United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Awareness (A 107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 7
NumberS
March 1981
r/EPA JOURNAL REPRINT
Protecting the Oceans
-------
Fishermen haul in net on purse seiner off Korean coast
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Threats to the marine environment are
increasing. The oceans are the ultimate
repository for many of man's wastes, which
arrive there through various routes. Con-
tinuing concentration of population and
economic development in the world's coas-
tal zones is increasing the potential for
marine pollution through direct discharge
to estuaries and coasta! areas through
ocean outfalls.
River flows also contribute contami-
nants from discharge points far upstream;
the contamination of blue fish in Chesa-
peaTce Bay by Kepone released into the
James River many miles above the mouth is
an example. This incident resulted in the
closing of the commercial fishery. Marine
transportation activities contribute to ocean
pollution, not only through highly spectacu-
lar, but relatively infrequent, major oil
spills, but also through a continuing low
level discharge of contaminants from small
spills of oil and other hazardous wastes,
and as a normal part of tanker operations.
Barging of wastes, both industrial and
municipal, to sea for dumping is another
source of marine pollution. In recent years
the United States, through both national
legislation and international agreement, has
curtailed the ocean dumping of waste ma-
terials, particularly municipal sewage
sludges. U.S. legislation requires the
phase-out of "harmful" sewage sludge
dumping by December, 1981. The legisla-
tion also requires testing of other wastes,
such as dredged material, to ensure that
harmful materials are not being dumped.
Deposits of contaminants from the
atmosphere is now recognized as a major
source of pollution and may be the major
contributor of many pollutants to the ocean.
Various pollutants are reaching remote
oceanic areas far from the point of produc-
tion or disposal. This was vividly demon-
strated when high levels of DDT were
found in Antarctic penguins. Contamina-
tion of the marine food chain is another
significant contributor to ocean pollution.
The explosion in production and use of
synthetic chemicals, many of which are
toxic or otherwise harmful, has helped
increase this type of pollution. Pollution is
not the only source of stress to the marine
environment. Physical changes also are
impacting the oceans. For example, altera-
tions of freshwater flow caused by river
basin development are changing salinity
patterns and other environmental condi-
tions in many coastal areas, sometimes
with major ecological consequences. A
striking example is the construction of the
Aswan Dam which, by reducing nutrients
and sediments in the Nile, adversely
affected Mediterranean fisheries and
changed the nature of coastal beach and
dune formation. Large engineering works,
such as the Suez Canal, can significantly
alter the composition of marine ecosystems
by permitting transmigration of species.
Additional sea level canals may be built in
the future. Dredging and filling bays can
also alter current patterns and change
flushing rates.
Extensive loss of coastal wetlands rec-
lamation has resulted in loss of habitat
for important fish and wildlife species and
has altered nutrient exchange. In addition
to the importance of wetlands as nursery
areas for commercially valuable fish and
shellfish, recent evidence suggests that
they may play an even more important role
in geochemical cycling than had been
previously recognized.
The effect of the harvest of fish on
marine ecosystems should also be men-
tioned. Fisheries management has long
focused on issues relating to the manage-
ment of commercially harvestable stocks.
However, in addition to the determination
of maximum sustainable yield for various
species and populations, broader questions
are beginning to emerge. One is whether
over-fishing might in some way irreversibly
alter basic ecological relationships. In the
North Atlantic fishery, for example, will
continued harvesting of fish high in the
food chain result in permanent displace-
ment by species at a lower level? Recent
proposals for large-scale krill harvesting in
Antarctica would remove many tons of
these organisms from the food chain of
fish, marine mammals, and birds and raise
the possibility of changes in the structure
and function of ocean ecosystems.
We have long been aware of the poten-
tial impacts of development in the coastal
zone. Now, however, development is push-
ing out into marine areas hitherto consid-
ered remote and inaccessible and fre-
quently of great biological sensitivity and
importance. Until a few years ago, develop-
ment of oil and gas in the North Sea was
regarded as perhaps the most extreme
example of ocean engineering under haz-
ardous environmental conditions. New off-
shore development under the ice of the
Beaufort Sea and in other Arctic areas is
being considered. Oil and gas exploration
is now scheduled on Georges Bank, an
area subject to severe storm hazards. Waste
disposal from oil and gas activities, cou-
pled with already massive and increased
fishing, could hurt the productivity of the
world's richest fishing grounds. Deep ocean
mining for manganese nodules in the Cen-
tral Pacific and proposals for a superport in
Palau in the Southwest Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands, provide yet other exam-
ples of the fact that no ocean area can be
regarded as so remote or isolated as to be
immune from development.
Prospects for large-scale tidal power,
and possibly even electric power genera-
tion through harnessing ocean currents
such as the Gulf Stream suggest that our
capacity to alter the marine environment
through physical and engineering changes
may increase dramatically in the future.
Ocean thermal energy conversion facilities
currently being studied as a source of
power depend on temperature differences
between surface and deeper waters. The
discharge of the cooler bottom waters and
their associated nutrients near the surface
and the use of biocides, such as chlorine,
to prevent fouling on the condensers could
produce adverse environmental impacts.
Fortunately, governments at all levels
have increasingly recognized the impor-
tance of ocean resources and the need to
protect marine environmental quality. Envi-
ronmental legislation enacted within the
last decade in the United States provides
for regulation of ocean dumping and dis-
charge of wastes, for protection of coastal
wetlands, for establishment of marine and
estuarine sanctuaries, for cleaning up spills
of oil and hazardous materials, for coastal
zone management and establishment of
environmental safeguards in development
of superports, marine minerals, and Outer
Continental Shelf oil and gas reserves.
The oceans are an international resource,
and the protracted Law of the Sea negotia-
tions attest to the importance placed on
these resources. During the 1970's, inter-
national conventions on pollution by ships,
on ocean dumping of wastes, and on pro-
tection of the Mediterranean Sea from pol-
lution, as well as the laws of various
nations regulating marine pollution, all
demonstrated an awareness and willing-
ness to address marine environmental
problems. While we may take this aware-
ness for granted today, it is a far cry from
relatively recent times when the sea was
considered a sink with unlimited capacity
to assimilate man's wastes. This is illus-
trated by the fact that legislation to control
ocean dumping in the United States was
enacted only eight years ago, long after
controls on conventional water pollution
discharges had been initiated.
In implementing these laws, environ-
mental managers have been, and increas-
ingly will be, seeking information on the
ecological consequences and trade-offs of
their actions as a guide to many marine
resource management issues they are con-
fronting. Many of these questions deal with
impacts and management options of a rela-
tively limited scope. Others address issues
which are global in nature, sometimes rais-
ing the spectre of possible "ecocatastro-
phies." From time to time there have been
dire predictions of catastrophic changes in
behavior of the oceans. For example, sev-
eral years ago, an individual prominent for
his activities in ocean exploration an-
nounced that the oceans were dying and
could well be dead within 25 years. Most
responsible scientists would probably dis-
miss such statements as wildly speculative
at best. Few, however, would deny that the
question of man's impact on the world's
oceans merits serious attention and that,
MARCH 1981
17
-------
should global impacts occur, the stakes
could prove very high indeed. For example,
should long-term reductions in photosyn-
thetic capability result from man-induced
stress, the impacts on food production in
the oceans and on atmospheric oxygen con-
tent could both have profound impacts.
The kinds of questions being asked are:
What is the capacity of the oceans to re-
ceive and assimilate wastes without threat
of serious impact? How can we measure
this assimilative capacity? Are there sig-
nificant and wide-scale trends in ocean
deterioration? Are subtle, long-term altera-
tions in marine ecosystems occurring as a
result of man-induced stress? What are the
consequences of marine waste disposal in
relation to terrestrial alternatives? How can
we monitor and detect deterioration in
marine ecosystems, particularly for early
warning purposes?
Although advances have been made, the
answers to many of these questions have
not been forthcoming from the marine
science community to date, due to a com-
bination of resource constraints and scien-
tific limitations. Our current understanding
of the response of marine ecosystems to
stress falls far short of that which will be
required for sound environmental manage-
ment over the long run. If we think of
marine systems as a continuum—ranging
from estuarine and inshore areas at one
end of the spectrum, through large en-
closed seas or semi-enclosed coastal areas,
to open oceans in areas at the other end of
the spectrum—we know most about the
impacts of man in confined and localized
areas and least in the open sea areas.
There have been many intensive studies
on individual bays, estuaries and nearshore
areas, and these have provided useful in-
formation concerning environmental im-
pacts. Despite this, we are often hard
pressed to quantify the impacts of major
disturbances on more than a local scale.
Enclosed seas such as the Baltic Sea and
large coastal regions such as the New York
Bight and Southern California Coast have
also been studied to assess the impact of
pollution and other marine alterations.
However, even in the New York Bight,
which perhaps has been more intensively
studied than any comparable oceanic area
in the United States and perhaps the world,
many questions concerning more than
isolated, localized, or relatively discrete
impacts still remain largely unanswered.
Thus, while evidence for specific situa-
tions has frequently been sufficient to sup-
port regulatory judgments, little is known
concerning the broader impact of man on
the open oceans. It is known that contami-
nation is widespread. Plankton tows in the
Atlantic have routinely picked up substan-
tial quantities of tar and plastic debris.
There is a genera! consensus among many
marine scientists that chlorinated hydro-
carbons, toxic metals, and petroleum hy-
drocarbons are all ocean contaminants of
potential global concern. However, while
widespread distribution of these contami-
nants has been detected in pelagic marine
environments, relatively little is known
about their significance in terms of eco-
system impacts. For example, although
increased low level contamination of the
oceans by petroleum hydrocarbons has
been well demonstrated, the ecological
consequences are not understood. This
lack of information has clouded interna-
tional discussions concerning the levels of
control that should be imposed on oil dis-
charges from vessel operations.
Clearly, there are major difficulties in
providing reliable information on trends in
marine environmental quality. On the one
hand, we are unable to demonstrate clearly
far-reaching impacts; on the other hand,
we have a haunting concern that damages
might later appear, perhaps far from the
source and with devastating effect. The
problems are perhaps more ambiguous and
less tractable than such comparable global
environmental issues as desertification and
loss of tropical rain forests, which can be
inventoried and quantified by remote
sensing techniques. Acquiring the neces-
sary information may pose some dilemmas
which, while not unique to marine systems,
are particularly difficult because of the
large-scale, open, complex nature of the
oceans. Marine ecosystems may exhibit
great spatial and temporal variability. At
any given time, they may be responding to
natural stress, such as the aftereffects of
severe storms. Tremendous difficulties
have been encountered in attempting to
establish baseline and monitoring ap-
proaches which can detect departures from
a norm, particularly for early warning
purposes.
So one dilemma marine scientsts face is
that of trying to predict and detect incre-
ments of man-induced change in a dy-
namic, constantly changing natural envi-
ronment. This poses a number of basic
conceptual problems. A basic problem in
detecting change is the so-called "noise-
to-signal" ratio. That is, are we actually
detecting a uni-directional change, or are
we somewhere within the hands of cyclic
or other natural variability? For example, is
the substantial loss of submerged aquatic
vegetation currently being experienced in
Chesapeake Bay the result of pesticide run-
off. Hurricane Agnes, or a cyclic natural
event?
Then there are problems determining
causal relationships. Once we have de-
tected a change, is it in any way related to
the stress we are monitoring? This is com-
plicated by the fact that a number of
stresses, both man-caused and natural,
may be simultaneously impacting the sys-
tem under study. Failure to identify the
correct cause of change could result in
either regulation or failure to regulate.
There is also the problem of defining the
significance of effects. If we have detected
a change and find it is man-induced, what is
its significance? Is it irreversible? Is it
catastrophic? Is it important? An example
is the destruction of estuarine or anadro-
mousfish populations by electric generating
plants. We may be able to estimate that a
plant is reducing the numbers of fish eggs
and larvae by 50 percent through its water
intake system, but how significant is such
a loss of eggs and larvae in determining the
size of the mature population ? We do know
that populations may compensate to some
extent for such losses through increased
survival rates of the remaining eggs and
larvae. Another example is found in ques-
tions dealing with bioconcentration of pol-
lutants in food-chains. We can determine
if biomagnification occurs and predict
whether this may have an impact on se-
lected populations. But impacts on or risks
to man a re much more difficult to deter mine.
All this, of course, says nothing about
the question of how much environmental
damage society is willing to accept. This
obviously is a public policy, rather than
scientific determination. But sound under-
standing of "significance" may assist in
resolving "acceptability."
There are inherent difficulties involved
in providing clear-cut answers to many of
these questions. In laboratory experiments,
scientists can control the variables and
obtain clear-cut results, but how do labora-
tory findings relate to what actually exists
or will exist in nature? Yet, when we try to
study the marine ecosystem itself, we have
a hard time controlling the variables and
distinguishing the impacts. And, if we con-
duct microcosm studies such as the EPA-
sponsored studies at the University of
Rhode Island, which are using large tanks
with natural seawater and communities of
organisms from nearby Narragansett Bay to
provide controlled experimental ecosys-
tems, then we still must question whether
or not we have really replicated the envi-
ronment or whether we are measuring ex-
perimentally induced anomalies.
In the final analysis, to make progress in
this area, we must seek to improve not only
our ability to predict the consequences of
marine pollution, but also our ability to
detect, measure, and understand the sig-
nificance of damage after it has occurred.
Improved predictive capability will depend
upon an integrated approach to the use of
such research approaches as laboratory
toxicity studies, ecosystem simulation
models, and field investigations. Our pre-
dictions must then be complemented by
improved monitoring capability which can
detect actual impacts, and serve as a feed-
back mechanism with respect to the
accuracy of our original predictions and
adequacy of our regulatory actions.
18
EPA JOURNAL
-------
New and innovative approaches will be
required to monitor and detect subtle and
long-term changes in ocean ecosystems.
One promising approach is biomonitoring.
An example of biomonitoring is the Mussel
Watch program. This effort utilizes mussels
and oysters as sentinel organisms for re-
cording relative levels of pollutants, such
as heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons
and halogenated hydrocarbons, in coastal
environments. These organisms have the
ability to bioconcentrate these pollutants,
which makes analysis much easier, and to
integrate pollutant exposure over time. This
program has been used to identify poilu-
tant "hot spots" around the coast of the
United States.
Other organisms can also serve as bio-
indicators. For example, a conference held
several years ago on long-term ecological
measurements identified seabird popula-
tions as important potential indicators of
marine environmental quality. The confer-
ence report discussed the fact that many
marine birds are long-lived, widely dis-
persed during much of the year, but highly
concentrated during their nesting seasons.
Because of their role high in the food chain,
marine birds are potential accumulators of
contaminants as well as integrators of
ocean ecosystem conditions. It might be
feasible to design long-term sampling pro-
grams which could combine tissue analysis
with the monitoring of nesting areas
through aerial photography, thus sampling
populations representing a vast coverage
of ocean conditions in a very small space
and possibly providing a vehicle for detec-
tion of widescale oceanic change. This
approach still remains to be tested.
In addition to the conceptual and scien-
tific problems involved, marine pollution
studies present major organizational chal-
lenges. The very nature of ocean systems
calls for investigations which are inte-
grated, truly inter-disciplinary, and some-
times international in scope. This requires
major manpower and financial resource
levels and logistical support, as well as
organizational skills more characteristic of
the space program than of most environ-
mental research. In this regard, it is encour-
aging to see studies such as the Coordi-
nated Mediterranean Pollution Monitoring
and Research Program, supported by the
United Nations Environment Program,
which involves a sustained and integrated
attack by scientists of various nations.
I have described the difficulties involved
in providing answers to some of the ques-
tions concerning marine pollution facing
decision makers. I would like to conclude
by stressing the importance of making
progress in this area. For the present, con-
cern about the future of the oceans, coupled
with the technical difficulties of monitoring
and detecting harmful effects early enough
to assure they will not become irreversible,
has been great enough to result in adoption
of a cautionary approach to many marine
environmental issues. Under current legis-
lation, many existing pollutant discharge
Oil-smeared bird is victim of pollution.
regulations are technologically based,
rather than reflecting ecological cause and
effect. That is, they require adoption of
waste controls that are feasible from an
economic and engineering standpoint,
rather than defining what is required to
avoid unwanted environmental impacts,
based upon analysis at a particular site.
However, a concern on the part of some
communities that secondary waste treat-
ment requirements for waste discharges to
the ocean could impose unnecessary costs
in relation to environmental results led to
enactment of Section 301 (h) of the Clean
Water Act of 1 977. This section of the law
allows EPA to issue permit modifications
which will let municipalities discharge less
than secondary treated wastes to the ma-
rine environment provided they can demon-
strate that significant environmental dam-
age will not occur. Reviews of applications
for this type of permit modification are
currently underway. Conversely, in other
cases, technology-based regulatory con-
trols may not provide enough protection,
and marine environmental problems may
result.
Perhaps even more significant is the
question of whether excessively stringent
controls on marine waste discharges may
impose unnecessary costs or greater bur-
dens on some other sector of the environ-
ment. Increasingly, however, we are recog-
nizing the need to examine environmental
trade-offs; for example, wastes not dis-
charged at sea may require land disposal or
incineration, causing environmental prob-
lems elsewhere. As pressures mount on
such issues as ultimate disposal of toxic
wastes, protection of groundwater from
leachates from land disposal sites, the
atmospheric effects of waste incineration,
the energy costs of waste disposal, and
others, decisions based on a more quanti-
fiable relationship between environmental
control requirements and environmental
response increasingly will be required. The
need for better information about the eco-
logical consequences of waste disposal in
the ocean will be even greater than it is
today.
Efforts to address questions such as
those outlined above provide the basis for
EPA's current research activities relating
to marine pollution. Although EPA's re-
search programs and resources in this area
are relatively limited, we are working in
close cooperation with other agencies and
research institutions. We know that we can
never hope to find solutions for all the
problems of our impact on the oceans, but
we are attempting to provide information
which will greatly assist in making more
rational and informed management
decisions. D
Dr. Hirsch is EPA 's Deputy Assistant
A drnin/strator for Environmental Processes
and Effects Research.
MARCH 198'
-------
••• v m ^
mm
-------
EPA and
the Marine
Environment
The need for data on ocean
pollution is of growing im-
portance to EPA and other agen-
cies responsible for marine pro-
tection and management. EPA
is especially concerned with the
need for regulation to curb
ocean pollution and for research
to furnish the scientific basis for
regulatory decisions.
EPA's marine and coastal
activities are carried out under
several taws: Clean Water Act;
Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act; Toxic
Substances Control Act;
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act; Deep Sea
Hard Mineral Resources Act,
and the Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Act. (For EPA's
role in international marine
agreements, see article on
page 8.)
EPA's research is conducted
by the Office of Research and
Development at the Agency's
laboratories at Gulf Breeze, Fla.;
Narragansett, R.I.; Newport,
Ore., and Grosse lie, Mich.
Other EPA-supported research
is done at universities through-
out the U.S. and a Marine
Center of Excellence at the
University of Rhode Island.
EPA research and regulatory
activities related to marine and
coastal areas are listed below.
EPA-supported research,
which provides the technical
basis for regulatory decisions, is
focusing on marine waste dis-
posal, energy impacts, toxicity
studies, wetlands, the Great
Lakes and Chesapeake Bay, and
monitoring. Research activities
include:
• determining the impact of
municipal wastes disposed of
through ocean outfalls.
• developing procedures to
measure the toxicity of dredged
material and to determine levels
of pollutants in sediments.
• determining the impact of
drilling fluid disposal from oil
and gas drilling activities.
• examining the effects of oil
in the marine environment.
• developing and testing oil
spill prevention, control, and
cleanup devices and
procedures.
• determining the impact of
chlorine in discharges to the
marine environment.
• developing procedures to
measure the toxicity and impact
of pollutants such as pesticides
and toxic substances.
• determining the impact of
carcinogens on the marine
environment.
• investigating the fate and
effects of pollutants in simu-
lated marine ecosystems.
• developing procedures to
define wetland boundaries for
legal purposes.
• studying wetlands to deter-
mine their function and value in
the environment.
• conducting studies on toxics,
submerged aquatic vegetation,
and nutrient enrichment in the
Chesapeake Bay.
• examining pollutant input,
cycling, fate and effects in the
Great Lakes.
• assessing the use of mussels
and oysters as a technique for
monitoring pollutant levels in
marine coastal areas.
• developing methods to
monitor pollutant exposure at
specific sites in marine environ-
ments over relatively short
periods of time.
In addition to these research
efforts, EPA is also involved in
regulatory activities affecting
the following areas:
• ocean dumping of municipal,
industrial and radioactive
wastes.
• disposal of dredged material.
• discharge of municipal and
industrial effluents from ocean
outfalls.
• discharge of wastes from oil
and gas drilling operations,
deep sea mining activities, and
offshore thermal conversion
facilities to produce energy.
• oil and hazardous materials
spill prevention, cleanup, and
damage assessment.
• development of water quality
criteria for hazardous materials.
• registration or reregistration
of pesticides.
• premarket testing of toxic
substances.
Interagency coordination
regarding the marine environ-
ment is carried out both
formally and informally. Formal
planning for and dissemination
of information on marine
research activities for the
Federal Government is coordi-
nated through the interagency
Committee on Ocean Pollution
Research, Development and
Monitoring. EH
Heron wading in ocean surf at
Padre Island, Tex., with offshore
oil well in background.
MARCH 1981
21
-------
Underwater
Scientists at
Gulf Breeze
By Betty Jackson
Marine biologists at EPA's Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory in Gulf
Breeze, Fla, are taking a leaf from diving
techniques to supplement laboratory re-
search on the effects of pollutants on marine
life.
Divers there have been conducting bio-
logical surveys underwater, collecting or
ganisms and samples for use in laboratory
tests, and even transferring portions of the
sea floor into the laboratory for experiments
that attempt to simulate natural conditions.
Laboratory Director Henry F. Enos fore-
sees an expanded role for the scientific
diver in response to increased demands for
field validation of laboratory experiments
and on-site biological surveys for environ-
mental problem-solving.
"To fulfill this role, divers at our labora-
tory needed intensive advanced training in
the use of sophisticated equipment and in
the management of diving accidents,"Dr.
Enos explained. "Therefore we set up a
workshop in advanced diving technology
that was conducted by instructors of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration."
The workshop curriculum was designed
to help Gulf Breeze scientists expand their
research periphery and extend their work
from the laboratory bench to the underwater
environment. They were also instructed in
diving physiology, uses of underwater
equipment, and safety procedures.
At the conclusion of the training, labora-
tory Diving Officer Jim Patrick was certified
as a diving supervisor and dive master. Six
laboratory staff members were certified as
operational divers: Joel Ivey, Dana Morton,
Jim Spain, Patrick Borthwick, Norman
Rubinstein, and Wiliam P. Davis. Biological
Aide Jeff Wheat qualified as a surface
support tender,
"Our team is the first within the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to meet diving
standards of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration," Dr. Enos
said. "Certification of our divers will be a
continuing exercise and will be subject to
periodic review by their instructors."
As more and more scientists combine
laboratory research with underwater inves-
tigations, guidelines for their health and
safety has become a concern of the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration.
Jim Patrick, Gulf Breeze's diving super-
visor, hopes that the exercise guidelines
and procedures used in the certification and
training of his team can be useful in devel-
oping safe diving requirements for EPA
divers.
"We consider ourselves pioneers in the
development of a safe diving code for the
Agency that will be applicable to scientific
divers who monitor pollution or document
damage caused by pollutants," Patrick said.
In addition to intensive training in life-
saving procedures, instructors Ed Clark and
Richard Rutkowski, assisted by Marc Kiser,
and Michael A. Heebof EPA, taught Gulf
Breeze divers the use of sophisticated dry
suits designed for cold or contaminated
waters. Divers using the dry suits are sup-
plied air from the surface through two types
of face masks. Both mask systems are full-
face, underwater breathing devices that
protect the diver from contaminated water
and provide direct two-way communication
between the diver and a surface tender.
The dive team also was introduced to an
underwater television system that can
record behavior of marine life and any
changes in biota and the physical environ-
ment caused by people. Divers learned how
underwater video television technology can
aid in communication with topside support
personnel who monitor divers for safety
and assist in the evaluation of results.
Divers received training in the latest col-
lecting techniques for capturing delicate
animals in nets, cages, and devices such as
the airlift—a long pipe equipped with an
air venturi that transports sediment and
organisms to a collecting bag.
These techniques will be applied to, or
modified for research projects being
conducted by members of the dive team.
Microbiologist Jim Spain, operational
diver, relies on other members of the team
to assist him in the collection of sediment
and water cores for tests to determine the
fate of toxic chemicals in the aquatic
environment.
The cores are collected carefully to
preserve bottom sediment, an area of
intensive microbial activity. Divers collect
the cores in an apparatus designed to trans-
fer sediments intact to the laboratory for
experiments with pesticides. The test sys-
tem, called the Eco-core, was developed at
Gulf Breeze to measure the rate of microbial
degradation in contaminated sediments.
Results aid in predicting the fate and per-
sistence of toxic organic chemicals in the
marine or estuarine environment.
Cores for the tests are collected from
various underwater sites in the Gulf of
Mexico, Pensacola Bay estuary, and rivers,
often under difficult conditions. Spain, like
the other scientists at Gulf Breeze Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, believes that
scientific training and intimate knowledge
of the test procedures and objectives are
essential to the performance of such diving
tasks.
This view is shared by other members of
the team. Jim Patrick, who is currently
involved in studies with the belted sandfish,
Serranus subligarius, has found that diving
istheonlymethodofcollectingthe animals
unharmed. Each fish, a type of hermaphro-
dite, can produce both viable eggs and
sperm. Mating pairs are identified by
behavioral interaction and by subtle differ-
ences in pigmentation. Thus scientific ex-
pertise is required to identify and collect
the pairs needed for laboratory tests to
determine whether the species can be used
in reproductive studies.
Joel Ivey, a biological technician, and a
member of the dive team, aided in the
design of community tests that use benthic
or bottom-dwelling communities estab-
lished in habitats placed underwater and
later retrieved by divers. The organisms
are lifted to the surface with the aid of air-
filled lift bags controlled by the divers.
With the assistance of other divers, Ivey
can transfer habitats that contain such
communities from the seafloor to the lab-
oratory for tests designed to determine the
toxicity of oil-well drilling fluids to bottom-
dwelling organisms. The test species,
including annelids, arthropods, molluscs,
crustaceans, and nematodes, settle in the
habitats that contain sand taken from the
sea bottom. After eight weeks, the habitats
and the-developed communities are trans-
ferred to the laboratory for toxicity tests
with drilling fluid components. Results of
such tests are used to validate tests with
benthic communities that have been
developed in the laboratory.
Research biologist Patrick Borthwick
sees diving as a useful tool for locating and
collecting new test species for laboratory
acute toxicity studies. Under water, the
scientific diver can observe and collect live
specimens in various stages of develop-
EPA JOURNAL
-------
merit from specific aquatic habitats. In his
search for novel test species, he hopes to
develop a battery of sensitive organisms
representing several types of marine life for
screening pollutants.
Diving is important in the study of crabs
and other shellfish. These commercially
important species are oriented to the ocean
bottom and are often difficult to sample
with conventional traps.
As in recent years, divers from the Gulf
Breeze Laboratory this summer collected
arrow crabs (Stenorhynchus seticornis), at
Stage I, a Navy research platform in the
Gulf of Mexico 1 2 miles south of Panama
City, Fla. The animals will be used for field
and laboratory studies of the effects of
drilling fluids on the offshore environment.
The research effort, supported by grants,
contracts, and interagency agreements,
focuses on the effects of drilling fluids on
animals and plants normally found near
offshore oil and gas rigs. It also seeks to
determine the impact of drilling near areas
of high biological activity, such as coral
reefs and the communities they shelter.
The divers frequently are consulted by
fellow scientists on design and procedures
for sub-sea experiments. Their underwater
observations are useful in evaluating the
effectiveness of sampling devices and deter-
mining whether the sampling site is unusual
or representative of a larger sampling area.
Field validation by divers is important in
verifying results of laboratory tests and
demonstrating that test conditions reflect
those existing in nature.
Divers at the Gulf Breeze Laboratory
predict that diving technology will be use-
ful in future attempts to monitor changes in
aquatic ecosystems at dumping sites or at
ocean outfalls. The need for basic data
about the environmental health of the
nation's water resources holds the promise
of a bright future for scientific diving, D
Betty Jackson is a technical writer for the
Gulf Breeze Laboratory.
-
'.'.ist ;it EPA's Gulf f • :• .
MARCH 1981
23
-------
Burning Wastes at Sea
By Charlotte Garvey
The hazardous waste incinerator ship Vulcanus at sea.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Burning chemicals at sea may be a key
part of the answer in disposing of
some kinds of hazardous and toxic wastes.
Incineration at sea is environmentally
safe, economical, and should be encour-
aged, concluded the recent report of an
interagency task force.
The Interagency Ad Hoc Work Group,
composed of members of EPA, the Com-
merce Department's Maritime Administra-
tion, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the
National Bureau of Standards, has been
studying expansion of technology in the
area and has issued a report on the topic,
"Report of the Interagency Ad Hoc Work
Group for the Chemical Waste Incinerator
Ship Program."
The group recommended amending the
Merchant Marine Act of 1936 to permit
substantial Federal assistance and funding
to build and operate privately-owned U.S.
flag waste incinerator ships.
"This country has an enormous hazard-
ous waste problem and Americans have to
face up to it," said former EPA Administra-
tor Douglas M. Costle. "Everybody wants
hazardous wastes picked up, but no one
wants them put down. Incineration, both on
land arid at sea, gives us a major option for
effectively dealing with hazardous waste.
We need to be as supportive of these new
technologies as we can."
The government has two options, depend-
ing on how many private firms apply for
Federal assistance to build incinerator
vessels over the next year, said Russel
Wyer, EPA's co-chairman of the inter-
agency task force. One option is to stim-
ulate private industry to build ships them-
selves through financial incentives includ-
ing subsidies and Federally-guaranteed
loans. !n return, industry would allow EPA
to set up research stations on the vessels
themselves to advance the state of the art.
If few applications for Federal assistance
are received, another alternative the gov-
ernment will consider is building and
operating its own vessel for possible later
sale or charter to private industry.
Wyer said that the at-sea program would
supplement incineration operations on land,
with an estimated capability to handle only
a fraction of total hazardous and toxic
wastes, even at maximum capacity.
The report recommends giving top prior-
ity to setting up "funding mechanisms
which encourage private entrepreneurs to
build and operate incinerator ships" in the
United States and to "place the cost of con-
structing a vessel in the United States on a
parity with foreign construction costs"
either through proposed subsidies or tax
incentives.
The Vulcanus, a Dutch incinerator ship
used extensively throughout Europe, in
1977 successfully destroyed three ship-
loads of Herbicide Orange, a toxic defoliant
used by the United States in the Vietnam
War. The average destruction efficiency of
this process for dioxin, a highly toxic sub-
stance in the herbicide, was greater than
99.9 percent. The burn took place about
1,000 miles southwest of Hawaii.
Burns take place on the high seas at least
100 miles from shore. Under EPA regula-
tions, an Environmental Impact Statement
(ElS) must be issued for each incineration
site to assess in detail what effect the
operation could have on the environment.
The Vulcanus is the only vessel capable
of at-sea incineration now available for
commercial use that can travel from con-
tinent to continent. It was converted from
a cargo ship to incinerator capability.
Waste Management, Inc., of Oakbrook,
III., has since purchased the Vulcanus from
its German owners, Hansa Lines. Ocean
Combustion Services, a subsidiary of
Waste Management, operates the vessel.
EPA has plans for the Vulcanus this year.
The Agency wants to destroy one and a
half shiploads of Silvex, which has shown
the potential to cause miscarriages, birth
defects, and have other adverse reproduc-
tive effects. EPA also plans to destroy half
a shipload of DDT at the same time and is
considering use of the Vulcanus for
destruction of PCB's.
The interagency group has also drawn up
a prototype model incinerator ship which,
unlike the Vulcanus and other at-sea
incinerator vessels, would have the capac-
ity to destroy solid as well as liquid wastes.
Wyer said equipment now on the vessels
is limited to liquid waste and the addition
of a rotary kiln incinerator to destroy solid
waste needs to be tested.
The model ship would have an 8,000
metric ton capacity compared to the
Vulcanus' 4,000 metric ton capacity. Wyer
says an alternative to building new ships is
to convert existing shfps to incineration
capability, but the vessels would be much
smaller than the prototype.
A single prototype ship at full capacity
could destroy up to 200,000 metric tons of
waste a year.
Costs for constructing a single vessel
are estimated at $75 million in 1980
dollars, plus $25 million for incineration
equipment.
EPA estimates in 1978 indicated the U.S.
generates almost 350 million metric tons of
industrial waste a year, and projected at
least 57 million metric tons of hazardous
waste would be produced nationally in
1980.
Wyer said that incineration at sea offers
an attractive addition to the range of
methods now used to dispose of chemical
wastes. The other methods are landfill dis-
posal, chemical detoxification, and land-
based incineration.
An EPA comparative study in 1978
showed at-sea incineration to be the least
costly means of disposal. Incineration at
sea also is as effective as land-based incin-
eration, often destroying 99.99 percent of
hazardous materials contained in waste.
Wyer said there are a number of other
advantages to burning at sea, explaining:
"Because the ship destroys wastes away
from populated areas, you avoid any risk
to nearby communities."
He also indicated at-sea incineration has
minimal impact on the environment. "Acid
emissions from the incinerator ships can be
directly dispersed into the ocean without
the 'scrubbing' process needed for land-
base incinerators. The ocean water neutral-
izes most of the acids so the emissions mix
harmlessly with the water," he declared.
A gap could soon develop in incinerator
ship operations around the world when the
Vulcanus' certificate of fitness, approving
the vessel's condition for use, runs out in
1982, possibly before any other vessel has
been constructed or retrofitted with similar
capabilities.
Wyer said that Waste Management
hasn't indicated plans for the Vulcanus in
the future, but it is possible to rebuild the
existing ship.
"It's getting tight," he said. Retrofitting
a vessel could take up to a year and half,
according to Wyer, and to build a ship from
scratch, at least two years. He said that so
far, the government hasn't received many
applications for assistance.
To get things moving, the interagency
group held a meeting on the project in
December attended by members of the
private sector. The purpose of the meeting
was to exchange ideas, suggest possible
directions for the program, and help the
board estimate the potential number of
applicants for Federal financial assistance.
Wyer said that the government's pre-
ferred option is for private industry to con-
struct and operate the vessels, because it
would keep management of the operation
in the private sector and stimulate job
opportunities as well. D
Charlotte Garvey is an editorial assistant
with EPA Journal.
MARCH 1981
25
-------
EPA is charged by Congress to protect the Nation's land, air and water systems Under a mandate of national en-
vironmental laws focused on air and water quality, solid waste management and the control of toxic substances.
pesticides, noise and radiation the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions which lead to a compatible
balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life
If you have suggestions, questions,
or requests for further information.
they may be directed to your near-
est EPA Regional public information
office
EPA Region 1 • JFK Federal Bldg.
Boston MA 02203 Connecticut.
Maine, Massachusetts. New
Hampshire, Rhode Island. Vermont
617 223 7210
EPA Region 2 *26 Federal Plaza
New York NY 10007 New Jersey,
New York. Puerto Rico. Virgin
Islands
212 264 2525
EPA Region 3 «6th and Walnut
Streets Philadelphia PA 19106
Delaware. Maryland, Pennsylvania.
Virginia. West Virginia. District of
Columbia
215-597 9814
EPA Region 4 • 345 Courtland
Street NE Atlanta GA 30308
Alabama. Georgia. Florida. Missis-
sippi. North Carolina. South
Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky
404 881 4727
EPA Region 5 «230 S. Dearborn
Chicago IL 60604 Illinois, Indiana
Ohio. Michigan. Wisconsin.
Minnesota
312353-2000
EPA Region 6 »1201 Elm Street
Dallas TX 75270 Arkansas
Louisiana. Oklahoma, Texas, New
Mexico
214-7672600
EPA Region 7 . 324 East 11 th
Street Kansas City MO 64106
Iowa. Kansas, Missouri. Nebraska
816-374-5493
EPA Region 8 • 1860 Lincoln
Street Denver CO 80295
Colorado. Utah. Wyoming,
Montana, North Dakota. Soulffe,
Dakota '
303837 3895
EPA Region 9 • 215 Fremont
Street San Francisco CA 94105
Arizona, California. Nevada. Hawaii.
Guam. American Samoa. Trust
Territories of the Pacific
415-556 2320
EPA Region 10 »1200 Sixth
Avenue Seattle WA 98101 Alaska
Idaho, Oregon, Washington
206-442 1~2 20
EPA Journal Subscriptions
The EPA Journal is published monthly, with combined issues July-August and
November-December, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If you wish
to subscribe to this publication, send check or money order to Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Sub-
scription price is $12 per year domestic, $1.20 single copy, $15 per year foreign.
Name-First, Last
Company Name or Additional Address Line
Please Print
II I I I I I I I i
Street Address
LLLLLLLL
Zip Code
J_L i .
J Payment enclosed
(Make check payable to Superintendent of Documents)
JCharge to my Deposit Account No
Mail order form to: (Superintendent of Documents)
Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20402
------- |