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
------- |