ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF
     INCINERATION OF CHEMICAL WASTES
                  IN THE
PROPOSED NORTH ATLANTIC INCINERATION SITE
   ON ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
                    by
       Marine Operations  Division
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
                 U.S. EPA
              July 9, 1985

-------
ttfl
                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
      Section
530R85116
  Page
      I.     INTRODUCTION


      II.    IMPLICATIONS


      III.   ONGOING AND COMPLETED EPA STUDIES


      IV.    INCINERATION PROCESS


      V.     INCINERATION SITE DESCRIPTION


      VI.    PROPOSED MONITORING PROGRAM


      VII.   DESCRIPTION OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES


      VIII.  CONCLUSIONS


      IX.    REFERENCES
    1

    7

   15

   21

   25

   37

   40

   54

   58
      APPENDIX A     Letter  from D.  Redford to R. Schaefer

      APPENDIX B     Letter  from FWS to EPA

      APPENDIX C     Letter  from T.  Bigfcrd to D. Redford

      APPENDIX D     Letter  from T.  McKenzie to D. Redford

      APPENDIX E     Letter  from D.  Redford to T. McKenzie

      APPENDIX F     Letter  from T.  McKenzie to D. Redford

      APPENDIX G     Memorandum from V. Bierman to T. Davies

      APPENDIX H     Figure  from URI (1982) Showing Sperm Whale

                     Sitings in Mid-Atlantic Area
                                                           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                           Region III Information Resource
                                                           Center (3PWI52)
                                                           841 Chestnut Street
                                                           Philadelphia, PA  19107

-------
I.   INTRODUCTION








       Incineration-at-sea Is the practice of thermally destroying liquid




hazardous wastes through high temperature incineration onboard an ocean




going vessel.  Ocean incineration is currently regulated by EPA under




the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), as




amended, U.S.C. S1A01 et seq., regulations promulgated thereunder in 40




CFR Parts 220-228, and Annexes to the Convention on the Prevention of




Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (the London Dumping




Convention (LDC)).  If incinerating polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the




requirements of Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15




U.S.C. 52605(e), apply.  On February 28, 1985 a regulation was proposed




specifically for incineration-at-sea.  This proposed regulation (EPA




1985a) containing detailed requirements for Incineration-at-sea operations,




was developed  to be consistent with the regulations and requirements for




land-based Incineration under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act




(RCRA).




       Under EPA regulations, incineration sites must be designated by




EPA and operating permit applications for incineration at designated




sites evaluated by EPA individually.  Each applicant must meet several




requirements,  including proving the destruction efficiency of shipboard




Incinerators on specific wastes before being granted a permit to use a




particular site.  Both the designation and permitting process both include




several opportunities for public review and participation.




       Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C.S.




5l536(a)(2), requires each federal agency, in consultation with and with




the assistance of  the Secretary   [of  Interior or Commerce, depending on




                                   -1-

-------
Che species involved], Co ensure that any acCion authorized, funded, or




carried ouC by ic is not likely Co jeopardize Che continued existence of




any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction




or adverse modification of a habitat of such species which is determined




by Che Secretary, after consultation with appropriate states, to be




cricical.  The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of




Che Interior) and the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National




Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), (Department of Commerce)




share responsibilities for implementation of Che requirements of the ESA.




Generally, marine species are under the jurisdicCion of Che National




Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).




       A DrafC Environmental Impact Statement (E1S) was prepared by




EPA in January 1981 describing the potential Impacts of incineration




activicies at Che North Atlantic Incineration Site (NA1S).  This document




was distributed for comment to Federal, state and local agencies and to




the public.  A Final EIS was prepared in December 1981 (EPA, 1981).  This




E1S discussed Che activities that could occur at the sice and the potential




effects of these activities on Che environment, including an analysis of




impacts on threatened and endangered species.  The Final EIS described




the organic and inorganic (metals, HC1, etc.) substances which could be




in incinerator emissions, estimated their quantities and evaluated poten-




tial  environmental exposures and effects, and concluded that because of




the low concentration of released materials and the fact that marine




mammals and  turtles generally do not linger in a single location, "the   •




likelihood of impacts from  residues is remote".  This finding was based




upon  emissions research and information available at the time of writing




which described  the occurrence o£  threatened and endangered species.  The




EIS did  note, however,  that the  proximity of rich feeding grounds along




 the north-south  migration route  of many species would make the slope waters




                                   -2-

-------
an attractive region to the cetaceans (whales).  Taking this into con-




sideration, the "no effect" conclusion was reached, and was not challenged




in comments'on the draft or final EIS nor the proposed designation package.




In addition, the analysis in the EIS was based upon a destruction effi-




ciency of only 99.96Z whereas EPA's proposed regulations require from at




least 99.99Z to 99.9999% (for PCBs) destruction of waste materials which




would cause even less material to be released and accordingly reduced




potential for environmental impact than discussed in the EIS.




       In 1982, EPA proposed designation of the site in the North Atlantic




Ocean for incineration-at-sea (47 FR 51769).  A public hearing was held in




Ocean City, Maryland on April 14, 1983 and the Agency is now planning to




complete the site designation.




      . On February 22,  1985, the Agency contacted the National Marine




Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Appendix A) and Fish and Wildlife Service  (FWS)




to inform them of the intent to designate the site.  The FWS responded on




March  11,  1985 stating  that the only endangered species under  their




jurisdiction which might use the NAIS area was the Arctic  peregrine




falcon which migrates over the ocean in the Fall.  They concluded, however,




"we  do not  anticipate any  impacts to the population  to result  from these




incidental  contacts, therefore the proposed project  will not jeopardize




the  continued  existence of the Arctic peregrine falcon (Appendix  B)."




NMFS responded  on March 20,  1985 suggesting that  EPA "reassess"  the




finding  of  no  effect as stated in  the Final EIS using  "new information"




describing the  occurrence  of endangered species (particularly  the sperm




whale)  in the  vicinity  of  the site, and included  documents necessary for




 this reassessment (Appendix  C).
                                    -3-

-------
       A full list of threatened or endangered species, or critical habitats




which may be affected by the proposed incineration of wastes in the NA1S




was requested from the National Marine Fisheries Service  (NMFS) on March




27,1985 to update the list in the  1981 E1S.  In a March 29,  1985 letter




to EPA, NMFS identified the following species to occur in the  site area




(Appendix D):




                     Scientific Name
  U_»_J C«-«
  J^w«i* L*f*C.w




fin whale




humpback whale




right whale




sei whale




sperm whale




blue whale




green sea turtle




hawksbill sea




  turtle
                     Balaenoptera physalus




                     Megaptera novaeangliae




                     Eubaleana glacialis




                     Balaenoptera borealis




                     Physeter macroephalus




                     Balaenoptera musculus




                     Chelonia mydas




                     Eretmochelys imbricata
kemp's (Atlantic)     Lepidochelys  kempi




  ridley sea




  turtle




leatherback sea




  turtle
Status




Endangered




Endangered




Endangered




Endangered




Endangered




Endangered




Threatened




Endangered








Endangered
                      Dermochelys coriacea
loggerhead  sea




   turtle
                      Caretta caretta
Endangered
Endangered
        EPA compiled  the documents and on April  24,  1985  asked  NMFS if  the




 received documents were complete and represented  the  best  available infor-




 mation for the  re-assessment (Appendix E).  The NMFS  response  dated April




 24,  1985  (Appendix F) stated that EPA had received  all but one document




 which was  desirable, however, this document, a  status review for the




 sperm whale,  was not publicly available.




                                    -4-


-------
EPA Chen contacted the Washington, D.C. office of NMFS and on April 30,




1985, and was informed that this document was not available and was not




expected to be finalized in the near future.  This status review is




therefore not incorporated into this document, but is largely based upon




the data cited herein.  Other documents were subsequently received from




the Washington office of NMFS including status reviews of other endanger-




ed species (NOAA (1984a), a letter from NMFS.to Minerals Management




Service describing whale sitings near an offshore oil drilling platform




(NOAA, 1984b), and the NMFS biological opinion for Outer Continental




Shelf lease sale 111 (NOAA, 1981).  These documents have been used in the




preparation of this assessment.




       EPA has re-evaluated the potential effects of the ocean Incineration




activities at the NA1S and has concluded, based on the best available




scientific and technical evidence, that the  permitted activities will not




affect the listed species.  The basis for this conclusion will be explained




in detail herein.  In general, however, several factors lead EPA to this




conclusion.




       With  respect to the five whale species listed as endangered, based




on the information evaluated, only one of these species may regularly




inhabit  the  site area.   Siting information  Indicates that sperm whales may




exist in the vicinity of the proposed site  year-round.  There is, however,




no evidence  to indicate  that any  individual  or group of individuals live




within the site permanently, and  the data Indicate that the 1981 EIS




statement regarding the  use of the slope area by whales as a migratory path




due  to  the rich food  supply there is still  appropriate.
                                    -5-

-------
       With respect to the endangered or threatened turtle species, the




available Information suggests that these species may migrate through the




site area but are not year-round residents and occur mostly farther in-




shore than at the proposed site (in agreement with the 1981 E1S).




       Based on monitoring conducted during previous trial burn's, EPA




believes that, even if these species were to solely inhabit the area of




the incineration site, no adverse impact would occur from the incineration




activity or from exposure to the plume.  Additionally, more sensitive




environmental monitoring is proposed for the future at incineration sites




which will include observation of endangered species occurrence and




activities.  Finally, EPA believes that the likelihood of a catastrophic




spill occurring which could endanger the continued existence of the listed




species, should they wander into the transportation route or burn zone,




is  remote.




        The analysis herein explains  the proposed action  to be permitted




by  EPA, describes  the endangered species which may exist in the incineration




site area, including  their distribution, if known, and analyzes potential




effects on these species which  can reasonably be expected from this




permitted activity.   This document is  not  Intended to duplicate the  1981




EIS or  any of  the  studies which the  Agency has conducted.  It is a review




document which outlines  the  information available  to EPA describing  the




Impacts of incineration-at-sea  on  endangered or  threatened species at  the




North  Atlantic Incineration  Site.
                                    -6-

-------
II.    IMPLICATIONS








       Potential adverse effects to threatened or endangered species




resulting from incineration-at-sea activities include:




       (1)  collision of the vessel with animals;




       (2)  effects of hydrochloric acid (UC1) through contact with the




            skin, in the air and in the water column;




            and




       (3)  bioaccumulation or acute and chronic effects from plume




            constituents or released materials.




Collisions




       Collisions of endangered species with incineration vessels enroute




to the site are possible, but unlikely.  The increased vessel traffic




caused by incineration voyages is unlikely to obstruct or modify migrating




patterns of any of the species in the area.  Any one incinerator vessel




can make only about  14 voyages per year due to the time it takes to




load, travel to and  from the site and burn a full load.  Therefore,




incineration vessel  traffic will only be a small percentage of ship




traffic in the mid-Atlantic area.




HC1 Effects




       One area of potential exposure to endangered species would result




from direct contact  with the incinerator plume.  Research burns demonstrate




that potential hazards of atmospheric acid (HC1) are rapidly diminished




by atmospheric diffusion, and rapidly neutralized by seawater.  Monitoring




has shown that beyond  2  to  A nmi  (3.7 to 7.4 km) downwind of the emission




source, any HC1  remaining in the air rapidly disperses to ambient conditions




(EPA,  1981).




                                   -7-

-------
       Grasshoff's (1974) estimate of the concentration of HC1 fallout due




to incineration operations is discussed in the E1S.  Assuming a burn rate




of 25 tonne/hr of waste, containing approximately 63Z chlorine, the HC1




emissions would be approximately 16 tonne/hr.  Moderate wind speeds will




disperse the waste plume over a sea surface area of at least 250,000m^




before the HC1 condenses and falls to the water surface.  Once the HC1




has settled out of the plume into the surrounding waters, it is neutralized




by the alkaline properties of seawater and no adverse effects are expected.




One cubic meter of seawater is capable of neutralizing 80g HC1 (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)




(see EPA, 1981).




       The E1S also discussed the results of modeling exercises and actual




samples  collected in  plumes during test burns at sea, and shows that HC1




concentrations are predicted  to  be less than 2.9 ppm in the air,  2.2 nmi




from  the vessel, and  were actually less than 7 ppm 0.5 nmi from the vessel




during the test burns.




       Studies on pigeons.,  rabbits,  and guinea pigs, as described in the




EIS for  the  site  (EPA,  1981), showed  that exposure to concentrations of




4,000 parts  per million (ppm) acid for  30 minutes, resulted in death;




whereas  exposure  to  concentrations of  100 ppm  for  6 hours per day for  50




days, produced only  slight  unrest and  irritation to soft  tissues  such  as




the eyes and nose.




       These values  suggest that animals  could only be adversely  affected




in very  close  proximity to  the  stack,  (and  at  such close  distances, both




heat  and acid  could be detrimental).  Due to the  thermal  energy  in the




emissions  the  plume is expected  to  rise and disperse  to  the  levels that




                                    -8-

-------
have been measured in the past as described above.  It is possible however




that certain weather conditions such as inversions, rain, fog, etc. could




cause the plume to fall more rapidly.  As discussed in the EIS, concentrated




acids released into the acid waste disposal site in the New York Bight




have been shown to dissipate rapidly.




       Whales or turtles may be adversely affected if they were to surface




ijmnefHpfply behind the incinerator vessel, coming into contact with the




plume under some weather conditions.  Farther downwind, lower concen-




trations of HC1 would be encountered.  The avoidance reaction of these




organisms to high HC1 levels is unknown, but due to their apparently low




abundance in the site (see Section VI) it is unlikely that a significant




number of individuals will surface Immediately behind the vessel and




remain in the plume long enough to be harmed by the HC1.  During the




39-month survey of URI  (1982), it is estimated that less than 10 of the




341 sperm whale sitings occurred within the NAIS which encompassed an




area of  1240 nmi? Indicating that the site is sparsely populated with




this endangered species, for which concern has been expressed and hence the




low potential for this  type of an Impact.




       The  1981 EIS prepared by EPA  (EPA,  1981) studied the reactivity of




HC1 emissions in seawater.  It states that no detectable pH shifts are




expected due to incineration activities because of the neutralization




capabilities of sea water and  the atmospheric dispersion.  Section 4 of




the EIS  explains  that  water samples  collected during  previous burns showed




no  significant  pH differences  between areas in the emission plume and




control  stations.   Section  4 of  the  EIS also evaluates the potential




effects  of  chlorine  gas which  would  be emitted at  trace levels  from




organochlorine  incineration.   Based  on the discussions in  the EIS, no




                                   -9-

-------
environmental effects are expected due to either HC1 or chlorine gas




resulting from  the  combustion process.




Bioaccumulation and Toxic Effects




       Bioaccumulation of incineration-related  substances  in  the tissues




of endangered species could result from waste released due to a spill, or




from emissions  from long-term continuous burning of the wastes.




       The  primary  constituents  found in the emissions plume  are




hydrochloric acid,  carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and water vapor.




There may be present, however,  traces of unburned  organic  waste material




or recombined organic materials  also present.   To  date, EPA has not been




able to  detect  specific  unburned waste materials in the emissions  (i.e.,




PCBs,) at  the detection  limits  of  the analytical methodologies used.   The




E1S discusses these expected  concentrations  at  length.  Possible recombi-




nation products of  incomplete  combustion such as dioxins  and  furans have




also been  looked for  in  emissions  (TRW  1977, TRW  1978, EPA 1975, EPA




 1983a, EPA 1983b).   EPA is  currently implementing  a research  strategy




.(EPA 1985c),  to determine if  other substances can  be  identified  in the




emissions  which could be of environmental  concern.




        EPA's  Office of  Policy,  Planning and  Evaluation (OPPE) has  recently




 completed  a study to estimate the potential  risks  of  incinerating  hazardous




 wastes at  sea and on land (EPA, 1985b)  and concluded  that incineration,




 whether  at-sea  or on land,  is preferable to other  forms  of land  disposal




 now available.   This risk evaluation considered the  transport and  inciner-




 ation of two types of wastes:  PCBs and ethylene  dichloride (EDC).  The




 assumptions used in developing the risk estimates  were environmentally




 conservative,  and  based on Gulf of Mexico meteorology, currents, etc.




 EPA believes that  the basic conclusions are also  relevant for the  North




                                    -10-

-------
Atlantic site as well because many of the assumptions used in making




these estimates, such as ship characteristics, emission composition, etc,




could also be used at the NAIS.




       The OPPE study considered risks from spills.  Although a massive




spill of PCBs from an incineration vessel due to a collision could cause




adverse environmental effects on the food chain, the past record of




incineration vessels operating in Europe, combined with vessel construction




requirements such as double hulls, separate tanks, etc., and the restrictions




placed on these vessels in the U.S. by the Coast Guard such as escorts,




safety areas around vessels and radio broadcasts have led EPA to conclude




that the probability of waste release due to a collision is "remote" (EPA




1985b).  The proposed site does not lie  in the path of any major shipping




lanes and is in fact 40 nmi (74 km) south of the nearest shipping lane.




        If a major spill of a waste containing bioaccumulative substances




such as PCBs were to occur, the levels of PCBs in the plankton and higher




level organisms, such as squid, would increase if these organisms were




exposed' to elevated environmental levels.  This could result in carnivores,




such as sperm whales which feed in the area, accumulating the substance




in their tissues while ingesting organisms that were exposed to the




spilled waste.  The effect of a spill would depend on where and when it




occured.  A spill at the NAIS would have less impact on endangered species




than one over the shelf edge due to the  higher whale and squid populations




over the shelf  edge than at the site.




        Because  the  likelihood of waste release due to a collision is




 remote, possible bloaccumulation effects are more likely to occur as a




 result  of emissions constituents lingering in the water column after




 Incineration activities.




                                   -11-

-------
       Studies have been done to compare the levels of PCBs in the




incinerator plume to that of background levels.  The EIS prepared by EPA




in 1981 (EPA, 1981), discussed possible effects of emissions on the




environment at the NAIS.  A "worst case" analysis was conducted in Appendix




D of the EIS and modeled atmospheric concentrations of various substances




exiting incinerator stacks assuming only 99.96Z Destruction Efficiency




(DE).  At this DE, the analyses show that atmospheric concentrations of




PCBs in the plume would be less than 100 times background levels.  Because




EPA will require 99.9999Z DE (100 times more destruction than contemplated




in the EIS), atmospheric concentrations in the plume should approximate




background  levels (approximately 0.5 ng/m^ for PCBs thus causing no




significant increase in air or water concentrations due to fallout.




       For  the purpose of this analysis, in addition to the work described




in the EIS, EPA has estimated aquatic dispersion of emissions by using a




model developed by  EPA's Narragansett,  R.I. laboratory.  This model was




originally  developed to help EPA estimate impacts of sludge disposal at




the  106-Mile deepwater dumpsite immediately north of the NAIS.  EPA




adapted  this model  to describe transport and  fate of PCBs resulting from




ocean  incineration  (Appendix G).




       This model makes  several extremely conservative  assumptions.  For




instance,  the  model, assumes continuous, direct input to the water  (as




would  be the  case  for  sludge dumping)  and thus considers no atmospheric




dilution or dispersion  of  emissions  prior to  entering  the sea.  The




Initial  input, therefore,  far  exceeds  the concentration realistically




entering a given volume  of  sea water.   The model  also  assumes  that  there




 is  a ship operating at  the site every day of  the  year  burning  approximately




 6,000 metric tons of waste in  7 days,  composed of  approximately  252 PCBs'.




 Other assumptions are described  in Appendix  G.




                                    -12-

-------
       For this exercise, the point of input to the ocean in the model is




within the 106-Mile disposal site due north of the NAIS, EPA ran the




model using PCBs, assuming three different destruction efficiencies;




99.999Z, 99.99992 (minimum required by regulations), and 99.99999Z.




These three destruction efficiencies (DE) were used to show how operation




at the minimum DE allowed could effect levels of PCBs in the sea water of




the site, and how the model reacts to orders of magnitude increase or




decrease in DE.                   .




       The model estimates PCB concentration in the water at various




distances from the source of input, and calculates estimated increases in




PCB body-burdens in the top carnivore of the indigenous food web, (assumed




to live in this concentration for extended periods of time) assuming




various bioconcentration factors ranging from 2X10^ to 2X10^.  This range




includes the value reported by Tanabe £t_ j»l.. (1984) for the minke whale




liver (9.8 X 10A).




       The results of  this modeling effort Indicate that at a 99.999.92




destruction efficiency, PCB concentrations in sea water with no atmospheric




dilution at all would  Increase by 0.025 ng/1 at the location of input and




by 0.005 ng/1, 360 km  from the source.  Background levels of PCBs at the




site are approximately 0.05 ng/1 (Boehm, 1983).  This combined total




(0.025 plus 0.005 - 0.03) is one thousand times lower than the 0.030 mg/1




(30 ng/1) EPA water quality criteria guideline for PCBs (EPA, 1980).




Levels above this concentration have the potential for causing toxic




effects  to marine organisms.   Top carnivore  body burdens would only




Increase by 0.123 ppm  at  30 meters  from the  source assuming a bioconcen-




tratinn  factor  of  2X10&.  As described previously  in  this document and




the EIS  for  the  site  (EPA,  1981), the plume  from these incinerators does




                                    -13-

-------
not fall directly to the sea.  As stated in the EIS, part of the emissions




in fact stay in the atmosphere for days or months depending on meteor-




ological conditions.  Increases in atmosphere residence times would




greatly decrease the above estimated concentrations in the water and




biota of the site.  The EIS (EPA, 1981) discusses atmospheric residence




times for emission products and shows that emissions may stay in the




atmosphere up to several months.  Thus, no effects are expected on




endangered species resulting from emission products.




       The 1985 Supplementary Information section to the proposed Ocean




Incineration Regulation (EPA, 1985a) discusses the carrying capacity of




incineration sites, and proposes a formula for this calculation.  EPA has




applied this calculation to the Proposed North Atlantic Site for the




Incineration of PCBs .(EPA, 1985d).  The results of this analysis agree




with the previously stated results from other modeling exercises, and




show that the esttmated concentration of PCBs that could result in surface




waters from the incineration of PCBs at the site is several orders of




magnitude below the EPA water quality criterion for PCBs.




       A monitoring plan has been developed for the NAIS by EPA which will




aid in protecting the biota of the site, Including endangered species.




The purpose of the monitoring plan is to detect incineration products in




the environment and to assess the potential for resultant effects.




Discharge plums and the surface water will be sampled to determine concen-




trations  of unburned wastes or incineration products.  Indigenous species




will also be sampled to assess bioconcentratlon of waste materials or




incineration products.  The plan also includes observation of endangered




or threatened  species, and their preferred food source (i.e., squid) will




 be monitored  for  organic substance tody burder.? .
                                   -14-

-------
III.   ONGOING AND COMPLETED EPA STUDIES








            PROPOSED REGULATION FOR INCINERATION-AT-SEA (EPA, 1985a)




            On February 28, 1985, EPA proposed specific regulations for




incineration-at-sea (EPA, 1985a).  This proposed rule would modify the




provisions in the Ocean Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Parts 220-228) to the




exlcui. I'uat the Ocean Dumping Regulations govern the issuance of ocean




incineration permits and the designation and management of ocean incineration




sites.  EPA is taking this action to propose more specific criteria to




regulate ocean incineration activities.  Explicit information Is Included




in the proposed rule on the contents of a permit application, the permit




processing procedures, how EPA would review the application, the perform-




ance standards and operating requirements to be imposed in a permit, and




the incineration site selection and management process.








            SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REPORT ON THE INCINERATION OF LIQUID




            HAZARDOUS WASTE CSAB,  1985)




            The Science Advisory Board is an independent  organization of




scientists and engineers established by Congress in  1978  to advise the




EPA Administrator  on scientific and technical issues before the Agency.




Since  February  1984, one of the Board's standing committees, the Environ-




mental Effects, Transport  and Fate Committee, has compiled information on




the public health  and environmental Impacts associated with the inciner-




ation  of  liquid hazardous  wastes on land and at  sea.




             The purpose  of  this review, as  requested by  the Administrator




and Deputy Administrator of EPA, was  to evaluate the overall adequacy of




 existing scientific data for use in future  decision  making and  to  recom-




 mend  areas for improvement.




                                   -15-

-------
            For this review, Che Committee was composed of 22 scientists




and engineers from across the country to obtain a balanced, Independent




and expert assessment of the scientific issues involved.  During the




course of its review, the Committee held public meetings in California,




Florida, Louisiana, and Washington, D.C. to solicit information from the




public.  The Committee also interviewed EPA staff at its headquarters and




regional offices and laboratories, heard testimony from other federal




agencies, and made site visits to Incinerators that are in operation.




            The Committee considered six areas in its evaluation of Incin-




eration on land and at sea.  These areas include:




       1.   Transfer of wastes




       2.   Combustion and incineration processes




       3.   Stack and plume sampling




       4.   Environmental transport and fate processes




       5.   Health and environmental effects




       6.   Research needs.




            Among  the Committee'-s major conclusions and recommendations are:




       o    The emissions and effluents of hazardous waste incinerators




            need to  be analyzed  in such a way  that the identity and




            quantity of  the chemicals released into the environment,




            including their physical form, can be estimated.




       o    The assessment of potential effects  of incineration products




            requires a coordinated approach  involving both laboratory




            toxlcity studies and field assessments.  These investigations




            need to  be coupled  in a research strategy which addresses




             both short-term and  '.ong-term effects.
                                    -16-

-------
       o    The committee has uncovered no information which leads it to




            conclude that hazardous waste incineration on land and at sea




            has produced adverse public health or ecological effects.




            However, appropriately designed field studies are needed to




            provide assurance that the long-term operation of incinerators




            does not produce significant adverse ecological effects.  The




            possible long-term consequences to human health of a continuing




            program of incineration should be evaluated.




The study was made available to the public in April, 1985.








            OPPE.INCINERATION STUDY (EPA, 1985b)




            The Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation of the U.S.




Environmental Protection Agency has completed a year-long assessment of




Incineration as a method for destroying liquid organic hazardous wastes.




The final report (EPA 1985b) presents a summary of information currently




available on the advantages and disadvantages of Incineration, both on




land and at sea, and to provide better information for EPA decisions on




hazardous waste management options, particularly decisions related to




ocean incineration.




            The study addresses five major areas:




1.     Regulatory Programs - This section describes the regulatory framework




       for incineration, including a discussion of statutory authorities,




       regulations, and federal, state, and local responsibilities.  The




       description  includes  responsibilities for regulation of transportation,




       handling, and storage of wastes to be incinerated, as well as the actual




       destruction  of the wastes.
                                   -17-

-------
2.     Description of Incineration Technology - This section describes




       the key design, performance, and waste handling features of land-




       and ocean-based incinerators.  It identifies similarities and




       differences, addresses technical issues related to incinerator




       capabilities, and discusses ongoing and planned research.




3.     Market Considerations - This portion of the study describes the




       current capacity and usage of incinerator facilities, and estimates




       the projected changes in demand and capacity usage due to




       implementation of regulatory changes under the 1984 RCRA Amendments.




       It also addresses the potential impact on the market of emerging




       alternative technologies.




4.     Comparison of Risks from Ocean and Land-Based Incineration - This




       analysis compares the potential human health and environmental




       risks from all aspects of the Incineration.  A case study is used




       to compare land-based and ocean systems that are equal in size and




       burn identical wastes.




5.     Public Concerns - This section Identifies and compares public




       concerns with ocean and land-based Incineration.  The concerns




       are based on discussions with members of the public who have been




       most vocally opposed to, or at least concerned about, specific




       incineration operations.




            Conclusions of the OPPE Study




            Based upon the analysis in the five major areas discussed,




the study reached the following conclusions:




       o    Incineration, whether at sea or on land, is a valuable and




            environmentally sound treatment option for destroying many




            liquid  orpanic hazardous wastes.




                                   -18-

-------
      o    In  terms of health and environmental  risks,  there  is  no  clear




 '-'         preference between ocean- and land-based  incineration.




      o    Future demand for incineration  capacity is likely  to  exceed




           current capacity as land disposal alternatives  are Increasingly




           restricted under new  RCRA regulations.  New  alternative




           methods are unlikely  to provide major capacity  increases in




           the near future.




      o    Although previous research  has  verified the  destructive




           capacities of incinerators,  and risk  studies suggest  that




           their impacts on health and the environment  are minimal, a




           program of continuing research  is needed  to  improve our




           current knowledge of  combustion processes and effects.




       q    In  order to better address  the  concerns of citizens regarding




           incineration, EPA needs to  improve  its  public communication




           efforts and provide more visible  leadership  in  the area  of




           hazardous  waste management.




The study was made  available to  the public  in March',  1985.








            RESEARCH STRATEGY  FOR INCINERATION-AT-SEA (EPA, 1985c)




            The U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency  has been involved  in




ocean incineration for more than 10  years.   Beginning in 1974, a  series




of four incineration research  burns  have been conducted  under EPA permits




to gather scientific information about the  Incineration of  liquid hazardous




waste at-sea and to evaluate ocean Incineration as an alternative to




various land-based disposal options.   Incineration-at-sea is an ongoing,




permitted activity in Europe.




             These U.S.  research burns were conducted under the authority




of the Marine  Protection,  Research, and Sanctuaries Act of  1972,  as




                                   -19-

-------
amended (Ocean Dumping Act) and the Convention on the Prevention of




Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Dumping




Convention).




            During these past 10 years, the scientific community has




developed several different methods for sampling Incinerator emissions




for destruction efficiency.  These basic procedures have been used in the




ocean incineration research burns.  The complexities of sampling at sea




and the peculiarities of ocean incinerators have led to the use of




modifications of the accepted land-based methods.  The research burn




results indicated that incineration at-sea could be a viable technology




for destroying hazardous wastes and was capable of destroying over 99.99




percent of the waste substances of concern (99.99992 for PCBs) .  However,




the previous studies did not address a number of questions and issues




which have subsequently emerged.  A research strategy was prepared (EPA




1985c) to address the questions raised by the public and the EPA Science




Advisory Board as previously described.




            Under this research strategy, the agency will conduct pre-




liminary studies on land to develop and field test appropriate emissions




sampling and bioassay procedures for aquatic toxicology testing.




            The agency will conduct a hazardous waste research burn at




sea using the minimum amount of waste required, for collection of emission




samples.  Environmental samples will also be collected simultaneously in




the plume from the incinerator.




            Emissions collected directly from the incinerator will then




be used in various bioassay tests.  The potential for environmental




effects resulting from at-sea incineration will be evaluated by comparing




the environmental effects  found at sea to background environmental exposure




levels, using a  risk assessment procedure.  The strategy also includes




                                   -20-

-------
conducting long term toxicity studies which will follow the preliminary




activities and continue for several years.




       The strategy was made available to the public in February, 1985.
                                    -21-

-------
IV.    INCINERATION PROCESS








       Incineration vessels which could potentially utilize the proposed




site must meet stringent safety requirements.  These may include separate




or compartmentalized storage tasks, double hulls, double bottom construction




and the use of variable pitch propellers and bow thrusters as well as




operating restrictions imposed by the Coast Guard such as escorts by tug




boats and a Coast Guard Vessel, a 300 foot moving safety zone around the




vessel and limitation of transits to daylight hours.  There would also be




a notice to mariners broadcast on marine radio channels and an EPA ship




rider on the incinerator vessel at all times to assure that permit conditions




are met.




       Using historical spill records for vessels transporting liquid chem-




icals the EPA/OPPE study estimated that in a port such as Mobile, Alabama




(which has been used by incineration vessels in the past), the estimated




probability of a spill of any size in the harbor is about one in 3,000




operating years, one in 10,000 operating years in Mobile Bay, one in




A,000 operating years in transit in the Gulf of Mexico and one in 6,000




operating years at the Gulf incineration site.  These estimates are for




all  size spills.  Larger spills involving two, three or more  tanks would




be extremely unlikely events.  For example,  the estimated probability of




spills in Mobile Bay including two tanks (up to 500 cubic meters each) is




about one per  67,000 operating years and about one per 200,000 operating




years for spills in  the Bay Involving three  or more tanks.  EPA believes




that these estimates can be roughly representative for the area of  the




NAIS and  therefore expects  the likelihood 'fa spill in  the NAIS "to be remote,
                                    -22-

-------
       The incinerator systems presently used for inclneration-at-sea are




refractory lined furnaces consisting of two chambers; a combustion




chamber for internal mixing, and a stack to ensure that adequate retention




time for complete combustion is available.  Combustion gases pass through




these two chambers sequentially and enter the atmosphere.  The wastes are




fed from storage tanks in the vessels to the combustion system by means




of electrically driven pumps.  Proposed systems include waste storage in




tanks on the deck of a vessel and sea water scrubbers which will "scrub"




hot exhaust gases with sea water which is then returned to the ocean.




Existing systems do not contain scrubbers.




       Wastes are fed into the Incinerator when the incinerators have




reached the operating conditions specified in the permit.  The temperature




of combustion will be approximately  1300°C.  The average waste residence




time in the incinerator will be on the order of one second or longer.




Presently existing incinerator systems can process up to 20-25 metric




tons of wastes per hour.




       Due  to the enormous variety of chemical compounds which might be




present in  wastes that are considered candidates for incineration, con-




siderable chemical analysis will be  necessary to establish the accept-




ability of  specific wastes.  All chemical wastes approved for at-sea




incineration will comply  with  the criteria in 40 CFR 227.4,  228.8, 227.11,




227.12, and 227.27, and  the compounds which can be incinerated by any




individual  ship  will  be  determined  through trial burns.  .Acceptable




wastes will include a variety  of organic  substances  including chlorinated




organics.




       EPA  will  limit the amounts of cer'.ain materials  such  as metals  :'.n




the  wastes  and  restrict  other  materials as appropriate,  to meet  London




Dumping  Convention  requirements.




                                    -23-

-------
       Chlorinated organic substances constitute the majority of compounds

for incineration-at-sea which may be toxic to aquatic organisms.  Although

at least 99.99 percent of the organic substance in the waste will be

destroyed through the incineration process, (99.9999 percent for PCBs)

trace amounts of these substances may be present in the emissions exiting

the incinerator.

       During incineration operations, the ship may be required to be

moving at a rate of 3 knots into the wind.  This will keep the ship away

from the plume and help disperse the exhaust gases.

       The plume exiting the incinerator stack has been modelled by EPA

during a previous research burn.  This model and the data from previous

monitoring studies have shown that the plume tends to hit the surface of

the ocean as it trails out behind the ship and eventually dissipates to

undectable HCL levels within 3 nautical miles.  The attached Figure (1)

(page 56) outlines the plume as described by HCL concentrations during a

previous test burn.

       Other technologies have been proposed for incineration-at-sea

which include the scrubbing of stack emissions with seawater prior to

release  to the environment.  This process would remove HCL and other

substances from the hot gasses and release them directly into the sea

surface  behind the vessel rather than emit them to the atmosphere.  The

properties of sea water enable it to rapidly neutralize the HCL whether

it  is released directly into the sea or emitted into  the atmosphere where

it  is highly dispersed prior to falling into the ocean.

       As discussed in the research strategy (1985) tests are planned to
              j j,
determine the effects of scrubbers on emission transport, fate and toxic!ty,
                                    -24-

-------
V.     INCINERATION SITE DESCRIPTION








       General




       The proposed North Atlantic Incineration Site is beyond the




Continental Shelf and overlies the upper Continental Rise (Figure 2).




The figure shows the 18 sampling stations utilized during the July,  1983




survey of the site.  The site measures approximately 30 nmi by 40 nmi in




area; the center of the site is 140 nautical miles (nmi) from Delaware




Bay, and 155 nmi (290 km) from Ambrose Light (entrance to New York Harbor).




The site is oceanic in nature; it is deep (2,400 to 2,900 meters), and




the water masses and biology of the area more closely resemble the open




ocean to the east, rather than the coastal environment to the west.  The




site is not a highly productive biological area and is limited in commer-




cial or recreational fisheries (EIS,  1981).  An inactive munitions dump




site and an inactive low-level radioactive waste dump site exist within




the boundaries  of  the site, but other  types of wastes have not been




dumped here.




       This chapter describes  the environmental setting of the northeastern




mid-Atlantic oceanic region.   An Environmental Impact Statement has  been




prepared  for  the  proposed  site which  contains more detailed  information




than that  presented  in  this plan, and  should be consulted  if  additional




information is  required (EPA,  1981).   The  106-Mile Site characterization




update  (NOAA,  1984)  provides  additional  information about  the area  around




the  106-Mile  Site which is due North  of  the  NAIS.  The  proposed  Incineration




Site,  the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal  Site, and  the area around  them




are  examined  simultaneously to acquire a wide  regional  profile of  the




northwest Atlantic Ocean.  It is  recognized  that  the  Continental  Shelf




 break to the west of the site provides the major  environmental shirts in




 physical, chemical, and biological  oceanographic  phenomena,  whereas the




                                    -25-

-------
Gulf Stream to the east of the site causes similar effects by serving as




a buffer between the region and the Sargasso Sea.




       The information in this section shows that the site is situated in




a highly studied and complex area of various currents and climatic condi-




tions, but also shows it to be a useful location for incineration activi-




ties.  The following information will also be useful in designing monitor-




ing programs and in modelling the transport and fate of emissions.




       Meteorology




       The proposed North Atlantic Incineration Site is seaward of the




Continental Shelf, 120 miles off the Delaware-Maryland coast. The site




lies within a mid-latitude zone of prevailing westerlies, where the daily




wind flow generally moves from west to east.  Polar air dominates the




region about two months each year, whereas annual warmer tropical Atlantic




air dominates during the other ten months.  In general, the climate of




the region can best be described as modified continental, due to the




greater influence of the westward land mass, as opposed to the eastward ocean.




       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




and is generally associated with widespread storm systems 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 nml (9.3 km) ranges from about 80% (late




spring)  to more  than 902  (autumn and winter).




                                   -26-


-------
       Meteorological data indicate that atmospheric temperature inversions




are weak and infrequent occurrences in the site region.  Air temperature




inversions of 2°C or greater rarely occur below 1,000 m, and are generally




restricted to spring and summer.  Above 1,000 m, inversions of 2°C or




more occur less than 32 of the time year-round.




       Relative humidity is normally high.  The annual average value is




SIX, summer being slightly higher than winter due to persistent southerly




winds.




       Water Masses




       A water mass may be defined as a large seawater parcel having




unique properties (temperature, salinity, and oxygen content) or a unique




relationship 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.  This occurs




after formation of  the water masses spread  to a depth determined by their




density,  relative to the vertical density gradient of the surrounding water.




       The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  ( 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.  Normally  the surface layer  of  the  site is




Slope Water, which  lies  between less saline Shelf Water  to  the  west and




more saline Gulf  Stream Water  to  the east.  However, conditions  change




periodically,  allowing shelf water  to  enter the site from  the west, or




permitcing Gulf Stream Water  (in  the  form of  southerly  moving Gulf  Stream




eddies)  to be  presi-.'.t  about  20X of  the time 4




                                    -27-

-------
       Shelf Waters




       The waters overlying the Continental Shelf of the mid-Atlantic




Bight are of three general types:  Hudson River Flume Water, surface




Shelf Water, and bottom Shelf Water.  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 persists throughout the year, but its extent and depth are highly




dependent on Hudson and Raritan Rivers flows.  Generally, the plume flows




southward between the New Jersey coastline and the axis of Hudson Canyon.




The plume direction is sensitive to wind stress and reversals in the




residual flows.  Consequently, the plume may flow eastward between the




New Jersey coastlirs and the axis of the Hudson Canyon, or it may




occasionally split and flow both eastward and southward.




       With the onset of heavy river discharges in the spring, surface




salinities in the Bight decrease and a moderate, haline-maintained (i.e.,




maintained by salinity differences) stratification occurs initially,




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 isolation (solar radiation) increase the strength of




the stratification and cause it to undergo a rapid transition (usually




within a month) from a haline-maintained  (i.e., maintained by salinity)




to a  thermalmaintained (i.e., maintained  by  temperature differences)




condition.  This  two-layer system b,monies fully developed and reaches




maximum  strength  V- Aupuct.




                                   -28-

-------
       Surface Shelf Water is characterized by moderate salinity and high




temperature.  During the winter, water is essentially vertically homogeneous




over most 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.  A "cool cell" (having




a temperature typically less than 10°C) of the bottom Shelf Water layer




has been observed to extend 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 surface layers have reached the summer temperature




maximum.  The cool cell may be 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.  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.




       Slope Waters




       Slope Water  is  a highly  complex, dynamic body of water representing




an  area of mixing between Shelf Waters and Gulf Stream.  Shelf waters




border the  slope water on the north and west, and  the Gulf  Stream, which




forms the eastern and  southern  boundary.  These boundaries  (frontal  zones)




are not stationary,  but migrate seaward and landward when  the Gulf Stream




shifts its  axis during meanderings.




       The  Gulf  Stream frequently meanders  in such a way  that anti-cyclonic




(clockwise)  loops  of current  are  formed.  Occasionally,  these loops  detach




and form separate  entities, known as eddies.  The  eddies  are  rings of




Gulf Stream Water  surrounding a core of warm  Sargasso  Sea  Water  (which




orisinates to the  east of the Gulf Stream),  or  trapped  Gulf Stream Water.




 Great amounts of  this w.^ter r.a;.- be adverted  to  depths  as  great  as  800  to




                                    -29-

-------
 1,000m.   After detachment the eddies may migrate Into the Slope Water

f-"
'region,  usually In a southwesterly direction.   In addition, the eddies


may interact  with Shelf  Water, causing considerable disturbances in the


water  within  the proposed site region.  While  there appears to be no


 seasonal pattern in the  occurrence of these eddies, the region of the


 proposed Incineration Site may contain any eddy 20% of the time, which is


 either quasi-stationary  or migrating, and capable of occupying the entire


 site.  The  eddies dissipate or are reabsorbed  by the Gulf Stream, usually


 in the region of Cape Hatteras.


       Like many deepwater oceanic regions, the water of 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 water is the Gulf Stream, a moving current


 with core velocities  200 cm/s (3.9 kn) or greater.  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


                                    -30-

-------
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 (anticyclonic) as they migrate in a




southwestward direction through the Slope Water, until they either




dissipate or join the Gulf Stream in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras.  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 Stream and is not to be




found at the proposed Incineration Site.  It should be noted that warm-




core eddies are not 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




       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.  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.




       Along  the  northern boundary of  the Slope,  Slope Waters flow slowly




to  the southwest,  following  the  bathymetry to Cape Hatteras, where the




water mass  turns  and  flows  seaward, joining  the Gulf Stream.  Evidence of




                                   -31-

-------
a slow northeastward flow along the Gulf Stream in the southern part of




the Slope Water region was also found.  The Gulf Stream and Shelf Water




from 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.




       The presence of a deepwater counterclockwise (cyclonic) gyre system




is located between the Continental Shelf and Gulf Stream.  This system




transports as much as 10' mVs of water through the region of the proposed




Incineration Site (equivalent to the volume of 500 Mississippi Rivers).




       The mean surface current speed is 25 cm/s near the proposed




Incineration Site.  The direction of .the flow is either east-northeast or




south-southwest.




       Geological Conditions




       The Continental Slope within the Incineration Site area has a




gentle (42) grade, leveling to 1Z in the region of the upper Continental




Rise.  Sediments just north of the incineration site, within the 106-Mile




Ocean Waste Disposal Site are principally sand and silt, with silts




predominating.  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 abundance of fauna are




associated with finer sediments (e.g., silt), although unusual physical




conditions can play an important role.  Fine-grained sediments are more




likely to contain higher concentrations of heavy metals due to increased




surface  area and ionic charges of silts and clays.  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




                                   -32-

-------
area of shifting deposition.  Several eroslonal areas (caused by currents)




occur between these two provinces.  The different regimes will greatly




determine the ultimate fate of the amount of waste products reaching the




bottom, which is anticipated to be minimal.  In areas swept  by currents,




incinerator emissions 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 emitted materials




could remain temporarily motionless before further transport.  In areas




of tranquil or slow deposition, emission products would be slowly buried.




       Chemical Conditions




       The amount of dissolved oxygen in seawater is generally an Indicator




of the life-supporting capacity of the waters.  Dissolved oxygen (DO)




levels below 4 mg/1 may cause stress in animals.  Dissolved oxygen concen-




trations 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 previously described.  Thus, the permanent




stratification level at 100 to 200 m 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 300 m and  slowly increase with distance  (up or down) from the




stratification boundary.




       Dissolved  oxygen gradients are similar for both summer and winter




at  the Incineration  Site and  the  106-Mile  Ocean Waste Disposal Site.




Surface  DO concentrations are higher during winter at both sites than




they are  during  summer months.




       Chemical  baseline an.-*  monitorirv"  surveys  conducted st  the .id.lacent




 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site have  examined  trace metal  levels in




                                   -33-

-------
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.




       Numerous metals are present as a natural occurrence in seawater;




therefore, only concentrations of metals exceeding natural background




leveib that, approach known or suspected toxicity levels would be considered




possible threats to marine organisms and mankind.  During the most recent




studies of trace metals levels in the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site




waters, background levels typical of other uncontaminated Shelf-Slope




regions were found.  These background levels are discussed in EPA (1981).




       Estimates of organic substance concentrations in the air over the




middle North Atlantic Ocean are highly variable.  Biddleman et al. (1981)




cite PCB concentrations from various sources ranging from less than 5




picograms per cubic meter (pg/m^) over the Barbados to as high as 1.6




nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m^) between the U.S. and Bermuda.  EPA




(1981) describes atmospheric background concentrations of other organic




substances at the site.




       The concentration of organic substances in surface waters are also




quite variable.  Boehm (1983) however, estimates the background PCB




concentration in waters outside the New York Bight to be approximately




0.05 nanograms per liter.




       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
                                    -34-

-------
food in the ocean, their health and ability to reproduce are of crucial




importance to all life in the ocean, including commercially important




fish, shellfish, and marine mammals.




       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 water masses.  The high-nutrient Shelf Waters primarily contribute




diatoms to the region, and the lower nutrient Slope Waters contribute




coccolithophorids, diatoms, dlnoflagellates, and other mixed flagellates.




Mixed assemblages of zooplankton common to the different water masses




have been found to occupy the 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site and




surrounding areas during winter,..spring, and summer.




       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 water are similar inside and outside the 106-Mile Ocean




Waste Disposal Site limits.  Fauna  found primarily at mid-depths (mesopelagic




fish) are predominantly  Slope Water species.  Also, Gulf Stream anti-cyclonic




(clockwise) warm-core eddies contribute some north Sargasso Sea species.




Several migratory oceanic fish usually associated with the Gulf Stream




often occur in midwater  regions of  the proposed site and the  106-Mile




Ocean Waste Disposal  Site.   Benthic (bottom) fish within the  site are




similar to assemblages in other Slope areas.




       Several endangered species of whales and turtles  inhabit the  area




near the  proposed site and are discussed later in this document.




       Abundance  and  diversity of invertebrates at the  106-Mile Ocean




Waste  Disposal  Site are  similar to  most other  Slope localities of the mid-




Atlantic  Bight.   As in  similar areas,  the  organisms on  the bottom (the




eplfauna) of  the  proposed  incineration site and the  106-Mile  Ocean Waste




                                    -35-

-------
Disposal Site are dominated by echinoderms (e.g., starfish), with segmented
                                 -?

worms (polychaetes) as the dominant burrowing (infaunal) organisms.


       Many species of birds are known to frequent the offshore and


coastal waters of the mid-Atlantic Bight.  Several pelagic species are


regular inhabitants of the ocean region containing the proposed incineration


site.  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 avlan species of marine and terrestrial environments leave


northeastern coastal areas for southern wintering grounds.  The actual


numbers of species using the routes are still uncertain.


       Squid which are a major food source to several whale species (i.e.,


sperm whale) inhabit the shelf area to the west of the site from the


shelf break shoreward (NOAA, 1983).
                                    -36-


-------
VI.    PROPOSED MONITORING PROGRAM








       Previous sections of this document have described the types of




materials expected to be emitted into the area of the Incineration Site,




the basic environment of the site and the basic effects of possible




emission related materials on the marine environment.




       EPA is developing a monitoring plan (EPA, 1984) which incorporates




these three issues into a sampling and analysis scheme designed to detect




incineration products in the environment and to assess the potential for




resultant effects.  The plan contains:  procedures for sampling air to




determine plume locations and to determine air concentrations of unburned




wastes or incineration products; procedures for sampling surface water




for detection of unburned wastes or incineration products; determination




of ATP, chlorophyll and pH in surface water at the site; and collection




of zooplankton and other indigeous species for determination of bioconcen-




tration of waste materials or incineration products.  The plan will also




include observation of endangered or  threatened species and their preferred




food sources such as squid.  Additional tests will be Incorporated into




the monitoring plan as they are shown to be useful based on ongoing and




planned research activities (see EPA  1985c).  Ongoing studies of the




National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and  other Agencies will




also be very useful in the Implementation of a thorough monitoring plan.




       Monitoring activities will be  conducted in an exploratory mode at




first and will largely be directed by the results of research which is




being conducted by EPA.  Methods are  currently being developed for




collecting incinerator emissions for  laboratory aquatic toxicity testing.




Once this method is developed,  tests  can be conducted during research




burns, trials  burns and during  normal operation of at-sea incinerators  to




determine if and what  effects are caused by the emissions on various




                                   -37-

-------
aquatic test species.  These tests could then be run on indigenous species




to determine which are the most sensitive species and what are the effects




that could be monitored in the environment.  EPA is also conducting




research to better chemically define the substances in the emissions and




estimate its bloaccumulatlon potential.  The results of these tests will




yield information describing what specific substances and biological




effects should be monitored in the environment.  Air and aquatic transport




models are also being developed and verified for future use in describing




plume location and fate.




       The results of these research activities will be Incorporated into




EPA's monitoring plan as they become available and monitoring activities




will be altered accordingly.




       Although the separate outputs from the research programs will be




useful in developing future monitoring programs for the site, the




major product of these research activities is the development of an




aquatic risk assessment for emissions from at sea incineration.  During




the research, dose-response tests will be conducted by dosing various




organisms with real emissions at several concentrations and noting the




levels necessary to cause measurable adverse toxicological or behavioral




effects.  By combining this dose-response information with the expected




environmental concentrations of the emissions based upon dilution models,




a  risk assessment will be conducted to estimate the possibility of




environmental concentrations of emissions reaching levels capable of




causing adverse effects.  The rate of incineration at the site would be




dictated  by  the possibility of causing effects, and the monitoring




activities will be used to ensure that these effects are not being




manifested at  the  site.   The dose-response tests will be run using both




acute  and long  term  chronic and bioaccumulation bioassays.  These tests




                                   -38-

-------
will provide more useful information and require less resources Chan




implementing a major monitoring effort to try to identify chronic effects




down stream from the incineration site.




       This monitoring program will use the initial risk assessment as a




null hypothesis and seek to observe effects or elevated concentrations




of emissions products in the environment.  As information from these




mouitorir.g activities and additional research studies becomes available,




the initial risk assessment will be updated and the site managed accordingly.




Any time that the rate of emissions entering the site exceeds that which




could cause adverse- effects, incineration activities could be reduced in




frequency, duration, or site limitations Imposed.  Such steps might be




necessary to mitigate adverse effects which are not in compliance with




regulatory criteria (see EPA (1985a) for a description of the proposed




calculation of carrying capacity of a site).




       A log will be kept of all endangered or threatened species observed




during monitoring cruises at the site.




       EPA is planning a cruise to the North Atlantic Incineration Site




and  106-Mile disposal Site  in late 1985 to collect additional baseline




information from  the area.  Samples of air, water, plankton, and sediment




will  be collected for analysis of organic and metallic substances.  Squid




will  also  be  collected  to be analyzed for trace organics and metals to




provide background  information as they are a major food source of sperm




whales  in  the  area.  There  will also be constant observation for endangered




species during the  cruise.
                                    -39-

-------
VII.   DESCRIPTION OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES








A.     Mammals




       There are 6 species of mammals listed as endangered in the vicinity




of the proposed site.  These are the fin, humpback, right, sel, sperm and




blue whales.  A description of each has been taken directly from Schmidly




(1951) and others, as noted, and included below.




1.     Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus):




Description and Identification




       Fin whales may reach a length of 79 ft (24 m), and females are




slightly longer than males of the same age.  From blue whales, with which




they are most likely to be confused, fins differ in:  (1) having a narrow-




er, more V-shaped rostrum, but with the same sort of single distinctive




head ridge; (2) having a dorsal fin that is longer (up to 24 inches, 61




cm, tall) and located slightly more than one-third forward from the tail;




(3) having a coloration that is dark gray to brownish-gray on the back




and sides with none of the mottling present on the blue whales; (4)




having a grayish-white chevron evident along the back just behind the




head, which may be visible as the animals surface to breathe; and (5)




having a yellowish-white coloration to the right lower lip, including the




mouth cavity, and the right from baleen.




Distribution




       Fin whales are cosmopolitan and occur in all oceans.  In the




western North Atlantic they occur from Greenland south to the Gulf of




Mexico and the Caribbean.  Two subspecies are recognized.




       Fin whales have stranded along the coasts of North Carolina and




Florida in the Atlantic and along Florida, Texas, and Louisiana in the Gulf.




                                   -40-

-------
Seasonal Movements




       In Che western North Atlantic, fin whales summer from below the




latitude of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, north to the Arctic Circle, where




they are usually concentrated between shore and the 2000 meter curve.




       The area east of the Delmarva Pennsula maybe a winter and spring




habitat for fin whales with the population moving farther north during




the rest of the year. (McKenzie, et al., 1985).




Status and Abundance




       These whales are considered endangered by U.S. authorities.  The




finback population in the north Atlantic is estimated to be approximately




2,686 in spring, 2,655 in summer, 790 in fall and 1663 in winter (McKenzie,




et al.. 1985).




Life History




       No data are available on life history parameters from the proposed




site.  Fin whales mate and calve from November to March.  Females probably




bear a calf every third year after a gestation period of 11 to 12.months.




Lactation lasts 7 months.  Canadian fin whales are sexually mature at




17.6 to 18.3 m (females) and 16.9 to 17.5 m (males).  Life span could be




over 50 years.




       Fin whales in the North Atlantic feed mostly on pelagic crustaceans,




capelin, and herring.  Euphausids are the main food, and both Thysanoessa




inermis and Meganyctiphanes norvegic are important food species.  Fish




are eaten more exclusively in the winter months.  Fin whales come close




to shore in pursuit of fish which may account for their frequent strandings.




Their appearance in New England appears to coincide with times when




herring are plentiful.  Large feeding frenzies, comprising 30 to 50
                                   -41-

-------
animals, are often seen during the spring, summer and fall in areas of




high productivity along the New England coast.                      -?




2.     Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)




Description and Identification




       Humpback whales reach a length of 53 ft (16.2 m).  They are easily




identified by their long (nearly a third as long as the body), nearly all-




white flippers that are knobby and Irregular on the leading edge; the




fleshy "knobs" or protuberances randomly distributed on the top of the




head and on the lower jaw; and the small dorsal fin, located slightly




more than two-thirds towards the back, which frequently includes a step




or hump.  Humpback whales are black with a white region of varying size




on the belly; the flippers and the undersides of the flukes are also white.




Distribution




       These whales may occur in all oceans.  In the western North




Atlantic, they are widely distributed from north of Iceland, Disko Bay




and west of Greenland, south to Venezuela and around the tropica-l islands




of the West Indies.




       There are several records of humpbacks from the Atlantic, and all




correlate with the known time and route of migrations for this species.




Humpbacks are a coastal species, a fact accounting for their long history




of exploitation by hunters.  Their occurrence is mainly in depths less




than 2000 meters.




Seasonal Movements




       Humpbacks migrate in distinct seasonal patterns.  They spend




spring, summer, and early fall feeding from Cape Cod to Iceland.  In late




fall and early winter they begin to migrate southward to the Caribbean
                                   -42-

-------
for calving and breeding.  Their return northward migration begins in




early spring.




Status and Abundance




       Humpbacks are considered endangered by U.S. authorities.  The




number of existence at the end of the 19th century, based on cumulative




catch data from 1903 to 1915, was at least 15,000 animals.  By 1915 the




population had been decimated, and it is reasonable to infer that only a




few hundred animals remained by 1915.  The total population around the




world is now estimated at 5,000 animals.  There have been noted 1,259




humpbacks in the western North Atlantic on their feeding grounds.  The same




population was estimated on its southern breeding grounds at 785 to 1,157




animals.  McKenzie, et al. (1985) estimates the spring population in the




North Atlantic to be approximately 60.




Life History




       No data are available on life history parameters from the proposed




site.  Breeding and calving occur in Caribbean waters from January to




March.   Gestation lasts approximately 10 to 12 months, with lactation




lasting  from 10.5 to  11 months.  Since yearling-size animals are seen




with adults in the Caribbean, It is possible that  the young stay with  the




cow after weaning.




       In the western  North Atlantic humpback feed only in the northern




waters and not while  they are in the Caribbean.  Limited data from




Newfoundland indicate  that they feed mainly on capelin, with krill as




second choice.  Herring  and cod are also eaten.  Humpbacks approach or




follow  trawlers rather commonly, presumably for escaping fish or because




the  trawlers  scare  and school fish  tightly, making them easier to capture




 in cooperative  hunting and feeding.  This  ziay a!s'o explain why they




                                    -43-

-------
approach-stationary ships.  Humpbacks emit sounds in long, predictable




patterns ranging over frequencies audible to humans.  The function of the




songs is unknown.




3.     Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis)




Description and Identification




       Right whales reach a length of about 53 ft (16.2 m).  The rotund




body lacks a dorsal fin or dorsal ridge, and the upper jaw is long,




narrow, and together with the lips, highly arched.  A series of bumps or




callosities, referred to as the "bonnet", is on the top of the head in




front of the blowholes.  The two blowholes are widely separated;




consequently, the blow is projected upwards in a V-shape as two distinct




spouts.  The dark body is sometimes black, but more often brown or mottled




with a region of white on the chin and belly, and sometimes with numerous




small grayish-white scars.




Distribution




       Right whales occur in the temperate waters of the North Atlantic,




the North Pacific, and the Southern Hemisphere.  The southern populations




are distinguishable as a separate subspecies (e.g., australis) from e.g.,




glacialis of the North Atlantic.  In the western North Atlantic, right




whales are distributed from Iceland to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico,




but their range was probably greater during prewhallng days.




Seasonal Movements




       Right whales pass the New England coast in fair numbers in spring




and continue as far north as Nova Scotia.  Not much is known of the




southbound migration, but apparently it occurs much farther offshore,




which would account for the scarcity of records in the southern areas




from Aj'.ii through Dtcecber.  From October to Ja.'iJiry ri0! t whiles are




                                   -44-

-------
sighted off Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, probably on a




southward migration.




Status and Abundance




       Right whales were once very common in the western North Atlantic;




however, overhunting, up until 1953, reduced them to near extinction.




The western North Atlantic population may number in the "high 10's to low




100*s", although no accurate information is available.




       Increased sighting reports over the past 25 years at the northern




and southern coastal approaches in New England and Florida, respectively,




may be cause for some optimism regarding the population's recovery and




recolonization of their historic range.  They were protected by international




agreement in 1929, and since then the western North Atlantic population




has evidently increased.  These whales are considered endangered by U.S.




authorities.




       Right whales approach very close to the coast on the United States




eastern seaboard where pairs and females with calves arc often sighted




only  several hundred meters offshore.  Because of these habits, they are




threatened  by pollution,  habitat destruction, and ship traffic nearshore.




They  are  not easily startled and may  be readily approached by vessels.




Life  History




        No data  are  available on life  history parameters from the proposed




site. Mating probably occurs  in late  summer; the gestation period is




assumed  to  be about  a year, and the length of the young at birth is about




one-fourth  that of  the mother.  Calves are suckled  for about a year.




Right whales  feed  by "skimming", at or below  the  surface,  on copepods  and




euphausids.  Specific dietary  items .Include Calanus  finmarchlus and
                                    -45-

-------
Thysanoessa inermls.  One instance has been recorded of a  right whale




taking small pelagic pteropod mollusks.




4.     Sel Whale (Balaenoptera borealis);




Description and Identification




       Sel whales may reach a total length of 62 ft (19 m).  Their color




is dark steel gray on the back sides, and they often have  a shiny or




galvanized appearance due to the presence of ovoid, grayish scars.  They




differ from all other balaenopterids by the very fine bristles of their




baleen (about 0.1 mm in diameter at the base of the bristle, as opposed




to about 0.3 mm or greater for the other species).  Their  relatively




short ventral grooves distinguish them from all other species except the




minke whale (II. acutorostrta).  In ]J. borealis and IJ. acutorostrata, the




ventral grooves reach a point about midway between the flipper and the




umbilicus, whereas they reach the umbilicus in the other species,  j).




borealis may be readily distinguished from JJ. acu".orostrata on the basis




of size, pigmentation, and the color and texture of the baleen.  Their




right lower lip and mouth cavity, unlike those of fin whales (JJ. physalus),




is uniformly gray.  Their head is intermediate in shape between that of




blue  (JJ. musculus) and fin whales.  Their tall, falcate dorsal fin,




located more than one-third forward from the tail, distinguishes them




from  blue whales.  From Bryde's whale (J). edeni), they differ  in having  a




single head ridge instead of three.




Distribution




       Sei whales occur in all oceans, but they are rare  in  tropical and




polar seas.  Two subspecies are distinguished: a smaller  one,  B. b.




borealis, in the Northern Hemisphere  ind a larger one, _B.  ]>. sek.le.geHi,




ir. the Southern Hemisphere,  Sol whalt^ are widely distributed  in  nearsbore




                                   -46-

-------
and offshore waters of the western North Atlantic from the Gulf of Mexico




and the Caribbean to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.  Three stocks may




exist: a Newfoundland/Labrador stock probably limited to the waters around




Newfoundland and Labrador to Davis Strait; a Nova Scotia stock that




probably migrates southward along the U.S. coast; and a Caribbean/Gulf of




Mexico stock that may migrate and overlap with the Nova Scotia stock.




Seasonal Movements




       The distributions and migrations of sei whales during most of the




year are poorly known.  Apparently they winter south of Cape Cod, but




little information is available for movements south of New England.




There was a report of a whale of this species that stranded alive at




Eastham, Massachusetts, on 21 July 1974; the animal was towed back to




sea, released, and subsequently washed ashore dead near Currituck light,




Corolla, North Carolina, on 5 April 1975.  The December record of this




species from South Carolina may have come from a southward migration of



this population during the winter months.




Status and Abundance




       McKenzie, et al. (1985) estimates that the population of these




whales in the North Atlantic is approximately 237 in spring and 101 in




summer.  No population estimates are available for the proposed site.




These whales are considered endangered by U.S. authorities.




Life History




       No data are available on life history primarily from the proposed




site area.  In the eastern North Atlantic, sexual maturity in females is




reached at  13.6 m as  compared to  13 m for males.  The mean age at sexual




maturity is 7.5 years for males and 8.4 years for females in southern




oceans.  Therp tray exist a 3-year breeding cycle.  Calving could occur




                                   -47-


-------
every other year.  Gestation lasts 1 year, and, calves are born during




February and March and measure 4.8 m at birth.  Peak pairing is from




November to February with lactation lasting 6 months after birth.




       In the North Atlantic, sei whales feed primarily on copepods




(Calanus finmarchius and Thysanoessa inermis), although they also take




euphausids as a preferred food (possibly due to an absence of copepods),




as well as various small schooling fish.




       Sei whales usually travel in groups of two to five individuals,




though they may concentrate in larger numbers on their feeding grounds.




They usually do not dive very deeply, and the head rarely emerges at a




steep angle except when the whales are chased.




5.     Sperm Whales (Physeter catodon)




Description and Identification




       Male sperm whales may reach a length of 69 ft (20.9 m) although




individuals larger than 50 ft (15.2 m) are rare; females are much smaller,




rarely exceeding 38 ft (11.6 m).  These large whales are easy to identify.




They are bluish-black except for occasional small areas of white on the




lower jaw and venter.  The head is rectangular in profile and comprises




from a fourth to a third of the total length.  The dorsal fin is replaced




by a hump and a series of longitudinal ridges on the posterior part of




the back.  The lower jaw is small, narrow, and decidedly shorter than the




snout.  Pectoral flippers are exceedingly small.  The single blow hole is




located well to the left of the midline and far forward on the head;




consequently the small bushy blow hole emerges forward at a sharp angle




from the head and  towards the left.
                                   -48-

-------
Distribution




       Sperm whales occur throughout the oceans of both Eastern and




Western Hemispheres, ranging from the Arctic to the Antarctic, but




occurring mostly in the temperate and tropical latitudes of the Atlantic




and Pacific Oceans.  They occur along the edge of the continental shelf




at approximately the 1000 meter contour but rarely on the shelf itself




since they are basically limited to deeper waters.




Seasonal Movements




       Seasonal distributions and migrations vary between males and




females.  Along the Atlantic coast, harem and nursery schools (females,




calves, juveniles, and young and old "harem master" bulls) move north




from tropical and subtropical winter grounds to breed in temperate waters.




Consequently, sperm whales are fairly abundant near the continental shelf




edge off the mid-Atlantic.  Young bulls, sexually mature but unable to




maintain harems, and older bulls move farther north into polar waters.




McKenzie, et al. (1985) notes that sperm whales are abundant throughout




the midAtlantic shelf region in spring and early summer and that during




summer and fall they are relatively abundant south of New England to the




west of the site on the shelf edge and occur in lesser numbers in the site




and eastward.




Status and Abundance




       Sperm whales are considered endangered by U.S. authorities.  The




number of observations and stranding records has decreased in recent




years, suggesting that populations have declined.  Due to their size and




unique character, they are more likely to be recognized and reported than




most other whales, so stranding records may be biased in their favor.




McKenzie, et al. (1985) estimates the population in the Kid-Atlantic




                                   -49-

-------
region to be approximately 450 in spring, 692 in summer, 83 in fall and




65 in winter.  NOAA (1981) and Schmidley (1981) estimates the population




of the North Atlantic to be approximately 22,000.




Life History




       Sperm whales are polygamous.  During the spring mating season,




harems are formed when "harem master" bulls Join the predominantly female




nursery schools.  Mating occurs in spring during migration north.




Gestation lasts 14 to 16 months, with a 1 to 2 year lactation period,




followed by a resting period of 8 to 10 months.




       The primary food of sperm whales is squid, supplemented by deepwater




species including octopus, sharks, cod, scorpaenlds, snapper, barracuda,




sardines, ragfish, skates, albacore, angler fish, rattails, and bottom




dwellers, such as spring lobsters, crayfish, crabs, sponges, and tunicates.




Most food is taken in the open ocean and.at great depths, with some taken




from the bottom sediments by scraping the lower jaw along the bottom.




Sperm whales feed throughout the year, with no noticeable fasting period.




URI (1982) describes sitings of sperm whales feeding in the vicinity of




the proposed site, and shows approximately 10 sperm whale sitings in the




39 month period from November  1, 1978 through January 28, 1982 within the




site boundary  (see figure in Appendix H).  The total number of sitings




for this period in -the URI study area, which extends from Nova Scotia to




south of Cape  Hateras, was 341 sperm whales with most sitings occuring




along the 2,000 meter depth contour.  The number of sitings within the




NA1S is therefore a small percentage of  the total number of sitings in




the URI stud.y  area which  represents a small part of the overall North




Atlantic population of 22,000  (NOAA, 1981).
                                    -50-

-------
       Sperm whales may be found singly or in groups of up to 35 to 40




individuals.  Older males are usually found solitary except during the




breeding season.  During the remainder of the year large groups may




include bachelor bulls (sexually inactive males) or nursery schools




containing females and juveniles of both sexes.




       Sperm whales are among the longest and deepest divers of all




cetaceans.  Dive-durations estimates of up to 90 minutes are recorded and




depend on the size of the individual.  Depths have been reported as deep




as 620 fathoms (1,145 m).




6.     Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus)




Description and Identification




       Blue whales are the largest living mammals.  In the North Atlantic,




they may reach lengths of 80 to 85 ft (24.4 to 25,9 m); females are




slightly larger than males of the same age.  These whales are easily




distinguished by their large size; bluish, often mottled coloration;




broad, flat, U-shaped head with a single ridge extending from just in




front of the blowholes, almost to the tip of the snout; and a small dorsal




fin (only 13 inches, 33 cm. tall) which is positioned well aft on the animal.



Distribution




       Blue whales occur in all oceans of the world but are partial to




cold water and seem to avoid warmer waters.  Three subspecies are




recognized:  a small one, ]J. jn. musculus, in the North Atlantic and North




Pacific; a large one, ]1. m_. intermedia, that spends the summer in Antarctic




waters; and a pygmy subspecies, JJ. m. brevicauda, in the southern Indian Ocean.



Seasonal Movements




       Blue whales concentrate in the northern portion of their range,




fror. Newfoundland to the Arctic Circle, during the spring and surcrer




                                   -51-

-------
where they feed on the krill which Is abundant in those waters.  In fall




and winter they move south into temperate and perhaps to tropical waters.




Status and Abundance




       Blue whales were extensively hunted throughout the North Atlantic




until the early 1950's  and they only now are beginning to recover from




this exploitation.  They have been protected by international agreement




since iybo.  Blue whales are listed as endangered by U.S. authorities.




DOI (1984) states that Blue whales are extremely uncommon in the mid




Atlantic region.




Life History




       No data are available on life history parameters from the proposed




site.  Blue whales usually occur singly or in pairs.  In the southern




oceans peak pairing occurs between April and June.  After a gestation




period of about 11 months, calving occurs between March and June with a




lactation period of 7 months.  Blue whales are relatively shallow feeders,




feeding almost exclusively on krill, most of which is distributed 100 m




below the surface.  Specific dietary Items in the North Atlantic include



Thysanoesa inennis, Temora longicornis, and Meganyctlphanes norvegica.




B.     Reptiles




       There are five sea  turtle species that are listed as endangered or




threatened that may occur  in the study area.  These are the green, hawksbill,




Atlantic  ridley, leatherback, and  loggerhead sea turtles.  Information




described in Hain  et al.  (1984) Indicate that hawksbill, green and Atlantic




ridley sea turtles may  occur in the region of the proposed site, but have




not  been  observed  there (Hain, et  al.  1984, DOI  (1984), NOAA (1983).




Leatherback sea  turtles season'lly occur in the  vicinity of the site in




transit  to or  from waters further  north  (Hain, et.al.  1984).  This species




                                   -52-

-------
remains nearer shore Chan the proposed incineration site and, a majority




of sitings occur in the summer when their major food source, jellyfish,




are near shore.  The estimated average number of leatherback. turtles that




may occur in the mid-Atlantic region are 15 in spring, 541 in summer and




102 in fall (HcKenzle, et al. 1985).




       Loggerhead sea turtles are common in the vicinity of the proposed




site in spring, summer and fall particularly closer to shore.  Loggerheads




feed primarily on benthic Invertebrates (Hain, et al. 1984).  McKenzie,




et al. (1985) estimates that the mid-Atlantic population is 2,155 in




spring, 10,912 in summer and 2,357 in fall.  During winter, these poikilo-




thermic turtles migrate south to warmer waters.
                                    -53-

-------
VIII.  CONCLUSIONS








       Documents regarding endangered  species  in  the  NAIS  area,  which are




available to EPA, indicate that most of  the whales  and  turtles  that  occur




in  the site itself are  transient, migrating to the  north or  south.   Only




one species, the sperm  whale, appears  to have  a migratory  pattern which




results  in numerous  sitings  of the  species in  the vicinity of  the NAIS




year round.  Although sitings of  sperm whales  in  the  site  year  round




could be Indicative  of  a  permanent  year  round  population there,  these sitings




are much more  likely to represent whales whose migratory pattern




causes different individuals to pass through the  site during various




seasons. Because there are  no data to indicate that  any one individual or




group of individuals may  reside in  the vicinity of  the  site  or  use  the




site as  a critical habitat,  EPA believes that  the waters of  the site




serve as a migratory path for endangered s »ecles  and  that  at no time is a




significant  portion  of  the population  there at any  one  time.  However,




even  if  there  was  a  year  round population  of sperm  whales  or other  species




•near  or  in  the site, the  low levels of emissions  and  the dispersion




characteristics of  the  site  are expected to  result  in no measurable




biological  effects  or  chemical alteration  in  the  organisms or  water of




 the site area.




        EPA has conducted  studies  to estimate  potential  effects of  inciner-




 ation-at-sea on the  marine environment.   Available  data indicates  that




 measurable  effects are unlikely due to the extremely low levels of




 substances  which could actually be  emitted into the environment.  EPA




 studies considered the entirr jnarine ecosystem including  fc  
-------
       In addition, our evaluation here of the potential effect of incin-




eration on endangered species indicates that the extremely low levels of




substances which could be present in the emissions will not add measurable




levels of contaminants to the marine ecosystem.  There will be no expected




increase in contaminant levels in the food chain of the area (including




squid) and therefore, there will be no expected impact on species which are




high on the food chain such as whales.




       As stated previously, EPA Is currently conducting research to




supplement the emission data currently available, and Intends to monitor




the site chemically and biologically to ensure that incineration activities




are in fact causing no measurable long term environmental effects.  EPA




believes that the available information describing the presence of




endangered species in the proposed site is adequate to assess the




possibility of impacts from incineration at the present time.  However,




EPA plans to add to the existing data base by logging all sitings of




endangered species during monitoring surveys at the site and during other



incineration related activities at the site.




       In conclusion, EPA finds that incineration activities at the




proposed North Atlantic  Incineration Site are not likely to jeopardize




.the continued existence  of any endangered or threatened species, or result




in the destruction or adverse modification of a habitat of such species.
                                    -55-

-------
c*
 I
     I
                                               PLAN VIEW

       •>'• ItU MA It VII C OH I AC I
             tor AHUM 01 rtioicno
             MI4tUI 4ltl SM IIVll
             CO**CINII4IIOM1
                                                   toe*i ION of
                                                   1IAIIVI1 CON
IUC4IIUM Ol rtlDiCIIU "
CO"CIMI»IIONIIVIIt4f
Of U«IU>UUII«IIVI1
                                              OISTANTI 'kml
              NOTE:
       Figure  1.     Plume Dispersal (H/T VULCANUS) Culf of Mexico
                 Research Incinerations,  Reaearch Burn II

During actual  incineration,  the gaaeous pi time is virtually colorless and  invisible

-------
I   I   I  I   I   I
   10  20 30  40  60
                                          ATLANTIC
                                              OCEAN
   -  41°
                                                          -  40C
                                                          - 39C
                                                          - 38<
                                                          -I 37C
                                          72°
      Figure 2.  Proposed North Atlantic Incineration Site.  For key
               to numbered dots, see text (pg. 25).
                            - 57 -
7V

-------
                                REFERENCES

Bidleman, T.F., E.J. Christensen, U.M. Billings, and R. Leonard.   1981.
   Atmospheric transport of organochlorines in the North Atlantic  Gyre.
   Journal of Marine Research.  Vol. 39, number 3.

Boehm, P.D. 1983. Coupling of organic pollutants between the estuary and
   continental shelf and the sediments and water column in the New York
   Bight region.  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 40
   rsuppl.2): 262-276.

Main, J., M. Hyman, R. Kenney and U. Uinn. 1984. The role of cetaceans in
   the Shelf Edge region of the northern U.S. URI, Kingston, RI.

McKenzie, T. and J. Nicolas. 1985. Draft - Cetaceans, Plnlpeds and Sea
   Turtles. NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Center, Habitat Conservation Branch.

NOAA. 1981.  Biological Opinion for OCS Oil and Gas Leasing and Exploration
   Program in the U.S. Mid-Altantic Region.

NOAA. 1983. 106-Mile Site Characterization Update. NOAA Technical  Memorandum
   NMFS-F/NEC-26.

NOAA. 1984a.  Review of Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles, and Marine Fishes
   Listed as Endangered or Threatened.  50 CFR Parts 222 and 227.  Vol. '49,
   No. 219, November 9, 1984, pp. 44774 (and documents described therein).

NCAA. 1984b.  Letter from Richard Schaefer, NMFS, Gloucester, MA to Bruce
   Weetman, MMS, Vienna, VA.  July 10, 1984.

Schmidly, David J.  1981. Marine Mammals of the Southeastern U.S. coast
   and Gulf of Mexico.  U.S. F.W.S., Office of Biological Services,
   Washington, D.C.  F.W.S./OBS-80/41. 163 pp.

Science Advisory Board. 1985. Incineration of Hazardous Liquid Wastes.
   U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board Report.

Tanabe, S., T. Mori, and R. Tatsukawa. 1984. Bloaccumulation of DDTs and
   PCBs in  the Southern Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata).  National
   Institute of Polar Research, Tokyo.

TRW,  INC.  1978. At-Sea  Incineration of Herbicide Orange onboard the M/T
   VULCANUS.   Prepared  for U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Technology
   Series.  EPA-600/2-78-086.

TRW,  INC.  1977. At-Sea  Incineration of Organochlorine Wastes Onboard the
   M/T VULCANUS.   Prepared for U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Technology
   Series.  EPA-600/2-77-196.

TRW,  INC.  1978. Environmental Assessment: At-Sea and Land-Based Incineration
   of Organochlrr'.-.e Wastes.  Prf.,-.->rcd for U.S. Environmental  Protection
   Technology  Series.  (EPA-600/2-78-087).
                                    -58-
                                                                                  T.-j-jrr;.':';1^',^!-:

-------
URI. 1982. (CETAP). A Characterization of Marine Mammals and Turtles in
   the Mid and North Atlantic Area of the U.S. Continental Shelf.  U.S.
   Department of the Interior.

U.S. DOI. 1984. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for OCS Lease Sale 111.

U.S. EPA. 1975. Disposal of Organochlorine Wastes by Incineration at Sea.
   U.S. EPA-430/9-75-014.

U.S. EPA. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Polychlorinated
   Biphenyls.  Office of Water Regulations and Standards.  EPA 440/5-
   80-068..

U.S. EPA. 1981. Environmental Impact Statement for North Atlantic
   Incineration Site Designation.  Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
   EPA 440/5-82-025.

U.S. EPA. 1983a. At-Sea Incineration of PCB-Containing Wastes Onboard the
   M/T VULCANUS.  Interagency Energy-Environmental Research and Development
   Series.  EPA-600/7-83-024.

U.S. EPA. 1983b. Notice of Availability and Summary Report; Monitoring
   Results and Environmental Impact on the Gulf of Mexico Incineration
   Site  from  the Incineration of PCBs under Research Permit HQ 81-002.
   Federal Register (48 FR 20984, May 10, 1983).

U.S. EPA. 1984. Draft Monitoring Strategy for the North Atlantic Incineration
   Site.                                    .

U.S. EPA. 1985a. Ocean  Incineration Regulation; Proposed Rule.  Federal Register.
   (50 FR 8222, February 28, 1985).

U.S. EPA. 1985b. Assessment of Incineration as a Treatment Method for
   Liquid Organic Hazardous Wastes, Summary and Conclusions.  Office of
   Policy, Planning and Evaluation.

U.S. EPA. 1985c. Incineratlon-At-Sea Research Strategy.  Office of Water.

U.S. EPA. 1985d. Application of a Formula for Calculating Carrying Capacity
   of an Incineration  Site.  Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection,
   Washington,  DC.
                                    -59-

-------
APPENDIX A

-------
\       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 *                     WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
                                22 1985
                                                     OFFICE OF
                                                      WA'ER
Mr. Richard Schaefer
Acting Regional Director
Northeast Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
14 Elm Street
Glouster, MA  01930

Dear Mr. Schaefer:

     The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  is currently
preparing final rulemaking for the designation  of an ocean
incineration site located off the New Jersey Continental  Shelf
for the  incineration of liquid hazardous wastes.   Pursuant to
Section  7 of the Endangered Species Act, EPA wishes to coordinate
with your Agency to insure that designation of  the North  Atlantic
Incineration Site will not jeopardize the continued existence of
endangered and threatened species.

     The proposed North Atlantic Incineration Site (NAIS) i's
located  120 nautical miles east of the mouth of Delaware  Bay.
The site covers 4,250 Km2 and is bounded by latitudes 38°00'N
to 38°40'N, and longitudes 71°50'W and 72°30'W.  The site is
beyond the Continental Shelf where water depth  ranges from
2 ,400m to 2 ,900m.

     A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for incineration
at sea operations at this site was made available to the  public,
the Department of Commerce, and other Federal and State Agencies
on January 9,  1981, and a final EIS was available on December 18,
1981.  These EIS's discuss the endangered and threatened  species
of whales and  turtles that can occur in the site and concluded
that, while these species may be present at the site, they are
migratory and  would be present for only a few hours.  The comments
EPA received concerning the draft EIS are contained in the final
EIS (enclosed) along with EPA's responses.

     Designation of this site was proposed on November 17, 1982,
and a public hearing was held in Ocean City, Maryland on  April 14,
1983.  EPA  is  now preparing final actions for designation of the
site.

     The designation of this site does not in itself allow
incineration operations to he conducted at the NAIS.  Each
vessel  intti.vjin^  to operate in this site needs to first cbtair
a  permit from  EPA which will require applicants to follow
additional  regulatory requirements.

-------
     As described in the enclosed KIS there will  be no  direct
dumping of materials at this site.   The site will serve as  a
designated area where incineration  vessels must  navigate while
incinerating liquid wastes.   Emissions from the  incineration
process will consist mainly  of hydrochloric acid, carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide and water vapor and may contain  trace  levels of
surviving organic compounds.  These emissions will be  released
from the incinerator and be  subsequently dispersed in  the atmosphere
and surface waters at the site.  The hydrochloric acid  will be
neutralized upon contact with sea water and other substances which
may be emitted are not expected to  be in quantities capable of
causing any environmental effects.

     For the above reasons,  the Agency concludes  that  the proposed
site designation will have no effect on populations of  threatened
or endangered species under  the purview of the National Marine and
Fisheries Service.  If there is need for further  communication on
this matter, I can be contacted at  202/755-9231.
                                          Sincerely ,
                                          David P.  Redford
                                          Marine Biologist
                                          Marine Permits and
                                          Monitoring Branch (WH-556)
Enclosure

-------
APPENDIX B

-------
             United States Department cf the Interior

                          FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
                        ONE GATEWAY CENTER. Sl'lTE 70
-------
APPENDIX C

-------
                                     UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                     NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
                                      Services Division
                                      Habitat Conservation Branch
                                      1H Elm Street
                                      Gloucester, MA 01930

                                      March 20, 1985
Mr. David P. Bedford
Marine Biologist
Marine Permits and Monitoring Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Mr. Redford:

     We have reviewed the information provided in your letter of February 22,
1985, requesting coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as  amended, to insure that designation of the North Atlantic Incineration Site
(NA1S) 120  nautical miles east of the Delaware Bay in water depths of 2,^00-
2,900 m will not Jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or
endangered  species under our jurisdiction.

     Based  on the enclosed new information that has become available since
publication of the Final Environmental Impact Statemeiit  (FEIS)  for the NAIS  in
November  1981, it is.apparent that some, and perhaps all, of the proposed NAIS
may be a  high use area  for several odontocete marine mammal species, including
the endangered sperm whale (Physeter catodon).  Therefore, statements made  in
the FEIS  describing the area as used by these species only as a migration
route are  no  longer valid.  The conclusion of "no effect" to threatened or
endangered  .species stated in your letter of February 22,  1985,  which was based
on the FEIS statements  should be reassessed given the new information.

     We  recommend that  the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) consult
further  with  the NMFS  to assess the effects of the proposed NAIS designation
and its  related  activities on the endangered sperm whale and protected marine
mammal  species  that may be resident in the area.  Tracey McKenzie  of my staff
 (FTS 837-9239)  should  be contacted to assist the EPA in  carrying out the
consultation  process and to provide any additional information  the EPA may
require.
                                       Sincerely


                                          f/u.:iti:  L'Vj./,^'
                                       Thomas E.  Bigford
 Enclosure

-------
APPENDIX D

-------
                                     UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                     NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
                                      Services Division
                                      Habitat Conservation Branch
                                      14 Elm Street
                                      Gloucester, MA 01930

                                      March 29, 1985
Mr. David P. Bedford
Marine Permits and Monitoring Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Mr. Bedford:

     This is in response to your March 27, 1985, request for a list of
endangered and threatened species present in the proposed North Atlantic
Incineration Site (NAIS) area, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended.  We have identified the presence of the
following endangered and threatened species within and adjacent to the
proposed project area:
         Species

         Humpback whale
         Megaptera novaeangliae

         Bight  whale
         Eubalaena glacialis

         Fin  whale
         Balaenoptera  physalus
Status
endangered
endangered
endangered
          Sei whale
          Balaenoptera boreal is

          Blue whale
          Balaenoptera musoulus

          Sperm whale
          Physeter catodon
endangered


endangered


endangered
          Turtles

          Atlantic ridley sea turtle
          Lepidochelys kempii

          Green sea turtle
          CY •'Ionia mydas
 endangered

-------
Hawksbill sea turtle               endangered
Eretmochelys imbricata

Leatherback sea turtle             endangered
Dermochelys coriaoea

Loggerhead sea turtle              threatened
Caretta caretta

                             Sincerely,
                             Tracey McKenzie
                             Biologist

-------
APPENDIX E

-------
,532,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                                APR  2 .1 — ~
                                                          OFFICE OF
                                                           WATER
     Tracey  McKenzie
     Biologist
     Habitat Conservation Branch
     Services Division
     National Marine  Fisheries Service
     14  Elm  Street
     Gloucester,  MA  01930

     Dear Ms. McKenzie:

          This  letter is  in  response  to  the  correspondence from
     Thomas  E.  Bigford, dated March 20,  1985.  That correspondence
     indicated  that additional  information had become  available
     since the  issuance of  the  Environmental Protection Agency's
     (EPA) Environmental  Impact  Statement for the  North Atlantic
     Incineration Site, and  'requested that EPA use this information
     to reassess  the "no  impact"  finding for endangered or threatened
     species.

          The following  is  a list of  documents we  subsequently received
     from the National  Marine Fisheries  Service  to be  used in the
     reassessment.   I would  like to request  that you review  this
     list of documents  and  verify that we have received all  the
     relevant information referred to in Mr. Bigford's March 20, 1985
     letter.

          The documents  received are:

          1.   Draft Environmental Impact Statement  for DCS
               Lease Sale 111 - various  pages from page 31
               to page 331  (44  pages  total)  .

          2.   NEMP-EPA/NOAA 106-Mile Deepwater  Disposal  Site
               Characterization Update,  August  1983  -  pages  11-1
               through 11-92.

          3.   Kenny, R.  and H.  Winn.  1985.  A  quantitative descrip-
               tion and analysis of cetacean high  use  habitats on
               the .Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf.   University of
               Rhode Island - pages 1 through 31.

          4.   McKenzie,  T. and J. Nicolas.   1985.  Draft -  Cetaceans,
               Pinipeds and Sea Turtles.  NM^?,  Northeast Fisheries
               Center,. Habitat Conservation Branch.   Entire  document
               r ec e i v ed .

-------
                          -2-

5.   URI.  1982.  (CETAP).   A Characterization of  Marine
     Mammals and Turtles in the Mid  and  North Atlantic
     Area  of the U.S.  Continental  Shelf.  U.S. Department
     of the Interior,  BLM  Contract No. AA51-CT8-48  -  pages
     153 through 167.

6.   Hain, J.,  M. Hyman, R. Kenney and H.  Winn.   1984.   The
     Role of Cetaceans in  the Shelf  Edge Region of  the  Northern
     United States.   URI,  Kingston,  RI - pages 1  through 9.

7.   FAO of the United Nations.  1978.   Mammals in  the  Sea.
     Report on the Food and Agricultural Organization of the
     United Nations Advisory Committee on Marine  Resources
     Research.   FAO Fisheries Series No. 5,  Volume  I  -  pages
     80 and 81.

8.   Draft copy of Part 402 - Interagency Cooperation -
     Endangered Species Act of 1973, as  amended - pages 168
     through 206.

Thank you for your assistance in our assessment activity.

                       Sincerely,
                       David
                       Marine Biologist
                       Office of Marine and
                        Estaurine Protection  (WH-556M)

-------
APPENDIX F


-------
                                    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                    NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
                                      Services Division
                                      Habitat Conservation Branch
                                      1l» Elm Street
                                      Gloucester, MA 01930

                                      April 21, 1985
Mr. David Bedford
Marine Biologist
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20H60

Dear Mr. Bedford:

     This is in response, to your April 2H, 1985 letter requesting verification
that the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) has received all the relevant
information referred to in Thomas Bigford's March 20, 1985 letter.  I have
reviewed the list of documents and, with  the exception of one document, EPA
has received all the relevant information that is available from the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northeast Region, Habitat Conservation
Branch.  NMFS recently conducted status reviews of endangered and threatened
species, including the sperm whale, under their purview.  However, the .final
report of the sperm whale status review has not been made available to the-
public.  I recommend that you contact Charles Karnella, NMFS, Office of
Protected Species and Habitat Conservation, Washington, D.C., (202)63^-7529 to
inquire about availability of a draft status review.

                                      Sincerely,
                                      Tracey McKenzie
                                      Biologist
                                                                         •c^^v
                                                                         '••..i j • '

-------
APPENDIX G

-------
                     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
  DATE   13 May  1985

JBJECT   Preliminary Assessment of "Transport and Fate of PCBs  from Ocean  Incineration
         at the  106-Mile  Ocean Disposal Site

  FROM   Victor  J.  Blerman, Jr.,  Ph.D., Environmental Scientist
         ERL-Narragansett

    TO   Tudor T. Davles, Director
         Office  of  Marine and Estuarlne Protection,  OWP  (WH-556)
                                            ir
 THRU:    William  A.  Brungs,  Director
         JbkL-Harragansett
         Erich W.  Bretthauer,
         OEPER-ORD  (RD-682)
              Models for describing  transport  and  fate  of  contaminants  resulting
         from ocean Incineration  do  not  currently  exist.   In  the  interest  of
         expediency, existing models for transport and  fate of  ocean  dumped con-
         taminants were adapted,  through certain assumptions, to  provide estimates
         of transport and fate of PCB's  from ocean incineration.   This  memo contains
         results of such a preliminary analysis.

              The principal source documents used  for this analysis were the
         following:

              Boehm, P.Di.  1983.   Coupling  of  organic pollutants  between the
              estuary and continental shelf and the sediments and water column
            . in the New York Bight  region. Canadian Journal of  Fisheries and
              Aquatic Sciences.  40(Suppl.  2): 262-276.

              de Lappe, B.W., W.R. Rlstec,  E.F. Letterman, M. Firestone-Gillis,
              and R. Risebrough.   1980a.  Pre-discharge studies:  San  Francisco
              south-west ocean outfall  project - distribution of  high molecular
              weight hydrocarbons in the coastal environment.  Report to CH2M
              Hill, San Francisco, California. Bodega  Marine Laboratory,
              Bodega Bay, California.  lOOp.

              de Lappe, B.W., R.W. Risebrough, A.M. Springer, T.T. Schmidt,
              J.C. Shropshire, E.F.  Letterman, and J.R. Payne.   1980b.  The
              sampling and measurement  of hydrocarbons  in natural waters.
              In: Hydrocarbons and Halogenated Hydrocarbons  i£ the Aquatic
              Environment, B.K. Afgan and D. Mackay (eds.),  Plenum Press,
              New York, New York, pp. 29-68.

              Paul, J.F., V.J. Bierman,  Jr., H.A.  Walker,  and J.H. Gentile.
              1983.  Application of  a hazard assessment research  strategy  for
              waste disposal at the  106-Mile Ocean Disposal  Site.  Presented
              at the Fourth International Ocean Disposal Symposium,  Plymouth,
              England, April  H-i5,  1983.  Submitted for publication in Wastes
              In the Ocean, Wlley-Interscience.
EPA Fo.m 1320-4 (Rt.. 3-761

-------
                                 -2--
     Thomann, R.V.  1981.  Equilibrium model of fate of mlcro-
     contaminants in diverse aquatic food chains.  Canadian Journal
     of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.  38: 280-296.

     Walker, B.A., J.F. Paul, V.J. Bierman, Jr.  1984.  A stochastic-
     coovective dispersive transport model for wastes disposed at the
     106-Mile Ocean Disposal Site.  Presented at the Fifth Inter-
     national Ocean Disposal Symposium, September 10-14, 1984,
     Corvallis, Oregon.  Submitted for publication In Oceanic Processes
     in Marine Pollution, Krleger.

     An extreme-case approach is adopted throughout this analysis because
there are considerable uncertainties, and a paucity of data, for the
Important physical, chemical, and biological processes Involved.  The
objective is to develop results which constitute upper bounds on the
far-field, long-term, time-average concentrations of PCB's in the surface
mixed layer of the water column.  In addition, estimates are made of PCB's
tissue residues corresponding to long term, steady-state conditions.

Transport and Fate Model

     A model was developed to relate mass Inputs of sludge constituents
at the 106-Mile 'Site to concentration distributions in the water column
(Paul et al. 1983;  Walker et al. 1984).  The assumptions and limitations
inherent in this modeling approach are the following:

     1.  The model results are two-dimensional in the horizontal
         plane.  Constituents are assumed to be uniformly dis-
         tributed over depth in the upper mixed layer of the water
         column.  Losses due to settling of partlculate materials
         out of  the upper mixed layer are not Included in the model.

     2.  The model results correspond to far-field concentrations
         in  space, and to long-term, time-average concentration
         values.

     3.  The constituent concentrations are completely conserved
         In the  water column.  Mo transformation or degradation
         processes are included in model.

     4.  Mo  exchange processes across the air-sea Interface
         (e.g.,  volatilisation) are included in the model.

     5.  Mo  explicit distinction Is made between dissolved
         and partlculate phases of a constituent.  Only the
         total concentration of the constituent is considered.

      6.  The Gulf  Stream represents the ultimate downstream sink
          for material disposed at the  106-Mile Site.

      The following additional assumptions were made to adapt  this
modeling approach to  the case of ocean incineration of PCB's:

-------
                               -3-
     1.  All stack emissions  from the-Incineration  process  are
         assumed to be discharged directly to the surface nixed
         layer  of the water coluan at  the  incineration  site.   This
         assumption avoids the necessity of modeling the transport
         and fate of stack emissions in the atmosphere.

     2.  The mass input rates of PCB to the vater column at the
         incineration site are based on the following assumptions:

             a.  initial mass of 1500 metric tons  of PCB
                  on the incineration  vessel
             b.  this entire initial  mass is Incinerated
                  at a uniform rate over a 7-day  period
             c.  this saae uniform incineration  rate occurs
                  •t the site on a continuous daily basis

    .The minimum destruction  efficiency required  by existing  regulations
for ocean incineration Is 99.9999 percent.  Results of  the  analysis  are
sensitive to the value for destruction efficiency.   To  illustrate this
sensitivity, results are presented for a range of destruction'efficiencies
from 99.999 to  99.99999 percent.

     A value of 0.05 ng/L was used as  the  background concentration for
PC Be in the water coluan at the 106-Mile Site. Boehn (1983)  reported a
value of 0.05 ng/L for particulate phase PCB concentration  in the outer
New York Bight.  He estimated that particulate and  dissolved  phase  con-
centrations of  PCB'e were equivalent  (de Lappe et al. 1980a,  1980b).  Our
value for background concentration represents an  estimate for the avail-
able, dissolved phase PCB concentration at the 106-Mile Site.

     The O.S. FDA Tolerance Level for  .PCB residues  in the edible portions
of fish and shellfish Is 2.0 ppm (wet  weight basis).  In applying this
level to the present analysis, a range of  bloaccumulation factors from
20,000 to 2,000,000  (wet weight basis) was used to  relate environmental
PCB concentrations to tissue  residues  in biological organisms.  Tissue
residues can result  from water uptake  and/or food chain uptake.  Measured
bioaccumulation factors can vary over  a wide range, depending on the type
and length of the exposure conditions, and whether  measurements are
conducted in the laboratory or the field.   The bioaccumulation factors
used in this analysis were based on results summarlted  by  Thomann (1981).
A value of 200,000 was. used as an upper bound on  tissue residues from
water uptake only.   A value of 20,000 was used as an estimate of the
median bioaccumulation factor from water uptake only.  A value of
2,000,000 was used to account for the additional increment  due to food
chain uptake.

Results

     Tabular results are presented for estimated water concentrations and
PCB tissue residue values at various distances from the 106-Mile Site, in
the direction  of  the mean flow.  Results are presented for both summer and
winter environmental conditions.  Summer conditions correspond to a depth
of  20  meters for  the upper mixed layer, and to mixing of constituents
between  slope  • ater  and water on the continental shelf.  Winter conditions

-------
correspond to « depth of 100 meters for the upper nixed layer, and to no
mixing of contaminants between shelf and slope waters.

     Within the framework of the assumptions and limitations of this
analysis, the overall results Indicate that there would be no violations
of the U.S. FDA Tolerance Level for PCB tissue residues.  Results close
to the incineration site are likely to be overestimates because of the
••sumption that stack emissions are discharged directly to the water
column.
cc.  D. Baumgartner
     A. Beck
     V. Brungs
     R. Garnas
     J. Gentile
     R. Latimer
     J. Paul
     B. Walker

-------
PCB CONCENTRATIONS FOR SUMMER CONDITIONS
    DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY - 99.999%
  RESULTANT LOADING -   2. 14289 (KG/DAY)
DI8T.
(KM. )

30.
60.
90.
120.
190.
1BO.
210.
240.
270.
300.
330.
360.
BACKGROUND PCB
(NG/L)

0.09
O. 09
0. 09
0.09
0.09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
ELEVATION
(NG/L)

0. 1199
0. 0821
0.0678
0.0621
0. 0991
0. 0973
0. 0999
0. 0946
0. 0932
0. 0919
0. 0907
.0. 0496
TOTAL PCB
(NG/L)

0. 1699
0. 1321
0. 1178
0. 1121
0. 1091
0. 1073
0. 1099
0. 1046
0. 1032
0. 1019
0. 1007
0. O996
DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY • 99.

DIST.
(KM. )


3O.
60.
90.
120.
190.
160.
210.
240.
270.
300.
330.
360.
RESULTANT
BACKGROUND PCB
(NG/L)


0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
LOADING •
ELEVATION
(NG/L)


0. 0116
0. OO82
0. OO6B
0. 0062
0. 0099
0. 0097
0. 0096
0. 0099
0. O093
0.0092
0. OO91
0. OO90
0. 21428
TOTAL PCB
(NG/L)


0. 0616
0. 0982
0. 0968
0. 0962
0. 0999
0. 0997
0. 0996
0. 0999
O. 0993
0. 0992
0. 0991
0. 0990
TISSUE PCB (PPM-WET)
B I OAC CUMULATION FACTOR
496
2ilO
0. 003
O. 003
0. 002
0. 002
0.002
0. 002
0. 002
0. 002
0. 002
0.002
0.002
O. 002
9999%
(KC/DAY)
TISSUE
2i 10
0.033
0. 026
0. 024
0. 022
0.022
0. 021
0. 021
0. 021
0. 021
0. 020
0. 020
O. 02O


2x10
0. 332
0. 264
O. 236
.0. 224
0. 218
0. 219
0. 212
0. 209
0. 206
0. 204
0. 201
0. 199


PCB (PPM-WET)
B I OAC CUMULATION
4
2ilO
0. 001
0. 001
0. 001
0. 001
0. 001
0. 001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
O.O01
0. 001
9
2ilO
0. 012
0. 012
0. Oil
0. Oil
0. Oil
0. Oil
0. Oil
0. Oil
0. Oil
0. Oil
0. Oil
0. Oil
FACTOR
6
2x10
0. 123
0. 116
0. 114
0. 112
0. 112
0. Ill
0. Ill
0. Ill
0. Ill
0. 110
0. 110
0. 110

-------
                                                                  PAGE 2
              PCB CONCENTRATIONS FOR SUMMER CONDITIONS
                  DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY • 99. 99999X
                RESULTANT  LOADING -   0.02143 (KG/DAY)
DIST.
(KM. )
 30.
 60.
 90.
 120.
 190.
 ISO.
 210.
 240.
 270.
 300.
 330.
 360.
BACKGROUND
  (NG/L)
   0. O9
   O. 09
   0.09
   0.09
   0. 09
   0. 09
   0. 09
   0. 09
   0. 09
   0. 09
   0. 09
   0. 09
                       PCB
ELEVATION
(NO/L)
0. OO12
0. 0008
0. 0007
0.0006
0. 0006
0. OOO6
0. 0006
0. OOO9
0. 0009
0. 0009
0. 0009
0. 0009
TOTAL PCB
  (NO/L)
 TISSUE PCB  (PPH-WET)
BIOACCUMULATION  FACTOR
     496
 2ilO    2ilO     2x10
0.0912
0. 0908
0. 0907
0. 09O6
0. 0906
0. 0906
0. 0906
0. 0909
0. 0909
0. 0909
0. 0909
0. 0909
0. OO1
0.001
0. OOl
0.001
0. OOl
0. OOl
0.001
0. 001
0. 001
O. 001
0. 001
0. OOl
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0.010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0.010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 102
0. 102
0. 101
0. 101
0. 101
0. 101
0. 101
0. 101
0. 101
0. 101
0. 101
0. 101

-------
                                                                   PAGE 3
              PCB  CONCENTRATIONS FOR WINTER CONDITIONS
                   DESTHUCTIQN EFFICIENCY - 99. 999X
                RESULTANT LOADINO -   2. 14289 (KG/DAY)
DI8T.
(KM. )
 30.
 60.
 90.
120.
130.
180.
210.
240.
270.
300.
330.
360
 DIST.
 (KM. )
  30.
  60.
  90.
 120.
 190.
 180.
 210.
 240.
 270.
 30O.
 330.
 360.
BACKGROUND PCB
(NO XL)

0.09
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
ELEVATION
(NO/L)

0.0232
0.0164
0. 0136
0.0124
0. 0118
0.0119
0. 0113
0.0111
0.0108
0. 0106
0. 0104
0.0102
TOTAL PCB


0.0732
0.0664
0. 0636
0. 0624
0. 0618
0.0619
0. 0613
0. 0611
0. 0608
0. 0606
0. 0604
0. 0602
DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY - 99.
RESULTANT
BACKGROUND PCB
(NG/L)


0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0.09

0.09
0.09
O. 09
0.09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
0. 09
LOADING -
ELEVATION
(NQ/L)


0. 0023
0. 0016
0. 0014
0. 0012

0. OO12
0.0011
0. 0011
0. 0011
0. OO11
0. 0011
0. 0010
0.0010
0. 21428
TOTAL PCB
(NG/L)


0. 0923
0. 0916
0. 0914
0. 0912
i
O. 0912
0.0911
O. 0911
0.0911
0. 0911
0.0911
0. 0910
0. 0910
TISSUE PCB (PPM-WET)
BIOACCUHULATION FACTOR
4 9.6
2HO
0.001
0. OO1
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0. 001
0.001
0. 001
0.001
0. 001
0. 001
9999X
(KG/DAY)
TISSUE
2x10
0.019
0. 013
0. 013
0. 012
0.012
0.012
0. 012
0. 012
0. 012
0. 012
0. 012
0. 012


2x10
O. 146
0. 133
0. 127
0. 129
0. 124
0. 123
0. 123
0. 122
0. 122
0. 121
0. 121
O. 120


PCB (PPM-WET)
B1OAC CUMULATION
4
2x10
0. 001
0. 001
0.001
0. O01

0. 001
0.001
0.001
0. OO1
0. 001
O. 001
0. 001
0. 001
9
2x10
0.010
0.010
0. 010
0. 010

0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
FACTOR
6
2x10
0. 109
0. 103
0. 103
0. 102

0. 102
0. 102
0. 102
0. 102
0. 102
0. 102
0. 102
0. 102

-------
                                                                 PAGE 4
              PCB CONCENTRATIONS FOR WINTER CONDITIONS
                  DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY - 99. 99999X
                RESULTANT LOADING "   O. 02143 (KG/DAY)
DIST.    BACKGROUND    PCB
(KM. )     (NOXL)
30.
60.
90.
120.
150.
1BO.
210.
240.
270.
300.
330.
360.
0. 05
0.09
0.09
0. 09
0.05
0. OS
0. 05
0. OS
0. OS
0. OS
0. OS
0. OS
ELEVATION  TOTAL PCB   TISSUE PCB (PPM-WET)
(NOXL)       (NG/L)   BIOACCUMULATION FACTOR
                           496
                       2x10    2ilO    2x10
0. 0002
0. OO02
0. 0001
0. OO01
0. 0001
0. OO01
0. O001
0. 0001
0. 0001.
0. OO01
0. 0001
0. C 001
0.0502
0. 0502
0. 0901
0. 0901
0.0501
0. 0901
0. 0901
0.0901
0. 0901
0. 0901
0. 0901
O. 0901
0. OO1
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
o. 001
0.001
0.001
0. 001
0. OO1
0. 001
0.-OO1
0. 010
0.010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
0. 010
O. 010
0. 100
0. 100
0. 100
0. 100
0. 100
0. 100
0. 100
0. 100
0. 100
0. 100
0. 100
0. 100

-------
APPENDIX H

-------
             75
45
                                                                  45
       ALL SEASONS
       SPER.M
       N -  341
35-
                                                                h-35
     Figure 15..  All lighting,  of the »pen> wh.le. Zhy-ifTfr Ca»dK.  for
     thl 39 month ?«r,od  -- 1 November 1976 through ,6 January 1982.

-------
               DRAFT




           MONITORING PLAN
               FOR THE
               PROPOSED




    NORTH ALANTIC INCINERATION SITE
              JULY  1985
                                       DRAFT
            DAVID REDFORD




   MARINE PERMITS AND  MONITORING BRANCH




       MARINE OPERATIONS DIVISION





OFFICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION





                US EPA

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

I.   INTRODUCTION

     Purpose and Scope
     Waste Materials
     Environmental Effects of Waste Materials
     Incineration Process

II.  INCINERATION SITE DESCRIPTION

     A.   General
     B.   Water masses
     C.   Current Regimes

III. RATIONALE FOR THE MONITORING PROGRAM

IV.  STRUCTURE OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM

     A.   Compliance monitoring
     B.   Near-field monitoring
     C.   Far-field monitoring
          1.  movement of floatable materials
          2.  movement of materials entrained in the water column
          3.  movement, of unburned waste and HC1 and air
     D.   Marine resource monitoring
     E.   Ocean process monitoring

V.   MONITORING OPERATIONS

     A.   Baselines and control sampling
     B.   Tier I
     C.   Tier II
     D.   Survey design and quality assurance/quality control

-------
INTRODUCTION









Purpose and Scope









      Incineration-at-sea is  the practice  of  thermally destroying liquid




Ita4.aj.uous wastes through high temperature  incineration on board an ocean




going vessel*  Presently, there is  one  site in the Gulf of Mexico desig-




nated  for  this  use,  and one proposed site  in the  North Atlantic.   A




third  site  is under  consideration in  the Pacific.   This  document pre-




sents  a plan  for  monitoring  the  proposed North  Atlantic Site  for the




presence of emission  products or environmental effects.









      The wastes expected to  be burned at these  sites may contain PCBs




or  other chlorinated organic  material,  in  a solution  with an  oil or
                               %



solvent.  Emissions  tests during previous  research burns have shown that




the  principal constituents  of the hot  gases  leaving  the incinerator are




CO2/ H2°« and HC1.   Traces  of unburned waste  may also be present as well




as degradation products  of  the wastes.









       This  monitoring plan is  designed to obtain  data that  can be used




to  determine if incineration  activities cause environmental  impacts, to




assess  the  magnitude of  any such  impacts,  and to provide the basis for a




determination as to  whether or not the site  may continue to be used.  It




will also assist in  the determination of whether changes in the magni-




tude or  frequency  of  incineration  are  necessary to  mitigate adverse




impacts,  or whether  incineration  at the site should be terminated.


-------
I'
         The  EPA Ocean  Dumping Regulations,  Sections  228.10  and 228.11




   describe the  types of  impacts  that  should  result in  modification or




   termination of  disposal  site use.    Based on  these  regulations,  the




   following  types  of effects,  in  addition to  other necessary or appro-




   priate considerations, must be considered in  determining to what extent




   the marine environment  has been impacted by  incineration activities at




   the site:








         (1)  Movement of materials in estuaries of marine sanctuaries, or




   onto oceanfront beaches, or shorelines;








         (2)  Movement of  materials  toward productive  fishery  or shell-




   fishery areas;








         (3)  Absence  from  the  disposal  site   pollution-sensitive  biota




   characteristic of the general area;








         (4)  Progressive, non-seasonal,  changes in water quality  or sedi-




   ment composition at the disposal site, when these changes are attribut-




   able to materials disposed of at the site;








         (5)  Progressive, non-seasonal,  changes in composition or numbers




   of  pelagic,  demersal, or  benthic biota  at or  near  the disposal site,




   when  these changes can be attributed to the  effects of materials  dis-




   posed of at the site;

-------
I '
         (6)  Accumulation  of material  constituents in marine  biota at or




  near the site.








         The  data collected in  the  monitoring program must  be  of the type




  »c<.<:a.au>.>  wo assess such impacts based on  the types of material antici-




  pated  to be  incinerated.








         Due  to the enormous  variety  of chemical compounds  which might be




  present in wastes  considered candidates for  incineration, considerable




  chemical  analysis  will  be necessary  to  establish  the acceptability of




  specific  wastes.   All chemical wastes approved  for at-sea incineration




  will  comply with  the criteria in  40 CRF  227.4,  228.8,  227.11, 227.12,




  and 227.27,  and the compounds which can be incinerated by  any  individual




  ship  will be  determined  through trial  burns.    Acceptable  wastes will




  include a  wide  variety  of  organic  substances  including  chlorinated




  organics.








         EPA will limit  the amounts of  certain materials such as  metals in




   the wastes  and  restrict other materials as  appropriate,  to meet  London




   Dumping Convention requirements.








   Environmental Effects of Waste Materials








         Chlorinated  organ-'c substances  constitute  the majority of com-




   pounds proposed  for  incineration-at-sea which may be toxic  to  aquatic




   organisms.   Although.at least 99.99 percent of the organic  substance in



-------
the  waste will  be  destroyed through  the  incineration process,  trace




amounts of these  substances  may  be present  in the  emissions  exiting the




incinerator.  The following discussion  of  environmental effects is based




upon the  substances  which may be present  in the waste  because these are




the  Ly*
-------
the gills and skin.   Various organic substances have been  shown to have




acute effects on fish at various life stages.








      Phytoplankton  are  capable of  accumulating substantial  amounts  of




oraanics and  therefore constitute an important means for  the introduc-




tion of these compounds into marine  food webs.


-------
                          INCINERATION PROCESS









      The  incinerator  systems  presently used  for  incineration-at-sea




are refractory  lined  furnaces consisting of two chambers  - a combustion




chamber for  internal  mixing,  and a stack to ensure  that adequate reten-




tion tia.e  for complete combustion  is  available.   Combustion gases pass




through  these  two chambers   sequentially.    The wastes   are  fed  from




storage tanks in  the  vessels  to the combustion system by  means of elec-




trically driven pumps.









      Wastes  are  fed into  the  incinerator when  the  incinerators have




reached the  operating conditions specified in the permit.   The tempera-




ture  of combustion  will be   approximately  1300°C.    The   average  waste




residence  time  in the incinerator will be on  the  order of. one second or




longer.    Presently  existing  incinerator systems  can  process 20  - 25




metric  tons   of wastes  per  hour  (as  opposed to  land-based incinerators




which process up  to 2 - 4 metric tons  per hour).









      The  emissions  resulting  from  the  incineration  of  mixed   liquid




organic compounds consists  primarily  of hydrochloric acid, carbon dio-




xide,  carbon monoxide, and water  vapor with minute  amounts of metallic




oxides, silicate  ash, partially combusted organic compounds and possibly




trace amounts of  surviving  organics.









       During incineration operations,   the ship must  be moving at a rate




of 3 knots  into  the  wind.   This will  keep  the ship  away  from the plume




and help  disperse the exhaust gases.


-------
               .The  plume exiting the  incinerator  stack has  been modeled by  EPA



         during a previous research  burn.  This  model and  the  data from  previous

                                         \

         monitoring studies have shown  that the plume tends to  hit the surface of



         the ocean  as it trails  out  behind the  ship and eventually dissipates to



         undetectable HC1  levels within  3 nautical miles.   The  attached figure



             outlines the plume as described  by HC1 concentrations.
               Other  technologies  have  been proposed  for incineration  at  sea



         which include the  scrubbing  of stack  emissions  with seawater prior  to



         release  to the  environment.    This process  would  remove HC1  and  other



         substances  from the  hot gasses and  release  them directly  into the  sea



         surface  behind the vessel  rather than  emit them  to the  atmosphere.   The



         properties  of sea water  enable it  to  rapidly neutralize the HC1 whether



         it  is released  .directly  into the  sea  or emitted  into  the  atmosphere



         prior to  falling into the  ocean-.






         INCINERATION  SITE DESCRIPTION
         A - General







               The  proposed  North Atlantic  Incineration  Site is  beyond the  Con-



         tinental Shelf and  overlies the upper  Continental Rise  (Figure 1).   The



         center  of  the  site is  140 nautical miles  (nmi) from Delaware Bay,  and



         155 nmi  (290 km) from Ambrose Light (entrance to  New York Harbor).   The



         site  is  oceanic  in nature; it is deep (2,400 to  2,900  meters),  and the



         water  masses  and  biology  of  the  area  more closely resemble the  open
?«T^>7V3r?:r?',;73ri'..,\:",v''V~,'vl'^^rvl7^>T;=T-^y^^-^.-^/r,->:'f.^^rr^^                  ,.---,.-.,—*-.-.-,<-.—,„-.. .-.„.,.,-T...™„.„.__„
•-. M* ;7"v. *J £:. •. -iv.. ..  :.'- '•.Vv.-'. *• •... ••', ;.£>!*>'!•-••-;.;.:;..• *~
-------
                                                                                      v <•;• •*:
                                                                                       .' »• • <•

                                                                                       . V'.v-
                                                                                        • • • v.

                                                                                        * ' **•
                                                               iv
    figure i  . Location of  Proposed lorth ItUntie Incineration Site

Bounded by 38*00'  to  38%0'H Latitudes and 71*50' to 72*30'V Longitudes.

        Distance  fro« Ambrose Light to Center of Site is

-------
ocean to the east, rather than  the  coastal  environment to the west.  The




site is  not a highly productive  biological area and  is  limited in com-




mercial or  recreational  fisheries.   An inactive munitions dump site and




an  inactive  low-level   radioactive waste  dump  site  exist within  the




bt-r.i;risc  of  the site,  but other  types  of wastes have  not been dumped




here.  An Environmental  Impact  Statement  (CIS) has  been prepared for the




site which contains  more detailed information than  that  presented  in




this  plan,  and  should be  consulted   if  additional  information  is




required.








B - Water Masses








      A  water mass  may be  defined  as  a  large  seawater parcel  having




unique  properties  (temperature,  salinity,  and oxygen content)  or  a




unique  relationship  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.   This occurs after formation the water  masses spread at a




depth  determined by  their  density,  relative  to  the vertical density




gradient of the  surrounding water.








      KOAA 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.  Normally the surface

-------
layer of  the site is Slope  Water,  which lies between  less  saline Shelf




Water  to  the west  and  more  saline Gulf  Stream  Water to  the  east.




However,  conditions  change  periodically,  allowing shelf Water  to enter




the site  from the west,  or permitting Gulf Stream Water (in the form of




souv.uoj.Iy  moving Gulf  Stream  eddies)  to be  present  about 20%  of  the




time.








Shelf Waters








      The  waters  overlying  the  Continental  Shelf  of   the  mid-Altantic




Bight  are of  three  general  types:   Hudson  River Plume Water,  surface




Shelf Water,  and bottom Shelf  water.  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  persists  throughout  the  year,  but its extent




and  depth  are highly  dependent  on Hudson  and  Raritan Rivers  flows.




Generally,  the plume  flows southward  between  the New  Jersey coastline




and  the  axis of  Hudson Canyon.  The  plume  direction is sensitive to wind




stress  and reversals  in  the residual flows.   Consequently,  the plumb may




flow eastward  between  the  New  Jersey coastline and  the  axis  of  the




Hudson  Canyon, or it n»/  occasionally split and  flo1  both  eastward and




southward.

-------
      With  the  onset of heavy  river discharges  in the spring,  surface
salinities  in  the  Bight   decrease  and  a  moderate,   haline-maintained
(i.e.,   maintained  by  salinity   differences)  stratification   occurs
initially,  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 isolation  (solar radiation)  increase the
strength of  the  stratification and  cause  it to undergo a rapid  transi-
tion  (usually within a  month)  from a haline-maintained  to a thermal-
maintained   (i.e.,  maintained  by  temperature  .differences)  condition.
This  two-layer  system  becomes  fully  developed  and  reaches  maximum
strength by August.

      Surface Shelf water  is characterized by  moderate salinity and high
temperature.   During the  winter, water  is essentially  vertically ..omo-
geneous  over most 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.   A
"cool  cell"  (having a  temperature typically  less  than 10°C)  of  the
bottom  Shelf Water  layer  has been  observed  to entended 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  surface layers
have  reached the  summer  temperature maximum.  The  cool cell may  be sur-
rounded  on  all sides  by warmer water.
                  .  •&
      The  upper layer of  the  bottom Shelf  water is  usually  between  30
and  100m  deep  in the  summer.    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 Hater  is replenished  is

presently under study.


Slope waters


      Slope Water  is  a highly complex, dynamic body of  water represent-

ing  an area  of mixing  between  Shelf Waters  and  Gulf  Stream.    Shelf

waters  border  the slope  water  on  the  north and  west,  and the  Gulf

Stream, which  forms the eastern and  southern  boundary.   These boundaries

(frontal  zones) are  not  stationary,  but  migrate  seaward and  landward

when the Gulf  Stream  shifts its axis during meanderings.
     %

      The  Gulf  Stream frequently  meanders  in such  a  way   that  anti-

cyclonic  (clockwise)  loops of  current are formed.  Occasionally,  these

loops  detach and  form  separate entities,  known  as eddies.   The eddies

are  rings  of Gulf Stream  Water surrounding a  core  of  warm Sargasso Sea

Water  (which  originates  to the east  of the Gulf Stream), or trapped Gulf

Stream  Water.   Great amounts of  this  water may be  advected to depths as

great  as 800  to 1,000m.    After detachment the eddies  may migrate into

the  Slope  Water region, usually  in  a  southwesterly  direction.  In addi-

tion,  the  eddies  may  interact with  Shelf Water,   causing considerable

disturbances  in the water  within the  proposed  site  region.  While there

appears to be no seasonal  pattern in the occurrence of these eddies, the

region of  the proposed Incineration Site may  contain  an eddy 20% of the

-------
time,  which is  either  quasi-stationary or  migrating,  and capable  of




occupying  the  entire site.   The eddies  dissipate or are  reabsorbed  by




the Gulf Stream, usually in the region of Cape  Hatteras.








      Like many deepwater  oceanic regions,  the water of  Slope Water can




be divided into three  general layers: the upper or surface layer (where




variability  is  great), the near-surface thermocline region  (where  tem-




perature 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  Hay 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  water  is  the Gulf Stream a moving current




with core  velocities 200 cm/3 (3.9 Xn) or greater.  The Gulf Stream is a




continuation of the Florida Current  (a northward-flowing current extend-




ing  from Florida  to Cape Hatteras),   flowing northeastward  from  the  Con-




tinental  Slope off  Cape Hatteras to  each of the  Grand Banks.   The  Gulf

-------
   Stream  meanders througout  this region  over great horizontal distances




   north  of Cap  Hatteras.   Occasionally,  the Gulf  Stream cuts  through a




   meander  neck,  much  like  reiver 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 distinct-




   ly 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




   either   dissipate   or  join  the Gulf Stream  in  the  vicinity of  Cape




   Hatteras.  The Gulf Stream may  also from  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 Stream




   and  is  not  to be  found  at the Incineration  Site.    It  should be noted




   that  warm-core eddies  are not  simply near-surface phenomenons.   The




   thermal  and  rotational characteristics are often manifested near  the sea




   bottom,  in water depths  of  thousands of meters.








C - Current  Regimes








         Well-defined  circulation  patterns   are  unknown  in  the   surface




   layers  of the  Slope water  region  in which the proposed site is located.




   Paucity   of  long-term  current  records,   in addition to  large   natural




   variabilities, limit  the usefulaness of  estimates of mean currents  for




    this  region.  * The westward-flowing  Labrador  Current loses its distinc-




    tiveness somewhat west,  of  the  Grand Ban/is.   Current measurements have

-------
been made  by several researchers, using neutrally-buoyant floats,  para-




chute  drogues,  and  moored current  meters  in the  region of  the  Shelf




Break  and  Slope,  south of New  England.   The mean currents  in this area




are  generally of  the order  of 10  to  20 cm/a  westward, following  the




bottom bathymetry.   This  direction is similar to the  direction taken by




currents over the Continental Shelf.








      Along  the northern boundary  of  the Slope,  Slope  Waters flow slowly




to the  southwest,  following  the bathymetry  to Cape Hatteras,  where  the




water  mass turns  and flows seaward,  joining the Gulf  Stream.   Evidence




of a slow  northeastward flow along the Gulf Stream  in the southern part




of  the Slope Water  region was also  found.   The Gulf Stream  and  Shelf




Water  from a cul-de-sac near Cape Hatteras,  and while some interchange




of wa^er occurs across these boundaries,  most of the  water  entering the




Slope Water  region from the east probably  exists along the same path.








      The  presence  of a deepwater counterclockwise  (cyclonic)  gyre sys-




tem  is located  between  the  Continental  Shelf  and Gulf Stream.   This




system  transport  as  much  as  10? m^/s of water through the region of the




proposed Incineration Site (equivalent to the volume  of  500 Mississippi




Rivers).








      The  mean  surface  current   speed  is  25  cm/s  near the  proposed




Incineration Site.   The direction of the flow  is either east-northeast




or south-southwest.

-------
RATIONAL FOR MONITORING PROGRAM









      Previous  sections  of  this document  have described  the types  of




materials expected to be emitted into the area  of the Incineration  Site,




the  basic  environment of  the  site and  the basic  effects of possible




emission-related materials on the marine environment.









      This monitoring  plan incorporates these  three issues into a sam-




pling  and  analysis  scheme  designed to detect  incineration products  in




the environment and  to access the potential for resultant  effects.  The




plan contains:  procedures for sampling air  to  determine  plume locations




and  to determine air concentrations  of  unburned wastes  or incineration




products;  procedures  for  sampling  surface   water for  detection  of




unburned wastes or incineration  products  (includes  water, phytoplankton,




and  zooplankton);  determination  of ATP,  chlorophyll and  pH  in  surface




waster  at  the site;  and collection of  zooplankton  and other  indigenous




species  for  determination of  bioconcentration  of waste  materials  or




incineration  products.   There  will also  be  constant  observation  for




threatened  and  endangered  species.   Additional  tests  will  be  incor-




porated into  the monitoring plan as they  are shown  to be  useful based on




ongoing and planned  research  activities.









       Monitoring activities  will be conducted  in an exploratory  mode at




first  and  will largely be directed by  the  results  of  research  which is




being  conducted by  EPA.   Methods are  currently  being  developed  for

-------
collecting  incinerator emissions for  laboratory aquatic  toxicity test-




ing.   Once this  method  is  developed,  tests can  be conducted  during




research  burns,  trials burns  and  during  normal  operation of  at-sea




incinerators  to determine if and what effects  are caused by  the emis-




sions on various aquatic test species.  These  tests could then be run on




indigenous  species to  determine which  are the  most sensitive  species and




what are the effects that  could be monitored in  the environment.  EPA is




also conducting research  to better  chemically define the  substances in




the emissions. • The results of  these  tests will yield  information des-




cribing what  specific  substances and biological effects  should be moni-




tored  in  the environment.  Air  and aquatic  transport models  are also




being  developed and verified  for future  use  in describing  plume loca-




tion.








      The results  of these research  activities will be incorporated into




this monitoring plan as they become available and  monitoring activities




will be altered accordingly.








      Although  these separate outputs  from this  research program will be




useful  in developing  a meaningful monitoring  program for  the  site, the




major  product  of  these research activities  is the  development  of an




aquatic risk  assessment for  emissions from  at sea  incineration.  During




the  research,  dose-response  tests will  be  conducted by  dosing various




organisms with rea"1 emissions at several concentrations  and noting the




levels  necessary  to  cause  measurable adverse toxicological or behavioral




effects.   By combining this dose-response information with the expected

-------
environmental  concentrations  of  the  emissions  based   upon   dilution




models, a risk assessment will be conducted to estimate  the  possibility




of environmental  concentrations  of emissions reaching levels capable  of




causing adverse effects.   The  rate of incineration at the site would  be




dictated by the possibility  of causing effects and the monitoring  acti-




vities will  be used  to ensure  that these effects are  not being  mani-




fested at the site.    The dose-response  tests  will be  run using  both




acute and long term chronic  and bioaccumulation bioassays.   These  tests




will provide more meaningful information  and require  less resources than




implementing  a  major  monitoring effort  to  try  to  identify  chronic




effects down stream from  the incineration site.








      This monitoring  program  will use the initial risk  assessment as a




null  hypothesis  and  attempt to observe  effects or elevated, concentra-




tions  of  emissions  products in  the environment.   As information  from




these  monitoring  activities  and additional  research  studies  becomes




available,  the initial risk  assessment  will  be  updated  and   the  site




managed accordingly.   Any time  that the  rate of emissions entering the




site  exceeds  what  could  adverse effects,  incineration activities  could




be reduced in  frequency or the site  closed.








STRUCTURE OF THE  MONITORING  PLAN








       The overall strategy of  the monitoring plan is  to make full use of




ongoing   monitoring  and   research   activities,  such  as   the  Northeast




Monitoring  Program  (NEMP)  of  the  National  Marine  Fisheries  Service

-------
(KMFS), and the Iricineration-at-sea  research program developed by EPA to




the extent  feasible and to  supplement these with such  additional moni-




toring operations  as  may be needed to obtain all  the necessary informa-




tion to assure EPA that incineration at the site  is safe.  It is recog-




nized th~t parts of the  monitoring plan as  initially implemented must be




conducted  in  an  exploratory  mode   to  identify  those  techniques  and




measurements  which are  most scientifically valid and cost  effective in




obtaining the necessary  information.








      The monitoring  plan itself consists  of a hierarchy of  monitoring




activities  which have  the structure  presented  pictorially in  Figure 3




and summarized  in Table I.   This structure may be  regarded  as showing




the  time  and  space  relationship  of  the  components  of  the  monitoring




plan, going  from sampling at the time and  place  of  incineration to t'ide




geographic  studies of marine resources over a long  period of  time.  The




purpose of  each of  these components  of  the overall  monitoring program




may be described as follows.








A - Compliance Monitoring








      The purpose  of  compliance monitoring is to  assure that  the permit




conditions  are  being met.   This  involves  sampling the  waste  in the




vessel  before it is loaded  and monitoring  combustion efficiency onboard




the  vessel.   These  are conditions  of  individual  permits  and  must be




conducted by the Permittee.   Compliance  Monitoring can also be though to




include activities conducted during  trial or research burns for specific



vessels and wastes.

-------
                                Table 1
                       Overall Monitoring Program
                           Sampling Location
Type of Monitoring             Time Scale             Purpose

Compliance Monitoring     Disposal site; during       To assure that
                          disposal operations         permit conditions
                                                      and combustion
                                                      efficiency are
                                                      being met

Near-field Monitoring     Disposal site; during and   Monitor short-
                          up to 24-48 hrs. after      term impacts;
                          disposal operations         follow dispersion
                                                      and diffusion
                                                      characteristics of
                                                      the plume

Par-field Monitoring      Wide geographic area;       Determine move-
                          long -term, periodic         merit of combustion
                          sampling                    products

Marine Resource           Wide geographic area;       Determine long-
 Monitoring               long-term, periodic         range  impacts  and
                          sampling                    trends associated
                                                      with health/
                                                      availability of
                                                      marine resources
 Ocean  Process             Wide  geographic  area;        Monitor progres-
 Monitoring               long-term,  periodic          aive changes in
                          sampling                     physical,  chemi-
                                                       cal , biological
                                                       char acter i st ic s

-------


-------
B - Near-field Monitoring








      The  purpose  of near-field monitoring  is to follow  the  dispersion




and diffusion of the discharge plume until it is  no  longer identifiable




so as  to assess the magnitude of  immediate  impacts of incineration on




the  marine environment as  described  in  the initial  risk  assessment.




This  involves  taking chemical, physical,  and biological  samples  in the




area  immediately impacted  by the  stack plume or scrubber  effluent.   The




time period for such measurements will  depend on  the  characteristics and




length  of the  incineration  activity and weather conditions, but  will




generally  be on  the order  of the length  of burning  and 24-48  hours




afterwards.








      The  approach  will  be  to make transects across  the  air/sea  dis-




charge  plume for  as long as  the  plume can  be  identified,  either  vis-




ually,  by parameters  that can be  determined rapidly  on  shipboard,  by




tracers,  or by  prediction  of diffusion  based  on calculated diffusion




rates.








      Sampling  locations will  be  determined using a mathematical model




developed  for  EPA  in 1978 and models  currently  being  modified.   These




models  will be  useful in  defining locations where  the  plume  from the



stack should be.    More  information  describing  the 1978 model  can be




found in:

-------
U.S. EPA, Environmental Assessment; At-Sea and  Land  Based Incineration




of Organochlorine Wastes.  EPA-600/2-78-087,  April 1978.








Figure  2  shows an example  of an HC1  isopleth  "footprint" at  sea  level




determined from the previous  studies.








      Chemical  and  physical  parameters  to be  determined will be  those




standard oceanographic  measurements necessary to characterize  the  water




masses  and  determine stratification,  and  to  determine if emission sub-




stances  reach detectable  levels in  the environment.   Sampling extent




will be based on the  predicted behavior of  the aerial plume, and will




generally be at the surface.








      Bioloi ical studies  will include neuston and plankton  sampling for




chemical  body burden analysis  and the  search   for  effects  as dictated




from  direct  toxicity  testing  of  the emissions in ongoing  laboratory




bioassay  research.   There  will be constant  observation  for  endangered




species  during monitoring  cruises,  and the principle  food  source  of




these  organisms (i.e.,  squid)  will  be sampled and  analyzed for  body




burden  information.








      Sampling  transects  will be  centered  in  the area estimated  to  be




contacted by  the areal plume or in  the plume  from scrubber  discharge,




and will  extend beyond the detectable limits of the plume.   The actual




sampling patterns run will depend on  the size of the plume,  the tract of




the  incineration  vessel and  on  weather  conditions  during the  sampling.

-------
                                                                      ^slv V* **, ',  -, «
                                                                    N y 5f ^""V -. > N    >
                                                                   i>-£,v^r'  '>,
IO( *1KMoitKM e> motctm
MI • KUA UVM COHI*CI
                    ICKAIKM W HUMOI0
                    WI>tu«ABI U
                                OIHANCI
COMCIM<»llONIItltl«f»
CMMAIIMUUM4IIVU
COMCIMKtIIONt
               Figure J,  .   Flusie Dispersal  (H/T VULCAMUS) Gulf of Mexico
                        Research Incinerations, Research Burn  II
ROTE:  During actual incineration, the  gaseous plume is virtually colorless and invisible

-------
                        'if



The intent will  be  to follow the diffusion  of  the plume over as wide an




area as possible, both  to observe  impacts from  the incineration products




and  to map the  extent  of  the  plume as  it  disperse.   Sampling station




spacing  will be  variable  depending  on the rate of  spreading  of  the




plume*   Stations will be  spaced  closely near  the  incinerator,  and then




will be spread out as the plume diffuses.








C - Far-field Monitoring








       Much  of  the far-field  monitoring will necessarily  be exploratory




in  nature in the  initial  stages  of the program.   The objective  is to




determine  whether any  of the unburned  wastes  of HC1  discharged  at the.




site  are  transported  in  detectable  quantities  outside  the  dumpsite,




in  which direction  they move, and whether  there is  any potential for




wastes to  reach  shore or cause adverse  impacts outside the  incineration




site itself.








       Planning  of the  far-field  monitoring program  is based upon know-




ledge  of  the  large  scale  transport mechanisms affecting the site and the




parameters  to  be  monitored.   Mathematical  modelling  of   the overall




transport  processes provides  the  basis  for  predicting far-field trans-




port  of unburned wastes  discharged  a  the site.  An initial selection of




sampling  stations  is  made based  on the mathematical  modelling predic-




tions; adjustments will  be made in sampling station numbers, locations,




and frequency of sampling when field  data  from near field studies etc.,




indicate changes would  result in  more  appl-c^ie aat.a  (see figure 5).

-------
fy« 5
 0
am ie;  oT  f&r

-------
Specific  long term  effects to  be monitored  in the  far  field will  be




determined  during  near  field   testing   and   during  ongoing  bioassay




research with emissions.








      The  program will  be directed  toward assessing three  aspects  of




transport  of  materials  from  the incineration  site:    (1)  movement  of




floatable  materials;  (2)  movement of materials  entrained in  the  water




column; and (3) movement of substances in  air.








(1)   Movement of Floatable Materials








      Surface drifters  will be  deployed at the time  of each  monitoring




survey  by EPA.   These will  be post cards placed in  sealed  plastic bags




to be filled  out with time  and place  finding and returned  to EPA through




the  mail.  This  is  a simple, but effective,  technique for determining




surface water movement over a  long period  of time.








      Several thousand  cards will be  cast  into  the area   where  the




incineration  plume  contacts   the  sea  surface  at the beginning of  the




monitoring survey;  these  will help to mark the area during  near-field




monitoring phases of the  operation.   To  the extent  feasible, the areal




extent  and direction of movement  of the cards  will  be determined at the




conclusion of near field monitoring.

-------
      While  drift cards  will  provide useful  information  in the  near




field monitoring  phase,  their  primary purpose is  to determine  to  what




extent materials  contacting surface waters  may be driven  toward shore-




lines and beaches by wind-driven transport.








(2)   Movement of Materials Entrained  in the Water  Column








      Transport of  emissions materials away from  the  incineration  site




toward coastal areas  is  a matter  of primary  concern in  the  far-field




monitoring  activities.  Any such  materials  would  likely be  transported




in  the near surface  mixed layer of the ocean down  to the seasonal ther-




mocline when it exists.








      This  aspect of  the  monitoring  program  will  be accomplished  by




occupying  a series  of stations  surrounding the  incineration site  and




sampling for persistent constituents  of the  emissions.  Sampling will be




done  below  the themocline,  at or slightly above  the  thermocline, and at




three additional  levels between the thermocline and the surface.   Satel-




lite  imagery   will   also  be  useful  in   describing  surface  current




patterns.








      Parameters  to  be measured will  be  determine by  using  the  Permit-




tees  analysis  of  wastes  loaded  on  the   ship,   near-field  monitoring




results  and. trial burn emissions results.   Very  large volume samples of

-------
    the water  will be taken  to lower  the  detection limits  for  organic .sub-


    stance and  increase  accuracy.  Aquatic dispersion models will  be devel-


    oped  and verified using  these data  and the  results of various ongoing


    research studies.





    (3)   Movement of Unburned Waste and HC1 in Air





          In order to assess  the  movement of  the plume in  air,  high volume


    air samples  will be  collected in  the area of the plume  and  during tran-


    sit to and  from  shore for HC1 analysis or analysis of plume  tracers, and


    for emission-related substances.   Air  sampling may also be  conducted on


    shore in areas where  the plume may  contact land.  These activities and


    other research activities will be used to develop and verify air disper-
                >         *                         •            '

    sion- models.





    D - Marine  Resource  Monitoring





          The purpose  of marine resource monitoring is to determine if there


    are long range impacts on health and/or availability of  marine  resources


    in  the  areas surrounding the  site as  a  result of the waste discharges.


    This  involves periodic  sampling of  harvestable living  marine  resources


    and the  food webs  which support them, and the collection at  a network of


    fixed stations,  of chemical, physical,  and biological data  which may be


    indicative  of long  range environmental trends.   This  will  be  done as a


    continuing  program over a very large geographic area including  locations


    ui.ili'Kely t.c  be ir.j.-arted by wistt discharges.
!?:!S^^                                                  : • :..-..-.•:.,-.-1- ::•. ^iv^v-v-.-.--; -••>~-™ir^--r*

-------
      Part of the overall NOAA ocean research and monitoring program  is




to develop  a data base,  through long-term monitoring,  that will  allow




the assessment of the effects of pollutants on ecosystems and resources,




and will enable early detection of and response to significant  environ-




ment changes.








      By drawing  upon several  ocean related elements  of  NOAA an  inte-




grated program has evolved which provide a system of physical, chemical,




and biological  monitoring at selected stations  in  waters  of the  north-




east Continental  Shelf  from the Gulf  of  Maine to Cape Hatteras.   Moni-




toring approaches  include both standard measurements of physical-chemi-




cal  factors,  including  contaminant  levels,  and  newer  approaches  to




biological effects monitoring,  using behavioral, physiological,  biochem-




ical,  pathological,  and  genetic criteria.   This  program is  designated




the  Northeast Monitoring  Program  (NEMP).   The  program emphasizes  the




development  of  products essential  to  meet the  objectives  of State  and




Federal  programs  concerned with fisheries and fisheries habitat manage-




ment,  general marine  environmental quality,  and  coastal  zone  manage-




ment.








      The  NEMP program  monitors  variables  of  importance  to  fisheries




resources  management  and  pollution  .assessment  at  approximately  140




stations along  the Continental  Shelf  from Cape Hatteras to  the Gulf  of




Maine.    Special  emphasis  is  given  to  nearshore  stations  affected  by




waste  discharges.
     ^~^.^^

-------
      A  critical aspect  of the  program is  the selection  of a  proper

array  of variables  to be  monitored.    Several international,  Federal,

State, regional,  and local agencies have in  the past recommended moni-

toring activities for  site-  or problem-specific reasons.   Such  recom-

mendations were  highlighted as priority needs in  the  Federal Plan  for

Ocean Pollution  Research,  Development and Monitoring and in task  forces

within the  Council on Environmental  Quality  (CEQ).  Variables  measured

were  selected  because of their impacts  on  resource organisms and human

health,  or  because  they  serve as  indicators  of contamination or  pro-

cesses leading to it.  Many  of the variables  selected  were recommended

by  NOAA  research programs  following consideration of  the  results  of

several  years  of research and  monitoring in  the region by  the  Interna-

tional Council for the Exploration of  the  Sea (ICES) workshop  on moni-
                       '         •
toring  of  biological  effei ts  of  marine  pollution,  and  by  a  UNESCO

(GESAMP)  working group  concerned with  similar problems.   The list  of

variables will be evaluated  and  modified  as  the significance  of addi-

tional variables or  indicators is understood,  and  it will  be  amended if

experience  shows some variables  to be  less important or sensitive than

anticipated.   Interaction between research and monitoring  components of

the program will provide  the  principal guidance for addition or deletion

of variables.



       In addition to  the  selection of  variables to be  monitored, it is

important that monitoring be  conducted  at appropriate locations and time

intervals.   Monitoring sites that are located  near major  estuaries have

-------
been designated as  fixed  sites  at which specific contaminants  are  moni-




tored on a  regular  basis.   Heavy metals in sediment  and water  vary sea-




sonally; thus  it is  important that  such variables  be  monitored  quar-




terly.  Guidance  provided  by discipline review committees has  suggested




that  ecological  measurements  involving  benthic  community  structure




should  be  made only  twice  a year.   Plankton  measurements must be  made




frequently  to  understand  temporal  and  spatial  variability.    Initial




biological  effects  monitoring measurements are  made  quarterly, and  for




certain variables more frequently*








      Stations  that are located offshore  over  the Continental Shelf have




been  selected  to  represent specific habitat types or are  representative




areas likely to be affected  by major  environmental events.   Measurements




made  a  these  stations  reflect general  dispersion and  movement of  low




levels  of  contaminants from the  coastal zone  to  the Shelf  and  beyond.




Since  only limited  information  exists  on the  generalized  patterns  of




movement of specific contaminants,  offshore  stations have  been  located




within  selected bathymetrie regimes.   An exception   to this  is the 106-




Mile  Dumpsite,  located off  the Continental Shelf,  which is  affected by




present or  past dumping,  and may receive increase amounts  of  wastes in




the near future.








      The  NEMP monitoring   area  includes that part  of the  Continental




Shelf included in the area  near  the  106-Mile  Dumpsite and  the  nearshore




and. estuarine  areas  important  for  fishery propagation  and use.    The




results of  the NEMP are maae available to Federal  and State agencies and

-------
to  the public  through a  series  of  reports  and meetings.   An  annual




report  is  prepared which summarizes  the  monitoring results  in  terms of




water  quality,  sediment quality,  biological effects, and  resource con-




tamination.   The  past reports  of the NEMP  provide a baseline  against




which  to  measure future impacts of  incineration on marine  resources in




the Northeast coastal  waters of  the United States.








E - Ocean Process  Monitoring








      The  purpose of  ocean monitoring is to  maintain  an  awareness of




progressive  changes  in ocean water movement  and  chemical and biological




characteristics  of ocean water  that  may  effect use of the  site  and the




fate of wastes discharged  there.   The involves determining the formation




and  decayed  of seasonal'.thermoclines over a  large  area  and Gulf Stream




eddies,  and  changes  in the characteristics  affecting the site.   In a




pragmatic  sense,  this is  the  crossover between basic research  on ocean




processes  and application of  this   research  in solving  practical pro-




blems.








       The  diffusion,  dispersion,  transport  and  ultimate fate  of waste




materials  is controlled to a  large  extent by physical processes in the




ocean.  Among  the features and processes  which could affect what happens




to  wastes  incinerated at these  sites  are  estuarine effluent  plumes,




upwelling,   warm   core rings  and Gulf  Stream meanders,  meterological




fronts, density  stratification,  the  cold  pool, and bottom currents.

-------
      Effluent plumes  from the bays estuaries,  and rivers are  signifi-




cant  present  or  potential  sources  of  pollutants,  or  as   features




influencing distributional patterns of pollutants.  Plume configurations




are complex  and dynamic,  varying significantly  in time  scales  ranging




from  tidal  to  seasonal.    Upwelling  has  been  detected  and  reported




seasonally present along  the  Virginia.- New Jersey  Coastline, and  in




other areas.








MONITORING OPERATIONS








A - Baseline and Control Sampling








      Baseline  studies will be conducted before any actual  monitoring




begins.  The baseline  study will  attempt  to determine  conditions present




at the site  before incineration operations are  conducted  on a continuous




basis.   This preliminary  sampling is  required to  establish  statistical




variability  in  data and to serve  as a "control"  situation.  Other "con-




trol" samples will be  collected during normal monitoring  operations from




locations  upstream and upwind  from incineration activities.








      Baseline  cruises  will  collect  samples  in  the site  (near-field




area) and around  the  site (far-field  area).    Samples of  air,  water and




plankton will be  collected.

-------
      High  volume  air samples  will be analyzed  for  trace organics  and




HC1.








      water  samples  will be collected  for  organics analysis using  high




volume water samplers which  draw over 1,000 liters of sea water through




polyeurethane  foam  plugs  (figure  6).   Other  water  samples  will  be




analyzed for trace metals, chlorophyll,-and ATP content  (or other appro-




priate  parameters  as described in results of  direct emission  toxicity




testing), and for the basic physical and chemical characteristics of  the




water.








      Neuston  (organisms  living  on  the  air-sea  interface)   will  be




collected  and  analyzed  for  trace  organics and  metals  and  appropriate




toxicological  parameters,  and  identified  to  species  where  possible.




Plankton will similarly  be collected from a depth just above  the thermo-




cline.








      Current  will be  determined using drift  cards, satellite imagery




and other methods.








      Observers  will be stationed  on  the  survey vessel during baseline




cruises  to  identify  and log  all  sitings  of endangered  or  threatened




species.   This  information  will be used in the assessment of endangered




species occurrence at the site.


-------
                                    ea.  Stsr -pa. <. e
€-
tfljl-Vt/l
 v
                             V

-------
B - Tier I









      when incineration activities  are  initiated at a site,  Tier I moni-




toring will  begin.   This will  consist of an  intensive  sampling program




directed toward near-field activities.   Far-field and  other activities




will  be  taking place, but  the  primary goal of  Tier I is to assess the




impact of  the incinerator plume  on the site where it is  most likely to




be detected.   This will  require:  sampling air, water,  and  organisms in




the plume  area in  a  manner similar to  that in the  baseline cruise and




observation  of endangered  species  in  the  site  and surrounding  area.




Samples would also be taken  from a "control" area.  The  goal of Tier I




sampling is  to  verify  the initial risk  assessment prepared by EPA and to




assure that  no environmental effects or emissions .concentrations can be




detected.   Tier  I  monitoring  cruises  should  be  conducted  at  the site




quarterly.








C - Tier II








      If no  impacts are  noted  in  Tier  I,  and  no  elevations in chlori-




nated organics  or metals  levels in water or  tissue are  observed, Tier I




will continue  to  be implemented during monitoring cruises.  If, however,




possibly  elevated  contaminant  levels  or effects  are observed,  Tier II




will  be put  into place.   Tier  II will  include extensive far-field moni-




toring in  addition to the Tier I monitoring.   EPA will need to evaluate




the resultant data to determine if permit modifications are required or




if the u:~e cf  V:s sl-tt-: cr.vjld be  terminated.

-------
      By  using  this tiered  approach,  resources  can  be directed  toward




the area where they can be used most effectively.








D - Survey Design and Quality Control/Quality Assurance








      The  actual  location of  sampling  (stations),  times  of  sampling




(seasonal), and  other  design parameters will be determined  using  model-




ling approaches  coupled with resource  limitations*   The design will  be




such  that true  deviations from  normal background  occurrences will  be




detectable at a known  level.  Data will be  of a known quality based upon




a  QA plan  with duplicate analyses, blank samples, spike   samples  and




standards.    Results  of  preliminary   sampling  and  analysis  (baseline




studies  etc.)  will  be  used  to  establish  variability  estimates  and




ongoing research will  be  used in developing the framework  for the  chemi-




cal and toxicological  tests which will  be used.


-------
    Calculation of Carrying Capacity of the NAIS for PCBs


equation;
           (1-D)
          volume of top 20 meters of site in liters
      F = flushing rate of site in hours
          (length of site/surface current)

      C = water quality criterion (g/1)

      D = DE (0.999999) for PCBs

      X = max amount of waste (g/hr) incinerated to
          research C

and for PCBs:

      V = 4.250 !L?- x 20m
        = 4.25 x 109 m2 x 20m
        = 8.5 x 10 10 m3 x 103 1/m3
        = 8.5 x 1013 liters

      F = 40 nmi - 25 cm/sec
        = 74 x 103m - .25 m/sec
        = 74 x 103m - 900 m/hr
        = 81.7 hours

      C = PCB water quality criterion (wqc) =
          0.03 ug/1
        = 3 x 10"B g/1

      D = 0.999999

SO   '

      X = 8.5 x 1013 (1) x 3 x IP"8 (g/1)
          IxlO'6 x 81.7 (hours)

        51 25.2 x 105 grams   = 0.31 x 10 11 g/hour
          81.7 x 10~6 hours

        = 3.1 x 1010 g/hr
        = 3.1 x 104 metric tons/hr of PCBs burned

-------
and
     if
      1.
      2.
          ship  burns  25 metric  tons of waste/hour
          waste is  <35 percent  PCBs
then
      1.  ship burns about 8 metric tons of  PCBs  per hour
conclusion
            8  metric tons/hr  is  0.026  percent  of  the  calculated
            maximum of  3.1  x  104 mt/hr and  3875 vessels could
            be operating  at the  same time without meeting water
            quality criterion.

            ojr  emissions from one vessel are  over  4  orders.
                of magnitude  below EPA wqc.

           and  The calculation  in Narragansett model shows
                that at 30m down wind, the  highest  estimate
                is 0.06 mg/1, thus estimating  the concentration
                to be over 3  orders of magnitude  below wqc.
                                     g/i
                  .wqc = 0.03 ug/1
                       = 0.03 x  10~6
Narragansette estimate = 0.06 ng/1
                       = 0/06 x  10~9  g/1
         difference    = between 2  and  3  orders  of  magnitude

Thus;  both estimates are similar

     Narragansett model = 2 to 3 orders of  magnitude below wqc.
     Carrying capacity equation  = 4 to  5  orders  of  magnitude below wqc


-------
                                                I 0 |Qer
                                                   1 ^uj

Mr. William G. Gordon
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Washington, D.C.  20235

Dear Mr. Gordon:

     The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
issue research permits to incinerate chemical wastes at sea.
The permits will be effective for a six month period and will
authorize the applicants to participate in research activities
that have been designed by EPA.  A total of two test burns are
proposed to be conducted at either the proposed North Atlantic
Incineration Site or a site approximately 155 nautical miles
east of Daytona Beach, Florida.  The burns are designed to
evaluate environmental impacts of ocean incineration as well
as conduct research on technical and operational aspects of
ocean incineration.  Our action authorizes research activities
only.  Permits for  commercial operations will not be issued
until a regulatory regime for ocean incineration is in place.

     Emission of hazardous waste are expected to be minimal.
We expect that each permittee will  achieve a destruction
efficiency, of 99.9999Z.  Based on the volumes, needed to conduct
the research burns and expected PCB concentrations, we have
calculated that less than 0.25 gallons (0.95 liters) of PCB's
will enter the atmosphere during the 38 days that are needed
to conduct the research.  This is equivalent to about 25 ml
per day which will be dispersed in the atmosphere and ocean
waters.  Furthermore, we have concluded from a model developed
by our Narragansett Laboratory that uses conservative assump-
tions that there will be no impact on endangered or threatened
species.

     Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Engangered Species Act of
1973 (ESA), the Environmental Protection Agency must, in consul-
tation with the Secretary of Commerce, ensure that that its
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of endangered or threatened marine species or result in adverse
modification of critical habitats of such species.  To fulfill
our Section 7(a) obligations, we have prepared a biological
assessment which analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed
test incineration burns on all listed species which occur in
the project areas.  Based upon that assessment (copy enclosed)
we have determined that the proposed activity will not affect
any endangered or threatened species under NMFS jurisdiction.

-------
                              -2-
     If you have questions or comments concerning the proposed
action or the enclosed document,  please contact Dave Redford
at 755-9231 or Darrell Brown at 382-7166.
                                  Tudor Davies, Director
                                  Office of Marine and
                                  Estuarine Protection

-------
                                 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                                 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                                 NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
                                 Washington. D.C. 20235
                                 SEP 1 3 1985
F/M41:PAC
Dr. Tudor Davies
Director
Office of Marine and
  Estaurine Protection
United States Environmental
  Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Dr. Davies:

Thank you for your letter of  September  4,  1985,  concerning the
Environmental Protection Agency's  (EPA)  proposal to issue
research permits authorizing  incineration  of  chemical wastes at
sea.

We have reviewed the biological  assessment forwarded with your
letter pursuant to Section 7  of  the  Endangered Species Act.
Based upon that review, we find  that the assessment adequately
addresses the potential impacts  to endangered and threatened
marine ?.;pecies associated with  incineration of chemical wastes at
sea.

The assessment indicates that at least  99.99  percent of the
organic substances in the waste  will be  destroyed through the
incineration process (99.9999 percent for  PCB's).  Based upon
that projected destruction efficiency rate and the small number
of test incineration burns (a total  of  two) being authorized, we
concur with your determination  that  the  proposed activity will
not affect any endangered or  threatened  species  under the
jurisdiction of the National  Marine  Fisheries Service (NMFS).

This concludes EPA's Section  7  consultation responsibilities
concerning issuance of the subject permits authorizing test
incineration burns in the North  and/or  South  Atlantic.  However,
the designation of sites for  long-term  at-sea incineration
activities in the North and South Atlantic will  require
initiation of formal consultation.   The  NMFS  recommends that EPA
consider its Section 7 responsibilities  early in the designation
process so that activities are  not delayed.   Appropriate times to
initiate the consultation process are during  the NEPA scoping
process or during the development of a  Draft  Environmental Impact
Statement.  Initiation of consultation  early  in  the designation


-------
process would enable NMFS to provide EPA with a complete list of
species that occur in a proposed project area, and would provide
NMFS an opportunity to identify high-use habitats in the project
area that may be important to listed species.  This also would
allow NMFS to provide EPA with the most current and best
available scientific information concerning listed species and
their habitat within and near the project area.  I look forward
to earlier and closer coordination on projects and permits in the
future.  If you have any questions or need additional information
concerning this matter, please contact Pat Carter, Office of
Protected Species and Habitat Conservation, NMFS, Washington,
D.C. 20235 (FTS 634-7529).

                               Sincerely,
                               William G.
                               Assistant Adminstrator
                                 for Fisheries

-------