^a>
0®'
)0
o**
&
(0°
s*
ft*
O
I EC Report
4460C1559
o\'
jtf*
&v
GV'
STATE
>NICS
CORPORATION
Subsidiary A-T-0 Inc.
O
O
V*1 G\
1* ^ ,-'•- 1
CEAIM WASTE DISPOSAL
" ,<0^ 0^'
,» Vg -
,v°^ ao vf*
?V^XT«°\ si,
ro - •• i fc?^
ft'W'* .wvti""'
¦ *<**
~- £ .vX'
» ': £ **£
\iv-
£.0-
* /o*
i'4 C^J.0^ 5
o>
O/
/o
o
o
¦S^-
Prepared By
lEC-Oceanics
for the
Oceari
,<|0«
k 1 ¦
O,
disposal Program Office
U.S^Etfvironrr^tal Protection Agency
A
°\\^> \>\
bOaAb \>*
1° V •
1?oi
?S
a01
o%'
,oV'
>**
&
O
.6^
. c
-------
INTERSTATE REPORT 4460C1559
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION August, 1973
Subsidiary of ATO Inc.
Oceanics Division
OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL
IN THE
NEW YORK BIGHT
By
T. J. Achrem
Prepared for the
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OCEAN DISPOSAL PROGRAM OFFICE
Under Contract 68-01-0796
Prepared by
INTERSTATE ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
Oceanics Division
707 East Vermont Avenue, Post Office Box 3117
Anaheim, CA 92 803 Telephone 714-77 2-2811
-------
ABSTRACT
Ocean Waste Disposal in the New York Bight
This report is an extract from a comprehensive study on ocean
waste disposal in selected geographic areas. The study was
conducted under contract with the Environmental Protection
Agency, Ocean Disposal Program. Its purpose was to provide
information to assist in the development of criteria for the
control of ocean waste disposal.
As part of the study, an intensive field survey was conducted in
the New York city metropolitan region during the spring of 1973.
The purpose was to establish personal contact with agencies and
persons cognizant of ocean disposal practices in the New York
Bight.
This report presents the findings of that survey. It includes
specific sections on ocean dump site characteristics; their
geographic location; type and volume of material dumped; method
of disposal; description of disposal sites; current monitoring
procedures; local regulating agencies; estuarine economics; an
extensive chronology of related major events; and, alternatives
and recommendations for ocean disposal in the New York Bight.
14460C1559
i
-------
FOREWORD
The oceanics Division of Interstate Electronics corporation,
Anaheim, California, under contract 68-01-0796 to the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency# for the Ocean Disposal Program,
undertook an intensive study of ocean waste disposal practices in
six geographic areas of the United States. During this study, it
was concluded that the major area of prime significance was the
New York Bight (NYE). Therefore, the findings of that field
study are presented as a separate document, to assist managers,
engineers and scientists in their continuing study of the NYB
pollution problem. This report includes additional cartographic
data and a bibliography pertinent to this specific survey. The
EPA Ocean Disposal Program encourages comments on the findings
presented in this document. To facilitate communication, we have
provided a comment form at the back of the document.
Other documents prepared under contract 68-01-0796 for the Ocean
Disposal Program are:
1. A Bibliography on Ocean Waste Disposal. Report
4460C1542, May, 1973.
2. Directory of Managers, Engineers and Scientists in
Ocean Waste Disposal and Related Environmental Science
Fields. Report M460C1543, August, 1973.
3. Ocean Waste Disposal in Selected Geographic Areas.
Report 4460C1541, August, 1973
H. An Atlas of Ocean Waste Disposal Sites. Report
4460C1545, August, 1973.
5. Guidelines for Development of Criteria for Control of
Ocean Waste Disposal. Report t460Cl5U4, September,
1973.
These reports are available through the National Technical
Information System and the EPA.
ii
4460C1559
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Abstract i
Foreword ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables iv
Section 1 - An Introduction to the New York Bight Ocean
Disposal Study 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Ocean Waste Disposal Problems 1-4
1.3 Summary 1-9
Section 2 - Field Study Report 2-1
2.1 New York Bight Ocean Disposal Study 2-1
2.1.1 Background 2-1
2.1.2 Introduction 2-4
2.1.3 Disposal Areas 2-7
2.1.4 Disposal Site Geography and Uses 2-8
2.1.5 Regional Economy 2-15
2.1.6 Permit System 2-19
2.1.7 Analysis of Dumping Operations 2-29
2.1.8 Water Quality Monitoring and Sampling 2-35
2.1.9 Chronology of the Major Events Related to New
York Bight Dumping Practices 2-36
2.1.10 Alternatives and Recommendations for Ocean
Dumping in the New York Bight 2-57
2.1.11 Conclusion 2-77
Section 3 - Approved Interim Dumping Sites New York. Bight 3-1
3.1 Interim Ocean Disposal Sites 3-1
3.1.1 Retrospect 3-1
3.1.2 Approved Interim Dumping Sites - EPA Region II 3-2
3.1.3 An Atlas of Ocean Waste Disposal Sites 3-3
Section 4 - References 4-1
Section 5 - Managers, Engineers and Scientists contacted
During the New York Bight Field Survey 5-1
4460C1559 ***
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NQi TITLE PAGE
1.1-1 Ocean Disposal Case Study Areas 1-2
1.1-2 Coastal Environmental Regions 1-5
1.1-3 ERTS-1 Image, New York Bight 1-11
2.1-1 Location Map - Ocean Disposal Sites New York Bight 2-9
3.1-1 Ocean Disposal Site ODO203 3-4
3.1-2 Ocean Disposal Site ODO206 3-5
3.1-3 Ocean Disposal Site ODO209 3-6
3.1-4 Ocean Disposal Site 0D0212 3-7
3.1-5 Ocean Disposal Site 0D0215 3-8
3.1-6 Ocean Disposal Site 0DO227 3-9
LIST OF TABLES
NQi TITLE PAGE
2.1-1 Statistical Data - County Population 2-16
2.1-2 Statistical Data - Beach Recreation 2-17
2.1-3 statistical Data - New Jersey Commercial Fisning 2-18
2.1-4 Statement of Activities - Harbor Supervision and
Compliance section 2-22
2.1-5 COE Permit Schedule File - Year 1972 2-79
3.1-1 Approved Interim Dumping Sites - EPA Region II 3-2
iv
4460C1559
-------
IC (
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was made possible only through a high degree of
cooperation provided by the managers, scientists and engineers
(listed in Section 5) in the case study area and the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Ocean Disposal Program Staff.
A special note of thanks is expressed to Mr. T. A. Wastler,
Chief, Ocean Disposal Program, and his scientific and technical
staff including in particular, William Musser and BarBara Wygal.
This volume was written by Mr. T. J. Achrem as part of a
comprehensive study of ocean waste disposal in selected geographic
areas. The overall project was under the direction of Mr. Sam
Kelly. Scientific liaison in the Washington, D, C. area was
provided by Mr. D. D. Fryberger, Manager of Advanced Programs.
R. C. Timme
Division Manager
707 East Vermont Avenue, Post Office Box 3117, Anaheim, California 92803 Telephone 714-772-2811
-------
Section t
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW YORK BIGHT OCEAN DISPOSAL STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Oceanics Division of Interstate Electronics corporation,
under contract 68-01-0796 to the Ocean Disposal Program Office of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, undertook an intensive
survey of ocean waste disposal practices in six geographic areas.
These areas are shown in Figure 1.1-1. They are: the New York
Bight; Charleston, South Carolina; selected areas of the Gulf
Coast; the Southern California Area; San Francisco; and the
Pacific Northwest (Puget Sound). Sites within these areas were
selected to provide a representative cross section of ocean
disposal practices. Field surveys were made in these areas by
members of the scientific and technical staff of IEC Oceanics.
The purpose of the study was to obtain accurate, timely
information on ocean waste disposals at selected disposal sites
in these areas for establishment of an accurate data base. This
data base will be used by the Ocean Disposal Program for
developing criteria for the control of ocean waste disposal.
4460C1559
1-1
-------
FIGURE 1.1-1 OCEAN DISPOSAL CASE STUDY AREAS CCCilKKSg
-------
INTRODUCTION
Under a previous contract with the Environmental Protection
Agency (68-01-0160), IEC Oceanics had collected extensive
information concerning location of existing disposal sites and
characteristics of material being disposed of. The first step in
this ocean disposal study was to expand this existing data base
to provide more detailed and current information. This included
accurate geographic descriptions of the selected clumping sites, a
summary of site physical characteristics, description of existing
control and monitoring programs, activities, and a catalog of
available site environmental data. It had been previously
determined that the most practical method of obtaining the
information was by personal contact with personnel and agencies
in the area. Field investigators experienced in personal contact
and interviewing were used. These investigators had, in addition
to their interviewing skills, scientific training in
environmental sciences and engineering. As part of this survey,
in-house research was done on existing literature pertinent to
the ocean disposal field. A research bibliography and annotated
bibliography were generated as part of this effort and are
presented in a separate volume.11J A directory of Personnel in
Ocean Waste Disposal and Related Environmental Science Fields was
also compiled and is presented as a separate document.
Figure 1.1-2 illustrates the ocean region associated with the
coastal environment regions of the United states. Detailed cross
4460C1559
1-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
indexes and supporting environmental data is provided in A
National Overview of Existing Coastal Water Quality
Monitoring. <3 >
1.2 OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEMS
Lying just south of the Tropic of Cancer, about 750 miles below
the U.S. Border on Mexico's west coast is the city of Mazatlan.
The city was burned to the ground during an epidemic of bubonic
plague in 1902. After burning their homes and public buildings,
the townspeople dumped 4000 bodies into the Sea of Cortez (Gulf
of California) and fled by canoe.
The thought of bubonic plague dumping is no more esthetically
revolting than the problems associated with the dramatic
increases in the level of ocean wastes heavily concentrated with
materials toxic to human and marine life. As an example, during
the last year, 674,868 cubic yards of toxic chemicals were dumped
south of the Hudson Canyon, in an area just beyond the 1000-
fathom contour of the continental slope off New York. An
ecological data base of this dumping area has never been
established, and the development of an adequate monitoring system
requiring an array of sophisticated automatic instruments is
still in the "planning" stage.
4460C1559
-------
FIGURE 1.1-2 COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGIONS CClCIsiisil
-------
INTRODUCTION
For economic reasons, almost all dumping in the New York Bight is
committed to areas in water depths less than the 15-fathom
contour off New York. Harbor. The effects of ocean dumping to the
economy of the survey area is discussed in section 2.
The problems associated with more than 85 years of dumping
practices cannot be solved overnight. A realistic approach would
be a case-by-case evaluation of each dumping site to assess the
impact of these practices on the estuarine and ocean environment.
Case-by-case evaluation of the problems associated with ocean
waste disposal should include:
a. Expansion of marine organism sampling programs,
especially shellfish, to assess the potential health
hazard from bacteria, viruses, and toxic metals. One-
fifth of the nation's 10-million acres of shellfish
beds are closed because of contamination. A loss, due
to pollution, of $63 million from a potential of $320
million (1969).
b. Comprehensive beach sampling programs in all areas in
proximity to disposal sites to provide bacteriological
data. This most likely will be a Federal or state
program, as local agencies tend to minimize the
seriousness and potential hazards of polluted waters.
1-6
4460C1559
-------
INTRODUCTION
c. Adequate surveillance of ocean disposal operations to
assure that permittees observe the conditions of the
permit as issued. The permit must include the
necessary restrictions and specify the exact location
of the disposal site. The captain of a disposal vessel
should be required to demonstrate his knowledge of
navigation to determine the center of the disposal site
accurately. Necessary precautions should include
inspection and checkout of proper equipment and
documentation.
d. use of professional clivers and submersibles to perform
the chores of environmental monitoring. The diver is
the most effective means of data collection. Almost
every sampling device now used by ocean scientists is
controlled from on board a research vessel and, as a
result, blind samples are collected. An analogy to
this problem might be to compare the ocean to a dense
jungle, canopied with tall trees so dense that it is
impossible to investigate it on foot. In order to
collect the vegetation growing on the jungle floor, it
would be necessary to hover over the trees with a
helicopter and drop a bucket through the bush to the
jungle floor. It would be difficult to believe that
the investigators in that helicopter could collect all
of the types of vegetation on that jungle floor.
U460C1559
1-7
-------
INTRODUCTION
Underwater photographic services should be evaluated
for on-site surveys in this context.
e. Establish a close liaison with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers on the dredge spoil problem. The Corps of
Engineers estimates that, of the total dredge spoils
removed from each coastal region, 45 percent on the
Atlantic Coast, 31 percent on the Gulf Coast, and 19
percent on the Pacific coast are "polluted".<*>
f. Alternative methods of disposal. Sewage sludge
disposed of in the coastal areas will increase by 50
percent in 30 years. Although our center of population
is in southwestern Illinois, more than half of the
people live in counties which lie within 50 miles of
our coasts. The disposal practices of the other half
should be investigated, as well as those of our coastal
populations.
g. Oceanic monitoring by spacecraft (NASA) . Earth
Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS) data should be
used to supplement the EPA Ocean Disposal Program.
Such a monitoring system will receive ERTS images of
critical disposal areas, annotated to show data, time,
location of dumper, type cf material and desirable
oceanographic data. Figure 1.1-3 is an enlargement of
an ERTS image of the New York Bight. Figure 2.1-1
1-8
4460C1559
-------
INTRODUCTION
(pace 2-9) indicates the locations of the disposal
areas.
The image shows a plume which represents the offshore Hudson
River effluent which is pushed onto -the New Jersey coast by the
orevailing winds. The plume indicated by arrow number 1 resulted
from the disposal of waste acid. The diffuse circular patch to
the north indicated by arrow number 2 is the surface vestige of
sewer sludge, which is less noticeable than the waste acid.
Since only a gray-brown slick (a persistent surface
feature)remains, the reflected light is of lower intensity than
that from the waste acid making it possible to accurately
differentiate the materials. The monitoring system would be
particularly useful for spotting unauthorized dumping, and short
dumping. Evidence of a short dump is shown by arrow number 1.
1.3 SUMMARY
This report does not provide specific detailed meteorological,
biological, or chemical information on the New York Bight. The
vast amount of complex data (often conflicting) on these and
other scientific parameters is well beyond the scope of this
report. section 2 reports the past and present activities
related to ocean dumping in the Pigh-c, and guides the reader to
the references used. The references cited in section 4 is the
4460C1559
1-9
-------
INTRODUCTION
material which was obtained during the field survey, March 1973,
through the efforts and cooperation of the personnel listed in
section 5.
1-10
4460C1559
-------
INTRODUCTION
FIG.1.1-3
ERTS-1 IMAGE, NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1559
1-11
-------
Section 2
FIELD STUDY REPORT
2.1 NEW YORK BIGHT OCEAN DISPOSAL STUDY
2.1.1 Background
The Ocean Dumping Act (Public Law 92-532, "Marine Protection
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972") specifically charges the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce with responsibility for monitoring of
dumping areas and for comprehensive research on effects of ocean
dumping. The Middle Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center is one of
a series of seven centers established recently by the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), an organization of NOAA. The
Center is a consolidation and integration of the Sandy Hook
Marine Laboratory, the oxford Eiological Laboratory, tne Milford
Biological Laboratory, and the former Ann Arbor Technological
Laboratory (now based at Milford).
The mission of the Center is to develop and establish a
cooperative multidisciplinary research program on the oiology and
ecology of the living marine coastal organisms of the North
Atlantic Ocean, especially in the zoo-geographic area known as
the Middle Atlantic Bight (MAB).
4460C1559
2-1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
The MA.B includes the coastal and shelf areas between Nantucket
shoals, off the Massachusetts coast, to Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina, and thus, falls outside the study area of this report.
The New York Bight constitutes one of the most intensively used
coastal environments in the world and this area is the major
immediate responsibility of the Ecosystems Investigations section
of the Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory.
Field and laboratory studies concerned with the effects of ocean
disposal of sewage sludges, dredging spoils, industrial wastes,
and thermal additions have been carried on at the Sandy Hook
Laboratory. Cooperative cruises with personnel from other NMFS
or NOAA facilities, or academic institutions or organizations,
have been part of the recent and ongoing research programs.
Comprehensive biological reports/data have been prepared by the
NMFS at Sandy Hook; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the Coastal
Engineering Research Center (CERC) ; EPA, Edison, N.J.; the FDA
Region II; the New Jersey DEP; and the New York. State Dept. of
Environmental Conservation. Studies of typical biological
parameters have considered population trends of phytoplankton,
zooplankton, nekton, benthos, and tests of coliform bacteria and
other pathogenic organisms. Additional tests included bioassay
and toxicity, biomass, primary productivity, chlorophyll, BOD and
nature-type of detritus material. Surveys also include
2-2
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOPT
statistical data on commercial and sport fisheries, indicator
organisms, as well as radiological monitoring of the biota. A
number of the larger crustaceans, such as crabs and lobsters,
collected from the disposal area have been found to be diseased.
Diseased (Finrot) finfish have been retrieved from inside the
disposal areas. The large number of coliform bacteria found in
the New York Bight indicates the presence of pathogenic bacteria.
Coliform bacteria was present in high concentrations throughout
the areas receiving dredging spoils and sewage sludges. High
concentrations have even been found outside the actual dumping
areas. Additional studies are continuing in order to determine
the effects of known disposal amounts of heavy metals on the
physiology of larval and adult crustaceans.
Species diversity and total number of organisms was markedly
reduced in those areas directly affected by sewage sludge and
dredge spoil disposal. Dumping characterized a reduction in the
number of species present, as well as reduced numbers of
individuals of particular species.
Prolonged detrimental effect or. the zooplankton and benthic
organisms by ocean disposal of industrial acid wastes was not
substantiated. Existing sewage sludge and dredge spoil practices
in the New York Bight have:
a. degraded the marine benthic communities,
H460C1559
2-3
-------
FIELD STUDY REPOFT
b. produced large amounts of floatable materials, and
c. resulted in deteriorated waters and marine sediments.
A complete assessment of the environmental studies conducted in
the New York Bight was prepared by CEPC<5>. Interdisciplinary,
short-term investigations related to the effects of ocean dumping
in the New York Bight were contracted by CERC as directed by the
Office of the Chief of Engineers. Studies made by the Sandy Hook
Laboratory of the NMFS, the State University of New York at
Stonybrook, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and the
Sperry Pand Corporation were reviewed by the Smithsonian
Institution and CERC. The studies included hyarographic,
qeoloaical, chemical, biological investigations, and a
feasibility study for a remote-controlled electronic sensing
system that could assist regulating agencies in detecting the
location and dump status of waste disposal vessels operating in
the Bight.
2.1.2 Introduction
The New York Harbor complex and the nearby offshore disposal
sites rank as one cf the largest grossly polluted areas in the
United States. Contrary to popular opinion, the proolem has not
been ionored, as demonstrated by the extensive bibliography
collected on the physical, chemical, ar.d biological studies
conducted in the New York Bight (NYF). Federal, state, and local
2-4
4
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
agencies, along with educational institutions, have for years
conducted water guality monitoring and sampling studies in the
harbor and the offshore dumping grounds. The basic obstruction
to a solution has been lack of communication. Failure to
integrate these efforts into a viable proqram for interagency
coordination and the exchange of water quality data has
contributed to the belief that not enough is known about the
effects of waste disposal in the NYB.
The EPA Water Quality Protection Branch, Division of Water
Quality and Non-Point Source Control, through a contract with
IEC, (68-01-0160) developed an Initial Network*6> to provide
assistance, coordination and indoctrination of local users in the
philosophy of the EPA National Computer and Data Processing
System. Under this proposed plan, all monitoring in the NYB
would be coordinated to stimulate establishment of Information
Centers at local, state and regional levels, in support of
improved information exchange and use by all agencies involved.
The liaison established between the key contacts of the various
agencies in formulating the NYB Initial Network established
communications exchange which provided the main body of
information contained in this report.
4460C1559
2-5
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOPT
The U.S. Army District Engineer, New York, was designated
Supervisor of New York Harbor under the Fiver and Harbor Act
approved by Congress in 1888. Pursuant, to the provisions of that
Act, the Supervisor designated certain areas off the entrance to
the New York Harbor as waste disposal grounds, and conducted a
program of issuing permits to towing firms that transported the
waste materials. During the period from July 1, 1972 to February
28, 1973, 3U9 dumpina permits were issued which permitted
12,160,H64 cubic yards of material to be dumped in the designated
areas.(7 >
Effective April 23, 1973, the Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 authorized the Administrator of the EPA
to issue permits for ocean dumping and to establish and apply
criteria for reviewing and evaluating permit applications. The
U.S. Army corps of Enaineers will continue to issue permits or
regulations for federal projects for ocean dumping of dredge
materials upon concurrence by EPA to ensure that the criteria
have been complied with.
Under this Ac*-, the United States Coast Guard is autnorized to
conduct surveillance and enforcement activities to prevent
unlawful dumping. EPA is also authorized to designate
recommended sites and times for dumping, protect critical areas,
2-6
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOFT
and designate sites and times within which certain materials may
not be dumped. Under interim regulations, permits for dumping
will be issued for the sites currently in use. Final regulations
will be issued within one year, based upon comments made about
the interim regulations and the information collected while they
are in effect.The information collected from New York will
be correlated with other regional inputs by the EPA Headquarters
staff in an extensive review and evaluation of the existing
problems on a national level, which will assist in establishing a
plan for the implementation of final regulations to control ocean
dumping.
2.1.3 Disposal Areas
Disposal areas have been established by the Supervisor of New
York Harbor in three major localities: Hudson River, Long Island
Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean off the entrance to the New York
Harbor. Seven areas in the Hudson Fiver and nineteen areas
(seven presently active) in the Long Island Sound are designated
primarily for the disposal of materials dredged from local
harbors and waterways. An area off Eatons Neck in Long Island
Sound has been used for the disposal of clean cellar dirt and
wrecks, particularly when inclement weather and rough seas make
trips to the ocean disposal sites too hazardous.
446OC1559
2-7
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPORT
The scope of this report concerns the six separate dumping
grounds in the Atlantic Ocean, which provide for the disposal of
mud and one-man stone, cellar dirt, sewer sludge, wrecks, waste
acid, and chemical (toxic) wastes.
2.1.4 Disposal Site Geography and Uses
The disposal sites are located in a part of an area called the
New York Bight (MYB). The NYB is the shallow ocean area
shoreward off the limits of the continental shelf, along an
indentation of the Atlantic Coast extending about 200 miles from
Cape May, New Jersey, to Montauk Point (the eastern ena of Long
Island), New York. The five dumping areas nearest to shore,
shown in Figure 2.1-1, vary from about 10 to 22 miles south of
the Long Island shore, and from about 5 to 14 miles east of the
New Jersey shore. The chemical dumping ground is located 106
miles offshore on the edge of the continental shelf. The
descriptions that follow are referenced to the Ambrose Channel
Liaht.< 9 >
2.1.tl.1 Mud Dumping - A mud dumping ground is located at a point
not less than 4 nautical miles, bearing 198°00' true from Ambrose
Light in not less than 60 feet of water. Substances to be dumped
in this area consist of material dredged from vessel berths,
anchorage grounds, and channels; clean earth; and steam ashes
from fossil-fueled electric power generating stations. Most of
2-8
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOPT
4460C1559
2-9
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
the materials deposited result from improvement and maintenance
of channels and anchorage areas by the Corps of Engineers under
projects authorized by Congress.
The material is transported in bottom dump scows owned and
operated by dredging and marine construction contractors, and
seagoing hopper dredges owned and operated by the Corps of
Engineers.
The original Mud Dumping Ground was established in 1888, shortly
after enactment of the Supervisor Act. The site was selected to
avoid creation of a hazard to navigation. As the designated area
decreased noticeably in depth, its location was changed a number
of times, finally to its present site more than 33 years ago.
2.1.4.2 Cellar Dirt Dumping - A cellar dirt dumping ground is
located at a point not less than U.7 nautical miles bearing
170°00' true from Ambrose Light, in not less than 90 feet of
water. The material disposed of in this area consists primarily
of earth and rock from cellar excavations and broken concrete,
rubble, and other nonfloatable debris from building demolition
and highway construction work. Most of this material originates
on the island of Manhattan where, because of its built-up
condition, there are no upland disposal sites available. Drilled
and blasted rock from channel improvement work is also disposed
2-10
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
of in this area under contract with the Corps of Engineers, The
material is transported to this area in dump scows owned by
marine contractors and towing companies.
The original Cellar Dirt Dumping Ground was selected in 1908 so
as not to endanger navigation, but has been changed several times
as the depths decreased. The present area has been in use for
more than 33 years.
2.1.4.3 Sewer Sludge Dumping - A sewer sludge dumping ground is
located 4.5 nautical miles, bearing 124o30f true from Ambrose
Light, in about 72 feet of water. The sewage wastes are either
in raw or treated state or are in a digested form, and are
disposed of at this dumping ground by cities in New York and New
Jersey.
The Sewage Sludge Dumping Ground was selected in 1924 pursuant to
a stipulation reached by the Supreme Court of the United States,
in an action brought by the City of New York, to prohibit, the
deposit of sewage by the Passaic Valley Sewage Commission into
the waters of Upper Bay, New York Harbor. The site was chosen to
avoid offensive discoloration and prevent solids from washing up
onto Long Island and New Jersey beaches, as well as to avoid
endangering navigation.
4460C1559
2-11
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOFT
2.1.4.4 Wreck Dumping - A wreck dumping around is located at a
point 14.3 nautical miles hearing 168°30' true from Ambrose
Light, in not less than 200 feet of water. This area is utilized
for the disposal of obsolete vessels, wrecks, and otner submerged
obstructions to navigation. The Corps of Engineers carries out
its obligation under the law tc remove and dispose of sunken
vessels and other obstructions to navigation and contracts for
their disposal in this area.
2.1.4.5 Waste Acid Dumping - During the winter season, a waste
acid dumping ground is located with its northwesterly corner at a
point not less than 9.2 nautical miles, tearing 145°00* true from
Ambrose Light. The area extends south cf latitude 40°20'N and
east of longitude 73°43'W. During the summer season, tne area is
located with its northwesterly corner at a point not less than
10.7 nautical miles bearing 135°00' true from Ambrose Light, and
extends south of latitude 40°20'^ and east of longitude 73°40'W.
Depths in both dumping areas are about 90 feet.
The Waste Acid Dumping Ground was established in 1948 and is used
for the disposal of dilute acid wastes containing various
dissolved solids, including iron compounds. These wastes
originate in a number of industries, principally in New Jersey,
and are transported in specially constructed, rubber lined tank
barges. The wastes are released under water whilf: me vessel is
2-12
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
underway to at-tain maximum dilution and dispersion. The vessels,
after reaching the dumping ground, head on a southeasterly course
(refer to Figure 2.1-1) while discharging half of their cargo
and, after a wide U-turn, proceed on a northwesterly course
discharging the balance of their cargo in the dumping ground.
2.1.4.6 Waste Chemical (Toxic) Dumping - A waste chemical
(toxic) dumping ground is located at the edge of the Continental
Shelf with its northwesterly corner approximately 106 nautical
miles, bearing 1U5°00' true from Ambrose Light. It is defined as
the area lying south of latitude 39°00'N; west of longitude
72°00'W; north of latitude 38°30'N; and east of longitude
72°30'W. Depths are greater than 7000 feet.
The Waste Chemical Dumping Ground was established in 1965
following the receipt of requests from industries to dispose of
chemical wastes which State health authorities refused to allow
to be disposed of in sanitary land fills or into streams because
of possible contamination of the potable ground water supplies.
The actual limits of the area were recommended by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, which was one of several Federal agencies
consulted in determining where disposal of such wastes should be
permitted in open waters. Because of its distance offshore, the
cost of disposal is high, which limits the use of this area.
4460C1559
2-13
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOPT
2.1.4.7 Radioactive Waste Dumping - A radioactive waste dumping
around is located at a point not less than 141 nautical miles,
bearing 145° true from Ambrose light, in not less than 200
fathoms of water.
2.1.4.8 Hi
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
sludge will be discharged under varying controlled conditions.
The overall direction of this research project is provided by the
staff of the National Coastal Pollution Research Program of EPA,
who also are the principal scientific participants in the field
and laboratory work. The NOAA Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory is
providing assistance as a base of operations for field studies
and some vessel time. Additional vessel time, sampling
assistance, analytical service, and liaison with the corps of
Engineers and the City of New York are being provided by the
Surveillance and Analysis Division of EPA at Edison, New
Jersey.< i o >
2.1.5 Regiona1 Economy
2.1.5.1 Population - The population of the 31-county New York
Region is approximately 20 million. It is expected that by 1980,
the population will be 23 million and by 1995, approximately 29
million. The distribution of population shown in Table 2.1-1
represents the 5 counties that border the dumping areas described
in Section 2.1-4. A reasonable estimate by the Tri-State
Regional Planning Commission in New York City indicates a
projected increase of more than 66 8 thousand by 1985.
4460C1559
2-15
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
TABLE 2.1-1
STATISTICAL DATA - COUNTY POPULATION
County
Nassau
Queens
Kings
Richmond
Monmouth
Totals
Population
1970 Census 1985 fProiected)
1,428,080
1,986,473
2,602,012
295,443
459.379
"6,771,387
1 ,700,000
2,090,000
2 ,470,000
480,000
700,000
7,440,000
2.1.5.2 Estuarine Economics
Recreation
Approximately 5 nautical miles west of the mud dump ground and 10
nautical miles north of the sewer sludge dumping ground is the
shoreline of the New York-Northern New Jersey estuarine region
which supports an annual $2 billion recreation industry. The
shoreline is mostly fronted by low sandy beaches and the shore
development is primarily recreational and residential with some
commerce and industry. Shore ownership is Federal, public, and
private. The shoreline provides 47.8 miles of public beaches
where more than 65 million visits were recorded during the 197 0
beach season which begins in the last week of May and ends the
second week in September (approximately 113 days). Statistics
are shown in Table 2.1-2.
2-16
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
TABLE 2.1-2
STATISTICAL DATA BEACH RECREATION
QoyDtX Shore Ownership Total Shore Length 1970 Beach
(Miles) (Miles) Attendance
Federal Private Public
Monmouth
6. 1
9. a
11.3
26. 8
6,940,000
Richmond
. 3
3.7
9.0
13.0
698,000
Kings
. 02
1.6
3.5
5. 12
21,818,100
Queens
1.0
2.0
7. 0
10.0
22,372,000
Nassau*
17. 0
17.0
13.900.000
Totals
vT 4*2
47. 8
71.92
65,728,100
~Includes Jones beach, and approximately 10 miles of beaches
in Suffolk County including Captree State Park at Fire
Island Inlet.
The National Park Service has proposed setting aside five areas
totaling 20,000 acres of land and water (shown in Figure 2.1-1)
for the Gateway National Recreation Area. When completely
developed, this area would be capable of serving more than 50
million visitors annually. <13>
Commercial Fishing and Shellfishing
The continental shelf extends from the New York-New Jersey
region, offshore to the 100-fathom (600 foot) contour. Off New
Jersey, the 100-fathom contour ranges between 60 and 105 miles
off shore. Commercial fishing and shellfishing for much of the
northeast coast of the United States relies heavily on the
continental shelf. Surf clams, lobsters, and 40 species of fish
are commercially important to New Jersey. Table 2.1-3 represents
4 460C1559
2-17
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
the New Jersey dockside weights,
out-of-state landings of fish
Jersey coast. Values, likewise,
only, and are dockside prices as
Generated values often reach
values.<1 * >
They do not include foreign or
and shellfish caught off the New
are representative of New Jersey
opposed to generated values,
three to five times the dockside
TABLE 2.1-3
STATISTICAL DATA - NEW JERSEY COMMERCIAL FISHING
Year Total Weight Total Value Species - Greatest Value
1956 5137807,546 lbs. $15,236,931 Menhaden & Surf Clams
1957 46i|,924,«18 lbs. $12,224,923 " " "
1968 126,369,000 lbs. $10,609,000 Surf clams 6 lobsters
1969 92,529,380 lbs. $10,893,371 « " "
Sgort Fishing
The New York Bight is an important hatchery and nursery ground
for numerous fish (3 3 species) of recreational importance. Many
of these fish do not spawn in the Bight, but the eggs and larvae
are transported there by currents. Some of the former dumping
grounds for dredged materials, cellar dirt, garbage, and other
wastes are now favorite fishing spots, locally known as "The Mud
Hole", "The Tin Can Grounds", "The Subway Rocks", and "The Acid
Grounds". Thousands of private and party charter boats fish for
migratory species that move through these areas at different
times of the year. The most important sport fish (food fish) are
Bluefish, Weakfish, Codfish, Atlantic Mackerel, and Scup (Porgy).
2-18
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
Winter Flounder, Striped Bass, VJhitincr, Summer Flounder (Fluke)
and Blackfish (Tautog) are found inshore.
The State of New Jersey in 1954 estimated that in the months of
April through September, 44.28 percent of the total catch was by
sportsmen, or 13,302,154 pounds (sport) versus 16,735,033 pounds
(commercial). Sport fishing in the deeper waters has been
limited to the catching of sailfish, tuna, marlin, and dolphin.
2.1.6 Permit System
To assure that waste materials are disposed of in the approved
dumping grounds, permits are issued on a routine quarterly basis
to towing firms that transport the waste materials to sea. This
permit system was one of the functions of the New York District
Corps of Engineers under provisions of the River and Harbor Act
of 1888. The Corps of Engineers Deputy Supervisor of New York
Harbor, during January 1973, advised the current permittees that
under the new Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (Ocean Dumping Act), requests for dumping permits to cover
the period after 23 April 1973 should be addressed to the EPA
Region II Administrator in New York City, who became the
authorized official to issue permits for dumping or transporting
for dumping of all materials, except dredged material, into the
NYB. Applications for deposit of dredge material will continue
to be processed by the corps of Engineers.
4460C1559
2-19
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOPT
The following is a description of the program which was conducted
by the Corps of Engineers as related to dumping of waste
materials in the Atlantic Ocean.
2.1.6.1 Supervisor of New York Harbor - The permit program
required by the Act of 1888, as amended 12 July 1952, is an
onqoing activity of the Supervisor of the Harbor, administered by
the Harbor Supervision and Compliance Section. During the three-
month period ending 30 June 1971, 127 individual permits were
issued for the disposal of material in the designated dumping
areas. During the period 1 July 1972 to 28 February 1973, 349
dumping permits were issued. The Compliance Section maintains
the permit records and forms. Data is directly extracted from
the permit application and entered into a ledger. The permittee
mails a supplemental sheet which certifies that the scows have
delivered or discharged materials at the location and time
specified on the permit. Supplemental sheets are usually
returned after the expiration date of the permit (issued
quarterly) and, at that time, the amount (cubic yards) is entered
into the ledger.
Surveillance of the dumping operations is undertaken by a 65-foot
patrol boat with inspectors aboard who note the time a vessel
leaves and the time of its return in order to determine whether
2-20
4 4 60C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
the intervening elapsed time was sufficient to go to the approved
site. The patrol boat checks the actions of the vessels at the
dump site on a spot-check basis depending on weather conditions.
The patrol boat is used primarily for inspections of waterways in
lower New York Bay and patrols the entrance channels to keep them
clear of interference by fishing craft or other boats in order to
ensure safe navigation of deep-draft vessels. Other patrol boats
operate in upper New York Bay and Long Island Sound. Inspections
of shorefront facilities, such as industrial plants, oil
refineries and shipyards, are conducted by Inspectors utilizing
government vehicles equipped with two-way radios to ensure that
industrial waste or refuse is not being discharged or deposited
into the navigable waters. Table 2.1-U describes the activities
of the Harbor Supervision and Compliance Section, which maintains
field offices in Jersey City, New Jersey; Fort Totten in Bayside,
New York; Fort Tilden at Rockaway, New York; and upstate offices
in Kingston and Troy, New York.
4160C1559
2-21
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPORT
TABLE 2.1-4
SUPERVISOR OF NEW YORK HARBOR
statement, of Activities
(1 July 72 to 28 Feb 73)
1. Number of Patrols.
a. Shore 846
b. Vessel 832
Total 1,678
2. Number of Inspections.
a. Shore 3,527
b. Vessel 7,722
Total 11,249
3. Number of Investigations.
a. Unfounded Complaints and
Unknown Violators 27
b. Number of Violations 227
Total 254
i». Number of Warning Letters Issued. 55
5. Cases Referred to U.S. Attorneys for
Legal Proceedings.
a. Number Pending as of 1 July 72 285
b. Number Referred (1 July 72 to 28 Feb 73) +49
c. Number Closed (1 July 72 to 28 Feb 73) _ -31
Total Number Pending as of 28 Feb 73 *303
6. Total amount of Fines $26,300
7. Number of Dumping Permits Issued. 349
8. Amount (Cubic Yards) of material deposited
in designated dumping grounds 12,160,464
~Includes 161 cases on dilapidated
piers and bulkheads on which correc-
tive action is being taken by the
owners.
2.1.6.2 Dumping Permit Data - A series of ledgers were
maintained by the Harbor Supervision and Compliance Section to
record the information pertaining to the permit program. Ledger
2-22
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOPT
No. 14, which was initiated in 1965 (FY66), and is entitled COE
Dredging Schedule File - Records of Continued Permits Issued, was
the source of the data listed in Table 2.1-5. Data extracted
from ledger No. 14 is for the calendar year 1972 (January through
December). Corps of Engineers statements of activities are based
on the fiscal year beginning July 1 and ending June 30. A total
of 463 permits was issued for the year 1972. One hundred and
eighty-six permits were returned to the corps of Engineers by the
towing companies who endorsed a total of 4870 trips to the
designated dumping areas in the Atlantic Ocean where 15,728,560
cubic yards of material were dumped. Supplemental information
for Table 2.1-5 follows:
a. Permit numbers in Column 1 are not in sequential order.
Towing companies apply for several permits in advance,
anticipating future work. In many cases, the permits
are not used because the work was not performed or the
material was disposed of at a land dump. If an entry
to the ledger did not include the amount of material
dumped, it was not listed in Table 2.1-5.
b. Permits are issued for towing and/or dumping. The
material transported within the rivers and harbors for
fill between piers and backfill trenches was not
listed.
c. Permits issued for materials dumped in the Hudson River
and the Long Island sound are not listed, except for
4460C1559
2-23
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
the wrecks dumped at Eatons Neck (204-72 and 208-72)
and the Fermentation Residue(33-72 and 107-72). Chas.
Pfizer 6 Co., Inc. of Groton, Connecticut produces
antibiotics and organic chemicals and the resulting
fermentation residues consisting of Mycelium and
Filteraid are transported by barge and dumped 1*/z
miles north of Little Gull Island in Long Island Sound.
Records indicate that 74,100 cubic yards of this
material were dumped at -this location from January 1
through December 31, 1970, and Table 2.1-5 indicates
that 36,000 cubic yards were dumped in 1972. These
figures are not included in the grand total for ocean
disposal (last sheet Table 2.1-5).
d. Towing and/or dumping permits may be issued for a
single trip, but are usually issued routinely on a
continuous basis which terminates on a quarterly date.
e. The permit number is entered into the ledger along with
the permittee's name at the time of issuance. The
permit, along with the supplemental sheet (indicating
number of trips and amount dumped), is usually returned
after the expiration date, and a three to four month
period transpires before the amount of material is
recorded. The permit specifically requires that the
form be returned to the Corps of Engineers within four
days after the expiration date, but this does not seem
2-24
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOFT
to be a consistent practice. No entries were made for
the first quarter in 1973, hence are not listed in
Table 2-1-5.
f. The volume of material, in cubic yards, listed as being
dumped must be concluded as approximate; e.g., amount
and type of material to be dumped indicated on the face
of the permit 1-72 was "approx. 3200 to 4700 cu. yds.
waste acid". The supplemental sheet subsequently
certified that the scows made 150 trips to the waste
acid dumping ground during the period 1 January through
31 March 1972. Based on the lower figure of 3200 cubic
yards, 150 trips would equal 480,000 cubic yards; and
based on the higher figure of 4700 cubic yards, 150
trips would equal 705,000 cubic yards. (a difference
of 225,000 cubic yards). Only 110 trips and 506,000
cubic yards were recorded in the ledger. The
supplemental sheet also indicated that on 2 January,
the scow was at the disposal area at 10:30 and then
again at 11:30 the same morning. Records of the actual
vessel transit time, which would indicate that the
vessel's intervening elapsed time was sufficient to
travel to the waste acid dumping ground, were not
available. It was reported that not enough ships and
inspectors were available to conduct an adequate 24-
hour surveillance. Towing companies occasionally
4 460C1559
2-25
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
provide 24-hour advance notice, but this is not a
consistent practice and prescribed sailing times are
not specified. Usually, when scows are loaded, they
leave on the outgoing tide. Corps of Engineers patrol
boats operate 24 hours per day, 6 days per week, and
one shift on Sunday, from 8 air, to 4 pm. The dumping
permit supplemental sheets certify that scows often
arrive at the disposal areas during all hours of the
day and night, seven days a week, including holidays.
Permit 322-72 indicated 29 trips were made, but the
amount cLumped was not recorded.
Permit 400-72 specified that approximately 1500 cubic
yards of sewer sludge each trip must be dumped at the
toxic chemical dumping ground, 106 nautical miles from
Ambrose Light, instead of at the regular sewer sludge
dump ground, 4.5 nautical miles from Ambrose Light.
Table 2.1-5 indicates that one trip was made, and 1500
cubic yards were dumped, but the supplemental sheet
certified that three trips were made which would total
4 500 cubic yards and records were not available to
affirm this sludge was toxic. Ocean dumping is
believed to be occurring in locations other than the
prescribed dump areas. The extent and type of the
4 460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
violations are not known because of the present lack of
a suitable monitoring system. Early dumping is
attributable to rough seas, inclement weather, and
possibly faulty navigation.
Applications for dumping permits are usually made by
the towing companies who perform work for various
industries that manufacture chemicals, dyes, and paint
pigments. These products contain various nontoxic and
toxic materials which are usually delivered to large
holding tanks provided by the towing company. When the
tanks are full, the material is disposed of at the
dumping ground. Records are not available to verify
the actual contents of these holding tanks, except what
is indicated on the permit application and the type and
amount recorded in the ledger.
Applicants may apply for a permit on material that
would assure approval, and later proceed to dump non-
approved material, taking advantage of the inadequate
surveillance program.
The original dumping permit form may become detached, for various
reasons, from the supplemental sheet which becomes lost from a
file folder; consequently the amount recorded in the ledger
ftU60C1559
2-27
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
cannot be verified with the supplemental sheet and the amount
actually dumped. The missing forms may also indicate that
possibly the supplemental sheets were never returned, hence, the
amounts were not recorded.
Permit 257-72 indicates 34 trips were made dumping 70,500 cubic
yards of cellar dirt. Because of different size scows. Permit
258-72 indicates the same amount of material was dumped requiring
43 trips.
The supplemental sheet provides for number of pockets loaded and
empty. (A number 6 would indicate 6 sections of the scow were
loaded). Permit number 29-72 specified that approximately 1500
cubic yards of sewer sludge would be dumped each trip. Table
2.1-5 indicates that 60 trips were made for a total of 90,000
cubic yards. Permit 177-72 specified 5000 cubic yards of
effluent waste must be dumped at the 106-nautical mile site.
Table 2.1-5 indicates 20 trips were made, dumping 102,220 cubic
yards at the toxic chemical dumping ground. The supplemental
sheet, attached to three extensions of this permit issued 1 April
through 30 June 1972, indicated 1 pocket was loaded on two trips
and 2 pockets were loaded on 14 trips, for a total of 16 trips.
The permit, by itself, does not certify how much of this effluent
waste was actually dumped.
2-28
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
In conclusion, the volume of material dumped in the NYB, as
totaled in Table 2.1-5, is made up of approximate figures. It is
estimated that 2,230,000 cubic yards of sludge are added annually
to the New York Harbor complex because of the discharge of 480
MGD of raw sewage from the east and west side of Manhattan, Red
Hook, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. These sludge accumulations
are dredged along with the other bottom materials and deposited
in the mud dumping ground. For the past 40 years, it has been
the common practice of 15 New Jersey coastal communities to store
accumulated sludge during the summer season, and discharge this
sewage sludge into the Atlantic Ocean via effluent outfall pipes
approximately 1000 feet from the shoreline (less than 5 miles
from the mud dumping ground). In February 1972, the Federal
Court issued a permanent injunction discontinuing this practice.
Consequently, 5,764,000 gallons of sludge is barged to sea until
an adequate technical solution for an alternative method of
disposal can be achieved.
2.1.7 Analysis of Dumping Operations
2.1.7.1 Problems of Dumping - The six-mile radius sludge dump
closure area in the NYB (shown in Figure 2.1-1), and the six-mile
radius dump closure off Cape May, are the two areas in the
Atlantic Ocean off the New York-New Jersey coastlines that are
officially closed (since 1970) to shellfishing by the Food 6 Drug
4460C1559
2-29
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPORT
Administration (FDA), under the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program (NSSP). This program requires that all shellfish growing
areas not remote from pollution sources be classified for
sanitary quality. The classification must be made on the basis
of a comprehensive sanitary survey and laboratory analysis in
accordance with the NSSP Manual of Operations provisions. During
1971-1972, such a study was planned and initiated by the FDA
Region II, and was conducted jointly with the FDA Northeast
Technical Services Unit, Davisville, Rhode Island; the Sandy Hook
Marine Laboratory; the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection; and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. Based on the survey's bacteriological data, the
offshore areas between land and the six-mile radius sludge dump
were closed to shellfishing (shown in Figure 2.1-1). The
pollution sources that have made this interim closure necessary
are as follows:
a. Thirty-three sewage treatment plants discnarging
through ocean outfalls between Sandy Hook, and Beach
Haven Inlet.
b. One large chemical firm discharging industrial wastes
3500 feet offshore.
c. The combined storm-sanitary wastes and untreated
sanitary wastes from the New York City metropolitan
area flowing along the coastlines (400 MGD untreated
2-30
J4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
and 1100 MGD treated but not chlorinated during the
nonsummer months).
d. The sewage arid dredge spoil dump sites whicn have an
undetermined impact on the water quality outside the
six-mile closure. Exceptions were noted during the
last survey to several bottom water samples which
exceeded the surface water sample results. Other than
the possibility of short dumping and errors in
navigation by sewage sludge barges, a ready explanation
of this data is not available.<*5>
2.1.7.2 Mud Dumping - It is estimated that 45 percent of the
dredge spoil deposited is polluted from industries,
municipalities, and other sources near the harbors and channels
being dredged. Pollution factors include biochemical and
chemical oxygen demand, volatile solids, oil and grease,
phosphorous, nitrogen, iron, silica, color, and odor. In dredge
spoil deposited at the mud dump, average concentrations are
estimated as follows: copper - 200 parts per million (ppm);
silver - 143 ppm; tin - 570 ppm; and chromium - 400 ppm.
2.1.7.3 Sewer Sludge Dumping - About 90 percent of the national
total of sewage sludge dumped in the ocean is disposed of at this
locality. The material contains significant quantities of heavy
metals and oxygen-demanding materials. Preliminary analysis of
446OC1559
2-31
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
sludge samples indicate heavy metals, chromium, copper, lead,
tin, and zinc. Samples of clams taken up to three miles from the
center of this dump contained coliform counts that exceeded
permissible levels, and the area six miles in radius is closed to
the harvesting of shellfish for human consumption. Slightly less
than 4 million cubic yards were dumped in 1972. Upgrading the
present treatment facilities to secondary treatment, plus
treatment of the present 480 MGD of raw sewage will significantly
increase the volume of sludge to be disposed of. It is estimated
that the total sludge volume will increase to approximately 15
million cubic yards. Unless alternative sludge disposal methods
are developed, the additional sludge will be dumped at this site.
2.1.7.4 Waste Acid Dumping - The material dumped at this site
(3,050,414 cubic yards in 1972) is difficult to identify,
considering the extreme variation in physical and chemical
properties of these liquid wastes. Not enough data is available
to characterize and identify the various types of waste liquids.
2-32
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOPT
2-1.1.5 Conclusions
a. The 1972 final report* or. the effects of waste
disposal in the NYE concluded, from the data
accumulated during that study, that disposal of dredge
spoils and sewage sludges has had a signiticant, and
often deleterious, effect on the living resources of
the NYB.
b. The wast.es from the New York metropolitan area are now
the largest source of sediments discharged directly
into the North Atlantic Ocean from the North American
Continent.
c. The potential danger of highly polluted and toxic
wastes disposed of less than five miles from the
bathing beaches could cripple the estuarine tourist
industry. Because of the wide publicity given to
dumping, it is estimated that if only 10 percent of the
potential visitors believe the waters polluted and
avoid the shore areas, the cost to tne estuarine
economy would exceed $20 million per year.
d. New York fish and shellfish landings amounted to
4 0,6 00,000 pounds, valued at S1U million and the New
Jersey surf clams and lobster landings exceeded $10
million in 1969. Data indicates that there are higher
concentrations of fecal coliform in sediments and
shellfish adjaceivt -to the duwp areas. Finfish feed at.
I»I*60C1559
2-33
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
the periphery of the waste disposal areas and are
exposed to the toxic and pathogenic contents of these
wastes.ci6) & potentially valuable resource has been
affected by present dumping practices, as evidenced by
the FDA six-mile closure and the more recent interim
three-mile closure to shellfish harvesting.
e. It would be imprudent to shift dumping locations
because evidence is not given to indicate that it would
be less harmful to dump the sewage sludge and dredge
spoil elsewhere than where these wastes are presently
dumped.<17 >
f. Harbor dredgings dumped at the mud disposal site are
finding their way to the New Jersey coastline and the
invasion of red -tide (a proliferation of toxic micro-
organisms) at the beaches may have its genesis in the
nutrient materials at the dump site. During 1970r a
labor strike of tugboat operators forced the Governor
of New Jersey to proclaim a state of emergency. The
state was obliged to commandeer three ocean-going
barges and their crews to effect the disposal of sludge
from six of the state's largest sewage treatment plants
to prevent the release of 500 MGD of untreated sewage
and industrial wastes into the rivers and bays. During
1972, the New Jersey State Department of Environmental
Protection held a public hearing on a proposed New
2-31
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPORT
Jersey Ocean Disposal control Pegulation. The Governor
has proposed that dumping of waste products on the
continental shelf be prohibited and should require a
minimum distance of 100 miles offshore ror dumping.
The ocean disposal control regulation was not. adopted
and the original transcription of the hearing and
recommendations were turned over to the EPA Region
II-C18)
2.1.8 Water Quality Monitoring and Sampling
2.1.8.1 Introduction - Water quality monitoring is defined as
having three major components: (1) The acquisition of data at
approximately the same location at some repeat, time frequency
(arbitrarily established as at least once per year); (2) The
processing of data into a usable format; and (3) the use of that
data/information for a purpose. The agencies that maintain a
monitoring program in the NYB are detailed in the IEC report,
Coastal_ Zone Water Quality Monitoring in the New York Bight.
These agencies conduct water quality surveillance programs in the
adjacent waters of the New York Metropolitan region. The ocean
disposal areas were excluded from the routine monitoring programs
because of territorial jurisdictions and the lack of funds for
personnel and ocean-going vessels.
4460C1559
2-35
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOFT
Sampling is considered to be a one-time occurrence of the
collection of information, and storage of that information in the
form of reports. Comprehensive studies and extensive water
quality sampling in the dumping areas have been conducted by many
federal agencies and research institutions. The major studies,
conclusions and recommendations of these studies, and the ongoing
and proposed proarams related to the dumping areas are summarized
in this section. Host of these studies were restricted because
of limited funds, and additional follow-up surveys to obtain
synoptic data over a comparatively long period were not performed
for the same reason.
2.1.9 Chronology of the Major Events Related to NYB Dumping
Practices
1888 The office of the Supervisor of the New York Harbor was
established by the Act of 1888 - the original authority
for the Corps of Engineers to control the dumping of
wastes in the NYB. The original mud dumping ground was
established.
1899 The Refuse Act was passed which generally prohibited
dumping of solid wastes in navigable waters. It also
provided for the controlled dumping of solid wastes in
designated areas.
1908 Original cellar dirt dumping ground was established.
2-36
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
1924 The sewer sludge dumping around was established.
Passaic Valley Sewage Authority began sewer sludge
dumping.
1925 Following the oyster-borne typhoid outbreak during the
winter of 1924-25 in the United states, the national
shellfish certification program was initiated by the
states, the Public Health Service, and the shellfish
industry.
1935 New York City began dumping sewer sludge.
1946 The Fish and Wildlife Service advised the Supervisor of
New York Harbor that "from the standpoint of
maintaining the aquatic resources of the Nation, the
agency offers no objections to the disposal of wastes
at sea, subject to proper control."*19>
1948 The waste acid dumping ground was established. The
National Lead Company of Sayreville, New Jersey began
the disposal of acid wastes.
1949 Studies on the disposal of chemical wastes at sea were
made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution, sponsored by the
National Research Council with funds supplied by the
National Lead Company. This study resulted in the
conclusion that under the conditions prevailing during
the period of investigation "the procedure employed by
the National Lead company in disposing of wastes from
W60C1559
2-37
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOET
its titanium plant is entirely proper" and "the
operations should not be discouraged unless some new
facts justify a contrary opinion."
1956 A diving survey of the acid disposal area was made by
th* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution during the
fall of 1956. With the exception of a greenish ooze
found on the bottom in some sections of the disposal
area, there were no detrimental effects to the ocean
floor or to marine life. The iron content of samples
taken in conjunction with the diving studies showed no
indication that there was any buildup of iron in the
disposal area,'2®'
1957 The State of New York Department of Health and the
Governor's office continue to receive complaints
alleging serious pollution of ocean waters by
industrial wastes dumped at sea. The Commissioner of
Health reguested the Public Health Service to explore
the possibilities of a restudy of acid waste disposal
in the NYE, in the liaht of continuing complaints from
the Sportsmen's Council of the New York Marine District
which represented 125 different fishing and boatmen's
clubs. Sport and party-boat fisherman strongly
objected to the dumping of sulfuric acid in their
fishing grounds.
1958 Public meeting on waste disposal in the NYB.
2-38
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY KEPOPT
1960 A summary of information on waste disposal in the NYB
was prepared by the Public Health Service Sanitary
Engineering Center. This report*indicated that the
acid dumping area was moved twice in response to
complaints of the fisherman. The various dumping areas
designated for the National Lead Company waste were as
follows:
a. April 19 48 to April 1949. A two-mile square area
around latitude 40°15,24,,N; longitude 73°46'24"W.
The waste was discharged while circling in this
area.
b. March 1949 to December 1949. South of latitude
40°20'N and east of longitude 73°4 0'W, the waste
being discharged during southeast and northwest
passes about 6 to 61/2 miles in length.
c. January 1950 to present. South of latitude
40°20'N and east of longitude 73°43'W,
approximately 12 miles east of New Jersey and 15
miles south of Long Island was finally selected.
d. On the basis of scientific evidence presented and
on the basis of professional opinions expressed by
scientific people, there is no conclusive evidence
that the acid dumping in the NYB has had a
deleterious effect on fish population. Such
4460C1559
2-39
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
dumping does cause discoloration of a large area
in the Bight and, for this reason, and the poor
fishing alleged by the party, charter, and private
fishermen, this area has been eliminated as a
sports fishing area. On the other hand, it is the
writer's hypothesis that the canopy of iron floe -
i.e. the acid grounds - creates a shadowed and
relatively darkened area in the ocean that is
attractive to bluefish.(213
1961 During a conference122> on pollution of the interstate
waters of the Raritan Bay and adjacent waters it was
pointed out that as an indication of the magnitude of
the disposal problem, it has been estimated that all of
the material which has been disposed of under permits
issued by the Corps of Engineers since 1886 would cover
Manhattan Island to a depth of 73 feet, or at an
average rate of one foot per year.
1965 Waste chemical (toxic) dumping ground was established.
1967 The Supervisor of New York Harbor provided a
description of the disposal areas and their uses.
Latitude and longitude coordinates and approximate
distances and bearings were referenced to the Sandy
Hook Light and the Sea Girt Light. (Revised 1969<23>,
with reference to Ambrose Light - Refer to Section
2.1.M.)
2-40
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
The 1967 description<2~> of the disposal areas and
their use is as follows:
a. Mud Dumping Ground is located at a point not less
than 7 nautical miles tearing 120° true from Sandy
Hook Light at latitude U0°23,t»8"N and longitude
73°51'21MW. Material dredged from the channels,
anchorages, and vessel berths is disposed of in
this area. The material is transported in dump
scows owned and operated by dredging and marine
construction contractors, and in seagoing hopper
dredges owned and operated by the Corps of
Engineers.
b. Cellar Dirt Dumping Ground is located at a point
not less than 9 nautical miles bearing t18°30f
True from Sandy Hook Light at latitude tO°22*53,fN
and longitude 73°4 8,4 0,,W. Materials axe primarily
of earth and rock from cellar excavations and
broken concrete, rubble, and other nonfloatable
debris from building demolition and highway
construction work originating in the Borough of
Manhattan. The material is transported to this
area in dump scows owned by marine contractors and
towing companies.
c. Sewer Sludge Dumping Ground is located offshore of
a point not less than 11 nautical miles, 103° True
UU60C1559
2-41
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
from Sandy Hook Light at latitude 40°25'04,,N and
longitude 73°4U*53"W. The sewage wastes are
either in raw or treated state or are in a
digested form. Sewage wastes are disposed of at
this dumping ground by the city of New York; the
cities of Glen Cove and Jong Beach, New York; the
counties of Nassau and Westchester, New York; the
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission; the Linden-
Roselle sewerage Authority; the Joint Meeting
Sewage Disposal Commission, Elizabeth, New Jersey;
and the Middlesex County Sewerage Authority.
d. Wreck Dumping Ground is located at a point not
less than 13 miles 66° True from Sea Girt Light,
at latitude 40°13'32"N and longitude 73°46'02"W.
Wrecks of vessels are intermittently disposed of
in this area by marine contractors for the owners
of vessels or for the Federal Government in cases
where the removal of sunken vessels is undertaken
in navigable waters by the Corps of Engineers
under Section 19 or 20 of the River and Harbor Act
of 3 March 1899 (33 USC. IHl and 15) .
e. waste Acid Dumping Ground is located southeast of
a point about 16.3 nautical miles, 120° True from
Sandy Hook Light. During the summer season, the
area is south of latitude 40°20*N and east of
2-12
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
longitude 73°40'W and during the winter season,
the area is south of latitude 4 0°20'N and east of
longitude 73°43'W. The chemical wastes deposited
in this area originate at the National Lead
company, Sayreville, New Jersey; the General
Chemical Division of Allied Chemical corporation,
Elizabeth, New Jersey; and several smaller
industries in the vicinity of South Amboy, New
Jersey.
f. Chemical Dumping Ground is located approximately
120 nautical miles southeast of New York within an
area bounded on the north by latitude 39°N, on the
south by latitude 38°30'N# on the east by
longitude 72°W and on the west by longitude
72°30'W. Because of the excessive cost of
transporting the material to this area, it has not
been used, and other means of disposal of the
wastes have been utilized. Small quantities of
toxic wastes and high explosives have been
disposed of intermittently in past years at a
point 115 nautical miles 127° True from Sandy Hook
Light, at latitude 39°17,30"N and longitude 72° W;
however, the nature and quantities of the wastes
and their sources are not readily available.
U460C1559
2-43
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
1968 A preliminary report*25* of the investigation of waste
disposal in the NYB was published. Requests by Region
II, Water Supply and Sea Resources Program, coupled
with those of state and industry interested in
shellfish sanitation and production, were responsible
for the Northeast Marine Health Sciences Laboratory
undertaking an investigation of the waters of the NYB
utilized as a sewage sludge disposal ground. During
this study, vessels were observed discharging in the
general designated disposal area, but covered a range
of at least two miles north or south because the
designated point was without stationary markers to
indicate the point to begin discharge. The study
recommended an area of six miles in radius (shown in
Fiqure 2.1-1) be classified off limits to shellfishing.
Such an area would permit adequate dispersion,
alteration, and dilution of contaminated material. The
bottom in the area of the mud, rubble-excavation, and
sewage sludge dump is so badly fouled that changing of
dump locations would be of little help to this
immediate area; however, consideration must be given to
the possibility of these deposits, from long-term
dumping, drifting into the Hudson Canyon, and causing
harm to certain marine populations.
2-44
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
1968 The FWPCA, DOI, New Jersey, conducted a survey and
sampling run to the ocean disposal grounds. The run
originated in Upper New York Harbor, proceeded through
the Narrows, and out Ambrose Channel to the sewer
sludge and acid dumping grounds. The purpose of this
survey was: (1) to evaluate instrumentation for use in
offshore sampling studies, and (2) to collect data on
distribution of certain pollutants from New York Harbor
to the Bight area. Results of this survey indicated
that the accurate locations of predetermined sampling
points can become extremely difficult. Very little
difficulty was encountered through Ambrose Channel up
to and slightly beyond Ambrose Light. Beyond this last
fixed marker, radar and dead reckoning could be used
with considerable accuracy for a range of approximately
four miles. Beyond this distance, the inability to
position fix objects accurately by radar was
complicated by the presence of other vessels. A plan
to evaluate the present dump areas was formulated and
the location of new dumping grounds was considered.
Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory was awarded a contract to
conduct a study of the New York Bight.
1968 A Corps of Engineer survey report considered the
engineering and economic feasibility of eliminating the
sources of drift and debris that constituted possible
H60C1559
2-45
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
obstacles or hazards to navigation in New York Harbor.
The total disposal volume was 29,202,300 cubic feet of
deteriorated piers, wharves, and derelict vessels. The
considered plan provided for burning 20 miles out at
sea, which was a current practice under the air
pollution regulations of the City of New York.<26J
1969 The Marine Sciences Research Center, State University
of New York, published a technical report<27> on a
major source of marine sediment - New York City. The
available data indicated that no U.S. Atlantic river
has a natural sediment load approaching the mass of
solids dumped into the ocean annually by the New York
metropolitan region. The waste solids from the New
York area exceed the sediment discharge of all rivers
emptying into the Atlantic Ocean between the U.S. -
Canadian border and Chesapeake Pay.
1969 The Naval Oceanographic Office, Washington, DC
published an informal report*28> on the Hudson Canyon
area. An ocean bottom survey of an 8 by 30 mile area
encompassing portions of the continental shelf and
slope northeast of Hudson Canyon was conducted.
Included in the investigation were ocean floor mapping,
subbottom reflection studies, sediment studies, bottom
photography, and near-bottom ocean current and
temperature measurements.
2-46
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
1970 Preliminary analyses were made of sewage sludge samples
from sewage treatment plants in the New York
metropolitan Area. Initial emphasis was on the
development of sample handling techniques and
evaluation of screening techniques for later
development of analytical procedures necessary to
obtain a more complete characterization of these
wastes.<29 >
1970 Chemical and physical properties were determined on
wastes commonly transported by barge for disposal in
coastal waters offshore from New York Harbor. This
report*30> indicated that dredged wastes are a major
source of oxygen-demanding substances and potentially
troublesome metals. Additional work is needed to
characterize waste chemicals discharged in the ocean.
197 0 An Ad Hoc Committee*31J was appointed to review the
practices of ocean disposal in the NYB and to make
appropriate recommendations. The following is a
partial assessment of the relative impact ot dumping:
a. In the Eight sludge disposal areas, the sewage
sludge has spread out in a northerly direction
from the designated sewage dumping grounds over an
area of 11 square miles. Throughout this area,
bottom fauna has been severely reduced or has been
eliminated.
UU60C1559
2-47
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
b. It appears that the impoverishing effect of the
dredge spoil is at least as serious as the sewage
sludge, reflecting heavy contamination of the
harbor sediments with petrochemicals and other
toxic compounds.
c. A large area east of the sewage grounds is covered
with organic matter whose origin has not yet been
determined. Judging from hydrographic studies, it
may have originated from the sewage sludge.
d. A potential health hazard exists in contamination
of surf clam and sea quahog grounds, and
accumulation of heavy metals by fish and
shellfish.
e. Preliminary studies suggest a potential threat to
beaches of Long Island from the dredge and sludge
disposal sites.
1971 A report by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
was submitted to the Coastal Engineering Research
Center (CERC) Corps of Engineers. The dumping of sewer
sludge and dredge spoil in the NYB, and the effect on
the marine environment, were reviewed. At the center
of the sludge dump, the bearing capacity of the waters
has been exceeded and the bottom is an anoxic area
devoid of life. Both spoil and sludge contain large
quantities of toxic heavy metals, petrochemicals, and
2-«»8
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
pesticides. The possibility of removing the present
damp grounds to the Hudson Canyon (300-600 ft.) is
worthy of objective considerstion.<32>
1971 The Marine Sciences Research Center, State University
of New York, completed a survey of marine waste
deposits in the New York metropolitan area. Major
sources of wastes and large waste deposits in the NYB
were surveyed to determine their properties. The
various waste deposits were sampled and approximate
boundaries determined. Results are reported in
technical report No. 8.<33>
1971 The New York District Corps of Engineers authorized the
Sperry Systems Management Division to evaluate and
recommend an instrument system which will provide for
surveillance and monitoring of ocean dumping
operations. Evaluation of all candidate systems
demonstrated that the preferred system for monitoring
ocean dumping operations should utilize LORAN A for
position fixings, electronically activated dump
detection subsystems, and an on-board printer
subsystem.t3*) The Corps of Engineers did not
implement this proposed plan because of the relatively
high cost of such a system.
1971 The Grumman Ecosystems corporation presented the
results of the work undertaken for the NY District
4460C1559
2-49
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
Corps of Engineers under Contract No. DACW51-71-
C00 31.<35) The objective of the study by Grumman was
to evaluate the feasibility of the utilization of
aerial remote sensing (s-tereo color photography and
infrared imagery) as an effective technique in
detecting outfalls into navigable waterways of the NY
District. A proposed major outfall detection and
surveillance program was not implemented because the
cost was prohibitive. It was recommended that CERC
allocate research funds to evaluate alternative remote
sensors employing principles of spectrography,
reflectivity, radiometry, radar, and passive
microwaves.<36>
1971 The Perry Oceanographies support vessel (Undersea
Hunter) and the company submarine (PC-8) were chartered
for one day by the New York District, Corps of
Engineers, to be used in an investigation of the ocean
dumping grounds. The primary objectives were:
a. to determine whether waste sediment from the
dumping grounds advanced towards the New Jersey
shore,
b. to determine the extent of lateral spreading and
direction of movement of waste sediments, and
c. to observe the existence and density of marine
life.
2-50
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
Because of adverse weather conditions, areas closer to
the New Jersey coast were chosen where wave and wind
conditions were more favorable. Five dives were made
and important observations were:
Dive _1 - {approximately 1.3 nautical miles from NJ)
indicated an abundance of marine life and the absence
of polluted sediment on the bottom.
Dive 2 - was made at the exact mud dumping ground. A
great amount of fine sediment - the result of a recent
dump was still in suspension and slowly settling,
bottom currents were weak and visibility was two to
three feet, some marine life apparently exists.
Dive 3 - (approximately 3.4 nautical miles from NJ)
indicated abundance of marine life and no mud or fine
sediment.
Dive - (approximately 1.5 nautical miles from NJ)
benthic life was thriving and the sand was relatively
clean.
Dive 5 - (approximately 2.1 nautical miles from NJ)
visibility in this area was very poor due to a large
quantity of suspended material in the water. Benthic
population was greatly impoverished.<37>
This investigation was not conclusive and it was
recommended that the overall future program of research
4M60C1559
2-51
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOPT
on ocean dumping and dumping sites in the NYB include
studies from a submersible.
1972 The National Marine Fisheries Service, Sandy Hook
Laboratory, published a report on the effects of waste
disposal in the NYB. During the course of this
investigation, 150 cruises were made to the three
principal disposal areas in the NYB with a variety of
measurements made and samples taVen at 307 stations in
the Bight and Hudson Canyon. Present disposal
practices have (1) degraded the marine benthic
communities of the NYB, (2) produced large amounts of
floatable materials, and (3) resulted in generally
deteriorated waters and marine sediments.<16>
1972 The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
proposed an Ocean Disposal Control Regulation*18> which
reguired that undigested sewage sludge, chemical
wastes, and polluted dredge spoil be disposed of in
waters deeper than 1000 fathoms.
1972 Based on the available data, cooperative State-Federal
shellfish closed areas were established.<15> Refer to
Section 2.1.7.1.
1972 The Marine Sciences Research Center published a report
on the results obtained from three oceanographic
cruises to investigate the physical characteristics of
the shelf and slope waters of the NYB. The report
2-52
4460C15 59
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
provides some insight into the dynamic processes
involving the seasonal movement of the waters of the
continental shelf, especially with regard to the
spillover of shelf waters onto the slope ana the mixing
of fresh, shelf, slope, and North American Basin
waters. It was concluded that much more data will be
needed to gain full insight into the detailed
hydrography of this complex region of the coastal
Atlantic Ocean.<38>
1972 The Smithsonian Advisory Committee selected by the
Oceanography and Limnology Program of the Smithsonian
Institution met at the Smithsonian institution,
Washington, D.C., June 197 2. The purpose was to
discuss and critically evaluate the final reports
concerning the disposal of wastes in the NYB area. The
six reports reviewed and evaluated are references (16) ,
(29), (30), (32), (33), and (34). Their report
evaluated the results of ongoing studies and
recommended modifications and further studies.
1972 The National coastal Pollution Besearch Program, one of
EPA's major marine research organizations, initiated a
research project consisting of a number of interrelated
studies of domestic sewage sludge dumping in the
NYB.<10> (Refer to Section 2.1.4.9 - Proposed
Alternative Sewage Sludge Dumping Site.)
4460C1559
2-53
-------
FIELD STUDY REPOBT
1972 The President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
on ocean disposal practices and effects held a meeting
in New York City on September 26 through 29.
Conclusions and recommendations were formulated
following a comprehensive briefing to the Board by
representatives of Federal, state, and local
government, a flyover by helicopter to view dumping
practices in the NYB, and a full day of public
testimony by experts in the field of ocean
disposal.(39)
1972 A cooperative venture involving all NMFS biological
laboratories to study contaminants in marine
ecosystems. The Sandy Hook Laboratory conducted
ecological studies of the New York, Barnegat Bay, and
Delaware Bay sites and collected faunal samples for
chemical, pathological, and laboratory analyses and
sediment samples for chemical analyses. The Marine
Contaminants Program of the Middle Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Center is a natural extension of the NYB
waste disposal site studies begun in 1968 at the Sandy
Hook Laboratory under contract from the Corps of
Engineers. The objective of the Hudson Shelf Valley
study is to define the role of the shelf valley, which
runs from the entrance of New York Harbor to the Hudson
Canyon at the slope break, in the ecology of the NYB.
2-54
4 460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY REPOFT
As part of this study, samples of sediments, benthos,
bacteria, malacostracans, and fish are being collected.
The ultimate goal of the long-range study was to
identify the impact of contaminants in relation to the
abundance and distribution of living marine resources,
to provide essential baselines for regulatory
enforcement, and to provide specific information to
balance waste disposal and economically valuable
resources. The referenced report<*o> describes these
efforts and recommendations for future studies.
1972 The Final Report**** - Program Development Plan for the
Mesa-New York Bight Regional project was published by
westinghouse Electric Corporation and submitted to the
U.S. Department of Commerce. A five-year pilot Marine
Ecosystem Analyses program of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration for the NYB to establish an
environmental baseline; to monitor, predict, and
support efforts to control conditions that degrade the
environment; and to alert responsible officials to the
onset of environmental change.
1973 On-going projects of the Marine Sciences Research
Center State University of New York, Stonybrook, are to
determine the distribution of heavy metals dissolved in
the pore-waters of the waste sediment present in the
NYB; to determine the methyl mercury content in dredge
4460C15 59
2-55
-------
FIELD STUDY EEPOFT
spoils which are dumped into local waters (polluted
sediments of New Haven Harbor); and to explore the
possibility of using Ambrose Channel Tower as a coastal
oceanographic reference station, to determine the
dissolved and particulate load which flows from the
Harbor into the NYB. An oceanographic study conducted
for Suffolk County Southwest Sewage District to
determine the impact of an ocean outfall off Fire
Island had just been completed and details were not
available.
197 3 The New York Ocean Science Laboratory published
Technical Report No. 0017<*2>. This report presents
data collected from two cruises into the NYB south of
East Rockaway Inlet. This program was designed to
observe the spatial and temporal distribution of
phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, and benthic fauna, as
well as various chemical and physical parameters, over
a complete tidal cycle, around a proposed offshore
airport site (off J.F. Kennedy International Airport).
1973 The National Environmental Satellite Service under
management by NOAA proposed an aerospace remote sensing
study for the NYB marine environment (dump sites). The
project will use two satellites, five aircraft, and ten
surface vessels which will collect surface
2-56
*i460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOFT
oceanographic data. This experiment was prepared for
the Marine Ecosystem Analyses program.
Conclusion
This completes the chronology of major events, and only includes
the data/information that was provided by the various agencies
contacted. The Bibliography On Ocean Waste Disposal*lists the
reports and publications of other projects conducted in the past
that relate to the NYB.
2.1.10 Alternatives and Recommendations for ocean Dumping in the
New York Bight
2.1.10.1 Alternatives - The public alternative plan for ocean
dumping is - no dumping. After careful review of the comments of
various Federal, state, and local agencies, it appears that such
an alternative, at this time, is impractical. The ramifications
to the economy of this region associated with an immediate halt
to disposal at sea must be carefully weighed. Misinformation and
misunderstanding are the causes of much of the criticism on ocean
dumping. These mistaken impressions will continue to distort the
true impact and block the path of future progress. The preceding
information in this report was presented for careful study and
analysis and, hopefully, will be used as a basis to achieve the
no-dumping concept. It is estimated that, for the NYB area, this
goal could possibly be achieved in 10 to 15 years. A thorough
4460C15 59
2-57
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
evaluation of all alternatives is beyond the scope of this
report, and the following information presents several
alternatives to ocean dumping that have been proposed and studied
for the NYB.
Re-Evaluation of Ocean Dumping by the NY District Corps of
Engineers
The economics, design problems, and the time needed to implement
alternatives to dumping at sea have been submitted by the
chemical companies to the New York District Corps of Engineers,
under an evaluation program conducted during 1971, on the effects
of disposal activities on water quality and water chemistry in
the NYB. As part of this analysis, it was requested that the
various chemical companies applying for dump permits provide the
following information:
a. Hypothetical analysis of behavior of waste materials
subsequent to dumping in proposed locations, including
specifically:
(1) Fractions of load which would float, would sink
immediately, or would dissolve immediately, and
the composition of each fraction.
(2) Rate of hydrolysis.
(3) Rate and pattern of dispersal from time of release
until no longer identifiable.
(£») Particle size of insoluble fraction.
2-58
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOFT
(5) Kinds and amounts of substances that would leach
out of insoluble fraction, and rate of leaching,
b. Operational data, including:
(1) Volume and weight loaded per ship.
(2) Volume and weight dumped per ship.
(3) Number of trips per year and frequency.
(4) Total amount of material to be disposed of
annually.
(5) Description of dumping mechanism and procedures to
be followed during dumping operation (i.e.,
movement of ship, one release, or a series, etc).
Dumping permits were held in abeyance by the corps of Engineers
i
pending submittal of the requested information. The companies
responding during 1971 emphasized that alternative procedures
will require time as well as large expenditures, and are working
diligently on alternative means of disposal. In the meantime,
the companies will continue the practice of disposal at sea.
(More than 3 million cubic yards of chemical wastes were dumped
at the acid grounds in 1972.)
Alternative to Dumping of Spent Caustic at Sea The alternative
methods studied**3> for disposal of spent caustic at sea were:
a. Build a sulfide oxidizer to convert spent caustic into
waste products harmless to the environment. The
1460C1559
2-59
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
sulfide oxidizer process converts spent caustic with
high oxygen demand sulfides to low oxygen demand waste
water. Thirty-four hundred barrels per day of odorless
waste water, having a 1 ppm sulfur concentration and a
7.0 pH, would be produced. The sulfide oxidizer
converts sulfides to thiosulfates and mercaptans to
disulfides. In nature, oxidation of thiosulfates to
sulfates proceeds very slowly; hence, process
conversion of sulfides to thiosulfates is sufficient to
meet oxygen demand requirements for a waste water
stream. An initial investment of $1 million, and an
operating cost of $2 50,0 00 per year has been estimated.
Build a sulfide saturation plant to convert spent
caustic to an unfinished product for sale. Spent
caustic disposal in any form would be eliminated
entirely because all spent caustic would be converted
to a useful product for use in other industry. Initial
investment would involve $500,000 and an operational
cost of $100,000 per year.
Contract with an outside company with facilities to
dispose of the spent caustic. Operation costs per year
would be approximately $825,000.
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOPT
Alternative to Dumping of Acid-Iron Industrial Waste at Sea
The principal wastes disposed of at the waste acid dump ground
are gangue solids, iron (Fe) , and sulfate (SOU); these wastes
represent substantial quantities of the elemental materials,
iron and sulfur. Recovery of these elements for reuse presents
attractive possibilities: iron for steelmaking or powder
metallurgy, and sulfur for recycling in the manufacture of
sulfuric acid in the captive facilities used to produce the acid
required for extracting titanium. Extraction and separation of
titanium from the complex titanium-iron crystal, ilmenite, is
accomplished inorganically by dissolving the ore in concentrated
sulphuric acid to form a solution of titanium and iron sulfates
with the insoluble gangue residue or "mud" to be filtered off for
disposal. The original process (1934) included concentrating,
dehydrating, and roasting facilities for recovery and recycling
of waste sulfate materials. However, there were many
technological difficulties in the large scale operation which
proved to be technically and feasibly insurmountable. The low
efficiency of the recovery process, and the inherent liquid and
atmospheric emissions, necessitated finding alternate means of
handling the wastes from the manufacture of titanium dioxide.
The plan with the least objectionable environmental impact was to
dispose of the waste materials at sea. Ocean dispersal of the
acid-iron wastes began in April 1948, and has continued on a
daily basis with only minor interruption.
4460C1559
2-61
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPORT
Studies have been conducted through the years on the waste
dispersal operation and its effects. These studies concluded
that "repeated industrial acid-iron waste disposal off the New
Jersey coast has not appreciably affected the marine environment
in the acid dump ground area."
There are no known alternative methods for disposal of these
wastes that would offer as ecologically acceptable a solution as
the present method of ocean dispersal.
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
problem; there are unresolved technological problems in each, as
well as long-term questions regarding their feasibility. As a
result, there are no immediate plans to eliminate the present
method of ocean dispersal. Until a feasible method is developed,
any requirement to change the present practice substantially will
necessitate a major production curtailment with its resultant
profound economic impact on the plant and community.<45 >
Alternative Methods of Disposal of Fermentation Residue
The end products from the manufacture of penicillin are two
solids, mycelium and filteraid. Mycelium was trucked from the
Pfizer plant to an open dump, filling in a swamp from June 1948,
until 1952. Nutrients from the mycelium leached into the swamp
and finally into a creek causing biological growth which became
odorous and led to many complaints. An alternative method of
disposal was sought at that time resulting in the present method,
barging to the Long Island Sound. By 1957, the Pfizer Company
(Groton, Connecticut), was dumping approximately 100,000 cubic
yards of wet mycelium a year (36,000 cubic yards in 1972 - refer
to Section 2.1.6.2-c). Results of laboratory analysis indicated
that the residue from the fermentation process consisted of a
gray-brown, putty-like mass, with an oily texture and a decidedly
disagreeable, sour-mash, nauseous odor. Chemical analysis
indicated percentages of copper, chromium, and zinc,
spectrographic analysis also showed evidence of aluminum.
4460C1559
2-63
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPORT
calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, and silica. Bioassay result
of a 0.1 percent, solution was not lethal to fish in a 48-hour
observation. Results of the laboratory examination show that
this material is probably safe for landfill disposal.
During the 19-year period (1952-1971), there has never been any
evidence that the mycelium was harmful to fish life; on the
contrary, the growth of bluefish and fishing in general in the
Sound has been tremendous, a commonly known fact in this
area.c *6 >
Alternative methods of disposal that could be utilized in the
Connecticut area are sanitary landfill or incineration. Landfill
disposal would increase Pfizer's annual disposal costs by
approximately $2 50,000; in addition, it would involve a number of
serious problems. The high water content of the material makes
conventional covering operations difficult, if not impossible.
It would be necessary to study the use of specialized methods and
equipment.
Incineration would involve a capital expenditure in the order of
$1.5 million, in addition to approximately $500,000 annual
operating expenses. This method also involves environmental
problems.
2-64
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
Longer range possible solutions involve development, of useful
products for animal feed or fertilizer use, but such solutions
are nebulous at this point.
ernative Methods of sludge Disposal
The various disposal areas in the NYE have had a measurable
effect on the New York-Northern New Jersey estuarine region, but
sludqe disposal effects are possibly of little consequence when
compared with the present justification of disposing sludge at
sea, still the most dependable and economical method. Because of
the conclusions of many recent studies (some noted in Section
2.1.7.5), it is evident that alternatives to sludge disposal must
be studied and proposed methods must be carefully examined for
their environmental impacts and costs. The following information
presents three major alternatives studied (since 1970) by the New
York City Environmental Protection Administration (NYCEPA).
Sludge Disposal 100 Nautical Miles Offshore - The purpose of the
study**7> during 1970 was to examine the problems and
ramifications associated with disposing of sludge 100 miles
offshore in self-propelled sludge vessels, and to determine the
costs of such operations. It was estimated that two Owls Head
class vessels with a capacity of 60,000 cubic feet# and four
Newtown Creek class vessels with a capacity of 95,000 cubic feet
would be needed to transport approximately 7-million cubic feet
4460C1559
2-65
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPORT
of sludge 100 miles offshore each month. The estimated annual
operating costs would be more than $5 million, which represents a
456 percent increase above present operating costs. In addition
to this increase in annual operating costs, it would require a
redesign and construction time of 3*/2 years for three additional
Newtown Creek vessels at a cost of $18 million. No attempt has
been made to estimate the cost of modifying the existing fleet of
vessels for 100-mile-offshore operations.
Sludge Disposal 25 Nautical Miles Offshore - Sludge vessels
currently off-load their cargos at not less than 11 nautical
miles from the nearest point of land. An extension of the dump
area to a point 25 nautical miles from the nearest point of land
would require the vessels to steam 3.5 to 5 hours longer
(depending on speed of vessel and sea/weather conditions) for
each trip to sea. Round trip transit time will be increased to
an average of 9*/2 hours. The present complement of 58 marine
personnel would be increased to 94. Based on 1968-1969 price
criteria, the increase in annual operating costs is an estimated
$704,761, utilizing present equipment.<48>
Sludge Incineration - A minimum lead time of 5 years is
envisioned for the budgeting, planning, design, and construction
of sludge incineration to serve all New York City facilities. On
the assumption that existing means of sludge disposal at sea are
2-66
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOPT
abandoned, incinerators will be designed to adjoin every existing
pollution control plant utilizing a fluidized-solids methodology
for on-site sludge incineration. <49 > At the Red Hook plant now
under design in New York City, consideration is being given to
installation of equipment which would prepare the sludge for
incineration in a very large adjacent municipal refuse
incinerator, also under design. If such an installation is
decided upon, it will be the first New York City plant not
dependent on ocean disposal, and may be used as a process
evaluation center, aided by the availability of huge furnaces
almost within the same structure.<50J
Estimates of total costs range from $5 million to $11 million and
make no provision for solution of such problems as disposal of
incinerated residue, which would present scrubber liquor
problems. Other operating problems include odor production and
the necessity for difficult sludge dewatering techniques, such as
vacuum filtration.
Conclusion - The total sludge disposal costs would increase by a
factor of 1.5 to 1 for 25 nautical mile disposal at sea, 4.6 to 1
for 100 nautical mile, and 3.4 to 1 for sludge incineration,
within the near future if such plans are implemented. By the
year 2015, the relative cost for 25 nautical mile disposal would
increase to 2.4 to 1, but other ratios would remain constant.
446001559
2-67
-------
FIELD STUDY REPOFT
The absolute costs, however, would increase in the year 2015 by
an increment of $14.5 million for 100 nautical mile disposal,
$5.5 million for 25 nautical mile disposal, and $9.3 million for
sludge incinerations, compared with an increment of $2.6 million
if present methods are continued.<51>
2.1.10.2 Recommendations - Studies into alternative methods for
ocean disposal will require many years, and most of the reports
cited in the bibliography contain recommendations for long-term
changes to solve the complex problem of ocean disposal in the
NYB. Utilizing these reports, and the information gathered
during the field study, this section will review the major
problems associated with each of the dump grounds and recommend
the actions that may be implemented in a realistic and reasonable
time scale.
Sludge Disposal
Facilities for incineration of municipal sewage sludge do not
exist, and landfill areas are not readily available; therefore,
it is recommended that barging of sludge to the existing site be
continued, under certain provisions.
Problem;
Sewer sludge presently dumped contains heavy metals and
other toxic materials.
2-68
H4 60C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORT
Action:
The Surveillance and Analysis Division of EPA Region II must
intensify the existing surveillance and enforcement of
industrial and commercial facilities that allow the heavy
metals and other toxic materials to enter the municipal
sewage systems of New York and New Jersey. The Interstate
Sanitation commission, and the Bureau of Sanitary
Engineering, structured within the New York City Department
of Health are two agencies active in industrial waste
control monitoring. An initial network461 to integrate the
present water quality monitoring system for the NYB is being
implemented by the Applied Technology Division of EPA. This
initial network will serve as a basis for a data collection
system that will become an integral part of the surveillance
and enforcement operations of EPA Region II. The
Surveillance and Analysis Division should conduct toxicity
studies on samples collected from behind a dumping barge and
at the center of the sludge dump site. (Location of the
center will be discussed later.) This study should continue
until the source of the heavy metals and toxic materials are
known.
Problem:
New York City's waste water treatment plants presently
discharge effluents at the rate of 1550 MGD. Minimum
secondary treatment is given 1150 MGD to an average of 73
1160C1559
2-69
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOPT
percent removal of BOD. Because of delays in construction
of additional sewage treatment plants, approximately 480 MGD
of raw sewage continues to be discharged into the New York
Harbor complex. Along the New Jersey shore, from Sandy Hook
to Long Beach Island, there are 30 municipal waste
treatment plants which provide only minimum primary
treatment. During 1971, members of the Surveillance and
Analysis Division of EPA at Edison, New Jersey, visited
these facilities to s-tudy the sludge disposal practices and
collect samples. Results of this study showed that, during
the sludge dumping operation, water quality standards were
violated for coliform bacteria, floating solids, and odor-
producing substances. In addition, pathogenic organisms and
viruses were isolated in the ocean receiving waters during
sludge dumping. The total contribution to the sludge
dumping grounds in 1971 included 60.5 percent of
undigested, and 39.5 percent digested sludge. (Digestion
reduces the BOD of sludge by 83 percent.)
Action;
Accelerate the program of upgrading present treatment
plants in order to treat waste water to a high degree of
secondary treatment of 90 percent reduction of BOD and
suspended solids for ultimate disposal at the sludge dump
ground.
2-70
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY REPOPT
Problem:
Negotiations have not yet been initiated with the City of
New York to assist the National coastal Pollution Research
Program in a project consisting of a number of interrelated
studies of domestic sewage sludge dumping in the NYB. The
purpose of the project is to aid in understanding and
predicting both the fate of sewage sludge discharged into a
near-shore ocean environment, and the ecosystem alterations
which result. A selected amount and type of digested sewage
sludge will be discharged under varying controlled
conditions in a designated location off the NYB (Refer to
Section 2.1.4.9). This project is an expensive operation
which will last a year or more. Earliest date for
commencement is October 1973. Doubts have been expressed
as to the tentative location of the site to be selected.
Action:
The time frame for commencement of this project can be
stepped up by support from the ODPO. Assistance of the
Department of Water Resources of the NYCEPA is a key factor.
The Surveillance and Analysis Division at Edison should
initiate a routine monitoring program of the water quality
in this area for baseline data, possibly with the assistance
of the U.S. Coast Guard. An environmental impact study of
this area is recommended, along with a comprehensive study
to determine if the poor quality of the water in the NYB
4460C1559
2-71
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
results from offshore sludge disposal, or from the poor
quality of water emanating from New York Harbor. The
initial step for such a study would be to conduct a beach
sampling program at all the beaches. This baseline data
will be valuable in assessing water quality when the North
River treatment plant becomes operational in 1979.
Mud Dumping
Mud dunping consists of material dredged from vessel berths;
anchorage grounds and channels; clean earth; and steam ashes from
fossil-fueled, electric-power generating stations.
Problem:
It is estimated that more than 2 million cubic yards of
sludge are added annually to the New York Harbor complex
because of the discharge of 480 MGD of raw sewage. These
sludge accumulations are dredged along with other bottom
materials and deposited in the mud dumping ground.
Action:
It is recommended that sludge samples be subjected to a
thorough analysis, and the material be restricted to dumping
at the waste chemical (toxic) dumping ground or beyond.
The Cooperative offshore Water Quality studies conducted by
the FDA under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program
2-72
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOPT
(refer to Section 2.1.7.1) should be continued to study the
effect of this sludge dumping on shellfish in tne NYB and to
possibly conclude whether this sludge is the cause of the
six six-mile shellfish closure area and recent additional
three-mile closure.
The New York District Corps of Engineers is authorized to issue
permits or regulations for Federal projects for ocean dumping of
dredged materials upon concurrence from EPA that the criteria and
any restrictions concerning areas have been complied with. close
liaison between the Corps of Engineers and the EPA Surveillance
and Analysis Division at Edison is required on the dredge spoil
problem.
In summary, close cooperation is required by all agencies to
coordinate the suggested activities. The role of the EPA ODPO is
clearly defined in this respect. The first implementation of the
proposed initial network by the EPAATD should be the stepping
stone for the EPA plans to control ocean dumping in the NYB.
QSliSE Dirt Disposal
The material disposed of consists primarily of earth and rock
from cellar excavations and broken concrete, rubble, and other
nonfloatable debris from building demolition and highway
construction work.
UU60C1559
2-73
-------
FIELD STUDY REPOPT
Problem:
The original dump ground was selected in 1908 so as not to
endanger navigation, and has been changed several times as
the depths decreased. The present disposal area has been in
use for more than 33 years. In 1972, 694,950 cubic yards
were dumped.
Records were not available to ascertain the last time
studies were performed on the possibility that the
accumulation of this material on the bottom (100 ft) will
soon endanger deep-draft vessels using the Ambrose-Barnegat
traffic lanes.
Action:
It is recommended such a study be performed by the Corps of
Engineers, including deep core samples to study the impact
of 65 years of dumping in this general area, and to
ascertain if future spreading out of this material might be
environmentally acceptable for the creation of fish havens.
Again, it would take close cooperation with the FDA, NJDEP,
NYSDEC, and research institutions.
Wreck_ Disposal
The Corps of Engineers carries out its obligation under the law
to remove and dispose of sunken vessels and other obstructions to
navigation, and contracts for their disposal in the wreck dumping
ground.
2-74
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFT
Problem:
Same as for cellar dirt disposal.
Action:
Diving studies, including hand-held and TV underwater
cameras should be performed to ascertain: (1) the impact of
this disposal practice to this general area and (2) the
possibility of changing the location, especially if studies
indicate that this practice creates an ideal fish haven or
has created a hazard to navigation.
Waste_ Acid and Toxic Chemical Disposal
More than 3 million cubic yards of waste acid materials were
dumped at the acid disposal site, and 674,868 cubic yards of
toxic chemicals were dumped at the 106-mile dump site during
1972.
Problem:
Records were not available to ascertain the results of the
re-evaluation program conducted by the Corps of Engineers
(refer to Section 2.1.10). The companies continue the
practice of disposal at sea, as evidenced by the figures in
Table 2.1-5.
Action:
The records of the Corps of Engineers should be submitted to
the EPA for evaluation, and it is recommended that another
such study be initiated. Each company must provide an
4160C1559
2-75
-------
FIELD STUDY REPOFT
Environmental Impact Statement as a prerequisite to the
issuance of a dump permit.
Overall Disposal Problems
There are numerous overall problems associated with ocean
disposal and the general water quality of the NYB.
Problem:
Records are not available to ascertain the impact created to
the water quality of the NYB by the thousands of ocean-going
vessels that utilize the Ambrose-Nantucket-Hudson Canyon-
Barnegat traffic lanes (204,000 vessel trips projected for
the year 2015).
Action:
A study should be initiated to investigate the following:
(1) the present traffic of commercial vessels and
recreational vessels utilizing the waters of the NYB; (2)
the present dumping practices of these vessels; and (3) the
type of surveillance that would be required to control
discharges.
Problem:
Dumping has been observed in the general designated disposal
area, but covered a range of at least two miles north or
south because the designated point was without stationary
markers to indicate the point to begin discharge.
2-76
4460C1559
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPORT
Action:
The U.S. coast Guard, with the concurrence of EPA, should
provide a lighted buoy containing a large radar reflector to
mark the exact center location of designated disposal sites.
The Coast Guard should approve the proposal of utilizing the
Ambrose tower as a water quality monitoring station.
Problem:
Very little information exists on the Hudson Canyon; the
possible effects of present ocean dumping practices in this
area are not known.
Action:
The present studies being conducted on the Hudson Canyon by
NOAA-NMFS should be coordinated with the present activities
of EPA in the NYB to determine the possibility of relocating
disposal sites to the Hudson Canyon or beyond.
2.1.11 Conclusion
During 1971, the EPA Applied Technology Division, initiated a
study to develop a plan for a National Coastal Water Quality
Monitoring Network. Field surveys were conducted in six selected
coastal zones to provide specific information about water quality
sampling, laboratory analyses, data management, and program
administration. The NYB was one of the coastal zones studied.
During 1973, a field survey was conducted to update, expand, and
improve the data base accumulated on ocean dumping during the
1160C1559
2-77
-------
FIELD STUDY EEPOPT
1971 field survey. These two surveys have shown tnat -there is a
communication gap between the political and professional
organizations in the area. This communication gap is becoming
more critical due to the importance of two programs now being
conducted simultaneously in the NYE by the EPA and NOAA (MESA) .
It is essential that the valuable information obtained under
these programs become integrated into a national network.
2-78
4460C1559
-------
DISPOSAL AREAS (CUBIC
YARDS)
Permit
Permittee
Toxic
No.
No.
(Name of Applicant)
Kind of Material
Mud
Cellar
Sludge
Acid
Chemical
(106 Mile)
Trips
1-72
Moran Towing Co.
Waste Acid
506,000
110
4-72
Moran Towing Co.
Cellar Dirt & Rock
16,500
11
12-72
Moran Towing Co.
Cellar Dirt & Rock
67,500
30
23-72
Moran Towing Co.
Mud, Sand & Gravel
84,000
46
24-72
Moran Towing Co.
Mud, Sand & Gravel
12,000
5
27-72
General Marine Transp.
Sewer Sludge
6,000
4
29-72
General Marine Transp.
Sewer Sludge
90,000
60
30-72
General Marine Transp.
Sewer Sludge
3,000
2
(33-72)
Pfizer Inc., Groton
Fermentation Residue
(Little Gull Island)
(16,000)
(16)
34-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sewer Sludge
20,696
10
35-72
Dept. of Hater Resources
Sewer Sludge
6,072
3
36-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sewer Sludge
21,960
9
37-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sewer Sludge
6,072
3
38-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sewer Sludge
2,024
1
39-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sewer Sludge
52,800
22
40-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sewer Sludge
22,320
9
41-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sewer Sludge
14,168
7
43-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sewer Sludge
44,528
22
45-72
A & S Transportation
Sewer Sludge
139,500
21
46-72
A & S Transportation
Sewer Sludge
30,500
5
47-72
A & S Transportation
Sewer Sludge
12,960
4
48-72
Modern Transp. Co.
Sewer Sludge
3,240
1
50-72
Modern Transp. Co.
Sewer Sludge
80,000
10
51-72
Modern Transp. Co.
Sewer Sludge
22,480
4
52-72
Modern Transp. Co.
Sewer Sludge
8,000
1
53-72
A & S Transportation
Sewer Sludge
120,000
15
55-72
Allied Chemical
Muriatic Acid
23,969
11
59-72
Modern Transp. Co.
Aluminum Hydro
24,000
3
63-72
Weeks Dredging
Mud
10,675
4
CORPS OF
ENGINEERS PERMIT SCHEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972
^^0
TABLE
2.1-5a
January 1, 1972
L
— INTERSTATE
1—¦ EIEC11WNKS
^— GORPONKnON
-------
DISPOSAL AREAS (CUBIC
YARDS)
Permit
Permittee
Toxic
No.
No.
(Narae of Applicant)
Kind of Material
Mud
Cellar
Sludge
Acid
Chemical
(106 Mile)
Trips
65-72
Weeks Dredging
Wheat £ Mud
1,875
1
67-72
American Dredge
Silt, Sand & Mud
537,700
199
68-72
American Dredge
Mud
131,100
55
69-72
American Dredqe
Rock, Hardpan Clay
45,600
22
71-72
Great Lakes Dredne
Broken Concrete
22,500
10
72-72
Great Lakes Dredqe
Mud
5,840
4
73-72
Great Lakes Dredqe
Mud
98,250
105
74-72
Great Lakes Dredge
Mud
126,880
75-72
Great Lakes Dredge
Mud
908,800
95
77-72
Weeks Dredqing
Sludge
42,700
7
82-72
Spentonbush Transport
Spent Caustic
10,000
2
83-72
Soentonbush Transport
Spent Caustic
20,000
4
84-72
Spentonbush Transport
Spent Caustic
65,000
13
85-72
Spentonbush Transport
Spent Caustic
50,000
10
86-72
Weeks Dredging
Mud
6,275
2
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT SCHEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972 (fl
TABLE
2.l-5b
January 1, 1972
K
— INTERSTATE
¦—¦ ELECTRONICS
—» CORPORKnCM
-------
DISPOSAL
AREAS (CUBIC
YARDS)
Permit
Permittee
Toxic
No.
Ho.
(Name of Applicant)
Kind of Material
Mud
Cellar
Sludge
Acid
Chemical
(106 Mile)
Trips
89-72
R. H. Goode
Sand, Gravel SRock
900
1
91-72
Great Lakes Dredge
Mud
76,520
24
92-72
Great Lakes Dredge
Mud
12 ,600
4
94-72
Weeks Dredging
Mud
28,600
17
95-72
Weeks Dredging
Mud
61,600
22
96-72
American Dredge
Mud
139,725
69
97-72
Weeks Dredging
Mud
14,750
6
98-72
Weeks Dredging
Mud
4,400
2
101-72
Weeks Dredging
Mud
15,075
6
102-72
Weeks Dredging
Sewer Sludge
6,100
1
106-72
Weeks Dredging
Sludge
36,600
6
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT SCHEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972
TABLE
2.1-5c
January 25, 1972
L
— INTERSTATE
V—¦ ELECTRONICS
^ CODRORKnON
-------
DISPOSAL
AREAS (CUBIC YARDS)
Permit
Permittee
Toxic
No.
No.
(Name of Applicant)
Kind of Material
Mud
Cellar
Sludge
Acid
Chemical
(106 Mile)
Trips
(107-72)
Pfizer Inc., Groton
Fermentation Residue
(Little Gull Island)
(20,000)
(20)
108-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge (26 Ward)
15,750
7
109-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge (Idlewild)
166,160
67
110-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge (Ctolshead)
133,920
54
111-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge (Coney)
29,760
12
112-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge (Huntspoint)
36,232
17
113-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge (Tallman)
28,136
13
114-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge (Port Richmond)
2,480
1
115-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge (Rockaway)
12,400
5
116-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge (Newtown Creek)
123,520
59
117-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge (Bowery)
53,648
23
118-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge (Wards)
114,512
55
142-72
Moran Towing Co.
Mud, Sand & Gravel
76,500
43
144-72
Moran Towing Co.
Rock
36,000
24
145-72
Moran Towing Co.
Waste Acid
749 , 800
163
148-72
Modern Transp. Co.
Sludge
16,000
2
152-72
Modern Transp. Co.
Sludge
16,000
2
157-72
A & S Transportaxion
Sludge
95,300
15
158-72
A & S Transportation
Sludge
3,240
1
160-72
A & S Transportation
Sludge
158,600
26
161-72
A & S Transportation
Sludge
12,200
2
162-72
A & S Transportation
5,700
6
171-72
Great Lakes Dredge
Mud
310,000
97
176-72
Great Lakes Dredge
Mud
214,000
44
177-72
Spentonbush Transport
Chemical
102,220
20
181-72
Allied Chemical
Muriatic Acid
26,148
12
191-72
American Dredging
5,750
3
194-72
Weeks Dredging
35,200
16
197-72
Weeks Dredging
Silt
37,400
17
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT SCHEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972 0
TABLE 2.1-5d rCHf^
April 1, 1972 thru June 30, 1972 conPownoN
-------
DISPOSAL AREAS (CUBIC YARDS)
Permit
Permittee
Toxic
No.
No.
(Name of Applicant)
Kind of Material
Mud
Cellar
Sludqe
Acid
Chemical
Trips
(106 Mile)
200-72
Sound Towing
420
1
202-72
Great Lakes Dredge
564,000
141
(204-72)
Ocean Salvage Inc.
Wreck
60 x 16
x 8(Eatons Neck)
(208-72)
Harbor Const. Co.
Wreck
Trawler
(Eatons Neck)
215-72
Weeks Dredging
Mud
4,400
2
218-72
Weeks Dredging
Mud
77,000
27
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT SCHEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972
0
TABI£
2.1-5e
w
4T ^— INTERSTATE
April lr 1972 thru June 30, 1972
L
m—m ELECTRONICS
— coRramncM
-------
Permit
Ho.
Permittee
(IJame of Applicant)
Kind of Material
DISPOSAL
AREAS (CUBIC YARDS)
No.
Trips
Mud
Cellar
Sludae
Acid
Toxic
Chemical
(106 Mile)
231-72
Modern Transportation
Sludae
16,200
5
232-72
ASS Transportation
Sludge
12,960
4
233-72
A & S Transnortation
Sludge
97,600
16
235-72
A & S Transportation
Sludge
12,960
4
236- 72
A & S Transportation
Sludge
122,000
20
237-72
A & S Transportation
6,480
3
230-72
McAllister Towing
14,220
6
239-72
Weeks Dredqing
24,400
4
240-72
Dept. of Water Resources
87,828
39
241-72
Dept. of Water Resources
31,558
14
242-72
Dept. of Water Resources
67,560
30
243-72
Dept. of Water Resources
146,380
65
244-72
Dept. of Water Resources
22,520
10
245-72
Dept. of Water Resources
135,120
60
246-72
Dept. of Water Resources
94,584
42
247-72
Dept. of Water Resources
144,128
64
248-72
Dept. of Water Resources
24,772
11
249-72
Dept. of Water Resources
2,480
1
250-72
Dept. of Water Resources
45,040
20
253-72
Mo ran Towinq Co.
Cellar Dirt & Mud
21,000
12
255-72
Moran Towing Co.
7,500
5
256-72
Moran Towing Co.
46,500
28
257-72
Moran Towing Co.
70,500
34
258-72
Moran Towing Co.
70,500
43
259-72
Moran Towing Co.
861,400
170
2 81-72
American Dredging
568,300
331
282-72
American Dredqincr
8,300
6
203-72
8,100
2
284-72
24,000
11
285- 72
41,600
10
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT SCHEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972 0
TABLE 2 . l-5f
July 1, 1972 thru Septenfeer 30, 1972 canmmanaN
-------
Permit
Ho.
Permittee
(Name of Applicant)
Kind of Material
DISPOSAL
AREAS (CUBIC YARDS)
No.
Trips
Mud
Cellar
Sludoe
Acid
Toxic
Chemical
(106 Mile)
286-72
Great Lakes Dredge
306,000
87
288-72
Great Lakes Dredge
4,650
3
289-72
Great Lakes Dredqe
12,000
4
290-72
Great Lakes Dredqe
27,000
9
292-72
Great Lakes Dredge
137,600
36
293-72
15,150
7
294-72
45,000
15
296-72
Weeks Dredoing
24,775
8
299-72
General Marine Transr.
1,500
1
305-72
Allied Chemical
30,506
14
306-72
Spentonbush Transport
Chemical Waste
127,760
20
307-72
Spentonbush Transport
127,760
20
311-72
Spentonbush T rein sport
Spent Caustic
25,552
4
312-72
Spentonbush Transport
Spent Caustic
19,164
3
313-72
Weeks Dredginq
Mud
6,275
5
314-72
Great Lakes Dredge
Mud
31,200
7
315-72
Weeks Dredging
28,600
7
317-72
Weeks Dredging
151,800
47
318-72
Great Lakes Dredqe
81,900
16
321-72
Great Lakes Dredqe
Bock
7,750
5
322-72
Great Lakes Dredge
Ibid
(Shows 29 trips, but no amount)
29
328-72
Weeks Dredginq
Mud
14,425
7
331-72
Weeks Dredging
6,275
2
334-72
American Dredge
40,500
14
335-72
Great Lakes Dredqe
19,600
5
336-72
Weeks Dredging
6,100
1
TABLE 2.l-5g
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT SCHEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972
July 1, 1972 thru September 30, 1972
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
connonwnoN
-------
DISPOSAL
AREAS (CUBIC YARDS)
Permit
Permittee
Toxic
No.
No.
(Name of Applicant)
Kind of Material
Mud
Cellar
Sludge
Acid
Chemical
(106 Mile)
Trips
338-72
Iloran Towing Co.
Cellar Dirt
136,500
79
344-72
I to ran Towing Co.
Waste Acid
731,400
159
365-72
Iloran Towing Co.
Rock
75,000
50
366-72
Moran Towing Co.
Rock
3,000
2
368-72
Dept. of Water Pesources
Sludge
38,284
17
369-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge
45,040
20
370-72
Dept. of Water Pesources
Sludge
22,520
10
371-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge
67,560
30
372-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge
15,764
7
373-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge
123,860
55
374-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge
13,512
6
375-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge
146,380
65
376-72
Dept. of Water Resources
54,048
24
377-72
Dept. of Water Resources
88,028
39
378-72
Dept. of Water Resources
6,756
3
383-72
Modern Transp. Co.
60,804
27
387-72
A & S Transportation
6,100
1
388-72
ASS Transportation
25,600
16
390-72
140,300
23
393-72
Great Lakes Dredge
Rock
27,200
17
398-72
Great Lakes Dredge
Mud
226,200
97
399-72
Mud
1,053,000
274
400-72
General Marine Transp.
Sludge
1,500
1
403-72
General Marine Transp.
6,000
4
405-72
General Marine Transp.
75,000
50
406-72
General Marine Transp.
6,000
4
407-72
Spentonbush Transport
Spent Caustic
44,716
7
408-72
Spentonbush Transport
Spent Caustic
38,320
6
410-72
Spentonbush Transport
Effluent Waste
140,536
22
414-72
American Dredge
338,350
CORPS OF
ENGINEERS PERMIT SCHEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972
1
tabu:
2.l-5h
October 1, 1972 thru December 31,
1972
^ 0— INTERSTATE
¦—¦ ELECTRONICS
— corporation
-------
DISPOSAL
AREAS (CUBIC YARDS)
Permit
Permittee
Toxic
No.
No.
(Name of Applicant)
Kind of Material
Mud
Cellar
Sludge
Acid
Chemical
Trips
(106 Mile)
420-72
Weeks Dredging
30,500
5
421-72
Weeks Dredging
2,200
1
424-72
Dunbar Sullivan
203,400
62
428-72
Allied Chemical
Muriatic Acid
17,400
8
433-72
Weeks Ocean Disposal
(Wards)
434-72
Weeks Ocean Disposal
(Tallman)
6,100
1
435-72
Weeks Ocean Disposal
(Bowery)
24,400
4
436-72
Weeks Ocean Disposal
(Hunts point)
6,100
1
437-72
Weeks Ocean Disposal
(Newtown Creek)
24,400
4
438-72
Great Lakes Dredge
206,500
80
439-72
Bayonne Ind. (Weeks)
4,400
2
440-72
Great Lakes Dredge
30,000
10
448-72
Great Lakes Dredge
78,000
25
450-72
Weeks Dredging
19,800
9
TOTALS
7,331,435
694,950
3,976,893
3,050,414
6 74 , 868
4870
GRAND TOTAL
15,728,560 CUBIC YARDS DUMPED III 1972, 186 PERMITS, 4870 TRIPS
TABLE 2.1-5i
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT SCHEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972
October 1, 1972 thru December 31, 1972
INTERSTATE
ELECmONKS
comxHnoN
-------
Section 3
APPROVED INTERIM DUMPING SITES
NEW YORK BIGHT
3.1 INTERIM OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES
3.1.1 rosgect
The coordinates and approximate distances and bearings of the
disposal areas designated for the New York Eight were originally
referenced to the Sandy Hook Light and the Sea Girt Light. In
1969, the Supervisor of the New York Harbor revised the
coordinates, and the Ambrose Light became the reference, as
reported in section 2 and shown in Figure 2.1-1. The locations
of the various sites vary approximately 1/2 to 1 1/2 nautical
miles depending on which reference is used.
During a 1968 study of waste disposal in the New York Bight,
vessels were observed discharging in the general designated
disposal area, but covered a range of at least two miles north or
south because the designated point was without stationary markers
to indicate the point to begin discharge.
The Federal Register, Volume 38, No. 94, Wednesday, May 16, 1973,
published the EPA rules and regulations pertaining to ocean
H460C1559
3-1
-------
APPROVED INTERIM DUMPING SITES
viuniniim. This interim criteria designated locutions of the
aporoved interim dumping sites tor the EPA reqions.<52>
1. 1.2 Sites EPA Region II
Table 3.1-1 is an excerpt from the criteria and lists the sites
approved for the New York Bight.
Location
Latitude & Longitude
TABLE 3. 1-1
Size
Sq. Miles
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
73°51• 2.0
7 3°491 2.0
7 3°4 51 2.0
73°4 0' 2.0
73°4b' 2.0
145° true, from 624
3 8°4 5'
Depth Primary
Feet_ Use
88 Mud
103 Cellar Dirt
90 Sludge
80 Waste Acid
200 Wreck dumpinq
6,000 Toxic chemical
waste
6,000 Toxic chemical
waste
40°24*,
40°23•,
40° 25 • ,
4 0° 201 ,
4 0° 1 3• ,
106 NMI,
ambrose licrht,
73°, 1 5 ¦
Approximately 123 NMI
Southeast of Ambrose
Light, south of 39°0'
north of 38°30', west of
72°0', east of 72°30«
Editor's Note:
1. Item 6 should read 106 NMI, 145° true, from Ambrose
Light, 3 8° 4 5•, 72°15'.
2. Item 7 is a duplication of item 6. The 106 NMI distance
is to the outer edge of the dump site (NW corner), while
the 123 NMI distance is to the center of the rectangle
described by the coordinates. The center coordinate is
38°45' N, 7 2°15l W. Actual chart measurements indicate
distances of 10 8 NMI and 127 NMI respectively.
3-2
1*46001559
-------
APPROVED INTERIM DUMPING SITES
3.1.3 An Atlas of Ocean Waste Disposal Sites
IEC Report 4460C1545 presents an Atlas of Ocean Waste Disposal
Sites in the united states.<53> This atlas uses a series of
National Ocean Survey charts published by the U.S. Department of
Commerce to accurately locate the center coordinates of each
disposal site listed in the Federal Register. The atlas contains
information on the area, chart number, navigation aids, type of
material dumped and a site number. The sites relevant to the New
York Biqht study are presented in the following figures.
UW60C1559
3-3
-------
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ocean Disposal Program Office
u>
.fc
-fc:
Oj Center Coordinates 40° 25' 00" N, 73° 45' Off' W
5 Area 2.0 Square Nautical Miles
_* Navigation Chart No NOS 1215
ui Local Navigation Aids Decca. Loran A & C, Omega, RDF. CG Radar
en Materia) Type Sewage Sludge
Primary Management EPA
INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
SITE NO. 0D0203
Figure 3.1-1
September 1973
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
-------
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ocean Disposal Program Office
¦P
Oi
O
n
en
Center Coordinates 40 24' 00" N, 73° 51' 00' W
Area 2.0 Square Nautical Miles
ui Navigation Chart No. . . .• NOS 1215
4 Local Navigation Aids Decca, Loran A & C, Omega, RDF, CG Radar
Ln Material Type M ud
Primary Management EPA
INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
SITE NO. 0D02Q6
Figur«
!. 1-2
September 1973
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
-------
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ocean Disposal Program Office
. >r. .,lv ,.1,^
M ^ 1* . 17 A - =*A
•• \»v»-
fV " '
M *(•"'
J*'* *"¦*'
l 'B ,
<
SOUN'l)INC,< IN FFFT
AT MKAJJ l.OW WATER
q Center Coordinates 40° 23' 00" N. 73° 49' 00" W
O 2.0 Square Nautical Miles
-» Navigation Chart No NOS 1215
Local Navigation Aids Decca, Loran A & C. Omega, RDF, CG Radar
£2 Material Type Cellar Dirt
Primary Management EPA
SITE NO. 000209
INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
Figure 3.1-3
September 1973
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
-------
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ocean Disposal Program Office
JV ..
t. - -M
L—-
^ J '
SOUNDINGS IN* VK IT
at mi-: av ixnv \vati:i{
Center Coordinates 40° 20' OCT N. 73° 40' 00' W
Area 2.0 Square Nautical Miles
u> Navigation Chart No NOS 1215
I Local Navigation Aids Decca, Loran A & C, Omega. RDF, CG Radar
"J Material Type Waste Acid
Primary Management tPA
SITE NO. 000212
INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
Figure 3.1-U
September 1973
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
-------
u>
I
CO
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ocaan Disposal Program Office
Hn.il,, ,TT",,,;
,. i <).. i it, .,r,
¦iHit : 111 , il.M.hn-hintMiil, I ifTTTTtr
¦ J.i.H, n 1
-rrr-f,
$
T
>
Qc
5-
£
Ln
©
Cfc
CQ
$
Cfc
I SOUNDINGS IN I'KKT
AT MKAN I.OW WATKH
q Canter Coordinates 40° 13' 00" N, 73° 46' Off' W
n Ar#a 2.0 Square Nautical Miles
-» Navigation Chart No NOS 1215
Local Navigation Aids Decca, Loran A & C. Omega, RDF, CG Radar
J2 Material Type Wrecks
Primary Management EPA
SITE NO. 0D0215
INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
September 1973
Figure 3.1-5
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
-------
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ocean Disposal Program Office
¦e
ON
O
O
cn
U1
vO
Center Coordinates 38° 45' OCT' N, 72° 15' Off' W INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE September 1973
Area 701.9 Square Nautical Miles
u Navigation Chart No NOS 1000
' Local Navigation Aids Loran A & C, Omega, Decca
Material Type Toxic Chemicals
Primary Management EPA
Fiqure 3.1-6
SITE HO. 0D0227 C€XZ S&S&S
-------
Section 4
REFERENCES
(1) Interstate Electronics corporation, Oceanics Division
A BIBLIOGRAPHY ON OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL
Report No. M460C15U2, Contract 68-01-0796
May 1973
(2) Interstate Electronics Corporation, Oceanics Division
A DIRECTORY OF MANAGERS, ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS
IN OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE FIELDS
Report No. 4460C1543
June 1973
(3) Interstate Electronics Corporation, Oceanics Division
A NATIONAL OVERVIEW OF EXISTING COASTAL WATER
QUALITY MONITORING
Report No. t»i»5-A, Contract 68-01-0160
December 1972
(4) Council on Environmental Quality
OCEAN DUMPING - A NATIONAL POLICY
October 1970
(5) U.S. Army corps of Engineers
OCEAN DUMPING IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Coastal Engineering Research Center
G. P. Carayannis, Technical Memorandum No. 39
Working Draft, May 1973
4460C1559
-------
REFERENCES
(6) Interstate Electronics Corporation, Oceanics Division
COASTAL ZONE WATER QUALITY MONITORING IN THE NEW
YORK EIGHT
Report No. W45-B1, Contract 68-01-0160
(i) U.S. Corps of Engineers, Supervisor of New York Harbor
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
1 July 72 «-o 28 February 73
(8) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GUIDELINES FOP THE APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS AND
CPTTEPIA FOP THE REGULATION OF DUMPING, OR TRANSPOR-
TATION FOP DUMPING OF V.'ASTE MATERIALS INTO THE OCEAN
IN ORDER TO PREVENT DEGPADATION OF THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT
Ocean Disposal Program Office
(9) U.S. Army Engineer District
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS, SUPERVISOR OF THE HARBOR
PERMIT PROGRAM FOP WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN
Draft, November 2, 1971
(10) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A BRIEF OUTLINE OF A STUDY OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT - SEPTEMBER 197 2
Pacific Northwest, Environmental Research Laboratory
(11) TFI-State Regional Planning commission. New York, NY
REGIONAL FORECAST 1985
December 1967
(12) U.S. Army Engineer Division
NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY
North Atlantic Corps of Engineers, New York
Fegional Inventory Report - North Atlantic Region
Volum® I, 1971
U-2
4460C1559
-------
REFERENCES
(13) National Park Service
GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
May 10, 1971
(14) New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Shellfish Control Section
SPECIAL REPORT ON OCEAN DUMPING
(15) FDA Region II
PRELIMINARY REPORT - COOPERATIVE OFFSHORE WATER
QUALITY STUDIES NEW YORK BIGHT, APRIL-JULY 1972
(16) National Marine Fisheries Center
THE EFFECTS OF WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Sandy Hook Laboratory, Highlands, New Jersey
(17) Office of Environmental Sciences, Smithsonian Institute
SMITHSONIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT ON STUDIES OF THE
EFFECTS OF WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Oceanography and Limnology Program, Washington, DC
July 1972
(18) New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
OCEAN DISPOSAL CONTROL REGULATIONS BASIS AND
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
June 1972
(19) Public Health Service Sanitary Engineering center
ACID WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Cincinnati, Ohio
December 1960
4460C1559
4-3
-------
REFERENCES
(20) Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
REPORT ON THE BOTTOM SAMPLING AND SELF-CONTAINED
DIVING SURVEY IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT, 1956
Reference No. 57-5 and 57-19
(21) James R. Westman
A STUDY OF THE NEWLY CREATED "ACID GROUNDS"
AND CERTAIN FISHERY AREAS OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT
New Market, New Jersey
November 18, 19 58
(22) Public Health Service
CONFERENCE ON POLLUTION OF THE INTERSTATE WATERS OF THE
RARITAN BAY AND ADJACENT WATERS
1st session called by the Surgeon General
under the FWPC Act
August 22, 1961
(23) P. H. Wuestefeld
DUMPING GROUNDS IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN
Chief, Operations Division, New York Haroor, USCOE
October 21, 1969
(24) P. H. Wuestefeld
DISPOSAL APEAS IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN OFF NEW YORK
HARBOR
Chief, Operations Division, New York Harbor, USCOE
19 July 1967
(25) Northeast Marine Health Sciences Laboratory
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE
NEW YORK BIGHT
Narraganset-t-, Rhode Island
January, 1968
(26) Corps of Engineers
NEW YORK HAPBOR - COLLECTION AND REMOVAL OF DRIFT
U.S. Army Engineer District, New York
December 1968
4-4
4460C1559
-------
REFERENCES
(27) State University of New York
NEW YORK CITY - A MAJOR SOUFCE OF MARINE SEDIMENT
Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook, New York
Technical Report Series No. 2
September 1969
(28) The Naval Oceanographic Office, Washington, DC
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC DATA REPORT, HUDSON
CANYON AREA, 19 67
An informal report
February 1969
(29) State University of New York
PRELIMINARY ANALYSES OF URBAN WASTES, NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN REGION
Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook, New York
M. Grant Gross, Technical Report No. 5
March 1970
(30) State University of New York
ANALYSES OF DREDGED WASTES, FLY ASH, AND WASTE
CHEMICALS - NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION
Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook, New York
M. Grant Gross, Technical Report No. 7
October, 1970
(31) Ad Hoc committee Report
U.S. D.I. Washington, DC
EVALUATION OF INFLUENCE CF DUMPING IN THE NEW YORK
BIGHT WITH A BPIEF REVIEW OF GENERAL OCEAN
POLLUTION PROBLEMS
June 2a, 1970
(32) Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA
THE MARINE DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE AND DREDGE SPOIL
IN THE WATERS OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT
A report to the Coastal Engineering Research Center,
Corps of Engineers
January 29, 1971
(33) State University of New York
SURVEY OF MARINE WASTE DEPOSITS, NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN REGION
Marine Sciences Research Center, Stonybrook, New York
Technical Report No. 8
April 1971
UH60C15 59
<1-5
-------
REFERENCES
(31) Sperry Systems Management Division
SYSTEM STUDY FOR SURVEILLANCE OF OCEAN
DUMPING OPERATIONS
Sperry Rand Corporation, Great Neck, New York
Pub. No. GB-2500-1072(NP)
September, 1971
(3 5) Grumman Ecosystems Corporation, Bethpage, New York
REMOTE SENSING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR OUTFALL DETECTION,
NEW YORK HARBOR AND VICINITY
Final Report - Contract DACW-51-71-C-0031
August, 1971, prepared for NYCOE
(36) corps of Engineers, New York
Memo 8, September 1971, Grumman Ecosystems
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Operations Division
G. P. Carayannis
(37) New York District corps of Engineers
SUBMARINE INVESTIGATION OF OCEAN DUMPING GROUNDS
G. P. Carayannis
October 1971
(38) Marine Sciences Research Center
HYDROGRAPHIC STUDY OF THE SHELF AND SLOPE WATERS
OF NEW YORK BIGHT
State University cf New York
Technical Report No. 16
October 197 2
(39) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
OCEAN DISPOSAL PRACTICES AND EFFECTS
A report to the Administrator of the EPA of a recent
meeting held by the President's Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board
September 1972
(40) U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Northeast Region
COOPERATIVE STUDY OF CONTAMINANTS IN THE COASTAL
ENVIRONMENT AND THEIR EFFECTS ON LIVING MARINE
RESOURCES: SUMMARY REPORT, 1971-1972
Informal Report No. 5
4-6
4460C1559
-------
REFERENCES
(41) Westinghouse Electric Corporation
FINAL REPORT - PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MESA-
NEW YORK BIGHT REGIONAL PROJECT
Oceanic Division, Annapolis, Maryland
September 1, 1972
(42) New York Ocean Science Laboratory, Montauk, New York
THE OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT: PHYSICAL,
CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL
NYOSL Staff
February, 1973
(13) Chevron Oil Company, Perth Amboy, New Jersey
STATEMENT—SPENT CAUSTIC DISPOSAL AT SEA
Prepared for the New York District COE
June 1971
(44) woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA
ACID-IRON WASTE DISPOSAL AND THE SUMMER DISTRIBUTION OF
STANDING CROPS IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
(45) N L Industries, Inc. (Formerly National Lead Company)
STATEMENT—PRACTICES AND EFFECTS OF OCEAN DISPOSAL
OF WASTES FROM ITS TITANIUM PIGMENT DIVISION PLANT
AT SAYREVILLE, NEW JERSEY
Prepared for the New York District COE
1971
(46) Pfizer Inc, Groton, CT
REPORT—DISPOSAL OF FERMENTATION RESIDUES BY PFIZER
INC. IN LONG ISLAND SOUND
Prepared for the New York District COE
June 1971
(47) New York City Environmental Protection Administration
COSTS OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL 100 NAUTICAL MILES OFFSHORE
E. R. Hanson, supervisor of Sludge Vessel Operations
April 2, 1970
4460C1559
4-7
-------
REFERENCES
(48) New York City Environmental Protection Administration
COST OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL, 25 NAUTICAL MILES OFFSHORE
E.R. Hanson, Supervisor of Sludge Vessel Operations
April 26, 1970
(49) New York City Environmental Protection Administration
AN ESTIMATE OF SLUDGE INCINERATION REQUIREMENTS—
NEW YORK CITY
W. B. Pressman
February 19, 1970
(50) New York City Environmental Protection Administration,
Department of Water Resources
SLUDGE DISPOSAL IN THE NEW YORK CITY
M. M. Feldman, Commissioner
October 8, 1970
(51) New York City Environmental Protection Administration
LETTER, SLUDGE DISPOSAL GROUNDS IN THE NYB ALTERNATE
MEANS OF DISPOSAL
Jerome Kretchmer Administrator
May 27, 1970
(52) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wash. DC
Ocean Dumping Program Office
OCEAN DUMPING CRITERIA
Federal Register, Vol. 3 8, No. 94
May 16, 1973
(53) Interstate Electronics corporation, Oceanics Division
AN ATLAS OF OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Report No. 4460C1545, Contract 68-01-0796
August, 1973
4-8
4460C1559
-------
Section 5
MANAGERS, ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS CONTACTED DURING
THE NEW YORK BIGHT FIELD SURVEY
Dr. James Edward Alexander
516-668-5801
New York Ocean Science Laboratory
Drawer EE
Montauk, NY 11954
Mr. Stephen Y. Arella
212-566-4127/4128
Research & Development
New York City Environmental Protection Administration
Department of Water Resources, Bureau of WPC
4 0 Worth Street
New York, NY
Dr. Malcolm J. Bowman
516-246-7710
Marine Sciences Research Center, State Univ. of New York
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Mr. A1 Bromberg
201-548-3347
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Raritan Arsenal
Edison, NJ 08817
Mr. Joe Brown
212-264-9055
Harbor Supervision
U.S. Corps of Engineers Operations Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Mr. R. Dewling
201-548-3347
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Raritan Arsenal
Edison, NJ 08817
4460C1559
5-1
-------
CONTACTS
Dr. Iver W. Duedall
516-246-7710, ext. 6115
Marine Sciences Research Center, State Univ. of New York
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Mr. William J. Eisele, Jr.
609-292-5598
Shellfish Control Unit
New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection
Division of Water Resources, Bureau of Water Pollution Control
209 E. State Street, Box 1390
Trenton, NJ 08625
Mr. Richard D. Goodenough
609-292-2795
Division of Marine Services
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Labor and Industry Building
Trenton, NJ 08 625
Mr. Charles D. Hardy
516-246-7710, ext. 3367
Marine Sciences Research Center, State Univ. of New York
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Mr. Albert Machlin
516-751-7900
New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
State University of New York, Building #40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Mr. Norman Nash
212-566-4200
Plant Operations
New York City Environmental Protection Administration
Department of Water Resources, Bureau of WPC
40 Worth Street
New York, NY 10013
Dr. Jack B. Pearce
201-872-0200
Middle Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center
Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory
Highlands, NJ 07732
5-2
4460C1559
-------
CONTACTS
Dr. Phillip J. Phillips
212-2 64-6912
Planning Division
Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic Division
9 0 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Mr. Louis W. Pinata
212-264-9020
Operations Division
U.S. Corps of Engineers, New York District
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Mr. William (Bill) Pressman
212-566-4127/4128
Research 6 Development
New York City Environmental Protection Administration
Department of Water Resources, Bureau of WPC
4 0 Worth Street
New York, NY 10013
Mr. James H. Redman
516-751-7900
New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Marine Environmental Control (Shellfish Sanitation)
State University of New York, Building #40
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Mr. Frederick G. Roberts
516-246-7710
Marine sciences Research Center, State Univ. of New York
Stony Brook, NY 11790
Mr. Gerard (Gerry) S. Savage
212-264-7537, Rm. 1217
Construction Operations North Atlantic Division
U.S. Corps of Engineers
9 0 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Mr. N. Robert Scocca
212-264-9059
Harbor Supervision and Compliance Section
U.S. Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Operations Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
4460C1559
5-3
-------
CONTACTS
Dr. Richard D. Spear
201-548-3347, Ext. 559
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Raritan Arsenal
Edison, NJ 08817
Mr. Dennis Suszkowski
212-264-9022
Operations Division
U.S. Corps of Engineers New York District
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10007
Dr. Robert Tucker
201-872-0200, Ext. 32
Marine Contaminants
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA
Sandy Hook Marine Lab
Highlands, NJ 07732
------- |