\
01
C3
OCEAN DISPOSAL
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
TECHNICAL BRIEFING REPORT
NUMBER 2
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
SURVEILLANCE & ANALYSIS DIVISION
APRIL 1975
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Contents 1
Summary ------ - _______ 2
Introduction -------------- 4
Volumes & Characteristics of Waste
Materials Dumped ------------- 5
Long-Range Goal for Phase Out of
Ocean Disposal in New York Bight
by 1981 21
Technical Findings 65
(Preliminary Data Subject to Revision)
-------
SUMMARY
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, has expressed its
desire to halt"iridiscriminamt dumping' of waste materials in The marine
environment on a number of occasions since assuming in April 1973 its
mandate "to prevent or strictly regulate" ocean dumping under the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-532).
Over the past two years, the Region has implemented a series of programs
(Table 8) with the stated ultimate goal for the phase out of ocean dump-
ing of both industrial and municipal wastes in the New York Bight by
1981.
The initial phase of this comprehensive program was to establish a
permit program which included the regulation of waste approved for dumping
at designated sites, and the permit requirement for the submission of an
implementation schedule or engineering studies leading to the phasing out
of ocean dumping within a finite time period. A listing of the existing
ocean disposal permits, and detailed descriptions of waste volumes and
characteristics are included in this report for public review. These data
indicate a decrease in volumes of both municipal sludges, from 5.6 million
cubic yards in 1973 to 4.8 million in 1974, and industrial wastes, from
3.8 million cubic yards in 1973 to 3.6 million in 1974. Most of the re-
duction in sewage sludge volumes is attributable to construction and repair
operations at several New York City treatment plants. The reduction in in-
dustrial wastes was small; however, under implementation schedules an addi-
tional 12 industrial dumpers will be phased out during 1975 resulting in a
three hundred thousand cubic yard reduction.
An additional step in the Region's program to phase out ocean dumping
was the initiation in 1974 of an EPA-funded investigation by the Interstate
Sanitation Commission to identify environmentally acceptable, technically
feasible, and viable alternatives to ocean disposal. The first quarterly
report of this investigation titled, "New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area
Sewage Sludge Disposal Management Program", is included in this report.
In this quarterly report is an outline of the technical investigation to
be accomplished in this evaluation of alternatives.
A comprehensive sampling program was initiated in April 1974 to moni-
tor the chemical and bacteriological quality of water and bottom sediments
in the apex of the New York Bight and along the beaches of Long Island and
New Jersey. Data collected in this sampling program is augmented by data
collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
State, and local agencies. Results of this monitoring program indicate that
water along the Long Island and New Jersey beaches is safe for contact rec-
reation and that the leading edge of the sludge mass associated with the
sewage sludge dump site is still located approximately 5 1/2 - 6 miles from
the Long Island shoreline. Plans are being formulated to expand this moni-
toring program to include the collection of samples for virological analyses.
-------
The most recent phase was the decision to terminate use of the existing
12-mile sewage sludge dump site in 1976 and move to an alternate site(s).
Although an alternate dump site(s) has not yet been selected, two areas
designated by EPA and NOAA are being studied for interim use pending
completion and implementation of an environmentally acceptable alternative.
In accord with regional policy, a notice of intent to prepare an environ-
mental impact statement (EIS) for the designation of an "interim" sewage
sludge dump site or sites in the New York Bight was issued in January 1975.
This notice reported that Dames and Moore of New York City had been awarded
a contract in December 1974 to prepare the EIS. Documents relative to the
decision to move the dump site and prepare an EIS are presented herein.
-------
INTRODUCTION
EPA, Region II has prepared this report entitled, "Ocean Disposal
in the New York Bight, Technical Briefing Report Number 2" in continu-
ance of its policy to maximize the distribution of information concern-
ing its environmental programs to the public and other interested parties.
The .purpose of this report is to provide updated technical information
gathered during the Region's monitoring program in the Bight and to supple-
ment facts and figures released in earlier reports.
To date, the Region has released three similar reports containing
information on implementing its mandated responsibilities under the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. The titles
and release dates of these earlier reports are as follows:
Ocean Dumping in the New York Bight - Facts & Figures -
July 1973
Briefing Report - Ocean Dumping in the New York Bight
Since 1973 - April 1974
Ocean Disposal in the New York Bight Technical Briefing
Report Number 1 - July 1974
Any specific questions relative to data presented should be directed
to Mr. Peter W. Anderson, Environmental Protection Agency, Region II,
Surveillance and Analysis Division, Edison, N.J. 08817.
-------
VOLUMES AND CHARACTERISTICS
OF WASTE MATERIALS DUMPED
A total of 14.6 million cubic yards of waste materials were
disposed of in the New York Bight during 1974. Municipal sludges
amounted to 4.9 million cubic yards, of which 49 percent was from
New York City, 43 percent from sources in New Jersey, and the re-
mainder from Nassau and Westchester Counties in New York State.
Industrial wastes amounted to 3.6 million cubic yards. The re-
mainder, 6.1 million cubic yards, resulted from the disposal of
dredged spoils (84 percent) and construction debris (16 percent).
A graph summarizing the volumes of waste materials disposed
of in the Bight during 1960-74 is presented in Figure 1. Also
summarized in tabular form are the following:
Table 1 - Volumes of Waste Materials Dumped into the
New York Bight (by dump site) — 1960-74
Table 2 - Volumes of Waste Materials Dumped into the
New York Bight (by permittee) — 1973-74
Table 3 - Waste Characteristics (by permittee) - 1973
Table 4 - Waste Characteristics (by permittee) - 1974
Table 5 - List of Municipal Dumpers in New York
Table 6 - List of Municipal Dumpers in New Jersey
Table 7 - List of Industrial Dumpers
-------
NEW YORK BIGHT-WASTE DUMPING
15 1
12 -
10 -
9 -
8 -
U 7 -
Z
O
15.1
5 5-
o
> 4 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
12.7
DREDGE SPOILS
SEWAGE SLUDGE
• CHEMICAL & ACID WASTES
I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 .1973 1974
CALENDER YEAR
OCEAN DUMPING BILL - OCT. 1972
-------
TABLE 1
Mud (Dredge Spoils)
Sewage Sludge
Chemical Wastes
Acid Wastes
Cellar Dirt
Mud (Dredge Spoils)
Sewage Sludge
Chemical Wastes
Acid Wastes
Cellar Dirt
VOLUMES OF WASTE MATERIALS DUMPED INTO
(By Dump Site)
THE NEW YORK
BIGHT
(Cubic Yards)
5
3
3
6
4
3
1960
,611,174
,819,855
-
,071,000
738,000
1968
,361,000
,481,000
83,000
,143,000
400,000
1961
6,238,
3,354,
7,
3,100,
810,
1969
9,880,
4,455,
86,
3,054,
632,
000
000
000
000
000
o'oo
000
000
000
000
1962
8,816,
3,626,
13,
2,551,
807,
1970
4,905,
5,287,
160,
2,605,
796,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
1963
7,186,
4,259,
690,
5,797,
988,
1971
15,062,
3,830,
222,
2,828,
676,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
1964
8,540,000
4,078,000
-
3,310,000
756,000
1972
12,785,000
3,955,000
943,000
3,112,000
969,000
1965
6,480,000
3,863,000
-
2,634,000
912,000
1973
8,130,000
5,600,000
664,000
3,136,000
827,000
1966
5,687,000
4,201,000
-
2,857,000
319,000
1974
5,113,000
4,860,000
585,000
2,970,000
1,048,000
1967
9,214,000
4,265,000
150
2,297,000
509,000
-------
TABLE 2
VOLUMES OF WASTE MATERIALS DUMPED INTO THE NEW YORK BIGHT
(By Permittee)
(Cubic Yards)
N.J. MUNICIPALITIES
Bergen County Sewer Authority
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Joint Venture
Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
Modern Transportation Company
1973
285,000
121,000
37,000
63,000
402,000
22,000
702,000
308,000
1,940,000
1974
237,000
138,000
41,000
82,000
427,000
13,000
750,000
383.000
2,071,000
N.Y. MUNICIPALITIES
City of Long Beach
Nassau County
Westchester County
West Long Beach Sewer District
City of New York -
Bowery Bay
Coney Island
Hunts Point
Jamaica
Owls Head
Newtown Creek
Port Richmond
Rockaway
Tallman Island
Wards Island
26th Ward
24,000
293,000
100,000
4,000
448,000
146,000
285,000
234,000
219,000
1,162,000
28,000
35,000..
85,000
512,000
77,000
3,652,000
24,000
295,000
100,000
4,000
225,000
113,000
108,000
170,000
99,000
973,000
32,000
59,000
23,000
487,000
83,000
2,795,000
INDUSTRIES
DuPont
Chevron
Hess Oil
American Cyanamid
NL Industries
Allied Chemical
Modern Transportation Company
292,000
41,000
9,000
151,000
3, 136 i 000
68,000
100,000
268,000
32,000
—
167,000
2,970,000
69,000
49.000
3,697,000
3,555,000
-------
TABLE 3
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
(By Permittee)
Concentration Averages
(ug/1)
1973
Modern Trans (Munic)
Bergen County SA
Joint Meeting
Linden Roselle SA
Middlesex CSA
Middletown SA
Passaic Valley SC
City of Long Beach
Nassau County
Westchester County
West Long Beach SD
Bowery Bay - NYC
Coney Island - NYC
333
628
2,524
784
1,225
11
1,313
49
.7
161
580
413
566
Cd
5,217
1,379
7,501
5,369
5,304
34
9,925
184
1,426
2,684
340
1,103
493
Oil
3,141
570
1,839
39,483
1,502
-
494
2,259
2,410
1,834
128
1,149
1,817
As
145
95
98
23
132
3
391
500
50
a
<10
300,250
168,750
Pb
1,920
30,156
96,625
43,750
20,893
28
67,000
6,000
8,700
9,800
11,800
31,750
46,500
Cu
13,830
52,440
156,530
143,750
40,560
2,210
59,960
9,600
23,380
375,000
13 , 500
64,380
70,130
Zn Se
662,100 205
192,090 <10
292,380 21
423,750 1,937
135,380 9
8,620
278,880 15
26,600 400
25,000 5
192,000 12,000
48,400 <10
87,310 182,500
167,000 140,630
V
240
294
<200
<500
919
-
<200
550
2,000
<200
500
1,131
1,062
Be
47
16
34
41
<17
-
18
<100
<40
<133
12
22
22
Cr
2,855
366,130
117,690
58,630
14,610
1,300
112,800
1,140
23,230
22,000
1,920
43,130
16,280
NI
788
10,750
22,710
38,750
6,439
2,110
21,360
600
2,240
8,100
10,000
7,900
8,240
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
(ug/1)
Hunts Point - NYC :
Jamaica - NYC
Owl's Head - NYC
Port Richmond - NYC
Rockaway - NYC
Tallman Island - NYC
Wards Island - NYC
26th Ward - NYC
Newtown Creek - NYC
Joint Venture
Modern (Ind)
E. I. DuPont
Chevron
Hess
American Cyanamid
NL Industries
Allied Chemical
TJ —
529
884
336
217
604
449
223
715
468
104
550
15
193
<.25
71
<2.4
10
Cd
253
643
959
188
333
560
195
4,854
4,356
442
5,251
93
<6
113
5
<390
17
Oil
(me/D
878
1,420
846
929
1,460
1,159
883
3,437
942
4,803
1,417
-
49
31,542
-
-
_
As
215,630
153,130
143,750
143,130
152,690
177,500
200,000
150,000
218,750
<7
44
<3
1,350
<3
827
30
8
Pb
30,030
51,330
41,500
22,500
36,810
23,780
33,580
98,700
160,630
1,475
4,879
540
1,650
1,100
442
1,648
23
Cu
45,000
72,500
48,000
19,240
96,130
49,380
66,750
64,500
57,500
6,226
31,355
434
458
220
113
7,297
83
Zn
52,750
134,750
65,630
53,000
166,500
112,688
60,313
116,063
82,813
1,472
305,520
462
197
1,180
1,595
24,650
93
Se
168,750
177,500
143,750
133,750
140,130
130,000
156,250
240,625
184,375
313
894
592
400
<50
47
<5,000
102
V
1,012
837
419
406
741
819
1,203
1,916
459
76
370
<200
197
<200
166
74,507
<200
Be
18
25
14
15
18
17
14
26
16
123
188
<14
<55
<20
<11
11
<17
Cr
17,580
27,130
20,350
3,360
11,910
29,750
26,975
28,600
64,950
1,304
11,706
380
63
580
1,117
14,236
<20
Ni
4,430
11,060
5,750
2,360
3,310
23,000
2,500
61,013
7,925
617
1,785
720
452
200
3,433
5,840
160
-------
TABLE 4
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
(By Permittee)
Concentration Averages
(ug/1)
1974
Modern Trans (Munic)
Bergen County SA
Joint Meeting
Linden Roselle SA
Middlesex CSA
Middletown SA
Passaic Valley SC
City of Long Beach
Nassau County
Westchester County
West Long Beach SD
Bowery Bay
Coney Island
Hunts Point
Jamaica
Hq
143
1,314
852
290
170
136
1,110
380
<5
1,674
-
465
310
<50
215
Cd
7,151
17,903
6,263
3,757
2,621
268
11,375
410
130
5,981
-
1,230
380
338
430
Oil
(mg/1)
947
1,493
9,200
28,313
720
3,654
11,898
5,400
2,114
4,437
-
4,465
6,735
2,435
5,870
As
<20
<30
15
<19
46
<17
81
<4,000
<1
4,000
-
2,400
2,400
2,000
2,500
Pb
11,936
42,336
45,708
23,714
97,950
5,425
164,748
-
8,100
33,000
-
56,000
66,000
26,000
38,000
Cu
33,499
73,375
95,980
106,814
52,953
19,050
44,806
-
24,200
53,000
-
119,000
106,000
38,000
65,000
Zn Se
101,771 <59
106,711 28
102,602 8
254,194 <680
233,998 <8
44,250 <480
277,793 <9
-
22,900 <65
74,000 <10
-
143,000 9,900
101,000 5,030
40,000 6,800
90,000 11,500
V
<485
<445
<550
<314
<560
<200
<200
-
480
<80
-
1,800
2,000
1,500
1,200
Be
<260
<20
<20
<23
<20
<18
<20
-
<40*
<240
-
40
40
33
36
Cr
8,200
194,883
62,978
42,829
33,358
15,700
99,628
-
-
11,300
-
64,000
10,000
7,400
14,000
Ni
5,704
15,168
5,989
9,143
9,730
725
13,814
-
2,240
4,000
-
17,000
9,900
3,200
14,000
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
(ug/1)
Owl's Head
Port Richmond
Rockaway
Tallman Island
Wards Island
26th Ward
Newtown Creek
Joint Venture
Modern Trans. (Ind)
E . I . DuPont
Chevron
American Cyanamid
NL Industries
Allied Chemical
260
260
315
630
135
475
145
15.3
45
12.5
26.3
18.3
<5
10.3
Cd
600
88
435
240
230
1,185
1,465
4.1
33.5
121
158
2.0
<500
<20
Oil
(mg/1)
4,755 9,
9,560 1,
2,815 1,
3,020 5,
4,435
14,050 6,
4,300
4.45
249
12.8
107
435
2.4
<1.0
As
500
500
400
700
170
800
960
30
<20
9.6
487
324
31.0
780
Pb
34,000
16,000
64,000
84,000
30,000
100,000
284,000
15,300
38,740
421
2,386
70.5
1,498
123
Cu
103,000
16,000
173,000
108,000
56,000
79,000
65,000
2,300
23,725
421
1,143
38
3,848
83.1
Zn
112,000
46,000
134,000
120,000
41,000
111,000
76,000
30,800
410,500
829
2,557
257
22,923
104
Se
8,500
6,900
6,300
20,000
5,600
6,500
13,100
140
<100
<100
<50
5.8
<5,000
<20
V
2,200
1,000
2,600
1,700
1,000
2,800
1,400
<1,000
<500
<200
-
<200
74,465
<200
Be
45
36
54
37
42
46
36
<20
<500
24
<50
<20
20
20
Cr
30,000
1,700
14,500
40,000
12,000
34,000
95,000
710
1,462
434
557
360
14,517
41
Ni
8,500
2,100
6,000
84,000
2,200
7,200
13,500
1,000
4,800
813
457
487
7,713
104
-------
TABLE 5
New York Municipal Permits
(Effective as of April 1, 1975)
Permit No.
NY007
NY009
NY028
NY029
NY031
NY047
NY048
Waste Generator
City of Long Beach
City of New York
Wards Island Plant
County of Nassau
Dept. of Public
Works
County of Westches-
ter, Dept. of
Public Works
West Long Beach
Sewer District
City of New York
Hunts Pt. Plant
City of New York
26th Ward Plant
Waste Transporter
General Marine Transpor-
tation Corp.
City of New York
General Marine Transpor-
tation & Ocean Disposal
Co. , Inc.
McAllister Brothers,
Inc.
General Marine Transpor-
tation Corp.
City of New York
City of New York
Type
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Dump Site
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Expiration Date
7/30/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
6/22/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
7/17/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
7/30/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
7/31/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
6/22/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
6/22/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
-------
TABLE 5 (Cont)
Permit No. Waste Generator
Waste Transporter
Type
Dump Site
Expiration Date
NY049
NY050
NY051
NY052
NY053
NY054
NY055
NY056
City of New York City of New York
Coney Is. Plant
City of New York City of New York
Owls Head Plant
City of New York City of New York
Newtown Creek
Plant
City of New York City of New York
Jamaica Plant
City of New York City of New York
Tallman Island
Plant
City of New York City of New York
Bowery Bay
Plant
City of New York City of New York
Rockaway Plant
City of New York City of New York
Port Richmond
Plant
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
6/18/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
6/28/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
6/28/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
7/17/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
7/17/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
7/17/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
7/20/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
7/20/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
NY068
City of Glen Cove
Modern Transportation Co.
Interim
Sewage Sludge
4/14/75
-------
TABLE 6
New Jersey Municipal Permits
(Effective as of April 1, 1975)
Permit No.
NJ002
NJ003
NJ008
NJ017
NJ019
NJ021
Waste Generator
Twp. of Middletown
Sewerage Auth.
Passaic Valley
Sewerage
Commissioners
Middlesex County
Sewerage Auth.
Modern Transporta-
tion Co.
Bergen County
Sewer Auth.
The Linden Roselle
Sewerage Auth.
Waste Transporter
General Marine Transpor-
tation Co.
A&S Transportation Co.
& Weeks Dredging &
Contracting Corp .
A&S Transportation
Company
Modern Transportation
Co.
A&S Transportation Co.
A&S1- Transportation Co.-
Ocean Disposal Co., Inc.
Type
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Dump Site
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Expiration Date
7/22/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
6/28/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
7/17/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
8/3/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
7/20/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
7/20/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
-------
TABLE 6 (Cont)
Permit No. Waste Generator
Waste Transporter
Type
Dump Site
Expiration Date
NJ022
NJ069
NJ092
NJ103
The Joint Meeting
of Essex & Union
Counties
Borough of Fairfield
William Schaefer
Caldwell Trucking
Ocean Disposal Co. Inc.
& A&S Transportation Co.
General Marine Trans-
port Co.
General Marine Trans-
port Co.
General Marine Trans-
port Co.
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
Sewage Sludge
7/30/73
4/15/74
4/14/75
4/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
-------
TABLE 7
Industrial Permits
(Effective as of April 1, 1975)
Permit No.
NJ001
NJ004
NJ006
NJ010
NJ011
NJ014
NY023
Waste Generator
American Cyanamid Co.
Warners Plant
Allied Chemical Corp.
Specialty Chemicals
Division
E.I.duPont De Nemours
& Co. .Grasselli Pit.
Merck & Co.
Chevron Oil Co.
NL Industries
Titanium Pigment
Div.
Mo ran Towing Corp.
Disposal Div.
Waste Transporter
Spentonbush Transport
Service Co. Inc.
Allied Chemical Corp.
Spentonbush Transport
Service Co. Inc.
Modern Transportation
Co.
Spentonbush Transport
Service Co. Inc.
Moran Towing & Trans-
portation Co. Inc.
Moran Towing & Trans-
portation Co. Inc.
Type
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Interim
Interim Special
Special
Dump Site
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
Acid Grounds
Acid Grounds
Acid Grounds
Acid Grounds
Acid Grounds
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
Acid Grounds
Acid Grounds
Cellar Dirt
Cellar Dirt
Expiration Date
7/20/73
7/15/74
7/14/75
7/20/73
10/31/74
7/14/75
6/28/73
10/31/74
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/30/73
7/15/74
7/14/75
10/31/74
7/14/75
5/15/74
5/14/75
-------
TABLE 7 (Cont)
00
Permit No.
NJ033
NJ063
NJ065
NJ066
NY067
NJ070
NJ071
NJ072
NJ073
Waste Generator
Amerada Hess Corp.
Hess Oil & Chem. Div.
Whippany Paper Board
Co., Inc.
Sob in Chemicals Inc.
Montrose Chem. Div.
International Wire
Products Co.
Water Tunnel Contrac-
tors (Joint Venture)
Mycalex Corp.
Arrow Group Indus-
tries, Inc.
Howmet Corp.
Worthington Biochem-
Waste Transporter
Spentonbush Transport
Service Co., Inc.
Modern Transportation
Co.
Modern Transportation
Co.
Modern Transportation
Co.
Moran Towing & Transport
Co. , Inc.
Modern Transportation
Co.
Modern Transportation
Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Type
Interim Special
Interim Special
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Special
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Dump Site
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
Cellar Dirt
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
Expiration Date
8/29/73
7/15/74
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
5/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
5/31/75
ical Corp.
NJ074
Reheis Chemical Co. Modern Transportation Co.
Interim
106 Mile
7/14/75
-------
TABLE 7 (Cont)
Permit No.
NJ076
NJ077
NJ078
NJ079
NJ081
NJ082
NJ083
NJ084
NJ085
NJ086
NJ093
NJ096
Waste Generator
M/M Mars
The Coca-Cola Co.
Curtiss-Wright Corp.
Eagle Extrusion Corp.
Norda Inc.
S.B. Penick & Co.
Solvents Recovery
Service of N.J.,Inc.
Tenco Division of
Coca-Cola Co.
The Nestle Co. Inc.
U.S. Radium Corp.
Warner-Lambert Co.
Blue Ridge-Winkler
Waste Transporter
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Type
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Dump Site
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
Expiration Date
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
NJ097
Textiles
Pfizer Inc. Leeming/
Pacquin Division
Modern Transportation Co,
Interim
106 Mile
7/14/75
-------
TABLE 7 (Cont)
to
o
Permit No. Waste Generator
NJ098
NJ099
NJ100
NJ101
NJ102
NJ106
NJ107
NJ109
PA110
J.T. Baker Chem-
ical Co.
Fritsche Dodge &
Olcott
Evor Phillips Leas-
ing Co. Inc.
Riegal Products Co.
Keuffel & Esser Co.
American Cyanamid Co.
Agricultural Div.
Modern Transporta-
tion Co.
S . B . Thomas , Inc .
Crompton & Knowles
Waste Transporter
Modern Transportation Co,
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
Modern Transportation Co.
General Marine Transport Inc.
Modern Transportation Co.
Type
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Dump Site Expiration Date
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
Sewage Sludge
106 Mile
106 Mile
106 Mile
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
7/14/75
8/31/75
8/31/75
2/16/76
Corp.
-------
LONG-RANGE GOAL FOR PHASE OUT OF OCEAN
DISPOSAL IN NEW YORK BIGHT BY 1981
In accordance with its mandated responsibilities under the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 "to prevent
or strictly limit the dumping into ocean waters of any material which
would adversely affect human health, welfare, or amenities, or the
marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities,"
EPA, Region II has committed itself to an orderly and environmentally
acceptable plan with the ultimate goal of phasing out ocean disposal
of both industrial and municipal wastes by 1981. The programs initi-
ated to date under this plan are contained in Table 8.
Included in this section for general information are reproductions
of the following correspondence:
1. A letter of modification to municipalities in the New York
Metropolitan area that ocean dumping permits will not be renewed for
the continued use of the existing sewage sludge dump site in the latter
part of 1976.
2. The notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact state-
ment for the designation of an "interim" sewage sludge dump site or
sites in the New York Bight.
3. A letter of notification to the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
concerning the continued use of the present dredged spoil dump site.
4. A letter of notification to existing ocean dumping permittees
concerning the designation of the "most appropriate marine sensitive
organism(s)" for use in the determination of waste toxicity.
5. Statement presented by EPA at the New York State Select
Committee on Environmental Conservation hearing on February 20, 1975.
6. Statement presented by NOAA at the New York State Select
Committee on Environmental Conservation hearing on February 20, 1975.
7. First quarterly report on Interstate Sanitation Commission's
New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area Sewage Sludge Disposal Management
Program.
21
-------
TABLE 8
PROGRAMS INITIATED
1970 - N.Y. BIGHT STUDY BY COE-NOAA
1971 - EPA CONDITIONS MUNICIPAL-FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
1972 - EPA-OCEAN COUNTY INITIATE "LAND RECYCLING" STUDY:
$200,000, 3 YEARS
- EPA-NERC INITIATES EXPERIMENTAL MODELING STUDIES
1973 - OCEAN DUMPING BILL EFFECTIVE - EPA PERMIT PROGRAM STARTED
- EPA SEGREGATES INDUSTRIAL & MUNICIPAL WASTES AND ASSIGNS
TO SPECIFIC SITES
1974 - EIGHT (8) INDUSTRIAL PERMITS/APPLICATIONS DENIED OR WITHDRAWN
- FORTY-SEVEN (47) INDUSTRIAL DUMPERS PHASED OUT
- TWELVE (12) INDUSTRIAL DUMPERS REQUIRED TO PHASE OUT BY 6/75
- MUNICIPALITIES NOTIFIED OF MOVING TO ALTERNATE SITE DURING
SECOND HALF OF '76
- EPA INITIATES THREE-PHASE MONITORING PROGRAM IN N.Y. BIGHT
- NOAA INITIATES FIELD STUDIES OF ALTERNATE SITES FOR EIS
- EPA-ISC INITIATE "ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE"
STUDY: $200,000, 2 YEARS
-•• EPA NOTIFIES COE OF 'SITE CHANGE FOR DREDGE SPOIL
- EPA-RAYTHEON CORPORATION INITIATE THREE CRUISE BASELINE
STUDY IN ALTERNATE SITE: $540,000, 2 YEARS
- FIVE (5) ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
- INDUSTRIES REQUIRED TO SUBMIT IMPLEMENTATION PLANS OR
ENGINEERING REPORTS FOR THE COMPLETE PHASE OUT OF
OCEAN DUMPING
22
-------
TABLE 8 (Cont)
1975 - EPA-DAMES AND MOORE INITIATE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT FOR NEW INTERIM SEWAGE SLUDGE SITE:
$150,000, 2 YEARS
- EPA DESIGNATES "MOST APPROPRIATE MARINE SENSITIVE
ORGANISM(S)" FOR USE IN BIOASSAY REPORTS WITHIN
REGION II
- EPA INITIATES VIROLOGY STUDIES IN N.Y. BIGHT
- EPA-NOAA-ISC INITIATE EXPANDED FIELD STUDIES OF ALTERNATE
SITES FOR EIS: $130,000, 1 YEAR
- THREE (3) ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
23
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1OOO7
October 2, 1974
Earlier this year we notified you of our intention of moving the
sewage sludge disposal site from its present location, 12 miles off
the coast, to a new location approximately 65 miles from the apex of
the New York Bight. Our position on the use of a site(s), within the
designated areas is now f irm; therefore, in 1976 your ocean disposal
permit will not be renewed for the continued use of the present site.
The specific location of the new "interim" site(s), will be designated
in 1975, and will be used until such time as environmentally acceptable
alternatives are implemented. The attached map provides specific details
on the location of the new designated areas.
As you know, EPA and NOAA's monitoring studies still continue to
indicate that use of the present sewage sludge site does not pose any
immediate threat to the waters of Long Island or New Jersey. It is our
opinion, however, that the existing site cannot accommodate the antici-
pated three-fold increase in the volume of sludge, which will result
from an upgrading of treatment facilities in this area. Thus, until
satisfactory alternate means of disposal are developed, a new "interim"
ocean disposal site(s) must be used.
Studies to support an Environmental Impact Statement, which must be
undertaken before any new site can be utilized, have already been initiated.
Various sites within both designated areas are being investigated, thus,
pending completion of these studies, the actual site(s) cannot be selected.
If for some reason sites within these areas are found to be unsuitable for
the disposal of sludge, sites outside of these areas, however within the
same "steaming distance", will be selected and available by 1976.
A detailed study aimed at evaluating the possible alternatives to
ocean disposal in the greater New York-New Jersey Metropolitan area has
already been initiated. Should this investigation demonstrate that other
alternatives are viable, technically feasible and environmentally accept-
able, our goal will be to phase out ocean disposal by 1981.
24
-------
-2-
If your agency plans on continuing ocean disposal in 1976, you
should immediately make the necessary commitments in terms of funding,
contracts and/or equipment, to meet this new requirement. Our position
not to reissue permits for the present disposal site in 1976 is firm.
You are reminded that designations of a new disposal site in no way
eliminates or reduces your responsibility financial or technical
for monitoring the impact of your disposal operations, as required under
Section 228 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations. This self-monitoring pro-
gram will be implemented as soon as final regulations are promulgated.
If you have any questions concerning details of this decision,
please contact Richard T. Dewling, Director, Surveillance & Analysis
Division, Edison, N.J. at 201-548-3347, Ext. 401.
Sincerely yours,
Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
25
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
fitstr REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1OOO7
JAN 17 1975
To All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups:
In accord with the guidelines for the preparation of environmental
impact statements, attached is a notice of intent to prepare such a
statement for the proposed Agency action specified below:
Designation of a New Interim Sewage Sludge Disposal Site
or Sites in the New York Bight of the Atlantic Ocean.
Under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
(P.L. 92-532), EPA is responsible for issuing permits authorizing the
disposal of sewage sludge in oceanic waters. The following are major
municipalities which currently hold interim ocean disposal permits for
dumping sewage sludges at the existing disposal site:
New York City New Jersey Nassau County
Bowery Bay Plant Bergen County Sewer City of Glen Cove
Coney Island Plant Authority City of Long Beach
Hunts Point Plant Borough of Fair-field County of Nassau
Jamaica Plant The Joint Meeting of West Long Beach
Newtown Creek Plant Essex & Union Counties Sewer District
Owls Head Plant Linden Roselle Sewerage
Port Richmond Plant Authority
Rockaway Plant Middletown Sewerage Westchester County
Tallman Island Plant Authority
26th Ward Plant Middlesex County County of Westchester
Wards Island Plant Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners
In addition, several smaller municipalities in New York and New Jersey
have been issued interim ocean disposal permits by EPA-Region II as
customers of the following barging companies: Modern Transportation Co.
and General Marine Transport Co. Two industries in New Jersey also have
been issued interim ocean disposal permits for their domestic sludges:
American Cyanamid Co. and Whippany Paper Board Co.
Approximately 4.5 million cubic meters (6 million cubic yards) of
sludge are dumped each year. Of this total volume, New York City accounts
for approximately 60 percent, New Jersey communities approximately 33 per-
cent, and Nassau and Westchester Counties approximately 7 percent. A
26
-------
three fold increase in the total volume is expected over the next few
years as municipalities in the New York-New Jersey area upgrade their
sewerage systems to provide secondary treatment. This large increase in
sewage sludge volume is the primary reason for abandoning the existing
sewage sludge disposal site. (See Figure 1).
Ocean disposal permits will not be renewed for the continued use of
the existing site after July 1, 1976. The areas being considered for
the interim disposal site(s) are shown in Figure 1. These areas have
been jointly designated by the EPA and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). If for some reason a site(s) within these areas
is found to be unsuitable for the disposal of sewage sludge, a site(s)
outside of these areas, but within the same "steaming distance", will be
selected, based on the ecological surveys and environmental impact state-
ment currently underway.
Alternatives to the ocean disposal of sewage sludge are being studied
under an EPA contract awarded to the Interstate Sanitation Commission
(ISC). Should this investigation demonstrate that other disposal alterna-
tives are viable, technically feasible, and environmentally acceptable,
EPA's goal will be to phase out ocean disposal of such sludges by 1981.
EPA is preparing this environmental impact statement in accordance
with the procedures for voluntary preparation on significant regulatory
actions, dated October 15, 1974 .I/ Under Section l(c)(4)(B) of these
procedures, EPA will prepare an environmental impact statement for the
"Designation of sites for dumping under Section 102 (c)" of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. On December 23, 1974,
after reviewing the merits of ten competing firms, EPA awarded a contract
to Dames & Moore of New York City for the preparation of this environmental
impact statement.
If your organization needs additional information or wishes to par-
ticipate in the preparation of the draft environmental impact statement,
please advise Daniel A. Sullivan, P.E., Senior Environmental Engineer,
EPA-Region II at (212) 264-1892.
Sincerely yours
Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
Regional Administrator
I/Environmental Impact Statements, Procedures for the Voluntary Preparation.
Section l(c)(4)(B), as published in the Federal Register, Volume 39,
Number 204, page 37419 on October 21, 1974.
27
-------
NOTICE OF INTENT
-30'
Existing Sewage Sludge
Disposal Site
Areas Being
Studied for
Alternative
Sewage Sludge
Disposal
Site(s)
39°-30'
74°
28
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1OOO7
October 9, 1974
Colonel Harry W. Lombard
District Engineer
New York District Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Dear Colonel Lombard:
As a follow-up to our discussion several weeks ago, we would
like to reaffirm our position relative to resolving ocean dumping
problems in the apex of the New York Bight.
As you well realize, the volume of sewage sludge will sig-
nificantly increase over the next three years, and to the best of
our knowledge, the present dredge spoil volume of approximately
11 million cubic yards per year, will not significantly decrease.
Taking into consideration the level of pollutants contained in both
dredge spoil and sewage sludge—in terms of pounds per year of
contamination added to the ecosystem—it is difficult to separate
the impact resulting from these individual disposal operations.
Thus, it is our opinion, based on an assessment of the potential
problems which logically might occur if the present disposal sites
continue to be used, that the present sewage sludge and dredge spoil
sites must be relocated as soon as possible.
In a letter dated October 2, 1974, copy attached, we reaffirmed
our position to municipalities that their ocean disposal permits
would, not be renewed for the continued use of the present sludge
site after 1976. Two new areas have been designated. (See attached
map.) The specific location of the new "interim" site(s) within
these areas, will be designated in 1975 pending completion of on-
going oceanographic and environmental studies.
This action has been taken in order to protect the existing
high quality waters contiguous to the beach areas of New York and
New Jersey. Similarly, it is our position, that the present dredge
spoil site must also be relocated, since this operation, which at
times occurs as close as three miles from the New Jersey coast,
can also seriously jeopardize the present and future water quality
of the bathing beaches.
29
-------
On the basis of these decisions, therefore, it is requested
that you submit to us, by December 1, 1974, a plan for phasing out
the use of the present dredge spoil disposal site by 1976, and
utilization of a new "interim" site(s) within Areas 1A or 2A.
Naturally, any plan you submit should consider the basis for
selection of alternate sites, alternatives to ocean disposal,
navigational hazards associated with changing sites, the economic
impact of this new requirement, and a timetable for implementation.
Even more important, cost estimates for moving to alternate
sites should be incorporated in the Corps' Federal budget requests
for fiscal years 1976 and 1977, as appropriate. This matter has
been discussed with EPA Administrator Train, and EPA headquarters
wishes to also immediately open discussions on the issue with Corps
headquarters officials.
If you have any specific questions regarding this decision,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Gerald M. Hansler, P.E.
Regional Administrator
Enclosures
cc: Administrator Russell E. Train
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Brigadier-General James L. Kelly
U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Atlantic
30
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
EDISON, NEW JERSEY O8817
February 21, 1975
Gentlemen:
Special Condition No. 5 of your Ocean Disposal Permit #
requires you to perform "a bioassay, using the organism Artemia salina
or suitable organisms designated to be more appropriate by EPA, Region II."
As you know, Artemia has been used by EPA for ranking or comparing one
waste with another, and not as a measure of environmental impact. After
considerable discussions and consultations with our research staff, we are
now in a position to recommend and require testing with organisms that will
allow us to relate laboratory findings to environmental response. The "ap-
propriate sensitive marine organisms" selected are as follows:
a) phytoplankton Skeletonema costaturn
b) zooplankton Acartia tonsa or A. _clau8ii
c) finfish Menidia menidia
Special conditions of your new permit will require the use of these
new organisms, along with Artemia, in your bioassay analysis. If your per-
mit expires after April 1975, you are required to implement the use of these
organisms under conditions of your existing permit.
Recognizing you will probably have questions about the organisms and/or
the test procedures to be followed copies of which are attached we
have scheduled a meeting for March 10, 1975 at 10:00 AM in our Main Confer-
ence Room, Building 209, GSA Raritan Depot, Edison, New Jersey. Represen-
tatives of.our research staff will be available to answer your questions;
therefore, it's requested that you come prepared to discuss the procedures
provided.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 201-548-
3347, X401.
Sincerely yours,
Richard T. Dewling
Director
Surveillance & Analysis Division
Enclosure
31
-------
Ocean Disposal EPA Actions
By
Richard T. Dewling, P. E.
Director, Surveillance & Analysis Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Edison, N. J. 08817
In October 1974, EPA notified municipalities in the New York
Metropolitan area, including communities in New Jersey, Nassau and
Westchester Counties, of its goal to phase out ocean disposal by
1981, and of its intention not to renew ocean disposal permits for
the continued use of the present sewage sludge disposal site after
July 1976. This latter decision was based on an anticipated three-
fold increase in the volume of sludge resulting from an upgrading
of treatment plants in the bi-state area and the potential adverse
effects this increase might have on the waters along the New Jersey
and Long Island shores. This action has been taken now in order to
protect the future use of our recreational waters.
Two New Areas Considered
EPA has not at this time designated any new disposal site(s);
rather areas under consideration have been announced. The actual
choice of an interim site(s) within one, or both of the areas, will
completely depend upon the results of detailed environmental studies
now being conducted by EPA and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Prepared for New York State Select Committee on Environmental Conser-
vation: February 20, 1975
32
-------
Administration (NOAA). These investigations are scheduled to
be completed by August 1975 and a decision regarding the specific
interim site(s) location will be made during the latter part of
this year.
It is important to understand that the "interim" site(s),
which will be used only until such time as acceptable environmental
alternatives are developed and implemented, cannot be utilized for
any dumping until an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is pre-
pared and made public. We are not interested in simply translocating
the present problem to a new area; rather, we are trying to minimize
the environmental impact, while at the same time protecting the high
quality water along our beaches.
EIS Initiated
The consulting firm of Dames and Moore, New York, N. Y. has been
retained by Region II to prepare the EIS. The report will include,
but not necessarily be limited to, background information on the
Bight, ocean dumping practices, federal control programs and inter-
national legal implications; a presentation of sewage sludge disposal
methods other than ocean dumping; alternatives to the proposed interim
disposal site(s) including that of "no action" on moving the existing
site; a detailed description of the proposed interim site(s); an eval-
uation of the primary and secondary environmental impact in terms of
the physical, chemical and biological characteristics; analyses of
33
-------
the adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should
use of the proposed site(s) be implemented; the relationship be-
tween local short-term uses of man's environment and the mainten-
ance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and the irreversible
of irretrievable commitment of resources which would be involved in
the proposed action, should it be implemented.
The final draft of this EIS .should be completed by early 1976
and a public hearing held before April of that year.
Alternatives Being Evaluated
With regard to the development of ocean disposal alternatives,
and our need to meet our goal of phasing out the present practice
by 1981, Camp, Dresser & McKee, Boston, Mass., under the auspices
of the Interstate Sanitation Commission and EPA, has already com-
pleted about 30 percent of their "Alternative-Evaluation Study". A
final decision on the availability, acceptability and practicability
of an environmentally suitable alternative(s), which depends upon
the results of the EIS, as well as a thorough engineering and scientific
evaluation of the many technical approaches for handling sludge, is not
expected until July 1976. The five year "gap" between 1976 atid 1981,
is the time needed to implement the alternatives recommended.
34
-------
All of our studies and activities are progressing concurrently,
and are presently on schedule; therefore, we feel confident that we
will meet our 1976 deadline for decision making, i.e., to move to a
new "interim" disposal site(s) and to recommend and implement environ-
mentally acceptable alternatives to the present practice of ocean
disposal.
35
-------
Statement of
Dr. R. Lawrence Swanson
Manager
New York Bight Marine EcoSystems Analysis (MESA) Project
Environmental Research Laboratories
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
United States Department of Commerce
before the
New York State Select Committee on Environmental Conservation
20 February 1975
Mr. Chairman and members of the Select Committee:
I am Dr. R. Lawrence Swanson, Manager of the New York Bight Project
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine EcoSystems
Analysis (MESA) Program.
I appreciate this opportunity to testify before your Select Committee
on Environmental Conservation concerning the implications of ocean disposal
in the New York Bight. As a preface to doing so, I would like to take a
few minutes to describe to you what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration is doing in the New York Bight, and what some of the problems
are in studying such a complex ecosystem.
Then, I will address specific physical, chemical, biological, and
sedimentary aspects of the present condition of the Bight, as regards
present and projected sludge dumping, and will try to answer questions
you may have.
36
-------
NCAA's activities in the New York Bight are being conducted under
our Marine EcoSystems Analysis, or MESA, program, which is managed by
the Environmental Research Laboratories. The MESA New York Bight Project,
which began in July 1973, is a seven-year study, designed to yield certain
important information tools for managers of the coastal environment.
These include:
• Determining the fate and effect of pollutants on the New York
Bight ecosystem, with priority on ocean dumping, and
•Identifying and describing the important ecological subsystems,
processes, and driving forces operating in the New York Bight,
and defining their interrelationships and rates of change.
The area encompassed by the MESA Project here is bounded on the off-
shore side by the edge of the continental shelf, and on the inshore side
by the Long Island and New Jersey coasts to the Apex of the Bight, where
the Lower New York Bay meets the coastal waters.
MESA's reason for being is that environmental scientists understand
the interactions between human civilization and the marine environment in
only a general way. It is obvious, for example, that some 20 million
human neighbors, great cities, and large industries impact the coastal
environment and ocean waters they border and use. But it is not at all
obvious whether such impact is totally adverse, or how much use can be
accommodated by an ecosystem such as the New York Bight without irrever-
sibly damaging it. We know it has been heavily stressed. We do not know
much about the recuperative powers of the Bight and its marine life.
37
-------
Through the MESA Program we hope to improve our understanding of
and ability to predict events which control the condition of the
Bight's marine life and environment.
The primary near-term emphasis of our research in the New York
Bight Project is the delineation of the environmental effects of ocean
dumping. NOAA, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, has research
responsibilities for ocean dumping under the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, and we are using the Bight, which is the site
of most of the nation's ocean dumping, as a laboratory.
We are studying the characteristics of material disposed at individual
dump sites in the Bight, dimensions and dispersal rates of dumped materials,
long-and-short-term chemical, biological, and geophysical interactions
which govern the fates and effects of such dumping, including the ability
of dump sites to recover. Our investigators are measuring currents at
various depths and locations in the Bight, examining sediments and their
transport rates and processes, and sampling bottom-dwelling and other
organisms to determine the existence and extent of the biological and
pathological impact of man's activities in the Bight.
The technical information I will give you today comes primarily from
these ocean-dumping related studies. Despite the fact that this is a
highly populated corner of the United States, insufficient historical
data are available on those aspects of the New York Bight waters, sea
-------
floor, and marine life we need to understand. In a few areas, most
of the useful data available are what we were able to obtain this
past year and a half.
To date, most of our field activities (the first of which began
in July 1973) have been concentrated in the 625-square mile rectangular
area with landward boundaries defined roughly by the New Jersey and
Long Island coasts, from the mouth of the Hudson River. Our activities
there have accomplished the following:
1. Ocean water depths and small-scale terrain features of the sea
floor have been mapped with precision navigation and depth-measuring
systems.
2. The distribution and thickness of sea floor sediments has been
mapped, using precision navigation and acoustic subbottom profiling
equipment. In addition, more than 750 surficial sediment samples and
50 sediment cores have been collected to aid in sediment mapping and
chemical analyses.
3. Sea floor materials have been sampled on a quarterly schedule
at selected sites to detect short-term changes in the sediments and as-
sociated microrelief. Sediment movement has also been studied using
direct measurement techniques.
4. Current meter arrays have been deployed at various locations
for intervals as long as two and a half months.
5. Twenty-six water-column stations have been sampled repeatedly
at 18-day or 36-day intervals for water and suspended-material analyses,
39
-------
6. Intensive and continuous programs of biological sampling and
analysis have been conducted, including studies of bacterial roles in
the ecosystem, oxygen-consumption by bottom-dwellers and sediments,
distribution of fin-fish diseases in and around the Bight, and marine
population distribution in Bight waters.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let me summarize for the Select Committee what
this first year and a half's work has taught us that can be applied to
comprehending the environmental impact of sewage sludge dumped in the
New York Bight.
Sewage sludge is one of the products resulting from the treatment
of wastewater, a mixture of human, animal, and industrial wastes. The
material, although it varies with source and treatment plant, is about
five percent solids and 95 percent liquid. In 1973, some 4.4 million
cubic meters of this material, and 2.85 million cubic meters of industrial
wastes, were dumped in ocean waters from 10 to more than 160 kilometers
offshore.
Where does it go? When sludge is dumped, the mixture disperses, some
of it swept laterally by Bight currents, and some of it sinks toward the
sea floor. A small portion may float, and other waste constituents dis-
solve or remain suspended in the water column.
Based on core and grab samples, we know that the portions of sewage
sludge which sink to the bottom have not formed a massive lens of material.
40
-------
In fact the bathymetry at the dump site is essentially the same as it
was in 1936. On the other hand, roughly 8m of material has accumulated
in the same period of time at the dredge spoil dump site. Generally,
however, the sea floor near the sewage sludge dump site is an admixture
of natural fine sands, natural muds of high organic material content,
and sewage sludge materials at different stages of degradation. The sur-
face layers of samples taken at the dump site have a consistency which
ranges from sand to black organic material. An appreciable amount of
sludge material extends beyond the sludge dumping site in all directions,
but primarily to the north into Christiaensen Basin. The concentration
of sludge in the Christiaensen Basin may be caused by short dumping or by
deposition of transported or resuspended sewage sludge materials in the
water column. The bottom of the basin is essentially covered with a mix-
ture of muds rich in organic matter (1) transported into the area from the
Hudson River, (2) and produced in the area by marine organisms, primarily
plankton, and (3) disposed as sewage sludge.
It is generally accepted by oceanographers that the overall movement
of water on the continental shelf off southern New England and the Middle
Atlantic States is to the west, southwest, and south, parallel to the
continental margin. However, the overall pattern is quite thoroughly
masked at particular locations and times by high variability. This var-
iability in the New York-New Jersey area specifically the Bight Apex,
has been the prime focus to date of the water current observation effort
41
-------
of the MESA Project. The major features of the spatial structure of
circulation that relate to disposal of waste materials in shelf waters
of the New York Bight are as follows:
•In the immediate vicinity of the entrance to Lower New York Bay,
the oceanographic regime is dominated by the influence of discharges
from the Hudson and Raritan Rivers. There is a seaward flow of brackish
water, from the estuary where the rivers meet, in surficial layers. At
sea, this discharge turns to flow southward, paralleling the New Jersey
shoreline. Lower in the water column, there is return flow of external
water into the estuary. In spite of its importance to the oceanographic
and ecological systems of the estuary and the Bight, this superposed flow
system is recognized in measurements only as a slight imbalance of the
much stronger ebb and flood tidal currents in the respective layers.
•There is strong evidence from recent results of the MESA Project
that outside the region of strongest influence of river discharges, there
is a persistent, at least in a statistical sense, clockwise circulation
or gyre. In its most inshore portion, off New Jersey and Long Island,
flow in this eddy runs counter to the general flow over the continental
shelf adjacent to this part of the coast. Although its existence in some
sections of critical interest to the dumping question has been established,
its horizontal extent and vertical structure, are imperfectly known at
present. Evidence for the existence of this clockwise circulation or gyre
comes from current meter measurements, studying where "drifters" dropped
42
-------
into the ocean at various locations go, and studying the red colored
iron hydroxide particles introduced into the Bight waters from the
acid waste dump site. The drifter study, for example, shows that
approximately 3% of those drifters released at the sewage sludge dump
site were recovered within ten days following their release.
Material that becomes entrained in the Inner Bight circulation
and this refers to suspended, dissolved, and floatable portions of
sewage sludge as well as naturally occurring organic matter tends to
move generally in a clockwise manner northward toward Long Island, then
eastward out to sea, and then southward toward the open sea. In its
travels, suspended material tends to be deposited in topographic lows,
like the Christiaensen Basin and the area east of Cholera Bank, because
of reduced wave and current action there.
The New York Bight is also marked by a characteristic nearshore
flow, a result of which is that bottom water moves toward the beach.
When this circulation enters the surf zone near the beach, natural hy-
draulic processes related to the breaking of waves permit suspended
particles to be deposited on the bottom. The mud deposits formed in
this way in depths of less than 20 meters are a common occurrence along
the Atlantic coast, usually forming patches in small topographic lows.
In the nearshore zone, these organic rich mud patches tend to be
small in extent, usually less than ten meters in diameter and less than
15 centimeters thick. SCUBA divers off Long Beach in July 1974 found
that such patches covered less than 10 percent of the bottom. Most of
these mud patches are probably modified by the strong wave action
43
-------
associated with winter storms.
Continental shelf floor muds are invariably rich in organic matter
as a result of hydraulic sorting processes which tend to group finely
divided inorganic particles and organic matter. Clays occur here, and
characteristically contain about five percent, by weight, of iron oxide,
which usually veneers a shelf mud with a thin reddish-brown layer. De-
pletion of oxygen by decaying organic matter several millimeters below
the bottom surface has its effect on these muds, producing a black color.
This type of material can be found along both heavily populated and
virtually deserted stretches of the Atlantic coast. This, gross color
and texture of mud patches near the Long Island coast are no guides as
to whether or not they contain sewage sludge. Descriptive terms such as
"sludge" or "black greasy stuff" or "black mayonnaise" do not indicate
whether the organic mixture consists of degraded organic material of
natural origin or of human waste.
Analyses of these muds for their natural and man-introduced constitu-
ents is not a straightforward procedure. There is no "litmus paper test"
which differentiates sewage sludge from natural sea floor muds. Sewage
sludge produced by one treatment plant differs in composition from that
produced by another, and even material produced at one treatment plant
varies greatly over "time. ' Once dumped, the material is acted on by de-
composition, interactions with various components of the marine biota,
reaction with inorganic portions of the environment, and dilution due
to mixing with water and sediment. A simple test or two will not differ-
entiate transported or migrated portions of sewage sludge from organic
44
-------
material, raw sewage emanating from rivers, harbors, outfalls, and
passing vessels, or from sewage sludge which is dumped short of the
existing dump site. At best, a series of tests on a sample containing
"sludge-like material" may exclude one or more sources, but not all
possible sources. Positive identification of sewage sludge, especially
after it has been in the marine environment for any length of time, is
not possible at this time.
MESA scientists have filtered and then microscopically analyzed
bottom mud samples to sort out the fraction of the particles in the mud
that could be identified as of human origin. Near the sewage sludge dump
site about 15 percent of the mud grains were found to be processed cellulose
fibers or soot-like particles considered to be of human origin. Near the
Long Island beach roughly one percent of the grains were considered to be
of human origin. Clearly, any dumped, sewage-sludge-related materials which
move in suspension toward Long Island must be tremendously diluted by natural
particles during transport.
Preliminary studies have been made to compare the chemistry of sewage
sludge with that of shelf floor muds. These indicate that sewage sludge
is rich in heavy metals and organic matter; however, so are Bight floor
muds, including many natural muds. Thus, while certain inorganic analyses,
including heavy metal ratios, may eventually prove to be indicators of
sewage sludge derived material, they are not considered to be an adequate
means of differentiating sewage sludge from other muds at this time. This
was again verified, in our estimation, by analysis of heavy metals and
45
-------
samples collected at a series of stations south of Long Beach and
Atlantic Beach, including the sewage sludge dump site and inside
Rockaway Inlet.
Similarly, total organic matter is not a suitable indicator
of sludge derived material because in an area such as the New York
Bight, marine plants produce more than twice as much organic matter
than is dumped in the form of sewage sludge.
However, some fractions of organic matter, such as carbohydrates
(including cellulose), may provide a crude means of differentiating
muds. When sewage sludge is dumped into sea water, the organic matter
decreases with time because of microbial degradation. Most carbohydrates
decompose less rapidly than many other organics; therefore, the ratio of
carbohydrates to total organic carbon should increase with the age of the
sludge.
Analysis of sediment samples shows that the highest total organic
carbon values of about five percent by dry weight occurred in the Christ-
iaensen Basin, a few miles north and west of the dump site. This is about
one-tenth the total organic content that is found directly in sewage sludge.
High total organic content and also high carbohydrates occur all along the
Hudson Shelf Canyon. Mud samples from within one mile of Long Island
beaches show relatively high carbohydrate content, indicating that some
of this mud may be partly derived from sewage raw sewage from the
harbor, or from ships or from sewage sludge. But sediment samples from
Rockaway Inlet and Jones Inlet showed rather low carbohydrate content,
indicating mainly a natural origin.
46
-------
Further, it can in general be concluded that the effect of dredge
spoil and sewage sludge dump sites on nutrient concentration in the Bight
Apex is rather localized, and secondary in importance to that of the
nutrient-rich Lower Bay outflow.
MESA scientists have observed reduced abundance and diversity of
benthic invertebrates in the vicinity of the sewage sludge and dredge
spoil dump sites. Increased incidences of fin erosion have been observed
in the Inner Bight, although positive identification of cause and effect
has not been made. These findings, however, argue strongly against contam-
ination of new areas by moving the existing sewage sludge dump site.
In sum, Mr. Chairman, we have no evidence of a massive general move-
ment of sewage sludge toward Long Island beaches. On the contrary, evidence
we have suggests that milennia of natural discharges and 40 years of dumping
sewage sludge have produced a well-established, rather stable distribution
of organic-rich muds in the New York Bight. We do not believe that the
distribution patterns of these muds is likely to change appreciably with
time except as the muds may be temporarily resuspended in the water column
by the action of storm waves. Pockets of mud near beaches are a common
natural occurrence and in this case appear to be mainly of natural origin
with, perhaps, small admixtures of material derived from sewage. These
patches have almost certainly existed for a long time.
NOAA does not believe that an immediate change in the New York Bight
sewage sludge dump site is required; in fact, we believe that more harm
47
-------
to the environment than good would come from such a precipitous act.
However, in view of the increasing quantity of sewage sludge to be
dumped in the Bight over the next few years, plans should be made now
to change the dump site should future conditions warrant.
Based on the evidence in hand, these are NCAA's recommendations:
1. That the present sewage sludge dump site continue in use for
the next year or two, unless a situation develops that truly indicates
an endangerment to public health.
2. That intensive ecological studies be conducted as a prelude to
selecting an alternative dumping site for sewage sludge capable of as-
similating the greatly increased volume anticipated for the near future.
MESA is doing this now, and has a three-week cruise, commencing today, to
continue our examination of two suggested areas.
3. That a new dump site, if necessary, be selected upon completion
and on the basis of these studies so that we can be assured that contam-
ination of shoreline areas will not occur and that deleterious effects
on fish and benthic communities will be minimized.
4. That a new ocean dumping site be regarded only as an interim
measure and that every effort be made to avoid long-term use of the
New York Bight for disposal of sewage sludge.
5. That we not forget that ocean disposal, while worthy of public
concern, is very likely of secondary importance, when compared to other
contaminant sources such as the Upper and Lower Bays and their associated
waters.
48
-------
That completes my testimony Mr. Chairman. I am leaving several
of our recent publications with you that pertain to our overall in-
vestigation. Our office will be glad to assist you with any additional
information that you may deem necessary.
49
-------
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION
10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE • NEW YORK, N. Y. 10019
AREA CODE 212-5824380
COMM.SS.ONERS COMM.SS.ONERS
NEW YORK
ATALECOLOSI.PH.D. CONNECTICUT
CHAIRMAN DOUGLAS M. COSTLE
VMES L. BIGGANE JOHN B. DIOGUARDI
HESTER SCHWIMMER ROBERT K. KILLIAN
.LTONE.SPATT DOUGLAS S. LLOYD. M.O.
L.VER J. TROSTER ROBERT L. MAYV.LLE
NEW JERSEY THOMAS R. GLENN. JR.
AVID J. BARDIN DIRECTOR-CHIEF ENGINEER
>SEPH J. BRENNAN
)ANNE E. FINLEY, M.D.
DUIS J. FONTENELLI
XMUELP.OWEN FIRST QUARTERLY REPORT (July-September)
NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN AREA
SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Since this is the First Quarterly Report of the program, back-
ground information and an outline of the scope of work are presented
to provide a better understanding of the overall program.
General Background
Much of the sewage sludge in the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan
Area is presently disposed of by barging to sea. The current uncer-
tainties about the future of this means of disposal and the tripling
of sewage sludge volume expected within the next several years because
of the construction of secondary wastewater treatment plants pose a
tremendous problem. There is a real need to focus on how to dispose
of this sewage sludge on a regional basis. Based upon meetings
between the States of New York and New Jersey, the U.S. EPA-Region II,
and the Interstate Sanitation Cotnmission, it was agreed that EPA-Region II
would fund a $500,000 two-year three-phase program for the Commission
to be responsible for developing a viable and coordinated system for
50
-------
sewage sludge disposal for the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area
by June 1976. in developing the program, the following EPA-Region II
policies are being kept in mind:
(1) New sludge incinerators in each individual waste treatment plant
are not to be considered;
(2) Disposal techniques must not contaminate groundwaters;
(3) It is to be assumed that the heavy metals and toxic chemical
contents of sludges will be reduced to levels consistent with
EPA pretreatment guidelines.
The land area that the program encompasses is the New York-New
Jersey Metropolitan Area which includes all of the counties in the
States of New Jersey and New York with all or any part of their
tidal waters within the Interstate Sanitation District, plus the
Counties of Passaic and Somerset in the State of New Jersey.
Briefly, the overall program consists of three phases: Phase 1
(10 months duration) will be a State-of-the-Art investigation of
alternatives to ocean disposal of sludge and the recommendation of
a limited number of the most feasible alternatives for an in-depth
investigation in Phase 2 (12 months duration). These alternatives
will then be compared with controlled ocean disposal. Concurrently
with these two phases, a legal-institutional Phase 3 investigation is
being undertaken to determine the requirements for the administration
of the coordinated sludge management system for the region.
51
-------
Phase l_j^Scppg__of__Work (condensed)
The Scope of Work for Phase 1 is to perform a State~of=the-Art
investigation of alternative means of ultimate disposal of sludge in
the New Jersey-New York Metropolitan Area* This investigation defines
the problem in terms of the present and projected sources and volumes
of sludges produced and their chemical, physical, and biological
properties. It includes sludges presently barged to sea and sludges
now disposed of by other methods with identification of how each of
the public waste treatment systems in the area now disposes of its
sludge. The contractor is to identify the entire spectrum of feasible
alternatives and make preliminary estimates of disposal costs and
environmental impact of each. Each of the methods is to be analysed
from the point of view of efficacy and desirability or undesirability.
Each of the methods is also to be compared with each of the others.
Among the factors to be considered will be environmental impact;
energy conservation? convenience? cost of collection, treatment,
transportation and disposal either as a waste or as usable or market-
able products. This phase is to include but not be limited to
investigation of the following disposal techniques:
(1) Land disposal alternatives: (a) sanitary landfill, (b) spreading
as soil conditioner and fertilizer, (c) various sludge solidifi-
caLl^xx processes, (d) drying and selling for fertilizer and
soil conditioner.
52
-------
(2) Disposal by combustion (incineration): (a) incineration of
raw sludge, (b) incineration in combination with solid wastes,
(c) incineration to include power or steam generation.
(3) Disposal as a salable product: (a) activated carbon, (b) oil,
(c) natural gas; each of the above through pyrolysis, (d) building
products.
Phase 2
Phase 2 of the program is scheduled to begin in July of 1975
and will conclude in June 1976. The in-depth study will include:
(1) Good cost estimates;
(2) Thorough assessment of the environmental impact;
(3) Recommendations relative to New York-New Jersey Metropolitan
Sludge Management Plan.
Concurrently with Phases 1 and 2, the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is conducting ..a study in the
New York Bight which will include the impact of ocean disposal.
EPA will provide the Commission with input on the environmental
consequences of ocean disposal so that a comparison can be made
between controlled ocean disposal (taking into account of economic
and environmental impact) and the in-depth study of the alternatives
investigated in Phase 2 in order for the Commission to recommend the
best overall sewage sludge disposal program.
53
-------
Phase 3 - Scope of Work (condensed)
Phase 3 (undertaken concurrently with Pases 1 and 2) is an
in-house investigation of legal and institutional requirements.
It includes:
(1) Analyses of New York and New Jersey environmental control
statutes and administrative regulations and examination of
relative statutory and operational authorizations and
responsibilities to existing state and local agencies and
governments in New York and New Jersey.
(2) An examination of sludge collection disposal as a state level
function in New York and New Jersey.
(3) Drafting of sample statutes and/or interlocal and interstate
agreements and contracts needed to implement the recommended
legal and institutional approach to the problem.
Management of the Program
In order for the program to be successful and so that all
sectors affected or potentially affected by the results of the
program can be kept informed and be able to make an input to the
program, the management of the program was developed for two-way
communication. While the Commission is responsible for overall
management of the development program, an Executive Committee
composed of a representative from the State of New York, the State
of New Jersey, the Environmental Protection Agency-Region II, the
54
-------
waste treatment agencies operating in New Jersey, the waste treat-
ment agencies operating in New York, and the Interstate Sanitation
Commission has been established. This Committee advises the Inter-
state Sanitation Commission concerning the conduct of the investigation.
Technical advisory sub-committees have been established both by
New Jersey and New York waste treatment agencies. A legal sub-
committee has also been established in New Jersey. These sub-committees
advise and present their views to the waste treatment agencies
representative on the Executive Committee and thus provide an input
to the entire program. With this program structure, information is
able to flow both ways.
PROGRESS DURING FIRST QUARTER
Phase 1
Proposals for Phase were received from eight Contractors and
were narrowed to three Consultants. A representative of the States
of New York and New Jersey, the U.S. EPA, and the Commission held
oral interviews and selected Camp, Dresser & McKee for the Phase 1
project. Camp, Dresser & McKee commenced work on July 1, 1974. The
Interstate Sanitation Commission is .responsible for the overall
management of the development program and for conducting Phase 3
Legal-Institutional investigation.
The following work plan was adopted with completion dates
of subsections as indicated:
55
-------
I. Compilation of Data on Sludges Produced in Area at Present
and in Future: Complete by September 15, 1974,
A. Locate existing and planned wastewater treatment plants
on large map of area including sludge storage and
transport facilities.
B. Collect information on treatment, plant capacities and
type of treatment.
1. Obtain information on future capacities and
treatment.
C. Sludges produced at present.
1. Volume/day.
2. Type: raw, digested, chemical precipitates.
3. Concentration of solids in sludge.
4. Concentration of heavy metals.
5. Concentration of toxic organics: pesticides.
D. Sludges produced in future.
1. Select "design" year.
2. Volume/day and concentration.
3. Type: raw, digested, chemical precipitates due to
treatment.
4. Predicted changes in concentration of toxic metals
and organ ics.
56
-------
E. Identify plants having existing sludge disposal methods
other than to ocean.
II. Preliminary Investigations Relating to Disposal Methods:
Complete by September 15, 1974.
A. Check on any studies that may have been made for land-
based sludge disposal methods for N.Y.-N.J. area.
B. Check on solid waste disposal studies for area.
1. Identify solid waste disposal systems in area.
C. Investigate possible land disposal sites: Consult with
Rutgers University Environmental Sciences and Agriculture
Departments.
1. Agricultural land.
2. Waste Land.
3. Landfill sites.
D. Update information on some newer disposal methods.
1. Pyrolysis: Baltimore solid wastes plant; Twin Cities,
Minnesota studies.
2. Drying: Blue Plains plant at Washington, D.C.
3. Composting: USDA studies, Beltsville, Maryland.
57
-------
E. Investigate important differences in treatment and dewatering
methods and establishment of site requirements.
III. General Study of Major Alternatives: Complete by November 15, 1974,
Each of the following three basic disposal systems should be
considered for disposing of all the sludges produced at regional
facilities. The studies should include such items as: site
location, transportation, environmental assessments, technical
feasibility, permanance and long-term use, total cost estimates,
energy usage, energy recovery.
A. Land: Evaluate Rutgers University Report.
1. Agricultural.
2. Waste Land.
3. Landfill.
4. Consider sludge stabilization methods required.
B. Thermal Processing
1. Incineration.
2. Pyrolysis.
3. Wet Oxidation.
4. Disposal of residues from above processes.
*, Air pollution control requirements.
C, Recovery of Useful Materials
1. By drying.
58
-------
2. By composting.
3. Consider recovery of materials from pyrolysis and
wet oxidation.
4. Investigate disposal or sale of products.
D. Develop Basic Cost Data for Sludge Dewatering and
Transportation.
IV. Evaluation and Comparison of Specific Alternatives: Complete
by January 15, 1975.
A. Identify obviously unfeasible disposal methods due to
unavailability of sites, excessive costs, unacceptable
environmental factors, specific sludge characteristics,
specific location of sludge production and transportation
problems.
B. Consider use of sub-regional facilities with possible
different disposal methods for different sub-regions.
C. Identify the technical and economic differences for various
sludge treatments (chemical and heat conditioning) and
dewatering methods as required for different disposal
systems.
D. Indicate capacity and type of treatment facilities needed
for liquid sidestreams produced at sludge disposal sites
59
-------
in connection with dewatering and other processing:
sidestreams such as filtrates, centrates, overflows,
scrubber water, etc.
E. Identify specific possibilities of disposal with solid
wastes.
1. By incineration.
2. By pyrolysis.
3. In landfills.
V. Make Recommendations of Alternatives for In-Depth Study:
By February 15, 1975.
A. Have proposed recommendations reviewed for environmental
impact.
B. Integrate proposed recommendations with Phase 3 studies
of ISC.
VI. Draft of Final Report: By April 15, 1975.
Vi±. Make Revisions in Report as Required by ISC: By May 15, 1975.
Vlli. Submit Final Report: By June 15, 1975.
items I and II are completed except for the land disposal
study v.'hich is not due (under a subcontract with Rutgers University)
60
-------
until the end of October.
Phase 3
Work on the legal-administrative investigation of regional
sludge management possibilities in the New York-New Jersey
Metropolitan Area began on July 1, 1974 (the effective contract
date) . One item was performed in advance of the aforementioned
date. When it was ascertained that the investigation would proceed.
Dr. Wendell met with representatives of the State of New Jersey
and the New Jersey municipalities to receive from them indications
as to their concerns and to discuss the conduct of the work.
Since July 1, a similar discussion has been held in connection with
the CDM August Progress Report on the technical investigations
which are proceeding concurrently with this contract. Further
discussions with New York and New Jersey state and local interests
will be held as the work proceeds.
The work during this first quarter has consisted largely of
research and analysis of the statutes of New Jersey and New York
relating to water quality management and relevant aspects of inter-
governmental relations. The purpose has been to provide a basis
for determining what legal authority now exists for sludge manage-
ment, either by the separate jurisdictions or on a regional or
subregional basis. These preliminary analyses are now complete.
61
-------
They show that the legal bases for interlocal cooperation
and liquid waste treatment in the two states is substantially
different. New York has a state-level agency (the Environmental
Facilities Corporation) which can assist, and under some circumstances
operate or manage, municipal or county waste treatment and collection
systems. New Jersey has no counterpart agency. In New Jersey,
there is legislation being developed under which each county would
be required to have a sewage collection and treatment authority-
Existing regional authorities would be absorbed or converted to this
county base. However, there is presently much doubt as to whether
one of the largest of these entities in the New York Metropolitan
Area (the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners) would be affected.
At the present writing, the New Jersey portion of the area is
organized into several districts serving groups of municipalities
and into some smaller units which treat their own wastes.
However, it should be pointed out that these differences are
more in the legal authority for waste management than in the actual
patterns of operation in the New York and New Jersey portions of
the Metropolitan Area. At the presant time, on each side of the
state line, substate regional and local agencies perform the liquid
waste collection and treatment function. They handle sludge disposal
as part of that task, each making its own arrangements.
The New York interlocal cooperation statutes are broad enough
to permit as many communities as might wish to do so to establish
62
-------
joint arrangements for the handling of sludge. Authorization even
exists for them to do so in conjunction with political subdivisions
of the State of New Jersey, in New Jersey, however, there is no
similar piece of legislation. Consequently, sludge management on
an interjurisdictional basis, except by the existing district
systems, would require additional legal basis. When the study is
further along, a detailed examination will be made of what could
be done on the New Jersey side short of legislation, but preliminary
study indicates that additional legislation might be desirable,
if not absolutely necessary.
No work has yet been done on Connecticut statutes. Because
the study area has been delineated to include only the New York-New
Jersey portion of the Greater New York Metropolitan Area, it has
seemed appropriate to postpone such attention as can be paid to
the Connecticut portion until the work is further along. As
presently envisaged, the only consideration of Connecticut will be
in order to ascertain and attempt to make sure that such arrangements
as are recommended for sludge management would not be so constructed
as to preclude Connecticut participation.
It has been necessary to await information from CDM relative
to the identity of public systems generating sludge, their volumes
and present methods of disposal. This information was received on
September 15 and is now undergoing analysis. It is anticipated at
an early date it will be possible to begin developing alternative
63
-------
sludge management arrangements based on the statutory analysis and
the data concerning the present agencies involved in sludge
generation and disposal.
64
-------
TECHNICAL FINDINGS
(July 1974 - March 1975)
In April 1974, EPA, Region II, initiated a comprehensive monitoring
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. A
summary of the data from April to July 1974 appeared in "Ocean Disposal
in the New York Bight Technical Briefing Report Number 1". A summary of
subsequent data appears in this report in Tables 10-19.
Upon review of the earlier data, the sample collection frequency
was changed to the following:
Type I - Surf Zone - biweekly (summer)
- six-week intervals (Oct - May)
Type II - Near Shore - monthly (summer)
- bimonthly for water column (Oct - May)
- trimonthly for sediments (Oct - May)
Type III - Transects - quarterly
Station locations are shown in Figure 2 and listed in Table 9.
Based on data from the surf and near shore waters along the Long
Island and New Jersey beaches, it is evident that the water quality
remains excellent with respect to coliform density and is acceptable
for contact recreation (see Figs. 3-4). Elevated coliform counts do
appear at random, but this does not constitute any violation of standards
nor does it indicate any systematic change or degradation of water quality.
A review of near shore sediment data (Tables 14 & 17) indicate
slightly elevated bacterial counts at certain near shore sampling
stations. These elevated counts can be attributed to inland runoff
or wastewater outfalls.
65
-------
Two sampling runs were conducted on the Long Island Transect.
The data obtained (Tables 18 & 19) are consistent with data reported
earlier in "Technical Briefing Report Number 1." Specifically, a
"clean water-sediment" zone of about 5-1/2 - 6 miles separates the
leading edge of the sludge mass from the Long Island coast. Based
on our data there is no massive movement of sewage sludge towards
the Long Island coast.
Sediment samples were collected and analyzed for Salmonella
Group organisms at 20 sampling locations. Members of this Group
were not detected in lOOg of sediment sample.
66
-------
Figure 2
67
-------
Station
Latitude
TABLE 9
STATION LOCATIONS
Loran
Longitude 3H4 (Brown) 3H5 (Green)
Visuals
N. Y.
NYB20
NYB21
NYB22
NYB23
NYB24
NYB25
NYB26
NYB27
NYB30
NYB31
NYB32
NYB33
NYB34
NYB35
NYB40
NYB41
NYB42
NYB43
NYB44
NYB45
NYB46
NYB47
N. J.
JC01A
JC02
JC03
JC05
JC08
JC11
JC14
JC21
JC24
JC27
JC30
Bight
40°23'54"
40°23T54"
40°23'54"
40°23'54"
40°23'54"
40°23'54"
40°23'54"
40°23'54"
40°30'25"
40°30'00"
40°29'25"
40°28'36"
40°27'15"
40°26'10"
40°33'36"
40°31t39"
40°29'42"
40°27'45"
40°25'54"
40°25'00"
40°22'00"
40°20'00"
Beaches
40°28'05"
40°27'05"
40°25'40"
40°23'47"
40°21'50"
40°19'49"
40°17'28"
40°13'20"
40°12'05"
40°11'06"
40°09'25"
73°56'03"
73°53'30"
73°51'00"
73°49'12"
73°47'30"
73°45'00"
73°43'15"
73°40'32"
73°58'42"
73°57'36"
73°56'00"
73°53'45"
73°50'00"
73°47'12"
73°45'00"
73°45'00"
73°45'00"
73°45'00"
73°45'00"
73°45'00"
73°43'15"
73°43'15"
73°59'50"
73°59'10"
73°58'55"
73°58'35"
73°58'25"
73°58'26"
73°58'55"
73°59'47"
74°00'24"
74°00'36"
74°01'11"
4560
4575
4590
4600
4609
4624
4634
4649
3294
3274
3253
3237
3223
3200
3185
3161
South of Fl "5"
South of Fl "3"
South of Fl "1A" WHIS
South of BW Mo (A)
WHIS
South of Ambrose Horn
4629
4699
4684
4669
4654
4640
4633
4619
4603
3220
3182
3188
3193
3197
3200
3200
3183
3182
Sandy Hk. Parking
Sandy Hk. Radome
Sandy Hk. St. Pk.
Highland Beach
Sea Bright
Monmouth Beach
Long Branch
Asbury Park
Ocean Grove
Belmar
Spring Lake
Area
Beach
68
-------
STATION LOCATIONS (CONT'D.)
Station
N. J. Beaches
JC33
JC37
JC41
JC44
JC47A
JC49
JC53
JC55
Latitude
Cont'd.
40°08'03"
40°05'57"
40°03'45"
40°01f42"
39°59'42"
39°57?08"
39°55''U"
39°53'45"
Longitude
74°01'39"
74°02'03"
74°02'38"
74°03'55"
74°03'36"
74°03'37"
74°04'32"
74°04'48"
Loran
3H4 (Brown) 3H5 (Green) Visuals
Sea Girt
Point Pleasant
Bay Head
Mantaloking Beach
Silver Beach
Lavallette
Seaside Park
Is. Beach St. Park
Long Island Beaches
LIC01
LIC02
LIC03
LIC04
LIC05
LIC06
LIC07
LIC08
LIC09
LIC10
LIC11
40°32'52"
40°33'43"
40°34'24"
40°34'58"
40°35'28"
40°35'35"
40°35'07"
40°35'00"
40°35'00"
40°35'07"
40°35'22"
73°56'05"
73°51'48"
73°50'47"
73°48'50"
73°46'19"
73°44'55"
73°45'05"
73°41'05"
73°38'28"
73°35'16"
73°34t19"
Rockaway Point
Fort Tilden
Rockaway Beach
Holland Area
Edgemere
Off Light Fl G"4"
Atlantic Beach
Long Beach
Long Beach
Point Lookout
100 yd. SW of Buoy
LIC12
40°34'50"
73 33'52"
"C9"
Short Beach
69
-------
(O
c
o
CO
NEW JERSEY
LONG ISLAND SURF ZONE
GEOMETRIC MEAN
FECAL COLIFORM (MPN/100 ml
i—•
GEOMETRIC MEAN
TOTAL COLIFORM (MPN/100 ml
I- 200
- 150
- 100
- 50
<
O
z
<
- 50
- 100
- 150
- 2000
L- 2500
ASBURY/
PARK
-------
TABLE 10
Date
Long Island Coast, Surf Zone Bacterial Count
Total Coliform (TC) and Fecal Coliform (FC) per 100 ml
Station
LIC01 LIC02
TC FC TC FC
7/23/74
8/2/74
8/20/74
9/5/74
10/17/74
11/19/74
12/17/74
1/23/75
Summary, all data
to date
Total Samples
Geometric Mean
Max
Min
20 8
8 <1
12 5
32 4
26 10
17 15
-
55 28
13 13
15 6
55 28
5 <1
64
7
8
88
140
9
24
56
15
14
140
2
14
4
5
14
24
5
7
11
15
5
24
LIC03
TC FC
14
12
16
32
171
37
8
69
15
18
171
2
4
<1
1
4
67
4
2
14
15
4
67
LIC04
TC FC
12
8
20
116
800
19
82
-
14
15
800
1
3
2
5
40
304
11
14
-
14
5
304
LIC05
TC FC
84
8
28
124
480
11
64
3
15
17
480
6
1
1
10
45
2
12
2
15
3
45
-------
Date
Long Island Coast, Surf Zone Bacterial Count
Total Coliform (TC) and Fecal Coliform (FC) per 100 ml
Station
7/23/74
8/2/74
8/20/74
9/5/74
10/17/74
11/19/74
12/17/74
1/23/75
Summary, all data
to date
Total Samples
Geometric Mean
Max
Min
LIC07
TC FC
7 <1
4 <1
28 2
36 6
55 22
2 <1
24 5
168 96
15 15
9 3
168 96
LIC08 LIC09
TC FC TC FC
-------
GEOMETRIC MEAN
FECAL COLIFORM
(MPN/100 ml)
GEOMETRIC MEAN
TOTAL COLIFORM
(MPN/100 ml)
NEW JERSEY SURF ZONE
60 40 20 0 20 40
Figure 4
73
-------
TABLE 11
Date
New Jersey Coast, Surf Zone Bacterial Count
Total Coliform (TC) and Fecal Coliform (FC) per 100
Station
JC01A JC02
7/22/74
8/1/74
8/19/74
9/4/74
10/24/74
11/20/74
12/18/74
1/22/75
Summary, all data
to date
Total Samples
Geometric Mean
Max
Min
TC
68
96
44
144
32
49
172
136
14
45
172
6
FC
19
2
1
7
1
11
84
25
14
5
84
<1
TC
52
108
24
80
33
53
152
184
15
37
184
4
FC
4
6
5
4
<1
12
40
19
15
4
40
<1
JC03
TC
60
12
32
216
39
22
120
96
14
25
216
3
FC
2
<1
3
7
3
9
46
8
13
4
46
<1
ml
JC05
TC
12
10
92
112
39
14
48
33
15
19
112
1
FC
1
2
6
1
2
3
18
8
15
2
18
<1
JC08
TC
12
7
20
54
25
<1
35
32
15
13
54
1
FC
<1
2
1
2
<1
<1
11
8
15
2
11
<1
-------
Ul
Date
New Jersey Coast, Surf Zone Bacterial Count
Total Coliform (TC) and Fecal Coliform (FC) per 100 ml
Station
7/22/74
8/1/74
8/19/74
9/4/74
10/24/74
11/20/74
12/18/74
1/22/75
Summary, all data
to date
Total Samples
Geometric Mean
Max
Min
JC11
TC FC
2 <1
5 <1
36 4
36 1
6 <1
12 5
340 92
52 9
15 15
16 3
340 92
2 <1
JC14
TC FC
88 <1
28 <1
25 5
660 25
4 <1
9 2
2200 420
132 14
15 15
50 6
2200 420
3 <1
JC21
TC FC
12 <1
44 2
36 5
160 9
26 <1
38 28
96 4
13 6
14 14
22 3
160 28
2 <1
JC24
TC FC
5 <1
3 <1
44 8
180 15
2 <1
14 8
108 5
26 11
15 15
11 3
180 17
2 <1
JC27
TC FC
1
22
36
88
1
84
96
25
15
11
96
<1
<1
<1
6
5
<1
28
5
5
15
3
28
<1
-------
Date
New Jersey Coast, Surf Zone Bacterial Count
Total Coliform (TC)and Fecal Coliform (FC) per 100 ml
Station
7/22/74
8/1/74
8/19/74
9/4/74
10/24/74
11/20/74
12/18/74
1/22/75
Summary, all data
to date
Total Samples
Geometric Mean
Max
Min
JC30
TC FC
-------
Date
New Jersey Coast, Surf Zone Bacterial Count
Total Coliform (TC) and Fecal Colifonn (FC) per 100 ml
Station
JC47A JC49 JC53
TC FC TC FC TC FC
7/22/74 8 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
8/1/74 12 <1 <1 <1 7 <1
8/19/74 11 6 <1 <1 <1 <1
9/4/74 192 1 160 1 23 4
10/24/74 <1 <1 <1 <1 4 <1
11/20/74 . 17 8 23 1 14 6
12/18/74 27 5 8700 5 180 4
1/22/75 21 4 17 2 15 3
Summary, all data
to date
Total Samples 13 13 15 15 15 15
Geometric Mean 61 10 2 61
Max 192 8 8700 9 180 6
Min <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
JC55
TC FC
-------
TABLE 12
00
SUMMAPvY OF WATER QUALITY DATA (WATER COLUMN) COLLECTED ALONG LONG ISLAND SHORELINE
(Samples collected by boat approximately 100 yards from beach)
Date
Top/Bottom
07/20/74
07/20/74
09/23/74
09/23/74
07/20/74
07/20/74
09/23/74
09/23/74
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
Station Identification Number
LIC01
TEMP
17.8
16.6
18.1
18.2
DO
5.3
6.0
7.1
4.5
LIC07
TEMP
15.4
15.0
18.1
18.1
DO
4.6
4.2
3.5
7.4
LIC02
TEMP
-
18.1
17.7
DO
_
-
5.4
3.8
LIC08
TEMP
15.2
14.8
18.2
18.1
DO
4.4
4.2
6.1
6.2
LIC03
TEMP
_
-
18.8
18.8
DO
_
-
4.6
3.3
LIC09
TEMP
15.9
15.7
18.7
18.7
DO
3.5
3.1
2.7
4.1
LIC04
TEMP
16.7
16.2
18.0
18.0
DO
4.5
4.1
4.8
4.2
LIC11
TEMP
_
-
17.9
17.9
DO
_
-
5.9
5.9
LIC05
TEMP
15.4
15.3
18.4
18.0
DO
4.5
4.0
5.8
5.9
LIC06
TEMP DO
_ _»
-
18.3 5.4
18.4 5.2
LIC12
TEMP
-
17.6
17.5
DO
-
4.3
3.3
TEMP = Water temperature °C
DO = Dissolved Oxygen mg/1
-------
VD
Date
07/20/74
07/20/74
08/05/74
08/05/74
09/23/74
09/23/74
02/11/75
07/20/74
07/20/74
08/05/74
08/05/74
09/23/74
09/23/74
02/11/75
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA (WATER COLUMN) COLLECTED ALONG LONG ISLAND SHORELINE
(Samples collected by boat approximately 100 yards from beach)
Top/Bottom
T
B
T
B
T
B
ft
T
B
T
B
T
B
ft
Station Identification Number
LIC01
TC
4
< 4
8
8
8
5
90
FC
< 4
< 4
< 2
< 2
2
< 2
172
LIC07
TC
4
4
7
8
8
2
70
FC
< 4
< 4
2
< 2
< 2
< --2
11
LIC02
TC
_
14
5
2
< 2
22
FC
<
<
_
-
2
2
2
2
11
LIC08
TC
< 4
< 4
4
5
8
5
2
FC
<
<
<
<
<
<
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
LIC03
TC
_
—
8
13
5
2
5
FC
<
<
<
<
_
2
2
2
2
2
LIC09
TC
4
< 4
< 2
2
2
2
17
FC
<
<
<
<
<
4
4
2
2
2
2
17
LIC04
LIC05
TC FC
< 4 <
100 <
5
2 <
7
8
4 <
LIC11
TC FC
_
- -
- -
_ -
5
2
- -
4
4
5
2
7
2
2
TC
< 4
< 4
7
4
23
8
8
FC
< 4
< 4
2
< 2
13
2
5
LIC06
TC FC
_
- -
8 < 2
4 < 2
17 2
7 2
LIC12
2
2
TC
_
-
13
2
5
< 2
5
FC
_
-
8
2
2
< 2
5
TC = Total Coliform (MPN/lOOml)
FC = Fecal Coliform (MPN/lOOml)
< = Less than
T = Top - Approximately 2 ft. from surface
B = Bottom - Approximately 2 ft. from bottom
* = 10 ft. from surface
-------
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF DATA (BOTTOM SEDIMENTS) COLLECTED ALONG LONG ISLAND COAST
(Samples collected by boat approximately 100 yards from beach)
Station Identification Number
Parameter
Total Coliform
(MPN/lOOg)
Fecal Coliform
(MPN/lOOg)
Salmonella
(Qualitative)
Total Organics
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
(mg/kg)
Chromium
(mg/kg)
Copper
(mg/kg)
Lead
(mg/kg)
Date
07/20/74
08/05/74
09/23/74
12/11/74
07/20/74
08/05/74
09/23/74
12/11/74
07/20/74
08/05/74
09/23/74
12/11/74
07/20/74
08/05/74
09/23/74
12/11/74
07/20/74
08/05/74
09/23/74
07/20/74
08/05/74
09/23/74
12/11/74
07/20/74
08/05/74
09/23/74
12/11/74
07/20/74
08/05/74
09/23/74
12/11/74
LIC01
230
50
330
34,800
80
20
20
1,720
Neg.
5,340
4,220
7,540
5,920
< 3
< 3
< 1
6.0
5.0
3.9
5.2
6.0
< 5
3.5
1.8
<50
<50
< 3
3.5
LIC02
< 20
20
1,300
< 20
< 20
230
--
1,360
4,870
2,910
< 3
< 1
6.0
6.3
7.7
7.0
< 2
< 1
<50
< 3
6.0
LIC03
< 20
130
7,900
< 20
< 20
1,090
--
1,480
4,770
5,950
< 3
< 1
7.0
5.8
9.9
9.0
2.0
1.4
<50
< 3
11.3
LIC04
330
130
330
34,800
40
20
< 20
7,900
Neg.
2,380
3,270
7,590
14,300
< 3
< 3
< 1
9.0
8.0
9.0
15.0
9.0
< 5
4.3
5.9
<50
<50
< 3
16.1
LIC05
230
50
490
1,090
20
< 20
80
330
Neg.
2,180
2,460
4,900
2,230
< 3
< 3
< 1
9.0
8.0
6.9
6.8
5.0
5.0
4.8
< 1
<50
<50
< 3
4.8
LIC06
130
2,210
< 20
490
--
4,200
< 1
4.6
3.5
< 3
LIC07
50
130
80
3,300
< 20
< 20
< 20
490
Neg.
1,580
5,230
4,150
2,900
< 3
< 3
< 1
7.0
8.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
49.0
3.0
1.7
<50
<50
< 3
2.4
LIC08
20
< 20
50
790
< 20
< 20
< 20
70
Neg.
2,740
3,690
5,170
4,600
< 3
< 3
< 1
12.0
8.0
8.0
6.3
6.0
14.0
3.5
1.1
<50
<50
< 3
4.7
LIC09
700
50
70
3,300
2
20
< 20
330
Neg.
24,700
3,450
1,790
5,220
< 3
< 3
< 1
6.0
8.0
6.1
9.1
6.0
< 5
4.3
2.1
<50
<50
< 3
5.2
LIC11
50
<
--
410
< 1
< 2
< 2
< 3
LIC12
40
20
80
20
< 20
< 20
--
3,840
4,360
4,660
< 3
< 1
8.0
5.7
7.5
< 5
2.0
< 1
<50
< 3
9.8
-------
TABLE 14 (Cont)
SUMMARY OF DATA (BOTTOM SEDIMENTS) COLLECTED ALONG LONG ISLAND COAST
(Samples collected by boat approximately 100 yards from beach)
Station Identification Number
Parameter
Nickel
(mg/kg)
Mercury
(mg/kg)
Arsenic
(mg/kg)
Date
07/20/74
08/05/74
09/23/74
12/11/74
07/20/74
08/05/74
09/23/74
07/20/74
08/05/74
09/23/74
LIC01
< 10
< 10
3.9
1.9
0.73
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.8
LI CO 2
< 10
< 0.5
< 1
--
0.9
0.3
--
0.9
< 0.5
LI CO 3
< 10
1.0
< 1
--
3.7
0.2
--
0.6
1.3
LIC04
< 10
< 10
1.1
2.25
1.2
2.0
0.4
< 0.5
1.7
2.4
LIC05
< 10
< 10
0.7
< 1
0.67
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.6
1.6
LIC06
--
<0.5
--
--
--
0.4
--
--
< 0.5
LIC07
< 10
< 10
0.8
< 1
0.43
0.1
0.3
< 0.5
0.8
1.3
LIC08
< 10
< 10
1.0
< I
0.77
0.5
0.3
1.1
1.8
4.0
LIC09
< 10
< 10
1.3
< 1
1.4
< 0.1
0.3
0.5
1.6
2.0
LIC11
--
< 0.5
--
--
--
0.2
--
--
< 0.5
LIC12
< 10
< 0.5
< 1
--
1.2
0.6
--
0.5
0.9
oo Neg. - Sought but not detected
-------
TABLE 15
Summary of Water Quality Date (Water Column) Collected Along New Jersey Shoreline
(Samples Collected By Boat Approximately 100 Yards from Beach)
Date
Top/Bottom
Station Identification Number
8/6/74
8/6/74
9/12/74
9/12/74
8/6/74
8/6/74
9/12/74
9/12/74
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
JC01A
Temp
22.0
21.0
-
—
JC11
Temp
21.6
19.6
-
-
DO
7.9
7.1
4.9
5.2
DO
10.0
6.4
7.6
4.1
Tern
21.
20.
-
—
Tern
21.
20.
-
-
JC02
E DO
9 7.4
5 7.1
4.9
5.0
JC14
£ DO
5 10.4
6 10.0
5.8
6.1
Tern
21.
21.
-
—
Tern
19.
17.
-
-
JC03
E £0
4 9.5
4 9.5
6.5
6.0
JC21
E DO
0 6.1
6 6.0
6.4
5.7
Tern
21.
20.
-
—
Tern
17.
16.
-
-
JC05
E DO
5 9.5
2 9.5
7.3
5.2
JC24
E DO
1 5.0
1 4.9
6.3
5.4
Tern
21.
19.
-
~
Tern
17.
14.
-
-
JC08
E DO
7 9.4
1 8.8
8.2
4.2
JC27
p_ DO
6 4.5
4 2.8
5.9
5.4
Temp = Water Temperature C
DO = Dissolved Oxygen mg/1
-------
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA (WATER COLUMN) COLLECTED ALONG NEW JERSEY SHORELINE
(Samples collected by boat approximately 100 yards from beach)
Date
00
u>
08/06/74
08/06/74
09/12/74
09/12/74
02/27/75
02/27/75
08/06/74
08/06/74
09/12/74
09/12/74
02/27/75
02/27/75
Top/Bottom
Station Identification Number
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
T
B
JC01A
TC
130
46
1,300
230
172
172
FC
< 2
4
49
79
70
30
JC02
TC
49
33
790
172
230
70
FC
2
2
221
23
22
5
JC03
TC
22
17
109
79
79
109
FC
4
< 2
14
17
8
11
JC05
TC
2
8
230
49
49
26
FC
< 2
2
22
2
2
4
JC08
TC
5
8
79
23
49
17
FC
< 2
2
23
2
< 2
5
JC11
JC14
JC21
JC24
JC27
TC
T:
31
33
23
33
17
FC
2
8
2
8
2
< 2
TC
114
330
8
7
11
63
FC
70
79
2
2
5
8
TC
230
330
141
3,480
49
33
FC
79
49
109
330
33
2
TC
23
49
490
490
130
49
FC
5
14
230
70
22
7
TC
49
33
49
2
13
FC
49
< 2
22
< 2
< 2
TC = Total Coliform (MPN/lOOml)
FC = Fecal Coliform (MPN/lOOml)
< = Less than
T = Top - Approximately 2 ft. from surface
B = Bottom - Approximately 2 ft, from bottom
-------
TABLE 17
Summary of Data (Bottom Sediments) Collected Along the New Jersey Coast
(Samples Collected by Boat
Parameter
Total Coliform
(MPN/lOOg)
Fecal Coliform
(MPN/lOOg)
Salmonella
(qualitative)
Total Organics
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
(mg/kg)
Chromium
(mg/kg)
Copper
(mg/kg)
Lead
(mg/kg)
Nickel
(mg/kg)
Mercury
(mg/kg)
Arsenic
(mg/kg)
Date
08/6/74
09/12/74
12/12/74
08/6/74
09/12/74
12/12/74
08/6/74
09/12/74
08/6/74
09/12/74
12/12/74
08/6/74
09/12/74
08/6/74
09/12/74
12/12/74
08/6/74
09/12/74
12/12/74
08/6/74
09/12/74
12/12/74
08/6/74
09/12/74
12/12/74
08/6/74
09/12/74
08/6/74
09/12/74
JC01
80
1,090
1,300
<20
130
70
Neg
8,220
8,840
11,900
< 3
< 1
14.0
9.2
18.0
< 5
3.0
1.2
<50
<50
8.7
<10
6.0
2.7
< 0.1
< 0.2
1.7
3.0
JC02
170
330
1,090
< 20
330
170
-
3,070
5,150
17,500
< 3
< 1
5.0
5.1
24.0
< 5
< 2
1.7
<50
<50
8.4
<10
2.0
4.0
< 0.1 •.
0.3
1.3
3.2
JC03
70
50
790
< 20
< 20
230
Neg
8,940
4,310
11,900
< 3
< 1
18.0
5.1
18.0
5.0
< 2
1.5
<50
<50
10.7
<10
< 2
2.2
< 0.1
< 0.2
2.1
0.8
Approximately 100 Yards
from Beach)
Station Identification Number
JC05
50
130
230
< 20
20
50
—
7,640
10,460
11,400
< 3
< 1
11.0
6.9
13.0
5.0
< 2
1.5
<50
<50
23.6
<10
3.0
2.2
< 0.1
< 0.2
3.0
3.0
JC08
230
130
330
20
< 20
70
—
14,900
23,040
24,300
< 3
< 1
30.0
30.3
27.0
5.0
3.0
1.4
<50
<50
37.0
<10
7.0
4.0
0.2
< 0.2
2.9
13.2
JC11
790
50
790
170
20
50
-
12,400
22,300
22,800
< 3
< 1
20.0
23.1
36.0
< 5
3.0
1.4
<50
<50
16.5
<10
7.0
3.1
< 0.1
0.3
4.7
15.9
JC14
24,000
170
7,_000
7,900
20
490
Neg
9,980
15,700
16,500
< 3
< 1
32.0
32.9
46.0
5.0
3.0
2.6
<50
<50
23.4
<10
4.2
0.1
0.3
2.7
7.55
JC21
490
940
80
110
130
< 20
:
14,100
16,200
14,700
< 3
< 1
23.0
16.4
24.0
< 5
2.0
1.8
<50
<50
30.9
<10
5.0
3.8
< 0.1
0.2
3.4
7.0
JC24
230
490
4,900
130
220
210
:
12,200
14,800
3,150
< 3
< 1
15.0
12.3
3.6
5.0
3.0
< 1
<50
<50
4.6
<10
4.0
0.5
1.0
0.2
2.7
4.1
JC27
170
110
4^600
20
50
220
~
13,550
9,430
4,170
< 3
< 1
6.0
4.6
7.5
< 5
< 2
< 1
<50
<50
9.6
<10
< 2
0.9
0.1
0.3
3.7'
9.0
Neg. - Sought but not detected
-------
TABLE 18
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY DATA (WATER COLUMN) COLLECTED ALONG LONG ISLAND TRANSECT
Date
Top/Bottom
Station Identification Number
NYB40
NYB41
NYB42
NYB43
10/23/74
10/23/74
T
B
TC
5
5
FC DO
2 8.3
2 8.0
TC
172
5
FC
49
< 2
DO
8.1
6.4
TC
141
330
FC
70
109
DO
8.2
8.3
TC
31
5
FC DO
8 8.8
< 2 7.1
00
Ui
10/23/74
10/23/74
T
B
TC
NYB44
FC DO
8 2 8.3
< 2 < 2 8.0
NYB45
TC
FC DO
NYB46
TC
FC DO
TC
NYB47
FC DO
TC = Total Coliform (MPN/lOOml)
FC = Fecal Coliform (MPN/lOOml)
DO = Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
< = Less than
-------
TABLE 19
SUMMARY OF DATA (BOTTOM SEDIMENTS) COLLECTED ALONG LONG ISLAND TRANSECT
Station Identification Number
00
Parameter
Total Coliform
(MPN/lOOg)
Fecal Coliform
(MPN/lOOg)
Salmonella
(Qualitative)
Total Organics
(mg/kg)
Cadmium
(mg/kg)
Chromium
(mg/kg)
Copper
(mg/kg)
Lead
(mg/kg)
Nickel
(mg/kg)
Mercury
(mg/kg)
Arsenic
(mg/kg)
Date
10/23/74
12/05/74
10/23/74
12/05/74
10/23/74
12/05/74
10/23/74
12/05/74
10/23/74
12/05/74
10/23/74
12/05/74
10/23/74
12/05/74
10/23/74
. 12/05/74
10/23/74
12/05/74
10/23/74
12/05/74
10/23/74
12/05/74
NYB40
87
1,410
20
230
—
7,390
8,370
< 0.1
6.1
11.0
12.0
3.0
< 4
<20
2.3
2.0
0.2
< 0.5
NYB41
2,300
460
40
50
—
6,130
15,700
< 0.1
5.3
10.0
11.0
2.0
< 4
20.0
1.3
3.0
0'.2
4.1
NYB42
110
< 20
< 20
< 20
Neg.
16,400
27,100
0.1
14.8
16.0
12.0
6.0
6.0
30.0
4.4
7.0
0.1
18.9
NYB43
170
20
50
< 20
Neg.
30,900
35,600
1.9
74.6
65.0
65.0
65.0
10.0
80.0
15.0
19.0
3.3
9.9
NYB44
790
330
130
80
-~
18,500
25,000
1.7
34.1
30.0
53.0
30.0
20.0
60.0
5.4
10.0
2.8
5.4
NYB45
10,900
790
4,900
50
—
32,400
:
67.0
50.0
170.0
20.0
—
—
Neg. - Sought but not detected
------- |