£<•
LU
..............r...J$jgim,,-.-.-..
:3^yftSy^-wyfa^^?:?:
jmmmm^m^mm
:j$3$8Sw&:ffi^M$&&
ffffffMf^SfiW^^Mtff^
OCEAN DISPOSAL
PRACTICES
d EFFECTS
| 1 111 H^HHHHyH^iyOHHHiiyllli
H: A report to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency by the
President's Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board.
0/I "
'
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D.C. 20460
.-*• ^>-
^ * .«'
-------
OCEAN DISPOSAL
PRACTICES
and EFFECTS
*A report to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency of a
recent meeting held by the President's
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board.
SEPTEMBER 26-29, 1972
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
THE PRESIDENT'S WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
Chairman
Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Executive Secretary
Mr. Alan Levin
Office of the Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Ex Officio Member
Honorable Elliot L. Richardson
Secretary, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
Washington, D. C. 20201
Members
Mr. Jack A. Beaver, General Manager
San Bernardino Valley Municipal
Water District
1350 South E Street
P. 0. Box 5906
San Bernardino, California 92412
Mr. Frederick J. Conn, Jr.
President and Publisher
San Angelo Standard-Times
34 W. Terrace
San Angelo, Texas 76901
Mr. William D. Farr
President
Farr Farms Company
Box 878
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Mr. Ray W. Ferguson
California Water Commissioner
218 Deodar Street
Ontario, California 91762
Mr. Thomas W. Gleason
International President
International Longshoremen's
Association, AFL-CIO
17 Battery Place, Suite 1530
New York, New York 10004
Mr. Byron P. Jordan
Executive Vice President
French Jordan, Inc.
1010 Common Street, Suite 1065
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 .
Mr. Irvan F. Mendenhall
President
Daniel, Mann, Johnson § Mendenhall
3250 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90010
Mrs. Samuel Rome
Environmental Quality Chairman
League of Women Voters of Illinois
1421 Forest Avenue
River Forest, Illinois 60305
Dr. Mitchell G. Zadrozny
Professor of Geography
Wright Junior College
34 N. Austin
Chicago, Illinois 60634
STAFF:
Mrs. Shron Gascon, Staff Assistant
Miss Elaine Galloway, Secretary
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Mr. Administrator:
I am pleased to submit this report of the meeting of the President's
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board on ocean disposal practices
and effects held in New York City on September 26-29, 1972.
The Board met to explore and advise on the problem of ocean dis-
posal not only as it relates to New York, but also as a national
and international issue. The primary objectives of the meeting
were to focus public attention on the topic, to explore alter-
natives to ocean dumping pollution, and to provide some insight
for obtaining answers to unknown aspects of ocean disposal problems.
The Conclusions and Recommendations included as an Appendix to
this report were formulated following a comprehensive briefing to
the Board by representatives of Federal, State, and local govern-
ment, a flyover by helicopter to view dumping practices in the
New York Bight, and a full day of public testimony by experts in
the field of ocean disposal.
As you are aware, since the meeting some of the Board's major
recommendations have already been implemented through enactment of
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The Board
stands ready to help in any way possible to translate its remaining
recommendations into action.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Levin, Executive Secretary
President's Air and Water Advisory
Boards
-11-
-------
INTRODUCTION
The President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board was autho-
rized by the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1956 (P.L.
84-660). The Board's authority was continued under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500).
The Board's mission is to advise, consult with, and make recommen-
dations to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
on matters of policy relating to water pollution control. Under
this authority the Board regularly examines all phases of the
national water pollution problem and from time to time holds public
meetings to hear the views of individual citizens, various levels
of government and private agencies and groups.
There are nine members, appointed by the President, who serve three
years each. The Chairman is the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Secretary of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare is an ex officio member. Three of the appointive
terms expire each June 30 or at such time thereafter as successive
appointments become effective. No member may succeed himself within
one year of the date his term ends.
The Advisory Board holds four to six.meetings a year. Usually two
of these are held in Washington, D. C. for the purpose of reviewing
clean water plans, policy and progress with the EPA Administrator.
The other meetings are held in various regions of the country at the
call of the Chairman, or at request of individual Board members or a
State governor who feels that a particular water pollution problem
should have the Board's attention. The regional meetings serve,
first to inform the Board members on the various types of water
pollution problems and control programs that exist throughout the
Nation. Also, because they are open to the public, the regional
meetings focus public attention on particular city, State or regional
problems and stimulate action for pollution control in problem areas
under review.
-111-
-------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1972:
The meeting was convened in the Environmental Protection Agency, Region
II, New York City by Mr. A. James Barnes, Assistant to the Administrator,
EPA in the absence of Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, permanent
Chairman of the President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board.
Board members present: Mr. Jack A. Beaver, San Bernardino, California;
Mr. Frederick J. Conn, Jr., San Angelo, Texas; Mr. William D. Farr,
Greeley, Colorado; Mr. Ray W. Ferguson, Ontario, California;
Mr. Byron P. Jordan, New Orleans, Louisiana; Mr. Irvan F. Mendenhall,
Los Angeles, California; Mrs. Samuel Rome, River Forest, Illinois;
Dr. Mitchell G. Zadrozny, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Richard S. Green
represented the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare who is the
ex officio member of the Board. Former Board member, Dr. Wallace W.
Harvey, Jr., Manteo, North Carolina served as a consultant for the
meeting. Not present was Mr. Thomas W. Gleason, New York, New York.
The following newly appointed members were sworn in by Chairman Barnes:
Mr. Jack A. Beaver, Mr. Frederick J. Conn, Jr., and Dr. Mitchell Zadrozny.
After the swearing in ceremony and introduction of the Board members,
Mr. Barnes emphasized the importance of the meeting as it related to the
pending legislation on ocean dumping (The Marine Protection Research,
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972). He also pointed out the inter-relationship
between ocean disposal and other pollutents and that ocean dumping is
merely a small part of the overall ocean disposal problem.
Following Mr. Barnes' statement, the Board heard from Mr. Jerome Kretchmer,
Administrator, New York City's Environmental Protection Administration,
who spoke on behalf of Mayor John V. Lindsay. Mr. Kretchmer referred
to New York City's staggering environmental problems and emphasized
that what the City needs from the Federal government 4s- financial, tech-
nical, and legal assistance. He explained that although the Board is
meeting on ocean dumping, New York City's fundamental problem is that
of solid wastes. Mr. Kretchmer then reviewed the City's sewage sludge
problems and some of the possible alternatives to ocean dumping, none of
which, in Mr. Kretchmer's opinion, would allow an immediate change in the
City's present practice of dumping. In the area of toxic metals, he
stated that the City has acted to remove such metals discharged by com-
panies into the City's sewer system. However, he strongly urged for
the adoption of Federal standards in this area to avoid companies from
"jumping" to other jurisdictions with less stringent standards.
Mr. Kretchmer summarized the needs of New York City as follows:
-1-
-------
(1) A joint Federal-City project to explore the environmental
implications of expanding ocean disposal in such a way that
there would be no harm to the ocean. This project could
include a testing program of the effects of leaching or
other escape of baled refuse, dumped beyond the continental
shelf.
(2) Alternative methods of disposing of solid wastes. The City
needs money for research and technology and a change in
some restrictive Federal legislation in the recycling area.
Methods should be explored of making solid waste a useful
material for landfill in strip mines, quarries, and sand pits,
etc.
(3) Federal legislation to set uniform standards to control dis-
charge of heavy metals to avoid the threat of industries
fleeing to less regulated sites.
(4) Federal legislation to provide funding for the disposal of
sewage sludge should the current ocean dumping practices of
New York City be altered in any way as a result of the Board's
recommendations.
Finally, Mr. Kretchmer made a strong plea for Federal-City cooperation
to work out short and long range solutions. "If a Federal-City partner-
ship can find solutions now for New York, the problems of other urban
coastal complexes can follow suit", Mr. Kretchmer concluded.
Mr. Gerald M. Hansler, EPA Regional Administrator, Region II, presented
an overview of the ocean dumping problems in his region. Mr. Hansler
concentrated on the sludge disposal problems and discussed some of the
possible alternatives. He explained that incineration was tried but
that this increased the particulate matter in the atmosphere thereby
causing an air pollution problem. As a result, he has concluded that
ocean dumping of sludge in the New York-New Jersey area should be regu-
lated but not totally banned. Mr. Hansler also proposed the idea of
experimenting with digested sludge and spreading it on land in low
nutrient areas. He concluded that additional regulatory authority and
technology are needed and especially the funds to develop such technology.
The Board then flew by helicopter to view dumping of sewage sludge, acid
wastes, and dredge spoils in the New York Bight. Mr. Richard Dewling,
Director of Surveillance, EPA Region II, conducted a briefing aboard the
helicopter. Mr. Dewling pointed out that 5 or 6 barges a day each from
New York City and New Jersey municipalities dump (50% digested, 50% raw
sludge) into the New York Bight, but that there is no assurance that
such barges go to the full 12 mile limit designated for such dumping.
Mr. Dewling further stated that 70% of all the sludge dumping, by vessel
or barge, in the country occurs there. He indicated that water quality
-2-
-------
is not too adversely affected on the surface, but that bottom organ-
isms such as lobsters, oysters and clams do not survive. The acid
wastes dumping are industrial discharges with 90% originating from one
company - National Lead. Mr. Dewling indicated 55% of all the acid
dumped in the U. S. takes place in the New York Bight area. However,
he did emphasize that such wastes do not have high levels of suspended
solids and therefore the impact on the ocean bottom is minimized.
Finally, the Board witnessed the dumping of dredge spoils from a U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers barge. Mr. Dewling pointed out that the effects
of such dumping are immediate oxygen depletion and that there have
been citizen complaints during the summer from New Jersey shore residents
as a result of dredge spoils washing up on beaches. Finally, it was
explained that no sludge dumping by barge occurs on the West and Gulf
coasts and that those areas employ submarine dumping by outfall with
the sludge pumped out with the effluent.
The afternoon session of the briefing for the Board continued at
Governor's Island. The first speaker was Mr. Richard Goodenough,
Director, New Jersey Division of Marine Services who represented
Mr. Richard J. Sullivan, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection. Mr. Goodenough explained that as in many other
States, New Jersey has reorganized its State pollution control agency
to deal with the environment. The State has also recently passed a
Clean Ocean Act to regulate pollutants that are dumped at sea. One
of the problems facing New Jersey is trying to determine how far out
to dump. As part of the new Act, rules and regulations have been pro-
posed providing for licenses and permits for dumping. However, before
such regulations are officially issued the State is required to hold
public hearings.
Mr. Roger Strelow, Senior Staff Member of the Council on Environmental
Quality summarized that ocean dumping has been an important concern
to the Council ever since its formation early in 1970. In April of
that year, in a special message to Congress, the President directed
the Chairman of CEQ to work with other Federal agencies on a compre-
hensive study of ocean dumping to recommend further research needs
and appropriate legislation and administrative actions.
Mr. Strelow then reviewed the magnitude of the problem as follows:
Our oceans, containing 140 million square miles of water surface,
cover more than 70% of the earth and are an important part of the over-
all world environment. They produce about two thirds of the oxygen
we breathe and absorb a major part of the excess carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. The oceans also affect world climate and provide food,
minerals and other necessities. Unfortunately, a very large portion
of the world's pollution eventually ends up in the oceans. Much of
our air pollution is either carried directly into the oceans by wind
or washes into the ocean from the land with rain or snow. It is
-3-
-------
estimated that more than 90% of the petroleum polluting oceans each
year comes not from tanker breakups or other disasters but from the
vaporization of gasoline and other petroleum products ashore. The
amount of lead and DDT entering the marine environment from the
atmosphere may equal or surpass the amount carried there from rivers.
Pollution from rivers, however, is still the principal pathway by
which most pollutants reach the oceans. Industrial waste effluents
are the largest components of river-borne pollution entering the oceans
in coastal and estuarine regions. Close behind are municipal waste
effluents. Agricultural pollutants from land runoff add to the total.
Some municipal and other wastes enter the ocean directly through sub-
merged outfalls. Vessels contribute sewage and oil, and particularly
appropriate for the Board meeting, substances purposefully trans-
ported from land for the purpose of disposal in the ocean. Altogether,
these sources of pollution have created a disturbing condition,
alarming scientists throughout the world.
Mr. Strelow continued by pointing out that ocean dumping is a small
but potentially growing part of the overall ocean pollution picture.
He stated that although domestic dumping off the Pacific Coast has
declined the reverse may be true of the Atlantic Coast. We know even
less of the trends in and volume of ocean dumping by other nations.
Mr. Strelow emphasized that in the U. S., we have controls over air and
water pollution, but to permit a truly systematic and comprehensive
control of pollution, we must have regulatory controls on ocean dumping
as well. He referred to the ocean dumping legislation passed by both
Houses of Congress, but temporarily held up because of jurisdictional
squabbling between Congressional Committees.
Mr. Strelow briefly discussed current status - domestically and inter-
nationally - on ocean dumping controls. He mentioned the CEQ
comprehensive study: Ocean Dumping: A National Policy issued in
October 1970. The Council's study concluded that ocean dumping wastes
are heavily concentrated and contain materials that have a number of
adverse effects. The report further concluded that existing regu-
latory activities and authorities were not adequate to handle either
the current or the potential expanded problem of ocean dumping. The
report recommended legislation that would require a permit from EPA
for all ocean dumping activities subject to U. S. jurisdiction. It
also underscored the need for international action to protect the
world's oceans. Finally, the report identified various areas of
research needing attention in order to permit the most effective exer-
cise of both national and international controls. On the basis of
the Council's report, the President proposed a Marine Protection Act -
the legislation currently pending approval. At the same time, he
instructed the Secretary of State in coordination with CEQ to develop
and pursue international initiatives for the world-wide control of
ocean dumping. The U. S. has been working with other nations on an
-------
international convention to control ocean dumping in accordance with
a permit system to he administered by national authorities. The
June 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment called
upon interested governments to convene a conference by November 1972
to negotiate a convention for signature before the end of the year.
In the meantime, in February 1972, 12 European nations signed the
Oslo Convention - a regional convention to curtail ocean dumping of
hazardous wastes by ships and planes in the northeast Atlantic and the
North Sea.
Mr. Strelow concluded that it may be that the oceans ultimately will
provide the most environmentally acceptable repository for limited
types of man-generated wastes, at certain sites and under certain
conditions. However, the available evidence indicates that recycling
of the materials or land disposal appear to be preferrable. The legis-
lation and international convention should provide the mechanisms for
requiring ocean disposal to be dealt with on this basis.
The next speaker, Mr. T. A. Wastler, Chief, Water Quality Protection
Branch, EPA first discussed the scope of the ocean disposal problem.
He indicated that the sum total of pollutants to marine waters is not
known, largely due to the size and complexity of the problem, but some
quantitative estimates of toxic constitutents developed by the National
Academy of Sciences is impressive. In this regard, it is estimated
that from 1/4 to 1/2 of fishing production is directly or indirectly
dependent on estuaries. These are the areas in which we are concen-
trating our wastes, thereby inflicting an as yet undetermined stress
on coastal marine ecosystems. There is little information about the
fate of wastes materials after they reach the open ocean, but a few
illustrations show that man's methods of waste disposal are impacting
there as well.
Mr. Wastler pointed out that pollutants can enter the marine environ-
ment along many pathways, but there are three main ones. The first
is as the residuum of pollutants from inland sources discharged to
rivers which ultimately flow into the sea. The second pathway is as
direct discharges into the ocean through ocean outfalls, and the wastes
so discharged can contain the wide variety of polluting substances
present in municipal and industrial waste streams. Direct dumping of
wastes into the ocean is the third main pathway, and such wastes
generally contain pollutants which are extremely difficult or uneco-
nomical to treat by conventional means. Mr. Wastler then proceeded to
discuss existing legislative authorities as follows: Continuous
point source discharges of pollutants into "navigable" waters are
controlled under existing laws by water quality standards set by
State and Federal action. The existing Federal Water Pollution Act
does not contain authority for EPA to regulate directly continuous
point source discharges into the contiguous zone or to regulate the
dumping of waste material into marine waters. Under present law,
-5-
-------
discharge to navigable waters are controlled under Section 13 of the
Refusre Act of 1899, however, the contiguous zone and the open oceans
are not included in the law, final authority for permitting the
dumping and/or discharge of waste material into navigable waters is
vested in the U. S. Army- Corps of Engineers. Within the scope of
existing laws, then, EPA has no effective means of controlling the
dumping of wastes into the marine environment.
On the subject of anticipated legislation, Mr. Wastler reviewed the
provisions of the proposed Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act) under which the transportation and
dumping of all materials in the open seas outside the limit of the
territorial waters will be regulated by issuance of permits. This
proposed legislation addresses itself specifically to the problem of
ocean dumping, however, there is a close relationship between the
responsibilities explicitly assigned in this legislation and the
authorities involved in the extension of EPA authorities to the con-
tiguous zone of the near-shore-oceanic waters, as is proposed in the
current legislation to amend the Federal Water Pollution Act. In
addition to these proposed laws, there already exists recognition of
concern for the problems of the "estuarine zone" in authority to study
this part of the environment and to make recommendations on how to use,
develop, and preserve it under Section 5(m) of the existing Act and
under Section 140(n) in the proposed amendments.
Mr. Wastler outlined some of EPA's past, present and proposed strategies
in dealing with the marine environment. The past approach to combating
marine pollution problems has been one of responsive enforcement. This
approach is not, however, sufficient to cope with the existing and
potential pollution problems of the estuarine, coastal, and oceanic
environments. Mr. Wastler stated that the strategy necessary to cope
with such problems, including ocean dumping must be one of correcting
potential problems before they occur as well as making a direct attack
on the problems that already exist. EPA's program strategy in imple-
menting the Ocean Dumping Act of 1972 will be an integrated approach
toward control and cessation of ocean dumping, using not only the new
authorities of the Act, but also the other authorities EPA has, or
expects to have, in the marine environment. Mr. Wastler stated the
program consists of two phases. The first is a predominantly in-house
effort during the first six months directed toward, developing criteria
guidelines and regulatons for the permit issuing system to become
operational six months after enactment of the law. The second phase
consists of the routine operation of the permit system while working
with NOAA and the Coast Guard in developing information from which
revisions to criteria can make the permit system more effective and
which will also lead to a more integrated approach to the solution of
all marine pollution programs.
Mr. Wastler then briefly outlined some of the responsibilities of other
Federal agencies with regard to ocean dumping and particularly in
reference to the proposed legislation:
-6-
-------
00 U. S. Coast Guard; The Ocean Dumping Act specifically charges
the Coast Guard with the surveillance of ocean dumping operations
and enforcement of the conditions under which specific ocean
dumping permits will be granted.
(2) U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: The Corps has had special regula-
tory authority over ocean dumping for the port areas of New York,
Baltimore, and Hampton Roads, Virginia, under the Supervisory
Harbors Act of 1888; the Ocean Dumping Act of 1972 rescinds this
authority. Section 4 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1905, and
Section 13 of the 1899 Refuse Act which regulate ocean dumping in
the territorial sea, are also superseded by the Ocean Dumping Act.
(3) Atomic Energy Commission: The Ocean Dumping Act of 1972 requires
that the AEC consult with the Administrator, EPA prior to issuing
permits for the ocean disposal of radioactive material and that
the AEC, in issuing permits comply with standards set by the
Administrator respecting limits on radiation exposures or levels,
or concentrations or quantities of radioactive materials.
(4) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: The Act
specifically charges NOM with responsibility for monitoring of
dumping areas and for comprehensive research on ocean pollution.
C5) Department of State: The Act directs the Secretary of State, in
consultation with the Administrator, to seek effective inter-
national action and cooperation to ensure protection of the marine
environment.
(6) Other Federal Agencies: The Act directs the Administrator, in
developing criteria for ocean dumping, to consult with the
Secretaries of Commerce, Interior, State, Defense, Agriculture,
HEW, and DOT, AEC; and other appropriate Federal, State, and local
officials.
Mr. Arnold Joseph, EPA Office of Research and Monitoring outlined EPA's
program of research related to ocean dumping. The Office of Research
and Monitoring conducts two programs of scientific, marine pollution
related research. These programs are known as "Ecological Effects" and
as "Fate of Pollutants in the Marine Environment." Both have as a
principal objective the development of scientifically sound marine water
quality criteria to be used in establishing marine water quality stan-
dards. The Ecological Effects program involves studies on the effects
of a wide range of pollutants on marine fishes and invertebrates.
Pollutants studied include heavy metals, oil and oil spill dispersants,
chlorine, and heat. Fundamental work on dissolved oxygen, salinity and
pH requirements of organisms at several trophic levels is also conducted.
Although none of the Ecological Effects research program has been
directly concerned with dump site conditions and effects, the research
-7-
-------
results on specific pollutants are applicable to dumping in so far as
the s-ame pollutants would Be introduced By- dumping.
The Fate of Pollutants program Has been more directly concerned with
ocean waste disposal problems. Its studies deal with the processes
and mechanisms governing the introduction, transport, distribution and
chemical transformation of pollutants in marine waters. Emphasis is
given to development of predictive and descriptive math models for the
fate of pollutants, and to developing guidelines for environmentally non-
degrading waste dischrge practices. Also, under the Fate program there
are several studies related to the sludge dumping problem. One involves
the chemical characterization of municipal sewage sludges destined for
sea disposal. Measurements are being made of heavy metals, persistent
organics and other possible pollutants contained in the sludges. The
other is a project in cooperation with the Navy's Fleet Numerical
Weather Center to develop and test a computerized coastal circulation
model that will predictably describe the mixing taking place over sludge
dumping areas. More projects with a direct relationship to sludge
dumping problems are contemplated, budgets permitting.
Mr. Joseph reviewed some other marine related programs of the Office
of Research and Monitoring which include those of an engineering develop-
ment nature to develop systems, mainly hardware, to control or abate
oil and hazardous material spills and to treat shipboard sewage. There
is also a substantial interest in developing alternate means of sludge
disposal on land. These are addressed in the 'Task Force Report on
Sludge Disposal" by the Office of Research and Monitoring, April 1972.
Mr. Joseph also mentioned a report, "Ocean Disposal of Barge Delivered
Liquid and Solid Wastes from U. S. Coastal Cities" (1971), by the
Dillingham Corporation of LaJolla, California. This work was supported
by the Office of Solid Waste Management, EPA and comprehensively covers
the logistics in 1968 of ocean-barge disposal of all classes of wastes.
Mr. Joseph emphasized that we are still some distance away from under-
standing the impact on or the capacity of the marine environment with
respect to disposed wastes, and that there is no shortage of recommen-
dations or ideas for research. He explained that the Office of Research
and Monitoring has developed a work plan to implement the pending ocean
dumping legislation. The program outlined would work toward seven
objectives:
(1) Characterization of dump materials;
(2) Physical, chemical, ecological effects of past dumping;
C3) Toxic and/or beneficial effects of sludges, spoils;
C4) Testing protocols for potential waste disposers;
-8-
-------
C5] Optimum dumping technology;
C6) Criteria for site selection and use; and
Bioassays of pollution in dumped materials.
Mr. Joseph concluded by stating that in order to establish scientifi-
cally objective, quantitatively valid criteria, it is necessary to
have accurate information and data on the materials to be dumped,
particularly the physical and chemical forms of the ecologically dis-
ruptive constituents.
Mr. Martin Lang, Commissioner, New York City Department of Water
Resources discussed the City's sludge disposal problems. Mr. Lang
pointed out that it is his mission to protect and enhance receiving
waters and that New York City is presently treating 75% of its waste-
water. As a result some waterways, namely the East River, portions of
New York Harbor and Jamaica Bay have reportedly had rising levels of
dissolved oxygen. Mr. Lang's position is that it is better to dump
sludge and preserve the more precious in-surface waters. It is
Mr. Lang's view that the City's real problem is solid waste and if that
problem is solved it will in turn solve the sludge problem. Mr. Lang
discussed some of the alternatives such as incineration, however, he
is not satisfied with the air pollution impact. Another alternative
being considered is to use sludge as a landfill to build a park.
Mr. Lang concluded with a discussion of the metal content in sludge.
He emphasized that the metals input can be minimized, but it must be
done in a rational manner. Further, he stated that what is needed are
good data in relation to the amounts of concentration and effects , not
emotion. Mr. Lang also stated that the toxic metals problem in sludge
is not as severe in New York City as in some other large cities.
The day's final speaker was Dr. Roland Smith, Chief, Division of
Living Resources, Office of Marine Resources, NOAA. Dr. Smith indicated
that although NOAA has no direct responsibilities for regulating ocean
dumping, the issue is of key importance to his agency. A major goal
of NOAA is to develop programs to assure that the ocean environment and
its resources are wisely used. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
has fisheries development responsibilities on which ocean dumping and
other environmental quality issues bear directly. A second major goal
of NOAA is to monitor and predict environmental conditions. In this
regard the pending Federal ocean dumping legislation assigns important
responsibilities for research and monitoring on ocean dumping to NOAA.
Dr. Smith emphasized that in exercising these responsibilities, his agency
expects to be able to provide information which will be of use to EPA
and the Corps of Engineers in their regulatory programs. NOAA has
already conducted studies on the effects of the dumping practices on
the biota of the New York Bight.
-9-
-------
Dr. Smith, then described a major new program being developed by NOAA -
the Marine Ecosystems Analysis Program QfESA), The program encom-
passes issues broader than ocean dumping, But it is the principal
vehicle through, which NOM's ocean dumping responsibilities will be
addressed. The objectives of MESA are to:
(1) Describe, understand, and monitor the physical, chemical, and
biological processes of marine environments,
C2) Provide information and expertise required for effective manage-
ment of marine areas and the rational use of their associated
resources and,
(3) Analyze impact on marine ecosystems of natural phenomena or man-
made alterations.
Dr. Smith explained that an aspect of the MESA program will be a
systematic, comprehensive study of the New York Bight which is to be
initiated this year. He stressed that the success of this project
will be heavily dependent upon NOAA's success in developing effective
relationships with the other agencies working in the Bight such as the
U. S. and New York City Environmental Protection Agencies and the
Corps of Engineers. As part of this effort, the Corps of Engineers
and NOAA jointly sponsored an interagency meeting on September 12, 1972
to review the programs of the various agencies. As an outcome, NOAA
is chairing an informal interagency task force which is to formulate
recommendations for program coordination which all agencies concerned
can review.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1972:
The Board held a public meeting to hear testimony from invited experts
in the field of ocean disposal. Eleven speakers presented statements
before the Board. In addition, Senator William V. Roth (R) Delaware,
entered a statement for the record. A list of the speakers and the
organizations they represent is attached to this report as Appendix 1.
A summary of the statements follows. Senator Roth's entire statement
is included in this report as Appendix 2. A complete set of the other
statements may be obtained from Alan Levin, Executive Secretary,
President's Air and Water Advisory Boards, Office of the Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, Room 1127, Washington, D. C. 20460.
Chairman Barnes introduced the Board members and reviewed the prior
day's procedures for the public's information.
-10-
-------
Mr. Henry Diamond, Commissioner, New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation:
Commissioner Diamond welcomed the Board on behalf of Governor Rockefeller.
He emphasized that this is a very important time for the future of water
pollution control in the country* in light of anticipation of amendments
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. He pointed out that if the
amendments are passed there will have to be a massive retooling job.
Commissioner Diamond explained that New York State has come to the end
of the first phase of its Pure Waters Program, has committed about
$3 billion and has under way 348 sewage treatment plants across the State.
In moving to the second stage the State has on the ballot this fall a
bond issue calling for a $650 million appropriation for continuance of
the State's share of the water quality program. Included are portions
of the bond issue for solid wastes, for land acquisition and for air
pollution control, thereby indicating the State's cognizance that air
and water pollution and land use are closely interrelated.
Commissioner Diamond turned to the issue of sludge dumping and stressed
that in order to cease this practice most of the sewage plants in the
New York City area would have to be closed down causing disastrous
consequences.
Another point emphasized by the Commissioner is the.need for additional
Federal funds for sewage treatment plant construction and the importance
that actual appropriations of funds be commensurate with authorizations.
During the questioning following Commissioner Diamond's presentation,
Mr. Barnes inquired as to the possibilities of land disposal of sewage
sludge. Commissioner Diamond replied that there are some possibilities
in certain parts of the State, but as for New York City land is enor-
mously valuable and scarce.
Dr. John B. Pearce, Officer-in-Charge, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Middle Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center, Sandy Hook Laboratory, Highlands,
New Jersey:
Dr. Pearce discussed the impact of ocean dumping in the New York Bight
area. He explained that until recently the possible biological effects
of ocean dumping had not been fully appreciated. In August 1968, the
Sandy Hook Sport Fisheries Marine Laboratory initiated a biological
census and hydrographic survey of the New York Bight to determine what
effects these dumping activities have had on the marine resources of the
New York Bight. These studies revealed that in the New York Bight dump-
ing of contaminated dredging spoils and sewage sludge has had a demon-
strated effect on the physical environment and bottom dwelling marine
life. The levels of certain heavy metals are greatly elevated in the
areas where sewage sludge and dredging spoils have accummulated. The
sediments impinged upon by these wastes have a much greater amount of
organic material associated with them. Bottom waters overlying the
-11-
-------
disposal areas have lower levels of dissolved oxygen, particularly in
the summer. Exceedingly, high counts of coliform bacteria were found
in sediments collected from the areas impinged upon by sludges and
spoils, Dr. Pearce continued. He also pointed out that the distribution
of both heavy metals and coliform bacteria extend down the_Hudson Shelf
Valley, indicating that the effects of ocean dumping may extend sea-
ward from the point of waste disposal. In summary, it is Dr. Pearce's
contention that the 40 year practice of dumping sewage sludge and dredge
spoils from five to 10 miles off the New Jersey coast had created a
"dead sea" threatening New Jersey and New York beaches, marine life and
the public health. Dr. Pearce then showed a series of slides illus-
trating some of the consequences of the present dumping activities in
the New York Bight.
Mrs. Carl H. (Jean) Auer, Member, State Water Resources Control Board,
Sacramento, California:
Mrs. Auer spoke about ocean disposal practices on the west coast
concentrating her remarks on the State of California. She explained
that although all three west coast States (California, Oregon, and
Washington) have standards applicable to marine and/or estuarine waters,
only California has a specific plan for discharge into the ocean. The
plan was adopted on July 6, 1972.
Of the three west coast States, Washington's discharge to the ocean is
the smallest with only one open ocean discharge of approximately
200,000 gallons per day. The discharge, which is municipal, is given
primary treatment and discharged from an outfall approximately 300 feet
long. There are four major ocean waste dischargers in Oregon, two
municipal and two industrial. The industrial discharges, which total
approximately 23 MGD, receive primary treatment. Of the municipal
discharge one, totalling 0.75 MGD, receives primary treatment and the
other, totalling 1.6 MGD, receives secondary treatment. Mrs. Auer
pointed out that California discharges more than one billion gallons
of effluent per day into the ocean. That is about 30 percent of the
nation's total discharge to the ocean and more than two-thirds of the
wastewater generated daily in the State. The major portion of these
discharges receive primary treatment. Implementation of California's
new ocean plan will bring the treatment level up to the equivalent
of secondary.
The plan establishes certain beneficial uses of the ocean waters which
must be protected; preservation of marine resources, esthetic enjoy-
ment, recreation, navigation and industrial water supply. In addition,
specific water quality objectives have been set forth to be maintained
in the ocean itself. The plan also sets up a category for areas of
biological s-ignificance. In these areas natural water quality con-
ditions must be maintained and discharges are prohibited.
-12-
-------
Several other features of California's plan were emphasized by
Mrs. Auer. At present 30,000 pounds of toxic heavy metals are gen-
erated per day. Implementation of the plan will accomplish more than
90% removal. The plan also requires that wastes be discharged in
deep water far from shore, with a 100-to-l initial dilution of sea
water to wastewater which must occur within seconds after the discharge.
As for implementation, the plan requires every discharger to submit
for approval both a technical report on what he will do to comply and
a time schedule for compliance. The State will review and revise
these schedules, first at the Regional Board and then at the State
Board level. The State believes that total implementation will occur
by 1977, but Mrs. Auer emphasized strongly the need for additional
Federal construction grant funds if the ocean plan is to be imple-
mented fully by that date.
Mrs. Auer discussed some of the other difficulties in implementing
the plan and conceded that often there is a difference in philosophies
between the discharger and the State Water Resources Control Board.
Nevertheless, the Board feels that the plan can be implemented. In
this context, she emphasized that the new State law specifies that no
discharge of waste into the waters of the State "shall create a vested
right to continue such discharges." It is no longer necessary to prove
damage to the environment before corrective action can be taken; a
reasonable suspicion is enough. Mrs. Auer then discussed the effects
of ocean discharge, and stated that although there are many unknowns,
there is evidence that continuous ocean discharge can have an adverse
effect on the environment. She indicated that there have been strong
indications that waste discharges are causing the destruction of kelp
beds, malformations of cancerous conditions in fish, and similar
damage. She emphasized further that a new definition must be learned
for assimilative capacity. In the past this level has been considered
as the highest level beneath which things start to die. It should
properly be defined as the level that will assure total protection
of the environment. Mrs. Auer feels it is the responsibility of
regulatory agencies, such as EPA and the State Board, to define goals
and objectives to meet the new definition, and the responsibility of
the engineering community to design the systems to get at the need.
In conclusion, Mrs. Auer urged the Advisory Board to recommend that
the comprehensive concept underlying California's Ocean Plan be used
in the Federal program as well.
-13-
-------
Mr. Jon Lindbergh, Chairman, Oceanographic Commission, State of Washington:
Mr. Lindbergh noted that more than half of the world's population lives
in close proximity to the oceans which comprise about 70% of the earth's
surface and have traditionally used the oceans as an all purpose dump.
Mr. Lindbergh pointed out that although such occurrances as oil spills
are spectacular and arouse public outery, they are not as serious as the
more subtle long range problems caused by ocean contaimination of pesti-
cides and toxic and heavy metals which build up in the food chain of
marine life. He emphasized that sheer numbers of men and their industries
are now causing alterations in sea water and its confining beds that will
lead inevitably to changes in sea life and resultant biological processes.
On the other hand, he also pointed out that some changes in the sea can be
beneficial and cited examples of a ship wreck, old car bodies or even an
oil well that can induce prolific fish life in previously barren areas.
Mr. Lindbergh in conclusion urged the Advisory Board in its deliberations
to consider the total picture, not only the obvious and spectacular pro-
blems of ocean dumping, but the long-term, subtle, and insidious problems.
Asked by members of the Advisory Board if he had any solutions, Mr. Lindbergh
stated that there are no magic answers, and added that there is no way in
which we can prevent all man-made contaminations from entering the sea,
but it is vital that we examine the total consequences of what we put
into it.
Dr. Donald P. de Sylva, Associate Professor of Marine Science, University
of Miami, Miami, Florida:
In discussing the effects of ocean dumping in the southeastern United
States, Dr. de Sylva reinforced several of Mr, Lindbergh's remarks, namely
that the greatest threat to the oceans is not from sewage sludge, but from
thousands of man-made chemicals that flow to the sea via rivers around the
world. Most endangered he stressed are the coastal estuaries where 80% of
the oceans' productivity occurs.
He also told the Board that swimmers and divers using some ocean waters on
the Atlantic coast have become mysteriously ill and, in some cases died,
as a result of diving and swimming around sewer outfalls in the ocean.
Dr. de Sylva also cited a number of examples of ocean dumping by the
Federal government.
Further, he stated that while all ocean dumping cannot be ceased immedi-
ately, there must be long-range programs wjtrch, vdbll favor Recycling
resource conservation, and more economic and environmently safe techniques
of waste management. He indicated that until ocean dumping is ceased, we
must be prepared to find a wide variety of pollutants gradually or even
suddenly appearing in sea water, sediments, and in the marine organisms
-14-
-------
we eat. It is especially important, Dr. de Sylva said, to note that
ocean dumping is usually considered to be a purposeful practice whose
source can be theoretically identified and controlled. Yet it is the
sum of all sources of oceanic pollution which accumulate and concentrate
in the marine environment.
In the area of research, Dr. de Sylva emphasized that there is a great
deal more knowledge and study needed before any realistic analysis of
the effects of ocean dumping can be proposed and evaluated. He stated
that the nation's leading oceanographers are seeking funds for such
studies and urged the Environmental Protection Agency along with such
agencies as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the
Department of Defense, the Department of Interior, and the Atomic
Energy Commission to support such research.
In summary, Dr. de Sylva stated that an analysis of ocean dumping is
really a study of the dynamics of physical, chemical, biological, and
geological processes. Field and laboratory research for American
researchers is urgently needed now and nothing short of well-funded, long-
term research will supply the answers we seek, Dr. de Sylva concluded.
Mr. Donald J. Benson, Seattle Metro, Seattle, Washington:
Mr, Benson's present responsibility is River Basin Study Coordinator for
the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro). However, since
Mr. Benson formerly served as Executive Secretary of Northwest Pulp
and Paper Industry, the Board requested that he concentrate his remarks
on industrial practices of ocean dumping. In this context, he explained
that in the Pacific Northwest, there are a number of major ocean outfalls
that utilize salt water diffusion as an adjunct to land based treatment
processes. These a~re continuous discharges, mostly industrial wastes
from the pulp and paper industry. Included as ocean discharges are out-
falls into Puget Sound. The bays and inlets of the Sound operate like
estuaries, but the main body of water is similar in many respects to the
open ocean. In the Sound, five major outfalls serve the pulp industry
and three more are being planned. Several shallow outfalls to the Sound
serve the petroleum refinery industry. Most of the communities and other
industries along the Sound discharge treated wastes into relatively shallow
discharges. The State of Washington policy now requires maximum diffusion
and dispersement of such discharges. The proposed outfalls for the pulp
industry require comprehensive field studies to determine current and wind
patterns utilizing both the drops and sophisticated metering instrumen-
tation. A new petroleum refinery with a shallow outfall to Puget Sound
has received one of the few Federal permits under the 1899 Refuse Act on
the condition that an unprecedented detailed and intensive biological
and bioassay.monitoring system be established. The monitoring program
also included computer models of the outfall and receiving water system to
estimate probable impact conditions of wind and tide. The model includes
functions of nearby outfalls to predict any overlapping of discharges.
-15-
-------
In an example cited by Mr. Benson, two pulp mills at Everett, Washington
solved a serious oxygen depletion and fish passage problem in the 1950s
by jointly constructing a 3000 foot outfall and diffuser section to a
point 300 feet deep in the Sound. A Federal study in 1967 indicated
biological damage from this practice, but the mills continue to disagree
that any substantive harm is resulting from the practice. Nevertheless,
Mr. Benson stated the mills were ordered to install recovery equipment
for the spent liquor being discharged. One mill has announced that it must
close and the other is under construction with a $60 million facility.
Mr. Benson said it is unfortunate that the system required utilizes the
spent liquor as a fuel with the recovery of sulfur as sulfur dioxide in
the stack gases. The mill is located at the downtown Everett Waterfront,
and through the years a very tight sulfur dioxide control system has been
developed that meets Federal secondary ambient SC^ standards. The
recovery unit will increase the potential SC^ emission from the pulp mill
complex about five to tenfold. This will require the installation of
emission controls well beyond the usual for such mills to meet ambient
standards. The net result will be a substantial increase in the emission
of S02, but below levels that can be expected to exceed ambient standards.
Mr. Benson's point in discussing this example is that interrelated envir-
onmental decisions were lacking.
In conclusion, Mr. Benson stated that he had reviewed the CEQ recommen-
dations for a national policy on ocean discharges and feels that it is a
good one. However, he offered the following suggestions for modifying
the policy:
(1) The policies relating to specific types of waste should allow for,
an overall impact analysis to ensure that available alternate
techniques do not cause even more severe environmental impact in
all cases. The policy provides for this with radioactive wastes
and toxic industrial wastes.
(2) The jurisdiction for regulation of ocean discharges should remain
with the prevailing water pollution control agencies, rather than
establishing new jurisdictions.
(3) Research on ocean outfalls should be greatly expanded as articulated
by the CEQ policy. Particular emphasis might be placed on the develop-
ment of operational biological monitoring techniques and the
development of computer simulator models for the design and operation
of outfalls.
-16-
-------
Dr. C. H. Ward, Professor of Environmental Science and Biology, Rice
University, Houston, Texas:
Dr. Ward's statement dealt with a review of current dumping practices
off the coasts of New Orleans, Louisiana, and Galveston, Texas and a
discussion of procedures used to evaluate impact of ocean disposal.
Current Dumping Practices:
Dr. Ward stated that dumping in the Gulf has gone on in an essentially
unregulated fashion since World War II. Records of the Corps of
Engineers' district offices in Galveston show that since 1952, 20 com-
panies have been allowed to dump off Galveston. In 1970, five indus-
trial firms were dumping. Today, as far- as is known to the Corps, no
companies, municipalities, or governmental agencies are dumping in
Galveston Bay or off shore, with the exception of dredge spoil resulting
from maintenance of the Houston Ship Channel and the new construction at
Morgans Point. All "letters of no objection" (to dumping) to the com-
panies were withdrawn last spring. Prior to withdrawal of the five
"letters" the Corps specified that all dumping would occur off the
continental shelf at depths not less than 107 fathoms (642 feet).
Dr. Ward reported there have been numerous reports since 1958 of shrimp
fishermen netting drums of chemical wastes in shallow waters close to
shore. In 1970, the New Orleans Corps Office had five "letters of no
objection" on record and these letters are still in effect. However,
two of the five companies have since voluntarily stopped their ocean
disposal. The disposal site designated by the New Orleans Corps is in
excess of 400 fathoms of water in a 20 square nautical mile area about
50 miles south of South Pass off the Mississippi Delta. This area is well
off the Continental Shelf. Yet, Louisiana shrimpers have also had a long
history of snagging drums in shallow waters filled with chemical wastes.
In citing these several examples, the point made by Dr. Ward is that the
Corps has no jurisdiction or authority outside territorial waters. They
can not legally issue permits for ocean disposal, only "letters of no
objection". Violators of the "letters" cannot be prosecuted nor can dumpers
without "letters". As a consequence, there is every reason to believe
that we have no idea what is being disposed of in the Gulf, Dr. Ward
stated. He emphasized that the Corps records do not reflect current
practice. If they did, off shore disposal companies would not be pros-
pering.
Dr. Ward urged congressional action to control off shore disposal. Until
Congress provides applicable legislation, he recommended an immediate
moratorium on dumping on the Continental Shelf. Nevertheless, Dr. Ward
-17-
-------
indicated that he hoped that Congress will recognize that ocean dis-
posal of some types of wastes, regulated by proper authority, may for
the forseeable future, represent the most desirable alternative with
regard to protection and preservation of the environment.
Turning to another point, Dr. Ward indicated that he does not know of a
single published report of an investigation on the biological effects of
off shore disposal of wastes in the Gulf. However, he said there are two
broad scope research programs in the Gulf that could reasonably be
expected to yield data applicable to,judging biological effects of ocean
disposal. Studies in the Texas A§M Sea Grant Program have been limited
to mechanical and engineering aspects of handling dredge and hazardous
materials in coastal zones. The Gulf Universities Research Corporation
is conducting NSF sponsored physical oceanography studies in Gulf con-
tinental waters. In addition, they are conducting research sponsored by
a group of oil companies designed to evaluate environmental effects of oil
drilling operations on the shelf. The American Petroleum Institute is
funding another group of biologists to study the effects of oil and oil
spills on the physiology and ecology of marine organisms.
In summarizing, Dr. Ward stated that applicable technical information
does not appear to be available nor is it being collected in a systematic
approach.
Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact of Ocean Dumping:
Dr. Ward indicated that the procedure established for preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969 is too narrow in scope since NEPA prohibits preparation
of the EIS whose focus is out of context with the environmental problem
and the affected area. He pointed out that the Gulf is a finite resource
of inestimable value as a whole functioning eco-system. He stressed
that the practice of judging the environmental impact of national policy
(in this case dumping) on finite resources by reviewing individual
actions under that policy must be stopped. He recommended that some
segment of the Federal structure should accept the responsibility to act
as the lead agency in preparation of an EIS-that addresses the entire pro-
blem of ocean dumping. In conclusion, Dr. Ward urged the Advisory Board
to use its influence to see that both the spirit and the letter of NEPA
are adhered to in all questions relating to water pollution control.
Mr. Donald L. Corey, Supervising Sanitary Engineer, Massachusetts Divi-
sion of Water Pollution Control, Boston, Massachusetts:
Mr. Corey opened his presentation by stating that Massachusetts has long
recognized here dependence on the ocean for food, production, commerce,
-18-
-------
recreation and other benefits. Representatives of the Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control have been engaged, in a continuing
effort to abate probTerns of ocean dumping off the Massachusetts coast.
This has involved a cooperative effort with other State and Federal
agencies. Mr. Corey categorized dumping off the Massachusetts coast
into three classes of wastes: sewage sludge, hazardous wastes, and
dredge spoils. He described the policies and plans being implemented
in each of these categories in order to provide some insight into the
problems which his regulatory agency has faced. He then summarized what
Massachusetts believes are major considerations in arriving at a
satisfactory solution.
Sewage Sludge:
At the present time digested sewage sludge is discharged through ocean
outfalls from two major treatment plants in Massachusetts. The total
quantity discharged is approximately 30,000 tons (dry basis) annually.
Through two contracts, the Massahcusetts Division of Water Pollution Con-
trol has developed a mathematical model which, in conjunction with sample
analyses, has shown that the present practice of sludge discharge violates
certain water quality criteria for class SB waters. Class SB waters
should be suitable for bathing and recreation, including water contact
sports, industrial cooling, excellent fish habitat, good aesthetic value,
and suitable for certain shellfisheries. The practice of sludge disposal
through ocean outfalls directly interferes with these assigned uses.
Recognizing the inadequacy of these sludge disposal practices, the
Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) engaged a. consultant to study
alternate sludge disposal methods by incineration or other means.
Through a recently executed Memorandum of Agreement between the Divi-
sion of Water Pollution Control, MDC, the U. S. EPA and others, a schedule
has been established for construction of facilities for sludge disposal.
Construction is to be completed by May 1976. Upon construction of these
facilities, the State anticipates termination of ocean disposal of sewage
sludge in Massachusetts waters.
Hazardous Wastes:
A limited program of off-shore hazardous waste disposal is presently
being conducted in Massachusetts Bay. Wastes include those materials which
because of chemical, flammable, explosive or other characterisitcs, con*-
stutute a danger or potential danger to public health, safety or welfare
to the environment. Materials presently disposed of include explosives,
reactive metal wastes (i.e., sodium, magnesium, potassium] and chemical
wastes. Only one contractor is authorized to dispose of hazardous wastes
in this manner since it presently represents the least potential hazard
compared to other alternatives. However, Mr. Corey explained comprehen-
sive legislation has been passed which would regulate the disposal of such
wastes. Hearings on the proposed regulations have been announced and the
State intends to have them implemented by the end of 1972. The regulations
-19-
-------
will apply to disposal of hazardous wastes at land sites as well as in
off shore areas. When the regulations are effective over a 75%
reduction in the volume of hazardous wastes dumped will be achieved.
The following materials will continue to be disposed of at sea under
State regulation until suitable alternative methods are developed:
(1) Sodium and other highly reactive metals and their compounds
(these are naturally present in sea water, and land disposal
may result in conditions dangerous to humans due to the intense
reaction with water}.
(2) Laboratory quantities (1 liter or less) of chemicals, or
equipment contaminated with chemicals, which are not highly
toxic (disposal in sanitary landfill sewage treatment plant
or by mixing may produce unpredictable results).
(3) Explosives.
Mr. Corey pointed out that no readioactive wastes are presently disposed
of in Massachusetts waters.
Dredge Spoils:
The most significant current ocean dumping problem in Massachusetts waters
concerns disposal of dredge spoils. The largest volume of dredge spoils
originates from Federal harbor and channel projects initiated by the
Corps of Engineers. The spoils from many of these Federal projects are
typically polluted, Mr. Corey explained.
Some progress has been made in the last several years to bring this pro-
blem under greater control. Copies of applications for dredging permits
are forwarded by the Corps to a number of State and Federal agencies for
review and comment; environmental impact statements for Federal projects
are similarly forwarded by the Corps. The Criteria for Determining
Acceptability of Dredged Spoil Disposal, which were developed as guide-
lines for the EPA have provided useful limits on certain chemical parameters
to be checked on each project.
It has been the State's experience that land disposal of polluted dredge
spoils is impractical in most cases; however, in several small projects
where acceptable land disposal sites have been available this has been
the preferred location. Mr. Corey detailed some of the needs faced by
regulatory agencies as follows:
(1) The number of dumping grounds for polluted dredge spoils and
the size of such grounds should be minimized, preferably with-
in presently designated dumping grounds.
-20-
-------
C2) The criteria established by- EPA for dredged spoil disposal
should be reviewed and revised as appropriate,
(3) Effective monitoring of the environmental effects of ocean
disposal of dredge spoil materials is presently inadequate.
The monitoring work should include seasonal biological,
chemical, physical and geological observations of ocean
bottom, sea water, nutrients and biota, the character of all
materials to be dumped and the character of the spoil grounds
before, during and after spoil discharges should also be
evaluated.
In summarizing, Mr. Corey outlined the following specific problems in
Massachusetts, but also typical of other coastal areas:
(1) Elimination of off shore disposal of certain wastes will
require substantial financial assistance from Federal and
State governments.
(2) A research and monitoring program for ocean dumping is
essential in order to rationally determine key criteria
which must be considered in regulating waste disposal at sea.
(3) An overview must be maintained by regulatory agencies to
ensure that decisions are coordinated and are environmentally
sound.
Finally, Mr. Corey concluded that State regulatory agencies have exper-
ienced the financial crisis in administration and enforcement of water
pollution abatement laws that all branches of State government currently
face. Ultimate solution of the overall problems of ocean dumping will
require major applications of funds, new technology and continued dialogue
and cooperation between regulatory agencies at the State and Federal levels.
Dr. Thomas D. Hinesly, Soil Ecologist, Agronomy Department, University of
Illinois, Urbana, Illinois:
Dr. Hinesly spoke on the practices and effects of municipal sludge utili-
zation on land as an alternative to ocean dumping. In lieu of summarizing
his prepared statement, Dr. Hinesly showed a series of slides illustrating
the effects of sewage sludge disposal on land. Accordingly, Dr. Hinesly's
entire prepared statemrnt is included in this report as Appendix 3.
An important point emphasized by Dr. Hinesly, is that amounts of sludge
will increase as wastewater treatment facilities are upgraded. Tertiary
treatment, for example, will retain between 95 and 98 percent of incoming
effluent as fresh sludge. Instead of incineration, Dr. Hinesly said,
-21-
-------
thousands of acres of land scarred by coal strip mining would provide
more than enough area to receive nutrient rich, treated sludge as ferti-
lizer
Mr. Kenneth L. Johnson, Director, Air and Water Programs Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, New York City:
Mr. Johnson spoke on incineration as an alternative to ocean dumping of
sewage sludge. As a result of the concern regarding adverse environ-
mental effects which might result from sewage sludge incineration, EPA
established in June 1971 a Task Force to assess such concerns. After a
program of testing and evaluation, the Task Force established the follow-
ing conclusions and recommendations.
Conclusion 1: When properly operated, today's sludge incinerator
systems, which have been designed to meet exisitng air quality
standards, have been shown to produce acceptable stack emissions
of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and odors.
Most sludge incinerators which are in existence today, however, do
not incorporate high efficiency particulate matter control devices.
Conclusion 2: Small, but measurable, quantities of specific metals
which are known to accumulate in the human system, and which are
known to be toxic at certain levels, were found in the input sludge,
stack emissions, scrubber water, and residue of those incinerators
which were subjected to comprehensive testing. These same metals
were also found in each instance where only the sludge alone was
analyzed.
Conclusion 5: Small, but measurable quantities of specific organic
chemical compounds including various pesticides and polychlorinated
biphenyls, which are known to accumulate in the human system were
found in all of the sludge samples analyzed. It should be expected
that, under conditions of poor combustion, such compounds could be
emitted from the stacks of sewage sludge incinerators.
Conclusion 4: It was impossible for the Task Force to accurately
establish the potential for health effects which might be associated
with sewage sludge incineration because: Ca) there are insufficient
health effects data relating to low atmospheric concentrations of
suspected pollutant materials, and (b) there are insufficient stack
gas sampling and analysis methods sophisticated enough to produce
accurate information regarding quantity, size distribution, and con-
stituent quality related to size, of the particulate matter emitted
by sewage sludge incinerators.
Recommendation 1: Incineration should be accepted as an ultimate
disposal method for sewage sludge, provided that the incinerator is
properly designed and operated, and provided that controls are
enforced to minimize the quantities of objectionable materials present
in the input sludge to the incinerator.
-22-
-------
Recommendation 2; EPA should, immediately, require that juris-
dictions, which, are to receive Federal construction grants, possess
enforceable industrial waste ordinances- designed to minimize the
amounts of objectionable materials introduced into the treatment
system.
Recommendation 5: Federal legislation should be enacted which
would control, through a national permit system, all industrial
liquid discharges.
Recommendation 4: EPA should, immediately, require that juris-
dictions, which are to receive Federal construction grants for
facilities incorporating sludge incinerators, guarantee an inciner-
ator design which will assure the optimum combustion of any organic
compound present in the sludge.
Recommendation 5: EPA should, immediately, require that juris-
dictions, which are to receive construction grants for facilities
incorporating incinerators, guarantee an incinerator design which
will assure compliance with State and local air pollution control
regulations and Federal new source performance standards.
Recommendation 6: EPA should engage in research and development
projects to:
a. Accurately assess human health effects of incineration.
b. Produce more effective and accurate stack sampling and
analysis techniques.
c. Improve existing sewage sludge incinerator and pollution
control designs, with regard to impact upon environmental
quality.
In summary, Mr. Johnson pointed out that pollutant emissions to the atmos-
phere from sludge burning should not be considered extraordinary when
compared against the emissions from other combustion processes, such as
solid wastes. Further, he explained that air pollution problems, especially
in urban areas, are caused by the sum total of many individual sources.
Accordingly, any new particulate matter, even relatively small ones such
as sludge incinerators, and emissions of heavy metal and pesticides added
to urban atmospheres should be a cause for concern.
Mr. Johnson concluded by stating that at a time when ocean dumping of
sewage sludge is being phased out, it would be extremely beneficial if
new environmentally sound methods of ultimate sludge disposal could be
developed. He suggested examination of such potentially beneficial prac-
tices as controlled pyrolysis, perhaps combining a load of sludge and solid
waste.
-23-
-------
During the questioning, Chairman Barnes pointed out to the Advisory
Board that in thinking about some of the alternatives to sludge dump-
ing we should consider what kind of energy means will be used and what
impact that may have back in the atmosphere. Mr. Johnson agreed,
emphasizing that we might solve one environmental problem and create
more.
Dr. Austin N. Heller, Secretary, Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, State of Delaware:
Although not originally scheduled to speak, Dr. Heller requested that
he make a statement before the Board on behalf of Governor Peterson of
Delaware and was granted the time by Chairman Barnes.
Dr. Heller opened his remarks by stating that the probable deleterious
effects of ocean dumping is but a phase of Delaware's broader interest
in protecting its coastal environment. This led to the passage of
Delaware's Coastal Zone Act of 1971.
Delaware is deeply concerned with the problem of ocean dumping since
such dumping has not been accompanied by valid scientific study and eval-
uation of ecological effects. The State is also concerned at the lack of
a single, responsible regulatory agency, and Dr. Heller stressed the need
for comprehensive Federal legislation which would provide for a single
national agency to regulate waste disposal in the territorial waters of
the U. S.
Dr. Heller outlined several immediate needs. The first is for a more
precise knowledge of what man dumps into the sea. Continuous monitoring
of water conditions would be a second step. He stated that, in the inter-
est of safety, one thing that could be accomplished now, would be to dump
sludge in water twice as deep as the present practice. This, he suggested,
should increase the dilution and reduce the rate and amount of on shore
drift.
Dr. Heller explained the State is experimenting with a project, involving
solid waste reclamation and sewage sludge disposal, which shows considerable
promise. He described the project as basically a solid waste reclamation
plant capable of separating and recovering the components of solid waste
in a form which will allow their diversion back into the consumer market,
e.g., humus, glass, paper, carbon, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and
energy. The process uses sewage sludge as a diluent. The mixture of
domestic waste and sewage sludge is shredded, milled, pulped and digested
by aerobic bacteria in a controlled atmosphere. One of the products is
a pathogen-free humus-type of material. The State is hopeful that the
plant will be funded by an EPA grant and become a demonstration plant.
-24-
-------
Dr. Heller concluded by pointing out that the project would solve two
major environmental problems in one plant in a single process: Com-
bining biodegradable refuse with sewage sludge to produce a marketable
pathogen-free humus. He proposed that this would seem to offer a
reasonable alternative to those who are told to stop ocean dumping.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1972
Before beginning its deliberations, the Advisory Board heard from two
additional speakers.
Mr. Albert Printz, Director, Refuse Act Programs, Office of General
Counsel, EPA:
Mr. Printz provided the Board with a brief status report of the Refuse
Act Permit Program.
From the standpoint of background information, in December 1970,
President Nixon signed Executive Order 11547 establishing an indus-
trial effluent control program based on permits issued under the 1899
Refuse Act. The program is administered jointly by the Corps of
Engineers and EPA, with the latter being responsible for determining
the permit conditions necessary to maintain the desired receiving
water quality.
Mr. Printz explained the Permit Program received a major setback in the
form of an injunction against issuing permits imposed as the result of
a suit filed in the District of Columbia, commonly referred to as the
Kalur decision. The lifting of the injunction is contingent upon
revising the Program regulations to provide that (1) permits could not
be issued for discharges into non-navigable waters, and (2) Environmental
Impact Statements be prepared in accordance with the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969. In considering the appeal, EPA and the Corps
of Engineers took into account the passage of new water legislation
(since enacted) that would bring relief. In anticipation of the legis-
lation, EPA adopted as a policy the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available by 1976 as a pre-requisite for the
receipt of a permit under the Refuse Act. EPA then moved into a program
to internally identify what constitutes the "best practicable control
technology currently available" (BPCTCA) for 20 different industries.
In defining BPCTCA, EPA utilized the ground rules set out in the House
Committee Report, i.e., levels demonstrated on either the basis of actual
performance, demonstration or pilot studies. The technical aspects were
discussed with selected representatives of the concerned industry.
-25-
-------
The guidance was then distributed to the regions and allowed EPA to get
a major jump on fulfilling the requirements of the new legislation. The
new legislation will require defining not only BPCTCA for many of these
industrial sectors, but also the best available treatment and new source
performance requirements, Mr. Printz concluded.
Major General Richard H. Groves, Division Engineer, North Atlantic
Division, Corps of Engineers:
General Groves discussed the responsibility of the Corps in the New York
Bight area. He explained that the Corps's primary responsibility is for
maintaining navigation in U. S. territorial waters and that it operates
a permit program for ocean dumping of dredge spoil under section 13 of the
Refuse Act. The Corps also has had special regulatory authority over
ocean dumping for the port areas of New York, Baltimore, and Hampton Roads.
The General emphasized that the Corps realizes its contribution to the
ocean dumping problem, but that there are no suitable alternatives
available to dredge spoil dumping at this time. For example, dredge
spoil could be hauled 100 miles out to sea and dumped off the Continental
Shelf, but the equipment to do this does not exist, and it would increase
costs; digested sludge and dredge spoil could be spread on land, but this
also would be very costly.
General Groves concluded by emphasizing that since the Corps' basic
mission is to maintain navigation, it would just as soon get out of the
responsibility for issuing permits.
Following the presentations by Mr. Printz and General Groves, the Board
devoted the remainder of the day to the formulation of conclusions and
recommendations and also adopted one resolution (Appendix 4).
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1972:
The Advisory Board concluded its meeting with a press conference held at
EPA Region II. Chairman Barnes opened the press conference by emphasizing
that based on the testimony presented there is marked need to obtain a
much better idea of what is going into the ocean. He also stressed the
need for better control of toxics and heavy metals. He placed further
emphasis on the pending legislation on ocean dumping and amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The Board then presented it Conclusions and Recommendations which are
included in this report as Appendix 5.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a. m.
-26-
-------
PROGRESS;
Since tfte meeting of tile President's Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board on ocean disposal, Both the Marine Protection Research and Sanc-
tuaries Act of 1972 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 have been enacted into law and thereby several of the
Board's major recommendations have been implemented.
In addition, the 91-nation Convention on Dumping of Wastes at Sea was
held in London in November. Agreement was reached on the final text of
an ocean dumping treaty which generally prohibits the dumping of extremely
hazardous material such as radioactive waste, biological and chemical
warfare agents, oil, pesticides, and durable plastics. Less harmful
materials, auch as lead, copper, scrap metal, and fluorides, could be
discharged only under special permits. Enforcement and punishment would
be left to individual countries. The agreement takes effect when
ratified by 15 countries.
-27-
-------
APPENDIX 1
PRESIDENT'S WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
September 28, 1972 - New York, New York
SPEAKERS PRESENT FOR PUBLIC MEETING:
Mr. Henry Diamond, Commissioner
N. Y. State Department of
Environmental Conservation
New York, New York
Dr. John Pearce
Sandy Hook Laboratory
NOAA
Highlands, New Jersey
Mrs. Jean Auer, Member
California State Resources
Control Board
Sacramento, California
Mr. Jon Lindbergh, Chairman
Oceanographic Commission
State of Washington
Dr. Donald P. de Sylva
Associate Professor of Marine Science
University of Miami
Miami, Florida
Mr. Donald J. Benson
Seattle Metro
Seattle, Washington
Dr. C. H. Ward
Professor of Environmental
Science and Biology
Rice University
Houston, Texas
Mr. Donald L. Corey, Supervising Sanitary Engineer
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution
Control
Boston, Massachusetts
Dr. Thomas Hinesly, Soil Ecologist
Agronomy Department
University of Illinois at Urbana
Urbana, Illinois
-------
Speakers (continued):
Mr. Kenneth L. Johnson, Director
Air and Water Programs Division
Region II, EPA
New York, New York
Dr. Austin Heller
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
Dover, De1aware
(Represented Governor Peterson of Delaware)
ENTERED STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
Senator William V. Roth
Delaware
-2-
-------
APPENDIX 2
STATEMENT OP September 2?, 1972
SENATOR WILLIAM V. ROTH
SUBMITTED TO PRESIDENT'S WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
Mr. Chairman,
I appreciate your courtesy in allcr.-.-ing me to submit these
remarks for your consideration. I know you are all busy, and I
thank you for taking the time to read what I have to say.
My purpose in submitting these rer^arks is, quite frankly,
to ensure that the interests of my small State of Delaware are not
overlooked during your consideration of this problem. While ocean
dumping concerns all Coastal States, Delavare's interest is, I
believe, more intense for two reasons: first, because we have
exercised more restraint in the development of our coastal areas than
some States, we believe Delaware has more to lose than many of our
neighbors; and, second, because Delaware is surrounded by great
metropolitan areas over which we have little or no control, we feel
more threatened.
As you may know, the Cities of Philadelphia and Camden annually
-------
William V. Roth, Jr., U.S.S.
- 2 -
barge about 120 million gallons or treated sewage to an ocean site
lU miles off the coast of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware's principal
recreation area. Although the impact of such dumping is scientifically
undetermined at present, I personally believe that while doubts remain,
Delaware should not be compelled to bear the risk so that other States
can save money by dumping sewage in the nearby coastal waters rather
than disposing of it through other costlier, but safer, methods. The
citizens of Delaware have sacrificed a great deal to preserve our
coastal areas, and we believe that the off-shore disposal of sewage
and other waste matter jeopardizes what we have consciously fought to
retain: a relatively clean and pure environment.
I must admit that a scientific study commissioned by the City
of Philadelphia purports to show that there is no environmental or
ecological damage as..a result of the City's dumping practices. But,
as far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, this study is grossly inadequate.
As a matter of fact, one scientist with whom I spoke (who is associated
-------
William V. Roth, Jr., U.S.S.
- 3 -
with neither Delaware nor Philadelphia, but who is an acknowledged
expert on the effects of ocean dumping) told me' that the study was
"fast and dirty." Yet, despite its inadequacies, the study's
results are widely and highly touted as firm scientific proof of
the safety of ocean dumping. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, I have
these criticisms of the study conducted "by the Franklin Institute:
The focus of the report was on conditions in and around the
dump site itself. The most important conclusion was that the dump
site is almost completely free of sludge. But for Delaware's
purposes this means only that the material has been swept away by
currents at the dump site; we must know where it goes.
-------
William V. Roth, Jr., U.S.S.
- U -
Because the sludge dumped, by Philadelphia is highly resistant
to further decomposition (it is the residue of attack by extremely high
concentrations of bacteria at temperatures around 100 F. for about 30
days) it is likely to persist in the natural marine environment. To
ensure that it presents no "danger to Delaware, we must know where it is
transported by the dump site currents and its ultimate fate. These are
questions which the study has not considered, but there is some evidence
from the study itself, that the ultimate fate of some sludge is to be
washed up on Delaware's ocean beaches.
Page A-l of the study reports the results of sea bed drifter
recovery. Since sea-bed drifters move with the currents within one or
two feet of the bottom, when they are washed up on shore their distribution
gives a rough idea of how sludge particles might be expected to move. Of
180 drifters releaced"at the dump site, 33 (or 18 percent) were recovered.
The others either drifted out to sea or were trapped in low places or
-------
William V. Roth, Jr., U.S.S.
- 5 -
deposition sites between the dump location and the coast. Some
drifters may be dislodged during storms and washed up at a much later
date, but of the 33 that were recovered, 17 (or 52 per cent) were found
on Delaware's Atlantic Coast; and, 1^ of these 1? were found on the ik
mile stretch between Cape Henlopen and Indian River inlet. Thus, k3
percent of the drifters recovered were found in an area that includes
some of Delaware's principal bathing beaches. On page h-2 of the
report, the author states, "There is no specific section of the shoreline
that receives more than its share of drifter recoveries." Clearly, this
is not so.
The City of Philadelphia dumps approximately 500,000 tons of sludge
every year. (Reference page h-1.6 of Report dated February 1972.)
If we assume (and this correlation is by no means certain) that
the amount of sludge washed up between Cape Henlopen and the Indian River
Inlet is proportionate to the number of drifters washed ashore, then
-------
William V. Roth, Jr., U.S.S.
- 6 -
39jOOO tons of sludge are deposited along this stretch of beach each
year, (if I^/lQO's of the drifters wash ashore at this point, then
lU/180's of 500,000 tons of sludge should also come ashore.) This
would mean that over 1,000 pounds of liquid sludge per linear foot of
beach is deposited. And, if the liquid sludge is 10.8 per cent solids,
then 108 pounds of solid sludge a year are deposited on every linear
foot of beach between Cape Henlopen and the Indian River Inlet. I
should add that the behavior of drifters in the surf zone can be expected
to differ from the behavior of sludge particles. Therefore, it is likely
that an unknown fraction of the 108 pounds per linear foot is carried
north toward Cape Henlopen by the longshore drift.
If dumping is to continue at the present site, we determine where
the sludge is going, since it seems quite likely that an appreciable
portion moves toward,shore. To do this, we must find some unique chemical
or physical characteristic of the sludge, so we can differentiate it from
-------
William V. Roth, Jr., U.S.S.
- 7 -
the natural sediments and trace its movements after being dumped. Heavy
metal concentrations (i.e. lead, copper, silver) were found to be useful
for this purpose in a similar study in the New York Bight.
Some work which bears directly on this problem has been carried
out in the College of Marine Studies of the University of Delaware, and
other work is presently in progress. When we have found a unique
"fingerprint" for the Philadelphia sludge, we can begin to look for it
in a much wider area along the Delaware Coast where sludge particles might
be expected to settle. In addition, long term current meter measurements
(onthe order of one year due to seasonal current variations) should be made
at and around the dump site to see where the sludge moves when currents
carry it from the site. If a unique fingerprint for the sludge can be
found, the first part of a study could begin to yield results within
about three months. ,..The current meter study would require at least one
year.
At present, there is not enough information- about the behavior
-------
William V. Roth, Jr., U.S.S.
- 8 -
of digested sludge in general, and about Philadelphia sludge in
particular, to assess its danger. We must know the levels of heavy
metals, pesticides, and other harmful substances in the sludge, and their
rate of release in the marine environment. Further, we must know where
the majority of the sludge is deposited, and what marine animals metabolize
it. Finally, the effects on Delaware's beaches and human users must be
ascertained if sludge dumping is not to harm the tourist industry by real
or imagined sludge contamination.
I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that I am a layman and the preceding
analysis of the Franklin Institute's findings v:;is provided by a group of
scientists at the University of Delaware. I have included this analysis,
not to generate a scientific dispute, but to illustrate the pitfalls of
accepting the conclusions of a scientific study merely because it is
"scientific." I personally have discussed the scientific aspects of ocean
dumping on numerous occasions with men whom I respect highly. Based on
these discussions, I am satisfied that until we are able to obtain conclusive
-------
William V. Roth, Jr., U.S.S.
- 9 -
scientific evidence, ocean dumping practices should be modified
substantially or halted completely. Ocean dumping should certainly
be banned off recreational areas while study is proceeding.
J could say much more on this subject, but I know you all
have great demands on your time. I appreciate your consideration
of my comments.
-------
APPENDIX 3
Practices, Economics, and Effects of Municipal Sludge
Utilization on Land as an Alternative
to Ocean Dumping
T. D. Hinesly
Factors Contributing to Sludge Handling Problems
The disposal of wastewater treatment plant residues is the most difficult
and increasingly costly problem confronting major sanitary district staffs. For
cities of over 50,000 populaton the average per capita suspended solids load at
wastewater treatment plants was found to be 0.25 pounds per day on a dry-weight
"basis (Loehr 1968). Plants receiving large quantities of industrial waste may
have average per capita loadings approaching twice the average value. For example,
the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago has an average per capita
loadings of about O.U pounds per day. It is expected that the average per capita
loadings will increase because the installation of garbage grinders in homes will
augment suspended solids by an average of 60 percent, (American Society of Civil
Engineers Manual, 1959)- However, at the time Loehr collected his data, only
about 12 percent of the homes were equipped with garbage grinders.
At present the activated sludge treatment process is most frequently used
for secondary treatment of wastewater. From the standpoint of suspended solids
removal, the process when preceded and followed by sedimentation, is about 85 to
95 percent efficient. Eventually, as wastewater treatment facilities are upgraded
to include tertiary treatment processes, the efficiency for suspended solids
removal should be at least 98 percent. Therefore, it is likely that in the near
future, somewhere between 95 to 98 percent of the per capita loading reaching
the wastewater treatment plant will be retained as fresh sludges.
-------
-2-
Along with the increase in quantities of wastewater given tertiary treatment
for improved removal of solids, higher priorities are also likely to Toe given to
reducing phytoplankton nutrients to lower concentrations in effluent. The removal
of nutrients will require the addition of chemicals such as the dosing of effluents
with lime or alum to precipitate soluble phosphates. Added chemicals which cannot
be economically regenerated for recycling will add materially to the solids handl-
ing problems. Assuming an average wastewater flow of 135 gallons per capita per
day (Loehr 1968), a chemical dosage of only 50 ppm will increase the per capita per
day suspended solids in fresh sludge by 0.05 pounds.
Considering the trend toward greater usage of garbage grinders, tertiary
treatment processes, and chemicals for reducing nutrient concentrations in effluents
an average value of 0.35 pounds per capita per day of solids as fresh sludge would
appear to be a conservative estimate of production, at least for the larger advanced
wastewater treatment plants. For each million population served by sewers, about
175 dry tons of fresh solids will be removed from about 135 million gallons of
wastewater requiring treatment each day. Therefore, municipal sludge handling
problems will increase, even if our sewered population should remain static.
Kinds of Sludges Generated
The solids separated from wastewater during sewage treatment are a complex
array of organic and inorganic residues. Upon reaching the wastewater treatment
plant, about 60 percent of the suspended solids load is removed by sedimentation.
The solids portion removed by this sedimentation is called primary sludge. The
solids not removed by the primary treatment sedimentation process are transferred
to another tank as a constituent of the effluent where they are mixed with large
quantities of aerobic microorganisms and large volumes of air. The microorganisms
use the oxygen in the air to convert part of the organic waste into carbon dioxide
and water to obtain energy, while converting another large portion into new cells.
-------
-3-
The portion of the waste converted into nev microbial cells and collected by
sedimentation after removal from the aeration tank is called activated sludge.
To maintain a microbe population in the growth phase a portion of the activated
sludge is recycled to the aeration tank, but for the most part it is wasted and
thus often referred to as waste activated sludge. The primary sludge and the
waste-activated sludge generated during secondary treatment when taken together,
make up the fresh sludge discussed above.
In the United States many attempts to spread primary or raw sewage sludge
on land have ended in failure. Waste-activated sludge has been successfully
used as a fertilizer material only after heat drying and then at only light appli-
cations which could be thoroughly incorporated with soil. Such biologically
unstable materials as primary and waste-activated sludge cannot be spread on land
or lagooned because of odor and fly problems. In some of the older literature,
waste activated sludge is sometimes referred to as aerobically digested sludge.
Waste activated sludge is highly unstable with regard to further biological
degradation and should not be referred to as a digested sludge. To stabilize
waste activated sludge sufficiently for land surface application by an aerobic
process would require a detention time of about 20 days (irgens and Halvorson
1965). Studies at the University of Wisconsin have demonstrated the adaptability
of an aerobic digestion process to the stabilization of mixtures of raw and
waste activated sludge (Norman 196l). Aerobic digestion of primary sludge has
been evaluated by Viraraghenen (1965) for average climatic conditions in the
vicinity of Madras;, India.
In the older literature, discussions regarding sludges from Imhoff tanks are
often confused with those concerned with sludges from heated anaerobic digesters;
both simply referred to as anaerobic digested sludge by some authors. While some
-------
-U-
degree of anaerobic sludge stabilization is accomplished in Imhoff tanks, it may
*
or may not be comparable to that accomplished in a heated anaerobic digester
where environmental conditions are maintained near optimum for rapid biological
degradation of organic sludge constituents. Lohmeyer (1959) reviewed the liter-
ature pertaining to heated anaerobic digestion and presented recommendations for
managing digesters to obtain the best overall results with the least difficulty.
In a later literature review, Pohland (1962) discussed anaerobic decomposition in
terms of two phases which he designated as first, liquefaction and hydrolysis,
the second being fermentation and gasification. A rather heterogeneous group of
bacteria convert the proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids contained in the waste
largely to fatty acids, carbon dioxide and ammonia nitrogen during the first
stage. During the second stage strict obligate anaerobic bacteria convert the
fatty acids produced during the first stage to methane and carbon dioxide. Toerien
and Hatingh (1969) reviewed the literature toward presenting the current state of
knowledge about the microbiology and biochemistry of the anaerobic digestion pro-
cess and to identify areas needing further research. They state that it seems
probable that fungi and protozoa do not play significant roles in the degradation
of organic matter during anaerobic digestion. Andrews (1969) presented a dynamic
model for the anaerobic digestion process, which has usefulness in predicting the
results of changes made in the operation of digesters.
The above reports regarding aerobic and anaerobic digestion processes for
raw (primary) and waste activated sludges are sufficient to emphasize the attention
that has been given to organic waste stabilization. Some of the reasons given for
stabilization of sludges are that it promotes rapid dewatering, reduces the initial
bulk of solids for more economical handling, destroys pathogenic organisms for
health protection, and noxious odors are eliminated. Another most important reason
for stabilization is the elimination of housefly infestations of stored waste.
-------
-5-
Apparently the housefly will readily breed in raw, waste activated or partially
digested sludge, "but not in a well digested sludge (Goudey 1932) (Von Zuben, et
al. 1951) (Wolf 1955).
To overcome some of the objectionable characteristics of primary and waste
activated sludge, the use of heated anaerobic digesters have proven to be most
satisfactory and economical (Lynam, et al. 1972). Heated anaerobic digestion
of sewage solids is used to accomplish two primary objectives. First, about 50
to 70 percent of the organic fraction of sludge solids are biologically converted
to methane and carbon dioxide, reducing the amount of total solids that must be
handled by about ^0 percent. After digestion, the organic fraction of the remain-
ing solids is sufficiently stabilized against further biological degradation so
the material can be lagooned, dewatered on open drying beds, or applied on the
surface of soils without causing noxious odors or fly breeding problems. By anaer-
obic digestion the projected sludge handling problem may be reduced from 175 to
105 dry tons per day per million population.
Cost of Sludge Disposal
Cost for the incineration of sludges (includes wet-air oxidation, multiple-
hearth, and fluidized-bed) range from 30 to U2 dollars per dry ton as reported
by Burd (1968) and from 50 to 57 dollars as reported by Bacon and Dalton (1966).
Because these estimates were made from data collected several years ago they are
probably on the low side. If the greater cost for minimi zing air pollution and
increased .cost resulting from inflation are considered, the cost for incineration
of sludge solids today is probably greater than 60 dollars per dry ton. Further-
more, incineration does not provide for a permanent solution to the solids
handling problem. The ash accumulating from the oxidation of fresh sludges
amounts to 30 to 35 percent of the original dry weight and presents some of the same
-------
-6-
disposal problems as those encountered with the original material.
Waste activated sludge has sometimes been heat dried and sold as a low grade
organic fertilizer. Dry, waste activated sludge contains about k to 6 percent
nitrogen, 3 to 7 percent Pp°c equivalent and 0.25 to 0.6 percent K?0 equivalent.
Thus, from the standpoint of a fertilizer, the inconvenience and cost of supplying
sufficient quantities of dried sludge to satisfy the nutrient requirement of most
crops is too great to expect an increase in its marketability. Even before it was
necessary to consider the installation of equipment to reduce air pollution
Bacon and Dalton (1966) reported that the net cost for disposing of 250 to 300
dry tons of sludge as a fertilizer material was U5 dollars per dry ton.
Burd (1968) reported a cost of 50 dollars per dry ton for drying and apply-
ing sludge on land and 25 dollars per dry ton for the application of dewatered
sludge on land. He also concluded that the cost for disposal of dewatered sludge
in landfills was about 25 dollars per dry ton. Cost estimates for permanent
lagooning of digested sludge range from 12 (Burd 1968) to ^9 (Bacon and Dalton
1966) dollars per dry ton. A number of variables determine the actual cost of
land disposal schemes but the major variables are the initial cost of land and
distances sludge must be transported from the wastewater treatment facility to
the disposal site. Whether sludges are applied on or near the soil surface,
dumped in landfills or held in lagoons all are aesthetically unacceptable be-
cause, if for no other reason, the land is condemned to a singular low degree of
usage.
In the last few years a great deal of attention has been given to the old
idea of utilizing digested sludges as a source of nutrients to grow crops and
as a soil amendment to .ameliorate physical conditions in severely disturbed
lands that adversely affect the establishment and growth of plants. It is not
nvisioned that disposal by utilization can be carried out without cost to the
sanitary district. On the otherhand, contrary to strictly land disposal schemes,
-------
—T—
it is envisioned that the solids will "be utilized in such a manner that land
usage is either not changed or in the case of land reclamation the number of
alternative land uses are increased. In 1968, members of Harza Engineering
Company estimated the cost for pumping digested sludge containing 3 to 5 per-
cent solids a distance of about 50 miles and distributing it on land in amounts
just sufficient to supply the nitrogen needs of nonleguminous plants. On the
bases of a 6 percent interest rate and amortization of all construction costs
over 50 years, and including maintenance and operation of the sludge distribution
equipment, they estimated the cost for sludge disposal by agricultural utilization
to be 22.30 dollars per dry ton. Wirts (1956) estimated the cost for pumping
digested sludge to be 10 to 15 cents per ton mile. He pointed out that cost
depends on the tonnage pumped and suggests that a connected population of 2
million people is an economical starting point for considering pumping distances
of 50 to 100 miles. At the present time, sludge is being transported from the
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago wastewater treatment plants to an
agricultural utilization site 160 miles downstate by a unit train. The unit
train contains 30 tank cars, each having a 20,000 gallon capacity. By another
contract,sludge is being barged 180 miles from Chicago to a land reclamation
site. While transportation costs vary with the solids content of the digested
sludge they have generally ranged from 30 to 35 dollars per dry ton during these
short period (3 years) rail and barge haul contracts. With a continuous or sus-
tained operation, transportation cost by rail and barge could be considerably
reduced. On a sustained operational basis it does not appear unreasonable to
consider transportation distances of 200 miles from large municipal waste treat-
ment facilities when contrasted to cost for alternative methods of sludge disposal.
Land Requirements
If all municipal waste waters generated in the continental United States
-------
-8-
were given secondary treatment and the resulting solids stabilized for utiliza-
tion as a fertilizer and soil amendment about 10 to 12 million dry tons of solids
would be available each year. The utilization of the solids in amounts just
sufficient to meet the needs of nonleguminous crops for supplemental nitrogen
would require an annual application of about 10 to 15 dry tons per acre. Thus,
not more than one million acres of land would be required at any one time to
utilize the total continental United States production of sludge solids. Only
enough sludge solids would be available to treat slightly more than 0.2 percent
of the 1|65 million acres of cropland or slightly less than 0.06 percent of the
total 1,90*1 million acres contained in the continental United States. However,
because of its potential as a source of sorely needed stable organic matter,
municipal sludge exhibits its greatest value as a resource when used as an amend-
ment for the reclamation of surface-mined lands. Since over 0.5 million acres
of land strip-mined for coal prior to 1.96k already exists in various states of
devastation, while another 0.5 million acres have been or will be stripped during
the 20-year period from 196U to 1981*, there is no scarcity of land which needs
the nutrients and organic matter supplied in sludge. About 30 percent of the
country's population are within economical sludge pumping distances to land strip-
mined for coal in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Those who express concern about the contamination of soils with constituents
of municipal sludges probably are not aware of the relatively small amount of land
needed. Confusion often exists between land requirements for sewage effluent
disposal of renovation and that needed for solids utilization.
Criteria for Selection of Sludge Utilization Sites
For utilizing digested sludge as & soil amendment and fertilizer, the follow-
ing criteria for site selection are recommended (a) The site should be located
-------
-9-
where utilization of the sludge offers maximum benefits to the local agricul-
tural economy, consistent with reasonable costs to the particular sanitary
district. The local populace must be able to veigh the benefits to be realized
from the sludge utilization program against the assumed or real stigma attached
to an area that becomes the receptor of waste from a large municipality. People
living in areas devastated by surface mining activities readily recognize the
benefits to be realized by utilization of digested sludge to reclaim land.
(b) To ensure that sludge applications are made under uniformly controlled
conditions the land must be susceptible to purchase or long term lease by the
sanitary district, (c) To minimize sludge distribution cost all lands in the
site should be contiguous, at least to the extent that the disturbance to exist-
ing residents is minimal. Surface mined lands offer the best possibilities for
obtaining large contiguous acreage. There is little or no disturbance of
existing residents, because this occurred during the stripping process. It is
envisioned that much of the land will be repopulated with farm operators as the
land is reclaimed to a high state of productivity, (d) Soil depths should not
be less than six feet to permeable bedrock. Water tables should be capable of
being maintained to average depths of at least 6 feet from the soil surface.
Such minimum soil depths, with good management practices, will provide protection
from ground water pollution, (e) Land slopes should not be so steep as to
prohibit the establishment of water management and erosion control structures at
a reasonable cost. Slopes up to 18 percent may be acceptable where "push-up"
terraces with permanent vegetated or sodded back slopes can be established. Un-
consolidated geological materials must be sufficiently deep to bedrock in the
borrow area so that after terrace construction a minimum 6 foot depth to bed-
rock is maintained.
-------
-10-
Envlronmental Benefits and Public Health Protection
1. Chemical and Physical
In Table 1 some average concentration values are presented for several chemical
elements found in digested sludge from the Calumet and Stickney wastewater treat-
ment plants. Sludges from both of these treatment plants have been used in the
research conducted during the last five years by members of the Agronomy Department,
University of Illinois.
Table 1. Composition of anaerobically digested sewage sludges from
MSD of Chicago, Calumet and Stickney treatment plants. Samples
obtained during 1971 (Calumet late in year).
Element
Means (Wet Weight)
Calumet
Stickney
Cd ppm
Mn "
Ni "
Zn "
Cu "
Cr "
Fe "
Pb "
Hg "
Na "
P "
Ca "
Mg "
K "
N %
% Solid
% Volatile
3.0
8.0
3.0
83.0
16.0
26.0
726.0
16.0
0.063
98.0
757.0
963.0
180.0
195-0
0.09
2.05
58.0
lU.O
18.0
15.0
223.0
67.0
19^.0
2100.0
75.0
0.275
131.0
1141.0
1289.0
48U.O
390.0
0.156
4.36
48.0
Anaerobically digested sludge, as it comes from digesters, contains 3 to 5 per-
cent solids as finely divided and dispersed particles. It looks like crude oil
and has an odor which many people describe as earthy or tarry. It can be easily
-------
-11-
transferred by pipes using ordinary pumping techniques and equipment. When applied
to cropland at the rate of 2 inches per acre, it will supply all of the major
essential nutrients, including the folloving: 200 to 350 pounds of ammonium nitro-
gen per acre; about the same amount of organic nitrogen some of which will be
slowly released in a form available to crops; 250 to ^50 pounds of phosphorus, of
which about 80 percent is in the organic matter; and kQ to 80 pounds of potassium.
Sulfur will also be supplied in amounts adequate for crops. The amounts of calcium
and magnesium supplied will exceed the average annual losses of these elements by
leaching in humid regions.
High application rates of digested sludge on cropland can cause obvious nitrate
problems. To determine maximum sludge loading rates on soils, total and soluble
nitrogen contents must be known. The soluble nitrogen in anaerobically digested
sludge is in the ammonium nitrogen form, but under proper soil aerobic and temper-
ature conditions it is rapidly converted to- mobile nitrate-nitrogen. Thus, the
loading rate of sludge on cropland is limited by the amount of soluble nitrogen
plus an annual mineralization of about ^ percent of the organic nitrogen supplied
by sludge applications. If loading rates are based on the amount of nitrogen
furnished to meet crop needs and losses by volatilization, soluble phosphorus
applications will also be at low enough levels that phosphorus will not present
a eutrophication threat to water supplies. When sludge loading rates are based
on safe nitrogen application rates the capacity of most soils other than sands to
inactivate phosphorus by adsorption and conversion to sparingly soluble precipitates
or compounds is great enough to maintain phosphorus levels in drainage water to
less than 1 ppm.
When the main objective is land reclamation, sludge loading rates may be con-
siderably greater because disturbed lands generally have small or nonexistent
organic nitrogen reservoirs. The amelioratory effect of organic matter on the
-------
-12-
physical properties of soil materials may make it desirable to increase sludge
loading rates on marginal or severely disturbed lands above those recommended for
productive agricultural lands. However, as the highly stabilized sludge organic
matter accumulates in soils with succeeding applications, the slow mineralization
of organic nitrogen must be taken into account to prevent excessive losses of
nitrate nitrogen to water supplies, within or adjacent to the treated areas.
Many toxic and nontoxic organic waste materials occurring as constituents of
sludge arise as discharges from industrial processes such as the chemical production
of textiles, plastics, Pharmaceuticals, detergents, and pesticides. After a period
of acclimation, some organic toxic substances, such as phenols and formaldehyde,
can be almost completely removed from wastewater by biological treatment, even
though at sufficiently high concentrations they are bactericidal (Jackson & Brown
1970). Others, which are nonbiodegradable under aerobic conditions, may be removed
from effluent with or by absorption on sludge sediments and later biologically
degraded during anaerobic digestion of the solids. Of all the organic materials,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) have been of greatest concern to those involved
with municipal waste utilization. Many sludges contain 1 to h ppm or more and like
other chlorinated hydrocarbons, PCB's are only very slowly degraded by micro-
organisms. Where we have applied 115 dry tons of digested sludge a small increased
concentration of PCB's was found in the soil but they were not taken-up in
detectable concentrations in soybean and corn plant tissues. Since bacteria are
the first group of soil microorganisms to be decreased by abnormally high concen-
trations of chlorinated hydrocarbons we have made total counts from soil samples
collected from plots which have been treated with up to 136 dry tons of sludge
over a period of k years. Total bacteria populations were found to be higher in
soils treated with sludge. The positive correlation between total bacteria and
amounts of applied sludge was highly significant. It appears that sludge applica-
tions have modified the soil environment in a manner that favors the maintenance
of a highly active population of bacteria resulting in a greater rate of pesticide
degradation than might be expected in soils not treated with sludge.
-------
-13-
Heated anaerobically digested sludge is outstanding in its ability to in-
crease the humus content of soils. For example, in 19^1 a study was initiated at
the Rothamsted Experiment Station in England to compare the effects of four types
(Mann, et al. 1962)
of organic manures with inorganic nitrogen fertilizers on market-garden crops/(25).
The organic manures were farmyard manure, digested sewage sludge, a compost of
straw and farmyard manure, and a compost of straw and sewage sludge. Each of the
organic manures was applied at the rate of 15 and 30 tons per acre per year. After
nine years, nitrogen in the top 9 inches of soil was 0.088 percent where inorganic
nitrogen, the familiar fertilizer source, had "been applied as compared to a value
of 0.089 for control plots. At application rates of 15 and 30 tons per acre per
year of digested sludge, the nitrogen content in the soil surface was 0.176 percent
and 0.2ifT percent respectively. These data indicate that the amounts of nitrogen
in the sewage-sludge plots increased about three times as much as in the correspond-
ing plots treated with farmyard manure and compost made from straw and farmyard
manure. The surface soil in sewage-sludge treated plots contained about 50 percent
more nitrogen than plots treated with equivalent amounts of compost made from straw
and sewage sludge. Following the first nine years, treatments between 1951 and
I960 with digested sewage sludge produced only a slight increase in soil nitrogen
percentages. However, nitrogen contents remained at a considerably higher levels
in sewage-sludge treated plots than were obtained with either farmyard manure or
compost.
In I960, Jansson (i960) investigated some specific properties of the humus
fraction of fresh cow dung, well-rotted farmyard manure, and digested sewage sludge.
He found that the size of the lignin-like complex in farmyard manure and digested
sludge was somewhere between fresh plant residues and developed soil humus, but
fresh cow dung was similar to fresh plant residues. Jansson stated that "the
oxidation rate of the farmyard manure and the sludge is similar to that of the
humus of an acid podzol" (acid forest soil).
-------
-Ill-
More recently we have found that 136 dry tons per acre of anaerobically
digested sludge incrementally applied during four years on Blount silt loam soil
increased its organic carbon content from 1.2 to 2.U percent in the surface 6
inches. Furthermore, ve have found that the humic-acid extracts from heated
anaerobically digested sludge gave an infrared spectrographic pattern that was
similar to that of extracts of the natural organic matter contained in an Elliott
silt loam soil (1971).
Lunt (1959) reported that digested sludge had a very favorable effect on
several soil properties. He reported a moderate increase of 3 to 23 percent in
moisture holding capacity, non-capillary porosity, and cation exchange capacity
following the incorporation of digested sludge into soils. Furthermore, he found
an increase in soil aggregation ranging from 25 to 600 percent which could be
attributed to the digested sludge additions.
The results of the studies described above indicate that the organic material
produced in a 15-day heated anaerobic digestion process has properties very close
to that of natural soil organic matter or humus. Digested sludge is one of the few
materials that can be used to effect a rapid increase in the humus content of soil.
It is the only substance with these properties that is available in quantity.
To reestablish soil organic matter contents in severely disturbed or eroded
lands to levels equivalent to those characteristic of productive soils will take
many years under normal cultural practices. For example, in nature the time
necessary to build up soil organic matter profiles to a point of equilibrium with
its environment has been estimated to be /Less than 200 nor more than 1,000 years
from studies conducted on soil profiles in Columbia and California/U-950)• Consider-
ing the importance of soil organic matter as a storehouse of slowly available plant
nutrients, a source of cation exchange capacity, and a promoter of stable soil
structure, two centuries is too long to wait for natural processes to build up
-------
-15-
the soil organic matter levels in unproductive lands while we seek ways to dispose
of a material which can be used to effect a beneficial, immediate change.
Some waste treatment plant sludges contain higher concentratons of chromium,
zinc, copper, lead, nickel, mercury, and cadmium than are found in typical agricul-
tural soils. Berrow and Webber (1972) reported the results from analyses of U2
sewage sludges collected from rural and industrialized city wastewater treatment
plants in England and Wales. On a dry matter basis they found the sludges contained
consistently greater concentrations of silver, bismuth, copper, lead, tin and zinc
than are present in typical agricultural soils. In a small number of sludges, boron,
cobalt, molybdenum, chromium and nickel were present in sludges at greater concentra-
i
tions than found in typical soils. They correctly point out that the amount of
trace element present in soluble or available form is more important in relation
to uptake by plants than is the total content. Thus, they assessed the solubility
of several trace elements by extracting with 2.5 percent acetic acid. In Table 2
their extractability data and some of ours are presented by decreasing solubilities
of several elements. It would appear from these data that we must be mainly concerned
with first six elements presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Trace elements extracted by 2.5 percent acetic acid from ^2
sludges in England and Wales (Berrow and Weber 1972).
Element
*Cd
Mn
Ni
Zn
Co
**B
Cu
V
Cr
Fe
Pb
Mo
Sn
Mean
Content extractable
lUU
300
190
15^0
8.8
10
96
3
22
650
20
0.12
0.58
Mean soluble %
of total content
matter
65
56
U6
UU
32
25
6.9
U.8
3.1
2.8
2.8
1.9
0.5
* Unpublished 0.1 N HC1 data
** Hot water extractable
-------
-16-
On the "basis of total and extractable concentrations of trace elements in
sludges, Berrow and Webber speculate that where sludges are used over a period
of several years to fertilize crops some of the accumulating trace elements may
give rise to toxicity problems in plants. From the results of chemical analyses
of samples collected from soils contaminated-with trace elements by air pollution
and the use of municipal compost and sludges, Purves (1972) speculates that a
"general enhancement of the level of potentially toxic trace elements in plants
grown in urban areas could lead to deleterious effects both on the plants and on
the health of those eating them." During five years of research using digested
sludge we have not yet created trace element toxicities in various feed grain
and forage crops nor have levels of any element increased in plant tissues to the
extent that they would present a hazard to animals consuming the produce. Further-
more, LeRiche (1968) analyzed soils and crops from a market garden experiment at
Woburn, England where 568 tons of sludge per acre had been applied between 19U2
and 1961. While there was an increase in the uptake of some elements by vegetable
crops grown on the sludge-treated plots, as can be seen in Table 3 from the aver-
age values of his reported results, he reported that there was no evidence that
crop yields were affected.
The behavior of such trace elements in soils and their uptake by crop plants
are influenced by several factors. One of these is soil pH. Most heavy metal
toxicities in terrestrial plants have been associated with pH of less than 5.
Liming soils can, to a large extent, control the uptake of many trace elements.
Practices which promote better soil aeration, such as drainage and structure
development may lead to decreased solubilities of some trace elements. According
to Jenne (1969) oxides of iron and manganese act as "sinks" for heavy metals and
the extractability or leachability of the metals is determined by the Eh (reduction-
oxidation potential) and pH of the system. Keeping the iron and manganese hydrous
-------
-163-
Table 3. AVAILABILITY OF TRACE ELEMENTS AND THEIR UPTAKE BY VEGETABLE
CROPS GROWING ON A SOIL TREATED WITH 568 TONS/ACRE OF SEWAGE
SLUDGE (LeRiche, 1968, Harpenden, England)
Parts per million (dry matter)
SEWAGE [If
0.5N ACETTC
ACID EXTRACTABLE SOIL TREATED
1959 UNTREATED
Co
-
_
-
Cr
4.5
2.5
2.8
0.5
Cu
18
22
20
5.0
Mo
-
.
-
Ni
51
49
17.5
4.3
Pb
3.5
3.0
5.0
1.2
Zn
750
850
395
87.5
-Parts per million (dry matter)-
TOTAL LEEKS TREATED
CONTENTS 1960 UNTREATED
p, TREATED
GLOBE 8 UNTREATED
CONTENTS 196Q H TREATED
§ UNTREATED
pn TREATED
g UNTREATED
CONTENTS 1961 H TREATED
§ UNTREATED
ctf
Co
0.16
0.18
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
(0.1
0.35
0.38
0.02
0.03
Cr
0.54
0.71
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.3
3.00
1.70
0.03
0.09
Cu
16.0
5.75
10.0
9.0
18.0
11.0
8.3
4.3
9.5
9.5
Mo
1.10
0.50
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.98
0.38
0.28
0.40
Ni
6.95
2.0
16.5
3.2
13.0
1.7
5.25
1.70
0.58
0.25
Pb
1.60
1.15
2.6
2.4
1.6
0.9
2.60
2.80
0.19
0.25
Zn
135
46
510
219
250
103
270
90
28
30
-Parts per million (dry matter)-
0.5N ACETIC SOIL TREATED
ACID EXTRACTABLE 1967 UNTREATED
TREATED
TO?8 UNTREATED
TOTAL CARROTS
CONTENTS 1967 TREATED
ROOTS UNTREATED
Co
„
-
<0.08
0.06
<0.05
<0.05
Cr
2.6
0.9
0.88
0.41
0.07
0.03
Cu
58
14.5
9.9
8.2
4.6
6.3
Mo
_
-
0.85
0.58
0.12
0.13
Ni
8.1
3.4
3.00
1.14
2.00
1.45
Pb
4.2
1.6
1.7
1.09
0.07
0.06
Zn
275
84
99
48
42
34
-------
-17-
oxides in soils and sediments in the form of thin coatings on silicate minerals
instead of discrete crystalline minerals permits a chemical activity in far
greater proportion than would be expected on the "basis of their concentrations
alone. As the solubilities of iron and manganese compounds are increased by
reducing conditions the heavy metals originally adsorbed on the surfaces of their
oxides are displaced by hydrogen and the metals become more mobile in soils.
Some heavy metals may form inert and insoluble compounds with clays and
Thus
organic compounds./many trace elements are less available to growing plants than
the total concentrations of these elements would indicate.
When grown on the same soils, tissues from different crop species, and even
different varieties of the same species, differ markedly in concentrations of
nutrient and pollutant elements (Gabelman, 1970). The selection of crops thus
affords a control over the entrance of undesirable amounts of trace elements into
food chains. With regard to selection, Gabelman says, "The ease of discovery of
these genetic differences within species has been surprising. We have been too
conservative in assessing this potential."
Perhaps we have not observed trace element toxicities in plants by the use
of stabilized sludge because it may contribute toward establishing a better balance
of nutrient availability and uptake by crop plants. We have learned from green-
house and other studies that there are many synergistic and antagonistic inter-
actions between various ionic metal species in sludge and soils affecting the
absorption of chemical elements by plant roots and their translocation within
plants. As we learn more about interaction effects, we may be able to decrease
abnormal uptake of one trace element from soils by supplying another to the soil
or crop.
Clearly if or when a trace element problem does occur as a result of utilizing
municipal sludges as a fertilizer and/or soil amendment, there are management
-------
-18-
practices available which can be introduced to alleviate the situation. Except
perhaps in coarse sandy textured soils the heavy metals will move very little
with percolating water. Thus, most of the trace elements will remain at the
point of application unless they are transported away in an adsorbed phase
on eroded sediments. By establishing erosion control structures and practices,
complete control can be maintained over all elements applied on land as a con-
stituent of sludge except some anion and anion forming species such as nitrate,
sulfate, chloride, boron, etc. At any rate those chemical elements which present
the greatest potential hazard to animals will be retained in place and can be
managed if the need develops. To a large extent the opportunity to manage trace
elements is lost once they are disposed of in water environments.
2. Biological
Although no incidence of disease is known to have been traced to the use of
digested sludge as a fertilizer or soil amendment, it is still one of the greatest
sources of concern for many. From a rather extensive literature it appears that
most of the intestinal bacterial pathogenic are either destroyed or their popula-
tions are reduced to very low levels by heated anaerobic digestion of sewage solids.
Results from several studies indicate that the pathogenic organisms of tubercle
bacillus, Taenia saginata, Ascaris lumbricoides and hookworm are not destoyed as
rapidly in a heated anaerobic digester as are the commonly used pathogenic indicator
organism, Escherichia coli or fecal coliforms.
One of the most crucial questions which could not be answered from a search of
the literature was that of the fate of viruses during the anaerobic digestion of
sewage solids. Even if viruses were not recovered from digested sludge, one could
not be sure that they were not present in an adsorbed phase on the solids. To
answer the question regarding the survival of viruses in the heated anaerobic
digester environment we initiated some laboratory studies using a swine enterovirus
(ECPO-1) which has bio-physical properties similar to human enteric viruses. After
gas production had stabilized in 6 laboratory scale digesters, fed with a mixture
-------
-19-
of primary and waste activated sludge, they vere inoculated with 10 plaque form-
ing units of the swine virus. After inoculation, 20 ml of fluid was periodically
withdrawn from the digesters and mixed with milk and fed to germ free piglets.
The feces from the piglets was then collected and assayed for the viable virus.
The viruses were not found in the feces of piglets fed sludge material which had
"been inoculated and digested for a period of time of 5 dajs or longer (Meyer, et al.
1971). It thus appears that a lU day heated anaerobic digestion period would
provide a considerable margin of safety with regard to the destruction of viruses.
As Berg (1966) suggested, perhaps the simplest method for reducing viruses
and other pathogenic organism ;in sewage is by long storage of the material. From
laboratory studies Berg (1966) determined the time in days required for a 99.9
percent reduction in the number of virus and bacteria by storage at different
temperatures. The die-away data presented in his Table 5 is exhibited here as
Table 1*. On the basis of these and other data it appears that an additional
margin of safety against pathogenic contamination of the environment could be
achieved by holding digested sludge in reservoirs for a minimum period of two
months before it is applied on land.
After sludge is applied on the soil surface, die-away of many pathogenic
organism will occur fairly rapidly as seen from the data in Table 5. The rapidity
with which fecal coliform die-away occurs after digested sludge is applied on
soil surfaces can be discerned in Table 5. Furthermore, it has generally been
concluded that wastewaters percolating through unsaturated soil materials are
purged of pathogenic organisms within the first five foot depth (Butler, et al.
195U). If this is true for wastewater applications it would surely be applicable
in the case of sludge utilization. Since sludge solids are rapidly filtered and
clog the surface of soils, the rate of water infiltration during sludge applica-
tions is exceedingly low in comparison to that from wastewater applications.
-------
-19a-
Table 4. Effect of Storage: Laboratory Study Demonstrating
Days Required for 99.9% Reduction of Viruses and
Bacteria in Sewage (Berg, 1966)
No. of Days
Temperature ° C
Organism 4° 20° 28C
Poliovirus 1
Echovirus 7
Echovirus 12
Coxsackievirus A 9
Aerobacter aerogenes
Escherichia coli
Streptococcus faecal is
110
130
60
12
56
48
48
23
41
32
• •
21
20
26
17
28
20
6
10
12
14
-------
-19b-
Table 5. Disappearance of fecal coliforms in the sludge cake
covering a soil surface.
Days after sludge No. of fecal coliforms per gm
application sludge cake (dry weight)
1 3,680,000
2 655,000
3 590,000
5 45,000
7 30,000
12 700
-------
-20-
Therefore, frequent applications of sludge can be made only when the evapo-
transpiration potential is relatively high. That is to say, sludge is most
likely to be applied on agricultural lands during the late spring, summer, and
early fall seasons when evapotranspirational potentials generally exceed actual
soil moisture losses. For the most part sludge will be applied when ambient
temperatures favor a rapid die-away of bacterial and viral pathogenic organisms.
Like many of the potential chemical water pollutants, lateral movement of
pathogenic organisms which might survive the digestion and storage period, can
occur only if excessive soil erosion processes are permitted to operate on the
sludge utilization site.
Conclusion
Stabilized municipal sludges can be beneficially utilized as a fertilizer
and soil amendment. With proper selection and/or modification of the utilization
site to ensure that sludge constituents are not eroded from the point of applica-
tion, adjustment of sludge application rates to crop requirement for the soluble
nitrogen supplied, and the establishment of sound crop and soil management practices
stabilized sludges are a resource too valuable to be dumped in oceans, burned, or
permanently lagooned.
-------
References
Andrews, J. F. (1969). "Dynamic Model of the Anaerobic Digestion Process,"
Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engi., Sanit. Engi. Div., SA1, p. 95.
ASCE (1959). "Sewage Treatment Plant Design," ASCE Manual of Engineering Practice,
No. 36, p. 6.
Bacon, V. W. and F. E. Dalton (1966). "Chicago Metropolitan Sanitary District
Makes No Little Plans," Public Works 97, p. 66.
Berg, G. (1966). "Virus Transmission by the Water Vehicle. II. Virus Removal
by Sewage Treatment Procedures," Health Library Science 2 (2), p. 90.
Berrow, M. L. and J. Webber (1972). "Trace Elements in Sewage Sludge," Journ.
Sci. Fd. Agric. 23, p. 93.
Burd, R. S. (1968). "A Study of Sludge Handling and Disposal," Fed. Water Pol.
Control. Admin., Pub. WP-28-4.
Butler, R. G., G. T. Orlob and P. H. McGauhey (1954). "Underground Movement of
Bacterial and Chemical Pollutants," Journ. Amer. Water Works Assoc., 46 (2),
p. 97.
Gabelman, W. H. (1970). "Alleviating the Effects of Pollution by Modifying the
Plant," Hort. Science 5, p. 16.
Goudey, R. F. (1932). "New Thoughts on Sludge Digestion and Sludge Disposal,"
Sewage Works Journal, 4 (4), p. 609.
Irgens, R. L. and H. 0. Halvorson (1965). "Removal of Plant Nutrients by Means,
of Aerobic Stabilization of Sludge," Applied Microbiology, 13 (3), p. 373.
Jackson, S. and V. M. Brown (1970). "Effect of Toxic Wastes on Treatment Pro-
cesses and Watercourses," Water Pollution Control 69, p. 292.
Jansson, S. L. (1960). "On the Humus Properties of Organic Manures," Kungl.
Lantbr. hogsk. Ann. 27, p. 51.
Jenne, E. A. (1968). "Controls on Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn Concentration
in Soils and Water: the Significant Role of Hydrous Mn and Fe Oxide,"
Advances in Chemistry Series, Amer. Chem. Soc., p. 337.
Jenny, H. (1950). "Causes of the High Nitrogen and Organic Matter Content of
Certain Tropical Soils," Soil Sci. 69, p. 63.
LeRiche, H. H. (1968). "Metal Contamination of soil in the Woburn Market-Garden
Experiment Resulting From the Application of Sewage Sludge," Journ. of
Agriculture Science 71 (2), p. 205.
Loehr, R. C. (1968). "Variations of Wastewater Quality Parameters," Public
Works, May.
-------
-2-
Lohmeyer, George T. (1959). "A Review of Sludge Digestion," Sewage and In-
dustrial Waste, 31 (2), p. 221.
Lowe, W. (1970). "The Origin and Characteristics of Toxic Wastes, with Par-
ticular Reference to the Metal Industries," Water Pollution Control,
69, p. 270.
Lunt. H. A. (1959). "Digested Sewage Sludge for Soil Improvement," Conn. Agri.
Exp. Sta. Bull. 622, p. 30.
Lynam, B. T., Ben Sosewitz and T. D. Hinesly (1972). "Liquid Fertilizer to
Reclaim Land and Produce Crops," Water Research 6, p. 545.
Mann, H. H. and H. D. Patterson (1962). "The Woburn Market-Garden Experiment:
Summary 1944-60," Report of the Rothamsted Experiment Station.
Meyer, R. C., F. C. Hinds, H. R. Isaacson and T. D. Hinesly (1971). "Porcine
Enterovirus Survival and Anaerobic Sludge Digestion," Presented at the
International Symposium of Livestock Wastes, Columbus, Ohio, April 22.
Norman, John (1961). "Aerobic Digestion of Waste Activated Sludge," Thesis,
University of Wisconsin.
Pohland, F. G. (1967). "General Review of Literature on Anaerobic Sewage Sludge
Digestion," Engineering Extension Bulletin, Series No. 110, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana.
Purves, D. (1972). "Consequences of Trace-Element Contamination of Soils,"
Environ. Pollut. 3, p. 17.
Toerien, D. F. and W. H. J. Hattingh (1969). "Anaerobic Digestion I. The
Microbiology of Anaerobic Digestion," Water Research 3 (6), p. 385.
Viraraghavan, T. (1965). "Digesting Sludge by Aeration," Water Works and Wastes
Engineering 2 (9), p. 86.
Von Zuben, F. J., L. J. Ogden and R. E. Peel (1952). "House Fly Breeding at
Sewage Treatment Plants in Texas," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 24 (10),
p. 1303.
Wirts, J. J. (1956). "Pipeline Transportation and Disposal of Digested Sludge,"
Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 28 (2), p. 121.
Wolf, H. W. (1955). "Housefly Breeding in Sewage Sludge," Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, 27 (2), p. 172.
-------
APPENDIX 4
RESOLUTION:
Recognizing the substantial labors of Congress and the President to
bring to the people of the United States an adequately funded and
conscientiously written statute for a more vigorous national attack
on our environmental problems, the President's Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board urges the Congress to enact promptly and the President
to sign the proposed 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
-------
APPENDIX 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
of the
President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
Meeting on Ocean Disposal
September 29, 1972
-------
The President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board met in New York
City from September 26-29, 1972 to explore and make recommendations to
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and in turn,
the President on the subject of ocean disposal as a national issue.
Based on comprehensive briefings by representatives of Federal, State,
and local agencies, a flyover to view the sewage sludge dumping, dredge
spoil dumping, and acid waste dumping in the New York Bight and a full
day of public testimony from experts in the field of ocean disposal and
alternatives the Board has reached the following conclusions and recom-
mendations :
I. CONCLUSION:
The Board recognizes that unrestricted ocean dumping poses real and
potential pollution problems to the marine environment and its
resources. At the same time, there is evidence which indicates
possible beneficial uses of some wastes and dredge spoils under
carefully selected and controlled conditions.
RECOMMENDATION';
The Board recommends immediate Congressional Action in its current
session on enactment of the Marine Protection Research, and Sanc-
tuaries Act of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Bill) which has been agreed to
by the House and Senate Conferees. It is important that the U.S.
demonstrate its earnest intention to control ocean dumping prior
to the forthcoming International Ocean Dumping Convention. At
the same time, the Board recognizes that the present version of
this legislation will likely create a duplication of responsibilities
in EPA and the Department of Commerce for research and monitoring
and for seeking alternatives to ocean dumping, assuming passage of
the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Accordingly, it is recommended that this apparent redundancy be
eliminated and all responsibilities for establishment, and enforce-
ment of marine water quality criteria and associated research and
monitoring activities be centered in EPA.
II. CONCLUSION:
The Board concludes that ocean dumping is only one of many pathways
through which wastes reach the marine environment, and that
effective control of marine pollution requires legal authorities
beyond those provided by the Ocean Dumping Bill.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board recommends enactment during the current session of
Congress of the proposed 1972 amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as reported out this week by the joint
Senate-House Conference Committee.
-------
III. CONCLUSION:
The Board concludes that under the existing Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act no agency has the authority to establish Water
Quality Standards in the area between the 3 mile and the 12 mile
line in the so-called contiguous zone. Neither the new Water
Bill nor the Ocean Dumping Bill remedies this, although each
requires discharge permits to be issued to protect the Water
Quality in the contiguous zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board therefore recommends that EPA seek remedial legislation
to require the establishment of Federal Water Quality Standards
for the waters of the contiguous zone.
IV. CONCLUSION:
The Board has heard convincing evidience that the presence of
toxic substances, primarily the heavy metals, in municipal sewage
creates special problems in the ultimate disposal of the resulting
sludge from treatment plants. These substances have an adverse
effect through their possible entry into the marine food chain
when ultimate disposal of sludge is to the ocean. Similarly,
adverse effects follow from discharge to the atmosphere of these
substances if incineration is selected as the method of sludge
disposal. Even when sludge disposal is to land, the presence of
these toxic materials complicates the problem and introduces
difficulties in the ultimate use of land.
The Board has learned that the heavy metals in municipal sewage
derive from a wide variety of sources within the cities, but that
the most concentrated source and the one that lends itself princi-
pally to control is through the components of industrial waste in
municipal sewage.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board recommends that the EPA press for a requirement that
all industrial wastes containing significant amounts of toxic
substances, including heavy metals, be pretreated for the removal
of such substances before being discharged to municipal sewage
systems.
V. CONCLUSION:
After hearing a presentation upon the known and speculative effects
of emissions from sewage sludge incinerators as an alternate to
ocean dumping, the Board at this time has reservations about the
recommended approval of such incinerators pending the development of
more sophisticated type of equipment for the measurement of the
emissions of toxic discharges.
-------
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board recommends that EPA actively pursue the development of
more accurate emission measuring equipment so as to provide adequate
assurance that such incinerators not pose unacceptable threats to
human health or to air quality.
VI. CONCLUSION:
The Board concludes that considerably more and better scientific
data and information are needed to establish ocean disposal criteria
and guidelines to safeguard the marine environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board recommends all deliberate speed in the completion of
an inventory of the ocean bottom and the coastal waters (territorial
and contiguous seas) of the United States and -ts territories in
order to establish base-line data to which futuiv. comparisons can
be referred. The inventory, or base-line data, should include,
but not be limited to, the subsurface and bottom ocean currents,
upwelling, temperatures and chemical composition of the waters,
seasonal changes, distribution of existing aquatic life food chains
and aquatic migration patterns.
The Board further recommends that EPA take the lead and in cooper-
ation with NOAA, the Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard and other
interested agencies plan and conduct a program of research and
monitoring which will lead to improvement of marine water quality
criteria, selection and use of ocean dumping sites, provision of
guidelines for proposed disposal operations, and assurance of non-
degradation and enhancement of environmental quality of the oceans.
VII. CONCLUSION:
The Board's discussions frequently focused on the fact that the
United States has become an urban society. More than thirty per-
cent of our population lives in the large metropolitan centers.
Many cities are located on large rivers, lakes or oceans. The
problems of sewage sludge disposal are compounded because of lack
of suitable disposal sites.
Usually within a reasonable distance sometimes across State lines
there are areas of low quality land, abandoned strip mines, or
other low value areas with potential for enhancement that could be
used for sludge disposal.
Proper use of sludge disposal could reclaim these lands and make
them available for future food production or recreation.
-------
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board recommends that where available Federal or State lands
of relatively low value be utilized for experimental sludge
spreading programs.
VIII. CONCLUSION:
The Board recognizes the necessity for dredging to maintain
navigational channels.
At the same time, testimony has been presented indicating that a
number of environmental problems are associated with the practice
of indiscriminate dredging and the ocean disposal of polluted
dredge spoils.
RECOMMENDATION:
In many areas there are continuing approved coastal land develop-
ment projects. Where possible or feasible, dredge spoils should
be used as fill in such land recreation projects. The Board
suggests cost benefit studies to ascertain the value of environ-
mental enhancement resulting from containment versus dumping of
dredge spoil. Studies should also be undertaken to determine the
feasibility of treating dredge spoils to remove solids and other
components, which might be deleterious to the ecosystem, prior to
ocean disposal.
IX. CONCLUSION:
The Board recognizes that the oceans are a food source and may
benefit from some by-products of our present civilization that may
be thought of at present as pollution material. It furthur
recognizes that some of these substances may be utilized as
nutrients for the ocean and may enhance or revitalize certain
areas of the ocean. The Board also recognizes the recreational
value of the ocean and has observed the value of reef building by
selected material being placed in known barren areas to enhance
the marine environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board recommends that the Federal government's research activi-
ties include efforts to explore more fully those conditions under
which nutrient-rich wastes can be effectively utilized to improve
the marine environment.
-------
X. CONCLUSION:
The coastal waters of various regions of the U.S.A. vary greatly
as to physical and ecological characteristics (such as currents,
temperatures, bottom geology, etc.) as well as in their proximity
to population concentrations. The continental shelves represent
the most fertile locations for marine resource development and
recreational purposes; yet here are located the waters most apt
to be subject to effluent discharges and ocean dumping. Also the
geography of our nation finds at many locations State and various
municipal jurisdictions closely grouped at or on concentrated
harbor, river and other disposal locations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board recommends that the Federal government continue to
insist on regional approaches and insure consistency in the appli-
cation of standards of treatment, disposal and controlled dumping
procedures applicable to all State and local agencies in the
coastal region and/or on the river or estuarine systems. Separate
regional standards must also be applied to such divergent coastal
conditions as exist in the N.E., S.E., Gulf States, California,
N.W., Alaska, and Hawaii.
XI. CONCLUSION:
Certain coastal States have presented to the Board substantial
evidence they have recently enacted stringent State environmental
standards for shoreline protection.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board recommends that State governments should intensify their
efforts to enhance the quality of their own shoreline and depend
not solely on Federal legislation.
Federal encouragement of, and priority cooperation with all such
States, should hasten the time otherwise required to correct the
current abuse of the nation's coastal waters.
XII. CONCLUSION:
The Board heard testimony on the wastewater management problems of
the City of New York, specifically noting that 480 million gallons/
day of raw sewage and another 420 mgd of inadequately treated sewage
are discharged to the Hudson River, East River, and harbor waters.
In addition to public health hazards and general environmental
degradation, the raw sewage discharges result in the annual deposi-
-------
tion of 2.3 million cubic yards of sludge which must be dredged and
removed from the harbor bottom. From existing plants, the city
barges large quantities of digested and undigested sludge each day
for disposal in the New York Bight. The City has developed engineer-
ing plans to build two new secondary treatment plants and upgrade
existing plants and may construct an additional plant in Staten
Island. The City estimates that it can end sludge dumping at sea
in from 10 to 15 years, but in the interim as its treatment plants
go on stream, the quantity of digested sludge is expected to at
least triple.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Board recommends that the construction of facilities to end the
unacceptable practice of discharging raw sewage into any harbor is
mandatory. While the Board cannot condone years of failure to com-
ply with acceptable health and welfare standards, we recognize the
funding limitations available to the City and urge as a priority
the construction of sewage treatment plants with sludge digestion.
Federal assistance for such plants must be contingent upon EPA
approval of the ultimate method of sludge disposal to assure non-
violation of environmental protecion regulations - whether disposal
is through incineration, marine disposal, land disposal, or other
means.
In the absence of an immediate solution to the present practice of
raw sewage discharge, a moratorium on new building construction
should be enforced to the extent that increased raw sewage discharges,
and over loading of sewers and treatment plants will not occur.
* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1 972—5l
------- |