UJ
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE
OCEAN DUMPING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
FINAL
SEPTEMBER 1978
SEWAGE SLUDGE
DUMP S/TE
PROPOSED
NORTHERN
AREA
'PROPOSEDX
SOUTHERN
AREA
200
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10007
-------
United States Region 2 New Jersey, New York
Environmental Protection 26 Federal Plaza Puerto Rico
A9encV New York NY 10007 Virgin Islands
£EPA
September 29, 1978
To All Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups, and Citizens:
Enclosed for your review is the final Environmental Impact Statement on
Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in the New York Bight.
Ocean dumping of sewage sludge has been the subject of much discussion
in recent years, especially in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area.
Continuing public concern about the environmental effects of sludge
dumping, and about the feasibility of implementing land-based disposal
methods in the metropolitan area by the end of 1981, led EPA to reexamine
its recommendation in the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that
use of the existing dump site continue on an interim basis.
The results of this reexamination are set forth in detail in the final
EIS. Basically, they confirm EPA's finding in the draft EIS that the
existing site is not a threat to public health or water quality, and
can reasonably continue in use provided that it is closely monitored
and that an alternate site is available should monitoring ever indicate
the need for relocation. Since there is no present need for relocation,
immediate use of an alternate site would result in the unnecessary
contamination of still another area of the New York Bight. In addition
to reexamining the present situation, the final EIS explains the steps
that EPA is taking to insure that sludge dumping is phased out by
December 31, 1981, a deadline that has progressed from a matter of EPA
policy to a legal requirement under the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act.
The thirty-day review period for final EISs begins the day you receive
this EIS. If you have any comments, please send them to the attention
of Michael P. Bonchonsky, Acting Chief, Environmental Impacts Branch.
At your service,
EckardfC. Be
Regional Administratoi
Enclosure
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE OCEAN DUMPING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
SEPTEMBER 1978
Prepared by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York 10007
Approved by:
Eckardt C. Beck Date
Regional Administrator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title ' Page
I SUMMARY 1
OVERVIEW 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 3
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 3
RECOMMENDED ACTION 4
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER INTERESTED
PARTIES FROM WHOM COMMENTS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED ...... 5
II BACKGROUND 17
THE NEW YORK BIGHT 17
Geographic Description of the New York Bight 17
Existing Dump Sites in the New York Bight 17
OCEAN DUMPING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT 17
Wastewater Treatment and Sewage Sludge 21
Current Sources 21
Dumping Vessels 24
Future Sources 24
OCEAN DUMPING AT OTHER SITES
IN AND NEAR THE NEW YORK BIGHT 32
Dredged Material Site '. 32
Cellar Dirt Site 35
Acid Wastes Site 35
Wreck Site 36
Chemical Wastes Site 36
OVERVIEW OF POLLUTANT LOADING
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT 36
Suspended Solids 39
Carbonaceous Materials . . 39
Heavy Metals 39
Nitrogen and Phosphorous 39
Microbial Contamination 40
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter 'Title Page
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND
CONTROL PROGRAMS 40
The Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act 40
Related Legislation 40
EPA Ocean Dumping Permit Program 41
COE Dredged Material Permit Program 42
USCG Surveillance Responsibilities 42
FDA Responsibilities 45
INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 45
United States Laws 46
International Agreements 46
OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT 46
Commercial Fisheries 46
Recreation 48
Navigation 48
Potential Mineral Resources 48
Potential Offshore Facilities 54
1976 FISH KILL AND BEACH CLOSURE INCIDENTS 54
New York Bight Fish Kill 54
Long Island Beach Closures 58
III ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 62
OCEAN-DUMPING ALTERNATIVES 62
Continued Use of the Existing Dump Site . 62
Use of an Alternate Dump Site Other
Than the Northern or Southern Area 66
Modification of Dumping Methods 76
LAND-BASED ALTERNATIVES 77
ISC Phase 1 Report 77
ISC Phase 2 Report 78
ISC Sludge Disposal Management Program 79
Testing and Implementation 80
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Title Page
IV DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 82
HISTORY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 82
PROPOSED NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN AREAS 85
COST OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 86
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THE
NEW YORK BIGHT 86
V DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT 87
STUDY PROGRAM 87
Study Areas 87
Data Collection 89
PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY 89
Hydrographic Characteristics 89
Currents 91
BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY 101
Benthos 101
Fisheries Resources , . . 102
Plankton 111
Bacterial Contamination, Antibiotic-
Resistant Bacteria, and Diseases
of Marine Organisms 112
GEOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY 114
Geomorphology 114
Surficial Sediments 116
Suspended Paniculate Matter 116
Northern Area 118
Southern Area 123
CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY 129
Heavy Metals . 129
Dissolved Oxygen 129
Nutrients 131
Organic Carbon 134
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 138
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Title Page
Summary .-.'.....-.; 138
VI FATE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPED AT THE PROPOSED
AREAS ! 140
SETTLING AND DISPERSION IN THE WATER
COLUMN 140
Bulk Density 140
Settling Velocities 140
Modeling Results 141
RESUSPENSION 141
Storm Waves and Currents 144
Internal Waves 144
Bottom Currents 144
CHEMICAL EQUILIBRIA AND BIOLOGICAL
OXIDATION 144
Heavy Metals 145
Organic Matter . • ." 146
OTHER DUMP SITES 146
Philadelphia Dump Site 146
Dump Sites in Other Waters 146
SUMMARY .148
VII IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 149
IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH, WATER
QUALITY, AND SAFETY 149
Swimming 149
Shellfish 150
Floatables 150
Hazards to Navigation 150
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Title Page
IMPACTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM 151
Benthos 151
Fisheries Resources 152
Plankton 153
Short Dumping 154
Potential for Ecosystem Recovery 155
ECONOMIC IMPACTS 155
Sludge Transportation Costs 155
Commercial Fishing 157
Mineral Resource Development 157
Loss of Sewage Sludge as a Potentially
Valuable Resource 159
IMPACT ON OTHER DUMPING ACTIVITIES
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT 161
Dredged Material 161 '
Wrecks 161
Other Dumping Activities 161
MISCELLANEOUS IMPACTS 162
Potential Impact on Marine-Related
Recreational Activities 162
Effect on Population Growth in the
New York-New jersey Metropolitan Area 162
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE NORTHERN AREA,
THE SOUTHERN AREA, AND THE EXISTING
DUMP SITE 162
viu ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE
AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION BE
IMPLEMENTED 166
IX RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF
MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 167
X IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter Title Page
PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED 168
XI DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS
RAISED BY ALL REVIEWERS 169
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 175
Conclusions and Recommendations 175
Monitoring and Surveillance Program 177
Phase-Out Planning 179
Public Health and Water Quality 179
Recreational Impacts . .181
Economic Impacts 182
Ecosystem Impacts 184
Sludge Dumping 186
Alternate Dump Sites 187
Heavy Metals and Other Toxicants 188
Land-Based Sludge Disposal
Alternatives 190
Dumping of Dredged Material 191
Public Participation and Coordination 192
Miscellaneous Questions 193
REVIEWERS OF THE DRAFT EIS 195
XII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 203
SUMMARY OF GENERAL BACKGROUND 203
CONCLUSIONS 204
Existing Sewage Sludge Dump Site 204
Northern and Southern Areas 205
Other Options .205
RECOMMENDATIONS 206
BIBLIOGRAPHY 208
ABBREVIATIONS USED 222
METRIC EQUIVALENTS OF ENGLISH UNITS 226
VI
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A — SAMPLE FORM: MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANC-
TUARIES ACT (OCEAN DUMPING) PERMIT
APPENDIX B — USEPA, OCEAN DUMPING REGULATIONS: JANUARY 11, 1977
AND NOVEMBER 28, 1977
APPENDIX C — TOMS RIVER HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT ON RELOCATING
SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMP SITES: SEPTEMBER 22, 1977
APPENDIX D — USEPA-HEADQUARTERS, DECISION ON PROPOSALS TO RELO-
CATE SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMP SITES: MARCH 1, 1978
APPENDIX E — USEPA-REGION II, CRITERIA FOR RELOCATION OF SEWAGE
SLUDGE DUMPING IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
APPENDIX F — USEPA-REGION II, MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE ENFORCEMENT
STRATEGY
I
APPENDIX G — NOAA-MESA, TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ERL MESA-11, EVAL-
UATION OF PROPOSED SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMP SITE AREAS IN
THE NEW YORK BIGHT—CHAPTER I, FINDINGS AND RECOM-
MENDATIONS: FEBRUARY 1976
APPENDIX H — NOAA, BASELINE REPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN
DEEPWATER DUMPSITE 106—INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY:
JUNE 1977
APPENDIX I — COMMENTS OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ON THE POSSI-
BLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING AND
THE FISH KILL AND BEACH CLOSURE INCIDENTS OF 1976
APPENDIX J — ISC, REPORTS ON LAND-BASED SLUDGE DISPOSAL IN THE NEW
YORK-NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN AREA:
PHASE 1 REPORT—CHAPTER III, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM-
MENDATIONS: 1975
PHASE 2 REPORT—CHAPTER II, SUMMARY: 1976a
SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM-
SUMMARY: 1976b
APPENDIX K — COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
1 Existing Dump Sites in and near the New York Bight 20
2 Current Treatment Practices of Ocean Dumping Permittees 22
3 Characteristics of Ocean Dumped Sludge 23
4 Heavy Metal Characteristics of Ocean Dumped Sludge
(1975) 25
5 Volumes of Waste Dumped at Sites in and Adjacent to
the New York Bight (1960 to 1977) 27
6 Volume of Sewage Sludge Dumped in the New York
Bight (1973 to 1977) 29
7 Sludge Dumping Vessels Permitted for Use in the New
York Bight 30
8 Future Treatment Practices of Ocean Dumping Permittees
(1981) . 31
9 Estimated Volumes of Sewage Sludge to Be Dumped in
the New York Bight (1978-1981) 33
10 Comparative Pollutant Loadings from Ocean Dumping
Activities (1975) 34
11 Pollutant Loadings to the New York Bight by Source 37
12 Ocean Dumping Orders in the New York Bight 43
13 Commercial Fisheries Landings in the New York-New
Jersey Metropolitan Area (1976) 47
14 Commercial Shellfish Landings in the New York-New
Jersey Metropolitan Area (1976) 49
15 Beach Ownership in the New York-New Jersey
Metropolitan Area 50
16 Beach Attendance at State and National Parks in the
New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area (1976) 51
VIII
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Number Title Page
17 Predicted Maximum Average Velocities of Upper, Middle,
and Lower Tidal Currents in the Northern Area 95
18 NOAA-MESA Current Meter Deployments: Water Depth
and Location in Water Column > 97
19 The Common Fisheries Resources of the New York Bight 104
20 Dissolved Heavy Metals in the Water Column of the
New York Bight '130
21 Heavy Metals in the Sediments of the New York Bight 130
22 Loading of Heavy Metals in the Bight 132
23 Sources of Oxidizable Carbon in the Bight Apex 132
24 Dissolved Oxygen Levels at the Northern Area 133
25 Nutrients in the New York Bight 133
26 Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Sediments of the
New York Bight 139
27 Model Results of Transport and Dispersion of Sewage
Sludge at the Northern (60 m Depth) and Southern
(50 m Depth) Areas 142
28 Release in Seawater of Heavy Metals from Sludge 145
29 Fleet Hauling Capacity 156
30 Sludge Hauling Costs 158
31 Comparison of Alternative Sewage Sludge Disposal
Methods for the Metropolitan. Area 160
32 Comparative Evaluation of a Northern or Southern
Alternate Dump Site and the Existing Dump Site 163
33 Major Areas of Concern in Comments on the Draft EIS 170
tx
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page
1 The New York Bight - 18
2 Bight Apex and Existing Dump Sites 19
3 Waste Dumping in and Adjacent to the New York Bight 26
4 Sources of Pollutants in the New York Bight 38
5 Navigational Lanes in the New York Bight • 52
6 Potential Mineral Resources in the New York Bight 53
7 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in the New York Bight
during the 1976 Fish Kill 56
8 . Coliforms in New Jersey Coastal Waters 64
9 . Coliforms in Long Island Coastal Waters 65
10 Location of Existing and Proposed Dump Site Areas in
the New York Bight 83
11 Study Areas and Subareas 88
12 Mean Monthly Percentages of Annual Discharge for the
Hudson and Connecticut Rivers 90
13 Late Winter Temperature-Salinity Profile at Subarea
1A(R) ' 92
14 Late Summer Temperature-Salinity Profile at Subarea
1A(R) 93
15 Tidal Currents at Lightship Stations, Montauk Point
to Barnegat Bay • 94
16 Mean Spring Surface Currents in the New York Bight 96
17 General Residual Current along the Bottom of the
New York Bight 99
18 Mean Spring Bottom Currents in the New York Bight 100
19 Benthic Faunal Types in the Mid-Atlantic Bight 103
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Number Title Page
20 Surf Clam Distribution in the New York Bight (1965) 106
21 Surf Clam Distribution in the New York Bight (1969) 107
22 Surf Clam Distribution in the Mid-Atlantic Bight
(1974) 108
23' Ocean Quahog Distribution in the New York Bight
(1974) 109
24 Sea Scallop Distribution in the New York Bight
(1975) 110
25 Area Closed to Shellfishing in Vicinity of Sewage
Sludge Dump Site 113
26 Geomorphic Elements of the Mid-Atlantic Continental
Shelf 115
27 Percentage of Mud in Bottom Sediments of the New
York Bight 117
28 Schematic Model of Suspended Particulate Matter
Distribution on the Continental Shelf 119
29 Bathymetry and Sample Locations for Subarea 2D1 120
30 Geophysical Tracts 121
31 Mean Grain Size of Bottom Sediments in Subarea 2D1 122
32 Percentage of Gravel in Subarea 2D1 124
33 Percentage of Mud in Bottom Sediments from
Subarea 2D1 125
34 Percentage of Gravel in Bottom Sediments of
Subarea 2D2 126 .
35 Mean Grain Size of Bottom Sediments of Subarea 2D2 127
36 Mesoscale Bedforms 128
XI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Number Title Page
37 Percentage of Total Organic Carbon in New York Bight
Sediments 135
38 Distribution of Carbon/Nitrogen Ratios in New York
Bight Sediments 136
39 Distribution of TCH/TOC Ratios in New York Bight Apex
Sediments 137
40 Typical Transport and Dispersion of Sewage Sludge in
Ocean Waters 143
41 Bottom Areas Affected at Existing Sewage Sludge
Dump Sites in the Mid-Atlantic Bight 147
42 Recommended Alternate Dump Site 207
XII
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE OCEAN DUMPING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
-------
CHAPTER I
SUMMARY
DATE: September 1978.
TYPE OF STATEMENT: Final.
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region II.
TYPE OF ACTION: Administrative.
OVERVIEW
Since the early 1900s, sewage sludge generated at municipal wastewater treatment plants in the New
York-New Jersey metropolitan area has been disposed of by ocean dumping. Some of the older plants in the
metropolitan area provide only primary wastewater treatment; they must be upgraded in the next few years
to provide at least secondary treatment in compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also
known as the Clean Water Act). This will mean an increase in the volume of sludge that must be disposed of.
The existing sewage sludge dump site is located in that section of the Atlantic Ocean known as the
New York Bight. About 4.0 million cu m (5.3 million cu yd) of sewage sludge were dumped here in 1977.
The volume will steadily increase as treatment plants are upgraded; by 1981 it is expected to be about one
and a half times greater than the 1977 volume.
Concern over the possible effects of dumping increasing volumes of sludge at the existing dump site led
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)* to consider designating a new dump site farther out in the
Atlantic. Although EPA had already stated its intention to completely phase out ocean dumping of sewage
sludge by 1981, provided that acceptable land-based disposal methods could be substituted, it was not
known whether the existing site could accommodate the sludge to be dumped in the interim. In 1974,
therefore, EPA proposed that a new ocean dump site be designated for use until sludge dumping could be
replaced by environmentally, technically, and economically feasible land-based disposal methods.
The EPA took this step as a precaution against any possible dangers to public health that might result
from overtaxing the existing dump site. The next step was to determine whether such a precaution was
necessary and, if so, whether the proposed action was the best means of both protecting the public health
and preventing degradation of coastal water quality. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act and with EPA's own environmental impact assessment guidelines, an in-depth evaluation was conducted
of the proposed action and its alternatives. The conclusion was that EPA's proposed action was unnecessary
and potentially more damaging to the environment than taking no action whatsoever. This conclusion was
reported in the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) issued by EPA in February 1976.
Based on the information reported in the draft EIS, EPA decided not to proceed with the proposed
action. Instead, EPA recommended: 1) continued use of the existing dump site, 2) implementation of a
comprehensive monitoring program for the existing dump site, and 3) designation of an alternate dump site
that could be available for immediate use if the monitoring program at any time indicated that the existing
site could not safely accommodate any more sewage sludge.
* Please note that EPA is a general reference to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Where it is necessary to dif-
ferentiate between the Headquarters office and the Region 11 office of the agency, the appropriate designation is made.
-------
The draft EIS was distributed for review and comment on February 27, 1976, and public hearings were
held in New York City, on March 24 and 25; in Toms River, New Jersey, on March 29; and in Mineola,
Long Island, on April 1. Preparation of the final EIS was nearly complete when two incidents occurred that
raised questions about EPA's recommendation to continue using the existing dump site. Those incidents,
both of which occurred during the summer of 1976, were the extensive fish kill off the coast of New Jersey
and the washup of foreign matter on Long Island's beaches. As discussed at length in Chapter II, the results
of the many studies undertaken in response to those incidents showed that both were brought on by atypical
atmospheric and hydrographic conditions in Bight waters. Although conditions were aggravated by pollu-
tants, primarily pollutants from inland sources, sludge dumping was found to be at most a minor contributing
factor.
At the time of the incidents, however, some observers theorized that sewage sludge dumping was
directly responsible, prompting demands that sludge dumping be moved as far from shore as possible. The
chemical wastes site (also known as the 106-mile site) is located off the edge of the continental shelf; this
was the site most often suggested as an alternative to the existing sewage sludge dump site.
Public concern about the possible connection between sewage sludge dumping and the incidents that
occurred during the summer of 1976 was one of several reasons for the decision of the EPA-Headquarters
office to hold a public hearing in Toms River, New Jersey, on May 31, and June 1, 1977. The hearing
concerned the effects of sludge dumping operations in EPA-Regions II and III and various proposals for
shifting those operations to other sites.
With respect to Region II, both the hearing officer's report issued on September 22, 1977, and the EPA-
Headquarters' decision report issued on March 1, 1978, upheld the findings and recommendations of the
draft 'EIS (see Appendices C and D). The EPA, therefore, intends to carry out the recommendations made in
the draft EIS regarding continued use of the existing sewage sludge dump site and designation of an alternate
site that can be available for immediate use if the existing site is ever found to be unable to accommodate
any more sewage sludge. The comprehensive monitoring program recommended in the draft EIS has already
been implemented.
Issues raised in comments on the draft EIS are addressed in Chapter XI; the comments themselves are
reprinted in Appendix K. Because of the unusually long time that has elapsed since publication of the draft
EIS, substantial differences will be apparent between the draft and final EISs. The final EIS contains updated
information on permittees, sludge volumes, applicable regulations, and so on, as well as a discussion of the
fish kill and beach closure incidents and a report on recent developments in land-based sludge disposal.
More information has been gathered on the environmental, economic, and logistical ramifications of using
the chemical wastes site for sewage sludge disposal. In addition, the reports issued pursuant to the public
hearing in Toms River, New Jersey, on May 31, and June 1, 1977, are reproduced in their entirety in Ap-
pendices C and D). Two .changes are particularly important. First, the final EIS specifies the criteria that have
been developed to regularly check conditions at the existing dump site in order to determine whether mov-
ing to the alternate site is warranted (Appendix E). Second, the final EIS enumerates the steps that EPA will
take to insure that ocean dumping of sewage sludge is phased out by December 31, 1981 (Appendix F).
One note on terminology is in order. Although EPA no longer supports its original proposal (designation
and immediate use of a new dump site), that proposal is referred to throughout the EIS as "the proposed
action". The reason for this is that all of the reports and studies connected with this EIS took as their starting
point EPA support for immediate use of an alternate dump site. It was only after analyzing all of the data
collected in connection with this EIS that EPA decided to withdraw its original proposal. (Under the pro-
posed action, use of an alternate dump site would have commenced in July 1976 and continued until suit-
able land-based sludge disposal alternatives were implemented in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan
area.)
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The EPA proposes to abandon the existing sewage sludge dump site in the Apex of the New York Bight
and to designate an alternate dump site farther offshore. Depending on which of the two areas under consid-
eration is chosen, the Northern Area or the Southern Area, the dump site will be located a minimum of 46
km (25 n mi) off the coast of either Long Island or New Jersey. Estimates of the total cost of implementing
the proposed action range-from $204 million to $253 million, a 323 to 400 percent increase over the cost
associated with use of the existing dump site ($63 million) for the period 1978 through 1981.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action would have both general and site-specific effects. Among its general effects would
be a significant adverse impact on the benthos (bottom-dwelling organisms) at and near an alternate dump
site. In response to sludge dumping, the benthic community would probably increase in abundance, but
decrease in diversity; the remaining species would eventually be representative of a polluted bottom environ-
ment, such as that at the existing dump site in the Bight Apex.
The sediments on and in which the benthic organisms dwell would be degraded. Sediment concentra-
tions of heavy metals, organic matter, coliforms, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and possibly nutrients (nitrogen
and phosphorous) would increase over background levels. Pollutant concentrations in the water column itself
would vary according to the particular composition of each load of sludge, the degree of dispersion, and
seasonal conditions.
Site-specific effects of the proposed action would be manifest if the alternate dump site were to be
located in the Southern Area. Sludge dumping there might affect commercial shellfishing, particularly surf
clam harvesting, off the New Jersey coast. Sludge dumping might also interfere with the potential develop-
ment of mineral resources (oil and gas, sand and gravel) in and adjacent to the Southern Area; the most
imminent conflict would be with oil and gas development on the outer continental shelf.
Designation of an alternate site in the Northern Area would result in fewer site-specific effects. Com-
mercial shellfishing in the area is minimal and is likely to remain so. No developable mineral resources have
been identified in or near the Northern Area.
The only significant irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources necessary to implement the
proposed action would involve the cost. Through 1981, it would cost 323 to 400 percent more to use an
alternate dump site in the Northern or Southern Area than to continue using the existing dump site; the
increased cost is directly attributable to the increased distance to an alternate dump site farther out in the
New York Bight.
Sewage sludge is a potentially valuable resource, and its continued loss through ocean dumping could
be considered an irreversible and irretrievable commitment. Until land-based disposal methods can be im-
plemented in the metropolitan area, however, the beneficial use of sludge is impossible. The proposed action
would thus be an unavoidable but insignificant commitment of this resource.
The environmental impacts of the proposed action are discussed in Chapter VII.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Alternatives to the proposed action considered in this EIS fall into two categories: other ocean-dumping
alternatives (short-term) and land-based sludge disposal alternatives (long-term).
-------
Since implementation of land-based disposal methods in the metropolitan area is still some years off, a
suitable interim ocean dumping alternative is needed. In addition to the proposed action, the ocean-dumping
alternatives are:
— Continued use of the existing dump site (No Action or Phased Action),
— Use of an alternate dump site other than the Northern or Southern Area, including sites off the
continental shelf, and
— Modification of dumping methods to mitigate potential marine and shoreward impacts.
The land-based sludge disposal alternatives are:
— Direct land application,
— Incineration,
— Pyrolysis, and
— Use as a soil conditioner.
These land-based alternatives have been studied by the Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC) under a grant
from EPA. The ISC sludge disposal management program was issued in October 1976. Since that time, EPA
has awarded grants to most of the ocean dumping permittees for specific studies of land-based sludge
management alternatives within their geographic areas. The EPA has also placed a condition on the ocean
dumping permits issued in August 1976, requiring that ocean dumping be phased out by December 31,
1981. This phase-out date was legislatively mandated in November 1977, by amendment to the Marine
Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
Alternatives to the proposed action are discussed in Chapter III.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
After carefully evaluating all available alternatives and the effects of ocean dumping, EPA recommends
that use of the existing sewage sludge dump site in the Bight Apex continue on an interim basis. As a
safeguard, EPA recommends: 1) that an alternate dump site in the Northern Area be immediately designated
for future use, if necessary; 2) that the existing dump site be closely monitored for potential threats to public
health or degradation of water quality; and 3) that upon confirmation of a possible threat, permittees be
required to use the alternate dump site.
A thorough review of the most recent onsite data indicates that the proposed action (immediate desig-
nation and use of an alternate dump site) is unjustified. Continued use of the existing site is not a present
threat either to public health or to water quality along the Long Island or New Jersey beaches. Moving
present sludge dumping operations to an alternate site without adequate justification would result in the
unnecessary contamination of a relatively clean area of the New York Bight. Moreover, contamination of the
new area would not be balanced off by recovery of the old; the quality of the existing site and its surround-
ing area could not be expected to improve significantly even if sludge dumping were terminated, because the
bottom is severely contaminated and pollutants from other sources will continue to flow into the Bight Apex.
-------
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES FROM WHOM COMMENTS HAVE
BEEN REQUESTED:
Federal Agencies
Council on Environmental Quality
Washington, D.C.
Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.
Soil Conservation Service
Syracuse, N.Y.
Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C.
National Marine Fisheries Service
Gloucester, Mass.
Sandy Hook, N.J.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Boulder, Colo.
Rockville, Md.
Stony Brook, N.Y.
National Weather Service
Garden City, N.Y.
Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers
New York, N.Y.
Vicksburg, Miss.
Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy
Alexandria, Va.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
New York, N.Y.
Food and Drug Administration
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Davisville, R.I.
-------
Department of Housing and Urban Development
New York, N.Y.
Newark, N.J.
Department of Interior
Washington, D.C.
Boston, Mass.
Gateway National Recreation Area
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Coast Guard
New York, N.Y.
Department of Energy
Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Cleveland, Ohio
Corvallis, Oreg.
Narragansett, R.I.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Washington, D.C.
United States Senate
Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Honorable Clifford P. Case
Honorable John H. Chafee
Honorable Jacob K. Javits
Honorable Charles McC. Mathias, Jr.
Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan
Honorable Claiborne Pell
Honorable Abraham A. Ribicoff
Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.
Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
Honorable Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.
Honorable Harrison A. Williams
Senate Commerce Committee
Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution
Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and the Atmosphere
-------
United States House of Representatives
Honorable Joseph P. Addabbo
Honorable lerome Ambro, Jr.
Honorable Mario Biaggi
Honorable Jonathan B. Bingham
Honorable Bruce F. Caputo
Honorable Shirley Chisholm
Honorable James J. Delaney
Honorable Thomas J. Downey
Honorable Thomas B. Evans, Jr.
Honorable Millicent Fenwick
Honorable Hamilton Fish, |r.
Honorable James J. Florio
Honorable Edwin B. Forsythe
Honorable Robert Carce
Honorable S. William' Green " '"
Honorable Harold Hollenbeck
Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman
Honorable James ). Howard
Honorable William J. Hughes
Honorable Joseph A. LeFante
Honorable Norman F. Lent
Honorable Andrew Maquire
Honorable Helen S. Meyner
Honorable Barbara Mikulski'
Honorable Joseph G. Minish
Honorable John M. Murphy
Honorable Richard L. Ottinger
Honorable Edward J. Patten
Honorable Otis J. Pike
Honorable Charles B. Rangel
Honorable Frederick W. Richmond
Honorable Matthew J. Rinaldo
Honorable Peter W. Rodino, Jr.
Honorable Robert A. Roe
Honorable Benjamin S. Rosenthal
Honorable James H. Scheuer
Honorable Stephen J. Solarz
Honorable Frank Thompson, Jr.
Honorable Theodore S. Weiss
Honorable Lester L. Wolff
Honorable John W. Wydler
Honorable Leo C. Zeferetti
House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Environment
House Subcommittee on Oceanography
House Committee on Science and Technology
-------
House Subcommittee on Environment and the Atmosphere
State and Local Agencies
Mayor, Village of Atlantic Beach
Atlantic Beach, N.Y.
Berkeley Township
Bayville, N.J.
Erie County Environmental Health Services
Buffalo, N.Y.
Hempstead Town Department of Conservation and Waterways
Point Lookout, N.Y.
Lacey Township
Forked River, N.J.
Mayor, Village of Lawrence
Lawrence, N.Y.
Long Island State Parks and Recreation Commission
Babylon, N.Y.
Manchester Township
Manchester, N.J.
Maryland Water Resources Administration
Annapolis, Md.
Middlesex County Planning Board
New Brunswick, N.J.
Monmouth County Planning Board
Freehold, N.J.
Nassau County Department of Health
Mineola, N.Y.
Nassau County Environmental Management Council
Mineola, N.Y.
Nassau County Planning Commission
Mineola, N.Y.
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board
Hauppauge, N.Y.
-------
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Trenton, N.J.
New Jersey Department of Health
Trenton, N.J.
New Jersey State Assembly and Senate
Trenton, N.).
New York City Chamber of Commerce and Industry
New York, N.Y.
New York City Department of Health
New York, N.Y.
New York State Assembly and Senate
Albany, N.Y.
New York State Assembly
Committee on Environmental Conservation
Albany, N.Y.
New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority
New York, N.Y.
New York State Department of Commerce
Albany, N.Y.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Albany, N.Y.
New York, N.Y.
Stony Brook, N.Y.
White" Plains, N.Y.
New York State Department of Health
Albany, N.Y.
New York State Office of Parks and Recreation
Albany, N.Y.
New York State Sea Grant Program Office
Albany, N.Y.
Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders
Toms River, N.J.
Borough of Sea Bright
Sea Bright, N.J.
Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control
Hauppauge, N.Y.
-------
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Hauppauge, N.Y.
Suffolk County Executive Office
Hauppauge, N.Y.
Suffolk County Water Authority
Oakdale, N.Y. -
Mayor, Borough of Surf City
Surf City, N.J.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Chattanooga, Tenn.
Toms River Chamber of Commerce
Toms River, N.J.
Tonawanda Town Environmental Commission
Kenmore, N.Y.
Department of Public Works
Yaphank, N.Y.
Interstate Agencies
Interstate Sanitation Commission
New York, N.Y.
Port Authority of New York and New )ersey
New York, N.Y.
Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
New York, N.Y.
Ocean Dumping Permittees
Bergen County Sewerage Authority
Little Ferry, N.J.
General Marine Transport Corp.
Bayonne, N.J.
City of Glen Cove
Glen Cove, N.Y.
10
-------
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Irvington, N.J.
Linden-Roselle & Rahway Valley Sewerage Authorities
Linden, N.J.
City of Long Beach
Long Beach, N.Y.
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
Sayreville, N.J.
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Belford, N.J.
Modern Transportation Co.,
South Kearny, N.J.
Nassau County Department of Public Works
Mineola, N.Y.
New York City Environmental Protection Administration
Department of Water Resources
New York, N.Y.
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
Newark, N.J.
Westchester County
White Plains, N.Y.
Citizens Groups
American Littoral Society
Highlands, N.J.
Atlantic Beach Taxpayers Association
Long Beach, N.Y.
Citizens for Clean Environment
Sayville, N.Y.
Colts Neck Environmental Commission
Colts Neck, N.J.
Committee of Concerned Citizens of Wantagh
Wantagh, N.Y.
11
-------
East End Council of Organizations
East Hampton, N.Y.
Environmental Defense Fund
East Setauket, N.Y.
Federated Conservationists of Westchester County
Tarrytown, N.Y..
Friends of the Earth
New York, N.Y.
Greening of the Bronx
Bronx, N.Y.
Hudson River Sloop Restoration Association
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
Long Beach Island Conservation Society
Barnegat Light, N.J.
Long Island Baymen's Association
Islip, N.Y.
Long Island Environmental Council
Port Washington, N.Y.
Long Island Fishermen's Association
Quoque, N.Y.
Malverne Environmental Council
Malverne, N.Y.
Marine Environmental Council of Long Island
North Babylon, N.Y.
National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere
New York, N.Y.
National Boatmen's Alliance
Hauppauge, N.Y.
National Coalition for Marine Conservation
Boston, Mass.
National Wildlife Federation
Washington, D.C.
New Jersey Marine Science Consortium
Highlands, N.J.
12
-------
New Jersey Public Interest Research Group
New York, N.Y.
Trenton, N.J.
New York League of Women Voters
Setauket, N.Y.
New York Water Pollution Control Association
Syracuse, N.Y.
Passaic River Coalition
Basking Ridge, N.J.
Regional Marine Resources Council
Hauppauge, N.Y.
Resources for the Future
Washington, D.C.
Rochester Committee for Scientific Information
Rochester, N.Y.
Sea Bright Conservation Committee
Sea Bright, N.J.
. Scientists Committee for Public Information
New York, N.Y.
Shellfish Commission
Milford, Conn.
Shellfish Institute of North America
Point Lookout, N.Y.
Sierra Club
New York, N.Y.
South Branch Watershed Association
Clinton, N.J.
Academic/Research Institutions
American University
Department of Biology
Washington, D.C.
Associated Universities
Brookhaven National Laboratory
13
-------
Upton, N.Y.
Department of Geology
Brooklyn College - City. University of New York
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Environmental Society
CUNY Law School
New York, N.Y.
Franklin Institute
Philadelphia, Pa.
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
Palisades, N.Y.
Marine Science Student Association
Long Island University
Greenvale, N.Y.
Marine Sciences Center
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, N.J.
Marine Sciences Research Center
Stony Brook, N.Y.
Marine Sciences Research Group
Brooklyn College - City University of New York
Brooklyn, N.Y.
National Academy of Sciences
Washington, D.C.
New York Ocean Science Laboratory
Montauk, N.Y.
New York State University
Agriculture and Technical College
Farmingdale, N.Y.
Rutgers University
Department of Environmental Sciences
New Brunswick, N.J.
University of Delaware
Newark, Del.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Mass.
14
-------
News Media
Atlantic City Press
Toms River, N.J.
Buffalo Evening News
Buffalo, N.Y. '
CBS News
New York, N.Y.
Daily Observer
Toms River, N.J.
Herald News
Passaic, N.J.
Nautilus Press
Washington, D.C.
Newsday
Garden City, N.Y.
New York Times
'New York, N.Y.
Staten Island Advance
Staten Island, N.Y.
Libraries
Atlantic City Free Public Library
Atlantic City, N.J.
Nassau Library System
Garden City, Long Island, N.Y.
New York Public Library
Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street
New York, N.Y.
Free Library of Philadelphia
Logan Square
Philadelphia, Pa.
Princeton Library
Princeton, N.J.
15
-------
Rutgers Science/Medicine Library
New Brunswick, N.J.
Suffolk Cooperative Library System
Bellport, Long Island, N.Y.
State University of New York Library
Stony Brook, N.Y.
Trenton Free Public Library
Trenton, N.J.
U.S. EPA Library
Edison, N.J.
New York, N.Y.
Others
Calabrese, Josephine
Toms River, N.J.
Carver Greenfield Corp.
East Hanover, N.J.
Donate, Michelle
Somerset, N.J.
Kramer, Morris H.
Atlantic Beach, N.J.
Lander, Paul
Lakewood, N.J.
Raytheon Co.
Portsmouth, R.I.
Stevenson, Richard C.
Angola, N.Y.
16
-------
CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND
THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Geographic Description of the New York Bight
The New York Bight is that section of the Atlantic Ocean extending from Cape May, New Jersey, north
and east to Montauk, Long Island. The Bight covers more than 39,000 sq km (11,350 sq n mi), an area about
twice the size of New Jersey. The Bight extends approximately 150 to 180 km (81 to 97 n mi) off the Long
Island and New Jersey coasts to the outer edge of the continental shelf (Figure 1). The coastline of the Bight
is characterized by sandy beaches and by numerous bays and estuaries.
The Bight Apex, which covers about 2,000 sq km (584 sq n mi), extends from Atlantic Beach, New
York, to Manasquan, New Jersey (latitude 73°30'W to 74°00'W and longitude 40°10'N to 40°35'N). It is
immediately adjacent to the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area and is more or less centered on the
apex of the Hudson Shelf Valley (Figure 1).
The New York Bight is distinguished from the estuarine waters of Outer New York Harbor by the Sandy
Hook-Rockaway Point transect (Figure 2). The Outer Harbor, which comprises Lower Bay, Sandy Hook Bay,
and the Raritan River, includes the waters south of Staten Island lying between the Narrows and the harbor
entrance. It is commonly differentiated from the Inner Harbor, which is made up of the Hudson River, East
River, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, Passaic River, Harlem River, Hackensack River, Newark Bay, and Upper Bay.
Existing Dump Sites
There are currently five dump sites (Figure 2) in the Bight Apex where the disposal of toxic and non-
toxic wastes is permitted under the authority of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (MPRSA). They include the sewage sludge site, the dredged material (mud) site, the cellar dirt (rubble
and debris) site, the acid wastes site, and the wreck (derelict vessel) site (Table 1). A sixth dump site, re-
served for chemical wastes, is located just outside the New York Bight, approximately 196 km (106 n mi)
from Ambrose Light, on the edge of the continental shelf (Figure 1 and Table 1). Currently, about 88 percent
of the municipal wastes and 84 percent of the industrial wastes that are ocean dumped in the United States
are dumped at these six sites.
OCEAN DUMPING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
The existing sewage sludge dump site in the Bight Apex is now used exclusively for the disposal of
sewage sludge from large municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan
area. Prior to 1974, some industrial wastes were also dumped at this site, but from 1974 to 1976 only small
quantities of sludge resulting from the biological treatment of industrial wastes were dumped here. Now, all
industrial wastes are dumped at either the acid wastes or the chemical wastes site.
The present location of the sewage sludge site was selected by the states of New York and New Jersey
in 1924, following a United States Supreme Court settlement of a suit brought by the City of New York
against the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners to prevent the discharge of sewage sludge into Upper
New York Bay. The site was chosen to maintain the integrity (in terms of public health and aesthetics) of
17
-------
^
^
^-o
_>5s
<=^
BIGHT APEX LIMITS
CHEMICAL
WASTES
DUMP
SITE
IGHT LIMITS
10 0 10 ZQ KILOMETERS
^^^^-WlTM
10 0 10 20 MILES (STATUTE)
ssKEKeiM^^^^M
10 0 10
NOTE i CONTOURS IN METERS
THE NEW YORK BIGHT
SOURCE : USEPA, APRIL 1375.
FIGURE 1
-------
LONG ISLAND
OUTER HARBOR
SANDY HOOK-
ROCKAWAY POINT
TRANSECT
LONG BRAN
NEW JERSEY
ASBURY PARK
-------
TABLE 1
EXISTING DUMP SITES IN AND NEAR THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Dump Site
Coordinates
Latitude and Longitude
Sewage Sludge
Dredged Material
Cellar Dirt
Acid Wastes
Wrecks
Chemical Wastes
40°
73°
40°
73°
40°
40°
73°
40°
38°
72°
22'30"N
41'30"W
21'48"N
50'00"W
23'00"N,
16'00"N
36'00"W
10'00"N,
40'00"N
OOW'W
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
40°25'00"N
73°45'00"W
40°23'48"N
73°51'28"W
73°49'00"W*
40°20'00"N
73°40'00"W
73°42'00"W*
39°00'00"N
72°30'00"W
Area
Sq. Kilometers
(Sq. N Miles)
22.7
6.9
,3.8
41.0
2.7
1,550
\
(6.6)
(2.0)
0.1)
(12.0)
(0.8)
(450.0)
Depth
Approximate Distance
Meters
(Feet)
24
27
34
24
60
1,800
(80)
(90)
(110)
(80)
(200)
(6,000)
. 20
20
22
27
44
Kilometers
(N Miles)
L.I.
^
(11)
(11)
(12)
(15)
(24)
—
N.J.
i.^^_
20 (11)
9 (5)
11 (6)
27 (15)
26 (14)
_
*Center Coordinates of Circular Dump Site.
Source: USEPA, January 11,1977.
20
-------
Long Island and New jersey beaches, as well as to avoid possible hazards to navigation within New York
Harbor.
Wastewater Treatment and Sewage Sludge
Sewage sludge is a broad term used to describe the mixture of sewage and settled solids removed from
municipal wastewater during treatment. Its characteristics depend mainly upon the type and degree of treat-
ment provided. In general, sludges disposed of at the existing sewage sludge site come from the primary and
secondary treatment of municipal wastewater and from domestic septic tanks.
Raw municipal wastewater is a combination of liquid and solids, with the liquid fraction predominating.
Consequently, raw municipal wastewater entering a treatment plant generally has a very low suspended
solids concentration (100 to 300 mg/1 or 0.01 to 0.03 percent solids by weight). Through treatment, most of
the solids become concentrated in a small amount of liquid; this mixture is called sludge. Sludges resulting
from combined primary and secondary treatment of municipal wastewaters have much higher solids concen-
trations (3 to 5 percent) than raw wastewater.
Primary treatment removes 50 to 60 percent of the suspended solids from the raw wastewater. Sludges
withdrawn from primary sedimentation tanks are usually gray and slimy, and have an offensive odor.
Secondary treatment, which EPA is requiring all municipal facilities to implement in the near future,
removes approximately 85 percent of the suspended solids. The activated sludge and trickling filter processes
are the two secondary treatment methods most commonly used by municipal facilities in the New York-New
Jersey metropolitan area. Sludges resulting from these processes generally have a brown, flocculent appear-
ance and a relatively inoffensive odor. These sludges have a teridency to quickly become septic; when this
occurs, the color becomes quite dark, and a disagreeable odor of putrefaction is apparent.
Sludges resulting from primary or secondary treatment are sometimes digested to anaerobically decom-
pose the organic materials present. Sludges produced by this process are dark brown to black in color. When
thoroughly digested, their odors are relatively faint and inoffensive.
Sludges from domestic septic tanks are black and, unless well-digested by long storage, have an offen-
sive odor.
Additional information on wastewater treatment processes/solids, and sludge treatment can be found in
the literature (USEPA, October 1971, October 1974; Metcalf & Eddy, 1972). Specific characteristics of sew-
age sludges dumped in the New York Bight are discussed below.
Current Sources
In February 1978, EPA issued thirteen Interim Permits for ocean dumping at the existing sewage sludge
site. Of these, eleven were granted to municipalities or sewerage authorities in the New York-New Jersey
metropolitan area. Only New York City and Westchester County own sludge transportation vessels. All of
the other permittees use commercial vessels for sludge transportation and dumping.
The two remaining permits were issued to commercial haulers in New Jersey (Modern Transportation
Company and General Marine Transport Corporation). These two companies transport both domestic septic
tank wastes for local septic tank cleaner services and sewage sludge generated by twenty-two small munici-
pal and sewerage authority treatment plants in New Jersey.
The wastewater and sludge treatment methods used by the permittees directly affect the type of sludge
produced; the current treatment methods are listed in Table 2. A sample ocean dumping permit form is
included in Appendix A to show what is required of a permittee by EPA.
Sludge Characteristics. Based upon weighted average 1973 data from the permittees (Table 3), the
sludge dumped in the New York Bight contains 4.2 percent total solids (see Table 2 for the percentage of
solids in the sludge dumped by each permittee) and 3.9 percent suspended solids. The sludge is also charac-
terized by high concentrations of heavy metals (chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc); repre-
21
-------
TABLE 2
CURRENT TREATMENT PRACTICES OF OCEAN DUMPING PERMITTEES
Permit
Number1
NJ002
NJ003
NY007
NJ008
NY009
NJ017
NJ019
NJ021
NJ022
NY028
NY029
NY068
NJ111
Permittee
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
City of Long 8 each
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
City of New York
Bowery Bay
Coney Island
Hunts Point
Jamaica
Owls Head
Newtown Creek
Port Richmond
Rockaway
Tallman Island
Wards Island
26th Ward
Modern Transportation Co.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority
Linden-Roselle & Rahway Valley
Sewerage Authorities
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Nassau County
Bay Park
Belgrave
Cedar Creek
Farmingdale
Freeport
Inwood
Meadowbrook
Roslyn
West Long Beach
Westchester County
City of Glen Cove
General Marine Transport Corp.
Treatment
Level
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary v
Secondary
Secondary
Mostly Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Mostly Primary
Sludge Treatment
Thickening, Digestion, Dewatering
None
Digestion, Heat Conditioning
Thickening
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening
Thickening, Digestion
Partial Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening
Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Digestion
Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
NA
Digestion
Digestion
NA
None
Digestion, Dewatering
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening
Partial Digestion
Percent
Solids
3.2
6.6
2.3
3.2
2.6
4.8
1.9
7.2
2.1
3.2
2.8
2.7
3.7
6.9
3.6
NA2
1.6
5.8
8.8
2.0
3.0
7.5
3.0
NA
7.5
4.0
NA
2.0
7.5
3.6
NA
NA
'EPA-Region II permit number.
aNA = Not Available.
-------
TABLE 3
CHARACTERISTICS OF OCEAN DUMPED SLUDGE
Weighted Average
Average Characteristic' Concentration (mg/l)a
Total Solids 45,000
Suspended Solids 39,000
Total Dissolved Solids 5,500
Alkalinity 2,700
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (five day) 17,000
Chemical Oxygen Demand 93,000
Total Organic Carbon 9,200
Oil and Grease 1,900
Ammonia 890
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1,500
Nitrites and Nitrates 3.9
Total Nitrogen 1,500
Total Phosphorous 400
Cadmium 3.7
Chromium 63
Copper 60
Mercury 1.1
Lead 63
Zinc 160
Arsenic 120
Beryllium 0.02
Nickel . 9.5
Selenium 100
Vanadium 0.75
Fecal coliform (organisms/100 ml) 310,000
'Sludge characteristics are based upon values from EPA-Region II ocean
dumping permit files, May 1 through December 31,1973.
'Weighted average. Heavy metals and oil and grease averages are based upon
eight values for each source. Other parameters are based upon one to eight
values for each source.
Source: Mueller ef al., 1976.
-------
sentative concentrations are shown in Table 4. The high ratio of chemical oxygen demand (COD) to
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), or of COD to total organic carbon (TOO, is characteristic of sludges
having a significant percentage of industrial wastewater.
Of the total solids present, approximately 20 percent is organic material, as reflected by TOC concen-
trations. (Most domestic sewage sludges contain between 25 and 50 percent organic material.) Total nitrogen
and total phosphorous account for about 3 percent and 1 percent, respectively, of the total solids, which is
within the normal range for domestic sludges. The concentration of oil and grease, approximately 4 percent,
appears to be about right for a major metropolitan area, where combined sewers (carrying both sanitary
wastes and urban runoff) commonly serve existing wastewater treatment facilities.
Volumes of Sludge Dumped. Although dumping at the existing sewage sludge site began in 1924,
accurate records for years prior to 1960 are not available. Since 1960, the volume of sewage sludge dumped
annually in the Bight has fluctuated between a low of 2.5 million cu m (3.3 million cu yd) and a high of 4.1
million cu m (5.4 million cu yd) (Figure 3, Tables 5 and 6). In 1977, the volume was 4.0 million cu m (5.3
million cu yd).
The eleven major municipal or sewerage authority permittees produce about 98 percent of the sludge
dumped in the New York Bight. The largest source is New York City, which generates about 49 percent of
the total. Five other municipal or sewerage authority permittees (Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners,
Nassau County, Middlesex County Sewerage Authority, Bergen County Sewerage Authority, and Linden-
Roselle & Rahway Valley Sewerage Authorities) account for approximately 42 percent. The remaining 9
percent is dumped by the other seven permittees.
Dumping Vessels v
. Sewage sludge is currently transported by barges and sludge tankers. A barge must be towed to the
dump site, where the sludge is discharged by gravity through circular openings in the bottom of the barge. A
sludge tanker, on the other hand, is a self-propelled vessel capable of pumping sludge through openings
beneath the waterline.
At present, twelve vessels (six barges and six tankers) have EPA permits to transport sewage sludge to
the existing site (Table 7). One other vessel (the barge Liquid Waste No. 1) is currently used for ocean
dumping in Puerto Rico, but may be available in the future.
The carrying capacity of the current twelve-vessel fleet is about 42,800 cu m (56,000 cu yd) per trip.
The City of New York owns and operates four self-propelled sludge tankers, whose combined carrying ca-
pacity accounts for 23 percent of the fleet's total carrying capacity. Modern Transportation Company and
General Marine Transport Corporation together represent 74 percent of the carrying capacity in the metro-
politan area. The barge operated by Westchester County accounts for the remaining 3 percent.
Future Sources
The two commercial and eleven municipal and sewerage authority permittees are expected to be the
only significant sources, on a volumetric basis, of sewage sludge dumped in the New York Bight from 1978
through 1981. These sources have been directed by EPA to develop environmentally acceptable land-based
methods of sludge disposal during this period.
Within the next few years, the four primary wastewater treatment facilities in the metropolitan area that
currently dump sewage sludge in the New York Bight will be upgraded to provide secondary treatment
(Tables 2 and 8). The commercial haulers will probably continue to provide sludge transportation and dump-
ing services to septic tank cleaners until 1978 and to the small municipalities and sewerage authorities in
New Jersey until the end of 1981.
Sludge Characteristics. The character of dumped sewage sludge will gradually change over the next
four years as new and upgraded treatment plants are brought on-line in the metropolitan area. As stated, all
24
-------
TABLE 4
HEAVY METAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OCEAN DUMPED SLUDGE
1975
Permit
Number1
NJ002
NJ003
NY007
NJ008
NY009
NJ017
NJ019
NJ021
NJ022
NY028
NY029
NY068
NJ111
1975
Permittee
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners
City of Long Beach
Middlesex County Sewerage
Authority
City of New York
Bowery Bay
Coney Island
Hunts Point
Jamaica
Owls Head
Newtown Creek
Port Richmond
Rockaway
Tallman Island
Wards Island
26th Ward
Modern Transportation Co.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority
Linden-Roselle & Rahway Valley
Sewerage Authorities
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union
Counties
Nassau County
Westchester County
City of Glen Cove
General Marine Transport Corp.
Mercury
136
1,110
380
170
465
310
<50
215
260
145
260
315
630
135
-
143
1,314
290
852
<5
1,674
NA
15.3
Cadmium
268
11,375
410
2,621
1,230
380
338
430
600
1,465
88
435
240
230
-
7,151
17,903
3,757
6,263
130
5,981
NA
4.1
Arsenic
<17
81
< 4,000
46
2,400
2,400
2,000
2,500
9,500
960
,,500
1,400
5,700
170
—
<20
<30
<19
15
<1
4,000
NA
30
Lead
5,425
1 64,478
NA2
97,950
56,000
66,000
26,000
38,000
34,000
284,000
1 6,000
64,000
84,000
30,000
-
11,936
42,336
23,714
45,708
8,100
33,000
NA
15,300
Heavy
Copper
19,050
44,806
NA
52,953
1 1 9,000
1 06,000
38,000
65,000
1 03,000
65,000
1 6,000
173,000
1 08,000'
56,000
-
33,499
73,375
106,814
95,980
24,200
53,000
NA
2,300
Metals (/ig/l)
Zinc
44,250
277,793
NA
233,998
143,000
101,000
48,000
90,000
1 1 8,000
76,000
46,000
134,000
1 20,000
41 ,000
-
101,771
106,711
254,194
102,602
22,900
74,000
NA
30,800
Selenium
<59
<9
NA
<8
9,900
5,030
6,800
11,500
8,500
13,100
6,900
6,300
20,000
5,600
6,500
<59
28
<680
8
<65
<10
NA
140
Vanadium
<485
<200
NA
<560
1,800
2,000
1,500
1,200
2,200
1,400
1,000
2,600
1,700
1,000
2,800
<485
<445
<314
<550
480
<80
NA
< 1,000
Beryllium
<260
<20
NA
<20
40
40
33
36
45
36
36
54
37
42
46
<260
<20
<23
<20
<40
<240
NA
<20
Chromium
8,200
99,628
NA
33,358
64,000
10,000
7,400
14,000
30,000
95,000
1,700
14,500
40,000
12,000
34,000
8,200
194,883
42,829
62,978
NA
11,300
NA
710
Nickel
5,704
13,814
NA
9,730
17,000
9,900
3,200
1 4,000
8,500
13,500
2,100
6,000
84,000
2,200
7,200
5,704
15,168
9,143
5,989
2,240
4,000
NA
1,000
1 EPA-Region II permit number.
2NA = Not Available
-------
GO
O
c
3}
m
O
z
O
O-
z
O
LU
•x.
•^
_)
O
11.6 (15.1)
(12.7)
OMEOOED MATERIAL
3
(3.9)-
2
(2.6)
(1.3)-
(0)
--'•
/,-\._ , '
/x • - — .. *. *"
^.-* /
^^ /
\
7
V
• CHEMICAL a ACID WASTES
X
I960
^
1961
1962 1963 1964 I96S 1966 1967 1968
CALENDER YEAR
I
1969
1
1970
1971 1972
I I
1973 1974
1975 1976 1977
OCEAN DUMPING BILL - OCT. 1972
-------
TABLE 5
VOLUMES OF WASTE DUMPED AT SITES IN AND ADJACENT TO THE NEW YORK BIGHT
1960 to 1977
Types of Waste
Volume
In Thousands of Cubic Meters (Cubic Yards)1
Sewage Sludge
Dredged Material
Cellar Dirt
Acid Wastes
Wrecks2
Chemical Wastes
Total
1960
2,906
(3,824)
4,290
(5,611)
564
(738)
2,334
(3,071)
-
-
10,094
(13,244)
1961
2,549
(3,354)
4,770
(6,238)
619
(810)
2,356
(3,100)
-
5
(7)
10,299
(13,509)
1962
2,756
(3,626)
6,741
(8,816)
617
(807)
1,938
(2,551).
-
10
(.13).
12,062
(15,813)
1963
3,238
(4,259)
5,494
(7,186)
755
(988)
. 4,405
(5,797)
- -
525
-• (690)
14,417
(18,920)
1964
3,099
(4,078)
6,530
(8,540)
578
(756)
2,516
. (3,310)
-
-
12,723
(16,684)
1965
2,936
(3,863)
4,955
(6,480)
697
(912)
2,002
(2,634)
-
-
10,590
(13,889)
1966
3,193
(4,201)
4,348
(5,687)
. 244
(319)
2,171
(2,857.)
-
—
9,956
(13,064)
1967
3,241
(4,265)
7,045
(9,214)
389
(509)
1,745
(2,297)
1
114
(150)
12,535
(16,435)
1968
3,406
(4,481)
4,864
(6,361)
306
(400)
2,389
(3,143)
-
63
(83)
11,028
(14,468)
-------
TABLE S (Continued)
Types of Waste
Volume
In Thousands of Cubic Meters (Cubic Yards)1
Sewage Sludge
Dredged Material
Cellar Dirt
Acid Wastes
Wrecks2
Chemical Wastes
Total
1969
3,386
(4,455)
7,554
(9,880)
483
(632)
2,321
(3,054)
-
65
(86)
13,809
(18,107)
1970
4,018
(5,287)
3,750
(4,905)
609
(796)
1,980
(2,605)
-
122
(160)
10,479
(13,753)
1971
2,911
(3,830)
11,516
(15,062)
517
(676)
2,149
(2,828)
3
169
(222)
17,345
(22,618)
1972
3,006
(3,955)
9,775
(12,785)
741
(969)
2,365
(3,112) .
3
716
(942)
16,606
(21,763)
1973
4,093
(5,386)
6,216
(8,130)
349
(455)
2,470
(3,249)
1
294
(387)
13,423
(17,607)
1974
3,758
(4,945)
8,410
(10,820)
275
(360)
' 2,090
(2,750)
-
348
(458)
14,881
(19,333)
1975
3,818
(5,023)
4,893
(6,400)
141
(185)
1,862
(2,450)
-
472
(621)
11,186
(14,679)
1976
3,914
(5,149)
6,981
(9,309)
112
(147)
1,262
(1,661)
-
344
(453)
12,613
(16,719)
1977
4,012
(5,279)
4,047
(5,293)
135
(177)
624
(821)
-
738
(970)
9,556
(12,540)
'To obtain approximate volume in wet tons, multiply the number of cubic yards by 0.85.
'Number of derelict vessels/wrecks disposed of on-site.
-------
TABLE 6
VOLUME OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPED IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
1973 to 1977
Permit
Number1
Permittee
Volume
In Thousands of Cubic
1973
NJ002
NJ003
NY007
NJ008
NY009
NJ017
NJ019
NJ021
NJ022
NY028
NY029
NY031
NY068
NJ111
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
City of Long Beach
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
City of New York
Modern Transportation Co.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority
Linden-Roselle & Rahway Valley Sewerage
Authorities
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Nassau County
Westchester County
West Long Beach Sewer District
City of Glen Cove
General Marine Transport Corp.
Total
9
496
7
306
2,271
200
207
60
115
317
66
0.4
6
32
4,092
(12)
(653)
(9)
(402)
(2,988)
(264)
(272)
(79)
(152)
(416)
(87)
(0.6)
(8)
(42)
(5,385)
1974
10
462
6
304
1,833
276
216
127
112
300
72
0.9
4
35
3,758
03)
(608)
(8)
(400)
(2,412)
(364)
(285)
(167)
(147)
(395)
(94)
(D
(5)
(46)
(4,945)
Meters (Cubic Yards)2
197S
18
510
6
296
1,824
190
249
127
104
312
100
0.5
4
79
3,820
(23)
(671)
(8)
(389)
(2,400)
(249)
(327)
(167)
(136)
(411)
(132)
(0.7)
(5)
(104)
(5,023)
1976
16
518
6
268
1,924
147
220
204
79
359
123
0.9
6
43
3,914
(21)
(681)
(8)
(353)
(2,532)
(193)
(289)
(268)
(104)
(472)
(162)
(1)
(8)
(56)
(5,148)
1977
13
562
6
273
1,978
80
201
203
77
338
140
0.5
5
44
3,921
(18)
(858)
(8)
(359)
(2,602)
(106)
(265)
(267)
(101)
(445)
(185)
(0-7)
(7)
(58)
(5,280)
1 EPA-Region II permit number.
2To obtain approximate volume in wet tons, multiply the number of cubic yards by 0.85.
-------
TABLE 7
SLUDGE DUMPING VESSELS PERMITTED FOR USE IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Permittee Vessel Name
Modern Trans- Forest
portation
Company , .
Lisa
Maria
Raritan
Liquid Waste No. I1
Ocean Disposal! No. 1
New York City North River
Newtown Creek
Bowery Bay
Owls Head
Westchester Westco 1
County
General Marine Susan Frank
Transport
Corp' Rebecca K
Total 1 3 Vessels
or Mean
Type
Barge
Barge
Barge
Barge
Barge
Barge
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker,
Tanker
Barge
Tanker
Tanker
Tonnage
Metric Tons
(Tons)
7,300
(8,000)
7,300
(8,000)
6,400
(7,000)
2,700
(3,000)
2,700
(3,000)
5,400
(6,000)
2,376
(2,617)
2,321
(2,557)
1,432
(1,578)
1;492
(1,643)
728
(802)
1,297
(1,429)
1,297
(1,429)
42,743
(47,055)
Carrying
Capacity
Cubic Meters
(Cubic Yards)
7,193
(9,408)
7,193
(9,408)
6,247
(8,170)
2,650
(3,466)
2,650 '
(3,466)
5,300
(6,932)
3,087
(4,037)
3,052
(3,992)
1,869
(2,444)
1,869
(2,444)
1,415
(1,850)
1,457
(1,906)
1,457
(1,906)
45,439
(59,428)
Age
Years
16
16
16
22
25
7
2
8
16
23
15
NA2
NA
16.6
Length
Meters
(Feet)
83
(272)
83
(272)
91
(300)
64
(211)
64
(211)
81
(266)
99
(324)
99
(324)
82
(268)
82
(268)
61
(201)
76
(249)
76
(249)
80
(262)
Beam
Meters
(Feet)
21
(68)
21
(68)
20
(64)
13
(43)
13
(43)
17
(56)
15
(50)
15
(50)
14
(45)
14
(45)
11
(36)
13
(42)
13
(42)
15
(50)
Loaded
Draft
Meters
(Feet)
5.6
(18.5)
5.6
(18.5)
4.7
(15.5)
4.1
(13.5)
4.1
(13.5)
5.0
(16.5)
4.9
(16)
4.9
(16)
4.0
(13)
4.0
(13)
3.0
(0)
3.7
(12)
3.7
(12)
4.4
(14.2)
Propulsion
Towed
Towed
Towed
Towed
Towed
Towed
Self-
Propelled
Self-
Propel led
Self-
Pro pel led
Self-
Propelled
Towed
Self-
Propel led
Self-
Pro pel led
1 Liquid Waste No. 1 is now in use in Puerto Rico, but may become available in the future.
aNA = Not Available.
Sources: Pollution Control Industries, August 15, 1975; NYCEPA, July 28,1975; Westchester County, July 7,1975; General Marine Transport
Corporation, July 6, 1975.
-------
TABLE 8
FUTURE TREATMENT PRACTICES OF OCEAN DUMPING PERMITTEES
Permit
Number'
NJ002
NJ003
NY007
NJ008
NY009
NJ017
NJ019
NJ021
NJ022
NY028
NY029
NY068
NJ103
NJ111
1981
Permittee
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
City of Long Beach
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
City of New York
Bowery Bay
Coney Island
Hunts Point
Jamaica
Owls Head
Newtown Creek
Port Richmond
Rockaway
Tallman Island
Wards Island
26th Ward
Modern Transportation Co.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority
Linden-Roselle & Rahway Valley Sewerage Authorities
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Nassau County
Bay Park
Belgrave
Cedar Creek
Farmingdale
Freeport3
In wood
Meadowbrook
Roslyn3
West Long Beach
Westchester County
City of Glen Cove
Caldwell Trucking Co,
General Marine Transport Corp.
Treatment
Level
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
NA2
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
-
NA
NA
Sludge Treatment
Composting
Thickening, Digestion, Dewatering
Pyrolysis/lncineration
Digestion, Heat Conditioning
Incineration
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
NA
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Digestion
Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
NA
Digestion
Digestion
NA
None
Digestion, Dewatering
Dewatering, Composting
Incineration
NA
NA
Percent
Solids
3.6
10.0
3.5
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.8
5.0
3.5
4.7
3.5
2.5
3.7
3.5
NA
6.0
4.9
3.5
—
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.5
-
NA
NA
1 EPA-Region II permit number.
JNA = Not Available.
3 May be abandoned before 1981.
-------
plants wilt be practicing secondary wastewater treatment by 1981 and will probably have some method of
sludge treatment as well, most likely thickening and digestion (Table 8). The resulting sludge will generally be
more concentrated than present sludge, especially in terms of total solids, heavy metals, and toxic sub-
stances.
After 1981, the concentration of heavy metals and other toxic substances in sludge should decrease
significantly, as pretreatment of industrial wastewater becomes effective. General pretreatment regulations
were published by EPA on June 26, 1978. Specific pretreatment standards for different types of industries
must now be promulgated by EPA. Once specific standards are promulgated for a given industrial category,
industries within that category will have three years to comply with the standards. Because of the timeframe,
pretreatment standards will have a negligible impact on sludge dumping. However, they will make land-
based disposal of sewage sludge more environmentally acceptable.
Volumes of Sludge to be Dumped. Projections are that by 1981, the volume of sewage sludge
dumped in the New York Bight will be about one and a half times greater than the 1977 volume (Table 9). In
1981, a total of 9.9 million cu m (13.0 million cu yd) of sewage sludge is expected to be dumped in the New
York Bight.
The City of New York, Westchester County, Middlesex County, Passaic Valley, Linden-Roselle & Rah-
way Valley, and Joint Meeting are expected to remain the largest generators of sludge volumes in 1981
(Table 9), with the greatest growth in volume, a fivefold increase, projected for Westchester County. New
York City will continue to be the largest sludge generator in New York State, and Passaic Valley and Middle-
sex County the largest in New Jersey.
OCEAN DUMPING AT OTHER SITES IN AND NEAR THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Besides the sewage sludge dump site, the other existing dump sites in the New York Bight are the
dredged material, cellar dirt, acid wastes, and wreck sites (Figure 2 and Table 1). The chemical wastes site,
which lies outside the Bight, (Figure 1 and Table 1) will also be discussed in this section. For the most part,
ocean dumping at these five sites will continue after 1981.
Dredged Material Site
The principal wastes dumped at this site are materials dredged from navigable waterways (including
channels, harbors, anchorage grounds, and vessel berths) in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area.
The dredged material currently dumped here results from maintenance dredging operations, although until
1973 ash residues from fossil-fueled power plants were also dumped at this site. Hopper dredges owned by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and privately owned bottom-dump scows both use this site.
Past Activities. The original dredged material dump site was established in 1888 inside New York
Harbor. As the designated area decreased noticeably in depth, its location was changed several times; the
existing dredged material site was designated for use in 1940. Dredged material has generally been the major
source of wastes dumped in the New York Bight, based upon annual volumes.
From 1960 to 1977, approximately 112 million cu m (146 million cu yd) of dredged material were
dumped at the existing site (Figure 3 and Table 5). The peak annual volume for this period was 11.5 million
cu m (15.0 million cu yd) in 1971. The average annual volume for the period was approximately 6 million cu
m (8 million cu yd).
Present Waste Characteristics. Dredged material dumped at the existing site consists primarily of
particulate solids (Table 10), characterized by high concentrations of heavy metals (especially cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, and zinc). Based on total volumes dumped, dredged material apparently exerts the
same BOD as sewage sludge, but nearly twice the COD and almost five times the TOC. The mass loading of
oil and grease in the dredged material is extremely high. The total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) level in dredged
32
-------
TABLE 8 '
FUTURE TREATMENT PRACTICES OF OCEAN DUMPING PERMITTEES
1981
Permit
Number'
NJ002
NJ003
NY007
NJ008
NY009
NJ017
NJ019
NJ021
NJ022
NY028
NY029
NY068
NJ103
NJ111
Permittee
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
City of Long Beach
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
City of New York
Bowery Bay
Coney Island
Hunts Point
Jamaica
Owls Head
Newtown Creek
Port Richmond
Rockaway
Tallman Island
Wards Island
26th Ward
Modern Transportation Co.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority
Linden-Roselle & Rahway Valley Sewerage Authorities
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Nassau County
Bay Park
Belgrave
Cedar Creek
Farmingdale
Freeport3
In wood
Meadowbrook
Roslyn3
West Long Beach
Westchester County
City of Glen Cove
Caldwell Trucking Co.
General Marine Transport Corp.
Treatment
Level
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
NA2
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
-
NA
NA
Sludge Treatment
Composting
Thickening, Digestion, Dewatering
Pyrolysis/lncineration
Digestion, Heat Conditioning
Incineration
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
NA
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
Digestion
Digestion
Thickening, Digestion
NA
Digestion
Digestion
NA
None
Digestion, Dewatering
Dewatering, Composting
Incineration
NA
NA
Percent
Solids
3.6
10.0
3.5
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.8
5.0
3.5
4.7
3.5.
2.5
3.7
3.5
NA
6.0
4.9
3.5
—
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.5
—
NA
NA
1 EPA-Region II permit number.
JNA = Not Available.
3 May be abandoned before 1981.
-------
plants will be practicing secondary wastewater treatment by 1981 and will probably have some method of
sludge treatment as well, most likely thickening and digestion (Table 8). The resulting sludge will generally be
more concentrated than present sludge, especially in terms of total solids, heavy metals, and toxic sub-
stances.
After 1981, the concentration of neavy metals and other toxic substances in sludge should decrease
significantly, as pretreatment of industrial wastewater becomes effective. General pretreatment regulations
were published by EPA on June 26, 1978. Specific pretreatment standards for different types of industries
must now be promulgated by EPA. Once specific standards are promulgated for a given industrial category,
industries within that category will have three years to comply with the standards. Because of the timeframe,
pretreatment standards will have a negligible impact on sludge dumping. However, they will make land-
based disposal of sewage sludge more environmentally acceptable.
Volumes of Sludge to be Dumped. Projections are that by 1981, the volume of sewage sludge
dumped in the New York Bight will be about one and a half times greater than the 1977 volume (Table 9). In
1981, a total of 9.9 million cu m (13.0 million cu yd) of sewage sludge is expected to be dumped in the New
York Bight.
The City of New York, Westchester County, Middlesex County, Passaic Valley, Linden-Roselle & Rah-
way Valley, and Joint Meeting are expected to remain the largest generators of sludge volumes in 1981
(Table 9), with the greatest growth in volume, a fivefold increase, projected for Westchester County. New
York City will continue to be the largest sludge generator in New York State, and Passaic Valley and Middle-
sex County the largest in New jersey.
OCEAN DUMPING AT OTHER SITES IN AND NEAR THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Besides the sewage sludge dump site, the other existing dump sites in the New York Bight are the
dredged material, cellar dirt, acid wastes, and wreck sites (Figure 2 and Table 1). The chemical wastes site,
which lies outside the Bight, (Figure 1 and Table 1) will also be discussed in this section. For the most part,
ocean dumping at these five sites will continue after 1981.
Dredged Material Site
The principal wastes dumped at this site are materials dredged from navigable waterways (including
channels, harbors, anchorage grounds, and vessel berths) in the New York-New jersey metropolitan area.
The dredged material currently dumped here results from maintenance dredging operations, although until
1973 ash residues from fossil-fueled power plants were also dumped at this site. Hopper dredges owned by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and privately owned bottom-dump scows both use this site.
Past Activities. The original dredged material dump site was established in 1888 inside New York
Harbor. As the designated area decreased noticeably in depth, its location was changed several times; the
existing dredged material site was designated for use in 1940. Dredged material has generally been the major
source of wastes dumped in the New York Bight, based upon annual volumes.
From 1960 to 1977, approximately 112 million cu m (146 million cu yd) of dredged material were
dumped at the existing site (Figure 3 and Table 5). The peak annual volume for this period was 11.5 million
cu m (15.0 million cu yd) in 1971. The average annual volume for the period was approximately 6 million cu
m (8 million cu yd).
Present Waste Characteristics. Dredged material dumped at the existing site consists primarily of
paniculate solids (Table 10), characterized by high concentrations of heavy metals (especially cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, and zinc). Based on total volumes dumped, dredged material apparently exerts the
same BOD as sewage sludge, but nearly twice the COD and almost five times the TOC. The mass loading of
oil and grease in the dredged material is extremely high. The total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) level in dredged
32
-------
TABLE 9
ESTIMATED VOLUMES OF SEWAGE SLUDGE TO BE DUMPED IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
1978 to 1981
Permit
Number1
Permittee
Volume
In Thousands of Cubic Meters (Cubic Yards)
1978
NJ002
NJ003
NY007
NJ008
NY009
NJ017
NJ019
NJ021
NJ022
NY028
NY029
NY068
NJ111
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
City of Long Beach
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
City of New York
Modern Transportation Co.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority
Linden-Roselle & Rahway Valley Sewerage Authorities
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Nassau County
Westchester County
City of Glen Clove
General Marine Transport Corp.
Total
17
626
8
536
3,545
170
217
247
179
379
340
12
34
6,310
(22)
(824)
(11)
(706)
(4,665)
(244)
(286)
(325)
(235)
(499)
(447)
(15)
(45)
(8,324)
1979
36
760
9
760
4,325
107
228
250
331 -
414
528
13
11
7,772
(47)
(1,000)
(12)
(1,000)
(5,690)
(141)
(300)
(329)
(435)
(545)
(694)
(18)
(14)
(10,225)
1980
42
998
9
907
4,593
89
232
259
331
431
677
13
9
8,590
(55)
(1,300)
(12)
(1,193)
(6,044)
(118)
(306)
(341)
(435)
(567)
(891)
(18)
(12)
(11,292)
2
1981
48
998
9
918
5,851
72
237
268
331
449
697
13
4
9,895
(63)
(1,300)
(12)
(1,208)
(7,699)
(94)
(312)
(353)
(435)
(590)
(916)
(18)
(6)
(13,006)
1 EPA-Region II permit number.
'To obtain approximate volume in wet tons, multiply the number of cubic yards by 0.85.
Sources: USEPA, permit files, unpub.; Bergen County Sew. Auth., October 12, 1975; Joint Meeting, September 10, 1975; Middlesex County Sew. Auth., September 18, 1975; Passaic Valley Sew.
Comm., September 24, 1975; Nassau County, September 18, 1975; Westchester County, September 15, 1975; New York City Environmental Protection Administration, October 28,
1975.
-------
TABLE 10
COMPARATIVE POLLUTANT LOADINGS FROM OCEAN DUMPING ACTIVITIES
Parameter
Volume (106 cu yd/yr)
Suspended Solids
Biological Oxygen Demand (five day)
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Organic Carbon
Oil and Grease
Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrite and Nitrate
Total Nitrogen
Ortho-Phosphorous
Total Phosphorous
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Lead
Zinc
Load
metric
tons/day*
21.7
15,000
430
3,200
660
330
50
35
85
0.086
85
—
69
2.0
2.5
7.1
180
0.026
5.6
9.3
1975
Dredged
Material
53
86
49
65
82
92
74
74
74
—
74
-
92
98
93
89
—
50
85
78
Sewage
Sludge
26
3
46
34
17
7
20
20
20
53
20
-
7
2
3
10
—
50
13
19
Percentage
Acid
Wastes
15
0.7
—
0.1
—
0.04
—
-
-
—
—
—
0.3
0.1
4
0.7
—
0.04
3
2
Chemical
Wastes
3
0.05
5
1
1
6
6
6
6
47
6
—
0.8
0.06
0.1
0.07
—
0.7
0.03
0.7
Cellar
Dirt
3
11
—
-
-
—
—
-
-
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
-
—
*metric ton = 1.10 tons.
Source: Mueller eta/., 1976.
-------
material appears to be nearly four times as high as that in sludge, and the total phosphorous level more than
thirteen times as high.
Future Activities. Based on historical permit data, the COE expects a future annual increment of 46 to
54 thousand cu m (60 to 70 thousand cu yd) of dredged material. In 1976, 7.0 million cu m (9.3 million cu
yd) of material were dumped at the site. Using the projected increment, the 1981 volume would be about
7.1 million cu m (9.4 million cu yd); however, a few large dredging projects could significantly change the
projection.
In October 1974, EPA requested that the COE-New York District submit a plan for phasing out the
existing dredged material dump site by 1976, and for possibly using an alternate dump site within the North-
ern or Southern Area (described in Chapter IV). The plan was also to consider alternatives to ocean dumping,
potential hazards to navigation, and economic impacts, and was to include an implementation schedule. The
request was made because of the significant volume of dredged material being dumped annually, its high
pollutant loading, and EPA's preliminary decision to move the sewage sludge dump site farther offshore
(USEPA, October 9, 1974).
The COE-New York District maintains that relocating the dredged material dump site is not currently
justified in terms of its potential effects on water quality, shellfish beds or fisheries resources, wildlife, or
recreational areas. In addition, the COE indicates that transporting dredged material to an alternate dump site
in either the Northern or Southern Area will significantly increase the cost of waterways dredging and port
development in the metropolitan area. However, the COE is now studying alternative sites and methods of
dredged material disposal and has indicated a willingness to relocate the dump site if studies show that the
existing site presents a hazard to navigation or public health (USACOE, December 12, 1974).
Monitoring studies conducted under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Marine
Ecosystems Analysis (NOAA-MESA) program indicate that the "great bulk" of dredged material already
dumped at the site has not been transported any significant distance from the release point (NOAA, March
14, 1975). In February 1976, NOAA-MESA stated that use of the existing dredged material and sewage
sludge dump sites had resulted in significant adverse environmental impacts over a localized area of several
hundred square meters. Nevertheless, NOAA does not recommend moving the existing dump site unless it
presents a hazard to navigation or public health (NOAA, October 6, 1975).
The EPA is currently evaluating the need for relocating the dredged material dump site.
Cellar Dirt Site
Cellar dirt (Table 10) is composed mainly of construction rubble, broken concrete, excavated earth and
rock, and other non-floatable material, the bulk of which comes from construction activities in Manhattan.
The cellar dirt is ocean dumped because there are few land disposal sites remaining in this area.
Past Activities. Cellar dirt has been dumped in the New York Bight since 1908, when the original
dump site was established. Since then, the site has been moved several times to prevent accumulation of the
material from posing a hazard to navigation. The existing site was designated in 1940. From 1960 through
1977, this dump site received over 8.0 million cu m (10.6 million cu yd) of material (Table 5) for an average
annual contribution of over 450 thousand cu m (590 thousand cu yd). In 1977, however, only 135 thousand
cu m (177 thousand cu yd) of cellar dirt material were dumped at the site. This reduction in volume is due to
decreased construction activity in Manhattan.
Future Activities. The volume of material dumped at the cellar dirt site varies according to economic
conditions in the construction industry and cannot be reliably forecast.
Acid Wastes Site
Currently, the acid wastes dump site is used by only two industries, NL Industries and Allied Chemical,
both of which are located in New Jersey. Prior to 1974, DuPont dumped caustic wastes at the site, but these
35
-------
wastes are now dumped at the chemical wastes site. Acid wastes, which consist of by-product (process) acid
solutions (Table 10), are generally transported to the site aboard rubber-lined tank barges. They are then re-
leased below water level while the barges are underway; this assures maximum dispersion and dilution.
Past Activities. The existing acid wastes dump site in the Bight Apex was established in 1948. Before
that, acid wastes were dumped at the sewage sludge dump site. Between 1960 and 1977, almost 39 million
cu m (51 million cu yd) of acid wastes were dumped (Figure 3 and Table 5), for an average annual con-
tribution of 2.2 million cu m (2.8 million cu yd).
Future Activities. The volume of acid wastes dumped in the New York Bight is not expected to in-
crease between now and 1981. The two industries currently using the site are under an implementation
schedule to meet ocean dumping criteria or phase out ocean dumping by 1981.
Wreck Site
Under a General Permit from EPA, derelict vessels and wrecks are disposed of at this dump site.
Past Activities. The wreck site has been used very sparingly in recent years. Only eight vessels were
dumped at the site between 1960 and 1977 (Table 5).
Future Activities. In 1975 the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the COE proposed that the existing wreck
site be relocated outside of present navigational lanes. In early 1977, a new site, as listed in Table 1, was
designated for interim use.
Chemical Wastes Site
The chemical wastes dump site was established as an alternative to the inland discharge or land dis-
posal of those industrial chemical wastes that might contaminate potable water supplies.
Past Activities. From 1967 to 1977, less than 3.5 million cu m (4.5 million cu yd) of chemical wastes
were dumped here (Figure 3 and Table 5), for an average annual contribution of slightly over 313 thousand
cu m (412 thousand cu yd). During the period from 1964 to 1966, there was apparently no dumping of
chemical wastes at this site. Prior to 1974, some chemical wastes were dumped at the sewage sludge and
acid wastes sites.
In March 1977, EPA-Region II granted the request of DuPont of Edge Moor, Delaware, that it be
allowed to move its dumping activities from a site 65 km (35 n mi) due east of the Maryland-Delaware
border to the chemical wastes dump site.
Pursuant to a court order, the City of Camden, New Jersey, began dumping its sewage sludge at the
chemical wastes site in January 1977. Camden's use of this site terminated in June 1978, when the city
switched to a land-based disposal method (see Chapter III).
Future Activities. At present, six industrial waste generators are permitted to use this site. Of these, five
are under an implementation schedule to phase out ocean dumping by 1981, while the sixth industry, Du-
Pont's Grasselli Plant in Linden, New Jersey, has met the ocean dumping criteria.
OVERVIEW OF POLLUTANT LOADING IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
The present pollutant loading in the New York Bight can be attributed not only to ocean dumping but to
non-dumping contaminant sources as well. The non-dumped loading comes from three major sources: atmo-
spheric fallout, municipal and industrial wastewater discharges through ocean outfalls, and surface (gaged
and urban) and groundwater runoff (Table 11 and Figure 4).
36
-------
TABLE 11
POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO THE NEW YORK BIGHT BY SOURCE
Parameter
Percentage Contribution
Direct Bight
Coastal Zone
Wastewater
Flow
Suspended Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(five day)
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Organic Carbon
Oil & Grease
Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrite & Nitrate
Total Nitrogen
Ortho-Phosphorous
Total Phosphorous
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Lead
Zinc
Fecal Coliforms
winter
summer
Total Coliforms
winter
summer
Barge*
0.02
63
21
32
25
38
24
19
21
0.07
16
-
50
82
50
51 .
79
9
44
29
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Atmospheric
59
5
9
10
12
—
4
9
6
33
13
1
0.7
2
1
3
3
—
9
18
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Municipal
5
4
48
35
29
22
55
45
51
6
40
72
35
5
22
. 11
5
71
19
8
87
85
91
84
Industrial
0.4
0.2
2
1
1
0.7
3
2
2
0.3
2
-
' 1
0.6
0.8
9
0.5
2
3
2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
Gaged
33
16
11
13
18
16
10
21
15
60
25
18
9
5
10
10
6
13
6
21
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.1
Runoff
Urban
2
12
9
9
15
23
4
5
5
0.6
4
9
4
5
16
16
6
5
19
22
13
15
9
16
Groundwater
0.4
Nil
0.01
0.01
0.02
-
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.7
0.2
Nil
Nil
0.001
Nil
0.006
0.01
-
0.004
0.009
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
*Barging includes the dumping of dredged material, sewage sludge, acid wastes, chemical wastes, and cellar dirt.
Source: Mueller era/., 1976.
-------
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
NITROGEN
SLUDGE
ACID WAS'
AIR
ORGANIC CARBON
AIR
PHOSPHORUS
SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS IN THE
NEW YORK BIGHT
CHROMIUM
SOURCE: MUELLER et. al., 1976.
FIGURE 4
-------
A report prepared by Mueller et al. (1976) provides the best current estimate of non-dumped pollutant
loading in the New York Bight. Admittedly, the report contains data gaps and relies heavily on unverified
discharge information, but on the whole, it gives a good general description of the present situation.
The actual contaminant input to the waters of the New York Bight cannot be precisely quantified be-
cause it is difficult to identify reductions that occur in the pollutant load before it reaches the Bight. For the
most part, contaminants are identified by Mueller et al. (1976) as coming from three separate zones: the
Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect zone, the New Jersey coastal zone, and the Long Island coastal zone.
Barging sources, as defined by Mueller et al. (1976), include dredged material, sewage sludge, acid
wastes, chemical wastes, and cellar dirt dumped directly into the waters of the Bight (Table 10). The pol-
lutant loading from wreck dumping is considered insignificant. In terms of absolute volumes, dredged ma-
terial constitutes the major source of pollutants dumped in the Bight.
Mueller ef al. (1976) conclude that the greatest pollutant input to the New York Bight originates in the
Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect zone. Inputs from the New Jersey and Long Island coastal zones are
small, contributing less than 6 percent of the total pollutant loading.
Suspended Solids
The major input (63 percent) of suspended solids to the waters of the New York Bight comes from
barged sources, principally dredged material (86 percent of the barged volume). Atmospheric fallout contrib-
utes approximately 5 percent of the total, while runoff contributes about 28 percent. Wastewater discharges
contribute the remaining 4 percent.
Carbonaceous Materials
Municipal wastewater discharges are the source of about half (48 percent) of the BOD load reaching
the Bight. Barging (21 percent), runoff (20 percent), and atmospheric fallout (9 percent) account for most of
the remaining load.
Barging and municipal wastewater discharge loadings account for approximately 67 percent of the
COD and 54 percent of the TOC loading in the New York Bight. The COD and TOC loadings from atmo-
spheric fallout are approximately 11 percent and 15 percent, respectively; the loadings from runoff are also
approximately 11 percent COD and 15 percent TOC.
Heavy Metals
Barging appears to be the major source of heavy metals in the New York Bight, with the exception of
mercury (the major source of mercury is municipal wastewater discharges). Runoff and municipal wastewa-
ter discharges are the second and third largest sources of heavy metals. Almost all of the barge-related heavy
metal loadings result from dredged material dumping; sewage sludge accounts for less than 6 percent (Table
10).
Nitrogen and Phosphorous
Approximately 40 percent of the total nitrogen in the New York Bight appears to come from municipal
wastewater discharges. Runoff (29 percent), barging (16 percent), and atmospheric fallout (13 percent) ac-
count for most of the remaining amount (Table 11).
39
-------
Barging, primarily of dredged material (92 percent of the barged volume), accounts for 50 percent of
the total phosphorous loading in the Bight (Tables 10 and 11). Municipal wastewater discharges (35 percent)
are the second largest source.
Microbial Contamination
Municipal wastewater discharges appear to be the major source (84 to 91 percent) of microbial con-
tamination (fecal and total coliform) in the Bight. The remaining coliform loading comes from urban runoff.
Barging is an insignificant source of fecal contamination in the New York Bight.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) regulates the dumping of waste
materials in United States ocean waters (PL 92-532). It forbids the dumping of radiological, chemical, or
biological warfare agents or high-level radioactive wastes. The act includes mechanisms for designating
dump sites, for issuing dumping permits, and for carrying out associated surveillance and enforcement activi-
ties. It also provides for establishing marine sanctuaries and for researching the causes and effects of marine
pollution. In November 1977, the MPRSA was amended to prohibit the ocean dumping of sewage sludge
after December 31, 1981 (PL 95-153).
Responsibilities of federal agencies under the MPRSA are discussed below.
The EPA issues permits for the transportation and dumping of all materials, except dredged material,
into ocean waters; establishes criteria for review of permit applications; designates ocean dump sites; as-
sesses environmental impacts of ocean dumping; and provides for enforcement of ocean dumping permits.
The COE issues permits for the dumping of dredged material, in accordance with EPA criteria and
subject to EPA review.
The USCC conducts surveillance and other appropriate enforcement activities to prevent unlawful
transportation of material for dumping.
The Department of Commerce (through NOAA) conducts comprehensive monitoring and research pro-
grams to determine the effects of ocean dumping, including possible long-range effects of pollution, overfish-
ing, and man-induced changes on ocean ecosystems; designates marine sanctuaries, after consultation with
other affected federal agencies; and regulates all activities within such sanctuaries.
The Department of State protects the marine environment by negotiating international agreements that
further the goals of the MPRSA.
The U.S. Attorney General initiates civil and criminal actions at EPA's direction "for such relief as may
be appropriate", including injunctions to cease ocean dumping.
Related Legislation
The New York Harbor Act of 1888, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (otherwise known as the
Refuse Act), and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1905 were the first federal laws that attempted to regulate
the dumping of refuse and dredged material into the navigable waters of the United States, including coastal
waters. The MPRSA has superseded these acts and other related legislation with regard to ocean dumping of
waste materials.
40
-------
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), which is also known as the Clean Water Act, pro-
vided EPA with the authority to regulate the discharge of treated wastewater (effluent) into United States
waters, including wastewater discharged through ocean outfalls. Both the MPRSA and the FWPCA provide
for the establishment of criteria to control the dumping and discharge of wastes in ocean waters.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1965 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) indirectly relate to ocean dumping in that they require the conservation of marine resources and the
assessment of environmental impacts, respectively, where federal actions are concerned. Prior to the passage
of the MPRSA, these laws were frequently used to halt or regulate ocean dumping (Pararas-Carayannis,
1973).
EPA Ocean Dumping Permit Program
Under the terms of the MPRSA, EPA is authorized to establish a permit program for regulating the
transportation and dumping of all wastes except dredged material in ocean waters. Region II of EPA has been
delegated the responsibility for regulating ocean dumping in the waters off New York, New Jersey, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Existing Regulations. On January 11, 1977, EPA-Headquarters published Subchapter H, Ocean Dump-
ing, Final Revision of Regulations and Criteria (40 CFR, Parts 220 to 229), as authorized by the MPRSA,
which established guidelines for the review, evaluation, and issuance of ocean dumping permits. On Novem-
ber 28, 1977, EPA-Headquarters published further revisions, in interim final form, of two sections of the
regulations (Parts 223 and 226) dealing with procedural matters. Together, the January and November regu-
lations, which replace those issued on October 15, 1973, reflect the latest ocean dumping technology, facili-
tate the permit review process, and bring the regulatory process into line with the MPRSA, the FWPCA, and
the International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Mat-
ter. Copies of the regulations can be found in Appendix B.
Part 220 of these regulations describes five types of permits that may be issued: General, Special,
Emergency, Research, and Interim. The EPA has, with few exceptions, issued only Interim Permits. These
permits have a term of one year or less; they are issued when the material to be dumped does not meet
established criteria (Part 227). Under the revised regulations, Interim Permits cannot be issued to new appli-
cants, that is, to applicants who have not previously received ocean dumping permits. Furthermore, an
Interim Permit cannot be issued to a present permit holder unless "the permittee has exercised his best
efforts to comply with all requirements of a special permit by April 23, 1978, and has an implementation
schedule adequate to allow phasing out of ocean dumping or compliance with all requirements necessary to
receive a special permit by December 31, 1981, at the latest." The EPA's policy has been to grant all
requests for public hearings on the issuance of ocean dumping permits. (A sample permit form is contained
in Appendix A.)
In EPA-Region II only four Special Permits are now in effect: one permit is held by the Moran Towing
Corporation for use of the cellar dirt dump site; the other three are held by DuPont's Grasselli Plant of
Linden, New Jersey, DuPont of Edge Moor, Delaware, and the Crompton and Knowles Corporation of Read-
ing, Pennsylvania, for use of the chemical wastes site. Special Permits have a term of three years or less and
are issued only if the material to be dumped meets the criteria set forth in Part 227 of the regulations.
Pans 221 through 226 describe information required for permit application, processing fees, action on
application, contents of permits, records, COE permits, and enforcement procedures for the regulation of
ocean dumping.
Part 227 contains the technical criteria used by EPA in evaluating the wastes proposed for ocean dump-
ing, including applicable maximum concentrations of specified toxic substances. These criteria set prohib-
itions, limits, and conditions on ocean dumping based on a wide range of specific environmental impacts.
Part 227 also prescribes the procedures for establishing the need for ocean dumping; and for evaluating
ocean dumping's impact on aesthetic, recreational, and economic resources, and on other uses of the ocean.
41
-------
Part 228 establishes criteria for the initial selection and management of ocean dump sites. It also pro-
vides criteria for monitoring and evaluating the overall environmental impact of dumping at a given site and
for managing a site to prevent "unreasonable degradation". It contains guidelines for standardizing the plan-
ning and implementation of baseline and trend assessment surveys at the dump sites.
Part 229 describes the three General Permits that EPA has issued: one for burial-at-sea, another for the
transport and sinking of target vessels by the U.S. Navy, and a third for the dumping of wrecks (derelict
vessels).
One Research Permit has been issued to the JBF Scientific Corporation of Wilmington, Massachusetts,
to conduct oil spill control research during the fall of 1978. No Emergency Permits, which are usually issued
by EPA-Headquarters, have been granted for the New York Bight area to date.
Enforcement Actions. Since the MPRSA became effective, EPA-Region II has initiated twenty-four en-
forcement actions on alleged ocean dumping permit violations in the New York Bight (Table 12). Most of
these actions were based upon referrals from the USCG, NASA, and EPA's own staff. Thirteen of these
orders were issued for alleged misuse of the existing sewage sludge site. The remaining orders were for
alleged violations at the dredged material, chemical wastes, and acid wastes sites.
Over 150 USCG referrals to EPA have been for the permittee's "failure to notify" the USCG prior to
leaving port. The facts did not warrant initiation of administrative action, although in most cases, a letter of
reprimand was sent to the permittee.
COE Dredged Material Permit Program
The COE is authorized to issue permits for the dumping of dredged material into navigable waters
(under the FWPCA) and into ocean waters (under the MPRSA). Passage of these two acts relieved the COE
of all responsibility for the regulation of waste discharges, either as effluent or as solid waste materials.
The COE has published interim final regulations (33 CFR Part 209) containing guidelines for the regula-
tion of dredging operations and for the issuance of permits for the transport of dredged material for dumping.
The criteria to be used by the COE in evaluating applications for ocean dumping of dredged material are
those promulgated under the aforementioned ocean dumping regulations (40 CFR Parts 227 and 228).
USCG Surveillance Responsibilities
The USCG has responsibility under the MPRSA for conducting "surveillance and other appropriate
enforcement activity to prevent unlawful transportation of material for dumping, or unlawful dumping." The
USCG is also charged with supplying "to the EPA Administrator and the U.S. Attorney General, as appropri-
ate, such information of enforcement as they may require in carrying out their duties relative to penalty
assessment (fines), criminal prosecutions, or other actions involving litigation." The USCG is also authorized
to issue regulations to carry out "the responsibilities and authority conferred."
Existing Program. As of August 1978, the USCG had not promulgated any regulations under the
MPRSA. For the present, the USCG has defined its surveillance responsibilities in an internal order (Com-
mandant Instruction 5992.9A), which can be briefly summarized as follows:
— . Spot checks will be conducted on dumping vessels for valid permits.
— Surveillance will be concentrated on the dumping of toxic material, EPA requests for
vessel/dump monitoring, and 10 percent of other disposal activities.
— Surveillance will be accomplished by using a USCG vessel to intercept and/or escort the permit-
tee vessel, by aircraft overflight of the assigned dump site during dumping activity, by stationing
shipriders (USCG personnel) on permittee vessels, and by radar coverage.
— Random surveillance missions will be conducted in designated and non-designated areas to dis-
courage illegal dumping.
42
-------
TABLE 12
OCEAN DUMPING ORDERS IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Order
No.
73-1
74-1
74-2
74-4
75-2
75-3
75-4
75-5
76-2
76-3
76-4
76-5
Respondent
General Marine Transport Co« p.
Moran Towing & Transportation
Co.
Modern Transportation Company
Spentonbush Transport Service,
Inc.
Modern Transportation Company
Chemical Recovery Corp.
EPL Industries, Inc.
Nassau County
Moran Towing & Transportation
Co.
Fritzche Dodge & Olcott
Whippany Paperboard Co.,
Inc.
S.B.Thomas, Inc.
International Wire Products,
Inc.
Referral From
EPA-Region II
USCG
USCG
USCG
EPA-Region II
EPA-Region II
EPA-Region II
NASA & EPA-
Region II
EPA-Region II
EPA-Region II
EPA-Region II
EPA-Region II
Type of Violation
Permit condition violation
and dumping without
permit
Dumped outside authorized
dump site
Dumped outside authorized
dump site
Dumped outside authorized
dump site
Higher concentration of
several parameters than
reported in the permit
application
Higher concentration of
several parameters than
reported in the permit
application
Failure to segregate
industrial waste
Dumped outside authorized
dump site
Failure to meet permit
reporting requirement
Failure to meet permit
reporting requirement
Failure to meet permit
reporting requirement
Failure to meet permit
reporting requirement
Administrative
Order
Final Order
5/15/74
Final Order
5/27/75
Final Order
1 /22/75
Final Order
12/23/75
Final Order
3/21/77
Final Order
3/16/77
Final Order
6/16/75
Notice of
Violation
8/14/75
Final Order
9/1/76
Notice of
Violation
7/22/76
Final Order
9/9/76
Final Order
9/20/76
Disposition
Hearing officer upheld
GMTC on both counts
$25,000 civil penality;
U.S. District Court re-
duced penalty to $5,000
Charges withdrawn
Charges withdrawn
Charges withdrawn
$25,000 civil penalty
assessed
No penalty; ordered to
terminate dumping of
industrial wastes
Pending
$500 civil penalty
Pending
$500 civil penalty
$1,000 civil penalty
. Dump Site
Sewage Sludge
Acid Wastes
Sewage Sludge
Chemical Wastes
Chemical Wastes
Chemical Wastes
Sewage Sludge
Acid Wastes
Chemical Wastes
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Chemical Wastes
\
-------
TABLE 12 (Continued)
Order
No.
76-6
76-7
76-8
76-9
76-10
76-11
77-1
77-2
77-5/11
77-13
77-14
77-15
Respondent
Spen ton bush Transport
Service, Inc.
General Marine Transport
Corp.
Whippany Paperboard
Co., Inc.
Gates Construction Corp.;
C & H Towing Co.
Allied Chemical Corporation
The City of New York
General Marine Transport
Corp.
Middletown Sewerage Authority
General Marine Transport
Corp.
New York City Department
of Water Resources
Westchester Co. and McAllister
Bros.
A&S Transport Company,
Ocean Disposal Company
and McAllister Bros.
Referral From
USCG
USCG
EPA-Region II
Corps of Engineers
USCG
USCG
USCG
EPA-Region II
USCG
USCG
USCG
USCG
Type of Violation
No permit aboard
towing vessel
Failure to notify USCG
of sailing
Failure to file new
application
Dumped outside author-
ized dump site, dumping
floatables, transporting
floatables for purpose of
dumping
Dumpec! outside author-
ized dump site
Dumped outside author-
ized dump site
No permit aboard vessel
Failure to meet permit
reporting requirement
Dumping at a faster rate
and over a shorter distance
than authorized
Failure to maintain
facilities in good working
order
Dumping outside author-
ized dump site
Dumping outside author-
ized dump site
Administrative
Order
Final Order
9/30/76
Final Order
7/5/77
Final Order
10/18/76
Notice of
Violation
10/21/76
Final Order
11/12/76
Final Order
2/14/78
Final Order
1/31/78
Notice of
Violation
3/8/77 .
Final Order
6/23/78
Notice of
Violation
8/17/77
Final Order
1/30/78
Final Order
1/31/78
Disposition
$200 civil penalty
Hearing officer upheld
GMTC
$3,500 civil penalty
Pending
Charges Withdrawn
Charges Withdrawn
Charges Withdrawn
Pending
Charges Withdrawn
Pending
Charges Withdrawn
Charges Withdrawn
Dump Site
Chemical Wastes
Chemical Wastes
Sewage Sludge
Dredged Material
Acid Wastes
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
-------
— For purposes of enforcement, the USCG will report violations of the ocean dumping permit con-
ditions to EPA.
— The USCG will review both EPA and COE draft ocean dumping permits so that specific surveil-
lance conditions may be made part of the final permit.
The USCG-Third District, which has jurisdiction over coastal waters from Connecticut to Delaware, is
responsible for^the surveillance of ocean dumping in the New York Bight. Within the Bight Apex, patrol
vessels conduct surveillance of the existing dump sites and record vessel sitings, activities, and positions.
Daily helicopter patrols are conducted over the five existing dump sites in the Bight Apex, weather condi-
tions permitting.
The use of shipriders is an effective method of surveillance, but requires a significant commitment of
manpower. Therefore, shipriders are used only for surveillance at the chemical wastes dump site. Intercep-
tion by aircraft or ship is not routinely attempted because of the inaccuracy in estimating the dumping
vessel's time of arrival and because of the relatively short endurance time of the patrol helicopters (USCG,
July8, 1975).
Proposed Program. The USCG is conducting research on a positive location recording system that is
based on electronic navigation. The prototype, tested in the summer of 1975, is based on LORAN C (Long
Range Aid to Navigation). The sealed device records the trackline of the dump vessel, providing a permanent
indication of whether the vessel reached the designated site. Although the prototype does not have a dump
sensor, such a sensor is electronically possible. The legal aspects of placing this equipment aboard private
vessels are also being researched (USCG, July 8, 1975).
FDA Responsibilities
Operating under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act and the Public Health Service Act, the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) administers the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. This program gives FDA the
responsibility for assuring that bivalve shellfish (clams, oysters, etc.) shipped in interstate commerce are of a
safe and wholesome nature. The FDA is responsible for classifying the waters beyond the 3-mile (5.6 km)
limit* Since 1970, FDA has also monitored waters beyond the 12-mile (22.2 km) limit. (USEPA, November
21, 1975).
In the metropolitan area, FDA has prohibited shellfishing within an 11.1 km (6.0 n mi) radius and
shoreward of the existing sewage sludge dump site. The closure includes both the polluted area and a safety
or buffer zone. The USCG monitors this closed area and notifies FDA of vessels seen harvesting shellfish.
Although FDA is empowered to seize the cargo, it usually asks state officials to take appropriate action. This
may include seizure of the cargo, fines, and/or license suspension.
INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
An alternate sewage sludge dump site in either the Northern or Southern Area in the New York Bight
would .lie outside currently recognized United States waters. International guidelines on ocean dumping are
somewhat vague, despite the proceedings of the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference (UNLOS
III). The United States has enacted legislation that extends economic control to the 200-mile (371 km) limit.
* All limits in ocean waters are expressed in nautical miles (n mi): e.g., 3-, 12-, and 200-mile limits.
45
-------
United States Laws
The United States has recognized a territorial limit (territorial sea) of 3 nautical miles (5.5 km) since
1783. The waters, air space, seabed, and subsoil within this limit are subject to United States sovereignty.
The coastal states also have jurisdiction over the waters within the 3-mile (5.6 km) limit.
In 1945, a presidential proclamation (Proc. No. 2668) extended United States jurisdiction over the
subsoil and seabed resources beyond the 3-mile (5.6 km) limit, to the edge of the continental shelf. This
proclamation also established United States claims to oil and gas deposits beneath the shelf. The Outer Con-
tinental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act of 1953 reinforced the proclamation and gave the federal government sole
jurisdiction over submerged lands from the 3-mile (5.6 km) limit to the edge of the continental shelf. A
companion bill, the Continental Shelf Submerged Lands Act of 1953, gave the coastal states jurisdiction over
seabed and subsoil resources within the territorial sea.
In 1966, the U.S. Congress passed the Territorial Fisheries Act, which extended exclusive fishing rights
to the 12-mile (22.0 km) limit.
The MPRSA gave the United States control of ocean dumping in coastal ocean waters over which the
United States has jurisdiction or may exercise control, under accepted principles of international law (Baxter
etal., 1974).
The slow progress of UNLOS III toward final agreements or treaties led United States lawmakers to pass
legislation extending commercial fisheries and pollution control jurisdiction to the 200-mile (371 km) limit.
The law was passed in June 1976, and went into effect in January 1977.
International Agreements
The Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone defined the territorial sea as those
waters extending 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) seaward of a defined baseline, as determined by the Department
of State. The contiguous zone is that area between the baseline and the 12-mile (22.2 km) limit. Ocean
waters include those waters of the open sea lying seaward of the baseline.
Under international law, a coastal nation has exclusive control over its internal waters (bays, estuaries,
and other semienclosed areas) and its territorial sea. It also has authority to designate dump sites and enact
pollution control legislation to protect public welfare and private property. A coastal nation has the further
right to prevent pollution of its contiguous zone, based upon the potential for contamination of the territorial
sea (Marine Technology Society Journal, July 1974).
In August 1973, the U.S. Senate ratified the International Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. Annex II of the convention requires the issuance of a
special permit for ocean dumping of wastes (especially sewage sludge or dredged material) that contain
significant amounts of heavy metals, toxic compounds, organohalogens, pesticides, or high-level radioactive
materials. The MPRSA initially implemented the provisions of this convention for U.S. controlled and adja-
cent waters.
OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Commercial Fisheries
Based on current annual dollar earnings, commercial fishing is probably the most important activity in
the New York Bight. In 1976, a total of 80.6 million kg (184.3 million Ib) of fish and 12.6 million kg (27.8
million Ib) of shellfish, valued at $12.4 million and $35.5 million, respectively, were landed in the New
York-New Jersey metropolitan area (Table 13). Most of this catch was taken in the Bight. However, signifi-
46
-------
TABLE 13
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES LANDINGS IN THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN AREA
Location
County, State
New York, N.Y.
Kings, N.Y.
Nassau, N.Y.
Suffolk, N.Y.
Monmouth, N.J.
Ocean, N.J.
Total
Kilograms
Fish
(Pounds)
in Thousands
11
996
451
7,514
66,795
4,850
80,617
(24)
(2,194)
(993)
,(16,551)
(153,906)
(10,683)
(184,351)
1976
Dollars
in Millions
0.009
0.445
0.258
4.340
4.838
2.523
12.413
Kilograms
In
231
116
1,760
7,996
335
2,169
12,607
Shellfish
(Pounds)
Thousands
(509)
(255)
(3,877)
(17,611)
(739)
(4,777)
(27,768)
Dollars
in Millions
0.820
0.087
2.282
27.750
0.573
3.956
35.468
Sources: NOAA-NMFS, 1977aand 1977b.
-------
cant quantities of commercial fish and shellfish, especially surf clams, were caught in waters off other states
(Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia).
Nassau and Suffolk counties in New York, and Monmouth and Ocean counties in New Jersey, ac-
counted for about 96 percent of the value of all commercial fish landed in the metropolitan area.during 1976
(Table 13). The reported value of fish and shellfish landed in Suffolk County alone was 67 percent of the
1976 total; Suffolk County also accounted for 78 percent of all shellfish landed in the metropolitan area
during 1976. In 1974, New York and New Jersey had 5,364 full-time and 2,942 part-time commercial
fishermen (Bureau of Land Management,.November 1975).
The commercial fish most often landed in the metropolitan area during 1976 were menhaden, whiting,
flounder (blackback, fluke, and yellowtail), porgy, sea trout, red hake, butterfish, bluefish, striped bass, cod,
and mackerel.
The most common species of commercial shellfish landed were hard clams, surf clams, and oysters (in
that order). These species accounted for approximately 93 percent of the value of commercial shellfish
landings in the metropolitan area during 1976 (Table 14). Scallops, crabs, and clams (other than hard clams
and surf clams) do not appear to be economically important to the region's commercial fisheries at present;
oysters are not currently harvested in the New York Bight, except in the local bays and estuaries.
The potential commercial fisheries development, .especially shellfisheries, is discussed further in Chapter
VII.
Recreation
Sport Fishing. About 5.3 million residents of the northeastern United States fished in the waters of New
York and New Jersey during 1974, as a recreational activity, and about half of them actually fished in the
New York Bight (NOAA-NMFS, 1975a). Most sport fishing off the New York and New Jersey shores is
devoted to species which are also commercially exploited, such as sea bass, striped bass, bluefish, cod,
scup, whiting, and flounder. Approximately 75 percent of these species spend part or all of their life cycles in
coastal zone waters (Ketchum, 1972).
Beach Attendance. The shorelines of Long Island and northern New Jersey support an estimated $2-
billion beach industry (Interstate Electronics Corporation, 1973). The popularity of these low, sandy beaches
is due to their quality and accessibility. Beach property in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area is
owned by both public and private entities (Table 15). In the metropolitan area, the 1976 beach attendance at
state and national parks alone was over 20 million (Table 16).
Navigation
The USCG is responsible for establishing navigational lanes or separation zones in the New York Bight.
There are three traffic separation zones leading into Ambrose Channel and the Ports of New York and New
Jersey (Figure 5); they are designated as the Barnegat, Hudson Canyon, and Nantucket navigational lanes.
The circular area at the intersection of these three lanes, at the Bight Apex, is a precautionary zone that has a
high level of ship traffic. The existing sewage sludge dump site is located within this area. The proposed
Northern and Southern Areas are for the most part located outside these separation zones (Figure 5).
Potential Mineral Resources
Sand and Gravel. The distribution of sand and gravel in the New York Bight is shown in Figure 6
(Schlee and Platt, 1970). At present, most sand and gravel used in the metropolitan area is mined at inland
sites; New York Harbor is also the site of a very large sand mining operation. However, as these sources
48
-------
TABLE 14
COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH LANDINGS IN THE
NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN AREA
1976*
Kilograms (Pounds)
Shellfish
American Lobster
Hard Clams
Razor Clams
Soft Clams
Surf Clams
Oysters
Sea Mussels
Bay Scallops
Sea Seal lops
Squid
Conch
Blue Crabs
Red Crabs
Rock Crabs
Total
in Thousands
507
4,573
0.953
88
4,310
1,024
194
199
887
667
41
185
321
31
13,028
(1,117)
(10,072)
(2)
(195)
(9,493)
(2,256)
(427)
(438)
(1,953)
(1,469)
(91)
(407)
(708)
(67)
(28,695)
Dollars
in Millions
2.368
19.396
0.0008
0.234
3.299
5.642
0.042
0.816
3.170
0.310
0.031
0.123
0.00004
0.004
35.436
*Total landings for New York, Kings, Nassau, and Suffolk counties in New
York, and Monmouth and Ocean counties in New Jersey, are given in Table
13.
Sources: NOAA-NMFS, 1977aand 1977b.
-------
TABLE 15
BEACH OWNERSHIP IN THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN AREA
Location
County, State
Shore Ownership
Hectares (Acres)
Federal
Monmouth, N.J.
Richmond, N.Y.
Kings, N.Y.
Queens, N.Y.
Nassau, N.Y.1
Suffolk, N.Y.2
Total
680
51
32
122
—
781
1,787
(1,678)
(126)
(80)
(300)
-
(1,929)
(4,113)
State
178
9
84
-
721
660
1,635
(440)
(22)
(206)
-
(1,780)
(1,630)
(4,038)
Total
Acreage
Hectares (Acres)
Private
2
-
-
-
2,398
2,237
4,636
(5)
-
—
-
(5,920)
(5,523)
(11,448)
860
60
116
122
3,119
3,678
7,954
(2,123)
(147)
(286)
(300)
(7,700)
(9,082)
(19,639)
1 Includes Jones Beach, Captree State Park, and Long Beach Island.
2 Includes Shinnecock Inlet to Moriches Inlet, Fire Island National Seashore, Smith Point Co. Park, and Robert Moses State Park.
Sources: National Park Service, 1978.
National Park Service, June 1978.
Scheinkman and Byrne, 1977.
-------
TABLE 16
BEACH ATTENDANCE AT STATE AND NATIONAL
PARKS IN THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY
METROPOLITAN AREA
1976
Park Attendance
Island Beach State Park, N.J.1 194,223
Gateway National Recreation Area
Breezy Point, N.Y. (Jacob Riis State Park)2 3,800,000
Sandy Hook, NJ.2 2,000,000
Staten Island, N.Y.2 1,240,000
Smith Point Co. Park, Fire Island, N.Y.3 735,256
Robert Moses State Park, Fire Island, N.Y.3 2,122,200
Captree State Park, Long Island, N.Y.4 500,000
Fire Island National Seashore, N.Y.3 702,194
Fire Island "Other," N.Y. (1973)s 2,301,000
Jones Beach State Park, N.Y.4 7,000,000
20,594,883
Sources:
1 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Parks,
1978.
J National Park Service, May 1978.
3 Fire Island National Seashore Headquarters, 1978.
4 Long Island State Parks and Recreation Commission Headquarters, June
1978.
'National Park Service, 1975.
-------
NANTUCKET
NAVIGATIONAL
LANE
10 0 10 20 KILOMETERS
1 '
10 0 10 20 MILES (STATUTE)
10 0 10 20 NAUTICAL MILES
i^
NOTE ' CONTOURS IN METERS
NAVIGATIONAL LANES
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
SOURCES: INTERSTATE ELECTRONICS CORP., 1973; DAMES S MOORE 1975.
FIGURE 5
-------
20 MILES (STATUTE)
2O NAUTICAL MILES
NOTE • CONTOURS IN METERS
POTENTIAL MINERAL RESOURCES
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
KEY:
PROPOSED OCS LEASE SALE #49
OCS LEASE SALE #40
© SAMPLE LOCATIONS FOR SAND & GRAVEL
GRAVEL IN PERCENT
•50 L I 25-50 I l<25
SOURCES: SCHLEE, 1975; BLM, 1978.
FIGURE
-------
become depleted and others increasingly difficult to find, it is expected that economics will favor develop-
ment of offshore sand and gravel resources.
Oil and Gas. The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) completed its
first sale of oil and gas leases in the Mid-Atlantic Baltimore Canyon trough in August 1976 (Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) Sale No. 40). Exploratory drilling at six of the ninety-three tracts leased in OCS Sale No. 40
began in the spring and summer of 1978. On May 19, 1978, BLM published a draft EIS on the proposed
OCS Sale No. 49, which includes 136 tracts totalling 313,344 hectares (774,273 acres) in the Baltimore
Canyon trough. Sale No. 49 is tentatively scheduled for August 1979. The locations of Sale No. 40 and
proposed Sale No. 49 are shown on Figure 6. A third sale (No. 59) is under consideration and is tentatively
scheduled for August 1981. (BLM, 1978).
Potential Offshore Facilities
Over the years, numerous offshore facilities have been proposed, ranging from deepwater ports for super-
tankers to artificial islands for floating nuclear power plants and other types of commercial facilities (airports,
refineries, and harbors). Various factors have indefinitely delayed such developments: unresolved safety
problems associated with construction and operation of floating nuclear power plants; excessive construction
costs in waters deeper than 22 m (70 ft); the continuing economic slump; and the lack of a national energy
policy.
1976 FISH KILL AND BEACH CLOSURE INCIDENTS
Several months after the draft EIS was issued in February 1976, two incidents occurred that were in
part related to the pollution problems in the New York Bight. First, during the summer of 1976, there was an
extensive fish kill off the coast of New Jersey. Second, in mid-May and again in mid-to-late-June 1976,
floatables and trash washed up on several Long Island beaches, causing temporary closures. Both incidents
were the subject of intensive studies by federal, state, and local agencies. The conclusion reached was that
ocean dumping of sewage sludge was not responsible for those incidents: that it was at most a minor con-
tributing factor.
Since ocean dumping of sewage sludge is thought to have played such a small part in the fish kill and
beach closure incidents, moving the sludge dumping activities to an alternate site would not prevent a recur-
rence. Indeed, the information gathered to date argues against relocation of the dump site. As additional
information becomes available, particularly data from the expanded monitoring program for the New York
Bight Apex, this conclusion will be reevaluated.
New York Bight Fish Kill
The first reports of the fish kill came in late June and early July 1976 from commercial fishermen and
sport skin divers who had observed dead fish and invertebrates in the waters off the coast of New Jersey.
Gradually, it became apparent that the fish kill was quite extensive. By the time the fish kill subsided in the
fall of 1976, it had claimed large numbers of bottom-dwelling fish and shellfish. The greatest losses occurred
among essentially non-motile shellfish species, such as lobster, jonah crabs, and surf clams. Substantial losses
also occurred among bottom-dwelling finfish species, such as hake, fluke, ocean pout, cunner, and sea bass.
54
-------
However, finfish species that normally inhabit the upper oceanic waters, such as bluefish, striped bass, and
menhaden, do not seem to have been affected.
The immediate cause of the fish kill was the extremely low level of dissolved oxygen in the bottom
waters of the New York Bight. Maintenance of most aquatic life forms requires a dissolved oxygen level of at
least 4 mg/1; even higher levels are required for the survival of juvenile aquatic life forms. During the fish
kill, dissolved oxygen levels" over much of the New York Bight-ranged from zero to 2 mg/1. Estimates of the
total area affected range from 10,300 sq km (3,000 sq.n mi) to 17,000 sq km (5,000 sq n mi) (see Figure 7).
The reasons for the oxygen depletion in the Bight waters were summarized by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) in a report on a workshop held in October 1976:
[The] fifty university, state, and federal scientists [who] attended [the] workshop...agreed that the
anoxic (low oxygen) condition that existed during the summer and fall of 1976 was the combined result
of meteorological conditions, shelf water circulation, and the degradation of organic matter, including an
extensive algal bloom. The anoxic region is located about 4 miles off the New Jersey coast and is, at its
greatest extent, about 100 miles long and 40 miles wide. It has had a severe impact on the finfish and
shellfish populations in the area.
Scientific presentations focused on the data available from this region and the probable causes of
the phenomenon. Specifically, an extensive algal bloom, dominated by the organism Ceratium tripos,
developed in the early spring and extended into the fall of 1976. This could have contributed significantly
to the organic matter on the shelf. However, its precise contribution to the anoxic condition remains
uncertain. Probable contributing factors were a relative dearth of storm activity, anomalous surface wind
conditions, and unusually warm sea surface temperatures over much of the Middle Atlantic Bight. It
appears that the oxygen content of the water beneath the permanent thermocline in this area is in a
state of very critical natural balance.
The scientists agreed that the anoxic phenomenon was so large and complex that it would be
necessary to enlist the efforts of all the scientific disciplines represented at the workshop to understand
its causes and consequences. These disciplines included physical, chemical, and biological oceano-
graphy, meteorology, fisheries biology, and resource management. (NSF, 1976).
Government agencies at all levels responded to the fish kill, and several studies were undertaken. A
steering committee, composed of EPA, NOAA, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection '
(NJDEP), the American Littoral Society, and the academic community, was formed to coordinate the fish kill
studies. The steering committee held seven workshops during November and December 1976 to discuss the
causes and consequences of the fish kill; the committee issued its report in February 1977.*
The fish kill studies were in general agreement that one highly significant contributing factor was the
massive bloom of marine algae (phytoplankton) that developed in the early spring and continued into the fall
of 1976. The bloom, which was dominated by Ceratium tripos, occurred in the upper oceanic waters of the
Bight. The bloom was characterized by an extremely large growth of phytoplankton (a tiny aquatic plant
commonly known as algae). As the algae died, they sank to the bottom of the Bight; investigators found a 1-
cm (0.2 in.) thick layer of dead Ceratium and other debris on the sea bottom throughout the affected area
(NSF, 1976). By themselves, these algae do not reduce dissolved oxygen levels. However, they do provide a
food source for other, oxygen-consuming aquatic organisms. The abundance of algae in the Bight waters
allowed a massive bloom of oxygen-consuming organisms, causing depletion of dissolved oxygen levels in
surrounding bottom waters.
Algae blooms are usually the result of nutrient enrichment of a water body. Of the five major compo-
nents needed for the formation of algal cells (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and the nutrients nitrogen and
phosphorous), all but phosphorous are readily available in the water under most circumstances. Therefore,
phosphorous is said to be the limiting factor. Other algal components, such as trace metals or vitamins, can
sometimes be the limiting factor. Even physical conditions, such as insufficient sunlight, can act as the limit-
ing factor. In general however, it is an overabundance of phosphorous that precipitates massive algal growth.
•Several other reports have also been issued: NJDEP, |uly 1976; NJDEP, August 1976; NOAA-NMFS, September 1976;
NJDEP, October 1976; NSF, November 1976; NJDEP,-January 1977
55
-------
39°N-
e
r">
r^
DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
DURING THE 1976 FISH KILL
SOURCE: NSF, 1976.
FIGURE 7
-------
As shown in Table 11, about half of the phosphorous loading to the New York Bight comes from ocean
dumping: 49 percent from dredged material dumping and 4 percent from sludge dumping. The other signifi-
cant sources are municipal wastewater discharges (35 percent) and stormwater runoff (13 percent). The
NJDEP (January 1977) breaks down the phosphorous loading somewhat differently: dredged material dump-
ing (50 percent), sludge dumping (4 percent), municipal and industrial wastes (42 percent), and miscellane-
ous sources, including runoff, atmospheric fallout, and chemical wastes dumping, (4 percent). These slight
differences in the estimates of the phosphorous loadings from various sources are insignificant because over-
fertilization itself is the problem. As the NJDEP explains:
No single discrete source of plant nutrients can be indicated as the only cause of the fertilization (or
"enrichment") of the offshore waters. Further, any analysis of the possibility of reducing the amount of
nutrients released into the offshore waters must be directed at all known sources of these nutrients. At
the extreme, the complete elimination of any single one of these sources of nutrients would not elimi-
nate the basic over-fertilization of the ocean waters off New Jersey. (NJDEP, January 1977).
Algal blooms and associated fish kills are not uncommon in the New York Bight. They have occurred
periodically over at least the last three decades, most notably in 1968, 1971, and 1974 (NJDEP, October
1976; NOAA-NMFS, September 1976). What made the 1976 bloom unique was its areal extent and its
duration.
Unusual weather conditions also contributed to the oxygen depletion in the bottom waters of the Bight.
Normally, solar heating causes a gradual rise in surface water temperatures beginning in the spring. A pro-
nounced temperature difference between surface and deeper waters (a thermocline) generally does not ap-
pear until summer (see Chapter V). However, in 1976 an abnormally high number of sunny days rapidly
raised the surface water temperature and kept it elevated for an extended period of time. An extremely
strong thermocline developed in early spring and persisted into October.
The thermocline, which is essentially an impenetrable layer, separated the upper and lower oceanic
waters and prevented their mixing. Consequently, reoxygenation of the bottom waters through mixing with
the oxygen-rich upper waters was impossible.
The strength of the thermocline was reinforced by a lack of storm activity:
Many hoped that Hurricane Belle on August 10 would have dissipated the algal mass and reoxygenated
the lower water layer. Data taken prior to and immediately after the hurricane indicated that some transi-
tory relief was achieved. Oxygen levels increased in the affected area, but unfortunately this lasted for
only a short period. Depleted oxygen conditions again developed within five days. (NJDEP, October
1976).
Wind systems had no disruptive effect on the thermocline either. During the fish kill, there were steady
winds out of the southwest; these tended to move surface waters, but were insufficient to generate mixing of
the water layers. In fact, the southwest winds may have worsened conditions by moving near-shore contami-
nants outward over the Bight.
As dissolved oxygen levels in the bottom waters declined, hydrogen sulfide concentrations rose. Hydro-
gen sulfide seems to have been at least a secondary factor in
the fish kill, as the NJDEP reports:
Results recently available from federal laboratories suggest that there was a second potential cause of
death.... When bacteria of decay use up all the oxygen in the water, they can then use naturally occuring
sulfur compounds in their metabolism instead of oxygen; a bacterial by-product is the release of hydro-
gen sulfide (the source of the "rotten egg" odor in decaying plant or animal life, some marshes, etc.).
Unfortunately, most other organisms cannot use sulfur to replace oxygen in their life processes. In fact,
hydrogen sulfide is extremely toxic to many higher organisms, including marine species. For example,
surf clams can survive for many days with low levels of dissolved oxygen, but can be quickly killed by
elevated levels of hydrogen sulfide. In at least certain areas, the ocean bottom had both low oxygen
57
-------
levels and elevated hydrogen sulfide, resulting in a one-two punch to any marine organisms in such a
zone. (NJDEP, January 1977).
Despite all of the data that have been gathered on the fish kill, a precise explanation of its causes and
consequences remains impossible. The New York Bight's physical, chemical, geological, and biological
characteristics and their interrelationships are extremely complex, and past studies, though useful; do not
provide the range of background data that would be needed to draw unqualified conclusions about the fish
kill. The situation is further complicated by artificial influences, such as municipal wastewater discharges and
ocean dumping, whose relative importance in the fish kill incident can be only roughly estimated. The
NJDEP addresses this problem in its latest report on the fish kill:
While there is controversy over the exact role of each factor that contributed to the fishkill, there
is a consensus that the present pollution control activities alone, while important, will do little to reduce
the chances of another massive fishkill. The major question then becomes: What additional steps should
be taken to reduce the chances of another fishkill? Unfortunately, due to insufficient basic research and
field monitoring of the Atlantic coastal waters, the examination of potential additional steps must be
done with inadequate and incomplete data. Thus the assumptions used to reach any conclusions should
be carefully specified so that the assumptions can be reviewed as new information is acquired; in this
report we have attempted to identify the assumptions we used. For example, it is still uncertain whether
this year's algal bloom is due to reaching a critical level in the long-term build-up of plant nutrients, or
instead is an abnormal biological response of algal growth in a region with relatively constant (though
high) nutrient levels. (The latter would be possible, for example, if the bloom was basically attributable to
unusual physical conditions, &uch as plentiful sunlight to stimulate rapid algal growth.) (NJDEP, January
1977).
Although no one can say with absolute certainty what factors in what combination caused the fish kill,
two conclusions can be drawn within the bounds of available information:
1. The 1976 fish kill was brought on by atypical atmospheric and hydrographic conditions in the
New York Bight. These atypical conditions included an early decline in northerly winds (winter
winds out of the north usually continue until April or May, but in 1976 they declined in February
and March); abnormally high sea surface temperatures during the first six months of 1976; and
insufficient storm activity to generate mixing of ocean waters. As a result, a thermocline devel-
oped early in the year, became progressively stronger, and eventually led to anoxic conditions in
the bottom waters of the New York Bight.
2. Although the fish kill was brought on by atypical atmospheric and and hydrographic conditions,
artificial influences contributed to it by enriching the Bight waters with phosphorous, allowing a
massive algal bloom. The major sources of the phosphorous loading to the Bight are dredged
material dumping, municipal wastewater discharges, and stormwater runoff.
Long Island Beach Closures*
In mid-May of 1976, unusually large amounts of foreign matter began washing up on Long Island
beaches. As an immediate response, EPA-Region II in close cooperation with NOAA-MESA, the USCG, and
state and local agencies, began sampling and testing procedures to identify the material and assess its envi-
ronmental impacts. Inspections were made of the beaches, and samples of the materials and surf water were
* This discussion has been extracted from the testimony of Gerald M. Hansler, P.E., the former Regional Administrator of
EPA-Region II, before a hearing of the Subcommittee on Oceanography and the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Environment of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries at
Hempstead, Long Island, on July 24, 1976. An interagency report, prepared by NOAA-MESA, EPA-Region II, and the USCG
- Third District, on this phenomenon has been published (NOAA-MESA, February 1977).
58
-------
collected and analyzed. These activities were well underway when the second incident occurred in mid-
June.
The investigators found that the materials on the beaches were floatables. Those that washed up in May
were predominantly grease/tar balls. Those that washed up on June 14, 1976 and in subsequent weeks were
grease/tar balls, plastics, rubber, charred wood, and general trash (cigarette and cigar tips, paper, bread
wrappers, soda cans, vegetables, (pTicken head's) orange peels, and similar materials). Representatives of
more than twenty federal, state, and local environmental and health agencies met to discuss the problem on
June 17, 1976. They confirmed the presence of floatables on the beaches, but concluded, contrary to sev-
eral press reports, that there was no evidence of raw sewage (feces) on the beaches.
For many years, there have been reports of grease/tar balls along the beaches of Long Island and New
Jersey. Grease/tar balls are generally a mixture of oil and grease from petroleum and kitchen oil sources
mixed with other floatable organic material and plastics. In most cases, they contain artifacts-of-life (hair,
plastic straws, plastic cigar tips) and bacteria. They are usually round, and they can be up to 10 cm (4 in) in
diameter.
Why such materials appear from time to time along New Jersey and Long Island coastal areas and along
many other beaches throughout the world has never been fully explained. Available data, both past and
present, indicate that grease/tar balls can be found in raw and inadequately treated waste discharges and
may, through some mechanism, form in coastal waters. The presence of artifacts-of-life and bacteria is prob-
ably due to the drifting of oil-grease slicks over the New York Bight, and the gradual agglomeration of these
materials.
A 1959 American Petroleum Institute (API) study surveyed oil pollution problems along the beaches of
the Atlantic coast of the United States. The report states, "in contrast to the small flatish pieces typical of
most beach pollution observed elsewhere, oil here [on beaches along the New Jersey coast] was often in
roundish pellets from marble to basebjiJJ3iSll!TDerwi|r°1'95^). The heaviest concentration of oil was found
northward of Atlantic City to Asfaury Park, NewTjei^ey)) and the average amount of oil for this stretch of
coastline was 1.9 kg per 100'm(1.3 Ib per 100 fO-J^mmri^nting on southern Long Island beaches, the then
Assistant Superintendent of Jone^gagh-StatejSHk-sal^that problems with oil pollution dated back to 1951,
when oil along the beach was heavy enough to be considered a "nuisance requiring clean-up".
The API report further indicated that wind rather than currents was the primary factor affecting the
amount and distribution of grease/tar balls. This corroborates EPA and NOAA's long-standing position that
the grease/tar ball problem is neither new nor unique in this area.
Plastic and rubber debris found throughout the affected beach areas during the 1976 incidents con-
sisted mainly of tampon insertion devices, condom rings, plastic straws, balloons, disposable diaper adhe-
sives, and plastic milk cartons. The presence of such debris on beaches has been reported in the past, but
never has the quantity approached that found on Long Island's beaches in the summer of 1976. The same
type of debris has been observed in New York Harbor waters and along New Jersey beaches.
Charred wood, in amounts far in excess of what might be expected from beach fires, was also found.
The most probable sources of this wood were the pier fires that occurred in New York Harbor in early June.
'.., addition, items commonly referred to as general trash were found. Several sources were probably
responsible for this material, among them New York City's solid waste barging operations in the harbor, the
discharge of garbage and similar materials from recreational and commercial vessels, and beach litter result-
ing from recreational use of the beaches and coastal waters.
When the beach pollution on Long Island was first reported, a federal task force, composed of EPA,
NOAA, the LJSCG, and the National Park Service, was created to determine the sources of the pollution and
the reasons why it had reached Long Island's beaches.
Available data show that the incident was caused by a combination of unusual weather conditions and
pollution from various sources. During the incident, the affected area was subjected to relatively strong and
persistent winds from the southwest. These winds transported floatables from the New York Bight to the
Long Island beaches.
According to the information collected by EPA's investigators, the major sources of the floatables were
raw sewage discharges, inadequately treated wastewater discharges, combined sewer overflows, urban
59
-------
runoff, and solid waste barging operations in New York Harbor. Minor contributions were made by vessel
discharges, ocean dumping of sludge and dredged materials, sanitary landfill operations, and beach litter.
Dredged material and sewage sludge contain predominantly non-floatable solids. Some of the lighter floccu-
lant materials are dispersed as a turbidity cloud throughout the water column, which is over 18 m (60 ft)
deep at these dump sites. The quantity of surface floatables resulting from dumping activities (conservatively
estimated at less than 5 percent) is minimal compared to the quantities from inland sources. While floatables
can occasionally be seen during sewage sludge dumping, such materials are continually observed in the
Hudson estuary.
New York City, for example, discharges approximately 949 thousand cu m/d (250 mgd) of raw sewage
into the lower Hudson estuary: about 757 thousand cu m/d (200 mgd) from western Manhattan (North
River) and about 190 thousand cu m/d (50 mgd) from the Red Hook section of Brooklyn. These discharges
contribute a substantial portion of the floatables, oil and grease, and bacteria that eventually find their way
into the New York Bight. Inadequately treated wastewater from primary treatment facilities, many of which
are located in New Jersey, release floatables and oil and grease. These floatables combine with those from
other sources and move about the New York Bight with the wind.
New York City's solid waste marine transfer operations employ a fleet of sixty-three barges to move 2.8
million metric tons (3.1 million tons) of refuse annually from collection points throughout the city to the
Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. Both EPA and the COE have noted that trash, paper, and other debris are
frequently blown from the barges into the water. The city has attempted to minimize these wind-blown
losses by loading wet material atop other debris. At Fresh Kills, a specially built craft is used to retrieve refuse
that falls into the water during unloading operations. A screen scoop attached to the bow of this craft skims
the water surface and catches the floating debris.
The day-to-day discharge of pollutants into New York Harbor and the vicinity was aggravated by three
incidents in particular. On May 26, 1976, the largest of several oil spills into New York Harbor and the
contiguous coastal waters occurred; approximately 1.3 million liters (350 thousand gallons) of fuel oil spilled
into the Hackensack River at Jersey City, New Jersey. The USCC, using a spill forecast model developed for
the area, predicted that there was a high probability of oil from such spills or from sewage discharges in New
York Harbor coming ashore on Long Island beaches under certain wind conditions.
. The second incident involved two pier fires that occurred in New York Harbor: one in Weehawken on
June 3-6, 1976 and the other in Manhattan on June 11, 1976. These fires produced a substantial amount of
charred wood, which entered the Hudson estuary. The COE made every attempt to recover the debris from
the harbor waters, but most of the smaller and some of the larger pieces of wood could not be recovered.
Again, conditions suggest that this charred wood finally reached the beaches of Long Island.
The third incident occurred on June 2, 1976, when two sewage sludge storage tanks of the Bay Park
Sewage Treatment Plant exploded at the Pearsalls Hassock in Nassau County. About 3.8 million liters (1.0
million gallons) of sludge entered the water through the East Rockaway Channel. Initial observations suggest
that within hours of the explosion a mass of this material had moved into the Atlantic Ocean. This sludge
mass probably contributed to the grease/tar ball problem and, to a lesser extent, was a source of the plastic
and rubb- • materials found on the beaches.
The presence of these materials on the beaches raised concern that the waters were unsafe for recrea-
tional bathing. Both Nassau and Suffolk counties took the precaution of closing their beaches until they were
cleaned up and water quality data showed that the surf was safe for swimming. It should be emphasized that
the closings were precautionary and were done at the suggestion of local health officials, pending the results
of laboratory analyses of the water samples. Data showing that water quality was acceptable were received
from the laboratory approximately forty-eight hours after the closings.
The EPA, along with county and local health agencies, performed sampling surveys of the surf zone to
determine whether bacterial levels contravened water quality standards (which allow no more than 2,400
total coliforms per 100 ml). The EPA data for surf samples collected during June 14-29, 1976 (the peak of
beach contamination) showed that in all cases the total coliform levels were well within safe swimming
standards. Fecal coliform levels were very low (in all cases less than 100 organisms per 100 ml, and in most
cases less than 10 organisms per 100 ml). Data collected by other agencies gave similar results.
60
-------
Samples of the grease/tar balls collected by EPA, the USCG, and state agency personnel were analyzed
by EPA for chemical and microbiological parameters. Petroleum hydrocarbons in the samples ranged from
57 to 100 percent. The total coliform population ranged from 170 thousand to 22 million per 100 grams of
sample, and fecal coliforms ranged from 4,900 to 790 thousand per 100 grams. Two of the samples were
analyzed for the presence of Salmonella organisms, which are pathogenic (disease causing) bacteria. None
were detected. Coliform populations in the grease/tar balls were extremely high and could have represented
a potential health hazard if the material had entered a cut, wound, or some orifice in the body. However,
the probability of such an occurrence was considered remote, and as noted, the coliform populations in surf
water samples were well within the limits established for safe swimming waters.
There was no significant health hazard attached to the presence of the rubber, wood, and other floata-
bles found on Long Island's beaches. These materials were more of an aesthetic problem than a health
problem.
61
-------
CHAPTER III
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
Generally, sewage sludge can be either dumped in the ocean or disposed of by land-based methods.
The latter constitute the only legitimate long-range solution to the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area's
sludge disposal problem, and they will have to be implemented as ocean dumping is phased out. The back-
ground studies for land-based sludge disposal management in the metropolitan area were completed by ISC
in 1976. The testing and implementation phases have begun. Current predictions are that land-based sludge
disposal methods can be implemented in time to meet the December 31, 1981 deadline for phasing out
ocean dumping of sewage sludge.
Until this full-scale, land-based sludge disposal program can be implemented, however, ocean dumping
will continue to be the only practical method of disposing of the volumes of sludge produced in the metro-
politan area. Within the ocean-dumping alternative, options are available with regard to where the sludge is
dumped and how it is dumped. The proposed action, immediate designation and use of an alternate dump
site in either the Northern or Southern Area is described in detail in Chapter IV. Chapter III discusses the
other ocean-dumping alternatives and summarizes the results of the ISC studies of land-based sludge disposal
methods.
OCEAN-DUMPING ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the proposed action, the ocean-dumping alternatives considered in this EIS are: 1)
continued use of the existing dump site (No Action and Phased Action), 2) use of an alternate dump site
other than the Northern or Southern Area, and 3) modification of dumping methods to mitigate potential ma-
rine and shoreward impacts. The phasing out of ocean dumping by the end of 1981 would not be compro-
mised under any of these alternatives.
Continued Use of the Existing Dump Site
The No Action alternative involves continued use of the existing dump site until land-based methods of
sludge disposal can be implemented. Under this alternative, the existing dump site would have to accommo-
date in 1981 more than one and a half times the volume of sludge dumped in 1977; moreover, the site
would have to accommodate the increased volume without endangering public health or the marine envi-
ronment. The primary argument for the No Action alternative is that it limits environmental impacts to the
existing site rather than spreading them to another area of the marine environment.
The original argument for moving the sewage sludge dump site was that greatly increased volumes of
sludge might impair the recreational quality of Long Island and New Jersey's beaches. As discussed below,
current studies tend to show that this argument is largely invalid, lending support to the No Action alterna-
tive.
A variation on the No Action alternative is the Phased Action alternative, under which sewage sludge
would continue to be dumped at the existing site until a comprehensive monitoring program indicated an
impending hazard to public health or damage to recreational water quality. Under the phased alternative, an
alternate dump site would have to be designated and held in reserve for possible future use. Since this
alternative would maximize use of the existing dump site, adverse impacts on an alternate dump site would
be minimized, and sludge hauling costs would not be increased unnecessarily.
62
-------
This was the alternative recommended in the draft EIS. However, when the fish kill and beach closure
incidents discussed in Chapter II occurred, doubts were raised about the acceptability of continuing to use
the existing dump site. Studies of the fish kill and beach closure incidents found that sludge dumping was at
most a minor contributing factor. Those findings were reconfirmed at a public hearing held in Toms River,
New Jersey, on May 31 and June 1, 1977, to consider possible relocation of the New York and Philadelphia
sewage sludge dump sites. On the basis of the evidence presented, the hearing officer recommended that
neither dump site be moved.
With specific reference to sludge dumping in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area, the hearing
officer also recommended: 1) strict enforcement of existing phase-out schedules and deadlines, 2) inclusion
in the sludge dumping EIS being prepared by EPA-Region II of specific criteria for determining the need for
relocation of the dump site, 3) intensified monitoring of the existing dump site, and 4) immediate designation
of the alternate 60-mile site (this would be the site in the Northern Area recommended in the draft EIS). The
report of the Toms River hearing officer, which was issued on September 22, 1977, is presented in Appendix
C.
On March 1, 1978, the EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials issued his
decision on proposals to relocate the New York and Philadelphia sewage sludge dump sites. The decision
report is presented in Appendix D. In all important respects, the Assistant Administrator's decision is in
agreement with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Toms River hearing officer:
It is my determination that sewage sludge dumping by these municipalities [in the New York-New Jersey
metropolitan area] should not be relocated at the present time; however, efforts should begin immedi-
ately to designate the 60-mile site for the disposal of New York/New Jersey sewage sludge in the event
such sludge cannot be dumped at the New York Bight site for public health reasons prior to December
31,1981.
In accordance with this decision, EPA intends to designate the existing site for continued use, as well as
the 60-mile site in the Northern Area for possible future use. An intensified monitoring program has already
been implemented; it is described in detail in the Monitoring and Surveillance section of Chapter XI. Criteria
that can be used to determine whether public health reasons require moving sludge dumping operations
from the existing to the alternate site at any time between now and December 31, 1981 have been drawn
up by EPA-Region II, and are presented in Appendix E. Finally, a Regional Enforcement Strategy, designed to
insure that ocean dumping of sewage sludge is replaced by environmentally acceptable land-based disposal
methods by the legislatively mandated deadline of December 31, 1981, has been developed by EPA-Region
II, and is presented in Appendix F.
EPA Monitoring Studies. In April 1974, EPA initiated a program to investigate the quality of the water
and bottom sediments in the New York Bight and along the Long Island and New Jersey beaches (USEPA,
July 1974, April 1975). Data from the surf and near-shore waters indicate that water quality remains ex-
cellent in terms of total and fecal coliform density, and that it is acceptable for contact recreation (Figures 8
and 9). Although the data show a few random elevated coliform counts, no violation of state standards is
indicated nor does there appear to be any systematic degradation of water quality. Sediment data indicate
slightly elevated bacterial counts at certain near-shore sampling stations, but these can be attributed to inland
runoff or to wastewater outfalls.
Sampling is continuing along transects between the existing dump site and the following points: the
Long Island shore, the entrance to New York Harbor, and the New Jersey shore. Results to date indicate that
a clean water and sediment zone, about 10 to 11 km (5.5 to 6 n mi) wide, separates the area affected by
sludge from the Long Island coast. As a supplement to the sampling program, EPA has expanded the moni-
toring and review process to insure protection of public health and welfare and prevention of coastal water
quality degradation (see the Monitoring and Surveillance section of Chapter XI).
NOAA-MESA Studies. On the basis of two comprehensive reports prepared by NOAA-MESA (March
1975, February 1976), there seems to be no significant accumulation of sewage sludge at the existing dump
site, although some sludge particles may be mixing with natural fines in the Christiansen Basin, northwest of
63
-------
2
2
37
GEOMETRIC MEAN
NUMBERS
3
3
3
2
3
••25
• 19
13
• 16
GEOMETRIC MEAN
NUMBERS
22
11
HI
15
HI
SAMPLING STATIONS
NEW JERSEY
STATE STANDARD
15
HO
NO NEW JERSEY
STATE STANDARD
60 40 20 0 20 40 60
FECAL COL I FORM TOTAL COL I FORM
(MPN/100 ML) (MPN/100 ML)
COLIFORMS IN NEW JERSEY COASTAL WATERS
KILOMETERS
10 20
SOURCE: USEPA, APRIL 1975-
MILES (STATUTE)
20
MILES NAUTICAL
FIGURE 8
-------
FECAL COLIFORM(MPN/100ML) TOTAL COLIFORM(MPN/100ML)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
es
COLIFORMS IN LONG ISLAND
COASTAL WATERS
KILOMETERS
10 20
o
o
NEW YORK STATE
\
I CO
Z
o
1-
L
> CO
1
/
STANDARD
P
1-
Z
< .Ml
UJ ^ '
* CO
,* cc
^ UJ
tr CD r°|
\- 5
W D -M
2 z
0
UJ LA ||
C5
v -3- II
K^,,
\\O ||
. . — (^— •
NEW YORK STATE
STANDARD
"\
' \\
^
Z
n <
^ QJ
5 co
t^ °C
X LU
1 en oc CD
1- 2
• ^ W D
" 2 z
0
• ^ UJ
O
•" J
.J
| LT\/
10
L_
0
J
STATUTE MILES
10
20
NAUTICAL M.ILES
SOURCE: USEPA, APRIL 1975.
FIGURE 9
-------
the site. Both reports also note that the general ecological effects of sewage sludge dumping are indistinguish-
able from those associated with other sources of pollutants in the Bight Apex (the dumping of 'dredged
material and acid wastes, contaminants from the plume of the Hudson estuary, shore-zone pollutant con-
tributions, and atmospheric fallout of contaminants).
However; sludge dumping does exert significant local effects. The catch of groundfish appears to be
reduced in areas with high-carbon sediments, such as the area of the existing sludge dump site. Furthermore,
it is apparent that very few surf clams reach commercial size within the area now impacted by sludge
dumping. Although some fish in the Bight Apex are afflicted with fin rot, this disease is not thought to be
attributable solely or even primarily to sludge dumping.
The NOAA-MESA reports do not indicate any shoreward movement of coliform contamination as a
result of sludge dumping at the existing site, but they do note the apparent persistence of coliform bacteria in
the vicinity, especially in bottom sediments. There is no evidence that under current FDA regulations the
cessation of sewage sludge dumping at the existing site would permit reopening of the immediate area to
shellfishing. The complete text of NOAA-MESA's conclusions and recommendations from the February 1976
report is presented in Appendix C.
At the Toms River hearing in 1977, NOAA concurred with EPA's recommendation of continued use of
the existing dump site based on the fact that there is no demonstrated need for relocation (see Appendix C).
Related Studies. The most recent study of the area (Mueller et a/., 1976) indicates that sludge dumping
accounts for 0.04 'to 11 percent, at most, of the total pollutant loading in the Bight Apex; pollutant loadings
from non-dumping sources (wastewater discharges, runoff, and atmospheric fallout) far outweigh those from
all current ocean-dumping sources (sewage sludge, dredged material, acid wastes, and cellar dirt).
A study by the Town of Hempstead (1974) supports the conclusion that sewage sludge dumped at the
existing site does not significantly affect the quality of the waters or beaches of Long Island.
Use of an Alternate Dump Site Other Than the Northern or Southern Area
Besides the Northern and Southern Areas, possible locations for an alternate sewage sludge dump site
include: the other existing dump sites in the Bight Apex (the dredged material, acid wastes, cellar dirt, and
wreck sites); other areas in the New York Bight; and areas off the continental shelf, notably the chemical
wastes dump site. These locations are discussed below.
Other Existing Dump Sites in the Bight Apex. Dumping sewage sludge at one of the
other existing sites in the Bight Apex (the dredged material, acid wastes, cellar dirt, or wreck site) would
violate the original concept of segregating wastes by dump site. It would be extremely difficult to isolate the
true cause of adverse environmental effects at a site where two or more types of wastes were dumped. The
end result would probably be several seriously contaminated dump sites in the Bight Apex, instead of the
two that now exist (the sewage sludge and dredged material sites). Use of the existing dredged material site
for sludge dumping would be particularly ill-advised because the site is only about 9 km (5 n mi) from the
New Jersey shore; the existing sludge dump site is about 20 km (11 n mi) offshore.
Other Areas in the New York Bight. Solely in terms of minimizing potential environmen-
tal impacts, a site located offshore, 148 to 158 km (80 to 85 n mi) from the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point
transect, and within the depression of the Long Island Shelf Valley, about 80 m (264 ft) deep, would be pref-
erable. In this area/the tendency is towards bottom transport off the continental shelf, which would mini-
mize the potential for sludge transport to adjacent biological resource areas, including the Hudson Shelf
Valley and near-shore shellfisheries. In addition, the greater depth would provide maximum dilution and
dispersion of the sludge, minimizing any adverse effects.
The one major drawback to use of this area is that it is beyond the maximum 120 km (65 n mi) range
of the existing barge fleet. It would be difficult to justify the greatly increased costs of'transportation and
possible fleet capitalization in terms of concomitant benefits. Benefits to public health would not increase
proportionally with distance. Both the Northern and Southern Areas appear to be far enough from the Long
66
-------
Island and New Jersey coasts, and in deep enough water, to minimize potential impacts on public health and
marine life.
Areas Off the Continental Shelf. In the draft EIS, the alternative of dumping sewage sludge in areas
off the continental shelf, such as at the existing chemical wastes dump site, was quickly dismissed because of
the prohibitive transportation costs and because of the unknown effects of dumping sewage sludge in those
waters. Developments since that time, the 1976 fish kill and beach closure incidents (see Chapter II) and the
1977 public hearing on possible relocation of sludge dump sites (see Appendices C and D), have indicated
the need for a more extensive evaluation of this alternative.
The decision report issued by EPA-Headquarters on proposals to relocate the New York and-Philadel-
phia sewage sludge dump sites specifies six major factors that must be considered in determining the feasibil-
ity of using an off-the-shelf site for sewage sludge disposal: known environmental acceptability, ability to
monitor impact, surveillance of dumping activities, economic burden, logistics, and the effect of utilizing
such a site on the ability of dumpers to meet the December 31, 1981 deadline for the termination of harmful
sewage sludge dumping (Appendix D). Briefly, the chemical wastes site does not appear favorable on any of
these six counts. The environmental acceptability of dumping sewage sludge there is unknown, and scientific
opinion by and large recommends against use of this site for sludge dumping. Monitoring and surveillance
capabilities are substantially reduced, primarily because of the great distance to the chemical wastes site.
Distance is also the primary factor in making the chemical wastes site economically and logistically disadvan-
tageous. The prohibitive cost in turn diminishes the ability of dumpers to meet the 1981 deadline by divert-
ing the available economic resources from the development of acceptable land-based disposal methods.
Each of these factors is explored in more detail below.
Environmental Acceptability - Although the MPRSA recommends that the dumping of wastes be
done in areas off the continental shelf, wherever feasible, the limited information available on this area
suggests otherwise. At a 1971 ocean disposal conference, cosponsored by the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution (WHOI) and the COE, the panel on biological effects stated:
Disposal should not occur in the deep sea, i.e. beyond the continental shelf. A fundamental reason for
this suggestion is the following. The deep sea is an area where biological decomposition rates are ap-
parently very low in comparison with other ocean regions. It is an area of great constancy with respect to
the physical-chemical environment and it is thought that the fauna living there is finely tuned to small
environmental changes. Thus, the fauna may be quite susceptible to large environmental perturbations
such as might be expected with the introduction of dredge spoils. If deleterious effects occur in the deep
sea, the opportunities to alter the course of events is [sic] minimal. We therefore suggest that the deep
sea should be off limits for disposal activities at least until other information is brought to bear which
would render the possible dangers non-existent. (WHOI, 1971).
A similar view was expressed at a 1974 workshop at Woods Hole, sponsored by the National Acad-
emy of Sciences (NAS):
Data for the evaluation of the deep sea as a disposal site are inadequate. This is due to: difficulties in
conducting bioassays; slow rates of mixing and diffusion potentially resulting in anaerobic conditions;
slow organic degradation; and narrow tolerance ranges for sensitive assemblages of organisms. Al-
though the area is relatively stable in comparison to the shelf and nearshore, the much greater scientific
uncertainty, and consequently increased risk associated with off-shelf disposal, dictate that any but the
most innocuous use of the area should be approached with extreme caution. (NAS, 1976).
In 1974, NOAA, in cooperation with EPA and with several academic/research institutions, began gath-
ering background information on conditions at the chemical wastes site. Three baseline survey cruises (1974,
1975, and 1976) and several field studies (February, June, August, and September 1976; July 1977; and
February and April 1978) have been conducted. A report on the baseline survey cruises has been published
(NOAA, June 1977); the Introduction and Summary from that report, which deals with the chemical wastes
67
-------
site's physical, biological, and chemical characteristics and its contaminant inputs, are presented in Appendix
H.
The chemical wastes site has been in use since 1965. Therefore, at the time of NOAA's first baseline
survey cruise, the site had been in use for about nine years, making it impossible for NOAA to obtain a pure
pre-dumping baseline. Most of the data gathered by NOAA concern chemical wastes dumping by American
Cyanamid and by DuPont's Grasselli Plant since these two companies accounted for 80 percent of the total
volume of material dumped at the chemical wastes site. The applicability of these data to an assessment of
sewage sludge dumping at the chemical wastes site is limited because particulate sewage sludge bears little
resemblance to dissolved chemical wastes.
After EPA authorized the dumping of sewage sludge from Camden, New Jersey, at the chemical wastes
site in early 1977, NOAA began making plans to study the possible effects. That opportunity to study the
possible effects of sewage sludge dumping at the chemical wastes site ended on June 12, 1978, when Cam-
den terminated its ocean dumping operations, a few days short of the expiration of its permit. Camden now
disposes of its sludge through a composting process that is described later in this chapter (see the section on
Land-Based Alternatives).
While Camden was using the chemical wastes site, NOAA conducted a coliform test and a tracking
study. Although data collection and analysis are in a preliminary stage, some information on sludge dumping
at the chemical wastes site has been furnished by NOAA.
In June 1977, researchers from WHOI collected samples of seawater during, and for some time after,
the release of primary sewage sludge from Camden, New Jersey. The samples were tested for the presence
of total and fecal coliform bacteria:
Positive results were limited to the first hour of surface sampling from within the plume area.
Regarding total coliforms, 75 percent of the samples collected proved positive and gave a most proba-
ble number range of 1-240 total cells per 100 ml. Measurements on these same samples for fecal
coliforms were positive at the 25 percent level and provided a range of 1-120 cells per 100 ml.
No positive results from either test were obtained from any of the subsurface samples. Possibly
these results might have differed given the opportunity for continuous sampling over the entire plume.
However, the necessary gear was not available at this time and we had to rely on a stationary ship to
acquire water samples from beneath the surface.
There are strong indications that the bacterial population associated with sewage sludge is rapidly
dispersed by the turbulence and sinking associated with sludge release. Most of the bacterial load ap-
pears to remain associated with solid material which rapidly descends to the deeper portions of the
water column where a positive sampling becomes highly dubious. (Vaccaro and Dennet, 1977).
In July 1977, sewage sludge released at the chemical wastes site was acoustically monitored to deter-
mine its qualitative dispersion characteristics. Preliminary results of the tracking study show a slow, wide
distribution of the waste material:
A sharp thermal gradient prc/m) existed between 18 and 24 m. The waste field on either side of the
dump axis was observed to be distributed through the first 18 m of the water column. On the dump axis,
the waste was observed to penetrate to a depth of 60 m. The deeper penetration was of limited horizon-
tal extent, conical in shape (apex at the point of deepest penetration), and was distributed continuously
from near the surface to the 60 m depth. The heaviest particle concentration appeared to be in the first
40 m of the water column. A shear with a velocity maximum between 15 and 20 m advected the waste
field in the horizontal. Thus, the waste was slowly distributed over an increasing area as material sank
from the mixed layer to the seasonal thermocline. During the 32 hr experimental period, the particle field
became distributed over the first 45 m of the water column. The distribution was not uniform. Heavy
concentrations of backscattering, hence particles were found to be associated with one or two strong
thermal gradients [sic]. The thickness of the heavy scattering areas ranged from 5 to 10 m. The layers
were periodically displaced by as much as 15 m by the internal wave field. The horizontal distribution of
the waste field will be determined as our data reduction progresses. The column of material which pene-
trated to 60 m was observed several hours after the dump. There appeared to be little change in its
depth of penetration or size. (Orr, unpub.).
68
-------
Although increased dilution and dispersion are generally considered to be positive aspects of dumping
in deeper waters, there are serious drawbacks as well. In testimony at the Toms River hearing in 1977, Dr.
Carol Litchfield, a marine microbiologist, cautioned that moving the dump site to deeper waters would signif-
icantly increase the time required for sludge decomposition:
The very factor which is appealing to many people in moving and relocation of the dump site in
the deeper waters is the very factor which is going to assure that there will be a longer residence time of
the sludge and a greater accumulation of the material that is dumped.
Another concern...is what happens to the organisms that are introduced along with the sewage
sludge.
Unfortunately, there is very little information on the survival of conforms in deeper waters.
It has been repeatedly shown, however, that decreased temperatures aid the survival of coliform
bacteria in the increased salinities and slightly increased pressures that they would encounter at the
deeper dump site, therefore, automatically assuming that deeper waters will "take care of" potential
pathogens more efficiently than that which occurs at the present location, could lead to a very false
sense of security.
In summary, based solely upon the scientific data available through numerous other studies we
know that only about ten percent of the problem would be relieved by moving of the dump site. .
This would probably have little positive effect on decreasing the survival of potentially pathogenic
micro-organisms, and would definitely result in slower decomposition, and hence, greater accumulation
of the dumped organic matters, (in USEPA, June 1, 1977; see also Appendix C).
Another point that must be considered is the unknown consequences of dumping sewage sludge and
chemical wastes at the same site. As previously mentioned, combining different types of wastes at one dump
site makes it extremely difficult to isolate the true cause of any adverse environmental effects. This would be
an especially difficult problem at the chemical wastes site because the effects of chemical wastes dumping
alone are not yet well understood:
The chemical behavior of the substances discharged at DWD-106 [the chemical wastes site] and
their impact on the marine environment are unknown. A research group consisting of investigators from
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, University of Rhode Island, National Marine Fisheries Service,
and the Smithsonian Institution have developed a multidisciplinary oceanographic study at DWD-106 to
consider the physical, biological, and chemical factors associated with dumping of chemical wastes. The
primary chemical questions to be considered in this program are:
1. Does the discharge of wastes at DWD-106 produce elevated concentrations of potentially
toxic metals in the seawater?
2. What are the horizontal and vertical extents of chemical impact at the dumpsite?
3. What are the chemical forms of metals which may be toxic to marine organisms?
4. To what extent are the metals discharged at DWD-106 taken up by organisms, suspended
particles, and seafloor sediments?
Answers to these questions will provide a basis for evaluating the consequences of chemical
waste disposal at DWD-106 and for designing a future monitoring program to assure that this ocean
dumping does not materially degrade the quality of the marine environment. (Hausknecht and Kester,
December 1976).
Despite the limited information available on the chemical wastes site, it has been suggested as an alter-
nate sewage sludge dump site. The hope of avoiding a recurrence of the fish kill and beach closure incidents
discussed in Chapter II is the reason most often cited for this suggested move. However, as reported in
Chapter II, results of the studies of the fish kill and beach closures have shown that both incidents were
basically the result of atypical atmospheric and hydrographic conditions, and that sludge dumping was at
most a minor contributing factor. Therefore, moving the sludge dumping operations to the chemical wastes
site would have no value as a preventive measure.
During its investigation of the fish kill and beach closures, EPA-Region II sought the opinion of other
federal and state agencies about the relationship of sludge dumping to these incidents. Specifically, EPA-
Region II asked NOAA, the USCG, FDA, ISC, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the New York State Department
69
-------
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and NJDEP whether they thought sludge dumping was responsible
for the incidents and whether they would recommend relocation of the dump site:
In that during this past spring and summer, there have been several environmental episodes, mainly the
wash-up of floatables and trash on Long Island and New Jersey beaches, an extensive kill of benthic
organisms in the New York Bight, and considerable press and political pressure to associate dumping
practices as a direct cause of these episodes, we would appreciate your comments regarding the fol-
lowing:
1. Does your Agency believe that dumping is the direct cause of these episodes? If so, do
you have any technical evidence to support this claim?
2. Do you maintain, as you have indicated in the past, the position that sludge dumping at the
existing site should be continued? If not, what would be your position on moving to either of the two sites
studied by NOAA and located roughly 60 miles offshore? What would be your opinion of moving the
dump site off the Continental Shelf to the present chemical wastes site? If you believe that the dump
site, on the basis of the recent incidents, should be relocated, what environmental factors do you con-
sider appropriate in that decision? (See Appendix I.)
In general, there was a lack of enthusiasm for any move from the existing dump site. Only one agency,
NJDEP, favored relocation; it recommended a gradual shift to the chemical wastes dump site, but only after
a thorough evaluation of the potential impacts in accordance with NEPA. Copies of the individual responses
can be found in Appendix I.
At the Toms River hearing in 1977, NJDEP restated its recommendation for a gradual shift to the chemi-
cal wastes site after a thorough environmental assessment of the consequences. At the same time, NOAA
slightly modified its position. In general, NOAA continues to strongly recommend against any move from .the
existing dump site based on the fact that there is no demonstrated need for such a move. Nevertheless, if an
alternate site must be chosen, NOAA would prefer the chemical wastes site to a site in either the Northern
or Southern Area. However, NOAA's acceptance of the chemical wastes site as an alternate sludge dump
site is conditioned on the demonstration that "the net adverse environmental effects are (or are likely to be)
less as a result of dumping the material at DWD-106 [the chemical wastes site] than at the original dump
site." (in USEPA, May 31, 1977).
After reviewing all of the testimony submitted at the Toms River hearing in 1977, the hearing officer
briefly recounted the reasons why sludge dumping at the chemical wastes site would be environmentally
unacceptable:
The preponderance of informed scientific opinion urges extreme caution in dumping wastes in the
deep ocean, particularly wastes containing solid materials, because of the many unknowns about this
part of the environment. There is a strong feeling among marine scientists that it would be possible to
start long-range trends which would be undetectable until it was too late to take corrective measures.
Specific concerns with the dumping of sewage sludge in the deep ocean are the possible persis-
tence of pathogens for long periods of time, the accumulation of biodegradable materials which could
ultimately float up undecayed to contaminate seas and beaches, the development of anaerobic deep
sea environments, and the damage to deep sea organisms which are used to extremely stable condi-
tions.
Based on this informed scientific opinion, it is concluded that dumping of sewage sludge at the
106-mile site [the chemical wastes site] has a potential for irreversible, long-range, and therefore unrea-
sonable degradation of the marine environment, and that the use of this site for this purpose would be
contrary to the intent of the Act [the MPRSA] and the Convention [the International Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter]. (See Appendix C.)
Monitoring and Surveillance - Although precise information is not available, indications are that both
monitoring and surveillance of sewage sludge dumping at the chemical wastes site would be more difficult,
far more expensive, and perhaps less reliable than at the existing site. As NOAA observed in its baseline
70
-------
survey report on the chemical wastes site, monitoring is far more complicated at off-the-shelf sites:
The environmental effects of disposal in deeper waters are...more difficult to measure and, hence, to
predict. This is due to factors such as greater depths of water and distances from shore and also to the
general paucity of environmental and biological information in off-the-shelf areas. In the case of DWD-
106 [the chemical wastes site] this situation is further complicated by the interactions of major water
masses, Shelf Water, Slope Water, and Gulf Stream eddies. The DWD-106 is a complex oceanographic
area in which to assess natural environmental conditions and the impact of man's activities upon those
conditions (NOAA, June 1977; see Appendix H).
In testimony at the Toms River hearing, Kenneth Kamlet, representing the National Wildlife Federation,
expressed serious doubts about the feasibility of monitoring sludge dumping operations at the chemical
wastes site:
Relocation of sludge dumping to the 106-site [the chemical wastes site] would essentially deny
the opportunity to monitor the situation and render it vitually impossible to alter the course of events
should corrective action be necessary.
This is a frequently cited concern. For example, at the EPA workshop on "Evaluation of Ocean
Dumping Criteria" convened at Airlie House, August 31 - September 1, 1973, a group chaired by Dr.
Edward D. Goldberg, and including among others, Drs. Dean F. Bumpus, Gilbert T. Rowe, and David
Menzel, concluded that, although off-Shelf dumpsite locations "would be amenable to mixing of liquids, it
is not possible to predict the effect and fate of solids at great depths and it would be difficult to monitor
their effects." Dr. Holger Jannasch has pointed out that "the feasibility of short-term studies (on deep-
sea biodegradation) is very limited," and that, for this and other reasons, "it will probably be difficult or
impossible "to show" — not because there will be no harm..." (but because) (s)cientific evidence for or
against such an effect will be very difficult to obtain" (in USEPA, May 31, 1977).
In connection with the Toms River hearing, NOAA was asked by the hearing officer to provide informa-
tion on the feasibility of developing a program to monitor the effects of sludge dumping at the chemical
wastes site. In reply, NOAA stated that such a program would be possible but also very expensive:
The techniques required for a monitoring program are available. It is, however, more time-consuming
and thus more expensive to monitor a site which is 100 miles from shore and 2,000 meters deep than
one which is nearshore and shallow.
An effective monitoring program would be built upon our existing knowledge. Initial work directed specifi-
cally at sewage sludge would be to define the volume of water through which the sludge settles, the
area of the bottom accepting the waste, the rate of water renewal, and rates of deep-sea sludge oxida-
tion. The effects of sludge on deep-sea biota would be addressed through field sampling and by applica-
tion of specialized techniques for observation at low temperature and high pressure.
It is estimated that such a program would require about $2.5 million for each of its first two years and,
thereafter, about $1.0 million per annum (Martineau, October 11, 1977).
After evaluating all of the information presented at the Toms River hearing, the hearing Officer con-
cluded that it would not be feasible to design an effective monitoring program for sewage sludge dumping at
the chemical wastes site (see Appendix C).
Similar problems arise in terms of surveillance at the chemical wastes site. As previously reported, the
USCG has responsibility under the MPRSA for surveillance and other appropriate enforcement activity with
regard to ocean dumping, and the USCG - Third District is responsible for surveillance of ocean dumping in
the New York Bight.
At the Toms River hearing, Commander Mullen, representing the Third Coast Guard District, testified
about the difficulties of conducting a thorough surveillance program if sludge dumping is moved from the
existing site to either the 60-mile site or the chemical wastes site:
71
-------
Surveillance of sewage sludge disposal operations at the New York Bight Site (11-mile site) is
conducted by four Coast Guard vessels which are of the 82 foot and 95 foot classes. These are rela-
tively small vessels.
An average of four vessel patrols per week are conducted at this site. The patrols occur both
daytime and nighttime and are intended primarily to detect and to deter dumping outside of the dump-
sites, although other EPA requirements, affecting rate of discharge, discharge of floatables, and so forth
are also monitored.
In addition, a daily schedule of multi-mission helicopter patrols by Coast Guard Air Station Brook-
lyn is also conducted which in part, monitor the same activities.... [The helicopters used in this program]
are of the type HH-52A, with an operational limitation of approximately 25 miles from shore.
Surveillance at the Industrial Waste Site [the chemical wastes site] is conducted by shiprider.
Currently, five petty officers at New York and two at Philadelphia are involved. It should be noted
at this point that the departure times of the vessels and barges are subject to substantial changes as a
result of mechanical failures or weather and tidal conditions.
As a result, shipriders are often tied up for considerable periods of time awaiting departure for a
particular disposal trip.
Considerable time is also involved in transporting the shiprider to the barge, which requires a
vehicle and an additional man.
Coast Guard National Policy is to provide 75% surveillance of toxic chemical dumps which are
disposed of at the Industrial Waste Site. With regard to surveillance of sewage sludge and other material
ocean dumped, Coast Guard policy is to provide 10% surveillance.
Now let us consider the feasibility of surveillance at each of the alternative sewage sludge dis-
posal sites.
As I mentioned earlier, surveillance at the 106-mile site [the chemical wastes site] is conducted
entirely by shipriders. Disposal of all the area's sewage sludge at the 106-mile site would cause a dra-
matic increase in the number of dumps occurring there.
In order to provide the 10% level of surveillance presently maintained over sewage sludge, Coast
Guard shipriders would have to be utilized for these additional missions.
This would require the allocation of new personnel at the Captain of the Port offices and exten-
sive use of reserve petty officers.
The use of reserve petty officers as shipriders is a concept that has recently been tested by the
Captain of the Port, Philadelphia. Some of the problems encountered included a lack of expertise with all
types of navigational equipment.
The reservists generally have to be provided with refresher training in the use of Loran A, Omega,
dead reckoning etc. Delays in vessel and barge departures due to weather and mechanical failure
caused the reservist to spend considerable time in stand-by status.
This tends to be a serious problem in terms of manpower utilization due to the short active duty
period of each reservist.
Helicopters would have the capacity to check vessels in transit to the 106-mile site, but surveil-
lance at the dump site is beyond the capabilities of the shore based HH052A [sic].
In the near future, we hope to implement an automated ocean dumping surveillance system.
This system is presently being field tested. Such a system would greatly facilitate our ability to
monitor dumps at any of the dump sites far offshore.
It is anticipated that regulations requiring installation of ODSS will be issued within six months.
Three modes of surveillance are being considered for the 60-mile site [in the Northern or South-
ern Area], should sludge dumping be moved there. Shipriders could be utilized as at the Industrial Waste
Site and essentially the same problems would be encountered.
Although the time required to complete a mission would be less, the departure delays and time
required to transport the shiprider to and from the vessel would still exist.
In considering use of the 95 and 82 foot patrol boats for surveillance at the 60-mile site, new
problems arise that do not exist for surveillance at the present sludge dump.
The 82 and 95 foot class vessels are ill adapted to cruising during rough waters encountered on
the high seas.
Larger class vessels have been committed to offshore fisheries patrol and are fully utilized while
assigned to that program. While the possibility exists that the larger vessels used on fisheries patrol
could occasionally pass in the vicinity of the 60-mile dump site, it is unlikely that the frequency of this
happening could result in an effective surveillance program.
The proximity of the 11 -mile site [the existing sewage sludge dump site] to Groups Sandy Hook
and Rockaway allows for easy access to the site and keeps the 82 and 95 foot patrol boats "close to
home" in an excellent position to respond to other missions most importantly search and rescue.
72
-------
It is important to note, that the 82 and 95 foot patrol boats are the primary SAR [search and
rescue] boats for Coast Guard Surveillance goal of 10% [sic].
As mentioned earlier,.Coast Guard safety policy is to utilize the HH-52A helicopter up to 25 miles
from shore.
The proposed 60-mile site is 33 miles from Long Island, 8 miles beyond the aircraft's normal
range. In other words, the HH-52As could be used for occasional surveillance of barges and vessels in
transit to the 60-mile site, but actual surveillance of disposal operations at the site would by necessity be
limited.
The Automated Ocean Dumping Surveillance System (ODSS) once available, would provide an .
additional alternative to monitoring at the 60 mile site.
In conclusion, the resulting surveillance programs for sewage sludge dumped at either the 60 mile
site or the 106 mile mile site would not be as effective as they are presently, unless sufficient lead time
were available to acquire additional shipriders, or unless implementation of the automated ocean dump-
ing surveillance system were to first take place.
In the interim period, while attempts are being made to obtain additional resources, it is recom-
mended that a requirement be added to all permits issued for the 60 or 106 mile site for daytime and
nighttime that the master of the ocean dumping vessel prepare at the time of occurrence a navigational
overlay of the dumping vessel's trackline during the dumping operation, indicating the times ahd posi-
tions at entry and exit of dumpsite and beginning and end of dump.
It is our intention to make every effort to acquire the needed extra persons as soon as any
decision is made to move the sludge site, but the extent of lead time needed to actually obtain the
needed resources is not known at this time (in USEPA, May 31, 1977).
In summary, Commander Mullen's assessment was that there would be no insurmountable technologi-
cal problems associated with providing the standard 10 percent surveillance of sewage sludge dumping, at
the chemical wastes site. However, until the electronic surveillance device being tested by the USCG is
approved and installed on vessels engaged in ocean dumping, an effective surveillance program would be
economically and logistically burdensome, requiring substantial increases in equipment and personnel as well
as the lead time to acquire the needed equipment and to adequately train Coast Guard reservists in its use.
In his report on the Toms River hearing, the hearing officer acknowledged the difficulties pointed out by
Commander Mullen, but concluded, "there is no indication that surveillance of dumping at the 106-mile site
[the chemical wastes site] would not be feasible" (see Appendix C).
Logistics and Economics - Even if there were enough data to determine the potential effects on the
marine environment of dumping sewage sludge at the chemical wastes site, and even if those effects were
found to be acceptable, the logistical and economic drawbacks associated with the distance to the chemical
wastes site would probably preclude this alternative. At its closest point, the chemical wastes site is 210 km
(115 n mi) from the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect. The limitations of the existing fleet are such that a
maximum distance of 120 km (65 n mi) was made one of the criteria for selecting an alternate sewage sludge
dump site. Transporting sludge to the chemical wastes site or to some other area off the continental shelf
would necessitate upgrading and expansion of the existing fleet.
As shown in Table 7, only twelve vessels are actually in use in the New York Bight, and one of those,
the barge Westco I, is not seaworthy for use beyond the existing sludge dump site. This reduces the total
fleet to eleven and the total carrying capacity to 41,374 cu m (54,112 cu yd) or about 91 percent of the
carrying capacity of the full thirteen-vessel fleet.
At an average speed of 13 km/hr (7 knots), a tanker would take approximately 54 hours to make a
round trip to the chemical wastes site (see Table 29). At an average speed of 9 km/hr (5 knots), a barge
would take approximately 72 hours. These time estimates include 10 hours per trip for docking and loading
and 5 hours per trip for discharging the sludge. The 5-hour discharge limitation was imposed by the USCG
for safety reasons at the existing dump site. It is used here to facilitate time comparisons between the existing
dump site and the chemical wastes site. If the chemical wastes site were actually to be used, the time
required for discharge would be substantially greater because the USCG safety limit would not apply and the
discharge rate would have to be established in accordance with section 227.8 of the current ocean dumping
regulations (see Appendix B). Thus, the round trip time to the chemical wastes site would be 54 hours plus
73
-------
for a tanker and 72 hours plus for a barge: A round trip to the existing sewage sludge dump site takes about
26 hours for a tanker and 30 hours for a barge.
Given the time constraints associated with the chemical wastes site and assuming that necessary over-
hauls would put each vessel out of service for about one month per year, the maximum number of annual
trips to the site would be 147 for each tanker and 111 for each barge. It is most unlikely that the maximum
number of trips could actually be made, however, because this would require that each vessel be in round-
the-clock service for the other eleven months of the year.
Even if optimum conditions prevailed, the total volume of sludge that could be transported to the
chemical wastes site by the available eleven-vessel fleet (six tankers and five barges) would be.5.0 million cu
m (6.6 million cu yd) per year. Almost 4.0 million cu m (5.3 million cu yd) of sludge were dumped at the
existing site in 1977, and over 6.0 million cu m (7.9 million cu yd) are projected to be dumped in 1978 (see
Tables 6 and 9).
The situation could be improved somewhat by the addition of the Liquid Waste No. 1, which is now in
use in Puerto Rico. This would bring the number of vessels to twelve (six tankers and six barges) and the total
hauling capacity to about 5.3 million cu m (7.0 million cu yd) per year. However, since this volume will
probably be surpassed in 1978, fleet augmentation cannot be avoided if a site off the continental shelf is
chosen for sludge dumping.
The sludge dumping fleet could be enlarged either by hiring or by constructing the needed vessels. Both
of these options would be prohibitively expensive, and the latter would also be infeasible considering the
time required to construct the needed vessels and the scheduled phase out of ocean dumping in 1981.
Expanding the fleet of dumping vessels and increasing the travel time for each vessel in order to make
use of the chemical wastes site would dramatically raise the cost of sludge dumping for those municipalities
that now hold ocean dumping permits (see Table 6):
Cost per Cost per Cost per
Dump Site Wet Ton cu m cu yd
Existing $1.25 $1.95 $1.47
Northern or
Southern Area 4.00 to 5.00 6.30 to 7.80 4.70 to 5.90
Chemical Wastes 8.00 to 10.00 12.50 to 15.60 9.40 to 11.80
Thus, the cost of using the chemical wastes site would be twice the cost of using a dump site in the Northern
or Southern Area, and six to eight times the cost of continuing to use the existing sewage sludge dump site.
Had the chemical wastes site been used for sludge dumping in 1977, it would have cost the municipal
permittees somewhere between $49.0 million and $61.0 million instead of the $7.6 million that it cost to use
the existing site. By 1981, use of the chemical wastes site for sludge dumping would cost the municipal
permittees somewhere between $124.0 million and $154.0 million. The cost to New York City alone could
be as much as $64.0 million; currently, sewage sludge dumping at the existing site costs the city $2.2 million
per year (Samowitz, June 14, 1977).
Other costs would rise as well, including the cost of monitoring the dump site and the cost of the
USCG's surveillance operations.
Its dubious environmental acceptability and its extreme cost are the major but not the only drawbacks
to dumping sewage sludge at the chemical wastes site. Greater navigation hazards would result from the
dumping vessels' increased travel time on the open ocean. Short dumping, including emergency dumping,
would almost certainly increase. Added to this is the fact that using the chemical wastes site for sludge
dumping would be of negligible benefit to the water quality of the Bight Apex. Of all of the pollutant sources
in the Bight Apex, sludge dumping is hardly the most significant, and its removal to the chemical wastes site
could not by itself effect a substantial change in water quality.
Effect of Using the Chemical Wastes Site on the Ability of Dumpers to Meet the December 31,
1981 Deadline - The prohibitive cost associated with using the chemical wastes site for sewage sludge
disposal would threaten the ultimate objective of terminating sludge dumping by December 31, 1981. The
74
-------
economic resources of the communities involved are finite, and if they are spent on transporting sludge to
the chemical wastes site, they will not be available for implementing land-based disposal methods. This
particular aspect of using the chemical wastes site is a matter of concern not only to the communities that
would have to bear the cost, but to federal agencies, to environmental groups, and to some of the Congress-
men who were instrumental in amending the MPRSA to specify the 1981 deadline (see Appendices C and
D).
Although NOAA would prefer that the chemical wastes site rather than a site in the Northern or South-
ern Area be used in an emergency between now and 1981, NOAA opposes summarily moving sludge
dumping from the existing site to the chemical wastes site:
NOAA is not in agreement with the proposal to move the sludge dump site which serves the New
York-New Jersey metropolitan area from the Apex to the deep water site at 106 miles [the chemical
wastes site].
. Our position is that no need has been established to require moving the existing dump site, and
that all sewage sludge dumping should be halted by 1981.
We are concerned that an open door policy of sewage sludge could ultimately lead to the situa-
tion in which most or substantial amounts of east coast municipal and industrial waste dumping is carried
out at that site.
Such a policy would seriously undermine efforts to encourage ocean dumpers to seek land based
alternatives to ocean dumping [emphasis added] (in USEPA, May 31, 1977).
A similar view was expressed by Kenneth Kamlet, representing the National Wildlife Federation, at the
Toms River hearing in 1977. In responding to the argument that the increased cost "of using the chemical
wastes site would make land-based disposal more cost-competitive with ocean dumping and therefore more
attractive to the municipalities involved, Mr. Kamlet stated:
In the first place, any significant increment between now and the end of 1981 (the deadline for
completing the phase-out of sewage sludge ocean dumping) in the cost of sewage sludge disposal could
as easily discourage as encourage the expedited phase-out of sludge dumping, if it had the effect of
diverting into continued ocean dumping limited funds which would otherwise be available to implement a
dumping phase-out [emphasis added].
In the second place, if the cost increment for relocating the dumpsite were not substantial
enough to jeopardize the implementation of land based alternatives, chances are they would also not be
substantial enough to provide much if any incentive to accelerate a dumping phase-out (in USEPA, May
31, 1977).
Congressman Edwin Forsythe, the ranking minority member of the House Subcommittee on Oceanog-
raphy, also testified against moving sludge dumping to an alternate site, particularly the chemical wastes site:
A decision regarding the location of municipal sewage sludge dumping is a critical resource
management problem. Since the environmental and fiscal resources at stake are extremely valuable, our
decision-making must be based on rationality. Attempts to sensationalize the issue, and politically expe-
dient pressure to move the problem "out of sight", "out of mind", must be resisted.
The net effects at present of a dumpsite move would be the following: a new site would be
contaminated, with little recovery of existing dumpsites.
Municipalities will exhaust their financial resources on increased transportation costs and ocean
dumping barge construction while alternative treatment methods go unfunded [emphasis added]. The
government will investigate and monitor new dumpsites at the time when Congress has reaffirmed its
unequivocal intent to end ocean dumping of sewage sludge by 1981.
Finally, responsible parties seeking permanent solutions to the region's waste disposal problem
will have their efforts diffused if a quick-fix, "out-of-sight", "out-of-mind" non-solution is adopted.
I am particularly concerned about the possiblity of dumping sewage sludge at Deepwater dump-
site 106 [the chemical wastes site].
The sensitivity of biota, the likely impact on fisheries, the difficulty of policing, the high probability
of short dumps, and the impossible task of thoroughly monitoring adverse impacts at the site clearly
indicate that dumping at the 106-site could be an environmental nightmare (in USEPA, May 31, 1977).
75
-------
Congressman Forsythe and the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Oceanography later reiterated
these same concerns during EPA's 1978 ocean dumping authorization hearings (see Appendix D).
The estimated cost to municipalities of using the chemical wastes site for sludge dumping is shown in
Table 30. An increase of 641 to 800 percent over the cost of using the existing dump site between 1978 and
1981 is projected. This large an increase would almost certainly detract from the search for alternative land-
based disposal methods. As the hearing officer's report for the Toms River hearing concludes:
None of the municipalities stated that they could not meet the added costs, but they did point out
that there would be difficulties in funding, and that these costs might have to come from funds presently
allocated for implementing alternatives [emphasis added]. (See Appendix C.)
Modification of Dumping Methods
Current sludge dumping procedures, as set forth in each ocean dumping permit, require that the sludge
be discharged within the designated dump site, at a uniform rate of 15,500 gallons per n mi (27,441 liters
per km) and a speed of at least 3 knots (5 km/hr). Vessel traverses must be at least 0.5 n mi (1 km) apart.
These requirements have been stipulated by the USCG for safety reasons in this heavily trafficked area. They
would not be applicable if sludge dumping were moved to a site outside the Bight Apex.
Methods of sludge release considered in this EIS include simple overboard dumping, jet discharge, and
discharge in the vessel's wake (the present method).
Overboard Dumping. This method consists of simply releasing the sludge from the vessel; the material
descends by its own momentum. Since its vertical motion is affected by buoyancy, the initial distribution is
mainly within the surface water layers.
Jet Discharge. This method involves pumping the sludge from the vessel through an opening
beneath the .surface. It is effective in passing the material through the surface layers, but it results in a more
confined initial distribution, usually at the depth of neutral buoyancy of the sludge.
Discharge in the Vessel's Wake (Present Method). This method results in high initial mixing and
dilution, but the sludge's vertical motion is still dependent on density differences between it and the receiv-
ing waters.
Considering the 30 to 60 m (100 to 200 ft) depths and the flow patterns in the Northern and Southern
Areas, the present dispersive method of sludge dumping should be continued at an alternate dump site for
the following reasons:
— Sewage sludge dumped at or near the surface will settle over a wide area because of its low bulk
density, 1.01 g/cu cm.
— Differences in the thermohaline (temperature and salinity) density structure of the ocean would
probably slow the settling of sludge under stratified conditions and would negate the effective-
ness of a pumped subsurface discharge.
— Dispersion at either the Northern or Southern Area is primarily a function of sea state, depth, and
water mass movements. As such, it is not likely to be improved by altering the present dumping
technique.
— Given the volumes of dumped sludge projected through 1981 and the limitations of the present
fleet, use of sophisticated dumping techniques would probably be both technically impossible
and economically prohibitive. Moreover, such techniques would be of little value in improving
dispersion patterns.
— Monitoring of the dump site would be facilitated if dumping were limited to a specific surface
area.
76
-------
LAND-BASED ALTERNATIVES
Although an immediate changeover to land-based disposal of sewage sludge in the New York-New
Jersey metropolitan area is not feasible, current predictions are that land-based methods can be implemented
in time to meet the December 31, 1981 deadline for phasing out ocean dumping of sewage sludge.
In June 1975 and June 1976, ISC issued reports on Phases 1 and 2, respectively, of a three-phase
sludge management study funded by EPA. In October 1976, the study was completed with the publication
of ISC's sludge disposal management plan for the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. The study's
purpose was to describe the feasible land-based alternatives for sludge disposal and methods of implement-
ing them. As the study progressed and more information was gathered, ISC modified its recommendations
accordingly; the final report, published in October 1976, sets forth ISC's current position on the question of
sludge management in the metropolitan area.
ISC Phase 1 Report
The Phase 1 report was primarily concerned with the following land-based methods of sewage sludge
disposal: direct land application, incineration, pyrolysis, and use as a soil conditioner or fertilizer.
Direct Land Application. Sewage sludge in its liquid form can sometimes be applied to the land as a
soil conditioner or fertilizer. Those characteristics of sludge that affect its suitability for direct land application
include the organic matter content, the available nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, and trace
elements), the quantities of heavy metals, and the toxic organics (especially chlorinated hydrocarbons). In
general, three factors limit the immediate implementation of direct land application of metropolitan area
sludge.
First, the sludge generated by metropolitan wastewater treatment facilities contains high concentrations
of heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc) and significant quantities of
toxic organics (chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, lindane, and mirex). If these substances leached into
the soils underlying a land-application site, they would be harmful to adjacent streams and groundwater
aquifers.
Second, metropolitan area sludge is low in nutrients (as are most domestic sewage sludges) in compari-
son with commercial fertilizers.
Finally, land is not available in the metropolitan area for a large-scale land-application program. The
cost of transporting large quantities of sludge to suitable sites outside the metropolitan area appears to be
prohibitive.
Incineration. Sewage sludge incineration results in waste gases, particulates, and a relatively small
quantity of sterile ash that retains most of the heavy metals originally present. Air pollution controls, such as
wet scrubbers, are necessary to remove the particulates, odors, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile toxic
organics, and airborne heavy metals (cadmium, lead, and mercury). Multiple-hearth incineration has the least
potential for air pollution; it can burn without auxiliary fuel (gas, oil, or coal), and it is compatible with a
phased change-over to pyrolysis. The ash, of course, which contains heavy metals, must ultimately be dis-
posed of in an environmentally acceptable manner.
To burn without auxiliary fuel, sludge must generally be dewatered, that is, the liquid content must be
reduced from its usual range of 93 to 97 percent to less than 65 percent.
Although the air pollution problems posed by this method of sludge disposal could be minimized by
incinerating the material on ships or offshore platforms, the costs cannot be justified since other, more eco-
nomical, methods of sludge disposal are available.
77
-------
Pyrolysis. Destructive distillation, or pyrolysis, is the process of breaking down organic matter, such as
sewage sludge, by heating it in the absence of oxygen. The resulting by-products are a number of gases, a
carbon/ash char, and a liquid waste containing a wide variety of organic compounds. Pyrolysis is generally
cheaper than incineration because it produces fewer particulates and thus requires less in the way of air
pollution controls. The by-products, char and gases, can be used as fuels. To date, however, no large-scale
pyrolysis tests have been conducted on sewage sludge alone, so prior to implementation of this alternative, a
pilot demonstration plant would have to be built and successfully operated.
Use as a Soil Conditioner. Problems with the use of sewage sludge as a soil conditioner or fertilizer
are much the same as those with direct land application: the high concentrations of heavy metals and toxic
organic compounds must be removed or reduced. In addition, the sludge must be dried to 5 or 10 percent
moisture content and fortified with nutrients before it can be used as a fertilizer. Finally, there is the problem
of promoting consumer acceptance.
Conclusions and Recommendations. The ISC Phase 1 report (1975) drew the following conclusions
regarding land-based sludge disposal methods for the metropolitan area and the eventual, phased implemen-
tation of those methods.
The most feasible alternative to ocean dumping would be pyrolysis (the sludge having been dewatered
with filter presses). This conclusion was based on considerations of environmental impact, economic feasibil-
ity, and energy recovery. Pyrolysis has the least potential for negative impacts on water, air, or land re-
sources."It could be implemented within ten years.
Multiple-hearth incineration could be implemented sooner than pyrolysis, and the incinerators could be
converted to pyrolysis units once that process was demonstrated to be successful. Incinerators, however,
would face more difficult siting problems because of their potential for air pollution and because of the
possibility of local community resistance The incinerators needed to handle the volumes of sludge projected
for the year 2000 would cost on the order of $400 to $500 million (in 1975 dollars).
Direct land application could be implemented only in fringe areas (outside the metropolitan area),
where population density is low and large tracts of land are available, and where agricultural enterprises
would provide a market for sludge-based fertilizers and soil conditioners.
A small-scale pilot study should be undertaken immediately with the aid of an equipment manufacturer
who is familiar with both pyrolysis technology and multiple-hearth furnace construction. The purpose would
be to identify and define the required engineering parameters prior to full-scale demonstration plant con-
struction.
The complete text of the Phase 1 report's conclusions and recommendations is presented as part of
Appendix J.
ISC Phase 2 Report
The object of the Phase 2 report (ISC, 1976a) was to develop and recommend a specific, coordinated
disposal program based on the technical findings of the Phase 1 report (ISC, 1975). In sum, the Phase 2
report recommends the construction of regional pyrolysis plants at six separate locations in the metropolitan
area and only limited land application of sludge.
Incineration and Pyrolysis. To date, pyrolysis of sludge alone has been studied only in pilot-scale tests;
large-scale demonstrations have utilized solid wastes. The ISC's Phase 1 report indicated that multiple-hearth
furnaces could be built by 1981, initially operated as incinerators, and then converted to pyrolysis units as
that technology developed. Between the publication of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports, it was learned that
such furnaces could be designed and constructed as pyrolysis units directly during the same time span;
incineration was therefore not considered further.
The ISC evaluated the retention of anaerobic digestion capabilities at individual plants because a num-
ber of operating wastewater treatment plants have, or plan to construct, these digesters. It was found that
maintenance of existing anaerobic digesters was cost-effective, but that new digesters should not be built if
sludge was to be pyrolyzed.
78
-------
Land Application, Composting, and Landfilling. Land application and composting are feasible sludge
disposal alternatives for outlying plants in the metropolitan area. These plants could form regional groups for
direct land application or for sludge composting.
Landfilling of stabilized, dewatered sludge is cost-effective only for the smaller suburban wastewater
treatment facilities, and only if landfill sites are available. Landfilling, however, should be considered a short-
term solution, to be used while long-term direct land application or composting programs are instituted. In
addition, landfilling was found not to be feasible for sludges produced by treatment plants in highly urban-
ized portions of the metropolitan area because of the larger quantities of sludge produced and the limited
lifespans of available landfill sites.
Sludge Management. The plan recommended in ISC's Phase 2 report calls for pyrolysis of sludge
produced in urban treatment plants and land application or composting of sludge produced in outlying
plants. The recommended pyrolysis sites and areas to be served are:
1. Port Newark (New Jersey regional), serving Bergen, Hudson, and Union counties, and the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners.
2. Sayreville, serving the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority.
3. Cedar Creek, serving Nassau County.
4. Twenty-Sixth Ward, serving Coney Island, Jamaica, Rockaway, and Twenty-Sixth Ward.
5. Hunts Point, serving Bowery Bay, Hunts Point, Tallmans Island, and Wards Island.
6. Fresh Kills (New York regional), serving Newtown Creek, North River, Owls Head, and Port
Richmond.
Conclusions and Recommendations. Pyrolysis is favored as a particularly promising means of dispos-
ing of the large volume of municipal sewage sludge expected to be produced by the year 2000. The ISC
Phase 2 report concludes that if future federal policies prohibit or significantly curtail the ocean dumping of
sludge, pyrolysis is the best alternative for its disposal. The report also recommends the construction of six
regional pyrolysis facilities (listed above). Only limited amounts of sludge are seen as suitable for direct land
application.
The ISC concludes that direct land application of either treated or untreated sludge in quantities suffi-
cient to dispose of the expected volumes would be dangerous because of the large heavy metal and toxic
organic content, and the threat of surface and groundwater contamination. Pyrolysis is also preferred to
incineration because units could be more easily decentralized. While pyrolysis equipment capable of reduc-
ing sludge is not yet in commercial operation, recent technological advances make it appear that the method
could be in practical use by the early 1980s.
While the ISC acknowledges the urgent need for the cessation of ocean dumping, it considers EPA's
phase-out date of December 31, 1981 to be somewhat optimistic.
The complete text of the Phase 2 report's summary chapter is presented as part of Appendix J.
ISC Sludge Disposal Management Program
The latest ISC report (1976b) presents ISC's plan for sewage sludge management in the New York-New
Jersey metropolitan area. It combines the Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports with an examination of legal-
institutional implementation problems.
In general, the sludge management plan currently recommended by ISC is very similar to the one
recommended in the Phase 2 report. The major difference, is that ISC now places a greater emphasis on
composting followed by land spreading. The sludges produced by several treatment plants in the metropoli-
tan area are now suitable for composting and land spreading. Other sludges are still unsuitable, primarily
because of their heavy metal and synthetic organics content. However, pretreatment of industrial wastewa-
ters could resolve these problems.
79
-------
Relative to pyrolysis, the ISC recommends five facility sites rather thari the six given in the Phase 2
report:
1. Port Newark (New Jersey regional), serving Bergen, Hudson, and Union counties, and the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners.
2. Sayreville, serving the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority.
3. Cedar Creek, serving Nassau County.
4. Twenty-Sixth Ward, serving Newtown Creek, Owls Head, Coney Island, Jamaica, Rockaway,
and Twenty-Sixth Ward.
5. Hunts Point, serving Bowery Bay, Hunts Point, Tallmans Island, and Wards Island.
The ISC makes no recommendation relative to the North River or Red Hook treatment plants that are being
constructed in New York City; both plants are scheduled to go into operation in the mid-1980's.
The complete text of the summary chapter of the October 1976 report is presented as part of Appendix
Testing and Implementation
As noted at the start of this chapter, the testing and implementation phases of the sludge disposal
management program have begun. Since no large-scale pyrolysis test had been conducted on sewage sludge
alone, ISC recommended, in its Phase 1 Report, that a pilot demonstration plant be built and successfully
operated. In 1976, EPA funded such a pilot test. Nichols Engineering and Research Corporation was con-
tracted to test sludge pyrolysis at its Belle Mead, New Jersey, research facility. Sludges from several treat-
ment plants were chemically conditioned, dewatered, and pyrolyzed under various design conditions in a
Nichbls Herreshoff Multiple Hearth Furnace. Nichols has reported that pyrolysis can be used as a commer-
cially feasible and cost effective thermal destruction method for sludge disposal without using fuel, including
afterburning at 759°C (1400°F). (ISC, 1978).
In December 1976, a sludge composting project in Camden, New Jersey, was funded by EPA and
NJDEP. This project uses a technique developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's experimental sludge
composting station in Beltsville, Maryland. During the process, which takes a total of thirty days, dewatered
sludge is mixed with a bulking agent, such as wood chips, corn cobs, or waste paper, and stacked in piles.
The piles are blanketed with an inert material, and air is drawn through the piles. Aerobic biological degrada-
tion increases temperatures within the piles to 82°C (180°F), thus destroying most pathogenic bacteria.
The Camden composting facility, which was dedicated in June 1978, established several major environ-
mental precedents. It is the largest composting operation of its type in the United States. It is also the first
such municipal undertaking in the New York-New Jersey area. Most important, it is the first instance of
cessation of ocean dumping by a large municipal sewage treatment plant (58,118 cu m or 76,471 cu yd per
year).
All municipal permittees in EPA-Region II are required by permit condition to select and implement an
environmentally acceptable alternative to ocean dumping on or before December 31, 1981. Each permittee
has been given a final phase-out date based upon the individual permit implementation schedule. Each of the
permittees is on a strict implementation schedule, and is closely monitored by EPA-Region II. All permittees
are afforded the opportunity to comply with this condition using federal funds available through the FWPCA
(the Clean Water Act), and most have chosen this path. Examples of the technologies being considered or
currently being implemented are:
Camden
Middletown Township
Northeast Monmouth Composting
Linden-Roselle
80
-------
Nassau County
Bergen County
Joint Meeting of
Essex and Union
Counties
Rahway Valley
Wayne Township
Lincoln Park
Pequannock Township
Pompton Plains
Oakland
Middlesex County
Glen Cove
New York City
Westchester County
Composting of sludge and use as landfill cover as an interim solution;
co-recovery with solid wastes as a long-term solution
Incineration
Multiple hearth incineration or starved air combustion
Co-incineration with solid wastes
Composting or landfilling of digested dewatered sludge as an interim
solution; utilization of other technology (pyrolysis, co-recovery, etc.) or
shipment out of the city area for composting as a long-term solution
Use of existing excess capacity in solid waste incinerators and com-
posting of remainder
81
-------
CHAPTER IV
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action involves abandoning the existing sewage sludge dump site in the Bight Apex, and
designating an alternate dump site in either the Northern or Southern Area of the New York Bight (Figure 10)
for use until ocean dumping of sewage sludge is completely phased out at the end of 1981. The premise for
the proposed action was a concern that the increasing volumes of sludge, generated as a result of upgrading
municipal treatment plants in the metropolitan area, could not be dumped at the existing site through 1981
without adversely affecting the recreational quality of Long Island and New Jersey coastal waters (USEPA,
January 17, 1975). The 1981 sludge volume is expected to be about one and a half times greater than the
1977 volume (Tables 5 and 9).
Studies by EPA, NOAA-MESA, FDA, and state and local agencies all indicate that while the benthic
community at and near the existing dump site has been adversely impacted, continued use of the site poses
no current health hazard to the near-shore waters of Long Island or New Jersey. However, concern about
the potential effects of dumping increased volumes of sludge at the existing site led EPA to consider the
proposed action.
This EIS assesses the effects of the proposed action and provides specific recommendations regarding
the continued use of the existing dump site and the designation and use of an alternate site. The most
acceptable dump site will be selected on the basis of environmental considerations and other factors. The
EPA intends to designate an alternate dump site in 1978, after public review of, and comment on, this EIS.
HISTORY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Significant events affecting the proposed action are described below.
October 7972: Congress passed the MPRSA, which authorized EPA to regulate ocean dumping as of
April 23, 1973.
April 1973: The EPA-Region II office issued Interim Permits to municipal and industrial waste generators
who were dumping in the New York Bight under COE permits.
After EPA-Headquarters issued interim regulations covering the transportation and dumping of material
in ocean waters, EPA-Region II ordered forty-seven permittees to cease dumping in the New York Bight
because acceptable land-based alternatives were available.
July 1973: The EPA-Region II office issued Interim Permits under the regulations to those waste genera-
tors with no immediate alternative to ocean dumping.
October 1973: The EPA-Headquarters office issued final ocean dumping regulations (40 CFR, Parts 220
to 227). Subsequently, EPA-Region II consigned all liquid industrial wastes, except acid wastes, to the chemi-
cal wastes dump site (just outside the New York Bight); previously, most of these wastes were dumped at the
existing sludge dump site (Figure 2).
The EPA-Region II office contacted NOAA-MESA about the possibility of designating an alternate dump
site for use until environmentally acceptable land-based alternatives for the disposal of sewage sludge could
be developed and implemented.
March 1974: The NOAA-MESA investigators tentatively recommended two study areas in the New
York Bight at which an alternate dump site could be located, and EPA requested further evaluation of the
areas (NOAA-MESA, March 8, 1974).
82
-------
13ANDY HOOK
"yj ROCK A WAY
POINT TRANSECT
SEWAGE
SLUDGE
DUMP
BIGHT
APEX
LIMITS
20 MILES (STATUTE)
20 NAUTICAL MILES
NOTE i CONTOURS IN METERS
LOCATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED
DUMP SITE AREAS IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
SOURCE: NOAA, SEPTEMBER 17, 1971*.
FIGURE 10
-------
April 1974: The EPA-Region II office notified all users of the existing site that it intended to shift sludge
dumping operations to an alternate site in July 1976, or earlier, depending on the results of an EPA onsite
monitoring program. Municipal and sewerage authority permittees responded that they could not commit the
necessary resources to effect such a move solely on the basis of an EPA "intention" (USEPA, July 15, 1975).
At the request of EPA, NOAA-MESA agreed to assist in evaluating the two preliminary study areas, and
tentatively scheduled several seasonal sampling cruises for 1974 and 1975 (NOAA-MESA, April 11, 1974).
The EPA-Region II office held a public hearing on the issuance of twenty-four Interim Permits, under the
final regulations, to users of the existing sludge dump site.
In addition, EPA initiated a comprehensive program to monitor water quality in the Bight Apex. With
the concurrence of NOAA-MESA, EPA recommended continued use of the existing site, pending completion
of a program for reducing volumes of wastes and/or finding an alternate site or methods of handling these
wastes. To this end, EPA issued a grant to ISC for the study of land-based disposal alternatives in the metro-
politan area.
May 1974: The NOAA-MESA investigators recommended two areas, the Northern Area and the South-
ern Area (Figure 10), as possible locations for an alternate dump site (NOAA-MESA, September 23, 1975).
As previously requested by EPA, NOAA-MESA agreed to conduct several cruises to collect baseline data in
these two areas of the New York Bight.
The EPA-Headquarters office contracted with the Raytheon Company to collect baseline data for a
small portion of the Northern Area. Data from Raytheon's three cruises were intended to supplement
NOAA-MESA cruise data.
September 1974: Due to constraints of time and resources, NOAA stated that it would concentrate its
study efforts on two-subareas, 2D1 in the Northern Area and 2D2 in the Southern Area. In addition, NOAA
indicated that if the Northern and Southern Areas were both unacceptable for the dumping of sewage
sludge, a site within "an equivalent distance" should be available (NOAA, September 17, 1974).
October 1974: The EPA-Region II office sent a second letter of notification to all users of the existing
sludge dump site stating that its position was "firm", and that permits for continued use of the existing site
would not be issued after July 1976 (USEPA, October 2, 1974).
December 1974: The EPA-Region II office contracted with Dames & Moore to prepare a draft EIS on
the proposed action in accordance with the requirements of NEPA and EPA's own EIS regulations.
January 1975: The EPA issued an official "Notice of Intent" to prepare this EIS (USEPA, January 17,
1975).
April 1975: The EPA-Region II office held a public hearing on the issuance of fourteen Interim Permits
for use of the existing sludge dump site (USEPA, April 1, 1975).
May 1975: The EPA-Region II office signed a formal Letter of Understanding with NOAA-MESA con-
cerning baseline surveys and evaluations of the Northern and Southern Areas. In accordance with this agree-
ment, NOAA-MESA provided a report of its findings (NOAA-MESA, February 1976) for use in this EIS.
July 1975: The EPA-Region II office held a public hearing on the issuance of four additional-Interim
Permits to industries for use of the existing sludge dump site.
February 1976: The draft EIS on the ocean dumping of sewage sludge in the New York Bight was
released for public review and comment.
March, April 1976: The EPA-Region II office held public hearings on the draft EIS in New York City, in
Toms River, New Jersey, and in Mineola, Long Island.
April 1976: The EPA-Region II office held a public hearing in New York City on the issuance of fourteen
Interim Permits for use of the existing sludge dump site.
July, August 1976: Long Island beaches bordering the New York Bight were contaminated with sewage-
like material and other wastes propelled onshore by unusual summer winds. In addition, waters off the New
Jersey coast experienced a massive algal bloom and oxygen depletion of bottom waters which severely
affected benthic marine organisms, especially surf clams.
January 1977: The EPA-Headquarters office issued final revisions of the ocean dumping regulations and
criteria (40 CFR, Parts 220 to 229).
84 .
-------
May 1977: The EPA-Region II office held a public hearing on the issuance of thirteen Interim Permits
for use of the existing sludge dump site.
May, June 1977: The EPA-Headquarters office held a public hearing in Toms River, New Jersey, to
consider the possibility of transferring sludge dumping operations from the existing dump site in the New
York Bight and the existing dump site off the coast of Maryland (the Philadelphia dump site) to a site farther
offshore, possibly the chemical wastes site.
July 7977: The EPA-Headquarters office awarded a 3-year contract to Interstate Electronics Corporation
(IEC) to perform environmental assessments and prepare EISs for designation of ocean dump sites for differ-
ent types of wastes. Although the contract covers all ocean dumping activities in the United States, the New
York Bight dump sites have been assigned high priority.
September 1977: The hearing officer for the Toms River public hearing issued his report, recommend-
ing that neither the New York nor the Philadelphia sewage sludge dump site be moved (see Appendix C).
November 1977: Congress amended the MPRSA to require that ocean dumping of harmful sewage
sludge be phased out by December 31, 1981.
March 1978: The EPA-Headquarters office issued its decision on the Toms River public hearing, stating
that both the New York and Philadelphia dump sites should continue in use, pending the phase out of
sewage sludge dumping in 1981. The decision also directed that IEC include in the EIS for the chemical
wastes site an assessment of sewage sludge dumping there (see Appendix D).
PROPOSED NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN AREAS
Based on the information collected by NOAA, and on NOAA's recommendations, EPA has proposed
that an alternate sewage sludge dump site be located within either the Northern or Southern Area (Figure
10). The Northern Area is located roughly 46 km (25 n mi) from the Long Island coast; it is about 1,650 sq
km (490 sq n mi) in area, and lies in 40 to 60 m (132 to 198 ft) of water. The Southern Area is roughly 46
km (25 n mi) from the New Jersey coast; it is about 900 sq km (260 sq n mi) in area, and lies in 30 to 40 m
(100 to 132,ft) of water. The distance from the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect to the farthest point in
either area is 120 km (65 n mi).
Designation of a portion of either area as a sewage sludge dump site may conflict with other present or
potential uses. Although both areas are mostly outside existing navigational lanes (Figure 5), they contain
commercially valuable shellfish resources. The Southern Area lies near potential oil and gas development
areas and may contain valuable sand and gravel deposits as well. Detailed descriptions of both areas are
given in Chapter V.
Selection of the Northern and Southern Areas for study was based on the following considerations:
— Although the MPRSA recommends that ocean dumping be confined to areas off the continental
shelf where feasible, both EPA and NOAA scientists have agreed that without adequate oceano-
graphic studies, "off-the-shelf" dumping of sewage sludge is an undue environmental risk.
— The alternate dump site must minimize the chances of sewage sludge reaching either the Long
Island or New Jersey shoreline.
— The alternate dump site must minimize adverse impacts on the marine resources of the New
York Bight. (For this reason, boundaries of the two areas were set at a minimum distance of 18.5
km (10.0 n mi) from the Hudson Shelf Valley, where bottom-dwelling and migratory marine
species are abundant.)
— The maximum one-way distance from the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect to the alternate
dump site (Figure 10) should be no more than 120 km (65 n mi). (This constraint was based on
the limited range of the existing fleet of dumping vessels and on the undue economic burden of
hiring or constructing new, longer-range vessels.)
85
-------
COST OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Expansion of the existing fleet of sludge dumping vessels is considered unnecessary at present because
available capacities are sufficient for the near future. However, because of the increased distance to an
alternate dump site in either the Northern or Southern Area, expansion would eventually be required. Thus,
the proposed action would increase sludge transportation costs by an estimated 323 to 400 percent (see
Chapters III and VII).
The general consensus among permittees is that capital outlays for fleet modification or expansion are not
cost-effective in light of the requirement to phase out ocean dumping in 1981.
The proposed action might result in reduced commercial shellfish catches, especially of surf clams, in
the vicinity of either of the two areas. Commercial shellfisheries along the New Jersey coast and offshore
toward the Southern Area appear most valuable in this respect.
Designation and use of an alternate dump site could also interfere with the potential development of
identified mineral resources (sand and gravel, oil and gas) in the Southern Area and its immediate vicinity.
No potential mineral resources have been identified in or near the Northern Area.
Dumping sewage sludge into the ocean results in the loss of a potentially valuable resource since it is
now possible to convert sludge into soil conditioners and fertilizers. This value cannot be realized, however,
until the land-based methods of sludge disposal discussed in Chapter III are implemented in the metropolitan
area.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
The proposed action is not expected to interfere with other dumping activities in the New York Bight
although EPA is also evaluating the need to relocate the existing dredged material site. The EPA specifically
requested that the COE consider use of the alternate sludge dump site for dredged material; however, it now
appears that such combined dumping activities could magnify the potential adverse impacts at the alternate
dump site.
The proposed action is not expected to affect marine-related recreational activities (sport fishing, plea-
sure boating, or beach attendance) or population growth in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area.
86
-------
CHAPTER V
DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
This chapter summarizes the oceanographic data (physical, biological, geological, and chemical) as-
sessed in determining the impact of the proposed action. Appropriate data from previous studies were com-
bined with data from NOAA-MESA and Raytheon studies conducted specifically for this assessment. These
data were required in order to establish the nature of, and the temporal and spatial variations in, those
environmental parameters needed to predict the fate of dumped sewage sludge and to assess the resulting
impacts on the ecosystem at both the Northern and Southern Areas.
STUDY PROGRAM
Study Areas
In May 1974, NOAA recommended that EPA study two large areas (Figure 11) in the New York Bight,
identified as the Northern Area and the Southern Area, as possible locations for an alternate sewage sludge
dump site. Because of the large areas involved and the short time before the July 1976 target date for
designating an alternate dump site, NOAA further recommended that two subareas, one in the Northern
Area and one in the Southern Area, be given study emphasis (NOAA, September 17, 1974). Descriptions of
the areas and subareas follow.
The Northern Area is described by three boundaries (Figure 11). The northern boundary is a line
roughly parallel to and 46 km (25 n mi) south of the Long Island coast and seaward of the 37 m (120 ft)
depth contour; the southern boundary is a line roughly parallel to and 18.5 km (10.0 n mi) north of the axis
of the Hudson Shelf Valley; and the eastern boundary is the arc of a circle with a radius of 120 km (65 n mi)
from the midpoint of the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect. The approximate area is 1,650 sq km (490
sq n mi).
Subarea 2D1 is a square measuring 22 km (12 n mi) on a side located within the Northern Area,
adjacent to its northern and eastern boundaries, with center coordinates of 40°12.0'N and 72°46.5'W (Figure
11); the area is 484 sq km (144 sq n mi). The Raytheon Company studied a slightly different configuration of
Subarea 2D1 in the Northern Area (Figure 11). Designated Subarea 1 A(R), it is a square measuring 26 km (14
n mi) on a side; its center coordinates are only slightly removed from those of NOAA-MESA's Subarea 2D1.
The area is 676 sq km (196 sq n mi).
The Southern Area is likewise described by three boundaries (Figure 11). The western boundary is a line
roughly parallel to and 46 km (25 n mi) east of the New Jersey coast and seaward of the 37 m (120 ft) depth
contour; the northern boundary is a line roughly parallel to and 18.5 km (10.0 n mi) south of the axis of the
Hudson Shelf Valley; and the southern boundary is the arc of a circle with a radius of 120 km (65 n mi) from
the midpoint of the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect. The approximate area is 900 sq km (260 sq n mi).
Subarea 2D2 is a square measuring 22 km (12 n mi) on a'side located within the Southern Area,
adjacent to its eastern and southern boundaries, with center coordinates of 39°41'N and 73°18'W (Figure
11). The area is 484 sq km (144 sq n mi).
87
-------
TRANSECT
SEWAGE SLUDGE
DUMP SITE
BIGHT
APEX
LIMITS
20 MILES (STATUTE)
20 NAUTICAL MILES
NOTE • CONTOURS IN METERS
STUDY AREAS AND SUBAREAS
SOURCE: NOAA, SEPTEMBER 17, 197/».
FIGURE 11
-------
Data Collection
In May 1974, EPA initiated a program of data collection to determine marine baseline conditions (phys-
ical, biological, geological, and chemical oceanography) in the Northern and Southern Areas. This program
consisted of seasonal data gathering cruises conducted independently by NOAA-MESA and by the Raytheon
Company from the summer of 1974 to the summer of 1975. The specific NOAA-MESA and Raytheon study
activities are outlined below.
NOAA-MESA Activities. In order to collect the necessary baseline data, NOAA-MESA stepped up its
regular marine sampling program in the New York Bight during the study period. Subareas 2D1 and 2D2
(Figure 11) were frequently and intensively sampled. A grid of twenty to thirty equidistant stations in each
subarea was used to sample the water column and sediments. A detailed description of NOAA-MESA study
activities in connection with the proposed action is contained in the May 1975 Letter of Understanding
between NOAA-MESA and EPA (available from EPA-Region II). That effort (NOAA-MESA, February 1976)
was the source of much key data for this EIS.
Raytheon Activities. In May 1974, EPA-Headquarters awarded a contract to the Raytheon Company
of Portsmouth, Rhode Island, to perform three seasonal baseline data gathering cruises in Subarea 1A(R).
These cruises were conducted from August through October 1974, from March through May 1975, and in
July 1975 (Raytheon, 1975a, 1975b, and 1975c, respectively). Approximately fifteen stations were sampled
for a combination of physical, biological, geological, and chemical parameters. ,
Reduction of data from the first two cruises was undertaken as part of this assessment/and the results
have been incorporated into this EIS. A review of the data from the last cruise indicates general agreement
with the previous results.
PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
This section provides descriptions of the hydrographic characteristics and currents in the New York
Bight and.at the Northern and Southern Areas.
Hydrographic Characteristics
Water Masses. Most of the continental shelf, including the existing and proposed dump sites, is char-
acterized by coastal or shelf water. The hydrographic characteristics of this water (its temperature and salin-
ity) are controlled by seasonal sea-air exchange processes (such as precipitation, evaporation, and heat
exchange), by the influx of fresh water, and by mixing of shelf water with more oceanic water (slope water)
near the shelf edge. The major freshwater inputs to the New York Bight are the Hudson and Connecticut
rivers (Figure 12).
The shelf water mass tends to exhibit a two-layer profile. The upper layer, surface shelf water, has a
salinity range of 30 to 32.5 parts per thousand (ppt) and a temperature range of 20 to 27°C (68 to 81°F). The
lower layer, bottom shelf water, has a somewhat higher salinity range, 32.5 to 34.5 ppt, and a lower temper-
ature range, 5 to 11.5°C (41 to 53°F).
Seasonal Variations in Temperature and Salinity Patterns. The most extreme conditions in the New
York Bight occur during the winter and summer seasons. In winter, the Bight is characterized by well-mixed
conditions; in summer, it is characterized by heavily stratified conditions with a well defined boundary be-
tween the upper, low density layer and the lower, high density layer. Spring and fall are transitional periods.
The following synopsis of seasonal conditions is from Bowman and Wunderlich (1975).
Winter Conditions (January and February): Because of low-volume river runoff and strong vertical mix-
ing, water within the New York Bight is, for the most part, vertically homogeneous during winter. The cold-
89
-------
30
HI
O
DC
<
O 20
CO
I 10
li.
O
UJ
O
<
I-
z
UJ
O
DC
UJ
0. 20
X
h-
I 10
<
UJ
CONNECTICUT
X
j; ;r , ^ -r;
.'--- ''-.^'^ * ^..*-A
HUDSON AND MOHAWK
JAN MAR MAY JULY SEPT NOV
FEB APR JUNE AUG OCT DEC
MEAN MONTHLY PERCENTAGES
OF ANNUAL DISCHARGE
FOR THE HUDSON AND CONNECTICUT RIVERS
SOURCE: BIGELOW AND SEARS, 1936.
FIGURE 12
-------
est temperatures occur near shore and increase steadily seaward; the temperature ranges from less than 5°C
(41°F) near shore to 13°C (54.5"F) near the shelf edge. Similarly, maximum salinities of 33 ppt are found on
the inner shelf with a small increase to 34 ppt on the edge of the shelf. Temperature-salinity measurements
taken during late winter (Raytheon, 1975b) show the well-mixed conditions that prevail during the winter in
the middle shelf (Figure 13).
Spring Progression (March through May): In March, April, and May, waters of the Bight are diluted by
high-volume river runoff. This freshwater inflow causes a strong lateral variation in surface salinities.
In spring, the Hudson River discharge can be as high as 1,200 cu m/sec (43,000 cfs). It produces a
low-salinity plume (26 to 30 ppt) which tends to follow the New Jersey coastline. Increased solar heating of
Bight waters is reflected in a gradual surface temperature rise.
Summer Conditions (June through August): During the summer, waters of the New York Bight exhibit a
strong thermocline, with surface temperatures reaching a maximum of 24°C (75°F). Although there is some
warming of bottom water over winter conditions, it is relatively slight; bottom temperatures remain below
12"C (54°F) over most of the Bight.
The depth of the warm, mixed layer of water is about 10 to 15m (33 to 49 ft), and the thermocline
generally lies at depths of 15 to 30 m (49 to 98 ft). Summer salinities do not differ significantly from winter
and spring values. Temperature-salinity measurements taken during the late summer (Raytheon, 1975a) show
that vertical stratification persists into October (Figure 14).
Fall Progression (September and October): In September and October, surface cooling and wind-driven
mixing begin to break down the summer thermocline. Surface temperatures decrease to approximately 16 to
18°C (61 to 65°F) in the inner Bight by the end of October. As this occurs, bottom temperatures increase
toward 12°C (54°F) due to vertical mixing. Mixing also results in a more homogeneous salinity field and in an
overall increase in salinity as more saline slope water is introduced.
Early Winter Conditions (November and December): In November and December, strong vertical mix-
ing continues to homogenize the water column in the Bight Apex. During November, the temperature gradi-
ent from the Bight Apex to the edge of the shelf is small, but as December progresses, cooler inshore
temperatures develop. Vertical salinity values become uniform and the horizontal salinity gradient from the
Bight Apex to the edge of the shelf is slight.
Currents
The circulation patterns of continental shelf currents are complex; they are subject to a number of
forces which vary in time and space. Components of the general circulation pattern are described here to
provide a setting for the later discussion of the fate of dumped sewage sludge (Chapter VI).
Tidal Currents. The direction of the tidal current in the middle shelf region of the New York Bight is
clockwise. Estimates of these currents are given in Figure 15 (EG&C, 1975). The maximum value of hourly
average tidal current measured near the Northern Area was reported to be 7.2 cm/sec (2.8 in/sec). Tidal
current velocities in the Northern Area were calculated from harmonic analyses of data collected on the first
two Raytheon cruises (Raytheon, 1975a, 1975b). The velocity of tidal currents shows a vertical and seasonal
variation (Table 17); similar values could be expected in the Southern Area.
Tidal currents are important in the initial distribution (mixing and dispersion) of dumped materials on the
bottom. They are also important as a source of energy for the resuspension of settled solids. Bottom tidal
current velocities may be low, about 10 cm/sec (4 in/sec), but when coupled with wind-driven currents
during storms, they can cause resuspension and subsequent redistribution of sediments.
91
-------
30
10
(32.8)
20
(65.6)
U!
25 30
"(98.4)
0.
UJ
0
(131.2)
50
>
B--
60
(196.9)°
31
SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSANDS
32 33 34
5(41)
T
T
APRIL 12, 1975
WIND = 5 KNOTS SW (9-3 km/hr)
WAVE = 1 FOOT (0.3m)
I
10(50) 15(59) 20(68)
TEMPERATURE °C (°F)
35
36
25(77)
30(86)
LATE WINTER TEMPERATURE-SALINITY
PROFILE AT SUBAREA 1A(R)
KEY:
• SALINITY
x TEMPERATURE
SOURCE: RAYTHEON, I975b.
FIGURE 13
-------
30
UJ
10
(32.8)
20
(65.6)
Q.
LU
O
30
(98.4)
40
(131.2)
50
.(164.1)
31
I
5
(41)
SALINITY IN PARTS PER THOUSAND
32 33 34
35
OCTOBER 5, 1974
WIND = 15 KNOTS SW
(27-8 KM/HR)
WAVE = 2 FEET(0.6m)
I
10 15 20
(50) (59) (68)
TEMPERATURE °C (°F)
25
(77)
36
30
(86)
LATE SUMMER TEMPERATURE-
SALINITY PROFILE AT SUBAREA IA(R)
SOURCE: RAYTHEON, 1975a.
KEY:
• SALINITY
x TEMPERATURE
FIGURE 14
-------
POINT
Ambrose Channel
(1912-22)
Ambrose Channel
(1936-38)
TIDAL CURRENTS AT LIGHTSHIP STATIONS, MONTAUK POINT
TO BARNEGAT BAY
Ambrose Channel (1912-22)
'»*' ,?'<
Ambrose Channel (1936-38)
0»j 4
\0- ^6
X .
Scotland
°x *
'•»T\ *
t
8
Fire Island
10.
SCALE OF VELOCITIES
cr
1.832
KM/HR
'0
• Knot
METRIC
1.832
KM/HR
U.S.S. Cardinal
U.S.S: Finch
10
8> ,0
Barnegat
10
8,'
10 0
» 4
U.S.S. Falcon
0
THE LOCATION OF EACH LIGHTSHIP STATION IS SHOWN BY
A CIRCLE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NAME OF THE STATION.
THE DIRECTIONS AND VELOCITIES OF THE TIDAL CURRENTS
FOR THE EVEN NUMBERED SOLAR HOURS FROM 0 TO 10 HOURS
AFTER THE GREENWICH TRANSIT OF THE MOON ARE SHOWN BY
ARROWS FOR A NUMBER OF STATIONS.
SOURCES: HAIGHT, 19*»2; EG&G, 1975-
THE LENGTH OF THE ARROW REPRESENTS THE AVERAGE OBSERVED
VELOCITY ON THE SCALE SHOWN ABOVE. THE FIGURES AT THE
ARROW HEADS ARE THE HOURS AFTER THE GREENWICH TRANSIT.
HOURS AT WHICH THE VELOCITY IS ZERO ARE PRINTED NEAR THE
CENTER OF THE DIAGRAM WITHOUT ARROWS. ABOVE EACH DIAGRAM
IS THE NAME OF THE LIGHTSHIP STATION TO WHICH IT APPLIES.
FIGURE 15
-------
TABLE 17
PREDICTED MAXIMUM AVERAGE
VELOCITIES OF UPPER. MIDDLE. AND
LOWER TIDAL CURRENTS
IN THE NORTHERN AREA
Water
Layer
Upper
Middle
Lower
In
Winter
22.5
(8.7)
18.5
(7-3)
13.8
(5.4)
Velocity
cm/sec (in./sec)
Summer
17.5
(6,9)
13.6
(5.4)
11.0
(4.3)
Sources: Raytheon, 1975a and 1975b.
Surface Currents. Freshwater inflow to the New York Bight, primarily from the Hudson and Connecti-
cut rivers, influences surface currents there. Fresh water is not as dense as salt water, and the presence of
lighter'water on the inner portion of the shelf causes the water surface to be slightly higher here than it is
farther offshore. This condition generally prevails along the continental shelf and moves a density-driven
coastal current toward the southwest. Occasionally in winter there is an intense cooling of inner shelf waters.
This, combined with low freshwater runoff, results in denser waters nearer shore. As a result, the current
flows toward the north (EC&G, 1975).
Superimposed on this general circulation pattern is the seasonally variable wind-driven current system.
The resulting surface current is the vector sum of these two current systems.
Bumpus and Lauzier (1965) studied the seasonal nontidal surface drift on the Middle Atlantic continen-
tal shelf. Except for the Hudson Shelf Valley, the net surface drift in winter is toward the south, with an
offshore component. Surface currents in summer more closely parallel the coast because wind effects are
smaller and the density-driven coastal current becomes dominant.
Both NOAA-MESA (February 1976) and Raytheon (1975b) took current measurements in the proposed
areas. In general, the data indicate that the mean surface current in winter is 6 cm/sec (2.4 in/sec) in a
southerly direction, and that from late winter through early spring, it is 5 cm/sec (2 in/sec) in an alongshore
direction. The springtime mean surface current in the Northern Area was not notably different from that in
the Southern Area (Figure 16 and Table 18). Current observations made during the summer cruises are
similar to previous cruise results, which show that the mean surface velocity is 7 cm/sec (2.6 in/sec) in a
southwesterly direction.
Bottom Currents. Bottom currents have been studied through the use of seabed drifters (Bumpus,
1961; Lee et a/., 1965). Bumpus' results revealed a southwestward (alongshore) and shoreward movement of
residual bottom drift on the inner continental shelf, with rates of drift between 0.2 and 1.8 cm/sec (0.08 to
95
-------
_—}
-^-^
^
AGOB15 ft
^
5SAGOB34A
AGOB30
AGOB37
SOUTHERN ARE
AGOB49
AGOB38
/ SCALE
10 0 10 20 KILOMETERS
m
10 0 10 20 MILES (STATUTE)
'00 10 20 NAUTICAL MILES
NOTE < CONTOURS IN METERS
MEAN SPRING SURFACE CURRENTS
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
KEY:
CURRENT VECTOR SCALE I I | | | | | | |f
lOcm/sec
(3.9in/sec)
SOURCE: NOAA-MESA, FEBRUARY 1976.
FIGURE 16
-------
TABLE 18
NOAA-MESA CURRENT METER DEPLOYMENTS:
WATER DEPTH AND
LOCATION IN WATER COLUI\
Station No.
Water Depth
In meters (ft)
Surface1
AGOB-15
AGOB-28A
AGOB-29
AGOB-30
AGOB-33
AGOB-34A
AGOB-37
AGOB-38
AGOB-49
Bottom*
AGOB-1 5
AGOB-20A
AGOB-29
AGOB-30
AGOB-33
AGOB-34A
AGOB-37
AGOB-38
AGOB-49
P31
P32
P12
P11
R9
R10
R11
23
38
48
59
59
77
76
35
80
23
38
48
59
59
80
77
76
35
47
75
62
33
• 55
46
37
(76)
(126)
(158)
(194)
(194)
(253)
(249)
(114)
(262)
(76)
(126)
(158)
(194)
(194)
(262)
(253)
(249)
(114)
(155)
(245)
(202)
(109)
(181)
(151)
(122)
/IN1
Distance
from Bottom
In meters (ft)
21
37
38
57
51
70
74
33
78
3
1
8
17
1
1
15
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
(70)
(120)
(126)
(188)
(166)
(229)
(243)
(108)
(256)
(10)
(3)
(26)
(56)
(3)
(3)
(49)
(3)
(3)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
05)
(15)
(15)
1 Periods of current meter deployment vary from station to station.
'Stations shown on Figure 16.
'Stations shown on Figure 18.
Source: NOAA-MESA, February 1976.
-------
0.71 in/sec). Based on observations he made in 1961 and 1964, Bumpus (1965) drew the following conclu-
sions:
— The residual drift is variable, not always in the same direction, and at times appears nearly re-
versed. In spite of these variations, a general tendency is indicated.
— Offshore from a line drawn about one-half to threequarters of the distance between the shore
and the 91 m (300 ft) contour, at depths of 55 to 64 m (180 to 210 ft), the tendency is toward
an offshore drift (Figure 17). Shoreward of this line, the tendency is for the flow to be westerly or
southerly with a component toward the coast. The location of this line is not sharply defined; it
moves on or offshore from time to time, probably on a seasonal basis (this line is called the
Bumpus Line of Divergence).
— There is a definite residual drift towards the mouths of the estuaries.
— The rate of residual flow varies from 0.2 to 1.3 cm/sec (0.08 to 0.51 in/sec), but is frequently
0.4 to 0.9 cm/sec (0.15 to 0.35 in/sec).
— The residual current seems to be related to a shoreward flux of shelf bottom water.
Several drifter results obtained by Hardy et al. (1975) for the inner shelf south of Long Island tend to
confirm Bumpus' findings; they indicate that near-bottom circulation has a strong onshore component within
the 27 to 42 m (72 to 220 ft) depth contours. Both NOAA-MESA and Raytheon observed seasonal variations
in mean bottom current velocities which also appear to verify Bumpus' general results.
During the spring, the mean bottom current in the Northern Area is small, 2 cm/sec (0.8 in/sec), and
flows in a southwesterly direction (Figure 18). The NOAA-MESA current meter stations showed a systematic
shoreward trend of near-bottom currents in the Northern Area. It appears that the currents are directed
toward the Hudson Shelf Valley; this results in a net onshore drift.
During the winter, the mean bottom current in the Southern Area is directed downcoast at approxi-
mately 3 cm/sec (1.2 in/sec) with a strong onshore component. This appears to be in agreement with
Bumpus' finding that there is a residual drift toward the mouths of estuaries.
Current meter observations made during the summer, when stratified water conditions prevail, are simi-
lar to those made during the winter, when the water column is well mixed. In terms of magnitude and
direction, summer bottom currents show the net drift to be around 2 cm/sec (0.8 in/sec), directed toward
the southwest.
The Bumpus Line of Divergence is not evident from current meter data on the Long Island shelf (Figure
18). None of the net bottom currents for the Long Island shelf have offshore components; in fact, the two
most seaward stations have net currents that are more coast-parallel than the inner station currents. All of the
currents in and adjacent to the Hudson Shelf Valley have considerable onshore components, perhaps reflect-
ing a unique flow system associated with this feature. (The Hudson Shelf Valley's flow system is discussed
more fully in a subsequent section.)
The data from the New Jersey shelf region suggest that a line of divergence may exist near the 60 m
(197 ft) depth contour, landward of Station P-12 (Figure 18), where the mean current has a slight offshore
component. The station within the Southern Area has a considerable onshore component of net bottom
flow.
Wind Drift Currents. Seasonal variations in wind conditions also influence current patterns. During the
summer, the prevailing northerly winds have only a minor influence on waves and currents because of low
wind velocities. However, summer storms passing north of the New York Bight tend to produce winds from
the southwest, and these storms, althouth generally of lower intensity than winter storms, can influence
water circulation in the Bight by adding a seaward component of drift paralleling the Long Island coast.
During the winter, air circulation over the Bight is marked by frequent, abrupt changes caused by storm
centers which usually move from west to east, south of the Bight. Since winter storms are usually more
intense than those in summer, their effects are generally more extensive. Such storm systems, called North-
easters, produce east to northeast winds on shore and can produce significant wind drift currents that move
in a west-southwest direction.
98
-------
10 0 10 20 KILOMETERS
10 0 10 20 MILES (STATUTE)
20 NAUTICAL MILES
NOTE > CONTOURS IN METERS
GENERAL RESIDUAL CURRENT
ALONG THE BOTTOM OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT
KEY:
NOTE: MAGNITUDE IS NOT IMPLIED
BY LENGTH OF ARROWS
SHADED AREA INDICATES BUMPUS LINE OF
DIVERGENCE OF ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE FLOW
SOURCES: BUMPUS, 1965; CHARLESWORTH, 1968.
FIGURE 17
-------
73'
AGOB29
/
AGOB30
NORTHERN/AREA
1 / 00
R9 X
/ SCALE
10 0 10 20 KILOMETERS
10 0 10 20 MILES (STATUTE)
10 20 NAUTICAL MILES
NOTE • CONTOURS IN METERS
MEAN SPRING BOTTOM CURRENTS
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
KEY:
CURRENT VECTOR SCALE + | I
I M I l»l
10cm/sec
(3.9in/sec)
SOURCE: NOAA-MESA, FEBRUARY 1976.
FIGURE 18
-------
The transfer of wind energy through the water column to bottom layers is a function of water column
stratification. During the summer, bottom layers are less affected by wind stress because of the presence of
the thermocline and because of the lower wind velocities. Conversely, the well-mixed condition of the water
in winter enables wind energy to be transferred more easily.
During the second Raytheon cruise (Raytheon, 1975b), two storm systems were encountered which
caused strong wind-induced currents. During March 19-20 and April 3-5, 1975, Northeasters were located
off the New York Bight, exhibiting ENE winds at gusts up to 30 m/sec (65 mph).
The April Northeaster illustrates the behavior of currents in the water column when subjected to high
wind stress during well-mixed conditions. The wind was westerly, and comparison of the vertical current
structure in component form (N-S, E-W) shows the E-W current components to be large, with maximums of
34.0 cm/sec (13.4 in/sec), 33.2 cm/sec (13.1 in/sec), and 26.5 cm/sec (10.4 in/sec) for the surface, mid-
dle, and bottom currents, respectively (Dames & Moore, unpub.). The N-S components were not signifi-
cantly affected.
Response of the water column to wind forces is rapid at the surface, but there is a time lag before the
bottom current is impacted. Bottom currents are substantially slower than surface currents during
wind-driven storms.
Hudson Shelf Valley. The summertime response of bottom currents in the axis of the inner Hudson
Shelf Valley channel to surface winds has been studied by Lavelle ef a/. (1975). The direction of summertime
nontidal flow in the channel axis appears to be influenced by surface wind: when the wind blew offshore
(towards the southeast), the bottom currents were directed upchannel; conversely, onshore winds caused a
net downchannel flow.
The data base was too limited to indicate long:term circulation patterns in the Hudson Shelf Valley, but
the results do indicate that a possible upwelling/downwelling mechanism controlled by wind events is a
contributing factor to circulation in the inner Hudson Shelf Valley.
Internal Waves. Internal waves on the continental shelf and in the Hudson Shelf Valley have been
identified in satellite imagery studies (Apel et al., 1974). Stratified water conditions must be present for the
generation of internal waves. One theory is that internal waves are generated when a tidal wave propagates
onto the shelf: the depth discontinuity causes tidal energy to be transformed into internal waves which then
propagate onto the shelf until the bottom of the thermocline (density interface) intersects the bottom, where
the waves break. Breaking internal waves can contribute to sediment resuspension and must be considered
in evaluating bottom sediment transport.
BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
This section includes descriptions of the benthos, fisheries resources, plankton, and bacterial contami-
nation ii. che New York Bight and the proposed areas.
Benthos
Included as benthos are marine species that burrow into bottom sediments, species that are attached to
the bottom, and species that live and move about on the bottom. Due to their ubiquitous nature, limited
mobility, and relatively long lifespan, benthic organisms are frequently used as indicators of water and sedi-
ment quality. In addition, they are often a source of food for fish and man.
Common Faunal Communities. The composition of benthic faunal communities is largely controlled
by sediment type, although other parameters (such as temperature range, salinity, water quality, depth, and
currents) are also important. The benthic communities of the New York Bight are characteristic of the Virgin-
101
-------
ian zoogeographic zone, which extends from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod. Sand fauna, silty-sand fauna, and
silty-clay fauna are common to this zone (Figure 19).
The progression from sand fauna to silty-sand fauna to silty-clay fauna generally occurs in an offshore
direction, but the transitions are subtle and the communities are not easily delineated. Differentiation is
particularly difficult near the Hudson Shelf Valley, where all three faunal assemblages are found (Pratt,
1973).
Sand fauna can be found from the shore seaward to depths of 30 to 50 m (100 to 165 ft), where
oxygen concentrations in the water and sediment are high and suspended food is abundant. These organisms
are adapted either for movement or for holding on in sand and for recovery from burial. Among the impor-
tant species of sand fauna are the surf clam and the rock crab (Pratt, 1973). Communities dominated by the
surf clam may be among the most productive communities on the sea bottom (Thorson, 1957).
Silty-sand fauna can be found over large areas of the continental shelf. The distribution of the ocean
quahog may be used as an indicator of silty-sand faunal assemblages. Compared with the sand fauna, the
silty-sand fauna has a relatively stable environment. Deposit and suspension feeders occupy permanent tubes
and burrows in the sediments. Tube-dwelling amphipods are abundant enough to be an important fish food
and a useful indicator of long-term trends in environmental quality (Pearce, 1970).
Silty-clay fauna can be found in the fine sediments characteristic of protected estuaries and bays, and
near the edge of the continental shelf. This faunal assemblage, which includes deposit-feeding starfish,
worms, and bivalves (shellfish), is also found in the fine sediments distributed throughout the Hudson Shelf
Valley. The present value of silty-clay fauna, in terms of fish food or direct yield to man, is low; this faunal
assemblage, however, supports some groundfish as well as migrating continental-shelf-lobster.
Northern and Southern Areas. Examination of benthic samples from sixty stations in the Northern and
Southern Areas indicates that the offshore region between 37 and 64 m (120 to 210 ft) is characterized by a
relatively uniform distribution of mairofaunal assemblages (NOAA-NMFS, 1975b; Pearce, 1974b). In con-
trast, a heterogeneous distribution of mairofauna, in terms of abundance and composition, is found in the
Bight Apex, near the existing dump sites.
The Northern and Southern Areas have about the same species abundance and diversity as in the
unpolluted or relatively unstressed portions of the Bight Apex. Surf clams were reported to be abundant in,
and shoreward of, the Southern Area, and ocean quahogs were found to be numerous in both areas. The
presence of these species may indicate that both areas are transitional between the highly productive sand
fauna community, represented by the surf clam, and the silty-sand fauna, represented by the ocean quahog.
Except for differences in shellfish abundance, both the Northern and Southern Areas seem to have equally
productive benthic communities, at least in terms of fish food value and direct fisheries resource potential.
Fisheries Resources
The information presented in this subsection has been selected and organized to concentrate on those
points relevant to impact evaluation and alternate site selection. For simplicity, common names are used in
the text, but the taxonomic equivalents can be found in Table 19. Pelagic fish are those that live and feed in
the water column; demersal fish are bottom dwellers.
T!.!s discussion also includes shellfish (which are usually categorized as benthic species) because of
their large contribution to fisheries resources in the New York Bight. Shellfish include the bivalves (clams,
scallops, and quahogs) and some crustaceans (lobster and crab).
New York Bight. The fish population of the New York Bight includes nonmigrating species, transitory
species during migrations, and transitory species residing seasonally (New York Ocean Science Laboratory,
1973). The Bight is also an important spawning area for coastal fish. However, these fish do not spawn at
specific local sites; the location and areal extent of the most intense spawning vary annually (NOAA-NMFS,
1975b), and are probably influenced by naturally occurring variables such as temperature and possibly larval
food supply. As a result of extensive fish surveys in the New York Bight, NOAA-NMFS (1975b) concluded
that only general spawning areas could be compared with any accuracy.
102
-------
76*
42*
40'
38'
36'
76'
74'
72'
70*
74'
SILT-CLAY FAUNA
72'
70'
68'
42*
SILTY-SAND FAUNA
40'
38'
36*
68-
BENTHIC FAUNAL TYPES
IN THE MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT
100
100
KILOMETERS
100 200
100
i
100
STATUTE MILES
200
i
NAUTICAL MILES
SOURCE: PRATT, 1973.
FK3UJRE 19
-------
TABLE 19
THE COMMON FISHERIES RESOURCES OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Common Name Scientific Name
Species Not Found in the Northern or Southern Area
bay scallop Aequipecten irradians
blue crab Callinectes sapidus
blue marl in Makaira nigricans
calico scallop Argopecten cibbus
eastern osyter Crassostrea mercenaria
hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria
quahog Mercenaria campechiensis
shad Alosa sapidissima
soft shell clam Myaarenaria
striped bass Roccus saxatilis
swordf ish Xiphias gladius
weakfish Cynoscion regalis
white marlin Makaira albida
Species That Periodically Inhabit or Pass Through the Northern or
Southern Area
alewife Alosa pseudoharengus
American lobster Homarus americanus
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus
Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus
black sea bass Centropristes striatus
bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix
cod Gadus morhua
goosef ish Lophius americanus
little skate Raja erinacea
ocean pout Macrozoarces americanus
red crab Geryon guincuidens
red hake Urophycis chuss
rock crab Cancer borsalis
rock crab Cancer irroratus
scup (porgy) Setnotomus chrysops
silver hake Merluccius bilinearis
squid Loligo pealei
summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus
winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus
yellow tail flounder Limanda ferruginea
Species That Inhabit the Northern or Southern Area for Most or All of
Their Life Cycle
ocean quahog • Arctica islandica
sea scallop Placopecten maqelianicus
surf clam Spisula solidissima
Sources: Saila and Pratt, 1973; NOAA-NMFS, 1975b.
-------
Northern and Southern Areas. The Northern and Southern Areas are within the spawning range of
most coastal fish and are also in the migratory path of coastal (north-south) and inshore-offshore migrants.
Population centers of year-round resident species, which include little skate, goosefish, silver and red hakes,
ocean pout, yellow tail flounder, and squid (NOAA-MESA, February 1976), lie either in or near these areas.
Constituents of the major fisheries are discussed below according to their geographic and migratory
distribution patterns. The proposed action would of course have the least effect on those fish that do not
reside in the proposed areas. Conversely, it would have the greatest effect on those fish that spend most (or
a vital part) of their life cycle in the proposed areas.
Information on life histories and habits of the major fish species in the Mid-Atlantic Bight was obtained
from Saila and Pratt (1973), which also served as the basis for dividing the various species into the categories
discussed below and shown in Table 19.
Species that are not found in the Northern or Southern Area include the eastern oyster, hard
clam, calico scallop, soft shell clam, and bay scallop, all of which are bivalves. Because of their limited
motility, they are not likely to be found migrating to or through these areas. The striped bass, American shad,
swordfish, white and blue marlins, weakfish (all bony fish), and the blue crab (crustacean) are motile species
not common to either area. However, because of their motility, the absence of these species from the
proposed areas is not a certainty.
Species that periodically inhabit or pass through the Northern or Southern Area are numerous, as
shown in Table 19. There is little in the way of site selection that can be done to mitigate the impacts of
development on these species because they are so common throughout the New York Bight.
The red crab fishery is of unknown value, and remains essentially an untapped resource. The American
lobster is found in waters from Labrador to North Carolina. The lack of both suitable substrate and suffi-
ciently cold water temperatures tends to restrict lobster to the deeper waters south of Long Island. In the
Bight, they are common to silty sands at depths of 27 m (90 ft) and are found in abundance around the
numerous wrecks off the New Jersey coast. An .inshore lobster fishery, which extends from Cape Cod to
New Jersey, accounted for approximately one-fifth of the U.S. landings in 1968, but it is quite likely that this
inshore fishery is currently over-exploited (Saila and Pratt, 1973). Both the red crab and American lobster are
reported to be abundant in the outer portions of the Hudson Shelf Valley, with breeding zones reported in its
inner reaches (Buelow et al., 1968).
The rock crab is common in coastal waters from Labrador .to South Carolina, but the present fishery is
centered on the coastal waters of Maine and Massachusetts (Saila and Pratt, 1973). Monthly groundfish
surveys by NOAA-NMFS (1975b) revealed that only limited numbers of rock crab are present in the North-
ern and Southern Areas.
Species that inhabit the Northern or Southern Area on a nonexclusive basis for most or all of
their life cycles include the surf clam, sea scallop, and ocean quahog, as well as other ecologically important
invertebrates. Surf clams and ocean quahogs are abundant over large areas on the continental shelf, from
Long Island to Maryland (Saila and Pratt, 1973) (Figures 20 through 23). Sea scallops, in commercial quanti-
ties, are found in patchy distributions throughout the New York Bight (Figure 24).
Previous surf clam surveys (Figures 20 and 21) reported an abundance of this commercial bivalve in
and shoreward of the Southern Area, but few were observed in or near the Northern Area. Information from
the 1974 Delaware II cruise (Figure 22) indicates that the center of the surf clam fishery is no longer off the
New Jersey coast but has moved farther south, off the Delmarva Peninsula. However, surf clams remain
abundant near, and especially shoreward of, the Southern Area.
Ocean quahogs are generally found far offshore, at depths of 25 to 61 m (75 to 185 ft), while surf
clams.inhabit near-shore waters at depths of about 43 m (135 ft) (Merrill and Ropes, 1969). Because of this
difference in distribution with depth, shellfish surveys specifically directed at surf clams would probably not
sample the most appropriate ocean quahog habitats. Nevertheless, the 1974 Delaware II shellfish assessment
cruise does provide data on ocean quahog distributions in the near-shore waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight
(Figure 23). The results indicate that although ocean quahogs are numerous in the Southern Area, they are
found in greatest abundance and frequency just off Long Island (NOAA-NMFS, 1974). The Northern Area
105
-------
/ SCALE
10 0 10 20 KILOMETERS
20 MILES (STATUTE)
20 NAUTICAL MILES
NOTE > CONTOURS IN METERS
SURF CLAM DISTRIBUTION
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT (1965)
SOURCE: BUELOW ET AL., 1968.
KEY:
• NO SURF CLAMS
A UNDER i BUSHEL
• 4 TO 1 BUSHEL
• 1 BUSHEL OR MORE
CATCH = 5 MINUTE TOW WITH
30 IN(0.8M) DREDGE
FIGURE 20
-------
10 0 10 20 KILOMETERS
10 0 10 20 MILES (STATUTE)
10 0 10 20 NAUTICAL MILES
b
NOTE ' CONTOURS IN METERS
SURF CLAM DISTRIBUTION
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT (1969)
KEY:
1 BUSHEL OR MORE
TO 1 BUSHEL
SOURCE: PEARCE, 197^3 (AFTER ROPES ET AL_., 1969) .
CATCH = 5 MINUTE TOW V/ITH
30 IN (0.8M) DRE.DGE
FIGURE 21
-------
' NOTE < CONTOURS M METCMS
r
59*
SURF CLAM DISTRIBUTION
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT (1974)
DELAWARE E SHELLFISH ASSESSMENT CRUISE JUNE 1974
AREA
PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLE WITH
I.O BU 1A BU. OR LESS NONE
SOURCE: NOAA-NMFS, 197Ac.
LONG ISLAND
NEW JERSEY
DELMARVA PENINSULA
VIRGINIA-N.CAROLINA
SYMBOLS
0
12.3
11.6
5.6
14.3
19-2
27.9
9.3
10.7
30.1
25.6
20.ii
75-0
38.A
FIGURE 22
-------
73-
OCEAN QUAHOG DISTRIBUTION
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT (1974)
DELAWARE H SHELLFISH ASSESSMENT CRUISE JUNE 1974
AREA
SOURCE: NOAA-NMFS,
LONG ISLAND
NEW JERSEY
DELMARVA PENINSULA
VIRGINIA-N.CAROLINA
SYMBOLS
PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLE WITH
1.0 BU •cl.O TO \/k BU.
OK MORE >IA BU. OR LESS NONE
25.0
8.2
1.2
0
10.7
6.9
0
0
46.lt
30.1
17.4
0
17-9
54.8
81. 4
100.0
FIGURE 23
-------
20 MILES (STATUTE)
20 NAUTICAL MILES
NOTE ' CONTOURS IN METERS
SEA SCALLOP DISTRIBUTION
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT (1975)
SEA SCALLOP DISTRIBUTIONAL STUDY
R/V ALBATROSS IV CRUISE 75~8
AUGUST 7-16, 1975 KEY:
• NO SCALLOPS
© UNDER i BUSHEL
(•) i TO 1 BUSHEL
© 1 TO 2 BUSHELS
SOURCE: NOAA-NMFS, 1975c. DASHED LINES INDICATE MAJOR TRANSECTS
FIGURE 24
-------
was not sampled. More recent shellfish surveys of the proposed areas (NOAA-NMFS, 1975b) report ocean
quahogs to be numerous in both areas.
At present, ocean quahogs constitute the largest underutilized clam resource in the Mid-Atlantic Bight
(Saila and Pratt, 1973). Underutilization may be attributed to a number of factors: the rapid growth of the
surf clam fishery to meet market demand; the larger yield of meat per bushel provided by the surf clam
(Merrill and Ropes, 1969); the greater distance to ocean quahog areas; and the poor keeping properties and
strong, variable flavor of ocean quahogs (Mendelsohn et al., 1970; Medcof and Chandler, 1968). Neverthe-
less, the ocean quahog might become a future substitute for the surf clam (Mendelsohn ef al., 1970).
The major fishing area for sea scallops is near the Hudson Shelf Valley and off the Virginia Capes (Saila
and Pratt, 1973). Sea scallops were found at or near both the Northern and Southern Areas (NOAA-NMFS,
1975c) (Figure 24). However, estimates of their abundance in these areas are lacking. Taking the Mid-
Atlantic Bight as a whole, however, sea scallops were found at depths of .31 to 110 m (95 to 340 ft), with 71
percent of the catch occuring between 57 and 73 m (180 to 220 ft) and 21 percent occurring between 36
and 54 m (120 and 165 ft), (NOAA-NMFS, 1975c), (Figure 24).
Plankton
Plankton is the name given to the usually minute plants (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton) that
float in the water column. Phytoplankton are the primary producers at the base of the food chain; zoo-
plankton, for the most part, are herbivores that feed on the phytoplankton. The high degree of spatial and
temporal variation inherent in plankton populations makes a study of their abundance, composition, and
distribution extremely difficult.
Productivity in an area is a function of many environmental variables, especially the availability of
nutrients. Malone (1975) prepared a review of plankton taxonomy and distribution in the New York Bight.
He examined published and unpublished data spanning seventy-five years and determined that phytoplank-
ton species composition in the Bight is influenced most strongly by estuarine processes. Conversely, zoo-
plankton composition is influenced most strongly by oceanic processes. Although Malone's summarized data
provide a baseline from which future changes can be projected, they are insufficient to define the effect of
man's activkies on plankton populations. Malone attributed this insufficiency to a lack of standardized meth-
odology and to inadequate temporal and spatial sampling.
Ryther and Dunstan (1971) found nitrate-nitrogen to be the limiting factor in plankton productivity
within coastal waters. However, this does not appear to be the case in the Bight Apex. A high nutrient input
from the Hudson River estuary results in an estimated 2,000 metric tons (2,200 tons) per day of carbon fixed
by phytoplankton in the Apex. The subsequent oxidation of this organic carbon contributes to the low oxy-
gen concentrations observed in Bight Apex bottom waters. (NOAA-MESA, March 1975).
The New York Ocean Science Laboratory (1973) correlated physical and chemical characteristics of
water in the New York Bight with zooplankton species and biomass. The results included the identification of
four water masses:
— New York Harbor waters, with salinity values of less than 20 ppt, form a shallow tongue of
surface water within the estuary (Ketchum ef al., 1951). This water mass supports a predomi-
nantly estuarine species population characterized by seasonal variations in composition and low
biomass.
— New York Bight waters, with salinity values of 29 to 31 ppt, are found seaward of the harbor
waters and down to the thermocline. Species diversity is greater than in harbor waters. A signifi-
cant number of fish eggs from estuarine spawners, such as anchovy and menhaden, are found in
this water mass. These phenomena were also observed by NOAA-MESA (February 1976).
— Atlantic Bight shelf waters, with salinity values of more than 31.25 ppt, usually occur below the
thermocline except in areas of upwelling. The source of these waters is the continental shelf.
Pelagic shelf plankton dominate.
111
-------
Mixed waters, with salinity values of 31 to 31.5 ppt, separate harbor, Bight, and shelf waters.
The highest zooplankton biomass is found here. The greatest input of plankters is from shelf
waters of the New York Bight while, unlike harbor and Bight waters, veliger larvae and barnacle
cyprids are few, if present at all.
Bacterial Contamination, Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, and Diseases of Marine Organisms
Coliform Contamination. Traditionally, coliform bacteria have been used as an indicator of pollution
from municipal wastewater discharges. Although coliforms themselves do not pose a threat to public health,
their presence in large numbers indicates, with a high degree of probability, that pathogenic organisms are
also present. Only recently has it become possible to directly monitor for pathogenic organisms in situ, so
most available historic data are for the coliform group.
Since 1968, EPA and FDA have been monitoring the bottom sediments and water column in the Bight
Apex, including the vicinity of the existing sewage sludge dump site, for indications of coliform contamina-
tion. This monitoring activity has resulted in the following observations and actions.
In 1970, FDA prohibited shellfishing within a radius of 11.1 km (6.0 n mi) of the existing sewage sludge
dump site (Figure 25). This prohibition was based on high coliform counts in the water column and bottom
sediments (Buelow et a/., 1968; McCraw, 1969) and on the potential threat of shellfish contamination. Adja-
cent areas, however, were found to be safe for shellfish harvesting. Coliforms contributed by sludge dumping
were not accumulating, but were experiencing a relatively rapid die-off following their introduction into the
Bight Apex (McGraw, 1969).
In 1972, FDA extended the prohibited shellfishing zone to the Long Island and New Jersey shorelines
(Figure 25). Near-shore waters, out to the 3-mile (5.6 km) limit, had previously been closed to shellfishing
because of potential coliform contamination from onshore sources (FDA, 1972). The decision to close the
additional area was based solely upon the poor quality of surface water; bottom waters and sediments ap-
peared to be of good quality. Coliform sampling data strongly suggest that contamination of shellfish waters
beyond the 3-mile (5.6 km) limit is attributable to onshore sources (runoff, wastewater discharges, and estua-
rine inputs) rather than to sludge dumping; the incidence of coliforms in near-shore bottom sediments was
found to be low and decreased significantly seaward.
The most-recent FDA (1974a) and EPA (July 1974; April 1975; unpub.) studies of the waters between
the sludge dump site and the Long Island and New Jersey beaches show no significant coliform contamina-
tion of the water column or sediments that can be attributed to sludge dumping at the existing site. The EPA
monitoring program for the Bight Apex continues to show excellent surface and bottom water quality, with
regard to coliform densities, along the beaches. The program includes tests for coliform bacterial groups in
bottom sediments and the water column, for selected pathogenic bacterial groups in bottom sediments and,
since late 1975, for viruses in the water column. However, FDA still finds the area unacceptable for shellfish-
ing (FDA, December 18, 1975).
Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. The increased use of antibiotics has resulted in mutant bacteria that are
resistant to a broad spectrum of antibiotics, and possibly even to heavy metals (Davies and Rownd, 1972;
Summers and Silver, 1972). The focus of concern is a transfer resistance factor known as R-plasmid, which
may be transmitted from one bacterium to another through normal reproduction processes (Davies and
Rownd, 1972). Recently, antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been isolated in New York Bight waters from the
vicinity of the existing sludge dump site (Koditschek and Guyre, 1974a). It has been suggested that the dump
site is a potential "breeding ground" for such bacteria.
Antibiotic-resistant (R-plasmid) bacteria are not unique to sewage sludge nor to ocean dumping of
sludge. They have been recovered from raw and treated sewage, from river water, from salt water in Mobile
Bay, Alabama (Feary ef a/., 1972), from the Whippany River, New Jersey (Koditschek and Cuyre, 1974b),
and from beach water at Sandy Hook, New Jersey (Koditschek and Cuyre, 1975). Antibiotic-resistant bacter-
ia are an indicator of wastewater contamination.
112
-------
75'
72'
11 KM
(6 N Ml)
SEWAGE SLUDGE
DUMP SIT
10 0 10 20 KILOMETERS
10. . 0 10 20 MILES (STATUTE)
•••MBM
10 0 10 20 NAUTICAL MILES
NOTE < CONTOURS IN METERS
AREA CLOSED TO SHELLFISHING IN VICINITY
OF SEWAGE DUMP SITE
KEY:
CLOSED TO SHELLFISHING
1972
SOURCE: FDA, 1973.
FIGURE 25
-------
Diseases of Marine Organisms. Several diseases have been observed in a variety of marine organisms
in the Bight Apex. These diseases include fin rot, lobster die-offs, necrosis of crustacean exoskeletons, gill
fouling, and protozoan parasites on gill tissues. To date, none of these conditions have been attributed di-
rectly or solely to sludge dumping, nor have the causative agents been isolated.
The occurrence of fin rot has been linked to "environmental stress" because laboratory researchers
have been unable to induce the condition in test fish through innoculation with bacterial isolates (Mahoney
ef a/., 1973). Ziskowski and Murchelano (1975) found that fin rot was confined largely to bottom dwelling
flat fish in Raritan Bay and the Bight Apex, with no occurrence among fish in the relatively pristine Great Bay
on Long Island. Fin rot was also observed in pelagic species, such as .weakfish, from the western end of
Raritan Bay.
Fin rot in winter flounder, the most commonly affected species, was statistically greater in the Bight
Apex than in seaward areas of the New York Bight. The percentage of occurrence was statistically greatest in
areas containing sediments of high-carbon content. Also, no diseased fish were found in the vicinity of ocean
outfalls (NOAA-MESA, February 1976). Preliminary results from ongoing experiments indicate that survival of
caged fish in the Christiansen Basin, where organic material is accumulating, is low compared with fish
survival in unpolluted areas (Murchelano and Ziskowski, 1975).
Pathological conditions of shells and gills have been observed in crustaceans, including rock crab, lob-
ster, and shrimp (NOAA-NMFS, 1975b; Young and Pearce, 1975). Crabs with coated gills have been ob-
served in the Bight Apex. This "black gill" disease was found to be prevalent except during the molting
season. Necrosis of the exoskeleton and appendages of shrimp, lobster, and crab was also reported in the
vicinity of the sludge and dredged material dump sites. It is postulated that the degraded conditions of the
Bight Apex, together with the high concentrations of bacteria there, contribute to diseases of marine orga-
nisms.
GEOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
This section includes descriptions of the geomorphology, surficial sediments, and suspended paniculate
matter of the New York Bight and the proposed Northern and Southern Areas.
Geomorphology
The sea floor is not a smooth, featureless plain; it is characterized by forms and structures (known as
geomorphologic features or bedforms) just as the land surface is characterized by features such as hills and
valleys.
The continental shelf, including that portion underlying the New York Bight, exhibits a variety of geo-
morphologic features, such as relict drainage channels, scarps and terraces, systems of sand ridges, and
smaller features (bedforms) (Figure 26). Reviews of the continental shelf's geomorphologic features and their
origins can be found in Milliman ef a/. (1972)'and Swift ef a/. (1973). In general, the geomorphology of the
continental shelf reflects the cumulative processes of erosion and deposition by streams and near-shore
currents.
Relict Drainage Channels. Relict drainage channels are simply the remains of drainage channels from
earlier geologic periods. During glacial periods, when the sea level was low, much of the continental shelf
was exposed. Streams associated with large drainage systems, such as the Hudson River, cut deep erosional
valleys in the surface of the continental shelf. On the Long Island shelf, a trunk drainage system (Long Island
Valley) has been inferred from analyses of Stearns' (1967) bathymetric charts (Garrison and McMaster, 1966;
McKinney and Friedman, 1970). ,
114
-------
75°
50
•
25
t
25
100
KILOMETERS
50
MILES (STATUTE)
50
NAUTICAL MILES
INFERRED STREAM DRAINAGE CHANNELS
SHOREWARD FACING SCARPS
RIVER-BORNE DELTA DEPOSITS
ANCIENT SHORELINE
QEOMORPHIC ELEMENTS OF THE MID-ATLANTIC CONTINENTAL SHELF
SOURCES: MILLIHAH. ET^L.,1972; SWIFT. 197«;
•AMISON AM HcHASTER, 1966; HcKINNEY, 1975-
-------
Scarps and Terraces. The shelf surface also displays a series of scarps and terraces formed by erosion
and deposition during periods of constant sea level (Veatch and Smith, 1939; Emery and Uchupi, 1972;
Garrison and McMaster, 1966; McClennen and McMaster, 1971; Swift et al., 1972). The fact that much of
the shelf still bears the patterns and features of earlier erosion suggests that there has been very little sedi-
ment deposition there since the last sea level rise.
Sand Ridges. These are the most conspicuous geomorphologic features of the continental' shelf: they
are 2 to 4 km (1.1 to 2.2 n mi) apart, up to 10 m (33 ft) high, and extend for tens of kilometers. Investiga-
tions show that these sand ridges rest on older lagoonal strata (Swift et al., 1973; Stubblefield et al., 1974;
Stubblefield ef al., 1975; Stahl ef al., 1972). They appear to have been caused by storm action in near-shore
areas during the last sea level rise; as the sea level rose, they became isolated remnants on the shelf surface
(Swift efa/., 1973).
Smaller Bedforms. The effect of present hydraulic action on the shelf surface is evidenced by the
formation of smaller beoforms, such' as wave ripples and large-scale current lineations. The latter appear as
elongate forms up to 1.5 m (4.9 ft) high, arranged in furrows, bands, patches, and ribbons of alternating
sediment types. They are thought to be caused by bottom hydraulic flows associated with.major storms
(McKinney et al., 1974; Maclntyre and Pilkey, 1969).
Surficial Sediments
Recent studies of surficial sediments on the eastern continental shelf of the United States reveal that, in
general, the shelf surface is a vast sand plain (Emery and Schlee, 1963; Emery, 1966; Schlee, 1973; Milliman
ef al., 1972). The sand generally accumulates in elongated ridges, which are especially well developed on
the inner portions of the shelf. While sand is the most abundant textural component on the shelf, significant
deposits of gravel, greater than 2.0 mm (0.08 in) in size, and mud (silt and clay), less than 62 microns (0.002
in) in size, are also present.
Gravel. There are indications of a large gravel deposit in the near-shore areas of the northern New
Jersey shelf, a major portion of which lies in the Southern Area, as shown in Figure 6 (Schlee and Platt,
1970; Schlee, 1975). These deposits are thought to consist of riverborne terrace gravels transported to the
exposed shelf by glacial meltwaters, probably from the Hudson River system (Schlee and Platt, 1970). Bot-
tom samples taken in Subarea 2D2 (Southern Area) contain up to 39 percent gravel. Scattered deposits, high
in gravel content, are also present on the Long Island shelf.
Mud. The distribution of mud (fines), less than 62 microns (0.002 in) in size, in the New York Bight is
shown in Figure 27. The high percentage of fines in the area south of eastern Long Island delineates the
western edge of a large relict silt deposit on the southern New England shelf (McKinney and Friedman,
1970). In general, the percentage of fines on the inner and middle shelves is less than 0.5 percent, at least
out to about the 64 m (210 ft) depth contour, although locally, in depressions, the percentage of fines can be
up to 5 percent.
Between the 64 and 92 m (209 and 301 ft) depth contours, the shelf is characterized by values of 5 to
10 percent fines. In the depression area of the Long Island Shelf Valley, fines increase to 20 to 30 percent
locally, and at the 100 m (330 ft) depth contour, the percentages increase markedly. Finally, at the shelf
edge, where the depth is about 183 m (600 ft), values of 40 to 50 percent fines are common. The inner and
middle segments of the Hudson Shelf Valley are characterized by high percentages of fines, generally greater
than 25 percent and locally greater than 50 percent. Overall, the New Jersey shelf is lower in fine material.
Suspended Particulate Matter
Studies of suspended particulate matter (SPM) in waters of the eastern continental shelf of the United
States (Manheim ef al., 1970; Meade, 1969, 1972; Meade ef al., 1975) and of other shelves (McCave, 1972)
indicate that concentrations, in both surface and bottom waters, decrease rapidly away from the coastal
116
-------
T5'
10 0 _ 10 20 KILOMETERS
•
10 0 10 20 MILES (STATUTE)
20 NAUTICAL MILES
NOTE ' CONTOURS IN METERS
PERCENTAGE OF MUD IN BOTTOM
SEDIMENTS OF THE ,PERCENT LESS THAN
NEW YORK BIGHT 62^(0.002^ ,N)
KEY
SOURCES: SCHLEE, 1973; HOLUSTER, 1973;
NOAA-MESA, FEBRUARY 1976;
McKINNEY AND FRIEDMAN, 1970.
> 1.0
1.0 TO 25
25 TO 50
50 TO 75
FIGURE 27
-------
zone. This condition is aided by the predominantly coast-parallel longshore currents of the inner shelf, which
transport SPM-rich estuarine plumes along the shelf; for example, surface flow out of the Hudson River
estuary produces a turbid plume which comes within 5 to 10 km (3 to 5 n mi) of the New Jersey coast
(Drake, 1974; Charnell ef a/., 1974). The Hudson River plume at times extends as far south as 35 km (19 n
mi) from the New York Harbor entrance.
A schematic model of SPM distribution across the continental shelf is presented in Figure 28. As indica-
ted in the model, there are three major SPM sources in continental shelf waters: riverborne SPM, resus-
pended bottom sediment and organic matter produced on the shelf itself (Meade ef a/., 1975).
Over 90 percent of riverborne SPM is trapped in the estuaries and wetlands (Manheim et ai, 1970;
Meade ef a/., 1975; Schubel and Okubo, 1972); only 10 percent actually reaches coastal waters, and not all
of it remains there. The dominant transport system is a two-layered circulation pattern: the less-dense, less-
saline water flows seaward in the upper layer; and the denser, more saline water returns landward in the
bottom layer. The SPM in the upper layer is carried seaward, while the SPM in the bottom layer is carried
landward. The contribution of riverborne SPM to the continental shelf water system is carried in the river's
surface layer plume. The resuspension of fine, inorganic sediments near estuary mouths is related to the
effects of wave surge and wind-drift currents in these shallow waters.
In size, the particles of inorganic material in the Bight Apex are generally like fine silt or clay, with less
than 10 percent of the particles exceeding 16 microns (0.0006 in). Inorganic material constitutes 25 to 50
percent by volume of the total SPM close to shore and near the bottom. In contrast, in the seaward portions
of the Bight Apex, near the clearer waters of the central shelf, inorganic content ranges from 5 to 10 percent
of the total SPM (Drake, 1974).
Drake (1974) estimates that a single November storm resuspended a minimum of 10,000 metric tons
(11,000 tons) of fine sediments throughout the water column in the Bight Apex, indicating the great influence
of storms in sediment resuspension. Other agents include the activities of benthic organisms and fishing
trawlers.
Surface water SPM consists mostly of combustible plankton and their noncombustible remains (Meade
et ai, 1975). Total SPM concentrations in surface waters range from 100 to 500 ug/1, of which 80 percent
is combustible planktonic matter, 15 percent is siliceous and calcareous noncombustible planktonic matter,
and 5 percent or less is land-derived noncombustible matter.
The SPM concentrations in subsurface waters are about the same or somewhat lower, with higher
concentrations noted about 10 m (30 ft) above the bottom. The bottom layer has SPM concentrations of 500
to 2,000 ug/1, consisting of 30 to 60 percent combustible matter and 40 to 70 percent noncombustible
matter.
Northern Area
Morphology. The Northern Area is located in the central portion of the Long Island continental shelf
near the headward portions of the relict Long Island Shelf Valley (Figure 26). The bathymetry of Subarea 2D1
(Figure 29), based on early surveys which used one-fathom contour intervals (Stearns, 1967), reveals an in-
ferred relict drainage system with a well-developed drainage element oriented northwest and another ori-
ented east-northeast.
Geophysical surveys (NOAA-MESA, February 1976) have also been conducted in Subarea 2D1 (Figure
30). Preliminary results indicate that the generally thin, 1.5 to 1.8 m (5 to 6 ft), surficial sand sheet is under-
lain by lagoonal clays, and that in a number of places these clays are exposed on the sea floor.
Surficial Sediments. Bottom sediments in the Northern Area (Figure 29) have been sampled by NOAA-
MESA (February 1976), Raytheon (1975a, 1975b), and McKinney and Friedman (1970). Fine sands are lo-
cated along the axial segments of the relict drainage system (Figure 31), fine-medium sands are located in the
south-central portion, and coarse-medium sands characterize the rest of the area.
118
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATION
SCALE IS RELATIVE
0
30 -I
(98)
0
ESTUARY MOUTH
i 30 J
E (98)
X
D-
£ o
70 J
(230)
RIVER
SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE
MATTER
MUD
l~ BOTTOM
\- SAND
BOTTOM
RESUSPENDED ORGANIC
BOTTOM MATTER
SEDIMENT
TOTAL
INNER CONTINENTAL
SHELF
OUTER CONTINENTAL
SHELF
SCHEMATIC MODEL
OF
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER
DISTRIBUTION ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF
SOURCE: MEADE ET AL., 1975.
FIGURE 28
-------
72°55
Ooci
72°35
BATHYMETRY AND SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FOR SUBAREA 2D1
0
6 8
KILOMETERS
If 68
•I ^^^ 'MILES (STATUTE)
A 6 8
••l =bai^^ NAUTICAL MILES
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FATHOM = 1.83M (6FT)
; K.E Y:
• NOAA-MESA SAMPLES
SOURCES: NOAA-MESA, FEBRUARY 1976; X RAYTHEON SAMPLES
RAYTHEON, 197$a, 1975b; A MeKINNEY AND FRIEDMAN 1970
McKINNEY AND FRIEDMAN 1970. VJA. INFERRED RELICT DRAINAGE PATTEIW
FIGURE 20
-------
SUBAREA 2D2
f fifi i
I STATUTE HILES
10
••J NAUTICAL HILES
c
72*55'
72'«'
SUBAREA 2D1
5 10
KILOMETERS
f
10
•rf STATUTE MILES
NAUTICAL MILES
GEOPHYSICAL TRACTS
KEY:
-^^, BATHYMETRIC CONTOUR LINE
CONTOUR INTERVAL - I FATHOM • 1.83n (6FT)
L' ' T TRACT LINES
SOURCE: NOAA-HESA, FEBRUARY. 1976.
FIGURE 30
-------
Occ i
72°55
72°50
72°35'
MEAN GRAIN SIZE OF BOTTOM SEDIMENTS
IN SUBAREA 2D1
KILOMETERS
6 8
9
A.
MILES (STATUTE)
IAUTICAL MILES
R V
SFT)
KEY:
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FATHOM = 1.83M (6
1MM = (0.03937 IN)
MOMENT MEAN OF SAND FRACTION ONLY: BY II
RAPID SETTLEMENT ANALYZER ' '
Hiiil 0.35 TO 0.25 MM-
A MOMENT MEAN: BY SIEVING
X FOLK GRAPHIC MEAN; BY SIEVING
0.50 TO 0.35 MM •/ MED|UM
SAND'
0.25 TO 0.177 MM -FINE SAND
.SOURCES: NOAA-MESA, FEBRUARY 1976; RAYTHEON, 1975a, 1975b;
. McKINNEY AND FRIEDMAN,1970.
FIGURE 31
-------
The highest percentage of gravel in sediments, approximately 40 percent, occurs in the raised areas
between the relict valleys (Figure 32). A number of other samples, containing 5 to 10 percent gravel, were
obtained from the floors of the valleys.
Most samples in Subarea 2D1 contain less than 1 percent fines (muds), although values of more than 5
percent are found locally in low topographic areas (Figure 33).
Bedforms. The sandy bottom of the Northern Area is characterized by forms which appear slightly
undulated or mounded and by wave ripples which are thought to be the result of storm-generated bottom
currents.
Side-scan sonar surveys of the Northern Area (NOAA-MESA, February 1976) reveal longitudinal bed-
forms, called large-scale current lineations (McKinney et ai, 1974), that run parallel to prevailing currents.
They occur as sediment zones, oriented on an east-west axis, in the valleys of the northern portion of the
study area. This is also the area where thin layers of fine sands cover the underlying basement of clay.
The large-scale current lineations appear to be formed by the movement of fine sands in response to
secondary flow in the bottom boundary layer. The fine sand is swept out and away by the downward
moving divergent currents and accumulates in the zones of current convergence.
Southern Area
Morphology. The western portion of the Southern Area is characterized by a north-south chain of
depressions, the depths of which exceed 37 m (120 ft); elongate high regions characterize the eastern por-
tion. Individual depressions, which alternate with sand ridges, are oriented toward the northeast and are up
to 6 m (24 ft) deep. A dominant landward-facing scarp to the west of the Southern Area parallels the
north-south depressions and high regions within the area itself (Figure 26). The northern portion of the South-
ern Area is located along the northward-sloping rim of the Hudson Shelf Valley.
Geophysical and geologic data for the shelf and for the Southern Area (NOAA-MESA, February 1976;
McClennen, 1973) suggest the following sequence of strata: a sheet of sand which forms the shelf surface; a
layer of upper lagoonal clay; a unit of sand or gravel; and a lower clay layer. Locally, within the deeper,
flatter troughs, erosion has cut through the upper sand and clay strata to expose the strata of lower clay. In
addition, NOAA-MESA (February 1976) reports the presence of a buried channel in the southern portion of
the Southern Area; the channel appears to be cut into the lower clay strata and has a general east-west
orientation. The bathymetry of Subarea 2D2 is presented in Figure 30.
Surficial Sediments. The distribution of surficial sediments has been reported by NOAA-MESA (Feb-
ruary 1976). The gravel and sand distributions in Subarea 2D2 are shown in Figures 34 and 35.
The most prominent feature of the bottom sediment is a band of coarse, gravelly sand along the north-
east rim of the study area, parallel to the Hudson Shelf Valley. Regional sampling by USCS and WHOI also
suggests gravelly deposits along the southern rim of the Hudson Shelf Valley, to the northwest of the study
area (Schlee and Platt, 1970). Progressively finer sands are found to the southwest of these gravelly deposits;
this suggests that they have been reworked and subsequently transported to the southwest, perhaps during
the periods of lower sea levels when the ridges formed.
Bedforms. Observations in the Southern Area reveal the same types of bedforms as in the Northern
Area (NOAA-MESA, February 1976). Wave ripples up to 1 m (3.3 ft) wide, apparently caused by winter
storms, are found there, too. Low-relief elongate bands (lineations) and irregular patches of contrasting tex-
tured sediments are also found in the area. In addition to the longitudinal forms, there are widely spaced, 3
to 5 m (10 to 16 ft), low relief, wave-like features in the Southern Area. The orientation of these wave-like
(transverse to the flow) and longitudinal (parallel to the flow) forms in the New York Bight is presented in
Figure 36. The hydraulic origin of these forms, especially of the wave-like features, is not clear at present,
although they may be the result of breaking internal waves.
123
-------
72°55
PERCENTAGE OF GRAVEL IN SUBAREA 2D1
0 2 4 6 8.
0 2
KILOMETERS
6 8
2
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FATHOM = 1.83m (6FT)
i MILES (STATUTE)
?
NAUTICAL MILES
SOURCES: NOAA-MESA, FEBRUARY 1976;
RAYTHEON, 1975a, 1975b;
McKINNEY AND FRIEDMAN 1970.
KEY:
I | < 5 PERCENT
5 TO 10 PERCENT
\%tt/\ 10 TO ^»0 PERCENT
• XA SAMPLE STATIONS
FIGURE 32
-------
Occ i
72°55
OCA '
72°50
720*»5
O-ir i
72°35
PERCENTAGE OF MUD IN BOTTOM
SEDIMENTS FROM SUBAREA 2D1
KILOMETERS
Y
0
MILES (STATUTE)
_§,
NAUTICAL MILES
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FATHOM = 1.83M (6FT)
KEY: PERCENT LESS THAN 62/4(0.002^ IN
A1-7 = 1-7 PERCENT
.
SOURCES: NQAA-MESA, FEBRUARY 1976;
RAYTHEON, 1975a, 1975b;
McKINNEY AND FRIEDMAN, 1970.
I l<2-°
PERCENT
>2.0
FIGURE 33
-------
H
c
39,°
45'
39»
40'
39*
35'
39*
SO-
30'
73°25'
73"20'
73«I5'
PERCENTAGE OF GRAVEL IN BOTTOM
SEDIMENTS OF SUBAREA 2D2
KEY:
GRAVEL
0 123 456789 10
I I I I i I I I I I i
01 2345
I I I I I I
KILOMETERS
2 3
I I
i STATUTE MILES
5
=1 NAUTICAL MILES
SOURCE: NOAA-MESA, FEBRUARY 1976.
::: MEDIUM SAND-0.42 TO 0.50 MM
••• MEAN GRAIN SIZE
1 MM = 0.03937IN
FIGURE 34
-------
73°30'
73°25'
73°20'
.•.-•.••.•«.*•.•>'•.••
••.•*.••.••.« *. •. • •. *
•*.* •*.* •*.* •*.* •".t^.* •/'
/.'.••*.'•«".••'.'••'."••' -"
* '
C
C
3901,5.'
39°35'
39
MEAN GRAIN SIZE OF BOTTOM
SEDIMENTS OF SUBAREA 2D2
0123 456789 10
I I I I I I I I I -I 1 KILOMETERS
[STATUTE MILES
I I —IMAUTICAL MILES
*.'••.'«
•••.*•
SOURCE:' NOAA-MESA, FEBRUARY 1976.
KEY:
v.<%<=i >0.50 MM
!•!•! 0.50 - 0.42 MM
0.42 - 0.35 MM
0.35 - 0.30 MM
0.30 - 0.25 MM
> Q.2S MM
1 MM = 0.03937 IN
NOTE:
-------
10 20 MILES (STATUTE)
20 NAUTICAL MILES
10
NOTE • CONTOURS IN METERS
MESOSCALE BEDFORMS
KEY:
LONGITUDINAL LI NEAT IONS
TRANSVERSE WAVE-LIKE FORMS
-SOURCES: NOAA-MESA, FEBRUARY 1976; McKINNEY ETAL., 197^.
FIGURE 36
-------
CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
This section includes descriptions of the heavy metal, dissolved oxygen, nutrient, organic carbon, and
chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations in the New York Bight and, more specifically, in the Northern and
Southern Areas.
Heavy Metals
Water Column. The concentration of dissolved heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mer-
cury, nickel, and zinc) in the water column of the New York Bight varies both seasonally and spatially;
background concentrations, however, are generally higher than those reported for the open ocean (Brewer,
1975). This is caused by a number of factors, but especially by the proximity of the metropolitan area, a
large source of heavy metals, and by the higher concentrations of suspended matter in the Bight waters
(Benninger ef a/., 1975). Suspended matter, including clay minerals, organic matter, and finely dispersed iron
and manganese oxides, can influence the distribution of dissolved metals. High concentrations of dissolved
metals are often noticeable in summer, when waters are stratified (oxygen depletion near the bottom mobi-
lizes metals), and in winter after storm activity (sediment resuspension contributes metals to the water
column).
In general, concentrations of dissolved heavy metals are highest in the Bight Apex, where the influences
of man are strongest. The Northern and Southern Areas are pristine by comparison. There is little difference
in concentrations of dissolved heavy metals between the two. areas (Table 20).
Sediment. Heavy-metal concentrations in bottom sediments are not uniformly distributed throughout
the New York Bight, but vary according to sediment grain size, quantity of organic material present, mineral
composition, and proximity to the metropolitan area. The importance of proximity to the source of heavy
metals is evident from the elevated concentrations in the Bight Apex (Carmody ef a/., 1973). Based on
available data, there appears to be no significant difference between the Northern and Southern Areas in
concentrations of heavy metals in sediments (Table 21).
Bight Apex. Sewage sludge dumping at the existing site is a minor source of heavy-metal contamination
in the Bight Apex (Table 22). Sources of dumped and non-dumped pollutants in the Bight Apex are discussed
in Chapter II.
Dissolved Oxygen
Surface Waters. With the exception of the waters near the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect and
in the Lower Bay (Figure 2), surface waters in the New York Bight are saturated or nearly saturated with
oxygen. Low levels of oxygen, generally less than 50 percent saturation, have been noted in surface waters
off Cape May, New Jersey, and in a corridor along the northern New Jersey coast.
Mid-Depth Waters. Oxygen levels in mid-depth waters are generally transitional between surface and
bottom levels and depend on the degree of stratification and vertical mixing (which, in turn, depends on
seasonal changes).
Bottom Waters. Oxygen levels in bottom waters begin to decline in spring as the thermocline devel-
ops; by late summer, the oxygen levels have reached their lowest point. Oxygen levels of 20 percent satura-
tion or less have been observed in Bight Apex bottom waters during summer stratification. For example, an
area of several hundred square kilometers near the existing dredged material and sewage sludge dump sites
is characterized by oxygen depleted bottom waters (less than 50 percent of saturation) during the summer.
Oxygen saturation levels increase in the fall, following breakup of the thermocline, and continue to increase
as greater mixing occurs (Segar ef a/., 1975).
129
-------
TABLE 20
DISSOLVED HEAVY METALS IN THE WATER COLUMN OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Sampling
Location
Northern and
Southern Areas1
Bight Apex in
the Vicinity of
Sewage Sludge
and Dredged
Material Dump
Sites2
Concentrations in Mg/l
Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc
0.06 to 19 3 to 15 0.23 to 18 0-69 to 2.4 0.05 to 0.24 0.72 to 1.0 1.8 to 38
0.11 to 46 NA* 0.6 to 47 NA NA NA 2.1 to 190
*NA= Not Available
Sources:
'Raytheon, 1975a and 1975b; NCAA-MESA, October 16, 1975,
'NOAA-MESA, October 16,1975; NOAA-NMFS, 1972.
TABLE 21
HEAVY METALS IN THE SEDIMENTS OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Sampling
Location
Arsenic Cadmium Chromium
Northern and
Southern Areas1 4 to 8 <14 <22
Bight Apefc in
the Vicinity of
Sewage Sludge
and Dredged
Material Dump
Sites2 <12 <5 0.6 to 460
Concentrations in ppm
Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc
8 <14 <0.05 <17 <32
0.2 to 620 0.9 to 700 <4 0.8 to 50 1.3 to 1500
Sources:
'Greigand Pearce, 1975; Raytheon, 1975a and 1975b.
'GreigeroA, 1974; Carmody eta/., 1973; NOAA-NMFS, 1972.
-------
The introduction of large amounts of oxidizable organic carbon to bottom waters of the Bight Apex is
the principal cause of oxygen depletion there (Segar et a/., 1975). The sources are in situ
photosynthetically-fixed carbon (the primary source of oxidizable carbon in the Bight Apex), riverborne par-
ticulate carbon, and ocean-dumped carbonaceous materials (Table 23).
Benthic oxygen demand appears to be responsible for only a small fraction of the oxygen depletion in
the Bight Apex (Segar et a/., 1975). In the vicinity of the existing sludge dump site, the total seabed oxygen
consumption rates in late August and early September (stratified water column) ranged from 10 to 60 ml/sq
m/hr (3 to 18 Ibs/a/day) (NOAA-MESA, February 1976). Highest values were noted near wastewater efflu-
ent outfalls along the New Jersey coast. Seabed oxygen consumption rates observed during winter cruises in
the Northern Area (NOAA-MESA, February 1976) ranged from 5 to 20 ml/sq m/hr (1.5 to 6.0 Ibs/a/day);
the average rate for the Northern Area has been reported to be about 6.9 ml/sq m/hr (2.1 Ibs/a/day).
Northern and Southern Areas. Recent data (Raytheon, 1975a, 1975b, 1975c) indicate that dissolved
oxygen concentrations in surface, mid-depth, and bottom waters in the Northern Area are moderately to
highly saturated under winter, spring, and critical summer conditions (Table 24). The saturation value for
oxygen at these sampling depths probably does not fall below 50 percent at any time of year and is usually
much higher (75 to 110 percent). Recent investigations (NOAA-MESA, October 16, 1975) in both the North-
ern and Southern Areas showed similar seasonal and vertical trends. There appears to be no significant
difference in dissolved oxygen concentrations between the two areas.
Nutrients
Nitrogen. According to Mueller ef a/. (1976), the Bight Apex receives a total nitrogen load of 520
metric tons/day (573 tons/day). Of this, 210 metric tons (231 tons) are in the form of ammonium and 190
metric tons (209 tons) are incorporated in organic compounds. The remainder, 120 metric tons (132 tons),
occurs as nitrate and nitrite, 60 percent of which comes from natural river runoff; atmospheric fallout con-
tributes another 30 percent. The two major sources of ammonium loadings are wastewater discharges, in-
cluding 4.3 million cu m/d (1,140 mgd) of primary and secondary effluents and 1.1 million cu m/d (296
mgd) of raw sewage discharge, and sludge dumping (O'Connors and Duedall, 1975).
The ammonium loading caused by wastewater discharges from the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point tran-
sect zone was estimated to be five to ten times greater than that caused by sludge dumping (Mueller ef a/.,
1976). The concentration of total nitrogen in the Bight Apex largely depends on the extent to which the
nutrient-rich river waters are diluted by seawater and on the use of nitrogen by phytoplankton.
Generalized concentration ranges of nitrogen in the New York Bight are shown in Table 25.
Phosphorous. Phosphorous occurs in the Bight as total phosphorous, reactive (ionic) phosphorous,
particulate phosphorous, ortho-phosphorous, and meta-phosphorous. Reactive phosphorous in surface
waters of the Bight Apex ranges from 38 ug/1 to more than 95 ug/1; in surface waters of the outer Bight it
ranges from less than 10 to 57 ug/1. Deeper waters generally show higher phosphorous concentrations.
Particulate phosphorous concentrations also range from less than 10 ug/1 to more than 95 ug/1 (Alexander
and Alexander, 1975).
During the summer, when the water column is stratified, total phosphorous concentrations appear to be
higher in the deeper waters of the New York Bight than in the surface waters (Corwin, 1970), although this
trend was not noted during the Raytheon cruise of September 1974 (Raytheon, 1975a). In the winter
months, total phosphorous concentrations are relatively uniform throughout the water column. Eighty-five
percent of the total phosphorous load to the Bight is contributed by dredged material and wastewater dis-
charges. Generalized concentration ranges of ortho-phosphate in the Bight are shown in Table 25.
Relationship to Productivity. Productivity in the Bight Apex during summer is higher than that ob-
served in similar temperate coastal zones (Segar ef a/., 1975). This appears to be the result of the relatively
high nutrient loading within the euphotic (light penetrating) zone. Major sources of the high nitrogen loading
in the New York Bight are: riverborne nitrogen, which supplies 120 thousand kg/day (204 thousand
Ibs/day); dredged material, which contributes 30 thousand kg/day (66 thousand Ibs/day); and dumped sew-
131
-------
TABLE 22
LOADINGS OF HEAVY METALS IN THE BIGHT
Metal
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Sewage Sludge
Loadings
metric tons/day*
0.044
0.73
0.70
0.72
0.013
1.8
Total Bight
Loadings
metric tons/day*
2.4
5.0
13.8
12.7
0.3
33
Percent from
Sewage Sludge
1.8
14.6
5.1
5.7
4.3
5.5
*metric ton = 1.10 tons.
Source: Muelleretol., 1976.
TABLE 23
SOURCES OF OXIDIZABLE CARBON IN THE BIGHT APEX
Source Input (Annual Average)
In millions of kg/day
(Ibs/day)
Photosynthetically-Fixed Carbon
(Summer Average)
River-Borne Particulate Carbon
Ocean Dumping
Sewage Sludge
Dredged Material
2.2
6.5
1.0
0.14
0.26
(4.8)
(14.3)
(2.2)
(0.31)
(0.57)
Source: Segar ef al., 1975.
-------
TABLE 24
DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS AT THE NORTHERN AREA
Position
In Water
Column Winter Cruise 1974
Concentration Saturation
ppm percent
Surface 8.3 to 10.0 85 to 105
Mid-depth 6.6 to 9.3 60 to 85
Bottom 6.4 to 7.4 55 to 65
Sources: Raytheon, 19756, and 1975c.
NUTRIENTS
Sampling
Location
Ammonia1
Bight Apex <2 to 1 26
Northern and
Southern Areas <2 to 28
Spring Cruise 1 975 Summer Cruise 1 975
Concentration Saturation Concentration
ppm percent ppm
9.7 to 11. 6 75 to 95 7.4 to 9.5
11.1 to 12.0 90to100 9.1 to 10.2
10.5 to 11. 5 80 to 90 7.5 to 7.7
TABLE 25
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Concentrations in Kg/I
Nitrite2 Nitrate1
<2 to 59 <7 to 252
<2 <2 to 48
Saturation
percent
85 to 110
85 to 100
60 to 65
Ortho-Phosphate1
<10to133
<0.1 to 48
Sources:
'Alexander and Alexander, 1975.
'NOAA-MESA, October 16,1975.
-------
age sludge, which adds 20 thousand kg/day (44 thousand Ibs/day). The riverborne nitrogen may exert a
significant influence on photosynthetically-fixed carbon because it remains longer in the euphotic zone due
to the lower density of fresh water. A large portion of the nutrients in dredged material are buried on the
bottom and are therefore unavailable for photosynthesis.
Organic Carbon
Water Column. In the fall of 1974, TOC levels in the water column of the Northern Area ranged from
2 to 9 mg/1, with most samples averaging 4 to 5 mg/1. The TOC concentrations did not appear to vary
significantly with depth. In the spring of 1975, TOC concentrations ranged from 2.8 to 7.4 mg/1.
Sediments. The TOC levels in the New York Bight sediments vary according to distance from waste
sources (Figure 37). The relatively clean continental shelf areas generally contain less than 0.2 percent TOC.
Sediments containing more than 2 percent TOC are probably contaminated by wastewater discharges, ocean
dumping, or other waste sources (Gross, 1972b). Forty-one percent of New York Harbor is characterized by
sediment deposits with a TOC-content of more than 2 percent, the average being 5.6 percent. Near the
sewage sludge, dredged material, and. cellar dirt dump sites, more than 52 sq km (15 sq n mi) of bottom area
are covered by sediments containing more than 2 percent TOC; the highest TOC concentration (6.4 percent)
occurs at the -dredged material dump site. High concentrations of TOC (5 percent or more) were also de-
tected at the head of the Hudson Shelf Valley (Charnell, 1975). In the shallow coastal regions off Long Island
and New Jersey, sediments contain between 0.1 and 0.2 percent TOC (Gross, 1972a).
Northern and Southern Areas. The TOC levels in the sediments of Subarea 2D1 range from 0.0011 to
0.1177 percent, based on samples collected by NOAA-MESA (August 23, 1974). Raytheon (1975a, 1975b),
using different sampling grids, reported TOC concentrations ranging from 0.042 to 0.61 percent for the fall-
winter 1974 cruise and from 0.034 to 0.131 percent for the spring 1975 cruise. The elevated concentration
ranges are not easily explained. -
The TOC levels in the sediments of Subarea 2D2 range from 0.0271 to 0.0691 percent, based on
samples collected by NOAA-MESA (August 23, 1974). The TOC in sediments from the axis of the Hudson
Shelf Valley ranges from 0.1 to 0.2 percent.
Relationship to Toxic Substances. The importance of organic carbon in determining the fate of toxic
substances (especially heavy metals) is twofold: organo-metallic complexes and compounds may act as
transport agents for toxic substances; and sediments rich in organic matter often act as sinks for toxic sub-
stances. The presence of organic carbon is often inversely proportional to sediment grain size and, therefore,
directly proportional to clays (aluminosilicates), which play an important adsorptive and desorptive role in
metal ion distribution. "
Carbon/Nitrogen (C/N) Ratio. The carbon (TOC) to nitrogen (TKN) ratio in New York Bight sediments
varies greatly (Figure 38). Near the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect, ratios are generally greater than
10. Over most of the Bight, ratios range from 3 to 11 (Milliman, 1972). Sediments near shore, which contain
much organic matter from land-based sources, generally have high C/N ratios. These ratios generally de-
crease with distance from land, although relict sediments on the shelf may also exhibit high C/N ratios
because they too are likely to contain land-derived organic matter.
TCH/TOC Ratio. Charnell (1975) devised a useful indicator for sewage-derived components in sedi-
ments: the ratio of total carbohydrate content (TCH) to TOC. The technique is based on the assumption that
most carbohydrate materials from sewage (dumped or discharged) are oxidation-resistant structural carbo-
hydrates, such as cellulose and hemicellulose. Land-derived carbohydrates contain cellulose-deficient materi-
als; thus, their TCH/TOC ratio is low, generally less than 10.
Sediments in the Bight Apex generally have TCH/TOC ratios greater than 20. Samples from the existing
dump sites (sludge, dredged material, acid wastes, and cellar dirt) and from the Hudson Shelf Valley have
ratios ranging from 30 to 65 (Figure 39). The TCH/TOC ratios for samples collected south of Rockaway
Beach, Long Beach, and Jones Beach range from 13 to 67. Samples from Jones Inlet and East Rockaway Inlet
have ratios ranging from 13 to 24 (Charnell, 1975).
134
-------
10 0 10 20 NAUTICAL MILES
1=
NOTE < CONTOURS IN METERS
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
IN NEW YORK BIGHT SEDIMENTS
SOURCE: HATHAWAY, Unpub.
FIGURE 37
-------
78'
10 20 MILES (STATUTE)
20 NAUTICAL MILES
NOTE < CONTOURS IN METERS
DISTRIBUTION OF CARBON/NITROGEN
RATIOS IN NEW YORK BIGHT SEDIMENTS
SOURCE: MILLIMAN, 1972.
FIGURE 38
-------
73°40'W
73°00'W
40'
DISTRIBUTION OF TCH/TOC RATIOS
IN NEW YORK BIGHT APEX SEDIMENTS
10 0 10 20 30 *tO
10 0 10
KILOMETERS
20 3P
140
4 MILES (STATUTE)
10
10
20
30
I NAUTICAL MILES
KEY:
SOURCE: HATCHER AND KEISTER, 1975.
ISOBARS OF TCH/TOC RATIO
SAMPLING STATIONS
FIGURE 39
-------
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Because of the persistence and toxicity of chlorinated hydrocarbons such as DDT (dichlorodiphenyl-
trichloroethane) and PCB (polychlorinated bi-phenyl), great concern has been expressed about their abun-
dance and distribution in the marine environment. However, very little data on chlorinated hydrocarbons
exist for the New York Bight.
Potential Sources. Although little specific information on chlorinated hydrocarbons in the New York
Bight is available, some insights can be gained from a study of the percentage contribution of chlorinated
hydrocarbons by source in the Southern California Bight. (Young ef a/., 1974a; 1974b; 1975). It showed that
77 percent of the DDT mass loading in the Southern California Bight was introduced by surface runoff, 14
percent by direct industrial discharge, 6 percent by atmospheric fallout, 3 percent by municipal wastewater
discharge, and less than 0.1 percent by marine antifouling paints. For Arochlor 1254, a PCB, calculations
showed that 64 percent was contributed by surface runoff, 34 percent by direct industrial discharge, 1
percent by atmospheric fallout, 1 percent by municipal wastewater discharge, and less than 0.1 percent by
marine antifouling paints. Although these data cannot be applied directly to mass balance determinations for
the New York Bight, they do indicate potential chlorinated hydrocarbon loadings.
The New York Bight. Little data on chlorinated hydrocarbon distribution in the New York Bight have
been published. Two studies in the Northern and Southern Areas were conducted for this EIS (USEPA, March
25, 1975; Raytheon, 1975a, 1975b). The results of these studies are shown in Table 26. A small number of
sediment samples taken in the vicinity of the dredged material and sewage sludge dump sites show slightly
elevated levels of DDD (a DDT breakdown product) and an anomalously high DDT concentration at one
station.
An earlier NOAA study, the results of which were published in September 1976, compared PCB and
DDT concentrations in sewage sludge samples from four metropolitan treatment plants (Wards Island, Hunts
Point, and Tallmans Island in New York, and Passaic Valley in New Jersey) with concentrations found in
sediment samples taken during a September 1973 cruise in the New York Bight Apex. According to the
report, "...the highest total PCB and DDT concentrations are found in sediments at the sewage sludge dump
site..." (West et a/., September 1976). However, the report cautions that there was a high degree of variabil-
ity in the sediment samples and the sewage sludge samples, and that while sludge dumping is probably a
major source of PCBs and DDT, it may not be the only source. The report recommends that the extent of all
other inputs, including transport of outer shelf sediments to the Apex, transfer across the air/sea interface,
and inputs through the Hudson-Raritan estuary, be investigated through other NOAA study programs.
Summary
The Bight Apex is a heavily used and environmentally stressed coastal area. Municipal and industrial
wastewater effluents, along with runoff, atmospheric fallout, and the materials disposed of at the different
dump sites, contribute large quantities of heavy metals, nutrients, organic matter, and chlorinated hydrocar-
bons to the waters there. The distribution of these materials is generally a function of the distance from the
source and the composition of the solids that are either suspended in the water column or accumulated on
the bottom. Within the Bight Apex, the presence of large amounts of organic matter from numerous sources
results in localized areas of low dissolved oxygen values. Outside the Bight Apex, nutrient and dissolved
oxygen levels are quite predictable and are a function of the water's temperature-salinity structure and the
degree of weather-induced mixing.
138
-------
TABLE 26
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS IN THE
SEDIMENTS OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Northern Subarea 1 A(R)1
Pesticide
Aldrin
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlorepoxide
Methoxychlor
P, P1 ODD
P, P1 DDE
.P, P1 DDT
Lindane
Toxephene
Concentration
dry weight
13
41
20
20
15
12
28
18
18
19
15
47
Sampling
Station
Southern Subarea 2D2J
Concentration
Mg/kg dry weight
PCB
29
55
56
54
53
30
28
27
65
69
68
<5.0
<5.0
4.0
<5.0
<5.0
<5.0
37.0
<5.0
Vicinity of Dredged Material and Sewage Sludge Dump Sites'
Sampling
Station
DOE
Concentration
Mg/kg dry weight
DDD
DDT
X4
X5
X3
Z5
13
17
19
15
48
81
61
39
126
13
19
16
Sources:
'Raytheon, 1975a and 1975b.
'USEPA, March 25,1975.
'NOAA-NMFS, 1972.
-------
CHAPTER VI
FATE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPED AT THE PROPOSED AREAS
The total impact of sewage sludge on the marine environment depends on the interactions of sludge
with seawater. These interactions control the ultimate fate of the dumped sludge, but they are quite complex
and cannot be precisely predicted. However, there are theoretical models, which, together with the limited
information collected at existing dump sites, can give some indication of what happens to the sludge after it
is dumped in the ocean.
The fate of sewage sludge depends on the forces governing initial settling and dispersion, resuspension,
and chemical and biochemical reactions.
SETTLING AND DISPERSION IN THE WATER COLUMN
The rates of settling and dispersion of dumped sludge are affected by many factors, including the
characteristics of the sludge itself: its bulk density (the density of the sludge mixture, both solids and liquid);
its solids density (the density of the sludge particles alone); and its solids concentration. Characteristics of the
receiving water also affect the rate at which sludge settles; these include the water's density structure, which
is controlled by its temperature and salinity, and the current circulation patterns.
Bulk Density
The bulk density of sewage sludge currently dumped in the New York Bight averages 1.009 g/cu cm,
ranging from 1.0007 to 1.0181 g/cu cm. This is generally less than the density of the ambient seawater,
which ranges from 1.019 to 1.025 g/cu cm for the Bight, so most of the sludge remains suspended in the
upper layer of the ocean. The solids are composed primarily of organic materials (densities of 1.02 g/cu cm
to 1.70 g/cu cm) and smaller amounts of inorganic mineral matter (density of 2.65 g/cu cm). The density of
sludge solids ranges from 1.12 to 1.75 g/cu cm and averages 1.50 g/cu cm (Callaway et al., 1975). Most of
this fine, low-density organic matter, tends to remain in suspension, but the small fraction of heavier minerals
settles rapidly to the bottom.
Settling Velocities
Sludge solids tend to settle at different rates, depending on their size and density. Callaway er al. (1975)
monitored the dispersion of sludge solids dumped at the existing site in the Bight Apex and estimated that the
larger, flocculated particles (small diameter particles bound together into large diameter groups) had an aver-
age settling velocity of 0.5 to 1.0 cm/sec (0.2 to 0.4 in/sec). Most of the particles, however, had settling
velocities of 0.01 to 0.30 cm/sec (0.004 to 0.120 in/sec), as measured by plotting the settling velocity of the
waste field's center of mass. The remaining fine particles had settling velocities of 0.0010 cm/sec (0.0004
in/sec) or less. These in situ determinations correlate positively with laboratory measurements made by
Greene (1974).
During periods of stratification (summer conditions), most of the solids remained in the upper layer and
dispersed laterally (Callaway ef al., 1975), although some of the heavier particles, with settling rates of about
140
-------
2.0 cm/sec (0.8 in/sec), may have passed through the upper layer and reached bottom. During periods of
non-stratification (winter conditions), the solids were rapidly dispersed throughout the entire water column.
Taking the currents, the initial dilution of the sludge, and the small fraction of heavier particles into account,
Callaway et al. (1975) concluded that a substantial accumulation of sludge on the bottom was unlikely.
These field measurements support the findings of earlier model studies (Edge and Dysart, 1972) of the physi-
cal fate of dumped sewage sludge.
Modeling Results
A simple, two-dimensional diffusion and dispersion model was used to evaluate the fate of dumped
sludge in the Northern and Southern Areas. Assumptions made in this steady-state mass balance model
were: 1) the dumped sludge is a point source; 2) the oceanic velocity and density fields are uniform; and 3)
the oceanic dispersion coefficients are constant. The model's applicability is limited to time periods greater
than tidal periods but less than seasonal ones. The dispersion coefficients used were those given by Neu-
mann and Pierson (1966). Table 27 shows the model results. Figure 40 depicts an initial sludge load on the
bottom as predicted by the model.
Considering water depths at the Northern and Southern Areas and the wide range of settling velocities
of sludge solids, most sludge particles are expected to remain in suspension for periods ranging from one
hour to several days. The heavier sludge particles and floes, which tend to settle out faster, will be greatly
affected by short-term currents, such as tidal or storm-wind-driven currents, and by wave activity. Sludge
particles with lower settling velocities will oscillate in the water column through the action of short-term
currents, but will ultimately be dispersed by long-term currents such as density-driven coastal currents, pre-
vailing wind-driven currents, and ocean turbulence.
The model results (Table 27) indicate that heavier sludge particles, settling at 2.0 cm/sec (0.8 in/sec) or
more, will be deposited a maximum of 0.30 km (0.16 n mi) from the dump site; lighter particles, settling at
about 0.10 cm/sec (0.04 in/sec), will be deposited a maximum of 15.0 km (8.1 n mi) from the dump site.
Prevailing currents will transport the lightest particles at velocities from 10.0 to 30.0 cm/sec (4.0 to 11.8
in/sec); however, these particles will be so dispersed and biochemically degraded that extremely low sludge
particle concentrations are expected beyond 15.0 km (8.1 n mi). Sludge will probably be more widely dis-
tributed during the summer, when stratified conditions prevail, than during the winter, when vertical mixing
prevails, since stratification results in a longer retention of sludge in the upper water layers.
The model (Table 27) projected that about 95 percent of the sludge mass on the bottom would be
contained within a maximum radius of 950 m (3,100 ft). This sludge mass, however, is a very small percent-
age of the total dumped sludge solids, most of which are not expected to reach bottom. The Northern Area's
greater depth would result in a slightly larger bottom area being affected there than would be affected in the
Southern Area. Assuming a current velocity of 10.0 cm/sec (4.0 in/sec), materials settling at 0.10 cm/sec
(0.04 in/sec) will be transported 1 km (0.54 n mi) farther in the Northern Area. The model indicated, how-
ever, that concentrations of sludge per unit area of bottom will be lower in the Northern Area. Callaway et
al. (1975) reached similar conclusions.
RESUSPENSION
That small fraction of dumped sludge which reaches the sea floor is further affected by biological activi-
ties and physical forces. Benthic organisms burrowing in the deposits incorporate the material into existing
substrates, reducing the possibility that it will be transported out of the area. Benthic organisms also consume
fine sludge solids and void them, along with other waste products, as coarse pellets; the potential for resus-
pension of this debris is much lower than that for freshly deposited sludge solids.
141
-------
TABLE 27
MODEL RESULTS OF TRANSPORT AND DISPERSION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE AT THE
NORTHERN (60 m DEPTH) AND
Depth
meters
(feet)
50
(164)
60
(197)
50
(164)
60
(197)
50
(164)
50
(164)
Current
Velocity
cm/sec
(in./sec)
10.0
(4.0)
10.0
(4.0)
10.0
(4.0)
10.0
(4.0)
10.0
(4.0)
30.0
(11.8)
Settling Velocity
of Sludge Solids
cm/sec
(in./sec)
2.0
(0.8)
2.0
(0.8)
0.1
(0.04)
0.1
(0.04)
2.0
(0.8)
0.1
(0.04)
Horizontal
Dispersion
Coefficient
sq cm/sec
(sq in./sec)
1,000
(155)
1,000
(155)
1,000
(155)
1,000
(155)
10,000
(1,550)
10,000
(1,550)
SOUTHERN (50 m DEPTH) AREAS1
Vertical
Dispersion
Coefficient
sq cm/sec
(sq in./sec)
10.0
(1.5)
10.0
(1.5)
10.0
(1-5)
10.0
(1.5)
10.0
(1.5)
10.0
(1.5)
Time
minutes
60
60
1250
1250
60
1250
Distance From
Dumping Point
To Center of
Sludge Mass1
kilometers
(n miles)
0.25
(0.15)
0.30
(0.16)
5.00
(2.70)
6.00
(3.24)
0.25
(0.15)
15.00
(8.09)
Radius of
Sludge Mass1
meters
(feet)
65
(213)
72
(238)
300
(985)
330
(1,082)
212
(697)
950
(3,117)
'See Figure 40 for a typical representation of sludge transport and dispersion.
'Horizontal distance traveled before reaching the ocean bottom (see Figure 40).
'Radius of sludge mass after reaching the ocean bottom (95 percent of mass within radius, see Figure 40).
-------
DUMPED SEWAGE SLUDGE
APPLIED AS A POINT SOURCE
OCEAN SURFACE
CENTER OF SLUDGE MASS
PREVAILING
OCEAN
CURRENT
DISTANCE FROM DUMPING POINT —*-|
TO CENTER OF SLUDGE MASS
RADIUS OF SLUDGE MASS
TYPICAL TRANSPORT AND DISPERSION
OF SEWAGE SLUDGE IN OCEAN WATERS
NOTE: SEE TABLE 2?.
FIGURE 40
-------
Bottom sediments are resuspended primarily by storm waves and currents and by internal waves. Once
resuspended, these sediments can be transported by bottom currents.
Storm Waves and Currents
Strong storm-wind-driven currents resuspend large quantities of fine bottom sediments in the Bight Apex
(Drake, 1974). The bottom sediments in both the Northern and Southern Areas exhibit wave ripples, indicat-
ing that these sediments have been moved back and forth by storm-generated surface waves. The Northern
Area, however, because of its greater depth, has a slightly lower potential for resuspension of fine-grained
sediments by surface waves than does the Southern Area.
Internal Waves
Internal waves have been observed in the vicinity of the Hudson Shelf Valley. These waves dissipate as
they break along the bottom (at depths where the density gradient upon which they travel intersects the
bottom), but only bottom sediments shoreward of the 30 to 35 m (98 to 11.5 ft) depth contour are likely to
be affected. The bedforms observed in the Northern and Southern Areas may have been produced by either
internal waves or storm currents. The deeper sections of the Northern Area have a lower potential for resus-
pension of fine bottom sediments by internal waves than do the shallower sections of the Southern Area.
Bottom Currents
Once fine bottom sediments are resuspended in the water column, they are transported by bottom
currents. Results obtained using bottom drifters indicate that a generalized line of divergence (Figure 17)
exists on the continental shelf at depths of about 60 m (197 ft). Shoreward of this line, the bottom drift tends
to have an onshore component; seaward of the line, it tends to have an offshore component.
All of the Southern Area is shoreward of the line of divergence. If sludge were dumped in this area, the
particles that reached bottom would be subjected to a slow, steady, shoreward movement. The deeper
portions of the Northern Area, on the eastern border, are along the line of divergence. If sludge were
dumped into these areas, particles would probably move in an offshore direction.
The presence of relict mud deposits in the Northern Area indicates that the agents of resuspension and
transport have been ineffective in removing mud from these sediments. Designation of a dump site near the
deeper portions of the Northern Area would probably result in the transport of sludge particles to the ad-
jacent low-lying areas of the relict drainage system (Figure 29), where they would remain. Although a physi-
cal accumulation on the bottom is not expected, increases in the levels of organic material and heavy metal
concentrations are.
CHEMICAL EQUILIBRIA AND BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION
When sewage sludge is dumped into the ocean, it is physically dispersed within the water column and
begins to chemically interact with the seawater. Basic laws of chemistry regarding concentration equilibria
and adsorption are the major factors affecting the chemical reactions that occur.
144
-------
Heavy Metals
Field analyses at the Hyperion Sewage Treatment Plant in Los Angeles, California, show that a signifi-
cant portion of the heavy metals in sewage sludge is contained in the particulate fraction (fines). The analyses
also show that many of these metals are released into the seawater (Table 28) (Chen, 1974; Rohatgi and
Chen, 1975). As soon as the sludge is dumped, there is a rapid, initial (first-stage) release of metals, followed
by a slower, long-term (second-stage) release. The first-stage release is attributable to the oxidation of organic
particles and metal sulfides and to the desorption of metals from particles. Desorption may be responsible for
some of the second-stage releases as well (Rohatgi and Chen, 1975).
TABLE 28
RELEASE IN SEAWATER OF
HEAVY METALS FROM SLUDGE*
Metal Percent Released
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
93-96
2
5-9
35
35
49-64
18-39
*From suspended participates in digested sludge at
equilibrium with seawater.
Source: Rohatgi and Chen, 1975.
The equilibria equations of Morel ef a/. (1975) indicate that the metal sulfides in sludge rapidly dissolve
when mixed with seawater, freeing metal ions and promoting rapid dilution.
In situ studies at the existing sludge dump site (Callaway et a/., 1975) show that initial dilutions of
seawater to sludge range from 500:1 to 1000:1 within ten minutes of release. Other researchers have noted
that concurrent with initial dilution there is a drop in the ambient oxygen level around the dump site. Metal
concentrations in the water immediately after cessation of dumping are reported to be highly variable, and
seven hours after dumping, concentrations of metals in the water column reportedly remain elevated (Hi-
lovsky and Szucs, 1975).
Metals not dissolved or oxidized during first-stage release can be released in time as the organic matter
with which they are bound decomposes or as they are desorbed from inorganic material. Conversely, metals
already in solution or which come into solution during dumping can be immobilized through sorption to
suspended particulate matter.
Chromium, copper, lead, and zinc are expected to accumulate in bottom sediments, but cadmium is
not expected to do so because it rapidly dissolves in the water column. Segar and Cantillo (1975) calculated
the average residence time of heavy metals in the Bight Apex and concluded that a considerable portion of
the metals originating in sewage sludge or dredged material is rapidly flushed out.
145
-------
Organic Matter
Organic constituents of ocean dumped sludge are subject to oxidation and scavenging in both the water
column and bottom sediments. Duedall et al. (1975) have demonstrated that the organic carbon content of
bottom sediments in the vicinity of the existing dredged material and sewage sludge dump sites is not high
when compared with that in other coastal areas. Further, they postulate that different microorganisms act to
hydrolyze the organic matter in sludge, and they note specifically that cutin, a common component of
sludge, is degraded by bacteria and fungi. These biological oxidation processes, however, reduce the dis-
solved oxygen levels in seawater.
As discussed in Chapter V, substantial quantities of oxidizable organic matter reach the Bight Apex. The
oxidation of this matter depletes the dissolved oxygen there, especially during the summer months when bio-
logical activity is high. Segar et al. (1975) concluded that relocation of the sewage sludge and dredged
material dump sites would not significantly improve the'dissolved oxygen levels in the bottom waters of the
Bight Apex. They also concluded that a twofold increase in the area's nutrient loading from inland runoff
could raise photosynthetic productivity to a level that would seriously deplete oxygen in the bottom waters.
OTHER DUMP SITES
Philadelphia Dump Site
A brief analysis of sludge dumping at the Philadelphia site can provide some insights into what might be
expected at the Northern and Southern Areas in the New York Bight. The volume of sludge dumped at the
Philadelphia site in 1974 was approximately 0.6 million cu m (0.8 million cu yd), or about one-sixth the
volume of sludge dumped in the New York Bight that year (Lear and Pesch, 1975). The water depth, hydrau-
lic activity, and net drift at the Philadelphia site are similar to conditions within the Northern and Southern
Areas.
Organic carbon accumulation in the vicinity of the Philadelphia site is small. Background concentrations
are approximately 0.1 percent organic carbon by dry weight, and the highest concentration found in the
affected areas was only 1.4 percent, observed approximately 19 km (10 n mi) south of that dump site.
The highest metal concentrations also were found there (Lear and Pesch, 1975); chromium, lead, and
zinc showed accumulation with respect to background concentrations. Manganese and iron also were high,
but this was attributed to ihdustrial waste dumping at an adjacent site. Mercury, copper, and nickel had not
accumulated in the bottom sediments to any appreciable degree. On the other hand, there was an accumu-
lation of PCB
Figure 41 is a general representation, based on metal and organic content, of the bottom areas affected
by pollutant sources in the Bight Apex and near the Philadelphia dump site. Dumping at the Philadelphia site
has a pronounced influence on downcoast areas, which may be the result of coast-parallel transport caused
by the predominant southwesterly drift.
Dump Sites in Other Waters
In Scotland, sludge dumpfng-in the Firth of Clyde has affected an area of between 2.9 and 10.0 km (1.6
to 5'.4 n mi) in diameter (Mackay ef'a/., 1972). Concentrations of heavy metals in the immediate vicinity of
this dump site are quite similar t6 those found in the Bight Apex, although the bottom sediments in the Firth
of Clyde contain more organic carbon (8.2 percent). Background concentrations of pollutants in the Firth of
Clyde are generally higher as well. Water depths in the Firth of Clyde are less than 90 m (295 ft), and tidal
flushing is a dominant dispersal agent.
146
-------
NEW YORK
BIGHT APEX,,
SEWAGE SLUDGE
DUMP SITE
/ SCALE
10 0 10 20 KILOMETERS
20 MILES (STATUTE)
H"3He-S5S=^5^H^—!= '
10 0 10 20 NAUTICAL MILES
=*
NOTE •• CONTOURS IN METERS
PHILADELPHIA
SEWAGE
SLUDGE
DUMP SITE
KEY:
AREAS OF HEAVY
METAL AND ORGANIC
CONTAMINATION
BOTTOM AREAS AFFECTED AT EXISTING
SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMP SITES IN THE
MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT
SOURCES: LEAR, 1973; CARMODY EJ_ AL., 1973;
HATCHER AND KEISTER, 1975
FIGURE 41
-------
In England, studies have been conducted on sludge dumping in the Thames estuary, which is only
about 20 m (65 ft) deep and which is subjected to tidal currents on the order of 90 cm/sec (35.4 in/sec).
These studies show no appreciable loss in oxygen concentration in bottom waters (Shelton, 1971).
SUMMARY
It is expected that the bottom area surrounding a dump site in either the Northern or Southern Area will
be contaminated by increased levels of fine organic matter; heavy metals (chromium, copper, lead, and
zinc), bacteria, and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Detectable contamination from sludge dumping will be lim-
ited to areas within 15 km (8 n mi) of the dump site; the affected area will be elongated in the direction of
the prevailing currents (to the west and southwest off Long Island, to the south and southwest off New
Jersey). A larger bottom area will be affected if dumping occurs in the Northern Area because of the greater
depth, although there will be less accumulation of solids per unit area. In general, however, significant accu-
mulations of sludge solids on the bottom are not expected at a dump site in either area.
The area with the least potential for resuspension and transport of fine sludge contaminants is the
easternmost portion of the Northern Area. This area is characterized by large amounts of fine sediments,
indicating that resuspension and transport are minimal.
The impact of sludge contaminants on the ecosystem is discussed in Chapter VII.
148
-------
CHAPTER VII
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action will have an impact on water quality and the marine ecosystem at and around the
alternate dump site. The extent of the impact will depend on the nature of the sludge and on the environ-
mental conditions at the site. The proposed action will also have an impact on the quality of shellfish in the
area of the dump site and may have a number of economic impacts beyond those associated with use of the
existing dump site in the Bight Apex. These include increased sludge transportation costs, decreased com-
mercial fishing, reduced potential for developing shellfish resources, and interference with mineral resource
development. The loss of a potentially valuable resource, the sludge itself, will continue. The proposed action
may also conflict with other dumping activities in the New York Bight.
IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH, WATER QUALITY, AND SAFETY
The proposed action will have no significant adverse effect on the public health and welfare of beach
communities or on the quality of Long Island or New Jersey coastal waters. Floatables from an alternate
dump site in either the Northern or Southern Area are not expected to reach these beaches under any
weather conditions, including winter storms. Potential coliform contamination of commercial shellfish (surf
clams, ocean quahogs, and sea scallops) from sludge dumping will be limited to the immediate vicinity of the
alternate dump site.
Swimming
Recent studies indicate that no significant contamination of bathing (primary contact) waters results
from the dumping of sludge at the existing site; the random, elevated coliform levels along the Long Island
and New Jersey beaches are attributed to contamination from inland sources rather than to ocean dumping
(FDA, 1974a, 1974b; USEPA, July 1974, April 1975). Data collected by EPA and FDA indicate that dis-
charges from municipal wastewater treatment plants were the principal cause of the elevated coliform levels
in New Jersey beach waters. Both agencies have concluded that there is no indication of coliform contami-
nation of waters along the Long Island and New Jersey beaches that can be attributed to the ocean dumping
of sewage sludge. Bacterial contamination from sludge dumping, in fact, appears to be confined to the imme-
diate vicinity of the existing dump site.
Brook's model has been used to predict the theoretical dispersion of bacteria resulting from ocean
dumping at a site with characteristics similar to those of the existing dump site'(USEPA, unpub.). Using
conservative values for onshore currents, coliform die-off rates, and dispersion coefficients, it was concluded
that there would be at most a low probability of coliform contamination of nearby beach waters. Since the
Northern and Southern Areas are much farther from shore than the existing dump site, and in different
current regimes, the potential for bacterial or viral contamination of primary contact waters from use of
either area is virtually non-existent.
149
-------
Shellfish
Contamination of edible commercial and sport shellfish taken from the New York Bight remains a signif-
icant potential public health hazard. Shellfishing has been prohibited in the immediate area of the existing
dump site, as well as in other estuarine and coastal waters of the Bight Apex (Figure 25). The health hazard
from consumption of contaminated shellfish is much greater than that from direct contact (swimming) be-
cause shellfish (as fish feeders) have the capacity to concentrate pollutants in their gut and circulatory
system.
Use of a dump site in either the Northern or Southern Area is likely to result in at least a temporary
FDA closure of the area to commercial and sport shellfishing. It is difficult to predict the size of the area that
would be closed, but judging from present FDA practices, a precautionary closure would involve a circular
area, 11.1 km (6.0 n mi) in radius, around the designated dump site. The greatest abundance of surf clams is
found in and around the Southern Area (Figures 20, 21, and 22); ocean quahogs are abundant in both areas
(Figure 23), but their resource potential in comparison with surf clams has not been defined.
The potential hazards to public health would be greatest in those areas currently used for large-scale
commercial shellfishing, such as off the New Jersey coast, shoreward of the Southern Area. Assuming that
commercial shellfishing patterns remain essentially unchanged over the next five years, the potential public
health hazard from consumption of contaminated shellfish would be less if a site in the Northern Area were
chosen.
Floatables
Certain aesthetically unpleasant components of dumped sludge (oil, grease, and artifacts) are expected
to accumulate in a surface slick within the immediate area of an alternate dump site. Although some of the
floatables currently washed up on Long Island and New Jersey beaches may come from the existing dump
site, this has not been verified (NOAA-MESA, March 1975). Floatables from other sources (the Hudson
estuary, inland runoff, municipal wastewater discharges, combined sewer and stormwater runoff, and vessel
discharges) are thought to far outweigh those from sludge dumping at the existing site.
Sludge dumping in either the Northern or Southern Area would have a much lower potential for affect-
ing the beaches because both areas are farther from shore than the existing dump site. However, floatables
resulting from use of an alternate dump site would contribute to the degradation of relatively clean waters
there.
Hazards to Navigation
The proposed action would result in a greater potential hazard to navigation in the New York Bight.
Due to the increased volumes projected for 1981, sludge vessels would have to make more trips per year; if
a new site farther offshore were designated, each trip would take longer. The sludge dumping vessels are
inherently slow, with speeds ranging from 9 km/hr (5 knots) for towed barges to 13 km/hr (7 knots) for
tankers. Towed barges in particular would be more hazardous on longer trips because they are difficult to
control and appear on radar screens as two separate vessels. Because of the greater trip frequency and
duration, there would be greater statistical chances for sludge vessels to collide with other commercial ves-
sels, such as oil tankers and freighters, or with stationary structures, such as navigation aids, breakwaters, or
oil drilling platforms.
Precautionary Zone. The greatest potential for accident would occur as the sludge vessels passed
through the heavily traveled precautionary zone in the Bight Apex (Figure 5), although this impact would be
mitigated somewhat by abandoning the existing dump site, which lies within this zone. Both the Northern
and Southern Areas lie outside established navigational lanes and are therefore relatively hazard-free.
150
-------
The Southern Area. Navigation of sludge vessels in the Southern Area might be complicated by in-
creased traffic (work boats, supply ships, oil tankers, etc.) associated with development of nearby oil and gas
lease tracts (Figure 6). There is also a slight possibility of sludge vessels colliding with oil platforms in the
lease area. Whether these hazards to navigation materialize will depend on the speed and scope of oil and
gas development and on the duration of ocean dumping at the site.
Other Hazards. It is unlikely that other proposed offshore facilities, such as artificial islands or deepwa-
ter ports, will be constructed in the near future.
IMPACTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM
The magnitude of impact of dumped sludge on the marine ecosystem is primarily a function of: 1) the
concentration of the sludge which reaches bottom, 2) its areal extent, and 3) the subsequent bottom trans-
port of contaminants, which increases the lateral extent of the impacted area. Characteristics of sludge
dumped in the New York Bight in the future are not expected to be much different from those of the sludge
currently dumped there (Tables 3 and 4).
Ecosystem impacts may be minimized either by containing the pollutants in a very small area (to con-
centrate the toxic substances) or by dispersing them over a large area (to achieve maximum dilution). Im-
pacts on biota, especially benthos, can best be mitigated by dispersing the contaminants in the water col-
umn, thereby diluting them before they reach bottom.
With maximum dilution, the impact of pollutants that eventually reach bottom will be minimal if the
potential for resuspension and bottom transport is low. To the extent possible, selection of an alternate dump
site should be based on the optimization of these physical forces.
Benthos
The benthic community is composed of those organisms that live on or in the bottom sediments or
substrates. For the purposes of this EIS, demersal fish and shellfish are discussed in the next section, Fisheries
Resources.
Similar Areas. Impacts of sludge dumping on benthos in the Northern and Southern Areas are likely to
be much the same as those observed at existing sewage sludge dump sites. At present, a bottom area of
approximately 52 sq km (15 sq n mi) around the existing dredged material and sewage sludge dump sites
shows evidence of reduced biomass and a shift in benthic composition and diversity. Studies by
NOAA-NMFS (1975b) show the major impact to be suffocation of those benthic organisms buried by
dredged material. In this respect, adverse biological effects from dumping of dredged material are thought to
be far more severe than those from dumping of sludge. Contamination of the nearby Hudson Shelf Valley
has also been observed, but the benthic communities there are more productive than those at the existing
dump sites (NOAA-NMFS, 1972).
A study of the Philadelphia sewage sludge dump site, which is located about 74 km (40 n mi) east of
Ocean City, Maryland, was unable to detect any impacts of sludge dumping on the benthos (Lear, 1973),
although an accumulation of heavy metals in scallops and clams onsite was observed. At the time of Lear's
study, however, this site had been in use for less than a year, and the volume of sludge that had been
dumped there was about one-sixth the annual volume dumped at the existing sludge site in the Bight Apex.
Depths at the Philadelphia dump site are comparable to those in the Southern Area.
In Scotland, sludge dumping in the Firth of Clyde has resulted in a bottom accumulation of organics and
metals, as well as in a change from a clam and starfish community to a polychaete worm community. An
increase in the benthic biomass has also been observed, but it appears to be of little or no value as fish food
since none of the species were found in the guts of fish taken from the area (MacKay ef a/., 1972). Steel et
151
-------
a/. (1973) also reported an increase in the level of sludge-related contaminants, with impacts on the benthos
being most evident. The volume of sludge dumped in the Firth of Clyde is approximately a quarter of that
currently dumped in the New York Bight. Depths at the Firth of Clyde site are comparable to those in both
the Northern and Southern Areas.
Northern and Southern Areas. The Northern Area is somewhat deeper than the Southern Area. Con-
sequently, use of the Northern Area would result in greater dilution of contaminants and a lesser impact on
the benthos. The potential for resuspension and transport of contaminated sediments also appears to be less
in deeper portions of the Northern Area than in the Southern Area.
Hudson Shelf Valley. Sewage sludge dumped in either the Northern or Southern Area is not likely to
reach the Hudson Shelf Valley; this conclusion is based on predictions of lateral transport in the water
column prior to settling or after resuspension. At the very worst, extremely low concentrations of fine sludge
particles might settle on the bottom 15 km (8 n mi) from a dump site located in either the Northern or
Southern Area. The Hudson Shelf Valley is 18.5 km (10.0 n mi) from the nearest boundary of either area
(Figure 10).
The Hudson Shelf Valley is currently receiving contaminated materials from the Bight Apex
(NOAA-MESA, March 1975) (Figure 41). The existing dredged material and sewage sludge sites, located near
the rim of the inner terminus of the valley, may be the sources of this contamination.
The red crab and American lobster, abundant in the lower parts of the Hudson Shelf Valley, would be
adversely affected if sludge contaminants accumulated there. Special emphasis should thus be placed on
avoiding contamination of the valley's upper reaches, where breeding zones are located.
Fisheries Resources
Fisheries resources in the New York Bight include pelagic fish (water column feeders), demersal fish
(bottom feeders), and shellfish (bivalves and crustaceans), as described in Chapter V.
Attempts to define the impacts of dumping on fisheries resources at existing sites in the Bight Apex have
been hampered by a lack of temporal and spatial coverage, by inadequate sampling design, and by limited
numbers of replicate samples, all of which preclude statistical verification. In addition, the motile and highly
migratory nature of most finfish species has prevented delineation of cause-and-effect relationships. Never-
theless, for the purpose of recommending an alternate dump site where adverse impacts would be minimal,
the available data are sufficient because they do allow relative comparisons.
Northern and Southern Areas. Non-motile shellfish species in or near the two areas are the fisheries
resources most likely to be impacted by sludge dumping at an alternate site. The surf clam, sea scallop, and
ocean quahog are found in both areas, often in numbers suitable for commercial harvesting. Based on recent
surveys, greater surf clam resources are found in and around the Southern Area, especially along the New
Jersey coast (Figures 20, 21, and 22), than in the Northern Area; ocean quahogs are numerous in both areas;
and sea scallops are less common in the New York Bight than either surf clams or ocean quahogs (Figure
24). Surf cl3nns and ocean quahogs are not found in significant numbers at the existing sludge dump site.
The potential impact on shellfish resources would be minimized by dumping within the Northern Area,
since surf clams are abundant in commercial quantities near the Southern Area. Use of the Northern Area
would also minimize the danger of illegal harvesting of contaminated shellfish, as the Southern Area is cur-
rently and potentially a more lucrative commercial source.
Significant impacts on the crustaceans (crab and lobster) that frequent the two areas could also be
expected, but these impacts would be mitigated to some extent by the crustaceans' ability to move out of
the affected zones. There is no evidence that these species are more or less abundant in either area.
Since most commercial finfish are found throughout the New York Bight, impacts on these species will
be about the same in either area. Impacts on finfish might be expected to differ if one of the areas exhibited
physical characteristics particularly conducive to migratory behavior, but at present there is no evidence of
this.
152
-------
Fish Migration. As part of a NOAA-NMFS study (1975b), groundfish in the New York Bight were
sampled twice yearly in an attempt to relate dumping to the normal migratory activities of fish. The catch of
bony fish in areas of the Bight Apex with high-carbon sediments (such as at the existing sludge dump site)
was found to be lower, on a seasonal basis, than in low-carbon sediment areas. It was concluded from this
that migratory movements are affected by the ocean dumping of sewage sludge.
Both the Northern and Southern Areas contain topographical lows which favor the accumulation of
high-carbon sediments. Hydraulic activity in these areas is lower than at the existing dump site, and this, too,
favors the accumulation of these sediments. The Northern Area is characterized by slightly deeper waters
and somewhat finer-textured sediments than are found in the Southern Area, which indicates a greater pro-
pensity in the Northern Area for the accumulation of high-carbon sediments from dumped sludge; conse-
quently, fewer groundfish would be expected there. Considering the dilution and dispersion of sludge associ-
ated with depth, however, dumping in either area should not significantly alter migratory patterns.
Fin Rot. The occurrence of fin rot in demersal fishes has been attributed to pollution in the Bight Apex
and in Raritan Bay (Murchelano and Ziskowski, 1975). Causative agents have not been isolated, however,
nor has the anomaly been exclusively linked to ocean dumping. Despite a significant difference in the occur-
rence of fin rot between fish taken from the Bight Apex and those taken from the outer New York Bight, the
overall percentage of occurrence is low (3.8 percent of winter flounder from the Bight Apex, 0.7 percent
from the outer New York Bight). A greater percentage of occurrence was observed in samples taken from
areas of high-carbon sediment (5.1 percent of winter flounder sampled).
Considering the substantial dilution expected at either the Northern or Southern Area and the lack of
significant additional pollutant loadings, fin rot is not expected to occur at a dump site in either area. On the
other hand, considering the widespread occurrence of fin rot in the Bight Apex and the many sources of
pollution there, the overall occurrence of fin rot could not be expected to decrease even if the existing dump
site were abandoned.
Plankton
Plankton are defined as those plants (phytoplanklon) and animals (zooplankton) that float in the water
column.
Similar Areas. Past and present ocean dumping practices in the Bight Apex have had no observable
effect on phytoplankton productivity. Increased sludge dumping would probably neither increase nor de-
crease the rate of primary productivity, but it might expand the area of productivity (NOAA-NMFS, 1975b).
Similarly, ocean dumping practices have had no discernible effect on the species composition, abundance,
or distribution of zooplankton in the Bight Apex (NOAA-NMFS, 1975b).
Pararas-Carayannis (1973) reported, "no short-term adverse effects have been observed on free-floating
or swimming marine organisms. No effects were observed on zooplankton species composition and dis-
tribution. Reported inhibition in the growth of phytoplankton has not been substantiated."
This may indicate the inability of present field techniques to detect the effects of sludge on plankton,
since certain laboratory investigations suggest that there are such effects. The applicability of these laboratory
investigations to the evaluation of an alternate dump site, however, is limited. Barber and Krieger (1970)
reported phytoplankton productivity to be inhibited by sewage sludge, but this has not yet been substanti-
ated. Dunstan (1975), investigating the effects of sewage effluents, found the response of phytoplankton
quite varied and unpredictable. Although growth was generally enhanced by the addition of nitrogen and
phosphorous, the role of minor growth substances (trace metals, vitamins) became paramount in the reg-
ulation of phytoplankton productivity, composition, and abundance.
The effects of sludge on zooplankton are only slightly less confused. Based on field and laboratory data,
NOAA-NMFS (1972) reported that sludge and dredged material cause pathological anomalies in larger crus-
taceans; it thus seems likely that smaller crustaceans, such as gammarid amphipods (a common fish food),
would be affected in a similar manner.
153
-------
Northern and Southern Areas. Impacts on plankton in either of the two areas would probably be
undiscernible. Although the addition of nutrients might favor localized increases in phytoplankton pro-
ductivity, other factors would tend to decrease productivity. Increased turbidity, for example, which lessens
the depth of light penetration, would probably result in a localized reduction of productivity. Since primary
productivity is limited to the euphotic zone in the upper layers of the water column, high levels of nutrients
below this zone would not be utilized in photosynthesis.
Potential impacts of sludge dumping on zooplankton would be more severe in the Northern and South-
ern Areas than at the existing dump site. Since zooplankton biomass is generally greater in the shelf and
mixed zone waters which characterize these two areas than in near-shore waters, any adverse effect (such
as pathological anomalies or impediments to larval growth) would threaten a larger zooplankton population
at a site in the Northern or Southern Area than at the existing dump site. Furthermore, zooplankton popula-
tions in the two offshore areas are oceanic in nature and less adapted to environmental stress than those in
the Bight Apex, which are estuarine in nature.
Short Dumping
The proposed action may encourage "short dumping," that is, the dumping of sludge before the vessel
reaches the designated dump site. However, surveillance by USCG radar, shipriders, planes, and escort or
patrol vessels, together with the use of dump-site transponders, is expected to prevent or at least curtail
illegal short dumping.
Emergency Situations. Ocean dumping permits allow the master of a vessel to dump at any location
or in any manner necessary to safeguard life at sea. (Appendix A, General Condition 9) The increased num-
ber of trips and the greater distance and travel time to the Northern or Southern Area would increase the
potential for emergency dumping.
Rough weather during late fall, winter, and early spring can cause emergency situations which require
short dumping. Other emergencies that could occur include vessel breakdowns under hazardous conditions
and potential collisions with stationary objects or other ships.
The effects of emergency dumping, however, would normally be mitigated by the dilution and disper-
sion provided by storm conditions. Moreover, each emergency would be unique in time and place, so that
sludge would not be continually dumped at the same point under the same wind and weather conditions.
Potential Impact. Were an alternate dump site located within the Southern Area, sludge vessels would
probably use the Hudson Canyon Navigational Lane (Figure 5) for much of the distance. Because this route
runs over or near the Hudson Shelf Valley, at least minor adverse effects could be expected since the valley
would tend to trap short-dumped sludge. The alternate route to the Southern Area, following the Barnegat
Navigational Lane (Figure 5), would increase both transportation costs and travel time and would probably
not be used. Furthermore, use of the Barnegat route would pose a greater threat to New Jersey beaches
should a short dump coincide with onshore winds or currents.
Transporting sludge to the Northern Area would not present a serious hazard to the Hudson Shelf
Valley since sludge vessels would probably use the Nantucket Navigational Lane (Figure 5), which parallels
Long Island. Use of this route, however, would threaten New York City and Long Island beaches in the event
of a short dump when winds or currents were onshore. Use of the Hudson Canyon Navigational Lane to the
Northern Area would be longer and more costly, so few sludge vessels, if any, would be likely to use it. If it
were used, of course, there would be a direct threat to the Hudson Shelf Valley.
The impact of short dumping would be most severe in the Bight Apex; however, the probability is that
most short dumping would take place beyond this area.
154
-------
Potential for Ecosystem Recovery
The potential for recovery of the existing dump site's ecosystem is an important consideration in assess-
ing the impact of using an alternate dump site. Previous studies of repopulation rates following pollution
abatement in the Raritan estuary indicate that freshwater forms rapidly reestablished themselves in the upper
estuary (Dean and Haskin, 1964). More recent surveys in western Raritan Bay, however, found an impover-
ished benthos, one not indicative of recovery (NOAA-NMFS, 1972). McNulty (1970) found no evidence of
increased commercial or sport fish populations following pollution abatement in Raritan Bay, and he con-
cluded that pollution and dredging have resulted in long-lasting detrimental effects.
The NOAA-NMFS study (1972) predicted that after abandonment of the existing dredged material and
sewage sludge dump sites, recovery to former levels of productivity, if it is possible at all, will require years
or even decades. The FDA (1975) has found shellfishing areas around these two dump sites to be very
degraded, and has concluded that moving the sites would be of little benefit in promoting recovery of the
area.
The recovery potential of the Northern and Southern Areas is about equal, although no prediction can
yet be made about the time required for recovery after dumping is phased out.
Considering the high potential for degrading an alternate dump site in the Northern or Southern Area,
and the low potential for promoting recovery of the existing dump site in the Bight Apex, it is concluded that
the proposed action would result in no overall benefit to the benthic ecosystem.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The proposed action would significantly increase the cost of sewage sludge disposal in the New
York-New Jersey metropolitan area. In addition, it could conflict with the operation of commercial fisheries
and with the development of mineral resources. Finally, it would preclude the beneficial use of sludge.
Sludge Transportation Costs
The cost of transporting sludge to an alternate dump site in either the Northern or Southern Area or at
the chemical wastes site was evaluated in terms of two key considerations: capital costs, for potential fleet
expansion, and hauling costs, including operation, maintenance, and repair.
Fleet Expansion. As discussed in Chapter II, there is an existing fleet of thirteen vessels currently ap-
proved for sludge hauling in the New York Bight (Table 7). Of these thirteen vessels, the barge Westco I is
not seaworthy for use beyond the existing sludge dump site and the barge Liquid Waste No. 1 is currently in
use in Puerto Rico. Therefore, an eleven-vessel fleet (all vessels except the barges Westco I and Liquid Waste
No. /) was used in evaluating the fleet hauling capacity to a dump site in the Northern or Southern Area or
at the chemical wastes site. For the existing site, the full thirteen-vessel fleet and a twelve-vessel fleet (ex-
cluding the Liquid Waste No. /) were evaluated. These analyses are summarized in Table 29.
Fleet expansion would not be necessary if the existing dump site were used until 1981, even if the
projected volume of 9.9 million cu m (13.0 million cu yd) in 1981 were realized. However, as shown in
Table 29, expansion would be necessary prior to 1981 if an alternate dump site were designated at the 121
km (65 n mi) limit of the Northern or Southern Area. Additional hauling capacity would be required between
1979 and 1980, when the sludge volumes are expected to be 7.8 million cu m (10.2 million cu yd) and 8.6
million cu m (11.3 million cu yd), respectively (Table 9).
Fleet expansion must be viewed in terms of the sludge dumping phase-out date of 1981. Construction
of new vessels would not be justified in economic terms. Therefore a shortage of hauling capacity would
most likely be resolved by bringing in additional vessels from other areas, as required. Of course, additional
155
-------
TABLE 29
FLEET HAULING CAPACITY
Factors Affecting Capacity
Existing Dump Site
Thirteen-Vessel
Fleet
One-Way Distance1
in km (n mi)
Round Trip Distance2
in km (n mi)
Average Speed3
in km/hr (knots)
Tanker
Barge
Round-Trip Time4
in hr
Tanker
Barge
Loading and Docking Time
in hr
Discharge Time
in hr
Total Trip Time
in hr
Tanker
Barge
Maximum Trips6
per year
Tanker
Barge
Maximum Sludge Hauling
Capacity7 in millions of cu m
(cu yd)
Tanker
Barge
Total
1981 Sludge Volume8
in millions of cu m (cu yd)
Reserve
in millions of cu m (cu yd)
22
136
13
9
10.7
15
10
5
25.7
30
1,870
1,869
4.0
8.7
12.7
9.9
2,6
(12)
(74)
(7)
(5)
(5.3)
(11.4)
(16.7)
(13.0)
(3.7)
Twelve-Vessel
Reet
22
136
13
9
10.7
15
10
5
25.7
30
1,870
1,602
4.0
8.0
12.0
9.9
2.1
(12)
(74)
(7)
(5)
(5.3)
(10.5)
(15.8)
(13.0)
(2.8)
Northern or Southern Area
Eleven-Vessel Fleet
Minimum
65
222
13
9
17.1
24
10
5
32.1
39
1,496
1,027
3.2
6.9
10.1
9.9
0.2
(35)
(120)
(7)
(5)
(4.2)
(9.1)
(13.3)
(13.0)
(0.3)
Chemical Wastes
Site
Eleven-Vessel Fleet
Maximum
121
334
13
9
25.7
36
10
5
40.7
51
1,181
785
2.5
4.5
7.0
9.9
(65)
(180)
(7)
(5)
(3.3)
(6.0)
(9.3)
(13.0)
210
510
13
9
39.3
56.8
10
5
54.3
71.8
884
558
1.8
3.2
5.0
9.9
None
(115)
(280)
(7)
(5)
(2.4)
(4.2)
(6.6)
(13.0)
None
'One-way distance is from the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect.
2 Round trip distance includes approximately 92 km (50 n mi) travel within New York Harbor and waterways.
3 Average speed under conservative conditions.
'Round trip time equals the round trip distance divided by the average speed.
'Total trip equals round trip time plus loading and docking.
6 Maximum trips per year equals (8,008 hr/total trip time) X the number of vessels. The 8,008 hours of operations .allow one month overhaul
(out of service) per vessel per year.
'Sludge hauling capacity equals maximum number of trips X average vessel capacity.
'The 1981 sludge volume projected for the Bight (Table 9).
-------
vessels would not be needed if the actual volume were to fall substantially short of the projected 1981
volume.
Hauling Costs. The hauling costs associated with sludge dumping have been discussed previously
(Chapter III). Overall, the proposed action would increase total hauling costs during the 1978-1981 period
by 323 to 400 percent (Table 30); the total costs would range from $204 million to $253 million. On the
other hand, continued use of the existing dump site between 1978 and 1981 would cost about $63 million.
Use of the chemical wastes site for sewage sludge dumping would cost between $405 million and $505
million for the period 1978 to 1981; this represents an increase of 641 to 800 percent over the cost of using
the existing site. These conservative estimates (Table 30) were based on current unit costs from haulers and
on projected sludge volumes (Table 9).
Commercial Fishing
The proposed action may adversely affect the commercial harvesting of shellfish at or near an alternate
dump site. The commercial harvest of surf clams along the New Jersey shore would be particularly sensitive
to sludge dumping at the Southern Area.
Southern Area. Ocean dumping of sludge anywhere in this area would probably damage commercial
shellfish resources. The area near the New Jersey shore is an important and established fisheries resource,
supporting significant quantities of commercially valuable surf clams,, sea scallops, and ocean quahogs (Fig-
ures 20 through 24). Dispersion and movement of sludge particles dumped at a site in the Southern Area
would appear to be generally onshore and thus over the adjacent shellfishing area.
In December 1975, New Jersey prohibited the taking of surf clams smaller than 8.9 cm (3.5 in) in
diameter within the 3-mile (5.6 km) limit. This action was precipitated by commercial overfishing of state
waters (The New York Times, December 31,1975). As a result of this prohibition, there may be pressure to
develop the more abundant areas farther offshore.
Northern Area. Surf clams are not abundant in this area, so dumping would have little effect on com-
mercial fisheries. In addition, the net dispersive flow in the Northern Area appears to be offshore and off the
continential shelf.
Potential Shellfish Resources. Dumping in either the Northern or Southern Area could reduce the
potential for development of ocean quahogs and sea scallops as commercial shellfish resources since both
species appear to be abundant in the two areas and would undoubtedly be affected by sludge contamina-
tion. Because of their distribution in and near the areas, however, ocean quahogs and surf clams would
appear to be the most vulnerable to ocean dumping.
In 1976, the commercial shellfish catch in the metropolitan area was worth $35.5 million, compared
with $12.4 million for the commercial fish catch (Table 13). Neither of these figures includes fish or shellfish
that were taken from the New York Bight and landed in neighboring states (Rhode Island, Connecticut,
Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) or in other countries. Hard clams ($19.4 million), surf clams ($3.3
million), and sea scallops ($3.2 million) were the most valuable shellfish taken from the Bight in 1976.
The New York Bight may currently supply at least half the edible surf clam meats harvested from U.S.
waters (McHugh, 1975). Any damage to or closing of a specific area within commercial harvesting zones
could significantly impact the shellfish industry. Although there is no guarantee that an area once closed to
shellfishing could be immediately reopened after the cessation of sludge dumping, it should be noted that the
old Philadelphia sludge dump site off Delaware Bay was reopened by FDA within two years. The volume of
sludge dumped at this site, however, was only one-sixth that dumped at the Bight Apex dump site.
Mineral Resource Development
The proposed action may conflict with the potential development of mineral resources in or immedi-
ately adjacent to the Southern Area.
157
-------
TABLE 30
SLUDGE HAULING COSTS
Year
1978
1979
1980
1981
Total
Percent
Increase
Existing
Dump Site1
12.28
15.01
16.57
19.30
63.16
-
Minimum
39.69
48.51
53.55
62.37
204.12
323
Cost in Millions of Dollars
Northern or
Southern Area1
Maximum
49.14
60.06
66.30
77.22
252.72
400
Chemical
Wastes Site'
Minimum
78.75
96.25
106.25
123.75
405.00
641
Maximum
98.28
120.12
132.60
154.44
505.44
800
'Based on unit cost of $1.95 percu m ($1.47 percu yd).
'Based on unit cost range of $6.30 to $7.80 per cu m ($4.70 to $5.90 per cu yd).
'Based on unit cost range of $12.50 to $15.60 per cu m ($9.40 to $11.80 per cu yd).
-------
Sand and Gravel. Designation of a dump site in the Southern Area would probably conflict with the
development of sand and gravel deposits in the western portion of the area (Figure 6). Sludge dumping in this
area could, over time, contaminate the sand and gravel deposits to some extent and probably limit their
usefulness as construction material. Decontamination, in addition to normal washing practices, could in-
crease mining costs.
Potential oil and gas development and pipeline operations, however, may pose a more serious obstacle
to the mining of sand and gravel deposits in the Southern Area. Should spills of crude oil from wells, pipe-
lines, or vessels contaminate the bottom areas, the sand and gravel deposits would probably be removed
from consideration as a potential mining area.
Initial delineations of the gravel deposits were based on widely spaced surficial samples. Results of
recent NOAA-MESA studies (February 1976), however, suggest that these deposits are sandwiched between
clay layers in many areas and may not be as widespread or as readily accessible as had been thought.
Sand and gravel deposits also are located at or near the existing sludge dump site (Figure 6). Although
these deposits are much closer to the metropolitan area and therefore have more intrinsic potential as a
developable resource than those in the Southern Area, bottom areas at dump sites in the Bight Apex have
long been contaminated by sewage sludge and dredged material dumping. Thus, sand and gravel in these
areas may be unusable, or of limited use, without extensive decontamination. In contrast, the deposits within
the Southern Area are clean.
Oil and Gas. Designation of a dump site in the Southern Area could have a significant adverse impact
on the development of oil and gas lease tracts (Figure 6) off New Jersey.
Potential conflicts with development of oil and gas reserves include:
— Constraints on pipeline routing because of contaminated bottom sediments. Of course, the pipe-
lines could be routed to minimize conflicts, although development costs might be greater.
— Increased difficulty of monitoring and assessing the extent and impact of pollution related solely
to oil and gas development.
— Damage to, or elimination of, potential sport fisheries that might be expected around offshore
drilling structures. Development of a viable sport fishery 148 km (80 n mi) from the New Jersey
coast, however, is difficult to envision at this time.
— Navigation hazards from sludge barging or dumping operations during drilling, construction, and
off-loading.
— Increased turbidity from dumping activities that could interfere with oil-related maintenance and
repair work.
Whether or not these or other potential problems occur would depend, of course, on the overlap
between sludge dumping in the Southern Area and offshore oil development. The Northern Area, on the
other hand is approximately 111 km (60 n mi) northeast of the oil and gas development areas (Figure 6);
sludge dumping here could not possibly conflict with exploration for or development of oil and gas reserves
near the Southern Area.
Loss of Sewage Sludge as a Potentially Valuable Resource
In theory, the costs of sludge disposal can be significantly reduced by using the material as a soil
conditioner, fertilizer, or energy source. From this standpoint, ocean dumping of sewage sludge represents
the loss of a potentially valuable resource.
Metropolitan Area Sludges. As discussed in Chapter III, composting (with land application) and pyro-
lysis are the two major land-based alternatives to ocean dumping. The costs and the environmental con-
straints associated with these alternatives are shown in Table 31.
Some of the sewage sludge produced by metropolitan area treatment facilities is unsuitable for use as a
soil conditioner or fertilizer because of the high content of heavy metals and toxic organics, and the low
159
-------
TABLE 31
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL METHODS FOR THE METROPOLITAN AREA
Disposal
Method
Composting and Land Application
Pyrolysis
Ocean Dumping
Cost per Dry
Metric Ton
$70-150
$100-190
$30
Environmental
Constraints
Heavy metals and nitrates contamination of
ground and surface waters; bioaccumulation
of metals in plants
Particulate matter, gases, residues, and odors
Heavy metals, coliforms, nutrients, organics,
pesticides
Source: Interstate Sanitation Commission, 1976a.
-------
nutrient content. Only sludge that is low in heavy metals and toxic organics is considered suitable for agricul-
tural land application.
Future Value. As ocean dumping costs increase, the value of sludge as a resource will become more
important in evaluating the net costs of any alternative disposal method. At present the ocean dumping of
sewage sludge cannot be considered a significant loss of a valuable resource. The future value of sludge will
depend on the total costs of implementing land-based alternatives; such alternatives may eventually prove
cost-competitive for some generators of municipal sewage sludge.
IMPACT ON OTHER DUMPING ACTIVITIES IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
The proposed action should not affect other dumping activities in the foreseeable future. If dredged
material were dumped with sewage sludge at an alternate dump site, as had been considered by EPA, the
combined environmental impact would almost certainly be more severe than that of sludge dumping alone.
Dredged Material
At present, it is impossible to predict the environmental impact of dumping both sewage sludge and
dredged material at a site within either the Northern or Southern Area. Ocean dumping of dredged material
was not considered a serious environmental problem until recently (Table 10 and Figure 4), and its environ-
mental effects are only now being established.
Based on historical evidence at the existing dump site, 90 to 95 percent of ocean-dumped dredged
material reaches bottom; this is in direct contrast to the very small percentage of dumped sewage sludge that
reaches bottom.
Wrecks
Relocating the wreck dump site seaward of the Barnegat Navigational Lane would neither environmen-
tally nor physically affect the proposed action. Creation of a potential hazard to navigation is most unlikely,
since this is the principal reason for relocating the wreck site. The wrecks might even become a feeding
ground for fish and a stimulus to sport fishing.
Other Dumping Activities
Most dumping at the existing acid and chemical wastes dump sites will be phased out in favor of
land-based disposal methods or process modifications.
The cellar dirt dump site will continue to be used as needed, depending on major metropolitan con-
struction activity and the availability of alternate disposal sites. This should have little environmental impact
in any case because cellar dirt is essentially inert and nontoxic.
161
-------
MISCELLANEOUS IMPACTS
There is a remote possibility that the proposed action would have certain miscellaneous impacts not
directly related to ocean dumping. These could include potential effects on marine-related recreation (sport
fishing, boating, and beach attendance) and possible induced population growth in the metropolitan area.
Potential Impact on Marine-Related Recreational Activities
The proposed action is not expected to affect marine-related recreational activities, with the possible
exception of sport fishing at and near an alternate dump site. Recreational activities (sport fishing and plea-
sure boating) in the New York Bight, which usually take place within a 5 to 20 km (3 to 11 n mi) band along
the Long Island and New Jersey coasts, would not be affected by the proposed action. Sport fish that feed in
this zone, and the associated biomass, would also be unaffected. Because of the generally shoreward drift of
currents in the Southern Area, however, sport fishing within 46 km (25 n mi) of the New Jersey coast could
be impacted by sludge dumping in this area.
Beach attendance, which is critical to Long Island and New Jersey shore resorts, would not be affected
by dumping in either the Northern or Southern Area.
Effect on Population Growth in the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area
«
The proposed action is not expected to influence population growth in the metropolitan area. This
conclusion is based on the following general observations regarding metropolitan wastewater treatment and
population trends:
— The decision to provide secondary wastewater treatment has already been made and is being
implemented by upgrading existing facilities and constructing new ones.
— The metropolitan area is receiving adequate sewerage service; the service area is fixed and can-
not be expanded.
— Population in the metropolitan area is not expected to increase significantly during the next ten
years and may even decline. There is no reason to believe that regional population densities will
change significantly.
— The method of sludge disposal does not appear to influence, either directly or indirectly, the
attractiveness of living in the metropolitan area.
— Increased costs attributed to the proposed action are insignificant when compared with total
costs for municipal services.
— Although water quality in the metropolitan area should improve as a result of upgrading waste-
water treatment, this cannot be considered a significant factor in attracting people to the area.
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE NORTHERN AREA, THE SOUTHERN AREA, AND THE EXISTING
DUMP SITE
Table 32 compares the environmental impacts associated with use of a dump site in the Northern Area,
use of one in the Southern Area, and continued use of the existing site.
Dumping at a site within the Northern Area would result in a moderate impact on the local marine
ecosystem, although impacts on the benthos (bottom marine organisms) would probably be severe. The area
162
-------
TABLE 32
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF A NORTHERN OR SOUTHERN ALTERNATE DUMP SITE AND THE EXISTING DUMP SITE
Affected Component*
Impacts on Public Health
and Water Quality
Swimming
Shellfish
Floatables
Hazards to
Navigation
Impacts on the Ecosystem
Benthos
Fisheries Resources
Plankton
Short Dumping
Recovery
Northern Area
Very slight potential effects.
Virtually no potential for pathogen con-
tamination of swimming beaches.
Slight potential for consumption of con-
taminated shellfish as the area does not have
commercially abundant quantities of surf
clams or ocean quahogs.
Very slight potential for floatables reaching
beach.
Increased barge traffic, especially through
the Precautionary Zone (Figure 5).
Potentially moderate impacts.
A high probability for severe modification
of the benthic community.
Slight loss, due to closure, of non-commer-
cial shellfish resources.
Very slight impacts; stimulation of produc-
tivity may be offset by toxic effects and
turbidity.
Slight impact upon offshore Long Island
waters along the Nantucket Navigational
Lane.
Moderate potential for recovery of the site
following cessation of dumping.
Southern Area
Slight potential effects.
Virtually no potential for pathogen con-
tamination of swimming beaches.
Moderate potential for consumption of con-
taminated shellfish as the area has commer-
cially abundant quantities of surf clams.
Very slight potential for floatables reaching
beach.
Increased barge traffic, especially through
the Precautionary Zone (Figure-5).
Potential interference with oil and gas
development.
Potentially moderate to severe impacts.
A high probability for severe modification
of the benthic community.
Moderate loss, due to closure, of commer-
cially valuable shellfish resources.
Very slight impacts; stimulation of produc-
tivity may be offset by toxic effects and
turbidity.
Moderate impact upon Hudson Canyon
along the Hudson Canyon Navigational
Lane.
Moderate potential for recovery of the site
following cessation of dumping.
Existing Dump Site
Slight potential effects.
Slight potential for contamination of swim-
ming beaches; no more significant than exists
at present.
No potential for consumption of contami-
nated shellfish as the area is closed to shell-
fishing (Figure 25).
Slight potential for floatables reaching
beach.
Increased barge traffic, especially through
the Precautionary Zone (Figure 5).
Slight impacts.
No significant degradation beyond the
present state.
Slight impact on shellfish resources, no loss
beyond present closure areas.
Slight impact, if any.
Very slight impact.
Very low potential for recovery if site is
moved now or if it is used in the interim.
-------
TABLE 32 (Continued)
Affected Component*
Economic Impacts
Sludge Transportation
Costs
Commercial Fishing
Mineral Resource
Development
Loss of Sludge as a
Resource
Impact of Other Dumping
Activities
Miscellaneous Impacts
Marine Related
Recreation
Population Growth
International Legal
Implications
Northern Area
Greatly increased transportation costs.
A 323 to 400 percent increase in sludge
transportation costs.
Very slight potential for impact upon
commercial shellfishing (see "Shellfish"
above and Figure 21).
No potential resources identified
(Figure 6).
No real potential for beneficial use during
the short-term future.
Potentially severe impact if dredged
material dumping were to occur.
No effect.
No potential for reaching beaches or near-
shore waters.
No anticipated effect.
Potential problem in controlling interna-
national fishing in the vicinity.
Southern Area
Greatly increased transportation costs and
potential conflicts with commercial shell-
fishing and mineral resource development.
A 323 to 400 percent increase in sludge
transportation costs.
Significant potential for interference with
shellfish catches, especially surf clams,
shoreward of the area (see "Shellfish" above
and Figure 21).
Potential conflict with (sand and gravel, oil
and gas) resource development (Figure 6).
No real potential for beneficial use during
the short-term future.
Potentially severe impact if dredged
material dumping were to occur.
No effect.
No potential for reaching beaches or near-
shore waters.
No anticipated effect.
Potential problem in controlling interna-
tional fishing in the vicinity.
Existing Dump Site
No significant secondary effects.
No increase in sludge transportation costs
besides short-term inflation.
Closed to commercial shellfishing
(Figure 25).
No effect since sand and gravel deposits
are already contaminated.
No real potential for beneficial use during
the short-term future.
Area already contaminated by dredged .
material.
No effect.
Very slight potential for reaching beaches
and near-shore waters.
No anticipated effect.
Existing site is within the international 22.2
km (12 n mi) pollution control limit.
"The affected components and the effects are discussed in much greater detail in Chapter VII of this EIS. Only the most significant effects are summarized here.
-------
surrounding the dump site would probably be closed to shellfishing, but this would result in only a slight
economic loss. Travel time and transportation costs would increase greatly over present levels. Use of this
area should not result in hazards to public health or welfare or degradation of coastal water quality.
Dumping at a site within the Southern Area would result in a moderate-to-severe overall impact on the
marine ecosystem; impacts on the benthos probably would be severe. Closure of the area around the site to
shellfishing would result in a severe economic loss. In addition, dumping in the area would conflict with
development of mineral resources in and adjacent to this area. Travel time and transportation costs would
increase greatly over present levels. Use of this area should not result in hazards to public health or welfare
or degradation of coastal water quality.
Continued dumping of present volumes of sludge at the existing dump site would result in only a slight
additional adverse environmental impact, and would not pose a significant threat to the public health or
welfare or cause additional degradation of coastal water quality.
165
-------
CHAPTER VIII
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION BE IMPLEMENTED
The proposed action would adversely affect the benthos at and near an alternate dump site in either the
Northern or Southern Area by adding heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, zinc, and possibly nickel),
bacteria (fecal and total coliforms), and organic matter to the marine environment. As the benthic commu-
nity adapted to these polluted conditions, it would become less diverse, that is, it would be composed of
fewer species; only those species that could tolerate the altered environment would flourish at and near the
dump site.
Effects on the benthos would be severe, but localized. Only a small percentage of the dumped sludge
would be expected to actually reach bottom; most would remain in suspension, where it would be subject to
degradation by pelagic (free-swimming) organisms in the water column.
Sludge dumping would cause bacterial and viral contamination of shellfish (surf clams, ocean quahogs,
and sea scallops) at and near an alternate dump site; benthic organisms, especially shellfish, would also
concentrate heavy metals from the sludge in their tissues. To prevent the use of contaminated shellfish,
which could endanger public health, it might be necessary to prohibit shellfishing in the vicinity of the dump
site.
Sludge particles that settled on the bottom could be resuspended under stormy conditions and trans-
ported to adjacent areas. Sensitive marine resource areas, however, such as the Hudson Shelf Valley* are far
enough from both the Northern and Southern Areas to remain uncontaminated by transported sludge.
Sludge dumping would release floatables (oil, grease, and artifacts) in the vicinity of the dump site, but
none of this material would be expected to reach the beaches of Long Island or New Jersey, even under the
most extreme weather conditions.
166
-------
CHAPTER IX
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES
OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The proposed action would allow the timely implementation of land-based sludge disposal methods in
the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. At the same time, it would protect public health and preclude
degradation of present water quality along the shores of Long Island and New Jersey. On the other hand, the
proposed action would adversely affect the relatively clean waters at the alternate dump site; effects on
benthos would be particularly severe. After termination of sludge dumping, the alternate dump site could be
expected to recover to former levels of productivity and species diversity, although the extent of recovery
and the time required for it would largely depend on the duration of dumping and the volume dumped.
Abandoning the existing dump site in the Bight Apex would not insure immediate or even eventual
recovery of the area because contamination of the waters by dredged material dumping, municipal wastewa-
ter discharges, combined sewer and stormwater runoff, and other discharges to coastal and harbor waters
would continue. The area around the existing dump site would probably remain closed to shellfishing for
many years. Although the existing dump site is seriously polluted, its continued use would neither endanger
public health or welfare nor degrade water quality along the shores of Long Island or New Jersey.
Interim use of an alternate dump site in either the Northern or Southern Area would have both short-
and long-term effects on the marine environment. During a dumping operation, concentrations of dissolved
oxygen in the water column would decrease, although shortly after the dumping ceased, dissolved oxygen
would return to ambient saturation concentrations. Concentrations of dissolved heavy metals in the water
column would be slightly elevated during and for a short time after a dump. A long-term effect of sludge
dumping would be the increased concentrations of heavy metals and organic carbon in bottom sediments,
and possible bioaccumulation of these materials.
For the short term, sludge dumping at a site in the Southern Area could interfere with the potential
development of mineral resources (oil and gas, sand and gravel). On the other hand, gravel deposits at the
existing dump site are already contaminated and may remain unusable for many years after dumping at the
site is terminated.
Certainly for the short term, and possibly for the long term, sludge dumping at a site in the Southern
Area would prohibit the further development of commercially valuable shellfish resources nearby. Whether
short-term or long-term closure of the area to shellfishing were necessary would depend on the duration of
dumping, the volume of sludge dumped, and the consequent effects.
For the short term, use of an alternate dump site in either the Northern or Southern Area would pose
greater hazards to navigation than does use of the existing site because of the greater distances involved. The
greatest potential hazard, however, would be expected in the Southern Area because of its proximity to
offshore oil and gas resources.
167
-------
CHAPTER X
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION
SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
Money would be the major resource irreversibly and irretrievably committed in implementing the pro-
posed action. Sludge transportation costs would increase by 323 to 400 percent in the interim period (1978
through 1981), during which permittees would be required to spend an additional $141 million to $190
million to use an alternate dump site in either the Northern or Southern Area; these are costs over and above
the total amount ($63 million) needed for continued use of the existing site. Expansion of the existing sludge
transportation fleet (Table 7) would also be necessary for implementation of the proposed action.
The only other irreversible and irretrievable resource commitment is that of the sludge itself. Sludge
dumped into the ocean during the interim period will be lost for other, more beneficial uses, such as for land
application or for use as fuel. Such use of sludge, however, will not be possible for several years at least;
storing the material in the interim is not feasible and might be hazardous to the public health.
Use of an alternate dump site in either the Northern or Southern Area would not result in irreversible
damage to the area or to the associated marine resources. Sludge dumping would cause short-term impair-
ment of marine productivity at and near the dump site, but eventual recovery to previous levels of productiv-
ity could be expected after termination of sludge dumping.
168
-------
CHAPTER XI
DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS
RAISED BY ALL REVIEWERS
The draft EIS was issued on February 27, 1976. Public hearings were scheduled in New York and New
Jersey as follows:
— New York City, March 24 and 25, 1976, at the Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza,
— Toms River, New Jersey, March 29, 1976, at Ocean County College,
— Mineola, Long Island, New York, April 1, 1976, at the Nassau County Executive Building.
The public was encouraged to participate in the hearings or to submit written comments. A list of all
those who did participate can be found at the end of this chapter.
As the list shows, there was substantial public response to the draft EIS. During preparation of this final
EIS, it became apparent that to answer each comment individually would be repetitive since many reviewers
shared the same concerns. The most appropriate way of handling the comments received was to identify the
major areas of concern and then to synthesize one or more representative comments on each subject. In this
way, all salient points on a particular subject could be brought together, and EPA's response could address
them as a whole.
In defining the major areas of concern, only significant negative comments were considered; minor or
obvious errors pointed out by reviewers were corrected without acknowledgement. Thirteen major areas of
concern were identified, and a fourteenth category was created for miscellaneous questions. Table 33
matches the areas of concern with those who commented on them. Copies of all of the written comments
received on the draft EIS can be found in Appendix K.
The EPA sincerely thanks all those who commented on the draft EIS, especially those who submitted
detailed criticisms that reflected a thorough analysis of the EIS.
169
-------
TABLE 33
MAJOR AREAS OF CONCERN IN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS
Conclusions & Recommendations
Monitoring & Surveillance
Phase-Out Planning
Public Health, Water Quality
Recreational Impacts
Economic Impacts
Ecosystem Impacts
Sludge Dumping
Alternate Dump Sites
Heavy Metals & Other Toxicants
Land-Based Alternatives
Dredged Material Disposal
Scope of Study
Public Participation
Legal Constraints
Miscellaneous Questions
Bennett, D. W.
American Littoral Society
X
X
X
X
Boghard, William
Commissioner of Environmental
Facilities, Westchester Co.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Calabrese, Josephine
X
X
Caso, Ralph G.
County of Nassau
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Denato, Michelle
Environmental Society
CUNY Law School
X
X
X
X
Flatow, Eugenia
Parks Council
Citizens' Advisory Board 208
Planning
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Goodman, Charles
Long Beach Township
X
X
X
X
X
Greenfield, Charles
Carver-Greenfield Corp.
X
X
Harris, William
CUNY Geology Department
X
X
X
X
Heenan, Jack
Marine Environment Council
of Long Island
X
Hughes, William )., Rep.
20th Cong. Dist., New Jersey
X
X
X
X
Islip, Town of
Dept. of Environmental Control
(Andres)
X
X
X
Kamlet, Kenneth S.
National Wildlife Federation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
Conclusions & Recommendations
Monitoring & Surveillance
Phase-Out Planning
Public Health, Water Quality
Recreational Impacts
Economic Impacts
Ecosystem Impacts
Sludge Dumping
Alternate Dump Sites
Heavy Metals & Other Toxicants
Land-Based Alternatives
Dredged Material Disposal
Scope of Study
Public Participation
Legal Constraints
Miscellaneous Questions
Kramer, Morris H.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
a.
Q>
•o
C
2
X
X
X
X
X
=
3
(J
"(5
Lapiner, Arnold
Marine Environmen
of Long Island
X
X
X
X
~
n
V
Larga, Fred
Village of Atlantic B
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lawrence, Village of
Office of The Mayoj
X
< "f
Lubetkin, Seymour
Passaic Valley Sewer
Commissioners
X
X
X
3
c
V
a
c
LU
Machlin, Albert
N.Y. State Dept. of
Conservation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Marshall, Shelby
Friends of the Earth
X
X
•o
M
O
CD
c
Monmouth County
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
3
*
Moskowitz, Paul
Environmental Defe
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
s
o
Nassau, County of
Office of The Execu
X
X
X
nt
V
•a
National Wildlife Fe
(Kamlet)
X
c
o
u
3
New Jersey, State o
Dept. of Environme
(Schmidt)
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
Conclusions & Recommendations
Monitoring & Surveillance
Phase-Out Planning
Public Health, Water Quality
Recreational Impacts
Economic Impacts
Ecosystem Impacts
Sludge Dumping
Alternate Dump Sites
Heavy Metals & Other Toxicants
Land-Based Alternatives
Dredged Material Disposal
Scope of Study
Public Participation
Legal Constraints
Miscellaneous Questions
New York City Section 208
Citizens Advisory Committee
(Szeligowski)
X
X
X
i,
X
X
New York, State of
Depart, of Environmental Conservation
(Curran)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
New York, State of, Dept. of Law
(Berger)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nuzzi, Robert
County of Suffolk
Dept. of Environmental Control
X
X
X
i
Paulson, Glenn
N.J. State Dept. of
Environmental Protection
X
X
X
X
X
Pike, Charles M.
County of Ocean
X
X
X
X
Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey
(Alcott)
X
Richmond, Frederick W., Rep.
14th Cong. Dist., New York
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rochester Committee for
Scientific Information
(Berg)
X
X
Roffer, Mitchell A.
Marine Science Students Assoc.
Long Island University
X
X
X
X
Roney, James R.
Franklin Institute
X
X
Salzman, Lorna
Friends of the Earth
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
Conclusions & Recommendations
Monitoring & Surveillance
Phase-Out Planning
Public Health, Water Quality
Recreational Impacts
Economic Impacts
/
Ecosystem Impacts
Sludge Dumping
Alternate Dump Sites
Heavy Metals & Other Toxicants
Land-Based Alternatives
Dredged Material Disposal
Scope of Study
Public Participation
Legal Constraints
Miscellaneous Questions
Samowitz, Charles
New York City EPA
X
X
X
'o
£
BO
3
O
0
CO
•f "^
ffi 8
rc n
X=L
X
X
X
rSea Bright Conservation Committee
(Hanley)
X
X
X
X
Seid, Sol
Middlesex County Sewerage Auth.
X
X
X
X
Shaviro, Sol
Greening of The Bronx
X
Sheehan, Martin
Staten Island Advance
X
Smith, Bernard C., State Senator
2nd Senatorial Dist., New York
X
X
X
X
Stevenson, Mr. & Mrs. Richard C.
X
X
X
Swanson,' R. Lawrence
New York Bight Project
NOAA-MESA
X
X
Thomas, Ariel A.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
X
X
X
X
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
(Hilliard)
U.S. Dept. of Commerce
Asst. Sec. for Science and
Technology (Caller)
X
X
X
X
U.S. Dept. of Health
Education and Welfare, Region II
(Stringham)
X
X
X
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development
Newark Area Office (Johnson)
X
-------
TABLE 33 (Continued)
Conclusions & Recommendations
Monitoring* Surveillance
Phase-Out Planning
Public Health, Water Quality
Recreational Impacts
Economic Impacts
Ecosystem Impacts
Sludge Dumping
Alternate Dump Sites
Heavy Metals & Other Toxicants
Land-Based Alternatives
Dredged Material Disposal
Scope of Study
Public Participation
Legal Constraints
Miscellaneous Questions
£
fc IM
u o
S. S ~
Q 5 '§
> i
O Z -u.
X
0
c
¥ ='
e-I
o£
U.S. Dept.
Northeast
(Babb)
X
X
c
r^
O
C
fO TD
1— (TJ
' 3
0 0
Q. 03 Jrr
S3 |
t/i i/i "5
Z> D *C
X
o
2 2
(t '
~n 0.
s"
is
o ••=
U.S. Envir
Agency, O
Control
(Biglane)
X
X
X
C k.
.2 °
2 a
o —
<£ f.
onmental
ater Brao(
; s
= >;
UJ u
"i 1
13 <
X
X
c
o
S
o
U
T3
C
0 JJ
i f
Walnot, |e
Long Beac
Society
X
X
c
0
!fl
O
T3
0>
Li.
ution Con
o
O-
5 "J?
13
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
Q.
(£. u
. "Z.
2 J
— 00
II
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Conclusions and Recommendations
Comment 1. Both EPA and NOAA should reevaluate their data and analyses in order to resolve their
conflicting recommendations regarding the choice of an alternate dump site.
Response 1. The EPA-Region II office worked closely with NOAA throughout the preparation of this
EIS. The fact that EPA preferred the Northern Area while NOAA preferred the Southern Area is basically a
reflection of the different responsibilities of the two agencies: NOAA is primarily a research agency while
EPA is primarily a regulatory agency.
Before making its recommendation, NOAA evaluated the suitability of the Northern and Southern
Areas. The scope of this evaluation was limited in the following respects:
1. Recommendations were based solely on findings within NOAA's area of expertise, that is, the
scientific evaluation of the. marine environment and the projected impact of disposing of sewage
sludge in that environment;
2. Economic and technological problems associated with changing the dump site were not consid-
ered; and
3. A detailed evaluation of conflicting resource utilization was not made, although potential con-
flicts, when known, were identified.
In contrast, EPA's evaluation included an assessment of resource utilization and economic and techno-
logical factors. In addition, EPA's evaluation of the fate of dumped sewage sludge was applied to specific
sites within the proposed areas, while NOAA's evaluation was a generic comparison of the entire Northern
Area and the entire Southern Area. The criteria used by NOAA to select the boundaries of both the Northern
and Southern Areas included criteria to minimize the possibility of contaminating the Hudson Shelf Valley.
The 18.5 km (10.0 n mi) separation distance of the inner boundaries of both areas from the Hudson Shelf
Valley reflects this concern. The alternate site in the Northern Area proposed by EPA is 45 km (24 n mi)
from the Hudson Shelf Valley.
In February 1976, NOAA-MESA issued a report in which it recommended designation of an alternate
dump site in the Southern Area, centered on latitude 39°40'N and longitude 73°18'W, with an area of no
more than 41 sq km (12 sq n mi):
Reasons for recommending this location include projected environmental effects, development of an
effective monitoring program, and, to a lesser degree, the method and economy of the sewage sludge
disposal operations. This site minimizes the possibility of material being dispersed toward and into, as
well as concentrated in. the Hudson Shelf Valley, [emphasis added]
The EPA recommends designation of an alternate site in the Northern Area for three reasons. First, the
site is far enough from the Hudson Shelf Valley to insure that sludge solids will not accumulate there. Sec-
ond, the Northern Area does not have as great an existing commercial shellfishery resource as does the
Southern Area. Third, the Southern Area contains or is adjacent to identified mineral resources (oil and gas,
sand and gravel).
One of the most valuable resources in the New York Bight is the Hudson Shelf Valley, mainly because
it is a breeding zone .for many aquatic life forms. As discussed in Chapter VI, the maximum distance that
sludge can be expected to travel after being dumped is about 15 km (8 n mi). The recommended site in the
Northern Area is approximately 45 km (24 n mi) from the Hudson Shelf Valley; contamination of the valley
as a result of sludge dumping at this site is highly improbable.
175
-------
While the existing and potential fishery resources, especially shellfisheries, are probably about the same
in both the Northern and Southern Areas, there is currently more commercial fishing in and near the South-
ern Area (see Chapters V and VII). This trend is expected to continue at least until sludge dumping is phased
out. Since sludge dumping at an alternate site would probably restrict commercial shellfishing in and near
that site, use of a site in the Southern Area would have a greater economic impact than use of a site in the
Northern Area. Impacts on shellfish are of greater concern than those on fish because shellfish are essentially
non-motile.
Use of a site in the Southern Area could also interfere with the potential development of identified
mineral resources there. As shown in Figure 6, mineral resources (sand and gravel, oil and gas) appear to be
greater in and near the Southern Area than in and near the Northern Area. Besides conflicting with resource
development, sludge dumping in the Southern Area could compound the potential environmental impacts of
such development. The economic impact of sludge dumping on mineral resource development is expected
to be somewhat less than that on commercial fishing.
It must be emphasized that use of an alternate site in either the Northern or Southern Area would occur
only if and when the existing dump site were abandoned. Both NOAA and EPA, as well as several other
federal, state, and local agencies, recommend continued use of the existing dump site (see the discussion of
the 1976 fish kill and beach closure incidents in Chapter II).
Comment 2. Data and analyses presented in the draft EIS do not support the stated conclusions and
recommendations. The EPA's reversal of its earlier position regarding relocation of the dump site is counter-
productive and deplorable.
Response 2. The EPA disagrees that the data and analyses presented in the EIS do not support the
stated conclusions and recommendations. The EIS represents a major effort by EPA to bring together all of
the pertinent information available on the ocean dumping of sewage sludge in the New York Bight. The
reversal of EPA's earlier position regarding relocation of the dump site was dictated by the facts presented in
the EIS. With the exception of Mayor Lager of Atlantic Beach, Long Island, all government officials expressed
concurrence with the conclusions and recommendations stated in the draft EIS.
Comment 3. Unless the alternate dump sites have a 100 percent chance of recovery, their use should
be considered an "irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources".
Response 3. Available evidence does not indicate that sludge dumping permanently contaminates an
ocean dump site for all marine and other uses. For example, should dumping at an existing site be discontin-
ued, the marine environment might require a long time to recover to former levels of biological productivity,
but mineral resources, especially oil and gas, would be immediately available for commercial development.
The time required for biological recovery and the extent of recovery are less predictable because they de-
pend on so many factors, including the type and amount of material that has been dumped at the site, the
number of years that the site has been in use, and other sources of pollution in the area. Although no
situation is completely analogous, the old Philadelphia sewage sludge dump site off Delaware Bay was re-
opened by FDA to shellfishing within two years after dumping ceased.
Comment 4. Even though the Northern Area is not extensively used for fishing and no mineral re-
source development is planned there, the area is still potentially valuable.
Response 4. The Northern Area, indeed the entire New York Bight, is potentially valuable for future
resource development. However, indications are that the Southern Area has the highest present use and the
greatest potential value for resource development within the timeframe that ocean dumping can be expected
to continue (until December 31, 1981).
Comment 5. How can EPA reach a decision on an alternate site without quantifying impacts?
176
-------
Response 5. Where possible, the potential impacts have been quantified: sludge transportation costs
and shellfish populations for example. Some impacts, however, can be only qualitatively expressed because
of minimal data or uncertainty about the cause and effect relationship.
Comment 6. Figure 40 indicates that bottom areas of the Hudson Shelf Valley are being affected by
sewage sludge dumping at the existing site. This would tend to support the proposal for moving the site.
Response 6. Pollutants from a variety of sources in the Bight Apex, including sludge and dredged
material dumping, have apparently contaminated the upper portion of the Hudson Shelf Valley. The relative
contribution of sewage sludge to this contamination is unknown. However, the degree of overall contamina-
tion within the Apex area was one of the many factors considered in making the recommendations of this
EIS.
Comment 7. The section on physical oceanography from the NOAA-MESA February 1976 report,
contained in Appendix C of the draft EIS [now Appendix G], indicates that there is a distinct up-valley flow
in the Hudson Shelf Valley which, in combination with the predominant southwesterly flow in midshelf
waters, would increase the potential for shoreward transport of any sludge dumped in the Northern Area.
But in Chapter XI of the draft EIS [now Chapter XII, Conclusions and Recommendations], the Northern Area
is described as an optimum location with very low potential for transport of contaminants to coastal areas or
the Hudson Shelf Valley. This apparent discrepancy should be explained.
Response 7. The recommendations in the draft EIS refer to a specific site in the Northern Area, while
the NOAA-MESA discussions refer in broad terms to the entire Northern Area. The EPA recommendations
are based on the analysis of the expected fate of sludge material, as discussed in Chapter VI, and on the
physical oceanography data collected by NOAA-MESA and Raytheon. The EPA recommendations also in-
corporate the limited available data on circulation patterns in the Hudson Shelf Valley.
Monitoring and Surveillance Program
Comment 1. The proposed expanded monitoring program and review process should be described in
detail to provide reasonable assurance that such a program will be able to detect possible adverse sludge
movement or water-quality deterioration in time to protect the environment. The monitoring program must
be a well defined, comprehensive, coordinated program involving EPA, NOAA, NASA, the USCG, and local
health departments, rather than the present loose arrangement, which does not clearly define responsibilities.
Response 1. As noted in the recommendations of this EIS, continued use of the existing sewage sludge
dump site demands that an effective monitoring program and review process be established to protect public
health and welfare and to prevent coastal water-quality degradation. If such a program could not be estab-
lished, EPA would require immediate abandonment of the existing dump site and use of an alternate site.
Under the MPRSA, NOAA has the overall responsibility for conducting "a comprehensive and continu-
ing program of monitoring and research regarding the effects of dumping of material into ocean waters." In
meeting this congressional mandate,'NOAA has established the Marine Ecosystems Analysis (MESA) - New
York Bight Project with offices in Stony Brook, Long Island. As indicated in the EIS, NOAA-MESA has been
active since 1973 in collecting significant oceanographic data in the Bight. This commitment continues with
seven comprehensive monitoring cruises in the Bight completed between February and October 1977. These
NOAA-MESA cruises, together with five research cruises conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service
of NOAA, have provided the oceanographic data needed for the expanded program.
The USCG, in its surveillance role, continues to conduct a regular schedule of multi-mission aircraft and
vessel patrols in the Bight, and continues to maintain a responsive posture, on an operations-permitting basis,
to requests for logistical assistance by other federal agencies. In addition, testing of the Ocean Dumping
177
-------
Surveillance System (ODSS) is scheduled for mid-1978. Implementation of this system in late 1978 is ex-
pected to increase the quality of present USCC surveillance and to reduce manpower expenditures. The
USCG, which is normally the first federal agency cognizant of a pollution-related crisis, has established effec-
tive lines of communication with critical federal and state agencies on a 24-hour basis.
In addition, NASA continues to provide technical support appropriate to its research and development
mission. In cooperation with NOAA and EPA, NASA is investigating the use of remote-sensing technology for
surveillance activities. Finally, NASA can be called upon to provide existing satellite and aircraft capabilities
as needed.
The EPA, which under the MPRSA administers and enforces the overall ocean dumping program, has
taken the responsibility for coordinating the expanded monitoring program. Region II continues to be con-
cerned with the adverse impacts of ocean dumping on the marine environment and with the potential health
hazards associated with contact recreation along the beaches of Long Island and New Jersey. In 1973,
Region II initiated a sampling program to provide "real time" data on the chemical and bacterial quality of
water and bottom sediments in the Bight Apex and along the beaches. This monitoring program remains the
principal source of timely data for immediate use by EPA in its decision-making role. Other data inputs from
NOAA, state, county, and local agencies, while valuable contributions in the long term, are normally unavail-
able for immediate use in crisis situations.
During the spring of 1977, this monitoring program was greatly expanded both in the frequency of
sampling and in the number of stations sampled. A total of 130 sampling points up to 22 km (12 n mi)
offshore, both at the surface and near the bottom, are sampled by helicopter or boat at least once a week for
a combination of eight water-quality parameters. Tests include dissolved oxygen, nutrients, suspended solids,
organics, temperature, salinity, and bacterial counts. Forty-five stations along the Long Island and New Jersey
shores, frequented by bathers, are sampled for bacteria three times a week during the summer months. In
addition, data collected by municipal dumpers as part of an EPA-imposed monitoring program (see Special
Condition No. 6, Appendix A) are reported daily to EPA. Reports on any significant aberration in oceano-
graphic data are submitted by NOAA at the end of each cruise for EPA's evaluation as well. Thus, the
availability of water-quality data has been greatly improved, and the visual observation of the waters for
floatables, slicks, and other pollutants, using EPA and USCG helicopter overflights has been expanded.
Recognizing the need for formal review of technical data collected by a number of federal, state, and
local agencies, Region II has established a "command post" at its office in Edison, New Jersey, to receive
reports from data-gathering agencies, to receive pollution reports on toll free "hot lines", and to initiate
clean-up or corrective measures. The command post issues weekly reports on beach conditions, plus special
bulletins as required. Region II also chairs an interagency technical review panel, including representatives of
NOAA, the USCG, and the states of New York and New Jersey. Other agencies participate in the review
panel on a case-by-case basis.
Comment 2. The USCG's positive recording system, which verifies that dumping vessels reach the
dump site, has no dump sensor. The EPA should encourage the development of such a sensor and should
require its use on all dumping vessels.
Response 2. The EPA agrees that a dump sensor should be developed to record the time, rate, and
volume of the dumping of sewage sludge, or for that matter of any other material dumped. The feasibility of
dump door sensors, which would record the activation of dumping mechanisms, is being investigated by the
USCG. The sensor would be used in conjunction with the electronic ODSS, which is expected to be imple-
mented in late 1978. The EPA has, at the request of the USCG, placed a condition in all ocean dumping
permits, requiring the installation and use of the system upon notification by the USCG (see General Condi-
tion No. 17, Appendix A).
178
-------
Phase-Out Planning
Comment 1. The EIS should candidly address the question of whether ocean dumping of sewage
sludge will, in fact, be phased out in 1981. Concrete steps for implementing the phase-out program, includ-
ing firm schedules instead of "intentions" or "goals", are needed and should be detailed in the EIS.
Response 1. The Interim Permits issued to sewage sludge dumpers in August 1976 require the selection
and implementation of alternate sludge disposal methods on or before December 31, 1981 (Appendix A).
The ocean dumping regulations published by EPA-Headquarters on January 11, 1977, provide that no new
permit may be issued to present holders of Interim Permits unless "best efforts" are being made to phase out
ocean dumping of sewage sludge on or before December 31, 1981 (Appendix B). Finally, the MPRSA was
amended on November 4, 1977 to make the December 31, 1981 deadline, which had been a matter of EPA
policy, a legal requirement as well.
Comment 2. The EIS seems to suggest that the phase out of sludge dumping may not be feasible before
1985. The effects of failing to meet the 1981 deadline should be detailed, and contingency plans should be
discussed.
Response 2. Even though there is substantial federal funding available for implementing land-based
sludge disposal, a certain degree of skepticism persists about whether the 1981 phase out date can be met.
The EPA's position is that the legislatively mandated deadline can be met, but only with'the cooperation and
sincere efforts of all of the parties involved.
As discussed in Chapter III, the major land-based alternatives are land application (probably with com-
posting) and heat treatment (pyrolysis). In its Phase 1 report, ISC seemed unconvinced that these alternatives
could be implemented by 1981. The Phase 1 report implies that 1985 would be the earliest possible date for
the completion of pyrolysis facilities:
It is estimated that it will take about one year to make the necessary small scale plant studies.
After that a full-scale demonstration plant appears to be indicated, and its design, construction, and
operation will take another 2-3 years. After about 4 years the design of actual processing facilities could
be started, and they can be placed in operation in about 8-10 years after the initial studies are begun.
(ISC, 1975)
According to the Phase 1 report, most of the sludge in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area would
be handled by these pyrolysis facilities.
However, in its Phase 2 report (ISC, 1976a) and in another recent study (ISC, 1976b), ISC has modified
its original time estimates, indicating that pyrolysis facilities can be completed by 1981, if necessary:
Pyrolysis (thermal destruction in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere) of sludge has been studied only in
pilot-scale tests. Larger-scale pyrolysis demonstrations have utilized solid wastes. The phase 1 study
indicated that multiple-hearth furnaces could be built by 1981, initially operated in the incineration mode,
and then converted to pyrolysis units as the technology developed. Further review during this study has
shown that such furnaces could be designed and constructed as pyrolysis units during the same time
frame. Therefore, incineration has been dropped from consideration. (ISC 1976a).
At this time, it appears that the 1981 phase-out date can and will be met.
Public Health and Water Quality
Comment 1. The draft EIS fails to consider the public health effects of the ocean dumping of sewage
179
-------
sludge containing antibiotic-resistant microorganisms; it also fails to discuss the incubative effects on these
microorganisms of oil from spills or blowouts in the New York Bight.
Response 1. Information on antibiotic-resistant microorganisms is presented in Chapter V. The pres-
ence of these microorganisms in the area of the Christiaensen Basin is of concern, and further evaluation of
the distribution of such components is warranted. The unresolved question regarding the potential danger of
such R-factor pathogens is whether, in fact, they are capable of being transmitted from one bacterium to
another through normal bacterial reproduction.
It has been suggested that the oil medium would tend to preserve and enhance these pathogens. How-
ever, to date, analysis of grease/tar ball samples from the coastal sector has shown no evidence of patho-
gens (Salmonella) (see the section on the fish kill and beach closure incidents in Chapter II.
The potential for combined effects from oil and sludge was considered in choosing an alternate dump
site. The Northern Area is less likely to present such problems than is the Southern Area, which is nearer the
Mid-Atlantic oil and gas lease tracts.
Comment 2. The source of grease/tar balls and other highly visible coastal water pollutants and the
dangers they pose to public health are not addressed in the draft EIS.
Response 2. A thorough discussion of the origin and nature of grease/tar balls and other floatable
contaminants has been included in the final EIS as part of the summary of pollution events that occurred in
the coastal waters of the New York Bight in the summer of 1976 (see the section on the fish kill and beach
closure incidents in Chapter II).
Comment 3. The draft EIS should have discussed the sources and fates of all known pollutants in the
New York Bight and should have described the relationship between sewage sludge and other pollutants.
Response 3. The major pollutant loadings to the New York Bight, including sewage sludge, are quanti-
fied in Table 10. Chapter II has been revised and expanded to provide more information on the pollutants
entering the New York Bight. For more detailed information, however, see Mueller etal. (1976), from which
these data were summarized.
Comment 4. The draft EIS does not adequately discuss the impact of sludge dumping on bathing water
quality nor does it consider land-based disposal alternatives.
Response 4. The effects of sludge dumping in the New York Bight on bathing beaches and bathing
water quality are set forth in Chapter VII.
Land-based disposal alternatives are discussed in some detail in the final EIS. Specific recommendations,
however, are beyond the scope of this report, the object of which is to assess the effects of ocean dumping
of sewage sludge in the New York Bight. Recommendations for land-based disposal alternatives are the joint
responsibility of EPA-Region II and ISC and are handled under the Sludge Management Program instituted for
that purpose in 1974 (see Chapter III).
Comment 5. The analyses leading to the conclusion that contamination of shellfish waters is due to
onshore pollutant sources should be presented.
Response 5. In Chapter V of the final EIS, it is noted that FDA had closed shellfishing in near-shore
waters (out to the 3-mile, or 5.6-km, limit) because of the potential coliform contamination from onshore
sources. Additional information regarding this action is available elsewhere (FDA, 1972).
180
-------
Comment 6. The discussion of bottom currents indicates that there is a Line of Divergence of bottom
drift on the continental shelf at the 60-meter (200-foot) isobath. According to the draft EIS, sludge dumped at
a site in the Southern Area would be subjected to a slow, steady, shoreward movement. It would seem that
sludge dumped at the existing site would be subject to this same steady, shoreward drift since the site is on
the shoreward side of this current divergence.
Response 6. Studies of the existing sewage sludge dump site in the New York Bight and of other sludge
dump sites indicate that a physical accumulation of sludge on the seafloor is not to be expected. Some
contaminated particles are expected to reach the seafloor and be incorporated into the existing surficial
sediments. The subsequent movement of such contaminated sediments in the open ocean and the effects of
such transport on the concentrations of their contaminants is complex and generally unpredictable.
The position of the line of bottom current divergence indicates that sediments of the Southern Area
would have a higher probability of shoreward movement than sediments of the Northern Area. It is expected
that this movement would be at a very slow rate and that contaminant components would be subject to
dilution and degradation as they moved away from the dump area.
The contamination of bottom sediments in the Bight Apex is the product of the multiple pollutant inputs
in this area, including sewage sludge dumped at the existing site. The high proportion of contaminated bot-
tom sediment in the Christiaensen Basin, located shoreward of the existing sludge site, may reflect a shore-
ward movement of sludge contaminants caused by the reported net shoreward drift of bottom waters in this
area (NOAA, 1975). The Christiaensen Basin is a deep area and apparently acts as a trap, retarding further
shoreward movement of contaminated bottom sediments.
Recreational Impacts
Comment 1. The EIS should identify the recreational areas of the New York Bight and the recreational
needs, attendance figures, use patterns, etc. associated with those areas.
Response 1. Swimming, sport fishing, and pleasure boating, the three main recreational activities in the
area of the New York Bight, were discussed in the draft EIS to the extent that they might be affected by
sludge dumping at the existing or at an alternate site (see Chapters II and VII). As stated in the draft EIS, there
has not been nor is there expected to be any substantial, wide-range effect on recreation as a result of sludge
dumping at the existing site. Current restrictions on such activities as shellfishing were necessitated by pollu-
tion from several sources, and most likely could not be lifted even if sludge dumping were not a factor.
Incidents that have disrupted recreational activities in the metropolitan area have been traced primarily to a
combination of natural phenomena and pollution from sources other than sludge dumping (see the section
on the fish kill and beach closure incidents in Chapter II).
Most of the area's recreational activity takes place within a 5-to-20-km (3-to-11-n-mi) band along the
coasts of Long Island and New jersey. If an alternatate dump site in the Northern or Southern Area were
selected, the distance of the dump site from this inshore recreational area would reduce the already slight
potential for adverse effects on recreation to negligibility.
Consequently, further discussion of recreational areas, recreational needs, attendance figures, use pat-
terns, and so on is considered unwarranted within the context of this EIS. Statistics and other detailed infor-
mation on recreation can be found in the references cited in the EIS. Specific information on the Gateway
National Recreation Area, which is the most significant, recent recreational development in the metropolitan
area, can be obtained from the National Park Service, Gateway National Recreation Area, Headquarters
Building No. 69, Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York 11234.
Comment 2. The effects of sludge dumping at either the existing site or an alternate site on recreational
activities, such as swimming and sport fishing, and on the recreation industry should be detailed.
181
-------
Response 2. As explained in the response to the previous comment, sludge dumping at the existing site.
has a minimal effect on recreational activities, and sludge dumping at an alternate site in the Northern or
Southern Area would have even less of an effect. The same, of course, is true about effects on the recreation
industry.
Comment 3. The beach attendance figures given in Table 16 of the draft EIS do not include the Staten
Island and Long Island sections of the Gateway National Recreation Area or Jacob Riis Park.
Response 3. Beach attendance figures for Jones Beach State Park and for the Staten Island and Breezy
Point (formerly Jacob Riis State Park) sections of the Gateway National Recreation Area in Brooklyn have
been included in the final EIS. Municipal beach attendance figures were not tabulated because of the general
unavailability'or unreliability of such figures.
Economic Impacts
Comment 1. The economic impact of barging sludge to either the Northern or the Southern Area or to
a site off the continental shelf is not adequately considered in the draft EIS. Barging costs should be corrected
to reflect the true, total costs (including inspections, additional fuel requirements, operating salaries, supple-
mentary barging, loss of commercial fisheries, etc.).
Response 1. The text of the EIS has been updated to reflect current estimates of sludge hauling costs.
The analysis used to determine hauling costs considered the total operational costs, including labor costs,
maintenance, and repair, according to vessel type and ownership.
Comment 2. The costs of sludge composting developed by the ISC Phase 1 report are unrealistic. The
figures should be double checked.
Response 2. The text of the EIS has been updated, using cost estimates from ISC's latest reports
(1976a, 1976b). Many permittees are now developing their own cost estimates in compliance with the
implementation schedules specified in their permits (see Special Condition No. 7, Appendix A).
Comment 3. Economic justification of land-based alternatives vis-a-vis ocean dumping should be*in-
cluded in the EIS.
Response 3. Table 31 compares the cost of ocean dumping at the existing site with the costs of land-
based alternatives. Although land-based disposal would be more expensive than ocean dumping at the exist-
ing site, it would be comparable to the cost of ocean dumping at an alternate site in the Northern or South-
ern Area. Use of one of the alternate sites would be 3:2 to 4 times more expensive than use of the existing
site. Thus the cost of ocean dumping would go from $30 per metric ton at the existing site to between $96
and $120 per metric ton at one of the alternate sites. Depending on the alternative selected, land-based
disposal would cost between $70 and $190 per metric ton.
Comment 4. Table 32 of the draft EIS should indicate that the economic impact of selecting the North-
ern Area could include potential conflicts with oil and gas leasing.
Response 4. The present and proposed oil and gas lease areas (neither of which is in or near the
Northern Area) have the highest potential for development prior to 1981 — the time frame considered by
the EIS. Future leasing of oil and gas tracts in the vicinity of the Northern Area is possible but unlikely,
according to available information.
182
-------
Comment 5. The discussion in the draft EIS of sand and gravel resources should be expanded to show
the degree to which the proposed action may curtail the regional availability of these resources. The evalua-
tion should include a general assessment of the probable needs and the known available supplies. If the
general assessment indicated that the proposed action would have a significant impact on resources, an
assessment of the economic effects would be necessary.
Response 5. The sand and gravel deposits in the Southern Area have the potential for development.
Therefore, contamination of these deposits by sludge dumping would result in the loss or degradation of a
potentially developable resource. However, since it is impossible to forecast the economic pressures that
would trigger such development, the EPA can only qualify, not quantify, the effect of the proposed action on
sand and gravel resources.
Comment 6. The draft EIS analyzes the cost of sludge dumping, but not the benefits.
Response 6. There are no dollar benefits of sludge dumping. The objective is to minimize both costs
and environmental impacts, if possible.
Comment 7. The draft EIS discusses only the domestic side of commercial fishing in the New York
Bight. An accurate picture of the Bight's resource productivity would also include the commercial fishing
done by foreign countries. Likewise, the retail value of foreign and domestic commercial fisheries and asso-
ciated industries should be evaluated.
Response 7. While ocean dumping of sewage sludge could adversely impact the commercial catches
of all nations fishing in the New York Bight, the concern of this EIS is with the United States' share of the
catch, especially that landed in the metropolitan area. In addition, commercial catches of foreign nations are
expected to be substantially lower due to the enactment of a 200-mile (322-km) fishing limit by the United
States.
Comment 8. The increased costs of relocating the dump site farther offshore are largely attributable to
energy consumption for the longer distance.
Response 8. True, and this factor is included, along with labor, maintenance, and amortization, in the
per-unit hauling cost for each type of vessel.
Comment 9. If the sludge volume increases as projected and the dump site is moved, additional ves-
sels will be required to handle the increased volume.
Response 9. As shown in Table 29, the existing fleet has the capacity to transport the volumes of
sludge projected for 1981 to the existing dump site. However, additional vessels would be needed to trans-
port sludge to an alternate site in the Northern or Southern Area, assuming that the projected volume of 9.9
million cu m (13.0 million cu yd) is realized.
Comment 10. In Chapter IX of the draft EIS (Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's
Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity), it is implied that more trips
will be required to an alternate dump site and that this will result in greater navigation hazards.
Response 10. The implication that more trips would be required as a consequence of relocating the
dump site was unintentional. More trips will be required, but because of the expected increase in sludge
volumes not distance. The use of an alternate site would, however, compound the problem by extending the
time during which sludge vessels would be on the open ocean and thus exposed to the hazards of vessel
traffic and stationary structures.
183
-------
Comment 11. The one-way and round-trip distances given in Table 29 of the draft EIS are confusing.
Response 11. The round trip distance includes an average 92 km (50 n mi) of travel within New York
harbor and waterways before the vessel passes through the Sandy Hoqk-Rockaway Point transect.
Ecosystem Impacts
Comment 1. The cumulative environmental effects of all present and projected developments in the
New York Bight — including sludge dumping, oil exploration and drilling, sand and gravel recovery, dredged
material disposal, and construction and operation of offshore superports and other large structures — should
have been addressed and evaluated in the draft EIS.
Response 1. Proposed developments in the New York Bight were discussed in the draft EIS insofar as
they related to the proposed action and insofar as reliable information on them could be obtained. The
discussion was somewhat limited in the case of proposals that were in doubt (such as offshore islands), or
that were unlikely to be contemporaneous with the proposed action (such as deepwater ports) or that could
not be adequately forecast (such as recovery of sand and gravel resources, which would depend on unpre-
dictable market forces).
An accurate, comprehensive assessment of these potential developments cannot be made with the
sketchy information available. Moreover, the subject of this EIS is sludge dumping, an action which is to be
phased out by the end of 1981; most of the potential developments, on the other hand, are long-range
proposals that will take many years to develop. A discussion of the cumulative effects of all of the potential
developments in the New York Bight would thus be highly speculative and inappropriate in this EIS.
A review of the national status of the marine environment is conducted each year by NOAA (No-
vember 1977). Assessment of the marine ecosystem in the New York Bight as it relates to existing and
proposed projects is the special responsibility of NOAA-MESA.
Comment 2. Ocean currents in the New York Bight should be considered in greater detail.
Response 2. Once again, ocean currents are discussed in the EIS to the extent that they have a bearing
on the proposed action. Recent studies, used in preparing this EIS, that provide detailed information on
ocean currents in the New York Bight are Charnell (1975) and NOAA-MESA (February 1976).
Comment 3. Sludge dumping's impact on the red crab and lobster populations of the Hudson Shelf
Valley should be more fully discussed in view of the heavy metals and organic materials contamination
shown in Figure 41.
. Response 3. The Hudson Shelf Valley is considered an important breeding ground for shellfish and for
other fish species found in the New York Bight; however, the precise distribution of red crab and lobster
there is unknown (NOAA-MESA, February 1976). Such information as is available is reported in Chapter V.
Besides the lack of information on species distribution, there is the fact that the heavy metals and organic
materials contamination shown in Figure 41 is attributable not only to sewage sludge but also to several other
sources, principally dredged material (Mueller et at., 1976). Given the available information, all that can be
said is that crustaceans in the area of the dump site would be adversely affected, but that their ability to
move out of the area would at least mitigate the overall effects.
Comment 4. Sea scallops should be included in the discussion of potential adverse effects on fisheries
resources. Long-term use of the proposed area would substantially increase the area of degradation, thus
potentially increasing any associated adverse effect.
184
-------
Response 4. Sea scallops are included in the discussion of impacts on non-motile shellfish (along with.
surf clams and ocean quahogs). The effects on each of these species are expected to be about the same. A
more specific analysis is not possible because available data are insufficient to quantify real differences in
effects according to species, and because the distribution of sea scallops has not been adequately docu-
mented to date.
Comment 5. The draft EIS ignores benthic, plankton, and other biological and chemical data on the
study area that were gathered by Raytheon and NOAA to assess the proposed action.
Response 5. As stated in Chapter V, both the NOAA and Raytheon studies were thoroughly evaluated
in preparing the EIS. Specific biological information was left out of the assessment only when it was consid-
ered irrelevant or unreliable.
Comment 6. Sewage sludge accumulating in the Bight Apex is the cause of both skeletal diseases in
crustaceans and fin rot in fish.
Response 6. Sewage sludge dumping does contribute to diseases in fish and crustaceans. However, the
conclusion that sludge dumping is the direct or sole cause of fin rot is not substantiated by the literature, as
pointed out in the EIS. Fin rot occurs in species found in areas where sewage sludge dumping does not
occur.
Comment 7. The draft EIS describes only organisms living in the sea and completely overlooks the
numerous marine birds living on and above the sea surface in the area.
Response 7. A discussion of birds was not applicable to the problem at hand, nor was there any
ascertainable geographic difference in bird distribution that might have contributed to the site selection
process.
Comment 8. The evaluation of shellfish impacts in Table 32 of the draft EIS should include sea scal-
Jops.
Response 8. Sea scallops were not included in Table 32 because the available data were insufficient to
estimate the species' population in the alternate areas. All that can be said with certainty is that sea scallops
are present in both areas, which is simply not enough information with which to evaluate the effects of
sludge dumping on sea scallops.
Comment 9. Sea scallops are abundant in the alternate areas and should be included in the discussion
of fisheries resources in Chapter V.
Response 9. Figure 24, Sea Scallop Distribution in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (1975), shows that sea scal-
lops are distributed throughout the Mid-Atlantic Bight, and the text of the final EIS states that they are present
in both the Northern and Southern Areas. However, their relative abundance is unknown because, although
sampling was done in the area, the equipment used was inappropriate for quantifying sea scallop populations
(NOAA-NMFS, 1975b).
Comment 10. Some research indicates that not all organisms are capable of digging out when buried.
Surf clams, especially, seem to lack this ability.
Response 10. That statement was included only to generally characterize sand fauna vs. the other
faunal assemblages. The ability of surf clams to dig themselves out if they are buried is not crucial in the
185
-------
context of sludge dumping because sludge, unlike dredged material, is not expected to substantially accumu-
late on the ocean floor at or near the dump site.
Sludge Dumping
Comment 1. The movement of sludge in the water column and bottom sediments should be treated in
greater detail.
Response 1. The final EIS reflects the present state of knowledge with regard to the movement of
sludge in the water column and in the bottom sediments, especially as it would apply to the alternate areas
(Table 27). A continuing study of the processes of sludge movement is being conducted at the existing site.
Data collected so far are discussed in detail in recent NOAA publications (Charnell, 1975; NOAA-MESA,
February 1976); these data were used in preparing this EIS.
Comment 2. The EIS should discuss the feasibility and impact of reducing the rates of sludge discharge
at the existing dump site in order to promote greater dispersion.
Response 2. The EPA considered making a reduction in the discharge rate a special condition of the
ocean dumping permits issued in August 1976. But the proposal was dropped when the USCC objected that
reducing the rate would increase the discharge time, thereby increasing the potential for vessel collisions.
Comment 3. The use of clean dredged sediment to coat the bottom in the vicinity of the existing dump
site should be considered as a means of stabilizing the sludge and minimizing its impact.
Response 3. The EPA agrees that such a possibility should be considered as part of the phase-out of
the existing site. It would have to be determined at that time whether such an operation were feasible and
whether it would significantly enhance recovery of the benthic ecosystem at the existing dump site. Possible
adverse impacts would also have to be evaluated; NOAA studies of the existing site indicate that there is no
physical accumulation of sludge materials on the bottom and that coating it would, at the least, tend to
smother the remaining benthos there.
Comment 4. The statement in the draft EIS that most of the sludge is retained in the upper layer of the
ocean is contradicted by the NOAA report.
Response 4. That statement in the EIS is based on actual field measurements and sampling at the dump
site by Callaway ef a/. (1975). The statement in the NOAA report (February 1976) was based solely on visual
observation of sludge dumping from onboard'ship. As discussed in Chapter VI, sludge dispersion depends on
the water column conditions at the time of the dumping and on the characteristics of the sludge itself. During
the summer, when a thermocline exists, there is a greater probability of the sludge remaining in the upper
water layers than there is during the winter, when the waters are more homogeneous. However, relatively
little sludge is expected to accumulate on the bottom even under winter conditions because the currents and
the composition of the sludge load are such that only the small fraction of heavier sludge particles will reach
bottom.
Comment 5. More information, especially on suspension, flocculation, and sedimentation, should be
presented to support the stated conclusions about the ultimate fate of the bulk of the sludge solids.
Response 5. Callaway ef a/. (1975) found that fine sludge particles measured in situ at the existing
dump site tend to flocculate and generally remain suspended in the upper water layer because of low settling
186
-------
velocities. Only the heavier particles reach the bottom. Callaway ef a/, concluded that dumped sludge would
not accumulate "substantially" on the sea floor, especially in the deeper waters.
Comment 6. Poor weather conditions and heavy vessel traffic in the New York Bight should be given
greater consideration in the discussion of navigation hazards.
Response 6. Both weather and vessel traffic were considered in preparing this EIS. Weather, at least, is
expected to be an insignificant factor. Lettau et a/. (1976) collected visibility data for the New York Bight and
shore stations, and reported that the greatest incidence of fog in the Bight occurs in June. (As a point of
perspective, New York City experiences fog conditions more frequently in May than the Bight does in June.)
When unfavorable weather conditions do occur, sludge vessels will not go out unless it is absolutely neces-
sary.
Vessel traffic is a greater potential hazard. The increased volume of sludge will require that more trips
be made to the dump site. Dumping time at the existing site has been limited to roughly five hours per day to
reduce the potential for vessel collisions; this restriction would not apply at an alternate dump site. With the
increased distance and the increased dumping time to promote dispersion, an alternate dump site would
increase the total travel time for each sludge vessel. The longer a vessel is in transit, the greater the potential
for collision with stationary structures or with other vessels. The use of a dump site in the Northern or
Southern Area would minimize this potential for collision because both areas are almost entirely outside
existing navigational lanes.
Alternate Dump Sites
Comment 1. The EIS should consider the additional alternative of moving the present sewage sludge
dump site only a few miles away, just far enough to take it out of the center of the active shipping lanes
where it is now located.
Response 1. Although a detailed analysis has not been conducted, the use of an alternate site in the
Bight Apex would probably result in additional closures of shellfishing areas due to bottom contamination.
The potential for further contamination of the Hudson Shelf Valley would also have to be considered. Inter-
ference of sludge dumping with shipping activities has been minimized by limiting the amount of time that
dumping vessels can remain in the dump area to five hours per day.
Comment 2. Alternate dump sites should be compared on the basis of detailed cost-benefit data,
rather than on the basis of simple semi-quantitative estimates of their relative merits.
Response 2. Where appropriate, detailed analyses of economic impacts were conducted. For the com-
parative evaluation of alternate sites, it was deemed more appropriate to use a weighted rating system be-
cause a number of the evaluation factors, such as public health considerations and impacts on the ecosys-
tem, did not lend themselves to cost-benefit analysis techniques.
Comment 3. Greater consideration should be given to off-the-shelf dumping, especially for those sew-
age sludges and dredged materials that contain very high concentrations of toxic materials, such as heavy
metals. <
Response 3. As stated in the EIS, many marine scientists consider off-the-shelf dumping an undue
environmental risk because of the many unknowns associated with dumping in this environment. Their judg-
ment is supported in a report commissioned by the EPA, from the Ocean Disposal Study Steering Commit-
tee. The report was prepared under the auspices of the Ocean Affairs Board's Ocean Science Committee of
187
-------
the National Research Council's Commission on Natural Resources. It concluded:
Data for the evaluation of the deep sea as a disposal site are inadequate. This is due to: difficulties in
conducting bioassays; slow rates of mixing and diffusion potentially resulting in anaerobic conditions;
slow organic degradation; and narrow tolerance ranges for sensitive assemblages of organisms. Al-
though the area is relatively stable in comparison to the shelf and nearshore, the much greater scientific
uncertainty, and consequently increased risk associated with offshelf disposal, dictate that any but the
most innocuous use of the area should be approached with extreme caution. (NAS, 1976).
A similar finding was made in the EPA-Headquarters decision report on the Toms River hearing. With
specific reference to possible relocation of the Philadelphia dump site, the report concluded:
ii. At the present time, there is insufficient data on which to base an accurate predictive judgment as
to the environmental impact of dumping large volumes of sewage sludge on marine biota and
marine ecosystems at the 106-mile site [the chemical wastes site]. Additionally, I do not believe
that, as a practical matter, an effective monitoring program for the site can be implemented be-
fore January 1, 1981. For these reasons, I conclude that it would be preferable to continue using
a site which is already degraded but capable of recovery rather than risk unknown and potentially
irreversible environmental impacts at a new location. (See Appendix D.)
In addition to being environmentally inadvisable, off-the-shelf dumping poses transportation problems.
While the existing sludge disposal fleet has the capacity to transport present volumes of sludge to an off-the-
shelf site, the 1981 sludge volume is expected to be about one and a half times greater than the 1977
volume, and the fleet would have to be expanded to accommodate the increase. The resulting economic
costs cannot be justified considering: 1) that ocean dumping is to be phased out by the end of 1981; 2) that
off-the-shelf dumping is not recommended; and 3) that other, more environmentally acceptable, alternatives
are available (see Chapter III).
Comment 4. Instead of the 31-sq-km(9-sq-n-mi) site proposed in the Conclusions and Recom-
mendations of the draft EIS, the USCC recommends that the designated alternate site be the approximate
parallelogram whose boundaries coincide with the following Loran-C time delay lines: 9930-Y - 50625 to
50675, and 9930-Z - 70000 to 70100. These Loran-C time delay lines define an area which is approxi-
mately 33.3 km (18 n mi) long by 7.4 km (4 n mi) wide with its four corners located at 40° 16' 15"N, 72°
42' 50"W; 40° 03' 12"N, 72° 27' 35"W; 40° 01' 20"N, 72° 32' 40"W; and 40° 14' 35"N, 72° 47' 55"W.
This enlarged site should be able to accommodate any future growth in sludge dumping and to allow
for greater on-site dispersal. Orientation of the site with the Loran-C time delay line grid will maximize the
navigational capabilities of the dump vessels, allowing them time to maintain adequate track separation re-
quired by environmental and maritime safety considerations.
Response 4. The use of Loran-C navigational lanes as dump site boundaries to promote navigational
efficiency would not present any problems at the proposed alternate site. However, the size of the USCC's
recommended site is too large and its southern portion is too near the Hudson Shelf Valley. Contamination
would be spread over a very large area of the bottom, and monitoring would be difficult. (The alternate site
proposed by EPA is only slightly larger than the existing site.)
Heavy Metals and Other Toxicants
Comment 1. Information on future sources of pollutants is not covered adequately in the draft EIS, nor
is it clear how pollutant loadings in the New York Bight will be affected by improved wastewater treatment
facilities resulting from Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT).
188
-------
Response 1. Two time frames must be considered when evaluating future sources of pollutants to the
New York Bight: short-term and long-term. As previously discussed, ocean dumping of sewage sludge, most
acid wastes, and chemical wastes is to be phased out by December 31, 1981. Other pollutant sources will
continue beyond that date; these include urban runoff, municipal wastewater discharges, and atmospheric
sources. A date for the cessation of dredged material dumping has not been set.
Generally, water quality in the New York Bight is expected to improve as upgraded wastewater treat-
ment systems are instituted. Through the use of secondary treatment, at least 85 percent of the influent
suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand will be removed from municipal wastewaters. All but two
of the New York City treatment plants will be providing secondary treatment by December 1978, according
to current construction schedules. The Red Hook and North River treatment plants are expected to be pro-
viding secondary treatment by 1984 and 1986, respectively.
Treatment of industrial wastewaters presents a more complex problem primarily because of the types of
wastewaters produced. However, EPA recently issued general pretreatment regulations for existing and new
sources of pollution (USEPA, June 26, 1978). These pretreatment regulations will have little effect on ocean
dumping of sewage sludge because they will not be fully implemented before sludge dumping is phased out.
But, they will have a long-range beneficial effect on water quality in the New York Bight in terms of waste-
water discharges and will facilitate the implementation of land-based sludge disposal methods.
Comment 2. The draft EIS does not adequately treat the environmental impact of heavy metals and
other toxicants in sewage sludge dumped in the New York Bight. The volume of these substances in bottom
sediments, and their areal extent, should be detailed.
Response 2. The environmental impact of dumping sewage sludge at the alternate areas is discussed in
Chapter VII. This discussion is based on the predicted fate of the contaminants in dumped sludge, as set forth
in Chapter VI. Uncertainties remain, of course: the physical fate of dumped sludge cannot be predicted with
absolute assurance, and data on the benthos in the alternate areas are still somewhat limited. Nevertheless,
Chapters VI and VII represent the best estimates of what would happen if sewage sludge were dumped at
one of the alternate areas, and what the long-range effects on the ecosystem would be. The discussion of
heavy metals and toxicants in the New York Bight, while not exhaustive, is appropriate for this analysis.
Details on the distribution of heavy metals and other toxicants in sediments of the New York Bight are
presented in recent NOAA studies (Charnell, 1975; NOAA-MESA, February 1976; West era/., September
1976).
Comment 3. The possibility of handling some sewage sludges differently than others is not considered
in the draft EIS. For example, sludges containing large amounts of heavy metals might be disposed of at a
120-km (65-n-mi) dump site, while less contaminated sludges might continue to be dumped at the present
site.
Response 3. David H. Wallace, the Associate Administrator for Marine Resources at NOAA, states,
"We do not know enough about the behavior and the impacts of the various components of the waste load
[of sewage sludge] to have a factual basis for designating that some wastes should continue to be dumped at
the existing site, whereas others should be moved to a new site" (NOAA, September 17, 1974).
Comment 4. Pretreatment methods that might make ocean dumping of sewage sludge a more accept-
able alternative to land-based disposal have not been adequately investigated in the draft EIS.
Response 4. The EPA issued general pretreatment regulations for existing and new sources of pollution
on June 26, 1978. While pretreatment would make any sludge disposal method more environmentally ac-
ceptable, it would not necessarily make ocean dumping more acceptable than land-based disposal. In any
case, the pretreatment standards will not be fully implemented before ocean dumping of sewage sludge is
phased out in 1981.
189
-------
Comment 5. The anticipated effect of pretreatment requirements upon the future character (constitu-
ents) of ocean dumped sewage sludge is not clear from the draft EIS.
Response 5. Pretreatment is not expected to significantly reduce the content of heavy metals and toxic
substances in sludge until after 1981 (see Chapter II). As noted in the draft EIS, ocean dumping of sewage
sludge is to be phased out by the end of 1981.
Comment 6. In the draft EIS, Figure 4, Sources of Pollutants in the New York Bight, misrepresents the
heavy metals contribution because it shows only the lead distribution, which comes primarily from atmo-
spheric sources. A more representative heavy metal should be included.
Response 6. Chromium (50 percent from barged sources) has replaced lead in the revised Figure 4. It
accurately identifies dredged material as the source of most heavy metals.
Land-Based Sludge Disposal Alternatives
Comment 1. More data should be included in the EIS to show a thorough appraisal of all land-based
sludge disposal alternatives.
Response 1. Land-based sludge disposal alternatives did not receive a more detailed appraisal in the
EIS for three reasons. First of all, ISC was in the process of evaluating the possible land-based alternatives
under a grant from EPA and had not yet reached a conclusion about the best approach to the problem of
sludge disposal in the metropolitan area. At the time the draft EIS was issued, ISC had published only its
preliminary findings in its Phase 1 report. As noted in the EIS, Phases 2 and 3, which were to address in
detail the feasible alternatives and to evaluate any legal/institutional implementation problems, had yet to be
completed.
Second, none of the possible land-based alternatives had reached the stage where it could be imple-
mented in place of the proposed action in the metropolitan area. Since they could not be considered imme-
diately available alternatives to the proposed action, land-based alternatives did not warrant exhaustive anal-
ysis in the EIS.
Third, since ISC was engaged in publishing detailed analyses of the land-based alternatives, duplicate
detailed analyses in the EIS would have been unnecessary, even if they had been possible at the time.
Since the draft EIS was issued, ISC has completed its three-phase study of sludge management in the
metropolitan area. The final EIS presents ISC's findings and summarizes each of ISC's three reports. Those
interested in the details of the study may obtain copies of the original reports from ISC.
Comment 2. The EIS should present practical plans for implementing land-based sludge disposal alter-
natives.
Response 2. Since the draft EIS was issued, EPA has taken four major steps to insure that land-based
sludge disposal alternatives are implemented.
First, as explained in response to the first comment about Phase-Out Planning, the ocean dumping
permits issued to sewage sludge generators by EPA in 1976 contained a special condition requiring each
permittee to comply with the a phase-out schedule developed by EPA in cooperation with the states of New
York and New Jersey (Special Condition Number 7). In essence, this requires the ocean dumping permittees
to perform site specific evaluations, using information gathered in the ISC studies, and to develop facility
plans and environmental assessment statements for each proposed sludge disposal facility.
Second, EPA has made the costs of feasibility studies, design, and construction eligible for 75 percent
federal funding. This will help to alleviate the financial burden of implementing the phase-out operation.
Third, EPA included a special condition in the ocean dumping permits issued to municipalities in 1976,
requiring each of them to submit a study of heavy metal sources (Special Condition Number 7). The "heavy
190
-------
metal source determination study report" must enumerate the steps being taken by the permittee to reduce
or eliminate controllable heavy metal sources. The objective of this permit requirement is the reduction of
the heavy metal content of sewage sludges to make them more suitable for land application.
Fourth, EPA-Region II has developed an enforcement strategy to insure that ocean dumping of sewage
sludge is phased out by December 31, 1981 (see Appendix F).
Comment 3. The EIS demonstrates an unwarranted emphasis on pyrolysis as the only viable land-
based disposal alternative, coupled with an obvious deprecation of those methods that return organic matter
to the soil. Sludge should be considered a valuable resource not just a contaminant to be disposed of.
Response 3. The emphasis on pyrolysis in the draft EIS reflected the preliminary evaluation of land-
based sludge disposal methods made by ISC in its Phase 1 report (ISC, 1975). According to the Phase 1
report, the heavy metal content of metropolitan area sludges precluded extensive land application. On this
basis, ISC tentatively chose pyrolysis as the principal solution to the metropolitan area's sludge disposal
problems, recommending the construction of pyrolysis facilities sufficient to handle roughly 90 percent of the
sludge that would be produced in the year 2000.
The latest ISC reports (1976a; 1976b), however, indicate that a greater quantity of sludge can be safely
applied to the land than was originally thought (see Chapter III and Appendix J). Consequently, ISC now
recommends the construction of only five pyrolysis facilities, sufficient to handle a total of 832 dry metric
tons/day (917 dry tons/day) or roughly 50 percent of the sludge that would be produced in the year 2000.
Although ISC has determined that land application of some of the sludge produced in the metropolitan
area is acceptable, problems remain, especially with the use of sludge as a soil conditioner or fertilizer (see
Chapter III).
Comment 4. The statement in Chapter VII that land-based disposal will be cost-competitive with ocean
disposal is in apparent contradiction with Table 31.
Response 4. The statement in question referred to EPA's belief that land-based disposal would eventu-
ally be cost-competitive with ocean dumping. At present, all of the land-based disposal alternatives are more
expensive than ocean dumping, as Table 31 shows.
Dumping of Dredged Material
Comment 1. The EIS should clarify the relationship between dredged material and sewage sludge,
especially with regard to their effects on the environmental quality of the New York Bight. The effects of
relocating the dredged material dump site, instead of the sludge dump site, should be considered, and the
effects of relocating both dump sites should be addressed in detail. In addition, EPA should emphasize its
commitment to phase out the ocean dumping of dredged material in the New York Bight by fixing a firm
date for such a phase-out.
Response 1. Since ocean dumping of dredged material and its effects on the marine environment are
not the subject of this EIS, they are discussed only insofar as they have a bearing on sewage sludge dumping
and its effects. For this reason, most of the information presented on dredged material dumping and on other
sources of pollutants in the New York Bight is comparative in nature.
With regard to the possibility of relocating the dredged material dump site, the effects of such an action
cannot be assessed without appropriate, specific, in-depth studies. Detailed environmental studies of dredged
material dumping are now being conducted by the COE, NOAA, and EPA. These studies will have to be
completed before relocation of the dump site can even be considered because current ocean dumping regu-
lations require that an EIS be prepared prior to designation of any site as an EPA-approved dump site (40
191
-------
CFR 228.6). Consequently, the existing dump site in the New York Bight, which was designated in 1940, has
been approved on an interim basis.
Needless to say, an EIS on dredged material dumping would consider not only the effects of dumping at
the existing and at alternate sites, but also the feasibility of phasing out dredged material dumping in favor of
land-based disposal methods.
Comment 2. The bioavailability of the high pollutant loading associated with dredged material is not
discussed.
Response 2. Dredged material dumping and its effects are not the subject of this EIS.
Comment 3. The impacts of dredged material are probably short-term, rather than long-term as im-
plied in Chapter VII.
Response 3. There are no data to suggest that the effects of dredged material dumping are short-term.
Comment 4. In Chapter VII, EPA states that dredged material dumping has recently been recognized as
a serious environmental problem. Why is it considered serious?
Response 4. As shown in Table 10 and on Figure 4, dredged material is a major source of contamina-
tion to the New York Bight because of the types and amounts of pollutants involved.
Public Participation and Coordination
Comment. A greater effort should be made to encourage public participation in seeking solutions to
environmental problems. It is especially important to solicit and fully consider the opinions of outside, inde-
pendent experts when preparing EISs. Public, hearings should receive greater publicity in local media to
insure the broadest possible public participation in EPA's decision-making process.
Response. One of the main purposes of an EIS is to maximize public participation in the federal
decision-making process. A concerted effort was made to inform the public that this EIS was being prepared
and to encourage public involvement in its development.
When the decision to prepare this EIS was first made, EPA developed a mailing list of approximately
200 government agencies and public groups that would be affected by, or interested in, the ocean dumping
of sewage sludge. These included federal, state, and local agencies, interstate agencies, the ocean dumping
permittees, citizens groups, academic and research institutions, news media, private consultants and indus-
tries, and libraries.
When a preliminary draft of the EIS was completed in December 1975, it was distributed to other
federal agencies (NOAA-MESA, USCC, COE, FDA, and BLM) and to several oceanographic experts for re-
view and comment. Their comments were incorporated in the draft EIS that was issued in February 1976.
Over the two-year EIS preparation period, the mailing list grew to approximately 350 agencies and groups.
More than 1000 copies of the draft EIS were distributed.
A continuing effort was made to keep interested government agencies and public groups abreast of the
EIS preparation activities:
— January 17, 1975: EPA issues a Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS.
— February 7, 1975: EPA issues an information letter and EIS outline to members of the NOAA-
MESA New York Bight Advisory Committee, an organization established specifically to act as a
public input group.
192
-------
— April 23, 1975: EPA distributes the EIS working outline, again requesting comment and public
input.
— June 26, 1975: EPA, with the cooperation of NOAA, establishes three public information centers
in the New York-New Jersey area.
— February 27, 1976: EPA issues the draft EIS and notifies the public of three upcoming public
hearings on it.
— March 24-25, 1976: EPA holds the first public hearing on the draft EIS in New York City.
— March 29, 1976: EPA holds the second public hearing on the draft EIS in Toms River, New
Jersey.
— April 1, 1976: EPA holds the third public hearing on the draft EIS in Mineola, New York.
In addition, news releases were issued at critical points during the preparation of the EIS.
Miscellaneous Questions
Comment 1. The EPA should take a more active and open role in warning the public of potential
health dangers, especially with regard to water quality in the New York Bight.
Response 1. As discussed previously (see Monitoring and Surveillance Program), EPA is taking an ac-
tive role in keeping the public informed and is responding to public inquiries. This is being done in coordina-
tion with state and local agencies and groups.
Comment 2. The impact of sewage sludge dumping should not be compared to the impact of develop-
ing offshore oil and gas reserves. Oil spill contamination of a sand or gravel deposit is just a possibility,
whereas sludge contamination is assured if dumping takes place over the deposit.
Response 2. While sand and gravel deposits would be contaminated to some extent by ocean dumping
in the Southern Area, they would probably recover with time. An oil spill, however, would probably result in
a serious and permanent impact. Here, we are dealing with the degree of contamination and potential reuse
rather than with the frequency or probability of contamination.
Comment 3. The mass loading of the ocean dumped sewage sludge should be shown in Table 3.
Response 3. This information has been included in a revised Table 10, which gives the mass loading
and percentage contribution of all "barged" pollutants to the New York Bight.
Comment 4. There is no discussion in the draft EIS of the Baltimore Canyon Trough.
Response 4. The Baltimore Canyon Trough was not discussed because it is not pertinent to the geology
of the continental shelf as it relates to sewage sludge disposal. The important aspects of the near-surface
geology are presented, and the impacts of resource development of the OCS lease areas in the Mid-Atlantic
are discussed.
Comment 5. Data indicate that the sand ridges described in Chapter V are less than ll,000 years old
and rest on slightly older lagoonal deposits of Holocene Age or Pleistocene sediments.
Response 5. This is correct; the designation of particular geologic ages to near-surface strata was not
deemed significant to this EIS.
193
-------
Comment 6. Landings of hard clams, defined as ocean quahogs (Arctica islandica), from the New York
Bight in 1973, or at present, cannot represent an $11 million per year commercial fishery.
Response 6. Hard clams in this section were mislabeled as ocean quahogs. According to NOAA-
NMFS, the hard clams landed from the estuarine and near-shore waters of the Bight are Mercenaria merce-
naria, often referred to as the hardshell clam, common quahog, or little neck clam.
194
-------
REVIEWERS OF THE DRAFT EIS
The following persons participated in the public hearings held on March 24 and 25, 1976 at the Federal
Building in New York City:
Boghard, William
Commissioner of Environmental Facilities
Westchester County
White Plains, N.Y. 10601
Donato, Michelle
20 Oliver Street
Somerset, New Jersey 08873
Environmental Society
CUNY Law School
New York, N.Y.
Flatow, Eugenia
Parks Council of New York City
80 Central Park West
New York, N.Y. 10023
President, Parks Council
Vice-Chairman, Citizens Advisory Board of 208 Planning
New York, N.Y.
Greenfield, Charles
President, Carver Greenfield Corp.
9 Great Meadow Lane
East Hanover, N.J. 07936
Heenan, Jack
Marine Environmental Council of Long Island
421 Spangle Drive
North Babylon, N.Y. 11703
Kamlet, Kenneth S.
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Lander, Paul
845 Woodland Drive
Lakewood, N.J. 08701
Lubetkin, Seymour A.
Chief Engineer, Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
790 Broad St.
Newark, N.J. 07105
Marshall, Shelby
195
-------
Friends of the Earth
72 Jane Street
New York, N.Y. 10014
Richmond, Frederick, W.
Member of Congress
14th Congressional District N.Y.
Brooklyn, N.Y.
'Roney, James R., Ph.D.
Vice-President
Franklin Institute
20th and Parkway
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
Salzman, Lorna
Mid-Atlantic Representative
Friends of the Earth
72 Jane Street
New York, N.Y. 10014
Samowitz, Charles
Commissioner, Department of Water Resources
City of N.Y. Environmental Protection Administration
Municipal Building
New York, N.Y. 10007
Shaviro, Sol
Greening of the Bronx
130 Gale Place
Bronx, N.Y. 10463
Sheehan, Martin
Reporter, Staten Island Advance
950 Fingerboard Road
Staten Island, N.Y. 10305
Swanson, Lawrence, R., Ph.D.
Manager, New York Bight Project
NOAA-MESA
New York, N.Y.
The following persons participated in the public hearing held on March 29, 1976, at Ocean County
College in Toms River, New Jersey:
Bennett, D.W.
Executive Director
American Littoral Society
Highlands, N.J. 07732
196
-------
Calabrese, Mrs. Josephine
103 Bayshore Drive
Toms River, N.J. 08753
Goodman, Charles
Mayor of Long Beach Township
Long Beach, N.J. 08008
Hughes, William ).
Member of Congress
20th Congressional District, N.J.
Ocean City, N.J. 08226
Lander, Paul
845 Woodland Drive
Lakewood, N.J. 08701
Paulson, Dr. Glenn
Assistant Commissioner for Science
N.J. Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 1390
Trenton, N.J. 08625
Pike, Charles M.
County Administrator of Ocean County
Toms River, N.J. 08753
Roney, James R., Ph.D.
Vice-President
Franklin Institute
20th and Parkway
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
Seid, Sol
Chief Engineer, Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
Box 461
Sayreville, N.J. 08872
Swanson, Dr. R. Lawrence
Manager, New York Bight Project
NOAA-MESA
New York, N.Y.
Thomas, Ariel A.
Sr. Vice President
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
P.O. Box A-10
Sayreville, N.J. 08872
Walnot, Jerome
President, Long Beach Island
197
-------
Conservation Society
P.O. Box 245
Barnegat Light, N.J. 08006
The following persons participated in the public hearing held on April 1, 1976, at the Nassau County
Executive Building in Mineola, Long Island:
Caso, Ralph G.
Nassau County Executive
Nassau County Executive Building
One West Street
Mineola, N.Y. 11501
Harris, William H., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Geology
Brooklyn College
City University of New York
Bedford Avenue and Avenue H
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11210
Kramer, Morris H.
P.O. Box 444
Atlantic Beach, N.Y. 11507
Lapiner, Arnold
Marine Environmental Council of Long Island
P.O. Box 55
Seaford, N.Y. 11783
Lager, Fred
Mayor, Village of Atlantic Beach
Atlantic Beach, N.Y. 11509
Machlin, Albert
Reg. Engr. for Environmental Quality-L.I. Region
N.Y. State Department of Environmental Conservation
Building 40
State University of N.Y.
Stony Brook, N.Y. 11794
Moskowitz, Paul
Environmental Defense Fund
162 Old Town Road
East Setauket, N.Y. 11733
Nuzzi, Robert
Marine Resources Section
Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control
1324 Motor Parkway
198
-------
Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787
Roffer, Mitchell A.
Vice President, Marine Science Students Association
Long Island University
C.W. Post Center
Greenvale, N.Y. 11548
Roney, lames R., Ph.D.
Vice-President
Franklin Institute
20th and Parkway
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
Smith, Bernard C., State Senator
2nd Senatorial District
Suffolk County
Riverhead, N.Y. 11901
Stevenson, Mr. & Mrs. Richard C.
9211 Lakeside Avenue, South
Angola, N.Y. 14006
Wydler, John M.
Member of Congress
5th Congressional District, N.Y.
150 Old Country Road
Mineola, N.Y. 11501
Swanson, Dr. R. Lawrence
Manager, New York Bighti Project
NOAA-MESA
New York, N.Y.
The following persons, organizations, and government agencies submitted written comments on the
draft EIS:
Islip, Town of
Department of Environmental Control
577 Main Street
Islip, N.Y. 11751
Andres, Barry, 'D., Commissioner
(April 12, 1976)*
Lawrence, Village of
Nassau County, New York
196 Central Avenue
Lawrence, N.Y. 11559
Denson, William D., Mayor *Date of comment letter.
(May 14, 1976)* See APPendix K.
199
-------
Monmouth County Planning Board
Monmouth County Environmental Council
Court Street and Lafayette Place
Freehold, N.J. 07728
(April 19, 1976)*
Nassau, County of
Office of the Executive
Nassau County Executive Building
One West Street
Mineola, N.Y. 11501
Caso, Ralph G., County Executive
(April 29, 1976)*
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Kamlet, Kenneth S., Counsel
(April 30, 1976)*
New Jersey, State of
Department of Environmental Protection
Trenton, N.J. 08625
Schmidt, Lawrence, Chief
Office of Environmental Review
(May 3, 1976)*
New York City Section 208
Citizens Advisory Committee
Szeligowski, John J., Chairman
Technical Sub-Committee
New York, N.Y.
(June 3, 1976)*
New York, State of
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, N.Y. 12233
Curran, Terrence P.
Director of Environmental Analysis
(April 19, 1976)*
New York, State of
Department of Law
Two World Trade Center
New York, N.Y. 10047
Berger, Richard G., Assistant Attorney General
Munson, Ethel, Environmental Engineer
(May 25, 1976)*
*Date of comment letter.
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, The See Appendix K.
200
-------
One World Trade Center 72S
New York, N.Y. 10048
Olcott, Edward S.
Director of Planning and Development
(April 9, 1976)*
Rochester Committee for Scientific Information, The
P.O. Box 5236 River Campus Station
Rochester, N.Y. 14627
Berg, Olga, President
(March 28, 1976)*
Sea Bright, Borough of
Borough Hall
1099 East Ocean Avenue
Sea Bright, N.J. 07760
Larson, Mary, Borough Clerk
(1. March 19, 1976)*
(2. April 9, 1976)*
Sea Bright Conservation Committee
216 Ocean Avenue
Sea Bright, N.J. 07760
Hanley, Loretta C, Secretary
(March 20, 1976)*
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
700 E. Water Street ,
Syracuse, N.Y. 13210
Milliard, Robert L, State Conservationist
(April 6, 1976)*
U.S. Department of Commerce
The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology
Washington, D.C. 20230
Caller, Sidney, R., Deputy Assistant
Secretary *or Environmental Affairs
(May 4, 1976)*
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10007
Stringham, Luther .W.
Regional Environmental Officer
(April 20, 1976)*
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Newark Area Office *Date of comment letter.
Gateway 1 Building See Appendix K.
201
-------
Raymond Plaza
Newark, N.J. 07102
Johnson, Walter J., Area Office Director
(March 25, 1976)*
U.S. Department of the Army
New York District, Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10007
Zammit, John, Chief
Operations Division
dune 3, 1976)*
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of the Secretary
Northeast Region
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2003 M&N
Boston, Mass. 02203
Babb, Roger Sumner, Special Assistant to the Secretary
(April 26, 1976)* <
U.S. Department of Transportation
United States Coast Guard
Washington, D.C. 20590
Schubert, P.P., Capt. USCG
Chief, Marine Environmental Protection Division
(June 3, 1976)*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
(Internal Memo)
Water Branch
Durfor, Charles N., Chief
(March 18, 1976)*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Internal Memo)
Division of Oil and Special Materials
Control (WH-548)
Biglane, Kenneth E., Director
(May 6, 1976)*
Water Pollution Control Federation
3900 Wisconsin Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
Cox, Geraldine V., Ph.D.
Chairman, Marine Water Quality Committee *Date of commem ,
(APnl 27' 1976) See Appendix K.
202
-------
CHAPTER XII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY OF GENERAL BACKGROUND
The New York Bight (Figure 1) encompasses some extremely valuable marine resources. It currently is
used for commercial and sport fishing, navigation, swimming, and recreational boating, as well as for the
ultimate disposal of municipal and industrial wastes, either through ocean dumping or through outfall dis-
charges beyond the shoreline. In addition, the Bight has a potential for mineral resource development (oil
and gas, sand and gravel).
Waste generators in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area have long used the New York Bight
for disposal of hard-to-treat waste materials. In 1977, approximately, 4.0 million cu m (5.3 million cu yd) of
dredged material, 4.0 million cu m (5.3 million cu yd) of sewage sludge, 624 thousand cu m (821 thousand
cu yd) of acid wastes, 135 thousand cu m (177 thousand cu yd) of cellar dirt, and 738 thousand cu m (970
thousand cu yd) of chemical wastes were dumped at sites in and adjacent to the Bight.
The volume of sludge dumped at the existing site has risen substantially since initial designation of the
site in 1924. Current projections indicate that if construction schedules for municipal wastewater treatment
facilities are maintained, the volume of sludge will increase from approximately 4.0 million cu m (5.3 million
cu yd) in 1977 to 9.9 million cu m (13.0 million cu yd) in 1981.
The sludges currently dumped in the Bight Apex contain high concentrations of heavy metals (chro-
mium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc), reflecting the large amount of industrial wastewater dis-
charged into the area's municipal systems. Pretreatment regulations and standards, which will require re-
moval of industrial pollutants prior to dischaige, are being promulgated by EPA, but a significant reduction of
heavy metals in municipal sludge is not expected until the regulations and guidelines are fully implemented
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits program.
Ocean dumping of all municipal and most industrial wastes will be phased out by December 31, 1981,
and must be replaced by environmentally acceptable, technically feasible, and economically reasonable al-
ternative methods of disposal. Ocean dumping permits will not be issued by EPA to any municipal or indus-
trial waste generator who is not currently developing or implementing an acceptable land-based disposal
alternative. The Interim Permits issued to New York and New Jersey sludge dumping permittees since 1976
have contained a requirement (Special Condition Number 7) to implement land-based sludge management
alternatives, thereby eliminating ocean dumping, by December 31, 1981. In addition, EPA-Region II has
developed an enforcement strategy that provides for systematic oversight and control of the progress of
permittees toward the phasing out of ocean dumping of sewage sludge (Appendix F).
Under an EPA grant, ISC developed a regional program for land-based disposal of those municipal
sludges now dumped in the ocean. This New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area Sewage Sludge Disposal
Management Program, which was issued in October 1976, calls for land application and pyrolysis of approx-
imately equal volumes of the sludge to be produced in the year 2000. All municipal ocean dumping permit-
tees in the metropolitan area are required to participate in this program or to develop and implement their
own alternative disposal methods.
The projected increase in the volume of ocean dumped sludge, the potential adverse environmental.
impacts associated with this increase, and the implementation schedule for land-based alternatives made a
study of alternate dump sites necessary. In 1974, EPA and NOAA jointly recommended two mid-shelf areas,
the Northern and Southern Areas (Figure 10), as possible locations for an alternate sewage sludge dump site.
The oceanographic studies conducted by NOAA in both the Northern and Southern Areas were augmented
by baseline data collected by the Raytheon Company in a portion of the Northern Area.
203
-------
These and other studies were used in preparing a draft EIS on EPA's proposal to designate an alternate
site for the dumping of sewage sludge. The most significant finding of the draft EIS was that the proposed
action was unnecessary and might be more environmentally damaging than taking no action whatsoever.
Therefore, pending development of land-based disposal alternatives, continued use of the existing dump site
was recommended. Also recommended were an expanded monitoring program for the existing site and
designation of an alternate site in the Northern Area that could be available for use in the future if necessary.
During the summer of 1976, two incidents occurred that raised questions about continued use of the
existing dump site. One incident was the extensive fish kill off the coast of New Jersey; the other was the
washup of foreign matter on Long Island's beaches. Results of the many studies undertaken in response to
these incidents have shown that both were basically the result of atypical atmospheric and hydrographic
conditions in the New York Bight, and that sludge dumping was at most a minor contributing factor. There-
fore, neither of these incidents alters the findings of the draft EIS or the recommendation to continue using
the existing site until ocean dumping is phased out or until the criteria developed by EPA-Region II indicate
the need to move sludge dumping to an alternate site for public health reasons. This is the course of action
favored by most of the government agencies expressing an opinion on sludge dumping, and it is the course
of action endorsed in the EPA-Headquarters decision report dated March 1, 1978 (Appendix D).
CONCLUSIONS
Existing Sewage Sludge Dump Site
1. Monitoring studies by EPA, NOAA, FDA, and the Town of Hempstead show that sludge dumping at
the existing site has not significantly affected the water quality off Long Island or New Jersey beaches. Where
.coastal water quality has deteriorated, it appears to have been the combined result of raw and inadequately
treated wastewater discharges, sewer and stormwater runoff, and other land-based discharges to harbor and
coastal waters.
2. Although small quantities of floatables (oil, grease, and artifacts) are present at the existing site for
short periods immediately after sludge dumping, there is no direct evidence that they ever reach Long Island
or New Jersey beaches; the probability is that those materials washed ashore come from other sources.
3. Continued dumping at the existing sludge site will not have a significant additional effect on water
quality in the Bight Apex. Preliminary studies there (Mueller ef a/., 1976) indicate that pollutant loadings
associated with sludge dumping are small (5 percent) in comparison with those associated with dredged
material dumping, inland runoff, or wastewater discharges.
4. Dumping of current volumes of sewage sludge will not have a significant impact on the rather limited
benthic community at the existing site. This community would not recover in the near future even if the
existing site were abandoned, nor would areas now closed to shellfishing be reopened in the near future.
5. The present method of sludge dumping, discharge in the vessel's wake, is effective in maximizing
dilution and dispersion of the dumped sludge.
6. Because the volume of sludge to be ocean dumped will increase, so will the number of trips to the
existing dump site. Since this site is located in the Nantucket Navigational Lane, there will be an increase in
hazards to navigation.
7. Potential adverse environmental impacts of dumping increased volumes of sludge at the existing site
are related to the dispersive characteristics and the assimilative capacity of Bight Apex waters, both of which
are unknown. Therefore, an expanded program has been established to monitor the impact of continued
dumping at the existing site, especially the impact along the Long Island and New Jersey beaches and in the
Hudson Shelf Valley. Results of such a program can be useful to those responsible for deciding when or
whether to phase out or abandon the existing dump site. Criteria that can be used to determine whether
204
-------
public health reasons require moving from the existing to an alternate site at any time before December 31,
1981 have been established (Appendix E).
Northern and Southern Areas
1. Degradation of coastal water quality is not expected, even if greatly increased volumes of sludge are
dumped at a new site in the Northern or Southern Area.
2. The quality of Bight Apex waters will not be significantly improved by using a new site in the North-
ern or Southern Area because most pollutants entering the Apex come from sources other than sludge dump-
ing (primarily dredged material dumping, inland runoff, and wastewater discharges).
3. Concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the water column at a new site may temporarily decrease
immediately following a dump, but this is not likely to significantly affect the ecosystem.
4. Heavy metals, toxic organics, and microbiological agents will contaminate bottom sediments at and
near a new dump site after initial use. Smothering of benthic organisms is not likely to occur, however,
unless dredged material is also dumped there.
5. Composition of the benthic fauna at a new site may change; the benthic biomass will probably
decrease in diversity, and this localized alteration of food supplies may also affect fish populations in the
area.
6. Sites can be chosen within each alternate area to mitigate possible impacts on the biological re-
sources of the Hudson Shelf Valley. Transport of dumped sludge from either area to the Hudson Shelf Valley
through resuspension and resettlement is possible but unlikely.
7. The FDA will probably close areas in and near a new dump site to shellfish harvesting, based on the
potential for bacterial contamination. Nevertheless, use of a new dump site will increase the risks of human
consumption of illegally harvested contaminated shellfish.
8. An alternate site in the Northern Area would be preferable to one in the Southern Area in terms of
minimizing the overall impact on the marine ecosystem, the economic impact on the shellfishing industry,
and the potential conflict with mineral resource development.
9. Increased transportation time in open waters, as well as the greater number of trips, will increase
hazards to navigation.
10. There is an increased probability that short dumping, including emergency dumping, will occur. The
USCG will require increased manpower and equipment to provide adequate surveillance and enforcement of
dumping regulations.
11. The costs of transportation, monitoring, and surveillance will all increase.
Other Options
1. Land-based sludge disposal methods constitute the only legitimate long-range solution to the New
York-New Jersey metropolitan area's sludge disposal problem.
2. Designation and use of a site in each of the alternate areas would result in the potential degradation
of two separate, relatively clean areas, rather than one.
3. Use of one of the other existing dump sites in the Bight Apex for sludge disposal would violate the
original concept of segregating wastes and would make it extremely difficult to isolate the true cause of any
adverse environmental effects.
4. Use of a dump site off the continental shelf, such as the chemical wastes site, is considered unfeasi-
ble based on an analysis of environmental acceptability, monitoring and surveillance capabilities, logistics '
and economics, and the effect of such use on the ability of dumpers to meet the December 31, 1981
deadline for phasing out ocean dumping of sewage sludge.
205
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The development and implementation of environmentally acceptable, technically feasible, and eco-
nomically reasonable land-based alternatives should proceed without delay.
2. The Regional Enforcement Strategy (Appendix F) developed by EPA-Region II should be strictly ad-
hered to.
3. The existing sewage sludge dump site should continue to be used.
4. The existing method of ocean dumping, uniform discharge in the vessel's wake, should be continued.
5. The expanded monitoring program and the criteria developed to determine when and if public
health or environmental factors warrant the phasing out or abandonment of the existing dump site should
continue.
6. An alternate dump site should be designated in the Northern Area for potential use if and when the
existing dump site is abandoned or phased out (Figure 42). This site should be a square, roughly 31 sq km (9
sq n mi) with center coordinates at 72°42' W longitude and 40°12'N latitude, at a depth of 55 m (180 ft).
The center of this recommended site is about 61 km (33 n mi) south of Long Island, about 111 km (60 n mi)
east of New Jersey, about 45 km (24 n mi) from the Hudson Shelf Valley, and about 111 km (60 n mi) from
the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect.
This site offers the following advantages:
— Because of its depth, there will be a low potential
for resuspension of bottom sediments from surface and/or internal waves and wind-driven cur-
rents. In addition, nearby deeper troughs of the Long Island Shelf Valley will act as traps for
sludge contaminants, thus inhibiting their bottom transport to adjacent areas.
— It is distant from the Long Island and New Jersey shorelines and from the Hudson Shelf Valley.
Since the Long Island beaches are located updrift of the prevailing coastal currents, the location
is an optimum one, with a very low potential for contaminant transport to either the coastal areas
or the Hudson Shelf Valley.
— It has neither significant biological resources (shellfish) nor known potential mineral resources (oil
and gas, sand and gravel).
— Oceanographic studies, including those of NOAA and the Raytheon Company, provide a data
base for future trend assessments, should the site actually be used.
7. Studies of oceanographic conditions and characteristics of the New York Bight by NOAA should be
expanded to facilitate a clearer understanding of this complex ecosystem. To this end, studies by the
NOAA-MESA New York Bight Project should be supported, especially studies of pollutant loading and the
dispersive and assimilative characteristics of Bight waters.
206
-------
RECOMMENDED/
ALTERNATE L
DUMP SITE'0
/ SCALE.
10 0 10 20 KILOMETERS
10 20 MILES (STATUTE)
20 NAUTICAL MILES
NOTE • CONTOURS IN METERS
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATE DUMP SITE
NOTE:.
CENTER COORDINATES OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATE
DUMP SITE ARE ^0°12'N, 72°^2'W.
FIGURE 42
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, J.E., and E.G. Alexander, 1975. Chemical Properties: MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph
Series, Monograph 2 (Draft): New York Sea Grant Institute, State University of New York, Albany, N.Y.
Apel, J.R., R.L. Charnell and R.J. Blackwell, 1974. Ocean Internal Waves Off the North American Coasts
from ERTS-1: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Remote Sensing of the Environment.
Barber, R.T., and D. Krieger, 1970. Growth of Phytoplankton in Waters from the New York City Sludge
Dumping Grounds: 33rd Annual Meeting of Amer. Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography.
Baxter, R.R., J.T. Kildaw and J.D. Nybart, 1974. Ocean Resources Management; Legal and Policy Aspects -
Materials and Costs: Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Law School of Harvard University, Bos-
ton, Mass.
Benninger, L.K., D.M. Lewis and K.K. Turekian, 1975. The Use of Natural Pb-210 as a Heavy Metal Tracer
in the River-Estuarine System - Marine Chemistry in the Coastal Environment: Amer. Chem. Soc. of Special
Symposium #18, Washington, D.C.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority, October 12, 1975. Letter from John G. Costello, Executive Director,
Bergen County Sewerage Authority, Little Ferry, N.J., to Daniel A. Sullivan, Environmental Engineer, Environ-
mental Impacts Branch, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
Bigelow and Sears, 1936. Studies of the Waters on the Continental Shelf, Cape Cod to Chesapeake Bay, II
Cycle of Salinity: Popular Physical Oceanography and Meteorology Vol. 4(1).
Bowman, M.J., and L.D. Wunderlich, 1975. Temperature, Salinity, and Density: MESA New York Bight Atlas
Monograph Series, Monograph 1 (Draft).
Brewer, P.G., 1975. Minor Elements in Sea Water: In Riley, J.P., and G. Skirrow (eds.), Chemical Oceanog-
raphy: Academic Press, New York, N.Y., pp. 415-496.
Buelow, R.W., 8.H. Pringle and J.L. Verber, 1968. Preliminary Investigation of Waste Disposal in the New
York Bight: U.S. Dept. H.E.W., Public Health Service, Bureau of Disease Prevention and Environmental Con-
trol, Washington, D.C.
Bumpus, D.F., 1961. Investigations of Climate and Oceanographic Factors Influencing the Environment of
Fish: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Ref. No. 61-41; Woods Hole, Mass.
Bumpus, D.F., 1965. Residual Drift Along the Bottom on the Continental Shelf in the Middle Atlantic Bight
Area: Amer. Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 10, pp. R50-53.
Bumpus, D.F., and L.M. Lauzier, 1965. Surface Circulation on the Continental Shelf Off Eastern North
America Between Newfoundland and Florida: Amer. Geograph. Soc. Serial Atlas of the Marine Environment,
Folio 7.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), November 1975. Draft Environmental Statement - Proposed 1976
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale Offshore the Mid-Atlantic States: OCS Sale No. 40, Washing-
ton, D.C.
208
-------
BLM, 1978. Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease
Sale Offshore the Mid-Atlantic States: OCS Lease Sale No. 49, Volume 1 of 3, New York, N.Y.
Callaway, R.J., ef a/., 1975, unpublished. Dispersion of Sewage Sludge Discharged from Vessels to New
York Bight Waters - Abstracts from the Special Symposium on the Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and
New York Bight, November 3-5, 1975, 10-11: Amer. Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography, New York,
N.Y.
Carmody, D.J., J.B. Pearce and W.E. Yasso, 1973. Trace Metals in Sediments of New York Bight: Marine
Pollution Bull., Vol. 4(9), pp. 132-135.
Charlesworth, L.J., 1968. Bay, Inlet and Nearshore Marine Sedimentation, Beach Haven-Little Egg Inlet
Region, New jersey, Pts. 1, 2, 3: Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, University Microfilms, Ann
Arbor, Mich.
Charnell, R.L., j.R. Apel, W. Manning III and R.H. Qualset, 1974. Utility of ERTS-1 for Coastal Ocean
Observation, The New York Bight Example: Marine Technology Soc. Jour., Vol. 8, pp. 42-47.
Charnell, R.L., 1975. Assessment of Offshore Dumping, Technical Background, Physical Oceanography,
Geological Oceanography, Chemical Oceanography: NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL MESA-1, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Chen, K.Y., 1974. Trace Metals in Wastewater Effluents: journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation,
Vol. 42(12); pp. 2663-2675.
Corwin, N., 1970. Reduced Data Reports for Atlantis 52 and Goswold 140, Appendix I, Technical Report,
Ref. No. WHOI #70-15: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Mass.
Dames & Moore, 1975. Final Coastal Process Report, Atlantic Generating Station, A Report to Public Ser-
vice Electric and Gas Company of New jersey: Dames & Moore, Cranford, N.J.
Dames & Moore, unpublished. Analysis of Current Meter Observations in a Proposed Dump Site Area of
the New York Bight: Dames & Moore, Cranford, N.J.
Davies, J.E., and R. Rownd, 1972. Transmissible Multiple Drug Resistance in Enterobacteriaceae: Science,
Vol. 176, pp. 758-768.
Dean, D., and H.H. Haskin, 1964. Benthic Repopulation of the Raritan River Estuary Following Pollution
Abatement: Amer. Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 9(4), pp. 551-563.
Dennis, J.W., 1959. Oil Pollution Survey of the United States Atlantic Coast: American Petroleum Institute,
Transportation Division.
Drake, D., 1974. Suspended Paniculate Matter in the New York Bight, September - November 1973:
NOAA-TR-ERL 318-MESA-1, Washington, D.C.
Duedall, I.W., H.B. O'Connors and B. Irwin, 1975. Fate of Wastewater Sludge in the New York Bight Apex:
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 47(11), pp. 2702-2706.
Dunstan, W.M., 1975. Problems of Measuring and Predicting Influence of Effluents on Marine Phytoplank-
ton: Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 9(7).
209
-------
Edge, B.L., and B.C. Dysart III, 1972. Transport Mechanisms Governing Sludges and Other Materials Barged
to Sea: Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.
EG&G, 1975. Summary of Oceanographic Observations in New Jersey Coastal Waters Near 39"o"28'N
Latitude and 74"o"15'W Longitude During the Period May 1973 through April 1974, A Report to Public
Service Electric and Gas Company, Newark, N.J.
Emery, K.O., 1966. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of the United States, Geological Background: U.S.
Geol. Surv., Prof. Paper 529-A, Washington, D.C., pp. 1-23.
Emery, K.O., and J.S. Schlee, 1963. The Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope, a Program for Study: U.S.
Geol. Surv., Circular 481, Washington, D.C.
Emery, K.O., and E. Uchupi, 1972. Western North Atlantic Ocean, Topography, Rocks, Structure, Water,
Life, and Sediments: Amer. Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists Bull., Memoir 17.
Feary, T.W., A.B. Sturtevant and J. Lankford, 1972. Antibiotic Resistant Coliforms in Fresh and Salt Water:
Arch. Environmental Health, Vol. 24, pp. 215-220.
Fire Island National Seashore Headquarters, June 1978. Telephone Conversation Between Donald Weir,
Staff Park Ranger, Fire Island, N.Y., and Diana Farmer, Physical Science Aide, Environmental Impacts
Branch, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 1972. Preliminary Report, Cooperative Offshore Water Quality
Studies, New York Bight, April-June 1972: Brooklyn, N.Y.
FDA, 1973. New York Bight Shellfish Closure Area Map - Vicinity of Sewage Sludge Dump Site: Brooklyn,
N.Y.
FDA, 1974a. Total and Fecal Coliform Levels in Sediments and Waters from Stations Between the Sewage
Sludge Dump Site and Long Beach, N.Y., January 7, 1974: Brooklyn, N.Y.
FDA, 1974b. Total and Fecal Coliform Levels in Waters and Sediments from the Atlantic and Long Beach
Offshore Area of the New York Bight, October 15-21, 1974: Brooklyn, N.Y.
FDA, 1975. Conversation between George C. Meyer, Regional Shellfish Consultant, Shellfish Sanitation
Branch, FDA, Brooklyn, N.Y., and Roger R. Fay, Marine Biologist, Dames & Moore, New York, N.Y.
FDA, December 18, 1975. Letter from James L. Verber, Chief of Northeast Technical Services Unit, Shellfish
Sanitation Branch, FDA, Davisville, R.I.
Garrison, L.E., and R.C. McMaster, 1966. Sediments and Geomorphology of the Continental Shelf off South-
ern New England: Marine Geology, Vol. 14, pp. 273-289.
General Marine Transport Corporation, July 6, 1975. Letter of Data Transmittal to Dr. Barry J. Berdahl,
Proj. Mgr., Dames & Moore, New York, N.Y.
Greene, M., 1974. Study of Physical, Settling, and Thickening Characteristics of a Sludge: Pacific Northwest
Environmental Research Laboratory; NTIS Acquisition No. PB-241-231.
210
-------
Greig, R., and J.B. Pearce, 1975. Further Analyses of Heavy Metals in Sediments Collected from the Outer
New York Bight: Middle Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center, Informal Report No. 63.
Greig, R., D. Wenzloff, B. Nelson, A. Adams and J. Graikowski, 1974. Distribution of Five Metals in Sedi-
ments from the New,York Bight: Middle Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center, Informal Report No. 36.
Gross, M.G., 1972a. Marine Waste Deposits Near New York: Marine Pollution Bull., Vol. 3(4), pp. 61-63.
Gross, M.G., 1972b. Geologic Aspects of Waste Solids and Marine Waste Deposits: Geol. Soc. of Amer.
Bull., Vol. 84, pp. 3163-3174.
Haight, F.J., 1942. Coastal Currents Along the Atlantic Coast of the United States: U.S. Coast and Geod.
Surv., Special Publ. No. 230, Washington, D.C.
Hardy, C.D., E.R. Baylor and P. Moscowitz, 1975. Sea Surface Circulation in the Northwest Apex of the
New York Bight, Parts I and II: (Draft to NOAA).
Hatcher, P.G., and I.E. Keister, 1975. Carbohydrates and Organic Carbon in New York Bight Sediments as
Possible Indicators of Sewage Contamination - Abstracts from the Special Symposium on the Middle Atlantic
Continental Shelf and New York Bight, November 3-5: Amer. Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography, pp.
31-33.
Hathaway, J.C., 1971, unpublished. Data File, Continental Margin Program, Atlantic Coast of the United
States; Vol. 2, Sample Collection and Analytical Data: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Technical
Report 71 -115.
Hausknecht, K.A., and D.R. Kester, December 1976. Report of Research Conducted Under NOAA Grant
04-6-158-44050: Transition and Heavy Metal Chemistry Associated with Deepwater Dumpsite 106: Gradu-
ate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R.I.
Hilovsky, E.M., and F.K. Szucs, 1975. Dynamics of Waste Dispersion of Dissolved Heavy Metals in the New
York Bight Area: Geol. Soc. of Amer. Abstracts, Northeastern Section, p. 74.
Hollister, C.D., 1973. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of the United States - Texture of Surface Sedi-
ments, New Jersey to Southern Florida: U.S. Geol. Surv., Prof. Paper 529-M.
Interstate Electronics Corporation, 1973. Ocean Waste Disposal in the New York Bight, Report
4461C1557: IEC, Oceanics Division, Anaheim, Calif.
Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC), 1975. Phase 1 Report of Technical Alternatives to Ocean Disposal
of Sludge in the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area: Camp, Dresser & McKee, Boston, Mass., and
Alexander Potter Associates, New York, N.Y.
ISC, 1976a. Phase 2 Report of Technical Investigation of Alternatives for New York-New Jersey Metropolitan
Area Sewage Sludge Disposal Management Program: Camp, Dresser & McKee, Boston, Mass., and Alexan-
der Potter Associates, New York, N.Y.
ISC, 1976b. New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area Sewage Sludge Disposal Management Program.
ISC, 1978. 1977 Report of the Interstate Sanitation Commission on the Water Pollution Control Activities
and the Interstate Air Pollution Program, New York, N.Y.
211
-------
Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties, September 10, 1975. Letter from Edward P. Decker, Execu-
tive Director, Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties, Irvington, N.J., to Daniel A. Sullivan, Environmental
Engineer, Environmental Impacts Branch, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
Ketchum, B.H. (ed), 1972. The Waters Edge-Control Problems of the Coastal Zone: Coastal Zone
Workshop-1972, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, MIT Press, Boston, Mass.
Ketchum, B.W., A.C. Redfield and J.C. Ayers, 1951. The Oceanography of the New York Bight: In Papers in
Physical Oceanography and Meteorology: Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Woods Hole Oceano-
graphic Institution, Vol. 12(1).
Koditschek, L.K., and P. Guyre, 1974a. Antimicrobial-Resistant Coliforms in New York Bight: Marine Pollu-
tion Bull., Vol. 5(5), pp. 71-74.
Koditschek, L.K., and P. Guyre, 1974b. Resistance Transfer Fecal Coliforms Isolated from the Whippany
River: Water Resources, Vol. 8, pp. 747-752.
Koditschek, L.K., and P. Guyre, 1975. Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria Isolated from Sediments at the Sew-
age Dump Site in the New York Bight. Paper Presented at the Special Symposium on the Middle Atlantic
Continental Shelf and New York Bight, November 3-5: Amer. Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography.
Lavelle, J.W., G.H. Keller and T.L. Clark, 1975. Possible Bottom Current Response to Surface Winds in the
Hudson Shelf Channel: Jour, of Geophys. Res., Vol. 80, pp. 1953-1956.
Lear, D.W. (ed.), 1973. Supplemental Report, Environmental Survey of Two Interim Dump Sites, Middle
Atlantic Bight; Operation Fetch: NTIS Acquis. No. PB-239-257.
Lear, D.W., and G.G. Pesch, 1975. Effects of Ocean Disposal Activities on Mid-Continental Shelf Environ-
ment Off Delaware and Maryland: NTIS Acquis. No. PB-239-256.
Lee, A.)., DJ. Bumpus and L.M. Lauzier, 1965. The Sea-Bed Drifter: ICNAF Res. Bull. No.2.
Lettau B., et a/., 1976. Marine Climatology, MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 7: New York State Sea
Grant Institute, Albany, N.Y.
Long Island State Parks and Recreation Commission, June 1978. Telephone Conversation Between Lor-
raine Lawloor, Coordinator, Recreational Services, Long Island State Parks and Recreation Commission,
North Babylon, N.Y., and Diana Farmer, Physical Science Aide, Environmental Impacts Branch, USEPA-
Region II, New York, N.Y.
McCave, I.N., 1972. Transport and Escape of Fine-Grained Sediments from Shelf Areas: In Swift, D.J.P.,
D.B. Duane and O.H. Pilkey (eds.), Shelf Sediment Transport - Process and Patterns: Dowden, Hutchinson
and Ross Inc., Stroudsburg, Pa.
McClennen, C.E., 1973. New Jersey Continental Shelf, Near Bottom Current Meter Records and Recent
Sediment Activity: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 43(2), pp. 371-380.
McClennen, C.E., and R.L. McMaster, 1971. Probable Holocene Transgression Effects in the Geomorphic
Features of the Continental Shelf Off New Jersey, United States: Maritime Sediments, Vol. 7, pp. 69-72.
212
-------
McGraw, D.J., 1969. Continuation of the Investigation of Waste Disposal in the New York Bight: U.S. Dept.
of H.E.W., Public Health Service, FDA - Shellfish Sanitation Branch Report.
McHugh, J.L., 1975. Department of Marine Environmental Studies, State University of New York, Stony
Brook, N.Y.: Personal Communication.
McKinney, T.F., 1975. Regional Geomorphology of the Inner New Jersey Shelf: In Proceedings of the Semi-
nars on Pollution and Water Resources: Columbia University.
McKinney, T.F., and G.M. Friedman, 1970. Continental Shelf Sediments Off Long Island, New York: Journal
of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 40, pp. 213-248.
McKinney, T.F., W.L. Stubblefield and D.J.P. Swift, 1974. Large Scale Current Lineations on the Great Egg
Shoal Retreat Massif, New Jersey Shelf - Investigations by Sidescan Sonar: Marine Geology, Vol. 17, pp.
79-102.
McNulty, J.K., 1970. Effects of Abatement of Domestic Sewage Pollution on the Benthos, Volumes of Zoo-
plankton, and Fouling Organisms of Biscayne Bay, Florida: Studies in Tropical Oceanography, Vol. 9, p. 107.
Maclntyre, I.G., and O.H. Pilkey, 1969. Preliminary Comments on Linear Sand-Surface Features, Onslow
Bay, North Carolina Continental Shelf - Problems in Making Detailed Sea-Floor Observations: Maritime Sedi-
ments, Vol. 5, pp. 26-29.
MacKay, D.W., W. Halcrow and I. Thornton, 1972. Sludge Dumping in the Firth of Clyde: Marine Pollution
Bull., Vol. 3, pp. 7-9.
Mahoney, J.B., F.H. Midlige and D.G. Deuell, 1973. A Fin Rot Disease of Marine and Euryhaline Fishes in
the New York Bight: Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., Vol. 102(3), pp. 596-605.
Malone, T.C., 1975. Plankton Systematics and Distribution: MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph Series;
Monograph 13 (Draft).
Manheim, F.T., R.H. Meade and G.C. Bond, 1970. Suspended Matter in Surface Waters of the Northern
Gulf of Mexico: Amer. Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 17,'pp. 17-27.
Marine Technology Society Journal, July 1974. Special Law of the Sea Issue.
Martineau, D.P., October 11, 1977. Letter from D.P. Martineau, Deputy Associate Administrator for Marine
Resources, NOAA, to Dr. A.W. Breidenbach, Hearing Officer, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials,
USEPA, Wash., D.C.
Meade, R.H., 1969. Landward Transport of Bottom Sediments in Estuaries of the Atlantic Coastal Plain:
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 39, pp. 222-234.
Meade, R.H., 1972. Sources and Sinks of Suspended Matter on Continental Shelves: In Swift, D.J.P., D.B.
Duane and O.H. Pilkey (eds.), Shelf Sediment Transport Process and Patterns: Dowden, Hutchinson and
Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pa., pp. 249-262.
Meade, R.H., P.L. Sachs, FT. Manheim, J.C. Hathaway and D.W. Spencer, 1975. Sources of Suspended
Matter in Waters of the Middle Atlantic Bight: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 45(1), pp. 171-188.
213
-------
Medcof, I.C., and R.A. Chandler, 1968. Exploring for Uses of Ocean Quahogs - Obstacles and Opportuni-
ties: Fisheries Resources Board, Canada, Technical Report 101.
Mendelsohn, J.M., P.S. Parker, E.D. McRae, F.J. King and A.M. Joyce, 1970. The Ocean Quahog - A Boun-
tiful Clam: Food Production and Development, Vol. 4, pp. 90-92, 97.
Merrill, A.S., and J.W. Ropes, 1969. The General Distribution of the Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog: Pro-
ceedings of National Shellfish Association, Vol. 59, pp. 40-45.
Metcalf & Eddy, 1972. Wastewater Engineering: McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y.
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority, September 18, 1975. Letter from Sol Seid, Chief Engineer, Middle-
sex County Sewerage Authority, Sayreville, N.J., to Daniel A. Sullivan, Environmental Engineer, Environmen-
tal Impacts Branch, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
Milliman, J.D., 1972. Marine Geology: In Saila, S.B. (ed.), Coastal and Offshore Environmental Inventory -
Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals; Marine Publication Series No. 3: University of Rhode Island, Providence,
R.I.
Milliman, J.D., O.H. Pilkey and D.A. Ross, 1972. Sediments of the Continental Margin off the Eastern
United States: Geol. Soc. of Amer. Bull., Vol. 83, pp. 1315-1334.
Morel, F.M.M., J.C. Westall, C.R. D'Melia and J.J. Morgan, 1975. Fate of Trace Metals in Los Angeles
County Wastewater Discharge: Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 9(8), pp. 756-761.
Mueller, J.A., et a/., 1976. Contaminant Inputs to the New York Bight: NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL
MESA-6, Marine Ecosystem Analysis Program Office, Boulder, Colo.
Murchelano, R., and |. Ziskowski, 1975. Fish Disease Studies in the New York Bight - Paper Presented at
the Special Symposium on the Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and New York Bight, November 3-5: Amer.
Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography.
Nassau County, September 18, 1975. Letter from James S. Gillen, Deputy Commissioner of Public Works,
Department of Public Works, Nassau County, Mineola, N.Y., to Daniel A. Sullivan, Environmental Engineer,
Environmental Impacts Branch, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
National Academy of Science (NAS), 1976. Disposal in the Marine Environment: An Oceanographic As-
sessment - An Analytical Study for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 76 p.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), September 17, 1974. Letter from David H.
Wallace, Associate Administrator for Marine Resources, NOAA, MESA Program, Rockville, Md., to Gerald
M. Hansler, Regional Administrator, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
NOAA, March 14, 1975. Letter from David H. Wallace, Associate Administrator for Marine Resources,
NOAA, MESA Program, Rockville, Md., to Colonel Thomas C. Hunter, District Engineer, New York District
Corps of Engineers, New York, N.Y.
NOAA, October 6, 1975. Letter from David H. Wallace, Associate Administrator for Marine Resources,
NOAA, MESA Program, Rockville, Md., to Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Administrator, USEPA-Region II,
New York, N.Y.
214
-------
'NOAA, June 1977. Baseline Report of Environmental Conditions in Deepwater Dumpsite 106: Three Volume
Report, NOAA, National Ocean Survey, Rockville, Md.
NOAA, November 1977. Report to the Congress on Ocean Pollution, Overfishing, apd Offshore Develop-
ment, July 1975 through September 1976: Public Law 92-532, Title II, Section 202(c).
NOAA-Marine Eco-System Analyses (MESA), March 8, 1974. Letter from R.L, Swanson, Project Manager,
MESA New York Bight Program, Stony Brook, N.Y., to Richard T. Dewling, Director, Surveillance and Analy-
sis Division, USEPA-Region II, Edison, N.J.
NOAA-MESA, April 11, 1974. Letter from Allan Hirsch, .Director, MESA Program, Rockville, Md., to Rich-
ard T. Dewling, Director, Surveillance and Analysis Division, USEPA-Region II, Edison, N.J.
NOAA-MESA, August 23, 1974. Alternative Dump Site Report, Memorandum from D. Segar to Director of
AOML, Miami, Fla.
NOAA-MESA, March 1975. Ocean Dumping in the New York Bight: NOAA Technical Report, ERL 321-
MESA-2; Rockville, Md.
NOAA-MESA, September 23, 1975. Letter from R.L. Swanson, Project Manager, MESA New York Bight
Program, Stony Brook, N.Y., to Daniel A. Spllivan, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Impacts Branch,
USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
NOAA-MESA, October 16, 1975. Raw Water Column Chemistry Data from AOML, Miami, Fla., sent to Dr.
Thomas McKinney, Senior Marine Geologist, .Dames & Mqore, Cranford, N.J., by Paul Eisen, Data Manager,
MESA New York Bight Project, Stony Brook, N.Y.
NOAA-MESA, February 1976. Evaluation of Proposed Sewage Sludge Dump Site Areas in the New York
Bight: NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL MESA-11, Marine Ecosystem Analysis Program Office, Boulder,
Colo.
NOA.A-MESA, February 1977. Long Island Beach Pollutipp, June 1976, NOAA-MESA Special Report:
NOAA, Environmental Research Laboratories, Boulder, Colo.
NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), 1972. Summary Final Report (AD743936), The Effects
of Waste Disposal in the New York Bight: 9 Sections, NTIS Acqujs. Nos. AD739531 through 739539.
NOAA-NMFS, 1974. Surf Clam Survey, -Cruise Report - NOAA Ship Delaware II, 13-28 June 1974 and
5-10 August 1974: Middle Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center, Oxford, Md.
NOAA-NMFS, 1975a. Participation in Marine Recreational Fishing Northeastern United States, 1973-1974:
Current Fisheries Statistics 6236.
NOAA-NMFS, 1975b. Biological 'Information Submitted to MESA on July 3, .1975, for Use in a Report to
EPA on Alternative Dump Sites in NYB (As Revised July 21, 1975) 2 Volumes.
NOAA-NMFS, 1975c. Sea Scallop Survey, Cruise Report - NOAA Ship Albatross IV, August 7-16, 1975
and September 27 - October 3, 1975: Middle Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center, Sandy Hook Laboratory,
Highlands, N.J.
215
-------
NOAA-NMFS, September 1976, unpublished. Mortalities of Fish and Shellfish Associated with Anoxic Bot-
tom Water in the Middle Atlantic Bight: Middle Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center, Sandy Hook, N.J..
NOAA-NMFS, 1977a. New York Landings, Annual Summary, 1976; Current Fisheries Statistics No. 7212.
NOAA-NMFS, 1977b. New Jersey Landings, Annual Summary, 1976; Current Fisheries Statistics No. 7213.
National Park Service (NFS), 1975. Draft Environmental Statement - Master Plan, Fire Island National Sea-
shore, New York: U.S. Department of the Interior. . , . •
NPS, 1978. Draft Environmental Impact Statement - General Management Plan, Gateway. National Recrea-
tion Area New York/New Jersey: .U.S. Department of the Interior.. ...
NPS, May 1978. Telephone Conversation Between Michael Alderstein, Gateway National Recreation Area,
New York, N.Y., and Diana Farmer, Physical Science Aide, Environmental Impacts Branch,. USEPA-Regipn II,
New York, N.Y.
NPS, June 1978. Telephone Conversation Between Michael Alderstein, Gateway National Recreation Area,
New York, N.Y., and Diana Farmer, Physical Science Aide, Environmental Impacts Branch, USEPA-Region II,
New York, N.Y.
National Science Foundation (NSF), November 1976. Anoxia on the Middle .Atlantic Shelf During the
Summer of 1976: Office for the International Decade of Ocean Exploration, NSF, Washington, D.C.
Neumann, ;G., and W.J. Pierson, 1966. Principle^ of Physical .Oceanography: Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.
New Jersey Qepartment of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), July 1976. Report on Ocean Algae;Bloom
and Fish Kill: Division of Fish Game and Shellfish, Racots Creek Research Station.
NJDEP, August 1976. Report on the Fish Kill off the New Jersey Coast and its Potential Causes and Conse-
quences: Trenton, N.J.
NJDEP, October 1976. Report to Commissioner Bardin for Submission to the New Jersey State Senate Com-
mittee on Energy, Agriculture and the Environment on Ocean Pollution Causes and Remedies in the Atlantic
Coastal Area: Division of Water Resources, Trenton, N.J. .•
NJDEP, January 1977. Report on the Ocean Dumping of Sludge and on Land-Based Alternatives to the
Ocean Dumping of Sludge: Division of Water Resources, Trenton, N.J.
NJDEP, 1978. Telephone Conversation Between Frank Guidotti, Bureau of Parks, NJDEP, Trenton, N.J., and
Diana Farmer, Physical Science Aide, Environmental Impacts Branch, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
New York City Environmental Protection Administration (NYCEPA), July 28, 1975. Letter from Norman
R. Melbinger, P.E., Acting Chief, Div. of Plant Operations, Bureau of Water Pollution Control, City of New
York, to Daniel A. Sullivan, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Impacts Branch, USEPA-Region II, New
York, N.Y.
NYCEPA, October 28, 1975. Letter from Charles Samowitz, Commissioner, Dept. of Water Resources to
Daniel A. Sullivan, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Impacts Branch, USEPA-Region II, New York,
N.Y.
216
-------
New York Ocean Science Laboratory, 1973. The Oceanography of the New York Bight - Physical, Chemi-
cal, Biological: Technical Report No. 00017.
New York Times, December 31, 1975. "State Restricts Fishing for Sea Clams".
O'Connors, H.B., and I.W. Duedall, 1975. The Seasonal Variation in Sources, Concentrations and Impacts
of Ammonium in the New York Bight Apex: Preprint from American Chemical Society Symposium Series on
Marine Chemistry in the Coastal Environment.
Orr, M.H., 1977, unpublished. Qualitative Dispersion Characteristics of Sewage Sludge Released at DWD
106 in the Presence of a Shallow Seasonal Thermocline: Ocean Engineering Department, Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Mass.
Pararas-Carayannis, G., 1973. Ocean Dumping in the New York Bight - An Assessment of Environmental
Studies: U.S. Army COE, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Technical Memo No. 39.
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, September 24, 1975. Letter from S.A. Lubetkin, Chief Engineer,
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, Newark, N.J., to Daniel A. Sullivan, Environmental Engineer, Envi-
ronmental Impacts Branch, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
Pearce, J.B., 1970. The Effects of Solid Waste Disposal on Benthic Communities in the New York Bight: FAO
Technical Conference on Marine Pollution, December 9-18, Rome.
Pearce, J.B., 1974a. Regional Coastal Environmental Consideration for Offshore Power Plants, Sandy Hook
to Atlantic City, N.J.: In Peres, ).M. (ed.), Modifications Thermiques et Equilibres Biologiques, pp. 409-477;
Institut de La Vie, Paris.
Pearce, ).B., 1974b. Invertebrates of the Hudson River Estuary: Annals of the New York Academy of Sci-
ences, Vol. 250, pp. 137-143.
Pollution Control Industries, Inc., August 15, 1975. Letter from Christian T. Hoffman Jr., President, PCI,
Inc., West Caldwell, N.)., to Dr. Barry). Berdahl, Proj. Mgr., Dames & Moore, New York, N.Y.
Pratt, S.D., 1973. Benthic Fauna: In Saila, S.B. (ed.), Coastal and Offshore Environmental Inventory - Cape
Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals: Marine Publication Series No. 2, Occasional Publication No. 5, University of
Rhode Island, Providence, R.I., pp. 5-1 through 5-70.
Raytheon, 1975a. Cruise 1 Data Report, Baseline Survey - New York Bight; Volumes 1-5.
Raytheon, 1975b. Cruise 2 Data Report, Baseline Survey - New York Bight; Volumes 1-6.
Raytheon, 1975c. Basline Survey - New York Bight, Volumes 1-7.
Rohatgi, N., and K.Y. Chen, 1975. Transport of Trace Metals by Suspended Particulates on Mixing with
Seawater: Journal WPCF, Vol. 47(9), pp. 2298-2316.
Ryther, J. and W. Dunstan, 1971. Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Eutrophication in Coastal Marine Areas: Sci-
ence, Vol. 171, pp. 1008-1013.
217
-------
Saila, S.B., and S.D. Pratt, 1973. Mid-Atlantic Bight Fisheries: In Saila, S.B. (ed.), Coastal and Offshore Envi-
ronmental Inventory - Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals: Marine Publication Series No. 2, Occasional
Publication No. 5, University of Rhode Island, Providence, R.I., pp. 6-1 through 6-125.
Samowitz, C, June 14, 1977. Letter from Charles Samowitz, Commissioner, NYCEPA, Department of Water
Resources to T.A. Wastler, Chief, Marine Protection Branch, USEPA, Wash., D.C., in Support of Testimony
at the May 31, 1977 Public Hearing in Toms River, New Jersey.
Scheinkman, J.J., and P.M. Byrne, 1977. Inventory of the Barrier Island Chain of the States of New York and
New Jersey: Open Space'lnstitute, New York, N.Y.
Schlee, J., and R.M. Platt, 1970. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of the United States - Gravels of the
Northeastern Part: U.S. Ceol. Surv., Prof. Paper 529-H.
Schlee, J. 1973. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of the United States - Sediment Texture of the North-
east Part: U.S. Geol. Surv., Prof. Paper 529.
Schlee, J., 1975. Sand and Gravel, MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 21: New York Sea Grant Insti-
tute, Albany, N.Y.
Schubel, J.R., and A. Okubo, 1972. Comments on the Dispersal of Suspended Sediments Across the Conti-
nental Shelves: In Swift, D.J.P., D.B. Duane and O.H. Pilkey (eds.), Shelf Sediment Transport Process and
Patterns: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pa., pp. 333-346.
Segar, D.A., and A.Y. Cantillo, 1975. Trace Metals in the New York Bight - Abstracts from the Special
Symposium on the Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and New York Bight, November 3-5, 1975: Amer. Soc.
of Limnology and Oceanography, p. 62.
Segar, D.A., G.A. Berberian and P.G. Hatcher, 1975. Oxygen Depletion in the New York Bight Apex,
Causes and Consequences - Abstracts from the Special Symposium on the Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf
and New York Bight, November 3-5: Amer. Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography, p. 61.
Shelton, R.G.U., 1971. Sludge Dumping in the Thames Estuary: Marine Pollution Bull., Vol. 2(2), pp. 24-27.
Stahl, L., J. Koczan and D.J.P. Swift, 1972. Anatomy of a Shoreface Connected Ridge System on the New
Jersey Shelf - Implications for the Genesis of the Shelf Surficial Sand Sheets: Geology, Vol. 2, pp. 117-120.
Stearns, F., 1967. Bathymetric Maps of the New York Bight: Atlantic Continental Shelf of the United States,
Scale 1:125,000: National Ocean Survey, NOAA, Rockville, Md.
Steele, J.H., A.D, Mclntyre, R. Johnston, I.G. Baxter, G. Topping and H.D. Dooley, 1973. Pollution Studies
in the Clyde Sea Area: Marine Pollution Bull., Vol. 4(10), pp. 153-167.
Stubblefield, W.L., M. Dicken and D.J.P. Swift, 1974. Reconnaissance of Bottom Sediments on the Inner
and Central New Jersey Shelf: MESA Rept. No. 1, NOAA, Rockville, Md.
Stubblefield, W.L., J.W. Lavelle, D.J.P. Swift and T.F. McKinney, 1975. Sediment Response to the Present
Hydraulic Regime on the Central New Jersey Shelf: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 45, pp. 337-358.
Summers, A.O., and S. Silver, 1972. Mercury Resistance in a Plasmid Bearing Strain of Escherichia coli: Jour.
Bacteriology, Vol. 122, pp. 1228-1236.
218
-------
Swift, D.J.P., J.W. Kofoed, P.P. Saulsberg and P. Sears, 1972. Holocene Evolution of the Shelf Surface,
Central and Southern Atlantic Shelf of North America: In Swift, D.J.P., D.B. Duane and O.H. Pilkey (eds.),
Shelf Sediment Transport Process and Patterns: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pa., pp.
499-575.
Swift, D.J.P., D.B. Duane and T.F. McKinney, 1973. Ridge and Swale Topography of the Middle Atlantic
Bight, North America - Secular Response to the Holocene Hydraulic Regime: Marine Geology, Vol. 15, pp.
227-247.
Swift, D.J.P., 1974. Continental Shelf Sedimentation: In Burke, C.A., and C.L. Drake (eds.), The Geology of
Continental Margins: Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y.
Thorson, G., 1957. Bottom Communities (Sublittoral or Shallow Shelf): Geol. Soc. of Amer., Memoir 67(1),
pp. 461-534.
Town of Hemstead, 1974. Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge; Its Effect on the South Shore of Long Island:
Town of Hemstead, Dept. of Conservation and Waterways, Marine Laboratory, Point Lookout, N.Y., Contri-
bution No. 11.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), December 12, 1974. Letter from Colonel Harry W. Lomard,
District Engineer, New York District Corps of Engineers, New York, N.Y., to Gerald M. Hansler, Regional
Administrator, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), June 2, 1975. Letter from Commander James A. Atkinson, Acting Chief, Marine
Environmental Protection Division, District Three, USCG, Governors Island, New York, N.Y., to Michael
Jones, Oceanographer, Dames & Moore, Cranford, N.J.
USCG, July 8, 1975. Telephone Conversation Between Lt. Fred Rubel, Marine Environmental Protection
Division, District Three, USCG, Governors Island, New York, N.Y., and Susan Moore, Environmental Scien-
tist, Dames & Moore, New York, N.Y.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), October 1971. Process Design Manual for Solids Re-
moval: Technology Transfer Manual, Prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc., Oradell, N.J.
USEPA, July 1974. Ocean Disposal in the New York Bight - Technical Briefing Report, No. 1: Surveillance
and Analysis Division, USEPA-Region II, Edison, N.J.
USEPA, October 1974. Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal: Technology Transfer
Manual No. EPA 625/1-74-006.
USEPA, October 2, 1974. Letter to Municipal Permittees from Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Administrator,
USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
USEPA, October 9, 1974. Letter from Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Administrator, USEPA-Region II, New
York, N.Y., to Colonel Harry W. Lombard, District Engineer, New York District Corps of Engineers
USEPA, January 17, 1975. Letter of Intent to Municipal Permittees from Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Admin-
istrator, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
USEPA, March 25, 1975. Memorandum from F.T. Brezenski, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Surveillance
and Analysis Division, USEPA-Region II, Edison, N.J.
219
-------
USEPA, April 1975. Ocean Disposal in the New York Bight - Technical Briefing Report No. 2: Surveillance
and Analysis Division, USEPA-Region II, Edison, N.J.
USEPA, April 1, 1975. Ocean Dumping Permits; Public Hearing Transcripts, New York, N.Y.
USEPA, July 15, 1975. Letter from Richard T. Dewling, Director Surveillance and Analysis Division, USEPA-
Region II, Edison, N.J., to Dr. Barry J. Berdahl, Proj. Mgr., Dames & Moore, New York, N.Y.
USEPA, November 21, 1975. Written Communication from Daniel A. Sullivan, Environmental Engineer, En-
vironmental Impacts Branch, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y., to Dr. Barry J. Berdahl, Proj. Mgr., Dames &
Moore, New York, N.Y.
USEPA, January 11, 1977. Ocean Dumping Final Revision of Regulations and Criteria, Federal Register, Vol.
42, No. 7.
\
USEPA, May 31, 1977. Public Hearing Transcript, Ocean County College, Toms River, N.J., Vol. 1.
USEPA, June 1, 1977. Public Hearing Transcript, Ocean County College, Toms River, N.J., Vol. 2.
USEPA, November 28, 1977. Ocean Dumping Procedural Regulations, Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 228.
USEPA, June 26, 1978. General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution, Federal
Register, Vol. 43, No. 123.
USEPA, unpublished. Water Quality of the New York Bight, 1977, Draft Report: Surveillance and Analysis
Division, USEPA-Region II, Edison, N.J.
USEPA, Permit Files, unpublished. USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
Vaccaro, R.F., and M.R. Dennet, 1977. Final Report - The Environmental Response of Marine Bacteria to
Waste Disposal Activities at Deep Water Dump Site 106: NOAA, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Woods Hole, Mass.
Veatch, A.C., and P.A. Smith, 1939. Atlantic Submarine Valleys of the United States and the Congo Subma-
rine Valleys: Geol. Soc. of Amer., Special Paper No. 7.
West, R.H., et a/., September 1976. Polychlorinated Biphenyls and DDT's in Sediments and Sewage Sludge
of the New York Bight: NOAA, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratories.
Westchester County, July 7, 1975. Letter from Kenneth G. Wolf, Director, Wastewater Treatment, West-
chester County Department of Environmental Facilities, White Plains, N.Y., to Dr. Barry J. Berdahl, Proj.
Mgr., Dames & Moore, New York, N.Y.
Westchester County, September 15, 1975. Letter from Kenneth G. Wolf, Director, Wastewater Treatment,
Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities, White Plains, N.Y., to Dr. Barry J. Berdahl, Proj.
Mgr., Dames & Moore, New York, N.Y.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), 1971. Proceedings - Ocean Disposal Conference: Ma-
rine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass.
220
-------
Young, D.R., T.C. Heesen, D.J. McDermott and P.E. Smokier, 1974a. Marine Inputs of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls and Copper from Vessel Antifouling Paints: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
TM212.
Young, D.R., J.N. Johnson, A. Soutor and J.D. Isaacs, 1974b. Mercury Concentrations in Dated Varved
Marine Sediments Collected Off Southern California: Nature, Vol. 244(5415), pp. 273-275.
Young, J.S., and J.B. Pearce, 1975. Shell Disease in Crabs and Lobsters from New York Bight: Marine Pollu-
tion Bull., Vol. 6(7), pp. 101-105.
Young, D.R., D.J. McDermott, T.C. Heesen and T.K. Jan, April 8-10, 1975. Pollutant Inputs and Distribu-
tions Off Southern California: Preprint of Paper Presented at 169th National Meeting of ACS Special Sympo-
sium, Marine Chemistry in the Coastal Environment, Philadelphia, Pa.
Ziskowski, J., and R. Murchelano, 1975. Fin Erosion in Winter Flounder: Marine Pollution Bull., Vol. 6(2),
pp. 26-29.
221
-------
a
API
BPT
BOD
BLM
C/N
cfs
cm
cm/sec
COD
CFR
cu m
cu m/sec
cu yd
°C
"F
EIS
FWPCA
ft
FDA
g/cu cm
in
in/sec
ABBREVIATIONS USED
acre(s)
American Petroleum Institute
Best Practicable Control Technology
biochemical oxygen demand
Bureau of Land Management
Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio
cubic feet per second
centimeter(s)
centimeters per second
chemical oxygen demand
Code of Federal Regulations
cubic meter(s)
cubic meters per second
cubic yard(s)
degrees Celsius
degrees Fahrenheit
environmental impact statement
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
foot, feet
Food and Drug Administration
grams per cubic centimeter
inch(es)
inches per second
222
-------
I EC
ISC
kg
kg/day
km
LORAN-C
MPRSA
m
m/sec
ug/kg
ug/l
mi
mg
mg/l
ml
ml/sq m/hr
mm
mph
NAS
NASA
NEPA
Interstate Electronics Corporation
Interstate Sanitation Commission
kilogram(s)
kilograms per day
kilometer(s)
Long Range Aid to Navigation
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act
meter(s)
meters per second
micrograms per kilogram, or millionth
gram per kilogram
milligrams per liter, or millionth gram
per liter
micron(s)
mile(s)
milligram(s), or thousandth gram
milligrams per liter
milliliter(s), or thousandth liter
milliliters per square meter per hour
millimeter(s), or thousandth meter
miles per hour
National Academy of Science
National Aeronautics and Space Admini-
stration
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969
223
-------
NOAA
NOAA-MESA
NOAA-NMFS
NSF
n mi
NJDEP
OCS
ODSS
PCB
ppm
ppt
Ib
Ib/a/day
Ib/day
sec
sq
SPM
SS
TCH
TKN
TOC
COE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration-Marine Ecosystems Analysis
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration-National Marine Fisheries
Service
National Science Foundation
nautical mile(s)
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
outer continental shelf
Ocean Dumping Surveillance System
polychlorinated bi-phenols
parts per million
parts per thousand
pound(s)
pounds per acre per day
r
pounds per day
second(s)
square
suspended particulate matter
suspended solids
total carbohydrate content
total Kjeldahl nitrogen
total organic carbon
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
224
-------
uscc
EPA
EPA-
Headquarters
EPA-Region II
UNLOS III
U.S.
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II, New York, N.Y.
The Third United Nations Law of the Sea
Conference
United States of America
225
-------
METRIC
Metric
Celsius CO
centimeter(s) (cm)
centimeters/second (cm/sec)
cubic meter(s) (cu m)
cubic meters/day (cu m/day)
hectare(s) (ha)
kilogram(s) (kg)
kilograms/day (kg/day)
kilograms/meter (kg/m)
kilometer(s) (km)
kilometers/hour (km/hr)
liter(s) (1)
meter(s) .(m)
meters/second (m/sec)
metric ton(s) (MT)
metric tons per day
milliliters/square meter/hour
(ml/sq m/hr)
square kilometer(s) (sq km)
EQUIVALENTS OF ENGLISH UNITS
English
Fahrenheit (°F)
inch(es) (in)
i
inches/second (in/sec)
cubic yard(s) (cu yd)
million gallons per day (mgd)
acre(s) (a)
pound(s) (Ib), ton(s)
pounds/day (Ibs/day), tons/day
pounds/foot, (Ibs/ft)
mile(s) (mi), nautical mile(s) (n mi)
knots
gallon(s) (g)
foot, feet (ft)
miles per hour (mph)
ton(s)
tons per day
pounds/acre/day
(Ib/a/day)
square nautical mile(s)
(sq n mi)
226
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE FORM:
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT
(OCEAN DUMPING) PERMIT
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK IOOO7
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND
SANCTUARIES ACT (OCEAN DUMPING) PERMIT
PERMIT NO. AND TYPE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REAPPLICATION DATE:
APPLICANT:
WASTE GENERATOR(S):
WASTE GENERATED AT:
PORT OF DEPARTURE:
II-NY 009 - Interim
February 15. 1978
January 9, 1979
July 10, 1978
Charles Samowitz, P.E., Commissioner
Dept. of Water Resources, NYC EPA
Municipal Building
New York, New York 10007
Same as applicant
See Table I
New York, N.Y.
WASTE TRANSPORTER(S): NYC, Envir. Protection Adminis., DWR
Municipal Building
New York, N.Y. 10007
and any person owning or operating a towing vessel
employed for the purpose authorized herein.
This permit authorizes the transportation and dumping into ocean waters
of certain material pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctu-
aries Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1401-1444, (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act"), regulations promulgated thereunder, and the terms and conditions set
forth below. . . _ -.. .
II-HY 009
General Conditions:
1. All transportation and dumping authorized herein shall at all times
be undertaken in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions of this
permit. The applicant, waste generator(s) and waste transporter(s) designated
above shall be the permittees liable for compliance with such terms and condi-
tions. The liability of each is set forth in the Special Conditions. Com-
pliance by any permittee with one or more but less than all of the conditions
with which such permittee must comply will not constitute a ground or grounds
of defense in any proceeding against that permittee for violation of the pro-
visions of this permit.
2. Any person who violates any provision of the Act, the Final Regula-
tions issued thereunder, or any term or condition of this permit shall be
liable for a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation. Ad-
ditionally, any knowing violation of the Act, Final Regulations, or permit
may result in a criminal action being brought with penalties of not more than
$50,000 or one year in prison, or both.
3. a. Transportation to, and dumping at any location other than that
authorized by this permit shall constitute a violation of the Act and of the
terms and conditions of this permit.
b. Transportation and dumping of any material not identified in or
significantly in excess of that identified in the application for this permit,
unless specifically authorized by a written modification hereto, shall consti-
tute a violation of the Act and of the terms and conditions of this permit.
4. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to authorize, in any way,
, the transportation from the United States for the purpose of dumping into
the ocean waters, into the territorial sea, or into the contiguous zone, of
the following material:
a. High-level radioactive wastes.
b. Materials, in whatever form, produced for radiological, chemical
or biological warfare.
c. Persistent synthetic or natural materials which may float or
remain in suspension in the ocean.
5. The applicant may not apply for, nor any permittee simultaneously
hold, a permit from another EPA Regional Office for any of the material to
which this permit is applicable, nor may the applicant or any permittee trans-
fer material from one 'EPA Region to another if a permit for the transportation
or dumping of such material has been denied by one EPA Region.
-------
II-NT 009
II-HY 009
6. After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be
modified or revoked, In whole or in part, during its term for cause In-
cluding, but not limited to, the following:
a. Violation of any term or condition of the permit;
b. Misrepresentation, Inaccuracy, or failure by the applicant
to disclose all relevant facts in the permit application;
c. A change in any condition or material fact upon which this
permit is based that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction
or elimination of the authorized transportation or dumping including, but
not limited to, changes in conditions at the designated dump site, and newly
discovered scientific data relative to the granting of this permit.
d. Failure to keep records, to engage in monitoring activities,
or to notify appropriate officials In a timely manner of transportation and
dumping activities as specified in any condition of this permit.
7. This permit shall be subject to suspension by the Regional Adminis-
trator or his delegate if he determines that the permitted dumping has resulted,
or is resulting, in imminent and substantial harm to human health or welfare or
the marine environment. Such suspension shall be effective subject only to the
provisions of 40 C.F.R. 223.2(c).
8. The authority conferred by this permit may, at the discretion of the
Regional Administrator or his delegate, be transferred to a waste transporter
other than that (those) named herein, provided that a request for such a trans-
fer be made, in writing, by the applicant at least 10 days prior to the requested
transfer date.
9. If material which is regulated by this permit is discharged due to an
emergency to safeguard life at sea in locations or in a manner not in accordance
with the terms of this permit, one of the permittees shall make a full report,
in accordance with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001, within 10 days to the
Regional Administrator detailing the conditions of this emergency and the actions
taken.
10. Unless otherwise provided for herein, all terms used in this permit
shall have the meanings assigned to them by the Act or the Final Regulations
issued thereunder.
11. The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in
either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any Injury to private property or any invasion of rights, nor any
infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations, nor does It obviate
the necessity of obtaining State or local assent required by applicable law for
'the activity authorized.
12. This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any
onshore physical structures or facilities or, except as authorized by this
permit, the undertaking of any work in any navigable water.
13. Each permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order
and operate as efficiently as possible all facilities, including vessels,
used by such permittee in achieving compliance with the terms and conditions
of this permit.
14. This permit, or a true copy thereof, shall be placed in a conspicuous
place on the vessel which will be used for the transportation and dumping
authorized by this permit. If the dumping vessel is an unmanned barge, the
permit or true copy of the permit shall be transferred to the towing vessel
or an additional true copy shall be available on board the towing vessel.
15. Every scow or boat engaged in the transportation of wastes for ocean
disposal shall have its name and number painted in letters and numbers at
least fourteen Inches high on both sides of the scow or boat. The name and
number shall be kept distinctly legible at all times, and no scow or boat
not so marked shall be used to transport or dump any such material.
16. The permittee(s) shall allow the EPA Regional Administrator, the
Commander, Third U.S. Coast Guard District, and/or their authorized rep-
resentatives:
(a) To enter into, upon, or through the permittee's
premises, vessels, or other premises or vessels under
the control of the permittee, where, or in which, a
source of material to be dumped is located or in which
any records are required to be kept under the terms
and conditions of this permit or the Act;
(b) To have access to and copy any records required
to be kept under the terms and conditions of this
permit or the Act;
(c) To Inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring
method required in this permit;
(d) To sample or require that a sample be drawn under
EPA/CG supervision of any materials discharged or to be
discharged; and
(e) To inspect any dumping and navigation equipment
Installed on board any towing vessel, barge, or
self-propelled vessel utilized in ocean dumping
activities authorized under this permit.
-------
II-NY 009
17. The waste transporter shall cause to be installed, maintained,
and operated on board any towing vessel or self-propelled vessel departing
port for ocean dumping activities under this permit, a commercially avail-
able LORAN-C automatic tracking and recording device, acceptable to the
U.S. Coast Guard for this purpose. Such equipment may be portable. Such
equipment shall be employed no later than six months after notification of
the requirement, but not before the transporter has been afforded the
opportunity for a public hearing by the Commander Third Coast Guard District
concerning any such requirement. Such equipment shall be operated in accord-
ance with procedures provided by the Coast Guard. No such towing or self-
propelled vessel shall depart on a dumping mission six months after such
notification with such equipment not Installed or not operational without
first obtaining written authorization from the Coast Guard.
II-NY 009
Special Conditions;
1. Permit Term - This permit shall expire at midnight on January 9, 1979.
This permit is nonrenewable. Application for a new permit must be submitted
to EPA at least 180 days prior to expiration of this permit.
2. Description of Material - During the term of this permit, the
type and quantity of material permitted for transportation for the purpose
of ocean dumping shall be in accordance with the following:
3,965,000 wet tons annually of digested sewage sludge
generated by the facilities listed in Table I.
Waste volumes ocean dumped must comply not only with the total volume limit
noted above, but also to the individual volume limit set for each waste
treatment plant listed in Table I.
The waste generator shall submit quarterly reports (on a calendar basis)
of volumes removed from its facilities by the waste transporter under this
permit, and the waste transporter shall submit similar reports of volumes
transported by it to the dump^site specified in Special Condition No. 3.
Such volumes shall be expressed in the following units - gallons, cubic
yards, wet tons, and dry tons. Such reports shall be submitted within 20
days of the end of the reporting period
3. Disposal Site - Transportation for the purpose of ocean dumping
shall terminate at, and waste disposal shall be confined to, the area
described below:
Latitude: 40°22'30"N to 40°25'0"N
Longitude: 73°41'30"W to 73°45'0"W
-------
II-NY 009
II-NY 009
TABLE I
Sewage Treatment Plant/Port of Departure
Bowery Bay
Coney Island
Hunts Point
Jamaica
Newtovn Creek
Oakwood Beach
Owls Head
Fort Richmond
Rockaway
Tallman Island
Wards Island
26th Ward
Wet Tons/Year
483,840
126,720
422,400
422,400
768,000
0
287,700
230,150
57,600
253,440
698,880
211,200
4. Method of Disposal - a. The waste transporter shall use only
the following vessel(s)/barge(s) for transportation and dumping of wastes
authorized under this permit:
Newtovn Creek, Bowery Bay, North River, Owls Head
b. The waste transporter shall comply with the following
restrictive conditions:
(1) The master of the ocean dumping vessel shall prepare
at the time of occurrence a navigational overlay of the dumping vessel's
trackline during the dumping operation, Indicating the times and posi-
tions at critical points (e.g. entry and exit from the dump site; beginning
and end of dump). The overlay shall be signed and dated by the master
and forwarded within 72 hours after completion of the trip to:
Captain of the Fort
U.S. Coast Guard
c/o New York Station
Governors Island
New York, N.Y. 10004
(2) The master shall also submit to Captain of the Fort,
New York, in the manner outlined above, a statement signed and dated,
indicating whether or not the conditions of the permit were met.
(3) The waste transporter shall provide telephone con-
firmation to Captain of the Fort, New York of the following infor-
mation within 15 minutes of the time of departure of a dumping vessel
for the dump site:
(a) COTF Reference Number
(b) Name of dumping vessel
(c) Actual time of departure
(4) The master shall notify Coast Guard Group Sandy Hook
via VHF-FM within ten (10) minutes of occurrence of the actual time
that a dumping operation begins. The master will contact Group Sandy
Hook on Channel 16 and then shift and transmit on Channel 12 (or
other agreeable frequency) the following Information:
(a) COTF Reference Number
(b) Name of dumping vessel
(c) Actual time dumping operation
started
-------
II-NY 009
(5) The waste transporter shall Install and utilize
during the course of each nighttime dumping operation a spotlight,
which shall be of sufficient intensity to Illuminate the discharge
Immediately astern of the dumping vessel. The spotlight shall be
sufficiently elevated so as to give ample coverage to the wake of
the vessel, while at the same time maintaining the direction of
the light beam vertically Into the water column. The spotlight
shall be fixed firmly Into position and shall be Installed on the
vessel so as not to Interfere with or to be confused with any
other required navigational lights.
These restrictive conditions apply only when Coast Guard shlprlder
surveillance Is not conducted.
c. Waste materials are to be discharged at a uniform rate
while moving at a speed of not more than 5 knots over a distance
of at leaast five (S) nautical miles within the dump site desig-
nated In Special Condition No. 3. If two or more vessels/barges
are discharging simultaneously, a safe separation distance must be
maintained.
8 (a)
II-NY 009
5. Analysis of Authorized Wastes - (a) Analyses shall be conducted
quarterly for each treatment facility listed on Table I by the waste
generator on a representative sample of a vessel/barge load for the
following parameters:
Bioasoay (mg/1, TL SO, 96 his.) using the organisms Skeletonema
costatum. Menidia menldla. 'and/or any substitute organism
designed to be more appropriate by EPA, Region II.
Mercury (mg/kg), liquid and solid phase
Cadmium (ffg/kg), liquid and solid phase
Specific gravity at 20°C
Oil and grease (mg/1), using liquid-liquid extraction with
trichlorotrlfluoroethane
Petroleum hydrocarbon (oil In mg/1), using tentative
IR procedure
Fecal coliform (MPN/100 ml)
Total coliform (MPN/100 ml)
Arsenic (mg/1)
Chromium (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Nickel (mg/1)
Vanadium (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
Total solids (mg/1)
Suspended solids (mg/1)
-------
II-NY 009
b. Analytical data shall be submitted to EPA no later than
30 days after sampling.
following:
c. All analyses will be conducted according to one of the
EPA, Region II;
(1) Specific analytical procedures distributed by
(2) Approved test procedures contained In "Guidelines
Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants", 40 C.F.R.
136; or
(3) Test procedures selected by the waste generator
and approved by EPA, Region II
d. Within 20 days of effective date, the name and address of
the designated laboratory and a description of all analytical test
procedures being used shall be provided to the EPA. Any variation or
change In the .^designated laboratory or procedures shall be reported to
EPA, In writing, Immediately.
e. Any laboratory employed for purposes of performing the
analyses specified In Special Condition No. 5(a) shall maintain a viable
analytical quality control program. This program will Include:
(1) Use of EPA-approved analytical test procedures
as listed In Special Condition No. 5(c).
, (2) Use of sample preservation techniques and the
holding time specified in analytical method employed or in EPA manual
entitled "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes".
(3) Routine use and documentation of intra-laboratory
quality control practices as recommended in the EPA manual "Handbook
for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories".
These practices will Include use and documentation of Internal quality
control samples.
f. The laboratory facilities, data, records, and quality control
records are subject to periodic inspection by EPA Personnel.
g. EPA may require analysis of quality control samples by any
laboratory employed for purposes of compliance with Special Condition No.
5(a). Upon request, the waste generator shall provide EPA with the ana-
lytical results from such samples.
10
II-NY 009
6. Monitoring - The waste generator is required to continue to
implement its EPA approved monitoring program as a means of determining
the short-term environmental impacts of ocean dumping of its waste.
7. Implementation Plan, Schedule, or Alternative - a. In accor-
dance with 40 CFR 227.16, the waste generator shall be responsible for
the selection and implementation of one or more land—based sludge-
management alternatives, determined by EPA and the responsible State to
be environmentally acceptable, technically feasible, and economically
reasonable. The alternative(s) selected shall be implemented in accord
with 40 CFR 220.3(d) on or before December 31, 1981.
The waste generator may. utilize any source of funding available to it
for implementation of the alternative(s) selected. Whether the waste
generator is awarded an EPA Construction Grant, or whether it chooses,
or has, to spend its own money, it is obligated to comply with the
schedule set forth below:
(1) Apply for a "Step 1" Construction Grant October 1, 1976
for a facility plan, including an environ-
mental assessment and a detailed "heavy
metal source determination study" report,
detailing the origins of the heavy metals
found in its ocean-dumped sludge, and
describing the steps to be taken to reduce
or eliminate controllable heavy metal
sources, for implementation of the alter-
natives^) selected:
Submit an approvable contract for review
by City officials, NYSDEC, and EPA;
Receive necessary contracts approval
from City officials, NYSDEC, and EPA;
Request BOE resolution;
Receive necessary BOE approval;
Request consultant to proceed with
contract;
Submit contract to EFCB for review;
\
Execute contract and submit to EFCB;
November 23, 1977
December 7, 1977
December 7, 1977
December 15, 1977
December 15, 1977
December 17, 1977
December 22, 1977
11
-------
Il-hW 009
b. The waste generator shall submit monthly progress reports
on compliance with Che implementation plan and on progress to reduce to
a minimum controllable heavy metal sources beginning February 1, 1978.
The waste generator shall Inform EPA within 10 days of noncompllance
with any phase of the aforementioned Implementation schedule, and shall
notify EPA immediately of its failure to obtain necessary approvals
from appropriate regulatory agencies.
11 (c)
II-NY 009
8. Digester Cleanout - a. The waste generator may contract author-
ized waste transporters, who in turn may dispose of "digester cleanout"
wastes generated by facilities listed in Special Condition No. 2 at the
106-mile chemical wastes dump site (Latitude 38°40'N to 39°0'N, Londltude
72°0'W to 72°30'W). The following vessel(s)/barge(s) are authorized under
this permit for transportation and dumping of "digester cleanout" wastes:
Ocean Dl»posall Mo. 1; Lisa;
Rarttan; Forest; Susan Frank; Rebecca K
With respect to the disposal of "digester cleanout" wastes, the method
of disposal shall be In accord with Special Condition No. 4(c).
b. A representative sample of the "digester cleanout" material
shall be collected and analyzed by the waste transporter on each vessel/
barge load for the following parameters:
Mercury, liquid and solid phase (mg/kg)
Cadmium, liquid and solid phase (mg/kg)
Petroleum hydrocarbon (mg/kg), using IR procedure
Total solids (mg/kg)
Total volatile solids (mg/kg)
Specific gravity at 20°C
Analyses shall be conducted in accordance with Special Condition No. 5(c)
and submitted to EPA no later than 30 days following the discharge.
12
-------
II-NY 009
II-NY 009
Register contract;
Issue order for consultant to proceed
along two-track approach (i.e., short-
term and long-term solution);
Commence short-term facility plan,
environmental assessment, and heavy
metal report;
Advertise public hearing date;
Complete draft EAS and preliminary
facility plan;
Submit draft EAS and preliminary
facility plan to NYSDEC and EPA;
Conduct public hearing;
Complete EAS facility plan, and heavy
metals report;
Submit approvable facility plan, EAS,
and heavy metal report to NYSDEC and
EPA.
(2) Decide number of consultants needed to
accomplish "Step 2";
Conduct pre-proposal meeting with.
consultants;
Receive proposals for "Step 2";
Rank and nominate consultants to
selection board;
Apply for a "Step 2" Construction Grant
or independently fund the preparation
of plans and specifications for the
alternative(s) selected;
Select consultants;
December 29, 1977
January 1, 1978
January 1, 1978
May 21, 1978
June 15, 1978
June 15. 1978
June 21, 1978
July 15, 1978
August 1, 1978
June 15, 1978
June 18, 1978
July 10, 1978
July 21, 1978
August 1, 1978
August 1, 1978
Submit approvable contract to City
officials, NYSDEC, and EPA for approval;
Receive necessary contract approval
from City officials, NYSDEC, and EPA;
Request BOE resolution;
Receive BOE approval;
Submit contract to EFCB for review;
Execute contract;
Register contract;
Issue order for consultant to proceed;
Initiate the preparation of plans and
specifications;
Complete approvable plans and
specifications;
Submit approvable plans and specifi-
cations to NYSDEC and EPA;
Receive NYSDEC and EPA approval.
(3) Apply for "Step 3" Construction Grant
or Independently fund the construction
of facilities for the alternatlve(s)
selected;
Commence construction of such facilities;
Complete construction of such facilities
and cease the ocean dumping of its wastes.
(4) Commence preparation of facility plans
and environmental assessment for long-
term sludge disposal.
August 21, 1978
September 7, 1978
September 7, 1978
September 14, 1978
September 17, 1978
September 21, 1978
September 28, 1978
October 1, 1978
October 1, 1978
June 1, 1979
June 1, 1979
July 10, 1979
July 15, 1979
February 15, 1980
December 31, 1981
November 1, 1978
11 (a)
11 (b)
-------
II-NY 009
9. Notice to Regulatory Agencies - (a) The waste transporter shall
provide telephone notification of sailing to Captain of the Fort (COTP),
New York at 212-264-8753 during working hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday) and at 212-264-8770 during the nonworklng hours,
weekends, and holidays not later than two (2) hours prior to the estimated
time of departure for the dump site designated In Special Condition No. 3
or not later than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the estimated time of
departure for the dump site designated In Special Condition No. 8. The
waste transporter shall immediately notify the COTP upon any changes in
the estimated time of departure greater than one (1) hour.
Surveillance of use of the dump site designated in Special Condi-
tion No. 8, will generally be accomplished by a Coast Guard shiprider who
will be on board the towing conveyance for the entire voyage. Within two
(2) hours after receipt of the initial notification the waste transporter
will be advised as to whether or not a Coast Guard shiprider will be
assigned to the voyage. His quarters and subsistence while on board shall
be provided by and shall be at the expense of the waste transporter. He
shall be treated courteously and afforded free and Immediate access to
all navigational capabilities on the vessel which can provide information
on position, course speed, depth of water, bearings, etc.
(b) The following Information shall be provided In the notifi-
cation of sailing:
(1) Permit number
(2) Name of the towing vessel and barge or tank vessel
(3) Name of the transporter
(4) Description of the vessel's contents Including volume
(5) Place of departure
(6) Location of the dump site
(7) The time of departure
(8) Estimated time of arrival at the dump site
(9) Estimated time of departure from the dump site
(10) Estimated time of return to port
13
II-NY 009
c. The waste transporter shall maintain and submit to EPA
on a monthly basis the following information with regard to Special
Condition Nos. 9(a) and (b):
(1) Permit number
(2) Name of Person contacted
(3) Time of contact
(4) Confirmation code
(5) Other pertinent information
d. The waste transporter shall maintain and submit Coast Guard
Form CCGD 3-278, Monthly Transportation and Dumping Log, to COTP, USCG,
c/o New York Station, Governors Island, New York, N.Y. 10004. Waste
transporter shall enter on this form under the column entitled "Dump Site"
the latitude and longitude at which the actual dumping occurred. These
forms are to be mailed to both the Coast Guard and EPA during the first
week of the succeeding month for which they were prepared. If additional
forms are required, they may be obtained by forwarding a written request
to Commander (mep), Third Coast Guard District, Governors Island, New
York, N.Y. 10004.
10. Reports and Correspondence - All reports and related corres-
pondence required by Special Condition Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 shall
be submitted to the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Attn: Marine Protection Program
All other material, including applications, shall be submitted to the
following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Enforcement Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Attn: Status of Compliance Branch
14
-------
II-NY 009
11. Liability - a. The waste generator and waste transporter
shall be jointly and severally liable for compliance with Special
Condition Nos. 2 and 10, as well.as all applicable General Conditions.
b. Any person owning or operating a towing vessel employed
for purposes of the activities authorized by this permit shall be, for
purposes of each discharge, a joint permittee herein who shall be jointly
and severally liable together with the waste transporter for compliance
with Special Condition Nos. 3, 4(b), 4(c) and 8, as well as all appli-
cable General Conditions.
c. The waste transporter shall be solely liable for compli-
ance with Special Condition Nos. 4(a) and 9.
d. The waste generator shall be solely liable for compliance
with Special Condition Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 7.
By authority of Eckardt C. Beck, Regional Administrator,
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Signed this /0- day of AMitJttV/ 1978
Dlreoor
Enforcement Division
15
-------
APPENDIX B
USEPA
OCEAN DUMPING REGULATIONS
JANUARY 11, 1977
AND
NOVEMBER 28, 1977
-------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1977
PART VI
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OCEAN DUMPING
Final Revision of Regulations and Criteria
-------
2462
Title 40—Protection of Environment
(PRL 667-7)
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER H—OCEAN DUMPING
FINAL REVISION OF REGULATIONS
AND CRITERIA
The Environmental Protection Agency
today publishes final regulations and
criteria with respect to the transporta-
tion of wastes for the purpose of ocean
dumping. Under Title I of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1072. as amended. 33 U.S.C. 1401
et seq., (hereafter "the Act") the Agency
on October 15. 1973, (38 FR 28610 et seq.)
published regulations setting forth the
procedures to be followed, and the cri-
teria to be applied, In reviewing appli-
cations to dispose of materials in ocean
waters. These rules now appear at 40
CPB Parts 220-227. In addition, the
October 15 notice set forth substantive
criteria to be applied in evaluating per-
mits to discharge materials through
ocean outfalls, pursuant to sections 402
and 403 CO of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972,
33 U.S.C. 1342, 1343. The regulations
published today delete all reference to
section 403(c) ocean outfall criteria and
make Parts 220-227 (with the addition
of Parts 223 and 229) solely addressed
to ocean dumping and implementation
of the Act. In the near future the Agency
will propose significant revisions to the
criteria for ocean outfalls.
The final regulations and criteria pub-
lished today affect both the procedures
to be followed In reviewing applications
for ocean dumping and the substantive
criteria to be applied In evaluating those
applications,
The revisions announced today do not
include changes to 40 CPB Parts 223 and
226. Significant changes wfll be made to
those Parts In the near future. Parts 223
and 226 will be greatly expanded to pre-
sent more detailed procedures for en-
forcement proceedings and for proceed-
ings brought to revoke or suspend a per-
mit pursuant to section I05(f>, 33 U.S.C.
I4l5(f). However, these Parts as pres-
ently In force are reprinted here as they
originally appeared to provide a complete
set of the regulations presently In force.
The Agency believes that changes In
the present regulations announced to-
day are appropriate for several reasons:
Operating experience of EPA pointed
to several ways to which the regulations
required modification. There Is a need
to specify tn more detail the considera-
tions which go Into a determination of
whether a permit will be Issued. The
present regulations do not adequately ad-
dress the regulation of ocean dumping
sites. Also, some people consider the
present regulations Inadequate with
- respect to the disposal of dredged
material.
A petition for additional rulemaking by
the National Wildlife Federal was re-
ceived In April of 1974 and pointed oat
several areas In which the present regn-
RULES AND REGULATIONS
latlons require changes if they are to
completely satisfy the Act, the Conven-
tion on the Prevention of Marine Pollu-
tion by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter (hereafter, "Convention") open
for signiature December 29,1972, at Lon-
don, and the Amendments to the Act In
light of the Convention which were
brought about by Pub. L. 93-254
(March 22, 1974). The Convention be-
came effective, according to Article XIX
(1), on August 30, 1975, when the
fifteenth party acceded to Its terms. The
first' Consultative Meeting of the Con-
tracting Parties was held in London In
September, 1976, and these final regula-
tions reflect agreements on procedures
reached at that meeting.
In addition to the petition from the Na-
tional Wildlife Federal, an Individual has
requested that the emergency permit pro-
visions contained in the regulations be
modified to require more adequate public
notice and opportunity for bearing prior
to the Issuance of those permits. EPA has
thoroughly revised and expanded the
ocean dumping regulations and criteria
to allow for greater public participation
in the program.
The Agency has held several major
hearings on applications to dispose of
materials; the experiences of these hear-
ings and the Regional Administrators'
experiences in reviewing applications
have prompted several suggestions as to
ways in which the present regulations
and criteria can be Improved to more
adequately address the Implementation
of the Act and Convention, and to ad-
dress the problems encountered by the
Regional Administrators.
The criteria have been modified to re-
flect recent advances In scientific knowl-
edge, but there is no change m EPA's In-
tent to eliminate ocean dumping of un-
acceptable materials as rapidly as pos-
sible.
It Is not possible to note In this pre-
amble all the places in the regulations In
which changes have been made; many
modifications are minor flntl will not
affect the day-to-day operation, of the
program. However, the major substan-
tive changes have been noted below. It
must be emphasized that these final reg-
ulations will replace or amend seven ex-
isting Parts of Title 40 CFR, and will
add Part 228. While the regulations ap-
pear to be long and complicated, the
Agency has attempted to follow a logical
pattern which wfll make their use more
convenient than one might assume at
first Inspection, It also must be noted
that these regulations will constitute the
entire set of tools one needs to Implement
the Act and the Convention.
These regulations and criteria were
published in proposed form In the FXD-
XBAL REGISTER on June 28, 1976, (41 FR
26644 et seq.) and a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the criteria (Parts
227-228) was Issued on July 14,1976. The
public comment period closed September
24, 1976: 75 sets of comments were re-
ceived comprising some 375 pages. Some
substantive technical Issues were raised,
and EPA held a technical workshop on
October 10-20,1976, concerning the trace
contaminant and dredged material cri-
teria. The comments received, the EPA
responses to the individual comments.
and. the report and transcript of the
technical workshop are all Included in
the Final Environmental Impact State-
ment which is available from the address
given at the end of this preamble.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES MADS AS A
RESULT or COMMENTS RECEIVED
Section 220.1—Purpose and scope. One
commenter suggested that Section 220.1
(a) (3) (li> be changed to apply these reg-
ulations to a 200-mile contiguous zone.
This Is not possible since the Act limits
Jurisdiction over foreign flag vessels to
the territorial sea and the 12-mile con-
tiguous zone of the United States. See
section 2(c) of the Act. as amended by
Pub. L. 93-254 (33 U.S.C. 1401).
It has been suggested that Section
220.1 (c)(4> be changed to refer to "hu-
man life at sea" rather than "life at sea."
The language of this section follows that
of the Act. It Is implicit that this section
refers to human life.
Section 220.2—Definitions. The defini-
tion of sewage treatment works In para-
graph (b) has been amended to make it
consistent with the definition found in
the PWPCA.
Section 220.3—Categories of permits.
<.&—Emergency permits. Consultation
procedures for emergency permits have
been adopted by the Contracting Parties
to the International Convention. The
procedures In these regulations are con-
sistent with those adopted on an Inter-.
national basis.
ttf)—Interim permits. The Agency re-
ceived a substantial number of comments
with respect to the Interim perjnlt pro-
visions.
Section 220J«f> In its revised form
provides that interim permits will be Is-
sued after April 23. 1978, only to Interim
permit holders who have exercised best
efforts to meet the requirements of a Spe-
cial permit by that date and have Imple-
mentation schedules adequate to allow
phasing out of ocean dumping or com-
pliance with the requirements of a spe-
cial permit, by December 31,1981.
Commenters have questioned the le-
gality of Interim permits under the Act.
and have further questioned the Issuance
of Interim permits after the 1978 dead-
line. Others have argued that the 1978
cutoff date la too strict. Some have sug-
gested that this deadline be deleted al-
together, with applications for interim
permits to be considered on a case-by-
case basis.
Interim permits are not Illegal under
the Act, since they do not authorize
dumping which would "unreasonably"
degrade or endanger the marine environ-
ment. The Act lists need for ocean dump-
ing as one factor to be considered In is-
suing permits. The "need factor" has
outweighed other considerations due to
the lack of alternative methods of dis-
posal and technology necessary to meet
environmental criteria. The need factor
FEDERAL KGISTEft, VOL. 41, NO. 7— TUESDAY, JANUAIY 11, 1977
la largely • matter of time, and Interim
permlte have been Issued in order to glre
existing dampen sufficient tune to de-
velop alternatives or to comply with en-
vironmental criteria- It should be noted
that hi no event does this section au-
thorize dumping of materials that are
absolutely barred by the Act or the Con-
vention, or authorize dumping above
trace contaminant levels of materials
proscribed above trace contaminant
levels.
The April 23, 1978, deadline corre-
sponds to the fifth anniversary of the
effective date of the Act. This data is
significant in that Title n of the Act
provides for a research program aimed at
"mtn|m*****tr or ending pti dumping of
materials within five years of the effec-
tive date of this Act" Congress has ex-
pressed impatience with the continued
Issuance of interim permits (see H.R.
Rep. No. 94-1047. 94th Cong.. 2d Sess.
(1976)), and the EPA agrees that five
years is sufficient time for dumpers to
develop technology to end reliance on
ocean dumping which violates environ-
mental criteria.
Existing dumpers who are unable to
meet the 1978 deadline may receive in-
terim permits after that date if they
have *"*pi fmpntfvtlor1 schedules adequate
to aHov phasing out of ocean dumping
or compliance with an requirements of
a special permit by December 31. 1981.
Experience to date has shown that, while
five yean Is sufficient time to develop
alternatives and technology, three more
years are needed to Implement them.
The 1981 deadline Is based on the im-
plementation schedules contained in
current interim permits, an of which
provide for compliance or phasing out
by the end of 1981. The proposed regu-
lations required implementation sched-
ules for industrial dumpers to provide
for compliance or phasing out by
April 23,1981. Revised 8 220.3 (d) changes
this date to December 31. 1981. since it
now applies also to municipal dumpers,
who are unable to meet the April 23
date.
It has been suggested that the 1981
compliance date be changed to 1979 for
industrial dumpers. This change has not
been made since some industrial dump-
en are expected to meet the 1981 dead-
line but would not be able to meet a
1079 deadline. It should be stressed that
I 220J(d) requires implementation plans
to provide for phasing out or compli-
ance by December 31. 1981, at the lat-
est. Interim permit holders who are able
to meet earlier deadlines wfll be re-
quired to do so. Interim permits with
earlier deadline dates are not to be
deemed to be affected by the regulations
promulgated today.
The dfftKfltnes contained m this sec-
tion are based on current projections of
technological feasibility, w*d it is rea-
sonable to expect dumpers to meet ttwrn.
The primary purpose of the Act la to
protect the marine environment, and
criteria cannot be aDowed to continue
indefinitely. The EPA therefore will not
RULES AND REGULATIONS
retain discretion to issue Interim permit^
to applicants who do not meet the re-
quirements of this section.
The proposed regulations authorized
Issuance of interim permits for sewage
treatment works on a showing that the
dumper had exercised best efforts to
comply with the requirements of a spe-
cial permit. They did not require the
dumper to have an implementation
schedule adequate to permit compliance
or phasing out by a specific date. No
deadline was Imposed on municipal
dumpers because of their often compli-
cated dependence on public agency
funding sources. In response to several
objections, the distinction between mu-
nicipal and Industrial dumpers has been
removed, and an holders of interim per-
mits wfll now be required to meet a dead-
line of no later than 1981. Technology
exists to permit municipalities to meet
this deadline; and all interim permits
currently held by municipalities provide
for compliance or phasing out by the end
of 1981.
Thus, the regulations promulgated
today do not substantially affect the
planning which must be conducted by
municipalities In light of the terms of
existing Interim permits held by those
communities. It is noted that In a letter
to the Administrator dated October 26,
1978, from Congressmen Robert L. Leg-
gett, John B. Breaux. Edwin B. Porsytbe
and Charles A. Mosher, all of the Sub-
committee on Fisheries and Wildlife Con-
servation and the Environment of the
Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, it was strongly recommended
that municipalities and industries be
treated the same, with respect to In-
terim permits. The Agency has changed
the final regulations consistent with
this recommendation.
New interim permits may be issued
after 1978 to existing dumpers who ex-
ercise best efforts to comply with the re-
quirements of past permits. As an ex-
ample, muntdr*ft1 dumpers wfll not bo
denied new permits for Inability, despite
best efforts, to raise necessary revenues
to comply with implementation sched-
ules. While the precarious financial po-
sition of some municipalities may justify
noncompaance with Implementation
schedules. It Is expected that few. if
any, exceptions win be granted by the
Agency. The showing which must be
made Is significant, such as demonstrate
ing that an outside construction or waste
disposal firm with which the municipal-
ity has entered into contracts has be-
come Insolvent In the past the commu-
nities employing ocean dumping as the
means to dispose of sludge have on occa-
sion submitted bare conclusions that no
other alternatives are available. Not only
wfll half-hearted attempts at compliance
with the regulations and weak efforts to
find alternatives not be considered to
be good faith efforts under the revised
criteria, but the Agency will undertake
Independent enforcement actions to stop
such practices. It Is not expected that
financial reasons will be sufficient Justt-
2463
flcatlon for noncompllance by Industrial
dumpers.
Section 220.3 (d> authorizes Issuance
of Interim permits after 1978 to dumpers
who have implementation schedules ade-
quate to allow phasing out of ocean
dumping or compliance with the require-
ments of a special permit by 1981. Con-
gressmen Leggett, Breaux. Forsythe and
Mosher, in their letter of October 26.
1976, to the Administrator, have rec-
ommended that EPA make it explicit
"that the choice between phasing out
and complying with the criteria for a
special permit Is to be made by EPA—
not by the applicant." Section 227.23 does
make clear that this choice Is up to the
Regional Administrator.
Other commenten have challenged
the authority of EPA to require phasing
out of ocean dumping, m flirt tfti" 1 ns
that special permits must be Issued to all
applicants who meet the requirements
therefor.
Subpart C of Part 227 provides that
special permits may be denied to appli-
cants who have no need to ocean dump,
a factor which the Act directs the EPA
to consider hi issuing permits. The en-
vironmental criteria of Part 227 indicate
only that the materials to be dumped by
a particular dumper are not environ-
mentally unacceptable. Since the cumu-
lative effects' of many dumpers may be
environmentally unacceptable, the EPA
must limit the total amount of ocean
dumping and will therefore grant per-
mits only to applicants who demon-
strate lack of acceptable alternatives to
ocean dumping. The purpose of Imple-
mentation plans Is to assure that dump-
ing hi violation of the requirements of
Part 227 does not continue indefinitely.
The Regional Administrators must have
discretion to determine whether this
purpose wfll be achieved by compliance •
with special permit requirements or by
obviating the need for dumping.
Section 220.3(d) also provides that new
interim permits win be issued only to
applicants who demonstrate that they
have exercised best efforts to comply
with all requirements of previous per-
mits.
One commenter has objected to this
provision as requiring denial of permit
applications for minor violations of pre-
vious permits. The same commenter has
suggested that permit violations be dealt
with according to the terms of the per-
mit, rather than by denying future per-
mits. There is no reason not to require
permit holders to follow all terms of
their permits in good faith, and It win
be within the discretion of the Regional
Administrator to determine whether
best efforts have been exercised.
The primary purpose of this provision
Is to ensure compliance with Implemen-
tation schedules. Most mterun penntta
provide for compliance with schedules
to be determined as of the expiration
date of the permit. If there are no pen-
alties for noncompUazicc during tfre term
of a permit, the only way to enforce com-
pliance Is to deny subsequent permit*.
FEDEtAt BEGtSTEB, VOL 42*, NO. 7—nil SO AY, JANUAIY 11, 1977
-------
24&1
There is no reason to give Interim per-
mits to dumpers who have demonstrated
an unwillingness to exercise best efforts
to comply with the terms of a permit.
Several minor changes have been made
In f 320.3(d) In response to comments.
The proposed regulations provided for
the Issuance of Interim permits "under
certain conditions In accordance with
Subpart A of Part 227". One commenter
requested examples of the "certain con-
ditions" under which Interim permits
would Issue. Since the phrase "certain
conditions" referred only to the condi-
tions specified In Subpart A and was
therefore redundant. It has been deleted.
The phrase "has a treatment facility
under construction" has been changed to
"has an Implementation schedule" since
there are methods to phase out dumping
or comply with environmental criteria
which do not require construction of
treatment facilities.
Proposed { 220.3 (d) would deny inter-
im permits to the "expansion or modifi-
cation of an existing facility". Since it
has been pointed out that many imple-
mentation plans require modification or
expansion, this provision has been
changed to deny Interim permits "for
the dumping of an Increased amount of
waste from an existing facility".
The criticism of EPA's repeated use of
Interim permits has come from many
informed persons, and the objections
have been given careful consideration.
As expressed by Congressmen Leggett,
Breaux, Forsythe and Mosher in the let-
ter of October 26, 1876, to the Adminis-
trator, "EPA continues to allow a sub-
stantial volume of dangerous, toxic ma-
terials to be dumped under 'Interim per-
mit' arrangements. * • * We feel that
such Interim permits' should be sum-
marily phased out without continued ex-
ceptions. The revised regulations * ' *
do not effect the Intent of Congress as
expressed m the Marine Protection, Re-
search, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972."
The answer to the question of repeated
use of Interim permits Is founded on the
lack of firm scientific conclusions with
respect to individual and combined
dumping of wastes In the oceans. The
answer to this question is inextricably
linked to the Issues of denning trace con-
taminants and to the setting of special
permit conditions. If materials are in
trace quantities or less, or if they com-
ply with special permit conditions, then
one need not rely on interim permits
for continued dumping. Thus, by lenient
definitions of trace contaminants "or
special permit criteria, the Agency
could avoid the interim permit dilemma.
Obviously, the Agency will not arbitrari-
ly define trace contaminants or special
permits to so avoid the issues.
What the Agency has attempted to
do is to estimate as best It can those
levels of pollutants which may be ex-
pected to cause environmental harm, to
apply a safety factor, and to refuse to
. sanction dumping of wastes containing
pollutants In these amounts unless there
Is n> other environmentally acceptable
alternative. EPA has also tried to prepare
Its regulations in view of criteria estab-
RUUS AND REGULATIONS
llshed under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. State laws, and other Fed-
eral pollution control laws. Obviously it
makes little sense to allow discharges of
mercury through a pipe into Chesapeake
Bay at levels higher than discharges from
a barge Into the deep ocean waters, for
example. The Agency also must consider
Its credibility as the regulating agency.
If It demands that a irrrmll community
or an Industry cease dumping within a
period of time, it should be confident
that there are feasible alternatives which
may be Implemented within that time
period. Increasingly, this is true; and this
Is the reason all interim permit holders
have been given firm phase-out dates. It
would be improper to adopt a cessation
date which has little factual foundation.
Increasingly, EPA has become aware
that the alternatives to ocean dumping
require careful evaluation; they may not
always be better.
The interim permit remains EPA's
most effective tool because it requires
the permittee to periodically report to
EPA as to the steps being taken to cease
dumping or bring the dumping within
the special permit limits, allows EPA to
retain conservative limits on special per-
mits, and gives EPA the flexibility to re-
fuse reissuance when the Agency con-
cludes that good faith efforts to flnd al-
ternatives are not being made. EPA
refused to reissue an Interim permit to
the City of Camden.
Conceivably. EPA could abolish the
category of interim permits or make in-
terim permits of a five-year duration.
This would avoid some of the stigma' at-
tached to the Agency's repeated Issuance
to the same applicant of interim per--
mlts. As with an artificial modification
of the special permit criteria, these op-
tions are unacceptable to EPA.
It must be emphasized that the numer-
ical limits on special permits (which de-
fine when interim permits only can be
obtained) are not founded on the most
precise analytical process. They may be
within orders of magnitude of a "cor-
rect" limit, but there Is no confident
means to determine this. EPA has over
the past four years conducted several
open workshops with respect to the
"safe" or "unacceptable" levels of pollut-
ants which may be dumped into the
oceans. The latest was in October of
this year. The only agreement reached
at those sessions is that responsible
scientists are not confident as to a "safe"
number and that measuring environ-
mental effects In toe ocean is most
difficult. With respect to any suggested
alternative permit criteria, significant
objections can be raised. In the discus-
sion of 9 227.6 below, more details are
presented with respect to this problem.
The question, then. Is not whether
EPA has established environmentally un-
acceptable levels and continues to Issue
permits which violate those levels, but Is
whether EPA (1) has established levels
which responsibly estimate concentra-
tions of wastes not acutely toxic or
otherwise clearly harmful; (8) has
created a permit system which forces
dumpers to flnd satisfactory alternatives
as soon as possible? and (3) has estab-
lished environmental criteria which are
not inconsistent with criteria established
under other laws with respect to dis-
charges Into inland waters. EPA believes
It has adequately met these regulatory
challenges.
(f) Permits for Incineration at sea.
One commenter has suggested that
t 220.3 be revised to allow only re-
search or interim permits to be issued
for incineration at sea until criteria on
this type of disposal are promulgated.
This change has not been made. While
there is currently Insufficient Informa-
tion on which to base general criteria for
ocean incineration, it is possible to con-
duct sufficient research on specific In-
cineration projects to satisfy EPA that
special permits should be issued in spe-
cific instances.
PART 221
Section 221.1—Applications for per-
mits. This section has been revised
slightly to require that applications must
be in writing, but not necessarily'by let-
ter; that a full evaluation of all alter-
natives is not necessary; and that the
environmental impact of alternatives
must be considered.
Section 221.4—Adequacy of informa-
tion in application. This section has been
revised to allow an "adequate" descrip-
tion of the material to be dumped, rather
than requiring a "full" description. It
was pointed out that, in a practical sense,
it would be Impossible to ever achieve a
"full" description of any material.
In response to public comments, the
Agency has made several changes in the
regulations which govern procedures to
be followed In reviewing applications for
ocean dumping permits.
Section 222.3—Notice of applications.
The Coastal Zone Management Program
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
recommended that the notice require-
ments of 9 222.3 (b) be modified to pro-
vide that the State agencies with respon-
sibility to implement the Coastal Zone
Management Act also receive notice of
applications for ocean dumping permits.
The requested modification has been
made. Also, in paragraph of that
section, a sentence has been added to
clarify that copies of these notices will
also be sent to officials of the Depart-
ments of Commerce and Interior who are
responsible for programs which may be
affected by ocean dumping.
The notice provisions of S 222.3
prompted several requests for major ex-
pansion of the procedures to be followed
in providing notices to the public of
ocean dumping applications. Some com-
menters suggested that notices be placed
in several newspapers m the area from
which the transportation for the pur-
pose of dumping is to commence; other
commentera asked that specific provi-
sions be Included In the FKDXRU. fUcasrn
for service of notices on particular states
and private parties. Some parties stated
FEDERAL MCJSTEB, VOL 42, NO. 7—TUESDAX, JANUA1Y 11, 1977
that the notice provision does not provide
"^I^Itifltft time to comment on the appli-
cation, other parties are protesting that
the notice provision allowed for unneces-
sary delay m the processing of applica-
tions.
The Agency believes that adequate
notice Is provided to the public by regu-
lations promulgated today. In practice.
the Regional Administrators provide sub-
stantially more notice to parties known
to be interested In ocean dumping mat-
ters and to Federal and State authorities
within those Regions than Is provided in
these regulations. The Intent of the regu-
lations promulgated today Is not to
dictate the procedure which may be fol-
lowed in each Instance but rather to state
the na. subparagraph \G^
has been deleted. This had provided that
the prehearing conference could Include
discussion of prehearing discovery. It
was concluded that prehearing discovery
In most instances would be inappropri-
ate and would lengthen the hearing to
be conducted pursuant to this section
beyond the time contemplated when this
section was originally drafted. Of course.
the Presiding Officer may request that
the parties undertake Informal discovery
to assist In the expedition of the actual
hearing, but tills discovery should rot be
overly formal or time-consuming.
There was a great deal of comment
with respect to paragraph (e), setting
forth the adjudicator? hearing proce-
dure?. Much of the comment went to the
statement that the burden of proof shall
be on the applicant In the case of ad-
judicatory heatings held pursuant to
9 222.10. This subsection has been
changed. It now provides that, in the
case of adjudicator? hearings held pur-
suant to ! 222.10(b> <1>, the person filing
the request under f 222.1 (Ka> has the
burden of going forward as to each issue
raised by that request. This suggestion
substantially follows the recommenda-
tion made by the City of Philadelphia.
Furthermore, references to the burden of
proof have been deleted since it was
deemed inappropriate to attempt to allot
the burden of proof in procedural regu-
lations. The Legislative History of the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanc-
tuaries Act of 1972, as amended, is clear
that the overall burden of persuasion
rests with the applicant for permit with
respect to basic Issues which must be
satisfied for a permit to be issued.
Paragraph (e> <5) has been changed
to provide that rulings of the Presiding
Officer on the admlssibility of evidence.
FCDEIAL REGISTER, VOL. 4J, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11. 1977
-------
2466
the propriety of cross-examination, and
otber procedural matters merely shall
appear In ttte record. The prior Btate-
ment that these rulings shall be final
has been deleted since these Issues can be
clearly raised on appeal. And since Inter-
locutory appeals are disallowed, there Is
no necessity for such a phrase..
In paragraph , which addresses the
procedures to be followed after the close
of the adjudicatory hearing, the page
limitations on briefs and other docu-
ments have been revised to allow the fil-
ing of lengthier documents.
Section 222.12—Appeal to Administra-
tor. Consistent with changes made to
other sections of Part 222, In paragraph
(a) the ten-day limitation begins to run
after receipt of the determination of the
Regional Administrator rather than
after the determination Itself. Also. In
later subsections of this section, the page
limitations have been expanded slightly
to allow more opportunity to summarize
and comment on the findings and con-
clusions of law.
Section 222.13—Computation of time.
This section Is new. It has been added to
clarify the means by which calculation
of time should be accomplished. The sec-
tion Is identical to 40 CFR S 125.44, which
applies to National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit proceedings.
Revisions to this Part will be promul-
gated in the near future.
Section 224.2—Reports. Specific* lan-
guage has been added to state the type of
Information that must be reported when
an emergency dump at sea Is made.
PART 225
Section 225.2—Review of Dredge Ma-
terial Permits. The requirement that EPA
respond to Corps of Engineers permit ac-
tions only after a notice of intent Is re-
ceived has been deleted, since a permit
action may be terminated prior to that
point in some cases, and EPA review
would normally begin prior to Issuance
of a notice of intent.
PART 326
Revisions to this Part will be promul-
gated in the near future.
PART 2ST
Many of the comments severely criti-
cized the lack of a definition for "trace
contaminants", the basis upon which the
trace contaminant levels were set, and
the differences between the dredged ma-
terial criteria and the criteria for other
materials. A technical workshop was con-
vened by EPA to discuss these issues.
There was general agreement among the
participants that the criteria should be
based, wherever possible, on Impacts of
dumped materials on marine ecosystems,
. and that these Impacts could be meas-
ured best by bloassays rather than by
relying on determination of total
amounts of specific constttuents_present
m a waste. The full transcript of that
workshop Is Included In the Final HIS.
. RULES AND REGULATIONS
It was rfcognlBfd that dredged mate-
rial Is merely a special case of a material
containing liquid, suspended iw***^**-**^,
and solid phases, &.TXJ ^***-L white bknsny
techniques on liquid materials have been
developed to the point where they can be
applied on a routine basis, bloassay tech-
niques for the suspended 'particulate and
solid phases of materials are still in an
advanced stage of research and are not
yet available for routine use. Neverthe-
less, the participants agreed that the
criteria should be based on solid phase
bloassays. recognizing that there will be
an Interim period during which Hie pro-
cedures will have to be specified on a
case-by-case basis, and that such In-
terim procedures may be less reliable and
more difficult to perform than proce-
dures which will be developed hi the fu-
ture.
Sections of Part 227 have been re-
vised to reflect the recommendations of
the workshop; thus, all criteria are based
on ecosystem Impact rather than on as-
sumptions regarding allowable devia-
tions from normal ambient values. These
revisions are consistent with the concept
of "unreasonable degradation" in these
regulations and are directed toward
achieving the goal of preventing signifi-
cant impact on the biota. The use of
bloassay results for regulatory purposes
will provide EPA with direct measure-
ments of the Impact of dumping mate-
rials, so that it will no longer be neces-
sary to Infer damage Indirectly through
measurements related to normal ambi-
ent values.
Substantial revisions have been made
In §5227.6. 227.1.3, and Subpart O. De-
tails of the specific changes are pre-
sented below in the discussion of those
sections. In general, § 227.fl has been re-
vised to use liquid, suspended particu-
late. and solid phase bioassays as the
basis for determining trace contami-
nants; § 227.13 has been changed to re-
quire bioassay results to be used hi deter-
mining whether or not dredged material'
Is environmentally acceptable for ocean
dumping; and Subpart Q has been re-
vised to include definitions of liquid, sus-
pended participate, and solid phases.
and of Initial mixing allowances and
limiting permissible concentrations for
both liquid and solid phases.
Section 227.1—Applicability. Para-
graph provides In general
terms that these constituents will be
considered as trace contaminants only
when they are present In such amounts
and forms that they will cause no signifi-
cant undesirable effects through either
toxlclty or bioaccumulation.
2. Section 227.6(0 states the criteria
for special permits and for wastes which
otherwise can be deemed environmen-
tally acceptable under Subpart B. Para-
graph of ! 227.6 does not define trace
contaminants; it merely states what is
acceptable for ocean dumping under the
environmental criteria of Subpart B.
The test to be applied on all wastes is
the direct determination of the Impact
of these constituents present In a waste
on the marine ecosystem, as measured
by bioassay techniques.
For liquid wastes and the liquid phases
of mixed wastes, It is assumed that all of
these constituents present are in forms
available to the biota. Section 227.6 (c) (1)
provides that constituents In the liquid
phase will be considered environmentally
acceptable **btCTit levels
therefore falb within the range of derl-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY II. 1977
ation which occurs naturally in ocean
waters.
There are some organohalogens for
which marine water quality criteria have
not been set at this time. When such
compounds are present to the liquid
phase of a waste, bioassay data on those
specific compounds must be presented by
the applicant, either through his own ef-
forts or from a search of the scientific
literature. Alternatively, a bioassy may
be performed on the waste itself rather
than on these specific constituents, but
such bioassays must be of such a nature
as to provide data on chronic toxicity
and bioaccumulatlon potential.
For suspended particulate and solid
phases, however, the state-of-the-art has
not yet advanced to the point where sedi-
ment quality criteria can be set. In fact,
research on benthlc bioassays is only now
at the stage where Interim procedures
can be developed and used. Nevertheless,
there was general agreement among the
participants at the technical workshop
that even the Interim procedures now
available provide much better informa-
tion on the Impact of solid phases of
waste materials on the marine ecosystem
than does any form of bulk analysis.
Therefore, bioassays on the solid phase
are called for in the criteria, recognizing
that Interim procedures must be used for
a period of several months until stand-
ard procedures are developed by EPA
and Corps of Engineers research activi-
ties. EPA and the Corps of Engineers will
publish jointly, m the very near future,
standard benthic bioassay procedures.
Until that time, guidance on Interim pro-
cedures win be supplied by the Regional
Administrator or the District Engineer.
Interim and final benthlc bloassay pro-
cedures acceptable for Implementation of
this section will deal with the chronic
toxic effects or the bioaccumulatlon of
mercury, cadmium, organohalogens, oils
and greases.
The criterion for acceptability of a
waste based on the solid phase bloassay
is absence of significant difference be-
tween the control bloassay and the test
bloassay due to the presence of any of
the constituents listed In this section.
This section also recognizes that there
may be carcinogens, mutagens, and tera-
togens, for which water quality criteria
da not presently exist. In such cases, spe-
cial studies may be required to estab-
lish appropriate limits. It is the Intent of
this section that such studies will be re-
quired, unless there is sufficient informa-
tion to the scientific literature for the
Regional Administrator to determine ac-
ceptable levels of these constituents for
ocean dumping. If there Is insufficient in-
formation to the scientific literature and
the applicant is unwilling to conduct
special studies, a special permit win be
denied under S 227.5(c), which prohibits
the dumping of materials whose proper-
ties are insufficiently described to permit
application of the Criteria.
3. Provision Is made for the continuing
. use of the existing numerical levels for
solid phases as an interim measure for
those cases to which satisfactory interim
bioassay procedures are not available.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
The present levels allow about a 50
percent deviation from normal ambient
values. This Is a very stringent require-
ment and It should be retained as a basic
requirement for use when further infor-
mation is not available. The language
has, however, been changed to allow the
application, in the case of solid materials,
of a. limit not more than 50 percent
greater than the normal ambient value
in the vicinity of the proposed dump site.
This Is to response to comments pointing
out that the data base on which these
criteria were set is quite small and may
not be representative of actual oceanic
sediments which may contain signif-
icantly lower concentrations of these
materials than Is reflected in the nu-
merical criteria.
This section, as redrafted, applies to
all materials to be dumped, including
dredged materials. The terms "liquid
phase", "suspended particulate". and
"solid phase" are defined In 8 227.32. and
apply to all materials containing soluble
and insoluble materials.
Section 227.7—Limits established for
specific wastes or waste constituents.
Paragraph (a) has been modified to
clarify Its application only to liquid
materials immiscible with sea-water, not
those which may interact with seawater.
Paragraph (c) has been changed to clari-
fy that the intent of the paragraph is to
protect human health and that of the
marine ecosystem. Paragraph has
been changed to Include a requirement
for no more than 10 percent change in
acidity or alkalinity for neutralization of
wastes.
Section 237.10—Hazards to fishing,
navigation, shorelines, and beaches. This
section has been changed to Include the
term "unacceptable" Interference or
damage rather than "no" interference
or damage. This change was made to
response to comments which pointed out
the Impossibility of proving that there Is
no possibility of Interference or damage.
Applicants wfll be required to present
reasonable evidence that Interference or
damage will be avoided, and the Regional
Administrator will have discretion to
determine what is "unacceptable".
Section 227.13—Dredged materials.
This section has been completely re-
drafted to response to comments point-
ing out that the dredged material criteria
were not comparable to those for other
materials. As redrafted, dredged mate-
rial, as well as all other wastes contain-
ing liquid, suspended particulate and.
solid phases, must meet the requirements
Of JS 227.5, 327.6, 227.9, 227.10. 227.13.
and Subpart O, to order to be environ-
mentally acceptable for ocean disposal.
An Initial screening procedure Is in-
corporated which Is similar to the re-
quirement of S 227.12 for Inert natural
wastes, except that the exclusions to
3 227.13 are more specific than those to
{ 237.12. The rationale for these exclu-
sions Is presented to the final EIS.
Dredged materials which cannot meet
these requirements are subject to further
testing of both the liquid and solid
phases. To be environmentally acceptable
for ocean dumping, the liquid phase, sus-
2-1TT
pended particulate phase, and solid phase
must meet both the trace contaminant
requirements of i 227.6 and the Limiting
Permissible Concentration requirements
of fr 227.27.
Since the concepts of liquid phase.
suspended particulate phase, and solid
phase apply to all multiphase materials.
the definition of the liquid phase ior -.
dredged material (I.e., the elutriate' has
been removed from ft 227.13 and incor-
porated in the definitions of Subpart G as
part Of 5227.32.
Section 227.15—Factors considered in
determining the need for ocean dumping.
Paragraph (a) has been changed to re-
quire that treatment be useful as well as
feasible. Paragraph (c) has been changed
to Include a provision for evaluating risks
to the environment for the use of alter-
natives. This change Is also reflected In
! 227.16.
Section 227.18—Factors considered. A
requirement for considering Impact on
potential recreational and commercial
use is included.
Section 227.19—Assessment of Impact.
A requirement for assessing the Impact
of alternatives Is Included.
Section -227.27—Limiting Permissible
Concentration (LPC). This section has
been redrafted to define LPC for the liq-
uid, suspended particulate. and solid
phases. The liquid phase LPC has been
associated, wherever possible, with the
applicable marine water quality criteria.
and the suspended particulate and solid
phases have been based on the avoidance
of overall chronic toxlcity after allow-
ance Ior initial dispersion. Procedures for
conducting the appropriate bioassays will
be published to the near future by EPA
and the Corps of Engineers, until such
procedures are published, interim guid-
ance can be obtained from the Regional
Administrator or the District Engineer.
Some commenters pointed out that the
proposed regulations do not explicitly re-
quire analysis of wastes for those con-
stituents listed to Annex H of the Con-
vention. EPA has not specifically enu-
merated these constituents since it is not
necessary to do so In order to determine
whether or not a waste Is environmen-
tally acceptable for dumping. Section
227.27(a)Q) requires compliance with all
applicable marine water quality criteria;
there are criteria for all materials listed
to Annex II, except fluorides. Section
227.27(a>(2) requires a bloassay to be
conducted on the waste, which will reveal
toxic levels of any fluorides present, as
well as of other chemical constituents
which, though not listed in the Conven-
tion, may be toxic. The purpose of the
Act and the Convention, is to prevent
unacceptable or unreasonable degrada-
tion of the • marine environment. The
combination of bioassay procedures spec-
ified In the criteria provide information
on adverse Impact directly for the entire
waste. Thus, the presence or absence of
any specific constituent, other than those
listed to Section 227.6, is not a significant
factor as long as the overall Impact of the
waste Is known.
A provision has been added In this sec-
tion to allow for changes m the appllea-
FEOERAl IEGKTEK, VOL «, HO. 7—TUESDAY, JAHUAIY 11, Iv77
-------
2468
tlon factor used to determine the LPC
If there la reasonable sclenttnc evidence
on a specific waste to support ouch a
cl«um when such evidence Is presented.
on this or other edenttflc aspects of the
criteria, EPA may convene an appropri-
ate scientific review panel to examine the
reasonableness of the evidence prior to
taking action. -
Section 227.29—Initial mixing. Initial
mixing for the solid phase Is included.
Field data and mathematical models for
predicting dispersion may be used where
available; when they are not available,
solid phases are assumed to be evenly
distributed over the ocean bottom In an
area equivalent to that of the release
zone. This Is an assumption, but It Is a
conservative one which would err on the
side of environmental protection. Provi-
sion Is also made in this section for using
different approaches to Initial mixing
based on reasonable scientific evidence
hi specific cases.
Section 227.30—High-level radioactive
wastes. It Is noted that this definition,
which Is given hi the Act, Is more re-
strictive than that provisionally recom-
mended by the International Atomic En-
ergy Agency, which Is the minimum
standard binding on Contracting Parties
- to toe Convention.
Section 227.31—Applicable marine wa-
ter quality criteria. This Is a new section
added to define the applicable TH^J^T^^
water quality criteria as being the cri-
teria presented for marine waters In the
EPA publication "Quality Criteria for
Water" as amended by subsequent pub-
lications.
Section 227.32—Liquid, suspended par-
ticulate, and solid phases of fnaVtrtniH-
Thlfl Is a new section added to d«-fln»1 for
the purpose of these regulations, how
liquid, suspended partlculate. and solid
phases are determined for different types
df materials. Because some materials
may Interact with seawater, a general
provision Is Included to give the Regional
Administrator direction to require the
use of elutriaUon with seawater when he
has reason to believe that the elutriaUon
procedure may reveal toxic effects which
might otherwise remain hidden. These
definitions apply to any multi-phase ma-
terial regardless of origin; I.e.. sewage
sludge as wen as dredged material.
The definition of the liquid phase of
dredged material Is the same as the defi-
nition of the elutriate In | 227.13(c> of
the regulations proposed on June 28,
1976. For other materials containing
both soluble and Insoluble matter, the
relative proportions of waste material
and seawater are to be determined by
EPA on a case-by-case basis. This gives
EPA discretion to select the best propor-
tions for measuring the maximum effect
a material might have when dumped In
seawater.
PART 328
Section 228.2—Definitions. The first
sentence In this section has been changed
to TPP>» that sentence consistent with
other statements in Part 228. The term
"disposal site" means an Interim or final
approved site, since the conditions of
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Part 238 clearly apply to those interim
iritffi tot which fl"*i Environmental Im-
pact Statements have not yet been con-
ducted and for which final designations,
therefore, have yet to be made.
Section 228.4—Procedures for desig-
nation of sites. Paragraph - (e) of this
section has been revised hi response to
criticisms, concerning the proposed pro-
cedures for designation of dredged ma-
terial disposal sites. This section now
explicitly states that EPA will designate
dredged material disposal sites and de-
scribes the procedures that will be used.
These procedures are the same that
are to be used m the designation of dis-
posal sites for. the dumping of materials
under special and interim permits. The
Act allows the Corps of Engineers to use
other sites than those recommended by
EPA when the use of EPA-deslgnated
sites Is not feasible. This section requires
that the same criteria be used by the
Corps of Engineers In site designation as
are used by EPA.
Section 228.12—Delegation of manage-
ment authority for Interim ocean dump-
Ing sites. The Coast Guard has with-
drawn Its request to have disposal sites
reoriented to use LORAN-C time delay
coordinates, and this section has been
changed accordingly. The dredged mate-
rial sites designated in | 228.4 have been
added to the list of sites in the table
following S 228.12.
ENVIRONMENTAL AITO INFLATIONARY IMPACT
STAI
Although the Agency b not required
by law to prepare an Environmental Im-
pact Statement m connection with re-
vision of the regulations and criteria per-
taining to ocean disposal. It has chosen to
prepare such a statement with respect to
the proposed revision to Part 227. See 39
PR 37419 (October 21,1974). A final En-
vironmental Impact Statement has been
prepared and is available for Inspection
In the office noted In the last paragraph
of this preamble. In addition, there are a
limited number of the statements avail-
able to persons who have an Interest in
reviewing that document. Requests for
copies should be sent to the address
noted below.
Executive Order 11821 (November 27,
1974)requlres that major proposals for
legislation and promulgation of regula-
tions and rules by agencies of the Exec-
utive Branch be accompanied by a state-
ment certifying that the Inflationary
Impact of the proposal has been eval-
uated; OMB Circular A-107 (January 28.
1975) prescribes guidelines for the Iden-
tification and evaluation of major pro-
posals requiring preparation of Inflation-
ary impact certifications. The Adminis-
trator has directed that EPA regulatory
actions will require certification when
they are likely to result In: (1) annual-
ized costs exceeding $100,000,000; (2)
total additional costs of production of
any major project exceeding & percent of
selling price: or (3) increase in net na-
tional energy consumption by the equiva-
lent of 25.000 barrels of oil per day. None
of these limiting criteria Is exceeded by
the proposed revisions announced today
and, therefore,* an inflationary Impact
statement has not been prepared.
These regulations and criteria will be-
come effective FebruarydLO. 1977, and all
ocean dumping permits Issued after that
date must be In compliance with these
regulations and criteria.
The Agency will consider all written
comments on these final regulations and
criteria in making any future revisions.
Comments should be provided in tripli-
cate and addressed to Chief, Marine Pro-
tection Branch (WH-548), Oil and Spe-
cial Materials Control Division. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 401 M Street
SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
(S3 U.S.O.1419 and 1*18.)
Dated: December 30. 1976.
RUSSELL E. THAIW.
Administrator.
Subchapter H of Chapter I of Title 40
Is hereby amended to read as follows:
SUBCHAFTER H—OCEAN DUUPIMQ
Part
220 General.
221 Applications for Ocean Dumping
Permits under section 102 of the
Act
222 Action on Ocean Dumping Permit
applications under section 102 of
the Act.
223 Contents of permits.
224 Records -and reports required of
ocean dumping permittees under
section 102 of the Act.
225 Corps of Engineers Dredged Mate-
rial Permits.
226 Enforcement.
227 Criteria for the evaluation of per-
mit applications for ocean dump-
Ing of materials.
228 Criteria for the management of dis-
posal sites for ocean dumping.
229 General permits.
PART 220—GENERAL
Sec.
320.1 Purpose and scope.
3202 Definitions;
320.3 Cttccorta of permits.
320.4 Anthorlttas to lavoe permits.
AUTHORITY: 33 U.S.C. 1413 and 1418.
§ 220.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) General. This Subchapter H estab-
lishes procedures and criteria for the
Issuance of permits by EPA pursuant to
section 102 of the Act. This Subchapter H
also establishes the criteria to be applied
by the Corps of Engineers In Its review
of activities involving the transportation
of dredged material for the purpose of
dumping it in ocean waters pursuant to
section 103 of the Act. Except as may be
authorized by a permit Issued pursuant
"to this Subchapter H, or pursuant to
section 103 of the Act, and subject to
other applicable regulations promulgated
pursuant to section 108 of the Act:
(1) No person shall transport from the
United States any material for the pur-
pose of dumping It Into ocean waters:
(2) In the case of a vessel or aircraft,
registered in the United States or flying
the United States flag or m the case of a
United States department, agency, or In-
FEDERAl REGISTER. VOL 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1977
tULES AND KEGULATIONS
2469
•tromeniaaty, no person shall transport
frcn any hypiUffn may material for the
purpose of dumping tt into ocean waters;
and
(3) No person shall dump any mate-
rial transported from a location outside
the United States:
(1) Into the territorial sea of the
United States; or
(U) into a Bone contiguous to the ter-
ritorial sea of the United States, extend-
ing to a line twelve nautical miles sea-
ward from the base line from which the
breadth of the territorial sea Is meas-
ured, to the extent that It may affect the
territorial sea or the territory of the
United States.
(b) Relationship to international
agreements. In accordance with section
102(a) of the Act. the regulations and
criteria Included In this Subchapter H
apply the standards and criteria binding
upon the United States under the Con-
vention on the Prevention of Marine Pol-
lution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter to the extent that application of
such standards and criteria do not relax
the requirements of the Act.
(c) ffxchtttoru. <1> Fish wastes. This
Subchapter R does not apply to, and no
permit hereunder shall be required for,
the transportation for the purpose of
dumping or the dumping to ocean waters
of fish wastes* unless such dumping oc-
curs in:
• (D Harbors or other protected or en-
closed coastal waters; or
(ii) Any other location where the Ad-
ministrator tfnA* that BUCh dumping may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
health, the environment or ecological
systems.
(2) Fisheries resources. This Subchap-
ter H does not apply to, and no permit
hereunder snail be required for, the
placement or deposit of oyster shells or
other materials for the purpose of de-
veloping, TppJy»tf*. "FWPCA" means the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act. as amended
t33 U.S.C. 1251):
(c) "Ocean" or "ocean waters'* means
those waters of the open seas lying sea-
ward of the baseline from which the ter-
ritorial sea is measured, as provided for
In the Convention on the Territorial Sea
and the Contiguous Zone (15 UBT 1606;
TlAS 5639); tills definition includes the
waters of the territorial sea, the contigu-
ous zone and the oceans as denned in
section 602 of the FWPCA.
(d) "Material" means matter of any
kind or description. Including, but not
limited to, dredged material, solid waste,
incinerator residue, garbage, sewage,
sewage sludge, munitions, radiological.
chemical* and biological warfare agents,
radioactive materials, chemicals, biologi-
cal and laboratory waste, wreck or dis-
carded equipment, rock, sand, excavation
debris, industrial, municipal, agricul-
tural, and other waste, but such term
does not mean sewage from vessels with-
in the meaning of section 312 of the
FWPCA. Oil within the meaning of sec-
tion 311 of the FWPCA shall constitute
"material" for purposes of this Subchap-
ter H only to the extent that it b taken
on board a vessel or aircraft for the pri-
mary purpose of dumping.
(e) "Dumping" means a disposition of
material: Provided. That it does not
mean a disposition of any effluent from
any outfall structure to the extent that
such disposition b regulated under PM>
provisions of the FWPCA, under the pro-
visions of section 13 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1S99, as amended (33
TJ.S.C. 407), or under the provisions of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2011). nor does It
mean a routine discharge of effluent In-
cidental to the propulsion of, or opera-
tion of motor-driven equipment on, ves-
sels: Provided further. That It does not
mean the construction of any fixed struc-
ture or artificial bland nor the inten-
tional placement of any device in ocean
waters or on or m the submerged land
beneath such waters, for a purpose other
than «iiftpft*^J, when such construction or
ouch ptfv**Tt*'T1*r b otherwise regulated by
Federal or State law or occurs pursuant
to an authorized Federal or State pro-
gram; And provided further. That It does
not Include the deposit of oyster shells,
or other materials when such deposit b
made for the purpose of developing.
Tfpflin t^tn irtgt or harvesting fisheries re-
sources and b otherwise regulated by
Federal or State law or occurs pursuant
to an authorized Federal or State
program.
-------
2470
when the Administrator determines that
there exists an emergency requiring toe
dumping of such materials which poses
an unacceptable risk to human health
and admits of no other feasible solution.
(d) Interim permits. Prior to April 23,
1976, Interim permits may be Issued In
accordance with Subpart A of Part 227 to
dump materials which are not hi com-
pliance with the environmental Impact
criteria of Subpart B of Part 227, or
which would cause substantial adverse
effects as determined m accordance with
the criteria of Subparta D or E of Part
227 or for which an ocean disposal site
has not been designated on other than an
Interim basis pursuant to Part 228 of this
Subchapter R; provided, however, no
permit may be Issued for the ocean
dumping of any materials listed In
{ 22*7.5, or for any of the materials listed
In 9 227.6, except as trace contaminants:
provided further that the compliance
date of Aprfl 23. 1978, does not apply to
the dumping of wastes by existing dump-
ers when the Regional Administrator
determines that the permittee has exer-
cised his best efforts to comply with an
requirements of a special permit by
April 23. 1978, and has an implementa-
tion schedule adequate to allow phasing
out of ocean dumping or compliance with.
all requirements necessary to receive a
special permit by December 31. 1981, at
the latest. No Interim permit will be
granted for the dumping of waste from a
facility which has not previously dumped
wastes In the ocean (except when the
facility Is operated by a municipality now
dumping such wastes). from a new facu-
lty, or for the dumping of an Increased
amount of waste from the expansion or
modification of an ex*?t*"g facility, after
the effective date of these regulations. No
Interim permit wffl be Issued for the
dumping of any material m the ocean
for which an Interim permit had pre-
viously been Issued unless the applicant
demonstrates that he has exercised hb
best efforts to comply with all provisions
of the previously Issued permits.
(e) Research permit*. Research per-
mits may be Issued for the dumping of
any materials, other than materials spec-
ified m Q 227.5 or for any of the mate-
rials listed m 9 327.6 except as trace con-
taminants, unless subject to the exclu-
sion of I 227.6(g>, mto the ocean as part
of a research project when It Is deter-
mined that the scientific merit of the
proposed project outweighs the potential
environmental or other damage that may
result from the dumping. Research per-
mits shall specify an expiration date no
later than* 18 months from the date of
Issue.
(f) Permits for incineration at tea.
Permits for Incineration of wastes at sea
will be Issued only as research permits
or as Interim permits until specific cri-
teria to regulate this type of disposal are
promulgated, except m those cases where
'studies on the waste, the incineration
method and vessel, and the site have been
conducted and the site has been deslg-
RULES
REGULATIONS
nated for Incineration at sea In accord-
ance with the procedures of 1238.4 (b).
In all other respects the requirements of
Parts 220-228 apply.
g 220.4 Authorities to issue permits.
(a) Determination Dp Administrator.
The Administrator, or such other EPA
employee as he may from time to tune
designate In writing, shall issue, deny.
modify, revoke, suspend. Impose condi-
tions on, Initiate and carry out enforce-
ment activities and take any and all other
actions necessary or proper and per-
mitted by law with respect to general,
special, emergency. Interim, or research
permits,
(b) Authority delegated to Regional
Administrator*. Regional Administrators,
or such other EPA employees as they may
from time to time designate In writing,
are delegated the authority to issue,
deny, modify, revoke, suspend. Impose
conditions on. Initiate and cany out en-
forcement activities, and take any and
.all other actions necessary or proper and
permitted by law with respect to special
and interim permits for:
(1) The dumping of material In those
portions of the territorial sea which are
subject to the Jurisdiction of any State
within their respective Regions, and In
those portions of the contiguous cone
Immediately adjacent to such parts of
the territorial sea; and In the oceans
with respect to approved waste dlnpff^1
sites designated pursuant to Part 228
of tills Subchapter H, and
(2) Where transportation for dump-
Ing Is to originate In one Region mnd
dumping Is to occur at * location within
another Region's jurisdiction conferred
by order of the Administrator, the Re-
gion in which transportation Is to orig-
inate shall be responsible for review of
the application and shall prepare the
technical evaluation of the need for
dumping and alternatives to ocean
dumping* The Region having Jurisdic-
tion over the proposed dump site Shan
take aDv other actions required by this
Subchapter H with respect to the permit
application. Including without limita-
tion, determining to Issue or deny the
permit, specifying the conditions to be
Imposed, and giving public notice. If
both Regions do not concur m the dispo-
sition of the permit application, the Ad-
ministrator win make the nnal decision
on aQ Issues with respect to the permit
application, Including without limita-
tion, issuance or denial of the permit
and the conditions to be imposed.
(c) Review of Corp* of Engineers
Dredged Material Permits. Regional Ad-
ministrators have the authority to re-
view, to approve or to disapprove or to
propose conditions upon Dredged Ma-
terial Permito for ocean dumping of
dredged material at locations within the
respective Regional Jurisdictions. Re-
gional jurisdiction to act under oii^
paragraph (c) of I 220.4 Is determined
by the Administrator In accordance with
I 228.4(e).
PART 221—APPLICATIONS FOR OCEAN
DUMPING PERMITS UNDER SECTION
102 OF THE ACT
Sec.
231.1 Applications lor permits.
2312 Other Information.
331.3 Applicant.
221.4 Adequacy of Information In applica-
tion,
221.5 Processing fees.
ACTHOBITT: 33 UJ9.C. 1412 and 1418.
g 221.1 Applications for permits.
Applications for general, special, emer-
gency, interim and research permits un-
der section 102 of the Act may be filed
with the Administrator or the appro-
priate Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, authorized by Section 220.4
to act on the application. Applications
shall be made in writing and shall con-
tain. In addition to any other material
which may be required, the following:
(a) Name and address of applicant;
(b) Name of the person or arm trans-
porting the material for dumping, the
name of theperson(s) ornrm(s) produc-
ing or processing all materials to be
transported for dumping, and the name
or other Identification, and usual loca-
tion, of the conveyance to be used In the
transportation and dumping of the ma-
terial to be dumped. Including informa-
tion on the transporting vessel's com-
munications and navigation equipment;
(c) Adequate physical and chemical
description of material to be dumped.
Including results of tests necessary to
apply the Criteria, and the number,
size, and physical configuration of any
containers to be dumped;
(d) Quantity of material to be
dumped;
(e) Proposed dates and times of dis-
posal;
(f) Proposed dump site, and to the
event such proposed dump site is not a
dump site designated In thla Subchapter
H, detailed physical, ffr><*nr*v^^ and bio-
logical information relating to the pro-
posed dump site and sufficient to sup-
port Its designation as a site according
to the procedures of Part 328 of this
Subchapter H;
(g) Proposed method of releasing the
material at the dump site and means by
which the disposal rate can be controlled
and modified as required;
A statement of the need for the
proposed dumping and an evaluation of
short and long term alternative means of
disposal, treatment or recycle of the ma-
terial. WfWPit of disposal "*iflll *F>f-tude
without limitation, landfill, well Injec-
tion, incineration, spread of material
over open ground; biological, r-Jifrntcfrl or
physical treatment; recovery and recycle
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1*77
of material within the plant or at other
plants which may use the material, and
storage. Tne statement «t*t*n al"* Include
f\r> flpftiy^fl of ttie availability a^d envi-
ronmental Impact of such alternatives;
and
(k) An assessment of the anticipated
environmental Impact of the proposed
dumping, Including without limitation,
the relative duration of the effect of the
proposed dumping on the marine envi-
ronment, navigation, living and non-liv-
ing marine resource exploitation, sci-
entific study, recreation and other uses
of the ocean.
8 221.2 Other information.
In the event the Administrator, Re-
•^glonal Administrator, or a person desig-
nated by either to review permit applica-
tions, determines that additional infor-
mation to needed In order to apply the
Criteria, he shall so advise the applicant
in wr*M"gi AH additional Information
requested pursuant to this { 221.2 shall be
deemed part of the application and for
purposes of applying the time limitation
of {222.1. the application wDl not be con-
sidered complete until such Information
has been filed.
§221.3 Applicant.
Any person may apply for a permit un-
der this Subchapter H even though the
proposed dumping may be carried on by
a permittee who Is not the applicant;
provided however, that the Administra-
tor or th* Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, may, m hb discretion, re-
quire that an application be filed by the
person or firm producing or processing
the material proposed to be dumped. Is-
suance of a permit will not excuse the
permittee from any civil or criminal lia-
bility which may attach by virtue of his
having transported or dumped materials
tn violation of the terms or conditions
of a permit, notwithstanding that the
permittee may not have been the appli-
cant.
S 221.4 Adequacy of information in ap-
IULES AND PECULATIONS
mentality of the United States or of a
State or local government wfll be re-
quired to pay the processing fees specified
In paragraphs (a) and (b) of this sec-
tion. .
No permit Issued under this Subchap-
ter H wffl be valid for the transportation
or dumping of any material which to not
accurately and adequately described In
the application. No permittee shall be
relieved of any liability which may arise
as a result of the transportation or
dumping of material which does not con-
form to information provided In the ap-
plication solely by virtue of the fact that
such Information was furnished by an
applicant other than the permittee.
8221.5 PraccMfa* f eea.
(a) A processing fee of $1,000 will be
charged in connection wtth each applica-
tion for a penult for dumping in an exist-
ing dump site designated In this Sub-
chapter H.
(b) A processing fee of an additional
$3,000 wffl be charged In connection with
each application for a permit for dump-
Ing in a dump site other than a dump
site rtf^gnattMl In thfr Subchapter H.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of thta | 231.5, no agency or Instru-
PART 222—ACTWN ON OCEAN DUMPING
PERMIT APPLICATIONS UNDER SEC-
TION 102 OF THE ACT
See.
233.1 General.
222g Tentative determinations,
223.3 Notice of applications.
222.4 Initiation of hearings.
223.5 Time and place of hearings.
222.6 Presiding Officer.
222.7 Conduct of public hearing.
222.8 Recommendations of Presiding Offi-
cer.
223.0 Issuance of permits.
222.10 Appeal to adjudicator? hearing.
222.11 Conduct of adjudicator; hearings.
222.12 Appeal to Administrator.
222.13 Computation of time.
AuTHoarnr: 33 TJ.8.C. 1412 and 1418.
§ 222.1 General.
Decisions as to the issuance, denial, or
Imposition of conditions on general, spe-
cial, emergency. Interim and research
permits under section 102 of the Act will
be made by application of the criteria
of Parts 227 and 228. Final action on any
application for a permit will, to the ex-
tent practicable, be taken within 180
days from the date a complete applica-
tion Is filed.
§ 222.2 Tentative determination*.
(a) Within 30 days of'the receipt of
his Initial application, an applicant shall
be Issued notification of whether his ap-
plication is complete and what. If any,
additional Information Is required. No
such notification shall be deemed to
foreclose the Administrator or the Re-
gional Administrator, as the case may
be, from requiring additional Informa-
tion at any time pursuant to 9 221.2.
(b) within 30 days after receipt of a
completed permit application, the Ad-
ministrator or the Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be, shall publish
notice of such application including a
tentative determination with respect to
Issuance or denial of the permit. If such
tentative determination is to Issue the
permit, the following additional tenta-
tive determinations wffl be made:
(1) Proposed time limitations, if any;
(2) Proposed rate of discharge from
the barge or vessel transporting the
waste;
<3> Proposed dumping site; and
(4) A brief description of any other
propumd conditions determined to be
appropriate for inclusion tn the permit
§ 222.3 Notice of application!.
(a) Contents. Notice of every com-
plete application for a general, special*
Interim, emergency and research permit
shall. In addition to any other material.
Include the following:
(1) A summary of the information In-
cluded m the permit application;
(2) Any tentative determinations ™«^*
pursuant to paragraph (b) of I 222.2;
2471
(3) A brief description of the proce-
dures set forth In ! 222.5 for requesting a
public hearing on the application In-
cluding specification of the date by
which requests for a public hearing must
be filed;
(4) A brief statement of the factors
considered In reaching the tentative de-
termination with respect to the permit
and, In the case of a tentative determi-
nation to Issue the permit, the reasons
for the choice of the particular permit
conditions selected; and
(5) The location at which Interested
persons may obtain further Information
on the proposed dumping, Including
copies of any relevant documents.
(b) Publication.
(1) Special, interim'and research per-
mits. Notice of every' complete applica-
tion for special. Interim and research
permits shall be given by:
(1) Publication in a dally newspaper of
general circulation In the State hi closest
proximity to the proposed dump site: and
(11) Publication In a daily newspaper of
general circulation In the city m which
Is located the office of the Administrator
or the Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, giving notice of the permit
application.
(2) General permits. Notice of every
complete application for a general per-
mit or notice of action proposed to be
taken by the Administrator to Issue a
general permit, without an application,
shall be given by publication In the FED-
ERAL REGISTER.
<3) Emergency permits. Notice ot every
complete application for an emergency
permit shall be given by publication In
accordance with paragraphs (b)(l) (1)
and (11) of this section; provided, how-
ever, that no such notice and no tenta-
tive determination In accordance with
S 222.2 shall be required In any case In
which the Administrator determines:
(i) That an emergency, as defined In
paragraph (c) of 8 220.3 exists;
(U> That the emergency poses an un-
acceptable risk relating to human health;
(ill) That the emergency admits of no
other feasible solution; and
(iv) That the public Interest requires
the Issuance of an emergency permit as
soon as possible.
Notice of any determination made by
the Administrator pursuant to this para-
graph (b) (3) Shan be given as soon as
practicable after the Issuance of the
emergency permit by publication m ac-
cordance with paragraphs (b)U> (1) and
(11) and with paragraphs (a), (c)-(l) of
this section.
(c) Copies of notice sent to specific
persons. In addition to the publication of
notice required by paragraph (b) of tills
section, copies of such notice wffl be
mailed by the Administrator or the Re-
gional Administrator, as the case may be.
to any person, group or Federal, State or
local agency upon request Any such re-
quest may be a standing request for cop-
ies of such notices and shall be submitted
In writing to the Administrator or to any
Regional Administrator and shall relate
to all or any class of permit applications
which may be acted upon by the Admln-
FtDERAL REGISTER. VOL 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY
-------
2472
istrator or such Regional Administrator.
as the case may be.
(d) Coptei of notice sent to States, m
addition to the publication of notice re-
quired by paragraph (b) of this section,
copies of such notice will be mailed to
the State water pollution control agency
and to the State agency responsible for
carrying out the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act. If such agency exists, for each
coastal State within 500 miles of the pro-
posed dumping site.
(e) Coftes of notice sent to Corps of
Engineers. In addition to the publication
of notice required by paragraph (b) of
this section, copies of such notice will be
mailed to the office of the appropriate
District Kngineer of the t7.S. Army Corps
of Engineers for purposes of section 106
(c> of the Act (pertaining to navigation,
harbor approaches, and artificial islands
on the outer continental shelf).
(f) Copies of notice sent to Coast
Guard. In addition to the publication of
notice required by paragraph (b) of this
section, copies of such notice will be sent
to the appropriate district office of the
U.S. Coast Guard for review and possible
suggestion of additional conditions to be
Included In the permit to facilitate sur-
veillance and enforcement.
(g) Fish and WQdUfe Coordination
Act. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970.
and the Act require that the Administra-
tor or the Regional Administrator, as the
case may be, consult with appropriate
regional officials of the Departments of
Commerce and Interior, the Regional Di-
rector of the NMFS-NOAA, and the
agency exercising administrative juris-
diction over the flsh and wildlife re-
sources of the States subject to any
dumping prior to the issuance of a per-
mit under Otis Subcnapter H. Copies of
the notice shall be sent to the persons
noted In paragraph (g) of this section.
(h) Copies of notice sent to Food and
Drug Administration. In addition to the
publication of notice required by para-
graph (b) of this section, copies of such
notice will be mailed to Food and Drug
Administration. Shellfish Sanitation
Branch (HF-417). 200 C Street SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20204.
(1) Failure to give certain notices. Fail-
ure to send copies of any public notice
In accordance with paragraphs (c>
through (h) of this section shall not In-
validate any notice given pursuant to
this section nor shall such failure Invali-
date any subsequent administrative pro-
ceeding.
(J) Failure of consulted agency to re-
spond. Unless advice to the contrary Is
received from the appropriate Federal
or State agency within 30 days of the
date copies of any public notice were dis-
patched to such agency, such agency
will be deemed to have no objection to
the Issuance of the permit Identified in
the public notice.
9 222.4 Initiation of hearings
(a) In the caae «f any permit applica-
tion for width public notice in advance
of penult taBnanee to required hi accord-
ance with paragraph (b) of 1322.3, any
RULES AND REGULATIONS
person may. within 30 days of the date
on which all provisions of paragraph (b)
of | 222.3 have been compiled with, re-
quest a public tw^ring to consider the Is-
suance or denial of, or the conditions to
be Imposed-upon, such permit. Any such
request for a public hearing shall be in
writing, shall identify the person re-
questing the hearing, shall state with
particularity any objections to the Issu-
ance or denial of, or to the conditions
to be Imposed upon, the proposed per-
mit, and shall state the issues which are
proposed to be raised by such person
for consideration at a hearing.
(b) Whenever (1) a written request
satisfying the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section has been received and
the Administrator or Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be, determines
that such request presents genuine Is-
sues, or (2) the Administrator or Re-
gional Administrator, as the case may be,
determines In his discretion that a public
hearing is necessary or appropriate, the
Administrator or the Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be. will set a time
and, place for a public hearing In accord-
ance with | 222.5, and will give notice
of such hearing by publication in accord-
ance with i 222.3.
(c) in the event the Administrator or
the Regional Administrator, as the case
may be, determines that a request filed
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion does not comply with the require-
ments of such paragraph (a) or that such
request does not present substantial
issues of public interest, he shall advise,
in writing, the person requesting the
hearing of his determination.
§ 222.5 Time and place of hearing*.
Hearings shall be held in the State In
closest proximity to the proposed dump
site, whenever practicable, and shall be
set for the earliest practicable date no
less than 30 days after the receipt of an
appropriate request for a hearing, or a
determination by the Administrator or
tfyg Regional Administrator, as th^ case
may be, to hold such a hearing without
such a request.
§ 222.6 Presiding Officer.
A hearing convened pursuant to this
Subchapter H shall be conducted by a
Presiding Officer. The Administrator or
Regional Administrator, as the case may
be, may df*MtfTifltf a presiding Officer.
For adjudicatory hearings held pursuant
to I 222.11, the Presiding Officer shall be
an Administrative Law Judge.
§ 222.7 Conduct of public hearing.
The Presiding Officer shall be responsi-
ble for the expeditious conduct of the
hearing. Ttie hearing ffTipJl be **** In-
formal public hearing, not an adversary
proceeding, and snail be conducted so
as to allow the presentation of public
comments. When the Presiding Officer
determines tnat It to necessary or ap-
propriate, he shall cause a suitable rec-
ord, which may Include a verbatim tran-
script, of the proceednigs to be made.
Any person m<*r appear at a public hear-
ing convened pursuant to i 222.5 whether
or not he requested the hearing, and may
be represented by counsel or any other
authorized representative. T*» Presid-
ing Officer Is authorized to set forth
reasonable restrictions on the nature or
amount of documentary material ox tes-
timony presented at a public hearing,
giving due regard to the relevancy of any
such Information, and to the avoidance
of undue repetiUveness of Information
presented.
§ 222.8 Recommendations of Presiding
Officer.
Within 30 days following the adjourn-
ment of a public hearing convened pur-
suant to i 222.5,. or within such addi-
tional period as the Administrator or the
Regional Administrator, as the case may
be, may grant to the Presiding Officer
for good cause shown, and after full
consideration of the comments received
at the hearing, the Presiding Officer will
prepare and forward to the Administra-
tor or to the Regional Administrator, as
the cose may be, written recommenda-
tions relating to the issuance or denial of,
or conditions to be Imposed upon, the
proposed permit and the record of the
hearing, If any. Such recommendations
shall contain a brief statement of the
basis for the recommendations including
a description of evidence relied upon in
Justification either (1) for permit pro-
visions which differ from any tentative
determinations Issued prior to the hear-
ing or (2) for any permit denial. Copies
of the Presiding Officer's recommenda-
tions shall be provided to any interested
person on request, without charge. Copies
of the record wfll be provided in accord-
ance with 40 CPR 2.
§ 222.9 Issuance of permits.
(a) Within 30 days following receipt of
the Presiding Officer's recommendations
or, where no hearing has been held, fol-
lowing the close of the 30-day period for
requesting a bearing as provided In
f 222.4, the Administrator or the Re-
gional Administrator, as the case may be.
shall make a determination with respect
to the Issuance, denial, or imposition of
conditions on, any permit applied for
under this Subchapter H and shall give
notice to the applicant and to all persons
who registered their attendance at the
hearing by providing their name and
matting address. If any, by making a let-
ter stating the determination and stat-
ing the basis therefor In terms of the
Criteria,
; or
(2) 20 days after notice .of such deter-
mination Is given If a request for an
adjudlcatory hf*-rtng jg fli«*< in accord-
ance with paragraph (a) of I 222.10 and
the Administrator or the Regional Ad-
minlstrator, as t^w caw may be, *ViT^f?
such request In accordance with para-
graph (0 of ! 222.10; or
(3) The date on which a final deter-
mination hffl been made following an
FEOElAi ttCISTIX, VOL 42. NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUAIY 11, 1977
RULES AND REGULATIONS
2473
adjudlcatory hearing held pursuant to
§ 222.11.
(c) The Administrator or Regional Ad-
ministrator, as toe case may be. may
extend the term of a previously issued
permit pending toe conclusion of the pro-
ceedings held pursuant to II 222.7-222.9.
(d) A copy of each permit Issued ahall
be sent to the appropriate District Office
of the US. Coast Guard.
g 222.10 Appeal to adjudicator?- hear-
ing.
fa) Within 10 days following the re-
ceipt of notice of the Issuance or denial
•of any permit pursuant to I 222.9 after
a bearing held pursuant to I 222.7. any
Interested person who participated in
such hearing may request that an adjudl-
catory hearing be held pursuant to
8 222.11 for the purpose of reviewing such
'determination, or any part thereof. Any
such request for an adjudicatory hearing
shall be filed with Hie Administrator or
the Regional Administrator, as the case
may be, and shaH be In writing, shall
Identify the person requesting toe ad-
judlcatory hearing and shall state with
particularity the objections to the de-
termination. the basis therefor and the
.
(b) Whenever a written request satis-
fying the requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section has been received and,
the Admlnlsfrator or Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be, determines
thai an adjudlcatory hearing is war-
ranted, the Administrator or the Re-
gional Administrator, as the case may be,
win set a time and place for an adjudi-
catory hearing In accordance with
i 222.5, and win give notice of such hear-
ing by publication In accordance with
3222.3.
(c) Prior to the conclusion of the ad-
judicatory hearing and appeal process,
the Administrator or the Regional Ad-
ministrator, as tne case «nay be, tn his
discretion may extend the duration of
• previously issued permit untQ a final
determination has been made pursuant
to It 222.11 or 222.12.
(d) In the event the Administrator
or the Regional Administrator, as the
ease may be, determines that a request
ffled pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
•ecttoa does not comply with the require-
ments of ouch paragraph (a) or that
such request does not present substan-
tial issues of public interest, he shall ad-
vise, hi writing, the person requesting
the adjudlcatory hearing of his deter-
mination.
(e) Any person requesting an adjudl-
catory hearing or requesting admission as
a party to an adjudlcatory hearing shall
state In his written request, and shall
by film* cuch request consent, that he
and his employees and agents shall sub-
mit themselves to direct and cross-ex-
amination at any such hearing f*T"1 to
the taking of an oath administered by
the Presiding Officer.
§222.11 Conduct of adjudicator? hear-
logs,
Parties. Any Interested person
may at a reasonable time prior to the
commencement of the hearing submit to
the Presiding Officer a request to be ad- have all powers necessary or appropriate
mitted as a party. Such request shall be to that end. Including without limitation.
In writing and shall set forth the inf or- the following:
matlon which would be required to k* (i) To administer oaths and afflrma-
submltted by such person if he were re- 4 tlons;
questing' an adjudicatory hearing. Any (U> To rule upon offers of proof and
such request to be admitted as a party
which satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph (a) shall be granted and all
parties shall be Informed at the com-
mencement of the adjudlcatory hearing
of the parties involved. Any party may be
represented by counsel or other author-
ized representative. EPA staff represent-
ing the Administrator or Regional Ad-
ministrator who took action with respect
to the permit application shall be
deemed a party.
(b) Filing and service.
(1) An original and two (2) copies of
all documents or papers required or per-
mitted to be filed shall be filed with the
Presiding Officer.
(2) Copies of all documents and pa-
pers filed with the Presiding Officer shall
be served upon all other parties to the
adjudlcatory hearing.
(c) Consolidation. The Administrator,
or the Regional Administrator hi the
case of a hearing arising withm his Re-
gion and for which he has been delegated
authority hereunder, may. in his discre-
tion, order consolidation of any adju-
dlcatory hearings held pursuant to this
section whenever he determines that
consolidation wfll expedite or simplify
the consideration of the Issues presented.
The Administrator may. In his discretion,
order consolidation and designate one
Region to be responsible for the conduct
of any hearings held pursuant to thl?
section which arise tn different Regions
whenever he determines that consolida-
tion will expedite or simplify the consid-
eration of toe Issues presented.
(d) Pre-hearing conference. The Pre-
siding Officer may hold one or more pre-
heartng conferences and may Issue a
pre-hearlng order which may include
without limitation, requirements witti re-
spect to any or all of the following:
(1) Stipulations and admissions;
(2) Disputed issues of fact;
(3) Disputed issues of law;
(4) Admisslbfllty of any evidence;
(5) Hearing procedures Including sub-
mission of. oral or written direct testi-
mony, conduct of cross-examination, and
the opportunity for oral arguments;
(6) Any other matter which may ex-
pedite the hearing or aid tn disposition of
any Issues raised therein.
Adjudicator? hearing procedures.
(1) The burden of going forward with
the evidence shall:
(1) In the case of any adjudicatory
hearing held pursuant to I 222.10(b) (1).
be on the person ffltng a request under
i 223.10 (a) as to each Issue raised by the
request; and
(11) In the case of any adjudlcatory
hearing held pursuant to j 223.2 or pur-
suant to Part 228. be on the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency.
(2) The Presiding Officer shall have
the duty to conduct a fair and impartial
hearing, to take action to avoid unneces-
sary delay in the disposition of proceed-
receive relevant evidence;
(ill) To regulate tee course of the
heating and the conduct of the parties
and their counsel;
The proceedings of all hearings
shall be recorded by such means as the
Presiding Officer may determine. The
original transcript of the hearing shall
be a part of the record and the sole offi-
cial transcript. Copies of the transcript
shan be available from the Environ-
mental Protection Agency In accordance
with 40 CPR 2.
-------
-------
2474
mit written exceptions, no more than
30 pages In length, to such proposed
findings, conclusions and recommenda-
tions and within 30 days following the
submission of the Presiding Officer's pro-
posed findings, conclusions and recom-
mendations any party may file written
• comments, no more than 30 pages In
length, on another party's exceptions.
Within 45 days following the submission
of the Presiding Officer's proposed find-
ings, conclusions and recommendations,
the Administrator or the Regional Ad-
ministrator, as the case may be. shall
make a determination with respect to
all Issues raised at such hearing and
shall affirm, reverse or modify the previ-
ous or proposed determination, as the
case may be. Notice of such determina-
tion shall set forth the determination for
each such issue, shaD briefly state the
basis therefor and shall be given by mall
to all parties to the adjudicator? hearing.
§ 222.12 Appeal to Administrator.
(a) Within 10 days following receipt
of the determination of the Regional
Administrator pursuant to paragraph
(2) of 5 222.11, any party to an ad-
judtcatory hearing held In accordance
with ! 222.11 may appeal such deter-
mination to the Administrator by filing
a written notice of appeal, or the Ad-
ministrator may, on his own initiative,
review any prior determination.
(b) The notice of appeal shall be no
more than 40 pages in length and shall
contain:
(1) The name and address of the per-
son filing the notice of appeal;
(2) A concise statement of the facts
on which the person relies and appro-
priate citations to the record of the ad-
judicatory hearing;
(3) A concise statement of the legal
basis on which the person relies;
(4) A concise statement setting forth
the action which the person proposes
that the Administrator take; and
(5) A certificate of service of the no-
tice of appeal on all other parties to
the adjudlcatory hearing.
(c) The effective date of any deter-
mination made pursuant to paragraph
(2) of 5 222.11 may be stayed by the
Administrator pending final determina-
tion by him pursuant to this section
upon the filing of a notice of appeal
which satisfies the requirements of par-
agraph (b) of this section or upon ini-
tiation by the Administrator of review
of any determination In the absence of
such notice of appeal.
(d> Within 20 days following the fil-
ing of a notice of appeal In accordance
with this section, any party to the ad-
judlcatory hearing may file a written
memorandum, no more than 40 pages in
length, in response thereto.
(e) Within 45 days following the fil-
ing of a notice of appeal In accordance
• with this section, the Administrator shall
render his final determination with re-
spect to all issues raised in the appeal
to the Administrator and shall affirm,
reverse, or modify the previous determi-
nation and briefly state the basts for his
determination.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(f) In accordance with 5 UJ3.C. section
704, the filing-of an appeal to the Ad-
ministrator pursuant to this section
shall be a prerequisite to judicial review
of any determination to Issue, deny or
Impose conditions upon any permit; or
to modify, revoke or suspend any per-
mit, or to take any other enforcement
action, under this Subchapter H.
§ 222.13 Computation of lime.
In computing any period of time pre-
scribed or allowed in this part, except
unless otherwise provided, the day on
which the designated period of time be-
gins to run shall not be Included. The
last day of the period so computed is to
be Included unless It Is a Saturday, Sun-
day, or a legel holiday in which the
Environmental Protection Agency Is not
open for business, in which event the
period runs until'the end of the next
day which Is not a Saturday, Sunday,
or legal holiday. Intermediate Satur-
days, Sundays and legal holidays shall
be excluded fro;n the computation when
the period of time prescribed or allowed
Is seven days or less.
PART 223—CONTENTS OF PERMITS
Sec.
223.1 Contents of permits.
223.2 Generally applicable conditions of
permit*.
AUTHORITY: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
§ 223.1 Contet U of permits.
Permits, other than general permits,
which may be issued on forms to be pub-
lished by EPA and must be displayed on
the vessel engaged In dumping, will In-
' elude at a minimum the following:
(a) Nameof p-irmlttee;
(b) Means of conveyance and meth-
ods and procedures for disposal of mate-
rial to be dumped: and. in the case of
permits for the transportation of mate-
rial for dumping, the port through or
from which such material wOl be trans-
ported;
(c) A complete description. Including
all relevant cher ilcal and physical prop-
erties and quanllties, of the material to
be dumped:
(d) The disposal site;
(e) The times at which the permitted
dumping may occur;
(f) Such monitoring relevant to the
assessment of the Impact of permitted
dumping activities on the marine envi-
ronment at the disposal site as the Ad-
ministrator determines is feasible; and
(g) Any other terms and conditions,
Including those with respect to release
procedures, determined to be necessary
ami adequate in order to conform the
permitted dumping activities to the fac-
tors set forth ID Section 103 of this section, a permit-
tee or other Interested person may re-
quest In writing a hearing on the issues
raised by any such revocation or suspen-
sion. Upon receipt of any such request,
the Administrator or Regional Admin-
' Istrator shall appoint a hearing officer to
conduct an adjudlcatory hearing as may
be required by law and by this sub-
chapter as now or hereafter In effect.
PART 224—RECORDS AND REPORTS RE-
QUIRED OF OCEAN DUMPING PER
MITTEES UNDER SECTION 102 OF THE
ACT
Sec.
224.1 Records of permittees.
224.2 Reports.
AUTHORITY: 33 UB.C. 1412 and 1418.
g 224.1 Record* of permittees.
Each permittee named In a special,
interim, emergency or research permit
under section 102 of the Act and each
person availing himself of the privilege
conferred by a general permit, shall
maintain complete records of the follow-
ing Information, which will be available
for inspection by the Administrator.
Regional Administrator, toe Comman-
dant of the UJ3. Coast Ouard, or their
respective deslgnees:
(a), The physical and chemical charac-
teristics of the material dumped pur-
suant to the permit;
(b) The precise times and locations of
dumping;
(c) Any other Information required as
a condition of a permit by the Adminis-
trator or the Regional Administrator, as
the case may be.
§ 224.2 Reports.
(a) Periodic report*. Information re-
quired to be recorded pursuant to 9 224.1
shan be reported to the Administrator
or the Regional Administrator, a* the
case may be, for the periods tnrtlcmtM
within 30 days of the expiration of such
periods'.
FEDERAL UGISTEI, VOL 42, N3. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1977
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(1) For each six-month period. If any,
following the effective date of the permit;
(2) For any other period of less than
s\x montJtm ending on the expiration date
of the permit; and
(3) As otherwise required in the condi-
tions of the permit.
(b) Reports of emergency dumping. If
material Is dumped without a permit pur-
suant to paragraph (c) (4) of ! 220.1, the
owner or operator of the vessel or aircraft
from which such dumping occurs shall
as soon as feasible Inform the Adminis-
trator, Regional Administrator, or the
nearest Coast Guard district of the in-
cident by radio, telephone, or telegraph
and shall within 10 days file a written
report with the Administrator or Re-
gional Administrator containing the In-
formation required under ( 224.1 and a
complete description of the circum-
stances under which the dumping oc-
curred. Such description shall explain
how human life at sea was in danger and
how the emergency dumping reduced
that danger. If the material dumped In-
cluded containers, the vessel owner or
operator shan Immediately request the
U.S. Coast Ouard to publish In the local
Notice to Mariners the dumping location,
the type of containers, and whether the
contents are toxic or explosive. Notifica-
tion shall also be given to the Pood and
Drug Administration, ghen*teh Sanita-
tion Branch, Washington, D.C. 20204, as
soon as possible.
PART 225—CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DREDGED MATERIAL PERMITS
Sec.
325.1 General.
225.2 Bertew of Dredged Material Permlta.
225.3 Procedure for Invoking economic
Impact.
325.4 Waiver by Administrator.
ACTBOBITT: 33 TT.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
g 225.1 General.
Applications and authorizations for
Dredged Material Permits under section
103 of the Act for the transportation of
dredged material for the purpose of
dumping It In ocean waters will be eval-
uated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers In accordance with the criteria
set forth to Part 227 and processed in ac-
cordance with S3 CFR 200.120 with spe-
cial attention to 9 209.120(g) (17) and 33
CFR 209.145.
8 225.2 Review of Dredged Material Per-
mils.
(a) The District Engineer shall send
a copy of the public notice to the ap-
propriate Regional Administrator, and
set forth In writing all of the foDowtng
Information:
(1) The location of the proposed dis-
posal site and Its physical boundaries;
<2) A statement as to whether the
site has been designated for use by the
Administrator pursuant to section 102
(c) of the Act;
(S) If the proposed disposal site has
not been ****T*irt%atffd by the Adzntolstra-
tor. a rtatement of the basis for the
proposed determination why no pre-
viously designated site Is feasible and a
description of the characteristics of the
proposed disposal site necessary for its
designation pursuant to Part 228 of
this Subchapter H;
(4) The known historical uses of the
proposed disposal site;
(5) Existence and documented ef-
fects of other authorized dumpings that
have been made In the dumping area
(e.g., heavy metal background reading
and organic carbon content); .
(6) An estimate of the length of time
during which disposal will continue at
the proposed site; -
(7) Characteristics and composition'
of the dredged material; and
(8) A' statement concerning a pre-
liminary determination of the need for
and/or availability of an environmental
Impact statement.
(b> The Regional Administrator will
within 15 days of the date the public
notice and other information required
to be submitted by paragraph (a) of
G 225.2 are received by him, review the
information submitted and request from
the District Engineer any additional in-
formation he deems necessary or ap-
propriate to evaluate the proposed
dumping.
(c) Using the Information submitted
by the District Engineer, and any other
information available to him, the Re-
gional Administrator will within 15 days
after receipt of all requested Informa-
tion, make an Independent evaluation
of the proposed dumping in accordance
with the criteria and respond to the Dis-
trict Engineer pursuant to paragraphs
(d) or (e) of this section. The Regional
Administrator may request an extension
of this 15 day period to 30 days from the
District Engineer.
.(d) When the Regional Administrator
determines that the proposed dumping
will comply with the criteria, he will so
Inform the District Engineer In writing.
(e) .When the Regional Administrator
determines that the proposed dumping
will not comply with the criteria he
shall so Inform the District Engineer In
writing. In such cases, no Dredged Ma-
terial Permit for such dumping shall be
Issued unless and until the provisions of
8 225.3 are followed and the Administra-
tor grants'a waiver of the criteria pur-
suant to f 225.4.
§ 225.3 Procedure for invoking eco-
nomic impact.
(a) When a District Engineer's deter-
mination to Issue a Dredged Material
Permit for the dumping of dredged mate-
rial Into ocean waters has been rejected
by a Regional Administrator upon appli-
cation of the Criteria, the District Engi-
neer may determine whether, under \ 103
(d) of the Act, there Is an economically
feasible alternative method or site avail-
able other than the proposed dumping
to ocean waters. If the District Engineer
mfttgg any such preliminary determina-
tion ttift there Is no economically feasi-
ble alternative method or site 'available,
he shall so advise the Regional Adminis-
trator'setting forth his reasons for such
determination and shall submit a report
of such determination to the Chief of
Engineers in accordance with 33 CPR
{£ 209.120 and 209.145.
(b) If the decision of the Chief of
Engineers Is that ocean dumping at the
designated site is required because of the
unavailability of feasible alternatives, he
shall so certify and request that the Sec-
retary of the Army seek a waiver from
the Administrator of the Criteria or of
the critical site designation In accord-
ance with ! 225.4.
§225.4 Waiter by .\m>tur.
The Administrator shall grant the re-
quested waiver unless within 30 days of
his receipt of the notice, certificate and
request in accordance with paragraph
(b) of § 225.3 he determines In accord-
ance with this section that the proposed
dumping will have an unacceptable ad-
verse effect on municipal water supplies,
shellfish beds and fishery areas (includ-
ing spawning and breeding areas), wild-
life, or recreational areas. Notice of the
Administrator's final determination un-
der this section shall be given to the
Secretary of the Army.
PART 226—ENFORCEMENT
Sec.
226.1 Civil penalties.
226.2 Enforcement hearings.
226.3 Determinations.
22S.4 Final action.
AUTHORITY: 33 DJ5.C. 1412 and 1418.
g 226.1 Civil penalties.
In addition to the criminal penalties
provided for tn section 105 (b) of the Act,
the Administrator or his deslgnee may
assess a civil penalty of not more than
$50,000 for each violation of the Act and
of this subchapter. Upon receipt of in-
formation that any person has violated
any provision of the Act or of this sub-
chapter, the Administrator or his desig-
nee will notify such person in writing of
the violation with which he Is charged.
and will convene a hearing no sooner
than 60 days after such notice, at a con-
venient location, before a hearing officer.
Such hearing shall be conducted in ac-
cordance with the procedures of I 22S.2.
§ 226.2 Enforcement hearing.
Hearings convened pursuant to } 226.1
shall be hearings on a record before a
hearing officer. Parties may be repre-
sented by counsel and will have the right
to submit motions, to present evidence in
their own behalf, to cross-examine ad-
verse witnesses, to be apprised of an evi-
dence considered by the hearing ofllcer.
and to receive copies of the transcript of
the proceedings. Formal rutes of evidence
will not apply. The hearing officer will
rule on all evidentiary matters, and on
all motions, which will be subject to re-
view pursuant to 9 226.3.
§ 226.3 Determinations.
Within 30 days following adjournment
of the hearing, the hearing officer wfll
In all cases make findings of facts and
recommendations to the Administrator
Including, when appropriate. & recom-
mended appropriate penalty, after con-
sideration of the gravity of the violation,
prior violations by the person charged.
FEDEEAL IEGISTEI, VOL. 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY II, 1977
-------
2476
and the demonstrated good faith by such
person m attempting to achieve rapid
compliance with the provisions of the
Act and this subchapter. A copy oTlhe
findings and recommendations of the
hearing officer shall be provided to the
person charged at the same time they
are forwarded to the Administrator.
Within 30 days of the date on which the
hearing officer's findings and recom-
mendations are forwarded to the Ad-
ministrator. any part? objecting thereto
may file written exceptions with the Ad-
ministrator. • *
§ 226.4 Final action.
A final order on a proceeding under
this Part wul be issued by the Adminis-
trator, or by such other person desig-
nated by the Administrator to take such
final action, no sooner than 30 days fol-
lowing receipt of the findings and recom-
mendations of the hearing officer. A
copy of the final order wUl be served by
registered mail (return receipt re-
quested) on the person charged or his
representative. In the event the final
order assesses a penalty, it shall be pay-
able within GO days of the date of re-
ceipt of the final order, unless judicial
review of the final order is sought by
the person against whom the penalty is
assessed.
PART 227— CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUA-
TION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR
OCEAN DUMPING OF MATERIALS
Subpart A — General
Sec.
227.1 Applicability.
227.2 Material* which satisfy the envlron-
^ mental Impact criteria of Subpart
B.
22T 3 Materials which do mot satisfy Ui«
environmental Impact criteria of
Subpart B.
Subpart B — Environmental Impact
227.4 Criteria for evaluating environ-
mental Impact.
227.5 Prohibited materials.
227.6 Constituents prohibited as other
than trace contaminants.
227.7 Limits established for specific wastes
or waste constituents.
227.8 Limitations on the disposal rates of
toxic wastes.
227.0 Limitations on quantities of waste
materials.
227.10 Hazards to flshlng, navigation, shore-
lines or beaches.
227.11 Containerized wastes.
227.12 Insoluble wastes.
227.1S Dredged Materials.
Subpart C — Need for Ocun DumptCC
227.14 Criteria for evaluating the need for
ocean dumping and alternatives to
227.15 Factors considered.
227.16 Basis for determination of need for
ocean dumping.
227.17 Basts for determination.'
-327.18 Factors considered.
227.19 Assessment of Impact,
227.20 Basis for determination.
227Jl Xfeea considered.
227.22 Assessment of Impact.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
•pedal Requirements fbr Inter1
Ifader Section 102 «f the Act
237.23 General requirement.
3273* Contents of environmental assess-
ment.
22725 Contents of plans.
227.26 Implementation of plans.
Subpart 0—Definitions
227.27 Limiting Permissible Concentration
(LPC).
227.28 Release zone.
227.20 Initial ip|*>"g-
227.30 High-level radioactive waste.
227.31 Applicable marine water quality cri-
teria.
227-32 Liquid, suspended parttculate, and
solid phases, of a material.
Subpart A—G*neral
§ 227.1 Applicability.
(a) Section 102 of the Act requires
that criteria for the Issuance of ocean
disposal permits be promulgated after
consideration of the environmental effect
of the proposed dumping operation, the
need for ocean dumping, alternatives to
ocean dumping, and the effect of the pro-
posed action on esthetic, recreational
and economic values and on other uses
of the ocean. This Part 227 and Part 228
of this Subchapter H together constitute
the criteria established pursuant to sec-
tion 102 of the Act. The decision of the
Administrator, Regional Administrator
or the District Engineer, as the case may
be, to issue or deny a permit and to tan-
pose specific conditions on any permit
issued win be based on an evaluation of
the permit application pursuant to the
criteria set forth hi this Part 227 and
upon the requirements for disposal site
management pursuant to the criteria set
forth in Part 228 of this Subchapter H.
(b) With respect to the criteria to be
used In evaluating disposal of dredged
materials, this section and Subparts C,
D, E, and O apply hi their entirety. To
determine whether the proposed dump-
Ing of dredged material complies with
Subpart B, only 58227.4. 227.5, 227.6,
227.9, 227.10 and 227.13 apply. An appli-
cant for a permit to dump dredged ma-
terial must comply with all of Subparts
C, D, E, O and applicable sections of B,
to be deemed to have met the EPA cri-
teria for dredged material dumping
promulgated pursuant to section 102 (a)
of the Act. If, In any case, the Chief
of Engineers flnds^ that. In the dispo-
sition of dredged material, there Is no
economically feasible method or site
available other than a dumping site, the
utilization of which would result In non-
compliance with the criteria established
pursuant to Subpart B relating to the
effects of dumping or with the restric-
tions established pursuant to section
I02(c) of the Act relating to critical
areas, he shall so certify and request
that the Secretary of the Army seek a
waiver from the Administrator pursuant
to Part 225.
After consideration of the provi-
sions of {{227.28 and 227.29. no permit
will be Issued when the dumping would
result in a violation of applicable water
quality standards.
§ 227.2 Materials which satisfy the en-
vironraental impact criteria of Sub-
part B.
(a) If the applicant satisfactorily
demonstrates that the material proposed
for ocean dumping satisfies the environ-
mental impact criteria set forth in Sub-
part B. a permit for ocean dumping will
be issued unless:
(1) There is no need for the dump-
ing, and alternative means of disposal
are available, as determined in accord-
ance with the criteria set forth in Sub-
part C; or
(2) There are unacceptable adverse
effects on esthetic, recreational or eco-
nomic values as determined in accord-
ance with the criteria set forth In Sub-
part D; or
<3> There are unacceptable adverse
effects on other uses of the ocean as
determined hi accordance with the cri-
teria set forth in Subpart E.
(b) If the material proposed for ocean
dumping satisfies the environmental im-
pact criteria set forth In Subpart B. but
the Administrator or the Regional Ad-
ministrator, as the case may be. deter-
mines that any one of the considerations
set forth in paragraphs (a) <1>, (2) or
(3) of this section applies, he will deny
the permit application; provided how-
ever, that he may Issue an Interim per-
mit for ocean dumping pursuant to para-
graph (d) of 5 220.3 and Subpart P of
this Part 227 when he determines that:
(1) The material proposed for ocean
dumping does not contain any of the
materials .listed In {227.5 or listed in
{ 227.8, except as trace contaminants;
and
(2) In accordance with Subpart C
there Is a need to ocean dump the mate-
rial and no alternatives are available to
- such dumping; and
(3) The need for the dumping and the
unavailability of alternatives, as deter-
mined hi accordance with Subpart C, are
of greater significance to the public in-
terest than the potential for adverse
effect on esthetic, recreational or eco-
nomic values, or on other uses of the
ocean, as determined in accordance with
Subparts D and E, respectively.
§ 227.3 Mate-nab which do not satisfy
the environmental impact criteria set
forth in Snbpart B.
If the material proposed for ocean
dumping does not satisfy the environ-
mental Impact criteria of Subpart B. the
Administrator or the Regional Adminis-
trator, as the case may be, will deny the
permit application; provided however,
that he may issue an Interim permit pur-
suant to paragraph (d) of 1220.3 and
FEDEtAL REGISTER VOL «, NO. 7—TUESDAY. JANUAIY 11, 1977
RULES AND REGULATIONS
2477
Subpart P of this Part 227 when he deter-
mines that:
' (a) The material proposed for dump-
ing does not contain any of the materials
listed hi Section 227.6 except as trace
contaminants, or any of the materials
listed ing 227.5:
(b) In accordance with Subpart C
there Is a need to ocean dump the mate-
rial; and
(c) Any one of the following factors is
of greater significance to the public in-
terest than the potential for adverse
impact on the marine environment, as
determined In accordance with Subpart
B:
(1) The need for the dumping, as de-
termined hi accordance with Subpart C;
or
<2> The adverse effects of denial of
the permit on recreational or economic
values as determined In accordance with
Subpart D; or
(3) The adverse effects of denial of the
permit on other uses of the ocean, as de-
termined hi accordance with Subpart
E.
Subpart 8—Environmental Impact
§ 227.4 Criteria for evaluating environ-
mental Impact.
This Subpart B sets specific environ-
mental impact prohibitions, limits, and
conditions for the dumping of materials
Into ocean waters. If the applicable pro-
hibitions, limits, and conditions are sat-
isfied, it Is the determination of EPA
that the proposed disposal will not un-
duly degrade or endanger the marine en-
vironment and that the disposal will pre-
sent:
(a) No unacceptable adverse effects on
human health and no significant dam-
age to the resources of the marine en-
vironment:
(b) No unacceptable adverse effect on
the marine ecosystem;
(c) No unacceptable adverse persist-
ent or permanent effects due to the
dumping of ttie particular volumes or
concentrations of these materials; and
(d) No unacceptable adverse effect on
the ocean for other uses as a result of
direct environmental Impact.
§ 227.5 Prohibited materials.
The ocean dumping of the following
materials will not be approved by EPA or
the Corps of Engineers under any cir-
cumstances:
(a) High-level radioactive wastes as
denned In §227.30;
(b) Materials In whatever form (In-
cluding without limitation, solids, liquids,
semi-liquids, gases or organisms) pro-
duced or used for radiological, chemical
or biological warfare;
(c) Materials Insufficiently described
by the applicant in terms of their compo-
sitions and properties to permit appli-
cation of the environmental Impact cri-
teria of this Subpart B:
(d) Persistent inert synthetic or nat-
ural materials which may float or remain
in suspension In the ocean In such a
manner that they may Interfere materi-
ally with fishing, navigation, or other
legitimate uses of the ocean.
g 227.6 Constituents prohibited as other
than trace contaminants.
(a) Subject to the exclusions of para-
graphs (f), (g) and (h) of this section,
the ocean dumping, or transportation for
dumping, of materials containing the
following constituents as other than trace
contaminants will not be approved on
other than an emergency basis:
(1) Organohalogen compounds;
<2) Mercury and mercury compounds:
<3> Cadmium and cadmium com-
pounds;
(4) Oil of any kind or in any form,
Including but not limited to petroleum,
oil sludge, oil refuse, crude oil, fuel oil,'
heavy diesel oil, lubricating oils, hydrau-
lic fluids, and any mixtures containing
these, transported for the purpose of
dumping insofar as these are not regu-
lated under the FWPCA;
(5) Known carcinogens, mutagens, or
teratogens or materials suspected to be
carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens by
responsible scientific opinion.
(b) These constituents will be con-
sidered to be present as trace contam-
inants only when they are present hi
materials otherwise acceptable for ocean
dumping In such forms and amounts in
liquid, suspended partlculate, and solid
phases that the dumping of the mate-
rials will not cause significant undesira-
ble effects, including the possibility of
danger associated with their bloaccumu-
lation hi marine organisms.
(c) The potential for significant un-
desirable effects due to the presence of
these constituents shall be determined by
application of results of bloassays on
liquid, suspended partlculate, and solid
phases of wastes according to procedures
acceptable to EPA, and for dredged ma-
terial, acceptable to EPA and the Corps
of Engineers. Materials shall be deemed
environmentally acceptable for ocean
dumping only when the following condi-
tions are met:
(l) The liQuid phase does not contain
any of these constituents in concentra-
tions which will exceed applicable marine
water quality criteria after allowance
for initial mixing; provided that mercury
concentrations In the disposal site, after
allowance for Initial mixing, may exceed
the average normal ambient concentra-
tions of mercury in ocean waters at or
near the dumping site which would be
present In the absence of dumping, by
not more than 50 percent: and
(2) Bioassay results on the suspended
particulate phase of the waste do not In-
dicate occurrence of significant mortality
or significant adverse sublethal effects
including bioaccumulatlon due to the
dumping of wastes containing the con-
stituents listed In paragraph (a) of this
section. These bloassays shall be con-
ducted with appropriate sensitive marine
organisms as defined In { 227.27(c) using
procedures for suspended partlculate
phase bloassays approved by EPA. or, for
dredged material, approved by EPA and
the Corps of Engineers. Procedures ap-
proved for bloassays under this section
will require exposure of organisms for a
sufficient period of tune and under ap-
propriate conditions to provide reason-
able assurance, based on consideration of
the statistical significance of effects at
the 95 percent confidence level, that,
when, the materials are dumped, no sig-
nificant undesirable effects will occur due
either to chronic toxiclty or to bioaccu-
mulatlon of the constituents listed in
paragraph (a) of this section; and
(3) Bioassay results on the solid plia.se
of the wastes do not indicate occurrence
of significant mortality or significant ad-
verse sublethal effects due to the dump-
ing of wastes containing the constituents
listed in paragraph of this section; and
(4) For persistent organohalogens not
Included in the applicable marine water
quality criteria, bloassay results on the
liquid phase of the waste show that such
compounds are not present in concen-
trations large enough to cause significant
undesirable effects due either to chronic
toxiclty or to bioaccumulation in marine
organisms after allowance for initial
mixing.
(d) When the Administrator, Region-
al Administrator or District Engineer, as
the case may be, has reasonable cause to
believe that a material proposed for
ocean dumping contains compounds
identified as carcinogens, mutagens, or
teratogens for which criteria have not
been included In the applicable marine
water quality criteria, he may require
special studies to be done prior to issu-
ance of a permit to determine the im-
pact of disposal on human health and 'or
marine ecosystems. Such studies must
provide Information comparable to that
required under paragraph (c) (3) of this
section.
The criteria stated in paragraphs
(c) (2; and (3) of this section will be-
come mandatory as soon as announce-
ment of the availability of acceptable
procedures is made in the FEDERAL REG-
ISTER. At that time the interim criteria
contained in paragraph (el of this sec-
tion shall no longer be applicable. As
Interim measures the criteria of para-
graphs (c) (2) and (3) of this section
may be applied on a case-by-case basis
where interim guidance on acceptable
bloassay procedures Is provided by the
Regional Administrator or, in the case of
dredged material, by the District Engi-
neer; or. In the absence of such guidance,
permits may be .issued for the dumping of
any material only when the following
conditions ere met. except under an
emergency permit:
(1) Mercury and its compounds are
present in any solid phase of a material
in concentrations less than 0.75 mg/kg.
FEDERAL EEC I SI El. VOL 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY.- JANUARY It. 1977
-------
2478
or less than 50 percent greater than the
average total mercury content of natural
sediments of similar Uttudogte charac-
teristics as those at the disposal site; and
(2) Cadmium and Its compounds are
present In any solid phase of a material
in concentrations less than 0.6 mg/kg,
or less than 50 percent greater than the
average total cadmium content of nat-
ural sediments of similar Uthologlc char-
acteristics as those at the disposal site;
and
<3> The total concentration of organo-
halogen constituents In the waste as ,
transported for dumping Is less than a
concentration of such constituents
known to be toxic to marine organisms.
In calculating the concentration of or-
ganohalogens, the applicant shall con-
sider that these constituents are all bi-
ologically available. The determination
of the toxlclty value will be based on ex-
isting scientific data or developed by the
use of bloassays conducted In accordance
with approved EPA procedures; and
(4) The total amounts of oils and
greases as identified In paragraph (a) (4)
of this section do not produce a visible
surface sheen In an undisturbed water
sample when added at a ratio of one part
waste material to 100 parts of water.
(f ) The prohibitions and limitations of
this section do not apply to the constitu-
ents identified In paragraph (a) of this
section when the applicant can demon-
strate that such constituents are (1)
present In the material only as chemical
compounds or forms (e.g.. inert insoluble
solid materials) non-toxic to marine life
and non-bloaccumulatlve In the marine
environment uporulisposal and thereaf-
ter, or (2) present in the material only
as chemical compounds or forms which.
at the time of dumping and thereafter,
will be rapidly rendered non-toxic to ma-
rine life and non-bloaccumulattve in the
marine environment by chemical or bio-
logical degradation In the sea; provided
they will not make edible marine orga-
nisms unpalatable; or wOl not endanger
human health or that of domestic ani-
mals, fish, shellfish, or wildlife-
(g) The prohibitions and limitations
of this section do not apply to the con-
stituents identified In paragraph (a) of
this section for the granting of research
permits If the substances are rapidly
rendered harmless by physical, chemical
or biological processes In the sea; pro-
vided they will not make edible marine
organisms unpalatable and wUl not en-
danger human health or that of domestic
animals.
(h) The prohibitions and limitations
of this section do not apply to the con-
stituents Identified In paragraph (a) of
this section for the granting of permits
for the transport of these substances for
the purpose of Incineration at sea If the
applicant can demonstrate that the stack
- emissions consist of substances which are
rapidly rendered harmless by physical,
chemical or biological processes In the
sea. Incinerator operations shall comply
with requirements which will be estab-
lished on a case-by-case basis.
tULES AND lEGULATIONS
8227.7 Umlta eatahBaned for tpecinc
wastea or waate eomtituenU.
Materials containing the following
constituents must meet the additional
llTyiUfttlrmfl specified In thlg section to be
deemed acceptable for ocean clumping;
(a) Liquid waste constituents immis-
cible with or slightly soluble in seawater,
such as benzene, xylene, carbon dlsulflde
and toluene, may be dumped only when
they are present In the waste in concen-
trations below their solubility limits in
seawater. This provision does not apply
to materials which may interact with
ocean water to form insoluble materials;
(b) Radioactive materials, other than
those prohibited by 9 227.5. must be con-
tained In accordance with the provisions
of ! 227.11 to prevent their direct disper-
sion or dilution in ocean waters;
(c) Wastes containing living orga-
nisms may not be dumped if the orga-
nisms present would endanger human
health or that of domestic animals, fish.
shellfish and wildlife by:
(l) Extending the range of biological
pests, viruses, pathogenic microrganlsms
or other agents capable of Infesting, in-
fecting or extensively and permanently
altering the normal populations of orga-
nisms;
<2> Degrading uninfected areas; or
<3) Introducing viable species not in-
digenous to an area.
(d) In the dumping of wastes of high-
ly acidic, or piling nature into the
ocean, consideration shaQ be given to:
(1) the effects of any change In acidity
or alkalinity of the water at the disposal
site; and (2) the potential for synerglstic
effects or for the formation of toxic
compounds at or near the disposal site.
Allowance may be made hi the permit
conditions for the capability of ocean
waters to neutralize acid or alkaline
wastes; provided, however, that dump-
ing conditions must be such that the av-
erage total alkalinity or total acidity of
the ocean water after allowance for ini-
tial mixing, as denned In f 227.29. may be
changed, based on stolchlometric calcu-
lations, by no more than 10 per cent dur-
ing all dumping operations at a site to
neutralize add or alkaline wastes.
Wastes containing biodegradable
constituents, or constituents which con-
sume oxygen in any fashion, may be
dumped in the ocean only under condi-
tions to which the dissolved oxygen after
allowance for Initial mixing, as defined In
} 227.29, will not be depressed by more
than 25 per cent below the normally an-
ticipated ambient conditions in the dis-
posal area at the time of dumping.
§ 227.8 Limitations on the dUposnl rates
of toxic wastes.
No wastes wQl be deemed acceptable
for ocean dumping Ti^f"^ such wastes
can be dumped so as not to exceed the
limiting permissible concentration as de-
fined in 1227-2-7; provided that this
t 227.8 does not apply to those wastes for
which specific criteria are established In
1227.11 or 227.12. Total quantities oT
wastes dumped at a site may be limited
as described to 9 228.8.
g 227.9 Limitations on quantities of
wnste materials.
Substances which may damage the
ocewi environment due to the quantities
In which they are dumped, or which may
seriously reduce «nenl"*«, may be
dumped only when the quantities to be
dumped at a single time and place are
controlled to prevent long-term damage
to the environment or to amenities.
§ 227.10 Hazards to fishing, navigation,
shorelines or beaches.
(a) Wastes which may present a seri-
ous obstacle to fishing or navigation may
be dumped only at disposal sites and un-
der conditions which will ensure no un-
acceptable Interference with fishing or
navigation.
(b) Wastes which may present a haz-
ard to shorelines or beaches may be
dumped only at sites and under condi-
tions which will Insure no unacceptable
danger to shorelines or beaches.
§ 227.11 Containerized wastes.
(a) Wastes containerized solely for
transport to the dumping site and ex-
pected to rupture or leak on Impact or
shortly thereafter must meet the appro-
prtate requirements of SI 227.6, 227.7,
227.8, 227.9 and 227.10.
(b) Other containerized wastes will be
approved for dumping only under the
following conditions!
(1) The materials to be disposed of de-
cay, decompose or radlodecay to environ-
nwntally innocuous materials within the
life expectancy of the containers and/or
their inert matrix; and
(2) Materials to be dumped are present
in such quantities and are of such nature
that only short-term localized adverse
effects wiUToccur should the containers
rupture at any time; and
(3) Containers are dumped at depths
and locations where they wffl cause no
threat to navigation, fishing, shorelines,
or beaches.
8 227.12 Insoluble wastes.
(a) Solid wastes consisting of" Inert
natural minerals or materials compatible
with the ocean environment may be gen-
erally approved for ocean dumping pro-
vided they are insoluble above the ap-
plicable trace or limiting permissible
concentrations and are rapidly and com-
pletely setUeable, and they are of a par-
ticle size and density that they would
be deposited or rapidly dispersed without
damage to bentbic, demersal, or pelagic
biota.
(b) Persistent inert synthetic or nat-
ural materials which may float or re-
main In suspension In the ocean as pro-
hibited In paragraph (d) of 5 227.5 may
be dumped in the ocean only when they
have been processed hi such a fashion
that they wffl sink to the bottom and
remain in td&ce.
g 227.13 Dredged material*.
(a) Dredged matrrlalinre bottom sed-
tments or m«ti"*r*- that ben bee*
dredged or excavated from toe i—•—*"•
waters of the United I—'
FEDEtAL KGUTB. VOL 41. NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11. 1977
disposal Into ocean waters is regulated
by the UJ9. Army Corps of Engineers
using the criteria of applicable sections
of Parts 227 and 228. Dredged material
consists primarily of natural sediments
or materials which may be contaminated
by municipal or Industrial wastes or by
runoff from terrestrial sources such as
agricultural lands.
(b) Dredged material which meets the
criteria set forth In the following para-
graphs (1), <2>, or (3) Is environmen-
tally acceptable for ocean dumping with-
out further testing under this section:
<1> Dredged material is composed
predominantly of sand, gravel, rock, or
any other naturally occurring bottom
material with particle sizes larger than
silt, and the material Is found in areas
of high current or wave energy such as
streams with large bed loads or coastal
areas with shifting bars and channels; or
(2) Dredged material is for beach
nourishment or restoration and is com-
posed predominantly of sand, gravel or
sheH with particle sizes compatible with
material on the receiving beaches; or
(3)'When: (i) The material proposed
for dumping Is substantially the same as
the substrate at the proposed disposal
site; and
(11) The site from which the material
proposed for dumping is to be taken Is
far removed from known existing and
historical sources of pollution so as to
provide reasonable assurance that such
material has not been contaminated by
such pollution.
(c> When dredged material proposed
for ocean dumping does not meet the
criteria of paragraph (b) of this section,
further testing of the liquid, suspended
parttculate, and solid phases, as defined
in t 227.32, is required. Based on the re-
sults of such testing, dredged material
can be considered to be environmentally
acceptable for ocean dumping only under
the following conditions:
(l> The material ism compliance with
the requirements of 2 227.6; and
(2) (1) All major constituents of the
liquid phase are In compliance with the
applicable marine water quality criteria
after allowance for Initial mixing; or
(11) When the liquid phase contains
major constituents not Included In the
applicable marine water quality criteria,
or there Is reason to suspect synerglsttc
' effects of certain contaminants, bloas-
says on the liquid phase of the dredged
material show that it can be discharged
so as not to exceed the limiting permis-
sible concentration as defined in para-
graph (a) of ft 227.27; and
(3) Bloassays on the suspended par-
ticulate and solid phases show that it can
be discharged so as not to exceed the
limiting permissible concentration as de-
fined In paragraph (b) of | 227.27.
(d) For the purposes of paragraph (c)
(2), major constituents to be analyzed
In the liquid phase are those deemed
critical by the District Engineer, after
evaluating and considering any com-
ments received from the Regional Ad-
ministrator, and considering known
sources of discharges In the area.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Subpart C—Need for Ocean Dumping
§ 227.14 Criteria for evaluating the need
for ocean damping and alternatives
This' Subpart C states the basis on
which an evaluation win be made of the
need for ocean dumping, and alterna-
tives to ocean dumping. The nature of
these factors does not permit the pro-
mulgation of specific quantitative cri-
teria of each permit application. These
factors will therefore be evaluated if ap-
plicable for each proposed dumping on
an individual basis using the guidelines
specified in this Subpart C.
g 227.15 Factors considered.
The need for dumping will be deter-
mined by evaluation of the following
factors:
(a) Degree of treatment useful and
feasible for the waste to be dumped, and
whether or not the waste material has
been or will be treated to this degree
before dumping;
Raw materials and manufactur-
ing or other processes resulting In the
waste, and whether or not these mate-
rials or processes are essential to the
provision of the applicant's goods or
services, or if other less polluting mate-
rials or processes could be used;
(c) The relative environmental risks,
impact and cost for ocean dumping as
opposed to other feasible alternatives
including but not limited to:
(1) Landfill;
(2) Well Injection;
<3) Incineration;
(4) Spread of material over open
ground:
(5) Recycling of material for reuse;
(6) Additional biological, chemical, or
physical treatment of intermediate or
final waste streams;
(.7* Storage.
(d) Irreversible or irretrievable conse-
quences of the use of alternatives to
ocean dumping.
g 227.16 Basis for determination of
nerd for ocean dumping.
(a) A need for ocean dumping will be
considered to have been demonstrated
when a thorough evaluation of the fac-
tors listed In ! 227.15 has been made,
and the Administrator, Regional Admin-
istrator or District Engineer, as the case
may be. has determined that the follow-
ing conditions exist where applicable:
(!) There are no practicable Improve-
ments which can be made in process
technology or in overall waste treatment
to reduce the adverse Impacts of the
waste on the total environment;
(2) There are no practicable alterna-
tive locations and methods.of disposal
or recycling available. Including without
limitation, storage until treatment fa-
cilities are completed, which have less
adverse environmental impact or po-
tential risk to other parts of the environ-
ment than ocean dumping.
For purposes of paragraph (a)' of
this section, waste treatment or im-
provements in processes and alternative
2479
methods of disposal are practicable when
they are available at reasonable incre-
mental cost and energy expenditures.
which need not be competitive with the
costs of ocean dumping, taking into ac-
count the environmental benefits derived
from such activity, including the rela-
tive adverse environmental impacts as-
sociated with the use of alternatives to
ocean dumping.
(c) The duration of permits issued un-
der Subchapter H and other terms and
conditions imposed in those permits shall
be determined after taking into account
the factors set forth in this section. Not-
withstanding compliance with Subparts
B, D. and E of this Part 227 permittees
may, on the basis of the need for and
alternatives to ocean dumping, be re-
quired to terminate all ocean dumping
by a specified date, to phase out all ocean
dumping over a specified period or peri-
ods, to continue research and develop-
ment of alternative methods of disposal
and make periodic reports of such re-
search and development In order to pro-
vide additional information for periodic
review of the need for and alternatives
to ocean dumping, or to take such other
action as the Administrator, the Re-
gional Administrator, or District Engi-
neer, as the case may be, determines to
be necessary or appropriate.
Subpart D—Impact of the Proposed Dump-
ing on Esthetic, Recreational and Eco-
nomic Values
§ 227.17 Basis for determination.
(a) The impact of dumping on es-
thetic, recreational and economic values
will be evaluated on an Individual basis
using the following considerations:
(1) potential for affecting recreational
use and values of ocean waters. Inshore
waters, beaches, or shorelines;
(2) potential for affecting the recrea-
tional and commercial values of living
marine resources.
(b) For all proposed dumping, full
consideration will be given to such non-
quantifiable aspects of esthetic, recrea-
tional and economic Impact as:
(1) responsible public concern for the
consequences of the proposed dumping;
(2) consequences of 'not authorizing
the dumping Including without limita-
tion, the Impact on esthetic, recreational
and economic values with respect to the
municipalities and Industries Involved.
§ 227.18 Factors considered.
The assessment of the potential for
Impacts on esthetic, recreational and
economic values will be based on an eval-'
uatlon of the appropriate characteristics
of the material to be dumped, allowing
for conservative rates of dilution, dis-
persion, and biochemical degradation
during movement of the materials from
a disposal site to an area of significant
recreational or commercial value. The
following specific factors will be consid-
ered In making such an assessment:
fa) Nature and extent of present and
potential recreational and commercial
use of areas which might be affected by .
the proposed dumping;
FEDERAL BEGISTEt, VOL 43, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JAHUAGY 11, 1977
-------
2480
(b) Efrfattng water quality, and nature
yr«i extent of d*Tfl?Pl pcHvltfeg, tn g&o
areas which might ba affected by fiio
proposed dumping;
(e) Applicable water quality stand-
ards;
(d) Visible characteristics of the ma-
terials (c.g.. color, suspended psrttcu—
lates) which result In an unacceptable
esthetic nuisance In recreational areas!
(e) Presence in the material of patho-
genic organisms which may cause a
public health hazard either directly or
through contamination of fisheries or
shellflsherles;
(f) Presence In the material of toxic
chemical constituents released in vol-
umes which may affect humans directly;
? disposal site Itself T\r><1 of oriy areas
TTbJch might reasonably ba expected to
bo affected by tire proposed dumping, ft*vJ
a quantitative and qualitative evaluation
BUIGS.AND QGGU1ATICMS
of B^ inQjact of
limited to:
(a) Commercial fishing to open ocean
areas;
(b) Commercial fishing In coasts!
productivity;
Irrgreraaio and tou&L. uate cma-
(c) Commercial fishing In estuartoa
(d) Recreational fishing In open ocean
(e) Recreational fishing in coastal
areas;
(f) Recreational fishing in estuartoe
areas;
(g> Recreational use of shorelines and
beaches;
(h) Commercial navigation;
(1) Recreational navigation;
(j> Actual or anticipated exploitation
of living marine resources;
(k) Actual or anticipated exploitation
of non-living resources, including irtth-
out limitation, sand and gravel places
and other mineral deposits, oil and tp*"
exploration and development and off-
shore marine terminal or other structure
development; and
(1) Scientific research and study.
§ 227.22 Aueaoment of impact.
The assessment of impact on other
uses of the ocean win consider both tem-
porary and long-range effects within the
state of the art. but particular emphasis
will be placed on any Irreversible or Irre-
trievable f*wH?n itm fnt of resources that
would result from the proposed dumping.
Subpart F—Spado) Rcqulremcsrto for In-
terim Permits UndorSection 102 of tho
Act
§ 227.23 General requirement.
Each Interim permit Issued under sec-
tion 102 of the Act wffl Include a re-
quirement for the development and
implementation, &B soon aa practicable,
of a plan which requires, at the discre-
tion of th*» Administrator or Regional
Administrator, os the cac? mfly be,
either:
(a) Elimination of ocean disposal of
the waste, or
(b) Bringing the waste into compliance
with all the criteria for acceptable ocean
disposal.
§ 227.24 Contents of environmental as-
A plan developed pursuant to this Sub-
part P must include f*n environment^
assessment of the proposed action. In-
cluding without limitation:
(a) Description of the proposed
action;
(b) A thorough review of the actual
need for dumping;
(c) Environmental Impact of the pro-
posed action;
(d) Adverse Impacts which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be Imple-
mented;
(e) Alternatives to the proposed
action;
(f) RcKtionshlp between short-term
uses of man's environment and ttie main-
Involved to *-hf* proposed c£t£on ^^xmld
tt D3 IpTpbgnggitp^l; (Mid
(h) A discussion of proMemg ft»m ob-
jections raised by other Ftttarol. State
ftpd local decencies ftp^l by Interested per-
sons in the review process.
§ 227.25 Contecnta ef pinna.
In addition to the ff i ' v* pyp n*»*p t-^1 as-
sessment required by 0 327.24. o plan
developed pursuant to thlo Subpart P
must Include a schedule for eliminating
ocean dumping or hrtostoff the wastes
into compliance with tiie gngimtm^ ^n tal
impact criteria of Subpart B. including
without limitation, the foBorrtng:
(a) If the waste Is treated to the de-
gree necessary to bring It into compli-
ance with the ocean dumping criteria,
the applicant should provide & descrip-
tion of the treatment FTX! Q scheduled
program for treatment and & subsequent
analysis of treated material to prove the
effectiveness of ttic pyp^^g,
(b) If treatment cannoi be effected
by post-process techniques the applicant
should, determining the offending con-
stituents, examine hip itxt ocatertals and
his total process to detexrctoo the origin
of the pollutant, if the ofiendtaj con-
stituents are found In ttaa TOCT material ..
the applicant should consider a nei? oup-
pller and provide an eaaljato of the new
material to prove compliant- Baw ma-
terials are to include on pciar used to
the process. Water fccm municipal
standards Is acceptable. Water from
other sources such as private wells
should be analyzed for CT'B*nm*nftritjB
Water that has been ecad tn tho process
should be considered for to^^nfeiit and
recycling as an additional source of
process water.
(c) If amending constt&zzate are a re-
sult of tftfl process, ttK? cifljflf?^"^ should
investigate and describe &2 orarce of the
constituents. A report of this informa-
tion will be submitted to EPA and the ap-
plicant wfll then sobsttit o prppos&l de-
scribing possible alternatives to the
existing process or protest and level of
cost and effectiveness.
(d) If an acceptable alternative to
ocean dumping or addlttoBal control
technology Is required, a schedule and
documentation for Implementation of
the alternative or approved control proc-
ess shall be submitted and shall Include,
without limitation:
CD T^ng^n*er1yig plan;
(2) Financing approval;
(3) Starting date for change:
(4) Completion date;
(5) operation starting date.
(e) If an acceptable alternative does
not exist at the time the application is
submitted, the applicant wfll submit an
acceptable in-house research program or
employ a competent*researcn institution
to study the problem. The program ol
research must be approved by the Ad-
ministrator or Reatenol Administrator,
as the case may be, before the Initiation
FEDERAL DEGISTEfl, VOL 42. KO. 7—TUESDAT, JANUAQT 11, 1977
of the research. The schedule and docu-
mentation for Implementation of a re-
search program win include, without
limitation:
. (1) Approaches;
(3) Experimental design ;
(3) Starting date;
<4> ReporttosIntervals;
(5) Proposed completion date:
(6) Date for submission of final re-
port.
§ 227.26 Implementation of plan*.
implementation of each phase of a
plan shall be Initiated as soon as It Is
approved by the Administrator or Re-
gional Administrator, as the case may be.
Subpart G—DafinttJons
§227.27 Limiting permissible concen-
tration (LPC).
(a) The lim Initial mixing is defined to be
that dispersion or diffusion of liquid.
suspended paniculate, and solid phases
of a waste which occurs within four
hours after dumping. The limiting per-
missible concentration shaD not be ex-
ceeded beyond the boundaries of the dis-
posal site during initial mixing, and shall
not be exceeded at any point to the
marine environment after Initial mix- '
ing. The maxim*™ concentration of the
liquid, suspended particulate. and solid
phases of a dumped material after ini-
tial mixing shan be estimated by one
of these methods, in order of preference:
(!) When field data on the proposed
dumping are adequate to predict initial
dispersion and diffusion of the waste,
these shall be used. If necessary, to con-
junction with an appropriate mathe-
matical model acceptable to EPA or the
District Engineer, as appropriate.
(3> When field data on the dispersion
and diffusion of a waste of character-
istics similar to that proposed for dis-
charge are available, these shall be used
in conjunction with an appropriate
mathematical model acceptable to EPA
or the District Ensineer. QQ appropriate.
(S) When no fleM The liquid and suspended par-
ticulate phases of- the dumped waste
may be assumed to be evenly distributed
after four hours over a column of water
bounded on the surface by the release
zone and extending to the ocean floor.
thermocline, or halocllne if one exists,
or to a depth of 20 meters, whichever is
shallower, and
i2» The solid phase of a dumped
waste may be assumed to settle rapidly
to the ocean bottom and to be distributed
evenly over the ocean bottom to an area
equal to that of the release zone as de-
fined in 3 227.28.
-------
2482
such cases the following procedures shall
boused:
(i) For dredged material, the liquid
phase is considered to be the centrtfuged
and 0.45 micron filtered supernatant re-
maining after one hour undisturbed
settling of the mixture resulting from
a vigorous 30-mlnute agitation of cne
part bottom sediment from the dredging
site with four parts water (vol/vol) col-
lected from the dredging site or from the
disposal site, as appropriate for the type
of dredging operation. The suspended
participate phase Is the supernatant as
obtained above prior to centrlfugatlon
and filtration. The solid phase Is con-
sidered to be aQ material settling to the
bottom within one hour. Settling shall
be conducted by procedures approved by
EPA and the Corps of Engineers.
(2) For other materials, the proportion
of ocean water used shall be the mini-
mum amount necessary to produce the
anticipated effect (e.g., complete neutral-
ization of an acid or pHrftUn* waste)
based on guidance provided by EPA on
particular cases, or In accordance with
approved EPA procedures. For such ma-
terials the liquid phase Is the filtered and
centrlfuged supernatant resulting from
ttie mixture after 30 minutes of vigorous
shaking followed by undisturbed settling
for one hour. The suspended partlculate
phase Is the supernatant as obtained
above prior to centrlfugatlon and filtra-
tion. The solid phase Is the Insoluble ma-
terial settling to the bottom In that
period.
PART 228—CRITERIA FOR THE MANAGE-
MENT OF DISPOSAL SITES FOR OCEAN
DUMPING
See.
238.1 Applicability,
228J Definitions.
238.3 Disposal site management responsi-
bilities.
228.4 Procedures for designation of eltes.
228.8 General criteria for the selection of
Bites.
238.0 Specific criteria for dte selection.
228.7 Regulation of disposal alto use.
338.8 Limitations on times and rates of
disposal.
338.9 Disposal site monitoring.
238.10 Evaluating disposal Impact.
328.11 Modification In disposal slta use.
228.12 Delegation of management authority
for Interim ocean dumping sites,
228.13 Guidelines for ocean disposal sit*
baseline or trend assessment surveys
under Section 103 of the Act.
AUTHOBITT: 33 T7.S.C. 1412 and 1*18.
§ 228.1 Applicability.
The criteria of this Pan 228 are estab-
lished pursuant to section 102 of the Act
and apply to the evaluation of proposed
ocean dumping under Title I of the Act.
The criteria of this Part 228 deal with
the evaluation of the proposed dumping
of material In ocean waters in relation
to continuing requirements, for effective
management of ocean disposal sites to
prevent unreasonable degradation of the
marine environment from all waste* be-
ing dumped In the ocean. This Part 238
Is applicable to dredged material TJ^p^f^
sites only as specified in || 228.4(e). 228.9.
and 228.12.
MILES AND REGULATIONS
§22&2 Definition*.
(a) The term "disposal site" means an
Interim or finally approved and precise
geographical area within which ocean
dumping of wastes b permitted under
conditions specified in permits issued un-
der sections 102 and 103 of the Act. Such
sites are Identified by boundaries estab-
lished by (1) coordinates of latitude and
longitude for each corner, or by (2) co-
ordinates of latitude and longitude for
the center point and a radius In nautical
miles from that point. Boundary coor-
dinates shall be Identified as precisely as
Is warranted by the accuracy with which.
the site can be located with existing nav-
igational aids or by the Implantation of
transponders, buoys or other means of
marking the site.
(b) The term "baseline" or "trend as-
sessment" survey means the planned
sampling or measurement of parameters
at set stations or In set areas In and near
disposal sites for a period of time suf-
ficient to provide synoptic data for
determining water quality, benthlc, or
biological conditions as a result of ocean
qulrements for such surveys are given In
S 228.13.
j(c) The term "disposal site evaluation
study** means the coUectlan, analysis.
and interpretation of aO pertinent infor-
mation available concerning ft** BnisMng
disposal site. Including but not H"uted to.
' tl^fr* OTy1 Information from trend assess-
ment surveys, monitoring surveys, spe-
cial purpose surveys of other Federal
agencies. pnbMc data archives, and so-
cial and economic studies and reopmlg of
affected areas.
(d) The term "disposal site designa-
tion study" m^**tr>'t thft ooHoctioTi, analy-
sis T*n^1 Interpretation of BtH available per-
tinent dntfl ftnrt information fln a pro-
posed disposal site prior to use, including
but not limited to, that from baseline
surveys, special purpose surveys at other
Federal agencies* public data anbira,
finrt social Rpfl fcrtr>offnV*- gtWU*** **Jv1 rec-
ords of areas which would be affected by
use of the proposed site,
(e) The term "management author-
ity" BfHjftrtp the EPA OTgftnliatfrgiftl ca-
Uty assigned nsponsfeiltty for tuple-
m^ntlyiy tflff fnft«o^pm»nt ftmctlOBS tdeO-
lined in 1328.3.
(f) "Statistical significance" shall
mean the statistic*! idgnfflranm deter-
mined by using appropriate standard
techniques of mnlttvarlate analysis with
results interpreted at the fS percent con-
fidence level and bmctl CD date I Tinting
species which are present m sufficient
numbers at control areas to permit a
valid statistical comparison with the
areas being tested.
(g) Valuable commercial and recrea-
tional species'* shall mean those species
for which catch statistics an compiled
on a routine basis by the Federal or State
agency responsible for compiling such
statistics for the general geographical
area Impacted, or which are under cur-
rent study by such ^deral or State agen-
cies for potential development for com-
mercial or recreational use.
(h) "Normal ambient value" means
that concentration of a chgp^cal species
'reasonably anticipated to be present hi
the water column, sediments, or biota In
the absence of disposal activities at the
disposal site hi question.
§ 228.3 Disposal site management rc-
•ponaibiUties.
Management of a site consists of regu-
lating Ump^, rates, and methods of dis-
posal and quantities and types of ma-
terials disposed of; developing and main-
taining effective ambient monitoring pro-
grams for the site; conducting disposal
site evaluation and designation studies;
and recommending rmnliflnitVTnH in site
use and/or designation (e.g., termination
of use of the site for general use or for
disposal of specific wastes).
Eagh site, upon interim or continuing
use designation, will be assigned to either
an EPA Regional office or to EPA Head-
quarters for management. These desig-
nations will be conBtetpnt with the
delegation of authority in I 220.4. The
designated management authority Is fully
responsible for all aspects of the man-
agement of sites within the general re-
quirements specified m I 220.4 and this
section. Specific requirements for meet-
ing the mflnag*^^"^t * responsibilities
assigned to the designated management
authority for each site are outlined in
H 228.5 and 228.6.
§±28.4 Procedmra for designation of
•He*.
(a) • General Permits. Geographical
areas or regions within which materials
may be dumped under a general permit
win be published as partofthe promulga-
tion of each general penult.
(b) Special and Interim Permits.
Areas where ocean dumping is permitted
subject to the specific cngvBtkmn of m-
dividual special or interim penults, wffl
be designated by tirnnt^B*^Hi|u hi t^it*
Part 228. and such designation wffl be
made based on environmental studies of
each site, regions adjacent to the site.
and on historical knowledge of the Im-
pact of waste disposal on areas similar
to such sites hi physical. chemical, and
biological cnanwtertottos. AD studies for
the evaluation and potential selection
cordance with the requirements of
II 2283 and 228J.
The Administrator may, from time to
tfaiMi, des^nate specific locations for
temporary TM** for 4**poml of small
amounts of •materials under a special
permit only without disposal site desig-
nation studies when such materials sat-
isfy the Criteria and the Administrator
determines that the quantities to be dis-
posed of at such site* wffl not result in
significant impact on the environment.
Such designations wffl be done by-prom-
ulgation to ttilff Part 8M. ••*•* wffl be for
a specified period of time and for speci-
fied quantities of materials.
(c) Emergency Permits. Dumping sites
' for Tnatrr**^* disposed of ^m*Tar an emer-
gency per*"It wffl be specified by *l*f Ad-
mmMrator as a i^*nr»H tPM*l?M|un *****
wffl be bcsed on an liMtoUual appraisal
FtDfRAl ITEGBTW, VOL 41, NO. 7—TUESDAY, MMUATT 11. 1*7?
of the characteristics of the waste and
the safest means for its disposal.
(d) Research Permits. Dumping sttea
for research permits will be determined
by the nature of the proposed study.
Dumping sites will be specified by the
Administrator as a permit condition.
(e) Dredged Material Permits.
(1) Areas where ocean dumping of
dredged material is permitted subject to
the specific conditions of Dredged Ma-
terial permits Issued by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers will be designated by
EPA by promulgation in this Part 228.
and such designation will be made based
on environmental studies of each site, re-
gions adjacent to the site, and on histori-
cal knowledge of the impact of dredged
material disposal on areas similar to such
sites in physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal characteristics. All studies for the
evaluation and potential selection of
dredged material disposal sites will be
conducted In accordance with the appro-
priate requirements of SS 228.5 and 228.6,
except that:
(1) Baseline or trend assessment re-
quirements may be developed on a case-
by-case baste from the results of re-
search, including that now in progress
by the Corps of Engineers.
(11) An environmental Impact assess-
ment for all sites within a particular ge-
ographic area may be prepared based on
complete disposal site designation or
evaluation studies on a typical site or-.
sites tn that area. In such cases, sufficient
studies to demonstrate the generic sim-
ilarity of all sites within such a geo-
graphic area wffl be conducted.
(2) In those cases where a recom-
mended disposal site has not been desig-
nated by the Administrator, or where It
Is not feasible to utilize a recommended
disposal site that has been designated by
the Administrator, the District Engineer
shall, in consultation with EPA, select a
site in accordance with the requirements
of 9$ 228.6 and 228.8 (a) . Concurrence by
EPA m permits Issued for the use of such
site for the dumping of dredged material
at the site will constitute EPA approval
of the use of the site for dredged material
disposal onty.
(3) Sites designated for the ocean
dumping of dredged material In accord-
ance with the procedures of paragraphs
(e) (1) or (e) (2) of this section shall be
used only for the ocean dumping of
dredged material under permits Issued
by the VS. Army Corps of Engineers.
g 228,5 General criteria for thr «elmion
ofabes.
(a) The dumping of materials into the
ocean wffl be permitted only at sites or
In areas selected to mTnlml7rf> the Inter-
ference of disposal activities with other
activities in the marine environment,
particularly avoiding areas of existing
fisheries or sheDnsheries, and regions of
heavy commercial or recreational navi-
gation.
(b) Locations and boundaries of dis-
posal sites wffl be so chosen that tempo-
rary perturbations In water quality or
other
. RULES AND REGULATIONS
pec ted to be reduced to normal ambient
seawater levels or to undetectable con-
taminant concentrations or effects be-
fore reaching any beach, shoreline, ma-
rine sanctuary, or known geographically
limited, fishery or shellfishery.
(c) If at anytime during or after dis-
posal site evaluation studies, it is deter-
mined that existing disposal sites pres-
ently approved on an interim basis for
ocean dumping do not meet the criteria
for site selection set forth in §j 228.5-
228.6. the use of such sites will be ter-
minated as soon as suitable alternate dis-
posal sites can be designated.
(d) The sizes of ocean disposal sites.
will be limited in order to localize for
Identification and control any immediate
adverse 'impacts and permit the imple-
mentation of effective monitoring and
surveillance programs to prevent ad-
verse long-range impacts. The size, con-
figuration, and location of any disposal
sit« will be determined as a part of the
disposal site evaluation or designation
study.
EPA will, wherever feasible, desig-
nate ocean dumping sites beyond the
edge of the continental shelf and other
such sites that have been historically
used.
g 228.6 Specific criteria for she M-U-r-
lion.
(a) In the selection of disposal sites.
In addition to other necessary or appro-
priate factors determined by the Admin-
istrator, the following factors will be
considered:
(1) Geographical position, depth of
water, bottom topography and distance
from coast;
(2) "Location in relation to breeding.
spawning, nursery, feeding, or passage
areas of living resources in adult or ju-
venile phases:
(3) Location in relation to beaches and
other amenity areas;
(4) Types and quantities of wastes
proposed to be disposed of, and proposed
methods of release, including methods of
packing the waste. If any;
(5) Feasibility of surveillance and
monitoring;
(6) Dispersal, horizontal transport and
vertical mixing characteristics of the
area. Including prevailing current direc-
tion and velocity, If any;
(7) Existence and effects of current
and previous discharges and dumping In
the area (including cumulative effects);
(8) Interference with shipping, fishing,
recreation, mineral extraction, desalina-
tion, fish and shellfish culture, areas of
special scientific Importance and other
legitimate uses of the ocean;
(9) The existing water quality and
ecology of the site as determined by
available data or by trend assessment or
baseline surveys;
U0> Potentiality for the development
or recruitment of nuisance species In the
disposal site;
(11) Existence at or in close proximity
to the site of any significant natural or
cultural features of historical bnpor-
2483
on the criteria stated in paragraphs (D-
(11) will be presented in support of the
site designation promulgation as an en-
vironmental assessment of the Impact of
the use of the site for disposal, and will
be used In the preparation of an environ-
mental impact statement for each site
where such a statement Is required by
EPA policy. By publication of a notice in
accordance with this Part 228, an envi-
ronmental impact statement, in draft
form, will be made available for public
comment not later than the time of pub-
lication of the site designation as pro-
posed rulemaking. and a final EIS will be
made available at the time of final rule-
making.
§ 228.7 Roputuiion of disposal file u-c.
Where necessary, disposal site use will
be regulated by setting limitations on
times of dumping and rates of discharge,
and establishing a disposal site monitor-
ing program.
228.8 Limitation*
mi rales
ttons anywhere vtthln the site can be ex-
(b) The results of a disposal site eval-
uation and/or designation study based
Limitations as to time for and rates
of dumping may be stated as part of the
promulgation of site designation. The
times and the quantities of permitted
material disposal will be regulated by the
EPA management authority so that the
limits for the site as specified in the site
designation are not exceeded. This will
be accomplished by the denial of permits
for the disposal of some materials, by
the imposition of appropriate conditions
on other permits and. If necessary, the
designation of new disposal sites under
the procedures of S 228.4. In no case may
the total volume of material disposed of
at any site under special or interim per-
mits cause the concentration of the total
materials or any constituent of any of
the materials being disposed of at the
site to exceed limits specified In the site
designation.
% 228.9 Disposal site monitoring.
fa) The monitoring program, if deemed
necessary by the Regional Administrator
or the District Engineer, as appropriate,
may include baseline or trend assess-
ment surveys by EPA, NOAA, other Fed-
eral agencies, or contractors, special
studies by permittees, and the analysis
and Interpretation of data from remote
or automatic sampling and/or sensing
devices. The primary purpose of the
monitoring program Is to evaluate the
Impact of disposal on the marine en-
vironment by referencing the monitoring
results to a set of baseline conditions.
When disposal sites are being used on a
continuing basis, such programs may
consist of the following components :
-------
2484
(2) Special studies conducted by the
permittee to Identify Immediate and
short-term Impacts of disposal opera-
tions.
There Is Identifiable progressive
movement or accumulation, In detectable
concentrations above normal ambient
values, of any waste or waste constituent
from the disposal site within 12 nautical
miles of any shoreline, marine sanctuary
designated under Title in of the Act,
or critical area designated under section
102(c> of the Act; or
(11) The biota, sediments, or water
column of the disposal site, or of any
area outside the disposal site where any
waste or waste constituent from tbe dis-
posal site is present In detectable con-
centrations above normal ambient values.
are adversely affected by the toxlclty of
such waste or waste constituent to the
extent that there are statistically signifi-
cant decreases in the populations of valu-
able commercial or recreational species,
or of specific species of biota essential to
the propagation of such species, within
the disposal site and such other area as
compared to populations of the same or-
ganisms In comparable locations outside
such site and area; or
(ill) Solid waste material disposed of
at the site has accumulated at the site or
in areas adjacent to it. to such an extent
that major uses of the site or of adjacent
areas are significantly Impaired H™1 the
Federal or State agency responsible for
regulating such uses certifies that such
significant Impairment has occurred and
states In its certificate the basis for Its
determination of such impairment; or
(iv) There are advene effecte on the
taste or odor of valuable CfMTirn**Tciftl or
recreational species as a result of disposal
activities; or
t authority
for such site modifies, revokes or sus-
pends such permit or any of the terms
or conditions of such permit In accord-
ance with the provisions of ! 228.2 based
on the results of Impact analyses as de-
scribed in i 228.10 or upon changed cir-
cumstances concerning use of the site.
such permit will remain In force until
its expiration date.
(c) When the EPA management au-
thority determines that activities at a
disposal Bite have placed the site In Im-
pact Category I. the Administrator or
the Regional Administrator, as the case
may be, shall place such limitations on
ttie use of the site as are necessary to
reduce the Impacts to acceptable levels.
(d) The determination of the Admin-
istrator as to whether to terminate or
limit use of a disposal site wffl be based
on the impact of disposal at the site Itself
and on tiie Criteria.
§ 228.12 Delegation of management au-
thority for interim ocean damping
aites.
(a) The following sites are approved
for dumping the Indicated materials on
an interim basis pending completion of
baseline or trend ftwu-mmfrnt surveys and
flf Part. Tbl» Bat of tnterkn «Be» win
remain In force for a period not to exceed
three yean from the date of final pro-
thfc Put IB, enpt for
ordta
Ml fix
In VO* Pint during that period of tone.
FEDEIAl Udira. VOL 41.-N0.7—niBOAY. MMMMV II, 1*77
RULES AND REGULATIONS
24S3
Af proved interim dumping titei
^ .»**._»«,
*rWW*N.,W*«*00''W.. 1 nautical mile radius .-.
*2B2ye'"N,70PlS«rw., Inantlcal mil* radius
Vmw N. *o-W23'00" N., 73*41 'W ff . to :S*U'CO" W
3JTMOW N. to Know N.. TfOffW W. to 72*30'00" W . .
WltfOO" N. to lOTO-ar' N.. a6°35'00" W. to 66'M 00 ' W
ja'SO'OO" N. to SSTB'OO" N.. T4"I5'00" W. to M'M'W W
Ii'00'00" N. to33c?5'00" N.. T4«I&'00V W. «. T-i'COW W
3I:«'00'' N.. 80*30'00" VC., 31'47'W N..»- .- «• "rt".. 31:tS iv" N" *0=3Q'
CT'lfOO" N. to27*28'00"N.,P4c^OO" W. t-jl-r«'00"W
L->f»00"N.tt.r5°10(»"N..Wl500 W.-o^MOO « ... .
EPA
rtclon
I
I
II
II
[11
. \ 1
Primary <*M
Industrial wart**.
Do.
Municipal x'*~$r
sladge.
Industrf-.il wa>ii-.i.
l.fV.:,'M''-B-
iv'
DEEDGED MATERIAL SITES
(All dredged material sites will be retained
under EPA Headquarters management until
formally approved for continuing us* or
otherwise assigned for Regional ma:*.:igemeiit
prior to such designation.)
LOCATION (LAT.. Loxc, •
Marblehead. MA—42*25'42" N., 70'iVOO" W.
(2 N. Ml. diameter).
Boston. MA—41*49'00" N., 70'25'00" W. £1
N. Ml. diameter).
Portland. ME—*3'32'18" X., 70;06'>r' W. (1
Ml. diameter).
Cap* Arundel, ME—43*17-45" N.. 70'27'12"
W. (600 yds. diameter).
Absecon Inlet—39*21'07" N.. 74'23'4C" W.;
39*21*18" N.. 74*23'63" W.
Cold Spring Inlet—38*55'41" N., 74*53"05 '
W.; 38'6B'33" N.. 74*63'23" \V.
Manasquaa Inlet—40*06'22" N., 7i'01'46"
W.: 40*06'38" N., 74*01'39" W.
East Roekaway—4O*34'36" N_ 73'40'CO" W.;
4O*35'06" N, 73*47'08" W.; 4O*34'1O" N,
73'48'SB" W.; 40*34*12" N.. 73*47-17" W.
Jones Inlet—40*34'32" N., 73*39'I4" W.; «*-
34'32" N., 73*37'06" W.; 40'33'48" N., 73*-
37'06" W.; 40*33'48" N.. 73*39'14" W.
Fire Island—W*36'49" N.. 73*23'50" W.; 4O*-
37-12" N., 73*21'30" W.; 40*38*41" St., 73*-
21-20" W.; 4O*36'10" N., 73*23'40" W.
Mud Dump—40"23'48" N.. 73*51 "28" W.; 40*-
21'48" H, 73*50'00" W.; 40*21'48" N., 73*-
51-28" W.; 40*23*48" N.. 73*5O'OO" W.
Shark River—*0*12'48" N., 73*59"45" W.;
40*12'44" N.. 73*59'06" W.; 40'11'86" N.
73'59'28" W.; 40* 11'42" N.. 74*00'12" W.
Rockaway Inlet—40*32'30" N., 73*53'OO" W^
40*32'30" N.. 73*64'00" W.: 4ET32'OO" N,
73'54'OO" W.; 40'32'00" N.. IS 55"00" W
San Juan Harbor—18*30'10" N.. 6t37M'29" W,-
IS'30'10" N., 66'09'31" W.
Mayaguez Harbor—18*14-30" N.. 67'!3'2a"
W.; 18*15'30" N.. 67*14*31" W.
Areclbo Harbor—18'30'OO" N.. 66'42'45" W.;
18*31*00" N.. 66*43'47" W.
Ponce Harbor—1T65'3O" N.. 66\J8'29" W.;
17*64'30" H.. 66*39'31" W.
Dam Neck—36*50'08" H.. 75'63'IT' W.; *36-
46'28" N.. 75'53'17" W.: 36'46'28" N.. 76'-
64'19" W.; 36*60'05" N.. 76*54-19" W.
Wilmington Harbor. NC—Hopper dredge dis-
posal In area east of a line beginning 33*-
SO'OO" and78*O2'30" to38*48'45" and 78*-
04'00" to B8'4B'00" and 78*05'OO".
Horenead City Harbor—Maintenance dredg-
ing boper dredge disposal area 8 miles x 8
miles; aproxtmate latitude and longitude.
bounded north 34<40'00". south 34*38'30".
east TffU'OO*'. west 76*43'00".
Georgetown Harbor—S3U1'18" H.. 79*07'20"
W.: 33*11-18" N, 79*05'2<" W- SS'lO'aR"
N, 79*07131" W^ 33*10'38" N, 79'05'24" W.
Charleston Hartor—32'18'OS" N.. W*1'57-
W.: 32-40-43" N, TB'47'30" W.; 32*39'04"
N.. 79-48*31" W^ 32-S5'28" H, 79'43'48" W.
Port Royal Harbor—32'10'il" N., BO'36'00"
W^ 33*10-06" N.. 80*36-35" W.; 32'08'41"
N., SO'35'49" W.; 32*08'38" N., 80*36'23" W.
Port Royal Harbor—32*05'46" N., 80'35'SO"
W.; 32'05'42" N.. 80*3fl'27" W.; 32*04'27"
N.. 80*35'18" W.; 32*04'22" N., 8O'36'16"
W.
Brunswick Harbor—Atlantic outlet. Ga., St.
Simons Sound. Brunswick Harbor Bar
Channel, maintenance dredging disposal
area 1 nautical mile wide by 2 nautical
miles long adjacent to the channel located
on the south side of the entrance and being
6.6 nautical miles from shore at a point
of beginning at 31*02'35" N. and 81*17'40"
W., tnence due east to 31*02"35" N. and
81*16'30" W., thenc« due south to 31*OOF-
30" N. and Bl-16'30" W, thence due west
to 31*00'30" N. and 81*16'30" W.. thence
due north to the point of beginning.
Savannah River—Atlantic outlet. Oa.. Sa.-
vajinah River Bar Channel, maintenance
dredging disposal area 3 nautical miles
wide by 2 nautical miles long adjacent to
the channel, located on the southeast side
and being 6 nautical miles from shore at
point of beginning at Sl*57'65" N. and
80*46'58" W., thence due east to 31*57'55"
N. and 80*44'20" W.. thence due south to
31*55'53" N. and 80*4«'48" W, thence
northward to the point of beginning.
Canaveral Harbor—28*19'63" N., 80*31'08"
W.; 28'18'60" N.. 80*29'40" W.; 28*17'35"
N.. 80*30'52" W.; 28'18'38" N.. 80"32'20"
W.
Port Pierce Harbor—27*28"30" N., 80*12'33"
W.; 27*28'30" N, Wll'VI" W.; 27*27'30"
N.. 80* 11'27" W.; 27*27'30" N., 80*12'33"
W.
Jacksonville Harbor—30'21 30 ' N.. Bl*18'34"
W.; 30*21-30" N.. 81*17'26" W.; 30*20'30"
N., 81*17'26" W.; 30*20'30" N., 81*18'34"
W.
Miami Beach—25°45'30" N.. 80'03'54" W.;
25-46-30'" N, 80*02-60" W.; 25*44*30" N,
80*02'50" W.; 25*44*30" N., 8O*03'64" W.
Palm Beach Harbor—26*46'10" H., 80*02'00"
W.; 26*45'54" N, B0*03'08" W.; 26*45'54"
N.. 80*02'13" W.; 26*46*10" N.. SO'02'07"
W.
Port Everglades Harbor—26'07'00" N..
80'04'SO" W.; 26*O7'OO" N.. 80*03'30" W.;
26-WOO" M, 80-03'SO" W.; 36'OB'OO" N,
80*04*30" W.
St. Augustine Harbor—29*51'33" N_
81*15'24" W.; 29*51*33" H., SIMS'OO" W^
29'50'S3'* N, Bl'15'00" W.; 29*60'33" N,
81*15'24" W.
St. Augustine Harbor—29* 55*04" N..
81*17-04*' W.; 29*W13" R, 81*18'11" W.;
29*54'30" N.. 8!M?'5S" W.: 59*M'ir>" N
81*16'61" W.
St. Lucle Inlet—27*09*58" N., 80*09'30" W^
27*09-88" N.. eO*O8'42" W^ 27'09'62" N,
BO'08-42" W.; 27*09'5a" N. eo'09'30" W.
Charlotte Harbor—28'37'36" N.. 82'19155"
W.; 26'37'36" N.. 82*1B'47" W.; 28'36'36
N., 82*18'47" W.: 26*36'36" N.. B2*19'55"
W.
Tampa H?rbor—27'38'08" N.. 82:55'06" \V.:
27*3B'08" N., 82*54'OO" W.; 27*37'O8" -N
82*54'OO" W,; 27*37'O8" N.. B2*55'06" W.
Tampa Harbor—27*37'28" N-, 83'00'09" \V -
27'37'34" N.. 82*59'19" W.: 27'36'43" X
82'53'I3" W.; 27*36'37" N., B3'00'03" \v
Fcmandina Harbor—30 = 42'00" N.. 81'10'OS '
W.; 30'42'00" N.. 81*17'55" W.: 30'4TOO
N.. 81*17'55" W.; 30'4rOO" N.. 81'16'Oc
\V.
Pt-iice de Leon Ir.let—29r03'05" X.. 80'55 50
W.; 29'06 10" N.. BO'55'40" W.: 2&*05'34
X.. 80'53'10" W.: 29'03'28" N.. 80*55-20'-
W.
Ponce de Leon Inlet—29;04'46" N.. 80;53"4i">
W.: 29*04'36" N., 80*53'40" W.; 29I04-36
N.. 80'54'2G ' W.; 29*04'46" N-. BO'54-26
\V.
Palm Beach Harbor—26'46'00" N., 79t58'53"
W.; 26*46'00" N.. 79'57'47" W.; 26'45'OO'
N.. 79*57'47" W.: 26'45'00" N.. 79C5815?-
\V.
Largo Sound—25'06'06" N.. B0a24'42" VV •
25*05'6B" N., BO'24'05" W^ 25'05'50" N..
80'24'10" W.: 25*05'58" N.. 80*24'47" W.
Key West—24*27'24" N.. 81 '45'38'' W.:
24*27'24" N., B1*44'B2" W.: 24*26'20" X..
81*44'32" W.: 24*26'20" N., Bl'45'38" \V
Anclote. FL—28S09'00" N.. 83'51'48'- W.-
28'09'00" K., 83'50'54" W.: 28'08'jO' N
83"50'64" W.; 28*08'30" N.. 83'5l-48" W
Pithlachascotee River. PL—28M7'02 ' N .
82'46'21" W.; 28*17'02" N., 82I45'12" \V.:
2B'18'25" N.f 82'45'00" W.; 28'16142" N.
82'45'00" W.; 28*16'42" N.. 82'46'21" \V.
Wlthlacoochee River, PL—29' 59'54 " N
82-47'14" W.; 29'00'28" N., 82'46'06" W.:
29*00'14" N.. 82'45'58" W.; 28'59'40" N
82*47'06" W.
Wlthlacoochee River. PL—28'59'OB" N..
82'48'48" W.: 28*69-32" N., 82*47'40" \V.:
28'59'1B" N.. 82*47'32" W.: 28*58'54" N..
82'48'40" W.
Cedar Keys, PL—29'08'43" N., 83'07'53" W ;
29'08'43" N.. 83*07'03" W.; 29'08'33" N.
83*07'03" W.; 29*08'33" N.. 83*07'63" W.
Cedar Keys. PL—29*04'OS" N., 83*04'06" W.:
29;04'01" N.. 83'03'54" W.; 29*03'28" N.
83*04'12" W.; 29*03'35" N.. 83*04'24" W.
Horseshoe Cove, PL—29*25'23" N, 83M7'63"
W.; 29*25'18" N.. BS*17'43" W.; 29r25'09"
N.. 83'17'49" W.; 29'25'14" N.. 83*17'59"
W.
Horseshoe Cove, FL—29*25'58" N., 83'17'32 '
\V : eo'So'Sa" K.. B3*17'22" \V.: 2P'25'4-
X- B3'I7 28" W.; 29*25'49" X.. B3r17'3£
W.
Mobile. AL—30*10.0' N. 88*07.7' W.: 30'10.4-
N.. 88*05.2' W.: 30*09.4' N., 88*04.7' W.:
• 30*08.5' N. 88*05.2' W.: 30'08.5' N..
88*08.2' W.
Pascagoula, US—30*11.9' N., 88*33.1' W.-
30*11.9- N.. 88*32.3' W.: 30*11.6' N.. 88*32.4'
W.: 30*11.6' N., 88*32.1' W.; 30*10.5' N.,
88*33.2' W.: 30*10.8' N., 88*34.0' W.
Oulfport, MS—30*12.0' N., 89*00.5' W.:
30*12.0' N.. 88*59.5' W.: 30*11.0' N.. 89*00.0'
W.; 30'07.O/ N, 80F56.6' W.; 30:06.6' N.,
88*57.0' W.; 30*10.5' N.. 89*00.6' W.
Oulfport. MS—30*113' N.. 88*58.4' W.;
30*112' K.. 88*57.5' W.; 30*07.6' K., 83*54.4'
W.; 30*07.4' N.. 88*54.8' W.
Pensacola, PL—30*16.8'" N.. 87*19.0* W.;
30*16.7' N., 87*18.3' W.; 30*16.3' N.. 87*18^-
W^ 30*16.0' N, 87*19.4' W^ 30*16.6' H,
87*19.4' W.
-Panama City. FL—30*07.1' N.. 85*45.9' W.:
1Tl-/>- s-.. 65*4P.-*' W : 3f"C*°' V fl**4* "
W.: 30*06.7' N., 85*46.6- W.
Port St. Joe. PL— 29'60.fl' H.. 85*29.9' W.:
29*513' N.. 85*29.6' W.; 29*49.2' H.. 85*28^'
W.; 29*49.0' N, 85*28-8' W.
FCDCBAl tEC4STCR, VOL 41, NO. 7—TUfSOAY, JANUARY 11, 1977
-------
2486
Port St. Joe, PL— 29-53.9* H, B6'31* W4
29*54.1' N, 85*31.8' W4 »'C3JJ' R., 85*80.1'
W.; 29*52 .2' N, 8V30JT W.
SABHIX-NECHIS WATBBWAT, Ifeus
Disposal Area No. 1— Beginning at MO.
29*28'03". long. 93*41'14"; tbenoe to lat.
29*26*11"; long. 93'41'14"; tbence to lat.
29*26*11", long, 63*44*14"; tbenee to point
of beginning.
Disposal Area No. 2 — Beginning at Int.
29 •30*41", long. 93'43'49"; tbence to lat.
29*28*43", long. 93*4I*33"; tbenee to lat.
29*28'42", long. 93*44'48"; tbenee to lat.'
29*28'll", long. 8*44*11"; tbenee to point
of beginning.
Disposal Area No. 3 — Beginning at lat.
---------- ----------
29'34'24"
29*32*47",
29-32*06"
long. 93*48'13"
long. 93*46'16"
long. 93*46'29"
thence to lat.
tbenee to lat.
tbenee to lat.
tbenee to lat.
29*31'42", long. 03*48'16'
29'32'59", long. 83*49'48": thence to point
of beginning.
Disposal Area No. 4—Beginning at lat.
29*38'09", long. 93*49'23"; tbenoe to lat.
29-35-53^ long. 93*46'16"; tbenoe to lat.
39*35'06". long. 98*BO'M"; tbenee to lat.
29*36'37". long. 93*61*09"; thence to lat.
29*37*00", long. 93*50*06"; tnence to lat.
29*37'46", long. 93*50'26"; tbence to point
of beginning.
OAX.VXSTON HARBOS AJTO CHANNEL, TEXAS
Disposal Area No. 1—Beginning at lat.
29*18-00", long. *H*39'30"; tbenoe to lat
29*15'64". long. 94'37'06"; tbence to lat.
29*14*24". long. 94*38'42"; tbence to lat.
29*16'54", long. 94*41'30"; tbence to point
of beginning.
PBEEPOBT HABBOB, TEIAB
Disposal Area No. 1—Beginning at lat,
28-54'42", long. 9S-17'38": thence to lat.
28*54'-3"; long. 95*16'5i"; tbence to lat.
28*53'48", long. 95*17*27"; tbenee to lat
28*54'21". long. 95'18'03"; thence to point
of beginning.
MATAOOBDA SHIP CHANNEL
Disposal Area No. 1—Beginning at lat
28*24'31", long. 96*18'48"; thence to lat
28*23'27", long. 96*17'38"; tbence to lat
28*23*15", long 96*17'54"; tbence to lat
28*24*18", long. 96*19'03"; tnence-to point
of beginning.
COBPUB CHOISTI SHIP CHANNEL
Disposal Area No. 1—Beginning at lat.
27-4S'34". long. 97'01'61"; thence to lat.
27*48'28", long. 96*59*49"; tbence to lat
27*48*18", long, 96*59'56"; thence to lat.
27-49'23". long. 97*01'68"; thence to point
of beginning.
POST MANSFIELD CHANNEL
Disposal Area No. 1—Beginning at lat.
28*34'09". long. 97*16'62"; thence to lat
26*34'09". long. 97*15'18"; thence to lat
26*33'57", long. 97*15*18"; thence to tot
26*33'57". long. 97*1B'52"; thence to point
of beginning.
Disposal Area No. 1-A—Beginning at lat
26*34-17", long. 97'16'12"; thence to lat
26* 34'18". long. 97*15*65"; tbence to lat
26*33-69", long. 97*16'52"; tbence to lat
26*33-68". long. 97'16'H"; tbence to point
of beginning.
SHAKOS ISLAND HABBOB
Disposal Area No. 1—Beginning at lat
26*04'38", long. 97-07-52"; tbence to lat
26*04'S8". long. 97*08'43**; thenee to lat
36*04*06", tone. 97*0«'42"; tbenee to lat
26*04'06". long. 97*07'52"; tbence to point
of beginning.
RULES AND REGULATIONS .
Mississippi Biro, Gulf Outlet, La:—Breton
Sound «Dd Bar Channel. Maintenance
dredging disposal an* O.5 mile wide by
l*W mam long, parallel to the channel and
located on the aoutb aWe. Beginning at
23*33-23" N. and WJ.3'30" W,- following
channel eenterllne (azimuth 308*47') In
Breton Sound to 29*29'15" N. and
S9*07'06" W, following eenterllne
(attmntb 300*30') of tbe gulf entrance
channel to 39*25'06" N. and 88*S9'54" W,,
thence to 39*34'45" N. and 89*00'09" W.,
tnence to 38*28'63" N.. and 89*08'08" W.,
thence to 29*31*41" N. and 89*12'09" W.
thence to tbe point of beginning.
Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the OuU
of Mexico, XA.—South Pass. Maintenance
' dredging disposal area 0.5 mile square,
parallel to the channel and located on the
west side. Beginning at 28*58'33" N. and
89*07'OO" W, following ">*•«"»' center-
line (aelmutb 205*41') of the gulf entrance
channel to 2&*58'34" N. and 88*06'3O" W.
thence to 28*67'64" N. and 89*06'42" W,
thence to 28*58'06" N. and 89*07'18" W.
thence to the point of beginning.
Mississippi Elver. Baton Rouge to the Oulf of
Mexico, La.—Southwest Pass, Maintenance
dredging disposal area 2 miles square.
parallel to tbe chap"**? and loeated-on tbe
west side. Beginning at 28-54'24" N. and
8O*28'03" W, following channel ce&terllne
(azlmutb 0*00') of the gulf entrance chan-
nel to 28*52*18" N. and 89*28'03" W.,
thence to 28'63'IB" N. and 89*27'48" W..
thence to 28'54'34" N. and 89* 27'48" W..
thence to Q» point of beginning.
Mississippi Blver Outlets, Venice, La,—Tiger
Pass. Maintenance dredging disposal area
O.6 mfle vide by 1.5 mile* long, parallel to
the channel and located on the north side.
Beginning at 39*08'18" N. and 80*M'4S"
w, following chaopg* eenterllne (azimuth
63*64') of tbe gulf entrance caannel to
29*OTS6" N. and 89*36*51" W, thence to
29-07*48" N. and 89*37*00" W, tbence to
29*06-36" N. and 89*25*57" W.. thence to
the point of beginning.
Waterway from Empire, La. to the Oulf of
Mexico—Bar ch*"*"**1 Malntr"*""'* dredg-
ing disposal area 0.5 mile wide by l mile
long, parallel to the channel and located
on tbe west side. Beginning at 29* 15'06"
N. and 89*S8'SO** W, following channel
centertlne- (aelmutb ll'D?) of the gulf en-
trance channel to 3>-14-«r* N. and
80-36'89- W, tbence to 39*14'S6" N. and
89*36-48" W. thence to 39*15rir* N. and
89'36'42" W-, thence to the point of
beginning.
Bar&tarla Bay Waterway. La.—Bar channel.
mile wide by 3 zones long, parallel to the
channel and located on tbe east side. Be-
ginning at 39*16'18" N. and 89*56*13" W,
following channel ft*nt**nn* (azimuth
312*07') of tbe gulf entrance channel to
29*14'43" N. and 80*54*36" W.. thence to
29'14'SO" N. and 89*54*24" W.. thenee to
29-16'Oe" N. and 80*56'24" W., thence to
the point of beginning.
Bayou Lafourcbe and Lafouxche—Jump
Waterway. La.—Bell Pass. Maintenance
dredging disposal area 3,000 feet wide by
1.8 miles long, parallel to the channel and
located on the wect side. Beginning at
29*05*00" N. and 90*13*45" W, following
Ben Pass eenterllne (azimuth 13*58') In
the gulf entrance channel to B9*O3*S1" N.
and 90*14*08" W. thence to 29*O3'67" N.
and 90*14*31" Wv. thence to 29*06*08" N.
and 90*14'03" W.. thence to tbe point of
beginning.
Houma Navigation Canal, La,—Cat- island
Pas*. Malntenanro dredging disposal area
0.5 mil* wide by 5 zones long, parallel to
the Oat Island channel and located on
tbe west side. Beginning at 29'04'46" N.
and 90*34'48" W.. following Oat island
eenterllne (Mrtmn-th 850*41*) of the gulf
entrance channel to 90*03'43- N. and
90*34*34" W, following C*t Island eenter-
llne (azimuth 354*00') of tbe gulf entrance
channel to 29*00'24" N. and 90*84-'12" W,
thence to 29*00*21" N. and 90*84'86" W,
tbence to 29*03*42" N. and 90*34'5B" W.
thence to 29*04*48" N. aad 9O*B8'18" W,
thence to the point of beginning.
Atchafalaya River—Morgan City to the Oulf
of Mexico. La. and Atchafalaya River and
Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black. La.—Bar
channel.- Maintenance dredging disposal
area 0.6 mile wide by 12 miles long,
parallel to the bar channel and located on
the east fide. Beginning at 29'20'60" N.
and 91*34-03" W., following channel een-
terllne (aalmuth 37*57') of tbe gulf en-
trance channel to 29*11*35" N. and
91*83*10" W_ tbenee to 29*ll'2l" N. and
91'81-87" W.. tbenoe to 2S*aO'3C" N. and
91*23*27" W, thence to the point of
beginning.
Freshwater Bayou, La.—Bar channel. Main-
tenance dredging disposal azea 2,000 feet
wide by 3.5 miles long, parallel to the
channel and located on tfce weat side. Be-
ginning at. 39*89*00" IT and 93*1B'48" W.',
following channel centertlne (azimuth
09*25') of the gulf entrance to 29*28/34"
N. and 92*19*30" W, tbence to 39*38'25"
N. and 93*19'43" W, thence to 29*32/01"
N. and 92* 19*00" W., thenee to tbe point
Mennentau River. La. Maintenance dredging
disposal areas. 0.5 mile wide and 1.5 miles
long, parallel to the entrance channels
In the Lower Mennentau River and In
the Lower Mud Lake, both located on the
west side:
Disposal Area "A". Mennentau River. La.
Beginning at 39*44*48" N. and 93*07*13" W.,
following channel rffm-frfllp^ (atdmuth
256*59') of the gulf entrance to 29*43'39"
N. and 93*07*36" W, tbence to 29*43'*2" N.
and 93*07*48" W., tbence to 29*44'81" N.
and 93*07'24" W., thence to the point ol
beginning.
Disposal Area "B", Mennentau River, La.
BfjgtonlBg at 39*43'24" IT. and 93*01'54" W..
following fftMiTii»i amtCT*ln*> • (azimuth
359*60') of the gulf entrance to 29*43'33"
N. and 93*03*13" W, tbesxoe to 29*43*36"
N. and 93*03*34" W, thence to 29*43"27" N.
and 9$*03'06" W, tbence to the point of
beginning.
Calcasleu River and Pass, La.—Bar chan-
nel. Maintenance dredging disposal areas A
through O parallel to tbe channel and lo-
cated on tbe east and west aide:
Disposal Area f&", Oalcasieu River and
area one mile square parallel to tbe bar
i«pftT" N. and
03* 19'24" W., following channel center-line
(azimuth 331*37') of tbe second tangent
gulfward in the gulf entrance channel to
29*34*12" N. and 93*'9'18" W, thence to
29*33'08" N. and 93*16'36" W.. thence to
29*37*24" N. and 93*30-24*' W., thence to
28*37'48" N. and 93*20*34" W, thence to the
point of beginning.
Disposal Area "E", Calcasleu River and
Pass. La. Maintenance dredging disposal area
0.75 mile wide by 6.75 miles long, parallel to
the bar gtumngi and located on the west side.
Beginning at 29*33'54" N. and 93'16'24" W.,
following channel eenterllne (azimuth
321*37') of the second tangent gulfward In
the gulf entrance channel to 29*31*00" N.
and 93*13'48" W.. following channel center-
line (azlmutb 358*58') of the third tangent
gulfward In the gulf entrance channel to
29*29*00" N. and 93*13'42" W. thence to
29*28'54" N. and 03*14'24" W.. thence to
29*30'54" N. and -93*14*24" W., tbence to
29*33'12" N. and 93*18'36" W.. thence to the
point of beginning.
Disposal Area "P", Calcasleu River and
Pass. La. Maintenance dredging disposal area
0.75 mile wide by 2.5 miles long, parallel to
the bar "^^nirrf' and located on the east side.
Beginning at 29*44'42" N. and 93*20'12" W..
following channel center-line (azimuth
351*50') of tbe flrst tangent gulfward in the
gulf entrance channel to 20*42'36" N. and
93*19*48" W.. thence to 29*43'42" N. and
93*19'O6" W.. thenee to 29*44'48" N. and
S3'19'24" W.. thence to the point of begin-
ning.
Disposal Area "O", Calcasleu River and
Pass, La. Maintenance dredging disposal area
1 mile wide by 0.6 mile long, parallel to the
bar cf*"TM»] and located on the west side.
Beginning at29*44'54" N., and 93'20'36" W..
following channel eenterllne (azimuth
351*50') of tbe first tangent gulfward in tbe
gulf entrance channel to 29*44'42" N., and
93*20'36" W.. tbence to 29'44'42" S., and
93*20'46" W, following channel eenterllne
again to 29*44'30" N., and 03'20'42" W.,
thence to 29*44'24" N. and 93*21'30" W.,
tbence to 29*44'48" N. and 93'21'30" W.,
thence to the point of beginning.
crescent City Harbor—4i*43'l5" N,,
124'12'1Q" W. (l.OOO yd. diameter)
Crescent City 100 fathom—*1*43'50" N..
124*28'00" W. (1.000 yd. diameter)
Humboldt Bay Barber—40*45*44" N.,
124*15'42" W. (500 yd. diameter)
Noyo River—39-25'45" N., 123*49'42" W. (500
yd. diameter)
Farallon Islands—37'31'45" N, 122'59'00"
W. (1.000 yd. radius)
San Francisco Channel Bar—37*45'06" N.,
122*36*46" W. (5,000 yds. x 1,000 yds.)
Moss Landing 10O fathom—3Q*37'53" N,
121*49'04" W. (500 yd. radius)
Port Hueneme—34'05'OO" N, 119'14'00" W.
(1,000 yd. radios)
Los Angeles—33*37'08" N, lie*17'34" W.
(1.000 yd. radios)
Newport Beacb—33*31'42" N, m*B4'48" W.
(1.009 ya. radio*)
RULES AND REGULATIONS •
San Diego—Point Loma—33* 36'00" N..
117*17'SO" W. (1.000 yd. radius)
San Diego 100 fathom—32*36 '60" N,
117*20'4O" W. (1,000 yd. radius)
Honolulu Harbor—21* 14'30" N, 157*64'30"
W. (1.000 yd. radius)
Kaual—NawillwlU—21*55'30" N., 159'17'00"
W. (l.OOOyd.radius)
Kaual—Hanapepe—21*50'18" N., 159'35'30"
W. (1.OOO yd. radius)
Guam—Apra Harbor—13'29'30" N..
144'34'30" E. (1.000yd. radius)
American Samoa—Pago Pago Harbor—
14*23'00" 3.. 170*39'30" W. (1,000 yd.
radius)
Mouth of Columbia River—46I14'37" N..
124*10'34" W.; 46'13'53" N.. 124*10'01"
W.: 46*13'43" N., 124*10'26" W.; 46'14'28".
N.. 124*10'59" W.
Mouth of Columbia River—46'13'03" N.,
124*06'l7" W.; 46*12'&0" N.. 124'05'55"
W.; 46*12'13" N.. 124*06'43" W.; 46*12'26"
N.. 124*07'OS" W.
Mouth of Columbia River—4B'15'43" N.,
124'05'21" W.; 46*16'36" N., 124'05'H"
W.; 46'15'U" N., 124'05'53" W.; 46'15'18"
N., 124'06'03" W.
Mouth of Columbia River—46*12'12" N.,
124'09'00" W.; 4«'12'OO" N, 124*08'42"
W.; 46*11'48" N.. 124*09'00" W.; 46*12'00"
N.. 124*09'18" W.
Mouth of Columbia River—46'12'05" N.,
134'05'46" W.; 46*11'52" N., 124'05'25"
W.; 46M1'15" N.. 124'06'14" W.; 46'H'28"
N.. 124*06'35" W.
Chetco River Entrance—42'01'56" N..
124*16'33" 'W.; 42*01'56" N, 124*16'09"
W.; 42'01'38" N.. 124*16'09" W.: 42'01'38"
N., 124*16'33" W.
Rogue River Entrance—42 '24' 16'' N.,
1!M'28'48" W.; 42'24'O4" N., 124*28'35"
W.; 42*23'40" N.. 124*27F13" W.; 42'23'52"
N^ 124*27'28" W.
Coqullle River Entrance—43*07'54" N., 124*-
37'04" W.; 43*07'30" N., 124*26'27" W.;
43"07'3O" N, 124*26'40" W.; 43*07'44" N.
124*27'17" W.
Coos Bay Entrance—43*21'59" N.. 124*22-45"
W.; 43*21'48" N.. 124*21'59" W.; 43*21'35"
N., 124*22'05" W.; 43'21'46" N., 124*22'-
61" W.
Coos Bay Entrance—43:22'44'' N., 124*22'18"
W.; 43'22'29" N., 124"21'34" W.: 43*22'-
16" N.. 124*21'42" W.; 43*22'31" N., 124'-
22'26" W.
Umpqua Rjver Entrance—43"40'07" N., I24r-
14'18" W.: 43*40'07" N., 124*13*42" W.:
43'39'53" N.. 124*13'42" W.; 43'39'53" N^
124*14'18" W.
Sulslaw River Entrance—14 01'32" y.. 124*-
09'37" W.; 44*Ol-22" N.. 124C09'02" W.;
44*01'14" N., 124'09'07" W.; 44'01'24" N.,
124*09'42" W.
Tlllamook Bay Entrance—45'34'09" N.. 123*-
59'37" W-; 45*34'09" N.. 123'58'45" W.:
45*33'85" N-. 123!>68'45" W.: 45*33'56" N,
123*69'37" W.
Depoe Bay—44*48*33" N., 124'03'53" W.; 44*-
48'33" N-. 124*03'43" W.; 44*48'15" N-
124*03*45" W.; 44*48'16" N.. 1241>03'55" W.
Depoe Bay—44*4B'09" N., 124*06'05" W.; 44*-
48'09" N.. 124'04'55" W.; 44'47'53" N..
• 124*04'55" W.; 44*47'63" N., 124*05'05" W.
Yaqulna Bay and Harbor Entrance—44*36'-
31" N., 124*06-04" W.: 44*36*31" N.. 124*-
05'16" W.; 44*36'17" N.. 124*05'I8" W.;
44*36'17" N., 124,*06'04" W.
Port Orford—42*44'08" N., 124*29'38" W.;
42*44'08" N, 124*29'28" W.; 42*43'62" N..
124*29'28" W.: 42*43'52" N^ 124'29'38" W.
Wlllapa Bay—46*44'00" N.. 124*10'00" W.;
46*39'00" N.. 124*09-00" W.
Nome—64*30'40" N.. I65525'52" W.; 64=29'-
18" N, 165*26'04" W.; 64*29'13" N.. 165J-
35*22" W.; 64*29'64" N™ IB5*24'46" W.
Anchorage Harbor—61*14*07" N, 149*53'56"
W-: 81*14*16" N.. I49'54'16" W.: 61*14*46"
N, 149*63'88'* W.; 61*14'36" N.. 149*63'17"
2487
Cb> The following sites are designated
"Approved Ocean Dumping Sites" for
continuing use, subject to the listed re-
strictions:
(1) Oulf Ocean Incineration Site—Region
VI. Location—Latitude and Longitude—
27'06'12" N.. 93*24'15" W.; 26*32'24" N..
93M6'30" W.; 26*19'00" N.. 93'56'00" W.;
28'52'40" N., 94*04'40" W.
Size—(square miles) 1B92.
Depth—(feet) 4500.
Primary Use: At sea Incineration primarily
for organochlorlne wastes. Incineration of
other wastes will require research studies or
equivalent technical documentation to de-
termine acceptability for ocean Incinera-
tion.
Period of use: Until September 16, 1981.
Restriction: Only one ship will be permitted
to burn wast«s at a time, except under ex-
treme emergencies.
§ 228.13 Guidelines for ocean di*po;al
••ito baseline or trend assessment sur-
veys undrr Sec-lion 102 of the An.
The purpose of a baseline or trend as-
sessment survey Is to determine the
physical, chemical, geological, and bio-
logical structure of a proposed or exist-
ing disposal site at the time of the sur-
vey. A baseline or trend assessment sur-
vey Is to be regarded as a comprehensive
synoptic and representative picture of
existing conditions; each such survey is
to be planned as part of a continual
monitoring program through which
changes In conditions at a disposal site
can be documented and assessed. Sur-
veys will be planned In coordination with
the ongoing programs of NOAA and
other Federal, State, local, or private
agencies with missions In the marine en-
vironment. Ttie field survey data collec-
tion phase of a disposal site evaluation or
designation study shall be planned and
conducted to obtain a body of informa-
tion both representative of the site at the
time of study and obtained by techniques
reproducible In precision and accuracy
in future studies. A full plan of study
which will provide a record of sampling.
analytical, and data reduction procedures
must be developed, documented and ap-
proved by the EPA management author-
ity*. Plans for all surveys which will
produce Information to be used In the
preparation of environmental impact
statements will be approved by the Ad-
ministrator or his designee. This plan of
study also shall be incorporated as an
appendix into a technical report on the
study, together with notations describ-
ing deviations from the plan required
In actual operations. Relative emphasis
on individual aspects of the environment
at each site will depend on the type of
wastes disposed of at the site and the
manner in which such wastes are likely
to affect the local environment, but no
major feature of the disposal site may be
neglected. The observations made and
the data obtained are to be based on the
Information necessary to evaluate the
site for ocean dumping. The parameters
measured will be those indicative, either
directly or in directly, of the immediate
and long-term impact of pollutants on
the environment at the disposal site
and adjacent land or wr\ter areas. An
KOISTB. VOL. 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1977
-------
2488
MlttS AND KOUIAT10W
Initial disposal site evaluation or desig-
nation study should provide an ku-
mediate baseline appnteal of ft particular
site, but It should also be regarded as tto
first of a series of studies to be con-
tinued as long as the site Is used for waste
disposal.
(a) Timing. Baseline or trend assess-
ment surveys will be conducted with, due
regard Tor fHpif*1* and seasonal Impact
on stratification and other conditions In
the upper layers of the water column.
Where a choice of season is feasible, trend
assessment surveys should be made dur-
ing fops? FPTnttiB when pollutant ac-
cumulation within disposal sites is likely
to be most severe, or when pollutant Im-
pact within disposal sites is likely to be
most noticeable.
(1) Where disposal sites are near large
riverine Inflows to the ocean, surveys will
be done with due regard for the seasonal
variation hi river flow. In some cases
several surveys at various river flows may
be necessary before a site can be ap-
proved.
(2) When Initial surveys show that
seasonal variation is not significant atxd
surveys at greater than seasonal Inter-
vals are adequate for characterizing a
site, resurveys shall be carried out In
climatic conditions as similar to those
of the original surveys as possible, par-
ticularly In depths less than 200 meters.
(b) Duration. The actual duration of
a field survey will depend upon the size
and depth of the site, weather condi-
tions during the survey, and the types of
data to be collected. For example, for a
survey of an area of 100 square miles on
the continental shelf. Including an aver-
age dump site and the region con-
tiguous to It, an on-slte operation would
be scheduled for completion within one
week of weather suitable for on-slte
operations. More on-slte operating time
may be scheduled for larger or highly
complex sites.
(c) Numbers and Locations of Sam-
pling Stations. The numbers and loca-
tions of sampling stations will depend tn
part on the local bathymetry with mini-
mum numbers of stations per site fixed
as specified In the following sections.
Where the bottom Is smooth or evenly
sloping, stations for water column meas-
urements and benthlc sampling and col-
lections, other than trawls, shall be
spaced throughout the survey area In a
manner planned to provide rrnfrim^m
coverage of both the disposal site and
contiguous control areas, considering
known water movement characteristics.
Where there are major irregularities In
the bottom topography, such as canyons
or gullies, or in the nature of the bottom,
- sampling stations for sediments and ben-
thlc communities shall be spaced to pro-
vide representative sampling of the
major different features.
Sampling shall be done within the
dump site Itself and in the contiguous
area. Sufficient control stations outside a
disposal site shall be occupied to char-
acterize the control area environment
at least as well as the disposal site itself.
Where there are known persistent cur-
rents, spinpifog tn contiguous areas shall
Include at toast tiro
ofjhe dump atte. •nd'aHemsT tvo •**-
copied within the boundaries of a site.
Iwhen
«D Jfi
aiti te the Water CoZ-
tttnn at and near the Dump Site.
U> Water Quatitj paraaetert Meat-
wed. These "^M1 Include the m*i)or indl-
c&tors of water quality, particularly those
likely to be affected by the waste 'pro-
posed to be dumped. Specifically Included
at all stations are measurements of tem-
perature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, sus-
pended solids; turbidity, total organic
carbon, pH. inorganic nutrients, and
chlorophyll c. „
(1) At one station near the center of
the disposal site, samples of the water
column shall be taken for the analysis of
the following parameters: mercury, cad-
mium, copper, chromium, zinc, lead, ar-
senic, selenium, vanadium, beryllium,
nickel, pesticides, petroleum hydrocar-
bons, and persistent organohalogens.
These samples shall be preserved for
subsequent analysis by or under the di-
rect supervision of EPA laboratories to
accordance with ttie approved plan of
study.
(U) These parameters are the basic
requirements for all sites. For the evalu-
ation of any specific disposal site addi-
tional measurements may be required.
depending on the present or intended
use of the site. Additional parameters
may be selected based on the materials
likely to be In wastes dumped at-the site,
and on parameters likely to be affected
by constituents of such wastes. Analysis
for other constituents characteristic of
wastes discharged to a particular dis-
posal site, or of the Impact of such
wastes on water Quality, win be included
in accordance with the approved plan of
study.
(2) Water Quality Sampling Require-
ments. The number of samples collected
from ttie water column should be suffi-
cient to Identify representative changes
throughout the water column such as to
avoid short-term Impact due to disposal
activities. The following key locations
should be considered In selecting water
column depths for sampling:
(1) Surface, below interference from
surface waves;
(U) Middle of the surface layer;
(ifl) Bottom of the surface layer;
(iv) Middle of the thermocline or halo-
dine, or both If present;
(v) Wear the top of the stable layer
beneath a thermocUne or halocllne;
(vl) Near the middle of a stable layer;
(vli) As near the bottom as feasible;
(vlli) Near the center of any zone
showing pronounced biological activity
or lack thereof.
In very shallow waters where only a
few of these would be pertinent, .as a
rt^pimqin, surface, mld^Septh and bot-
tom samples "**nn be tn*"^. with sarnptes
at additional depths being added as in-
dicated by local conditions. At dis-
posal sites far enough aircy frctr. the
influence of major river inflows, ocean
or coastal currents, or other features
which might cause local perturba-
tions to Water rfMai|LiLiy( & minfn|mn of
5 water chemistry stations should be oc-
the area to be uommt m the survey Is
more than » square mites or when local
perturbations In water chemistry may be
expected because of the presence of one
of the features mentioned above. In zones
where such Impacts are n%ely, stations
shall be distributed so that at least 3
stations are occupied in M*** transition
from one stable regime to another. Each
water cohnnn chemistry station shall be
replicated a *t>tritnium of 2 times during
a survey except tn waters over 200 meters
deep.
(3) Water Column Biota, Sampling
stations for the biota in Hw water col-
umn shall be as near as feasible to sta-
tions used for water duality; in addition
at least two night-time stations m the
disposal site and contiguous area are re-
quired. At each station vertical or oblique
tows with appropriately-meshed nets
shall be used to assess the microzoo-
plankton, the nekton, and the macrozoo-
plankton, Towing tf"igB B*yj distances
shall be sufficient to obtain representa-
tive samples of organisms near water
quality stations. Organisms shall be
sorted and Identified to taoKmomtc levels
necessary to Identify *tnmf«ftTit orga-
nisms, sensitive or Indicator organisms,
and organism diversity. Tfesnesamples of
representative species shall be analysed
for pesticides, persistent atgatohalogens.
and heavy metals. Discrete water samples
shall also be used to quaatttattvely assess
the phytoplankton at eacta station.
These requirements are the minimum
necessary in aU cases. Where there are
discontinuities present, sucfe as thenno-
clines. hftT"«H"e«. con-veflgGBees, or up-
welling. additional tows shall be made hi
each water mass as appropriate.
(e) Measurements of the Benthic Re-
gion.
Bottom Sampling. Samples of the
bottom shall be taken for both sediment
composition and structure, and to deter-
mine the nature and numbers of bentbte
biota.
(I) At each station sampling may con-
sist of core samples, grab samples, dredge
samples, trawls, and bottom photography
or television, where available and feasi-
ble, depending on the native of the bot-
tom and the type of disposal site. Each
type of Bampi*ng shall be replicated suf-
ficiently to obtain a representative set of
samples. The *njnftmiqf> numbers of repli-
cates of successful samples at each conti-
nental shelf station for each type of
device mentioned above are as follows:
Cores
Grabs
Trwwl 20-mln. tow.
Lesser numbers of replicates may be
allowed in water deeper than 200 meters.
at those sites where pollution Impacts on •
the bottom are ""llfrely tn the Judgment
of the EPA management authority.
UP Selection of bottom station? will
be based to a large extent on the bot-
tom topography and hydrography as
determined by the bathymetric survey.
On the continental shelf, where the bot-
tom has no significant discontinuities, a
t
KDttAL ttorsrtt. voc «, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JAHUATT 11. 1*77
bottom station density of at least three
times the water column stations is rec-
ommended, depending on the type of
site being evaluated. Where there are
significant differences in bottom topog-
raphy, additional stations shall be oc-
cupied near the discontinuity and on
each side of it. Beyond the continental
shelf, lesser densities may be used.
(2) Bathymetric Survey. Sufficient
trackllnes shall be run to develop com-
plete bottom coverage of bathymetry
with reasonable assurance of accurate
coverage of bottom topography, with
trackllne direction and spacing as close
as available control allows. The site it-
self is to be developed at the greatest
density possible, with data to be collect-
ed to a suitable distance about the site
as is required to identify major changes
in bathymetry which might affect the
site. Specifications for each bathymetrlc
survey will vary, depending on control.
bottom complexity, depths, equipment,
and map scale required. In most cases,
a bathymetric map at a scale of-1:25,000
to 1:10,000 will be required, with a mini-
mum of 1-5 meter contour interval ex-
cept In very flat areas. When the fore-
going bathymetrlc detail is available
from recent surveys of the disposal site.
bathymetry during a baseline or trend
assessment survey may be limited to
sonar profiles of bathymetry on transects
between sampling stations.
(8) Nature of Bottom. The size dis-
tribution of sediments, mineral charac-
ter and chemical quality of the bottom
will be determined to a depth appropri-
ate for the type of bottom. The follow-
ing parameters will be measured at all
stations: particle size distribution, ma-
jor mineral constituents, texture, settling
rate, and organic carbon.
(i) At several stations near the cen-
ter of the disposal site, samples of sedi-
ments shall be taken for the analysis of
the following parameters: mercury, cad-
mium, copper, chromium, zinc, lead,
arsenic, selenium, vanadium, beryllium,
nickel, pesticides, persistent organohal-
ogens, and petroleum hydrocarbons.
These samples shall be preserved for sub-
sequent analysis by or under the direct
supervision of EPA laboratories in ac-
cordance with the approved plan of
study.
(ii> These parameters are the basic
requirements for all sites. For the eval-
uation of any specific disposal site ad-
ditional measurements may be required,
depending on the present or intended
use of the site. Additional parameters
may be selected based on the materials
likely to be In wastes dumped at the site.
and on parameters likely to be affected
by constituents of such wastes. Such ad-
ditional'parameters will be selected by
the EPA management authority .
(4> Benthic Biota. This shall consist
of a quantitative and qualitative evalu-
ation of benthlc communities Including
tnacroinfauna and macroepifauna, mei-
ooenthos, a*ni microbentiias, and should
include an appraisal, based on existing
information, of the sensitivity of in-
digenous species to ttie waste proposed to
RULES AND REGULATIONS
be discharged. Organisms shall be sorted.
and Identified to taxonomic levels neces-
sary to identify, dominant organisms,
sensitive or Indicator organisms, and or-
ganism diversity. Tissue samples of the
following types of organisms shall be
analyzed for persistent organohalogens.
pesticides, and heavy metals:
(1) A predominant species of demer-
sal fish;
(U) The most abundant macroin-
faunal species: and
(ill) A dominant epifaunal species.
with particular preference for a spe-
cies of economic importance.
{f> Other Measurements.
(1) Hydrodynamic Features. The di-
rection, and speed of water movement
shall be characterized at levels appropri-
ate for the site and type of waste to be
dumped. Where depths and climatic con-
ditions are great enough for a thermo-
cline or halocline to exist, the relation-
ship of water movement to such a fea-
ture shall be characterized.
(i> Current Measurements. When cur-
rent meters are used as the primary
source of hydrodynamic data, at least 4
current meter stations with at least 3
meters at depths appropriate for the ob-
served or expected discontinuities in the
water column should be operated for as
long as possible during the survey. Where
feasible, current meters should be de-
ployed at the initiation of the survey and
recovered after its completion. Stations
should be at least a mile apart, and
should be placed along the long axis of
the dumping site. For dumping sites more
than 10 miles along the long axis, one
current meter station every 5 miles
should be operated. Where there are dis-
continuities in surface layers, e.g., due to
land runoff, stations should be operated
in each water mass.
(11) Water Mass Movement. Acceptable
methods include: dye, drogues, surface
drifters, side scan sonar, bottom drifters,
and bottom photography or television.
When such techniques are the primary
source of hydrodynamic data, coverage-
should be such that all significant hydro-
dynamic features likely to affect waste
movement are measured.
(2) Sea State. Observations of sea
state and of standard meteorological
parameters shall be made at 8-hour in-
tervals. •
(3) Surface Phenomena. Observations
shall be made of oil slicks, floating mate-
rials, and other visible evidence of pol-
lution; and, where possible, collections
of floating materials shaU be made.
(g) Survey Procedures and Tech-
niques. Techniques and procedures used
for sampling and analysis shall repre-
sent the state-of-the-art In ocean-
ographic survey and analytical practice.
Survey plans shall specify the methods
to be used and will be subject to approval
by EPA.
(h) Quality Assurance. The EPA man-
agement authority may require that cer-
tain samples be submitted on a routine
basis to EPA laboratories for analysis as
well as being analyzed by the surveyor,
and that EPA personnel participate In
some field surveys.
2489
PART 229—GENERAL PERMITS
See.
229.1 Burial at sea.
229.2 Transport of target vessels.
229.3 Transportation and disposal of vessels.
AUTHORITY: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.
g 229.1 Burial at sea.
Burial at sea of human remains
which are not cremated shall take place
no closer than three nautical miles from
land and in water no less than one hun-
dred fathoms (six hundred feet) deep
and in no less than three hundred fath-
oms (eighteen hundred feet) from
-------
2490
RULES AND REGULATIONS
any other location for the purpose of
sinking such vessels In ocean waters In
testing ordnance and providing related
data subject to the following conditions:
d) Such vessels may be sunk at times
determined by the appropriate Navy
official;
<2) Necessary measures shall be taken
to ensure that the vessel sinks to the bot-
tom rapidly and permanently, and that
marine navigation is not otherwise Im-
paired by the sunk vessel;
(3) All such vessel sinkings shall be
conducted in water at least 1000 fathoms
(6000 feet) deep and at least 50 nautical
miles from land, as denned in 5 229.1 tb);
and
(4) Before sinking, appropriate meas-
ures shall be taken by qualified personnel
at a Navy or other certified facility to
remove to the maximum extent practi-
cable all materials which may degrade
the marine environment. Including with-
out limitation, (i) emptying of all fuel
tanks and fuel lines to the lowest point
practicable, flushing of such tanks and
lines with water, and again emptying
such tanks and lines to the lowest point
practicable so that such tanks and lines
are essentially free of petroleum, and (11)
removing from the hulls other pollutants
and all readily detachable material capa-
ble of creating debris or contributing to
chemical pollution.
(b) An annual report will be made to
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency setting forth the name
of each vessel used as a target vessel, Its
approximate tonnage, and the location
and date of sinking.
§ 229.3 Transportation and disposal of
vessels.
(a) All persons subject to Title I of
the Act are hereby granted a general per-
mit to transport vessels from the United
States, and all departments, agencies, or
Instrumentalities of the United States are
hereby granted a general permit to trans-
port vessels from any location for the
purpose of disposal in the ocean subject
to the following conditions:
(1) Except in emergency situations, as
determined by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and/or the U.S. Coast Guard,
the person desiring to dispose of a vessel
under this general permit shall, no later
than one month prior to the proposed
disposal date, provide the following Infor-
mation in writing to the EPA Regional
Administrator for the Region In which
the proposed disposal will take place:
• (1) A statement detailing the need for
the disposal of the vessel;
(ii) Type and description of vessel(s)
to be disposed of and type of cargo
normally carried;
(lil) Detailed description of the pro-
posed disposal procedures;
(iv> Information on the potential ef-
fect of the vessel disposal on the marine
environment; and
(v) Documentation of an adequate
evaluation of alternatives to ocean dis-
posal (i.e., scrap, salvage and reclama-
tion) .
(2) Transportation for the purpose of
ocean disposal may be accomplished
under the supervision of the District
Commander of the UJS. Coast Guard or
his designee.
(3) Except in emergency situations, as
determined by the U.8. Army Corps of
Engineers and/or the District Com-
mander of the UJ3. Coast Guard, ap-
propriate measures shall be taken, prior
to disposal, by qualified personnel to re-
move to the mpjt|mnm extent practicable
all materials which may degrade the
marine environment, Including without
limitation, (1) emptying of all fuel lines
and fuel tanks to the lowest point prac-
ticable, flushing of such lines and tanks
with water, and again emptying such
lines and tanks to the lowest point prac-
ticable so that such lines and tanks are
essentially free of petroleum, and (11) re-
moving from the hulls other pollutants
and all readily detachable material capa-
ble of creating debris or contributing to
chemical pollution.
(4) Except In emergency situations,
as determined by the UJS. Army Corps of
Engineers and/or the U.S. Coast Guard,
the dumper shall, no later than 10 days
prior to the proposed disposal date, no-
tify the EPA Regional Administrator
and the District Commander of the U.S.
Coast Guard that the vessel has been
cleaned and is available for inspection;
the vessel may be transported for dump-
ing only after EPA and the Coast Guard
agree that the requirements of para-
graph (a) (3) of this Section have been
met.
<5) Disposal of these vessels shall take
place in a site designated on current nau-
tical charts for the disposal of wrecks
or no closer than twenty-two kilometers
(twelve miles) from the nearest land and
in water no less than fifty fathoms (three
hundred feet) deep, and all necessary
measures shall be taken to ensure that
the vessels sink to the bottom rapidly
and that marine navigation is not other-
wise impaired.
(6) Disposal shall not take place in es-
tablished shipping lanes unless at a des-
ignated wreck site, nor in a designated
marine sanctuary, nor in a location
where the hulk may present a hazard to
commercial trawling or national de-
fense (see 33 CFR 205).
(7) Except in emergency situations, as
determined by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and/or the U.S. Coast Guard,
disposal of these vessels shall be per-
formed during daylight hours only.
(8) Except in emergency situations, as
determined by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and/ or the District Com -
mander of the U.S. Coast Guard, the
Captain -of -the-Port (OOTP). U.S. Coast
Guard, and the EPA Regional Adminis-
trator shall be notified forty-eight (48)
hours In advance of the proposed dis-
posal. In addition, the COTP and the
EPA Regional Administrator shall be no-
tified by telephone at least twelve (12)
hours in advance of the vessel's depar-
ture from port with such details as the
proposed departure time and place, dis-
posal site location, estimated time of ar-
rival on site, and the name and commu-
nication capability of the towing vessel.
Schedule changes are to be reported to
the COTP as rapidly as possible.
(9) The National Ocean Survey,
NOAA. 6010 Executive Blvd., Rockvllle.
MD 20852, shall be notified in writing.
within one week, of the exact coordinates
of the disposal site so that it may be
marked on appropriate charts.
[PRDoc.77-900 Filed 1-10-77;S:45 urn)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 7—TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1977
-------
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1977
PART IV
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OCEAN DUMPING
Procedural Regulations
-------
[•560-41]
CMAfTCR I—CNVHtOMMENTM.
H — ocgAM
|FKLTTI-»|
MMT 229— CONTDfn Of KHMfTS; RE-
VISION, REVOCATION CM UMTTATION
Or OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS UNDER
SECTION 1040Q OF THE ACT «
'ART 226— ASSESSMENT OF CMIL KN-
AU1ES AND REVOCATION AND SUS-
PENSION OF PERMITS UNDER SECTION
109 OF THE ACT
R«Mon at Pracadunl Rafutwora
AGENCY: United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
ACTION: Interim flntl nvtilon of regu-
latons.
SUMMARY: The United States Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA'
tvdcy publishes Interim final revisions to
lt> regulations for the enforcement of
Tf.le I of the Marine Protection. Re-
search. and aanctuarlea Act of ma. M
amended. » DBC. 1401 et sea. Theae
regulations aet forth the procedure to
be followed, and tho criteria to be
applied. In actions to modify, revoke or
suspend ocean dumping permits and to
awes civil penalties for violation of Title
1 of the Act. EPA ocean dumping regu-
lations. or the terms and conditions of a
permit.
DATES: Effective November 18. ten.
Comments are due December 28. 1077.
ADDRESS: Send comments in triplicate
to: Lisa K. Friedman. Office of General
Counsel iA-1311. VS. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW..
Washington. DC. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
Lisa K. Friedman, 202-755-0439.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
EPA's ocean dumping enforcement regu-
lations were first published on October
19. I97J (38 FR 28810 et sea.) and now
appear e' 4} cm Pa.-w 2:3 and 226.
In response to the requests of several
Regional Administrators that the regu-
lations be significantly expanded and
clarified. EPA published, on June 28.
1976 i41 FR 26844 et seq.>. proposal re-
visions to Parts 223 and 220 which
spelled out the rules of practice in en-
forcement proceedings In substantially
greater detail.
Subsequent discussions with Regional
enforcement personnel and the Agency's
Administrative Law Judges have led EPA
to conclude that the proposed revisions.
while representing a substantial improve-
ment over Its earlier regulations, are still
not sufficiently detailed to provide a
clear, comprehensive procedural frame-
work for ocean dumping enforcement
proceedings. Accordingly, in the Interim
f.r.at n;*« of pn'ice published today.
EPA has further modified and expanded
Its June 28. 1B76 proposed revisions to
clarify both the format of these proceed-
tUUS AND IfOMAIKMH
mcs and the rights and rupoMthlrlHea
of th* various participants
Under the Agency's existing regula-
tions, and Its June 28. 1976 proposed
revision. aO procedures for the revoca-
tion, mortification, suspension or limita-
tion of permits wen contained to Part
222. m a major departure from this for-
mat. UM refutations puh"«h-'1 today
establish two separate proceduna for
permit revocation, modification, aatt
suspension under Sections lM(dt and
10SUi of the Act. respectively, to reflect
the two different types of factors re-
quired to be considered m making deter-
minations under those sections.
Section 104td> authorizes the Admin-
istrator to deny, revoke, alter or Unit a
permit whenever be finds that a pro-
posed dump cannot be carried out "con-
sistently with the criteria and other fac-
tors required to be applied In iiuUnlmg
the permit application." Because a deter-
mination to deny, revoke, alter or limit
a permit under Section 104Cd> requires
the Administrator to consider the same
factors applied In Initially evaluating the
permit application, the revised proce-
dural rules for revocation, revision and
limitation of permits under that Section
parallel those set forth In Part 212 of the
EPA's ocean dumping regulations for the
evaluation of permit applications. Final
revisions of Pan 222 were published on
January 11. 1977 142 FR 2462 et eeo..).
. The rules of practice for Section 104
permit revocation, revision and limi-
tation proceedings eppear below as Sub-
part B of Part 123. They provide for
written notification of any proposed
revocation, revision or limitation of a
permit-to the permittee and the public.
Any person may request n public hearing
on the proposed revocation, modification
or limitation, and a healing will be
ordered If It Is determined that the re-
quest pments genuine Issues, or that a
public hearing Is otherwise necessary or
appropriate. Upon receipt of the Admin-
istrator's or Regional Administrator's de-
termination following the public hearing.
any person who participated In the hear-
ing may request an adjudicatory hearing
for the purpose of reviewing such de-
termination.
Under Section 105<1> ol the Act. the
Administrator may revoke or suspend a
permit If he finds that Its terms and con-
ditions-have been violated. Since Sec-
tion 109(a) requires the Administrator
to make a fimiiai- ^miing and 13St(a»
(FIFRAi. 40 CFR 168.01 et seq.. and Sec-
tion 211idi ol the Clean Air Act <42
V&JC. 1857f-6c> (unleaded fuel). 40 CFR
80.301 et seq. (40 FR 2W82 et seq.. Au-
gust 2*. 1879). Theae rules have now been
osed m a number of FTFRA and DB-
laaded fuel civil penalty ptooeedlnga, and
enpeilenee has demonstrated their effec-
tiveness. For this reason, and because
both regulations were the subject of ex-
tensive public comment at the time they
were proposed, and thus reflect the fine
tuning resulting from two separate pub-
lic rulemaklngs. they have been used as
the basis for Section 10S (al and (f)
procedural regulations.
Both, art penalty assessment proceed-
ings and permit revocation/suspension
proceedings under Section 106 a state-
ment as to the appropriateness of the
proposed penalty as well as notice of op-
portunity to request a hearing. Com-
plaints for revocation or suspension of a
permit must Include similar Information
with respect to the basis for the pro-
posed revocation or suspension.
Within twenty < JO) days after receipt
of such complaint, the person charged
may file an answer In which he < 1 > ad-
mits, denies or explains the material fac-
tual allegations contained In the com-
plaint. (2) challenges the appropriate-
ness of the proposed penalty or proposed
revocation or suspension or (31 con-
tends that he Is entitled to Judgment as a
matter of law. This tirenty-day period In
which an answer may be filed can be ex-
tended upon motion granted by the Re-
gional Administrator. The answer must
also state (1> the circumstances or argu-
ments which an alleged to constitute
tho grounds of defense. <2> the facts
which the respondent Intends to place at
Issue, and (3) whether a hearing Is re-
quested. Failure to file a timely ansver to
the complaint or (allure to comply with
preheating orders of the Presiding Of-
ficer will constitute an admission of the
allegations contained In the complaint
and a waiver of the right to a hearing.
ar.d may •give rise to s default oro>r re-
quiring payment of the proposed civil
penalty or revocation or suspension of
the permit without further proceedings.
Leave to Intervene In a proceeding
may be granted to persons who timely
demonstrate real Interests which (11
raise CTn-V" questions of fact or law,
(11 may be adversely affected by the
outcome of the proceedings. (!) wUI not
be protected absent their Intervention.
and (4> do not unreasonably broaden
the Issuea or unduly prolong tho pro-
ceeding. Other persons may. for .good
cause shown, be granted leave to par-
ticipate In proceedings as anucus curlae
and will be eligible to participate In any
briefing following the granting of such
nn
Part 228 encourages settlement of pro-
ceeding* thruuAh mlotma; *ettlemeitt
conferences taxiing to the signing of a
consent agreement by the Agency and
the person charged. Preheartng confer-
•Btui mart*, vat. 41. NO. MS JJOHDAT. NOVWB ». 1*77
MJUES AND REGULATIONS
60703
gable Issues, obtain stipulations to fac-
tual matters, encourage- settlement, and
otherwise expedite tb* proceeding. In
addition, the Presiding Officer la author-
lisd to render an accelerated dfclstoo at
any time during the proceeding a It
appears that either the complainant or
respondent Is entitled to Judgment aa a
matter of law.
If settlement upon all Issues la not
reached or If the proceeding li not dis-
posed of by an accelerated flmslon. a
public bearing must be held to adjudi-
cate all *^"*t"'"g issues9 of fsct and
law. Such bearing must be conducted by
a Presiding Officer on tb* record pur-
suant to Fart SZ6 with appropriate pro-
cedural safeguards. The Presiding offi-
cer la authorised to receive all oral or
written evidence which la relevant, com-
petent, material, and not unduly repe-
titious. Evidence regarding trade secrets
or other appropriately designated com-
mercial or ^*«m**«i Information may
be considered tn camera.
Following the bearing and his review
of the hearing record, th* Presiding
Offlcer Is I'equUeJ to Issue an Initial de-
cision. This initial decision, or an accel-
erated decision, may be appealed to the
Regional Administrator by any party or
reviewed by him sua sponte. Ho matter
of controversy (whether reaching con-
clusion by means of a consent agree-
ment, default order, accelerated deci-
sion, or an Initial decision and regard-
leas of whether appealed or reviewed
sua sponte) may be ultimately disposed
of except by a final order of the Regional
Administrator. Bach final order must
Include findings of fact, conclusions re-
garding material banes of law. fact or
discretion, the reasons therefor, and an
order l naming a errU penalty or revok-
ing or soependmg a permit, as appro-
priate. Parties adversely affected by o
final order of the Regional Administra-
tor may move to reopen the hcorini or
to reargoe any orders, rulings, or deci-
sions of the Presiding Offlcer. or may
request reconsideration of the Regional
Administrator's final order.
Under the Agency's current Parts 223
and 22C. It Is not possible to assure that
the Agency's authority to assess civil
Penalties under Section 105(a) and to
revoke, revise, suspend, or limit permits
under Oettloiiii I04(d> and 105(f> of the
Act b being applied uniformly and con-
sistently In aD oceon dumping enforce-
ment proceedings. In order to remedy
this situation as promptly as possible, it
is necessary that these procedural res-
ulattona take effect prior to a thirty
(80) -day period following promulgation.
In nanaming these regulations on an In-
terim beats the Agency bas considered
both the need for immediate Implemen-
tation and the fact that the regulations
en based on Pan 222 of its ocean dump-
ing regulations and existing Agency civil
penalty assessment procedural rela-
tions, an of which have previously been
the subject of extensive pubUc comment.
These interim rules of practice shall
become effective on November 28, 1977.
and all ocean dumping clvo penalty as-
sessment or permit revocation, revision,
limitation or suspension proceedings
which commence on or after'that date
shall be subject thereto. Beginning on
the effective date, the rules shall also
apply to the remaining phases of any
proceedings currently in process Inso-
far aa such application Is feasible and
equitable, provided, however, that any
completed phase of a proceeding which
might have been conducted differently
under the rules shall not be affected.
Hot*—Tbe KnvtrooaanuU Protection
docs not constitute s DUJor regulation re-
quiring preparation of an Economic Impact
Statement under Executive Order 11U1. ac
amended by Cneutlve Order 1IM9. and un-
der OMB Circular A-IOT.
The Agency win consider all written
comments on these rules received prior
to December 28. 1977. In promulgating
final regulations. All documents should
be submitted In triplicate to Lisa K.
Friedman, whose address appears above.
AH comments received will be available
for Inspection and copying at the EPA
Public Information Reference Unit, room
2922 i EPA Library). Waterside Mall. 401
M Street 8W.. Washington. D.C. 20480
and at EPA Regional Offices In Regions
nandm.
Dated: November 11.1977.
DOUGLAS M. COSTLX,
4dminiliraior.
1. Part 2:3 Is revised to read as fol-
lows:
lesaed Under aecUcn 1OZ e
Sec.
333.1 Contents of special, interim, emer-
geney. gemral and reaeereb per-
mlta: posting requirement.
to Reunion. Ke«ccat!o«
239.2 Scope of UHSP rule?.
223J PntUmJ.Di.rT *Jat«muin*tlon: oottce.
233.4 Requtst for. *cbe4ulln« and conduct
of public hewing: dttfrm I nation.
22J 5 Request for. tc&eduMng and conduc;
of .wJJudlcAtory bearing; dat*rmlna-
tum.
ADTHoxnr: Sea. 102, 104. 107, 108, Mmrtno
Protection Research, and Stnctuartet Act of
1973, tu tnundtrt tM U.8.C. 1412, 1414. 141?
1418)
Subpart A— Content* o3 Ocean Dumping
Permits Issued Under Section 102 of the
Act
§ 223.1 Content* uf opecial, interim,
cnxrg.Mn.ry, general end mrM-rli p*rr-
mita; posting rrflwir*mrnu.
(a) AU special, interim, emergency
and research permits shall be displayed
on the vessel engaged In dumping and
shall include the foilowtng:
(1) Name of permittee;
'2* Mear.* cf rcnvsyar.re ar.i ~ :eth:ii
and procedures for reJeme of the mate-
rials to be dumped ;
(It Tho port through or from which
such material will be transported for
dumping:
. i4' A description of relevant physical
and chemical propcrUts of the materfab
to be dumped;
'5' The quantity of the material to be
dumped expressed in tons;
<0> The disposal site;
17) The times at which the permitted
dumping may occur and the effective
date and expiration date of the permit;
(8) Special provisions which, after
consultation with the-Coast Ouard, are
deemed necessary for monitoring or sur-
veillance of the transportation or
dumping;
(ft) Such monitoring relevant to the
assessment of the Impact of permitted
dumping activities on the marine en-
vironment at the disposal site as the Ad-
ministrator or Regional Administrator,
as the case may be, determine to be nec-
essary or appropriate; and
UO) Any other terms and conditions
determined by the Administrator, or
Regional Administrator, as the case may
be, to be necessary or appropriate, In-
cluding, without limitation, release pro-
cedures and requirements for the con-
tinued Investigation or development of
alternatives to ocean dumping.
Oeneral permits shall contain such
terms and conditions as the Administra-
tor deems necessary or appropriate.
fc> Interim permits shall. In addition
to the Information required or permitted
to be Included In the permit pursuant to
paragraph (a) of this section, include
terms and conditions which satisfy the
requirements of 11 220.3 ). toreYioz. revoke or limit
the terms and conditions of any permit
Issued pursuant to section 102 of the.
Act. Section 104(d> provides that "the
Administrator " • • may limit or deny
the issuance of permits, or he may alter
or revoke partially or entirely the terms
of permits issued by him under this title,
for the transportation for dumping, or
for the dumping, or both of specified
materials or classes of materials, where
he finds that such materials cannot be
dumped consistently with the criteria
and other factors required to be applied
in evaluating the penr.it application."
-------
«OTM
lavas* pwjiiinil as Bnineav let tt «se
Act atad Do ewMoet tonrrswom, lesuea
tton or limitation. In whole or In part,
aa the result of • eetarsUnaUoai ay tne
Admlalatrator or BegVmel AdmtasMra-
tortaat:
(1) The cumulative Impact of the per-
mittee's dumptagacttvlUsaer me _
gate Impart ot an dnrnpfcav, aettvitJee at
the dump site designated- aa I _
should be nteeortsed as Impact Cate-
gory I as defined ml MUeteXU of
the nrnnnsiiil revision, revocation or
UaattattoB by aawasilllm m. written re-
asjss* —f-'-'-t the following:
i beerta* and kh> Interest In
(J) There has hem a cna»g» m dr-
at the disposal site .«—ir-**-1 In «ss
permit: or
(I) The Aunntnc autboitnd fcr «h»
permit would violate eepktabei water
quality •'•''iT't" or
(4) The Qinspnisj mcboTHen ov Be
permit an no lancer be edited wot cos>-
slsteat with the criteria eat forth m
Parts m and B*.
(b) FT«m periodically renew._
to aeetton IM(d) of the A«t or CD otfc-
mrke assess the need for nvadoa. ret-
ocaUon or ««-H-M~ of a onrtt laartu
UT of the determlnattoBi Brted to
graph (a) of ttnt section with _______
to a I1*11"** lemert pureaaBt to Section
101 of the Art. and eddttianaBj detar-
mbiei that mrisfcn. revocation or Ikntta-
Uon of uch permit U warranted, the
ftrtmtnlrtntfTT or TTitiVimt1 Admtnlain-
tor. u the cue mar be. ahaH provide
~*«t-.«.-. „( ,„.], oroposed revision.
revocation or "—"-"— as fee permltee
named. In the permit, tt any. the public.
and any ccarntmit Federal/Slate! agen-
ctae ponuant to paragraph (el at Ibis.
ttatton or to ear (acts or reasons tdentt-
(1) A statement tt the Isaacs which
such penon niniiijeie to rate for con-
stterattai at each hearing.
Contexts at aotte. The nettee of
any proposed revision, revocation or
limitation of a permit Issued pursuant
to paragraph (b) of thta) asetfcn
terlala. '
(1) AI
of the permit as set forth In I tO.l:
(2) A description of the proposed re-
vision, revocatton. or ssnstattoo.:
IS) A statemesrt of the KSSHI for such
proposed revision, i u i uistifv'ftr ttmtte-
tton; and
«> A atatement that within thirty
(10) dan at the data of illesauiliiilliiii
of the notice, any person mar request
i. punuc bearing an the proposed re-
vision, revocatton or rlTrrtfatfon.
:tta.4
lofparagraph
(a) at this section hss been received, and
the Administrator or Redonal Adminis-
trator, as appropriate, eetermmes that
such request presents genuine lasuea, or
(I) the Administrator or Regional Ad-
ministrator, aa the case may be. deter-
BdBea In hie discretion mat a public
bearing la necessary or appropriate, the
fnlitra-
ee the ease nay be. wffl set a time
and pane for • public hearing m aecord-
' with paragraph (e) of this section
~ of such hearlnt by
(e). Tn the event the Administrator or
the Beftonal Administrator, as the case
may be. determines that a request filed
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion does not comply with the require-
ments of varaeranh (a) or that such re-
nuest ones not present genuine issues, he
shmD advise. In writing, the person re-
questing the bearmi of his determina-
tion.
(e) rone cue]-place al luaHng. Any
hearing authorised pursuant to thla Sec-
tion by the Administrator or Regional
Administrator, aa the eaee may be. shaB
be netd n the city In which the Environ-
mental Protection Agency Regional Of-
ffce whtehl ~ '
(al Beeseif /or Heart**, within thirty
(toi dan of the date of the dtaaennna-
tlon of ear notlee reavmd br I
tot penfln UAV iVQo
I the pamlt Is located,
. and Shan be set
for the earliest nreeUeahki date, bat In
no eveM less then thirty (M) days after
the receipt of an appropriate reouest for
a hearing or a determination by the Ad-
tor. aa-theeue may be, to hold such a
hearlnc wtftout such a reoueat.
Praumt.omctr. Any bearing con-
vened pi~"-»t to this Part shan be
conducted by a Presiding Offleer. who
shall be either a Regional Judicial Officer
or a ti."i L* having the ouallflcatsone of
a Judkctal OOeer mtmftrt^ by the Ad-
ministrator or Regional AdnunMrator.
aa appropruta. Such person shall be an
attomey who Is a permanent or tempo-
rary employee of the Acancy,*who Is not
employed by the RagkaVs or Bead-
qnsxtcr's Water Programs DsTsskm, 8ur-
vrtUance and Analysis DtrtaoB, or «n-
f oreement nvtabm, and who has had no
otKmecOoowlUithepreparataenorpree-
entaoon of evidence for any heartng In
wnlchbaparucipatesasJudsdalOfBoer.
Preslamg OrBcer shan be iTeprnslree tor maBlng address.
tHe eiueanmiui conduct of the hearm*.
The hearlrts shall be an Informal public
hearing, not an adversary proceedlnt.
and shan be conducted so as to enow the
presentation of public comments. When
the Prasldlnc Officer determines that it
U necessary or appropriate, he shall
cause a uritahht record, which may In-
clude a verbatim transcript, of the pro-
eeealnti to be made. Any penon may
appear at a public hearuu convened
pursuant to thU section whether or not
he requested the hearuw. and may be
represented by counsel or any other au-
thorized representative The Freslduuj
Officer is authorised to eet forth rea-
sonable restrictions on the nature or
amount of documentary material or
testimony presented at a public hearrai.
(Mm due retard to the relevancy of any
such Information, and to the avoidance
of undue repetltlveneu of Information
presented.
(fl Reeommeniatfcnu al Prtifdlnt.
OOlcer. Within M days following the ad-
journment of a public hearing convened
pursuant to this section or within such
(ddiuonal period as the Administrator
or the s^t;"'"*' Administrator, as the
case may be. may grant to the Presiding
Officer for good cause shown, and after
fun consideration of the comments re-
ceived at the hearing, the Presiding Of-
Bcer will prepare and forward to the Ad-
ministrator or to the Regional Admuuaf
trator. as the case may be. written rec-
ommendations relating to the revision.
revocation or limitation of the permit
and the record of U» hearing. If any.
Such reoommendattoos shall contain a
brief statement of the baals therefor. In-
cluding a description .of evidence relied
upon (U to support any nndlng made
pursuant U |U3J(al; (II to Justify
any proposed revision, revocation or lim-
itation of the permit: and (II U Justify
any proposed revision, revocation or lim-
itation which differs (ram that if t forth
in the notice Issued pursuant to 12».-
Hbl. Copies of the Presidlni OBcer'i
rvcoiimHKlAis.ooi ifnt'l b6 prwldcd to
soy tnteratad peraoo oo requat, with-
out chirve. Copies of the record will be
provided in Accordance wltb 40 CFR
Part a.
Deterwitaatitm of t/u jfcbnlftiftrfs-
tar or RepfoiuX Adtnimtttratcr. upon re-
ceipt of the PrakUn« OCBcar't racom-
mendAUotu or. when no hemrtnc hM
been held, upon termination of the thirty
(30) -dm* pertod for roquesUnc ft betuiat
provkkd tn VMgnpb (a) of this «ec-
ttoo. the AdmlnUtrOor or the RegiotuJ
Admtnlstrmtor. u the caoe mar be. BtuH
m-vJui a determination with mpect to
the mMftttaftUan. rrrocaUoa or «ucpea-
tlon of thi. jptnnlt. 8oth deUrmkmtioo
•ball loehHte a deacrlpUao of the per-
iaU rTTskkstx reneatlon or UmitaUon. the
bMta tMrefor. and the effective date. A
copy e* uch dttemrtnatinn Aaa be
maQad to the permittee aad each per-
•on who rf.i..ita.ra.1 ate at>.wirta..f.> ai
tfM .tearmc kr
| 115.5 BcswueM for. .ch«fnlln.r and
condvrt of .idjudicalor* hnrin*:
drierminalion.
Wtthtn tea * 10 • days foUowlni the re-
ceipt of the Admlnlitrator's or Retrtonal
Adinlnlstrator's determination issued
pursuant to I 223.4<|>, any'person ?ho
participated In the public hearing held
pursuant to I 223.4 may request that an
adjudicator? hearing be held (or the pur-
POM of revlewlnji such determination or
any part thereof. Such request shall be
nibmUted and dlspoeed of. and any ad-
Judlcatory hearlnr conrened shall be
conducted In accordance with the proce-
dures »et forth in I! 222.10 . (d).
and (e) and 222.11.
3. Part 226 li revised to read as fol-
lows:
Bto.
2JrJ.l 6eop* of tbcsw) ruin.
228.2 Us* of number and ger.aer.
224.3 DtfinlUoo.
238.4 Pov«n tnd duU« of th« R«tglon.U
AdmlnKtrator, fUftooml judicial
Offlc«r and -UM Pt«»Wing omctr:
226J mine. Mrtlc* uid form of pltad-
226.6 ruins «nd .crTlce of ruUnf.. ordera.
and ditdslozii.
234,7 Computation and •ztuulon of tun*.
229J Xz pvt« dlaeuasilon of procf*dinc.
220J Szamtnatloii of document* Hied.
sfepsrt •—^**H
224.10 AppcaraoCw*.
224.11 Iatfjrr«Qtioo.
224.19 OuiaoUdaUoB and
3aO.lt Xavniance of compl»mt; docket num-
ber.
226.14 Contents of the eompiunt.
*».!• Uotlone.
23sU4 Aaewer to ttM oomplalnt.
290.IT rwiore «D att.r««T tbe eompimlnt; de-
fault order.
238.10 Informal eetUstment »nd coaMnt
.vgreemeat.
229.19 Ftabearlng oonferance.
238 JO Accelerated dedsfcm.
228.22 Crldeno-.
238.23 Objection* and, offers of proof.
234.34 Burden of preMntaUon: burden of
haat.iM.am.]
j U.1 m.i lIllaUlM Act Of
I (OVJaLO. Mia. I4IT. t«m.
IULES AND REGULATIONS
Sufapart A—General
§ 226.1 ?vnpc of llu-*p rtil".
> or
< U*' the revocation or suspension of a
permit pursuant to the provisions of Sec-
tion 105if> of the Act 133 U.8C.1415
provides that if the provisions of a per-
mit Issued under Section 102 of the Act
are violated, "the Administrator • • •
may revoke the permit or may suspend
the permit for a specified period of time."
(b> In the absence of specific provi-
sions In these rules, and where appro-
priate, questions arising at any stage of
the proceeding tM" be resolved at the
discretion of the Presiding Officer or of
the Regional Administrator, as appro-
priate, pursuant to the provisions of
,226.15>c) hereof.
§ 226.2 L'»e ot number and crnoVr.
As used In these rulea of practice.
words In the singular shall be deemed to
Import the plural and words In the mas-
culine gender shall be deemed to import
the feminine and vice versa, as the case
may require.
S 226.3 Definitioti*.
(a) The term "Act" means the Marine
Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972. as amended <33 U.S.C. 1401
el seq.) and any other legislation supple-
mentary thereto and amendatory
thereof.
(b) The term "AdmmlsLraJJve Law
Judge" meana an Administrative Law
Judge appointed pursuant to S U.S.C.
3105 (see abo S CFR Pan 030. aa
amended by 37 PR 167871. Such term Is
synonymous with the term "Hearing Ex-
aminer" u used to Title S of the TJnlted
States Code.
(c) The term "Administrator" means
the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(d) The term "Agency" meana the
United States environmental Protection
Agency.
(e) The term "Complainant" means
the Agency acting through any person
authorized by the Regional Administra-
tor to issue a complaint to persons
aDeged to be in violation of apeclfic PTO-
vtslone of Tttto I of the Act. the regula-
tions, or a permtt. The complainant
shall not be the Regional Judicial Officer
or the RednisJ Admmlitrator.
The term "Cbtaplalnf or "Com-
P*atot and Nottee of Opportunity for
Beam • villteu
ty
of
60703
specific provisions of Title X of the Act.
cr .'.tt reju:a::;-r.i p:.--:r.\.'.Sat«d ihere-
under, or a psraul iuued pursuant
thereto. The required contents of the
complaint are set forth In I 226.14.
(g) The term "Consent Agreement"
means any written document containing
stipulations ot fact, conclusions regard-
Ing material laiues of law. fact, or dls-
cre*tc-n. and a sprclf.eti propo&ed penalty
or proposed revocation or suspension ac-
ceptable to both the complainant aad
respondent.
The term "Default Order" means
an order Issued pursuant to I 328.17 dis-
posing of a matter of controversy be-
tween the respondent and the Agency
upon < 1) the failure of the respondent
to file a timely answer to the complaint.
or (2) motion of the complainant to the
Regional Administrator or the Presiding
Officer, as appropriate, pursuant to
I 228.19 because of the respondent's
failure to comply with aa order of the
Regional Administrator or Presiding
Officer.
MI The term "Final Order" means an
order Issued by the Regional Adminis-
trator disposing of a matter of contro-
versy between any respondent and the
Agency. No matter of controversy which
reaches conclusion upon the (1) default
of the respondent; (2) ratification of a
consent agreement; <3> completion of a
hearing; or <4i rendering oi an accel-
erated decision pursuant to I 220 20 may
be disposed of except by a final order of
t.le Regional Administrator.
The term "Penon" Includes any
IMMdual, partnership, association, cor-
poration, and any trotse. assignee;, re-
ceiver or legal successor thereof; any
organised group of peraona whether m-
oorporated or not; and anj officer, em-
ployee, agent, department, agency or In-
strumentality of the Federal Govern-
ment, of any State or local unit of gov-
ernment or ol any foreign government.
(o> The term "Presume; Oflseef re-
fara to the Administrative Lavw Jodfa.
Rotonal Judicial Officer, or penon hav-
tng &• ojoattncattons of I
. VOL 41, I
-------
$0705
(p> The term "Regional Administra-
tor** means the Administrator of any
Regional Office of the Agency or any offi-
cer or err.plovee thereof to whom au-
thority is duly delegated to act in his
stead. Where the Regional Administrator
has authorized the Regional Judicial Of-
ficer to act. the term "Regional Adminis-
trator" shall Include the "Regional Ju-
dicial Officer."
The term "Respondent" means any
person proceeded against in the com-
plaint.
't> The term "Regulations" means any
regulations set forth in this Subchapter
H.
Terms denned in the Act and not
explicitly defined herein are used herein
with the meanings given in the Act.
§ 226.1 Power* and dutirs of the Re-
gional Administrator. Regional Ju-
dicial Officer and the Presiding Of-
ficer: disqualification.
(a) Regional Administrator. The Re-
gional Administrator shall exercise all
powers and duties as prescribed or dele-
gated under the Act and these rules of
practice,
(bl Regional Judicial Officer—(1) Of-
fice. One or more Regional Judicial Of-
ficers may be designated by the Regional
Administrator to perform the functions
hereinafter provided within the Region
of their designation.
<2> Qualifications. A Regional Judi-
cial Officer shall be an attorney who is
a permanent or temporary employee of
the Agency and who may perform other
duties within the Agency. Such Regional
Judicial Officer shall not be employed by
the Region's Water Programs Division.
Surveillance and Analysis Division, or
Enforcement Division, and shall have
had no connection with the preparation
or presentation of evidence for any hear-
ing in which he participates as Regional
Judicial Officer. He may be a member of
the staff of the Regional Counsel.
(3» Functions. The Regional Adminis-
trator may delegate to the Regional Judi-
cial Officer all or part of his authority to
act in a given proceeding. The Regional
Administrator may separately delegate
to the Regional Judicial Officer his au-
thority to make findings of fact and
draw conclusions regarding material is-
sues of law. fact or discretion in a par-
ticular proceeding. This delegation shall
not. however, preclude the Regional Ju-
dicial Officer from referring any motion
or case to the Regional Adaiinfatrntor
when such referral is appropriate.'
tc) Prexfdiay ORctr. It shall be the
duty of the Presiding Officer to conduct
a fair and Impartial hearing, assure that
the facts are fully elicited, adjudicate
ail issues, and a^oid delay. With respect
to the cases assigned to him. between
the time he is designated and the time
he issues his decision, the Presiding Of-
ficer shall have authority to:
(1> Conduct administrative hearings
held pursuant to Sections 105 (a) and (f»
of the Act and these rules of practice:
<2> Rule upon motions, requests, and
offers of proof, dispose of procedural re-
quests, and issue all necessary order;
(3» Administer oaths and affirmations
and take affidavits:
(4» Examine witnesses, receive docu-
mentary or other evidence;
<5> For good cause, upon motion or
sua sponte. order a party, or an officer
or agent thereof, to produce testimony.
documents or other non-privileged evi-
dence and failing the production there-
of without good cause being shown, may
draw adverse inferences against such
party;
<6> Admit or exclude evidence;
<7> Hear oral argument on facts or
law;
<8> Hold conferences for the settle-
ment or simplification of the issues, or
the expediting of the proceedings; and
<9) Do all other acts and take all
measures necessary for the maintenance
or order and for the efficient, fair and .im-
partial adjudication of issues of fact and
law arising in proceedings under Section
1C5 or of the Act.
Disqualification, withdrawal. The
Regional Administrator. Regional Judi-
cial Officer or Presiding Officer may not
perform functions provided for in these
rules of practice regarding any matter
in which he U> has a financial interest;
(2) has any relationship with a party or
with the subject matter which would
make it inappropriate for him to act;
or <3> is unable for any reason to act.
Any party may at any time by motion
made to the Regional Administrator re-
quest that the Regional Judicial Officer.
or Presiding Officer, be disqualified from
the proceeding. The Regional Adminis-
trator shall then rule upon such motion.
Any party may a: ar.y tiii.e by mo:ton
to the Administrator request that the
Regional Administrator be disqualified
from the proceeding. The Administra-
tor shall then rule upon such motion.
The Regional Administrator. Regional
Judcial Officer or Presiding Officer may
at any time withdraw from any proceed-
ing in which be deems himself disqual-
ified or unable to act for any reason,
•ei Effect of disqualification or tcith-
drawal. In the event the Regional Ad-
ministrator. Regional Judicial Officer, or
Presiding Officer is disqualified or with-
draws from the proceeding, o qualified
individual wuo has none of the infirmi-
ties listed in paragraph of this sec-
tion shall be assigned to replace him.
"Delegation of the Regional Administra-
tor's or Regional Judicial Officer's re-
sponsibilities in these proceedings" shall
be made by the Administrator or the
Regional Administrator, respectively. As-
signment of a new Presiding Officer shall
be made by the Chief Administrative Law
Judge if the original Presiding Officer
was an Administrative Law Judge, or if
the Chief Administrative Law Judge is
available as a replacement, the Regional
Administrator shall designate the new
Presiding Officer. In all cases of dis-
qualification or withdrawal, upon desig-
nation of a replacement, the proceeding
shall continue without abatement un-
less otherwise ordered to facilitate the
proceeding and to protect the interests
of the parties.
g 226.5 Filinp. M-rvir* and form of
Filing of pleadings and documents
prior to the filing of an "answer to the
complaint.'* Documents, filed after the
complaint is issued and prior to the filing
of an answer to the complaint shall be
served directly upon all other parties
to the proceeding. The file of the com-
plainant shall be the official file of the
proceeding prior to the filing of an an-
swer to the complaint. No file of a pro-
ceeding shall be maintained by the Re-
gional Hearing Clerk prior to the filing
of an answer to the complaint. Each
document shall contain the docket num-
ber assigned pursuant to ! 226.13. A cer-
tificate of service shall accompany each
document served or filed.
(b> Filing of pleadings and documents
after the filing of an answer to the com-
plaint. <1> After the filing of an answer
to the complaint, the complainant shall
prepare and shall file with the Regional
Healing Clerk the original and one copy
of each document in the official file of
the proceedings. The original shall be
Included in the file maintained by the
Regional Hearing Clerk and the dupli-
cate shall be forwarded by the Regional
Hearing Clerk to the Presiding Officer
assigned to preside over the proceeding
pursuant to 9 226.31. The Presiding Of-
ficer shall promptly notify the parties
that he has been assigned to preside over
the proceeding.
<2> Thereafter, the original of any
document served in the proceeding shall
be forwarded directly to the Regional
Hearing Clerk bj- th» party *?rvU'.g the
document and a duplicate copy shall be
forwarded to the Presiding Officer. Ex-
cept as otherwise provided, a party filing
documents with the Regional Hearing
Clerk shall serve copies thereof uoon all
. other parties at the same time. Each doc-
ument filed shall contain the docket
number assigned pursuant to I 236.13. A
certificate of service shall accompany
each document filed.
(3> When the Presiding Officer corre-
sponds directly with the parties, the orig-
inal of such correspondence shall be sent
to the Rational Hearing Clerk and a dup-
licate copy ehafl be maintained by the
Presiding Officer m the duplicate file.
Parties who correspond directly trtth the
Presiding Officer "hnn in addition to
serving on other parttzj csnd a duplicate
copy of all such correspondence to the
Reatonal. Ocarina Cleric. A certiflrnte of
service «****n nrtfV>Tr\pflny p^rh document
served under this subsection.
(e) Service of Complaint. (1) Service
of the complaint may be made personally
on the respondent vor his representa-
tive) , or by certified mail, return receipt
requested.
(2) Service upon a domestic or for-
eign corporation or upon a partnership
or other unincorporated association
which is subject to suit under a common
name shall be made by personal service
or certified mail, as prescribed by sub-
paragraph (1) of this paragraph, di-
rected to an officer, a managing or gen-
eral agent, or to any other agent author-
ized by appointment or by Federal or
State law to receive service of process.
<3) Service upon an officer or agency
of the United States shall be made by
delivering a copy of the complaint to
such officer or agency. If the agencv is a
corporation, the complaint shall be
served in the manner prescribed In sub-
paragraph (2) of this paragraph.
(4) Service upon a State or local unit
of government, or a State or local officer.
agent, department, agency, corporation
or other instrumentality shall be made
by serving the complaint in the manner
prescribed by the law of the State for
the service of process on any such per-
sons, or:
(i) If upon a State or local unit of
government, or a State or local depart-
ment, agency, corporation or other in-
strumentalitv. by delivering a cony of
the complaint to the chief executive of-
ficer thereof;
(11) If upon a State or local officer or
agent, by delivering a copy to such officer
or agent.
(5) Proof of service of the comnlaint
shall be made bv affidavit of the person
making personal service, or by properly
executed return receipt. Such proof cf
service shall be filed with the complaint
immediately upon comnleUon of service.
(d> Service of documents other than
complaint. All documents other than the
complaint may be served personally or
by first-class moll. Copies shall be served
upon all parties to a proceeding unless
otherwise ordered by the Presiding Of-
ficer. A certificate of service setting forth
the date and manner of service and the
pnm^ of **Ji persons served $hall accom-
pany each document served.
(et Record address. The initial docu-
mznt filed bv any person shall contain
nig name, address and telephone num-
ber. Any changes in such Information
snaD be communicated promptly to the
Hearing Clerk, Presiding Officer and an
parties to the proceeding. A party who
fails to furnish such information shall
be deemed to have waived his right to
poUcf f\nrf service under tftfse rules.
The Regional Administrator, Pre-
siding Officer or Regional Hearing Clerk
may refuse for filing any document which
dees not comply with this paragraph.
§ 226.6 Filing and service of ruling*.
order*, and derisions.
All rulings, orders, decisions, or other
documents made or signed by the Re-
gional Administrator, the Regional Judi-
cial Officer or the Presiding Officer, as
appropriate, pursuant to I226.15'c>
ihall be filed with the complainant If
made prior to the flung of an answer to
the complaint and thereafter with the
Regional Hearing Clerk except as pro-
vided in J 226.5 <3>. Such rulings, or-
ders, decisions or other documents shall
be served directly upon all parties by the
Regional Administrator, Regional Judi-
cial Officer, or Presiding Officer, as ap-
propriate.
§ 226.7 Computation and extension of
time.
>a» Computation. In computing any
period of time prescribed or allowed in
these rules of practice, except as other-
wise provided, the day of the act. event,
or default from which the designated
period begins to run shall not be Included
in computing the time allowed for the
filing of any document or paper. Satur-
days, Sundays, ar.d Federal legal holi-
days shall be included in computing the
time allowed for such filing, unless the
period of time prescribed Is five <5> days
cr less. In which event intermediate Sat-
urdays. Sundays, and legal holidays shall
te excluded from the computation. When
such time expires on a Saturday. Sunday
or legal holiday, such period shall be ex-
tended to include the next following
business day.
(b> Extensions of time. A prescribed
period cf time within which a party is
required or permitted to do an act shall
be computed from the time of service.
Extensions of time for the filing of any
pleadings, document, or motion shall be
granted sua spcnte or upon timely mo-
tion of a party to the proceeding only for
good cause shown and after considera-
tion of prejudice to other parties. Mo-
tions for .an extension of time shall be
filed in advance of the date on which the
pleading, document or motion is due to
te filed, unless the failure of a party to
make timely motion for extension of tlnn*
was the result of excusable negligence.
Such motion shall be decided in accord-
ance with the provisions of f 226.15(c).
(c> Service by mail. Service shall be
deemed complete upon mailing. However,
where service of a pleading or document
is by mail, three <3> days shall be added
60707
to the time allowed by these rules for the
filing of a responsive pleading.
6 226Ut E\ parte diM-msion of proceed-
inp.
At no time after the issuance of the
complaint shall, the Regional Adminis-
trator. Regional Judicial Officer, or Pre-
siding Officer discuss ex parte jthe merits
o? the prc?eedings with any person who
is connected with the proceeding in an
adrocative, investigative, or expert ca-
pacity, or with any representative of such
person. The Regional Administrator, the
Re?io-al Judicial OScer. or the Presid-
ing Officer may discuss the merits of the
case with any such person onlv If all par-
ties to the proceeding, or their repre-
sentatives, have been given reasonable
notice and opportunity to be present. Any
memorandum or other communication
addressed to the Regional Administrator.
Regional Judicial Officer or the Presid-
ing Officer, during the pendency of the
crcceedir.g, and relating to the merits
thereof, by or on tehalf of any party.
shall be retarded as argument made in
the proceeding and shall be served upon
all other parties. Nothing in this section
shall limit discussion between the re-
spondent and complainant for the pur-
pose of exploring settlement of the case.
§ 226.9 Examination of document*
filed.
(ai Subject to the provisions of law
restricting the public disclosure of con-
fidential information, any person may.
during Agency business hours, inspect
and copy any document filed in any pro-
ceeding. Such documents may be made
available by the complainant if the re-
quest to inspect is made prior to the fif-
ing of an answer to the complaint, and
by the Regional Hearing Clerk if the re-
quest to inspect is made after the filing
of an answer to the complaint.
*b) The cost of duplicating docu-
ments filed in any proceeding shall be
borne by the person seeking copies cf
such documents filed.
Subpurt B—Parties and Appearances
§ 226,10 Appearance*.
(a) Representative*. Any party may
appear in person or by counsel or other
representative; a partner may appear on
behalf of a partnership and an officer
may appear on behalf of a corporation.
Persons who appear as counsel or other
representative must conform to the
standards of conduct and ethics as re-
quired of practitioners before the courts
of the United States. Withdrawal of ap-
pearance of any counsel or representa-
tive may be effected by filing a written
notice of withdrawal.
cb) Failure to appear. Any party in
the proceeding, who, after being duly
notified and without good cause being
shown, fails to appear at any prehearing
conference shall be subject to whatever
orders or determinations the Presiding
Officer may make in his discretion. The
failure of a party to appear at a hearing
shall constitute a waiver of the right to
present evidence at such hearing. Where
VOL
-------
60708
the respondent fails to appear at a hear-
ing, the Presiding Officer shall • require
the presentation by the complainant of
such evidence as the Presiding Officer
deems necessary to develop a prima facie
case against the respondent. Upon con-
clusion of the hearing, the Presiding Of-
ficer shall cause a copy of the Initial de-
cision to be served upon the respondent.
§ 226.11 Intervention.
(a) Motion. Any person may file a mo-
tion for leave to intervene in any pro-
ceeding conducted under these rules of
practice. Such motion must set forth
the grounds for the proposed interven-
tion, the position and interest of the
movant in the proceedings, and the likely
impact that such intervention will have
on the expeditious progress of the pro-
ceeding. Any person already a party to
the proceeding may file an answer to a
motion to intervene, making specific ref-
erence to the factors set forth in the
foregoing sentence and paragraph (c) of
this section, within ten (10) days after
service.
(t» When filed. A motion for leave to
intervene In a proceeding must ordinar-
ily be filed prior to the first prehearing
conference or, in the absence of a pre-
hearing conference, prior to the initia-
tion of correspondence pursuant to
S 226.19(d>, or if there is no such corre-
spondence, prior to the setting of a time
and place for a hearing. Any motion
filed after that time must include, in
addition to the information set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section, a state-
ment of good cause for the failure to file
in a timely manner. Such motion for
leave to intervene shall be granted only
upon a finding that (1) extraordinary
circumstances justify the granting of the
motion; and <2> the intervenor agrees
to be bound by any agreements, arrange-
ments and other matters previously
made in the proceeding.
(c) Disposition. Leave to Intervene
will be granted only Insofar as the mov-
ant demonstrates that (1) there exist
common questions of fact or law; (2>
he may be adversely affected by a final
order of the Regional Administrator;
(3) there are no other means whereby
the movant's interest may be protected,
including the representation of his in-
terest by other parties; and (4) his pres-
ence In the case would not unreasonably
broaden the issues as already presented.
or unduly prolong or otherwise preju-
dice the adjudication of the rights of the
original parties. If leave is granted, the
movant shall thereby become a party to
the proceeding upon sush terms as the
Presiding Officer shall determine. Any
party, or the movant if leave is denied.
may request that the ruling on any mo-
tion for leave to intervene in a proceed-
ing conducted under these rules of prac-
tice be certified on interlocutory appeal
to the Regional Administrator as pro-
vided In | 226.28.
(d) Amicus curiae. Persons not parties
to the proceeding who wish to file briefs
therein may, upon good cause shown,
so move the Presiding Officer or the Re-
gional Administrator, as appropriate.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
pursuant to I 223.15(c>. Snch motion for
leave to file briefs shall Identify the in-
terest of the applicant and shall state
the reasons why the proposed amlcus
brief Is desirable. In the event such mo-
tion is granted, the Presiding Officer or
Regional Administrator shall issue an
order setting the time for fllhig such
brief. An araicus curiae shall be eligible
to participate in any briefing following
the granting of his motion, and shall be
served with all briefs, reply briefs, mo-
tions and orders relating to the issues
to be briefed.
g 226.12 Consolidation •nd Mvrrenre.
(a) Consolidation. The Presiding Offi-
cer may. by motion orsua sponte, con-
solidate any or all matters at issue in
two or more proceedings docketed under
these rules of practice in his Region
where there exist common parties, com-
mon questions of fact and law, and where
such consolidation would expedite or
simplify consideration of the issues. Con-
solidation shall not prejudice any rights
granted parties to proceedings conducted
under these rules of practice and shall
not affect the right of any party to raise
issues that could have been raised if con-
solidation had not occurred.
. (b) Severance. The Presiding Officer
may, by motion or sua sponte. for good
cause . shown, order any proceedings
severed with respect to some or all par-
ties or issues. -
Subpart C—Prehearing Procedures
g 226.13 Issuance of complaint; dorkel
(a> Issuance of complaint /or assess-
ment of civil penalty, if the complainant
has reason to believe that a person has
violated any provision of the Act. the
regulations, or a permit, he may institute
a proceeding for the assessment of a
civil penalty by issuing a complaint.
Issuance o/ complaint /or. revoca-
tion or suspension of permit. If the com-
plainant has reason to believe that a
permittee has
(li Violated any term or condition of
the permit: or
(2> Misrepresented or inaccurately de-
scribed any material fact in the permit
application or failed to disclose all
relevant facts in the permit application;
• or
(3> Failed to keep the records and
to notify appropriate officials of dump-
ing activities, as reauired by 9! 224.1 and
223.2. he may institute a proceeding for
the revocation or suspension of such per-
mit.
(c> Docket number. Prior to the serv-
ice of any complaint for either the
assessment of a civil penalty or revoca-
tion or suspension of a permit, the com-
plainant shall consult with the Regional
Hearing Clerk for the assignment of a
docket number. Thereafter, each docu-
ment filed In the proceeding shall bear
such assigned docket number.
§ 226.14 Coiiicnt. of itir romplainl.
(a) Complaint lor assessment of civil
penalty: derivation o/ proposed penalty.
Each complaint for assessment of a civil
penalty shall include (l) a statement
that the complaint is issued pursuant to
Section I05(a» of the Act and Part 226
of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Reg-
ulations; (2) specific reference to each
provision of the Act. regulations, or
permit which the respondent is alleged
to have violated: (3> a concise state-
ment of the factual basis for alleging
such violation; (4) the amount of civil
penalty which is proposed to be assessed:
(5> a statement indicating the appro-
priateness of the proposed penalty: (6)
if the alleged violation has not been
remedied or the respondent has not
brought himself into compliance with the
provisions of the Act. regulations or per-
mit allegedly violated, a statement that
the respondent's efforts to achieve rapid
compliance after receipt of the complaint
may affect the ultimate determination of
the amount of the penalty; and <7> no-
tice of the respondent's right to request
a hearing on any material fact con-
tained in the complaint, or on the ap-
propriateness of the amount of the pro-
posed penalty. The dollar amount of the
civil penalty which is proposed to be
assessed in the complaint shall be de-
termined on the basis of (1> the gravity
of the violations: (2) the respondent's
prior violations which have resulted in
a final order under this Part, if any;
and (3) the demonstrated good faith of
the respondent in attempting to achieve
rapid compliance after notification of a
violation.
Complaint for revocation or sus-
pension of permit. Each complaint for
revocation or suspension of a permit
shall include (1> a statement that the
complaint is Issued pursuant to Section
105 of the Act and Part 226 of Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
<2> specific reference to each term or
condition of the permit which the re-
spondent is alleged to have violated, to
each alleged inaccuracy or misrepresen-
tation in respondent's permit applica-
tion, to each fact which the respondent
allegedly failed to disclose in his permit
application, to the records which the re-
spondent allegedly failed to keep pur-
suant to } 224.1 or to the^off.cials which
the respondent failed to notify of hU
dumping activities under J 224.2; (3) a
concise statement of the factual basis for
such allegations; (4) a statement as to
whether it is proposed that the permit
be revoked or suspended, and. if sus-
pended or revoked in part, the terms and
conditions of such proposed suspension
or partial revocation: <5> a statement
indicating the basis for recommending
the revDcation. rather than the su--p2ii-
sion. of the permit, or vice versa, as the
case may be; and (61 notice of the re-
spondent's right to request a hearing on
any material fact contained in the com-
plaint, or on the appropriateness of the
proposed revocation or suspension.
Amendment of the complaint. At
any time prior to the filing of an answer
to the complaint, the complainant may
arneud the complaint as a matter of
right. The respondent shall have twenty
(20) additional days from, the date of
service of the amended complaint in
which to Ale his answer. -At any time
after the filing of an answer to the com-
plaint, the complaint may be amended
only upon motion granted by the Pie-
siding Officer.
g 226.15 Motions.
(a) General. All motions, except those
made orally on the record during a hear-
ing, shall U> be in writing; (2) state
with particularity the grounds therefor;
(3> set forth the relief or order sought;
and (4) be accompanied by any affidavit.
certificate or other evidence relied upon.
Such motions shall be served in accord-
ance with the provisions of S 226.5.
Response to motions. Except as
otherwise provided by the Presiding
Officer or the Regional Administrator,
as appropriate, pursuant to paragraph
(c) of this section, any party may file a
response in support of or in opposition
to any written motion within ten <10>
days after sen-ice of such motion. Such
response shall be accompanied by an
affidavit, certificate, or other evidence
relied upon. If no response is filed within
the designated period, the parties shall
be deemed to have waived any objection
to the granting of the motion. The Pre-
siding Officer or Regional Administra-
tor, as appropriate, pursuant to para-
graph (c^ of this section, may set a
shorter time for response, or make such
other orders concerning the disposition
of the motion as he deems appropriate.
(c) Decision. The Regional Adminis-
trator shall rule upon all motions filed
or made prior to the filing of an answer
to the complaint or after the filing of an
Initial decision. The Presiding Officer
shall rule upon all motions filed or made
after the filing of an answer to the com-
plaint and prior to the filing of his ini-
tial decision. Oral argument on motions
will be permitted where the Presiding
Officer or the Regional Administrator
deems it necessary or desirable,
§ 226.16 Answer ID the complaint.
General. Where the respondent <1>
contests any material fact alleged in the
complaint to constitute a violation of the
Act, regulations or a permit, a misrepre-
sentation, inaccuracy or failure to dis-
close all relevant facts in his permit ap-
plication or a failure to keep the records
and notify the appropriate officials of his
dumping activities pursuant to IS 224.1
and 224.2; <2> contends that the amount
of the penalty proposed in the complaint
or the proposed revocation or suspension.
as the case may be. is inappropriate: or
<3> contends that he is entitled to judg-
ment as a matter of law, he shall file a
written answer to the complaint with the
Regional Hearing Clerk. Any such an-
swer to the complaint must be filed with
the Regional Hearing Clerk within twen-
ty (20) days after service of the com-
plaint. The initiation of informal con-
ferences with the Agency pursuant to
E 228.18 does not enlarge this twenty
»20» day period. The time period in
which to file an answer- may be extended
upon motion granted by the Regional Ad-
ministrator.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
the circumstances or arguments
which are alleged to constitute the
grounds of defense. <2> the facts which
the respondent intends to place at issue.
and (3) whether a hearing is requested.
(c> A hearing upon the issues raised by
the complaint and answer shall be heicl
upon request of the respondent in the
answer. In addition, a hearing may be
held at the discretion of the Presiding
Officer, sua sponte. or upon the grant of
a request therefor by any party other
than the respondent. Any request for
hearing filed by a party other than the
respondent shall state with particularity
his objections to the complaint and the
issues which such party intends to raise
during the hearing.
Failure to answer specifically.
Failure of the respondent to plead spe-
cifically to any material factual allega-
tion contained in the complaint shall
constitute an admission of such alle-
gation.
Withdrawal of the complaint. At
any stage in the proceeding where, on
the basis of new information or evi-
dence, the complainant concludes that
no violation of the Act. the regulations.
or a permit has occurred or that the is-
suance of the complaint was otherwise
inappropriate, the complainant may
withdraw the complaint once without
prejudice.
ifi Amendment of fhe answer. The
respondent may amend ihe answer to the
complaint upon motion granted by the
Presiding Officer.
§226.17 Failure- to answer Hie . -UHI-
plainl: Default order.
(a> Default. The respondent may be
found to be in default upon his < l > fail-
ure to file a timely answer to the com-
plaint; or (2i failure to comply with a
prehearing or hearing order of t!i? Re-
gional Administrator or the Presiding
Officer, as appropriate, pursuant to
}226.15(c>. Default of the respondent
shall constitute an admission of all facts
alleged in the complaint and a waiver
of the'respondent's right to a hearing of
such factual allegations. If the complaint
is for assessment of a civil penalty the
penalty proposed to be assessed In the
complaint shall become due and payable
by the respondent without further pro-
ceedings upon the issuance by the Re-
gional Administrator of a final order is-
sued upon default. If the complaint is
for revocation or suspension of a permit,
the terms and conditions of revocation or
suspension proposed in the complaint
shall become effective without further
proceedings on the date designated by
the Regional Administrator in his final
orde" i?*u?d ujxjti default.
(b) Procedures upon default. (1)
Where a default results from the re-
spondent's failure to file a timely an-
swer to the complaint, the complainant
shall prepare and transmit to the Re-
60709
g tonal Administrator a proposed final
order to be issued upon default.
<2» Where the Presiding Officer flnds
a default to liuve occurred after the fil-
ing of an answer to the complaint, the
Presiding Officer may render a proposed
default ord«?r to be issued against the
defaulting party. For the purpose of ap-
peal pursuant to 5 226 29, such order
shall be deemed to be the initial decision
of the Presiding Officer.
I'C' Cc-nt??it3 of a final order issued
noon dzfauli. A finil order Issued upon
default shall include findings of fact.
conclusions regarding all material issues
of law. fact, or discretion, and the pen-
alty which is therein assessed or the
terms and conditions of permit revoca-
tion or suspension, as appropriate. An
order issued by the Regional Adminis-
trator upon the default of the respondent
shall constitute a final order ni accord-
ance with the terms of 5 226.30.
g 226.18 Informal »c>iiletiient and con-
sent flsreemenl.
(a" Settlement policy. The Agency
encourages settlement of the proceeding
at any time after the issuance of a com-
plaint if such settlement is consistent
with the provisions and the objectives of
th* Act and the regulations. Whether or
not the respondent requests a hearing.
he may confer with the complainant
concerning the facts stated in the com-
plaint, or. as the case may be. the pro-
posed permit revocation or suspension
or the amount of the proposed civil pen-
alty. If a settlement is reached, the terms
of any settlement shall he expressed in
a written consent agreement. Confer-
ences with th-2 c?mt/uim:it concerning
possible settlement shall not affect the
requirement to file a timely answer pur-
suant to fi 226.15.
fb" Consent Agreement. A written con-
sent agreement signed by the parties
shall be prepared by the complainant
and forwarded to the Regional Adminis-
trator whenever settlement or com-
promise is proposed. The consent agree-
meat sh»H itjl* that f;-i tht.- purpose of
tais proceeding, the respondent
admits the jurisdicttonal allegations of
the complaint: <2> admits the facts as
stipulated in the consent agreement or
neither admits nor denies specific factual
allegations contained in the complaint;
and (3> consents to the proposed permit
revocation or suspension or assessment
of a given proposed civil penalty, as the
case may be. The consent agreement shall
include «p the terms of the agreement;
any appropriate conclusions regard-
ing material issues of law. fact or discre-
tion as well as reasons therefor; and (liii
a proposed final order of the Regional
Administrator.
(o Final order. No settlement or con-
sent agreement shall be dispositive of any
action pending under section 105(a> or
(f i without a final ortfpr of the P.?gicinil
Ad:i.i:i~»ii.t:^i. i.. preparing such final
order, the Regional Administrator may
require that any or all of the parties to
the settlement appear before him to
answer inquiries relating to the proposed
consent agreement.
FEDCIAL REGISTER. VOL 42. NO. 221—MONDAY. NOVEMBER 21. 1977
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL 42. NO. 2XB—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1977
-------
60710
8 Z26.W Prchearing conference.
(a) Purpose of preheating conference.
When It appears that such procedure
will expedite the proceeding, the Prteld-
mg Officer, at any time prior to the com-
mencement of the hearing, may retjuact
the parties nrnl their counsel or other
representative to appear at a conference
before him to consider:
(1) The possibility of settlement^ the
case;
(2) The simplification of Issues and
stipulation of facts not In dispute;
- (3) The possibility of reducing oral
testimony to exhibit form;
<4> The necessity or desirability of
amendments to pleadings;
(5) The possibility of-obtaining admis-
sions or stipulations of fact and of doc-
uments which will avotkl unnecessary
proof;
(6) The limitation of the number of
expert or other witnesses;
<7> The setting of a time and place for
the public hearing, giving consideration
to the convenience of all parties and wit-
nesses and to the public Interest; and
(8) Any other matters which may ex-
pedite the disposition of the proceed-
ings.
Exchange of witness lists and doc-
uments. Unless otherwise ordered by the
Presiding Officer each party shall at the
prehearlng conference make available to
all-other parties the names of the expert
and other witnesses he Intends to can,
together with a brief narrative summary
of their expected testimony. Copies of an
documents and exhibits which the party
Intends to introduce Into evidence shall
be marked for Identification as ordered
by the Presiding Officer. Thereafter, wit-
nesses, documents, or exhibits may be
added and narrative summaries of ex-
pected testimony amended only upon
motion of a party.
(c) Record of the preheartng confer-
ence. No transcript of any preheartng
conference shall b* made unless ordered
upon motion of a party or sua sponte by
the Presiding Officer. The Presiding
Officer shall prepare and flle for the
record a written summary of the action
taken at such conference. Such summary
shall Incorporate any written stipula-
tions or agreements made by the parties.
aU rulings upon matters considered at
such conference, and appropriate orders
containing directions to the parties. Such
summary shall direct the subsequent
course of the proceeding, unless modified
by the Presiding Officer, on motion or sua
sponte. to prevent manifest injustice.
(d) Location of Preheartng Confer-
ence. The prehearlng conference shall be
held in the city In which the Environ-
mental Protection Agency Regional Office
is located unless the Presiding Officer
determines that thdre Is good cause for
It to be held at another location in the
Region.
(e) Unavailability of a prehearing con-
ference. Where circumstances render a
prehearlng conference unnecessary or
impracticable, the Presiding Officer, on
motion or sua sponte, may request the
parties to correspond with him for the
purpose of accomplishing any of the ob-
•ULES AND REGULATIONS
jectiva set forth, In this section. The
Presiding Officer *^M1 Include such cor-
respondence and his written summary of
any stipulation or agreements reached
by means of such correspondence as pro-
vided In paragraph (e) of this section
In the record.
g 226.20 Accelerated decision.
(a) General. The Presiding Officer or •
the Regional Administrator, as appro-
.priate, pursuant to |226.1S(c), upon
motion or sua sponte, may at any time
render an accelerated decision In favor
of the complainant or respondent as to
all or any portion of the proceeding
without further proceedings or upon such
limited additional evidence (such as affi-
davits) as he may require under any of
the following conditions:
(1) A party has failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted;
(2) There Is no genuine Issue of any
material fact and a party Is entitled to
Judgment as a matter of law;
(3) A party is directly or collaterally
estopped from asserting a fact or con-
clusion of law; or
(4) Such other and further reasons
as are Just.
(b) Effect. (1) In the event an accel-
erated decision la Issued by the Presiding
Officer, the decision shall be treated for
the purpose of these rules of practice In
the same manner as an Initial decision
of the Presiding Officer rendered after
completion of a hearing under { 226.27.
(2) In the event an accelerated deci-
sion la Issued by the Regional Adminis-
trator, the Regional Administrator shall
proceed to Issue a final order disposing
of all or part of the case, as may be
appropriate, under | 226.30.
Subpart C—Hearing Procedure
g 226.21 Scheduling the hearing.
(a) Assignment of Presiding Officer.
Upon the filing of an answer, the Re-
gional Administrator shall ajodgn the
Presiding Officer. The Regional Adminis-
trator may. however, request that the
Chief Administrative Law Judge assign
an Administrative Law Judge as Presid-
ing Officer. If the Chief Administrative
Law Judge finds .that such an assign-
ment can be made without impairing
thfl ability of his office to timely dis-
charge its other responsibilities, he shall
make thft P4*dg™ncnt. Otherwise, he
shall notify the Regional Administrator
making the request that he Is unable
to make such an fv^gnm»*T*t, jn such
event, the Regional Administrator shall
appoint a Regional Judicial Officer or
a person having the 111 ft* * ft^*0 *^ oim of a
Regional Judicial Officer to serve as
Presiding Officer.
(b) Notice of hearing. In the event
that a hearing is requested by the re-
spondent In his answer, or is ordered by
tfrg presiding Officer pursuant to the
'provisions of S226.1flhttp a
future prehearlng conference, unless
otherwise agreed upon by all parties, the
parties shall be notified of the date set
for the hearing at least twenty (20) days
prior to such date.
(c) Postponement of heartng. Rrcept
for good cause shown, no request for
postponement of a hearing will b*
granted. Such request must be received
In writing at least three (3> days In ad-
vance of the time set for the heartng. to
case of postponement, the hearing shall
be rescheduled for the earliest practica-
ble date.
(d> Location of hearing. The hearing
shall be held In the city in which the
Environmental Protection Agency Re-
gional Office Is located unless the Presid-
ing Officer determines that there Is good
cause for It to be held at another loca-
tion In the Region.
§ 226,22 Evidence.
(a) General. The Presiding Officer
shall admit all evidence which Is rele-
vant, competent and material, and is not
unduly repetitious. Relevant, competent
and material evidence may be received at
the hearing although such evidence may
be Inadmissible under the rules of evi-
dence applicable to judicial proceedings.
The weight to be given all evidence shall
be determined by its reliability and pro-
bative value. In the presentation, admis-
sion, disposition, and use of evidence, the
Presiding Officer shall preserve the con-
fidentiality of trade secrets and other
privileged commercial and financial in-
formation. The confidential or trade
secret status of any evidence shall not.
however, preclude Its being Introduced
into evidence. The Presiding Officer may
make such orders as may be necessary
to consider such evidence In camera. In-
cluding the preparation of a supplemen-
tal Initial decision to consider questions
of fact and conclusions regarding mate-
rial Usues of law, fact or discretion which
arise out of that portion of the evidence
which Is confidential or which includes
trade secrets.
(b) Examination of witnesses. Except
as otherwise provided in these rules of
practice or by the Presiding Officer, wit-
nesses shall be examined orally, under
oath or affirmation. Parties shall have
the right to cross-examine a witness who
appears at the hearing- provided that
such cross-examination Is not unduly
repetitious.
(c) Verified- statements. The Presiding
Officer may admit and Insert Into the
record as evidence in lieu of oral testi-
mony, statements of fact or opinion
prepared by a witness. The admlssibillty
of the evidence contained In such state-
ment shall be subject to the same rules
as If such testimony were produced under
oral examination. Before any such state-
ment la read or admitted into evidence,
the witness shall deliver a copy of the
statement to the Presiding Officer, the
reporter, and each opposing party. The
witness presenting the statement shall
swear to or affirm the statement and
frhfyii be subject to oral cross-examina-
tion on the contents thereof. Such state-
ments shall not be admitted when It ap-
pears to the Presiding Officer that the
memory or the demeanor of the witness
Is of importance.
(d> Exhibits. Except where the Pre-
siding Officer finds it Impracticable, an
original and one copy of each exhibit
shall be filed with the Presiding Officer
for the record and a copy shall be fur-
nished to each party. A true copy of an
exhibit may be substituted for the orig-
inal. Each exhibit offered fa evidence
shall be numbered and shall identify the
party by whom It 15 offered.
(e> Official notice. Official notice may
be taken of any matter judicially noticed
in the Federal courts, and of other facts
within the specialized knowledge and ex-
perience of the Agency. Opposing parties
shall be given adequate opportunity to
show that such facts are erroneous!*
noticed.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
g 226.23 Objections and offer* of proof.
(a) OWeetton. Any objection concern-
ing the conduct of the hearing the ad-
mission or rejection of evidence, the
limitation of tne scope of any examina-
tion or cross-examination, or a ruling by
the Presiding Officer shall be made orally
or In writing, accompanied -by a short
statement of the grounds for the objec-
tion. The transcript shall include all
argument or debate on the objection and
the ruling thereon and the reasons there-
for given by the Presiding Officer. An ex-
ception to each objection overruled shall
be automatic and is not waived by fur-
ther participation in the hearing
(b) Offer of proof. Whenever evidence
is excluded from the record, the party
offering such evidence may make an of-
fer of proof, which shall be included in
-the transcript. The offer of proof for ex-
cluded oral testimony shall consist of a
brief statement describing the nature of
evidence excluded. The offer of proof for
excluded documents or exhibits shall
consist of their insertion in the record
appropriately marked. Where the Re-
gional Administrator decides that the
ruling of the Presiding Officer in exclud-
ing the evidence was both erroneous and
prejudicial, the hearing may be reopened
to permit the taking of such evidence or
where appropriate, the Regional Admin-
istrator mav evaluate such improperly
excluded ev.aeno* i>. j.reua-my in:, final
order In .the event that the Regional
Administrator in the preparation of his
final order relies in whole or part upon
any evidence excluded at the hearing by
the Presiding Officer, he shall explicitly
Identify in the final order any such ex-
cluded evidence relied upon and his rea-
sons therefor.
§226.24 Burden of presentation; bur-
den of peraua*ion.
In establishing that the violation oc-
fhTS," Wt fortn m tne complaint and
that the proposed revocation, suspension
or civil penalty, as the case may be is
appropriate, the complainant has the
burden of going forward with and of
proving an affirmative case. Following
the establishment of a prima facie case
the respondent shall have the burden of
presenting and of going forward with
) any defense to the allegations set forth
in the complaint. Each matter of contro-
versy shall be determined by the Presid-
ing Officer upon a preponderance of the
evidence.
§ 226.25 Filing of tran.< ripl".
The hearing shall be transcribed ver-
batim. Promptly following the taking of
trie last evidence, the reporter .shall
transmit to the Regional Hearing Clerk
as many copies of the transcript of testir
mony as are called for in the reporter's
contract with the Agency, and shMl
transmit to the Presiding Officer the orig-
inal transcript. A certificate of service
si1..'II accompany each copy of the tran-
script. The Regional Hearing Clerk shall
promptly furnish all parties with a copy
of the transcript of the hearing without
cost. Any person not a party to tlie pro-
ceeding may receive a copy of such tran-
script upon payment of the costs of re-
production of such transcript.
fi 226.26 Filing of brief*, prnpotr.l find-
inc* of fun and CDIM lu«ion>. of law.
and propoftrd order.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Pre-
siding Officer, each party may. within
twenty (20> days after service of the
transcript of a hearing as provided in
5 226.25, flle with the Regional Hearing
Clerk and serve upon all other parties
proposed findings of fact, conclusions
regarding material issues of law. fact or
discretion, a proposed order based sole-
ly upon the record, and a brief in sup-
port thereof, together with references to
relevant pages of the transcript and to
relevant exhibits. Within ten (10) days
thereafter each party may file a reply
brief concerning matters contained in
opposing briefs and containing alterna-
tive findings of fact, conclusions regard-
ing material issues of law. fact or dis-
cretion and proposed orders. Oral argu-
ment may be had at the discretion of the
Presiding Officer on motion of any party
or sua sponte.
I 226.27 Initial decision.
(a> Contents of initial decision. The
Presiding Officer shall, as soon as practi-
cable after the conclusion of the briefing
period, evaluate the r«*ord tff-r? !:!.T:
;u:.i p-spare a:;d file his initial decision
with the Regional Heartng Clerk. The
initial decision shall contain his findings
of fact, conclusions regarding all ma-
terial issues of law. fact or discretion as
well as reasons therefor, a recommended
civil penalty assessment Evaluation of proposed civil pen-
alty in proceedings for assessment of
civil penalty, in determining the dollar
amount of the recommended civil pen-
alty assessed in the Initial decision, the
Presiding Officer shall consider (1) the
gravity of the violation: (2) prior viola-
tions which have resulted In a final or-
der under this part. If any; and (3> the
60711
demonstrated good faith of the respond-
ent in attempting to achieve rapid com-
pliance after notification of a violation.
The Presiding Officer may at his discre-
tion increase or decrease the assessed
penalty from the amount proposed to be
assessed in the complaint.
Effect of initial decision. The ini-
tial decision of the presiding Officer shall
become the final order of the Regional
Administrator within thirty (30) days
after transmission thereof by the Re-
gional Hearing Clerk to the Regional
Administrator and without further pro-
ceedings unless (H an appeal to the Re-
gional Administrator is taken from it by
a party to the proceedings, or <2i the
Regional Administrator elects, sua
sponte, to review the initial decision.
Subpart E—Appeals and Administrative
Review
It'rloruiorj- order* or ruling-..
the order or ruling In-
volves an important question of law or
policy concerning which there are sub-
stantial grounds for difference of opin-
ion; and (2) either an immediate
appeal from the order and ruling will
materially advance the ultimate termi-
nation of the proceeding, or review
after the final order is issued will be in-
-.;t
(c- Decision. If the Regional Adminis-
trator determines that certification was
improvidently granted, or if he takes no
action within thirty <30t dayi of the
certification, the appeal shall bo deemed
dismissed. When the Presiding Officer
declines to certify an order or ruling of
the Regional Administrator on interlocu-
tory appeal, it may be reviewed by the
Regional Administrator only upon ap-
p?al fruit the initial decision, except
when the Regional Administrator deter-
mines, upon motion of a party and In
exceptional circumstances, that to delay
review would be deleterious to the public
interest. Such motion shall be made
within flvs <5t days of service of an
order of the Presiding Officer refusing to
certify a ruling for interlocutory appeal
to t!i? R?Efi?naI Administrator. Ordi-
narily, the interlocutory appeal will be
decided on the basis of the submissions
made by the Presiding Officer. The Re-
gional Administrator may. however,
allow further briefs and oral argument.
FfDERAL MOUTH, VOL. 41, NO. 221—MONDAY, NOVEMKE1 M, 1977
KDEXAi EEGlSTEft, VOL 42, NO. 128—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1977
-------
180712
' (d) Stay of proceedtnas. The Presiding
Officer may stay the proceedings pending
a decision by the Regional Administrator
upon an order or ruling certified by the
Presiding Officer for to Interlocutory ap-
peal, or upon the denial of such certifica-
tion by the Presiding Officer. Except In
extraordinary circumstances proceed-
ings will not be stayed. A stay of more
than thirty (30) days must be separately
approved by the Regional Administrator.
§ 2X6J9 Appeal from or review of Ini-
tial decition.
(a) Exceptions. (1) Within twenty
(20) days after service of the Presiding
Officer's Initial decision, any party may
take exception to any matter set forth In
such decision or to any adverse order or
ruling to which he objected during the
hearing and may appeal such exceptions
to the Regional Administrator. Appeal
shall be mads by filing exceptions In
writing with the Regional Hearing Clerk.
Such exceptions shall contain alternative
findings of fact, conclusions regarding
material Issues of law. fact or discretion
and a proposed order together with re-
ferences to the relevant pages of the
record and initial decision. A copy of
each such document taking exception to
tb6 Initial decision shall be served upon
every other party and each amtcus
•nlae. Within the same period of ttana
each party filing exceptions and each
arnicas curiae shaQ file with the Regional
Ttno^t^g Clerk ftr"1 gfraH servo upon aH
parties a brief concerning each of the
exceptions being appealed. Each such
brief shaU Include page references to the
relevant portions of the record and to
the Presiding Officer's Initial decision.
(2) Within ten (10) days of the service
of exceptions and briefs under paragraph
fa)(l) of this section, any other party
or amlcus curia* may die and serve a
reply brief responding to exceptions or
arguments raised by any party or amlcus
curiae, together with references to the
relevant portions of the record. Initial
decision, or opposing brief. Reply briefs
shall not, however, raise additional
exceptions.
Evaluation of civil penalty in pro-
ceedings for assessment of civil penalty,
The final order of the Regional Adminis-
trator shall consider the appropriateness
•f the penalty proposed to be assessed In
the consent agreement (f 226.18 Except as otherwise provided in con-
Junction with (i> motions made pursuant
to 5 226-31 or ! 228.33 or (11) petitions
seeking judicial review of a final order of
the Regional Administrator, payment of
the full amount of the civil penalty
assessed In the final order shall be made
within sixty (60) days of service upon
the respondent of the final order. Such
payment shall be made by forwarding to
the Regional Hearing Clerk a cashier's
check or certified check In the amount of
the penalty assessed hi such flpfll order.
Such check shall be payable to toe
United States of America.
(2) Failure to make timely payment
of the penalty a-wpaqd In the final order
shan result In lefeienee of the matter to
toe Attorney General, who shall recover
such amount by action In the appropriate
United States District Court pursuant to
Sections 105 (d) and of the Act.
Subpart G — Motion to Reconsider
6 226.31 Motion to reopen tiearina»i lo
rehear or rcarfroe proceedings; or to
reconsider a final order.
(a) Piling and service. A motion to
reopen a hearing to take further evi-
dence. to rehear or reargue any matter
related to such proceeding, or to recon-
sider any final order (Including remis-
sion or mitigation of any civil penalty
assessed) must be made by motion to the
Regional Administrator, In accordance
with 9226.15
-------
APPENDIX C
TOMS RIVER HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT
ON RELOCATING SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMP SITES
SEPTEMBER 22, 1977
-------
Public Hearing on Relocating Sewage Sludge
Ocean Dumping Sites
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hearing Officer's Report
Toms River, N. J.
May 31-June 1, 1977
Report of the Hearing Officer
A. Summary of Statements - . 1
Opening- Statement - t
Members of Congress 1
Other Elected Officials - 3
Environmental Protection Agency . . . . 3
Other Federal Agencies - . 5
State Agencies 6
County Agencies . . . . 8
City Agencies 9
Environmental Groups 10
Private Citizens . ." 11
B. Analysts of the Hearing Record ...... 14
1. .Introduction 14
2- Present Sewage Sludge Dumping Activity 15
3. Relationship Bet-ween. Sludge Dumping and. the 1975
Beach Damage and Fish Kills 13
4. Presenr and. Potential Impacts of Dumping at
Sri sting Sites ....."........."........ 23
NewTork. Bight Apex Site . 23
a_ Environmental Impacts 26
b. Other Impacts 23
Philadelphia Damp Site 31
a. Present and Potential Environmental
Impacts 33
b. Present and Potential Economic, Public
Health, and Social Impacts S3
5. Impacts of Relocating Sludge Dumping to Alternate
Sites 73
S0-T~iiie site 74
a. Environmental 74
b. Economic 74
c. Public Health and Social 72
September 22, 1977
-------
106-mile site
a. Environmental
b. Economic . . .
c. Public Health .
d. Social
Summary . .
60-mile site
106-mile site
6. Benefits of Relocating Sludge Damping to
Alternative Sites
60-mile site
. a. Environmental ,
b. Economic . . .
c. Public Health .
d. Social
106-mile site
a. Environmental
b. Economic . . .
c. Public Health .
d. Social
7. Need for an EIS on the Relocation of Sludge
Dumping Sites
8. Feasibility of Dumping off the Continental Shelf.
a. Environmental Acceptability
b. Surveillance of Dumping . . .
c. Economic Burden
d. Logistics
C. Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Conclusions and Recommendations
2. Recommendations
75
75
82
85
85
86
86
86
87
87
87
87
88
88
88
88
89
90
90
91
96
97
101
101
101
103
103
107
Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6-11
12
13
14
15
16
Existing and Alternate Dumpsites . . . . • 16
The New York Bight 24
Sources of Pollutants in the New York
Bight 25
Area Closed to Shellfishing in Vicinity of
Sewage Dump Site 29
Historical Stations - Intensive Grid EPA
Ocean Disposal Monitoring Program . . 34
Temporal Distribution of Metals in
Sediments - Phildelphia Dumpsite . . . 36-41
Temporal Distribution of TOC in
Sediments - Philadelphia Dumpsite
- Touchstone ... 46
Arctica Islandia - Apparent Recent
Mortality 57
Spatial Distribution of Crab Gill Fouling
- Touchstone . . .
59
- Hotspot . . . . .; 60
- Mogul 61
-------
Tables
1
Comparative Sediment Trace Metal
Data
42
Trace Metal Concentrations in Samples
Located in Waters 20-35 fm, from
Montauk Point. NY to Cape May,
New Jersey 43-44
PCB in Ocean Sediments (ppb) 47-48
Comparative Levels of PCB in Sediments
- Philadelphia 49
9
10
11
12
Trace Metal Concentrations in Clams . . 50
Trace Metal Concentrations in Scallop
Tissue - Philadelphia Site 51
Trace Metal Concentrations in Organisms -
60-mile site 52
Bacteriological Data - Operation
Hotspot
54
Bacteriological Data - Operation Mogul . 55-56
1975 Clam Landings by State 69
Seafood Landings in Delaware. 1976 ... 70
U. S. Landings and Value of Clams by Major
Species 1965-1975 71
A. Summary of Statements
Opening Statement
Dr. Breidenbach opened the hearing, pointing out that the
purpose of this hearing was to consider the desirability of relo-
cating the dumping of municipal sewage sludge to sites other than
those presently used. This hearing was solely for that purpose
and did not deal with individual dumping permits or the implemen-
tation of land-based alternatives by present municipal dumpers.
Members of Congress
All statements by Members of Congress urged EPA to stop ocean
dumping of sewage sludge as rapidly as possible.
Representative Edwin Forsythe (N. J.), in whose House District
the hearing was held, objected to any move of the dumpsite. His
position was that there was no evidence of any beach or shellfish .
damage due to sludge dumping, that the cost of moving sludge dump-
ing to new sites would be high, would not result in any environmental
benefits, and might be environmentally detrimental.
Representative James J. Howard (N. J. ), strongly supported mov-
ing New York area sludge dumping to the 106-mile site. His position
was that dumping at the present site is a hazard to human and marine
life and that continued dumping could only lead to further fishkills;
he also stated sludge dumping was the single largest source of nutri-
ents to the Bight. Mr. Howard was asked by the Panel to submit
supporting data for the record, but none has been received.
-------
Representative William Hughes (N. J.). asked that EPA dis-
approve dumping at any site which has not been contaminated. He
stated that moving sludge dumping from the present New York Bight
site would have little beneficial effects on the Bight, moving to the
60-mile site would contaminate a new area, and there are many
unknowns regarding the 106-mile site. Mr. Hughes urged that there
be close, continuing monitoring of the New York Bight area and
that EPA prepare an EIS on the 106-mile site as a basis for further
action.
Representative Robert Bauman (Md.) stated that dumping should
be in an area in which dumping would have minimal environmental
impact,-andthat the Philadelphia site does not meet that test. He
regards the closing of the site to shellfishing as showing that the
effects of the dumping are not temporary or reduced to acceptable
levels before reaching a fishing area. He favors the 106-mile site
because it is deeper, larger, and farther from shore.
Representative Thomas Evans (Del.) regarded the Philadelphia
site as being dangerously close to beaches and wetland areas and
wants the site move farther from shore.
Senators Paul Sarbanes and Charles Matthias urged that the
dumping of sludge at the Philadelphia site be stopped, and that
Philadelphia be moved to the 106-mile site. They cite the environ-
mental degradation of the site which resulted in closing of the site
to shellfishing as the reason.
Representative John Wydler (NY) stated that the main criterion
for moving the site must be the health and well being of our citizens.
His Information indicates the chance of debris closing the beaches
is increasing daily, and the dumpsites should be moved; he favors
the 106-mile site.
Other Elected Officials
Mr. Warren Wolf, Ocean County Freeholder stated that the sludtre
dumping site should be moved from the New York Bight to the 106-
mile site because of the threat to the beaches.
Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Peter Anderson presented a statement on behalf of Region n
in which he reviewed the history of sewage sludge dumping at the
present site and the efforts made by Region n to phase out ocean
dumping of sewage sludge as rapidly as feasible. Recognizing that
upgrading of sewage treatment in the New York Metropolitan Area
would result in increased volumes of sludge which would have to be
ocean dumped during the interim period until land-based alternatives
could be implemented. Region n asked NOAA to designate some areas
for study as potential alternate sludge dumping sites. This was done
in 1974; and Region n, in cooperation with NOAA, began the studies
necessary for preparation of an EIS on the alternate sites and on
the present site.
-------
The major conclusion of the Draft EIS, which was released
in February, 1976, was that relocating sludge dumping to one of
the alternate sites was unnecessary and might be even more
environmentally damaging than taking no action whatsoever.
However, moving to the 106-mile site was not considered in the
draft EIS. Region II found that continued use of the existing site
posed no present or predicted threat to public health and that water
quality at the existing site would not improve if sludge dumping
were moved elsewhere because pollution from other sources would
continue. The Region also recommended an expanded monitoring
program for the present site and designation of an alternate dump
site that could be used if necessary to accommodate increased volumes
of sludge. These recommendations were endorsed by the vast majority
of the Federal, State, and local agencies who commented on the EIS.
The extensive fish fc-m off the coast of New Jersey and the washup
of "floatables" on Long Island beaches in 1976 were invesgated by
Region II in cooperation with other agencies. After intensive investi-
gation and review of the pertinent information a consensus was reached
that sludge dampingwas nothing more than a minor contributing factor.
Moving the sludge dumping site would not prevent a recurrence of such
incidents in the future.
Mr. George Pence presented a statement for Region in which
summarized the history of sludge dumping by Philadelphia and
— "-^ -
Camden and described the field survey program conducted by
Region m at the Philadelphia dump site. A voluminous amount
of data was submitted for the record. The overall conclusion
reached by Region m based on these data was that the observations
indicate a transition away from an ecologically healthy environment
towards a polluted environment. The Region regards their data as
adequate to place this dump site in Impact Category I according to
EPA ocean dumping regulations, which would require termination of
dumping at the site as soon as feasible. They also regard the clo-
sure of the site to shellfishing as being sufficient to place the site
in Impact Category I.
Other Federal Agencies
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
presented four statements. Dr. Donald Martineau presented the
overall NOAA position which was that moving the present sludge
dumping in the New York Bight would have no beneficial effects
and would not prevent a recurrence of the beach damage and
fishkill incidents of 1976. NOAA feels that dumping of sewage sludge
at the 106-mile site should be allowed only if it can be demonstrated
that the adverse effects of dumping at the 106-mile site are less than
at present sites.
Dr. Joel O'Connor presented information on the beach damage
to Long Island in 1976 and concluded that sewage sludge dumping .
was a relatively minor factor in the washing up of floatables on the
beaches. A NOAA report on the incident was entered into the record.
-------
Dr. John Fearce presented a statement concerning the anoxic
conditions in the New York Bight during 1976 and the resulting fish
kill. Several reports on the subject were entered for the record.
He concluded that sludge dumping was not a major factor in the
development of the anoxic condition.
Dr. Merton Ingham summarized the work NOAA has done on the
106-mile dump site. The NOAA cruises up to the present have dealt
strictly with liquid industrial wastes dumped at the site, not with
sewage sludge. Studies on sewage sludge at this site will begin this
summer.
Commander Mullen presented a statement in behalf of the Third
U. S. Coast Guard District. He pointed out the difficulties of sur-
'veiUance at both the 60-mile and 106-mile sites from the Coast
Guard viewpoint. Use of these sites, particularly the 106-mile site,
would require a large increase in the number of shipriders and that
surveillance of dumping would not be as effective as at present until
new shipriders could be acquired. They would anticipate monitor-
ing only 10 percent of the sewage sludge dumps. The implementa-
tion of the .new Ocean Dumping Surveillance System would mitigate
this problem.
State Agencies
Dr. Glenn Paulson presented a statement for the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The NJDEP
favors a gradual move to the 106-mile site after a careful analysis,
including an EIS, demonstrates that the use of this site is the most
satisfactory alternative location for sludge dumping. The NJDEP
regards sludge dumping as one of the contributing factors to the
fish kill, and moving dumping offshore will reduce the risk of a
recurrence of the problem. Such a move should be non-discri-
minatory, i.e.. it should involve all dumpers. A shift to the 60-
mile site would do no good since it is still in the impact area of the
1976 algae bloom.
Ms. Sandra Ayres presented a statement for the New Jersey
Public Advocate's Office. The statement charged that EPA's
mandate requires that the 106-mile site be designated for any
necessary ocean disposal of sludge since the Act says that "off-
the-shelf" sites shall be utilized where feasible. The fish kill in
1976 was attributed to sludge dumping and the environmental benefits
of dumping at the 106-mile site were stated. The statement did not
reference any supporting documentation for the statements made,
and Ms. Ayres agreed to supply supporting documentation. None
was received.
Mr. Warren Rich presented a statement in behalf of the State
of Maryland'Attorney General's Office. The statement charged
EPA with not complying with the Act in designating the Philadelphia
dump site. Damage to the site from sludge dumping was listed,
• I .;-
and a move to the 106-mile site was recommended. A number of
statements concerning conditions at the 106-mile site and the
-------
8
economic feasibility of using the site were made. Mr. Rich agreed
to supply supporting documentation for the record, but none was
received.
Mr. John Doyle, a member of the General Assembly of the State
of New Jersey, expressed concern about what impact sludge dumping
at the 12-mile site might have on the tourist industry because of public
reaction to sludge dumping so close to shore, and he recommended
moving to the 106-mile site because of this.
County Agencies
Mr. Seymour Lubetkin presented a statement in behalf of the Passaic
Valley Sewage Commissioners. The statement pointed out that the ocean
dumping of sewage sludge is an emotional issue in which the scientific
aspects are frequently lost in emotional reaction. He stated that ocean
dumping of sewage sludge may not have adverse effects if properly done
since sewage sludge is primarily a natural material. He objected to mov-
ing to the 106-mile site on the basis that the enivornmental impacts are
unknown and the environmental benefits of moving to the 106-mile site,
if any, would not be great enough to offset the economic costs.
Mr. Sol Seid presented a statement in behalf of the Middlesex County
Sewerage Authority. The statement objected to moving sludge dumping
to the 106-mile site on the basis that it would not be cost effective and
that the environmental tradeoffs had not been adequately weighed. The
Authority is moving toward land-based alternatives by 1981 and the
additional cost of barging would be an unreasonable burden.
Mr. Francis Padar presented a statement in behalf of the
Nassau County Commissioner of Health. The statement recom-
mended retention of the present sludge dumping site conditional upon
the implementation of an adequate monitoring program to detect
movement of sludge from the site, and the designation of an alter-
nate site to be used as needed.
Ms. Leslie Bennett presented a statement in behalf of the Ocean
County Planning Board. The statement recommended that sludge
dumping be moved to the 106-mile site. The recommendation was
made on the presumption that sludge dumping was a contributing
factor to the 1976 algae bloom.
City Agencies
Mr. Charles Samowitz presented a statement in behalf of the
City of New York. The statement objected to any move from the
present site on the basis that the cost would not be balanced
by any environmental benefits, based on studies by NOAA and
others. The increase in cost would be about 30 million dollars
per year to go to the 106-mile site.
Mr. Carmen Guarino presented a statement for the City of
Philadelphia. The statement concluded that a move to the 106-mile
site would cost Philadelphia an additional 5 million dollars between
now and 1981, when ocean dumping is to be stopped, and that this
cost might divert funds needed to implement alternatives. The
-------
10
analysis of EPA data by Philadelphia indicates there is no dis-
cernible environmental benefit to be achieved by moving the site.
The statement concludes that the EPA studies indicate there are no
unusual buildups either in sediment or animal or fish life, and
studies of sites now discontinued show that any discernible damage
is temporary and is dissipated after dumping is discontinued. It was
also stated that there has been no damage to the Maryland or Delaware
shore, no decline in tourism, and no loss to the fishir./? industry.
Mr. Guarino was asked to submit additional information for the record
to support his statements, and additional information was received.
Environmental Groups
Mr. Ken Kainlet presented a statement for the National Wildlife
Federation. The statement presented a detailed analysis of the advan-
tages and disadvantages of relocating the sludge dumping sites. As
a result of his analysis, Mr. Kamlet reached these conclusions:
(1) Neither sludge dumpsite should be relocated at the present
time.
(2) Existing phase-out schedules and deadlines should be strictly
enforced.
(3) An EIS should be prepared which fully addresses the circum-
stances under which relocation to both the 60-mile site and the
106-mile site would be justified.
11
(4) Monitoring and survey work should continue and be
intensified.
(5) Efforts to reduce the hazard potential of ocean dumped
sludge should be given a high priority.
(6) EPA should take steps to insure that sludge dumping can be
relocated rapidly if it becomes necessary.
(7) EPA should move expeditiousiy to remove other sources of
pollution to the N«w York Bight.
Mr. Lee Ward of the American Littoral Society presented a film
on the fish kills of 1976 and recommended moving sludge dumping to
the 106-mile site.
Mr. Eugene Geer, also of -.he American Littoral Society, described
his experiences SCUBA diving after the 1976 fish kiH. He attributed
the fish !f
-------
12
Mr. Joseph Bogan of the United Boatmen's Association supported
•
moving sludge dumping to the 106-mile site. He described the fish
Mil of 1976 and said that he thought sludge dumping had something to do
with tt.
Mr. Pete Meyer described the appearance of the ocean bottom near
the New Jersey shore and said it looked similar to how it looted just
before the fish kill in 1976.
Mr. Paul Mulshine supported moving sludge dumping to the 106 -mile
site because it would be more expensive for the dumpers.
Captain John Larsen made a statement in behalf of the Eastern
Diving Boat Association. He stated that sludge dumping was damaging
the ocean and recommended moving sludge dumping out to sea.
Mr. Swede Lovgren made a statement in behalf of the National Sea
Clammers Association. He-stated that sludge dumping was a factor in
the fish kill and that the MTI devastated the clamming business. He
recommended moving sludge dumping to the 106-mile site.
Mr. Lou Panetta stated that until sludge dumping could be stopped
f
it should be moved to the 106-mile site. He felt that sludge dumping
was a major factor in the 1976 fish kill.
Dr. Carol Litchfield of Rutgers University spoke as a professional
marine microbiolbgist on the question of how rapidly wastes dumped
at the 106-mile site might decompose. Based on research done on
decomposition of organic materials under different marine environ-
mental conditions, she concluded that rates of decomposition of
13
organic material at the 106-mile site would be decreased signifi-
cantly at the depths and temperatures existing at that site, and that
conditions at that site might actually enhance the T.rvival of pathogens
in sewage sludge. Her conclusion was that there might be greater
accumulation of dumped organic materials at the 106-mile site than
at shallower sites on the Continental Shelf.
-------
14
B. Analysis of the Hearing Record
1. Introduction
Daring the two days of this hearing, many opinions were
expressed, and a voluminous amount of data was presented for
the record. The purpose of the hearing, as expressed in the
Hearing Officer's opening statement, was to solicit data and
information to assist EPA in making a determination as to
whether or not sewage sludge dumping should be relocated from
the present sites to more desirable locations.
Nearly all statements expressed the desire to end ocean dump-
ing of sewage sludge as soon as possible, and the majority of the
statements deal with the expressed purpose of the hearing, either
by merely voicing an opinion on whether or not sludge dumping
should be relocated, or by presenting documentation to support
a specific recommendation.
Analysis of these statements shows that the major areas of
concern in regard to relocating the sludge dumping sites are
the following:
(a) Whether or not sludge dumping at the present New York
Bight site was the cause of or a major factor in the beach
damage and fish Mils in the New York Bight during 1976.
(b) The nature and extent of present and potential impacts
of sludge dumping at the present sites.
15
(c) The benefits that would ensue from cessation of dumping
at the present sites.
(d) The adverse impacts of dumping on new sites.
(e) The balance between the cost of using more distant sites
and the benefits that would result.
(f) The need for an EIS to support any relocation of sludge
dumping sites.
(g) The statutory requirement that sites off the Continental
Shelf shall be utilized where feasible.
The succeeding sections of this report address each of these
issues.
2. Present Sewage Sludge Dumping Activity
Since 1924 communities in the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan
Area have been dumping sewage sludge at a site approximately.il
nautical miles offshore in the New York Bight Apex (Figure 1).
Between 1960 (the year in which accurate records had begun to be
kept) and 1973 the volume of the sludge dumped annually at the site
fluctuated between 4.4 million wet toas and 6. 3 mm inn wet tons.
Since the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (here-
after, "the Act") became effective, there has been an increase of
from 4. 2 million wet tons to 4. 4 million wet tons with the projected
volume for 1977 estimated at 4. 6 million wet tons. This volume
is expected to reach 15 million wet tons annually by 1981. (S. 6,
p. 4-6; H. R. p. 51-52.)
-------
16
76-00'
1
Existing and Alternate Dumpsltea
IT
In the early 1960'3 the City of Philadelphia began dumping a
portion of .the sludge generated at its three sewage treatment plants
at an ocean site located approximately 12 miles off the mouth of the
Delaware Bay. In 1966. when its sludge incineration facility became
inoperative, the City of Camden. New Jersey, also began dumping
its sludge at the same site. In 1973, when the Act became effective,
both dumpers were moved to a site 40 miles off the coast due east
of the Maryland-Delaware border. In March, 1977, Camden was
moved to the 106-mile site until its ocean dumping is phased out
in late 1977 (S. 7, p. 1-3; H. R. 84, 85. 89). Philadelphia is pre-
sently dumping over 70. 000 tons of sludge annually at this site, and
these volumes will decrease annually until phase out. The projected
volumes to be dumped are (HR, 490, 301):
6/77-6/78 47, 500 Tons
6/78 - 6/79 35,000 Tons
6/79-6/80 20,000 Tons
6/80 - 1/81 5,000 Tons.
Summary:
Dumping of sewage sludge at the New York Bight Apex site has
been done since 1924 by communities in the New York Metropolitan
Area. Between 1960 and now volumes have fluctuated between 4. 2 and
6. 3 million wet tons. This volume is expected to reach 15 million
wet tons by 1981. Philadelphia is currently dumping over 70, 000
wet tons of sludge annually at the 40-mile site, and this will
gradually decrease to zero by 1981.
-------
18
3. Relationship Between Sludge Dumping and the 1976 Beach
Damage and Fish Kills
The record contains a large amount of data and testimony
concerning both of these incidents. The scientific data available
on these incidents has been analyzed and the results presented in
several reports which were submitted for the record (Z-5-6-1,
E-5-6-m, E-5-6-n). In addition, detailed statements on the
incidents were presented by Dr. Martineau. Dr. Pearce, and
Dr. O'Connor of NOAA (HR, 121-148, 151-179). The state-
ment of Mr. Anderson of EPA Region U summarizes the studies
made in investigating these incidents and the results of these
investigations;
"Several studies were conducted on the fish ^m — so many
that a steering committee, composed of EPA. NOAA, the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the American
Littoral Society, and the academic community, was formed to
coordinate them. Not one of the studies found that sludge dump-
ing was anything more than a minor contributing factor.
"The consensus of opinion is that the 1976 fish km was
basically a natural phenomenon brought on by atypical atmospheric
and hydrographic conditions in the New York Bight. The root cause
of the fish irfTi was the unusually warm weather early last spring
that prematurely raised the surface water temperature of the Bight.
Deeper waters can receive orygen only by mixing with the upper
waters, which are in contact with the air. In 1976, the difference
in temperature between the upper and lower waters became so strong
19
so early in the year that the colder, denser bottom waters could not
mi-r with the warmer, lighter surface waters, and therefore could
not receive oxygen from them. Without sufficient oxygen, the
bottom-dwelling fish and shellfish in the Bight could not survive.
. "To be sure, the pollutants in the Bight waters aggravated the
problem by providing nutrients, mainly phosphorus, which allowed
a massive algal bloom. The algae, which are tiny aquatic plants,
eventually died and used up more oxygen as they decomposed. But
sewage sludge is not among the major sources of plant nutrients;
indeed this is why it has little inherent value as a fertilizer. All
of the major nutrients and trace elements must be added to sludge
to make it comparable to commerical fertilizers.
"Weather conditions are uncontrollable: another fish >
-------
in studying the washups. and on June 17, representative.:. " • -.
than 20 Federal. State, and local Agencies met to discus;' u.
problem.'. They confirmed the present of floatables on the '.- .••
but concluded, contrary to several press reports, that then. ....
no evidence of fecal matter on the beaches.
"The materials found during the first incident in May were
grease/tar balls, which are generally a mixture of oil and greaa
from petroleum and kitchen oil sources combined with other float-
able organic matter and plastics. The materials found during the
incidents in mid-to-late June were grease/tar balls, plastics,
rubber, charred wood, and general trash — such as cigarette and
cigar tips, paper, bread wrappers, soda cans, and vegetable wastes.
These materials are called floatables for the simple reason that
they will float.
"The major sources of the floatables were raw sewage dis-
charges, inadequately treated wastewater discharges, combined
sewer overflows, urban runoff, and solid waste barging operations
in New York harbor. Minor contributions were made by discharges
from vessels in the area, ocean dumping of sludge and dredged
materials, sanitary landfill operations, and beach litter. These
floatable materials, which are always present to some extent in
the New York Bight, were propelled onto Long Island's beaches
by relatively strong and persistent winds from the southwest. "
Dr. Paulson, of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, disagreed with this overall conclusion in that he felt
that sludge dumping was one of the inter-related, indirect causes
of the fish kill. (HR, p. 205) He admitted, however, that the algae
bloom leading to the fish inn would probably have occurred without
the sludge dumping (HR. p. 206).
Some Members of Congress and the public did not agree with
the conclusions reached from the scientific evidence. Representa-
tive Howard stated:
"The degree to which the sludge dump site was responsible
for the fish kill has been debated extensively, but the members
of our Coalition concurred that it is the single largest source
of plant nutrients which fed the algae which in turn was a
cause of the oxygen depletion and the fish kill. " (HR, p. 22-23)
The Coalition consists of 18 men and women, including clammers,
lobstermen, divers, party boat captains, and other commercial
fishermen. (HR, p. 22)
There were several statements by divers and party boat captains
which described conditions they observed in the offshore areas during
this year and last year. A green slime (apparently some type of
algae), garbage, and human feces were observed. (HR, p. 325-344,
540-583)
-------
22
Conclusion:
The scientific evidence la clear that sludge dumping was not
a significant factor In the beach damage . ihe scientific evidence
and its interpretation Is cloudy regarding the degree to which sludge
damping was a factor in the Hah MUa of 1978. The scientists agreed
it had some impact; the signicance is debated. Cessation of sludge
damping at the 11-mile site would not lessen the probability of a
recurrence of similar incidents. The pollutants and other materials
observed under water by divers are those which would be associated
with raw sewage and garbage discharges rather than with sewage
sludge dumping.
23
4. Present and Potential Impacts of Dumping at Existing Sites
New York Bight Apex Site
The record contains reports summarizing the data from which
an assessment can be made of the present conditions at each of the
existing sledge dumping sites. For the New York Bight site much
of the data comes from the work of the NOAA/MESA project as well
as of EPA and other groups and has been summarized in the SIS pre-
pared by EPA Region H on sludge dumping in the New York Bight
(E-S-S-r). Since this EIS includes in its supporting material all of
the reports in this hearing record which deal with the impacts of sludge
dumping at the present New York Bight sludge dumping site, the EIS
will be used as the primary reference in this discussion.
The New York Bight Apex covers an area of about S84 sq. n.
mi. extending from Atlantic Beach, N.Y., to Manasquan, N.J., and
generally includes that area directly impacted by land and river
runoff from New York Metropolitan area, as well as that directly
impacted by barging of sewage sludge and dredged material from
this area (Figure 2. (EIS 23, 34). Reliable estimates of the sources
of pollution entering the New York Bight Apex show that sludge dump-
ing accounts for only about 5-6 percent of the total contamination of
the Apex. These estimates consider such parameters as suspended
solids, carbonaceous material, heavy metals, nitrogen and phosphorus,
and microbial contamination (EIS, 35-36), and do not appear to be
controversial (Figure 3).
-------
THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Figure 2
25
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
NITROGEN
ORGANIC CARBON
PHOSPHORUS
SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS IN THE
-NEW YORK BIGHT
Figure 3
CHROMIUM
SOURCE: ~*-5-6-r
-------
26
• Because sludge dumping is such a small contributing factor
to the degree of pollution of the Apex, it is difficult to quantify
the impart of sludge dumping alone. The data available on con-
ditions in the Apex have been analyzed and reviewed by numer-
ous agencies and scientists of wide disciplinary range, so it is
unlikely that an additional independent review would be useful
atthia time.
a. Environmental Impacts
On the basis of two comprehensive reports by NOAA/MESA
(March 1975, February 1976) there seems to be no significant
accumulation of sewage sludge at the existing dumpsite, although
some sludge particles may be mixing with natural fine sedi-
-------
23
but that a comprehensive monitoring program should be imple-
mented to guard against future danger. The results of this
monitoring program would be used to assess the probability of
damage, and dumpers would be moved to another site if necessary
to protect public health or welfare (EIS. 2. 63).
b. Other Impacts
The major economic and public health impacts (of sluldge
dmnping at the present site) are the possible contamination of
shellfish by pathogens in sewage sludge and the possible con-
tamination of the beaches and shorelines from the same sources.
In an effort to present harvesting of contaminated shellfish, the
Food and Drug Administration has closed an area surrounding the
dumping site and also closed much of the Bight Apex near the
shore (Figure 3). (EIS, 42; S-42, 4). It is noted, however, that
municipal wastewater discharges appear to be the major source
of microbial contamination (84 to 91 percent) in the Bight.
Barging is regarded as an insignificant source of fecal contamin-
ation in the New York Bight (EIS. 36). Thus, even if sludge
dumping at the existing site were stopped altogether, it is un-
likely that the area could be reopened to shellfish ing.
The catch of groundfish in the general area of the sludge
damping site seems to be reduced. (EIS. 63, 64). However,
*h<« entire area is heavily polluted by other sources of pollution,
and there is no evidence that cessation of sludge dumping at
this site would result in improvement in fin fisheries (EIS, 64;
HR. 54, 131).
11 KM
(6 N Ml)
SEWAGE SLUDGE
DUMP SITE
AREA CLOSED TO SHELL-FISHING IN VICINITY
OF SEWAGE DUMP SITE
SOURCE: FOA, 1973- (E-5-«-r>
KEY:
.CLOSED TO SHELLFISHING
|a%<5Ki 1972
Figure 4
-------
30
This situation could change, of course, if all other sources
of pollution of the present sludge dumping site were stopped.
While *h<9 may be feasible over a long period of time, it is
unlikely to .occur before 1981; therefore, it must be concluded
that continued sludge dumping at the present site would have
only minimal adverse impact of exploitation of fishery and
shellflshery resources.
The effect of sludge dumping on recreational use of the area,
particularly the beaches, is a matter of considerable economic
and public health concern. The EIS on sledge dumping in the
New York Bight discusses this problem in considerable detail
(EIS. Chapters II and IV). Dumping the present volumes of
sludge at the existing site has been shown to have no impact
on the beaches; there is, however, a serious question about
whether or not the existing site can accommodate the increased
volumes of sludge that must be dumped between now and 1981.
The intensified monitoring program proposed by EPA Region n
is intended to provide advance warning of any potential damage
so that appropriate steps can be taken.
In spite of the convincing scientific evidence to the contrary,
there appears to be some public opinion that sludge damping
was responsible for the 1976 beach closures and anoxic condi-
tions, as well as for most of the problems in the Bight Apex
(HR 221-222, 325-344, 584-593, 550-556). The responses to
the questions asked by the Panel indicate that the phenomena
31
observed by divers and fishermen are related to the general
problems associated with the discharge of raw sewage and
over-fertilization from a wide variety of nutrient sources
Including from sludge dumping.
The scientific data concerning the impacts of sludge dumping
at the New York Bight site have been thoroughly reviewed by a
large number of individuals, agencies, and groups. 'There is
general agreement among the scientific community that the
impacts of sludge dumping are small compared to the impacts
of other sources of pollution, and that cessation of dumping at
the present site would result in no significant environmental,
economic, or public health benefits for the amounts presently
being dumped. There is, however, considerable doubt as to
whether or not the present site can accommodate the three-
fold increase in sludge dumping expected between now and 1981.
The monitoring program recommended by EPA Region H should,
however, provide advance warning of any adverse trend in time
to permit corrective action to be taken. __
Philadelphia Dump Site
In contrast to the situation in the New York Bight, the only
source of pollution of sewage origin at the Philadelphia dump
site (40 mile site) is the dumping of sewage sludge. In May,
1973, Philadelphia and Camden were moved from their dumping
site 12 miles off the Delaware Bay to the present site (HR, 85).
-------
32
Simultaneously with this action EPA Region HI began a series
of oceanographic cruises to assess the impacts of dumping at the
new site. Since May 1973, thirteen cruises have been completed,
and the data have been analyzed and presented in a series of tech-
nical reports published by EPA Region m and at public hearings
(HR, 91-93). A statement was presented by the State of Maryland
(HR 382-392) regarding impacts at the Philadelphia dump site, in
which a list of specific impacts was given. No data were submitted
for the record to support these conclusions, nor were references
supplied for documentation. The assessment of impacts at this
site will, therefore, rely on the EPA Region m cruises which com-
prise the largest and most comprehensive body of data collected
on this particular site.
The interpretation of these data by EPA Region m has been
challenged by the City of Philadelphia on numerous occasions,
including the present hearing (HR, 495-497. 502, 512-517). The
City of Philadelphia presented additional information for the record
(E-16-26) in rebuttal of some statements made by EPA Region HI
concerning conditions at the dumpsite (HR, 93-99). The Philadelphia
submission did not contain new data, but confined itartr-to. challeng-
ing the interpretation of the EPA data. Because of the importance
of these data to the question of whether or not sewage sludge dumping
at this site should be discontinued, considerable effort was devoted
to examining the docnmentation~supplied for the record in an attempt
to resolve the disagreements.
33
Insofar as it was possible to reach a conclusion, the results
are presented in the following section on environmental impacts
at the site. There is, however, an important factor to be consi-
dered in dealing with these data and reports.
There is no evidence in the data of any massive impact at or
near the dumpsite, such as clearly apparent trends in metal
accumulation in sediments, high mortalities in indigenous
organisms, or a blanket of sludge on the bottom. The data
evaluations are based on statistical manipulations designed to
detect subtle effects, and, as such, are subject to different
interpretation depending on the background and personal judg-
ment of the persons doing the interpretation. It should be noted
that the data and reports on the EPA Region in cruises were
reviewed prior to publication only by the investigators them-
selves; and, as far as can be ascertained from the record, only
by the City of Philadelphia after that time. It would assist EPA's
future use of these data and reports if an objective scientific re-
view by marine science experts were made.
a. Present and Potential Environmental Impacts
The area surveyed by Region m at one time covered an area
of 3, 200'square nautical miles, but has been more recently
monitored as a grid of stations covering about two-thirds of that
area (Figure 5) (HR, 94). Results from the monitoring cruises
(E-6-7-e, E-6-7-f, E-6-7-g, E-18-7) do not suggest that dumping
has affected areas outside the immediate vicinity of the dumpsite.
-------
•38
HISTORICAL STATIONS » INTENSIVE GRIQ-
; .0
EPA OCEAN DISPOSAL .MONITORING PROGRAM-
35
No evidence was presented for the record whiich suggests that
stodge dumping haa had any environmental impact on shorelines
or beaches.
Within the dnmpsite itself, and in adjacent areas, data from
13 cruises by EPA Region m are available as the base on which
to assess the degree of environmental impact. It should be noted
that not all of the data collected are presented in the reports
submitted for the record; only those that were regarded by the
Region as of particular significance were reported (E-18-7, p. 3).
The sampling program was designed with emphasis on the longer
term, more persistent effects, especially on the benthic environ-
ment, as contrasted to the more transient effects in the water
column (E-18-7, p. 1).
While there is no evidence of other than transient effects on
the water column, the results of the benthic sampling program
do suggest that there may be some indications of impact detectable
by sophisticated statistical analytical techniques even though not
apparent from a gross examination of the data. Based on the results
of these cruises by EPA Region m. the following conclusions can
be drawn.
(1) There is ao apparent accumulation of trace metals in sedi-
ments at or near the dumpsite, based on temporal trends from
1973 to 1977 (Figures 6-11) (E-18-7. p. 45-56, 124-127). The
ranges of values observed fall within the ranges normally found
in clean areas of the North Atlantic Continental Shelf (Tables 1.
2) (E-16-26. p. 1-2; E-5-6-J. p. 104-110; E-5-6-r, p. 110).
-------
6000
5000
sin®
3000
2000
1000
(10,750)
Wm DISTRIBUTION OF IRON IN SEDHENTS
MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION AM) RANGE
6,0
5,0
s 3.0
2.0
1.0
T
I (16)
TETCRAL DISTRIBUTION OF NIQa IN SEDI^EM^S
MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION AND RANGE
col
-------
6,0
5,0
£4,o
:g3.0
2,0
1.0
I
(11)
TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF aiROIIUI IN
MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION AND RANGE
T
(9)
.A
\ M X
^ «M y
N»lfly
_L
CO.
00
5/73 11/73 3/74 8/74 2/75 6/75
12/75
8/76 —- 2/77
15
£lO
N
02)
THWRAL DISTRIBUTION OF ZINC IN SEDIMENTS
MEAN, STANEW^D DEVIATION AND RANGE
T
-------
6,0
5,0
4.0
3,0
2,0
1.0
(8)
(11)
(8,76)
/ i \
(13,12)
BTORAL DISTRIBUTION OF LEAD
MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION AND RANGE
"^ (10,28)
v
\
5/73 11/73 3/74 8/74 3/75 6/75
13/75
8/76 E/77 •
, -O
3,0
2,0
(12)
(1,25)
\
. \
,Qi
(17,25)
T0TORAL DISIRIBUnW OF COPPER IN SEDIMENTS
MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION AND RANGE
1.0
.XIX
_i Hi
-------
I
(a
s^
cn
1-1
H
>
J
•rt
M
r-l
)
•rl
•O
ca
01
4'
g
X
o
u
e
i
a
K
J
8
P
«r4
ca
0
01
8
01
M
eg
a)
oi
Location
O iO
l-l
O f.
CN
S 3
in CM
8 3
r-l CM
r-t
•
O O>
m o
r-l
1 1
I 1
1 1
S Ul
o\ oilcn
r-l r»
- T3 rH
eg o
co E •
O rl 1-4
M ca a
o u
ca
4J
ca
i-4
u
r*» T4
r-l CO
E -0.
0 E
W 3
U-l O
0) 0)
oa oo
• TJ- -0 •
9 9
i-l r-4
en en
CJ fl*
oo eo
id ca
en. cn
ca
r-l
cn
CM
r-l
.
en
XO
i
i
i
ul
olcn
r-
1^.
1 afca
0
c
Sedime
u
00
a
o
01
z
1
ca
cn
•er cs 1-4 r*. o co
OS rl • •* _JJ
CM CM
OO CO 00 rH r-4 CM
V
-
m
ON O l~ • O !•
m. r-i cn i- r* a\
*^ ™
00
CM CM in r-i cn —_
^ r-l' CO t»*
V
.
m •*
at m •* m o •»
CM cn cn
m r-l en CM cn
CM 0 r-4 0 CM r-4
V v
vO
. o
-' *u 5
• . 1 pill tf
^J 1 r^ ••*
QJ 1 O O^ ' O
r-4 -# a ' £
r-4 r> 0 • f->
0)0» Or-l >«
•a r-i cd col a
S > C6
1 s
2 • *rl
CO
"a <-•
" ' n
01 u ex o) CO
> -H ca oi 0 cu "
C cn •»* w x CB
" = ""
§ 1 1 0 1 1 1 r^ W
X < "5
m cn
CM
in o
CM
0 0
oo en
CM
CM I*.
CM
1 1
1 1
1 1
a
ca
a
ca
a
Deepv/ater ("106")
Area
Stations A1-A6
Test Stations
(on shelf)
42
0)
6
a
I
a
C
a
a
•o
u
Ml
10
u
u
ca
oi
3
e
a
•o
c
a
O
43
Table 2
Table 2. ftlixM metal eontsentra tiara in taarplee located in uaterf
3O-JS ft, from Mantaik faint, SI to Cape May. SJ.
Station
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
61
62
•03
65
.
61
62
63
64
65
•
.
61
62
63
64
65 -
61
62
63
64
65
Cd
41 ifl
41 .O
41.0
«I.O
41.0
41 .0
41.0
41.0'
41.0
41.0
41.0
4l.O
41.0
41 .0
41.0
41 .0
41.0
41.0 '
41 .0
41.0
41.0
41.0
4t.O
41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0 .
41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
4l.O
41.0
41.0
41.0
4t.O
41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
at .
4.6
44.0
5.2
5.6
4.0
.44.0
44.0
44.0
4.0
44.0
5.6
5.6
8.0
44.0
4.6
S.O
6.0
4.0
5.2
4.0 '
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0 .
44.0
44.0 .
44.0 '
4.2 '
44.0
44.0 '
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
4.2
5.2
5.6
44.0
44.0
4.2
44.0
44.0
Cu
44.0
44.0
3-8
4.8
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0 .
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
H!
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
45.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
4.4
5.2
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
.».
4.0
46.0
10.0
14.0
4.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
6.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0 '
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
46.0
in
12.0
7.8
13.8
15.2
10.8
4.0
5-4
4.4
8.2
10.2
9.0
8.8
19.2
9.6
11.4
10.6
12.8
10.6
10.6
9.4
7.8
6.6
6.8
2.8
.3.6
3.2
.2-0
8.4
9.2
7.8
7.8
7.4
6.4
11.6
6.6
4.2
6.2
8.4
6.6
7.4
9.2
15.4
11.0
12.2
8.6
8.8
SOURCE: 5-6-J
. c
u -
a z
-------
44
Static
TabU 2. CoKttiaitd
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Zn
31
32
33
3*
15
It
17
38
to
tt
t2
t3
ti-
ts
tt
t7
ta
t9
SO
51
51
53
st
55
St
57
58
59
to
••
61
02
83
et
85
61
62 .
83
8t
65
61
62
ct.O
•cl.O
cl.O
-------
., ...1.. •-- • • — • '• —
"%™. ^7 -"•*••* F««-« ^— , 1
/
/
i
i,
*
S i WmnmtSSBBR — 1
1 ;
II __l^np_i -
8 5" i
gi
P. \ •
\
HfflteaH
S-5 ^ ^ **
S "'"""'
• "^jggi^gp^pLaimmjigytjStfffl^^
*ta
nj
IO
CO
m
fM
in
s
«n
X
04
•^>
V,
co
•*
r—
n
m
r~
^
o
r-
in
i* *JD 6a/6m 'NOffiWD aiNVWO -Mini
• SOUK2: E-l
Station
1
2
5
8
11
14
17
E
A
C
19
24
26
33
M-.3
M- 5"
M- 7
M-12
M-14
C-12
F
C- 1
30
0- 1
\ — T7-
| G-52
1 S-53
!j 0
! ! 201
ii 215
;j 222
'• \ 223
•! 32
219
; 224
226
228
i Composl te
'1
47 " .
*~7 TABU--3-
PCB (AROCHLOR 1242 and 1254] IN OCEAN SEDIMENTS tppb)
Mldwatch Dragnet Touchstone HotsDot
2'7S 6-^5 12-75 ' -g^S —
12§i 1254 1254 1254
2.52 '
1.39 .
0.68 20.5,15.4,13.6
2.19
29.2.14.8. 5.6
2.67
11. 1,14.1, 16.0
2.08 •
1.95
•1.38
1.88
0.59
0.85
1.20 . '
1.56 21.6.17.0,20.2
1.53
2.25
3.33
3.58
23.2
15.2,22.6
2.4,13.7, 9.6
"3.8
3.2
1.8
1.6
0.7
102, 103, 104, 114, 115. 117 50 0
136, 144. 145, 146, 151. 152 80.0
Mogul
'.1254
11.1
8.6
31 0
21 2
20.0
25.4
13.3"
17.6
18.3
14.6
1 17.5-
-------
TABLE 3 (cant.)
PCS IN OCEAN SEDIMENTS Cppb)
Quicksilver
5-73
1242 1254
Station
1 26 12
2 3 .1
5 3 0.'9
8 3 0.8
11. 3 0.6
13 J 1
14 2 0.6
17 23 1*
E ' .
A
9
C
19
24
26
28
33
M-.3 '
M- 5
M- 7
Fetch Ides Deep Six
. TT7T 3^7T * 8-74
1242 1254 1242 1254 1242 1254
5.8 9.1
NO ND 33.0 28.7 <0.2 <0.2
1.4 2.T
. 0.5 • 0.4 <0.2 <0.2
' 1.9 3.1
2.5 ND <0.2 1.1
5.2 0.9
0.8 1.7 <0.2 1.7
0.3 3.5 •
S.b I./ 4.6 4.3
6.1 5.0 1.9 4.7 <0.2 1.4
6.5 4.8
49.0/86.0 172.4/560
14.3 11.0 <0.2 1.0
-
x*
TABLE. 4
COMPARATIVE LEVELS OF POLYCKLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN SEDIMENTS
Location
Hyperion Sludge •
Los Angeles, CA
Escambia Bay
Fensacola, FL
Garicon Point
Upstream, Escambia River
Escambia Bay and
Escambia River
Buzzards Bay, MA
Hudson Canyon (137M)
._ Hudson Canyon (2626M)
Hudson Canyon (3785M)
Hatteras Plain (5465M)
New York Bight — North
v Alternate Dumpsite
Mid-Atlantic Bight
Quicksilver (1973)
Fetch (1973)
Mogul (1977)
BCB (1254)
92.1 Ug/kgdw
98.5 Ug/kgdw
1.7 mg/kgdw
<0.03 tog/kgdw
486 mg/kgdw
L.4-61 mg/kgdw
500 Wg/kgdw
2.2 Pg/kgdw
1.7 Vg/kgdw
1.0 Vg/kgdw
0.3 Vg/kgdw
<1. 0-105 mg/kgd
U.W
0.6-14 Wg/kg^
0.4-9.1 ug/kg^
5.4-22.8*ug/kgdw
Reference
Schmidt et al. 1970
Duke et al. 1970
Duke et al,. 1970
Duke e_t al_. 1970
Nimmo et al. 1971
Harvey, unpublished
data as cited by
Duce et al. 1974
Raytheon 1976
Lear and Palmer, 1973
Lear et al. 1974
Unpublished. 19.77
* Total PCS (1242, 1254, 1262)
-------
~50
TABLB 5
TRACE METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN CLAMS
SURVEY
IDES
(Mar 1974)
DEEPSIX
(Aug 1974)
IDWATCH
(Feb 1975)
DRAGNET
(Jun 1975)
CADMIUM
2.22**
(1.48-4.01)***
2.15
(1.61-4.31)
2.82
(1.06-4109)
2.29
(1.41-3.60)
COPPER.
8.52
(6.64-11.30)
9.20
(13.23-4.47)
5.7L
(4.44-7.51)
7.32
(4.52-9.25)
NICKEL
8.74
(4.21-13.36)
8.42 -
(4.04-18.37)
10.66
(5.42-29.29)
8.01
(3.05-22.65)
. VANADIUM
10.63
(4.26-20.63)
2.56
(1.57-4.31)
2.47
(1.63-3.11)
2.09
(1.26-2.88)
* Note dryweight is approximately 10-15Z of wetweight.
** Mean of all stations (excluding values at the limit of detection)
*** Range
SOURCE: E-16-26
in
en
co
NO
i
vo
in
«M
in
m
CM GO-
* I
CM OS
. aa
vo
in
vo
oo
en »
f-l OO
0) S
X O
O X
U u
o. ^
o.
a a
* §
CO
Oi
S
.
o
H
00
w c so
H <0 C
O
-------
52
TABLE 7
TRACE METAL CONCENTBATIOHS
IK' SCALLOPS AND CLAMS - 60-mile site
METAL T ARCTtCA
CADMIUM1-0.38
SOUBCE: 16-26
S3
(4) Water and sediment samples at and near the dumpsite show-
no evidence of contamination by fecal conform bacteria (Tables 8, 9)
(E-18-7, p. 158-166); however, several clam specimens did have
detectable levels of fecal coliform bacteria in their meats. Since
these bacteria are not indigenous to the marine environment, their
presence at all is significant.
(5) There is no evidence to support the contention that sludge
dumping has caused high mortalities of ocean quahogs ((HE, 96-97).
Examination of the data (Figure 13) (E-18-7. p. 64-67) shows that
the incidence of high percentages of "clappers" in dredge hauls is
not a feature associated peculiarly with the dumpsite or adjacent
areas. Two stations 20 miles North and East of the dumpsite
(G 19, 14), (opposite to the direction of prevailing water movement),
(HH, 104) show very high percentages of "clappers, " while two stations
in the dumpsiteOE, 8) show very low percentages.
(6) While there are no gross indications of adverse changes in the
benthic biota, the statistical analysis of the intensive grid sampling
data leads EPA Region tH to the conclusion that there are indications
of adverse changes associated with the "dark bands" found in the
intensive grid (HR. 97-98; E-18-7, p. 128-155). This conclusion
has been challenged by the City of Philadelphia (E-16-26, p. 5-6) on
the basis of a lack of adequate temporal or spatial controls *.o deter-
mine whether the data represent an actual impact or whether they
represent natural variability. However, it is clear from the data that
-------
Station
Date
TABLE 8
BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA
Operation Hotspot - August 1976
. GRID STATIONS
Depth
Time (Fathoms) Sample
Conform F. Collform
201 8/08/76 1615
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220 .
221
222
223
224
225
226
232
235
201
201 >
1645
1110
1552
1710
1140
1535
1730
1042
. 1203
1515
1750
1014
1224
1447
1810
0953
1303
1423
1830
0920
1333
1338
1847
1845
2014
2218
2128
2240
2240
201 3/08/76 2240
25 Sediment <1 <1
27
27
28
29
29
27
29
27
30
29
30
25
25
34
32
25
32
33
32
32
33
33
35
35
37
25 N
*.
f ^
* y
•
,. ^
v
,
26 Sediment <1 <1
MPH/100 gm MPN/ TOO cm
25 Arctica 3 <3
25 Arctica 15 6.2
25 Modlolus 29 29
55
TABLE 9-
BACTERIOLOGICAL. DATA
OPERATION MOGUL
February 1977 .
MPN MF MPN
total Total Fecal
Station
32
6-34
S-34-
24-1
8
8
' 8'
17-1
234
234
201
201
236
236
•205
205
203
203
207
207
227
227
238
23a
240
240
Conforms/ Conforms/ Conforms/
Sample 100 ml Count 100 ml 100 ml API Speciatlon Date
Sediment
Water
Sed.
Clam
Clam-
Sed.
Hater
Clam
Sed.
Water
Sed.
Water
Sed.
Water
Sed.
Water
Sed.
Water
Sed.
Water
Sed.
Water
Sed.
Water
Sed.
Water
<22
<2.2
<22.
36
2400
<22
<2.2
91
<22
<2.2
<22
<2.2
<22
<2.2
<22
<2.2
<22-
<2.2
• 22/<22
<2.2
<22
<2.2
<22
<2.2
<22
<5.7
- 2/16/7:
0.6* <1 Ent. agglomerams 4 ea . 2/17
n
<36 Kl. pneumom'ae "
Ent. aerogenes "
73 Ent. cloacae - 3 ea "
Kl . pneumom'ae - 4 ea
"
*
91 E. col 1 - 2 ea
U
- n
1L
If
n
• «
ii
<1 1C. freundii "
11
<1 2/18
<22 Ps. maltophilia
0.2* <1 Ent. Cloacae
II
1 u
ti
. n
ii
<1
-------
Station Sample
210 Sed.
210 Water
212 Sed.
212 Water
213 Sed.'
213 Water
215 Sed.
215 Water
220 Sed.
220- Water
221 Sed.
221 Water
223 . Sed:
223 Water
225 Sed.
225 Water
242 Sed.
242. Water
218 Sed.
" 218 Water
Grid #1 Clam
209 - 1
-flrf-te-SW—
Grid SZ Clam
218 - 1 urf
toward 215
Grid « Clam
206 - 1 nrf
toward 203
9rid #4 Clam
237 - 1 mi
toward 236
MPN
Total
Coliforms/
100 ml
<22
<2.2
<22
<2.2
<22
<5.7
<22
<5.7
<22
<5.7
<22
*5.7
<22
<5.7
- <22
<5.7
<22
<5.7
<22
<5.7
230
36/<36
2400
91
56
• TABLE 9 .(cont.)
MF MPN
Total Fecal -
Coliforms Col iforms
Count 100 ml 100 ml API Spedation . Date
2/18,
^ 1 ' ^
II
<1 "
n
^1 n
n
<) "
2/1 9/
^1 * ^
n.
<1 °
u
<7 "
••
<1 a
u
K! "
n
-------
58
SOURCE: E-16-26
59
certain species are preferentially associated with the organically
enriched areas, and. assuming that the organic enrichment results
from sludge dumping, these data do indicate a change in the henthic
iafanna related to sludge dumping.
(7) There is evidence of some crab gill fouling in the vicinity of
the dumpsite, and one crab with lesions was collected in the dump-
3ite (Figures 14. 15. 16) (E-18-7, p. 156-157; HR, 97). -While these
data are too sparse to draw firm conclusions, as pointed out by the
City of Philadelphia (E-16-26. p. 7). the occurrence of these pheno-
mena at all is highly suggestive of some type of impact.
(8) The EPA ocean dumping regulations establish criteria for
evaluating disposal impact. The criteria are quite specific and
require a quantitative determination of the level of impact before
a dumpsite may be classified in Impact Category I (FEDERAL,
REGISTER 42. p. 2484). The criteria allow for movement of waste
from the site to high value areas, quantifiable damage to important
food chain species, and damage to major uses of a site by accumula-
tion of solid material at the site or adjacent to it. The existing
analyses of data presently available on the site do not show a quan-
tifiable impact according to these criteria. The closure of the site
to shellflshing by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would,
however, be sufficient to place the site in Impact Category I (HR,
98-99) if shellfishing were a major use of the site. This point will
•be discussed later.
Figure .14
Spatial Distribution of Crab Gill Discoloration
freyicnyo/ Gill
TOUCHSTONE
197 f
.''' fff'
• ~
•8
-------
eo '"•;
Figure 15
Spacial Distribution oz Crab Gill Dit.oloration
SOUBCE: E-16-26
" \f!O
Sill 5/iCo/o«-atio/T...'
HOTS POT
SOURCE: E-16-26
61
Spatial Di3tributionFofUCrai6Gill Discoloration
5 ..,-• .' .,1
'•>-•'
/
frcyancy of GUI DucolorabcnJ
HO&Ut. \
» tm
tff
-------
62
The lack of significant adverse trends in most of the data
available on the site makes it difficult to project potential damage
to the site between now and 1981. Philadelphia has been damping
at the site since 1973, a period of four years (HR, 85). From
the present time until December 31, 1980, dumping will be reduced
each year from the present rate of 17,710 dry Tons per sir months
to a rate of 4285 dry Tons per six months in the last half of 1980
(E-16-26). Thus, for the next three and a half years the amounts
dumped at the site will steadily decrease. In terms of such indi-
cators as metal accumulation in sediments, TOG in sediments, and
fecal coliform bacteria in sediments and the water column, the pre-
sently available data indicate that conditions at the dumpsite will not
change markedly over the next few years, particularly since the rate
of dumping is decreasing. The decreasing rate of dumping should
also have the effect of counteracting to some extent the adverse
trends in the composition of the benthic infauna and on the accum-
ulation of fecal coliform bacteria in clams.
There appears to be little probability that any of the observed
impacts of dumping at the present site are irreverslEleT" •Phila-
delphia dumped its sewage sludge for 10 years, from 1963 to 1973,
at a site 12 miles off the mouth of Delaware Bay (HR, 84-85).
In 1973, EPA terminated use of this site for sludge dumping.
63
Sixteen months after cessation of sludge dumping at this site,
the FDA conducted a field survey of the site, collecting samples
of seawater and sediments. The data were evaluated and it was
found mat the environmental quality had improved sufficiently
to permit reopening the area to shellfish harvesting (S-42. p. 6).
Considering that by 1981, Philadelphia would have been dumping
at the present site for less than eight years, and for nearly half
of that time at rates significantly lower than the rates at the former
site, it appears reasonable to assume that the present site would
recover from the adverse effects of dumping within a few years
after cessation of dumping at the site.
b. Present and Potential Economic, Public Health, and
Social Impacts
On December 10, 1976, the FDA issued an advisory warning
notice imposing a voluntary shellfish harvesting closure of the
Philadelphia sewage sludge dumpsite (S-42, p. 7). Advisory
closures restricting harvesting of shellfish on the Continental
Shelf beyond three-mile state territorial boundaries are based
on two criteria: 1) the presence of a shellfish resource in or
adjacent to the proposed dumpsite and, 2) the actual dumping of
sewage sludge, dredged material, and/or toxic wastes (S-42.
p. 5). The safety zone closed is of such size that shellfish
resources are not affected by the materials being dumped,
-------
64
even under the most adverse hydrographic and meteorological
conditions (S-42, p. 6). In the case of the Philadelphia dump
site a, circle of 9. 5 nautical miles in diameter, or an area of
71 sq. n. mi., was closed.
This closure was made to prevent the harvesting of shellfish
which may be contaminated by pathogens in sewage sludge.
Several of the statements in the record point to this closure as
having significant economic impact (HR, 88, 387-388, 393, S-39).
On the other hand, the City of Philadelphia has stated there was
little or no harvesting of shellfish at the site prior to the time
Philadelphia began to dump there, and that there is no economic
loss (HR, 494). The FDA states that harvesting restrictions
were not considered necessary until early 1976, because sea (surf)
clam resources in the area were insufficient to sustain commercial
harvesting. The closure was initiated because depletion of surf
clam resources has led to the emergence of the ocean quahog as
a commercial species in some areas, (S-42, p. 7). The State of
Maryland and the City of Philadelphia were invited to submit data
on the extent of shellfishing at the dumpsite, but none were received.
The entire Continental Shelf between Cape Cod and Cape
Hatteras supports a productive finfishery and shellfishery
(E-5-6-J. p. 159-187; E-20-1. vol. 1, p. 63-82). The area
of the Philadelphia dumpsite is generally typical o'f this part of
Continental Shelf and is fished commercially along with areas
65
adjacent to it (E-ll-16, 810-812). There ia no indication that
the dumpsite itself has unique features which make it particularly
productive or vaiiab1- Interviews with commercial fishermen
fishing the area near the site do not indicate any adverse impact
on finfish harvest or scallop harvests at or near the site (E-ll-16,
810-134).
Surf clams are not present at the site in commercial quanti-
ties; the only shellfish species of commercial value at the site is
the ocean quahog. This clam is present all along the Continental
Shelf from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod in depths of from 6 to, 90
fathoms; along this coast the best catches have been made in
depths of 18 to 24 fathoms (E-ll-16, p. 849-850). Thus,
closure of the Philadelphia dumpsite could have an adverse
economic impact on ocean quahog fishermen.
An effort was made to determine the present and potential
economic impact of this closure with regard to the ocean quahog
fishery. At present, ocean quahogs are harvested in very small
quantities; only as incidental to the harvest of surf clams and sea
scallops, and in an exploratory manner by. industry (E-5-6-J, p. 159).
Catch statistics are not published separately by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS); they are grouped with"other clams. "
which include a variety of species such as the cockle, geocuck,
ocean quahog, rangia, razor, and sunray venus. The Gener'aT"""
Accounting Office (GAO) has recently (1973) published a report
on the status of the U. S. fishing industry and its future develop-
-------
66
meat (E-20-1). Catch statistics for 1975 for "other clams" on
the Atlantic Coast of the U. S. show a total harvest of 3000 pounds
of meats with a total value of $1000 (Table 10) (E-20-1, vol. H,
p. 47). The catch reported was entirely from landings in New
York. Published national statistics for 1976 were not available,
bat Delaware provided statistics for the record which showed no
landings of ocean quahogs (Table 11) (S-43). Thus, it would appear
there is not a significant adverse economic impact at present on
the ocean quahog fishery because of the closure of the Philadelphia
dumpsite to shellfish ing.
The NMFS is making, however, an effort to encourage the
harvesting of ocean quahogs as a substitute for other species
which are presently overiished, such as the surf clam (E-il-16,
849-851; E-20-1. vol. II. p. 59). The GAO report mentioned
above (E-20-1, vol. n. p. 59) comments on this effort in this
fashion:
"Product uses could include clam cakes, fritters,
chowders, and many other dishes which can use a clam
flavor. Some of the reasons why the resource has not yet
been developed more fully include the quahog's flavor
which is stronger than some clam species, such as the
surf clam and its dark color. The availability of the success-
fully developed surf clam having similar product usage also
appears to have limited development of the quahog. But since
the surf clam has been overfished, demand for the quahog is
expected to increase. NMFS and industry officials cooperatively
working on quahog development are confident that its use will
be substantially expanded. "
The potential ma**™™ sustainable yield (MSY) of ocean qua-
hogs between Cape Hatteras and Canada is estimated at between
70 and 100 million pounds of meats per year (E-ll-16, p. 851);
E-20-1, vol. n, p. 59). if the resource were fully utilized;
this volume is equal to the average landings of all types of clams
in the U.S. between 1965 and 1975 (E-20-1, vol. H, p. 45). Based
on catch statistics from 1965 to 1975, and assuming all "other clams"
are quahogs (in 1975 less than one percent were actually quahogs),
ocean quahogs were fished at from 0. 2 percent to 3 percent of the
MSY with a decreasing trend since 1971 (E-20-1, vol. U. p. 45,
59). This trend may be reversed in some areas affected by the New-
York Bight shellfish niia in 1976 and the general depletion of surf
s
clam stocks in other areas due to overfishing, but there is no
evidence that there is likely to be a rapid increase in ocean
quahog harvesting between now and 1981, when use of the
Philadelphia dumpsite is scheduled to stop.
In a.statement at the Philadelphia permit hearing, July 6-7,
1977, the State of Maryland Fisheries Administration presented
a statement estimating the potential value of the ocean quahog
resource in the area closed shellfishing. This estimate was
based on a harvesting rate of 20 percent per year (twice the rate
-------
63
69
APPESOIX 111
APPESDI2 III
leading to the MSY estimate of NMFS (E-ll-16, p. 851)); harvest-
ing at this rate would result in overfishing and depletion of the
ocean quahog fishery as has happened with the surf clam fishery.
With the ocean quahog fishery fully developed and harvested at
the rate of 20 percent per year, the annual value of the fishery
with the closed area would be $420. 000 per year, and its capital
value would be approximately $8. 6 million.
The actual economic impact of the closure, however, would
only be equal to the annual value of the standing crop if the fishery
were rally utilized (or, as in the estimate given above, overfished).
As pointed out above, the ocean quahog resource has only been
used at a rate of 0.2-3. 0 percent of the MSY over the past 10
years-witbra decreasing trend over the past five years. If it
assumed that the closed area would be for ocean quahogs fished
at the same rate as other areas along the Atlantic Coast, then
the actual economic impact of the closure would, at most, be from
420-6, 300 dollars per year. Even this range of values is probably
very high for these reasons:
(a) The actual economic impact is based on catch statistics
for "Other Clams," and quahogs are only one of many species
inn this group. — -
(b) There are productive quahog beds much closer to shore
(E-5-6-J, p. 164) and these would tend to be harvested
preferentially.
Thus, it can be concluded that the actual economic impact of
ja -d
a ^4
9 O
0 f. » ~
I I I I I
O r> i O «0 I
in M n
v in r*
S £ i- •" e u w
5 u u S c o
0 = 400 -« >^
e oflc *»
0
— - ., -I I oj I
-"-1 !2I!9
ill!
e» in i i i*"j I r*| i
-< m l£j I .( i
i \o * i l*t j oj i
" 3M
.»
a
z
o o e 4
hi W - O -4 4J
UU44 O 9* M**0
^ -O « 4CCQ4 O
£j£9)->4 O J* -^ O M JJ h
U300 «0»-«Ha,
OO«^ O -^ 4 ta 4
ZUIOfe -^ < S O O
-------
43
SEAFOOD LAffll
Aleidves
OT.i«f1«h
C«rp
Catfish
Croaker
Eels, cossLon
Blackback
_ t
Fiake
Bake, red
Bake, white
Kackerel,. Atlantic
Menhaden
Sea base
Sea trout, gray
Shad
Shark, onclass.
Spot
Striped bass
Tavtog
Uilte perch
Uh-t-Mng
' Tallow perch
Total Mnfj-gh:-
Bard blue crabs-
Soft & peeler crabs
Bed crab
Jonah crab .
Borseshoe crab
Lobster, Aoarican
Bard <^a**s
•Concha
'Oysters
/Snapper tortlas
T«fcni atiflii^inh
GBiHD TOTAL
•
a a
-------
72
the closure of the Philadelphia dumpsite to shellflshing is minimal
based on present conditions. The total capital value of the resource
is not damaged by the closure, since the resource can be utilized
in the future, assuming that environmental conditions at the duxnp-
site will remain relatively stable through 1980. The development
of the ocean qnahog fishery into a major fishery will depend on
many factors including availability of other stocks and consumer
acceptance of the product. While growth of the ocean quahog
fishery may occur over the next few years, there is no evidence
to suggest that the range of probable economic impact is likely
to change significantly between now and 1981.
No evidence was presented for the record which would suggest
that recreational fishing or recreational use of beaches has been
adversely affected by sludge dumping at the Philadelphia dumpsite.
Statements by the State of Maryland (HR, 382-418), and Members
of Congress from Maryland and Delaware (HR, 392-395: HR, 34-40;
S-39; S-40) all spoke to impacts at the site, particularly those
associated with the effect of the shellfish closure on commercial
fisheries. Based on the lack of comment received from the general
public and local environmental groups, it would appear that sludge
dumping at the Philadelphia site is not an overriding local issue.
Summary:
The data collected on 13 monitoring cruises of the Philadelphia
sludge dumping site and adjacent areas show that the levels of the
following environmental indicators remain within normal ambient
73
values and have shown no overall increase between 1973 and 1977: :
Metals in sediments, metals in biota. Total Organic Carbon. Fecal
coliform bacteria in water and sediments. There are indications of
changes in population structure which may be related to sludge dump-
ing, and a few clams have been found to contain detectable levels of
fecal coliform bacteria. Since the rate of dumping by Philadelphia
will progressively decrease between 1977 and 1980, and since impacts
after four years of dumping are minimal, it is unlikely that irreversible
or drastic changes are likely to occur over the next three years.
The dumpsite has-been closed to shellfishing, and this could have
adverse economic impact on the potential development of the ocean
quahog fishery. However, this fishery is not exploited commercially
on other than a very small scale, and it is unlikely that closure of
this area for the next few years would have a significant economic
impact on the development of this fishery.
5. Impacts of Relocating Sludge Dumping to Alternate Sites
Two sites are considered as alternative locations to the sites
presently used for sludge dumping. In the New York Bight area,
the 60-mile site and the 106-mile site are considered as alternate
locations, and for Philadelphia the 106-mile site is considered an
alternate location. No other sites were suggested during the hearing.
Therefore, this discussion will deal only with the 60-mile site and
the 106-mile site.
-------
74
60-mile site
a. Environmental
The potential environmental Impacts of sludge dumping at the
60-mile site hare been studied both by EPA and NOAA. and the
results are summarized in the EPA EIS on sludge dumping in the
New York Bight (E-5-6-r). As summarized in the EIS (p. 3),
the environmental effects would be the following:
•v
"Among its general effects would be a significant adverse
impact on the benthos (bottom-dwelling organisms) at and near
an alternate dump site. In response to sludge dumping, the
benthic community would probably increase in abundance, but
decrease in diversity; the remaining species would eventually be
representative of a polluted bottom environment, such as that at
the existing dump site in the Bight Apex.
The sediments on and in which the benthic organisms dwell
would be degraded. Sediment concentrations of heavy metals,
organic matter, coliforms, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and possi-
bly nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) would increase over
background levels. Pollutant concentrations in the water column
itself would vary according to the particular composition of each
load of sludge, the degree of dispersion, and seasonal conditions. "
b. Economic
Use of this site would not result in any site-specific economic
effects. Commercial shellfishing in the area is minimal and is
likely to remain so. No developable mineral resources have been
identified in or near this site (E-5-6-r, p. 4. 126-136). The EIS
75
points out that ocean quahogs are abundant in the area, but that
their resource potential in comparison to surf clams has not been
defined (E-5-6-r, p. 128).
The major economic impact associated with the use of this site
is the increased cost of transportation of sewage sludge for dump-
ing at tfria site. The EIS presents an extensive examination of the
cost factors, including capital costs for potential fleet expansion
as well as operation, maintenance and repair costs (E-5-S-r,
p. 137-138). It is estimated that the total cost through 1981 would
be 220-298 percent more than it is at present (E-5-6-r; p. 4). from
a total cost of $78 minion to $249-310 million for the period 1977
to 1981. These estimates were based on current unit costs from
haulers and on projected sludge volumes.
c. Public Health and Social
Use of this site would have no significant effect on the public
health and welfare of beach communities or on the quality of Long
Island or New Jersey coastal waters. Floatables from this site
are not expected to reach these beaches under any weather
conditons, including winter storms. Potential contamination of
commercial shellfish would be limited to the immediate vicinity
of the dumpsite (E-5-6-r; p. 126).
106-mile site
a. Environmental
The scientific community knowledgeable concerning processes
in deep ocean environments is generally apprehensive about the
-------
76
environmental impacts of dumping wastes containing solid materials
into deep ocean waters. At a 1971 ocean disposal conference,
co-sponsored by the Woods Role Oceanographic Institute (WHOI)
and the COE. the panel on biological effects stated:
"Disposal should not occur in the deep sea, i. e., beyond the
continental shelf. A fundamental reason for this suggestion
is the following. The deep sea is an area where biological de-
composition rates are apparently very low in comparison with
other ocean regions. It is an area of great constancy with
respect to the physical-chemical environment and it is thought
that the fauna living there is finely tuned to small environmental
changes. Thus, the fauna may be quite susceptible to large
environmental perturbations such as might be expected with the
introduction of dredge spoils. If deleterious effects occur in the
deep sea,the opportunities to alter the course of events are minimal,
We, therefore, suggest that deep sea should be off limits for disposal
activities at least until other information is brought to bear which
would render the possible dangers non-existent.
"A similar view was expressed at a 1974 workshop at Woods
Hole, sponsored by fee National Academy of sciences (NAS): Data
for the evaluation of the deep sea as a disposal site are inadequate.
This is due to: difficulties in conducting bioassays; slow rates of
mixing and diffusion potentially resulting in anaerobic conditions;
slow organic degradation; and narrow tolerance ranges for sensitive
assemblages of organisms. Although the area is relatively stable
77
• in comparison to the shelf and nearshore, the much greater scientific
uncertainty, and consequently increased risk associated with off-shelf
disposal, dictate that any but the most innocuous use of the area
should be approached with extreme caution"(E-5-6-r, p. 65-66).
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
has also expressed opposition to moving dumpers to the 106-mile
site without knowledge of the impacts at the 106-mile site (HR, 125).
NOAA points out that, in comparison to shelf waters:
" the environmental effects of disposal in deeper waters are
correspondingly more difficult to measure, and hence, to
predict. This is due to factors such as the greater depths of
water and distances from shore, involving cumbersome sampling
techniques in many instances and problems in geographic positions,
and also to the general paucity of environmental and biological
information in the off-the-shore areas.
"In the case of DWD-106 this situation is further compli-
cated by the interaction of major water masses. Shelf Water,
Slope Water and Gulf Stream Sddies.
"The DWD-106 is, therefore, an exceedingly complex
oceanographic area in which to assess environmental conditions
and external impact upon those conditions. " (HR, 132-133)
Dr. Carol Lichfield, a marine microbiologist, expressed concern
about the survival in the deep ocean of micro-organisms contained
in sewage sludge:
"Unfortunately, there is very little information on the
survival of coliforms in deeper waters.
-------
78
"It has be«n shown, however, that decreased temperatures aid the
survival of coliform bacteria in the increased salinities and slightly in-
creased pressures that they would encounter at the deeper dump site,
therefore, automatically assuming that deeper waters will "take care of"
potential pathogens more efficiently than that which occurs at the present
*
location, could lead to a very false sense of security. " (HR, 355)
The statement of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) includes as ex-
hibits statements and published articles of a number of highly respected marine
scientists who have made significant scientific contributions to our understand-
ing of deep ocean environments (E-11-16, p. 629-687). The NWF statement
summarizes its concerns about the environmental Impact of deep ocean dumping
in this fashion.
"As little as we know about the marine environment for aearshore
continental shelf areas, and the fate and effects of pollutants in it, we
know even less for deep ocean areas off the edge of the continental shelf.
"For example:
(a) Sewage stodge organic matter may have a totally different be-
havior off than on the continental shelf—to the extent such organic matter
finds its way into water below a. few hundred feet from the surface, there
is good reason to expect its rate of biodegradation to be greatly diminished.
The possible consequences of such a reduction in microbial
decompostion rates are unknown. Extensive studies by Dr. Holger Jannasch
and his associates at Woods Hole (see, Exhibits A-l - A-4) have consistently
demonstrated that the in situ microbial response to enrichment of deep sea
water and sediments with various organic substrates was between one to
three orders of magnitude lower than in the controls, (Exhibits A-3, p. 675)
that the use of the deep sea as a dumping site for organic wastes is "very
79
inefficient" as a means of either disposing of or recycling these
wastes, as well as being an approach resulting in the "rather
uncontrollable" accumulation of waste materials or decomposition
products on the ocean bottom.
Jannasch has also expressed the view (Exhibit A-2) - that
"in the deep sea. organic wastes. .. could accumulate for years
and years and then float up undecayed" to contaminate seas and
beaches. Conversely, as expressed by Dr. Bumps of Woods
Hole (see Exhibits B-4 and C-5), "There is the possibility of
creating anaerobic deep sea environments from the dumping of
organic materials, "depending "on the rate of introduction of
organic materials and the strength of the advective processes, "
as well as on the rates of biode gradation.
(b) Deep sea marine organisms may be far more sensitive
to ocean dumping Impacts than their nearer shore counterparts —
As noted by Dr. Howard Sanders of the Woods Hole Oceano graphic
Institution, (See, Exhibit C-l, p. 3), the ocean floor below the .
thermocline is "a region of remarkable stability" in which
'(t)emperature, salinity, oxygen conditions, and other factors in
contrast to shallower waters are essentially unvarying and have
changed little over many thousand and even millions of years. '
"Under these "conditions of constancy and predictability over
geological long periods of time there have evolved in the deep sea
a delicately attunned, highly sensitive assemblage of organisms
with a very narrow range of tolerances, " which "can be expected
to be most fragile". "As a consequence, a perturbation or stress
-------
81
80
that might have little significance in the variable and less predic-
table shallow waters could have severe and perhaps catastropic
implications in the deep sea."
This concern is shared by Dr. P. H. Wiebe of Woods Hole
(Exhibit B-l. p. 1-5), although he acknowledges that "we don't
(really) know that deep sea populations are fragile. "
(c) The artificial transport of heavy metals and other
undesirable sludge constituents into the open ocean off the edge
of the shelf through ocean dumping constitutes a new major
source of such constituents in these wastes, the consequences of
which are unknown.
As pointed out by Dr. Ralph Vaccaro (Exhibit, B-2), "the
heavy metal load transported into marine coastal areas by rivers
and streams is quickly precipitated out of the column, becomes
bound to the sediments and is effectively excluded from the ocean
realm," making atmospheric "fall-out" the only major natural path-
way for the deposition of many heavy metals in the open ocean.
The direct introduction of such metals and other chemicals,
as well as of microorganisms, into this environment as a result
of ocean dumping could have severe and perhaps catastrophic
consequences.
(d) Sludge particles and associated contaminants could
become entrained In the Gulf Stream (which impinges on the 106-
mile site) and be transported to fishing grounds as far away as
Newfoundland.
"(e) The nature and effects of possible interactions between
sewage sludge and the various toxic chemicals presently dumped
at the 106-mile site are essentially unknown. " (HR, 290-294)
. it should be noted, however, that in the proceedings leading to the
moving of Cam den to the 106-mile site, ten affidavits by EPA and FDA
staff members recommended moving Camden from the Philadelphia
site to the 106-mile site. These affidavits were based on the presence
of fecal micro-organisms in the Camden sludge which might possibly
affect shellfisheries and beaches and on the presumed greater oppor-
tunities for dilution and dispersion at the 106-mile site (E-6-7-a).
None of these affidavits addressed the questions of survival of pathogens
in the deep ocean, the lower rates of decomposition of materials in
deep ocean environments, and the possibility of severe damage to biota
accustomed to a very stable environment, which are the major concerns
expressed by the marine scientists familiar with deep ocean environments.
It can be concluded from these statements that there is agreement
among experienced marine scientists that deep ocean disposal of wastes,
particularly wastes containing solid materials, has the potential for
causing severe environmental impacts. The types of impacts that
could occur could result in subtle, long-range adverse effects which
might not be detectable until trends leading to severe irreversible
damage had already begun. The dumping of sewage sludge at the
106-mile site would, therefore, be regarded as having high potential
for causing severe, if unknown, adverse environmental impacts.
-------
82
b. Economic
There are no known shellfisheries in the area of this site.
However, certain wind conditions in the area could cause waste
materials to drift onto the upper slope, where the developing red
crab fishery would be active or even to the outer shelf where there
are several seasonally active fisheries (flounder, porgy, butter-
fish, lobster by TT. S. fishermen) (E-19-11, p. 63). There is,
therefore, a potential adverse economic impact associated with the
use of this site, although it is not quantifiable at the present time.
The National Fisheries Institute has expressed opposition to moving
dumpsites from their present locations because of increased con-
taminantion of other areas (S-49).
The greatest economic impact of moving sludge dumping to the
106-mile site would be in the added cost of transporting the sludge
to the 106-mile site for dumping. To do this would require the
addition of carrying capacity in the New York Metropolitan Area,
primarily by the City of New York (HR, 243-246). There is some
disagreement as to what would be the most economical way to
accomplish this (HR, 247-249; 256-257) and the basis on which
the estimates made by the City of New York were made. Supple-...
mentary information supplied for the record indicated an annual cost
of $19,200, 000 per year if no constraints were placed on the rate
of discharge (E-15-15). These figures are based on amortizing the
new carrying capacity over a four-year period; without this, the
83
total annual cost is estimated at $17, 200, 000. The basis on which
the operating costs are estimated is consistent with the figures used
by EPA Region n in estimating overall costs for barging to the 106-
mile site (E-5-6-r; p. 68-69).
The cost of moving all New York Metropolitan area sludge dump-
ing to the 1 OS-mile site is estimated by EPA Region II at between
$35.0 million and 43.8 million dollars annually, as opposed to the
present $5. 4 million, assuming a constant sludge volume between
now and 1981 (E-5-6-r, p. 70). This estimate does not include the
cost of monitoring the site or the cost of Coast Guard surveillance
of dumping.
The City of Philadelphia has estimated ita costs for moving to
the 106-mile site at $5, 210, 650 over a 3. 5-year period. This is an
annual average cost of $1,490, 000 (E-16-28). These are based on
estimates provided by their present hauling contractor.
Moving sludge dumping to the 106-mile site would also have
an economic impact on the cost of surveillance of dumping operations.
The Coast Guard has stated that surveillance would have to be done
by shiprider until their automated surveillance system becomes oper-
ational, and that this will require the use of additional personnel,
with added costs for salaries and training. No estimate is avail-
able as to what these costs might be (HR. 180-193).
-------
84
To develop and Implement an effective monitoring program
at the 106-mile site would have a significant economic impact. No
Information is available as to what this would be, but typical
baseline cruises cost $200, 000-$300, 000 each, based on EPA and
NOAA costs. If four seasonal cruises were regarded as an ade-
quate monitoring program, the total cost would be about $1. 000, 000
per year. It should be noted, however, that baseline cruises of this
nature would not be capable of detecting the types of environmental
effects which have been indicated to be of importance by responsible
marine scientists, as indicated in the previous section (HR. 297-198).
In summary, the available information indicates that the total
additional economic burden of moving sludge dumping to the 106-mile
site would be well in excess of $30 million per year. The bulk of
this cost would be borne by the communities now dumping sludge.
Several municipalities pointed out the difficulties they might have
in obtaining the additional funds necessary to barge to the 106-mile
site as well as implement alternatives by 1981 (HR, 245-246, 254-
255. 448-449, 493). The-NSCELcommenta that any significant incre-
ment between now and the end of 1981 in the cost of sewage sludge
disposal could as easily discourage as encourage the expedited
phase-out of sludge dumping if it had the effect of diverting into
.—Continued ocean dumping limited funds which would otherwise be
available to implement a dumping phase-out (HR, 278).
65
c. Public Health
It is unlikely that sludge dumping at the 106-mile site would have
any conceivable impact on shorelines and beaches. Concern was
expressed, however, concerning the increased frequency of short
dumping expected to be attendant upon a move of sludge dumping
to the 106-mile site, as a result of adverse weather conditions and
possibly willful misconduct by haulers (HK, 304-306, 492; E-5-6-r,
p. 70). The probability of such occurrences has not been estimated.
Since, however, the barge paths would cross highly productive shell-
fish areas on the continental shelf, any short dumping could result
in contamination of shellfish by pathogens. Unless these corridors
were closed to shellfishing by the FDA, there could be contamina-
tion of some shellfish from time to time, and the concomitant risk
of harvesting them. The results of the EPA Region m studies at
the Philadelphia dumpsite suggest that fecal micro-organisms can
persist in the marine environment for long enough periods of time
to move great distances (E-18-7, p. 161-165). If this is the case,
then there could be a hazard to public health of unknown proportions
from short dumping en route to the 106-mile site.
d. Social
Concern has been expressed in several statements about the
general public reaction of moving sludge dumping from the present
sites to the 106-mile site. These concerns are based on the belief
-------
/86
X
that there may be an "out of sight - out of mind" reaction (HR 16,
37; S-49). It is also felt that moving sludge damping to the 106-
mile site — .- old Increase pressure to permit an indefinite continu-
ation of ocean dumping (HR, 37, 287-289). The difficulty of
detecting adverse impacts at this site as w«ll as reduced public
concern are cited as reasons that *h
-------
88
c. Public Health
A major concern in continuing use of the present site through
1981 is the potential for contamination of beaches because of the
increased volumes of sludge to be ocean dumped in this interim
period. While no impact on the beaches or on nearby water quality
has been found up to the present time, the potential danger to public
health is significant and must be considered an important factor in
reaching a decision. Region II has recommended designation of this
site as an alternate sludge dumping site because of this potential
danger (E-S-6-r).
d. Social
There is some feeling among the general public that sludge
dumping at the present site was the cause of the beach damage and
fish iHiig during 1976 and that sludge dumping in general has been
responsible for many of the problems in the New York Bight Apex
(HR, 20-23, 41-44. 221-226, 325-344, 369. 527, 540-827, S-37,
S-44, S-47, 3-48). Moving the dumpsite from its present location
would allay this concern; it should be noted, however, that most
of those expressing this viewpoint favored the 106-mile site.
106-mile site
a. Environmental
The environmental benefits of moving sludge dumping to the 105-
mile site would be caused by improvement in environmental quality.
89
at the presently used dump sit 63 as the result of cessation of dumping.
As pointed out above, there would be some, albeit slight, improve-
ment in the environmental quality of the New York Bight Apex if
sludge dumping at the present site were stopped, because of the
overriding influence of other sources of pollution.
The data accumulated by EPA Region in from 1973 to 1977
indicate that the conditions at the dumpsite are representative of
normal ambient values for the Northeast Atlantic Coast Continental
Shelf, although there are some indications of changes in the benthic
biota and a few clams near the dumpsite contained bacteria of
sanitary significance (E-18-7, p. XV). The minimal nature of
the impacts observed up to the present time at the Philadelphia
dumpsite, combined with the projected rate of decrease of
sludge dumping by Philadelphia, suggests that there would be no
significant improvement in environmental quality of the Philadel-
phia dumpsite if all sludge dumping were terminated before 1981.
b. Economic
As indicated above, there would be no economic benefits asso-
ciated wttJTceSsation. of dumping at the New York Bight Apex site.
The Philadelphia dumpsite contains commercially harvestable
quantities of ocean quahogs, and cessation of dumping at the site
would permit reopening of this area to shellfishing. However, while
attempts are being made to develop this fishery, its present utiliza-
tion in this area is very low. Baaed on current fishing rates, an
-------
90
annual benefit of about $12, 000 might be gained by reopening the
Philadelphia dump site at this time; it should be noted that Delaware
reported no ocean quahog landings in 1976 (S-43). Thus, the econo-
mic benefit of moving the dumping of Philadelphia1 a sewage sludge
to the 106-mile site is not regarded as significant, considering the
short period of time dumping will continue.
c. Public Health
As pointed out in regard to the 60-mile site, the potential danger
to public health from increased sludge limping at the present New
York Bight Apex site is a matter of considerable concern. A move-
ment of sludge dumping to the 106-mile site would provide a signifi-
cant potential public health benefit, but no benefit would be obtained
at present.
It has not been suggested that sludge dumping at the Phila-
delphia dumpsite has had an adverse effect on shorelines or beaches,
nor does there appear to be a potential for such an impact, considering
the decreasing rate of dumping at the site and the distance from shore.
Thus, there does not appear to be a significant public health benefit
in moving Philadelphia to the 106-mile site.
d. Social -
Moving dumping from the existing New York Bight site to the
106-mile site would allay the fears of some people about the impact- .
91
3f sludge dumping on the Bight, as mentioned above. It may be
presumed that moving Philadelphia to the 106-mile site would have
some beneficial effects in allaying public concern, but no statements
from the general public were received for the record. The state-
ments from selected and appointed offcials dealt primarily with
concern for commercial fishing and the ocean environment in
general.
7. Need for an BIS on the Relocation of Sludge Dumping Sites
There was considerable comment on the need for an environ-
mental evaluation prior to making a final decision, as well as some
comment directly on the question of whether or not an EIS should
be prepared.
There was general agreement that, if sludge dumping must con-
tinue over the next few years, it should be in an area where it would
have minimal environmental impact. Even among those who favored
an early move of sludge dumping to the 106-mile site, there was
concern expressed that this should be done only after a careful
evaluation had shown that this was the most environmentally accept -
able thing to do. Dr. Glenn Paulson, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, stated:
"Again summarizing the analysis and conclusions in our
January Report, we continue to urge serious consideration of
gradual shift to the 106-mile site for all sludge on an interim
-------
basis, so long as EPA does not discriminate against New
Jersey authorities by favoring New York and Philadelphia.
"Equally Important, such a choice should be made by EPA
only after a careful analysis (which meets both the procedural
and substantive requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act) demonstrates that the use of this site is the most
environmentally satisfactory alternative location for sludge
dumping." (HR, 202)
Ms. Sandra Ayres. New Jersey Department of Public Advocate,
criticized the Draft EIS on the New York Bight for not evaluating an
off-the-Shelf site and stated that EPA should follow the NEPA and
collect the information necessary for the EIS. (HR, 221, 234).
Mr. Warren Rich, Maryland Attorney General's Office, stated
that the State of Maryland sought to accomplish two goals:
"(1) To hasten alternative methods of sludge disposition,
which are environmentally beneficial, and
"(2) To make sure that if ocean dumping occurs, it is only
on an interim, short-term basis and is carried on at sites where
the environmental harm is minimized. " (HR, 384)
Mr. Rich criticized EPA for not doing an environmental assess-
ment on the Philadelphia site prior to designation (HR, 385), and,
in response to questions from the Panel, stated, "... I think your
basic job is to look at the environmental consequences. " (HR, 409)
93
Members of Congress also expressed concern that any decision be
based on an -evaluation of the environmental effects of any relocation.
Congressman Edwin Forsythe (N. J.):
"A decision regarding the location of municipal sewage sludge
dumping is a critical resource management problem. Since the
environmental and fiscal resources at stake are extremely valuable,
our decision making must be based on rationality. Attempts to
sensationalize the issue, and politically expedient pressure to move
the problem 'out of sight,' 'out of mind' must.be resisted. " (HR, 15)
"Scientific data, rather than political expediency, must direct
our decision-making. " (HR, 18)
Senator William Roth (Del.):
"As 1 said, my layman's reaction is to endorse this change,
out since 1 am not a chemical oceanographer, a physical oceano-
grapher, or a marine biologist, I will not personally attempt to
assess the environmental risks associated with the various
possible dump sites.
"The selection of a particular site is best left to those
technically qualified to evaluate the numerous considerations. "
(HR, 37)
-------
94
Congressman William Hughes (N. J.):
"Unfortunately, we are not in a position to resolve those
issues because the EPA has not prepared an environmental
impact statement on the 106-mile site to give us an idea of the
consequences of dumping there. Nor has NOAA completed baseline
studies on the area.
"I strongly urge the EPA and NOAA to complete their studies
on the 106-mile site, as soon as possible, so that we can answer
some of these troubling questions and reach an informed decision.
It is disappointing to me that 5 years after enactment of the Ocean
Dumping Act no evaluation of the 106-mile site is available,
although the Act mandates a clear preference for dump sites off
the Continental Shelf.
"If the results of such studies indicate that the 106-mile site
would be less disruptive of the Act's purposes than other sites,
then the 40-mile site should be phased out in favor of the 106-mile
site. " (S-38, p. 4)
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) strongly supported the
preparation of an EIS:
"EPA should immediately initiate the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement which fully addresses the circum-
stances under which relocation to both the 60-mile site and the
106-mile site would be justified and the environmental pros and
cons of such a course of action. " (HR, 309)
95
Thus, the record contains some strong statements about the need
for a thorough evaluation of the environmental consequences of any
relocation of dumping sites. Some responsible organizations and
individuals have recommended doing this in the context of an EIS
on the relocation.
There are further considerations which increase the desir-
ability of preparing an EIS on this issue. The data and information
presented for the record do not represent the complete body of
knowledge that should be evaluated. While Region tU has had a
contractor collect the information pertinent to the Philadelphia dump-
site, this body of data has not yet been analyzed and evaluated. Nor
have conditions at any of the sites been compared to other ocean
areas except in a qualitative sense.
Certainly, a thorough environmental evaluation of all the data
available should be made to guide future actions regarding dumpsite
relocation. In particular, criteria need to be set to provide a guide
for moving dumping to other locations, particularly, in the case of
the present New York Bight site.
Once an environmental evaluation is made and reviewed by the
scientific community, there would not be a large amount of addi-
tional effort necessary to put this in the format of an EIS. Whether
or not an EIS is legally required or not, the public review proce-
dures built into the NEPA process would assist EPA in making and
defending any decision.
-------
96
Responsible organizations and individuals have recommended
that any decision be based on an evaluation of the environmental
consequences of the decision. The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, the New Jersey Department of Public
Advocate, and the National Wildlife Federation have all recom-
mended an EIS. Additional information would be required for
such an evaluation, and the results could be presented most effec-
tively as an EIS.
8. Feasibility of Dumping off the Continental Shelf - ___
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as
amended, states in Section 102(a):
"(I) In designating recommended sites, the Administrator
shall utilize wherever feasible locations beyond the edge of the
Continental Shelf. "
s?
This provision of the Act is regarded by the New Jersey
Public Advocate's Office as requiring EPA to designate the 106-mile
site for sewage sludge dumping (HR, 219-220). The NWF pointed
out that "feasibility" should be determined in terms of each of the
following:
"(a) incremental cost relative to existing practices,
(b) ability to properly evaluate, monitor, and control dumping
occurring at this site, and
(c) effect of such a move on the ultimate phase-out of sewage
sludge dumping. " (HR, 268)
EPA has taken the position that the determination as to whether
or not the use of a particular site is feasible for the dumping of
certain wastes must be based on several factors.
a. Environmental acceptability
Section 102(a) of the Act authorizes EPA to issue permits for
ocean dumping of materials which wiU not unreasonably degrade or
endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine
environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities. EPA
has published criteria for site selection which are based on the
statutory considerations of Section 102(a) and the factors listed in
Annex in of the International Ocean Dumping Convention. The
general criteria on which site selection is based are given in
Section 228. 5 of the EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations (FR 42, 2483)
and are as follows:
-------
90
"Section 228. 5 General criteria for the selection of sites.
'ta) The dumping of materials into the ocean will be permitted ~
only at sites or in areas selected to minimize the interference
of disposal activities with other activities in the marine environ-
ment, particularly avoiding areas of existing fisheries or shell-
fisheries, and regions of heavy commercial or recreational
navigation.
"(b) Locations and boundaries of disposal sites will be so chosen
that temporary perturbations in water quality or other environ-
mental conditions during initial mixing caused by disposal oper-
ations anywhere within the site can be expected to be reduced
to normal ambient seawater levels or to undetectable con-
taminant concentrations or effects before reaching any beach,
shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited
fishery or shellfishery.
"(c) If at anytime during or after disposal site evaluation studies,
it is determined that existing disposal sites presently approved
on an interim basis for ocean dumping do not meet the criteria
for site selection set forth in Sec. 228.S-22S.6. the use of such
sites will be terminated as soon as suitable alternate disposal
sites can be designated.
'(d) The sizes of ocean disposal sites will be limited in order
to localize for identification and control any immediate adverse
impacts and permit the implementation of effective monitoring
S9
and surveillance programs to prevent adverse long-range
impacts. The size, configuration, and location of any disposal
site will be determined as a part of the disposal site evaluation
or designation study.
"(e) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dump-
ing sites beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such
sites that have been historically used. "
These criteria emphasize that two key environmental factors in
site selection are: (1) the minimization of any chance for impacts
that might affect other uses of the ocean either directly or indirectly,
and (2) the feasibility of monitoring a site so as to detect and control
both short and long-range impacts.
As has been discussed earlier the preponderance of informed
scientific opinion urges extreme caution in dumping wastes in the
deep ocean, particularly wastes containing solid materials, because
of the many unknowns about this part of the environment. There is
a strong feeling among marine scientists that it would be possible
to start long-range trends which would be undetectable until it was
too late to take corrective measures (HR, 290-295).
Specific concerns with the dumping of sewage sludge in the deep
ocean are the possible persistence of pathogens for long periods of
time, the accumulation of biodegradable materials which could
ultimately float up undecayed to contaminate seas and beaches, the
development of anaerobic deep sea environments, and the damage
to deep sea organisms which are used to extremely stable conditions
-------
101
100
(HR, 291-292). Based on this informed scientific opinion, it is
concluded that dumping of sewage sludge at the 106 -mile site has
a potential for irreversible, long-range, and therefore unrea-
sonable degradation of the marine environment, and that the use of
this site for this purpose would be contrary to the intent of the Act
and the Convention*
This situation is exacerbated by the difficulty of monitoring deep
ocean sites effectively when there are settleable solids being dumped
as well as liquids. A working group convened by EPA. chaired
by Dr. E.D. Goldberg, and including among others, Drs. Dean F.
Bumpus, Gilbert T. Rowe, and David Menzel, concluded that,
although off-Shelf dumpsite locations " would be amenable to mix-
ing of liquids, it is not possible to predict the effect and fate of
solids at great depths and it would be difficult to monitor their
effects. " (HR, 297). Other investigators have also pointed out
difficulties in monitoring deep ocean sites so as to obtain useful
information on effects and trends (S-36).
Thus, dumping sewage sludge at the 106-mile site would not
only have unknown environmental consequences, but experts in the
field feel it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find out what
those consequences would be. It is concluded, therefore, that it
would act be feasible to design an effective monitoring program
to evaluate the impacts of sludge dumping at this site.
b. Surveillance of Dumping
It must be feasible to monitor the dumping operations at any site.
Sites farther from shore create more problems in surveillance as
pointed out by the Coast Guard (HR. 180-195). but there is no indi-
cation that surveillance of dumping at the 106-mile site would not
be feasible.
c. Economic Burden
The cost of moving to site farther offshore is also a factor in
determining feasibility of using off-Shelf sites. Certainly, if the cost
is too .high to be met by the dumpers through any conceivable funding
mechanism, then such a site could not be regarded as feasible.
In this case, none of the municipalities stated that they could not
meet the added costs, but they did point out that there would be diffi-
culties in funding, and that these costs might have to come from funds
presently allocated for implementing alternatives (HR, 245-246, 452, 493).
The total cost for moving sludge dumping to the 106-mile site would be in
excess of $30 minion per year. This is a significant economic burden
which would have to be justified in terms of the environmental benefits
to be obtained.
d. Logistics
The question of availability of suitable marine equipment to reach
an off-Shelf site is a factor ia determining feasibility, as is the tiaie
it would take to obtain such equipment and the additional funds necessary
to employ it. There was general agreement that some additional carry-
ing capacity would be needed, although there was some disagreement
-------
102
as to the amount and type that would be most economical
(HR. 209. 2,44-245. 247-250, 503-507). The New Jersey Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection felt that budgeting requirements
would require scheduling in calendar year 1978 or later (HR. 203).
The City of Philadelphia stated that there might be a one to three
year delay in obtaining a suitable vessel (HR. 493). While these
statements were not challenged at the hearing, it would appear
that, at least for Philadelphia which will steadily be decreasing
its volume, these estimates might be generous. It is concluded
that logistically, it would be feasible to use the 106-mile site for
sludge dumping, although delays of several months at least would
probably be necessary for implementation.
Summary
Feasibility of using an off-the-Shelf site for dumping'sewage
sludge is based on five factors: (1) Environmental impact, (2) mon-
itoring feasibility. (3) surveillance feasibility, (4) economic burden,
and (5) logistical feasibility. The surveillance and logistics in the
case of the 106-mile site would be difficult, but could be managed.
The economic burden would be very large. The environmental
hazards associated with dumping sewage sludge at the site are
believed to be extreme, based on responsible scientific opinion.
103
C. Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Conclusions
This hearing had its genesis in Congressional and public con-
cern about the environmental impacts of sewage sludge dumping at
the present locations and the feeling that moving sludge dumping
farther offshore would provide significant environmental benefits.
The-hearing was held to provide an opportunity for concerned
citizens to express their- views and to provide a mechanism for
anyone to provide pertinent information for consideration in
making a decision.
A total of 48 statements were made at the hearing or received
for the record. There was considerable divergence of opinion in
these statements. Among those statements favoring moving dump-
ing from, the present locations immediately, two major concerns
were expressed:
a. The beach damage and fish kiUa in 1976 along the Long
Island-New Jersey shoreline and the past and future relation-
ship of sludge dumping in the New York Bight Apex to these
incidents.
b. Environmental damage to the Philadelphia dump site and
the impact of dumping on commercial fishing in the area
because of the closure of the Philadelphia site to shellfishing.
-------
104
Those expressing this view Included some Members of Congress.
the New Jersey Public Advocate's Office, the Maryland Attorney
General's Office, some local New Jersey elected officials, the
Delaware Department of Natural Resorces and Environmental
Control, the American Littoral Society, and representatives of
eight local water users associations (divers, boaters, clammers).
There w«re also those who favored no move at all, or a move
only if it could be shown that the environmental benefits to be
achieved were significant. These included some Members of
Congress, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
the U. S. Coast Guard, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, representatives of some permittees, several marine
scientists, and the National Wildlife Federation.
After evaluating the statements and the data, and information
submitted for the record, the following conclusions are reached:
a. There is convincing scientific evidence collected by
different groups that sludge dumping at the present New York
Bight Apex site was not a major factor in the fisnkHls and
beach damage in this area during 1976.
b. The present New York Bight Apez sludge dumpsite is so
badly affected by other sources of pollution that only slight
improvement in environmental quality would occur if sludge
dumping were terminated at this site at. this time, nor could
105
the area be reopened to shellfishing. Therefore, there would
be some.' albeit minor, environmental benefit and no economic
benefit to be achieved by relocating sludge dumping from this site.
c. There is a potential public health hazard of beach contamina-
tion by sludge dumped at the New York Bight Apex site as volumes
increased between now and 1981. Steps must be taken to safe-
guard public health if sludge dumping continues at the present
location.
d.' Sludge dumping at the 60-mile site would have adverse environ-
mental impacts, but should be considered if necessary to protect
public health from sludge dumping at the present New York Bight
site.
e. Data collected by EPA Region EH show that the adverse
environmental impacts of sludge dumping at the Philadelphia
dump are so slight that significant improvement in environmental
quality will not result from termination of sludge dumping at
this site.
f. Closure of the Philadelphia dumpsite to shellfishing has a
potential for economic damage since the general area contains
commercially harvestable quantities of ocean quahogs. This
fishery is, however, not developed commercially in this area
as yet, although it is developed to a small extent in New
-------
106
England. It is unlikely that closure of this area to shellfish-
ing for three additional years will have a significant adverse
economic impact on the development of this fishery off the
Delmarva shore.
g. Present commercial fisheries are not adversely impacted by
sludge damping at the Philadelphia dump site .
h. Sludge dumping at the Philadelphia dumpsite has no adverse
effect on public health or upon the use of shorelines and beaches.
i. The views of reputable marine scientists lead to the conclu-
sion that there is a potential for irreversible adverse environ-
mental impacts from dumping materials such as sewage sludge
into deep ocean waters beyond the edge of the Continental Shelf,
such as the 106-mile site.
j. Sludge dumping at the 106-mile site could have an adverse
effect on developing fisheries of the Continental Slope and
existing fisheries of the Shelf.
k. A small, but real, danger to public health due to random
contamination of shellfish beds by short dumping would result
from using the 106-mile site.
1. Moving sludge dumping to the 106-mile site would cost the
dumpers in excess of $30 million per year and would not result
in significant environmental, economic, or public health benefits,
and would have the potential for causing possibly severe damage
to deep ocean environments.
107
m. Moving sludge dumping in the New York area to the 60-
mile site would cost about $8 million more per year and cause
damage at the 60-mile site, without significant environmental
or economic benefits. This move would, however, provide a
public health benefit by reducing the likelihood of beach
contamination.
n. Sludge dumping at the 106-mile site is act feasible because
of the unknown but potentially adverse environmental consequences
and the inability to monitor the site effectively.
o. the present and potential impacts of sludge dumping at the
present sites should be evaluated in detail using all of the data
obtainable, and criteria should be set for moving sludge dumping
from the present sites. The results of *>"g evaluation should
•
be presented as an Environmental Impact Statement.
2. Recommendations
The following course of action is recommended:
a. Neither of the present sludge dumpsites should be
relocated at the present time.
b. Existing phase-out schedules and deadlines should be
strictly enforced.
c. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement on the
issue of relocating the sludge dumpsites to the 106-mile site
should begin immediately. The EIS regarding the 60-mile
site should be up-dated. The EIS should
-------
103
include specific criteria for relocating the sludge dumpsites.
d. Monitoring of the impacts of dumping, particularly at the
Mew York Bight Apex site, should be intensified.
e. The 60-mile site should be designated as an alternate
sludge damping site immediately.
-------
APPENDIX D
USEPA-HEADQUARTERS
DECISION ON PROPOSALS
TO RELOCATE SEWAGE SLUDGE SUMP SITES
MARCH 1, 1978
-------
DECISION ON PROPOSALS TO RELOCATE SEWAGE
SLUDGE DUMPING IN THE MID-ATLANTIC
BIGHT
I. BACKGROUND
Municipal sewage sludge has been dumped in the
Atlantic Ocean for over fifty years. Prior to 1972, however,
there was no Federal legislation which attempted to provide
comprehensive regulation of ocean dumping of sewage sludge (or
any other material). In that year, Congress enacted the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. §1401
et seq. ("MPRSA") which prohibits the ocean dumping of sewage
sludge and other materials, except under a permit issued by
EPA in accordance with criteria established under Section 102(a)
of the Act (or in the case of dredged material, under a permit
issued.by the Corps of Engineers under Section 103). Under"
Section 102(c) of the Act, EPA is authorized to 'designate
recommended sites or times for dumping", considering the criteria
established under Section 102(a). Among other things. Section
102(a) provides that °[i]n designating recommended sites, the
Administrator shall utilize wherever feasible locations beyond
the edge of the Continental Shelf."
At the same time the United States was enacting domestic
legislation to regulate ocean dumping, efforts were underway
to develop an international convention to regulate the dumping
of wastes at sea. The result of these efforts was the
International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution
by Dumping of Wastes^pd Other Matter ("Convention"), which was
ratified by the United States Senate on August 3, 1973, and
became effective on August 30, 1975. Among other things, the
Convention requires signatories to develop criteria for the
selection of ocean disposal sites based on factors enumerated
in Annex III(B) of the Convention.
EPA's first ocean dumping regulations and criteria were
promulgated on October IS, 1973 (38 Fed. Reg. 28612). Due in
large measure to the lack of studies on existing sites and the
short statutory lead time for developing ocean dumping criteria,
EPA did not attempt to include guidelines for site designation
in these early regulations. However, preliminary assessments
of non-dredged material sites based on Annex 111(3) factors
were made where information was available, and on this basis
some sites (such as the 12-mile Cape May sewage sludge site)
were discontinued. In accordance with statutory criteria in
Section 102(a) requiring EPA to consider the need to dump and
alternatives to dumping in selecting disposal sites, and in
the face of the practical reality that dumping could not be
discontinued pending the development of site designation
criteria and preparation of formal site designations, EPA
authorized the continuing use of a number of sites
historically utilized for ocean dumping — including the
New York Bight sewage sludge site (which had been in use since
the 1920's), the 40-mile ("Philadelphia") sewage sludge site,
and one of EPA's two off-the-Shelf sites, the 106-mile industrial
waste site — on an interim basis pending further study.
-------
-3-
Qver the next few years, EPA gradually developed formal
guidelines for preparing ocean dumping site designation studies.
On October 21, 1974, the Agency announced that, as a matter of
policy, it would prepare an environmental impact statement (*EIS"j
on any formal site designation made under Section 102(c) of the
Act. 39 Fed. Reg. 27419. On January 11, 1977, with the promulga-
tion of final revisions to its ocean dumping regulations and
criteria, a new part was added to the Agency's regulations which
established substantive criteria and procedures for site designa-
tion, including the 'general and specific factors to be considered
in site selection, dump site rulemaking procedures, development
of baseline and trend assessment surveys, site monitoring, and
dumping impact analysis. 42 Fed. Reg. 2462, 2482. ,
At the same time EPA was developing regulations for site
designation, the environmental studies required for formal
designation were begun at a number of dump sites, including the
Hew York Bight site, Philadelphia site and 106-mile site. In
June, 1976, for example, a draft EIS was prepared for the
New York Bight site. In April, 1977, EPA contracted for the
development of a final EIS's for the New York Bight site, the
Philadelphia site and the 106-mile site.
A number of events in 1976 and 1977 — including a fish
kill off the New York/Hew Jersey Coast during the summer of
1976, the Food and Drug Administration's 1976 closure of the
Philadelphia dump site to shellfishing, and the 1977 relocation
of the City of Camden, New Jersey's sewage sludge dumping from
-4-
the Philadelphia site to the 106-mile site — focused public
and governmental attention on sewage sludge dumping in the
Mid-Atlantic, and in particular on the issues of whether some
or all sewage sludge dumping should be relocated pending final
site designation and whether an off-the-shelf site
(particularly the 106-mile site) should be formally designated
for the disposal of sewage sludge. On Hay 6, 1977, in an
effort to respond to these concerns, EPA announced its intent
to consider relocating ocean dumping sites for the disposal of
municipal sewage sludge. 42 Fed. Reg. 23163. Public comment
was solicited on four sites — the New York Bight sewage sludge
site (used by New York/New Jersey communities), the Philadelphia
sewage sludge site (used by the City of Philadelphia), the
60-mile site (a future overflow site for sludge dumped at the
New York Bight site), and the 106-mile industrial waste site
(used by Camden since January, 1977). To further assist the
Agency in gathering information and to obtain public comment
on the various alternatives suggested, a public hearing was
held in Toms River, New Jersey on May 31, and June 1, 1977.
In addition, the issue of relocating Philadelphia sewage
sludge from the Philadelphia site to the 106-mile site was
addressed at a July 6-7, 1977, hearing on the renewal of the
City's interim ocean dumping permit, pursuant to the order
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
-------
-5-
Maryland v. Train, 10 ERC 1351, 1352 (4th Cir. 1977). I/
The findings and conclusions which follow represent EPA's
decision on the various site relocation alternatives proposed
in its May 6, 1977 notice. In reaching it, I have considered
the information generated by the Toms River and Philadelphia
hearings, the recommendations prepared by the respective
hearing officers, and other materials pertinent to malting a
final determination on this issue.
II. MAJOR LEGAL AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
A. Feasibility of Designating an Off-the-Shelf Site
for Sewage Sludge Disposal
The legislative history of the MPRSA indicates that
Congress intended to give EPA broad discretion in selecting
sites for ocean dumping. The grant of such discretion under
the Act reflects not only traditional legislative deference
to agency expertise, but also Congress's recognition of
the lack of conclusive scientific data on the effects of
ocean dumping various volumes and types of wastes on marine
life and ecosysteas. As the Senate Commerce Committee
stated in its report on the bill which was later enacted aa
the MPRSA:
I/ This order required EPA "to make a full inquiry into whether
the Cape May [Philadelphia site] should be designated as a dump-
ing site by anyone for any purpose" at the 1977 Philadelphia
permit renewal hearing. On May 20, 1977, EPA filed a motion for
modification of this aspect of the Court's order to allow the
Cape May issue to be considered in the Toms River hearing. No
action has been taken on this motion to date.
-6-
Only meager information exists with regard
to what concentrations and which of the
chemicals or toxicants have a deleterious
effect on the marine ecology and what
processes can best be utilized to treat or
remove such materials prior to discharge
to marine waters. [S. Rep. No. 451, 92d
Cong., 1st Sess. 9 (1977). See also,
S. Rep. at 10 (noting that "TtThere still
remains much which is unknown concerning
the impact of man's dumping into the
ocean environment.")]
Nowhere is such Congressional deference to EPA expertise
more evident than in the selection of sites off the
Continental Shelf. Section 102(a)(I), it should be noted,
does not require that EPA utilize off-the-shelf sites for ocean
dumping; it only provides that EPA consider the use of an
off-the-Shelf site "wherever feasible".
Furthermore, the legislative history of Section 102(a)(I)
indicates that Congress intended to grant EPA wide latitude in
determining whether use of an off-the-shelf site is "feasible".
Section 102(a)(I) did not appear in either the Senate Commerce
Committee or House Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee
versions of H.R. 9727 (the bill later enacted as the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act), but was introduced
as a floor amendment by Senator Case. As originally proposed,
the amendment would have added the following sentence to Section
102(c) of the Act (which authorizes the Administrator to
designate sites, considering the criteria established under
Section 102(a)):
-------
-7-
In designating recommended sites,
the Administrator shall give pre-
ference to locations beyond the edge
of the Continental Shelf. [117 Cong.
Rec. 43068 (1971).]
The wording and placement of this provision was
strenuously opposed by Senator Boilings, Chairman of the
Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere; on the ground
that
it tends to diminish the discretion of
the Administrator in selecting sites
for ocean dumping, and because dumping
beyond the edge of the Continental Shelf
may, in some cases, do more damage to
life in the sea and on the ocean floor
than would dumping closer to shore and in
shallower waters.
Mr. President, written into the bill in
Section 102 are stringent criteria which
the Administrator must meet in reviewing
permit applications.
These criteria undoubtedly would guide the
Administrator in his designation of
recommended sites for ocean dumping. But
the effect of the Case amendment would be
to tend to cut off his review of these
criteria. And it seems to me wholly arbi-
trary for the Congress to give the
Administrator discretion to apply
criteria, based on scientific knowledge
and careful monitoring, and then to nibble
away at it by requiring him ta give
preference to sites beyond the edge of
the Continental Shelf. The arbitrariness
is compounded because we do not know what
is beyond the edge of the Continental
Shelf. And that is the only basis —
knowledge — on which we shall be able to
deal effectively with ocean pollution.
The amendment would tend to perpetuate
-8-
the "out of sight out of mind" philosophy
on which we have been operating to date
and should be opposed. [Id. at 43068-
43069].
The Senator went on to state that he "would not mind
this as a consideration . . . [but did] not want it as a
mandatory provision that [the Administrator] has got to give
preference to determining first whether [material] can
possibly be dumped beyond the Continental Shelf." Id. at
43069.
Senator Case acceded to these objections, noting:
it is not my desire to interfere with
the work of the Administrator, or
make this the sole criterion by any
means . . .
. . . [A]s to the suggested change, I
am perfectly agreeable, with the
colloquy we have had. [Id.]
As result of this exchange, the proposed amendment was deleted
from Section 102(c) and added to Section 102(a) as one of the
factors which the Administrator is required to "consider" in
selecting ocean dumping sites. At the same time, the require-
ment that EPA give "preference" to off-the-shelf sites was
replaced by the directive that the Agency consider use of-such
sites "wherever feasible'.
Over the years, members of Congress have continued to
express many of the same concerns about the feasibility of
utilizing off-the-Shelf sites enunciated by Senator Boilings
-------
-9-
in 1971. In 1977, for example, Congressman Forsythe, ranking
minority member of the House Subcommittee on Oceanography,
remarked during EPA ocean dumping authorization hearings
that: 2/
MR. FORSYTHE: I am very concerned about
•what you are doing in terms of this
question of moving the dump site [to the
106-mile site].
I know you are working on an EIS, but how
broad are the considerations that you are
evaluating in this area? Do they include
the fisheries impact, which I believe can
be very, very serious, the whole problem
of moving the sewage into a new environ-
ment, and the fact that you have got a
major problem of ever getting any of that
sludge to 106 just from the practicality
of keeping a barge afloat that long, and
the weather that you can run into and the
massive problem of policing such an opera-
tion.
Another member of the Subcommittee voiced similar misgivings
based on EPA's professed lack of knowledge concerning the
effect of dumping at the site. 3/
The comments of Senator Boilings.and Congressman
Forsythe suggest that, at a minimum, EPA's assessment of the
feasibility of utilizing an off-the-Shelf site should include
consideration of environmental impact, the feasibility of
monitoring and surveillance, and logistics.
2/ Hearings Before the House Subcommittee on Oceanography
on March 9, 1977, Serial No. 95-6 at 235 ("March 9, 1977
Hearing").
3/ Id. at 237.
-10-
The enactment of the 1977 amendments to the MPRSA has,
in my judgment, added yet another major consideration to this
list. Those amendments codify EPA regulations requiring the
cessation of all ooean dumping of sewage sludge which does'not
meet EPA's environmental impact criteria (t.e.. all municipal
sewage sludge currently being dumped in the Mid-Atlantic) 4/
by December 31, 1981, by providing that such dumping be
terminated
as soon as possible after the date of
enactment of this section, but in no
case may the Administrator issue any
permit, or any renewal thereof . . .
which authorizes such dumping after
December 31, 1981. [P.L. 95-153.
See also H.Rep. No. 325, 95th Cong.,
Tit Sess. 3-4 (1977)].
The purpose of the amendments, as described by the Chairman
of the House Subcommittee on Oceanography, is to "provide
added assurance that the municipalities currently engaged
in this activity will phase out their sewage sludge dumping
by December 31, 1981." Cong. Rec. H10787 (Daily ed.,
October 11, 1977) (Remarks of Representative Breaux).
I think it is significant that, of the numerous aspects
of EFA's ocean dumping program reviewed by Congress in
1977 — including the relocation of sewage sludge dumping to
the 106-mile site, 5_/ the termination of sewage sludge dumping
4/ 40 C.F.R. 220.3(d), 42 Fed. Reg. 2462, 2470 (January 11,
1977).
5/ March 9, 1977 Hearing at 235-237; Hearings Before the
House Subcommittee on Oceanography on September 20, 1977,
unprinted, Tr. at pp. 27-29, 38-43, and 55-58 ("September 20,
1977 Hearing"). .
-------
-11-
was overwhelmingly the focus of Congressional attention, 6/
and the only matter to be addressed in the first major amendment
to the Act since 1974.
This leads me to conclude that the question of whether a
move to an off-the-Shelf site will impede or prevent realization
of this objective should be given substantial weight in determin-
ing the feasibility of utilizing such a site for sewage dumping
over the next four years. My conclusions are reinforced by
comments made by the Chairman and the ranking minority member
of the House Subcommittee on Oceanography during the Agency's
1978 ocean dumping authorization hearings: 7/
MR. BREAOX: I have been concerned that
a decision to move a dump site [to the
106-mile site] is going to involve a
lot of additional cost, and different
type of equipment to bring it further
off-shore, etc. That might be defeat-
our purpose of getting out the business
by 1981 at all, by making it more diffi-
cult for the communities. They could
end up spending more money just in mov-
ing it to an additional new dump site,
and that is something that I know you
are considering.
6/ March 9, 1977 Hearing at 240-246 and 400; Bearings Before
the House Subcommittee on Oceanography on June 15, 1977,
Serial No. 95-6 at 430-431 and 443-588 ("June 15, 1977 Hearing");
September 20, 1977 Hearing Tr. at pp. 13-14, 20, 25-27, and
47-49.
7/ Hearings Before the House Subcommittee on Oceanography
on February 1, 1978, unprinted, Tr. at pp. 27-28 and 31
("February 1, 1978 Hearing"). See also March 9, 1977 Hearing
at 235-236.
-12-
HR. FORSYTHE: [Y]ou well know my posi-
tion on the 106 situation. The Chairman
has indicated that really investing any-
thing in that situation, it seems to me,
to be draining from the potential of
getting out of the ocean, almost any way
you look at it now, and there are other
environmental problems in that situation
in addition to the money factor, which
is, I think, a very substantial one. It
is going to' increase the cost of moving
that far, the dump site.
That is just money that certainly should
be going in to getting the onshore game
underway, and we are finding so many
delays.
Accordingly, utilizing the broad discretion granted EPA
under Section 102(a)(I) to determine whether utilization of
an off-the-Shelf site is feasible, and considering the kinds
of factors which Congress has suggested that EPA examine in
making such a determination, I have decided that the
feasibility of using an off-the-Shelf site for the disposal
of sewage sludge should be based on a consideration of at
least six major factors: known environmental acceptability;
ability to monitor impact; surveillance of dumping activities;
economic burden; logistics; and the effect of utilizing such
a site on the ability, of dumpers to meet the December 31, 1981
deadline for the termination of harmful sewage sludge dumping.
B. The December 31, 1981 Deadline
In addition to adding a new statutory consideration to
EPA's assessment of "feasibility" under Section 102(a)(I),
the 1977 Amendments to the MPRSA provide "added assurance"
-------
-13-
that ocean dumping of sewage sludge will in fact terminate
by December 31, 1981. They not only clarify Congress's
intent under the 1972 Act that the ocean dumping of harmful
sewage sludge be phased out by a date certain, 8a/ but also
provide EPA with the statutory muscle necessary to
effectively enforce compliance dates in sewage sludge ocean
dumping permits. At the same time, the amendments put
municipalities on notice that they will not be able to obtain
administrative extensions of the December 31, 1981 date from
EPA 8_/ and that they can expect vigorous enforcement of permit
phase-out schedules. EPA and the cities of Philadelphia and
New York have testified before the House Subcommittee on
Oceanography that the 1981 date can be met. 9_/
Members of Congress have recognized that a firm phase-out
date for sewage sludge dumping should, as a practical matter,
affect decisions made by EPA with respect to the Agency's
ocean dumping program, particularly site selection. As
Congressman Forsythe noted during EPA's 1977 HPRSA authoriza-
tion hearings: 10/
8a/ H.Rep. No. 325, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1977).
8/ See June 15, 1977 Hearing at 454-458.
9/ See, e.g., June 15, 1977 Hearing at 454, 461 and 467;
September 2"07~1977 Hearing Tr. at pp. 12, 16, 26 and 27;
February 1, 1978 Hearing Tr. at pp. 21, 54 and 57.
10/ March 9, 1977 Hearing at 235-236.
-14-
MR. PORSYTHE. Here we are in 1977 with
a 4-year end point, and we roust, 1 think,
be able to meet that. And now we are
considering moving the problem, not
really looking at some practical steps
which can be taken to end ocean dumping.
To bring it back into the context of our
problem today, one thing that disturbs
me, if we are going to stop 4 years
hence, is that we are spending money
still looking at ocean dumping [at other
sites].
I have similarly concluded that the statutory requirement
that sewage sludge dumping be terminated as soon as possible
and no later than December 31, 1981 (effectuated by the
enforcement policy outlined in Section III.C of this decision)
is a major factor to be considered in determining both the
potential environmental impact of current dumping activities
and the desirability of relocating dumpers prior to that date.
III. FINDINGS AMD CONCLUSIONS
A. Relocation of New York/New Jersey Sewage
Sludge Dumping to Either the 60-mile or
106-mile Site
With respect to the proposed relocation of part or all of
the sewage sludge generated by the City of New York and other
communities in the New York/New Jersey Metropolitan Area to
either the 60-mile or 106-mile site, with the additional
observations set forth in Section II of this decision, I am
adopting the findings and conclusions of the Toms River
-------
-15-
hearing officer. Accordingly, it is my determination that
sewage sludge dumping by these municipalities should not be
relocated at the present time; however, efforts should begin
immediately to designate the 60-mile site for the disposal of
New York/New Jersey sewage sludge in the event such sludge
cannot be dumped at the New York Bight .site for public health
reasons prior to December 31, 1981.
B.
Relocation of Philadelphia Sewage Sludge
Dumping to the 106-mile Site
The proposed relocation of the City of Philadelphia to
the 106-mile site has received more attention and has more
vigorous advocates than the relocation of sewage sludge being
dumped oy New York/New Jersey communities. As discussed above,
this issue was considered in both the Toms River hearing and
the hearing on Philadelphia's permit renewal, and diametrically
opposite conclusions were reached by-the two hearing officers.
I have reviewed both reports and hearing records and it appears
that the difference in the conclusions reached by the two hear-
ing officers are based in part on differences in their factual
findings and in part on the weight they have accorded those
findings in reaching a final determination. In the discussion
which follows, I will attempt to resolve these factual
differences and set forth in more detail the decisional frame-
work in which they should be evaluated.
-16-
1. Feasibility of Ptilizing the 106-mile Site. The
HPRSA requires that sites beyond the edge of the Continental
Shelf snail be utilized wherever feasible. The hearing
officers disagree on whether or not sludge dumping at the
106-mile site is feasible.
The Toms River hearing officer discusses feasibility in
terms of environmental impact, monitoring feasibility,
surveillance feasibility, economic burden, and logistical
feasibility. He concludes that the dumping of large volumes
of sewage sludge at the 106-mile site is not feasible
because of the unknown but potentially adverse environmental
consequences and the inability to monitor the site effectively.
The Philadelphia permit hearing officer notes that almost
all of the marine scientists who testified are opposed to
sludge dumping at the 106-mile site because of the unknown
environmental consequences. He also concludes that monitoring
at the 106-mile site would be more difficult and expensive
than at the present site, and recommends that assurances be
obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion (NOAA) that monitoring of the effects of sludge dumping
at the 106-mile site is feasible.
Thus, both hearing officers agree that there is cause
for concern about the potential adverse environmental impact
of sludge dumping at the 106-mile site.
The Toms River hearing officer concludes that these
impacts cannot be monitored effectively, and that this makes
-------
-17-
use of the site for sludge dumping infeasible. The
Philadelphia permit hearing officer, however, conditions his
recommendation that the site be utilized on receiving assurances
from NOAA that NOAA can monitor the impacts of sludge dumping
at the site. NOAA has advised EPA that it believes the impacts
of sewage sludge dumping can be monitored effectively at the
106-mile site, but that such a program would cost about $2.5
million per year, ll/
Conclusion
I am impressed by the concern expressed by many reputable
scientists about the potential for adverse environmental impacts
from sludge dumping at the 106-mile site. Nevertheless, I would
not regard these concerns as preventing use of the 106-mile site
for sludge dumping if a sound predictive judgment could be made
concerning the impact of dumping at the site and an effective
monitoring program could be established. However, such judgments
are currently highly speculative and the cost of mounting an
effective monitoring program at the 106-mile site, as estimated
by NOAA, is far beyond the existing resources which could be made
available between now and January 1, 1981, when sludge dumping by
Philadelphia will stop. I must, therefore, conclude that, in
a practical sense, effective monitoring of sludge dumping at the
ll/ Letter from Dr. Donald Hartineau to Dr. Andrew Breidenbach,
3ated October 11, 1977.
-18-
106-mile site cannot be achieved between now and 1980, and
that we would have to accept the chance of unknown, but
potentially severe, environmental damage to the oceans if large
quantities of sewage sludge were dumped at the 106-mile site.
2. Impact of Dumping on Shellfishing at the Philadelphia
Site. In 1976, an area encompassing the Philadelphia sewage
sludge dumping site was closed to Shellfishing by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). It is anticipated that this area
can be reopened about two years after sludge dumping at the
site stops. The Toms River and Philadelphia hearing officers
disagree on the economic significance of this closure.
The Philadelphia permit hearing officer suggests that
there is a real potential for development of the ocean quahog
fishery in this area as surf clam stocks become depleted,
and that continued sludge dumping at the present site will
significantly delay the commercial development of this shell-
fish resource. He estimates that the value of the potential
annual catch from the area would be approximately $420,000.
The Toms River hearing officer points out that these estimates
are based on harvesting the site at a rate of 200 percent of
the Maximum Sustainable Yield (HS7), when in fact ocean quahog
is now harvested at only 0.2-3.0 percent of the MS7, and to
this extent only in the New England area. He concludes that
the actual economic impact of the closure would, at most, be
-------
-19-
from $420-56,300 per year if the site were fished at the same
rate as other areas off the Atlantic Coast, and that closure
of this small area for an additional three years is unlikely
to have a significant impact on the development of the Delmarva
quahog fishery.
Conclusion;
The two hearing officers disagree here only in their
estimates as to the rate at which the ocean quahog fishery
will develop in this area over the next few years. One
hearing officer assumes that the fishery will develop to 200
percent of the MSY over a two year period immediately after
the dumpsite is reopened, whereas the other assumes the extent
of development will be approximately the same as that in other
geographical areas where depletion of surf clam stocks has led
to commercial harvesting of the ocean quahog.
Predicting the future growth of an industry is, of course,
fraught with speculation and must be based on assumptions about
which there might reasonably be disagreement. In this
particular case, I regard the historical development of the
ocean quahog fishery in other areas as being the best guide
for predicting its development In this area, and I therefore
conclude that the economic impact of the closure of the
present site to shellfishing for an additional three years is
not significant, considering that the site can be reopened to
-20-
shellfishing by the end of 1982, and that this site represents
only a very small fraction of the ocean quahog resources avail-
able to fishermen in the Delmarva region. Certainly, if there
were any possibility that the City of Philadelphia would be
dumping its sewage sludge at this site for a longer period of
time, my conclusion might be very different.
3. Impact of Sewage Sludge Dumping on the Marine
Environment at the Philadelphia Site. Since 1973, EPA has
studied the Philadelphia dumpsite and the surrounding area
on a quarterly basis. The results of these studies have been
presented by EPA Region III in a series of technical reports
and at public hearings. Both hearing officers agree that the
data collected show evidence of adverse impact from sludge dump-.
ing, but they disagree on the extent of the impact and the signi-
ficance which should be attributed to these observed impacts.
The Toms River hearing officer based his conclusion on
the entire body of data collected over three and one-half
years of study of the dumpsite and the surrounding area. He
found that, while the data did show some impacts which could
be reasonably attributed to sludge dumping, the adverse effects
did not appear to become more severe with time and that most of
the key indicators measured were still within normal ambient
levels for this part of the Continental Shelf. Be concluded
that because the observed levels of these indicators at and
near the site were within normal ambient conditions for
unpolluted areas of this part of the Continental Shelf and
-------
-21-
because the data did not show significant temporal trends over
the three and one-half years of sampling, significant improve-
ment in overall environmental quality as measured by these key
indicators could not be expected as a result of the termination
of sludge dumping at this site. However, he notes that in
addition to these data, recent cruises have produced evidence
of crab gill fouling and of coliform bacteria in ocean quahogs,
both of which are highly significant indicators of pollution
from sludge dumping, but he does not feel these impacts are
irreversible, based on the history of recovery of the former
Philadelphia sludge dumping site from similar impacts.
The Philadelphia permit hearing officer bases his .con-
clusions on testimony presented at the permit hearing report-
ing on the most recent studies of the dumpsite by EPA Region
III. He finds that the distribution of trace metals in
organisms, the presence of coliform bacteria in ocean quahogs,
and the presence of crab gill fouling demonstrate that sludge
dumping has had an adverse impact on marine biota at and near
the site. He does not assess the severity of the impact, but
he does conclude that the observed impacts are reversible in
that the site can be reopened to shellfishing within a few
years after dumping has terminated.
Conclusion
Both hearing officers agree that there is clear evidence
of degradation of the marine environment due to sludge dumping
at the Philadelphia dumpsite, that the impacts are reversible,
-22-
and that the dumpsite can be reopened to shellfishing after
dumping has been terminated. A key question that must be
addressed in this context is: What additional degradation of
the dumpsite area is likely to occur between now and the end
of 1980 if Philadelphia is permitted to continue using the
present dumpsite? The Philadelphia permit hearing officer
does not address this point. The Toms River hearing officer,'
however, feels that massive additional degradation will not
occur, considering the historical trends at the site and the
decreasing rate of dumping by Philadelphia over the next few
years. I concur with this conclusion.
4. Comparison of Risks and Benefits Resulting from Utili-
zation of the 106-mile Site and the Philadelphia Site. The hear-
ing officers differ in their assessments of the environmental
benefits and risks associated with the continued use of the
Philadelphia dumpsite as compared with those associated with use
of the 106-mile site.
The Philadelphia permit hearing officer regards the 106-mile
site as preferable because: (1) the greater depths and distance
from shore would arguably provide for much greater dispersion
and dilution of wastes; (2) there are no commercial shell-
fisheries at the site; (3) the area is much lower in biological
productivity; (4) the danger of contaminated solids reaching
the ocean bottom and adversely affecting shellfish and other
bottom organisms is is minimized; and (5) the risk of human
consumption of contaminated shellfish is minimized.
-------
-23-
The Toms River hearing officer does not address each of
these points specifically, but he does conclude that:
(1) the present dumpsite is far enough from shore to eliminate
any danger of sludge reaching shorelines or beaches; (2) the
present dumpsite has not been used as a commercial shellfishery
in the past, and the potential development of the ocean quahog
fishery in the general area is unlikely to be significantly
delayed if sludge dumping continues through 1980; (3) the
organisms at the 106-mile site are acclimated to a very stable
environment and are likely to be more sensitive to pollutants
than organisms inhabiting the Continental Shelf; (4) settleable
solids would be dispersed over a much wider area and could
adversely impact developing fisheries and nursery areas of the
Continental Shelf and Slope; and (S) there would be a small,
but real, risk of contamination of commercial shellfish beds
due to short dumping.
The Toms River hearing officer attaches'much importance
to the concerns expressed by experienced marine scientists
about the unknown impacts of sludge dumping on deep ocean
environments. The Philadelphia permit hearing officer notes
these concerns but regards them as being of less importance
•than the factors listed above.
-24-
Conclusion:
The points made by both hearing officers are well-taken,
and I am sure the significance of these and other similar
considerations could be debated at length by the scientific
community. The differences in the assessments of the hearing
officers emphasize- the many ecological.unknowns surrounding the
dumping of large volumes of sewage sludge at the 106-mile site
and strengthens my conviction that sludge should be dumped at
that site only if predictive judgments as to the impact of dump-
ing can be improved and utilization of the site can be
accompanied by an effective monitoring program.
5. Philadelphia Hearing Officer's Characterization of
Philadelphia Site as Impact Category I. The Philadelphia hear- .
ing officer determined that the closure of the Philadelphia
dumpsite to shellfish harvesting by the Pood and Drug Administra-
tion warranted categorizing the site as Impact Category I within
the meaning of Section 228.10(c)(1)(iii) of EPA regulations.
The Toms River hearing officer, however, disagreed with this
categorization on the basis that shellfishing is not a major
v ' ~
use of the site, and that there was, therefore, no'impairment
of a major use, as is required under Section 228.10(c)(1)(iii).
Having already determined that shellfishing is not and will
not in the immediate future be a major use of the site (see
Section III.B.2 above), I concur in the findings of the Toms
River hearing officer. I additionally note that the record
-------
-25-
does not support a finding of Impact Category I under Section
228.10(c)(l)(ii) of the regulations for the reasons discussed
in the Toms River hearing officer's report at pp. 33 through
63.
However, even assuming that the Philadelphia hearing
officer's assessment is correct, the categorization of an ocean
dumping site as Impact Category I does not require that the
use of a site be automatically discontinued, but only that
EPA "place such limitations on the use of the site as are
necessary to reduce the impacts to acceptable levels." Section
228.10(c). Such restrictions might include limitations on the
y
volume of material dumped at the site, eventual discontinuance
of the use of a site, and restrictions on the nature of the
wastes which may be dumped at the site.
The current Philadelphia permit incorporates a number of
provisions designed to the reduce impact of dumping to accept-
able levels. All dumping is to be terminated by January 1,
1981. Phila. Permit, p. 9. Prior to that date, the volume of
solids dumped annually will be reduced according to the
following schedule (Phila. Permit, pp. 9-10):
Permit Year
6/76-6/77
6/77-6/78
6/78-6/79
6/79-6/80
6/80-1/81
Volume (in pounds)
140,000,000
95,000,000
70,000,000
40,000,000
10,000,000
-26-
The City has been required to conduct a heat disinfection pilot
study of its digesters to determine the feasibility of further
reducing viruses and pathogens in its sludge, and, if full scale
conversion is deemed feasible, to submit a schedule for imple-
mentation of full thermophilic digestion. Id. at p. 12. The
City is also required to continue efforts to analyze and control
the introduction of heavy metals into treatment plant influent.
Id. at p. 9. The stringent enforcement policy announced today
in Section III.C. of this decision should assure that these
goals are achieved.
For these reasons, I conclude that the existence of an
Impact Category I situation, either in and of itself or when
weighed with other factors discussed above, would not require
immediate discontinuance of dumping by the City of Philadelphia
at the present site.
6. Decision;' My major goal in reaching a decision on
the proposed relocation of the City of Philadelphia is that
the City's ocean dumping of sewage sludge be terminated at the
earliest possible time. It is, therefore, my determination that
foe the immediate future the City of Philadelphia should continue
to dump sewage sludge at its present ocean dumpiste. In reaching
this conclusion, I have considered carefully the records of both
hearings and the conclusions and recommendations of both hearing
officers. With the qualifications stated above, I adopt the
-------
-27-
findings and conclusions of the Toms River hearing officer;
however, I consider the following factors to be of overriding
importance:
a. Environmental Considerations.
i. The present dumpsite has been degraded
by sewage sludge dumping, but present
trends do not indicate that the area
will be irreversibly damaged by the
end of 1980, especially in light of
the fact that the rate of dumping will
rapidly decrease during the interim
per iod.
ii. At the present time, there is
Insufficient data on which to base an
accurate predictive judgment as to the
environmental impact of dumping large
volumes of sewage sludge on marine biota
and marine ecosystems at the 106-mile
site. Additionally, I do not believe
that, as a practical matter, an effective
monitoring program for the site can be
Implemented before January 1, 1981. For
these reasons, I conclude that it would
be preferable to continue using -a site
-28-
which is already degraded but capable
of recovery rather than risk unknown and
potentially irreversible environmental
impacts at a new location.
b. Public Health Considerations
There is no indication that continued dumping at
the present site would affect shorelines or beaches, or
would in any other manner present a danger to public
health.
c. Economic Considerations
i. The development of a commercial ocean quahog
shellfishery along the Delmarva coast will not
be significantly impaired by the additional
three-year closure of the Philadelphia dump
site.
.ii. It would cost Philadelphia about $5,000,000
to dump at the 106-mile site through 1980.
Considering the lack of significant environ-
mental or public health benefits that would
be obtained from moving to this site, it
would be preferable, in my opinion, to use
this money to develop and implement land-
based alternatives to ocean dumping which
would enable Philadelphia to meet its
compliance schedule rather than spend it
for increased barging costs.•
-------
-29-
7. EPA Decision to Relocate Camden, New Jersey Sewage
Sludge Dumping. On December 7, 1976, following the denial of the
City of Camden1s application for an interim ocean dumping permit
by EPA Regions II and III, a United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey issued an order in United States v.
City of Camden, Civ. No. 76-0424, requiring EPA to issue a
ninety-day emergency permit to the City to dump sewage sludge
at the Philadelphia site. The Department of Justice, at EPA'a
request, and based on the Agency's preliminary assessment of
the probable relative environmental impacts of Camden's dumping
at the two sites, subsequently moved for a modification of that
order to allow EPA to issue the permit for the 106-mile site.
The Government's request was granted, and in January, 1977
a permit was issued to the City of Camden to dump at the 106-mile
site.
It has been suggested that EPA's decision to recommend
relocation of Camden from the Philadelphia site to the 106-
mile site in United States v. City of Camden necessarily
requires that identical action be taken with respect to the
City of Philadelphia. 12/ While there may be some superficial
similarities between the two situations, a close examination of
EPA's Camden decision indicates that that determination was not
12/ See, e.g., pleadings filed by the State of Maryland in
Maryland" v. Train, No. 76-1887 (4th Cir. 1977); September 20,
1977 Hearing Tr. at pp. 55-58.
-30-
intended to nor does it logically require such a result.
The affidavit of the Assistant Administrator for Hater
and Hazardous Materials filed in support of the Government's.
motion for modification of the New Jersey District Court's
December 7, 1976 order explicitly states that EPA's decision
to recommend the relocation of Camden was not intended to serve
as a binding precedent for all dumpers at the Philadelphia
site: U/
The decision by EPA to recommend that
the site be moved from the Philadelphia
site to the 106 site is based on our
analysis of this particular problem; it
is not intended either to encourage or
preclude use of the 106 site for future
dumping. Such decisions will be made
on their merits"! [Emphasis added.]
Furthermore, a comparison of the "problems" posed by Camden
and Philadelphia dumping demonstrates that they are not, as
a factual matter, identical.
A major (if not the major) consideration in urging the
relocation Camden sludge dumping to the 106-mile site was
that the dumping would be of "limited duration and quantity." 14/
13/ Affidavit of Andrew W. Breidenbach, Assistant Administra-
tor for Water and Hazardous Materials, dated December 31, 1976,
at 1 6 ("Breidenbach Affidavit"). See also Affidavit of
Russell E. Train, Administrator, dated December 10, 1976 at
1 6 ("Train Affidavit").
14/ Breidenbach Affidavit at 11 5(d) and 6. See also Train
Affidavit at 11 6 and 7; Testimony of Thomas C. Jorllng,
Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials,
September 20, 1977 Bearing Tr. at p. 58.
-------
-31-
In contrast to the approximately 5,000,000 pounds of sewage
sludge solids scheduled to be dumped by the City of Camden
over approximately a year under its emergency and interim
permits, the City of Philadelphia is currently scheduled to
dump up to 170,000,000 pounds of sewage sludge solids over the
next three years.
Furthermore, a significant factor influencing EPA's
decision to move Camden was the FDA's finding that fecal coli-
form contamination of shellfish at the Philadephiia dumpsite
was "caused principally by the raw [untreated] sewage being
dumping by the City of Camden, New Jersey." IS/ The City of
Philadelphia does not dump raw sewage sludge. Philadelphia
sludge receives secondary treatment and mesophilic digestion
which destroys up to up to 90% of viruses and pathogens. 16/
Furthermore, in its 1977-1978 .permit, Philadelphia has been
«
required to undertake studies to determine whether further
IS/ Affidavit of Captain James L. Verber, Northwest Techni-
cal Services Unit, Food and Drug Administration at 1 5
(emphasis added). The bacterial and pathogenic contamination
of shellfish and beaches resulting from the dumping of
untreated sewage sludge is also discussed in Affidavit of
William C. Huir, Oceanographer, Environmental Impact Branch,
EPA Region III, dated December 29, 1976, at 11 9-12; Affidavit
of Dr. Gerald Berg, Chief, Biological Methods Branch, Environ-
mental Monitoring and Support Laboratory at 11 2-7 ("Berg
Affidavit"); Affidavit of George D. Pence, Jr., Chief,
Environmental Impact Branch, EPA Region III, dated December 29,
1976, at 11 7 and 8.
16/ Decision of the Regional Administrator, In the Matter of
tEe City of Camden, New Jersey, dated October 2, 1976, at
p. 10; Berg Affidavit at 1 7.
-32-
reduction of viruses and pathogens can be achieved through
thermophilic digestion. 17/
Finally, the record in the Camden case does not indicate
that the City's efforts to develop and implement land-based
alternatives to ocean dumping would have been significantly
impeded as a result of the increased costs of barging sludge
to the 106-mile site. As suggested above, the incremental
cost of transporting Philadelphia sludge to the 106-mile site
may have such an effect on Philadelphia's ability to terminate
its sludge dumping by January 1, 1981.
In addition to all these considerations, it should be
noted that the Camden decision was issued in response to a
Court order and was based on a rather rapid analysis of
information then readily available concerning the potential
impacts of Camden'a dumping at both sites. Today's decision,
on the other hand, represents a more thorough and extensive
assessment of the problem in light of information not avail-
able to the Agency in 1976, public comment, and amended
legislation.
In short, EPA's 1976 decision to relocate the City of
Camden's sewage sludge dumping was not intended to establish
a precedent for all sewage sludge dumping at the Philadelphia
site, nor is the factual context in which that decision was
17/ Phila. Permit, p. 12.
-------
-33-
issued identical to that currently presented by Philadelphia
sludge dumping. The decision issued today, like the Camden
decision, "is based on our analysis of this particular
problem", and, as such, is not inconsistent with that earlier
determination.
C. Establishment of Ocean Dumping Enforcement Policy
Because my decision today is .based in part on the premise
that compliance schedules in current ocean dumping permits will
be met and that, consistent with the 1977 amendments to the
MFRSA, ocean dumping of harmful sewage sludge will be terminated
as soon as possible and in no event later than December 31,
1981, I am today announcing the following enforcement policy
to effectuate those goals.
1. Reporting Requirements. Effective today, any failure
to meet any compliance date in any interim permit for the ocean
dumping of sewage sludge shall be reported to me by the
Regional Administrator who issued the permit (or his designate)
within ten (10) days of his receipt of information indicating
such non-compliance. The report shall state the compliance
date missed, the municipality's justification(s), if any, for
such non-compliance, whether the Region anticipates that sub-
sequent compliance dates will be met, and what action the
Region intends to take as a result of such non-compliance.
-34-
2. Development of Regional Enforcement Strategies. The
Regional Administrators of Regions II and III shall develop and
transmit to me a detailed plan for enforcing compliance
schedules in ocean dumping permits which shall include
consideration of, but shall not be limited to, the enforce-
ment activities discussed in paragraph 3 below. In developing
these plans, the Regional Administrators should proceed on the
premise that every incident of non-compliance should be
followed up by an enforcement action appropriate to the viola-
tion unless there is good sufficient reason not to do so (i.e.,
the non-compliance results from factors beyond the permittee's
control or it is demonstrably clear that subsequent compliance
dates will be met). Additionally, the Regional Administrators
should consider the extent to which planning and grant
activities under Title II of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, can be utilized to assure that land-
based alternatives to sewage sludge dumping are developed and
implemented within the time frames set forth in the compliance
schedules in ocean dumping permits under their jurisdiction.
3. Enforcement Activities. In developing enforcement
plans under paragraph 2 of this section and in determining, in
each instance where a violation of a compliance schedule has
occurred, what specific enforcement action shall be taken, the
Regional Administrators of Regions II and III shall, where
practicable, adhere to the following general guidelines:
-------
-35-
a. Administrative actions for the assessment of a
civil penalty should seek the maximum permitted by statue.
b. Where there have been repeated violations of
compliance schedules, action should be instituted to either:
i. Modify the permit to move up interim
and/or final compliance dates; or
ii. Revoke the permit.
c. Where there have been repeated violations of
compliance schedules, the case should be referred to the
Department of Justice with the recommendation that a court
action be instituted under Section 105(d) of the Act seeking:
i. An injunction against further violations
of the compliance schedule;
ii. A court-ordered compliance schedule; and
ill. Where appropriate, a court-appointed
overseer to manage the permittee's implementation plan
pending final cessation of dumping.
d. Where there have been willful and knowing viola-
tions of compliance schedules, the case should be referred to
the Department of Justice for 'criminal prosecution of responsible
municipal officials under Section 105(b) of the Act.
D. Heed For An Environmental Impact Statement
Much comment was received in the course of the Toms River
hearing concerning the need to prepare an Environmental Impact
-36-
Statement ("EIS") prior to relocating sludge dumping to the 106-
mile site or the 60-mile site (especially on anything more than a
temporary basis). The Toms River hearing officer recommended that
EIS's be prepared on sewage sludge dumping at the New York Bight
site, the Philadelphia site, the 60-mile site and the 106-mile
site, and that criteria be established for determining the circum-
stances under which sewage sludge dumping should be relocated.
While I do not, as a practical matter, forsee any change in
conditions at the existing dumpsites which would require reloca-
tion of sewage sludge dumping prior to the 1981 deadline, I also
recognize that my decision not to move dumpers to the 106-mile
site at the present time is based in part on the general lack of
information concerning the effects of dumping large quantities
of sewage sludge at that site. So as to leave no stone unturned
in determining the "feasibility" of utilizing this site for the
disposal of sewage sludge, I am directing that the EIS's now
being prepared on existing sludge dumping sites and the 60-mile
site include, in their consideration of alternatives, an assess-
ment of utilizing the 106-mile site. I am also directing that
the EIS on the 106-mile site, which is now designed to cover only
the disposal of industrial waste, be expanded to include the
dumping of sewage sludge.
Thomas C. Jotting
Assistant Administrator for
Water & Hazardous (Materials
March 1, 1978
-------
APPENDIX E
USEPA-REGION II
CRITERIA FOR RELOCATION
OF SEWAGE SLUDGE SUMPING
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
-------
CRITERIA FOR RELOCATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
DUMPING IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Background
In July 1974, EPA Region II proposed that a new ocean dump
site be designated for use until sewage sludge dumping in the
New York-New Jersey metropolitan area could be replaced by envi-
ronmentally, technically, and economically viable land-based
disposal methods. Region II took this step as a precaution against
any possible public health effects that might result from over-
taxing the existing dump site located 12 miles from Long Island
and New Jersey coastal beaches.
In order to determine whether such a precaution was necessary,
and if so, whether the proposed action was the best possible way of
preventing public health hazards and coastal water quality degra-
dation, an in-depth evaluation of the proposed action and the alter-
natives to it was undertaken. The conclusion of this in-depth
evaluation, contained in Region II's Draft EIS entitled "Environ-
mental Impact Statement on the Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in
the New York Bight", was that EPA's proposed action was environ-
mentally unnecessary and might, in fact, be more environmentally
damaging than taking no action.
Based on the information reported in the Draft EIS, Region II
made a preliminary decision not to go ahead with the proposed action.
Instead, Region II recommended (1). continued use of the existing
site, (2) development and implementation of a comprehensive moni-
toring program for the existing site, and (3) designation of an
alternate dump site that can be used if and when the monitoring
program indicates that the existing site cannot safely accommodate
any more sewage sludge.
On May 31 and June 1, 1977, EPA conducted a public hearing in
Toms River, New Jersey, to gather information and to obtain public
comment on the possible relocation of sewage sludge dumping farther
offshore (42 FR 23163). The findings and conclusions of this hearing
were issued by EPA on March 1, 1978. This decision included the
following determination:
"...efforts should begin Immediately to designate the
60-mile (alternate) site for the disposal of New York/
New Jersey sewage sludge in the event such sludge cannot
be dumped at the New York Bight (existing) site for
public health reasons prior to December 31, 1981."
In order to implement this decision, criteria are established
herein for determining the circumstances under which sewage sludge
dumping should be relocated.
Relocation
Criteria developed for relocation of sewage sludge dumping in-
the New York Bight are a two-pronged assessment of ambient water
quality conditions during peak summer months. The assessment includes
sampling and evaluation of microbiological parameters and dissolved-
oxygen depletion rates, both of which can be related to existing and
legally enforceable federal and state water-quality standards. The
EPA Regional Administrator may, at his discretion, require the assess-
ment of additional water quality parameters as conditions warrant.
A network of .22 sampling stations (Fig. 1) has been established.
Stations are located in transects perpendicular to the coast and
shoreward of the existing sludge dump site. Three perpendiculars
were established from the Long Island coast and three from the New
Jersey coast. Locations of sampling sites are tabulated in Table 1.
The primary-indicator tool in the assessment of shoreward move-
ment of ocean dumped materials from the sludge dump site is the total
and fecal coliform bacteria group. Sampling is conducted weekly during
the period May 15 to September 15. Surface, middepth, and bottom water
samples are collected, preferably during incoming tidal conditions.
The second element of the alert system is an assessment of the
annual oxygen depression rates (net) in the vicinity of the sludge
dump site. Sampling is accomplished twice weekly from May 15 to
July 1. Intensive surveys of dissolved-oxygen uptake in bottom waters
are conducted. An ongoing rate assessment is performed using predic-
tive modeling directed towards projecting the time of occurrence of
anoxic conditions.
This 22-station network is an integral part of a more compre-
hensive monitoring program to evaluate ambient water-quality conditions
in the New York Bight. Data collected under the comprehensive program
by EPA, NOAA, Nassau County Department of Health, New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection, and others will provide information on
additional parameters and will supplement and augment the relocation
criteria evaluation.
Continual review and evaluation of data inputs resulting from
the 22-station sampling program is utilized to determine future regu-
latory action according to the following alert scheme:
1. Initial Review - Should the bacterial data show
greater density than 1000 per 100 ml total coli-
form or 200 per 100 ml fecal coliform at ten
percent of the stations monitored during any one
sampling period, or should the predictive modeling
-------
indicate that anoxic conditions would occur prior
to September 15, the appropriate First Alert system
will immediately be implemented.
2. First Alert - Either (a) an intensive 5-day survey
of bacteriological quality within the contiguous
zone (3 to 12 miles offshore) will be conducted to
assess the movement of dump site material toward
coastal beaches. Should the results of this inten-
sive survey demonstrate an excursion at any one '•
station (i.e., geometric mean of all samples col-
lected at a single depth equal to or greater density
than 1000 per 100 ml total coliform or 200 per 100 ml
fecal coliform), a Second Alert will immediately be
implemented; or
(b) an intensive diurnal study of dissolved-oxygen
uptake at a minimum of two areas where maximum rates
are evidenced will be performed over a 3-day period.
Should the prediction of anoxic conditions be con-
firmed, a Second Alert will immediately be imple-
mented.
3.' Second Alert - All permittees will be notified by
"telegram that contingency plans to prepare for a
transfer of dumping activities to a designated ocean
dump site farther offshore should be activated.
A second intensive study (bacterial or oxygen up-
take, as appropriate) will be conducted.
Members of an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee (Table 2)
would convene to assess the results of the two
intensive surveys. Upon completion and evaluation
of the survey results, the Committee will prepare
and submit to the Regional Administrator its findings
and recommendations. The Committee may invite public
participation before submitting such findings and
recommendations.
The Regional Administrator, after consultation with
the Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste
Management, shall make his final determination within
five days of receipt of the Advisory Committee Report.
This determintion shall be transmitted to the per-
mittees by telegram and shall be published in a New
York City newspaper as soon as possible.
Figure 1
LONG ISLAND
BIGHT APEX AND EXISTING DUMP SITE
30
KILOIETERS
5_ 10 15
I1AUTICAL HlUS
-------
Table 1
Sampling Station Network Utilized in Determining the
Circumstances
Station
NYB20
NYB22
NYB24
JC14P
JC14A
JC14B
JC14C
JC27P
JC27A
JC27B
JC27C
NYB40
NYB42
NYB44
LIC09P
LIC09A
LIC09B
LIC09C
LIC14P
LIC14A
LIC14B
LIC14C
Under Which Sludge Dumping
New Jersey Transects
Latitude
40°23'54"
40°23'54"
40°23'54"
40°17'30"
40 17 '30"
40°17'30"
40°17'30"
40°13'00"
40°13'00"
40°13'00"
40 13 '00"
New York Transects
40°33'36"
40 29 '42"
40°25'54"
40°32'45"
40°29 ' 10"
40°27'08"
40 24 '21"
40°33'30"
40 30 '55"
40°28'15"
40°26'00"
Would be Relocated
Longitude
73°56'03"
73°51'00"
73°47'30"
73°55'40"
73°50'10"
73°44'45"
73°39'15"
73°56'50"
73°51'00"
73°45'32"
73°39'50"
73°45'00"
73°45'00"
73°45'00"
73°38'20"
73°38'20"
73°38'20"
73°38'20"
73°28'00"
73°28'00"
73°28'00"
73°28'00"
Table 2
Agency Membership on Ad Hoc Advisory Committee
on Relocation of Sludge Dumping in the New York Bight
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II - Chairman
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and
Waste Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection
New York State Department of Health
-------
APPENDIX F
USEPA-REGION II
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
-------
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
EPA - REGION II
I. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of the municipal sludge enforcement strategy for EPA Region II
is to provide for the ultimate disposition of municipal wastewater treatment
sludge in a manner that will protect public health and the environment by
ensuring that ocean dumping of sewage sludge will cease by December 31, 1981.
This goal Is made clear in the language of three legislative mandates, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the Clean Water Act (CWA)
of 1977, and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
of 1972.
The sludge management provisions of these legislative mandates emphasize
a secondary goal; the conservation of resources through the beneficial uti-
lization of municipal wastewater treatment sludge, where practicable.
In order to meet these goals, it is necessary to establish a series of
program objectives to be addressed by both EPA and the states of New Jersey
and New York. These are:
1. to assure that the ocean dumping of harmful sewage sludge generated
in Region II is eliminated by December 31, 1981 through phased reduction;
2. to assure that sludge management practices are cost effective and
meet the environmental criteria established in EPA guidelines and regulations;
3. to ensure the implementation of pretreatment programs in order to
reduce the presence of toxic materials in sludge;
4. to encourage the beneficial utilization of a sludge where environ-
mentally and economically feasible; and
5. to establish an effective federal/state/local partnership in imple-
menting the program.
The purpose of this document is to lay out precise plans for achieving
these goals, along with the activities that must be carried out in order to
implement each element of the strategy.
Formulation of the strategy involved four steps. First, the problem
was identified and assessed. Next, all past and present programs affecting
the problem were summarized. In light of the findings made in the first two
steps, a strategy was formulated. Finally, the programmatic activities needed
to implement the strategy were specified.
II. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
The CWA provides federal grants for the construction of publicly-owned
wasteuater treatment facilities to upgrade the quality of the nation's navi-
gable waters by removing contaminants from wastewater. Contaminant removal
produces a residual material known as sewage sludge. In municipal or publicly-
owned wastewater treatment plants, the sludge produced is largely organic,
although it also contains measurable quantities of metals and minerals.
As more wastewater treatment facilities are put on line, greater quanti-
ties of sludge are produced requiring additional disposal capacity. Further,
the more complex the treatment system, the more sludge that is produced. Also,
untreated industrial wastes are discharged into most municipal systems. These
wastes often contain heavy metals and other toxic materials which are then
concentrated in the municipal treatment plant sludge.
Currently, four basic methods are used for the disposition of municipal
sludges:
- Ocean dumping
- Landfill
- Surface land application
- Incineration
Each of these disposal options has a number of substantial environmental
impacts.
The need to develop and utilize alternative sludge management options is
heightened by the fact that by December 31, 1981 ocean dumping of harmful
sewage sludge must cease, thus eliminating the major disposal option cur-
rently used in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. Congress, through
the MPRSA, declared that its policy was to regulate ocean dumping to pre-
vent or strictly limit the dumping of harmful materials. In November 1977,
Congress amended this Act to require the cessation of all ocean dumping of
harmful sewage sludge by December 31, 1981. That date is fixed in EPA's
ocean dumping regulations (40 CFR 220-229) , and in Interim ocean dumping
permits issued by Region II. Although convinced that the 1981 deadline can
be met, Region II realizes that some dumpers will not comply unless given
sufficient incentive. • -
III. PROBLEM ASSESSMENT
In 1975 the Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC) estimated that 10,000
wet tons of sewage sludge per day, about 80 percent of the sludge produced by
municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the New York-New Jersey metro-
politan area, are barged into the New York Bight and dumped at a site approxi-
mately 12 miles offshore. The remainder of the sludge is disposed of mainly
-------
through landfilllng, incineration of dewatered sludge followed by landfilling
of ash residue, and direct application to land as a soil conditioner. Fur-
ther, ISC estimated that by the year 2000 these sludge quantities would in-
crease by approximately a factor of four, to 40,000 wet tons per day. Much
of this increase will occur prior to 1980 due to the upgrading of existing
wastewater treatment plants from primary to secondary treatment.
EPA estimates that 5.0 million wet tons of sludge will be dumped in 1978
into the New York Bight from 49 publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities
operating under permits issued by Region II. Over the past five years, the
annual volume dumped under the EPA permit program has been:
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
4.6 million wet tons
4.2 " "
4.3
4.4
4.5
In April 1975, when Region II initiated its permit program, sludge from
approximately 250 facilities was being dumped into the New York Bight. Since
then, the number of plants practicing sludge dumping has been substantially
reduced through EPA's strict compliance schedules or permit denial. For
example, in 1976 93 plants in New Jersey were denied permits because alter-
natives to ocean dumping were available. It should be noted also that no
permit has been issued for sewage sludge generated by other than those who
had been dumping prior to 1973.
While Region II has made progress in cutting the number of sludge gener-
ators dumping sludge, it has not made any substantial progress in reducing the
quantity of sludge being dumped. This is largely due to increases in the
amount of sludge being generated as a result of upgrading. The sources of
the sewage sludge being dumped into the New York Bight and the phase out
dates for all permittees as of July 10, 1978, are given in Table 1.
The permit conditions requiring cessation reflect an early recognition
by Region II that sewage sludge dumping could cause degradation of the marine
environment and should be phased out as soon as viable alternatives could be
found. As early as 1971 and continuing through the present, EPA has had a
sludge management program. This program drew upon the authority and funds
contained in Sections 102 and 106 of MPRSA and Section 201 of CWA. The pro-
gram initiated studies of the environmental and economic feasibility of
alternative sludge disposal methods.
A study funded by EPA and performed by ISC provided an assessment of
the technical alternatives to ocean disposal of sludge in the New York-
New Jersey metropolitan area.
Based on the results of these studies, EPA sought to impose a compliance
schedule for the cessation of dumping through ocean dumping permits, utilizing
those alternatives identified, such as composting, land application, inciner-
ation, and pyrolysis. All permits issued in August 1976 required the imple-
mentation of one or more alternative disposal methods by December 31, 1981.
Where alternatives could be implemented sooner, which is the case with several
small New Jersey municipalities-, an earlier date was imposed. However, five
permittees (New York City, Nassau County, Westchester County, Passaic Valley,
and Middlesex County) during the May 25, 1976 public hearings on new permit
applications indicated that they could not submit an alternative disposal
facility plan*, due December 31, 1977, and requested time extensions for the
date of this submission. These extensions were granted in permits effective
in February 1978.
Several permittees have selected a two-phase approach in selecting and
implementing alternatives to ocean dumping. This two-phase approach generally
utilizes one sludge management alternative which will be implemented before
the December 31, 1981 deadline as a short-term solution, and a second long-
term sludge management alternative which cannot be implemented by the 1981
deadline. The long-term management alternatives tend to be those that utilize
the resource value of the sludge to the maximum extent possible, but cannot
be implemented by 1981 either due to current technological limitation in the
process (i.e., pyrolysis and co-pyrolysis), available capital limitations of
the sewage authority (i.e., New York City), or insufficient time available to
plan, design and construct the necessary facilities.
Short-term alternatives are those solutions which, while designed to
meet the 1981 deadline, either will not meet the full future capacity needs
of the sludge generator or will not provide for utilization of the resource
value of the sludge. In general, the short-term solutions have the prime
objective of meeting only the goal of protecting public health and the
environment by providing an acceptable alternative to ocean dumping, whereas
long-term solutions meet both the public health and environment goal, and
the resource utilization and management goal.
IV. STRATEGY
In order to provide for the ultimate disposition of municipal sewage
sludge in a manner that will protect public health and the environment in
the region, EPA and the states of New York and New Jersey will:
1. phase out the use of the existing sewage sludge ocean dump site
by using a series of regulatory authorities and procedures; and
* Funding was provided under a CWA Section 201 Step 1 grant.
-------
2. encourage and facilitate the utilization of sludge as a resource
by taking a regional approach to the development of alternative disposal
methods.
In order to phase out the use of the existing dump site, EPA and the states
must take the following steps:
o use MPRSA ocean dumping permit authority to
- issue new permits to applicants eligible to receive
new permits
- expeditiously review the feasibility of using dump sites
farther offshore
o vigorously enforce MPRSA permit conditions
- administrative actions for the assessment of civil penalty
should seek the maximum permitted by statute
- where there have been repeated violations of compliance
schedule, action should be instituted to either:
i. modify the permit to move up interim
and/or final compliance dates; or
ii. revoke the permit
- where there have been repeated violations of compliance
schedules, the case should be referred to the Department of
Justice with the recommendation that a court action be insti-
tuted under Section 105(d) of the Act seeking:
i. an injunction against further violations
of the compliance schedule;
ii. a court-ordered compliance schedule; and
iii. where appropriate, a court-appointed overseer
to manage the permittee's implementation plan
pending final cessation of dumping.
- where there have been willful and knowing violations of com-
pliance schedules, the case should be referred to the Department
of Justice for criminal prosecution of responsible municipal
officials under Section 105(b) of the Act.
Four tasks have been identified as being crucial to the implementation
of this strategy. The tasks, which have been accomplished, are:
o Public announcement of permit issuance
o Issuance of interim permits
o Establishment of an injunctive relief procedure
o Establishment of a review comniittee to determine
compliance with Implementation schedule, monthly
status reports, and other permit conditions
TABLE 1
MUNICIPAL OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS - REGION II
(as of January 1, 1978)
Permit No. Waste Generator
II-NJ-019 Bergen Co. Sewer Authority
II-NJ-012 Camden Dept. Public Works
II-NY-068 Glen Cove, City of
II-NJ-022 Joint Mtg. of Essex & Union Co.
II-NJ-021 Linden-Roselle & Rahway Valley S.A.
II-NY-007 Long Beach, City of
II-NJ-008 Middlesex Co. Sewerage Authority
II-NJ-002 Middletown Twp. Sewerage Auth.
II-NY-028 Nassau Co. Dept. Public Works
Bay Park STP
Belgrave STP
Cedar Creek STP
Farmingdale STP
Freeport STP
Inwood STP
Meadowbrook STP
Roslyn STP
W. Long Beach S. Dist.
II-NY-009 New York City Dept. Water Resources
Bowery Bay.STP
Coney Island STP
Hunts Point STP
Jamaica STP
Newtown Creek STP
Owls Head STP
Port Richmond STP
Rockaway STP
Tallman Island STP
26th Ward STP
Wards Island STP
Phase Out Date
December 31, 1981
* June 15, 1978
December 31, 1981
December 31, 1981
December 31, 1981
December 31, 1981
December 31, 1981
December 31, 1981
December 31, 1981
December 31, 1981
-------
MUNICIPAL OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS - REGION II
(as of January 1, 1978)
Permit No. Waste Generator
II-NJ-003 Passalc Valley Sewerage Coram.
II-NY-029 Westchester Co. Dept. Envir. Fac.
II-NJ-111 General Marine Transport Corp.
Domestic Septic Tank Wastes
Lincoln Park
Morris Twp.
Pequannock Twp.
Wanaque S.A.
West Peterson
Wood-Ridge
II-NJ-017 Modern Transportation Co.
Domestic Septic Tank Wastes
Asbury Park
Atlantic Highlands
Caldwell Boro
Cedar Grove
Chatham
Kearay
Neptune Twp. - Ocean Grove
Northeast Monmouth Reg. S.A.
Oakland Boro
Passaic
Pompton Lakes
Roxbury Twp.
Totowa Boro
Washington Twp. - Morris Co.
Wayne Twp.
West New York
Phase Out Date
December 31, 1981
December 31, 1981
* April 23, 1978
July 31, 1979
December 31, 1981
December 30, 1980
May 30, 1980
December 31, 1980
December 31, 1981
December 1, 1978
December 31, 1981
December 31, 1981
* August 20, 1978
December 31, 1981
* March 2, 1978
•December 31, 1981
* June 15, 1978
December 31, 1981
* June 30, 1978
* February 28, 1978
* June 30, 1978
December 31, 1978
December 31, 1981
December 31, 1981
* June 30, 1978
December 31, 1981
* Phase out completed
Rev. September 1, 1978
-------
APPENDIX G
NOAA-MESA
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ERL MESA-11
EVALUATION OF PROPOSED SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMP SITE AREAS
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
CHAPTER I: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FEBRUARY 1976
-------
I. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Ocean dumping of sewage sludge in the New York Bight has been practiced
since 1924. Amendments of 1972 to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
require that all sewage treatment plants in operation on 1 July 1977 provide
a minimum of secondary treatment. It has been estimated that if the present
practice of ocean dumping continues, this upgrading of treatment in the New
York/New Jersey metropolitan area will triple the volume of sewage sludge
dumped at the present sewage sludge dumpsite in the New York Bight (Environ-
mental Protection Agency 1974). Concerned that the existing New York Bight
sewage sludge dumpsite might not accommodate the anticipated three-fold in-
crease, the Environmental Protection Agency, Region II (EPA) signed a Letter
of Understanding Concerning Baseline Surveys and Evaluations of the Proposed
Interim Sewage Sludge Disposal Site(s) in the New York Bight with the Nation-
al Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Marine EcoSystems Analysis
(MESA) New York Bight Project on May 7, 1975. NOAA's MESA New York Bight
Project has studied significant features of the New York Bight environment
and the two proposed alternative sewage sludge dumpsite areas.
It should be noted that NOAA's advice and policy recommending continued
use of the existing sewage sludge dumpsite is contained in letters from
NOAA's Associate Administrator for Marine Resources to the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, dated September 17, 1974, and
October 6, 1975 (Appendix A).
This section summarizes significant features of the New York Bight's
midshelf environment and alternative sewage sludge dumpsite areas 1-A and 2-
A (fig. 1), draws applicable conclusions about the effects of dumping sewage
sludge at any interim dumpsite in this environment, and presents specific
recommendations relative to dumping operations and monitoring activities (for
additional information on the selection of the proposed alternative sewage
sludge dumpsite areas, see Sections II-A and II-B).
A. Characteristics of the Environment
Features of the Bight's physical environment and biota that relate to
the dumping of sewage sludge in the alternative dumpsite areas are summarized
by disciplinary category.
Geological oceanography: Field studies within northern alternative
dumpsite area 1-A and southern alternative dumpsite area 2-A indicate the
following:
Seafloor sediments in both areas are predominantly clean sands of medium
grain size (% to h mm), but contain small areas with over 20 percent gravel.
The absence of mud deposits indicates thorough reworking of the substrate by
storms, which resuspend fine sediment particles and remove them from the
studied areas.
Sediment grain-size and bedform data for special survey grid area 2D1 in
northern area 1-A and special survey grid area 2D2 in southern area 2-A (fig.
2) suggest a general transport of sand-sized sediment to the southwest
1
-------
rf t jtf
NEW YORK BIGHT
CONTOURS IN FATHOMS ft (METERS)
X 7<° 30
30' n° 30' 71"
Figure 1. Existing and proposed alternative sewage dump site area (Area 1-A
and Area 2-A). The shaded area along the continental ehelf is a no-fishing
area established by international bilateral agreements.
74000-
41° 00'
73°00'
72°00'
40° 00' IF
39000
Figure 2. Proposed alternative sewage sludge dumpsite areas 1-A and 2-A in
the Neu York Bight showing some of the major topographic features.
-------
during seasonal storms—"northeasters," which usually occur In winter, but
sometimes occur 1n summer. Data for northern grid area 2D1 Indicate a moder-
ate rate of southwest sediment transport over broad, low-gradient, preexist-
ing valleys. Data for southern grid area 202 suggest more intense southwest
sediment transport. The Hudson Shelf Valley (fig. 2) functions to some ex-
tent as a conduit for materials dumped in the Bight Apex.
Physical oceanography: Water-column characteristics and water movements
over the midshelf region of the alternative dumpsite areas are predictable,
in a general manner. However, sudden climatic events can disrupt general
seasonal cycles, cause changes in structure of the water column, and, there-
by, modify the fractionation, settling, and transport of dumped sewage
sludge.
The density difference associated with the "cold bubble" that occurs in
midshelf waters over the alternative dumpsite areas during summer may cause
increased amounts of dumped material to reside in the surface water layer.
The potential for shoreward transport of material in this surface layer, at
the sea/air interface, is greater during summer. In winter, shoreward trans-
port in the surface layer is less.
The flow of shelf waters, below the wind-driven surface layer, is gen-
erally southwestward along depth contours. This flow is highly variable
and subject to intense meteorological events, particularly in winter. Mid-
shelf water mixes with water in the Bight Apex, where currents are variable.
Currents in the Apex are dominated by tidal and meteorological forcing.
Wind events sometimes cause varying flow patterns for several days. The
previously hypothesized, long-term, clockwise eddy motion (gyre) in the
Apex has been confirmed for the intermediate water layer. However, the near-
bottom flow and surface flow in the Apex do not always coincide with the
flow in the intermediate water layer or with each other. Short-term current-
meter records of near-bottom flow indicate that the gyre may extend to the
bottom during the winter season.
Hudson Shelf Valley water, at least beneath rim depth, flows both up
and down the Shelf Valley; but, the long-term flow is distinctly up-valley.
This up-valley flow and the predominate southwestward flow in upper midshelf
waters increase the potential for shoreward transport of sewage sludge that
would be dumped in northern area 1-A northeast of the Hudson Shelf Valley.
There is a subtle shoreward bottom water flow relative to the flow
higher in the water column, as shown by current meter records throughout the
Bight. Though not fully understood, this movement may be caused by estuarine
influences, compensation for offshore surface wind transport, and formation
of a boundary layer due to friction.
Chemical oceanography: In the Bight Apex, dumped sewage siudge -increases
the trace metal and organic contaminant loading of sediments, and, to a lesser
extent, the water column. It also adversely affects, to a lesser extent,
the oxygen levels in the Apex water mass. The total influence of sewaqe
sludge dumping upon the sediment and water column, however, is less than
the influence of contaminants from other sources.
In the alternative dumpsite areas, any dumping of sewage sludge could
increase chemical species 1n the water column at the point of introduction.
However, rates of dispersal should be sufficient to reduce this effect, ex-
cept in the immediate discharge plume. Observations indicate little existing
contamination of the midshelf region, at least within the limits of the
alternative dumpsite areas.
Dilution and dispersion of sewage sludge at the present dumpsite are
not sufficient to avoid some influences on the chemistry of the ecosystem.
Dilution and dispersion of sewage sludge in either alternative dumpsite area
would be greater than at the present site. There probably would be only
local and temporary changes in water chemistry.
Biological oceanography: Outer and mid-portions of the Bight appear
relatively pristine insofar as they have been studied. General conclusions
follow.
Living marine resources in the midshelf region of the alternative dump-
site areas are typical of those along the Middle Atlantic and New England
continental shelf. Benthic assemblages are an essential food supply for most
demersal fishes. They would be altered unpredictably, perhaps only mini-
mally, by the dumping of sewage sludge. These assemblages are distributed
fairly homogeneously, on a large scale, in response to the natural features
of the region, such as sediment type and bottom relief.
Potential biological impacts of dumping sewage sludge in the alternative
dumpsite areas—based on field investigations and studies in the Bight Apex--
include:
1. An increase in the indicence of fin rot in offshore areas.
2. Contamination of sediments and overlying waters by pathogens
of man, fish, and shellfish, some of which are resistant to
certain antibiotics and heavy metals.
3. Alterations in migratory patterns of bottom-living fishes.
4. Increased concentrations of several heavy metals in fish
and shellfish.
5. Modifications of food webs through introductions of detritus
and bacteria; and short-term, localized effects on plankton
through nutrient enrichment.
B. Factors in Selection of Area and Disposal Procedure
Certain observed phenomena that will affect the impact of dumped sewage
sludge are discussed relative to choice of dumpsite and method of dumping.
The following discussion is predicated on the assumption that a clear and
definite need for moving the existing sewage sludge dumpsite has been demon-
strated, a need which has not yet been demonstrated.
-------
Selection of alternative dumpsite area: In selecting any dumpsite area,
the Hudson Shelf Valley must be considered because: a) It serves as a migra-
tion path for certain fishes and shellfish, b) fisheries are now present in
and near the Valley, and c) the deeper portion of the Valley is a winter
aggregation zone for certain species. Further, water flow in the Shelf
Valley is extremely complex, reverses at times, and is difficult to predict.
Current flow over the midshelf and outershelf of the Bight generally is
to the southwest. Variations In this mean flow sometimes show on onshore
component. Dissolved and suspended fractions of dumped material can be ex-
pected to move with the prevailing flow, and, at times to move shoreward.
The Hudson Shelf Valley is a sink for a large portion of fine particles
that reach it. Material dumped in northern area 1-A is likely to concen-
trate in and contaminate the Shelf Valley to a greater degree than material
dumped in southern area 2-A. Available data indicate that the Shelf Valley
is important to living resources so that southern area 2-A is more acceptable
for disposal of sewage sludge than northern area 1-A.
Selection of disposal procedure: There has been much discussion about
the merits of containing versus dispersing of wastes disposed in the marine
environment. Dilution over a large area has been advocated by some to mini-
mize environmental problems, while containment of wastes within a small
area has been advocated by others to preserve the remainder of the environ-
ment. In the midshelf region the argument is academic. Sewage sludge will
be naturally dispersed and widely distributed, even when dumped at a point
source. To extend dumping operations over a large area increases the costs.
Also, development of a system to monitor effects of disposal over a large
region will introduce a logistic problem that will be exceedingly expensive
to solve.
C. Recommendation of Specific Dumpsite Location
It is recommended that any new sewage sludge dumpsite be located within
a small portion of the southern alternative dumpsite area 2-A. Specifically,
the site should include an area no more than approximately 12 rani* (41 km2),
centered at latitude 39°40'N - longitude 73°18'W, where depths are approxi-
mately 40 m (22 fm). Reasons for recommending this location include pro-
jected environmental effects, development of an effective monitoring program,
and, to a lesser degree, the method and economy of the sewage sludge disposal
operations. This site minimizes the possibility of material being dispersed
toward and into, as well as concentrated in, the Hudson Shelf Valley.
D. Monitoring New Interim Dumpsites
Development of an effective monitoring program at any new sewage sludge
disposal site is essential to understanding the effects of the dumping. It
is recommended that an adequately funded monitoring program be established.
Monitoring of any new sewage sludge dumpsite must include an examination of
the type of waste material to be disposed in context with the rationale for
dumping and the desired ultimate fate of the waste. Knowledge of the proposed
site, in the context of regional oceanographic processes and the interaction
of injected material with the environment, is required. Ideally, the proposed
dumping situation should be modeled and independently verified. Once dumping
begins at the site, the oceanographic processes and fate of dumped materials,
which were hypothesized-and modeled, should be verified through a monitoring
effort that includes detailed field investigations of the dispersive, advec-
tive, and density fields, particularly as a function of the oceanographic
climatology. If initial assumptions prove valid, then monitoring should con-
tinue routinely, utilizing only a few key parameters to check the probabilis-
tic nature of the original predictions. These parameters should be selected
on the basis of their usefulness, sensitivity, and ease and rapidity of samp-
ling and analysis. The monitoring program should be designed to be econom-
ically reasonable. The objective of the monitoring should be a biological
and chemical assessment of the capacity and growth of the site, the health of
the biological community in and around the site, and the extent of movement
of material away from the site. If initial assumptions concerning the oceano-
graphy in the vicinity of the site fail to withstand the rigors of the field
investigations, then the new knowledge should be used immediately to identify
and resolve discrepancies, and to make appropriate adjustments in dumping
practices, if warranted.
A list of parameters that should be part of the monitoring effort fol-
lows. It should be emphasized that there is no unique tag for measuring the
fate or effect of dumped sewage sludge in the marine'environment. Time and
space scales, and methods of sampling, are not defined at this time. Envir-
onmental parameters that require complex instrumentation systems, or massive
data collection programs, should be avoided.
Total and fecal coliforms: The distribution and abundance of these
organisms in the water column, sediments, and shellfish should be measured.
Regardless of weaknesses associated with utilizing coliforms as indicators,
they remain the only acceptable standard, and they are indicators of patho-
gens.
Turbidity: Some measure of turbidity of the water column is useful as a
general measure of the advection and dispersion of dumped sewage sludge.
Long-term persistence and growth of turbidity in what is now a rather pris-
tine area would be excellent indicators of environmental degradation.
Ocean color: Remotely sensed ocean color information should be con-
sidered as a potential indicator of materials from dumped sewage sludge at
and near the air/sea interface. Utilization of existing technology and
either satellite or high altitude imagery should provide considerable insight
into the transport and dispersion of these materials.
Characteristic materials found in seaage sludge: There are a number of
byproducts representative of human, animal, and industrial wastes in sewage
sludge. Physical examination of suspended material and of bottom surficial
sediment samples should give, perhaps, the first indication of contamination.
Examination of samples for tomato and melon seeds, human hair, fragments of
rubber and plastic, and cellulose fibers is suggested.
-------
Dissolved oxygen: Dissolved oxygen In the water column 1s one of the
most critical parameters to monitor. The general health of the environment
depends on a sufficient supply of oxygen relative to Its utilization to sup-
port life and oxidize man-related and natural materials. Close examination
of oxygen content Is recommended.
Metals in sediments: The distribution and abundance of selected heavy
metals in surficlal sediments should be monitored at both sites. Atypical
metal concentrations are general Indicators of a degraded environment.
Benthia invertebrates: These organisms serve as long term integrators
of marine environmental contamination. It is recommended that abundance of
selected species be determined. In addition, col 1form and heavy metal deter-
mination should be made In selected shellfish.
-------
APPENDIX H
NOAA
BASELINE REPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
IN DEEPWATER DUMPSITE 106
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
JUNE 1977
-------
INTRODUCTION
Public Law 92-532, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, put an end to the unregulated disposal of wastes in off-
shore waters of the United States. This Act was the culmination of concern
by the Executive Branch, the Congress, scientists, and the public at large
over the potential dangers to the environment and to public health of
unrestricted ocean dumping. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (NOAA) has the responsibility under Title II of the Act to conduct
monitoring and research to determine the environmental effects of the
dumping of waste materials into ocean waters.
This baseline report contains the results of field studies conducted
by NOAA in and about the Deepwater Dumpsite 106 (DWD-106), approximately
106 nautical miles from Ambrose Lightship and 90 nautical miles due east of
Cape Henlopen, Delaware, for the purpose of characterizing the site's
environment and biota. The studies were conducted in May 1974, July 1975,
and February 1976 on the ships ALBATROSS IV and DELAWARE II, ALBATROSS IV
and the submersible ALVIN, and OREGON II, respectively. J. F. Hebard and
R. Dill were co-chief scientists for the May 1974 work, with participation
by investigators from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental
Protection Agency, Lanont-Dougherty Geological Observatory, Virginia Insti-
tute of Marine Science, and University of Rhode Island. D. Cohen was the
chief scientist for the July 1975 investigations, with participation by the
National Marine Fisheries Service, Smithsonian Institution, Naval Underwater
Systems Center, and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. M. Ingham was the
chief scientist for the February 1976 investigation, with participation by
the National Marine Fisheries Service, Smithsonian Institution, University
of Rhode Island, Naval Underwater Systems Center, and Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution.
The results of the May 1977 survey were published in December 197S
(VMay 1974 Baseline Investigation of Deepwater Dumpsite 106") as NOAA
Dumpsite Evaluation Report Number 7S-1. A related report was published in
April 1976, entitled "Passage of Anticyclonic Gulf Stream Eddies Through
Deepwater Dumpsite 106 During 1974 and 1975V, as Report Number 76-1.
It was found that report 75-1 describing the 1974 baseline study con-
tributed substantially to an understanding and description of the environ-
mental conditions in DWD-106. However, instead of producing individual
reports for the other baseline field studies, it was decided to produce a
single document addressing the results of all the baseline work in the
dumpsite and its vicinity.
The concept underlying NCAA's efforts in the investigation of this
dumpsite area was that obtaining an adequate baseline should constitute an
important first step, in order to compare subsequent monitoring findings with
the baseline data to ascertain effects that might be ascribed to dumping.
Ix
Thus, an important objective was to define both spatial and temporal varia-
tions. The second (July 1975) and third (February 1976) seasonal baseline
efforts were combined with selected research which could contribute to
knowledge on dumping effects at the same time baseline data were obtained.
Included were studies into the constituents and reactions of given wastes
being disposed, work on mutagenesis in fish eggs and larvae; and similar
research.
Two experimental field studies including dispersal tracking of plumes
were conducted in 1976 following completion of the February baseline work,
one in June using the USCGC DALLAS and the submersible ALVIN, and one in
August using the WHOI ship R/V KNORR. An assessment report addressing the
research carried out during the period 1974-76 in the Deepwater Dumpsite 106,
including the two experimental field studies, is expected to be completed
within about six months of publication of this report.
A variety of wastes are disposed in DKD-106, whose dimensions enclose
an area of over 700 square nautical miles, but efforts were concentrated
on American Cyanimid and duPont wastes since these constituted about 80% of
the total volume of material entering the area. The Environmental Protection
Agency in early 1977 authorized the disposal at DWD-106 of large quantities
of ferric chloride as well as sewage sludge previously dumped at nearshore
sites, posing new problems in future research and monitoring.
Nearshore dumping of wastes sometimes imposes more severe and immediate
environmental penalties than disposal in deeper waters because of differences
in rates of dilution and dispersal than in deeper water, and possible public
health hazards associated with fish spawning areas, shellfish beds, and
recreational areas. However, the environmental effects of disposal in deeper
waters are correspondingly more difficult to measure and, henc~, to predict.
This is due to factors such as greater depths of water and distances from
shore and also to the general paucity of environmental and biological informa-
tion in off-the-shelf areas. In the case of DWD-106 this situation is
further complicated by the interactions of major water masses, Shelf Water,
Slope Water, and Gulf Stream eddies. The DWD-106 is a complex Oceanographic
area in which to assess natural environmental conditions and the impact of
man's activities upon those conditions.
This report was prepared under the overall direction of P. M. Cohen
(National Ocean Survey) and M. C. Ingham (National Marine Fisheries Service).
Technical assistance by NOAA's Environmental Data Service is gratefully
acknowledged. Specific requests for copies of data should be addressed to
Mr. Jack Foreman, D2xl, Environmental Data Service, NOAA, Washington, D.C.
20235.
-------
SUMMARY
The purpose of this summary is to provide a synthesis of the major
findings contained in the Baseline Report, particularly as they pertain
to the dumping situation in DWD-106. One objective of the DWD-106
studies has been to characterize baseline conditions -in the region
in its present status as a receiving area for industrial wastes. Obtain-
ing a pure pre-dumping baseline has not.been possible since systematic
quantitative measurements were not taken before dumping began. The
Baseline Report is divided into three sections: Physical Character-
istics which appear as volume 1, Biological Characteristics, volume 2,
and Contaminant Inputs and Chemical Characteristics, volume 3. An
Appendix, containing results too detailed for the main body of the report,
is included in volume 3. Characterization results are chiefly from
three baseline cruises, but also from data obtained during two summer
1976 experimental cruises, as well as from National Marine Fisheries
Service sources. While emphasis has been on site characterization,
inferences as to the effects of dumping have been made where appropriate.
A more definitive assessment of dumping effects will be made in a dumpsite
assessment report about six months after the publication-of this report.
1. Physical Characteristics
The morphological and geological character of the DWD-106 ocean
bottom is characteristic of lower slope-upper rise regions of the Western
Atlantic. Depths vary from 1700 to 2750 meters with gradients ranging
from about 4% in the shallower slopes to 1% over the. deeper rise. Sediments
within the dumpsite area are composed of large sand and silt fractions, with
silts predominating. The slope region is covered by a soft, silty sediment
of recent origin and is relatively tranquil, with little evidence of
significant net current action except for some erosion by tidal currents.
Near the slope-rise boundary there is very little sediment of recent origin,
suggesting that current action is strong enough in the region to periodi-
cally sweep away sediment accumulation. The upper continental rise
appears as a tranquil, almost current-free region, with nearly uniform
sedimentation. No evidence was found of any waste material reaching the
bottom within the dumpsite boundaries.
The physical oceanographic environment in DWD-106 is extremely complex
and variable in all but near-bottom water. Normally the surface layer
of DWD-106 is Slope Water, which lies between fresher Shelf Water to the
west and more saline Gulf Stream Water to the east. Overrunning of Shelf
Water occurs periodically, however, and Gulf Stream Water in the form of
southward-moving Gulf Stream eddies is present about 20% of the time.
Anticyclonic (clockwise) or warm core Gulf Stream eddies and meanders
within the Slope Water region can import large parcels of relatively warm
and saline Western North Atlantic Water and waters from the Gulf Stream
into the DWD 106 area. These large water parcels move through the Slope
Water region, generally in a southwest direction, until they either dissi-
pate or rejoin the Gulf Stream in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras. Mixing
of the slope and eddy water also occurs, in association with the
xi
continual decay process of eddies and meanders, altering the normal
temperature-salinity characteristics of DWD-106 Slope Water. Two of the
three baseline characerization cruises encountered an eddy in or near
the dumpsite. These aperiodic eddies produce the largest changes in the
water column of the dumpsite. The effects of eddies and meanders may
reach depths of 800 to 1000 meters. Below these depths the temperature-
salinity characteristics remain within a narrow range.
Occasionally a seaward excursion of the shelf-slope front brings
highly variable Shelf Water into the upper waters of the dumpsite, often
producing a very complex vertical structure consisting of thin layers
of cool, low salinity Shelf Water interspersed with warm, high-salinity
Slope Water. Mixing of Shelf and Slope Waters across the Shelf Water/
Slope Water front may also be caused by the strong circulation of the
eddies or meanders. Evidence from the February 1976 cruise supports this
by showing a major injection of Shelf Water into the Slope Water due to a
rather weak eddy located offshore of the Virginia Capes.
The annual meteorological cycle leads to a period of stratification
from May to October, during which a seasonal thermocline develops, overlain
by a mixed layer which is about 30 to 40 m deep in late summer. The top
of the permanent thermocline lies at about 100 to 200 m, and between the
two thermoclines is a layer of weak thermal gradients, apparently a
residue from winter conditions. During the fall-spring period (October-
May) the water column is nearly isothermal to about 100 to 200 m depth,
although inversions of up to 6°C can occur due to the mixing of low
salinity, cool Shelf Water into the upper 100 m above the high salinity,
warn Slope Water. Density structure is important in the mixing and dilution
of dumped waste materials; both pollutants and living organises have a
tendency to layer in stable regions just above the thermocline.
Available data reveal net current action to be toward the west or
southwest at all depths, approximately parallel to local isobaths. Current
reversals were associated with the passage of warm core eddies, and changes
in surface current occurred in response to storm passages and other wind
field changes. Surface flow in this direction would be consistent with
average currents detected from navigational effects. The net current
speeds recorded (maximum = 11 cm/sec) are much lower than turbulent speeds
due to wind forcing (in the surface layer) or those due to passage of an
anticyclonic eddy.
Observations of eddy movement, and knowledge of shelf-slope current
regimes, suggest that normally no net shoreward currents exist in the Mid-
Atlantic region sufficient to bring dumped material near to shore. The
eventual fate of any material trapped by an eddy and transported to the
Cape Hatteras region is less certain, although vertical movement and dis-
persion would make any significant shoreward concentrations of waste
material unlikely.
The climate of DWD-106 is typical mid-latitude marine with.synoptic
and seasonal patterns similar to a land location but with warmer winters,
cooler summers, and stronger winds than at a corresponding coastal station.
xii
-------
The mean temperature varies from about 4*C in February to 24°C in August.
Northwesterly winds prevail from October through March, when the region
is influenced by northerly pressure centers, the Icelandic low, and the
North American High. Southwest winds dominate from April through September
when the influence of the Bermuda High to the south prevails. Due to
migrating weather systems, however, winds are quite variable in all seasons,
most so in winter. The average wind is almost twice as strong (10 m/sec) in
January-February as in July (S m/sec). Waves are moderate, with an average
wave height reaching a hazardous level of 3.5 m or more about 10% of the
time in the winter, and around 1% in the summer. Both winds and waves
increase continuously with distance from shore.
Extreme conditions can be estimated statistically from analysis of
past tropical storms affecting the region. On this basis, a maximum sus-
tained wind of 55 m/s and a maximum significant wave height of 21 m will
occur within the dumpsite area once every 100 years.
2. Biological Characteristics v
Biological data obtained on the baseline cruises provided limited
quantitative coverage of the region. Together with other available data,
this also sufficed to provide a qualitative biological overview of the
region. A complete picture is not yet available, however, and distinguish-
ing dumping effects from natural variations will continue to be a. problem.
Present studies are using a combination of laboratory experiments, patho-
biological studies, and comparison with control areas to attempt to resolve
this difficulty.
Plankton undergo large natural variations with changing water type and
for this reason, assessment of the plankton jof the region was difficult.
Coastal waters are characterized by high nutrient concentrations and popu-
lations with wide seasonal variations in abundance and diversity. Oceanic
waters have reduced nutrient levels and population densities, but photosyn-
thetic processes extend to much greater depths. Mixing water types will
produce a complex combination of these conditions.
A summer phytoplankton assessment showed an abundant coastal population
near the surface (0-30 m) and a more even, lower concentration of oceanic
forms over the upper 75 m. The assessment occurred in conjunction with a
dump of waste materials, but no definite effects of dumping were observed.
Populations were not significantly different before and after dumping of
waste material; lower counts were probably attributable to dilution by barge
water.
Zooplankton were assessed in winter, spring, and summer with similar
results. Even for stations which could be qualitatively categorized as
having a dominant water mass type, the organisms present were character-
istic of all the water types affecting the region. Generally, as is normal,
zooplankton counts from Shelf Water stations were distinctly higher than
those from Slope Water or Gulf Stream Water stations. Gelatinous zooplank-
ton were more numerous in oceanic water than in Slope Water and exhibited
an unusually high variability, the most abundant species in July 1975
zlit
being completely absent in June and August 1976. The cause of this varia-
bility is not clear. For all planktonic forms, variability from mixing of
water types tended to mask any-variability due to dumping, and made any
such effects much harder to detect.
The midwater fish population of DViD-106 consists mostly of Slope Water
species, upon which several Northern Sargasso Sea species, presumably
transported to the dumpsite by anticyclonic Gulf Stream eddies, are super-
imposed. Slope Water species were more abundant in all areas sampled,
including eddies, and both Slope and Sargasso Sea species as well as a
higher total fish population were found to be greater in the eddies than in
Slope or Shelf water. The abundance of Sargasso Sea species in the DWD-106
area appears to be dependent on the size, age, and temperature of the
eddies.
A large proportion of the DWD-106 mid-water fish population migrate in
the evening from depths of several hundred meters or more to 0 to 200 m,
then return before daylight to the greater depths. This provides a poten-
tial pathway for the transfer of pollutants from near surface to deeper
waters. Catch rates in the 26 to 200 m depth range were found to be lower
in samples closest to the dumpsite boundary than in those to the east,
with a shs-rp catch increase below 500 m. Avoidance of polluted material
concentrating near the thermocline could explain the lowered catch rate;
however, it could also be due to the dynamics of the anticyclonic Gulf
Stream eddy present during sampling, or to onshore-offshore effects.
Additional sampling in future experimental and monitoring cruises will
attempt to resolve this question. Total fish catches within and without the
dumpsite were not significantly different, although midwater fish were most
abundant outside the dumpsite. The highest rate of fishless tows occurred
the night after a dump, but whether the tows were still in water affected
by the dumped material is not known.
Many open-ocean predators, including sharks, swordfish, and tuna, move
through DWD-106, often in association with migrations of a thousand
miles or more. Thirty-one species have been identified, most of those,
especially in winter, being found in association with the Gulf Stream. The
Blue Shark was the most abundant species caught in the region, and appears
to feed largely on squid. These predators represent the top of the food
chain, and could, therefore, concentrate contaminants and heavy metals from
a wide variety of sources. Their residence time in the dumpsite is short,
however, and dumping effects as such were difficult to isolate.
Extensive observations of deep sea and bottom dwelling fish and inver-
tebrates were made from a deep sea submersible; many samples were taken as
well. Characteristic patchiness of distribution and decline with depth
of overall fish population density and diversity were found. There was
a general trend of decreasing density of bottom living organisms with
increasing depth and distance from the coast, in agreement with earlier
studies; bottom dwelling invertebrates seem similar in density, and diversity
to other regions of the mid-Atlantic slope and rise. There was no observ-
able impact from dumping on bottom fish or invertebrates.
xiv
-------
3. Contaminant Inputs and Chemical Characteristics
Through 1976 the major input of industrial waste to the DWD-106 con-
sisted of by-products from duPont and American Cynamid chemical processes.
The main component of the duPont waste is sodium sulfate, with less than
2% of soluble organics. The American Cyanamid waste consists of wastes
and residues from a variety of chemical processes including production
of nonpersistent organic insecticides, paper chemicals, mining chemicals,
and water treating chemicals. Significant amounts of mercury, cadmium,
lead, nickel, copper, zinc, and chromium were discharged.
Because of the importance of possible heavy metal contamination, con-
siderable emphasis was placed on measuring concentrations of a variety of
metals in the water column and in key organisms. Results of the May 1974
cruise indicate that some metals were significantly elevated compared to
normal ambient concentrations. However, normal concentrations are only a
very few parts per billion, and great care must be taken to avoid errors in
measured values. A variety of factors can lead to misleading results, among
them sample contamination during collection, storage, or analysis. More
recent observations support the conclusion that heavy metal concentrations
in the DWD-106 water column are typical of shelf-slope regions. Moreover,
calculations show that the total amount of metals added in dumping con-
tributes less than 1% to the total normal amount of metals in the water
at the dumpsite region. None of the observations occurred near the time of
or in the immediate vicinity of dumping, so that ambient concentrations
would be expected to be typical of the background for the region.
Although it does not seem that addition of contaminants at DWD-106 is
having an observable effect on the water column, the possibility of concen-
tration in the food chain must also be considered, particularly for heavy
metals such as mercury. Heavy metal" concentrations were observed in samples
of small pelagic fish, crustaceans, and large predators. In addition, heavy
metal and hydrocarbon concentrations were observed in sediments. Unusually
high levels of cadmium, 16.1 to 26.9 ppm, were found in three swordfish
livers. Cadmium concentrations in other fin fish were lower. All of the
muscle samples of fish, except lancet fish, had mercury concentrations in
excess of the Food and Drug Administration action level of 0.5 ppm. The
relatively small amount of cadmium and mercury added by dumping and the
migratory nature of the large predators make it unlikely that dumping is
a factor in the observed concentrations. Copper and manganese concentra-
tions were low to moderate, while lead concentrations were below the level
of detection. Average zinc concentrations were higher than those for other
metals but were similar to concentrations to fin fish obtained from the New
York Bight.
Heavy metal analyses were undertaken on samples taken in deepwater sedi-
ments both in and out of DWD-106. Although the heavy metal content appeared
elevated relative to uncontaminated shelf sediments, there was little
variation among stations, and the metal content could not be attributed to
ocean disposal. The amount of long chain hydrocarbons in the sediments is
much less than those found in dumpsites located in relatively shallow
coastal waters.
4. Recommendations
Environmental studies in DWD-106 have now moved from baseline charac-
terization to experimental studies and monitoring phases. In-this context,'
recommended further studies are designed to focus on factors which relate
directly to dumping problems.
The character of water mass and eddy movement in the DWD-106 region has
an important effect on the movement and dispersion of dumped material.
Many features of the water mass structure have been examined, but seasonalit;
and space and time scales have not been adequately resolved. Continuing
assessment of physical conditions through frequent standard oceanographic
measurements supplemented by satellite photographs should be made. Water
samples for measurement of standard chemical parameters as well as for heavy
metal analysis should be taken in conjunction with the physical measurements
Those living organisms which appear to be the best potential indicators
of dumping effects are zooplankton communities, fish eggs and larvae, verti-
cally migrating fishes, and near-surface organisms in general. These have
the greatest probability of being directly contacted by or passing through
dumped material. A biological program encompassing zooplankton sampling and
analysis, analysis of fish eggs and larvae for damage, sampling and analysis
of vertically migrating fishes and near-surface organisms, and routine mid-
water tiawling should be developed in conjunction with the physical programs
Sampling should be carried out frequently and should include measurements in
a coastal area so that natural variations can adequately be taken into
account. It will be important to relate the biological and physical measure
ments to determine if particular locations, seasons, or times of day are
noticeably favorable or unfavorable for dumping.
Although no impact on the sea bottom or on bottom dwelling organisms was
noted, an annual or semi-annual bottom sampling program should be scheduled
to verify this finding.
Waste constituents in the DWD-106 area show considerable year-to-year
variation. Only about 7 kg of mercury, for example, were dumped in 1974,
but over 4000 kg were dumped in 1975. Moreover, the nature of possible
toxic organic constituents is not adequately understood. Continued careful
and complete examination of dumped materials is a requisite to other moni-
toring effects.
Much of the above work will be incorporated into a comprehensive moni-
toring program for DWD-106 to begin in FY 1978. A significant start toward
monitoring is already taking place; a program of routine, twice-monthly
temperature transects and monthly plankton surveys and evaluations is under-
way. Also, an extensive program of laboratory and experimental investiga-
tions directed toward understanding the movement, dispersion, and effects
of dumped material is being carried out. Results of these and other studies
will be published in future reports.
xvt
-------
APPENDIX I
COMMENTS OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES
ON THE POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING
AND THE FISH KILL AND BEACH CLOSURE INCIDENTS OF 1976
Letter from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requesting comments -
October 14, 1976.
Responses From:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - November 11, 1976
U.S. Coast Guard - November 9, 1976
Food and Drug Administration - October 29, 1976
Interstate Sanitation Commission - November 3, 1976
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - November 18, 1976
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(with enclosure from American Littoral Society) - November 5, 1976
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection - November 5, 1976
and January 24, 1977
-------
A. t ///
140CTB7B
Hr. David H. Wallace
Associate Administrator for
Marine Resources
Department of Commerce
NOAA
Rockvllle, Maryland 20852
Dear tir. Wallace:
EPA, Region II Is presently reviewing conroents received on the ''Draft'
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - Ocean Dunplnp. of Sevni»e Sludge In
the New York Right. The "Final" EIS is scheduled to be completed for
Agency review sometiire In December 1976. In that during this past spring
and euimuur, there have been several environmental episodes, mainly the
wash-up of floatables and trash on Long Island and KEW Jersey beaches,
an extensive kill of benthlc organisms in the Uew York Bight, and con-
siderable press end political pressure to associate dumping practices as
a direct cause of these episodes, we would appreciate your comments re-
garding the following:
1. Does your Agency believe that dumping is the direct cause, of
these episodes? If so, do you have any technical evidence to support
this claim?
2. Do you maintain, as you have indicated In the past, the position
that sludge dumping at the existing sites should be continued? If not,
what would be your position toward moving to either of the two sites studied
by NOAA and located roughly 60 miles offshore? What would be your opinion
to moving the dump site off the Continental Shelf to the present chemical
waste site? If you believe the dump sites, on the basis of the recent in-
cidents should be relocated, what environmental factors do you consider
appropriate in that decision?
In order to have the input of your comments on the above items into our
Environmental Impact Statement process, it will be necessary that we receive
these comments by November 5, 1976, at the latest.
I or any ro-ter cf riy ntaff will be rout h*ppy to rest ult.li you to review
thin tnportont aspect of this Agency' n ocenn dunpinp.
r.incerely yours.
Gerald :•. 1'p.nalnr, I'.!..
Administrator
bcc: Russell E. Train
Administrator
EPA, Washington, DC 20460
Michael Ludwig
Nl-IFS
212 Rogers Ave.
Milford, Conn. 06460
f
Barbara Metzger *•-"'
Ch. , Environmental Impacts Br.
EPA, NY
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Rockville. Md. 80853
NOV 111976
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear
In your letter of October 14th, you asked for our opinions as to
the relationship, if any, between the current practice of sewage
sludge dumping in the New York Bight and the two environmental
episodes that occurred this summer, namely the wash-up of floatables
on area beaches and the anoxic conditions that persisted off the
coast of New Jersley. In addition, you inquired whether or not,
in light of these episodes, we have modified our position with
respect to relocating the sewage sludge dumpsite. The specific
questions you posed and our response follow:
Question 1.
Does your agency believe that dumping is the direct cause of
these episodes? If BO, do you have any technical evidence
to support this claim?
Response
This agency does not believe that ocean disposal of sewage sludge
is the direct cause of these episodes. Available data and observations
at the dumpsite do not Indicate sufficient floatables to account for
the quantities of materials washed ashore during the latter half of
June 1976 when the beaches on the south shore of Long Island experienced
successive inundations of floating litter. Also, neuston net tows
behind sewage sludge dumping vessels during the period of these episodes
collected but few floatables. As for the large-scale destruction of
fish and shellfish off the New Jersey coast this summer, the major
sources of the problem are the various sources of nitrogen and organic
material'in the vicinity of the New Jersey shore. Data from NOAA's
MESA investigations make clear that only very small contributions
(less than 4%) of nitrogen and carbon are from sewage sludge dumping.
While this dumping does sometimes result in localized reduction of
dissolved oxygen concentrations, dumped sewage sludge was not a
major contributive factor to the anoxic conditions that prevailed
this past summer in a large area off the coast of New Jersey.
Moreover it is unlikely that the relatively small contributions of
nutrients from sewage sludge dumping will be of major importance in
possible future episodes of this kind.
Question 2.
Do you maintain, as you have indicated in the past, the
position that sludge dumping at the existing sites should be
continued? JF not, what would be your position toward moving
to either of the two sites studied by NOAA and located roughly
60 miles offshore? What would be your opinion to moving the
dumpsite off the Continental Shelf to the present chemical
waste site? If you believe the dumpsites, on the basis of
the recerik incidents should be relocated, what environmental
factors do you consider appropriate in that decision?
We maintain our previously stated position that the present sewage
sludge dumpsite in the New York Bight should continue to be used
until either: (1) it is demonstrated that continued use presents a
hazard to human health or interferes with the use of local beaches;
or (2) the practice of ocean disposal of sewage sludge is terminated.
We believe that the practice of ocean dumping of sewage sludge should
be eliminated by 1981, in accordance with your EPA stated goal.
Relocating the existing sewage sludge dumpsite is not warranted,
based on our best data at this time.
As for moving the sewage sludge dumpsite to the present chemical
waste dumpsite (Deepwater Dumpsite 106) we believe that this action
should be avoided, because existing data on the recent environmental
incidents do not provide a basis for relocating the existing sewage
sludge dumpsite, to either of the two alternative sites studied
earlier or to DWD-106.
I hope this expression of our views is helpful to your efforts to
-------
complete the EIS process concerning the disposal of sewage sludge in
the New York Bight. Should you desire amplification or clarification
of some of the points contained herein, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely
David H. Wallace
Associate Administrator for
Marine Resources
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '''' V '''">\\&.'f'*'''"'•
MAILING ADDRESS. /
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD Commander (mep)
Third Coast Guard Dist.
Governors Island
New York, N.Y. 10004
{212) 264-4916
5722d
* NOV 1376
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza • • > : - •'.•'•
New York,' N.Y. 10007' ' ' ' " : ; • '• T • ' ' : ' " '• -
Dear Mr. Hansler:
This letter is in response to your letter of 21 October 1976
in which you requested our comments on the alleged involvement
of ocean dumping, in certain pollution incidents of the past
summer and the advisability of shifting sewage sludge dumping
to a location further offshore.
In regard to the first area (item #1 in your letter), we do
not currently gather the information necessary to permit an
informed analysts of the impact of ocean dumping. Consequently,
we are unable to draw a conclusion on whether ocean dumping,
specifically, resulted in any of the pollution incidents re-
ferenced in your letter. This is in spite of our participation
in the preparation of the inter-agency task force report re-
garding these incidents, which, when finalized, will be
probably the most authoritative review available.
In regard to the second area (items #2 and #3 in your letter),
;for' the'reason mentioned above/ we also have'no input regarding
the environmental advisability of relocating the present dumpsite "'
or the selection, for environmental reasons, from among the
other three potential areas. Relocation of the dumpsite, would,
however affect our ability to conduct surveillance of sewage
sludge dumping activities, at the present, and it is to this
subject area that we address the substance of our comments.
For a quantitative assessment of the problems which would arise,
a more complete review is required. At the present time, how-
ever, certain generalizations can be made. The following comments
apply:
(1) From a surveillance standpoint alone, the current
distribution of ocean dumping activities is more conducive to
an effective surveillance program, given the finite extent of
•our surveillance resources. With the bulk of ocean dumping
activities occurring in a relatively confined area, individual
patrols are able to observe the greatest number of ocean dumping
-------
I))'
5722d
» NOVB;B
vessels within a limited time period. By, in effect, dispersing
the dumpsites, a greater commitment of Coast Guard resources
would be required to maintain the same level of surveillance. On
the other hand, a reduction in the traffic levels in the vicinity
of the New York Harbor entrance channels, which would result
from this move, would be consistent with navigational safety
considerations. This would be a positive benefit from such a
move, although, at present, we have no substantive indication
that it may be necessary.
(2) A shift to further offshore, regardless of which of
the three potential sites.is selected, would foreseeably result.
'in a change in the "kind" of surveillance that we would provide,
while the selection of the individual site would affect the
"degree" of commitment required. The added distances involved,
coupled with operational limitations, would make less favorable
the prospects for the continued use of the 82' and 95' class
patrol vessels and HH-52A helicopters, which currently provide
surveillance of these activities. A greater emphasis on the
use of shipriderls may be required, although the source of
additional personnel to accomplish this, in view of the short
time frame, would be uncertain.
(3) The implementation of the Ocean Dumping Surveillance
System, tentatively by the end of 1977, will, hopefully, eliminate
impact on our surveillance program, resulting from such a change,
as an issue in discussions of this type. The design of this
system is intended to permit surveillance coverage regardless of
the location of the particular dumpsite.
I hope that the comments above are responsive for your purposes.
I recognize the pressing nature of the issues, which you are
currently facing, and the foreseeable problems, affecting our
; surveillance program, which I have outlined above, are not in-
tended to be overriding. If I or my staff can be of further servici
to you in this matter, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
FOOD AND DRUO ADMINISTRATION
"
<
CAM.K AOOKEMi NYFOOORUO
a DO THIRD A
BROOKLYN. NCW YOHK 11132
TILIFHOKI, <2H)g»H3iBHin"'
965-5050
W. f. REA, III
Vice Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard
?'-i "I Const Guard District
October 29, 19T6
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
This is in response to your letter of October lU, 1976, to our Senior
Regional Shellfish Specialist, Jerrold H. Mulnick, regarding our position
on the Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in the New York Bight.
The Food and Drug. Administration has no evidence one way or the other
that the sewage sludge being dumped in the New York Bight was or was not
the direct cause of any of the environmental episodes that took place
this past spring and summer.
We have reviewed scientific information developed by NOAA, which in-
dicates that the primary cause of these episodes have been the estuarine
discharges of the Hudson-Raritan-Passaic drainage basin, including natural,
agricultural and street drainage runoff, and treated and untreated sewage.
We continue to maintain the position that to change the sludge dump sites
to either of the two locations roughly 60 miles offshore would cause new
problems regarding the destruction of shellfish resources, would result
in additional closures by our agency, and would put an additional patrol
burden on the U.S. Coast Guard. Assuming that ocean dumping of municipal
sludges in the New York Bight will be discontinued by December 31, 1981,
and that the capacity of the present site will not be exceeded in that time
period, we see no advantage in contaminating a second site containing a
harvestable shellfish resource with sewage sludge.
If it is necessary to move the sludge dumping site to another location,
we would have no objection to the area of the present chemical waste site.
Sincerely ,
Clif/o^d G. Shane
Regional Director
Food and Drug Administration
Region II
-------
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSI
10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE • NEW YORK, N. Y. 10019
COMMISSIONERS
NEW YORK
NATALECOLOSI.PH.D.
CHAIRMAN
PETER A.A. BERLE
CHESTER SCHWIMMER
OLIVER J. THOSTER
NEW JERSEY
DAVID J. BARDIN
JOSEPH J. BRENNAN
JOANNE E. FINLEY. M.D.
LOUIS J. FONTENELLI
SAMUEL P. OWEN
COMMISSIONERS
CONNECTICUT
CARL
JOHN
JOSEP
DOUG
JOSEP
THQM
DIRECTO
. AJELLO
CLARK
N.GILL
ASS. LLOYO, M.O.
ZANDRI
S R. GLENN, JR.
•CHIEF ENGINEER
November 3, 1976
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Region II
26 Federal Plaza - Room 1015
New York, New York - 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
This i.3 in response to your letter of October 15, 1976,
in which you raised questions pertaining to ocean disposal
practices in the New York Bight. .
In answer to question (1), the Commission does not believe
that ocean dumping of sludge is the cause of the episodes of
floatables washing up on the Long Island shore. Most of the
materials that were washed up on the shore were not sludge but
the type of material that collects on a bar screen entering a
sewage treatment plant and also floatables that are skimmed
from the settling tanks. These bar screenings and skimmings
are supposed to be placed in landfills and are not permitted
to be placed in sludge barges which are to be dumped at the
present 12-mile dump site. We are satisfied that someone
illegally placed this material in their sludge for disjysal
at sea. During the period of some of the episodes, there was
considerable fog and the barge loads may have been released
short of the proper location. This, in addition to prevailing
southwesterly winds, was all that was needed to wash these
floatable materials ashore.
On another occasion, the material washed ashore was of
the type of skimmings that indicated they had been stored
for many months and could have come from the ruptured tanks
near the Bay Park Treatment Plant or storage tanks at some
Mr. G. M. Hansler
-2-
November 3, 1976
other treatment plant which were cleaned and again mixed
with sludge for barging to sea.
In response to question (2), based on the evidence at
hand, including the Dames and Moore report prepared for the
U.S. EPA, we still have not seen any evidence which would
indicate that the sludge dump site should be moved farther
out at this time. This could spoil another area of the
ocean without any overall benefit to the environment and
would be a substantial increase in cost to the operating
agencies. Tjhese alternate sites should only be used if
monitoring indicates that the sludge is threatening the
beaches. The 106-mile site would not only be much more
expensive but would also take some time to develop the
capability of vessels to haul this sludge to this much
farther site.
The episodes along the New Jersey coast which destroyed
not only many fish but also sea clams were blamed by some on
ocean disposal of sludge and we do not concur. If the lack
of oxygen which killed the fish was due to algae as some
reported, the amount of nutrients from the sludge dumping
would be such a small percentage of nutrients that are
discharged into the New York Bight that the removal of sludge
dumping completely would not, in our opinion, have prevented
the episodes. One of the largest sources of nutrients in the
New York Metropolitan Area is from the combined sewers which
discharge raw sewage during times of rain but also the
accumulated sewage solids which have settled out during dry
weather since the last rainfall. The digesters used by many
of the treatment plants for the treatment of their sludge
also contribute to the additional load of nutrients in the
effluents from the treatment plant.
We recommend that the sludge management plan that the
Commission has just completed be implemented exped'itiously so
as to meet the December 31, 1981, date to phase out ocean
disposal. A real effort in enforcing pretreatment of heavy
metals and toxic materials would make it possible to go to
composting and remove much of the sludge in the next two to
three years. During this interim period of continued sludge
-------
Mr. G. M. Hansler
-3- November 3, 1976
disposal in the ocean, a closer surveillance should be
implemented to prevent floating materials from being carried
out with the sludge to the present dump site.
Very truly yours.
Thomas R. Glenn
Director & Chief Engineer
TRGrrym*
$,"•.("-
('<•''£ <\«^.i "M
LX?V'/. <.vS yv» ^3 y *'"
.;."••• • \>
NEWTON CORNER. MASSACHUSETTS 02158
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1 f: 1976
(\\^
Mr. Gerald M. Handler, Regional Administrator
V. S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
•his Is in response to your October 14, 1
•omnents regarding pcean dumping of sewer
ight.
to your October 11, 1976, letter requesting our
age sludge in the New York
Bight.
In response to your Question No. 1, we do not have technical information
or data to link thA reported washup of floatables and trash on New York
and New Jersey beaches to sludge dumping. I am sure you are aware, however,
that data collected by the woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and the MESA
Project {NOAA) indicated that the prevailing currents in the New York Bight
could have caused those episodes.
In response to Quest-ion No. 2, we recommend that, as soon as possible,
dumping of sewerage sludge at existing sites in New York Bight be
terminated, furthermore, we are opposed to all alternative dump sites
within the Bight, even 60 miles offshore.
Disposal of the sewerage in the chemical waste site off the Continental
Shelf will significantly increase the cost and might encourage illegal
dumping closer to land. In addition, there is reason to suspect that
microbiological degradation of aetferage sludge at sites further offshore
trill b*j *ulwt«nUa-l.lu 1m**. Material dumped at those distant *lt»t could
Arlft fnvhor* with prcvtllinq seasonal current* brforr it ir. degraded.
thereby lowering the oxygen content near shore coastal waters. Offstiore
currant* could «pr«ad contaminants over a vide area.
In summary, due to the uncertainties and potential consequences associated
with dumping of sewerage-sludge in New York Bight, we consider it more
appropriate to discontinue dumping srwcraar* anywhere in thr niaht. Rnther
than selecting othrr -xltnrs, we fcal tlwt rt'fl shoul'1 ilirr-ci, its efforts
towards identifying and developing other disposal methods.
.OVUTIO.V
Sincefely iiaurfi,)
C^
ACTING Regional nj rccfnr
-------
Peter-A.A. Berle
COMMISSIONER
Dear Mr. Hansler:
c c ' (
STATE or NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT or
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
ALBANY, NEW YORK 12233
November 5, 1976
This is in response to your letter of October 14, 1976 regarding the
additional questions you transmitted relating to EPA Region II's review of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in the
New York Bight.
Following are our responses to the three questions:
QUESTION 1: Does your Agency believe that dumping is the direct cause of these
episodes? If so, do you have any technical evidence to support this
claim?
RESPONSE: Based Ion (a) our knowledge of the characteristics of sewage sludge
barged tc the New York Bight dumping grounds from New York State sources
in New York City and Westchester County; (b) the technical report by
NOAA's Mesa Project entitled "Contaminant Inputs to the New York Bight-
April 1976", and (c) the minutes and report of the Interagency Steering
Committee on the New Jersey Fish Kill, it is acknowledged that sewage
sludge dumping is one of several direct causes contributing to the ref-
erenced environmental episodes. However, with respect to the washup of
floatables (i.e., grease balls, oil balls) on Long Island southern beaches,
the sewage sludge dumping contributes only 3% of the total annual oil and
grease load to the New York Bight; similarly with respect to the extensive
'benthic organisms" kill, sewage sludge dumping contributes only 8% of the
total annual nitrogen load to the Bight.
We are reasonably certain that nutrient contribution from the New York
City/New Jersey metropolitan areas are contributing vast amounts of the
marine productivity limiting nutrient, nitrogen, to the primary receiving
waters of Upper New York Bay and the East River. Although nitrogen con-
centrations in these waters are well in excess of that capable of supporting
noxious algae blooms, there is an unidentified inhibitory factor which
precludes these blooms from developing until dilution with the receiving
waters of western Long Island Sound and the Lower New York Harbor. These
waters have a long history of advancing eutrophication.
Consequently, this Department included in New York State's Municipal
Needs Survey of 1974, costs to achieve 1983 goals of PL 92-500, for nitrogen
removal at Long Island and New York City sewage treatment plants. Sub-
sequently, your staff "allowed" inclusion of these costs for Long Island
plants but challenged the inclusion of nitrogen removal costs for New York
City plants. Additional justification was submitted by DEC to restore New
York City costs which EPA unilaterally deleted from their transmittal of
- 2 -
New York State's package. However, this Department again included these
costs in the 1976 version of the Municipal Needs Survey.
QUESTION 2: Do you maintain, as you have indicated in the past, the position that sludge
dumping at the existing sites should be continued? If not, what would be your
position toward moving to either of the two sites studied by NOAA .and located
roughly 60 miles offshore? What would be your opinion to moving the dump site
off the Continental Shelf to the present chemical waste site? If you believe
the dump sites, on the basis of the recent incidents should be relocated, what
environmental factors do you consider appropriate in that decision?
RESPONSE: We believe it is necessary to continue sewage sludge dumping at the present
site until December 1981 because of (a) the additional technical problems and
costs associated with re-release of toxic compounds (PCB's, mirex, kepone,
organic acids, heavy metals, etc.) via vapor emissions from either incineration
or pyrolysis or leachate from wet sludge de'watering, (b) the minimal relative
impact of sewage sludge dumping 'on the environmental episodes of this past
summer, (c) the enormous costs of energy intensive alternatives and unknown
funding strategies, and (d) the availability of means by which floatables in
sewage sludge could be minimized.
The two sites studied by NOAA which are located 60 miles offshore have
limited appeal because of the increased costs associated with longer haulage
and questionable benefit to be gained in the New York Bight at the expense of
befouling a new area.
Moving th» dump sites off the Continental Shelf to the present chemical
waste site are rejected out of hand as being impractical, unfeasible and
unmanageable.
QUESTION 3: As you know, we have imposed with your concurrence upon the present muni-
cipal ocean dumping permittee, a phase out schedule ending in December 1981.
What would be your position toward developing these alternatives at a faster
pace or in determining more economical and less equipment intensive solutions
such as landfill, trenching, composting, etc., which could be implemented
* pending development of the more suitable long-term solutions?
RESPONSE: Acceleration of alternatives to sludge dumping is imperative in any event
if the 1981 timetable is to be met. Because of the importance of resolving
the problems described in response to Question 2 above, the study of alternatives
must be kept on schedule or accelerated as necessary. We are extremely receptive
to "more economical and less equipment intensive.solutions...which could be
implemented pending development of the more suitable long term solution". How-
ever, your term "more economical" does not identify the cost benchmark to which
you refer nor the funding strategies to achieve the alternative. Furthermore,
the efficacy of embarking on alternatives to the sewage sludge dumping practice
in the Bight is not placed in any perspective by EPA in spite of the available
"materials balance" information relative to the other much more significant
direct contributors to the Bight's environmental episodes of 1976. For instance,
what do the "long-term solutions" have in mind for addressing the combined
sewerage/urban runoff and dredge spoil dumping problems.
-------
- 3 -
Hi 1"format!on. I am attaching a copy of a letter received from
°f "" AmeH"n L1tt0"1
*:-.
'.-?
and
Attachment
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Aqencv
Region II u y
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007 I
tils -}a'*.:.»i';
AMERICAN LITTORAL SOCIETY ?
'
j Y ' • ~ -— — -joi Jfs. S:tSS ""
' "
October 26, 1976
COi-.u~--:-'L~'1
f > '•:•'
Mr. Peter A.A. Berle, Commissioner
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany,'New York 12233
Dear Mr. Berle:
We understand that you are preparing answers to a letter from Mr. Gerald
Hansler, EPA Regional Administrator, about the relocation of the sewage sludge
dumping grounds in the New York Bight, and that these comments are due by
November 5.
While the Littoral Society has not been asked to make comments directly to
EPA, we would like.to present to you our responses to the series of three questions
posed by Mr. Hansler.
1. We believe there is no question that sewage sludge dumping contributed to
the ocean fish kill this past summer, but we submit a Question which we believe
EPA should be addressing. That is: Does proof exist that the present sludge
dumping site did not contribute to the summer disaster. We think you will agree
that no such proof exists. To put the question another way: Does the dumping
of sewage sludge in its present location contribute to the environmental well-
being of the New York Bight? Of course it does not.
2. We do not believe that the sludge site should be located at either of the
alternatives outlined in EPA's draft environmental impact statement of February.
If either alternative site is used, there will be an impact on local shellfish
and there is no guarantee that the material will not continue to stay within the
Bight's circulation system and contribute to a similar summer incident in the
future. The basic question to be asked is: During the interim (all sludge dumping!
in the ocean will be stopped Dec. 31, 1981), where should the sludge be dumped so
that its nutrients are not part of the Bight's system and thus part of the Bight's
nutrient overload? The answer is to move the site far offshore to an area which
is already an existing site (thus it can be done quickly). The present chemical
waste site fills those criteria.
3. The 1981 phase-out deadline is a maximum amount of time; any lesser time
means that much better chance that a killing nutrient overload can be avoided
(leaving aside discussion of other problems — outfnlls, urban runoff, dredge
spoil dumping). Some sewage plants can undoubtedly go to onshore sludge disposal
quickly. They should be encouraged to do so.
This summer's ocean disaster is the best proof yet that we need action to clean
up the waters of the Bight-.. The best, fastest first step that can bo taken is to
move the dumping to the 106-mile site. This would signal the start of serious
action toward ending all ocean dumping. If agencies fail to get together now to
act, we will only fall back to more studies, more delays, and probably, more
fish kills.
IV
David K. Bulloch, President
-------
•. .«
STATE OF
-------
APPENDIX J
ISC
REPORTS ON LAND-BASED SLUDGE DISPOSAL
IN THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN AREA
PHASE 1 REPORT ~ CHAPTER III, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS (1975)
PHASE 2 REPORT — CHAPTER II, SUMMARY (1976a)
SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM — SUMMARY (1976b)
-------
PHASE 1 REPORT
III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONCLUSIONS
The important conclusions arrived at on the basis of environmental
considerations, total costs, technical feasibility, and energy usage are
as follows. These conclusions form the basis and backup for the recom-
mendations that are made:
1. Sludge Conditioning and Dewatering
The two methods of sludge conditioning ahead of dewatering are by
use of chemicals and by heat treatment. The cost of conditioning cannot
be dealt with separately, since conditioning influences the costs of de-
watering. The cost of chemical conditioning (lime and ferric chloride or
polymers) and then dewatering indicates that the combined cost for the
different dewatering equipment falls in the range of $30 to $38 per ton
of dry solids, including capital and O&M costs. The choice of dewatering
method cannot be made only on the basis of these costs, since the moisture
content of the sludge cake produced varied from 80 to 60 percent, and the
cost of succeeding processing methods determines which method of dewater-
ing is most cost-effective.
The cost of heat treatment to condition the sludge plus dewatering
falls in the range of $66 to $72 per ton of the original dry solids pre-
cessed. Because this method of treatment affects the total pounds of sludge
remaining and its character, a decision as to which conditioning or de-
watering method to use depends on the costs of succeeding processing or
disposal methods. If the dewatered sludge is to be disposed of as such,
then when using filter pressing, the cost of producing the cake with heat
treatment is about double that with chemical conditioning.
However, the heat-treated sludge is sterile and there is about 25
percent net less solids to dispose of. Thus, the difference in the de-
watered sludge weight or volume, since both can be dewatered to about 40
percent solids, is about 25 percent. To justify using heat treatment, the
reduction in hauling and placement costs would have to overcome the 100
percent differential in conditioning and dewatering costs. The net elec-
tric power usage for heat treatment plus dewatering is about 360 kwhr per
ton compared to 120 kwhr for chemical conditioning and filter press
dewatering.
2. Incineration or Pyrolysis
Incineration of sludge or its pyrolysis are both thermal conversion
processes that can permit maximum energy recovery from the heat value of
the sludge solids. The two processes are compatible as far as requirements
for dewatering are concerned. Also, the multiple-hearth incinerator fur-
naces can be adapted to pyrolysis. The capital and operating costs and
energy recovery potential are comparable, with pyrolysis having a distinct
advantage as far as air pollution controls are concerned, and is, there-
fore, the more desirable sludge processing system from the viewpoint of
-------
potential negative environmental impact on the air resources .of an area.
Pyrolysis has another advantage over incineration in that the fuels
from the pyrolysis reactor, the gas and char, can be stored and thus uni-
form feed of a steam boiler furnace can be obtained even if the rate of
sludge feed to the pyrolysis reactor is variable.
The total capital and O&H costs for a large-size incineration or
pyrolysis plant with maximum heat and energy recovery are about $47 per
ton of dry solids in the original sludge when processing digested sludge
with a heat value of 5,000 Btu per Ib. This alternative uses chemical
conditioning and filter presses and a sludge of at least 40 percent
solids is obtained.
This system incorporates an afterburner for raising the furnace
exhaust gas temperature to 1,400 degrees F. Credit has been taken for
$22.50 worth of excess electric power produced (evaluated at 5* per kwhr).
From this credit there is subtracted $4.60 for cost of power generation
equipment, leaving $17.90 per ton. Power recovery becomes practical with
a large installation having standby equipment. With heat conditioning
and filter pressing the total costs are $80 per ton, and there is no
power recovered, although the waste heat can be used in the conditioning
process. The total power usage with heat treatment and pyrolysis is
415 kwhr per ton, while with chemical conditioning it is 175 kwhr per
ton and 260 kwhr are recovered leaving a net gain of 85 kwhr per ton.
If undigested sludge having a Btu value of 6,500 per Ib is processed,
the energy recovered is increased so that the total cost of conditioning,
dewatering, pyrolysis, sidestream treatment, and including all air pollu-
tion controls falls to $31 per ton. Moreover, in this case the sidestream
is considerably weaker and, therefore, its treatment becomes less costly
than when digested sludge is dewatered.
Incineration or pyrolysis with proper air pollution control equipment
and treatment of the liquid sidestreams will permit the control of emissions
of particulates, odorous vapors, S02, NOX> volatile metals such as mercury
and all other heavy metals to well within all federal and local emission
standards. In addition, all toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons, including
PCB's, will be destroyed.
This alternative for sludge processing, when combined with chemical
conditioning of the sludge, produces a liquid sidestream (even when pro-
cessing digested sludge), which can be readily treated in the activated
sludge process to produce an effluent of secondary treatment quality as
far as BOD, COD, NHj, and suspended solids are concerned. The potential
negative impact of this liquid sidestream on water is no greater than that
of ordinary treated sewage.
3. Wet-Air Oxidation
This process should not be classed with heat treatment for sludge
conditioning, since the latter only accomplishes a very small amount of
oxidation of the organic solids; that is, 0 to 5 percent COD reduction of
the sludge. For true wet-air oxidation, the COD reduction can be as high
as 75 to 85 percent. Such a high amount of oxidation requires very high
reactor pressures (1.500 to 2,000 psi), which makes the process very
energy-intensive and costly. An intermediate level of oxidation (600 to
800 psi) produces a total volatile solids reduction of about 40'to 50
percent. In that respect, it is about comparable to anaerobic digestion.-
The total solids reduction is about 30 to 35 percent. These figures are
corrected for the increase in the solids to be processed due to regenera-
tion of solids by the biological treatment of the strong liquor that the
process produces.
The intermediate wet-air oxidation process has total costs of $98
per ton of dry solids in the original sludge. . If the oxidized slurry is
dewatered on a vacuum filter, the additional cost is $5.30 per ton. The
high-pressure system has' costs of $137 per ton for wet-air oxidation and
$4.20 per ton for vacuum filtration of the residue. These costs were
developed for peocessing digested sludges. If raw sludges are processed,
the cost per ton decreases somewhat, since no auxiliary fuel is required,
but the sidestream produced is somewhat stronger in BOD, COD, and NH3.
The total costs remain essentially the same as given above. Thus, for
processing undigested sludge the total costs, including dewatering of the
residue, but not including disposal of the residue, is $103.30 as compared
to $31 for the pyrolysis system, which also does not include the cost of
ash disposal. The wet-air oxidation process is very energy-intensive,
consuming 800 kwhr per ton for all operations, including sidestream treatment
and odor control. If the power costs are less than 5* per kwhr, the above-
indicated cost difference between wet-air oxidation and pyrolysis will be, of
cours.e, somewhat less. For example, if power costs are 34 per kwhr, the wet
oxidation costs drop to $87 per ton and the net cost of the pyrolysis system
rises to $36.50.
Wet-air oxidation generates a liquid sidestream having a BODs of up to
10,000 mg/1, a COD of 20,000 mg/1, and NH3 of 1,200 mg/1. A large portion
of the COD is not biodegradable, and consists of various unknown organic
complexes. This liquid sidestream presents a very serious potential nega-
tive environmental impact on our surface water resources. This sidestream
also is odorous and the vapors from it must be put through odor control
equipment. Also, the handling and treating of this sidestream will pro-
duce nonpoint odor sources which are difficult to control. The environ-
mental assessment of this sludge processing system (including both the
Zimpro and Barber Colman designs) indicates serious potential negative
impacts on air and water resources of the area.
Other negative features of wet-air oxidation are the safety hazards
associated with high-pressure reactors and serious corrosion-erosion-
deposition problems in piping and heat exchangers (Department of Defense,
1973).
4.
Oil-Medium Dehydration and Combustion
(Carver-Greenfield System)
This system accomplishes dewatering of the liquid sludge by mixing
it with No. 2 or No. 4 fuel oil in proportions of 1 part of solids to
6-10 parts of oil, evaporating the water in a multi-effect evaporator,
and then separating the oil from the solids.in a centrifuge. The use of
waste oils and fat skimmings from sewage treatment plants could replace
some of the fuel oil, but evaluation of this was too indefinite and was
-------
considered not a sufficiently reliable source of oil for carrying on the
process. The solids are then incinerated (or pyrolyzed) to produce the
steam and power needed to run the system. This system has been used to
dewater varicus homogeneous slurries in industrial processes. Some lab-
oratory scale tests made on a heterogeneous sewage sludge (primary and
waste activated) indicated that the evaporated and condensed water (liquid
sidestream) contained ammonia concentrations up to 3,000 mg/1 and total
carbon up to 9,000 mg/1. The BOD was estimated as being up to 12,000
mg/1. It was assumed that treatment of this sidestream would have total
costs and power consumption similar to that for the sidestream generated
by heat treatment of sludge.
Total capital and O&H costs were estimated on basis of information
supplied by the manufacturer. Total costs, including sidestream treat-
ment and odor controls, were $106 per ton of dry solids. Information
obtained on operation of multi-effect evaporators, with the associated
pumps and valves, indicated very high maintenance costs. The system uses
up fuel oil in order to produce sufficient steam and power for the process.
Power for treatment of the high-strength sidestream must be purchased or
additional fuel burned in the boiler and additional power generated for
this purpose.
This process produces several negative environmental impacts. The
high-strength sidestream has organics not common to domestic sewage. The
condensed water (distillate) when exposed to air emits odorous vapors.
The large amount of exposed fuel oil in agitated tanks into which the
sludge is added produces hydrocarbon-type odors and also does present a
fire hazard.
There are no installations of this system processing a heterogeneous
sludge mixture. For cost, environmental, and experience reasons, this
system cannot be recommended.
5. Land Application
An investigation was made of the cost of applying liquid stabilized
(digested) sludge to strip-mine areas in Pennsylvania, about 100 miles
from the study area. Even if the heavy metals did not limit the rate of
sludge application, and using a rate of 10 tons (dry solids)=?er acre per
year, on the basis of nitrogen limitation, the total costs for applying
the area's sludge, including acquisition of land, was between $110 and
$120 per ton. The application of 1,000 tons per day, that is, 50 percent
of the study area sludge, would require 36,500 acres.
The present heavy metal concentration would limit the safe application
rate on agricultural land to 1 to 2 tons per acre per year. If reductions
in heavy metal content to one-half of present values could be achieved
by enforcement of pretreatment regulations, the application rate could go
up to 5 tons per acre per year. This would require double the land area
previously indicated and increase the costs to $185 to $195 per ton of
dry solids.
Application of either liquid or dewatered sludge to land in the study
area and in southern New Jersey is severely limited due to the sandy soil
and the very real hazard of polluting the extensive groundwater resources
of the area and in New Jersey. An EPA funded study being carried out by
Rutgers University in Ocean County shows that longer-term breakthrough, of
nitrates can occur with resultant groundwater contamination (Kaplovsky,
1975). Limited quantities of dewatered and stabilized sludge could find
use along roadways, grass strips in park-areas, on golf courses, etc.
The conclusion arrived at is-that direct application to land of a large
portion of the study area's sludge is not economical and the cost would be
about triple that of the incineration or pyrolysis alternative. The
potential hazard of contamination of underground and surface waters with
heavy metals is a serious negative environmental impact of such disposal of
the study area's sludge. Sewage sludges from modern urban-industrial areas
contain many materials that are not "natural" to soils, and hazardous
contamination of our land resources with serious long-term effects is poss-
ible by uncontrolled and indiscriminate application of such sewage sludges
to land.
6. Drying to Produce a Product as a Source for Plant Nutrients
The disposal of the study area's sludge by drying and selling the
product to the organic fertilizer and soil conditioner market was given
intensive consideration and study. The constraints mentioned under land
application in regard to the toxic heavy metals also apply to the dried
product. The total cost of drying, including dewatering after chemical
conditioning is in the range of $100 to $120 per ton of dry solids, the
higher cost being that of a granulated product suitable for bagging. If
the product is to have a nitrogen content higher than in normal mixed
primary and activated sludge (2 to 4 percent), the cost of fortifying it
with, say, urea, must be added.
In comparing this alternative for sludge disposal with incineration
or pyrolysis, the costs for the drying operation only should be determined
since dewatering and sidestream treatment is common to both alternatives.
These costs, including all air pollution controls, are at least $75 per
ton of dry solids. The power and fuel costs are those used in all evalu-
ations in this Report. The cost of incineration or pyrolysis is $30.85
per ton, including equipment for energy recovery. The value of the elec- ••
trical energy recovered is $22.50 for a 5,000 Btu per Ib sludge and $32
for a 6,500 Btu per Ib sludge. Thus, the incineration or pyrolysis pro-
cess actually costs only about 0 to $8 per ton of dry solids, or about
$5 to $12 per ton of sludge processed when ash disposal is included.
On the basis of the above costs study, in order to justify drying of
the sludge for disposal as a soil fertilizer-conditioner, it is necessary
that the product be sold for at least $65 per ton at the sludge processing
plant. On the basis of present prices for N and P in commercial fertilizers,
the value of a 4-5-0-sludge is about $30 - $35 per ton, which values agree
with rates presently quoted for dried sludge. Obviously, the drying of
the sludge and disposing of the product as indicated is. not an economical
alternative.
-------
7. Composting to Produce a Product
as Source for Plant Nutrients
Composting of sludge stabilizes it by reducing the volatile solids
by about 20 to 40 percent, depending on whether digested or raw primary
and waste activated sludge are used. During composting a considerable
amount of nigrogen is evolved as ammonia. Therefore, a compost from raw
sewage sludge will never have more than about 2.2 percent nitrogen. For
digested sludge, the compost nitrogen is less than 1 percent.
Composting has been cost estimated on the basis that the operation
will be carried on using roofed areas such as not to be affected by the
weather, and that artificial aeration will be used to control odors and
prevent anaerobic conditions from developing. Composting uses less fuel
and power than any other type of sludge processing except anaerobic di-
gestion. However, it requires large land areas and has high labor costs.
A large composting facility needs about 0.5 acres per ton of dry solids
processed, or a 1,000-ton per day plant will require 500 acres of flat
land area.
If the liquid sludge could be transported by barge or pipeline to
the composting facility, the high costs of hauling a sludge cake could be
avoided.
Using the above criteria, the total costs, not including the cost
of land and transportation, are about $75 per ton. This includes all
costs associated with dewatering and sidestream treatment. If the costs
of dewatering are subtracted, the cost is about $45 per ton. This can
be compared with the cost of incineration or pyrolysis with energy recov-
ery, which was about $5 to $12 per ton, including ash disposal, as indi-
cated in the conclusions relating to drying. Thus, to justify composting
it is necessary to sell the product for at least $35 per ton. Because
compost is low in nitrogen, it would require considerable fortification.
If sold as produced, it is doubtful if more than $10 to $15 per ton could
be obtained. The inert matter in compost will be between 40 and 50 per-
cent. However, the product is a good conditioner for sandy soils and
improves their water-holding capacity. Certainly a small portion of the
study area's sludge^ particularly that having lower heavy metal content,
could be composted and the product used along highways, on lawns, park
areas, etc.
This processing method cannot be recommended for handling the major
protion of the study area's sludge because of its relative cost and the
uncertainty of disposing of a large quantity of the product. Except for
possible odors, the process does not generate any negative environmental
impacts on air or water.
8. Anaerobic and Aerobic Digestion
Most of the New York City wastewater treatment plants have anaerobic
digestion. The purpose of digestion is to reduce the total amount of
solids, stabilize the solids, reduce pathogens, and produce a gas that
can be burned to generate heat or power. In regard to the incineration
and pyrolysis alternatives, it is noted that the cost-effectiveness is
dependent on the heat energy that can be extracted. The volatile solids
that are destroyed and converted to methane and C02 in the anaerobic
digester have a heat value of about 10,000 Btu per Ib. To obtain maximum
efficiency, a digester must be heated to about 90 degrees F, which is done
by burning the gas produced. Also, energy for mixing is required.
The cost analysis showed that the energy recovered from the methane
produced, when converted to electrical power, will pay for the costs
associated with digestion. Also, analyses showed that if the volatile
solids destroyed in the digestion process were pyrolyzed, since their
Btu value is 10,000 per Ib, the resultant energy recovered will more
than pay for all. costs associated with dewatering and processing these
solids in a pyrolysis system. Therefore, either the digestion and
pyrolysis systems, with maximum energy recovery, can pay for their
processing costs as far as destruction of volatile solids is concerned.
Therefore, if incineration or pyrolysis is practiced, digestion
plants probably should not be expanded or any new ones built. A further
advantage is obtained if digestion is not expanded, and that is the con-
siderable decrease in the BOD and ammonia content of the sidestream with
resultant reduced costs of treatment.
Aerobic digestion did not receive serious consideration in this
study because it is very energy-intensive. The power required to reduce
the volatile solids by about 40 percent, using aerobic digestion, is in
the range of 35 to 50 percent of that used in the activated sludge pro-
cess that generated the waste activated sludge. On an average the power
consumption will be about 250 kwhr per tonof solids per day , or at 54
per kwhr, $12.50 per ton of dry solids processed. The equipment and con-
struction cost for a large plant is about $10 per ton (EPA Process Design
Manual, Sludge Treatment and Disposal, 1974). The total cost of aerobic
digestion is about $25 per ton of solids, or about twice that of anaerobic
digestion when credit is taken for energy recovery from the generated gas.
9. Incineration or Pyrolysis with Solid Wastes
The benefits associated with heat-energy recovery by dewatering
chemically conditioned sludge to 40 percent solids with filter presses
can be also realized by incineration or pyrolysis in combination with
the combustibles in solid wastes. How the sludge is to be fed with the
shredded solid wastes into a solid wastes incinerator or pyrolysis unit
depends on the type of furnace or reactor and the general design. It may
be desirable to dry the sludge cake with heat from the solid wastes com-
bustion, so as to permit a furnace design without providing for evapora-
tion of the remaining water in the sludge cake. The heat-dried sludge
could be blown into the furnace separately or mixed with the shredded
solids waste material.
Whether this alternative would be attractive economically, over the
incineration or pyrolysis of the sludge separately, depends to a large
degree on whether the sludge could be dewatered and the sidestream treated
at the solid waste processing facility. The hauling of sludge cake over
an appreciable distance to the solid wastes facility is expensive and may
not be desirable from operational and environmental considerations.
-------
8
10. Miscellaneous Processing and Disposal Systems Considered
The following sludge-processing and disposal systems were considered
and evaluated relating to technical feasibility, costs, energy usage,
and potential negative environmental impact on land, water, and air.
They were considered unsuited for handling the major portion of the sludge
produced in the study area for one, some, or all of the above reasons.
In some cases, the environmental impact was indeterminate, but feasibility
and costs made the proposed systems unsuitable.
1. Landfill of dewatered sludge cake
2. Chemical solidification and disposal in landfill
3. High chlorine stabilization and disposal on land
4. Solvent (amine) extraction and dehydration process
5. Shipping overseas of liquid or dried sludge to desert countries
6. Combustion of sludge on board ships in open seas
7. Mixing sludge with pulverized rock to produce a topsoil
(Goordman system)
B. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
On .the basis of the cost studies, technical feasibility, energy con-
siderations, and environmental acceptability, the basic sludge disposal
system recommended for the study area is pyrolysis of the sludge solids
with maximum recovery of energy. Specifically, the sludge processing
system would consist of:
1. Chemical conditioning with lime and ferric chloride.
2. Dewatering using filter presses to obtain a sludge cake of at
least 40 percent solids.
3. Pyrolysis of sludge cake in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere to
produce combustible gases and a residual char.
4. Recovery of heat energy from exhaust gases and char with a
steam boiler and electric power generator.
5. Air pollution controlled by use of a high-energy water scrubber.
6. Treatment of all liquid sidestreams so that before discharge into
a receiving water they will be of secondary treatment quality.
Pyrolysis equipment is compatible with incineration; however, it
offers some significant advantages in reducing emissions and simplifying
air pollution controls. Also, it has better overall economics. Pyrol-
ysis plants have been built for solid wastes; nevertheless, studies
should be carried on to develop design parameters specifically for sewage
sludge pyrolysis. Studies to date indicate that a multiple-hearth fur-
nace can, with relatively simple modifications, be converted to a pyrol-
ysis reactor.
It is estimated that it will take about one year to make the necessary
small scale plant studies. After that a full-scale demonstration plant
appears to be indicated, and its design, construction, and operation will
take another 2-3 years. After about 4 years the design of actual pro-
cessing facilities could be started, and they can be placed in operation
in about 8-10 years after the initial studies are begun. It is recom-
mended that small scale plant studies be started immediately with an equip-
ment manufacturer who is familiar with pyrolysis technology and who builds
multiple-hearth furnaces. It is recommended that such studies be funded
and carried out concurrently during the Phase II program. Funding sources
are being investigated by ISC and EPA.
An incinerator facility design could be started immediately if this
seems desirable and pyrolysis units could be added during later expansions,
or any existing multiple-hearth incinerators could be converted to pyrol-
ysis units. Sludge dewatering, air pollution control , and energy recov-
ery equipment, with incineration would be compatible with pyrolysis re-
actors.
In-depth studies in Phase II of the study program should include,
in addition to the pyrolysis investigations, the following:
1. For the selected sites, problems relating to sludge transport,
transfer, storage, and pumping should be more thoroughly studied. Also,
the transport and disposal of residual ash must be investigated, includ-
ing disposal and its possible beneficial uses.
2. Availability of fresh makeup water at the processing site.
3. On the basis of the projected sludge handling capacity at the
planned sites, the total mount of pollutants of concern that will be
emitted into the atmosphere per unit time by the facility should be
determined and their dispersion indicated.
4. The required treatment of the dewatering and scrubber water
sidestreams should be definitely established, including amount of such
treated sidestreams that can be recycled. The integration of these
treatment facilities with the sludge processing facility should be
clearly established.
5. The complete materials handling logistics at the sludge proces-
sing facility should be worked out.
1. Incineration or Pyrolysis with Solid Wastes
The possibility of combined incineration whould be investigated in
conjunction with the on-going solid wastes study for New York City, and
any such resource recovery projects in New Jersey. The use of pyrolysis
for heat conversion of solid wastes should be studied at the 1,000 ton
per day plant that is being started up at Baltimore and the multiple-
hearth furnace being studied in Contra Costa County, California.
-------
10
' If resource recovery systems are to be established for handling the
solid wastes, the burning of the shredded combustibles with disintegrated
sludge cake or with heat-dried sludge in a boiler-furnace for power pro-
duction should be investigated. Answers to questions regarding how sew-
age sludge and solid waste combustibles could be best combined for burn-
ing with maximum energy recovery should be forthcoming from work now 1n
progress at public power plants and Industrial plants.
In considering heat conversion for energy recovery from solid wastes
and sewage sludge, the incineration or pyrolysis site location with respect
to the wastewater treatment plants is of considerable importance in connect-
tion with the overall economics. In studying the siting for such joint
disposal, investigations should be made regarding the location of sludge
dewaterlng facilities, as truck transport and handling of sludge cake 1s
costly.
Obviously, any study of joint disposal of sewage sludge with solid
wastes must be closely Integrated with the studies relating to solid
wastes. The maximum benefits of such disposal, including maximum costs
recovery from power generation, will be obtained if, other things being
equal, the costs of sludge dewaterlng, treatment of resulting sidestreams,
and transport can be minimized.
2. Land Application for Limited Quantities of Sludge
In the study area there are several wastewater treatment plants that
produce sludges that are more suited for land application, especially in
regard to heavy metals, than the major portion of the area's sludge. These
sludges should be identified and consideration given to use of such sludges,
after stabilization (digestion, composting, or high lime treatment), and
dewatering, on various suitable land areas such as parks, golf courses,
grass strips along highways, etc. Also, it could be used to improve
sandy soils where it 1s desirable to increase growth of natural vegetation.
Such processing of sludges from smaller treatment plants, located
near the periphery of the study area, could be more economical than the
transport of the sludge to a large processing facility. Proper land dis-
posal, If done with some judgment, should not create any potential environ-
mental hazards.
3. Drying and Composting for Use on Land
It is recommended that some additional verlficaiton be obtained in
regard to the marketing possibilities, with projections for at least the
next 25 years, for dried sludge and also composted sludge for use as soil
conditioners and as source of plant nutrients. Limited studies in regard
to the costs for producing these products and their selling price at the
sludge processing plant, indicate these sludge disposal methods would have
net costs considerably higher than incineration or pyrolysis with energy
recovery.
Any planned widespread use of the sludge produced in the study area
on land, and especially on.agricultural land, is contingent on the reduc-
tion, by pretreatment and other control measures, of the heavy metal con-
tent by at least one-half of present values, and the cadmium to about one-
11
fifth of its present average value. If this is not possible or practical,
then no large-scale and long-term plans for processing this sludge for
disposal on land should be made, irrespective of cost considerations.
4. Siting and Transportation
The sites identified in Chapter VI as having potential for serving
as the location of S'ludge processing facilities should be further investi-
gated. Considerations should include:
1. Existing plans for the site and availability
2. Access for materials and personnel
3. Effects on air and on surface and ground waters
4. Effects on neighborhoods
5. Building conditions, including topography and foundation conditions
6. Effects on natural preserves and on recreational areas
Transportation should be further investigated to refine merits of
barging versus pumping.
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
II. SUMMARY
The purpose of this report on the phase 2 investigation is to enable
ISC to develop a recommended coordinated system for processing and dis-
posing sludge from wastewater treatment plants in the New York-New Jersey
metropolitan area. Many of these plants currently dispose of sludae to'
the.New York Bight. . . .
This study incorporates findings from the 1975 phase 1 report on
technical alternatives to ocean disposal conducted by Camp Dresser & McKee
and Alexander Potter Associates. That reaort recomended pyrolysis for
most of -the area's sludge ar.d cth=r la-i-basec aiter-atives for outlying
areas. The objective of tne p-ass 2 report is te ie«elop a regional
sludge management plan wtiic" integrates pyre-lysis, lar,d application,
composting, landfillinc, sr.d ccean d'isprs^;. ~'-s :~:=~ ^u:t be environ-
mentally sound, cost effective, ans capable cf political a-d sccial im-
plementation.
Currently, the approximately 130 area treatrrsnt plants produce 700
tons/day of sludge. About 80 percent is barged to sea for disposal; the
remainder is landfilled, incinerated, or disposed of by other means.
Smaller wastewater treatment plants in the study area, including packaged
plants, do not add significant quantities to the total sludge production.
By the year 2000, about 2,400 tons/day would be produced, divided
nearly equally between Hew Jersey and Kevi York p1.i'.tt. In few Jersey,
about one half the sludge will be produced by two large wastewater treat-
ment facilities: the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority plant end the
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners plant. In New York, about SCO
tons/day will be produced by the New York City plants.
Sludge characteristics (including heavy-metal concentrations from
several wastewater treatment plants) were obtained fro™ EPA, based on
monthly samples for 1975. There is a large variation in monthly results,
compared with yearly averages.
II-l
A. Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis (thermal destruction in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere)
of sludge has been studied only in pilot-scale tests. Larger-scale py-
rolysis demonstrations have utilized solid wastes. The phase 1 s^udy
indicated that multiple-hearth furnaces could be built by 1981, initially
operated in the incineration mode, and then converted to pyrolysis units
as the technology developed. Further review during this study has shown
that such furnaces could be designed and constructed as pyrolysis units
during the same time frame. Therefore, incineration has been dropped
from consideration.
Necessary unit operations prior to and following pyrolysis include
sludge transportation, storage, conditioning, dewatering, sidestream
treatment, residue disposal, and emission control. Tests funded by EPA
will determine requirements for afterburner temperatures and scrubber
design.
Because many wastewater treatment plants have, or plan to construct,
anaerobic digesters, the value of retaining anaerobic digestion at indi-
vidual plants was evaluated. It was concluded that it is cost effective
to maintain existing anaerobic digesters, although new digesters should
not be built, if sludge is pyrolyzed.
Fig. II-l illustrates treatment plants which may contribute to
sludge pyrolysis facilities (based on county-level operation). Regional
facilities at Port Newark, for New Jersey, and Fresh Kills, for New York,
were also sited, to obtain economy-of-scale. In New Jersey, it would
be cost effective to process sludges from four counties at a regional
facility in Port Newark. The four potential contributors include plants
in Bergen, Hudson, and Union counties and the Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners plant in Essex County. It would not be cost effective to
consolidate facilities in Passaic or Morris counties or the MCSA facili-
ty, principally because of transportation costs. The New Jersey regional
plant would process about 620 tons/day.
A regional facility in New York State could be located at or near
the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. This facility would be an
expansion of a plant proposed to serve some of the New York City plants.
With the exception of sludge from the Yonkers plant in Westchester County,
it would not be cost effective to consolidate other proposed facilities
in New York State, primarily because of transportation costs and the
fact that several of the proposed plants have capacities already taking
advantage of economy-of-scale.
II-2
-------
SUFFOLK
Union
Nnuu
N.V.C.-2ltll Ward
N.T.C.-Hunlt Point
N.V.C.-Fitth Kill.
0 Rockland
9 WMChnUr
N Rogloiul FKlllim
NOTE: SMALL SYMBOLS INDICATE
CONTRIBUTING TREATMENT PLANTS.
LARGE SYMBOLS INDICATE SLUDOE
PYROLYSIS FACILITIES. KEY NUMBERS
IDENTIFY PLANTS LISTED IN
TABLE m-l (APPENDED).
FIG. It-I STUDY AREA-WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
n-3
B. Land Application, Composting, and Landfill 1ng
Land application, composting, and landfilling of sludge—feasible
methods of disposal—require certain ancillary facilities; stabilization
by lime treatment or digestion, dewatering by vacuum filters or filter
presses, and storage. Either liquid or cake can be applied to land.
Factors limiting land application include heavy metals, nutrients, patho-
gens, and toxic orgsnics. The severity of these constraints depends on
the properties of the sludge and the application site.
Heavy-metal data obtained from the EPA for the years 1974 and 1975
indicate that sludges produced within the highly urbanized-industrialized
portions of the study area are unsuitable for application to agricultural
or private land. Limited heavy-rr.etal data from plants in relatively non-
industrial areas indicate that these sludges are more favorable for land
application. Heayy-raetal limitations pertaining to land application of
sludges also aspl'y'to the usa of composted sludge. Although it may be
possible to dispose of limited amounts of sludge on public lands, the
land.application of large amounts of sludge for long periods would re-
quire the use cf acricultural-tyoe lends.
Land application and composting are viable sludge disposal alter-
natives for the outlying plants in tne study area. These plants could
form regional groups 'or land epslica.ion or composting purposes.
Landfilling of stabilized, aewatered sludge is cost-effective for
the smaller suburban wastswater treatmert facilities; provided that land-
fill sites are available, however, landfillir.g should be considered as
a short-tern solution to be used while long-term land application or
composting programs are instituted. Landfill ing is not feasible for
sludges produced by treatment plants in the highly urbanized portions
of the study area, because of the quantity of sludge produced and the
limited lifespans of available landfills.
C. Ocean Dumping
Ceasing ocean dumping will greatly Increase the costs of sludge
disposal, but the New York Bight will not recover because other pollu-
tants will continue to be discharged. Nevertheless, EPA hopes to end
ocean dumping by 19.81. Accordingly, the proposed plan 1s based on other
available disposal alternatives.
II-4
-------
SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SUMMARY
Pursuant to federal law, the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency has issued permits containing conditions which
call for discontinuance of ocean disposal of sludge by the
end of 1981. This comes at a time when the required upgrading
of the sewage treatment processes in the New York-New Jersey
Metropolitan Area is producing greatly enlarged tonnages of
sludge. At present, 700 tons a day require disposal. Of
this amount 500 tons is dumped at sea. By the year 2000 it
is estimated that daily sludge production from the Region's
public treatment plants will triple.
There is no doubt that great quantities of sewage solids
are in the tidal waters and in the ocean relatively close to
shore. These solids come from the disposal of sludges, the
solids remaining in sewage effluents even after treatment,
and from the frequent overflow of combined sewers.
The problem is regional because the several portions of
the metropolitan area share common waters. Since some treat-
ment and disposal methods result in the discharge of contami-
nants into the outdoor atmosphere, regional effects on air
quality also must be taken into account.
Ocean disposal is the least expensive method of removing
sludge from our population centers. Therefore, it is vital
that any plan developed in response to requirements for aban-
donment of the method be undertaken for sound environmental
reasons and that the costs be equitably distributed over the
Region.
The Phase 1 and Phase 2 technical reports secured by the
Commission pursuant to contracts with consultants were technical
in nature. They analyze and compare alternatives to ocean
disposal actually practiced or examined in the literature and
thought to be capable of application to sludge treatment and
disposal in the immediate future. The methods which appear
to be most feasible for use in the Region are composting
followed by land spreading of the resultant materials and
pyrolysis followed by carefully controlled disposal of residues
in landfills.
1
-------
Composting produces a substance which, under appropriate
circumstances is usable as a soil conditioner. At present a
difficulty is that the heavy metals and synthetic organics
content of almost all the Region's sludges makes them too
toxic for safe spreading on agricultural lands or even on
recreational lands. However, pretreatment of industrial
wastes could make many of these sludges, after treatment by
composting suitable for land spreading, at least on acreages
not used for crop production.
Pretreatment would also assist in those instances where
pyrolysis or other combustion methods may be used. These
processes leave substantial quantities of residues which must
be disposed. If it will not be lawful to dump them in the
ocean, the most likely means of disposal available will be
in landfills. However, leaching is a problem which, although
theoretically preventable, should be expected to occur at
least to some extent. Thus, landfill sites must be carefully
chosen, properly operated, maintained and monitored. By
reducing the toxic content of sludges, pretreatment also would
reduce the toxicity of the residues left by the combustion
. processes. Municipal sewage treatment processes do not remove
appreciable quantities of heavy metals or synthetic organics.
Combustion may destroy synthetic organics but does not remove
heavy metals. Consequently, the most practicable way to
obtain a relatively innocuous residue is to pretreat the
wastes before discharge to public sewers.
Further, pretreatment is important for the reduction of
toxicity in the sludges reaching the Region's waters by vir-
tue of combined sewer overflows. These occur every time
there is appreciable rainfall and result in the raw discharge
of large quantities of sewage and accumulated sewage solids.
These materials never reach the treatment plants. Consequently,
whatever substances are in them when they leave factories,
commercial establishments and homes are found in the sludges
when they are discharged directly from the combined sewers.
Industrial pretreatment is feasible, but pretreatment from
residential facilities and from many commercial establishments
is not. Product control is a means of coping with the latter
problem.
The Commission's recommended management plan which follows
is designed to meet effectively the immediate needs of the
Region while allowing the necessary flexibility for future
technological and other innovations and modifications to be
implemented in a cost effective manner.
Recommended Management Plan
1) Those treatment plants now having sludge of a quality that
can be composted and put on the land should make such a
commitment. Information available to the Commission' is
that Oakwood Beach and Port Richmond (New York City), Long
Beach and West Long Beach (Nassau County), and Monmouth
County now have such sludges.
2) By December 31, 1977 each contributory sludge source should
commit itself as to its treatment and disposal method or
methods. rf by that time the sludge from that source is
of a quality which permits composting, it should select
this method. In any other case a source should be required
to commit at least one-half of its 1977 sludge tonnage and
any additional tonnage due to growth through the mid 1980's
to treatment by pyrolysis. The remaining half of 1977
tonnages should be committed at the sources, options either
to pretreatment and composting or to pyrolysis. The
objective is to abandon ocean disposal by the end of 1981
or as soon thereafter as possible. Consequently the
commitment should be to institute composting and pyrolysis
no later than that time.
Five sites are recommended for pyrolysis installations.
The location (name) of the site, the contributory waste
treatment plants and costs are given in Table I on page xiv.
3) The remaining sewage treatment plants located for the
most part in the outlying portions of the metropolitan
area should follow the options and recommendations indi-
cated for each of them contained in Chapter III of the
Camp, Dresser & McKee Phase 2 report. However, as soon
as the sludges become suitable, composting should be
substituted for landfilling.
4) In the early 1980's each sludge source should review its
situation and make a committment as to treatment and
disposal methods for a further period of time. This
review is meant to accord opportunity to shift additional
tonnages to composting and land spreading as the cir-
cumstances warrant and to take account of any new and
developing technologies.
Because capital costs are assisted by federal construction
grant aid, pyrolysis which is a capital intensive method
may be significantly reduced in its burden on local governments.
-------
o x a c
53 II
: s I *
0 U >iJr
K O £r-
* *NIC« * * p* »H '
^,
n
j.
g
^ M CD r-» m ^rlw
n--r. -|o
_,
c
*J
g
2SSSS
^
41
O
t*
t* m o a
o a^
0 « " «
3 S >-
o a u n
5 * **
-=9 §1
3 1!
n a K p
am « £
ii
.
S E
i 2
i
l
« «
es
I *D o
- "rf *• ^
"5
SI
5S'
^
:«
«&
51
s«
« « f °
Since it is generally thought desireable to encourage uti-
lization of sludge of proper quality on the land, it.is
recommended that Congress consider extending sufficient aid
to the composting and land spreading method to accomplish
equalization of the financial burden on communities in com-
parison with pyrolysis.
The Commission's plan, for the most part, could be im-
plemented by the individual local governments and interlocal
sewage treatment agencies. If viewed as part of the liquid
waste treatment and disposal process, sludge treatment and
disposal by any of the methods suggested in the Commission's
plan could be undertaken by the sewage treatment agencies under
existing statutory authorizations. Arrangements would be
necessary for the financing of the sludge management facili-
ties, but this is true of any construction or purchasing of
equipment and real property.
While some of the pyrolysis plants which will be needed
are expected to serve a number of sewage treatment plants,
the actual number of interjurisdictional arrangements contem-
plated is not large, and none of them cross state lines. In
New York, two of the three such plants would take sludge only
from New York City facilities. The third could be operated
as a county undertaking and would not serve areas in any other
county. However, it is true that some Nassau County plants
are operated by municipalities rather than by the county it-
self. In New Jersey, there would be interjurisdictional
service areas, but the major ones could be attached to existing
joint meeting liquid waste treatment operations and could
employ the legal authority and administrative structures of
the present agencies. This is largely true even though they
would serve some areas not included in their present districts.
The most likely purposes for interlocal agreements involving
joint acquisition and'operation of facilities would be to ob-
tain a pyrolysis plant for several communities where the volumes
of sludge generated by each is insufficient to justify efficient
operation of such a facility or where several communities
might desire to acquire and operate a joint landfill site.
In New York, two statutes already make general provision for
interlocal cooperation or services of the desired kind. They
are the Interlocal Cooperation Act and the statute under which
the Environmental Facilities Corporation functions. In New Jersey,
the Consolidated Municiple Service Act provides a basis for programs
of the joint meeting type. Of course, special statutes also
could be used to establish desired joint operations having
characteristics tailored to the particular circumstances.
-------
Contracting for sludge management services also is availa-
ble as a.means of securing all or any part of the function from
another county, municipality or interlocal agency. It is most
likely to be a practical approach for a small community having
a larger neighbor which has invested in a pyrolysis plant,
landfill or other major facility. It is a possible alterna-
tive only where one of the contracting governmental entities
is willing and able to incur the initial capital costs by
itself, although service contract payments might be so cal-
culated that in the long run, recipients of the services pay
some share of both capital and operating costs.
While the Commission's plan has been so divided as to
make it possible for most of the individual local communities
and interlocal waste management agencies to accomplish the
sludge management function for themselves, some matters should
be viewed as being of continuing regional character. There
will be some extraterritorial effects of sludge management
activities. There will be a continuous need for pooling of
information and experience with sludge management technology
and administration, including evaluation of new and developing
methods.
Land spreading of composted sludges or of other products
which may be developed from sludge may also benefit from
cooperative activities on a regional basis. This could be
especially true if improvement in the quality of most of the
Region's sludges makes possible their use in significant
quantities on agricultural land. Under such circumstances,
consideration of common or joint marketing arrangements could
be advantageous.
The Interstate Sanitation Commission should act as a
regional forum for the consideration of these matters and
could function as a joint instrumentality where that proves
to be appropriate in the future.
-------
APPENDIX K
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS
-------
.1
TOWN OF ISLIP
BARRY D. ANDRES
577 MAIN STREET
ISLIP, N. Y. 117S1
SB1-2OQQ
EXT. 241
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRaU
April 12 1076
Daniel A. Sullivan, P. E.
Environmental Impact Branch
EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York lOOOy
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
The Town of Islip borders the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity
of the Fire Island Inlet. As such, we have a genuine concern
regarding offshore sewage sludge dumping sites. We are hereby
commenting on the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental
Impact Statement on the Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in the New
York Bight - Draft, February 1976.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency's Environ-
mental Impact Statement -
1.)
The dumping of sewage sludge increases the trace metal and
organic contaminant loading of sediments and the water column.
2.) The potential biological impacts of ocean dumping sewage
sludge based on studies in the Bight Apex include:
a) Increased trace and heavy metal concentrations in fish
and shellfish.
b) Contamination of sediments and water column by pathogens
of man. fish and shellfish.
o) Alterations 1n migratory patterns of bot.t.om-11 vlng fishes.
d) Increase in incidence of fin rot offshore.
e) Modification of food webs.
3.) Use of alternate dump sites will result in greatly increased
travel time, transportation costs, monitoring costs and costs
associated with the U. S. Coast Guard.
Printed in Islip on recycled paper
>t.) T!ie dumping of sewage sludge at ai; alternate area wui I d
contribute t.o the degradation of relatively "pristine"
waters while only minimally improving surface water ni'ality
of the Inner Bight, area.
5.) After oompa vision of t ho Environment.nl Impact, Statement by
the Environmental Protection Agency with that, of t.he NOAA-MESA
Kvaluation of Proposed Sewa/xe Slmln" Dumps'tn Areas in t»-p
New York Hi phi. there seems t.o lie conflicting evidence re-
garding bottom transport of sludge, surface transport, of
sludgp. sludge contamination of Hudson Shelf Valley and
commercial value of shellfish in the alternate proposed
dump sites.
With these facts in mind, wo recommend the following:
1.) The current ocean dump site he maintained.
2.) Ocean dumping he phased out. completely hy iopi provided that.
the alternative methods of disposal are environmentally accepta-
ble.
3.) No dumping take place at either Northern 1A or Southern 2A
proposed alternate sites until hoth the F.PA and NOAA reevaluate
their conflicting data and technical Information.
We do hope that our recommendations will l>o taken into consider-
ation.
Respect fill ly
tt.cd.
Harry P. Andres
Commi ss i r>ner
PPG:kwh
-------
,i
VILLAGE OF LAWRENCE
NASSAU COUNTY. NEW YORK
WILLIAM D. DENSON
MAYOR
TRUSTEES •- - -
MARTIN ROSEN
HERBERT WARSHAVSKV .
C. PAYSON COL.EMAN
M. ALBERT BENOES .
ACTING CLERK-TREASURER
PETER w. OVERS
186 CENTRAL AVENUE
LAWRENCE. NEW YORK 11559
516 - 239-46OO
May 14, 1976
Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
Regional Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Att.: Mr. Daniel A. Sullivan
/
Re: Environmental Impact Statement
(draft) Ocean Dumping of Sewage
.In the New York Bight
Dear Mr. Hansler:
I appreciate the opportunity of making this statement
as Mayor of the Incorporated Village of Lawrence, New York and
as an officer of the Lawrence Beach Club, Inc.
The south shore of Long Island bordering the Atlantic
Ocean constitutes some of the finest bathing beaches in the
world. These beaches have provided a source of enjoyment and
revenue for many many decades. Anything that is calculated to
jeopardize the continued material contribution to the residents
of this area should be guarded against and eliminated as'one
would a venomous snake.
-2-
Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
May 14, 1976
Several years ago when we became alarmed by the presence
of foreign matter along our shore line extending from Rockaway
Point eastward, we were very much heartened by the interest that
was manifested by the Environmental Protection Agency in seeking
out the cause and its apparent determination to eliminate such
cause. This evidenced a governmental attitude consistent with
the highest traditions of protecting our "common welfare" - a
fundamental of a well ordered government.
Pursuant to that interest we were later informed that
the dumping of sewage sludge and other materials in the desig-
nated area of the New York Bight appeared to be'the cause, and
the obvious remedy was to abandon the present dump site and move
it further out in the ocean and away from the shore. Such an
analysis and solution seemed compatible with reason and logic.
Now we are informed that you have departed from your
prior findings and remedy and are now suggesting that the dump
site remain where it is and with no abatement of the quantity
of refuse being dumped. Suffice it to say it is most difficult
to reconcile this "about face" on your part, particularly after
one considers the data submitted by you along with the recommen-
dation that further study is needed with respect to the impact
of the ocean currents relative to the problem at hand.
The fact that you find it necessary to make a more in-
tensive and extensive study of the ocean currents persuades me
that there is sufficient certainty of contamination present as
to indicate to a prudent person that the source of contamina-
tion should be moved far away from the beaches thereby reducing,
if not eliminating, the havoc that will result from having to
close these lovely beaches!
What balance of considerations can outweigh the need
for eliminating the hazzard of contamination? Why should we
be made to suffer such an outrage? Such damage to the beaches
and the welfare of those entitled to use them cannot be
measured in dollars and cents. This applies not only to those
of us presently enjoying such pleasures, but will constitute a
deprivation of right to generations of people yet to come.
-------
-3-
Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
May 14, 1976
Please do not gamble with our future. The greatest
service that you can render would be to move the dumping site
sufficiently far away as to ensure for ourselves and our pos-
terity the beauties that the good Lord so generously bestowed
upon us.
Very respectfully,
WILLIAM D. DENSON
Mayor of Incorporated Village
of Lawrence
Vice-President of Lawrence
Beach Club, Inc.
STATEMENT OF THE
MONMOUTH COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AND
MONMOUTH COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE OCEAN DUMPING OF SEWERAGE
SLUDGE IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
APRIL 19, 1976
-------
Gentlemen:
The Monmouth County Environmental Council would like to make some conraents
and raise some questions about the proposal to continue the mass dumping of
sewerage sludge in the New York Bight. We would first like to discuss some
of the data presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
One of the first and most prominent suggestions made in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement is that it is the EPA's intention to phase out ocean dumping
of all municipal and industrial waste by 1981, providing alternates to ocean
dumping arc acceptable at that time. It is further stated (Page 266) that it
is EPA's policy not to issue an ocean dumping permit to any municipal or
industrial waste generator who is not under a schedule to develop and implement
an acceptable land-based disposal alternative. With the EPA's past track record
in meeting such timetables it is likely that the 1981 deadline will come and go
and round upon round of extensions will be granted because "acceptable" alternative
disposal sites etc. will not be developed. The waste generators know that (as
in the case of other deadlines) they will not have to comply with this 1981 date.
The Monraouth County Environmental Council objects to this vague definition
of "acceptable alternative" and suggests that the EPA is really thinking about
1985 or 1990 instead. We protest this type of thinking because of the quantity
of sludge being dumped and the close proximity to Monmouth County that this sludge
is being dumped. On page 268 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement it is
stated that sewerage volumes will increase from 5.1 million cubic meters in 1976
to 10.2 million cubic meters in 1984. The reasons for our protest over these
predicted increasing amounts are manyfold.
(1) On figure 14 in the Draft Environmental Inpact
Statement is shown the pattern of bottom currents.
These current patterns clearly show that sludge
dumped at the preferud site (off S.irvdy Hook) will
be moved towards Long Island and Sandy Hook. At
Sandy Hook (of course) is the Gateway National
Recreation Area which is host to millions of
bathers and fishermen per year.
(2) A cold water current which moves from north to
south counter to the Gulf Stream and west of the
Gulf Stream, close to Long Island, would tend to
carry floatables from the sludge into the Long
Island Sandy Hook area and onto these barrier
beaches.
(3) Further the longshore currents also will tend to
move any .floatables towards New York Harbor.
(4) Since sewerage sludge is high in both Nitrogen
and Phosphates and it is these two types of
compounds most responsible for the red tide blooms
of the dinoflaggelatc Gymnodin ium hrcvis, the
increasing amounts of sludge dumped into the New
York Bight can only further aggrevate a red tide
problem which becomes quite serious during the summers.
(5) The recent establishment of th« Gateway National
Recreation Area on Sandy Hook, Staten Island and Long
-------
Island makes the necessity for clean water in the
New York Bight even more critical than before. With
millions of people using these facilities there is
a need for responsible administration and management of
the coastal waters.
For the above reasons the Monmouth County Environmental Council is against
any further dumping of sewerage sludge in the New York Bight. We feel that
there are presently available acceptable alternatives to the ocean dumping.
These alternatives are composting, and incineration with pyralysis as
recommended by the Interstate Sanitation Commission. We feel that these
alternatives be implemented immediately so that by 1981 all ocean dumping of
sludge can be halted. It would therefore be possible to reduce volumes
year by year on a phased basis from 1976 through 1981. The way the EPA
plan is stated sewerage volumes would, on the other hand, double by 1981.
We feel that this proposed doubling is not acceptable to Monmouth County
because of the potential health hazard from the sludge.
Another point we would like to make is one concerning the problem of
cumulative environmental impacts in the Region. If we just look at sludge
dumping, oi.l exploration, deep water ports, etc., by themselves with no consideration
of other proposals we are totally missing most of the potential impacts that are
cumulative. These cumulative impacts relate to air and water quality, land use,
facilities siting, water supply and the like. With this in mind the Monnouth
County Environmental Council would insist that future impact studies compare
a given proposal to other proposals for the same area. For the New York Bight
we arc talking about:
(1) Outer continental shelf oil exploration
(2) Deep water port construction
(3) Regional solid waste facitlities
(4) Off-shore nuclear power plants
(5) Regional energy facility clusters (as proposed
for southerr. New Jersey)
If all these proposals (and any others which may be in the works) are
examined collectively then we will be able to effectively analyze land use,
environmental and other impacts on the Region.
-4-
-------
RALPH G. CASO
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE
NASSAU COUNTY EXECUTIVE BUILDING
ONE WEST STREET
MINEOLA. N. Y. IISOI
April 29, 1976
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, P.I.
Administrator - Region II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
I am informed that current plans for managing municipal
sludge dumping in the New York Bight Apex neither assure an
effective monitoring program for 1976, nor an appropriate interim
contingency plan for relocating the site.
While we endorse USEPA's approach as represented in
your draft EIS, we cannot condone any delay, in its implementation.
I'm sure you will agree that we simply cannot afford to risk
the consequences of a sludge excursion during the very period
when we are developing plans to cope with such an eventuality.
My concerns are heightened by data which demonstrates
that the worst hydrographic conditions for on-shore sludge trans-
port occur during the summer season coincident with maximum
public use of the waters and the further realization that com-
prehensive sampling data is not available for the summer and fall
season.
The following recommendations are considered necessary
to properly cope with management of the dump site during 1976:
1. USEPA assumes the responsibility to immediately
organize 1976 surveillance of the sludge dumping
operations, coordinating all Federal, State, and
local regulatory agencies, permitees and others.
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, P.I.
page two
April 29, 1976
2.
3.
4.
5.
rgc:d-mh
Enclosure
Quarterly intensive sampling be conducted on an
expanded grid sufficient in size to identify the
influence of seasonal hydrographic patterns of
the ocean on a schedule which will permit the
initial cruise to be conducted in May of 1976.
Contingency plan for relocating the dump site
be developed on an interim basis for immediate
implementation if and when any threat to the
public health or welfare is identified.
The surveillance effort be allocated among EPA,
NOAA, and other agencies and institutions to
effectuate the most cost-effective utilization
of available expertise and resources.
A formula for funding the cost of the surveillance
effort be implemented for the 1976 program whereby
the Federal share will amount to two thirds of
the total cost with the remainder to be shared by
permitees in proportion to the volume of sludge
dumped.
Sincerely.
Ralph te. Caso
County Executive
-continued-
-------
NASSAU C
TV DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
MINCOLA. N.Y. 11501
• ALPH C. CA1O
C*wnly E>««itli»*
JOHN J. DOWUHG. U.D.. M.P.H.
CenMli ••!•«•*
FRANCIS V. PAOAK. P.E.
ABII. 0«**ty CMM»ff»i«M«
Dl>. .1 E..lr.~..l.l H.dfS
EVALUATION OF PLANS FOR OFF-SHORE SLUDGE MONITORING
April 28. 1976
Since the April 1 hearing on management of the sludge dumping site, there
has been an effective effort on the part of the USEPA to develop appropriate
expanded surveillance to begin in 1977. There appears to be no plan being
pursued however, to insure adequate surveillance during 1976. An expanded
monitoring progran is needed this year to identify any potential problen
in tine to protect the public interest. He see as a ™ini»i™ comprehensive
sampling cruises in May and in August of 1976.
While the environmental iopsct statement prepared by the USEPA called for sore
intensive sampling of the Bight and the development of a contingency plan for
implementing a new dump site as conditions for retaining the present site,
there was no specifics presented in the EIS or announced since that time.
It appears that the EPA is content for 1976 to continue the present sampling
program which was reported as inadequate in their EIS.
The EPA did meet with sludge dumping penaitees on April 7 and instructed them
to jointly develop a surveillance program in coordination with NOAA. This
planning is in conjunction with new permits to become effective July 1, 1976.
The monitoring program will be effective January 1, 1977. This approach does
not address the 1976 monitoring requirements nor does it assure that the re-
sulting surveillance program will satisfy the needs of public health and envir-
onmental control agencies at th State and local level. The permitees have
recently elected to request NOAA to enter into discussions with EPA to develop
an effective monitoring program.
NOAA has elected to remove themselves from any controversial position because
like the USGS, they are a data gathering rather than a regulatory agency. Before
the recent action by the permitees, NOAA advertised for proposals for surveillanc
of the Bight Apex through the New York Sea Grant Institute. This program is
more of a research nature and generally independent of sludge monitoring per se.
NOAA will determine the scope of the study which will begin in 1977. This De-
partment is in process of submitting an application for a grant under this progra:
We have proposed a sampling effort of approximately $140,000 per year for four
years, covering the area south of Nassau from the shore to the dump site. Our
proposal includes basic sludge monitoring aspects as well as elements of a resear
nature.
The planned funding of the monitoring program is unsettled. The New York Sea
Grant Institute program will fund two thirds of the study effort with remaining
third to be paid by the applicant. EPA's dumping permits assign responsibility
for surveillance to permitees which is assumed to include the cost. Our recom-
mended solution is that EPA subsidize two thirds of the cost as in the formula
used by the Sea Grant Institute with the remainder shared by permitees in prop-
ortion to quantity of sludge dumped.
Recommendations to resolve the issues are as follows:
1. USEPA takes the steps necessary to effectively coordinate all Federal.
State, and local agency responsibilities in managing municipal sewage
sludge dumping in the New York Bight Apex to.include the following elements:
a. Quarterly intensive sampling be conducted on an expanded grid sufficient
in size to identify the influence of seasonal hydrographic patterns of
the ocean on a schedule which will permit the initial cruise to be con-
ducted in May of 1976.
b. Contingency plan for relocating the dump site be developed on an interim
basis for insdiate implementation if and when any threat to the public
health or welfare is identified.
c. The surveillance effort be allocated among EPA, NOAA, and other agencies
and institutions to effectuate the most cost-effective utilization of
available expertise and resources.
d. A formula for funding the cost of the surveillance effort be developed
and implenented whereby the Federal share will amount to two thirds of
the total cost with the remainder to be shared by permitees in preportior
to the volme of sludge dumped.
7. " The County Executive be requested to convey the above recommendations to
Mr. Gerald Hansler, Administrator, New York Region, USEPA. Draft of the
proposed letter is attached.
Francis V. Padar, P.E., M.C.E.
Assistant Deputy Commissioner
FVP:no
-------
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16TH ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 2(1036
April 30, 1976
Phone: 202—797-6800
Mr. Pete Anderson
Chief, Marine Protection Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Edison Water Quality Research Lab.
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Re:
Suggested Addition to EIS on Sludge Disposal
in the New York Bight
Dear Pete:
Based on recent conversations with Coast Guard HQ personnel,
Region II's tentative determination to require sludge dumpers to
increase their residence times at the dump site to five hours, and
the collision earlier this week of a Colombian freighter with a barge
hauling waste through the New York Bight to an ocean dump site, we
wish to suggest consideration in the final impact statement of
moving the sludge dump site a short distance (i.e., a few miles)
to take it out of the center of the active shipping lane in which it
is presently situated.
We- believe that such a move (and active consideration thereof
in the FEIS) makes sense from-the standpoints of both environmental
protection and human and shipping safety.
From the environmental standpoint, movement of the site out
of the shipping lane would increase EPA's flexibility to modify
dumping conditions (e.g., decrease the permitted dl nchru'i;6-1 r;U;o) -o
as to best protect the marine environment. Commander Costlch of the
Coast Guard's Marine Environmental Protection Division has indicated
to us that the Coast Guard plans to oppose any effort to increase
the amount of time spent by barges at the present sewage sludge dump
site. The Coast Guard feels that any increase in dump time within
the shipping lane increases the collision potential. Movement of the
site out of the shipping lane would remove this constraint and reduce
this risk.
Mr. Pete Anderson
April 30, 1976
Page Two
From the safety standpoint, movement of the :;lte out of the
shipping lane would eliminate a very serious obstruction to
navigation—even if there is no increase in dumping time.
Accordingly, the National Wildlife Federation rospectfully
urges EPA to take immediate steps (beginnlm/, with inclusion of'this
proposal in the final impact statement) to move the present sewage
sludge dump site the short distance it would take to get it out of
an active shipping lane.
S .1 n c n r F? 1 v ,
KSK:jb
Kenneth S. Kamlet
Counsel
-------
Btatt of Jfnn Straeg
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TRENTON O8625
OFFICE OF THB COMMISSIONER
3 May 1976
Mr. Gerald Hansler
Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed
EPA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Ocean Dumping of
Sewage Sludge in the New York Bight. The Department has identified
major policy issues associated with sludge disposal and general comments
on the Draft EIS in testimony given by Assistant Commissioner Glenn
Paulson at your public hearing March 29 in Toms River. For the record,
I am attaching a copy of that testimony.
To supplement Dr. Paulson's testimony, we have reviewed the Draft
EIS for technical adequacy and minor policy questions. The following
comments and questions were raised by our operating Divisions and
should be addressing prior to the issuance of the Final EIS:
Short dumping - The practice of short dumping is briefly discussed
on page 237 of the EIS. The potential adverse impacts on the near-
shore aquatic ecology by the illegal releasing of sludge prior to
reaching the dump site is summarily dismissed by EPA. In order to
effectively curtail this practice and its potential environmental and
health related consequences, we recommend that either EPA or Coast
Guard enforcement personnel be assigned to monitor each of the 14
vessels currently transporting sludge to the ocean dump site. Anything
short of full-time monitoring cannot guarantee that the temptation of
illegal short-dumping will not exist.
Scientific Nomenclature " hard clams - ocean quahogs" - Page 80
and 81 states $11.7 million "hard clams (ocean quahogs)" were landed
in NY/NJ. This directly contradicts page 138 which states "ocean
quahogs constitute the largest underutilized clam resource in the
Bight." Hard Clams, Venus mercenaria, do account for $11.7 million
Mr. Gerald. Hansler
Regional Director
3 May 1976
- 2 -
in NY/NJ, these are an estuarine species and the ocean quahog, Artica
islandica, which is a deep water (oceanic) species, and is presently
underutilized. These are common problems using common names and the
reason why scientific name must always be used.
Marine Birds - The Draft EIS only described organisms living in
the sea and completely overlooked the numerous marine birds living
on and above the sea surface in the area.
Fisheries - The Draft EIS does not take into consideration the
associated industries and retail value of commercial fishing in esti-
mating landing values as an evaluation of the resource. Also an
evaluation should be made of the recreational fishing in both areas.
Impact upon crustaceans - Page 233 of the Draft EIS indicates
that "Impacts upon crustaceans will be mitigated to some extent by
their ability to move out of the effected area". While some of the
displaced animals may be harvested or live to reproduce, an area of
habitat will still be lost and productivity reduced proportionately
at least.
Sincerely yours,
Lawrence Schmidt," Chief
Office of Environmental Review
LS tmm
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION
TRENTON OB623
Testimony of
Dr. Glenn Paulson, Assistant Commissioner
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
at the Public Hearing on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge
in the New York Bight
held by the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1'oms River, Mew Jersey
March 29, 1976
Good morning. My name is Glenn Paulson; I am the
Assistant Commissioner for Science in the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP). •
On behalf on Commissioner David J. Bardin, I would like
to welcome the officials of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to the Jersey shore; it is an appropriate setting
in light of the subject of today's hearing. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak out of the scheduled sequence, since my
travel schedule will not permit me to stay here very long
this morning.
Our Department has been in periodic contact with EPA ever
since the original proposal for alternate ocean dumping sites
for sewage sludge was first put forward. DEP's initial reaction
was of grave concern; we will not support selection of any site
that poses serious environmental risks to New Jersey Ips coast.
Sow that we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on the Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in the
Kew YorX Bight, DEP is satisfied both with the level of
-2-
analysis of the isauo a;--cl the cc>:ic1.uKions i::?.;\ finally rtiiicl-.-iO.
on it.
He congratulate EPA for an excellent piece of work. It
is not often that the CIS process is utilized in such an objective
comprehensive, and tlioug'iitf ul manner. In a sound application
of the principles of the National Environmental Policy Act,
EPA has used the EIS process as an integral part of its decision-
making, not simply a vehicle to justify a decision v.'hich has
already been made. I believe the audience will be convinced of
this following the technical presentations to be made by EPA
and their consultant on this effort.
The Draft EIS has provided the public with a thorough
analysis of present and projected ocean dumping practices,
existing environmental conditions at the current site, and a
sound and ccmprehensj.ve assessment of both near-terra and long-
term alternatives to ocean dumping. DEP concurs with the con-
clusions and recommendations reached in the EIS.
Specifically, we agree that disposal should continue at
the existing sludge dumping site on the condition that careful
monitoring be done to ensure against any possible public health
effects that might result from overtaxing the existing site.
We also agree that, if an alternate dump site were to be used
as an interim solution for the sludge problem, the results would
be, on balance, ir.ore damaging to the marine: environment than
-------
-3-
continu'jd u;:c of tha ci'rrev.l: site, oairti.i.cularly after'the
cessation of dumping in the 19SO'K. We agree with the
selection of the more northerly alternate site for possible
contingency use in the event that the existing site cannot
accept the full burden of the projected additional loading.
And finally, we agree with the flaws found in using the more
southerly site as an alternate.
Beyond the issue of alternate ocean dumping sites, I
wish to reaffirm the State of Hew Jersey's commitment to work
with EPA in the timely implementation on land-based sludge
disposal methods. We basically agree with the conclusions
reached by the Interstate Sanitation Cprranission (ISC) in its
technical report of June 1975}. The report (Phase I of a
sludge raanageinant study) indicated that the most feasible
alternate to ocean dunping, at least initially, would be
multiple-health incineration with eventual conversion to
pyrolysis. In the longer term, the alternate of dewatering
of sludge with filter presses followed by pyrolysis appears to
be environmentally acceptable. We shall continue to work-with
the ISC and the EPA on the technical, economic, and institutional
aspects of implementing land-based sludge disposal in the
Mew York metropolitan areas.
DEP's v'arious divisions are presently corr.plotiny their
final detailed technical rovic;;.1 of. the prarfc IsIS; we intend to
supplement this statement today with coirar.ents of a more precise
technical nature tc arc! the end of the 45 day review period.
!;ov::>vcr, our b:-,s;ic: '. -.mo.I us.ion io ...loar: UP/-. Jvi3 done a very
good job in evaluating the currant alternatives to the 'ocean
dumping of sludge. We agree with their judgement that, on
balance, the most onviron-nantally acceptable interim solution
is to continue the use of the current site.
-------
June 3, 1976
Regional Administrator
Region II
U. S. Environmental Protection Aaency
26 Federal Plaza .
New York, New York 10007
Dear Sir:
Find attached three (3) copies of comments on the draft
Environmental Impact Statement on the, ocean dumping of
sewage sludge in the New York Bight.
These comments were approved for transmittal to you by
the Executive Committee of the New York City Citizens
Advisory Committee XCAC) formed pursuant to Section 20R
of the FWPCAA - 1972.
While the impact statement provides a very useful
compilation-of information related to sludge disposal,
the Executive Committee of the CAC expressed concern
that the decision-making process employed in selecting
the preferred course of action was inadequate. The
impact statement leaves the impression that little loner
range planning is being done and that future decisions
on the discharge of sewage sludge will continue to be.
made by a process of elimination rather than a
systematic approach to the problem.
The attachment hereto provides more detailed comments on
the impact statement by page number. I appologize for
the tardiness in transmitting these comments and hope you
will consider them in your final impact statement.
Respectfully yours.
John J. Szeligowski, Chairman
Technical Sub Committee
New York City Section 208
Citizens Advisory Committee
3]S. ap
Attach.
.
"f
/
/ cnro 1
On page 1 an overview to the action being taken
is presented. Since this report is an impact
statement it should be clearly stated which
requirements of NEPA are being fulfilled and which
of your agencies' regulations are being followed.
On page 2 of the Statement the following wording
appears: "In 1974 EPA proposed that a new ocean
dump site be designated for use until sludge dumping
could be replaced by environmentally, technically,
and economically viable land-based disposal methods."
The Inter-State Sanitation Commission (ISC) has
indicated that pyrolysis is the most promising of the
feasible land-based sludge disposal alternatives but
will cost about four or five times as much as ocean
dumping at the present sewage sludge site. Costs of
these magnitudes may not be considered economically
viable which raises the question of whether it is actually
practicable to phase out ocean dumping by 1981. An*
extension, past 1981 may be required in order to find
an "environmentally, technically and economically
Viable land-based disposal method."
On page 32 it is suggested that mass/time be
tabulated as well as concentration.
On page 32 reference is made to an unpublished report.
It is requested that the report be included in the
final impact statement.
-------
5. On page 44 it is stated that pretreatment systems
for industrial effluents will be operational in 1977.
It is not clear why these systems will not result
in a substantial reduction in heavy metals in sludge.
6. On page 45 it appears that the Red Hook and Oakwood
Beach treatment plants in New York City were omitted.
7. On page 57 what is the rational behind phasing out
industrial waste dumping and continuing rauniciple
sludge dumping.
8. On page 60 it is suggested that additional pollutants
"be depicted.
9. On page 96 a brief statement on the logistics of
ocean transport of sludge appears. This statement
is conclusory in nature and should instead be the
subject of an analysis using cost benefit techniques.
10. .On page 142 it is requested that the analyses leading
to the conclusion that the contamination of shellfish
waters is attributable to on shore sources, be
presented.
11. On page 171 data is presented which is difficult to
compare. It is suggested that some statistical
characterisation of the data throughout the report be
made (for example, confidence levels).
12. On page 198 a conclusion is reached that recreational
and commercial fishing is unaffected by dumping. The
basis for this conclusion should be presented.
13. On page 201 a statement is made that it will be
difficult to determine impact at a site where two
or more constituents are to be dumped. It appears
that if the same approach used in this report were
applied, little difficulty would occur in making
the analysis.
14. On page 201 it is stated that imminent health
hazards or degredation to water quality must occur
before any alternate action is taken. This appears
to be an inadequate decision making criteria, it
is suggested that a more technically complete state-
ment of when an alternate action be taken be pre-
•
sented in the final statement.
15. On Page 232 it is stated that the purpose of the
impact statement is not to quatify impact. It is
' not clear how a decision can be reached-on alternate
courses of action when the impact of alternates are
not compared on some common quantifiable basis.
16. On page 243 a cost of 75 less 48 million dollars is
suggested as applicable to dumping at an alternative
site. Nowhere in the report does an analysis of
benefits appear in similar terms.
17. On page 266 the statement is made "It is EPA's stated
intention to phase out ocean dumping of all municipal
and industrial wastes by 1981, provided that the
-------
alternative methods of disposal are environmentally
acceptable, technically feasible, and economically
reasonable. Similarly, on page 2 EPA remarks that
the Agency "had already stated its intention to
completely phase out ocean dumping of sewage sludge
by 1981, provided that acceptable land-based dis-
posal methods could be substituted."
This intention or policy of phasing out ocean dumping
appears contrary to EPA's authority, as stated on
page 65, "to establish a permit program for regu-
lating the transport and dumping of waste materials,
except dredged material, in ocean waters." No basis
for a decision to phase- out ocean dumping by 1981
is provided in the Statement, in the Marine Pro-
•
tection. Research, and Santuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA)
in the regulations implementing the Act or in any
other available source. Such a decision should be
based on a NEPA cost/benefit assessment.
18. On page 277 of the Statement EPA recommends that
"an expanded monitoring program and review process
should be developed to determine when and if
environmental factors warrant the phasing out or
abandonment of the existing dump site. This decision-
making process should be directed at the protection
of public health and welfare and at the prevention
of coastal water quality degradation. In general,
the monitoring program should include comprehensive
sampling of appropriate parameters upon which a
decision to phase out or abandon the existing dump
site can be based. It would be helpful to know which
"environmental factors" will be considered in the
monitoring program and which "appropriate parameters"
will play a role in the decision making process.
It is unclear which basis will be used to determine
the point in time that the existing dump site should
be abandoned and a switchover to the alternate dump
site should take place.
-------
New York State Department ol Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233
April 19, 1976
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler
- 2 -
April 19, 1976
Ogden Reid,
Commissioner
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge
In the New York Bight
DEC Project No. 00200-0067
We have reviewed the above noted document and concur with the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency's recommendation for continued use of the
existing dump site with the safeguards recommended on page seven of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The position of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation in this matter has been stated at the public hearing
conducted by the EPA on April 1, 1976 at Mineola, N. Y. A copy of that
statement is appended for reference.
Our comments on the Draft EIS follow:
I. General Comments
a. The recommended action calls for continued use of the
existing dump site with a monitoring and contingency
plan to move dumping offshore should conditions require.
The nature of the proposed monitoring program should be
described in detail. Moreover, criteria for requiring
a dump site change as well as all implementing procedures
for such a change should be specified.
b. One of the key assumptions used by the EPA in reaching
the decision is that all sludge dumping will end by 1981.
Given existing fiscal, technological, and logistical
constraints, this target date Is not likely to be met.
If ocean dumping continues for an extended period beyond
1981, the whole set of assumptions underlying this
decision may be undermined.
General Comments Contd.
The EPA should establish a realistic target date for the
elimination of sludge dumping, and reevaluate the decision
based on such information. It should be noted that
estimates of volume of sludge to be dumped in the near
future are also subject to change as a result of the impact
of fiscal problems on construction of treatment facilities.
c. It is unclear whether ocean dumping permits will require
pretreatment of sludge before dumping. The EIS should make
clear whether such pretreatment measures as thickening,
digestion, and metal removal will be required. If they
will, the discussions of impact may have to be somewhat
modified.
d. The statement should give more attention to the subject of
chlorinated hydrocarbons.
e. There are a few apparent disagreements between the DEIS and
the NOAA-NESA Technical Memorandum ERL MESA-11 dated February
1976. These matters should be discussed between the two
agency staffs and resolved in the Final EIS.
f. The EIS did not indicate that information from commercial
and recreational fishing interests was utilized in choosing
alternate dumpsites.
g. in considering when the existing site should be abandoned,
identified sludge bed movement should be one of the criteria
used. However, if such movement is identified, abandonement
may have a limited immediate effect. Therefore, further
" study is needed to determine potential movement, impacts and
necessary countermeasures that can be taken if such impacts
are significantly adverse. Our Department should be notified
immediately of any movement of the sludge mass itself.
II. Specific Comments
Page 71, paragraph 3 - It is stated that three cases of illegal
short dumping have been noted. We support the development of
a positive recording system to alleviate this problem.
Page 80, paragraph 1 - Here and on p. 247 there Is apparent confusion
between the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) and the hard clam
(Mercenarla mercenaria). The text and the landings figures
(Table 14) should be corrected to clarify this situation.
-------
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler
- 3 -
April 19, 1976
Specific Comments Contd.
Page 80, paragraph 3 - The occurrence of Atlantic salmon and trout
in the New York Bight is quite rare. Other common species
include bluefish, cod, scup, whiting, and winter and summer
flounder.
Page 184, paragraph 3 - Information on chlorinated hydrocarbons
is critical for an adequate assessment of the environmental
impacts of sewage sludge dumping. Therefore, studies should
be conducted as soon as possible to obtain this data.
Page 195, paragraph 2 - Any movement of the sludge mass toward
the coast of Long Island should be considered to have
significant adverse effects. Monitoring procedures should
include the immediate notification of the Department of
Environmental Conservation of any developments in the
movement of the sludge mass.
Page 198, paragraph 2 - The statement that ocean dumping does not
affect fishing in the Bight is contradicted by the statement
in the report submitted by NOAA. Page 196, paragraph 1 of the
report states that "it is evident that accumulations of sewage
sludge in the inner Bight cause diseases in crustaces (NKPS
1972; Young and Pearces 1975). Observations of fin-rot disease
(Ziskowski and Murchelano, 1975, etc.) support the view that
sewage sludge is a cause of fin-rot.
Page 206, paragraph 1 - The statement that most of the sludge is
retained in the upper layer of ocean is also contradicted in
the NOAA report. Page 139, paragraph 4 of that report states
that "Most sewage sludge appeared to settle rapidly after
discharge, as observed from the deck of the sampling vessel."
As this information is of the most critical nature, it is
imperative that this contradiction be rectified.
Page 219 - Figure 40 - indicates that bottom areas in the Hudson
shelf are being affected by the existing sewage sludge dump site.
Fage 6, paragraph 1 of the NOAA report states that "The Hudson
Shelf Valley Is a sink for a large portion of fine particles
that reach it. Material dumped in northern area 1-A is likely
to concentrate in and contaminate the Shelf Valley to a greater
degree than material dumped in southern area 2-A. Available
data indicate that the Shelf Valley is Important to living
resources so that southern area 2-A is more acceptable for
disposal of sewage sludge than northern area 1-A." Since
the bottom area of the Shelf Valley is currently being
affected by the existing dumpsite, the above argument could
be utilized to favor moving the existing site.
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler
- 4 -
April 19, 1976
Specific Comments Contd.
Page 231, paragraph 4 - Concern is directed to the red crab and
lobster populations in the upper and lower reaches of the
Hudson Shelf Valley. Given this concern, the impacts of
existing dumping practices on these resources should be
more fully discussed. Figure 40 indicates that the Hudson
Shelf Valley has already been contaminated by heavy metals
and organic materials.
Page 252, table 31 - It is unclear whether the cost figures
include costs of capital, operation, or both.
Page 253, paragraph 1 - The statement that land-based disposal
will be cost-competitive with ocean disposal is in apparent
contradiction with Table 31. More detail should be provided.
Page 255, paragraph 1 - Cellar dirt dumping does bury existing
benthic communities. Depending on the physical-chemical
nature of the material it may pose recolonization problems.
This matter should be discussed more fully.
Page 264, paragraph 1 - It should be noted that the extra costs
expended in offshore relocation of the dump site are attributable
in large measure to energy consumption for longer transportation
distance.
Page 264, paragraph 2 - Not only is long term sludge storage
potentially hazardous to public health, but it is simply
unreasonable in terms of cost and available space.
Page 276, paragraph 6 - It is recommended that an alternate sewage
sludge dump site should be located in the Northern rather
than in the Southern Area. This recommendation is in
conflict with the recommendation submitted In the NOAA
report (page 6, paragraph 5) which states that "it is recom-
mended that any new sewage sludge dumpsite be located within
.... the southern alternative dumpsite ...."
Page 277, paragraph 3 - It is stated that "in general, the moni-
toring program should include comprehensive sampling of
appropriate parameters upon which a decision to phase out
or abandon the existing dumpsite can be based." A detailed
sampling program should be submitted as soon as possible
and should include chlorinated hydrocarbon data. It
should be noted that EPA has made a decision within-adequate
chlorinated hydrocarbon studies.
-------
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler
- 5 -
April 19, 1976
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement. We
would like to receive four copies of the Final EIS when it is
available.
Very truly yours,
r>
Terence P. Curran
Director of Environmental Analysis
Enclosure
cc: Mr. G. Colvin
Mr. D. Larkin
Mr. B. Seebald
Statement By NYSDEC On Environmental Imp.u : Statement On Ocean Dumping Of Seviai;o
Sludge Given Ac USEPA Hearing In Mineola (In April I, 1976
Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for the opportunity of allowing the Department of Environmental
Conservation to make a statement on the recommendations contained in t!ic lilS
dated February 1976.
As a preface, I would state that sufficient time has not been available to
review the entire document in depth and hence we may have some additional comments,
and will submit additional technical comments for the record at a later time.
Nevertheless, there are some thoughts which should be conveyed.
The recommendation of the EIS closely parallels the position long held by this
department; that until ocean disposal is phased out, the existing sludge disposal
site should not be moved unless and until specific information would dictate that
there is a rapid acceleration in the degradation of the existing site, migration
of the sludge or such other conditions to warrant emergency measures.
Although the movement of the site is of great concern to us, the responsibility
for controlling and monitoring rests with EPA and NOAA. We would closely depend
upon their inputs to protect the waters and the shores of New York, in the event
that it is necessary to move the disposal area into the northern quadrant of the
proposed site.
We also concur that the existing disposal site be closely monitored for any
potential hazards. The responsibility for this monitoring program we feel would be
most appropriate for EPA as the permitting and enforcing agency, particularly in
• view of the fiscal constraints of the ISC, the State, and Local Agencies. The ISC
has had to withdraw from this activity due to lack of funds. We would hope that
this limited water quality surveillance pro:;-nm being conducted along Che South
-------
Shore of Long Island by NYSDEC and the local Agencies can provide some useful
Input to the.EPA monitoring program. *"
One further comment - as the report points out, the ISC is under a grant by
EPA - Region 2 to do a comprehensive study on Alternatives for Sludge Management
in the New York New Jersey Metropolitan Area. This report outlines various
alternatives and suggestions,and that pyrolysis may be the path to follow in the
disposal of sewage sludge as it may have the least environmental impact. However,
this report has not been completed and these suggestions may.be modified depending
upon the total consideration. Nevertheless, this alternative looks more favorable
and depending upon funding we would hope that it could be implemented.
May I again thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft EIS.
YYV/S> .
LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ
ATTORNIV OKNCRAL
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
TWO WORLD TRADE CENTER
NEW YORK, N.Y. 1004?
488-7561
PHILIP WEINBERG
IN CHAM OK OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
BUREAU
May 25, 1976
Gerald Hansler, Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Hansler:
Attached are the comments of the New York
Attorney General's office on the E.P.A. "Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on the Ocean Dumping
of Sewage Sludge in the Ne York Bight."
We trust that these comments will help in
preparing the final statement.
Very truly yours,
LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ
Attorney General
By
RICHARD G. BERGER
Assistant Attorney General
HEL MUNSON
nvironmental Engineer
RGB/EM:jf
cc: Daniel Sullivan
-------
COMMENTS OF LOUIS J. LEFKOWITZ, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ON THE DRAFT E.I.S. ON OCEAN
DUMPING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
The Attorney General agrees with the major conclusion
of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that the
existing sludge dump site should continue to be used, pending
further studies and intensive monitoring efforts (p. 277).
However, this office arrives at this conclusion in part because
of certain inadequacies in the DEIS which mandate that the final
EIS be augmented by the inclusion of data supporting basic
assumptions.
The Decision Not to Move the Present Dump Site
Both NOAA and the DEIS advise that the sewage sludge
dump site not be moved unless dsumping poses a threat to navigation
or to public health. As monitoring studies have shown that use
of the current dump site is not effecting coastal water quality
at Long Island or New Jersey beaches, the DEIS finds no immediate
threat to public health (p. 184-199). The monitoring data upon
which this conclusion is based should be included in the final
EIS. By merely stating the conclusion, it is impossible for an
observer to evaluate the validity of the sampling. The season
of the sampling, the methodology and the control measures should
be set forth to suggest these conclusions.
The recommendation not to move the existing dump site
stems in part from the conclusion that even if dumping were
discontinued at the present site, the water quality in the Apex
would not improve (p. 272-3). This conclusion is virtually
unsupported in the DEIS. It is claimed that dredge soil dumping
and municipal waste water runoff are much more significant sources
of pollution than sludge. Yet the report admits that EPA has
considered asking the Corps of Engineers to move the dredge spoil
dump site as well (p. 53). If the Corps did move the dredge
material dump site, the Bight Apex might regenerate. This
possibility should be evaluated.
In fact a major conclusion that can be drawn from the
DEIS is that it makes no sense to change the sludge site if the
dredge site is not moved as well. The environmental effects upon
the Apex and from these activities are inseparable. The DEIS
should have considered the effect of moving all barge dumping in
the Apex to new sites in assessing the regenerative possibilities
of the Apex.
The possible regeneration of the Bight Apex is key to
a decision to move the dump site. Even if increased dumping would
not threaten coastal beaches, a shift in the dump site might be
warranted if it could be shown that environmental costs at some
other site would be significantly lower than the present site,
and that they outweighed the additional expenditures which would
be necessary to employ a new site. If the present site would,
absent barge dumping, become a productive fishery and shell
fishery, a change in the dumpsite may be warranted. Without a
proper analysis, such a determination cannot be made.
The assumption that the Bight Apex would not regenerate
is also implicitly based upon the finding that municipal waste-
-2-
-------
water discharges are responsible for a large part of the
pollutant loading in the Hew York Bight, much larger than sludge
dumping. For the purposes of determining whether the existing
site will regenerate, the effect of municipal discharges must be
evaluated at the present dumpsite. If the effect is uniform
through the Bight, then no preference can be assigned any site
because of this contamination.
More importantly, the DEIS does not make any attempt to
calculate the reduction in wastewater discharges that will result
from the construction of sewage treatment plants under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The New York
Metropolitan area should have secondary treatment for all of its
wastewater discharges by 1981 (p. 44). Significant reductions in
pollutants from wastewater discharges may allow the present site
to regenerate if dumping were halted. Again, the DEIS fails to
evaluate this possibility and the final should include such
analysis. If it could be shown that the Apex might again become
productive in a reasonable period of time, the decision not to
move may have to be reevaluated.
Analysis of Alternatives
The section of the DEIS on land-based alternatives to
the proposed action (pp. 189-193), is inadequate, and the DEIS
notes that Interstate Sanitation Commission is currently conduct-
ing a complete study of land-based sludge disposal technology.
Nevertheless, the section of the DEIS does not provide an adequate
discussion of available alternative that are being practiced in
-3-
other communities. EPA is currently funding demonstration
projects around'the country which should be discussed. Most
U.S. umicipalities in fact do not dispose of their waste in
the ocean, evan large cities. No description is provided of how
other cities deal with the problem.
The attitude of the DEIS is to dismiss one alternative
technology after another as not providing the solution to sludge
disposal. This approach is misleading. Most likely, the New York
region will have to employ a mix of disposal techniques to cope
with the large volumes generated. Land application is dismissed
in the DEIS (p. 190) because of heavy metal contamination of
sludge and because of the lack of sites. However, not all treat-
ment plants produce a contaminated sludge. Suburban systems or
those that have little industry, will produce sludge low in
heavy metals. For those plants at least, land application is
feasible. Moreover, the DEIS does not evaluate the effect that
new EPA regulations on pretreatment of industrial wastes will
have on the heavy metals content of sewage sludge (p. 268).
Eliminating of heavy metals would make land-based alternatives
significantly more attractive. The National Environmental Policy
Act obligates EPA, as other federal agencies, to prepare complete
and inter-disciplinary impact statements. Until the alternative
analysis is supplemented, this EIS will not be adequate.
Phasing Out Ocean Dumping
The DEIS states that it is EPA's goal to implement
alternatives to ocean dumping of sewage sludge of 1981 (p. 43) .
The Attorney General believe that EPA is less than candid in
-4-
-------
making this remark. There is little chance of meeting such a
deadline unless the EPA begins now to adopt strict compliance
schedules for sewage treatment plant construction and for dumping
phase-out. A proposal for such a plan is presented below.
First, however, the final EXS should address itself to
the desirability of this goal. In light of what was said in the
DEIS and above in these comments about dredge spoil dumping, it
may make little difference to the ecologic community of New York
Bight if sludge dumping is eliminated. Moreover, ocean disposal,
if well planned, may be a preferred alternative to land disposal
at least for some wastes. All matter on land is eventually
transported to the oceans by natural erosion. The problem of
ocean dumping is that unnatural concentrations are imposed upon
limited areas, upsetting the ecologic balance. As one expert
noted:
Man produces large volumes of waste
which must be disposed of. The
question is: Where are you going
to put it? If we can recognize the
ocean's ability to accept enormous
volumes of waste, the key decision
is simplified. It becomes what types
of wastes can be put in the sea safely
and what must be disposed of elsewhere
...Sea disposal is highly desirable
for compatible or quasi-natural wastes.
Testimony of
before U.S. Senate Commerce
Committee, Hearings on Ocean
Haste Disposal, Serial No.
92-11, at pp. 206-2-7
-5-
Ocean disposal of at least a portion of currently dumped wastes
may be compatible with the assimilative capacity of a particular
site. The Agency must realize that a particular waste disposal
technique is not an all-or-nothing proposition, at least in a
region as large as metropolitan New York.
The Attorney General believes that a thorough compar-
ative analysis of different disposal technologies must be done.
Yet, from studying the DEIS, one cannot derive comparative costs
for ocean dumping versus land-based disposal techniques. The
analysis contained in Section VII(c)(l) relates the current cost
of sludge dumping against the cost of dumping at proposed sites
in $/cubic meter. In Appendix B, the relative costs of land-
based alternatives are estimated in S/ton of sludge. EIS should
give the necessary conversion factor of how many cubic meters of
sludge equal a ton. Additionally, the drastic three-fold increase
in the projectec cost of sludge dumping in 1981 using the existing
site should be explained (Table 30) .
In any event, the cost of ocean dumping of sludge is
almost certainly significantly lower than the estimated costs of
alternatives. Even allowing for an increase in sludge dumping
costs as predicted, ocean disposal will almost surely be signific-
antly cheaper than land alternatives in 1981 or at any other time.
And dumping at 12 miles will always be cheaper than dumping at
more remote sites. Given the acute fiscal problems of New York
City, New York State, and other governmental bodies, there will
-6-
-------
be tremendouw pressure to adopt the least expensive alternative
regardless of the environmental consequences. Nor does the DEIS
unequivocally state the ocean dumping of sludge will end, only
that,
"It is EPA's stated goal to implement
environmentally acceptable alter-
natives to ocean dumping of all sewage
sludge in the Bight by 1981, where
environmentally, technically, and
economically feasible" (p. 43).
This discrepancy between ocean and land-based disposal
costs is illusory, however. For all other disposal techniques
beside ocean disposal, Congress had mandated that the environmental
costs of any particular process which produces wastes be intern-
alized in the cost of that process (e.g., Clean Air Act, Federal
Water Pollution Control Act). Thus for the production of steel,
instead of environmental costs being general costs to society,
they now become reflected in the price of steel by the costs of
air and water pollution control technology. While the price of
steel may now be higher, Congress recognized that other costs,
much higher than the incremental pollution control costs, were
being paid by society in medical bills and loss of valuable
resources. Similary in land-based sludge disposal, the cost of
cleaning up pollution is internalized in the cost of the process.
For example, the cost of incinerating sludge includes the cost of
air pollution control equipment.
Only in ocean disposal are the environmental costs —
-7-
loss of fin and shell fisheries, impairment of navigation
(reflected in the recent collisison between and acid waste barge
and a cargo ship of Abrose Light), and the loss of recreational
areas - general societal costs which are not incorporated into
the cost of the disposal process. Additionally, the high cost
of monitoring barge dumping and water quality are not included
in the price of dumping. If these costs were properly quantified
in the EIS and included in the price of ocean disposal, the cost
of land-based alternatives would appear much more competitive.
The Attorney General proposes that the EPA assess the
external costs of ocean dumping, including environmental and
governmental costs fairly attributable to the dumping, for the
three different dump sites considered. Depending upon which
dump site is finally chosen, the Administrator should assess
these costs to dumpers in the form of permit fees. Authority
exists under 33 U.S.C. § 1414(6) for the Administrator to
establish such fees "as he deems appropriate." These fees could
be phased in gradually through 1981, thereby supplying an economic
incentive for dumpers to phase out ocean dumping, where more
desirable alternatives exist. The fees charged could be placed
into a special fund to develop alternative waste disposal
technology in the region where the dumping exists.
The fee system proposed above would have several
advantages. It would equalize the cost of ocean disposal with
land disposal by reflecting true costs. If ocean disposal is
still preferable, in whole or in part, the dumper will have a
-8-
-------
strong incentive to minimize environmental costs, not only
capital and operating costs. Unless some form of cost
internalization is employed for ocean dumping, it will continue,
international and national laws notwithstanding, to be the most
inexpensive and thus attractive waste disposal system.
One Wo. id Trade Center. 72S
New Yoi-.N r 10048
Planning ana Development
Department
Edward S. Oicoti Director
(212)466-86.13
April 9, 1976
Mr. Gerald Hansler
Regional Administrator, Region II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal..Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Is aware that your
agency held hearings on your draft "Environmental Impact Statement on the
Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge In the New York Bight" In New York City on
March 24th. This Is a subject of great concern to port and maritime
Interests in the Port of New York.
Under the Port Compact of 1921, the Port Authority Is responsible
for the development of port commerce and facilities in the bl-State Port
of New York. These activities are shared with the City of New York, the
Corps of Engineers and private industry, and often necessitate dredging.
Both Federal and non-Federal construction and maintenance dredging, of
course, produce bottom materials which require disposal. Without disposal
facilities, or with excessively costly facilities, these port development
and maintenance activities must cease, or at the very least, be severely
restricted. Port-dependent Industry, jobs and tax revenues would obviously
be affected by such restrictions.
* We recognize that the present ocean disposal of dredged material
is not an environmentally Ideal practice. Unfortunately, nothing has as
yet been developed as a suitable alternative. The Corps, as you know, is
seeking its own set of answers on a nationwide basis through a Dredged
Material Research Program authorized in the River and Harbor Act of 1970.
We understand that the program, expected to cost about $30 million, will be
completed in 1978. We further understand that New York District Engineer
has an architect engineering firm under contract to examine various disposal
schemes applicable to the New York Harbor.
Dredged material is more a victim than a cause of pollution.
Dredged material becomes polluted largely because we have not yet properly
controlled shoreside sewage and industrial outflows and land runoffs.
Therefore, If we are successful in controlling polluted outflows and runoffs,
we should be equally successful in creating less polluted dredged material.
While we would all like to see ocean dumping of dredged material
replaced with a more desirable practice, the new practice must also take
cognizance of port economic activities, and most certainly must be predicated
on consensus that ocean dumping has been indeed proven to pose serious
environmental harms. We believe that this time has not yet arrived, and
-------
IHE PORTMjrmom. /(n? ray© DUD
- 2 -
would thus urge extension of the status quo until such time. We sense
that this posture is in line with that of the Environmental Protection
Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which
recently concluded that the present New York Harbor disposal site should
not be abandoned because it presents no danger to public health or beach
water quality.
We appreciate this opportunity to present our views on what we
concede is a most difficult problem, yet one that must be resolved within
the framework of full understanding of all the consequences involved.
Sincerely,
cc: Col. Thomas C. Hunter
Edward S. Olcott
Director of Planning & Development
^e ^ocdeste/i Committee jo/t Scientific £njo/miati(w
P. O. Box 5236, River Campus Station
Rochester, N.Y. 14627
March 28, 1976
Kir. Gerald M. Handler
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10007
Dear Mr. Handler I
Ula uere °tartled to read on Page 6 in the draft EIS on the Ocean
Dumping of Savage Sludge in the New York Bight that "the only significant
irreversible and irretrievable resource commitment involved in implement-
iiD the proposed action i° the coot". This kind of statemnt, particularly
on the part of the EPA, makes a mockery of one of the main purpose* of
environmental impact analysis and that one Li the preservation of
irretrievable resources. We take Impact Statements very seriously, and
would like to see your consulting engineers trained in the fundamentals
of conservation.
Sincerely yours,
copy to Dames and Moore
Olga Berg, President
for the RCSI Board
-------
BOROUGH OF SEA BRIGHT
omcE or THI EOHOUOM cum
MONMOUTH COUNTY. Niw JERSEY
BOROUGH OF SEA BRIGHT
OFFICE or THK SOROUOH CLERK
MONHOUTH COUNTY. NEW JERSEY
MARY LARSON
I0«* IA0T OCEAN AVENUE
HA MHOMT. M. J. O77«O
I
March 19, 1976
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler
Regional Administrator
United State Environmental Protection
Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
At the Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the Borough of
Sea Bright, held on March 16t 1976, a communication was read con-
cerning the public hearings to be held on the Sludge Site Impact
Statement.
I have been directed by the Governing Body to write to you and convey
their opposition to locating this site twelve nautical miles off the
Long Island and New Jersey coasts. The Mayor and Council wish to go
on record supporting the moving of this sludge site to a location
further out to sea inasmuch as they feel the existing site does pre-
sent a danger to public health and beach water quality.
Very truly yours.
April 9, 1976
Environmental Impacts Branch
Rooa 907
26 Federal Plaza
New York. New York 10007
Gentlemen:
Enclosed herewith is a Certified Copy of a Resolution, duly adopted
by the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Sea Bright, New Jersey,
at their Regular Meeting held on April 6, 1976.
I have been directed by the Governing Body to forward this Resolution
to you, indicating their strong opposition to the extension of time
for the dumpage of sludge off the coasts of Long Island and New Jersey.
Very truly yours,
ML:bjc
Enc.
MARY LARSON
Borough Clerk
MLrbjc
MARY LARSON
Borough Clerk
-------
The following Resolution was offered by Councilman Kelley, who moved its
adoption, seconded by Councilman White, carried on roll call all ayes:
RESOLUTION OPPOSING EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR DUMPAGE OF SLUDGE IN THE
ATLANTIC OCEAN.
WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recommended
that the dumpage of sewage sludge continue at a site located 22 kilometers
(12 nautical miles) off the Long Island and New Jersey coasts until 1981;
and
WHEREAS, recommendations have been given to the said agency indicating
that the increase in the volume of sludge to be dumped would not have an
adverse effect upon the .waters off the Long Island or New Jersey beaches;
and . •
WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission of the Borough of Sea Bright has
studied, this problem and strongly urged the Mayor and Council of the Borough
of Sea Bright to oppose the continued dumpage.of sludge off the coasts of
New Jersey; and
WHEREAS, the Borough of Sea Bright is greatly dependent upon the ocean
waters off its coasts; and
WHEREAS, the Governing Body of the Borough of Sea Bright is gravely
concerned that the dumpage of sludge off its coast does adversely effect
its waters,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVF.n by the Mayor and Council of the Borough
of Sea Bright that it go on record strongly opposing the continuation of
the dumpage of sludge off the coasts of Long Island and New Jersey; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to
the Environmental Impacts Branch, Room 907, 26 Federal Plaza, New York,-New
York 10007; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to
the Sea Bright Environmental Commission.
-2-
ROLL CALL:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Coimcilmen Kelley, White, Forsman, Duffy
None
Councilmen Brennan, Lane
I, Mary.Larson, Clerk of the Borough of Sea j
Bright, New Jersey, that the foregoing Resolution
was duly adopted by the Mayor and Council of the!
Borough of Se.-i Bright at their Regular Meeting
held on April 6, 1976.
MARY LARSON, BOROUGH CLERK
-------
Mr. Gerald Y. Hens? -
)Con't.)
-2-
I'.urch 20, 1976
216 Ocean Avenue
Sea P.rUht, N. J. 07760
Parch 20, 1976
Nr. ferald I*. Hensler, Regional Administrator ' '
t'.S. Environmental Protection Apency
F.eeion II
?& Federal Plaza
Mew York, New York 10007
Dear Yr. Hensler:
HE: HEARINGS OK OFFSHORE OCEAN Dl'KP SITES
I wish, to state mv objections to the retention of the present
ocean dumo Bites off the coast of Sea Bri«rht, New Jersey.
I. Tresent sites for the dumping of:
a. "armful spoil? from Mew York Harbor, the Hudson
and Rarltan °ay, dredged to maintain channels.
b. Raw sewace
c. Partially treated sewage from old-established sewage
treatment plants, plus ne_w huge reeional plants with
no other disposal facility for sludge
have resulted in a 'dead sea1 area which is spreading
year by year. Past! There should be an immediate halt
to all dumclng at these saturated sites and a reclaimation
project undertaken.
II. The selected alternative sites ask to be exempted. Naturally
anv site compared with the present on^ould be comparatively
pristine. In light of the statement, "there is no significant
harm to the population or beaches adjacent ", should be
weighed in favor of new sites.
This oresent site took -over M) years of use to come to its
creeent state. Five years (1981) in a new site would not
cause significant damare and rehabilitation would be unnecessary
or minimal.
III. The added cost factor Is the one catallst that would stimulate
the olanning and adootion of alternative safe, profitable,
and f-vlronmentally acceptable ways to dispose of aludge
and spoils. Since 1971 has there been any conversion from
the ocean dumping practice of these sewage authorities?
Since 1975 when they were notified the present site waste
be closed, did any submit plans to start alternative means of
of disposal? Do you believe 1981 will be any different?
..•IV,
In business when the cost farter inter'ers with profits,
there is action. I recommend your notice of 1975 be
implemented.
Respite the recent "expert testimony", other "top experts"
have testified a Rehoboth Peach Hearings that ocean dumping
is harmful and unacceptable.
V. As a matter of record in 1971, the Conservation Committee
o" Sea Bright in one week collected 3,7^8 signatures to
support a Bill to move the'dump sites out.
VI. "ron a purely personal point of view and from daily observation
I can testify to a steady deterioration in the ouallty
of ocean water in this area over the last forty years.
I even hesitate to ork Kite is
is included in the one National Ocean Water Quality Standard,
together with the rest of the Atlantic Coast, the OuSif of
Mexico, and the Pacific.
We the citizens who live in Sea Prizht, New Jersey and the
thousands usinr the Sandy Hook National Gateway Park ask
that the present dump sites be closed under the protection
and provisions of this Federal Law.
Respectfully submitted,
216 Ocean Avenue
Sea "right, ". J. 07760
Loretta C. Hanley, Secretary
Sea Prip-ht Conservation Committee
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
700 East Water Street, Syracuse, New York 13210
April 6, 1976
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, P. E.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
We have reviewed the EPA edited and abridged Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on the "Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in the New
York Bight," dated February 1976, which was referred to the Soil
Conservation Service for review and comment.
The SCS has no comments to make on this statement related to its
expertise and responsibilities.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this pro-
posal.
EoWerti;. Billiard
State-Conservationist
cc: R. M. Davis, Administrator, SCS, Washington, D. C.
A. C. Addis on. Director, NE TSC, SCS, Broomall, Pa.
Dr. Fowden G. Maxwell, Coordinator, Office of Environmental
Quality Activities, Office of the Secretary, USDA, Washington
Council on Environmental Quality, Washington (5 copies)
UNITED STATES DEPANflMENT OFCOMMERCE
Th« Assistant Saerstary for Selanes snd Technology
WnMngton. D.C. SO230
May U, 1976
E.
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, P.
Regional Administrator
Region n
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
Hew York, N. Y. 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement entitled
"Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in the New York Bight, " which accompanied
your memorandum of February 27, 1976. The Department of Commerce has
reviewed this statement and offers the following comments for your considera-
tion.
General Comments
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends continued dumping of
sewage sludge in the existing dump site in the New York Bight complex
after considering various alternates. As a safeguard for future hazards
to public health or water quality, EPA recommends immediate designation of
an alternate dump site in the "Northern Area" for future use, if necessary,
close monitoring of existing dump site and nearby sensitive areas near
Long Island and New Jersey for potential hazards to public health or
damage of regional water quality, and requiring permitters to use the
alternate dump site upon confirmation of such hazards (p. 7, 201). The
"Northern Area" is located roughly U6 km (25 n mi) from the Long Island
coast; it is about 1,650 sq. km (U90 sq. n mi) in area and lies in ItO to
60m(l32 to 198 ft.) of water.
Three stated reasons support the proposed decision.
1. Continued use of the existing dump site is not a present threat to
public health or to water quality along the beaches of Long Island
or New Jersey.
2. Moving the present sludge dumping operations to an alternate site
without adequate justification will result in the unnecessary con-
tamination of a relatively pristine area of the Bight.
3. Contamination of a new area will not be balanced off by recovery of
the existing dump site because pollution from other sources will
continue .
-------
- 2 -
Since the volume of sewage sludge dumped in the New York Bight is expected
to double between 1976 and 1981, threats to public health and to water
quality will occur in the future. We suggest that any alternative sludge
dump site be beyond the "line of divergence" and outside all navigational
lanes.
Although the choice of alternative sites probably makes little difference
now, we prefer the southern alternative site since the probable impact on
the remaining living marine resources (whether now exploited or not)
would be less than on the currently exploited shellfish (principally surf
clams, Spisula solidissima) and mineral resources (sand, gravel, oil, and
gas).
The statement makes only slight reference to conducting ocean dumping in
waters off the continental shelf. Dumping in these deep waters might be a
viable disposal alternative in the near future for specific sewage sludges
and dredge materials containing very high concentrations of toxic materials,
such as heavy metals. If the many unknowns associated with "off-the-shelf
dumping" raises questions of "undue environmental risk," a research monitor-
ing effort to assess these risks should be initiated as part of HQAA-MESA
activities. If sludge dumping does continue beyond 1981, then "off-the-
shelf dumping" may become a practical necessity despite obvious economic
drawbacks.
It is stated that: "EPA intends to phase out ocean dumping in the Hew York
Bight by 1981, provided that environmentally acceptable, technically feasible,
and economically reasonable alternatives can be developed." We recommend
that EPA describe in detail the regulatory procedures that it is taking to
achieve this goal.
Specific Comments
I. SUMMARY
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Page 7. This section is deficient in two significant areas. Sufficient
discussion of the significance of sludge dumping to bathing water quality
has not been presented and land-based alternates have not been considered
adequately. Although land-based alternatives for sludge disposal have not
been fully developed, the brief discussion (p. 189-193 and Appendix B) is
not convincing that "timely implementation" of land-based alternates will
occur (by 198l). Some background information may be found in studies of
land-based sludge disposal currently in progress by the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago.
II. BACKGROUND
G. OTHER ACTIVITIES IH THE HEW YORK BIGHT
1. Commercial Fisheries
- 3 -
Page 78. Although statistics may not be available, this section should
include a discussion of foreign fishing occurring in the Bight for an
accurate picture of its resource productivity.
Page 81, Table liu When using the term "hard clam," there should be a
differentiation between the venus clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) and the
ocean quahog (Arctica islandia).
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
B. PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
2.a Tidal Currents
Page 110, paragraph 2. The term "maximum average tidal current" is used
frequently, but is not defined. Is it the average of the maximum speeds
observed or the maximum of several averages?
C.
BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
1. Benthos
Page 126 (The sand fauna...). Some research has indicated that all organisms
are not capable of digging out when buried. Surf clams specifically seem to
lack this ability (Ropes, John W., and Arthur S. Merrill. 1973. To What
Extent do Surf Clams Hove? Nautilus. Vol. 87(l), pp. 19-21.).
2. Fisheries Resources
Page 132 (Species which inhabit the Northern or Southern Area for most of all
their life cycle...).The statement should be clarified to show that the
New Jersey surf clam fisheries may have been overfished.
Page 137 (Figure 21) and page 138, paragraph 3. Both Figure 21 and Saila
and Pratt (Saila, 'S.B., and S.D. Pratt. 1973. Mid-Atlantic Bight Fisheries.
In Saila, S.B. (Ed.) Coastal and Offshore Fisheries Environmental Inventory:
Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals, Marine Publication Series No. 2, Occasional
Publication No. 5. U. of R.I., Providence, R.I.) indicate that sea scallops
are abundant in the alternate areas, and should be included in this section.
VI.
A.
FATE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPED AT PROPOSED AREAS
SETTLING AND DISPERSION IN WATER COLUMN
Page 205, paragraph 3. The statement is made that the ocean water's density
structure affects the rate at which sludge settles. Yet there is no informa-
tion on water density structure in Chapter IV, Description of the Environment.
B.
RESUSPENSION
3. Bottom Currents
Page 213. line 11. It is inferred that sludge dumped on the eastern border
of the northern area will probably be moved offshore. However, on page 120,
paragraph 3, it is stated that "None of the net bottom currents for the Long
Island shelf have offshore components."
-------
-fc-
VII. IMPACTS OP THE PROPOSED ACTION
B. IMPACTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM
1. The Benthos
a. fflndioT- Areas
Page 229. paragraph 3. The statement reads "...adverse -biological effects
due to dumping of dredged material may be more severe than those due to
dumping of sewage sludge." However, since the long-term effects of either
are unknown, the statement should be amended to emphasize that the biological
effects referred to are probably short-term.
2.
Fisheries Resources
Proposed Areas
Page 233. paragraph 3. This section should include a discussion of potential
adverse effects on sea scallops. Long-term use of a proposed area would
substantially increase the amount of degraded area, thus potentially in-
creasing any associated adverse effect.
H. CONCLirSIOHS AND HECOHHENDATICKS
Page 270. Table 32. The section on shellfish should discuss sea scallops.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide these c cements, which we
hope will be of assistance to you. Vfe would appreciate receiving eight (8)
copies of the final statement.
Sincerely,
dney R. Cjler
Deputy Assistant
for Environmental Affairs
I
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
REGION II
FEDERAL BUILOINO
2* FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007
OFFICE Of THE
REGIONAL DtRCCTO*
April 20, 1P76
Ms. Barbara l-fetzjer
Chief 3nviromental Impacts 3rr.nch
Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Placa
n.y. H.Y. 10007
Dear Ms. Iletzger:
Subject: Draft SIS -." 099-03-76
Ocean Dunginc of Sewr-cre Sludge
in the :iew Tor:: Bight
Our sroa of concern for an action of this nr.tva-c ic the protection of
public health fron uner.Tc shollfich. ~..'e therefore, requested the Pood
cad Ifcruj Adoinictrations (the branch of ET.' responsible Tor the sholl-
fici. proven) to rsviev ciic1- cornar.t c:i ~ov^ ZIC.
OSioir eoir:.3nt ia as folloi.'c:
"As an alternate ducrj 3ito tlie northern J.rea '.rould be ths prcferr.'ole
location due to its lo-.:or nurr dr.n c;id ocerr. quaiiOu rcso-rj:ce value as
cornered to the Soxvthern .iec.. Tlovovor, duqviL-<; in potential shell-
fish bearinc vraters \rould result in additionrJ. clocures ;>;• O-JT a^er.c^.
It may put an additional patrol burden o:-. the TT.3. 3or^;t Oucrd."
Me than!: you for the opportunity to couoent or. jour draft I3S.
Officer
-------
REGION II
26 P«d«ral PU2»
New York. New York 10007
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
NEWARK AREA OFFICE
GATEWAY 1 BUILDING, RAYMOND PLAZA. NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 07102
March 25, 1976
2.4SD
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
Subject: Draft EIS - Ocean Dumping
of Sewage Sludge in the New York Bight
EPH-2-NY, NJ-Ocean Dumping-76
The HUD Newark Area Office has reviewed the subject Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and would like to offer the following comment for your
consideration.
It appears that the recommendations of the report are rather open-ended
in that there are no criteria specified by which EPA will decide if and
when to phase out the existing dump site and transfer disposal operations
to the Northern Area. By not defining threshold values of pollutants
or other factors necessary for the protection of public health and welfare
and the prevention of coastal water quality degradation, we are concerned
that a decision to act would become arbitrary and subject to political or
economic pressures rather than being based on a concern for public safety.
Therefore, we recommend that at least a tentative set of decisionmaking
criteria be developed and circulated for public comment prior to or con-
current with the issuance of the Final EIS.
Thank you for providing the Department with this opportunity for review
and conment.
Sincerely,
Walter JT "Jol
Area Office
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NEW YORK DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. N. Y. 1OOO7
NANOP-E
3 June 1976
Mr. Dan Sullivan, Chief
Environmental Impact Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza - Rm 907
New York, NY 10007
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Inclosed is the Corps of Engineers review of the EPA
(Region II) EIS on the dumping of sewage sludge at two
new interim dump sites approximately 65 miles out to
sea in the New York Bight.
" A
Incl
Review of EIS
•ations Division
-------
REVIEW OF DRAFT E.I.S. ON THE OCEAN DUMPING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE IN
THE NEW YORK BIGHT.
1. p 2, 3rd para. - The Corps of Engineers. New York District, concurs
with the EPA's decision not to move the site and to monitor the present
site for changes In present impacts.
2. p 5, Line 14 - It is stated that,,a polluted bottom environment,
such as that at the existing dump site....". On vhat basis does
the EPA claim that dumping of sewage sludge at the present sludge
dump site caused and is causing polluted bottom conditions? This
claim should be documented.
3. p 6, Line 8 - Even though the northern area is at present not
extensively used for fishing and no mineral resource development is
planned there,, the area is nonetheless still potentially valuable j
and this should be noted.
4. p 6, Line 12 - This statement is true only if the alternate
sludge dump sites impacted have a 100Z chance of recovery after
cessation of dumping.
5. p 7, T.1o« 22 - The existing site would not be expected to sign-
ificantly Improve if dumping were stopped not only because other
sources of pollution will continue, but also because of the sludge
that has accumulated on the bottom.
6. p 24, Figure 2 - The Dredge material dumping~~)site should not
be characterized as "mud" since most of the material deposited
there (approximately 802) is sand, according to a recent (5 March 1976)
testimony given by NOAA to die Bouse Subcommittee on Fisheries and
the Environment. If the word "mud" is used, it should be used In
the right connotation, that is, "Mud And One Han Stone" Dumping
Ground. Otherwise the term is inappropriate. The standard
terminology for describing physical characteristics of sediments
(coarse material, sand, silt and clay) should be used.
7. p 53, .Line 7 - It is stated that there is "high pollutant
loading" associated with the dumping of dredge material. Presum-
ably this "pollutant loading" is caused by the chemical properties
of this material enumerated on p51. However nothing is said
about the bio-availability of these pollutants to the Bight food j
web. Does the EPA have proof that the heavy metals, petrochemicals,
and nutrients * contained in the dumped dredge material contribite
to pollution in the Bight? If they do, these definite cause and
effect relationships should be documented here. If proof cannot
be furnished, it should not be implied in this document that because
hazardous substances are found in dredged material they automatically
cause degradation to the area of the dump site or the Bight in general.
3. n 5J, Table II - Sneiline error cadium__ should be cadmium.
9 p 5T -o - Table II nnd Figure 4 - Ft-mres are given co establish
c.''i!\-<-i*s of pollutants contributed by various sources including
dunoinp in general ar.d .Ired-e material in particular. There snou^d oe
an explanation here of how these figures were arrived at. It would
be helpful if the source data (Muller and Jeris, I'npuh.) were
summarized in an Appendix.
10. p 58, Line 26 -.It is stated that, In terras of absolute volumes,
dredged material is the major source of pollutants dumped in the Bight.
"The term pollutant" should be used more carefully. If the EPA considers
dredge material a pollutant, it should explain exactly what it means.
If there is evidence that the constituents in dredged material dumped
in Che Bight contributes to ecological damage to the Bight area or are
a public health hazard, this data should be presented here. Is the
EPA aware of studies currently being conducted at the Corps Waterway
Experiment Station which indicate that constituents of dredged material
under many conditions are not bio-available? It is suggested that the
EPA contact the Chief of the Dredged Material Research Program as WES
and make its own critical review of studies of the bio-availability
of toxic constituents dredged material. If the EPA finds that the data
being generated from this program is valid, all references to dredged
material in this document should reflect the results of this review.
11. p 81, Table 14 - Scientific Banes should be Included next to
common names of organisms in this table and elsewhere throughout
this document.
12. p 80, Line 22 - White Perch, Salmon and Trout are not commonly
caught either commercially or recreationally in the Hew York Bight.
The greatest fishing pressure both commercially and recreationally,
for White Perch is in the Hudson River. Salmon and sea run Trout
are almost unheard of in the Hew York Bight.
13. p 106, Line 5 - Spelling error verticle should be vertical.
14. p 106, Line 6 - Grammatical Error, "For most part" should
be for the most part."
15. pQ106, Last Line - Arithmetic error, 24° c converts to 75.2° F
not 50 F. ""~ *
16. p 126, Line 6 - This afiatement is incomprehensible. Also not
£1 orr.misms commonly found in sandy substrate are "capable of di2ains
inTdT n- «In R6neral Che de*ree °f 3UCcess °f vertical nl"a"°"
in Sand duelling invertebrates depends on the nature of the coverino
'h"f thls rateriai and the
-------
17. P 129, Table 19 - Kaite and Blue :iarlia and Swordfish are
riaratory species that inhabit deeper waters of the western
A:la.-.:ic continental shelf and it Is doubtful that they are not
found in the northern or southern areas, even thoueh catches of these
3pe;i2S have decreased in recent years. Weak fish, Striped Bas3
and .->;ad are anadrooous or seni—anadronous species that are 3x>st
coaaon close to shore, however it is quite possible that they occur
in the north or south areas. All of the aforementioned soecies
vouij je Ttiore properly placed in the "periodically inhabit"
category. The only suedes that should be categorized under
"r.oc found" are those that require very refined environnental
conditions such aa soft shell clams, which basically inhabit
the intertidal zone. Also, there are numerous other species
that "periodically inhabit" the areas in question. They include,
Pollock, Ling, Haddock, Tilefish, various species of Sharks, Black-
fish, Bonito, Tuna, Blowfish, Sea Robins, Sculpins, Halibut, Berg all,
Conger Eel, American Eel, Sailfish, etc. Finally, the species list
under the "moat or all of life cycle " category does not coincide
with the statement made on page 130 (Line 1) which says," population
centers of Little Skate, Goosefish, Silver and Red Hake, Ocean
Pout, Yellovtail Flounder and Squid. ...lie either in or near
these areas." These species should be included >*// that category.
18. p 195, Line 19 - It is stated that a clean water and sediment
zone, about 10 to 11 km, separates the leading edge of the sludge
mass from the Long Island Coast. This statement assumes that
sludee is accumulating on the bottom yet in the next para, it
is stated that MESA found no significant accumulation of sludge.
19. p 200 (2) (d) - Other existing Dump sites - The concept of
separating wastes by dump site in order to pin point the effects
of each type of waste dumped is difficult in the Bight Apex due to
the overlap of Influence of wastes from different dump sites and
background land based pollution. Cause and effect relationships
cannot now be established due to the proximity of dumpsites and
the"nasking" .effect of other pollution sources. If all wastes
uere dumped at the same site, it would be even more difficult to
establish cause and effect relationships. ilso, if the EPA Is going
to mention that the dredge material dump site is closer to the new
Jersey coast than the sewage sludge dump site, then It should
also mention that the later site is closer to Long Island beaches.
20. p 229, Line 14 - Documentation of this sentence is necessary.
Tne next sentence is unclear. Major irroact to what? When? Where?
If the "PA is going to nention chat the impact of the dumping of
dredsed caterial Is likely to be greater than the dumping of
sludr^e in pespect to suffocation of benthic organise it should
also mention which naterial, dredged or sludee, is nore likely to
adversely impact the benthos of the K-jdson shelf (Christiansen Basin)
Volley which Is stated to be a contaminated area in this paragraph.
:i. - :3-i (D) (1) Dredjed Material - It is stated that "credzed
:?ateri3l damping was r.ot considered a serious problem un-ii recently.
Its effscts are just now being established, '.-."hat effects (other than
saotherin^)? Why is drecjed material du-oina suddenly a iroblem?
Thi3 Ti.-trazraph is totall" inadequate and rdsleaj(dine. *t should be
docurencec or deleted.
22. p 255 (d) (3) It is stated that cellar dirt material is
essentially inert and non toxic to the marine environment".
Why wasn't the smotherin? effects of this dunping emphasized as it
was vita dredged material dumping?
23. -. 257, Line 25 - Grammatical Error - Add "oil after "uoon".
2*. p 230 (F) (8) it is stated that "the impact of (dredged naterial)
dmroina by the COE at the existing dred«« material duno site should
be studied in detail? '.."hat should be studied in detail? Aoparently
the EPA already has "detailed" information on the effects of dredged
caterial dumping since it stated previouslv in this docuicent
(? 254, (1) (1) ) that dredged material dumping is a "serious problem.'
-------
-W
^
*( vT
ER 76/219
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
NORTHEAST REGION
JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING
ROOM 2003 M & N
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02203
April 26, 1976
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
We have reviewed the draft environmental statement for Ocean Dumping
of Sewage Sludge in the New York Bight.
RECREATIONAL VALUES
The draft statement recognizes the importance of recreation to the
area (p. 80, 82). However, it does not specifically identify recrea-
tional areas, needs, visitation figures, use patterns, etc., in close
proximity to the proposed dumping site. We recommend that this section
be expanded to include some additional information on these matters.
The New York and New Jersey Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plans are excellent sources for information. They should be referred
to, as appropriate, in the final statement.
Any shoreward movement of sludge materials from the existing dump
site would have serious adverse impacts on seashore recreation areas.
However, the statement indicates on pages 194-199 that no such move-
ment is anticipated. Further, it mentions that a comprehensive
monitoring program will be instituted to determine if and when the
existing site can no longer safely accommodate additional sludge.
The final statement should describe the monitoring system and provide
reasonable assurance that it can detect potential adverse sludge
movement and contamination in sufficient time to protect the valuable
seashore resources.
-2-
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
It is stated [par. 2) that the Bight Apex covers an area of 645 square
kilometers or 188 square nautical miles. Possibly this should have
been given as 1,645 square kilometers or an equivalent number of square
miles, as even the Northern Area is given as 1,650 square kilometers
or 490 square nautical miles (p. 95, par. 1); the relative sizes of
the two areas are shown-on figure 8.
Page 87 and Pages 248-250
A second lease sale (proposed DCS Lease Sale #49) is tentatively planned
for the MidrAtlantic. A Call for Nominations is expected to be issued
later this year. For "DCS Lease Tract #40," substitute the wording
"proposed OCS Lease Sale #40."
Pages 104-125
No discussion of winds, sea states, or visibility is included in the
description of the environment. Given that the proposed action will
involve impacts from ships which will have to traverse open seas, possibly
dump loads short of their destination due to storms, or possibly collide
with other vessels due to poor visibility or storms, this ommission is
significant.
Pages 147-167
No discussion is included on the Baltimore Canyon Trough. Potential
stratigraphic traps may exist to the north of the Call for Nominations
area for proposed OCS Lease Sale #40. Therefore, the northern alternate
dump site might conflict with future Call areas for other Mid-Atlantic
Lease Sales. With this as a possibility, we strongly urge that there be
further coordination with the Bureau of Land Management before a final
decision is made on this proposal.
Data indicates that the sand ridges described are less than 11,000
years old and rest on slightly older lagoon deposits of Holocene age or
Pleistocene sediments. The USGS has obtained a radiocarbon date of 9310
years B.P. for shell material incorporated within sand waves near
Wilmington Canyon. A date of 32,730 years B.P. was obtained by Field
(1975) from lagoonal sediments off Ocean City, Maryland.
-------
-3-
The bathymetric studies conducted by Williams (Army Corps of Engineers,
CERC) should be mentioned for examples of how ocean dumped material
has become distributed on the ocean floor.
It is stated that "density of the sludge ranges from 1.12 to 1.75 g/cu
cm" (lines 11-12). This should be changed to "density of the sludge
solids . . .," because the density of the sludge had been given as
ranging from 1.0007 to 1.0181 grams per cubic centimeter (p. 206, line 4).
The environmental statement would benefit from inclusion of more
complete information and arguments in support of the important conclu-
sions regarding the ultimate fate of the bulk of sludge solids. It has
been concluded variously that "most of the solids are not expected to
reach the bottom" (p. 211, lines 9-10), that "only a small fraction of
the dumped sludge reaches the sea floor" (p. 211, par. 3), and that
"most of the sludge solids, fine, low-density organic matter, will tend
to remain in suspension" (p. 206, lines 13-15). We found no mention of
flocculation of the fine's by contact with sea water. In the discussion
of interactions with sea water, starting on page 214, it would be helpful
to discuss the extent to which the finer particles are flocculated by
mixing of the sludge with sea water. Although flocculated particles
in the sludge were mentioned (for example, p. 206, par. 2; p. 208, par.
2), we found no discussion of whether mixing with sea water tends to floccu-
late the finer sludge particles. This could possibly be determined by
experimentation or from theory and might provide useful information in
analyzing the fate of sewage sludge solids dumped at the proposed areas.
Discussion of impacts due to collisions of vessels is scanty. We
believe more consideration should be given to existing traffic and
poor weather conditions in the analysis of hazards to navigation.
Sand and Gravel
This section should be expanded upon to indicate the degree to which
the proposed action may curtail the regional availability of these
resources. Such an evaluation would include a general assessment as
to probable needs and known available supplies. Were the proposal's
resource impacts to be a significant level then some assessment of
the economic effects would appear to be necessary.
-4-
Oil and Gas
The leasing of oil and gas represents a separate issue whereas the
potential of an oil spill is an uncertain possibility only. Whether an
oil spill contaminates a sand and gravel deposit is also just a possi-
bility. This should not be confused with the impact of ocean dumping
which is assured should dumping take place over the deposit.
No mention is made of possibly contaminating sand and gravel deposits
in the southern Alternate Site for dumping.
Economic impacts to the northern Alternate Site for mineral resource
development could include conflict with potential oil and gas
leasing.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely yours,
Roger Sumner Babb
Special Assistant
the Secretary
-------
; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
/o-
MAILINO ADDRESS:
U.S. COAST GUARD (G-WEP-5/ 73)
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2O5SO '
PHONE, 202-755-7938
5922/2
3JUN1976
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1009
New York, New York 10007
Dear Mr. Hansler:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with Coast Guard Headquarters
recommendations relative to your region's proposed alternate sewage sludge
dump site, as addressed In your Draft Environmental Impact Statement of
February 1976.
In lieu of the nine square nautical mile site proposed in the DEIS, the
Coast Guard recommends that the alternate site designated be the approxi-
mate parallelogram whose boundaries coincide with the following Loran-C
time delay lines: 9930-Y - 50625 to 50675, and 9930-Z - 70000 to 70100.
These Loran-C time delay lines define an area which is approximately 18
miles long by 4 miles wide with its four corners located at 40° 16' 25"N,
72° 42' 50"W; 40° 03' 12"N, 72° 27' 35"W; 40° 01' 20"N, 72° 32' 40"W; and
40° 14' 35"N, 72° 47' 55"W.
The enlarged site should be able to accommodate any future growth in sludge
dumping and allow for greater on-site dispersal. Orientation of the site
with the Loran-C time delay line grid will maximize the navigational capa-
bilities of the dump vessels allowing them to maintain adequate track
separation required by environmental and maritime safety considerations.
I realize that the formal comment period for the draft EIS has passed;
however, through some oversight, we did not receive a copy of the draft
until late May. Please give this recommendation your careful consideration.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Copy to:
Mr. Peter Anderson, EPA-II
CCGD3(mep)
EPA HOTRS (WH 548)
F. P. SCHUBERT
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard
.Chief, Marine Er.vircr.r-i-m
Prateotion T.;-. i£,:ir:i
By direction of '..--,:• -.'c-^.-.
-• Tv- 16;^ -•-- .-.-.,
S
^^^^^T~^. >r\.. \
v\ ^ /-^x- s- ',r-j<\ s- .-^ .-•' v?~\ \
\ i? •'.-Is -j. sos • 3r^\. 22. "">-:. f,~,
\ - ^< Ji&S* * / X-- ' .2'' ' * ^ -'' 2|
-xv./< ". Vx--\ I V^-rT f-^ -> ./ \
-"""•^-j? -•. «^ „ si "Al-^-w ^V--'--•'..
, \*j*£ ^\X ^ >^-r.
'c5 ^r Sx""- V^'' "-J s_=x^' i- '""-•
^- .-! 19-^. >>. >^ x \ ?-'r\ '-= ~ ^
fc-gjs"- s.-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT: Draft EIS on Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in the DATE: unn 1 o VIT
N.Y. Bight . - Wft" * ° '"'t'
FROM: Charles N. Durfor, Chief ./.,a /'/V
Water Branch (/" -^/\,
TO: Barbara Metzger, Ph.D., Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch
The document examines the advisability and feasibility of
moving the current dump site to one, or both, of two areas. Our
basic commentary is no different from the review we submitted on
the pre-draft EIS, except that the present document seems much
more concise and better written. We have no argument at all with
the basic conclusions of the EIS, namely:
(1) that present data do not indicate that continued
dumping in the existing site will cause significant
deterioration in water quality, and that this site
should be retained.
C2) that the present site should not be moved unless an
expanded monitoring program shows this to be warranted, and
(3) that, for the reasons listed in the EIS, the Northern Area
be selected for use if monitoring shows an alternative
site to be necessary.
Finally, we strongly agree with the recommendation that the
dumping of dredged material by the COE be studied in a great deal
more detail, to the end that ocean dumping of spoils be eliminated
if possible. As the document points out, dredged spoils are the
most significant pollutional source in the combined dump areas.
SUBJECT:
FROM:
To.
UNITEt ,'ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT >l AGENCY
Review of EPA Draft EIS on Ocean Dumping of
Sewage Sludge in the New York Bight , UAIE: MAT C 137 o
. /• / ^s-*
* '3K n^i ifc**"
Kenneth E. Biglane, Director/Ei/ /V
Division of Oil and Special Materialsx'Control (WH-548)
Regional Administrator
Region II
Attn: Dan Sullivan
The Office of Water Program Operations has reviewed the subject
EIS and our comments are enclosed. If you have any questions regarding
issues raised in these comments, please contact Geraldine Werdig, Chief,
Environmental Evaluation Branch, 202-245-3054.
Enclosure
EPA Form 13204 (bv. 6-72)
EPA Form 1320-4 (bv. 6-72)
-------
Office of Water Program Operations
Comments on
Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in the New York Bight
In general, we find the environmental impact statement to be adequate
in its description and analysis of the proposed action and its impacts.
However, we have the following specific comments to offer.
1. Pages 44 and 46. Information presented on sludge volumes and
constituents appears inconsistent on these pages. A statement is
first made that sludge dumped in the interval between 1976 and 1981
will generally resemble sludge dumped at present, that heavy metal
concentrations will remain about the same since secondary treatment
does not remove heavy metals, and that there will be only slight inhouse
reduction of industrial heavy metals discharges. However, the next
page contains the statement that heavy metals from sewage sludge may
decline as pretreatment and in-house industrial processes are implemented.
2. Page 189. We believe the discussion on alternatives should clearly state
that land based disposal methods are not an alternative to designation
of a dump site. Land based alternatives should be analyzed at the time
of permit application evaluation. Therefore, the first sentence on this
page should be deleted.
3. Page 213. The discussion of bottom currents indicates that there is a
line of divergence of bottom drift on the continental shelf at the 60 meter
isobath. If sludge were dumped at the proposed Southern Area, it would
be subject to a slow, steady shoreward movement. Thus, it would seem
that sludge dumped at the existing site would also be subject to this
same steady shoreward drift, since the site is within the shoreward
directed portion of this current divergence.
4. Page 242. The table on this page appears to need further explanation
regarding one-way and round-trip distances to the dump sites. For
example, the round trip distance to the existing site is six times the
distance of the one-way trip, or a difference of 116 miles. The trip
to Alternate areas does not seem to allow for the same 116 miles, if
it is to account for travel within the New York Harbor and waterways.
5. Page 262. A statement is made that the navigational hazard of using
the alternate site will increase because of more and longer trips to
the dump site. Given the fact that increased sludge volumes will
mean a greater number of trips to any site, we question the impli-
cation that use of an alternate site would mean more trips than use
of the existing site.
6. Page 268. The statement is made "a significant reduction in the heavy
metals content of the municipal sludges is anticipated after Pretreatment
regulations are promulgated. " This is inconsistent with other informa-
tion presented in the EIS (see our comment HI) and should be clarified.
7. Page 332. The NOAA-MESA studies on physical oceanography indicate
that there is a distinct up-valley flow from the Hudson Shelf Valley
and that this in combination with the predominant southwestward flow in
midshelf waters will increase the potential for shoreward transport of
any sludge that would be dumped in the northern area. Yet on page
279, the northern area is stated as being an optimum location with
very low potential for transport of contaminants to either coastal
areas or the Hudson Shelf Valley.
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERTION
Publishers of
JOURNAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERATION
Pretidenl: V.G.WAGNER. Indianapolis, Ind.
Praidem-flect: H. L. SMITH, Houston. Texas
Vice-Praiittem: R. S. ENGELBRECHT. Urbana, I".
Treasurer: E. E. ROSS, Oakland, Calif.
Executive Secretary: R. A. CAN HAM, Washington, O.C.
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
April 27,
Page 2
1976
3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 20016 • (202) 537-1320
April 27, 1976
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
reply to:
Dr. G. V. Cox
Raytheon O&ES
P. 0. Box 360
Portsmouth, R. I.
02871
Review of Environmental Impact Statement on the
Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in the New York Bight.
Dear Sir:
The Marine Water Quality Committee of the Water Pollution
Control Federation reviewed the February 1976 Draft EIS
and wishes to convey the following comments:
While the committee concurs with the decision not to
move to the proposed alternative site and that a
monitoring program should be continued in the event
that it is necessary to move the site, we did notice
several things which should be brought to your
attention.
1) The EIS is written in such a manner that the
reader would be lead to the conclusion that
sewage sludge is the major metal pollutant in
the New York Bight Apex. In fact, the MESA
program estimated that sewage sludge disposal
contributes less than 6% of the pollution load
to the New York Bight. Dredge spoil contributes
24-80% of the heavy metal input to the apex
with the exception of mercury, yet this is not
really highlighted in the discussion.
2) Primary sewage sludge is generally lower in
heavy metals than secondary sludge and digested
sludge is higher in heavy metals (and lower in
bacteria) than undigested sludge. No considera-
tion was given to the change in sludge character
with increased treatment during 1976-1981 as
required by PL92-500. Additionally, the study
neglected the anticipated Apex water quality
improvement if the mandated sewage and industrial
waste treatment is implemented.
3) The sewage sludge volume increase of 1007. from 1976
to 1981 should increase to the barging pollutant
load to the apex, especially if the other input
loads are decreased as a result of upgraded treat-
ment. Conversely, many of the pollutants currently
enter the apex in the form of dissolved and
suspended solids. Upgraded treatment will capture
them in the sewage sludge, and they will enter the
apex in a different form, sludge, which will repre-
sent a translocation.
The committee feels this should have been incor-
porated in the analysis of impact especially over
the projected time until 1981.
4) Table 59 is misleading. The heading barge would cause
one to believe that most of the heavy metals entering
the apex could be attributed to sewage sludge, when,
in fact, it is less than 67.. The bulk of metals
are from barged dredge spoil, and this table should
be redone to reflect this. The table on page 172
is far more accurate in this respect.
5) On page 103 a reference is made to data reduction
of data collected by the Raytheon Company under an
EPA contract. The current data were reduced and
an analysis of the currents were presented. However,
the report virtually neglects the data on two
thousand species present in the 1A(R) area as well
as the chemical data other than TOC in sediments.
The benthic data were not discussed at all, and the
plankton and other biological data were totally
ignored. Both NOAA and Raytheon had substantial
biological information which should have been
incorporated into the assessment of the baseline case.
6) The reference to Lear, 1973 on page 230 is misleading.
There was an incorrect use of statistics and improper
data interpretation which was agreed to by EPA at an
adjudicatory hearing in May 1975. This section
should be deleted from the EIS.
7) We question the barging costs. If the sludge volume
doubles and the disposal site is moved, additional
vessels would be required to handle the increased
volume. Costs were only presented for 1976 volumes.
- tfouteajatit &*tx*teHt 0wtm.
- Oet. 3-Z. W76
-------
Regional AJministrator April 27, 1976
Environmental Protection Agency Page 3
Since specialized dedicated vessels would be required
and, if the 1981 end to ocean dumping is valid, the
commercial operators would be required to charge
for the equipment in a very short period in order to
recover their investment. This would represent
an even greater cost than a mere expansion of costs
proportionate to volume of sludge from 1976 to 1981
at either alternative site.
8) Lastly, the committee questions the premise that ocean
dumping will be ended by 1981. It is highly unlikely
that this goal will be achieved as a result of the
present financial situation of the metropolitan region.
Should you wish additional clarification, the committee would
be pleased to respond.
Sincerely yours ,
Geraldine V. Cox, Ph.D.
Chairman,
Marine Water Quality Committee
GVC/lmk
------- |