o
I EC Report
4460C1541
0*'
0V
a*
c&
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
Subsidiary of A-T-0 Inc.
/
s*
<1
f*
sv
GA'
t\1
o* V*
-=¦- -^o«±—" - = • O
_ WU**1* _ ~
~I — —©
;V fe
¦Qo\\ b c°x:
^ .,yV c°*
— —
OCEAN WASTE
DISPOSAL
in
SELECTED GEOGRAPHIC
-Q.
o
O
^>1^ - -o
a0^'
,oV
. *****
tw 1M . t
"tf&r & ft
"~^0 ,
A>/-
.sS* ••
,\3V^" ^ vf>
0^ V& *°
->0 aC>
0
c
>*5
V
5 _.
* **%>*
o*
1*5^
(yK
2^
o
»«*
n/c
o
_/¦
^.x-sS ^
«^T
•&'**
,
O
Enviro
vt^V O*?*,* i » c _ -0b
- W&&J
'k
v»'
,o»'
aV
o
'&\ v>«^
I - ¦ *S V' '
«0
0%'
oV'
»r\0
«¦&
&
,v°
HP
cj$
<**
O
Prepared By
lEC-Oceanics
for the
ntal Protection Agency
ean Disposal Program
under
0 \Contract 68-01-0736
o
-------
INTERSTATE REPORT 4460C1541
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION July 1973
Subsidiary of ATO Inc.
Oceanics Division
OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL
IN
SELECTED GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
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 92803 Telephone 714-772-2811
-------
ABSTRACT
Oceao_Wa ste_ Disposal in Select ed Geocrra phic Are as
This report presents the results of an intensive fact finding
survey of ocean waste disposal practices in six geographic areas.
The areas were the New York Bight; Charleston, South Carolina;
segments of the Gulf of Mexico Coast; Southern California; San
Francisco; and Puget Sound. Ocean Disposal sites within these
areas were selected to provide a representative cross section of
ocean waste disposal practices in tlie United States.
Concurrent with a field survey and personal interview program,
detailed data and information research was performed. The sum of
the information obtained by this coordinated program was used to
establish a data base which will be used to recommend guidelines
for the control of ocean waste disposal.
U460C15U1
i
-------
(This page intentionally blank)
4460C15U1
-------
1 528? * UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^ WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WATER PROGRAMS
Fnpn-'opp
The Oceanics Division of Interstate Flectronics Corporation,
as part of T,Pfl Contract No. fi P-0] .-H 7^p t performed a studv of
ocean waste disposal practices in six reo^raphioal areas of
the United States. The pvjrnose of this studv was to assist
the Ocean Disposal Prop-ran Office in the development of
criteria for the control of ocean waste disposal. ^his
volume presents the findings for the field investigation
phase of the studv. We encourage comments on the findings
presented in this document, ^o facilitate communication, we
have provided a comment form at the back of the document.
T. A. hastier, Chief
Ocean Disposal Program
UU60C15M
iii
-------
(This page intentionally blank)
iv 4460C15U1
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Abstract i
Foreword iii
Table of Contents v
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xi
Glossary of Abbreviations and Technical Terms xiii
Report Format and Conventions xvii
section 1 - AN INTRODUCTION TO OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL
1.1 Introduction t-1
1.2 Scientific Parameters for Evaluation of 1-4
Ocean Disposal Sites
1.2.1 Meteorology 1-4
1.2.2 Oceanography
1.3 Ocean Waste Disposal Problems and Trends 1-28
1.3.1 Ocean Disposal Problems 1-28
1.3.2 Ocean Disposal Trends 1-31
1.4 Operational Aspects of Ocean Disposal 1-37
1.1.1 Monitoring 1-37
1.4.2 Dredges/Disposal Craft 1-41
1.4.3 Navigation Aids for Ocean Disposal 1-47
Vehicles
1.4.4 Summary 1-67
4460C1541
V
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
section 2 - FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.1 New York Biqht 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 2-36
to New York Bight Dumping Practices
2.1.10 Alternatives and Recommendations for 2-57
Ocean Dumping in the New York Bight
2.1.11 Conclusion 2-77
2.2 Charleston Ocean Disposal Study 2-88
2.2.1 Introduction 2-88
2.2.2 History of Charleston Area 2-10U
Ocean Disposal
2.2.3 Analysis of Disposal Activities 2-106
2.2. if Recommendations 2-113
2.2.5 Secondary Disposal Areas 2-115
2.3 Gulf Coast Ocean Disposal Study 2-121
2.3.1 Introduction 2-121
2.3.2 History of Gulf Coast Dumping 2-131
vi
4460C1541
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION P&GE
2.3.3 Analysis of Dumping Activities 2-139
2.3.4 Recommendations 2-145
2.4 Southern California Oc^an Disposal Study 2-157
2.4.1 Introduction 2-157
2.4.2 History of Dumping in the Southern 2-157
California Area
2.4.3 Summary 2-162
2.4.4 Present Dumping Activities 2-163
2.4.5 Analysis of southern California Area 2-195
Dumping Operations
2.5 San Francisco Ocean Disposal study 2-226
2.5.1 Introduction 2-226
2.5.2 History of Dumping in the San 2-228
Francisco Area
2.5.3 Summary 2-233
2.5.4 Present Dumping Activities 2-234
in the San Francisco Area
2.5.5 Analysis of Dumping Operations 2-253
2.6 puget Sound Disposal Study 2-258
2.6.1 Introduction 2-258
2.6.2 History of Puget Sound Dumping 2-266
2.6.3 Analysis of Dumping Activities 2-272
2.6.4 Fecommendations 2-281
Section 3 - REFERENCES 3-1
4460C1541
vii
-------
(This page intentionally blank)
i*460C1541
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NO. title page
1.1-1 Ocean Disposal Case Study Areas 1-2
1.1-2 Coastal Environmental Regions 1-5
2.1-1 Location Map, Ocean Disposal Sites New 2-9
York Bight
2.2-1 Field Survey Geographic Area 2-90
2.2-2 Interim Disposal Site OD0410 2-91
2.2-3 Mean Monthly Salinity-Charleston Harbor 2-95
2.2-4 Mean Monthly Salinity Charleston Disposal 2-96
Site
2.2-5 Mean Values of Water Temperature 2-97
Charleston Disposal Site
2.3-1 Study Area - Ocean Regions 9 and 10 2-122
2.3-2 Gulf of Mexico Climatology 2-124
2.3-3 Gulf of Mexico Oceanography 2-126
2.3-4 Gulf of Mexico Physiography 2-128
2.3-5 Eastern Gulf of Mexico Waste Disposal Areas 2-130
2.3-6 Western Gulf of Mexico Waste Disposal Areas 2-132
2.4-1 Locations of Past and Existing Ocean Dumping 2-158
Sites Southern California
2.1-2 Surface (0-100 meters) Current Flow in the 2-170
Southern California Area
2.4-3 Seasonal Geostrophic Current Flow and Surface 2-172
Temperature Isotherms in the Southern
California Area
2.4-4 Mean Geostrophic Flow at 200 Meters in the 2-174
Southern California Area
2.4-5 Average Annual Wind Speed and Direction in 2-176
the Southern California Area
4460C1541
ix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NQi
title
PAGE
2.4-6
Average Monthly Rainfall at 3 Locations in
th^ Southern California Area
2-177
2.4-7
Average Monthly Surface Water Temperature
and Average Monthly Air Temperature Over the
Southern California Shelf
2-178
ro
•
1
00
Interim Disposal Site
OD0615
2-179
2.4-9
Interim Disposal Site
OD0612
2-185
2.5-1
Locations of Past and
Sites San Francisco
Existing Ocean Dumping
Area
2-227
2.5-2
Interim Disposal Site
OD0633
2-235
2. 5-3
Interim Disposal Site
OD0627
2-248
2.6-1
Location Map Puget Sound Disposal Sites
2-259
2. 6-2
Washington State Spoil Disposal Permit System
2-267
x
4460C1541
-------
LIST OF TABLES
NQi TITLE
1.4-1 Characteristics of Electronic
Positioning Systems
2.1-1 Statistical Data - county Population
2.1-2 Statistical Data Beach Recreation
2.1-3 Statistical Data - New Jersey
Commercial Fishing
2.1-4 Supervisor of New York Harbor,
Statement of Activities
2.1-5 Corps of Engineers Permit Schedule
File for Year 1972
2.2-1 Meteorological Data, Charleston, S.C. Airport
2.2-2 Charleston Disposal Site Fish Species
2.2-3 Summary Data - Charleston Case Study Area
2.2-4 Sediment Sample Analysis
Brunswick and Savannah
2.3-1 Gulf of Mexico - Waste Disposal Sites
2.3-2 Industrial Waste Disposal Area A
2.3-3 Industrial Waste Disposal Area B
2.4-1 Summary of Wastes Dumped in the
Southern California Area
2.4-2 Santa Monica and San Pedro Basins
Biological Sampling Results
2.4-3 Physical and Chemical Properties at Dump Sites
2.4-4 southern California Area climatology
2.4-5 3-Year Summary of Data
California Salvage Company
2.4-6 chemicals Disposed of by California Salvage
2.4-7 H-10 Water Taxi Company Dumping Reports 1971
4460C1541
3?AGE
1-48
2-16
2-17
2-18
2-22
2-79
2-93
2-103
2-117
2-120
2-150
2-155
2-156
2-159
2-165
2-168
2-173
2-181
2-182
2-188
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
NO. TITLE PAGE
2.4-8 H-10 Water Taxi Company Pumpincr Reports 1972 2-189
2.4-9 California salvage company Dumping Amounts 2-203
2.5-1 Summary of Wastes Dumped into the Ocean 2-229
Areas Offshore of San Francisco
2.5-2 Water Column Data - 1971 2-238
Main Ship Channel and Dump Site
2.5-3 San Francisco Climatology 2-240
2.5-4 Identification of Bottom Orqanisms 2-242
at Dredge Spoil Site
2.5-5 Summary of sediment Analysis Main Ship 2-245
Channel U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
San Francisco
2.5-6 Pesticide Concentrations San Francisco 2-245
Main Ship Channel 5 April 73
2.5-7 National Canners Association Physical and 2-251
Chemical Characteristics of Food Processing
Residuals
2.6-1 Oregon Marine Waste Disposal Sites 2-285
2.6-2 Washington Marine Waste Disposal Sites 2-287
xii
4460C1541
-------
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMS
O/oo
Parts Per Thousand
°C
Degrees Centigrade (Celcius)
op
Degrees Fahrenheit
ADF
Automatic Direction Finder
AEC
Atomic Energy Commission
APL
Applied Physics Laboratory, John Hopkins
University
ATD
Applied Technology Division (EPA)
BOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BT0/FT2/D
British Thermal Units Per Square Foot Per
Day
C6GS
Coast and Geodetic survey
CEQ
Council on Environmental Quality
CERC
Coastal Engineering Research center (COE)
CFS
Cubic Feet per Second
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand
COE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
C02
Carbon Dioxide Gas
CRT
Cathode Ray Tube
CW
Continuous Wave
DF
Direction Finding
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
DOI or DI
Department of Interior
EPA
U.S. Environmental protection Agency
Fathom
Six Feet
FDA
Food and Drug Administration
W60C1511
xiii
-------
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMS
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
GHz Giqa-Hertz (109 Hertz)
GMT Greenwich Mean Time
Hq Mercury
HAR Harbor Advisory Radar
HCL Hydrochloric Acid
Hz Hertz (cycles per second)
IEC Interstate Electronics Corporation
K Thousand
kHz kilo Hertz (Hertz x 1000)
LOP Line of Position
M Meters or Million
MAB Middle Atlantic Bight
MESA Marine Ecosystem Analyses
MG/GM Milliqrams Per Gram
MG/L Milliqrams Per Liter
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
MHz Mega-Hertz (Hertz x 1,000,000)
MM Millimeter
MPN Most Probable Number
N Nitrogen
NaK Sodium Potassium Metallic Salt
NaOH Sodium Hydroxide
NaSOft Sodium Sulfate
xiv 4460C1541
-------
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMS
NJDEP
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NM
Nautical Miles
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NNSS
Navy Navigation Satellite System
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS
National Ocean Survey
NSSP
National Shellfish Sanitation Program
NYB
New York Bight
NYCEPA
New York City Environmental Protection Administration
NYSDEC
New York State Department of Environmental conservation
ODPO
ocean Disposal Program Office
OSD
Oceanics Division (IEC)
Pb
Lead
PBI
Pearl-Benson Index
PPB
Parts per Billion
PPM
Parts Per Million
PVC
Polyvinyl Chloride
PDF
Radio Direction Finding
RMS
Root Mean Square
RPS
Range Positioning System
SIO
Skidaway Institute of oceanography
S02
Sulfur Dioxide
SSL
Spent Sulphite Liquor
SWL
Sulphite Waste Liquor
UU60C1541
XV
-------
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TECHNICAL TERMS
tJSCG United States Coast Guard
VLF Very Low Frequency
VTS Vessel Traffic system
WDE Washington Department of Ecology
WDF Washington Department of Fisheries
WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources
Zn Zinc
xvi
4U60C1541
-------
REPORT FORMAT AND CONVENTIONS
For the convenience of the reader, the following paragraphs
explain formats and conventions used in this report.
Format - The report is divided into three sections. The body of
the report is presented in Sections 1 and 2. Section 3 contains
the references cited.
2iaS Numbering - Pages are numbered serially within each section*
i.e. 2-11 represents the eleventh page in Section 2.
References - References are made by superscript numbers embedded
in the text.
Figures and Tables - Each of these are numbered serially within
each Section. Most figures and tables, if not embedded in the
text, will be found at the end of the respective section or
subsection.
446001511
xvii
-------
Section 1
AN INTRODUCTION TO OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL
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*
i»i»60C15U1
1-1
-------
I
Ni
PUGET
SOUND
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
¦c
cn
4t
'NEW YORK BIGHT
SAN FRANCISCC
^CHARLESTON
w
o
I—>
V y
a
o
h
H
O
"Z
FIGURE 1.1-1
OCEAN DISPOSAL CASE STUDY AREAS
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
-------
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 dumping 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.A directory of Personnel in
Ocean Waste Disposal and related Environmental Science Fields was
also compiled and is presented as a separate document.<2>
K460C15D1
1-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.1-2 illustrates the ocean region associated with the
coastal environment regions of the United States. Detailed cross
indexes and supporting environmental data is provided in A
Overview of Existing Coastal Water Quality
Monitoring.< 3 >
1.2 SCIENTIFIC PARAMETERS FOR EVALUATION OF OCEAN DISPOSAL SITES
In order to evaluate an ocean disposal site, certain
meteorological, oceanographic, and biological data is necessary
to allow a clear assessment of the dump area. Only then would
the potential exist for locating the best disposal site and the
ability to exercise judgment as to the potential damage to the
marine environment. (References (t») (5) (6) (7) (8) and (9) were
used in compiling this section.)
1.2.1 Meteorology
The meteorological parameters of interest in evaluating ocean
disposal sites include average wind speed and direction, average
daily solar radiation, and precipitation, over a time period
which is significant for the particular site under consideration.
Knowledge of wind velocity and direction in the lower levels of
the atmosphere is required when computations of wind-driven
circulation are to be made. Wind acts in several ways: wind
driven circulation in the uppermost layers of the sea produces
1-4
4460C15U1
-------
FIGURE 1.1-2
COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGIONS
^ INTERSTATE
I ¦—¦ ElECTOONKS
— (nramM
-------
INTRODUCTION
transport mechanisms for any floating or suspended material. The
wind also generates waves which produce orbital motion in the
upper layers of the water which leads to additional mixing and
dispersion of the pollutants. In selecting a site for ocean
disposal, it is preferable to have wind blowing offshore or such
that the transport of the surface layer is away from the coast or
critical adjacent areas, rather than onshore.
Average daily solar radiation is an important parameter in that
light (available light) is a factor for potential biological
growth.
Precipitation is an important parameter in two ways: first, if in
large enough volumes, it would produce a thin layer of low
density water at the surface which would cause overall changes in
water density when mixed within the mixed layer depth. Secondly,
precipitation is of major significance in that associated land
runoff via major rivers, will affect certain nearshore dump
sites. The volume of the runoff can completely change an area
within a very short period of time (such as caused by the 1972
storms on the East Coast, notably Chesapeake Bay}, totally
altering oceanographic conditions and completely masking the
effects of any disposal activities.
1-6
4460C1541
-------
INTRODUCTION
1.2.2 Oceanography
1.2.2.1 Geological - when selecting an ocean disposal site,
there are several geological parameters that should be
considered. These parameters are not related to the materials
that are being disposed of, but are of significant importance to
the benthic marine life in the area.
The depth to the sea floor must be considered as this is
important in determining whether dumped materials will actually
reach the bottom at the disposal site. Depth is also important
because at the greater depths of the ocean there is little or no
sunlight and, therefore, less marine life. Bottom relief (flat,
undulating, sloping, or steep), is of significance in that the
flatter the bottom, the more likely the build up by material that
sinks to the sea floor.
Pock and sediment type as well as sediment thickness are of
importance in understanding the benthic populations. Sediment
type is important in predicting potentials for increased
turbidity when currents or the orbital velocity of waves cause
scouring and resuspend the finer particles.
M60C1541
1-7
-------
INTRODUCTION
1.2.2.2 Physical - The physical parameters of importance in
assessing an ocean disposal site are temperature, salinity,
density, current speed, current direction, depth of the mixed
layer, turbidity, and sea state.
Temperature
Temperature is important in the determination of the stability of
the water column. Sea water temperature varies with time, depth
and latitudes, and solar radiation. It is important to look at
the temperature of thin surface layers, the main portion of the
thermocline separating the transition layer, and the underlying
deep water, which is typically cold and extends to the bottom. A
knowledge of stratification is required to the sea bottom when
the water depths are shallow or through the mixed layer to the
base of the thermocline when water depths are great. The
vertical gradient within the thermocline provides an indication
of the state of stratification, or stability. Surface and
subsurface, through the thermocline, and bottom, temperature
data is considered a minimum.
Temperature can be a significant factor in evaluating the
disposal site for the effects on marine life. Higher
temperatures usually reduce the solubility of dissolved oxygen
and thus decrease the oxygen availability for marine life. At
1-8
446001511
-------
INTRODUCTION
the same time, higher temperatures typically increase the oxygen
demand of fish and other marine life.
Maximum temperatures can be reached at which marine life cannot
function. Rapid changes in temperatures are very deleterious to
marine life. Temperature shock factors have been developed for
various species of fish. Temperature is an important
consideration for the disposal of certain acid waste and other
chemicals due to accelerated reactions at high temperatures.
Certain biological species from northern waters usually require
low temperatures for spawning. These species usually spawn in
the winter months, and temperatures are critical. Warming of the
water during this period could be damaging and might cause a
decrease in some of the more northerly species. In some
instances, a rise in temperature of only 3° F might be sufficient
to reduce spawning.
Salinity
Salinity is expressed in grams per kilogram of sea water, that
is, in parts per thousand (°/oo). salinity increases with depth
and varies with time and latitude. Variations in salinity occur
in the upper portions of the ocean and decrease with depth.
Salinity is an important factor in evaluation of the halocline
and seawater density layering characteristics. Salinity is an
UU60C15H1
1-9
-------
INTRODUCTION
important factor in the flocculation of waste particles,
¦typically of clay material in dredge spoil.
Density
The density of sea water is the mass per unit volume, commonly
expressed in qrams per cubic centimeter. Density is a function
of temperature, salinity, and pressure (depth) and is calculated
rather than measured. Typically, density increases only slightly
in the upper layer, increases very rapidly through the
thermocline, and then has a slow, but steady increase from the
base of the thermocline to the sea floor. Density is of primary
importance in the determination of waste particle buoyancy
characteristics.
Mi xed Layer
The mixed layer is a layer of surface water and usually exhibits
much less stability than the underlying waters. The mixed layer
is from the surface to the depth of the base of the pynocline,
the zone wherein water density changes appreciably with
increasing depth. The mixed layer acts as the base for most
water processes; below the mixed layer depth, seasonal variations
are quite small or nonexistent. The mixed layer depth is a
function of the thermocline, s* ability factor, mechanical mixing,
density structure, convective mixing, and surface currents. It
is an important factor in evaluating the initial mixing of a
1-10
«I460C15U1
-------
INTRODUCTION
waste product with depth. The variation of the depth of the
mixed layer, both in time and space, is an important factor in
understanding pollutant dilution processes.
Turbidity
Turbidity is the measure of the extent of light attenuation
caused by suspended and colloidal materials in water. It is
typically measured by the passage of a light beam through a
known-length water path and is usually expressed as Jackson
Turbidity Units. The nature and concentration of suspended
material in the sea can be highly variable. The suspended
particle size is an important property and is critical in a
number of phenomena ranging from light scattering to surface
chemical activity and sedimentation rates. Typically, there are
both inorganic an^ organic suspended materials in the water which
vary widely from area to area and also with time at the same
location, especially the shallower waters on the continental
shelves. The amount of organic detritus is greatly reduced with
depth below the euphotic zone. Excessive turbidity inhibits
feeding and restricts the growth of certain species of fish and
shellfish and is directly related to low planktonic productivity.
Currents
Ocean currents are large scale water movements which occur almost
everywhere in the ocean. The forces causing major ocean currents
UU60C15H1
1-11
-------
INTRODUCTION
are a function of the mass or density distribution, wind, and
from unequal heating or cooling of the ocean waters. The
currents may be conveniently divided into three groups: (1)
currents that are caused directly by the stress that the wind
exerts on the sea surface; (2) currents that are related to the
distribution of density in the sea, and (3) tidal currents. Wind
effects penetrate to depths in the ocean as a function of wind
speed and in part by the stability of the water column. The
speed of surface currents set up by wind are about two to three
percent of the speed of the wind that generated them.
Slight differences in water density set up forces strong enough
to cause major water mass movements called geostrophic currents.
Some of the major currents off the shores of the United States
are related to the distribution of density. Examples of these
would be the Gulf Stream, California Current, and the Davidson
Current. Typically, these are too far offshore to be of much
significance to the ocean disposal sites; however, in a few
cases, these currents do directly affect the sites.
Very near the coast tidal currents typically reverse in
direction, whereas slightly farther offshore, in the open ocean,
where they are not restricted by the coastline, tidal currents
exhibit rotary patterns quite different from the reversing
currents observed in coastal areas. Open ocean tidal currents
1-12
4460C1541
-------
INTRODUCTION
are continuous and continually change direction, and create a
"current elipse". Tidal currents close to the coast may be
substantially altered by changes in wind or river runoff.
Several classic examples of this would be in the area of the
mouth of the Columbia River, mouth of the Mississippi River, and
mouth of the Hudson River. In areas where there is a mixed tide,
and where there is a substantial amplitude inequality, the
current elipse is more complicated. As an example the San
Francisco Light Ship shows two different elipses changing
direction and speed. Typically, drift bottles or other floating
objects as well as drogues, current meters, swallow floats, or
bottom drifters are used to measure currents. Interest in
currents is primarily for the sake of establishing the direction
and rate of movement for materials that are disposed of at the
dump sites. For most of the ocean disposal sites, wind drift
currents would be the prominent factors in determining the
movement of dumped materials, the exceptions are sites located
near strong tidal flow, or major ocean currents.
Waves
Basically, there are two types of ocean waves to be considered in
the study of ocean waste disposal sites. Wind waves (sea) are
those waves that are generated by winds acting on the ocean
surface. They are typically sharp crested and frequently break
or have their crests blown off by the wind. Given the wind
4U60C15H1
1-13
-------
INTRODUCTION
speed, direction, and fetch, it is possible to calculate the size
of wind waves generated by a given storm. Waves of many
different sizes and periods are present in a fully developed sea.
As the waves travel out of the generating area they are gradually
transformed and are called swell. These are, in general,
smoother, long crested, longer period waves.
Statistical data is available for wave height, period, and
direction, for what are known as significant waves (which are the
average of the highest 1/3 of the waves present). Waves are
important because of the orbital motion and displacement of water
particles caused during the passage of the wave. This leads to
some dispersion and turbulence within the upper layers of the
ocean.
1.2.2.3 Chemical - Chemical parameters are important in
assessing an ocean disposal site due to their impact on the
biological life process. The most significant are: dissolved
oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, carbonate, nitrites, nitrates,
pH, phosphates, and silicates.
Dissolved Oxygen jno}_ - The content of dissolved oxygen in the
water at equilibrium with one atmosphere is a function of the
depth, temperature, and salinity of the water. The ability of
water to hold oxygen (solubility) decreases with increasing
1-14
446001541
-------
INTRODUCTION
temperature and dissolved solids. ocean waters are seldom at
equilibrium and/or seldom saturated with dissolved oxygen because
all of the above factors are continually changing.
Inadequate dissolved oxygen may contribute to an unfavorable
environment for fish and other aquatic life. The absence of
dissolved oxygen may give rise to anaerobic decomposition.
Excessive dissolved oxygen, arising from algal growth, may
adversely affect beneficial uses of the water.
One major concern in disposal of wastes at sea is to ascertain
that the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration necessary to
sustain healthy aquatic life is maintained throughout the
disposal operation. A general statement cannot be made to give
the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration required to support
various fish life because the requirements vary with species. It
is important that the thresholds of dissolved oxygen for the
important species of fish and other aquatic organisms at the
disposal site be evaluated, and established.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand fBOPl - BOD is the measure that a
combination of substances and conditions have on the dissolved
oxygen content of water. BOD is not a pollutant and exercises no
direct harm. BOD is important only insofar as it produces a
decrease in dissolved oxygen. BOD exerts an indirect effect by
4460C1541
1-15
-------
INTRODUCTION
depressing the dissolved oxygen content to levels that are
adverse to biological life and other beneficial uses of the
water.
Carbonate - The reserves of carbonate in the sea and sediments
are so great, that the sea acts as a buffer and the disruption of
the carbonate content of seawater by biological activity appears
to be negligible.
In the ocean the nitrogen is released from the decomposition of
the biomaterial, mostly as ammonia (NH3), which is then oxidized
first to nitrite (N02) and finally to nitrate (N03).
Nitrites fN02) - Nitrites are generally formed by the action of
bacteria upon ammonia and organic nitrogen. Nitrites are quickly
oxidized and are seldom present in surface waters in significant
concentrations. Nitrites stimulate the growth of plankton.
NifeE&tes (NO 3) - Nitrates are the end product of aerobic
stabilization of organic nitrogen. Photosynthetic action
constantly utilizes nitrates and converts them to organic
nitrogen in plant cells. In spite of their many sources,
nitrates are seldom abundant in surface waters. High nitrate
concentrations stimulate the growth of plankton and aquatic
plants.
1-16
U460C1541
-------
INTRODUCTION
pH - The logarithm (base 10) of the reciprocal of the hydrogen-
ion concentration is designated pH. The hydrogen-ion is related
to the concentration of many other substances, particularly the
weakly disassociated acids and bases. The concentration of
hydrogen-ions, or pH, controls the degree of disassociation of
many substances.
The pH encountered in the sea is typically between about 7,5 and
8.i|. The higher pH values are generally encountered at or near
the surface. Where the water is in equilibrium with the carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, the pH is between about 8.1 and 8.3,
but higher values may occur when the photosynthetic activity of
plants has reduced the content of carbon dioxide. Below the
euphotic zone, the pH shows a certain relationship to the amount
of dissolved oxygen in the water. In regions where virtually all
the oxygen has been consumed and, consequently, where the total
carbon dioxide is high, such as at depths of about 800 meters in
the eastern portions of the Equatorial and North Pacific, the pH
approaches a minimum value of "7.5. This is a limiting value
because no more carbon dioxide can be formed. Below the minimum
oxygen layer there is generally a gradual increase in pH with
depth. The permissible range of pH for fish depends upon many
factors, such as temperature, dissolved oxygenf prior
acclimatization, and the content of various anions and cations.
The presence of carbonates, phosphates, borates, and similar ions
W60C15IH
1-17
-------
INTRODUCTION
give water a buffering power so that the addition of an acid or
base is less likely to be deleterious to marine life.(4>
Phosphates - In addition to the phosphates formed from ortho,
meta, and pyrophosphoric acids, anhydrous salts may be produced
in which the hydrogen of the acid is replaced only partially by
univalent or bivalent metals. The sodium, potassium, and
ammonium phosphates are soluble, but most of the others are only
slightly soluble.
Usually, dissolved orthophosphate is the predominating form, but
the partitioning of the phosphorus content is seasonally
dependent. Phosphorus can be considered a primary nutrient of
phytoplankton. Phosphates are seldom found in significant
concentrations because they are utilized by plants and converted
into cell structures by pbotosynthetic action. Excessive amounts
of phosphates may result in an overabundant growth of algae and
be detrimental to fish. In themselves, however, phosphates
seldom exhibit toxic effects upon fish and other aquatic life,
and may be beneficial to fish culture by increasing algae and
zooplankton. organic phosphates used extensively in pesticides
exhibit selective toxicity to many forms of aquatic life.
Silicates - The element silicon is not found free in nature, but
it occurs as silica in sand or quartz and as silicates in
1-18
4460C1541
-------
INTRODUCTION
feldspar, kaolinite, and other minerals. Silicon dioxide, or
silica, is relatively insoluble in water or acids, except
hydrofluorates. The concentration of silicon in seawater is
affected by geological processes. Silicon is a biologically
significant element and, like phosphate and nitrate, exhibits a
strong seasonal dependence reflecting the waxing and waning of
the life processes. It may occur in natural waters, as finely
divided or colloidal suspended matter, in concentrations of 1 to
10 mg/1. An abundance of silica in the water, along with other
necessary nutrients, favors the growth of diatoms. Blooms of
diatoms synthesize silica into the rest of the organisms and
thereby lower the content in the water.
The cycle typically begins in the spring with the uptake of
silicon by the growing phytoplankton population, resulting in a
depletion of the silicon content of the seawater. in the summer
the rate of this growth slackens and the silicate is replenished
somewhat. But, in the fall, there may be a second spurt in
phytoplankton growth. With the approach of winter, the organisms
die, and as their remains slowly sink# the silicon is restored to
the seawater by processes of redissolution.
1.2.2.U Biological - A biological study of an ocean disposal
site should establish the nature and value of the resource,
provide a data base which can be used for future comparison.
im60Cl5ai
1-19
-------
INTRODUCTION
provide a basis for projection of the consequential effects of
wastes, and provide information for establishing controls to
minimize detrimental effects.
The primary biological aim to be considered in evaluating new or
existing ocean disposal sites is to establish the nature and
value of the existing biological resources in these areas, and to
predict the impact of the disposal operation on the resources.
Significant economic losses have resulted from ocean pollution,
losses of commercially valuable fish and shellfish, whether
killed directly, indirectly, or rendered inedible, may present
serious social and financial problems. The economic or
commercial importance of the marine life should be a decisive
factor in the determination of locations of disposal sites.
Marine ecosystems are affected by wastes depending on how the
wastes are dispersed. Elements of the wastes frequently enter
living organisms. Phytoplankton organisms absorb nutrients,
trace metals, and other materials. Organisms that feed upon the
phytoplankton successively pass the pollutants on to higher
organisms. As this process moves through the food web,
concentrations reach their highest levels in predators such as
large fish, birds, marine mammals, and can eventually affect man.
The marine organisms which make up the food web can concentrate
toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and other hazardous materials.
1-20
4460C1511
-------
INTRODUCTION
The ability of marine life to concentrate materials varies from a
few hundred to several hundred thousand times the concentrations
in the surrounding environment. The concentration of pollutants
by the biota can have sublethal and lethal effects.
The marine environment can be divided into two major realms: the
benthic zone, which refers to the ocean bottom; and the pelagic
zone, which refers to the overlying water. The three major
categories of aquatic plants and animals that live in these zones
are the plankton, nekton, and benthos.
Plankton
Plankton constitute the bulk of life in the sea and may be
animals (zooplankton) or plants (phytoplankton) . Plankton are
organisms which may be microscopic or macroscopic in size and are
free drifters that travel at the mercy of the currents.
Nekton
Nekton are marine animals with the power of locomotion which
enables them to swim freely, independent of currents. Nekton
have the ability to search actively for food, avoid predators,
and migrate extensively. Many species are commercially
harvested.
Ut»60Cl5m
1-21
-------
INTRODUCTION
Benthos
Benthos are organisms, including plants, that live on or in the
ocean bottom. These organisms may or may not be attached to
substrates, and some may have planktonic larval stages. Benthos
are important because they modify the physical and chemical
properties of the sediment or waste material and some are of
commercial significance.
Photosynthesis
In the sea, most of the primary energy production takes place
near the surface as a result of photosynthetic activities of
chlorophyll-containing, microscopic, planktonic algae. Very
little light penetrates below 80 meters. Photosynthesis is the
production of organic matter by plants using water and carbon
dioxide in the presence of chlorophyll and light; oxygen, a
critical byproduct, is released in the reaction. Chlorophyll is
the group of green pigments, found in plants, that are essential
for the photosynthetic process. Marine algae are responsible for
nine-tenths of the world's energy conversion. Secondary sources
of conversion in shallow water are attached macroscopic algae
(kelp and others) and rooted higher plants (eel grass and
others), and to a lesser extent, benthic bacteria.
Interpretation of data on the biota in relation to waste disposal
sites requires a knowledge of the normal biota and its
1-22
UU60C15U1
-------
INTRODUCTION
variations. Natural factors affecting the marine life must be
understood before conclusions can be reached as to the effect of
any single variable such as disposed wastes. Marine biota is
directly affected by toxicity, oxygen depletion, biostimulation,
and habitat changes.
Toxicity - The ecological effects of toxic wastes are complex and
not well understood. Additional research is required to
determine their effects on deferred and long-range ecological
change in the marine environment. Toxic wastes include materials
such as pesticides, oil and refinery wastes, heavy metals, and
paper mill wastes.
Although concentrated toxic wastes kill marine life, organisms
may be adversely affected by concentrations far below the lethal
level. Such effects include reduced vitality or growth,
reproductive failure, and interference with sensory functions.
Pesticides and other toxic materials have been a major cause of
fish kills in freshwater systems, and probably have had similar
effects in marine waters.
Oxygen Depletion - Oxygen supports marine life and is necessary
for the biological degradation of organic materials. The
principal sources of dissolved oxygen in water are: (1) directly
from the atmosphere through the water surface and (2) from the
446001511
1-23
-------
INTRODUCTION
photosynthesis of chlorophyll-bearing plants. when plants and
animals die, oxygen is used in their decomposition. Because
organic wastes require oxygen in order to decompose, if waste
loads are too large, oxygen levels required to support marine
life will become depleted, if the oxygen content is depleted,
the diversity and life functions of marine organisms will be
altered, and anaerobic bacteria begin to flourish. Oxygen
deficiency in a waste disposal area can be self-perpetuating
because the accumulation of organic matter, sulfides, and some
metals acts as a reservoir of future oxygen demand.
Biostimulation - The accelerated fertilization of plant life, or
biostimulation, can be caused by excessive nutrients, such as
nitrates and phosphates. (Sewage sludge is particularly rich in
these nutrients). Excessive blooms of algae, caused by
biostimulation, indirectly change the nature of bottom sediments
and thus the communities of organisms, such as fish, bottom
fauna, and aquatic plants. Sediments adjacent to some disposal
areas have shown many such greatly increased concentrations of
organic matter.
In the past, biostimulation has been recognized as a serious
problem in fresh waters, but not in the oceans except for an
occasional red tide; however, biostimulation is increasingly
1-2U
446001541
-------
INTRODUCTION
affecting estuaries and bays and, occasionally, portions of the
continental shelf.
Habitat Changes - Habitat changes are the most common changes
that affect entire ecosystems. Accumulations of various kinds
and quantities of wastes or sediments on the bottom can
drastically alter the marine communities. The most pronounced
ecological changes have been caused by dumping sewage sludge,
dredge spoil, and toxic wastes which buried or rendered the
substrate unlivable. The estuarine zone has felt a major part, of
the impact caused by man's development activities. Changes in
the ecological system in our estuarine areas has serious
environmental effects upon aquatic organisms found in coastal and
oceanic waters. Estuaries are used by many marine species as
habitats and nursery crrounds for breeding, rearing young, and as
a food source. Most of the commercially important marine
organisms depend upon the estuaries at some stage of their life
cycle.
Biological samples of the major groups should be collected
periodically and identification, abundance, diversity,
distribution, and variations of species should be determined
approximately seasonally. Inasmuch as many marine organisms have
relatively short life cycles, the sampling program must be
U«*60C15U1
1-25
-------
INTRODUCTION
carried on throughout the year to detect seasonal variations
consistent with the particular species.
The following are biological parameters that should be measured
at ocean disposal sites, the first at all possible sites, and the
second at sites where possible pathogenic material accumulations
are expected.
Biological Parameters
a. Biological samples of the plankton (zooplankton and
phytoplankton), nekton, and benthos. This will include
fish eggs, fish larvae, fish fry concentrations, and
the aquatic flora. The plankton samples should include
the microscopic as well as the macroscopic organisms.
b. Identification and density of coliform organisms and
other bacteria, which includes total and fecal bacteria
counts (MPN coliform and total bacteria). Also, the
identification and abundance of micropathogenic
organisms such as viruses, fungi, parasites, and others
may be important.
Additional Parameters
The following parameters should be calculated for the foregoing
biological groups: species identification or composition.
1-26
446001541
-------
INTRODUCTION
species range or diversity, species distribution, species or
seasonal variations, and relative abundance of species.
a. Bioassay or toxicity tests should be conducted to
measure the toxicity level of the dumped materials on
certain biological groups, especially the commercially
important species. These studies should include short
and long-term effects. The basic bioassay test which
is currently accepted is a 96-hour exposure of an
appropriate organism, in numbers adequate to assure
statistical validity, to an array of concentrations of
the substance that will reveal the level of pollution
that will cause:
(1) Irreversible damage to 50 percent of the test
organisms, and
(2) Th? maximum concentration causing no apparent
effect on the test organisms in 96 hours. (This
data will be reported as 96-hrs.)
b. The biomass or standing crop of zooplankton,
phytoplankton, nekton, and benthos should be
ascertained.
c. Primary productivity/chlorophyll pigments measurements
should be determined.
d. Statistical data on commercial fish and shellfish
catches at sites should be accumulated.
aa60Cl5U1
1-27
-------
INTRODUCTION
e. Biological oxygen demand (BOD) of -the wastes and
sediments.
f. The nature, type, and rate of accumulation of the
bottom detritus (organic) material.
1.3 OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEMS AND TRENDS
1.3.1 Ocean 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, 674,86 8 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.
1-28
4U60C15U1
-------
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 areas are 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.
M60C1541
1-29
-------
INTRODUCTION
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.
Use of professional divers 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.
4<460C15U1
-------
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".<*o>
f. Alternative methods of disposal. Sewage sludge
disposed of in the coas-tal 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.
1.3.2 Ocean Disposal Trends
In discussing the trends in ocean waste disposal, it is important
to recall that this survey encompassed only a portion of the
active ocean waste disposal sites; however, included in this
sampling were six sites in the New York Bight,*11> which account
for approximately 15,728,560 cubic yards of waste per year (1972
data). It should also be noted that this study is concerned only
with nanpoint source disposal and does not emphasize disposal
UH60C1541
1-31
-------
INTRODUCTION
from pipelines such as outfalls from sewer plants, or industrial
point sources.
Pipeline disposal of treated sewage sludge is used by many large
metropolitan areas, such as Los Angeles, whose Hyperion plant
disposes of approximately five MGD of sludge per week from a
seven mile long outfall.ti2> The Orange County Sanitation
District Plant, which processes all municipal sewer waste for the
western part of orange county, California, also uses a pipe
outfall.
Sewage Sludge
Indications are that point source disposal of sewage sludge will
increase. Barge disposal costs of sewer sludge ranges from $6.90
to $18.HO per ton. The cost per ton/mile range is from $.04 per
ton/mile to $.30 per ton/mile. Piping of digested sewage sludge
runs approximately $.22 per ton/mile to $.44 per ton/mile.
Although there are no apparent cost advantages, the operational
advantages are significant. One of the major advantages is that
pipe disposal is an automated, year-round system that is not
dependent upon such variables as labor disputes or weather.
Increasing population in the coastal zone and the higher level of
treatments required to meet water quality standards will result
in even more sludge. Environmental problems resulting from
1-32
4460C1541
-------
INTRODUCTION
sludge disposal in the ocean are significant, both in terms of
volume and the toxic, and sometimes pathogenic, materials
involved. Communication with sanitation plant officials
indicates that industrial disposal into municipal sewer systems
is on the increase because of elimination of industrial outfalls
into rivers and harbors. Most municipal waste treatment plants
are not properly equipped to handle this industrial load;
therefore, the extent of heavy metals and other substances toxic
to marine biota in the sewer sludge is increasing. The Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) report on ocean disposal estimates
that there will be a 50 percent increase in sewer sludge disposal
within the next 30 years.<*°>
Industrial Waste
Results of this survey indicate that the rate of disposal (by
volume) of industrial waste in the ocean is decreasing. Reasons
given for the decreases are: new methods of recycling waste
material; higher costs of barge disposal of industrial waste;
increasingly stringent state and Federal control regulations; new
industrial processes which have resulted in lesser volume of
waste, but with higher concentrations of toxic materials; adverse
public opinion; and hazards associated with disposal in the ocean
environment, and increasing use of municipal facilities.
im60Cl5U1
1-33
-------
INTRODUCTION
Materials for which ocean disposal is likely to remain necessary
are: (1) outdated drug stocks from pharmacies and warehouses
which, because of the danger of falling into illegal channels of
use, are disposed of at sea, and (2) highly hazardous materials
such as metallic sodium, the transportation of which presents a
major problem.
It should be noted that about 40 percent of the nation's
industrial activity is concentrated in the estuarine zone;
therefore, disposal of industrial waste in the ocean frequently
represents the shortest and safest transportation route for
disposal of wastes.
Radioactive Waste
The survey indicated no radioactive material was being disposed
of in the marine environment. Although ocean disposal of
radioactive waste is virtually nonexistent, this is an area which
must be closely followed by the Ocean Disposal Program because,
in the near future, the volume of nuclear power plants on-line is
going to increase by a factor of 20<101. A significant number of
nuclear powered submarines and surface ships (approximately 1001
are in service, with the lifetime of 1 to 30 years for the power
plants and reactor vessels, EP? must be prepared to meet the
pressure for disposal of the used reactor vessels in the ocean.
Alternative methods for disposal of these vessels are by
1-34
HH60C15H1
-------
INTRODUCTION
entombment on site which involves expensive industrial work, or
dismantling and storage at an inland Atomic Energy Commission
site.
£2Qy§Qti2D§i Explosives and Munitions
If properly carried out, the ocean disposal of conventional
munitions (nonradioactive) has little or no effect on a marine
environment. Other methods of disposal of such munitions,
burning, exploding, or dismantling, are hazardous and, as such,
are not attractive alternatives. Poorly regulated operations
could result in an explosive device being brought to the surface
by fishing nets, or become snagged by a boat's lines, or by a
manned submersible.
Dredge Spoils
Dredge spoils currently account for 80 percent of the ocean waste
disposal by volume. Although the CEQ report on ocean dumping
anticipates a reduction in ocean disposal of dredge spoil, the
results of the IEC Oceanics survey do not bear this out.
Land disposal of dredge spoil is becoming an increasing problem
in many areas. To compound the situation, the energy crisis is
calling for extension of harbor facilities to handle the more
modern vessels which have drafts from 35 to 100 feet. Not only
does initial dredging of harbors, for super port capability.
4t60Cl5m
1-35
-------
INTRODUCTION
result in tremendous initial volumes of ocean disposal, but
maintenance dredging will be increased proportionally.
Along with the routine problem of disposing of nonpolluted dredge
spoil as the harbors are enlarged to meet the new draft
requirements, it will be necessary to remove highly polluted
dredge spoil from the inner harbor areas. At present, 34 percent
of dredge material is considered by the Corps of Engineers*1®> to
be "polluted".
Summary
Information indicates that the total volume of waste dumped in
the ocean will probably increase rapidly, primarily due to
increases in sewage sludge and dredge spoil loads. Disposal of
sewage sludge on the East Coast is expected to increase rapidly,
with New York City increasing at the rate of six percent per year
and the Baltimore-Washington area by seven percent per year.
Polluted dredge spoil will become a major disposal problem.
Although new municipal and industrial waste treatment facilities
will lessen the problems for dredge spoil in the future, it is
certain that polluted dredge spoil will remain a problem for at
least the next decade. As this is the period of increased
dredging activities to meet new marine commerce requirements and
energy crises, the development of safe methods of disposal of
1-36
446001541
-------
INTRODUCTION
polluted dredge spoil will be a major concern of EPA and the
Corps of Engineers.
The number of companies involved in ocean waste disposal is
expected to decrease as many smaller organizations find that
their operations are no longer cost competitive. Disposal of
industrial waste is expected to diminish rapidly by volume, but
the toxicity of the remaining waste may increase markedly.
Disposal of sewage sludge in the ocean is expected to increase in
proportion to the population increases in the coastal zone until
alternative disposal methods are developed.
1.U OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF OCEAN DISPOSAL
Included in the operational aspects of ocean disposal are such
factors as environmental and regulatory monitoring
characteristics, types of disposal craft, weather factors,
inspection methods, record keeping procedures, navigational
methods, and position location procedures. These are described
in the following paragraphs.
1.4.1 Monitoring
The monitoring of waste disposal operations at sea can be
subdivided into two distinct, but often overlapping, categories:
(1) environmental monitoring, which deals primarily with the
«|t»60Cl5m
1-37
-------
INTRODUCTION
interaction of the wastes and the ocean environment, and (2)
regulatory monitoring, which is primarily concerned with the
jurisdictions, regulations, and operational matters involved in
ocean disposal.
1.1.1.1 Environmental Monitoring - The EPA is the cognizant
authority for granting permission to dump wastes in specified
areas based upon the types and nature of the waste materials.
The objective of environmental monitoring, with respect to ocean
disposal of wastes, is to determine both the short- and long-term
effects of a given disposal operation. The monitoring results
are essential for the generation and revision of water quality
criteria applicable to the disposal of wastes, for assessment of
trends and changes, and for identifying problem areas that
require the attention of cognizant research and regulatory
agencies.
Environmental monitoring includes periodic field observation and
sampling, supported by laboratory testing and analysis. The
objectives of environmental monitoring require a much more
complex and costly proqram than regulatory monitoring, and
require specialized personnel and equipment for both the at-sea
phase and the shore-based laboratory facilities and staff.
1-38
UU60C15U1
-------
INTRODUCTION
In some cases, regulatory and environmental monitoring programs
complement each other in that water quality data obtained as a
regulatory requirement by the disposal operator is of value to
the environmental monitoring phase of the waste disposal
operation. However, this has been shown to be the exception
rather than the rule.
The problem of environmental monitoring is complicated by the
fact that the waste field developed, either at the ocean bottom
or within the water column, is dynamic. It is subject to
progressive modification by chemical, physical, and biological
processes and, under the influence of currents, the effects of
waste discharges in a given area will spread over a continually
widening area, or be concentrated in undesired areas.
1.U.1.2 Environmental Monitoring Status - The results of this
survey have shown that ongoing monitoring of present waste
disposal operations (at sea and in the laboratory) for the
assessment of environmental impact is clearly insufficient. Even
in the case of the Galveston District of the Corps of Engineers,
which probably had the most stringent requirements for
environmental studies to be carried out prior to disposal
authorization, lack of Federal and State funds for environmental
control monitoring programs has limited the capability to verify
original study results.
t»460Cl5in
1-39
-------
INTRODUCTION
The foregoing situation exists despite the fact that the critical
need for environmental monitoring of waste disposal has been
emphasized in post of the literature reviewed by this survey.
1. ft.1.3 Regulatory Monitoring. - In regard to regulatory
monitoring, survey results and findings tend to indicate clearly
that ocean dumping is occurring at locations other than those
prescribed by licensing agencies, but the extent and exact nature
of such violations are not precisely known because of the present
lack of suitable regulatory monitoring systems. Some of the
obvious factors producing violations of this type are rough seas,
inclement weather, and faulty navigation, all of which contribute
to premature dumpings or dumps in other than designated areas.
EPA is confronted with the problem of detecting such violations,
whether brought about by somewhat accidental or uncontrollable
conditions, or whether they are a result of purposeful neglect or
willful disregard of regulations. In either event, the problem
relating to detection, the exercising of legal restraints
(invoking fine, revoking permits), and the defining of an
effective corrective action system are myriad. Some of the
factors which influence the degree of the problem are highlighted
in the following discussions:
a. Weather. - Ocean dumping operations are performed 2ft
hours per day, 7 days per week, throughout the year
1-ftO
4460Cl5ft 1
-------
INTRODUCTION
except where severe weather conditions may jeopardize
crew safety or result in vessel/dumper loss or damage.
Dumping operations, however, can be expected to be
performed over a gamut of weather conditions including
fog, drizzle, snow, ice storms, and thunderstorms, as
well as in fair weather, with corresponding conditions
of temperatures, humidity, sea state, and wind. The
weather environments may be expected to influence the
operational performance of equipment and consequently
become significant in evaluating oceanographic
monitoring system approaches and in rating candidate
regulatory monitoring systems.
Monitoring Records. - The results of this survey
indicate that, from the standpoint of monitoring waste
disposal methods and practices in the United States,
the maintaining of records is a loosely applied
function which falls into three general categories.
These categories are best described by -the following
brief discussions of their applications:
The first of these is that used in the New York
and Norfolk areas where disposal operators are
required by the Corps of Engineers to submit
regular (monthly, quarterly, etc) summary data
regarding the type and amount of wastes discharged
at sea. Annual summaries of the operations are
1-U1
-------
INTRODUCTION
maintained and updated regularly by the Corps of
Engineers. Similar data on disposal operations
are obtained from disposal operations in the
Philadelphia area, although strictly on a
cooperative basis, because that particular Corps
of Engineers District office claims no
jurisdiction over disposal operations beyond the
three-mile limit.
The second type of record keeping situation was
found in the cities of San Francisco, Los Angeles,
San Diego, Boston, and New Orleans. In these
cases, the submission of regular data on
individual disposal operations is required by the
regulatory agencies, but there is no evidence that
the data is evaluated. As a consequence, the
responsible regulatory agency in these cities is
generally unable to provide an overall description
of the disposal operations conducted under its
jurisdiction.
The third type of practice is essentially one of
no record keepirg at all. After initial approval
of a disposal operation, no additional records are
required or maintained by the regulatory agencies.
1-42
4460Cl5ai
-------
INTRODUCTION
c- Inspection. - New York City is the only major city in
the nation in which waste disposals are subject to
periodic surveillance while in transit to the disposal
site.
In order to ensure that operators disposing of sewage
sludge, chemicals, dredge spoils, and construction and
demolition debris have traveled the required distance
to the disposal areas, surveillance is conducted by
recording the times of departure and return; this is
done by government vessels stationed in lower New York
Harbor.
A similar situation existed in San Diego where staff
members of the Regional Water Quality control Board
accompanied each load of barreled industrial wastes to
sea.
In California and Louisiana, incidental surveillance
from aircraft and patrol boats is sometimes conducted
by state fishery agencies and the USCG during their
normal activities.
UU60C15U1
1-43
-------
INTRODUCTION
1.4.2 Dredges/Disposal Craft
1.U.2.1 Dredges. - Dredges fall into two basic categories:
pipeline dredges, or hopper dredges. Either class may be
equipped with various types of devices for scooping, sucking,
cutting, or withdrawing by some other means, the dredge spoil
material.
Pipeline dredges are essentially bargelike vehicles of varied
sizes, equipped with dredging equipment on deck. The dredge
spoil is piped from the dredging site to a disposal site through
pipes as large as 21 inches in diameter and often longer than 10
miles. Pipeline dredges, whether self-powered or towed, are
usually stationary platforms in operation, but may move at an
extremely slow pace while dredging. Hopper dredges (all owned
and operated by the Corps of Engineers) are large, self-propelled
vessels which contain the dredge spoil on board in various types
of "hoppers"for subsequent disposal elsewhere. The Corps of
Engineers relies heavily on the use of hopper dredges for
maintenance dredging. In the continental United states hopper
dredges are used for approximately 70,000,000 cubic yards of
maintenance dredging annually. The hopper dredges are confined
primarily to the coastal zone and the Great Lakes. Although
hopper dredges operate on essentially the same principles as
pipeline dredges, there are fundamental differences: (1) dredging
i-«m
4460C1541
-------
INTRODUCTION
is accomplished while the vessel is in motion, and (2) the
dredged materials are contained on board in hoppers. Hopper
dredges are unique in that provision is made for overflowing.
This overflow capability concentrates the solids in the hoppers
by overflowing finer particles through troughs located in the top
of the hoppers. Overflowing results in return of the fine, silt-
like particles to the dredged site. (In some instances, this may
not be desirable because of environmental impact or operating
efficiency.>
Recent environmental concerns have resulted in the modification
of several hopper dredges to permit direct pumpout for landfill
or sidecasting for beach nourishment. Detailed descriptions of
the hopper dredges and other dredges in use within the
continental United States are contained in reference.<13>
1.1.2.2 Disposal Craft. - Various types and sizes of disposal
craft are used for particular operations and in different
circumstances. The dump scows presently used for ocean dumping
employ different dump actuating mechanisms and configurations.
Some older and smaller scows generally contain six or eight
pockets, each of which is equipped with double, gravity dump
doors at the bottom. These doors are normally held closed by
cables and a ratchet-and-pawl type mechanism. The pawl is
released (for dumping) by hydraulic jacks operated by control
UU60C15IH
1-45
-------
INTRODUCTION
valves. The scowman manually controls operation of the valves
for each pocket dump mechanism.
Some scows are of a hinge-type configuration. These scows
consist of a port and starboard section hinged topside (fore and
aft) about which the two sections rotate during dumping
operations. Large-diameter hydraulic pistons located beneath the
fore and aft hinges cause the two sections to bottom separate,
allowinq the dredge spoils to gravity dump into the ocean.
Dumping is activated by a scowman who operates the hydraulic
control valves. Dump time is in the order of several minutes.
On some scows, the dumping is activated remotely, controlled from
the towing vessel; a scowman need not, in this case, be aboard
the scow itself. in some areas (New York, for example) self-
propelled dumping scows are used. The self-propelled scows are
equipped with manually operated gate valves and the sludge is
either gravity dumped or pumped out. The number of pockets on
the self-propelled vessels varies from two to six, depending on
the type of vessel. Discharge times vary, but average
approximately 15 minutes.
Hazardous chemicals and caustic wastes are hauled out to long-
range dumping sites (approximately 100 miles) on scows towed by
large ocean-going tugboats using, in most cases, Loran A for
1-46
U460C1541
-------
INTRODUCTION
navigation. The scows are almost always unattended and dumping
is performed by remote control from the tug.
On all types of disposal craft, whether self-propelled or towed,
there is a significant difference in loaded and unloaded draft.
The average difference in draft is 12 feet.
Power is minimal aboard the scows and is used only for dumping
operations. On manned scows, the scowman's area is generally
lighted by a gas lantern. On the other hand, the self-propelled
dumping vessels and, of course, the tugs are equipped with both
a.c. and d.c. power for radio, radar, and other equipment as well
as for general lighting. The majority of the tugs and self-
propelled vessels are equipped with various types of navigation
equipment, including gyrocompass, radio direction finders, and
radar. The long-range tugs have, in addition, Loran A receivers.
As a part of this survey, an analysis was made of existing
electronic navigation aids available off the U.S. coastline.
A summary of characteristics and descriptions of these systems is
presented in Table 1.U-1
1.4.3 Navigation Aids for Ocean Disposal Vehicles
The navigation systems discussed in the following paragraphs are
systems that are now in existence and in use along the nations'
coastlines. The equipments and systems covered herein are
1IU60C1511
1-47
-------
I
c
00
•e
o«
en
SYSTEM
LORAN-A
DECCA
LORAN-C
SATELLITE
OMEGA
RAYDIST
PASSIVE
CUBIC
AUTO TAPE
MOTOROLA
RPS
DIFFERENTIAL
OMEGA
ONTRAK II
RNAV
VTS
RADAR
Principle
Pulse
Phase
Pulse 6c
Phase
Phase
Doppler
Phase
Phase
Phase
Pulse
Phase
Phase
50 Micro-
sec. Pul se
Trcq.Band
1900kHz
100kHz
100kHz
150MHz b
400MHz
10.2kHz
1600 -
4000kHz
30001Hz
8000MHz
10.2kHz
10-20
kHz
9.4
GC
Range
(N. Miles
600
250
1200
World-wide
(Hourly)
World-
wide '75
350 Day
175 N i gh t
Radio
Line of
Sight 50 Mi.
Radio
Line of
Sight 50 Mi.
3-500 Miles
of a shore-
based recrver
Worldwide
to
40 miles
Time for
Fix
1-2 Min
Instan-
taneously
30 Sec.
Indexing
10 Min.
(Hourly)
Instan-
taneously
Instan-
taneously
Ins tan-
taneously
Instan-
taneously
Instan-
taneous ly
Instan-
taneously
Instan-
taneously
Sensitivity
500'
50'
50'
60'
400'
1-%'
.1 meter
.1 meter
100*
60'
30'
Accuracy
1-2KM
1/4 NM
3/4 NM
100' to
0. LNM
1-2NM
10
50 cm •+ Range
X 10 -5
Soft
1200
.3°
Freedom
from
Dilution
Problems
Medium
Medium
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Bfr.st
Good
Probable
Maximum
Terrain
Distortion
40' X
Dilution
800* X
Dilution
800' X
Dilution
Velocity &
Orbital
Errors
0.1-1NM
10,000 X
Dilution
40*
Negligible
Negligible
10,000 X 40'
Dilution
Negligible
Skyvave
Error
Negligible
Up to 1 NM
(Subtle 6c
not easily
forecast)
Negligible
(if care-
ful)
Negligible
10NM (but
generally
predict-
able to
10"
Negligible
(unless
obvious)
None
None
X2.5 Miles
Variations
stored in
Memory-Auto.
corrections
XA
Percentage
of World
Coverage
15X
5%
15%
100%
(Hourly)
40% now
100% '72
Special
Radio
Location
Only
Line of
Sight
Line of
Sight
40% now
100% 17 5
100%
Line of
Sight
TABLE 1.4
-1
CHARACTERISTICS
OF ELECTRONIC
POSITIONING
SYSTEMS
LC(
— INTERSTATE
ELECTHONICS
. axramnoN
w
O
a
a
n
M
O
2
-------
INTRODUCTION
presented for the purposes of evaluation in the event that ocean
disposal criteria, to include navigation systems, are
established.
1.1.3.1 t£ran-A - Loran-A is a hyperbolic system of radio
navigation available throughout much of the ocean areas of the
northern hemisphere. The system employs synchronized pairs of
transmitting stations, master and slave, which transmit, pulse
signals with a constant time interval between them. Loran
provides hyperbolic lines of position which are fixed relative to
the earth's surface, as are latitude and longitude lines. These
lines of position can be crossed with each other or with sun
lines, star lines, or other broadcast stations. Special
receivers, Loran charts, and tables are required for use of the
Loran system. Both ground and skywave signals are used with
Loran-A. For the purpose of near shore work, only the ground
wave signals will be considered. The range is 650 to 900 miles
during the day, and the accuracy is, typically, 1.5 miles over 80
percent of the areas covered. Loran-A is useful on the Atlantic
Coast, Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, and Gulf of Mexico areas. The
southwest coast of the United states is limited to a single line
of position because of the distance in placement of the slave
stations. A second line of position must be taken using an AOF,
console, radar, sun, or star sightings. The Loran-A system was
scheduled for removal and replacement by Loran-C and Omega by
1460C1541
1-49
-------
INTRODUCTION
1975; however, a definite date has not been established and
service is likely to continue through 1980.
1.4.3.2 Loran-C - The Loran-C navigation system is a long
baseline hyperbolic, area-coverage system, employing time
difference measurements of signals received from three
transmitters. It is basically a Loran-A system with the
following improvements:
a. Low frequency transmission (100 kHz) for extended
range.
b. Pulse envelope measurement and phase measurement of the
radio frequency signal provide a fine time-difference
measurement.
c. Automatic instrumentation aboard the ship can provide a
continuous position indication.
d. Hiaher average transmitting power and phase coding of
the multipulse groups allows station identification and
discrimination between ground and skywaves.
The ground wave coverage of Loran-C extends to approximately 1200
nautical miles. The accuracy is, typically, 1500 feet over 95
percent of the coverage area. Loran-C may be considered useful
on the Atlantic and Gulf Coast?, but not on the West coast of the
United States. The Coast Guard presently has a budget request of
more than $5 million to replace the approximately 30 Loran-A
1-50
1460C1511
-------
INTRODUCTION
stations with 11 new Loran-C stations and modify six others to
cover the continental coastline and southern Alaska. The
existing Loran-c system has 8 chains containing a total of 31
transmitting stations. Several of the existing Loran-C stations
are located in Southeast Asia.
1.4.3.3 Omega. - Omega is a long-range radio navigation system
utilizing phase difference measurements of 10.2 kHz carrier
frequencies received from each of two stations whose
transmissions are phase-synchronized. Hyperbolic lines of
position of constant phase difference with the stations lying at
the foci of the hyperbolas provide position fix at the
intersection of the two lines of position. The accuracy of the
fix is proportional to the LOP angles of intersections, 90° being
optimum, characteristic of CW phase measuring systems. Cyclic
ambiguity causes isophase LOPs or lanes every eight nautical
miles. To increase the lane ambiguity these stations cyclically
transmit the CW waves at several frequencies i.e. 610.2 kHz, 13.6
kHz, and 11.33 kHz with a 0.2 second off-period between each
transmission. With a two-frequency receiver, the resolution or
lane ambiguity increases to 24 nautical miles, and with a three
frequency receiver improves to 72 nautical miles. Generally,
with some minimal dead reckoning navigation equipment aboard the
vessel, lane ambiguity is easily resolved. The propagation of
Omega signals conforms to the earth/ionosphere wave guide which
4460C1541
1-51
-------
INTRODUCTION
is a diagonally varying dimension along the propagation path.
This variation in ionospheric height produces an effective
variation in propagation velocity, which must be compensated for
as a function of time and approximate position to assure
predictable phase comparison. The variation predictions known as
skywave corrections have been tabulated based on a prediction
model as a function of time and day for a specific location.
Results of measurement programs have shown an operational
accuracy of one to two nautical miles rms depending on time of
day. Improved accuracy is possible using a differential Omega
approach.
1.1.3.4 Differential Omega. - In the differential Omega concept,
a remote Omega receiver at a known geographic location is
utilized to correct certain unpredictable propagation anomalies
thereby resulting in improved fix accuracy. It is assumed that
the Omega receiver used for position fixing is experiencing the
same unpredictable variations as the remote Omega receiver at the
known location and, hence, suitable corrections may be determined
and applied to correct the data received by the actual navigation
receiver. This approach removes time dependent errors and
increases accuracy repeatability to approach the relative
accuracy of the two receivers operating in a simultaneous
environment. Experimental data obtained with differential Omega
shows an improvement of 1 to 1 over a conventional Omega system
1-52
146001511
-------
INTRODUCTION
with an average LOP error of 1 to 7 centicycles at night and 1 to
3 cpnticycles during the day (1 centicycle equals approximately 1
microsecond, which is 150 meters on the baseline).
1.1.3.5 Decca - The British-developed Decca system is a
hyperbolic radio navigation system which utilizes low-frequency
(70-100 kHz) CW transmission signals from a master and three
slave stations to provide a position fix. Each station transmits
a stable CW frequency signal with a fixed relationship to the
frequencies of the other three stations. Phase comparison of the
signals produces hyperbolic LOP where the phases are equal.
Typical frequencies transmitted would be as follows:
a. Master station 85 (6F)
b. Fed slave station 113.333 (8F)
c. Green slave station 127.500 (9F)
d. Purple slave station 70.833 (5F)
These frequencies are multiples of frequency F which in this case
is 11.166 kHz. The receiver incoming frequency signals are
multiplied by factors to produce frequency differences for the
stations which are either 30F (purple), 18F (green), or 24F
(red). These differences are measured by a phase meter of the
continuously integrating type (deccameter) which indicates total
and fractions of cycle that the receiver passes through.
Instrument accuracy is on the order of 1 to 50 of a lane
H4 60C15<»1
1-53
-------
INTRODUCTION
corresponding to five yards along the baseline. The Decca system
utilizes a lane identification technique for solution of the lane
ambiguity problem. Each station transmits, in addition to its
fine fixing signal, a lane identification signal by a second
transmission at specified intervals. This technique, coupled
with a comparison of the F frequency for each of the three phase
comparison systems for half a second, reduces lane ambiguity to
1/100 of a lane. Practical coverage for Decca is limited to
about 200 nautical miles because of continuous wave propagation
and skywave contamination. At this time, a Decca system is in
operation on the East Coast of the United States. California has
proposed the installation of a Decca system on the west Coast;
however, this has not been finalized. The major drawback of the
Decca system is the special receivers required, which must be
leased from the British-owned Decca company.
1.4.3.6 Radio Direction Finding - The use of ground-based radio
direction finders for fixed locations has been utilized for many
years. In this system, transmissions from the vessels are
received at two shore RDF stations from which bearings to the
vessel are measured. The two bearings uniquely fix vessel
location. The basic principle of direction finding (DF) is the
measurement of differential distance to the transmitter using a
loop or Adcock type antenna. Currents are generated in each
vertical segment of the loop, induced by vertically polarized
1-54
4460C1541
-------
INTRODUCTION
transmissions, when the loop is 90° to the direction of the
arrived signal. Many types of RDF antennas are produced, but the
Adcock type is perhaps most attractive for a shorebased RDF
station. In its simplest form, this antenna consists of two
vertical antennas connected to a receiver. Operation is similar
to the loop antenna, the null indicating signal direction.
Because of the size of antennas utilized in the 400-kHz to 3-MHz
range, physical rotation of the antenna is not practical and a
goniometer in conjunction with four or eight antenna towers is
used. The goniometer is an instrument consisting of two sets of
windings at right angles to each other with a central rotor
which, in effect, translates the received radio field at the
antennas into a miniature magnetic field in which the rotor
operates. The angle output of the goniometer rotor then provides
the direction of the transmitted signal. Accuracy of an RDF
system depends not only on instrumentation errors, but also on
external error factors such as phase interference effects,
polarization errors, tilt of the ionospheric layer, and site
irregularities. In a modem RDF system, bearing accuracies of
+1° with calibration corrections are possible. At night with
skywave contamination the accuracy may vary 2° at 100 nautical
miles, and as much as 4° at 500 nautical miles.
m»60Cl5i»1
1-55
-------
INTRODUCTION
1.1.3.7 Radar. - Vessel location using a shorebased radar is
determined from the time elapsed between transmission and
reception of a radar signal (range) and the radar beam antenna
directivity (bearing). The operation principles of a radar in
its simplest form utilize a transmitter which generates high-
power, short-duration pulses which are radiated in a narrow beam
by a parabolic reflector which is rotated mechanically or
electrically in azimuth. When the pulse strikes the target a
small amount of power is radiated back to the antenna and
amplified in a receiver. The receiver output is displayed in a
pulse position indicator (oscilloscope). The radial scan is
generated in synchronism with the transmitted pulse rate and a
rotary scan with the azimuth rotational rate. This causes a spot
to be illuminated on the PPI scope in which the distance and
azimuth are proportional to the true position of the target.
When the target is cooperative, a secondary radar (radar beacon
transponder) can be used which reduces power requirements of the
radar transmitter and reduces clutter by utilizing different
frequencies. Modulation techniques can be incorporated on the
beacon to provide identification and other coded data. The
frequency of radar operation varies depending on range,
environment, and accuracy required. Generally, radar range
accuracy, which is primarily a function of pulse duration and
display resolution, is on the order of 1000 feet, and bearing
accuracy, which depends on azimuth beam width, is less than 1°.
1-56
4460C15«1
-------
INTRODUCTION
Because of the high operating frequencies of radar systems, line-
of-sight limits range coverage.
Variations of the radar system are the Cubic Auto Tape and the
Motorola range positioning system (RPS). Both of these systems
use a shipboard interrogator and two shorebased transponders.
The accuracy of RPS is 50 feet at 50 miles, and the auto tape
claims accuracies of 6.4 feet at 30 miles. These systems are
limited to line-of-sight, and range in cost between $40,000 and
$90,000.
1.4.3.8 Vessel Traffic Radar
a. san Francisco Vessel Traffic System (VTS). - The Ports
and waterways Safety Act of 1972 (PL 92-340) gives the
Department of Transportation the authority for the
development, administration, and operation of Vessel
Traffic Systems in U.S. ports and harbors. The U.S.
coast Guard is the agency responsible for carrying out
this function. The San Francisco Vessel Traffic System
is one of the first such systems to be put into
service, with eventual coverage of the deep draft
waterway system of the San Francisco Port complex,
including the bay tributaries extending north and east
to Sacramento and Stockton, south to Redwood City, and
seaward approximately 20 miles.
4460C1541
1-57
-------
INTRODUCTION
The San Francisco system incorporates the functions of
the Coast Guard experimental facility formerly known as
Harbor Advisory Radar (HAR). The Vessel Traffic
Center, operated continuously by Coast Guard personnel,
maintains communications with vessels via vhf f-m
radiotelephone and monitors the position and movements
of larqer vessels by shorebased radars and position
reports. A traffic separation scheme is now being
implemented to separate vessels traveling in opposite
or nearly opposite directions. Future developments
will include a Coast Guard operated Vessel Movement
Reporting System for the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers, and a navigational safety summary broadcast,
similar to present weather reports, primarily for the
benefit of small vessels.
The Vessel Traffic System is a voluntary system of vhf
voice communications used in conjunction with a high-
resolution radar surveillance system and computer to
track traffic in and out of the San Francisco Bay. The
system is used out to 8.8 miles, and operation is
similar to an air traffic control system. The Coast
Guard operator identifies a target on the radar through
voice contact; he then enters the data into a computer
which stores the information and tracks the vessel
1-58
4460C1541
-------
INTRODUCTION
through the bay. The primary purpose of the system,
which will be fully operational in June 1973, is
safety. It is a pilot program for several nationwide
systems. Presently, Puget Sound maintains a voice-only
operation while New York, New Orleans, Houston,
Chesapeake, and Delaware are in the planning stages for
voice and radar systems. The San Francisco system will
use two radars, one at Yorba Buena Island, which would
be the "Vessel Traffic Center", the other at Point
Bonita. VHF radios will be located at Point Bonita,
Concord, and Yorba Buena Island. Radios will operate
on vhf f-m Channels 13, 16, 18, and 21. The radar
system was designed and supplied by Airborne Instrument
Labs with Motorola supplying the microwave inter links.
An existing Coast Guard computer will be utilized with
special programming by APL, Johns Hopkins. The radars
are of a special design for the Coast Guard and feature
horizontal, vertical, or circular polarization and
digital output. The computer will store seven basic
charts of the Bay area, which will be displayed to the
operator on 17-inch CRTs for easy identification and
tracking. When a ship is logged into the system, it is
identified by pilot name, name of the ship, ship
registration number. Coast Guard assigned number, and
destination. Information is then stored and the ship
4460C15«H
1-59
-------
INTRODUCTION
is tracked to its destination, in port or to sea,
automatically. Provision has been made for automatic
handoff from radar to radar to the computer. The radar
display is photographed every three minutes for
permanent records. This system is meant for use with
large ships; pleasure craft are not to be included at
this time, although the system has sufficient
resolution. There are presently no plans for
implementing radar transponders aboard the vessels,
although it has been considered.
It appears that this system is an excellent candidate
for control of offshore dumping out to 20 or 40 miles
depending on the elevation of the radar transmitters.
The addition of a radar transponder, with auxiliary
sensor inputs to indicate the time of dump, would make
up a complete monitoring system. This type of
transponder is presently under development. Also,
since plans are being made to implement this system in
New York, New Orleans, Houston, Chesapeake, and
Delaware, the majority of the major dump sites will be
covered.
b* Satellite. - The Navy Navigation Satellite System
(NNSS) is a worldwide all-weather system from which
1-60
4460C15M
-------
INTRODUCTION
accurate navigational position fixes can be obtained
using the data transmitted from five orbiting
satellites, four tracking stations, two injection
stations, the U.S. Naval Observatory, and a computing
center. Any number of user navigational installations
can exist with no interference between them. The
Navigation Satellites are placed in circular polar
orbits about earth at an altitude of approximately 600
nautical miles. The orbital planes of the satellites
have a common point along the earth's rotational axis.
Each satellite orbits the earth approximately every 107
minutes. The geometrical placement of the orbiting
satellite allows an earth-bound observer to cross
directly under the satellite twice daily. Typically*
the observer receives data from the satellite twice
each time he is near the orbit, because the satellites
appear to traverse longitudinally as the earth rotates.
The earth rotates 27° longitudinally per satellite
pass. At the equator, about 20 daily fixes are
possible. Realistically, about 15 daily fixes can be
realized. In Los Angeles (3i»° latitude) an average of
about 29 passes is observed daily, of which
approximately 20 provide usable fixes. The utilization
of the satellite data to compute a position fix is
similar in concept to any hyperbolic positioning system
«m60Cl5i»1
1-61
-------
INTRODUCTION
where the satellite simulates the multiple transmitting
stations by its inherent motion relative to the user.
The shipboard equipment required to use the NNSS
consists of an antenna, preamplifier, satellite
receiver, computer, and teleprinter. This equipment
must be installed in an environmentally controlled
area. A position fix using this system permits
latitude and longitude on a worldwide, all-weather
basis to an accuracy of 40 meters rms from a single
satellite pass. Because satellite passes are available
on a 1 to 2 hour interval, dead reckoning between
satellite passes, using manual or electrical inputs
from the ships speed and heading sensors, is required.
A typical shipboard installation of this system will
cost between $30,000 and $65,000.
c. Raydist - The Raydist radio navigation system is a
proprietary product of the Hastings Raydist Company.
Two basic Raydist systems can be considered. They are
the DR-S which is an active system utilizing a mobile
or shipboard transmitter, and the Raydist T which is a
passive system utilizing four shorebased systems. The
Raydist system generates dual hyperbolic/hallop
coordinate geometries which provide a high degree of
operational flexibility and simplicity. A sensitivity
1-62
4460C15U1
-------
INTRODUCTION
of 1.5 feet at a geographic position accuracy of better
than 10 feet make Raydist suited to applications
ranging from general navigation to precision
electronics survey. Presently, only one Raydist system
is in continuous operation; it is located in the lower
Chesapeake Bay area and provides coverage in the
Chesapeake Bay and Virginia continental shelf. This
system is sponsored by the State of Virginia- The
system is currently under evaluation by several
organizations, including the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and
the U.S. coast and Geodetic Survey. The Raydist system
can be used out to 150 miles without losing its
accuracy. Operationally, a CW signal at approximately
3 MHz is transmitted from the vessel. A reference
signal is simultaneously generated at the shore station
at a frequency equal to one-half the mobile
transmitters carrier frequency, plus or minus 200 Hz.
The shore station reference frequency is doubled and
heterodyned with the received signal from the mobile
transmitter (ship) to obtain an audio beat note of
approximately U00 Hz. To obtain red range, the audio
tone generated at the red base station is returned to
the mobile installation together with the base station
reference signal. This is done with minimum use of
im60Cl5M
1-63
-------
INTRODUCTION
frequency spectrum by incorporating the audio tone as
single sideband modulation on the base station
reference carrier. The audio tone information is
extracted from the received signal on the vessel, and
the base station reference is again doubled and
heterodyned with the mobile CW signal within the
navigator. This locally generated audio tone has
precisely the same frequency as the one derived at the
base station, and the two tones exhibit a phase
relationship proportional to distance between the
vessel and the base station. The two audio tones are
then applied to a precision electromechanical phase
meter to obtain red range. This process is repeated
with the green shore station to obtain the green range
coordinate. In the Raydist-T configuration, the CW
mobile transmitter is placed ashore, establishing a
baseline with respect to the red shore transmitter.
For optimum coordinate geometry, a second CW
transmitter is positioned to form a baseline with the
green base station so the four stations form an
approximate rectangle. The resulting independent
hyperbolic baselines provide an easy-to-interpret
hyperbolic geometry. Three independent lines of
position are available from the four-station
arrangement, providing a convenient means for automatic
1-6t»
4460C1541
-------
INTRODUCTION
or manual lane identification. This feature can be
used for lane determination by ships approaching
outside the coverage area. The Raydist signals are
completely continuous and tracking response can be made
extremely fast permitting the systems use in high
performance aircraft and rapidly maneuvering vessels
with negligible accuracy degradation. The major
drawback of this system is the limited number of
installations in the U.S. This system, however, is
available for lease anywhere in the world.
VLF Area Navigation Ontrac II is the trade name of a
receiving/computing (RNAV) system manufactured by
Communications Components Corporation of Costa Mesa,
California, which uses existing vlf navigation and
communication transmitters providing worldwide
navigation. The basic principle of operation is that
all vlf stations are phase stable and can be used to
generate hyperbolic lines of position, which the built-
in computer converts to latitude/longitude. Unlike
Omega, which utilizes phase-synchronized transmitters,
this system measures the phase difference at the
beginning of a run and stores the information in
memory. Six receivers are operated simultaneously,
allowing automatic selection of the best three signals.
1
1-65
-------
INTRODUCTION
A built-in minicomputer looks at the phase difference
(arrival times) and displays the changes in
latitude/lonqitude and speed as the vessel is underway.
To use the system, the operator must enter (through a
small keyboard) his point of departure
latitude/longitude in degrees, minutes, and seconds;
date; time; destination latitude/longitude; and any
way-points he may desire. The unit then displays
latitude/longitude of his present position; heading and
distance to destinations (five way points); speed and
time to destination; time (GMT); and left/right track.
All of these displays are available as external
outputs. Special tables and charts are not required to
operate this system to its stated accuracy of 1200
feet. Another feature of this device is a dead-
reckoning mode. Because the device has its own
computer and memory, it is able to remember its last
position and, in the event of a complete loss of
signal, will continue to compute heading, position, and
speed based on its last known inputs.
At the time of thir writing, the system is just going
into production. Its prime purpose is the replacement
of inertial navigation in small jet aircraft.
1-66
4460C15U1
-------
INTRODUCTION
The selling price of the system is estimated to be
under $20K. The unit is small in size, operates from
24 Vdc, and requires no special installation. From
present information, this system is a strong candidate
for navigation/control of the dumping vessels.
1.4.1 Summary
In brief summary, the existing level of documentary monitoring of
operational practices of ocean disposal is inadequate for the
number and scope of disposal operations.
In connection with regulatory monitoring, present inspection of
disposal operations is inadequate. To correct this situation, an
improvement in monitoring by means of an automatic, tamper-proof
vessel log similar to that used by airlines and trucking firms
should be considered.
The synthesis and evaluation of candidate automatic regulatory
dump monitoring systems requires a comprehensive understanding of
present operational dumping practices and detailed information
and characteristics of electronic navigation techniques as well
as of the dump vessels themselves, including vessel berth
locations, speed, range, dump control specifics, and
communication equipments. Additional factors to be considered
ftU60Cl5i»1
1-67
-------
INTRODUCTION
include dump vessel traffic, type of dump material, existing
shore facilities and personnel, and owner/captain cooperation.
An operational automatic vessel monitoring system must rely
heavily on existing electronic navigation systems because it must
integrate this position information with other events such as
time of day, time of dump, duration of dump, and water depth.
1-68
4460C1541
-------
Section 2
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 Biological Laboratory, the 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 biology 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).
UU60C15U1
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
The MAB 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 on 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.
a460C15»n
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-3
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 CERC<*«>. 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 Rand Corporation were reviewed by the Smithsonian
Institution and CERC. The studies included hydrographic,
geological, 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 of the largest grossly polluted areas in the
United States, contrary to popular opinion, the problem has not
been ignored, as demonstrated by the extensive bibliography
collected on the physical, chemical, and biological studies
conducted in the New York Bight (NYB) . Federal, state, and local
2-1
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
agencies, along with educational institutions, have for years
conducted water quality 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 program 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
TEC, (68-01-0160) developed an Initial Network 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.
t|460Cl5ai
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-5
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
The U.S. Army District Engineer, New York, was designated
Supervisor of New York Harbor under the River and Harbor Act
approved by Congress in 1888. Pursuant to the provisions of that
Ret, 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, 197 2 to February
28, 1973, 319 dumping permits were issued which permitted
12,160,464 cubic yards of material to be dumped in the designated
areas.(16)
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 Engineers will continue to issue permits or
regulations for federal projects foT ocean dumping of dredge
materials upon concurrence by EPA to ensure that the criteria
have been complied with.
Under this Act, the United states coast Guard is authorized 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
NEW YOFK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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.<17> 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 River 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.
U460C15U1
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-7
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
The scope of this report concerns the six separate dumpinq
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 (NYB). 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 end 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
Light.
2.1.4.1 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
John f. Kennedy
Internal ional
^ Airport
(Nassau County!
(Kings County!
East Rockiway
Inlet
CONEY ISLAND
Swinburne
Island
New York INYSOtCl
Interim Closure
I) Mile limit)
Note
Gat eway Nat tonal
Recreation Areas
| (Proposed!
HWPJ
SANDY H<
BAY
Highlands
long Branch
Federal Interim
Closure
(DA
N«w Jtr*y Interim Closure
(I Mile Closure Continue* South
To Beach Haven Inlet i
F ig. 2.1-1
Locat ion Map
Ocean Disposal Sites
New York Bight
| froftif*1 '
I DUMFINO I
HUP0C1C ^ 1
NEW YORK EIGHT
2-9
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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.
2.1.1.2 Cellar Dirt Dumping - A cellar dirt dumping ground is
located at a point not less than 4.7 nautical miles bearing
ITOOOO1 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 3 3 years.
2.1.4.3 Sewer Sludge Dumping - A sewer sludge dumping ground is
located 4.5 nautical miles, bearing 124°30' 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.
4460C1541
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-11
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.1.4.4 Wreck Dumping - A wreck dumping ground is located at a
point 14.3 nautical miles bearing 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 other submerged
obstructions to navigation. 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 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, bearing 145°00" true from
Ambrose Light. The area extends south of latitude 40°20,N and
east of longitude 7 3°43'W. During the summer season, the 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'N 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 while the vessel is
2-12
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
underway to attain 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 38030^; 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.
i»i»60Cl5t»1
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-13
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.1.1.7 Radioactive Waste Dumping - A radioactive waste dumping
ground is located at a point not less than 14 1 nautical miles,
bearing 115° true from Ambrose Light, in not less than 200
fathoms of water.
2.1.1.8 High Explosives and Chemical Dumping - A high explosive
and chemical dumping ground is located at a point not less than
110 nautical miles, bearing 130° true from Ambrose Light. Small
quantities of toxic wastes and high explosives have been disposed
of intermittently in past years; however, data on guantities of
the wastes and their sources are not readily available.
2.1.1.9 Alternative Sewage Sludge Dumping - A proposed
alternative sewer sludge dumping site is tentatively located at
latitude 10°25.7*N, longitude 73°11.5'W, which is a point 29.2
nautical miles bearing 091° true from Ambrose Light, in about 100
feet of water. This area is 3 nautical miles square, centered at
the lighted whistle buoy BW "NB" which is 12.3 nautical miles,
bearing 171° true from Fire Island Light (12.1 nautical miles,
from Great South Beach at Fire Island} and 25.3 nautical miles,
bearing 089° true from the center of the present sewer sludge
dumping ground (See Figure 2.1-1)
This site was tentatively selected as an experimental location
where a selected amount and type of digested domestic sewage
2-11
NEW YORK BIGHT
1160C1511
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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.< »»>
2.1.5 Regional 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-a. A reasonable estimate by the Tri-State
Regional Planning Commission in New York City indicates a
projected increase of more than 668 thousand by 1985.
U160C1541
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-15
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
TABLE 2.1-1
STATISTICAL DATA - COUNTY POPULATION
Population
County
1970 Census
1985 (Projected)
Nassau
Queens
Kings
1,428,080
1,986,473
2,602,012
1,700,000
2,090,000
2,170,000
Richmond
Monmouth
Totals
459x379
6,771,387
295,443
480,000
700.000
77440,000
2.1.5.2 Estuarine Economics
Beach 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 1970
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 NEW YORK BIGHT 4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
TABLE 2.1-2
STATISTICAL DATA-BEACH RECREATION
County Shore Ownership Total Shore Length 1970 Beach
(Miles) (Miles) Attendance
Federal Private Public
Monmouth
6. 1
9. 4
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
T7iT
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.<20
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.<22>
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
U460C1541
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-17
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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.<23)
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 513,807,546 lbs. $15,238,931 Menhaden S Surf Clams
1957 U6U,924,418 lbs. $12,224,923 « " "
1968 126,369,000 lbs. $10,609,000 Surf clams & lobsters
1969 92,529,380 lbs. $10,893,371 " " "
S£ort Fishing
The New York Bight is an important hatchery and nursery ground
for numerous fish (33 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 ar° now favorite fishing spots, locally known as "The Mud
Hole", "The Tin Can Grounds", "The Subway Rocks", and "The Acid
Grounds". Thousands of Drivate 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Winter Flounder, Striped Bass, Whiting, Summer Flounder (Fluke)
and Blackfish (Tautog) are found inshore.
The State of New Jersey in 195U 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 188B. The Corps of Engineers Deputy Supervisor of New York
Harbor, durincr 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.
4U60C154 1
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-19
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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
reguired by the Act of 1888, as amended 12 July 1952, is an
ongoing 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
aa6oci5«n
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 2.1-1 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 Pockaway, New York; and upstate offices
in Kingston and Troy, New York.
A460C1511
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-21
-------
FIELD STUDY REPOFTS
TABLE 2.1-U
SUPERVISOR OF NEW YORK HARBOR
Statement of Activities
(1 July 72 to 2 8 Feb 7 3)"
1. Number of Patrols.
a. Shore 846
b. Vessel 8 32
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 2 54
4. 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 2R 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY BEPORTS
No. 14, which was initiated in 1965 (FY66), and is entitled COE
DE§Sging 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
4460C1541
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-23
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPORTS
the wrecks dumped at Eatons Neck (204-72 and 208-72)
and the Fermentation Residue(33-72 and 107-72). Chas.
Pfizer & 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 H/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).
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.
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
NEW YORK BIGHT
446001541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
to be a consistent practice. No entries were made for
the first quarter in 1973, hence are not listed in
Table 2.1-5.
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 180,000 cubic yards; and
based on the higher figure of 1700 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
1
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-25
-------
FIELD STUDY REPOFTS
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 am 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 dumped 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
4500 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
2-26
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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
HQ60C1541
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-27
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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
2 58-72 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 1U 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
NEW YOPK BIGHT
4460Cl5«n
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 arid 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
1160C1541
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-29
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPORTS
Administration (FDA), under the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program (NSSP). This proqram 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
1971-197 2, such a study was planned and initiated by the FDA
Pegion 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 discharging
throuqh 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 (40 0 MGD untreated
2-30
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
and 1100 MGD treated but not chlorinated during the
nonsummer months).
d. The sewage and dredge spoil dump sites which 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.<24 *
2.1.7.2 Mud Pumping - 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 aredge
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 - tOO 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
HII60C15IH
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-31
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 4 80 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.
2.1.7.1 Waste Acid Dumping - The material dumped at this site
(3,050,414 cubic yards in 1972) is difficult to identify,
considerincr 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.1.7."5 Conclusions
a. The 197 2 final report*25> on the effects of waste
disposal in the NYB concluded, from the data
accumulated during that study, that disposal of dredge
spoils and sewage sludges has had a significant, and
often deleterious, effect on the living resources of
the NYB.
b. The wastes 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 the estuarine
economy would exceed $20 million per year.
d. New York fish and shellfish landings amounted to
40,800,000 pounds, valued at $11 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 adjacent to the dump areas. Finfish feed at
4460C1541
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-33
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
the periphery of the waste disposal areas and are
exposed to the toxic and pathogenic contents of these
wastes.<25> A potentially valuable resource has been
affected by present dumping practices, as evidenced by
the PDA 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.<28 >
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 197 0, 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
baraes 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*
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Jersey Ocean Disposal Control Regulation. 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 for 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. < 27)
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)j (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.
Coasta1_ Zone Water Quality Monitoring in the New York Bight.4151
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.
4460C1511
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-35
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 programs related to the dumping areas are summarized
in this section. Most 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460Cl5i»1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
1921 The sewer sludge dumping ground 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 aguatic resources of the Nation, the
agency offers no objections to the disposal of wastes
at sea, subject to proper control."<28>
1918 The waste acid dumping ground was established. The
National Lead company of Sayreville, New Jersey began
the disposal of acid wastes.
1919 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
1160C1511
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-37
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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
the 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.<29>
19 57 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 requested the Public Health Service to explore
the possibilities of a restudy of acid waste disposal
in the NYBf in the light 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4U60C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
196 0 A summary of information on waste disposal in the NYB
was prepared by the Public Health Service Sanitary
Engineering center. This report*28> 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 1948 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
40020^ and east of longitude 73°40'W, the waste
being discharged during southeast and northwest
passes about 6 to 61/2 miles in length.
e. January 195 0 to present. South of latitude
U0°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
4460C1541
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-39
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
dumping does cause discoloration of a large area
in the Biqht 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.<30>
1961 During a conference<3*> 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 188 8 would cover
Manhattan Island to a depth of 7 3 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<3*>,
with reference to Ambrose Light - Refer to Section
2.1.4.)
2-40
NEW YORK BIGHT
446001541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
The 1967 description433> 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 bearing 120° true from Sandy
Hook Light at latitude 40°23*48MN and longitude
73°51'21"W. 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 118°30*
True from Sandy Hook Light at latitude 40°22,53"N
and longitude 73°U8't»Ol!W. Materials are 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
1I460C1511
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-41
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
from Sandy Hook Light at latitude <40°25'04"N and
longitude 73°U4'53"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 Long 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.
Wreck Dumping Ground is located at a point not
less than 13 miles 66° True from Sea Girt Light,
at latitude ttO°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. i»1t| and 415).
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
NEW YOFK BIGHT
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
longitude 73°40»W and during the winter season,
the area is south of latitude «0°20»N and east of
longitude 73°i|3'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 and longitude 72° W;
however, the nature and quantities of the wastes
and their sources are not readily available.
t»»*60Cl541
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-43
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
1968 A preliminary report*3*> 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
Figure 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-HH
NEW YORK BIGHT
U460C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 (21 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
U160C1511
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-45
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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.<35>
1969 The Marine Sciences Research Center, State University
of New York, published a technical report*36) 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 Bay.
1969 The Naval Oceanographic Office, Washington, DC
published an informal report*37> 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-U6
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPORTS
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.<38>
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<39> 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.
1970 An Ad Hoc Committee*~<>> 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 of dumping:
a. In the Bight 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.
4460C15U1 NEW YORK BIGHT 2—47
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 guahog 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
2-1*8
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
pesticides. The possibility of removing the present
dump grounds to the Hudson Canyon (300-600 ft.) is
worthy of objective consideration.<~*>
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.<42>
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.<43> 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
HU60C15U1
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-49
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Corps of Engineers under Contract No. DACW51-71-
C0031.<*4> The objective of the study by Grumman was
to evaluate the feasibility of the utilization of
aerial remote sensing (stereo 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.<45 >
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
NEW YORK BIGHT
/KI60C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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:
2LY® 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 4 - (approximately 1.5 nautical miles from NJ)
benthic life was thriving and the sand was relatively
clean.
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.
This investigation was not conclusive and it was
recommended that the overall future program of research
4460C1541
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-51
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 taken at 30 7 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. ( 25>
1972 The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
proposed an Ocean Disposal Control Regulation27> which
required 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.<> 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
H460C1511
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 and 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.<47>
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 1972. 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 (25),
(38), (39), (11), <42) , and (43). Their report <**>
evaluated the results of ongoing studies and
recommended modifications and further studies.
1972 The National coastal Pollution Research 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.ci9) (Refer to section 2.1.4.9 - Proposed
Alternative sewage Sludge Dumping Site.)
4460C1541
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-53
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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.(*« >
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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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*describes these
efforts and recommendations for future studies.
1972 The Final Report*s0> - 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
U«»60C1541
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-55
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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.
1973 The New York Ocean Science Laboratory published
Technical Report No. 0017Csi>. 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C151I1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 ta the NYB.
2.1.10 Alternatives and Recommendations for Ocean Dumping in the
York Bicjht
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
UU60C1511
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-57
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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.
BezEyaluation 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 N5fB. 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) Pate and pattern of dispersal from time of release
until no longer identifiable.
(4) Particle size of insoluble fraction.
2-58
NEW YOFK BIGHT
14460C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPORTS
(5) Kinds and amounts of substances that would leach
out of insoluble fraction, and rate of leaching,
b. Operational data, including:
(D
(2)
(3)
CO
(5)
Dumping permits were held in abeyance by the corps of Engineers
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.)
^i^ernative to Dumping of Spent Caustic at Sea The alternative
methods studied<52> 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
Volume and weight loaded per ship.
Volume and weight dumped per ship.
Number of trips per year and frequency.
Total amount of material to be disposed of
annually.
Description of dumping mechanism and procedures to
be followed during dumping operation (i.e.,
movement of ship, one release, or a series, etc).
U460C151M
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-59
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 $250,000 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.
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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."<53>
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. The usual practice
for small quantities of such materials would be neutralization,
precipitation, and removal of all solids to a landfill
operation. The tremendous volume of solids generated (18 acre
feet per year) by such a treatment of these wastes would present
a landfill problem that would result in a minor ecological
disaster; therefore, efforts have been directed toward reducing
the amount of waste generated, and to recovery of elemental
values from the wastes. A great amount of effort has been
expended through consultants and by support of research in
various institutions. In these efforts, principal developments
have included: (1) beneficiation of ilmenite ore, {early 1950*s),
to remove a substantial portion of the iron before the sulfate
extraction process, and (2) the chloride extraction process (late
1950s) which requires an initially high grade ore (rutile), and
permits recycling the chlorine used to extract titanium. Neither
of these developments provide a total answer to the waste
2-62
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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.<«~>
$I^ernafcive 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 1918,
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.
Spectrographie analysis also showed evidence of aluminum.
4160C15ft1
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-63
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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.<55 >
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 $250,000; 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 involv° 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.
2-6 4
NEW YORK BIGHT
U460C15II1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Longer range possible solutions involve development of useful
products for animal feed or fertilizer use, but such solutions
are nebulous at this point.tssj
Alternative Methods of Sludge Disposal
The various disposal areas in the NYB have had a measurable
effect: on the New York-Northern New Jersey estuarine region, but
sludge 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 197 0) by the New
York City Environmental Protection Administration (NYCEPA).
Sludge Disposal 1.00 Nautical Miles Offshore - The purpose of the
study<36) 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 95,00 0 cubic feet
would be needed to transport approximately 7-million cubic feet
4460C15U1
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-65
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 3l/z years for three additional
Newtown Creek vessels ah a cost of $18 million. No attempt has
been made to estimate the cost of modifying the existing fleet of
vessels for 100-mile-offshore operations.
5i!3£39§ Qi§E°sa.l 2$. 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»/z hours. The present complement of 58 marine
personnel would be increased to 9«. Based on 1968-1969 price
criteria, t-he increase in annual operating costs is an estimated
$701,761, utilizing present equipment.
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
NEW YORK BIGHT
U460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
abandoned, incinerators will be designed to adjoin every existing
pollution control plant utilizing a fluidized-solids methodology
for on-site sludge incineration. ^ the pe(j 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.<59>
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 t-o 1 for 2 5 nautical mile disposal at sea, 4.8 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.
4460C1541
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-67
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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. '60>
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
NEW YORK BIGHT
446001541
-------
FIELD study reports
Ret ion:
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 network5> 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 prsesently
discharge effluents at the rate of 1550 MGD. Minimum
secondary treatment is given 1150 MGD to an average of 73
4H60C1541 NEW YORK BIGHT 2-69
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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 Lonq 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 study 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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
4<*60C15I»1 NEW YORK BIGHT 2-71
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFTS
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 19 79.
Mud Dumping
Mud dumping 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 U80 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4U60C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
(refer to Section 2.1.7.1) should be continued to study the
effect of this sludge dumping on shellfish in the 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.
Cellar 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.
t»a60Cl5H1
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-73
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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.
Becords 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.
Wrgck 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
NEW YOBK BIGHT
U460C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY EEPOFTS
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.
Probiem:
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
446005(11
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-75
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Act ion:
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
NOAft-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
Durincr 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
IHI60C15U1
NEW YORK BIGHT
2-77
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
1971 field survey. These two surveys have shown -that 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 NYB 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
NEW YORK BIGHT
4460C15U1
-------
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
Mo rein 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 Water 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
ASS Transportation
Sewer Sludge
139,500
21
46-72
A fi S Transportation
Sewer Sludge
30,500
5
47-72
A fi S Transportation
Sewer Sludge
12,960
4
48-72
Modern Transp. Co.
Sewer Sludge
3,240
1
50-72
Modem 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
ASS 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
TABLE 2.1-5a
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT SCHEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972
January 1, 1972
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPOMnON
-------
N>
I
00
O
Z
§
•<
O
»
*
0
H
o
X
~3
•P
&
8
tn
¦p
Permit
No.
Permittee
(Name of Applicant)
Kind of Material
DISPOSAL AREAS (CUBIC
YARDS)
No.
Trips
Mud
Cellar
Sludge
Acid
Toxic
Chemical
(106 Mile)
65-72
Weeks Dredcrinq
Wheat fi Mud
1,875
1
67-72
American Dredge
Silt, Sand & Mud
537,700
199
68-72
American Dredqe
Mud
131,100
55
69-72
American Dredqe
Rock, Hardpan Clay
45,600
22
71-72
Great Lakes Dredqe
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 Dredging
Sludqe
42,700
7
82-72
Spentonbush Transport
Spent Caustic
10,000
2
83-72
Snentonbush Transport
Spent Caustic
20,000
4
84-72
Spentonbush Transport
Spent Caustic
65,000
13
85-72
Spentonbush Transoort
Spent Caustic
50,000
10
86-72
Weeks Dredging
Mud
6,275
2
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT SCHEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972 0
TAB IE 2.1-5b W — INTERSTATE
¦ ¦— ¦ ELECTRONICS
January 1, 1972 —corpomtkm
-------
-------
DISPOSAL
AREAS (CUBIC YARDS)
Permit
Permittee
Toxic
No.
Ho.
(Naiae 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 (Owlshead)
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 (I Jew town 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
Mo ran 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
ASS Transportation
Sludge
158,600
26
161-72
ASS 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
NHf
I TABLE
2 .1- 5d
April 1, 1972 thru June
30, 1972
L
INTERSTATE
1—¦ EIKTHOMCS
^ ^ tanmiwiw
-------
CTl
O
o
¦ts
Permit
No.
Permittee
(Name of Applicant)
Kind of Material
DISPOSAL AREAS (CUBIC YARDS)
Mud
Cellar
Sludqe
Acid
Toxic
Chemical
(106 Mile)
No.
Trips
200-72
202-72
(204-72)
(208-72)
215-72
218-72
Sound Towing
Great Lakes Dredge
Ocean Salvage Inc.
Harbor Const. Co.
Weeks Dredging
Weeks Dredging
Wreck
Wreck
Mud
Mud
420
564,000
4,400
77,000
60 x 16 x 8(Eatons Neck)
Trawler (Eatons Neck)
Z
M
£
~<
o
w
w
M
-------
Permit
Ho.
Permittee
(Name of Applicant)
Kind of Material
DISPOSAL
AREAS (CUBIC YARDS)
No.
Trips
Mud
Cellar
Sludcre
Acid
Toxic
Chemical
(106 Mile)
231-72
Itodern Transportation
Sludge
16,200
5
232-72
ASS Transportation
Sludge
12,960
4
233-72
A & S Transnartation
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
238-72
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 Itesouroes
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
Moran Towing Co.
Cellar Dirt & Mud
21,000
12
255-72
Moran Towing Co.
7,500
5
256-72
Iforan 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
281-72
American Dredging
568,300
331
282-72
American Dredging
8,300
6
283-72
8,100
2
284-72
24,000
11
285-72
41,600
10
L
TABLE 2.1—5f
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT SCHEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972
July 1, 1972 thru September 30, 1972
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
conwmnoN
-------
a\
O
Q
•<
O
w
»
m
M
o
ro
l
00
tn
DISPOSAL
AREAS (CUBIC YARDS)
Permit
Permittee
Toxic
Wo.
No.
(Name of Applicant)
Kind of Material
Mud
Cellar
Sludcre
Acid
Chemical
(106 Mile)
Trips
286-72
Great Lakes Dredge
306,000
87
288-72
Great Lakes Dredge
4,650
3
289-72
Great Lakes Dredge
12,000
4
290-72
Great Lakes Dredge
27,000
9
292-72
Great Lakes Dredge
137,600
36
293-72
15,150
7
294-72
45,000
15
296-72
Weeks Dredering
24,775
8
299-72
General Marine Transp.
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 Transport
Spent Caustic
25,552
4
312-72
Spentonbush Transport
Spent Caustic
19,164
3
313-72
Weeks Dredging
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 Dredcre
Rock
7,750
5
322-72
Great Lakes Dredge
Mud
(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
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT SCHEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972 0
TABI£ 2 . 1—5g y M—INTERSTATE
July 1, 1972 thru September 30, 1972 —omSnm
-------
DISPOSAL
AREAS (CUBIC YARDS)
Permit
Permittee
Toxic
Ho.
NO.
(Name of Applicant)
Kind of Material
Mud
Cellar
Sludge
Acid
Chemical
(106 Mile)
Trips
338-72
Moran Towing Co.
Cellar Dirt
136,500
79
344-72
Moran Towing Co.
Waste Acid
731,400
159
365-72
Itoran Towing Co.
Rock
75,000
50
366-72
Moran Towing Co.
Rock
3,000
2
368-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge
38,284
17
369-72
Dept. of Water Resources
Sludge
45,040
20
370-72
Dept. of Water Resources
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
A & S 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
2 74
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
TABLE
2.l-5h
1972
r
— INTERSTATE
¦—¦ EIKTROMCS
October 1, 1972 thru December 31,
% CORPOMIKM
-------
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 IN 1972, 186 PERMITS, 4870 TRIPS
TABLE 2.l-5i
CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT SQIEDULE FILE FOR YEAR 1972
October 1, 1972 thru December 31, 1972
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
anrawnoN
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.2 CHARLESTON OCEAN DISPOSAL STUDY
2.2.1 Introduction
The geographical area covered by this survey centers around the
Harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. This report concentrates
primarily on the ocean waste disposal practices at Charleston;
however, during the conduct of the survey information was
obtained on ocean disposal sites near Beaufort and Georgetown
(South Carolina) and Brunsvrick and Savannah (Georgia| . The
information for these secondary areas is presented in Section
2.2.5.
Charleston Harbor has been the subject of numerous studies
because of the extensive shoaling that has occurred as a result
of the diversion of the santee River after the construction of
the Santee-Cooper hydroelectric complex. This project was
completed in 1942. As part of the project, the flow of the
Santee River was diverted into the Cooper River, and thence to
Charleston Harbor. At the time of the construction, no adverse
effects were anticipated, soon after the diversion, however,
shoaling in Charleston Harbor began to increase and maintenance
dredging became a major expense. Current investigations,
including model tests, have been made to determine the cause of
the shoaling and the solutions to the problem . A detailed
analysis of the shoaling problem is beyond the scope of this
study, but is contained in references (61) , (62) , and (63).
2-88
CHARLESTON
4460C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Charleston Harbor is a primary source of income to the city and
surrounding areas; therefore, harbor maintenance is of major
importance to the economy. The U.S. Navy has a prominent role in
the economy of the Charleston area. Navy installations along the
Cooper River, including the Charleston Naval Yard and
Polarisville (Naval Weapons Station), serve as home for the
destroyer, mine warfare, and nuclear submarine fleets. The Naval
shipyard is one of the largest in the southeast. The U.S. Army
Transportation Corp maintains a supply and storage depot along
the Cooper River, under the leadership of the Charleston area
Development Board and other civic minded organizations,
industrial development in the Charleston area is striving to
diversify. Any industrial development of Charleston will
undoubtedly be dependent upon the transportation facilities of
the Port of Charleston and, conversely, these facilities depend
upon an adequate harbor maintenance program.
2.2.1.1 Location - Figure 2.2-1 illustrates the geographic area
covered by the field survey. Figure 2.2-2 is the detailed site
location map for the primary disposal site. The case study is
centered on the city of Charleston and its port complex. The
city occupies 15.6 square miles on a peninsula bordered by the
Ashley and Cooper Rivers.
4U60C1541
CHARLESTON
2-89
-------
Georgetown
CHARLESTON
runswick
£ Primary Site
~ Secondary Sites
[
Figure 2.2-1
FIELD SURVEY GEOGRAPHIC AREA
INTERSTATE
ELECTROMCS
-------
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ocean Disposal Program Office
"p :t ¦ 1 —
~1 '¦*"1-~-1': -! -;l
m Xf. M..».rV • j- L " -V
*— v ^
"1;" _ Jl b %: Wi- "••-•*¦ V. •*
V'-" . - *-• \
• ,' ci* >?
. ' -
»¦
» . /
Hunt***"
- 3:
I *„
17 V
: T j I | I I : : j ¦ ¦ T-L
r# «¦
ro
I
x>
Center Coordinates 32° 38' 36" N. 79° 45' 42" W INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
Area 12.36 Square Nautical Miles
Navigation Chart No NOS 1239 Figure 2.2-2.
Local Navigation Aids Loran A - Motorola RPS
Material Type Dredge Spoil
Primary Management COE
SITE NO. 0D0410
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
For the most oart, the ocean shoreline consists of sandy beaches,
fronting barrier islands, and keys. Vast areas of the shoreline
are owned by the Federal government for use as migratory bird
refuge and for military and navigational uses. The CJ.S. Coast
Guard maintains a Loran Station and lighthouses in the area.
Much of the area in the vicinity of the case study remains in a
natural state because of limited highway access.
Near the entrance to Charleston Harbor is a chain of barrier
islands. Off the Southwest Harbor entrance lie Morris and Folly
Islands. The main ocean disposal site is directly offshore from
these islands. The center of the disposal site is approximately
6 1/2 nautical miles offshore from the Loran towers on Folly
Island.
2.2.1.2 Climatology - Mean annual air temperature at Charleston
is 66.2°F. With a record high of 104°F and a low of 7°F (115
years of data). Days with precipitation occur most frequently
during the summer months and least frequently in the early
autumn; maximum precipitation occurs in July and minimum in
November. Because of heavy fog, visibility of less than one
quarter of a mile is present less than one day during each of the
months from ^ay through August. In the month of January, there
is a maximum of about four foggy days. wind velocity shows
little variation from month to month and averages between 8.1 and
2-92
CHARLESTON
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
9.5 knots, the predominant direction being NNE. Winds of gale
intensity occur infrequently.
The information in Table 2.2-1 was compiled by the National
Weather Station at the Charleston Municipal Airport, and
published by the Environmental Data Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
TABLE 2.2-1
METEOROLOGICAL DATA - CHARLESTON AIRPORT
NORMAL
DAILY
NORMAL TOTAL
DIRECTION
HEAVY
TEMPERATURE °F
PRECIPITATION
OF WINDS
FOG
(29 yr.
avg)
(29 yr. avg)
(14yr.avg)
(20yr.
MONTH
MAX
MIN
(inches)
(days)
January
61.2
38.3
2.54
SW
4
February
62.5
40.4
3.29
NNE
2
March
68.0
45.4
3.93
SSW
2
April
76.9
52.7
2.88
SSW
2
May
83.9
61.8
3.61
S
2
June
89.2
69.1
4.98
S
2
July
89.2
72.0
7.71
SW
1
August
88.8
70.5
6.61
SW
1
September
84. 9
66.2
5.83
NNE
2
October
77. 2
55.1
2.84
NNE
3
November
67.9
43.9
2.09
N
4
December
61.3
38.6
2.85
NNE
3
Year
75.9
54.5
49.16
NNE
28
2.2.1.3 Oceanography
Salinity
Two salinity profiles are presented. Figure 2.2-3 is from
National Ocean Survey data obtained at the custom house pier.
4460C1541
CHARLESTON
2-93
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
From October to April the Charleston Harbor waters become less
saline, declining to the April minimum of 14.5°/oo. From April
to October, salinity increases steadily. Figure 2.2-4 is from
Hydrographic Office data taken at a station near the boundaries
of the disposal zone. The two figures are provided for
comparison purposes. Probably the most complete data is
contained in reference**3>, Charleston Harbor Water Quality
Study, for Station 1 of that study.
Salinity in winter increases from
in the more open areas offshore,
are less pronounced than those in
Harbor areas. The surface waters
the bottom.
21 °/oo near shore to 35 °/oo
Vertical gradients toward shore
the Chesapeake Bay and New York
are less saline than those near
Temperature
Figure 2.2-5 is an annual
station 2.5 nautical miles
boundaries.
water temperature chart taken at a
northeast of the disposal site
Winter temperatures off Charleston Harbor increase seaward as in
other areas along the East Coast, the temperature level being
higher than in areas to the north. For the period of record in
the approaches to Charleston, there is no marked range of
temperature from surface to bottom.
2- 94
CHARLESTON
4460C1541
-------
20
JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
STATION: CUSTOM HOUSE PIER
SOURCE: NOS
Figure 2.2-3
MEAN MONTHLY SALINITY-CHARLfSTON HARBOR
INTERSTATE
-------
o
o
\
36
o
>-
h-
z
-1
<
«/>
35
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JUL
SEP
AUG
OCT
NOV
DEC
Figure 2.2-4.
Mean Monthly Salinity Charleston Disposal Site
Source: Ho. Pub. No. 700
INTERSTATE
-------
CO
w
w
a:
o
w
a
¦
t:
2
e
30
20
10
I I 1 1 1—
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
T- 1 1 I 1 1 I
JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Figure 2.2-5
Mean Values of Water Temperature Charleston Disposal Site
Data Source: H.O. No. 700
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
caiPonmoH
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Density
Bathymetric data is shown on Figure 2.2-2, which is a section of
NOS Chart 1239, (1972 Edition). The general bottom topography is
highly irregular with numerous small holes and mounds throughout
the area. NOS surveys have revealed no outstanding features and
this is confirmed by several bottom profiles performed by the
South Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Geology
Possibly the earliest study of geology in the Charleston area was
one undertaken in 18 52 by the Charleston Harbor Commission.
Intensive studies have been conducted by the Corps of
Engineers.i> Basically, the coastal plain in the area of
Charleston has an overlay of unconsolidated fine sand,
approximately 20 feet thick, covering a marl bed. In many areas
throughout the harbor, deposits of recent soft muds from a few
inches to several feet in thickness cover the marl.
Beneath the marl are tertiary and cretaceous formations which are
composed of alternate beds of sandstone, shale, marl, and
conglomerates. These beds, which vary from highly to loosely
consolidated sediments, extend to the basement complex. Near the
2000-foot depth lies the basement complex which generally dips to
the south and southwest.
2-98
CHARLESTON
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
The Charleston District Corps of Engineers has an extensive
amount of sedimentary data that has been obtained during their
studies of shoaling.<61>
Biological Oceanography - Studies of this disposal site have been
relatively limited. Two existing major studies have been
conducted in the vicinity of the site. The first was made by Dr.
Robert Lunz, Director of Bears Bluff Laboratory, Division of
Commercial Fisheries, south Carolina Wildlife Resources
Department. The second study was made by T. A. Wastler for the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA) . Dr.
Lunz' studies were conducted in 1963 and T. A. Wastler's
study*was conducted in 1966. Since that period, only limited
studies have been conducted at the actual disposal site. This is
expected to change because of the recent operational status of
the new Marine Resources Center of the South Carolina Wildlife
Resources Department. This center, located at Fort Johnson, is
chartered to conduct mission-oriented research in the marine
sciences. The new facilities provide the needed capability to
conduct in-depth biological studies of the disposal site.
Discussions with biologists who have performed intermittent
samplings of the disposal site indicate that conditions have not
changed appreciably since the two previously mentioned studies.
446001541
CHARLESTON
2-99
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Distribution and diversity of benthic biota at the disposal site
are rather limited. There were two species of polychaete worms,
with population density of approximately five worms per square
foot. In addition to the polychaetes, there were two snails of a
single species per square foot and thirteen shrimp of three
species per square footr which gives a total of seven species and
twenty animals per square foot. As a comparison, at the nearby
harbor jetties, although the number of species remains constant,
the number of animals rises from 20 per square foot to 88 per
square foot at the end of the jetty.
The number of phytoplankton, expressed as number per millimeter,
varies widely at the disposal site. This is undoubtedly due to
the natural turbidity of the water. At the surface these are
approximately 1200 per millimeter, which declines to a low of 100
per millimeter at the bottom. Contrasting with this would be the
highest number of phytoplankton in the area, which occurs in the
Ashley Fiver, with 2200 per millimeter at the surface and 5150
per millimeter at the bottom. This quantity was reached at
Station of the Ashley River, which is in a relatively shallow
area located above the major industrial outfalls of the area.
The general benthic environment of the disposal site is
considered to be unpolluted. Water quality analyses indicate
that the center of the site area is suitable for shrimp, clams
2-100
CHARLESTON
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
and crabs, plus numerous nektonic forms; however, the water
quality at any particular time is subject to change, depending
upon the amount and character of waste entering the system.
Major environmental factors which would affect the ecological
system of the disposal site are directly associated with the
dissolved oxygen, coliform organisms, heavy metals, and toxic
wastes. These are dependent upon (1) the wasteload, (2)
temperature, (3) solar radiation, (4) tide, and (5) river
discharge. In addition, there are secondary factors such as
meteorological parameters like rainfall, wind speed, and wind
direction; however, at the disposal site the meteorological
parameters are not sufficiently dominant to cause more than
slight variations.
No data was obtained on zooplankton or nekton at the disposal
site. Discussions with local area scientific personnel indicate
that some data of this nature exists, but currently it reposes in
laboratory notebooks. Fish phytogenetic or species composition
lists of areas in proximity to the disposal site are available.
In addition, many studies of the ichthyofauna of the Atlantic
Coast exist, which give the geographical range of the various
species. Many of these species occur off the South Carolina
Coast; therefore, it can be assumed that many of these species
are found near or at the disposal site.
im60C1541
CHARLESTON
2-101
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
A species composition list is presented as Table 2.2-2. This
list was extracted from a South Carolina Wildlife Resources
Department Study.<64> Authors and describers for the species
have been omitted. The list is only a partial inventory. Some
of the species listed prefer estuarine or brackish water rather
than the higher salinities of the ocean. Many of the species are
euryhaline (i.e. they can withstand wide ranges of salinity). In
addition, quite a few of the species are anadromous, in that they
will ascend into fresh waters generally for the purpose of
spawning.
Other biological data surveys have been conducted by the Corps of
Engineers in the Charleston Harbor Estuary.cei) Three commonly
used biological sampling stations have been located within ten
miles of the disposal site.
2.2.1.4 Physiography - The land bordering the Charleston
disposal site is classed as a coastal plain of low relief.
Maximum elevation within five miles of the coastline is 20 feet.
Most of the coastline consists of sandy barrier beaches and low
relief islands, with a gradual increase in elevation toward
inland areas.
2-102
CHARLESTON
4 4 60C1511
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
TABLE 2.2-2
Charleston D:
Scientific Name
Acipenser oxvrhynchus
L§Ei§2§teus osseus
Elops saurus
Ancruilla rostrata
Alosa aestivalis
Alosa mediocris
Brevoortia tyrannus
Dorosoma cepedianum
Dorosoma petenense
Anchoa hepsetus
Anchoa mitchilli
Saurida brasiliensis
Arius felis
Ogsanus
Strongylura marina
bervllina
Syngnathus fuscus
Morone americana
Morone chrysops
Morone saxatilis
Caranx hippos
Caranx latus
Chloroscombrus
Selene vomer
Trachinotus carolinus
Lagodon r horn bo ides
Bairdiella chrysura
Bairdiella sanctaeluciae
Cynoscion nebulosus
Cynoscion nothus
Leiostomus xanthurus
Micropogon undulatus
Chaetodon
Mugil cephalus
Trichlurus lepturus
Scomberomorus maculatus
Peprilus alepidotus
E§E£ii.!2§ triancanthus
Etrogus microstomus
isal Site fish species
Common Name
Atlantic sturgeon
Longnose gar
Ladyfish
American eel
Blueback herring
Hickory shad
Atlantic menhaden
Gizzard shad
Threadfin shad
Striped anchovy
Bay anchovy
Largescale lizardfish
Sea catfish
Toadfish
Atlantic needlefish
Tidewater silverside
Northern pipefish
White perch
White bass
Striped bass
Crevalle jack
Horse-eye jack
Bumper
Lookdown
Florida pompano
Pinfish
Silver perch
Striped croaker
Spotted seatrout
Silver seatrout
Spot
Atlantic croaker
Butterfly fish
Striped mullet
Atlantic cutlassfish
Spanish mackerel
Harvestfish
Butterfish
Smallmouth Flounder
i»i»60C15«»1
CHARLESTON
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.2.1.5 Summary of Ocean Waste - Maintenance dredging has been
performed at Charleston since before 1875. Prior to 1940, the
estuary had a drainage area of 1400 square miles and a Cooper
River flow of 72 cfs. completion of the Santee-Cooper
Hydroelectric project enlarged the drainage area to 16,000 square
miles and increased the flow of the Cooper Fiver to 15,000 cfs.
Prior to completion of the hydroelectric complex, maintenance
dredging averaged 120,000 cubic yards per year. It has since
increased to the present 10,000,000 cubic yards per year. Ocean
disposal is utilized for 17 percent of this material.
The majority of ocean disposal material is clean dredge spoil.
One site is used, located close to the south jetty. Although
limited environmental studies have been made, there is no reason
to believe that present practices are dangerous to marine life.
Expanded maintenance operations in the inner harbor pose a
polluted dredge spoil disposal problem. This problem is
recognized by the Corps of Engineers and is under study by the
Waterways Experiment Station.3>
2.2.2 History of Charleston Area Ocean Disposal
2.2.2.1 SltSla® Spoil - Ocean disposal of dredge spoil has been
done since 1875; however, the quantities were minor until the
Santee-Cooper project was completed in 1942. The harbor
maintenance dredging requirements increased rapidly to the
2-104
CHARLESTON
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
current 10,000,000 cubic yards/year volume. It is estimated that
this level will remain fairly constant until the proposed
rediversion project is completed.>
Material being placed in the disposal area within the cognizance
of the Charleston District corps of Engineers consists almost
entirely of fine and coarse grain sand, interspersed with sparse
amounts of silt. Materials deposited to date would come under
the classification of unpolluted dredge spoil as defined in
Section 227.61 of the Criteria.<17>
No major reports or studies have been located that assess the
ecological impact of the disposal operations. Discussions with
cognizant local scientific personnel indicate a high degree of
confidence in the safety of the current disposal operation.
Concern was voiced regarding possible future dredging operations
in areas of the inner harbor where there are quantities of
contaminated material. The consensus was that special processing
or alternative disposal methods would have to be used for this
material.
The major problem seems to be the concentrations of heavy metals
and toxic chemicals which have built up in the harbor area as a
result of industrial discharges into the cooper and Ashley
Fivers.
1460C1511
CHARLESTON
2-105
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.2.2.2 Industrial Wastes - currently, there is no ocean
disposal of industrial wastes from the Charleston Area. Disposal
of waste in the Cooper and Ashley Rivers by industrial plants in
and about the city of Charleston, and from municipal sewer
outflows, appears to be coming under control. Major industrial
facilities such as the Westvaco, Kraft Paper Mill have installed
extensive pollution control facilities and are in the process of
upgrading these facilities to provide even greater purification
processes. The city of Charleston has installed a sewer
treatment plant on Plum Island, which is designed to provide at
least primary treatment of the effluents. Although these are not
the source of the subject of the case study, it is necessary that
they be mentioned here to provide an awareness that pollution
occurring in the ocean in proximity to Charleston Harbor is most
likely to occur from waste disposal into the Cooper and Ashley
Rivers, rather than from dredge spoil being deposited at the
disposal site.
2.2.3 Analysis of Disposal Activities
2.2.3.1 Dredging Operations in Charleston Harbor - Dredging
operations involving ocean disposal are primarily performed by
government hopper dredges operated by and under the supervision
of the Corps of Engineers.
2-106
CHARLESTON
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Disposal is normally carried out during a once-a-year maintenance
period. Normally, four to six weeks of intensive work are
required for the dredging operation. The remainder of the dredge
spoil is deposited on land from pipe dredges.
Although the disposal site is in proximity to the recreational
beaches along Folly Island, there have been no reported incidents
of recreational deterioration due to the use of this site. This
is significant, since Folly island is one of three major areas of
public recreational use in the Charleston area.
With the exception of a carefully maintained navigation channel,
the harbor area, including the nearby disposal grounds, is in
relatively shallow water. Maintenance depth of the main ship
channel is 3 5 feet. The dredge spoil disposal ground is located
in proximity to the ship channel, the closest point being 1 1/2
nautical miles from the center of the channel. The disposal
ground is located in shallow water, with an average depth of
approximately 3H feet. (Maximum depth is 50 feet, which occurs
in only a few scattered locations.)
Boundaries of the disposal zone are currently not fixed. The two
inland boundaries are defined as two sides of a parallelogram.
There are no ocean limits set; therefore, no positive control of
disposal operations is possible.
4U60C1541
CHARLESTON
2-107
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Extensive analytical work has been performed on dredge spoil by
the corps of Engineers. In one Corps of Engineers study*6s>, a
representative sample (177 analyses) was made of the dredge
spoil.
Eighty-eight percent of the samples had a median diameter of less
than 0.062 mm. This means that the majority of spoil is composed
primarily of silt, clay, and colloidal-size particles. Division
laboratory analysis revealed that there is no significant
variation in the grain size distribution with respect to location
or depth. This holds true for both the fine material (silt,
clay, and colloid) and the coarse material (sand). This
conclusion is further substantiated by comparison of the
statistical constants determined from the cumulative curves.
Twenty-four samples were analyzed chemically for percentage of
acid-soluble material, percentage of acid-insoluble material,
percentage of loss of ignition, and percentage of organic matter.
The results of these tests reveal no significant correlation
between these properties and the depth or location of the sample.
Standard soil tests were made on 272 samples during the same
study. Density, specific gravity, and plasticity measurements
were made. In order to eliminate the effect of sand content on
2-1 OB
CHARLESTON
1+U60C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
the results, only the material finer than 200 mesh (0.074 mm) was
utilized for the specific gravity and plasticity tests.
The dry density measurements seem to be controlled by the sand
content rather than by the depth, except where the finer material
is found throughout. The fact that the average specific gravity
of these samples is somewhat less than that normally associated
with mineral-derived sediments can be accounted for by the
organic material which is known to be present. The samples
analyzed have a range of specific gravity from 2.32 to 2.52.
Values found for plasticity index are quite high. This situation
is probably caused by the large quantity of colloidal material
which is present. A lower value is obtained when the sample is
dried out before determining its plasticity index, showing
further evidence of colloidal character.
In addition to the other tests, the Corps of Engineers has
performed detailed petrographic studies. The following are the
minerals identified from the tests on spoil from Charleston
Harbor:t *iJ
IH»60C15U1
CHARLESTON
2-109
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Heavy Minerals
Light Minerals
Kyanite
Augite
Muscovite
Tourmaline
Zircon
Aragonite
Pyrite
Epidote
Enstatite
Hornblende
Allanite
Anthophyllite
Leucoxene
Staurolite
sillimanite
Ilmenite
Magnetite
Limonite
Hematite
Garnet
Calcitic shells
calcite crystals
Orthoclase
Plagioclase
Microcline
Chlorite
Clay minerals
Quartz
The percentage of mineral variation is not considered
significant. Hematite is found throughout most of the harbor,
but it is more concentrated along the banks of the harbor
tributaries and in the upper harbor shoals. Aragonite and pyrite
occur in greater abundance in the upper portions of the cooper
River than elsewhere in the harbor.
Probably the most important data concerning the source of
shoaling material in the harbor is provided by the mineral,
hornblende. Hornblende is an allogene mineral (formed before
deposition). A definite trend is shown by a gradual increase
from the upper harbor, where the percentages are small, to the
lower harbor where hornblende constitutes up to 40 percent of the
total heavy mineral fraction. It is apparent that the material
responsible for shoaling is introduced from outside the harbor.
2-110
CHARLESTON
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.2.3.2 Alternative Methods of Waste Disposal - Alternative
methods of waste disposal in the Charleston area comprise
landfill projects, reclamation projects, and marsh building.
Landfill projects generally consist of reclamation of the
spartina marsh areas by filling with dredge spoil. These
projects have come under opposition from many environmentalist
groups. The value of the tidal marsh for shoreline protection
and as a nursery ground for commercial and sports fisheries is
highly recognized. In addition, acreage around the Charleston
case study area is a prime hunting area of considerable economic
significance. Therefore, use of this area for a disposal site
for dredge spoil is quite limited. Past experiences with
landfill operations in this type of terrain indicate that unless
they are scientifically carried out, the results can be very
detrimental. The fine particle size encountered with the dredge
spoil is such that it restricts the growth of plant life.
Without the benefit of ground cover, the material is easily
redistributed by the winds.
Marsh building with dredge spoil is desirable because it can be
used to establish new marsh to replace some of that which has
been lost because of natural conditions. Scientific marsh
building results in a stabilization of the dredge spoil that is
used to establish the new tidal marsh; however, successful marsh
building is not an easy task. A detailed description of this is
(»460C15«H
CHARLESTON
2-111
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
contained in a reference*66>, which reports the results of
studies done by the U.S. Army coastal Engineering Research
Center. The basic procedure consists of establishing seeding
plots for planting of Spartina alterniflora. This particular
type of marsh grass is the species that usually invades new areas
by seed, and can be a very heavy seed producer. More effective
than seed is transplanting of the spartina grass by digging up
plants from established stands, separating the stems, and
replanting into plots. Experimental mechanical planters have
been developed by the Agricultural Experiment Station of North
Carolina State University. Although the results were promising,
conclusions of the study indicate that a great deal of work
remains to be done on such things as the nutrient requirements,
substrate effects, tidal effects, planting stock supply, and
development of more sophisticated mechanical planting procedures.
Much of the dredge spoil disposal in the Charleston survey area
is accomplished by diked and undiked disposal in marsh. In the
past, the marshland was considered cf marginal economic value and
was not closely scrutinized as to the total environmental impact
of spoil disposal. The recent concern over the estuarine
ecosystem has resulted in objections to the use of marshland for
dredge spoil disposal.
2-112
CHARLESTON
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
These are spawning and nursery areas for many species of sports
and commercial fish and other wildlife such as waterfowl.
Because of the increasing awareness of the role that marshland
plays in our total ecosystem. Federal, state, and local agencies
are curtailing the filling of marshland areas within the
Charleston survey area. It is anticipated that in the near
future before additional dredge spoil can be disposed of in
marshland, there will have to be clear demonstration that no
alternative is available.
The state of South Carolina is presently conducting an estuarine
zone inventory study to determine, among other things, the total
existing marsh acreage, and to develop a grading system as to
estuarine value. At the Federal level. House of Representatives
Bill 11364 is before the Marine Fisheries Committee. This Bill
would result in a continuous wetland classification and inventory
program. It is believed that the results of these studies will
be more stringent criteria for marshland disposal.
2.2.4 Recommendations
For the current volume and makeup of ocean waste disposal
materials, there are no immediate problems associated with
disposal at the site now being used. Disposal of waste by the
U.S. Navy has ceased to be a problem because of environmental
controls that have been strictly enforced by the Navy. Reports
4460C15U1
CHARLESTON
2-113
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
from local fishing boat operators indicated that great progress
has been made during the past two years. Prior to this period,
significant quantities of garbage, wood, and oil were discharged
by Navy vessels approaching Charleston Harbor. Navy disciplines
now appear to have eliminated these problems.
The only potential problem arising from ocean waste disposal is
the concern by scientists, within the Charleston area, that
contaminated dredge spoil from the inner harbor may have adverse
environmental effects if disposed of in the ocean.
The 1965 FWPCA<®3> study revealed that in the lower reaches of
the Ashley River, pollution in the vicinity of the Virginia-
Carolina Chemical Company was extensive. Midchannel benthic
environments in these areas lacked bottom-associated organisms.
Deposits in the channel near industrial outfalls comprise dark
colored muds and oily substances with odors similar to that of
petroleum. Bioassays conducted with these deposits using snails,
shrimps, and fish as indicators demonstrated. that the
constituents of these muds were tcxic to the organisms. Bottom
deposits downstream toward the mouth of the area consist of black
mud and organic matter from domestic sewage. Lower reaches of
the Cooper River also contain similar deposits. Although the
operational aspects of the Plum Island Sewer Plant will
undoubtedly reduce future deposits of sewer sludges on the bottom
2-11 U
CHARLESTON
4460C15K1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
of the river in these areas, the existing deposits will probably
remain until dredged.
2.2.5 Secondary Disposal Areas
During the conduct of the survey, information was obtained on
four other disposal sites currently in use in proximity to the
original survey area. These sites are Georgetown and Port Royal,
South Carolina; Savannah Bar, and Brunswick Bay, Georgia. These
sites are classified as secondary because they were not principal
objectives in the original survey. Summary data for all sites is
presented in Table 2.2-3.
2.2.5.1 South Carolina Sites - In addition to the Charleston
disposal site, two other disposal areas within the Charleston
district are presently being used by the Corps of Engineers.
These areas are adjacent to Georgetown and Port Royal Harbors.
As with the Charleston sites, these sites are used for disposal
of dredge spoil. Material placed in these sites consists mainly
of fine and coarse-grained sand interspersed with small amounts
of silt. Material is from the annual maintenance dredging of the
entrance channel and inner harbors dredging of Georgetown and
Port Royal Harbors. Dredging operations are accomplished by use
of government-owned hopper dredges operated and supervised by
Corps of Engineer personnel. Sporadic site monitoring has been
carried out by the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources
U460C1541
CHARLESTON
2-115
-------
N>
t
(Ti
n
k
>
w
f
w
cn
U1
LOCATION OF CENTER POINT
(LATITUDE & LONGITUDE)
Charleston, SC
32838'30"N, 79°45*42"W
Georgetown, SC
33° 10 *43"N, 79o07,31"
Port Royal, SC
32°09122"N, 80°36*11"
Savannah Bar, GA
31°57'15"N, 80®45*30"W
Brunswick Bay, GA
31° N, 81°
~Based on ten year averages
IEC
SITE
NO.
OD041O
OD04O9
OD0412
OD0418
OD0424
SIZE
(SQUARE
N. MI.)
AVG.
DEPTH
(FEET)
1.0
1.4
2.5
21
36
30
32
USAGE
(TONS/YEAR)
12.36 34 1,400,000*
288,000*
414,000*
720,000
720,000
DISTANCE NOS
OFFSHORE CHART
(N. MILES) NO.
DUMP
MATERIAL
1239 Dredge Spoil
1238 Dredge Spoil
1240 Dredge Spoil
440 Dredge Spoil
5.4 1242 Dredge Spoil
TABLE 2.2-3
SUMMARY DATA
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
GORPGRCnON
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Departments. With the recent expansion of these agencies'
laboratory facilities and capabilities, it is assumed that more
comprehensive site surveys will be performed. Each of the
disposal sites is located on the continental shelf approximately
2 to 6 miles offshore. Typical water depths range from 30 to 50
feet. The disposal area at port Royal Harbor has been in use
since the project was constructed in 1957. The Georgetown
disposal site has been used since prior to 1900. Quantities of
dredge material placed in these disposal areas varies from year
to year depending upon amount of shoaling and the amount of time
the dredge is available for work.
Bottom profiling studies conducted by the corps of Engineers and
the south Carolina wildlife Resources Department have detected no
substantial buildup in the disposal areas. Dredging operations
that require the use of ocean disposal are generally scheduled
once a year at each harbor. Normal harbor maintenance periods of
four to six weeks are required for dredging. The Charleston
District Corps of Engineers indicates that dredging operations
requiring ocean disposal at these sites will continue at about
the same frequency and quantities as has been experienced over
the past ten years.
Since dredging operations are carried out by vessels operated and
commanded by the Corps of Engineers, operational control is
4H60C 15(11
CHARLESTON
2-117
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPORTS
considered excellent. These vessels are adequately equipped with
navigation equipment for accurate site location. In addition,
crew standards are above the average of the private dredging
industry. The vessels are fully equipped with radar, radio
direction finders, gyrocompasses, recording fathometers, and
other electronic navigation aids.
2.2.5.2 Georgia Sites - The Savannah Harbor Bar and Brunswick
Harbor disposal sites are used by the corps of Engineers for
disposal of maintenance dredge material from Savannah and
Brunswick Harbors. The sites have been in use for approximately
ten years. Maintenance dredging usually amounts to one month
each year, with a Corps of Engineers hopper dredge at each
location. Quantities removed for ocean disposal are
approximately 600,000 cubic yards annually; however, new channel
dimensions are requiring more extensive dredging activities. In
Savannah Harbor, in 1972, approximately 2,000,000 cubic yards
were dredged. Projections for 1973 are approximately 2,500,000
cubic yards. This increased volume is due to deepening the
channel from 36 to U0 feet, and widening it from 500 to 600 feet.
To accDmplish this, overall channel maintenance will increase
197«l disposal projections to 1,000,000 cubic yards in addition to
the normal annual harbor maintenance. As with the other Corps-
commanded projects, extensive control of the dredging and
disposal are imposed. Before and after surveys are performed,
2-118
CHARLESTON
a46oci5«n
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
along with accurate control of the disposal. All dredging is
coordinated with the State pollution control agencies. The
hopper dredges used are under Corps of Engineers command, and are
well equipped and professionally manned. In addition, the
Savannah Harbor disposal area is well marked by five buoys.
As part of the Corps of Engineers continuing research program,
they have contracted with the Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
(SIO) to research and determine the interrelationship between
hydrography and the sediment budget in the area adjacent to
Savannah beach, and the hopper dredge disposal area. Studies
will consist of physical inventory of the characteristics of the
disposal site, bottom geology, and biological studies. Analysis
of spoil material performed by SIO for Savannah and Brunswick are
presented in Table 2.2-4.
UU60C15U1
CHARLESTON
2-119
-------
Sample
Brunswick
10
Savannah Bar
4
5
Moisture
42.1%
40.6
24.0
Dry Weight Basis
Volatile
Solids Zn Pb
o/o
3.8 30 —
6.9 43 20
1 9 3
Per Weight Basis Kjeldahl
Hg COD Oil-grease N
ppm Mg/gm Mg/gm ppm
0.06 23 1
0.10 25 3
0.10 5 1
500
800
100
TABLE 2.2.4
SEDIMENT SAMPLE ANALYSIS - BRUNSWICK AND SAVANNAH
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPOMnON
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPORTS
2.3 GOLF COAST OCEAN DISPOSAL STUDY
2.3.1 Introduction
2.3.1.1 Location - The geographical area covered by this ocean
dumping survey is the continental shelves and slopes bordering
the Gulf of Mexico, from Port St. Joe, Florida to Port Isabel,
Texas. Although these limits were selected arbitrarily, they are
very convenient for the following reasons:
a. The area coincides with the Eastern and Western Gulf of
Mexico Coastal Environmental Regions, shown in Figure
2.3-1. These are Ocean Regions 9 and 10, respectively,
as defined in Appendix A of A National Overview of
Existing Coastal Water Quality Monitoring.*3 > Thus,
the cross reference lists from that report may be used
directly for accessing data on the basis of EPA region,
state, county, OWDC drainage basin, or latitude and
longitude.
b. The area coincides with the jurisdiction of the Eighth
U.S. Coast Guard District.
c. The area coincides with the areas of dredging
controlled by the Mobile, New Orleans, and Galveston
District offices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
(I460C15Q1
GULF COAST
2-121
-------
— IWTWI/U1
Figure 2.3 - 1 STUDY AREA - OCEAN REG IONS 9 and 10 Ltl_ SSSSS
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.3.1.2 Climatology - Gulf Coast weather is characterized by
hot, humid summers and mild winters. The South Texas Coast is
considerably drier and the prevailing winds are from the
southeast all year long. The remainder of the survey area
experiences winter northers and rapid temperature drops,
sometimes below freezing with the passage of a cold front.
Hurricane season is in early summer in Texas and moves eastward
to late summer in the Florida panhandle. Prevailing winds over
the open Gulf are Southeast to East in summer, shifting to
Northeast or North in the winter. Annual rainfall ranges from 25
inches near Brownsville, Texas, to 65 inches near Mobile,
Alabama, but most of this increase occurs on the central Texas
Coast. Figure 2.3-2 shows the average annual rainfall, average
winter minimum and summer maximum temperatures, and prevailing
winter and summer wind speeds and directions along the
coastline.<67><68)
2.3.1.3 Oceanography - Maximum and minimum surface water
temperatures and salinities for near-shore waters are shown in
Figure 2.3-3. Also shown is a generalized representation of the
surface current pattern of the Gulf.<67) There is some question
regarding currents in the center of the western region, but the
Gulf Loop and West Florida Loop are reasonably well documented.
No data is available regarding middepth or bottom currents.
Although there is some dissent, the scientific concensus is that
UU60C15U1
GULF COAST
2-123
-------
to
(O
Q
a
o
o
>
CO
*
*:
o\
tn
¦p
Figure 2.3-2
GULF OF MEXICO CLIMATOLOGY
INTERSTATE
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
the major portion of the input flow circulates in the Gulf Loop
before exiting to become the Gulf stream in the Atlantic Ocean.
The lack of information on this subject is of major concern if
large quantities of toxic or semipersistent soluble wastes are to
be disposed of by dilution and dispersion in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Gulf of Mexico has a rich and varied biota. Most of the
biological studies have been performed in the estuaries and over
the continental shelf out to a depth of 60 fathoms. Relatively
little information is available about the benthic fauna from
deeper waters or the pelagic organisms that do not inhabit the
inshore areas for at least part of their life cycle. This
concentration of study effort on the shallow-water life forms,
and neglect of the deep water forms, has been dictated by
priority in the expenditures of available funds rather than
because of a lack of technological ability. The commercial and
sports fisheries are both located in the shallow areas. Deep
water studies have been of only slight interest and without an
immediate practical application.
Estimated commercial landings of fish in the study area total
400,000 tons annually with a value of about $15,000,000.
Menhaden is by far the largest part of the tonnage, but is used
mostly for production of fertilizer and fish meal, hence has a
U460C15U1
GULF COAST
2-125
-------
Figure 2.3 - 3
GULF OF MEXICO OCEANOGRAPHY
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
low price per pound. Red snapper, mullet, flounder, and pompano
bring substantially higher prices as food fishes.
Annual commercial landings of shellfish total 100,000 tons,
valued at $90,000,000. This large dollar amount is mostly the
result of the shrimp fishery, but oysters, scallops, and crabs
are also highly valued.
The sports fishery is not highly developed as in southern
Florida, but it is growing rapidly as both leisure time and
affluence increase for a larger segment of the population.
More detailed information, including faunal lists, may be
obtained in the cited references.<789485>>
2.3.1.4 Physiography - All of the bordering land area is a
coastal plain of extremely low relief. The highest elevations
within 10 miles of the general shoreline are usually the berms of
barrier islands or the spoil banks along the Intracoastal
Waterway. As shown in Figure 2.3-4, the shelves range in width
from 30 to 120 miles and the adjacent slopes range from 20 to 160
miles wide. At the boundary between the Eastern and Western Gulf
Regions, sediments discharged from the Mississippi River have
built a delta and cone completely across the shelf and have
transformed the slope and basal escarpment.
(U60C15«1
GULF COAST
2-127
-------
to
I
00
O
a
r«
o
o
>
ca
¦p
¦C
o\
tn
95° 90° 85° 80°
30°
25°
1 ' 1; 1 1 1 ; 1 i wl 1 • v • ' 1
' 1 MISS. 1 hOa X . ^ 7
[ LOUISIANA /v' L-ra-^ «.-«
1 C--^kp.'«< »«'* V( 1
T E x A s ^/5,cC.4 ylc\ \ xs \
y \ \ N ^ \ -
5^ (f <, *\ * s ^ M
TEXAS-LOUISIANASHELF r—- \V X / \ y \
^JlT —¦"- \ *>OX?V \ ^ i Xv. \ "
v \ Ov(« \ < Xp \
Ml \ /\VC' I o V \
(f / \ ^ \ \
-ill ( UPPER CONTINENTAL SLOPE 1 v\/
| *0 / \ \ \ II
^ \ \ J/l*y \f >((/x)i
^ / \ \ Sinshee K n o^ \ -*V il
U \ c0^;t^\^^'AttPECHE SHELF j
/\ \ X 111 ' YUCATAN \/ ,
\ l\ i l\ 1 ^ I \U l 1^-1 i l l // . 1 1 1 i I
30°
25°
95° 90° 85° 80°
— INTERSTATE
Figure 2.3 - 4 GULF OF MEXICO PHYSIOGRAPHY LtC_ ««¦««
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Most of the Gulf coastline consists of sandy barrier beaches
protecting marshy bays and lagoons. In the delta area the
greater amount of fresh water, nutrients, clays, and silts have
caused a predominance of coastal marshes with only traces of
barrier islands.*69>
2.3.1.5 Summary of Ocean Waste Disposal - Waste disposal within
the survey area is primarily of two types: dredge spoils and
chemicals.
Currently, UO million tons of dredge spoil are dumped annually
from three hopper dredges (the Langfitt, Mackenzie, and
McFarland), all of which are operated by the Corps of Engineers.
There are 33 active near-shore sites, located as shown in Figures
2.3-5 and 2.3-6. A description of each site, and general nature
and amount of the dumped material, is tabulated in Table 2.3-1.
Included in this tabulation are six inactive spoil sites, five
unused or inactive explosive dumping areas, and three unused
industrial waste areas.<70>
Currently, 1,161,000 tons of chemicals are disposed of annually
by bulk dumping, with an additional 6650 tons dumped in 55-gallon
drums. Only two deepwater areas (A and B on Figures 2.3-5 and
2.3-6) are authorized for the disposal of these industrial
wastes; however, it is known that some of this material is dumped
4U60C15Q1
GULF COAST
2-129
-------
IO
U)
o
o
<3
t"*
•n
o
o
>
CO
t-3
o>
8
ai
•e
IWIBBWIt
Figure 2.3-5. EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS Lfc.C_ggffi8K
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
short of the target areas. Tables 2.3-2 and 2.3-3 give
descriptions of the sites, the users, the amounts, and nature of
the wastes. < 7C> > t71 >< 72>
Disposal of each of these two types of wastes presents a short-
term problem. Each may also have adverse long-range effects
which are yet to be determined. Because the locations, depths,
environmental conditions, users, amount and character of wastes,
effects, problems, and potential solutions are so different
between the two types, yet similar within them, these factors
will be discussed separately in the following sections of this
report.
2.3.2 History of Gulf coast Dumping
2.3.2.1 Dredge Spoils - The ocean disposal of dredge spoils in
the survey area has been continuous since 1926. All of this
dumping is performed by hopper dredges, because the other types
of dredges used in ports and inland waterways are not considered
seaworthy. The volumes vary widely from year to year in each of
the three districts because of project funding, priorities, and
natural variations in streamflow and sedimentation. Annual
averages over five-year periods are indicative of the general
trends.
U460C1541
GULF COAST
2-131
-------
250 MILES
91°
-I
90
i
L
Figure 2.3-6.
WESTERN GULF OF MEXICO WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS
INTERSTATE
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
In the Mobile District, an annual average of 5-million tons was
dumped in the early 1960's, but this has since been reduced to an
average of 3-million tons. This is primarily the result of
increased usage of dredge spoils for beach nourishment in the
Florida areas. This trend is expected to continue, with
expansion into Alabama and Mississippi. It is estimated that the
annual amount dumped offshore will be less than 1-million tons in
the late 1970's. Most of the dredged material is brought into
the seaward portions of the channels by littoral drift and
consists of silt to fine grained sand, with minor amounts of
shell, gravel, and clay.<7<>>
The hopper dredge activity in both the New Orleans and Galveston
Districts has tripled during the past 10 years, primarily the
result of providing new channels and deepening and lengthening
the old channels. New Orleans now dumps almost 24-million tons
per year, compared to an estimated 8-million tons as recently as
1968. The equivalent Galveston figures are 13-million tons in
fiscal 1973 and 5-million tons in 1968.<*o>ct7>
The material from the outer channels dredged by the Galveston
District is similar to that handled by the Mobile District.
Although the silt content is probably greater, more could be used
for beach replenishment than is now the case. The costs would be
appreciably greater because of the need for installing direct
UU60C15U1
GULF COAST
2-133
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
pump-out capability on the dredges and probable use of floating
pipeline discharges in some areas.
The material in the channels dredqed by the New Orleans District
is mud or silty clays, with very little sand. It is not suitable
for beach replenishment, even if there were beaches to nourish.
It could, however, be used for marsh accretion because the
existing marshes were developed of this same material,
transported by distributaries of the Mississippi River. In the
past 100 years, the river has been channelized by levees so that
these sediments no longer are distributed, but are deposited at
the ends of the ship channels. Thus, discharging the material to
the edges of the marsh is essentially a return to nature. The
added cost of this redistribution would be even greater than for
the Galveston District because of longer hauls and/or pipelines.
In all three districts, the normal operating methods are the same
because the same dredges are used between districts. Mobile uses
the Langfitt from New Orleans for most of its hopper work. The
Mackenzie usually stays in Texas, but the McFarland may be
working anywhere on the Gulf Coast. The dredges have the
appearance of a small freighter with a large pipe (drag) attached
to each side. These drags are 24 inches to 34 inches in
diameter, pivot at the forward end and are equipped with a simple
suction head with no cutter at the aft end. The depth of the
2-134
GULF COAST
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
head is controlled by the leverman using a tackle arrangement
from a davit. The drags are long enough to permit dredging to
depths of 52 to 6 2 feet. The pumps can fill the 8 hoppers to
capacity (1656 to 31U0 cubic yards) in less than 1 hour. With
most disposal sites located one to four miles southwest of the
channel entrances, the round trip, including a five to seven-
minute discharge period, ranges from twenty minutes to one hour.
When working farther up in the channel, the round trip, at ten to
fifteen knots, can exceed two hours.t") A different operational
mode is used by the New Orleans District when the river is at
flood stage. By cantilevering a discharge pipe up to 135 feet
long out over the down-current side, the channel sediments are
resuspended and carried out to sea by the abnormally swift
current.*> All operations are performed with the ship underway
and are conducted around the clock, seven days a week. The daily
performance ranges from 10,000 to 50,000 cubic yards. Spoil
volumes are measured in cubic yards by the corps of Engineers,
but for comparison with other types of wastes and to be
consistent with previous reports on ocean dumping, all amounts in
this report have been converted to tons using the factor: 1 cubic
yard = 1.2 tons. Except for measurements to detect shoaling,
there has been no environmental monitoring at any of the ocean
spoil disposal sites.
U460C1541
GULF COAST
2-135
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.3.2.2 Industrial Wastes - The dumping of chemical wastes in
the survey area began about 1952 and, in theory, has been
confined to the large, deep-water areas shown as A and B on
Figures 2.3-5 and 2.3-6. The present annual amount is 1,168,000
tons, which is double the 196U-1968 average of 520,000 tons.
Most of this material comprises carbonaceous solids and
halogenated organic residues from petrochemical processes; spent
acids and caustics; ammonium sulphates; filter aids; and sump
cleanings, including dirt and shell. Appreciable quantities of
cyanides, herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides, with more
than trace quantities of copper and other heavy metals, are
present. All of the material is toxic and/or persistent in
varying degrees, dependent on its concentration in soil or inert
brine solution. The disposal of sodium hydroxide and sulphite
and sulphate liquors has been reduced because many plants are now
reclaiming this material through treatment processes.<71>(727S>
Area A, south of New Orleans, was probably designated by a branch
of the Department of Interior in March 1955, when a permit was
issued to the Ethyl Corporation to dispose of drums containing
sodium-calcium sludge. The New Orleans District Engineer honored
the permit and formalized the bounding coordinates prior to June
1969, when Amoco Chemicals Corporation was granted a Letter of No
Objection for bulk dumping of material of the same description.
The Dallas Regional Office of EPA accepted these boundaries in
2-136
GULF COAST
4460C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
April 1973. Neither of the charted explosive dumping areas
northeast of area A are now active, although the easterly one was
considered still active as recently as 1968.<7072>
The general vicinity of area B, south of Galveston, was
recognized by the Galveston corps of Engineers in Letters of No
Objection, but no formal bounding coordinates were established.
Instead, the sites were designated variously as "100 (110) miles
South of Galveston" and/or "in 100 (200,400) fathoms or more."
Verber, in the Dillingham Report (1971), lists seven sites with
overlapping areas in this general vicinity which are known to
have been in use since 1955. <75> In April 1973, the Dallas
Regional Office of EPA designated the boundaries of area B as
shown in Figure 2.3-6, and as described in Table 2.3-3.<72> The
annual tonnages tabulated in Table 2.3-3, therefore, were not
concentrated entirely within the recently restricted dimensions,
but were scattered over the larger area. One industrial user has
expressed concern that the ship operators may not be able to
navigate with sufficient accuracy to ensure dumping in the
designated area.
The annual amount of waste disposal in Area A is now only 13
percent of the 1969 tonnage. This reduction from 169,000 tons
to 22,000 tons is entirely the result of the installation of
t»i160C15U1
GULF COAST
2-137
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
treatment facilities at three refineries for the annual recovery
of 158,000 tons of spent sodium hydroxide and sodium phenate.
For the same period, annual dumping in or around area B has
increased five-fold, from 235,000 tons to 1,116,000 tons.C71 *t72 J
Part of this growth is the result of plant expansions and part is
from the shutting down of discharges into the estuaries.
Although large enough for navigational purposes, area B may be
too small to provide adequate dilution, dispersion, and exchange
for the amount of bulk dumping that can be extrapolated for the
next five years.
The bulk dumping is performed from tank barges with capacities
from 1600 to 4800 tons and discharge rates up to 18 tons per
minute. Drums are sometimes carried as a deck load, but usually
they are transported on smaller ships in lots of 1000 or less
(approximately 250 tons at 1 drum = 500 pounds). There has been
no environmental monitoring at either dump area. Some short-term
studies have been performed on toxicities and near-surface
dispersion by the industrial users.'75' The Flower Garden Ocean
Research Center is conducting oceanographic, biological, and
geological monitoring on the shelf edge, 35 miles east-northeast
of area B, but they do not plan on working to depths greater than
1200 feet.<™>
2-136
GULF COAST
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPORTS
2.3.3 Analysis of Dumping Activities
2.3.3.1 Effects of Dredging and Spoil Disposal - During
dredging, most of the microorganisms and all of the larger
animals on and in the removed sediments are killed by passage
through the drags, suction pumps, and discharge lines to the
hoppers. These remains add to the existing organic material in
the sediments and increase the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
loading. The aeration of the material during filling of the
hoppers partially makes up for this increase by raising the
dissolved oxygen content of the accompanying fluids. Turbidity,
which may be objectionable aesthetically, is also temporarily
increased in the operating area; however, most of the shallow
areas of the Gulf Coast have high normal turbidities during windy
periods, and several studies have shown that sessile fauna such
as oysters are unaffected by the turbidity alongside a working
dredge.< tt)
The initial effect during hopper discharge is to increase
turbidity and bury any existing benthic fauna, killing the
sessile forms. Several studies have shown that the biomass
returns to normal in six months to two years, but species
diversity is reduced.Productivity is usually increased
the second year because of the greater nutrient availability,
similar to the effect of plowing a field. None of the studies
was of sufficient duration (maximum of three years) to determine
H460C151H
GULF COAST
2-139
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
the length of time required to redevelop a full assemblage or
normal community.
A secondary effect can be a change of substrate, such as covering
a mud bottom with sand, resulting in a semipermanent change of
habitat and faunal assemblage. The covering of a sand or rock
bottom with mud would be temporary, because the existing energy
level would quickly transport the finer sediments to a natural
mud bottom area.
Long-term effects of dredging are in changes to estuarine
circulation and salinity patterns caused by channel deepening,
which usually increases saline intrusion and linear spoil
banking. This usually restricts circulation and can cause low DO
areas or retention of pollutants from adjacent discharges. These
effects are strictly an estuarine or lagoonal problem and do not
concern ocean or offshore dumping along the Gulf Coast, but can
be important in other areas.
2.3.3.2 Alternatives to Offshore Spoil Disposal - The most
obvious alternative to offshore disposal of dredge spoils is to
use this material for beach or shoreline replenishment, because
it is generally compatible. The McFarland has direct pumpout
capability which is needed to place the hopper loads where
desired on shore. The Langfitt and Mackenzie do not have this
2-1H0
GULF COAST
«460C15«1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
ability, but being smaller and with shallower draft they could
dump immediately off the barrier islands and let normal wave
action sort the sediments and return the coarser fractions to the
beaches on the down-current sides of the channels.
Another alternative is to transport this material inland for
enhancement of clayey soils, mixing with sewage sludge for
agricultural lands. The major problems, besides the economics of
transportation, are desalting and dewatering. Upland sites with
abundant fresh water for pumpout would be required as interim
dewatering enclosures.
A Corps of Engineers research group at the Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, has started a five-year program
of study on the effects, alternatives, and beneficial uses of
dredge spoils and disposal methods.177J
2.3.3.3 Effects of Industrial Ocean Waste Disposal - A.t the
present time, most disposal of toxic chemical wastes in the Gulf
of Mexico is performed by discharge of liquids or slurries from
tank barges in Area B, 110 miles south of Galveston. Some of the
companies have commissioned studies to determine surface toxicity
gradients, dispersion rates, etc, during dumping operations.
Their conclusions have been that adverse biological effects are
minimal with mortality of organisms only at the discharge point.
mt60C15«1
GULF COAST
2-1U1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
and no detectable surface effects after 2 to 8 hours. There have
been no studies of effects on benthic or demersal life, although
one study showed reconcentration in the bottom muds and
stratification at intermediate depths.<75> There is no monitoring
to determine seasonal and annual trends in chemical or biological
parameters. Even the subsurface current characteristics are
unknown. Surface currents tend northwest during the summer and
southwest during the winter, as shown by a drift bottle study
which covered a one-year period at approximately bimonthly
intervals. The diluted wastes remaining in surface waters are
transported through the Texas shrimping grounds to the coast.
Barrelled wastes are no longer dumped at Area B.
Most of the industrial waste dumped in Area A, 35 miles south of
Southwest Pass, is containerized in 55-gallon drums which are
pierced by pickaxe or rifle fire during jettisoning. This
practice does not take advantage of a unique attribute of this
site. It is located in the mouth of a submarine canyon at the
base of the foreslope of the Mississippi River delta. The rate
of sediment deposition is probably the greatest of any comparable
deep water area in the world. It has been estimated that drums
would be completely buried in three to five years.<*•> Drums
which are completely filled to prevent rupture, adequately
weighted, and sealed with a preservative coating could,
therefore, be permanently buried, removing the contained toxics
2-1U2
GULF COAST
4460C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
and their possible effects from the environment. There is no
available information on the effects of the present dumping
operations. As in the case of Area B, the surface currents are
northwest towards shore and pass through the most economically
important shrimping area in the country. Seasonal subsurface and
bottom current data is lacking, and there is no monitoring
program of any kind in the area.
The estuarine, littoral, and shelf areas of the Gulf Coast have
been, and are being, studied and monitored to a considerable
degree by state and federal water quality and fisheries agencies,
th«? universities , and even the oil companies in their offshore
lease blocks. Except for the routine hydrographic surveys by NOS
and its predecessor, c 6 GS and a few isolated studies such as
coring by the Glomar Challenger at Sigsbee Knolls, there has been
little work in the deeper areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Until
this deficiency in baseline data is rectified by an integrated,
multidisciplinary program of monitoring the critical physical,
chemical, biologic, and geologic parameters, there can be no
scientific foundation on which to base valid criteria and
regulations for the control of industrial ocean dumping.
2.3.3.4 Alternatives to Industrial Ocean Waste Disposal - Many
other disposal schemes have been proposed for this type of waste.
Reclaiming and recycling of caustics has already proven
**60015*1
GULF COAST
2-113
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
profitable and could be extended to other chemical wastes if
barge iisposal becomes more expensive. Up to now, the relative
economics of recovery versus dumping has been the sole governing
factor. The same is true for treatment or conversion to less
objectionable compounds or even marketable by-products. It is
obvious that the chemists who developed the process technology to
manufacture these products are equally capable of unmaking them.
All it takes is energy and money. Ultimate disposal on land, by
incineration or by deep-well injection, all may cause
environmental problems that are worse than ocean disposal, even
if these methods become more economically feasible.
2.3.3.5 An Acute Problem - From the scant information available,
waste disposal in the Gulf of Mexico has caused only one major
problem up to the present time. This is the collecting of drums
in the nets of shrimp trawlers. If the nets are not torn or
completely lost, the recovery of a leaking drum of toxic
chemicals means that particular catch is completely dead and,
further, that all previous catches on board are killed or
contaminated, resulting in loss of the whole load. There are
reports of explosion injuries and chemical burns to crew members
when they bring these drums aboard, or when attempting to
jettison them after hauling them to deeper water. Some drams
have floated ashore, where they are a similar hazard to bathers,
fishermen, and other users of the beaches. These incidents could
2-144
GULF COAST
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPORTS
not have occurred if the drums had been adequately weighted and
not prematurely dropped in the shallow fishing grounds which
extend out to about the 60-fathom contour. Only one instance of
a premature dump has been reported. In April 1971, Deep Sea
Disposal, Inc. offloaded drums with material from GAF
Corporation's Texas City plant short of the 400-fathom line
because "their ship was in danger of capsizing in 15-foot waves."
The number of drums picked up in nets and ashore indicate that
short-dumping was very common.<808t82>
As stated, drums are no longer dumped at the Galveston site, only
off the delta. By using the burial technique and a simple but
rigorous surveillance system which ensures that dumps are made
only at the approved site, future incidents of this nature should
diminish. It is assumed that weather and sea-state prediction is
presently adequate to prevent any repetition of a premature dump
caused by danger of capsizing.
2.3.4 Recommendations
2.3.4.1 Dredge Spoils - It is recommended that the EPA Ocean
Disposal Program office maintain close liaison with the study
Program for Disposal of Dredge Spoil, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station.<*3> In this manner, EPA can be kept
abreast of research findings and indications where criteria or
4U60C1541
GULF COAST
2-145
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
regulations may need to be modified. In turn, the Corps of
Engineers may be alerted to any specific problems which may come
to the attention of EPA.
It is recommended that analyses of those water quality parameters deemed critical
for the proposed dredging and disposal site be conducted, taking into account
known point or areal source discharges in the area, and the possible presence in
their wastes of the materials listed in sections 227.22 and 227. 31. Organisms
which have been suggested for use in bioassays for the Gulf Coast are: a
phytoplankton with a broad geographical, temperature, and salinity range; a
wide ranging copepod (Acartia tonsa); a shrimp (Penaeus setiferus or
P. aztecus); an oyster (Crassostrea virginica); and if a finfish is desired, red
snapper (Lutjanus campechanus or L. aya). (82)
Tt is recommended that the Criteria for Determining Acceptability
of Dredge Spoil Disposal to the Nations Waters, be revised to
include:
a. A specification of the number of samples required for
analysis per lineal mile of channel on a preliminary
study of a dredging project. A suggested specification
is core sampling to project depth along the proposed
centerline every 2000 feet.
2-1U6
GOLF COAST
4U60C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY EEPOFTS
b. Periodically review the criteria to take into account new scientific data
and the natural ambient conditions.
c. Revision of the manual on collection, preservation, preparation, and
analysis of sediments to be more specific in directions regarding
handling the accompanying or interstitial water.
d. Inclusion of guidelines or specifications for a survey of the spoil
receiving areas.
No reason has been discovered to discourage use of the present
spoil disposal sites pending interim surveys by the Corps of
Enaineers and/or EPA as to their suitability on the basis of
hydrography, geology, and biology.
The deepening and lengthening of ship channels on the Gulf Coast
to accommodate super tankers would vastly increase the amount of
spoil that would be dumped offshore. These vessels should remain
in uncongested deep water at all times, using buoys or platforms
for loading and unloading. The Corps of Engineers is presently
studying the development and location of such deep water
terminals.<®3> Economics and maritime safety, as well as
environmental protection, would seem to dictate the use of such
facilities for handling cargoes that can be transported via
pipeline; therefore, it is recommended that EPA-ODPO maintain
4460C1541
GULF COAST
2-147
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
liaison with the Office of Chief, Army Engineers, BrigGen J. L.
Kelly, Deputy Director, Civil Works Directorate, and encourage
and support their study efforts, especially in regard to
dissemination of information to the public on the environmental
factors involved.
2.3.U.2 Industrial Wastes - It is recommended that sites A and B
be surveyed and continue to be monitored on at least a quarterly
basis to determine seasonal variations in current, salinity,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH profiles and to determine
the seasonal pelagic and benthic biota. Annual measurement of
bottom sediment characteristics is considered sufficient. A
third area should be selected as a comparative control for
measurement of water quality parameters if the present sites
continue to be used.
As an interim surveillance procedure, it is recommended that EPA
develop an affidavit form to be completed and signed by the
captain of the disposal vessel, which stipulates the client's
name; load amount; time and date of departure; time, location,
and water depth at beginning and end of dumping; intervening
courses, speeds, and discharge rates; and time of return to port.
The original with a supporting, continuously recorded fathogram
should remain with the USCG Captain of the Port with a copy to
the EPA Regional office. Additional copies may be desired by the
2-1U8
GULF COAST
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
USCG District Office, the client, and the barge company. An
affidavit should also be required from the waste producer,
stipulating the load amount and a bioassay and/or chemical
analysis of each load. It is also recommended that a more
sophisticated system be developed to record this information
automatically instead of manual entry by the vessel operator.
It is further recommended that a feasibility study be made on the
concept of permanent burial of drummed wastes in area B.
4460C1541
GULF COAST
2-119
-------
LOCATION OF CENTER POINT
(LATITUDE & LONGITUDE)
I EC
SITE
NO.
SIZE
(SQUARE
N. MI.)
AVG.
DEPTH
(FEET)
USAGE
(TONS/YEAR)
DISTANCE
OFFSHORE
(N. MILES)
NOS
CHART
NO.
DUMP
MATERIAL
EPA Region IV, COE-Mobile
Port St. Joe, FL (3 sites)
29°49,05", 85°23'42"
29°50'10", 85°29*06"
29°53,08", 85°30 * 57 "
j/474
OD0475
ODJ7478
1.5
1.1
1.0
3
40
48
Inactive
0.5
3
4
1263
Dredge Spoil
Panama City, FL
30°07'00", 85°45*30"
OD0481
0.2
40
261,433
1
1263
Dredge Spoil
Pensacola, FL
29°22'00", 87°14'45"
9483
87.2
1860
Unused
51
1115
Explosives
Pensacola, FL
30°16'30", 87*20*15"
ODj/484
3.0
40
697,870
2.5
1265
Dredge Spoil
Mobile, AL
30*09'45", 88*06*45"
OD0487
5.6
45
464,624
3
1266
Dredge Spoil
Pascagoula, IIS
30°11*20" , 88°35*10"
OD0490
6.3
37
796,193
1
1267
Dredge Spoil
Gulfport, MS (2 sites)
30°09122" , 88°56'20"
30°09115" , 88°58'55"
ODJ/493
OD0496
2.4
3.0
27
25
777,748
1
1
1267
Dredge Spoil
TABLE 2.3-la
GULF OF MEXICO
WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
[
— INTERSTATE
¦—¦ ELECTRONICS
^ OONHfNWN
-------
OV
O
O
en
a
G
£
CO
h3
to
I
cn
LOCATION OF CENTER POINT
(LATITUDE S LONGITUDE)
I EC
SITE
NO.
SIZE
(SQUARE
N. MI.)
AVG.
DEPTH
(FEET)
USAGE
(tonsAear)
DISTANCE
OFFSHORE
(N. MILES)
NOS
CHART
NO.
DUMP
MATERIAL
EPA Region VI, COE-New Orleans
South Pass, LA
28°25'30", 88°55'30"
(*503
88.0
3600
Inactive
30
1115
Explosives
Southeast Pass, LA
29°03'00", 88°57'18"
prsgre
12.6
216
Unused
3.5
1272
Toxic Wastes
Miss. R.-Gulf Outlet (3 sites)
29#25'39", 89°00'55"
29°27*51", 89°05'09"
29°31*04", 89°10*27"
(75(79
(751(7
(7511
1.25
2.85
2.43
34
15
10
7,980,000
11
10
12
1270
Dredge Spoil
South Pass Channel, LA
28°57'32", 89*06* 55"
(7512
3.0
75
3,830,000
1.2
1272
Dredge Spoil
Southwest Pass, LA
28°30'00", 89°10'00"
(7515
87.9
1800
Unused
22
1115
Explosives
Southwest "Pass, LA-Are a A
28°10'00", 89°25'00"
ODJ7518
352.6
3500
21,650
35
1116
Toxic Wastes
Southwest Pass Channel, LA
28°51'40", 89°27'27"
ODJ7521
4.0
110
5,770,000
3
1272
Dredge Spoil
Southwest Pass, LA
28°52* 30" , 89*31'00"
(7523
6.0
180
Unused
4
1272
Toxic Wastes
TABLE 2.3-lb
GULF OF MEXICO
WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
interstate
|-1 ELBCmONKS
m— onwownoN
-------
LOCATION OF CENTER POINT
(LATITUDE & LONGITUDE)
EPA Region VI, COE -New Orleans
Atchafalaya, LA <4 sites)
29°20,06", 91°24'34"
29°20,28", 91°2S,05M
29°15'46" , 91°28'19"
29°16 *09" , 91°28'50"
Freshwater Bayou Channel, LA
29°30'37", 92°19* 10"
Lower Mud Lake, LA
28°42'52", 93"00,52"
Calcasieu Pass, LA (4 sites)
29°33'35", 93°16'27"
29°45'29", 93°20'03"
29°42'06", 93°20'37"
29°45'16", 93°21'03"
IEC
SITE
NO.
(7526
(7527
(7528
(7529
(7532
(7533
OD0534
OD0535
ODJ7536
ODJ75 37
SIZE AVG.
(SQUARE DEPTH
N. MI.) (FEET)
0.9
0.9
1.75
1.75
0.7
0.1
7.1
0.7
4.2
0.6
7
5
12
11
10
38
5
22
3
USAGE
(TONSAEAR)
Inactive
Inactive
Inactive
6,180,000
DISTANCE
OFFSHORE
(N. MILES)
0
0.4
3.3
3.6
0.2
8
0
1
0
NOS
CHART
NO.
DUMP
MATERIAL
1276
Dredge Spoil
1277
1278
1278
1279
1279
1279
Dredge Spoil
Dredge Spoil
Dredge Spoil
TABLE 2.3-lc
GULF OF MEXICO WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
0
INTERSTATE
ELECTOOMCS
CORPOMrNM
-------
ts
c
CTi
o
O
4=
o
G
•*1
O
o
>
CO
~3
M
cn
u>
LOCATION OF CENTER POINT
I EC
SIZE
AVG.
USAGE
DISTANCE
NOS
DUE-IP
(LATITUDE & LONGITUDE)
SITE
(SQUARE
DEPTH
(TONSAEAR)
OFFSHORE
CHART
MATERIAL
NO.
N. MI.)
(FEET)
(N. MILES)
NO.
EPA Region VI,
COE-Galveston
Sabine Pass, LA-TX (6 sites)
3,280,000
1279
29°26*49",
93°42,14"
9549
2.7
31
15
Dredge Spoil
29°29 * 32",
93°44*08"
$7541
4.8
31
11.5
Dredge Spoil
29°32"52",
93° 48*00''
(T542
5.0
39
6.5
Dredge Spoil
29°37'17",
93°48'08"
OD0543
2.5
27
3
Dredge Spoil
29°36*31",
93°49*35"
ODQT544
4.2
22
2.5
Dredge Spoil
29®39'28",
93°50'46"
OD(Jf545
3.6
7
0
Spoil & Wrecks
Freeport, TX
27°40-00",
94° 30 '00"
0548
88.6
1600
Unused
80
1117
Explosives
Galveston, TX
(Offshore)
29°04'30",
94° 33*00"
9551
60.4
50
Unused
15
1282
Toxic Wastes
Galveston, TX-Area B
27° 36'00",
94°36*00"
OD0554
226.9
2400
1,145,992
76.5
1116
Toxic Wastes
Galveston Channel (4 sites)
2,160,000
1282
29°16'18",
94°39'12"
OD0557
6.4
40
3.5
Dredge Spoil
29°20 *04",
94°39'20"
OD0558
2.0
32
3.5
Dredge Spoil
29°19'03",
94°40 *00"
OD0559
2.0
33
2
Dredge Spoil
29°22'30",
94°42'45"
OD0560
6.2
10
0
Spoil & Wrecks
Freeport. Channel, TX (2 sites)
1,370,000
1283
Dredge Spoil
28°55'10",
95°16*15"
9563
0.75
32
1
28°54,25",
95°17*10"
9566
1.5
30
1
TABLE 2.3-Id
GULF OF MEXICO
WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
INTERSTATE
I—¦ E1ECTDOMCS
— conromnoN
-------
LOCATION OF CENTER POINT
(LATITUDE & LONGIUDE)
EPA Region VI, COE-Galveston
Corpus Christi, TX
27° 15 *00" , 9 6"00*00"
Matagorda Channel, TX
28°23'48", 96°18*27"
Aransas Pass, TX
27°49 '03" , 97<>01,27"
Brazos Santiago, TX
26°04'21", 97°07'19"
Port Mansfield, TX (2 sites)
26°33'26", 97°15*18"
26°34"14", 97°15'20"
I EC
SITE
NO.
(7569
(7572
0575
(7578
(7581
(7584
SIZE
(SQUARE
N. MI.)
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
avg.
DEPTH
(FEET)
88.9 1600
30
47
35
33
USAGE
(tonsaear)
Unused
840,000
30 4,750,000
650,000
330,000
DISTANCE NOS DUMP
OFFSHORE CHART MATERIAL
(N. MILES) NO.
60
1.5
1.25
0.5
0.5
1117 Explosives
1284 Dredge Spoil
1286 Dredge Spoil
1288 Dredge Spoil
1287 Dredge Spoil
TABLE 2.3-le
GULF of MEXICO WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
INTERSTATE
BK1DQMCS
conromnoN
-------
¦(S
CT\
o
O
(_n
•e
O
G
tr1
"J
o
o
>
CO
CO
I
cn
cn
Boundaries: Latitude: 28°00'N, & 28°20'N> Longitude 89°15'W, &
89° 35 'W
Area: 352.63 sq. n.
mi. Depth Range: 2400 - 4200
ft. Average Depth: 3500
ft.
Approximate Volume:
202.75 cu. n. mi. or 4.562 x 1013
cu. ft.
Estimated
Annual Tonnage
Users
Material Mode
1969
1970
1971 1972
1973
Tenneco Oil Co.
Chalmette, LA
Sodium Hydroxide Bulk
17,199
7,166
(Treated after May
1970)
Amoco Chemical Corp.
Joliet, IL
Sodium-Calcium Bulk
Sludge
7,500
15,000
15,000 15,000
15,000
Humble Oil Co.
Baton Rouge, LA
Sodium Phenate Bulk
43,360
43,360
43,360 (Treated after Dec. 1971)
Ethyl Corporation
Baton Rouge, LA
Sodium-Calcium Drum
Sludge
2,400
2,400
2,400 2,400
2,400
Shell Oil Company
Norco, LA
Sodium Hydroxide Bulk
98,280
98,280
98,280 98,280
(Jan 1973)
E. I. DuPont Company
La Place, LA
Chlorinated Drum
Hydrocarbons
4,250
TABLE 2.3-2
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
DISPOSAL
- AREA A
tc
¦#"" interstate
¦ ELECTRONICS
— cmraKnoN
-------
Boundaries s Latitude
s 27°28'N, & 27°44'N* Longitudes 94°28'W, G
94°44'W
Area: 226.87 sq. n.
mi. Depth Range:
780 - 3240
ft.
Average Depth:
2400 ft.
Approximate Volume:
89.61 cu. n. miles or 2
.013 x 1013
cu. ft.
Estimated
Annual Tonnage
Users
Material
Mode
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
E. I. DuPont Co.
Nitrated Hydrocarb.
Bulk
35,000
72,000
144,000
206,000
288,000
Beaumont, TX
Cyanides, Anilines
E. I. DuPont Co.
Fungicide, Herbicide,
Bulk
208,000
314,000
420,000
LaPorte, TX
Insecticide
Drum
82
420
Shell Chemical Co.
Chlorinated NaOH,
Bulk
81
82,784
82,888
82,992
82,992
Deer Park, TX
Sewage Sludge, Resins
Drum
238
208
104
GAF Corp.
NaS04, Nitrated &
Bulk
154,000
154,000
191,000
228,000
265,000
Texas City, TX
Halogenated Benzoates
Drum
603
1,565
250
Rohm & Haas
Ammonium Sulphate
Bulk
44,800
68,000
92,000
38,400
(May 1972)
Deer Park, TX
E. I. DuPont Co.
Glycol, Anilines
Bulk
90,000
TABLE 2.3-3
INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL
GALVESTON, TEXAS
- AREA B
o
C£
— INTERSTATE
¦ BKIMMCS
— UMKJWUHJN
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OCEAN DISPOSAL STUDY
2.1.1 Introduction
The ocean waters of Southern California that have been impacted
by ocean dumping from the Los Angeles and San Diego metropolitan
areas are the subject of this section. Two sites are presently
used for ocean disposal. Figure 2.4-1 is a portion of National
Ocean Survey Chart No. 502 0 showing locations of existing and
past dunp sites in the study area.
A discussion of past ocean dumping practices is presented in
Section 2.4.2, along with present activities, including site
descriptions and oceanographic, biological, and meteorologic
summaries for the study area. Materials presently being disposed
of in the study area are trash and garbage from vessels* and
industrial wastes. Present activities are analyzed in Section
2.4.5, and recommendations are presented for the future use of
individual sites.
2.4.2 History of Dumping in the Southern California Area
Materials in eight categories have been disposed of in the ocean
areas of Southern California: (1) industrial wastes, (2) refinery
wastes, (3) trash and garbage, (4) filter cake, (5) oil drilling
wastes, (6) explosives, (7) radioactive wastes, and (8)
miscellaneous wastes. Estimates of the amounts of waste disposed
4460C1541
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-157
-------
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ocean Disposal Program Office
NJ
i
OD
8
a
-3
33
M
W
Z
o
>
r1
H
3
z
H
>
¦P
en
4=
Figure 2.4-1
LOCATIONS OF PAST AND EXISTING OCEAN DUMPING SITES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
LEGEND
ACTIVE SITES
Industrial Wastes
© Garbage and Trash
INACTIVE SITES
Suntu Monica',
Industrial Wastes
Explosives
Garbage and Trash
Radioactive Wastes
SOUNDINGS* IN FATHOMS
AT MEAN LOWfelR LOW WATER
GVl.t OF SANTA CATAL/XA
, »t«o
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
of between 1931 and 1973 are summarized by category in Table 2.4-
1.
TABLE 2.4-1
SUMMARY OF WASTES DUMPED IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA
TYPE OF WASTE
PERIOD
Industrial Wastes 1947-72
Refinery Wastes 1946-71
Trash and Garbage 1931-72
Filter Cake 1969-70
Oil Drilling Wastes 1966-70
Explosives 1945-70
Radioactive Wastes 1946-68
Miscellaneous 1931-72
1931-1972
ESTIMATED TOTAL
(Tons)
10,500
530,000
158,800
350,000
3,300,000
NA
NA
NA
1973
ESTIMATED TOTAL
(Tons/Yr)
195
623
250
2.4.2.1 Industrial Wastes - The main sources of industrial
wastes are: (1) industrial, medical, institutional, and academic
laboratories; (2) heat-treating, platinq, and film processing
plants; (3) chemical and petroleum processing plants, and (4)
electronic and aerospace manufacturers. Typically, these
materials have been handled either as containerized or bulk
wastes. Of the containerized wastes, between 1965 and 1971, 510
tons per year were dumped in the San Pedro Channel. Between 1960
and 1967, 155 tons of bulk sodium cyanide were dumped west of San
IU60C1541
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
2-159
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Diego. These two activities have been curtailed. Bulk disposal
activity is presently located at a site north of Santa Catalina
Island, with amounts of approximately 195 tons per year. Dumping
at this site has been active since 1960.
2.4.2.2 Refinery Wastes - It has been estimated that 530,000
tons of refinery wastes were dumped into the Southern California
Area from 1946-1971.
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Santa Catalina Island. This enterprise is presently disposing of
approximately 6 23 tons of waste annually in the same site.
2.4.2.4 Filter Cake - A residue of algin extraction from locally
harvested kelp, filter cake consists of half perlite and half
cellulose. Approximately 350,000 tons of filter cake were
disposed of during 19 69 and 1970 in an area west of San Diego,
before the dumping was prohibited in 1970.
2.4.2.5 Oil Drilling Waste - Muds and cuttings derived from oil
well drilling were disposed of at sea during the period 1966
through 1970. Approximately 3.3 million tons were disposed of in
the San Pedro Channel until the practice was prohibited in 1970.
The muds can contain oils, chemicals, heavy amounts of clays in
suspension, and barite.
2.4.2.6 Explosives - In 1971, the disposal of military explosives
at sea was interrupted by the U.S. Navy and it is present policy
not to allow such disposal. It has not been possible to
determine any amounts for materials dumped between 1944 and 1971.
Small amounts of ammunition have been disposed of on an irregular
basis by various police agencies.
4460C1541
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-161
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.U.2.7 Radioactive Waste - Amounts of radioactive wastes
disposed of in designated areas at sea off the Southern
California Area were not determined. This material was disposed
of during a period of 1916 through 1968, until the prohibition of
such methods of disposal in 1968.
2.U.2.8 Miscellaneous Wastes - Disposal of slugs found in
telephones, weapons collected by police agencies, and similar
materials has, by one estimate, been placed at 275 tons per
year.c®*> Some of the material is disposed of at the site used
for garbage and trash disposal. The Los Angeles Police
Department has recently applied for a permit to dump four to five
tons of contraband, weapons, and deactivated ammunition.<®8>
2.4.3 Summary
Problems generated by the present and past ocean dumping in the
Southern California area are varied in complexity because of the
lack of knowledge about the effects of some materials. The
industrial wastes that are presently disposed of include some
very toxic (cyanide wastes) and some highly reactive
(phosphorous) materials. The composition of the material to be
disposed of leads to problems in personnel safety and detrimental
effects upon the site environment. Present methods of disposal
in this area are very crude and can, therefore, accentuate these
problems. The composition of the garbage and trash, with some
2-162
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4460C1511
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
nonbiodegradeable (plastics) and some floatable materials (wood) ,
causes problems with esthetics and the introduction of
undesirable materials into the ocean environment.
A lack of knowledge of munitions disposal amounts, types, and
locations requires a larger area to be quarantined for disposal
of this type of waste than may actually be required. Also, the
future effect upon the ecology of the site is not determinable
because of the lack of information on degradation of the
containers of this waste.
Any future or continuing disposal must be closely analyzed for
appropriate site location, allowable amounts and concentrations
of materials, and disposal methods in order to comply with the
present public health, public safety, and the environmental
objectives for the local area, after all alternatives are
rejected in order to preclude adverse reaction from any source.
California state Law requires that these decisions be made in a
public forum and that all information be made available to the
local public audience.
2.U.4 Present Dumping Activities
Present dumping in the Southern California area is concentrated
in two areas west of Los Angeles. The materials, generally
described, are industrial wastes and garbage and trash from
4460C1541
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-163
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
commercial vessels. A site east of San Diego may be used for the
disposal of dredge spoil in future dredging of San Diego Bay, but
is not included in this report as it is not an active site at
this time.
2.4.4.1 Environmental Characteristics of the Study Area
Biology
The industrial waste disposal site is centered over the sill
between the Santa Monica and San Pedro Basins. The garbage and
trash disposal is centered on the lower slope into the southern
end of the San Pedro basin. Basins in Southern California are
characterized as impoverished areas, as are the slopes below the
sills of the basins. Both the Santa Monica and San Pedro Basins
have large areas of impoverishment below their combined sill
depths of 2418 feet (737 meters).
These basins are connected in such a way that the same sill
controls both. The bottoms of both basins are barren of living
benthic animals. Table 2.4-2 shows the results of sampling (69
samples) in the basins in percentage of dead animals and wet
biomass at depths above and below the sill depth.<¦»>
2-164
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPOFTS
TABLE 2.a-2
SANTA MONICA AND SAN PEDRO BASINS
BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING FESULTS
DEPTH (ft)
DEAD (°/o)
BIOMASS
1762-1925
0
30 +
1925-2090
0
30 +
2090-2254
0
30 +
2254-2418
0
30 +
2418-2582
19
21
2582-2746
35
15
2746-2910
91
0
2910-3074
100
0
Impoverishment is a result of the low oxygen content of the
bottom water and interstitial water. The low oxygen content of
the bottom water is a reflection of the position of the sill
within the oxygen minimum in the open sea.1891 Because of the
low oxygen content of the overlying water, organic debris reaches
the bottom in an incomplete stage of decomposition which depletes
the interstitial water of oxygen and causes the condition found
at the bottom of the basins, that of an anoxic environment.
Above sill depth, animals dominating are siliceous sponges and
ampharetid worms, but include ophiuroids, crustaceans, and
mollusks. The benthic forms are very well represented in the
waters on the slopes of basins above sill depth. One study*90*
4460C1541
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-165
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
conducted of the benthic fauna of the Southern California shelf
revealed 1473 different species composed predominately of
polycheates, crustaceans, mollusks, and echinoderms. The
polycheates are the most important sinqle group.
Diatoms were the predominant type of phytoplankton found in the
waters off Southern California. Their numbers will often exceed
a million cells per liter of water. Some of the more common
genera are Coscinosina, Leptoclindrus, Fhizosolenia Nitzschia.
and Ditylum. Species of the genus Chaetoceros were
the most frequently observed diatom. More than 60 species,
representing 27 genera, have been identified in the coastal
waters of Southern California.<90> Dinoflagellates are also very
abundant. The more common genera are Prorocentrum, Ceratium, and
Goniaulax. Prorocentrurum micans was the most abundant dinoflage
Hate found. Blooms (50,000/liter or more) of these organisms
have occurred periodically during the summer months and are known
as red tides. Certain species may poison filter feeders such as
mussels, clams, and oysters and may be harmful or toxic to humans
who ingest them. Catastrophic death of fishes has been
attributed to blooms of dinoflagellates. Twelve genera of
dinoflagellates have been observed with eleven species
identified.> Coccoliths and silicoflagellates are also found
in the waters off Southern California; however, they are not of
2-166
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
common occurrence. The chief genera are Coccosphaera.
Rhabdosphaera and Dictocha.
The bulk of the zooplankton consists of five groups which
represented approximately 75 percent of the population. These
groups are the Copepoda, Thaliacea, Euphausiacea, Siphonophora,
and Chaetognatha.
The zooplankton also included protozoans (tintinnids, ciliates,
flagellates and Foraminifera), cladocerans, tunicates-and various
larval forms and eggs. The copepods were the dominant group.
The nekton or swimming organisms (fish, seals, whales) are very
well represented in the waters off southern California. The
plankton-rich waters support a variety of fish in relatively
large numbers. At least 189 species representing 71 families and
16 orders, have been identified.Several kinds of sea mammals
are found, including seals, sea lions, sea otters, sea elephants,
whales, dolphins, and porpoises.
Important fish and shellfish contributing to the California
commercial fisheries in this area are tuna, anchovy, mackerel,
bonita, rockfish, squid, crabs, and abalone. A bountiful sardine
fishery once existed; however, because of overexploitation this
fishery no longer exists.
4U60C1511
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-167
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Physical and Chemical Oceanography
The physical and chemical properties of the Santa Monica and San
Pedro basins are shown in Table 2.U-3. These are average annual
values, with ranges where data was available,<89><91><>
TABLE 2.4-3
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
AT DUMP SITES
PROPERTIES INDUSTRIAL GARBAGE SITE
Temperature (°C)
Surface 13-20 13-20
200 meters 8-9 8-9
Bottom 5.0 5.0
Salinity (°/oo)
Surface 33.3-33.6 33.3-33.8
Bottom 33.31 34.29
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Surface 8.0 8.0
Bottom 0.3 0.2
Off southern California the onset of strong, steady, northerly
winds blowing in the late winter move the warm surface water to
the west and permits colder (denser) water to well up near the
coast. This water brings up nutrients, which support heavy
plankton blooms and cause the area to be one of high organic
production. The resulting redistribution of mass maintains a
geostrophic current directed southward.<92>
2-168
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4460C15«1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
The California Current (Figure 2.H-2), typical of eastern
boundary currents, is best described as a meandering, diffused
southeastward flow, with short-term variations in speed that are
of the same order as the mean speed itself. The current, which
is a continuation of the westerly drift in the North Pacific,
starts its southward flow near the Canadian border and initially
contains water characteristic of the subarctic. As this water
moves southward, the surface characteristics are modified by
solar heating, by upwelling, and by the effects of river inflow
and exchange with estuaries and embayments. The flow generally
follows the coastline until it reaches Point Conception. Here,
the coastline turns abruptly eastward, and the flow of water
departs from the coast, generally continuing in a southeastward
direction. Farther south, off the coast of northern Baja
California, the main portion of the current turns toward the
land, and the flow divides into two branches. One branch, known
as the Southern California Countercurrent, turns northward and
flows through the Channel Islands, forming the inshore side of
the Southern California Eddy. The second branch turns westward
and contributes to the North Equatorial Current.*92>
The southern California Eddy, a nearly permanent feature of the
flow pattern, is seasonal in character. The eddy is usually well
developed in summer and autumn and weak (and occasionally absent)
in winter and spring (Figure 2.U-3) .
IW60C15IH
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-169
-------
r
34"
32
30
from Jones,1971
-SAN LUIS OBISPO
POINT CONCEPTION
,SAN BUENAVENTURA
SANTA MONICA
NEWPORT BEACH
SAN DIEGO
U S.
MEXICO
&../ENSENADA -
. CABO
kSx'COLNETT
SAN
if QUINTIN
KILOMETERS
DEPTHS IN METERS
. 1
122
120'
116
FIGURE 2.4-2
SURFACE (0-100 Meters) CURRENT FLOW
IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA
INTERSTATE
OGCTROMQ
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Most of the present knowledge about circulation in Southern
California waters is based upon information from programs not
specifically intended to deal with the dispersion of pollutants
as they enter the ocean environment. We have knowledge of the
average seasonal variations of some oceanographic parameters, and
some data on the monthly variations are available; however,
pertinent information is missing regarding the small-scale,
horizontal eddy structures, which are important in describing
lateral mixing as well as in determining the residence time of a
parcel of water or the half-life of a substance in the area.*92>
Evidence has indicated that the flow in the California Current is
hiqhly responsive to the influence of the winds; however, no
adequate study aimed at predicting changes in the flow pattern
has been attempted to date.*90>
The nature of the California undercurrent (Figure 2.U-U,),
especially off Southern California, is not at all well
understood. It has been suggested that the Davidson Current is a
surface manifestation of this flow occurring north of Point
Conception.<•o>
Circulation of the waters of Southern California is best
represented by a series of figures from a Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project Report.Figure 2.1-2 shows
U460C15U1
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-171
-------
SAN LUIS OBISPO
, POINT CONCEPTION
,SAN BUENAVENTURA
SANTA MONICA
SUMMER (JULY)
NEV*»ORT BEACH
- SAN OICGO
US
MEXICO
/•ENSENADA -
KILOMETERS
DEPTHS IN METERS
SANTA MONICA
NEWPORT BEACH
SAN DIEGO
US
MEX'CO
WINTER (JANUARY
KILOMETERS
DEPTHS IN METERS
IM°
from Jones,1971
FIGURE 2.4-3
-SAN LUIS OBiSPO
POINT CONCEPTION
/SAN BUENAVENTURA
SANTA MONICA
NEWPORT Bfc ACH
• SAN OlEGO
US
MEXICO
" AUTUMN (OCTOBER)
v-ENSENADA -
KILOMETERS
depths in me re as
-SAN LUIS OBISPO
, POINT CONCEPTION
I BUENAVENTURA
SANTA MONICA
NEWPORT BEACH
SAN DIEGO
U_S
ME*'CO
SPRING (APRIL)
SPff D (CM S*
KI LOMETERS
OEPTMS IN METERS
SEASONAL GEOSTROPHIC CURRENT FLOW AND SURFACE TEMPERATURE ISOTHERMS
IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONK3
coraonnnow
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
surface (0-100 meters) current flows, Figure 2.4-3 seasonal
creostrophic current flow and Figure 2.4-4 mean geostrophic (at
200 meters) current direction and magnitude.
Climatology
The Southern California climate is a Mediterranean-type climate,
with warm summers and mild winters. Summers are almost rainless
and winter storms are generally mild, with only occasional heavy
rains and rare snowfall. Meteorological conditions on a monthly
basis (averages) for the Southern California marine area are
shown in Table 2.4-4.<9*><92>
TABLE 2.U-4
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA CLIMATOLOGY
AIR
WIND
WIND
SOLAR
MONTH
TEMP
PRECIPITATION
SPEED
DIRECTION
RADIATION
<°C)
(Inches)
(mph)
(btu/ft«/d)
January
57. 5
2. 54
5
WNW
1300
February
58. 5
2. 68
5
WNW
1620
March
61.0
1.88
8
WNW
2070
April
62.5
1.44
9
NW
2500
May
64.0
0.28
10
NW
2800
June
66. 0
0.11
10
WNW
2950
July
69.0
0.09
9
WNW
2850
August
73.0
0. 14
9
WNW
2600
September
71.5
0.33
9
NW
2250
October
67. 5
0.53
6
NW
1800
November
65.5
1. 55
6
W
1400
December
60. 0
2.36
6
W
1250
Annual
CO
*
vo
13. 63
7.5
NW
2116
4460C1541
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-173
-------
from Jones,1971
34
32
30'
CONCEPTION
*N BUENAVENTURA
SANTA MONICA
NEWPORT BEACH
SAN OIEGO
US
MEXICO
¦./ENSENADA -
KILOMETERS
DEPTHS IN METERS
FIGURE 2.4-4
MEAN GEOSTROPHIC FLOW AT 200 METERS
IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CDRnMnON
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Wind speed and direction for the southern California Area are
shown in Figure 2.4-5 on an average annual basis. Figure 2.4-6
is a graph of average monthly rainfall at three stations in the
area. A comparison between air temperature and surface water
temperature over the shelf (Figure 2.4-7) shows the effect sea
temperature has upon the climate of Southern California.
Frontal storms produce all of the precipitation that is in the
form of rain.t't) From April through August, sea fog conditions
generate low visibility in the mornings and late afternoons, with
partial to complete burnoff during late morning and early
afternoon.
2.4.4.2 Site No. OPQ615 - This site, centered at 33°37'N
latitude, 118°40'W longitude, is 19.7 nautical miles west of
Point Fermin, San Pedro, and 9.2 nautical miles north of West
End, Catalina Island. This site is presently used for the
disposal of industrial wastes. A portion of National Ocean
Survey map number 5101 with the disposal site displayed upon it
is reproduced as Figure 2.4-8.
4460C1541
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-175
-------
120°
119°
SANTA
BARBARA
ANNUAL AVERAGE WINDS
SANTA
MONICA
ISO-VELOCITY (Knots)
WIND STREAM ~
LINES
LONG BEACH
NEWPORT
BEACH
120°
from State Water Quality Control Board,1965
FIGURE 2.4-5
AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION IN THE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA
interstate
ELECTRONICS
camomnoN
-------
CO
u
-C
L>
C
.J
<
z
t-l
2
y v
N
\'
.¦S.
LONG BEACH (9.98 Inches)
AVALON (12.22 Inches)
SAN MIGUEL ISLAND
(13.77 Inches)
7
. \
\ \
A \
"V
¦ \ \
...... v
• x.
.7
• •
/
/'/-'
s
/
•/ /
7 ^
^ 1 ^
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
A
E
A
P
A
IT
li
IT
E
c
0
E
N
B
R
R
Y
N
L
G
P
T
V
C
FIGURE 2.4-6
AVERAGE MONTHLY RAINFALL AT 3 LOCATIONS
IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
amowiON
-------
68
66
64
62
W
Od
H
$
W 60
CL,
58
56
54
AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE
(1956-57)
AIR TEMPERATURE OVER THE SHELF
\
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
A
E
A
P
A
U
U
V
E
C
0
E
N
B
R
R
Y
N
L
G
P
T
V
C
FTGI'RF, 2.4-7
AVERAGE MONTHLY SURFACE WATER TEMPERATURE AND AVERAGE MOUNTHLY AIR TEMPERATURE
OVER THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SHELF
INTERSTATE
ELECTHONK5
-------
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ocean Disposal Program Office
Center Coordinates 33° 37' OCT' N. 118°40' 00' W INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
Area 28.26 Square Nautical Miles
Navigation Chart No NOS 5101
Local Navigation Aids Loran A -1 Station
Material Type Industrial Wastes
Primary Management EPA
SITE NO. 0D0615
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
FIGURE 2.4-8 CORPORATION
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Site Description
The site covers a surface area of 28.26 square nautical miles.
It is circular in shape and has a radius of three nautical miles.
It has a depth of approximately 4 59 fathoms at the center with a
minimum of 310 fathoms and a maximum of 500 fathoms. The site
is in a location which experiences a generally northwest current.
The center of the site is located above the sill between the San
Pedro and Santa Monica basins.
Users of the Site
California Salvage Company of Wilmington, California is the only
recorded permittee using the location. The materials disposed of
at the site are characterized as industrial waste by-products of
an extremely noxious nature.<»3) The records of the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board, the present permit
managers, were examined and a compilation of three years of
accumulated information on entities contracting for disposal
services, waste amounts, and waste types is shown in Table 2.U-9.
Table 2.4-5 is a summary of this information, categorized by type
and volume. As shown by note 3, the information was analyzed in
an attempt to minimize the data that falls into the two catchall
categories, waste chemicals and unlisted materials. These
categories were called catchalls because of a lack of
information on waste types in the reports to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. There was an apparent lack of consistency
2-180
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
in the reporting done by the dumper in order to meet requirements
set forth as a part of the Regional Board permit program.
TABLE 2.4-5
3-YEAR SUMMARY OF DATA
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE COMPANY
TYPE OF WASTE
VOLUME OF WASTE
PERCENT
OF TOTAL
Pounds (1)
(2)
(3)
Waste Chemicals
309,588
26%
13%
Waste Acid
238,481
20*
32%
Cyanide Wastes
206,471
18%
18%
Paint,Solvents
172,309
15%
15%
Unlisted Materials
83,038
7%
6%
Waste Nitrate Film
57,400
5%
5%
Sodium Metal
54,566
5%
5%
Beryllium Waste
40,102
3%
5%
Miscellaneous Wastes
10,709
1%
1%
3-YEAR TOTAL
1, 172,667
100%
100%
Notes:
1. the gallonages of the materials in liquid
state were converted to pounds at a factor of
8.3 lbs per gallon.
2. Percentiles shown are on data before trying
to obtain a better fit in the ambiguous
categories, miscellaneous wastes, wastes
chemicals, etc; these are apparently catchall
categories in the report data.
3. Percentages shown are on data after
attempting to fit the data. Rationale used
was if a company at most times disposed of a
certain type of material, on the unlisted or
waste chemical types, it would be accepted as
the best fit data.
The composition of the dumped materials cannot, from available
data, be defined in an accurate manner. As best as can be
4460C1541
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-181
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
determined, the major wastes are listed in Table 2.4-6 along with
their possible source listed in order of frequency of appearance.
Operational Description
Waste chemicals are stockpiled at a shore facility until
sufficient quantities of materials are on hand to fill the stern
of the tugboat, Edna. Materials in breakable containers are put
inside larger containers to guard against breakage in transit to
the dumping site. The stern area of the tug is loaded to
capacity. A crew consisting of the captain, a foreman# and
several laborers is on board for the operation. Navigation is by
dead reckoning. Upon arrival at the site, the vessel is idled in
a circular course. Breakable containers are individually broken
over the side manually and metal containers are holed with a
fire-axe until they sink. Metal containers with liquid contents
are partially emptied from the deck before pushing over the side
and holed until they sink. No materials are left floating on the
surface. This disposal (on site) takes on the order of five
hours. Transit time is four hours.
2-182 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 4460C15U1
TABLE 2.4-6
CHEMICALS DISPOSED OF BY CALIFORNIA SALVAGE
CHEMICAL WASTE
SOURCE INDUSTRIES
Beryllium
Cyanide
Acids
Solvents
Aerospace, Medical Mfg.
Aerospace, Plating, Medical Labs.
Aerospace, Medical Labs.
Aerospace, Research Labs, chemical Co
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
An observer from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board has made a trip on one dumping operation. He noted that a
lot of the small containers were filled with what appeared to be
laboratory chemicals that had outlived their normal shelf life.
Some materials came from as far as San Francisco, and the
operation appeared to be a statewide disposal point. (In all
previous reports to the Board, the farthest noted area furnishing
materials was San Diego.) containers varied from cartons to 100-
pound sacks, and from test tubes to 55-gallon drums. Some
materials have exploded upon contact with the water.<»~>
Site Managers
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board has been the
governmental overseer of the California Salvage operations since
1961. In October of that year the Board under authority of the
California Water Code, Division 7, placed restrictions,
requirements, and standards upon the continuance of the
California Salvage dumping operations. 3)
California Salvage was restricted to the use of one area defined
by the Board. They were required to submit reports on a
scheduled basis, store wastes on shore so as to preclude spillage
in harbor waters, and comply with all other governmental
ordinances that could pertain to the operation. Also, the
discharge was not to cause the presence of floating oil or the
4U60C15I»1
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-183
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
appearance of floating or suspended matter. Records of all
wastes received were to be kept regarding type, producer, and
quantity of the waste and the records were to be certified by the
producer, hauler, and operator and submitted every two months to
the Board. Logs of each trip were to be maintained and submitted
on the same schedule. The records inspected do not show a strict
compliance with the intent of the resolution. A lack of detail
in all three categories was noted. Producer addresses were not
always filled in, type of waste was at best described in
rudimentary terms, and amounts of wastes were often not in usable
terms to describe actual amounts, much less concentration of the
chemicals.
2.4.4.3 Site No. QD0612 - Just 7 miles east of the south end of
Santa Catalina Island, and 24 miles southwest of the mainland of
Orange County, is the location of a disposal site for garbage
and trash collected from commercial vessels entering Los Angeles
Area harbors from foreign ports. The site is plotted on a
portion of National ocean Survey Chart No. 5142 and is shown as
Figure 2.4-9.
Site Description
This circular site of 1-mile radius is centered at 33°17,N,
118°10' W in about 400 fathoms. It covers a surface area of 3.14
square nautical miles and has a minimum depth of 220 fathoms and
2-184
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4460C1541
-------
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ocean Disposal Program Office
lirav
SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS I
AT MEAN LOWER LOW WATER
K, 0 0 INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
Y Center Coordinates 33 17' Off' N. 118° 10' Off' W
_» Area 3.14 Square Nautical Miles
00 Navigation Chart No NOS $142
•J* local Navigation Aids Loran A -1 Station
Material Type Garbage & Trash
Primary Management EPA
SITE NO. 0D0612
INTERSTATE
_ ELECTRONICS
FIGURE 2.4-9 m CORPORATION
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
a maximum depth of U60 fathoms. The site is located over the
slope into the southern portion of the San Pedro Basin caused by
the Santa Catalina Island rise. Currents in the area of the
disposal site are of an eddy nature that appear to be associated
with island topographic influences on the generally northern flow
of the California counter-current. <9 4>
Users of the site
H-10 Water Taxi Company, Ltd. of San Pedro, California, is
currently using the dump site. Materials disposed of by H-10 are
garbage and trash collected from commercial vessels that call at
Long Baach and San Pedro Harbors. The dumper operates under a
permit from the California State Department of Agriculture (No.
20 30 Vessel and Aircraft Garbage Collection), which is intended
to prevent the import of dangerous animal diseases. Also, they
are operatincr under a California Water Resources control Board
waste discharge requirement,<96> issued by the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality control Board.
The materials consist of domestic garbage typical of home
garbage, and trash typical of ship-generated trash. Garbage
consists of residue, generally from cooking (wet garbage). Trash
consists of paper, cartons, cans, bottles, waste dunnage, metal
parts from repairs, rope scraps, rags, old clothes, and similar
wastes. Occasionally, H-10 discharges small amounts of
2-186
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4460C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
industrial wastes in sealed weighted containers, typical of a
recent disposal of slugs obtained from telephones in the Los
Angeles area.
H-10 Water Taxi has been dumping at this site since 1931.
Present annual amounts disposed of average about 623 tons, and
vary by large amounts from year to year. For example, in 1971
when numerous ships were idled in the harbors because of a
longshoreman strike, approximately 750 tons of waste were
collected and dumped, while in 1972 the rerouting of ships from
West Coast ports because of the strike caused a reduction in
tonnage to 57 0 tons. Records from reports to the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board for 1971 and 1972 are shown
as Tables 2.1-7 and 2.1-8, respectively. The tables show the
dates trips were made to the site, and amounts of garbage, trash,
and other material that were dumped on that date. The tables
also show the variation in annual amounts (the 1971 records show
31 trips and the 1972 records only 19 trips). Neither of these
years can be considered typical, but this data is all that is now
available for review at the Board office. Analysis is made
difficult due to the lack of a suitable conversion factor between
yards and tons.
UH60C15U1
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-187
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
TABLE 2.«»-7
H-10 WATER TAXI COMPANY
DUMPING REPORTS 1971
DATE
1
FEB
7
18
FEB
7
3
MAR
7
8
MAR
7
8
APR
7
8
JUN
7
2U
JUN
7
21
JUL
7
27
JUL
7
11
AUG
7
17
AUG
7
24
AUG
7
26
AUG
7
7
SEP
7
15
SEP
7
22
SEP
7
7
OCT
7
12
OCT
7
1U
OCT
7
19
OCT
7
25
OCT
7
27
OCT
7
2
NOV
7
11
NOV
7
16
NOV
7
23
NOV
7
30
NOV
7
6
DEC
7
16
DEC
7
2'1
DEC
7
29
DEC
7
GARBAGE
(Tons)
25 Ton
25 »
20
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
TRASH
(Yds)
n
ii
•i
ii
n
ti
ii
n
25 Ton
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
20 Ton
10
10
H
8
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
10
8
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Yds
tl
II
II
ft
II
VI
fl
It
It
tl
If
11
II
II
Yds
ii
it
ii
ft
If
tl
tl
«t
II
fl
II
tl
It
tt
Yds
(Slugs from Tele-
phone Co.)
2-188
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
TABLE 2.1-6
H-10 WATER TAXI COMPANY
DUMPING REPORTS 1972
DATE
GARBAGE
TRASH
9 JAN
72
45
Ton
1.
25
Ton
30 JAN
72
40
ii
1
it
22 FEB
72
40
it
3
IV
24 FEB
72
30
ii
0.
5
tf
7 MAR
72
30
H
1
«t
1 APR
72
30
II
2
II
22 APR
72
20
If
1
II
18 MAY
72
25
II
1
II
31 MAY
72
30
II
2
II
15 JUN
72
30
II
1
II
27 JUN
72
30
II
2
If
3 JUL
72
20
II
2
ft
25 JUL
72
25
II
3
II
14 AUG
72
20
II
2
II
17 SEP
72
30
II
4
II
21 OCT
72
20
II
3
II
4 NOV
72
30
II
U
It
29 NOV
72
30
II
3
II
15 DEC
72
25
Ton
4
Ton
QE§.rational Description
H-10 collects garbage in San Pedro and Long Beach Harbors on a
call basis. Material is stored in metal containers on board the
vessel M/V Ramona until a full load is received. The vessel,
usinq dead reckoning navigation, proceeds to the site and
manually unloads the materials. Containers are flushed
overboard. A representative of the Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board has made a trip with H-10. He reported
that most materials sank during the time the boat was unloading,
with only some wood and plastic bottles left floating.a
U460C15U1
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-189
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
California Fish and Game Department warden-pilot, in a report on
an apparent violation because of dumping at other than the
required location, reported observing cardboard, tin cans, and a
white powder floating on the surface.
Site Managers
H-10 has been operating under Permit No. 2030 issued by the
California State Department of Agriculture since 1931.t,a> In
addition, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
effected discharge reguirements on the disposal operation in
February 1971.
State and Federal Regulations
The disposal of garbage from vessels is subject to control by the
California State Departments of Public Health and Agriculture,
and by the United States Department of Agriculture. Among the
control provisions of significance are the following:
a. The dumping of garbage in or upon the navigable waters
of the state, or at any point in the ocean within 20
miles of its coastline, is a misdemeanor. (California
Health and Safety Code, Chapter U, Article 1, Section
4401.)
b. The removal of garbage from any vessel for dumping into
any territorial waters or onto land is prohibited
except for immediate incineration, approved treatment
2-190
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
or disposal under supervision of the Director of the
State Department of Agriculture, or delivery to a
garbage collector licensed by the director or the
Federal Government (California Agricultural Code,
Division 8, Chapter 4, Section 16151).
c. Section 77U of the California Administrative Code
permits, as an approved method of garbage disposal,
reduction to a liquid state by grinding and discharge
into seawater; location and distance from shore of such
approved disposal are not specified.
Ttiese and equivalent restrictions enforced by the United States
Department of Agriculture are intended to prevent hoof-and-mauth
disease, rinderpest, and other highly contagious diseases wJiich
can infect cattle, sheep, or swine.
Los Angeles Regional Regulations
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality control Board under
provisions of the California Water code has set the following
waste discharge requirements on disposal of these materials at
sea:<96>
a. Disposal of wastes shall be prohibited into or onto any
waters of the state (within three miles of shore.)
H460C15M
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-191
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
b. Disposal of wastes shall be prohibited into, onto, or
within any place or waters from where they can affect
the waters of the state.
c. Disposal of wastes into the ocean, as proposed, shall
be limited to the locations herein before described;
that is, within a radius of one nautical mile of either
latitude 33°17'N, longitude 118°10'W (prime site) or
latitude 32o33'30"N, lonqitude 119°05'U8"W (alternate
site).
d. The disposal of wastes shall not impair any of the
beneficial uses of the offshore coastal waters
enunciated for protection by this Board in its Pacific
Ocean Water Quality Control Plan.
e. This waste discharge shall not cause the appearance of
visible oil or oily slick or any other floating or
suspended matter in waters of the state or along
beaches or shores.
f. The disposal operation shall be conducted in such a
manner that no trash, garbage, or other waste material
will be deposited along beaches or be present in waters
of the state.
g. Wastes discharged shall not cause concentrations of
toxic materials at any point within coastal waters
which would be detrimental to human, animal, fish,
plant, or bird life.
2-192
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
44 60C15«*1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
h. Wastes discharged shall cause no odors at any point
within the coastal waters, or along the shore.
i. Wastes discharged shall not cause any increase in
turbidity within waters of the state.
j. Wastes discharged shall not cause dissolved oxygen
concentrations in waters of the state to fall below 7.0
mgl as an annual average, and shall not cause such
concentrations to fall below 5.0 mgl at any time,
k. Waste handling and loadinq operations shall be
conducted in a manner that will prevent spillage or
dropping of any waste material into waters of the
state.
1. Handling, storage, or disposal of wastes shall not
cause pollution or nuisance,
m. Ml Federal, State, County, and City rules,
regulations, laws, and ordinances pertinent to this
disposal of wastes shall be complied with,
n. Adequate facilities shall be provided to handle and
store wastes without spillage or leakage, pending
disposal.
o. Upon verbal request by Board staff, the discharger
shall notify the Board at least 24 hours prior to the
departure of the disposal vessel so that an observer
may accompany the vessel.
M460C15H1
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-193
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
p. Complete logs of all trips for purposes of waste
disposal shall be kept and shall be available for
inspection during regular business hours by the Board
staff. These shall include names of vessel and
captain, times of departure and return, and latitude
and longitude of disposal point, and vessel speed,
q. A copy of these waste discharge requirements shall be
made available at all times to personnel conducting
waste disposal operations,
r. in accordance with Section 13260 of the Water Code, the
discharger shall file a report of any material change
or proposed change in the character, location, or
volume of the discharge,
s. A report of any change or proposed change in ownership
or name of this facility shall be filed with the Board,
t. The Board shall be notified immediately by telephone of
the presence of adverse conditions resulting from this
discharge; written confirmation shall follow,
u. In accordance with Section 13267 of the Water Code,
furnish, under penalty of perjury, technical reports
shall be submitted in accordance with specifications
prepared by the Executive Officer, which specifications
are subject to periodic revisions as may be warranted.
2-194
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4460C1511
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPORTS
The technical reports required are submitted quarterly and
contain quantities and types of materials, dates of discharge,
sums of quantities discharged during period covered by report, a
separate accounting of industrial wastes hauled (if any), a copy
of the log on each trip made during the report period, and any
deviations from the discharge requirements noted. Also, an
annual report is submitted covering all the above information.
The Regional Board has sent an observer on at least one trip with
H-10 to assess the disposal operation. Several complaints, one
by the Board and one by the California Department of Fish and
Game, have been voiced. Neither complaint led to any legal
action, but administrative inquiries were initiated. In each
case, the dumper was able to guarantee that no further problems
would arise and that settled both inquiries to the satisfaction
of the Board.
2.4.5 Analysis of Southern California Area Dumping Operations
An analysis of problems connected with the California Salvage
Company and H-10 Water Taxi Company, Ltd. disposal operations,
alternatives to the disposal of wastes at sea, and
recommendations for future use are topics covered by this
section.
4*6001511
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-195
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.1.5.1 Problems - The problems associated with the disposal of
wastes by the two operators, California Salvage Co., and H-10
Water Taxi Company, Ltd. are separated into two parts for
clarity.
California Salvage Company
Methods used by California Salvage company for the disposal of
the material they are authorized to dump at sea has several
negative aspects.
a. Surface disposal of toxic liquid wastes affects the
most productive area of the water column. Natural
mixing rates of liquids of dissimilar densities are
slow unless externally agitated. Most water-chemical
solutions are only slightly heavier than water and,
therefore, would sink slowly through the trophic zone.
This could adversely affect marine life if the
chemicals were in toxic concentrations.
b. Some of the chemicals are highly reactive with water
(phosphorous for example) and can cause physical damage
to marine life resulting from explosions, thermal
reactions with the water, or by direct contact with
marine life.
c. some of the containers are of a nondegrading material
(PVC) and would cause burial of bottom-dwelling life
and permanent substrate alteration. A PVC artificial
2-196
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4460C15l»1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
reef in 400 fathoms, in an oxygen-low environment is
not desirable.
d. Physical methods of disposal now used are not the
ultimate from a public safety standpoint. Physical
harm can be caused by a lack of knowledge about
specific chemicals coupled with improper handling. It
is fortunate that nothing has been reported to date to
have caused harm to any person in the operation.
Inhalation of beryllium dusts, a material disposed of
by California Salvage, can cause lung diseases when
exposed to concentrations less than 1 to 100 micrograms
per cubic meter of air.<®>
e. Navigation procedures used by California Salvage (dead
reckoning) are rudimentary. The length of time they
are on site (4-5 hours), with no checks on position,
certainly leads to doubts about staying within the area
provided for a dump site.
Water Taxi Company
Problems associated with the H-10 dumping operation are generally
more of an esthetic nature than those of California Salvage. The
major portion of the materials disposed of probably have little
effect if any, upon marine life at the dump site. Wood, plastic
bottles, clothing, racrs, metal parts, and similar items of trash
that would not transmit animal diseases fall into this category.
HU60C15ai
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-197
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
H-10 also uses dead-reckoning as a means of navigation; there has
been a report that, at one time, they were observed dumping at a
location that was not the designated site.
2.4.5.2 Alternatives
a. Alternatives common to both disposal operations are:
CI Land Disposal Alternative - Approved sites for the
disposal of solid and liquid waste are available
for a majority of the California Salvage Company
operations; some of the more reactive chemicals
may not be acceptable. Garbage from U.S. Navy
vessels is now cooked and disposed of at an
approved site.(¦«> This could be done for the
H-10 Water Taxi company garbage. This amounts to
a no-dumping alternative.
(2) Sorted Material Disposal - In conjunction with
land disposal of some materials, the sorting of
materials unacceptable for land disposal, and
disposing of only those at sea, is another
alternative. California Salvage could sort for
dumping at sea those highly reactive and toxic
components that are not suitable for a land
disposal situation. H-10 could sort to dump only
materials considered dangerous to animal health.
2-198
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY BEPORTS
This would allow land disposal of most trash
material,
b. Because of the different materials several alternatives
are not similar and apply only to one or the other of
the operators; these are:
O) Containeriz ation Alternative - The existing
dumping operation by California Salvage uses
little containerization except for the convenience
of transporting materials. This alternative, if
applied to all wastes, with containers that are
weighted sufficiently to be negatively buoyant,
would reduce the possibility of harm to trophic
zone marine life. Even if the containers rupture
under hydrostatic pressure, leakage would most
likely be slow enough to dilute the materials
sufficiently by natural current flows. The
operation by H-10 would not be benefited by this
alternative.
(2) Pulverization alternative - H-10 Water Taxi
dumping operations could be improved by reducing
the garbage and trash to a sludge by shredding or
grinding, so that the materials are pumpable.
This would allow the distribution of the materials
m»60Ct5U1
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-199
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
below the surface in a less concentrated form.
This dispersion of material can be beneficial as
decomposition will be accelerated.
2.1.5.3 Recommendations - Even though the Southern California
area is the home of a major oceanographic laboratory, and has
many institutions engaged in ocean research, the existing
disposal sites have not been examined in any definitive study.
Several recommendations for compiling site information for
regular site study are recommended in the following two
paragraphs of this section- These are followed by
recommendations and requirements necessary if the dumping of
wastes is to continue.
Initial Site Study
All available information on these sites should be obtained and
compiled in order to describe the dump site area more
comprehensively. Additional survey work should be scheduled to
fill gaps in the information and to provide details of
information that is not complete. A study should be initiated to
better define the composition and concentration of the dumped
materials.
2-200
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4460C1511
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Regular Site Study
A program of regular cruises should be established to study the
effects of the dumping. The program should include data
gathering studies before, during, and after several dumping
operations, and annual or more frequent cruises to study possible
incremental changes in the site biosphere.
Restrictions on Use
With information collected in initial site studies and surveys,
an operating schedule should be developed so that dumping occurs
at times considered to be least harmful to marine life. This may
entail some additional storage capacity on the part of the
operators. Also, a better idea of the composition of the dumped
materials would allow restriction on amounts allowable for
dumping at any one time if this were necessary.
Fequi re.nents for Use
California Salvage Company and H-10 Water Taxi Service have
similar operations (manual handling) procedures, but the
composition of their wastes differs. Possible requirements are
presented separately because of the waste differences.
UU60C1511
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2-201
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
California Salvage Company
A greater effort must be made to separate those materials
acceptable for other means of disposal from those requiring at-
sea disposal. Only those unacceptable for alternative methods of
disposal should be dumped in the ocean. For those materials to
be dumped, a packaging method, such as weighted drums, should be
specified to allow sinking of the materials to the bottom in as
short a time as possible. Also, personnel handling the materials
should be aware of the dangers in handling and mixing chemicals.
Water Taxi Service
A method for disposal of the garbage should be specified so that
all materials to be disposed of at sea are reduced to pulp by
grinding or maceration. Floatable materials and materials not
organic in nature should be sorted out and disposed of by other
means. Both operators should be required to acquire and maintain
adequate navigation equipment to position the vessels positively
at the dump site. A short-range radar set would be adequate,
because neither site is very far from the coast or an island.
Also, both operators should submit periodic reports on their
discharges to EPA and should specify materials, amounts, method
of disposal, date and time of disposal, and total amounts of
materials for each discharge period.
2-202
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4460C1541
-------
¦e
CT>
O
n
U1
CO
o
a
i-3
ta
9
w
z
K>
I
KJ
O
U)
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF
WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo
3-55 gal.
drums
Beryllium Waste
3-30 gal.
drums
Beryllium Waste
23-05 gal.
cans
Beryllium Waste
5-cartons
Beryllium Waste
4-100 lb.
bags
Beryllium Waste
Capri Pumping Company, L.A.
4820-gal.
Cyanide Waste
George F. Casey Company, L.A.
1-55 gal.
drum
Cyanide Waste
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A.
1-30 gal.
drum
Cyanide Waste
8-30 gal.
drum
Waste Acid
Clinical Pathology Medical Group, L.A.
34-04 gal.
cases
Waste Acid
Havco Company, Hawthorne
6-55 gal.
drums
Cyanide Waste
2-cartons
Sodium Metal
Hughes Aircraft, Culver City
33-15 gal.
carboys
Waste Acid
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena
36-05 gal.
cans
NaK
Kerr McGee Corporation, Whittier
28-55 gal.
drums
Waste Chemicals
Northrop Aircraft, Palos Verdes
1-55 gal.
drum
Waste Chemicals
Swift Company, L.A.
14-55 gal.
drums
Beryllium Waste
2-cartons
Beryllium Waste
Shell Chemical Company, Torrance
14-55 gal.
drums
Waste Solvents
1-30 gal.
drum
Waste Solvents
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE COMPANY
TABLE 2.4-9a
DEC. 1, 1969 thru JAN
DUMPING AMOUNTS
. 31, 1970
INTERSTATE
¦ I—¦ EtCCTDONKS
CORPOMIHN
-------
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF
WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Superchrome Plating & Engineering Co., L.A.
10-55
gal.
drums
Cyanide Waste
2-05
gal.
cans
Cyanide Waste
Supertemp, Santa Fe Springs
1-55
gal.
drum
Waste Chemicals
Union Carbide, San Diego
7-55
gal.
drums
Beryllium Waste
9-55
gal.
drums
Cyanide Waste
2-55
gal.
drums
Silicon Tetrachloride
Whittaker Corporation, San Diego
7-55
gal.
drums
Waste Chemicals
2-cartons
Waste Chemicals
TABLE 2.4-9b
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
DEC. 1, 1969 thru JAN. 31, 1970
0
W~ — interstate
¦ ¦ ¦ ELECTRONICS
aMPonmoN
-------
<7*
O
n
Ut
a
*3
sc
9
ss
o
>
tr*
M
o
is
to
l
to
o
Ul
SOURCE OP WASTE {COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF
WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Autonetics, Anaheim
141-15 gal.
carboys
Waste Acid
Calif. Inst, of Technology, Pasadena
14-cartons
Waste Chemicals
Capri Pumping Company, L. A.
2000—gal.
Cyanide Waste
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A.
1- 30 gal.
drum
Cyanide Waste
8-30 gal.
drums
Waste Acid
10-cartons
Waste Chemicals
Havco Company, Hawthorne
20-55 gal.
drums
Waste Chemicals
9-05 gal.
cans
Waste Chemicals
Hughes Aircraft, Culver City
9—55 qal.
drums
Waste Chemicals
31-15 gal.
carboys
Waste Chemicals
1-carton
Waste Chemicals
38—15 gal.
carboys
Waste Acid
Hughes Aircraft, Newport Beach
4-55 gal.
drums
Waste Chemicals
Hughes Aircraft, Torrance
5-55 gal.
drums
Beryllium Waste
1-carton
Waste Acid
Hughes Aircraft, Malibu
7—55 gal.
drums
Waste Chemicals
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena
16—05 qal.
cans
NaK
U.S. Naval Si^pply Center, San Diego
15-55 gal.
drums
Unlis ted
U.S. Naval Weapons Center, Corona
3—55 gal.
drums
Unlisted
9-cartons
Unlisted
4-08 gal.
containers
Unlisted
CALIFORNIA
TABLE 2.4-9c
FEB. 1
SALVAGE COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
, 1970 thru MARCH 31, 1970
tec
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
conrannnoN
-------
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF
WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Secondary Science Center, Van Nuys
1-55
gal.
drum
Unlisted
Shell Chemical Company, Torrance
32-55
gal.
drums
Unlisted
Sunerchrome Plating & Engineerino Co., L.A.
1-55
gal.
drum
Cyanide Waste
3-30
gal.
drums
Cyanide Waste
2-15
gal.
carboys
Cyanide Waste
1-05
gal.
can
Cyanide Waste
Teledyne Systems, L.A.
1-55
gal.
drum
Waste Acid
UCLA Chemistry Buildinq, L.A.
8-55
gal.
drums
Waste Chemicals
Union Carbide, San Dieqo
2-55
gal.
drums
Unlisted
TABLE 2.4-9d
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE COMPANY DUMPING AriOUNTS
FEB. 1, 1970 thru MARCH 31, 1970
W — INTERSTATE
I ¦—¦ ELECTRONICS
CORPOMJKM
-------
C7\
o
n
m
o
a
a
9
o
>
M
O
w
2!
eo
i
to
o
-J
SOURCE OP WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Autonetics, Anaheim
25-15 gal. carboys
Unlisted
183-07 gal. cans
Unlisted
1-05 gal. can
unlisted
California State Colleger L.A.
2-55 gal. drums
Waste Chemicals
Capri Punjsing Coirpany, L.A.
6400-gal.
Cyanide Waste
George F. Casey Company, L.a.
19-55 gal. drums
Cyanide Waste
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A.
1-30 gal. drum
Cyanide Waste
7- 30 gal. drums
Waste Acid
Clinical Pathology Medical Group, L.A.
28-cases
Waste Acid
Fairchild Space & Defense System, El Segundo
2-55 gal. drums
Unlisted
Havco Conpany, Hawthorne
3-55 gal. drums
Cyanide Waste
Hughes Aircraft, Culver City
52-15 gal. carboys
Waste Acid
1-carton
Waste Chemicals
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena
14-05 gal. cans
NaK
Magnavox Research Laboratories, Torrance
1-55 gal. drum
Unlisted
McDonnell Douglas , Santa Monica
4-55 gal. drums
Unlisted
6—05 gal. drums
Unlisted
North American Rockwell, Santa Susana
2-55 gal. drums
Unlisted
1-carton
Unlisted
Shell Chemical Coup any, Torrance
151-55 gal. drums
Waste Solvents
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE
TABLE 2.4-9e
FEB. 1, 1970
COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
thru MARCH 31, 1970
WT— INTERSTATE
¦ ¦—¦ ELKTOMCS
— concawnoN
-------
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF
WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Stanford Research Institute, Pasadena
3-55
gal.
drums
Unlisted
1-05
gal.
can
Unlisted
Superchrome Plating & Engineering Co., L.A.
2-55
gal.
drums
Cyanide Waste
2-30
gal.
drums
Cyanide Waste
1-15
gal.
carboy
Cyanide Waste
3-05
gal.
cans
Cyanide Waste
TABLE 2.4-9f
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE COMPAIIY DUMPING AMOUNTS
FEB. 1, 1970 thru MARCH 31, 1970
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
coRPonmoN
-------
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF
WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo
2-55 gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
3-cartons
Waste
Chemicals
Autonetics, Anaheim
226-15 gal.
carboys
Unlisted
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A.
1-30 gal.
drum
Cyanide Waste
6—30 gal.
drums
Waste
Acid
Huqhes Aircraft, Culver City
32-15 gal.
carboys
Waste
Chemicals
2-cartons
Waste
Chemicals
Los Angeles City Schools, L.A.
3—55 gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
McDonnell Douglas, Santa Monica
1-55 gal.
drum
Waste
Chemicals
Northrop Aircraft, Hawthorne
4-55 cral.
drums
Was te
Chemicals
5-40 gal.
cans
Waste
Chemicals
5-15 gal.
carboys
Waste
Chemicals
4-05 gal.
cans
Waste
Chemicals
4-cartons
Waste
Chemicals
1-lot
Waste
Chemicals
4-cartons
Waste
Chemicals
Shell Chemical Company, Torrance
2-30 gal.
drums
Waste
Solvents
54-05 gal.
cans
Waste
Solvents
Shell Oil Company, L.A.
3—55 gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
2-cartons
Waste
Chemicals
U.S. Borax, Anaheim
1-55 gal.
drum
Waste
Solvents
Wilshire Chemical, Torrance
5—55 gal.
drums
Waste
Solvents
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE
TABLE 2.4—9q
FEB. 1, 1970
COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
thru MARCH 31, 1970
<
1
&
[€C
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
a»i>anaioN
-------
ts>
I
NJ
O
w
o
33
M
W
Z
n
>
f
H
o
58
z
¦e
•C
o*
tn
XT
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Autonetics, Anaheim
3-55 gal. drums
225-15 gal. carboys
Waste Acid
Waste Acid
Calif. Inst, of Technology, Pasadena
11-cartons
Waste Chemicals
Capri Pumping Company, L.A.
2600—cral.
Cyanide Waste
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A.
1-30 gal. drum
6-30 gal. drums
Cyanide Waste
Waste Acid
Color Craft Display Corporation, L.A.
1-55 gal. drum
Waste Chemicals
Film Salvage Company, L.A.
18-55 gal. drums
Waste Nitrate Film
Havco Company, Hawthorne
1-55 gal. drum
2-55 gal. drums
5-01 gal. cans
Cyanide Waste
Waste Chemicals
Sodium Metal
Hospital of The Good Samaritan, L.A.
18-55 gal. drums
Waste Materials
Hughes Aircraft, Culver City
77-15 gal. carboys
2—cartons
Waste Acid
Waste Acid
Hucrhes Aircraft, Torrance
5—55 gal. drums
Selenium Waste
Hughes Aircraft, Malibu
3-55 gal. drums
2-05 gal. cans
Waste Chemicals
Waste Chemicals
Kerr McGee Corporation, Whittier
18-55 gal. drums
Unlisted
Los Angeles City Schools, L.A.
1-55 gal. drum
Waste Chemicals
McDonnell Douglas, Huntincrton Beach
3-55 gal. drums
Waste Chemicals
CALIFORNIA
TABLE 2.4-9h
FEB. 1,
SALVAGE COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
1970 thru MARCH 31, 1970
tec
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CDRPOMIKA
-------
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUtlE OF WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Northrop Aircraft, Hawthorne
San Diego State College, San Diego
Superchrome Plating & Engineering Co., L.A.
Teledyne Systems, L.A.
U.S. Borax, Anaheim
U.S. Fibers Company, Santa Ana
4-55 gal.
9-15 qal.
2—bottles
drums
carboys
1-55 gal. drum
6-55 gal.
3— 30 aal.
20-bottles
1-15 gal.
1-jug
1-55 gal.
11-55 gal.
drums
drums
carboy
drum
drums
Waste Chemicals
Waste Chemicals
Waste Chemicals
Waste Chemicals
Cyanide Waste
Cyanide Waste
Waste Acid
Waste Acid
Waste Acid
Waste Solvents
Sodium Chlorate
TABLE 2.4—9i
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE COMPANY DUI1PING AMOUNTS
FEB. 1, 1970 thru MARCH 31, 1970
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
COHPOMOION
-------
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo
7-55 gal. drums
13-cartons
9-filters
Waste Chemicals
Waste Chemicals
Waste Filters
Calif. Inst, of Technology, Pasadena
14-cartons
Waste Chemicals
Capri Pumpinq Coirpany, L.A.
1400—gal.
Cyanide Waste
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A.
2-30
7-30
gal. drums
gal. drums
Cyanide Waste
Waste Acid
Clinical Pathology Medical Group, L.A.
2-55
gal. drums
Waste Acid
Grefoo Company, Torrance
16-05
gal. cans
Waste Chemicals
Havco Company, Hawthorne
1-55 gal. drum
1-cylinder
Waste Chemicals
HC1 Gas
Hughes Aircraft, Culver City
93—15 gal. carboys
2-cartons
Waste Acid
Waste Chemicals
Huahes Aircraft, Lomita
3-55
gal. drums
Beryllium Waste
J. H. Hull School, Torrance
1-55
qal. drum
Waste Chemicals
Shell Chemical Company, Torrance
31-55
gal. drums
Waste Rubber Chemicals
Shell Chemical Company, Dominguez
55-55
6-01
gal. drums
gal• cans
Waste Solvents
Waste Solvents
UCLA Chemistry Building, L.A.
7-55
gal. drums
Waste Chemicals
Tex Laboratories, Santa Monica
3-55
gal. drums
Waste Acid
CALITOFNIA
TABLE 2.4-9j
[ FEB 1,
SALVAGE COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
1970 thru MARCH 31, 1970
tec
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
-------
ox
o
O
Ln
cn
O
a
h3
a
a
2
O
3*
Jr1
M
O
w
Z
KJ
I
fO
Ui
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR A<3ENCY)
VOLUMB OF
WASTE
TYPE or WASTE
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A.
1-30 gal.
drum
Cyanide Waste
7-30 gal.
drums
Waste
Acid
Huahes Aircraft, Culver City
7-55 aal.
drums
Waste
Acid
114-15 gal.
carboys
Waste
Acid
1-carton
Waste
Chemicals
1-carton
Waste
Chemicals
Hughes Aircraft, Newport Beach
6-55 gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
Los Angeles City College, L.A.
6-55 gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
3-05 gal.
cans
Waste
Chemicals
Shell Chemical Company, Torrance
30-55 gal.
drums
Waste
Solvents
Superchzome Plating & Engineering Co.,
L.A.
4—55 gal.
drums
Cyanide Waste
3— 30 era!.
drums
Cyanide Waste
2-20 gal.
drums
Cyanide Waste
U.S. Naval Electronics Laboratory, San
Diego
10-55 gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
CALIFORNIA SALVA® COMPANY
TABLE 2.4-9k
FEB. 1, 1970 thru MARCH
DUMPING AMOUNTS
31, 1970
4
1
»
:tc
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORA! ION
-------
1
K>
&
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF
WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo
3-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
Autonetics, Anaheim
1-Chest Freezer
1-up right
re frig.
1-carton
Waste
Chemicals
California State College, L.A.
2-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
Calif. Inst, of Technology, Pasadena
26-cartons
Waste
Chemicals
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A.
1-30
gal.
drum
Cyanide Waste
Ui
8-30
gal.
drums
Was te
Acid
o
3
Clinical Pathology Medical Group, L.A.
2-30
gal.
drums
Was te
Acid
33
M
W
Hughes Aircraft, Culver City
162-15
gal.
carboys
Waste
Acid
z
3-cartons
Waste
Chemicals
o
>
f
Los Angeles City Schools, L.A.
3-55
qal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
o
«
McDonnell Douglas, Santa Monica
1-55
gal.
drum
Waste
Chemicals
3
H
IM
Teledyne Systems, L.A.
8-15
gal.
carboys
Waste
Acid
IP"
11-05
gal.
bottles
Waste
Acid
TRW, Lawndale
2-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
VA Hospital, San Fernando
6-55
gal.
drums
Was te
Chemicals
U.S. Borax, Anaheim
2-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Solvents
¦P
*:
-------
¦e
O
o
tn
8
3
a
8
2
O
>
M
O
w
z
H
to
I
to
<_n
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR A(33JCY) VOLUI1E OF WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A. 1-30 cral. drum
Cyanide Waste
7- 30 gal. drums
Waste
Acid
3-05 gal. cans
Waste
Acid
Film Salvage Company, L.A. 61-55 aal. drums
Waste
Hitrate Film
Havco Conqpany, Hawthorne 1-15 gal. carboy
Waste
Chemicals
2-cartons
Was te
Chamicals
20-05 gal. cans
Waste
Chemicals
Hughes Aircraft, Culver City 126-15 gal. carboys
Waste
Acid
Hughes Aircraft, Torrance 5-55 gal. drums
Waste
Acid
3-bottles
Waste
Acid
Newport Pharmaceuticals, Costa Mesa 11-55 gal. drums
Waste
Solvents
Autonetics, Anaheim 6-55 qal. drums
Waste
Chemicals
3-40 gal. cans
Waste
Chemicals
6-05 gal. cans
Waste
Chemicals
9-cartons
Was te
Chemicals
47-lectore bottles
Waste
Chemicals
2-filters
Waste
Chemicals
Northrop Aircraft, Hawthorne 7-55 gal. drums
Was te
Chemicals
12-55 gal. drums
Waste
Chemicals
35-05 gal. cans
Waste
Chemicals
10-01 gal. cans
Waste
Chemicals
4-25 lb. sacks
Waste
Chemicals
10-cans
Haste
Chemicals
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
€
TABLE 2.4-9m
¦
INTER5TATE
FEB. 1, 1970 thru MARCH 31, 1970
I 1 ELECTRONICS
—m— coRfonmaN
-------
source of waste (coiipany or agency)
VOLUIIE OF
WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Richer Laboratories, Northridge
8-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
3-30
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
Secondary Science Center, Van Nuvs
6-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
1-40
gal.
drum
Waste
Chemicals
1-30
gal.
drum
Waste
Chemicals
2-10
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
9-05
gal.
cans
Waste
Chemicals
17-02
gal.
cans
Waste
Chemicals
Solitron Corporation, San Dieqo
2-55
gal.
drums
Cyanide Waste
Southern California Gas Co., Pico Rivera
2-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
Teledyne Systems, L.A.
22-15
gal.
carboys
Waste
Acid
TRW, Redondo Beach
3-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
TABLE 2.4-9n
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE COHPAIJY DUMPING AHOUITTS
FEB. 1, 1970 thru MARCH 31, 1970
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
-------
to
I
ro
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF
WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Calbiochem, L.A.
2-55 gal.
drums
Was te
Chemicals
6-15 gal.
carboys
Waste
Chemicals
3-05 gal.
bottles
Waste
Chemicals
Calif. Inst, of Technology, Pasadena
15-cartons
Was te
Chemicals
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A.
1-30 cral.
drum
Cyanide Waste
7-30 gal.
drums
Waste
Acid
Consolidated Ilarine Inc., San Pedro
3-55 gal.
drums
Was te
Chemicals
Film Salvage Company, L.A.
70-55 gal.
drums
Was te
Nitrate Film
Hughes Aircraft, Culver City
8-55 qal.
drums
Was te
Chemicals
135-15 gal.
carboys
Waste
Acid
2-cartons
Waste
Chemicals
Northrop Aircraft, Hawthorne
5-55 gal.
drums
^aste
Chemicals
8-15 gal.
carboys
Waste
Chemicals
7-05 gal.
cans
Waste
Chemicals
1-sack
Waste
Chemicals
Shell Oil Company, Wilmington
4-30 gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
2-05 gal.
cans
Waste
Chemicals
Stauffer Chemical, Carson
G 8-cylinders
HCL Gas
U.S. Naval Underseas Center, San Diego
6-55 gal.
drums
Was te
Chemicals
CALIFORNIA
TABLE 2.4-9o
FEB. 1
SALVAGE COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
, 1970 thru MARCH 31, 1970
fl
1
»
INTERSTATE
8—¦ ELECTRONICS
aspownoN
-------
NJ
I
ro
00
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Autonetics, Anaheim
2-55 gal. drums
Waste Chemicals
Centennalia Valley High School, Hawthorne
5—05 gal. cans
Unlisted
2-cartons
Unlisted
City of Hope, Duarte
1-55 gal. drum
Waste Chemicals
Clinical Laboratory Medical Groun, L.A.
2-30 gal. drums
Cyanide Waste
7-30 gal. drums
Waste Acid
Clinical Patholoqy Medical Group, L.A.
2-30 gal. drums
Waste Acid
Curtis Nuclear Corporation, L.A.
1-06 gal. bottle
Waste Acid
Hucrhes Aircraft, Culver City
177-15 gal. carboys
Waste Acid
3-cartons
Waste Acid
Huqhes Aircraft, Torrance
4-55 gal. drums
Beryllium Waste
McDonnell Douglas, Santa itonica
4-55 gal. drums
Waste Chemicals
Richer Laboratories, Northridge
7-55 gal. drums
Waste Chemicals
Shell Chemical Company, Torrance
1-qt. cylinder
Vinyl Acetylene
Superchrome Plating & Engineering Co., L.A.
9-55 gal. drums
Cyanide Waste
5-30 gal. drums
Cyanide Waste
UCLA Chemistry Building, L.A.
5-55 gal. drums
Waste Chemicals
1-55 gal. drum
NaK
1-55 gal. drum
Waste Oil
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE
TABLE 2.4-9p
FEB. 1, 1970
COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
thru MARCH 31, 1970
— INTERSTATE
¦ ¦—¦ ELECTRONICS
m axrawnN
-------
•C
•e
o>
o
o
en
as
M
JO
z
o
>
f
M
*1
O
3
(O
«
to
vO
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF WASTE
TYPE
OF WASTE
Calif. Inst, of Technology, Pasadena
11-cartons
Waste
Chemicals
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A.
1-30 gal. drum
Cyanide Waste
6-30 gal. drums
Waste
Acid
Hughes Aircraft, Culver City
130-15 gal. carboys
Waste
Acid
4-cartons
Waste
Acid
Lode heed Aircraft, Ontario
5-55 gal. drums
Waste
Chemicals
1-15 gal. carboy
Waste
Acid
5-05 gal. jugs
Haste
Chemicals
Newport Pharmaceuticals, Costa Mesa
12-55 gal. drums
Waste
Solvents
Northrop Aircraft, Hawthorne
3-pallets
Waste
Acid
4-55 gal. drums
Waste
Acid
1-55 gal. drum
Cyanide Salts
1-10 gal. can
Waste
Acid
1-bottle
Waste
Acid
Philco-Pord Aeronautics, Newport Beach
8-55 gal. drums
Waste
Chemical
Quaker Oats, Wilmington
2-lectore bottles
Waste
Chemicals
2-15 gal. carboys
Was te
Chemicals
1-cylinder
S02
1-cylinder
C02
Teledyne Systems, L.A.
15-15 gal. carboys
Waste
Acid
Tekform Products, Anaheim
3-55 gal. drums
Cyanide Waste
TFW, Redondo Beach
1-55 gal. drum
Waste
Chemicals
U.S. Borax, Anaheim
2-55 gal. drums
Waste
Solvents
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE
TABLE 2.4-9q
FEB. 1, 1970
COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
thru MARCH 31, 1970
1
>
r — INTERSTATE
¦ ¦ ELECTRONICS
%— oonromnoN
-------
NJ
I
ro
N)
o
Cfl
0
EC
tt
W
z
n
>
r
w
58
¦e
-------
o^
O
O
at
CO
o
a
h
x
w
w
2
O
tr"
M
O
§
fO
I
NJ
ISJ
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AOENCY)
VOLUME OF WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Aerojet General, Downey
4-55 gal. drums
Waste Solvents
1-15 gal. carboy
Cyanide Waste
6-06 gal. cans
Cyanide Waste
Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo
7-55 gal. drums
Waste Chemicals
1-15 gal. carbov
Waste Chemicals
7-cartons
Waste Chemicals
9-cartons
Beryllium Filters
16-cartons
Beryllium Waste
Autoneti cs, Anaheim
1-55 gal. drum
Cyanide Waste
7-55 gal. drums
Waste Solvents
37-05 gal. cans
Waste Solvents
24-containers
Plating Compound
5-15 gal. carboys
Waste Acid
4-55 gal. drums
Waste Chemicals
171-05 gal. jugs
Waste Acid
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A.
1-30 gal. drum
Cyanide Waste
7-30 gal. drums
Waste Acid
Clinical Pathology Medical Group, L.A.
2-30 gal. drums
Waste Acid
Film Salvage Company, L.A.
66-55 gal. drums
Waste Nitrate Film
Hughes Aircraft, Torrance
3-55 gal. drums
Beryllium Waste
McDonnell Douglas, Santa Monica
4-55 qal. drums
Waste Chemicals
1-30 gal. drum
Waste Chemicals
16-05 gal. cans
Waste Chemicals
Newport Pharmaceuticals, Costa Mesa
9-55 gal. drums
Waste Chemicals
15-55 gal. drums
Waste Solvents
CALIFORNIA
TABLE 2.4-9S
FEB. 1
SALVAGE COMPANY DU'IPIIIG AMOUNTS
, 1970 thru MARCH 31, 1970
interstate
m. m~ V. electronics
^ coRrawnaN
-------
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF
WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Northrop Aircraft, Hawthorne
12-30
gal.
drums
Waste Chemicals
15-05
gal.
cans
Waste Chemicals
30-01
gal.
cans
Waste Chemicals
2-01
gal.
cans
Lithium Waste
Parker Seal, Culver City
2-55
gal.
drums
Waste Chemicals
Quaker Oats, Wilmington
22-05
gal.
cans
Waste Solvents
Shell Chemical Company, Torrance
1-55
gal.
drum
Waste Chemicals
Tekforra Products, Anaheim
3-55
gal.
drums
Cyanide Waste
Teledyne Systems, L.A.
34-15
gal.
carboys
Waste Acid
Union Oil Research, Brea
9-55
gal.
drums
Waste Chemicals
5-05
gal.
cans
Waste Chemicals
TABLE 2.4-9t
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
FEB. 1, 1970 thru MARCH 31, 1970
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
OONPOMIKn
-------
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGEHCY)
VOLUTE OF
WASTE
TYPE OF WAS IE
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A.
1-30
gal.
drum
Cyanide Waste
6-30
gal.
drums
Waste Acid
Hughes Aircraft, Culver Citv
52-15
gal.
carboys
Waste Acid
1-carton
Waste Acid
Jet propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena
2-55
gal.
drums
Beryllium Waste
2-10
gal.
drums
Beryllium Waste
11-05
gal.
cans
Beryllium Waste
16-cartons
Beryllium Waste
3-duct silencers
Beryllium Waste
Newport Pharmaceuticals, Costa Mesa
14-55
gal.
drums
Waste Chemicals
Northrop Aircraft, Hawthorne
1-55
gal.
drum
Waste Chemicals
Southern California Gas Co., Pico Rivera
1-55
gal.
drum
Waste Chemicals
Superchrome Plating & Engineering Co., L.A.
4-55
gal.
drums
Cyanide Waste
2-30
gal.
drums
Cyanide Waste
TRW, Redondo Beach
1-55
gal.
drum
Waste Chemicals
use School of Medicine, L.A.
6-55
gal.
drums
Waste Chemicals
University of California, San Diego
8-55
gal.
drums
Waste Chemicals
CALIFORNIA S ALVA (IE
TABLE 2.4-9u
FEB. 1, 1970
COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
thru MARCH 31, 1970
W M1 ^— INTERSTATE
1 S— ¦ ELBCTRONK5
COMOKnON
-------
NJ
I
NJ
NJ
01
o
EC
M
»
3
O
>
f
H
3
w
z
-P
0\
8
LTI
-Cr
SOURCE OF WASTE {COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF WASTE
TYPE OF WASTE
Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo
5-55 gal. drums
Beryllium Waste
13-05 gal. cans
Beryllium Waste
8-cartons
Beryllium Waste
Georqe F. Casey Comnany, L.A.
2-55 gal. drums
Cyanide Waste
Clinical Laboratory Medical Group, L.A.
1-30 gal. drum
Cyanide Waste
11-30 gal. drum
Waste Acid
Clinical Patholoqy Medical Group, L.A.
2-30 gal. drums
Waste Acid
Film Salvage Company, L.A.
72-55 gal. drums
Waste Nitrate Film
Health Science Associates, Cerritos
7-cartons
Beryllium Waste
Interstate Engineering, Anaheim
14-55 gal. drums
Waste Solvents
116-05 gal. cans
Waste Solvents
6-55 gal. drums
Paint Thinner
Lockheed Aircraft, Ontario
17-55 gal. drums
Waste Acid
8-empty drums
McDonnell Douglas, Huntington Beach
1-55 gal. drum
Sodium Metal Napthalene
U.S. Naval Underseas Center, San Dieqo
9-55 gal. drums
Waste Chemicals
Newport Pharmaceuticals, Costa Mesa
9-55 gal. drums
Waste Chemicals
13-55 gal. drums
Waste Solvents
14-55 gal. drums
Waste Solvents
North American Rockwell, Santa Susana
108-55 gal. drums
Sodium {fetal
CALIFORNIA
TABLE 2.4-9V
FEB.
SALVAGE COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
1, 1970 thru MARCH 31, 1970
^M— interstate
I ¦—¦ ELECTRONICS
C0RHUMUKJN
-------
SOURCE OF WASTE (COMPANY OR AGENCY)
VOLUME OF
WASTE
TYPE
OF WASTE
Northrop Aircraft, Hawthorne
8-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
30-30
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
1-pallet
Waste
Chemicals
1-carton
Waste
Chemicals
8-cartons
Waste
Chemicals
2-cartons
Explosive Rivets
Philco—Ford Aeronautics, Newport Beach
10-5 5
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
1-30
cral.
drum
Waste
Chemicals
9-15
gal.
carboys
Waste
Chemicals
Shell Chemical Coirmany, Torrance
2-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
Shell Oil Conpany, Carson City
6-55
gal.
drums
Tank Bottoms
Superchrome Plating & Engineering Co., L.A.
7-55
gal.
drums
Cyanide Waste
Tekform products, Anaheim
2-55
gal.
drums
Oyanide Waste
UCLA Chemistrv Building, L.A.
5-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
U.S. Borax, Anaheim
9-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Solvents
WES-Cal Wire, Dominquez
9-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
1-15
gal.
carboy
Waste
Chemicals
2-05
aal.
carboys
Waste
Chemicals
TRW, Redondo Beach
1-55
gal.
drum
Waste
Chemicals
TRW, El Segundo
1-55
gal.
drum
Waste
Chemicals
8-05
gal.
cans
Waste
Chemicals
6-cartons
Waste
Chemicals
TRW, Lawndale
3-55
gal.
drums
Waste
Chemicals
CALIFORNIA SALVAGE
TABLE 2.4-9w ^
FEB. 1, 1970
COMPANY DUMPING AMOUNTS
thru MARCH 31, 1970
1
INTERSTATE
¦—¦ electronics
^— OOMOMION
-------
FIELD STUDY EEPORTS
2.5 SAN FRANCISCO OCEAN DISPOSAL STUDY
2.5.1 Introduction
Oceanic areas affected by marine-transported wastes from the San
Francisco Bay area are the subject of this section.
The San Francisco area is located in central Northern California
and is the only major port in the northern part of the state.
San Francisco has a history of ocean dumping that has in recent
years been under close scrutiny by local and state regulatory
agencies. As a result of the local activities, most ocean
dumping has stopped, either by direct regulation or because of
monetary pressures and environmental concern expressed by the
regulatory agencies. Figure 2.5-1 (a portion of National Ocean
Survey Chart No. 5021) shows locations of existing and past dump
sites in the study area.
Although the area inside the Golden Gate was not originally
intended to be a part of this report, some information is
provided on dumping of dredge spoils inside the Bay.
Dumping of materials at sea in the San Francisco area is at
present limited to the disposal of dredge spoil materials. These
materials are' generally those that are deemed polluted and, thus,
not suitable for disposal within the Bay itself, except for the
material removed from the main ship channel on an annual basis
2-226
SAN FRANCISCO
4460C15£M
-------
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ocean Disposal Program Office
\\ "
. SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS
'AT MKAN LOWER LOW WATD
I V X
LEGEND
ACTIVE SITES
Q - Dredge Spoil
INACTIVE SITES
Industrial Wastes
Explosives
Cannery Wastes
Radioactive Wastes
Figure 2.5-1
LOCATIONS OF PAST AND EXISTING OCEAN DUMPING SITES SAN FRANCISCO AREA
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
anil deposited just south of the channel. One dumping activity
that had been active in the past few years, a cannery waste
disposal, has been terminated recently. This was the only
remaining operation, other than dredge spoil disposal, that
entailed ocean disposal.
2.5.2 History of Dumping in the San Francisco Area
Dumping of wastes in the study area offshore of the Golden Gate
have been in six categories of materials: (1) refinery wastes,
(2) acid wastes, (3) cannery wastes, (4) radioactive wastes, (5)
munitions, and (6) dredge spoil.
A summary of the wastes disposed of between 1931 and 1972 is
presented in Table 2.5-1.
2.5.2.1 Refinery Wastes - The estimate of 315 million gallons of
refinery wastes is from one of two known generators of this
waste.
2-228
SAN FRANCISCO
4«60Cl5m
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
TABLE 2.5-1
SUMMARY OF WASTES DUMPED INTO THE OCEAN AREAS
OFFSHORE OF SAN FRANCISCO
TYPE OF WASTE
1931-72
PERIOD ESTIMATED TOTAL
PRESENT
ESTIMATED TOTAL
Refinery Wastes 1966-72 315 M Gal
Acid Wastes
194 8-71 2 40 M Gal
Cannery Wastes
1960-72 246 K tons
Radioactive Wastes 1946-68 44,563 containers
Munitions
1968-69 746 tons
Dredge Spoil
1935-72
1 M yards
Standard Oil Company of California, beginning in 1966, discharged
about 4 5 million gallons of chemical wastes per year from their
Richmond refinery. The location of the dump site was stated as
"at least 5 miles offshore." Standard Oil agreed to terminate
their operation no later than December 31, 1972. Daring the
period between December 22, 1970, and December 31, 1972, they
were required to dump at least 3 miles beyond the Gulf of the
Farallones.*99 * Standard Oil has developed a method to treat
their wastes and has been able to terminate the ocean disposal of
this material.
Shell Oil Company discharged wastes from its Martinez refinery at
a location 50 to 100 miles from shore.) information on
4460C1541 SAN FRANCISCO 2-229
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPORTS
disposal frequency, and annual amounts on this discharge, were
not available. This operation was ordered terminated by December
31, 1971, by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The
composition of these wastes has not been determined.
2.5.2.2 Acid Waste - United States Steel corporation discharged
about 10 million crallons per year of spent steel pickling acid
into the ocean about 14 miles southwest from the Golden Gate and
about 9 miles offshore<"> (at approximately 37°72'N, 122°40,W in
about 120 feet of water). This operation began in 1948 and was
terminated ftpril 30, 1971. U.S. Steel has found a commercial
outlet for its hydrochloric acid and disposes of its sulfuric
acid in a sanitary landfill.
2.5.2.3 Cannery Wastes - Beginning in 1960, the Oakland
Scavenger Company was contracted by six East Bay fruit and
vegetable canneries to dispose of their wastes. The volume of
the discharge was about 22,000 tons per year. The disposal site
was in water depth of about 260 feet, at a location approximately
20 miles offshore of San Francisco. The latitude and longitude
has been determined to be 34°35'N, 122°50,W. Recent contact with
Oakland Scavenger has determined that the operation has been
terminated because of increasing costs associated with the
monitoring requirements. An alternative method of disposal has
2-230
SAN FRANCISCO
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
been determined to be more cost effective when environmental
concern was taken into account.
2.5.2.4 Radioactive Wastes - Licensees regulated by the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission dumped, in the period 1946 to 1968,
about 44,5 63 containers of radioactive wastes into the ocean
about 16 miles southwest of the Farallon Islands.499 * This
location would be approximately centered at 37°31*N, 123°14»W.
This site location was not mentioned in previous dump site
reports.t?s) Dumping was terminated by changes in Federal
policies in the late 1960's. Positive determination as to what
is called a container is not possible, although the normal
disposal method is to encase an amount of the waste in concrete
within a 55-gallon drum. The actual amount of waste per barrel
can vary from a few grams to a few pounds, depending on the
storage capability of the licensee.
2.5.2.5 Munitions - During 1968 and 1969, the U.S. Navy disposed
of some 510 tons of conventional munitions in a designated
disposal site some 18 miles west of the Farallon Islands. The
disposal site is a trapezoid with an approximate center at
37° 40'Nr 123°25'W, and averaging 6600 feet in depth. In
addition, a ship (the SS John F. Shafroth) was sunk on this site
in 1964 under the "Chase" disposal operation, it contained
approximately 236 tons of waste ammunition and explosives.<101>
4460C1541
SAN FRANCISCO
2-231
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
These methods of disposal have been discontinued. The Navy is
constructing an ammunition defusing facility in the Bay area and
will recycle some out-of-date ammunition.
2.5.2.6 Dredge Spoil - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
discharges materials from maintenance and improvement activities
both near the main channel entrance and within San Francisco Bay.
Also, activities under Corps of Engineer permits have discharged
materials outside the Bay. Main channel entrance maintenance
programs have placed about 6 00,000 cubic yards annually in a
location just south of the channel. This amount is expected to
nearly double, with planned deepening to 55 feet of the entrance
channel in the near future. Also planned is the disposal of
about 900,000 cubic yards of material that exceeds heavy metals
criteria, offshore of the 100 fathom isobath some 3 0 miles out
from the Golden Gate and 8 miles south of the Farallon
Islands.<1o2> (This material is from a project in the Oakland
Inner Harbor.) The corps of Engineers and permittees to the
Corps are the major users of ocean dumping areas in the San
Francisco area at present. Approved dumping areas for use inside
San Francisco Bay are now limited to five specific sites; these
are described in a San Francisco corps of Engineers District
Public Notice*3> and are in concurrence with a San Francisco
Regional Water Quality control Board Resolution. <*>
2-232
SAN FRANCISCO
H460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOPTS
The Bay Area Rapid Transit District disposed of dredged materials
at a site just outside the Golden Gate during the late 1960" s.
This site is centered at 37°46'36"N, 122°32'33MW. It is not
known if this site had been used prior to that time, nor are
volumes of this project known.
2.5.3 Summary
Because of recent events, ocean disposal in the San Francisco
area is presently limited to the disposal of materials derived
from dredging the main channel at the entrance to San Francisco
Bay, and to the disposal of materials considered undesirable to
dump in the bay proper.
Except for temporary turbidity and possible burial of some bottom
dwellers, the main channel project probably does not cause any
serious problems in the local dump site biota and it allows the
retention of possible beach replenishment materials within the
local littoral regime.
The disposal of unwanted materials from within the bay is another
matter. The materials could contain concentrations of heavy
metals above present criteria and chlorinated hydrocarbons above
present standards, and could be toxic because of high oxygen
demanding constituents. Although at present, no alternatives are
known for all cases, a thorough study for some alternative to
Ui|60C1 5U1
SAN FRANCISCO
2-233
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
each projected use of the ocean should be undertaken on a case-
by-case basis.
2.5.4 Present Dumping Activities in the San Francisco Area
Dumping activity in the study area is, at present, limited to two
dredge spoil activities, both under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
administration. One site is used for the disposal of material
from the main ship channel into San Francisco Bay. The other
site (not yet determined positionally) is for the disposal of
contaminated material from future projects within the Bay. Also,
a site used, until recently, for disposal of cannery wastes will
be discussed as it is an example of this type of operation, and
because an extensive study of the effects of the materials upon
the biota has been made, which should receive recognition.
2.5. U.I site No. QD063 3 - This site is the location where dredge
spoil obtained from the maintenance of the entrance channel to
San Francisco Bay is deposited. On an annual basis, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers deposits approximately 6 00,000 cubic
yards of spoil in the dump area outlined in Figure 2.5-2.
Site Description
The site is on a submerged sand bar (San Francisco Bar) which
extends in an arc outside the Golden Gate at a distance of about
five miles. It is 3000 feet south of the main ship channel and
2-23 tt
SAN FRANCISCO
4460C1541
-------
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ocean Disposal Program Office
SOrNDINCSS IN KKKT
AT MKAN MIWKH U»W WATKK
0 0 INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
Center Coordinates 37 45' 06" N. 122° 35' 45" W
' Area 1.2 Square Nautical Miles
ui Navigation Chart No NOS 5532
Ui Local Navigat ion Aids Loran A
Material Type Dredge Spoil
Primary Management COE
SITE NO. 0D0633 FIGURE 2.5-2 — COOTOKUVnON
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
runs the length of the dredged portion, or about 50 00 yards at
the present project depth of 50 feet and is 1000 yards wide.
Water depth in the disposal site ranges from 50 feet at the ends
of the site to less than 3 6 feet near the center of the site. If
the new 55-foot project depth is used, the disposal site would
increase to 3 1/2 miles in length and an annual maintenance
quantity of 9 00,000 yards is projected. The center of the
disposal area is at 37°15'06"N, 122°35'H5"W.
The shape and position of the bar is maintained by a dynamic
balance between tidal flows, prevailing wave actions, and coastal
currents. The materials of the bar are 90 to 95 percent fine
sands, witn the remaining materials falling into the ranges of
silts and clays. It is believed that this material is
predominantly derived from erosion of north coastal cliffs and
outwash of streams. It is transported to the bar by longshore
coastal currents. No measurable part of the material on the bar
is believed derived from the bay system itself. Apparently, the
outflow of fines from the bay system by tidal flows is carried
out over the bar into deep water. The result is submerged beach,
maintained by longshore sand transport, and held offshore by the
repulsion of an ebb tidal prism. The central bar has
approximated its position and depth since 1855, when a study
recorded its position and shape. This position has varied less
than 1500 feet and the depth by less than 10 feet over the
2-236
SAN FRANCISCO
4460C15«H
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
central portion of the bar, exclusive of dredged areas since that
date.<10s)
In the past, materials from the main ship channel were deposited
in deep water about one mile southwest of the seaward channel
entrance. After a comparative assessment of the use of the deep
site, land disposal, or deposition on the bar itself, the Corps
of Engineers has determined that redeposition is the best
alternative, hence the use of the present site.
Ch§EDi2SL Oceanography
On April 5 and June 8, 10, 18, and 30 of 1971, water samples were
collected. The April 5, June 8r and June 30 dates were
predredging and postdredging backgrounds; the remaining dates are
days of dredging activity.
In 1971, the corps of Engineers collected samples of water from
the main ship channel and the disposal site. They obtained
information on temperaure and depth with a bathythermograph and
surface temperature with a laboratory standard thermometer,
salinities were determined from samples by an induction
salinometer. Densities were computed by the Corps of
Engineers.05> Data is presented in Table 2.5-2.
H460C1541
SAN FRANCISCO
2-237
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
TABLE 2.5-2
WATER COLUMN DATA - 1971
MAIN SHIP CHANNEL AND DUMP SITE
DATE
TIME
05 APF 7 1
DEPTH
(ft)
20
SALINITY
(°/oo)
TEMP
<°C)
1 1.2
DENSITY
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
(ppm)
7. 1
Ph
7.3
TURBI
DITY
(JTU)
<5
08 JUN 71
0600
0
33.49
10.2
25.76
18
33.51
9.7
25.87
36
33. 80
9.5
26.12
1300
0
33.49
10.5
25.71
18
33.56
10. 1
25.85
36
33.77
9.7
26.18
1700
0
33.58
10.6
25.77
18
33.46
1 0.6
25.66
36
33.64
10.2
25.88
2 30 0
0
33.63
9.9
25.93
18
33.81
9.4
26.15
36
33. 84
9.4
26.16
10 JUN 71
1227
10
7.7
18 JUN 71
0801
1015
1129
1240
30 JUN 71
10
10
10
45
20
10.5
8.7
6.3
6.5
8.8
7.5
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.5
<5
Notes:
On 10 Jane, release time (start of release) of dredge spoil
from the hopper dredge BIDDLE was 1227. On June 18 release
times were 0736, 1047 and 1230.
2-238
SAN FRANCISCO
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Climatology
Due to the influence of the ocean and the generally westerly
winds, the coastal area of San Francisco has a climate that is
mild in comparison to cities at similar latitudes. Temperature
variations are small, both between day and night and from month
to month. Day to night temperatures vary by about 5°C and the
largest month to month variation is about 2.8°C (November to
December). Although noted for fogs and overcast skys, San
Francisco experiences about 63 percent of the possible sunshine
over a year. As a comparison, Washington, D. C. in 1910 received
59 percent possible sunshine and San Francisco received 66
percent possible sunshine. The area offshore has a lower figure
because fogs do not penetrate into the city as soon as they cover
the offshore area. Winds are predominately from the west.
Winter southerly gales are not infrequent. During May and June,
gales of remarkable velocity from the northwest are almost annual
events.07> The highest winds recorded were north-northwest
winds which occur in November, December, and January. The
average hourly wind velocity at San Francisco is nearly 10 miles
per hour, with highest velocity in late afternoon (4-5 p.m.), and
least velocity about 6 a.m.
One of the most marked climatic features of San Francisco is the
presence of fog. During summer afternoons, fog moves through the
Golden Gate about 1 p.m. and covers the sky by 3 p.m. and
U460C1511
SAN FRANCISCO
2-239
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
remains until 9-10 a.m. During May and September, fog that
appears later (usually near dusk) also stays until 9 a.m. Winter
or tule fogs, formed inland from the Golden Gate, are also
frequent to the bay area. It is interesting to note that a
paper<107> on weather in San Francisco dated 1913 makes reference
to smoke fogs (now called smog) that are a part of the bay area
climatology. Table 2.5-3 has been assembled from various
publications (io7)Cioa)(jo9)# and summarizes some climatological
conditions of the San Francisco area. All parameters are from
data taken in San Francisco City, except for precipitation
amounts which are for the Farallon Islands (considered more
representative of the dump site).
TABLE 2.5-3
SAN FRANCISCO CLIMATOLOGY
AIR
PRECIP-
WIND
WIND
PERCENT
TEMP
ITATION
SPEED
DIREC-
SUNSHINE
<°C)
(Inches)
(MPH)
TION
<%)
January
9.6
4.90
7.2
S
50
February
10.7
3.55
7.6
W
63
March
11.1
3.36
9.1
W
67
April
12.1
1.64
10.3
W
66
May
13.1
0.73
11.5
W
67
June
13.5
0.16
12.9
W
75
July
13.6
0.02
13.4
W
68
August
13.9
0.02
12.5
W
61
September
15.0
0.32
10.3
W
68
October
14.7
1.00
8.0
W
68
November
12.9
2.55
6.6
W
58
December
10.1
4.51
6.7
NW
54
Annual
12.6
22.60
9.7
W
63
2-21*0
SAN FRANCISCO
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Biology
Biological information at the disposal site is of a limited
nature; however, the U.S. Army corps of Engineers District Office
in San Francisco has conducted biological studies at the disposal
site and is presently involved in studying the marine biota, with
emphasis placed upon the benthic organisms. A benthic faunal
study currently underway is expected to be completed and results
available shortly. This benthic study is part of a planned study
program to determine the potential smothering effects on bottom
organisms by the accumulation of dredge material at the disposal
site, and the time interval necessary for repopulation of bottom
organisms in the dredged area. In addition to this research, the
Corps of Engineers also expects (during fiscal year 1974) to
study the plankton organisms at the disposal site. A brief
literature search has revealed no fish faunal lists at the site.
A list of fishes found in San Francisco Bay along with the
benthic invertebrate fauna is available in a California Fish and
Game publication.<*06>
Benthic life at the disposal site, as identified by collected
samples and diver observations, appears to be of the burrowing
types, and they are apparently capable of withstanding some
sediment accumulation without permanent harmful effects.4105'
These organisms include mollusks (snails, clams), polycheate
4460C1541
SAN FRANCISCO
2-241
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
annelid worms, sand dollars, and various crustaceans such as
crabs, shrimp, and isopods.
TABLE 2.5-U
IDENTIFICATION OF BOTTOM ORGANISMS AT DREDGE SPOIL SITE
PHYLUM
CLASS
Order
Genus species
ANNELIDA
POLYCHAETA
ARTHROPODA
MALACOSTRACA
Amphipoda
Cancer magister
Betaeus harfordi
Isopoda
Janiralata davisi
MOLLUSCA
GASTROPODA
Pectinibranchia
Olive11a pycna
Olivella baetica
Nassarius fossata
ECHINODERMATA
ECHINOIDEA
Clypeastroida
Dendraster excentricus
COMMON NAME
Marine worms
Market crab
Shrimp
Isopod
olive shell
olive shell
Whelk snail
Sand dollar
Table 2.5-H lists a few of the organisms that have been found at
the disposal site. More diversified fauna exists; however, the
information is not available for publication.
2-242
SAN FRANCISCO
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
A list giving the plankton organisms could not be obtained;
however, the usual components of the plankton, (i.e.,
Phytoplankton, protozoans, copepods, cladocerans, Scyphozoa
(jellyfish), amphipods, mysids, isopods, chaetognaths (arrow
worms), fish eggs, and various larval stages of fish,
crustaceans, and mollusks are present.
Users of the Site
The only user of this site is the Army Corps of Engineers, San
Francisco District. They deposit materials dredged from the main
ship channel annual maintenance program. Maintenance of the 50-
foot project depth achieved in 1959 has required removal of
approximately 580,000 cubic yards annually from the channel. The
new project depth of 55 feet will increase the annual maintenance
amount to about 940,000 cubic yards. During the period required
to achieve the 5-foot increase in depth (about four years) a
projected annual dredging volume of 1.1 million cubic yards will
be removed from the channel and deposited at the disposal site.
This project started in 1971 and should be achieved in 1974.
Authority for the work performed on the main ship channel comes
from the River and Harbor Act of 1965, which gives the Corps of
Engineers authorization to complete the John F. Baldwin and
Stockton Ship Channels. This project included the deepening of
4460C1541
SAN FRANCISCO
2-243
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
the main ship channel and various other work within the bay and
San Joaquin Fiver navigation system.
The composition of the dredged materials was the subject of a
study performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San
Francisco District, during the period from December 1970 to June
1971. Three sets of samples were collected; the first and
third sets of samples were collected on the hopper dredge Biddle
while it was dredging the channel on December 28, 1970 and June
8, 1971, respectively; the second set (3 locations) was collected
by bottom dredge and sample bottle on April 5, 1971 from a survey
boat. A summary of the results of these samplings is presented
in Table 2.5-5.
In addition to the analyses shown in Table 2.5-5, other tests
were performed on some samples. On the samples collected April
5, 1971, tests for pesticides were run and, with a composite of
samples, a 96-hour static bioassay was performed on three spined
stickleback fish, both by the EPA Regional laboratory in Alameda.
The results of the bioassay were inconclusive because of the
high survival rate of the test fish. The pesticide tests
(maximum concentration achieved from 3 samples) are shown in
Table 2.5-6.
2-2£»£»
SAN FRANCISCO
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
TABLE 2.5-5
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT ANALYSIS
MAIN SHIP CHANNEL
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SAN FRANCISCO
—
Concentrations in
Parts/Million by
Weight—
Parameter 28
Dec 70
5 Apr 71
8 June
Sample
sample 1
Sample 2
Sample
3 Sample
COD
174
6, 800
26,000
5,000
1,650
Oil-grease
356
1,000
1,000
1,000
NA
Kieldahl-N (T)
13
220
620
120
170
TVS
NA
21,000
39,000
14,000
11,900
Lead
4.79
14.20
27.20
12.20
13.00
Mercury
0.08
0.02
0.03
0. 01
0.03
Zinc
37.81
48.60
79.90
34.50
55.00
Arsenic
0.01
Chromium
1.99
Cadmium
2.08
Copper
1.67
Nickel
37.81
Phosphate(T)
32.90
Sulfides (T)
0. 28
TABLE 2.5-6
PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS (MAXIMUM 3 SAMPLES)
SAN FRANCISCO MAIN SHIP CHANNEL
5 April 73
Pesticide Concentration (ppb)
OP• DDE 1.61
PP* DDE 1.64
PP' DDD 1.34
OP« DDT 0.54
PP' DDT 3.74
Arochlor 1254 19.60
4460C1541
SAN FRANCISCO
2-245
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Operational Description
Removal of material from the bar and deposition at the site is
performed by an Army Corps of Engineers hopper dredge (Biddle).
A side hopper dredge of some 352 feet overall length with a beam
measurement of 60 feet, the Biddle has an average capacity of
3060 cubic yards. One cycle on the main channel averages 110
minutes. Loading time is about 65 minutes, unloading about 15
minutes, and 30 minutes transit time to and from the site. Speed
during disposal is about five knots. Material is released from
valves which, when fully open, are 42 inches below the bottom of
the vessel.
Site Managers
Primary administrative responsibility for the management of this
site lies with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco
District. In addition, the site is at least partially within the
California Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Region area
of administration.
Ttie Army Corps of Engineers has met all requirements set forth by
the State Board, even though not required to do so. They have
conducted studies on the effects of the dredging and maintain a
line of communication with all Federal and state agencies with an
interest in their work. Monitoring, of a continuous nature, is
neither performed nor required. Some sampling has been done on
2-246
SAN FRANCISCO
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
an irregular basis outside the bay, and a recent program has
started to determine the effects of dredge disposal within the
bay. samples of the dredge spoil are collected on an irregular
basis during operations.
2.5.4.2 site No. ODQ627 - Approximately 11 miles southeast of
the Farallon Islands and 16 miles west of the mainland shore is
the location where, until recently, cannery wastes were
discharged. A map showing this location is presented as Figure
2.5-3
Site Description
An area defined only as centered at 37°35,N, 122°50,W with no
shape or dimensions. It i s located just shoreward of the 50-
fathom isobath at a depth of 25U feet. It is outside the Gulf of
the Farallones and near the top of a slope that outlines the
coastal plain of the San Francisco area. The ocean bottom at the
disposal site ranges from mud to fine, hardpacked sand. Currents
in the area are generally associated with the California Current
and Countercurrent, and are not as large as found inshore near
the Golden Gate. A marked midsummer upwelling and winter
downwelling associated with southwest winds exist at the site.
Surface water temperatures normally can vary 9°C during the year.
Salinity increases with depth, with surface salinities of about
HH60C15H1
SAN FRANCISCO
2-247
-------
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ocean Disposal Program Office
r
¦4 PRECAUTIONARY AREA
u - n""
t6o^D
0J /
.N*" 2* 30 J 32
\ ^
i S
S
y
uc timsnf —
* «w
N\
\
\
\
c. *
28 >. »
—*
o
pp^hS CUMP A j iROjND
SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS
(FATHOMS AND FEET TO KLfVKN FATHOMS* J
AT MEAN LOWER LOW WAT**
ln
X:
Center Coordinates 37 35' (XT' N, 122 5ff 00' W
Area Undefined
Navigation Chart No NOS 5072
Local Navigat ion Aids Loran A
Material Type Cannery Waste
Primary Management EPA
SITE NO. 0D0627
INTERIM DISPOSAL SITE
FIGURE 2.S-3
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
32.5 parts per thousand. Salinity variations are marked and
coincide with upwelling periods.<101 J
Users of the Site
Oakland Scavenger Company of Oakland was contracted by six East
Bay food processing plants to dispose of canning wastes at sea.
The Ocean Disposal Program started in 1960 and terminated in 1972
because of pressures from outside stimuli. The dumping operation
entailed disposing of about 22,000 tons of waste per year during
the months between July and October.<"><1J The disposal vessel
has a single-load capacity of 1010 tons of, which 20 to 25
percent is water used to improve waste pumping guality.<110 > This
left a single load with 780 tons of waste, for which 30 trips
during the U-month period would be required. This would be about
one every four days. Actually, the disposal frequency was
predicated upon the accumulation Of the waste at the land holding
site, and it is expected the frequency would gradually peak then
taper off near the end as the canning season does.
The dumped materials consist of solid residuals produced from
canning of fruits and vegetables. Approximately 90 percent of
the wastes are peach and pear residuals. Of the peach residuals,
90 percent is obtained from overripe and underripe fruit, culls
or undersize fruit, and normal peaches diverted from production.
The pear residues are composed mainly of peel, core, stem, and
UH60C1541
SAN FRANCISCO
2-2U9
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
blossom end cuts. This accounts for about 80 percent of the
residue. The rest consists of rejected fruits considered unfit
for canning.
The National Canners Association Research Foundation Berkeley,
has run analyses of peach and pear wastes and obtained the
results shown in Table 2.5-7. (Maximum and minimum values are
shown for a set of four samples.)
2-250
SAN FRANCISCO
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
TABLE 2.5-7
NATIONAL CANNERS ASSOCIATION
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF FOOD PROCESSING RESIDUALS
PARAMETER MINIMUM MAXIMUM
pH 3.6 3.7
Suspended solids, ppm 29,000 35,400
Volatile suspended solids, ppm 15,200 18,600
Settleable solids, ml/1 56 61
Total solids, ppm 176,800 181,800
Chemical oxygen demand, ppm 192,000 207,900
Total oxygen demand, ppm
settled 143,200 152,000
mixed 199,100 213,200
Biochemical oxygen demand, ppm
15-minute 310 400
6-hour 3,900 4,400
5-day 82,000 88,000
20-day 118,000 128,000
protein, X 0.61 0.814
carbohydrate, % 7.60 8.50
crude fibre, U 7.60 8.50
fat, % 0.16 2.30
chlorinated hydrocarbons, ppm 0.010 0.02
organophosphates 0.015 0.03
cadmium, ppm 0.04 0.08
chromium, ppm 0.02 0.02
copper, ppm 0.01 0.04
lead, ppm 0.08 0.10
mercury, ppm
0.006 0.009
zinc, ppm 0.06 0.13
Operational Description
The method used for disposal of the wastes is the reduction of
solids to a consistency that is pumpable when mixed with water
and loading on a barge which, after arrival at the site, pumps
the material into the sea. The barge is nonpropelled, has a
length of 165 feet, is 40 feet wide and draws 9 feet of water,
4460C1541 SAN FRANCISCO 2-251
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
fully loaded. The cargo is contained in four separate
compartments, each having its own discharge pump. Speed
maintained during disposal is 3 knots. The waste outlets are
pipes that extend some five feet below the vessel bottom when the
barge is empty. As stated before, an initial onshore dilution of
about 25 percent is achieved by adding water to make the residue
pumpable. When discharging, a pump further dilutes the
discharged materials by an additional 25 percent. The actual
waste discharge is approximately 56 percent of the initial total
percent waste residue concentration.
Site Managers
During the period this operation was active (1960 to 1972),
administrative responsibility over the operation was with the
California Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Region.
Although not truly within its jurisdiction (the discharge point
was outside the territorial waters of the State of California)
the board, by virtue of its desire to protect California waters,
asked the dumpers to comply with some restrictions. The dumpers
agreed to the board recommendations and, under a board
resolution**9>, were compelled to conduct a study to demonstrate
that the discharge did not have adverse effects on water quality.
Also, when under Regional Board discharge requirements, a
discharger had to make periodic reports of the discharge to meet
self-monitoring requirements of the California State Water Code.
2-252
SAN FRANCISCO
446001541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Oakland Scavenger and National Canners Association met all
requirements prior to terminating their operation in 1972.
2.5.5 Analysis of Dumping Operations
The maintenance of the main ship channel which is the only on-
going ocean disposal operation in the San Francisco area is the
subject of this section.
2.5.5.1 Problems
Problems associated with the disposal of dredge materials from
the main ship channel at San Francisco Bay are:
a. Direct burial of bottom-dwelling marine life.
b. Toxic materials in the sediments.
c. Increased turbidity inherent in disposal of dredge
spoil.
d. Depression of dissolved oxygen by oxygen demanding
chemical and biological materials.
e. Increases in productivity above normal levels because
of nutrients released from the sediments.
Direct burial of marine organisms is a factor that was studied at
the main ship channel disposal site. The study determined that
the present community could survive, to a great extent, the
addition of materials that were found attributable to the
disposal operation. A diving survey conducted at the time of
4U60C15IJ1
SAN FRANCISCO
2-253
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
dredging determined no noticable addition to the bar by the
disposal runs. A layer, in fluid state, exists under most normal
sea conditions and seems to absorb the new material quite
readily. The natural erosion and deposition is believed to
exceed the capacity of present dredging equipment, even under
sustained operations.<105>
Toxic materials, primarily heavy metals, are present in the main
ship channel sedimentso»> The only material which exceeds
present criteria is zinc, which in two samples was 10 percent and
60 percent above the criteria. Although not exceeding the
criteria, lead was fairly high in one sample. These high zinc
and lead counts may reflect a naturally high content of the
sediments. There is some evidence that zinc ions are strongly
absorbed in a permanent manner in silt, with resultant
inactivation of the zinc. Lead is at its minimum toxic
capability in seawater as compared with fresh water. A
concentration of 70 x 10-4 parts lead in soft tapwater was not
toxic to minnows and stickleback fish over a three-week test
period.<* >
Increased turbidity is an expected problem associated with any
method of disposing of dredge spoil. The toxic effects of
increased turbidity have been the subject of many studies, the
2-254
SAN FRANCISCO
4 4 60C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
results of which have not shown great problems except with very
high levels of -turbidity not expected on this disposal operation.
Depression of the oxygen available for supporting life is a
problem when dredge spoil is contained in a small area for long
time periods. When spoil is allowed to disperse over a large
area this depression rarely exceeds levels that would be
dangerous to marine life and is short term in its effects.
Nutrient release causes rapid population surges in algae
communities. The nutrients in the sediments of the main ship
channel are not too high to cause large blooms, although at times
of low currents and calm weather blooms could occur. Blooms
caused by artificial nutrient inputs can cause immediate and
drastic depressions of oxygen levels that can be fatal to active
types of fish.
2.5.5.2 Alternatives - several alternatives are available.
No Dredging Alternative - If the San Francisco bar main ship
channel were allowed to return to its natural state, the effect
upon the San Francisco Bay area would be an economic disaster.
Ships now trading the world*s ocean would not be able to enter
the bay because of the decreased water depths to be expected at
the bar.
4U60C15U1
SAN FRANCISCO
2-255
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Land Disposal Alternative - Material could be deposited on land,
but the benefit gained would be doubtful. Unless it was
deposited on the beach, the sand would be lost from the littoral
regime and erosion of beaches would be accelerated.
Disposal in Deep Water - This method would have all the problems
of the present method, plus the sediment would be lost to the
littoral regime.
Under present conditions the best available method for disposal
of these materials is the existing method. Until more is learned
concerning the problem areas, it is considered to be the rational
approach to disposal of this material.
2.5.5.3 Recommendations - Four areas of improvement are
considered necessary to provide effective management of the
dredging project of the main ship channel.
a. In order to completely assess the impact of the
dredging, a study of the dredged channel and disposal
site should be initiated. The study should be of a
long-term nature to define seasonal variations as well
as temporal variations in the two areas.
2-256
SAN FRANCISCO
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
b. Monitoring of the disposal operation should be a
mandatory requirement. The possibility of lenses of
toxic materials that should be deposited elsewhere
could be detected, and suitable action taken.
c. At times during the year, the possibility of damage to
the biota is greater than at other times. Crab larvae
are planktonic during January to June; therefore, the
dredging should be scheduled before or after this
period.
d. Information derived by the site user should go to EPA
in a timely fashion. Channels should be established so
that all phases of work are known in advance, in order
to assess possible conflicts with other programs.
4U60C1541
SAN FRANCISCO
2-257
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.6 PUGET SOUND DISPOSAL STUDY
2.6.1 Introduction
2.6.1.1 Location - The geographical area covered by this survey
of ocean dumping is the waters of the Strait of Juan De Fuca,
Puget Sound, and the interconnecting inlets and adjacent bays
south and east of the Canada boundary. This is all of Ocean
Region 14 and most of Region and Subregion 13-9, as defined in
Appendix A of A National Overview of Existing Coastal Water
Quality Monitoring.<3 > The cross-reference lists from that
report may be used directly for accessing data on the basis of
EPA region, state, county, OWDC drainage basin, or latitude and
longitude. Figure 2.6-1 outlines the area and shows both active
and inactive dump sites.
2.6.1.2 Climatology - Northwestern Washington is usually
considered to be a cool, rainy area throughout the year. This
generalization fails to take into account the local effects
produced by topography and elevation. The major weather station
for the area is the Seattle-Tacoma Airport, located three miles
inland on a plateau with an elevation of 400 feet. The
prevailing southwest winds, averaging nine knots in the winter
and seven knots in the summer, are representative of normal
conditions on the larger open-water areas, but near-shore winds
are aligned with the valleys. Air temperatures at the airport
2-258
PUGET SOUND
4460C1541
-------
I .mil'Mini ill
Kliiino
Ht'lliitglium
Kiil.iry i
TOIIIA-
v I Ob
*'>. Pom 7
An|cloii
Chart 6430
PmiiiiHula
(Iront
TAC'OMA
H ¦*!inn
Chart 6460
FIGURE 2.6 - 1 LOCATION MAP * ACTIVE SITE
o INACTIVE SITE
4460C1541
PUGET SOUND DISPOSAL SITES
PUGET SOUND
2-259
n.K
-------
FIELD STUDY FEPORTS
range from an average daily minimum of 33°P in January to an
average daily maximum of 76°F in July. This range is about 10°
greater than a weather station at the harbor experiences. Annual
precipitation averages 40 inches spread over 162 days, and there
are 228 overcast days during the year. Local variations from
this average are rather extreme. The Olympic Mountains form a
rain shadow so that the Dungeness area receives only 20 inches
per year, while 60 miles to the west, at Cape Flattery, the
entrance to the Strait of Juan De Fuca, the average is more than
100 inches. The mountains similarly shade the western San Juan
Islands. Puget Sound receives freshwater runoff from numerous
tributary streams. The mean daily discharge for the entire
basin, excepting Vancouver Island, is 40,000 to 50,000 second-
feet. Basin discharge extremes have been 375,000 and 15,000
second-feet. The Snohomish and Skagit Rivers each carry
approximately one-third of the total basin discharge, and the
Stillaguamish and Puyallup Rivers each carry about 8 percent of
this total flow. The balance of the freshwater discharge is
fairly well distributed throughout the remaining areas of the
Sound.C6b)ciii)
2.6.1.3 Oceanography - Mean monthly surface water temperatures
throughout the straits and contiguous inlets and sounds range
from 45°F to 53°F. A slightly higher and wider range occurs in
the more restricted bays, H7°F to 57°F. Surface salinities are
2-260
PUGET SOUND
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
also rather stable. Monthly means range from 30 to 32 parts per
thousand (°/oo) except at the river discharges. This freshwater
inflow establishes throughout the Sound a surface layer of less
saline water overlying more dense seawater. Near the mouths of
the major streams, this surface layer is quite stable and
pronounced. Vertical mixing does occur, but does not completely
destroy this surface layer. Thus, in areas far removed from
river discharges, distinct gradients of increasing salinity (and
increasing density) with increasing depth still exist. In Elliot
Bay at the mouth of the Duwamish River the range is 27-30°/oo.
In Bellingham and Samish Bays the range is 20-29°/oo. At the
mouth of the Snohomish River at Everett the range is 15-2B°/oo.
Mean tidal range increases from 1.2 feet at Cape Flattery to 7.9
feet at Port Townsend and 13.5 feet at Olympia. The tidal
character is unequal semidiurnal, with the average inequality of
the two daily low waters also increasing from 3 to 5 feet, and
then 6 feet at the three named stations. Mean tidal ranges in
the San Juan Islands vary from 6.5 to 8 feet. Tidal currents up
to six knots occur in some of the passages, but usually are one
to two knots in the Strait decreasing to one-half to one knot in
the upper reaches of the inlets and bays.
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
replacing the older, diluted bottom waters. During the spring,
the freshwater discharge is at a maximum and the exchange of
near-surface waters is accelerated. Thus, the net outflow peaks
twice a year rather than only once, and flushing action is more
evenly balanced. It is estimated that the residence time for
most of Paget Sound water is six months but about one year for
the deeper basins in Hood Canal.(*i2)<113>
Turbidity variations are more seasonal because the spring
phytoplankton increase coincides with the increase in runoff
which carries rock flour into the marine waters. Secchi disc
depths range from 15 feet in spring to about 60 feet in late
fall.
The productive waters of Puget Sound provide a habitat for a
variety of fish and shellfish, and support significant commercial
and sport fishing activities. The average annual commercial
harvest of all fish and shellfish in the sound amounts to more
than 90 million pounds with an average annual wholesale value of
more than $11 million. An estimated 300,000 sportsmen fish Puget
Sound waters and its tributaries for chinook and silver salmon,
steelhead trout, and other saltwater fishes. Crabs and clams
also are taken by recreationists. It is estimated that Puget
2-262
PUGET SOUND
446001541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Sound saltwater fishermen spend about $100 million per year for
bait, tackle, and boat and other fishing expenses.
The important shellfish inhabiting the Sound are oysters, crabs,
and hard-shelled clams. Pacific and Olympia oysters are
commercially cultivated in many areas of the Sound, including
Samish Bay in the Bellingham study area and Padilla and Fidalgo
Bays in the Anacortes area. Crabs and clams are harvested by
both commercial and sport fishermen.
The anadromous fishery of the Sound includes the Chinook, silver,
sockeye, pink, and chum species of salmon and the steelhead, sea-
run cutthroat, and dolly varden species of trout. All of these
fish spend their adult life in the saltwaters of Puget Sound and
the Pacific Ocean before migrating to tributary streams to spawn.
The juveniles of these fish spend varying amounts of time in the
nursery streams and the shore waters of the Sound before moving
to sea to spend their adulthood. Salmon is a valuable commercial
as well as an important game fish.
The saltwater fishery of the Sound includes (by local and common
name) rockfish, sole, flounder, longcod, blackcod, truecod,
sharks, rays, skates, ratfish, perch, anchovy, candlefish, hake,
herring, pilchard, smelt, turbot, and greenling. All of these
fish are commercially harvested, either for their value as food
4H60C15U1
POGET SOUND
2-263
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
fish or for their incorporation into such products as fertilizer,
vitamins, mink food, fish food, and pet foods. The average
annual commercial harvest of these fish is about 46 million
pounds. Many of these are also taken by the sports fishermen.
Puget Sound also provides an appropriate environment for all
those animals and organisms of the food chain for those fish
already listed. Such life includes the smaller fishes,
zooplankton, phytoplankton, and numerous types of invertebrates.
In total, Puget Sound supports a large and diverse community of
aquatic life. Much more detailed information, including faunal
lists can be obtained from the referenced publications.
(112)(lZZ)(lZS)(tZi)
2.6.1.4 Physiography - The Puget Sound area is essentially a
continuation of the trend of depressions forming the Imperial and
Central Valleys of California, and the Willamette Valley of
Oregon. This trend continues into Canada, represented by the
Strait of Georgia and Hecate Strait. East-west features, such as
the San Juan Islands, Strait of Juan De Fuca, and the north
slope of the Olympic Mountains, also occur elsewhere along this
trend, such as the Santa Barbara Channel and the Transverse
Ranges of Southern California.
2-264
PUGET SOUND
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
The precipitous terrain, both above and below sea level, is the
result of three factors:
a. Glacial erosion and tillite deposition.
b. Horst and Graben geological structures in an area of
still-active block faulting.
c. Wide differential in erodability between soft
sandstones, siltstones, shales, and volcanic ash beds,
and very hard andesitic lavas of several ages.
Glaciers typically form deep U-shaped valleys with steep
sidewalls as they advance, and then partially fill them with a
flat flooring of till or debris as they retreat. The V-shaped
river valleys, which preceded and guided the courses of the
glaciers, were oriented and controlled by the geologic structure
and outcrop pattern of the hard and soft bedrock. Thus, it is
not surprising to find water depths greater than 900 feet only 1
or 2 miles offshore when the adjacent mountains reach elevations
in excess of 6000 feet only 7 miles inland, caio
2.6.1.5 Summary of Waste Disposal - Although there are many
outfalls discharging municipal and industrial wastes in the
waters of Puget Sound, only dredge spoils are transported and
dumped by vessels at near-shore sites. There is a barging
operation which takes refuse from Seattle to a shoreside landfill
on the Tulalip Indian Reservation north of Everett. Monsanto
Industrial Chemicals company disposes of 225,000 tons per year of
UU60C1541
PUGET SOUND
2-265
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOPTS
vanillin black liquor in the Strait of Juan De Fuca. There is an
explosives disposal site located 80 miles west of Cape Flattery,
but the last dump was in 1970 by the only known user, Bangor
Annex of the Keyport Naval Station.<115*<128129>
Since 1970, in-water disposal of unpolluted spoils has been
restricted to twelve sites which were designated by the State of
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Permit and
lease applications for use of these sites are routed as shown in
Figure 2.6-2. Spoils which do not meet the Criteria for
2§termining Acceptability of Dredged Spoil Disposal to the
Nation|s Waters<*7> are placed in diked landfills. Approximately
250,000 cubic yards or 300,00 0 tons of dredge spoils are dumped
in the waters of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan De Fuca.
Tables 2.6-1 and 2.6-2 list the dump sites which have been
documented in the marine waters of Oregon and Washington. The
list includes sites which are no longer active or approved, but
it does not include the spoil sites that are located in the upper
estuaries or river channels.16>ci»7>
2.6.2 History of Puget Sound Dumping
2.6.2.1 Dredge Spoils. - The disposal of dredge spoils in the
waters of Puget Sound started at least as early as 1920 when Port
Gambel Harbor entrance was first dredged. Although records of
2-266
PUGET SOUND
4460Cl5ai
-------
c
-e
ON
O
O
tn
Applicant
Corps Permit
Application
Lease Application
a
o
w
CO
8
a
o
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
Bureau of
Sport Fish
& Wildlife
Environmental
Protection
Agency
State State Water Water
Game Fisheries Pollution Resources
Natural
Resources
Approval
Approval
Approval
Hydraulics
Permit
Approval
Lease
Dept. of Ecology
Corps of
Engineers -
Approval
To Applicant
Signed Lease
& Fee Paid
to
I
to
CTn
Permit
Issued To
Applicant
Lease Issued
To Applicant
Information To
Surveillance
Teatn
FIGURE 2.6-2
WASHINGTON STATE SPOIL DISPOSAL PERMIT SYSTEM
INTERSTATE
ELECTRONICS
conramnoN
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
amounts dumped prior to 19 39 are unavailable, it is reasonable to
assume that most of the sediments removed in harbor construction
were deposited as backfill behind adjacent bulkheads rather than
dumped in deep water. From 193 9 until 1970, material was needed
for fill and, consequently, most of the spoil from maintenance
dredging was taken out by dump scows to the nearest convenient
spot with a depth in excess of the project depth, in 1970, the
WDNF selected 12 sites to be used for future in-water dumping of
dredge spoils which met the EPA criteria as unpolluted. However,
a major dredging operation at olympia Harbor was completed in
October 1972 and most spoils (196,400 cubic yards) were dumped at
older sites in Budd Inlet; only 21,000 cubic yards were hauled to
the approved Dana Passage site. This operation was the subject
of cooperative studies on the effects of dredging and spoil
disposal by the Corps of Engineers and the Washington Departments
of Natural Resources, Ecology (WDE) and Fisheries (WDF). A final
report is scheduled for release in June 1973.<»16l7>
Dredging and disposal techniques vary in the Portland and Seattle
Corps of Engineers districts. The hopper dredges Biddle,
Harding, and Pacific are owned and operated by the Portland
District and do all of the dredging of harbor inlet channels
along the exposed Pacific Ocean coast of California, Oregon, and
Washington. The Biddle and Harding also work within San
Francisco Bay and the Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers. The
2-268
PUGET SOUND
U460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
Biddle has an average hopper capacity of 3060 cubic yards with
adjustable overflow gates, and the 30-inch suction drags are long
enough to dredge to a channel depth of 75 feet, the greatest of
all the Corps of Engineers hopper dredges. The Harding has a
capacity of 2682 cubic yards and the 22-inch drags have a depth
capability of 6 2 feet. The Pacific is the smallest of the Corps
of Engineers fleet, with a capacity of 500 cubic yards. Its 18-
inch drags have a 15-foot depth limit. None of the three dredges
has pump out capability, but the larger two have both gas and
water ejection.<118> Within the survey area of Puget Sound, all
dredging is done by private contractors using pipeline and
clamshell dredges. All transport and dumping of spoils at the
approved in-water sites must now be done by bottom-dump scows,
although deck scows were used in 1948 at Bellingham. Their use
was halted because of the tremendous surface turbidity plume that
occurs when they are unloaded by high pressure hydraulic jets.
Deck scows are still used for transporting spoils from clamshell
operations to landfill sites or enclosed dumping ponds. Dump
scows are also used for hauling to enclosures or to temporary
sumps. These are often redredged to obtain fill material. The
WDNR operates a dump area near Everett for consolidation and
dewatering of sediments for subsequent use in highway
construction and sells fill material to private purchasers.
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPORTS
Most of the areas require maintenance dredging only once every
ten years because of the dynamic tidal action. Bellingham and
Tacoma Harbors have needed dredging at about five-year intervals
because of their location at the mouths of rivers with high
sediment loads. Major projects are contemplated in the next two
or three years at these two sites, as well as one in the
Bremerton area. Much of the harbor sediments have high BOD
ratings and will require land disposal. Dredging at Bellingham
has reportedly been postponed because of this factor. The
Seattle District Corps of Engineers office routinely takes core
samples before dredging to determine compliance with the EPA
criteria. Prior to the Olympia Harbor studies, a study was made
of the 196 9 disposal operation from dredging in the Whatcom
Waterway at Bellingham, and an attempt was made to study the
effects on water quality during a disposal operation at or near
the Steilacoom site.i19><121>
Surveillance of disposal operations at the present time is
performed by the WDNR. They require 12-hour notice prior to
dumping and they use both aircraft and reports from cooperative
property owners near the sites to detect irregularities. The
Marine Environmental Protection Branch of the Thirteenth Coast
Guard District has recently received a list of the Corps of
Engineers sites along the Oregon-Washington coast from coast
Guard Headquarters. Shore station personnel have been instructed
2-270
PUGET SOUND
4460C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
to report any waste loading activities, and air station flight
crews are directed to report any dumping,, flights per week are
made for pollution investigation, primarily oil spill
detection.ct»«>ci«o>
2.6.2.2 Industrial Wastes - Disposal of pulp mill and other
industrial wastes has been primarily through private outfalls or
into municipal sewer systems. At the present time, the only
reported barging and deep-water dumping is done by Monsanto
Industrial Chemicals Company. This division of Monsanto barges
to Seattle from Bellingham. At the Georgia-Pacific calcium base
sulfite pulp mill, waste sulphite liguor is processed to obtain
alcohol and the spent liquor is then clarified and air-oxygenated
in settling ponds. After Monsanto extracts vanillin, the
remaining alkaline aqueous solution of lignin fragments (vanillin
black liquor) is sold to Kraft Paper Mills for further
reclamation of chemicals and the unsold excess is dumped in the
vicinity of latitude «I8°15'N, longitude 123°00'W as the barges
return to Bellingham. The present barge has a capacity of
336,000 gallons and makes two to three trips per week. A new
one-million gallon barge will soon be used to make one trip per
week. The present barge discharges at the rate of 980 gallons
per minute while underway at three to six knots. The new barge
will average eight knots and the discharge rate will be 2800
gallons per minute from a deeper discharge nozzle. The liquor
4460C15U1
PUGET SOUND
2-271
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
weighs 9.55 pounds per gallon and annual dumping is about 225,000
¦tons. About 35 percent of the output, or 6t» ,000 tons, was sold
in 1972. Monsanto's permit from the Washington State Department
of Ecology limits them to 350,000 tons per year. Monsanto has
been dumping black liquor at this site in the Strait of Juan De
Fuca since 1956.< 128>
2.6.3 Analysis of Dumping Activities
2.6.3.1 Effects of Coastal Dredging and Spoil Disposal - The
general effects of hopper dredging and dumping, such as turbidity
increases and burial of benthic organisms, have been covered
elsewhere in this report. Spoils from the entrance channels of
the Pacific Northwest are generally coarser and cleaner than from
other sections of the country and could be used for fill, beach,
or bar replenishment. Unfortunately, the coastal and longshore
current directions reverse seasonally, bringing sediments into
the channels from both sides. Thus, there are no shallow,
downstream areas for dumping that would not contribute to
returning the sand to the channels.<117><119>
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
the spits. Neither alternative is economically comparable to
hopper dumping because, along this generally mountainous
coastline, deep water is available immediately offshore and there
is no shortage of rock and sand for inland use.<*23>
2.6.3.3 Effects of Puget Sound Dredging and Spoil Disposal - As
previously stated, there have been two meaningful studies in
Puget Sound on the effects of dredging and spoil disposal. Eoth
were conducted at relatively shallow sites compared with the
depths of the presently approved dump areas. The WDNR hopes to
obtain funding for observations of these deeper sites from a
manned submersible. WDNR located and approved the sites
primarily on the basis of avoidance of unique habitats. That is,
they selected areas on the channel side slopes so that fauna,
which is restricted to either the shallow edges or the deep
basins, is not disturbed. The study at Bellingham showed that
spoils from a submerged discharge of a pipeline dredge caused no
surface turbidity plume, but formed a mudflow down a bottom slope
of less than 0.5 percent. There was no measurable dissolved
oxygen in this spoil flow, which was seven feet thick at a
distance of i»00 feet from the discharge, four feet thick at 750
feet, two feet thick at 1000 feet, and still one foot thick at a
distance of 1400 feet. All benthic organisms covered by this
flow were considered to have been smothered. Several disposal
methods were tried at Olympia Harbor, but the results of the
UU60C15U1
PUGET SOUND
2-273
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
study are not yet available. It is highly unlikely that spoils
dumped at the WDNR sites will remain in place because the tidal
currents are faster at all of them than at Bellingham, and bottom
slopes range from 0.7 percent to 12 percent. Thus, it is
concluded that spoils dumped at such places will soon be moved
down into the basins, and it is conceivable that massive slides
may be triggered down the steeper gradients*1><119».
2.6.3.4 Alternatives to Puget Sound Spoil Disposal - As in other
areas of the country, the obvious alternative to in-water
disposal is land or shoreline filling, creation of mudflats, or
addition to existing shallow-water habitats. At the present
time, only unpolluted spoils are dumped in the water, while
polluted spoils are used for fill. Rather than dumping the clean
material, it has been suggested that it be mixed to dilute the
poor quality material to acceptable levels. Even better is the
concept of using clean spoils as the containing dikes and topping
layer for an area to be filled with substandard spoils. In this
way, the Sound would be separated by a buffer zone from the
polluted spoil fluids. Sufficient time for biodegradation of the
contaminants or, at least, a very slow leaching and percolation
rate could be obtained by proper soil engineering in the design
of the dikes.
-------
FIELD STUDY REPOFTS
While not truly an alternative to in-water dumping, the concept
of wider spread dispersion is seldom considered although it more
closely emulates nature. Until it stops raining and the law of
gravity is repealed, sediments will erode from hills and be
dumped in holes. Man's dredging work is simply an acceleration
of this natural transport process at selected spots. Floods and
tides, slowly but inexorably, are going to fill and level the
basins of Puget Sound. In the process, nutrients are supplied to
the living organisms and the dead are buried. If man spread his
nontoxic dredge spoils over the basin at annual or more frequent
intervals, the benthic fauna could accept the thin veneer of
added sediments as readily as they have accepted the spring
runoff for millions of years. The logic of establishing small
sites for concentrated dumping of spoils in order to reduce the
area of adverse effects to a minimum is laudable in theory, but
loses its credibility if the mound is flattened and spread by
gravity and currents within a week. WDNF regulations provide for
a fine of fifty cents for each yard of spoil that is dumped
outside the approved site boundaries. At the same time, the
terminal sections of sewer outfalls must be equipped with
diffuser ports to spread the discharge over a wide area. Even
considering that dredge spoils are mostly solids in a fluid
medium, and outfall discharges are mostly liquid with only a
small suspended solid component, this differentiation in
dispersion concepts is difficult to rationalize.<*
U460C1541
PUGET SOUND
2-275
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.6.3.5 Effects of Industrial Waste Dumping . - There is no
information about the effects of the Monsanto dumping operations.
There is considerable data on the effects of discharging similar
wastes into Puget Sound via outfalls. A joint Federal-State
study program on the effects of pulp mill wastes on water quality
and marine life was conducted from April 196 2 until June 1966.
The studies concentrated on the effects of seven mills in four
separate areas: Bellingham, Anacortes, Everett, and Port Angeles.
The project report, published in March 1967, is titled:
Pollutional Effects of Pulp and Paper Mill Wastes in Puget
Sound.ci26) This is must reading for all who are interested in
Puget Sound water quality as well as sulphite and similar wastes
anywhere in the country.
Very briefly, the studies determined the character and amount of
sulphite waste liquor produced at each mill, the concentration
and dispersion in the receiving waters, and the toxic effects on
selected biota. The study teams used a modified Pearl-Benson
Test as an indication of the concentration of sulphite waste
liquor in the receiving waters and in the bioassays. The test
measures only a relatively persistent part of the components of
sulphite waste liquor, lignin sulphonates, phenols, and some
related compounds. The concentration values were usually stated
in the study report as parts per million or ppm of SWL. For
example, "Background SWL concentrations were found to be always
2-276
PUGET SOUND
IH*60C15
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
less than 5 ppm, and frequently less than 3 ppm." At subsequent
public proceedings, where the study report was discussed, several
of the scientists who were employees or consultants of the
pulping industry used other terms and acronyms. To avoid further
confusion, IEC/Oceanics recommends that the terms sulphite waste
liquor (SWL) or spent sulphite liquor (SSL) refer to the complete
mixture as it is discharged, whereas the term Pearl-Benson Index
(PBI) refers to the indicated concentration as determined by the
test. PBI levels in the surface receiving waters adjacent to the
mills ranged from 3500 to more than 10,000 ppm# except where
discharge was by an outfall at a depth of 300 feet. Maximum
surface concentration above the deep outfall was slightly more
than 1000 ppm. These levels decreased logarithmically with
distance and depth (except at the deep diffuser). The higher PBI
concentrations were normally found in the surface layer of
stratified bays and ranged from 250 to 500 ppm one-half mile from
the discharges. Lethal concentrations are approximately as
follows: salmon fry - 1500 ppm; oyster larva - 16 ppm; English
sole eggs - 180 ppm; and phytoplankton - 50 ppm. Distress,
malformation, and delayed development start at lower levels and a
reasonably acceptable PBI limit is 10 ppm, where oyster larva and
sole eggs have about a 50-percent chance of normal growth. In
addition to the effects of sulphite waste liquor, whenever sludge
beds at these mills were disturbed, release of hydrogen sulphide
and depression of dissolved oxygen caused almost instantaneous
UU60C15«H
PUGET SOUND
2-277
-------
FIELD STUDY PEPOPTS
fish kills. Benthic biota was almost nil where the sludge was
more than one inch thick, and both population and species
diversity increased with distance from the mills. <¦ 1J5'C l26>
The presence of the sludge beds apply more directly to harbor
dredging than to Monsanto's deep-water dumping operation. Until
bioassays of Monsanto"s black liquor waste have determined its
toxicity, it is suggested that barge speed and discharge rate be
set to obtain a maximum PBI concentration of 5 ppm at the edge of
the allowable mixing zone. This is only double the ambient
average instead of an increase of one order of magnitude, but it
is still far above the one percent of the mean lethal dose
indicated for oyster larvae and sole eggs.<127)
2.6.3.6 Alternatives to Industrial Waste Dumping - From sulfite
mills, sulfite waste liquor is usually discharged into surface
waters or disposed of in some manner on land. This waste,
however, can be processed or treated to recover cooking
chemicals, heat, or by-products. Evaporation and burning,
sometimes in tandem with fermentation for alcohol production (as
partially practiced at the Georgia-Pacific Pulp and Board Mill at
Bellingham), is usually involved. Sugars (immediate biochemical
oxygen demand) and total solids (lignin compounds) are removed,
and the residual wastes produced have less pollutional impact.
Barker wastes and Whitewaters from pulp drying and paper
2-278
PUGET SOUND
4460C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
conversion carry high concentrations of suspended solids, and
this is their important pollutional characteristic. Settleable
suspended solids in these wastes cause formation of sludge
deposits, and truly suspended solids create turbidity and reduce
light penetration in the receiving waters. In most cases,
despite in-plant recovery facilities such as save-alls for fiber
recovery and screens for bark and wood chip recovery, these
wastes carry suspended solid loads that could be substantially
reduced by provision of adequate sedimentation facilities.
These recovery efforts may cause other environmental effects,
such as air or groundwater pollution, that are worse than
carefully regulated dilution of sulphite and waste liquors into
water bodies with large assimilative capacities and active
hydraulic capability for rapid dispersion.<12325>
2.6.3.7 An Acute Problem - Normal dredging techniques and
disposal of spoils from harbors at Bellingham, Anacortes, Port
Angeles, Everett, and Tacoma present a special problem because of
the past practices of pulp mills which dumped waste sulphite
liquors and settleable suspended solids into the harbor waters
forming bottom sludges with high toxicity and BOD. Even if spoil
sites for landfill or diked enclosures can be located and
constructed to prevent return of polluted fluids to ground water
or Puget Sound, there is still the problem of minimizing
H4 60C15U1
POGET SOUND
2-279
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
deleterious effects during the dredging. As previously noted,
any disturbance of these sludge beds results in the release of
hydrogen sulphide and an immediate oxygen demand, with resulting
drop in the DO level. The timing of the operation should be such
to avoid fish migrations and critical hatching or spawning
periods for as much of the local fauna as practical. The use of
an enclosing plastic sheet barrier should be seriously
considered, to keep organisms out of the dredging zone and to
confine the turbidity and pollutants to the smallest possible
area.
The disposal enclosures should be designed with internal baffles
or diked compartments to allow maximum sedimentation prior to
returning excess water to the Sound. Planning of the disposal
site in coordination with local or regional sewage disposal
authorities could be of mutual benefit. For example, part of the
site could be used for building sewage treatment facilities with
incompletely filled compartments used as aeration ponds. The
same could be true if a disposal site next to an existing
treatment plant is feasible. Some treatment may be given to the
return water if there is any excess hydraulic capacity in the
facilities. < i»• i < »as > < t *~ i
2-280
PUGET SOUND
4U60C1541
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
2.6.4 Recommendat ions
2.6.4.1 Dredge Spoils - It is recommended that the EPA Ocean
Disposal Program Office maintain close liaison with the Study
Program for Disposal of Dredge Spoil, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station. EPA can be kept abreast of
research findings and indications where criteria or regulations
may need to be modified. In turn, the Corps of Engineers may be
alerted to any specific problems which may come to the attention
of EPA.
It is recommended that analyses of those water quality parameters deemed
critical for the proposed dredging and disposal site be conducted, taking into
account known point or areal source discharges in the area, and the possible
presence in their wastes of the materials listed in sections 227.22 and 227.31.
Organisms which are suggested for use in bioassays for Puget Sound are: a
phytoplankton with a broad geographical, temperature, and salinity range; a
wide ranging copepod (Acartia tonsa); larvae of the Dungeness crab (Cancer
magister); larvae of the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas): and chum salmon
(Oncorynchus keta).
It is recommended that criteria for Determining Acceptability of
Dredge Sgoil Disposal to the Nations Waters be revised to
include:
U460C15U1
PUGET SOUND
2-281
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
a. A specification of the number of samples required for analysis per lineal mile
of channel on a preliminary study of a dredging project. A suggested speci-
fication is core sampling to project depth along the proposed centerline every
2000 feet.
b. Periodically review the criteria to take into account new scientific data and
the natural ambient conditions.
c. Revision of the manual on collection, preservation, preparation, and analysis
of sediments to be more specific in directions regarding handling of accom-
panying or interstitial water.
d. Inclusion of guidelines or specifications for surveys of the spoil receiving
areas.
It is recommended that the WDNR, with financial and technical
support from EPA, Corps of Engineers, NOAA, WDE, and WDF, and the
University of Washington conduct a comprehensive study of the
effects of spoil disposal at one of the presently approved
deepwater sites. The study should include monitoring of
geologic, biologic, chemical, and physical oceanographic
parameters for a period of at least one year at both the site to
be used and a nearby area of similar character. Monitoring of
both areas should continue through the dumping operations and for
2-282 PUGET SOUND U460C15U1
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
a minimum of two years afterward. The goals of the study should
be:
a. Evaluation of the concept of concentrating spoil
disposal at a small site in deep waters by comparison
with the previous studies at olympia and Bellingham.
b. Determination of net changes resulting from spoil
disposal at such a site by comparison with the nearby
control area.
2.6„i».2 Industrial Wastes - It is recommended that the one known
industrial waste dumper (Monsanto industrial Chemical company) be
granted an interim permit to continue their disposal operation
under the following conditions:
a. The results of a physio-chemical analysis and bioassay
for a sample of each load be reported to WDE and EPA
Region X. Bioassays may be deleted if and when a
coorelation between toxicity and chemical composition
can be demonstrated.
b. Operational procedures or guidelines be developed for
vessel operators, with the objective of optimizing
speed and discharge rates for given toxicities and
tidal current velocities and maintaining dilution and
dispersion to obtain acceptable concentrations of the
toxic components.
i*i|60C15in
PUGET SOUND
2-283
-------
FIELD STUDY REPORTS
The load volume, date, and time of departure; time and
location at start of dumping; vessel track and speed;
depth and rate of discharge, and times of completion
and return be logged manually or, preferably,
automatically. Copies of the log be sent to EPA and
WDE; the U.S. Coast Guard Port Captain, should also
receive a copy of the log, along with a supportive,
annotated copy of a fathogram taken throughout the
operation.
A monitoring program be established to sample and
analyze the receiving waters to ascertain the
effectiveness of the operating procedures and to
determine if modifications are allowable or required.
The company provide an outline or schedule of a long-
range abatement program.
PUGET SOUND
4460Cl5«n
-------
LOCATION OF CENTER POINT
(LATITUDE & LONGITUDE)
I EC
SITE
NO.
SIZE
(SQUARE
N. HI.)
AVG.
DEPTH
(FEET)
USAGE
(TONS/YEAR)
DISTANCE
OFFSHORE
(N. MILES)
NOS
CHART
NO.
DUMP
MATERIAL
EPA Region X, COE-Portland
Chetco River, OR
42°01'50", 124°16'12"
OD0703
.01
65
54,000
0.6
5896
Dredge Spoil
Rogue River, OR
42°24,00", 124°27,00"
OD0706
.14
25
98,000
1.2
5951
Dredge Spoil
Coquille River, OR
43°07,30\ 124°26,25"
OD0709
.14
50
50,500
0.6
5971
Dredge Spoil
Coos Bay, OR
43°2T00", 124°22'17"
OD0712
.14
60
875,000
0.7
5984
Dredge Spoi1
Umpqua River, OR
43°40,00", 124o14,00M
OD0715
.14
90
54,000
1.3
6004
Dredge Spoil
Sluslaw Ri ver.OR
44°01 '23", 124<,09,22,,
OD0718
.14
70
163,000
0.9
6023
Dredge Spoil
Yaquina Bay, OR
44°36'20\ 124°06,40"
OD0721
.14
60
800,000
1.9
6055
Dredge Spoil
Depoe Bay, OR
44°48'00", 124°04'00M
OD0724
—
—
-—
6056
Dredge Spoil
Tillamook Bay, OR
45° 34'02", 123°59,ir
0DJJ727
.03
90
57,500
1.2
6112
Dredge Spoil
TABLE 2.6-la
OREGON MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
u
— INTERSTATE
t—¦ ELECTRONICS
— CWTOMnON
-------
LOCATION OF CENTER POINT
(LATITUDE & LONGITUDE)
IEC SIZE AVG. USAGE DISTANCE NOS DUMP
SITE (SQUARE DEPTH (TONS/YEAR) OFFSHORE CHART MATERIAL
NO. N. HI.) (FEET) (N. MILES) NO.
EPA Region X, COE-Portland
Offshore Oreqon (Two sites)
46o00'00", 125°30,00" 0728 113.10 6 300
46°00'00", 126°00'00" 0729 78.54 8100
Columbia River, OR (Two sites)
46°12,00", mWOO" OD0730 .09 125
46°14,10", 124°10'30" OD0733 .27 130
Unused
120,000
1,830,000
60.0
80.0
4.0
4.0
5022 Explosives
5022 Explosives
6151 Dredge Spoil
6151 Dredge Spoil
TABLE 2.6-lb OREGON MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL SITES elkt|J^
-------
LOCATION OF CENTER POINT
(LATITUDE & LONGITUDE)
I EC
SITE
NO.
SIZE
(SQUARE
N. MI.)
AVG.
DEPTH
( FEET)
USAGE
(TONS/YEAR)
DISTANCE
OFFSHORE
(N. MILES)
NOS
CHART
NO.
DUMP
MATERIAL
EPA Region X, COE-Seattle
Willapa Bay, UA
46°42,30,\ 124° 10" 00"
OD0736
2.0
90
3.3
6185
Dredge Spoil
Grays Harbor, WA
46°55'30M, 124°07'00"
OD0739
2.0
35
0.7
6195
Dredge Spoil
Offshore Washington (Two sites)
48°16'00M, 126°58'00"
48°50,00", 126°50'00"
OD0742
0743
28.27
78.54
8400
3600
Unused
74.0
48.0
5022
5022
Explosives
Explosives
Olympia Harbor, WA (Three
47o04,20M, 122°55,00"
47°04'40M, 122°54,40"
47°05'40", 122°54'10"
sites)
0744
0745
0746
23
6
18
Unapproved
Unapproved
Unapproved
0.1
0.4
0.3
6460
6460
6460
Dredge Spoil
Dredge Spoil
Dredge Spoil
Dana Passage, WA
47on,00,,, 122°50'30"
0747
.07
144
25,000
0.3
6460
Dredge Spoil
Steilacoom, WA
47°iri2M, 122°37'00"
0748
.07
480
1.0
6460
Dredge Spoil
Commencement Bay, WA (Two
47°16,30\ 122°26,00H
47o17,40", 122°27*30"
sites)
0749
0750
.07
.07
174
510
25,000
30,000
0.4
0.8
6460
6460
Dredge Spoil
Dredge Spoil
TABLE 2.6-2a
WASHINGTON MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
C<
W~M— interstate
K—¦ ELECTRONICS
^— amoMnoN
-------
to
I
to
00
00
<5
M
H
CO
O
¦r
ON
Ul
LOCATION OF CENTER POINT
(LATITUDE & LONGITUDE)
I EC
SITE
NO.
SIZE
(SQUARE
N. MI.)
AVG.
DEPTH
(FEET)
USAGE
(TONS/YEAR)
DISTANCE
OFFSHORE
(N. MILES)
NOS
CHART
NO.
DUMP
MATERIAL
EPA Region X, COE-Seattle
Seattle Harbor, WA
47°37'00", 122°23'00"
0751
.07
360
Unapproved
0.6
6450
Dredge Spoil
Four Mile Rock, WA
47°37'35", 122o25'00"
0752
.07
480
12,000
0.7
6450
Dredge Spoil
Shilshole Bay, WA
47°41'12", 122°25,16"
0753
.07
240
3,600
0.7
6450
Dredge Spoil
Lake Washinqton Canal, WA
47°42' 30", 122°25'00"
0754
.07
600
Unapproved
0.8
6450
Dredge Spoil
Port Madison, WA
47°43'00", 122°28,00"
0755
.07
510
1.7
6450
Dredge Spoil
Mats Mats, WA
47°50'00", 122°40'00"
0756
.07
204
Unapproved
0.7
6450
Dredge Spoil
Port Gamble, WA
47°51'50", 122°35'00"
0757
.07
48
Unapproved
0.4
6450
Dredge Spoil
Fuprptt1 J A
47°58,00", 122°15'10"
0578
.07
360
0.4
6450
Dredge Spoil
Oak Bay Canal, WA
48°01'00", 122°43'00M
0759
.07
75
Unapproved
0.3
6450
Dredge Spoil
TABLE 2.6-2b
WASHINGTON
MARINE WASTE
DISPOSAL
SITES
gr—^— INTERSTATE
!-¦ ELECTRONICS
GOWUHMKM
.
-------
O
o
u>
c
•T3
a
a
w
•-3
cn
o
IsJ
I
to
CD
VO
LOCATION OF CENTER POINT
(LATITUDE & LONGITUDE)
I EC
SITE
NO.
SIZE
(SQUARE
N. MI.)
AVG.
DEPTH
(FEET)
USAGE
(TONS/YEAR)
DISTANCE
OFFSHORE
(N. MILES)
NOS
CHART
NO.
DUMP
MATERIAL
EPA Region X, COE-Seattle
Admiralty Inlet, WA
48°08'00"t 122°42'20"
0760
.07
180
5,500
1.7
6450
Dredge Spoil
Port Angeles, WA (Two sites)
48°08'24", 123027'15"
48°09,00", 123°24'00"
(J 761
0762
.11
.07
18
252
0.1
1.1
6401
6401
Dredge Spoil
Dredge Spoil
Juan De Fuca, WA
48o15'00", 123°00,00"
0764
510
84,000
5.7
6401
Sulphite Liquor
Anacortes, WA
48°31'20", 122°33'30"
0765
.07
225
Unapproved
0.3
6380
Boulders
Bellinqham Channel, WA
48°3T42", 122° 40'42"
0766
.07
150
55,000
1.0
6380
Dredge Spoil
Chuckanut Bay, WA
48°41'00", 122°30'00"
0767
.07
20
Unapproved
0.3
6380
Dredge Spoil
Bellingham Bay, WA
48°4100\ 122° 33 '00"
0768
.07
75
Unapproved
1.7
6380
Dredge Spoil
Whatcom Waterway, WA
48°44'04", 122°30'17"
0770
.04
36
Unapproved
0.2
6380
Dredge Spoil
TABLE 2.6-2c
WASHINGTON MARINE WASTE
DISPOSAL
SITES
[1
W &— INTERSTATE
K—¦ electronics
— CORPORATION
-------
Section 3
REFERENCES
(1) Interstate Electronics Corporation, Oceanics Division
A BIBLIOGRAPHY ON OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL
Report No. 4460C1542, Contract 68-01-0796
May 197 3
(2) Interstate Electronics Corporation, Oceanics Division
A DIRECTORY OF MANAGERS, ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS
IN OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE FIELDS
Report No. 4 460C1543
June 1973
(3) Interstate Electronics Corporation, Oceanics Division
A NATIONAL OVERVIEW OF EXISTING COASTAL WATER
QUALITY MONITORING
Report No. 445-A, Contract 68-01-0160
December 1972
(4) Sverdrup, H.V. , Johnson, M.W., and Flemming, R. H.
THE OCEANS
Prentice Hall, New York
19 42
(5) Home, R.A.
MARINE CHEMISTRY
Wiley - Interscience. New York
4060C1541
3-1
-------
REFERENCES
(6) McKee, J.E., Wolf, H.W.
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
California Water Resources Control Board
Publication 3-A
December 1971
(7) National Technical Advisory Committee
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
(8) Ross, D.A.
INTRODUCTION TO OCEANOGRAPHY
Appleton-Century-Crofts
1970
(9) Gross, M.G.
OCEANOGRAPHY
Prentiue-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
LOC 78-187899
1972
(10) Council on Environmental Quality
OCEAN DUMPING - A NATIONAL POLICY
October 1970
(11) Interstate Electronics Corporation, Oceanics Division
OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Report No. 4460C1559
(12) Interstate Electronics Corporation, Oceanics Division
COASTAL ZONE WATER QUALITY MONITORING IN THE
LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE COUNTY AREAS
Report No. 145-B9, Contract 68-01-0160
3-2
1460C1541
-------
REFERENCES
(13) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DISPOSAL OF DREDGE SPOIL
Waterways Experiment Station
Technical Report H-72-8, November 1972
(14) 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
(15) interstate Electronics corporation, oceanics Division
COASTAL ZONE WATER QUALITY MONITORING IN THE NEW
YORK BIGHT
Report No. Contract 68-01-0160
(16) U.S. Corps of Engineers, Supervisor of New York Harbor
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES
1 July 7 2 to 2fl February 73
(17) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS AND
CRITERIA FOR THE REGULATION OF DUMPING, OR TRANSPOR-
TATION FOR DUMPING OF WASTE MATERIALS INTO THE OCEAN
IN ORDER TO PREVENT DEGRADATION OF THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT
Ocean Disposal Program Office
(18) U.S. Army Engineer District
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS, SUPERVISOR OF THE HARBOR
PERMIT PROGRAM FOR WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN
Draft, November 2, 1971
(19) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A BRIEF OUTLINE OF A STUDY OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT - SEPTEMBER 1972
Pacific Northwest, Environmental Research Laboratory
4U60C1511
3-3
-------
REFERENCES
(20) TRI-State Regional Planning Commission, New York, NY
REGIONAL FORECAST 198 5
December 1967
(21) U.S. Army Engineer Division
NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY
North Atlantic Corps of Engineers, New York
Regional Inventory Report - North Atlantic Region
Volume I, 1971
(22) National Park Service
GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
May 10, 1971
(23) New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Shellfish Control Section
SPECIAL REPORT ON OCEAN DUMPING
(24) FDA Region II
PRELIMINARY REPORT - COOPERATIVE OFFSHORE WATER
QUALITY STUDIES NEW YORK BIGHT, APRIL-JULY 1972
(25) National Marine Fisheries Center
THE EFFECTS OF WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Sandy Hook Laboratory, Highlands, New Jersey
(26) 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
3-4
4460C1541
-------
REFERENCES
(271 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
OCEAN DISPOSAL CONTROL REGULATIONS BASIS AND
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
June 1972
(28) Public Health Service Sanitary Engineering Center
ACID WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Cincinnati, Ohio
December 1960
(29) 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
(30) 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, 1958
(31) 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
(32) R. H. Wuestefeld
DUMPING GROUNDS IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN
Chief, Operations Division, New York Harbor, USCOE
October 24, 1969
(33) R. H. Wuestefeld
DISPOSAL AREAS IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN OFF NEW YORK
HARBOR
Chief, Operations Division, New York Harbor, USCOE
19 July 1967
IHI60C15U1
3-5
-------
REFERENCES
(3H) Northeast Marine Health Sciences Laboratory
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE
NEW YORK BIGHT
Narragansett, Rhode Island
January, 1968
(35) Corps of Engineers
NEW YORK HARBOR - COLLECTION AND REMOVAL OF DRIFT
0.S. Army Engineer District, New York
December 1968
(36) State University of New York
NEW YORK CITY - A MAJOR SOURCE OF MARINE SEDIMENT
Marine Sciences Research center. Stony Brook, New York
Technical Report Series No. 2
September 1969
(37) The Naval Oceanographic Office, Washington, DC
BOTTOM ENVIRONMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC DATA REPORT, HUDSON
CANYON AREA, 1967
An informal report
February 1969
(38) 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
(39) 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
(40) Ad Hoc Committee Report
U.S. D.I. Washington, DC
EVALUATION OF INFLUENCE OF DUMPING IN THE NEW YORK
BIGHT WITH A BRIEF REVIEW OF GENERAL OCEAN
POLLUTION PROBLEMS
June 24, 1970
3-6
H460C1541
-------
REFERENCES
(41) 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
(42) State University of New York
SURVEY OF MARINE WASTE DEPOSITS,
METROPOLITAN REGION
Marine Sciences Research Center,
Technical Report No. 8
April 1971
(43) 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
(44) 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
(4 5) Corps of Engineers, New York
Memo 8, September 1971, Grumman Ecosystems
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Operations Division
G. P. Carayannis
(46) New York District Corps of Engineers
SUBMARINE INVESTIGATION OF OCEAN DUMPING GROUNDS
G. P. Carayannis
October 1971
(47) Marine Sciences Research center
HYDROGRAPHIC STUDY OF THE SHELF AND SLOPE WATERS
OF NEW YORK BIGHT
State University of New York
Technical Report No. 16
October 1972
NEW YORK
Stonybrook, New York
4460C1541
3-7
-------
REFERENCES
(481 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
(19) 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
(5 0) Westinghouse Electric Corporation
FINAL REPORT - PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MESA-
NEW YORK BIGHT REGIONAL PROJECT
Oceanic Division, Annapolis, Maryland
September 1, 1972
(51) New York Ocean Science Laboratory, Montauk, New York
THE OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT: PHYSICAL,
CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL
NYOSL Staff
February, 197 3
(52) Chevron oil Company, Perth Amboy, New Jersey
STATEMENT—SPENT CAUSTIC DISPOSAL AT SEA
Prepared for the New York District COE
June 1971
(53) Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA
ACID-IRON WASTE DISPOSAL AND THE SUMMER DISTRIBUTION OF
STANDING CROPS IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
(5U) 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
3-8
U460C15U1
-------
REFERENCES
(55) Pfizer Inc, Grotor., CT
REPORT—DISPOSAL OF FERMENTATION RESIDUES BY PFIZER
INC. IN LONG ISLAND SOUND
Prepared for the New York District COE
June 1971
(56) 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
(57) 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
(58) New York City Environmental Protection Administration
AN ESTIMATE OF SLUDGE INCINERATION REQUIREMENTS—
NEW YORK CITY
W. B. Pressman
February 19, 1970
(59) New York City Environmental Protection Administration,
Department of Water Resources
SLUDGE DISPOSAL IN THE NEW YORK CITY
M. M. Feldman, Commissioner
October 8, 1970
(60) New York City Environmental Protection Administration
LETTER, SLUDGE DISPOSAL GROUNDS IN THE NYB ALTERNATE
MEANS OF DISPOSAL
Jerome Kretchmer Administrator
May 27, 1970
(61) U.S. Army Engineer District
Charleston, Corps of Engineers
SURVEY REPORT ON COOPER RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA
Shoaling in Charleston Harbor
July 1966
4t»60Cl5i»1
3-9
-------
REFERENCES
(62) Interstate Electronics Corporation, Oceanics Department
COASTAL ZONE WATER QUALITY MONITORING IN THE
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA AREA
Anaheim, California
tm5-B2, April 1973, Contract 68-01-0160
(6 3) Federal Water Pollution control Administration,
Southeast Water Laboratory
A REPORT ON THE WATER QUALITY OF CHARLESTON HARBOR
June 1966
(61) South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department
ANADROMOUS FISH SURVEY OF THE SANTEE AND COOPER SYSTEM,
PROJECT AFS3-1
Thomas A. Curtis
South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department
1971
(65) U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office, Washington, DC
INSHORE SURVEY PROJECT, A PRELIMINARY REPORT ON
CHARLESTON HARBOR AND ITS APPROACHES
October 1, 1952, H.O. Misc. 15359-1A
(66) U.S. Army, Coastal Engineering Research Center
MARSH BUILDING WITH DREDGE SPOIL IN NORTH CAROLINA
CERC Report R-2-72, Agri. Exper. Station Bull. 145
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
(67) U.S. Coast Pilot
Volume 5, USDC, NOAA, NOS
(68) Climatology of the United States
NOS. 1-60, USDC, NOAA, NWS
3-10
4460C1541
-------
REFERENCES
(6 9) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
NATIONAL SHORELINE STUDY, GULF, LOWER MISSISSIPPI,
AND TEXAS REGIONAL INVENTORY REPORTS
(70) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Unpublished District Reports
(71) U.S. Coast Guard
Eighth District Unpublished Reports
Maritime Environmental Protection Branch
(72) EPA, Region VI, Permits Branch
Unpublished Reports
(73) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, SEAGOING HOPPER
AND SIDECASTING DREDGES
Marine Division, North Atlantic Division
Annual
(7U) U.S.corps of Engineers, New Orleans District Staff
Personal Communication
(75) Smith, D.D. and Brown, R. P.
OCEAN DISPOSAL OF BARGE DELIVERED LIQUID AND SOLID
WASTES FROM U.S. COASTAL CITIES
1971
II460C15U1
3
-------
REFERENCES
(76) Alderdice, R. L., et al
INVESTIGATIONS AND SAMPLING OF EAST AND WEST FLOWER
GARDENS CORAL REEF BANK USING SUBMERSIBLE VEHICLES
Flower Garden Ocean Research Center, Marine Biomedical
Inst., Univ. of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
1972
(77) Boyd, M. B., et al
DISPOSAL OF DREDGE SPOIL, Technical Report H-7 2-8
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi
1972
(78) May, Edwin B.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF HYDRAULIC DREDGING
IN ESTUARIES
1973
(79) Morgan, James P.
Personal Communication
(80) Schwartz, A. R.
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
Interim Coastal zone Study Committee
Galveston, Texas
1972
(81) Le Fleur, R. A. ,
Personal Communication
(82) University's of Alabama and Mississippi
Personal Communication with Biologists and
Oceanographers
3-12
H460C1541
-------
REFERENCES
(83) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for
Water Resources
U.S. DEEPWATER PORT STUDY
1972
(84) Perret, William S., et al
COOPERATIVE GULF OF MEXICO ESTUARINE INVENTORY AND
STUDY, LOUISIANA
Phase IV Biology
Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission
1971
(85) Miloy, John and Coppy, E. Anthony
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF TEXAS MARINE
RESOURCES AND INDUSTRIES
Texas ASM University
June 1970
(66) Moore, Donald L., et al
RELATIVE ABUNDANCE, SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION AND SPECIES
COMPOSITION OF DEMERSAL FISHES OFF LOUISIANA AND
TEXAS, 1962-1964
Contributions in Marine science
Volume 15, 1970
(87) curry, Marion B. and Gigliotti, Gilbert M. - Compilers
CYCLING AND CONTROL OF METALS
Proceedings of an Environmental Resources Conference
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February, 1973
(88) Henneke, R. - U.S. EPA Region IX
Personal Communication
May 1973
(89) Emery, K. O.
THE SEA OFF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
John Wiley and Sons
1960
U4 60C15U1
3
-------
REFERENCES
(90) General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF AN OFFSHORE
SUBMERGED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - VOLUME 1
June 1971
(911 Allan Hancock Foundation
OCEANOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF AREA OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
1959
(92) Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
THE ECOLOGY OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT: IMPLICATIONS
FOR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
March 197 3
(93) Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region
PRESCRIBING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL
WASTE - CALIFORNIA SALVAGE COMPANY
Resolution No. 61-43
October 18, 1961
(94) Lewis, John, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Personal Communication
April 1973
(95) Jones, J. H.
GENERAL CIRCULATION AND WATER CHARACTERISTICS
IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
TR101, 1971
(96) California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Los Angeles Region
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR H-10 WATER TAXI
COMPANY, LTD.
Order No 71-10, February 2U, 1971
3-14
4460C1541
-------
REFERENCES
(97) Wortman, J., Los Angeles
Personal Communication
State Water Quality Control Board
April 1973
(98) Smith, Robert G.
Personal Communication
California Department of Agriculture
April 16, 1973
(99) California Regional Water Quality control Board,
San Francisco Region
IN THE MATTER OF WASTES DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE OCEAN DISPOSAL OF WASTES AFFECTING THE WATERS
OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
Resolution No. 70-100
December 22, 1970
(100) California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Region
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 70-100
Order No. 71-8, (Ref. 1)
January 28, 1971
(101) Oceanographer of the Navy
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION REPORT FOR NUMBERED
DEEP WATER MUNITIONS DUMP SITES
April 1972
(102) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR - FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
February 1973
(103) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 72-61
May 15, 1972
U460C15W1
3-15
-------
REFERENCES
(10U) California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Region
AMENDING POLICY WITH RESPECT TO REGULATION OF DREDGED
SPOIL DISPOSAL IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
Resolution No. 72-15
November 28, 1972
(105) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
DREDGE DISPOSAL STUDY FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND
ESTUARY PRELIMINARY REPORT ON MAIN SHIP CHANNEL
(SAN FRANCISCO BAR)
Jane 1971
(106) Alpin, J. A.
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY 196 3-1966
California Department of Fish and Game
Marine Resource Operations
MRO Reference No. 67-4
June 15, 1967
(107) McAdie, Alexander G.
THE CLIMATE OF SAN FRANCISCO
Bulletin No. HU
1913
(108) Department of Water Resources, State of California
HYDROLOGIC DATA: 1969 CENTRAL COASTAL AREA
Bulletin No. 130-69, Volume 3
March 1971
(109) Miller, Albert
SMOG AND WEATHER - THE EFFECT OF SAN FRANCISCO
BAY ON THE BAY AREA CLIMATE
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Comm.
February 1967
(110) National Canners Association, Research Foundation
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE OCEAN DISCHARGE OF NON-TOXIC
FOOD PROCESSING SOLIDS RESIDUALS
January 28, 1972
3-16
1460C15H1
-------
REFERENCES
(111) U.S. Coast Pilot
Volume 7
NOS, NOAA, Department of Commerce
(112) Oceanographic Commission of Washington
OCEANOGRAPHIC RESOURCES OF WASHINGTON
1971
(113) Duxbury, Alyn C.
COASTAL ZONE PROCESSES AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON
ESTUARIAN CONDITIONS
Proceedings Northwest Estuarine and Coastal Zone
Symposium, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife
(IH) Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission
APPENDIX II, THE REGION, COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK
STUDY OF WATER AND RELATED LANDS
1969
(115) Lee, Ron
EPA Region X Permits Branch
Personal Communication
May 1973
(116) Ralph A. Beswick and David W. Jamison
Personal Communication
Washington Department of Natural Resources
May 197 3
(117) William C. Alguard, Seattle District Corps of
Engineers, and Robert Hopman, Portland District COE
Personal Communication and data sheets
1HI60C15U1
3-17
-------
REFERENCES
(118) Corps of Engineers, New York
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPS, HOPPER, ETC.
(119) 0*neal, Gary and Scova, Jack.
THE EFFECTS OF DREDGING ON WATER QUALITY
IN THE NORTHWEST
EPA Region X, Seattle, Washington
July 1973
(120) LCDR Gordon, USCG, 13th District
Personal Communication
(121) Robert Mccormick, Seattle Regional Director, Washington
state Department of Ecology,
Personal Communication
May 197 3
(122) Oregon State University
OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE NEARSHORE COASTAL WATERS OF
THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST RELATIVE TO POSSIBLE POLLUTION
EPA Water Quality Office
Volume 1, July 1971
(123) cooper, Frederick C.
MANAGEMENT OF DREDGE SPOIL IN COOS BAY
Stevens, Thompson & Runyon, Inc., Portland, Oregon
January 1972
(121) Boyd, M. B., et al
DISPOSAL OF DREDGE SPOIL
Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, Mississippi
3-18
446001541
-------
REFERENCES
(125) Federal Water Pollution control Administration, Wash.
CONFERENCE ON THE POLLUTION OF THE NAVIGABLE WATERS
OF PUGET SOUND
Proceedings
September-October 196 7
(126) Anonymous
POLLUTIONAL EFFECTS OF PULP AND PAPER MILL WASTES
IN PUGET SOUND
FWPCA 6 WSPCC
March 1967
(127) Federal Register 12872
EPA INTERIM CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF PERMIT
APPLICATIONS FOR OCEAN DUMPING
May 16, 1973
(128) Warborcr, T. E.
Personal Communication and Letter Report
Technical Service Supervisor, Monsanto Industrial
Chemicals Company, Seattle, Washington
(129) W. O. Isaacson, Special weapons Disposal officer
Personal Communication
Ordnance Office, Bangor, Washington
HI60015*1
3-19
-------
READER COMMENT FORM
For
OCEAN WASTE DISPOSAL
in
SELECTED GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
Name
Organization
Title
Address
Telephone No.
Date
Please contact me
Remarks;
-------
fold
Stamp
Interstate Electronics Corporation
Environmental Engineering Division
P.O. Box 3117
Anaheim, California 92803
Attention: Ocean Disposal Data Manager
fold
staple
------- |