to seek refuge
on any available platform, including ships, during periods of adverse flying
conditions, at times congregating by the thousands (T. Williams, personal
communication). Under such conditions great numbers of birds may fly around
or land on the vessel numerous times, repeatedly passing through the emission
plume. !he birds breathe at the same rate as' a man running a 4-minute mile.
They may be sensitive to the heavy HCl emissions;, consequently, any
respiratory injuries suffered from fumes may prove fatal sometime during the
remainder of the migratory flight.
No studies have yet been performed 'to determine the effects of incinerated
waste plume constituents on migrating birds, thus no conclusion can be made
with respect to possible adverse effects. However, an estimate of the
cross-sectional distance of migration flyway affected by the incineration
exhaust plume is possible. This estimate demonstrates the small likelihood of
affecting birds during migra~ion. Figure A-12 shows the overall area utilized
by migrating birds, which includes the area between Wallops Island, New Jersey
and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, a distance of about 1,065 km. '
The diagonal distance across. the proposed Incineration. Site is 50 ami
(95 km), or about 9% of the totai flyway cross-section. The plume dispersion
distance necessary to produce a 50% reductio~ in the predicted plume
concentration at sea level is about 8 ami (14 km), or 1.3% of the flyway
width. A group of migrating birds departing the continent must therefore fly
through a very narrow window of affected atmosphere to encounter atmospheric
HCl concentrations between 2.9 and 1.5 ppm. It is anticipated that
, atmospheric concentrations will diminish with altitude; further reducing the
potential effect of HC1.
Direct adverse effects may result in pelagic birds that follow the vessel.
During incinerat:ion operations these birds may be exposed to high concen-
,trations 0 f HCl near the vessel, which could injure respiratory tracts,
exposed soft tissues such as eyes" or feathers., It is not known if affected
birds would exhibit an avoidance response.
4-28
-------
. ~,._.. - -. ---
- ---.-,------,.'-" ..-- . .
-- -..-.----.. ..
, .
A study reported by Shain and Lieder (1974) determined that HCl concen-
trations of about 4,000 ppm for 30 minutes result' in death to pigeons,
rabbits, and guinea pigs. Whereas exposure to concentrations of 100 ppm for
6 hours per day for 50 days produced only slight unrest and irritation to soft
I tissues such as eyes and nose. Comparatively. the concentration of HCl
emitted from the incinerator stack will decrease from approximately 60,000 ppm
at the stack, to approximately 2.000 ppm within 15 to 30m from the stack
(Shain and ;.ieder, 1974). These values suggest that birds would only be
adversely affected in very close proximity to the stack, and at such close
distance both hea~ and acid could be detrimental.
Indirect effects of incineration On pelagic birds may be possible, but due
to, the scarcit.y of related' information, ,the magnitude of this problem is
presently unknown. Organiams may assimilate residual materials, subsequently
transferred to avifauna, which consume such organisms. and impacts can only be
resolved by monitoring survey~.
MA1UNE MAMMA:LS AND TURTLES
No
data
are
available
to
determine
effects
of
incineration
residual
materials On marine mammals or turtles. However, because these organiams are
'large (relative to fish and plankton) and generally do not linger in a single
location, the likelihood of impacts fromre~idues is remote.
SU!!!WtY
~
Information obtained during Gulf of Mexico research burns, representing the
best information presently available, indicates that at-sea incineration for
some industrial chemical wastes causes nO un~cceptable threats to marine
organiams, either on a short-term or lon~~term basis. To provide environmental
acceptability of incineration, the amount of particular waste constituents
(prima~ily metals) must be regulated and incineration operations must be
closely controlled and monitored. Residual input rates to the marine
eavironment must be maintained at levels that will ensure the environment can
assimilate residues, without
stresses
on'" endemic
organiams
for
sustained
4-29
...._".. -...-....,.. . . - ..
.... ... ... ...-..... .... ,_.
-.- -.. .-.. -...
.......-..._.-._-- .-..
- -.. ___r---. ......
-------
,._...._.,...~ , .
.. ..h.. ...' ,,,""'...---
- -.. ,.,',-..-- -..-'.
..... -- . .
periods. Water quality at the site MUst be maintained, ,taking into consider-
ation the initial mixing period permitte~ by !PAis regulations. The criteria
can be maintained by regulatin,r; shipboard wallte substance concentrations,
which will in turn limit quantities of waste, residues introduced to the
environment and/or re,r;ulate wallte burn-flow rates to increase incinerator
residence time and ensure minimum combustion efficiencies of 99.9%. .
At-sea incineration is an emerging disposal technology; therefore, certain
specific potential impacts must be further ezmned to. establi.h fully the
,
acceptability of this practice. Questions which remain unan.wered but can be
resolved during mOuitoring efforts are: .'
~
1.
Bow do repeated exposures to toxic residues in the water affect the
.various biological communities? . "
'"
What are the effects on planktonic organisms due to prolonged
adverse exposures when such organisms must drift with a polluted
'. .
, water mass wh;ch maintains its integ~ty for relatively long periods
(e.g;, .anticycloDi'c eddies)?
\ 2.
3.
What effects will stack emissions have on pelagic and migratory
birds?
- . '
ACCDENTIAL SPn.L OR LEAKAGE
'!he most signifioant potential hazard is an accidental spill or leakage of
raw. waste. Such occurrences, dependent on quantity and location, cause
considerable adverse economic and euviroumental consequence.. If an accident
occurred near coastal recreational or commercial activi~ies, a serious public
health hazard could result. In the immediate vicinity of any future accident
in the site or elsewhere, considerable biomass would probably be destroyed.
Clean-up would be difficult and expensive, if possible at all. Effects of
contamination could be widespread and possibly long-lasting.
~'
4-30
.... . -.. .. - '., .....-.-.., .
,'. -..' ,,,,,,,
.,.. '. ...... . . .
..... . . '. ' .
" - ... -_. .
-------
. '-'" -""'" ,..- ,..J ....
-. "#"""
. ... ...".-'.""".-" . ... . - - ,
Acute" toxic respouses ~ere observed in 50% of fish exposed to Shell
O1emical Campauy orgauochlorine waste .in 41 hours, using concentraticms of
74 ppm during laboratory studies (Te:Eco,'unpublisbed). A concentraticm of
1.0 ppm produced a marked decrease in P-4~O enzyme activity, indicating
pbysiological stress. Heavy concentratious of organochlorine wastes would
affect wide areas or volumes if a large spill occurred in sballow nearsbore
water, and sediments would also be affected. It should be noted that waste
compounds, other tban those described but acceptable for incineration, could
present more or less of &11 euviroamental hazard,.d~pendent on the coustituents
of the load.
An accidental spill in the vicinity of tbe designated site. could have
severe eDViroamental effects; however, dilution afforded by deep water and
lover. productivities of flora and fauna in the region would reduce the effect~
of tbe sbort-term acute impacts. The remotenesa of the proposed site from
commercial fishing would reduce potential hazards to fisheries, but some
temporary effect could be anticipated do~stream. Subletbal effects may be
more widespread,' but possibly les~ 'severe than near sbore, due to increased
dispersion and dilution whi!=h' wou1-4 occur in the deepwate~ gyre. Cleanup.
would be either'impractical, impossible, or both.
A Na~ional Oi 1 and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
, .
(}lational Plan), 40 en 1510, &s amended, has been prepared and implemented
for coordination for Federal cleauup efforts in order to minimize environ-
mental damage from oil and hazardous substances discharges. The National Plan
is designed to protect all navigable waters of the United States and adjoining
shorelines.
::DiPAcTS- ON LAND'usE AND 'LAND-USE TRENDS
No significant adverse impacts on existing land use or future trends will .
~
occur as a result of incineration activities. No additional land will be \
required for tbe project, since existing port facilities are adequate for
storage and loading operations.
4-31
.. ...- .. -
... . ., u. ....
"" ,...".,. ...". -,......'
. - ,-_..
-,. ._- . .-. .".
. .._.. .-- ---
..., ',' . .-.. .. -. ~_....
. -- _.. - ..
- .....'" -..-'.'
.----_.-.. ..
...--.-.---.--.-
""'='
II
f.
~. - . -- -.-.--
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The economic consequences of at-sea incineration were analyzed by Halebsky
(1978). It was concluded that incineration is economically feasible, taking
into consideration the outfitting of U.S.-owned-and-operated ships. However,
the estimates are based on larger tonnages, of wastes handled per shipload
(12,000 tonnes), and burned at 3 to 4 times the M/T VULCANDS burn rate of 20
to 25 tonne/hr. Environmental consequences are based on a burn rate of
22 tonne/hr. Water quality criteria for organohalogen residues are obtainable
at a maximal burn rate of 20 to 25 tonne/hr. Increasing these inputs by a
factor of 4 must be considered environmentally unacceptable at present (1980).
Future monitoring may show residue input rates can be increased without
endangering the marine environment but evidence is not presently available.
Thus, costs may be at least 4 times greater than Halebsky (1978) estimated for
a U.S.-owned-and-operated incinerator vessel.
i
A study prepared by the U.S. Department of State and EPA (1979) concluded
that the economic consequences of at-sea incineration would be minimal if
existing foreign-owned vessels and existing U.S. loading facilities were used.
» "
Neither the incineration operation nor use of the proposed Incineration
Site will have any detectable economic impacts on any commercial activities
(e.g., fishing or oil and gas production) 'over the Continental Shelf, because_
the nearest of these activities are 30 nmi (55 km) west of the proposed site.
However, foreign fishing may occur in the outer -portions of fishing areas
2 and 4 (Figure 3-3). Future oil exploration and development may occur in
lease tract areas within 11 miles of the northwest corner of the proposed
site.
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES
DETERIORATION OF AOL QUALITY
Local adverse impacts on air quality, as a result of the incineration
process, are unavoidable when no stack emission scrubbing devices are used.
4-32
-------
--- '-".. . _.- -..
.-'.--....... ..-
"
Affects will thus exist due to HCl, trace metals, unburned o.rganochlorines,
CO, C02' and C12.
At 99.9% combustion e ffic:iency and 99.99% dest ruc tion e ffic:iency,
organochlorine emissions (2~ 2 kg/hr) are insignificant in relation to the
amount destroyed. Trace metal emissions are dependent on initial
concentrations in the wastes. Other emissions (HC1, C02' H20)'wi~1 approach
maxiMal obtainable concentrations (e.g., HCl 16,000 kg/hr).
Research burns demonstrate that potential hazards of atmospheric acid (HC1)
o .
.are rapidly diminished by atmospheric diffusion, and the acid is rapidly
neutralized in seawater. Honitorin~has shown that beyond 2 to 4 ami (3.7 to
7.4 km) downwind of the emission source, any HC1 remaining in the air
disperses' rapidly to ambient concentrations. 'Ibe atmosphere is not the
ultimate sink of emitted contaminants; therefore, advers~ atmospheric effects
will be short term.
To mitigate adverse atmospheric impacts on ship personnel' caused by. HC1,
trace' metals, and organochloP.i.nes, residues must be reduced' at 'the aource .
(requiring expensive stack emission scrubbing equipment); otherwise, effects
and benefits of atmospheric dispersion must be maximized.' Studies show that'
orientation of the incinerator vessel relative to prevailing winds is an
iMportant factor; therefore, requirements must be established through permit
conditions to make opt~al use of the atmospheric dispersion phenomena created
by vessel orientation. During studies in the Gulf of Mexico. a miniMum wind
ve~oci~y of 10 1m was required over the exhaust stacks. 'Ibis requirement
ensured exhaust gases did not cause impingement of the vessel when ambient
wind conditions were insufficient to transport gases away from the vessel and
operating persoanel.
~
Paige et a1. (1978) present results of ship orientation studies in order to
determine the best vessel headings affording the least plume impingement on
the vessel. It was found that a heading closer than 500 to the wind causes
the plume to envelop the vessel. However, taking the wind more directly abeam
(from port or starboard) causes the plume to move away from the vessel and
over the sea surface. Figure 4-1 illustrates the relative headings, would
miniMize atmospheric impacts due to plume impingement on the ves~e1.
4-33
~._._.. '" ....-...-.-,...- ...w _. .. ...-. ._-.-- ......- _..~..._-
.- _.~ .........- __n....- ... .... ....-;-..-.-....---..........---..
- ....-..._-." .--
. ......'._--. ._- - ... .'. .--. ----.---. -
.. - ,..-..- .,....
----_._-- .. .
. _. -._. .~- .
-------
.. - ..-----
.-~':'-.._-~-_..
._----
... ... _..'.'..'. .,h....'
'. '
. .. -- .-'--- ... ...j.... ,.., .....
,
CONDmONS:
. WIND SPEED - 2D ICN' <10 MIS) MAX.
, : . PttOPB.1Elt SI'&D - 40 RPM MAX.
r
WIND OFF PoRY SIDE
WIND Off STAUOAaD SIDE
080"
. RB.AYM HEADINCS
WHIOt AVOIDm nUME IMPACT
~
w
w
MIT VULCANUS
",
. ;
I
1igure 4-:1.
Ship B~ings Relative to Wind Direction Which
Avoid Plume Impact on Ship'
. ,;
.
'..
DE"1'EIlIOBATIOH 01 WATEll QUALITY
After initial 'mixing in the atmosphere, substances will begin to settle on
the vater 'surface. Acid residue will be neutralized rapidly by the natural
buffering capacity of seavater., Organochlorine and trace metal residues will
be further diluted and dispersed by ocean currents. . Chloride, a maj or
constituent of seawater, will be assimilated readily by seawater.
~
In order to reduce contaminant" inputs, emissions can be minimized at the
source. Again, this would require stack emission scrubbing devices'. As an
alternative to scrubbing, dispersion phenomena can be used effectively to
. mitigate short-term adverse effects.
.,
Air quality impact will af~ect water quality impact. Thus, short-term
, water quality impacts can be minimized by vessel orientation. Paige et ale
4-34
. .
... ; ,. .'.-. .~..... .. '~-'. .'
-------
.. -._~........... ..--...
..".' ..... ...
.--...- - .,,'... .
. "-4 "'."
It
(1978) concluded that the following orientations of the
relative to the wind help to reduce water quality ~pacts.
near the vessel increase severity '3~f w~ter quality ~pacts
order:
vessel' 8 heading
Plume touchdovus
in the following
~
l
(1) Moviug at 90., to wind
(2). St~ering directly into wind
(3) Drift~ug broadside
. Plume touchdovus far from the vessel increase water quality ~pacts in the
s~e order as above.
The present uncertainty of 1011g-te~ adverse ~pacts requiro that close
"
monitoring be maintained to determine such effects.
En'ECTS ON MA1W1E ORGABISHS
Research burns reported in documents- by: TerEco - (1975 i un pub lished) anCl
Wastler et ale (1975) have demonstrated no observable significant sh~rt-te~
. - ..
or predictable long-te~ adverse
conceivable that some long-te~
field monitoring techniques are
~pacts on marine organisms. However. it is
effects may be observed when moce effective
--
developed. and when better data are collected.
ACCIDDUL SPILLAGE OR T1U.rAGE
;
Immediate mitigating measures can best be. directed towards prevention of
ac~idental spills o~ emergency discharges. The pos.ibility of severe environ-
mental and economic damage exists as a consequence of such occur~ences. The
incine~ator vessel might be involvec! in a collision with another vessel. or
encounte~ adverse weather conditions which could jeGpardize the safety of ship
personnel or the vessel itself. Records maintained by the USCG during fiscal
years 1974 through 1978 show that collisions are most likely to occur in
harbor areas. and fewer collisions are likely to oc~ur at sea. At sea 34% of
all ship damage,was due to adverse weather.
4-35
. .......- .......",.........- ..~ ..--.-......--.-....
.. .. .. - .. . - ...
.. . . -.. . ... -. ~"- .
"-- -. -- .... ..
... - .,. .-......~..,.,.. -.......-,.., ."..--.'-. "'~-'-.'- "'.' .'._--.--.
-------
: ,1
I
Weather conditions in the vicinity of the proposed Incineration Site may
occasionally hinder vessel operations'. The most severe weather conditions
normally occur from November until March. Tropical storms and hurricanes can
be anticipated occasionally in the vicinity of the proposed Incineration Site
during summer months; however, hurricanes are predictable and measures can be
taken to secure the safety of the vessel.
USCG regulations for vessel construction and operation will, ensure maximal
protection against loss of snip or cargo due to collision or other mishap. In
addition, EPA will require a "Notice to Mariners" to be published as a radio
warning to other vessels when the Incineration Site is in use. Augmentation
of recent Vessel Traffic System policies, authorized under the Ports and
Waterways Safety Act, will further enhance transportation and safety of
hazardous material.
INTERFERENCE WITH OTHER ACTIVITIES AT THE PROPOSED INCINERATION SITE
a •
8EIPPIHG • '
The northern .boundary of the proposed Incineration Site is 40 nmi (74 km)
south of the nearest shipping lane (Ambrose-Hudson Canyon Traffic Lane). New
v York Harbor experiences heavy shipping traffic, but the proposed site is in an
! area where no extraordinary traffic transits.
•• • * . J
\ All waste disposal activities at the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site
^
must be within prescribed areas, thereby causing no danger to incineration
activities.
' « •
•' ' . —"~
-, •
3 COMMENT Af. yiSHIHG-
i
1
<
The proposed site is seaward of the Continental Shelf and contiguous
fishing activities. It is highly unlikely that incineration will interfere
with commercial fishing activities over the Continental .Shelf.
4-36
-------
HECTEATIOHAL ACTIVITIES
Due to the extreme distance from shore, it is improbable that small craft
or recreational boats will visit the proposed site. However, during summer
months small boat operators are known to transit deep water in search of game
fish. Should any craft approach, the incinerator vessel must be reoriented
downwind of any passing vessel.
OH. AHD GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMEKT
•
Exploration for oil and gas is continuing to progress along the Continental
Slope in the mid-Atlantic Bight region. Areas of new lease may soon become
available for exploration and possible production. The nearest single
(future) lease tract is approximately 13 nmi west of the proposed site's
northwestern corner, indicating that any plume will originate at a greater
distance than 13 nmi. It can be assumed that the plume will never originate
this close to lease areas because a vessel will be operated more internally to
the site. For tracts farther south the distance to the western boundry
increases progressively, &o that the southwestern corner is approximately
60 nfli away. •
The distance provided by'the separation of lease tracts, and the proposed
site will allow extensive atmospheric dilution of incineration residues, which
would be transported to the west during periods of onshore winds. It is
possible that in the northern area of the site a plume could originate as far
as 50 nmi east of the nearest potential lease tract, and in the southern
region as far as 80 nmi.
. Using the dispersion model of Paige et al. (1978), potential sea level
concentrations of residues can be predicted. Assuming that the maximum sea
level concentrations (100!) occurs 4,000m (2.2 nmi) downwind from the
incineration vessel, from a centerline point of the site, the plume must
travel 34 nmi before contact with the nearest lease tract. In the distance
traveled the plume concentration will be diluted to 3Z of the original 1002
maximum concentration at 4,000m downwind from the vessel. The equivalent
4-37
-------
atmospberic reiidue concentrations would be: BC1. 133 pg/.3 (0.09 ppm);
unburned wastes. 0.08 pg/m3 (0.014 ppb .as trichloroethane); copper 0.007 pg/m3
(0.001 ppb).
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT. TERM'
tJSES OF THE SITE AND LONG. TERM PRODUct1VITY .
During the limited use of the Gulf of Mexico Incineration Site. studies
showed that no significant snort-term (acute) damage was. caused by inciner-
ation activity. However. the long-term (chronic) effects require a better
understanding of ecological processes which operate under any induced
stresses. 'n1erefore. monitoring progra1lls designed to detect subtle envi-
ronmental changes before unacceptable environmental imbalances occur. must
be devised and performed.
It should be noted that the l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site. UDme-
diately north of the proposed Incineration Site. receives great volumes of
bar~ed wastes containing metals. yet.. ~fter 18 years of use. still, shows no
evidence of having affected the' long-term productivity of the area.
. . - .. ,. .
IRREVERSIBLE OR'IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
... . .
Several resources will be committed irreversibly or irretrievably when the
proPosed action takes place:
.
Energy will be lost in the
to and from the site and
to operating levell. '
form of 'fuel required to transport wastes
used to raise the inciner~~~~ temperature
.
Constituents in the waste (e.g.. trace metals and organic c~emicals)
will be lost because present technology is not capable of recovery
or reuse in an economical manner.
4-38
-------
Chapter 5
COORDINATION
PREPARERS OF THE DRAFT EIS
Preparation of tbis EIS was a joint effort employing many members of .tbe
Interstate Electronics Corporation scientific and tecb~cal staff.
cbapter summarizes tbe background and qualifications of tbe primary
'l'hia
contributors to
tbe document (see table 5-1).
'l'he principal autbor wisbes to tbank otber people who assembled background
information and wrote or critiqued sections of tbe EIS. 'Ihe document bas
benefited greatly from tbeir assistance.
t.ABLE 5-1.
LISt or PUPABEIS
~apter' Appendix
Responsible
Person Summary" 1 .2 3 4 5 6 A B C D
B.. Lewis *
X X X X X X X X X
J". Donat X X X
H. Holstrom X
H. Howard X X
K. King X X
-
N. Plutcbak X
S. Sullivan X
B.. Duce X
D. Kester X
*EIS coordinator and principal autbor
. 5-1
-------
!.OBIN D. LEWIS
.,
Mr. Lewis. the principal author of this EIS. holds a B.S. degree in marine
biology £Tom California State University / Long Beach. and is a candidate for
the M.A. degree in marine biology. Hr. Lewis coordinated and assisted in the
preparation of the summary and all chapters. and. Appendixes A and C of this
EIS.
JOHN Il. DONAT
Mr. Donat holds a B.S. degree in chemical oceanography from Humboldt State
University. He assisted with the writing of Chapters 3 and 4. and Appendix A.
MARSHALL HOLSTROM
Mr. Holstrom holds B.A. and M.A. degrees in biological science from
Stanford University. He assisted. in the preparation of the Summary.
MATTHEW HaJARD
Mr. Howard holds a B.S. degree in physical oceanography from Humboldt State
University. He assisted in the preparation of Chapter 3 and Appendix A.
KATHLEEN M. KING
Ms. King holds B.S. and M.A. degrees in biology (with emphasis on marine
biology) from California State University. Long Beach. She assisted in the
preparation of Chapters 1. and 2.
I
NOEL PLtJTCHAK
- - .
Mr. Plutchak holdS a B.S. in geology £Tom the University of Wisconsin. an
M.S. in meteorology/physical oceanography from Florida State University. and
Ph.D.. (candidate) in Physical Oceanography and Fisheries from Oregon State
University. Hr. Plutchak prepared Appendix C of this report.
5-2
- .. .. 0'.
..... ,..'0 ""."".'.-".-..--, ."'-.."".'.""0
. ...... .. ... .. .." -- -. . .
-------
S'rEP1IEN M. SULLIVAN
Mr. Sullivan holds a B.S. desree in bioloSical oceanosraphy from Humboldt
State University. Be assisted in the preparation of Appendix A.
RICHARD nUy
Dr. Terry, in EPA program management on Ocean Disposal Site Designation,
~c:cis an A.B. in .geology, an M.S. in .arine ,eology, and a Ph.D. in
oceanography from the University of Southern California. Dr. Terry conducted
extensive editing of all Chapter. and Appendixes of this report.
ROBERT DUC!
air and water
consultant.
pr 0 fessor 0 f oceanography a t the Uni vera i ty 0 f Rhode Is 1 and,
in atmospheric chemistry. Be contrihuted to the evaluation of
quality impactl of incineration operations (Appendix D) as a
Dr . Duc e ,
holds a Ph. D.
DANA R.. aSTER.
. ,
Dr. Kester, profesaor of oceanography at
bolds a Ph.D. in cheaical oc.aoaraph,.
,
preparation of Appendix D al a consultant.
tbe University of Rhode Island,
Be a..iatecl Dr. Duee in the
5-3
,'....- --- - .- "" .'-' ...-
.--- .--."".,-.-"".--, .....-' .---- -.---......-....--
-------
COMMENTERS ON THE DRAFT ElS
The following persons submitted written cOlllDents on the »EIS.
and responses are in Appendix F~~'"
'l'he letters
Letter
Number,
Commenter ,
1
Boyd.~. Duffie, III, Lt Col, .uSAF
Director of Environmental Planning
, Department- 'of" the Air' Force. ': ,
, Headquarters Air Force Engineering and
Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida 32403
(29 January 1981)
Services Center
2
Neil Stuart
, Acting Chief, Planning Division
Department of the Army
North Atlantic Division Corps of Engineers
90 ChUrch S'treet' '
New York, New York 10007
(13 February 1981)
3
Kenneth w.. Fo~be8
, Chief, Division of Environmental Activities
Office of Shipbuilding Costs
United States DeparbDent of Commerce
Washington, DC 20230
" " "', "'(29. January"i 981)'"
, "
.0, .
4
Charles A. Burroughs
United States Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Data and Information Service
Center for Environmental Assessment Services
Washington, DC 20235
(29 January 1981)
"
5
Robert B. Ro11in8 . -.. . .
United States Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Survey
Rockville, Maryland 20852
(27 January 1981)
S~
-------
Letter
Number
Commenter
6
Frank S. Lisella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Divi.ion
Center for Environmental Health
Department of Health & Human Service.
Public Health Service
Center. for Desease Control
Atlanta. Georgia 30333
(29 January 1981)
7
Cecil S. Hoffmann
Special Assistant to Assistant Secretary
United States Department of tbe Interior
Office of the Secretary
Washington. DC 20240
(23 February 1981)
8
Donald Il. King
Director
Office of Environment and Health
Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
(9 February 1981)
9
David S. Hugg. III
Acting Director'
State of Delaware
Executive Department
Office of Management Budget
Dover. Delaware 19901
(4 March 1981)
and Planniq
10
James W. McConnaughhay
Director, State Clearinghouse
Maryland Department of State Planning
301 West Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(2 March 1981)
11
Lawrence SChmidt, cn"ief"
Office of Environmental Review
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Office of the Commissioner
Post Office Box 990
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(25 March 1981)
5-5
-------
Letter
Number
COIIIDenter
12
Rene J. Fontaine
A-95 Coordinator
State' of Rhode Island and Providence
Department of Administration
Statewide Planning Program
265 Melrose Street
Providence,' Rhode Is land 02907,
(12 February 1981)
13
J.B. Jackson, Jr.
Administrator '
. COIIIDonwea1th. of Virginia
" 'Council on th.e Environment
903 Ninth. Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(20 February 1981)
Plantations
D.C. Le Van
Chief Geologist
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Conservation and Economic D~velopment
Division of Mineral Resources
Natural Resources Building
Box 3667, McCormick Road
Charlottesville, Vir~inia 22903
(27 January 1981)
14
15
Edward F. Wilson
~onwealth of Virginia,
Office of the Secretary of Commerce
Outer Continental Shelf Activities
509 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(20 January 1981)
16
Raymond E. Bowles, P.E.
Director
Bureau of Surveillance and
Commonwealth of Vir~inia
State Water Control Board
Post Office Box 11143
2111 Hamilton Street
Richmond, Virginia 23230
(5 Fepruary 1981)
Field Studies
17
Robert F. Jambor
149 Sandford Street
New Brunswick, New Jersey
(7 February'19~1)
08901
5-6
and Resources
\
....--
'"
-------
Letter
Number
COIIIIDenter
18
George W. Liggett.
Harine & Wetland Protection Branch
Survey and Analysis Division
Box 13, River Road
Mays Landing, New Jersey
. (23 January 1981)
19
Kenneth S. Kamlet
A.sistan~ Di=ector for Pollution
National Wildlife'Federation
1412 Sixteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
(29 January 1981)
aDd Toxic Substances
20
James M. Henderson
President
. . Southeastern Waste Treatment,
POBt Office Box 1697
441 N. Hamilton St.
Dalton, Georgia 30720
(13 February 1981)
Iae:., -
21
Frank B.. Krohn
General Counsel
Chemical Was te Ma~agement,
Incineration Program
Waste Management, Inc:.
900 Jorie Boulevard
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
(13 February 1981)
Inc:. , and Cootdinator - Ocean
22
R. Elmbae:h
2 Bompiau Court
Brick. New Jersey 08723
(7 February 1981)
23
Arnold Cohen
Coordinator
Ironbound Health Projects
Ironbound
95 F1emin~ Ave~ue
Newark. New Jersey 07105
",
24
Greater Newark Bay Coalition
95 Fleming Avenue
Newark, New Jersey 07105
5-7
-------
" .,' ,PREPAREltS OF mE FINAL !IS
The Pinal EIS vas prepared by Interstate Electronic. Cor~orationJ and has
been reviewed by the Environmental Protection AKencyl. Ocean Dumping EIS Task
Force~' Reviews, ; ,responses to C01IIIIIenters. aDd revi.ion. were prepared by
Norma A.. Hughes and ..Sara L. Neuber. Review and sapport were provided by the
members of the EIS Task Porce:
William C. Shillin~. Project Officer
Jonathan E. Amaon
Hugh D. Burrow.
Prank G. C.ulak
. I
Michael S. Moyer
Christopher S. Zarba
5-8
-------
ABUNDANCE
ABYSSAL PLAINS
ACUTE EFFECT
ADSORB
ALIPHATIC
HYDROCARBON
ALKALINITY
AMBIENT
AMPHIPODA
ANTICYCLONIC
EDDIES
APEX
Chapter 6
GLOSSARY AND REFERENCES
The number of individuals of a species inhabiting a given
area. Normally, a community of several component species
will inhabit an area. Measuring the abundance of each
species is one way of estimating the comparative
importance of each component species.
Flat areas of the ocean floor extending from the base of
the Continental Rise seaward to the abyssal hills.
The death or incapacitation 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 a solid or liquid.
An organic compound composed of carbon and hydrogen, and
characterized by a straight chain of carbon atoms. '
The number of milliequivalents of hydrogen ions
neutralized by one liter of seawater at 20°C. Alkalinity
of water is o,£ten taken as an indicator of its carbonate, .
bicarbonate, ,and hydroxide content.
Pertaining to the, undisturbed or~unaffected conditions of
an environment::. "
An order of crustaceans (primarily
marine) with laterally compressed
bodies, which generally appear. I
similar to shrimp. The order
consists primariJ.y of three groups:
hyperiideans, which inhabit open
ocean areas; gammarideans, which are
primarily bottom dwellers; . and
caprellideans, common fouling
organisms.
lcm
~
Approximately circular oceanic current patterns, having
relatively less dense (warmer) water in the centers.
Rotation around these centers is clockwise in the Northern
Hemisphere and counterclockwise in the Southern
Hemisphere. Examples of these formations are Gulf Stream
meanders.
See New York Bight Apex.
6-1
-------
APPROPRIA'l'E
SENSITIVE MARINE
ORGAHISMS
ASSEMBLAGE
ATP
ATPase
BACKGROUND
LEVEL
BASELINE
CONDITIONS
BASELINE SURVEYS
AND BASELINE DATA
BENTHOS
BIGHT
BIOACCUMULATION
. BIOASSAY
BIOMASS
BIOTA
Pertaining to bioassay samples required for ocean
dumping permits, "at'least one species each representative
of phytoplankton or zooplankton, crustacean or mollusk,
and fish' species chosen from among the most sensitive
species documented in the scientific literature or
accepted by EPA as being reliable test organisms: to
determine the anticipated impact of the wastes on the
ecosystem at the disposal site" (CFR 40 1227.27).
A group of organisms sharing a common habitat.
Adenosine
phosphate
Enzymatic
metabolic
triphosphate; an organic compound having three
groups which are bound by high-energy linkages.
breaking of these bonds releases the energy for
processes in living cells.
An enzyme which catalyzes the hydrolysis (breakdown) of
ATP, releasing bound energy.
The naturally occurring concentration of a substance
within an environm~nt which has not been affected by
unnatural additions of that substance.
The characteristics of an environment before the onset of
an action which can alter that environment; any data
serving as a basis for measurement of other data.
Su~eys and the data collected prior to the initiation of'
actions which may alter ~n existing environment.
All marine organisms (plant or animal) living on or in the
bottom of the sea.
A gentle bend in a coast forming a large open bay; a bay
formed by such a bend.
The uptake and assimilation of materials (e.g., heavy
metals) leading to elevated. concentrations of the
substances within organic.tissue, blood, or body fluid.
A method for determining the toxicity 'of a substance by
the effect of varying concentrations on growth or survival
of suitable plants, animals or micro-~rganisms; the
concentration which is lethal to SOX of the test organisms
or causes a defined effect in SO% of the test organisms,
often expressed in terms of lethal concentration (LCSO) or .
effective concentration (ECSO)' respectively.
The quantity (wet weight) of living organisms inhabiting a
given area or volume at any time; oft'en used as a means of
measuring the productivity of an ecosystem.
Animals and plants inhabiting a given region.
.'
6-2
-------
BIOTIC GROUPS
BLOOM
BOREAL
BRACHYUIWi CRABS
BRITISH THERMAL
UNIT (BTU)
CALCAREOUS OOZE
CARBON
TETRACHLORIDE
(CCl4)
CARCINOGEN
. CATALASE
CEPHALOPODS
CHAETOGNATHA
. .
Assemblages of organisms which are
structurally, or taXonomically siMilar.
ecologically,
A relatively high concentration of phytoplankton in a body
of water resulting from rapid proliferation during a tiMe
of favorable growing conditions generated by nutrient and
sunlight availability.
Pertaining to the northern geographic regions.
The "true" crabs, characteristically
possessing short abdomens and
pinching claws (chelipeds). Most
edible species, including Dungeness
crabs, are of this type. .
I 10 em I
A unit of heat energy equal to 0.252 calories; the heat
needed to raise the temperature ofl pound of air-free
water one Fahrenheit degree at a constant pressure of 1
standard atmosphere, at or near the . point of maximal
density (39.2°F).
A f~1\e-grained pelagic sediment
. carbonate (CaC03)' derived from the
various marine organisms, mixed with
material.
containing calcium
skeletal remains of
clay-sized amorphous
A widely used commercial organic solvent produced by the
exhaustive chlorination of carbon-disulfide or aliphatic
hydrocarbons; also a by-product of a chlorinated
hydrocarbon reclamation process.
. A substance or agent producing a cancer or other type of
mal ignancy .
An enzyme which catalyzes the decomposition of hydrogen
peroxide into oxygen and water.
Exclusively marine aniinrals' constituting tlfe most
I evolved class of the phytum Mollusca (e.g.,
octopus, and ~autilus).
highly
squid,
A phylum of small planktonic, trans-
parent, wormlike invertebrates known
as arrow-worms; they are often used
as water mass tracers.
K:-
=--
~
z..
6-3
-------
Cm.OB.INITY
CE!LOROPRYLL a
CHLOROPHYLLS
CHRONIC EFFECT
COCCOLITHOPHORIDS
COELENTERATA
COKBUSTION
EFFICIENCY
COMPENSATION
DEPTH
CONTINENTAL
MARGIN
The quantity of chlorine equivalent to the quantity of
halogens contained, in 1 kg of seawater; may be used to
determine seawater salinity and density.
A specific chlorophyll pigment characteristic of higher
plants and algae; frequentl y used as a measure of
phytoplankton biomass.
A group of oil-soluble, green plant pigments
function as photoreceptors of light energy for
. synthesis and primary productivity.
which
photo-
A sublethal effect of a substance on an organism which
reduces the survivorship of that organism over a long
period of time.
Microscopic,
golden-brown
envelope of
plates.
'~il)i
-"""'r.""
planktonic unicellular,
algae characterized by an
interlocking calcareous
4
20 II
A large diverse phylum of primarily marine animals,
m~bers possessing two call layers and an incomplete
digestive system, the opening of which. is usually
surrounded by tentacles. This group includes hydroids,
jellyfish, corals and anemones. ..'
The ratio of heat actually developed in a combustion
process to the heat .that Would be released if combustion
. were perfe~t; a parameter used to describe the efficiency
of organic waste destruction using measurements of CO and
C02 concentration in the hot gases leaving the combustion
chamber; expressed as: .
CE (%)
. [C02] - [CO] x 100
- [C02)
,
The depth at which photosynthetic oxygen production equals
oxygen consumed by plant respiration; the lower part of
the photic zone.
.'
A zone separating the emergent continents from the
deep-sea bottom; generally consists 'of the Continental
Slope, Continental Shelf and Continental Rise (see ABYSSAL
HILLS illustration).
6-4
i.
.
-------
CONTINENTAL RISE
CONTINENTAL SHELF
CONTINENTAL SLOPE
CONTOUR LINE
COPEPODS
CORIOLIS FORCE
CRETACEOUS
CRUSTACEA
A gentle slope with a generally smooth surface between the
Continental Slope artd the deep ocean floor.
That part of the Continental Margin adjacent to a
continent extending from the low water line to a depth,
generally 200m, where the Continental Shelf and the
Continental Slope join.
That part of the Continent"l Margin consisting of the
declivity from the edge of the Continental Shelf down to
the Continental Rise.
A line on a chart connecting points of equal elevation
above or below a reference plane, usually mean sea level.
4II1II
A large diverse group of small
planktonic crustaceans repre-
senting an important link in
oceanic food chains.
.~
An apparent force of the earth, acting on a body in motion
and, due to rotation, causing circular deflection to the
right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the
southern hemisphere.'
The last period of the Mesozoic Era or the corresponding
syst~ of' rocks; between 136 ,and 65 million years ago.
.
A class of arthropods consis~ing of animals with jointed
. appendages ana segmented exoskeletons composed of chitin.
This class includes barnacles, crabs, shriJ:Dps and
lobsters. .' 1 CII
An animal phylum, superficially resem-
bling jellyfish, ranging io size from
less than 2 em to about 1m in length.
. Commonly know as "sea walnuts" or "comb
jellies", these animals prey heavily on
planktonic organisms, particularly
c~ustaceans and fish larvae.
CTENOPBORA
CUMACEANS
Small motile crustaceans which
u~ally inhabit 'the surface
layers of sediment, al though
some. species exhibit diurnal
vertical migrations in the water
column; theiw presence is often
indicative of unstable sediment
conditions.
.
6-5
, ..
~
-------
CURRENT DROGUE'
CURRENT ME'IER
DECAPODA
DEMERSAL
DENSITY
DETRITUS
DIATOMS
DIFFUSION
DINOFLAGELLATES
A surficial current measuring assembly consisting of a
weighted current cross, underwater sailor parachute and
an attached surface buoy; it moves with the current so
that average current velocity and direction can be
obtained.
An instrument for measuring the speed of a current, and
often the direction of flow.
.
The largest order of crustaceans; members have five sets
of locomotor appendages, each joined to a segment of the
thorax; includes crabs, lobsters, and shrimps.
Living at or near the bottom of the sea.
The mass per unit volume of a substance, usually expressed
in grams per cubic centimeter (lg water in referenc~ to a
volume of 1 cc @ 4°C).
Product of decomposition
organisms and fecal material.
disintegration;
dead
or
Microscopic phytoplankton characterized by a cell wall of
overlapping silica plates. Sediment and water column
populations vary widely i.n response to changes in
environmental ~onditions.
~
.~
r. ",..
it' .::t 'I, ..
40p
I Transfer of material (e.g., salt) or a property (e.g.,
temperature) under the influence of a concentration
gradient; the net movement is from an area of higher
concentration to an area of lower concentration.
A large diverse group of flagellated phytoplankton with or
without a ri~id outer shell, some of which feed on .
particulate matter. Some members of this group are
responsible for toxic red-tides.
~I
~
~I2
20~
6-6
-------
" .
DISCBAllGE PLUME
DISPERSION
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
DIVERSITY
(Species )
DOKINANT SPECIES
DRY WEIGHT
EC50
ECHINODERKS
ECOSYSTEM
EDDY
~
The region of water affected by a discharge of waste which
can be dis tinguished" from. the surrounding water.
The dissemination of discharged matter over large areas by
natural processes, e.g., currents.
The quantity of oxygen (expressed in mg/liter, ml/liter or
parts per million) dissolved in a unit volume of water.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a key parameter in the assessment
of water quality.
A statistical concept which generally combines the measure
of the total number of species in a given environment and
the number of individuals of each species. Species
diversity is high when it is difficult to predict the
species or the importance of a randomly chosen individual
organism, and low when an accurate prediction can be made.
A species or group of species which, because of their
abundance, size, or control of the energy flow, strongly
affect a community.
The weight of a sample of material or organisms after all
water has. been removed; a measure of. biomass, when applied
to organisms.
Effective Concentration -50; Pertaining to bi.oassay .
studies, the. concentration of a subst'ance which causes a .
defined effect in 50% of the test organisms (usually
phytoplankton) within a given period of time (often 96
hours) .
Exclusively marine animals which are distinguished by
radial symmetry, intern.l skeletons of calcareous plates,
and water-vascular systems which serve the needs of
locomotion, respiration, nutrition, qr perception;
includes starfishes, sea urchins, sea cucumbers and sand
dollars .
The organisms in a community together with their physical
and chemical environments.
A circular mass of water within a larger water mass which
is usually formed where currents pass obstructions, either
between two adjacent currents flowing counter to each
other, or along the edge of a permanent current. An eddy
has a certain integrity and life history, circulating and
drawing energy from a flow of larger scale.
Redox potential or oxidation-reduction potential;
measurement of the state of oxidation of a system by a
voltage difference at an inert electrode immersed in a
reversible oxidation-reduction system. Positive values
6-7
-------
ENDEMIC
EPIFAUNA
EPIPELAGIC
ESTUARY
EUPHAUSIIDS
FAUNA
FINFISH
FLORA
FORAMINIFERA
GASTROPODS
GEOSTROPHIC
CURRENT
reflect an oxidizing environment 'and a surplus of oxygen,
whereas negative values represent a reducing environment;
often indicated by the presence of hydrogen sulfide.
Restricted or peculiar to a locality or region.
Animals which live on or near the bottom of the sea.
Of, or pertaining to, that portion 0 f the oceanic zone
into which enough light penetrates to allow
photosynthesis; generally extends from the surface to
about 200m.
A semienclosed coastal body of water which
connection to the sea, commonly the lower end
and wi thin which the mixing 0 f saline and
occurs.
has a free
of a river,
fresh water
Shrimp-like, planktonic
crustaceans which are widely
distributed in oceanic and
coastal waters, especially
in cold waters. These
organisms, also known as
krill, are an important link
in the oceanic food chain.
lcm
The animal life of any ~ocation, region, or period.
Term'used to distinguish "normal" fish (e.g., with fins
and capable of swimming) from shellfish. Usually in
reference to the commercially important species.
. ..., ' ", . ..
The plant li~ of any location, region. or period.
Benthic or planktonic single-celled marine
organisms possessing a shell (usually of
calcium carbonate) enclosing an ameboid
body. .
100 ~
[l(. ..~..-.,....,
.' ". '.' .
. . . "-'
. ,.., ,- .
. . ..\. '" ,
. '. ".. '\1'. ...:'
~rs~....:;.......,..
~fit~,:'~:.
u'
Molluscs which possess a distinct head (generally with
eyes and tentacles), a broad, flat foot, and usually a
spiral shell (e.g., snails).
A current resulting from the balance between gravitational
forces and the Coriolis force.
6-8
-------
GULF STREAM
GYRE
BARPAcnCOIDS .
. HEAVY KE'ULS
OR ELEKEN1'S
HERBIVORES
HISTOPATHOLOGY
HOLOTHURIAN
HYDROCHLOB.IC
ACID (HCI)
ICHTHYOPLANKTON
INDICATOR SPECIES
INDIGENOUS
INFAUNA
IN SITU
INVERTEBRATES
ISOBATH
The relatively warm, swift, well-defined northward-moving
ocean current, which flows up the North American East
Coast. It originates where the Florida current and the
Antilles current begin to curve eastward from the
Continental Slope of! Cape Hatteras, NC.
A closed circulation system, usually larger than an eddy.
Relatively small 'co"pepods of vari-
" able form, characterized by short
antennules, with few segments and
no conspicuous division of the body
and tail sections; common
constituents of meiofauna.
&;
lOt
Metals vith specific gravities of 5.0 or greater (e. g., 5
t~es the density of water).
. Animals'which fe~d chiefly on plants.
The study of tissue changes characteristic of a disease.
Ari echinoderm of the class Holothuroidea, characterized by
a cylindrical body, smooth, leathery skin and feeding
tentacles; includes the sea "cucumbers.
A solution of hydrogen chl~ride g~s in water; primary by-
product of the incineration of organochlorine compounds.
That portion of the planktonic mass composed of fish eggs
and weakly motile fish larvae.
An organism- so strictly associ;ted wi"th particular
environmental conditions that its presence is indicative
of the existence of such conditions. .
Having originated in, being produced, growing, or living
naturally in a particular region or environment; native.
Aquatic animals which live in the bottom sediment.
(Latin) in the original
environment).
or natural
setting {in the
Animals lacking a backbone or internal skeleton.
A line on a chart connecting points of equal depth below
mean sea level.
6-9
-------
ISOPODS
I SO'l'BERHAL
LARVA.
, LC50
"
LIMITING
PERMISSIBLE
CONCENTRATION
(LPC)
LITTORAL
MACIlOZOOPLANrION
MESOPELAGIC
MID-ATLANTIC
BIGHT
MIOCENE
KIXED LAYER
MODEL
MOLLUSCA
MONITOR.ING
Small crustaceans with flattened bodies, .
and reduced head s' and abdomens. They
are an important intermediate link in
marine rood chains.
e
u
N
:~..;.; 0., ...
of
tbroughout
a
Approximate equality
geogr~pbical area.
A young and immature form of an organism which must
usually undergo one or more form and size changes before
assuming cbaracteristic features of tbe adult.
temperature
. Letbal Concentration -50; In
concentration of a contaminant
mortality in' the population of
unit time (usually 96 hours).
bioassay studies, the
whicb causes 50 percent
test organisms during a
A con.centration of a waste material
. mixing, does not exceed marine water
cause acute or chronic toxicity,
effects.
which, after initial
quality criteria, or
or other sub le tha1
Of or pertaining to tbe ~eashore, especially the regions
between tide lines.
Planktonic animals which ~an be r.ecogniz~d by the unaided
eye.
pertaining to depths of 200 to l,OOOm below the
surface.
ocean
The Continental Shelf waters extending from Cape, Cod, MA
to Cape Hatteras, NC.
A geologic epocb of tbe Tertiary period, extending from
the end of the Oligocene to the beginning of the Pliocene;
7 to 26 million years ago.
The upper layer of the ocean whicb is well mixed by wind
and wave activity.
A mathematical or physical system, obeying certain
specified conditions, whose bebavior is used to understand
an analogous physical, biological or social system.
A phylum of unsegmented animals most of which possess a
calcareous shell; includes snails, mussels, clams, and
oysters.
As used herein, observation of environmen~al effects of
disposal operations througb biological and chemical data
collection and analyses.,
6-10
-------
MUTAGEN
KYC'l'OPHIDS
NANNOPLANKTON
NEKTON
NEMATODA
NERITIC
NEUSTON
NEU1'RALIZE
(NEtmlALIZATION)
NEW YORK RIGHT
NEW YORK B IGRT
APEX
NUISANCE SPECIES
ORGANOHAI.OGENS
OSTRACODA
A substance which increases the frequency or extent of
mutations (changes in hereditary material).
A group 0 f small meso-
pelagic fish which possess
light-emitting organs and
undergo daily large-scale
vertical (deep to near
surface) migrations; also
called lanternfish.
8C111
Minute planktonic plants and animal~ which
less in size. Individuals of this size pass
'plankton nets and are, therefore, most easily
centrifuging water samples.
are 50 u or
through most
collected by
Free-swimming aquatic animals that move independently of
water currents.
A phylum of free-living and parasitic unsegmented
found in a wide variety of habitats.
worms;
pertaining to the region of shallow water adjoining the
seacoast, and extending from the low-tide mark to a depth
of about 200m. .
Organisms that are associated with the upper 5 to 20 em of
water;.mainly composed of copepods and ichthyoplankton.
To make a solution neutral (neither acidic nor alkaline)
from an acidic or to an alkaline condition.
The Continental Shelf and overlying waters 'which extend
from Montauk Point, Long Island, NY, to Cape May, NJ.
A portion of the New York Bight bounded at the south by
latitude 40°10' and at the east by longitude 73°30'.
Organisms of no commercial value. which, because of
predation or competition, may be harmful to commercially
important organisms.
Organic substances
the elements carbon
the halogen family:
or iodine.
whose chemical constitution includes
and hydrogen. plus a common element of
astatine bromine, chlorine, fluorine,
A subclass of the class Crustacea
inclusive of gmall benthic forms with
bodies completely enclosed within a round
bivalve carapace; also called "seed
shrimps."
2II1II
,.
6-11
-------
OXIDE
OXYGEN MIHnroM
LAtER
. P AllAMETER
PCB(s)
"'-
PELAGIC
PERCENT DRY
WEIGHT
"
PER'l'URBATION
pH
PHOSGENE (COC12)
PHOTIC ZONE
PRnOPLANKTON
PLANKTON
PLUME
POLYCRAETA
A binary chemical compound in which oxygen is combined
with another elemeBt, metal, nonmetal, gas, or radical.
A .subsurface layer in the water column in which the
concentration of dissolved oxygen is.. ..lower than in the
layers above or below.
'Values or physical properties which describe
. characteristics or behavior of a set of variables.
the
Polychlorinated biphenyl( s); any of several chlorinated
compounds having various industrial applications. PCBs
are toxic pollutants which tenq to accumulate in the
enviroument.
Pertaining to water of the open ocean
Continental Shelf and above the abyssal zone.
beyond
the
An expression of the concentration of a constituent in
relation to its contribution (in percent) to the total
weight of dried sample material.
A disturbance of a natural or regular system;
departures from an assumed steady state of a system.
any
The acidity or alkalinity of a solution, determined by the
negative logarithm of the' hydrogen ion concentration (in
gram-atoms per liter), ranging fro~ 0 to 14 (lower than 7
is acid, higher than 7 is alkaline).
A highly toxic, colorless gas which condenses tp a fuming
liquid at O°C; used in the manufacture of organic
compounds; also a by-product of the exhaustive chlori-
nation reclamation process.
The layer of a body of water wh~ch
. sunlight for photosynthesis.
receives
sufficient
Minute passively floating plant life in a body of water;
the base of the food chain in the sea.
The passively floating or weakly swimming, usually minute
animal and plant life in a body of water.
A patch of turbid water, caused by the suspension of fine
particles following a disposal operation.
. . The largest class of the phylum
Annelida (segmented worms);
benthic marine worms distin-
guished by paired, lateral,
fleshy appendages provided with
bristles (setae) on most
segments.
SCII
6-12
-------
UPWELLING
The rising .of water toward
layers of a body of water..
rich in nutrients; regions
areas of rich fisheries.
the surface. from subsur.face
Upwelled water is cooler and
of upwelling are generally
VECTOR
A straight or curved line representing both direction and
magnitude.
WATER MASS
A body of water t identified by its temper.ature-salinity
values t or chemical compositiont consisting of a mixture
of two or more water types.
WATER TYPE
Ocean water of a specified tem~rature and salinity;
d'efined a8 a s.ingle point on a temperature-salinity
diagram.
ZOOPLANKTON
Weakly swimming animals whose distr.ibution in the o~ean is
ultimately determined by current movementa~
6-15
-------
REFERENCES *
Ackerman, D., H~ Fisher, R. Johnson',
Scheyer, C.. Shih, and R.' Tobias.
Orange aboard the M/T VULCA.NUS.
Contract Number 600-2-788-086.
R. Madd a fane , B. Mathews, E. Moon, K.
1978. At-sea incineration of Herbicide
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Amos, A.F., 'A.L. Gordon; and' E~ Schneider. 1971. Water masses and
circulation patterns in the region of tb~ Blake-Bahama outer ridge.
Deep-sea Res., 18:145-165.
Anderson, W.W., J.E. Moore, and H.Il.' Gordy. 1961a. Water temperature off the
soutb At18ntic 'coast of tbe' United States. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Special Scientific Report No. 380, 105 pp.
1961b.
-States .
No. 389.
Oceanic salinities off the south Atlantic coa8~ of the United
Fish' and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report, Fisberies
207 pp.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1977. Destroying chemical wastes in commercial scale
incinerators, 3M Company Chemolite System. Prepared for the U.S.
,Environmental Protection Agency, July.
Atkinson, R., G.M. Breuer, J.N. Pitts, Jr., and H.L. Sandoval. 1976.
Tropospheric and stratospheric sinks for halocarbona: . Photooxidation,
O('D) atomj and,ORradical ~~action~.,'J. Geophys. Res., 81:5765-5770.'
Austin, H.M. 1975.
Pages 271-357
Dumpsite 106.
An analysis of the plankton from Deepwater Dumpsite 106.
in NOAA, May 1974 Baseline Investigation of Deepwater
NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 75-1, 388 pp.
Barber, R., A. Vijayakumar, and F. Cross. 1973.
recent and ninety-year-old benthopelagic fish.
Mercury concentrations in
Scien~e, 178:636-639.
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.
Bender, M.L. and C. Gagner. 1976. Dissolved copper, nickel, and cadmium in
the Sargasso Sea. J. Mar. Res., 34(3):327-339.
Bender, M.L., G.P. Klinkhammer, and D.W. Spencer. 1977. Manganese
seawater and the marine manganese balar.ce. Deep-sea Res., 24:799-812.
in
Bidleman, T.F., C.P. Rice, and C.E. Olney. 1976. High molecular weight
chlorinated hydrocarbons in the air and sea: Rates and mechanisms .of
air/sea transfer. In: Marine Pollutant Transfer. R.L. Windom and R.A.
Duce, editors. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. pp. 323-351.
* Appendixes A and C references included
6-16
-------
Bigelow, H.B. 1933. Studies of the wat~rs 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):1S3-378.
Bisagni, J.J. 1976. Passage of anticyclonic Gulf Stre'am eddies. through
Deepwater Dumpsite 106 during 1974 and 1975. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation
Report 76-1, Rockville, MD., 39 pp..
1977. 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.
Bowman, M.J. and L.D. Wunderlich.
. properties in the New York Bight
Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf
Soc. Lim. and Oceanogr~, Vol. 2.
1976. . Distribution of hydrographic
Apex. Pages 58-68 in M. G. Gross, ed.,
and New York Bight. Special Symp. Am.
19;7. tiycirographic properties. NOAA-MESA New York Bight A:las Monograph
-----I. New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany, New York.
Bowman, T.E. 1971. The distribution of calanoid copepods of the eastern
Uni"ted States between Cape Hatteras and southern Florida: Smithson.
Contrib.'Zool., 96:1-58.
Brewer, P.-G., D.W. Spencer, and D.E. Robertson. 1972. Trace element profiles
from the Geosecs-II test station in the Sargasso sea. Earth and
Planetary Scien~e Letters, 16:111.
Brezenski, r.T. 1975. Analytical results for 'water-column samples
a.t Deepwater Dumpsite 106--May 1974. Pages 203-215 in NOAA,
Baseline Investigation of Deepwater Dumpsite 106. NOAA
Evaluation Report 75-1. Rockville, MD.., 388. pp.
collected
~y 1974
Dumps i t e
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. Vol. I: Physical Characteristics, NOI~ Dumpsite Evaluation Report
77-1. Rockville, MD.. 218 pp.
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.
Carnes, R.A. 1978. Combustion characteristics of hazardous waste streams.
Paper presented to 7lst annuaf Air Poll. Control Assoc. meeting., Houston,
Texas. June 1978. 12 pp.
6-17:'
-------
Carnes, R.A., W.A. Ruben, J.A. Mescber, 'and
Decomposition Analytical System (TDAS):
Paper presented to 72nd annual Air
Cincinnati, Obio. June 1979. 13 pp.
D.S. Duvall. '1979. The Thermal
its development and application.
PolJ. Control Assoc. meeting,
Carnes, R.A. and F.C.Whitmore. 1979. Hazardous waste incineration and
g.aseous waste pollution control. Paper presented to the 72nd annual
Air Poll. Control Assoc. meeting, Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1979. 16 pp.
Casey, J. G. and J. M. Boening. 1977. Apex predators, in Deepwater Dumps i te
106. Pages 309-376 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.
Chang, J.S. and J.E. Penner. 1978. Analysis of global budgets of halo-
carbons. Atmos. Environ., 12:1867-1873.
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. NOAA-MESA Report 74-3. NOAA-ERL., 44 pp.
. Chenoweth, S. 1976.' 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.
. Chenoweth, S., S.K. Katona, and D.S. Brackett. 1976. Nekton. Section 7.4 in
TRIGOM. Summary of environmental information on the Continental Slo~pe
Canadian/United States border to Cape Hatteras, N.C. Research Institute
of the Gulf of Maine, Portland. (NTIS PB-284 002).
Chester, R.D., D. Gardner, J.P. Riley, and J. Stoner. 1973. Mercury in some
surface samples of the world ocean. Mar. Poll. Bull., 4:28-29.
Chester, R. and J.H. Stoner. 1974. The distribution of zinc, nickel"
manganese, cadmium, copper, and iron in some surface samples from the
world ocean. Marine Chemistry, 2(1):17-32.
.
Chow, T.J. and C.C. Patterson.
lead in Atlantic waters
Letters, 1:397.
1966. Concentration profiles of barium and
off Bermuda. Earth and Planetary ~cience
Cifelli, R. 1962. Same dynamic aspects of the distribution of planktonic
foraminifera in the western North Atlantic. J. Mar. Res. 20(3):201-212.
Clark, G.L. 1940. Comparative richness of zooplankton in
offshore areas of the Atlantic. BioI. Bull., 78:226-255.
coastal
and
Clausen, J.F., H.J. Fisher, R.J. Johnson, E.L. Moon, C.C. Shih, R.F. Tobias,
and C.A. Zee. 1977. At-sea incineration of organochlorine wastes on
board the M/T VULCANUS. EPA-60P/2-77-196.
6-18
-------
.
Cohen, D.M. and D.L. Pawson. 1977. Observations from DSRV ALVIN on
populations of benthic fishes and selected larger invertebrates in and
near Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Pages 423-450 in NOAA, Baseline Report of
Environmental Conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volume II:
Biological Characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-i.
Rockville, MD., 485 pp.
Cox, R.A., R.G. Derwent, A.E.J. Eggleton,
Photochemical oxidation of halocarbons
Environ., 10, 305-308~
and J.E. Lovelock.
in the troposphere.
1976.
Atmos.
Cranston, R. E. and D. E. Buckley. 1972. Mercury pathways
estuary. Environ. Sci. and Tech., 6:274-278.
in a river and
Csanady, G.T. 1979..
Oceanus, 22(2):28.
What drives
the waters of the Continental Shelf?
Derwe1\t, R.G. and A.E.J. Eggleton. 1978. Halocarbon lifetimes and
concentration distributions calculated using a two-dimensional
tropospheric model. ~tmos. Environ., 12:1261-1269.
Drake, C.L., J.1. Ewing, and H. Stockard. 1968. The continental margin of
the eastern United States. Can. Jour. Earth Sci., 5:993-1010.
Duvall, D.S. and W.A. Ruben. 1976. Laboratory evaluation of high-temperature
destruction of kepone and related pesticides. Prepared for U.S. EPA
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory Office of Researc~ ,and
Development,. Cinc.innati', Ohio. EPA-600.2-?6-299. .'60 pp.. .
1977. Laboratory evaluation of high-temperature destruction of
po 1ychlorinated biphenyls and related compounds. Prepared for U. S. EFA
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/2-77-228. 63 pp..
Eman, V . W .
currents.
1963. On the influence of the earth's rotation on
Almquist and Wikse11s Boktryckeri Ab Uppsa1a. 52 pp.
ocean
Emery, lCO. and E. Uchupi. 1972. Western North Atlantic Ocean topography,
rocks, structure, water, life and sediments.' Amer. Assoc. Petroleum
Geo1. Memoir 17. Tulsa, OK. 532. pp.
EPA.
See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Fa1k, L.L., T.D. Myers, and R.V. Th~ann. 1~74. Waste
istics in an oceanic environment. Submitted to
Research and Monitoring, Washington, D.C. Proj. No.
dispersion character-
U.S. EPA, Office of
12020 EAW., 306 pp.
Federal Register. 1977. Environmental Protect ion Agency, Ocean Dumping,
Final Revision of Regulations and Criteria. Vol. 42, No.7, Tuesday,
January 11, 1977. Part VI:2462-2490.
6-19
-------
1978. Corrections to Ocean Dumping, Final Revision to Regulations and
-----Criteria. Vol. 43, No. 4, Wednes~ay, ~anuary 6, 1978. ~ 1071.
1978. Foreign Fishing Regulations. Vol. 43 No. 244, Tuesday, December
19, 1978. Part III: 59292-59325.
Finn, D.
1980.
Georges Bank.
The legal
issues.
Oceanus, 23(2):28-38,
Fisher, A.A., Jr. 1973. Environmental guide to the Virginia Capes operating
area, Sp. Pub. 211, U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office, 58 pp.
Fitzgerald, R.A., D.C. Gordon, and R.A. Cranston. 1974. Total mercury in
seawater in the northwest Atlantic. Deep-sea Res., 21(3):13'9-144.
Fitzgerald, W.F. 1975. Mercury analyses in seawater' using cold trap
preconcentration and gas phase detection, Pages 99-901 in Analytical
Methods in ,Oceanography. T.R.P. Gibb, ed., Advances in Chemistry Series,
American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
Fitzgerald, W.F. and C.D. Hunt. 1974. Distribution of mercury in the surface
micro-layer and in subsurface waters of the northwest Atlantic. Journal
de Recherches Atmospheriques, 8(3-4):629-637.
Fitzgerald, W.F. and, W.B. Lyons.
waters: Sampling procedures.
1975~ Mercury concentrations in open-ocean
Limnol. and Oceanogr., 20(3):468.
Fuglister, F.C. ,1971. Cyc1Qnic rings formed by the Gulf Stream 1955-56,
Pages 137-168 in Studies in Phys. Oceanog., ,Gordon and Breach, paper 10.
1963. Gulf Stream '60. In Sears (ed.) Progress in Oceanography.
Pergamon Press Ltd. 382 pp.
Vol. I.
Gardner, D. 1975. Observations on the distribution of dissolved mercury .in
the ocean. Marine Poll. Bull., 6(3):43-46. -
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 Yo~k" 129 pp.
Gordon, B.L.
pp.
1977.
The secret lives of fishes.
Grosset and Dunlap, NY.
305
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 She1f 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.
'6-20
-------
Grasshoff, K. 1974.
sea. Append ix
Herbicide Orange
1974.
Possible effects of burning chlorinated hydrocarbons at
N of final envitonmental statement: disposition of
by incineration. Department of the Air Force, November
Greig,' R. and D. Wendoff. 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 (C15 ) in sediments
collected at stations in and near Deepwater Dumpsite 106.+ Pages 546-564
in NOAA, Baseline Report of Environmental Conditions in Deepwater
Dumpsi te 106. Volume III: contaminant inputs and chemical character-
istics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1. Rockville, MD:, 798 pp.
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~ Marine Poll. Bull.,
.7(10):185-187.
Greig, .R.A., D. Wenzloff, and C. Shelpuk.. 1975. Mercury concentrations in
fish, North Atlantic offshore waters--1971. Pesticides Monitoring
Journal, 9(1):15-20.
Grice. G. D. and A. D. Hart. 1962. The abundance, season~l occurrence., an~
distribution of the epizooplankton between New York and Bermuda. Ecol.
Moriogr., 34:4.
Guseyj. W.F.
.lSlght.
1976. The fish and wildlife resources Qf the Middle Atlantic
Shell Oil Company.. 582 pp.. .
Haedrich, R. 1977. Neustan fish at DW'D 106. Pages 481-485 in NOAA.,
Baseline Report of Environmental Conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106.
Volume II: Biological Characteristics. NOAA Dumpsi te Evaluation Report
77-1. Rockville, MD., 485 pp.
Haedrich, R.L., G.T. Rowe, and P.'!. Polloni-, 1975. Zonation' and faunal
composition of epibenthic populations on the Continental Slope south of
New England. J. Mar. Res., 33:191-212.
Halebsky, M. 1978. A study of the economics and environmental viability of a
U. s. -flag toxic chemical incineration ship. U ..5. ~partment of Commerce,
Maritime Administration. Report No. 04068-002, 3 Vols.,
Harbison, R., L. Madin., and V. McAlister. 1977. Gelatinous zooplankton at
Deepwater Dumpsi te 106. 'Pages 305-307 in NOAA. Baseline Report 0 f
Environmental Conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volume II:
Biological Characteristics. NOAA Dump8"ite Evaluation Report 77-1.
Rockville, MD., 485 pp.
Harvey, G. R., W. G. Steinhauer, and J. M. Teal. 1973:.- Polychlorobiphenyls in
North Atlantic ocean water. Science, 180(4086),:643-644.
. Harvey, G.R., H.P'. Miklas, V.T. Bowen, and W.G. Steinhauer'. 1974.
Observations on the distribution of chlorinated hydrocarbons in' Atlantic
Ocean organisms. J. Mar. Res., 32(2):103-118..
6-21'
-------
Hathaway, J.C. 1971. Data file, continent'al margin program, Atlantic coast
of the United States. Vol. 2. Sample collection and analytical dat:a.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Tech Rept. 71-15. 496 pp.
Rausknecht, K.A. 1977. Results of studies on the distribution of some
transition and heavy metals at Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Pages 499-541 in
NOAA, Baseline Report of Environmental Conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite
106. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1. Rockville, MD., 485 pp.
Hausknecht, K.A. and D.R. Kester. 1976. Deepwater Dumpsite' 106 chemical data
report from R/V KNORR, August 27-September 7, 1976. University of Rhode
Island, Kingston, RI., 10 pp.
Heppner, 'F.H! and L.L. Gould.
Hatteras to Cape Cod.
mental Inventory, Cape
Island, Marine Pub. Ser.
1973., Birds of the Atlantic seaboard from Cape
S. B. Saila, ed., Coastal and Offshore Environ-
Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals, Univ. of Rhode
No.2. Chapter 8..
Heezen, B.C. 1975. Photographic reconnaissance of Continental Slop'e and
upper Continental Rise. Pages 27-32 in NOAA., May 197~ Baseline
Investigation of Deepwater Dumpsite' 106. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report
75-1. Rockville, MD., ,388 pp.
, Hollman, R. 1971. Nearshore physical oceanography. New York OGfan Scienle
Laboratory Tech.. Rept. 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, ~.C.,
169 pp.
Hulburt, E.M. 1963. The diversity of phytoplanktonic populations in oceanic,
coastal and estuarine regions. J. Mar. Res., 21:81-93. .
1966. The distribution of phytoplankton and its relationship to
hydrography, between southern New England and Venezuela~ J. Mar. Res.,
24:67-81.
1970. Competition for nutrients by marine phytoplankton in
coastal and estuarine regions. Ecology, 51:475-84.
oceanic,
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., 21:603-612.
6-22
-------
Hulburt, t.M. and J. Rodman. .1963. Distribution of phytoplankton species
wi th respect to salinity between t'he coast of southern New England and
Bermuda. Limnol. and Oceanogr., 88:263-69.
Hulburt, E.M., J.A. Ryther, and R.R.L. Guillard. 1960.
Sargasso Sea off Bermuda. Jour. Du. Cons. Perm.
25(2): 115-128.
Phytoplankton of the
Int.. ~plor. Mer.,
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.
Jones, C. and R.H. Baedrich. 1977. Epibenthic invertebrates.
in NOAA, Baseline Report of Environmental Conditions
Dumpsite 106. Volume II: Biological Characteristics.
Evaluation Report 77-1. Rockville, MD., 485 pp.
Pages 451-458
in Deepwater
NOAA Dumpsite
Junge, C. E. 1977. Basic considerations abouttra'ce constituents
atmosphere as related to the fate of global pollutants. In:
Pollutants in the Air and Water Environment, Part 1. I. H.
editor. "Wiley, New York., pp. 7-25.
in the
Fate of
Suf fet ,
Kamlet, S.K. 1978. Ocean disposal of organochlorine wastes by at-sea
incineration. Paper presented at the First International Ocean Dumping
Symposium, University of Rhode Island, October 10-13. 35 pp.
Kel~er, G.H., D. Lambert, G. Rowe, and N. Staresinic.
in the Hudson Canyon.' Science, 180: 181-183.
1973.
Bottom currE!Jlts
Kester, D.R., K.A. Hausknecht, and R.C. Hittinger.1977. Recent analyses of
copper, cadmium, and lead at Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Pages 543-546 in
NOAA, Baseline Report of . Environmental Conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite
106. Vol.. III: Contaminant inputs and chemical characteristics.
NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1. Rockville, MD., 798 pp.
Ketchum, B.H., J.H. Ryther, C.S. Yentsch, and N. Corwin.
in relation to nutrients. Rapp. Proc. -Verb. Cons.
144:132-140.
1958. Productivity
Int. Explor. Mer.,
Krueger, W.H., R~H. Gibbs, Jr., .R.C. Kleckner, A.A. Keller, and M.J. Keene.
1977. Distribution 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 II:
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 Dumpsi te 106. Pages 359-388 in
NOAA, May 1974 Baseline Investigation of Deepwater Dumpsite 106. NOAA
Dumpsite Evaluation Report 75-1. Rockville, MD., 388 pp.
6-23
-------
Larsen, P.F. and S. Chenoweth. 1976. Renthos. Section 7.3 in RLM. Summary
of environmental information on the Continental Slope Canadian/Uni ted
States borde:- to Cape Hatteras, NC. Research Institute of the Gulf of
Maine, Portland, ME. (NTIS PB-184 002):
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
-Atlantid Ocean Rasin. . Riol. Rull., 74:376-394.
MacDonald, A.G. 1975. Physiological Aspects of Deep Sea Biology.
University Press, London, 450 pp.
Cambridge
Malone, T.C. 1977. Plankton systematics and distribution. MESA New York
Bight Atlas Monograph 13. New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany, New
York, 4.5 pp.
McClintock G. and T. Williams. 1978. Autumnal bird migration observed from
ships in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Rird Banding, 49(3):262-227.
McLaughlin, D., J.A. Elder, G.T. Orlob, .D.F. Kibl.er, and D.E. Evenson.
A conceptual representation of the New York Bight ecosystem.
Technical Memorandum ERL MESA-4.
1975.
NOAA
Milliman, 'J.D. 1973. Marine geology. In Coastal and Offshore Environmental
Inventory--Cap~ Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals. Complement Volume. Marine
Pub. Sere No.3, Univ. Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. 02881...
Milliman, J.D., O.R. Pilkey, and D.A. Ross. 1972.
Continental Margin off the Eastern United States.
. Am., 83(5)1315:1333.
Sediments of the
Bull. Geol. Soc. of
Moore, H.B. 1951. The seasonal distribution of oceanic birds in the western
north Atlantic. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf and Caribbean 1(1):1-14.
Murphy, R.C. 1967. Distribution of North Atlantic pelagic birds.. Serial
Atlas of the Marine Environment, 'Folio 14. Am. Geogr. Soc.
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.
National Academy of Science (NAS). 1978. The tropospheric transport of
pollutants and other substances to the oceans. NAS, Washington, D.C.,
243 pp.
1979. Polychlorinated biphenyls.
NAS, Washington D.C., 182 pp.
Report on polychlorinated biphenyls.
NOAA. 1975. Baseline investigation of Deepwater Dumpsite 106.
Evaluation Report 75-1. May 1974, 388 pp.
NOAA Dumpsite
.
6-24
-------
1977.
-106.
Baseline report of environmental conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite
3 Vols. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1. 218 pp.
1975. Report
-December 1977.
to the Congress
Washington, D.C..
on ocean
25 pp.
dumping research.
January-
1981. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Commercial Thermal Ocean
-Energy Conversion (OTEC) Licensing. Off. Ocean Minerals and Energy.
Washington, D.C. 251 pp.
NOAA-MESA. 1975. Annual summary of research results for fiscal year 1974,
. MESA New York Bight Project. NOAA TM !iL MESA-2. Boulder, Colorado,
193 pp.
1977. Fishery statistics of the United States--1974.
No. 84. Prepared by J.P. Wise, and B.G. Thompson.
Washington D.C., 424 pp. '
Statistical Digest
NOAA--S/T 77-3026.
Oceanographer of the Navy. 1972. 'Environmental con4ition report for numbered
deepwater munitions dumpsites, pages 10-13 Appendix C. Dept. of the
Navy, Washington, t.C.
Paige, S.F., L.B. Baboolal, H.J. Fisher, K.H. Scheyer, A.M. Shaug, R.C. Tan,
and C.F. Thorne. 1978. Environmental assessment: At-sea and land based
. incineration of organochlorine wastes. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract No. 68-02-2660.
Pearce, J.B. 1974.' Benthic aa.semblages in the deeper Continental Shelf
waters of the Middle Atlantic Bight. Pages 297-318 in 8LM, 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 Cont~nental Shelf Conference and
Workshop, 504 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. Rockville, MD., 388 pp.
Pearce, J.B., J.V. Caracciolo, and F.W. Steimle, Jr. 1977. Final report 0t\
benthic in fauna 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.
, Pratt, R.M. 1968. Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the United States
- Physiography and sediments of the deep-sea basin. U. S. Geologica~
Survey Professional Paper 52915, 43 pp.
Pratt, S.'D. 1973. Benthic fauna. Pages 5-1 to 5-70 in S.B. Sail a , ed.,
Coastal and Offshore Environmental Inventory-Cape Hatteras to Nantucket
Shoals. Marine Publications Series No.2. Occasional Publication No.5,
University of Rhode Island, Providence, RI., 693 pp.
6-25
-------
Processes Research, Inc. 1977.. Alternatives for hazardous waste management
in the organic chemical,. pesticides. and explosives industries, final
report. Performed under Con~ract No. 68-01-4127 for the EPA, Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs.
Que Hee, S.S., R.G. Sutherland, and M. Vetter. 1975. GLC analysis of 2,4-D
concentrations in air samples from central Saskatchewan. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 9:62~66.
Riley, G.A. 1939.
May-June 1939.
Plankton studies. II.
J. Mar. Res., 2(2):145-162.
The western North Atlantic,
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.
plankton of the western North Atlantic.
Collect., 12(3):1-169. .
Quantitative ecology of the
Bull. Bingham Oceanogr.
Rowe, G.T., R.L. Haedrich~ P.T. Polloni, and C.H. Clifford. 1977. Epifaunal
megabenthos in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Pages 459-464 in NOAA, Baseline
Report 0: Environmental Conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106. Volume II:
Biological Characteristics. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1.
Rockvit"le, MD., 485 pp.
Rowe, G.T. and R.J. Menzies. 1969. Zonation of luge benthic invertebrates
in the deep sea off the Carolinas. Deep-sea Res., 16:531-537. .
Ryther, J.B. and C.S. Yentsch. 1958. Primary production of Continental Shelf
waters off New York. Limnol. Oceanogr., 3:227-235.
Saila, S.B. "and S.D. Pratt. 1973. Mid-Atlantic. Bight' Fisheries. pp 6-1-
6-125 in Coastal and Offshore Environmental Inventory Cape Hatteras to
Nantucket Shoals. Marine Exper. Sta., Grad. Sch. Oceanogr., Univ. Rhode
Island. Mar. Pub. Ser. No.2. Kingston, RI.
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.
Science, 163:1419-1424.
1969.
Ecology of the deep-sea benthos.
Saunders, P.M. 1971.
the Gulf Stream.
Anticyclonic eddies formed from shoreward meanders of
Deep-Sea Res., 18:1207-1219.
Schroeder. E.
Atlantic.
1966. Average surface temperatures
Bull. Mar. Sci., 16:302-323.
of the western North
Scurlock, A.C., A.W.
Inc:inerat ion in
Protection Agency.
Lindsey, T. Fields, Jr., and
hazardous was te management.
Report No. EPA-503-SW-141.
D.R.
U. S.
Huber. 1975.
Environmental
6-26
-------
Sears, M. and F.L. Clarke. 1940. Annual ,fluctuations in 'the abundance of
marine zooplankton. Biol. Bull., .79:321-328.
Shain, S.A. and C.A. Lieder. 1974. Concentration of HCI downwind of the
VULCANUS. Attachment to "Technical'Analysis-Monitoring of At-Sea
Incineration", November 1, 1974.
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. Vol. II: Biological
Characteristics NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 77-1. Roclcville, MD.,
485 pp.
Shih, C.C., ~.E. Colten, D. Dean, S.F. Paige, E.P. Pulaski, and C.F. Thorne.
1978. Comparative cost analysis and environmental assessment for
disposal of organochlorine wastes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Contract No. 68-02-2613. '
Singh, ,!LB., L.J. Sales, H. Shigeishi, and E. Scribner. 1979.
halocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride: global distribution,
sinks. Science, 203:899-903.
Atmospheric
sources, and
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 Coastal and
Offshore Environmental Inventory: Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals.
Univ. of RI., Kingston, RI.
. Spencer, D.W. and P.G. Brewer. 1969. The distribution of copper, zinc, and
nickel in seawater of the Gulf of Maine and. the Sargasso Sea. Geochimi.ca
et Cosmochimica Acta, 33:325-339.
Steele,' J.H. and C.S. Yentsch. 1960. The vertical distribution of
chlorophyll. J. Marine Biol. Assoc. United Kingdom" 39:217-26.
Stommel, H. 1960. The Gulf Stream,; A Physical Dynamical Description.
Calif. Press, Los Angeles, 202'pp.
TerEco Corporation. 1975. Sea-level monitoring of the incineration of
organic chl.oride waste by MIT VULCANUS in the northern Gulf of Mexico.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract 68-01-2829.
Univ.
Undated. A report on the Philadelphia Dumpsite and Shell incineration
-----monitorings. Unpublished. 45 pp.
TRW.
1976. Assessment of industrial hazardous waste prac:;tices: organic
chemicals, pesticides and explosives industries. Final Report SW-118c.
Performed under Contract No. 68-01-2919 for EPA, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs.
Uchupi, E. 1970. Atlantic continental shelf and slope of the United States
--- Shallow structures. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 5291.
43 pp.
6-27
-------
U.S. Coast Guard. 1979. Vessel casualty statistic3 compiled for fiscal years
1974-1978 for vessels over 1,000 gross tons. Washington, D.C.
(unpublished) .
U.S. Dept. of State and U.S. Environmental Protection" Agency. 1979. Final
environmental impact statement for incineration of wastes at sea under
the 1972 Ocean Dumping Convention.
U. S. Environmental' Protection Agency. 1976a. Quality criteria for water.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1976b. Designation of a site in tbe Gulf of Mexico for incineration of
-----chemical wastes. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Division of Oil
and Special Materials Control. Washington, D.C.
1980a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for 106-Mile Ocean Waste
-----Disposal Site Designation. Contract No. 68-01-4610.
1980b. Find :;nvironmental Impact Statement for New 'York Bight Acid
-----Waste Disposal Site Designation. Contract No. 68-01-4610.
U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office.
Atlantic Ocean. Se::ion!.
75 pp.
1965. Oceanographic Atlas of the No~th
':ides and currents. Publica:ion No. 700.
1963. Oceanographic Atlas of the'North Atlantic Ocean.
and. Swell. 227 pp.
Section IV.
Sea
196~. Oceanographic Atlas of the North Atlantic Ocean.
~hysical Properties. .300 pp.
Section II.
U.S. Navy. 1955.
Atlantic Ocean.
Marine Climatic Atlas of the World.
NAVAER 50-1c-528. xvii + 275 pp.
Vol.
I.
North
Versar, Inc.
inorganic
Contract
Programs.
1975. Assessment
chemicals industry.
No. 68-01-2246 for
of industrial hazardous' waste practices,
Final report SW-104c. Performed under
EPA, Office of Solid Waste Management
Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). 1974. A socio-environmental
baseline summary for the South Atiantic Region between Cape Hatteras,
~orth Carolina and Cape Canaveral, Florida. VIMS, Gloucester Point, VA.
Von An, W.S. 1962. An Introduction to Physical Oceanography, .Addison
Wesley, Reading, Mass., 422 pp.
Voorhis, A.D.. D. C. Webb, and R. C. Millard.
mixing in the Shelf/Slope Water front
. Geophts. Res., 81(21):3695-3708.
1976. Current structure and
south of New England. Jour.
Warsh, C.E. 1975a. Physical oceanographic observations at Deepwater Dumpsite
106--May 1974. Pages 141-187 in NOAA, May 1974 Baseline Investigation of
Deepwa ter Dumps i te 106. NOAA Dumps i te Evaluation Report 75-1.
Rockville, MD., 388 pp. .
6-28
-------
1975b. Physical oceanography historical data for Deepwater Dumpsite 106.
-Pages 105-140 in NOAA, May 1974 Baseline lnvestigation of Deepwater
Dumpsite 106. NOAA Dumpsite Evaluation Report 75-1, Rockville, MD.,
, 388 pp.
WastIer, I.A., C.K. Offutt, C.K. Fitzsimmons, and P.E: Des Rosiers. 1975.
Disposal of organochlorine wastes by incineration at sea. EPA-430/9-
75-014. Division of Oil and Special Materials Control, Office of Water
and Hazaraous Materials, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C.
Waterman, I.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.
Res., 16:85-98.
Deep-sea
Wilkinson, R.R., G.L. Kelso, and F.C. Hopkins. ,1978. State-of-the-art report
pesticide disposal research. ' U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Contract No. 68-03~2527.
Williams, I.C., J.M. wi~liam5, L.C. Irelanci, and ';.H. Teal.
bird migration over the western' North Atlantic Ocean.
31(3):251. '
1);7. Autumna.l
American Birds,
Williams, T. e. and J .M.' Williams. 1978a. The Orientation of Transatlantic
Migrants. Animal Migration Navigation and Homing. K. Schm~dt Koenig and
W. Keeton, eds., Springer Verlag, Berlin.
1978b.
An oceanic mass migration of land birds.
Sci. Amer., 239(4):166.
-
Windom, H.L., and R.G. Smith. 1972. Distribution of-cadmium, cobalt, nickel,
and zinc in Southeastern U.S. Continental Shelf waters. Deep~sea Res.,
19: 727-730.
Windom, H., R. Stickney, R. Smith, D. White, and F. Taylor. 1973. Arsenic,
cadmium, copper, mercury, and zinc in some species of North Atlantic
finfish. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 4(13):60.
1973a. Mercury in North Atlantic plankton.
-Explor. Mer., 35:18-21.
Jour. du Cons. Perm. Int.
Wright, W.R. 1976. Physical oceanography. Chapter 4 in TRIGOM. A summary
of environmental information on the Continental Slope Canadian/U.S.
border to Cape llatteras, N.C. The Research lnstitute of the Gulf of
Maine.
Yentsch, e.s.
1:157-175.
1963.
Primary production.
Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev.
6-29
-------
1977. Plankton production. MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 12.
-----York Sea Grant Institute. Albany, New York. 25 pp.
Zafiriou, O.C. 1974. Photochemistry of halogens in the marine atmosphere.
J. Geoph. Res. 79(18):2730-2732.
New
6-30
-------
Appendix A
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
. THE PROPOSED NORTH ATLANTIC INCINERATION SITE
A-i
-------
Section
CONTENTS
Meteorological Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . .
Geological Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Physical Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Regimes. . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
W aves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Temperature Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Salinity Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chemical Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Existing Metal and Organohalogen Concentrations. . . . . . . . .
Biological Characteri~tics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Foreign Fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8a
A-8b
"'-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
JLLUSTRA TJONS
Water Masses and Current Flows of Northwest Atlantic
Ocean Showing Gulf Stream Meanders and Anticyclonic Eddy. . . .
Marsden Square 116; Subsquares 81 and 82 and the
Proposed Incineration Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Average Monthly' Sea-Surface Temperatures for Sub~quares
81 and 82 in Marsden Squate 116 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Average Monthly Sea-Surface Salinities for Subsquares 81 and
82 in Marsden Square 116 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Locations of Sediments Sampled for Heavy Metals in 1974
and 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Station Locations of Major Phytoplankton Studies in. the
Northeastern Atlantic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vertical Distribution of Chlorophyll ~ . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of the Average Chlorophyll a at Inshore (less than 50m)
and Offshore (greater than 1,OOOm)-Sites in the Mid-Atlantic
Bight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
Summary of Mean Daily Primary Production per Square Meter
of Sea Surface at Inshore (less than SOm), Intermediate
(100 to 200m), ana Offshore (greater than 1,000m) Sites in
the Mid-Atlantic Bight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Gross and Net. Photosynthesis Between
Inshore and Offshore Stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Station Locations of Major Zooplankton Studies in the
Northeastern Atlantic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
Vertical Distribution of Zooplankton in Slope Water. . . .
Bird Migration Routes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A-iii
Page
A-1
'A-S
A-9
A-13
. A-14
A-14
A-17
A-1S
A-20
A-3l
A-58
Page
A-2
A-16.
. A-16
A-18
A-26
A-33
A-35
A-36
A-36
A-37
A-42
A-46
A-57
-------
Number
A-1
A-2
A-3a
A-3b
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-1.0
A-ll
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-1S
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
A-2l
A-22
A-23
A-24
TABLES
Page
Meteorological Data for Proposed Incineration Site . . . , , A-3
Annual Precipitation. . .. . , . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . A-4
Air Temperatures, Monthly Mean. . . . . . . . . , . . ' A-5
Inversions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6
Cloudiness, Monthly Mean, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7
Visibility, Monthly Mean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7
Relative Humidity, Monthly Mean. . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 A-8
Monthly Wave Height Frequency for the Proposed
Incineration Site Region 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . . 0 . 0 .
Average Surface Temperature Ranges and Months of Minimum
and Maximum Temperatures for Subsquares 81 and 82 in
Marsden Square 116 . 0 . . 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 0 .
Average Sea-Surface Salinities for Subsquares 81 and 82
in Marsden Square 116 . . 0 . . 0 . . . . 0 . 0 . . 0 . . 0 . . . A-18
Summary of Seawater Metal Concentrations at the
106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 A-21
Range of Metal Concentrations in Seawater. . 0 . 0 . . . . . A-22
Mean Concentrations of Selected Metals in Seawater Samples
from Three Areas North of the Proposed Incineration Site
(September 1976) . 0 0 . . . 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . . . A-24
Heavy Metaltoncentrations in ~he Upper 4 em of Sediments,
Collected'in the Vicinity of the Proposed Incineration Site
(May 1974 and February'1976) 0 . 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 A-25
Metal Concentrations in ,Fish and Crabs Collected in the
Vicinity of the l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site. . 0 . . . , . A-28
C15+ Hydrocarbon Content of Sediment Samples from the
I06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site 0 . . . . 00 o. . 0 0 0 . 0 0 A-30
Dominant Zooplankton Species in the Vicinity of the
l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site 0 . 0 . . . , 0 . . . . 0 . , . A-40
Dominant Neuston Species in the Vicinity of the
l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site. . . 0 0 0 0 , 0 . A-41
Zooplankton Biomass in the Mid-Atlantic Bight 0 0 . 0 0 . . . A-45
Species Summary of Cetaceans o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 " . 0 0 . A-50
Threatened and Endangered Turtles Found in
Mid-Atlantic Slope Waters' 0 . . . . . 0 0
Marine Birds and Migratory Waterfowl of the mid-Atlantic
Bight Area which Use Waters More than S Miles Offshore 0 0 0 0 , 0 A-56
Common to Abundant Bird Species Migrating Annually
from North America to the Caribbean Islands and South America 0 . A-59
Numbers of Fish Caught Per Year by Geographical Location 0 0 0 0 . A-61
Japanese Catch Statistics by Year for Two
North Atlantic Statistical Areas. . . . 0 . . . . . , . . . , . . A-52
o 0 A-lS
. 0 A-17
. . . . .
. A-52
A-iv
-------
Appendix A
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE PROPOSED NORTH ATLANTIC INCINERATION SITE
METEOROLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
WINDS AND STORMS
General wind patterns of the Atlantic Coast are predominantly controlled by
the position and intensity of the Bermuda-Azores' High Pressure System (Figure
A-I). . During winter the system is centered distantly to the southeast,
exerting little influence on tbe Bight. During this period, low-pressure storm
systems moving towards the south-southeast bring strong winds, with average
velocities of 17 kn, and heavy rain or snow (Table A-I). In summer the
influence of the high-pressure circulation creates predominantly south-
southwesterly winds averaging 11 kn. This weather is characterized by warm,
moist air from the Gulf of Mexico, producing showers, thunderstorms, low wind
velocities, and uniformly high temperatures.
Brower 0977 / reported 45 tropical cye lones between 1899 and 1976 are
recorded in the vicinity of the proposed site. These were charact~rized ~s:
(a) 3 depressions, (b) 10 extratropical storms, (c) 11 tropical storms, and
(d) 21 hurricanes, occurring between June and December, but mostly in late
summer to early autumn, with the maximal frequencies in August.
PRECIPITATION
The amount of precipitation falling over the offshore region is uncertain,
although coastal precipitation averages 100 cm/yr, and is well distributed
*See Chapter 6 for references cited in this Appendix
\
A-I
-------
~ ..ri1....J1
"tJIOo'~
~ ~~
t~f;?'
/~."
"'"
j
.~ i'}
,yr ,.
./ /'
I. '
'~,~ /'
" ",,'
'"
"
. )/
b f.:
'/
{,
Er;; ...~~;:::~~"""..,.."..'"
,'::.~.. '"
1 /..,." ,...'
l"' ; ~~
~ .....' .~"~
.1f,,""; ::' ..Ww!' ,,~ ~
~ ,i.... ~ \ . ~'*".' "- .............
!"""'"-'''-''' } r ""'" t !'.
': ~ '.: '.. ..., .:.:; :
~) ,: i ..,~:..... 4 ; ~
. .: ,,' , :
\,,"', : . ,,'~. . ,
b ' ',.;::ri~~~" .';~.. ...""
\. ,.~_.""':. r%Q.D_.,:t-
ri:, J tt" ~,\). -- .' - ' .",
]S' N . .', ~!I . . ,Y'
! /'1~!I ,~"S'7S4' I
Il": ..1 Jr, "...",,; I
7slw A 70'
.
N
..... """,,'i
;"'../'--
.......-- . c::. .
".,--?'~. <)
;;.::::-4;::; :0
/C--~.
........
J
L,
.
N
..
1lOIII, "'"
110m ""'"
"~
,~
~
~
"
35'N
B
~ "WI, 1'"
o
Nautical Milft
:... .' ':;j
. '1..0" ,.' .
.- .-.,.."-; ..' ., <'
.,-~~
~ -;;-'
.'~'"
"
,.,., ~ "'~#
. ,..,- i'-'- ~:. -"..
... : ((~,. '\
: : ,e.' ..:
/ \,"~, j ../; ':~~--
. Y.c~" .." .-,,,
: .~ .. ,. .-
: ......~.,., -' .
: ..,~ . . ...."'........
: l.' , .. .>"
.. : \.1 ',' .'"
. ',....If ,"
:. '. .,t'~ .'" 11
.. -~'" ..,..,~" . . . ,....-
~...".." .,' -: . " ....,.
.' " : ", ;(I'" ,.'
"'.'.~ .:~ . ,..,,-
.,.' ,.: ./ ~~ 0.......' ~
]S'NI;""" /,;,; . ...~.,..., .
}./'" ~
1.",,""../ ~ 2 OK I'"
""W C O'
I
I
I
..'
'-'
'.~'
./ '"
"'. ,.~
',-
I
"
.
~ ,.
!.)~ .1'
. ~,~'
. .
I ;
L'
+
..
N
100
lCilom~tftt
o
o
'*
."
Legend
1lOIII
. ,'..""""""
..,..., """"""
------
Edge,ol Continentt1! Shelf
lSoundt1ry o'-Wt1ter MOInes
" . ".
........
...
Direction 0' Flow
Speed (in knots) - 4.0-
1. Proposed Incinert1tion Site
2. 10ft-Mile Ocun Wule Disposal Site
3. Previously Recommended Site
Figure A-i. Water Masses and Current Flows of Northwest Atlantic
Ocean Showing Gulf Stream Meanders and Anticyclonic Eddy
Source: U.S. Coast Guard Weekly Current Chart~
A-2
-------
TABLE A-l
,
METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR PROPOSED INCINERATION SITE
.
Month Wind Direction Mean Wind
(% of Time Occurring) Speed
N NW W SW S SE E NE Calm kn m/s
J~nuary 18 23 1.7 12 10 4 4 8 4 18 9.0
February 23 22 16 10 9 3 4 8 5 19 9.5
March 17 19 15 12 13 6 4 9 5 18 9.0
April 15 12 14 14 17 5 6 10 7 15 8.5
May 13 8 10 16 17 7 8 10 11 13 6.5
June .9 6 10 19 18 8 8 10 12 12 6.0
July 7 5 9 23 21 5 6 10 14 11 5.5
August 11 6 8 18 19 7 8 12 11 11 5.5
September 16 8 7 10 11 7 12 19 10 1.2 6.0
October 18 16 10 9 11 6 .8 14 8 15 7.5
November 18 20 16 10 10 5 5 10 6 17 8.5
December 19 23 19 11 9 3 4 7 5 18 9.0
Note: Data reported is the percent of total observations with snow or rain.
Sources: Wind direction data from NOAA (1973) for the area 35° to 400N, .70° to
7S~; all other data from Brower (1977) for 38°24' to 39°12'N, 71°481
to 72°36'W.
throughout the year (Brower, 1977). Most rainfall occurs between November and
March (Table A-2) and is generally associated with widespread storms. Brief
rainshowers associated with localized thunderstorm activity produce maximal
rainfa 11 with minimal frequencies in summer. Winter snowstorms produce an
average of 38 to 100 cm/yr precipitation. Table A-2 presents percent
frequencies of precipitation, reported by maritime vessels during passage
through offshore areas.
A-3
-------
TABLE A-2
ANNUAL PRECIPI1'A'IION
;...
Jan Feb M~r Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number of
Observations 439 304 402 512 425 521 408 421 522 422 524 440
Pprcent of
r reci pi tation 15.3 18.1 13.7 11.1 6.9 5.4 4.9 4.7 5.9 6.4 11. 6 14.8
Percent of
Snow 4.3 4.9 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.7
Percent of
Precipitation
with Snow 27.8 27..2 15.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 18.2
Coordinates: 38°24'N to 39°12'N, 7lo48'W to 72°36'W
Source:
Brower, 1977
AIR TEMPERATURE AND INVERSIONS
The proposed North Atlantic Incineration Site will be outside the
mid-Atlantic Bight, seaward of. the Continental Shelf, and off the Delaware-
Maryland coast. The proposed and alternative sites lie within a mid-latitude
zone of prevailing westerlies where the daily wind flow moves generally from
west to east. Polar air dominates the region about 2 months out of the year,
whereas warmer tropical Atlantic air dominates the other 10 months of the
year. In general, the climate of the region can best be described as modified
continental, due to the greate~ influence of the westward landmass, as opposed
to the eastward ocean (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1977).
The marine air temperature is strongly influenced by the Atlantic Ocean.
During winter months (October to March) the mean air temperature over the
Bight gradually increases (from northwest to southeast) when cold north-
westerly winds prevail. The warm sea surface rapidly modifies the cold conti-
nental air as much as 8°C.
During summer the r~verse phenomenon occurs, and
air temperatures decrease from northwest to southeast..
Brower (1977) presents a detailed discussion of annual air temperatures in
the vicinity of the proposed lncineration Sit~ (Table A-3a). .
A-4
-------
TABLE A-3a
AIR 'l'EMPERA'l'URES, MONTHLY MEAN
(OC)
J F M A M . J A S 0 N D Annu..l
-
I 5.5 3.7 5.5 7.9 12.2 18.5 22.6 23.5 20. 7 16.4 11. 8 7.6 13.L.
II 7.0 6.4 7.5 10.5 14.1 19.6 23.5 24.0 21.6 18.3 - 13.5 9.2 12.4
Sources:
I - Brower (1977); Southeastern Marine Area: 39°N to 40oN,
7loW to 73°W
II - Brower (1977); l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site:
38°24'N to 39°12'N 7lo48'W to 72°36'W
- ,
INVERSIONS
Atmospheric temperature inversions of marine air are generally weak and
infrequent ir. the oceanic region of the mid-Atlantic Bight. The most frequent
occurrences are observed above l,500m (Table-A-3b). Between l,500m and l,OOOm
inver'sions of 2°C+ generally occur only during spring and summer. Below
l,OOOm inversions of 2°C+ occur onl~ rarely.
Inversions can be disrupted by daily atmospheric temperature increases and
wind turbulence. During daytime heating inversions less intense than maximum
daily temperature increases will be broken. For this reason, only- inversions
of the 2°C+ category are considered significant in the region of the proposed
site.
CLOUDINESS
Cloudiness over the Bight is minimal in late summer and early autumn when
weather is dominated by the Bermuda High, and maximal in winter when north-
easterly storms prevail. From Oc~ober to Y~rch there is generally a seaward
. \
decrease of clear skies, with maximum overcasts occurring in - December and
January. Brower (1977) reports cloudy skies (equal to or greater than 5/8
coverage) reach a maximum of slightly more than 60% frequency of occurrence
during the winter over the region of the proposed and alternative Incineration
Sites (Table A-4).
A-5
-------
TABLE A-3b
INVERSIONS
>
I
a>
Dee, Jan, and Feb Har, Apr. and Hay Jun, Jul, and Aug Sep. Oc t, and Nov
-Altitude Intensity Frequency Intensity Frequency Intensity Frequency Intensity Frequency
1,50Om 1 lI% 1 11% I 8% I 11%
2 7% 2 7% 2 3% 2 3%
) 2% 3 J% 3 1% 3 3%
--
I,OOOm I 4% I lI% 1 9% 1 9%
2 3% 2 3% 2 1% 2 IX
) 0.5% 3 2% ) 2%
500m I 3% 1 4% I 4% I 2%
2 1% 2 2%
3 1%
50m 1 2% 1 1% 1 0.5% 0
Altitude represents the lower limit of observations
Intensity
I - 0.0 to 0.9°C
2 - 1.0 to I. 9°C
3. -.+2.O°C
Source:
u.s. Navy. 1955
- "
-------
TABLE A-4
CLOUDINESS) MONTHLY MEAN
(% Frequency Cloud Cove~ ~5/8)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun I Jul Oct INOV Annua 1
I 58.5 60.7 43.8 40.5 46.6 38.4 36.2 35.1 137.8 49.7 45.2
II 61. 2 63.5 50.2 44.5 39.9 35.0 32.9 34.0 39.1 51.8 45.2
Sources:
1 - Brower) 1977; Southeastern Marine Area:
now to 73°W
39°N to 40oN,
II - Brower, 1977; 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site:
38°29'N to 39°l2'N) 71°48'W to 72°36'W
VISIBILITY
Reduced visibility in the vicinity of the proposed site is due ~ainly to
advection fog and haze. Marked variation during the year is noted in the
frequency of visibility of less than 2 nmi (Table A-5), with greatest values
usually occurring during late spring and early. summer. Dense fogs may occur
during two or three consecutive. mornings) but usually dissipate befor~ noon
. (Brower,. 1977). Reduced visibilities over ~ight waters are generally
infrequent.
The frequency 0 f
about 80% frequency
autumn and winter).
visibilities equal to or gr~ater than 5 nmi :range from
. .
of occurrence (in late spring) to more than 90% (in
TABLE A-5
VISIBILITY) MONTHLY MEAN
(Frequency Percentage < 2 nmi)
Jan Feb Mar ApI' May Jun Jul Aug I Sep Oct Nov I Dec A.'mUAL
I 3.3 6.0 7.1 7.4 ll.l 11. 2 4.6 2.2 3.5 3.0 2.0 3.4 5.4
II 3.1 4.5 5.6 6.4 12.5 7.1 4.9 3.1 2.9 1.4 1.9 2.0 4.6
Sources:
1 - Brower, 1977; Southeastern Marine Area:
now to 73°W
39°N to 40oN,
II - Brower) 1977; 106-Miie Ocean Waste Disposal Site:
35°24'N to 39°12'N) 71048'W to 72°36'W
/-.-7
-------
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
Due to the marine influence. relative humidity in the region is usually high
(Table A-6). The annual mean .value exceeds 81%. Summer months average
slightly higher than winter months, due to the persistent southerly winds.
GEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed Incineration Site is over the Continen.tal Rise (Figure 1-.1),
where water depths range from 2,400m in the northwest corner of the proposed
site, to 2,90Om along the east side of the site. The Continental- Slope dips
easterly at a grade of 4%, whereas the Continental
easterly dip grade of 1% (Bisagni, 1977).
Rise experiences
an
Four submarine canyons incise the ~ontinenta~ Slop~ near th~ p=oposec
si~€.:
Mey, Hendrickson, Toms, and Toms Middle Canyon. In addition, numerous smaller
canyons exist. in the Slope region west of the proposed site. The massive
Hudson Canyon system (55 ami north of the proposed site) extends from the New
York Bight Apex to the edge of the Continental Slope. .
The Recent Age sediments deposited on the Continental Slope. and Rise are
primarily silt and clay (Milliman, 1973). Most of tbe sand in this region is
. biogenic in origin, although patches of terrigenous sand occur in the axes of
some canyons
(Hathaway, 1971; Keller et a1., 1973).
. The sediments on the
TABLE A-6
RELATIVE HUMIDITY, MONTHLY MEAN
eX)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 'Nov Dec Annual
I
I 78.5 79.5 79.0 83.0 85.5 86.5 85.4 82.4 80.9 78.4 76.6 77.6 81. 2
II 78.5 79.4 79.3 83.5 85.5 86.5 85.4 83.0 80.9 78.5 76.6 77.7 81.3
Sources:
I - Brower, 1977; Southeastern Marine Area:
now to 73°W
39°N to 40oN,
II - Brower, 1977; 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal ~ite:
38°24'N to 39°12°N, 71°48'W to 72°36'W
. A-8
-------
tend to be olive or brown in color. (Milliman, 1973), which may be caused by
. the high oxygen content of the Slope Water and iron staining. Calcium
carbonate (CaC03) is a major component .of Slope sediments, making up as much
as 75% of the sediments in some areas. The carbonate grains are chiefly the
tests of planktonic foraminifera,'benthonic foraminifera, and echinoid plates.
Coccoliths are often common components, but are seldom abundant (Milliman,
1973).
The lower Continental Slope and Rise, lying below 3, SOOm, have numerous
current-induced features, formed by the southwestward-flowing Western Atlantic
Undercurrent (Reezen, 1975). The lower Continental Slope and Rise may be
thick prisms of deep-sea turbidities, clays, and slump deposits (Drake et al.,
1968). ;
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
WATER MASSES
A water mass may be defined as a large seawater parcel having unique
properties (temperature, salinity, and oxygen content) or a unique relation-
ship between these properties. Each water mass, thus defined, is given a name
qualitatively describing its location or place of origin. Water masses are
produced in their source areas by either or both of two methods: (1)
alteration of their 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 the, vertical
density gradient of the surrounpin& water.
NOAA has characterized the physical oceanographic environment in the region
of the proposed Incineration Site as being extremely complex and variable in'
all but the near-bottom waters (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 southerly moving Gulf Stream
eddies) to be present about 20% of the time (Figure A-1).
A-q
-------
Shelf Waters
The waters overlying the Continental Shelf of the mid-Atlantic Bight are of
three general types: Hudson River Plume Water, surface Shelf Water, and
bottom Shelf water (Hollman, 1971; Bowm~n 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 Shelf Waters as it moves into the Bight. During
periods of high runoff, the plume may spread over large areas of the Bight,
and produces large vertical and horizontal gradients of salinity. This water
type persist~ throughout the year, but
dependent on Hudson and Raritan Rivers
its exte~t and depth
,
flows (McLaughlin et
are
al. ,
highly
1975).
Generally, the plume flows southward between the New Jersey coastline and the
axis of Hudson Canyon. Bowman and Wundedich (976) found the plume direction
to be sensitive to wind stress and reversals in the residual flow.
Consequently, the plume may' flow
the axis of the Hudson. ~anyon,
eastward and southward..
eastwa~d between the New Jersey coastline and
or it may occasionally split and flow both
With the onset of heavy river discharges in the spring, surface salinities
in the Bight decrease and initially a moderate, haline-maintained (Le.,
maintained by salinity differences~ stratification occurs, separating the
coastal waters into upper and lower layers. These two layers are the surface
Shelf Water and the bottom Shelf Water. Decreasing winds and increasing
insolation (solar radiation) increase the strength of the stratification and
cause it to undergo a rapid transition (usually within a month) from a
haline-maintained to a thermal-maintained (Le., maintained by temperature
differences) condition (Charnell and Hansen, 1974). This two-layer system
becomes fully developed and reaches maximum strength by August.
Surface Shelf water is characterized by moderate salinity and high temper-
ature. During winter water is essentially vertically homogeneous ove~ most of
the Bight Shelf. With the rapid formation of the surface Shelf Water layer
during the spring, bottom waters become isolated until sufficient mixing takes
place the following winter. Bigelow (933) reported the "cool cell" (having a
.
A-10
-------
temperature typically less than 10GC) of the bottom Shelf water layer extended
. from south of Long Island to the opening of Chesapeake Bay, then seaward, .
nearly to the Shelf edge. This cold water persists even after the surfac,=
layers have reached the summer temperature maximum. Bigelow (1933) found the
cool cell was surrounded on all sides by warmer water.
The upper layer of the bottom Shelf water is usually between 30 and 100m
deep in the summer (Bowman and Wunderlich, 1977). Seaward near the Shelf edge
strong .temperature/salinity/density gradients occur. limiting large-scale
mixing between the Shelf Water and the waters over the Continental Slope. The
mechanism by which bottom Shelf Water is replp.nished is presently under study.
Slope Waters
Slope Water is a highly complex, dynamic body of water representing an area
of mixing between Shelf Waters, which bound it on the north and west, and the
Gulf Stream, which forms the southern boundary (Figure A-I). These boundaries
(frontal zones) are not stationary, but migrate seawards and landwards when
the Gulf Stream sh"ifts its axis during meanderings.
The Gulf Stream frequently meanders
(clockwise) loops of current are formed.
form separate entities, known as eddies
~n such a way that anticyclonic
Occasionally, these loops detach and
(Figure A-lc). 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), or trap.ped Gulf Stream Water.
Great amounts of this water may be advected to depths as great as 800 to
l,OOOm (NOAA, 1977). After detachment the eddies may migrate into the Slope
Water region, usually in a southwesterly direction. In addition, the eddies
may interact with Shelf Water, causing considerable disturbances in the water
wi thin the proposed ~ i te region. While there appears to 1-~ no seasonal
pattern in the occurrence of these eddies, Bisagni (1976) found, based on the
trajectories of 13 eddies between 1975 and 1976, the region of the proposed
Incineration Site contained an eddy 20% of the time, which was either
quasi-stationary or migrating, a~d capable of occupying the entire site. The
eddies dissipate or are reabsorbed by the Gulf Stream, usually in the region
0: Cape Hatteras.
A-]l
-------
Like many aeepwater oceanic regions, the water o.f Slope Water can be
divided into three general layers: the upper or surface layer (where
variability is great), the near-surface thermocline region (where temperature
changes rapidly with depth), and the deep water (where seasonal variability is
slight).
For Slope water in general, stratification forms in the upper water layers
early in May and persists until mid or late autumn, when cooling and storm
activities destroy it. A permanent thermocline is usually at a depth of 100
to 200m. During the period when the upper layers are stratified, a second,
seasonal thermocline forms in the upper water layers and reduces the
mixed-layer thickness from the surface to merely 30 to 40m deep. From autumn
until early spring water is isothermal to the depth of the permanent
thermocline.
Gulf Stream Water and Eddies
To the east of the Slope wat~r is the Gulf Stream (Figure A-I), a moving
current with core velocities 200 cm/s 0.9 kn) or greater (Von Arx, 1962).
The Gulf Stream is a continuation of the Florida Current (a northward-flowing
current extending from Florida to Cape Hatteras), flowing northeastward from
the Continental Slope off Cape Hatteras to east of the Grand Banks. The Gulf
Stream meanders throughout this region over great horizontal distances north
of Cape Hatteras. Occasionally, the Gulf Stream cuts through a meander neck;
much like river meander cutoffs. When the fast-moving Gulf Stream abandons
its previous route, after cutting through a meander neck, it isolates a large
mass of Sargasso Sea Water, which is distinctly warmer than surrounding Shelf
Water and Slope Water. These warm-core eddies, or Gulf Stream rings, contain
enormous energy imparted from the Gulf Stream. They continue to rotate
clockwise (anticylonic) as they migrate in a southwestward direction through
the Slope Water, until they eitl1er dissipate or join the Gulf Stream in the
vicinity of Cape Hatteras (Fisher, 1973; Saunders, 1971). The Gulf Stream may
also form cold-core (cyclonic) eddies by trapping cold water located to the
north of the Gulf Stream; however, this type of eddy occurs only to the south
.
or east of the Gulf ~tream and is not to be found ~t the propos~d Incineration
A-12
-------
Site. It should be noted that warm-core eddies are no't simply near-surface
,phenomena. The thermal and rotational characteristics are often manifested
near the sea bottom, in water depths of thousands of meters.
CURRENT REGIMES
Well-defined circulation patterns are unknown in the surface layers of the
Slope water region in which the proposed, and alternative sites are located
(Wright, 1976). Paucity of long-term current records, in addition to large
natural variabilities, limit the usefulness of estimates of mean currents for
this region.
The westward-flowing Labrador Current loses its distinctiveness,
somewhat 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 el., 1976; Beerdsley and Flagg. 1976). The
mean currents in this area are generally of the order of 10 to 20 cm/ s
westward, following the bottom bathymetry. This direction is similar to the
direction taken by currents over the Continental Shelf.
Wright (1976) indicated that dong the northern b'oundary of the Slope,
Slope Waters now slowly to the southwest, following the bathymetry to Cape
Hatteras, where the water mass turn,s and flows, seaward, joining the Gulf
Stream. Evidence of a slow northeastward flow along the Gulf Stream in the.
southern part ot the Slope Water region was also found. Wright (976)
suggests the Gulf Stream and 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.
Csanady (979) demonstrated the presence of a deepwater counterclockwise
(cyclonic) gyre system located between the Continental Shelf and Gulf Stream.
This system transports as much as 107 m3/s of water through the region of the
proposed Incineration Site (equivalent to the volume of 500 Mississippi
Rivers).
A-13
-------
The Oceanographer of the Navy (1972) reported a mean surface cu~rent speed
of 25 cm/s near the proposed Incineration Site. The direction of the flow was
either east-northeast or south-southwest. No other current measurements for
the region of the proposed Incineration Site have b~en report~d.
WAVES
-
Brower (1977) compiled wave information for the New York Bight coastal
region, the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site, and adjacent waters. The data
are taken from the MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 7, "Marine Climatology"
(December 1976), and from other published and unpublished sources for the New
York Bight and mid-Atlantic Bight. Observations for the period between 1949
and 1974 are discussed below.
In general, wave heights increase with distance from shore throughout the
year and the differences in heights are smaller in summer. The average
frequency of observations of hazardous. waves (wave heights greater than or
equal to 3.5m) is 5% 'to 6% from December until March. While the frequency of
hazardous waves at two light stations near the New Jersey coast varies from
less than 0.5% in summer to approximat'ely 1% to 2% in winter, the frequency
seaward at the proposed Incineration Site and surrounding 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-7).
The frequenCies
tend to increase
northwest to southeast across the Bight throughout the year.
The frequency of waves less than 1.5m in height follows the same pattern.
Nearshore the frequency ranges from 70% in winter to 90% in summer. Offshore
near the proposed Incineration Site the frequency of occurrences ranges from
35% to 40% in winter, to nearly 80% in early summer.
TEMPERATURE STRUCTURE
The waters in and around the proposed site are subject to sudden chan~es in
temperature occurring between Shelf WAter and Slope Wat~t". Shelf water is
always much coldp.t" than Slope water during winter but during the warmer month~
of the year peak surface temperatures of Shelf Water exceed those of Slope
A-14
-------
TABLE A-i
MONTHLY WAVE HEIGHT FREQUENCY
FOR THE PROPOSED INCINERATION SITE REGION
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov IDec
Number of'
Observations 355 243 329 392 314 382 274 290 401 337 409 '377
WH 1.5m %
Frequency 33.5 36.2 38.8 48.7 68.2 75.9 78.6 66.3 60.0 50.2 39.8 38.5
WH 2.5m %
Frequency 70.7 68.1 75.3 82.7 90.1 95.3 95.0 97.6 89.5 80.2 79.2 78.5
WH ~3.5m %
Frequency 12.7 13.1 11.0 .6.6 1.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 3.5 5.3 10.1 10.3
WH . Wave height
Source:
Brower. 1977
Water.
The horizontal
temperature gradients between
the two water masses
become less ma~ked only during periods of wa~ing and cooling. The water
'masses are then best distinguished by salinity aifferences (Warsh, 1975a).
Warsh (1975b) summarized hydrographic information collected by USCG and the
Marine Resources Monitoring, Assessment, and Prediction (MARMAP) program.
These data were taKen during all seasons over an area encompassing the
mid-Atlantic Bight and the Continental Slope, including a portion of the
proposed Incineration Site. Monthly summaries from Marsden Square 116,
subsquares 81 and 82 (Figure A-2), are discussed below. Table A-8 gives the
ranges of temperatures for each subsquare. These areas, while differing in
the month of minimum temperature, had the same ~onth of maximum temperature.
Surface temperatures 'ranged between 5.2°C (February-subsquare 82) and 25.0°C
(August-subsquare 82). Figure A-) illustrates the average monthly sea surface
temperatures for each subsquare.
In the upper 50m a seasonal thermocline develops in late, spring (May) and
is usually present through mid-autumn (October); however, remnants of the
the:1llocline may be present as late as November.
By Decembp.r the water is
A-I5
-------
.
10'
70'W
40'
MAEfj 116
/
. PROPOSED
INCINERATION
SITE
3S'N
7S'
Figure A-2.
Marsden Square 116; Subsquares 81 and 82 and
the Proposed Incineration Site
Source: Warsh, 1975b
E
:: 20
:;)
.
<
~ 15
~
...
.
Figure A-3.
30r
2SL
. 81
o 82
10
5
M
M
A
5
o
N
D
A
Average Monthly Sea-Surface Temperatures for Subsquares
81 and 82 in Marsden Square 116
Source: Warsh, 1975b
A-16
-------
TABLE A-8
AVERAGE SURF ACE TEMPERATURE RANGES AND MONTHS OF MINIMUM AND
MAXIMUM TEMPEP~TURE£ FOR SUBSQUARES 81 AND 82 IN MARSDEN SQUAP~ 116
Month of Average Surface Month 0 f
Temperature Temperature Temperature
Subsquare Minimum Range (OC) Maximum
81 January 7.8 to"24.9 August
82 February 5.2 to 25.0 August
Source:
Warsh, 1975b
essentially isothermal to a depth. of 100m. but temperature inversions have
been observed near depths of 30m. These inversions may persist until April or
May. The permanent thermocline usually occurs retween 100 and 500m depths.
From 500 to 1,000m depths the temperature decreases to between 4°C and 6°C,
and below 1,000m depths-the temperature ranges from 2°C to 4°C.
SALINITY STRUCTURE
. The waters in and surrounding the proposed Incineration Site are subject to
sudden changes in salinity occurring between Shelf and Slope Waters. Shelf
. '. .
Water is always fresher than Slope Water during winter. During the warmer
months. the two water masses are best distinguished by temperature
differences, but during periods of warming' and cooling the water masses are
best distinguished by salinity differences (Warsh, 1975b).
Warsh C1975b) found the range of surface salinity was quite variable and
was dependent on the water mass present (Shelf. Slope, or Gulf Stream) within
each" square (Table A-9). The values ranged from 32.70 ppt in June (subsquare
82) to 35.75 ppt in April (Subsq'lare 81). Figure A-4 illustrates the range
and "average monthly sea-surface salinities for each area.
Salinity generally
increases
to depth.s
of 100 to 150m,
where maximal
salinities are encountered. Values at these depths average approximately
35.75 ppt. Salinity then decreases with depth to about 40Om, where the
minimum average salinity of 34.95 ppt exists. Below 400m. the. water is nearly
isohaline, and salinity may range between 34.90 ppt and 35.05 ppt.
A-Ii
-------
TABLE A-9
AVERAGE SEA-SURFACE SALINITIES'
FOR SUBSQUARES 81 AND 82 IN MARSDEN SQUARE 116
. Month of Average SurfacE': Month 0 f
Salinity Salinity Range Salinity
Subsquare Minimum (% or ppt) Maximum
81 January 33.05 - 35.75 Apri 1
82 June 32.70 - 35.45 November
Source:
Warsh. 1975b
CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
WATER CHEMISTRY
Dissolved Oxygen
,Oxygen is a fundamE':n~al requirement for marine lifE':. It is produced during
photosynthesis in the photic (sunlit) zone, usually less than 100m in depth,
and is USE':d by animals,. plants, and some bacteria in respiration and in the'
decomposition of organic matter.
36
] 3S
.s
~ 34
..
Z
= . 81
4(
III 33
0 82
32
M A M A S 0 N D
Figure
A-4. Average Monthly Sea-Surface Salinities for
Subsquares 81 and 82 in Marsden Square 116
Source: Warsh, 1975b
A-18
-------
Warsh (1975b) summarized historical data for the water within and adjacent
. to the l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site. Within the site monthly average
oxygen values at the surface range from 4.9 mlll (approximately 104% satu-
ration) in August to 7.5 mlll (approximately 1l3~ saturation) in April. Tne
oxygen minimum zone is between 200 and 300m and the oxygen concentrations
range between 2.8 mlll (approximately 4~% saturation in February) and 3.5 mlll
(approximately 57% saturation) in September. The historical data for the site
show the development of a subsurface oxygen maximum zone during several
months. Values varied from 7.0 mlll at 30m during August to 8.2 mlll at 10m
during February.
Monthly average oxygen values for surface waters in the region surrounding
106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Sit.e and within the proposed Incineration Site
range from 4.5 mlll (approximately 92% saturation) in October to 7.5 mlll
(approximately 106% saturation) in March. The oxygen minimum zone in waters
north of the proposed lncineration Site occurs between 200 and 300m.
A baseline investigation of the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site during
May 1974 (NOAA, 1975) showed diss~lved oxygen ~oncentr.ations at the surface
ranging from 6.94 to 4.36 ml/l. The .highest values occurred in areas over the
Continental Shelf and generally decreased seaward. An oxygen minimum layer
occurred between 200 and 400m. Most of the values recorded for this layer
were about 3.2 ml/l. The lowest value recorded for the oxygen minimum layer
was 3.12 ml/l at approximately 300m. At depths belo.w the oxygeft minimum,
values increased to slightly more than 6 ml/l. From 1, 200m to the bottom,
dissolved oxygen concentration fluctuated between 6.2 and 5.3 ml/l.
pH and Alkalinity
.
The pH parameter is a measure of the. acidity and/or alkalinity of a
solution; the pH ranges from 0 to 14, with a neutral solution having a pH
of 7. Acidic solutions have pH values lower than 7, Whereas basic solutions
have pH values higher than 7. Surface seawater pH ranges from 7.8 to 8.6.
averaging R.2. Thi~ small range is maintained in seawater by buffering from
chemical systems,
such as
the carbon dioxide-bicarbonate-carbonate complex.
A-19
-------
Buffering is the ability of a substance in solution to neutralize either acids
or bases while maintaini:ng the original alkalinity of the solution. The
buffering capacity or alkalinity of seawater results from the presence of
acid-neutralizing blcarbonate (HC03-) and carbortate (C03c) ions. Alkalinity
is important for fish and other aquatic life belcause it buffers pH changes
occurring naturally as a result of photosynthetic activity. Components of
alkalinity (carbonate and bicarbonate) have been shown to complex some toxic
heavy metals and reduce tbeir toxicity. Alkalinity is increased by the
, .
dissolution of calcium carbonate already present in seawater and that which
enter~ by runoff. Decomposition of organic matter in seawater comsumes oxygen
and produces carbon dioxide, reac ting with water to form carbonic acid and
lower the pRo
Thus, pH and oxygen profiles in the sea generally parallel one
another since the pH is lowered as the oxygen concentration decreases.
Hausknecht and Kester (1976) reported pH values for samples taken during
the summer at the nearby 106-Mile Ocean ~aste Disposal Site. At the surface
the average pH was 7.9, while below 300m the pH decrea;8ed to an average of
7.6.
EXISTING METAL AND ORGAHOHALOGEN CONCENTRATIONS
Several metals were measured in water samples taken in and around the
106-Mile Ocean ~aste Disposal Site in May 1974 (Brezenski, 1975) and 1.n
February 1976 (Hausknecht, 1977). These metal concentrations are summarized
in Table A-10. Compared to the range of metal concentrations reported in the
literature (Table A-ll) , the values in the vieinity of the 106-Mile Ocean
~aste Disposal Site appea~ to be bigh. Hausknecht (1977) examined these data
in detail and found the distribution patterns indicated possible enrichment of
heavy metals within the site relative to surrounding waters; however, the
magnitude of enrichment was too great to be attributed to dumping~ Moreover,
observed concentration gradients did not support the hypothesis of possible
enrichment from inshore waters. These incongruitles, and the fact that the
values were 2 to 100 times higher than those in the literature, tend to
diminish the significance of the metal distributions reported therein.
A-20
-------
TABLE A-10
SUMMARY OF SEAWATER METAL
CONCENTRATIONS AT THE 106-MILE OCEAN WASTE
( /JgI 1 )
DISPOSAL SITE
Sample Sample
Average Aver age Sample
Sample Range (loOm) ( 100m) Average
May 1974
Cadmium 0.05 to 0.60 0.30 + 0.14 0.30 +"0.14 0.30 + 0.14
(40) - (56) - (99) -
Zinc 1. 60 to 21.40 " 7 . 30 + 3. 40 6.50 + 2.70 6.80 + 3.00
(40) - (56) - (99)
Copper 0.20 to 1. 70 0.70 + 0.40 0.70 + 0.30 0.70 + 0.30
(40) (56) - " (99) -
Manganese 0.50 to 4.50 1. 60 + C. 40 1. 30 + o. 60 1. 40 + o. 60
(40) - (56) - (99)
Lead 0.80 to 6.10 3.30 + 0.90 3 . 00 + 1. 2 3.10 + 1.10
(40) - (56) - (99) -
Mercury 0.04 to 4.00 0.71 + 0.54 0.56 + 0.46 0.63 + 0.50
(5) - (87) (163)
February 1976
Cadmium 0.40 to 2.80 0.39 + 0.46 0.50 + 0.59 0.46 + 0.54
( 90) - (56) - (51)-
Zinc < O. 20 to 38.00 6 . 60 + 6. 80 7.50 + 8.70 6. '90 + 7.50
(89) - (55) - (148)-
Copper < 0.10 to 7.00 0.30 + 0.40 0.60 + 1. 10 0 . 40 + O. 80
( 92) - (56) - (148)-
Manganese < 0.10 to 6.60 0.30 + 0.30 0 . 40 + 1. 10 0 . 50 + 1. 00
( 90) - (56) - (l48)-
Lead < 0.20 to 14.00 0 . 60 + 1. 60 0 . 60 + 1. 00 O. 70 + 1. 40
(88) - (55) - (148)-
Mercury < O. 09 to 0.71 0.18 + 0.10 0.17 + 0.16 0.17 + 0.09
(91) - (59) - (152)-
(Values given are range + standard deviation; number of samples is given in
parentheses)
Sources:
Brezenski, 1975; Hausknecht, 1977
A-21
-------
TABLE A-ll
RANGE OF METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN SEAWATER
r
I (Ilg/l)
Local Cd Zn Cu
.
Eastern U.S.
Continental Shelf 0.02-0.190 (a) 1.20-08.00 (a)
Slope Water 3.90-10.90 (b) 2.30-2.80 (b)
Sargasso Sea 0.010 (c) , 1.20-2.70 (b)
1. 03-6.55 (d) 0.48-7.90 (d)
0.12 (c)
Surface Waters
.of World Oceans
Nearshore 0.04-0.300 (e) 0.60-12.60 (e) 0.30-3.80 (c)
Open Ocean 0.02-0.180 (e) 0 . 40- 3 .,00 (e) 0.10-3.90 (e)
N.W. Atlantic 0.150 (f)
0.004-0.012 (g)
Sur face Water 0.008 (h) 0.002-0.011 (i)
Subtropical North
At lantic ' 0.010-0.054 (j)
Sargasso Sea 0.01 (k)
Atlantic Near Bermuda 0.07 (1)
Nova Scotia Shelf 0.068-0.098 (m)
-
Surface Waters
of World Oceans
Open Ocean ND-O .127 (n)
Sources:
( a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
~ e)
(f)
(g)
Windom and Smith (1972)
Spencer and Brewer (1969)
Bender and Gagner (1976)
Brewer et al. (1972)
Chester and Stoner (1974)
Fitzgerald et a1. (1974)
Fitzgerald (1975)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(1)
(m)
(n)
Fitzgerald and Lyons (1975)
Fitzgerald and Hunt (1974)
Gardner (1975)
Bender et ale (1977)
Chow and Patterson (1966)
Cranston and Buckley (1972)
Chester et 81. (1973)
A-22
-------
Hausknecht
(1977)
has
suggested
that
contamination
or
alteration
of
the
samples during collection, storage, or analysis :nay be the most logical
explanation for the high concentrations and scatter observed in the metal
values.
A~ a check against possible contamination, three stations were revisited
later in 1976 (Kester et a1., 1977). Special precautions were taken to
minimize contamination and to separate the particulate and dissolved fractions
from the total metal concentrations. The revised estimates for selected metal
concentrations representing background values (i. e. ,
influence 0 f a waste dump) are shown in Table A-12.
not in
the
immediate
The cadmi um concen-
trations are one order of magnitude less than those reported in the 1974 and
February 1976 studies. Lead \:oncentrations are lower than the previously
reported values by a factor of 20, and copper concentrations are approximately
half as high as those from the previous studies. This study by Kester et ale
(1977) shows background metal con=en=n:ticns c; t the 1 06-Mi le Ocean Was te
Disposal Site to be similar to those observed in other oceanic regions.
Metal concentration~ in sediments were reported by Pearce et ale (197S) and
Greig and Wenzloff (1 9in .
These metal values are presented in Table A-13 and
the approximate locations of sampling sites are depicted in ~igure A-S. Metal
concentrations reported for 1976 are consistent with those foT. 1974. Sediment
metal concentrations show little variation in samples from depths greater than
180m. Although the heavy 'metal contents' of sediments taken .beyond the
Continental Shelf appear to be elevated (relative to sediments on the Shelf),
it is unlikely that the metal concentrations can be attributed to present
disposal practices at the 106-Mile Ocea~ Waste Disposal Site. Pearce et al.
(197S) conjectured that stations south of the Hudson Canyon could possibly be
contaminated from inshcre sources since contaminants could be transported down
the CAnyon. However, samples collected considerable dist'ances to the north
and south (If the l06-Mile Ocean WAste Disposal Site exhibited metal
ccncentrations similar to. those in the dump site (Figure A-S and Table A-13).
At p~esent there is no evidenc~ to suggest the wastes disposed at the l06-Mile
Ocean Waste Dispc~al Site have in any way impinged on the sediments 0= benthic
fauna cnll~cted at sampling sites in the vicinity (Pearce et a1., 1975).
A-Z3
-------
TABLE A-12
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED METALS IN SEAWATER SAMPLES
FROM THREE AREAS NORTH OF THE PROPPSED INCiNERATION SITE (SEPTEMBER 1976)
>
I
~
J:-
--
Copper x pg/liter Lead x pg/li ter Cadmium x pg/Ilter
Station No. Depth Range Part iculate Dlasohed Total Particulate Dis 80 Ived Total Part lcul ate Dissolved Total
Location (10)
OJ 100 0.041 0.28 o. J21 0.018 0.09 0.108 0.0022 0.022 0.0242
J8857'N UO-2oo 0.OJ2 0.22 0.252 0.021 0.09 0.11 J O.OOOJ O.OJI O.OJtJ
71825'\1 JOO-800 O.OJJ 0.15 0.18J 0.017 0.05 0.067 O.OOOJ 0.OJ4 0.OJ4J
06 <100 -- 0.29 -- -- 0.09 -- -- 0.021 --
J7858'N 150-JOO -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
71826'" 500-800 -- 0.\6 -- -- 0.06 -- -- 0.OJ2 --
0.058 * *
09 <100 0.0\9 0.19 0.209 0.008 0.05 0.0004 0.024 0.0)4
18857'N 200 0.0\5 0.21 0.245 0.004 0.05 0.054 0.0002 0.05\ 0.0512
72824'" )00-600 0.016 . O.IJ 0.146 0.006 0.02 0.026 0.000) 0.024 0.024)
* Value queationable
Source:
Kester et al., 1977
-------
TABLE A-13
HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN THE UPPER 4 CM OF SEDIMENTS, COLLECTED
IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED INCINERATION SITE (MAY 1974 AND FEBRUARY 1976)
,
M~tal Conc~ntrationl. Mean ~ Standard I)e,viatioD (ppm dry vt>
Cadmium Chromium I Copper Nicll.~l Lead Zinc
106-!lil~
Oc~.n Wutl: Sit I:
1974 -- 25.3 ~ 1.9 26.8 ~ 3.6 24.0 ~ 3.9 27.2:. 3.9 58.3 ~ 3.8
1976 1.2 ~ 0.1 23. 5 ~ 6.7 23.0 ~ 9.9 25.5 :. 10.2 9.8:. 3.8 46.0 :. 13.6
ProDOa.d
Incineration Sit~
1974 -- 26.5 :. 1.7' 33.8:. 2.6 29.8 :. 2.5 27.3:. 2.1 56.4:. 4.0
1976 1.4 ~ 0.3 24.4 ~ 3.2 25.6 ~ 5.1 34.7 :. 5.5 17.8:. 2.6 47.6 :. 9.0
* Po.ition,. of ulllph location. uled for averaged vduu are .how in Figure A-5
Sources:
Pearc~ et a1.. 1975; Creig and ~nzloff. 1977
Similarly, me~al concentrations in marine bit\ta were examined during the
1974 and 1976 i~vestigations at the l06-Mile Ocean Was~e Disposal Si~e. The
concen~ra~ions of silver, cadmium, and chromium showed llttle variation among
fish and .invertebrates,
(Pearce et al., 1975).
compared to offshore areas
in the New York Bight
Copper, zinc, and lead concentrations. among these same
organisms showed detectable variations. Liver tissue from the deep-sea
slickhead Alepocephalus agassizi had the highest concentrations of silver,
cadmium, copper, and zinc. These metal concentrations are several orders of
magnitude greater than metals in windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aguosus),
tissues taken from the sewage sludge and dredged material disposal sites in
the Bight Apex. Liver tissues from the deep-sea grenadier Nematonurus
armatus, rattail Nezumia bairdii, whiting Merluccius bilinearis, and'
Halosaupsls saurus macrochir exhibited metal concentrations similar to those
from windowpane flounder taken in coastal waters (Pearce et al., 1975).
Greig and Wenzloff (977) found metal concentrations in midwater fish
fairly consis~ent in 1974, 1975, and 1976 s~udies. Copper concentra~ions were
slightly higher in pelagic fish during 1976. One species, Gonostoma
elonga~um, had copper concentra~ions of 3.95 ~nd 3.35 ppm. approximately
A-25
-------
-'
.>
.4
'.
~
....... ..
...... ------
.... ,----
.... .,,#/#'
.... ~,--
", ~A1'
,
..... .,"
TEST 1 . "19 .20
, ...... I
17. .;8 II..A2
16" .. , . A7
. ..~A~A4
12"jS .14
,'" . .13
29,,'''11 AS . A6
30.'.10
. /
..' /
'.9
" ,
. ,
, I
" ,
. I
7...' .. 8 J
'.S '"
. 4
'2. ~3
'. j
,.1 >
: i
, ,
~ I
. I
, I
: ,
. I
, I
. e \
=,
:::!
: E
'=
. c=
, c=
, ,...
.' I
. ,
. J
. I
.'. I
, ,
. /
r
"
78'
76'
74'
n'
Figure A-5, Locations of Sediments Sampled for Heavy Metals
in 1974 (8) and 1976 (A) (also see Table A-13)
A-26 >
42"
40"
]8'
36'
U'N
70'W
-------
thr~e times greater than in 1975. Sharks were the only species sampled i~
sufficient numbers for statistical com'parisops between. locations. No
g~ographic differences in m~tal concentrations among' sharks were detected.
Cadmium concentrations in shark muscles were less than 0.12 ppm, and 0.28 to
7.2 ppm for the livers.
Metal concentrations in muscle tissue of sharks and
other fish were generally l~ss than 1.5 ppm, and 0.5 ppm for copper and
manganese, respectively. Lead was usually below the detection limit of 0.6 to
0.8 ppm. Zinc in fish muscles at 1.0 to 6.9 ppm were several orders of
~
magnitude higher than the other metals. Mercury in fish muscles almost always
exceeded the FDA limit of 0.5 ppm, except in the lancetfish, where concen-
trations were less than 0.23 ppm. Swordfish livers contained an unusually
high concentration of cadmium, 16.1 to 26.9 ppm. Results of the extensive
metal analyses on individual fish ar.e presented in Greig and W~nzlo ff (1977),
and are ~ot reproduced herein.
Greig e t 81. (1976) determined the concentration 0 f nin~ met...ls in £01;:-
demersal fish species in three epipelagic species, and in the red crab from
the vi-cinity of the 106-Mile Oce.an Waste Disposal Site in water depths of
1,550 to 2,750m (Table A-1.4). The values reported were considered
representative of normal ambient metal concentrations in d~epwa"t~r fish.
Mercury concentrations in deepwater fish muscl~s averaged 0.30 ppm. compared
to an averag'e of 0.154 ppm previously r~ported by'Greig et a1. (1975) in.
muscles 'of offshore Continental Shelf finfish.
At the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site, Antimora rostrata w~re found to
have an average m~rcury concentration of 0.62 ppm (Greig et a1., 1976).
Barber et a1. (1973) found mercury concentrations in the same species ranging
between 0.24 and 0.76 ppm, increasing proportionately with the l~ngth of the
fish. These samples were taken southeast of Cape Hatteras, w~ll outside the
influence of any ocean disposal activities.
In the same, study an ~. rostrata collected in 1883 was found to contain
0.5 P?O mercury. Thus, fish collected within the 106-Mil~ Ocean Waste
Disposal Site, well away from dumping and before dumping exhibited no apparent
significanc~ as to the variations in mercury concentrations.
A-27
l
-------
TABLE A-14 .
METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH AND CRABS COLLECTED
IN THE VICINITY OF THE 106-MlLE OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
No. of ppm. \Jet Weip.ht
Specie, Anima ts Ag As Cd Cr Cu Hg tHo Pb Zn
1. "AriCUnol'a 10 <0.09 21.1 <0.0\1 <0.52 <0.50 0.62 "0.5t <1.1)0 2.40
1'OQ tra ta 10 0.13 4.8 0.32 <0.52 3.34 <0.1.8 < 1. 00 43.00
--
5 0.15 -- <0.12 <0.61 <0.31 0.49 <0.51 <0.80 2.84
5 0.12 - <0.12 <0.61 <0.51 0.32 <0.51 <0.80 3.15
5 0.11 - 0.36 0.59 1.96 - <0.45 0.70 12.20
5 0.11 - 0.33 0.57 1:86 - <0.47 1.20 11.10
2. ",v tfma CorlW'US 10 <0.10 20.0 <0.10 <0.52 <0.50 0.28 <0.60 1.00 2.90
arr'la t,.s 10 10.4 1. 33 0.52 0.70 0.31 <0.50 <1.00 50.00
-
I
7 <0.10 10.0 <0.10 <0.52 <0.50 <0.10 <0.50 <1.00 1..40
7 - - 1.21 <0.86 4.80 - <0.82 <1.60 16.20
4 0.11 - ~O.l1 <0.53 <0.44 0.30 <0.44 <0.70 3.13
4 0.14 - 0.14 <0.68 <0.57 0.44. <0.57 0.90 3.19
.
3. "Hatosauropsis 3 <0.12 - <0.12 0.98 1.49 0.09 <0.48 <0.70 2.45
mac1'Ochir 3 0.12 <0.12 1.17 1.65 0.10 <0.50 0.80 2.37
-
4. 'SY'lQphobrarichus 10 <0.09 8.0 0.12 <0.42 1.62 <0.15 <0.49 <1.00 6.80
Jcaupi
..
5. . "Cel'!forl 7 <0.13 1.6 <0.10 <0.51 8.30 0.23 <0.48 < 1.00 69.00
qui.nquederls 0.43 9.1 0.81 <0.52 31.3 <0.16 <0.50 <1.00 20.20
6. .,.Serio Za 6 <0.10 1.2 <0.10. <0.52 <0.63 <0.10 <0.50 <1.00 3.70
6 0.24 - 0.24 < 1. 26 1. 96 - < 1. 20 < 2 :40 15.50
7. "'Hygopln.IP1 10 <0.09 - <0.11 <0.49 <0.47 -- <0.47 < O. 95 7.40
Ilygomi. 15 0.08 - 0.11 <0.35 0.64 - 0.74 1.00 8.50
15 .<0.07 - 0.09 <0.31 0.57 - 0.37 <0.60 7.70
,. 15 <0.10 - <0.07 <0.37 0.73 - 0..53 <0.75 6.90
8.+Scepha"oZepsis 6 <0.07 - 0.14 <0.36 <0.90 -- 0.48 1.00 --
hispidus 5 <0.09 1.5 <0.13 <0.52 0.89 <0.11 <0.49 < 1. 07 10.30
*Species regarded as bottom dwellers
+Species considered epipe1agic
Source:
Greig et al., 1976
A-?A
~
-------
M~rcury concentrations w~r~ det~rmined in muscles and livers of 41 sp~cies
of fish; som~ plankton, inv~rt~brates, and s~dim~nts col1~cted from North
Atlantic offshor~ waters in 1971 (Greig et a1., 1975). Th~ average mercury
concentration for fish muscle was 0.154 ppm, while invert~brate concentrations
were gen~rally less than "0.1 ppm.. Plankton and s~diment samples all contained
less than 0.05 ppm m~rcury. Th~ highest m~rcury l~vels in fish muscl~s were
found in cusk, spiny dogfish, northern searobin. and striped s~arobin. Fish
livers with high~st mercury contents were from blackbelly rosefish. cusk,
northern s~arobin. and Am~rican shad. Averag~ mercury cont~nt of liv~rs was
0.01 ppm great~r than for muscles; howev~r, in most species ~xamined, mercury
concentrations in livers and muscl~s were similar.
The distribution of other contaminants has not received th~ attention giv~n
to metals. Greig and Wenzloff (1977) found the concentration of CIS and
heavier hydrocarbons in sediments at th~ 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site to
be similar to presumed uncontaminated ar~as on the Shelf, and much less than
. C15+ hydrocarbon levels at dump s~tes in shallow waters (Table A-15). 'I'h~
. C15+ hydrocarbon concentrations in sediments from th~ Sew.age Sludge Disposal
Site and Dredged Material Disposal Site in the New York Bight Apex were 1.568
to 3,588 ~g/g, and 6,510 ~g/g r~sp~ctively.
PCB production was halted in 1977 by the sote 'manufacturer, Monsanto, but
. b~tw~en 1930 and 197.5 total U. S. commercial sde of the substance was about
571,000
tonn~s.
Since 1975 approximat~ly 340,000 tonnes of PCB wer~ ~till in
use; studies indicat~d approximately 68,000 tonnes have already b~en disp~rsed
into the environment. Another 130,000 tonnes are estimated to b~ stored in
landfills and ~quipment dumps, with an anticipated increase to 140,000 tonnes
by 19;8. An estimat~d 25,000 tonnes have been incinerated since 1975, or
otherwis~ degraded. Th~ 340,000 tonnes still in use from 1975 will eventually
have to be disposed.
Total U.S. atmospheric PCB burden is conservatively ~stimated to be
18 tonnes, within a volume of 32.5 million \em 3 o~er U.S. continental and
oceanic areas. Atmospheric PCB concentrations for North Atlantic
range from less than 0.05 to 1.6 ng/m3. A value of 0.05 ng/m3
to be the pverage a~ospheric burden (NAS, 1979).
oceanic areas
is considered
A-29
-------
TABLE A-1S
C1S+ HYDROC~ON CONTENT OF SEDIMENT
SAMPLES FROM THE 106-MILE OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
Hydrocarbon (~g/g)
Watl!r Depth Organic Carbon
l.ocation (m) Wl!ight (%:) C15+ Saturatl!d C1S+ Aromatic
38034.9'N, 72013.4'W 2,786 0.64 24 20
38 °31.9' N, 72°10.5'W 2,812 0.64 20 22
38031.2'N, 72012.1'W 2,818 0.52 26 22
38046.0'N, 72 ° 3'0. 7 ''.J 2,318 0.86 14 18
38049.Q'N, 72 ° 34 . l' W 2,027 1.06 18 20
380S6.S'N, 72025.1'W 1,688 0.94 10 14
380SS.0'N, 72005.0'W 2,477 0.64 10 1S
39009.9'N, 72054.S"W 1,959 0.42 . 20 54
Source:
Greig and Wenzloff, 1977
In the marine environment PCB's have been most extensively studied in north
Atlantic waters. Data collected in the north Atlantic by various researchers
indicate that PCB levels are subject to inexplicable variations, prohibiting
accurate predictions of persistence times and ultimate fates of the substance
OiAS, 1979),
Harvey et al. (1973) measured PCB's in north Atlantic waters between 26°N
and 63°N. PCB's averaged about 20 parts per trillion (ng/kg), amounting t.o
200,000 tonnes of PCB's in the upper 200111 of water. The range of concen-
trat.ion was found to be wide (less than 1.0 to 150 ng/kg), with extreme
concentrations occurring several kilometers distant. No apparent relationship
be:ween PCB concentration and proximity to land was observed, and it was
suggested that the high variation may be due to localized slicks, rainfall, or
ship discharges.
A-30
-------
The atmosphere appears to be the predominant mode of transport of PCB's,
thus accounting for the widespread distribution. PCB concentration decreased
with
deJ)th,
averaging
35
ng/kg
at
the
surface
and
10
ng/kg
at
200m.
Measur.lbla concentrations were found at depths to 3,000m, suggesting that
animal migration and detritus sinkings transport the PCB's out of the mixed
layer, thereby preventing permanent accumulation in surface waters.
More conservative estimates suggest that the- waters of the north Atlantic
Ocean contain an upper limit of 66,000 tonnes of PCB's. However, it has been
further suggested that all measurements of PCB's in oceans have been biased
upwards, due to sampling contamination, and that reported measurements may be
too high by at least one order of magnitude, thus resulting in a lower limit
estimate of 6,000 tonnes.
Chlorinated hydrocarbon concen:rations (PCB and DDT) in organisms were
- -
investigated by Harvey et al. (1974). Most significant among their results is
that no support was found for food chain magnification among the gilled
organisms, and no discernible hori~ontal concentration-gradients existed amo?g
plankton or mesopelagic organisms, although North America is presumed to be
the major source of chlorinated hydrocarbons ~n Atlantic waters. The
researchers did not observe any evidence of effects on marine life, nor any
decline in abundance of the various populations. Plankton exhibited the
highest PCB concentrations, ranging up to hundreds of parts per billion.
BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
PHYTOPLANKTON
Phytoplankton are free-floating algae which produce some of the organic
matter upon which the rest 6£ the marine food chain is built. Phytoplankton
consist of autotrophic algae which have representatives from six taxonomic
groups:
Bacillariophyta,
Pyrrophyta,
Cyanophyta,
Coccolithophorida,
Chlorophyta, and Euglenophyta. The .algal cells are commonly found ~n
combinations of single filamentous or colonial units of varying sizes in the
euphotic zone (upper 100m) and require sunlight, nutrients, and certain
A-31
-------
conditions of temperature and salinity to s)mthesize o:'ganic matter. The
various combinations of these fac~ors in the euphotic zone dictate the floral
characteristics 0: the waters Rt any particular time nr place.
Few phytoplankton investigations have been pe~formed in the region of the
proposed and alternative sites, and the available data indicate summer was thp
only season in which sampling was performed. Hulburt and Jones (1977'> found
the phytoplankton abundance at the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site to vary
with depth from 100 :0 100,000 cells/liter, with the phytoplankton much more
abundant in the upper 20m than at 25 to SOm depth. Abundance was great ly
reduced at greateT depths. The dominant species of phytoplankton was a group
of unidentifiable naked ce 11s. Phytoplankton populations. at the lOfi-Mi le
Ocean Waste Disposal Site were found to be composed of a mixture of coastal
and oceanic species, due to the site's location in a transitional area between
coastal and oceanic waters and in the path of ' Gulf Stream eddies.
Data from Hopkins .et a1. (1973) indicate the summer chlorophyll values at
the l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site are highi!st at- or near the surface,
decreasing to very low levels at 100m depth, and then slowly rise to a second
maximum (much smaller than the first) at depths greater than l,OOOm. Steele
and Yentsch (1960) observed these chlorophyll concentrations at great depths
and attributed :he higher concentrations to the sinking of phytoplankton until
their density equals that of the surrounding water. The subsurface accumu-
lation of chlorophyll occurs At depths where water is dense,. which is
inversely related to temperature down to 4°C, is increasing most rapidly.
Thi s phenomenon becomes more apparent as the summer p:'ogresses and is moS t
distinct in Slope waters. This elidwater accumulation of chlorophyll
disappears with the destruction of stratification of the water in autumn.
More data exist on phytoplankton in the mid-Atlantic Continental Shelf and
Slope waters than in waters C')f the Conti:oental Rise. The lC'cations of the
stations from which phytopla~kton s3mplef\ have been taken are depicted in
Figure A-6. Available information indicates t~e phytoplankton population in
the elid-Atlantic are cC'ltllprised mainly of diatoms during most of the year.
Hulbu:'t (1?~3, It}66. 1970) described 33 al-undant phytoplankton species, of
which 27 w~rc di:'i'~!!, 4 WE're dinoflagellates, and 2 were. nanl""flagcllates.
.
A-11
-------
70'
60*
40'
RILEY (1939)
HULBURT (1964)
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-6. Station Locations of Major Phytoplankton
Studies in the Northeastern Atlantic
Source: Chenoweth, 1976
Hulburt (1963, 1966, 1970) and Hulburt and Rodman (1963) found 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 autumn.
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 abundances were, due to four
A-33
-------
neritic diatom species: Skeletonema costatum, Asterionella japonica,
Chaetoceros socialis, and Leptocylindrus danicus (Hulburt, 1963, 1966, 1970;
Malone, 1977). Uniform distributions were exhibited by Rhizosolena a lata in
summer and Thalassionema nitzschioides in winter. The flagellates Chilomonas
marina, £. gracilis, Ceratium lineatum, Katodinium rotundatum, Oxytoxum
variabile, and Prorocentrum micans w~re locally abundant, but rarely dominant
during summer. Maximum cell densities .were observed in December and minimum
densi~ies 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 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 or the
Gulf Stream carry a phytoplankton community characterized by dominance of
~occo~ilthophorids, diatoms, dinoflagellates, and other mixed flagellates
(Hulburt et a1., 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 verti~al distribution of phytoplankton from a Slope
Water station adjacent to the Continental Shelf and from a station near the
outer boundary (Figure A-n. The inner station is characteristic of Shelf
Waters having higher surface abundance (2.5 pg chlorophyll.~ per m3) with the
phytoplankton disappearing at about 100m. The outer Slope station has fewer
3
surface phytoplankton (0.9 J.1g chlorophyll ~ per m ) but cells are found at
greate~ depths (200m). This illustrates the transition in terms of vertical
abundance between coastal and open ocean characteristics within Slope Water
(Chenoweth, 1976).
Mid-Atlantic Bight 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
lower.
In Slope Water the seasonal cycle is characterized i:Jy two equally
A-34
-------
o
o
0.3
0.6
CHLOROPHYlL! (.u.g/m3)
0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
'Vi 1 00
..
II
~
oS
::
~
Q"
...
Q 200
/
/
,.
,.
,.
,.
,.
",
I
I
I
St.ation 3532 (200 km north-northeast of 106-Mile Site)
Station 3528 (200 km east of 106-Mile Site)
300
Figure A-7.
,Vertical Distribution' of Chlorophyll ~
Source: Riley, 1939
intense pulses of chlorophyll: the spring and autumn blooms (Yentsch, 1977).
In Shelf Water the autumnal bloom is the most intense feature of the seasonal
cycle.
Chlorophyll concentrations vary regionally and seasonally from less
than 0.5 mg/l to about 6 mg/l (Smayda, 1973). The seasonal variations in,mean
chlorophyll content for the inshore (less than 50m) and offshore (greater than
l,OOOm) stations are given in Figure A-8a. The annual range in primary
production (Figure A-8b) does not differ appreciably between inshore (0.20 to
2 2
0.85 g C/m Iday) and offshore (0.10 to 1.10 g C/m /day [Ryther and Yentsch,
1958].), However, the total annual production differs over the Shelf and
Slope, with an annual production of 160 g C/m2 at' the. inshore stations Cless
than 50m) decreasing. progressively seaward to 135 g C/m2 at the intermediate
2
locations (100 to 200m), and 100 g C/m at the offshore stations (greater th~n
1, OOO~) . Ketchum et al. (1958) indicated the nutrient-impoverished offshore
areas (Slope Water) cause physiological differences between inshore and
offshore phytoplankton. Results of their light and dark bottle experiments
(Figure A-9) show differences in che ratio of net to gross 'Photosynthesis.
. A-35
-------
Figure
Figure
AVERAGE CHLOROPHYLL a ~o/L
- .
3.0
--Inshore
2.0
1.0
o
~1.AR
1957
A?R
1957
JUL
1957
FEE
1957
DEC
1956
SE?
1956
A-8a. Summary of the Average Chlorophyll a Content at
(less than 50m) and Offshore (greater than 1,OOOm)
: Sites in the Mid-Atlantic Bight
Sources: Ryther and ~entsch, 1958; Yentsch, 1963
1 0 t INSHORE
. < 50 M
0.5
o
>-
<:
N€.. 1. 0 t INTERMEDIATE
e 100-200 M
.......
S 0.5 .
=
a::
5 0
C'I
:::[t~~g~, dl
SEt' DEC FEB ~1AR APR JUL
A-8bO. Summary of Mean Daily Primary Production per Square
of Sea Surface at Inshore (less than 50m), Intermediate
(100 to 200m), and Offshore (greater than 1,00Om)
. Sites in the Hid-Atlantic Bight
Sources: Ryther and Yentsch, 1958; Yentsch, 1965
.
A-36
Inshore
Meter
-------
G"OS. ",OTC'YNT14UI.
su
-
-
0-""0". 10.601
" ",
IIn ...'.'UTI0N
lIac
'NSMORe IO~OI
,..
'11'''0''. lo.~1
11M
IN'"O". 10..&01.
o
a
.
s
.
7
.
.
'0
, ,
u
u
,.
Figure A-9.
Comparison of Gross and Net Photosynthesis
Inshore and Offshore Stations
Source: ~henoweth, 1976
Between
High ratios in September and February indicated healthy, growing populations;
while lower ratios in December and March .indicated less healthy populations.
Geographically the low ratio of offshore populations indicated poorer
physiological conditions. Ketchum et .a1. (1958) suggested this variation of
net gross photosynthesis ratios may be the result of nutrient defi~iencies,
particularly in the offshore waters.
The critical depth (the depth to which plants can be mixed and at which the
total photosynthesis for the water is equa.l to the total respiration of
.primary producers) accounts for the low total annual production in offshore
waters. Although compe~sation depth and the critical depth for mid-Atlantic
Bight waters are not precisely known, Yentsch (1977) estimates them to be
between 25 and 40m and at 150m, respectively. If this estimate is at all
accurate, it me.ans that critical depths are not encountered on the Shelf,
since the average water depth is about 50m. Beginning in autumn extensive
vertical mixing occurs with 'the cooling of surface' waters and .an increase in
wind velocity. Shelf Waters are'mixed to the bottom during autumn and winter,
A-37
-------
thus the average plant cell within the water receives adequate light for
production. Plants have access to the nutrients dissolved. within the entire
water c:-1umn, and since
production is limited by light only, production can
proceed at a moderately high level.
Concentrat ions 0 f chlorophyll decrease during autumn and winter, mOVl.ng
from the Shelf to the Slope (Yentsch, 1977). As winter conditions intensify,
Slope chlorophyll c oncent rat ions become much lower than She 1 f Wa ter
concentrations. This is due to Slope Water ~eing. deep enough for critical
depth conditions to occur, since these waters are mixed to a depth of 200m or
more. Therefore, although daily photosynthesis may equal'or exceed that of
.Shelf Water (Ryther: and Yentsch, 1958), the .average plant cell within the
Slope Water column does not receive sufficient light to grow, thus production
proceeds at a low level.
In the spring vertical mixing is impaired .first in shallow waters and ~hen
progessively seaward into deeper waters. (Yentsch, 1977). Foll~wing the
development 'of l:he thermocline, there is a brief period of .high production,
since the average cell above the thermocline is then exposed to much greater
radiation. Therefore, the spring bloom begins and then is impaired, first on
the Shelf a.n.d then progressively seaward to the Slope. "The' spring bloom is of
greater magnitude in the Slope Water mass than in Shelf Water, since the
nutrients' have not been depleted by growth during the winter. 01 igotrophic
conditions prevail in Shelf and Slope Water masses during ~he summer until the
cooling and mixing processes of autumn destroy the thermocline. The autumnal
bloom occurs during the transition from a stratified to.a mixed water column.
ZOOPLANIcrON
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. The zooplankton studies performed at the l06-Mile Ocean Waste
Disposal Site (Austin, 1975; Sherman et al., 1977; Harbison et al., 1977) have
.
confirmed the variabie and transient nature of water masses in the area of the
A-38
-------
proposed and alternative sites. The composition of the zooplankton population
'.."as 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 ei: a1. (197i) could not differentiate species characteristics for the
area. However, the contour of diversity indices was such that a differen-
tiation could be made between Shelf, Slope, and Rise Waters (Chenoweth, 1976),
Copepod populations in Shelf Waters. were dominated by boreal assemblages
characterized by high abundance and few species, while the Slope and Rise
Water masses contained a mixture of subtropical and boreal assembJages
resulting in lower abundance of individuals and a greater number of species.
The
seasonal zooplankton biomass range was
and 5.5 "to 550 ml/IOOO m3 in winter.
7.7
to
1780 ml/IOOO
3
m
in
summer,
The displacement volumes are
comparable with literature values for Shelf and S lope Water masses. The
dominant zooplankton species found at or near the. I06-Mile Ocean Waste
Site during various seasons of the year are listed in Table A-16.
Disposal
The most common cope pod genera were Centropages, Calanus, Oithona, Euaugap-
. tilus, Rhincalanus, and Pleuromamma. Centropages and Calanus predominated in
the Shelf Water and in areas where Shelf Water mass intrusions o~curred in the
S lope water. Calanus was least abundant in the offsho1:e areas where water
stability suggested an oceanic origin. Mixing of waters was demonstrated by
the presence of Gulf .Stream water in the center of the disposal site study
area, as indicated by the abundance of Rhincalanus, Euaugaptilus, Oithon8, and
P leuromamma. Copepods common t,o deep waters of the northwestern At lant ie,
Euchire1la rostrata, were found at all the stations.
The chaetognaths were dominated by Sagitta spec~es and were most abundant
3
over the Shelf (greater than 231m) and least abundant be~ond the Shelf Break
3
(les~ then 101m). The euphausiids found at the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal
Site were a mixture of boreal-arctic and subtropical species, which were
dominated by Nyct iphanes couch ii, a cold-water form. However, warm-water
spec~es 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
I06-xile Ocean Waste Disposal Site during various seasons.
'summarized in Table A-17.
The results are
A-39
-------
TABLE A-16
DOMINANT ZOOPLANKTON SPECIES IN THE
VICINITY OF THE 106-MILE OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
Group
Copepods
Euphausiids
Chaecognaths
Pteropods
Species
Centropages spp.
C. Eypicus
Clausocalanus arcuicornis
Oithona similis
0. spinirostris
Pleuromamma borealis
P. gracilis
Pseudocalanus minutus
Rhincalanus cornutus
Temora longicornis
Euphausia americana
Meganyctiphanes norvegica
Nyetiphane couchii
Stylocheiron elongatum
Thysanoessa gregaria
Sagitta enflaca
S. serratodentata
£._ spp.
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
1/15
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
Note: Number of samples in which the species comprised 502 or more of the
individuals of that group/number of stations sampled
Source: Austin, 1975
The zooplankton from Cape Cod to Hatteras have been studied more or less
continuously for the past 50 years. The station locations of these studies
are shown in Figure A-10. However, many of these studies do not compare well
with one another due to the use of different techniques for sampling and the
A-40
-------
TABLE A-17
DOMINANT NEUSTON SPECIES IN THE
VICINITY OF THE 106-MILE OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
Group
Copepods
Euphausiids
Chaetognaths
Pteropods
Species
Anomalocera patersoni
Calanus finmarchicus
•Candacia armata
Centropages cypicus
Clausocalanus arcuicornis
Labidocera acutifrons
Metridia lucens
Oithona similis
Pleuromarama gracilis
P. robusta
Rhincalanus nasutus
Eukrohnia hamata
Euphau?ia brevis
E. krohnii
£_._ spp.
Meganyctiphanes norvegica
Nematoscelis megalops
Nyctiphanes couchii
Stylocheiron robustum
Sagitta enflata
S. serratodentata
S± spp.
Cavolina uncinata
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
1/1-3
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
Note: Number of samples in which the species comprised 502 or more of the
individuals of that group/number of stations sampl'ed •
Source: Austin, 1975
A-41
-------
70'
60'
40'
New YORK
O CLARK (1940)
• CRICE & HART (1962)
• CIFELII (1962, 1965)
ST. JOHN (1958)
A BOWMAN (1971)
• WATERMAN (1939)
* LEAVITT (1935, 1938)
j BERMUDA
40*
70'
60*
Figure A-10. Station Locations of Major Zooplankton Studies
in the Northeastern Atlantic
Source: Chenoweth, 1976
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 them overlapped, the literature
is not cohesive. 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 conraon species.
A-42
-------
The most striking feature of the mid-Atlantic Bight zooplankton is the
ne.Jt"-.::o:nplete dominance of calanoid copepods, numerically and volumetrically
(Grice and Har:, 1962; Falk et al., 1974). Copepods tend to sholo' greater
diversity than any of the other zoopla:tkton groups (Falk et a1., 1974).' Nine
species 0 f copepods have been found to dominate the zooplankton at various
times. These include Centropages typicus, Metridia lucens, Paracalanus
parvus, Pseudocalanus minutus, Oithona simi lis, Aca'rtia tonsa, Temora
longicornis, Clausocalanus furcatus, and' Calanus finmarchicus. The ctenophore
Pleurobrachia pileus and the pelagic tunicate Salpa fusiformis dominate
occasionally.
Early investigators found certain species of zooplankton were indicative of
the continental region from which the samples were collected (Bigelow and
Sears, 1939; Clarke, '1940).. Grant (1977), using cluster analysis, examined
these indicator species and found that three distinct communities are presenc
throughout much of the year:' a coastal commun~ty, a central Shelf community,
and a Slope boundary (oceanic) .community. Grant found that the coastal
~ommunity is identified in all seasons, except spring, by the great abundance'
of the copepod, Acartia tonsa. During spring the coastal community ~s
characterized by the simultaneous occurrence of Centropages hamatus and
Tortanus discaudatus. Typical inhabitants of the central Shelf community
include Centropages typicus, Calanus finmarchicus, Sagit,ta elegans, S.
tasmanica, Nannocalanus minor, and Parathemisto gaudichaudii. £. typicus is
the
dominant
organism,
and
with
C.
finmarchicus
and
S.
elegans,
~s
an
indicator of this central Shelf community. A distinct faunal boundary exists
at the Shelf break (200m contour), wi th the organisms occurring offshore of
this boundary being oceanic in nature. Useful indicators of this offshore
water type include Metridia lucens, Pleuromamma gracilis, Euphausia krohnii,
Meganyctiphanes norvegica, and Sagitta hexaptera. M. lucens has an extended
distribution over the Shelf during winter and spring, and M. norvegica is
found in spring (Grant, 1977); however, other oceanic species are seldom found
more
than 9
to
13 runi
inside
the 200m contour
(Sears
and
Clarke,
1940) .
Occasionally,
Shelf
water
becomes
temporarily
overridden
with
an
oceanic
A-43
-------
species (e.g., 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).
Altho~gh information is lacking, a preliminary, description of the zoo-
plankton seaso'nal cycle can be given. Grice and Hart (962) noted maximum
displacement volume occurred in July (0.76 ml/m3) and a minimum displacement
in December (0.04 ml/m3), a 20-fold difference. Clarke (940) reported a
10-fold seasonal difference; however, Grice and Hart (1962) considered their
December values low because of a missing station and believed' that it should
be closer to 10 ml/m3, which would be comparable to Clarke's value. Shelf
Water exhibited
a much
greater seasonal
fluctuat ion
(20- fo ld
to 40-fold),
whereas the Sargasso Sea volumes showed little seasonal variations.
Similarly, the numerical abundance of zooplankton varied seasonally in the
Slope water but with lesser magnitude than neritic areas. Maximum average
'values (S71/mj) oc~urred in September and minimum valu~s 06/m3) in July. The
'March average'(S04/m3) was similar to that of the Shel~ waters (SaS/m3).
The available biomass daca for the mid-Atlantic Bight is summarized 1n
, ,
Table A-18. Grice and Hart (1962) determined the mean zooplankton standing
crop in Shelf Waters was about three times greater than in the Slope Waters,
and in the Slope Water it was three 'to four times greater than those of the
more oceanic Gulf Stream and Sargasso Sea areas. If salps were included'.in the
~easurements, Slope Water zooplankton were four times less abundant than those
of Shelf Waters, and nine to ten times more abundant than the zooplankton of
the oceanic areas. This ,compares with Clarke's (1940) estimates (salps
included) of Slope Water zooplankton, four times less abundant than the Shelf
water zooplankton, and four times more than the more oceanic areas.
Examination of the numerical abundance, as well as the displa~ernent volumes of
each taxonomic group, indicates this difference between Shelf and Slope Waters
is not 4ue to the disappearance or decline of anyone group of organisms but
apparently to the general reduction of zooplankton in Slope Water (Grice and
Hart, 1962).
A-44
-------
TABLE A-18
ZOOPLANKTON BIOMASS IN THE MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT
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' to 4PN (Jail)
New York-Bermuda
Coastal waters (yearly mean)
Slope water (yearly mean)
Displaced Volume
(ml/l,OnOm-!)
8,100
4,300
J40
400
700 to 800
400
328
1,070
270
Wet Weight
-------
down co 2,000m, the highest occurring aC 600 to 800m. Ic was decermined that
becween 40% and 90% of the ani~als were in depths less than 800m; however,
only 20% co 50% of che cocal volume occurred above 200m. Waterman eC a1.
(1939) decermined chat the ~alacostracan crustacea. of che Slope wacer migrat~d
200 Co 600m vertically, in response co light scimulus. This implies chere is
a large number of zooplankton unaccounced for by the surface surveys. Leavitc
(938) concluded that the deepwater zooplankton maximum was noC due Co the
occurren~e of ~ well-developed bathypelagic fauna, but comprises species such
as Calanus finmarchicus and Metridia longa, which are' abundanc in boreal
surface waCers. He suggesced ch3c che deepesc maximum resulted from the
intrusion of wacer masses which originated in shallow waCers of highe=
latitudes.
..
'0
.
..,
.;'
,I)
'./ Ie
ZOOO
2:00
z_oo
, I C =
MOO
1100
)000
Figure A-ll.
Vertical Distribution of Zooplankton in Slope Water
Source: Leavitt, 1938
A-46
-------
The
neuston
(otganisms
associated
with
the
air-sea
interface)
of
the
mid-Atlantic compose a unique faunal assemblage quite different from
subsurface populations. The neuston is dominated during the day by the early
life stages of fish, joined at night by the zoea and. megalopae stages of
decapod crustacea, primarily Cancer sp., which migrate vertically into the
neuston (Grant, 1977). The euneuston (organisms which spend their entire life
cycle in the surface layer) are usually less abundant than the "facultative"
neuston (organisms which spend only part of their life cycle in the surface
layer). The euneuston are dominated by pontellid copepods and the isopod
Idotea metallica.
NEKTON
Nekton are marine organisms (e. g., fish, cephalopods, and marine mammals)
which have sufficiently strong swimming capabilities, maintaining position but
move agains t
local currents.
Nektor. 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 Isaac-Kidd Midwater Trawls. Demersal nekton. Are the .extremely
motile membe'rs of the
nekton associated. with
t.he bottom,
whereas
pelagic
nekton inhabit the overlying waters.
Since nekton schools are highly mobile,
migrate over long distances, and have unknown depth
organis~s are limited and qualitative. .
ranges,
data on these
Investigations of midwater nekton at the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site
by Krueger et a1., 0975, 1977) have shown the community to be dominated by
micronekton, gonostomatid, and. myc tophid fishes. During the day most fishes
are found at considerable depths (greater than 200m), but at night large
numbers of the population migrate to the upper layers of the water column.
During the da)' between 50%. and 80% of the catch in the upper 800m were
composed of Cyclothone species (family Gonostomatidae), while lanternfish
(family Myctophidae) made up .14% to 35%. Cyclothone species remain at depths
greater than 200m, day and night, while lanternfish migrate upwards at night,
at which time they account for 95% of the catch in the upper 200m. Above 800m
at night the proportion of the population made up of Cyclothone species
decreases, with a concomitant increase in the lanternfish portion, probably as
A-47
-------
a result of lanternfish migration from below 800m and becoming more
catch at nigh~. An estimated 20! of the population of lanternfish
from below 400m during the day, to the upper 200m at night; one-third
thirds of which reach the upper 100m (Krueger et al., 1977).
easy t;;)
migrate
to two-
Most of the Cyclothone catch at the l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site was
attributable to £. microdon af}d £. braueri, th.e. first and third most. abundant
species for all areas 'and seasons. £. microdon is most abundant 'below SOOm,
while £. braueri predominates above 600m. Both species appear to occur in
generally shallower waters in winter rather than in summer. Of the 50 species
of lanternfish captured, only four were abundant. Krueger et al. (1977)
reported Ceratoscopelus maderensis as the second most abundant species
overall, but only by virtue bf a single extremely large sample. Otherwise,
i this species was only moderately abundant during winter and rare or entirely
absent during summer. Hygophum hygomi and Lobianchia dofleini were moderately
abundant during summer but were virtually absent during winter. Adult
Benthosema glacia1e were abundant during winter, but during summer the species
was only moderate~y ~bundant, and composed primarily of juveniles. Cyclothone
and lanternfish contributed between 25% and 70% of the total biomass in the
upper 800m, dependent on area and .die1 period. Therefore,. small numbers of
larger species contribute greatly. to the total ,fish biomass. Krueger et al.
(1977) found that larger fish inhabit depths greater than 300m and speculated
that these fish concentrate toxic materials as a result of feeding on smaller
fishes
and
larger zooplankton. Only five
guentheri, Cvclothone pallida, f.
areas and seasons.
species,' Benthose~a glacia1e,
braueri, and C. ~icrodon were
Lepidophanes
taken in all
Krueger et a1. (977) concluded that the f06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal
Site in summer and winter was characterized by Slope Water fish fauna, upon
which Northern Sargasso Sea fauna (presumably transportad to the site by
warm-core eddies) were superimposed. The Sargasso Sea species, present in
summer, were less abundant in winter, suggest ing that their presence
abundance are dependent on eddy size, age; and/or core temperatures.
and
The most common pelagic nekton in the l06-Mile Ocean Wasote Disposal Site
include the tunas, bluefin (Thunnus thynnus), yellowfin (I. nfbacares), bigeye
A-48
-------
(1. obesus), albacore (1. alalunga), swordfish (Xiphias gl;tdius), lancet fish
(Alepisaurus spp.), blue shark (Prionace glauca), mako shark (Isurus
oxyrinchus), and dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus). All of these specles
are seasonal migrants north of Cape Hatteras and feed on a variety of prey
(Casey and Hoenig, 1977). Approximately 50% and 30% of the tuna diet consist
of fish and cephalopods, respectively. Crustaceans and miscellaneous
organisms comprise the remainder of the diet. Swordfish feed on surface fish
(e.g., menhaden, mackerel, and herring) and a variety of deepwater fish and
cephalopods. Lanc'etfish 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.
The cetaceans (whales and dolphins) are wide-ranging marine mammals which
use the. Slope Water of the mid-Atlantic Bight. There are" however,
little cia~a on which species are found in the Slope Water and the role
very
this
region takes in their life history. The species of cetaceans found in the
mid-Atlan'tic, their range, distribution, and estimated abundances are
sulnmarized in Table A-19.
From the available data on cetaceans .in offshore
waters, it appears that the Slope Waters serve as a migratory route between
,
northern summering grounds and s~uthern wintering grounds (Chenoweth et al.,
1976).
The proximity of rich feeding grounds along a north-south migrat ion
route' would make
cetaceans.
The
the Slope Waters an extremely
200m isobath appears to be the
attractive
region to
the
inshore
boundary
for the
distribution of some of the larger species.
Five species of sea turtles are known to be associated with mid-Atlantic
coaseal and Slope Waters (Table A-20). Four of the species (hawksbill,
leatherback, gre~n, and Atlantic ridley) are end~ngered, and the loggerhead is
threatened. Leatherbacks (Dermochelys ,coriacea), loggerheads (Caretta
caretta), ridleys (Lepidochelys ~), and green turtles (Chelonia mydas) are
regular miszrants in East Coast waters, usually most numerous from July to
October, at which, time the turtles follow their primary food (jellyfish)
inshore. The exact migration route used by these organisms is not known.
A-1.9
-------
Fami I y
..
Balaenidae
..
Balaenopteridae
>
I
V1
o
Balaenopterida,,"
..
Balaenoptcridae
Balaennpteridae
..
Balaenopteridac
Delphinidap
COI.mon Name
RiRht whale
81uc whale
Sei whale
i.
Finback whale
Hinke whale
IllImpback whale
Killer whale
TABLE A-19
SPECIES SUMMARY OF CETACEANS
Species Name
Eubalaena
glacialis
8alaenoptera
musculus
Balaenoptera
borealis
Balaenoptera
physa I us
8a laenopt era
acutorostrata
Hcgaptera
novaeangliae
Orcinus orca
-
Western Atl3ntic
AOII~e and Distributioll
New r.n~land to Gulf of
St. Lawrence; possibly
found liS far south as
Florida
Gulf of St. Lawrence to
Davis Strait; routinely
siRhted on banka
.fringing outer Gulf of
Hoine; population much
reduced from original
number of about 1,100
in western North
At I ant i c
Nev EnRland to Arctic
Ocean
Population centered
betveen 41°21'N and
~7°00'N, and from
coast to 2,ooOm
contour
Chesapeake Bay to
Baffin Island in
slimmer; eastern Gulf
of Hexico, northeast
Florida, and' Bahamas
in winter ~
Common near land, but
clln be found in deep
ocean
Trnpics to Greenland,
SpitzherRen, Baffin Bay
'f'
.
lIahitat
Pelagic snd coastal;
not normally inshore
P"laCic, deep-ocean;
however, occasionally
approaches land in
deepvater regions
(e.g., the Laurentian
Channel of ~he St.
I.avrence Ai ver)
Pelagic; does not
usually approach coast
Pelagic, but enters
bays and inshore vaters
in late summer
Pelagic, but may stay
nearer to shore than
other rorquals (except
humpback)
Approaches land more
closely and commonly
than other large
whales; also found in
d..ep ocean
Hainly pelagic and
oceanic; hov"ver, they
do co~only approach
coast
[51 ;IOolc.1
Ahundance in
Western North Atlantic
100 to 1.1100
Generally not common;
aome aightings expected
in offshore regions; no
estimates
I,SlO (of I Nova Scotia)
7,200
No estimates
800 to I,~OO
No estimates; appar-
ently no~ s~en as
commonly as in more
norther! y areas
-------
TABLE A-19.
(continued)
Family
~estern Atlantic
Range and Distribution
Common Name
Species Name
Oelphinidae
Saddleback d~Iphin
Delphinus
de I phis
Caribbnan Sea to Nev-
foundland; very vide
ranging; may be most
videspread and abundant
delphinid in the vorld
Delphinidae
Atlantic pilot
vhale
Globicephala
melaena
Hev York to Greenland;
especially common in
Nevfound land
Delphinidae Batt Ie-nosed Tursiops Arllentina to Greenland,
dolphin truncatua but most COmmon from
Florida, ~est Indies,
and Caribbean to Hev
England I
>
I De I phinidae Grampus; Grey Grampus Ranges aouth from
'"
.- grampus, Risso's gri seus Has,achusetta
dolphin
Physeteridae *
Sperm vhale Physeter Equator to 50'N (femalea
vhale catadon and juveniles) or Davis
St ra it (males)
Physeteridae Pygmy sperm Kogi~ Tropic s to Nova Scotia
vhale brevlceps
Ziphiidae Bottle-nosed lIyperoodon Rhode Is land to Davis
vhal e ampullatua 5t ra i t
Zip:.i idae
True's beaked
vhale
Hesoplodon
",irus
Northern Florida to
Nova Scotia
-
Ziphiidae
Dense-beaked
vhale
Hesoflodon
densHostrh
Tropics to Nova Scotia
*
Endangered Species
Source:
Chenoveth et ~I., 1976
I
lIabi tat
Seldo," found inside
I~Om contour, but does
hequent seamount s,
escarpments, ao~ other
offshore features
Pela~ic (vinter) and
coastal (summ"r)
Usually close to shore
and near Islands;
enters bays, lagoons,
and ri vers
Coastal vaters; habitat
poorly knovn
Pelagic, deep-ocean
Pelagic in varm ocean
vaters
Pelagic; cold temp-
erature and subarctic
valera
Nothing ia known
Probably pelagic in
tropical and varm
vaters
Estimated
Abuntlance ; II
~"Nt ern North AI I 'lnt i c
Poor I y kn"vn; ,'r..b'lb I y
mor~ Cl.m:nnR than 11vai 1-
abl€! "~cl~nJs' ilulit::lte;
may be more commltn in
H~s~achusetts Bay; no
"stlmates
Host COmlnon who I.: seen
in Cape Cod Rny;
Schuols of up to JUO on
Georges Bank; no
estimates
Rare, especially in
in9hor~ rCKiol's; "0
"stimates
Uncommon, but possibly
not rare; uo estimates
Estimated 22,000
inhahit Harth Atlantic
Ocean
Very rare; ooly ol'e
record
Poorly knnvn; betveen
260 10 10U taken
annually in Horth
Atlllntic Ocean b"tveen
1968 and 1970
Extremely rare; poorly
knovn
F.xtremely rare; stray
visitor
-------
Common Name
*aawksbilL
turtle
*Leatnerback
turtle
'>
I
\.11
t..)
t Loggerhead
turtle
*Green
turtle
tAt lant ic
..ridley
TABLE A-20
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED TURTLES FOUND IN MID-ATLANTIC SLOPE WATERS
Spe<::ies Name
Eretmochelys
imbricata
Dermocnelys
coriacea
Caretta
caretta
Chelonia
mytJas
Lepidochelys
kempii
*Endangered speCies
'Threatened speCies
Geographic-Bathymetric Range
Tropical waters; rare in New
England waters; nests on
Carribean shores and along
Atlantic coast to Brazil on
undisturbed beaches
New England waters summer-
autumn; closely associated
with Slope waters during
New England waters summer-
autumn; migrate Atlantic
coast to/from Sargasso
Sea
Occasionally seen in New
England waters in summer;
tropical oceans; rare
north of Cspe Cod
New England waters during
summer months; breeds on
more tropical beaches
Habitat
Deep ocean
Highly pelagic;
feeds on pelagic
jellyfish
Frequently
sighted in
coastal waters;
more littoral
than leather-
bi II
Deep Slope
w3ters between
Gulf Stream
and li Hora 1
feeding grounds
More
than
back
bi II
littoral
leather-
or hawks-
Reason for Decline
Heavily exploit~d
for shell
Some slaughter by
fishermen; eggs
collection on
breed ing grounds
Predat ion by
raccoons and -people;
egg destruction of
breeding beaches
due to coastal
development
Reduc t ion 0 f
breeding grounds
and conunercial
exploitation
Eggs plundered on
breeding beaches
-------
BENTHOS
The benthos of the proposed and alternative sites lie at abyssal depths in
the lower, mid-Atlantic Continental Slope and in the ConLinental Rise.
Research on the faunal assemblages of the Continerltal Slope cormnerlced only
recently and centered around the contributions of comparatively few workers.
This accounts for the sparse amount of data concerning Continental Slope
benthic populations. 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 a1., 1977; Pearce- et a1., 1977).
Variations
in
sediment
types
are
generally
recognized as the primary
in the mid-Atlantic Shelf.
factors influencing benthic
faunal distributions
These factors, however, are of doubtful importance in in fl uenc i ng benthic
faunal distributions In the proposed alternative site areas, due only to
slight sediment variation~ within s im i 1 a r areas (Rowe and Menzies, 1969).
Temperature can be discounted as an important factor since no seasonal changes
or variations with depth occur below l,OOOm (Larsen and Chenoweth, 1976; Rowe
and Menzies,
1969) .
It
has
not
been determined
to what
extent
species-
interaction
within
any
chosen
site
determines
the
faunal
composition
and
;
zoning regime, but competitive exclusion may be a critical factor (Sanders and
Hessler, 1969). ,
Deep-sea nutrition is one of the most important factors influencing benthic
faunal distributions in the site regions. Larsen and Chenoweth (1976) believe
the lower levels of available organic carbon at greater depths are key factors
determining faunal biomass and densities in the deep benthos. The importance
of competitive exclusion mentioned above relates directly 'to the abundance and
distribution of nutrients.
The food materials of the benthic
fauna in the, proposed and alternative
sites,
the
associated
food
sources,
and
transport mechanisms
are not
completely known. Several dominant species of fish in the 106-Mile Ocean Waste
Disposal Site are known to feed strictly on the epibenthic and infaunal
invertebrates I but other fish feed primarily on pelagic items (Cohen and
A-S'3
-------
Pawson,
1977; Musick et al..
1975).
Most
of
these
pelagic
species
were
diurnal migrants correlating with the views of Sanders and Hessler (1969)
regarding 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 at
. "
deeper depths (Haedrich et al., 1975) and many generalized feeding fish have
been found at the site (Musick et al.. 1975).
Based on studies at the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site by Jones and
Haedrich (1977) and Pearce (1974) the dominant epibenthic and infaunal
invertebrates of the proposed ~nd alternative sites are believed to' be ~eposit
feeders whose abundance and distribution would depend on the availability of
detrital fo~d items. 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 met~od by which the food is
transported to the deeper layers is uncert,ain. !he most important trans-
portatiC?n ,of detritus (to" the benthos of the site) is proba:b1y the passive
sinking of potential food items. Turbidity currents may also'play some minor
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 in Continental
Slope areas 0 f the
mid-Atlantic.
The number and demarcation of zones may vary between authors.
but all authors center the zones on one axis. horizontal or vertical. to the
Slope. Cohen and Pawson (1977) mention a horizontal distribution pattern of
benthic fish and invertebrates at the site., !hey observed great variance in
the abundance of the four most commonly seen epibenthic invertebra~es from one
site area to the next. but were hesitant to label this distribution as patchy.
" Surveys of the benthos in the l06-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site have found
no species of present commercial importance. and only a few of potential
importance. The shellfish commonly harvested on the adjac~nt shelf, including
the surf clam. sea scallop, and southern quahog, do not extend their ranges to
the Continental Slope. The lobster, Homarus americanus. is presently fished
in Canyon and Shelf areas to the north and west (Pratt. 1973). Tne red crab.
A-54
-------
Geryon quinquidens, is a potential 'commercial species of the mid-Atlantic but
is found only in Slope areas to the north and west (Musick et a1., 1975;
PI' at t, 1973).
No demersal fishes of commercial importance are presently being harvested
from the vicinity of the proposed site, and only a few potential species have
been found in the reg~on. Two dominant site ~peci~s, Coryphaenoides rupestris
and Alepocephalus agassizii, have been experimentally harvested by the Russian
and Bri tish fishing industries from areas west of the 106-Mile Ocean Waste
Disposal Site. The 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site is known to serve as a
nursing ground for Glyptocephalus cynoglossus, the adults of which support a
fishery elsewhere (Musick et a1., 1975). The previously rec0llm!ended site
(Paige et a1., 1978) encompasses Shelf areas popular among foreign fishing
industries.
EIRDS
Thirty-nine species of marine birds (Table A-21) are known to frequent the
offshore and coastal waters of the mid-Atlantic Bight (Gusey, 1976; Heppner
. .
an,d Gould, 1973; Murphy, 1967). The abundances range from occasional to
common, and most often exhibit migratory or seasonal variability. A few
species are thought to be rare or endangered in some parts of their range;
however, none are considered endangered species in the regiQll..of the
mid-Atlantic Bight.
~n
wilson (1967) lists nine pelagic birds as regular (year-round) inhabitants
the vicinity of the proposed Incineration Site: the North Atlantic
shearwater, greater shearwater, sooty shearwater, Leach's storm petrel,
Wi 1 s on I s s'torm pe t re l, g anne t, red pha 1 arope, northern pha 1 arope, and
parasitic jager. Moore (1951) presents observational information for several
of these birds. For all reported species winter obserV'ations show that few
birds frequent the proposed site region between November and March. The
summer months between April and 9ctober produce the greatest number of bird
May and June sightings generally produce the highest average
sightings.
counts.
A-55
-------
TABLE A-21
MARINE BIRDS AND MIGRATORY WATERFqWL OF THE
MID-ATLAN'!IC BIGHT AREA WHICH USE WATERS MORE THAN 5 MILES
OFFSHORE
. I Di stribut ion
Fr"qu!!nc:y
Common Name Sc:i!!nti fie:' Naill!! In Arl!a'" Status Pl!lagic: I.ittoral
Slac:k-c:apped plltr"l Ptllrodroma hasitata 0 X
Cannl!t. 110rus bassanus C, Ali X X
Rl!d phalarop!! P.iia'i'Oropus fulicarius CI1 X X
Nort hern phall!ropII I.obi pl!S lobatus 0 X X
Pomerine ja..ger Stercorarius pomarinus 0 X X
Parasitic: jaeger Stl!rc:orarlU8 parasltlcuS RI1 X X
loong-tailed jaeger Sterc:ora'rlus lOKicaudus 0 X
Blac:k-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla CW X X
Arctic tl!rn Sterna paradlsaea 0 X
Skua Catharac:ta sku>! 0 X X
Razorb i 11 auk Alc:a torda 0 X X
COlllllon lIIurrl! Una aalg!! 0 X X
Th i c:k-bi 1II!d murrl! Urla lomvia 0 X X
Dovl!kie 'Pi":Wt~ I! 0 X X
Wh i tl!-tai led tropic: bird Phal!thon ll!pturus 0 X
81 ue- faC:l!d booby ~ dac:tylatra I C (in south) Pt
-------
,.
20' .
85'
40'
u.s.
'\ HALIFAX
\
\
\
\
\
"
40'
30'
.'
. ."" .
20'
10'
10'
85'
65'
Source:
Land
Copyright@ 1978
Figure A-12. Bird Migration Route~
Adapted from "An Oceanic Mass Migration of
Birds," T.C. Williams and J.M. Williams
by Scientific American, Inc. All rights re8e~~d.
A-57
. . .'. ..., .. -. -.-,'
-------
The actual numb~rs of species using the routes are still unc~rtain. bl:t the
~anom~t Bird Obs~rvatory locat~d at Manomet, Massachusetts, maintains a list
of bi:ds known to use the routes (Table A-22~. This list includ~s terrestrial
3nd marine birds observed in the western North Atlantic.
Bird migration routes from North America to the Caribbeau Islands and South
~erica (Figure A-12) are based on radar observations from Halifax, Cape Cod,
Wallops Island, Bermuda, Miami, Puerto Rico, Antigua, Barbados, and Tobago.
Broken lines indicate two sets of possible routes, one for birds flying along
or near the North American coast, and the other for birds making most of the
trip over the ocean. Triangles indicate the relation of the wind to the
heading and track of th~ birds. Dotted lines show the direction of the wind
(with relative wind speed indicated by the length of the line). Dash-dot
lines show the average heading 0 f the birds, and solid lines show thei r
average itrack.
FOREIGN FISHERIES
F'oreign
fishing
activi~y .is
an
important
commercial .enterprise
in
the
oceanic region :')f the Norrh Atlantic Ocean. Japan is the dominant country
maintaining fleets fishing in the open ocean off the U.S. Atlantic coast,
utilizing longlining as the primary method for the capture of pelagic fish.
. .
Taiwan and Korea fish the area intermittently with similar gear. Fishing
ships follow the migratory pathway's of tuna, paying particular attention to
surface water temperatures.
Sets are made with gear consisting of a longline (100 km) with floats, and
radio beacons or light buoys spaced every 368m and connected by a length of
line 3pproximatelr 20m long. Between the floats are six branch lines
(gangions) 23:n long. At the end of the gangions are hooks (of differing
sizes, d~pending on fish to be captured) that are baited with squid, mackerel,
or saury. .~ set usually consists Qf 2,160 hooks, which are deployed and
retrieved withi[1 a 24-hour period. When giant bluefin are sought a shorter
longline with fewer hooks is used because the vessel must stop to land each
. fish.
A-58
-------
TABLE A-22
COMMON TO ABUNDANT BIRD SPECIES MIGRATING ANNUALLY
FROM NORTH AMERIC~ TO rdE CARIBBEAN ISLANDS AND SOUTH AMERICA
Pied-billed Grebe
White-tail~d Tropic-Bird
Gr~at Blue Heron
,Ring-billed Gull
COlDlllon Tern
Arctic Tern
Little Blu~ Heron
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Common Nighthawk
Belted Kingfisher
Black Duck
Green-winged Teal
Blue-winged Teal
American Widgeon
Merlin (Pigeon Hawk)
Sora Rail
.Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Barn Swallow
Hermit Thrush
Cedar Waxwing
Common Gallinule
American Coot
Red-eyed Vireo
Black-anci-wr.ite Warbler
Semipalmated Plover
Killdeer
Prothonotary Warbler
Parula Warbler
Yello.w Warbler
American Golden Plover
Black-bellied Plover
Magnolia Warbler
Cape May Warbler
Myrtle Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Ruddy Turnstone
Common Snipe
Spotted Sandpiper
Solitary Sandpiper
Greater Yellowlegs
Blackpoll Warbler
Western Palm Warbler
Ovenbird
Lesser Yellowlegs
Pectoral Sandpiper
White-rumped Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
Short-billed Dowitcher
Stilt Sandpiper
Semipalmated Sandpiper
Sand~rling
Northern Waterthrush
Yellowthroat
Hooded Warbler
American Redstart
Bobolink
Baltimore Oriole
Red Phalarope
Pomarine Jaeger
Indigo Bunting
Common Redpoll
Great Black-backed Gull
Herring Gull
Pine Siskin
Savannah Sparrow
Snow Bunting
Source:
Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Massachusetts
A-59
-------
In order to evaluate the fishery 0: the middle Atlantic area, including the
proposed Incineration Si te, information from the National Marine Fish~ries
Servi.:e (NMFS) , Foreign Fisheries Observer Program, Southeast Region (Tablp.
A-23) and the Japanese Far Seae Laboratory (Table A-24) are utilized.
The U. S. Observer Pro~ram maintains a 20% coverage of foreign fishing
effort in U.S. waters; thus, the overall effort and catch is estimated by
applying a factor of 5 to the observations ~f. U.S. fisheri~s personnel.
U.S.
Observer statistics utilized in this discussion are taken from NMFS statistics
for the oceanic region between 7l000'.W to.74°00'W and 37°00'N to 39°00'N.
The
Japanese statistics are reported for two 5~degree-square areas.
area, bounded by 75°00'W to 70000'W and 35°00'N to 40000'N,
A western
contains
th~
proposed site. An eastern area, bounded by 70000'W to 65°00'W and 35°00'N to
40000'N, lies in the Sargasso Sea. U.S. Observer data have been' obtained for
an area 15 times large~ than the proposed Incineration Site, whereas "Japanese
statistics are jrom areas 57 times larger than the proposed site. The object
of the following comparison is to determine, on the basis of' available
information, if . the proposed site area produced gt'eatet' catch per unit effort
than the larger area along the migratory p~thway of tunas. Of secondary
importance is quantity and fish species caught.
U.S. Observer data report fishing efforts that occurred in January, July,
and November 1979, and August thro~gh December 1980. The greatest number of
sets in a single month (November 1979) was 14; with 11 in September 1980. The
only year that may be directly compared is 1979, based on U.S. Observer data
and Japanese catch reports. This comparison is reported as 1979 extrapolation
of 100% coverage for 75° to 700W, 35° to 400N (Table A-23).
To compensate for the disparity between the smaller U.S. Observer surface
area and the larger Japanese statistical area, a factor of 4.17 has been
applied to the U.S. Observer data. Similarly, the 1979 extrapolat.:..on of 100%
coverage also includes a factor of 5 to account for the 20% coverage by U.S.
Observer Program. These data indicate that the U.S. Obnerver area had
prClpoT'tionately the same number of sets as the larger Japanese statistical
A-60
----.--
-------
II
TABLE A-23'
NUHBERS OF FISH CAUGHT PER YEAR BY GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
>
I
0\
.....
Lltt" Ahnt ie . ..u. Whit. Other
Seu Iluotln li,e,. '.I'oyri" SklpJoc~ AUucor. l"cUI.. 1une Ionltl Tun. Itl..tin Herlin Sollflob Svor.Uab Shu'" rlob
201 Covel' '..
0.1. Obl.rver D,"
U8 10 ".Vi ". to ),'"
U,," ,, - 201 1R2 ) )0' - - - I I ,, - J1 "I ."
Edr-pol.tlon of 1001
(0....." .
". 10 JO'U; U' to 40'.
fA ° .." e ~I
U'ltI )96 - 6,191 ),In 6J ',46) - - - II II U4 - )6) 11,160 11,112
101 eo......,..
U.I. Ob'.ryu' 0"8
Jle 10 '.."; )18 10 )98..
U980 1 n '- ))6 " - 'I - - - I I )0 - n 7)) ~99
U.'. Ob..rver D,"
118 10 14'V; '" to )4'"
Toul (1919 end 19801
(A . CI 61 - 527 199 ) 600 - - - 1 1 67 - 61 1,)66 1,116
U. I. Ob.e..yer Dat.
U. to 7'.V; ". to )""
A....,.. pe.. ,181'
(I . C . )) II - 16' 100 2 100 - - - I I 26 - II 672 601
1001 0,."... per "'1' "
En 1.818 fol' "8 10 ,. .VI
)I' to )9'" I! . H 10~ - 1,)6~ ~OO 10 1,000 - - - ~ , 110 - 10~ ),260 ),0))
1001 Co..r... per ,....
Enl..t. for 10. 10 ".V;
U' to 60'" Ir . 6.171 6)8 - ~,60' 2,0" 61 6,110 - - - II II ~OO - 4)8 16,011 1I,6~6
bt 1.811 01 I .pecl..
Coepooltlo..
U' to 60'.1 70' 10 ".V
(1979 ...d 19801 - - 141 U 0.11 III - - - 0,11 0.11 1.)1 - 1.11 n.u ))1
0hld..t Ifhd
Sourc.. :
IOCrs, !toutbveet ...Ion ""-Lll'; Japan... 'I' S... Laboretor,. .",...,,,
-------
., - ~ .. . - . .,
TABLE A-24
JAPANESE CATCH STATISTICS BY YEAR FOR TWO
NORTH ATLANTIC STATISTICAL AREAS
(Numbers of Fish)
Hooks
oluefin
Albacore
Yellowfin
1974 565 1,191,816 17 2,865 2,561 22,136
1975 436 925J107 5 4,500 11,679 12,531
1976 695 1,520,737 2,194 7,025 8,568 13 , 194
1977 307 644,740 839 3,897 4,223 7,398
1978 684 1,443,783 4,955 5.,126 13,243 13,827'
1979 393 894,093 7 2,959 3,033 13 ,851
Total (6 'years) 3,080 6,620,276 8,017 26,372 43,307 83,437
Average per year 513 1,109,379 1,336 4,395 7,218 13,906
15~ to 400N; 70° to 75°W
35° to 400Ni 65° to 700W
1974 221 465,377 1,770 3,857 1,307 6,873
.
1975 61 131,697 9 583 809 1,365
~
1976 649 1,404,465 4,528 10,149 7,451 16,556
1977 651 1,311,276 13,921 17,379 8,400 1,381
1978 554 1,186.302 1,297 7,164 9,398 7,534
1979 776 1,618,680 2,361 15,607 9,174 13,631
Total (6 years) 2,912 6,117,797 23,886 54,739 36,544' 47,340
Average per year 485 1,019,633 3,981 9,123 . 6,091 7,890'
.
Source:
Japanese Far Seas Laboratory, 1974-1979
area, with a prediction of 396 sets, based on U.S. observer coverage (Table
A-23), and 393 sets reported by the Japanese fleet in 1979 (Table A-24). The
data also indicate that effort was' directed at catching yellowfin tuna (and
other smaller tunas) from 1974 to 1980, using an average of 2,160 hooks per
set.
A-62
-------
Numbers of Cuna caughc (as reporced by Che Japanese) are highly reliable;
whereas numbers of other fish caughc are less useful. This is true because
all other fish are prohibiced by che 200-mile limit (Federal Register, 1978),
and a .directed fishery muse (by definicion) produce greacer chan 50: of the
fish being soughc. U.S. observer. daca .are che best information on incidental
catch (fish other chan cunas).
A comparison of estimated catch of Cunas with the reported catch indicates
that bigeye are sometimes caught more frequently in the U. S. Observer. area
than in the Japanese statistical area; yellowfin, however, appear to be caught
more often (by a factor,of 5) somewhere other than in the U.S. observer area.
The albacore catch is evenly distributed. Incidental catches appear to be
composed of roughly equal numbers of sharks and other pelagic fish, including
lancetfish,. wahoo, king mackerel, and dolphin.
thresher, with blue sharks probably being the
mostly white marlin and swordfish.
Sharks are mako,
blue, and
mos t numerous.
Bi 11 fish are
To'determine if the western Japanese statistical area (75° to 700W and
35° to 400N) produces more fish than the eastern Japanese statistical area
(70° co 6SoW and 35° co 40°), Japanese cacch statiscics for 1974 through 1979
were examined. Over that 6-year period 51% of combined effort was expended in
the western area, whereas 49% was expended in. the eastern area. Catch of each
species (per unit effort) was varied during each year within each area, but
over the entire 6-year period it can be concluded that albacore and giant
bluefin are produced more from the eastern area, whereas ye1lowfin are caught,
more frequently in the western area. Bigeye are only slightly more abundant
in the western area than the eastern.
A-63
-------
Appendix B
AT-SEA INCINERATION
REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
B-1
-------
CONTENTS
Annexes to tne International Convention on the Prevention of
~arlnc ~ollution by Dumping of ~astes and Other Matter. . .
Manaatory Regulations with Amendments to Annexes to the Convention
Tecnnical Guidelines. . .
. . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . . .
B-iii
B-1
B-5
B-17
-------
ANNEXES TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
ON THE PREVENTION OF MARINE POLLUTION BY DUMPING
OF WASTES AND OTHER MATTER
A,,-XEXES .
0. ..
A RTJ cu: ]'V
1. In nccol"cbnce with t.h~ pro,'isicroS of th:s O:n1'"en11on Contract-
inn Puti('s sh:111 pl"ohibit the dumpin!! of nllY W:I::.t('s or other mntter
in ::\~hn.le"er form or condition c:x~ep( :I~' othen\"ise ~pecifif:d belo\~:
(a) the dumping (1£ 'n"ltstcs or other !n:J.tt.er )isl.('.d in Anne.... I
is p,.ohibit~d j .
(b) the dumping of '~nstes o'r other mnit.er !istt'
-------
AXJI.'EX I
1. Orga.nobaloaen compounds.
2. :-'fercut'j Jtn3. mercury componnds. .
3. Cndmium and Cad11'11Um compounds. . .
4. Persistent plnsti.cs and other persistent syntbetic materials, for
'Pxnmple, net.t.ing And ropes, ,vhich may float or may remain in suspen-
sion in the sen in s11ch a m:mner ns to interfere mnterially -n-ith fishing,
:navigation or other legiti~nn.te \lSes of the sea. .
5. Cn1de oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, and lubricating oils, hydraulic
fluids, And any mUtures contnining nny of these, taken on board for
the puryose of dumping. - . .
6. Higb-Ievel r:1.dio-active ',"astes or other higb-level r.adio-active
mn.t.t.er, de.1ined on public he:1.1th, biolo~ca.l or ot.her grounds, b~ the
. competent international body in this fielCi, at present the Internatlona.1
_.\tomic Energy A!!ency, as unsl1itc'\.ble for dumping ~t sea.
7. Mnterials' in -~bn.tever form (e.g. solids, liquids, semi-liquids,
.=~:'~ or in A lii'ing stat~) produced for biologicnl :u1d ch~icnl ~ar-
fare. .
8. The preceding pa.ragraphs of t.hisAm1e:t do not apply to sub-
st:tnces 'lThich are :-apidIy rendered harmless by ph~'sical, chemical or
biological processes in tl1e sea pro\'ided iliey do not:
(i) mAke edible marine or;;n.nisms uripnla ta.ble. or
(ii) endAn2er human health or thn.t of domestk animals.
The ('onsu)tntive 'procedure provided for under Artic1e n,T should
b~ fo1Jo''t''ed by a. Party if there is doubt nbout the hnrm)essnE'.5S of the
substance. .
9. This AlUlU does not apply to ~astes or other mnterials (e.g.
se.w::.~e sludges and dredged spoils) ('onbining: tbe matters referred to
1n pa-ra!!!'a.phs 1-5 n.bove as trace cont.:1minll.nts. Such 'usus shnll be
sub~ct 10 the pro,-isions of Allnens n and III as appropriate.
~2\"EX' II
The fol1o~ing subst:mces and materials requiring special care are
listed for the purposes of Artic1e VI(l) (a).
A. Wastes cont.aining sign1ficant nmounts of the matters listed
be1ow:' .
f::tc } and tJ1eir cOI11!)onnds
copper
zinc
organosilicon compounds
cynnides
fluorides
pesticides and their by-products not covered in AlUle% I.
B-2
-------
.... ... . ,.
. B. In the issue of permits for t.he dumping of large quantities of
~cids and aJka.Hs, considernt.ion shan be gi.en to the possible presence .
in sHch ~astes of the substances listed in paragraph A and to the fol-
)o~ing additiona1 substances:
ber>11ium } . .
cJ:1romium n.nd their compounds
nlckel
'\"anndium. '. .
C. Containers, scrap metal and otl}er bull., 'Ii':1.stes Iia.ble to sink to
the sea bottom ,,,hich may present a. serious obstacle to fishing or
na.vjgHtion.
D. Rndio.nc.tive ~astes or ot.1ler rndio.nctin mn.tter not included in
Annex I. In the issue of permits for t.he dumpinC7 of this mn.tter, the
Contrn.cting Parties should take full ACCOunt of tte recommendations
-of the competent international body in this field, at present the Inter-
national At-omic Energy Agency.
ANNEX m
Pro"isions to be. considered in establishing criteria governing t.he
issue of permits for t.he dumping of matter at su, taking into account
ArticJe IV(2), include: . .
..!. Cha:racteristics a'1ld composition of the 1natter
1. Total amount and average composition of matter dumped (e.g.
per ,'ear).
2." Form, e.~. soJid, sludge, liquid, or gaseous.
3. PropertIes: physica.l (e.g. solubility and density), chemical and
bioc.hemical (e.g. o:t)'gen demand, nutrients).and bio1ogica1 (e.g. pres-
ence of ;.;ruses, b:u:.teria., ye:lsts, parasites).
4. Toxicity. '.
5. Persistence: physiCS\l, chemica.l and biologicaL .
6. Accumu1ation and biotransformation in bio1ogica.l materials or
sediments.
7. SusceptibiHty to physicn.1, chemical and biochemical chMges and
intera.ction in the aqua.tic environment with other dissolved organic
and inorganic mat.e.rJa.1s.
S. Probability of production of t.aints or other changes reducing
. marketability of resources (fish, shellfish, et.c.).
E. Cha.racte7.i.stics of dumping siU and 1T'IR.thod 01 deposit
1. Loc:1t.ion (e.g. (:o-OI'dinates of the dumping a rea., depth Rnd
dist.Ance from t.he coast), 10cation in re1ntion to ot.her areas (e.g.
amenity areas, sp:nming, nuJ'seIJ' and fishing a.reas .and exploitable
).esources). . .
2. Rate of dispos."ll per specific period (e.g. quantity per day, per
week, per month).
B-3
-------
. ,
3. Methods of pncka..ing and containment, if any..
4. Init.ial di1ution D~icved by propo'sed method ot release.
5. Dispersal char:tctcristics (e.g. effects of currents, tides and ,,,,ind
on horizontal transport and vertical mixing).
6. Water characteristics (e.g. temperat.ure, pH, 'salinity, stratifica-
tion, o~ygen indices of pollu~on~issolyed ,o,..ygen (DO), chemical
o3:j7gen dema.nd (COD), bJoche.m:Jcal oxygen demand (BOD)-
nitrogen lrese.nt in organic and mineral form including ammon.ia.,
suspende matter, other nutrients and productivity).
7. Bottom characteristics (e.g. torographY1 ~eoche.mical and geo-
logical characteristics and biologica productiV1ty).
8. Existence and e1fects of other dumpin!!S which ha.ve been ma.de
in ~e dumping area (e.g. heavy meW background reading and or-
ganJC carbon content). '
9. In issuing a permit for dumping, contracting P=-.rties should
consider whether an adequate scientific basis e~ists for :\.SSessin~ the
consequences of such dumping, as outlined in this Annex, taking
into account seasonal \"arintions.
O. General consideratio.fI.S and C01lditicm.!
1. PoSsible effects OD amenities (e.g. presence of floating or stra.nded
!TJ=-.terial, turbidity: objectiona.ble odour, discolouration and foam-
lng). . ,
2. Possible effects on marine life, fish and shel1~sh culture, fish
stocks and fisheries, seaweed han'esting and culture.
3. Possible effects on other uses of the sea (e.~. impairment of
water quaHty for industrial use, underwa.ter corrOSJon of structures,
interference with ship. operations from, floating materials, interfer.
ence with fishing or naviA'ation through deposit of waste or solid
objects on the sea floor and protection of areas of specia.l importance
for scienillic or conserva.tion purposes).
. 4. The practical availability of alternative land-based methods of
treatment, disposal or elimination, or of tre.'1tment to render the mat-
ter less harmful for dumping at sea. - " " . '" ,
.
.
B-4
-------
MANDATO~Y REGULATIONS WITH
AMENDMENTS TO ANNEXES TO THE CONVENTION
THE THIBD CONSULTATIVE MEETING,
RECALLING Article I of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes 'and Other Matter, which provides that
Contracting Parties shall individually and collectively promote the effective
control of aU sources of pollution of the marine environ:nent,
HAVING NOTED the use of incineration at sea as a means of disposal of
wastes containing highly toxic substances and the consequent risks of marine
and atDlospheric polluti9n which may result from this process,
DESIRING to prevent. such pollution and to ~;";'m;ze tile risk of hazards
-'.' .
to other vessels or interference with other. legitimate uses of the sea which
-.
. .
could arise from' incineration ~perations at sea,
, .
RECOGNIZING present methods of incineration at sea as being an
interim method of disposal of wastes pending the development of environ-
, .
mentally better solutions, considering at an times the best available
technolo gy ,
AFFIRMING that the intention of the adoption of mandatory provisions
"
. .
for the cont:-ol of incineration at sea is not to increase the amounts and
. . .
kinds of wastes or other matter incinerated at sea for which there are
"
. .
. .
or elimination,
available practical alternative land-based methods of trea1=l:lent, disposal
. , . .
REAFFIRMING that, in ac;cordance with Article IV(3) of the Convention,
Contracting Parties can apply additional regulations for incineration at sea
on a r.Lational basis,
.W'II. - .--:-- .. ~.
.
B-5
-------
- .., .. ,-, _..",',
NOTING tha-: Article vm of the Convention encourages Contracting
Parties, within ~e framework of regional conventions, to develop further
agreem2nts reflecting the conditions of the geographical area concerned.
RECALLING .the de.cision of the Second Consultative Meeting that pro-
. .
visions for the control of inc:ineration at sea should be implemented by
Contracting Parties on a mandatory basis in the form of a legal instrument
.',
adopted within the framework of the Convention (LDC n/ll. Annex II).
HAVING . CONS IDE RED the proposed amenm:nents to the Annexes of the
. .
Conventi6il for the control of incineration at sea contained in the Report
of the Ad Hoc Group of Legal Experts on Dumping.
ADOPTS the followmg aI:lendments to the ,Anne~es to the Convention
in accordance with Articles XIV(4)(a) and XV(2) thereof:
. .
(a) ~ddition of a. paragraph 10' ~ .Annex I:
(b) addition of a paragraph E to Annex II: and
(c) addition of an Addendum to Annex I, con:taining Regulations for
the Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other ~atter at Sea..
the texts of which are set out in Attachment to this Resolution,
ENTRUSTS the L'"lter-Goyerc.mental Maritime ~onsultative Organization
with the task of ~nsuring, in collaboration with the Governments of 1i:'rance.
. . - -.. - --... ". -.-.-.. ..,.. ... .
Spain. the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom. that
the texts of the above Amendments are drawn up by 1 December 1978 in
all official languages of the Convention with the linguistic consistency in
each text, which would then become the authentic text of the Annexes to
the Convention in the English, French, Russian and Spanish languages,
B-6
-------
. .... . ..
,-
RESOLVES that for the purposes of Articles XIV(4)(a) and r.t(2) of the
Convention. 1 Decer:lber 1978 sha.Jl be treated as the date of the adoption'
of the amennr.'\ents.
REQUESTS the Secretary-General of the Organization to inform Contract-
ing Parties of the above-mentioned amendments.
REQUESTS the Ad Hoc Group on Inctaeration at Sea to prepare draft
Technical Guidelines for the Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other
Matter at Sea witb a view to adoption by the Fourth. Consultative Meeting,
INVITES Cont::"ac:tir.g Parties to implement.. as an interim measure, the
existing TechIUcal Guidelines (LDC II/n. Am1e:x n. with amendments (L<\S/9,
. \
Annex TV» and the notification procedure set out in Annex 2 to LDC m/12.
}.j
B-7
-------
. . .'. '- ., . ..'.~
._h .. ...-." .
Attachment
A.\1ENDMENTS TO ANNEXES TO TEE CONVENTION
ON THE PREVENTION OF :MA~TE POLLUTION
EY DUMPING OF WASTES AND OTHER MATTER
CONCERNING INC~~RATION AT SEA
. ,
The fonowing par:.gratlh shall be added to Annex I:
10. Paragr~hs 1 and 5 of this Annex do not apply to the disposal of wastes
~r other matter referred to in th~se paragrap~ by means of incineration
at sea. Incineration of such wastes or other matter at sea requires a prior
special permit. In the issue of special permits for incineration the Contract-
ing Parties shan apply the Regulations for the Control of InciDerc.:lon 0:
Wastes and Other Matter at Sea set forth in the' Addendum to this Annex
,.
. (which s1?all constitute an' integral part of this .-\rmex) and take full account
of the Technical Guidelines on the Control of I:lcmeration of Wastes ,and
Other Matter at Sea adopted by the Contracting Parties in consultation.
The following paragrpah shall be added to Annex TI:
E. In the issue of special permits for the incineration of substances and
materials listed in t..~s Annex. the Contracting Parties shall apply the
Regulations for the 'Control of Incineration of 'Wastes and Other Matter. at
. '
Sea set forth in the Addendum to Annex I and take full account of the. .
Technical Guidelines on the Control of Incineration of Wastes and Other
Matter at Sea adopted by the Contracting Parties in consultation, to the
extent specified in these Regulations and Guidelmes.
. ~ .
"
I,
I
.
.
B-8
-------
ADDENDUM
PoEG'ULATIONS FOR THE CONTROL OF INCINER.!~TION OF
WASTES AND OTHER MATTER AT SEA
PART I
REGULA TION 1
Defini tions
For the purposes of this Addendum:
(1) "Marine incineration facility" means a vessel, platform, or other
man-made structure operating for the purpose of incineration at sea..
(2) "Incineration at sea" means the deliberate combustion of wastes or
other matter on maripe incineration facilities for the purpose of their
thermal destruction. :~ctivitie.s incidental to the norm2.1 operation of
v~ssels, platforms or ~ther man-made structures' are excluded irom the
.
scope of this. definition. .
REGULA TION 2
Application
(1) Part n of these' Regulations shan apply to the following wastes or
other matter:
(a) those referred to in paragraph 1 of Annex Ii
(b)' pesticides and their by-products not covered in Annex I.
(2) Contracting Parties shall first consider the practical availability of
alternative land-based methods '~f treatI:Dent, disposal o.r pHT"'IiTl.ation, or
. of treatment to render the wastes or other m:;tter less har.mful, before
issuing a permit for incineration at sea in acco.rdance with these
Regulations. Incineration at sea shall in no way be interpreted as
discouraging progress towards environmentally better solutions including
the development of new techniques.
B-9
-------
(3) Incineration at sea of wastes or other matter referred to in paragraph
10 of Annex I and paragraph E of AImex n. other than those referred to in
paragraph (1) of this Regulation. shall be controUed to the satisfaction of
th~ Cont::-acting Party issuing the' special permit.
(4) Incineration at sea of wastes or other matter not referred to in para-
graphs (1) and (3) of this Regul~ion shall be subject to a general permit.
, ,
(5) In the issue of permits referred to in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this
Regulation, the Cont::-acting Parties shall take full account of aU applicable
provisions of these Regulations and the Technical Guidelines on the Control
of Incineration of Waste and Other Matter at Sea for the waste m question.
',.
PART II
REG UL.o\ TION 3
.'
ApprQval and Surveys 'Of the Incineration System
(1) The incineration system for every proposed :clarine incine:-atioa facility
shall be subject to .t.~e surveys specified below. In accordance With Article'
vn(l) of the Conventio~. the Contracting PartY which 'propose~ to issue an
incineration permit shall ensure that the surveys of the marine incineration
facility to be used have been completed and the incineration system complies
with the provisions of these Regulations. If' the initial survey is carried
out under the direction of a Contracting PArty a special permit. which
specifies the testing requirements. shan be iSsued by the Party. 'The
results of each survey shall be recorded in a survey report.
(a) AI! initial survey shall be carried out in order to ensure that
during the incineration of waste and other matter comhu$tion.
and dest.-uction efficiencies are in excess of 99.9 per cent.
_II
B-10
-------
. . .,.. ~ 4 ~ ..
(b) As a pa!"t of t.'1e initial su:-vey the State u:lder whose direction
the survey is being carried out shall:
(i) approve the siting, type and manner of use of temperature
measuring devices;
(ii) approve the gas sampling system including probe locations,
(iii)
analytical devices, and the manner of recor~g;
ensure that approved deVices hav:e been installed to automatically
shut off the feed of waste to the incinerator i! the temperature
drops below approved minimum te::lperatures; ,
(iv) ensure that there are no mea.n.s or disposing of wastes 0:- ot.~e:"
matter from, the marine incineration facility except by means
of the inciner~tor. during normal ope-rations;
.'
(v)
approve the' devices by which feed ra.tes of waste and fuel are
controlled and recorded;
(vi)
confirm the performance of the incineration system by testing.
under intensive stack monitoring, including the measurements
o , CO, CO " halogenated organic content, and total hydrocarbon
'2 2
content using wastes typical of those expected to be incinerated
(c) The incineration system shall be surveyed at le~st every two years
to ensure that the inc~,erator continues to comply with these RegUla- ,
tions.
The scope of the biennial survey shall be based upon an'
, '
evaluation of operating data and maintenance records for the previous
two years.
(2) Following the satisfactory cocpletion of a survey, a form of approval
shan be issued by a Contracting Party i! the i:1cineration systec ~s found to
B-ll
-~..
-------
. - _. .. .--.-.. .~.
. ~. -'" .
.
be in compli~ce with these Regulations. A copy of the survey report shall
,
I
be attached to the form of approval. A fom 0: approval issued by' a Contract-
i
ing Party shall be recognized by other Contracting Pa..-ties unless there are
clear grounds for belieVing 'that the' incine'ration system is lhll' i~ compliance
with these Regulations. A copy of, each fon:!:. o! approval and survey report
shaJl be submitted to the OrganiZation.
(3) After any survey has been completed- no signific2.!lt c..~anges which
could affect the performance of the incinerat:oc syste:o shall be made with-
out appro.val of the Contracting Party which has issued the for:::::l of approval.
REGULATIOK 4
Wastes Requiring' Special Studies
, ,
(1) .Where a. Contracting Party h.as doubts as to the then=.al destructibility
of "the wastes and other,matter proposed for incineration, pilot scale tests
shall be undertaken.
(2) Wbere a Contracting Party proposes to per::lit incineration of wastes or .
other matter over which doubts as to the efficiellcy of combustion ~xist, the
incineration system shall be subject to the sa:ne intensive' stack 'monitoring
as required for the bitial incineration syste:. su:-vey. Consideration shall
I
be given to the sampling of particulates- tak;"~ into account the solid .content
of the waste s.
- .-.. ...-.
--. .. . -.
(3) The minimum approved fla.me temperature shan be that specified in
Regulation 5 unless'the results of tests on the marine incineration facility
demonstrate that the required combustion and destruction efficiency can be
achieved at a lower temperature.
(4) The results of special studies referred to in paragraphs (1) (2) and (3)
, ,
B-12
-------
of this Re,gulation shan be recorded and atta.c~ed to the survey report. A
copy shall be sent to the Organization.
REGULA TION 5
Operational Requireme:1ts
(1) The operation of the incineration system shaU be cont:"oUed so as to
ensure that the incineration of wastes or othe:- matter does not take place
at a flame temperature less than. 1250 degrees centigrade. except as pro-
vided for in Regulation 4.
(2) The combustion efficiency shaU be at least 99.95:: O. 05"0 based on:
Combustion efficie~cy =
C - C
CO CO
2
C
. CO
2
;: 100
.'
where C.
CO
2
= concentra,tion of carbon dio::ade in the combustion gases
C
CO
(3) There sha.ll be no black smoke nor flame extension above the pla.ne of the
= concentration of carbon mO!Jo~-:.J.~ i:1 the combustion gases.
stack.
(4) The marine incineration facility shall reply pr.ompU)' to radio cans at
aU times during, the incineration.
REGULA TION 6 .
Recording Devices and Records
(1) Marine iDcmeration facilities shaU utilize recording devices or methods
as approved under Regulation 3. As a minimum,. the following data shan
. .
be recorded during each incineration operation and retained for inspection
by the Contra~ting Pa,rty who has issued the ?ermit:
B-13
-------
(a) continuous temperature measurements by approved temperature
measuring devices:
(b)
date and time .during incin~ration and record of waste being
incinerated:.
.' .
(c) vessel position by appropriate navigational means:
(d) feed rates of waste and fuel - for liquid wastes .and fuel the now
rate shall be continuously recorded: the latter requirement does
not apply to vessels operating on or before 1 January 1979:
(e) CO and CO concentration in combustion gases:
,... 2
(f)
vessel's course and speed.
(2) Approval forms issued, copies of survey reports prepared in accord-
ance w~th Regulation 3 and copies of incineration permits issued for the
wastes or other matter to be incinerated on the facility by a Contracting
Party shall D.e kept at the marine incineration facility.
REGULA TION 7
Control over the Nature of Wastes Incinerated
A permit applic~tion for the inc~eration of wastes or other matter
at sea shill include in:ormation on the Characteristics of wastes or other
matter sufficient to' comply with the requirements of Regula.tion 9.
. .
REGULATION 8
Incineration Sites
(1) Provisions to be considered in establishing criteria governing
the selection of incineration sites shall include, in addition to those
listed in Annex ill to the Convention, the following: .
(a) the atmospheric disperal characteristics of the area - including
. . ..
B-14
-------
. -.;.'..
Wil'ld speed and direction, atmospheric stability, frequency of
inversions and fog, precipitation types and amounts, humidity -
in order to determine the potential impact on the surrounding
environment of ponutants released from the marine incineration
facility, giving particular atte~tion to the possibility of at%nospheric.
transport of pollutants to coastal areas;
(b) oceanic dispersal characteristics of the area in order to evaluate
the' potential impact of plume interaction with the water surface;
(c) availability of navigational aids.
(2) The coordinates of permanently designated incineration zones shall
be widely disseminated and communicated to the Organization.
.'
,.
REGULA TION 9
Notification
Contracting Parties shall comply wit.'l notificati911 procedures adopted
by the Parties in consultati~n.
B-15
..-.....".. .
-------
TECHNICAL GUIDELINES ON THE CONTROL
OF INCINERATION OF WASTES AND OTHER MATTER AT SEA
INTRODUCTION
1.
1.1
In 1918 the !bird Consultative Meeting of Contr3Ct1.~ Parties to t.~e
Conventicn on the Preventicn of Marl...,e Polluticn by Dumping of Wastes az:d
Other Matter adopted Resolution LDC Resoluti"on S(TiT) by which it
approved ~~e following amen~ents to the ~~exes to the Convention
concerning the prevention and control of p::)llution by i.~neration of
wastes and other" matter at sea:
,
. 1
t.~e addition of a ~aph 10 to A!l.,ex ~;
, 0
.2 the
additiooo of a paragraph E ~ Annex II; and
~ 3 the 2ddition of a.'1 Addendum :0 Annex I J contai.~"Jg rtegulatioQS
. "
fer :.'1e Control of Incinerat:.cn of Wastes and Other Mat~e:- at Sea.
1.2 Onder t.~ese a!:!e."dI:le."t.:l, the Ccnt.acting ?a!"ties sb:1 1, in the issue
of per:nits for incineration, app~y t.~e Regulations for ~. Cont:-ol of
Incineration of ',.jastes a."d Other Matter at Sea a.'1d take ful: accou."t of
.
the Technical Guideli:le:5 on the Contr-ol of L'1c.i."eration of Wastes and
Other Matter at Sea adopted by :.~e Cont~ct;ng Parties 1.:1 consultation.
Tr.e requL-enents fo.'" the issue of permits fer dii"fe:-ent types of wastes
\
are ~ized in the followi_'1g table: .
II
I
~-17
-------
. .-."..-....' ..'-"' -.
I
I Substances Pe."":I!1 t Regulations '! ecllcical
. Guidelines
I . Orgar.oha.loge!'l compouncs; Special ~~ p~o~-siocs of All ~or-siocs of
I.
I ?esticic!es and the Regulations the '!eci'lnical
I :y-prcc!uct.s ic Parts. I and I! Guidelines to be
I to be applied. taken 1.'lto full
. .
, account
2. Crude oil, fuel. oil, etc. Special Control to the sati.sfacticn of
taken on board for Contract1.cg Parties taking 1.cto
purpose of di:3posa;; account:
Annex II substances
(~thout pesticides) all applicable all applicable
. provi:310~ of ~o~-siocs of.
,
Regulations in the Tec.~ca.l
Parts I and II Guidelines
3. Substances nct I General ~ under 2 above !
mentioned unde~ 1
and 2 above I
1.3
T'ne ~esent .Guideli::es b.ave been developed on the ba.s:i.s of er~t1ng
,.. r
scientific knowleQge'of the 1nci."le~t1cn precess and on a k::owledge of
cW'":""er:t tecl'....,ology-
Although the state of knowledge on the L.,c.L"lerntion
of .liquid organochlorine wastes in existir.g vess~]., has enabled specit'1c
..
guic!elir.es to be c!:'"a~"I1 up covering the i."cineration cf these wa.stes,
t..'1ere
rc..:na.i.."l types of '....astes whe~ k::owledge is L'1Suff1cient a.t present.
Scie."t~ic ...."C~k acd tech.."'lical c!evelop~ent Ls, l':cweyer, proceedi:'~ and
COl"..seque."tly these Gui::elines should be kept under- revi601 as the results
of furth~ research and investigatiol"..s become available..
1.- 4 These Technical Guidelines appl:r to wastes a' othe- matter- loaded o~
kept al ooa.~ :I2ri::e ;i.."lcineration facilities ....tl.ich are cefi!:ed in
Regulation 1(1) and incluc!e vessels, plat:cr=s or ot~er.~-made
structures '..t".ich might at scme future c!ate C2t'ry aJt factory operations
arn generate wastes w~~ch co~d be in~"lerated at sea.
Incineration a.t
.
.
JI
B-18
-------
sea is defined in 1egulation 1(2) ~~j exclude activities incidential to the
normal operat.ion of ships (e. g. combus t.ion of ship-generat.ed p;arbage) or
. plat.for'lTls (.; .Il. Gamin~ of ~ from oil product.ion or exploration).
1.5
The incinerat.ion of a wast.e .at sea must. be cont.rolled t.o safeguard a
number of uses of t.he marine environment. as laid down in Annex III to tbe
Convent.ion.
Additionally the Resolution of the First Consultative ~eeting
of Cont.ract. ing Part.ies to t:'ne' London Dumping Convent.ion (1976) recognized
t.hat t.he risks of at~ospheric pollut.ion should be t~ken inte account.
1.6 Wher'e t.he word "Convention as amended in 1978" is used, this is to be
underst.ood as referencp. to t.he Convent.ion on t.he Prevent.ion of Marine
Pollution by Dumping uf Wast.es and Ot.her Mat.t.er, 1<172, with amendment.s to
t.he Annexes te t.he Convent.ion ~dopt.ed in 1978 as listed under 1.1. above.
Where the w::>rd "Regulation" is used, this. is to be understood as reference
. te t.he cO(,l'espon.:iil1g r'egulat.ion of t.he Addendum to Annex I te 'the Convent.ion
. . as mentioned' in 1. 1 .3. above ~
1A.1 Resoonsibilit.v of Contract.inl<: Part.ies
1A.1.1.
'Ii1e init..ial sw'vey of the maz'ine incineration facilit.y referred to
in Regulation 3 should be t.he responsibility of a Cont.racting Part.y.
Sub~equent. Sllr'v~ys of the marine incineration facil it.ies should be tbe
responsibility of the Contract.ing Party which conduct.ed t.he initial sUr~ey
or of a Cont.ract.ing Part.y responsible for issuing a permit for curr'ent.
operat.ions in cons111 t.at.ioI'1 wit.h t.hat. Cont.ract.ing Part.y.
2
2.1
INCINERATION OPERATIONS
Wast.e t.voe and feed rat.es of wast.e t.o t.he incinerat.or
2.1 .1
Continuous flow-measuring devices for recording liquid wast.e flow
rat.e should be inst.alled on exist.ing marine incinerat.or facilit.ies by 1
June 1980.
Int.erim met.hods of control should be based on a continuous.
display of the wast.e fuel pump stat.us supplemented by manual checks .of the
B-19
-------
. -, .. '.." .
t.ype and amount. of wast.e burned every hour, weat.her and se~ st.ate .pel"!'Dit.-
.,
ting, t.o be recorded in .the log.
2.1.2 Where solid wast.es are burned, the wa.st.e t.ype and rate of input.
should be recorded in t.he log.
2. 1 .3 The feeding of wa.st.es in cont.ainers to t.he inci.ner~t.or will
necessit~t~.S~1al design and operat.:i.on;al requirement.s .in order t.o comply
with Regulat.ion 5.
These should include but. not. be limit.ed t.o:
.1
t.he wast.e should be feed t~ t.he incinerat.or at. such a rat.e t.hat. t.he
oxygen deca.nd is well within t.he capabUit.y of t.he cornbust.ion air
fan; and
.2 t.he wast.e should be fed t~ t.he incinerat.or via an air lock
chamber.
2.2 . Air feed to the incinerat.or
2.2. 1 . The amount. of air ent.ering t.he inciner~tor should be suffic ient. t.o
t!nsure' t.hat. a minimum of 3 .per cent. oxygen is present in. t~ cornbust.ion
. .
gases near the incinerator stack exit..
This requirement should be monitored
by an aut.omatic oxygen analyser t.o routinely record oxygen concent.rations.
-- 2.2.2
Alt.hough exist.ing .incinerator vessels employ a fixed air input. rate,
marine incineration facilities may in the ~Jt.ure use a variable air feed'in
which case this rat.e should ~ recorded.
2.3 Temoerat.ure cont.rols
2.3.1
Temperat.ure controls and records should be based on' the measurement.
of wall t.emperature. Unless ot.herwise det.ermined' by t.he Cont.M.ct.ing Part.y
t.here should be t.hree or ~re temperature measurement devices for each
incinerat.or.
2.3.2 In order t.o comply wit.h Regulation 5 the Contract.ing Party should
define t.he operat.ing wall t.emperat.ure and the t.emperature below which t.he
flow of wast.e t.o the incinerat.or should be automatically shut off by
.
.
approved equipment.
B-20
-------
2.3.3
.
The minimum wall t.emperat.ure should be 12000 C unless the resul t.s of
tests on the marine incineration f~cility demonstrat~ that the reouired
combust.ion and destruction efficiencies specified in Regula~io~s 3 and 5 can
be achieved at a lower t~mperat.ure.
2.4 Destruction efficiencv
2.4.1
For t.he purpose of applying Re~ulation 3 t.he dest.ruct.ion efficiency'
should be det.ermined not. only for t.he t.ot~ organic components of t.he wastes
but additionally for particular substances such as those listed in 4.1.2.
2.5 Residence t.ime
2.5.1. The mean residence time of the incinerat.or should be of the order ~f
one second or longer at. a flame t~mperature of 12500C (e.g. as measured by
an optical pyrometer) during nor'Tllal operating condit.ions.
2.6
Aut.omatic shut.-off svst.ems
2.&.1
Devices t.o shut off the wast.e feed to t.he inc'iner-ator in accordance
wit.h 'Megulat.ion 3 should include the following:
. 1
flame ~ensors wit.h each bUf'l1er to st.op was~.e flow to that. burner
in the event. of a flame-out; and
.2 aut.omat.ic equipment. t.o st.op wast.e flow .in t.he event of wall
t.emperat.ures falling below 1200° C or t.he t.ernperat.ure det.ermined i"
2.3.3.
2.7 Posit.ionin~ of measurin~ devices
2.7.1
In applying Regulation 3(1)(b)(1) and (11) to approve t~e siting of
temperature measuring devices and g~~ sampling probes t.he Contract.ing Party
should t.ake int.o account t.hat. in certain cases flames can be ~on-hoT!logeneous
(e.g. through vortex fo~ation in the incinerator or during incineration of
solid or cont.ainp.!"'ized wast.es).
~21
.. -....;". . .
-------
3
3. 1
~ CDN'l'ROL ~ '!'"~ t-fARINE INCINERAl'ION FACIL...""I'Y AND rrs CP~'""ICN
Load:L'j~ end gtoWd.~e of '..-a..9tes
3.1.1
Due t,:) t.~e !"'"-sk c-r spillages wastes should not be t:-a.csferred f:'cm
barges or' other vesse.l:s. to .:nari:le incineration facilities outside harbour
limits e:ccept where special arrangements have been made for ~e ~evention
or spillages to the satisfacticn of the Contracting Party.
3.1.2 Wastes in damaged containers sr.ould not be taken en beard mari..'~e
L~cL~er"a.ticn facilities.
3.1.3
3.1.4
Containers loaded on board shpuld be adequately labelled.
Containerized wa.stes should be sto'wed L~ accordance w1t.~ the
regulatior..5 of the I~CO IDternation2.1 Maritime Dar.gercus Goces Cede (L~
Code) .
. 3.2
Disccsal of residues
3.2. 1
':'ank ~cash1.."!gS and' pump-roOQl bilges conta!!li."1a.ted ~'ith wcastes stould
be L'1cinerated at sea. in accordance wit.~ t.."le Regulatiol"'..s fer tte Control
of !ncl..~en.tion of wc.stes and Other r~tter at Sea and with these Technical
Gui=eli.'1es, cr discharged to port facilities.
3.2.2
Residues re!I2.ining in the incine!"a.tor s.~uld not be dumped at sea.
except in accordance with tr~ provisions of t.~e Convention.
3.3
?r-eve."tion of r.z:~s to other vessels'
3.3.1
In lioensing the 1nci.~eratial of ....-astes an::i other matter on beard
a.pproved marine L"1cineration facilities, t."le Ccnt~a.ctL'1g Party s.~uld have
regard to t.~e need to avoid hazarc.s to other 'lessels by appropriate
location of the incineration sites or incineration zones concerned ar~ by
eI"..surLI'lg that tr.e relevant marit~ -p authorities are notified of t~ date
tt
B-22
-------
..~'..' ..... -.. '- ..'
of sailing and/or L'Jtencee. schedule, as well as t.~e .i."1tended I:Dve~ent~ of
t.~e marine inci."1eratioo facility ('..hether underway, at anchor, etc.).
3.3.2
Regular radio '..arrli.."1g should be broadcast dur~ the period of
incineration.
3.3.3
Contracting Parties in a given geographical area should endeavour
to designate COm::1OQ inc1neratic:n sites in t..~ area.
3.4 Construction of ~L~e incineration facilities
3.4.1
For the carriage of liquid wastes an 1.~cineraticn s~ shall C2r'rJ
a valid "Certificate of Fitness" as required under- the IMCO Code for the
Cor.5t:-ucticn and Equipcent of Ships Ca..~.-."1g Da..'Jge~ol.:.S Che:n1cili
l."1 3ulk.
3.4.2 The compotent natior~ authorities of the country concer-ned should
designate suitable,conditiops for the construction and equipment of marine
incineration facilities r.ot aentioned under 3.4. 1 above, ba.9ed on the
. .
pr~~ciples of the IMCO Bulk Chemical Code.
Such conditions should be
notified to the Organization.
3.5
Data reccrdir.2:
3.5. ,
In addition to t.~e recorcs ~ui:'ed by Regulation 6 of t..'1e Addendum
to Ar~ex I, marine incineration facilities should also record:
. 1
the OX"/sen concentration in the ccmbustion gases as m:mi~red in
accordancs with 2.2.1 of t..~ese Gu.idelin~s;
. .
.2 the 2.ir "fee: rate in accordance Ior'ith 2.2~2';
.3
.4
the ta.nk(s) :'ram ;.;hich waste is taken; and
the meteorologicl conditions, e. g. w.lnd s~ed and di:-ection.
3.5.2
?~~etel"'S ;.;hi~~ cay l"'eq~ recording in the ~~ture, subject to
satisfactory t~~cal development, include routine measur~~nt of dest.-uc-
tion efficiency and total particulate matter in the combustion gases.
~-23
-------
'. .. ~"-'. .. " .' ~.., ,
, -,~ . .... ..... . .. .... ,.'
3,'.3 The result of the recording devices under Regulation 6 and the data
recording described in par~graphs 3.5. 1 and 3.5.2 above should be provided
to the Cont~acting Part.y which had issued the i~~ineration pe~it.
Where
more t.han one Cont~ct.ing Part.y had issued a per'!l1it. for one incinerat.ion
operation, ;uTan~e!l1ent.s for rev ie'", of the dat.a Sh011ld be made among the
Cont.r3.cting Part.ies involved"
4
4.1
NA7URE OF WASTF..s OR OTHER MA'I"I'ER AND NOTIFICATION PROCED[J~ES
Charact.erist.ics of wastes
4.1.1
Inforrnat.i-on on the charact.eristics of wast.es or ot.her matt:.er t~ be
pr~vided in connexion with a permit. application in ~ccordance wit.h
Regul3it.ion 7 should include in addUlon t~ that. in t.he Appendix heret.o, if
possible, info~at.ion or. the chemical and physical t.ransformation of t.he
wast.e after incineration, in part.icular, subsequent. fonnat.ion of new
compounds, cOmposit1o~ of ashes or unburned residues.
4'.1.2 For t.he purpose of Regulat.ion 4, examp'les of wast.es or ot.her matt.er
over which doubts exist as t~ t.he the~ destruction and efficiency of
combust.ion are lised as follows:
. 1
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's)
.2 Polychlorinated triphenyls (PeT's)
~3 Tet.r~achloro-dibenzo-p-d10xin (TCDD)
.4 Benzene hexachloride (BHC)
.5 D1chlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT)
4.2 Comoliance wit.h oara!Zraohs 8 and q of Annex I of t.he Convent.ion
4.2.1
The Contract.ing Part.y must. ensure t.hr~ugh t.he applicat.ion of
procedures adopted by Cont.ract.ing Par'ties in consultat:.ion t.hat. the
incinerat.ion of a wast.e cont.aining Annex I subst.ances should oot r'esult io
t.he introduct.ion of Annex I subst~nces into the marine environment unless
t.hese are rapidly rendered har~ess or are present as trace cont~1nants.
.
.
'3-24
-------
Based on current scientific ~owledge on the envi~?n~ntal effects of
~~cinerating liquid organochlorine co~pounds, this requireme~t is considered
.
t.o be '!let if the Re'gulations a."'Id Te~hnic3.l Guidelines ~"e observed.
4.2.2 Wbe.""e it is pr-oposed to 1:1cinerate ~tes at sea coct~;!"Ii ~ other
Annex I substances cr organochlorine compounC:3 refe~ to ~ 4.1.2, it
will be cecessa."'Y to eete:-::1ine that the r-...sidue.s e...."'t~.:cg the ~..!le
ecv1rorn:1ent after incineratica ar"'e rapidly render-e:i ha.r:nle:3S c:r preseI!t as
trace contaminants through pr-ocedure:3 adopted by the Ccntra.cting Parties
1c consultation.
4.3
N~tiric2tion of ce~ts issued for L~cine~tion at se2
4.3.1
E'.acb ContractilJg Party should imnedia.tely notL+y the Orgi=!rd "'atio~
of a Special ?er:Iit issued for incineration of ~tes or otber mtte:- at
sea in acccrd2.n~ with Regulation 2(3).
A r~cord of the Gene.-.:.l Per::Ii ~
issued fer iDciJ:leration in the p:"'~vious c:a.l.ene.a.r year in acccr-ea.."lce' iodth
. Regul~tion 2( 4) should be se::t di..~tly cr tbrcugh a Secr~tariat
\, . .
established under' a .~gional 2.gr~~t to t;he Orgam,zaticn by 31 l".arch 1:1
,.
each year~
4.3.2
':be notifications should conta..1.n for each ~~t t.~e ld=d of
~or:::aticc set out 1.c Appendix hereto.
4.3.3
TI:e O:'gar.1.zation should treat notifica.tior.s of iDcineration ;e~ts
ill the same "..-ay as pe.ro:n1t.s issued rcr dumping.
. .--.-- -...
,. ~-25
-------
Appendix C
MONITORING
C-i
-------
. ."" .
Appendix C
MONITORING
The Final EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR Parts 220 to
229) 'discusses monitoring requirement.s (5228.9):
(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 c.ontractors, 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 condu~ted at intervals frequent enough
to assess the extent and trends of environmental impact. Until
surve'y data or other information are adequate t'o show that
changes in frequency or $cope are necessary or desirable, trend
assessmenr.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.
Further, in 5228.10, the Ocean Dumping Regulations delineate specific types
of effects upon which monitoring 'programs must be built: .,.
( a)
Movement of materials into estuaries or marine sanctuaries, or into
oceanfront beaches, or shorelines.
(b)
of materials
Movement
areas.
toward productive
fishery or shellfishery'
C-l
-------
Thus,
~. . .. -.. .
'., ..,... _._.i ."_....., ...'
. ..'''' ,........
. ,
(c)
Absence from the disposal site of pollution-sensitive biota
characteristic of the general area.
(d)
Progressive, nonseasonal, changes in water
composition at the disposal site, when these
table to materials disposed of at the site.
quality or sediment
changes are attribu-
(e)
Progressive, nonseasonal J 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.
( f)
Accumulation of material constituents (including without limitation,
human pathogens) in marine biota at or near the site.
account in monitoring:
the regulations identify two broad areas that must be taken into
( a)
Short-term or acute effects immediatkly observable and monitoreci at
the' time of disposal, and before disposal of the waste itself.
(b)
Long-~erm or progressive .effects, measurOable only over a period of
years and' indicated by subtle changes in selected characteristics
over a gradual period of time.
There is 'a paucity of data on incineration at sea with 'respect to the fate
and effects of incineration residues. Research burns conducted in the Gulf of
Mexico support the' contention that short-term adverse effects are unlikely.
The extreme set of conditions imposed on the estimation of impact in Chapter 4
will never, in practice, occur. These assumptions are:
(1)
Destruction efficiency 99.96% rather than +99.99%.
(2)
All residual materials (HCl, metals, and organochlorines) will
settle out of the atmosphere within several kilometers of the
vessel, rather than remaining suspended in the atmosphere for longe'r
periods.
(3)
in a volume
of water at a depth 0 f 20m,
Residues are dispersed
rather than mixing to deeper depths.
.
.
C-2 .
-------
Short-term
impacts
may
be
waste-specific.
Therefore,
wastes
must
be
approved for at-sea incineration on a case-by-case basis and incineration
operations closely monitored while environmental impacts are more precisely
determined. Short-term monitoring conducted in the past has included
measurements of pH, chlorinity, alkalinity, chlorinated hydrocarbons, selected
metals, phytoplankton,. zooplankton, and In situ biochemical analyses of
surface waters \.in. exposed and control areas. Future short-term monitoring
should consist of similar
parameters
and
should be conducted as.A routine
adjunct of incineration operations during further development of this disposal
technique.
During research incineration operations in the Gulf of Mex-ico, TerEco
Corporation of College Station, Texas performed monitoring ~tudies to
determine the environmental acceptability of this disposal process (TerEco,
*
1975 and unpublished). The sampling procedure consisted of three operational
plans: (1) plume identification and tracking, utilizing pH sensing equipment
to monitor HC1; (2) once the plume was identified, surface water samples were
collected. to measure short-term impacts, as determined by pH, chlorides,
organoh~logens, and trace metals. Plankton tows were conducted in the center
of the affected area and these samples examined for organohalogens and trace
metals; (3) long-term impacts were estimated by measuring catalase, ATP, and
P-450 enzyme activities in test organisms exposed to affected water, in situ.
In situ bilogical sampling was accomplished using specially designed drift
nets or Pelagic Biotal Ocean Monitors (P-BOM), which permit test organisms to
be placed in affected water and allowed to drift, then retrieved when desired.
Atmospheric monitoring was augmented with aircraft equipped to sample HCl
and condensation nuclei, and collect grab bag samples for analysis of residual
wastes.
*See Chapter 6 for references cited in this Appendix'
C-3
-------
Data should be collected over a broad spectrum of conditions, which will
occur during incineration operations. Data does not need to be collected
during the entire operation, but should be collected at least in duplicate,
preferably under both day and night conditions (TerEco, 1975).
Control stations should be occupied several miles upwind of the incinerator
vessel. These stations should be sampled for each set of impacted area
samples and treated in the same manner. Data should be collected over a broad
spectrum of conditions during incineration operations. Data need not be
collected during all operations, but should be collected during variable
climatic conditions during day and night.
Monitoring conducted on the site (for long-term and larger spatial scale)
must be aimed at recognizing unpredicted accumulation of residue materials or
compounds produced by interaction of residue materials with other materials
present in the water or air mass in the site region.
* 0
Evidence of such accumulation should be sought through a field sampling
design, including observations of chemical components of waste residue falling
into the following categories:
(1) Tracers - Compounds which are easily analyzed and may be uniquely
associated with the waste incineration.
(2) Potentially Toxic Agents - Compounds presenting the most potent
danger to man through the environment or through food sources.
(3) Food Chain Accumulation - Observations of residue compound
accumulations in animal tissues, and of changes to population
relationships in the site region.
The monitoring plan is designed to cover the areal extent of the site;
dilution mixing of the waste to ambient levels should proceed to a concen-
tration below the measurable level by the time the residue has reached the
site boundaries.
C-4
-------
. - ¥ ~.. w.
Appendix D
MODEL ESTIMATIONS OF WASTE RESIDUE LOADING
A:mospberic and Oceanic Behavior of
Combustion Produccs Released at a Proposed
Incineration SiCe in the ~ew York Bight
by
Robert A. Duce and Dana R. Kester
Graduate School of Oceanography
Univers~r:y of Rhode Island
Kingston Rhode Island 02881
Prepared Under Contract to
IEC
Under EPA Contract 68-01-4610
September 1979
D-1
-------
This Appendix presents results of an independent st'..ldy of 'potential
,
waste residue loading ...."1. thin the proposed site environment.
Drs.
\
Rol::ert Duce and Dana Kester prepared this report as a worst-case
study for comparative ~rposes in response to specific questions
fran Interstate Electronics CorJ:Oration.
D-iii
-------
I.
II.
TABLE OF CONmrl'S
BACKGROtnID ~~O~.ATION
A.
A~ospheric ~esidence Times
1.
General Considerations
2.
3.
Particles in the Ac=osphere
Trace Gases
B.
At=cspher1c Removal P~ocesses
.1.
Precipitation
2.
Particle Dry Deposition
3.
Direct Gas Exchange
C.
At~osphe=i: Cc~can:=atio~s i~ th~ Proposed 3u~ A:ea
D.
Cli:ato10gical Conditions in the P~oposed ~urn Area
1. Wind Direction and Speed
2. P~ecipita.,tion
3. Fog and Visibility
RESPONSES, TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING ATMOSPHERIC BEHAVIOR
OF COMBUSTION PRODUCTS
A.
1.
How Long ~ill These Substances (Unburned
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and ~eavy Metals)
Remain Suspended in the A~osphere?
2.
What is the Fate of the Unburned Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon and 3eavy Metals E=itted to the
Ac=osphere?
3.
~~t Percentage Reaches the Ocean and Where Does
the Rest Go '!
3.
How Far Will Particles or Trace Cases be Transported
1: the A~osphere?
C.
Can any Particles be !xpec~ed to R~in Suspended
for an Indefinite Period?
D.
ilhat ~ill ce the Air/Sea Sur:ace Concentrations
Observed at Various Distonces Cownwind froc the
!-i ssion Source and i-lhat is the :'lux of ~ese
Substances from the Ac=osphere to the Ocean?
f.\-iv
1
1
1
3
6
10
10
11
14
20
26
26
26
28
29
29
29
30
31
33
33
-------
III.
ii
1.
Chlo~inated Hydrocarbons
2.
Heavy Metals
E.
What Effects do Variabie A~ospheric Conditions Have on
the Fate of Emissions (e.g., Fog, Precipitation,
Increased Wind Velocity, etc.)?
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING OCEANIC BEHAVIOR OF
COMBUSTION PRODUCTS
A.
Transport of Combustion Products Entering the Ocean
from the Proposed North Atlantic Incineration Site
B.
Differential Transport Due to the Vertical Gradient
in Cu~~ent Velocity
C.
Times Required for Dilution of Combustion Products
D.
Waste Accumulation on the Bottom
E.
The Maximum Fallout Rate to Maintain Water Quality
Cri':eri~
REFERENCES
APPENDIX I
TASLES
1
L1te~ature Values for the Estimated Acmospheric Residence
Times for ~lorinated Hy~rocarbons
2
Atmospheric Trace Metal Concentrations, Urban Regions and
Bermuda
3
Mean Atmospheric Trace Metal Concentrations, New York Bightt
and New York City1
4
"Background" Concentrations of Trace Metals on Particles
Expected Near Sea Level in the Proposed Burn Area'
5
A~ospheric Concentrations of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
at Selected Locations
6 ' Meterological Data for Proposed Burn Sit~"
7
Wind Direction Frecr.uency from "Northwest" anc "Southeast"
'Sectors
8
Estimated Atmospheric Residence Time Ranges for Various
Classes of Substances Released at the Proposed Burn Site
}.I
D-v
..,,~-.:
33
39
43
45
45
50
52
59
60
63
67
8
22
23
24
25
27
28
30
-------
10
11
12
13
"-
14
15
i11
9
Atmospheric Transport Distances Under Various Conditions
Predicted Fluxes of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons to the Ocean
Comparison of Masse~ of Material Released from a Typical
Burn with the Mass Already Present in Several Acmospheric
Reservoirs
Predicted Hourly Fluxes of Heavy Metals
Predicted Atmospheric Concentrations and Fluxes to the
Ocean of Selected Heavy Metals
Summary of inorganic e~ements associated with at-sea
incineration disposal or organic substances.
Summary of 1976 U.S. EPA'Water Quality Criteria.
ILLUSTRATIONS
1.
Residence time of aerosol particles as ind~viduals. as a
function of particle size. The shaded areas are published
residence times derived for var~ous properties of the
ac=ospheric aerosQl. F. falling time in a homogeneous
aerosol layer of 1.5km scale height; P . precipitation
estimates; R . radioactivity data; A . Aitken particle
residence time; C . thermal coagulation; I . small ions
residence time. An empirical function with ~o different
parameters is fitted. (After Jaenicke, 1978).
2
Variations of washout factor, W, with heavy metal particle
size (After Duce et al., 1979).
3
Laboratory studies of particle deposition velocity as a
function of wind speed and particle size. (After Schmel
and Sutter, 1974)
4 Irace metal mass median diameters (Rab.n, 1976) vs deposition - 17
velocity (Canbray et al., 1975).
5 The ~o f 11m model of air/sea gas e..-cchange (After Liss and 18
Slater, 1974)
6
Major water mass regimes and the proposed incineration s:i.te.
~ .
7 .
Schematic illustration of the proposed Slope Water gyre
(after Csanady. 1979).
I,
I
D-vi
32
36
38
40
41
54
61
4
12
15
46
47
,
.
-------
I.
BACKGRot~ INFO~~~I!ON
A.
A~spheric Residence T~es
1.
General Considerations
The length oi t~e any substance, X, remains in the a~osphere,
its residence time, is a func~ion of a number of parameters, including the
physical formot the substance, i.e., vhether it is present in the gas phase
or on atmospheric particles or aerosols.
If the material is present in the aerosol p~~se, its residence t~e will
be dependent upon:
a.
The particle size
b.
The chemical properties of the ~erosol, ~hich are related to
cloUG droplet fOrm2tio~
anc precipit~tiorl scavengi:g
c.
!he extent to which the pollution"aerosol is vertically ~ixed
in the.at~sphere
II ~he material is present in the gas phase, its residence time will be
dependent upon:
a.
Its chemical and photochemical reactivity
" -..'.
b.
Its scavengeability by rain and suov
c.
Its direct gas excr~nge pro~erties with the ocean and
terrestrial biosphere.
In addition to the chemical and physical properties of substance X, the
at~spher1: residence time is dependent upon a number of environ=ental factors,
including intensity of solar radiation.. concentration of otherche:ical species
which ~y interact with X, t~perature, relative h~idity, and amount, duration, .
frequency. intensity, and type (rain, suov, etc.) of precipitation.
Because all
of these factors are quite variable in the at:osphere, a~d in fact ar~ often
..unknovn.. the results. of ..calculations leading to estimates of acnospheric resi-
dence times must be viewed cautiously.
.
With an understanding of the inherent
D-1.
-------
uncer~ainties in such estimates, however, a knowledge of appro%i:ate residence.
times is ex~r~ely useful in attenpting to evaluate the extent of transport of
aonospheric pollutant substances and the rate or their r~val from the a~o-
sphere.
..
The simplest approach used to estimate the a~spheric residence times
of a substance is s~ly to divide the to~al mass of that substance in any
par~icular compa~ent of the a~ospher~ by the rate of addition or renoval of
that substance from the comparrment.
This is given by:
M
T-l - cL."i1 d t
(1)
~lbere '1 ... at:nospher1c residence time,
e.~.,
in days
M - total tDaSS of substance in the compar'C:1ent, in grams
dM/dt . rate of i:1put of substance to or 1:E!mOval from. compart:nent,
. in grams/day
This approach assumes that the rate of removal (or input) of a substance i~
de~endent on the quantity of that substance already in the reservo:.r.
This is
rarely the case for re=oval processes although some~hat more common for source
functions.
However,. until more is known about the factors controlling the flux,
of substances in and out of at:nospheric reservoirs, this approach :ay continue
to be most commonly used for determining acmospheric residence times.
A second approach to residence time ~alculations assumes that the rate of
removal, d.'!/dt, is dependent on the concentration of M, i.e.,
- At
:i-Me
o
(2)
:1here ~o is an ~i:ial :ass ~f substance ~ the compart:nent, in grams
~ is the ~ss, in grams, ?resent at some later t~e, t, in days, and.
A is the r~oval constant in day -1.
.
.
o-?
-------
.
For this first order remcval process the residence time, iZ' is defined
as the mean or averag~ at:os~heric lif.etime of a particle or molecule of the
\ .
substance, and is given by:
."C2 . 1/)..
(3)
Where T2 is the time requi=ed for the concentration or ~ss of substance
X to drop to lIe or 0.37 times its initial value.
For 'our consideration of
a~ospheric remcval in this report TZ is the appropriata te~ to use.
However,
the measurement or est:Lm.ation of actual ac:nospheric rasicience times is so
unc:enain that the distinction between the tYe definitions above has little
meaning in practice.
2.
Particles in the At~osphere
The residenc:e t~e of a~ospheric particles or aerosols is closely
related to particle s1.e.
Unfortunately no inio~tion is available on the
size
distribution of particles produced by the proposed curning ?rocess.
Figure 1
(derived from Jaenicke, 1979) presents an idealized general relationship bet~een
aerosol si:e, as indicated by the particle radius, and residence time, in days.
The residence t~e of the largest particles, with radii greater than approximately
10 ~m, is controlled pr1=arily by gravitational ~ettling and d=y deposition of the
particles to the earth's surface.
Residence times range from a few seconds up to
perhaps 1 day for particles with r > 10 ~, dec:raasing with incraasing size.
The residence time for particles ~th radii rang1.."1g from 0.1 to 10 \Jm is
controlled pr~rlly by wet re:oval, i.e., rain, f08, snow, etc.
The at::ospheric
residence t~e for par:icles in this size =ange is in the range 0: a few days to
perhaps a ~~~ of 2 to 3 ~eeks, dependent upon the amount, du~atio~ intensity,
and type of precipitation and the.chemical ?roperties of the aerosol.
Ther e is
evidence, for ~pleJ that bygroscopic salt particles are more efficiently
D-3
-------
GAS-TO-PARTICLE
CONVERSION
10 • T
UJ
o
UJ
= ,0'
MECHANICAL
DISINTEGRATION
WET REMOVAL
THERMAL
DIFFUSION
DRY REMOVAL
1C'4 10'3 10*2 0.1 1
RADIUS, urn
10
., 102 A
a
m
v»
5
m
.n
•t
*
m
•
a
-1C'2
•• 10*3
102 1C3
Figure 1. Residence time of aerosol particles as individuals, as a function of
particle size. The shaded areas are published residence times derived k
for various properties of the atmospheric aerosol. ? * falling tine ,
in a homogeneous aerosol layer of 1.5 km scale height; P - precipitation
estimates; R • radioactivity data; A - Aitken particle residence time;
C • thermal coagulation; I » small ions residence time. An empirical •
function with two different parameters is fitted. (After Jaenicke, 19'Jj
D-4 *
-------
removed from ~h~ a~sphere by rain ~han soil-derived, relatively non-hygroscopic
alumino-silicate par~ieles.
The size range oi 0.1 ~o
10 ~u is definitely the
most stable size range in the a~sphere and it is aerosols in this size range,
par~ieularly ~he loyer ~~d of this size range, which are subject to long range
transpor~ from their source region.
Aerosols in this size range can easily be
transported hundreds to thousands of kilometers in the aonosphere over ocean or
land areas before being removed.
As the radius drops beloy 0.1 ~ the residence t~e begins to decrease
rapidly again. ,this decrease is misleadi~g, however, as it only refers to the
t~e before removal from a par~ieular size range, not tiQe before r~oval from
the at:nosphere.
These smaller size par~icles groy rather rapidly due to
coagulation with each other.
This process is ~portant up to a radius of ~ 0.1 ~m,
after '..hieh preci?itation removal becomes the pri:c.ary control1i~g factor for the
particle reside~ce time, as indicated previously.
In summary, relative to removal :r~ the atmosphere,"par~icles from the
-3
smallest size, wi~h radii on the order of 10 um, up to particles .~th radii
of a few ~ can be ~~pected to have at:nospheric residence t~es on the order of
days to perhaps a week or t~o.
Only particles with racii ~ 10-50 um,woulc be
expected to be deposited in the vicinity of the source area, in this case the
proposed burn site, unless there is rather intense precipitati~n oce~r=L~g durL~g
the burn.
Obviously information on the par~icle sizes produced by this burning
process is required before any accurate estimate can be "made of the removal rate
of the particles.
It should be pointed out that in urban areas most
submicrometer
size aerosols are produced by high temperature" processes ~~ch as fossil fuel
bu~L~g and/or incineration (Rann, 1971; Friedlander, 1973; Gordon et 41., 19i4;
Natusch et al., 1974; T~itby et al., '1~72).
Ie is expected that ~he ship-based
D-5
-------
bu~~g p~ocess conside~ed here ~~l also p~oduce .large quancities of submicro-
::1eter particles.
Thus it is ve~J possible that ~ny ot these particles ~ill
~~in ~ ehe at::1osphere for a ~umber of days.
"""
3 .
Trace Gases
!he acnospheric ~esidence time for trace gases is extremely variable
and may ra~ge f~om a fe~ minutes fo~ ~~t~amely reactive species eo decades for non-
reactive species such as the freons.
!he primary concern, ~ith substances released
from ehe proposed burn site, rests ~ieh unburned chlorinated hydrocarbons, and hea\~
metals.
f,.rClile somE? of the more volatile heavy metals and their oxides or other
sales, e.g., As, Hg, Se, ~ill p~obably be ~eleased to the a~osphere in the vapor
phase, most ~ill condense rapidly on p~e-existing pa~ticle surfaces.
One e.xc::ptioTI
is Hg, ~hich is kno~ to exist prima~ly in the acnosphere in a vapo~ phase
(Fitzgerald, 1979).
!he atmOspheric residence time of vapor. phase Hg is unkno~n.
Hydrogen chlo~ide (HC1) is very soluble in ~ate~ and ~ill be rapidly scavenged
by cloud, fog, rain d~oplets .and the slightly. alkaline surface of the ocean.
There
are relatively little data available on background HCl concentrations in near
sur-
face air over the ocean.
Values for total inorganic gases containing chlorine,
3
most of which a~e probably present as HC1, are gene~ally ~ 1-2 ~g/m (Junge et al.,
1957; Duce et al., 1965; Chesselet et al., 1972; Rahn et al., 1976).
The residence
time of backg~ound HCl is unkno~ but is p~obably rather short, on the order of a
few days at most, due to its reactivity.
. .
with respect to the residence time of unburned chlo~inated hydrocarbons (CHC)
in the gas phase, the unburned compounds must first be identified.
If the primary
burn material is Herbicide O~ange, as has been the case in some ~/T Vulcanus burns
in the ?acific Ocean, it consists of a mLxture of equal parts by volume or the
.
.
D-6
-------
n-butyle esters 'of 2, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2, 4-0) and of 2, 4, 5-
trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2, 4,' 5-T) .
The structures of these tWo compounds
are indicated belo~:
o
II
CH3 - CHZ - CH2 - CHZ - 0 - C - CE2 - 0
and
-0-
Cl
o
II
CH3 - CHZ - C2Z - CR2 - 0 - C - CHZ - 0
~l
Cl
Other burns, in the Gulf of Mexico, have been primarily of such substances
as 1,2,3 trichloropropane, dichloropropane, dichloropropene, trich1oroet~~ne,
dichloroethane, and other chlorinated hydrocarbons of lo~ molecular weights (Paige
et al., 1978).
Apparently PCB's and DDT and other pesticide residues have also
been burned.
There is currently little infor.nation available on the a~ospheric resid~~ce
time for most of the compounds above.
I
Estimates have been made for other, some-
what similar chlorinated hydrocarbons, however, and some general idea of the resi-
dence times of the substances above can be obtained by looking at the residence
times for these other eRC, and making some simple comparisons with the chemical
structure of the compounds from the burn site.
As pointed out by NAS (1978), the c~~ical and ?hysical properties of low
molecular weight CHC (Cl - C3) are very different from the high molecular weight
clorinated hydrocarbon herbicides, pesticides, and industrial che=icals such as
?C'B 's.
Any low molecular weight cac containing unsaturated carbon-carbon bonds
(e. g., caCl . CC1Z) -..rill have very short residence ti::1es, on the order of hours
in g~~eral, in the acnosphere
due to their high reactivity (~AS, 1978) and
involveme~: in ?hotochemical smog-type reactions (e.g., NOx' 03' OH, etc.).
Low molecular weight cac with saturated C-C bonds (i.e., no double or triple bonds)
will have much longer residence times as they are quite resistant to most chemical
D-7
-------
Table 1
Li~era~ure Values for the Est~ated Acnospheric Residence Times
for Chlor1=Ated Hydrocar~ons
For.nula
Name
Es~imated
Residence Ti:ne
Reference
CH3-CCl3
Trichloroethane or
. Methyl Chloroform
8-10 years
Singh et al., 1979
"'6 years
1.1 years
11 years
Der.ent and Eggleton, 1978
Cox et al., 19i6
Chang and Penner, 1978
CH3Cl
~ethy1 Chloride
"',3 months
2-3'years
2-3 years
"'5 months
.AtkL~son et al., 1976
Singh et al., 1979
Derwent and Eggleton, 1979
Cox et al., 1976
CEC13
CbIorofor::1
",1 year
"'3 months
De~-ent and Eggleton, 1979
Cox et al., 1976
CR2C12
Methylene Dichloride "'1 year
"'4 =on ths .
De~.ent and Eggleton, 1979
Cox et al., 1976
C 12 Cl.:t
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PC3)
1-3 !!tonths
. 31d1eman et al., 197"5
DDT
1-3 ::tonths
Bidl~n et al., 1976
reactions.
These substances are rather insoluble in seawater.
It is generally
believed that ~~ey are utilmately destroyed in the atmosphere via reactions with
the OH (hydroxyl) radical, which is photochemically produced.
Table 1 presents est~tes for the at:ospheric residence :1:es of :=1-
chloroethane and several chlorinated ~ethane compounds.
To'I'hile there are
considerable variations in the estimates for any individual substance, all of ~~e
residence times are long in terms of accospheric transport processes, ranging :rom
3 months to more than 10 yea~s.
For trichloroethane. one of the substances which
have been burned on Xl! vulcanus in the past. < has been estimated at 1-11 years,
with the higher estimates obtained more recently.
It would thus be expected that
many saturated low molecular weight eRCS injp.cted unch~nged into the atmosphere
.
.
D-f;
-------
might have atmospheric residence times on the order of months to years and could
be subject to at least hemispheric and perhaps global scale transport.
There are no data available on the atmospheric residence time of compounds
similar in structure to the n-buty1 esters of 2t 4-D and 2t 4t S-T.
It is
expected that these compounds, with their ester linkage, would be subject to
fairly rapid hydrolysis in the acmosphere.
The polar character of the esters
and their hydrolysis products would result in rapid scavenging by precipitation
processes.
Estimates have been made of the atmospheric residence time of polychlorinated
biphenyls, a group of chlorinated organic compounds with a molecular weight range
~imilar to the components of Herbicide Orange.
These compounds have the fOllowing structure:
Cl Cl
? > <-~
Cl Cl
, etc.
are marketed and used as mixrures of compounds with varying numbers of chlorine
atoms attached to the basic biphenyl structure.
As shown in Table 1, the a~ospheric resid~~ce time for PCB's has been
estimated at 1-3 months.
Similar residence times have been esti:ated for DDT.
~e unburned coaponents of Herbicide
Orange would be ~~?ected to have residence
times c:onsic!erably less than this, perhaps on the order of days. , It i:1Ust be
emphasizedt howevert that no data are available on these compounds.
Junge (1977) has pointed out that non-urban air compounds which have
-6" "-7' ,
vapor pressures greater than 10 to 10 mm Hg under ambient conditions will
generally be found primarily in the gas phase rather than attached to particles.
The saturated vapor pressure of the n-butyl ester of 2, ~t -D at 270C is 4 x 10-3 mm
Hg (Que Kee et al., 1975).
Thus this materialt and all the low molecular weight
1)-9
-------
CRC's discussed previously, should be found almost entirely in the vapor phase in
the a~osphere rather than attached to particles.
Actual measurements have shown
this to be the case of PCB's and DDT over the North Atlantic as well (Bodleman
e tal. ,
1976) .
B.
At~ospheric Removal ?~ocesses
1.
.P'recip itat ion
?ar~icles and trace gases are r~oved fr~m the at:osphere via
'rain and snow.
In the case of rain r~oval, material can be r~oved within t~e
rain fo~ing cloud as part of the droplet ~ucleation and 3rowth process (=ai~-
out) and beneath the cloud by scav~ging action as the droplet falls to the
land or water surface (~~shout).
Very little is kno~~ about Crace substance
r~oval by snow.
!he scavenging ratio or washout factor, W, is a use:ul empirical tool
often utilized to relate a~ospheric concentrations of substances to
their
concentrations in rain.
Washout factor, ~, is deiined as follows:
w .
C
rain
C
air
(4)
Where C in is the concentration of any substance in rain ~, for ~~~ple,
ra .
~g/Kg ra~.
C is the concentration of any substance in a~ in ~g/Kg a1r.
air
For most reactive trace gases (e.g., 502' NE3) and aerosols W g~erally
t'anges
fr~ 300 to 3000.
For aerosols it is related ~o aerosol size.
This is sho~~
in ;igure 2, which is a plot of calc~lated values of W deter.:~~ed fro~ anal7ses
of rain and air s~ples collected ~ the ~r~~e ac:osphere in the Florida ~e7s
vs the :ass ~edi~ diaceter or crace ele=ents found on ?ar:icles in the :ar~~e
a~sphere (Duce et a1., 1979).
~o:e that W increases with L~creasL~g particle
D-10
-------
size.
This has been observed in urban areas by G~t% (19i7) and in rural are4S
by Lindberg et al., (1979) and Peirson et a1., (1973).
Fer a substance present on particles in the at~os?here, a ~rude.order of
~gnitude est~ate ~an be ~de of its concent:ation in rain 1= its at:os?he:i~
?arti~ulate concentration 1s kno~ or can be predicted.
.~ centioned above,
values of W will generall7 range from 300 to 3000 for particulate substances.
~= the parti~le size dist:ibution of the substan~e is know~ this ~r~de est~ate
can be refined somewhat, as Wwill g~erally be on the high end of the range for
particles with r >lum and on the low end of the range for parti~les ~ith r
-------
104
Scaven9 i"9 Ratio vS Particle Size
W M No
I n. : K
AI. 8,.
.CI
Cd. .Cu .Co-;
: . I
.~e
. FIb
.1/
102 I. ,.1 I , .
0.1 1.0 10
MARINE AIR MMO '."m}
Figure 2.
Variations of washou: fac:or. ~;. wi:::' ~eavy
=etal ?ar:i~l~ size (~te: Duce et a1., 1979).
D-12
-------
. .
concentration and particle size distribution for a particular substance of interest
is known, for example a certain heavy metal, it is possible to predict crudely che
flux of chis substance to the earth's surface via dry deposition.
- - - .. - .
...--.--
A useful concept in evaluating dry depositi~n of a~ospheric particles co
land or wa~er surfaces .~ the deposition velocity, vd' where:
F
v .-
d C
(5)
Where C D the concentration or ~ss of particles or material pres~~t on
. 3
particles per unit volume of air (e.g., g/~ ), and F u the =ass :l~~ of
particles or material present on particles deposited on the surface (e.g.,
2
g/cm see).
Effective deposition velocities for par~icles in che stable aerosol
size range close co the ground are often near 1 em/see, but this varies considerably
with particle size, wind speed, and surface roughness.
In a laboratory wind tunnel
experiment Schmel and Sutter (1974) investigated the particle size and wind speed.
A summary of the results is presented in Figure 3.
!here is a general decrease in
deposition velocity with decreasing particle size at a given w~,d speed, ~th
a dramatic drop bet~een 10 and 1 um diameter.
For a given particle size
grea:er
than 1 ~m.diaceter, the deposition velocity increases with ~c=eas~g w~~d speed.
Below approx~tely 1 ~ diameter there appears to be no clear relation betwe~~
deposition v~ocity and wind speed.
Unfortunately, field measur~ents of aerosol deposition velocity do not
always agree ~ith these wind tunnel studies.
!his is par~icularly true ior
submicrometer particles. For example, Young and Silker (1979) recently investi-
. 7B
gated aerosol deposition vel~c1ty to the ocean surface us~g e. :hey found
7
88% of the Be to be on ?articles with r < '0.5 ~ Wit~ only 1: on particles with
r > 3.5 ~.
7
!hus Be is pr~rily on submicrometer particles.
'!he aerosol
D-13
-------
7
deposition velocity detercined from :he 3e ~easuraMents was ~ 0.8 c:/sec,
considerably higher :han would be ,~~ected from Figure 3.
!n a study of :he a~ospheric inpu: of heavy ~etals to :he ~orth Sea,
Cambray e: a1., (1975) dete~ined acnospheric concentrations and dry deposition
rates :0 a dry filter paper for a varie:y of tra~e ~eta1s.
From :his data
de~osition velocities can be calculated using Equation (5).
Rahn (1976) has
compiled ~e.a.n values of ~ss t:edian di.ameters for at1nOsphu1c particulate heaory
metals using all the at~spheric data available up to mid-1976.
A plot of
Raha's ~s median diameter vs the deposition velocities calculated from
Cambray et al., (1975) for a nuober of heavy ~etals is presented i: Figure 4.
The trend of deposition velocity vs particle size, i.e., increas~g vd with
increasing particle size, is apparent in both figures.
~ote that agre~ent
be~~een the figures
is reason~ble for particles ~th radii ~ 1 ~.
Agree:n~'"lt
is poor for subaicrometer particles.
It ~st be re:ne:nbered, however, t~t the
data of Cambray et al, (1975) are for deposition, to a dry filter paper, not a
water surface. At the present-day level of understanding it can be stated that the
deposition velocity for aerosols with 0.1 < r > 1.0 ~ is probably ~ the
of 0.05 to 1.0 em/see, while that for particles fr~m ~ 1 to 5 ~z radius is
range
procaot
in the range of 0.5 to 3 ~sec, ~ot1ng ~hat vd is a function of ~_'"ld velocity
and that this function is not well characterized at present.
~sing the val~es
above, in£or=ation on the ~article.oass ~edian diameter :or a particular sub-
stance of 1nte~est, and the at:cspheric concentration of that substance,
c r..d e
order of magnitude estit:ates or d:j depositiQn flux :0 the ocean surface c~ be
~ade by use or ~quation (5).
3.' Direct Gas ~change
Li5s (19i3) a.nd Liss and Slater (197':') r.ave revie....ed the process
or 3as exchange across the air/sea L~ter:ace.
!~ the ~odel described by :~ese
D-14
-------
~borator: studi~s of ~article deposition velocity
as a function of wind speed and particle size. (Ai:~
,,' Schmel and Sutter, 19i4)
, . .
" . t'
--
"
. ,.
.. '.
.. "'... .
- . .
. . . "
. .' ... .
-:"1 .; j ~ !:a :. " ''';;.,: .. .,
I~=
J
::
~~
..f
=
,~t
I:
~
'IOJ
lo.a .03
..
..
..
...
e
..
>
...
u
o
...
w.i
>
, ,
. ..'"
z'
51
... '"
...
.. '
Cii
o
c.
w.i
o
. ~..- ..
" . ,..0 .
-:,::'. : ;::~: I., '..."
. ,
,."
.', :::'" ,£'i".
..:~.~ :.;
'.;' .:: i (:. :- :,- .-
,. ....,.
. ..
,.
, ,
..
-. . ~
-.
, ,
." '... ", . ~ "', ...
. 0'"
.. ,
. '.
.-' ~:: ;":7': ."~~ :::- :::'.
....
-
. -
'I,' .
'. .
.1,'
.~ .. ..
.... ... ........ .
'" - ..;... .- ..
- .
, ,
Figure :3:-
, ,
WINO SPEEO. III/s.e
-2.2
-- ".2
-.- 13.8
',?
//
.j
1/
OJ
/1
/I
'/
J
P
PQrtlC:lt Oe",jry.
"~9/emJ
10" 0.3 10Q, 3.0 10'
PARTICI.£ DIAMETER, jJm
30
10%
0-15
-------
pa?ers, che incerface between air and sea is considered as a tWo-layer fi1:
system.
Away from che incerface each reservoir is assuced co be well~~~ed.
!he pr~ry resistance togas transport comes from the &as and liquid phase
laminar fil:, 0= incerfacial, layers.
It is ass~ed c~~c gases cross chese
inter:.acial layers by molecular di.ffusion.
(S~e Figure 5).
In such a t'WQ layer boundary syscem at an air/'.;acer interface, the flux.
F, of any gas through the boundary layer is ~iven by:
F. ~
c
(6)
2
where F is tr£ flux in. e.g.. g/c: sec.
~ is the concentration di!!erence across the particular layer in g/c:I
c
k is the corresponding exchange coefficient or transfer velocity in
and
em/sec.
As Liss (1973) points out, k depends on many faccors, including che degr~e
of mixing of che '.;ater and air and che chenical reactivity of the gas.
'!ne
rec~rocal of ~ is often called the resistance, r. and is a measure or che
"resistance" of che gas co transf er.
!: has units of sec/c~.
The total resis-
cance to the exchange of any gas '.Jill.-be che Su:l1 of the resistance ~n the gas
and liquid phase Lmi."1ar layers.
In the free a~sphere above the ocean the concentration of the crace &as
of .interest is c .
g
.\5 the air/sea interface is approached the concentration
changes and at the water surface the a~spheric concentration is c .
sg
A s1::tilar
condition occurs in the li~uid phase, with the bulk water concentration or che
dissolved gas be~g cl and the concentration of the interface being csl'
the gas transport to be a steady state process and using Equation (6),
.usuci."lg
F . kg (Cg - CSg) . ~ (csl - cl)
(7)
D-16
-------
e
::L
..
',!!
"E 4,0
o
-0
c ' ,
.2
~
GI
~ ZoO
, ,"
1/1
'"
o
'~'
" ,
Figure 4.
6.0
o
o
AI
Sc
.
Co.
Fe.
Cr
Mn .
.
.Zn .Sr
.Sb .As .V
.
58
.Pb
~ 1.0
Vd I em I see
~
Trace ce~al cass cedian diame~ers (Rahn, 1976)
,vs deposi~ion veloci~y (Canbray et al., 1975)
D-17
-------
-
AIR/SEA
-
INTERFACE
.AIR/SEA
--
-
-r~
CI
GAS
EXCHANGE
Gos Film
LIquid Fil.m
-
- -
-
C~g
...p-
I
I
I
I
~/
Cg
_J-
",
",
/'
Turbulent
Transfer
- -
Gas Molecular
t Transfer
,
Liquid Molecular
Transfer
- --
- -
/'
/:
I
I
-,-
I
Cst
Turbulent
Transfer
Figure 5.
The two film roodel of air/sea gas exchange (After L1ss and Slacer, 1974)
D-18
-------
The first ~ression represents ~~change across the gas phase laoinar
layer and the second represents exchange across the liquid phase l~inar layer.
Obviously ehe :~o ~ust be equal.
Ii the exchanging gas obeys Renry's Law, then
c . Hc
sg sl
(8)
w"here H, 'aenry' s La~ constant, is given by:
a . Eauilibrium concentration in ~as ohase (g/~3 air)
Equilibrium concentration of unionized dissolved gas
in liquid phase C6/cm3 water)
(9)
Csg and csl are not ~easurable in the field but can be el~inated
bet~een Equation (7) and (8) to obtain:
F . K (c - HC1)
g g
(gas layer
exchange)
. K... (c IE - c )
-"1. g 1
(liquid layer
exchange)
(10)
tJber e
l/K ..
g
l/K.
~
llk
g
. l/~
+ H/~ . Rt (gas phase basis)
+ I/F-kg . Rt (liquid phase basis)
(11)
and
(11)
!he total resistance to transfer of any particu~ar gas, Re' ~~pressed
either on a gas ?hase basis (l/K ) or a liquid p~~se basis (l/~,_)
, . g
of both the :L."'ldividual exchange constants for that gas for each ':1hase (k and ~)
. g .I.
is a function
and the Henry's Law constant, H, for that gas.
Thus, in order to calcul~te the flu."C of any gas across the airl sea
J...~: e.r-
face the concentration of the gas in the a~os?here and d~ssolved in the ocean
:::ws t be known, as .well as its Renry I s Law constant andi~s . gas and l~c:uid ?i-~se
exchange coe£:icients.
Fer the ~nbu~ed ~~stes expected to be injected into the at~csphere :roo
~/! Vul~arius, :he at:ospheric :oncentration of each substan~e :ust be ~odelled,
as was done by Paige et al., (1978), for total unburned gaseous wastes.
,
The
D-19
-------
seawater concentration of each waste would ha'le to be :1easured.
Henry's Law
constants for most of these substances are cur~ently unavailable and need to be
measured in the laborator; under near-expected ambient concentration cond~:ions.
Accord~g to L1ss and Slater (1974), kg ar.d ~ for any gas
be deta~~ed fram the corresponding values for wate~ ~~change.
of ~"l:eres:: can
Liss and Slater
(1974) use the fo1lawing values far H20:
kg(HZO) . 0.83 ~/sec.
~(HZO) . 5.6 x 10-3 e:t/sec.
To obtain k values for gases other than water, the value for k C~Zo)
g g
should be ~ltipl1ed by the ratio of the square roots of the :olecular weights
of H20 and the other gas.
As poi:1ted out by Lis5 and Slater (1974) the value for klCRZO) is based
prt:arlly on ~easurEQents of C02 exchange and 1s reasonably accurate for ;ases
with molecular weights of 40 = 25.
For heavier gases klCR~O) should be :ul:iplied
by the ratio of the square roots of the molecular ~:eights of C02 and the other
gas.
For a chemically reactive gas the situation is more ccc?l~~ and the paper
of Liss and Slater (1974) should be consulted.
c.
,
Acoos~~eric Concentrations in the Proposed Burn Area
All of the substances which ~~uld be introduced into the a~os?here
by the '~ste burning at the proposed burn site are probably already present at
some concentration in the ambient acnosphere at that location.
li4"hi~e there are
virtually no data for that area for any of the substances of L"lterest, there
are data for a n~ber of the~e subst~~ces at coastal sites along the nor:h-
eastern United States and fro~ Ber.=uda and ships L"l the western ~orth Atlantic.
Table 2 presents data on the :1ean concentration of a ~u~ber cf trace
metals :1easu~ed in the at~sphere ~ the general area of interest.
:-!ost of
D-20
-------
the data for "Urban !tegions" were obtained at an altitude of 600 :neters at
,
sites 32 to 48 Kc downwind of cajor urban centers in :~e northeastern United
States (Young et al., 1975).
!bese concentrations :13Y be representative of
coastal areas in. the vicinity of large cities on t~e east coast.
Data a=e also
presented for Bermuda, approxi:ately 750 :1iles southeast of the proposed bu=~
site (Duce, 1976a and b).
These three data sets are also given in NAS
(1978).
A very limited data set was obta~~ed from a~ospheric sacples collected
over the New York Bight fram a ship in ~y, 1974.
The ~ew York Bight data
(Duce et al., 1976c) are compared with New York City data (Kneip and Eisenbud,
1974) in Table 3.
Note the higher trace metal concentrations ove:::, the New York
Bight when the winds 'are from the "northwest" sector, reflecting the s:::rong
source regions in the United States.
From the data in Taoles 2 and 3 we can deter.:ine an ~~pected range of
'trace metal "cackground" concentrations which might be ~~?ected under ~or::l.al
conditions in the proposed ou~ area.
These expected concentration ranges are
presented in.Table 4.
Acmcspheric concentration data are presented in Table 5 for five =epresent-
ative CHC - PC3, CH3 - CC13' CECl a CC12' DDT, and CR3Cl.
CR3Cl is
pri:a=i::: =:'-0=
natural. sources, with the ocean being the :13jor source.
The others are all
primarily from anthropogenic sources.,
Note that CECl a CC12 l~s much highe=
concentrations in U.S. coastal sites than in open ocean areas, which supports the
concept of a short a~ospheric. residence time for this unsaturated ~~C. Concen-
trations of this compo~d ~ the urban a~osphere around ~ew York City are
3
reporud to be over ;COO ng/:n S~ (Lillian, et al." 1975),... Concentrations of
CR3CC13 are rather unifo~ in all areas, supporting a long residence :~e for
this saturated low molecular weight CEC.
D-21
-------
Table 2
At::1ospher1c Trace Metal Concentrations, Urban Regions and Be~da
Urban Regions, Northeastern U.S. Ber:!luda !
Geometric Geometric
Mean Ran~ e Mean Ran~ e
ng/m3STP GSD* ng/m STP ng/m3S'I'? GSD* ag/m S17
~a 510 3 130-2300 1600 3 200-8000
Mg 730 3 150-2030 200 2 30-900
Al 1600 2 340-3800 140 6 3-3000
" Ca 1200 3 410-6100 140 3 6-1100
K 400 120 3 17-1000
Fe 1700 3 380-4800 90 5 4-1900
Pb ' 170 3 48-1000 3 4 0.10-20
Zn 120 3 29-740 3 3 0.2-20
Mn 32 3 8-110 1.2 4 0.J3-30
V 16 3 9-170 0.8 :3 C;.~-6
Cu 50 0.9 4 <0.08-15
Cig 0.22 3 0.9-1. 3
Cr 14 4 2.6-153 0.3 3 <0.04-3
N1 20 0.08 ' <0.02-1. 5
Ce 3 0.2 5 0.005-3
Cd :3 0.2 4 <0.01-1. 6
Se 1.7 2.7 0.5-5.7 0.13 3 <0.02-0.6
As 16 2.0 7.5-50 0.07 3 0.012-0.5
Co 0.97 2.0 0.42-2.8 ,.. 0.0.3 5' <0.00S-0.5
Sb 3.0 2.9 0.B1-12 0.014 5 <0.001-0.3
Sc 0.39 2.3 0.11-1.3 0.02 5 O.a02-0.4
Th 0.3 0.02 5 0.002-0.2
Ag 0.6 0.003 3 '
-------
Table 3
Mean Atmospheric Trace ~ret::al Concentrations,
,Nev York Bight. and Nev York City!
Nev York ':9ight
Wind Direction Fe .u Zn ng/;~S!'P Pb
ng / m 3 S'I'? ng/m3S'I'P ng/m3S11' ng/m3S'l'?
5W through ml to m: 240:140 260:160 57::51 1. 4::0.9 200:60
N't through St to S-w 80::40 110:70 32::5 0.52::0.19 44::18
Nev York Citv*
1400
310
5.8
1400
*
Geometric ~ean of monthly values, 1972-73
...
I Duce et al., 1975
I
. ~eip and Eisenbud, 1974
D-23
-------
24
Table 4
"!ackground" Concenc:-ations of '!=ace Metals on Par'ticles
Expected near Sea Level in the Proposed Bur:'1 Area
~ected Concentration Ra.n~e (n~/~3ST?)
Metal
Na
Mg"
Al
Ca
K
Fe
Pb
Zn
Mn
V
Cu
Hg
Cr
~1
Ce
Cd
Se
As
Co
Sb
Sc
Th
Ag
Eu
500-2000
200-500
50-500
100-500
100-400
50-500
10-200
2-100
0.5-5
0.5-10
0.:;-20
0.01-0.1
0.1-50
0.05-50
<0.05-0.5
0.05-2
0.01-1
0.05-5
0.01-0.5"
0.01-1
0.01-0.1
0.01-0.1
0.005-0.2
<0.001-0.01
D-24
-------
Table 5
A~ospheric Concentrations of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
at Selected Locations
Substac.ce
Location
Concentra:ion
nS1;/m3S'l'P
Reference
pC!
Bermuda
0.1.5-0.5
Harvey and S:einhaue:-,
1974
Bidl~an et al., 1976
Bidl~an et al., 1976
Harley and Steinhauer,
1974
Bermuda
Chesapeake Bay
.Grand Banks
0.08-0.66
1.0-2.0
0.05-0.16
CR3-CC13
Numerous sites, Nor:h Atlantic
and Nor:h Pacific
Numerous sites, northern
hemisphere
"'700
Singh et al., 1979
"'600
Rasmussec., 1977
Repor:ed in C~r.g ar.~
?enner, 1978.
Cox et a1., 1976
Lillian et a1., 1975
C:onn et al., 1977
Irish Coast
Sandy Book, N.J.
U.S. Pacific north~est
"-400
"'900
"'600
~
CRC1-CC12
~umerous sites, North Atlantic
and, North Pacific
Irish'Coast
U.S. Pacific No~h~est
Sandy Hook, ~.J.
Marine air i:aSS, ~ry1.and coast
"'90
SL~gh et al., 1979
"'90
"'120
"'2000
~J300
Cox et a1., 1976
Croun et a1., 1977
Lillian et al., 1975
Lillian et a1., 1975
CE3Cl Numerous sites, North Atlantic "'1500 Singh et 3,1., 1979
and Nonh Pacific
U.S. Pacific North~est "'1400 Croun et al., 1977
Irish Coast: "'1700 Cox et a1., 1976
:JDT Chesapeake Bay 0.014-0.37 3 idl eman e t a1., 1976
Bermuda <0.003-0.058 B idl eman et: al., 1975
D-25
-------
D.
Climatological Conditions in che P~oposed Burn Area
A detailed descripcion of the "general cl~tological conditions in
the area of che New York Bight is given by Brower (1977).
I~o~tion on this
region is also available in ~OAA (1973;.
Of par~ic~lar concern (relative to the
at~espheric transport and deposition of residues from the proposed burn site)
are wind speed and direction, precipitation frequency, intensity, duration and
type, and fog.
Infor.catiou on these parameters is presented in Table 5.
1.
Wind Direction and Speed
Percentage frequency of wind direction from eight poL~ts of che
compass and calm as well as =ean wind speed in Knots and meters/see are given in
Table 6.
From a map of che east coast of North America it can be seen chac i.!
a line were draw~ roughly southwest Co northeast tr~ough the proposed bu~ site
location, winds blowing from che southeast side of this line would generally
carry any a~osphe:1c substances coward the ~or~h American coastline, ~hile
winds fram the northwest side of the line would carry ~terial ouc to the open
ocean.
Table 7 presents data on the monchly variation of the fraction or the
tae the wind direction is from these "northwest" and southeast" sectors.
For
the purpose of this table cal= conditions ~ere split evenly, assu=~~g :~~t the
general flow was "northvesterly" half the Cue and "southeasterly" half the ti:e.
Note that the ~L~d :low is pr~rily from the northwest sector dur~~g autumn.
winter, and early spring a~ from the southeast secto~ during the lac~ spring and
summer.
Wind speed is much stronger in the ~inter, with a mean of 18-19 kts, but
drops to a m1n1=um oi 11 kts in the ~dd1e of su:cer.
Ca1= conditions are J to 4
t1::l.es mere preval~t in sUI:ll:1er than winter.
2.
Precipitation
The percentage frequencies of total ooserlations reporting rain
and show in the proposed burn area are presented in Table 6.
There is, of course,
D-26
-------
Tuble 6
Meteorological Data for Proposed Burn SHe I
Month 'Hnd 0Irect ion He"n \-lind I'redpitat iQn* VlsibilJty
(% of TIme occurring) ~I}C~d Snow Rain
-'
N tIW \I S\I S SE E NE CAlli KTS ../SEC % % % < 2 MUes
January 18 23 17 12 10 4 4 8 4 18 9.u 4.3 H.O ).1
Fehruary 2J 22 16 10 9 3 4 8 5 19 9.5 4.9 13..2 4.5
Harch 11 19 15 12 13 6 4 9 5 18 9.0 2.1 H.6 5.6
April 15 12 14 14 17 5 6 10 -, 15 8.5 0.3 10.8 6.4
May 13 8 10 16 17 7 8 10 11 13 6.5 0.0 6.9 12.5
June 9 6 10 19 18 8 II ro 12 12 6.0 0.0 5.4 1.1
July 7 5 9 23 21 5 6 10 I 14 11 .5.5 0.0 4.9 4.9
t:I '8
I August 11 6 8 18 19 1 12 11 11 5.5 0.0 4.1 3.1
N
......
S~ptcmber 16 II 7 10 11 1 12 19 10 12 6.0 0.0 5.9 2.9
Octobcr 18 16 10 9 11 6 8 14 ; 6 15 1.5 0.0 6.4 1.4
November II) 20 16 10 10 5 5 10 6 17 6.5 U.3 11.3 1.9
Ueccmher 19 23 19 11 9 3 4 1 5 18 9.0 2.7 12.1 2.0
I 'Hnd dircctJon data hom NOAA (197J) for the area 350-400N, JOo-150W.
all othcr data from Brower (1977) 0 0 o' °
for 38.4 -39.2 N, 71.8 -72.6 \I.
*
Data reported are thc percent of total ob::;ervations with sno\" or rain.
-------
Table 7
Wind Dire<:tiou Frequency f=om '~orthwest" and "Southeast" Sectors
SiJ-NW-N:E
(%)
~"E - SE - 5".7
(%)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
Septe::nber
October
Nove:1ber
December
70
73
64
57
" 50
40
44
45
"50
60
67
72
30
27
36
43
50
54
56
55
50
40
33
28
no snow in late spring, s~er, or early autumn, with a mahim~ or
s~ow being
reported about 5% of the time in February.
Rainfall frequency is also much higher in the winter than in ~he summer.
The annual accumulation of precipitation is about 100 ~ in coastal areas wes~ of
the burn site, and range from 5-8 ~ ~ June to 10-13 ~ in Au~~st, being fairly
unifo~y distributed, in 4COunt, throughout the year.
~ost =a~fall from Xay
through October is from thundersto~s.
These rains are general~y brier out of
high intensity.
The Novenb~ t~ough April precipitation is :ore often associated
with widespread stor.:s.
Duration of rain and snow is often one or t~odays, but
the intensity is not as great as during the summer.
3.
Fog and Visibility
The percentage frequencies of reports of visi:ility less than t~o
miles are reported in Table 6 and are indications of the frequencies of dense fog.
~e ~ost co~ou fog in this area is advection fog.
!t occurs ::ost
frequently i.:l
late spr~~g and early su~er when war.: humid air fro~ the south is car=~ed over
the cooler water surface.
D-28
-------
II.
REspmrSE TO QUESTIC:-;S CO~CER.'IT~rG A~!OSPHERIC 3EHAVIOR OF COMBUSTION P?.ODU~S
A.
1.
Ho~ Lon~ Will These Substances (Cnburned Chlo~L~ated Hvdrocarbons
and Heavv ~etals) Remain Suspended in the Acnosphere?
A general range or ~~ected atmospheric residence t~es fo~ several
classes of substances expected to be released from the proposed burn site are
given in Table S.
For substances present as particles, the a~ospheric residence
ti~e is a function of a number of parameters, as described in paragraph I.A.2, above.
Based on currently available data, submicrometer size particles, the size on which
much if not mos~ of the w~ste residues in the particulate phase should be found, will
have atmospheric residen:e times on the order of a few days to a week or so.
~ost of the residual trace cetals will be prese~t on particles, but most of the
residual ~dC will be present in the vapor phase.
In the vapor ?hase, saturated lo~ molecular weight unburned C3C can be
expected. to have at~os?heric residence t~es on the order of months to years..
Unsaturated low molecular weight eRC will have ouch shorter residence times, on
the order of hours to days.
High molecular weight chlorinated hydrocarbons which
are ?olar in nature and easily hydrolyzable, such as the major components of
Herbicide Orange, ~ould be expected to ~ve relatively short at~ospheric ~esidence
times, probably on. the o~der of a few days o~ l~~s.
High molecular weight CiC
which are aromatic and ~on polar, such as PCB's, are expected to ~4ve a~ospheric
~eside:1ce ti:1es of weeks to a fev ~onths.
2.
w~at is the :ate of the ~nburned Chlo~L~ated ?vdrocarbon and ?eavv
~etals ~~'tted t~ the At:05phere?
Residual ~ter1al ?resent on atmospheric particles will be removed
by dry deposition ~~d p~eci?itation to the earth's surface, either ocean or land.
w~ile some fraction or t~e low ~olecular weight vapor phase CRC are r~oved
directly by rain, =05: are destroyed in the a~os?here pr~-~rily via at~ack by
D-29
-------
Table 8
Est1=ated A~ospheric Residence Time Ranges
for Various Classes of Substances Released at the Proposed Bu~ Site
Substance
Est~ated Residence Time ~nge
Suamicrometer Particles
(e. g " con ta i:1i.."1g heavy me tals)
Days to a week or t~o
Saturated Low Molecular weight CEC
(e.g. J CE3-CC13)
Unsaturated Low Molecular Weight cac
(e.g., caCl :a CC1Z)
~.JJnths to years
Hours to day,s
Polar and Hydrolyzable High Molecular
Weight CBC
(e.g.; n-butyl ester of 2,4-D)
Hours to days
Aromatic, ~on. Polar High Molecular
Weight CEC
(e.g., pa IS)
r";eeks t:o months
the OR radical and, ~ t:he case of unsaturated perchloro-compounds, ozone.
7:1.e
detailed at:ospheric.reaction pathways and ?roducts of the photoch~ical.
reactions of these chlorinated compounds as well as the reaction rates are 5:111
poorly bown.
It appears, however, that such reaction products as fo~yl chloride,
phosgene, chloroacetatdehyde, and di- and tri-chloroacetyl chloride as ~ell as
HCl and C10 !:lay be fOr::1ed.
The orfgenated chlor~"1Ated hydrocarbon reaction
products should have a short a~ospheric residence t~e, on the order of days
at most.
3.
What Percentage Reaches the Ocean and w~ere Does the Rest Go?
This question cannot be answered accurately, as it is a function
of a variety of a~ospheric conditions and cheoical and physical ?roperties of
the a~ospheric residue.
(See Question D for some c~de model calc~lat:ions).
D-30
-------
.
With th~ ~inds in a generally ~esterly direction, a~ay frOM :ror~h America, a~o-
sphe:i~ s~bQicrometer particulate residues, ~1th cheir roughly 4-10 day residence
t~~, should be Idrgely deposited in the North Atlancic.
with easterly winds,
depEc~ing en :he
detailed air mass crajectory, ~uch of the submicrome~er particulate
mat~~ial could be deposited over North Amer.ica.
A s~ilar a~alysis would apply
for the polar and hydrolyzable heavier CHC and the unsaturated low ~olecular
~Jai$ht CHC with their relatively short residence t~es.
~ote in these latter
~~ses,
ho~ever,
that a fraction of the material will have un~ergone reactions,
~d/or degradations either in solution or in the vapor phase, while L~ the ac:o-
3?here.
!here is presently L~suffic~ent L~or=ation on reaction rates, sc~venge-
~~ility,
etc., to predict Che relative quancities or these substances.destroyed
. .
-.
:~e at~os?here and retu=ned to the ocean or land surface L~tact.
~e low molecular ~eight saturated CHC have at~ospheric residence times
0: ~onths to years and thus can be distributed around the nor~hern h~sphere
~d even glob~lly, mixing L~to the southern hemisphere.
They are largely
d~stroyed L~ the atmosphere but do under60 slow ~~change with the ocean as
described belo~.
3.
20~ :ar ~ill ?articles or Trace Cases be Trans~orted in the At~os~here?
:or particles, residence c~e is related to particle
size,
as discussed
in paragraph I.A.2, above.
A residence cime of a fe~ days co a week or so for sub-
micrometer size particles is probably reasonable.
The mean surface wind speed in
the proposed burn site ranges froc 5.5 meters/see in the su~er monchs to 9.5 mecers/
see in the winter (see Table 6). Winds will be stronger at higher'altitudes.
The
distances a particle or gas molecule would cravel, over c'ime periods ranging from
1-30 days assuming the 5.5 and 9.5 ~eters/sec sucmer and winter mean wL~d spe~ds,
are L~dicated ~ Taole 9.
!he :rajec:orJ follo~ed by c~e particles or ~olecules
D-31
-------
Table 9
A==ospheric Transpor~ Distances Uncer Various Conditions
Aenost)heric Residence T1I::es
Mean Wind Speed 1 Day 4 Days. 10 Days 30 Days
(rr:/sec) Transport Distance (~)
4 350 1400 3500 10,400
5 430 1700 4300 13,000
6 520 2100 5200 15,500
7 600 2400 6000 18,100
8 690 2800 6900 20,700
9 780 3100 7800 23,300
10 860 3500 8600 25,900
~uld not be linear, of course, but would be h~ghly complex and variable, de?end-
ing on the particular synoptic ~eteorological patterns present during and
ai : er
the burn.
It is apparent, however, that for submicrometer particles,
and
unburned cac's which have a=:ospheric residence t~es in the rar.ge of days :~
weeks, trans~ort on the order of thousands of kilometers is possible.
This has
b~en corroborated by many atnospheric investigations of continentally derived aerQ-
sols found over the ocean thousands of Ktlometers from their source.
In summary, particles and t~ace gases 'J1:h ao:ospheric resid~~ce ci:es or
~ore than one to two days can be transported over a thousand kilometers from
their source area.
~ile tbe concentration 0: tbese substances ~"ill have ceen
diluted to the extent that they :ay not be distingu~~hable from the background
concentrations of these substances, these distances are c~nsiderable.
Note in Table 7 that the percentages of the times the wind is out of the
southeast sector (i.e., 0450 through 1350 co 215°) range from a low of 27~ in
the winter to a high of 56~ dur~g the ~er.
~linds wi:hia this sec..:~r would
D-32
-------
transport the substances or interest back towards North America, which is only
some 200 KQ from the burn site.
Thus, while they. would considerably dilute the
particle and gas concentrations, w~ds from this sector could easily transport
suamicrometer particles and trace gases back across the coastline of t~e United
States.
c.
Can anv Particles be ~ec:ed to R~ain Sus~ended for an !ndefL~i:e
Period?
"Indefinite" is quite vague.
As discussed in paragraph I.A.2, the
atmospheric residence times of particles smaller than a few micrometers in radii
generally range from a few days to a few weeks.
The maximum residence time for
submicrometer particles is probably in the upper troposphere in geographical regions
with little precipitation.
In these areas particulate residence times of a ~onth
a~e possible.
r~ is assumed that none, or an ~~tr~ely ~ll fraction, or
these particles enter the stratosphere, where longer residence 'times do occur.
'~at Will be the Air/Sea Surface Concentrations Observed at Various
D.
Distances Downwind of the ~ission Source, and What is the Flux of These
Substances :ro'U the At:::!os'Chere to the Ocean?
1.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
~del calculations of the at:::!ospheric concentrations of certain
substances down~ind or an at-sea L~cineration have been presented by Paige et a1.,
(1978).
1'heu- calculations rlll be utilized in this section in an atte::Ipt to
relate at:::!ospheric ~oncentrations to potential air/sea exchange of some of the
substances or L~terest.
Considered here rlll'~e rates of L~put L~t6 the ocean,
cocparison or total quantities of ~itted substances with background concentrations
of these substances ~ the at:::!osphere, fraction of the total quantiti~s ~it:ed
per unit ti=e '...hich reach the ocean in that same t~e interval, etc.
D-33
-------
To evaluate the potential ~por~ance of the direct gas phase uptake of loy
molecular weight GC by the ocean, we Yill use CR3-CC13 (methyl chlorofor:n or
trichloroethane) as an ~~ple. along Y1th a number of simplifying assumptions.
To calcula:e the gas ph~se flux of CH3-CC13 into the ocean the values of Cg' c1' H,
kl' and kg for this compound must be knowri (see paragraph I.B.3.). On the basis of
H values for. freon 11 and CC14 (S and 1 g/cm3 air per g/cm3 water respectively) a
HenrY's Law constant of Z Yill be assumed for CH3-CC13'
As a first approximation,
cl ~ 0 will be assumed,
ocean around the burn site.
Le..
that there is initially no CH3-CC13 dissolved in the
For expected atmospheric concentrations we utilize the results reported from
the Gaussian plume model of Paige et al., (1978), Appendix B.
Assuming a 99.96%
destruction efficiency, they utilized an emission rate of 8.8 Kg/hr for unburned
CHC waste from the ship.
We will assume this is all Cd3-CC13 for this exercize.
~ith an effective stack height of 11S meters and a wind speed of 4.0 ~/sec for
an at-sea ou~. they calculated a ~iMUm ground. level concent=ation of unbu=ned
waste of ~ 2.5 ~6/~3 (or 2.5 x 10-12 g/~3), ~h1ch we here assume is all Cd3-CC13'
Thus c . 2.5 x 10-12 g/cm3.
g
From paragraph I.B.3. .e know that kl for.CH3 CC13 is given by:
kl . 5.6 x 10-3 ~/sec x
Mol. We. CO.,
~ol. We. CE3-CCl3
-3
~ 3.4 x 10 ~/sec
and k is given by:
g
kg . 0.83 c:/sec x
~ol. wt. :i?0
~l. Wt. C23-CC13
~ O. 30 c:n/ s ec
On a liquid p~~se basis:
1
~t . I/~l - I/kl + l/=~ ~ - -
g 3.4 X 10-oJ
1
-+ .:::1
2 :< 0.30
296 sec/c:::l
tt
D-34
-------
or
-3 I
Kl . 3.4 x 10 ~ sec.
Now the
fl.J.X, F,
from the acmosphere to the ocean is given by:
F . ~ (Cg/H - cl)
a:lci, since we assume .cl . 0
F . Klcg .
-
H
(13)
F -
3.4 x
-3
10 ~/sec x 2.5
2 gl em;) air
gl em...) water
x 10-12 g/c:3 air ~ 4.3 x 10-15 g/c~2sec
12/3 . 'd
If the at~ospheric concentration of 2.5 x 10- g c~ were ~~nta~e
~c~L~itely, ca3-CCl3 would continue to enter the ocean until the water
concentration, in g/en3 water, was half the at~ospheric concentration, in g/c~3 air
2 gl c:m3 air
(since we assumed H was g/c~...) water)' Thus the equllibriuc water concentration
would be ~ 1.25 x 10-12 g/en3. If the net input flux remained constant at its
initial value of 4.3 x 10-15 g/cm2 sec (which i: would not, or course, because
of the ~itiation of a return flux to the a~osphere as soon as cl > 0) i: would
take about 8 hours to saturate the ocean to a depth of 1 meter and about one
~onth to saturate the ocean to a depth of 100 meters, assumL~g co~plete caterial
-12
~ixing and assumL~g the at~ospheric concentration remained constant at 2.5 4 10
g/en3. Of course these high concentrations persist over an area' of the ocean for
~nly a few hours at most, as the plume and ship ~ove across the ocean and the plume
continues to disperse in the ac:osphere.
Looking at the problem a different way, we can esti=ate ~hat
:=action
of the
eni:ted CH3-CC13 might be renoved in an hour.
The ~ission rate is 8.8 x 103 g/hour.
Otilizing the ~odel results of Paige et al., (1978), Appendix B, we will assume that
an elliptical shaped plume of high concentration is found over the ocean as a result
D-35
-------
of the inc~eration.
In this region we assume the su~face level at~ospheric concen-
t:ations are ~ 80% of the predicted maximum concentration of Paige et al. (19i8), or
~ 2 x 10-12 gfc:3.
This elliptical area has a max:1=N.m length or ," 10,000 meters and
maximum width of ~ 250 1I1eters and thus has an area of ~
, 0 2
2 x 10- C::1.
The total
mass or CE3-GC13 deposited ~ this area in one hour is given by:
Total Mass . ~c x 2 x 1010 ~2 x 3600 sec
, .3:.:.1
a
. 3.4 x 10-3
c::1/sec x 2.0 x 10-12
2 g/o3 air
gf c:m3 water
g/C::13 air x 2 x 1010 C::12 x ;500 sec
. ~ 0.2 gra.:ns.
This can be cocpared to the total ~ss of CR3-CC13 released per hour, 8.8 ~g.
All
these values are presented in Table 10.
Thus r~oval to the ocean by diIect gas
~~change is very slow for this compound and cost of the low ~olecular weight
saturated cac's will be carried far fr01l1 the burn area, as discussed previously.
Table 10
?~ed1cted :l~~es or Chlorinated Rydrocarbons to the Ocean
CO't:1pound
*
Toul Mass Paige et al. (19 i 8 ) ~:(:!.:u:n Ga s Total:lux
Released at ~del Predicte
-------
or
-3
K1 . 3.4 x 10 em/sec.
Now the flux, F, from the acmosphere to the ocean is given by:.
F . ~ (Cg/R - cl)
and, since we assume cl . 0
F . Klcg
-
H
(13)
F .
3.4 ~
-3
10 c~/sec x 2.5
2 g/ c:mJ air
g/ em.J water
12 3 -15 2
x 10- ~/c: air. 4.3 x 10 g/c~ sec
If the at~ospheric conce~tration of 2.5 x 10-12 g/c~3 were maintained
~~2i~itely, CR3-CCl3 would continue to enter t~e ocean until the water
concentration, in g/0:3 water, was half the a~ospheric concentration, in g/c~3 air
2 g/ c:m3 air
(since we assumed a was g/cm.J water)' Thus the equilibriuc water concentration
would be '" 1. 25 x 10-12 g/ cm3 . If the net input flux re!nained constant at it.s
initial value of 4.3 x 10-15 g/~2 sec (which it would not, of course, because
of the initiation. of a return flux to the a~osphere as soon as cl > 0) it would
take about 8 hours to saturate the ocean to a depth of 1 meter and about one
~onth to saturate the ocean to a depth of 100 meters, assuming complete caterial
-12
m1x~~g and assumL~g the atmospheric concentration re!nained constant at 2.5 A 10
g/Q3.
Of course these high concentrations persist over an area. of the ocean f~r
only a few hours at MOst, as the plume and ship :ove across the ocean and the pluce
continues to disperse in the a~osphere.
Looking at the problem a different way, we ~n est~ate what fraction of the
enitted CR3-CC13 might be renoved in an hour.
The emission rate is 8.8 x 103 g/hour.
Utilizing the ~odel results of Paige et al., (1978), Appendix B, we will assume that
an elliptical shaped pluce of high conce~tration is found over the ocean as a ~e$ult
D-35
-------
of che inc~eracion.
In chis region ~e assume the surface level a~ospheric concen-
crations are ~ 80% of the predicted maximum concentration of Paige et ale (1978), or
~ 2 x 10-12 g/c=3.
!his elliptical area has a maxi:um length or ~ 10,000 ~eters and
max:1mum width of ~ 250 meters and chus has an' area of ~
2 x 1010 0.2.
The total
mass of CE3-CCl3 deposited in this area in one hour is given by:
Total Mass a K-c X 2 x
.:L!
, R
. 3.4 X 10-3
1010 cn2 X 3600 sec
-12
c::n/sec X 2.0 ~ 10
2 g/o3 air
g/cn3 \Jater
'il"/c"::J.3 air ~ 2 x 1010 02 x :500 sec I
. ~ 0.2 grams.
.
This can be compared to the total :nass of CE3-CC13 released per hour, 8.S ~g.
All
these values are presented in Table 10.
Thus r~oval Co the ocean by di:ect gas
~~change is very slow for chis campound' and most of the low :nolecular ~ei~ht
saturated cae's \Jill be carried far from the burn area, as discussed previously.
Table 10
?redicted :l~~es or Chlorinated Hydrocarbons to the Ocean
CR3-CC13
1<
Toul Mass Paige et a1. (1978) ~:~:::um Gas !otal :1u.~
Released at Xodel Predicted Flux to the into t~e
Burn Site Max1cu:n Concentration Oc ean Ocean
-6 3 ' g/hr
g/hr 10 glm STI' g/cm-/sec
8800 2.5 4 x 10-15 0.2
Compound
PC
8800
2.5
4 X 10-13
20
DD'l' '
8800
2.5 '
4 x 10-13
20
* W~thin a specified area of 2 ~ 1010 c:2,
s~e tex~ for details and assumptions used.
D-36
-------
We can make a similar estimation of the gas phase flux of PCB and DDT from
the a~osphere to the ocean. According to Bidl~n et al., (1976), H for PCB
(~~d' DDT) 1s on the order of 1 x 10-3 g/~~ air and thus Kl is ~1.7 x 10-4
g/C'!IJ.,j ...ater
-12 3
c~/sec. Assum~g c 1s again 2.5 x 10 g/~, i.e., all the unourned organic
.g
residue is PCB or DDT, and assuming cl . 0, the flux of PCB (or DDT 1£ the unburned
residue is DDT) is on the order 0= 4 x 10-13 6/~2 sec.
Assutli:lg the flu."': is 80~
10 2
of this'value over an elliptical area of 2 x 10 c~ for 1 hour, the total flux
into the ocean is ~ 20g, as shown in Table 10.
This compares to the total of
~ 8800 g released by the burning process.
While this is a factor of ~ 100
greater than the mass of CH3-CC1J entering the ocean, it is 5t1l1 a 5~ll
fraction of the total PCB or DDT released.
Assuming the entire 8.8 Kg/hr unburned Yaste released is CRJ-CC13' ...e can
also compare the quantity of CR3-CCl3 released in a ty?ical 185 hour ou=n Yith
the ~bient quantity of this material present in the acnosphere over (a) the
2
entire 4500 Km designated incineration site area and, s~ce the residence tiQe
of this compound is long, (b) the entire ,northern h~isphere.
i-ie asst.::::1e the
background concentration is uniio~ vertically. at ~ 600 ng/o3 ST? (see Table 5)
and that the at~osphere has a scale height of 5.5 ~.
The resultir.g quantities
are compared in Table 11.
A s~i1ar comparison can be ~de for PCB and DDT and
the results of the calculations are given in Table 11. A PCB background concen-
3 3
tration of 0.5 ng/~ STP and a DDT background concentration of 0.02 ng/m S7?
Yas assu:ned.
~ote that for CR3-CC13' the total ~ss released is only ~ 10: of
the mass of tr~s compound ...hich already ~~ists in the a~osphere over the designated
J
bu=n area, and is extr~ely ~ll relative to the total northern hemisphere
quantit:,.
For PCB, the situation 1s some...hat different.
!n this case i:he
quantity of PCB released ...ould be '\, 100 :i::1es the amount normally prese."1t within
D-37
-------
'table 11
Comparison of Masses of ~~terial Released from a Typical Burn with
the ~~ss Already Present in Several A~ospheric Reservoirs
* Quan~ity Already
Quantity Released P~esent Over Designated
Substance in 185 Hour Burn Incineration Site
(g) (g)
~-CClJ 2 x 106 2 x 107
2 x 106 4
PO 1.5 x 10
DD'I 2 x 106 6 x 102
5 4 5
Cu 1..3 x 10 1.5 x 10 - 6 x 10
5 . 6 x 104 6
Zn 1..3 x 10 - 3 x 10
Pb 7 x 104 5 6 x 106
.3 x 10 -
2 x 104 .3 5
As 1.5 x 10 - 1.5 x 10
4 3 x 102 4
Co 2 x 10 - 1. 5. x 10
S 3 6
Cr 7 x 10 3 x 10 - 1.S x 10
S .3 6
~1 4 x 10 1.5 x 10 - 1.5 x 10
*
See t~~t for assumptions concerning burn residues.
Quantity Already
?~esent in ~orthern
He=isphere A~osphere
(g)
1 x 1012
1 x 109
4 x 107
2
the atmosphere over the 4500 Km area of the desigr.ated burn region.
Ie is a fe'..
tenths of one percent of the total PCB con cent of the northern hecisphere at~osphere.
For DDT the quantity released is' over 1000 c~es the background quantity over ehp.
d~signated burn region and aloost 10% of that ~xpected in t~e entire northern
hemisphere background at~osphere, which would be quite si;nificant.
D-38
-------
These crlde calculations show that the' impact of the :'Ur:l on the at::lospheric
~cncentration of the suostance released and its subsequent concentrations i~ the
ocean varies greatly from compound to compound, and each has to be,assessed
;.;e?arately.
2.
Heavy Metals
1t is useful to estiQate the input of heavy metals to the ocean
from the at~osphere, both via. dry deposition and rain removal.
The heavy ::Ietal
emission rates from incineration used by Paige et al. (1973) L~ their Gaussian
plume model are given in Table 12.
With a mean ~d speed of 4
m/sec and an effective stack height of 125.5 ~,
the Paige et,al., (1978) model predicts the maximum atmospheric concentratio~s ~ould
occur 4000 meters froo the burn site.
(See their Appendix B).
Their ?redic ted
maximuc concentrations are given in Table 13 along with the ranges of expected
background concentration over the ocean in that area (from Table 4).
From Table 13 it appears that the Pb concentration predic:eci :,y the :odel
is within the E!X?ected background range.
The maximum Cu, Zn, and As concentrations
predicted from the model burn are about 2 to 10 times the upper end of the expected
background concentration ranges, while the predicted ~i, Cu, and Cr concentrations
are 10 to 60 t~es the upper ~~d of the background range.
To obtain order of magnitude estimates of the input of these heavy metals
to the ocean under dry conditions, we can assume the ~jor mass of these ~e~als
is on suboicrometer particles, which probably have dry deposition velocities of
0.05 to 1.0 em/sec (paragraph I.B.2.).
Using the, relations,hip:
F - CVe!
(14)
'Where
F . trace metal
2
flux, in gJ c:::I. see
(
3
concentration in g/c:
C . at::1ospheric
v d . deposition velocity, in CJ.I see (0.05 to 1. 0 c::11 see)
D-39
-------
. Table 12
For edic: t ed Hourly :luxes of He.avy Xetals
,
Flux into the Flux into the * Flux into che'*
Aoosphere from Ocean by Dry Oc e.an by
Metal the 3urn Sit e Deposition Ra.inf all
g/hr g/hr g/'rr
Cu 700 0.6 - 12 300 - 3000
Zn 700 0.6 - 12 300 - 3000
Fb 400 0.3 - 6 200 - 2000
As 100 0.Q9 - 2 40 - 400
Co 100 0.09 - 2 40 - 400
Cr 4000 3.5 - 70 2000 - 20,000
~i 2000 1.1 - 35 1000 - 10,COO
*
10
Within a specified area of 2 x 10
for details and assumptions used.
2
01
- see tex"t
the predicted range of fl~~es for these ~etals can ~e calcul~ted.
The results
of this crude ~lculation are given in Table 13.
We assume, as in the discussion of CRJ-CC13 above,that an elliptically
shaped region of high atzospheric heavy ~etal conc~~t:ation is :our.d over c~e
ocean.
Trace me"tal concenc:ations in this re~ion are ~ SO~ ot the ~X~
predicted by the !I1Qdel of Paige et al., (1978).
The elliptical region has an
are.a of ~ 2 x 1010 0:2.
!he total mass of e.ach heavy metal deposited
~ this
area by dry deposition in one hour is given in Table 12.
Under the conditions of this crude drj deposition removal model, it appears
that from a few tenths of one percent to a few percent of the mass at the
trace
metals released each hour is deposited in the ocean during the first hour.
D-40
-------
TaMe 1J
Predicted Atmosi1heric Concentrations and Fluxes to the Ocean of Selected lIeavy Hetals
Paige et a1.. (II) 78).
~xpected DackgrQund Hodel Predicted Predicted Dry Deposition Predicted Rainfall Flux
Hetal Concentration Haximum Concentration Flux to the Ocean Surface to the Ocean Surface
10-9 Birr? STP 10-9 g/m3 STP -14 2 -14 2
10 g/cla see 10 g/cm see
Cu 0.5 - 20 220 1 - 20 500 - 5000
. Zn 2 - 100 220 1 - 20 500 - 5000
Pb 10 - 200 120 0.6 - 12 300 - 3000
As 0.05 -"5 )0 0.15 - 3 60 - 600
? Co 0.01 - 0.5 )0 0.15 - 3 60 - 600
~
..- Cr O. 1 - 50 1200 6 - 120 3000 - 30.000
Ni 0.05 - 50 620 3 - 60 1000 - 10.000
-------
Subsequent verticaldispersiou of the material in the plume would result in lesser
percentages being deposited from a one hour burn in subsequent hours.
~ote that
the entire quantity of each heavy metal released by burning per hour is not
delivered to the ocean each hour, as was assumed for HCl in the model of Paige
et al., (1978) - see their Appendix D.
In fact, a rather small percentage is
removed, at least under dry conditions.
Tbe numerous limitations of the Gaussian plume ~del relative to the
probl~ associated with the proposed incineration site have been discussed by
Paige et al., 1978.
Tbe deposition calculations made, using data derived from
the plume model, are highly uncertain and serve only as order of magnitude
est~tes which apply only ~nder the specific conditions of the ~odel.
To obtain order of magnitude est~tes of the rainfall recoval of these
trace metals from the at=csphere, we can use the washout factor discussed in
paragraph I.B.l.
We will assume that the atmospheric concentrations of the
particulate heavy metals in the 2 x 1010 c::t12 elliptical deposition area are about
80% of the maxbu:n values given in Table 1.3, as vas assumed 1:1 the crude dry
deposition ~odel.
We will also ass~e that this a~ospheric concentration is
ma1ntaL~ed throughout an hour's rainfall, which -Nill clearly not be the case, and
will result in the calculation
of anomalously high input values to the ocean.
'..le
will assume that the particles are subcicrometer in size and, from Figure
2 twill
assume that W,' the washout fact~r, is ~ 1000.
As shown. in Section 1.3.1.
Crain. Cair W
(15)
In Equation US) the units for Cair are ng/Kg air.
To convert the ~odel
predicted concentrations given in Table 11, which are i~ ng/~3 STP, to ng/Kg
3
air, we ~ultip17 the ng/m STP values by 0.78.
With this inior=3tion we can
predict the heavy metal concentrations in the rain.
\
D-42
-------
The concen~rations in the rain are a function of rainfall intensity,
duration, etc., but this cannot be accurately modelled at this time.
If \We
assume a continuous average rainfall rate from! to 10 mm/hr, a reasonable
2
range, then the total quantity of each heavy ~etal removed, in g/c~ see, can
be calculAted and is given in Table l.'3 for these ra1.,fall rates.
Note that the
ranges of rain removal fluxes predicted for.each metal are much greater than the
ranges of fluxes predicted by dry deposition.
Thus rain, yhen it occurs, is an
efficient mechanism for the r~oval of atmospheric particles. Applying these
rainfall removal rates, over a one-hou~ period and an area of 2 x 1010 cm2, results
in the ranges of values reported in Table 12 for rainfall removal in the elliptical
deposition area.
!he lower end of these ranges is approxicately the same as the total e:ission
rates of these metals from the burn1.,g process.
!he higher, unrealistic, end
of the range results, of course, from the assumption that the area of high
atmospheric concentration can be ~intained over a one-hour period.
As these
results show it obviously cannot, i.e., the rainfall re=oval is ve-~ efficient.
This rapid scavenging of par~icles in the loyer atmosphere is yell-documented
in the literature.
It appears that most of the particulate out?ut from ,a burn
could be removed in roughly an hour or so, under conditions 0 f conti.,uous rain a.t
rates of 1 - 10 mmlhr.
t.
What Effects do Variable Atmosuheric Conditions Have on the Fate of
~ssions (e.2., Fog, Preciuitation, Increased Wind Velocity, etc.)?
!he atmospheric residence times and re=oval rates for substances are
related to a number of a~ospheric conditions.
Increasing w~d speed L,creases
the effective deposition velocity for a given size particle, as shoYn for
laboratory studies in Figure 3, presucably due to increased turbulence in the
near boundary layer.
Direct gas exchange is also enhanced yith increasing
D-43
-------
wind st>eed.
Unfor~unately there are aot suffi~ient fi~d data available to
quantify these effe~ts well or to utilize them in a predictive mode.
,
Increasing
wind st>eed acc~erates the dist>ersion of the pollution plume.
As described by
Paige et al., (1978), in a conventional Gaussian plume model, concent=ation is
iaversely prot>ortional to wind st>eed.
Thus a doubling of th~ wind st>eed results
in halving the predicted concentration at any point downwind from the source,
all other parameters re:naining const~t.
Precit>itation and fog will both enhance the removal of all t~e substances,
but p~~icularly HC1, par~icles, and the polar and hydrolyzable organic constituents,
Law ~lecular weight saturated cac ~l not be aff~cted significantly by fog
or pre~it>it.ation.
Assuming that the pr~ry objective r~ative to the a~ost>heric ~issions
is rat>id dist>ersal and rat>id renoval'to the ocean surface, the, optizuc meteoro-
logical ~onditions in~lude relatively strong winds from the "nort~west"
sector
coupled with periods of precipitation.
Periods of fog are not desirable as
they affect general ship operations.
In addition, fog only occurs during light
wind ~ondi tions,
With t.hese meteorological conditions in mind, and reference to
Table 6 (the monthly climatological information for the proposed burn site), it is
apparent that the best time of year to obtain the general conditions above is in
autumn, winter, and early spring.
D-44
-------
III. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CONCE.~I~G OCEANIC BEHAVIOR OF COMBUSTION
PRODUCTS
Transoort of Combustion P~oducts En~erin~ the Ocean from the
?~ooosed North Atlantic Incineration Site
A.
The proposed North Atlantic Incineration Site is located in a
region of the northwest Atlantic Ocean known as the Slope Water region.
The t~ansport of residues by oceanic processes will depend on the
specific location of the plume in the acmosphere and on the prevailing
. hydrographic conditions.
Figure 6 illustrates the location of the
site relative to the major oceanographic features.
Typically, the Shelf
Water resides north and west of the 200 m contour to depths of 100-200 m
along the continental shelf.
This water is distinguished by its rela-
tively low s~linity (less than 34.5%0)' and its temperature which
varies se~sonally from about 2-4°C in the winter to about 22°C in the
sucmer (Beardsley and Flagg, 1976).
A distinct surface front separates
the Shelf Water from the Slope Water at approximately the 200 m isobath.
The upper 50 m of the Slope Water is.generally more saline (34.5 -
35.5%0) and warmer (10°C winter, 24°C summer) than the Shelf
Water.
The Slope Water is bounded on the south and east by the Gulf
Stream.
The nominal circulation oi waters through this region is a south-
. westerly flow along the shelf and inner slope. and a nor:heasterly flow
oi the Gulf Stream (Beard~ley' et al., 1976) with a possible nor:heaster-
1y flow in the Quter Slope Water.
This pattern gives rise to an oblong
counterclockwise gyre circulation in the Slope Water
~egion
(Figure 7).
There can be large variations in the Slope Water region from the
normal location and flow of Shelf, Slope, and Gulf Stream Waters due
D-45
-------
N
41
40
39
38
37
36
W 76
75
74
73.
72
71
70
Figure 6. Major water mass regimes and the proposed incineration site.
D-46
-------
N
41 -
40 -
39 -
38
37
36
W 76
75
74
73
72
71
70
Figure 7. Schematic illustration of the proposed Slope Water gyre
(after Csanady, 1979).
D-47
-------
to three phenomena: Shelf ~ater intrusions, Gulf Stream ~eanders, and
Warm Core Rings.
Occasionally tongues of Shelf ~ater can be seen in
infrared satellite images penetrating into, and apparencly mixing with
the Slope Water.
!he Gulf Stream often develops ceanders which displace
and modify the outer Slope Wacer.
~ar.n Core Rings are bodies of Gulf
Stream and Sargasso Sea Water which are imbedded in the Slope ~ater.
!bese feacure~ a~e 80-150 kc in diameter; they rocace in a clock~ise
direction wich surface currents of about 1-3 knots; they have a lifeti::1e
of about 6-~~ conchs during which they cigrace southeasterly through the
Slope Water region.
The transport of incineration residues will be
deter=ined by t~e water casses and near-surface currents beneath the
atmospheric plume. '
For an initial consideration of residue transport we will assume
that the atmospheric, plume results in deposition of wastes within 10 ~~
of the incineracion ship~
!his assumption is based on observations
during burns in che Gulf of ~exico in which the plume was detected at
sea-level within 0.5-3.5 nautical ciles of the XlT VULC~~~S.
:'hus, we
will consider ~eposition of residues within the Incineration Disposal
Site
when t?e -average- hydrographic conditions prevail.
t:nder these
c1rcUQstances the residues will be deposited in the Slope ~ater.
It is
likely t~t they will be trapped in the Slope water circulation whic~
has a physical residence time on the order of 2-4 years.
The :ollowing
projeccion can oe sug~ested for the transport of residues deposited ~n
c~e Slope :'ater.
They will tend to be transported wic~ the sur:ace
waters to the southwest at a race of about 3-5 ~/day (~ased on speeds
up to 10 c:1isec; Beardsley et al., ~975).
~ithin 50-dO ~ays the residue
D-48
-------
will reach the southern portion of the Slope Water region and begin to
drift northeastward along the outer portion of the Slope Water gyre.
1f we consider the waste to be trapped in the Slope Water gyre it will
take about 3 years to travel once around the gyre.
These waters are not
trapped indefinitely; they exchange with waters at the Slope Water
boundaries, and we could assume a residence time for waters in the Slope
Water region to be on the order of 5 years. This residence tice is not
very well known from direct data, but it is unlikely that it is as short
as 1 year or as long as 10 years.
Next we can consider the advective fate or residues if they are
deposited into water masses other than the Slope Water during those
occasions when other waters penetrate the Disposal Site.
Shelf Water
intrusions may extend into this region and then withdraw back onto the
continental shelf.
!his is the m06t likely mechanism for transporting
residues onto the shelf and possibly into coastal regions within the
surface waters.
This transport is 6f special icportance because
residues could enter the continental shelf ecosystem, to be taken up by
human food risheries or. to :accumulate in the benthic organisQs and secii-
ments.
w~ile this transpor~ is likely, its contribution to the flux of
contaminants to the continental shelf system 1s probably very small.
Residues will occasionally be deposited in Warm Core Rings passing
through the Slope Water region.
!his event is important because the
residues can be hydrographically trapped wit~in a relatively scall
portion of the ocean and successive burns within a 30 day period could
deposit cumulative loads or residue within a Ring.
The potential impact
or residues in a Ring cay be different froe those in the Slope ~ater,
b-49
-------
because of differences in cheir biological communicies.
Rings have been
observed impinging on che concinencal shelf break and chey are suspected
of affecting the local fisheries environment.
Residues deposiced in a Ring
or in a meander of che Gulf Scream are likely co encer the large North
Aclancic gyre.
A consid~ation of the transport of residues by physical processes
requires an assessmenc of the fate of these residues in the ocean.
In
tbe preceding discussion we assumed chat the residues are merely carried
along by che waters.
This is a useful starting point because iC serves co
define the cime scales which must be considered.
For example, we identified
a 50-80 day time scale for transport to the vicinity of Cape Hatteras by
the Slope ~ater.
A 2-4 year time scale was suggested by circulation
within che Slope ~ater gyre and a 5 year time scale was estimated for
tbe Slope Wacer residence time.
A time scale of decades would be appli-
cable for transport by waters of the North Atlantic 8YTe.
Shelf ~ater
intrusions are likely to have time scales on the order of tens or days.
As the c~e scale increases, processes other than physical transport
will become important in dete~ning the fate of ~ontaminaats. Horizon-
tal and vertical mixing will decrease the concentration of residues and
increase the volume of ocean in which chey are dispersed.
Contaminants
chat become associated with particles or biota may be'removed from the
surface waters by the vertical particle flux.
These processes will be
considered in che next three sections.
Differential Transoort Due to the Vertical Gradient in Current
Velocitv
B.
7he physical struc:~re and detailed dyna:ics of the near-surface
ocean ~aters will iniluence the transport or combustion products
D-50
-------
entering the sea.
Two ex:rene conditions may be identified: in the
~nter vertical mixi~g extends downward to the pe~nent the~ocl:ne at
100-150 m, whereas during the summer the seasonal thermocline iahibits
vertical mixing to above about 30 m.
!~re rapid penetration and greater
dilution of wastes will occur in winter than in summer.
This effect has
been observed by Kester and coworkers (1979, unpublished results) in stu-
dies of acid-iron waste dispersion at DWD-106.
Typically, there is a
decrease in current speed with depth, and there ~y also be a change in
current direction with depth.
This feature of surface ocean currents is
commonly kown as the Ekman spiral in ~hich the current vectors decrease
in speed and rotate clock.J1se in direction with increasing depth.
This
behavior is expected from theoretical considerations of surface
cur-
rents driven by the frictional stress of wind on the sea surface and
this general behavior can be observed in some instances such as iceberg
drift patte~ns.
!he detailed current structure 1n the Slope Water
region 1s not well known or understood.
Under some conditions the
currents may result pri=arily from local wind stress, but there may be
other factors such as long-shore pressure gradients that can drive the
surface currents with different degrees of vertical shear.
.!here may be at least t~o sources of recent information that can
prov1d~ example3 of ver:ical shear in this region of the ocean under
specific conditions.
E.C.& C. has been conducting an i~vestigation of
the physical oceanography of the Georges Sanks region (under contract to
B~~) in which sever~l different approaches have been taken :0 defi~ir.g
near surface currents on the continental shelf and upper slope.
An
experiment to measure vertical shear at D~~-l06 was conducted by
D-Sl
-------
i~vescigators tor che ~OAA Ocean JUmping Division in April 1979.
:'hese
studies are recenc and che resulcs may noC be fully inter?reeed, bue
chey provide direce sees of ooser/ations at ver:ical currene sc~uct~~e
in this region.
In gene~al vertical shear along with vertical mixing oay enhance dis-
pe~sion of wastes in the uppe~ ocean.
The magnitude of chis dispersion will
vary seasonally, and with the local conditions prevailing at the eime c~m-
bustion products encer the ocean.
The depth and vertical stabili ty of the
seasonal thermocline will influence the extent of vertical mixing.
The
present understanding of these processes is not adequate to permit quaneica-
tive predictions in the absence of abser/ations.
C.
Times Required for Dilution of Combustion Products
Our experience with the dilucion of wastes that are ocean dumped at
106-Hile Ocean \.[as te Disposal Site suggests three main events in the dilution
process.
~~en wastes enter the ocean from a moving barge the turbulence
created by the wake of the barge leads to a rapid initial dilution, on che
4
order of 10 to 1, within 1-2 hours.
Subsequent dilution due to oceanic
mixing from values of 105 to greater than 106 occurs in ti~e scales or 3-20
hours; it has been infer~ed that dilutions of 106 may persist for days or
weeks in the absence of a major perturbation in ocean mixing, such as may oe
caused by the passage of a storon through the region.
The basis. for these
gene~alizacions' is contained in a series of research reports to be published
in early 1980 in the book "Ocean Du::!ping of Induscrial ;,'astes."
In -..Taste
plUI:les c::eated by barge du:::ping we encounter discributi:ms ,.-1:h
=:.:-:i~g 5C:a!.;S
of 30 :II vertically during sutI1l:1er st::atification (100 :II during wincer ::li:~::':1~)
by 103 m in width and ~y 40-50 km in length.
. ,
It is likelv that these general
0-52
-------
scales of m~xing are applicable to combustion products entering the ocean
near an incineration ship.
In that case the dispersion in the atmospheric
plume provides an initial dilution of wastes analogous to the turbulence be-
hind a barge, and the oceanic dilution process will comcence with the rela-
tively slow lateral mixing processes, the the~ocline-controlled vertical
mixing, and the periodic enhanced mixing due to storms.
In considering the oceanic concentrations of combustio~ ~roducts we
will distinguish three classes of chemical constituents.
7he light
weight hydrocarbon and related organic subscances with long at~ospheric
residence ti~es will enter the geochemical cycle with length
scales of
103 to 104 kc and their fate will not be . relatable to their origin
as an at-sea incineration combustion product. They will contribute to
the total burden of contaminants in the North Atlantic and northe=n
hemisphere.
The inorganic elements will be expected to have a short
at~ospheric residence tiQe and will enter the ocean with the rates
characteristic of dry particulate deposition and of rainout.
Uncom-
busted high molecular weight organic substances, such as PCB's and
pesticides, the aromatic hydrocarbon solvents and degradation/
combustion products, can enter the ocean in particulate phases similar
to the inorganic'elements, or by gas phase exchange, thereby having a
somewhat greater at~ospheric residence tioe.
For those constituents with ~atural chemical cycles i~ the ocean
the ambient concentration provides a reference from ~hich the anthro-
pogenic impact can be assessed.
7able 14 lists the inorganic
elements for which eoi~sion rates have bee~ calculated associated with
at-sea ~ncineration of organic wastes.
The eleoen:s have been ?laced i~
four groups based on the ~~tent and reliability of existing knowledge
D-53
-------
Table 14.
S~ry or inorganic elemen~s associa~ed with at-sea
incineration disposal or organic subs~ances.
Group A Elements: Generally good knowledge of oceanic concent~a:ions
and chemical cycles.
Surface Calculated Emission Rate
Element Ocean \.later Emission Rate Ocean \.later Concent~at~on
Concentration aIOle/hr x 106
Pb 0.6 cmol/kg 1.9 3200
Cu 1.9 cmol/kg 11.0 5800.
As 5 cmol/kg 1.3 2600
Ni 5 nmol/kg 34 6800
Zn 0.5 nI:101/kg 10.7 21 ,000
Fe 3.5 cunol/kg 161 46,000
Co 0.5 cunol/kg 1.7 3400
:~ 16 nmo 1/ kg 1.8 110
! 0.35 ~mol/kg 0.7 2
F 68 ~mol/kg S3 0.8
Ba 73 cunol/kg 3.1 42
Sr 90 ~mol/kg 8.0 0.08
Si 20 ~mol/kg 71 3.6
3r 0.84 mmol/kg 2.5 iL003
a 0.43 a1II101/kg 18.5 0.04
S .29.1 mmol/kg 31 0.001
i< 10.2 a1II1ol/kg 179 0.017
Group 3 ~lements: Some data available on oceanic concent~ations, but
marine geochemical cycles poorly
k..,own .
Surtace Calculated E::Iission Ra t e
Element Ocean ''';a~er Emission Rate Ocean ''';ater Concent~a::iO;1
Concenc:-ac1on mole/hr x 106
Cr 1 c:nol/kg 77 7iOO
Se 20S cunol/kg 1.2 480
Ga. 0.':' rmIol/kg 0.6 1500
Al 74 nmol/kg 37 500
Rb 1.4 ;..mol/kg 0.2 0.1
Li ,~ \,;a1ol/kg 5.8 0.2
_I
D-54
-------
Group C EleMencs; Liccle or no info~acion available on ocean disc~:bucion
and che!!11scry
Surface Calculaced Emission Race
EleMenc Ocean Wacer Emission &.ace Ocean water Concencracion
Concentration mole/hr x 106
Ag 0.4 nIIIol! kg 1.8 1.500
:10 10 nmo 1/ kg 4.2 420
Ti 0.2. CIDol/kg 8.3 4100
Zr 1.1
Sc 0.02 nmol/kg 0.4 20,000
Group D Elements: Inforcation was not provided on their emission from at-sea
incineration and they could be importanc.
Elemenc
Surface
Ocean Water
Concentracion
Hg
V
Cd
0.02 nmol/kg
49 nmol/kg
0.02 CIDol/kg
of cheir carine che!!11stry.
Wichin each group che elements have ~een
qualitatively ranked, based on the magnitude of their emission race rel-
ative co oceanic concentrations and their ?otential for environme~tal
impact (e.g., cheir biological coxicicy or perturbacion i~ seawate" com-
posicion) .
oased on this approach accencion should be focused on Group
I
A. elements for Pb through Co" on Cr and Se in 'Group 3 and :10, and Ag in
Group C.
Group °D identifies chose elemencs thac were noc included in .
che calculated emission rate analysis, bu: chat could be i=portant.
In order to estioace the elevation of oceanic concentrations one
must have a model for the flux from the a:=osphere and che =ixing within
the ocean.
Paige et al., (1978) presenced a model for the instantaneous
?lume from an incineration shi? ~~:h the following characteristics:
sili?
D-55
-------
speed 9.7 knots (5 ~/sec) into a 'Mind of equal speed, and an elliptical
plume Z70 x 5000 ~ with an area of 106 02.
A n~ber of ~esearch
burns have been conducted of 4000 metric tons of waste at a burn race or
25 :ecric tons per hour for a duration of about 7 days (U.S. Dept. 0:
State and EPA, 19i9).
The proposed incineration siee is approxi~:ely
45 ~ 30 nautical ~iles in size.
We previously assumed an instantaneous
deposition area on the order of 2 ~ 1010 cm2 or '0.2 x 10 km (Tables 10
and 12), thus a simple scenario for the burn of a load of waste would ~e
a series of lines within the dumpsite 45 nautical ailes in length at ehe
western ~oundary or th~ dumpsi:e, assuming a wind from a weseern quacrane.
A burn for 160 hours while seeaming at 9.7 knoes will require'a ship
track 1,550 nautical miles in length, which corresponds to about JS north-
south runs through the incineration site.
It is evident from this cal-
culation that considerations based on an instantaneous plume are inade-
quatej there will be cumulati~e deposition or wastes on the sea surface
from aultiple transects of the incineration ship.
As pointed out in Table 12 the flux of inorganic
ele~ents froa t~e
at~osphere to the ocean will vary greatly, depending on whether it occ~rs
by dry deposition or by rainfall.
i.'e will first examine a I.orst-case
. situation to deter.nine if the deposition on the ocean represents a sig-
nificant flux.
We will assume that the entire emission flux enters the
2 x 1'06 m2 area of the ocean beneath the plume, '...hi.:h ;:ould occur
during rainfall.
:hus, for ?b the flux to ~he ocean surface would ~e
5.5 :t
,~-1" , ., I
.u - g/C':1- sec.
:0:' a
ship ~oving at 5 a/see
trailing a 10 K:!
. pluwe eac~ square c~ under t~e plume will be e;
-------
thereby producing an elevation in the ambient concentration of 5.5 ng/kg
or 0.027 nmol/kg.' The cumulative effect of 35 transects to complete a
burn would be 0.9 nmol/kg which is about eq~al to the ~bient concentra-
tion.
Cnder conditions of efficient rainout for all inorganic elements
the effect on the ambient ocean water concentration will be proportional
to the emission rate/concentration ratio in Table 14.
A ratio of 3 x 109
corresponds to a doubling of the ambient concentration; a 3 x 1010 ratio
corresponds to a 10 fold increase above ambient concentrations.
We con-
clude that measurable increases in surface concentrations could be seen
for Pb, Cu, As, Ni, Zn, Fe, Co, Cr, Ag, Ti, and Sc during rainout.
In the preceding analysis we have taken an upper l~it for the
at~ospheric flux by considering rainfall conditions.
During dry depo-
s1t10n the flux to the ocean would be about 1: of the total and the
total deposit10n ~ould occur over a larger area.
Under these cond1tio~s
none of the 1aorganic element concentrations would be elevated beyond
natural variations.
In applying this consideration to organohalogen compounds we will
use PCB as an exacple of the possible elevation of oceanic concentra-
tions.
!he maximum gas flux to the ocean be~eath a plume 0.2 x 10 k~
was calculated to be 4 x 10-13 g/c~2/sec in Table 10.
The incinera-
tion ship is assumed to steam with a speed of 5 m/sec (about 9.8 kts)
acd we will assume that the 10 kQ ?lume travels above the sea surface
with this effective ~peed.
Actually the duration of the plume over a
fixed par: of the oce~n is c~ntrolled by dispersion and advection rather
than move~ent of the ship, but the preceding approach will provide an
estizate of the duration of the 4 x 10-13 g/c~2/sec flux from the
plume produced by the Qoving ship.
The time during which a square c~
D-57
-------
of ocean surface will be under a 10 km long plume produced by a ship
Qoving ae 5 Q/sec is 2000 sec.
square c~ is 8 A 10-10 g/c~2.
Thus, che co cal inpue 0 f PCE Co ehi s
We will assume chae chis amoune of
PC3 ~ixes 1:0 a depch of 20 m which will resulc i~ a concencral::on
increase of 0.4 ng/kg for each cransie of the ship.
A tocal burn of 3S
transits could lead to a cumulative concentration increase of 14 ng/kg.
Bidleman et al., (1976) summarized PCE concentracions in surface ocean
wacers based on a number of invesc1gacions from 1971-1975.
Values for
che Sargasso Sea co Ne~ York Bighc and che New England concinencal
. ,-
s~e..:
were 0.8 ng/ kg.
Thus, che gas phase flux of PCB co che upper 20 c
of
che ocean during a 160 hour burn of waste could elevace che ocean ?CB
conceneration 17 fold.
Tee EPA qualiey cricerion for PCB in fresh and
Qar1ne waeers is 1 ng/l, ehus ehe effece of at-sea incineracion of
wastes in the proposed dumpsite could exceed the EPA cricerion by ~ore
than 10 fold.
An addic10nal point should be considered in che behavior of concam-
inants transferred co che ocean by gas phase exchange when compared co
che inorganic ele:enes which cay be cransferred ac a :1a:d::lum race by
rain: all.
!able 10 implies that (20/3800) x 100 . 0.2: of the PCB is
absorbed by t:he ocean beneach che 2 A 1010 ce2 plume.
!f all the
non-cocbusced PCB is eventually absor~ed by the ocean che area 0: i:pac:
will be cuch greater chan thac in che preceding analysis which consid-
ered only the region beneath che plume.
7he available model is inade-
qua:e co esti::lace che cocal i::lpac: on ocean concencracions, ~ue i:
should ~e realized chac our escica:e 0: l~ ag/kg in a vol'~e of che
ocean 200 ~ x 83 ~ x
20 ~ has accounced for only 0.2: of :he PCB
released.
D-58
-------
!he duration over whi~h elevaced con~entrations ~ay persist depends
on the rates of dispersion and removal from che surfa~e .acers.
Our 0 b-
servations of wasces at 106~1ile Ocean i.raste Disposal Sice as well as
physical models of dispersion suggest that elevaced concencrations can
persist for days under non-storm conditions.
An analysis of the frequency
of sto~s in the region could provide a basis for the duracion of elevaced
concentrations assuming they are eliminated by che eru1anced mixing pro-
duced by a storm.
In addition Co physical dispersion one may expecc
removal of inorganic and organic substances from che waCer by adsorption
onto particles suspended in the water, arid by incorporation into the biota.
These pro~esses can provide a means of. contaminant removal from the surface
waters and transfer to deep ocean by the gravitational flux of large part i-
des.
The rates of these processes are not known wich much precision, and
they will vary with the type and intensity of biological activity.
D.
~aste Accumulation on the Bottom
!here is no basis for expecting that the combustion produ~:s would
reach the seafloor in an identifiable manner in the Slope Water region
with .ater depths in excess of 2000 m.
!he most likely way chat com-
bustion produces could enter the benthi~ environment are for the plume
or the waters in whi~h it is deposited co pass over che ~oncinencal
shalf where the water depth is 50-100 m.
There is considerable eviden~e
for ~hem1cally stable waste substances such as PCB and kepone being able
to ac~umulate in continental shelf sediments.
!he maxi..::n.t:l concentra-
tlons actainable are a function or the duracion of the input and the
sedi~enta:ion race.
A quantitative estimate would require the develop-
~ent or a model .hich is not available ac the present
ti::1e.
0-59
-------
..
.. .
The ~ximum Fallout: Rat:e t:o :taint:ain \;acer Qualit::r Criceria
In est:imacing t:he maximum fallout: rat:e, whi~h will noc produce a con-
cent:rat:ion increase great:er chan che Wacer Qualicy Criceria (Table 15)
aft:er four hours, we will make che following consideracion.
Four hours
will be sufficient cime to mix the concaminants co a depch of 20 m, but
there will not: be appreciable horizont:al dispersion away from the initial
pl ume.
Chemical and biological removal will noC be significanc in a
4 hour time period.
If we take PCB as an example of a gas phase concaminant
that could set the maximum p~rmissible fallout, we calculace chac 1 ng/1
,
to a depch of 20 m represencs 2 ng/cn- deposicion.
If this deposicion
occurs over a 2000 sec period corresponding Co a 10 kw pl~e extendi~g
behind a ship moving 5 m/sec, che maximum per.nissible flux of PCB is
-12 2 .
1 x 10 g/C':!1 /sec. . If chere is a possibility of cumulative deposition
due to multiple transits within che incineracion site the ~~(imum pe~is-
sible flux will be [( 1 x 10-12) ;. n] g/cm2/sec where n is the nl.T.lber of
multiple cransits.
The calculacion of~axim~ pe~issible fallout based on ~~or~anic
elemencs can not: be done meaningfully, because only chree ele~en:s
have
specific concentrat:ion criceria.
The amount or Hg and Cd ~ere not
specified in che eQission rat:es provided (Appendix 1) and ~~ does not:
represent a major component of I:he waste.
The other element:s' criceria
are given relat:ive 1:0 "sensicive organisms" for which lOe 'r.ave no spec-
Hic daca.
In t:he absence oi suit:able cri:eria for inorganic elemencs
, we might: consider il: acceptable co double che ambient: concen:ra:ions 0:
elemen:s such as Cu,
:ii, C::-, or Ag.
On chis basis :he li~i:i~g
conc'.i-
t:ion will occur during rai:l=all deposi:ion oi all che ~norganic
:1a:e=:.al
1:1 :he plume.
Let: C be che accepcable concencra:ion increment: of :~e
D-60
-------
Table 15.. Summary of 1976 U.S. EPA IJater Quality Cdteria.
1.
Elements for which specific oarine concentrations are given.
Element
Hg
Cd
:m
Acceptable Concentration
O. 1 ug/l
5 .0 ug/ 1
100 \.Ig/l
2.
Elements for. which the criteria are specified as 0.01 ti~es the
LCSO based on a sensitive marine organism.
Element
~i
Ag
Se
3.
Elements for which the criteria are specified as 0.01 ti~es the
LCSO based on a sensitive fresh water organism.
Element
Pb
Zn
4.
Element for ~hich the criteria are 0.1 ti~es the LCSO for a
sensitive ~arine species.
Element
Cu
s.
Organic substances for which specific
are given.
:ta=;.ne
concent:-a::ions
Substance
PCB
DOT
Parathion
Xalathion
Acceptable Concentration
1 ng/l
1 ng/l
40 ng/l
100 ng/l
de?osit~d element in nmole/kg or cmole/l.
Then 2C will be the
~01e/~2 that can be deposited, assuming that mL~ing distributes t~e
element to 20 m de?th.
1: this deposition is generated by a 2000 sec
flux (the tice required for the shi? to travel the 10 km length or the
plume at 5 c/sec) the flux ~i:l be C/lOOa nmole/c:1/sec.
-" . - ,
~ ..~ s : - u.~
extends over a~ area that is 2 x 1010 ~2 so that maximum e:ission
rate is
2 x 107 C nmole/sec
- ...
or I.~ X
1010 C ru:1ole/hr.
1: .e take
D-61
-------
into account the possible accumulation of contami~ancs due Co n
transects through the region, the maximum emission rate becomes (7.2 x
1010 C/n) nmole/hr.
Ii we take n - 35, the rate becomes 2 x 109 C
nmole/hr.
For ?b ~e would take C ~ 0.6 and the maxizuQ emission ra:e
(~R) ~ould be 1.2 mol/hr; for Cu C ~ 1.9 and .1ER - 3.8 mole/hr; for Cr
C - 1 and ~~R - 2 mole/hr.
It is evident that with these criteria and
considerations of deposition froe the plume, the emission rates for some
elements listed i~ Table 15 exceed the maximum permissible.
D-62
-------
REFERENCES
Atkins, D.H.F. and A.E.J. Eggleton. 1971. Studies of at~osphe~ic
washout and deposition of BHC, dieldrin, and ?,P'-DDT usi~g
radio labeled i'escicides. L.1...EA, S~1/l42a/J2, Vie~na. i'p.521-545.
Atkinson, R., C.H. Breuer, J.N. Pitts, Jr., and H.L. Sandoval. 19i6.
Tropospheric and stratospheric sinks for halocarbons: Photooxida-
tion, O('D) atom, and OH radical reactions. J. Geophys. ~.,
g, 5765-5770.
Beardsley, R.C. and C.N. Flagg. 1976. The water structure, mea~
currents, and shelf water/slope water front on the New England
continental shelf. Mem. Soc. Roy. Sci. Liege, Series 6, Vol. 10,
pp. 209-Z25.
Beardsley, R.C., ~.C. Boicourt, and D.V. Hansen. 1976. Physical
oceanography of the middle Atlantic Bight. Limnol. Oceanogr.
Special Sympos., Vol. 2, pp. 20-)4.
Bidlecan, T.L, C.P. Rice, and C.E. Olney. 1976. High t:lolelcula::-
weight chlori~ated hydrocarbons in the air and sea: Rates and
mechanisms of air/sea transfer. In: :1arine Pollutant Trans.fer.
H.L. Windom and R.A. Duce, editorS: Lexington Books, Lexington,
~~. pp. 323-351.
Brower, .'J.A. 1977. Clicatic study of the New York Bigh~. In:
Baseline Report or Environmental Conditions in Deepwater-ouopsite
106. Vol. I, Physical Characteristics. ~O~~ Dumpsi:e Eval~ation
Report 77-1, Rockville, MD. pp. 117-218.
Cambray, R.S., D.F. Jeffries, and G. Toppi~g. 1975. An es:icate of
the input of at~ospheric t::-ace elecents i~to the ~orth Sea and
the Clyde Sea. UKAEA Harwell Report AERE-R 7733. 26 pp.
Chang, J.S. and J.E. Penner. 1978. Analysis of global budgets of
halocarbons. ~. Environ., 11,1867-1873.
Chesselet, R., J. !lorell1, and P. Buat-1-!enard. 1972. Soce aspects
of the geochemistry of carine aerosols. In: The Changing
Chemistry of the Oceans. D. Dyrssen and D7 Jagner, editors.
Wiley, New York, pp. 94-120.
Cox, R.A., R.G., Derwent, A.E.J. Eggleton, and J.E. Lovelock.
Photo~~emical oxidation of halocarbo~~ in the troposphere.
~. :.nv"-ron., lQ., 305-308.
19 i6.
D-63
-------
Cronn, D.R., R.A. Rascussen, E. Robinson, a~d ~.~. Harsch.
Halogenated compound identification a~d :easurement in
tropospher~ and lo~er stratosphere. J. Geophys. ~.,
5935-3944.
1977.
the
82.
Csanady, G.T. 1979. ~~a: drives the ~aters or the Conti~ental
Shelf? Oceanus, 22, (2), 28-35.
Derwent, R.G. and A.E.J. Eggleton. 1978. Halocarbon lifetices and
concentration distributions calculated using a t~c-dimens:onal
tropospheric model. ~. Environ., 11, 1261-1269.
Duce, R.A. and G.L. Hoff~an. 1976. At:ospheric vanadium transpor~
to the ocean. ~. ~nviron., 1£.989-996.
Duce, R.A., J.'.l. '.Jinchester, and T. Van Nahl. L965. Iodine,
bromine, and chlori~e in the Ha~aiian :arine at~osphere.
Geophys. ~., 70. 1775-1779.
J.
Duce, R.A., G.T. '..iallace. Jr., and 3.J. Ray. 1976., At:ospheric
trace metals over the :tew York Bight. :IO':'_~ Technical Report ::?L
361-HESA 4. 17 pp.
Duce R.A., G.L. HoffC4n, 3.J. Ray, 1.5. Fletcher, J.L. Fasching. S.R.
Plocrowicz, P.R. r,.;alsh. E.J. Hoffman. J.~. ~liller, and J.L.
Heffter. 1976a. Trace metals in the C4rine atmosphere: Sources
and fl~~es. In: ~rine pollutant Transfer. H.L. r,.;indom and R.A.
Duce, editors~ D.C. Heath, Lexington, :1..~. pp.77-119.
.
Duce R.A., B.J. Ray. G.L. Hoffman, and P.R. '.lalsh. 1976b. Trace
metal concentrations as a.func:ion 0: particle size in :arine
aerosols from Be~uda. Geophys.~. ~., l. 339-}43.
Duce, R.A., C.K. Vnni. P.J. Harder, B.J. Ray, C.C. ?atterson. D.:.!.
Settle, and '';.F. Fitzgerald. 1979. '.Jet and dry deposi.tion at
trace metals and halogens in the :arine envirorunent. ?resented
at the CACG? Symposium on the Budget and Cycles of Trace Gases
and Aerosols in the Atmosphere, Boulder Colorado, L2-18 August,
1979.
Fitzgerald,
mercury
applied
'..i.F. and G.A. Gill. 1979. Subnanogr~ dete~ina:ion
by t~o stage gold aC41gacation and gas phase detection
to at~ospheric analysis. ~.~., in press.
0:
Friedlander, S.K. 1973.
identification of air
Technol. , 1.. :35-240.
Ch~ical element balances and
pollutio~ sosurces. En~iron. Sci.
Gatz. D. 1977. Scave~ging ratio :easur=:ents :';l :'Z:?.C~X. :~:
?reci?i:a:ion Scave~ging. E1DA, ~ashing:~n, ~C. pp, 7:-37.
\
D-64
-------
Gordon, G.E., rJ .H. Zoller, and E.S. Gladney. 19 i4. AbClot":lally
enriched trace elements in the at:osphere. In: Trace Substances
in Environmental Health, VII. D. Hemphill, editor. Cniversi:y
of Missouri, Columbia, MO. pp. 161-166.
Harvey, G.R. and rJ.G. Steinhauer. 19i4. At:ospheric transport 0:
polychlorobiphenyls to the ~ot'th Atlantic. At:os. Environ., 8,
7i7-iS2. ------
Jaenicke, R. 1979. Uber die dynamik a~osphorischer aitkenteilche~.
Berichte der Bunsen - Gesellschaft, in press.
Junge, C.E. 1957. Chemical analysis of aerosol particles and trace
gases on the island of Hawaii. Tellus, i, 528-537.
Junge, C.E. 1977. Basic considerations about trace constituents in
the atmosphere as related to the fate of global pollutants. In:
Fate of pollutants in the Air and rJater EnvironmeClt, Part 1.
I.H. Suifet, editor. ~iley, ~ew York. pp. ]-25.
Kneip. T.J. and X. Eisenbud. 1974. Trace metals in urban aerosols.
Progress Report to the American Petroleum Institute and Edison
Electrical Institute, Contract ~o. 8-02~8-0i8. 135 pp.
Lillian, D., H.B. Singh, A. Appleby, L. Lobban, R. .~ts, R. Gumpert,
R. Hague, J. Toomey, J. Kazazis, X. Antell, D. Hansen, and B.
Scott. 1975. Atmospheric fates of halogenated compounds.
Environ. Sci. Technol., 1" 1042-1048.
. Liss, P.S. 1973. Processes of gas exchange across an air-water
interface. DeeD-Sea Res., :0, 221-238.
Liss, P.S. and P.G Slater. 1974. Flux of gases across t~e air-sea
interrace. Nature, 2t.7, 181-184.
Luidberg, S.E., R.C. Harriss, R.R. Turner, D.S. Shriner, and D.D.
Huff. 1979. ~1echanisms and rates or a t:nospheric deposition of
selected trace el~ments and sulfate to a deciduous forest
watershed. Oak Ridge ~ational Lab, EnvironQental Sciences
Division Pub. No. 1299, Oak Ridge, Term. 514 pp.
NAS. 1978. The Tropospheric
Substances to the Oceans.
~ashington, DC. 243 pp.
Transport of Pollutants and Other
National Academy or Sciences,
~atusch, O.F.S., J.R. rJallace, and C.A. Evans, Jr. 1974. Toxic
trace elements: Preferential concentration in respirable
particles. Scie~ce, 183, 202-204.
~OAA. 19iJ~ Enviro~ental Co~di:ions ~i:hi: Speci:ied Geographic
Regions: Offshore East and ~est Coast of the ~~i:ed States and in
:~e Gul: or ~1e:
-------
?aige, S.F., L.B. Baboolal, M.J. Fisher, K.H. Scheyer, A.~. Shaug,
R.L. Tan, and C.F. Tho~e. 1978. Environmencal Assessmenc:
At-Sea and Land-Based Incineracion of Organochlorine ~asces.
Environmental ?rocection Technology S~ries, ~?A-600/2-78-087,
EPA, ~ashi:lgtorl, DC. 71 pp.
Peirson, D.H., P.A. Cawse, L. Sal::lon, and a.5. CaClbray. 1973. :-:ace
elements in the at~ospheric environment. ~ature,~, 252-256.
Que Hee, 5.5., a.G. Sutherland, and ~. Vetter.
of 2,4-0 concentrations in air samples from
Environ. Sci: Technol., 1,62-66.
1975. GtC analysis
central Saskatchewan.
Raha, K.A. 1971. Sources of trace ele~encs in aerosols - an
approach to clean air. Ph.D. Thesis, Universicy of ~chigan.
Rahn, K.A. 1976. The Che:ical composition of the at~ospheric
aerosol. Technical Repo~c, Universicy of Rhode Island. 265 pp.
Rahn, [CA., R.D. Borys, and R.A. Duce. 1976.
gases: inorgan~c and o~ga~ic ccmporlents.
Tropospheric halogen
Science, L92, 549-550.
Schmel, G.A. and S.L. Sutcer. 1974. Parcicle depositiorl races
water surface as a function of particle diameter and air
velocity. 1. Rech. ~.,~, 911-920.
on a
Singh, H.B., L.J. Salas, H. Shigeishi, and E. Scri~ner. 1979.
A~ospheric halocarbons, hydrocar~ons, arld sulfur he~afluoride:
global distribucion, sources, and sinks. Science, 203, 899-903.
U.S. Dept. of State and EPA. 1979. Final Enviro~mencal I::l?act
Stace:enc for incineracion of ~astes at sea under the 1972 ocean
ducping convencion.
U.S. EPA. 1976. Quality Criteria for ~ater.
Procection Agency, ~ashingt~n, DC, 20460.
U.S. Enviroccencal
~bitby, K.T., R.B. Husar, and B.Y.H. Liu. 1972. The aerosol size
distribution of Los Angeles $nog. J. Colloid Interface Sci.,~,
177-204.
Young, J.A. and ~.a. Silker. 1979. Aerosol deposition velocities on
the Pacific and Atlancic Oceans calculated frOCl 7Se
::leasurements. U.S. Depar:~ent of E~ergy Concract EY-76-C-06-1830
Report. 31 pp.
Young, J.A., ~.S. Laulai~en, t.L. ~endell, and T.~. :anner.
:he use of ele::tencal concentracion ratios co dis:ing~ish
?lumes of different no~:heaster~ cities. Annual ~e?o::,
~o:thwest La~oracories, ~chland, ~A.
1975.
~e :-..een
Sat:elle
D-66
-------
Appoint I x I
IAI5IE 1-7. CAI.CUIATr.il AI'MlOXUl/UE OilSSIOII HATES OF IIIOKGAIUC ILCIOFS
I loncnl
Lead
Ilii r i uni
lodini;
lii Iver
Mitlylidcnum
7 i rroiiiiiin
St rout iiini
Kuhidiuin
llromine
Sole-ilium
Arsonic
Gal 1 iuiii
Xinc
Capper
Kllll
Mil
III
I
I
Coiicen tr.it ion
in Waste
(|>pm)
5-20
1 0-20
2-1
1-0
10-20
1-5
5-30
0.5-1
5-10
1-5
1-5
0.5-2
10-30
10-30
Calm liilcd
emission
Rate (lfj/hr)
0.1-0.1
0.2-0. 'I
0.01-0.09
0.02-0.2
0.2-0.1
0.02-0. I
0.1-0.7
0.01-0.02
0.1-0.2
0.02-0. I
0.02-0. I
0.01-0.01
0.2-0.7
0.2-0.7
LlCiiu'iit
Hitkol
Cnlialt
I ron
Manganese
Chromium
Ti tanlum
Scandium
Potassium
Sn) fur-
Si 1 Icon
A lu:ni inn,)
fluorine
Boron
L illiiuui
Concentration
in Uavtu
(|l|Hll)
10-100
1-5
30-100
1-5
5-200
10-20
0.1-1
-300
30-60 .
90-100
10-50
10-50
1-10
0.5-2
Co leu l.l ltd
I'm ir, si on
Rat,.- (Mj/hr)
0.2-2
0.02-0.1
0.7-9
0.02-0.1
0.1-4
0.2-0.1
0.002-0.0
7
"" /
0.7-1
••?.
0.2-1
0.2-1
0.02-0.2
0.0 1-0. 01
-------
Appendix E
SAFETY PLAN FOR THE INCINERATION
OF HAZARDOUS WASTES ABOARD THE M/T VULCAN US
E-i
-------
CONTENTS
POTENTIAL HAZARDS AND TE~~INATION OF A BURN
Personnel Protective Equipment
Personnel Hygiene. .
. . . . . .
Safety Procedures and Monitoring
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
E-iii
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . E-l
. . . E-2
. E-3
. . . E-S
-------
Appendix £
SAFETY PLAN FOR THE INCINERATION
OF HAZARDOUS WASTES ABOARD THE M/T VULCANUS
This appendix prasencs a. general safety plan for Che incineracion of
hazardous wastes aboard the M/T VULCANUS. Prior to the incineration of
Herbicide Orange in the Pacific Ocean in 1977, a detailed safety plan was
prepared. The plan was demonstrated to work effectively, and will be closely
adhered to during future incineration operations.
The scope of the plan is limited to shipboard operations. Specifically
excluded are the safety requirements for ship loading operations, vhich are
covered by USCG and OCS standard procedures.
POTENTIAL HAZARDS AND TERMINATION OF A BURN
Specific wastes destined for at-sea incineration must be scrutinised for
potential health hazards of the primary wasta(s) and associated contaminants.
For example, in the case of Herbicide Orange, the trace contaminant TCDD vas
of particular concern because of its high toxicity. The primary wastes, 2,4-D
and 2,4,5-T, were relatively less hazardous. For a substance such as PCS,
highly toxic PCDF contamination must be considered, in addition to exposure co
?CB.
Threshold limit values (TLV) for specific waste components are used to
determine maximum prolonged exposures to atmospheric concentrations of toxic
substances. The TLV is a time-weighted safe air concentration value or index
for an 8-hour work day or 40-hour work week. Based on the TLV a range of
time-limited personnel breathing zone concentrations, considered safe, are
determined. In the event that the TLV of any monitored substance is exceeded,
corrective measures must be undertaken immediately, or incineration of wastes
terminated.
E-l
-------
Incineration may be terminated if at any time the plume is observed to
remain in contact with the vessel, even after corrective measures have been
taken. Similarly, incineration will be terminated if spills occur onboard the
vessel and cannot be readily contained or cleaned.
Incineration will also be terminated if stack gas concentrations of waste
compounds are obsserved to fall below the prescribed minimum combustion
efficiency of 99.91.
PERSOKNEL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
Due to the potential health hazard relating to the incineration of wastes
aboard the M/T VULCANUS, special safety requirements have been established for
all personnel to ensure that no hazards exist. To ensure adequate protection,
issued coveralls shall be worn, as appropriate, as well as protective gloves,
shoes, and masks. In addition to the normal equipment used in this type of
activity, the following items will be provided.
(1) An approved pesticide gas respirator
(2) Fire extinguishers
(3) Firefighter entry suits
(4) Scott Air Pak
(5) Portable emergency eye baths; at least two of these must be present
continuously in the pump room, as well as in the burner room.
All personnel that will be onboard the M/T VULCANUS and may enter a
potentially contaminated area will be duly trained on the proper use and
operation of the above equipment.
Other general safety requirements that will be adhered to are the
following:
(1) All personnel within the incinerator area and/or sampling area
during the incineration of wastes will have an approved gas mask
available for immediate use.
E-2
-------
*
(2) If an emergency condition La detected, all personnel will be
•
notified to don masks and to evacuate a given area if accessary.
(3) Personnel exposed Co high temperatures and/or direct thermal radiation
vill wear entry suits.
(4) Confirmed or suspected spills vill be reported to the shipmaster and
the safety officer for proper cleanup.
Methods of personnel hygiene concur vith the 'concepts of personal
cleanliness, isolation of contaminated areas, and preservation of "clean"
areas vhich are described herein. Most procedures designed to protect
personnel from hazards are a compromise between the ideal condition of
complete avoidance of exposure, and the reality of providing safe conditions
in areas in vhich work can be performed.
•Proper personal hygiene practices are of primary importance ia preventing
exposure of personnel to hazardous materials. Of equal importance is the
establishment of "clean" areas, in vhich personnel can coexist normally; the
isolation of the hazard ia areas vhere contamination is expected and can be
dealt vith; and the maintenance of an interface betveen the tvo areas vhich
can be crossed, vhile maintaining the integrity of the clean area and the
safety of personnel therein.
It ia anticipated that the first opportunity for exposure vould come from
spills and leaks in the system. The exposed liquids vill evaporate only
partially, especially from hot decks and tankage areas belov decks, and the
•
very hot combustion room.
E-3
-------
Liquids may be tracked
way into the eating and
estab lished between the
over the decks and passageways and may find c:heir
living quarters, unless an inviolate interface is
personnel hygiene against hazardous materials are:
two' areas.
!he
basic
effecc:ive
requirements
for
(1)
Protection of personnel from vapor and liquid contact
contaminated areas by source control and protective gear.
1.n
ehe
(2)
Provision of disposable clothing and food covers.
(:3)
Provision of disposal facilieies at .the inee:-face reg:1.on between the
contaminated and clean areas.
(4 )
Provisions or a shower, hand, face, and eyewashing facilities ae the
interface region.
(5)
Provision of clean clothing and foot cover~ng at the boundary of the
clean area upon return to working areas.
(6)
Instruction in the use of the cleaning and protective equipment, and
in methods of personal cleansing.
(7)
Mandaeory and enforced use of the above facilities and concepc:s.
Smoking, eating, or drinking from containers or cups should be avoided in
potentially contaminated areas. This also applies to personnel who have not
showered or otherwise cleansed themselves after being in potentially
contaminated areas.
The living quarters must be cleaned daily and c:horoughly.
The pump room and the burner room are to be considered as coneaminated
areas. The number of people enterb.g tbese rooms must be restricted. There
!:!lust be
interface
regions between these two rooms and the rest of the shi?
Wnen leaving ehese rooms clothes and shoes must be changed and a shower muse
be taken before entering other areas of the ship. HoC: and cold drinks,
disposable cups,
emergency eye baths,
and the opportunity for hand washing
E-4
-------
muse be present at all times in the burner room. Flashlights oust be also
present at all times in the burner room and in the pump room. They are only
to be removed from these rooms for destruction by incineration.
Whenever possible Che routes taken by personnel should be planned so chat
Che entrance to the .working area and exits from the working area are separate.
Disposable shoe covers must be provided at entrances and they must be
incinerated after use. The hourly watch rounds must be made in the following
manner and in no other: from the burner room to the generator room to the
pump room, and baclc again to the burner room. The indoor floor on this route
must be covered with heavy, disposal paper, and it must be renewed regularly.
The floor and the deck on this route must be cleaned daily. One shall never
go directly from the pump room and the burner room to Che living quarters,
ness room, galley, bridge, toilets, or passageways.
There must be a monitoring system based on wipe sampling and analysis
onboard to ensure that clean areas remain so.
Finally, all working personnel should be made aware of Che need for good
personal hygiene, and of Che consequences to themselves and others if poor
personal cleanliness and poor housekeeping are occurring. A training program
should be developed and personnel should be instructed in personal hygiene
practices. The effectiveness of the program will depend on the degree Co
which personnel accept the training, willingly put the principles co use, and
cooperate in preventing exposure. Personnel who are unwilling or unable co
accept and apply Che personal hygiene procedures should be excluded from
contact with and entry to the working area by direction of :he shipmaster.
SAFETY PROCEDURES AND MONITORING
The safety of all shipboard personnel will have top priority during the
incineration of wastes onboard the incineration vessel. As a minimum the
following safety precautions are required, as they apply before, during, and
after burn operations. These safety precautions are grouped by participating
organizations to define and emphasize areas of responsibility.
E-5
-------
M/T VULCANUS
(1) The tank system will be maintained to minimize the escape of vapors
into the atmosphere.
(2) Any waste spills, leaks, or residuals detected shall be immediately
contained, and the area restricted until decontamination is
completed.
(3) Whenever the piping system has to be opened for repairs or
replacements, the part of the system to be repaired shall be flushed
for at least 3 minutes with gas oil whenever possible.
(4) Fugitive wasce emissions from the waste pumping room or any other
source shall be minimized.
(5) An automatic shutoff device shall be in operation on both furnaces,
set to turn off the flow of wastes if the temperature reading
indicates the flame temperature drops below 1,250*C.
» •
(6) The furnace nay be brought up to operating temperature at a race
consistent with ship's practice and experience, using fuel oil.
When the furnace flame temperature has reached 1,280°C (using
correlated thermocouple or optical pyrometer measurements), the feed
stock may be switched over to wastes. The practice of converting to
waste feed by setting furnaces on successive stream should be
followed. The flame temperature of the furnace must be restored to
at least the original level of 1,280°C before the next burner is
changed over to waste.
(7) During tank changeover, prior to each subsequent tank depletion, and
any time prior to the time when any water or uncotnbustibls liquid
will be injected into the incinerator, the ship shall be underway,
and oriented in such a direction as to minimize plume impingement,
E-6
-------
should incinerator flame be extinguished. .At least 15 minutes
before tank depletion pumping will be switched 30 that two burners
of each incinerator will be fed from a full tank, with the remaining
burner used to deplete the material in the emptied tank.
(8) Temperature and combustion monitoring of the furnaces will be in
effect during the changeover. The continuous record of temperature
shall also be maintained during this time.
(9) The operational controls and monitoring panels shall be manned at
all times by a responsible individual to ensure the incinerators are
operating within desired combustion parameters.
(10) A device for the addition of ammonia to produce a visible plume will
be installed and made operable.
(11) The speed and direction of the M/T VULCANUS during waste
incineration will be controlled in such a manner' as to prevent
incinerator plume contact with any part of the ship.
(12) The M/T VULCANUS should demonstrate the ability to maintain 24-hour
communication by voice and by code, using frequencies and channel
appropriate to the area, and to the conditions of transmission and
reception. This requirement supplements, but is not intended to
supersede or replace the existing communication equipment. Daily
communication will be required to report test progress and
conditions. Emergency conditions will be reported as soon as
possible.
(13) Personnel of the M/T VTJLCANUS will give a briefing on ship safety
procedures and regulations. This shall include, but not be limited
to, the assignment of lifeboat xseats and at least one lifeboat
drill.
E-7
-------
(14) The M/T VULCANUS will comply with all applicable U.S. Coast Guard
(USCC) rules and regulations governing a ship of this class- and
specification.
(15) Appropriate first aid supplies shall be available onboard Che M/T
VULCANUS for emergency situations.
EPA/USCG
(1) Appropriate first aid and medical supplies and trained aedical
personnel will be available onshore to respond to emergency
situations onboard the M/T VULCANUS.
(2) A plan will be developed and in readiness to cover emergency rescue
or medical requirements of shipboard personnel during operations at
sea. An EPA representative will brief all EPA and vessel personnel,
as well as' key personnel (as determined by the ship's captain),
regarding Che provisions of this plan.
(3) Monitoring of the incinerator stack gases for CO and CO, will be
^
carried out by the sampling/monitoring crew. The CO and CO,
determinations will be used to ensure that the desired degree of
combustion efficiency (99.91) is achieved during incineration.
(4) Sampling of the stack gases for organohalogen waste residues, if
any, shall be carried out by the sampling/ monitoring crew. The
levels of the stack gases will, preferably, be determined onboard
the M/T VULCANUS.
(5) If possible, an" onboard air monitoring system for waste will be
operated.
(6) If possible, an onboard monitoring system for the detection of
spills and leaks of waste, based on Che analysis of wipe samples,
will be operated.
E-8
-------
(7) A sampling system for locating the plume shall be established, using
HC1 in the air on the ship as a tracer indicator. If levels of HC1
reach 0.1 to 0.5 ppm, immediate corrective actions will be taken.
Immediate withdrawal of personnel from areas with HC1 concentrations
equal to or in excess of 5 ppm is mandatory. Any location with
positive results shall be recorded, together with wind direction,
wind speed, vessel heading, and vessel speed.
(8) Reports of significant incidents of equipment malfunction, plume
impingement, personnel injury, or exposure will be prepared and
reported immediately by radio communications.to shore for subsequent
relay to other concerned units. In the event of serious injury or
exposure to personnel, EPA representative will consult with the
shipmaster and the safety officer to ensure compliance with
evacuation procedures. On return of the M/T VULCANUS co the shore,
a complete report of the incident will be submitted, and copies
transmitted to all concerned authorities.
SAFETY OFFICER
(1) The M/T VULCANUS crew and any other shipboard personnel boarding
the incineration vessel will be briefed by medical personnel and the
safety officer.
(2) The safety officer will in close' cooperation with the shipmaster,
survey all safety measures and precautions onboard the M/T VULCANUS.
E-9
-------
Appendix F
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS
The Draft EIS (DEIS) was issued in October 1980. The public vas encouraged
to submit written continents. This Appendix contains copies of written comments
received by EPA on the DEIS. There was a great variety of comments received;
thus, EPA presents tvo levels of response:
• Comments correcting facts presented in the .EIS, or providing
additional information, which have been incorporated into the text
and noted in this section.
• Specific comments, which were not appropriately traatad as text
changes, have been numbered in Che margins of Che letters, and
responses have been prepared for each numbered item.
Some written comments were received after the end of the comment period.
In order to give every consideration to public concerns, the Agency cook under
advisement all comments received up to the date of Final EIS production.
The EPA sincerely thanks all those who commented on the DEIS, especially
those who submitted detailed criticisms which reflected a thorough analysis of
the EIS. A list of the commenters by name and agency is presented in
Chapter 5.
P-l
-------
COMMENT
1
OfP AN 1',fH I :>f IHE AIR fORCE
.~-:',
~(...~.:... :'''>1
.' . '. ,.
,...- :.:.,
"'. -~,,-:J
'.~
h("O:JUAA1tH\ .".~ .OA~i t";';.Ula"I'IG ...0 .;- I...:;. '=.... 'i..
,...O.l'-L ..., "O~:I ~.'I. '..,JI.I::a \;:'J.'
,,-.... .~
l8 JA,. 19b'
DEV
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (£151 for proposed Horth
Atlantic Incineration Site De.ignation
EPA (Hr T. A. Wa.tler)
1-1
1. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force tor Environment
and Satety (SAF/HIO) forwarded the .ubject statement to u.
tor revle~ and cownent, Our technical statf has reviewed the
docUIII8nt and find no conflict with Air force 11118&lon, plans,
or policies.
f1
I
..J
2. We apnn.ci"tA th... o!>portunlty t.o CC=,"_'T.cr:t cr. ~hl~ ;>:c.t:-"'bil
action. Our project officer 18 HI' Hyron Anderson, (904128)-6165.
FOR TilE COIIHAUDER
J1~~~~01. USAF
Dir~f~~r~~~e~:.~ Plar-nlng
Cy to I
110 USAF/LEEV
110 USAF /LE .
CVAE
SAF/HIO
1-1
RESPONSE
Think you tor your rewl~ Ind comment,.
-------
"T1
,
~
2
DEPARTMENT 0,. Till( ARMY
HO.-nt An..ANT1C OIY'.ION. CO,," or aHoIH.....
N CHU"C;H .no.n
Haw Y_I<. H. Y. 10007
- ~. ---
NAtJPL-R
tJ 'ebruar, 1981
~r. r. A. I:.ulcr
Chief, HHlne 'rotecUon Branch (III...U8)
u. s. inv'lo"~entAl 'roCectaOR A..nc,
lIuhln~t"n, O. C. 10460
D..r ~(. U68tlera
.,.. u'I"..red, the Oreft [nvIrD_ental Impact Stare..ont for lhe Propoud North
AllantJc Inc/nenUon Slto OullnaUon h.. bun revlewod end our con.olldet.d
Co....nt. 81,J cut.clted. .
Thank ,uu for the oppurtunlt, to ravlaw th1. docu~ont.
Slncnd"
I Incl
Draft £15 ccann.~nt.
Z--{f! ~
Actlnl Chief, Phnnlnl D1v"1on '
-------
2-1
2-2
2-3
"'TI 2-4
,
lit
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-0
2-9
2-10
2:"11
COlJ'5 or DIG I"EUI5 /!AU COH!tEHT5 OH
DtAlT ENY 1It011KEHTAJ. IKPACT STATUI£NT fOil 1111::
rlor05£0 HORTU ATl4HTIC I"CIWlkATIO" SITE DESICHATIOH USErA
1. A Public Involve..ot, ..cctOG 10 IndlcaCe wht1' h.. bec" done In the p..,
And ,,1.8' I. to b. dune In th. future tn (hi. re..rd wuuld b. .0... approprlat.
eh.n the Incluaton 01 118,ln.. now loe.ced In the "Su....rr 5h..,' ..ctlun.
2. Th. ro."'.tloo./auI4.llo.. lodlc.t. that rCB conc.ntr.tlon. up to )00 pp.
Ct1n b. '.lel".I.l.cd. I. Ih. aolvant othe.. ".'IC.' If 10. It ~ould b. p~I.'bt.
to dilute ulln, other v..t.. end brlna An ..eluded level 01 rea w..t. to wlChln
peu"..lble 11.1,.. Th. nIt ."ect u\Juld b. (0 I..ve the ,... In.ule 10 tb. cco-
.yuo. (I... the loul aaounl 01 rell In . Iora.. vol..... 01 aolvont ..bleh
probably wuuld h.v. bun dlapoud 01 by Incto..atlon an1"ay.
). 11.0 h.porunc. 01 14.ntllylnl the deco..po.ltlon produc", quantllylnll th.ir
toxlcll'. .nd ev.lut1ttna tllclr ....lllanc8 10 Jn~8..er~(aon ahould b. .t~.'.84
if p01t-lncal.uratlon IClubbln. 1. 001 to b. dOI.e.
4. A aur. 4.t.l..4 4..c~lpllon 01 ch, .unitorln. proar.m Invlatoned by NOAA
(pa.. 2-141 ~ould b. lnloraetlv..
5. a..ld.nce tlad' and 'urnace C..plrlturel which vould producl ch. Ir.,c..,
PtUC81n1 co..bulc lon/dlC08lpOllc Ion .hauld b. u( 1.1.84 (0 reduce th. I";p.ct OD
U.. ecuI)'lte.. Tht. ill 0ppo1.4 to COI' .hvuld b. the prlca.lr)f crlterle u..4
10 d~t.r.ll.lnl cl.. condlt1onl lor toelnlr.tlon.
6. CO.lceotraclun I. on. IndIcator o' the ratl .t uhleh cont..lnetlon oecure;
hovev.r, tl.. Incl)'I.1 0' cl.1 .Ifect. OQ Ih. lealYlelm .hould .qua.l, ..ph.al..
total net Inpul 01 'ndlvld'I,1 Co.poncnc. (.I.lllr to what ua. don. 00 p... J-)J)
and ,1'0 account 'or proc..... .uch I' bhuccU8ulAtlon ul Ihl.1 .".rl.,I..
J. Ar. ch.re contln..nc, p.I":' 'DC' .cclll.nCal dr co~p.ll.d dl.chAr../.ptll..,
01 uncr..ced ~"c.J
a.
"0 1..Rlile.nc Impact I ar. antlciplted r,..rdlnl Corp.' .rl., 01 COoc.rn.
9.
Cover PIKo .. per HErA (SI)02-111 Ie -108'"11.
10. The IUDUD"", lectton doel 001. IncluJe lut~rm..U.un on .flY concrov.r.y or toek.
thereof. or " 80)' uor..olved allUd. r~~~ln.
,.. P..c~ 2-1 1&.11 Ah8enatlvcI (0 be ..a,cu'8~d. the !liub'cfI',,:nt loue V.Ce.
dllcu'. ..lterncHlve. nol. II.ted un Pili' 1-1. 'II!"." cl.,.,y.
2-3
2-4
2-1
COllnen t . noted.
2-2
"'Ii .ppro.ch will, fn .11 likelihood, be the prelerred 8lethod lor
the blending 0' .a.te..
A. accurately pointed out, clrtaln wa.te.
can be lurthlr diluted In the environment.
Advantage c.n al.o be
t.ken 01 the 8TU content 01 ~"Iel. .Inlmlrlng the need lor
lupp 1 eonenUry lue II.
(PA concurs.
Thl. proce.. would be done a. p.rt 01 the per.lt
application.
'he N'llonel Oce.nlc .nd At~lpherlc Admlnlltr.tlon (NOAA) II
currently conducting 80nltorlng .t the 106 Hlle Oce.n W'lte OI,pol.1
Site to detect ad,er.e en,lronment.1 I.p.ct..
A det.lled monitoring
plan h.. not yet b.en developed lor Ihe propo.ed Inclner.tlon .It.;
however, up.n.lon 01 the 106 IIlIe Ocean WISh Ohpoul Site
.Ionltorl"g progrA" to Include the propoled Inclnerulon lit. would
Integr.te ,.opllng procedure. .nd limit elpenle..
Append Ie C
provides. dllCul.lon 01 le,er.1 p.r.met.,. th.t wIll be conlldered
In luture mnltorlng operUlonl 01 the proposetl lite. See .110
rupon.. 1-1.
-------
TI
.
:h
2-8
2-9
2- JO
2-11
2-5
[I' A conlyn'l~ I suItJ/JI~ slle tor .t-Ie.
Ilh. Iflcf,t 1011.
Llnd-bUed d 111'0141 .,~tI'o.b ''-c IIul d IHUHed IS
.I'''(II.lIvcs 10 Ihe P(opo,~.1 ..:lIlIn. but 11I1""'ULCd .> co..." '.retlonl
,- ..
t',uOII..... 1<_,....
..
..
-
-------
""TJ
.
......,
3
/-: -,"'-
. T::'" ~
\ . '-j/o
-:.. ~
...... ..
UNItED STATES UEPAAIMEI..' Of COMMENCE
Ih. A..i.,...~ &ecr....rv 'er PollcV
W..'''f'Qt~' u.: ~1I;!:Ja
FEB , 2 1961
Me. T. A. w..tl.~
Chi.'. ".lln. Pl"otaccion
CUlI-SC81
Envjron...ntaa Peot.ctloR
Wuhln'lton. D.C. 10460
SrAnch
AgenCr
0.... Hc. w..tlcci
Tht. J. In raterence to roul" dl'.It anvlcol\ID8.l\taa jSllp.lct atateaent entitled.
'~ropo.ed North Atlantic Incln.ratlon &It. Do.19notCon." Th. onclooad
COnaenl.8 ',um the "-..ltl.. """'lnI8[...tlon and the NatlonAiI Oceanic and
At"",o..horlc AJIDlnhtutlon CllOAAI or. IOr>luded for your conoCdoutlon.
Ttwnk you tor qlvlnq u. an OPPOl"tunlty to provIde th... comment., which
we ho~ will L. 01 ...I.tance to rau. w. would aPPc8clata ..acalvln9
... 161 co~'e. 01 tho 'Inol .t.t...nt.
S'ncaraay.
~~J~~I :L.
Deputv A..lacan& ..orat.cy 'or
a.VUlatory 'oltcy CAct1nvl
Enclo8\U8 "8808 11'081
~annoth V. 'orb..
Ollic. 01 Shlpbuildln9 Coat.
Karltl... ~'ntotratlon
Charlo. A. aurrou9h.
Invlcon.antat O.t. .04 Intor~tlon S.rvt~.
NOA.A
Hc. Robert 8. Rollin.
N.ttonal Ocean Survey
110M
-------
3-1
"'T1
I
en
~~..-,
I ".1- ~\
. f>f.i - .
\ -":(1 ;
-'.......'"
UNIJEU STATES DEPARTMENT 0" COMMERCE
Marhlme Admin..,r.,ion
W..h.I'IQln" Ii C C!II..! 181
January 29, 1981
HEHORAtlDlI" FOR I
Bruce 8a rrett
Environmentai and Technical Evaluation Division
Ottice at Regulatory polley
SuL ject I
Environmental Protection Agency - Dratt Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) tor the Proposed tlorth Atlantic
Incineration Site Deaignation
The subject document has been reviewed ad requusted.
are as follows.
Our comments
1.
Intera2encr Review Board tor tho Chemical Waste Incinerator
sl\i e= ji roqr alilllfiii7CilB(»
The OEIS should record the (ormation ot an Intera'Jency Review Board
liRa) consisting at repreeont.tives (rom appropriate Federal agencies
to coordlnata and expedite 811 Federal Governn>ent activities related
to loglslatlon, funding, turther environmental evaluation, deeign,
construction, permitting, and operation at U.S. flag chemical waste
incinerator ahlpa. In addition, the IRa will develop procedures tor
the coordination at permlte required tor waterfront facilities,
ship certltlcatlon, and Incineretion of wastes and will evaluate
additional alternatives to promote the construction at privately
owned U.S. flag Incinerator ships. ISea the "Report of the Inter-
aqency Ad lIoc Work Group tor the Chemical Waste Incinerator Ship
Program."'
- .
The IRD views Incineration at aea a8 a major element In an overall
Integrated haz..rdous waste management matrix. Theretore, although
the Board'. main purpose 1a to pureue Incineration at 8.a, the Board
i8 also I"tore.ted in the complete 8poctrum of tochnoloqiee tor
treatment, rocycllng, and incineration on land .0 that every viable
process m..y be doveloped to achieve an ultimate disposal pr0'lram
which utilizes each technoloqy in h. most appropriate role. 1I1'lh
temperature Incineration, whether on land or at 5"", Is the most
effectivu method available today for the destruction of comtJustlblll
haz..rdous wastes, destroying 99.99 percent of the wit"tes. Incineration
that occurs at ..ea removes the destruction ..I tll from pupulated a,-e.1S,
wilich Is of specl..1 value when incinerating the nlOst toxic wAstes.
3-1
Teot modlfl8d, Chlptrr I, under lettlon "Purpose of Ind Need for
"ctlon. "
-------
..."
I
\D
3-4
3-5
2
2.
Ha..te !}uantltlea Available tor At-S".. Incineration, P"'Jes
~! !;-r - n;2=rT,aria 2=)~
3-2
The t
-------
3-6
./
"TI
1 3-7
-'
o
3-8
)-9
concerning this Project In July 1976. Subsequently, the
Harltlme Admlnl8tratlon/Hilrltlme Subeldy Board approvdd the rEIS
and concluded that tho Pr010ct .hould be pursued Ylth federal
Asalstallcu. The HorAd old plan, a8 currently described, Involve.
several elementsl 101 loon guaronteeo to aid III the conatructlon
of Incinerator shlpo, Ibl .010 ot "aUonal Oetellse Meservo neet
vessels tor conversion to Incinerator shlps~ and Icl flna~clAI
support tor An Incinerator ohlp system satety analysis. HarAd Is
endeavoring to expand thl. as.lstance program 45 part ot Its
participation In the Interagency Chemical Wasle Incinerator Ship
Program.
6.
~l~~ Diseersal. page 1-21
Figure 1-) Implies that the plume from an Incinerator ship Is
highly visible and black In color. To lhe contr.HY, the naturally
oceun 1119 plume rangeo trom white In color tq being prllctlcllily
Invisible, depending Oil meteorological conditlolls. It Is strongly
rdconunendcd that figure 1-) be redratted lo properly conflguro the
true nalure of the Incineration plume.
7.
Economics, page 2-14
The cost ustlmotes 118tod under "olebaky 119781 lire baslld on
unlnfloled 1977 dollar..
8.
Organohalogell Na.to., page 2-4)
Tho tlr8t oentonc. ot the .econd p8r.groph 8ho\lld b. rowrittenl
"During Incineration of organochlorine wIIstes. . ."
9.
Air Ouality, pogo 4-9
The dev..lopment of seawater .crubber technology will greatly decreaoe
any Impacts on air quality due to Incineration operations.
We would appreciate receiving two caples of the fEIS.
~ I.J.-.?-~
I
-------
4
."
I
--
--
4-3
4-4
4-5
,,"'-,
. .. . '"
J. ,.' ~
_c..a- .
UrJlTED ST ~TE5 CfP.\AT:llfNT OF corM,HAC::
N~uunill Oc;:..nic ..ntJ ~tmo~pn.ric Adminutration
:'~~).."'r:;:I~r:~~'~~~.:i.:-:-.~':" C "'.it:':M':"!;:. :::.":::
-:. .
\. ~~... l
-"...."...;-
C.Ulcer toe Envl(onca.:nt.al As.c..m.tnt S~rvlc.1
J~uu..y 29, 1981
OA/on/CAB
TO:
PP/EC - Joyc. Vuod
oA/Dn - ~:f{ ~
FIIOH:
SIlIUECT:
OtIS 8012.28 - Ho~th Atl~ortc Inc!o.r.r!uo SIt. Deslan~tloo
Th. s..bJecr dnlt ~.po~r ".. tOOl.rded to thll ofttc. tor revle.. by Dr.
I:enneth lI.d..n. D~. Stlphcu V. r.hler, udl chemic" ocunuauph.~, hll beeo
thl prloctpel revte...e~ 01 the upon, Co.....ou belo\l U. I("~ 'o..~ coodde~atlon.
(I)
Cena..l fot~od..crtoo
The at-~.. {nela.r.cloD of ar..ote wa.tel 18, lQ principia. aQ .ttrA~tlv.
8080. 01 ellmlnarloa lod...trld "aU.I ~nd byproduct.. In the DElS, ..vcr~l
~lterlllt1Y.. to rhe p~opol.d dtepoul dte ne ...aa.ar.d. The DUS, ho...ever,
duel not f..ll, .dd~... .11 tha sclenrtllc and techolc.l Is...e. to be ccolldered
~. pertlnBnt. Deflct.octa. .~. oored 10 the dl.c...llool ot chlorlo. a.., IIC1,
UObUCl18d uca.lnoh.aloltW.. aDd th. ... .urf.c8 mlcl'ololyer.
(2)
Trae. Conc.ut~.cloQ. 0' Chlacto. c..
4'-1
Th. pot.ntlel p~oducrloq 01 chlo~ln. ao. (Clf) b, the locln.retloo pro~...
1. au"..led On 51... 1-1. .nd 1. r...rd.d I. ".10 mal". "uud.r opt1cul combu,nton
condltloo.." To the co~r~l~y, the por.otl~1 Ivr r.lee.. 01 CI2 II probe~l, quit.
hlah. lIot., thot Table 4-) I"". cooc.otratlono lor dl h.loaono uCOpt C12'
!(hy' Su... h~lulen.. .... FI..orto. h.d quit. !!l~h couconult!un. ("p to ~O pp..) ,
and fluu(I... "'.. 0111y . '18.11 pc-oporcton 10 the W"lt..urn.d mAter 1.. r....tlve lo
cl.lorloe. 00.. thl. tlble r.lar (0 elrm...t.l or 8tOmtc fluor'o.1 TI,. ..ctloD on
IICI , CI, Ipl. 4-16) 0180 hU. to d88l \11th C12' hOIl on onvlroruuntel ~nd ,
human h.alth .tanJpoJut. Cil I. ...:r...I, haportanc. lQul C8n8 hua.an ,xpolur. 10
Cll .hould .101 ..c..J 1 PP8 (CRC Handbook.. Ie 1. 1..(oo.ly lu.peCt.J (1.8t ..v~r~l
1,~nJre4 to ,.vlr.t thou'lnd ppm will b. producld by the burnln~ procI.,. ,Further-
marl, thl dnvtro..mcntla chlmlatrr 01 chloriDe i.' I. qult~ dl(l.r&I" trom HC1.
CI~ II very .olubl. In \lIter () vol..me. C12 10 I vol~a of dl.rllied wetor .t
10 C). II.. th.. lolubtlhy 01 C1, to ".\lU" be..n ..udled? It ohould b. 0 port
01 the DEIS. :Jnltl... IIC1, CI2 ",It nor hydrol,.. or ruct "lth "O\llt... b..t "Ill
..Iocttvet, rncr \11th blolollcol ...IUrl.1o Iportlc..I..I, \11th ...lfl"dr,l arvuv.,
o...lno arouv. ond c.rboo-clrboo d..ubl. ~ond»). Tho r..ctluo ot CI2 wIth blologlrol
~.t'fl.l, .ccuullt~fLC ltl ul. .. . dI11nidct.Dt, 40d '1 . pOtlOI' .-. to Uorld "..r
I. Th. pvtOnthl th.. C12 \lould d"'.a. the bloloalcll cv....u..dt" pertlculorl,
eh.. t.port.)nt IIOUdCun I~Ylr, Jo ht.h. No tnctncr.)ct.,).. .hould be con..d.led ulH.l
thla I. fe.ulved. Th. Inclooutor dul¥n mlahc n~ed modlflcOtloo CO I"..... CI,
e...I88lono. The prellmln.., ....oil.. done In [h. Gulf oi :t~.."V (1'.1- l-I~) 0"-
phycopl.nktun. ~[c. .re Qot lutr'c'.ac to fd:tulllte (hi. 1"'le LC!c.ule ch.e jlu)([-
ter... burn of 4 vr 1& [On. of m.t.rlel I. In 00 "'OJ cu..v.rable to !OO,OOO-)dO.UOO
[008 per ,/11."- un . contlnuuu. burD b~III..
4-2
FI".lh. In vie.. of the level of Cl2 emltr.d /ond FI..orl"c, .t )0 PP"" .
copy of tilt. OEI5 .t,~"ld b. lub.tttad to USI~ foe rcvl.~ r~l.rdlll~ ~r.w ,.I&(y
aDd work-tnlll contlltl...n..
4-1
4-2
1)-)
fha FEIS 1.11 been e.plnded to Include I dIscussIon 0' chlorlnl gll I
Chlpter 4, under the section "Ettects on the (cosyste.."
feble 4-) repruents on al."'ent.1 onolysls of ..ute ",oter..1 ..It I.
sublequent ~tsslon rltel.
Chlorine IS ,ho..n to be pre.ent II I
",oJor cOmponlnt 01 the orgonochlorlnd ..utI .,~terlol (fobI14-2).
ChlorIne 911 ..III Ippelr as I relltl..ly ~Inor con'tltuent 01
"",Iutonl.
Chlorine eqlsslon, "'Iultlng Irolll l>rclent InClnerltor designs 4rl nol
COnildered I ,lgnlll(Ontly ..Ivlne tnl'ut.
Im"lvlr, 45 Stlted, thIs
" m ""'erglng technology 41101 fut..re .1"II'InS Oldy well redoc.. ruld..e
Input I 01 unburned orgonochlorlne' 0,,01 Cll'
-------
4-5
,...
I
N
4-4
fht monitoring e"ort conducted In the Gulf ot Hulco II Conlldered
to be relionlble tor deter.lnlng that thli type ot wlite .11~'n.t'on
.Iternat'~e Is ilte.
Short- Ind long-term monItorIng wIll be
conducted to enlur. thlt no s'gnltlc.nt ""vene Imp.cts result.
Detect Ion ot Iny Idvene eHech wIll ruult In site use
mod It ICltion.
It Ihould be emph.illed th.t .Itern.tlve dliPOI.'
methodi wIll contInue to be pursued; tuture developments In thll .re.
"'.y reduce the need tor It-sea Inclner.tlon .nd .IIlOunt 01 use this
lite OIly receive. " deslgnlted.
See .1 so cononent .nd response
11-14.
CO""'cnt nuted.
R.ter to Comment .nd responl' 6-J.
-------
4-6
4-]
"
I
w
4-0
4-9
4-10
J
III
01.1'.1"'00 of nca
The d'.per.lon .o.J81109 ot tlCl h~. not. been ..Jcqu4tely .dJ.C58.d tcoca two
vi.,vvoJnt:t. t'il's!, tho potentl.l fo~ 11"8n=-I..o1"1: 01 IIca into th- ""Ip~r .tmolll.h....
h.ls not LOlen .dcqu~l..V atudled. Th. t...nslllUl'l of IICI luto (he UppGc atm&>.,..hcr.
could tie .In ~.trem.ly laportant con.idecatlon. An c".n81n.tj~o of o"'''.tl"o-
.-eductlon half re.ctlon. .how. lh.t HC! .huuld (c..ct: ""t.h 01000, p....tJcul&cly
In tho ....elicnc8 at' ultraviolet 114jht. .
I'ot.,
0) 191 . JCI- . J~' ~
E'> - 0.11.
OJ 191 . CIJI91 . IIJO
The se.;and point ".98rdlnq the HCl phme tco. tho 'uclnca-ator 1. tt~t the
upper n.vi,!..Llo alr.')Ae. IICI concentr.tion. WCI'C not determined. Alrca-ott
.1wnhh'" 15 (lullO reactiye to IICI. In thi. 1'89ion, plane. comln.. '10. tho louth
.'8 otten off.Jhonl In their .Ii'pCOACb to Hew York. II!IS Are pianos cocaln.. f,OI.
eecDmd. end trans-Atlantic. "1'0 po.tttan of tho .1&' tratr~c route. Are w,known
to tho r.vi~wer. but the)' ..y bo 0..1' the vlwne at A tiDle ""hen the .Ircraft
.ue dcsclI:uJlnq to lower altitude.. Sine. IIC1 tlttAck:l AI .0 ce.Jaly. I'epe.ued
('IA5&1I5 throUl,h lhl. are. could lignitlcantly in~re":.o .iact.tt .""intttnanco
8ch.:dules ,.uuJ C051, aud potentiAlly put hlun.lU live.. at ri..k. .rhis proposal
6hvuld .Itoo Lu st!Lmittod tQ the ,.U for an .n~,y..i. of .Ir trail I:: patterns in
the reqlon. .a..J lor .0 8081)'.'. of the .ttuel ot V.i-'OCI or ..v~c.l ppg IICI 00
aleeealt 'tru~t~re..
lIot. th.t the ...umptlon In the Honlt91"10q Section 'P9. C-;u that .11
..0.Id..41 mat.:el.l. "'III ..tt10 out. within -oever.l- kilollloteril .....y b. a
1&158 a5iwnptlon. .Inc. the Itca dlE'oplet. .ll:e. .r. unknown. ructhellD(ua. In
tho Re9ulotlo,,0 SectIon, Put II. <09. ) IIllbllvll Ip6'10 8-111 10 not Od"QU6to
1oc the cu&'ceut DEIS .Lnce HC1 and Cl1 .hould tJd added to tho ltlt of compound.
to b. IhOn1tor.d.
141
Unhu.ned OrqAnoh.lcglne
It iu not..c.I th.~ tha unburned lavaa. 01 PCB.. 4nd OUT tll8itto,", e... quite
hl9h IJ)..,. 4-111. with ,ca'. at 100 tl... b.c"9coun..J ..v.l. 8n.J OOT'at 1000
tl.... lJac:k
-------
)
4-11
0)
8co-Surtoc. lotortoe. "Ierol.,o~
Tho .Icrole,.. cooo"t. ot lipid .od oll-IU,. Co..pound. u,,,"II,ot biolo.lcil
orl.ID floltln. on tI.. 0" .urloc. ID _0' Ir..o. Tha chc..lou, ot the .Icrolo,..
10 quit. co.~Ie.. 8cclu" .ucll 01 the unburned rc.ldun ot the Inclneruor ...
lipophilic compound. ouch .. h"lo-or,"ntca, tb., ulll tcnd to cooc.ntrotl hllhl,
In the .Icrolo,.r. In portlcul.r. the .Ioln. ot rh. or.onlc. ulll not r.....bl.
th. dllurloo ot Ictd-Iron for alt. 106 .iv.n 00 p... 0-52. The ...;;tlon ...d. on
P' 0-51 of th. al.tlerlt, In th. dilution hcto.. tor ocld-Iron ond or.onlc
r..lduu Ie not "el1 tounded. Th. .eld-lroD Ie hl8hl, h,drophlllc; "h..o... the
orBoolc r..lduu ullt b. h,drophoblc. Th. or,"nlc r..lduu ullt thu. float .t
the 8uc'8ce In t'18 .teral.Jar If the, ara las8 denae 11.80 ,eaweler, or ,Ink tn
IIlcalt.r tor.. If the, "" IIOr. don... Eorl, ....dl.. 01 rh. effect ot PCUOleUII
01.. on ph,toplankton ohouod thoc .Iealhr dropler. of oil uu"' I.. moee toolc
1'140 the vater 'o'ubl~ Iraction. Th. .".CI we. probably (lie r~su't 01 I'.e
lurl.c. C'leGIIICY ICltelactlon betw.en the 011 .nd 1118 O(8~1115m. A .Imller e,r.ct
1'!~!!!I rhu. ""u lor tho or'8Ooho1o..n.. Th.. .hould I.e orudlod b.for.
Ineln.c8tloo b~81"..
......
I
~
Th. ..o-.url.c. ..Icrolo,er I. potoDtlall, ..tre...I, Importonr. p.rtlculorl,
It It .hould become cout~ln.r.d b, or.onohalo.en.. Thl. 10 becluo. the ..Icrolo,.r
can co.t the neu.ton or..nlaIll8. Sloe. Ih. neu.ron conl8108 I.rv.' 't.h .1.le.
(.. the "hcuhottv." neUCton, p. A-)9. ODd Table A\1). ond the loca ond IIc.oIop..
cruat.c.., theae larv.. for.. .r. of enonaoua bloto,lc.' and economic hapurt.nca
to the 'Iohcrloo. NOl. thlt the r.llOD I. vcr, rich In loopl-nlton (PI. 4-44),
Th. cia'CUI,aOD of "'II"erl.." actlvlta.. on p", )-11 Ja 8omewh.t .J.le.dina.
b.c.u.. rho blolo.led .v.ou l..dID. up to . U.h.ble Idu\< popululon ..., b.
fcgotl 10 ttml and dleclnel. Th. QIU.tOG I. pertlcularly I.polt.nt lor ....,
I.rvel 'Jah et...., Ind ae .. the.. Ie.... thar "ould be eDO,t elt.lly d.called b, .
cont.mln.ced .Icrolay.r. Thl da.cu..ton of chi movement 01 U~(er me.a.. tn chi,
realun I. particularly r.llvlnt h.re, .Iae. the lelldence elme 01 elope vater aay
b.. flv. ,u.., and It ..., trav.1 hUDdr.d. 01 lllomu... d..rln. rhu 1101. (1'.. 0-
49). A OIonltorln. ochc... ohould b. d.vl..d to collecr burh nc...ton. ond the "0-
'~lfIC' microl.y.,. S~r'.c. ~ I..pl.. hivi been collec(ed (P~I. C-)). but
cont..lnants In the mlcro..yal' .., b. 100-1000 time. 1D0te conc~ntr.t4Sd chin In
rh. IIDaI.dletclV odJoe.nt "'''U''. "."ID. It to rhc IIpl~/lorv~1 .urhc. Int...ctlon.
thu ..e pfobobl, mou Imponant ha... a.lloble ond ol..pl. ..I«ol_,cr collcclloD
technique. .r. vIII known.
4-11
At present. the ch.r.cter' 0' the org.nOh.logen co.~ound.. or the
qu.ntltle, th.t wIll eventu.II, be Inclner.ted. .re unknown.
Iherelore. It h not poSSlbl. to UUe thu .",ost" COmpound. will be
Ilpophll.c. .Ithough no doubt .ome will be.
The dilution 0' re'ldue.
wIll diller 'ro. .cld w.st. dilutIon bec.use Inclner.tlon re.ldue.
wIll undergo "gnltlc.nt .t.a.pherlc dilution prIor to entertng the
..lier.
AtmOlpherlc dIlution will present opportunity 'or vol.tlliled
or<).nlc resIdue to combine with particuille ,..Her. whIch will
pron~te lettllng .nd tr.nsport through Ihe mlcro!.,er.
The .Inute
qu.ntltles th.t wIll cont.ct the .urt.ce I.yer will not rese.~le In
011 slick.
l'bor.tor, studle. 0' the e..ct InteractIon o( residues wIth the .ea
surl'CI I.,er .nd It. ..loCt.ted 'lor. .nd t.un. can onl, .pproal..te
t~e Inter.ctlonl th.t will occur In the hlghl, dyn.mlc oce.nlc
enwl ron"'ent.
Huqarou. phy.lc.I. chemical. .nd blolaglc.I v.rl.ble.
will .IIect the ultlm.t. t.ta o( w.ste resldoes.
fhe,e ellect. .r.
belt delermlned through In sItu testing.
fhls regIon 0' the northwe.t Atl.ntlc Is kno..n to be Ie..
blologlc.II, productive th.n Shel' .nd Slope W.ters; consequentlr.
there will be 'ewer IfI1IlCt, aUocllled with use 0' the proposed sit.
th.n .Itern.tlv.. on or ne.r the Shel'.
-------
5
5-1
-'-1
.
lT1
","'.-... I
i I I UNllfD S1ATES DEPAAUAEN1 OF COMPAfRCE
N..uon.' Oc ..n.c ..n" A 'mo~pnt:rlc. A"m"u~l.r .L.un
\ ",:.-...: .,I..'tU',., ).'~.a,"'~lul..,
".......~...,/ .11........:",,, .:.~9':.2
JAN ~ -: I'.!8r
0.,,(52_6; JVl
10;
fROH;
PP/(C . 'hem.s K. DIck
OA/C5 - Robert 8. RollIns I.'
,I, -
SWJ[(f ;
i
nElS 111012.28 . Proposrd North "thntlc Incfnc!rUlon Site OeslgnUlon
It.e Subject $lHement hu been reviewed with In tho! treu o( the N.tlon.1
Ocean Survey's (liDS) rupons Ibtllty .nd upertlse. .nd In tenns o( the Imp.ct
o( the P"OPOHd detlon on llOS ICtlvUles and projects.
Although NOS does not pass en specific oCtlnogUphic dlt. (or the tre..
the evalu.tlon .nd 4n.lnh o( the dU. presented In the .Physlc.1 Conditions.
section o( ch.pter J. ,ppur .dequ.te for the Inhnded purposes o( the study.
~
.(~
..~; .
. .i
liD". AN.....VlIISARY 1~10. '!ISO
N..tlun... OIl:..,UC .,td ~t"'hl:...h,nc AdnumJ,tr..u,J"
. ,.,..." "j,.,.., ""1'\ I' .' .
. ~. r.: ""'. '.:.' .
5..,1
Th.nk you (or your rev Ie.. .nd conment s.
-------
6
,.,..~
t..~~
IH"'q "tlNI 01 ItfAlIlt.. IIUMAN UR\'ICU
',,1III.c II..U" 5.,...-.:.
<:Cn..,. '0' 0....,. (Oft"Ot
"".nll G,O'811 20JJJ
(404) JU-66U
J.a,...., 29. 1981
lie. T. A. U.ul..
Chi.,. tUrl"a haucUon
f""JruIIO,cnt81 rlOloctJolI
110.101"11'0", D.C. J0460
lunch (IIIt-U8)
A.e..c,
Dc.r Hr. Uoatlarl
Ua I~v. r.vl'''.d rho Dralt Enwlroamanral I.pact S.alement (EISI tor rho
Propo."d lIonh Ath..Uc loc'nautloo Sha 0..01,""110". U. are rupondl".
on L.hd f of .10. U.S. Public Heahh Sarv'ca.
Tllh doc""'''1 o,'pura '0 have .daquat", covaud Ihe pou'ble coa"queoca.
aa.ocl.l"d 01110 Ih. deelrucllo" of che.lcal Ooele. b, e'-.ee Incl"era,'on
'01 t',. ...opo..d "t..
~
I
m
Ua ou ,,, lavor at e...bll.hlnl alt.a th4r .U '"vlro""'''lolI, a4le tor tho
de""'
-------
6-2
~
I
"
6-)
It h.s been determined th.t e Combustion Efficiency (CE) of 99.91
produces e DE of 99.991.
In .ccorden!:e "lth the London 0..",,1l1li
Convention Re9ulltlons for Inclner.tlon At-Sel, CE Dust ~ ~9.9S~
0.051. .Per.lttees IIIUt cOlllply "lth .11 regulAtions.
'he Issun en...erlted ere .ddrused II po:rmlt requirements. Ind .11
permittees must comply.
Appendl. E his been I~ded In the fEIS to
present en e.~le of the provisions 0' . slfety pl.n, ~Ich ~st be
Included with I perDlt Ippllcetlon .nd, "hen Issued, Is mlde .
specific condition ~der the per.lt.
-------
J1
---
Q)
7-1
7-2
7-3
~
':;L'11~.~'.\
tl.~' h "1
. : ~!~ .:.
.;:: .~...."
t'llitetl States Dcpanlll~"[ uf t'le Interior
(JUIC[ 0' TilE sr.CRf:r.\R V
" .\ Slll1lOG I U~. II C. JUliO
II 81/14
HI Z j 8988
Kr. T. A. v..cl.~
Chl.,. Karlao 'r.c.."..
.oylro..o.c.l 'r.'.'CI..
V..hlaICo., D.C. 204'0
h.ac' (VI-HI)
4'..a,
D.or Kr. Voo'lor.
Iho Doparc..a. ., cb. I...rlo~ hao ra.lovod cb. drolc oa.lr.n..a'ol
o.o.a..oc lor 'rop...d ".r.. 41Ia.'la laclaoraClo. II co Dool.a.-
tloa. v. ho.. th. 1011..10' ....oot. .ad c.C08..a40clo...
fuutl
Th. ,ro,o..d oc.i.. I. .b. '.ol.no'ioa 01 0 01.. la cha Rorch
4CI.acl. Oc... lo~ .'-a.. l.elaorecl.a .1 ..rc.'a c..,. .r.oalo
v..c... ,r'a",oll, or..nohol..oao. .oa.r.co' I. Ih. .'d-4tl.acl.
'coc.o. A. 1.41.oto' la tho dr.lc .ca....ac, the 800C I.,orcoac
'.o."cl.l .II.ct ., thlo o,cloa 10 Co pro.ldo aa opcloo lor ch.
dl.,...1 01 Ih.o. .ot.rlol. .C Cho 10..c ha.ar40~. 10c.II...' V.
h.lla.. Ihal Iho ehor~,c.rl..Cloa aad dl.c~..loo 0' .horc-C.r.
I.,.cca relOC.d t. cb. laclnoc.Cloa 01 to.lc ...c.. ac Ih. ,ro,o.od
01.. .PP..ro Co h. oda.u.co. Bove.or. the ch.r.cl.rl.acloa .a4
dl.cua.,oo 0' lon'-C.I. I.pact. '0 In.4..~0Ia. u. C.DOOC acca,c
Cb. "..'...1 01 Cho potaacl.1 lor lool-c.r. ch.ol.o la Cb. .owlroa-
..0C '.ca~.. '.I"n.DC lolor.oclon I. I.c.lo. .nd DO UOu.ual or
d.locar.ou. ."acco ..ro dac.c'.d durlol 00. ..rl.. .1 locla.rocloao
u.'aa r.l.cl..I, 1...0.,.1.. .0.'lor'a. ..lh04.. lb. cooclu.'oo
.h.c o.I.CI.. loa,-'or. I.poc.. .r. unll'.I, 10 un.uh.c.ocI.ta'
la cho dr.lc OCoto.....
alCboulh aoc dlr..'I, r.I.... c. ch. ,ro,o.a' .cCloo lor ablch Ch.
ouh'oct dr..c V.O pro,.ra'. r.t.raac. to .nJ cO...oca ro..rdln,
Cho I.,.ct. .aaocl..o' vlch tho traoa,orcac.oo 0' ..Carlal. Co cho
,ropo..d loclo.ra.loo .1.. v.c. toclud.d 10 chi. docu..at. lh.a.
co..oot. w.r. I. r.,ord '0 ch. oplll '.,acc. lollowlol . colll.'oo
01 (or 0 Iro~ndlo. .f) Ch. loolo.racloo .....1. Ihl. dlacua.lo.
.. p.rclnaoc to ch. ,ro,o... oct.oo .04 a.ca...r" '~I la .oco.-
,I... h.c.u.. .0111.'00. .n' aroYadlol. .ra oot the 001, coua.
0' 0,111.. All couo.. .houl4 .. cowar04 .04 ..aluac.d.
7-1
Ihe potentl,1 'or long-tono .d..r.. lop.ct. on Ibt onwlrona'Pt tre
nOl dl..I...d. and It I. repI,t'dl, .cknowledgod Ih.t Ihl. pot.ntl.1
does e~I.I (Seo Ch.pter ,. under ..ctlon "ProPo.ed Sit.").
't Ie
'urther .t.l.d th.t over, o"ort will be eede 10 dat.ct .nd corroct
the C'ul. 0' .uch o".cl..
NOAA h.1 Ih. re.pon.'b,llt, under the "4rlne Prot.ctlon. .'.earch.
.nd S4nctu.rl.. Act (HPASAJ lor long-Ier. oonltorln9 and II curr.ntly
C01lduCtlng cenltorang It the 106 HII. Ocun Vl5te Ollpo..1 5It..
't
II .nllclp.te~ Ih.t . oonltorlng pl,n will be dev.lop.d to .ncoap..,
Ihe t..o lit... Ihu. .lnllDhlng 10gilUc prObl,.s.nd ".I."'n9 the
continuity 0' '''oru .nd ruult..
A Co..blnod lIonltorlng pion would
I~rovo ch.nc.. 0' d.t.ctlng .ny subll, envlron..nt.1 I~'ctl .t ,n
urly It.g..
$.. .1.0 relpon.o '-4.
Ihe monitorIng o"orl conducted In the Gol' 0' "-.Ico I. con,ldor'd
10 be re.lon.bl. (or deler.lnlng th.1 thll type o( "'Ite oll.'n.tlon
.llcrn,tl.e II I.,..
Contlnu'd IUnllorlng 0' Intln.r.tlon op.r'tlon.
41 'ny III.. ..III provide the necesSlry In'ormatlon to detetl .n,
lon'.l-Icrm ,d.en. 1'1>lCtl th.t Illy begin to dcvelop.
It eft eta S .r/l
dPlermlned to be dHrl8lenia I. JHe u,,, ..III L~ ~..d.
-------
t
-n
I
~
~
7-2
Ihe conclullon thlt !legit he long-ur. i.~..cu are unlikely II boiled
on the pre~lle that IncIneratIon operatlonl will be regulated and
managed In an envlron~ntally Iqund 84nner.
Hunlturlng will be
conduct~d to detect adverse IlipacU .nd. It necflury. corrective
~alurel will be taken (lee rel~onle '-11.
7-3
'he dhcuulun of HavlgUlon IIuardl In the DEIS (p. 4-41 Includes a
lun.nar1 0' cuualtlll reported to the U. S. Coan 'Guard It uveral
major U.S. harborl. and International waters 0' the "Id-Atlantlc
Bight In and around the pro pOled .Ite.
In .,/dltlon to collllloni In
harbor. (which co~rlle the ..aJorlty 0' accldentll. calualty
Itatlltici re.ealed that leveral v.lldl. reported damage IUltalned In
Intern.tlonal waters a. a relult 0' weather. ~echanl~al .al'un(tlon.
perlonnel .tIJud~ent. and Itructural or unknown caulel.
-------
TI
I
N
C>
7-6
7-7
7-4
u. .1.0 b.I,.v. thot tho dl.cu..'on ra~'rdln~ .plilo I. Inod.qu.t..
Oth.r c.ndld.t. Incln.toClon elc.. v.r. .llmln.tld from furth.r
con.'d1r.tlon b.cou.. the r.l.o.. of the rapurt.dly Innocuou.
Incln.r.tlon producte pO..d .n un.cc.pt.bl. thr..t to the ..n.lrl..
.nd hl~hl, product Iv. ",.C.. .nd cOIN.rel.lly v.lulbl. fl.h.ry
r..ourc.1 ...ocl.tad vlth n..r-.hor. v.t.r.. ~plil. of Inclnar.ble
l.t.rl.l. Into th... n..r-.hore vlt.r., re~ardl~.o of the C.UII,
could b. .qu.lly d...etetlnl,
7-5
Th... dafieioncl.. do oot p.r.lt u. to fully aV.luata all ..pacc.
01 tha at'.cta tho propol.d ecClon viii ho.. on fl.h ond vlldll'"
and othar m.rln. raaourc... Hove.ar, tho d..',n.t'on of tho
propo.od .Ito for .C-... InclnaroClon vould ba a 10~lc.1 na.C
atop ~ut ahould bo C...n ani, for tho purpo.a u, conduetln4
a.p.rINaotal loelno..tlon.. Th... ..p.rlmantal Inclnaratlon.
.hould b. undatt.l.n vlCh chI Inc.nt to ~a'elov apprnpr'ot.
10niturlnR nethod. vhll. .llulton.ou.ly ch~ractorl.'n~ lon,-t.rm
I.pecra 0" the.. r..o~rc...
~~!!~
~~~!..~.!!d ...1 - T!~~
For all but the 00 d..lln.tlon alc.ro.tl.., Unatoet'on 0' ad.er..
Ilo.ctl cau.od by Incln..otlon Ie difficult dua to an.lronmanCal
Comoleolty .nd lov .0IuNa. of crac.abl. vaata r'"ldu.a,- I.
m.ntlon.d a. ao unf..orabia lacco.. Th. Inability to datlcc
..olduoa In a cOlple. .n.l.on.ant bac.u.. of In..nolt'.a 800'tor'n.
m.thod. (vo@. 2-12) I. 10.0 than en unla.orabla factor. Ic I. .
funda.ontal d.flcl.ncy. Thu., a more ..tonllvo d'acu..'on of th.
olfort. to b. und.r'...n to cb..acc.rl.. 1008-t.r. Imp~Ct. .hould
b. pr...ntad In tho fln.1 .n.lron..ot.1 Imp.ct .(.(~o.nt.
\4dltlnnally, cltln8 the "Iov product'.'ty" ot oe.anlc aroa. .. .
f..oroblu facter do.. noc r.tl.ct .n undor.t.ndln, of th. ba.lc
..olotlcol .ttrlbut.. ot .y.t.I., COlounltl.. .nd pupul.tlon.
(..... .tructur., cO.lunlty and .eoa-at.. dynamic" domlnlnc.,
and d'~or.'tyl. ~ath.r than co.p.r'n. tho p.nductl.'t, 01 tvo
rllat'.ol, dl..'.'lar .,.to.., ch...ct.rl..t'on. 0' the .'nd. .nd
proportlonora chan,.. of the abo.. m.nt'oned attrlbut.. ..pacta4
to Occur In tho '.pact ..0. ahould ha fully da'.loped In tha tlnal
.tale..nt.
'080 .'"1:
~nvlronment.~~~.r.cton.
T~a ..varol .tOt.IOot. In tho tlret pe..lroph undar thl. h.odln~
.....41... both ahorc- .nd lon8-t.r. lopacta Cen ..slly b. .1.-
eon.truod. It la not .atlofaccor,. .Van In the ."~~ory ..ctlon,
to ..r.ly r.f.r.nc. Chapter 4. A ro.dar luot look rl.cvh.ro
7-4
4-28 Ind 4-29) does address this j~,"~.
Ihe dlscuulOfl o( aCCIdental spIll and leakage In the 0(15 (pP. 4-),
determlnltlOl1 o( the Id.erse ell.lrollmental Implcts call1lOt be .ade due
I~we.er, a preCise
to Ihe numerous .arlables thlt SurrOund such a pOSSlblllly.
II4Iurllly, 1~ICts wIll be relUed 10 the type and quantity o( wutes
Ih41 ""'y be releued under theslt clrtu"~Unces.
7-1j
under a permit IssU.d (or such purposes.
(,perlmentll (or reSelrch) IIIcln~rltloo at-sel would be cOnducted
process do~ IIOt ellComplSI the per=lt procesl e.copt 10 IdentIty the
Jhe sIte
-------
7-U
7-9
7-10
...,
I
N
I-'
7-11
7-12
7-11
(p.'O. 1-1' and 1-16) to I.awn that the 8ovlrol...ncal ........ut.
818 b..ad UpOD . ..rl.. 01 lour *.pact.oDtal Ineta.ratlon. .lld
thae tl.8 ..p.rl.'D&81 dater_loatlon 0' lon.-car. a-pactl a.
La..d al.oat aatlral, UPOQ one ..rl.. 01 burn. (t.... CuI' 01
H..lcu, 1911). thl. d.'lcl.oc, .ho~ld b. corr.ct.d.
~.. I-I' .nd 1-16
Th. lour pr8vloue laclnaretloal var. of .1.1144 yolu.. aad apper8ocl,
did not In~ol~. rca.. th... locln.r.tloo. .1.0 did ooc Involv.
.'0' of the ocha. candldata oc..no'.aloR8D' un~.~ con.ld'f.tt~D l~f
Inclnet.tlon. Accordln.I" Ch. 'Inol .tot...nC .hoold cl..rl,
r_flace the uQcarc.lotr 8urrouodtnR the 8ovlron8ental .I'acta that
.., f,.ute Iro. Inetn"atlol tb... other ..'8rl.t..
~. 1-11 (t.hlo 1-1~~
At-... luetn.ratloD 01 the pCoJaccod v..c. yolu... would raqulr.
"....e~.r.1 Inclaaracar .....1. Oper.clns ea.ulean.ou.l,. ,..r-
rau,.d....od ~ould require ....,.1 'ncID.r8etOD .'e.. eo .naura
thae two or -or. .....1. did noc occup, the .... 81C8 ...uteeD.Due1,.'1
Th. 'ulluvlnl conc.rD. '.'.'410' chi. to'org.tlon .ho~ld b. .Jdr....d
10 II.. 'taat atet.maatl
I. T.bl. 1-) .hould b. ..p.nd.d co tnci~d. ..tl~.t.. 0' ch. nu.b.r
or .hlp. .od tho n~~b.. 0' .Ic.. r.q~lr.d ro. Incln.r.tloo 0' ..ch
01 tl.. thr.. .Otar..t-,a.r.."
J. It ahould b. cl..rl, .tae.d. rath.r th.g daduced. thaC the
t..t burn. con8,ttutad 8n aCl,ta Input 01 tnctn.r.t.un product..
end thae th. .nvlron..Qt.1 ........nl I. 80 orl.alaJ. nov...r.
.. the ',aquaney ol-tnejn.ratioae .c . .1..0 .Ic. Incr...... ch.
Inpul b.eo... pro.....I..I, .or. chroolo. To .'U8C. I.p.ct.
r.I.C.d to acute aa. chronic tapu'a t. uet.aabla.
). I' Olh.. al-.a. 'nc.nar~elo. .Ita. .ra to b. d..IAn.tad.
th.lr .nv'ron..ntat aCCept.bllle, .Yet b. I... Ihaa Chat 01 the
propo..d alCa.
'.Ie. I-I .nd 1-i
Prowl.toaA 01 th. Harlna rrotactlon. .....rch .n~ S.nctu.rt.. Act
or 1911 rrovld. lor tb. r..uIACloo 0' tho ulet..e. dt.po... or
w..t. ..t.'lal. 10 oca.n V.Car.. Thl. ace do.. not preclud. the
u.. 01 .c~ul'b.r. for at-... IhCln.ratlon.o 81 ucailitn. 8c~ubb.r.
durlD, 18ndb...d IneIDar.CloAa. ch. 10'~ 01 .u8peDJeJ P'~c.cul.c.a.
dl..olv.d (or neotrQIIIQd) hJdrochlo.l~ .ctd. ...11 quaotltl.. or
c..ldual o~M.nlc w..C.. aDd trac. ..c.l. In the la..aul .....Iou.
7-U
Deficiency corrected In SUID..ry. on,leo' section .(nvlronment.1
(onHquences. .
7-9
Ihue hcu .lre pointed out on P'ljes 1.2. 2-)6. 2-)9, 2-4), 2-44,
4-S, 4-1. .nd 4-8 o( the Of IS.
7-10
1,01e 1-) Is presented only .s an estl~.te ~I potentl.1 ..ste
qu'".tltles th.1 ..y lIecome n.i "DIe dOrlny the de"ned perIod.
IIhlle these estl,,"el ...)' Vir)'. . distlncl .....llIIm qo.ntlty 01 "lStn
Cln De .ccoIDlIOdlted It the Inclner.tlon site.
"lIle 2-) presenls the
result Ing est IlIlted qu.nt It)' 01 ...stes located In pro.llllt)' to the
e.st (O.lt. ..hlch aI')' oltl...tely De Inclner.ted .t the proposed site,
.nd .ssocl.ted residues.
[....In.tlon 01 1'lIle 2-] sho..s tll.t until
'909 the ,...1.... ose le~c!1 ..)' not De .tt.lned.
otllll.tlon 01 19),000 tonnel o( ...stes ".)' De .~.II'lIle (or
In 1909 the 1I..lmull
Inc In.rn Ion.
Th. dl".r.nc.s (10,000 tonnes) lIet...en 211,000 tonnes
(hllie 1-), fut Cout toUI) .nd 19),0110 tonnes (f'III" 2-), 1969 use
I..el) repreunt Ihe enl,..Ud .mount 01 ..utes ..hlch IIUIt De h.ndled
b)' some I.nd-b.sed technology or .t Some otller .t-se. Incln.r.tlon
site, onl.ss I~roved Incln.r.tlon tecllnolo91 perllits .n
environmentally .ccept.ble Increue In tile rau 01 .t-S81
InClner.tlon .t the proposed lite.
In tI'e ev..nt o( l"'Proved
technology (1.8., Incrused Of or .."Ie",,"tulon of scrobbers) the
upper 1IIIIt 01 19),000 tonnel ...y De SI9nl(lc.ntly Incre.sed.
At
this 11..., It would 0. unleaslble to up.nd hble 1-] to I"clude
eutllales 0' the nOllber o( shIps .nd t"" nom"er o( Incineration
sttes .
-------
7- J 2
TI
I
N
N"
7-13
" .
7- JJ
the te-t Iou been IIIOdllled to reflect this fact (Ch.pter t, "Ufecu
00 the Ecosystem"),
lIowever, tuture tetllllologlc.1 developments ..)'
reduce chronic Inputs.
'he OEI5 does not equ.te 'cute .nd chronic
Imp.cts, r.ther It uses .vldence g.ther~~ during studIes 0' .cute
(Short-term) Imp.cts to estlm.te Some potentl.1 chronic (lon9-ter~)
Imp.c ts.
hot necuurll)',
R.I.tlv. to the needs for .ddltlonal InClner.tlon
sites, some locUlons would be lIIore envlronl-enUII)' sensitive .Ad
controversl.I, .nd others ..)' be less .4v.nt'geous due to the
econo~lcs and potentl.1 envlronment.1 h.,.rds 0' tr.nsport tro~ w.ste
generUors.
l.nd-blsed .nd .t-se. Inclner.tlon ot or9.nohll0gen wlstes .r.
euenthll)' the sa... ..C8pt thlt .t-se. Incineration r.luses 9U.oul
emIssions without 'Inll tr..tment,
Adequ.te control 0' .Ir emissIons
from Inclner.tlon can be .chl8vo4 by usln9 scrubber device.,
lIo..ever. scrubber res I dues wit 51 III be disposed h Some
envlronment.II)' ..te .nd .ccept.ble ~anner.
Inclner.tlon 00 I.nd .nd
It-sea hu been d.monstrated to be . hllJhl)' effective w.lt,
ellmln.tloo procedur., .lthou9h both .re e.penslve.
Presentl)', colt
.n.l)'sli 00 scrubber devlus tor .t-\04 Incineration Is not
",all.ble.
In .ddltlon, re'er to Chapter 1, under section "L.nd
B.sed Olsposal."
-------
7-14
"T1
I
N
W
7-15
7-16
..
18 Ir..ll, raduced. I.C8U.. r.duct.oa. 01 th... Datert.l. .r.
.r.., a.loilib to con. aJar Jncla8r.tlon on l.nd 8 vl.bl. .It.~D.tl..
10 -,-... lucla.ratloa, tl.. u.. 01 .crub~.r. durtn, at-... IDcIQ-
.rallon. could ,'..'1, r.Jue. the potentl.l lor "-..llwa. 10DI-I.r.
anyJroll..nt.. Impact.. Accordln!1,. th. u.. 0' .cruLber. durlol
8(-... IAcln.r~lloD. .~, .1.0 r.duc. (ur 0"..' altoA.tl,er) the
Coeln Incurr.d 'y the permltt.. and the 8U~.rDD.OI lor monitorial-
8ur..III.oc8 and entorce..nt ace lone. Th.lo. COet8 loe 8(-...
Incln.,.tloo with .cruLb.r. th.t or. oot .IHOlllcontl, dl".r.nt
Iro. cue,- ...ocI81.d with land-b...d Joctn.raclooe would b.
8vlJanC8 01 the acono.le and .nvtron~.Dt.l t...IL.llty or U81nl
ICFuhb.ra dq~tnl .t-.~. tneln.catloue. It thl. latornallOD I.
.vollabl. .I..whor.. It .hould b. Incurpo'.tod Into .h. 110.1
""....nl.
~LU!
Th. .I"...nl, '.Th. .,r.ct. 01 Inelalratlon ..1..100. UPOQ bird. I.
U"kDOwn. but .eld r..adu.. .., proYld. adver.. 'apacta UpOD "10,,-
Ilrlo, blrd.,- r.lnlorc.. our b.II.1 th.. th... I. . ..0.t.1 I.ck
0' und..ot.ndln~ 01 tho p.I..r, ond ..conJ.., IQ~.cto 01 .t-...
In~ln.r'lloQ on tb~ hl.har .at.aI8, Cropl.lc l,vIla, and food veb
01 the ..etna 8Ylta..
!..t. 2-12
Th. ot.t.moot. ""onltorlnl vIII b. dlllicult untIl nov t.cho(qu.o
and .or. pr,cl.. .'..ur2D.nCa Ie. Ivatl.bl. roc d.toctlon 01 .
.t.lat.rloul .tlecel." 1. d.lturbID, Lacau.. tyo qu..tlon. .re.
po..d. Th. tlr.t t. vhachar I.t.tl.,. mOQlcor'ol ..Chodl cIa
dltlCt chIn... to how Iccurlte and pr.et.. .r. ..18tIDI '.plct
""....nt.. particular I, lon~-I.r. Imp.ct "'."Olotl. If
th... qUI.tlona ~r. Dot lo.vared dlrectl,. then. d.acua.loD 01
chI COD..qu.nc.a 01 proc..dlna vlth It-... tnclo.ratlon without
.u"lcl.otly ..n.lt(y. .00(tolI08 ..thod. ohould b. Includ.d
In th. Iln.1 .t.t...ot.
..... ~-I'
Th. d..cII..luQ '-..rdla4 tl.. Incld.nc8 01 .dver..l, "'ecttal atoc..
01 rad craLa hIC8U.., .'...no cr-b. 01 cOG..rclal ,1.. Gcedr In tho
propo..J .11. alld heeaua. ch. adult cr.b. .re taklO .ulllcl«acl,
I., Iroa ch. propo..d .Ita 10 that ~..t. 1'.ldo.. r.l....d at
the .... .r. Dot .Ika., Co r.ach thcg," Jo.. Dot r.ttlct 10 .w.re-
n... 01 II.. acoloRice. conc'pta ot "blo.'lo.tae.cton," ".oLIIJL,"
or "Iood veb." Th. 'Jaa1 at.c...nt IllQulJ IDCI~J. 80 Icknowlad.a-
..nl 01 Ih. ~ot.att.l 'O~ Juv.olle crsbe. thot hay. Iccu8ulaC.d
DaCerlal. .. . ,..ule ot apill. or Inclnaracloo, tv ~ov. to
anotbar .r.. lad 10 8tt.to co...rctal al'8. Tha. 8ckDovled....nc
abould h. ..paQdad .nd ..CIDd.d to Qon-co~m.rc'al .p.cl.. I. w811.
7-111
V~rr liltle d.t. .r. ,v.ll.ble 10 ~~t~..mln~ th~ e"ecti 0'
Incln~r"loo ruldu.1 Il14terl.h on hl'.lh~r .nlm.li 0' the ."Ine
-o......nlt)' .
5e.ion.ll)' mlyr.torr and vel.~lc blrdi C.n be dlrlctl,
0" ~c led b, ihorl-Ur.. .I.>capher Ie: CO/llo... 'n.tloo. prtm,,1I, b)' HCI.
for '~d:tlon.1 in'or""'on on the ~"~(li 01 Inclner"lon el~U'oni
upoo b irdi, reler to Ch.pter 4, under the eap.nded iect'on "(fhUi
on the (COi,it..."
7 -15
(~A bellevei Ihat .o'itlng aonltoring ~Ihodi will be c.p.ble 0'
tI~I~C ling .ny .dVtrie ihort -Una imp~u\.
It Ii recogn i l lid th.t the
d
-------
7-16
....,
I
N
.p.
Wllh regard to the re'erenced P""ge, b~c.u\e ot the dilution
a" orded by the volume 0' ...le,. bet..een the propoHd ,Ile .nd the
,nore productive Contlnent.1 Shell, the dh\ohed ruldun "hlch ..y
reach Ihe Sh.I' ..III be ectremely dilute.
AI \t.t"d In the OEIS
(P. 1-15) red crab, .re 10cUed on the Conlltl~nul Sh,,11 !!!!.!l 0' the
PIOPO\"d site.
rhe proposed lite I, located .In ectremely deep ...ter,
(1.400 to l,900m).
Juvenile red cr.bs h.ve ~en 'ound 'rom depth, ot
5LO 10 I,OOUm, .nd the comnercl.1 'Ishlng e"ort 'or red cr.b, Is
concentrated at Intermediate depths 0' )00 to 501n.
Ho..ever, some
uI'\ lope mlgr4tlon of JuvenIle red cr4b, occun with IncreUed .gll
(I lie).
[PA ...lnUln, thu' Inclnerulon ,ctlvlliel ..III occur at .
lul'lclent dlltance 'rom shore to prevent .ny cont.mln.tlon 0'
relources t.ken .Iong the Contlnent.1 Shelt or SloPII.
[PA be lIeve,
Ihat the ectremely low concentr.tlons th.t wIll relult ..III not po,.
an u',.~ceptably Idv.rs. envlronmenUI h.urd to the ...rlne
envlron~ent 0" humin ..elflrll.
'h~ [IS Is not Itte~tln9 to convey the Ide. th.t .nlmals ..y exhibit
.vold.nce relPonle"
It Ii unlikely th.t Inclner4t1on rnldull
concentr.tlon, will ever ecceed one or two p.rtl per billion (ppb),
even within the Inclner.tlon ,lte .Her the Initial mixing period.
£'tr4polatlng the low Inlt h I Concentrat 1011 to lhe vut dllut Ion
potent 141 0' thll oCelnlc region, It Ii hl"hly unlIkely thlt liven the
mllst \enlltlvll orglnlsm will e.perlence . "'Ildue concentration
lutflclent to elicit In 1V0ld.nclI responle; th" ecceptlon to thll
be Ing ,"y bl rds that .pproach thll Inc Ineralor stack during
°l,,,,..tlons.
-------
"TJ
I
N
111
7-17
7-10
7-19
P'llthec, the p....,., t',..end .tnca tl...e .01..1. 8.8 d.~.I..l
and 1.1.1.1, ..oblla, Ic la un".al, thaC atoc.a uould ba advaraal,
.".cCad b, Inetolcatlon operattona," could b. IntarpreCad to ...0
thac bacaua. animal. .,. Dobll. chap viii ,void tl.. ar... vh.l.
w..t. 1..ld,... occur. Tht. ean b. .1.1.~.ltol' A~old.nc.
bah..lor I. ~.nl'..t.4 uhan atl.u11 tllcreIIILh." are ., 01 abo..
Jatecr.bl. lavala. DaClcClon le~.I. ueuollv ~Irl.r ~.tw..n .pacl...
Thul. 80tl8 epeet.. ar- nor. ".""llllv." 10 .a apaclflc atJ.ulu8 'tl.Jn
.,e ocher .pact... ~b.n ch. ICrtnRtt. 01 . aCIAulul aquat. or ..ceed.
. .pacl.. dacaceaoo 18.11. chI epact.. .~, re.rond bw I.oldtnl
the I.paeced a..8. Thl. do.. not 8caD th., the .Plclo. r...rnlol
In an I~.. a,. unaff.ctad. ~or. correctl" It .., fte.n tll8C the
d.tacllon laval. 01 ch. ra.aloln. apacl.o ara hlaher, or Ihac Iha
opaclaa la unabla co raapond ~y avoldlnl Iha I.pacled araa dua to
a"ecea ~eeulelnl Iro. e.poeu~. to undecectabl. l.v.l. 01 dal.c.rioue
.alarl.la or condlClona. Thla dallclancy obould ba corraccad In
Iho 'Inal alala.anC. .
t!aa J- If>
RaR.rdln~ pel..te blrda, ".,.ona thr.ataned .pact.. 01 palallc
bird..," ua.a II.. o"-ahora r..loo occupied by the propoaad
loeln,cAclon lie. aad "...00 unacceptable adver.. t~p~ct...H I. .
a.paclad. Ao loapacclon 01 Tabla A-JI, pa.aa A-" and A-~6,
ravaalad thai luo .pacla. 01 palaalc ~Irda ara Ilacad a. chraacanod
(I.a., tha blac.-cappad pallol .nd tba ~on. ahaaruatar).. Onl,
tha Rauollan aub-apaclaa ~I Cha ahaarualar la ladar.ll, doallnaled
aa threaean.d, and ch. pacral la not a 'edarall, ~aal~nalad
Chroalanad apaclo.. Thaaa alrola ahould ba cOlraclad 10 Iha
Itna1 etaCa.eDC.
rUlchar, Ie abould b. noted th~c Cor7'~ 8raae.~ .oJ eooe, .h..r-
VDear. co--only lollow .hlp.. Thua, the ,oceDcl,1 lor a.pace.
raaulClnl Iro. chaaa blrda lollowln. eha Inclnarallon vaaaal 10
Iha .Ita and oub.aquancl, laadlna upon .orlna or..nla.. a".ctad
b, Iha contanlo 0' II.. plu.a .hould ba characeorlo.d In tha
Ito.1 at.te..ne.
!..!~! .
)-11\ and )-U
Our cO~oanea rn.ardlnl 'a.a J-I' would alao apply to tha co..erclal
'Iah ~8 dlacuaaloD 00 thaa. pa.a..
!.!II~
Thl. pa..... do.. Dot con.eIIUC' en adequae. ........nt 01 the
da~'ae. that woul~ I..~lt IIQ. accld.nt.1 dl.cb.r... or w..t..
durlo. loadlnl ~parallooa 01 durlD. eran~le 10 tha plopoaad
7-17
1-10
7-19
(or'ectloRI ~d8.
A more detol18d dhcuUlon 0' thh IUul! /145 been Included In the
F£IS In (hopter 4, under lectlon "£"ectl on the (COI,lt..."
See relpORle 1-16.
-------
""1l
.
N
0\
7-20
7-21
,
Incln.carlon air.. !IDC. thla cDn.ld.c.rloD v.. Inclu~.d In the
dr.te .'etoNent. mn ..panded aad .o~. 4eeatl.d .......ent ahould
b. Included In tb. flD.1 .t.t..ant.
~~e 4-J4 an~ 4-2'
Thla dlecuaalon pcoyld.. .uppott to the conrentlon Ihot lon.-taca
Impacta can h~ .apactad ~nd that a It.at ~.~I ur .lu~J ca.. In. 10
ba done b.ro.. tnlll.tln. Incln.catlon opecatlon. .t tb. ptnpo..d
.It. on ~nJtblns but ~D ..p.tl..ot.l ba.la.
~. hop. th... co...nt. will b. of .a.lat.nc. to JOU.
Sloc...17.
.c(t;IL s. I~G~i..::"::1
Spool~1 A~}lslaot to
,..lat"" SEC.CTART
7-20
7-2J
for, more det,lled discussion of this II5ue. re'er to Chapter. 0'
the fEIS. under s.ctlon .Accldent,1 SpIll or l.akag...
commenll and r.sponles 2.7 and 7-4.
Conment noled.
See restlonse 7-S.
See allo
-------
"'T1
.
N
~
8-1
0-2
0-3
u
- .
,~~ :. ~#
... :.:J-/
OU'''"''''I:" , Of :;,...,,,
-.-........ 0 ~ ..v.",
1111111:.'" I)f OCr-IItI!; "1111 "'T':I"I""'()~AI.
,:IIVIRllm,EIITAL "'III SCIf:II1'If'I:: "ffAI RS
robe-U"l"v 9. t9:U
Hr. T.A. ~dstler
Chi~f. ~drln~ Pl"otectlon
l:nvlrOlu."ntdl f'e-Otectlon
;.!dshlr,f,tOIl. n.c. ~0460
fll"ench
AQPoncv II/!!- H 61
lIe41" >4r, lI.,stlel" 1
'"'0 h"v~ connleted the Oooactl1lnnl ot ~;C..te'5 revlc,,", 01 the
~lIviron~~nt~1 rrotectlon Aoency'. "n1"41t rllvlrollnellt~1 In04ct
St4te""""t IrfSI 101" 1'1"0005".1 "Iol"th Atl4nt 'c Incill"l"~tlon :;It,,'
Ije51',ndtlon" .oil.' "ould IIt:e to ofler the lollo"in~ o:oo,..,nts.
':'h~ ConVent 1011 on the Pl"oventlon 01 ".,,'1110 1'01liltlon "y OUMolno
ot 1\4"t"" ..n,' .lther "ettel" lI.olI.lon lIu",..ln', Conventionl. In th. "'en.1.>
to Ann"."s I .....J II. I"e'.ulre,. th..t "...Contr..ct,"" Pdrtl"5 51.411 !Ie->lt
COIISld"l" lI:e pr4ctlcal avall~billty of 4ltel"n4tlvo I 4I1l1-"..,. 0.1 lIIetho">I
ot trc411""nt. ,1I"l>o"al or idinlnetlon. or of tl""..tment to r..nllee- th"
""5tes or olhel" ",..ttec loss hArQful..."
WhIle the O£IS con.l~er,. IAII~-b45C~
Its tl"e~t~pnt 01 hoth ell~ln..tlon 01 tho
as tilt: conuel'"sion 01 WtUitua i. CUC60Cy.
Ii':ould l>e e.Pdll"ed.
Inclnordtlon io SOMe det~II.
t}cod,.~t~o" ot W4ste~ ~s '1~lt
I,. (Jur Vlt.w, those srctao...
fn 'fo.. "Te"hnleal Gul.l..ilna. On 'h.. Conte-ol of fnclneratlon of
W....t,,,, An" nth"e- "ett.u' at ~.e". Conte-dCtln'l r..rtlo. Ae-.. calle,1 u"o"
to "".,,,,,,..t. C''''',;on inclnoratlon .Ites In A qiven oeoflrAohlc .,'ea.
Cotll C.na.I., an" Ita.lco ec-a ..1,.0 ContcAetlo., P..rtl.,s ,.. th.. I.on"on
f)umUlf1'1 ('on'/entlon. Tt.. Dt:IS ..hOul.1 IliaCU5:t '..helhec thu:se cOuntclt:s
ae-a lib"" to ...e any nf tha ahorn..tlv't "It,::, .011.1 how thell" ,I"el,;lons
nn Inelner"lIon "-'''ht effoct the oit" select Ion III"0Ce"".
II ''''"Id 1'0 lIoloful if tho rWI'; Olltllne.I, toc .."eh altel"n.Hlvo:
91te. thu into""'dtlofl which In.ltcotus thAt 4' I thO, "p,'lieA!>I" Ce-ttf-rl..
01 tho "u,,-Ion 1\1I".,alo'1 I':nnvuntlon h.avu 'It:~n Put. ":"hlh "/tel Ihten don" I.n(
the .il., 9clu4.:tlon CClteeL. un"dC the U.S. Ocean Dur.).n... ReQulAt.on~
II'''. ~-)2 - 2-)SI. ".I...II..c .oloctlon, :>erhaos In t..h,,'ar tnr",. coul.1
he ApI'Ii.,,' tn the "lIe'lul..tlons fOI" the Control of Inc."or"t'on ot
W".te:a ~HU' Other ~14tter At Sea", thu T~chl\lc.1 Gu..lcllno5 on the Coutlol
of 'oclnl:('dtiun nf W.:lt~5 and fJthoe MAtteI' ell Sc.., an,1 Anne. III.
II. the 111:1:> 15 we-hten, It Ie lIee-y lIitt icult to ""selis .!.oIekly "'''''''''1"
all inter"..tio".., obll04tlo".. hAve 1'0"" oet. ror "...",01.. It .locl' ""I
l80,c4r tt'dt t:le (r~relleocv or .tlIlIOhUhcCl4.: 'nv~r510n.. (cal Jal' f(le 'n
1I"'."IAtio" Itl h,tS I>e." :Jlsell..,,,1 loe- tho :i'ICS.
B-3
U-1
UCe.n Dumping R~gul.tlonl elt4bllih 4 proyr'Q lor the .ppllc.tlon,
ev.'u.tlon, .nd IIIu.nc. 01 .t-Ica '"clncr.tlon puraltl.
'h.
per.lttlng proc.11 pro.ldC$ tor ..n ev.lu.ti~1 01 .It.rn.tl.. d'lpol.'
methodl, Including l.nd-b"Ied dilpuI41 optlonl.
Ih. dilcuilion 0'
'.nd-b.l.d dllpoI.1 ~ethOds (Ch.pter 2) Is provided 'or (oap..r.tl..
purpol81, r.th.r th.n . crltlc.1 re.le~.
Ih. re.l.wer wishing .or,
det.lled Inlona.tlon II r.f.rred 10 Scurlock .t .1. (1915); Shih,
C.C. (19181; tnd Wllklnlon ot .1. (1~/81.
8-2
10 d.t., nalth.r C.n'4I nor "eclco'h.v. conducted .t-Ie. Incln.r-
"Ion.
Should .Ith.r (ountr, wllh to utllll' th. North Atl.ntlc-
Gull a' ",clco, or .ny .It.rn..tlv. lito, the r.qullt would be gl..-
l.rlOUI c"nlldar.tlon. providing .11 r.yu,.tory requlr.mentl .r,
I..tlilled lAd hu8.n he.lth .nd envirunment'l (onc.rna .,. not
dh.lnhh.d.
Rcyul.tlonl .nd 'echnlcal Guldellnel at tho Con~entlon nult b.
Ob lerud. no ..lter where . lit. h du 1 y,," ed.
U. S. erlt.d.
rC9.rdlng lit. ,election Ir. cO"lhUllt with tho requlr....nt. 0' tll.
lOC.
IIIC HIS II.. bun rooJllhd (Ch4pter ) ."d Appendl. AI to Includ. I
dllcuulon 0' known ""ulphcde I"vo:nlolll 1/1 the .Id-.\tl'/lt Ie light
re~lon occupied by tho .H.rn.. IvCI within th. reI/Ion.
-------
"TI
I
N
00
- 2 -
8-4
.'..., ~ol""'1I10 (1)1" eonobu.tion ..'tlelenc', 1->". 0-1)1 II In QI"I"OI".
The ::>Inul .1"n In thfl nur."Il"atolr hAil he"n or.lttcl.
'ie "'101""<:IAte tth1 1)~')Qr'tunit"/ to 1"""1'", tt:c
Ir.~~t f.1'i.
!= 111c:~re I.."
I 2~
I. ' ..
. /t....-(A..t..I ' -
')on.I.1 i:. ~ln" M
,.irector
I)t f ice of ':nvj ron,"!'nt
Dnd !!eDlth
8-4
Think you for pointing out the oolllloR.
It hi' been corrected.
-------
9
"TJ
I
N
\0
9-1
~~: .-."" ~
.~' "
I <' (I
.~W
. . '(
; ~Ii . ,
'!,.' .' 'o'l )\" ,"". .., .
. to.
-,.,... "'" )...;.6 '1'..1'1
'.
'. ~II'J'(.JI\"I.U ". 'I: :..~::,.,.. .\,.n.,
:.. . :;ic::a. :1;~.:...~; ";;.::.;~: ~~:...
~"'..I""'" Plnt.eCI..oo :.l..nch
,'.'hlnCjl:)n. OC ~C.':t
..;.
~~.( al. ~.~'lec:
::;:IVlttlJ:."I.::~'.'''L J:"PA.;-:' :;1.\1''-:1~''''":' rr.~ ;'f..~ ?=)5£0 1I~;,-:':r 'TlA:-Il'I': 1""ltfEMflOtl
.. :'£ '::::SI(;N~':IJi':
... Off:..:., "): :1.0""'''.8nl.. BOOCj8t .Ind '1,nol......" in it» C..mCtlon .1 St.t8
.:.I.~.n'jno"'_d. n..~ (;o/t.,.o;.; :~. .:.vv. i..L-.J 'U"~"'il:'.J !:IS and h... no neC).tiv.
: :r:"'tntl to :1(1.. 'I'" thl.. :......
; &.\-:".1 ,'.
-,'.'.1 :i.
".......', ..
: . ~.. :.: : l.:
, '
9-1
I'h.nk you to#' your nvt.1f .nd COIIIllenll.
-------
"TI
I
W
a
10
~...,.
i'- .!W-..
1.1" .'~
~K~j)~
~---"
""'ARYLANO
DEPART"'."T 01' 5T"T" PL"NN"'C
/tarry /tughes
... .11' ."..'0" S"Ulf
."L'U.O"., Y.."WLANO IIIOt
Constance lieder
t8L8""O...
... ... ....
.......... .., ...-, .. .......,
Jartuary 7, 1901
Hr. T. A. Wa5tler
Chief, Hart.." Protection Branch.
Environmental Protection Agency
Waehinuton, D. C. 20460
(Wlt-HR)
HI:::
Stote ClearinghOliseProJect 81-1-5-10 Oraft EIS
Proposed N. A~lantic Incineration Site
Dear Hr. Wastier.
The State Clearinghouse has received the above proJect. ':'he. review oC
this pro.lecl has now been Inl Uated and you iuay expect a reply frol1l us
by Fehn,ary 12, 1981 Ie you have any questions concerning this
review, please contactBrvan Gatch (383-24')1)) of this Clearinghouse.
ite are Interested In your project and will make evp.ry efCort to ensure
prompt action. Thank you tor your cooperation wllh th" Clearlnghollse
program.
Sincerely,
S/tr:..!;::,:;,=~
Dlrectov, Staid ClearinGhouse
BG I Dunk
-------
......
I
W
-..
10-1
t?/£
':'~..I!a..
MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT Of STAT E PLANtIING
)01 W PH(SJO.. StRH J
8AL Tla.tOR[ ....HYl'-'ND 2' 20'
t."RH't ttU&';uES
CONSU..C( L'lO(A
c;O"'..""O"
March 2, lllill
..c.".....
Hr. T. A. Wastier
Chlet, M.Hine Prot"ction
Environm"ntal Protection
Washington, O. C. 20460
8ranch (WII-5018)
Ayency
SUDJECT.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (ElS) REVIEW
Applicant. U.5. Environm..ntal Prot..ction Agency
Proj"ct. Vratt EIS - Proposel.! North Atl.antic Incin..ration Site
tor Pestruction ot Toxic OrgAnic Waet..
Stat.. Clearin\jhouse Control Nu..bur. 81-1-5-10
Sta t8 Cl"aringhouse Contac t 1 JaJI'''S McConna"Ohlu.y (303-2-167)
O..ar Mr. Wastl..r.
The Stat.. Cl..arinohou... has r..vi"wed the ahov.. JI"oject. In accordAnce with
the procedule.. ..stabUehed by the Ottice ot Manage..ent anl.! 8ud9..t Circular
A-liS, th.. Stat.. Clearlnyhous8 recelv"d co.un.",te trom the tollowlnil.
()ept. ot Natural Resources, Pe t at Econo.dc & C').ununit Vevelo "nent,
1ncludin<) their "Iitodcar Trust ..ectlon, J}..pt. at Transportat on,
~!~t Mary and COInter tor EnVIrOnmental and Eltuarine Stll.ji..M,
~! Ocea.. CI~, and our Itatt, noted that the State",ent app"ar. to
adequately cover tho... "r"a. at Jnt..rest-to th..ir ag"..cle..
"frl/l"n,1 Ot ie.. a v ro .mental roc ram,; and Wore.".t"! County we'"
provid"d the opportun ty to co"""ent, but have not responded as ot tlUI>
date. It suLsequ..nt COIIUIII"'t. ar" rec..ived, they will b.. torwarde
-------
'1
,
W
N
J1
.'ft ~r',
~n.: ~..""
~'l:::r ~
. ....-1 ,-
~
Solal, of ~ru, :rrrsr!)
DC"A,nlo4£NT 01' COMMUNITY A'''AIR:i
IOll.ltt .- l,'A,..'.
Co....MII:.IOhl"
I.. -.1' If A'. ..",.:,
1'0" O,,.CI 10. U"
'''1''''0'' .. J 0....'
Ja"UdCV "
1991
Hc. T.A. W49ller
Chlot, "..cllle Protection
Envlto/ununt..1 Protection
1149hlll(jlOn, D.C. 20~60
Bunch IU"-SUI
A'Jency
UI
Sueo IdoaeUau Mo. OSlC-n-'l-'2)
.Envlconm.lI~al I~pact SeAe.m.nt f~r
Pcopoo..d "~cth Atlanelc Incln.c.tlon
SIte Ouol9"allon
Dooe Hc. W..otieci
Tho Hev Joroo, St.e. Cl..ranlhou.. h.. recoav.d oDd I. proco..ln.
'roJ.ct "otltlc.tloo .8 r.qulrod b, the provl.lon. of tho O. S. oltlc.
H.no...cut ond 8udlot Clrcul.r A-'S 10"10.4 .nd Cheptor 8), H." J.ree,
01 1944. Th10 ptoJocc h.. bUD dua,oo~.d OSRC-n -91-921.
youc
ot
t.v.
n.o Stet. CIo..ln.hou.. h.. ...llood. )Odoy uvle" period oftoctav.
vlth the doto of thla toU.r. TIlle I8vlew p.r104 10 conohteoe with our
lotetnal procodocu e04 , 040..1 I8lu tet 1000 co lev oot to you, P,ol"18. Tho
.pprop.-aate .tat. '..OCJ.. hav. b.ID rlqu..tad to C(.Imme.U OQ '01j~ Il'pltC8tJOQ.
"hllo the Steto Cluc10ahouo. "a.. perlo,," aco 0"0 r.vle". It co...o.... u.
'ocoh." 4Io.s on, c..nlllce. 0' h.uu 0'10., tho CI.., Iolhouoo "au n..~IIJ you.
Ie .0' bo nocou"J co roq....c .d"hloool lolon"clull enoJ/or Co .ch."ul. 0
cont.rene. tu oc.l., to (..01.. the '88ua. pctoc to clca(8nce. odl.OIt.. yo.,
... clurod u th. .nd 0' tho uvl- p.rlod to lorv.,d '0'" Itn.1 oppllculoo
Co ch. '04...1 lundlug ...oc" .cco..pooIo4 bJ . cOPJ 01 11.12 I.uer. It h
tho ro.pooolbillt, ot tho .ppltc.nt to octoch 0.,. CO~'c"Co 10 ch. .ppllc.Cloo
lor"otdod to th. 'odor.1 .,.0cJ.
PI...o toel tr.. Co c.lt upoo the 'tuo C....ln_I,..II.. u .nJ cl..o to ...ht
'0" vlth e.,y problcme or quoulon. ,OU .., h.v. "Ith Ih. A-9~ r."I." proc.....r..
...!.~ er..I, yo....,
/
;: / ..
;' . -"/ . I' /f' "'''''
Mlchord 4. Cln....
Stlte ReY..~ C~u(dln~t~r
HOTEl
PI..s. place JOU( Stat. Id8att'.er Number ou .11 "Hellcr COI(C'polIJcnce
..,..1 oppllcoUoo to.... (414) .0 thot th. Clo«I"_I,o"o. ..., ..ore dlldoncly
pruc... ...1. .ppllcotloD.
VI...- Jll,n' ,. .f" £9.,.,1 0PPOflUI1'h E.mrltlltf
-------
11
"'T1
I
W
W
.n J n
"~I
~. ". ,1'.1
:iT. LA. 11..&10&. 0.1.,
:w ('uo rrott:~t Ion II.neb
t:nvhulu..n...1 '..o.ecIIIJR
1I..Io'".IU". DC J0460
Oeor Hr, 1I..tI8&1
=S....\.'I! ...,. Sa:",' .'I!u"t:y
DEI'..':-"'" ur I :''''"''''''1:);,.., 1""~le'IIII"
"""L vi I.... LU"'''"~~lu..".
, U 'V. .'.0
hILH'O.. .. ~ ".."
101-""."..
rcb.ua.)/ S. 19d1
A.anc:)/
Ral
Duft US - '.u..".." ""uh Ulanclc:
Inelr,.rAt'un SIt8
I ...ra h",.,,'.,. (aqu..Clna . )0 ....~ ..ceIl8'OU of Chd ...vl." p.rtuJ
101 Itu: "'HIVIII notad Dr4'. [15. It atctlA. ..I..... urIJlIII-,II'1 ) COP'.III \lCI_,
..a:ut I.u aho N.J. DepOtlc.cnt vI £"vt,unm~fu.1 Pruct:('llon Lue 8ub.....uently
bdC~~~ 10.", H1 offlc. ,..d 10 rcqu~~1. ~JJI(lun41 cllpl.. ~hlcl, h..
c4u~~d . d.lay In ah. ravl.w ot till. do~um~I't.
I., II.. luture. ah. revllw uf .11 liS'. coulJ ~. ..pMdll.d at ,
cOIJI.. "'.r. ..01 dlr.cCI)' co ... 11.1. ..o"ld ..ut.l. -.. .(..11 co h...JI.
,h. d'.crlt.....lon co .h. ".rlou8 P-p8..'..u'at -..fle I." anJ "..ft ....... on
tl.8 r.vle., prac....
...~ r-n
L."'rtluc.. Sch..ldc. n...,
Olilc. 6)' £hvi ,.unta.:n' 011 Ilvlt:w
.w~ Ht':',CI.'O
"1'11 ~ I
". / '
.' y
~ 1.1. ,,:,. 'r
I.."'" ,"-' J.' ,
Y" ,. ,
I 16 .' , ,'/'
{; ~i(1 ./ I/~L'" .1 ;,.}I;)-
(I . .1 ,rr 4.
, ~ .,Il , - I ,. /' I" 'f' , .'
f '(I' I- ') ; ? . . ""
fl'11' ....lo"", "J,,~r.. '/ .
. P. 1/ ., L . ." - .. I "
'f'J..P' ').1" {f. l'
f I~'" .11" t.'"
, -l/rf..> , W' l 1.'"',,
IIJ ),....~ .... (
l ,. ,.L .! L ., ( . } ..
/J f, / ..' ..III ,. ., I . I ~
(I' .
" ) I
' '..!./J I .
-------
"T1 11-1
I
w
~
11-2
11-3
11-4
11-5
,.
'n - It
~ .€l t
ST.'TI~ or ~"W .I"..,u:y
DCI'.At'tr:oli 0' C:"f"fHU""" "':.'L i'lhHU:IIO"8
)'''C! (" ~...,! .,;:;)......".0...:..
. : ,It)- :,:
... ("''::'" .. ~ :. ~I! .
03.'!U : .),
~nch 25. 1'181
Hr. I.A. ~~.tl.r
Ch..,. :tArln. f18h.rl..
8£.Jnch
(Ioll-H8)
[nvJronm~nc.l 'roelctlon
U..hlnlton. DC 20~60
'rouct Ion
"'..ncy
D..r Hr. U~.tl.r:
Th. D.partment 01 (nytrona.nt.1 'rocattlon h.. compl.t.d It.
r.vlew 01 tha Dr~Ic tiS 101 the 'ropo..d North Atl~ntlc Incln.r.tlon
Sit.. A. ~ c..ule 01 Ih. review W8 have had .ub.t~ntl.l co~.nt. '(0.
our Dlvl.lun "I fl.h. C... and Ulldili. r.l.clv. to pot.ntl.1 Imp.ct.
on t"8 Derlne '1-:lh.(le. c..ourc... The ...JOI' cone.me of the Dlvllton
are sutnlll-rl,ed .. '0110"':
I. Af,er doln, . Ilmlt.d ..ount ot vork In the Gull ul H..lco
the U'A ~nov. vn, little ot the attecce of Indnerul"n upon ,he
IcoDy.rem. furt'.ar. .tter Idmtttina tll. Cull burn "., very limited AncS
con.trlc,ed a. to the chamJc.l. th.t could b. Incln.r~'ed, th., er.
propos'ni to 18( .Imolt unr..(rlcted burntn.. 01 alma., unlimited am.ounta
o' co.le .nd orA-nle vall,. to occur 011 our COAst.
2. [PA ~dmlt. th.r. viii b. h.zArd. a..ocl~red wllh Incln.rArlon
at .el, b,.c they do not knov whae the, viiI ba or ~hat amount' 01 toatc
~.~te. ulll occur.
). StAtement. d.alln. vl,h the propo.ed .It. .nd o.l.rlnl oc..no,r~phlc
condl'lon. .nd e.I.(lnl productlvJt, 01 th. ~r.. In fl.herl.. In (h. propo..d
.Ir. "ere .Ither ',O[(U. oc conflicted with uthe( .ta(~nlen[' £1U14e ttuoulhout
th. '.pu,t. The .ectlon. d.alln. vlth th. off .hore fl.hery ver. Iro..11
In~d"luore ~nd tolled to recoanJ.. the Imporronc. of .ev...1 hra. co....rchl
fl.herle. e.l.tlnl In thl. loc.tlon.
In Ilhlltlon to th. COlDDen«8 on th. marine fl.heries, ue 00(8 thlt
,he Dr.f' [IS I. ve~k vlth (..~rd to .n.lyrlnl ,he land basod Imp.c,. 01
'«01'01"11 lu.I tr.".t.1' 0' h81t1,.doU8 U'8(8. It an on-.lte tactllty ".1"
con.lder~d In (I,e 5[al. 01 Haw Jer..y. there would be I n"mh~r uf
re,ulatory ...v'eu. nee....ry which would l.ad to the ",uance of chll
fullovlnl permlr.,
100'" "'CyCUO
11-2
"
11-1
Ihe limited rellarch and monitoring conducted to d.te Indlcatll thAt
Ihere II realonable JUltlflc.tlon lor proceeding ~Ith continued
developnent 01 .t-lea Inc Iner"lon lechno I o~y. It should also be
recognized that relearch and monitoring ..111 be carried
out durIng
future operatlonl at sea. particularly lor new dlspJSal sites and
wastes that h.v. not been previously Incinerated at sea.
Addltlon.lly. research on Incineration 01 halardous Hastes II being
conducted at (PA', resurch facility In (Indnnatl. Ohio.
At-sea IncineratIon will not be unrestricted or unlimited. StrIngent
technlc.1 re~ulremenll ~st be adhered to. and Oper.tlonl wIll be
monitored to protect lh. recelvlnw rnvlronment.
InformatIon. reler to responle 1-10.
for lurthrr
-------
t 1- 3
11-4
"
,
L..)
01
11-5
Polenllal h.ur'15 usoci.l"d "".. dl-S,,' Incineration were cle.rly
i.lenll I ied In lhe 11£1 S.
1I"""uwII,, ,,~,.~ cll~u .d~ntl'led.
IIu! qu.ntl
01 n\l.lues "ill b., dlreclly rel..Io:.1 I" lh" 1)'1'''\ .nd 4cIIOunU 01
"'Sl"s inciner.ted.
AlthOUlJh Ihe level 01 use is unknown, 200,1100
10'III"s per ye.r '1'1..,.r\ to I.e .In "I'I,<:r le.el lor Ihe site h"e
responSI' 1-101.
Ibe OEIS hu been c.re'ully reY'e",,"; .11 IHues r.ised on 'Isherles
h.ve been reverl'led, .nd the teol is e.p'nded, '$ necesury, In
response to spec II ic COCl.nenlS.
1I')""v"r, no SUbU.ntlll In.ccur.ClU
..ere Identified IS no subU.nl",' cuo:,,,,,,:i.1 (01" recrutlon")
flsherln occur in lhe site.
As SI.led In the 0[15, most fishing
'Cliyitin occur on the Contlllenl.1 Shelf upper Slol'e, . I8lni- I)'
]0 runi .,est 0' the weSlern burclel' 01 Ihl! Slle.
In Febru.ry 1980, [fA pron..llj.t..1 regulHions 'or Iectlons of the
Aesource Conserv.tlon .nd Aecovery Act (ACAAI.
Ihese regul.tlons
est.bllsh 't.nd.rds 'or control of h.,.rdous w.ste 'rOD point 0'
gener.tlon through stor.ge, tre.tment, .nd ultlm.te ~lspos.1 vi.
tr.nsport.tlon m.nlfests .nd reportinlj.
ACAA proYlde, 'or cr.dle-
to-gr.ye tr.cklng .nd SI'e h.n"',n') ui lI.,ardous w.Ues up to the
shipboard 10.dlnlJ 0' ..Utes, ..hereby Ihe IIPHSA Ukes ellecl.
fhc (1'''' w'" ....ot cy.nt . ~nnll 'or dt-se. inc'neration unless RCRA
.nd other feder", St.te .nd loc., requirements are sHulled.
In
.d"ltlon, the permittee would be require" to .pply 'or .ny requIred
St"e pe....11I for I.n~-bued "perdt Ions.
fur .""11 10n.1 'n'or"H'on,
reler to Ch.pter 2 of the H'S, unlle.. "Conclusions. sect'on.
-------
11-6
-0
I
W
0\
1) ".'.I"'rool Oevelopcnen[ 'analt - . proJe.:c \oI-.)ul.1 a.ave (0 meet ulth
th. St~te'l promullat~d (0..181 U.terfront O~~elt,)pm~"l Poltcl~l.
l) R.HI.oulo" Penalt fro.. the Solid lIaSt" .\d...I.."Ir-,8e ."d tun.ler
polntt ",flere there L1Y b. .t.. ..I.lloos.
4) Spill Provontton and Contatn..ent Plan - thl. 10 . r.qulro..ent 01 the
Ohlol"n 0' lI.urd Kanase..ont.
rll,.tly u. qu..tlon whether th. 10clo.'.(loo .qul~m.nt .board
th. v....t .llould n~[ heve 80.. 80rc at IClubb'"a ~.v... 01 urher elr
polll1r.'oo devlc.. 10 ...caove chlorld." 08Irl.... 80,1 3,.I'"r t))dd...
~I,... product. 01 Inclnerltlon can 001, add 10 .cldlc 8CGolph.rlc .
condlrlone vhtch cau.. "acl4 rain".
(n .ddltton to the above ..nerat comments, (he Dtv'~'on 0' F'th.
e.me ."d 1III00llte h.e .enerUed epecHlc de(.llool Co....ntl ..hleh I have
etteeh.d to (his lotter.
i
~~d
L renco Sd,..id(, ChI.'
ot'!ce ot [nv'ron~cn(~' ~~vle~
At t~ct"ncn[ s
l1-n
S.a tO~.ent. .nd responses ).9 and '.1).
-------
11-7
11-0
"T1
.
w
.....,
11-9
11-10
SI)eci{lC C~olDotincJl on Ot::IS tOI"" ~h. P~Optn..,J No..)lth Ac.1.antlc 'nciutlC4Clon SllO
P. xit - ,"he iiite d..i'lhAtion lor I.ncinecA~lon at tOXIC ocq....dc w."t. At. VdC"I
'e4tit stk,)uld auchol:iz8 Ip.ciri~ industri.l cheCDic:als to Ltc incin.cAt8d .~ Sd".
The opejon:. of .n ctnviconm.ut.l pc.tel'a..bll lb8;it.hod uf d~.t.(oyinq toxic and <.;tl:.IC
h"'l~tdou:.i chemical w.al. l..vo!l the deci:iion ot Jlsf)''':..l Jolcly tu the op~t:..-
tOt.
w. find UU~ objecl1004bLJ.
w. t\4vo '':1:0 ~ '1ft. tU\d t Uli. .c;.atn. to t.htJ
1IIIIIorl:\:". ot oue tw..lth ..-.d wel.l bel.n9. tJut t..he op6r.t~r5 ulten U:II8 th.. n':)5,t
8x~d'enc 4nd profitable 818ch:uJa. not nOL.:c:t~cily Old s.afcst 4nd 1.!4it dllJ::i.truc-
llvd the ~nvi(o~n~.
P. xii' - ,': is st4tei an cb, UEIS tt..,c Ih., Gulf 01 ~eJ(lCO Sil11,
11-7
11-[1
11-9
Ihe lite deqgnUlon 00"1 not inclu'h, ,..,,"oriutlon ot ~peclflc
indu5trlll chemicIII.
As noted In tile: Uf IS, ill ..ute ",Uerllh
cun~ldc,~d tor It-le:I Inc.n~r.tlon .r~ Subject tJ EllA ~rm4ttln1
proceu, "hlch "lluu.,I .nd dete:rmine:s tI"u~ Gllterl.1s eacepUbl41
tor Inclnerltlon.
lIell(e, the fln.1 ,ldlSlon to uti Ille the It-sel
tnclnerltlon .Itern.tlve Is not ae:termln~ by the N.ste producerl,
but by the (fA lit. m.n.gement luthorltt.
AI so rer er to cORmellt Ind
respoo5e I 9.6.
As noted In the 0(15, (p. 1-201, dpproalm4tely YOI 01 .11 WlStu
Ide:ntltled Ir. generlted In Gull (041t ~t.te~.
Use 01 the Gull 01
Hdalco lit. for "4't'l generltea on the el~t co.st miy present.
prob'~m II the lite I' used eatens.vely in the luture.
A, ..pllined ,
In (hopter 4, the upper 1I.lt ot lite use Is eHllllt1ld to be 200,000
tonnes 01 "Istel per yelr, bll~a on I ~ingle v"~Iel operltlng In the
IIle 24 houn per diY, )6~ d4yl per ye:dr. It 22 ~u"nes per hoor (sell
.Iso rlbles 1-) 4nll 2-)1.
It wnuld not bu pos51ble to ut. thll Gull
~'te tor w.,t., generated on both C04~tl. 4~ ..05t., trom ,Ith.r ~Oll(
Cln potentl.lly 'Itl4te the u5e: 01 0 "nql~ site.
An')lh~r II
-------
11-10
"
I
~
00
AS noted In Chapter, ) and 4 of the O£IS, the proposed IncIneratIon
site Is not located 10 anr conDerclall, or recreltlonall, Importlnt
'Ishlng or shellflshlng .re.s,
lImIted 'Inflshlng occur, beyond the
Continental Shel',
Av.llable c.tch 'tatlstlci (lee .dded ,.ble J-I)
for the proposed sltl .nd vlclnlt, .nd nearb, altern.tlve' Indlc.te
th.t there Is ~ fishIng .ctlvlt, for tun. and billfish ,pecll',
Pelagic fishing .Iso occur, to the east Ind s~uth In w.r..r ~.tlr. 0'
the Sarg.sso Sea .nd Gulf Strel~.
Chapter ). sectIon .Other
Activities In the Site Vlclnlt,., has been e.panded to provide more
In'orm.tlon on U.S. .nd 'orel9O fisheries.
Numerous species pf whales .nd dolphins (see 'Ible A.19) transit thl
Continent. I Slope .nd ne.rshore w.ters 0' the mid-AtlantIc dlght
region, as migratory routel,
Presently, no data are av.llable to
determine e"ects 0' Inclner.tlon 0' residual materials on ..rlne
org.nlsms; however, the likelIhood 0' Impacts 'ro~ residues Is
remote.
-------
11-11
11-12
"
.
w
LO
11-13
11-14
~... .t9r.t.o~y p.t.t....y. of ."""'V of Que 1Dvoctant p.18'Jic .p.ci.., i.... bluetin
Sw'.", pllow .v., .lbaco~.. l\.IOcdfJah. blue Maclin, .. well.. AtunCJ th. cat'llt.-
t.ocy P&t.t.,.y. o~ 1..-oc~an~ .~in. 111.....,.1. 8uch ... t.h. hlUptJ.&.ck wt..t., t1nb.ck
whal. and .p.cm "bale.
iD tha ons.
Onlr cur.ocy tl[..~nt ~. 9tv8n t~ .~ln. ~l.
P. .iv - Th. .tAtamant on tbi. pa..a ~ot the .caa -...i. not a hJ9h11 pcod~tlva
bioloCjlcal .c.....- 1. . ..anlogl... .~.t.~nt.
When t.h. .1.. of the pcopo..d
.1t. I, oolDpoAre4 to th.a Sacg..110 ac.. 01' (:8rtain &.1".". In the c.cclb.an S.. O(
Pacific ."" Indian Dc..,... ie 10 ind..d highly pco.....ctiv..
rw:tl..c, t.h. .t..t~-
..n~ aAd. on P898 &-48 relatlve t.o the .lope WA~.C wb.... In. ~copo,.d .11..
1. locac..d indicat.. that t..h. ..c.. toIGuld b. 8wtJ:8met,. attrAcIlve to cat.AC8U\8
b.couaa at tho pcoUJIIlty ot eich h.cUn9 9cound. 010"9 a nonh-south ml9rotory
CO..:t.I.
Thia Itatem.nt. app.ar. Co co'uto ~ho .t4t~cn~
th.t ~he a[.. ....!~
noe a hJ9hly pCO~~~iV8 biolo91coi ac.o...-
P. IN - Th. .tat....nt OR th10 pa9. -Th. alt. Ipc",.oudl Ia not; a hl9:!ly pro-
ductive bio109icAI aC.& and d~. no~ &UPpo£t c~~~ci.l or c.cr.atjonAl f!.h...-
I. .Imply not tru..
k8 poln~.d out &bove, the prc?osed Inctneratlon alee doe.
cent.e on . v8ey aubetanttal co~rcl.l rl.hAcy And ~y lie .1009 &A Ar.. wlth
an t~pa~tant recr..ttonal ftahecy a. well.
Whtle tho ucc..~IQO.1 U.h.ry
:....... yat to b. d~cUED8nte4, Hew .Jec..y viii be col\L!a.:~jn9 a .urv.)' thl. v.ar
to det.nDI... ",t..t.har or not an J.~~Unt c.cr..tioru.l flsh8r)f tak.. pl.t.C8 n..c
the prol'Da.'" .It..
P. .vili - Th.. atote...nt; in ch. Ueat pauquph on ~hl. po'}. Uot slta NQ.
S Sa closttc to the Cult su.... than 8it. No. 1 dOlI. not L..I" true.
Th. vega r h.
at the D.I~.lv. oce." currenelv caUed the Culf Str..:za .. It i.n~lu,u\c.. .11
or ~tu:: pI'GPc..d .'c... J.. ROC tul11 know.,.
To Iri~ic... th.~ .It. 110. i "0"'''
b. ...V to Don'toc b...d ~n It. pOlttlon to tho ~ult S'c.~ .. aLDoat b.yo~
b.li.t.
':uulnly ut. tIo S eay b. IILIr. dlfUcult to monitor than .Ita 1\.).1,
but onlv because ot the gre.tly enlAcved ar... ot .lle: lIu. S I"ttl.t1" LO lIte
1'0. 1.
Why .re the pl[opo..d aile. of ~.r..tly ,hllttcenc ..le.1
P. xViii - Tt\d DEIS indicAe.. the env&I"Q.\tOtnul cono.qu..ro';"8 ol If~in~ra~'on
.t .... wittun the mJddl. Atl.ntic Ac.a va, a~ses~4d ~y ~e4na ol r.~e.cch con~
duo;t..d In tha Gulf 01 ".dco.
8eCa.Uii8 01 th4 d&flC!:ctlfU":'" 10 oC."Ho9r.?htc
And cl1Q.1t,tol'>9ic.al l.ctacl. it II qU.'Lio".s~10 Whdl.tlC!C y.,)u Cdn aulatitute ono
11-11
11-12
11-13
R~latl.e to the Contln.ntal Shel' and Slope. for whlLh alt.rnatl..
site location. are ..a.ln.d. the proposed site has. lo..r prl..r,
productl.lt, rat. (160 9 (/al/,r. Shel' .erJ~J 100 9 C/gl/,r.
Slope). chloroph,11 ! concentr.tlons (l.~ uq/~J. Shell ..rsus
O.g ug/IO). Slope). and blollus 11.010 ..1/1000 ~). Shell .enus
ZIO .I/IOO~). out.r Slope). In addition to reduced .bunddnc. ot
lIa~ Indigenous sp.cl...
Thus. tlla .rea Is n~ hlghl, product h.
reht lva to tood lteas taken 'or huIIan cons....ptton.
Rel.r to relponl.1 1-1 .nd 11-10.
Respons. to ih.,. COnDentl Mill be approached In somewhat r...rs.
order.
Jhe area Ident HIed II HulDller S Is not. site. r.ther It II .
"region' In Mhlch . I Ite .a, be located. ..hlch elp 1.lns tho
dlrterence In 1111. fh. larger area Is used to Ilmpll', the
dlscus,lon 0' en.lron~ental conditIons.
It Is dcknowledged In the
0£15 (Chapter l) that nUllerous envlrofllO~flldl tuton confound tho
u.erall underst.ndlng 01 the propoSed slle, .1 well .s the
surrounding region.
-------
"TI
I
~
o
11-1'1
Ihe O£l S never uurts that annllodng "III be euy; III lact, It Is
pointed out on sever.1 occ.slons th.t monitoring In the dlst.nt
marine environment Is no simple tuk.
Ihere Is nothing unbelleuble
about the complelltles produced by eltreme envlronment.1 v.rl.tlon
resulting from perlodlc.lly monitoring Inside, then outside. the Gull
Stre~l1I.
In . Ilter.1 sense monitoring will I~ no more dl"lcult In
either the ~roposed site or somewhere within the southern region
alternative.
Ihe dl"lculty ulses In the Interpretat Ion 01
monitoring results, .nd It Is here that control (or reductlonl 0'
natural variation will reduce problems assucllted with
I~terpretatlon 01 d.t..
Ihe chemical characteristics 0' oceanic seawater vary only slightly
In I global sense. temper.ture .nd salinity notwlthsi.nding.
Certainly the blologicil ch.rlcterlstlcs change subst.ntl.lly 'rom
the poles to the equator, Ind In rel.tlon to contInental Inlluences.
Ito doubt on.' specIes "III react dlllerently than another to .
specIfIc stImulI, Ind the response will probably be assocIated with.
given life history stage, .ge, she. and environmental acclImatIon.
Applying an eltrapol.tlon 0' studIes conducted In the Gulf 0' He.lco
to the Itorth Atlantic offers. reasonably p-edlcllve tool. and
,"onHorlng ol"lntineratlon operallons ..III provide verlflcallon.
-------
11-J5
11 -.16
""T1
I
.f>,
~
11-17
ac.." roc the oth8c..
I~ a. fuct.t...1t atatad that ton" tenza .ffect, "'.ce not: ..1.-
C.8ct.abl. .. . I..ul~ 01 tJ.. Gulf of "."'co c....acch burn..
UU"'.V8C. this wa.
wh:b only la..lte..s voh... and typ.. of "'..t.e inClnecated .~ t.he Cult .1.1...
Sineo EVA i. uat~ tho Gulf otto o. tho b..,.
o Uatt.d burn 111 ono gooCJ&"o"htc:oU, 4Uheont
ot "'...ament.. ..t.e8poLaL..
.rO&
t.o .. much ..'98' .oJ CCA-
pUcaCad bu.cn ta . 41fl.cant ac... ... do not &«)1.. that the -ccem.ndoul volllD8
an4 ~.t:.c AvallAbI. loe dl1ut,loD .04 dlaper.lon would tt~c.'oc. count_I( any
-dve,.. atr.ct. in the propo..cS .1~..
P. .t. - Tho uguaont h uaod to o.ippat U.. pcopoud oito th..t it 110. 120
Diloo ofl.l~c. and tho pcovollLn9 windo oeo w..tecl,.
Thi. would C8c~ ..nr
:ont..uUlWnt8 8W.)' rc~ lAnd.
UQ".V8C. no GMntion 1$ ..d. of the con.equenc...
ot an ...t8'lr or nocthe..t.aclv wlRd th.~ otten blou8 on ahaca at cat.. v&cyinW
fcOOt S knot.. t.o 40 N\O~. 01' 8OCe.
WhAt: t~pp.n. r.o E..tdU8 both In t.he AtAOlph.8f8
And in t.tw watel' when t.he wind du.c~lon ct\4n~.a tcom "'.at to 8..at. and conti.nu.. .
in &n ...tcclr dlrocttOQ '01' ~ce. dAY. 01' ~[.l
Furth.l:, b.c.,u. or c~ c1ccul.atlon pat.t8l:n common to t.hd pl'0poI.d alel .r.a,
t:o.tc 1'..hh.l8 '-'QuId V8cy lLkely be c&cct.4 nOfU1wud ~4 ...t."'81:c1 towud. C.OCge.
Bonk.
One. ch08c. tt..V could- vecy .,.11 b. ent...vp.d IJ\ a Aouthw..rd flow thAt
olt..n moVI along the contin.nt.al l8A&'g1n DC onto the 8494 of U.. cont. Lnent..a 1
aholl.
Thua. i..id...... could be cucl.d onto the ahllt "'he'" Jt. would b. con.
C:.'U:(4ted in v&Cto~ ...cln. 0(,.801... th..c ace. .. food f.;)c l.eqec or9anJ8aa. -
c:c&ta, lob.teel. Ii ah - .atan by ca.ln..
t. .1. - A .tat...nc J. ..d. on thJ. p8'i)1 concecn1n'l haavy lMiul. and or'i),&l\tc
COI1IfOt1f1d. :hat. .i9hc accU8ulate 1n body r.i..OM. 0: m..actn. oC«j.lnt.m8.
I~ h
.tat.'" ttwl. lt~ poc-antlal toe accuaul.tton ot th..~ we.I... appa"J:"8 to ba .lnULoll.
Thi. t. .. 9(0:1$ .t.undec.tat...nt of . problem ",hl~h pc....ntly a.i.t...
"accury
Jov.l. 'uuod in pa149ic oc..ntc liatw. .uch .. swo,dti~h 4nd tun. ac. now .at
oc above .,I"u...l flJA levele.
Any addition to t~U:~d lavel.. even IllCJht: ones.
~Y veey ~ekl have ..rioue bJolo9ic And economic con..qUdnc....
Ie Ia fur tho"
8tatutl that th.- -dyn.a.a:aic." ot the OC.An is &It im"u(l..nt tactor -"'htch aicp11fic.1l1tl1
raduco. tha problem of adv.c.e impact 01: otr ahoelS Jncineldtion.
It furthar
.tat.. thAt tt... dilution and diaper.ion 0' w....t. relldw.8 by o..:ct.ln CUI'l'elita
ou ~... petnel".l he~oe. loe ~hi..
AI.o. lh. tact that n.sclne O(9.."tlln~ cun-
1 J - J 5 As noled In the DEaS. (Chapter 2. under section 'DeUlled 8ues 'or
the SelectIon 0' the Proposed SIte') the offshore dlst.nce 0' the
11-16
11-17
proposed sIte fro. the co.st.l shore Is adequ.te to provl4e 'or
eAtenslve dlsperllon Ind dIlution of almospherlc ~aste residues.
It II unlikely Ih.t Inclner.tlon of residues ~III cluse .ny adverse
envlroNnentai hl'lrd to the Itmosphere .nd marIne envIronment.
'ransport IcrOIS I dllt.nce '1 gre.t as described would requIre
~onths. or possibly ye.rs .nd result In enorooUI dIlutIon 0' .ny
remaining resIdue.
Kercur, Ind c.4mlu. .re two ~t..11 Itrlctl, regul.ted under the U.S.
DC.ln Ou~Ing R,gul.tlonl .nd the Annexes 10 the london Do.plng
Convenllon.
Proble.. th.t do ..Ilt arl Inv..rl.bI1 '1lOcllted ~llh
large (typically Indultr"l J sources of lIeul Input, .nd .rl ulu.1I1
nur shorl.
It II nol .nllclp.lld Ih.1 "I-II' IncI".rltlon will il'w
10 unlcc.ptlblo Inputl of .,rcur1, or olher .11.11.
1I.lv1 ..ull .re
present In wutn onh In IrICe ..mounu. end II nOled In the DEIS
(Chapler 4 .nd Applndl. OJ, the pOlenlt..1 tor .ccu~IIII~ of thei.
Irlce 8lellh appurs 10 be .lnl...1.
Fllleen 1"'" of .onltorlng .t tll.! neuby 106-""0 DClln IInte
Disposil SItl hlwe 1101 delecled 'CCU.~14tlon 0' ~1.11 th.t wlr.
contained In dispOSed Industrial "utes.
for. ver, In'ormatlve dlscusslun ot .01\lln9 4ccept..bll FDA .ercur1
levels In sutoods, Ihe re..der Is reterre.J 10 C.O. Officer .nd J.H.
Nyther, 19111.
Sword'ISh .nd Hercury; A C4\e hlltor,.
Oce..nus, vol.
14, no. I. p. 14-41.
-------
11-18
11-19
-n
I
~
N
11-20
11-21
11-22 P.
tl.nuallv move 1n and OU~ and the .flect.d .r.. 1. useJ ... .an .a1'fJUD'.:!nc foe de-
cro...d concentr.t 10n. or w..~. c..(due 1n th... orqani 'liDS. "ha 1. the cheAtcaa
..0<1 pt:ydcal prap.r~l.. 01 ~". a..a u. brl.lly ducu.....s, EPI< hea no~ conald...d
the rac~ thAt..~nv ED.clne OC98nl... concent."8t. vaci::Ju~ chcmic.t re.idu...
80m. 100.000 tUD.. 01' mace.
Th.y cia no~ addJ:... the prabl... that 10" leva"
ot "'..VV ....hie pr...ntly towwl In ....clna Ua" AL. a urtau» q"oHlan "9-"rdIo9
~t:. ..-JiIJUitj' at ~h.... apoclaa.
P. ~-as - Tobl. )-1 .I>'>"a thoi o>oat "'port.on~ Unlh" aoJ ."..IUion .p.cha
~01"10 In tl.. ..Iddla Irt" ao.... $I,OOO,uOO to U... f..hermen.
ThJa .p..ctaa .. . raaJdan~ bouo..
d"aUor and taund In clo.a p.o""'lty to tha p."poud alto.
In addition, th.
catch and "alu8 at the 10.a19O tiahacy otf oue co..t - .quld, ..ackaral, al1"a.
ho..a ..0<1 tuna - ar.. not addra..ad at alL
The.. ,..her ia. ..11 I prab.tbly ba
.aplaced by US th"a......n in th. nau lutura.
P. )-15 - A 'ht.....nt "~a on thJ. pa..a Indicot... ~"'t thera o.a no ~rob. 01
c~arcial .I.a thot occur In tha propo..d alt. and t"'~ adul~ crabl I.a takan
8ultlclentlv lac enou9h awav fro. the .It. 80 that waar. ...."du.. .r. noc likely
to r.ach t.hera.
Thla a~ata..ant 1. without taun~.tlon.
In addition to t~o red
crab occucl1nq alon9 the alope ar.., ..varal canCer cr-ba occur LA tho s.me
ar..a he"e a 1..'0" pot.ntlal lac" co.....cclal Uah..ry.
It 18 a~.tad turthar
on 1'09" )-15 ~I...t a".cta. a"allab1" to U'... toralgn U.hdry wlH ba ba d:'c~ad,
There h no toundat Ion tor thh .tat.....nt at a 11.
In tact.. tt.. tnee.... levele
at hee.y ~.t.l. On th..a .paclaa ..y ha"a lav...a blol09lc~1 and aconomlcal
con.e~uencea ~. at.ated above.
P. )-16 Tobl. 1-1 doea not :'a". ~h. tl-l.U.h, ..,ord:lIh or tuna landln98 to.
the vacious .Iddlo Aclantlc Itat...
1-1& - Tt~ statemene I. ~d. ch.~ ~. Inctndcation o~.~.tlon. ace .-?Dcted
"0 h..,o. no tUucc.ptabl. advec.. up.ct. LVon .rkJan9.(~d or t.hl"eaten.d ""c'ne
8..11..1. .
We ..ould Ilka to know wha' an accaptable adv~r... Impac~ upon the...
Q4clne ol"9~nlsms would be.
11-10
11-19
r.ble l-I h.. ~en e.panded to Include all 'Ishery r..ource.
.ddressed within th..e comments.
£PA malnt.lns th.t Inclner.tlon .ctlvltles will occur at . ,u"lclent
dlst.nce 'ro~ shore to prevent any Inter'erence with. or
cont.mln.tlon 0'. the 'Ishery resources t.ken .Iong the Contlnent.1
She It or Slope.
foreign 'Ishlng .ctlvlties are widely dispersed to
the e.st .nd .outh 0' the propoJed site.
Any 'I,hlng .ctlvlty th.t
would h.ve otherwise occurred In the .re. occupied by the proposed
lite would not represent. slgnl'lc.nt 'Ishlng e"ort.
See .110
cOolment Ind ruponse 1-16.
11-20 See response 11-11.
11-21
r.ble l-I h.. been 8Odl'led to Include these species.
11-22 As noted In the DEIS. (pp. ]-g arid 4-21), .11 end.ngered and
thre.ten.d specie. that .re known to O(c.slon the .re. occupied by
Ihe proposed site .re relaU"ely luge org.nlsms (I.e., turtles .nd
wh.les).
Bec.us. .11 0' these org.nlsms are .11' bre.thlng. the
.tmosphene represents the residue tr.nsport ~edlu. h.vlng Ihe
grellest 'potential 'or .dverse Io",.ct.
An un.ccept.ble cdvers.
effect c.n be viewed .s one th.t would le.d to chronic physiological
m41'unctlonlng or death.
lIowever, bec.use the org.nll8lS aro 111'90
.nd eaposure Is likely to be tran,ltory, It Is unlikely th4t .ny
un.ccept.ble adverse Imp.ct wl'l occ~r.
-------
11-23
11-24
11-25
"'TI
I
.~
W
11-26
11-27
P. J-16-l-17 - On the.. P.9.. you ap..k of t.h. lntu~t,u"nf:e wit.h patrolelA ..ptoc.~'(Jn
.10119 ~t.. continent..l ah81'.
You &cqu. that. p'..ant oil .."Iucation do.. not.
a."~ b.oyond 0.. oon~lnan~al ah.U.
In tact.. th. f.doeal ~".rnm.1I1: 1. dect&Un.., ...'-
upon pcopoa.d drlllJng al~.. In the .lop. A.ao, por~JcuJ.rly Out.r con~&nontal
.h.U oJ~a 110. 59.
Thl. -y bring ...11 pIA~ro..... "I~hin ~O mlh. ot ~I.. InCtn-
acatton alt..
11o.J" .,111 rou' p"Ot..f;~ hwan GJlpo.LUdl
P. )-11 - A .~A~..&n~ 1. _do on thJ. pog. concarnlng ~h. ~OCk ot CAtch .L>t&s~lc.
fue alope ~.t.r..
In '&Ct. thae. t. . 9ceat doa. ot catch ataltt.tic. toe Japan...
v....1o t..tung In tla. ""aa ot tla. pr,>poud sito.
th... c8corda can bo tound
In ~I.. Inta.noUo...l Co-baion tor tla. Conurvotion ot "~IAn~lc Tuna. In ~r..lr
Dota Reco.d And Collactad Vol~ ot Sclantltlc popor..
Th..a data indica t.
t.hat the propos.d .1ta 1. a vaer t..poct.8nt u.. toe I:un& 4I\d .\.,IOcd/alh.
P. )-15 - On thl. ~.9. ,. .Latemant; 1. m.d. t~t. rees..tion.. ap.ci.. t.akan
othho.a 0.0 lImltad to bl...Un tuna, .....l1n ond s""rdU.h.
Tht. ot..c.G\dn~
1. no~ ao.
81...Un ~uca. AC. rualy takon by cac."o"lond ti.h..rmon ottaho.a
alt.h:>U9h th..y OCCUC Over the .nc.Jr'8 .holr .nd In thd occdn.ic water".
Tho p.ln-
cl~1 ca"ch ot raC(aa~aon.1 tl.ho~m.n In ~ho .r.. Includ.. yol1owtin "uno,
blg.ya ~uno and dOlphin and to . 1."0" o"ton~, skipjack ~W\oI and blua H.lin.
. P. )-15 - A noto..n" b "."'0 on thb po..a to ~r.. 0 r tact ~h.o( torol9" t Iohing
I. domin.l.t8d by t.he Soviet: UnJon.
Thai 1. not. Leu..
A180, the DaJo~ lor8190
tloh..y no longor Includa. ua ho..-ing.
I~ 18 lncr'e..Ln9Iy dup.ndent on v.8r1~U8
.pec... ot squJd.
Y\Uc.t14c the atat...nt ttuc. tUOA h.. rec8oc.ly ~coo.8 ~ Lzapoc-
tant tor81911 CAc.ch 18 not UU8.
TunA have b.en taken by toceign tl.~.rt..
ott our cOo.t an nwnbor. a"".adlng 60 .UUon pound. .""...Ily .Inc. 196~.
P. )-15 - The .~.~.menc concecnlnw :h. tace t.hAt t~c.i~n tfah4ci.. .C8 not
1'"8qutrcd to repoce. th.le annual harv..c. withln the rcz 15 not I.:J.
In tace.
c.hey Aa:8 requtced to keep detailed :ccocdc of tt...1C c~tch.. by p...it.Jon and
tilD. .nd th.,. i.. In fact., . 1al'"98 and compceh.n8Iv. collact.Jon of auc.t.c.lca
'or tht. ttshery.
P. 4-1 - Tho noto"'nt ...to on thl. p.ga u...~ the oDly know.. ot t.c~ on ~ha
11-24
11-25
11-26
11-27
11-2)
011 e.ploritlOll doe5 no~ prO:UfllIy occur ""rond the Conllnenttl
Shelf; however, lea5d ,ale 59 15 under conlldo:r.tlon.
A fln.1 ElS
..5 II5ued In "'y 1981 .nd the propoled le.5. 5.le I, 5cheduled for
Oecember 1981. .
In the ev.nt that production doe5 occur we5t of the proposed 'Ite,
the dlltanc. betwuen the ne.re't le.5e tract and the propOled ,Ite II
.ntlclpated to provIde for 5ufllclent ro:,"oval and dilution of
rulduel.
An ..panded dhcunlon 01 this hlue is pruented In
Chapter 4, under lectlon "Interference with Other Actlrltle, at the
Prop05ed Incineration SIte."
Set revl5ed test, Chapter J, under 5ectlun .Other Actlvltlel In the
SIt. VICInity. ,nd Appendl. A.
Ther. are no .,cur.t. c.tch It.tlltlc5 for th.,e 5peclel or .aount of
recre.tlon.1 '1lhlng .ctIVlty.
Thll Information hal been upd.ted In Chapter J, under lectlon "Other
Actlvltl.1 In the SIt. Ylclnlty."
Thll InformatIon h.1 boen upd,t.d In Chapter J, under '.ctlon .Oth.r
Acthltl.. In the SIte Ylclnlty."
-------
"
I
~
~
11-20
- -
coa.tal raccaa~ional acaa fCOD tb. incJnaratlon .c~ivltiaa would ca.ult fro.
.occidantal dt.char9. of v..ta. 4ucin9 1044in'l ~I... or dw:inq tran.i~ to t.ha
~copo.ed .it. la without foundation.
Our contention I. that c..ldu.. ruy '-4!ill
b. concan~r.tad by vacioue DAcin. oC9anJa~ and hav~ .u~lethal affecta upon
DArin. animal. that m1n ultl.at.ly ..t..
A9410. the .t..tcalen~ that the °JAlt8
dl.po..l alta vill not loa.. hum6n h..lth by cont.miOAt~n9 adlbl. Or9.ni~e
b.c.u.oa tha .it. la not locatad In any CDIDID8cci&1 oc cecreational lc1poctant
.hellfhh aCaa .. not tnaa.
The fact c_atna that t.h. prop08c4 Uta h in
an 1mpoct~t commacclal flshJn9 ~aa and In close proKimltr to Laportant CaCca-
.t.lon.l Ace...
11-20
No documentatIon e.lsts to quailly the area 0' the proposed sIt. as
recreatlonall, or commercIally l.portant, and no shellllsh resourc.s
occur within the ]0 n~1 01 the western boundary 01 the sIte.
rh.
great depths at the proposed sIte .Inlm',. potentIal adverse l.pacts
on benthic organisms and .Igrllory specIes due to high dilutIon ,nd
water stratillcatlon, ~I(h dIssIpate contaminant levels.
Therel or..
It Is unlIkely th.t Inclnerliion 01 resIdues wIll dIrectly endanger
human health by (onta.lnltlng edIble orglnlsms.
for 'ddltlonal
lo'or.ltloo, re'.r to responses 1-16 Ind 11-10. and Chlpter ..
-------
12
-';;'1)
~';r~~'~I""'~
~1r: --:. 'II
'-- ~.~. .I
-..::,~ ../
12-1
"
~
U1
12-2
12-3
12-4
'" "'1\'1" ,SIAtIU ~NI) "''''\'IIIINt:t 1'1 'II' ,II. "j~
1)"',-.1.1...1'''' .,. .\,1'"11\"11.1110111
:,TAU'I'IIII II IM';INl; nhKJIAM
~uj t<-. klU'\C' S.... I .
ItU'Io'hJ~lh c. IU....I,. I I mJ "'='V:-
Fel..uu, U. 198'
H.. T.A. Vutl... t:hld
t~rllle Proleellon Ilanci.
[Qvllon.~dt.1 rlole~,t~Q
V..hloltuo. U.C. l046Q
(VlI-HU
A....q
n..c Hr. W~ltac(1
Th18 o"'c.. I.. u. cop.cU, .. tb. cl...lollou...... dc.llo." u..d..
lIltJI Chcul.. Ifu, 1-9). r..t II, h.. revlev.d the Orch fuvhulI...nul
I..p~<\ 5"........, f.u Ih. ',opuud Houh At'.ntlc l..clo,,,'loo Sit. 11..-
11,,;11 Ion.
I'..: r.:chuh:ill (0-1tl.. ot U.I 6tll."ld. ".lrudotl r.OC'".. "~fI P"-
leilled It,. It." "ndlo,. 8. . (..ult 0' It.. ,.vl.~ .. It. ....11'1 01
r.b.u.., 6, 1981. Th. '.chnlcd Cu_ltt.. ..coo.....dHluo .. .. lollov.,
1. AIUluu," ..,,8CC8 10 ,he S'8'." r..oul'c., .....,..I' 10 b. alnl..al. .h.
(PA anJ/or UEH .huutJ IWDtlor &ha SI8&e'. .Ir 8h1J "8,.r 'or I..pact. '10(8
tb" f..lllt,.
~. ~.. "'f"'.~lloo .huu'd b. I8Ih...d for .h. 11".1 d..h US .I.o..t the
follu"'''W1
..
"'8 floJec".4 ..uunl. an" ..o.r.~I.It:.1 loc.l.loo ur "..&..
"0. product. which hev. be... ~II..,.,..J .IIJ .0'J IhruulhouL
110. U.S. "b'ch ..I" .".olu.II, b. dlo
-------
.......
I
~
(J\
12-4
fo~ . det.lled desc~lptlon of the ship's Inclne~.tlon equlpnent and
proceSs. the reylewer Is referred to W.stler et .1. (1915); Atkerman
et .1. (1918). (.ee References, Ch.pter 6) Ackerman, O.A., R.J.
Johnson. (.l. Hoon, A.(. S'MSonov, .nd K.H. Scheyer, 1919.
At-sn
Inclner.tlon:
£V.lu.tlon 0' Wlste 00" and combustion 911 IImltortng
Instrument.tlon onbo.rd the "I' VOlCANUS - u.s. (nvlroBBen,al
Protection Agency, O'flce 0' Re.e.rch .nd Oeyelopment,
(PA-600/Z-'9-11'. Jul, 1911. 100 pp.
An .t-se. Incln.ritlon f.clllt, loc.tlon hi' not yet been deter.lned.
When such. '.clllt, Is established, compliance .ust be Met "Ith
section 1004 of th. RtRA.
(PA will not ~."t . permit for .t-Sel
Inclner.tlon unless RtKA and other feder.I. St.te .nd local requlre-
ments .re s.tlsfled.
for further Information. refer to Ch.pter Z of
lhe F(IS. under .Concluslons. secllon.
-------
"T1
I
.$>.
......
]2-5
~. T... Weetler, Chl.f
Peae 3
d.
Bcce.... of the ,e..chr of 8Odtorha 1..to..eUoo becou..
DOet C.O b. collect.4 oolr .tter tncloer.tloo h.. b.aun,
the prolre. for aoottortol eod .emplloa ot the oc.eo eovl-
rona.ot 4ovuvl04 eboul4 b. .ore dotellod 10 tb. 'Inel liS.
.or ,rolr.. IDyolvloa the .eotlooe4 oe.rch lor oov ecu4r
techolquu for thie 4Ullcult eoylro...oot ehoulJ eloo be
4uctlbe4.
12-:>
w. theok rou tor tb. opportuolrr to revle.. thl. propoeel.
Yv very trul,.
/JlC4 J.
a.~~} 1:79
.-95 Coordlo.tor
U,/U/'Jc
hhr.oc. '11.1
ElS-8I-oa
~e OEIS (Appendl. C) Identltled cert.ln mInimum plr~ters WhIch
should be considered In tha fln.1 develo~nent ot . detaIled
~nltorlng pl.n, and has pre.lnted SU990stlon. b'.ld on prlvlous
..perlence.
I~wever, a 8Onltorlng pl.n must be 41.lgned .round the
equIpment Ind tlnanclal rlsourcls av.ll.ble.
fhul. devllo~nt ot a
det.lled pl.n would be lapr.ctlc.1 .t this time.
The Envlronment.1 Prollctlon Agency, ~tlon.1 Envlronment.1 RO.larch
(enlers .t Cincinnati, OhIo and Rlse.rch frl.ngl. P.rk, Horth
(Irolln. .rl acthaly eng.ged In the development ot IncineratIon
tee hno I ogy.
In addItion, an Intlr.gency R..le~ Bo.rd tor thr
(hemle.1 W.ltl Inclner.tlon Ship Progr.m h.s been Ist.bllshed to
de.elop proclduru tor the cDordln.tlo.. 0' permltl .nd evaluation ot
.Itern.tlves (sel C~ent lettlr JI.
-------
13
"
I
J:.
»
13-2
..,
. . ~ ..
( , . '1 If". .. 1 .1:- . -. -..1 I ~ .. , ....... I '" .. -'. .., ,
-'i.~..::"lJ." _:':'_...J [.~ ~ ,;\_~,.. '..:1
I oJ 'I, -," i ",'
. "0- !." :'1.': _",'0;'
. ',"..
".:;' Jf; ..
. "1'. -
,".,
robru.~v ao. 1981
Hr. T. A. W.otlo~
Chi.t, H4(tno Plo..ctlon
8unch IWII-5481
£nvl~on~ental Pcot8ctlon
4th" aod "Stceet.. S.W.
W..hln~ton. O. C. ]0460:1
Aqonq
Dear Hr. w..t'"CI
Tho I:o""",n....lth of Vlrqlnla h.1 C'OooplotecJ hi ~ovh" of tho Duft [nvlro....ontd
I..pact Sute_"t (Uult us) tor tho hopand Nouh Atlantic Incln.utlon Sho
De.i9natton. 1'ho Councl' on lbe £nvtronhJn~ 1. r..pon81blo (or coordl"atlnq the
Stat.". revl.w uf leJer..1 envll'olun.ent.t 111'pact .tAtemoots and ,e1l;oO"""9 to appropriate
lederat offici.'. all tAhalf of the COlr8DOn"..lth. The 10110wloq 8'jcncld' and 0"1<;1.'.
pAI'~I~lp.ted 1.1 l."~ r~v'ew.
O.p.rt~el't 01 Ilo.1tla
0.(l4IlOllollt ot Cun..cvatlon and E.:onolftlc Oev81o(..oent
State Water ContED1 Board
Vlr~lnla Inatltutc ot Haclne ~r.'.nc.
ouuc Contl".ntd Sholf Actl',..Ie. Coo~cJlnlt.or.
13-1
The CODlJtonwealth 0' Virginia t. of the opinion that the pr.torred alternatlv.
I. the h)at &cc~Vt.bi. tor tho 1'...00' ~tvon In Chaptar 1 of tho Draft tiS. Tho
d..t..n.tloo of .n oce.n Inclno...tlon .ate will ';oe.. the "'lItorlal. and dl8p;Jsal o(lo..a-
~lon. .way Icum ~pulAteJ lAnd ar... ~ni thu8 ~ke d1apusel ..'.1" for ~.t people.
It .hould b. .emtimLered. howovoc, thAt. tt~. .aok8 tro.. the Incineration will be no
1... to.le at. st:a th.n It \oIOuld be on 1~.ld. tUroover. there wtll La e'fect~ 'COG
oc.an Incineration. I'copl. in ooot. la..d en all 41111109 '.scHltlo.. will noed to
b. plotected fl-om U,. bUlntn9 -.torl.1. 8"d It. amok..
13-3
Accol\llnql Y I we urqe that. nwnbor ~, .. f89u.arde accompAny any act ton pur .uant
to tho alto de!tlyn.sttun. A 118t of pl'Ov811tive m06SU(e~ and mitltjlition lhe4SUI08 should
bo doVt'lo1'8..t I.. olde:c to help cont.in anv OnViIONh~nt.1 tJ4m.lqe resuittwJ floln spills
.oJ-leaks. SeconlJlv. the cate at which lil" toxic 8uLst.sUCCB &1"e iucillel4led .1101.114
be caJefully cUlltct)lIelt IOU as to Il..eYOn~ '.1I\duo pollulton ot the local 61:".;Jsl-lhece.
thirdly, '''Jnltollnq should be CODI,lot8 and cAreful. the concept 0' ace".. Inc'muatlQn
I. relatlvelv ,u,knovu. as are the dlvorslty and durAtion 0' It5 etta:cts on the ~rino
and atlhU!llJhoch; eflv'l.onrrw:nt~. CO..8eqllent.'y. .uch lntorfn..ttlon i!t 1I-=~,Je:II. Tlut Ulalt.
EIS lDeutlons BUPIC ot lhctso Ilen.lI. and \.oi', uC9. your contlnul!d Attention to theEn.
. .,
13-1
13-2
13-3
proc." .
Ih.S' tactors will be considered In the per.lttlng
for additional Intormatlon, re'er to Chapter 4, under
Coment nOled,
section "£rhlls on Public lIulth and Safety."
See response 2-1.
Contlgency planning will bI addressed as specie'
condilions ot any per.lts Issued lo Incloera(. at-sea.
"UIIllUII
.llowable rates 'or locloerallon are 81so set as per.lt conditions,
(odJnent noted,
locloerallon rites .nd monitoring are subject to
perml t re'lu lreJn~nts.
Ae'er lo Appeod" ( a"d response 2-~.
-------
13-4
.....
I
~
\D
Hr. T. A. Wastier
PO'Jo J
Fel>luuy 6, I!lOI
In c;unn8ction with the PJ..tlJl. ."actl of the aile dealgnatlon on othec
hclllth., il .hould a.. "opt In ..Ind that u.. ot on Incan.utlon .1.. -Y ullpo.lo
..plorAtion, fl
-------
14
'.'OW W"'U'.
0.......
J(IIUIO' '-00'"
0..-.. 0-..--
ON-SAG'"
'011'1'."
tn,u £0,,-11'10..
IA.HtD LANO ~IClAJ,l."O"
....,.,-....&. l"Ioo.CI'
''''..5
,,."0"". '1.1.., la..,vu It..VlC'
'-Ot."",a"tJ
'411 ~411. S~OIl" "'"'''-0
OUU" ,O"''''I''''''&. ...au
".~I~i\~
.(."""11. . .,\
I.' '';i '.\
;\ U ~
~~~.l"~"
.-(:.~~~
COMMONWEALTH of V1RGINJA
OEPARfMENJ 0' COHUftVAflON AND ECONOMIC DEVUOPUENJ
.tOOwAS"'''Q'Off ItJllOlNQ
CArnOL aQUAli1
'UCHMO:o.O. VU'G'~'A JU..
,804, JII.IIII
January 30, 1981
t!! OW/f.Uf
10: ~.f\ijc. QlBrlU EUI.
flU1,' ~e B. He&br
sUlUEcr: [IS Project 439 - Inclnerattm Bar
...,
I
OJ
o
L'1It:-
10.....
," .10....,0.. "'''''''''''
Cfr....-...
If. II rwu. , 'l."t"O, 0......
Yc.o.........
'AAhC U....II"OIlQ . w~
",.Oft t. '..'li hA" AI.......,.
........",.. «;..v.t. I.....,
A UNO"""""""" "''''NI>o'-
&.1110.'0 LA.".. Vw't............
''1''01'''( . .'10 "',,,,UII '.WI
Glo"al' ,...0."". AI"......
Iltli'o-... IN,)"'. ". C...... c..,
"OtOt..o I'''.n. ,,-""
t 1&.0.0 'Alii. 1._.....
Attacl'L'
-------
14.
;1.;:: """.0"
.11':':;IO.:.J('il
:.~ .:. : ".".'
. .
,'"'.""""
(0'.'.; . .~
.'" '. ".'
. 0-:,:
~ .-"
"'.;:':'I:'~-" :
,O.&AO
..... ..)w"'';'" ....." ""'''''
:...........
CO~"f:\!O; :.n'E':'.l.T:: ;.:f 1/1 EG!:':I .:.
OIP",n:..tINf or CO.~'IRVAr.o~ -,..0 J~:I1CP.lIC OI',JlCf"!\t',.,
.,Uh\.. , '. .~ ~~,......
:.:. c.......,-,
; '''';;'~'.'
": 'II'''.
a. ,OJ' :-;0.1';:.
~.'.'.') -~.;: "':.-'.t;.,;:-..
.......~. 'II:-.'.:U
....:.-. ,
;'''C;.,o.. 1::..1 :.".'. 21"",,:.
January 21, 1981
0'\11:»10" G' 'AI:-:I .....~ . i ,~~"((S
""" UA "l III so...itC I i i",n. :':.G
t.I,':O....a,~ -:-':
10.. J"'. c.....\J:iIS':Il:I "1.11. Uta!
1''3''13).':1'
"oallir C U'UCI. c:attAISJ O:.'~ ,£'.C U..&II ,a::l
"';:,,)''''',..
~'Io.. .',"'~11 .1'0: ,. , :1- '..
:.. .,. .: -: ,,: '.':.:- ~ ~ I -",'
"TI
,
01
~
14-1
14-2
Hr. Bruce B. Heador, O(£O/(IS Coordinator
Dept. 0' Con$. & (con. Development
1100 lIuhln"lon Building
Capl tol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
IU
..
"
'II \'..1
I:!(
Dear Hr. Heador:
We have reviewed the Dra't (IS 'or the Proposed Horlh Atlantic
Incineration Sile Designation, tran$mltted with your memorandwu 0'
January 9. The proposed action I, to e$l4bll$h an oceanic site 'or
the deuructlon by Incineration 0' tOklc organic I/ute$. The slle
suggested Is 140 IIIllu suward 0' Delaware Bcly and o~erlles lhe
Continental Ris.. Th. available data ar. Inlerpr~led Ly lh. £PA to
Indicate that the proc... 0' Inclnerulon could ba conducled It th.t
.lta with II1lnl..al .nvlronlllntal conuquencu.
W. bell.ve that a major concarn Is to Insure th.t the Incineration
process would not pou . "uard or act IS a limiting 'actor to any.
fulura 011 and gas operatlon$. A. ekplor.tlon conllnue$. drilling may
ektend seaward 'rom the Continental SheH 1$ noted on page 2-11. The
(IS $t.le$ (p. 2-11) that I' drilling ware lo take place within or
downwind 'rOlU lhe Incineration site precautionary meuuru ..nuld be
required to protect the drillship and support per$onnel. Tho U. S.
Geological Survey should evaluatl the II~ellhood 0' 011 and gas activity
ultimately ektendlng Into the proposed IncineratIon slle, and the
optimum U$e 'or the site, IS a part 0' the $lle-de$lgnation proceu.
14-1
On ptge 11.11. It 1$ noted th.t shore-based support will ~ necessary
to receive. slore and blend the tOklc wasle$ 'or $hlpb~.rd loading.
and 'or poulb1e oft-loading In cue 0' an IncoDll'lete Incineration run.
It II poulble that such. facility could be ula/Jlhhed In a Virginia
port aru. 'his scenario would neceultUe the develop/ll~nt and
14-2
A.ter to above co...nC and r..ponsa 13.4.
O,e Int.r.yenc)' Revl... Board (note CO""~lIt 'lld ruponu 3-1) "III be
Involved In thl. proc.,., 'lld ACRA r.qulres strict .an.gement 0'
h.lardous subStIIlC".
Se. ruponu 11-5 lor .ddltlollal Intor.Ulon.
-------
......
. I
111
N.
Hr. Bruce 8. Hudor. ocm/Els Coordinator
January 21. 1981
"9' 2
effectIve application 0' Itrlct envlronmenta1 controls to guarantee
agaInst such events as spl11age or leak.ge, careless handlIng. ItC.
at the onshore site. and would 11ke1y Invo v. Slate goverrment to
. conslderabl. degre..
Very truly yours.
DIYISION OF HlIIEAAL RESOURCES
~\ C /, .,"
D. C. L. Vln
Chief Geologist
DeL/1e1
-------
15
"
I
U1
W
15-1
,>'ti'r x
';' '(-" '..
t: . ;.\ ',of
~... ..,,J ,,__-1
"~1~1\?' ~.
-"':-.-....-
~._.
COMMON\\,'EALTll of V1RGINIA
0/1;" 01 II" S,.a,'.'y 01 Cornrn.." .".1 H..o"",..
OU'I'I (:0",,,,,...,.151,,11 A";u,',,.
IOw4ll0' "'lit ~()IofI
(00.00""""0-
,:"'~
.0.".""'''' ro..,ur Oft U ~QlNG
A""""'O"O "...~...... . U..
1104. 'N ....
Ht:HO~~!!!!
"'~
.' \
~(1 ':'~I:'~ .~~
':~" . -'l'f" ~.
~.,~'- .,'"",'
". I, L' ('. ,.'
-...-, /'
Charle. II. 1:111., III .-;1~
~~
Edwai"d r. 'fihon ~ /
Commant. on Envli"on~~tal Impact Statement tor
Pi"opo..d HOi"th Atlantic Incln.ratlon Sit.
Oellignotion
JanUOi"V 20, 1981
1'0:
FROt.,
SUIIJECT,
Thl. of rico haa two comment a on the Envlronl"ental Statement
tal' 0 proposed Inclnei"otlon all:e lor toxic Induslrlal Wo.te.
ottahoi"e thu olld-Atlantlc atate.. lIoth ot them ai"e based on
the tact that tld. 1. not the pi"oper way to dlspo.. of tlu:se
waate.. Both a"I'port the edoptlon ol allenl.tlve nun\ber one,
-lhe U.e at lond-ba..d dlapo...l melhod., or... .hlll down,. tllollo
wa.t..a which cannot properly be bUI"ned on I..nd ..hould not be
bUi"ned at deo. It tho products of Incineration are toxic they
&hould not be addud to lhe atmosphere whether It 15 on lond or
at sea.
The fl,st objection 19 to tho location of the 51le, rlqhl
In the ge....ral area where sub&ta..tial Int..r..st Is l:1elnq expressed
by the 011 Industi"Y that 0 major peti"oleum i"esource 1011 tieldl
m/Oy be located .omewher.. In the 2,001> meter. An.J deeper waters.
Two federal leilse sale. are currently b"I"9 pla.."ed for tld.
rear, ,epresentln9 Iltei"dlly billiolls of dol1i1c.. wo,lh of resources
IIcl..,lin'J lhls area. It Joe~ not make sellse lO cupe "ilh the
e"virulI",,,,,tdl l.npaClS of oil e)
-------
15-2
"
I
1I1
oJ:-
Cha~le. U. Ell1., III
Pa9d T\.ro
JanuAry 20, 1981
The second objoction 1. that the.o waste. IIhould not be
burn~d. Tho individual components ohould be separated d~rin9
the production ph4.. and ~ec1r'cled or they 8hould l>.. storlld on lAnj
until acceptable incins~ation o~ other land di8po.~1 methods are
AvailAble. The hct that they CAnnot be acceptably incinerated
on IAn.} leads to the inescapable concluaion thdt th~y lihould not
bll inci....rated at .S4 eithe~.
1'ht:r-~tore, thi. ia 8 bad pr0l'0"al and lihould not b.. pur:iu~d.
Altur-natu one ia the only ~.a.onAbls alt~rnato.
CCI
Leon ApI'
15-Z
Some h41.rdous w.stcs CI..., PCB'sl .rc required to be destroyad by
InclnentlOll. Other wutel (I.a., l,4,S-T 411d l,4,S-TPI CAlI IIOSt
ettectlvely .nd s.'.ly be allmlnatCd by Inclner.tlon.
Scparu Ion and
recyclln~ .na I~ctlmel econ~alcally unte.slble .It.rnatlvas, .nd
Itor4ge on land Is prlsantly I sl9nlllcant envlronmentll probl.~.
EPA agrles that It would be 80St daslrabll It no halardou. wa.tos or
IncIneratIon residuis wcrl .vlr nal.ascd InlO the envlronment~
!towner, the tec:hnologlcal c:o.pluhy 01 our ..orld ruulu In th,
productIon 01 ...st.., Ind many ..III be h.,.rdous,
It thould Ilso be
born In iliAd thlt .lthough '0'" Or9.noh.I0gell ..uta, ..111 be
rCIllt.nt to degradation, non. ..III be por~n.nt t.ltur.s 01 our
envIronment.
[PA blll,vos that .t-,ea Inclner4tlon ..III o".r .
realon.bly sa'a and rapId ...It. .11~ln.tlon proC.dur. tha, wIll
ell.bl. thou rupon,lbla lor UI8 ...nutactu,.. 0' thl'. wUhl to
dl)po.. ot thell 10 . tl~ly .nd envlron.~nt.lly I.te m.nnllr.
I~ Is
hoped th.t thIs .ddltlon.1 .Itlrnatlve "III yre.tly reduce or.
ellllln4te thc pr.sent need to Itor. hal4rdoul ..altes tor prolonged
perIods. often In an un.at. m.nnar.
-------
16
a. v. 0..1,
I-II.. c.........,
,~~)
)~il~~,.'
~oY
COMMONWEALTII 01 VIHGINIA
STATE D',u'£H CO,HIIOL /10.11:/1
, ," "_""llun SI,."
'." 01".. ... II ItJ
"u---... Vw,11\1.I uno
'OOCI u'oo~
16-1
"
I
U1
01
16-2
16-3
16-.4
Februlry 5, 1981
Hr. (hlrles H. ("II, III
(nvlronmentll 1~lct Stlte~ent (oordlnltor
(ouncll on the (nvlron~nt
90) Hlnth Street OI,lce Building
Richmond, Vlrglnll 23219
Re;
"'.
EPA-DE I 5:
Horth Atllntlc Inclner.tlon SIte
Oelr (101 rile;
lie ha~e re~lewed the Ibov.-referenced OEIS Ind oller the follo..lng coamenh;'
1.
fIgure )-4 on Plge )-13 does not represent the tot.1 Irel which
could be leased under oes Slles 40, 49 Ind 59.
2.
I t Is ros t I.,portlnt thlt there h I control o~er the amount 0'
was te Inelnera ted durln9 In I\loclled time span to regu 11 te
the flow of the Id~erse end products Into the environment. This
I.Ount Ihlt the envlron.~nt can Iccept without quantifiable
Id~e~se ellects his been predetermined by studies on the proposed
site yleldlny guldellnel to be .dhered to.
3.
Althnugh the dlustrous effect on the en~lronment ruultlng fror.l
In .ccldenl.1 spill or le.l.g. Is recoynl,ed In the Of IS, there Is
a need lor. lilt 0' pre~entatl~e .nd mitl9all~e .~'Iurel Ihat
could be t.ken In the e~ent of such In occurrcnc~. 1/,'1 stated
In the Of IS. elean-up ~easures Ire ImpoHlble or lo'vractlc.1 there
Is more 01 a need to let up earl, guidelines to pre~ent an accident.
.lcthods 01 contAlnoICnt, sULh as Loom" Ihould .Iso be .-ea<.ly at h.lld.
4.
Hunlto.-tny 0' the project and surrounding Hea IIIU\( be 01 the highest
possible quality. As the provosed lite Is adJj(ent to the lOti-mile
site, pOBlbl, . joint oonltorlng ellort encompaBlng the two sites
would reduce costs and Increase efllclency. A complete monl tortng
pr0'lram Is eHenthl lor three main reasons. flnt, the results are
needed as there Is I hck 01 Inlormallon due to Ihe rellll~e new
nature 0' ocean Ineinerilion. Secondly, each site wi 11 dlect the
envlrono",nt dillerentl, In accordance wllh the oceanographic character-
Istics 01 the area. fln.II" this strict monitoring ef/ort Is necessary
16-1
16-2
16-4
figure. 3-5 Ind 3-1 hlVl be.n ...utsed In th. fElS.
Refer to co~ent Ind rl.pon.. 11-2.
16-3
See relponse 2-1.
(PA concurs.
Shlpbolrd (short-tenn) monitoring would be conducted by
per..illees und.r Ipeclll cOnditIons to the penolt,
Ihts wou Id be
supplemented by EPA envlron....ntal Iwpact o",oltorlng for el\ research
Incinerillon operltlon., end on In II-need~~ b.sl. tor other
Ilic In.rat Ion opent lonl.
NUAA his responllbillt, under the HPNSA to perfor. long-ter.
lOolillorln'1.
NOAA II currently conductln'1 monitorIng It the t06-"II.
Oceln Valte Ot,polll SIte Ind EPA NIII request that they Iiso Inclu'"
monitorIng .t the proposed Inclnerltlun site In their Ictl.ltI81.
-------
Febru.ry 5, 1981
-2-
Hr. (h.rles H. fll". III
to c.tch long term In .dd'tlon to Ihort te~ problt~1 .s the ~.ter
qU411ty 0' . body 0' w.ter .1 V'lt '1 the AtlantIc Oce.n Itlll h.1
the pohnthl of being degr.ded by lII.n~
Th.nk you for tile oPiiOrtulIH1. to CO/ll~nt on this document.
further 4'I'st.nce. ple.se dOll't hCllt.te to c411 on UI.
If we m.y be of
Sincerely Yvurl.
..~~. P.,.
Olrcct~f 80wles
Bure.u 0' S~rvell14nce
.nd field ~tudlc'
:scc
cc:
a. 6411 TOdd-SuCa, Division 01 [colog'c41 Studies
B. o. U.rrhon-SUCa. 8uruu of Survelll.nce & field Studies
us file
"T1
I
lJ)
0)
-------
17-1
"
I
111
....
17
(. '".. '.',
II''''''' .. ........ i.:o , :~:
,-, '-..01010 ". \.. I:,. i .'
II'. .aw.'IIU-. ... -"'. ~ .'
"'01
Chl.( .
I ~lIulilll1..llt,..II.II"I..:.,,". '71'-1
T .11. lI.litt..r
...r In. Irot.ct Ion
("'II-S/.t! )
u:;~r.\
".~hl"gLon, IIC
ltrdnch
~1J..tJO
u..r "'r. ....cl.r: IJ" r"..Lru~ry. 1')111
\loul" It a.a l,o",;I"lu to capCIII'. lla.. cc...I.uliclon
proJllcCa (r08 th. Horth ..tllllltic Incllhlr/llioll ~Il..
."oj h.va the. hunch..d InCo tha :i1l1l1 '0111<.1 H Lu
r05lilbia to (01''''0 th. North atl/llille IlIclllur"clc.1I
wlte aod Just l.ullch the ~atdrlal~ ~~.05d" for 111-
clouretlon Inco tha :'un1 .
..oL.lrt t", Jill.Lor
17-1
Ihl H~ljonll AeronautlCI ~nd 'pice ~Inlltrltlon (HASA) hal been
approached about thll pOillb.I'ly reglrdlng oth.r hlllrdOui
lubltanc.a (I..., rldlolctl.. .a.t.I).
Although th.. Idea ~y ha..
technical ..rlt. It II CO\lld.rad to bot COlt prohlbltl...
for
I'I~I.. th. ma.I~~ payload 0' th.. new IPIC.. Ihuttla IYlt.. I.
0),000 pounda (28.6 tonnll).
,he Ippro.l.lt. COil 0' d.I'..ry 0' I
alngle Ihultle lOld (or Wllt.I) .ould bot I)S .111101\.
The
,cllculltlon or COlt to plylOld rltlo aUlt 1110 conllder the .elght 0'
a Ipeclllilid 'ontllner IYlt..., ~Ich ..ould, 0' Courle, redu,. th.
~.Imu~ dell.erlbl. payload or Wlltes.
Hen'.. 'or eltlmatlon
purpolU. It It II I"u,...d lhlt . "ute pAylOld or 60,000 pound'
(Z'.Z .etrlc lonnel) can be trlnlported by the Ihuttl.. e lIngle
Ihlpboard (4,200 tonnel) ..III COlt appro.l.ltely IS.4 bIllIon to
lranlport Intd ap"..
-------
18
."
I
Ul
OJ
18-1
J ll- 2
HOf(:
Ihls cGmnent hi' been prlnt.d Ir08 I handwrltt.n lett.r.
alv.r ROld. 80' I)
HI,s Llndlng. hew Jers.,
Jlnuary lJ. 19111
(PA
h'Jlon II. H.Y.
Our Sirs:
H, nlme Is Georg. W. Liggett. I.. the wlt.r pollution chllr~.n 01
the Atllntlc County Cltl'lns (ouncll on (nvlronment.1 (AC(C() a~ . mem~r
of the Audubon 50clet,.
I 1m concerned Ibout ,our propoSld plln 10 Incorporltl to,IC chemlells
.t sel. 01' Ihe COISt 01 New Jerse,.
As ,ou know In ,our (PA Oulrtlrl~ Report. Jul,-SePten~er 19/'.1, test.
were ..'de ,,,, Ihe '''\IIunt 01 Phnlr In Ish In thirteen ....Jor U.S. ..Iter
sh..It. ~':Ih. PCUf. .nd PCooi ...rl (ound In thl n,np lu. A. 'OU know. .
Olo,ln II tho ~.. dl,ol, tOllc knOwn to ..n.
Ihl brochurl 'JOIS on to Stlt. that "PCoo. wer. r.cenll, (ound 10 ~
preHnt In fI, ash 0' I..nlclpal Incinerators In (urope, ..hlch hU led to
thl h,puU,es IS Ihat P([JOs In thl envlron...nt ..ere. resu I. of cO."'uH Ion
.nd not I r..ult 0' Industrial proc.sses." Also, "PCOF. Ire kn~"R
COnt4,OI"I,,15 In PClIs .nd ow, .Iso be 'orlO!d (ru,. PClls ~~
t."II.rlturu. "
Now ..e , ho kno.. th.. PBCs havl bun found In '...rlne 11'1 on .n
,"tenslve /llils (Or. Vlughn, Woo.:S lIole, HIU), 110 also k"ow that PClIs
hl.e a life (lull) span of Ibout 60 yelrs Ihe Slmd IS 001 Ind Its
d.ri.a.i.es. Ind hiS .bout thl Sl~ erf.ct on the cell as DOl.
5u If you Itlrt Inclnerltlon .t sel In 'liS the tnllc .'fects (rom thl
I.h and dlqlUHd giS.. wi II stili be prue'!t In 'urine org.nh,OI In lOtS.
Not ooly that. but ..hit will th.: s,nerglstiC e(teet I>c Irom the union
of the ash 11\11 other todns at till "burn SIte". ",'eeiall, wilh (Odiol"l.e
Iiolopl:s RRw .IClpIR9 from 10lklng drums In th.t 90nl:rll Ire. I A. ,ou
tRow, sUIIII')1II ,., Ihe ...ug In Pniladelphu caUl'" n.... pollonl 10 fOllo fr...
the phOIO .rfet! .J/I other poisons.
While burning It ..a, .. an emergenc, ..e.sure ''''y .... ""IIH Ihln
dump In'.l IUA iu .. PrHe' I Lilldl I II, It h.. 1011'1 lenl cUlIse'I.,onces not kn"..n
,et.
18-1
10-2
EPA 'c~nowledye5 thlt r..ldull w.st.a -III be r.l.asld with
Incln.ratlon .mlaslona during It-a'i Incln.rltlon.
l"'w..,lr. th..1
_mlSlloni will be on the Ordlr o( 0.01101 the .olu... deatroYld.
It
Is enllrely posslbll th.t with Improved technulogy, e~ls"on5 Cln bl
further reduced (e.g., scrubber dovlces).
EPA bel 11".1 th.t
monitoring inclnerltlon letlvltl.. .t tho lite will provldo thl
necesur, Inll
-------
18-3
18-4
-0'1
I
111
\0
I think the ultl.et. 'olutlon I' to make Indultry find e ch..lc.1
which "III diSlolve the .olecular structure 0' the che,"I,," produced ..
the pl.nt be'ore dl,poslng 0' the.. I' thele reversing chemic, I
neutrellun un't be 'ound, new che.I,,1I Ihould not boIlUde.
As I remerrber it, lit. "II good beck In the 20', end )0', be'or. the
edvent 0' .llllon, 0' Indultrtel pol,onl. Whet do you thlnkl
Pitil. rupond.
Thenk, 'or Illt.nlng.
Sincerely,
George W. llggett
P.S. Old Atl.ntlc Electric Corporetlon get your permll,lon to burn PCBI .t
Beelley's Point' PI.e,. enlw.r.
18-3
10-4-
(PA ..III contlnu. to encourege the development 0' ell types 01
promising welte dtlpolel technologle,.
I' chemlcel, such e' th.,e
cen be Isoleted, th.y too ..tll be tnvestlgeted.
11011 question ..el ,.Iponded to tn . ,.p.ret. lett.r by EPA Regton II:
-------
"T1
I
0)
a
19
~~~\~,~~
F0:):nj
~,~
NATIONAL WilDLIFE fEDERATION
----~~ ---------- --------...--
---
I4U S'''ccnll. SIIU.. NoWo, WuhrnK,on. 0 C.
lOOI~
102 -1~101>1IO.1
JAnuA~Y 29. 1981
"
H~. T. A. WAstie~
Ch.ef. HA~.ne P~otect.on B~Ancb
Env.~onment.l P~otect.on.Agency
401 H St~cct. S.H.
Wo.hlngton. D.C. 20460
(HII-5481
R..:
1IIIt' COllUllents on the S.te 0611.\ln4tlon 01:15 to~ tho
P~opou"d ~o~th Atlant.c Incln~~otlo" Site (Oct. 19801
Oeo~ H~. H4stle~:
He h4ve cA~etully ~dvlewed the lIubject DEIS 4nd ofte~ the
..ccompa"y.u'l COINndnts to~ your conu.de~Atlon. W.. t~u"t the F.nAl
EIS will adopt th. rOco~endatlons w" have mod...
In ou~ vi..". th. pca..nt DElli I. tho b..t of the ."qu"nco of
.Ite dou.\Inotlon PElS's to dAta. The analY6do toy Or.. Due.. and
~ostec, contain..'" In AppendlXoD. oco pA~tlcula~iy ulietul and Informa-
t.ve .n aHow.n') c"addCS to ..valuate potl,ntl41 lO"'J-tenl lncln"cAtlon
.mpActs. H.. hope futuce slt. d.slgnAlion £15'6 \1111 cont.nuo th.$
oPpcOAch.
Htl have lfttle dlttic1.lty .ndo~slng ot-6t:.. Inclnecation tor
ocgonochlodne W4ates In .ndlv.duAl cA"ell. wh,:ce th... n...tilod ot
dellt~uctlon ~oem6 to bo the beat Av~.14bie d1111'0941 o~ t~eotroent
41tucnot.v... IIOW"VIo~. Wd Ace conce~nt:d About lhe lo'''j-tenQ cumuld-
tlve .mp~ctll ot At-~e4 .nclne~at1on of 0~\l4"ohAl0gen" "hould Lhla
i,c4ctlcd Lucome w1dellpceAd 10 the United SLdteli. Wloliu a dlutl0uCLlon
eftlclency at 99.96' 6eemll ve~y hl'lh, the 101e..lle of even 0.04' of
lIuLu~ned 0.0\l4"ohalO\l(:n residues f~o", lh.. co.nbulition ot 14~'Je-voluG\"
wdslell, C4n hav.. s1gn1f.cdnt envl~0IUn(:nt41 ..lid health In'p"Cls--
piS~llculacly whecu lIuch h.'jhly tox.c And 1'e~5i"lcnt cu"\,ounds all
PCU's IIn<1 DnT a~e .nvolvc.d. So. C4ution rnll:it he lh.. Wdlchwocd. ..n'"
pn:l'"cl:llce should AlwaYIi Le 4cco~ded to the di51'0~.:d opt.on which
...."imll.." Lh.. IlIo14t.00 o~ dellt~uctlon ot lh.. ciSllditl"te compound.
At-~ed IIIGill....at.on IIhould Lu I)U~:Jued ollly It Il ottLrll cnvh'onmcntal--
dO..J nut Iht:r~ly uconorolc--.,hJvautaIjO£ uVt:r other mollh'(JclII~nt optlonu.
1'''" oppu~t""ily to ott.... the:ld view5 )" dpp.occl"L(;.J.
:;ince..ely,
~L~tL j!~~tL?-
-Hlta ANN"'" "'II flr\:t~ - "'''H... !-.,:', I',U.
t
-------
He. T. A. Wastier
January 29, 1981
Pa
-------
19
. 'II
~\ ,,~
;-.~\ .~
.~ ~~..!,
~~'.';:.,~':..;1.:.:.-!
. . ."
.- .",
NATIONAL WilDLIFE FEDERATION
---- ----.-------- ---.
- -- ..----~ -
lUI-191.I>GOO
1411 S..tccn,h Sir"" N W., Wuhln.lon. OC
10011>
COttHt:lIT5 01' TilE NATIOHAL WILDLIFE FEOERATION
ON TilE OEI5 tOR TilE PROPOSED 1I0kTII ATIJ\NTIC
IIICIIIUlATIOtI SITE DE51GIIATI01I (Oclob"r 19801
1.
Con-Ideratlon of Altornotlva Qeean Dlspo.al Situs
ba..ad on th.. InfOrlllat1on contained In tho DEIS--alld d...pita tha
preferonco axprea.ed for propooad Incineration .It,, 11--"" bellavo
a .trong caoo could (alld .houldl ba made for chooalng .Ito It (to
tho oa.t of lh.. propo.ed lIitO) In.toad.
This conclusion flow. from
.avorol con.ldoratlons.
19-1a
--5It" It 1. furthar from .hor. than .Ita II, ...rvlng to
furthor reduea pot.ntlo\ Impact. on shore-ba.od and coa.ta\ re.ourca..
A. notad In tho D£15 (at 2-101, tha co.t of ualng thla alto la not
"'11
I
0\
N
19-1 b
axpoetad to bo graator thAn that tor tho propolled aite,
--Sit. It would mlnlml.o' tha monitoring co~~lleatlon. a..oclotad
with .lto 11 (!~, DEIS, at 2-\1, 2-22, 2-)61.
Tho potelltlal tor
IIIlngl1n\l of "a.t. plwD..a beotwo.n the 106-Hll0 5 it II ! and thlt Incln.roUon
.Ite I. gr..at"r tor alto II than tor alto It.
Also, becauso at past
du..plng of IDullltlolla and radioactive ".a&t".. at th" propo....~ alto
(OEI5, at xv, xviI. Intortoronco \11th cart.aln ~ollitorlll'.l op..catloll.
- can bo IIDa'.llll..d If thlll .Ito 1. choson allhou'.!h tho OEIS I.. allollt
on thl. I,oillt.
Tho HEIS Ackno\llodgas the l'otO:1I1:141 tor s"dl,."nt
eftaeta (01: 2-t211 ~onl1orll1lIng hu occurred In
Ihc1e uen, but hn not bun ,"ect.... by prevlou.lr du..ped
matedlh.
Ih. OIIlr rulduei froll Inclner.tI"/I at-ie' U. lhe lUck
0..1..10/11 "hlch u. upl"\r dhpene" 1/1 11101 IIr ..r 0/110 lh.
""AC""'e 'urtaee ...hn.
-------
19-1c
19-1d
19-1e
..
1
O.
w
19-1f
-2-
--lIlthoIl9h the 1It:IS Asserts lhilt monilorill9 costs "ollid Le
yreater at Sll.. 11 thAn at elt.. 14 bec"u.... of the '''''''lIned need tor
additionAl baStllinQ surveys at the lAtter but not at the form"r
Wt:IS, at l-2), 2-)0, }-IOI, the Ot:IS also notes else"hen.l lat }-l
and 4-1) that "Infonnatio", 00 the pro!,osed sit.. and the I06-tlil..
OceAn Wd..te Disposal Site... Is Applicable lo olh"r mid-Atlantic
9"o'1rap'dc areAs, including the eAst"l°n... rO'1ion Islte OJ." ancrslon, lIc'larger size of site ,~ r"liltlve to site
'I, :IIin lh.. envirolln."nt <1u..
to mechnlcill malfunction Or accidantal spill IVEIS, dt 2-), 2-29, 2-111;
and fa~tt:r rate of proce.sln9 "Astes 11It:IS, dt 2-1).
19- lc
19-111
19-1e
19-1f
fo correct Ihll co~.enl, the O[IS \~4Ied th.t monitoring COlli would
be, gruler .t Ih. "0. 4.
Bu.lln. nudle\ will r,., neUlur, U
.ltern.tl.8 r.glon "0. t, It It \hould Le the de\lgn'l.d \IIe
lo"t ion.
AII.rnUI.. Sit. "0. I h lI.e I'r0l'ose'" \Ite, 4ntJ th. put
1I10nltoring U Ih. 106-HII. Site hn o."rl'l'l'"d Inlo Ihe north.rn
I'ortlon 01 Ih. lit..
fhe Intorm.tlon 9.lhered Ihere con\IIIulel
No coap4r.ble d.14 e.I\1 lor the e'ltern r.glon
Ilte-\pecl'lc d.I.,
(.lte,on.II.e No.4), hence, IIIe-\pecltlc d.I. would need to b.
collected In Ihll r.glon.
II 1\ PO\\lble. Indeed nec.I\.r,. to utlll,e eol\tlng d.t. collecled
'roil. Ihe 106-HII. SII. .nd propoled IndnerUlon Site 10 Chu4cterl18
Ihe 9~ner.1 .n.lronmenUI settling 0' Ille Ijreeter region, b,c,ul8 'ew
oth.r d.t. ..111.
Itowe.er, It woula nol be SClentlflc.II, lound 10
uti II Ie thes. 14m. au. lor .n.lytlc41 Coo,'4rllon to .ny 'ulur. d.I.
coll"ctea .'0 110.. Ing InclnerAt Ion oper.t lon\ In lhe 1101"11 dist.nt
unern r.glon.
Allerod( I VI "0. 4 Is nol . lite per Ie; ralher, It Is .n ~ 0'
constaerAtlon In which. lit. could boo 10CHed.
(00"'''''1 notea.
[fA belle.e\ th.t tll.. prolJo'"d sit. (No. I) .r'ords
"upt.bl.. hulth .114 en.lronm.ntal ul"\!uara\ to w.rr.nt 11\
,e'ectlon o.er Ih. other .1t.rn4ti.e, In III. grut.r r"910n.
-------
- )-
19-2
1I0wuVe., theru I" nO ad"(Juatu analVsis of CCJln.."c"LJVu ellvlron-
mcnl41 Im...J jt,;4Al'un:i.
.'or ..xaml'lu,
if it WtUC ll"IJC (d:i has Lee..
suq~..st.,J to Ulil Lr spokusmun for tho Vulc..nu~1 thut the uLilltv 10
constn,,:t "hlp-I.'unl Inclneralors wIthout hdvin'J 10 "":culluncJ~lu
st..ck-"..:rul,h.,cs ""O\oI.,d :ouch incJnuratocs
to IRaKiloi l~ ";(.ruLbustion
uttich:ncV C"ldti'I" to 1.II.d-I.>..50d illcJn"r.)lors, th..lk r~~I~l.nlt"lly reduce".
Ilowe.er, It Is nul a 'oregune ConCluilon that
1',01l"" Hrul>bln~ ..III nOI lie con""."",1 In 'ulule deilyn Lechnol09Y.
I', <>""Ily (1';181) only t",o (o.luuci.1 l"nd-b4ied Inclnerdur
r"ell ill~i h..e been approv~ by E~A.
'hen,jun:, It h unll"ely that
4 l"r('11 nUl.ber 0' theu lower-flo...rue ,"p.cily IndnerJlun ..III be
".all.l>le to h4n"l, the antIcipate" volum"oul tecllnuloYleL
-------
19-4
19-5
"Tl
I
~
:.11
-4-
The rlnal t:IS should At.t.empt to at least
-------
-5-
""ticlp"to'" to Lt: Inclnerat~d ..r.. ocqi."ochlorines. ..ltllo\lql, otllor
"cc"ptahl.. oC'J"""OIl"lo..,,,,,.. molY uvulltu411y Le Included..
Hili I.. tloes~ v4cloua st4tumunts 4r.. not mut"1.n. ~II pOolnb lilted
are subJe~t to perlDlt requirement, a$ d~~m..d ~ppcopri.tl: at the tlou
lit permit Issua"ce.
long-terDl dIOnltorln'.J r.... ..hhln the
l'cSI'U""b.llly 0' NOAA ulI<.ler the HI'RSA (,,,,, rc>lIolI>" 16-~1.
-------
19-0
"Tl
I
())
"
19-9
-6-
Iml,alanc"" Occllr (!.!.!' OEIS at 4-JS).
--short-t..rm lIIonitorl1l9 8hould Include !..!!. s~ bloch",olcal
/llIaly''''s of surface waters III exposed /llId cOlltrol "reas, Illcluding l!l
~ I>lo"ssays (e,'J., use ot blot..l ocean.mollitors and enz)')ne
assays).
(~, OEIS, at C-J).
--In vl..w ot vaclable m..teocolo'Jical c<>ndltIOl'5. consld"rati.."
should b.. IJiven to restclctlng oc prohibitl1l9 at-su.. Incilleration .1t
tll.. pro~06ell slto durin\! tbe late sprill",lcr,-"o..t..r ('artlculal.. .,aterl..1 <:oul.1 I", d"l'o"it"J
ovec lIor th Am" rica" (OEIS. at 0- J I) ..nd th..l "low n,<> I "cu 1.01' w"19hl
s/lturat".1 CIIC 'chlorinated hydrocarbons)" which hav.. :"Ullusph,,"'c
19-9
19-£1
Seasonal use r8str'ctlons Can be Iwpos"d as a specl.1 conditIon 0'
tI... permit hsue to rd'ect de.eloplnlj InrOflutlon.
lIo..e.er. (PA
ducS nut .Ie.. thIs .s . necess.ry precondltlun to site designatIon.
Ihe UliS rec01nllU the reality 0' '..Ind Shilts durlnlj SUUller IOOnths
IAp!>end.. AI.
lhe refolrenc"'" pJSSdye hdS "'""n reo hut In the fElS.
It ohoul., stili be- understow that .~" .liua'":,, t., .h..r., will pro.lde
s'."nlll.:.nt dllullon o( residues th..t 'OJ1 1'L'..ln III th.. atmnsphere.
As pointed out on P4ge D-)Z. Ihue res Idues p,'oba"'ly .. luld be
Ind I st Ii'ljul shabl" fron b.ck0",.1 restdctlons of USe a ,.."...Sary p.'''~ondlt lun to sit..
.It!\ hJlldt 100.
It flllure .uonltorlnlj "nulls i.II'c.le a need fo.. use
..'o.Jlllcotlon. lhls Cdn be accullplhh~'" "1 r".,sl,1'J tho! .'e'lIIlt
(und It' ons.
-------
."
I
~
19- to
-1-
1":;ld,,",,O Llmus 01 moolhs to yuarli. "ao "L" dl"LrJlmlud arouod lh..
oOI.lll..rll hclnlsl'h"n' a ",I ..VUII globally, m1>""'.1 loto the southl1clI
h"..I:;I'"or,,"
(!~. ).
s.... also, D£15 at 0-12 - D-));
.Wlllds wlthlo
Ith" soUU...,,,,,t 9"ctocl would traosl'0cl lh.. :."Lsld"""" "f lot"n,:.;t
t>...r.k tow"..ls tlorth IIJ\lliclca, which 15 ollly :'UIII" 200 Kill teom the Luco
:.it..."
.'fh.. t'llial t:IS should Lu revlsud to add....."s this I'"...lity.
It
should also di"cu:;s thu f"ilsibillty of c"sldctlll9 "t-:;&:a 10clol1catioo
to thu fall. lIillt"c. alld early 51'rlo'.l--to n.illimiz.. lh... I'0tuotlal
foc laodw... "01'1,, <.or LO coastal ...."ouce..8 at aL-:;u" 10CIII..r.:allur. "would ru"ult
fiOI. 4ccl;.\""I,,1 dlsch..r'Jc08 at "ast.n ..t IU....JIII\! ti......... or durlll'J
tl...oslt 10 Ih" oIl:ll'osal "Il",.
Uc:.,Wl.:Vc", tJ~:.8"J lu ll...~, thl.: Ot::IS ;;':'V;j "Lllhan'J ",LuUl what
~OU~t.1Ltlll:~ 4CCC(Jt.dtJlc: and un.iCccpt~LIe.: lL).:uJin'J r~.;.11l1"::i iJud othcl"
:ihoct: ~U.Jpvl.t ~
It mu~uly SL~l~s tdc~uly lat ~-)I
lh..t "1..111 t:1'1I
..lid II 5(: r; I'h,coullonll foc th.. h40.1110':l of "..:;1..5 "...st L.: stclctly
oh:l"rved."
I~;-I()
Heier lo CUOIIII!OU .nd rhl'on~~. 11-5 dll" Il-4,
-------
-rt
I
0'\
lO
19-11.
-8-
The ."Indl EI5 should provide Intormalion On the natuu, ot
potential north~ast loading and spill handlin~ tacilities that may
86rvlce at-sea Incineration at the 1"'Opos"d sit".
In a.MltJon. the DEIS lat 4-4 - 4-5) flutes that adver"e weather
conditions ,,",1 ml!chanical maltunctloll" accounted tur 75' of the
colllsJon damaqe occurJng at foue "...jur east coast ports t,"tween 1974
and 197Y, alld that "Itlhe potential eCullomlc and t:nvlrorun~ntal
hazards cr~ated by spillage,
laaka9~ du" to collision. or grounding.
greatly e"cc"d tho potential hazarc:; of ,)t-""" Jncinl!ratlon."
In
response to tht:se concerns, the DEIS ",crely note:! I,)t 4-51 that
.shlpments of h..zardous waste Inateriiils will t,e prc.tect"d against
navl9atlonal hazards by regulation of sailing tlm".., adv4nta'je taken
ot optimal traffic and weath..r condit~ns. anJ warning local 5hlpping
traffic ot the movement ot an Incinerator ~e..sel..
The DEIS dho
states (at 4-))1 that "ltlnvnedlate mitigatlll9 mea..ur"" can best bu
directod towards prevention ot accld~ntal spills or emergency
discharges."
IIOW8vur,
It Is lett uncl~ae 110\. adv",rse wheather conditions Can
bo gllard.,,1 4gainst tor 4n IncJneralur shll' e"')"ged In .active burninq
toe 1-8 Jays at a stretch I1n addit.'.;n to tr.1n"lt thou lo dnd tro:..
the t,urn slt"l.
Since the mO:lt SdV
-------
19-12
"
I
'"
C>
19-13
19-14
-9-
"/ .
1"h... "..ctlon on "I'r018ctlon of O....."ti lie:.; ...,,1 :'J'yl'<:s of U.:>.
W..:ih:s Wld"h HJ'.!ht Ba IlIclnuriltad At 5...a~ 1111:15, at 1-20 - 1-241
shoul,1 ou ul',14l..,1 lO n,fl..ct tha latu"l 4valldolu I"forn,atlon on
currullt al-sea I"clneratlon proposals Involvill9 PCb's. Silvex, and
DOT.
10DT Is not discussed In the current Uraft ~t .'1).
Thl:51 Is ..specially Jm(>ortant given EPA's
d"pdr.:ni Int"lItlon to
lhes.. tll1"...e or9ano-
purmlt or InItiate the at-sea incJneration of
,
clilorine ;;;ompuu"ds without the b..ndfit of indivhlu41, IH'ojoct-
:ip..c I f I c I: 1 S ' 9.
/
II.
Hi:iCdllill..,ous CORon..,nts.
a.
Tha Ot:15 lat 2-311. provi.!..." a t..lol... Iwhich Is
111 i ~uulnLc I ~,t.
showln... asthnated residuos 10..,11O"J" ,,9 fallout IIn ron"..../
yr.1 for a"9wn..d waste loadings throu~h 1~1I~"
1 t th"" pcovld.1S a
t..ol... 1.1t 2-181 lO "serve as lal bA5i:; of C(.,,,,,..ri,,,,II" showing
e:;tlmdt..d lrilce m~ta1 104..ln95 lin k9./yr.)
a l D....pwa tos I" Ownpll I to:
106.
1 f tI,...".. tilLl..11 ar.. lo b.. cOlup.iC...d oy llo.: r..."losr, the unll:s of
In..":our",,,..nl cmployud should ba cOIR(>ar..bl..--"ithur lvth to""...s/yr.
or LOlh kg. /ye.
o.
'fhe 01:19 IIlates lat 1-161 lI\..It JUunllol in.] l"uts for th..
third ~i/'cll CIo",Qic41 COmp411y burn show.:J "no Jo:.I..l",'iuu.J or sul;tle
Advtscue
11U1JdC l s . ..
lIuwuvu[',
lh" 01:15 Il581' lal"c poinls oul
I"t ~-HI tloal
a field LI(}..I"9..1Y u..ln... "hiotal oc..an JUJnltocs"
in c,""nnc;:~"lon with
tlo.. third bloell burn. "reve"l..d Incrc""ud p-~~o "'I.ym.. AClivity 111
t....t 01"9"nI5m.., whIch JndlcaL"d a 8tr..,,\; cC"I,un:i.. Lo cl\v!t"olunenLdl
condition"."
19-12
(I'A hd~ \Inle reeehed. .1Id Is rev Ie.....!.!, lwO o/fieldl 4.,plieuions
1.1 Ine inecdle 1'(8 .nd SI"eo wutes.
flndl dClcrOlinHion on luu.nee
of the pcrOllts hu not bl:en m.de.
Ihe HIS hd\ hel:n OIo
-------
19-15
19-16
"T1
I
.....
--'
-10-
c.
The »EIS estimates (at ~-~I
th" 'Jllantlty of inclnec..tlon
..m15510n5 lI...t \II II 1111.. \11th the Uppl':C 20 ,....t"C:I of the incineration
site.
Bllt It tall5 to estimate the resultiny tillal residue concen-
Iratlons In tl.e watec (atter this mlxlnyl.
'rh.! Fillid EIS should
t,,~(: th" Galelliatlolls through this "..\,c.. '1"1"
d.
1'he Ot:IS Indleatds th..t 1II",.lm..I ..Ir/s".. sII1'fae" IICI
cOllc"ntratlons wOllld Le 2-9 Pl'm (at ~-IOI. "",I that thu n,axlmal
dlmOSi)htJr!c c:oncunlratlon of unLura.t!:..J hydnu:4Lhons CAt ttle seA :turf,,,:u
\lould b" O. SI ppb (at .-111.
It falls, hvwev",', to cOllsldur the
pc.tuntlal Ldoloylcal slyniOeallce of the"" l"v"ls--...y..
In rel..tlon
to m..rlne wat"r ~lIallty critecla.
Thc Fln..1 1:15 should ..dd such ..
discussiun.
e.
'I'h.. IIt:IS (at 2-~)~ ....ntlons th..t Incin"ral1on of OUT
and ath"c I'I'::ltlcl.I.H' (Ke"one and tlir"xl I'ro.lu.;"d IIl..""ddocoL".nz".h:
as a pactJal "",:ollipositian "roduct..
ln lflu l.:...~.! (,f
I'CO' 5 pacllal
tlccon'p\Jsillon I)COlluct:t "hJC~ 1)('OtJUCl.:J. i.ul the I.I-;IS ~aY9 lhat '"uo
ahalys"s wer.. pcrfocp,,,d to IdentJty lI,,, r!.:slIlta"t cOlIIl'vund5."
1'I,e (JEIS (at ~-11 also paint.. out lh..t Incill.......l1,)n of ".:rbleleh:
(consist.ing of mixture" u( 2._~-IJ, :l._~._s-'r, and 1'CIJIJI
OI"aCllJt: ,",~~lt:
'J"ner..t...1 emlssiolls cont.lJnlng "numer:>"s (pc.:viously unlJentiflcd)
cumpou'hIS. ..
:ll.Iwevcr.
..p..ct fcom appcope!..t"ly "tati,,':! ll,.t. "1l>1.>lor"
sul.JstaOCCS dCU dPl,('ovod for
IllcJnucdlH.'II, 'lit: jC'JI.°iadablllty dud
I)(ea~duwn prollucts of lhoscs 5ubst4nces IlIu::.l L" tJctcLlnfhd~, logclht!l"
with any comLustion products"
(DE IS. "I. ~ - 71, t 10... lit iI f t f.oI Isla
point. out lI.dt lh... I'artlal dO'lradilLion !,rooJuets oC or'l.H,ochlorill"S
19-15
19-16
Ihe ~Ol. deplh uud In III.)d... c.lcul411UIIS IS 4SSul11t!d to represent.
wurSI-c4se condition.
A.hlitlontl ....In'1, bOlh horhollt41 4n"-
vul i'41, will npruent COlli inued dl Sl'ers lun 4nd incre4sed dllut lon,
IhcrdlY ceduclng pOlenU41 shoft-tena 1'''1'4(15.
1I1t1"41ely, residue
I".cls ..III be veIled by bo
-------
19-17
19- HI
19-19
..
1
'.I
N
19-20
19-21
19-22
-11-
Cdn oflt:n IJlJ Inoru loxic lheSn lhd orj'JJ'.dl IRdlcl"ldl.
Th..,y OldY 41so
L~ mor.. stdLle alld h.tv.. 10n'Jur a:OSJ.leIlCU time:; III llle "tll.o:'I'I,.:ro:
(~,
~;~.:.' I\Io:IS at O-HI.
Tllcs..:
tacts alld thoir Jrn!>lic41.101IS bllolll.! I..: di"cu:;:;e.! JII
thu t'llIal t:IS,
1'h.. Filial Io:IS lihould 4150 "rovid.. an.! oJl:;0.:":;5 .th" rec~nt
. I
uvldunc" th..t I'<':U alld OUT lncinurati..n Cdn 9UlluC4t" "1'.1111 tl0.:411t
COIIC..lltr4tlons ot hJ9h1, toxic dloxJII5 ..nd turalls.
t,
In tho dJscusslon of iltmosphcci..: I'..,:;id"",,:,, time5 at
VdC10US or'J,Juochlo.."lutJs
10EIS dl 4-11 - 4-141, the Ucatt notd:; thot
SO"." COII.!>OUII'j,; will "b.. subjected to foliely r,...,ld hy.le~lvs1s In the
dtlbu:!pher.." Idt 4-1)1. IShouldn't tl'd n:fd1't:llce " ,re 11rGpurly L.: tlJ
I
"pllotolY9Is" cathee than "hyda:01y81:;"?1
'rh... Flnal t:IS 5hou1d dlscutis thu pO:>:lil>i 1 it',' U.dt tioon.. ot
th"5" hydcolY:ll5 loe photolysJ:01 peodu":L9 in III.. aln'o:lI,II~c.. ,."y IItill
Lo toxic, W1Lh 1'01i511>ly ne'.)atlVQ .nviromnenL...1 IonpilcaLJOll5,
'.I,
'I'hu dl"cu""Joll of "paIi5a'J" arUd:; "f liv111'J e"IiGurc..:;"
(nt:IS, at 1- HI
lihollld lncludd e"f"eence Lo COllt..,,, 01 I.u:;:;..'./t: 01
...IoJ1atory ".,.19
Ict., p. 4-251,
IIU"-
It :Jhuuld i&l~o t:nculllp..S=i
~ci~! tish~ry rusoucct:~.
h.
'I'llu /JUS status (at 2-121
lh~l lhu -c:(fct.:l:i of in~iucca-
tion "nd5blnlls u!>on I>ic"'" J" unkllown," ' III f.}.;L, 1.I,,,ro: :!.!~ studio..
on 1""I,)r,Hory utf...ct5 of IICI 90" on 9..111n4""...1I5 Lied:.,
IOlscus:;..'"
"In r.."oet~ 011 flcet suL of Sh~ll burnsl,
I'll l.j dn'" otlle r c...l..vant
Infon'dtion should b.. Jncluded 1n thu fin." 1::1:;,
) 9-11 1111\ wn pointed out on posqe 4-8 of lh" OllS,
l~-ln l",t,uOlIifled, (harter 4, und~.,. SeClion -11I"clS on the Ecosystelll,"
1 ~- 1 Y k"~LII''''S dre dependent on the cllI:..1(41 \llucie\ involved.
19-20
19-~1
19- t':)
1I,Is concept Is considered .t page 4-11 01 till; OEIS, .lthough It Is
un~nown to ""It edent thh phenomenon wi II occur,
.Io..o:ver, It is
In'I,...rlallt to note th4t luch products ",II h" hI!!hly diffuse,
1.:At ...adlrled J5 reCOPrn"nd"d "ithln (IIJI,le,. 2, untl"r section
"Uc!Jlle
-------
19-23
19-2'1
19-25
~
I
......
W
-12-
L
Th" peoJecttons of IICI
emiSSions
feo," dt-""a Incllhadt ion
..t U.u plul'o:.;e<.l slto throuyh 1999 should co'"paee l"vels of I!Cl
yenerdl..,1 I.y 1""lnuration "I lh estllll"lcs
of sulflllic acid
I
'10," slY/lI" i~.ant
1111 :its
fdlll/l'1 on IIotth Alntlrica 4:1 "acid e4i/l."
Is th"
pOlt,ntl41 cO/llrll"~lon of sea Incina:e..lIGn IICI clni:.;si~ns lo :'oelh
Alnerlcan (or 910Ldii acid rain probl"",:.;?
1'1..~ rin..1 t:J5 should
discuss this.
j.
Th" OEIS status (at. 2-12) that "1...lonltorlll'l will Le
.Ilfi'lcult until new techniques and mo...~ precise I""asur".ntlnts ar..
"vallaLI" f~r deluction of deleterious effecls."
'fh i s possi bi Y
overstat.es the difficulty.
As de8criL,~d cl~cwi\o.!r~, "~iotal oceiJ..
monitors" anll sensitive enz}'me aS6dYs have succetJd~d In nt~Q::.urin9
suLtle etfucts of past incineration op.H,nlo.." (1Ii:15, at. 4-241.
k.
Consideration should b.. ,:!Iv..n Lo ""pon,Un", the s<:cllon
On "IIi story of th.. United Slates At-Sed I/lcln<:ealio/l l'eo
-------
19-26
19-2]
19-2U
-(1
I.
-I
-f-
19-29
19-30
-lJ-
""O-COlIl"III.,,""t-spo:cltlc 1>10..ssav l":its, Il Is dlllh,,,ll lO 1""'Jl"c
how Oil" cuuhl uvcaluallt a wastd prior to l11cl"o:r...ll..II 111 l"n1IS ot
LIlt: dCC<::'L...t" Ill;' ot Its hUdvV mclcal CUlIl,,"l.
"'I", 1"1"..1 1::1:; should
t..Ii:i(;U~:i
LId:; I:;"".. mord tully.
In.
'I'h<: Uutt lcat 4-141
cCllup....rtl:j lln.: m4l;'; i'n.,t :iCd :;'\11 [,:h:..:
COUCClltt...tJUti uf
II10r'Ja..ic 1'.JILieulal"s lO rl'A 1'1"1111.,,'1 h",IIlh
:ltoi"d"..,,, lor l>drtlculcato:s--.. comparison th~l d.:.u....'L. :;"".11 l,JCrll,ly
t\!h:v.J,.l .il &;h... :i~a 5UI'.:acu over 100 Ini)~:i uut ~t. :;"';..a.
,., .nocl;
"CO I ".J lea II V-oc 1..lIl..d tCiunu ot ndo:ccllco: :.hou Id L" pI.pV id"d.
..,
'fh.. worst-casu eslilnatc di:;cu:.,..,d
at I~. }.I-lo, 1,,,.tl.:...lu;..
I
':'I.'J .IIolI..lu'JO:II 10.td I II'j
1
lll.lt ..IUClt"J It.u
11.1 tical ,.1;,1 II~ I'dC iad C"':I 1.1,... I
In LI....: \/ul-.;C cst
llu~ incl.a.-cotto.. sil..: \/..uIJ cX":ccJ t::..,. w....lt:c (,l1d"t:\'
-':':l"tlt:rJ.. h\' "~tJvt..:ral f4ctGr~..
'.'ht: liU~;iiLI.~ to:uvi 1('luu~..l"l
i
J IIII' 11.:01-
LiUU!i at lhlS--f'Glticul.irl}' if at.-Su4 ,lh.:i'I\,;C.:atl,..n Lt..(;ulutJ, IQOC':
""iJCt:»1'l°t:::.HI
11\ tl.., l'ulucu--alU not dl:;.;u:;:...:d, b'll ~1,,)ul,J h...
(~.::.l
~!~,
I,E'~ ..l 4-111 - 4-1'.1. 4-JO, 4-)), O-J] - O-lbl.
'rlh~ tliat ilS:iOI"Liul1 that .oc'j.:alluchlcct.lt: ~lhl:;tioo5 dC.:
i"siynitic"l\t- IO~15, at 4-}1) se~~:; i".tppcLpr'.tl" .JoJ u,,)usll/iud.
I
Thu 01::15, in its disCII:i:; I '.11: (II' "I,'.,:..:.. ,;( \'I.:aic oc IIIIIUI.,,1
(J,
".:~.)UIl:t;;;~"
(..l ~-l~ - 2-171 "nd .COIIJln'l.ci" I
.
.nd 1...':I.<:.ltion"l Fl:.h
.....J :;h"llti:;l0-
(at 4-) - 4-41.
t.sli" ll' C'-":;lo.I",. 11." III.tolil'OI,J llo..\
J~",:.,- :h:Q II'... r 1 n~ Or 'JdUJ .;illl:".
tor Ct:"IOVt;~ :.'ull' llh, h..::...L':ihuic -.:onlJ .InJ
In:llt'J ..';CU:jlOIUUd to d hi'.Jhly &table: ':U'.'ilt..'lhh.:Ul, IlIo.~' tu.: l,ar~lcu'uC))
:;acu:;i[lvu to slruluiu:t a~:.ocl"t~J w1t.1t oi(.-bc,,2, lUCJII~..o...li0n.
- -
'I'll" "llu-du~I'JIO..ll(Jn tIS tCor llo" :;oill t'I''''''CI:;Cu bay ChalO.....'
"It.. e"'pl,a:;izeJ th.. tuchu)""l condiliolls of th.. dl:;I'0"dl sltd
I ~) - ('6
I~-LI
.'1) - /:;
19-2'J
) 9-:10
le.clS 01 Inltl.1 concentr.tlons .re e..lu'led durill') the permit
Ilfu'~~S .
At It,d tilDe. specllic I".".. are thl.! huh
.., ." ~.II~I~d I"",O(lS.
UOUI ..ad.:h l'(c,lI.:t ~lte w.tt:r (olu.., IU4llin9
I.. "',," 'ro", .."tes 10.,I~d .bo.n1 Ihe '''he! In 111111 (oncentr.to
, ~I.U..
I". .. oIcl .pplled Ihrou'Jh Ch.pter '.aHul.'::; \hot .11 residues
r'" ,,4i~'" '" I yeAr rel..ln within the S lie boJund.ries; .n
.nHJIIUn"hUS Input ot I )u.r's r.:siduc:.
OUvlously, Such .n
0:, .. r r"nce will not happen.
[ven .l this "".tUin.bl,, rUe. w.t~r.
.:"," ~ uUeri. no nurly III"t.
I.. (,,14t100 to th" qU'lItlly deU"oJ,ed. Ihei,. e'.,uion> a t.
,,,.I.p';lc.nl.
.... Ui l:i (I>. 4-2~) predlch th.1t de",p->". .n.. locnthl': ol'y.nlu.. will
L~ II",ulale" 'rom residue by II,.: "Atr",,,,, ".Io:r d"plh ot the site.
O''JOllis.II:i tnh.Dltlng the ...Ier COIOIIlIl 0' Ih" she .n: tr.IIsltory.
No
s'"I)Io: onJ.nh.. Is . po:rlll.llclit r"Sld,,"l.
~"" .Iso responses 1-1 .nd
1-16.
-------
"
I
~
U1
-14-
e..vla'ur-mc..t .....1 th.. Ii.k"lihoo<.l that the oC'Janl"'n:i re:illfin'J th"re
I
would b.. IJd(tl.:ularly well-adapted to th" stre:i""S a:i:iocl..t"d wllh
d..lllpin':!.
,
"110 present EIS should point out the converse;:
tho »t..b'e
conditions at th.. proposed site a,'e li:;ely to make Lt,,, reSiJdnt
specie,. esp'H,lallr s"nsltive to stresses associated wit!, d";IIpln'J.
It should also be recalled in this rCIJard tholt! al ter
extenliive !'ubUc tusti'Dony and consld'H'ation at sclelltiflc.vJ",,"s,
EPA several y..ar:i ago decided ~ to shift sew4
-------
20-1
20-2
-i'
I
"
0\
lO-J
20-4
~u
SOUllIUsrERN WASI£ IRCAIMINI. IIIC
p, O. BUI 1691
D~119n. Gco'Ci~ 30120
0fIk...
... . .....at.. a.
l'Ot. "'0011
"'811;
.o. I 101$ M... S. ,....10 sa.
110. I IAli Ik. S .t..... ~
t'&Jbrdsed Inc1/..~r.Hc,,'. I "'Ulit o'l»c::t to tI."
A'Jc!lcY':i rcc'""t vl'Jorous supvorl oi 1I1.;1",-,,,CIl..1I ..t li&Jill I ..1..0 ob-
jt:CL tu InCUlcrdtioll dt "~d U. oJ"".:rill.
,.Iy oi"lcC[ luO to t:lu~ hCJuucy'S" ~uIJf(,"I. IS L.~~J On the" i'h:t thol 1':;(-
'1o,IIeJ f~,-,llllc" hdve cnou'Jh !,,'ot-li-n.:. 1:1 "'L'"'J ..IIJ clOp..II:oI.JII \,,1.1.'
~ult 'JIVli.J .IIJt ~r.tlcs fhd ability r" ~~'/ "'Ii:.; li'-'/. ~,~~,......
Ily OUJ..:...;LIUh (I' lh~ ~onc~l't: uf inClf.I"':I"",l.Lo.1 oil. ..~.. 'I1.1L'i:' to 1';.)-
It;ntl...l f(j( dtJv..:a~~t'n~ 4CC1,ldn~5. 'r(u:I.~,.v(l....llo,Jll -)[ ".. :.(oJ:. tu i. _1,'.,-
1..0",',1 c""..,III.11 I.. 110 Jltf1 'udno!r.u.oo
I.>: i II. i.:> 4re ono "t III~ ~haro.t j.,,~ ~"r i.~_.i.'''o"s "dlot 11I4n4ge-
1',':lIt.
[I'A hll cert Itled lwo ..tI,j..b4~"" In.:hn:rJt iOIl f4clllll85 lor
110., .1.:~I""cll.:ln 01 hlurdous "Ul,,~ ...I\c:d.h.
At-sC:4 IncIneration
H conslolcr.... 4 vl.b'" dlspoul methud. d..., lo It$ n'/AOtc:naU frOll
IIIh41>Ite
-------
20-3
1
. ,
,
.,
20-4
"
I
......
......
Although splill .t I.nd-b.sed ,.tlllll~s (auld be more e'Slly
cont.lned, th.s. s.me proble~I Cln re.dlly le.d to other
envlronn~ntll h.llrdl In .nd Iround popul.ted .re'l .nd "'.ct .Ir
qu.llty or posllbl. ground ~.ter conl.~ln.tlon.
It Is recognlled th.t salle rei Iduis ..III hive Itnoospherlc res Idenc.
Il,nes on Ihe order 0' d.yl or lIonths.
I~wc.er. SIudles In the Gul'
0' H~alco h... demonstr.ted Ih.t residues r.pldl, begin to delcend to
th~ wlter surtoc. .nd begin each.nge InlO IIle ...ter colulOln.
The bulk
0' the ruilluc, IIC!, Is Inshntl, neutr.II.I"I.
UIIllllu"ly, .11
r",Idu" ~III be brought to equlllbriuOll 'rOo. .ilt..>spherlc lusp.nslon.
The phenom~non 0' dlsp.rslon 0' res Idues U;rough . ..It volume 0' .Ir
.nd w.ter In I ,.....ot. ocunlc regIon 0' r"duc"d I>lologl,,1
prOductIvity reduce, potentl.1 I~.ctl 'rolll thll ~"t. .IIlIlnltlon
proceu.
-------
'1
I
'"
c.')
21
LA.O"'CI.
~..£~. .. .,~uCi
"..'Mee 0. ...0..,-
........- Q. ,..,.
..0"" a. ..."....8.0
.....c ~ ,.....
,........ .. """'''~'',I. ......
.IC"A.'I ,- ,..WA'''C'
........ A'.'"
LCO a. , II"'.
........u.... ..t. ""0"'. .I..
IJILUO. SUHB 8. JONHS. P. C.
lUlU: lOG
.o,u. .'.111...-
-".110" 111-."0
c.au. .'."0
uu.. ...,..
_"$"'HO'O"- O. C. zOooo
Fobruary 24, 1981
BY 1111110
Hr. T. A. WAstier
Chluf, HArlne Protection
Bunch (WII-H8)
Environmental Protection
Waahin~ton, D.C. 20460
Agency
. .
.Rol Duft Environment.ai: Impact
St~ten~nt lEIS) For Proposed
"orth Atlantic Incinoratlon
Site DiJ:ilgnation I
1
I
.I
Enclosed ploa.a find. two-pAge l~tter prepar~d by
"'a.te Hanagement, Ino. CWHt! for U ling In thlO ~bov..-r..f..r..nced
mAtter. Thill letter wall tran.mltted to tha und"rlllgn..i:I by WHI
via telocopier on February 2), 1981, but wa. not rec..I~..d un-
til ..arly thi. morning due to malfunctioning uquipln..nt. WhU.
wo rocognizo that commonts In this m4ltur wore due to ~o fll..d
on r..l.JruAry 21, li8l, undur the clrcwo8tiUlCali, Wd redl'bctfullY
ruquust that th.. onclosud lotter be accaptad for fllin~.
A. you will noto from thd oncloded, HHI 11..11 8 tlt81
Interost In tho prompt doslgnAtlon of a North Atlantl~~lncln-
sration .It... Ths eccoptanco of Its lett"r will bo of v..lue
to EPA in Its evaluation of thl. .ubjoct and will not 0 pre.
judicial to any othor party. I
Thank you far your conslddration.
DUAr Hr. Wastier.
v..ry truly yours,
~~(z~L...vL-
HoHC J. -a:hC-
Counaul for
Waste H4n..g"munt, Inc.
Hf'J/tdc
EncloslIl"e
-------
21 .
~
~
w.... "'.nlg8m.nt.lnc.
toO Jo...lloul....d. 0... .'00'. Kltnol.aoSJI
Fobruary }), 1981
Hr. T. A. Wastier
Chief, Haline Prot8ction
£nvlronOl.mtal Protoction
Waahin~ton, D.C. 20460
Bunch (WIt-H81
A&ed
sllu in the North Atlantic for at-sea Incineration pf
ceetain wastes. WHI believes that thu deaft EIS isia
satisfactory environmental assessment ot the impact"of
the 1\5<1 ot the proposed site for at-SE:a Incineration of
haza«lou:l chemical wastes. A tlnal £LS and site delil
-------
.'
.JQ
V&
Hr. T. A. Wastier
February 1), 1'81
Pa\ld 1
Statd. and to have tho.. ws.t.. transported to 0 t.ndnal
located .:In the Atlantic coast. An ocean incineration
alte in tho lIorth Atlantic i. ot direct and iwoedhto
imvortoncd to WHI.
It the H.T. VULCAIIUS wero requirod to load toxic \laate.
at a tenninal on the Eallt Coast and then tnu':ilport those
WAuLus to an incineration sito in tho Gulf of Mexico, tho
coat and efficioncy of its operations \lould b. advur:iloly
effected. As noted in the Draft £151
-n
I
OJ
a
Tho abi Ilty at thlo slt. (in tha Gulf of Mdxicol
to assimilate the tremondous volumo of \lastes
"hich are gonerated on the Guif and east coa.t
Is lIukno"n, and as this study indicates. this
site "ould roquire several shipe operating simul-
taneou:illy to handlo the projected vol,lme8 of "aste.
Additionally, the potential !!nvironmental ha:t~rds
And aconomic burden of waste trallspocted I'I:IId.or
this alternative untenable. COroft EIS at xlii-
xivl
21-1
I
Ocean Incineration at toxic waste. has proven to be tech-
nically. environmentallI and economically feasible. : EPA
"nd other fodoral agone es have indlc4te4 that an at;,..sea
Incineration capability in this country ill necessary in
order to meet this nation's hazardous waste dispOS411
problem. Sau Re~rt Of The Interaqe~d lIoc Hork I
Gcou~The ChemICiTw'Aiite Incinarator SiiTj)Progurn,
Septelnber 19iiO:--By-rts acquhitlon of tho H.T. VULCAIIUS,
I~HI hAil demontltrated th4t it I. ready, willing and aplo to
provide thiu lIervice. To enable HHI to provhl.. thisl vAluable
survlcd, J:;PA should pursuant to )) U.S.C. Sac. I H1(cl
doaiqnate An ocean Incineration sito In thd North At)antic
au soon A3 po~sible. 1
.1
F.:Ir thd foreqoing re,...ono, HHI requ.utfl that I::I'A rlnaU
-------
,...
I
();)
-'
zz
22-1
..t ...: "'.: "'..MI::, IC\hl..., ,II.,.. "..... .. . ....,........'
"'."'c .. II., 'u".. SI..... ..1.1.,.., .""...c c...IJ Ice"', ....-.
..;..,...,Iih ...J .u' 1..11 .....ee.,"," "..-C """"""'.lut&e ,"cNd",'.
....e ""0<, ....... ,.""otI' w.. tI.e f.. c......" ..., .".... fll, .tNt.
"""",,,on. 1""tC -.I ,.I""''''at ...., littk,,"'.Mh.......... -.,..
It.. "lid .
WI." I
-,",. ,I,hl ""II.. ,,,1.1.. ........... """, ........... ..."'... ,--
..... .. 40 ."'IIIft II .
1''''.'1.''.1''1 . d.....1 .".......1". ,......1... IIchf1UC"" .atu .
.:...;..~ ~~:~~.~. :::~~:~...~(~"~l':'...~"'::::' ~:, --::.~
"""'''1 '"e ..I... I.... ...hot... ........... .... .....", .... .t.....,
"Mnw
W, ,..... ...... . ....t-i.. "...,.....11, dIN"'I.. ",..... ..IU -....,
.001 ,,,,,,.,,.. tlIJ.',... .-., I. ''''. II auf ......
............, le.........I... .......... "'.-"',"'lli".... ......... ,.......
...", .lth..II,. ""',,,1,.1, It" ....." J'N"",-, 1M...... A.'....k 0.....
"'''''''''I',U..I 11-......"..1"",,,,,81('''' ,,,".",.'''u.h....n,
II A ....,,"i.., ... 1..1e ..hi... '~'''''''''''' ,a.......... toc..l.u ....
h.h., ............ I.".,. ,,,,.,,,,.,,,,,".,",,,,'''' "''''f' &oc "",~
..u"',..
Tv,k .wN c......"'.......... .... .-Stooc"'" 1M".. eC.IeI"- &II "'1
:::'::;;:",:::: ~ :~'~'~I:::~:....:'ri:.~:'~:.~~ J.::1r:::j
,..1.... 1...~I,. ..... .un..., '" ........... C...... C.......,. .......
UtI",..,.,
.... ~'.;:: ==.i~:::~:'::"~;: ~i~~::~.~'::N.l:'~C:~~::.~.~
r...
. ",O("'..C ...... .a...... ...... .,"."....... """,""'1....., "'r
... f..In..MCftI
N. I. .. .......""""''''' I. ."L.. .. ... ..I, M.... ,..4 ,h,.- .....
."I",""'~f"""......_i..~.,..,... ."..-4""" W. "'c"""'"
.... '''' I..tn."""",., .,.... ,.,1.. .... "Ie"".'" .........
ere ....... ........ ,,,.&i......oc...
IIe.Un ~...I., ,.......1. '" I.""""."'''' -.. ........ ............
III... "'........... of.l-. Mile 1.1..... .....Iot,.... 1."1.1...."" '»'eM
C...., - to. ...... ........ M." ...... u,. y,.. ft," ..,.... .I,
..- ClU". ......u... ....... ,,,..,... J...-.h ....Iof."" ........ ,...""'10('.
,.....". .loin... .UI""'. .1.. ..,.Ir" ."". . -loc'.II, "'''''...,...,.
,..101.{ I... ,,""" .1.1.IoI...u.. ...., If"" ...... pull_au. .,...1., ..,.
.- I:: ~:'~:~:'~,:;:' ~:~::,"~,t-:':.:.:.... '" ..Ia. W. ..... It..
"' 'lrrtrao.....--.I e.'M.."........, '''of c...... ."" lie II S f...I....
IN....I t,'Hhl"" -"c,,"']. loC""" ...~_. ""-'If." ....,a... .MI .,11'
""'". .""'''''"0(''' ,,,nolI. ..' fit k.
\\'c .u..l.uil......... doc,'.. ......au.""..................U .h.....loe
""['11 ;"\' ..,.....i', ......I,.... ,.......It... Lc""....~., 0. "'I)N
~,..t::~ rutlb'l ... ...-, ... '''"'7"1 ... .~ .. ....II, .,1\4 I...
III...., 1M... .,',. ...u. ..., "". i wc. tlA ........110 10..1."....
...i.. .....,....., .IJO".lIn..n.......lc...,C...ut 1..... S ItA
..'""J ..~.. ., ....~. .... I.. '"ftl..,oM ., J'l~" r."."
"'..'~M.I~I ,...i. '..1 ......-.. W~I13~f' '.""
II If' ........itl 6.....,.... . ..,J ""4 ...JI....", ....1"" lof ,.
4....,tofJ.lcl ..... I' "",,,,,,,,,."114.,... ...... .....~....I(
.""'.1.'" I' ,;"'" ......,.I('I'-'''''''''''f JJ ~,.,...",.
".'" )"'IC'"'' '.
1''''' ."..."... ""h. at, ..,...1 ....- ,""''''''''M', 1M of S".... I"A
ve ......J ...11."...., W. .'.". ..... tI.. ."."'.. .noI p"utc.-h'" .. ......
,....""',...... ... ...... ..t "'III ...".1.
"'"..... ., ......of ...... ...4...." "I""'" ,,,"'u'. toe,... II ...........
,......., I....
l'r~...II~: ::r,':::: .~\. i~:i..:.:~:.:. ';.::(:'.;::~~:':c..,~.;~~.~:
,..............11,....:-:. "',.1...".... UC' lulOl
r
.-..---
22-1
lIute to be d hpoled .t the proposed lit. ..III not be dlrecCl..
du.~ed. r.th.r thl" "III be Inelner.ted .t the Iiti.
At-III
Incineration II bllng Inv'ltlg.ted '1 .n option In the trl.t..nt .nd
ulth..t. dhpoul o( Vllt qu.ntltlu 0' hUlrdou. ..uti' ..hleh del,
.nd ..111.contlnu. to, .ccumul.te on the ..It eO'lt. .1...11 ..
throughout othlr ,.rtl o( thl countr,.
Ihe recognized .dv.nt.gl o(
.t-Ie. Incln.r.tlon I. It I rl.ov.1 'ro. popul.ted .r'll. deer...lng
potentl.1 h.r.rd. to lurroundlng con-.nltl.. 0' l.nd-b'led
Inelner.tor '.cliitles, or eont..ln.tlon 0' lur',c, or ground
wlterl.
-------
23
ironbound
January 16,
1981
Hr. T.A. WastIer
Chief Hosrine Protection
EI'A
W~sh., D.C. 20460
Branch
Do:ar Hr. WastIer,
23-1
011 behalf of the yroupa Hllted bel"", I would like
to requd9t th4t public hearings Are held in tho: citiO:8 of
EliZabeth and Newark, NdW .Jc:rs..y concerning the EPA
Environml.:ntal Impact Statemunt for A proposed incineration
site In the north Atlantic ocean.
The groups requellting these heArings are:
-.-.
I
())
N
Coalition for 8 United Elizabeth
N..w Jer.."y Committe. on OccupationAl Safety and ""alth
Nuw J..raey Public Interellt Research Group
Elldex SI.:o AIIIAnco:
Ironbound COIlURunity lIoalth Proiecl
Bayon"e Against T'lOkll
New Jeraey Toxics Project
Sincur..ly,
(it .:.it Gilt ""-
'Arnold Cohen
Ironbound lIealth proiect
Coordinator
c-.....n.... Co,.........
.. fl........ A.e.
~. N,". 0)101
IIDII """'0
Ch.....'. c..n....
,.. 8.1....,.. A_.
"""". It.". 0. IDS
,3D, I """""1
~''''~I
Q, l"....,'e 5.
H..." III J. u'Ie»)
UO..Sotor1JllW.~.
c-..~" '''''IA
"'Vi""
., '1_", ~...
",,,._, It.l. 0'10,
'~I' ~"t.4
C"~II, II\I~.......,.
C......
knll.C.IIUft
hOI'"
"0..11 E,,-..;.aa'OII
"'.1811;1
IS .',...."" A...
""."', H.J ". 101
8101' w..,'a:..., "'0
'-'..- 0., c...
,~ .
() .-
:';Jv\~\11
J'
-------
"11
I
();)
W
23-1
I
~
I
I
C-' .
UHltfD U-:'TES fHVIROH"~UL PROTECTION AG~HC"
-
...-
.~ ~ c':c ...~!
Hr. Arnold C~hen
'ronbound lIe4lth
Prc ,(!ct CoonlinJtor
9!; fI.:mill!.l Ave.
!4::14Jrk. ilcII J.!rsey
.'
01105
O':oIr ;'Ir. Cohen.
I ~on writ 109 In rcspon.. to your hUor of January 15, UBI tn
IIhlch jOur or~alliutlon and Ih othor. roquillted public ho!4rlnys on tho
IIropOIU" Inclncr.stton sltlt In the lIorth Athntlc.
'n order for the Envlronment.1 Protuctlon A~ency to detcnnlnu " I
111.1:>1 I c hedrt 11!J Is l1eedi::d on a part Icular subJect. lie need to knoll tho'
SpecIfic Iss~es that ar~ of concern .nd amenable to discussIon in I
1'''01 Ic hcartn~. . . . .
If the or1Jnlzation "'11 submIt these specifIc Issues In krltln1
we 11111 'J I ve tho! heartng requeU furtl,ur cons Iderat Ion and Inform you
of Our decision.
SIncerely yours. .
. 1. A. \lastler. Chicf
/1arlne Prot~ct ion 8rJnch (!1JI-5,j5) .
-------
24
24-1
-T1
I
())
~
'~I.;.Il":I. .,to;',~.~ :'~y ";oJ...t1lt....n
9S Flo:milli Ave
.'f':llarl, :I.J. 6110S
i~OI) 1H.1Z1O
r /3/8/
'f-
LA. !tastier
0, iet, ILi rine ProtoCt Ion Branch (1111' 4351
U.S. Environmenul Protection AKeney
Washington D.C. 20640
Deu Hr. lIaHler;
11e, tho UJ".lersigned chinns and environmentalistS, b\c r~qllesto:d tt:.1t a
fI:!>lic h=~:-ir.;: !:e hel:! :::1 tb E!'.\'.i !);-;::r !:::':ir:x~.::;;;:;1 I.~ :~t ::;:.i:c:;:;c:~.l
concemin& Ihe designation of a site In tho ~rth Atlallli.: for II,,: incineration
of huardolls lIastcs. Ite: have IIWIY con.:e ms re Ioited to this propo:ia I 31\.1 \lo)uld
lile to have a .:hanco to ,!lidl;;SS thcm in a pu!Jlic fon.n. Sur.:e, !Ju: n:;t all,
of our cCII\:"m.. ue a-.:ntiol::::.! be 1011.
nlO on shore ie.,acu or ocean incinerat ion havc not becn adJress"d in the
ElS. In thc pro.:ess of at - :ic:a illcincr;u i,," ""hI of the: ad ivll io:. of
transponatlon aJllI tran.fer tak.: placo on land. 1he lo.:atl<,n of 1 siu in
the :-Ionh .\tlantlc "ill Involve risls to 1O:ut coast port cO"IIU1ltics and
tho exact location of the she and the \'ohrncs deee."..1 apprupriate for dbposal
will have a real ievact on shore. For instance an alt"lnalive of .c:veral
low VOllillC incineration silu mi~t have less on .hore 1"1,a.:t thnn ond largd ong.
nlOSO is>lIos need to bo Jtudic..1.
Detoxifh:atlon has not beon propgrlr. cOllslJer"d as an alt.:.nativo ..llsp".al
...thoJ. TIlis ...lhuJ II ono In whic I the real COi(S, c.:once:ic an.! "nvlrolu...:nul
are intcllIiJlIu..l !Jy tho waUo lIenerator. -
n,e possibility of illegal dlGrving oi ..a~tes at sea Ins nOI I>".:n aJmiu.:J.
'n..: ..aste h..nLllcinll inLiustry has painfully LlellOnsrrnr.d J (endaslCY to talc
this I'alh of disposal ..hen it is the chcar.cSt and it \oill be lc:ss upc:nsive
t~ Jl'l;J r.......' ",iAj,tC5 ::-.&0 to bJJ1i t:iCiI" at t Ie. ~,tV'.::c;J .aiL'';. nl'~;" il.':'.ilJ
at 10:,'''( e\o"illuato the potential t.'lat this uill occur ;;/,d disL:usS the ieq.act
to I>u elpccteJ if it docs.
n.e ability anJ responsibility of the lIovel'1\JlV:nt agench's to "':8ulare
..JlJ aunitor at. sca incinerat io.n has not been aLldrcssc:J. 11.c c:nvi rUlunenla I
i"..act wi 11 Le largely dotonn.!ncd by thc quality of Ho)vcnulIO:lI1 reglll.lllUn .111..1
so it Is OIl'prOl'rlllto to cover it in the EIS.
n,e vohUlc, of ..aHo) use..1 as lho basis for the EIS a,.: nud\ tOO 10\1 .
11.c voh.... of 189,(()() tOIU\c:s/yeilr used a, . !Jasls fur Ihe [IS conq.ues 10
a vohulury first year mini."1! of 220,001 tUlUlu/yellr plasul':..1 by a cOfllur..tlOIi
which 1..15 atraady acqulre..1 lalld fur a facilitv III II.....alk »..1. 1119,00 tUlVh:,/YC:ilr
-.iU&!'t not o~ tho activlt)'to MtO than onc or twO ccaq'oini.:s.
~\IL\~\
-------
)
'j ,
1\,. Y thc shul tie 1111 effect' of the "t raca" Iml"'"'ed lOA Ills have L..ell
cUII:;I.I,acJ. l1.c pusslbility at long tom effects shuuld be eu,nille.1 011 the
aSSlul,'II'UII of o.:eiIJ\ 11II:llIeratloll becomlni the prevoiIlllni moJe ~f II,ute dhposal.
'\t.sca I llciner.H 100 IIill present the least e);penslve alethuJ of todc IIaSlo dcstnlCtlon
alld ,,111 a.:t to discollrago uplor3tlon of alOre sOluld .I\:thuJs slici. ;u detadficatlon
ill II! recycling. n.h sl,uuld bo cCAuldere.! In the EIS since it !01!:ht die Ute
a lIu"lnll at. sca Indnenlt Icn on a sl,ort tum bas Is with oil s.:/II:Jllle for'
"hdslll!! It <.Iut In a "ay that will provlJe Incelltives fur devaluplnll other IWIthoJs.
'l1,e cOllle;ltlOIl Ihat toxic wastes wHI not enier the "I'rer ilunusl'llI:ra ba. IIOt
bcell ade'lu.1t Iy supported
'111e "rohahllily. and consequences of near shore shl"l'llIi addcnl5 has nut been
fully consi.!cled.
In lillht of theses and other concerns about the In"acts of at 'se~ Incineration
all tl,o lllilfine alld ulban shoro envlrOluncnts I.e asl that a public:headnll bo scheduled
In the Nunl.em ;.leu Jersay .Irea, and In .IOy ather areas ,,"kh Ihe .Ictivity Is 11Loly
to effect.
'1
,
CO
U1
Sincerely.
c7 ~J L~v.
r7~ ~ r/
Y":'I r ,')'U.i,(/' Il\..LJju- M.../.L".t ,,::,,"./(,-»1-
.(4.'.I\.t.",.. ...- .'. _.- .. I
P " ) . J. I
:..,. t... ~~c Lt. L'~ ~ ~ n"- . ..... t-
()V.L.U ('.rk",. .""-
-------
24-)
-n
.
(»
m
tA'" ')
,:1\\'
Gn:4ter ':1:\1.,1( 84Y (oalltlon
9!1 flelliing ';.11.
1I~"Qrk. II.J. 01105.
Our t:er..l;cn;
Jhls II In response to ~O)ur Io:tt.:r 01 .\pril J. I~I:I, nqullltlfl!l ..
IJ'-Dllc h:uln'J 011 the OrJtt [nvlrol\ll:euul loapolet ~tJt:"ent (0£15) on thll
dul!;nJtlon ur A lIonh Alhntic Inclnllution She.
11..: puul ic CG.7IH:nt lIerloll on tho OEiS closed 011 feb,.u",.:! 22. 1901.
AnJ t/l.: f InJI £ I 5 is no.. In th~ IJsc $tagH 01 I'rc;.oJul1nn. lith Is ono
uf . IJr!)c n...oOcr 01' £15'1 boln!J jlr.:pud on oceAn di;i£jlshIl5 by
COlltrJCl. 411d It .lUuld not bill iuuble t3 ;jlsn:pt thu sCII.:.1ulll d thl,
tl...~. IIO".,c.cr. .I /learlng coin bl 110111.1 on tl:o final tiS or lhe propoilld
sltll dcsl~n4(lon If ::,Ou fuel )'our concernl havil not bco.:n ..d"'re:ued
"d~4u4(cly by t/ldt tl~e.
S""'<: ot (/III conCllrnl GXlJruud In )'our Ictter Jr. Ilk)I"r to
concunl II:cn'.loII':'" by 'lhllr C\JIr.T.ellUn and ,,111 hll ..ddruud In the
filial US. Otho.:r COIII:8rnl ...11 .on properly Jddreu.:c.I on a cdc-by-c:,..
bJsl. In the per~lt Issuing proCCII. ,\mpl. opportunity II qlven lor'
;»010111: n:.I,," 4/1<1 CI)"'..,nt bulo... uch perillit Ii ISSued.
A nl~~dr ot the conClrnl )'011 hive ..prelled hJVO already bllon
Jddro.:a.c1 In previous re?Ortl publIshed by (PA. I am cnclo51,~ slv.rll
ot lhese tor your. I ntoflllltt on. 11"1111 r..portl 4ddrUI (hll nhtlv. .
lI".crltl ot hlla-blsed V1. H-ua.tnclnllntlon and descrlbo In deull t"'Q
H-11I4I IncIneration IIpenttons dona pnvloully. I hopl) thille nporU will
,1I.y soulot ot you,- concunl .about our 4011lt)' to n:
------- |