Wastes in Marine Environments

April 1987

NTIS order #PB87-194585
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology’ Assessment, Wastes in Marine Environments, OTA0-334 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1987).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619813

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form on p. 313)
Foreword

‘ ‘Where can we dispose of our wastes? ‘‘ is a question being faced by virtually every

community and industry in the country. For years, one common answer for communities

and industries located in coastal areas has been to intentionally dispose of large amounts

of waste materials in the Nations marine environments—estuaries, coastal waters, and

the open ocean.

Two congressional committees—the House Committees on Merchant Marine and

Fisheries and on Public Works and Transportation—requested OTA to undertake a broad

assessment of waste disposal in marine environments. In addition, the Senate Committee

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation endorsed the assessment. As part of the assessment, OTA issued a report on Ocean Incineration: Its Role in Managing Hazardous

Waste (August 1986), and a staff paper on Subseabed Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste (May 1986).

This final report addresses two fundamental questions: what is the general condition

of different marine environments and their resources, and what role can and should marine environments play in overall waste management? OTA's principal findings are that

estuaries and coastal waters are in deep trouble around the Nation, and that more coordinated waste management efforts are needed in many areas. As a Nation, we have been

only partially successful in protecting these waters—and their ecologically, commercially,

and esthetically valuable resources—from degradation. Policies to maintain or improve

their quality, however, must be implemented in conjunction with policies about waste

management strategies in general, including disposal in the open ocean and on land.

OTA is particularly grateful for the considerable effort devoted to this undertaking

by our advisory panel, numerous contacts in Federal and State agencies, and numerous

individuals in industry, academia, and public interest and environmental groups. These

individuals helped OTA examine the enormous amount of available information from a

number of important perspectives. We greatly appreciate this help.

JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director

III
Wastes in Marine Environments: Advisory Panel

Thomas Clingan, Chair

School of Law, University of Miami

Michael G. Norton, Co-Chair

Warren Spring Laboratory, United Kingdom

(formerly First Secretary, British Embassy)

Walter Barber John A. Knauss

Waste Management, Inc. Graduate School of Oceanography

Willard Bascom University of Rhode Island

Scripps Institute of Oceanography George Lutzic

(formerly with Southern California Coastal New York City Department of Environmental

Water Research Project) Protection

Rita Colwell William J. Marrazzo

Department of Microbiology City of Philadelphia

University of Maryland Joseph T. McGough, Jr.

A. Myrick Freeman III Parsons Brinckerhoff

Department of Economics (formerly with New York City Department of

Bowdoin College Environmental Protection)

John Gosdin Jerry Schubel

Governor’s Office Marine Sciences Research Center

State of Texas State University of New York at Stony Brook

Jon Hinck Richard F. Schwer

Greenpeace, USA Engineering Department

E.I. du Pent de Nemours & Co. Kenneth Kamlet

A.T. Kearney, Inc.

(formerly with National Wildlife Federation)

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel

members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full

responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

Related OTA Reports

● Ocean Incineration: Its Role in Managing Hazardous Wastes. OTA-O-3 13; August 1986. GPO stock #052-003-

01046-1; $11.00.

● Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste for Pollution Prevention and Industrial Efficiency. OTA-ITE-3 17; September 1986. GPO stock #052 -003-0 1048-8; $12.00.

● Transportation of Hazardous Materials. OTA-SET-304; July 1986. GPO stock #052-003-01042-9; $13.00.

● Super fund Strategy. OTA-ITE-252; April 1985. GPO stock #052 -003-00994 -3; $10.00.

● Protecting the Nation Groundwater From Con lamination. OTA-O-233; October 1984. GPO stock #052-003-

00966-8; $7.50.

● Acid Rain and Transported Air Pollutants: Implications for Public Policy. OTA-O- 204; June 1984. GPO stock

#052 -003-00956-l ; $9.50

● Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control. OTA-M - 196; March 1983. NTIS order

#PB 83-189241.

iv
OTA

John Andelin,

Science, Information,

Project Staff

Assistant Director, OTA

and Natural Resources Division

Robert M. Niblock, Oceans and Environment Program Manager

Howard Levenson, Project Director

William D. Barnard, Senior Analyst”

Richard A. Denison, Analyst”*

Gretchen E. Hund, Analyst

Nicholas A. Sundt, Analyst

Kathryn D. Wagner, Congressional Fellow

Patricia A. Catherwood, Analyst

Dale T. Brown, Analyst

Administrative Staff

Kathleen A. Beil

Jim Brewer, Jr.

Brenda B. Miller

*Pro]c( ( Illrc( [or throu~h No\emt)er 1985

* * Prlnclpal Author of OT.A’s report, ‘ ‘Ocean Inclncrat ior} Its Role in hlanaging Hazardous W’astc.
Contents

Chapter Page

l. Findings and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Understanding Marine Disposal: The Broader Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3. Waste Disposal Activities and Pollutant Inputs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4. Marine Environments and Processes, and Fate of Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

5. Impacts of Waste Disposal on Marine Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

6. Impacts of Waste Pollutants on Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123

7. Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal . ...................143

8. Managing Industrial Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....177

9. Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............209

10. Managing Dredged Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............237

11. Managing Industrial Wastes Dumped in Marine Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., ..257

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....275

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....307

vi
I

Photo malt: Stephen C. Delaney

Findings and

Chapter 1

Options
CONTENTS

Page

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Managing Estuaries and Coastal Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Managing Open Ocean Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Viewing Marine Waste Disposal in Broad Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Policy Choices for Marine Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Information Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Pollutant Inputs and Impacts in Marine Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Waste Disposal and Pollutant Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Impacts on Marine Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Selected Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Policy Issues and Options for Estuaries and Coastal Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Issue 1: Current Pollutant Control Programs Will Not Protect All Estuaries

and Coastal Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Options To Improve Current Pollutant Control Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Option 1: Improving Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Option 2: Ensuring Funding of Municipal Treatment Plant Construction. . . . 27

Option 3: Expanding Regulation of Important Pollutants and Sources . . . . . . 28

Option 4: Applying Ocean Discharge Criteria to Estuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Issue 2: Some Estuaries and Coastal Waters Need More Comprehensive

Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Options To Provide Additional Waterbody Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Option 1: Establishing Measurable Goals and Evaluating Progress. . . . . . . . . . 31

Option 2: Identifying Waterbodies Needing Additional Management. . . . . . . . 32

Option 3: Developing Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Policy Issues and Options for Open Ocean Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Issues Regarding Waste Disposal in Open Ocean Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Options for Managing Waste Disposal in Open Ocean Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Option 1: Maintaining or Strengthening the Current Restrictive Policy . . . . . 34

Option 2: Allowing Increased Disposal of Some Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure

Figure No. Page

l. Jurisdictional Boundaries of Environmental Laws Affecting Marine Disposal . . . 5

Boxes

Box Page

A. Marine Environments and Relevant Federal Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

B. Sources and Types of Pollutants Entering Marine Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

C. The Water Quality Act of 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter 1

Findings and Options

OVERVIEW

The marine waters of the United States—estuaries, coastal waters, and the open oceanl —are used

extensively for the disposal of various types of waste.

Much public concern and debate has focused on

the form of disposal known as dumping, which occurs when wastes such as sewage sludge, industrial

wastes, and dredged material are transported by

ships or barges to designated marine sites and

dropped overboard. Relatively less attention has

been given to other marine disposal activities such

as the discharge of industrial and municipal effluents from numerous pipelines and to nonpoint

pollution from agricultural and urban runoff. Pipeline discharges and runoff, however, are at least

as important as dumping in causing impacts on marine resources. 2

OTA believes the most productive way to look

at the disposal of wastes in the Nation’s marine

environments is to understand two fundamental issues: first, the general condition of each of

the types of marine waters that are used for disposal; and second, the nature and extent of the

role that these waters can and should play in

waste management. This study’s major findings

about the first issue point to several policy options

that could be instituted to maintain or improve the’

condition of these waters. The study also explores

the policy implications of these options within the

broad context of the second issue—the role of marine waters in waste management.

OTA developed three major findings concerning the health of the Nation marine environments.

Although discussed later in this chapter and throughout the report, summarized briefly they conclude

the following:

1’I’hcsc terms are defined in box A

“1’hesc terms are described in box B. OTA analyzed the ocean incineration of hazardous wastes in a companion report, Ocean lncinera[ion: Its Role in Managing Hazardous L$’aste (586) and the potential disposal of high-letcl radioactive waste under the seabcci in a staff

paper, Subseabt=d Dispcwd of High-Lx\,el Radioactive W’astc (585).

Box B llsts other sources of pollution that are not covered in this

assessment.

●

●

●

Estuaries and coastal waters around the

country receive the vast majority of pollutants introduced into marine environments.

As a result, many of these waters have exhibited a variety of adverse impacts, and

their overall health is declining or threatened.

In the absence of additional measures, new

or continued degradation will occur in many

estuaries and some coastal waters around

the country during the next few decades

(even in some areas that exhibited improvements in the past).

In contrast, the health of the open ocean

generally appears to be better than that of

estuaries and coastal waters. Relatively few

impacts from waste disposal in the open ocean

have been documented, in part because relatively little waste disposal has taken place there

and because wastes disposed of there usually

are extensively dispersed and diluted. Uncertainty exists, however, about the ability to discern impacts in the open ocean.

Managing Estuaries and Coastal Waters

Several Federal “pollutant control” programs

have been established under the Clean Water Act

(CWA) and the Marine Protection, Research, and

Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) to regulate the disposal

(via both discharge and dumping) of wastes into

marine waters and to control the levels of pollutants in these wastes. 3 The cornerstone of these programs has been the promulgation of uniform national regulations applicable to point sources of

wastes or pollutants. Using this approach, some significant reductions in the quantities of pollutants

entering marine waters have been and will probably continue to be achieved.

‘These statutes arc discussed in box A and in ch. 7, The term polutant is defined and types of pollutants are described in box B

3

Ch. l—Findings and Options . 5

River

Runoff

oCWA

 - Clean Water Act, formally known as the Water Pollution Control Act

 - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

Dumping beyond the inner boundary of the territorial sea is covered by covers dumping within the territorial

sea in principle, but is preempted by (see box A)). Estuarine dumping falls under 

Pipelines (wherever they are located) are covered by 

Ch. l—Findings and Options ● 7

such as total nitrogen, s4W, total pht)sphqrus, ~~@@r as chlorine, fluoride, and

CC* metals (M CF’~ 122, ~p. D).**** ;.. ? . t. . ~ - ‘ ,. . ~ ~, - ,.

. “

-,’) . ~ Beguh(l Pdlluants

!’.

, ,. “-- ..”

. . ,. ;

;.. -, - . . b jM’hlCi#G, &Ily Sl&J&UW? d’~

,.

w dum+d to ~@ation as a pollutant under the Clean Water Act and the Marine Wok@&- AI%; “@4&tCh41” pr~-

visions in both statutes @ecs. 301 and 101, respeegivdy) @ aby rna$qkd that would impede achievement of the broad goals of these stattit~ be regulated. TO facilitate the development of regulations

and to provide some degree af consistency, ~ifk lists of p+xtants have been developed by the Federal

Government. However, for a variety of economic$ technical, and environmental reasons, standards that actually limit release have been devdoped for only a mbset of these substances. Moreover, many additional poh

lutants that have been identified in wastes maybe of concern with respect to environmental or human health;

in some cases, State or local limit$ CM such substances hwe been developed, but many remain entirely unregulated (see ch. 8).

In practice, then, the term regtdatedpohtazrt has a rathet limited meaning, referring only to: 1) those

substances specifically included on government lists, or !/) the subset of these (plus any additional) substances

for which limits are actually specifkd in discharge m dumping permits or ordinances. In this assessment,

the term refers to a substance that meets one or bath of the above criteria, with the understanding that even

for many regulated pollutants, actual 1imits governing their disposal have not been developed. The term unmgcdatedpdutants h reserved for other potentially signiilcmt pollutants that do not meet either of the above

. . criteria,

*

e

**The statutory IMS& for rcgulattin Of SUbSmWM L-MIW &an cosIven& or to~ p&@nts is provided by $x. 301(b)@)(F) of the Chin Water Act.

These programs represent reasonable approaches (including some that exhibited past imto address the problem of pollution in marine envi- provements):

ronments. However, while relatively easy to con-

●

ceptualize, they have proven far more difficult to

fully implement. Only partial implementation has

●

been achieved to date and numerous obstacles hinder them from becoming fully operative. Indeed,

the prospect of ever achieving full implementation and enforcement is unlikely: the Nation’s

●

past commitment of resources has been insufficient to accomplish all the essential activities of

existing programs (e. g., monitoring and enforcement, municipal treatment plant construction)

●

and even these resources are now declining (chs.

7, 8, and 9).

Moreover, even if total compliance with today’s regulations is achieved, existing programs

current programs do not adequately address

toxic pollutants or nonpoint source pollution;

pipeline discharges and nonpoint source pollution (particularly urban runof~ will increase

as population and industrial development expand in coastal areas;4

Federal resources available for municipal sewage treatment are declining, and the ability of

States or communities to fill the breach is

highly uncertain; and

in many cases, economic, technical, or social

factors will make it difficult or impossible to

shift disposal or dumping of certain wastes out

of estuaries and coastal waters.

will not be sufficient to achieve some goals of

the CWA, in particular to maintain or improve 4The number of people living in counties near marine waters inthe health of all estuaries and coastal waters. In creased more than 80 percent from 1950 to 1984; by 1984, 40 percent of the U.S. population lived within 50 miles of a marine coastthe absence of additional measures to protect our line (including counties near but not necessarily adjacent to marine

marine waters, the next few decades will wit-

.

coastlines, but excluding Hawaii, Alaska, and areas around the Great

Lakes) (566), Coastal populations are projected to continue to increase, ness new or continued degradation in many es- and the intensity of recreation, development, and waste disposal that

tuaries and coastal waters around the country can impact marine waters will increase accordingly.
8 ● Wastes jn Marine Environments

This projection of continued or increasing degradation is of great concern because estuaries and

coastal waters are among the most important of all

marine environments, with respect to their commercial resources, recreational uses, and ecological roles (chs. 2 and 4). Moreover, the ability to

detect such deterioration and to understand its causes

will be hampered if funding for monitoring and

basic research continues to decline.

The nature and extent of impacts, and their

causes, show tremendous variation from one estuary or coastal water to another. This diversity suggests that any additional management efforts should

be site-specific-i. e., tailored specifically to the

needs and problems of individual waterbodies—

regardless of whether such efforts are conducted by

Federal, State, or local agencies. “Waterbody management’ programs have been established for a few

marine water bodies (e. g., the Chesapeake Bay Program), but many other estuaries and coastal waters

need additional management.

If the Nation desires to maintain or improve

the health of its estuaries and coastal waters, a

two-tiered approach toward managing these

waters will be needed. First, implementation of

the present system of uniform national controls

should be continued and enhanced to provide

a consistent, minimum level of protection. Second, additional waterbody management that

provides sufficient flexibility to address sitespecfic problems, while probably difficult to develop and implement, will be needed in many

areas to supplement current programs. OTA’s

analysis of policy options for estuaries and coastal

waters reflects this two-tiered approach.

Managing Open Ocean Waters

The health of the open ocean generally appears to be better than that of estuaries and

coastal waters. Relatively few impacts from

waste disposal have been observed, partly because the open ocean has been subject to relatively

little waste disposal and because wastes are typically dispersed and diluted. Considerable uncertainty still exists, however, about the ability to discern impacts, particularly long-term ones, that may

have occurred in the open ocean.

MPRSA has been relatively successful in managing dumping and providing some degree of protection for the open ocean. Nevertheless, the potential for harm to some valuable resources exists

(e.g., from toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs), which have been detected in openocean fish).

Policy options for the open ocean discuss the implications of increasing, maintaining, or easing the

current restrictions on open ocean disposal. If wastes

are disposed of in the open ocean, it seems prudent

to ensure that they contain low levels of toxic pollutants. Few long-term adverse consequences would

be expected if relatively uncontaminated sewage

sludge and dredged material were to be dumped

in the open ocean under dispersive conditions.

Viewing Marine Waste Disposal in

Broad Context

The environmental legislation passed in the

1960s and 1970s and the continued popularity of

the environmental movement are clear expressions

of society’s desire to protect the environment, including marine waters. The expected degradation

in many estuaries and coastal waters and the relatively greater degree of protection afforded the open

ocean, however, in some respects reflect a lack of

comprehensive waste management (ch. 2). Current

programs established to manage wastes focus primarily on one waste source or on disposal in one

environment. Such narrowly focused programs

were reasonable steps in approaching pollution

problems. Attempts to control one problem, however, sometimes generate other problems, and pollutants often have been merely transferred among

environments or wastestreams without any significant overall reduction in associated risks.5

Some problems might be alleviated if policy

choices about the role of marine waters in waste

disposal were made within the context of a hierarchy of preferred waste management strategies (262,

377,586). These strategies include:

5For example, the processes used to remove conventional pollutants from municipal wastewater result in increased production of sewage sludge. Moreover, most sludge is contaminated with toxic pollutants from industrial and other discharges into municipal sewers.

While disposal of uncontaminated sludge faces obstacles, the disposal

of contaminated sludge is even more severely constrained: it often cannot be applied on land and may not be amenable to incineration, landfill disposal, or ocean dumping (ch. 9).
—

Ch. l—Findings and Options ● 9

●

●

●

reducing the generation of wastes;

when possible, beneficially using or recycling

wastes; and

when beneficial uses are not possible, choosing treatment or disposal options that cause

the least damage to the environment and human health and that are acceptable to society

at large. 6

None of these options eliminates risks entirely,

and in some cases new risks can be created. Moreover, not all waste generation can be eliminated.

Once wastes are generated, some type of ‘ ‘multimedia assessment’ that compares the risks of different treatment and disposal options can help determine a preferred strategy in a given situation. Even

then, a critical component will be public acceptability of the strategy itself and of the decisionmaking process (ch. 2).

To the extent that waste generation can be reduced, the need for disposal in different environments, including marine waters, can also be reduced. It is evident, however, that large amounts

of wastes requiring disposal (e. g., municipal effluents and sludge, industrial effluents, and

dredged material) will continue to be produced,

although the levels of specific pollutants in these

wastes could be lowered. At the same time, there

is a strong desire for waste disposal to be inexpensive and to occur in remote locations, Several factors will increase pressure to use marine environments for waste disposal:

● the proximity of marine waters to major and/

or growing urban areas that generate large

amounts of wastes requiring disposal;

● the frequently lower costs of marine disposal;

● limits on the economic feasibility of land-based

disposal for some highly voluminous wastes

(e. g., municipal effluents); and

● limits on the availability of land-based disposal

options for some wastes (e. g., sewage sludge,

‘In this assessment, waste reduction includes those act ivit ies at the

generating source that reduce the degree of risk associated with waste

byproducts. OTA has analyzed the potential for, and obstacles to,

achieving greater waste reduction (587). Reduction and reuse options

may be applicable to some extent even to wastes commonly considered to be difficult to reduce or reuse, In some parts of the country,

for example, municipal effluents are reclaimed for use in irrigation

or groundwater recharge, Water conser~!ation efforts (e. g., use of

waterless toilets) could reduce the quantity of wastewater requiring

disposal.

dredged material, and some industrial wastes)

because of increased public opposition and

State or local regulatory restrictions.7

Policy Choices for Marine

Waste Disposal

As indicated by OTA’s analysis, the degradation of marine waters is most threatening in many

estuaries and coastal waters. The open ocean, in

contrast, exhibits relatively better health and has

received a greater degree of protection. Thus, different policy choices are applicable to estuaries and

coastal waters and to the open ocean.

Estuaries and Coastal Waters

With regard to impacts caused by waste disposal activities and runoff, the only policy choice

available to maintain and improve the health of

estuaries and coastal waters is to minimize pollutant inputs to these waters. One option to minimize inputs is to shift some disposal activities to

the open ocean (depending on policies regarding

open ocean disposal, discussed below), for example, by extending pipelines or moving the dumping of dredged material. 8 For a variety of technical, logistical, and economic reasons, however, it

appears unlikely that a significant number of pipelines now located in estuaries and coastal waters

could be extended much further offshore. Similarly,

at least some dumping of dredged material in estuaries and coastal waters will be necessary. Some

disposal activities might be moved to land, but the

availability of some land-based options is becoming more restricted.

For these reasons, several other, more feasible

options for minimizing waste disposal and pollutant inputs in estuaries and coastal waters deserve

attention. These options are organized by OTA

within a two-tiered approach:

1. Maintain or consider expanding the current system of pollutant controls, as exem7Restrictions on land-based disposal, mandated by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Wastes Amendments to the Resource Consen,ation

and Recovery Act (RCRA) (see ch. 7), also could increase pressure

to dispose of some hazardous wastes in the ocean (241 ,263).

8

Some shifting of sewage sludge dumping from coastal waters (at

the 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Dump Site in the New York Bight) to

the open ocean (at the Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site, 125 to 150

nautical miles southeast of New York harbor) is already underway.
10 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

2.

plified by C WA’s uniform technology-based

controls and requirements. Ensuring maintenance would require some combination of

continued Federal, State, and local investments in:

—the construction of municipal treatment

plants;

—increased and sustained support for enforcement efforts; and

—increased and sustained support for monitoring and research, to aid enforcement and

evaluate long-term trends.

Expanding the system would involve regulating more toxic pollutants, industrial sources,

and pathogens.

Establish additional, site-specific controls

on waste disposal and nonpoint pollution

where needed. g This would require:

—identifying those areas where such controls

are needed (i. e., where the first tier of controls is not sufficient);

—establishing measurable, site-specific goals

toward which progress could be evaluated;

and

—in some cases, initiating or expanding formal ‘‘waterbody’ management plans such

as those developed for the Chesapeake Bay

and Puget Sound.

Both Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are well aware of the need

to continue supporting existing efforts and to develop new initiatives like those listed above.

Congressional awareness of these needs is reflected

in some of the major provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1987, which amended the Clean Water

Act (box C). For example, Congress expressed its

intent to continue Federal funding, for a limited

time, of municipal treatment plant construction (although at a level considerably below that estimated

by EPA to be needed); to promote additional management of various estuaries; and to provide funding for States to develop nonpoint source pollution

programs. EPA has been involved in developing

several waterbody management programs (e. g., the

Chesapeake Bay and National Estuary Programs;

see ch. 7), and has begun several efforts to iden-

‘Although specific policy options for nonpoint pollution are not developed here, the relative importance of pollutants from disposal activities and nonpoint sources (particularly runoff) is evaluated in ch. 3.

tify waterbodies needing additional management

(246,670). Many of these initiatives to provide

additional, site-specific controls are in their infancy, however, and they will require much more

direction, support, and oversight from Congress.

Furthermore, these efforts currently are not part

of a single, integrated strategy.

Establishing additional, site-specific controls

could be aided by increasing the emphasis given

to the “water quality” approach. This approach

consists of designating desired goals such as fishable waters for a waterbody, developing pollutantspecific numerical criteria that establish the quality of water needed to attain the goals, and implementing controls on wastes or pollutants from point

and/or nonpoint sources to meet the criteria. The

water quality approach, which has always been a

component of CWA, was intended to supplement

the uniform pollutant controls once they were wellestablished and thus provide an additional layer of

controls when and where necessary. EPA has developed some water quality-based controls, but in

general the water quality approach has not been

systematically applied to estuaries and coastal

waters. Given OTA’s findings about the declining health of many estuaries and coastal waters

and the limitations on the effectiveness of pollutant control programs, it now seems appropriate that Congress and EPA begin developing a

systematic framework to implement the water

quality approach more extensively.

Open Ocean Waters

Several distinct policy choices about the use

of the open ocean for waste disposal are possible:

1. maintain current restrictions on and allowances for open ocean disposal,

2. tighten these restrictions, or

3. ease them.

Deciding which policy to choose is not clearcut and depends on factors such as the availability of disposal options on land and in estuaries

and coastal waters, as well as on the character

of the particular waste in question. For example, uncontaminated sewage sludge and dredged

material might best be used beneficially on land or

in certain aquatic settings (e. g., sludge could be

used to fertilize forestland; dredged material could
Ch. l—Findings and Options ● 1 1

be used to replenish beaches or wetlandslO). The

feasibility of such uses can sometimes be limited,

however, by economic constraints, land availability

, public opposition, and local and State regulations (chs. 9, 10). These wastes, as well as acid or

alkaline industrial wastes, also can be dumped in

the open ocean under certain conditions with little

likelihood of causing significant long-term impacts.

IOFor example, some observers have suggested that uncontaminated

dredged material could be used beneficially to replenish eroding

marshes and islands along the southern Louisiana coast (K. Kamlet,

AT, Kearney, Inc., pers. comm., November 1986).

Contaminated material, on the other hand, can

rarely if ever be used beneficially and therefore generally requires some other form of management.

In such cases, the full range of available options,

including some forms of marine disposal, needs to

be evaluated. For example, it might be determined

that disposal of some types of contaminated dredged

material is best accomplished by “capping’ it with

clean material in marine waters; in other cases, disposal on land may be preferable.

Pressure to use the open ocean for disposal of

sewage sludge, dredged material, and some in-
12 . Wastes in Marine Environments

dustrial wastes will probably increase, especially

if greater protection is provided for estuaries and

coastal waters.

In response to growing pressure for such disposal, Congress could choose to allow increased

disposal of some wastes in the open ocean, deciding that some types of marine disposal are environmentally acceptable.

In contrast, Congress could opt to maintain

or even strengthen the current restrictive policy, either because of concerns about the longterm health of the open ocean or because allowing such disposal could be a disincentive to developing better waste management options. This

course of action might, however, interfere with attempts to implement other measures designed to

improve the health of estuaries and coastal waters

(e.g., shifting some dumping further out to sea).

Therefore, maintaining or increasing the availability of alternative, land-based management options

(e.g., waste reduction, treatment, and disposal)

would be critical to the success of this strategy.

Whether or not increased disposal is allowed,

Congress may wish to provide guidance and oversight by ensuring that:

●

●

●

●

the level of pollutants in wastes is reduced prior

to disposal;

disposal sites and methods are chosen so that

impacts are minimized;

long-term monitoring and research is properly

designed and coordinated; and

disposal does not provide a disincentive to

the development of beneficial uses for these

wastes or to reduced waste generation wherever possible.

INFORMATION NEEDS

Many

veloping

types of information are essential for depolicies about marine waste disposal, including information about the value of marine resources, ecological relationships, the quantity and

fate of pollutant inputs from disposal activities,

environmental and human impacts, and the ability of different disposal technologies to lessen impacts. Without such information, it is impossible

to identify problems in specific areas, support enforcement activities, or effectively evaluate progress

toward specific goals.

Programs for gathering and analyzing information are conducted by numerous Federal, State, and

local agencies, as well as by industrial firms that

must comply with regulatory requirements (ch. 7).

The effectiveness of these programs has often been

questioned. Some observers contend that: 1) monitoring is not sufficiently linked with basic research

to facilitate the understanding of why certain impacts are occurring; and 2) too much responsibility for monitoring has been delegated from the Federal to the State and local levels, with a concomitant

loss of proper design and quality control (84).

The responsible Federal agencies contend that

the design, implementation, and success of such

programs has improved in recent years. Agencies

such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), EPA, and the Army Corps

of Engineers (COE) have initiated many new programs during the 1980s that are better designed

than their predecessors and that address issues on

a more comprehensive basis (ch. 7). NOAA, for

example, has several ongoing programs including

an inventory of resources in the Nation’s estuaries,

a project to map living resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, and a survey of outdoor

marine recreation (61 1).

Nevertheless, information gaps still constrain

analyses of marine waste disposal, partly because

of a lack of information-gathering in some areas

of the country, a lack of systematic analyses of

gathered data, and ineffective dissemination of results. For example, high-quality, systematically

analyzed information is not available about overall compliance with discharge permits, the types of

pollutants present in many waterbodies, or the na-
Ch. l—Findings and Options • 13

ture and extent of impacts in many waterbodies. 11

Moreover, different programs that address the same

issue often are not well-coordinated.

Many information programs also suffer from inadequate funding. Relatively little is invested in

programs that obtain and analyze information in

comparison with other expenditures (e. g., capital

investments in pollution control technology). The

effectiveness of pollution controls is difficult to

evaluate without such information, yet funding

levels for monitoring and other information programs generally are declining.

Increased political and financial support will be

needed to ensure the coordination and proper design of these programs. The need for coordination

and long-term support has been emphasized in recent endeavors. NOAA has developed plans under the National Ocean Pollution Planning Act,

with input from other Federal agencies, that recommend establishing a national network to better

coordinate and synthesize existing programs. A reI I Fc)r ins[ancc, EpA ‘S permit Compliance System is an automated

data systcrn for tracktng National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (N PI) ES) discharyc permits that is intended to fill this need.

Until rmcntly, it was on]} used b} some States and EpA regional

offi( cs, and therefore has been far from complete; its use is now manda(ory ((h 8)

cent symposium focused on improving the design

of monitoring programs and their utility in the decisionmaking process (332).

Aside from actual information-gathering programs, continued support of basic ecological research and applied technological research also is

needed, both to understand how waste disposal affects marine resources and to improve disposal

methods. Observers have suggested the need for

additional Federal funding of numerous research

topics including:

●

●

●

●

improving the engineering and design of disposal technologies (e. g., ways to produce higher

dilutions of wastewater);

predicting how marine systems will respond

to waste disposal (the experimental discharge

of municipal sludge is discussed in ch. 9);

enhancing, possibly through genetic engineering, the ability of microorganisms to degrade

pollutants such as organic material or chemical pollutants in municipal and industrial

wastes, both before and after disposal in marine waters; and

increasing the use of biomonitoring tests (e. g.,

effluent toxicity tests) or indices of environmental degradation to identify areas likely to

suffer or actually suffering some degradation

(105,375,385,412,659).

POLLUTANT INPUTS AND IMPACTS IN MARINE WATER S

Waste Disposal and Pollutant Inputs

Estuaries and Coastal Waters

Many municipal and industrial wastes are discharged directly into estuaries and coastal waters.

More than 1,300 major industrial facilities and 500

municipal sewage treatment plants discharge wastewater effluents directly into estuaries, and an additional 70 municipal plants and about 15 major

industrial facilities discharge into coastal waters;

only a few pipelines are used to discharge wastewater into the open ocean (ch. 3). Some sewage

sludge is discharged through pipelines in southern

California and in Boston, although these discharges

are scheduled to be terminated.

The large quantities of waste entering estuaries

and coastal waters through discharges reflect: 1) the

close proximity of population centers and industries to these waters; 2) cost savings to waste generators that use this option; and 3) a management

approach that allows certain discharges, generally

based more on technological treatment capabilities

than on resulting water quality. 12 The net effect is

a considerable degree of ‘acceptance’ of this routine but environmentally significant activity, espeI Z1 ncreasinq efforts t. focus on water clual it \ arc (>I idcrrt, howc~t’r.

.

For example, some States require that disc har~cs into marine waters

meet ambient water quality objcctl~,tx established bY the State (c. ~,,

the California Ocean Plan; ref. 68). In addition, water quality corl -

sidcrat ions can be included in the design of disposal systems.
74 ● Wastes jn Marine Environments

Marine waste disposal activities (pipeline discharges and dumping operations) are overwhelmingly concentrated in

estuaries and coastal waters. Over 1,300 major industrial and almost 600 municipal facilities discharge directly into

estuaries and coastal waters, and at most a few discharge into the open ocean.

cially when contrasted with the far greater attention focused on marine dumping.

Dumping also occurs in estuaries and coastal

waters. The majority (80 to 90 percent by volume)

of all waste material dumped in marine waters

originates from dredging operations. About 180

million wet metric tons of dredged material are

dumped annually in marine waters.13 According

to COE, most of this material is relatively uncontaminated and does not contribute significant quantities of pollutants to these waters (ch. 10).14

The quantity of municipal sewage sludge dumped

in marine waters has increased over the last decade and now totals about 7 million wet metric tons

annually. Sludge dumping now occurs primarily

in coastal waters at the 12-Mile Sewage Sludge

Dump Site in the New York Bight, although it is

scheduled to be shifted entirely to the Deepwater

I+ Dredged considered by to be heavily contaminated

I two-thirds of the material is dumped in estuaries, about is disposed of, for example, in upland sites or by placing it in pits

one-sixth in coastal waters within the territorial boundary, and under water and covering it with uncontaminated material. Clearly

sixth beyond the territorial boundary. Most dumping beyond the defined, quantitative criteria are lacking, however, for deciding whether

 boundary is still within coastal waters. such material is contaminated.
Ch. l—Findings and Options • 15

Municipal Sludge Site in open ocean waters during 1988.

Much smaller amounts (about 50,000 wet metric tons) of acid and alkaline industrial wastes are

currently dumped in coastal waters each year at the

Acid Waste Disposal Site in the New York Bight.

Other wastes (e. g., seafood processing wastes or

drilling fluids from offshore oil and gas operations)

are also dumped or discharged into marine waters.

Relative Contribution of Pollutants From Waste

Disposal and Nonpoint Sources.—The relative

contribution of pollutants from discharges, dumping, and nonpoint sources15 varies with the type of

pollutant and the location (ch. 3), In most estuaries

and coastal waters, little or no dumping occurs and

therefore discharges and runoff contribute greater

16 Where dumping does Oc -

-

amounts of pollutants.

cur, however, it can sometimes be the major source

of pollutants. The most extreme case probably occurs in the New York Bight, where dumping of

sludge and dredged material accounts for one-half

or more of the cadmium, chromium, copper, PCBs,

total suspended solids, and phosphorus introduced

to these waters.

Metals and organic chemicals enter marine

waters from various disposal activities, and they primarily originate from industrial discharges. A portion of the pollutants discharged by industries to

municipal sewers passes through municipal treatment plants into receiving waters or contaminates

sludge; thus, municipal plants can act as a conduit

for industrial pollutants. Furthermore, the pollutants in industrial and municipal discharges can

contaminate sediments that may later need to be

dredged.

Pathogens enter marine waters through discharges of raw sewage (e. g., from septic systems

. —

15 Nonpolnt Pollutlon can arise from a wide \’ariety of distinct sources

(box B). Comprehensive data is available only for urban and nonurban runoff, however, so this section only discusses these sources.

1bQuantifying nonpoint runoff is difficult because it tends to be diffuse and widespread, occurs along the shorelines of virtually all estu -

arine and coastal waters, and varies dramatically over time, but some

data are available. In addition, the a~ailability of pollutants in different wastes to organisms may differ somewhat. For example, many

pollutants in dredged material tend to be bound to particles that arc

deposited on the bottom and then rapidly covered, proccsscs that make

these pollutants less likely to be taken up by organisms.

or combined sewer overflows) as well as treated effluent and sludge. Municipal treatment processes

destroy most, but not all, bacteria, and they are

less effective against viruses and parasites (chs. 6

and 9). (The shortcomings of current standards regarding pathogens are discussed in ch. 6).

Estuaries and coastal waters also receive large

amounts of pollutants from upstream sources.

Thousands of industrial and municipal plants discharge into rivers that subsequently flow into estuaries, and nonpoint runoff is a major contributor of pollutants to rivers. In some cases (e. g., the

Mississippi River delta region), upstream sources

are the major contributor of most pollutants; these

pollutants may be highly diluted by the large flow

of a river, however, so that their subsequent impact may be less than commensurate with their

quantity.

Open Ocean Waters

In contrast with estuaries and coastal waters,

relatively little dumping and discharge occurs in

the open ocean. Some sewage sludge is now

dumped at the Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site,

and this site will eventually receive all of the sludge

that is now dumped in the New York Bight as well

as additional sludge from New York City‘s new

treatment plants. About 30 million wet metric tons

of dredged material (less than one-sixth of the material dredged from all estuaries and coastal waters)

is dumped in the open ocean. Currently, about

150,000 metric tons of acid and alkaline wastes from

two industrial facilities are dumped at the Deepwater Industrial Waste Site.

Over the past 10 to 15 years, industrial waste

dumping has decreased dramatically, while dumping of sewage sludge has steadily increased; dumping of dredged material has fluctuated considerably during this period. Future pressure for dumping

could take many forms. Some coastal municipalities (other than those already conducting such disposal) have expressed interest in renewing or initiating ocean dumping of sewage sludge if it were

to be allowed (32,532), and certain large-volume,

industrial wastes such as flue-gas desulfurization

sludges and coal ash have been considered potential candidates for dumping.
16 • Wastes in Marine Environments

Impacts on Marine Environments

General Nature of Impacts

Some conventional and nonconventional pollutants can contribute to excess nutrient levels (eutrophication) and low oxygen levels (hypoxia), particularly in estuaries and some coastal waters.

Pathogenic organisms (e. g., certain bacteria, viruses,

and parasites) contained in sewage or runoff can

contaminate water and fish, resulting in direct risks

to human health such as outbreaks of hepatitis and

gastroenteritis. Their presence can also cause direct economic and recreational losses.

Many metals and organic chemicals can cause

severe, short-term, acute impacts on marine organisms. Moreover, many organic chemicals and some

forms of certain metals can dissolve and accumulate in the fatty tissues of these organisms. When

these organisms are consumed by predators, some

of these pollutants can increase in concentration

(i.e., biomagnify). Because of their persistence and

toxicity, they can cause long-term, chronic impacts

on organisms, potentially including humans. The

presence of metals and organic chemicals in sewage sludge and dredged material also greatly constrains the management of these wastes.

Because of the sheer physical volume of waste

that is dumped in marine environments—particularly dredged material—the solid material in such

waste can modify bottom sediments or bury bottomdwelling organisms at disposal sites. Such impacts,

however, are often transient or reversible once the

activity is halted.

Evaluating the Relationship Between

Pollutants and Impacts

The nature and severity of impacts vary greatly

among waterbodies, reflecting differences in the

physical characteristics of the waterbodies, the extent and types of disposal that take place, and the

types and values of the marine resources present.

The information available to OTA supports the

conclusion that, even though the precise link between specific pollutants and impacts is often unclear, many of the adverse impacts on marine

waters and organisms are caused by the introduction of pollutants through the disposal of

wastes. The site-specific relationship between impacts and waste disposal is illustrated, for example, through selected examples (see below). Evidence suggests that losses in individual incidents

attributable to waste disposal (e. g., closures of shellfish beds or restrictions on fishing) can amount to

millions of dollars; nationwide, many millions of

people can be affected directly or indirectly each

year.

Several factors create some uncertainty about the

absolute extent to which pollutants from individual waste disposal activities contribute to observed

affects, but not about the general conclusion that

they do indeed cause many impacts. Uncertainty

exists, for instance, because:

●

●

●

●

pollutants can originate from many sources;

the significance of contamination to marine

organisms and humans is often poorly understood;

impacts can be caused by other factors (e. g.,

overharvesting of fisheries or natural reductions in oxygen levels);17 and

the information available is often incomplete.

For example, although good information exists

about some areas, for many other areas little effort has been made to systematically collect and

analyze needed data. This hinders attempts to rank

estuaries and coastal waters according to their importance and extent of impacts, or even to confidently catalog all impacts that have occurred. 18

Health of Estuaries and Coastal Waters

Estuaries and coastal waters are among the most

ecologically and economically important of all

aquatic environments (chs. 2 and 4). Many such

waters around the country have suffered significant

impacts, although the overall trend during the last

10 to 15 years has been mixed. Some areas that

once exhibited severe impacts have improved, but

noticeable deterioration continues to occur or is accelerating in many other areas. Much public at-

! TOther activities (e. g., dredging and filling of wetlands, or hydrologic modifications such as channelization and regulation of freshwater

flow) also can affect the quality of estuaries and coastal waters (582,

670).

IsSome useful data on pollutant inputs are available from NOAA’S

National Coastal Pollution Discharge Inventory and from Resources

for the Future (ch. 3), but few comparable data are available on actual impacts.
Ch. I—Findings and Options ● 1 7

.

Photo credit: B Sargent, The Coastlines Project

Many beaches have been closed because of contamination

of water with fecal coliform bacteria, particularly from

raw sewage in combined sewer overflows. Most closures

are temporary, but some have been permanent.

tention has focused on well-documented problems

in the Northeastern United States (including the

Chesapeake Bay and the New York Bight), southern California, and Puget Sound. Serious impacts,

however, have also occurred in the less-studied Gulf

of Mexico and the Southeastern United States.

The extent of degradation varies greatly around

the country—in type, spatial scale, duration, and

commercial importance. Observed effects include:

●

●

●

impacts on water quality (eutrophication,

hypoxia, turbidity, elevated concentrations of

pollutants);

loss of submerged aquatic vegetation;

impacts on fish and shellfish (bioaccumulation

of toxic chemicals, disease and abnormalities,

reproductive failure, mortality);

●

●

●

●

impacts on entire marine communities (changes

in diversity, abundance, and distribution as

reflected, for example, in declines in commercial fisheries);

closures of beaches and shellfish grounds because of microbial or chemical contamination;

a rising incidence of reported human disease,

from consuming contaminated shellfish or swimming in contaminated marine waters; and

accumulation of toxic pollutants in sediments

(in some cases, to levels that warrant classification as hazardous waste sites requiring cleanup

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or

Superfund).

Estuaries and coastal waters are susceptible to

these problems for several reasons. First, many marine organisms use these waters during critical parts

of the organisms’ life cycles (e. g., for spawning or

nursery habitat). Second, these waters (particularly

estuaries) bear the brunt of marine disposal activities and nonpoint pollution. Third, the physical and

chemical features of many estuaries (circulation patterns, semi-enclosed configuration, shallow depth,

mixing of fresh and saltwater) cause pollutants to

be flushed relatively slowly from these waters or to

actually become trapped. Particles (and many metals and organic chemicals, which have a tendency

to bind to particle surfaces) aggregate and settle to

the bottom; in addition, metals dissolved in the

water can become insoluble and also settle. In many

estuaries, there is a net landward flow of these sediments, so that they are far less likely to be moved

further out to sea by tides or currents.

Estuaries and coastal waters and their indigenous

organisms can in some cases recover from certain

impacts if the inputs of pollutants are reduced or

terminated. For example, impacts on water quality such as low dissolved oxygen levels or eutrophication can be reversed, and areas where communities have been destroyed by physical burial can

be recolonized. 19 In many cases, improvements can

19The terms ‘‘recovery’ and ‘‘ re~’ersal’ describe the degree to which

a condition that existed prior to an impact is restored. This does not

necessarily include restoration of other conditions that were affected

by the original impact. For example, decreases in Ie\els of dissolled

oxygen could also lead to the dec imat ion of fish populations. An area
18 . Wastes in Marine Environments

result from better control of conventional pollutants and nutrients in municipal and industrial discharges or from halting the activity entirely. Other

impacts, however, may require more time to be

reversed or may in some cases be irreversible. For

example, contamination of sediments with metals

or persistent organic chemicals, or major changes

in community structure (including ones caused by

other, reversible impacts, such as loss of aquatic

vegetation due to eutrophication) may be difficult,

if not impossible, to correct .20

Health of Open Ocean Waters

Living resources in the open ocean also are commercially important, but they tend to be distributed unevenly (i. e., they can be concentrated in

certain areas and relatively absent in others) .21 In

general, the open ocean has exhibited few docucould exhibit a rapid return to the higher levels needed to sustain

aquatic life, but an equally rapid recovery in the fish population would

not occur. In addition, restoration to original conditions might not

be identical to conditions that would have existed had the unimpacted

system continued to change naturally. For example, recolonization,

which might require a period of several months to several years, could

result in a species composition quite different from that of the original community.

ZoSome areas could continue to suffer impacts even if inputs of Pollutants were halted; for example, the prior accumulation of toxic, persistent pollutants in sediments would remain a source of contamination for a long time. These pollutants could be buried under new,

uncontaminated sediments, which might be considered a reversal of

contamination because marine organisms would no longer be exposed

to the pollutants. Later disturbance of the sediments from human activities or storms, however, could re-expose organisms to pollutants.

21 Many open ocean organisms also spend a portion of their life cYcle in estuaries and coastal waters.

mented impacts that can be attributed to waste disposal activities, partly because fewer wastes have

been disposed of directly in these waters. In addition, certain problems are less likely to occur there

than in estuaries and coastal waters, because the

physical character and processes of the open ocean

(e.g., depth, currents, and wind) tend to dilute and

disperse pollutants. For example, the open ocean

is less susceptible to problems such as hypoxia or

eutrophication, which generally occur only when

certain conventional pollutants and nutrients are

present in high concentrations, and to physical burial of organisms.

In contrast, metals, organic chemicals, and pathogens are of great concern, even though they also

are dispersed, because: they can cause impacts at

very low concentrations, many are persistent, some

can accumulate in organisms, and some can increase in concentration as they are passed up marine food chains, Uncertainty exists about the ability to discern impacts from these pollutants, because

detection of such impacts is generally difficult and

the impacts may not be observed until long after

the polluting incident is over. Some of these pollutants have been detected in significant concentrations, both in the water and in the tissues of various marine organisms including fish, seabirds, and

marine mammals. The significance of such contamination is not always clear, however, because of gaps

in our understanding of issues such as the nature

of open ocean food chains, the concentrations of

various chemicals likely to cause reproductive failure in marine organisms, or the likelihood of pollutants being transferred to humans.
Ch. l—Findings and Options . 19

to the Bay.



Ch. l—Findings and Options . 23
POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR ESTUARIES AND

COASTAL WATERS

Pressures to continue current disposal activities

in estuaries and coastal waters will probably increase. Unless inputs of pollutants into estuaries

and coastal waters are reduced, however, the extent and severity of impacts in these waters are likely

to increase. The ideal strategy to protect most estuaries and coastal waters is to reduce waste generation or reuse wastes, thereby avoiding disposal.

Even with extensive waste reduction efforts, however, large amounts of wastes now disposed of in

marine waters will continue to require disposal for

the foreseeable future,

Therefore, it will be essential to increase efforts to reduce the levels of pollutants in municipal and industrial discharges and to reduce nonpoint pollution where necessary, as well as to

minimize waste disposal in estuaries and coastal

waters wherever possible. The ability to minimize

disposal in these waters, however, maybe precluded

by policy decisions made about disposal in the open

ocean and on land. Reducing pollutant levels in discharges and reducing nonpoint pollution are likely

to be more broadly applicable.

Any attempt to address impacts from disposal

activities must therefore determine the ability of the

current statutory and regulatory system to control

pollutant inputs. Most Federal regulatory and management programs relevant to the control of discharges (as opposed to dumping) in estuaries and

coastal waters fall under CWA.23 Two basic types

of regulatory programs have been established under the Act to address pollutant inputs into these

waters: pollutant control programs, which regulate

specific pollutants or sources; and waterbody management programs, which address the overall management of particular waterbodies.

The ability of these programs to achieve their

stated goals is summarized below (based on chs.

7 and 8). Several options are described for improving the ability of pollutant control programs

to reduce the inputs of pollutants and subsequent

impacts. For many waterbodies, however, improvements in pollutant control programs alone

will not be sufficient. The policy question that

must then be decided is whether additional efforts (and, if so, what types) should be undertaken to counter the onset, continuation, or increase in degradation in these waterbodies.

Options are presented below for providing additional waterbody management where necessary.

 CWA addresses pollution, the Federal

Government has not been extensively involved in controlling this type

of pollution. The Water Quality Act of 1987, however, authorized

 million for grants to help States develop management

programs.
Ch. l—Findings and Options • 25

Issue 1: Current Pollutant Control Programs

Will Not Protect All Estuaries and Coastal

Waters

The two major pollutant control programs authorized by CWA are the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the National Pretreatment Program. These programs

establish effluent guidelines and other requirements

to regulate the discharge of certain pollutants from

municipal and industrial facilities. States or EPA

Regions have primary responsibility for granting

permits and setting standards that incorporate these

requirements, and discharges that meet the standards specified in the permits are legal .24

These pollutant control programs have been responsible for important reductions in some pollutants. The construction or upgrading of sewage

treatment plants has reduced the levels of conventional pollutants and nutrients in many municipal

discharges and, as a result, the health of some estuaries and coastal waters has improved in some

aspects. In southern California coastal waters, for

example, kelp beds have partially recovered. Similarly, reducing the levels of pollutants in industrial

discharges into sewers has improved the quality of

municipal sludge in some cases, allowing it to be

used beneficially as fertilizer on farmland and

forests.

Such reductions, however, have been achieved

at considerable expense. The Federal Government

has spent over $44 billion since 1972 to build municipal treatment plants that meet requirements

specified in CWA and implemented through NPDES

(.573). Industrial facilities also have made substantial investments in response to the regulations established under these programs.

If compliance with existing regulations is

achieved, the levels of regulated pollutants in municipal and industrial discharges are likely to continue to decline. The extent of future reductions,

however, is difficult to predict. Although compliance has improved during the last few years, the

likelihood of achieving full implementation and en-

 -

 (c. , r{. !

 )

forcement is unclear because Federal funding of

some critical activities has been inadequate and is

declining. For example, proposed funding levels in

the fiscal year 1987 budget for water quality enforcement and permitting and for municipal enforcement are lower than current levels. As a result, some municipal and industrial facilities will

probably continue to discharge pollutants in amounts

that exceed their permit limits.

Moreover, even if total compliance with existing regulations were achieved, these programs

would not be sufficient to maintain or improve the

health of all estuaries and coastal waters in the future because:

● Pipeline discharges and nonpoint source

pollution (particularly urban runoff) will
26 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Photo credit: Southern California Coasta/ Water Research Project Authority

Beds of giant kelp along the southern California coast

provide important habitat for many valuable fish and

shellfish and support a substantial kelp harvesting

industry. Large acreages of these beds disappeared

prior to the 1970s, in part because of pollutants discharged

to nearby waters. Reductions in the discharges of some

Pollutants, accompanied by kelp restoration efforts, have

helped reverse this trend and kelp bed acreage

is now increasing.

●

increase as populations and industrial development expand in coastal areas.

Current pollutant control programs do not

address all pollutants. Standards have not

been developed for some pollutants that are

listed in CWA and present in wastestreams in

large quantities (ch. 8) because control technology is not available or because EPA has determined that its use would impose unreasonable economic burdens on affected industries.

Standards also have not been developed for

other pollutants that can be important in some

●

●

●

●

situations but that are not listed in CWA (e. g.,

organic chemicals such as dibenzofurans and

trichlorophenols; pathogens such as viruses).

Current pollutant control programs do not

address all sources of pollution. These programs already address the most easily controlled

sources, in particular municipal and most industrial discharges, but they do not adequately

regulate some additional important industrial

sources of pollutants (e. g., textile mills and

commercial laundries) or nonpoint sources.

Federal resources available for maintaining

or improving current levels of municipal

sewage treatment are declining, and the

ability of States or communities to fill the

breach is uncertain. Federal funding for capital investments in new and improved municipal treatment plants is declining,25 and the cost

of maintaining operations at existing plants is

likely to increase as the plants become older.

In addition, some plants could be required to

upgrade treatment to remove certain problem

pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus.

Monitoring, research, and enforcement currently are inadequate, and funding levels

for these activities are being reduced in

some instances.

The contamination of sediments with persistent toxic pollutants is not adequately addressed. These sediments may be a source of

contamination for long periods; many observers

have proposed the need to develop sediment

quality criteria analogous to those for water

quality.

 estimated that about $110 billion would be required

by the year 2000 for the Nation to meet its remaining municipal treatment needs (654). Prior to the Water Quality Act of 1987, about 

half of these needs (e. g., construction of secondary treatment plants

and new ‘‘interceptor’ sewers) would have been eligible for grants

from the Federal Construction Grants Program; the Federal share

would have been about $36 billion (569). EPA recently lowered its

estimate of remaining municipal treatment needs to $76 billion by

the year 2005 (676). Most of the reduction is attributed to changes

in documentation requirements for responding States, and some State

 have criticized the estimate as not reflecting water 

related treatment needs ( 154). The Water Quality Act provided $18

billion for the Construction Grants Program and State revolving loan

funds, with funding ending in 1994.
Ch. l—Findings and Options • 27

Options To Improve Current Pollutant

Control Programs

Although total implementation of and compliance with existing pollutant control programs will

not be sufficient to maintain or improve the health

of all estuaries and coastal waters, these programs

will continue to achieve important reductions in pollutant inputs and to provide the primary foundation for pollution control efforts. Therefore, maintaining and improving their capabilities is critical.

Four --t- -r --+:--- c-- ‘–---= ’:-- ‘L--- ----L:l

ities

1.

2.

3.

4.

are discussed below:

improving enforcement;

ensuring adequate funding by Federal, State,

and/or local sectors of municipal treatment

plant construction;

regulating ‘‘important or additional pollutants and industrial sources; and

applying ocean discharge criteria to estuaries

and coastal waters.

Option 1: Improving Enforcement

Enforcement of current regulations on point

source dischargers is inadequate for many reasons

(ch. 8). More rigorous enforcement would reduce

pollutant discharges by the affected parties and

would provide a greater deterrent to other facilities.

Mechanisms for improving enforcement include the

following:

● Support continued or enhanced implementation and enforcement of the current NPDES

and pretreatment programs, through oversight, financial support, and technical guidance. Virtually any increase in financial resources for the implementation and enforcement

activities of these programs should be helpful,

although the cost of completely enforcing all

regulations would greatly exceed current levels

of funding committed to this activity.

● Enhance EPA’s enforcement authority by

allowing administrative civil penalties in

addition to court-imposed civil penalties.

Civil enforcement actions in court (fines or

consent decrees) tend to be time-consuming.

Many observers have suggested that the authority to levy administrative fines could improve the ability of EPA to pursue enforcement

in a timely and focused manner. 26 Congress

also could consider the effectiveness of the provisions that encourage enforcement actions by

private citizens.

Provide oversight to ensure that efforts to

focus or target enforcement activities are

based on consistently applied criteria. EPA

has implemented a policy to focus enforcement

efforts first on major dischargers in ‘‘ significant’ noncompliance, then on major dischargers

in less significant noncompliance and on minor dischargers. While attractive in theory,

focusing enforcement could result in differential enforcement around the country, raising

questions about equity. Some observers contend that selective enforcement makes more

efficient use of available resources and is therefore justified; others question whether the deterrent effects of enforcement would be lessened for lower priority dischargers (502).

Option 2: Ensuring Funding of Municipal

Treatment Plant Construction

Under the provisions of the 1987 Water Quality Act, only $18 billion in Federal funds will be

provided for municipal treatment needs. EPA intends to continue requiring municipal treatment

plants to comply with CWA’s treatment requirements, however, whether or not Federal funding

is available to help meet these requirements. A longterm capacity, therefore, still must be developed

for funding new plant construction, replacing or

repairing treatment plants as they deteriorate, and

expanding capacity as needed. The large-scale feasibility of different non-Federal funding mechanisms such as State revolving loan funds, privatization, nondebt financing, and municipal bonds has

been debated but remains uncertain (542,569).

Congress considered this problem and authorized: 1) a transition period until 1994 to allow States

and localities to develop alternative funding mechanisms, and 2) about $8 billion (of the total authorization of $18 billion) to be used for the capitalization of State revolving funds. Congress could further

 Congress granted EPA new authorit y

,)

to assess administrative civil penalties. Sm’eral States which are authorized to administer pollutant control programs already ha~e such

authority.

63-983 - 87 - 2 : QL 3
28 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

support efforts to develop funding mechanisms, for

example, by increasing direct incentives for their

development; such incentives could include tax

credits for privatization.

Option 3: Expanding Regulation of

Important Pollutants and Sources

The coverage of the pretreatment and NPDES

programs could be expanded by developing standards for additional individual pollutants and sources

of pollutants, particularly industrial sources. The

mechanisms to expand coverage generally are already available to EPA, but Congress could provide support for expansion initiatives through oversight and commitment of sufficient financial

resources. This could entail several complementary

approaches:

● Promoting the development of effluent

guidelines for pollutants that are listed in

the Clean Water Act as priority pollutants

but for which guidelines have never been

developed. Congress could increase its support of EPA efforts to identify unregulated pollutants present in large amounts in particular

discharges and to develop feasible treatment

technologies.

● Supporting efforts to identify pollutants not

on the CWA list but that can cause significant impacts, and supporting efforts under

the pretreatment and NPDES programs to

develop effluent guidelines for these pollutants. EPA has undertaken preliminary efforts

to develop screening processes and tests (e. g.,

effluent toxicity tests) to identify additional pollutants that are important in marine waters,

but no new effluent guidelines have yet been

developed. A screening effort that combined

and augmented these efforts could expedite the

identification of such pollutants and the development of effluent guidelines when necessary. 27 This would require more research on

the potential impacts of unregulated pollutZTSomc observers argue that additional national effluent guidelines

may not be necessary because permit writers can use ‘‘best professional judgment to incorporate limits on any pollutant into individual discharge permits. Development of such limits, for example, could

be part of a water quality approach (see Issue 2 below). On the other

hand, this would not guarantee consistent development and application of limits, particularly for pollutants that are of significance in multiple industries or geographic regions.

●

●

●

ants, and monitoring to search for specified

pollutants in individual waterbodies.

Expanding pollutant control programs to

improve coverage of important point

sources that are not adequately regulated.

These include certain unregulated industrial

categories (e. g., commercial laundries) and

combined sewer overflows or stormwater

out falls.

Supporting EPA’s ongoing effort to develop

technical guidance on the quantities of toxic

pollutants allowable for different municipal sludge disposal options. Current sewage

sludge regulations do not establish allowable

levels of most pollutants for different disposal

options. The development of comprehensive

guidance or standards for sludge disposal

would increase the ability of municipal treatment plants to require reduced industrial discharges of toxic pollutants into sewers.

Deciding how to best address the problem

of hazardous waste discharges into municipal sewers. 28 An exemption in the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) that

allows such discharges could be abolished. If

it is, problems in other environments could ensue (e. g., because of illegal dumping). If the

exemption is retained, then improving the implementation and enforcement of the pretreatment program would become critical in ensuring adequate regulation and treatment of

such discharges. This could include expansion

of efforts by municipal treatment plants to develop local limits on such discharges .29

Option 4: Applying Ocean Discharge

Criteria to Estuaries

The CWA Ocean Discharge Criteria (Sec. 403(c))

currently apply to discharges into coastal waters,

—— —..

“’’Hazardous” refers to those substances or wastestrearns specifically defined as such under RCRA.

ZgThis Prob]em is symptomatic of a ]arger issue, the rO]e of municipal plants in the management of industrial wastes (ch. 9). Municipal wastes are often contaminated to some degree with metals and

organic chemicals from industrial discharges, and some observers have

suggested prohibiting industrial discharges into sewers. The near-term

likelihood of a prohibition is low, although the practice could be partially restricted by prohibiting new industrial discharges into sewers,

Water quality would then depend on the control (by NPDES) of direct industrial discharges and/or the implemental ion of other management options such as waste reduction, process substitution, recy -

C1 ing, and centralized treatment facilities.
Ch. I—Findings and Options ● 2 9

but not to discharges into marine waters inside the

baseline of the territorial sea (i. e., estuaries). These

criteria specify additional factors that must be considered prior to the granting of a permit for discharging into non-estuarine marine waters, and in

theory provide greater regulatory control.

Congress could consider applying the Ocean

Discharge Criteria to discharges into estuaries,

which would provide an additional means of

control on such discharges. Whether this would

increase actual protection would depend on the

strength of the criteria. If necessary, the criteria

could be strengthened by making the issuance of

a discharge permit contingent on additional factors,

such as:

● development of an acceptable monitoring

protocol;

. specification and acceptance of conditions under which the discharge may be terminated or

modified (e. g., if monitoring revealed severe

impacts); and

. requiring that a need be demonstrated to discharge wastewater into estuarine waters .30

Issue 2: Some Estuaries and Coastal Waters

Need More Comprehensive Management

More comprehensive planning and coordination

of management efforts will be needed for several

reasons if the Nation wishes to lessen, avoid, or reverse degradation of some estuaries and coastal

waters. First, estuaries and coastal waters exhibit

very site-specific characteristics with respect to physical nature, disposal activities and impacts, and economic importance. Second, these waters can encompass multiple political jurisdictions and fall

under the authority of multiple agencies.

Third, the need to allocate available resources

efficiently will become more critical, because financial resources for Federal and State pollution control efforts probably will not increase substantially

in the future. In addition, because pollutants can

be contributed by many sources, it is not always

clear whether changes in current pollutant control

efforts, such as regulating additional pollutants or

achieving full compliance, would be sufficient to

gOThe first two of these additional criteria are currently not included

among the Ocean Dumping Criteria either.

achieve the desired improvements, or whether new

efforts are needed. 31 Increasing the effectiveness of

point source control programs might be sufficient

in some areas, whereas in other areas efforts to control nonpoint source pollution may be critical.

These factors necessitate greater coordination

and cooperation among responsible agencies to

identify site-specific problems and allocate resources toward the most effective control efforts.

The need for comprehensive and coordinated

management has led to the development of some

‘‘waterbody management’ plans and programs by

the Federal Government (e. g., Chesapeake Bay

Program), the States (e. g., Puget Sound Water

Quality Authority), and local authorities (e.g.,

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project). In most cases, numerous agencies from different levels of government share responsibilities for

implementation. The Puget Sound program, for

example, involves more than 10 governmental entities. Most programs address single waterbodies,

although the National Estuary Program currently

involves efforts in six areas.

Existing waterbody management programs vary

greatly in their design. Some have the authority to

set goals and establish plans (e. g., the Chesapeake

Bay Program), while others are designed only to

gather and share information about research needs

or findings (e. g., Southern California Coastal

Water Research Project). Most programs have the

authority to perform only some of the following

functions: address multiple disposal activities and

pollutant sources, identify the most serious or tractable problems, allocate resources toward these

problems, design and implement management plans,

and coordinate various involved agencies,

In general, existing waterbody management programs are in the early stages of implementation and

their effectiveness cannot yet be judged (ch. 7). The

initial focus of many programs has been to characterize problems, identify sources of pollution, and

develop pollution abatement strategies. The Chess I It is dificu]t to discern in advance, for example, whether efforts

to reduce nonpoint source pollution would be more cost-effective than

requiring additional point source controls; the costs (as well as actual

benefits to water quality) of implementing many individual nonpoint

management practices must be compared to the costs and benefits of

fewer, more expensive, point source controls.
30 • Wastes in Marine Environments

apeake Bay Program, which is among the most advanced of existing programs, is currently entering

the implementation stage.

While these efforts appear promising, programs

have been established for only a few waterbodies

to date; many of the estuaries and coastal waters

in need of additional management are not covered

by such programs. Furthermore, current programs

generally have only limited authority and financial

support, and may not be sufficient to ensure the

health of the target waterbodies.

Options To Provide Additional

Waterbody Management

Creating new waterbody management programs

would probably be relatively straightforward, and

in the Water Quality Act of 1987 Congress designated some specific waterbodies for which management efforts should be undertaken. However,

establishing a systematic approach for providing comprehensive and coordinated waterbody

management will require additional, difficult

policy decisions. The critical link that is lacking is a framework for making decisions about

when and how to provide additional means of

management, in particular, how to complement

the current uniform national pollutant control

programs to address situations that require additional, site-specific controls.

A water quality-based approach could complement the system of primarily uniform, technology-based controls and provide a framework

for addressing the site-specific needs of individual waterbodies.32 Although the 1972 CWA Amend32A water ~ua]ity. based approach p]aces Controls on pollution

sources, based on an assessment of the concentrations of pollutants

in receiving waters below which unacceptable impacts will not occur.

It relics on the development of water quality-based standards, which

consist of designated uses (e. g., swimmable water) for defined segments of waterbodies and pollutant-specific numerical criteria designed

to assure attainment of the uses. The States designate uses and set

water quality standards, with Federal guidance. Individual dischargers

generally have greater flexibility in choosing how they will comply

with water quality standards than with technology-based standards

(130). A water quality approach, however, requires enormous amounts

of information, continuous monitoring, and the development of sitespecific criteria for many pollutants. Furthermore, it can be difficult

to ascertain the portion of the problem that is caused by disposal because, for example, ambient water quality is affected by episodic events

(e. g., storms that cause excess runoff or low flow that causes salinity

problems). Nevertheless, developing such an approach could provide

the flexibility to address site-specific problems.

ments marked a shift away from this approach and

toward the use of technology-based standards, the

authority to institute water quality-based regulation was retained in the Act because Congress intended it to serve as an additional layer of pollution control, after the more uniform pollutant

control programs were well-established. In general,

however, it has not yet been used to provide comprehensive and coordinated management of estuaries and coastal waters,33 although EPA has begun to develop a water quality approach to better

control toxic pollutants in discharges (49 FR 9016-

9019, Mar. 9, 1984).34 EPA’s Science Advisory

Board recently recommended that the agency investigate applying water quality criteria to research

conducted in marine waters (244,675).

Development of a framework that uses a water

quality approach to provide additional waterbody management, where needed, now seems

appropriate. Such a framework, which could

build on existing mechanisms, would differ from

or expand on current efforts by:

●

●

●

●

providing better means of evaluating progress in improving the quality of estuaries

and coastal waters;

identifying those waterbodies that will continue to be degraded, even after continued

development and implementation of current pollutant control programs;

developing new waterbody management

programs for some of these waterbodies;

and

providing the guidance and flexibility needed

for waterbody management programs to set

site-specific goals and establish coordinated

plans for achieving those goals.35

sjFor example, 9 of the 24 coastal States have not developed marine water quality standards for any priority pollutants (ch. 8). For

the 8 coastal States that have marine standards for priority metals,

standards have been developed for an average of 4.5 of the 14 metals. For the 15 coastal States that have such standards for priority

organic chemicals, standards ha~’e been de~eloped for an average of

6.8 of the 85 organic chemicals.

J* In addition several States have addressed seasonal variations or

differences in the contribution of pollutants from different sources,

while not relaxing technology-based standards, by using water qualitybased techniques such as seasonal or variable permits (130).

JsSome of the decisions that would be made within such a framework would be affected by the availability of land-based and open ocean

disposal options. For example, if the relatively restrictive policy regarding waste disposal in the open ocean is maintained, then some

methods for improving the quality of estuaries and coastal waters, such

as shifting disposal further out to sea, will not be available.
Ch. l—Findings and Options ● 3 1

Implementing these steps could take considerable time. In addition, the relative roles of Federal,

State, and local governments in these activities is

a central issue. Some observers advocate reliance

mostly on State and local efforts, while others advocate a strong Federal role. This issue is addressed

briefly below, but in general the question of primary responsibility will need to be addressed on

a case-by-case basis.

Option 1: Establishing Measurable Goals and

Evaluating Progress

CWA established as national goals the elimination of discharges of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts

and the restoration or maintenance of fishable and

swimmable waters. Clearly, such improvements

will not, and were not expected to, occur overnight;

many years may pass before the effects of changes

in pollutant control programs or of now-developing

waterbody management programs become apparent.

Moreover, it is often difficult to measure progress

toward such broadly stated goals. Establishing goals

toward which progress could more easily be measured could increase the ability to assess improvements in the health of estuaries and coastal waters,

and, concomitantly, increase the ability to judge

the need for additional controls. Congress might

consider:

●

●

Refining the goals of CWA so that they apply explicitly 

to estuaries and coastal waters.

This could involve a statement of the intent

to maintain the current quality of resources

or to reverse any trends of degradation in these

waters.

Supporting the further development and

implementation of the water quality approach and the specification of site-specific,

measurable goals toward which progress

could be measured. To be effective, such

goals should be quantitative whenever possible and should be directly linked to tangible

improvements in resources. 36 Examples of

measurable goals include:

~CFO~ ~X~mp]c, Water Yua]it}, ~r-ltcria currently exist which SpCC if}’

a minimum level of dissol~cd oxygen for a particular water-body ff’hilc

these account for one condition that is necessar}, to protect the w,aterbody’s living resources, such criteria need to be linked directly to a

goal of improving the ~alue or heatth of those resources (e. g., increase

in fish population size or commercial yield).

—avoiding specific impacts (e. g., no fish mortality in a specified area);

—achieving desired changes in ecological conditions (e. g., reestablishment of submerged

aquatic vegetation in a specified area); and

—achieving desired changes in economic or

recreational returns (e. g., the lifting of restrictions on harvesting shellfish) .37

Progress toward such goals could be measured

for individual waterbodies. If the waterbody met

the goals, then no additional control efforts would

be needed. If it did not meet one or more goals,

then site-specific control efforts could be increased

for those pollutants and waste disposal activities that

most significantly impede attainment.

Pollutant control programs would still need to

be implemented and enforced, but they would only

constitute a first step. Setting measurable, sitespecific water quality goals would allow the effectiveness of these programs to be evaluated and judgments to be made about the need for more stringent controls on any pollutant sources .39 Available

resources could then be focused on the most viable or most cost-effective control efforts; additional

permit limits on discharges, as well as the use of

best management practices for controlling nonpoint

pollution, could be required in site-specific situations.

Two additional uses of the water quality approach to waterbody management deserve mention:

1. A water quality approach could be extended

to address sediment quality. The tendency

for metals, organic chemicals, and pathogens

to become concentrated in sediments suggests

the need to develop sediment quality criteria

—.. -.— 37 EPA has in

itiated a study to evaluate the potent iat Cconc)mic benefits of improvements in the water quality’ of estuaries (K. Ad]cr, U. S

EPA, pers. comm, , December 1986).

3eTh1s concept is ~readl, a component of air po]]ut iOn Control p]anS

required of individual States under the Clean .Air Act. EPA rccentl},

indicated that extending this concept to marine pollution problcms

might provide an effective means of evaluating the effect i~eness of

management strategies (670).

391n &Oq,,existing controlsOn point sources (i. e., NPDF3 permit limits) could atso be relaxed or made less stringent if specified

water quality, standards in a waterbody were being met. Such ‘ ‘backSI idlng’ was prohibited, except in some narrowly delined circumstances, in the Water Quality Act of 1987; the current national

technology-based standards are unlikel}r to be modified to any great

extent,
32 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

2.

that would be analogous to those for water

quality. Such criteria could be useful in determining, for example, if shellfish harvesting in a particular area should be restricted,

or whether dredged material is sufficiently

contaminated to pose undue risks to bottomdwelling marine organisms. These criteria do

not currently exist, although EPA is evaluating the feasibility of developing them for certain metals and organic chemicals (C. Zarba,

EPA, pers. comm., November 1986).

A water quality approach could be extended

to account for pollutants that enter an estuary from upstream sources. For example,

many of the pollution problems in the Chesapeake Bay are aggravated by pollutants carried into it by the Susquehanna River. Although such an approach might be logistically

difficult to implement, precedent exists for

identifying important but distant sources and

requiring that their pollutant inputs be reduced in order to achieve water quality goals

in a particular waterbody.40

Some observers have argued that supplementing current technology-based controls with even

stricter controls in response to water quality standards might impose unreasonable financial burdens

on dischargers. Congress may wish to consider the

use of financial incentives such as fees or taxes to

ease this burden. According to some economists,

this market-oriented approach to water quality

management could be introduced in a manner that

does not unduly compromise the technology-based

approach (A.M. Freeman, Bowdoin College, pers.

comm., July 1986; and refs. 130,305).

+OA Feder~ COU~ recent]y ruled in Scott v. City of Hammond, Zndiana, et al. (741 F. 2d 992, 1984) that NPDES-permitted dischargers

to Lake Michigan’s tributaries must consider the effect of the discharges

on the lake itself, not just on the tributaries. This water quality approach will involve difllcult tasks such as assessing the capacity of Lake

Michigan to accommodate wastes and allocating the rights to discharge

certain amounts of wastes into tributaries. EPA Region V is developing a long-term toxic strategy to address this problem, including

evaluation of the most cost-effective controls (whether they be best

management practices for nonpoint pollution or controls on point

sources). EPA considers this decision to be applicable nationwide, but

some States disagree (L. Fink, U.S. EPA Region V, pers. comm.,

October 1986; and refs. 251, 674). In theory at least, the concept could

be extended to estuaries and coastal waters impacted by pollutants

from upstream sources.

Option 2: Identifying Waterbodies Needing

Additional Management

Not all estuaries and coastal waters require additional management, so some mechanism would

be needed to identify waterbodies likely to suffer

degradation despite current pollution control efforts. This need probably could be met by establishing a ‘‘screening’ process to identify those

waterbodies requiring additional management.

Some States have developed criteria to identify

such waterbodies, but uniform criteria probably

should be used since waterbodies around the Nation are involved. Consistent criteria could be developed, for example, by the Federal Government

and used by States to evaluate waterbodies within

their boundaries. Some waterbodies, however, are

bounded by and receive pollutants from several

States, and multiple agencies could have responsibilities pertinent to waterbody management. In

such cases, it may be appropriate to have the Federal Government conduct or coordinate the process. EPA’s National Estuary Program and NOAA’s

National Estuarine Program are evaluating such

an approach for some coastal waters, so a new program would not necessarily be required (61 1,670).

A screening process would need to precede other

management decisions and thus should be relatively

streamlined. Information would need to be collected

for most or all of the Nation’s estuaries and coastal

waters, so decisions regarding what information will

be needed should be made early in the process.

Option 3: Developing Management Plans

If a general goal of maintaining or improving the

health of estuaries and coastal waters is to be pursued, additional programs will need to be developed for those waterbodies likely to suffer continued

or new degradation. Several options exist for overseeing the development of management plans and

defining the structure of individual waterbody management plans:

● Decide whether a national program is necessary to coordinate and oversee the development of individual management plans.

While a strong Federal presence has not been

necessary for the initiation of some programs

(e.g., in Puget Sound), a national program
Ch. l—Findings and Options ● 3 3

could: 1 ) conduct any screening effort, 2) encourage States to develop plans for waterbodies

entirely within their jurisdiction, and 3) initiate the development of programs for waterbodies encompassing multiple jurisdictions. A

program could be newly developed or could

build on ongoing efforts such as the National

Estuary Program. If needed, a Federal program could provide incentives to the States,

for example, by making grants contingent on

the development of adequate plans.

● Establish national guidelines for the development of individual plans. Individual plans

could be required to: 1) designate a lead agency

to coordinate planning, 2) establish site-specific, measurable goals, 3) specify what efforts

would be undertaken to achieve the goals, and

4) indicate how progress will be evaluated and

reported. Existing planning mechanisms in

CWA (e. g., Sec. 208 areawide plans or Sec.

303(e) water quality management plans) could

provide the statutory authority for such

plans. 41 Alternatively, existing plans, for example, those of the National Estuary Program,

Chesapeake Bay Program, or the Great Lakes

Program, could be used as models.42 Regard4 1.Numcrous Prob]ems arose in the de~wlopment and implemcnta -

ti{)n of the 208 program (699), Nevertheless, the general concept of

areawidc planning seems v iablc

+~q’h<. C[jasta] Zone .Manaqemcnt Act pro~.ides another possible ~ehi( IC for such plans, but it has generally focused more on de~elopmcnt and land-use issues than on waste disposal act i~. i tics. Some coorclinat ion of any waterbed}, management plan with State C;oastal Zone

Nlanagcmcnt plans, however, would still be esscntia],

less of the mechanism used, the requirement

to define specific goals and evaluate progress

could be structured in a manner analogous to

State Implementation Plans under the Clean

Air Act. Under this Act, planning agencies

must determine whether air masses are in attainment with standards and establish plans

describing how attainment will be achieved in

nonattainment areas, For waterbody management plans, responsible planning agencies

could be required to undertake similar planning.

● Support the development of well-designed,

long-term monitoring and data analysis programs whose results can be used to evaluate progress toward specific goals. Such programs would have to be long-term because

attainment of some goals is likely to require

relatively long periods. If a monitoring or analytical program indicated insufficient progress

toward attainment, then responsible agencies

might need to shift planning or control efforts.

Any planning and evaluation processes thus

would have to be continuous and include

mechanisms for modifying plans as needed.

Proposals to expand existing waterbody management programs or to develop new ones with multiple responsibilities might be dismissed for fear of

large new expenditures. It is true that efforts to

maintain or improve the health of estuaries and

coastal waters will require new expenditures. If,

however, management programs can identify sitespecific problems and coordinate control efforts, the

overall costs of such efforts could in some cases be

less than the costs of separate, uncoordinated

lution control efforts.

POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR OPEN OCEAN WATER S

Issues Regarding Waste Disposal in

Open Ocean Waters

Waste disposal in the open ocean is generally

limited to the dumping of acid or alkaline industrial wastes, sewage sludge, and dredged material .43

q~rI’he f(l]]{)w,lnq d is(. ussion focus(. s on these wastes or on others that

arc possible candidates for dumping in the open ocean, OTA alrcad~’

anal}zed the Inclner::tion of hazardous wastes at sca (586). An cffcct IY e rnoratoriurn cx ists on the d Isposa] of IOW-ICJ’C1 radloact i~e wastes

i n the (wean

polThe permitting system established under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act has

been relatively successful in managing such dumping: dumping of industrial wastes has declined dramatically, and the dumping of sewage sludge and

dredged material is relatively well-controlled.

Some of the wastes currently dumped in the open

ocean also can be used beneficially on land and in

certain aquatic settings. When relatively uncontaminated, for example, dredged material can be
34 • Wastes in Marine Environments

used for beach or wetland replenishment projects,

and sewage sludge can be used as a fertilizer or soil

conditioner on farms and forests.

Most often, however, these wastes must be

managed by other treatment or disposal options,

and pressure to use the open ocean for dumping

will probably increase. In light of these pressures

as well as the 1981 court decision (City of New

York v. United States Environmental Protection

Agency) that required the balanced consideration of all available alternatives, a total ban on

disposal in the open ocean seems unlikely.

It is essential, therefore, to consider whether

there are conditions under which open ocean disposal might be environmentally acceptable.

Some wastes (e.g., sewage sludge, dredged material, and acid and alkaline wastes) probably

can be dumped in the open ocean, if levels of

toxic pollutants in the wastes are low, without

causing significant long-term impacts. Open

ocean features and processes (e. g., large volume,

well-mixed waters, high dispersal ability) reduce

the likelihood of impacts such as hypoxia, eutrophication, and significant accumulations of suspended

material. In addition, the open ocean is generally

capable of quickly neutralizing acid or alkaline

wastes because of its large natural buffering capacity. Some pipeline discharges might be environmentally acceptable for the same reasons.

However, some uncertainty is associated with

these conclusions about the acceptability of open

ocean waste disposal. For example, it is unclear

whether pathogens and toxic chemicals, at concentrations likely to exist at disposal sites, can cause

long-term impacts on open ocean organisms and

populations, or whether the overall productivity of

the open ocean would be affected by such impacts.

In addition, since the productivity and corresponding biological activity of the open ocean is generally low, the degradation of wastes disposed of there

could be slow relative to degradation in estuaries

and coastal waters.

Other factors could constrain open ocean disposal

of relatively uncontaminated wastes. In particular,

most pipelines probably could not be sufficiently

extended into open ocean waters (particularly on

the Gulf and east coasts, where the distance to the

open ocean generally is greater than on the west

coast), and the shifting of dredged material dumping further out to sea may be seen as prohibitively

costly in many cases.

In contrast, contaminated material can rarely if

ever be used beneficially and therefore generally

requires some form of disposal. In such cases, the

full range of available options, including some

forms of marine disposal, needs to be evaluated.

Marine disposal that depends on containment

rather than dispersion may sometimes be preferable to land disposal. For example, “capping” of

some contaminated dredged material with clean

material may cause fewer impacts than disposing

the same material on land. Similarly, solidified coal

ash potentially could be used in the construction

of artificial reefs.

Options for Managing Waste Disposal in

Open Ocean Waters

Two basic policy directions exist regarding

waste disposal in the open ocean: maintain or

strengthen the current restrictive policy, or allow increased disposal of some wastes under

some conditions. Each choice involves some specific implications that are addressed by the options

described below.

Option 1: Maintaining or Strengthening the

Current Restrictive Policy

As currently implemented, MPRSA tends to restrict waste disposal in the open ocean. Maintaining or strengthening this policy could be justified,

even though open ocean disposal is technically and

economically feasible under certain conditions, because of concerns about the long-term health of the

open ocean or because policy makers decide that allowing more ocean dumping might hinder the development of better management options. Thus

Congress could strengthen this policy by amending the Act to specifically exclude particular wastes

from eligibility for dumping, although total restriction of open ocean waste disposal appears implausible.

Choosing to maintain the current restricted policy, however, might preclude some measures for

improving the health of estuaries and coastal waters

(e.g., shifting disposal activities further out to sea).
Ch. l—Findings and Options ● 3 5

Therefore, ensuring the availability of alternative

options, such as beneficial use or land-based treatment and disposal options for wastes that could be

disposed of in marine waters, would be a critical

component of continuing this policy.

Option 2: Allowing Increased Disposal of

Some Wastes

A choice also could be made to allow increased

disposal of some wastes in the open ocean under

certain conditions because of the environmental

acceptability of and increased pressure for some disposal. If some increase in open ocean disposal is

allowed, many of the necessary statutory and regulatory mechanisms to ensure sufficient control are

already in place.

Whether or not open ocean waste disposal increases, Congress probably would need to support

and oversee several important aspects by:

● Ensuring that disposal sites and methods

are chosen so that impacts are minimized.

MPRSA and its associated regulations define

siting criteria for open ocean disposal, specifying that chosen disposal sites exhibit dispersive characteristics and contain few economically or ecologically important resources; sites

also must exhibit a relative lack of pollutant

inputs from other sources and a lack of use for

other purposes. These criteria appear to be

sufficient if rigorously implemented by EPA.

It might be worth considering whether the use

of several carefully selected sites is preferable

to the use of only one or two dumpsites for

a particular waste. Using several sites would

reduce the input of pollutants (and the possibility of subsequent impacts) at any one site,

but it also would require additional resources

for monitoring and surveillance.

● Supporting efforts to reduce pollutants in

wastes prior to disposal. The options for reducing pollutant levels in estuaries and coastal

waters are equally applicable to waste disposal

in the open ocean; they include, for example,

greater implementation and enforcement of

the pretreatment and NPDES programs and

the development of comprehensive regulations

for sludge disposal. In addition, Congress

could require that stricter controls be imposed

●

●

on the composition of wastes that are to be

dumped—in particular, to minimize the presence of toxic pollutants and pathogens.

Providing additional resources for properly

designed and nationally coordinated monitoring and research programs, and ensuring that results are used in future policy decisions. Greater support and coordination of

monitoring and research is needed to ensure

that significant impacts (including those that

might become evident only after several years)

are detected and that information on these impacts is effectively analyzed and disseminated.

In addition, Congress could consider developing an explicit policy that allowed disposal

to continue only if monitoring detected no significant impacts (’ ‘significant’ or ‘ ‘unacceptable’ impacts probably should be carefully defined prior to disposal). This could include

specific provisions requiring that the disposal

activity be phased out or modified if such impacts were detected. MPRSA currently appears

to provide sufficient authority to phase out

harmful disposal activities, as witnessed by the

reduction of industrial waste dumping.

Ensuring that open ocean disposal does not

hinder the development and use of other options, such as land-based treatment or beneficial use. Existing provisions, if implemented consistently and rigorously, appear to

provide a means of addressing this issue; for

example, regulations (under Sees. 101 and 102

of MPRSA) for granting ocean dumping permits require:

—initial analysis of all management and disposal options,

—demonstration of a need for open ocean disposal, and

—periodic reconsideration of other available

management and disposal alternatives.

Congress also could consider influencing market conditions to attain specific goals. For example, financial incentives such as fees, taxes,

or tradable discharge permits (56,305) could

be used to make the total cost of ocean dumping comparable to that of other options or to

ensure that short-term economic factors alone

do not drive decisions regarding dumping.

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . .

Perspectives on Marine

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Waters . . . . . . . . . .

Tie Value of Marine Resources . . . . . . .

Philosophical Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comprehensive Waste Management . . . . . .

Waste Management Hierarchy . . . . . . . .

Multi-Media Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public Concerns About the Use of Marine Environments . . . . . . . . .

Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Risk Acceptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table

Table No.

1. Commercial Fish Landings in the United States, 1985 . . . . . . . . . .

D.

E.

F.

G.

Economic

Economic

Boxes

Losses in the Atlantic Coast Striped Bass Fishery . . . .

Consequences of PCB Contamination in New Bedford

The Siting Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Liability Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Harbor

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

39

40

40

44

47

47

48

49

49

50

50

Page

. . . . . 42

Page

. . . . . 43

. . . . . 44

. . . . . 50

. . . . . 51
Chapter 2

Understanding

The

Marine Disposal:

Broader Context

INTRODUCTION

Decisions about marine waste disposal are affected by many ecological, economic, and social factors that extend beyond purely technical considerations. These other important factors include the

economic and aesthetic value of marine resources,

philosophical perspectives on the use of marine

environments for waste disposal, and the nature of

public concerns over such disposal. Looking at this

range of considerations can help define a broad context within which decisions can be made about

using marine environments for the disposal of

wastes.

Marine waters have enormous value. They are

home to a tremendous diversity of marine organisms and play a critical role in nutrient and energy

cycles. From an economic perspective, they harbor food species that provide sustenance to people,

primarily from commercial and recreational fishing, but also from hunting coastal waterfowl, harvesting marine plants, and aquiculture and mariculture operations. Fishing supports numerous

other commercial activities, such as shipbuilding,

fish processing, and retailing. Marine resources are

also important sources of products such as pharmaceutical chemicals and many common consumer

goods (e. g., the base for toothpaste).

From an aesthetic perspective, marine waters afford the value of a relatively unspoiled and mysterious frontier, as well as numerous recreational opportunities. The sights, smells, and sounds of the

sea and its life provide countless people with feelings

of pleasure and well-being. Fishermen, mariners,

poets, and beachcombers all recount the irresistible attractions of the sea. Commercial fishermen

cling tenaciously to their way of life despite economic and physical hardships; recreational fishermen frequently continue to fish for pleasure even

when advised not to consume fish due to high contamination levels. 1 Although difficult to fully quantify, it is clear that marine resources are of substantial importance to a wide range of Americans.

Public interest in marine resources heightened

in recent decades because of several marine pollution incidents. These include the detection of DDT

residues and PCBs in parts of the deep ocean,

closures of beaches and shellfish beds in the United

States because of bacterial contamination, and a

lethal incident in Japan that involved the consumption of mercury-contaminated fish. In addition,

problems arising from waste disposal on land (e. g.,

the discovery of many toxic waste sites and increasing groundwater contamination) generally stimulated public concern about the impacts of wastes

in all environments.

The images left after these and other pollution

incidents have combined with aesthetic considerations to confer a special status on marine waters.

The ocean is viewed by many in the general public as a unique and precious resource requiring careful stewardship because of its vital importance to

the earth’s ecosystem and the potential for rendering irreversible harm to it. In addition, in recent

years the international community has begun to

recognize marine waters in general as a global resource.

1 A recent study of recreational fishermen in New Jet-se}’ found that

40 percent of the fishermen surveyed were aware that the fish the}’

caught had unacceptable le~’els of contaminant ion and refrained from

eating them (31 ). A survey by the U.S. Department of the Interior

in 1982-83 found that fishermen most frequently cite relaxation and

enjoying nature as the reasons why fishing is a favored outdoor act ivity; the prospect of catching or consuming fish is cited much ICSS frequently (626).

3 9
40 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

For these reasons, any discussion of the use of

marine waters for waste disposal must consider not

only the technical and economic feasibility of a disposal option, but also its political acceptability.

Thus, it is increasingly important to consider marine disposal alternatives in the context of broader

issues. In particular, the aesthetic and economic

value of marine waters should be considered relative to land-based resources and marine waste disposal should be seen as one part of a more comprehensive strategy of waste management.

This chapter examines various perspectives

toward marine waters, including their economic

and social value from a recreational and commercial viewpoint, and the broad philosophical positions that affect use of these waters, ranging from

a protectionist view to managerial stances. These

differing philosophical perspectives are reflected in

current statutes and could be obstacles to comprehensive marine waste management. Next, two elements of a more comprehensive waste management

strategy are examined: a general waste management

hierarchy and the use of “multi-media assessment. Finally, recognizing that credibility is crucial to the public acceptability of any waste management decisions, several specific public concerns

about marine disposal are discussed: 1) questions

of equity; 2) opportunities for public participation;

and 3) risk acceptability.2

‘These public concerns were selected to illustrate the range of such

concerns, but are only a sample of the various types of issues important to the public.

PERSPECTIVES ON MARINE WATERS

The Value of Marine Resources

It is impossible to accurately and meaningfully

quantify the full value of all marine resources to

all people. Thus, the following discussion focuses

on marine resources that are directly important to

large numbers of people or are economically significant, and in addition are especially vulnerable

to changes induced by waste disposal. These resources include organisms dependent on marine

waters, such as fish, birds, mammals and vegetation, and waters used for swimming and other

recreational purposes.

These marine resources support commercial and

recreational fishing, beach-going, and other activities generated by the tourist trade in coastal areas.

The activities tend to be concentrated in estuaries

and coastal areas, although a significant amount

of fishing occurs in the open ocean. Marine resources are of substantial and direct importance to

tens of millions of Americans and they generate annual expenditures of billions of dollars.

Fishing and beach-going are among the principal

recreational uses. Almost 12 million Americans

aged 16 or over fished recreationally in U.S. marine waters in 1980 and spent approximately $2,4

billion on food, lodging, transportation, equipment,

licenses, tags, and permits (628). Approximately

30 percent of all U.S. finfish landings used for human food (as opposed to uses such as pet food or

fish meal) in 1985 were caught by marine recreational fishermen (614).3 About three-fourths of these

fish were caught within 3 miles of shore (605,606).

Although the nationwide significance of beachgoing has not been studied in detail, its importance

is suggested by a study conducted in Florida (27).

Over 13 million adults used the State’s beaches in

1984, and direct and indirect beach-related sales

amounted to $4.6 billion—nearly 3 percent of the

State’s gross sales. These sales generated about

180,000 jobs, with a payroll of about $1.1 billion,

and over $164 million in revenues for the State.

The same study also attempted to quantify the

social value of Florida’s beaches. Based on extrapolations from a survey that asked people in Florida

how much they would be willing to pay to use the

beaches, the investigators estimated a social value

ranging between $2 billion and $28 billion. This

large range illustrates the uncertainty associated

with such an estimate. Nevertheless, it draws attention to the enormous economic significance of

recreational activities, and beach-going in particular, to some coastal economies.

3This figure refers to fish landed in all U, S. marine ports, regardless of where they were caught.
Ch. 2—Understanding Marine Waste Disposal: The Broader Context . 41

Photo credit: Division of Tourism, Florida Department of Commerce

Almost 12 million Americans aged 16 or over fished for recreation in U.S. marine waters in 1980.

In addition to being drawn to marine waters for

recreational fishing and bathing, people travel to

or live near these waters for other recreational purposes, ranging from waterfowl hunting to whale and

bird watching. The degree to which wildlife draws

people to marine waters for these other activities

is not known, but large numbers of people are involved, For example, National Park Service lands

that include marine waters recorded more than 60

million recreational visits in 1985; over 22 million

of these visits were recorded at National Seashores

(627). A government survey found that wildlife

alone attracted at least 5 million people to oceanside areas in 1980 (628).

Besides their recreational uses, wildlife resources

are also of tremendous commercial value, primarily to commercial fishermen.4 About 231,000 commercial fishermen were employed in the United

States in 1984. Total commercial landings of fish

and shellfish from all U.S. marine waters had a

dockside value in 1985 of about $2.3 billion (table

1), and a retail value several times greater. About

one-half of the total commercial value was generated by fish and shellfish harvested within 3 miles

of shore. These figures do not include the value of

support services, such as shipbuilding and fish processing. For example, nearly 110,000 people were

seasonally employed in 1984 as processors and

‘Other uses, while not discussed here, are locally important, These

include activities such as the commercial of aquatic vegetation (e, g,, kelp) and commercial exploitation of fur-bearing mammals.
42 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Table I.—Commercial Fish Landings in

the United States, 1985

Million

Coastal region pounds

.Northern Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,454

California and Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . 380

Gulf of Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,412

Southern Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

Northern Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,556

Maryland, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . (815)

Delaware, New Jersey,

New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (151)

New England States . . . . . . . . . (590)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,113

Million

dollars

$ 730

155

597

156

644

(124)

(101)

(419)

$2,282

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Corn National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

ministration, Fisher/es T f States, Current Fishery

Statistics 8380 (Washington, DC: April 1988).

wholesalers for the commercial fishing industry

(614).

Recreational and commercial activities have been

affected by waste disposal activities in numerous

instances. The effects are not always detrimental,

and may in fact at times be beneficial. For example, wastes discharged from small fish-processing

firms, if properly managed, can increase the food

supply for local fish and improve nearby recreational fishing.

Unfortunately, in many cases the impacts are not

advantageous. The nationwide magnitude of impacts certainly is very large, although its exact

Photo credit: U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

In 1985, marine fisheries supported well over 200,000 U.S. fishermen, and U.S. landings were valued at $2.3 billion. The

single most important commercial marine species was menhaden, shown here being hauled aboard a fishing vessel.

Some menhaden being caught along the Atlantic coast, from North Carolina south, exhibit skin ulcers that may be linked

to pollutants, but a clear explanation for the affliction has yet to be found.
Ch. 2—Understanding Marine Waste Disposal: The Broader Context ● 45

spective, the ocean is considered a common resource that requires special protection to prevent

its exploitation. The basic concern is to prevent a

‘ ‘tragedy of the commons, i.e., the overexploitation of the common resource of the oceans for individual gain (222). Special protection of marine

waters by the government is considered justified

on grounds similar to those used to argue for protection of national forests and other precious common resources.

The protectionist position argues further that the

level of scientific uncertainty about marine environments requires extreme caution when considering their use for waste disposal. Given the potential irreversibility of negative impacts that might

result from waste disposal activities or accidents,

this view gives special weight to the effects of actions by today’s society on future generations, As

Jacques Cousteau explained:

To fulfill a moral obligation that the legacy of

the oceans be continued, our first concern must

be directed to the future. Risks for our progeny

must be weighed against anticipated short-term

provincial benefits. Our responsibility toward

them is overwhelming . . . Poisoning the sea will

inevitably poison us. Let us act with wisdom, foresight, and prudence (1 17).

Most proponents of the protectionist perspective

maintain that the first management priority is to

reduce the generation of a waste at its source. When

wastes must be disposed of, protectionists argue that

marine waters should only be used as a last resort

or at least not be considered equally along with

other potential disposal media. One reason given

for this strict stand is that whenever marine waters

are considered as an option for waste disposal, they

are chosen because marine disposal is often the least

socially objectionable alternative (i. e., because it

satisfies people’s desire to have waste disposal occur at a distance). Marine disposal is also often the

least costly disposal alternative for some wastes. For

some coastal municipalities, for example, marine

disposal of sewage sludge costs less than land-based

treatment or disposal. Some observers, however,

advocate changing this by having the costs associated with marine disposal (e. g., site selection and

monitoring) be borne more directly by waste disposers rather than by the government.

An additional concern is that since ‘ ‘nothing in

the sea is provincial, a global perspective must

be maintained regarding marine waters. In particular, the United States has been considered a leader

in environmental protection, so there is concern that

if the United States increases its marine disposal

activities, other nations will follow.

Even many strong proponents of protection, however, acknowledge that disposal in marine waters

may be appropriate for certain wastes. For example, marine disposal of acid wastes might be considered acceptable in some instances, if properly

managed and monitored. At the same time, there

is general consensus that certain highly toxic wastes

are probably never appropriate for such disposal.

Most protectionists would argue that marine disposal should only be chosen after a comparison with

land-based treatment and disposal methods (i. e.,

after conducting a multi-media assessment) (121).

The Managerial View

The managerial position contends that marine

waters can be viewed in many ways, and ‘ ‘one of

the uses of the oceans is that [of] a receptacle for

wastes. If used properly, it should serve as a renewable resource’ (189). This perspective is rooted in

the conservation movement of the Progressive era;

the movement emphasized wise and multiple use

of natural resources. From the managerial perspective, many factors need to be balanced in deciding

how to use marine waters. These factors include:

environmental and human health considerations,

technological feasibility, economic costs, and the

availability of other disposal options. Depending

on how these different factors are weighted, the

managerial perspective can support a range of positions from strong protection to maximum use of

marine waters.

A basic distinction between the protectionist and

managerial perspectives is that the latter is a

human-centered approach which views the environment, including marine waters, as a resource

to be used for society’s benefit. In contrast, the protectionist position places primary emphasis on the

environment itself, treating anthropological concerns as peripheral in any policy decisions. It considers the environment for its own value, however
46 • Wastes in Marine Environments

difficult to quantify, rather than its value only in

terms of its use for humans (558). Thus, the severity

of the same impact can be interpreted differently.

When marine waters are viewed as a resource

(i.e., from the managerial perspective), they are

not necessarily used by society in the most beneficial or environmentally sound way. This problem

is related to the ‘‘tragedy of the commons’ argument: for any resource for which there are no individual property rights (i.e., a common resource),

it is in each individual’s interest to use the resource

to his/her fullest advantage regardless of any longterm consequences. Ultimately, since all resources

have the potential to be exhausted, disaster can

result.

A managerial perspective can use several different approaches to encourage better management

of such resources. The approach commonly used

in the United States is a standard-setting regulatory

approach, which delineates the allowable amount

of resource degradation or use. Standard-setting can

be based on environmental and human health considerations, as well as technological and economic

factors; it is used extensively, for example, in the

Clean Water Act. Another approach relies more

on the use of economic mechanisms to control degradation. For example, a society could use fees or

taxes to adjust the degree of resource use to a desired level, or it could use transferable property

rights or tradable permits to allocate the rights to

use the resource (1 72).

It is possible that an economic fee or charge approach and a standard-setting system might be integrated to better provide incentives for reduction

and more efficient control of certain pollutants; the

combination of a permit system with an economic

charge system might be better than either system

alone in providing the flexibility needed for responding adequately to changing circumstances (56).

Comparing the Marine Protection,

Research, and Sanctuaries Act and

the Clean Water Act

Currently, the two major statutes regulating marine waste disposal—the Clean Water Act (CWA)

and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)—embody somewhat different expressions of these basic philosophical perspectives. MPRSA includes protectionist provisions (e. g.,

establishment of marine sanctuaries), but allows

managed use through a permit process for marine

dumping. The permit system could also be used

to increase or decrease protection. An assessment

of all relevant factors, such as alternative options,

potential effects, and economics is required before

a dumping permit can be granted.

Under MPRSA, disposal of some wastes is absolutely prohibited (e. g., warfare substances and

high-level radioactive waste). Other wastes such as

some industrial wastes, sewage sludge, and dredged

material can be disposed of under regulated conditions.

CWA is more consistently managerial in its orientation, and it stresses a ‘ ‘best available technology, economically achievable’ and ‘‘best management practices’ approach. Under CWA, permits

include standards for allowable discharges, but do

not require consideration of the full range of factors required for an MPRSA permit.

As a result, and because the two statutes also differ in their jurisdiction over marine environments

(ch. 7), different marine environments have received varying degrees of protection from and use

for waste disposal. In open ocean environments,

dumping activities have generally been strictly controlled or reduced under the guidelines set forth by

MPRSA. In estuaries and coastal waters, however,

disposal activities regulated under CWA and MPRSA

are much more frequent, and in general these waters

have borne the brunt of marine disposal activities.

The basic orientation of a law, however, can

evolve and change. In the case of MPRSA, Congress embodied a protective attitude in the law a

decade ago by setting a 1981 deadline for terminating the disposal of sewage sludge which might ‘ ‘unreasonably degrade or endanger’ human health,

welfare, or the environment. 7 In a landmark case,

City of New York v. United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) (543 F. Supp. at 1084,

1099 (S. D.N.Y. 1981)), the court held that not all

dumping of sludge was necessarily prohibited by

‘Congressional intent has been a source of confusion in the Environmental Protection Agency’s implementation of this provision: Congress apparently imposed an absolute deadline, but also included language that can be interpreted to allow the dumping of “reasonable

sludge” (1 2,291 ,531).
Ch. 2—Understanding Marine Waste Disposal: The Broader Context ● 47

the 1981 deadline.8 EPA decided not to appeal the

case and currently interprets it to: 1) allow sludge

dumping if it does not cause ‘‘unreasonable” harm,

and 2) require development of criteria for comparing land-based and ocean alternatives to determine

a New York City had been dumping sludge under interim permits

granted by EPA and was exploring alternative disposal options. It concluded that land-based alternatives would be more costly and potentially more en~rironmentally harmful than marine disposal. EPA maintained that the 1981 deadline absolutely prohibited the dumping and

denied the Cit y’s petition to continue ocean dumping. The City then

sued, arguing that EPA was required to consider all of the statutory

criteria listed in NIPRSA (Sec. 102(a)) when e~’aluating permit applications. These criteria require EPA to take into account—beyond

environmental criteria—such factors as the need for ocean dumping

and the costs of land-based alternatives. The Court further held that

MPRSA requires EPA to balance these statutory factors when evalu -

at ing permit applications (ch. 7). Some observers have raised [he concern that this decision could reduce incentives to find land-based alternatives for sludge treatment or disposal, especially in light of the

difficulties associated with siting land-based alternatives and their frequently higher cost (155,650).

when ocean dumping can be allowed. Several cities,

including Philadelphia and Washington, have indicated that they would consider the ocean disposal

option for sludge if it were to become available.

Although Congress has not officially removed the

ban on dumping harmful sludge, it has allowed the

1981 deadline to pass. The law’s originally protective attitude thus may be evolving into a more managerial approach to marine waste disposal, but the

final policy direction is not yet clear. Specific deadlines for eliminating dumping at the 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Dump Site have been set by EPA and

some dumping activity has already shifted to the

Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site in open ocean

waters. The House of Representatives has supported this shift (ch. 7). The extent to which sludge

dumping activities should continue under MPRSA,

however, has not yet been clarified by Congress.

COMPREHENSIVE WASTE MANAGEMEN T

It is increasingly recognized that the existing suite

of pollution control laws, each primarily focused

on abating pollution in one particular medium (air,

water, or land), has sometimes resulted in the shifting of wastes from one environmental medium to

another and that long-term environmental and human health risks may not have been substantially

reduced (1 10,11 1,263,378,382). As a result, there

is a need for greater incentives to reduce or avoid

the generation of wastes as the best means of reducing waste disposal-related risks (144,263,377,

586,587). As our understanding has grown, it has

become clear that a highly protective policy toward

the open ocean may be counterproductive and that,

for particular wastes and situations, marine disposal

should be carefully considered in context with landbased alternatives.

Thus, consensus is developing about the need for

a more comprehensive waste management strategy

in this country. Two key elements of such a strategy would be: 1 ) a hierarchical approach to waste

management, and 2) multi-media assessment. A

hierarchical approach ranks waste management

methods according to their ability to reduce risk;

for example, the highest tiers include methods that

avoid the generation of waste (586). Multi-media

assessment can be used as a tool to determine which

treatment or disposal method, in which environment, would most minimize risk.

Waste Management Hierarchy

The idea of a waste management hierarchy was

developed originally for wastes classified as hazardous according to the legal definition in the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), but its

principles are equally applicable to all wastes which

can cause harm to the environment or human health

(144,263). Tiers in the waste management hierarchy

●

●

●

●

include:

reduced generation of waste, with respect to

both volume and toxicity (using techniques

such as product or input substitution and process modification);

recovery of waste for recycling or reuse of materials for energy (including the use of waste

exchanges, shared central facilities, and thirdparty recycles);

destruction or treatment of wastes to reduce

toxicity (using techniques such as land-based

or ocean incineration);

stabilization of waste through physical or chemical means (e. g., including neutralization and

evaporation);
48 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

● isolation or containment (e. g., in surface impoundments or landfills); and

● dispersion in the environment (e. g., by dumping or discharge) (586).9

With regard to marine destruction and disposal

methods, for example, methods such as ocean incineration, which has the potential to destroy 99

percent of certain hazardous wastes, occupy a middle position in such a waste hierarchy. Other methods such as sewage sludge dumping occupy a lower

tier .

Waste minimization was declared to be a national

policy in the 1984 amendments to RCRA, but incentives to ensure its implementation are not yet

sufficient (587). Strong incentives for reduction, recovery, and treatment of wastes prior to disposal,

and for selecting the best available disposal options

or improving disposal technology, could be made

a more integral part of many environmental statutes (263,586,587). Some companies that have voluntarily implemented waste reduction strategies

have found that they not only reduce the amount

of waste generated, but also save money (279,490,

587). 11

It is important to note, however, that even when

waste reduction does occur large quantities of

wastes may still result. Within a waste management

hierarchy, the next objective would be to reduce

the levels of toxic pollutants in the wastes, by recovering or recycling materials when possible, and

then to select the best disposal option for any remaining wastes. The particular characteristics of

a waste and the feasibility or availability of potential disposal media would determine the number

‘Certain technologies may actually involve more than one tier of

the hierarchy and more than one environmental medium. Ocean incineration of wastes entails the destruction of most of the wastes (and

for this reason is considered to be in a middle tier of the hierarchy),

but a small amount of the unburned wastes is dispersed into the air

and the surface water of the ocean and any residues are contained

in land-fills (586).

10Although in many cases the preferred strategy may be to e] im inate or reduce the generation of a waste, it cannot automatically be

assumed that this option will always best reduce overall risk. For example, process modifications can lead to a reduction in the quantity

of a waste produced or change its composition, without necessarily

reducing the degreeof hazard of any remaining waste (586). Moreover, certain wastes may not be able to be reduced to any great extent (e. g., sewage sludge and dredged material).

I I The 3M Co. estimates that it saved close to $300 million since

1975 as a result of its ‘ ‘pollution prevention pays” strategy (279).

and nature of options available, as well as their

economy. In general, additional encouragement by

Congress of a hierarchical approach for waste management could help facilitate the move toward more

comprehensive environmental management.

Multi-Media Assessment

Multi-media assessment as an approach to waste

management has gained considerable popularity.

This procedure involves comparing the impacts of

different treatment and disposal options, including

impacts on environmental media other than the one

directly used, and then selecting an option on the

basis of the greatest reduction in overall environmental risk. Other social and economic factors can

also be considered in the process.

Multi-media assessment can be difficult to implement, partly because the amount of information

needed to perform such an analysis is large and expensive to obtain, and partly because estimating

risks is difficult. Thus, this approach may be most

useful as a qualitative gauging method for comparing options, rather than as a rigorous, exclusive,

or formal basis for decisions.

The need for multimedia assessment arises in

part because disposal in each environmental medium

is generally regulated by separate statutes. Although

possibilities exist for incorporating multi-media considerations into current statutes, to date waste management programs have operated quite independently. For municipal sludge, for example, MPRSA

and CWA place strict limits on (and in some cases

effectively prohibit) disposal of sludge in marine and

surface waters generally. RCRA limits land-based

disposal and land application options, and the

Clean Air Act sets extensive technological requirements for sludge incineration operations. Each

environmental medium may in theory be protected,

but factors such as the cross-media transfer of wastes

among the media and the effects of one regulatory

program on another are not taken into account

(49,283). Moreover, since the sludge must go somewhere, it commonly ends up in the least regulated

medium. (EPA is developing comprehensive regulations for sewage sludge management to address

these problems; see ch. 9.)

This lack of coordination arises in part because

most major environmental statutes were developed
Ch. 2—Understanding Marine Waste Disposal: The Broader Context • 49

independently, by different combinations of congressional committees and subcommittees, and are

administered by different EPA offices and programs. Differences exist among the statutes with

respect to their philosophy and intent, as well as

their designation of management authority, and no

mechanism provides for development of a comprehensive approach to waste management.

The use of multi-media assessment and a hierarchical approach to waste management could conceivably be integrated into current regulatory programs as a way to promote comprehensive waste

management. 12 This would be an enormous under12A number of options are possible to further promote the use of

multi-media assessment including: 1 ) using Sec. 304 of CWA, which

taking and almost surely would require Federal

guidance. Yet, a general consensus is emerging

both inside and outside of government that this is

a necessary policy direction to ensure more efficient

and effective environmental protection. It is increasingly essential that marine waste disposal options

be viewed within the context of this general policy

debate.

— —

requires that guidelines on discharges into surface water include information on “non-water quatity environmental impacts, ” as a model

for provisions in other statutes; 2) requiring the preparation of a multimedia impact statement for all disposal activities; and 3) requiring

the development of more consistent criteria for assessing disposal options (where appropriate) among statutes, i.e. , a common set of general criteria—perhaps focused on public health and environmental risk

reduction—could be included in MPRSA, CWA, and RC RA to be

used in comparisons of land-based and marine disposal options.

PUBLIC CONCERNS ABOUT THE US E

OF MARINE ENVIRONMENT S

A critical component of all decisions regarding

waste disposal in marine waters is the public acceptability of disposal alternatives. A wide range of factors influence whether an individual or the public

at large will accept a particular option, but this discussion only highlights several of the most important ones. One fundamental factor is the level of

trust the public has for decisionmakers. While any

government action is dependent on public trust for

its legitimacy, such trust can be elusive.

EPA’s credibility, for example, eroded in the

early 1980s when several scandals involving the

Agency and its dealings with some industries were

uncovered (360). Efforts are underway to improve

this situation, but rebuilding trust is a slow process. In addition, past violations of environmental

regulations (that resulted, for example, in the creation of Superfund sites) have led industry and

waste management companies to lose credibility.

Given these problems, technical assessments about

disposal options often hold little sway with the public, especially when such assessments are unclear

about the risks of environmental degradation. Building credibility is closely linked to: 1 ) how equity

issues are resolved during the decisionmaking process, 2) how the public is allowed to participate; and

3) how risks and other public concerns are addressed.

Equity

Equity issues arise every time a waste disposal

alternative is discussed because residents near a proposed facility or area of disposal fear that their

health or property values will be disproportionately

jeopardized (see box F). As a consequence, the public often believes that the generator of a waste not

only should treat and dispose of it but also should

be held liable for any impacts (see box G), One of

the most frequently voiced objections at public

hearings —whether about the siting of hazardous

waste facilities or land disposal of sludge, or permitting for ocean incineration—is that one community should not have to bear the economic burden and potential health and environmental risks

of another community’s wastes. Although this is

not an easy issue to resolve, several techniques to

deal with these concerns are being attempted; when

siting hazardous waste treatment facilities, for example, the use of risk-mitigating proposals (e. g.,

regular safety inspections by public officials and rep-
50 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

resentatives) appears to be more attractive to communities than risk compensation proposals (e. g.,

lowering property taxes) (450).

Public Participation

The right of citizens to participate in decisions

that directly affect their interests is a fundamental

component of our form of government. Certainly

one way to increase the credibility of a waste disposal decision is to involve the public early and

throughout the decisionmaking process. The scientific and technical issues surrounding waste disposal options (e. g., the risks of siting a facility or

disposing of waste in a certain location) are important factors, but the way they are communicated

to and discussed in the community is equally critical. For example, one of the most significant obstacles to the ocean incineration program proposed

by EPA is public opposition, which stems in part

from poor communication. In this case, the public was excluded from participating in decisions

made early in the process (586,667).

Risk Acceptability

If information about a disposal option is highly

uncertain, then risks associated with the option are

likely to be perceived as high and its acceptance

is less likely. Effective communication with the pub-
Ch. 2—Understanding Marine Waste Disposal: The Broader Context ● 51

lic regarding the nature of risks associated with a

disposal option is an important aspect of building

credibility, addressing equity issues, and encouraging effective public participation in helping to solve

problems. Given that access to information influences an individual’s perception of risk, efforts have

been made recently to improve communication between government, industry, and citizens about

risks (11 2). Public involvement has been encouraged by EPA, for example, to help make decisions

about how to balance risks and other ethical, social, and economic considerations (652). Various

States also are developing strategies for involving

the public. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, for example, is restructuring risk assessment activities so that information
52 ● Wastes in Marine Environments
Ch. 2—Understanding Marine Waste Disposal: The Broader Context “ 53

about risks is communicated more effectively to the

public. 13

A number of factors influence risk acceptability

(316). Two of the most crucial, especially with respect to marine disposal, are the controllability and

irreversibility of potential risks. One of the primary

reasons why the public has a protective attitude

toward the oceans is a perception that any harm

incurred as a result of waste disposal activities in

marine waters may be irreversible. The public genuinely believes that the oceans are a resource requiring careful stewardship and that they should

not be damaged perhaps irrevocably. As one fisherman noted:

130~e St ~ate.),is t.inyro]k,e citizen groups in the dec isionmaking

process before an issue becomes a news media event. For example,

a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection study recently

found toxic contamination with dioxin in New York Bight lobsters;

before any policy determinations were made, the agency inJ!ited representatives from the fishery cooperatives in New Jersey and the U, S.

Army Corps of Engineers to meet with its staff. The Corps of Engineers was invited because lobstermen maintain that the marine d isposal of dredged material is the primary source of the dioxin contaminant ion. The in~ol~’emcnt of both groups is intended to ensure that

human health and economic issues will be adequately considered, that

credibility in the process can be maintained, and that information will

be effectively communicated to the broader public (29).

! +Marine ~,aters appear to be able to rcceilre certain wastes (e.g. ,

acids) in controlled and monitored quantities without suffering significant adverse impacts; water and sediment quality may be altered

for a time, but long-term ecological change appears unlikely (see chs.

5 and 11). Certain land-based disposal methods also can lead to irreversible environmental effects (e. g., contamination of groundwater).

There is a general perception, howe~rer, that these effects tend to be

relat ivc]y localized compared to the more global contamination that

might occur in the ocean. This perception is not always correct.

I’ve seen bluefish come and go in my lifetime,

and striped bass, too. The bluefish is a wild fish

and a hardy fish, and because he don’t go up in

them dirty rivers, he’ll survive where the striped

bass will go down. All the fish around here come

and go in cycles, and years back, you could anticipate the cycles, but today, with the pollution

the way it is, you can ‘t be so sure that a fish that’s

gone will ever come back at all (342).

The logical conclusion drawn by most fishermen,

then, is that some stewardship of marine resources

is necessary (342).

This sentiment is generally shared by the public

which—judging by its high level of recreational use

of coastal areas—highly values marine environments.

An observation frequently heard when discussing

marine waste disposal options—that ‘ ‘fish don’t

vote’ —is literally true, but not completely accurate.

Marine waters and organisms do have a constituency that attempts to represent their interests. A

number of public interest groups are highly attentive to any decisions regarding the uses of marine

waters and the potential impacts of waste disposal.

At the same time, most groups would agree that

decisions regarding the disposal of wastes in marine waters should be considered in the broader context of comprehensive waste management.
Chapter 3 Waste Activities . - . 

nPut~ . . .-. ,.
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Availability and Quality of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Ability To Make National Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Lack of Information on Unregulated Pollutants of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

The Extent of Pollutant Inputs Into U.S. Marine Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Pollutants From Pipeline Discharges and Dumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Pollutants From Waste Disposal and Nonpoint Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Major Sources of Pollutants to U.S. Marine Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Nonpoint Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Tables

Table No. Page

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Number of Municipal and Major Industrial Facilities Discharging Directly

Into Marine Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Quantities of Dredged Material Disposed of Annually in Marine Waters . . . . . . 62

Relative Contribution of Pollutants by Major Sources in Coastal

Hydrologic Units, Circa 1977-81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Relative Contribution of Various Pollutants by Major Sources in the

New York Bight, Circa Mid-1970s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Comparison of All Discharges in Coastal Counties and Those Discharges

Directly to Marine Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 70

Figures

Figure No. Page

2A. Amount of Dredged Material Dumped in Coastal and Open Ocean

Waters Only, 1973-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

2B. Amounts of Industrial Wastes and Municipal Sewage Sludge Dumped in All

Marine Waters, 1973-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3. Location of Current Municipal Sewage Sludge and Industrial Waste

Dumpsites in the Northern Atlantic Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

4. Amount of Effluent Discharged From Major Municipal Sewage

Treatment Plants Directly Into Marine Waters, By State, Circa 1982 . . . . . . . 71

5. Annual Worldwide Quantities of Waste Disposal of in the Ocean, 1976-82 . . . 73

6. Typical Combined Sewer Collection Network During a Storm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Boxes

Box Page

H. Management of Low-Level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

I. Quantities of Wastes Dumped in the Ocean by Other Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

J. Other Pollutants in Marine Environments: Plastics and Tributyltin . . . . . . . . . . 76
Chapter 3

Waste Disposal Activities and Pollutant Inputs

INTRODUCTIO N

To fully understand the potential for wastes to

affect marine resources and ecosystems and to

evaluate management options for reducing adverse

impacts, it is important to have an understanding

of the amounts of different pollutants entering marine waters from different sources. Marine waters

currently receive a variety of wastes, including municipal and industrial effluents, sewage sludge,

dredged material, and some industrial wastes. These

wastes vary considerably in physical nature and in

biological and chemical composition. In addition,

many of the same pollutants can be carried directly

into marine waters by nonpoint sources such as

agricultural and urban runoff, and both disposal

activities and nonpoint pollution can occur upstream

in rivers that later flow into marine waters.

This chapter first discusses the quality of information available about pollutant inputs into U.S.

marine waters, including the issue of unregulated

but potentially significant pollutants. The chapter

then reviews the extent and variability of waste disposal activities and nonpoint runoff, including a

comparison of the relative contributions of pollutants from different sources, and describes the major sources of pollutants to marine waters.

AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF DAT A

Ability To Make National Comparisons

Considerable information is available describing

waste disposal and nonpoint sources and pollutant

inputs from these sources. The quality of this information varies considerably, however, which creates some uncertainty in estimates of pollutant inputs on a national scale and places some constraints

on our ability to make comparisons among different sources of pollutants. This section briefly describes the quality of available information and how

well it can be used in making estimates and conducting comparisons.

For this report, data on dumping activities were

obtained primarily from Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) reports and from the Corps of Engineers. Data on pipeline discharges and nonpoint

source pollution were obtained primarily from analyses of various EPA computer databases such as

the Industrial Facilities Data Base (139,503), and

from databases provided by the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Resources for the Future (RFF).1

‘ N“OAAs Ocean Assessments Division pro~ided data from its National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory, which will eventually

contain est imatcs for all coastal regions. R FF provided data from its

Information on the magnitude of major pipeline discharges and dumping operations that occur into or directly adjacent to marine waters is

relatively complete and reliable. For example, the

quantities of wastes dumped and the number of major industrial and municipal pipelines discharging

into marine waters are relatively well-documented.

This is because they occur in a limited area and

involve a relatively small number of discrete events

or continuous activities. 2 Such data can readily be

used to compare the relative importance of these

particular sources in different marine waters.

In contrast, the information that would be

needed for an accurate national assessment of relative inputs of particular pollutants from all sources

(discharges, dumping, nonpoint sources, and upstream activities) is often less complete and reliable, or is gathered and analyzed using differing

methodologies and assumptions. Any comparison

of information about different pollutant sources that

Environmental Data Intentory, which contains estimates for both

coastal and inland areas. These inventories are referred to as the

NOAA and RFF databases, respectively.

2Evcn then, howe~rer, extracting information about different types

of discharges from existing databases can sometimes be difficult ( 139).

57
58 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

relies on different databases is constrained by the

following:

●

●

●

●

●

●

available databases rarely consider all significant sources using internally consistent methodologies;

definitions of key parameters (e. g., the geographic boundary delineating an “upstream”

source) can differ considerably among studies;

information on the quantity and composition

of different wastes (and variability in these parameters) often is not available, or is expressed

in units that are difficult or impossible to

compare;

different studies often rely on different assumptions or models which are supported by varying degrees of field validation;

available data for various sources may have

been collected at different times, and may be

out-of-date or unrepresentative of current circumstances; or

aggregation of data in some studies can mask

highly significant short-term fluctuations (e.g.,

even one day of low dissolved oxygen levels

can cause a massive fish kill).

Nevertheless, some individual databases can be

used to evaluate pollutant inputs from most (but

not all) sources nationally. The NOAA and RFF

databases used by OTA in preparing this report,

for example, estimate pollutant inputs from discharges and runoff into all U.S. coastal waters. It

will be essential to continue developing and refining national databases to provide a sound basis for

assessing trends and evaluating policy and technical decisions regarding waste disposal in marine

environments. However, several factors currently

limit the usefulness of these databases (477,600).

In particular, neither database includes readily

comparable information on pollutant inputs from

dumping activities. In addition, the NOAA database will not be completed until 1987 (D. Farrow,

NOAA, pers. comm., Sept. 9, 1986).

search, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) because information programs and resources are generally

focused on regulated pollutants.3 Thousands of additional pollutants are present in the wastes disposed

of in marine waters, however, and hundreds of

these may have the potential to affect marine environments and human health. Most of these unregulated and potentially significant pollutants are either

pathogens or organic chemicals. Little information

is available about their presence in waste materials or marine environments.

These unregulated pollutants can be important.

Hundreds of types of microorganisms—viruses,

parasites, bacteria, fungi, and protozoa—can be

present in waste discharges, sludge, or runoff, and

many of these are capable of causing diseases. They

can contaminate water and fish, and thus cause economic and recreational losses and direct risks to human health. Only one class of microorganisms—

fecal coliform bacteria—is regulated as a CWA pollutant.4 While not generally pathogenic, it is used

to indicate the presence of sewage-derived material (and indirectly, pathogens). Recent studies have

concluded, however, that the presence of fecal coliform bacteria is not a good indicator of the presence of these pathogens in marine waters (205).

Several hundred organic chemicals that are not

on the CWA list of 126 toxic ‘‘priority’ pollutants

can also be present in waste material and sometimes

in runoff. In one survey, EPA identified 385 organic chemicals (with hundreds of others unidentified for various technical reasons) in municipal

and industrial wastestreams (644). The chemicals

included xylenes, dibenzofurans, and trichlorophenols. In addition, the environmental degradation of chemicals can yield products that sometimes

are as toxic or more toxic than the parent compounds. Since tens of thousands of organic chemicals are currently in commercial use and hundreds

of new ones are produced annually (386), it is likely

that many other chemicals are also present in waste

Lack of Information on Unregulated

Pollutants of Concern

The information now available about pollutant

inputs to marine waters is largely restricted to the

substances that are specifically regulated under the

Clean Water Act (CWA) or Marine Protection, Re-

‘Regulated pollutants are defined in box A of chapter 1. Information is not always available, however, even for regulated pollutants,

For example, waste dischargers only report the quantities of those pollutants in their discharge for which some limitation has been specified in the discharge permit. Most discharge permits, however, include limitations on only a small fraction of listed toxic pollutants.

‘EPA recently has developed a marine water quality-based standard for ,!?nterococcus bacteria; however, it is restricted to recreational

waters.
Ch. 3—Waste Disposal Activities and Pollutant Inputs ● 5 9

discharges and runoff (e. g., from pesticide application). An unknown portion of these may be potentially harmful and warrant regulation.

As coastal populations and developments increase,

and as the land-based disposal of certain hazardous wastes is increasingly restricted, it is highly

likely that the amounts of pollutants—both regulated and unregulated—entering marine environments will increase. This trend raises concerns over

whether current regulations cover all of the ‘‘ important’ pollutants —those pathogens, metals, and

organic chemicals that are most likely to cause

impacts.

In marine environments, there is little disagreement that the conventional and nonconventional

pollutants currently regulated under C WA should

indeed be regulated. 5 This consensus is based on

a long history of experience, research, and monitoring.

Substantial disagreement exists, however, about

the need to regulate additional pathogens, organic

chemicals, and metals. From an economic perspective, resources are not available to individually regulate the dozens of metals and hundreds of microorganisms and organic chemicals that have been

detected in waste material. Moreover, our technical capabilities and scientific understanding are not

sufficient to determine which of these substances

are present in concentrate ions sufficient to cause

Impacts.

One way to evaluate and regulate the large number of potentially significant pollutants would be

to develop better pollutant screening approaches

to identify the unregulated pollutants that are of

primary concern in marine environments. EPA has

taken some initial steps to develop screening processes that, while broadly designed, could identify

additional pollutants important in marine environments. In one effort, for example, EPA analyzed

various industrial wastestreams and identified hundreds of unregulated organic chemicals (644). EPA

identified six chemicals that were present in significant amounts, were not currently treatable, and

which exhibited toxicity to humans or aquatic or-

“S{ Irnc c (JIIC (Lrnj ha~c, Ix,cn ralst’d OJ,CI [ht. ~i[)i)roprlat(.]1(’~i ~)1 using

St an fl,irds lor iu al ( o] i form ha{ [crla t{) t ont r{)l the le~ c] of m I( rol)lo-”

Iogl( .11 pollutants In mcirinc watrrs. as (list USA prc.ilousl:

ganisms: dibenzofuran, two trichlorophenols, carbazole, trichlorobenzene, and a form of dioxane.

No standards have yet been developed for these six

compounds, however. In a second effort, EPA is

developing technical regulations for sewage sludge

disposal options (including ocean dumping and

various land-based options); the regulations will

identify and focus on those pollutants that pose the

greatest risks to humans and various environments.

These screening efforts have focused primarily

on organic chemicals for several reasons. Many of

these chemicals tend to persist in the environment

for long periods and are acutely toxic to organisms.

In addition, many are soluble in the fatty tissues

of organisms and, once ingested from water or sediment, can bioaccumulate (i. e., concentrate) in these

tissues. Some of these chemicals can also biomagnify (i. e., increase in concentration in higher levels

of food chains) when the contaminated organisms

are consumed by predators. Significant acute and

long-term chronic impacts attributable to many organic chemicals have been documented in the laboratory and in the field. They are perhaps best exemplified by our experiences with DDT, the use

of which has been banned since the early 1970s (54).

The continued development and use of screening procedures may help resolve existing uncertainties about which pollutants are of primary concern

in marine environments (254). For example, a relatively simple test of the volubility of an organic

chemical in certain organic solvents can serve as

a measure of its potential to bioaccumulate in the

tissues of marine animals ( 195). Similarly, the susceptibility of an organic chemical to degrade (e. g.,

by light energy or by organisms) or volatize can

be used as a measure of its potential to be available to marine organisms or to cause impacts in

marine environments.

For metals, additional factors such as the precise chemical form can be essential in determining

bioavailability or toxicity. For example, organic

mercury shows much higher toxicity and bioaccumulation potential than does inorganic mercury.

Under conditions that generally prevail in marine

environments, most metals bind strongly to particulate material, thus altering their environmental

fates and impacts. Thus, screening efforts could focus on identifying those forms of metals that are

63-983 - 87 - 3 : QL 3
60 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

actually toxic in marine environments, and those

settings where toxic forms are likely to be present

in levels sufficient to cause impacts to humans or

marine organisms.

The presence in sewage sludge and other waste

material of microorganisms that can cause diseases

in humans often limits the availability of disposal

options for these wastes. Monitoring for their presence is difficult because microorganisms are exceedingly difficult to detect in the field or characterize

in the laboratory. Better culturing methods and indicators need to be developed before more extensive pathogen screening efforts can be undertaken.

In addition, because many microorganisms are

more likely to survive in sediments or in marine

organisms than in the water column, monitoring

programs must be designed to sample sediments

and organisms.

Even for chemicals identified as being of potential significance through screening efforts, however,

other factors must be evaluated in determining the

need for, or the form of, regulation. For example,

in some areas an important source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to marine environments is the natural seepage of oil from the ocean

floor (19). Similarly, certain known human pathogens are natural members of the bacterial communities in nearshore marine environments (ch. 6).

The screening approaches discussed here focus

on identifying individual compounds that have the

potential to cause significant impacts. Because numerous pollutants can be present in wastestreams

and in marine waters, approaches that first consider the overall toxicity of a wastestream or the

cumulative impacts of all pollutants in a waterbody

could also be helpful. For example, as a first step

biomonitoring procedures (including whole-effluent

toxicity tests) (49 FR 9016-9019, Mar. 9, 1984; ref.

64) and environmental indices (414) could be used

to identify an effluent or water quality condition

that has the potential to cause or is actually causing impacts. Then more extensive screening, using

the approaches discussed for individual pollutants,

could be used to pinpoint particular pollutants.

THE EXTENT OF POLLUTANT INPUTS INTO U.S. MARINE WATER S

Waste disposal activities in marine environments

are diverse and highly variable in type, frequency,

volume, location, and potential to cause adverse

effects. Despite this diversity, much of the debate

about marine waste disposal has centered on two

main issues: 1) the direct dumping of sewage sludge,

industrial waste, and radioactive materials; and 2)

the incineration of hazardous wastes at sea. Much

less attention has been devoted to comparing the

relative contributions of pollutants from other disposal activities or sources such as pipeline discharges

and runoff.

While the available data about these two main

sources exhibit serious deficiencies, some generalizations can be made about pollutant inputs in different marine environments. In addition, the data can

be used to illustrate the complexity and site specificity of disposal activities and pollutant inputs in

marine waters.

Pollutants From Pipeline Discharges

and Dumping

Marine waste disposal activities (i.e., pipeline discharges and dumping operations) are overwhelmingly

concentrated in estuaries and coastal waters (see

tables 2 and 3). For example, over 1,300 major industrial and almost 600 municipal facilities discharge directly into estuaries and coastal waters,

and at most a few discharge into the open ocean.

The open ocean is used for the dumping of some

dredged material, sewage sludge, and industrial

wastes, but four-fifths of the marine-disposed dredged

material and virtually all marine-disposed sewage

sludge are dumped in estuaries and coastal waters. G

‘The New York Bight is included among coastal waters. However,

the dumping of sewage sludge that now takes place in the New York

Bight will soon be shifted to a site in the open ocean 106 miles from

shore (see below and ch. 9). Current waste disposal sites are discussed

below; both active and inactive sites are illustrated in (612).
Ch. 3—Waste Disposal Activities and Pollutant Inputs • 61

Furthermore, most pipeline discharges and many

dumping activities occur specifically in estuaries

rather than in coastal waters. Almost 99 percent

of industrial pipelines and 89 percent of municipal pipelines discharge directly into estuaries (table 2), and over half of all marine dumping of

dredged material occurs there as well. The extent

of these activities varies greatly around the country (tables 2 through 4). For example, over half of

the major industrial and municipal pipelines are

located in the Northern Atlantic region7 and the

western Gulf of Mexico; three-fourths of all municipal effluent is discharged from the Northern Atlantic States and California. The marine dumping

of industrial wastes and sewage sludge is restricted

to a few sites in the coastal and open ocean waters

of the Northern Atlantic region.

‘To facilitate discussion, OTA has grouped coastal States into various ‘‘ regions —northern Atlantic, southern Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, California and Hawaii, and northern Pacific (see fig. 21 in ch. 5).

Table 2.—Number of Municipal and Major Industrial Facilities Discharging Directly Into Marine Waters

Number of dischargers

Coastal States Municipal Major industrial Total

Northern Atlantic region:

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

District of Columbia

38 (3)b

2

20 (1)

8 (2)

22

47 (1)

48 (12)

9

4

34 (1)

11 (4)

1

35

4

20

24

75

29

129 (2)

33

30

120

76

1

73 (3)

6

40 (1)

32 (2)

97

76 (1)

177 (14)

42

34

154 (1)

87 (4)

2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 (24) 576 (2) 820 (26)

Southern Atlantic region:

North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 (1) 41 51 (1)

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 22 33

Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 26 30

Florida (Atlantic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 (lo) 24 (1) 58 (11)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 (11) 113 (1) 172 (12)

Gulf of Mexico region:

Florida (Gulf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 (5) 17 (1) 39 (6)

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 29 35

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 30 36

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 (1) 79 106 (1)

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 192 (1) 244 (1)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 (6) 347 (2) 460 (8)

California and Hawaii:

California, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 (18) 112 (5) 162 (23)

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 (4) ‘? 13 (4)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 (22) 112 (5) 175 (27)

Northern Pacific region:

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 (1) 40 (5) 57 (6)

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 144 195

Alaska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 (5) 7 31 (5)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 (6) 184 (5) 283 (11)

Total/United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 578 (69) 1,332 (15) 1,910 (84)

aMUrliCjpal Categow lrlcludes all munlclpal factlltles Industrial category Includes those industnal facilities (exclud!ng steam electric Plants) dischaw!ng more than

10,000 gallons per day The most recent available data pertain to dischargers as of 19820rearl!er

bNumbers in parentheses Indicate discharges directly into coastal waters All remaining discharges are Into estuarlne waters.

SOURCES Office of Technology Assessment 1987; after EG&G Washington Analytical Servtces Center, /rrdusfna/ Waste Dsposa//n Mannefnwronrnenfs, contract

prepared forU,S CongressOffice of Technology Assessment (Waltham, MA: 1966), Science Applications International Corp, Overv/ewofSewageS/udge

amfEff/uer?t Marragerr?enL contract prepared for US Congress, Officeof Technology Assessment (McLean, VA 1986)
62 • Wastes in Marine Environments

Table 3.—Quantities of Dredged Material Disposed of Annually in Marine Waters (mmt/yr)

Average quantities disposed of annually

Coastal region Estuaries O to 3 miles offshoreb Over 3 miles offshoreb Total

Northern Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 10.0 0.3 15.7 (9)

Southern Pacific. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 4.3 2.4 15.1 (8)

Gulf of Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.3 16.4 10.9 118.6 (66)

Southern Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 1.5 10.6 18.2 (lo)

Northern Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 2.2 6.3 12.5 (7)

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115.2 (64) 34.4 (19) 30.5 (17) 180.1 (100)

aData were obtained from each lj,s, Army @rPs of Engineers District Office in the form of an annual average; data were not obtained fOr individual years The period

over which the data are averaged varies from one district to the next, but generally includes most of the 1970s and early 1980s. Units are millions of metric tons per

year (mmt/yr); numbers in parentheses are the percent of the total.

bThe distinction between o t. 3 miles offshore>, and ‘over 3 miles offshore” was used by the corps to classify its data, based on the statutory definition Of the territorial sea. This division does not, however, correspond exactly to the division between coastal and open ocean waters used by OTA: some open ocean waters may be

Included in the “O to 3 miles offshore” category, and some coastal waters may be included in the “over 3 miles offshore” category (see box A in ch. 1).

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; compiled from data obtained through a 1985-88 survey of District Offices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Table 4.—Relative Contribution of Pollutants (in percent) by Major Sources

in Coastal Hydrologic Units,a Circa 1977”81

CHL FEC

Region and source BOD TSS TKN TP CD CR CU PB AS FE HG ZN OIL HCS COL

Northern Pacific:

Industrial b . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 <1 11

Municipal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 <1 27

Nonpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 99 62

Southern Pacific:

Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 <1 3

Municipal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 1 31

Nonpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 99 67

Gulf of Mexico:

Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 <1 31

Municipal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 <1 32

Nonpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 99 37

Southern Atlantic:

Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 <1 10

Municipal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 <1 54

Nonpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 99 36

Northern Atlantic:

Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 <1 8

Municipal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 3 74

Nonpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 97 17

Total U.S. coastal:

Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <1 9

Municipal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :: 1 46

Nonpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 99 45

4

23

73

<1

21

78

32

34

34

14

73

13

7

76

18

5

36

59

98

<1

2

81

3

16

95

<1

4

73

1

26

84

2

13

89

1

10

7

1

92

2

8

90

39

4

57

58

8

34

15

32

52

15

13

72

35

1

63

<1

7

91

45

6

49

27

9

64

18

23

60

18

11

71

46 96

2 2

53 2

6 99

7 <1

87 <1

45 100

2 <1

53 <1

12 100

3 0

85 <1

16 100

13 <1

72 <1

20 100

8 <1

73 <1

3

2

95

6

9 :

18

<1

82

7

1

92

21

10

69

13

5

82

86

0

14

88

9

3

93

3

3

89

6

6

92

5

3

91

5

3

40

4

57

16

6

78

47

5

49

25

7

68

25

19

56

25

9

66

29

16

55

10

58

33

53

9

39

8

13

79

5

46

49

11

41

47

99

<1

<1

90

9

<1

97

3

<1

98

1

<1

93

7

<1

94

6

<1

0

9 :

o

34

66

0

16

84

<1

10

90

<1

12

88

<1

16

84

KEY: BOD—Biochemical oxygen demand CD—Cadmium AS—Arsenic

—

OIL—Oil and grease

TSS—Total suspended solids CR—Chromium FE—iron CHL HCS—Chlorinated hydrocarbons

TKN—Total Kjeldahl nitrogen CU—Copper HG—Mercury FEC COL—Fecal coliform bacteria

TP—Total phosphorus PB—Lead ZN—Zinc

alnformation regarding contribution of pollutants IS aggregated for all maritime hydrologic units in each region. Hydrologic units are designated by the U.S. Geological

Survey and represent natural and human-made drainage areas. Only pollutants that first enter surface waters in maritime hydrologic units (i.e., directly adjacent to

marine waters) are included. Pollutants originating in upstream hydrologic units and flowing into the maritime units considered here are excluded, although in some

instances the upstream units contribute a sizable portion or even a majority of the pollutants entering coastal waters. Regions are graphically illustrated in ch. 5 (see

fig. 21). Here, the Northern Pacific excludes Alaska; the Southern Pacific includes California only and excludes Hawaii; the Southern Atlantic excludes Puerto Rico,

bThe “industrial” category includes pOWerplantS.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; based on Resources for the Future, Pollutant Discharges to Surface Waters in Coastal Regions, contract prepared

for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Washington, DC: February 1988),
Ch. 3—Waste Disposal Activities and Pollutant Inputs ● 6 3

The largest quantities of waste material are introduced into marine waters by industrial and municipal pipeline discharges and from the dumping

of dredged material. Pipeline discharges are generally expected to increase in association with increasing industrial development and the growth of

coastal populations. Dumping of dredged material

in coastal and open ocean waters has fluctuated

widely (figure 2A), depending on the nature and

timing of harbor development and maintenance

activities. Only relatively small quantities of industrial wastes and sewage sludge are currently dumped

in marine waters. e During the last 10 years, dumping of industrial wastes declined dramatically, while

dumping of sludge increased (figure 2B).

Pollutants From Waste Disposal

and Nonpoint Sources

Pollutants that enter marine environments from

waste disposal activities and nonpoint sources are

classified into three categories in the Clean Water

Act. g Conventional pollutants include suspended

solids, oxygen-demanding substances, pH, oil and

grease, and fecal coliform bacteria. Nonconven -

tional polutants is a catch-all category that includes

nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Toxic

or priority pollutants include 126 metals and organic chemicals. Each of these categories of regulated pollutants has been linked with observed impacts on marine resources and humans.

Inputs of these pollutants from disposal activities are significantly greater in estuaries and coastal

waters than in the open ocean because of the

greater intensity of these activities in waters close

to shore. This skewed distribution is even further

accentuated because many of the same pollutants

are introduced into estuaries and coastal waters by

rivers and by nonpoint sources (i. e., agricultural

and urban runoff).

On a national scale, available data allow a rough

comparison of pollutant inputs from point source

pipeline discharges and nonpoint runoff that directly enter marine waters. In this limited compar-

‘The total amount of dredged material dumped is about 10 times

greater than the amount of sewage sludge and about 25 times greater

than industrial wastes. In the .New York Bight, however, the amounts

of dredged material and sewage sludge are roughly comparable.

‘MPR SA prohibits the disposal of substances that ‘‘unreasonably

degrade’ the marine environment. Unlike C\%r A, howe~’er, it does

not explicitly classify substances, although it docs include the lists of

prohibited or regulated substances dete]opcd by the London Dumping Convention,

Figure 2A.-Amount of Dredged Material Dumped

in Coastal and Open Ocean Waters Only, 1973.84

(excluding dumping in estuaries)

o 1 I 1 I ! I I I I I

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

Year

Figure 2B.–Amounts of Industrial Waste and

Municipal Sewage Sludge Dumped in Ail Marine

Waters, 1973-85

8 ~

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Year

Amounts in million metric tons (mmt). All dumping of industrial

wastes and municipal sewage sludge occurs in coastal and open

ocean waters. Two-thirds of all dumping of dredged material occurs

in estuaries, but data are not available on a yearly basis for such

dumping; therefore, only the amounts of dredged material dumped

in coastal and open ocean waters are shown in figure 2A. Note that

the scale for dredged material is about 10 times greater than the scale

for industrial wastes and sewage sludge.

SOURCES U.S Army Corps of Engineers, 7980 Reporr to Congress on AdnrIrristratlori of Ocean Durnp/rrg Act/v/t/es, Pamphlet 82-PI (Fort

Belvolr, VA: Water Resources Support Center, May 1982), U S Army

Corps of Engineers, Ocean Durrrp/rrg Report for Ca/endar Year

1981, Summary Report 82-S02 (Fort Belvolr, VA” Water Resources

Support Center, June 1982); U S Army Corps of Engineers, Ocean

Dumpmg Report tor Calendar Year 1982, Summary Report 83-SRI

(Fort Belvolr, VA Water Resources Support Center, October 1983);

U S Enwronmental Protect Ion Agency, Report to Congress,

January 1987 -L3ecember 1983, On Acfmlnlstraffon of the Marine

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, As Amended

(Pub/Ic Law 92-532) and /mp/errrerrf/rrg the /rrternat/ona/ London

Dunrpwrg Convention (Washington, DC” Off Ice of Water Regula.

tlons and Standards, June 1984): J Wilson, U S Army Corps of

Engineers, personal communication. 1986; R DeCesare, Off Ice of

Water, U.S. Environmental ProtectIon Agency, personal communication, January 1987
64 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

ison, the source contributing the majority of a particular pollutant varies with the pollutant (table 4). 10

It is also apparent that more than one source can

be an important contributor of some pollutants

(e. g., phosphorus). As can be seen from table 4,

some generalizations at a national level are possible, however:

● Industrial discharges are, not surprisingly, the

dominant sources of many organic chemicals

and some metals, accounting for about 90 percent or more of the inputs of cadmium, mercury, and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Inputs of

some other metals (e. g., chromium and lead)

are dominated by nonindustrial sources in

some areas of the country.

● Municipal point sources are major contributors of certain conventional pollutants, accounting for about half of biochemical oxygen

demand, total nitrogen, and oil and grease.

Surprisingly, however, municipal discharges

contribute only one-sixth of the input of fecal

coliform bacteria. 11 Municipal discharges are

particularly dominant sources of biochemical

oxygen demand and nitrogen in the northern

Atlantic and in California.

● Nonpoint runoff dominates as a source of suspended solids, and also contributes half or

more of total phosphorus, chromium, copper,

lead, iron, and zinc. It is also the overwhelming contributor of fecal coliform bacteria in all

areas of the country. Nonpoint runoff is a particularly significant contributor of a range of

pollutants along the Pacific coast.

In addition, sufficient information is available

to conclude that upstream sources of pollutants—

whether originating from waste disposal or nonpoint pollution —are the largest sources in the Gulf

of Mexico and appear to be important in the north-

——— ——. IOThe estimated amounts of pollutant inputs (478) are not included

in table 4 because the purpose here is to exam inc the relative contributions by different sources and to illustrate the variability that IS an

important feature of pollutant inputs. The assumptions and uncertainties in the database are discussed in detail by RFF (477,478); information from other databases (particularly NOAA’s) corroborate

the general relationships portrayed in table 4 and support the importance of variability.

1 Irrhis is nor to imply that fecal coliiorms are necessarily contributed primarily by natural sources. Sources such as combined sewer

o~’crflows, leakage from septic tanks, and other discharges of untreated

sew.agc may well contribute to the high contribution of fecal coliforms

by nonpoint sources,

ern Atlantic region. However, the absolute quantity of pollutants is only a partial measure of their

subsequent impact; for example, many riverborne

pollutants are considerably more diluted or degraded by the time they reach marine waters than

they would be if they had been released directly into

those waters. Thus, the magnitude of marine impacts due to upstream sources is not necessarily

commensurate with the magnitude of their pollutant inputs.

It is difficult to compare pollutant inputs from

pipeline discharges and runoff to those resulting

from marine dumping of dredged material or sewage sludge because of the extreme variability in

composition of dumped wastes and the intermittent and localized nature of dumping operations.

Dumping—and resulting pollutant inputs—appears

to be relatively minor in most estuaries and coastal

waters; however, in those areas where dumping

does occur, it can be a significant contributor of

man y pollutants. Table 5 compares inputs from

various sources to the waters of the New York Bight

based on estimates for the mid-1970s; more recent

comprehensive data are not available. This example represents an extreme case, however, because

the significance of dumping as a source of pollutants is probably greater in the New York Bight than

in other estuarine or coastal regions of the United

States.

On a local or regional scale, the relative importance of any source can vary from the above generalizations, depending on factors such as: the type

of industrial development, the nature of industrial

discharges to municipal sewage treatment systems,

the relative amounts of urban and agricultural runoff, the extent of combined sewer overflow, the relative contamination of sediments by discharges and

runoff, and the extent of port maintenance. The

majority of total phosphorus, for example, is contributed by municipal pipelines along the east coast

and by nonpoint sources along the west coast; in

the Gulf of Mexico, roughly equal amounts are contributed by industrial discharges, municipal discharges, and nonpoint sources (table 4).

The amounts of specific pollutants in discharges

or runoff can change over time. For example, regulations governing the production, use, or disposal

of certain substances can affect the amounts of pol-
Ch. 3—Waste Disposal Activities and Pollutant Inputs ● 6 5

Photo credit National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Many pollutants are carried into the Gulf of Mexico by rivers, especially the Mississippi River, from areas far from the

coast. This satellite photo shows river water laden with sediment and other matter appearing as whispy white plumes.

Table 5.— Relative Contribution of Various Pollutants by Major Sources in the New York Bight, Circa Mid-1970s

Percent contribution by source

Atmospheric Pipeline

Total mass input Dumping a

input discharqes bRunoff

Cadmium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 880 mt/yr 82 2 6 10

Chromium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,810 mt/yr 50 1 23 26

Copper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,060 mt/yr 51 3 20 26

Lead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,600 mt/yr 43 9 22 25

Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 mt/yr 9 — 73 18

Zinc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 12,000 mt/yr 29 18 10 43

PCBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4-8.6 mt/yr 55-64 — 3-13 39C

TSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,800 x 10° mt/yr 63 5 4 28

TOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950 X 109 mt/yr 25 12 30 33

Nitrogen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 x 10’ mt/yr 16 13 42 29

Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 x 1OU mt/yr 50 0.7 36 13

ABBREVIATIONS = = total suspended solids, = total organic carbon; = metric tons per year

 of both sewage sludge and dredged material

 both municipal and Industrial 

 sources, which both Point and non sources

SOURCES Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987, based on Mueller, et al , “Contaminants the New York Bight, ” Water Control Federation

48(10) 2309-2326, 1976 (for metals, nitrogen, phosphorus), O’Connor, et al , “Sources, Sinks, and of Organic Contaminants 

the New York Bight Ecosystem, ” and New York and Management, G F Mayer ) Research

Federation, 1982) (for A J et al , “Effects of Nutrients and Carbon Loadings on and Ecosystems, ” in Stress and

 New York Science and Management, Mayer ) SC Research Federation, 1962) (for nitrogen, phosphorus]
66 • Wastes in Marine Environments

lutants, such as when restrictions on DDT and their subsequent impacts. For example, municipal

PCBs significantly reduced the levels of these sub- point sources may be more important contributors

stances in pipeline discharges. Regulations have re- ef nutrients during summer months, when rainsulted in some reductions in the amounts of oxygen- fall and river flow (and thus nonpoint runoff are

demanding pollutants and nutrients in industrial generally lower; conditions conducive to eutrophiand municipal discharges. cation are also most prevalent in the summer.

Climatic factors also differentially affect the contribution of pollutants from various sources and

MAJOR SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS TO U.S. MARINE WATER S

Two major source categories contribute pollutants to U.S. marine waters: waste disposal and nonpoint pollution. (In addition to this information,

box H discusses the management of low-level radioactive waste, and box I summarizes

about the quantities of wastes dumped

by other countries.)

information

in the ocean

Waste Disposal

Waste disposal means the intentional release of

wastes to marine waters, either through direct

dumping or through pipeline discharges. Nonpoint

pollution, in contrast, is more diffuse and includes,

for example, runoff from rural and urban land

surfaces.

Dumping Activities

Wastes dumped in marine environments include

dredged material, municipal sewage sludge, and

industrial wastes.

Dredged Material. —Very large amounts of

dredged material—about 180 million wet metric

tons (mt)—are disposed of each year in U.S. marine waters (table 3), accounting for some 80 to 90

percent of the volume of all material dumped in

these waters. Approximately two-thirds of all

dredged material is dumped in the Gulf of Mexico.

Almost two-thirds of marine dumping of dredged

material occurs in estuaries (including intertidal

areas), The remainder is divided more or less evenly

between waters within the 3-mile territorial boundary and waters beyond this boundary. 2 The types

1 ~ MO~t “f’ the ~,~tcrs &Yon~ this boundary can be classified as open

ocean, but some- in particular, the Ncw York Bight —are classified

here as coastal watrrs.

of marine waters used most frequently for disposal

vary considerably around the country. In the Gulf

of Mexico and in California, for example, most material is dumped in estuaries; in the southern Atlantic region, in contrast, most material is dumped

more than 3 miles from shore.

Over the last 10 to 15 years, the annual amount

of dredged material disposed of in coastal and open

ocean waters only has varied considerably (data are

not readily available for the amounts of material

dumped each year in estuaries). The total amount

of material dumped in these waters showed a general decline from 120 million wet mt in 1974 to

about 35 million wet mt in 1982 (figure 2A). It is

difficult to predict how much material will be dredged

in the future, but it could increase substantially if

several harbor deepening projects that are now being considered by the Corps of Engineers and Congress are undertaken (see ch. 10).

The composition of dredged material also varies

from one area to the next. In some areas, sediments

have been contaminated by metals and organic

chemicals originating from industrial and municipal discharges and nonpoint pollution. When these

sediments are dredged and then dumped, the pollutants are carried along to the dumping site, Only

a fraction of all dredged material is considered by

the Corps of Engineers to be contaminated, although the absence of specific numerical criteria

to define contaminated material is a source of controversy.

Municipal Sewage Sludge and Industrial Wastes.

—Most waste other than dredged material that is

dumped in marine waters consists of sewage sludge

from municipal treatment plants and acid or alkaline liquid industrial wastes. These wastes can contain a variety of different pollutants.
Ch. 3—Waste Disposal Activities and Pollutant Inputs ● 6 7

For the last several decades, many marine dumpsites have been used for the disposal of sewage

sludge and industrial wastes. However, most dumping of these materials has taken place in the coastal

waters of the Northeastern United States. Currently,

only a few sites are being used, all located either

in the New York Bight or in open ocean waters

about 100 miles east of the coast of Delaware.

The dumping of sewage sludge has steadily increased from 2.5 million wet mt in 1958 to 7.5 million wet mt in 1983; 6.6 million wet mt were dumped

in 1985 (figure 2B), In 1980, EPA phased out

dumping by over 100 municipalities (including one

large city, Philadelphia); however, these municipalities together accounted for only 3 percent of all

dumped sludge (292). The amount of sludge dumped

continued to increase after 1980, partly because

more secondary treatment plants, which produce

more sludge, came into operation in the New York

area. Most sewage sludge has been dumped either

at the mid-Atlantic site off of Delaware Bay or at

the 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Dump Site located in

the New York Bight (figure 3). Sewage sludge currently dumped in marine waters originates from

nine sewerage authorities in New York and New

Jersey; most of it is currently dumped at the 12-

Mile site, but over the next few years all remaining marine dumping will be moved to the Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site which lies just off the

edge of the continental shelf (figure 3).13

Marine dumping of industrial wastes meanwhile

has decreased dramatically over the last decade (figure 2 B) from a peak of 4,6 million wet metric tons

in 1973 originating from over 300 industrial firms

(6,1 15, 292), to the current level of about 200,000

wet metric tons dumped annually by 3 firms (ch.

11; refs. 139,648). Most of this is dumped at the

Deepwater Industrial Waste Site, located about 10

nautical miles west of the Deepwater Municipal

Sludge Site. 14 The vast majority of these industrial

13“rhe Decpwater Nfun icipa] Sludge Site Occupks an area Of approximately 100 square nautical miles. It is located approximately 120

nautical miles southeast of Ambrose Light, New York, and 115 nautical miles from Atlantic City, New Jersey, in water depths ranging

from 2,250 to 2,750 meters (49 FR 19005-19012, May 4, 1984).

I +The DeepWater Industri~ Waste Site occupies an area of approximately 30 square nautical miles. It is located approximately 125 nautical miles southeast of Ambrose Light, New York, and 105 nautical

miles from Atlantic City, New, Jersey, in water depths ranging from

2,250 to 2,750 meters (49 FR 19005-19012, May 4, 1984).

Figure 3.— Location of Current Municipal Sewage

Sludge and Industrial Waste Dumpsites in the

Northern Atlantic Ocean

41 

40 c

39°

38 C

370

76

Deepwate R

. . JUMPSITES

1

 Municipal

i

e Delawar e

/ sewage

/

, /

sludge

Bay

..- . . Industrial O

‘”aryland ● “’”HJN waste

Kilometers

0 8 0

:

Bay : C*. Miles

Al 750 740 730 720

SOURCES 49 Federal Register 19005-19012, May 4, 1966, W D Muir, “Hmtory of

Ocean Disposal in the Mid-At lantlc Biaht, ” ch 14 in Wastes in the

Ocean, VOI 1, I W Duedall, et al (eds ) (New York John Wiley & Sons,

1983)

wastes has been dumped in the northern Atlantic,

although pharmaceutical wastes were dumped at

a site north of Puerto Rico for almost a decade until 1981.

Pipeline Discharges

OTA obtained two different types of estimates

for the number and flow of pipelines whose discharges may affect marine waters. The first estimate includes all discharges located in coastal counties of the United States; this clearly represents an

overestimate because only a fraction (albeit unknown) of wastewater and associated pollutants discharged in inland areas of coastal counties will reach

marine waters. The second estimate includes only

those discharges directly into marine (estuarine or

coastal) waters; this number probably underestimates the total number and flow of pipelines affecting marine waters because it excludes that fraction

Ch. 3—Waste Disposal Activities and Pollutant Inputs ● 6 9
70 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

of upstream discharges that does reach marine

waters. Table 6 presents a comparison of these two

estimates for the number and flow of municipal and

industrial pipelines.

Using the conservative data, almost 2,000 municipal and major industrial pipelines discharge effluent directly to estuaries and coastal waters.

Almost all of these pipelines (about 96 percent) are

located in estuaries, and over two-thirds are industrial (table 2).15 The largest share (43 percent) of

these discharges are concentrated in the northern

15 In~dditiO~tO these discharges, a larger number of minor indus-

.

trial and commercial facilities also discharge into these waters, but

they account for only a small fraction of total pollutant inputs.

Atlantic region. The Gulf of Mexico, in particular

the western Gulf, also has a high concentration of

pipelines.

There are, of course, substantial variations in the

amounts of municipal and industrial discharges into

individual waterbodies. In one analysis of four estuaries and coastal waterbodies, the number of major industrial dischargers was estimated to be three

to five times higher than the number of municipal

dischargers in three waterbodies (Puget Sound, San

Francisco Bay, and Narragansett Bay). In contrast,

in the Chesapeake Bay municipal dischargers were

three times as numerous as major industrial dischargers (139).

Table 6.-Comparison of All Discharges in Coastal Counties and Those Discharges Directly to Marine Waters

Number of

dischargers Flow (bgy) Database, source Reference

Municipal dischargers:

Coastal county a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,207 3,620 NCPDI, from NOAA 1

Direct marineb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 2,306 IFD and Needs Survey, from EPA 2

lndustrlal dischargers:

Coastal county (major and minor)c . . . . . . . . . . 4)592 4,914 NCPDI, from NOAA

Direct marine (major only)d 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,332 4,136 IFD, from EPA

ABBREVIATIONS: bgy == billion gallons Per year NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NCPDI = National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory EPA = Environmental Protection Agency.

IFD = Industrial Facilities Database

aDischargers located in coastal counties of the United .States.

bDischargers a~tually discharging Wastewater directly into marine (estuarine or coastal) waters of the United StateS.

c&,timates include both major and minor dischargers.

dEstimates include only major dischargers (defined by EG&G, 1988 (ref. 3 below), as those with wastewater flows greater than 0,01 milliOn gallOnS per day).

REFERENCES :

1, Data from National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory (NCPDI) received through personal communication, D.J. Basta, Chief, Strategic Assessments Branch,

NOAA, Washington, DC, Nov. 14, 1988.

2, Adapted from Science Applications International Corp., Overview of Sewage Sludge and Effluent Management, contract prepared for US Congress, Office of

Technology Assessment (McLean, VA: 1988); based on analysis of data from EPA’s Industrial Facilities Database (IFD) and a 1982 EPA Needs Survey of municipal

sewage treatment facilities (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Municipal Pollution Control, Assessment of Needed Publicly Owned Wastewater

Treatment Facilities in the Urribd States, EPA 430/9-84-011 (Washington, DC: February 1985)).

3, Adapted from EG&G Washington Analytical Services Center, Inc., Oceanographic Services, Industrial Waste Disposal irr Marine Errvironrrrents, contract prepared

for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Waltham, MA: 1988); based on anaJysis of data from EPA’s Industrial Facilities Database (IFD).

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.
Ch. 3—Waste Disposal Activities and Pollutant Inputs ● 7 1

Municipal Discharges.—Of the approximately

15,500 publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)

in the United States, only about 3.5 percent (i. e.,

a total of 578) discharge directly into estuaries and

coastal waters (ref. 503). The POTWs that discharge

into marine waters, however, account for one-fourth

of the Nation municipal wastewater; moreover,

almost 90 percent of them (509) discharge into estuaries (table 2). POTWs discharging into marine

waters account for such a large portion of total

wastewater because many of them are large and

serve densely populated coastal areas. On an annual basis, they discharge a total of about 2.3 trillion gallons of effluent into marine waters—2 trillion gallons into estuaries and 0.3 trillion gallons

into coastal waters (503).

The amount of municipal effluent discharged to

marine waters varies considerably among different

regions of the country (figure 4). More than 60 perFigure 4.—Amount of Effluent Discharged From Major Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants Directly Into

Marine Waters, By State, Circa 1982 (amounts in million gallons per day, MGD)

Northern

Pacific

Region

383 MGD Total discharged into U.S. marine waters -6,645 MGD

I

 \ )--A\,.

,

Gulf of Mexico

Region -522 MGD \ \

❑ O MGD ,4, 

❑ 1-100 MGD

❑ 101-500 MGD

 501-1,000 MGD

■ >1,000 MGD

SOURCE” Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987; after Science Applications International Corp., “Overview of Sewage Sludge and Effluent Management, ” contract

prepared for Congress, of Technology Assessment VA: 1986)
72 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

cent of all municipal discharges to marine waters

occurs in the waters of the northern Atlantic region,

especially from New York. Almost 20 percent is

discharged from California. The magnitude of municipal discharges has increased roughly in parallel with population growth and as previously unsewered sources have been connected to municipal

systems.

A few sewerage authorities in Los Angeles and

Boston discharge sludge through POTW outfalls

into marine waters (see ch. 9). Such discharges are

scheduled to be terminated by 1987 for Los Angeles and the mid- 1990s for Boston. 16 In 1980, some

107,000 dry metric tons of sludge were discharged

by POTWs in southern California (U.S. General

Accounting Office, 1983, cited in ref. 503).

The quantities of different pollutants in municipal effluent and sludge depends primarily on the

nature of any industrial discharges to POTWs and

the degree of treatment used by POTWs. A significant portion of the wastewater entering POTWs

consists of indirect industrial discharges. Nationally, some 160,000 indirect discharges account for

about one-eighth of the wastewater flow through

all POTWs (ref. 666). For those POTWs that discharge into marine waters, indirect industrial discharges account for a slightly larger portion, about

one-seventh (0.33 trillion gallons per year, or tgy)

of wastewater flow; most of this (about 0.31 tgy)

enters estuaries rather than coastal waters (ref. 503).

In addition, the concentration of pollutants in municipal discharges depends on the degree of treatment because higher levels of treatment remove (either intentionally or incidentally) greater amounts

of pollutants. About two-fifths of the effluent discharged into marine waters receives less than secondary treatment (see ch. 9).

Industrial Discharges .—Over 1,300 major industrial facilities (excluding powerplants) discharge

effluents directly into marine waters; about 98 percent of these discharge into estuaries (table 2). This

lbln the Ocean Dumping Amendments Act of 1985, passed by the

House of Representatives but not considered by the Senate, a provision was included which would have allowed Boston to dump its sewage sludge on an interim basis in the open ocean beyond the edge

of the continental shelf ( 146,581). However, Boston has since announced its intention to develop land-based options and not pursue

ocean dumping, either at the Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site or

a new site (153).

estimate excludes minor dischargers, facilities located upstream whose discharges reach marine

waters, and indirect industrial discharges into municipal sewers; lack of data on these additional industrial sources introduces considerable uncertainty

into the estimation of these contributions.

As seen in table 2, the number of industrial dischargers varies significantly among different geographic regions, not surprisingly showing a strong

correlation with the density of industrial development. The quantity and composition of industrial

discharges also varies from one area to the next,

depending on the degree and nature of industrial

development. Because of the wide variations resulting from these factors, it is very difficult to assess

the relative importance of pollutant inputs from industrial discharges in different regions of the country. Information about the amounts of metals and

organic chemicals in industrial discharges is discussed in detail in chapter 8.

Nonpoint Pollution

Nonpoint pollution is an important contributor

of pollutants to marine waters in all parts of the

country. Sources of nonpoint pollution include:

●

●

●

●

●

runoff from cities, industrial sites, and farmland, caused mostly by precipitation and subsequent drainage;

precipitation itself;

atmospheric deposition;

underground transport through aquifers; and

other releases of pollutants (e. g., leaching of

pollutants such as tributyltin from ship hulls;

see box J).

Nonpoint pollution also can originate from septic

tank systems and from combined sewer overflows

(CSOs) (figure 6). Sewage from septic tanks, for

example, can drain either directly or through

aquifers into marine waters or into rivers flowing

into marine waters.

Generally, the only data available on the contribution of pollutants by different nonpoint sources

are for runoff. Runoff tends to be an especially large

source of fecal coliform bacteria, suspended solids,

and, to a lesser extent, oxygen-demanding pollutants and nutrients (table 4). Urban runoff contributes large quantities of oil and grease, lead, and
Ch 3--- Waste Disposal Activities and Pollutant Inputs ● 7 3

Box I.—Quantities of Wastes Dumped in the Ocean by Other Countries

The United States is not the only country that

dumps wastes into marine waters. According to the

most recent data available from records maintained

by the London Dumping Convention (LDC), an annual average of 300 to 400 million tons of waste was

dumped into marine waters between 1976 and 1982

by Nations that are members of the LDC (including

the United States) (figure 5). * About 90 percent of

this is dredged material generated by the deepening

or maintenance of ports, harbors, and shipping channels. Of the remaining 10 percent, about half is industrial waste and half is sewage sludge. This material was disposed of under some 400 to 600 individual

annual permits.

No data are available on numbers and amounts

of pipeline discharges of industrial and municipal effluents worldwide, and virtually no data exists on the

practices of Nations that are not parties to the LDC.

Information on the incineration of hazardous wastes

at sea is reviewed in reference 586.

Dredged Material

About 1.3 billion metric tons of sediment are

dredged each year worldwide. The United States accounts for about 35 percent of this material. Of the

total amount of material dredged worldwide, a large

portion— about 1.1 billion tons—is disposed of in or

near marine waters. * * Some 23 percent is disposed

of in open ocean waters, 36 percent in nearshore and

intertidal sites (and behind bulkheads), 27 percent

in wetlands or in open-water areas in estuaries, and

the remainder in upland areas and other environments. About three-fourths of this total was from new

projects and one-fourth from maintenance dredging

(442).

Industrial Wastes

The types of industrial wastes disposed of in the

ocean vary greatly among different countries. The

most toxic industrial wastes are banned from ocean

disposal by all of the international conventions (see

box Q in ch. 7), and some countries are phasing out

all ocean dumping of industrial wastes. Little if any

hazardous waste (as they would be defined by the

Figure 5.-Annual Worldwide Quantities of Waste

Disposed of in the Ocean, 1976-82

—

1

964

m m

SOURCE: I.W. Duedall, et al. (eds.), “Chapter 1: Global tnputs, Charac.

teristics, and Fates of Ocean-Dumped Industrial and Sewage

Wastes, ” Wastes in the Ocearr, vol. 1 (New York, NY” John

Wiley & Sons, 1983).

U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) is

disposed of in the ocean, other than certain corrosive wastes (acid or alkaline liquids) which are neutralized by the natural buffering capacity of seawater.

Many nations, however, still dump some “nonhazardous’ industrial wastes in the ocean. Between

1977 and 1982, an annual average of about 17 million metric tons of industrial waste was dumped in

the ocean. The largest amount was dumped by the

United States, followed by France, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Germany (FRG), h-eland, the

Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain, New Zealand,

Canada, Australia, and Denmark (132).

Sewage Sludge

Between 1977 and 1982, an average of 17 million

wet metric tons of sewage sludge was dumped in the

ocean each year. The United States and the United

Kingdom contribute roughly equal shares, and together account for more than 95 percent of this total. In many countries, both treated and untreated

*The L13C is an international agreement that governs the dehberate dumping of wastes into the world’s oceans (see box Q in (h. 7). Mcmber Nations

are required to report annually to the LDC the number of permits granted for ocean dumping and the types and tonnages of wastes disposed of in this

manner. It is not possible to discern whether dumping of waste into all marine waters (estuaries, coastal waters, and the open ocean) is included in the

LDC estimates. This accounts for any discrepancies between these figures and others cited here.

**These figures are based on a survey of 108 ports in 38 countries conducted in 1980 by the International Association of Ports and Harbors.
74 ● Wastes in Marine Environments ——— — .— — — — . . ———.—. —————

sewage is discharged into marine waters through

pipelines or into rivers that directly enter marine

waters.

Radioactive Wastes

No nation has yet used marine waters for the intentional disposaI of high-levei radioactive waste. The

concept of intentionally disposing of such waste within

deep-sea sediments, however, has been cooperatively

investigated by the Subseabed Working Group, a

group of countries within the Nuclear Energy Agency

(NEA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (585).

In contrast, intentional dumping of low-level radioactive waste has occurred in marine waters. Since

1950, European countries have dumped almost 1 million curies of low-level radioactive waste at a site

approved by NEA, northwest of Spain in the northeastern Atlantic ocean (378). The dumping of lowlevel radioactive waste in marine waters has been curtailed since 1983 by all European countries (as well

as by the United States), pending the completion of

several studies identified by the London Dumping

Convention (see box H). Several European countries

(e.g., France, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom)

and Japan have expressed interest in resuming such

disposal should it be allowed (refs. 378,559; J.P.

Olivier, Division of Radiation Protection and Waste

Management, NEA, pers. cornm., May 1986).***

*** R%tsent containing low-level radioactive waste from two fuel reprocessing piants in Europe (Sellafitzld in the United Kingdom and La Hague in Frarsce)

continues to be discharged into marine waters. The effluent from Sellafield has been discharged into the Irish Sea since 1957; between 1957 and 1980,

it contained 2.3 million curies of radioactivity, considerably more than the total amount of curies clumped at the northeastern Atlantic site.

Figure 6. —Typical Combined Sewer Collection

‘,\ , “\\

Runoff

drainage

Municipal

Network During a Storm

Domestic

wastewater

Legend

—/ Treated effluen t

<-J Overflo w

The capacity of municipal sewage treatment plants is usually not adequate to handle the large volumes of combined

wastewaters (domestic wastewater, industrial wastewater, and storm water runoff) that may result during storms. In such

situations, the wastewater that cannot be handled by the plant is not treated and is diverted to the receiving waters. This

diversion is known as a combined sewer overflow.

SOURCE After U S Environmental Protection Agency, Of free of Water, Combined Sewer Overflow TOXIC Pollutanf Study, EPA 440/1 -84/304 (Washington, DC April

1984)
Ch. 3—Waste Disposal Activities and Pollutant Inputs ● 7 5

chromium; agricultural runoff contributes large

quantities of pesticides and herbicides, including

various chlorinated hydrocarbons (478,608). Runoff is highly variable in different areas and at different times, although this fact can be obscured in

average annual statistics.

Some information has been collected to address

the importance of nonpoint sources in general.

According to an analysis of State and EPA data for

10 States, nonpoint sources were considered the

most important contributor of damaging pollutants

in 48 percent of the cases where estuaries failed to

support key uses (e. g., fishing, swimming, and the

propagation of marine life) (658). Furthermore, in

all regions but the Northeast, nonpoint sources were

considered more important than point sources; 78

percent of the States considered the magnitude of

water problems associated with nonpoint sources

to be greater than that relating to point sources

(658). Even in the Northeast, there are numerous

instances where nonpoint sources are the most important sources of specific pollutants and major contributors to serious problems. In the Chesapeake

Bay, for example, roughly 60 to 80 percent of the

nitrogen (which contributes to eutrophication) in

the Bay originates from nonpoint sources (624).

Additional evidence from State reports issued in

1986 provides ample support for the conclusion that

nonpoint sources are very significant. In Florida,

for example, nonpoint sources were the primary

factor in 43 percent of the estuaries which failed

to support their designated uses (220). These State

reports also indicate that septic systems can be important contributors of certain pollutants (in particular, fecal coliform bacteria) in coastal areas with

a high portion of unsewered households—e. g., the

Gulf of Mexico and the southern Atlantic coast. In

addition, CSOs tend to be more frequent in the

older cities of the Northeast that rely to a greater

extent on combined sewer systems (63 1), but are

also major problems in areas such as Puget Sound

(463) and coastal Florida (220).

Pollutants such as metals and organic chemicals

can also be carried from some hazardous waste sites

into marine waters through contaminated runoff

or transport through aquifers (61 O). At least 75 hazardous waste sites in coastal counties are considered to present some threat to marine resources and

human health.

Ch. 3—Waste Disposal Activities and Pollutant Inputs ● 7 7
78 ● Wastes In Marine Environments

Photo credit: Tim McCabe/Soil Conservation Service

Runoff from agricultural lands can carry soil particles, pesticides, bacteria, and other pollutants directly

into estuaries and coastal waters or into rivers that later flow into these waters.
Photo credit: S.C. Delaney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CONTENTS

Page

Types of Marine Environments and Their Susceptibility to Adverse Impacts . . . . . 81

Estuaries ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . 81

Coastal Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

The Open Ocean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Fate and Distribution of Wastes and Associated Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Initial Dilution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Physical Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Biological Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Sediment Deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Pollutants and Their Relationship to Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 90

Oxygen-Demanding Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Nutrients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Suspended Solids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,. 91

Pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Organic Chemicals and Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Can Marine Environments Assimilate Wastes or Recover From Impacts? . . . . . . . 95

Figures

FigureNo . Page

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Box

K.

Generalized Marine Food Web...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Types of Marine Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Primary Productivity In and Near a Typical Estuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Circulation Pattern in a Typical Stratified Estuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

General Fate of Sewage Sludge Dumped in Marine Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

General Fate of Effluent Discharged Into Marine Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Life Cycle of the Winter Flounder and Potential Contact With

Chemical Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

The Transfer of DDT Through a Portion of a Food Web in the

Long Island Estuary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Box

Page

Ecological Conditions and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Chapter 4

Marine Environments and Processes,

and Fate of Pollutants

Marine waters are classified in this report into

three categories: estuaries, coastal waters, and the

open ocean.

1 The multitudes of different organisms

that inhabit these waters require certain environmental conditions to survive and reproduce (box

K). Changes in these conditions can occur as a result of waste disposal activities, depending on the

fate of the wastes and associated pollutants and on

the susceptibility of the waters and organisms to

impacts.

The fate of wastes and associated pollutants, and

the susceptibility of organisms to impacts from these

substances, is influenced by features of marine environments and the organisms. For example, wastes

and associated pollutants generally are dispersed

and diluted by physical processes that transport and

‘Some water-bodies may exhibit a combination of characteristics.

mix water; these physical processes, however, vary

greatly in relation to a waterbody’s degree of enclosure, currents, volume, and depth. In contrast,

the concentrations of some pollutants can increase

after disposal because of chemical processes (e. g.,

adsorption of pollutants to solid material), physical features (e. g., salinity gradients), or biological

processes (e. g., the ability of organisms to accumulate some pollutants),

The three marine environments differ in their

general susceptibility to adverse impacts. To understand how the various marine environments are

affected by wastes, it is important to consider three

issues: 1 ) the fate of wastes and associated pollutants after disposal, 2) the relationships between pollutants and specific impacts, and 3) whether marine environments can assimilate wastes or recover

from adverse impacts,

TYPES OF MARINE ENVIRONMENTS AND THEI R

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ADVERSE IMPACT S

Estuaries

An estuary is a semi-enclosed waterbody with a

free, but often small, connection to coastal waters

or the open ocean, within which seawater is measurably diluted with freshwater from land drainage

(fig. 8; ref. 612). Estuaries can vary greatly in size,

shape, and degree of freshwater influence. For example, the category includes tidal marshes and lagoons, as well as the mouths of large rivers such

as the Connecticut and Mississippi rivers. The

Chesapeake Bay is considered an estuary because

it is semi-enclosed and influenced by several rivers

(including the Susquehanna and Potomac rivers).

Estuaries are among the most ecologically and

economically important of all aquatic environments. Their productivity is generally very high because nutrients are plentiful (figure 9); large quantities of nutrients stimulate growth, reproduction,

and photosynthesis in phytoplankton, and large

populations of phytoplankton support large populations of other organisms. The nutrients are generally the result of discharges and runoff from the

land, which tend to get trapped when they enter

estuaries. Many marine organisms, including some

that live primarily in coastal or open ocean waters

and some that are very important commercially,

migrate into and use estuaries during critical parts

of their life cycles. For example, estuaries provide

critical breeding, spawning, and nursery habitat for

many fish and shellfish, and they also provide important habitat for many birds and mammals; some

of these organisms (e. g., bald eagles and several

types of whales) are endangered species. The submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in estuaries, such

as seagrass beds or kelp forests, is important ecologically as a source of food and shelter for many

organisms and in stabilizing sediments.

81

Ch. 4—Marine Environments and Processes, and Fate of Pollutants ● 8 3

Flgure 7.-Generalized Marine Food Web

I -.Birds

People

1

Seaweeds

Barnacles

and mussels I

 Seaweeds and Copepods and Pelagic fish

sediment algae amphipods (salmon)

l l

 Seaweeds eelgrass

& sediment algae I I

T ~ 1 Bottomfish

(flat fish)

LEGEND

-

SOURCE: 7%? State of the WA: July 

Estuarine circulation systems can be extremely

complex and variable, depending on freshwater

flow, tidal action, wind, depth, and shape (100).

Tidal action and seasonal circulation patterns, for

example, transport and mix freshwater and saltwater to varying degrees. Freshwater is lighter than

seawater, so it tends to flow into estuaries along

the surface, while seawater tends to enter below it.

It is useful to distinguish three types of estuaries

based on the degree of mixing or stratification of

freshwater and saltwater (165): 1) highly stratified

(or salt-wedge) estuaries (figure 10), exemplified

by the mouth of the Mississippi River; 2) partially

mixed estuaries such as the James River estuary

in Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay; and 3) wellmixed or homogeneous estuaries, which are rare

but do illustrate an extreme in mixing and stratification patterns. The stratification of the water

column creates water layers of different densities,

with pycnoclines marking the layers. During the

course of a year, a single estuary may exhibit a
84 • Wastes in Marine Environments

Figure 8.—Types of Marine Environments

Sea level

SOURCE Reed, Ocean Practices (Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes

Data Corp., 1975)

Figure 9.— Primary Productivity In and Near a

Typical Estuary

Ocean Estuary River

Type of aquatic environment

Primary productivity represents the amount of organic material

produced by photosynthesis. The peak in primary productivity typically occurs in estuaries; as a result, estuaries contain abundant

food resources and serve as nursery areas for many species (including some saltwater and freshwater organisms that move into

estuaries during the breeding portion of their life cycle).

SOURCE J R Clark, Coastal Ecosystem Management’ A Manual 

 Coastal Zone Resources (New York, John

 & Sons, 1977)

range of mixing or stratification, which means that

organisms inhabiting it must be capable of tolerating large changes in environmental conditions.

Estuaries and the organisms using them are

highly susceptible to adverse impacts. One reason

for this is that many organisms use these waters

during particularly critical periods of their lives.

Second, estuaries often trap particulate matter and

nutrients that enter them via rivers, runoff, and .

waste disposal (effluent discharge or dumping).

These waters bear the brunt of marine disposal

activities.

Trapping varies among estuaries. In stratified

or partially stratified estuaries, material begins to

and then is carried back toward the upper portion

of an estuary by the landward-flowing saltwater.

This happens in the upper Chesapeake-Bay, where

most of the sediment carried by the Susquehanna

River is trapped (139). In shallow or relatively unstratified estuaries, particles can descend quickly

to the seafloor, where they are less subject to physical processes that might flush them from the estuary.2 Particles also descend more quickly when they

stick together and increase in size and density, a

process called flocculation which is enhanced when

freshwater mixes with saltwater. Well-mixed estuaries generally trap less particulate matter because

they are more subject to physical processes that can

flush water from an estuary. In addition, flooding

in the watershed of a small estuary may reduce trapping because the high influx of freshwater transports most particles to the sea (349).

In most estuaries, trapping plays an important

role in determining the fate of pollutants and the

likelihood of impacts. For example, although nutrients can stimulate productivity, trapping of nutrients can lead to nutrient enrichment (eutrophication), which can result in low levels of dissolved

oxygen. In addition, many metals, organic chemicals, and pathogens bind to the surfaces of particulate material (e. g., suspended solids) and thus are

frequently trapped in estuaries. These pollutants

can cause problems when they are ingested by

—— —..- 2

The rate at which water in an estuary is replaced is called the flushing rate.
Ch. 4—Marine Environments and Processes, and Fate of Pollutants ● 8 5

organisms, and the problems can be magnified

when the y are passed up the food chain to other

organisms, including humans. If inputs of toxic pollutants are frequent or large enough, “hot spots”

of contaminated sediments such as those in San

Francisco Bay can occur (395).

Estuaries and estuarine organisms can recover

from certain impacts if the inputs of pollutants are

reduced or terminated. For example, some water

quality impacts such as low dissolved oxygen levels

or eutrophication can be reversed; similarly, areas

where populations or communities have been destroyed by physical burial can be recolonized if individuals of the same species are capable of migrating back into the areas. Other impacts, however,

may require more time to be reversed or may in

some cases be irreversible. For example, contamination of sediments with metals or persistent organic chemicals or major changes in community

structure can be impossible to correct.

Coastal Waters

Coastal waters include those waterbodies lying

over the inner portion of the continental shelf that

are less enclosed and more saline than estuaries;

these waters generally, but not always, lie within

3 miles of shore (i. e., within the boundary of the

territorial sea) (figure 8). The movement of water

and material in coastal waters is heavily influenced

by tidal action and wind, as well as oceanic forces

such as longshore currents, coastal upwelling of bottom waters, eddies, and riptides (99). Rivers may

influence these waters to some degree, but this effect is generally less than in estuaries.

Coastal waters also vary greatly in shape, size,

and configuration. They include bays (e. g., Mon-
86 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

terey Bay), sounds (e. g., Puget Sound), and open

waters along the shoreline (e. g., the Southern California Bight). The New York Bight is considered

a coastal water, even though it extends beyond the

3-mile boundary, because it is located on the inner edge of the continental shelf and is heavily influenced by river drainage.

Coastal waters tend to be moderately productive,

although less so than estuaries because they receive

fewer nutrients; some coastal waters such as Monterey Canyon off of central California are extremely

productive. Again, submerged aquatic vegetation

provides food and shelter for many organisms. As

a result, coastal waters also tend to be ecologically

and economically important, and often contain important fishing grounds that can be affected by pollutants from waste disposal activities. Many organisms that normally inhabit coastal waters migrate

into estuaries and rivers during portions of their

lives (e. g., for spawning). In addition, some endangered birds and mammals migrate through and

use coastal waters, primarily to obtain food.

In comparison with estuaries, coastal waters are

more directly linked to the open ocean and tend

to disperse and dilute pollutants somewhat more

readily. Trapping is less important than in estuaries, but it can be significant in small inlets and

embayments (e. g., in Puget Sound where several

toxic “hot spots” have developed). In addition,

coastal currents can transport pollutants toward or

along the shoreline instead of out to sea. These pollutants can accumulate in organisms and sometimes

be transferred to other organisms in the food chain.

Coastal waters can recover from impacts such

as eutrophication and hypoxia if the problem inputs are reduced or terminated. In many cases, the

more open and dispersive coastal waters (relative

to estuarine waters) restrict buildups of excess nutrients or bring in waters with higher oxygen levels.

On the other hand, seasonal pycnoclines and thermoclines are typical of many coastal waters, and

these features can contribute to increased eutrophication and hypoxia, at least temporarily. Some impacts, such as contamination of sediments with toxic

pollutants, can be difficult or impossible to reverse.

The Open Ocean

The open ocean refers to waters overlying the

outer portion of the continental shelf, the continental slope, and beyond (figure 8); together, these

waters comprise about 92 percent of the Earth’s surface water. Open ocean waters are deeper, more

open, and more saline than coastal waters and estuaries. In comparison with estuaries and coastal

waters, the open ocean is influenced less by tidal

flow and more by permanent ocean currents. Open

ocean processes are more capable of dispersing and

diluting wastes and associated pollutants.

The open ocean typically is not as biologically

productive as are estuaries and coastal waters, primarily because of a general lack of nutrients. An

exception to this occurs in localized areas of upwelling, where nutrients and oxygen are transported up to surface waters, for example in the

Georges Bank off the New England coast. This increase in nutrients can result in increased productivity of phytoplankton and corresponding increases

in local fish populations. As a result, resources in

the open ocean can be commercially important even

though they are distributed unevenly (i. e., concentrated in certain areas and relatively absent in

others). Many open ocean organisms, particularly

some fish and mammals, also migrate to and spend

portions of their life cycles in estuaries and coastal

waters.

The open ocean is generally less vulnerable than

other marine waters to many impacts because of

its large volume and free exchange of water; open

ocean currents generally have a considerable capacity to transport, disperse, and dilute wastes or

pollutants. As a result, problems such as hypoxia

and eutrophication (which generally occur only

when certain conventional pollutants and nutrients

are present in high concentrations) and physical

burial of organisms are less likely to occur.

However, some metals, organic chemicals, and

pathogens are of concern, even though they also

are dispersed, because they can: 1 ) cause impacts

at low concentrations, 2) persist in the environment,

3) accumulate in organisms, and 4) increase in con-
Ch. 4—Marine Environments and Processes, and Fate of Pollutants ● 8 7

centration in successive levels of marine food chains.

Some of these pollutants have been detected in significant concentrations in the water and in the tissues of fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. The

significance of such contamination, and whether

organisms and populations can recover from associated effects, is not always clear because of insufficient knowledge in several areas. For instance, questions remain about: how open ocean food chains

operate, what concentrations of chemicals cause reproductive failure in marine organisms, how tolerant open ocean organisms are to change, and the

likelihood of pollutants being transferred to humans. In addition, detection of such impacts is difficult and the impacts may not be observed until

long after the polluting incident is over.

FATE AND DISTRIBUTION OF WASTES AND

ASSOCIATED POLLUTANT S

The ultimate fate of wastes and associated pollutants depends to a large extent on the many different processes that affect dispersion and deposition.

Initially, wastes are diluted immediately after entering the water. Simultaneously, other processes

begin to transport wastes and pollutants over longer

distances and over time to modify their chemical

and biological nature. Besides initial dilution, waste

particles and pollutants are affected by: 1) physical transport (e. g., transport as part of a water

mass, whether they are suspended or dissolved in

the water); 2) biological transport3 (e. g., extraction

by plants and animals and subsequent movement

with the organisms or their remains or excretions);

and 3) sedimentation (e. g., attachment to clays and

organic materials as they settle through the water

column and eventual incorporation into bottom

sediments) (262). Figures 11 and 12 depict the general fate of dumped sludge and discharged effluent.

Initial Dilution

When a waste enters marine waters, either via

discharge or dumping, it mixes with and entrains

seawater; in addition, the wastestream begins to

broaden and particles begin to disperse. As a result, the waste is diluted substantially, often by a

factor of 5,000 or more. This initial dilution takes

place within the first few hours after disposal and

lasts until waste particles either cease moving vertically in the water column or reach the bottom

(280,385).

‘These biological transport processes are distinct from the biological proccsscs of bioaccumulation and biomagnification discussed later,

Figure 11 .—General Fate of Sewage Sludge

Dumped in Marine Waters

—._!9AlL_..-

SOURCE” Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987; after U S Environmental

Protection Agency, lntra-Agency Sludge Task Force, Use and Disposal 01 &fun/c/pa/ S/udge, EPA 625/10-84-003 (Washington, DC:

September 1984)

Vertical movement of waste particles in the water

column depends on the waste’s bulk density4 and

the presence of pycnoclines (286). Waste particles

that are more dense than the surrounding water

will sink, while less dense particles will rise. This

vertical movement continues until the waste particles reach a water layer or pycnocline of the same

density, or the bottom. Particles that accumulate

along pycnoclines eventually are transported by

other processes or settle to the bottom.

4 Bulk density is the weight of a waste per unit of volume
88 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Figure 12.—General Fate of Effluent Discharged

Into Marine Waters

Surface

SOURCE: of Technology Assessment, 1987; after US. Environmental

ProtectIon Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, 

 Sect/err EPA 430/9-84-007 (Washington,

DC: August 1984).

This description is simplistic because wastes usually are not homogeneous; instead, they usually are

composed of a variety of particles with different

densities and are not uniformly diluted (132,286).

Lighter, floatable materials (e. g., plastics, oil, or

grease) generally rise to the surface, while heavier

materials remain at lower depths.

Physical Transport

Physical transport generally results in the dispersion of particles and pollutants away from the disposal site. Two major physical processes are largely

responsible for dispersion: currents that move water

or other matter from one place to another and mixing of waters with different characteristics.

There are two general categories of currents: permanent and transient (473). Permanent currents

are found in coastal and open ocean waters (e. g.,

the strong Gulf Stream off the east coast and the

weak California Current off the west coast). Portions of these currents (called eddy rings or jets)

can meander from the main current and modify

the net direction of waste material transport (120).

The effects of long-term currents are particularly

important when evaluating potential dumping sites.

Transient currents occur over smaller distances

and time periods than permanent currents. They

are found in all marine environments, including

estuaries, and are caused by factors such as winds,

tides, and waves. Their effect on the transport of

waste material tends to be most important when

wastes are discharged or dumped near shore. For

example, currents close to shore and at or near the

surface can move sediment such as dredged material along the shoreline (2 10,473).

Mixing occurs when two masses of water with

different densities (e. g., two currents, or a current

and a relatively stable water mass) intermingle

along their common boundary (262). This is generally caused by random motion along density gradients, but it can be enhanced by wave action and

tides (48). Its effects vary in different marine environments. For example, mixing of bottom and surface waters in the open ocean can take hundreds

of years (48, 120). In estuaries and some coastal

waters, mixing can occur immediately after disposal

and increase dilution of the waste material.

Currents and mixing can transport and disperse

wastes over hundreds of kilometers (120,286). The

depth at which such transport occurs depends on

the presence of pycnoclines, because particles tend

to fall until (and if they reach a layer of water

denser than the particles themselves. For example,

particulate matter from dumping activities in the

New York Bight generally descends to the depth

of a seasonal pycnocline and then is transported

laterally (426,709).

Biological Transport

Waste particles and pollutants can be extracted

from the water column by plants and animals in

various ways, including direct ingestion, passing

through gills, or other mechanisms. Once extracted,

the wastes can be transported from one location in

the water column to another by several processes

that are associated with individual organisms.

Migration by Organisms.—Many organisms

move relatively long distances as part of their normal living pattern and, as a result, they can carry

waste particles and pollutants to new locations.5 The

organisms can move either vertically (i. e., up and

5 

Pollutants can also be transported out of the water, for example

when predatory birds consume contaminated marine organisms.
Ch. 4—Marine Environments and Processes, and Fate of Pollutants ● 8 9

down in the water column) or horizontally (e. g.,

from coastal waters into estuaries). For example,

some plankton move vertically in the water column

on a daily basis and certain fish exhibit similar

movements on a seasonal basis. Tuna and certain

marine mammals are well-known for their lengthy

horizontal migrations.

Many organisms must move from coastal or open

ocean waters into estuarine waters to breed and/or

to provide proper nursery habitat for their offspring. Some organisms such as salmon migrate

from marine waters to rivers to breed; fish that

undertake such migrations are known as anadromous fish. These migratory organisms can be exposed to a variety of pollutants while they migrate.

Movement of Eggs and Body Remains .—Many

organisms lay eggs that are carried by currents to

other areas or that move vertically depending on

their relative buoyancy; for example, some eggs

sink to deeper waters while others rise to the microlayer. In some cases, pollutants may have been incorporated into the eggs as they were formed, which

occurs frequently in the surface microlayer. In addition, once an organism dies, its remains can be

moved to new areas by similar means and these remains also can contain pollutants.

Excretion. —When a marine organism ingests

waste materials, they often can eventually be excreted. Since many organisms move substantial distances in the course of their daily activities, excretion can occur in locations far from the point of

ingestion. If excreted by organisms inhabiting the

water column, excretory products often settle to the

seafloor; if excreted by benthic organisms, the products generally remain on the seafloor.

Sediment Deposition

The processes discussed so far transport substances throughout the water column. Other processes, particularly sedimentation and flocculation,

influence the manner in which particulate material and associated pollutants are deposited on the

bottom. Two additional processes, resuspension

and bioturbation, can counter this, but generally

only to a small degree. The combined effects of

these processes determine the overall rate of accumulation of particulate matter on the bottom.

Sedimentation is the settling of particulate matter through the water column and onto the bottom.

The rate of sedimentation depends on particle size

and density, water density, mixing, and flocculation, For example, larger particles tend to be heavier and they settle faster than smaller particles. The

presence of pycnoclines can alter the rate of movement of particles; particles that reach a layer of similar water density generally cease moving and remain at the pycnocline, at least until some other

transport processes move them elsewhere.

Flocculation refers to chemical reactions that result in the aggregation of small particles into larger

particles, thus increasing particle size, density, and

settling rate. Flocculation often occurs at the boundary of freshwater and saltwater, such as when freshwater effluent containing metals encounters more

saline estuarine water.

The method of disposal and the concentration

of solids in the waste also can affect both sedimentation and flocculation (385,596). For example,

wastes dumped from a ship often have a higher concentration of particles (even after initial dilution)

than do pipeline effluents and may exhibit higher

rates of flocculation and sedimentation. In addition,

the settling rate may be increased because dumped

materials have a greater downward momentum.

In well-mixed waters that do not exhibit pycnoclines, particles can settle directly to the bottom.

If physical transport processes are sufficiently strong

to widely disperse the particles, however, the rate

of particle accumulation on the bottom in a given

area will be relatively low. In contrast, if wastes

are disposed of in shallow or quiescent estuarine

and coastal waters, or even in some deeper coastal

waters at a high and continuous rate, sedimentation and flocculation can be significant and cause

an accumulation of particulate material on the bottom. Such accumulations can alter the particle size

or chemical composition of bottom sediments,

which can in turn affect benthic organisms and the

structure of benthic communities.

Even after it settles to the seafloor, particulate

matter can be resuspended back into the water

column. For example, bottom currents and storms

are capable of stirring up sediments and moving

settled particles back into the water (139,385). The

physical characteristics of the particles influence
90 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

resuspension; for example, silt and clay particles

are more cohesive than sand particles and are less

likely to be resuspended (596). Resuspension can

also be caused by chemical and biological processes.

For example, when bacteria in the sediments decompose particulate matter with a high organic content, some byproducts of decomposition can be released into the water column. In some cases, this

can include pollutants such as metals, Predicting

resuspension rates generally is difficult and sitespecific (262).

In another biological process that affects sediment

deposition, burrowing animals can move particles

and associated pollutants toward or away from the

boundary between the sediment and the water

column, a process known as bioturbation (385). As

a result, pollutants such as polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

can either be brought into contact with the water

column, where non-burrowing organisms can be

exposed to them (295,385), or buried more deeply

in the sediments.

POLLUTANTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO IMPACTS

The wastes and pollutants disposed of in marine

waters can have varying impacts on marine environments and organisms. The relationship between

different pollutants (i. e., oxygen-demanding substances, nutrients, suspended solids, pathogens,

metals, and organic chemicals) and impacts can be

complex, depending on what biological, chemical,

and physical processes occur to catalyze the impacts.

Oxygen-Demanding Substances

Minimum levels of oxygen are critical for the

maintenance of most forms of life. Oxygen levels

in the water and sediments can decline, however,

as a result of several common processes. First,

microorganisms use oxygen to decompose or transform organic material, which is contained in most

wastes, into compounds such as carbon dioxide,

water, and nitrates. The amount of oxygen used

during this process is termed the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (132,418). Second, waste material is also broken down by chemical processes

(independent of organisms) that use oxygen; the

total amount of oxygen that can be used in biological and chemical processes is termed chemical oxygen demand (498). Oxygen levels also can decline

as a consequence of nutrient enrichment, which is

discussed below.

When the amount of dissolved oxygen in water

falls below a critical level, often around 2 parts per

million, the water is said to be hypoxic, Water that

is completely depleted of dissolved oxygen is called

anoxic. Hypoxic and anoxic conditions can cause

massive fish kills; if oxygen levels are reduced only

slightly (but not enough for conditions to be considered hypoxic), organisms can still be stressed and

chemical reactions in the water column can be modified. These problems are more common in estuaries and coastal waters than in the open ocean,

where waters are generally more dispersed and

mixed.

Nutrients

Nutrients are essential for the proper growth and

reproduction of individual organisms and, consequently, for the general productivity of marine environments. Eutrophication refers to an increase in

nutrient levels in a body of water. This can occur

naturally (e. g., in the open ocean through the upwelling of nutrients from deep waters) or as a result of human activities (e. g., runoff from fertilized

farmlands or discharges from sewage outfalls). In

either case, the addition of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can lead to increases in the

productivity of marine organisms, particularly some

algae. Up to a certain limit, such increases in productivity can be beneficial, for example, by leading to corresponding increases in fish populations

in areas where nutrients are relatively lacking.

However, if nutrient levels are too high, several adverse impacts can occur:

increased turbidity or cloudiness of the water,

which can keep light from reaching submerged

vegetation;

changes in the distribution, abundance, and

diversity of species (e. g., the replacement of

typically abundant species with less common

species);
Ch. 4—Marine Environments and Processes, and Fate of Pollutants ● 9 1

. subsequent changes in food chain relationships

(165); and

● depletion of oxygen levels when large numbers of algae die and are decomposed by

microorganisms; oxygen depletion in turn can

cause other changes including fish kills.

Increased nutrient levels are more common in

estuaries and coastal waters than in the open ocean.

Large quantities of nutrients enter estuaries and

coastal waters from rivers, runoff, and disposal, as

well as from coastal upwelling. In addition, processes that dilute and disperse nutrients are weaker

in these waters.

Suspended Solids

Marine plants generally grow best in relatively

clear water where sunlight, which is critical for

photosynthesis, can penetrate to and be used by the

plants. Since the introduction of suspended solids

into shallow waters can increase turbidity and block

out sunlight, it can reduce the rate of photosynthesis

significantly and harm submerged vegetation. In

addition, solid particles can settle out of the water

column and accumulate on the bottom, sometimes

changing the nature of the sediments and associated benthic community. In addition to solids suspended in the water column, the solid material in

a waste can bury and kill benthic organisms (e. g.,

if large amounts of dredged material are disposed

of in a small area).

Pathogens

Many pathogens—including viruses, bacteria,

fungi, and parasites—that can cause human disease

are found in marine environments. The viability

of pathogens depends primarily on their survival

after they enter a particular marine environment.

While many pathogens die quickly after exposure

to various environmental factors (e. g., light), some

can persist, especially if adsorbed onto particulate

matter that provides protection from the surrounding environment (183,205). In addition, some pathogens can be ingested by and survive in marine

organisms without harming the organisms, but they

can cause serious human health effects if a person

consumes an organism that has ingested but not

yet excreted the pathogens. For example, shellfish

“filter” water to obtain food and, in the process,

can ingest pathogens; the concentration of pathogens in the gut of a shellfish can be quite high. Detecting pathogens that survive in marine waters is

often difficult, as is predicting the impacts they can

cause.

Organic Chemicals and Metals

Whether toxic pollutants such as metals and organic chemicals cause adverse effects depends on

the interaction of many chemical and biological factors. Only some toxic pollutants are bioavailable

to organisms, that is, present in a form to which

organisms can actually be exposed. Many metals,

for example, are attached to particulate material

and buried deep in sediments where they are exposed to few organisms. If a pollutant is bioavailable, the effects of exposure will vary depending

on its concentration and the length of exposure

(270), as well as the stage in the organism’s life cycle

(figure 13).

Not all metals and organic chemicals cause adverse effects, even if an organism is exposed to and

takes up a pollutant. In fact, organisms require

small amounts of some metals that occur naturally

in marine waters for important physiological functions. Other pollutants may be present in forms that

Figure 13.—Life Cycle of the Winter Flounder and

Potential Contact With Chemical Pollutants

Larvae vulnerable to

lethal and sublethal

pollutant levels

— in water column

Juveniles in

Eggs and embryos

 intimate contact

exposed to

pollutants —

Food organisms . , -

often contain

high pollutant

levels

Overwintering adults in Adults migrate

almost continuous contact into areas of

with contaminated sediments heavy contamination

NOTE: An individual flounder could come into contact with pollutants at one or

more stages of its life cycle.

SOURCE: C.J. Sindermann, ‘

r

Fish and Environmental Impacts,” Arcf?iv fur

Fischereiwissenschaff, 35125-160, 1964.

63-983 - 87 - 4 : QL 3
92 • Wastes in Marine Environments

Figure 14.—The Transfer of DDT Through a Portion of a Food Web in the Long Island Estuary

Organic debris

Seaweeds,

eelgrass,

sediment algae

Plankton

Minnow

Persistent, lipid-soluble pollutants such as DDT can be taken up from the water column or sediments by many organisms.

This diagram depicts the many pathways by which a pollutant such as DDT can be transferred up the food chain and eventually accumulate in high concentrations in the tissues of fish-eating vertebrates.

SOURCE of Technology Assessment, 1987; after B W et , Laboratory Oceanography (San CA Freeman Co , 1977)

are not toxic to organisms; they may stay in the

gut for varying periods and then be excreted without causing harm (262,385).

Two important processes determine the ability

of many metals and organic chemicals to cause adverse impacts on marine organisms or humans: bioaccumulation and biomagnification. Bioaccumu -

lation is the process whereby a substance enters an

aquatic organism, either from the water or from

consumed food, and is stored within the organism’s

tissues. Biomagnification refers to increases in the

concentrations of bioaccumulated substances in the

tissues of consumers and predators occupying successive levels of a food chain (58,260). The likelihood of adverse impacts on organisms such as invertebrates, fish, or humans is increased if toxic

pollutants biomagnify in a food chain (figure 14).

The effects might show immediately after exposure

or take long periods to appear, and correlating them

with degree and duration of exposure is difficult.

Bioaccumulation can occur at any level of the

food chain. For example, phytoplankton can be

contaminated by pollutants present in the water

column, while benthic zooplankton and shellfish
Ch. 4—Marine Environments and Processes, and Fate of Pollutants ● 9 3

Photo credit: US. Fish and Wildlife Service

Healthy striped bass have long supported a valuable commercial and recreational fishery along the Atlantic Coast. The

fishery has declined significantly during the last 15 years, and many individual fish are severely contaminated with PCBs.

that filter bottom sediments in search of food can

ingest pollutants that are adsorbed onto sediment

particles. These organisms can then contaminate

organisms in higher trophic levels that ingest them

as food (41 O). However, bioaccumulation does not

always cause adverse impacts. Some organisms can

internally degrade or regulate the levels of certain

toxic pollutants in their systems.

It is also possible for some toxic pollutants to

cause problems even if they do not bioaccumulate.

For example, some pollutants can be concentrated

in the gut of an organism (but never bioaccumulate in the organism’s tissues); these pollutants,

however, can often cause adverse effects on predatory organisms higher in the food chain. In addition, some behavioral effects can occur even if a

pollutant is not ingested. For example, herring have

avoided waters they typically use for spawning because of pulp mill effluents discharged into a river

(398).

Organic Chemicals

Organic chemicals, whether dissolved in the

water column or adsorbed onto sediment particles,

can be taken up by an organism in several ways,

such as through filtering water or sediment or ingesting other organisms. Whether bioaccumulation

occurs depends primarily on a chemical’s ratio of

lipid volubility to water volubility (165,195,262,

385). Some organic chemicals are more soluble in
94 ● Wastes in Marine Environment s

water and can pass through an organism (or be

metabolized by the organism), while others are

more soluble in lipids and will bioaccumulate in

fatty tissues. For example, PCBs are soluble in

lipids and are only slowly metabolized by marine

animals, so they tend to bioaccumulate in an animal’s fatty tissues (139). Birds (such as bald eagles

and pelicans) and mammals (such as seals and sea

lions) that occupy higher levels of marine food

chains usually have large amounts of fatty tissues

and are particularly likely to bioaccumulate organic

chemicals.

Bioaccumulated organic chemicals can affect

organisms at all levels of food chains. Halogenated

organic chemicals (including pesticides such as

DDT) are the most likely organic chemicals to be

biomagnified because they are persistent and highly

soluble in fatty tissues. 6 PCBs cause decreases in

plantlife and changes in community structure, and

they have been implicated in fish mortality and

physiological abnormalities (132,133,139).

Some organisms have the ability to degrade some

organic chemicals into other forms. For example,

microorganisms can degrade some highly persistent and toxic chlorinated compounds under certain

conditions (40,41 ,540). Some invertebrates, fishes,

and mammals can partially degrade polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and PCB, but the byproducts

can sometimes be more toxic than the parent compound. The bioavailability and toxicity of organic

chemicals can also be modified prior to ingestion

by processes such as bioturbation or degradation

by light (385,710).

Metals

The ability of a metal to affect marine organisms

depends primarily on its form (e. g., dissolved or

particulate, bound to another substance or free),

and this is greatly affected by site-specific conditions. In their particulate form, most metals tend

to adsorb onto other particles that eventually settle from the water column and are deposited as sediment (139, 165). Once deposited in typical oxygenpoor sediments, the chemical form of these metals

is generally 

stable. 7

bThc term halogenated refers to compounds that include certain

elements such as fluorine, chloride, and bromine.

7Microorganisms in sediments, however, can modify the form of

some metals; for example, bacteria can convert slightly toxic inorganic mercury to highly toxic and volatile methyl mercury (26).

If the sediments are subsequently oxygenated,

however, some metals (such as cadmium, copper,

nickel, and zinc) may dissolve and be slowly released back into the water column, where they may

be taken up by non-benthic organisms (124). For

example, zinc is very insoluble when combined with

sulfide in oxygen-poor environments but is soluble in oxygen-rich environments (385). Sediments

can be oxygenated (and also resuspended) by bioturbation, storms, and other disturbances (139).

Metals also can be released as a result of other

changes such as salinity fluctuations in estuaries.

Metals present in the water column as dissolved

ions often bind with other molecules to form soluble complexes that can affect bioavailability and toxicity to organisms (385). For example, the toxicities of lead and zinc are reduced when they are in

complexes, while the bioavailability and toxicity of

methyl mercury is greatly enhanced (75,247).

Marine organisms can ingest metals that are dissolved in the water or they can ingest particulate

matter onto which metals are adsorbed (46,232,

260). Once ingested, some metals can pass through

the gut and be excreted, while others cross the gut

membrane and bioaccumulate in organismal tissue (410). Of the four metals of primary concern

to humans (ch. 6), cadmium and mercury tend to

bioaccumulate in marine organisms, while neither

arsenic nor lead have been shown to bioaccumulate significantly in seafood (lead, however, can be

present in high concentrations in the guts of some

shellfish). Mercury in its methylated form, however, is the only metal known to biomagnify in successive levels of aquatic food chains.

Some organisms can regulate the internal availability or level of certain metals (133, 139). In some

fish, for example, metals that are toxic as freefloating ions (e. g., cadmium, copper, mercury, and

zinc) can be bound to the protein metallothionein

and the bound metals are generally not toxic (250,

410), Proteins with similar capabilities occur in

crustaceans and mollusks (74). Arsenic is largely

converted to nontoxic forms by marine organisms.

Some metals also may be deposited in skeletal material and intracellular spaces, or removed from an

organism via excretion, diffusion, molting, or egg

production.
Ch. 4—Marine Environments and Processes, and Fate of Pollutants ● 9 5

CAN MARINE ENVIRONMENTS ASSIMILATE WASTES OR

RECOVER FROM IMPACTS?

Two concepts are often used in discussions about

the role of marine environments in waste disposal:

assimilative capacity and recovery. Assimilative capacity has been defined as the amount of material

that could be contained within a body of water without producing an unacceptable biological effect

(188). Recovery refers to the degree to which a condition that existed prior to an impact is restored.

In essence, the assimilative capacity concept asks

how much waste can be added to a marine environment before an impact occurs, while the recovery concept asks what happens after inputs of wastes

and pollutants cease.

Both concepts have an intuitive appeal, and

even some utility as concepts that can illuminate

general discussions, but applying them in actual

practice is difficult. This difficulty stems primarily from the inability to develop quantitative criteria for assessing questions such as:

●

●

●

●

What is an impact and what is an unacceptable level of such an impact?

At what ecological level should impacts be

measured (e. g., on cellular systems, organisms, populations, general habitat qualities)?

How many impacts must be reversed (and to

what degree) before an area is considered to

have recovered?

Over what time scales and sizes of areas should

assimilative capacity or recovery be measured

(20, 165, 188)?

Both assimilative capacity and recovery depend

on many site-specific factors including: the physical and chemical characteristics of the receiving

waters (e. g., strength of currents and mixing, sedimentation, adsorption of pollutants); the resiliency

of organisms that inhabit the area (e. g., their ability to survive, grow, and reproduce); and the ability of other organisms to migrate into the area.

These questions might be answered at a specific site

if acceptable quantitative criteria could be developed, but both assimilative capacity and recovery

would still vary from site to site and would have

to be determined on a case-by-case basis.8

— —

‘Another concept, accommodatit,t’ capaclt>, has been proposed as

a rcplaccmen[ for assimilat i~e capacity (284). ,4ccommodat i~e capacity

Clearly, some wastes can be disposed of under certain conditions without causing severe adverse impacts. Furthermore, some marine environments are not as likely as others to suffer certain

impacts and therefore could be considered to have

a greater assimilative capacity with respect to those

impacts. For example, the open ocean is less likely

to exhibit hypoxia and eutrophication and therefore might be able to assimilate oxygen-demanding

substances and nutrients to a greater extent than

can estuaries and coastal waters.

Marine environments also can recover from

some impacts, particularly when inputs of oxygendemanding substances, suspended solids, and nutrients are reduced. For example, dissolved oxygen levels have increased markedly and anoxic conditions have declined following improvements in

municipal sewage treatment plants in the upper

Delaware Bay estuary and in Newark Bay (346,

683). In addition, some estuaries and coastal waters

are subject to large natural fluctuations in physical conditions (e. g., tides, waves, storms). Organisms in these environments show large natural population fluctuations, as well as rapid growth and

migration rates. These organisms may be able to

survive catastrophic events or repopulate an area

quickly, often in as little as one year (165).

In contrast, marine waters cannot readily assimilate many organic chemicals or recover from

their impacts, primarily because of the persistence

of many of these pollutants. For example, ‘ ‘hot

spots’ ‘ of DDT still exist in some coastal sediments

and some fish species contaminated with DDT are

still being caught (e. g., the white croaker off the

southern California coast), even though most uses

of DDT were prohibited in the United States in

1972. For these persistent organic chemicals, the

length of time under consideration greatly influences any assessment of assimilative capacity and

recovery potential, and in some cases, even if all

pollutant inputs were halted, the environment still

has a sllghtl} different focus in that it emphasizes how an entironmcnt ‘‘adjusts to overall inputs of pollutants. Howmer, it suffers

from similar shortcomings, for example, its dependence on defining

the term ‘ ‘adjustment,
96 • Wastes in Marine Environments

may not ever return to its unpolluted state. As an

illustration, consider the sediments in portions of

Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, which are contaminated with highly persistent PCBs. As the contaminated sediments are covered (naturally or artificially) with cleaner sediment, the potential for

organisms to be exposed to the PCBs could decrease, and this could be considered a reversal of

contamination. However, subsequent dredging of

the harbor or the effects of severe storms could

resuspend the sediment and PCBs and re-expose

organisms to these pollutants. g

Moreover, most situations are complicated because multiple impacts and pollutants are typically ————..—— -

‘In some situations, however, impacts from organic chemicals clearly

have lessened over time. For example, the population of brown pelicans in southern California, which declined because DDT caused eggshell thinning and subsequent reproductive failure, has steadily increased since the discharge of DDT was sharply curtailed (54).

involved. Assimilative capacity or recovery potential might be assessed for one impact, but they are

much more difficult to determine for interrelated

impacts. For example, it may be possible to determine how much waste can be disposed of before

oxygen is depleted (i. e., assimilative capacity) or

how quickly adequate oxygen levels will return following disposal (i.e., recovery rate). However, oxygen declines can cause other impacts such as fish

kills and it can be difficult to ascertain when populations would recover to ‘‘acceptable’ levels. When

multiple pollutants are involved it can be difficult

to determine the effect of removing or reducing one

pollutant from the total waste stream. 10

Ioq’ests t. assess the toxicity of ‘‘whole’ effluents (i. ~., the cumulative toxicity of all pollutants in an effluent) are being developed b?

EPA.
Impacts of

Photo credit: Stephen C. Delaney

Chapter 5

Waste Disposal on

Marine Resources
CONTENTS

Page

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Establishing Links Between Pollutants and Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Impacts on Water and Sediment Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...100

Enrichment With Organic Matter and Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......100

Elevated Concentrations of Other Contaminants in the Water Column. . ......100

Impacts on Sediments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........103

Impacts on Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........104

Birds and Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........104

Acute Lethal Effects on Finfish and Shellfish . .............................106

High Levels of Pollutants in Finfish and Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...108

Other Effects on Finfish and Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....110

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112

Benthic Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........113

Geographical Variations in Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................113

Northern Pacific Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........113

California and Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........114

Gulf of Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..116

Southern Atlantic Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..118

Northern Atlantic Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................119

Table

Table No. Page

7. Classification of Shellfish Growing Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........109

Figures

Figure No. Page

15.

16.

17,

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

Extent of Oxygen Depletion in Bottom Waters of the Louisiana Shelf

July 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .101

Volume of Water in Chesapeake Bay With Levels of Dissolved Oxygen

Lower Than 0.7 Milligrams Per Liter, 1950-80, . . . . . . . . . . . ...............101

Concentration of Nickel and Hydrocarbons in Narragansett Bay,

Rhode Island, in Relation to Distance From Discharge Points . .............102

Concentration of Cadmium in Sediments Along the Northeast Atlantic

Coast During 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...103

Canvasback Duck Population on the Chesapeake Bay, 1954-85 . ............105

Concentrations of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in the Livers of Fish

From Selected Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................111

The Five Coastal Regions of the United States Used in This Report . .......114

Relationship Between Size of Kelp Beds and Quantity of Solids From

Municipal Discharges at a Southern California Site . ......................116

Environmental Stress in the Pascagoula Area of the Mississippi Sound . . . . . . .117
Chapter 5

Impacts of Waste Disposal on Marine Resources

OVERVIEW

Marine resources are affected by a wide range

of natural and human perturbations, including pollutants from waste disposal. Waste disposal occurs

directly in marine waters, but also indirectly as

wastes are carried to the sea by rivers. It can be

difficult, however, to establish a clear understanding of the precise connections between pollutants

from these activities and impacts on marine resources.

Nevertheless, sufficient evidence is available to conclude that pollutants from disposal activities have

resulted in a wide variety of impacts on water quality, sediment quality, and marine organisms. 1

‘ Space’ I im i tat ]ons prc( IUCIC a dcta ilcd prcscntat Ion of all cllclcn( c

cf(xumcntlng these impa( ts. ‘1’hc reader lnterestc(l in (in cxtcn~]y (1>

(1(x umcntmi, Walled (Ilw’ussion of this twicfcn[ c i~ referred to ref 588,

prcpart[] b)’ ()-l’.A ,in({ a~ailabl{’ from (ht. .N,itlon.d “1’(Y hni[ al In forrnat Ion .S(, r~rc c

Most of the impacts that are attributable to pollutants from waste disposal have been observed in

estuaries and coastal waters, often the most productive marine waters. The degree and distribution of

these impacts vary widely among different waterbodies and organisms, but no region of the country is immune to serious adverse impacts from pollutants. Even small quantities of certain pollutants

can result in chronic, persistent, and serious effects

on organisms.

Where trends in impacts over the past 10 to 15

years are discernible, they have been mixed. They

have varied among specific pollutants, species, and

locations. Some improvements have been observed,

while in other cases deterioration is evident. Sometimes no clear trend appears.

ESTABLISHING LINKS BETWEEN POLLUTANTS AND IMPACTS

Determining the causes of impacts on marine resources can be difficult. 2 Changes can result not

only from waste disposal activities and runoff, but

also from natural perturbations, fishing, or other

human-induced changes such as habitat destruction or freshwater diversions. Even when pollutants are correlated with impacts, the ultimate source

of the pollutants may be unclear—they may emanate from any combination of surface runoff, various industrial discharges, municipal discharges,

dumping activities, and atmospheric deposition,

and they may come from sources in or adjacent to

marine waters or from far upstream.

Another complicating factor is that impacts

caused by pollutants may not be observed for years

or decades after the pollutants are released, or they

may occur far from the release area. For example,

“i his IS assumlny t hat the ~mpa( ts arc cktc{ te(l III [he firs{ pla{ e,

m hrlc many c(f’cr (s ( ,in Ix cfetc( t u] rat hcr easr]y , (It hers ( .]n Ix> [lc’-

tc( ttxi onl> wrth qrcat d iffi( u]t, arr(l cxpcnsc or ma}’ [w :ipc dctc( [ ion

:iltoq(’thcr

when a pollutant is extremely persistent in the environment or when water flow and circulation are

great, pollutants can be transported great distances.

In addition, some impacts on organisms may not

occur until the affected organism is far from the

original point of contamination.

Consequently, establishing the causes of past and

present impacts and predicting future long-term impacts on marine communities is a formidable task.

These difficulties are frequently aggravated by a

lack of information. The picture that emerges from

an analysis of the available information looks like

a jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing.

Thus, although waste disposal activities may be

fully or partly responsible for many marine impacts,

it is often difficult to assess their precise involvement. Despite these problems of documentation,

a strong overall case can be established that waste

disposal activities are contributing significantly

to substantial declines in the quality of marine

waters and harming marine organisms, and in

some cases having effects on humans.

99
100 • Wastes in Marine Environments

IMPACTS ON WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY

Enrichment With Organic Matter

and Nutrients

Perhaps the most conspicuous and widespread

impact that pollutants have on marine environment

is eutrophication, a process associated with the introduction of nutrients. Eutrophication is evident

in every region of the country. The impacts of eutrophication range from stress on individual organisms (which in turn may increase the incidence of

disease or abnormalities) to major ecological changes.

Nutrient enrichment sometimes contributes to massive blooms of tiny photosynthetic organisms,3 

sometimes dubbed ‘ ‘green tides, ‘‘brown tides, or

‘ ‘red tides. These organisms can harm—and

even kill—other marine organisms and humans

(343,536,545). Under extreme conditions, eutrophic conditions can lead to a severe depletion

of dissolved oxygen called hypoxia. The most dramatic consequences of extreme hypoxia are mass

kills of organisms.

Eutrophication and hypoxia often have been

linked to human activities, including waste disposal.

Waste disposal activities (particularly municipal discharges) contribute large quantities of nutrients to

marine environments, and hypoxia can be caused

or aggravated by the introduction of oxygendemanding pollutants (e. g., organic matter) from

these same sources. Other pollutant sources, such

as runoff, also contribute to eutrophic and hypoxic

conditions, and natural factors such as seasonal

stratification of the water column can also cause

hypoxia.

Eutrophication and hypoxia are serious and regularly recurring problems in many major waterbodies (695). Hypoxic areas vary widely in magnitude,

from a fraction of a square mile to thousands of

square miles. Examples of large and regularly

occurring hypoxic waters are an area (up to 8,000

3A photosynthetic organism is one which uses sunlight to synthesize compounds.

4The precise conditions needed for the initiation, propagation, and

maintenance of these blooms are not completely understood. It is

known, however, that nutrients are required for a bloom to proceed.

If nutrients from waste disposal have enriched marine waters, they

may contribute to a bloom greater (and hence more damaging) than

it otherwise would be.

square kilometers (km2)) off the Louisiana coast

(Rabalais (465) and a portion (up to 3,000 km2

)

of the Chesapeake Bay (419).

Trends in the occurrence of hypoxia around the

country are mixed. In some areas, the problems

have been alleviated because discharges of organic

matter and nutrients have been reduced (395,463,

554,703). In other instances, the problems have

grown in severity, either because quantities of nutrients and organic matter have increased or because other changes have reduced the natural system’s capacity to accommodate the discharges

without major ecological impacts (31 5,419,486).

Hypoxia is least extensive along the Pacific coast;

conversely, the Atlantic coast and particularly the

Gulf of Mexico are greatly affected by hypoxia. Extensive hypoxia has been found along the southern coast of Louisiana (figure 15), and it is common in the Chesapeake Bay (figure 16) and the

New York Bight. Its causes are multiple and include natural factors as well as pollutant inputs from

raw sewage, sewage sludge, and other waste materials.

Elevated Concentrations of Other

Pollutants in the Water Column

In addition to organic matter and nutrients,

many other pollutants are discharged into marine

waters in large quantities. Among these are pathogens, metals, and organic chemicals such as chlorinated and aromatic hydrocarbons. Contamination can vary from levels scarcely above the

threshold of detectability to extremely high levels.

Contamination tends to be greatest in the vicinity

of estuaries flanked by heavy urban or industrial

development, or near estuaries that receive pollutants from developed areas upstream. Contamination also tends to be most serious near municipal

and industrial outfalls, and in the vicinity of major dumpsites for sewage sludge or other contaminated materials (figure 17).

Even at a given location and time, contamination may vary considerably according to its vertical position in the water column. Some pollutants

concentrate at the very surface of the water-column
Ch. 5—Impacts of Waste Disposal on Marine Resources . 101

Figure 15.—Extent of Oxygen Depletion in Bottom Waters of the Louisiana Shelf, July 1985

Texas

 oxygen concentrations less than 2 milligrams per liter (a condition known

as hypoxia). Most animal life cannot survive for long in water with such low oxygen concentrations.

SOURCE: N. and Extensive Oxygen in Waters Louisiana (draft manuscript, 1986).

1

Figure 16.—Volume of Water in Chesapeake Bay With Levels of Dissolved Oxygen

Lower Than 0.7 Milligrams Per Liter, 1950.80

I

I

50 52 54 58 60 62

NOTE: Years lacking bars, no data are available,

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; after U.S. Environmental

 Change, PB 84119197 (Philadelphia, PA: 1983).

64 66

Year

Protection Agency,

68 70 72 74 76 78 80

Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program, Chesapeake Bay. A Profile of
102 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Figure 17.—Concentration of Nickel and

Hydrocarbons in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island,

in Relation to Distance From Discharge Points

10.0

—

c

Lower bay Upper bay

(less industrialized) (more industrialized)

Position in Narragansett Bay

As in many other locations in the United States, concentrations of

pollutants in Narragansett Bay tend to be greatest near discharge

points, especially where many such discharges are concentrated in

a highly industrialized or urbanized area. Note that one microgram

equals one-millionth of a gram.

SOURCE: Save The Bay, Inc., Down the Dram, Toxin Po//uf/orI and the Status of

Prefreafnrenf In Rhode /s/and (Providence, Rl: September 1986).

(the “surface microlayer’’5), an ecologically important zone where the presence of pollutants may be

particularly damaging. In the urbanized areas of

Puget Sound, for example, the microlayer has been

found to contain relatively high concentrations of

some pollutants. One type of pollutant—polynuclear

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)—was present at

concentrations which in many cases were acutely

toxic to flatfish eggs in laboratory experiments. Scientists believe the pollutants are responsible in part

for the lower quantities of flatfish eggs and other

organisms found in the microlayer in the developed

areas of the Sound (610).

The presence of pollutants in the water column

is important in three respects, First, marine organisms may be affected by the direct exposure to con5The surface microlayer comprises a very thin layer at the upper

portion of the water column (ranging in thickness from less than onetenth of a millimeter to several centimeters) (see ch, 4),

taminated water. In Puget Sound, for example,

some samples of contaminated bottom water were

found to cause sublethal toxic effects in some organisms (89). Evidence from the Chowan River in

North Carolina suggests that herring have detected

and avoided pulp mill effluent in the river, to the

detriment of some of the river’s fishermen (398).

These direct impacts can also give rise to additional

ecological repercussions.

Second, the pollutants may be transported to

other locations and transferred to sediments or to

the atmosphere, thereby increasing the chances of

exposure to living organisms and further ecological impacts. Third, in addition to impacts on marine organisms, elevated levels of these pollutants

may reach a point where human health is directly

threatened.

Human Pathogens

Pathogens often are discharged from combined

sewage overflows, municipal treatment plants, runoff, raw-sewage outfalls, and boats in marinas and

elsewhere. As a result, high levels of fecal coliform

bacteria in the water frequently create the need for

government authorities around the country to restrict shellfish harvesting. High coliform levels also

result in temporary or permanent beach closures,

particularly along the north Atlantic coast (486).

Beach contamination appears to be less common

in other regions of the country, but complete information on the nationwide extent of beach

closures is not readily available and trends are not

clearly discernible.

In some areas—such as parts of Chesapeake Bay

(205,335)—fecal coliform contamination is not as

serious as it was 10 or 15 years ago. The improvements are usually the result of greater levels of sewage treatment. Conversely, such contamination has

not declined and has actually worsened in other

areas, particularly those experiencing high population growth and rapid development (221). In

coastal Louisiana, for example, municipal sewage

treatment capacity has failed to keep pace with

growth and is unable to adequately treat wastes

(315). Growing numbers of residences with septic

systems and increasing numbers of small boats also

pose problems in many coastal areas. These water

quality threats are expected to increase in some

areas over the next decade.
Ch. 5—impacts of Waste Disposal on Marine Resources . 103

Metals and Organic Chemicals

The contamination of waters with metals and organic chemicals also is common. Concentrations

of some metals and organic chemicals (e. g., DDT)

in the water column have declined in many areas

over the past 15 to 20 years. This is often because

emissions of these pollutants have been reduced

substantially from specific point sources, usually because of curtailed production of the wastes or because of greater waste treatment by industrial and

municipal entities. For example, discharges of most

key metals and organic chemicals into New York

Harbor declined during the 1970s and early 1980s

(1 1).

But there also are areas where improvements

have not occurred and where concentrations of specific pollutants have increased (220,394). This has

been especially true where rapid residential, agricultural, and industrial growth has resulted in

greater emissions from both point and nonpoint

sources. For example, monitoring data from the

lower St. Johns River, Florida, indicate that concentrations of waterborne toxic metals increased

from 1970 through 1980 (164).

Impacts on Sediments

Sediments may be physically, chemically, or biologically altered by waste disposal activities and

runoff. Physical alterations can occur when solids

from pipeline discharges or dumping accumulate

on the bottom. If this material differs substantially

from the original sediment, then the substrate available to bottom-dwelling organisms can change significantly. In southern California, for example, the

accumulation of solids discharged by ocean outfalls,

in combination with other environmental changes

associated with the discharges, has affected the distribution and abundance of benthic organisms over

an area of approximately 170 km2 (52,354).

Contamination of sediments with metals, organic

chemicals (e. g., PCBs, other chlorinated hydrocarbons, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons), and

pathogens poses a particular problem. Contaminated sediments have been found around the country, and they are generally adjacent to industrial

and urban areas where large volumes of contaminated material such as industrial wastes or municipal effluent have been discharged or dumped, or

in estuaries that receive substantial pollutant loads

from upstream, Sediment contamination is most

prevalent and severe in the estuaries and coastal

areas of the Northeastern United States (figures 17

and 18). The character of sediment contamination

varies widely, as do its origins and consequences.

In some cases, the consequences of such contamination are relatively apparent and serious, especially where there are extremely high concentrations of particularly toxic pollutants. Among such

areas are portions of Puget Sound like Commencement Bay and Everett Harbor, the Southern California Bight, and several areas along the northern

Atlantic coast like Buzzards Bay. Some of these

areas have been classified as Superfund sites. Many

other areas exhibit various mixes and concentraFigure 18.—Concentration of Cadmium in

Sediments Along the Northeast Atlantic Coast

During 1984

Merrimack River Mouthe

4- Salem Harbor•

Boston Harbor

PA

East Long Island Sound

eat Long Island Sound

WV

VA

NC Concentration of Cadmium

(parts per million dry weight)

. ,

0 1-3 ppm

@ >3 ppm

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. Ocean Assessments Division, Proaress RePOrf and

Pre//minary Assessment or the Fmdwrgs of tfie 1984 Benth/c

Surveillance Pro/ect (Rockville, MD: 1986).
104 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

tions of pollutants with specific subsequent effects

on the biota.

The restrictions imposed on point sources over

the past 15 to 20 years have reduced discharges of

some metals, organic chemicals, and human pathogens, and helped limit sediment contamination.

Once sediments are contaminated, however, the

duration and consequences of contamination vary.

For example, in time, the pollutants may break

down into less harmful byproducts. Or subsequent

sediment deposition may bury the pollutants and

prevent further exposure to living organisms (unless the sediments are subsequently disturbed).

IMPACTS O N

Pollutants from waste disposal activities and other

sources have affected marine organisms and ecosystems in many different ways. The impacts vary

widely, from acute and lethal to minor, from extremely adverse to relatively beneficial. The geographic scale also varies, ranging from very small

areas to many thousands of square miles (41 7).

Some organisms are especially vulnerable to

waste disposal activities and pollutants. Among

these are bottom-dwelling (benthic) organisms and

those which spend all or part of their lives in coastal

waters or estuaries. Organisms that inhabit polluted

waters during sensitive life-stages are particularly

susceptible to environmental perturbations.

Striped bass, for example, spend their early lifestages in or near estuaries and during that time are

very sensitive to substances (e. g., copper, cadmium,

and aluminum) contained in waste discharges. High

mortality rates during these stages appear to be related to the presence of pollutants and other factors. The precipitous declines in striped bass stocks

in recent years are thought to result in part from

low survival rates during the first 60 days of life

(218,219,625).

Birds and Mammals

Birds and mammals are affected by pollutants

in several ways. For instance, they can be affected

indirectly when pollutants alter their habitat or food

supplies, as is the case with canvasbacks ducks in

Despite some progress, serious problems from

contaminated sediments will continue to persist. Although releases of some pollutants have been curtailed or reduced in some areas, in other instances

a growing variety and quantity of pollutants continue to be released to the water column and make

their way to the sediments. The sediments often

act as a repository for such pollutants, holding them

for days, years, decades, or even centuries, As long

as the pollutants persist in a toxic form, contaminated sediments can continue to affect organisms.

ORGANISMS

the Chesapeake Bay. Pollutants caused drastic declines in the Bay’s seagrasses, including the ducks’

preferred food—wild celery. This has contributed

to a precipitous decline in the Bay’s population of

canvasbacks ducks (624) (figure 19).

The strongest evidence linking pollutants to impacts on birds and mammals occur when organisms ingest a pollutant or a metabolize of a pollutant. The most important pollutants are those—e. g.,

chlorinated hydrocarbons—that persist and tend to

increase in concentration as they are transferred

through the food web (i.e., “biomagnify”) (ch. 4).

Marine birds and mammals often feed at relatively

high trophic levels and thus are particularly susceptible to biomagnification.

Some evidence exists to directly link pollutants

discharged from point sources to elevated concentrations of pollutants (or body -burdensG

) and adverse effects in birds and mammals (65,421 ,698).

Although the full consequences of such contamination in birds and mammals are not always known,

impacts such as reproductive impairments have

been observed. A well-known example involved discharges of DDT into southern California waters,

where elevated concentrations of organochlorine

chemicals and subsequent population declines in

brown pelicans and several other bird species were

linked to DDT-contaminated fish (92,422,423,485),

bThe body-burden of a contaminant is its concentration in an organism’s body.
Ch. 5—impacts of Waste Disposal on Marine Resources ● 105

Figure 19.—Canvasback Duck Population on the

Chesapeake Bay, 1954-85

400

350

300

100

50

0

1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982

Year

SOURCE. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, The

 (Annapolis, MD: 1985).

Photo credit: Stephen C Delaney

Photo credit” Smith, Naval Biomedical Research Laboratory

Reproductive problems in sea lions breeding in southern California have been associated with DDT, large quantities

of which were dumped offshore or discharged from marine pipelines prior to the early 1970s. Pictured here is a female

sea lion attempting to carry her prematurely delivered pup.
106 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

I .

Photo credit: K A King, U S Fish and

a

 

Wildlife Service

Elevated levels of selenium and other metals have been found in waterbirds in Galveston Bay, Texas, sometimes at levels

sufficient to impair reproduction. The birds pictured here are Laughing Gulls.

Reproductive problems in sea lions also have been

associated with organochlorine pollutants ( 126, 187).

Other less dramatic, yet nevertheless significant,

examples exist elsewhere in the country. For example, three waterbird species nesting in Galveston

Bay, Texas, were found to contain elevated levels

of several metals (including selenium), in some

cases at levels associated with impaired reproduction (268).

Reduced emissions of some pollutants have led

to noticeable improvements. In particular, the banning of DDT production and disposal helped reverse the decline in brown pelicans (5), Nevertheless, impacts related to pollutants continue to be

documented in birds and mammals (162).

Acute Lethal Effects on Fin fish

and Shellfish

Given large enough quantities, some pollutants

or combinations of pollutants will quickly kill finfish and shellfish. The mechanisms by which this

occurs can vary from the depletion of oxygen (associated with discharges of nutrients and organic mat-
Ch. 5—impacts of Waste Disposal on Marine Resources ● 107

Photo credit. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries

Fish kills are frequent and severe in the Gulf of Mexico and along the southern Atlantic Coast. They

result from low oxygen levels (hypoxia) that are caused by various factors,

including waste disposal and natural processes.

ter) to the crippling of an organism’s nervous system by certain toxic organic chemicals. These

effects are difficult to measure in the field because

seriously debilitated or dead organisms quickly disappear.

One type of uniquely compelling evidence which

does arise in the field occurs when large numbers

of organisms are killed at once by pollutants. The

occurrence of mass mortalities varies around the

country. They are least frequent along the Pacific

coast, but are more common and serious in the

Northeast. However, the greatest problems exist

in the Gulf of Mexico and along the southern Atlantic coast, where hypoxic conditions cause frequent fish kills (315,359,554).

The magnitude of the kills varies widely. The

largest incidents can involve millions of fish. The

species reported as killed are often commercially

valued species. For example, 109 fish kills were reported in the State of Maryland in 1985; 97 percent of the estimated 4.6 million fish killed were

menhaden, a very abundant and important commercial species. The majority of the kills investigated in Maryland—some involving hundreds of

thousands of fish-occurred in estuarine waters in

the Chesapeake Bay (452).

While the causes of fish kills are not always clearly

understood, evidence suggests that waste disposal

activities in many instances are often significant

contributors. Most kills occur in estuaries and are

caused by low levels of dissolved oxygen (hypoxia).

Municipal sewage treatment plants appear to be

important contributors to the hypoxic conditions

that cause fish kills because they discharge nutrients or oxygen-demanding materials that lead to
108 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

oxygen depletion. Industrial dischargers too are important, although to a lesser extent. In the Chesapeake Bay, discharges contribute large quantities

of nutrients but the precise magnitude of their contribution to the fish kills is unknown (452). The extent and severity of fish kills have been reduced in

many areas over the last 10 to 15 years, but information is not available to accurately judge the reduction (N. Harllee, U.S. EPA, pers. comm.,

March 1986).

High Levels of Pollutants in

Fin fish and Shellfish

Shellfish Contamination

The concentrations of coliform bacteria and natural marine biotoxins in shellfish have been periodically surveyed for many years. This information is now supplemented with information from

‘‘biomonitoring” surveys, which measure the concentrations of toxic chemicals (e. g., metals and organic chemicals) in shellfish.

Since 1966, the National Shellfish Register (ch.

7) has provided an important indicator of the extent to which shellfish in U.S. waters are contaminated with coliform bacteria. In 1985, the register

showed that 58 percent of the ‘‘productive’ shellfish areas in the United States were approved for

harvest, while the rest were subject to some level

of restriction (603) (table 7), Commercial shellfish harvests from roughly one-third (27 to 42

percent) of the productive areas are limited because of actual or potential contamination. Over

80 percent of the harvest-limited productive shellfish areas in the Nation are in the Gulf of Mexico

and along the southern Atlantic coast. (603).

Although the register does not show a clear, overall national trend in shellfish contamination, it does,

in combination with other evidence, indicate that

bacterial contamination is a significant problem nationwide. Trends vary from one body of water to

the next. In some areas, such as in the vicinity of

Savannah, Georgia (9) or San Francisco Bay (69),

shellfish contamination by fecal coliform has fallen

to the point where shellfishing areas have been reopened for the first time in decades.

However, in other regions—particularly in rapidly developing areas such as the coastal portions

of the Gulf of Mexico and southern Atlantic States

—the problem is growing (221 ,356,394). The contributing causes include both point sources (primarily municipal sewage treatment plants and combined sewage overflows, and growing numbers of

recreational boats) and nonpoint sources (including runoff and groundwater seepage from increasingly developed and often unsewered coastal areas).

Shellfish contamination with metals and organic

chemicals also has been surveyed by State and Federal authorities (71,5 12,537,597,62 1). These efforts

have varied widely among programs and from year

to year. In some areas—usually in marine waters

adjacent to or downstream from urban, industrial,

DO NOT EAT

ANY FISH OR CRABS

FROM THESE WATERS

NO COMAN NINGUN PESCADb

NI CANGREJO DE ESTE AGIJA

N,J. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTfZCTlON

Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Contamination of fish and shellfish with toxic pollutants sometimes compels local or State authorities

to issue warnings or impose restrictions on the harvest,

sale, or consumption of contaminated organisms. This

sign has been posted on the tidal Passaic River in New

Jersey, where dioxin contamination is so severe that

the State forbids the sale or consumption of any fish

or crabs from the waterway.
Ch. 5—Impacts of Waste Disposal on Marine Resources ● 109

Table 7.—Classification of Shellfish Growing Waters (thousands of acres)

Productive

Harvest limited areas Percent of total

Approved Conditionally productive waters Nonshellfish/

Region and State for harvest Prohibited approved Restricted approved nonproductive Total

Northern Atlantic:

Maine . . . . . . . . . .

New Hampshire. .

Massachusetts . .

Rhode Island . . . .

Connecticut . . . . .

New York . . . . . . .

New Jersey . . . . .

Pennsylvania . . . .

Delaware . . . . . . . .

Maryland . . . . . . . .

Virginia . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . .

Southern Atlantic:

North Carolina . . .

South Carolina. . .

Georgia . . . . . . . . .

Florida. . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . .

Gulf of Mexico:

Florida. . . . . . . . . .

Alabama . . . . . . . .

Mississippi . . . . . .

Louisiana . . . . . . .

Texas. . . . . . . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . .

West coast:

California . . . . . . .

Oregon . . . . . . . . .

Washington . . . . .

Subtotal . . . . . .

U.S. total. . . . . . . .

936 87 13 10 89 0 1,046

4 6 0 0 40 0 10

255 41 1 5 84 500 802

96 20 12 0 75 0 128

309 78 6 0 79 0 393

828 192 1 0 81 0 1,021

236 118 20 21 60 0 395

0 0 0 0 — 6 6

209 19 3 0 90 44 275

1,369 64 0 0 96 97 1,530

1,295 174 33 0 86 2 1,504

5,537 799 89 36 86 649 7,110

1,755 370 0 0 83 0 2,125

200 72 9 0 71 0 281

61 144 0 0 30 0 205

40 36 37 0 35 748 861

2,056 622 46 0 75 748 3,472

266 260 306 0 32 578 1,410

74 103 195 0 20 2 374

123 96 171 0 32 0 390

0 31 3,462 0 — o 3,493

1,310 358 0 0 79 2 1,670

1,773 848 4,134 0 26 582 7,337

2 263 12 1 1 248 526

14 14 0 12 35 44 84

147 49 45 0 61 1,795 2.036

163 326 57 13 29 2.087 2.646

9,529 2,595 4,326 49 58 4,066 20.565

DEFINITIONS

Productive: Any areas which are not classified “nonshellfish/nonp reductive.’ At one time this category only contained areas which did or could produce shellfish (either

naturally or aquaculturally) in quantities sufficient to justify commercial harvesting. As a result of changes in the classification system, however, there is an effort

underway nationwide to classify all coastal waters within subcategories of this category, consequently, it includes areas which formerly were termed “nonshellflsh/

nonproductive “

Approved for harvest: Area surveyed and found free of hazardous concentrations of pathogenic organisms and/or pollution. Molluscan shellfish may be commercially

harvested at any time

Harvest limited:

a) Conditionally approved: Area surveyed and shellfish are found to meet “approved” area requirements for only part of the year. Molluscan shellfish may be harvested only during periods when pollutant levels are deemed acceptable. The area may be closed for the balance of the year because of high pollutant levels or because

the shellfish control authorities have failed to establish that “approved” area standards are being met during that period; such failure may result from various

factors, including cutbacks in funding of classification activities.

b) Restricted’ Area surveyed and shellfish are found to be contaminated. Shellfish may be harvested but only can be marketed if they first are purified in a deputation

facility or “relayed” to an approved area, In either case, the shellfish may be marketed once they are depurated (cleansed of pollutants).

c) Prohibited; Area surveyed and closed due to hazardous levels of contamination; or area has not been surveyed at all. Molluscan shellfish may not be commercially

harvested at any time.

Nonahellfish/nonproductive: At one time, if areas were determined to be inaccessible, or did not or could not produce shellfish (either naturally or aquaculturally) in

quantities sufficient to justify commercial harvesting, waters were classified into this category. As a result of changes in the classification system, however, acreage

in this category IS now being transferred into subcategories of the “Productive” category. At present the “Nonshellfish/nonp reductive” category accounts for less

than 20 percent of total classified acreage.

SOURCE U S Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Department of Health and Human Servicas, Food and Drug Administration, 1985 A/atlonal Stre//~is~ Register of Classified Estuarirre Waters (Washington, DC: December 1985).
110 • Wastes in Marine Environments

or agricultural areas—elevated levels of metals and

organic chemicals are frequently present in shellfish. These concentrations sometimes are high

enough to adversely affect the shellfish and to

threaten consuming organisms, including humans.

In some cases this has prompted government warnings or restrictions on fishing or consumption (see

ch. 6). The full national extent of contamination

by metals and organic chemicals, and its consequences and trends, are not known.

Finfish Contamination

Only a limited number and variety of fish have

been analyzed for specific pollutants. These data

reveal that the level of measured contamination

varies widely—geographically, among species,

among individuals, and even in different tissues of

a single contaminated specimen. Likewise, the origins of the contamination and its significance to the

health of both humans and marine organisms

varies. Finally, there are wide differences in trends;

some contaminants are increasing in importance

while others are declining (340).

Generally, contamination by metals and organic

chemicals from point sources is most severe near

urban and industrial centers and in estuaries downstream from such areas (figure 20). Contamination

also has been detected at distant points in the open

ocean, but little information is available on the level

of contamination and its consequences (198).

Bottom-dwelling fish that spend a substantial

portion of their lives in close proximity to contaminated sediments are the most seriously exposed and

contaminated, as are other fish in the same food

webs. Sole and other bottom-dwelling fish have

been contaminated with metals and organic chemicals in many areas of the country, including Boston Harbor; Commencement Bay, Washington;

Santa Monica Bay, California; and others. In most

cases, contaminant levels do not pose a clear threat

to the well-being of the fish or to consumers of such

fish (other organisms or humans). The concentrations found thus far usually have been below the

levels set by the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA), which has set some standards to restrict consumption of contaminated fish by humans (1 78,

593).

There are, however, instances around the country where contamination levels have been sufllcient

to move officials to warn the public or restrict or

prohibit the capture or sale of the fish. Many of

the most serious and widely publicized problems

have resulted from point source discharges that contain long-lasting toxic chemicals (e. g., DDT and

PCBS) that accumulate in the tissues of fish (337,

463). For example, the capture and sale of striped

bass in New York has been banned because of PCB

contamination and signs have been posted warning against the eating of fish caught in Santa Monica Bay in southern California (194,340,577).

Other Effects on Fin fish and Shellfish

In addition to acute lethality and elevated bodyburdens of pollutants, individual finfish and shellfish also exhibit behavioral and physiological effects,

and populations of these organisms exhibit changes

in abundance and distribution. These effects may

be negative, positive, or inconsequential from the

human standpoint. 7 Although many effects are difficult to document, a growing body of evidence links

these effects to exposure to pollutants that sometimes are present at very low concentrations or to

environmental changes induced by pollutants (127).

The effects are concentrated in estuaries and coastaI

waters, but detectable effects also have been found

in fish far from shore in the open ocean (198,535).

The effects of pollutants on behavior are diverse.

Some fish and shellfish will, if they can, avoid

hypoxic bottom waters or waters containing various contaminants. Likewise, organisms living on

or in sediments may avoid sediments that have been

altered physically or chemically. Other aspects of

their behavior may also change: for example, they

may eat fewer or different organisms, be less active, or grow more slowly.

Pollution also has been linked with physiological and biochemical changes and diseases in fish.

‘Positive impacts can result from a decline in pollutant inputs, or

even from increases in the volumes of wastes. Pipeline discharges or

dumping of organic matter and nutrients, for example, may increase

productivity of marine waters. Some observers argue that this increased

productivity has in some cases been beneficial (509,526).
Ch. 5—impacts of Waste Disposal on Marine Resources ● 111

Figure 20.—Concentrations of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in the Livers of Fish From Selected Sites

 

Washington

Commencement Bay ●

 

Columbia . .

iver Mouth 0 I

I

Californla

San Pablo

I

Bay 0 ‘.

SO&9: Southampton

Shoal ●

Oakland

Hunters \

Point o

. .

\

West

coast

Santa Monica Bay

San Pedro Canyon

Dana Point O

San Diego Bay

“

NY

. — . .

PA

East Long Island Sound@

—. . West Long Island Sound@

VA

Chesapeake Bay O

0

- Nahku Bay O

 Lutak

Inlet ●

Concentration of PCBs in liver

(parts per million, wet weight)

o 1.0-4,0

● 0.3-1.0

0 0.1-0.3

● <0.1

The PCB concentrations found in the sampled areas generally are lower than those found to biologically affect freshwater or saltwater

organisms. In some situations, however, biological effects have been detected at the PCB concentrations found at these sites. PCBS may cause

reproductive failures, birth defects, tumors, liver disorders, and skin lesions, and they may suppress the immune system.

SOURCE U S Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessments Dlwslon, Progress Ffeport and Pre/lrn/nary

Assessment of the F/nd/ngs ot the 1984 Benthm Surve///ance Pro/ect (Rockville, MD 1986)
112 • Wastes in Marine Environments

Photo credit: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project

Pollutants have been linked with physiological and

biochemical changes and diseases in fish, ranging

from minor effects to conspicuous pathological abnormalities. Pictured here are two Dover Sole from the

coastal waters near Los Angeles; the top fish exhibits

severe “fin erosion,” while the lower one is normal.

These range from subtle and relatively minor responses to physically visible and conspicuous pathological abnormalities. Most noticeable are effects

such as fin erosion (or fin rot), ulcers, shell disease

or erosion, tumors, and skeletal anomalies. Affected

organisms may be less resistant to infection, or suffer impaired growth or reproduction. Some of these

effects, although not immediately lethal, may eventually precipitate an organism’s death.

These kinds of effects have been documented in

polluted marine waters around the country. In Boston Harbor, for example, pollution has been linked

to fin erosion and cancerous lesions in winter flounder, a major commercial and recreational fish (373).

In San Francisco Bay, evidence links pollutants and

pathological problems—including impaired reproduction— in striped bass and starry flounder. In

Puget Sound, various pathological conditions, most

notably liver tumors, found in English sole and

other fish are correlated with exposure to pollutants. Numerous other examples have been documented, as well (for example, see refs. 307,516,

544,621).

In some instances, especially in small areas or

for limited periods of time, evidence links the disposal of wastes to changes in the abundance, distribution, or diversity of some fish and shellfish.

These changes most frequently result from

pollution-induced changes in various closely interrelated ecological parameters such as food supplies,

water quality, and habitat. For example, pulp mill

effluents discharged into the Fenholloway River estuary, located along Florida’s Gulf coast, have been

significant contributors to the decline in the extent

and productivity of the area’s seagrasses and some

types of algae. Because those photosynthetic organisms are of central importance in the coastal ecosystem, their decline has had major repercussions

on other populations and on community structure

(307).

On longer time-scales and over larger areas, however, evidence is rarely sufficient to conclusively

establish cause-and-effect relationships between

changes in fish populations and waste disposal activities, Nor is evidence usually adequate to detect

trends. Despite this, considerable circumstantial

evidence indicates that pollutants from waste

disposal activities have contributed to declines

of major fish populations in the United States

(529,610,640,691). For example, officials in eight

Southeastern States along both the Gulf and Atlantic coasts believe that widespread declines of

anadromous species in those States have been

caused in part by pollutant discharges (492).

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

Waste disposal activities have had substantial impacts on submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). This

is particularly important in view of the significance

of SAV in marine ecosystems; it provides vital shelter and food sources and performs other important

ecological functions such as stabilizing sediments.

During the past century, the general trend has been

toward decreases in the extent of SAV, although

some increases have occurred during the last 10 or

15 years. A major cause for the declines has been

increased turbidity resulting from discharges of suspended solids and from growing populations of

plankton fostered by releases of nutrients.

Examples of vegetation loss exist around the

country (17). In Florida, for example, seagrass

meadows have suffered significant losses; indeed,

seagrasses in some areas have been virtually wiped

out since 1940 and the outlook for remaining

seagrass beds in Florida is bleak (221,309). Perhaps

the best known example in the United States is the
Ch. 5—impacts of Waste Disposal on Marine Resources • 113

Chesapeake Bay, where the SAV has declined precipitously over the last 15 to 20 years (427,640).

Benthic Organisms

Changes in sediment or water quality induced

by waste disposal often affect the benthic plants and

animals that live on or near the bottom (including

many fish, shellfish, and plants). Benthic communities have been affected by waste disposal in every

region of the country. The impacts are most severe

in and near estuaries that receive high inputs of pollutants from rivers, near developed coastal areas,

and near dredged material disposal areas—particularly in the estuaries and coastal areas of the

Northeast.

Problems related to waste disposal arise from

sediment contamination, hypoxic bottom waters,

increased turbidity, and physical changes in the

sediment resulting from the settling of solids (e. g.,

from dredged material), The effects on benthic

organisms vary from relatively rapid death to subtle effects on species diversity and numbers; the effects range from long term and permanent to short

term and transitory. For example, a study of the

disposal of fine-grained dredged material at a site

in the Chesapeake Bay found that while many organisms were buried and consequently killed, the

area apparently had recovered completely within

15 months (Harrison, 1976, cited in ref. 701). Conversely, far more serious impacts have been observed in the New York Bight. Among the effects

caused at least in part by waste disposal have been

mass mortalities of benthic organisms, large-scale

and long-term contamination, diseases and abnormalities, changes in abundance and distribution of

particular species, and changes in community structure (21 2,343,546,621).

As is the case with other organisms, trends pertaining to impacts of waste disposal on benthic communities vary from place to place. Some areas have

improved since the early 1970s. For example, one

study of the coastal shelf of Pales Verdes, California, between 1971 and 1981 showed that reduced

emissions of pollutants (e. g., suspended solids,

DDT, and PCBs) resulted in a reduction in the extent of observed benthic impacts (539). On the other

hand, continued deterioration is being observed in

other waters; for example, this is the case in the

areas where shellfish contamination is increasingly

prevalent.

GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATIONS IN IMPACTS

The extent of impacts on marine resources that

are caused by waste disposal activities and nonpoint

sources varies considerably among different waterbodies. Limited space precludes a detailed discussion of site-specific impacts, but generalizations can

be made about the physical characteristics, degree

of development, and types and extent of impacts

that are exhibited in different regions of the country (figure 21).

Northern Pacific Coast

The Northern Pacific region includes the marine

resources off the coasts of Alaska, Washington, and

Oregon. This region contains more coastline and

more stretches of relatively enclosed bodies of water

(e. g., estuaries, bays, and sounds) than any other

region, largely because of the size and shape of

Alaska’s coast. Much of the region, with some notable exceptions, is relatively free of conspicuous and

serious marine impacts induced by waste disposal

activities.

The region does have some major industrial development, including the forest products, seafood

processing, petroleum refining, and chemical industries. The municipal and industrial effluent discharged into the region’s coastal waters originates

primarily from two areas: coastal areas around

Puget Sound and inland areas along the rivers, particularly the Columbia River. The region’s most

severe impacts have occurred in Puget Sound.

The impacts of pollutants have been manifold

in Puget Sound (313,463,483). The most severe

problems occur in urban embayments. Many commercial shellfish beds have been closed because of

fecal coliform contamination. In Commencement

Bay, levels of toxic pollutants are high enough to
114 • Wastes in Marine Environments

Figure 21 .—The Five Coastal Regions of the United States Used in This Report

Northern

Pacific Coast

California

and

Hawaii

. . . Northern

AtIantic

.7 Southern

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987. I

make it one of the most contaminated areas in the

country and a‘ Superfund’ site. Diseases and abnormalities, most notably liver tumors, have been

detected in bottom-dwelling fish. These pathological conditions and other impacts have been linked

with exposure to chemicals found in sediments, the

water column, and food particles (89,326,351 ,376).

The health of humans who consume large amounts

of contaminated fish also maybe endangered (293).

Outside of Puget Sound, waste disposal activities and pollutant inputs generally tend to be less

intense and appear to cause less severe problems.

Impacts are generally localized and poorly documented (425). They include contamination of shellfish with fecal coliform bacteria, decreased levels

of oxygen near outfalls from mills and seafood processing plants, and effects from dumping of dredged

material offshore of the Columbia River estuary.

California and Hawaii

The region that includes California and Hawaii

differs from other regions in that relatively more

of its coast are open, rather than enclosed in areas

such as bays. In addition, its continental shelf is

relatively narrow.

Relatively few impacts have been documented

in Hawaii. Some problems, however, have been

associated with the discharge of nutrients. These

problems were alleviated during the 1970s and early

1980s as sewage treatment plants were built and

upgraded, and as outfalls were extended into

deeper, open waters. In Kaneohe Bay, for example, sewage discharges prior to the late 1970s had

seriously degraded marine communities. In the late

1970s, the discharges were diverted to a deep-ocean

outfall and conditions in the Bay improved con-
Ch. 5—Impacts of Waste Disposal on Marine Resources ● 115

siderably, with notable reductions in turbidity and

a marked recovery in coral communities. In areas

such as Pearl Harbor and Mamala Bay, however,

treated sewage from dense urban populations continues to result in impacts (228,330,52 1).

Most of the urban and industrial development,

and the associated waste discharges, are in California, most notably in the San Francisco Bay and

along the coast of southern California. Municipal

wastes from California’s large and growing population are voluminous and contribute substantial

quantities of many different pollutants. Industrial

effluents, dominated in the coastal regions by the

petroleum refining, metal finishing, and inorganic

chemicals industries, also are sizable. Runoff from

cities and from the State’s extensive agricultural

areas is also a major contributor of pollutants.

The State contains waters of widely varying quality, ranging from relatively pristine to some of the

most polluted in North America (69,71 ,351). In

particular, two areas are heavily affected by waste

disposal activities—the San Francisco Bay and the

southern California coast. Pollutant impacts also

frequently occur in other localized areas.

San Francisco Bay is a large and enclosed estuary. Much of it is ringed by intense urban development, including San Francisco, Oakland, and

San Jose, and industry, including major petroleum

refineries. The Bay receives pollutants from these

municipal and industrial sources and from the rivers

that drain California’s Central Valley. These pollutants, along with other factors, have significantly

altered the Bay’s ecosystem (395).

Some impacts have been markedly reduced since

the early 1960s, largely because of the construction

of waste treatment facilities. Serious problems persist, however, especially in shallow and poorly

flushed portions of the Bay, because substantial

volumes of pollutants continue to be discharged

directly and indirectly into the Bay. Eutrophication and low concentrations of dissolved oxygen are

localized problems. Large numbers of the organisms are exposed to elevated concentrations of various pollutants (e. g., pathogens, metals, PCBs, and

DDT), and impacts to benthic organisms, fish, and

birds continue to be documented (71 ,90,321,421,

493,529,691).

The marine waters of southern California support a wealth of marine resources that are of considerable value, including extensive commercial and

recreational fisheries, numerous beaches, refuges,

and sanctuaries. The great beds of giant kelp present along the open coast provide habitat for many

valuable fish and shellfish and support a substantial kelp harvesting industry. Marine mammals and

birds also are present and many breed in the area

(24).

Juxtaposed to the waters and their resources is

one of the continents great urban concentrations.

These urban areas discharge large volumes of

wastes (mostly municipal) to marine waters, which

exhibit elevated concentrations of many pollutants.

Fecal coliform bacteria reach high concentrations

near man y ocean outfalls, but serious problems are

confined primarily to an area near the Mexican border where high concentrations originating from

Mexico have compelled the closure of U.S. beaches

and restrictions on shellfishing (356).8 Elevated concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons and metals have been detected in various organisms (1 94,

423,499).

Shellfish, finfish, birds, mammals, and aquatic

vegetation have all been affected ( 17,126,187 ,485).

Fish, for instance, suffer liver abnormalities, fin erosion disease, and reproductive problems linked to

pollutants (18,52,92, 119,350,539). Kelp beds have

undergone dramatic changes during the last 50

years (figure 22). In 1984, 108 km2 of the benthic

community around three of the area’s major outfills was changed or degraded. Although a substantial area, this is an improvement over the 163 km2

that were changed or degraded in 1977 (53).

One issue of particular importance is the human

consumption of fish and shellfish contaminated with

toxic pollutants. Although DDT concentrations in

fish and shellfish have fallen since discharges of

DDT were curtailed in the early 1970s (340), residues are still high in some areas and some organ-

‘The problem of bacterial contain inat ion In U S wa(cr~ C1OW to

the border should bc great]} allm.iated by a new sewa~e treat m(n[

plant in Tijuana, Llexico, which began operating in January 1987

Furthermore, under an international agreement, Tijuana will di~crt

its scwraSc to treatment plants in San DieSo when pollutants in d ischargcs from the “1’i.juana plant would otherwise be mo~’ed b) marine

[ u rrents into L’. S ~% aters.
176 • Wastes in Marine Environments

Figure 22.–Reiationship Between Size of Kelp

Beds and Quantity of Solids From Municipal

Discharges at a Southern California Site

2,000 500

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Year

These kelp beds are located near Pales Verdes, California; discharges are from the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant, operated

by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.

SOURCE” After J C. Melstrell and DE. Montagne, “Waste Disposal In Southern

Caltfornla and Its Effects on the Rocky Subtidal Habitat, ” The E/-

/ects of Waste Dsposa/ on Kc/p Cornrnunltles, W Bascom (cd.) (La

Jolla, CA Unlverslty of California Institute of Marine Resources,

1983)

isms. High concentrations of DDT and its metabolizes, as well as PCBs, have been found in fish

caught by southern California fishermen and sold

in the area’s fish markets; in shellfish sampled as

part of California’s Mussel Watch monitoring program (see ch. 7); and in the blood of recreational

fishermen (577).

Because of apprehension over human exposure

to these pollutants, especially DDT and its metabolizes, commercial fishing has been prohibited

around some outfalls. The State has established

guidelines to reduce ingestion of contaminated fish

and posted signs warning against consumption of

fish caught in Santa Monica Bay.

Gulf of Mexico

The Gulf of Mexico, with its extremely productive habitats and wealth of sea life, is one of the

most important marine environments in the United

States (23). It also receives large amounts of pollutants. By far the largest volume of many pollutants is carried to the Gulf by the region’s rivers,

especially the Mississippi River. Many pollutants

are generated from both point and nonpoint sources

in areas beyond the immediate coastal area. The

Mississippi River, for example, carries wastes

from the heavily developed Baton Rouge and New

Orleans area, and from urban and rural areas deep

in the Nation’s interior (607).

Although small relative to the quantities of riverborne pollutants, considerable waste is discharged

from municipal and industrial sources along the

coast. Large amounts of dredged material also are

dumped in the region’s marine waters. The major

industrial discharges along the coast are associated

with refineries and the petrochemical industry,

especially in Louisiana and Texas. The forest products and seafood processing industries are major

contributors all along the Gulf coast. Despite the

overall dominance of riverborne pollutants, in

many areas these local sources substantially affect

the quality of the marine environment.

Wastes from permitted discharges have been

linked to a variety of ecological impacts (2,220,221,

315,359,554). The first problem is the depression

of dissolved oxygen levels and accelerated eutrophication in areas close to shore (156,181 ,454,465,466,

703). Extensive hypoxia also has been documented

in the waters further offshore, south of Louisiana,

but the degree to which waste disposal contributes

to the phenomenon has not been ascertained.

The second major problem is the contamination

of waters with human fecal coliform. This happens

in virtually every coastal State in the Gulf and appears to result primarily from nonpoint sources

(e. g., contaminants from septic tanks are washed

into estuaries and coastal waters by runoff). However, point sources, including municipal sewage

plants, also contribute to the problem in some areas.

Other problems, often less evident, result from

releases of metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and

other chemicals. The impacts usually are localized,

but they can be quite serious in highly developed

areas and in waters where circulation is relatively

poor—for example, in the Mississippi Sound (figure 23) and in Galveston Bay. Other affected areas

occur throughout the Gulf (185,268,309,333,428).

Marine resources have been harmed by these

types of pollutant discharges. Many of the region’s

shellfish beds are contaminated with fecal coliform.

Vital beds of seagrasses are declining throughout

the region (309). Fish and shellfish populations have
Ch. 5—impacts of Waste Disposal on Marine Resources . 117

Figure 23.—Environmental Stress in the Pascagoula Area of the Mississippi Sound

Environmental Stress Index

o 0 0

Low Moderate Moderately high

3,000 yds

‘ -

b

\ \ \ \

The Environmental Stress Index indicates the ecological risks associated with sediment contamination; a high value

represents a higher risk of serious environmental stress. The index is a mathematical product of numerical ratings in four

categories:

1. toxicity of sediments to selected organisms under laboratory conditions;

2. how readily sediment settles to the bottom after disturbance;

3. likelihood of sediment disturbance (e.g., from boat traffic or dredging); and

4. vulnerability of organisms to toxic substances (including factors such as ecological importance of indigenous species,

life stages present, species diversity, mobility, and others).

SOURCE Adapted from T F and S. Transport (Ocean Springs, MS: Sea Grant Consortium, 1985)
118 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

been declining in some areas (476,492), and birds

have been found with elevated levels of contaminants—sometimes at levels that may impair reproduction (268).

Since the late 1960s and early 1970s, some locations along the Gulf have significantly reduced the

release of nutrients and oxygen-demanding substances from municipal and industrial discharges.

Reflecting this change, problems associated with

low dissolved oxygen concentrations—e. g., major

fish kills—have been alleviated in some instances.

Likewise, point source discharges of fecal coliform

and some metals and organic chemicals have been

reduced in some areas (137,364).

These and other pollutants nevertheless still pose

severe and sometimes worsening problems in parts

of the region, largely because of rapid population

growth. Some observers are concerned that these

problems may become still more serious as rapid

urban and industrial development proceeds (137,

308). There is also concern that dredging and impacts associated with disposal of dredged material

may increase dramatically as several deep-water

ports are created (314).

Southern Atlantic Coast

The Southern Atlantic region bordering the

Southeastern U.S. coast has an irregular shoreline,

with many bays, drowned river valleys, g wetlands,

and islands (25). Municipal waste discharges are

concentrated along the relatively small portion of

the coast that is densely populated, largely in

Florida. Industrial effluent in the region is dominated by the forest products industry, which is scattered along the coast. Nonpoint sources are important and are sometimes the predominant sources

of pollution. They contribute significant amounts

of pollutants directly to marine waters and indirectly

through rivers and streams.

Waste discharges have been linked to various impacts in the region (182,220,221 ,276,399), including increased levels of nutrients and fecal coliform

and reduced concentrations of dissolved oxygen (13,

534,703). The resultant hypoxic and eutrophic con-

‘These are talleys that cut through coastal lands when the shore -

Iine extended further out than it does today. These river ~’alleys ha~e

since been ‘ ‘drowned’ by higher marine waters.

ditions have been associated with fish kills, depressed populations of benthic organisms, fish

diseases, and the decline of commercial and recreational fisheries, including those based on anadromous fish (42,397,398,552).

Although some localized reductions in releases

of fecal coliform in some instances have occurred

(9), in general growing amounts of fecal coliform

bacteria are being released to many of the region’s

coastal waters. Poor sewage treatment and increasingly serious contamination from a variety of nonpoint sources, aggravated by extremely rapid development, contribute to the problem. As a result,

more restrictions on shellfishing have been instituted. In North Carolina, between 1980 and 1985,

‘‘approved’ shellfishing areas declined by 1 percent, while the ‘ ‘prohibited’ acreage increased by

4 percent (603).

In selected areas, problems associated with point

source releases of nutrients and fecal coliform have

been alleviated over the past 15 years as a result

of Federal and State pollution control legislation.

These gains have been offset to varying degrees

elsewhere, however, by development that has resulted in increasing releases of these same pollutants from both point and nonpoint sources ( 13,552).

Elevated concentrations of metals and organic

chemicals occur in the waters and sediments of some

coastal areas, in particular those with substantial

urban or industrial development. Both point and

nonpoint sources contribute to the contamination.

Where documentation exists, trends in emissions

and impacts are mixed. Some areas show considerable reductions in the concentrations of metals

and synthetic organic chemicals, while elsewhere

increases are evident.

Pollutants may be linked to several important

changes in fish populations, particularly anadromous fish populations in many of the region’s river

systems (492). In North Carolina over the last decade, for example, pollutants from point sources may

be partly responsible for the decline of commercial

fisheries relying on striped bass and herring. Generally, however, it is difficult to link specific pollutants and declines in fish populations. The relatively high incidence of ‘ ‘ulcerative mycosis’ in

some fish, a disease characterized by skin ulcers,

may be linked to pollutants but a clear explana-
Ch. 5—impacts of Waste Disposal on Marine Resources ● 119

tion for the disorder has yet to be found (36,

135,396).

Northern Atlantic Coast

The Northern Atlantic coast, running from the

North Carolina/Virginia border to Canada, contains many major bays, estuaries, and shallow

coastal areas, and is graced with remarkably rich

marine resources. It also is the location of extensive agricultural, urban, and industrial development which has occurred for several centuries. Consequently, marine ecosystems in many parts of the

region are polluted and degraded, sometimes severely (62 1).

The problems in these estuaries and coastal

waters (e. g., Chesapeake Bay, New York Bight,

Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, Boston

Harbor, and Buzzard’s Bay) have been extensively

studied (7,343 ,373,5 12,640,688). Impacts in the

Chesapeake Bay, New York Bight, and Deepwater

Disposal Sites are described in chapter 1, and details of impacts in other waterbodies are available

from the U.S. Congress (588). This section describes the nature and extent of impacts in these

waters in more general terms.

Municipal and industrial discharges, plus

dumped sewage sludge and dredged material, are

important sources of pollutants in this region; their

quantity and composition vary from place to place.

Pollutants from these waste disposal activities have

been associated with various impacts. Some improvements have occurred since the late 1960s and

early 1970s, but deterioration has occurred in other

cases (108,335,336,347,394,480,486,597 ,609,681).

Eutrophication and hypoxia appear to be the

most pervasive and serious consequences of pollution in the region. These problems occur in many

estuaries and bays, and over wide, shallow areas

of the continental shelf that are often quite distant

from the original sources of the nutrients and organic material. Such impacts are most severe south

of Connecticut. Natural changes in water quality

along with inputs of nutrients and organic material from numerous sources (e. g., municipal and

industrial effluents, runoff, raw sewage, dredged

material, combined sewer overflows) all contribute

to the problems (302,347,419,694).

Contaminated water and sediments are common

throughout the region, Bacterial contamination of

the water, particularly from raw sewage in combined sewer overflows, has sometimes closed

beaches, in most cases temporarily but sometimes

permanently (77, 199,302). Sediments in many

areas contain elevated concentrations of pathogens,

metals, and organic chemicals (5 12). Among the

most seriously contaminated sediments are those

in the James River estuary, the Patapsco River

around Baltimore, the Hudson River estuary, Raritan Bay and the New York Bight, New Bedford

Harbor, and Boston Harbor (57,239,640,687).

Many impacts on marine organisms have been

linked, with varying degrees of certainty, to waste

discharges. These include major kills of fish and

benthic organisms (452), increased incidence of disease and abnormalities, declines in major fisheries,

and changes in community structure (407,495,7 11,

7 13). For example, in Boston Harbor, fin erosion

and cancerous lesions have been found in winter

flounder, a major commercial and recreational

species.

Commercial harvesting is limited in 14 percent

of productive shellfish areas, mostly because the

shellfish contain high concentrations of bacteria.

Over one-half of the shellfish beds in Boston Harbor are closed, at an estimated annual loss of $4

million. The size of the areas in the region in which

harvesting is limited has been slowly increasing over

the past 5 years, although there are localized exceptions to the trend (277,603).

In addition to being contaminated with pathogens, many fish and shellfish also contain elevated

concentrations of other pollutants, especially metals and hydrocarbons. As with pathogens, these

concentrations have sometimes been high enough

to prompt officials to restrict fishing or harvesting.

Some of the most extensive and serious instances

of contamination are associated with large releases

of PCBs by industrial manufacturers into the Hudson River between 1950 and 1976 and into New

Bedford Harbor (in Buzzard’s Bay, Massachusetts)

from 1947 to 1977 (271 ,339). This has caused widespread contamination of some fish and shellfish, and

diseases and abnormalities in some organisms (76,

475). Fishing and the sale of contaminated organisms is restricted over wide areas. For instance, in
120 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

New Bedford Harbor, a total of 18,000 acres were

closed to lobstering.

Impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)

and birds also have been severe in some cases. The

most important impact to aquatic vegetation in the

region apparently results from the large-scale introduction of nutrients in coastal estuaries. This has

had major repercussions on aquatic organisms of

all kinds, including valuable fish and waterfowl

(427)640). Some birds have exhibited elevated concentrations of pollutants as a result of ingesting contaminated organisms (162). In some cases these

high concentrations led to reproductive failures and

population declines—most notably, in the fisheating osprey that once was common throughout

the region (698). Since restrictions on the production and use of DDT were imposed in the early

1970s, many parts of the region have witnessed a

dramatic increase in osprey populations.
--

 WARNIN G ATTENTION 

.

-0 Cfdt: J. JOOOY, L.A. b#W?k/y

Chapter 6

Impacts of Waste Pollutants

on Human Health
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................123

Limitations of Human Health Effects Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............124

Toxic Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........124

General Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......124

Pathways to Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............125

Potential and Actual Human Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........125

Toxic Organic Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............127

General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127

Pathways to Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . ........129

Potential and Actual Human Health Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...129

Classes of Organic Chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................131

Human Pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................133

General Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...133

Pathways to Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........135

Potential and Actual Human Health Impacts . . . . . . . . ......................135

Shortcomings of Current Microbiological Standards . .......................138

The Effect of Treatment on Pathogenic Microorganisms . ...................139

Land Application of Sewage Sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......139

Deputation of Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................139

Tables

Table No. Page

8.

9.

10,

Properties and Effects of Metals of Primary Concern

in the Marine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126

Properties and Effects of Major Classes of Organic Chemicals in Wastes

Disposed of in Marine Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............,130

FDA’s Criteria for Initiating Enforcement Actions Against Seafood . . . . . . . . ..136

Figure No.

24.

25.

Box

L.

M.

N.

Ability To

Categories

New York

Figures

Page

Conduct Health-Hazard Assessment of Substances in Seven

of Chemicals in Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128

Bay-Newark Bay Fishing Sites and Advisory Areas . .............132

Boxes

Page

Public Health Advisories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....131

Classes of Human Pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..134

Exposure to Toxic Chemicals and Pathogens Through Seafood . ............136
Chapter 6

Impacts of Waste Pollutants on Human Health

INTRODUCTIO N

Many substances found in wastes disposed of in

marine environments have the potential to produce

a variety of acute and chronic human health effects.

The likelihood of human exposure to these pollutants depends on their physical, chemical, and biological form; concentration; and persistence or survival. The character of the disposal environment,

method of disposal, and nature of environmental

pathways leading to human exposure are also important variables.

There are two major contaminant pathways to

humans. Contaminants can pass direcdy from contaminated media (water or air) to humans, typically by uptake through the skin or lungs, or

through ingestion (e. g., swallowing water). Alternately, they can reach humans indirectly by ingestion of plants or animals that have taken up these

substances directly or indirectly from contaminated

environments. The relative significance of these two

kinds of pathways varies for different pollutants.

Indirect exposure from water can be a significant route of exposure to toxic organic chemicals

and metals because many of these substances have

a capacity to persist in the environment, to concentrate in particular parts of the environment, and

to bioaccumulate in certain plants and animals. Direct human exposure to toxic organic chemicals and

metals from water is generally less significant because these substances are typically present in water

at relatively low concentrations. 2 For pathogens,

1.il U( h of the information prcst>n[cd in this chapter is dcrl~”cd f’rorn

cx(cnsi~c anal}sc”s ( onta]nc(] In tm (1 ( c)ntrac t reports prc’pared for 0’I’A

( 205, 409).

~W’hcrr hlqh c-on( ent rations are present, d It-e{ t exposure of humans

to SU( h suhstan( c’s In water ( .tn rausc si~nili( ant impact~. Su( h c’x -

posurcs might be cxpcrlcn( cd, for example. b}. bathers swimming at

a bca( h in the immcdia[c \i( init~ of an inrfust rial d]schargc or b} dilrrs

working In h i,qhl} polluted maters.

both direct and indirect exposure can be significant

because only small numbers of microorganisms are

required to induce disease, and because microorganisms can reproduce in the environment or in

infected animals.

Another general distinction can be made between

different types of pollutants based on the extent to

which they persist or are degraded in the environment. “Conservative” and ‘‘persistent’ pollutants

(e.g., toxic metals, PCBs) are broken down slowly

or not at all, while ‘‘nonconservative’ and ‘‘labile’

pollutants (e. g., biodegradable or volatile organic

chemicals) are rapidly rendered harmless or are removed from the system by environmental processes. Most of the problem substances in marine

environments are in the former categories: their

environmental persistence enhances their potential

to reach and affect humans. Microbial contaminants of both types exist as well; some microbes

are killed or inactivated by environmental processes, while others can actually proliferate.

Human health impacts can be associated with

three major categories of pollutants that are present

in wastes disposed of in marine environments, and

that have the potential to reach and cause adverse

impacts in humans. These categories are:

1.

2.

3.

toxic metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, and

mercury;

synthetic organic chemicals: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated

hydrocarbons, and “specialized” chemicals

(polychlorinated biphynyls (PCBS), pesticides,

dioxins); and

human pathogens: viruses, bacteria, fungi,

and parasites.

123

63-983 - 87 - 5 : (QL 3
124 • Wastes in Marine Environments

LIMITATIONS OF HUMAN

Major impediments exist that limit a thorough

evaluation of the human health impacts caused by

waste-borne pollutants. Information is lacking on

most of the individual substances detected in wastes

and there is often uncertainty or controversy surrounding those for which there are data. In addition, it is difficult to accurately predict the behavior

of a substance based only on data for chemically

similar substances. An accurate assessment is also

hindered by the complexity of most wastes, which

are typically contaminated by a mixture of potentially harmful substances. Existing data typically

allow at most an assessment of acute, short-term

impacts associated with a particular waste; it is

rarely possible to adequately assess chronic, longterm effects.

Moreover, studies of the environmental or ecological impacts of individual chemicals introduced

into the environment through waste disposal rarely

measure or sufficiently consider the potential human health effects. In fact, the human health risks

associated with exposures to the vast majority—

90 percent or more—of all chemicals found in different wastes are unknown (386). Knowledge about

TOXIC

General Characteristics

Metals are chemical elements and as such cannot be destroyed or broken down through treatment

or environmental degradation. However, a number of environmental processes—both chemical and

biological-can alter the mobility and bioavailability of metals,

In general, toxic metals (including arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead,

mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc)

are of potential concern whether they are found in

wastes that will be disposed of on land or in the

ocean. With respect to human health impacts arising from disposal of wastes in the marine environment, four metals are of primary concern: arsenic,

cadmium, lead, and mercury. These are particularly important because of their known toxicity to

humans and their presence in relatively high conHEALTH EFFECTS DATA

the human health effects of environmental pollutants generally comes from studies of only a few toxic

compounds, such as mercury, cadmium, and PCBs

(409); and these effects are often recognized only

after large-scale occupational exposure, industrial

accidents, or massive discharges of waste into the

environment.

The accumulated knowledge in the field of toxicology is based primarily on experimental work

with laboratory mammals. Thus, estimating human health risks from the disposal of chemical compounds in marine environments is generally based

on extrapolating information on the toxicity of specific chemicals to laboratory mammals to the concentrations observed in marine organisms or humans. The estimates must also attempt to account

for the persistence of such substances in the environment and their tendency to bioaccumulate or

to biomagnify in marine organisms that might be

consumed by humans. Public health information

on human pathogens is largely derived from investigations of past incidents and, more rarely, on prospective epidemiological or clinical efforts.

METALS

centrations in wastes disposed of in estuaries and

coastal waters. Metals of secondary concern include

chromium, copper, and selenium. Other toxic metals are present in much lower concentrations both

in wastes and in regions of the marine environment

that are likely to lead to human exposure (409).

In marine environments, most dissolved metals

are rapidly adsorbed and remain bound to particulate material that eventually settles out of the water

column and is incorporated into sediments. However, some metals (e. g., cadmium, copper, nickel,

and zinc) can be slowly—over a period of months

or years—released from the sediment’s oxidized

surface layer and sublayers (124). In addition, metals can be released through other chemical and biological changes or processes, for example, by

changes in salinity that commonly occur in estuarine waters. The action of microorganisms can also

mobilize metals: for example, bacteria in sediments
Ch. 6–Impacts of Waste Pollutants on Human Health • 125

can convert slightly toxic inorganic mercury to the

highly toxic and volatile methyl mercury (26). Finally, the burrowing of animals into sediments (bioturbation) and physical processes such as storms

can release metals from sediments through oxidation and direct physical resuspension (709).

Pathways to Humans

Indirect pathways to humans vary with the particular environment and method used for disposal.

In marine environments, consumption of contaminated seafood is generally the major route

of human exposure to metals. Direct human exposure to metals is usually less important because

they generally attain very low concentrations in the

water column (409). However direct exposure resulting from volatization of certain metals (e. g.,

mercury, arsenic, and lead) due to their methylation by microorganisms, or direct exposure to marine waters with high concentrations of metals,

would be a concern.

Bioaccumulation and biomagnification3 are

important processes that largely determine the potential for indirect human exposure to toxic metals and organic chemicals that result from marine

waste disposal. Marine organisms, especially benthic organisms, can bioaccumulate metals by filtering water during feeding or swimming, ingesting

particulate matter onto which such substances are

adsorbed, or ingesting other contaminated organisms (46,232 ,260). Bioaccumulation generally increases as the degree of water or sediment contamination increases, but it varies considerably among

metals, species of marine organisms, and types of

sediment.

Biomagnification of a metal can result in the stepwise increase in an organism tissue concentration

of several orders of magnitude or more, and hence

represents a major potential pathway for human

exposure. According to available evidence, most

toxic metals do not biomagnify into higher trophic

levels of the marine food chain (33,260). However,

‘ 1 n (h IS t CJrrtcxt, [hc tt’rrrl I)I(JJ{ { u m u]at ion rcf’ers to the process

whrrt,)>} d ~u b>tanc c rn tcr~ an aquiit i{ f}r~an i jrn, ci rhcr d i rrrtll’ fmm

the w atrr- thmuqh qIlls {Jr cp]thc] Id t]jsuc, or- lndirrc[ly through t (Jrlsurn pt ion of other ory,in]>rns Bl[)rrl,irqrifi( ation rt’fkrs to the resulr.int

pr(x c’~f M }It.r[t)y I IS>U{ ( 1):1( (,rrl r<i[ il)rls of ljI(ki( ( umulatml Sut)st<ln( ~,~

I rr( rt.,iw, as r h( rrl.ttcrr,t] I \ paiwy] u p t hrou qh m (Irx. than (Int ( r[)ph i(

l(i (1 ]n I}](> t(xxl ( h.i]n (260)

methyl mercury, and perhaps selenium4 and zinc,

are important exceptions to this rule.

Of the metals of primary concern, cadmium and

mercury have significant potential for transport to

humans through consumption of contaminated seafood (table 8). Arsenic is largely converted to nontoxic forms by marine organisms (129), and neither arsenic nor lead have been shown to accumulate significantly in seafood (409).

Even when bioaccumulation is not a factor, significant quantities of metals can concentrate in the

gut or gills of marine organisms without actual absorption into the tissues. This is especially true for

shellfish that filter large quantities of seawater and

ingest solid matter during feeding (e. g., oysters,

clams, mussels). Because people generally eat these

organisms in their entirety, toxic substances can

be passed to humans even in the absence of any

actual bioaccumulation. This mechanism probably

accounts for most instances of shellfish contamination involving metals that do not bioaccumulate. s

Potential and Actual Human

Health Impacts

Toxic metals are capable of inducing a variety

of human health effects—lethal and sublethal, acute

and chronic. Some of the known properties and effects of exposure to the metals of primary concern

in marine environments are summarized in table 8.

Acute environmental effects attributable to toxic

metals may occur if concentrations are sufficiently

high. Although documentation of human poisoning from consuming seafood contaminated with

toxic metals is uncommon, there have been several well-known, catastrophic events. In Minamata,

Japan, for example, over 100 people died and 700

others suffered severe, permanent neurological

damage after consuming shellfish contaminated by

industrial discharges of methyl mercury into Minamata Bay (128). A similar, though less severe, event

occurred in Niigata, Japan in 1965 (550).
126 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Table 8.—Properties and Effects of Metals of Primary Concern in Marine Environments

Arsenic Cadmium Lead Mercury

Bioaccumutation

Biomagnification

Low except in some fish

species

Moderate Low or none Significant (methylated

form)

Significant (methylated

form)

Metallic form: relatively

insoluble

Readily methylated by

sediment bacteria to

become more soluble,

bioavailable,

persistent, and highly

toxic

Low or none Low or none Low or none

Metallic form: relatively

soluble

Not subject to

biomethylation

Less bioavailable in marine

than in fresh water

Long biological residence

time

Synergistic effects with

lead

Sediments

Generally insoluble

Adsorption rate agedependent, 4 to 5 times

higher in children than

adults

Synergistic effects with

cadmium

Properties Metallic form: insoluble

Readily methylated by

sediment bacteria to

become highly soluble,

but low in toxicity

Major environmental

sink

Major routes of human

exposure:

Marine environments

Sediments Sediments Sediments

Seafood: very minor route,

except for some fish

species

Inhalation: the major route

Seafood contributes == 1OO

/.

of totai for general

population

Food, primarily grains

Seafood comparable to

other food sources

Seafood is primary

source of human

exposure

Terrestrial pathways are

minor sources in

comparison

Kidney dysfunction;

neurological disease;

skin lesions;

respiratory

impairment; eye

damage; animal

teratogen and

carcinogen

Other environments Diet and drinking water

Health effects Acute: gastrointestinal

hemorrhage; loss of

blood pressure; coma

and death in extreme

cases

Chronic: liver and

peripheral nerve damage;

possibly skin and lung

cancer

Emphysema and other lung

damage; anemia; kidney,

pancreatic, and liver

impairment; bone

damage; animal (and

suspected human)

carcinogen and mutagen

Acute: gastrointestinal

disorders

Chronic: anemia;

neurological and blood

disorders; kidney

dysfunction; joint

impairments; male/female

reproductive effects;

teratogenic

References a Doull, et al., 1980

Barrington, et al., 1978

O’Connor and Kneip, 1986

Woolson, 1983

Chapman, et al., 1968

Nriagu, 1981

O’Connor and Kneip, 1986

Wiedow, et al., 1982

Callahan, et al., 1979

Heltz, et al., 1975

Kneip, 1983

NAS, 1980

O’Connor and Kneip, 1986

O’Connor and Rachlin, 1982

Grieg, et al., 1979

Kay, 1984

Nriagu, 1979

Windom and Kendall,

1979

asee list of references at end of repot

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987

Other events involving metal contamination of

food sources (though not seafood) have occurred.

These include dietary transport of lead and cadmium from the application of sewage sludge to agricultural lands (470,47 1); and the pollution of Japanese rice paddies by industrial cadmium discharges, which resulted in 60 deaths (404).

in part responsible for the paucity of data documenting such human health effects.

Mercury is of special concern because it is easily taken up by humans through a diversity of exposure routes, including inhalation, ingestion, and

through the skin. The source of mercury responsible for contamination of marine organisms differs

among the various marine waters. In the open

ocean, natural sources of mercury predominate,

whereas in some estuaries and coastal waters, inputs from land-based sources are commonly the

major source of contamination. In fact, marine

Substantial laboratory evidence documents the

potential for lethal and sublethal chronic effects to

result from exposure to metals contributed by waste

disposal activities. However, our capacity to detect

chronic impacts in the field is limited, and this is
Ch. 6—Impacts of Waste Pollutants on Human Health • 127

organisms from polluted estuaries typically contain

five or more times as much mercury as marine

organisms from relatively clean estuaries (702).

Ingestion of contaminated shellfish and finfish,

especially long-lived predatory fish such as tuna,

is the primary route of human exposure to mercury (202,702). Again, however, in open-ocean fish

mercury is generally attributable to natural sources,

while shellfish contamination is typically more

closely correlated with waste disposal.

Cadmium is used extensively in metal electroplating and found in a wide variety of wastes.

It is more mobile than most other toxic metals.

Large-scale cadmium contamination of estuarine

waters by industrial and municipal wastewater discharges has occurred in some urban areas, for instance in the Hudson River estuary, and this has

caused significant contamination of marine food

chains (272,409). For example, studies show that

shellfish harvested near an industrial outfall formerly used to discharge cadmium wastes contained

levels high enough to induce acute cadmium poisoning in an unwary consumer or urban fisherman (refs.

229,696; also see box N later in this chapter). Other

studies of the entire Hudson estuary found that

moderate consumption of shellfish could lead to exposure exceeding recommended safe levels (41 1).

The actual mechanism by which cadmium is

transported through the marine food chain is controversial. Some investigators have found that cadmium present in sediments of some urban embay -

ments is readily taken up by organisms, and that

contaminated sediments represent the most likely

source of human exposure (229). However, others

suggest that sediments are not a significant contributor of cadmium even to contaminated organisms

harvested from marine waters near urban-industrial

areas (491).

TOXIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL S

General Considerations

Some 65,000 chemical compounds are used in

industry worldwide (386). Of these, approximately

10,000 are used regularly in one or more industrial processes; about 1,000 new chemicals are introduced into commerce each year (23 1). Clearly,

individual evaluation of the health effects of each

of these compounds is a hopeless enterprise. For

several broad categories of industrial chemicals, figure 24 shows the paucity of data available on which

to base health hazard evaluations.

Organic chemicals vary considerably with respect

to their behavior in natural environments. Some

chemicals accumulate in organisms; others do not.

Some decompose rapidly if exposed to light, heat,

or water; others are highly persistent. Some compounds may be metabolized by organisms into

other compounds that may be more or less toxic

‘Organ ic chemicals possess a molecular skeleton made of carbon

and hydrogen and generally contain relatively few other elements, such

as oxygen, nitrogen, or chlorine. Chlorine-containing organic compounds are referred to as ‘ ‘chlorinated. ‘‘ Metals or metal-containing

substances are usually termed ‘‘ inorganic, although in some cases

metals can be chemically bound to organic compounds (e. g,, meth>l

mercury).

than the original compound; others resist biodegradation. Toxicities may vary from one organism to

another, and toxic levels may also be affected by

the presence of other compounds, producing synergistic or antagonistic effects.

Given this complexity, it is essential to invoke

some system to simplify classification if a health hazard evaluation is to become manageable. One approach is to classify compounds according to how

they behave in the environment, that is, on the basis

of environmental fate. This approach can be used

to reduce the size of the chemical universe down

to those substances that have a potential to reach

humans; information on human health effects

would then only need to be developed for this

subset.

Several relatively well-understood relationships

exist between chemical properties of organic compounds and their fate in natural environments:

Chemical Property: Related to:

Solubility in water Adsorption, route of absorption,

mobility

Vapor pressure Atmospheric mobility’, environmcntal

volatility) persistence

Solubility in animal Bioaccumulation potential, adsorption

tissue by organic matter or sediments. persistence in organisms
128 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Figure 24.—Ability To Conduct Health-Hazard Assessment of Substances in Seven Categories of

Chemicals in Use

Category

Number of

chemicals

in category

Estimated mean percent of each category

Pesticides and inert

ingredients of pesticide

formulations

Cosmetic ingredients

Drugs and excipients

used in drug formulations

Food additives

Chemicals in commerce:

at least 1 million

pounds/year

Chemicals in commerce:

less than 1 million

pounds/year

Chemicals in commerce:

production level unknown

or inaccessible

3,350

3,410

1,815

8,627

12,860

13,911

21,752

. . . . . . . . . , . , .,.,.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 24 2 26 38

2 14 10 18 56

18 18 3 36 25

5 14 1 34 46

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 11 78

12 12 76

,. ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 8 82

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Complete Partial Minimal Some No toxicity

health health toxicity toxicity information

hazard hazard information information available

assessment assessment available available

possible possible (but below minimal)

SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences, ToxicIty Testing: Strategies To Determine Needs and Priorities (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1984).
Ch. 6–impacts of Waste Pollutants on Human Health • 129

Using a scheme based on determinants of environmental fate such as these, it is possible to identify, for example, a class of compounds with low

water volubility and high tissue volubility (e. g.,

PCBs, dioxins) that is likely to persist for long

periods in the environment and bioaccumulate in

organisms. Another class with the characteristics

of high volubility and high volatility (e. g., chloroform, toluene) is likely to have low potential for accumulation in the food chain, but may pose a hazard to humans from inhalation or ingestion in

drinking water. These considerations form the basis

of the classification of organic chemicals used in this

section (table 9).

Pathways to Humans

The most serious risks to human health are generally posed by those organic chemicals that are

toxic, persistent, and have some means of reaching humans (i. e., present in significant concentrations in what has been termed the human exposure

zone). As was the case for metals, humans can be

exposed to organic chemicals either directly from

the water (by absorption through the skin, by drinking contaminated water, or by inhaling contaminated air), or indirectly through ingestion of contaminated plants or animals.

In marine environments, many organic chemicals partition into sediments or onto the water’s upper surface (the surface microlayer), where they are

potentially available to marine plants and animals;

this can provide an indirect pathway to humans

through ingestion of contaminated seafood. Direct

human exposure to organic chemicals is less common because these substances generally can be

present in the water at only very low concentrations, although in some cases they may be of substantial concern.

As was the case for metals, the consumption of

contaminated seafood is the primary pathway for

human exposure to most organic chemicals in

wastes disposed of in marine environments. Indeed,

compounds such as PCBs and DDT have been

shown to accumulate in humans through consumption of contaminated seafood (249,409),

Not surprisingly, the importance of bioaccumulation and biomagnification varies greatly for

different organic chemicals and for different organisms. Several classes of organic chemicals, particu -

larly those that are relatively insoluble in water,

have a high bioaccumulation potential because of

their volubility in animal tissue. Some of these organic compounds, including PCBs, benzo[a]py -

rene, naphthalenes, and chlorinated pesticides (e. g.,

kepone, mirex, and possibly DDT), also appear to

have a potential for biomagnification by marine

organisms.

Other compounds that bioaccumulate but probably do not biomagnify include chlorinated phenols

and benzenes, and most PAHs. However, there is

relatively little information on the long-term fate

and behavior of most organic compounds in aquatic

environments (260).

Potential and Actual Human

Health Impacts

Few documented cases of human health impacts

from waste-derived organic chemicals in marine

environments exist. 7 However, the potential for

such exposure and effects clearly exists in the United

States. Numerous estuarine and coastal areas—

e.g., New Bedford Harbor, New York Harbor, and

portions of Puget Sound—are sufficiently contaminated with toxic chemicals to preclude the harvest

of fish and/or shellfish (box L; refs. 211 ,507). Commercial and recreational fishing for striped bass,

bluefish, tautog, and eels has been curtailed in large

portions of the New York Bight’s apex due to high

concentrations of PCBs and other organic compounds (28,30,237).

PCBs and PAHs are widely distributed in inland

and coastal sediments and have been found in deep

ocean sediments as well (62,325,484). PCBs and

several other highly persistent and toxic chemicals

(e. g., DDT) have been banned from further production or use in commerce in the United States.

It can be expected, therefore, that the sediment concentrations and body burdens of these toxic compounds will probably decrease gradually over time

~Sc\eral cases intol,ing land-based food sources ha~e been reported,

The most infamous is a disease outbreak in Japan, known as the }’usho

incident, that was caused by the leakage of PCBS (in combination with

d ibcnzofu rans) from an industrial heat exchanger into a rice oil m~n -

ufacturing process, }rusho symptoms included reduced birthweights

and skin disorders such as chloracnc and hyperpigmentation ( 287).
Table 9.—Properties and Effects of Major Classes of Organic Chemicals in Wastes Disposed of in Marine Environments

Primary routes

Chemical class Major examples Properties to humans Health effects References a

Benzene: central nervous system

(CNS) effects, blood disease,

leukemia

Toluene: possible CNS effects,

low toxicity

Xylene: irritant; teratogen

CTET and chloroform: liver,

kidney, blood, and

gastrointestinal disorders; liver

and kidney cancer

Methylene chloride: possible CNS

effects

Callahan, et al., 1979

Doull, et al., 1980

NAS, 1977

O’Connor and Kneip,

Snyder, et al., 1984

Low molecular weight

hydrocarbons

Benzene

Toluene

Xylene

Volatile Inhalation

Biodegradable Drinking water

Low bioaccumulation potential

1988

1988

1988

Volatile Inhalation

Lipid-insoluble Drinking water

Low bioaccumulation potential

Some (e.g., CTET and

chloroform) are persistent;

others (e.g., methylene

Callahan, et al., 1979

Doull, et al., 1980

O’Connor and Kneip,

Thorn and Agg, 1975

Chloromethanes:

carbon tetrachloride (CTET)

Low molecular weight

chlorirlated

hydrocarbons chloroform

methylene chloride

chloride) are readily

Inhalation

biodegraded

Volatile

Lipid-insoluble

Low bioaccumulation

Volatile

Low bioaccumulation

Range of volatilities

Lipid-soluble

All: CNS effects, liver toxicity

Tri- and tetrachloroethy lene: liver

cancer

Animal and human carcinogen;

liver toxicity

Hexachlorobenzene: carcinogen

Callahan, et al., 1979

Doull, et al., 1980

Sittig, 1985

Doull, et al., 1980

Trichloroethylene,

tetrachloroethylene,

tetrachloroethane

Vinyl chloride

Chlorobenzenes

Drinking water

potential

Inhalation

potential

Food (including

seafood)

Doull, et al., 1980

O’Connor and Kneip,

Significant bioaccumulation

potential

Nonvolatile Food (including

High bioaccumulation potential seafood)

Moderate to high toxicity

Most are highly persistent

Known or suspected human

carcinogens; neurotoxic effects;

chloracne and other skin

diseases

Doull, et al., 1980

Mrak, 1989

NAS, 1977

Sittig, 1985

Walker, et al., 1989

Chlorinated pesticides Cyclodiene pesticides:

dieldrin, heptachlor,

chlordane

DDT and metabolizes

aldrin,

Chlorinated phenoxyacetic

compounds (2,4,5-T; 2,4-D)

Hexachlorocyclohexanes:

Iindane, BHC

Polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs)

Chlorinated dioxins TCDD)

Chlorinated dibenzofurans

Phthalate esters (e.g., DEHP)

Polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Kimbrough, et al., 1975

Koibye and Carr, 1984

Murai and Juroiwa, 1971

Poiger and Schlatter,1983

FDA, 1974

Giam, et al., 1978

MacLeod, et al., 1981

NAS, 1977

Nonvolatile Food (including

High bioaccumulation potential seafood)

Moderate to high toxicity

Highly persistent

All: neurological, liver, and skin

disorders

PCBs: tumor promoters or

carcinogens

TCDD: highly carcinogenic

High molecular weight

chlorinated

hydrocarbons

Aromatic hydrocarbons Low to moderate volatility Food (including

Highly insoluble seafood)

Range of bioaccumulation

potential

Low to moderate toxicity

Phthalates: many are teratogens

DEHP: possible carcinogen

PAHs: many (e.g., benzo(a)pyrene)

are carcinogens; some are

teratoaens

asee list of references at end of report.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.
Ch. 6—Impacfs of Waste Pollutants on Human Health ● 131

(57,519).’ Indeed, recent evidence shows such a decline along the west coast of the United States (340).

Direct exposure of humans to organic chemicals

present in marine waters is possible in places where

industrial discharges are 1ocated near bathing

beaches. For example, a wastewater discharge from

a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm, which enters

marine waters about 2,500 feet from shore, has

been identified in bioassays as the most mutagenic

industrial discharge in the State (T, Burke, New

Jerse y Department of Health, pers. comm., 1986)

The wastewater from a Florida paper mill discharged into the Amelia River estuary has been

found to be the most toxic among the State’s nine

mills (8). In neither case, however, has an actual

effect on the health of bathers been demonstrated.

Classes of Organic Chemicals

—.. . .— - To simplify 

the evaluation of organic com- 8However, the manufacture and use of many of these chemic~s have

not been curtailed in other countries; in addition, existing stocks of pounds, they can be classified on the basis of simisome of these chemic~$ continue to pose major dispos~ problems, larities in their chemic~ structure, physicochemi-
132 • Wastes in Marine Environments

Figure 25.—New York Bay-Newark Bay Fishing

Sites and Advisory Areas

Newark Bay

Railway Bridge

3

(/J .- f

Hudson Co. Park

Port Newark North ‘:

NEW JERSEY

k

ii

:

m

New York Bay

rty State Park

en Point Pier

Miles

Bulkhead

NEW YORK

Raritan -River “ 

!a>eti~%,g

r -.

The PCB advisory for limited consumption of striped bass and

bluefish applies to the coast and all the rivers and tributaries shown.

Sale for human consumption of striped bass and American eel from

most of these rivers is also prohibited.

SOURCE: T, Belton, et al,, “Urban Fishermen: Managing the Risks of Toxic Exposure, ” Errvirorrrnent 28:19-20,30-36, November 1966.

cal properties (e. g., volatility, tissue volubility), and

molecular weight. Chemicals having similar characteristics often tend to exhibit similar environmental fates or behavior, and therefore may follow similar pathways to reach humans. In some

cases (though less predictably), compounds in the

same group may also have similar toxicity characteristics. It should again be emphasized, however,

that although such grouping of organic compounds

helps determine their potential for significant human exposure, each compound must still be examined individually for specific environmental and

health effects.

Table 9 lists the primary classes of organic chemicals that have some potential for reaching humans

and inducing adverse health effects. Chlorobenzenes, chlorinated pesticides, high molecular

weight chlorinated organic compounds, and aromatic hydrocarbons are of major concern in marine

environments due to their ability to bioaccumulate

in organisms. While wastestreams containing many

of these compounds are specifically prohibited from

ocean dumping, the major pathway by which they

enter marine environments is as trace contaminants

in industrial wastewater effluents, sewage sludge

and effluent, and dredging spoils.

Clorobenzenes exhibit a range of volatilities and

tissue solubilities (and therefore bioaccumulation

potential), dependent primarily on the degree of

chlorination. Of all the low molecular weight chlorinated hydrocarbons, chlorobenzenes pose the

greatest risk of transport to humans through marine or terrestrial food chains.

Cldorinatedpesticides are significant because of

the high risk of human exposure through consumption of contaminated seafood. They strongly associate with organic matter and sediments, where they

are readily available to marine organisms. Their

high molecular weight and complex, chlorine-containing structures make these compounds very resistant to degradation by bacteria or the metabolic systems of higher organisms. This class of substances

exhibits a range of toxicities, from several cyclodiene pesticides that show adverse effects at the

lowest doses tested (682) to DDT and related compounds that have moderate toxicity to humans and

laboratory animals. Most of these compounds are

known or suspected carcinogens.

Chlorinated organic compounds include PCBs

dioxins, and dibenzofurans. These compounds generally share the same properties described for the

chlorinated pesticides: low volatility, generally high

bioaccumulation potential, strong ability to bind

to organic matter and sediments, and high resistance to degradation by bacteria or the metabolic

systems of higher organisms.

PCBs are actually a group of over 200 individual

compounds possessing unique chemical and toxicological properties (494). PCBs are accumulated by

marine organisms with very high efficiency. For

example, one study found 85 to 95 percent assimilation of PCBs across the gut of striped bass (447).

The ubiquity of PCBs in the environment and their

extreme persistence and toxicity to marine and terrestrial organisms, led to a ban on their production in the United States in 1979.

Dioxins and dibenzofurans (the most well-studied

of which are 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodioxin (TCDD) and

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF)) are

found as contaminants of numerous chemical preparations (467). Both sets of compounds are quite

tissue-soluble, and are therefore easily bioaccumu-
Ch. 6–Impacts of Waste Pollutants on Human Health • 133

lated to high levels. TCDD and TCDF are among

the most toxic compounds known and can produce

lethal effects at low doses in aquatic organisms and

birds (191 ,365).

Aromatic hydrocarbons include phthalate esters,

which are common contaminants in water, sediment, and marine organisms (72) as well as in various types of wastes, especially sewage (73). The

most common are diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)

and dibutyl phthalate (DBP). Phthalate esters have

low water solubilities, tightly adsorb to sediment

particles, and are not readily degraded through biological activity (72 ,541 ). Chronic effects from exposure to phthalate esters include reduced weight

gain, enlarged livers and kidneys (381 ), and an increased incidence of liver cell cancers (274).

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are derived from petroleum and other chemical processes

and constitute most of the ‘ ‘oil and grease regulated as a conventional pollutant under the Clean

Water Act. Major sources to marine environments

include spills and routine releases from ships, natural seepage, and municipal wastewater, sewage

sludge, dredged material, and runoff from urban

areas (409). PAHs are readily adsorbed by suspended particulate and bottom sediments, where

they persist and can accumulate to levels as high

as 1 percent (10,000 parts per million) in highly

industrialized areas such as New York Harbor

(325).

Marine organisms, particularly mollusks, have

a high potential for bioaccumulating PAHs, and

they can achieve tissue levels far in excess of water

concentrations and roughly comparable to sediment

concentrations (409). Certain PAHs (e. g., benzo-

[a]pyrene and naphthalenes) can also biomagnify

in higher level predators of the marine food chain

(260). Disposal of wastes at sea is considered the

most likely source of PAHs to marine waters; subsequent transport of PAHs to humans can then occur through the food chain (409). How seafood consumption compares to other sources of PAH

exposure is not well-understood, however, so the

significance of PAH contamination of seafood as

a source of exposure to humans is uncertain.

HUMAN PATHOGENS

General Considerations

Essentially all wastes that are disposed of in the

marine environment either contain microorganisms

or have the potential to modify the microbial community at the disposal site. Among the microorganisms entering the marine environment through

waste disposal, or induced to proliferate as a result of such activity, are a variety of human pathogens, microorganisms that are capable of inducing human disease (box M).

Human pathogens in the marine environment

come primarily from discharges of raw sewage and

from sewage sludge and wastewater effluent from

sewage treatment plants. For example, it is estimated that about 40 million gallons of raw sewage

are discharged daily into the Hudson and East

Rivers of New York City. 9 Pathogens are also found

“’1’h is disc hargc IS w hcduled to hc halted in 1987 when a nc\\ w.(-

ondary t reatmen ( plant is c omp]cted ( (;. I.uIZI( , N’c.w, }’{)rk (: I t \ I)(. -

par(ment of’ En\’ironmental Pr[)tc( tlon. pt>r~, comrn, , 1 986)

in domestic and commercial food wastes, animal

wastes, and biological wastes from hospitals and

laboratories, many of which are discharged to surface waters or sewage treatment plants. Where combined sewer systems are employed, overflows during times of heavy precipitation can also be a

significant source of pathogens. In rural areas, most

bacterial contamination comes from non-urban

runoff, animal wastes, poor septic systems, and

poorly treated sewage discharges. Finally, the marine environment itself is a source of pathogens,

because some pathogens naturally occur and propagate in marine waters.

In the United States, the most important

waste-borne agents of human disease are viruses

and bacteria, with respect to both their concentrations in wastes and the environment, and the incidence of disease attributable to them. 10 Enteric

] (IH<)W~.l.(.r,irlS{)nl(.,Jarts of” [he> world patho%cn> [rmn other ~ l~~~w’~

can be ~ery ]mpurtdnt “I”hc W’ur]d Hcal[h organlzatlon” h,is indl( at[d

that tht’ par-as] t I( helm i nt h .$chr srosoma is w’cond onl\ [o nl.dar],t i n

( auslng diw.asc and cic,~th ]n the tr-op][ \ ( 2.32)

Ch. 6—Impacts of Waste Pollutants on Human Health ● 135

viruses are especially significant with respect to disposal of wastes in water, since they are ideally suited

to be spread by contact with contaminated water

(205).

Pathways to Humans

Both direct and indirect exposure pathways can

be significant for pathogens because only a small

number of organisms are required to induce disease, and because they can reproduce in wastes,

contaminated media, or infected organisms. Several properties of pathogens are important in determining their potential to pose risks to human

health.

Survival

A growing body of evidence indicates that some

bacteria, including a number of known human

pathogens, may persist in the marine environment

for periods of many months or longer in a nonculturable, but virulent form (205,366). For example,

the agent responsible for an outbreak of cholera

along the Gulf coast of Texas appears to have persisted for at least 5 years in coastal waters (35). In

addition, many viruses and parasites are extremely

resistant to environmental inactivation or destruct ion.

Viruses and bacteria strongly adhere to particulate matter, which provides a degree of protection and increases their survival in sediments (183).

Concentrations of enteroviruses may be 10 to

10,000 times greater in coastal sediments than in

the overlying water; most pathogens are concentrated in the surface layers of bottom sediments

(197). Subsequent dredging of these sediments may

increase the concentrations and availability of human pathogens in the areas where dredging or disposal of dredged materials takes place (203,204). ”

A number of human pathogens appear to survive better in estuarine and other coastal environments than in the open ocean (253). However, in

some cases, the colder temperature of the open

ocean, especially bottom waters beyond the con-

] 1 For examp]e, a tota] restriction on shell fishing has been imposed

in estuarine waters around a dredging project near Cape May, NJ,

because disturbance of the sediments was shown to cause ele~’ated densities of coliform bacteria in the water (J. Staples, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, cited in ref. 10),

tinental shelf, can actually enhance the survival of

some pathogens, although it also retards growth (16),

Propagation

Different classes of pathogens have different requirements for propagation. In the absence of an

appropriate host, viral or parasitic propagation generally cannot occur, so there are no mechanisms

available for increasing the number of viruses in

sewage material or the marine environment; they

can, however, become concentrated in sludge or

sediment. Bacteria introduced through wastes have

the potential to replicate and increase their numbers, but this potential has not been well-studied

for most organisms. Some pathogenic bacteria that

naturally occur in the marine environment are fully

capable of propagation (e. g., certain species of

Vibrio).

Exposure and Infection

For viruses and microorganisms present in the

marine environment to exert an impact on human

health, they must both reach and infect humans.

The ability of microorganisms to infect humans depends on numerous factors, including the minimum

infective dose. As few as 10 to 100 bacteria, or a

single virus, are capable of inducing infection and

disease under the appropriate conditions (205).

Moreover, the tendency for viruses and bacteria

to adhere to particulate matter increases the risk

of exposure and infection in two ways: 1 ) survival

is enhanced through the protection the particles provide; and 2) because particles literally serve to ‘ ‘collect’ viruses and bacteria on their surfaces, a single ingested particle can contain a large dose of

microorganisms. The concentration of viruses and

bacteria in sediments also increases the potential

for their uptake by shellfish.

Potential and Actual

Human Health Impacts

Shellfish-Borne Disease

Large areas of estuarine and coastal waters have

been closed to shellfishing and/or finishing because

they are contaminated with sewage-derived microorganisms in excess of Federal standards (see box

N). While such closures have largely eliminated
136 • Wastes in Marine Environments

outbreaks of serious shellfish-borne, bacterial disease, including epidemics of typhoid and paratyphoid fever, they cause major economic impacts.

In Washington, 21 percent of the shellfish-growing

areas are closed and another 11 percent are only

provisionally open because of bacterial contamination. Moreover, contamination appears to be increasing: six previously pristine areas in Puget

Sound have been closed in the last 3 years (463).

Fishing in many other areas has been restricted

periodically due to sewage contamination (e. g.,

Boston Harbor, New York Harbor, and portions

of Narragansett Bay, the Delaware River estuary,

Chesapeake Bay, Mobile Bay, and San Francisco

Bay).

Overall, the incidence of shellfish-borne disease

is not decreasing in the United States and may be

increasing (197). This trend largely involves increases in the number of outbreaks of viral disease
Ch. 6—Impacts of Waste Pollutants on Human Health . 137

Photo credit. Northeast Technical Services Adrn/nistrat/err, U S Food and Drug Administration

Contamination of shellfish is a significant problem nationwide. The problem is growing, particularly in rapidly

developing areas such as coastal portions of the Gulf of Mexico and southern Atlantic States.

(e. g., 80,367). For example, in the State of New

York in 1982 alone, consumption of contaminated

shellfish was identified as the cause of 103 different reported outbreaks of viral gastroenteritis involving over 1,000 people (367). Smaller outbreaks

of more serious bacterial diseases also have been

reported. In a series of apparently related cases

stretching back over the last 14 years, several dozen

people contracted cholera after consuming shellfish

harvested from coastal marshlands in southwestern Louisiana (81,82). These represent the first indigenous outbreaks of cholera in the United States

since 1911 (78).*2

 [(. choler-a natural -

 at I r in IS thought to -

 of, 1 ) marsh water.

, from 

 (In i ) human -

 ( 3 5). The n marsh

 fish, f rorn the> 

 u ( 

Water-Borne Disease

While the implementation of water quality guidelines and sewage treatment requirements has substantially reduced the outbreaks of serious human

diseases attributable to direct contact with polluted

waters, bathing in sewage-impacted waters is responsible for relatively high rates of gastrointestinal illness in the United States. In fact, the number of outbreaks of water-borne disease, particularly

nonbacterial diseases such as viral gastroenteritis

and hepatitis, has been steadily increasing in recent decades (79, 197). 13 Recent epidemiologic evidence has shown that the incidence of gastrointestinal illness is significantly elevated in people

.—— - —— t hl

s unreported 

 I\ natu the u I h I -

 u of Data on t -

borne d ist Ix. fresh 
138 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

swimming at several heavily used New York City

beaches (63,641) and in Lake Pontchartrain in New

Orleans, Louisiana (285).14

Epidemics of serious bacterial disease, while rare,

have been caused by swimming in sewagecontaminated water. For example, in 1974 an outbreak of shigellosis was traced to swimming in a

stretch of the Mississippi River downstream of a

secondary treatment plant. Fecal coliform counts

in the river were almost 90 times higher than the

Federal standard (489). Similarly, outbreaks of typhoid fever in Australia and Egypt have been

caused by swimming in sewage-contaminated marine waters (205).

Scuba diving in contaminated marine waters can

also lead to increased incidence of waterborne disease (1 13,192,205,435). These diseases include dermatitis, wound infections, and other skin-related

ailments, as well as enteric illness. Under-reporting

of such diseases is judged to be considerable (205).

Shortcomings of Current

Microbiological Standards

Many observers have raised concerns about the

adequacy of current efforts to control and monitor

microbiological contamination of marine waters

and resources. Three major shortcomings need to

be addressed:

1.

2.

3.

current standards designed to protect humans

against microbiological agents in marine

waters or seafood may be too lenient,

monitoring protocols are inadequate to detect

periodic violation of the standards, and

standards based on use of fecal coliform indicators do not adequately measure pathogen

survival.

Current techniques used to measure marine

water quality are probably significantly underestimating the true number of viable pathogens that

are entering the marine environment, for at least

four reasons (205). First, coliform bacteria, which

14These studies are significant because they demonstrate that not

only can the presence of sewage-derived material in the marine environment result in human disease, but also that disease rates that are

significant from a public health perspective can be difficult or impossible to discern in the absence of carefully performed, thorough (and

expensive), epidemiologic studies.

have been used to indicate sewage contamination

of water for 75 years, generally are not pathogenic,

and do not survive as well as other pathogenic bacteria or viruses (481). In fact, studies show that gastroenteritis associated with swimming (at least in

marine waters) is better correlated with enterococcal

bacteria than with coliforms (63,285,641). In addition, outbreaks of gastroenteritis have been associated with shellfish harvested from waters that were

deemed acceptable using traditional indicators

(451 ,700).15

Second, existing standards use bacteria as indicators of contamination, while viruses appear to be

the major cause of diseases resulting from exposure

through both direct (swimming, diving) and indirect (seafood consumption) pathways (197).

Third, current standards are based solely on water

quality, while levels in sediments and shellfish are

neither regulated nor routinely monitored. Yet sediments are probably an equal or more likely source

of pathogens in shellfish (197).

Finally, increasing evidence suggests that bacteria (including certain human pathogens) introduced into the marine environment do not die off

as rapidly as once believed, but remain viable for

extended periods of time (e. g., months to years).

These pathogens cannot be cultured in the laboratory and their presence cannot be detected using

traditional tests, but they can be reactivated within

a host organism (106,206). Thus, the apparent lack

of human pathogens in the open ocean, especially

at or near past sewage sludge disposal sites, may

simply reflect our inability to detect these apparently viable, non-culturable pathogens (205).

The public health significance of the viable-butnot-culturable phenomenon is far from clear, however, and remains controversial. No definitive link

has been established between the survival of bacterial pathogens through this mechanism and the

occurrence of human disease. Moreover, because

most disease related to exposure to marine waters

or fish is caused by viruses rather than bacteria,

the role that pathogenic bacteria in marine envi15EPA has recently adopted enterococci as an indicator of microbiological water quality for marine recreational waters (664). It is not

yet clear what influence adoption of the new standard and indicator

will have on consideration of alternative indicators and standards for

monitoring of the quality of shellfish and shellfish-harvesting waters

(205).
Ch. 6–Impacts of Waste Pollutants on Human Health • 139

ronments play in human disease is probably of secondary importance.

The Effect of Treatment on

Pathogenic Microorganisms

Sewage Treatment

Wastewater treatment results in the partitioning

of waste constituents into sewage effluent and

sludge. Wastewater treatment and subsequent

sludge treatment processes can in many cases significantly reduce the numbers of some types of sewage microorganisms. However, the actual extent

of reduction varies considerably from operation to

operation, and among classes of microorganisms.

A full discussion of this topic is included in chapter 9.

Chemical Disinfection of

Wastewater Effluents

In most instances, bacteriological water quality

standards for recreational and shellfish-growing

waters are met by chemically disinfecting sewage

effluent prior to discharge. Chlorination traditionally has been viewed as an effective and economical means to reduce levels of microorganisms in effluent. However, concerns have been raised that

chlorinated hydrocarbons (e. g., chloroform) formed

as byproducts of chlorination pose significant risks

to organisms in the immediate vicinity of treatment

plant discharges. One alternative to chlorination

is the use of long deep-ocean outfalls such as those

employed in southern California. These achieve

water quality standards through dilution.

The effectiveness of either approach in reducing

pathogen exposure risks is questionable, however,

given the traditional use of coliforms as the standard indicator species and the growing evidence that

bacteria discharged in sewage effluent may persist

in marine waters in a viable but nonculturable

form. Substantial data indicate that:

1. chlorination is more effective against coliforms

than against pathogenic viruses or even numerous pathogenic bacteria;

2.

3.

pathogenic viruses and bacteria can survive

significantly longer in the marine environment

than can coliforms; and

chlorination may only temporarily inactivate,

rather than destroy, microorganisms present

in effluent (205,297).

These findings suggest that the routine discharge of sewage effluent and the dumping of

sewage sludge into estuaries, coastal waters, and

the open ocean may be introducing large numbers of viable microorganisms, including pathogens, and that their densities in both the water

and sediments may be increasing. Further study

of the public health consequences of these practices is needed, particularly in light of the increasing incidence of shellfish- and water-borne

disease.

Land Application of Sewage Sludge

Because sewage sludge is applied to land as fertilizer and for reclamation purposes, the survival

and availability of pathogens in the sludge is of considerable public health significance. Viruses, bacteria, and parasites can survive in soil for many days

or months depending on soil temperature, pH, clay

content, cation exchange capacity, surface area,

moisture content, and organic content. Viable pathogens have been found, for example, in surface runoff from sludge-amended fields. However, there are

no documented cases of human disease resulting

from land application of treated sewage sludge, although untreated sewage-derived wastes have often

been implicated in disease outbreaks (60,205,379).

Land application and landfilling of treated sewage

sludge appear to pose less potential health risks to

humans than disposal in freshwater or estuarine

environments.

Deputation of Shellfish

Some countries (e. g., Japan) allow or even encourage the culturing and harvesting of shellfish in

sewage-contaminated water to take advantage of

the nutritive content of such wastes. Prior to marketing, these shellfish are depurated (i. e., placed
140 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

in clean water for several days) to allow the shell- These and other studies suggest that further sysfish to purge themselves of pathogens. This prac- tematic study of the health risks associated with

tice is controversial, however, because evidence in- various forms of deputation should be conducted

dicates that deputation does not eliminate all prior to its use as an accepted means of deconpathogens, especially small bacteria or viruses such taminating shellfish (205),

as the- Hepatitis A ‘virus (186,209,298,368,523).
Statute s an

Chapter 7

d Programs Relating TO

Marine Waste Disposal
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........143

Overview of the Existing Legislative and Regulatory Framework . ..............143

The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...151

Key Issues Affecting Marine Waste Disposal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...156

Industrial Effluents and Current Water Pollution Control Programs . .........156

Waterbody Management Programs ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...157

Information Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............165

Appendix 1: Existing Waterbody Management Programs . ....................169

Appendix 2: Federal Information and Monitoring Programs ..., . ..............171

Tables

Table No. Page

11. Major Legislative Provisions Affecting Waste Disposal in Marine Waters ....144

12. Selected Waterbody Management Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........160

Figures

Figure No. Page

26.

27.

28.

29.

Number of Archived Samples Per Year of Chlorinated Pesticides and

Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Fish and Invertebrates From U.S. Marine

Waters, 1945-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......168

Number of Waterbody Segments in Florida for Which Water Quality

Monitoring Data Are Available, 1970-85 . ...............................168

Total Federal Funding for the National Marine Pollution Program,

Fiscal Years 1981-87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . . . . . . ...............172

Federal Funding of Selected Activities Within the National Marine Pollution

Box

o.

P.

Q.

R.

s.

Program in Fiscal

Additional Federal

Year 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......173

Boxes

Page

Laws Affecting Marine Waste Disposal . ..............,.145

The Importance of the 1984 RCRA Amendments . . . . .....................147

Relevant International Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................149

Comparison of Factors To Be Considered Before Issuing Permits Under

MPRSA Section 102 and CWA Section 403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........150

Selected International Perspectiveson Marine Waste Disposal ., ............158
Chapter 7

Statutes and Programs Relating To

Marine Waste Disposal

INTRODUCTION

Federal efforts to control and manage marine

waste disposal are relatively recent in origin, with

most programs being less than two decades old, In

1970, three major government reports recommended that a national policy for controlling ocean

waste disposal be developed (11 5,382,623). In response to these and to the general environmental

concerns of the 1960s and early 1970s, Congress

passed a suite of major statutes that provide the general legal structure currently used to regulate all

waste disposal activities. One of the reports, the

Council on Environmental Quality’s “Ocean

Dumping—A National Policy’ (1 15), became the

primary basis for the Marine Protection, Research,

and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972 and for

much of the policy developed throughout the decade for regulating marine disposal (377,420).

MPRSA and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to as the Clean Water

Act, or CWA) are the two major statutes controlling waste disposal in marine environments. In general, the open ocean is reasonably well-protected

as a result of MPRSA, but other areas of the marine environment remain more vulnerable. In particular, estuaries and other coastal waters, primarily

regulated under CWA, have received less protection. In fact, a 1981 study by the National Advisory

Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA)

concluded that the Council on Environmental

Quality (CEQ) report was responsible for the near

total restriction of open ocean waste disposal (377).

The NACOA report disagreed with this approach,

and proposed that some wastes could be disposed

of in marine waters under certain conditions. It recommended that a more comprehensive waste management strategy include greater use of the open

ocean. This recommendation influenced an important 1981 court decision, City of New York v.

United States Environmental Protection Agency

(543 F. Supp. 1084) (155). The NACOA report

and the court decision signaled a changing attitude

toward the ocean, from relatively strict protection

to carefully managed use (12,291 ,531).

OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING LEGISLATIVE AND

REGULATORY

The major provisions of the two major statutes,

MPRSA and CWA, are summarized in table 11.

(A number of other statutes that also have some

affect on marine waters are described briefly in

box O.) MPRSA regulates the dumping of any material in the territorial sea (O to 3 nautical miles),

the contiguous zone (3 to 12 nautical miles), and

beyond in the open ocean. It applies to dumping

of U.S. -origin materials from all U.S. vessels, but

it only applies to foreign vessels dumping foreignorigin materials within 12 miles of the U.S. coast.

CWA regulates discharges from all point sources

into all U.S. waters, including the territorial sea,

FRAMEWORK

the contiguous zone, and beyond.1 Although both

laws establish procedures to administer regulatory

permit programs, there are basic differences in their

regulatory approaches to marine waste disposal.

MPRSA requires the balancing of all relevant factors (e. g., socioeconomic factors, land-based alternatives, etc.), while CWA primarily relies on technological considerations, giving some attention to

economic feasibility.

‘Except discharges from vessels beyond the 3-mile boundary.

143
144 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Table 11 .-Major Legislative Provisions Affecting Waste Disposal in Marine Waters

Statute and section Purpose

Marine Protection Research, and Sanctuaries Act:

Sec. 101

Sec. 102

Sec. 103

Sec. 104

Sec. 107

C/can Water Act:b

Sec. 104(n)

Sec. 104(q)

Sec. 201, 202, 204

Sec. 208

Sec. 301

Sec. 301(h)

Sec. 301(k)

Sec. 302

Sec. 303

Sec. 303(e)

Sec. 304

Sec. 304(b)

Sec. 305(b)

See: 307

Sec. 308

Sec. 309

Sec. 402

Prohibits, unless authorized by permit, the transportation of wastes for dumping and/or the dumping

of wastes into the territorial seas or the contiguous zones.

Authorizes EPAa to issue permits for dumping of nondredged materials into the contiguous zone and

beyond as long as the materials will not “unreasonably degrade” public health or the marine environment, following criteria specified in statute or established by the Administrator.

Authorizes Corps of Engineers to issue permits for dumping dredged material, applying EPA’s environmental impact criteria to ensure action will not unreasonably degrade human health or the marine

environment.

Specifies permit conditions for waste transported for dumping or to be dumped, issued by EPA or the

Coast Guard.

Authorizes EPA and Corps of Engineers to use the resources of other agencies, and instructs the Coast

Guard to conduct surveillance and other appropriate enforcement activities as necessary to prevent

unlawful transportation of material for dumping or unlawful dumping.

Directs EPA to establish national estuaries programs to prevent and control pollution; to conduct and

promote studies of health effects of estuarine pollution.

Establishes a national clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of information developed on

small sewage flows and alternative treatment technologies.

Specifies sewage treatment construction grants program eligibility and Federal share of cost.

Authorizes a process for States and regional agencies to establish comprehensive planning for point

and nonpoint source pollution.

Directs States to establish and periodically revise water quality standards for all navigable waters; effluent limitations for point sources requiring BPT should be achieved by July 1, 1977; timetable for

achievement of BAT and other standards set. Compliance deadlines for publicly owned treatment works

(POTWs) to achieve secondary treatment also set.

Authorizes waivers for POTWs in coastal municipalities from secondary treatment for effluent discharged

into marine waters if criteria to protect the marine ecosystem can be met.

Allows industrial dischargers to receive a compliance extension from BAT requirements until July 1,

1987, for installation of an innovative technology, if it will achieve the same or greater effluent reduction than BAT at a significantly lower cost.

Allows EPA to establish additional water quality-based limitations once BAT is established, if necessary to attain or maintain fishable/swimmable water quality (for toxics, the NRDC v. EPA consent decree sets terms).

Requires States to adopt and periodically revise water quality standards; if they determine that technologybased standards are not sufficient to meet water quality standards, they must establish total maximum daily loads and waste load allocations, and incorporate more stringent effluent limitations into

Sec. 402 permits.

Requires States to establish water quality management plans for watershed basins, to provide for adequate implementation of water quality standards by basin to control nonpoint pollution; Section 208

areawide plans must be consistent with these plans.

Requires EPA to establish and periodically revise water quality criteria to reflect the most recent scientific knowledge about the effects and fate of pollutants, and to maintain the chemical, physical, and

biological integrity of navigable waters, groundwater, and ocean waters and establish guidelines for

effluent limitations.

Outlines factors to be considered when assessing BPT and BAT to set effluent limitation guidelines,

including accounting for “non-water quality impact, ” age of equipment, etc.

Sets State water quality reporting requirements.

Sets new source performance standards for a list of categories of sources.

Requires EPA to issue categorical pretreatment standards for new and existing indirect sources; POTWs

required to adopt and implement local pretreatment programs; toxic effluent limitation standards must

be set according to the best available technology economically achievable.

Requires owners or operators of point sources to maintain records and monitoring equipment, do sampling, and provide such information or any additional information.

Gives enforcement powers primarily to State authorities. Civil penalties, however, and misdemeanor sanctions can be issued by EPA in U.S. district courts for violation of the act, including permit conditions

or limitations; EPA also is authorized to issue criminal penalties for violations of Sections 301, 302,

306, 307, and 308. EPA may take enforcement action for violations of Section 307(d) which introduce

toxic pollutants into POTWs.

Establishes National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), authorizing EPA Administrator

to issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant(s) to navigable waters that will meet requirements

of Sections 301, 302, 306, 307 and other relevant sections; States can assume administrative responsibility of the permit program.
Ch. 7—Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal ● 145

Table 11 .—Major Legislative Provisions Affecting Waste Disposal in Marine Waters—Continued

Statute and section Purpose

Sec. 403 Directs EPA to establish Ocean Discharge Criteria as guidelines for permit issuance for discharge into

territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and open ocean.

Sec. 404 Directs Secretary of the Army to issue permits for dredged or fill material; EPA must establish criteria

comparable to Section 403(c) criteria for dredged and fill material discharges into navigable waters

at specified disposal sites.

Sec. 405 Requires EPA to issue sludge use and disposal regulations for POTWs.

Sec. 504 Grants emergency powers to Administrator to assist in abating pollutant releases; establishes a contingency fund, and requires Administrator to prepare and publish a contingency plan to respond to such

emergencies.

Sec. 505 Citizen suit provision allows citizens to bring civil action in district court against any person in violation

of an effluent standard or limitation of an order by the Administrator for failing to perform a nondiscretionary act.

aunless otherwise noted, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible fOf implementing Provision(s)

bRelevant Provisions of the ~e~ently.enacted Water Quality Act of 1987, which reauthorized and amended the Clean Water Act, are discussed In ch 1 box C and Cor.

responding text

CWater ~ua~ity standards are ambient standards designed to achieve ~e~ain uses of water; these now play a secondafy role Technology-based effluent standards are

given the primary role and are dewgned to reduce pollutants so that ultimately all water is “fishable, swimmable. ” Effluent standards are performance standards and

specify the maximum permissible discharge of a pollutant from a type of source and usually specify the degree of technology to be used (“best available, ” “best

practicable, “ “reasonably available,’” etc.), but not the particular method needed to comply. Effluent limitation guidelines, on the other hand, apply to tndlwdual sources

and specify their particular performance levels Water quality standards (Sec. 303) are now the benchmarks by which to measure the success of the effluent standards

in meeting clean water goals,

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1987

BOX O.-Additional Federal ne wmt~ ~fs~s~

Ik* ‘fh~~”~ :“$’

Although MPRSA and CWA am the statutc~ profound effkcts on marine waste disposal,

a number of other iaws are AO X%k?vatlt, .t$w amount of waste needing disposal or by

regulating certain uses. TIw Rescmree Act is discussed in box P, while other statutes are briefly described here. . ‘, . *: -. -. ~ . .- :. , . . “ - ,. -.. : ,

. . -. .-, -. , *

The Cleaa Air Act Arnendmmws {CAA) of 39~, 7401 et seq.) have indirectly resulted in

the generation of large amounts of air pallution cqq;~ ~~ @~-fPw desdfirizatian sl~dges} ~d

other air pollution control dudges) which have b~en @ne disposal at various times. These

wastes arc generated by the air pollution control to comply with national emission and

air quality standards fdr stationary smwces @f air .,:; ~v:. .

The Coa~aIZone lkfarra~ment A~ (CZNL+$} @.l~7~,~~~~&~6~!~#51 et seq.) provides Federal grants

to States to develop Coastal Zoneni th~ @essure for economic development

and the need for environmental protectbm EPA WBMMW‘ --ithr an activity affecting land or water

use in a coastal zone until it has certifkd that the a&ity d&s w Yioiate a State’s management plan. Through

the National Estuarinc Sanctuary Program, the aet WIthmizei @ pmxmt matching grants to States to acquire

and manage estuaries for researeh and eciueat@ml purpose~. &@mdrnen$s to KIZM~ in 1980 state that management policies should protect coastal natural IW%OWWM eiitt&ies, beaches, and fish and wildlife

and their habitat) and encourage area management plain @r estuaries, bays, and harbors.

The Coznpmhensivc Env ERCLA) of 1980 (42

U.s.c. 9601 et seq.), response and cleanup

capabilities for chcmic and disposal facilities.

Its primary impact on numbers of hazardous

waste sites in the coa$td W% marine waters; 2) the

suggestion that some waste~ #tk in the ocean;

and 3) provisions regsird

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires all Federal agencies and

their permitters and licenwm to erumrc that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the existence of an endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitats of such spe-
The Marine Protection, Research,

and Sanctuaries Act

Introduction

When passed in 1972, MPRSA became the first

comprehensive legislation to regulate ocean dumping of all types of material that may adversely affect human health, the marine environment, or the

economic potential of the ocean. MPRSA (33

U.S.C. 1401 et seq. ) is the only pollution law exclusively devoted to the ocean and is the only law

that explicitly requires consideration of alternative

land-based disposal methods (Sec. 102(a)).2 In contrast, other statutes such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) typically regulate disposal in one environment without explicitly

considering the consequences in other environments. 3

‘One major finding in the City of New York v. United States Environmental Protection Agency decision (543 F. Supp. 1084) was the

court’s interpretation that the Act requires EPA to balance the need

for ocean dumping with potential environmental, social, and economic

impacts of land-based disposal options. 3

Under certain conditions, RCRA precludes land disposal without

requiring that alternative disposal methods first be evaluated (box P).
Ch. 7—Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal ● 147

Box P.-The Importance of theofx d *

??M lhounx! CmMwnmu● &&~~”&@@:@:I~yS: (&~#;&:C. @I~9,) defines and

~ 6*

hazar&#’ -“sqa$ 04?m@# w ~@#mfp,and disposal. Some

kwardous WM45S current$Mmter @iWine estwries or coastal

waters, or M part of ‘VndirWt“ indw$trid ~~~~th@ #l#~lJ@dY discharge into these waters. The I)ornestic Selmge, iBOws legal “~*t”

diachmga of some hamrdous wamlB ink$ mkmkpal . ‘ .

The 1984 Hi?amfo?m mf$tdid W*4

t,

i? %@2gi% tiiany ~the scope and complexity of the WRA program and ~pmsen +ed ~ to discourage most land-based disposal methods *m~=OUS W~~.~~tf?$ ~ @e most important amendment afkcting marine waste dispostd, It prohibits kind-based disposd nf&d&m@nhg and spent-solvent wastes by November

1986. Eight months later, @ KkMmnia lid’ wastes srms% ~Mxned from iand-based disposal unless EPA

deterrninti that hind-based disposal is safe for aparticdarwmk, The California wastes include liquid hazardOU8 WSISta and sludges conttiing S#lC!d kvds Of IIWtdSt #iWMC‘ , hakgenated chemicals, PCBS, or highly

acidic Mquids. Underground injection of dioxim, sol-, and CkMbrnia wastes would stop by 1988, unless

EPA finds that they can be safbly disposed of in this way, $%r ~ tither hazardous wastes, EPA is given deadlines of44, 55, and 66 months to review and set standards fti tlk most hazardous and highest volume wastes.

If the fti two deadlines are missed, the wastes are au@xnatk@y tied fkom land-based disposal if adequate

alternative dispmal facilities exist.

These “hammer proviaimw” are intended to fbrce &e phm aut of land-based disposal for hazardous

wastes. 1rI many cases, EPA probably will find it difffkx.dt 30 meet the deadlines or to determine that landbased disposal is safe, so the p revisions may effbctiv~ enwmrago alternatives such as physicai and chemical

treatment methods (487,684). ?’heae prwhions dst) cotdd lead th the consideration of marine disposal of hazardous wastes, Une preliminary study estimated that&e restrictions might cause annual shortf~s in landbased treatment and disposal capacity of over 50 million gallons-of certain solvents, dioxins, and Caitiornia

list wastes; based on the ocean dumping regulations, hmveve~, none ofthcse would be legally acceptable for

ocean dumping (241). Finding sites on land for the disposal&-age sludge and dredged material also could

become more diilicuk. In addition, regulations now requirdkatbzardous waste generated by small quantity

generators (those businesses generating between 100 and 1,000 kkgrams ofhaxardous waste per month) be

disposed of in permitted or interim status f“iiities.Enfor&g this requirement is diiYkxdt; illegal discharges

to municipal sewers could increase and such discharges could fhrther contaminate municipal effluent and sludge.

“Material” is defined in MPRSA as all wastes

except effluent discharged through an outfall, oil,

or sewage from vessels, all of which are regulated

under CWA, Thus MPRSA governs solid wastes,

incinerator residues, sewage sludge, industrial

wastes, dredged materials, low- and high-level

radioactive waste, and chemical and biological warfare agents. High-level radioactive waste and chemical and biological warfare agents are specifically

prohibited from ocean disposal, while other materials are allowed under some circumstances. Fish

cleaning wastes are generally not regulated except

if disposed of in harbors or other protected or enclosed coastal waters, although seafood processing

is regulated under CWA through National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits.

Under the first two titles of MPRSA, commonly

referred to as the Ocean Dumping Act, four Federal agencies have responsibilities: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Corps of

Engineers (COE), the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the

Coast Guard. Title I of the Act authorizes EPA to

designate specific ocean disposal sites, establishes

a permit system for the use of such sites, and directs

EPA to establish ocean dumping criteria based on

specified factors. The permit system is administered
148 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

by EPA for all materials except for dredged material, which is under the jurisdiction of the Corps

of Engineers, although EPA does retain review authority.

Title II requires EPA and NOAA to conduct research and monitoring on ocean dumping and to

study alternative disposal methods. The Coast

Guard is charged with maintaining surveillance of

ocean dumping. Section 203 was amended in 1986

(as part of the Title 11 reauthorization of MPRSA

included in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1985, Public Law 99-272,

Apr. 7, 1986) to direct EPA to cooperate with other

appropriate government agencies to assess the feasibility of regional management plans for waste disposal in coastal areas. The plans would integrate

all the waste disposal activities in an area into a

comprehensive regional disposal strategy.

Title III of MPRSA gives the Secretary of

Commerce authority to establish marine sanctuaries. Through the National Marine Sanctuary Program, marine areas as far seaward as the outer edge

of the continental shelf, including inland waters,

can be designated if this is determined necessary

to preserve or restore an area for conservation,

recreational, ecological, or esthetic purposes (Sec.

302). The designation of certain sanctuary sites has

created controversy when it entailed prohibiting oil

and gas development activities or conflicted with

other economic interests (e. g., the creation of the

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary in

California). Although this is an important program,

it is not directly concerned with the control of disposal activities and thus is not discussed further in

this report.

In 1974, MPRSA was amended so that all U.S.

criteria covering the dumping of wastes in marine

waters would be consistent with and contain all the

basic constraints set forth in the London Dumping Convention (LDC) (box Q. In practice, however, a number of administrative and court actions

have not always taken full account of the Convention’s requirements (12,214,712).

Permitting —Sections 102 and 103

Section 102 of MPRSA authorizes the EPA Administrator to issue permits, following notice and

opportunity for public hearings, for the transportation and dumping of nondredged material in

ocean waters provided that it:

will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human

health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities.

The Administrator is further directed to establish

Ocean Dumping Criteria, based on nine factors

specified in the statute (box R), and use these to

review permit applications for both dredged and

nondredged material. The factors include the need

for the proposed dumping; its effect on human

health, the environment, and economic and recreational values; and alternative disposal options and

their potential impacts.

In 1973, EPA issued final regulations that established these Ocean Dumping Criteria (40 CFR

227). The criteria reflected EPA’s policy at that

time of terminating all ocean dumping, even if the

dumping could be shown not to “unreasonably degrade’ the marine environment. EPA also established, however, “interim” and ‘‘special’ permit

procedures to allow the dumping of some materials prohibited by MPRSA. Emergency and research permits were also allowed. The criteria were

not entirely consistent with LDC constraints when

the United States became a signatory in 1974,

which led to later revisions of the regulations and

the Act. In 1977, EPA again revised the Ocean

Dumping Criteria (42 FR 2462, Jan. 11, 1977),

in part as a response to a case brought by an environmental group challenging the dumping regulations and permit criteria already promulgated by

EPA (National Wildlife Federation v. Costle, often

referred to as Costle I; 14 E. R.C. 1680 (D. C. Cir.

1980)) (420).

Section 103 of MPRSA authorizes the Secretary

of the U.S. Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers of COE, to issue permits for the dumping

of dredged material. Federal responsibilities under

this section are bifurcated. COE applies criteria developed by EPA pursuant to the Section 102 environmental impact criteria. EPA has the authority

to review the application before COE issues a permit and also has the authority to approve site designation. EPA initially exempted COE from several of the more stringent criteria and site

designation and evaluation procedures generally applied to nondredged material permits. However,
Ch. 7–Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal ● 149

Box Q.-lkeltwant lnterma~ti~ ~wmtfons

Severai intonational comrentions ttffkct rnarba waste &ap@@’ activities (165). The two most significant

are the London kping Convention and the Oslo @nve&&i~ he conventions (e.g., the Barcelona and

Kuwait Conventions) were developed under &United Natians ~onal Seas Programrne$’ while other conventions and agreemenb (e.g., the Helsinki Convention, bBoM Agreement, and MARPOL) were developed under other auspices.

7%e London Dumping Cmwention (~)c@l?7f?, Gf%@& ~ ‘w ~~ “The Convention on the Prevention

of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and.O@e~ &fatt&)” is the primary international agreement dealing with marine waste disposal and is the only to which the United States is a signatory.

As a signatory nation, all U.S. criteria covering ti~ disposal must, at a minimum, be equivalent to and

contain the basic constraints in the L.DC. The LXX Wbt%n ratified by 61 countries, and the International

Maritime (%ganiaation serves as the administrative m - ~tion among the contracting States.

The LDC’S jurisdiction includes all waters seaward oftb~ - boundary of the territorial sea.

The LDO prohibits dumping of “blacklist” in its Annex I (e.g., organohalogens,

mercury and mercury compounds, cadmium and persistent plastic oils and oily mixtures, radioactive materials, and agents of biobgicsd adq&rrdcal warfhre) and allows dumping of “greylist” substances defined in its Annex H only by special per@& #@stances that are not on either list require

a general permit for dumping, from either the flag State & thd fdading State.

lbOslo Convention of 1974, titled ‘The Cowention ~t@Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Airmail, was the fmt interrmtiorml ~rnen$ to regulate the dumping and incineration

of wastes at sea by most European countries. IX-s from rivers, estuaries, pipelines, and outfalls are

not included. The jurisdiction of the Oslo Convention inclu& a portion of the Arctic Ocean, the northeastern

Atlantic Ocean, and the North Sea. The Oslo Convention has black and grey lists for different pollutants,

although the lists vary slightly from those of the LDO. The major difference between the two conventions

is that the Oslo Convention has stricter limits for irmineration at sea.

The Paris Convention was developed in 1978 by the signatory nations of the Oslo Convention to prevent

marine poilution from land-based sources. Aiso, the coatrtwting parties can adopt discharge standards and

environmental quality standards regulating the composition and we of waste substances and products.

The J3amelomi Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution (1978) was

developed as part of the RegionaI Seas Programme of the I/hited Nations Environment Programme. It addresses only dumping from aircraft, ships, and platforms, ~d pollution fmm land-based sources.

The Kuwait Convention entered into force k 1979 ~k- lh~ $& “Kuwait IZegional conference of

Plenipotentiaries on the Protection and Development of and the Coastal Areas. ”

It is part of UNEP’S Regional Seas Prograrnme and $bcusm OM”~ pollution from tankers, refineries, and

petrochemical industries.

The Helsinki Convention, titled “The Convention cm t&e l%otectiotj of the Marine Environment of the

Baltic Sea Area, ” was adopted in 1974 by the seven Baltic Sea States and came into force in 1980. It is the

first international marine protection convention that encompasses all pollution sources, including nonpoint

agricultural runoff, and it has resulted in some reduction &i ocean dumping.

?he 130nn Agreement, the 1969 “Agreement for Coopm&m in Dealing with Pollution of the North

Sea by Oil,” is the first regional agreement to promote the~ent of contingency plans for responding

to oil spills and other similar types of acckkmts. , ,<

The International Comcntk?n fort&e Pnmm@ua‘ ofl%bibm &m $hips (1973 and Protocols of 1978),

often referred to as MARPO~ 7317& atternpti to time polhition by pxohibit.hg discharges from ships; currently, additional annem% tq Corktrol kkmamxs stwh as nande@mdWe plastics, noxious liquids in bulk, and

sewage are being considered for adoption.

● The Regional Seaa Programme of the United Nations Environment Pmgratmne encourages international cooperation to abate marine pollution and

protect Iiving marine resources. More than 120 coastal nations am part of the Programme, grouped into 10 regions. Each region developa “action plans”

that delineate areaa of cooperation and adopts conventions which provide legal fhuncworks for activities in the region. Note that the United Nation’s Law

of the Sea Convention, of which the United States is not a signatory, is potentially relevant to ocean dumping practices but is not yet in force.
150 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

the different treatment of dredged and nondredged

material was successfully challenged in court in National Wildlife Federation v. Cosde (often referred

to as Costle 11; 629 F.2d 118 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).

The court held that EPA must consider all Section

102(a) criteria in developing regulations, but that

it is not bound to apply all criteria to every permit

decision or to every type of waste material.4

‘Prior to 1974, under Sec. 103(d), COE could apply to EPA for

a waiver of the environmental impact criteria. Only one waiver was

ever applied for and it was not granted; the 1974 amendments to

MPRSA prohibited EPA from issuing such waivers.

The Continuance of Ocean Dumping and the

City of New York Decision

Throughout most of the 1970s, EPA invoked a

policy of phasing out all ocean dumping and encouraging municipal and private dumpers to seek

land-based alternatives. In 1977, Congress statutorily mandated phasing out all “harmful” sewage dumping by December 1981 and later imposed

a similar deadline for terminating the dumping of

industrial wastes. These stringent deadlines were

set primarily because several severe marine pollution incidents in the mid- 1970s had heightened pub-
Ch. 7—Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal ● 151

lic awareness of actual and potential adverse health

and environmental impacts from marine disposal.

The 1981 deadlines for phasing out dumping of

harmful sewage sludge and industrial waste initially

seemed a way to bring an end to ocean dumping.

In fact, since 1973 about 319 permits or permit applications have been withdrawn, phased out, or denied. Some large municipalities (e. g., Philadelphia)

ceased dumping sewage sludge in the ocean.

In 1981, New York City brought suit against the

EPA to stop implementation of the regulations. In

City of New York v. United States Environmental

Protection Agency, the Federal District Court in

New York ruled that dumping of municipal sewage sludge in the New York Bight could not be

banned without full consideration of the costs and

environmental consequences of alternative disposal

methods. According to the court, EPA’s conclusive presumption that many materials which fail

ocean environmental impact criteria will unreasonably degrade the environment was arbitrary and

capricious. Many factors, including the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of alternative

disposal options, also needed to be considered when

analyzing the acceptability of a given disposal alternative. The decision granted New York City and

several other sewerage authorities in New York and

New Jersey permission to continue dumping sludge

on an interim basis, even though MPRSA did not

allow interim permits to be granted after December 31, 1981. Thus, the court decision effectively

postponed the December 1981 deadline.

The interim permit procedure under Section 102

has been considered by some observers to be a

‘ ‘substantial loophole’ which allows the dumping

of materials that do not meet ocean disposal criteria (12,2 14), even though the justification for interim permits was to provide time for research and

the development of alternative, land-based options.5

Twenty-two interim permits had been granted by

1980. After 1981, fewer than 10 such permits remained in effect, but the terms of these permits were

extended (291). The amount of sewage sludge

dumped in marine waters steadily increased during this time, while the disposal of industrial wastes

5For example, an interim permit was used to phase out the disposal

of sewage sludge by Philadelphia, which was able to develop landbased options (578).

declined dramatically (531). A number of cities, including Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, D. C.,

Seattle, and San Francisco have indicated that they

would consider ocean dumping as a potential disposal option in the future if it was permitted.

EPA did not appeal the 1981 court decision. In

light of the decision and various arguments that a

total ban on marine waste disposal was unnecessary and perhaps counterproductive (377), EPA began to focus on developing a more comprehensive

management strategy. EPA is still in the process

of promulgating new regulations based on the decision. Major questions remain, however, about

how much analysis will be required when the economic and technical feasibility and environmental

soundness of alternative options are considered. It

is also unclear how decisions will be made when

alternatives to marine disposal of sludge are not

environmentally superior or readily implemented

(291 ,502). The philosophical shift from ocean protection to management is not yet incorporated into

MPRSA, but amendments passed by the House

of Representatives in 1985 showed some movement

in that direction (H. R. 1957).

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act

The Federal Government has played a role in

the abatement of water pollution since the turn of

the century. Initially, the Federal role was limited

to offering assistance to the States in cases that involved interstate waters. This role has gradually increased over the last several decades: today’s Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Water

Act (CWA) (33 U.S. C. 1251 et seq.), has jurisdiction over all U.S. waters, establishes standards for

industries and municipalities, and contributes billions of dollars to the construction of municipal

waste treatment plants.

When enacted in 1972, CWA was the most comprehensive and expensive environmental legislation

to date, It set the ambitious goal of eliminating all

discharges of water pollutants by 1985, and had an

interim objective, where possible, of making the

Nation’s waters “fishable and swimmable’ by

1983. Major revisions were made in 1977 and 1981,

which among other things modified these deadlines.

The Water Quality Act of 1987 further amended

the act (see box C in ch. 1).
152 • Wastes in Marine Environments

The primary purpose of CWA is to restore and

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of U.S. water resources. To accomplish this,

Congress established a combined Federal and State

system of controls to implement water programs.

CWA consists of two major parts: the Federal grant

program to help municipalities build sewage treatment plants (Title II); and the pollution control programs, which consist of regulatory requirements

that apply to industrial and municipal dischargers.

Responsibility for implementing and administering CWA programs is delegated to States that can

demonstrate that they have the legal authority and

resources to do so.

NPDES and the National Pretreatment

Program— Sections 402 and 307

Under Section 402, all facilities—industrial and

municipal-discharging directly into the navigable

waters of the United States are required to obtain

a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. ‘ ‘Direct’ discharges regulated under NPDES must:

1. comply with applicable effluent limitations;

2. not result in violation of applicable water quality standards; and

3. for marine discharges, comply with the Ocean

Discharge Criteria (Sec. 403).

Industrial effluent limitations are based on national

guidelines developed by EPA for major industrial

categories. G Municipal effluent limitations are based

primarily on requirements to provide ‘‘secondary’

levels of treatment (ch. 9).

Section 307 established the National Pretreatment Program (40 CFR 403.5), which authorizes

and mandates municipalities operating publicly

owned treatment works (POTWs) to develop a pretreatment program capable of regulating industrial

‘The ‘‘ fundamentally different factors’ (FDF) fariance procedure

(40 CFR 125.30-32) aIlows a discharger to apply to EPA fbr modilicat ion of an effluent limitation when additional information demonst rates that the characteristics of the discharge are ‘‘fundamentally

different’ from those considered when the effluent limitation was set.

If a ~ariance is granted, EPA or a delegated State tailors an effluent

limitation to the discharge. Some observers have expressed concern

that the usc of such variances, as encouraged by the courts (e. g., Chemical Manufacturers .4ssociation v. ,%’RDC’; 105 S. Ct. 1102, 1985),

could lead to less stringent controls on toxic water pollution ( 176).

The Water Quality A( t of 1987 authorized EPA to ~rant FDF variances under strictly limited conditions.

discharges into municipal sewers (“indirect’ discharges). General pretreatment standards prohibit

the discharge of pollutants that can create a fire or

explosion, or damage or interfere with POTW

operations. Categorical pretreatment standards

have also been developed for major industrial categories; these are intended to remove pollutants that

might otherwise pass through POTWs into U.S.

waters.

Implementing the NPDES and pretreatment

programs has affected marine waste disposal in at

least two major ways. 7 First, it has resulted in the

generation of large quantities of treatment sludges,

some of which have been considered for marine

disposal-particularly municipal sludges. Second,

it provides direct control over the discharge of pollutants from point sources to marine environments,

or to other bodies of water that eventually reach

marine waters.

Types of Pollutants Regulated.—When first

adopted, CWA focused primarily on the control of

highly visible conventional pollutants such as suspended solids and, as added later, oil and grease.

There was, however, increasing recognition of the

serious impacts associated with the discharge of

non-conventional and toxic pollutants. a The development of a list of so-called toxic ‘ ‘priority pollutants, resulting from settlement of a suit (commonly known as the ‘‘Flannery Decree’ brought

against EPA by the Natural Resources Defense

Council (NRDC), reflected this growing concern. g

This list was incorporated into CWA in the 1977

amendments. Pollutants listed were to be the first

toxic pollutants for which EPA would develop pollution control standards.

Types of Standards Governing Pollutant Discharges. —Each NPDES permit contains effluent

limitations on specific pollutants that are present

7NPDES and the Nat ionaf Pretreatment Program, including problems associated with their implementation, arc discussed in detail in

ch, 8

‘See box A in ch. 1 for definitions of these classes of pollutants.

‘The current list of 126 regulated toxic pollutants is largely the result of two court settlements, .\ratural Resources Deft’nst’ Council v.

Train (Gil, A No, 2153-73 (D. 1>, (3, 1976)) and Natur-al Resources

Def&nse Council v. Cosde (636 F.2d 1229 (D. C. Cir. 1980)), which

require EPA to develop technolog},-based ef’fluent 1 im itat ions based

on Sees, 301 and 304 for these priorit} pollutants, The Flannery Decree also included a list of primary industrial categories for which EPA

was to develop specific effluent Ilmitat ions. See ch, 8 for f’urthcr d iscussion.
150 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

the different treatment of dredged and nondredged

material was successfully challenged in court in National Wildlife Federation v. Cosde (often referred

to as Costle 11; 629 F.2d 118 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).

The court held that EPA must consider all Section

102(a) criteria in developing regulations, but that

it is not bound to apply all criteria to every permit

decision or to every type of waste material.4

‘Prior to 1974, under Sec. 103(d), COE could apply to EPA for

a waiver of the environmental impact criteria. Only one waiver was

ever applied for and it was not granted; the 1974 amendments to

MPRSA prohibited EPA from issuing such waivers.

The Continuance of Ocean Dumping and the

City of New York Decision

Throughout most of the 1970s, EPA invoked a

policy of phasing out all ocean dumping and encouraging municipal and private dumpers to seek

land-based alternatives. In 1977, Congress statutorily mandated phasing out all “harmful” sewage dumping by December 1981 and later imposed

a similar deadline for terminating the dumping of

industrial wastes. These stringent deadlines were

set primarily because several severe marine pollution incidents in the mid- 1970s had heightened pub-
Ch. 7—Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal • 153

in the discharge. These effluent limitation standards are either technology-based, as set forth in Sections 301 and 304, or water quality-based, as set

forth in Section 302. Technology-based standards

are derived from estimates of the removal of pollutants that could be achieved through application

of best practicable technology (BPT), best available technology (BAT), or best conventional technology (BCT). EPA or a State with an approved

NPDES program is responsible for translating the

applicable standards into specific effluent limitations on a permit-by-permit basis.

The 1972 CWA (Sec. 307(a)(2)) mandated that

EPA establish toxic effluent standards based on

health and environmental considerations such as

water quality (567). For a variety of reasons, including lack of needed scientific information, only

six toxic effluent standards of this type were ever

developed (1 77). 1

° The 1977 amendments, largely

through the incorporation of the Flannery Decree,

further directed EPA’s efforts toward the development of technology-based standards. These standards are derived by estimating the extent of pollutant removal accomplished through use of a

particular level of control technology.

The legislation required the use of increasingly

stringent control technology. For existing sources

discharging directly to U.S. waters, BPT primarily designed to control conventional pollutants was

to be employed initially; later, BAT was to be introduced for toxic and non-conventional pollutants

and BCT for further reduction of conventional pollutants (Sees. 301 and 304). For new sources, compliance with new source performance standards

(NSPS) equivalent to BAT/BCT was mandated

(Sec. 306). Finally, indirect dischargers using municipal sewers were required to comply with

pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES)

and pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS),

which were analogous to BAT and NSPS, respectively.

Since the 1977 CWA Amendments, EPA has

promulgated BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for most of the primary industries. Industrial sources were originally to have

IOThis slow rate of progress was one of the primary factors that motit’ated .NRDC to bring suit against EPA in the first place.

achieved BPT by July 1, 1977 and BAT/BCT by

July 1, 1984. However, final compliance dates for

many of these standards have yet to be reached (ch.

8).

CWA retained provisions to allow the development of water quality-based standards. Section 303

requires States to set water quality-based standards

for their waters. If a permitted discharge is likely

to violate these standards, Section 302 requires that

water quality-based effluent limitations be incorporated into the discharge permit to ensure achievement of the standards. Several States with approved

NPDES programs have instituted a number of

innovative approaches to water quality-based permitting (1 30).

Dredged Material Disposal—Section 404

The disposal of dredged material in U.S. waters

is regulated by several statutes (582). Under the

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, COE has authority to regulate any activity in rivers and coastal

waters which could directly interfere with their

navigability. Although much of the law has been

superseded by CWA and other laws, COE still uses

this authority, for example, to regulate dredge and

fill activities beyond the 3-mile limit. As noted

above, Section 103 of MPRSA controls the dumping of dredged material in coastal waters and the

open ocean. The discharge of dredged or fill material is regulated under Section 404 of CWA.

The 404 program is complicated and somewhat

controversial (572,582). COE evaluates permit applications using guidelines developed jointly with

EPA, and in light of review comments by EPA,

the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine

Fisheries Service, and the States. EPA can veto any

proposed sites for dredged or fill material disposal.

Where COE’s jurisdictions under Section 103 of

MPRSA and Section 404 of CWA overlap in the

territorial sea, COE typically issues an ocean dumping permit.

Provisions Specific to Marine Waters

The Ocean Discharge Criteria.—Section 403

of CWA requires that all NPDES-permitted discharges from point sources into certain marine

environments— the territorial seas, the contiguous

zone, or the open oceans—must not ‘‘unreasona-
754 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

bly degrade the marine environment” (225).11 Under this delineation, marine waters shoreward of

the baseline are excluded, and thus the criteria do

not apply to discharges into estuaries and coastal

waters such as Chesapeake Bay, New York Harbor, and Puget Sound (45 FR 65944, Oct. 3, 1980).

Section 403 only began receiving dedicated funding in fiscal year 1987. EPA, however, is considering applying the criteria to estuaries and other

waters inside the baseline of the territorial sea.

Given that the criteria are considered relatively

stringent, this could provide an additional level of

protection for these waters.

The ocean dumping and ocean discharge regulations (40 CFR 227 and 40 CFR 125, respectively)

rely on similar data and require similar decisions,

but for different activities. 12 This has led some observers to argue that the criteria should at least be

consistent (377), The main differences between the

two sets of criteria is that MPRSA has additional

requirements to consider the need for the proposed

dumping and to use locations, when possible, beyond the edge of the continental shelf (see box R).

Waivers from Secondary Treatment.—Section

301(h) of CWA exempts qualified POTWS that discharge into marine waters from the requirement

to achieve secondary treatment; yet, it still requires

monitoring, implementation of existing pretreatment requirements, and compliance with existing

water quality standards. EPA adopted final

amended rules in 1982 (47 FR 53666, Nov. 26,

1982), and a total of 208 applications were received

by the administering EPA regional offices. By January 1987, EPA had approved 46 applications;

another 125 applications were withdrawn or denied,

and no final action had been taken on the remain1 JThe defin i[ ion (40 C FR 125.121 ) of ‘‘unreasonable degradation

of the marine environment’ is:

● significant adverse changes in ecosystem diversity, productivity,

and stability of the biological community within and surrounding the discharge area,

● threat to human health through direct exposure to pollutants or

through consumption of exposed aquatic organisms; or

● loss of aesthet ic, rccreat ional, scientific, or economic values that

is unreasonable in relation to the benefit derived from the d ischarge.

IZIn a 1977 case, Pacifjc Legal Foundation V. Quarles (440 F. SUPP.

316), the court found that these criteria could be applied concurrently

to ocean discharges or dumping. This combination of discharge and

dumping criteria was subsequently challenged and in 1979 the court

ordered EPA to issue new guidelines for Sec. 403 ocean discharge permits (Pacific Legaf Foundation v (losde, Civ. No, 5-79 -429 -PCW’),

ing 37 (see ch. 9, figure 34). The 301(h) program

was initially envisioned as appropriate primarily for

west coast municipalities discharging effluent into

deep, cold waters, and for the most part EPA’s decisions reflect this intent.

Provisions Addressing Comprehensive Waste

Management in Estuaries and Coastal Waters

A number of statutory provisions potentially bear

on estuaries and coastal waters, Currently, 21 programs—under 8 different statutes administered by

11 different Federal agencies—affect these waters

in some way (670). Clearly, efficient management

of estuaries and coastal waters requires careful integration and coordination of these various programs. Several provisions of CWA address or could

address long-term planning and management efforts in estuaries and coastal waters:

● estuarine programs (Sec. 104),

. estuarine management conferences, and

● area-wide planning (Sees. 208 and 303).

National Estuary Program—Section 104.—

CWA is the primary statute governing pollution

in estuarine and coastal marine environments. Section 104(n) directs EPA—through appropriate coordination of interagency, intergovernmental, and

public and private sectors—to conduct comprehensive studies on the effects of pollution on estuaries

and estuarine zones. EPA was directed to coordinate interstate pollution abatement and management in the waterbodies and to transfer funds to

NOAA to develop a comprehensive water quality

sampling program. To carry out these responsibilities, EPA created the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP) and NOAA created the

National Estuarine Program.

Appropriations were first made in fiscal year

1985, when $4 million was designated as part of

Public Law 99-160 for water quality research, monitoring, and assessments in four waterbodies: Long

Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, Buzzards Bay,

and Puget Sound. This initiative has since been

known as the National Estuary Program (NEP).

Additional waterbodies—San Francisco Bay and

the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds in North

Carolina—were added to NEP in April 1986. The

1986 budget was $5.6 million. The Water Quality

Act of 1987 authorized additional funding and provided more direction for NEP (ch. 1).
Ch. 7—Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal ● 155

A Comprehensive Master Environmental Plan

is being developed for each waterbody. Ideally, each

plan will address the control of point and nonpoint

sources of pollution, implementation of environmentally sound land-use practices, the control of

freshwater input and removal, and the protection

of living resources and pristine areas. In addition,

the plans are supposed to delineate public participation and monitoring programs, and identify personnel and funding needs. The focus of the Federal effort is on planning and management; given

statutory limits, implementation of the plans will

generally be left to local or State authorities. In most

cases, this means that EPA supports the efforts of

a particular local or State planning or management

agency, rather than serving as the lead agency for

an area.

In some areas, however, the coordination between Federal and State efforts has not been entirely smooth. In the Puget Sound region, for example, programs of the State of Washington and

of EPA Region 10 currently are separate, but

loosely coordinated. One source of contention is

that EPA has kept control of the $1.4 million received by the area from the Federal Government

and restricted the participation of all other agencies to ‘‘review and comment. The Puget Sound

Water Quality Authority contends that greater

Federal-State coordination in deciding on the priorities for spending these moneys will be needed

to avoid having the two programs operate in different directions (K. Skinnarland, Puget Sound Water

Quality Authority, pers. comm., 1986).

Drawing on experience with the Chesapeake Bay

and Great Lakes Programs, EPA has developed a

draft manual that will provide guidance on the development of comprehensive management plans for

current and future sites. In a related effort, EPA’s

Near-Coastal Waters Strategic Planning Initiative

is identifying implementation options that EPA

could pursue to better control point and nonpoint

sources, protect living resources, and manage land

use in and around estuaries and coastal waters

(670).

Estuarine Management Conferences.—The

Water Quality Act of 1987 authorized EPA to convene management conferences to solve pollution

problems in estuaries. The conferences would be

authorized to:

1.

2.

3.

4.

collect data on toxics and other pollutants within

an estuary,

develop comprehensive conservation and management plans that recommend priority corrective actions and compliance schedules to control

point and nonpoint sources of pollution,

monitor for program effectiveness, and

develop plans for intergovernmental coordination for implementation.

Areawide Planning—Section 208 and 303.—

Two existing sections of C WA address regional or

areawide planning and can be applied to estuary

management. The intent of Section 208 is to link

various water pollution control requirements on the

basis of watersheds, primarily to control nonpoint

source pollution. Section 303(e) provides for a Continuing Planning Process by States and is another

regional approach to water quality management.

This provides for coordination with Section 208 and

emphasizes better implementation of water quality standards. 1

3

Under Section 208, an agency of local governments is selected by the governor(s) of the State(s)

to coordinate regional planning. The emphasis has

frequently been on controlling nonpoint sources and

linking their control with controls on wastewater

and storm discharges. This involves coordinating

State and local efforts, with at least partial guidance and funding by the Federal Government.

However, the program encountered numerous

problems resulting from disagreements among State

and local officials over authority for implementation, discontinuity in funding levels, inadequate

technical information on nonpoint pollution, and

delays by EPA in issuing rules and guidelines (88,

557,570,699). Section 208 funding was terminated

in 1981, although some funds for areawide planning continue to be distributed under Section 203(j)

of CWA.

13The water Qu~ it}r Act of 1987 included a pro~’ision that would

require the inclusion of proposed treatment works in areawide Sec.

208 and Sec. 303(e] plans, The act also included a pro~ision that would

establish a program for management of nonpoint sources of pollut ion.

The program wou]d protide $400 million for 4 years to States to develop nonpoint source management programs.

63-983 - 87 - 6 : QL 3
156 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Section 208 plans have been developed for some

coastal areas. In San Francisco Bay, for example,

a regional body (the Association of Bay Area Governments) received Section 208 funding and

produced a comprehensive Environmental Management Plan in the late 1970s. The plan covered

air, water, and solid waste management for the

Bay, and called for, among other things, establishing a research program to improve monitoring and

understanding of pollutant impacts in the Bay. As

a result, in 1982 the San Francisco Bay Regional

Water Quality Control Board adopted the Aquatic

Habitats Program Plan to assess pollutant effects

in the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary (R. H.

Whitsel, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, pers. comm., November 1986; also see

app. 1). In the Puget Sound area, the Washington

Department of Ecology used Section 208 funding

to develop a dairy waste management plan. In the

Chesapeake Bay watershed, both Sections 208 and

303(e) were used to prepare and adopt a number

of river basin plans to help alleviate water quality

problems; these programs, however, have achieved

only limited success (168).

KEY ISSUES AFFECTING MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAMS

The most important findings and policy options

discussed in this report relate to the need to improve current water pollution control programs, the

need for and desirability of more comprehensive

management in estuaries and coastal waters, and

the great need for information in these areas (ch.

1). Three sets of issues are critical to understanding these findings and options and to the development of sound marine waste disposal management:

1.

2.

3.

issues associated with the management of industrial effluents under current water pollution control programs,

issues related to the effectiveness of existing comprehensive waterbody management programs,

and

issues related to the status and needs of relevant

information programs.

Industrial Effluents and Current Water

Pollution Control Programs

OTA’s analysis of current water pollution control programs discovered several key problems related to the adequacy of the regulatory framework

for controlling point source pollution. These issues

are briefly summarized here and discussed in detail in chapter 8.

Delays in Program Implementation.—Federal

regulations for some significant industrial categories have yet to be promulgated or have compliance dates that have not yet been reached, and enforcement actions cannot be taken until compliance

dates have been reached. Incomplete and inconsistent identification and permitting of dischargers

is also a widespread problem. Finally, some

POTWs have been slow to develop pretreatment

programs and have them approved by States or

EPA, and thus many indirect industrial dischargers

remain essentially unregulated.

Gaps and Deficiencies in Program Coverage.

—For a variety of reasons, several significant industrial categories and many toxic pollutants-both

priority and nonpriority—remain unregulated under the current framework. Moreover, the incorporation of new or upgraded effluent limits even

for regulated pollutants and regulated industries has

been sporadic and slow. Finally, only marginal development and use of water quality-based standards for toxic pollutants has occurred.

Inadequacy of Regulatory Compliance and

Enforcement.—Problems in three major areas

exist:

1.

2.

3.

the quality and completeness of data submitted

by dischargers;

the extent of noncompliance with effluent standards or other permit requirements; and

the extent, timeliness, and effectiveness of enforcement actions taken in response to violations.

Additional Issues Facing the Pretreatment

Program. —Other issues that must be addressed

include the potential for conflict between the need

for local control and national consistency; the lack

of incentives for full implementation and enforce-
Ch. 7—Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal ● 157

ment of pretreatment programs; and the adequacy

of controls over the legal discharge of hazardous

waste into sewers.

Waterbody Management Programs

One key finding of this report is that estuaries

and coastal waters are in need of further protection if even the current level of water quality is to

be maintained. Several recently established programs are attempting to provide more comprehensive and coordinated management of estuaries and

coastal waterbodies. This section briefly illustrates

the general approaches, capabilities, and deficiencies of several of these ‘‘waterbody management’

programs, including some non-Federal programs.14

A variety of local, State, and national programs

exist to manage estuaries and coastal waterbodies

(table 12 and app. 1). Some programs address only

one waterbody, while others address multiple areas,

The Chesapeake Bay Program, for example, focuses on a single estuary, while the National Estuary Program currently is conducting activities in

six areas. Programs are also initiated at various

levels of government. For example, some programs

are initiated primarily by the Federal Government

(e. g., the Chesapeake Bay Program), while others

are initiated by the States (e. g., Puget Sound Water

Quality Authority), or by local authorities (e.g.,

the Southern California Coastal Waters Research

Project).

Regardless of the level at which a program is initiated, a number of agencies from different levels

of government are likely to be involved in implemention. The Federal EPA and State environmental protection departments generally are involved in various aspects of a program. In addition,

other Federal agencies (e. g., COE, NOAA, Fish

and Wildlife Service), their counterparts at the State

level, and various municipal and county authorities (e. g., port districts, sewerage authorities) can

have specific responsibilities or interests in managing the water quality of estuarine or coastal

waters. The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA), for example, involves the coordina1 +It do{.s nOt ~ttempt to e~a]uate the successes and failures of the

selected programs, to identify all existing programs, or (o identify geo-

~raphic areas in great need of such programs. Box S describes some

selected i ntcrnat ional perspcct i~es on watcrbociy management,

tion of many State, regional, and local government

agencies (464,5 13).

Waterbody management programs are designed

to serve a variety of functions and their structures

vary accordingly (table 12). The wide variety of

programs is understandable. Some programs are

designed primarily to share information about research needs or findings; some are given decisionmaking authority only for distributing research

funds; others have clear goals for improving water

quality and have authority for planning and/or coordination.

For example, the Southern California Coastal

Waters Research Project (SCCWRP) focuses its research on the environmental effects of marine disposal of municipal wastes; in contrast, the Aquatic

Habitat Institute (for San Francisco Bay) directs

its research to facilitate coordination of the efforts

of other regional, State, and Federal agencies in

the area. For the Chesapeake Bay, all these functions— research, planning, and program coordination— are the responsibility of one management

body, the Chesapeake Bay Program.

At least two broad needs must be met by any

program designed for the management of waterbodies: 1) it must possess sufficient statutory and

regulatory authority to carry out its assigned functions, and 2) it must have the ability to coordinate

other agencies and programs already involved in

some aspect of managing the waterbody. Since numerous Federal, State, and local programs and

agencies are typically involved in the management

of individual waste types and/or sources for a given

waterbody, it is essential that the various programs

be informed of each other’s actions and that lines

of authority and jurisdiction be clearly defined.

Within these two general areas of need, a number of specific functions can be performed by a program, including:

Planning: Includes setting priorities among

pollution sources, waste types, or pollutants;

setting goals and target dates for their achievement; scheduling research and other programmatic activities; and planning the allocation

of resources.

Initiating research and establishing data requirements: Includes identification of research

needs, and initiation and coordination of re-

Ch. 7—Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal ● 159

establishing an Interministerial Committee for Marine Resources in 1979 and issuing a “National Policy for

Marine Resources” in 1980.

Brazil also has attempted to tackle some specific marine pollution problems, for example in the Santos

Estuary, one of the most polluted estuaries in the world. Santos is a major port and tourism area, located

downstream from Sao Paulo (a city of 15 million people) and Cubatao, major industrial area. The Santos

Estuary receives raw sewage from Sao Paulo and industrial and hydroelectric powerplant discharges from

Cubatao. High levels of oxygen-demanding substances, phenols, metals (e. g., copper and zinc), and pesticides have been detected in the water, and metals and pesticides have been found in sediments. Some observers suggest that the chronic pollution of the estuary could cause a total collapse of its ecosystem.

In 1983, the Brazilian environmental agency (CETESB) established the Program for Environmental Pollution Control to survey pollution sources, inventory emissions to the estuary, and develop environmental

control plans for each industrial source in Cubatao. Public participation has been encouraged throughout the

process; for example, ‘CETESB held quarterly public meetings to discuss progress of the plans. Thus far, measurable emission reductions of different pollutants (as well as improved air quality) have been recorded. The

program is particularly noteworthy for its development and use of epidemiological studies, biological methods

and criteria for assessing toxicity, and models for evaluating environmental risks (196).

●

●

●

search to support the management program;

conducting ambient monitoring and establishing databases.

Obtaining and allocating funding: Includes

obtaining and allocating financial resources

for research, planning, and other program

activities.

Implementation: Includes integrating and coordinating basinwide cleanup efforts, for both

water quality and resource management (e. g.,

through the use of management committees).

Establishing public participation: Includes

developing and imple-menting effective mechanisms for public education and participation

in decisionmaking.

Critical Function: Planning

One of the central features of most waterbody

programs is planning. It can involve research planning or management planning, both of which may

include establishing goals for improving water quality and setting priorities for action. Almost all programs are involved in research planning. For example, programs such as SCCWRP and the

Aquatic Habitat Institute are oriented primarily

towards research. Some programs are involved in

both kinds of planning. For example, the Chesapeake Bay Program (C BP) emphasizes comprehensive management for the Bay estuarine system. The

Great Lakes Program, which was the first comprehensive waterbody management program, and

CBP, which is the oldest estuarine management

program, are serving as models for the development

of the National Estuary Program (NEP). NEP is

attempting to identify conditions and trends in the

systems and develop comprehensive plans for

selected estuaries and coastal waters. Management

committees are established in each selected NEP

area to carry out the planning function.

The Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority

(GCWDA) is a program that falls somewhere between a research-oriented regional program and a

comprehensive management plan. Its focus is on

planning and developing regional facilities for treatment of industrial and municipal wastewater, hazardous wastes, municipal solid wastes, and sludge.

It also provides technical assistance to area industries (ref. 2 15; L. Goin, GCWDA, pers. comm, ,

1986).

Despite variation among existing programs, certain planning elements are generally necessary. For

example, four factors are associated with the

Chesapeake Bay Program’s success thus far:

1. Preliminary research: The effort began by

conducting research which was then synthesized and used along with other Bay studies

to understand the conditions and trends of the

Bay and the sources of pollutants; this scientific information on the Bay’s ecological con-
Table 12.—Selected Waterbody Management Programs

Southern California San Francisco Bay

Program Chesapeake Bay Puget Sound Water Great Lakes Gulf Coast Waste Coastal Water Regional Water Quality Aquatic National Estuary

features Program Quality Authority National Program Disposal Authority Research Project Control Board Habitat Institute Program

State’s regional board

for water resources

control in SF. Bay

area, oversees programs (e.g., Aquatic

Habitat Programa

) to

monitor municipal and

other point source discharges

1970

Quasi-public organization, conducts independent research on

S.F. Bay resources.

Also coordinates other

research efforts, conducts public education

Federal program to

study water quality and

pollution effects in

selected estuarine

waters; b coordinates

effotis with other Federal, State, and local

agencies

, . State agency to study

and report on impacts

of pollution on marine

and human life; and to

devise plan for management whose recommendations are binding

on other State and local agencies

1983

Federal-State effort to

control point and nonpoint pollution of Great

Lakes and basin area,

emphasis on toxic pollution; primary activity

IS research and monitoring

Multi-county unit to

control point sources

by constructing regional treatment plants

to abate pollution of

Houston Ship Channel

and Galveston Bay

Primarily local research

program to study and

monitor Impacts of municipal discharges on

marine life in coastal

waters of southern

California

January

purpose

Date of

Initiation

Participating

authorities

Funding

Overall Federal-State

efforts to control point

and nonpoint source

pollution to the Bay

1976 1977 1969 1969 1983 1985

• EPA (Federal) Great

Lakes Nat’l Program

. Composed of 9

members, 3 each

from counties of

Chambers, Galveston, and Harris

● Commission

Members:

–Sanitation Districts

of Orange, L. A.,

and Ventura

Counties

–Cities of San

Diego and L.A.

● San Francisco Bay ●

Regional Water Quality Control Board

Board of Directors:*

–U.C. Berkeley

–3 dischargers

(municipal, industrial, nonpoint)

–3 environmental

group members

–3 regulators (Cal.

F&G, Cal. Reg.

Bd., EPA)

● EPA (Federal)

● NOAA

● appropriate State

and/or local authorities (lead authority

varies in different

areas)

● Chesapeake Bay Executive Council: ●

–EPA* (Federal)

–State agencies of

MD, VA, PA

–District of Columbia

–other Federal

agencies: SCS,

NOAA, FWS,

Corps of Engineers, USGS, DOD

● Composed of appointees of diverse interests and geographicat areas m the

Sound region; exofficio members are

the Director of Ecology and the Commission of Public

Lands

. California Water Re- •

sources Control ●

Board

•

•

● Joint Points Agreement (Commission

Members)

● NOAA

• EPA

• other local

authorities

EPA (Federal–NEP)

S.F. Bay Regional

Water Quality Control

Board

California Water

Resources Control

Board

Donations from dis-

. EPA (Federal)

. State and/or local

authorities

. State of Washington . EPA (Federal) . Counties

● Pollution Control

Board

● Fees and service

charges from dischargers

. Maryland

● Virginia

. Pennsylvania

. Other Federal

agencies

chargers

aThls Droaram evaluates present and future effects of pollutants on Bay resources and encourages Integration Of all Bay-Delta Water. relafed studies

blndlv;du~l program5 have been established ,n puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, Narragansett Bay Buzzards Bay, Long Island Sound, and Albemarle-pamko Sounds. as ‘well as che=peake WY and the Great ~kes

“Indicates lead authortfy (f more than one authority revolved

SOURCE Ofhce of Technology Assessment, 1987
2.

3.

4.

The

Photo credit’ S Dollar, University of Hawaii

Monitoring waste disposal impacts is a critical component of any waterbody management strategy.

Here a diver is surveying a coral reef community near a sewage outfall from Oahu, Hawaii.

dition provided a relatively objective base

from which to generate cooperation and develop control programs.

Adequate funding: The Federal Government

and States provided sufficient funds (e. g.,

nearly $30 million was spent on research over

a 7-year period).

Long-term effort: The pace of the program

was deliberate, allowing adequate time to develop a database, clearly define the major

problems, and lay the foundation for the institutional relationships necessary for sustaining later efforts.

Strong public participation: Strong public

support existed and an active public participation program was encouraged (21).

Ability To Set, Review, and

Achieve Specific Goals

Comprehensive planning for an estuarine or

coastal waterbody involves many elements. First,

conditions in the waterbody must be understood

and specific goals set to improve trends. An effective management structure and an effective public

participation program must be established; these

can involve, for example, the scientific community,

periodic review of progress toward achieving those

goals, and a master plan endorsed by the public,

scientific community, and managers. The implementation of any plan depends to a large extent

on the planning agency’s ability to involve other

entities in the process. 15

One of the oldest programs is CBP. After 7 years

of study, CBP produced the Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection Plan. It identifies the Bay’s

most important problems, assesses current pollutant control efforts, and sets general goals for achieveing pollution abatement. The plan addresses both

point and nonpoint sources of pollution and sets

a goal of restoring the Chesapeake Bay to its condition of the 1950s, recognizing the need for longterm strategies to achieve this goal.

 ion, would of course depend on the -

 existing regulations under pollutant control

programs.
162 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Currently, the Chesapeake Bay Program is implementing a $100 million cleanup effort directed

at nutrient control to improve the dissolved oxygen problem in the central Bay. Additional control efforts underway include: 1) a phosphate ban

in Maryland and the District of Columbia; 2) new

nonpoint source programs in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; 3) major point source reductions from municipal sewage treatment plants

basinwide; 4) land use controls in Maryland; 5) a

moratorium on harvesting rockfish; and 6) submerged aquatic vegetation restoration efforts (96).

These efforts have only recently been initiated, so

it is too soon to judge the success of CBP’s transition from planning to implementation.

Two important issues regarding the Chesapeake

Bay Executive Council are its ability to: 1) define

specific goals for program managers in the various

State and local governments, and 2) influence actual practices in these jurisdictions. Some observers

have suggested that the Council should recommend

water quality standards, establish baywide goals for

inputs of CWA priority pollutants and nutrients,

and identify point and nonpoint control strategies

to achieve them. These observers further suggest

that the Council adopt some features of the Great

Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 (168,590),

which focuses on toxic pollutants and establishes

specific goals and standards.

A program is likely to be more effective if it has

adequate review procedures so it can adjust to

changing conditions and priorities. Yet, neither the

CBP nor the Great Lakes Water Quality Board,

for example, have specified review periods to update their management plans or agreements.lG On

the other hand, determining the appropriate time

periods for reviews can be difficult. In fact, CBP

officials have expressed resistance to updating the

1985 plan anytime soon, maintaining that in sufficient time the existing plan will lead to more stringent control efforts (590).

One example of a program that has relatively

broad authority is the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA). One of its greatest

16~e.Pite the 1978 agreement, high levels of tOXiC pollutants continue to flow into the Great Lakes (200,389). This may in part be

the result of the Great Lakes Commission’s lack of enforcement authority and insufficient authority to encourage participating go\’ernments to follow its recommendations (389,538).

strengths is its clear statutory authority to be the

lead agency for managing and protecting water

quality in Puget Sound (K. Skinnarland, PSWQA,

pers. comm., September 1986). PSWQA has developed a comprehensive management plan for the

Sound and is authorized to produce biennial reports

on the state of the Sound. Its recommendations are

binding on all other State and local government

agencies involved in Puget Sound water quality

management. The lines of authority and coordination among the various jurisdictions are specified by PSWQA in the management plan. The authority also can revise its management plan, which

should allow for quicker assessments of its success

in meeting goals and for changing priorities.

In addition, the Puget Sound Water Quality

Management Plan is more comprehensive and

detailed than those for other areas. The emphasis

is on preventing pollution by effectively implementing programs, having adequate staff and funding,

and developing a nonpoint source pollution program to address problems that cross jurisdictional

lines. It proposes specific programs for several critical areas: water quality, fish and shellfish, wetlands, and wildlife habitat. While based on up-todate scientific information, the plan also recognizes

the need (given the uncertainty surrounding many

issues) for continued support of research and monitoring in the Sound (464). Clear goals are defined,

guidelines for priority-setting are established, standards for development and implementation of the

program are specified, and a schedule for completing the planning of programs is set (subject to revision). Although the plan appears to be a promising approach to water quality management, it was

adopted in late 1986 and it is too soon to judge its

effectiveness.

The Importance of Coordination

Adequate cooperation among multiple jurisdictions and among various agencies is likely to be crucial to successful waterbody management. Difficulties arise because of jurisdictional disputes and

because land-use management issues are involved.

Such problems can be overcome, however. For instance, CBP has achieved a remarkable degree of

cooperation between the multiple jurisdictions of

the Bay. Maryland and Virginia each are developing some land-use management programs, but
Ch. 7—Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal ● 163

the amount of resources available varies with a

State’s level of interest in the Bay; in particular,

Pennsylvania’s efforts are relatively small. Yet

Pennsylvania, which borders the Bay in only one

small region, is the Bay’s main nonpoint contributor of nutrients (543).

PSWQA has an advantage in achieving coordination because the sound is located within one

State. Moreover, most of its funding is from the

Washington State legislature. Even so, there has

been some difficulty in coordinating the State and

Federal efforts (see above). Other areas such as San

Francisco Bay are located within one State, but efforts to develop comprehensive water quality management have been frustrated by the lack of a lead

agency with clear authority for coordination of various program efforts.17

Two additional factors appear crucial to effective interagency or multiple jurisdiction cooperation: 1 ) the number of agencies already attempting to manage the waterbody, and 2) the degree

of environmental degradation in the waterbody.

For example, at the time PSWQA was established

there were no well-developed, independent government programs working on comprehensive management plans for the Sound.8 In San Francisco,

on the other hand, several agencies—none with any

greater lead authority than the others, and each focused only on particular aspects of management of

the Bay’s resources—exist and compete for funding and greater authority. The San Francisco Bay

Regional Water Quality Control Board could conceivably be the lead agency for San Francisco Bay,

but it lacks authority as well as necessary resources

(R. H. Whitsel, San Francisco Bay Regional Water

Quality Control Board, pers. comm., September

1986). In addition, the Sound is generally consid17 For point sources, the San Francisco Bay Rc~ional W’ater @ality Control Board has authorit}. to formulate and adopt water quality

contro] plans and in the process must consider recommendations of

affected State and local agenc it-s, The basin plan documents for this

must be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board. In

this way, for poinr sourccw the Regional Board acts to encourage regional planning and takes an} action required within its authority to

achieve water qualit~ control; however, no authority in the Bay area

coordinates compreknsite management acti~ities (I e., both nonpoint

and point source controls) (R. H Whitsel, California Reg]onal J$’atcr

Qualit} Control Board, pers comm., No\ember 1986)

I a~]ne exccptlon is ~~pAs Puqet Sound Est uatw Pro,gram which focuses on problems of contain inated sediments in the urban izcd ba}i

of Puget Sound,

ered to have less severe environmental problems

than other areas such as San Francisco Bay or

Chesapeake Bay (464).

One purpose of the management committees

established by EPA’s NEP is to encourage cooperation by bringing together the managers of the

various organizations involved. Recently, mediation has been used to help resolve conflicts among

various jurisdictions involved in development planning for an estuary (i. e., the Columbia River estuary in Oregon and Washington; (2 16)). This

technique could be applied to developing waste

management plans for an estuary or coastal area

where there are disagreements among the controlling jurisdictions.

Additional Functions—Research, Funding,

and Public Participation

Research.—One major objective in most waterbody programs is the study of the existing conditions in a particular waterbody and, in some cases,

the coordination of research efforts in the area. For

example, EPA’s Great Lakes National Program

monitors water, sediments, fish tissue, and air deposition to identify critical areas in the lakes that need

remedial action. It also prepares plans for phosphorous control and for nonpoint source control of

conventional and toxic pollutants (1 ,663). CBP and

PSWQA also play lead roles in coordinating and

conducting research for Chesapeake Bay and Puget

Sound, respectively, and research is the sole purpose of SCCWRP.

A unique approach is being tested for San Francisco Bay, where numerous agencies are involved

in research and management and no one program

has the lead authority to coordinate these efforts.

Disagreements over the interpretation of research

findings led the State and Regional Water Quality Boards to create the Aquatic Habitat Institute.

Its purpose is to conduct independent research on

the Bay and serve as an unbiased authority on scientific and technical matters related to the Bay (D.

Segar, Aquatic Habitat Institute, pers. comm.,

September 1986).

Funding. —Adequate funding is obviously essential for any waterbed y management program.

Existing programs obtain funding in several ways,

for example, from government agencies and from

user fees or other revenue-generating mechanisms.
164 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Strong governmental funding, for example, has

been key to CBP’s accomplishments. CBP has obtained more research money from the Federal and

State governments than any other program, in part

because Chesapeake Bay is the Nation’s largest estuary and has high commercial and recreational

value. Initial funding for CBP came from the Federal Government, but recently the States have assumed more responsibility. Currently, States (with

Maryland as the main contributor) contribute $47

million and EPA contributes approximately $10 million each year for research and monitoring (334,

543).

Other programs have been funded quite differently. For example, PSWQA is funded by the State

of Washington. One of the innovative features of

the Aquatic Habitat Institute is its funding: the institute was created by the California legislature and

receives about one-third of its funding from the

State, one-third from EPA’s National Estuary Program, and the remaining third from sources such

as donations from municipal and industrial dischargers. The institute is required, however, to develop its own funding strategies to eventually support itself as an independently funded, nonprofit

organization. It is likely to use discharger taxes or

user surcharges, rather than line-item appropriations as most waterbody programs do. The Gulf

Coast Waste Disposal Authority (GCWDA) funds

its operations with non-public sources of revenue

by issuing bonds to build waste treatment facilities

that are then repaid by the industries or municipalities involved. GCWDA, although a unit of government, is designed to operate much like a business; any excess funds generated by its pollution

control programs are used for other experimental

or innovative programs (L. Goin, GCWDA, pers.

comm,, 1986).

Public Participation. —Public participation is

also critical to the success of waterbody management programs. It provides people an opportunity

to have a say in decisions that affect them, and it

can help ensure that economic and technical issues

are not considered in isolation from relevant social

and political aspects of environmental problems.

In addition, waterbody management is likely to be

given higher priority if the public is greatly concerned and well-informed about protecting a particular waterbody. For this reason, public education programs, as well as public participation in

citizen advisory panels or through other means, are

important aspects of any management program.

Most waterbody management programs make

some provision for public participation (e. g.,

PSWQA, Great Lakes Water Quality Board). CBP

has encouraged particularly strong citizen involvement through the Citizen’s Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc., an alliance of nonprofit organizations formed in 1971. The public is also involved

through the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a nonprofit organization with an endowment of $3 million and an annual budget of $400,000. The foundation has initiated educational and land acquisition

projects, as well as activities in legislative, administrative, and judicial proceedings (21 ,543).

Summary of Waterbody Program Functions

Estuaries and other waterbodies do not recognize political boundaries, so programs for their

comprehensive management often require the coordination of many political jurisdictions and agencies. This can greatly complicate the functioning

of any such programs. Frequently, the implementation of several statutes is also involved.

It is critical that there be a lead agency to coordinate the efforts of everyone involved and establish clear lines of responsibility and authority in any

effort to better manage estuaries and coastal waters.

The success of establishing such authority often depends on how well-established existing institutions

are, because agencies are generally reluctant to surrender authority to other agencies.

Other factors are also critical to the successful

functioning of waterbody programs. These include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

adequate study and assessment of the waterbody, including peer review of the findings

as part of the development of an adequate scientific basis for decisionmaking;

setting specific goals and priorities;

the ability to evaluate the program on a continuous basis and shift priorities for action accordingly;

sufficient funding and staff to support these

efforts; and

strong public participation programs.

The role of the Federal Government in waterbody management programs varies greatly. The
Ch. 7—Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal ● 165

Federal Government has been very active in initiating and participating in CBP, and has been referred to as ‘‘the glue which binds the Bay Program

together’ (168). Its role in other programs has been

more peripheral. Even in the National Estuary Program, which is administered by EPA, the Federal

role is primarily one of guidance. In some areas,

for example, the Federal Government uses NEP

to channel Federal funding to the lead agency of

a waterbed y management effort. In other cases,

Federal money is sprinkled among regional, State,

and local agencies, which can reinforce the tendency

toward fragmented efforts or lead to duplication of

or competition between efforts. Enforcement may

be an area where a strong Federal presence is

appropriate; it can also be argued, however, that

the States should have greater control of enforcement programs because they are in closer proximity

to the problems, and that EPA’s role should be one

of strong oversight.

Information Programs

An assortment of public and private entities generate and disseminate the information that is needed

to develop and implement sound waste disposal policies. Much has been done in recent years to improve the Nation’s ability to obtain and use such

information, but serious gaps still persist in understanding waste disposal and its impacts. These gaps

exist partly because some important types of information are not gathered or analyzed, and partly

because existing information often is difficult to access and use.

Cutbacks in the funding of information-related

activities can further limit our ability to detect and

understand trends. Yet, such cutbacks are particularly likely during periods of economic constraints.

If current and future efforts (e. g., monitoring, research, analysis) are not maintained at a sufficient

level, then the utility of information collected in the

past may be seriously compromised and accurate

determinations of past trends and future changes

may not be possible.

Types of Information Activities

To develop and implement sound waste disposal

policies, information is needed about ecosytem

characteristics, the status and value of marine resources such as commercial fisheries, the types and

quantities of pollutants entering marine waters, and

the ecological and human impacts of these pollutants. Several major Federal programs are designed

to generate, analyze, and disseminate such information (app. 2).

Ecosystem Characteristics.—The effects of

waste disposal activities on marine waters and resources cannot be evaluated unless the basic characteristics of different marine ecosystems are understood. Among the important characteristics are

those of the water (e. g., flow patterns, temperature,

turbidity, and chemical parameters); sediment

(e. g., composition); and biological relationships

(e.g., diversity of organisms, food chains). Many

of these characteristics are affected by natural and

anthropogenic activities that occur over different

periods of time and over varying areas.

Many public and private agencies are engaged

in efforts to increase our understanding of ecosystems and their basic characteristics. Numerous

studies are supported by Federal agencies, such as

EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) and National Ocean Service. The National Ocean Service, for example, is developing

a National Estuarine Inventory that describes the

physical, hydrological, and biological characteristics of many estuaries. When completed, this should

provide a sound basis for comparing and assessing conditions in these estuaries. The agency also

is generating atlases that include detailed information on the physical and biological characteristics

of U.S. coastal regions.

Despite these and other efforts, information

about these characteristics often is not sufficient to

identify or understand the impacts of waste disposal

(226,341). Of necessity, most studies are restricted

to small areas, short periods of time, or limited

groups of variables. Objectives, methods, and the

quality and quantity of results vary considerably

among waterbodies or watersheds. More research

needs to be conducted on changes over relatively

large scales—for long periods of time and for entire ecological communities.

While some marine waters have received adequate attention, other waterbodies have not, includ-
166 • Wastes in Marine Environments

ing some that—while relatively free from waste disposal activities or impacts in the past—are now

threatened with imminent and rapid increases in

waste inputs. These areas include many waterbodies that receive wastes from the rapidly growing regions of the Southeastern United States, such as

parts of North Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana.

Status and Value of Marine Resources.—

Many resources (e. g., commercial fisheries and uncontaminated swimming beaches) are of obvious

and substantial value. Because commercial fisheries

and shellfisheries are of considerable economic

value, important data about them have been collected and analyzed for many years. Information

tends to be more sparse and widely scattered, however, about trends in quality, quantity, and value

of other resources.

At the national level, several regular analyses

provide data on the quantity and quality of commercially important fish and shellfish populations.

The National Shellfish Register, for example, provides information on the degree to which shellfish

waters are contaminated, although its usefulness

in fully characterizing stocks is restricted (app. 2).

Data on the quantities of fish and shellfish landed

commercially are frequently and regularly collected,

analyzed, and disseminated by Federal and State

agencies. However, these data often are inadequate

to evaluate population conditions because, for example, they may not reflect fishing effort or natural population fluctuations. Information on the economic value of fish and shellfish can be used, but

it has limitations because a sizable amount of commercial activity is not reported (38,443,514, 705).

For example, small commercial fishermen or sport

fishermen may not report their catch but still sell

it in roadside stands. The Federal budget for

analyzing commercial fishery statistics was stable

during the 1980s, and no immediate changes are

expected (ref. 618;; S.W. McKeen, NOAA, pers.

comm., August 1986).

Federal, State, and local governments and other

public and private groups also provide supplemental information on commercial fish resources, varying from studies of particular fishing industries to

analyses of pollutants in marketed fish and shellfish. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA),

for example, routinely samples a wide assortment

of fish and analyzes edible tissues for the presence

of specified pollutants. While these sources of information are useful in specific situations, they offer only a fragmented and incomplete picture of the

nationwide status and value of commercial stocks.

Considerably less information is available on the

value of recreational fishing, although in many

areas it may far exceed the importance of commercial fishing. Two major Federal sources provide information: surveys conducted every 5 years by the

FWS and Bureau of the Census (628), and annual

surveys conducted by NMFS (605,606). Other public and private entities also generate information

on recreational fisheries. For example, some States

require licenses for marine recreational fishing and

thereby generate information on the number of

fishermen in those States. In addition, several government studies address the health risks suffered

by recreational fishermen who consume contaminated catches.

Little information is available, on a national

scale, about the value of recreational resources such

as beaches and coastal parks. The primary data

come from a few Federal surveys that summarize

visits to coastal wildlife refuges and National Parks.

The National Ocean Service’s Economic Survey

of’ Outdoor Marine Recreation in the USA will include a comprehensive inventory of publicly provided outdoor recreation when completed (348,

611), Additional information on these resources (as

well as on commercial and recreational fisheries)

in more geographically limited areas—at the State

level, for example—comes from studies supported

by the Federal Sea Grant College Program (604,

61 7,706). The Sea Grant program received about

$40 million in fiscal year 1986, but was slated for

elimination in the proposed fiscal year 1987 budget.

Pollutant Inputs and Transport.—Information

on the levels of pollutants in discharges, dumped

material, or runoff is gathered by multiple

sources—from Federal, State, and local governments; from dischargers themselves; or from private research efforts. The levels are measured both

directly and indirectly; for example, permits can

indirectly indicate the expected level and composition of discharges, and discharges or runoff can

sometimes be described on the basis of pollutants

found in nearby sediments, water, and organisms.
Ch. 7—Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal ● 167

Information from these sources varies widely in accuracy, completeness, and accessibility.

Related activities can affect the quality and quantity of’ information on permitted discharges. For example, Federal laws and regulations prescribe what

information dischargers must report. Enforcement

generally reduces the deviation of discharges from

legal levels, which enhances the value of permits

as indicators of’ discharge quality and quantity.

Federal agencies-the primary ones being EPA,

the Corps of Engineers (COE), and NOAA—are

involved in efforts to generate, analyze, and d isseminate information on pollutant inputs. EPA and

COE generate a great deal of information on discharges from particular industries or waste disposal

activities. Other Federal agencies, such as the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) and Department of

Agriculture, generate information on nonpoint runoff-. The National Stream-Quality Accounting Network of USGS provides information on pollutants

discharged into fresh waters and ultimately transported into estuaries. Compiling this information

accurately and comprehensive on a national scale

is difficult.

One notable Federal effort is NOAA’s National

Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory, which pools

information from numerous sources on pollutant

inputs into U. S. estuaries and coastal waters. When

complete, and if’ updated periodically, it could providc useful overviews of trends in pollutant inputs

into these waters. It also could be useful as a tool

for evaluating the effects of different pollution control policies (6 10).

It is not possible to accurately estimate the total

Federal expenditures being directed toward information gathering and dissemination because of the

number and variety of agencies and programs involved, and the large overlap between program objectives. Given current economic restrictions and

past trends in analytical program funding, it is likely

that accurate and comprehensi~~e information on

discharges will remain difficult to obtain.

Many States also conduct programs to monitor

pollutant inputs into marine waters. Since 1977,

for example, California’s Mussel Watch has used

strategically located ‘ ‘sentinel’ organisms—in this

case, mussels— to detect pollutants in coastal

waters. The Mussel Watch has generated data on

the geographic and temporal variations in the concentrations of many pollutants. By 1985, this effort had identified at least eight areas where metals or organic chemicals had contaminated mussels

to alarming levels (71).

Impacts on Resources and Human Wellbeing.— Large amounts of information about actual impacts on marine ecosystems and humans are

generated each year by local, State, and Federal

agencies, numerous private organizations, and academic groups. At the Federal level, many of the

efforts are concentrated within the National Marine Pollution Program (NMPP). Despite these efforts, most experts agree that much more remains

unknown and that the assessment of impacts should

be more coordinated and integrated than it has been

in the past (161, 170,505,508).

The level of effort expended to generate information on marine impacts has varied around the

country and from year to year. While general trends

are difficult to ascertain because of the diversity of’

individuals and organizations involved and the variety of efforts, some specific trends are apparent.

For example, the number of samples of certain toxic

pollutants in marine organisms that were archived

each year increased dramatically}’ and peaked in the

late 1960s and then declined, with large fluctuaPhoto credit Woods Hole Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service

Laboratory work should be closely linked with field work, and

both are time-consuming and expensive. Here a technician

is sectioning fish liver tissues to analyze pollutant impacts.
168 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Figure 26.—Number of Archived Samples Per Year of Chlorinated Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls

in Fish and Invertebrates From U.S. Marine Waters, 1945-85 -

200’ —

o ● =um_–

46 49 52 55 58 61 64 7 3 7 6 7 9 8 2

Year

NOTE: Years lacking bars, no data are available.

SOURCE: al., The Historical Trend Assessment Program, and Chlorinated Pesticide Contamination in U.S. Fish and Shellfish: An Assessment

Report (Seattle, WA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessments Division, Coastal and Estuarine Assessment Branch,

November 1966)

tions during the late 1970s (figure 26). A similar

decline has occurred in the number of water quality samples collected in individual States such as

Florida (figure 27), reflecting monitoring cutbacks

by various Federal and State agencies (658).

Understanding and predicting how humans will

be affected by marine waste disposal activities involves additional layers of complexity. Determining the full impact to humans of waste-induced

changes in marine environments, for example,

presupposes that adequate information is available

about pollutant inputs and the ecological processes

that affect the fate of pollutants. 19 This is rarely

possible.

 Complexity and difficulty of establishing impacts on 

resources and humans, specifically economic injury, is reflected in regulations proposed by the Department of the Interior for ‘‘43 CFR

Part 11. Natural Resource Damage” (51 FR 27674-27753, Aug. 1,

1986).

Figure 27.—Number of Waterbody Segments in

Florida for Which Water Qualitv Monitoring Data

Are Available, 1970-85 -

800

640

 480

 320

E

z 160

0

70 72 74 76 78 80

Year

82 84

The decline in the number of segments for which data are available

reflects cutbacks in monitoring by Federal and State agencies. Only

data entered into STORET (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s system for storing and retrieving data on water quality) are included. Twenty percent of the 926 segments of water bodies in

Florida are estuaries.

SOURCE: J. Hand, et al., Water the F/orIda:

 Append/x (Tallahassee, FL: State of Florida Department of

Environmental Regulation, June 1966).
Ch. 7—Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal ● 169

The Need for Integration and Coordination

Information must be accessible and integrated

so it can be used by a wide variety of people, including policy makers. Greater integration and coordination of information-related activities, as well

as increased financial resources for their implementation, is considered essential by most observers

(266,412 ,413,415,505,506,692,693).

Many suggestions to improve the planning, execution, and usefulness of these activities have been

incorporated into the recommendations of NMPP

(app. 2). Federal agencies have heeded NMPP recommendations to a degree; for example, NOAA’s

Ocean Assessments Division has undertaken several projects to develop more comprehensive databases and disseminate increasingly sophisticated

analyses.

In addition, programs that are directed toward

specific waterbodies and that are capable of cutting across social, institutional, and scientific

boundaries may be of special value. Some crosscutting programs have been established for individual estuaries and coastal waters. Notable examples include the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, the Aquatic Habitat Institute for San

Francisco Bay, the Chesapeake Bay Program and

the Chesapeake Research Consortium, and the individual programs established under EPA’s National Estuary Program. These efforts are promising approaches to the many problems inherent in

generating and applying useful information to an

issue as large and complex as marine resource management. Similar efforts, however, do not exist for

most other waterbodies.

APPENDIX 1: EXISTING WATERBODY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Numerous programs have been initiated at the Federal, State, and local levels to address water quality

problems in a particular estuary or coastal waterbody,

including:

The Chesapeake Bay Program

The primary purpose of CBP is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the Bay’s ecosystem. It is

a combined State-Federal effort initiated by EPA in response to legislation passed by Congress in 1976. The

intensive study of the Chesapeake Bay’s water quality

and resources was the result of heightened concern in

the early 1970s about the health of the Nation’s largest

estuary. Specifically, EPA was directed to assess and

make recommendations on how to improve water quality management in the Bay, to coordinate all research

in the Bay, and to establish a system of data collection

and analysis. The study of Chesapeake Bay was authorized for 5 years, but was twice extended by a year and

was completed in 1983 at a cost of nearly $30 million.

The study focused on the Bay’s 10 most critical water

quality problems, three of which were studied intensively: 1) nutrient enrichment, 2) toxic substances, and

3) the decline of submerged aquatic vegetation. The

findings documented a historical decline in living resources in the Bay and indicated the need for better

management (95). As a result, several State and Federal entities signed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The

Agreement established the Chesapeake Executive Council to facilitate the implementation of coordinated plans

for the improvement and protection of the Chesapeake

Bay estuarine system.

The Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Protection

Plan, issued in September 1985, was the first planning

effort to result from the Agreement. The Plan describes

Federal and State strategies and programs designed to

coordinate, evaluate, and oversee the Bay’s restoration

and protection (95). The first annual progress report,

published in December 1985, discusses the plan; the coordinated monitoring program which has been developed; and modeling, research, and data management

efforts (96). In 1986, the Council began reporting on

the Bay’s water quality conditions and working with the

agricultural community on nonpoint source pollution

control programs.

The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority

PSWQA, established by the Washington State legislature in 1983, was authorized by the legislature in 1985

to develop a comprehensive management plan for Puget

Sound and its related waterways. The plan will be revised every 2 years and a ‘ ‘State of the Sound’ report

completed. The first Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan was adopted in late 1986, with implementation beginning in early 1987 (464). The plan focuses

on protecting Puget Sound from toxic pollutants and

pathogens, both of which have contaminated sediment

and harmed resources such as fish and shellfish, and on

the control of nonpoint pollution. It emphasizes a lead
170 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

role for local governments in identifying and controlling important nonpoint sources.

The Authority will oversee the implementation of the

plan, propose funding mechanisms and, if necessary,

propose new legislation. Although many Federal, State,

and local agencies are involved in the study and regulation of the Sound, the Authority is the only agency

specifically responsible for planning, oversight, and coordination of programs related to Puget Sound. It has

considerable authority because State agencies and local governments are required to evaluate, incorporate,

and implement applicable provisions of the plan.

The Great Lakes Water Quality Board

The Great Lakes together represent an extremely

large surface expanse of freshwater, yet the Great Lakes

system also functions somewhat like a large-scale estuary. The experience of the Great Lakes National Program thus serves as a model for the development of other

waterbody management programs, such as those of the

National Estuary Program. The Great Lakes Water

Quality Board was established by the United States to

implement agreements with Canada, reached under the

auspices of the International Joint Commission, regarding the water quality of the Great Lakes. The Great

Lakes National Program Office of EPA staffs the Board

and ensures that U.S. commitments are met.

Two major agreements have been reached by the

Commission: the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements of 1972 and 1978. The 1972 agreement established water quality objectives and focused on pesticide

control. The 1978 agreement added an ecosystem management approach and the goal of essentially zero discharge of pollutants; it also calls for the control of all

toxic substances.

The agreements thus encourage the protection of the

Great Lakes and call for remedial actions against pollution, as well as research and monitoring programs.

EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office and Region 5 are most involved in coordinating activities relating to the Agreements. In May 1986, the Great Lakes

States issued The Great Lakes Toxic Substance Control Agreement. Intended to be consistent with both the

Federal Clean Water Act and the Great Lakes Water

Quality Agreement, the agreement establishes a framework for coordinating regional action to control toxic

pollutants entering the Great Lakes system (200,

389,663).

The Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority

GCWDA is a unique example of a within-State waste

coordination effort. The authority is a three-county unit

of local government, established by Texas statute in

1969 to abate point source pollution in the heavily industrialized Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay

area. It has established numerous waste management

facilities, primarily sewage treatment plants, but also

some industrial treatment facilities and a land-based incineration facility. The system is funded by issuing

bonds for construction and these are repaid through user

charges (ref 215; L. Goin, GCWDA, pers. comm. ,

1986).

The authority is active in pollution control financing

and itself owns and operates four industrial wastewater

treatment facilities. These facilities treat and dispose of

liquid wastes from over 40 industrial plants. In addition, its 22 municipal wastewater treatment plants and

7 drinking water treatment plants serve over 40 water

districts or cities. The objective is for at least one-third

of these facilities to become large, regional waste treatment facilities. The authority is also pursuing regional

approaches to municipal sludge disposal and resource

recovery for municipal solid wastes.

The Southern California Coastal

Water Research Project

SCCWRP is dedicated to researching and monitoring the effects of municipal wastewater discharges on

marine life. The project publishes a report on recent research efforts every 2 years. It is sponsored by the sanitation districts of Orange County and Los Angeles

County and the cities of Oxnard, San Diego, and

Los Angeles. These wastewater dischargers created

SCCWRP through a joint powers agreement. Each has

representatives on a commission that oversees the operation of the project.

The project is not intended to study specific pollution sources or needed controls. Instead, its focus is a

variety of specific environmental problems, such as predicting sediment quality around outfalls, fish reproduction near outfalls, and the influence of chlorinated

hydrocarbons on fish. The goal of the research is to develop predictive models that would help determine what

levels of wastewater treatment are needed to protect marine life (527,528).

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water

Quality Control Board

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board is one of the major agencies involved in managing the Bay’s waters. It operates independently of,

but is responsible to, the State of California Water Resources Control Board. The Regional Board, comprised
Ch. 7—Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal ● 171

of nine appointed members who are involved in activities to control water quality in the Bay, is primarily an

enforcement agency and is 1imited to activities such as

controlling and monitoring sewage outfalls and other

point source discharges. It has no authority to control

impacts caused by pollutants carried by the Sacramento

and San Joaquin Rivers or from other areas; these are

under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Board. It

also has no authority to coordinate activities of the other

agencies involved in Bay water quality management.

The Regional Board is active in planning, reviewing,

and amending the Basin Plan for the Bay area and in

reviewing water quality standards. The plan, last

amended in 1982, is the basis for distributing both State

and Federal grants for water quality programs such as

building and upgrading wastewater treatment facilities.

The Board is also active in the study of shellfish through

the San Francisco Bay Shellfish Program and in the

State’s Mussel Watch Program. Its Aquatic Habitat

Program studies the effects of toxic pollutants on aquatic

life in the Bay (67,70).

The Aquatic Habitat Institute

The Aquatic Habitat Institute is a nonprofit, quasipublic corporation independent from, but highly supportive of, the Regional Board’s Aquatic Habitat Program. Although established in 1983, funding only began in 1986. Its purpose is to produce independent

research acceptable to all agencies and interests concerned with the management of the Bay area. The Institute is planning a number of scientific assessments and

education programs, and will attempt to better coordinate research and monitoring in the San Francisco

Bay/Delta area.

The Institute’s 10-member Board of Directors consists of representatives from a wide range of government

and nongovernment interests (see table 12). Currently,

the program’s largest single source of funding is EPA’s

National Estuary Program. This funding will continue

for 5 years. The California State and Regional Water

Quality Control Boards also contribute funds, and donations are accepted from municipal and industrial dischargers. Eventually, however, the Institute is required

to rely on its own funding strategy. This is another

unique requirement of the program and will most likely

involve the use of discharger taxes or sewer user surcharges, rather than direct appropriations (ref. 66; also

D. Segar, Aquatic Habitat Institute, pers. comm.,

1986).

The National Estuary Program

NEP was created within EPA in 1985 to oversee the

implementation efforts in the Great Lakes and

Chesapeake Bay, and to initiate comprehensive programs in other estuaries in the United States. Programs

are underway in Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, Buzzards Bay, Narragansett Bay, San Francisco Bay, and

Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds. NEP uses existing authorities under the Clean Water Act (Sec. 104), other Federal statutes, and State legislati~e authorities to control

sources of pollution. The program emphasizes the need

to focus and integrate existing programs at the Federal,

State, and local le~’els to maximize benefits of pollution

abatement. The object ive of each program in NEP is

to characterize the conditions and trends in the system

and develop an integrated management program to

maintain or restore the estuary.

The Water Quality Act of 1987 expanded the scope

of NEP and authorized additional funding for the de-

\’elopment, under its auspices, of individual waterbody

management programs.

APPENDIX 2: FEDERAL INFORMATION

AND MONITORING PROGRAMS

National Marine Pollution Program

The National Marine Pollution Program (NMPP)

was established to coordinate the 11 departments and

agencies that are engaged in research or monitoring related to marine pollution (including the Great Lakes)

(598,599). The program was mandated under the National Ocean Pollution Planning Act of 1978. Figure 28

indicates the overall Federal marine pollution research

budget for fiscal year 1984; figure 29 indicates funding

of selected activities.

In late 1985, the program issued a Federal plan for

fiscal years 1985 to 1989 (601). The plan recommended,

among other things, a greater Federal emphasis on:

1. resource-oriented monitoring to provide national

assessments of the status and trends in environmental quality,

2. better coordination of monitoring efforts,

3. research and monitoring programs related to municipal and industrial effluents,

4. research and monitoring on nutrients and pathogens (with less emphasis on metals and petroleum),
172 • Wastes in Marine Environments

Figure 28.—Total Federal Funding for the National

Marine

160 —

140

120

100

80 —

60 —

40 —

20 —

0—)—

Pollution Program, Fiscal Ye 981-87

151.6

145.9

131.4

121.1

133.6

135.0

96.8

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

Fiscal year

NOTE: 1987 amount is from the proposed budget.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, National Marine Pollution Program, 

for Ocean Pollution Research, Development, and Monitoring, 

 Years 1985-1989 (Washington, DC: September 1985); U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, National Marine Pollution Program, Summary 

Federal Programs and 1985 Update (Washington, DC:

1986).

5. data synthesis, interpretation, and information dissemination; and

6. studies conducted in estuaries and coastal waters.

The level of funding of marine pollution research conducted by the Federal agencies has declined during the

1980s, from approximately $152 million in fiscal year

1981 to about $135 million in fiscal year 1986. The

presidential budget for 1987 was approximately $97 million (see figure 28). The effects of the decline on the

above recommendations are uncertain.

The Northeast Monitoring Program

The Northeast Monitoring Program (NEMP) monitors waters from the Gulf of Maine to North Carolina’s

Cape Hatteras. Established in 1979 by NOAA, NEMP

monitors physical, chemical, and biological variables

over long periods. It establishes benchmarks for both

the concentration and distribution of pollutants and for

their effects. Since 1980, NEMP has issued several reports summarizing the health of these estuaries and

coastal waters (592 ,597). The reports condense a large

body of monitoring information, present it to a wide audience, and provide extensive references for those seeking further information. The information facilitates efforts to assess the effects of pollutants on ecosystems and

resources, and to detect and respond to important environmental changes.

NOAA Ocean Assessments Division

NOAA’s activities involving marine pollution assessment, monitoring, and research are conducted primarily by the Ocean Assessments Division (OAD), housed

within the National Ocean Service (610). Two branches

of the division are especially active in matters pertaining to waste disposal and its effects: the Strategic Assessment Branch and the Coastal and Estuarine Assessment

Branch.

Strategic Assessment Branch

The Strategic Assessment Branch evaluates and inventories coastal resources and their exploitation, and

also assesses national policies and strategies with regard

to these resources and uses (61 1). Its activities, which

accounted for 19 percent of OAD’s fiscal year 1985 budget,●

●

●

●

●

●

include:

assembling Strategic Assessment Data Atlases that

summarize key ecological, economic, and political

characteristics of each major marine region of the

United States (607);

producing a series of maps on the health and use

of U.S. coastal waters;

surveying Federal, State, and local government expenditures on outdoor marine recreation (348);

assessing levels of pollutants entering marine waters

(the National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory (600));

inventorying estuaries around the Nation (National

Estuarine Inventory), which will allow comparisons

of their use and health (362,602,619); and

periodically inventorying the status of shellfish

areas (National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters).

Coastal and Estuarine Assessment Branch

The primary function of this branch is to assess the

consequences of human activities on marine environments; its activities accounted for 35 percent of OAD’s

fiscal year 1985 budget. The branch has two relevant

programs: National Status and Trends, and Consequences of Contaminants. The bulk of the branch’s budget goes into the Status and Trends Program.20

 the Status and Trends Program and on another

program, the Assurance Program, is available in the Newsletter issued by these programs.
Ch. 7—Statutes and Programs Relating To Marine Waste Disposal • 173

Figure 29.— Federal Funding of Selected Activities Within the National Marine Pollution Program

in Fiscal Year 1984

A. Funding by project purpose (total $121 million)

Monitoring

21 “/0

Development 

Data

9%

analysi

40/o

Supporl

9 %

B. Funding by pollutant (total $56 million)

Nutrients

Radionuclides — 90/o

 Pathogens

11 ”/0

Petroleum and 

petroleum 

products

320/,

‘ Organic 

u s

cals

lesearch

55 ”/0

C. Funding by waste type (total $33 million)

Municipal

Industrial 

15 ”/0 

Other 1 -

90/0

d

l

Diagrams for B and C only include funding that can be specifically categorized by pollutant or waste type; hence totals are less than the total for A.

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, after Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Marine 

Program, Research, and F/sea/ Years 1985-1989 (Washington, DC September 1985)

The Status and Trends Program.—The objective

of the National Status and Trends Program is to document the current status and long-term trends in the quality of estuaries and coastal waters (61 5,616). The program consists of four components which perform three

major tasks:

1. providing data on concentrations of pollutants in

finfish, shellfish, and sediments;

2. measuring biological parameters that reflect stress

associated with human-induced perturbations; and

3. assessing marine environmental quality and recommending Federal responses.

The fiscal year 1985 budget for the program was $3.3

million, the fiscal year 1986 budget was $2.7 million (a

decline of 18 percent), and the proposed budget for fiscal year 1987 was $4.3 million (J. Calder, pers. comm. ,

August 1986). A major component of the program is

the Benthic Surveillance Program, which collects samples of sediment, bottom-dwelling mollusks, and

bottom-feeding fish from numerous sites throughout the
174 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

country. The samples are analyzed for substances such

as toxic metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and

chlorinated organic chemicals (610,62 1).

Consequences of Contaminants Program.—This

program develops techniques to determine how pollutants in marine waters have affected or can affect marine

fish and shellfish and human health (620). The techniques

then can augment the capabilities of the Status and

Trends Program. Recent activities have emphasized:

● evaluating indicators that signal the risk of shellfish contamination,

● documenting exposure to pollutants that results

when fishermen eat their catches, and

● quantifying the relationship in fish between exposure to pollutants and reproductive impairment.

National Shellfish Register

The Shellfish Register, issued periodically since 1966,

contains information on shellfish contamination incidents and provides important indicators of the extent

to which shellfish in U.S. waters are contaminated; the

latest register was published in 1985 (603). It uses a classification system based on concentrations of coliform

bacteria and natural marine biotoxins, although it also

includes information on substances that might be considered hazardous in the shellfish. Productive shellfish

waters can be classified as approved, prohibited, conditionally approved, or restricted. Most States implement the system voluntarily, although they may differ

in how they meet the general requirements,

The register provides only limited information on

the current status of shellfishing areas and still less information regarding past trends, in part because the

classification scheme is not used consistently by the

States. For example, the classification of a shellfish area

could be changed from approved to restricted simply

because an area was not surveyed in a particular year,

not because of actual contamination. Thus, the register is currently not well-suited for establishing trends

in the contamination of shellfish and shellfish waters,

although efforts are being made to improve it. These

efforts are, however, constrained by severely limited

budgets at both the State and Federal levels.
Man

Photo credit: Courtesy of Greenpeace

Chapter 8

aging Industrial Effluents
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............177

Existing Regulatory Framework for Point Source Pollution Control . . . . . . . . .. ...178

The NPDES Program ......, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............178

The National Pretreatment Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,....182

Types of Standards for Direct and Indirect Dischargers . ....................184

Quantities of Priority Pollutants in Industrial Discharges . .....................185

Types and Numbers of Industries Regulated Under the Clean Water Act .. ...185

Amounts of Wastewater and Priority Pollutants Generated . .................186

Projected Removal of Priority Pollutants Through Full Treatment .,.... .. ....186

Removal of Priority Pollutants Achieved to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............188

Reducing Priority Pollutants in Specific Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...189

Issues in the Management of Industrial Effluents . ...........................189

Delays in Program Implementation . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., ..189

Gaps and Deficiencies in Coverage of Toxic Pollutants . ....................192

Inadequacy of Regulatory Compliance and Enforcement . ...................195

Additional Issues Facing the Pretreatment Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203

Using Water Quality-Based Standards for Further Control of Toxic Pollutants ...205

Tables

Table No. Page

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Industrial Categories Subject to Regulation Under the NPDES and

Pretreatment Programs as Significant Sources of Toxic Pollutants , ..........180

Industrial Categories Granted Exemptions From Categorical Standards .. ....185

Expected Reductions in Discharges of Priority Metals and Organic Chemicals

by Selected Categorical Industries, Assuming Full Compliance With and

Implementation of BAT and PSES Controls . ............................186

Expected Reductions in Discharges of Priority Metals and Organic Chemicals

by Selected Categorical Industries, Assuming Full Compliance With and

Implementation of BAT and PSES Controls . ............................187

Final and Proposed Regulations for Categorical Industries . ................190

Criteria Used To Identify “Significant Noncompliance” . ..................197

Municipal Treatment Plants (POTWs) in Significant Noncompliance as of

Sept. 30, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........................198

Figures

Figure No. Page

30. Regulatory Framework and Standards for Industrial Discharges. ...,. . ......184

31. Federal Enforcement Activity, Fiscal Years 1980-86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...201

32. Amount of Average CWA Civil Penalty, 1975-86 .........................202

Box

Box Page

T. Tools for Compliance Monitoring and Data Management Under NPDES ....181
Chapter 8

Managing Industrial Effluents

INTRODUCTION

The direct and indirect discharge of industrial

effluentsl is a widespread practice that contributes

substantial quantities of pollutants to marine as well

as non-marine waters. The location, composition,

and magnitude of these discharges are all important in assessing their ability to cause or contribute to environmental and human health problems.

Industrial effluents are only a subset of the range

of materials disposed of in marine waters, yet they

provide a good illustration of the complexity of the

issues involved in marine waste disposal. The information presented here generally applies to all

industrial dischargers, whether their wastewaters

enter marine or freshwater environments, because

the statutory and regulatory framework governing

industrial discharges usually does not distinguish

between discharges into freshwater and marine environments. 2

Estuaries and coastal waters have been used

for disposal more frequently and have been more

severe] y affected than have open ocean waters.

Essentially all direct and indirect industrial discharges to marine environments occur in estuaries

and coastal waters, the majority of discharges occur-

‘ Industrial effluents are wastewaters that are discharged through

pipelines. They can bc either legally discharged directfy into receiving waters or incfirec[ly via sewerage systems operated by publicly

owned treatment works (POTWS). Both practices are regulated

through programs established under the Clean Water Act (CWA),

Direct dischargers are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and indirect dischargers fall under the National Pretreatment Program. Both programs have State

or local, as well as Federal, components.

‘Industrial discharges into coastal waters (as defined in this report)

are distinguished by the CWA and thus are a partial exception to this

generalization, CWA Sec. 403 requires that discharges into the ‘ ‘territorial sea, contiguous zone, or open ocean be in compliance with

the Ocean Discharge Criteria (40 CFR 125, Subpart M). Under this

provision, most industrial discharges into estuaries would not be required to meet the Ocean Discharge Criteria; however, industrial discharges into coastal waters would be subject to the criteria. When

promulgating the criteria in 1980, EPA estimated that about 230 landbased point source discharges, as well as fixed offshore facilities required to obtain NPDES permits (e. g., the approximately 3,000 offshore oil and gas platforms), would be affected (45 FR 65944, Oct.

3, 1980). See ch. 7 for further discussion of the Ocean Discharge

Criteria.

ring in estuaries. 3 In addition, direct and indirect

industrial discharges to rivers that subsequently

drain into estuaries and coastal waters are another

significant source of pollutants to marine waters,

though this source is difficult to quantify.

Large quantities of toxic pollutants are entering marine environments, particularly estuaries

and coastal waters. Legal discharges of industrial

effluents (contributed either directly to receiving

waters or indirectly to publicly owned treatment

works, or POTWs) often contain substantial amounts

of toxic pollutants; indeed, in the aggregate, industrial discharges represent the largest source

of toxic pollutants entering the marine environment.

The large quantities of waste entering estuaries

and coastal waters through industrial discharges reflect

1.

2.

3.

several factors:

the concentration of population and industrial

activity in coastal regions,

the cost savings to waste generators that use

marine disposal as opposed to other alternatives, and

a statutory and regulatory approach that authorizes discharge-levels based more on technological capabilities than on resulting water

quality.

The net effect of these factors is a considerable

degree of ‘ ‘acceptance’ of the routine (but environmentally very significant) discharge of effluents

into estuaries and coastal waters, especially when

contrasted with the public and government attention focused on dumping of industrial and municipal wastes in the open ocean. This dichotomy is

one reflection of the very different philosophical

approaches embodied in the two major statutes governing marine waste disposal: the managerial perspective of the Clean Water Act and the more

restrictive perspective of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (see ch. 7).

3Ch, 3 presents data on the extend of this acti~’ity that specifically

affects marine en~’ironments. This chapter presents data for all L’, S,

waters.

177
178 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

 . . 

- 

Photo credit: Northeast Technical Services Administration, U.S. Food and Drug Administratlon

More than 1,300 major industrial facilities discharge wastes directly into U.S. marine waters, mostly into estuaries.

Thousands of others discharge into rivers that carry pollutants into these waters, or into POTWs that subsequently

discharge into marine waters. These various industrial discharges are the largest sources of the organic chemicals and

many metals found in many estuaries and coastal waters.

EXISTING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR

POINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL

The NPDES Program General Structure

The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates the discharge of wastes into the navigable waters of the

United States, including estuaries and coastal waters.

This act, passed in 1972, established the National

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES,

40 CFR 122) to regulate these point source discharges. Under NPDES, all point sources—both

industrial and municipal—that directly discharge

into waterways are required to obtain permits that

regulate their discharges.4

 addition to complying with general treatment requirements specified in permits, municipal sources (i.e., and industries discharging to must comply 

 under the National Pretreatment Program.

The NPDES program contains four essential

operational elements:

1. The discharge permit is the basic ‘‘currency’

of the NPDES program. Each permit specifies effluent limitations for particular pollutants, monitoring requirements (including a

schedule), and reporting requirements for information characterizing and quantifying a facility’s actual discharge. If compliance with

final effluent limitations has not yet been

achieved, a permit (or more typically, a separate order) is issued that contains interim

limitations and a compliance schedule.
Ch. 8—Managing Industrial Effluents ● 179

2.

3.

4.

A system based on self-reporting by permitters is the basic approach used to provide the

information necessary to determine whether

effluent limits specified in a permit are being

met. The entire system therefore heavily relies on permittee integrity in reporting results

of self-monitoring.

Compliance monitoring encompasses those

activities intended to determine whether facilities are achieving the requirements contained in their discharge permits. Such activities include conducting inspections, reviewing

reports submitted by permitters, monitoring

to verify industry-reported data, and compiling

statistical information to assess compliance.

Enforcement includes all actions taken in response to an identified instance of noncompliance, including determination of the appropriate response based on the severity of a

violation and other factors, and initiating and

escalating the response until compliance is

achieved.

Permit issuance, receipt of data submitted by

permitters, compliance monitoring, and enforcement are the primary responsibility of States (if they

have been approved to administer their State’s

NPDES program under CWA Sec. 402) or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regions (under CWA Sections 309 and 504), although EPA

Headquarters and the Department of Justice can

initiate or intervene in enforcement actions. 5 Thirtyseven States and one Territory (the Virgin Islands)

have approved NPDES programs (503).

Regulated Pollutants

The 1972 CWA focused on controlling conventional pollutants. It soon became apparent, however, that toxic and non-conventional pollutants in

wastes such as industrial effluents, sewage sludge,

and dredged material also were causing adverse impacts. G In 1977, Congress amended CWA to provide additional regulation of toxic and non-conventional pollutants from specific industrial categories

‘Sec. 305 of CWA also authorizes private citizens or their representatives to bring enforcement suits against dischargers. While th]s

approach represents an increasingly effective means of strengthening

enforcement, it is beyond the scope of this report. For further information on this topic, see refs. 45, 453, and 501.

%ee box A in ch. 1 for definitions of these classes of pollutants.

within the framework of the NPDES permitting and

compliance process. 7

A list of 65 classes of toxic ‘ ‘priority pollutants’

and 21 primary industrial categories to be regulated

by EPA were included in the 1977 CWA Amendments. This list arose out of a Settlement Agreement of a suit brought against EPA by the Natural Resources Defense Council.8 EPA subsequently

divided the 65 classes into 129 priority pollutants,

an amount later reduced to 126 pollutants (40 CFR

122, app. D). The 21 industrial categories were subdivided into 34 categories (40 CFR 122, app. A);

9 of these were specifically exempted from regulation by categorical standards, leaving about 25 primary industrial categories for which categorical effluent guidelines for priority pollutants were to be

promulgated (table 13).9 An additional 35 industrial categories not included in the amendments

were designated as secondary; development of effluent guidelines for priority pollutants in these industries was deferred until an unspecified later date

(503).

Compliance Monitoring and

Data Management

Several tools have been developed to monitor

compliance, identify cases of noncompliance, and

manage data (box T).

Enforcement

EPA has revised its national Enforcement Management System (EMS) (673) to provide better guidance on enforcement to EPA Regions and delegated

States, and to provide a greater degree of nationwide consistency in administrative responses to in7Municipal dischargers (i. e., POTWS) arc required to meet standards different from those for direct industrial dischargers. Regulations

for most POTWS specify a minimum le~’el of treatment (termed “secondary’ that is measured in terms of reduct ion of coni’entional pollutant parameters. As an alternative to requiring POTWS to employ

technological means for controlling toxic and non-conventional pollutants introduced through indirect industrial discharges, CWA provides for such control through industrial pretreatment programs, Discharges from both POTWS and industrial facilit it’s must also meet

applicable State water quality control standards where they ha~e bet=n

de~rcloped.

8NRDC v. Train 8 ERC 2120, June 8, 1976; NRDC ~’. Costle,

12 ERC 1833, Mar. 9, 1979; modified by additional orders of oct.

26, 1982, Aug. 2, 1983, and Jan. 6, 1984

‘The actual number of categories has changed as categories hale

been exempted, combined, or separated.
180 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Table 13.—industrial Categories Subject to Regulation

Under the NPDES and Pretreatment Programs as

Significant Sources of Toxic Pollutantsa

Number Number

of indirect of direct

dischargers dischargers

Aluminum forming . . . . . . . . .

Battery manufacturing. . . . . .

Coal mining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coil coating I . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coil coating II . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Copper forming . . . . . . . . . . .

Electrical and electronic

components I . . . . . . . . . . .

Electrical and electronic

components II . . . . . . . . . . .

Foundries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inorganic chemicals I . . . . . .

Inorganic chemicals II. . . . . .

Iron and steel . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Leather tanning . . . . . . . . . . .

Metal finishing and

electroplating . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonferrous metals forming .

Nonferrous metals

manufacturing I . . . . . . . . .

Nonferrous metals

manufacturing II . . . . . . . . .

Ore mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Organic chemicals and

plastics and synthetic

fibers ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Petroleum refining . . . . . . . . .

Pharmaceuticals. . . . . . . . . . .

Plastics molding and

forming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Porcelain enameling . . . . . . .

Pulp and paper . . . . . . . . . . . .

Steam electric . . . . . . . . . . . .

Textile mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Timber processing . . . . . . . . .

64

134

29

80

45

244

21

499

21

17

160

141

10,200

151

85

40

0

535

39

47

392

1,145

50

261

93

1,047

47

42

15

10,375

29

3

37

83

1

301

114

35

738

17

2,800

51

79

33

515

1,082

42

164

80

810

28

355

?

229

?

Total 15,597 >18,058

~he number and names of categories listed here do not correspond exactly to

those indicated in the text or the Code of Faderal Regulations, due to subsequent

joining or dividing of categories by EPA. The numbers include only those

dischargers that are regulated under categorical standards.

SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 19S7; based on U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Regulations and Standards, Monitoring

and Data Support Division, Surnrnaryot~ffh.ferrt Characteristics arrd

Guide/lnes for Se/ected Industrial Point Source Categories: Industry

Status Sheets (Washington, DC: Feb. 28, 1986); except for data from

the proposed or final rules for the Steam Electric and Timber

Processing categories, from Science Applications International Corp.,

Overview of Sewage Sludge and ~ffluerrt MarragemerM, contract report

prepared for US. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment

(McLean, VA: March 19S6).

stances of noncompliance. First developed in 1977,

the original EMS was used by few States and EPA

Regions; current policy, however, mandates development of a formal enforcement system consistent

with the revised EMS. The revised version specifies time frames within which enforcement actions

against ‘ ‘significant noncompliers’ must be initiated and also specifies procedures for identifying,

initiating, and following through with appropriate

enforcement actions. In addition to maintaining an

inventory of permits and processing submitted data,

States or Regions are expected to:

●

●

●

conduct ‘‘enforcement evaluations’ to determine an appropriate level of enforcement action and an associated time frame, based on

guidelines and procedures developed for the

various predetermined categories of violation.

Factors to be considered include: the magnitude and duration of the violation; the compliance record of the permittee and past enforcement actions taken; the expected deterrent

effect of the response based on experience from

comparable situations; and consideration of

fairness, equity, and national consistency.

institute formal enforcement actions and follow-through wherever-necessary, usually triggered by a failure to comply through less formal means within a specified period of time.

initiate field investigations (i. e., inspections)

in support of enforcement actions according

to a systematic ‘‘annual compliance inspection

plan.

EPA expected approved States and EPA Regions

to revise and formalize their enforcement policies

to meet the new requirements and be consistent

with the new EMS by the end of fiscal year 1986.

However, the Federal Government has only limited

ability to ensure that States do so.

Enforcement Tools Available to Administering Agencies. —Once an NPDES permit violation

is identified, two primary levels of enforcement responses are used:

1. Informal enforcement responses include inspections, phone calls, violation letters, and

Federal Notices of Violation. The latter, which

is sent to the permittee and the administering State agency, can require certain steps to

be taken according to a specified schedule.

2. Formal enforcement responses require written notification that specifies: 1) actions to be

used to achieve compliance, 2) a timetable,

3) the consequences of noncompliance that are

enforceable without having to prove the original violation, and 4) the legal consequences
Ch. 8—Managing Industrial Effluents ● 181

BOX T.-Tools

 dw’glt 

i r

i

+ . “ - t

require priority review by

a determine if an enforcement ● Finally, violations 

 whether the enforcement 

be informal formal. Two sets of 

 developed evaluating violations

 compliance schedules, or 

contained in permits or 

 -....: C..

 ... - 

“ --- exceed Certain● criteria”* magnitude, 

and 

 reported quarter

 permitters 

be ---

permits achieved.

* statistical . 

 EPA “‘

States, are more comprehensive 

that they 

 had two or 

permit in 

 are 

 are :

 Regional and 

. 

 which require but

 enforcement responses. 

 developed nationally, and can

 by States to be stringent.***

 EPA has 

- S@ of criteria to instances

 noncompliance. All instances of

 be reported on Moreover,

 that violations must be ~ within one quarter) or a 

 response be initiated prior to its 

 second (generally within 60

 an acceptable 

 (or no) action is provided. 

 act on schedule, EPA

. . . authority and responsibil-

, to serve as EPA’s

 tracking permit ‘-

. 

 ill ia- . than the criteria& 

 be e.g., 

 magnitude-is a However, 

t and for schedule and reporting vio123.45. the and criteria arc equivalent.
182’ ● Wastes in Marine Environments

of noncompliance. Two basic types of formal

enforcement actions are available:

—An administrative order (AO) generally

specifies actions to be taken by a permittee

to return to compliance, and a schedule for

doing so; AOs issued by EPA cannot be

used to assess penalties, although noncompliance is itself an enforceable violation.

AOs are generally the first course of formal action because of their expedience and

low cost. More than 1,600 AOs were issued

by EPA Headquarters or Regional Offices

for CWA violations in 1984 (327).

–Judicial referrals are civil actions filed by

the State attorney general in an approved

State, or otherwise by the Department of

Justice. Such referrals are much more lengthy

and costly procedures, and fewer than 100

such actions were initiated at the Federal

level in 1984 (327).

Currently, court action is the only option available to the Federal Government that can result in

the imposition of a financial penalty. Because of

the slowness of this procedure and the low penalties that often result, however, it is generally considered an insufficient enforcement mechanism (see

discussion of the enforcement issue later in this

chapter). Moreover, insufficient resources for enforcement in EPA Regions and Headquarters effectively limit the number of judicial actions that

can be undertaken. Some States have the legal authority to impose administrative penalties, and EPA

recently was granted comparable authority through

amendments to the CWA adopted in the Water

Quality Act of 1987. Such authority should greatly

enhance the capability of EPA to mount appropriate and timely enforcement actions against violators.

Evaluation of Program Performance .-Under

the EMS, two levels of review are mandated to

evaluate the performance of administering agencies (i. e., approved States or EPA Regions). l0 First,

EPA Headquarters is to perform midyear evaluations

of the progress of EPA Regions in implementing

the EMS. Second, Regional offices are to conduct

reviews of approved State programs, including file

audits. The new requirements of the EMS will be

the benchmark for measuring system performance.

The National Pretreatment Program

In addition to discharging pollutants directly into

receiving waters, industrial facilities also discharge

into sewerage systems operated by POTWs; these

discharges are designated as “indirect’ to distinguish them from “direct” discharges into rivers and

other waterbodies. In 1977, Congress broadened

the effective scope of CWA by mandating additional

regulation of pollutants in indirect industrial discharges (CWA Sec. 307(b)). To meet this mandate,

in 1981 EPA developed the National Pretreatment

Program (40 CFR 403).

General Structure

The National Pretreatment Program is designed

to protect POTWs and the environment by preventing the introduction of industrial wastes that

might upset or interfere with POTW operations,

pass through the POTW untreated, or contaminate

sewage sludge. Under this program, all POTWs

are responsible for enforcing General Pretreatment

Regulations, and some POTWs are also required

to enforce National Categorical Standards.

IOThese requirements are spelled out in the National GU idance for

Oversight of NPDES Programs, issued June 28, 1985.
Ch. 8—Managing Industrial Effluents ● 183

The General Pretreatment Regulations establish

industrial, local, State, and Federal responsibilities

for implementing the program. They also contain

standards that prohibit the discharge into a POTW

of pollutants which could cause fire or explosion,

obstruct ion of flow, corrosion, interference or upset, or excess heating of wastewater entering the

POTW. These general regulations apply to all industrial and commercial establishments that discharge into POTWs.

The National Categorical Standards contain specific pretreatment standards for the ‘‘categorical

industries that are subject to regulation as significant sources of toxic pollutants (see table 13). A

subset of the Nations POTWs, chosen on the basis of high wastewater flow and/or significant industrial inputs, must develop individual pretreatment programs that meet national specifications

and must enforce these categorical standards against

their indirect dischargers.

The General Pretreatment Regulations also include a provision for regulating industrial discharges of pollutants not covered by categorical

standards. If a POTW experiences operational or

pass-through problems that are related to industrial discharges of pollutants, POTWs are mandated to develop their own limitations on these discharges (termed ‘ ‘local limits’ ‘). Local limits can

be more stringent than categorical regulations if this

is needed to prevent pass-through or interference;

they can also be developed to cover pollutants or

industries not regulated by categorical standards.

Federal, State, POTW, and Industrial User

Responsibilities

Responsibilities under the National Pretreatment

Program are closely linked to the administration

of NPDES program. Two general areas of responsibility are established. The Approval Authority

(typically a State or EPA Region) is responsible for

overseeing the development and implementation

of individual POTW pretreatment programs. The

Control Authority is responsible for ensuring that

indirect industrial dischargers achieve and maintain compliance with pretreatment standards and

requirements. Once an individual POTW program

is approved, the POTW becomes the Control Authority. 11

1 i 1 ~ ~arqc ~un ic i[la] itle~ with sciera] PO’ I’W’s, the mun ic ipalitY is

often designated a~ the Control Authorit).

States that have received NPDES program authority can also be approved to administer the

pretreatment program (i. e., become the Approval

Authority). To be approved, the State must demonstrate that it has the authority, resources, and

procedures required to approve, oversee, and ensure enforcement of individual POTW pretreatment programs. EPA Regions serve as Approval

Authority for nonapproved States, and provide general oversight, guidance, and enforcement assistance for approved States. Under certain circumstances, States with Approval Authority may design

a program under which the State is also the Control Authority.

Of the 37 States and 1 Territory with EPA-approved NPDES programs, 24 also have approved

pretreatment programs and hence are Approval

Authorities (327). Six of these States have opted

to assume Control Authority as well, so that POTWs

in these States are not required to develop comprehensive individual pretreatment programs. 12

In general, all POTWs with a total daily flow

of more than 5 million gallons, and smaller POTWs

with significant industrial inputs, are required to

develop and implement individual POTW pretreatment programs. Currently, only about 1,500 of the

more than 15,000 POTWs in the United States

meet these criteria (32 7). Of these about 40 percent have an average flow of more than 5 million

gallons per day (mgd). These 1,500 POTWs receive an estimated 82 percent of the total industrial wastewater flow entering the Nation’s POTWs

and over 90 percent of the wastewater flow originating from industries subject to categorical pretreatment standards (666). These POTWS also generate more than 75 percent of the sludge in the United

States (503).

As of October 1986, EPA had approved more

than 95 percent of the required individual POTW

pretreatment programs (data from Strategic Planning and Management System, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, U.S. EPA). Many of the

approved programs, however, are only in the early

stages of being implemented (e. g., ref. 497).

Industrial facilities that discharge wastewater to

POTWs (termed ‘‘industrial users’ but which are

I z~rcxas ~pera(e5 its own Perm itt in ~

<{ptwqram for both direct ami

indirw t dischargers, alongsicic the NPDF,S program administered h~

EPA Reg]on \’1,
I84 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

not subject to categorical standards must still comply with the General Pretreatment Regulations (see

above), as well as additional permit, monitoring,

or reporting requirements developed by States or

POTWs. For categorical industrial users, responsibilities specified in categorical regulations include

complying with technology-based effluent limitations

on pollutants of concern, monitoring discharges on

a periodic basis, and reporting monitoring data and

compliance status to control authorities. 13

Types of Standards for Direct and

Indirect Dischargers

Several different types of standards have been

developed to regulate industrial discharges of wastewater and pollutants to POTWs or receiving

waters. Figure 30 schematically illustrates the relationships between these standards and indicates

where they apply within the overall regulatory

framework for water pollution control.

Technology-Based Standards

The effluent limits set in NPDES permits to control direct industrial dischargers are primarily

technology-based standards applied to individual

pollutants. Existing direct industrial dischargers

were initially required to meet interim standards

based on the “best practicable control technology

currently available’ (BPT). The next levels of limitations imposed on industrial effluents are termed

‘ ‘best available technology economically achievable” (BAT), designed primarily to control toxic and

non-conventionzd pollutants, and ‘ ‘best conventional pollutant control technology” (BCT), designed to control conventional pollutants. Finally,

new industrial facilities are required to comply with

‘ ‘new source performance standards’ (NSPS),

which are generally comparable to BAT and BCT.

 types reports are required of categorical industrial users

(40 CFR 403. 12), containing information on the composition

of a facility’s discharge with respect to those pollutants regulated by

categorical standards. Baseline Monitoring Reports and Compliance Reports comprise the initial reporting of conditions after

pretreatment standards are effective and after the compliance

date is reached, respectively. Semi-annual reports are required so that

continued compliance status can be periodically verified. EPA recently

has proposed revisions to the General Pretreatment Regulations (51

FR June 12, 1986) which are intended to clarify and expand

requirements applicable to reporting and monitoring for industrial

users. Among other things, these revisions would provide the authority

for to extend some of these requirements now applicable only

to categorical industries to noncategorical industrial users as well.

Figure 30.—Regulatory Framework and

for Industrial Discharges

Categorical pretreatment

standards

(Federal)

Local

Standards

NPDES

discharge permit

based on

categorical

effluent guidelines

(Federal)

~:’t y

SOURCE: Save The Bay, Inc., Down Drain: Toxic and the Status 

Pretreatment in /s/and (Providence, September 19S6).

As described previously, municipal dischargers

(POTWs) are required to meet standards different from those for direct industrial dischargers.

Technology-based regulation of POTW discharges

focuses almost exclusively on conventional pollutant control through the requirement that POTWs

achieve ‘‘secondary’ levels of treatment (ch. 9),

Indirect industrial dischargers must comply with

technology-based pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) or pretreatment standards for

new sources (PSNS). These standards, in combination with the fact that POTWs incidentally remove some pollutants prior to discharging wastewater (ch. 9), are intended to establish pollutant
Ch. 8—Managing Industrial Effluents . 185

control which is roughly equivalent to that achieved

by the BAT and BCT standards for direct dischargers. In addition, indirect dischargers must

comply with local limits where they exist; such

limits can be developed by POTWs or States to prevent toxic pollutants from disrupting POTW treatment processes or from passing through a POTW

into receiving waters.

individual waterbodies be developed for all waters

of the United States. Such standards are to be used

to supplement technology-based controls on point

source dischargers and other sources where the

technology-based standards are not capable of meeting water quality objectives. Water quality-based

standards have been the subject of much debate and

they are analyzed in detail later in this chapter.

Water Quality-Based Standards

Section 303 of CWA mandates that additional

standards based on the health and desired use of

QUANTITIES OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN

INDUSTRIAL

Types and Numbers of Industries

Regulated Under the Clean Water Act

Almost 60,000 industrial facilities14 and 15,000

POTWs are regulated as cfirect dischargers under

NPDES and are required to comply with technologybased standards, as well as State water qualitybased standards where they have been developed.

Over 130,000 industries and commercial establishments have been identified as indiect industrial dischargers into POTWs.15 Of these, 14,000 to 16,000

are in industries covered by categorical standards*G

(see table 13). While all indirect dischargers must

comply with the General Pretreatment Regulations

(as well as any local limits imposed by individual

POTWS), only this subset must comply with the

National Categorical Standards. (Table 13 lists only

those dischargers in selected industries for which

14Th1~ total includes ahou[ 50,000 individually permitted facilities

and about 10,000 additional facilities in industrial categories which

have been or will be granted general permits (e. g , offshore oil and

gas operations). See the discussion below about permit backlogs for

further detail on general permits.

j S-rhls tot~ includes the following number of facilities from exempted

or noncategorical industries: 69,000 industrial and commercial laundries: 39,000 printing and publishing facilities; 7,000 timber products processing facilit ics, 1,100 plastics molding and forming facilit ies; 970 textile mills; and 750 paint manufacturers or formulators.

These data are from EPA Industrial ‘1’echnology Division’s database (cited in ref. 666).

16’rhis ranqe, the accurac) of which is unknown, is deri~ed by adding

.

estimates for the number of individual facilities in each of the categorical industries taken from EPA’s development documents (503,666).

Approximately two-thirds ( 10,600) of these facilities are elect mplaters

or metal finishers.

DISCHARGES

categorical standards have been promulgated or

proposed. ) Several other industrial categories have

been granted exemptions from categorical standards (table 14).

Thus, approximately 75,000 direct and indirect

industrial dischargers, and about 15,000 municipal

facilities, are subject to federally derived standards.

An additional 85,000 or more indirect dischargers

must comply only with the General Pretreatment

Table 14.—lndustrial Categories Granted Exemptions

From Categorical Standardsa

Number of

Category facilities

Adhesives and sealants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

Auto and other laundries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90,800

Carbon black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Explosives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Gum and wood chemicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Paint and ink formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,217

Paving and roofing materials . . . . . . . . . . . . NA

Photographic equipment and supplies . . . . 112

Rubber manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,576

Printing and publishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,763

Soaps and detergents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NA

NA = data not available.

aThe number and names of categories listed here do not correspond exaCtlY to

those indicated in the text or the Code of Federal Regulations due to subsequent joining or dividing of categories by EPA.

bTotal includes direct and indirect dischargers but excludes zero dischargers.

COnIy ~o~ions of these industrial categories have been eXem@ed.

SOURCES Science Applications International Corp., Overview of Sewage S/udge

and Eff/uent Management, contract report prepared for U.S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment (McLean, VA: March 19S6); and U S

Enwronmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and

Standards, Repoti to Congress on the Discharge of Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (The Domestic Sewage Study) (Wash.

ington, DC February 1986)
186 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Regulations and any additional local limits developed by POTWs or States.

Amounts of Wastewater and Priority

Pollutants Generated

Total industrial wastewater flow is roughly estimated to be 18 billion gallons daily, or 6.4 trillion

gallons per year, with about three-fourths originating from direct dischargers and one-fourth from indirect dischargers (255,256,666).

Prior to treatment, raw wastestreams from direct and indirect dischargers contain large quantities of toxic metals and organic chemicals. EPA’s

Monitoring and Data Support Division (MDSD)

maintains a database of flow and composition estimates for wastewaters of selected categorical industries. These data provide a way to estimate the

quantity of metals and organic chemicals present

in industrial wastewaters; however, this is a conservative estimate for several reasons:

●

●

●

Only some of those industries for which categorical standards have been promulgated or

proposed are included. In addition, pollutants

from noncategorical industries are excluded.

Only a fraction of all priority pollutants are

included. 17

Nonpriority pollutants are not included in the

estimates.

The MDSD data (tables 15 and 16) indicate that

a minimum of about 400 million pounds of priority

metals and about 170 million pounds of priority organic chemicals are present in the raw wastewaters

generated by direct dischargers in categorical industries each year. Raw wastestreams from indirect

categorical dischargers are estimated to contain a

17on]y those ~riority pollutants identified in the development document for a particular industrial category are included; only a subset

of these are specifically regulated under BAT or PSES standards, based

on consideration of the amount present in the wastewater and engineering and economic feasibility. For example, 8 priority metals and

32 priority organic chemicals are listed for the leather tanning industry. However, BAT and PSES specify a limit on only one metal (chromium) and no organic chemicals, even though a number of the other

priority pollutants are present in significant amounts. Reductions in

total suspended solids and other conventional pollutants—achieved

through BPT for direct dischargers and POTW treatment for indirect

dischargers— are relied on to achieve incidental removal of most of

the unregulated substances; in addition, compliance with a BAT or

PSES limit on one priority pollutant might also achieve incidental

removal of others.

Table 15.-Expected Reductions in Discharges of

Priority Metals and Organic Chemicals by Selected

Categorical Industries, Assuming Full Compliance

With and Implementation of BAT and PSES Controls

(summary of table 16)

Raw Full controls

, Percent

reduction

Type of discharge Amoun t

a Amoun ta from rawb

Priority metals:

Indirect dischargers . . . . . 198 6.8 96.60/0

Direct dischargers . . . . . . 403 6.4 98.4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601 13.2 97.9 ”/0

Priority organic chemicals:

Indirect dischargers . . . . . 56 8.3 85.30/o

Direct dischargers . . . . . . 172 1.7 99.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 10.0 95.6°\o

aAll amounts are millions of pounds per Year.

b percen t reduction in amount of toxics as compared to amount in raw waste

stream.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1967; based (except as noted in table

16) on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Regulations

and Standards, Monitoring and Data Support Division, Summary of

Effluent Characteristics and Guidelines for Selected Industrial Point

Source Categories: /ndustry Status Sheets (Washington, DC: Feb. 26,

1966)

minimum of 200 million pounds of priority metals

and almost 60 million pounds of priority organic

chemicals annually (665). Together, well over 800

million pounds of priority pollutants are present in

raw wastewaters annually generated by categorical industries discharging to POTWs or the navigable waters of the United States.

Projected Removal of Priority Pollutants

Through Full Treatment

Full implementation of, and compliance with,

categorical standards would achieve major reductions in the amounts of priority pollutants discharged by these industries. Tables 15 and 16 summarize data on the estimated reductions that could

be achieved under full implementation of BAT (for

direct dischargers) and PSES (for indirect dischargers) categorical standards. These data are

drawn from performance models of control technologies mandated under standards already in place

or proposed (665). The total quantity of priority

pollutants present in discharges of fully regulated

wastestreams is projected to be only about 3 percent of the levels in the raw wastewaters. Even at

this level of removal, however, more than 13 million

pounds of priority metals and 10 million pounds

of priority organic chemicals will be discharged an-
u

Table 16.—Expected Reductionsa in Discharges of Priority Metals and Organic Chemicals by Selected Categorical Industries,

I Assuming Full Compliance With and Implementation of BAT and PSES Controls

Priority metals I -- . —

Indirect dischargers Direct discharge=

Priority chemicals

Indirect Indirec t Direct dischargers

0 Raw

Aluminum forming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,192

Battery manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . 3,495

Coil coating (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363

Coil coating (11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Copper forming?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,780

Electrical and electronic

components (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Foundries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,317

Inorganic chemicals (1) . . . . . . . . . . 2,300

Inorganic chemicals (11) . . . . . . . . . . 195

Iron and steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,402

Leather tanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,321

Metal finishing/electroplating . ....136,684

Nonferrous metals forming . . . . . . 215

Nonferrous metals (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Nonferrous metals (11) . . . . . . . . . . . 249

OCPSF e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,519

Petroleum refining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

Pharmaceuticals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Plastics molding and forming . . . . 26

Porcelain enameling . . . . . . . . . . . . 527

Pulp and paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864

Textiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725

Percent Percent

PSESb

removal c Raw BATb

removal

Percent Percent

Raw PSES removal Raw BAT removal

8 100 7 3 6 16 98

2

2

18

10

135

13

24

1

361

475

3,754

1

3

0

23

291

125

26

15

864

603

99

100

99

77

100

736

566

251

3

7,219

16

1

1

1

9

38

16

208

17

750

17

1,704

1

45

3

102

291

26

29

8

2,752

360

98

100

99

78

100

39

100

97

96

100

98

97

100

86

100

100

80

0

30

97

4

— .

39

.

98

0

0

0

2

1

42

5

0

0

847

142

92

0

0

0

17

1,222

112

29

0

5,582

214

1

0

3

85

37

281

686

0

0

18,635

517

8,815

0

0

0

18,698

1,222

212

29

0

5,645

1,329

0

100

98

97

0 0 0

2 0 100

3 0 100

31 3 90

8

100

99

99

98

91

97

100

98

100

100

0

0

0

97

0

17

97

63

12,827

6,067

394

269,606

899

62,446

631

331

750

34,999

1,488

26

41

277

2,865

590

85

99

0

0

95

99

o

0

0

100

0

47

0

0

1

84

102

562

0

0

30,957

76

2,429

2

171

9

118,420

6,248

43

42

0

11,052

914

19 82

5 99

0 0

0 0

77 100

2 98

42 98

0 100

1 99

0 100

123 100

38 99

23 47

37 12

0 0

1,131 90

173 81

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...197,944 6,754

%11 auantltles are in thousands of DOunds Der Year

403,075 6.395 56,195 — 8,307 85 171,799 1,690 99

bAmoun~5 expected to be discharged under fUII ~mplementatlon of, and compliance w!th, PSES or BAT categorical standards See text for deflnltlon of PSES and BAT, note that lndlrect removals are mandated

through PSES standards; direct removals are mandated through BAT standards

c percent reduction in amount of pnonty metals or organic chemtcals WlL3ti Vf3 tO amount !n raw WasteWater.

dData for the Copper F~rming Categow are derived from u S Environmental Protection Agency, Ffrra/ Deve/oPrnent DOCument for ~fflueflt Llm(tat~OnS and Standards for fbe CoPPer Forming Point Source

Category, EPA 440/1-841074, table X-19, p 467 (Washington, DC” March, 1984), during a review of a draft of this OTA report, EPA found that the primary source of Information for this table (see below) contained

incorrect data for this category

eData for the Organic Chemicals and plastlcs and SYnthet,c Fibers (OCpSF) Categoy are taken from a ‘Lcorrectlon f.Jotlce/Notice of Avallabillty” published by EPA (50 Federa/ /?@Sb3r 41528, oCt 11, 1985)

These data are the most recent available estimates for the OCPSF category and have been revised downward from prewous estimates. They should not be regarded as final, however, as they may be sub]ect

to further revision

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987, based (except as noted) on U S Enwronmental Protection Agency, Off Ice of Regulations and Standards, Monltonng and Data Support Division, Summary

of Effluent Characterlsflcs and Guldellnes for Selected Industrial Point Source Categories Industry Status Sheets (Washington, DC: Feb 28, 1986)
188 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

nually in wastewaters originating from categorical

industries (665). 18

Direct dischargers account for more than twice

as many of the priority pollutants present in raw

wastewaters than do indirect dischargers (69 percent v. 31 percent); in contrast, most (about 65 percent) of the priority pollutants expected to be discharged upon full implementation of BAT and

PSES controls will originate from indirect sources.

However, pollutants in indirect discharges are subject to additional ‘ ‘incidental’ removal as a result

of treatment at POTWs, so that further reductions

are achieved prior to their discharge to waterbodies. 19

About 80 percent of all indirectly discharged industrial wastewater enters POTWs that are required to have individual pretreatment programs,

and a similar percentage receives secondary or

higher levels of treatment at POTWs (255,503; also

see ch. 9).20 As discussed previously, the intent of

the national categorical standards is to achieve a

total reduction—through a combination of pretreatment by industries and incidental removal by POTWs

—in discharges of priority pollutants by regulated

indirect dischargers that is roughly equivalent to

the levels resulting from implementation of BAT

and BCT standards for direct dischargers.

Removal of Priority Pollutants

Achieved to Date

The partial implementation achieved to date of

standards developed under the NPDES and National Pretreatment programs has significantly reIBIt is impo~ant t. remember that these removal estimates are only

for a subset of priority pollutants and do not include any nonpriority

substances. Nor do they include any pollutants from noncategorical

industries.

] 9Many pollutants removed from industrial wastewaters treated at

POTWS will become contaminants of municipal sludge, generating

a different set of disposal problems. This issue is discussed in detail

in ch. 9.

ZOIn marine waters areas, a smd[er percentage of totat wastewater

flow into POTWs—and presumably indirectly discharged industrial

wastewater as well—receives secondary or higher treatment. About

39 percent of the wastewater entering POTWS discharging to coastal

waters, and 60 percent of that entering POTWS discharging to estuaries, receives secondary or higher treatment (503). This is probably

due in large part to the fact that a number of large coastal POTWS

have been granted or have applied for waivers from achieving secondary treatment under CWA Sec. 301(h). The fraction of total

POTW flow contributed by industrial dischargers is also slightly lower

in marine waters: 14.5 percent v. 17 percent nationally.

duced the amounts of priority pollutants in direct

and indirect discharges from some categorical industries. However, the Nation is far from achieving full implementation of, and full compliance

with, categorical standards. Moreover, these

standards only apply to some industries and pollutants, so even if fully effective, significant

quantities of toxic pollutants will remain unregulated by categorical standards.

Unfortunately, existing data do not allow an accurate assessment of how close these programs are

to achieving full removal of regulated pollutants.

The MDSD database does contain estimates of

‘‘current’ discharges for industries with categorical standards in place. These estimates are highly

questionable, however, because the current discharge is assigned the same value as the discharge

expected under full implementation of BAT or

PSES, even though implementation of and/or compliance with the standard is far from complete in

many cases (e. g., metal finishing and electroplating). These and other shortcomings cast sufficient

doubt on estimates of current discharges so as to

preclude their use in estimating the extent of removal of priority pollutants achieved to date.

For particular industries, more reliable data are

available in some cases and reveal considerable variation in progress toward achieving full BAT or

PSES reductions. For example, EPA’s most recently published estimates for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) industry (50 FR 41528, Oct. 11, 1985) suggest that

technology already in place is achieving pollutant

removals of more than 99 percent for direct dischargers, resulting in discharges that are only about

fivefold higher than that expected under the most

stringent BAT standards proposed .21 For indirect

dischargers, however, these same data indicate only

a 4 percent removal, vastly less than the removal

expected under full implementation of PSES.

21OCPSF industry representatives argue that this level of removal

has been accomplished—even in the absence of final regulations—by

installing the appropriate pollutant controls either in anticipation of

the regulations or in response to permit limits that have been developed using the best professional judgment (BPJ) of the permit writers

(R. Schwer, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., pers. comm., November 1986),
Ch. 8—Managing Industrial Effluents ● 189

Reducing Priority Pollutants

in Specific Industries

Table 15 presents data on selected primary industrial categories, indicating a) the quantities of

priority pollutants in their raw wastewaters, and

b) the quantities expected in their discharges assuming full compliance with categorical standards.

Direct and indirect dischargers, and priority metals

and organic chemicals, are considered separately.

Several conclusions can be drawn from these data:

● Whether for raw or fully regulated (PSES/

BAT) wastestreams, a few industries tend to

dominate the picture, for both direct and indirect discharges, In each case, the top 3, 4,

or 5 industrial categories comprise 90 percent

or more of the total amount of priority metals

or organic chemicals present in wastewaters.

● The effectiveness of BAT or PSES levels of

control varies greatly among different industries, ranging from very low removal (pulp and

paper) to essentially full removal (organic

chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers22). Under full implementation of standards, however,

most industries are predicted to achieve more

than 90-percent removal.

ZZEst imates for this industrial category are based on the cent rols

specified in the proposed categorical regulation.

ISSUES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENTS

A number of issues remain regarding the adequacy of the current framework that regulates industrial discharges. These issues primarily concern

major constraints on the development and implementation of the NPDES and pretreatment programs. Four key areas of deficiency need to be addressed:

1. delays in program implementation, including:

—delays in promulgation of Federal regulations, and

—unpermitted sources and permit renewal

backlogs;

2. gaps in program coverage, including:

—nonregulated industries,

—nonregulated toxic pollutants, and

—permit deficiencies;

3. inadequacy of regulatory compliance and enforcement, including:

—self-reporting: quality and completeness of

discharge data,

—extent of noncompliance with effluent discharge limits, and

—effectiveness of enforcement; and

4. additional issues facing the pretreatment program, including:

—lack of incentives for POTW program implementation and enforcement, and

—hazardous waste in sewers.

In addition to these four areas, several other

problems that adversely affect the management of

industrial effluents are often identified. These include: 1 ) the inadequacy of resources available for

permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities; 2) a need for better management

of the data collected from dischargers to allow centralized access for assessing program performance

and progress; and 3) inconsistent policy, methodology, and performance among EPA Regions, States,

and local authorities with respect to implementing

and enforcing water pollution control programs.

Delays in Program

Delays in Promulgation

Categorical Regulations

Implementation

of Federal

In the absence of final categorical regulations,

it is difficult for POTWs and other regulatory bodies to carry out enforcement against dischargers.

Regulations for some significant industrial categories (e. g., organic chemicals and plastics) have been

proposed, but not yet promulgated (table 17). Uncertainties about the final form of these regulations

have caused delays in the implementation of treatment technologies in these industries. Even where

final regulations exist, scheduled pretreatment compliance dates have in many cases not yet been
190 • Wastes in Marine Environments

Table 17.—Final and Proposed Regulations for Categorical Industries

Date of Effective Date of PSES

promulgation datea

compliance

Timber processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electroplating: b Integrated . . . . . . . . .

Nonintegrated . . . . .

Iron and steel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inorganic chemicals I . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Textile mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coal mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Petroleum refining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Steam electric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pulp and paper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Leather tanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Porcelain enameling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coil coating I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ore mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electrical and electronic

components I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(arsenic subcategory) . . . . . . . . . . .

Metal finishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Copper forming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aluminum forming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pharmaceuticals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coil coating II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Electrical and electronic

components II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Battery manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonferrous metals I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inorganic chemicals II . . . . . . . . . . . .

Plastics molding and forming . . . . . .

(phthalates subcategory:

action due) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonferrous metals forming . . . . . . . .

Nonferrous metals II . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foundries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Organic Chemicals and Plastics

and Synthetic Fibers ...proposed

Pesticides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..issued

withdrawn

1-26-81

1-28-81

1-28-81

5-27-82

6-29-82

9-02-82

10-13-82

10-18-82

11-19-82

11-18-82

11-23-82

11-24-82

12-01-82

12-03-82

4-08-83

4-08-83

7-15-83

8-15-83

10-24-83

10-27-83

11-17-83

12-14-83

3-09-84

3-08-84

8-22-84

12-17-84

6-??.87 e

8-23-85

9-20-85

10-30-85

3-21-83f

10-04-85

12-15-869

3-30-81

3-30-81

3-30-81

7-10-82

8-12-82

10-18-82

11-26-82

12-01-82

1-02-83

1-03-83

1-06-83

1-07-83

1-17-83

1-17-83

5-19-83

5-19-83

8-29-83

9-26-83

12-07-83

12-12-83

1-02-84

1-27-84

4-18-84

4-23-84

10-05-84

1-30-85

7

10-07-85

11-04-85

12-13-85

1-26-84

4-27-84

6-30-84

7-10-85

8-12-85

N/AC

N/Ad

12-01-85

7-01-84

7-01-84

11-25-85

11-25-85

12-01-85

N/Ad

7-01-84

11-08-85

2-15-86

8-15-86

10-24-86

10-27-86

11-17-86

7-14-87

3-09-87

3-09-87

8-22-87

N/AC

N/A

8-23-88

9-20-88

10-31-88

‘BAT standards take effect as specified by the compliance schedule written into individual NPDES permits issued after the

effective dateof the regulation.

bExistingjob shop electroplaters and independent circuit board manufacturers must comply only with the electroplating

regulations. All other electroplating subcategories are also covered by metal finishing regulations.

cNo pretreatment standards were promulgated for these categories because they were exempted under Paragraph 8ofthe

NRDC consent decree.

dNo pretreatment standards were promulgated for these categories because they contain no indirect dischargers.

eThis subcategory IS under study to establish treatability data for possible future regulation. Final aCtiOn is expected in June

1987 (51 Federal Register 4526, Apr. 21, 1986). EPA expects to exempt this subcategory from pretreatment standards under

Paragraph 8 of the NRDC consent decree (as was previously done for the rest of the industry),

flt is unclear when final regulations will be issued for this category (51 Federa/ Register 44082, Dec. 8, 1~).

gFlnal regulations (BAT, PSES) for the pesticides industry were issued in 1985, but subsequently withdrawn by EPA (51 Federa/

Register 44911, Dec. 15, 1986). No date for reissuance of the regulation was provided.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; based on Federa/ Register notices cited in the appropriate sections of 40

Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 401 to 460, except as noted above.
Ch. 8—Managing Industrial Effluents ● 191

reached. As of the end of 1985, final compliance

dates had not yet passed for half of the industrial

categories for which pretreatment regulations have

been issued; only five more compliance dates were

reached by the end of 1986, leaving nine categories still without final regulations in effect. 23

Final regulations for all but two of the primary

categorical industries, OCPSF and Pesticides, have

now been promulgated. Regulations for pesticides

have been promulgated, but were challenged in

court and are being raised. 24 Moreover, the one

remaining industry for which standards have never

been issued (OCPSF) is the category contributing

the most priority organic chemicals in its raw wastewaters (table 16).25 In addition, compliance dates

for the seven latest regulations to be promulgated

will not be reached until well into 1987 and 1988

(table 17).

The effect of delays in issuing final regulations

can be very different for direct and indirect dischargers. In the absence of final regulations, technology-based limits based on the best professional

judgment (BPJ) of the permit writer are often written into NPDES permits for direct dischargers. In

the same situation, however, indirect dischargers

are only subject to local limits (if they exist), which

are based largely on the ability of the POTW to

meet its own NPDES permit limits or sludge disposal requirements. This factor may in part account

for the major differences in the levels of pollutant

removal achieved by direct and indirect dischargers

in the OCPSF industry in the absence of final categorical regulations.

Z~ F1~~] co~p] i~ncc ~ate~ w i(h pretreatment standards are spec ificd

for indircc t dischargers, and arc rcquireci under CWA Sec. 307 to

be no more than 3 years after the date of promulgation. For direct

dischargers, compliance dates are written into permits, typically in

the context of a compliance schedule. Sec. 307 specifies that compliance should generally be required within 1 year, but in no case more

than 3 years, after promulgation of the BAT standards. However,

delays in renewing permits (discussed later in this chapter) may further lengthen the period before compliance must be achieved.

l+F1nA regulations for the Pesticides Industry actually were promulgated on Oct. 4, 1985 (50 FR 40672). \’arious aspects of the rule were

challenged in the Court of Appeals, however, and EPA subsequently

disco~ercd significant errors as well. Under Court order, EPA

remanded the regulation on Dec. 15, 1986 (51 FR 4491 1).

~sIt is unclear when final regulations will be issuecl for the OC pSF

catc~ory. F.PA recently announced its intention to file for an extension of its deadline (set b}’ the Co!lrt at Dec. 31, 1986) for promulgation of final re~ulat ions and has asked interested parties to comment

on se~t-ral ncw proposals (51 FR 44082, Dec 8. 1986).

Unpermitted Sources and Permit Renewal

Backlogs

Lack of Ability To Identify Facilities That

Have Not Applied for Permits.—Many (if not

most) States and Regions lack a systematic method

for identifying nonfilers, instead relying on informal approaches such as citizen complaints. EPA

and State permit officials generally believe that all

major dischargers have been identified and have

applied for permits (576), although data supporting this claim are not available.

Several studies, however, suggest that unpermitted facilities may be significant sources of pollutants in at least some areas (462,576). In Puget

Sound, for example, many nonpermitted commercial and industrial facilities were recently identified

and as much as 20 percent of the toxic pollutants

entering Puget Sound are estimated to originate

from such nonpermitted discharges (462).

Backlog in Processing Submitted Applications

for Initial Permits. —The backlog in issuing new

NPDES permits was a major problem in the late

1970s and early 1980s. The extent of this backlog

varies greatly: 1 ) among EPA Regions and approved

States, 2) between municipal and industrial dischargers, and 3) between major and minor dischargers. EPA national statistics for 1982 indicated

more than 16,000 unprocessed permit applications,

only about 200 (1. 3 percent) of which were from

major dischargers (576).26 Studies of individual

States documented a similar situation (576). The

State of Washington has eliminated its backlog of

unissued initial permits for major dischargers, and

is now concentrating efforts on ‘‘significant minor’

dischargers (462).

Resource limitations are routinely cited as the

major factor that forces permitting efforts to focus

primarily on renewals, new sources, and major dischargers. This factor appears to be the primary reason for the backlog in general and for the much

lower rate of permitting for minor dischargers.

Backlog in Renewing Expired Permits.—EPA

and delegated States also face the continual, and

Z~EpA ar~uec~ that the back]og was probablv m.erstated bcca[]st’ it

.

included an unknown number of facilities that did not require a perm it. This argument would apply almost exclusi~.ely to minor dischargers.
192 • Wastes in Marine Environments

in many cases increasing, task of renewing permits

that have expired. While an expired permit is still

enforceable, the opportunity is lost to review and

upgrade permits in a timely manner. Moreover,

each expired permit that is not reissued represents

a de facto permit length longer than the 5-year term

intended under CWA.

Most initial NPDES permits were issued in 1973

and 1974, with expiration dates set for 1978 and

1979. As of the end of 1982, EPA reported 34,000

expired (and not reissued) permits. About 13 percent (4,400) of these were for major dischargers,

the remainder for minor dischargers. Over half of

these permits had been expired for more than 22

months (576). A similar picture existed in the five

States that GAO examined in detail.

Several factors have been cited as causes for this

backlog:

●

●

●

●

●

the lack of BAT guidelines for use in upgrading effluent limits,

heavy reliance on BPJ as a substitute for BAT

and BCT guidelines,

a shortage of resources devoted to permit

issuance,

the need to develop general permits for certain categories of minor dischargers which do

not require individual permits, and

low management priority placed on renewing

permits for minor dischargers.

EPA recently has increased the resources devoted

to permit issuance and renewal, and has promulgated most of the BAT regulations it was required

to develop. These efforts were taken in part to meet

a national goal of eliminating the permit backlog

for major dischargers by the end of fiscal year 1985,

one that was largely met by EPA Regional offices,

but not by many approved States.

Recent EPA data suggests a considerable reduction in the national backlog for major dischargers,

although a substantial fraction of major permits and

an even larger fraction of minor permits remain

expired (327). Thirty-four percent of all major industrial and 13 percent of all major municipal permits are expired. This is a total of 1,810 expired

permits, compared to the 4,400 reported in 1982.

Many approved States continue to have even larger

backlogs, however. For example, in Washington

half of all permits (and one-quarter of those for major dischargers) are currently expired (462).

EPA is addressing the minor discharger backlog by developing general permits to cover an estimated 10,000 minor dischargers .*7 A second, more

controversial approach has been EPA’s legislative

proposal to extend the term of NPDES permits

from the current 5 years to 10 years (242). EPA

argues that this change would reduce the annual

permitting workload, and presumably the backlog;

modification of permits would still be required to

incorporate ‘‘significant new standards. Opponents view this proposal as a ‘ ‘paperwork’ solution that would further reduce the opportunity to

review and upgrade permits at the frequency originally intended by CWA.

Gaps and Deficiencies in Coverage of

Toxic Pollutants

Nonregulated Industries

Some entire categories of industrial dischargers,

such as car washes and other commercial laundries

or paint and ink formulators, are exempted from

BAT effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards (see table 14).28 In addition, certain subcategories

of other industrial categories, for example, adhesives and sealants, are exempted. Finally, pretreatment standards for some industrial categories, such

as textile mills and plastics molding and forming,

were proposed but never promulgated.

These and other categories can contribute significant amounts of toxic pollutants to surface

waters or POTWs. The laundries and textile mills

categories together account for approximately 22

z7Such permits have been issued or proposed for activities such as

offshore and coastal oil and gas facilities, coal mining, animal feedlots, construction sites, noncontact cooling water, petroleum storage

and transfer, deep seabed mining, and seafocd processing. Currently,

general permits cover about 7,700 facilities (E. Ovsenik, OffIce of

Water Enforcement and Permits, EPA, pers. comm., January 1987).

ZaReasons given for exempting these industries from emuent limitations for toxic pollutants include: presence of insignificant levels of

pollutants, no or few direct or indirect dischargers, economic constraints, no new plants expected, presence of pollutants for which

removal technology does not exist, etc. These facilities must still obtain and meet effluent limitations specified in their NPDES permits;

in the absence of categorical standards, however, limitations are likely

to be specified only for conventional pollutants or to rely on the best

professional judgment (BPJ) of the permit writers for toxic pollutants.
Ch. 8—Managing Industrial Effluents ● 193

percent of the total industrial flow into POTWs,

Approximately 91,000 laundries, including 22,000

car washes, have a total wastewater flow of 526 million gallons per day; this wastewater contains at

least 13 priority pollutants. About 1,000 textile mills

discharge 312 million gallons per day to POTWs;

pollutants identified in these wastewaters include

several priority metals and organic chemicals (503).

Other industries not included by EPA on its

original list of industrial categories may also be significant sources of toxic pollutants. These industries include treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for hazardous wastes; drum and barrel

reconditioners; solvent reclaimers; battery salvagers;

septage haulers; and automotive radiator shops. 29

Many small dischargers within industries that

have categorical regulations are exempted from the

regulations because of the potentially heavy economic burden of meeting effluent standards. For

example, electroplating job-shops that discharge less

than 10,000 gallons per day of wastewaters containing chromium, copper, nickel, or zinc are specifically exempted from pretreatment regulations. In

some cases, however, such low-volume discharges

can contain high enough concentrations of toxic pollutants to upset POTW operations. Although local limits (which are authorized and enforceable under Federal law) could be used to regulate such

discharges, POTWs face many obstacles in developing such limits, particularly in the absence of Federal standards or guidance (503,653,666).

Nonregulated Toxic Pollutants

Many toxic pollutants in industrial wastewaters

are not regulated by national standards for a variety of reasons—for example, lack of data on the

presence of certain pollutants in a wastestream; lack

of analytical means for measuring certain pollutants; lack of technological means to control certain

pollutants; low regulatory priority; or the diversity

and complexity of individual plants or processes

within an industrial category.

Categorical regulations generally contain standards for only a fraction of all priority pollutants.

Development of a standard only occurs if three conZgE~tlmates of the amount of hazardous chemicals introduced by

these industries into POTWs are presented in ref. 666.

ditions are met: 1) the pollutant is present in high

amounts, 2) the technology for its control is available, and 3) the implementation of that technology is economically feasible. Thus, many priority

pollutants —in particular, priority organic chemicals— may be present in high concentrations but

remain unregulated for technological or economic

reasons. For example:

●

●

●

EPA has not developed limits for phthalates

generated by the plastics molding and forming industry because it does not have sufficient

data on technologies for controlling these

chemicals (51 FR 14526, Apr. 26, 1986).

While pretreatment standards have been developed for the petroleum refining industry,

they contain no limits on priority organic

chemicals, even though this category is a very

significant source of such pollutants, accounting for almost 15 percent of the expected discharge of priority organic chemicals to POTWS

under full PSES implementation. 30

As a result of the much greater focus on metals than on organic chemicals, full implementation of EPA’s categorical pretreatment standards is predicted to greatly reduce total inputs

of priority metals to POTWs, but to reduce

priority organic chemicals by only 47 percent

(666).3’

Other facilities that discharge priority pollutants

but are not regulated by national standards include

those that: 1) contribute wastes to POTWs that are

either not required to or have not yet developed

an individual pretreatment program, and 2) are in

noncategorical industries. About 30 percent of the

priority pollutants that enter POTWs originate

from noncategorical sources (503). Available data

suggest that roughly equal amounts originate from

domestic households and from noncategorical industries or commercial establishments.

JoThese data and comparable information for numerous other industrial categories are discussed in detail in ref. 666.

s I This low percentage resu]ts from two factors: the relative lack of

standards specified for organic chemicals, and the significant contribution of priority organic chemicals by noncategorical (and relatively

unregulated) industries. The latter factor largely accounts for the difference between this removat estimate and the higher estimate (85 percent) indicated in table 15.
194 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Finally, both NPDES and the pretreatment

programs have limited ability to address discharges of nonpriority pollutants. Categorical

standards have focused almost exclusively on the

126 priority pollutants. However, numerous additional toxic pollutants are known to be present in

significant quantities in both direct and indirect discharges. Data collected by EPA for the OCPSF

industrial category indicates that this industry’s

raw wastewaters contain 2.5 pounds of nonpriority organic chemicals—including such toxic

compounds as formaldehyde and methanol—

for every pound of priority organic chemicals.

Other categories, such as the pesticides and pharmaceuticals industries, are also significant sources

of toxic nonpriority pollutants (666).

In principle, categorical standards, local limits,

or water quality-based standards can be used to

control nonpriority pollutants, and in some cases

these approaches have been developed. However,

these types of controls do not currently provide a

systematic means for addressing pollutants that fall

outside the primary focus of the CWA pollutant

control programs.

At least two legal mechanisms for regulating these

additional toxic pollutants are available, but they

have only been used to a limited extent. Section

307(a) of C WA gives EPA the authority to add substances to the priority pollutants list, but this authority has not been used to date. Under paragraph

4(c) of the Consent Decree reached between EPA

and the Natural Resources Defense Council, EPA

is required to identify, and possibly regulate, toxic

pollutants that might violate the objectives of the

NPDES and National Pretreatment programs but

that are not listed as priority pollutants. In one survey of industrial wastewaters, EPA detected the

presence of over 1,500 compounds; of the more

than 400 that were specifically identified, 6 compounds were chosen as candidates for future regulation due to their presence in significant amounts

and their human or aquatic toxicity (666). No

standards have yet been developed, however, due

to lack of information on the ability of in-place or

other available control technologies to remove these

pollutants.

Permit Deficiencies

Lack of Limits on Toxic Pollutants. —Typically,

discharge permits specify numeric limits for most

or all conventional pollutants, but far fewer limits

are specified for priority metals or organic chemicals. While the development and introduction of

BAT guidelines will help alleviate this deficiency,

several aspects of this problem remain:

●

●

●

●

Monitoring for priority pollutants other than

those known to be present (and therefore specified in the discharge permit) is rarely required,

so that the presence of additional priority pollutants in a discharge often is not documented.

Even where the presence of priority pollutants

has been reported by permitters or discovered

through sampling, limits for such pollutants

often have not been included in permits. For

example, an audit of 44 permitters discharging into Puget Sound that reported the presence of priority pollutants revealed only 14 that

had any limitations on the reported substances

(462).

While technically a violation of CWA, the discharge of a pollutant for which no standard

exists in the permit is unlikely to be identified

or treated as a violation.

Water quality-based standards have not been

developed by most States for most priority pollutants, hampering the introduction of water

quality-based discharge limits on these substances into individual permits. Even where

developed, the standards do not address sediment contamination, which is probably the

more important ‘‘sink’ for most metals and

organic chemicals of concern (see section later

in this chapter on water quality standards).

Heavy Reliance on Best Professional Judgment

(BPJ) in the Absence of Standards.—Whenever

national standards for a particular industry or pollutant do not exist or have not yet been developed,

individual permit writers must rely on their BPJ.

At least two levels of discretion are involved: determining which, if any, pollutants should be limited, and setting the actual level. Both elements can
Ch. 8—Managing Industrial Effluents ● 195

be significant sources of inconsistency in setting discharge limits. 32

‘ ‘Backsliding’ on Permit Limits During Renewal. —The CWA’s goal of achieving zero discharge of pollutants by 1985 was based on a

‘ ‘ratchet’ approach in which discharge limits would

be made increasingly stringent in successive perm its. Indeed, current Federal regulations require

that a reissued permit “be at least as stringent”

as the previous permit, unless certain exceptional

conditions are met (40 CFR 122 .44(1 )). 33

However, some ‘‘second round’ permits incorporating BAT limits on toxic pollutants have been

found to contain weaker limits than those imposed

in the “first round” permits. For example, in a

1985 study of 16 major industrial dischargers in the

Puget Sound basin, 14 of the renewed permits had

been weakened for at least 1 pollutant, and 8 were

weakened for at least 3 pollutants (458). Many of

the weakened limits were for conventional pollutants based on BPT standards promulgated a decade ago. Overall, for those pollutants specified in

both sets of permits, standards for 40 percent of

the pollutants had been weakened, 27 percent had

been strengthened, and 33 percent remained unchanged,

Justification for such changes may often exist,

particularly given the extensive use of BPJ in setting initial limits. However, there appears to be a

disturbing lack of appropriate means for communicating or explaining such changes to the public

during the renewal process (458,462).

Inadequacy of Regulatory Compliance

and Enforcement t

Various elements of the NPDES and pretreatment programs determine their effectiveness in ensuring compliance with permits or other means of

j) ~ p J has hec. n iderrt ified as th e . ‘least consistent link in the currerrt d ischargc pcrm it system (462). and causing a ‘‘ mm’cment from

the issuance of consistent conditions to those tailored to the needs or

pr{ssures from each Irrdi\iciual pcrrnittec’ ( 392).

f 3 For ~xamp]c, a Permit ] im it ma} bc Iooscncd i f proper (JpCrat ion

of tht’ requ 1 rcd ( orrtrol” techrrolo~} S( ill docs not arh ic~t’ t h[ requ I red

llmlt, or if’ lower le~t’ls arc based on new]} issued national itan(lards

and the in It la] lc~ els w {.rc set us in,g 13P,J I n ,m~’ c ase, t hc nc’w standarcis c an not be wt below water quallt~-hascd starrdatxis or tc( hnol<)q} -

hasc(] cfflu{.nt qui(lelinc$

controlling the discharge of pollutants from point

sources. Significant problems occur in three areas:

quality and completeness of data submitted by regulated facilities, extent of noncompliance, and effectiveness of enforcement.

Information available on these issues is often far

from complete or is regional and selective in nature, and thus may not always be representative

of the national situation. Moreover, data may not

be entirely current, an inherent problem in light

of frequent changes in program design, permit status, available resources, agency priorities, and regulations. Finally, much of the information needed

for a thorough national analysis is often unavailable, or is inaccessible due to the relatively primitive state of development of national databases .74

Self-Reporting: Quality and Completeness

of Discharge Data

The efficacy of the entire NPDES program rests

on the ability of agencies to obtain reliable data

characterizing the discharges of permitted facilities.

Given the immense number of such facilities, NPDES

relies on a self-reporting system in which facilities

are required to monitor their discharges and regularly report the results to the appropriate EPA Region or delegated State. Administrative review of

reported data is the only systematic means of identifying instances of noncompliance, although inspections are occasionally used to supplement industry reporting.

Several problems with this self-reporting system

have been identified. The foremost and most obvious of these is that such a system relies to a large

extent on the integrity of permitters to submit accurate information. In order to generate reliable

data, a self-reporting system must include effective

deterrents to counter the obvious incentive to fall+This discuss ion of necc. sslt~, re]les hca\ 1]}’ on part icu]dr SOUr CC\

of information, for example the thorough an(l up-to-date information

compiled by the Pugct Sound W’atcr Qua] it} Authority’ (46 1.462) and

the less current ‘‘ random suneis’ conducted b} (;A(l (574,576,689)

While such information ma}’ not full> iden[lf’) or ~wcuratel) rcprcwnt problems in all States or EPA Regions, these data are Senerall,

( (Jns istcnt with other a~ailahle information arrci pro~’ idc a reasonable

pi(ture of problems fticing water pollution control pro~rams in all p,iI ts

of the Nation W’hcrc\er possible, the most rtx crrt data al’ailablc f’rom

EPA arc inrludcd. in rnarr> c ascs, these data indicate rcne~~ cd ,ittcn -

t]on to or suhstarrt ial improk erncnts in existing prohlems
196 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

sify information rather than comply with discharge

limitations. Such deterrents require that the system be able to detect and penalize those who violate reporting requirements.

These deficiencies call into serious question the

adequacy of the mechanisms available to EPA and

the States to verify information received through

the NPDES self-monitoring system. In the face of

declining resources available for such activities, this

crucial link in the current compliance and enforcement program is unlikely to be strengthened.

Violations of Reporting Requirements .—Failure

to submit a discharge monitoring report (DMR),

or submission of incomplete data, are obvious

means of concealing serious noncompliance with

discharge limitations. One study of major industrial and municipal NPDES permitters in six States

found that 8 percent failed to submit a DMR at

least once during an 18-month period, and that 37

percent had submitted one or more incomplete

DMRs (576).35 However, this rate of compliance

is an apparent improvement in the DMR submission rate for industrial dischargers compared with

that found in an earlier study (574).

EPA or State response to reporting violations

varies, but in general such violations appear to have

received little or no attention. 36 As an extreme example, a recently identified major discharger into

Puget Sound had not submitted a DMR for 30 consecutive months, yet no action had been taken by

the permitting authority (462).

Quality of Reported Effluent Sample Analyses. —In several surveys of the quality of chemical

analyses of effluent samples submitted by major

NPDES permitters, EPA found that significantly

more than half of all permitters reported unacceptable data37 for one or more effluent parameters, and

that 20 to 25 percent of all analyses were of unacceptable quality (576).

In many cases, poor performance was due to a

high rate of reporting errors, rather than analytical errors. While in principle easier (and less expensive) to correct, such errors call into question

the integrity of permitters as well as the reliability

of submitted data.38

Adequacy of EPA’s and States’ Abilities To

Verify Information. —Compliance sampling inspections (CSIs)—during which effluent samples

are collected for the purpose of verification-are

the primary tool available to EPA and States to verify the data submitted by dischargers. 39 CSIs are

employed primarily in cases where noncompliance

has been reported or is suspected (327,576). In

1982, for example, only 7 percent of New Jersey’s

and 5 percent of New York’s major dischargers received CSIs. Nationwide, EPA statistics showed a

large decrease in CSIs performed during the period

1979 to 1981; there was a 20 percent reduction for

municipal sources and an almost 50 percent decrease for industrial dischargers. 4o Inadequate resources were cited as the primary reason for the

decline, a problem which may have been partially

alleviated in subsequent years (468).

As further illustration of the infrequent use of

CSIs, guidelines in the State of Washington strongly encourage annual CSIs for all major dischargers,

including collection and analysis of effluent samples. A recent analysis found, however, that only

one-sixth of dischargers into Puget Sound had ever

received a CSI (over a 10-year period);4’ analysis

for priority pollutants had been conducted for only

five dischargers (462). Moreover, it is standard

practice in the State to announce inspections and

field sampling in advance, raising concerns over

how representative of typical effluent such samples

actually are.

SSDMRS are required tO be submitted quarterly or monthly. TW O

percent of GAO’s sample did not submit DMRs for 3 or more quarters

or 5 or more months during the survey period; 11 percent submitted

incomplete DMRs for 3 or more quarters or 5 or more months during this period.

sGThis type of vio]a[ion is now an instance of CategOry I noncOrnpliance, and therefore must be reported in Quarterly Noncompliance

Reports (QNCRS; see 40 CFR 123.45 (a)(2)(ii)(D)).

37’’ Unacceptable” results were those that were either higher or lower

than the acceptable limits established by EPA’s Quality Assurance

Program, determined on a case-by-case basis for pollutants actually

specified in a discharger’s permit.

saThe data cited by GAO (576) did not indicate what fraction of

errors were befow acceptable limits; consistently low errors would be

expected if deliberate falsification were the cause.

39sever~ other types of inspections of NPDES permitters are ~so

conducted, but do not involve collection of effluent samples,

+OThe number of other types of inspections—compliance WdUi3-

tions and performance audits—actually increased significantly during fiscal years 1979 to 1981. These are considerably less expensive

and time-consuming than CSIS.

+lThis fraction included only about half of Puget Sound’s major

industrial dischargers.
Ch. 8—Managing Industrial Effluents ● 197

Extent of Noncompliance With Effluent

Discharge Limits

This discussion separately considers compliance

for direct dischargers (municipal and industrial facilities regulated under the NPDES program) and

for indirect dischargers (regulated under the National Pretreatment Program).

Direct Dischargers. —Estimates of the extent of

permittee noncompliance with NPDES permits are

quite disparate (238,392,462,574,576,689). A major source of variability—and controversy —surrounding these estimates is the criteria used to define noncompliance, particularly significant

noncompliance (SNC).

4 2

In particular, different criteria have been used

by EPA and Congress’ General Accounting Office

(GAO) to determine SNC (table 18). (EPA has

since partially revised its criteria, as discussed in

—.. t2A~Oth~~ ~OUrCe of variability is in the interpretation of how significant a particular rate of permit violations really is. Essentially all

studies express noncompliance in terms of the number of facilities with

at least one permit limit violation in a given time period. These facilities, however, may be in full compliance with many other permit limits

during the same period. EPA argues that it is also important to examine the number of limits that are exceeded relative to the total number of possible exceedances (i. e., the number of limited parameters

in each permit times the number of permits) to fully appreciate both

the magnitude of the compliance problem and the success or failure

rate (651 ).

table 18. ) As a result, GAO and EPA have reported

considerably different SNC estimates, even using

the same raw data. For example, based on its review of dischargers in six States, GAO found that

about 80 percent exceeded one or more permit

limits at least once during an 18-month period;

almost half of the permitters who exceeded their

permit limits did so for more than 6 of the 18

months, and about 20 percent did so for more than

12 of the 18 months. Based on GAO’s criteria, onequarter of all dischargers were in SNC at least once

(576).

EPA took issue with several of GAO’s findings,

in particular those regarding SNC. EPA’s data for

the same six States indicated a SNC rate 7 to 12

percent lower than that found by GAO over the

same time period. Nationally, EPA reported SNC

rates of 18 percent for municipal and 16 percent

for industrial dischargers.

Regardless of the criteria used, it is clear that

noncompliance is a major and continuing problem.

At the same time, some progress has been made:

industrial compliance has improved considerably

over the last several years, and it has consistently

exceeded the degree of municipal compliance. EPA

data for the first quarter of 1985 indicated that only

5 percent of major industrial facilities were in SNC.

Similarly, as of the third quarter of 1985, only 6

Table 18.—Criteria Used To Identify “Significant Noncompliance”

Environmental Protection Agency General Accounting Office

Based on magnitude and frequency: Based on magnitude and frequency:

● 2 exceedances of a monthly average limit in any 6-month . 4 consecutive exceedances of an average limit by at

period that meet the following criteria: least 50% during its 18-month survey period

—40% over limit for conventional pollutants and “nontoxic” metals

—20% over limit for toxic pollutants

—discretionary for fecal coliforms or pathogens

Based on frequency only:

• 4 exceedances of a monthly average Iimit (by any

amount) in any 6-month period for any pollutant

Other criteria: Other criteria:

● Excludes permitters on interim limits and/or construc- . Includes permittees on interim limits and/or construction

tion schedules schedules (about 25% of GAO’s sample)

● Excludes permitters returned to compliance by end of

quarter b

aThiS criterion was Used by EPA at the time of the GAO analysis; EPA has since revised its definition So as to include any v~olation which is Of COnCern tO the a9encY,

including those by facilities on interim limits or construction schedules,

busing this criterion, if a Permittee were in significant noncompliance during the first two months of a quarter, but returned to compliance in the third month, it would

not be reported This criterion was used by EPA at the time of the GAO analysis; EPA has since rewsed its definition so as to eliminate this possibility.

SOURCES Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; based on 50 Federal Register 34648, Aug. 26, 1985 (for EPA’s definitions), and U.S. Congress, General Accounting

Office, Wastewater Dischargers Are Not Cornp/yirrg With EPA Po//utiorr Corrfro/ Permits, Report to the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency (Washington, DC: Dec. 2, 1983) (for GAO’s definitions)
198 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

percent of completed major POTWs were in SNC

(table 19). However, over one-third of all major

POTWs had not yet completed the construction

needed to meet treatment requirements, and 15

percent of these were in SNC with their interim

limits.

In marked contrast to EPA’s latest national statistics, a considerably less optimistic picture was recently reported by the State of Washington (462).

Using EPA’s definition of SNC, 41 percent of the

State’s major municipal and industrial facilities

were in SNC during the second half of 1985; moreover, the SNC rate was considerably worse for industrial facilities than for municipal facilities (50

percent v. 31 percent).

Whether the Washington survey is representative of other dischargers in the State or in other

parts of the country is not known. Nevertheless,

these results clearly indicate that, even if national

average compliance rates are as high as reported

by EPA, certain regions of the country are experiencing compliance rates far below average.

Two related factors are responsible for the differences seen in SNC rates for industrial and municipal dischargers. First, far fewer municipal facilities

(65 percent) have completed the construction needed

to achieve compliance than have industrial dischargers (94 percent) (327). Second, EPA initially

adopted a less aggressive enforcement policy toward

municipal facilities, in part because of the uncertainties or delays associated with Federal funding

for construction (576). EPA has subsequently issued a new National Municipal Policy (49 FR 3832,

Jan. 30, 1984), which adopts a more aggressive

stance. 43

Data concerning compliance rates for minor dischargers generally are not available, although the

reduced attention paid to them in permitting and

enforcement strongly argues that their extent of

compliance is likely to be considerably lower than

for major dischargers. Of an estimated 12,000 minor POTWs nationwide, almost 3,400 (28 percent)

had not met the statutory deadlines of’ CWA or

were not in compliance with their NPDES permits

as of October 31, 1985 (327).

Indirect Dischargers. —Relative to direct discharges, less information is available on the compliance of indirect dischargers with pretreatment

regulations. The National Pretreatment program

is newer and less developed than the NPDES program for direct dischargers. Moreover, the specified deadlines for final compliance with pretreatment standards in seven industrial categories will

not occur until 1987 and 1988, and final regulations for two additional categories (OCPSF and

Pesticides) are yet to be issued.

Another major obstacle is the fact that the primary authority and responsibility for regulating

such facilities and determining compliance is far

more decentralized than is the case in the NPDES

program. The primary authority can be a POTW,

a State, or an EPA Region. Of the more than

15,000 POTWs in the United States, the EPA required about 1,500 to develop pretreatment programs.44 To date, 24 States have received authority

to approve and oversee individual POTW pretreatTable 19.—Municipal Treatment Plants (POTWs) in

Significant Noncompliance as of Sept. 30, 1985

Number of Number Percent

permits in SNCa of permits

Completed major

POTWs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,506 158 60/0

Major POTWs on

compliance schedules

and/or interim limits . . . 1,219 180 15%

Total major POTWs . . . 3,725 338 9%

aSNC s significant noncompliance.

SOURCE: Management Advisory Group to the EPA Construction Grants Program,

Report to EPA: Municipal Cornp/lance W/th the Natlona/ Po//utant Dk

charge Elimination System (Washington, DC: June 19S6).

43The compliance deadline for municipal facilities was Originally

1977 but is currently July 1, 1988. EPA’s National Municipal Policy

now indicates that compliance with the 1988 deadline is mandator}’

for all municipal facilities, regardless of whether the} receivcd Federal funding.

44These POTWs were to have developed programs by Sept 30.

1985, or be referred to the Department of Justice. As of June 1985,

only 1, 100 programs had been approved, and 9 civil actions had been

initiated against POTWs lacking approved programs (503). As of October 1986, however, all but 30 had approved programs; 18 of these

remaining POTWs had been referred for judicial action. An additional 60 POTWs were identified as needing to develop pretreatment

programs because of the presence of new industrial users or environmental problems; these POTWs are currently on schedules to develop

programs. (These most recent data were obtained through personal

communication from the Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS), Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, U.S. EPA,

January 1987).
Ch. 8—Managing Industrial Effluents • 199

ment programs; EPA Regions bear these responsibilities for the remaining States.

Several additional factors complicate the measurement, as well as achievement, of compliance for

indirect dischargers. No national tracking system

(comparable to the PCS for direct dischargers) currently exists for compiling and analyzing the selfreported data required of industrial users. Moreover, the size of the regulated universe of the pretreatment program is considerably larger than that

of the NPDES program. An estimated 100,000 to

140,000 indirect dischargers are subject to General

Pretreatment Regulations; approximately 15,600

of these fall into industries which are also subject

to Categorical Pretreatment Standards (see table

13).

Despite these limitations, some attempts have

been made to examine compliance rates for indirect

industrial dischargers, particularly in the electroplating industry. In a 1984 survey of selected

major national electroplating firms, baseline monitoring reports (BMRs)45 for 22 percent of the facilities were either lost or never submitted (258).

For those facilities for which some compliance information could be located, only 54 percent were

in compliance with categorical standards; 28 percent were clearly not in compliance; and the status of the remaining 18 percent could not be determined. 46

A 1984 study of electroplates in California also

documented widespread noncompliance: 40 percent

of the facilities in the San Francisco Bay area were

in violation, and 70 percent in the Los Angeles area

were classified either as ‘ ‘compliance unknown’

(61 percent) or ‘ ‘out of compliance’ (9 percent)

(97). In response, EPA (which administers the pretreatment program in California) initiated a number of enforcement actions against major violators.

A 1985 study examined compliance for 1,600

major facilities in a broader range of industrial cat-

“13N4Rs must Ix’ ~uhmittccl b~ indirect dischargers to the control

authority within 6 months o! the e!fecti~c date of a pretreatment standard. “1’hcl c (jntd i n Information on t hc ( om position of the> f’ac i] i t ics

drs( hargri. WI th rcsix>ct [o those pollutants rc~ulated by cate~oric-a]

standards

‘h’I-he e]cctr(jp]ating facditlcs in th]s sunc} were d]] aswc iated w rth

major corporat Ions, and }Icnc c mdy rthflt>( I a ~rcatcr dt.~rw of c’om -

plian( c than the rndustry as a whole.

egories (98).47 One-fourth of the major facilities

studied were in noncompliance with Federal standards during 1985. Noncompliance was three times

higher in southern California than in the San Francisco Bay area, ranging from 18 percent (L. A.

County) to 50 percent (Orange County). Virtually

all reported violations in southern California were

from electroplates and metal finishers, which accounted for 93 percent of all industrial users in the

region.

For the electroplating and metal finishing industries, the noncompliance rate improved considerably in the Bay area, decreasing from 40 percent

to 11 percent between 1984 and 1985. In southern

California, progress during this period was made

primarily in determining the compliance status of

industrial users. However, 32 percent of these facilities were still reported to be out of compliance

(98).

Several other problems associated with determining or measuring pretreatment compliance also

have been identified: the absence of a consistent

definition of, or means of quantifying, noncompliance; the use of different and inconsistent data

sources for determining noncompliance; and the

use of varying methods for monitoring (98,502).

Effectiveness of Enforcement

The final, essential link in the NPDES and National Pretreatment programs is enforcement. EPA’s

philosophy and policy toward enforcement has undergone major fluctuations over the last decade.

The number of enforcement actions initiated by

EPA steadily declined from more than 1,500 in

1977 to about 400 in 1982 (576). Part of this decline was caused by explicit changes in EPA’s enforcement policy, which placed greater emphasis

on pursuing ‘ ‘voluntary compliance and negotiated settlements (238,462,576).

Since that time, EPA and some States have taken

several steps to strengthen and codify their enforcement policies. The revision of EPA’s Enforcement

q~~iX Indus[rl(.s k%,erc. ln(.]udc~. clwtroplat rn,q; rn{>tal linishlng, wrnrconcluctor manu facturirr~, pulp, paper, and paprr-board: stcarr) CIC( -

t ri( power ,q’rrcrat lon. and [ext ilc mills ‘1’hc 1,600 f’acil it ic’~ examlned were all industrial uwrs of POrI’\\’\ rcqu lrcd [() (It’! (’l[~p

pretreatment pro~rams.
200 • Wastes in Marine Environments

Management System, the commitment of new resources to the Agency’s enforcement programs, and

the increase in the number of formal enforcement

actions all point to such changes (462,468). In general, these efforts have been based on the realistic

assumption that the resources available to identify

and effectively respond to all violations will remain

limited, so the development of a consistent way to

rank violations is essential. It remains to be seen

how effective such actions will be in improving enforcement and compliance under CWA.

Several enforcement problems have been identified during recent years: the nature and timeliness of the response to a violation once it is identified; the effectiveness of the response in eliminating

the violation in a timely manner; the ability to impose meaningful penalties; and the adequacy of resources for enforcement activities. Problems in these

areas can in turn lead to delays in achieving compliance on the part of industrial firms or municipal plants, or to unfair economic advantages to violators.

Unfortunately, few data systematically evaluate

these factors. Available information indicates two

phases: an initially very poor record of enforcement,

followed by a general trend toward gradual improvement in recent years. These phases illustrate

the nature and extent of obstacles (some of which

are being overcome) that face enforcement of water

pollution control programs.

Extent and Timeliness of Response .—Several

studies have examined EPA and State responses

to reported violations, with special attention to

whether and how quickly action is taken. In one

study of enforcement in EPA Region II, over 4,000

violations by 158 major industrial dischargers between 1975 and 1980 were identified (391). Overall, only 13 percent of these violations received any

response after they were reported; in contrast, about

twice as many violations discovered during onsite

inspections received a response. The vast majority

of responses taken were informal: phone calls or

warning letters. Moreover, almost a year elapsed,

on average, before authorities first responded, during which time an average of three additional violations occurred.48

48N0 &ta were presented on (he ultimate effectiveness of these actions in restoring compliance.

A continuing low level of response to permit violations, many of which are instances of SNC, has

also been documented in the State of Washington

(462). During the second half of 1985, less than half

of the reported SNC violations received a formal

enforcement response, despite the issuance of a new

enforcement policy that required all instances of

SNC to be subject to a formal action. During this

same 6-month period, no civil penalties were assessed

against municipal dischargers, while a substantial

number of industrial facilities were fined,

A study of State and POTW enforcement of pretreatment standards in Rhode Island also documented widespread noncompliance by indirect industrial dischargers over the last several years;

during this period, only one judicial enforcement

action was initiated (497).

Recent national data show some improvement

in the extent of response to permit violations, at

least at the Federal level. Since 1980, both the number of administrative orders (AOs) issued and the

number of judicial actions undertaken (i. e., number of cases referred to the Department of Justice)

have been on the rise (figure 31).49

More limited data are available on the level of

State activity during this period. For 1985 and

1986, the number of AOs issued by NPDES States

was almost three times higher than the number issued at the Federal level; the number of civil actions initiated by these States was 50 percent higher

in 1985, and 100 percent higher in 1986, than the

number of cases initiated at the Federal level (672).

Effectiveness of Response .—The effectiveness

of EPA’s response to violations at 33 Louisiana facilities, many of which had ‘‘frequently and extensively’ violated their permit limits during a 2-year

period has been examined (576,689). While EPA

initiated numerous informal and formal actions

against these facilities, GAO concluded that they

were generally ineffective as judged by the continuation of noncompliance. Formal enforcement actions appeared to be no more effective than informal actions: of the 17 facilities that received one

+gData for AOs was further broken down into actions against major and minor, and municipal and industrial, permitters. Each year,

the majority of the AOS were issued to major dischargers; in addition, the largest number of AOs were consistently issued to major municipal permitters.
Ch. 8—Managing Industrial Effluents • 201

20

n

Figure 31.— Federal Enforcement Activity, Fiscal Years 1980-86

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

1980 ’81 ’82 ’83 ’84 ’85 1986

Fiscal year

Federal NPDES Federal

--- cases referred — administrative

to DOJ orders

800

600

400

200

0

-

E

-0

For fiscal years 1980-84, 25 of the cases referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) were for

violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act, not for violations of NPDES permits; the distribution

of the 25 cases during these years is not known. Data for 1985 and 1986 are for NPDES violations only (D. Drelich, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, personal communication,

January 1987).

SOURCES U S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Summary of EPA Enforcement for 1980 -1986,” draft of release 16, 1966; Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, “Water Enforcement 

 Report (Summary ),” by personal from EPA on Jan 15, 1987 (data current through

Jan 12, 1987)

or more AOs, only one came into compliance in

the following months. In one extreme case, a discharger was in violation of its permit for 35 consecutive months, despite receiving six AOs. In

another, a discharger that had violated its permit

limits for 21 consecutive months, often by more

than 100 percent, was never subjected to a formal

enforcement action by EPA. Out of all 33 facilities,

only one case was referred to Federal prosecutors.

EPA has contested a number of GAO’s findings,

including GAO conclusions about the effectiveness of AOs (65 1). During the period examined by

GAO, EPA issued nine AOs, each of which specified a compliance schedule. EPA reports that six

facilities returned to compliance within the time

frame established in the AO, and that in the other

three cases the AOs had a net positive effect, albeit delayed, on ultimately resolving the situations.

Ability to Impose Meaningful Penalties.—

Several studies have documented the infrequent imposition, infrequent collection, and low level of

penalties for violations of permit limits in various

areas of the country (238,462,576,689). These

studies emphasize the often time-consuming and

frustrating nature of civil actions, especially when

measured against the lack of effectiveness of the resulting penalties as deterrents to the original violator or to other permitters.

One common recommendation in such studies

is the need for EPA to be given statutory authority to impose administrative penalties against vio-
202 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Figure 32.–Amount of Average CWA Civil Penalty,a 1975-86

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Year a

To skewing the by the large assessed a very small number of cases, only penalties under $200,000 (so-called “routine” cases) are in calculating the average penalty Only 5 percent of all cases Involved penalties larger than this amount.

SOURCE” Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987, based on Environmental Protection Agency, of Enforcement and Compliance 1986 

 (Washington, DC: Dec 12, 1986).

lators without having to resort to judicial action

(327).50 Such authority would greatly enhance

EPA’s capability to mount appropriate and timely

enforcement actions against violators.

The penalty situation has improved considerably in recent years (671), Figure 32 illustrates the

trend in the size of the average CWA civil penalty

collected in cases brought by the Federal Government between 1975 and 1986. These data show an

accelerating increase in the average CWA penalty,

from $7,500 in 1975 to $48,400 in 1986. Total

penalties collected in 1986 were the highest ever,

totaling over $5 million. Figure 32 also shows the

individual trends for POTWs and industrial facilities Whereas the average penalty assessed in cases

brought against industries showed a gradual increase during this period, the average penalty

‘

) authorizing EPA to impost= administrative penalties under conditions was included in the Water Quality Act of 1987.

assessed against POTWs remained very low (less

than $5,000) until 1983, but has since risen substantially. In addition, the fraction of cases settled

without a penalty has declined over the last several years, especially for cases brought against municipal violators.

Adequacy of Resources for Enforcement Activities. —A consistent theme encountered in this analysis of enforcement, as well as other activities associated with the implementation and administration

of water pollution control programs, is the underfunding of such efforts. Resources available to EPA

and approved States for administering the NPDES

and National Pretreatment programs and ensuring their enforcement are clearly inadequate. For

example:

● Although personnel for the National Pretreatment program doubled from 1984 to 1985 to

a total of approximately 65 people, EPA’s
Ch. 8—Managing Industrial Effluents ● 203

Pretreatment Implementation Review Task

Force (PIRT) estimates that an additional 150

positions in Regional offices would be needed

to properly implement the program (653).

PIRT also recommended increased Federal

funding for State programs.

The State of Washington estimated that it had

resources to conduct only 24 percent of the

activities needed to effectively administer its

NPDES program. Efforts to supplement its

budget through increased use of permit fees

have been unsuccessful (462). Five staff positions are currently devoted to the State’s pretreatment program, despite a 1985 study indicating an actual need for 14 positions (461).

Under the proposed fiscal 1987 budget, funding for water quality enforcement and permitting will decrease $4.1 million, and funding

for implementing the National Municipal Policy will drop $3.1 million. Overall, the proposed budget for water quality programs represents a 15 percent decrease over the fiscal

1986 budget (149).

Additional Issues Facing the

Pretreatment Program

Balancing Needs for National Consistency

and Local Flexibility

During the last decade, many indirect industrial

dischargers and POTWs argued that POTWs with

strong locally developed pretreatment programs

should be allowed to retain these programs. These

locally controlled programs would not have to meet

the programmatic and bureaucratic requirements

of the National Pretreatment Program as long as

they provide control of toxic pollutants that is as

stringent as the national program. Proponents of

this perspective argue that imposing National Categorical Standards on these POTWs results in overregulation, and unnecessarily increases costs and

administrative burdens for POTWs and industries.

Opponents of this approach maintain that a

strong national program is necessary to ensure equitable regulation throughout the Nation and to hold

POTWs and industries to a set of minimum standards. From an administrative viewpoint, allowing

local control would create an atmosphere of uncertainty and might encourage some POTWs or industries to delay complying with national regulations because of concern about program changes.

In addition, EPA would have to devote some of its

scarce resources to evaluate local program adequacy

and performance.

Most POTWs interested in local control have

abandoned the issue for political reasons, and it now

appears that the Nation is committed to continued

development of a strong national program. At the

same time, however, the development of more stringent local limits, where needed, is being strongly

encouraged, as is the expansion of water qualitybased controls tailored to local needs.

Despite attempts to achieve nationwide consistency, large differences exist in the implementation

and oversight of various regulations by different

EPA Regions (502,503). Some Regions have allocated resources for both program approvals and

oversight and enforcement, while others have only

allocated resources for program approvals. In addition, the arrangements among municipalities,

States, and EPA Regions are often complex and

variable. With more than 95 percent of the required

POTW programs approved, the pretreatment program appears to be nearing the end of its development stage. As efforts shift toward implementing

these programs, the importance of local limits and

water quality-based permitting will grow considerably.

Obstacles to POTW Program

Implementation and Enforcement

Local Limits. —Despite the importance of local

limits, several obstacles hinder their development

and enforcement. POTWs have an incentive to develop local limits on indirect discharges of certain

toxic metals or organic chemicals that have the potential to disrupt POTW treatment operations.

However, because many pollutants that are harmful

to aquatic resources do not disrupt POTW operations, POTWs have had little incentive to develop

and impose local limits on these pollutants.

A POTW also might develop local limits to help

it meet the specific limitations on its own discharge

that are contained in its NPDES permit or to clean

up its sludge. However, EPA estimates that only

1 percent of all POTW NPDES permits contain

any numerical limits on the discharge of toxic me-
204 ● Wastes in Marine Environment

tals or organic chemicals (653). For example, none

of Rhode Island’s POTWs have any such limits

specified in their discharge permits (497). Where

they do exist, the limits are typically based on State

water quality standards, but those standards have

been developed to a much greater extent for metals than for organic chemicals (see last section of

this chapter). Moreover, where nationally developed standards for toxic pollutants—in effluent, receiving waters, or sewage sludge—have not been

developed, few incentives (and many obstacles) exist for POTWs to develop their own local limits

(503,653). The net result of this lack of incentive

is that POTWs only rarely impose local limits on

their industrial users, especially for priority pollutants.

Monitoring and Enforcement.—These important elements of local pretreatment programs are

often inadequate. Even for POTWs with approved

pretreatment programs, mechanisms to ensure a

program’s effectiveness may not exist. Two-thirds

of the POTWs examined in one study did not monitor influent for priority metals or organic chemicals, although most large POTWs have generally

identified the major sources of toxic pollutants entering their facilities (503). In another study of

POTWs with approved programs, only 25 percent

had all of the following mechanisms considered essential for controlling industrial wastes: 1 ) a sewer

use ordinance with specific effluent limits, 2) a permitting mechanism, and 3) a monitoring and enforcement program (503). Gradual improvements

in these areas have occurred, although for many

programs the ability to identify and effectively

respond to noncompliance has yet to be demonstrated.

The burden of enforcing pretreatment regulations initially falls on POTWs.51 Even in the best

of situations, it is difficult to determine the extent

51 If appropriate action is not initiated by the pOTW, higher authorities can step in. For example, in the last 2 years EPA has initiated more than 50 judicial actions against indirect industrial dischargers

(primarily electroplates) for violations of general and categorical

pretreatment regulations (J. Moran, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, EPA, pers. comm., Dec. 23, 1986).

to which industries have complied with applicable

regulations; in part, this stems from heavy reliance

on self-monitoring by industries, which commonly

is not independently verified by POTWs. Because

partial financing for POTW operations comes from

the taxes and user fees paid by industrial dischargers,

there may be little motivation for a POTW to enforce limits, except where POTW operations or

sludge management is impaired (497,503).

Hazardous Waste in Sewers

The current and increasing discharge of hazardous waste to sewers poses a major challenge to the

pretreatment program. Hazardous wastes can be

legally discharged into POTWs under the Domestic Sewage Exemption of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As recent amendments to RCRA come into effect, increasing amounts

of hazardous wastes are expected to be discharged

into POTWs. New provisions extending RCRA

authority to all facilities that generate more than

100 kilograms per month52 of hazardous waste have

increased the total number of generators now subject to RCRA regulations from 14,000 to over

175,000 (50 FR 31285, Aug. 1, 1985). Many of

these small quantity generators already discharge

into local POTWs and thus could fall under the Domestic Sewage Exemption; it is estimated that as

many as 25 percent of all small hazardous waste

generators already use this disposal option for their

hazardous wastes (568).

EPA recently submitted a major report, known

as the Domestic Sewage Study (666), to Congress

on the issue of hazardous waste in sewers, and more

recently issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (51 FR 30166, Aug. 22, 1986) that discussed preliminary approaches to implementing the

Study’s recommendations. For more discussion of

this issue and the role of POTWs in treating domestic and industrial wastes, the reader is referred

to these sources and to chapter 9.

Szpreviously, only generators producing more than 1,000 kilograms

per month were subject to RCRA hazardous waste regulation.
Ch. 8—Managing Industrial Effluents ● 205

USING WATER QUALITY-BASED STANDARDS FOR FURTHER

CONTROL OF TOXICS POLLUTANTS

In 1984, EPA released a national policy statement that described a strategy for achieving additional and more efficient control of toxic pollutants

beyond that resulting from BAT and other CWA

technology-based requirements (49 FR 9016, Mar.

9, 1984). This strategy focuses on water qualitybased permitting of toxic pollutant discharges to

be implemented through the NPDES program. Because water quality-based standards are difficult to

set, EPA is adopting an integrated strategy that uses

both chemical and biological methods to determine

appropriate standards (659). States will be expected

to devote more effort to develop water quality-based

effluent limits for inclusion in NPDES permits.

This new EPA policy reflects a reevaluation of

the regulatory efforts to control toxic pollutants during the last 15 years. The 1972 Clean Water Act

shifted the focus of pollutant control from the use

of water quality-based standards to the use of technology-based standards. Subsequent implementation of technology-based standards has resulted in

significant improvements in the control of toxic discharges and in the quality of some receiving waters,

and full implementation would achieve even more

control.

However, the level of control provided has not

always satisfied all the interested parties. For example, the technology-based standards usually do

not consider site-specific circumstances such as the

quality of receiving waters. In addition, BAT standards are industry-specific; some industries are required to achieve greater removal of a specific pollutant than are other industries, leading to claims

of under- or over-regulation.

As a result, some industries have argued for

waivers from complying with technology-based

standards, in situations where the quality of the receiving water would not be impaired. 53 In contrast,

environmentalists have argued that even the achievement of compliance with technology-based standards has not resulted in sufficient improvement in

jsThese ~al~,ers are termed ‘ ‘fundamentally different factor’ (FDF)

waivers. The conditions (including consideration of water quality) under which EPA can grant an FDF variance were clarified by Congress in the Water Quatity Act of 1987,

the quality of some receiving waters, and that supplemental controls are needed.

The 1972 CWA did not eliminate the use of

water quality-based standards. Section 303 required

States to adopt water quality standards to protect

inter- and intra-state waters through establishment

of water quality goals and designation of water uses;

specific standards based on Federal water quality

criteria are then to be applied to protect these uses.54

Section 301(b)(l)(C) of CWA requires that all discharges meet water quality-based standards where

they have been developed, These standards can in

principle be translated, using wasteload allocation

techniques, into effluent limits for the various dischargers to a particular receiving waterbody.

EPA maintains and periodically updates a summary of Federal water quality criteria and State

standards. According to the most recent summary,

Federal water quality criteria have now been developed for most conventional, non-conventional,

and toxic priority pollutants (668).55 The Federal

criteria are for guidance only and are not enforceable. Using these criteria, all States have adopted

enforceable water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria, oil and grease, dissolved oxygen,

pH, dissolved solids and salinity, and temperature,

and almost all have a standard for suspended solids

and turbidity (668).56 EPA estimates that 40 percent of major municipal permits—and perhaps as

high a fraction of major industrial permits—are

based in some manner on these water quality standards (J. Hoornbeek, Office of Water Enforcement

and Permits, EPA, pers. comm. , Nov. 13, 1986).

MEPA is authorized to review State standards and may ~SO promulgate standards where State standards have not been de~eloped, although they have not done so,

sSFeder~ water qu~itv criteria consist of four criteria based on consideration of aquatic life (acute and chronic criteria specific for fresh

or marine waters) and two additional criteria based on consideration

of human health (one for both water and fish ingestion, and the other

for fish ingestion only). Typically, only a subset of these six parameters is specified for a given pollutant,

Sbunder current policy, the adequacy of State water quzdity standards is now a consideration in the decision of whether to grant approval to a State to administer the NPDES program. However, the

standards de~’eloped by States whose programs were approved prior

to the development of this policy (or, indeed, prior to the development of most Federal water quatity criteria) have not always been subject to a comparable degree of scrutiny by the Federal Government.
206 • Wastes in Marine Environments

In contrast, for most other pollutants—in particular, priority pollutants—none or only a few

States have developed standards (668). Specifically:

● Of 85 priority organic chemicals for which

Federal water quality criteria exist, no States

have developed standards for 37, and only one

State has developed standards for another 32.

For each of the remaining 16 priority organic

pollutants, standards have been developed by

an average of 12 States (with a range of 2 to

23 States).

● At least 1 State has developed a standard for

each of the 14 priority metals and cyanide for

which Federal water quality criteria exist; for

each of’ these substances, an average of 15

States (with a range of 1 to 24 States) have developed standards.

Thus, for no priority pollutants have even half

of the States developed a water quality standard. Fourteen States have no water quality

standards for priority pollutants whatsoever.

OTA also reviewed water quality standards for

priority pollutants that have been promulgated by

the 24 coastal States to determine the number of

standards that have been specifically developed for

or applied to marine waters. This survey revealed

the following:

● Nine of the 24 coastal States have no marine water quality standards for priority

pollutants whatsoever, and 16 States have

no such standards for priority metals or

cyanide.

● For the 8 coastal States that have any marine

standards for priority metals or cyanide, standards have been developed for an average of

4.5 of the 14 priority metals and cyanide.

● For the 15 coastal States that have any marine standards for priority organic chemicals,

standards have been developed for an average of 6.8 of the 85 priority organic chemicals.

The development of water quality-based standards poses several problems. First, it is questionable whether EPA has sufficient resources to continue to develop and update the Federal water

quality criteria, or to evaluate water quality standards that are developed by States. Moreover, a large

increase in compliance monitoring and enforcement

burdens would also be anticipated.

Even if resources were sufficient, a number of

major technical obstacles would need to be overcome. Only limited data are available on ambient

pollutant concentrations in receiving waters, variability in these concentrations, and the fate of these

pollutants and their impacts on indigenous organisms. In addition, our ability to monitor water quality in relation to potential environmental or human

impacts is relatively primitive.

Nevertheless, further promotion of EPA’s policy on water quality-based permit limitations for

toxic pollutants could help provide an additional

level of control beyond technology-based standards.

Several approaches to increase the use of water

quality-based standards may be useful for Congress

and

●

●

●

●

EPA to consider:

improve technical assistance to States and local management agencies to aid in the development of State water quality-based standards;

provide state-of-the-art guidelines to States by

updating existing national water quality criteria and accelerating the development of new

national water and sediment criteria;

incorporate water quality standards into

POTW NPDES permits as a means of providing incentives for POTWs to develop local limits; and

promote wider application of whole-effluent

toxicity testing, for example, through the expanded use of toxicity-based limitations in

NPDES permits.
Photo Credit: Stephen C. Delaney

Chapter 9

Managing Municipal

Effluent and Sludge
CONTENTS

Page

overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................209

Treatment Processes and Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... ... ..211

General Wastewater Treatment Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...211

Effluent and Sludge Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........216

Amounts of Effluent and Sludge Generated and Disposed . ....................217

Effluent and Sludge Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................217

Land-Based Management Technologies for Effluent and Sludge . .............217

Marine Disposal of Effluent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........219

Marine Disposal of Sewage Sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219

Costs of Sludge Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................221

General Fate of Nudge and Effluent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......221

Dumped Sludge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................,......221

Discharged Effluent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............222

Impacts From Effluent and Sludge Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...223

Marine Impacts From Particulate Material, Microorganisms, and Nutrients , ..223

Marine Impacts From Metals and Organic Chemicals . .....................224

Impacts From Land-Based Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......224

Risks to Humans From Sludge Disposal Methods . . . . . . . . . .................225

Major Issues Related to Marine Environments . ...................,.........225

Compliance and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............225

Effect of Toxic Pollutants and Hazardous Wastes on Sewage Management ....226

New Regulatory Initiatives Regarding Sludge Management . ................227

Role of Marine Environments in Municipal Waste Management . ...........228

Role of Land-Based Alternatives in Sludge Management . ...................233

Tables

Table No. Page

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Definitions of Municipal Treatment Levels . .............................213

Advantages and Disadvantages of Selected Effluent Disinfection and Sludge

Treatment Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........214

Amounts of Effluent and Sludge Generated by Municipal Treatment Plants

(POTWs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,.....,.........217

Costs of Dumping Sludge at the 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Dump Site and the

Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......220

Status of Major Municipal Facilities (POTWs) Not in Compliance With

National Municipal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....226

Figures

Figure No. Page

33. Generation, Treatment, and Disposal of Municipal Effluent and Sludge .. ...213

34. Status of 301(h) Applications, As of Jan. 2, 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...232

Boxes

Box Page

U. Relevant Statutes, Programs, and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......210

V. Inputs of Toxic Pollutants and Hazardous Wastes Into POTWs . ...........212

W. Proposed Discharge of Sludge by Orange County . ..............,.......,.230
Chapter 9

Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge

OVERVIEW

The treatment of municipal wastes generates two

products: sewage sludge (the mostly solid material

separated from the original waste) and effluent (the

liquid remainder). Large quantities of these products are disposed of in marine waters. The treatment of municipal wastes and the management of

these products raise many concerns, for example:

●

●

●

●

●

the dumping of sewage sludge in coastal and

open ocean waters;

the impacts of toxic pollutants (in particular,

metals and organic chemicals from industrial

discharges into sewers) in sludge and effluent

on marine resources;

the constraints imposed by the presence of

toxic pollutants on the beneficial use of sludge

and effluent;

the impacts of conventionized pollutants (including solids and fecal bacteria), other microorganisms (e. g., viruses), and nonconventional

pollutants (e. g., nutrients) in sludge and effluent on marine resources; and

whether current levels of municipal treatment

will be maintained as Federal funding for the

construction of treatment plants declines.

Municipal waste management in the United

States has been shaped by events that occurred during the past 150 years. In the 19th century, the increased use of water delivery systems and flush toilets dramatically increased the amount of rinsewater

and raw sewage flowing from households (1 75,551).

The rinsewater and sewage was usually diverted

into cesspools or existing stormwater drains, but

these often were unable to handle the increased flow

and health problems arose from the contamination

of soil and wellwater.

In response, cities began channeling wastewater

into newly built sewers that discharged into surface waters, including marine waters (175,551). Initially,

cause

would

these discharges received no treatment bepeople assumed that the receiving water

dilute the waste and prevent health problems. In 1909, almost 90 percent of wastewater carried in sewers received no treatment. However, it

was soon discovered that discharges into rivers contaminated drinking water supplies in downstream

communities, causing major public health problems

such as epidemics of typhoid fever.

Cities then began to develop processes to filter

wastewater and treat bacteriological contamination

prior to discharge (1 75,551). Many processes developed between 1900 and 1935 are still important

components of current municipal treatment (318).

One problem arises, however, regarding the nature of the wastes being treated. The original processes were not designed to treat metals and organic

chemicals, yet industries discharge wastewater containing these pollutants into municipal sewers. Thus

the sludge and effluent products left after treatment

are often contaminated with these substances.

The initial responsibility for developing large and

efficient disposal systems was usually carried at the

municipal level; suburban areas often were annexed

and special district agencies (e. g., the Boston Metropolitan Sewerage Commission) were created to

facilitate such development. However, the institutional structure to regulate sewage treatment and

disposal has grown rapidly and has gradually passed

to the State and Federal levels. The Federal Government, for example, spent over $40 billion in the

last 15 years to help local sewerage authorities build

or upgrade municipal treatment plants (569). The

current legal framework for managing municipal

effluent and sludge is described in box U.

The generation of both sludge and effluent is expected to increase in coastal areas as populations

increase and as more communities are serviced by

municipal treatment plants. Effluent discharges into

marine and fresh waters probably will increase accordingly because this is the only means currently

available for large-scale disposal. In some situations,

water conservation or the re-use of effluent (e. g.,

via water reclamation for irrigation or groundwater

209
Appendixes
Ch. 9—Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge • 211

recharge) could reduce the need for discharges. Sev- cause the use of other options may be constrained

eral management options are feasible for sludge, by regulatory and social factors and because dumpincluding, for example, dumping in marine waters ing sometimes may be economically and even enviand beneficial use on cropland. The demand to ronmentally preferable when compared with other

dump sludge in marine waters could increase, be- options.

TREATMENT PROCESSES AND PRODUCTS

General Wastewater Treatment Processes

About 70 percent of domestic wastewater in the

United States is channeled into publicly owned

treatment works (POTWS)

] for treatment (1 59).

The remainder is discharged into private septic systems or, in some cases, discharged without treatment into various waterbodies. These wastestreams

are complex mixtures, generally composed of water,

suspended solids, organic material, oil and grease,

dissolved nutrients, microorganisms, and metals

and organic chemicals.

The exact composition of wastewater entering

POTWs is highly site-specific and complex because

its components can come from a variety of sources:

household chemicals, human wastes, industrial and

commercial discharges into sewers (box V), and

rainwater and street runoff from combined sewer

systems (figure 33). In addition, about 60 percent

of the material periodically cleaned from septic

tanks is transported to and treated in POTWs

(638). Composition also varies with time, particularly in systems that receive large inputs from combined sewers or seasonal industrial discharges.

POTWs treat raw wastewater by removing or

degrading organic materials or, in the case of some

bacteria, by destroying them. Most of the remaining solid organic and inorganic material is removed,

forming a sludge. The remaining liquid effluent

typically contains much less than 1 percent solids,

while sludge contains from 1 to 7 percent solids

(prior to further dewatering).

Treatment levels are defined primarily on the basis of the percentages of two conventional pollut-

]

‘1 ‘hc trrrns ‘‘mu n I( I pa] t r(.d[ mcn t pl,int J‘ and ‘‘ put)] I( lt o>* n{+

tI (’dt ITl(’Tlt W(lrk\ ‘ . drc u w>(i i ntcr( hdngcab]t hc’rc.

ants—biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total

suspended solids (TSS)—that are removed from the

wastewater. At the first or “primary” treatment

level, debris is physically screened, and some suspended solids settle in sedimentation tanks. Typically, up to about 60 percent of the suspended solids

are removed during primary treatment (633).

‘ ‘Secondary’ or biological treatment uses microorganisms to destroy or remove additional amounts

of B0D and TSS. Any additional suspended solids

that are removed are added to the sludge, so secondary treatment produces more sludge than primary treatment. More advanced, or ‘ ‘tertiary,

treatment generally is used to remo~e additional

suspended solids or nutrients (table 20). It often

entails the use of chemicals (e. g., aluminum sulfate, ferric chloride, polyelectrolytes) to precipitate

the target pollutants (633,634).

Technologies developed in the early 20th century to treat municipal wastewater still are used,

though they have been modified and improved, as

the basis for treatment at most municipal plants.

One example is anaerobic digestion. Many new.

technologies have been developed in the last few

decades, particularly for sludge treatment (e. g.,

physical-chemical treatment, pure oxygen-activated

sludge systems, and ammonia stripping), but few

are widely used in municipal treatment plants (318).

The costs for building and operating municipal

treatment plants vary with the particular combination of processes used to achieve a specified treatment level. Costs can escalate rapidly as the required level of treatment is increased, in part

because of additional costs for sludge treatment

processes (not to be confused with sludge disposal

techniques), but economies of scale can counter this

to a degree (650,661).

Ch. 9–Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge • 213

Figure 33.—Generation, Treatment, and Disposal of Municipal Effluent and Sludge

Wastewater

generation

Pretreatment

by industry

b

SOURCE.

Wastewater

treatment

and products

(

Effluent discharge

to estuaries, coastal )

Sludge

treatment

Odor control and

pathogen reduction:

● stabilization

Water removal,

volume reduction,

and possibly

mass reduction:

● thickening

● conditioning

● dewatering

● drying

● etc.

Sludge

use/disposal

. Land application

. Distribution and

marketing

● Landfilling

● Incineration

= Sludge

Adapted from U.S. Environmental ProtectIon Agency, lntra-Agency Sludge Task Force, Use and D/sposa/ of Murric/pa/ S/udge, EPA 625I1O-844IO3

(Washington, DC September 1984)

Table 20.—Definitions of Municipal Treatment Levels

Treatment level Treatment requirements

Primary . . . . . . . .

Secondary . . . . .

Tertiary . . . . . . . .

Approximately 30°/0 removal of BOD

and 60°/0 removal of TSS

Removal of both BOD and TSS to

levels of 25-30 mg/1, but not less than

85°/0 removal; pH between 6.0 and 9.0

Removal of both BOD and TSS to

levels less than 9 mgjl, or removal of

over 95°\0 of BOD and TSS; additional

requirements for removal of nutrients

(e.g., nitrates, phosphates) on sitespecific basis

ABBREVIATIONS: BOO = biological oxygen demand

TSS = total suspended solids

~reatment levels required by the Clean Water Act and codified at 40 CFR Part 133

SOURCES Off Ice of Technology Assessment, 1987, based on 40 CFR Part 133,

and Sctence Applications International Corp , Overview of Sewage

S/udge and Eff/uenf Management, contract prepared for U.S

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (McLean, VA 1986)

not very effective against parasites (e. g., protozoan

cysts).

Furthermore, the densities of bacteria in effluent

(even including the fiftyfold dilution factor) are usually still too high to achieve compliance with water

quality standards for recreational and shellfishgrowing waters. In addition, both viruses and bacteria tend to become concentrated in sludge because

of their tendency to associate with solid material

(although large numbers remain in the effluent, as

well). For these reasons, ‘‘disinfection’ techniques

(table 21) are often used to further reduce microorganism levels in effluent prior to disposal.

Chlorination is the most commonly used effluent

disinfection technique in the United States. It has
Table 21.—Advantages and Disadvantages of Selected Effluent Disinfection and Sludge Treatment Processes

Technique Used fora Advantages Disadvantages

Effluent disinfection:

Chlorination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ozonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

UV radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Gamma radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Heat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chlorine dioxide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sludge treatment

Aerobic digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anaerobic digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Thermophilic aerobic digestion . . .

Air drying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Heat drying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Heat treatment (under pressure) . .

Liming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chlorination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

DI

ST,DI

ST,DI

ST,DI

DW,DI

DW,DI

DW,DI

ST,DI

DI

DI

Commonly used; 98 t0 99% destruction for

bacteria; high removals of viruses and

cysts

99% removal of fecal coliform; high removal

of viruses; destroys phenols, cyanides,

trihalomethanes; no chlorinated byproducts

Initially effective on all microorganisms

Penetrates deeper than UV radiation

Destroys most pathogens

98 to 99°/0 bacteria removal; high virus

removal; no chlorinated compounds; small

measurable residual

Removes up to 85°/0 of microorganisms and

40% of volatile solids; more rapid, simpler,

less subject to metal upset than anaerobic

digestion, PSRPb

Removes >85% of microorganisms and 40°/0

of volatile solids; easier to dewater;

preferred at larger plants; commercial gas

byproducts; PSRP

Faster than aerobic; near complete

destruction of bacteria and viruses; heat

self-generated; PFRPb

Reduces some solids and microorganisms;

PSRP

Significant reduction in volume; destroys

most bacteria; useful for distribution and

marketing products; PFRP

Sterilization; readily dewatered; PFRP

Destroys bacteria; binds metals, so less

leaching; PSRP

Free of odors; dewaterable

PSRP and PFRP

Low removal of bacterial spores; formation of

chlorine residuals and chlorinated hydrocarbons;

residual test not correlated with concentration of

microorganisms

Toxic gas; requires onsite generation; expensive;

removal of spores and cysts unknown

Only penetrates a few centimeters; microorganisms

sometimes reactivated; potential microorganism

mutagenesis; unpredictable

High costs; worker safety

High energy costs

Three times cost of chlorination; unstable,

sometimes explosive; requires onsite generation

Costly (requires oxygen); susceptible to upset by

pH, organic chemicals, metals; slower at cold

temperatures; not always easy to dewater; no

commercial gas byproducts

More susceptible to upset than aerobic digestion;

gas explosions; higher capital costs

Requires solids content > 1.5°/0 and heat retention

equipment; only in emerging/development status

Requires long time (>3 months)

Subject to putrefaction; requires associated

digestion; needs prior costly dewatering

Expensive

Sludge solids not destroyed, so microorganisms

can regrow if pH falls prior to total drying

No significant solids reduction; requires lime to

neutralize pH; chlorinated byproducts

Requires large space

= disinfection; DW = dewatering, ST = stabilization.

bpSRp = process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens; PFRP = Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (see text for details).

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; after Science Applications International Corp., Overview of Sewage Sludge and .Eff/uent Management, prepared for U S. Congress, Office of Technology As.

sessment (McLean, VA: 1986).
Ch. 9—Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge ● 215

been considered economical and effective and it

usually destroys virtually all fecal coliform bacteria in effluent. Several concerns, however, have

been raised about chlorination. First, it may only

temporarily inactivate, rather than destroy, microorganisms present in effluent. Second, it is not as

effective against pathogenic viruses as it is against

fecal coliform bacteria. 3 Finally, chlorinated hydrocarbons can be formed as byproducts of the process and pose significant risks to organisms in the

vicinit y of municipal discharges, although information on chlorine byproducts in municipal wastewater is limited (503,636).

Alternative effluent disinfection methods such as

ozonation and ultraviolet light treatment may be

more effective than chlorine against viruses. These

methods have rarely been used in the United States

for drinking water or municipal wastewater treatment, although ozonation has been widely used in

Europe to purify drinking water (142,503). Both

methods are hard to apply and expensive, so chlorination may be the only practical means of disinfection in most locations. To combat chlorine’s disadvantages, long outfalls that discharge into deep

and dispersive ocean waters have been used to dilute pathogen concentrations sufficiently to meet

water quality standards.

Sewage sludge also can undergo additional treatment or ‘ ‘conditioning. In particular, sludge that

is to be disposed of on land is required to undergo

certain technology-based processes to reduce microorganisms; these processes involve varying types

of disinfection, stabilization, or dewatering (table

21) (650).4 Some processes, such as anaerobic digestion, have been in use for over 60 years (318).

Others have been developed recently; for example,

ionizing radiation has been used on a pilot scale

in Boston and on a commercial scale in Miami

(59,503).

These sludge treatment processes are grouped

into two categories, Processes to Further Reduce

Pathogens (PFRP) and Processes to Significantly

‘“rhe use of fecal collforrn bacteria as an indicator spcclcs is ciiscussed in rh, 6

4 Dis in fcc t ion reduces odor, as well as bacterial densities; stabil iza -

tion reduces organic material and, corrcspondingl~, the Ie\’cl of

microbial acti~ ity, thus reducing Ic\cls of odor and microorganisms;

dcwatering and some type~ of stabilization can also reduce \rolumc

of sludge.

Reduce Pathogens (PSRP). If food crops are to be

grown within 18 months of land application, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations require that a PFRP be used. PFRPs destroy

most bacteria and viruses by subjecting sludge to

elevated temperatures over a specified time, but

again the actual reduction is variable; in addition,

some parasites such as protozoan cysts are not readily destroyed (205). If no food crops are involved,

sludge treated by a PSRP can be applied to land,

subject to certain restrictions (e. g., on public access, grazing, pH, and metals and polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCB) content).

Other sludge treatment techniques include chemical fixation and encapsulation for sludges containing high levels of contaminants, earthworm conversion, and emerging processes such as anaerobic

fixed-film biological treatment.

Incidental Removal of Metals

and Organic Chemicals

POTWs are designed specifically to remove conventional pollutants from wastewater, but not to

remove metals and organic chemicals. As some of

these pollutants pass through POTWs into receiving waters, they sometimes upset the efficiency of

POTW treatment systems.5 Not all metals and organic chemicals pass through POTWs, however,

because treatment processes do result in the unintentional or ‘ ‘incidental removal or degradation

of some of these wastewater pollutants.

Incidental removal can take several forms—

volatilization, removal to sludge, or biodegradation.

The metals that are incidentally removed tend to

be incorporated into sludge (637), and some organic

chemicals also can be incorporated into sludge,

from which they often are volatilized during subsequent sludge treatment. 6 Municipal treatment

—.

5’ 

( Upsets’ refer to large or sudden c hang-es in the concentrations

of metals or organic chcm icals that kill the m icroorganlsrns used in

treatment processes; as a result, municipal effluent can be discharged

without adequate treatment (503), For example, an upset at a POT\$’

in Rhode Island, and subsequent discharge of efllucnt with excess IK)D

levels, was attributed to the dumping of cyanldc into the municipal

sewers (+97).

6For biodegradation of c hem icals to occur, however, m icroorgan -

isms In the treatment plant generally must be acclimated to a small

but constant input of the chemicals. Howc\rer, \rariab]e inputs arc probably more common and hinder acclimation; thus, many cheml( als

that could in principle be incidentally rcmo~ed through }>lodc~raclation will instead pass through to receiving waters (503),
216 • Wastes in Marine Environments

processes thus destroy some pollutants and redistribute the remainder.

The degree of incidental removal varies greatly

among POTWs, particular treatment techniques,

and individual pollutants (637,666). According to

one study of 50 POTWs, different treatments

showed a range of efficiencies for incidental removal

for some selected priority pollutants (637). For example, POTWs with primary treatment removed

10 to 57 percent of metals and O to 62 percent of

organic chemicals, while POTWs with secondary

treatment removed 34 to 85 percent of metals and

40 to 94 percent of organic chemicals.

These results suggest that 15 to 66 percent of the

metals and 6 to 60 percent of the organic chemicals could pass through POTWs with secondary

treatment. This study has been criticized, however

(94). In particular, critics noted that if the pollutant in question was not detected (i. e., its concentration was below the minimum detection level),

the concentration was recorded as being at the minimum detection level, This procedure, in combination with other factors, could underestimate actual removal efficiencies.

Effluent and Sludge Composition

Numerous studies have documented the composition of different effluents and sludges (101, 173,

524,637,638,639,650,666). The composition of both

products is highly site-specific and variable over

time, depending on the nature of sources discharging into municipal sewers and on the destruction

and redistribution (i. e., incidental removal) of pollutants during treatment processes.

Whatever the degree of incidental removal, however, both effluent and sludge will almost always

be contaminated to some degree with metals and

organic chemicals (637). In one study of POTWs

in New Jersey (including some that dump sludge

in marine waters), for example, an average of 27

percent of Clean Water Act (CWA) priority pollutants were present in effluent and sludge (160).

Some waste treatment processes can further alter

the composition of sludge and effluent. In particular, the use of chlorination to disinfect effluent prior

to discharge can create and increase chlorinated

hydrocarbons in the effluent; in one study, the concentration of chloroform in effluent increased by

70 percent (704). In general, though, the majority

of chlorine apparently ends up as chloride ions

rather than in chlorinated organic compounds

(636). In addition, metals tend to associate with

solid material, so sludge tends to have higher concentrations of metals than does effluent from the

same plant (503).

Although treatment processes destroy high levels

of some bacteria, remaining bacteria and other

microorganisms can be distributed in both effluent

and sludge. Under the right conditions, these

organisms can proliferate in effluent and sludge and

constrain subsequent management. Furthermore,

some bacteria cannot be detected with traditional

techniques but apparently can remain viable in marine waters for extended periods of time (in some

cases, years) (ch. 6). The apparent absence of human pathogens at or near sludge disposal sites in

the open ocean, for example, may actually reflect

our inability to detect such organisms rather than

their actual absence.

Given the numerous pollutants that have been

or could be detected in sludge and effluent, EPA

and others have attempted to determine which components are ‘‘most important’ or of ‘greatest concern. ” For example, as part of an effort to develop

new regulations for sludge management, EPA identified a list of about 50 metals and organic chemicals that could cause environmental or human

health impacts and these could be the focus of future regulatory efforts (31 1,643).
Ch. 9—Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge ● 217

AMOUNTS OF EFFLUENT AND SLUDGE

GENERATED AND DISPOSED

Effluent and Sludge Generation

Over 15,000 POTWs currently operate in the

United States and each year they treat and discharge approximately 9.5 trillion gallons of wastewater. More than 2,200 POTWs are located in

coastal counties, and they discharge about one-third

of the Nation’s municipal effluent (503,608).

POTWs also produce increasing amounts of sewage sludge. The total amount generated by all

POTWs more than doubled during the last decade, and almost 40 percent originates from POTWs

located in coastal counties (table 22).

By the year 2000, total sludge production could

increase to over 10 million dry metric tons (377,

503). The amount of effluent is expected to increase

to between 13 and 16 trillion gallons per year. These

increases will result from expanded use of secondary and advanced treatment processes, which produce more sludge, and increases in population,

sewerage hookups, and numbers of POTWs (654).

Land-Based Management Technologies

for Effluent and Sludge

Only about 2 percent of the Nation’s total effluent is not discharged into surface waters (503).

Instead, it is used to irrigate or fertilize agricultural

and forest land, or for groundwater recharge, industrial uses, aquiculture, and underground injection to prevent saltwater intrusion. In Los Angeles

County, for example, water reclaimed by five municipal treatment plants is used for landscaping, irrigation, groundwater recharge, and industrial

processes (503).

The choice of disposal or treatment options generally is driven by site-specific factors such as

POTW size and location, regulatory climate, State

policies, qualitative assessments of impacts, and

costs (502). Most land-based disposal or treatment

of sludge involves land application, the use of the

sludge as a commercial product for household or

municipal use (known as distribution and marketTable 22.–Amounts of Effluent and Sludge Generated by Municipal Treatment Plants (POTWs)

POTWs discharging POTWs discharging

Product and All POTWs into estuaries into coastal waters

treatment Ievela Number Amoun t

b Percen tc Number Amount Percent Number Amount Percent

Effluent:

No discharge . . . . . . . . 1,577 0.49 1.9 0 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 0.0

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,023 2.35 9.1 55 0.94 17.1 11 0.15 18.2

Advanced primary . . . . 2,102 2.81 10.8 52 1.22 22.2 6 0.35 42.7

Secondary. . . . . . . . . . . 8,005 10.47 40.3 272 2.43 44.2 46 0.31 38.4

Tertiary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,775 9.84 37.9 121 0.91 16.5 7 0.01 0.7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,482 25.96 – 5ood

5.50 – 70 0.82 –

Sludge:

No discharge . . . . . . . . 1,577 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 0.0

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,023 0.40 5.9 55 0.18 11.8 11 0.03 15.0

Advanced primary . . . . 2,102 0.75 11.0 52 0.35 23.1 6 0.09 45.0

Secondary. . . . . . . . . . . 8,005 2.85 41.5 272 0.71 46.7 46 0.08 40.0

Tertiary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,775 2.86 41.6 121 0.28 18.4 7 0.002 <1.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,482 6.86 – 500 1.52 — 70 0.20 – aTreatment levels are defined in table 20; except no discharge = no discharge into waterbodies, and advanced primary = 10VOIS intermediate between PrimaV and

secondary levels.

b For effluent, amounts are in billion gallons per day, For sludge, amounts are in million dr_Y mOtriC tOnS Per Year.

c percent of total amount (of effluent or sludge, as appropriate).

dThe total of 570 pol-w~ (~ into estuaries and 70 into coastal waters) differs slightly from the total of 578 cited in ch. 3, because Of differences in the Way POTWS

were classified during different analyses of data available from EPA

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1987, after Science Applications International Corp., Overwew of Sewage S/udge and Eff/uerrt Management, prepared for

U.S Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (McLean, VA: 1986).
ing), landfilling, and incineration (650). Other approaches used for significantly smaller amounts of

sludge include incorporation into construction materials (e. g., brick, asphalt) and animal feed, and

degradation by earthworms.

Land application usually involves spreading

sludge on agricultural and forest land or using it

in reclamation projects (e. g., on strip-mined land),

and it has been the subject of much research (429,

525,591 ). Distributing and marketing sludge commercially involves using or selling composted or

heat-dried sludge as a nutrient enricher and soil

conditioner. Landfilling consists of placing sludge

in an area dedicated solely to disposal and then covering it with soil, Incineration includes burning

sludge alone, co-combustion with municipal waste

(to yield usable energy), and emerging technologies

such as gasification and liquefaction (660). In general, it is used for sludges with a very high organic

content where land is scarce (3 18); about 150 incinerators or co-combustion facilities now operate

in the United States (660).

Together, these land-based options are used to

treat or dispose of about 90 percent of the sludge

generated in the United States. Up to one-half of

all sludge is landfilled or put in surface impoundments, about one-fifth is incinerated, and about

one-fourth is applied to the land (including distribution and marketing) (503,634). 7 The use of these

7 A more account of the 

 options is possible because inconsistencies in how 

 report data. not report methods, some
Ch. 9—Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge ● 219

options varies geographically and with POTW size.

In 1980, for example, coastal POTWs landfilled

54 percent, ocean-dumped 22 percent, and landapplied 5 percent of their sludge. Small POTWs

use land application or landfilling to dispose of

almost three-fourths of their sludge, while larger

POTWs use a greater variety of methods, including incineration.

Marine Disposal of Effluent

The most common way to dispose of effluent is

to discharge it through pipelines into nearby waters.

Almost 600 POTWs discharge effluent directly into

estuaries or coastal waters (table 22). Although these

POTWs represent only 4 percent of the Nations’s

total, they account for about one-fourth (2.3 trillion gallons annually) of all municipal effluent because many of them serve large urban areas. Of

this, about 2.1 trillion gallons of effluent are discharged annually into estuaries (503). About threefifths of the effluent discharged into marine waters

receives secondary or greater treatment; effluent

discharged into estuaries generally receives greater

treatment than does effluent discharged into coastal

waters. 8

Pipelines can be designed so that discharges are

more likely to meet specified water quality goals.

For example, the use of very long pipelines, in combination with design features such as large multiport

diffusers, g can result in effluent discharges that are

highly diluted and far from shore (375,387).

report mult ip]c rncthods }t]thout dlst ingu]shiny amounts, and In[mt

da not 11s( distrihutmn and rnarkct ing as a separate option ( R f3astian, L’ S EP.A, pcrs comrn., Scptcmbcr 1985).

“In add it ion to treated wwa~c cffl ucnt, ra}~ scwa,qc also enters marine w atcrs from rout i nc discharges and c ombincd sewer OY crflows

(( JSCIS) For example, about 40 million ~al]ons of raw, un[rcatcd scw -

a~c is d i w har~cd da i] } Into tht’ NCW }rork Bight. C S0s u suall} occ u r

ciurin~ storms and result In was[cs flowing untreated into rc( cii]ng

waters, and thcv arc a major prob]cm in certain areas. I n Seattle, fnr

cxarnplc, about 2 billiun gallons of wastewatcr o~’crflows annuall)’ and

rm cl~t’s no t rcatrncn t (460,.503) h lorcoter. any industrial waste Matc>r ( {)ntalncd in [hcsc o~cr!lows nc~’cr rc( ci~cs the ‘‘ ln( i(icntal treatment pro~]cfcd by P()”I’W’S 1 n Boston, CSOs dis( hargc ahou[ !3 billion gallons and are t onsicfcrcd (afong with slucfgc and industrial wastes)

one of the major sour{ cs of pollutants in Boston Harbor,

“A ‘‘multiport diffuser’ is a pipcl ]nc [hat has sc~cral ports or op{’n -

] nqs, I(x atcd at \arious polnrs along the pipeline, from which cf’fluent

( an be disc harqcd. ,4s a result, cf”flucnt is d is[hargcd in mult iplc lma -

tions rather than only one, which allows ~rcatcr mlxins with \urr(mndi n q wd[t.] and ~rcatcr dilu t ion

Marine Disposal of Sewage Sludge

Sludge is disposed of in marine environments in

two ways, by dumping from barges or ships or by

discharge from pipelines. Discharges of sludge into

estuaries and coastal waters take place only in

southern California and Boston and total about

110,000 dry metric tons of sludge or solids each

year10 (503). The discharge of sludge by the City

of Los Angeles will cease when a sludge dehydration/incineration facility is completed in 1987. Under court order, Boston is developing secondary

treatment facilities and alternative sludge management options (148, 166). Sludge discharges into Boston Harbor could continue until these improvements are in place in the mid- 1990s.

The amount of sludge that is dumped in marine

waters has increased steadily, from over 2.5 million

wet metric tons in 1959 to about 7.5 million wet

metric tons in 1983 (648). This equals about 7 to 10

percent of all sludge generated in the United States

(503). After the 1977 Clean Water Act amendments

banned the dumping of sludge that would “unreasonably degrade’ the ocean, over 100 small municipalities stopped dumping at sea, but these accounted for less than 5 percent of all dumped

sludge. Because of a 1981 court decision (City of

New York v. United States Environmental protection Agency; see ch. 7), nine sewerage authorities

in New York and New Jersey have centinued to

dump sludge at the 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Dump

Site in the New York Bight, which has been used

since 1924 (table 23) (306,503).

The use of the 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Dump

Site is now being phased out and sludge dumping

is being moved to the Deepwater Municipal Sludge

Site (ch. 3). As of November 1986, Nassau and

Westchester Counties had shifted all dumping to

the deepwater site; New York City had shifted 10

percent; and the sewerage authorities in New Jersey had shifted 25 percent (F. Czulak, U.S. EPA

Region II, pers. comm. November 1986). New

York City has indicated that it will not be able to

move all its dumping to the deepwater site prior

to 1988 (502).

— . —

“’

r

I’hc LOS Angeles Count} Sanitation Districts mixci ‘‘t tntrat(’

(solid particles dcri~cd from ccntnfugc pr[x csw~, these c~wntl<dl~ art

slucfgc part i( lcs but arc not t~>t hni~ all> termed ai iu[ h) v. ([h IIs t>t’-

flucn[ ciisrhargc.

63-983 - 87 - 8 : QL 3
220 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Photo credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

After sludge is produced at municipal treatment plants, it can be managed in several ways, including land application, Iandfilling,

incineration, distribution and marketing, and marine dumping. When dumped, sludge is loaded onto barges (like those shown

here, which are loaded with municipal waste and debris) or ships for transport to the dumping site.

Table 23.—Costs of Dumping Sludge at the 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Dump Site

and the Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site

Amount dumped Total cost, Total cost Ratio of costs,

Permittee in 1985a

12-mile siteb

deepwater sitebdeepwaterH2-mile

New York City, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.03 4.0 18.6 4.6

Middlesex County, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94 3.3 11.5 3.5

Passaic Valley, NJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.80 2.4 13.2 5.5

Nassau County, NY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.52 0.7 2.5 3.5

Westchester County, NY . . . . . . . . . . 0.43 1.3 3.5 2,7

Essex-Union Joint Meeting, NJ. . . . . 0.31 0.8 2.1 2.7

Bergen County, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.28 0.9 2.6 2.9

Rahway Valley, NJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.17 0.8 2.3 3.0

Linden-Roselle, NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.09 0.2 1.9 c

Total or average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.57 14.4 58.2 4.od

In millions of wet metric tons.

 of dollars, adjusted to 1982 dollar values. c

Not available.

 average ratio for entire New York Bight, excluding 

SOURCES: F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, personal communication, Dec. 18, 1988; and and “Economic and

Operational Considerations of Offshore Disposal of Sewage Sludge,” The Ocean, 5, et al. (New York: John Wiley &

Sons, 1985), pp. 287-315.
Ch. 9—Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge . 221

Future Demand for Marine Disposal

of Sludge

It is difficult to predict the future demand for marine disposal of sludge. Many municipalities would

probably be interested in dumping sludge in marine waters if the regulations are changed to allow

increased dumping. Several large coastal municipalities (e. g., Baltimore, Boston, Washington, DC,

Jacksonville, Philadelphia, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle) have expressed interest in maintaining dumping as a potential option should other

options fail (32,532). In addition, Orange County,

California, has proposed that it be allowed to discharge sludge into deep ocean waters on an experimental basis (see box W).

Estimating the amount of sludge that might be

dumped in marine waters in the future is extremely

difficult because:

. it is unclear whether current relatively restrictive Federal policies will change;

. it is unclear how many east coast communities would find it economically feasible to

dump at the Deepwater Municipal Sludge

Site;

● land-based disposal options could often be

more attractive, especially if levels of toxic pollutants in sludge are reduced; and

● the granting of waivers from secondary treatment requirements (under Sec. 301(h)) could

result in less sludge being produced by coastal

municipalities, since lower treatment levels

generate less sludge.

Costs of Sludge Disposal

The costs of sludge disposal and management options are determined primarily by sludge treatment

requirements; economies of scale; land acquisition

costs; capital, operating, and maintenance costs;

transportation costs; and energy requirements (138,

504,635,639). Transportation alone can account for

most of the costs associated with land application,

landfilling, and ocean dumping.

The relative costs of dumping sludge at the 12-

Mile Sewage Sludge Dump Site and of land-based

disposal will vary. Dumping in marine waters generally is less costly, because it does not require the

sludge to be dewatered, as is necessary for land application and incineration (306). Dumping will certainly be more costly at the Deepwater Municipal

Sludge Site than at the 12-mile site. On average,

dumping at the deepwater site is expected to cost

four times more than dumping at the 12-mile site

(table 23). These estimates largely reflect short-term

transportation costs, but they may underemphasize the degree to which future capital investments

reduce long-term costs. Dewatering, for example,

would reduce the volume of sludge produced, which

would reduce the number of trips to the deepwater

site and decrease transportation costs, but it would

also increase treatment costs prior to disposal (306).

Dumping at the deepwater site generally could be

less costly than land-based disposal for most municipalities currently dumping sludge (553).

GENERAL FATE OF SLUDGE AND EFFLUENT

Dumped Sludge more after 4 hours (385,387). Dilution is greater

The potential for impacts from municipal waste if the material is released in many smaller amounts

disposal depends on what happens after disposal. rather than a few large ones (280). Subsequent dilution is much slower, so initial dilution greatly in- When dumped from barges or ships, sludge is inf- luences the concentration of sludge components to tially diluted11 by currents and by turbulence from

the wake, typically by a factor of several. hundred which marine organisms will be exposed (387).

within a few minutes and by a factor of 5,000 or After initial dilution, most of the particles in

sludge are still denser than the surrounding sea-

] ]‘ Initial dilution is considered to occur until a discharge ceases water and tend to descend as a large ‘ ‘cloud’ at rising in the water column (i. e., until it reaches water of equal density), or until dumped material either ceases moving in the water a rate dependent on size and density. When it

column or reaches the bottom (280). reaches water of equal density, the cloud tends to
222 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

spread horizontally (385, 387, 503). Individual particles then slowly disperse and may settle toward

the bottom.

The rate at which particles accumulate on the

bottom is influenced by factors such as volume,

dumping rate, type and size of particles, and physical and chemical processes. Large particles, for example, settle more rapidly than small ones; furthermore, the y can be formed when small particles

aggregate, a process enhanced when freshwater

waste such as sludge mixes with saltwater. However, this tendency is decreased somewhat by dilution, which makes particles less likely to collide

and aggregate (387).

The extent of settling—in terms of amount of

material and area covered—varies significantly

among different sites. In enclosed and shallow environments with little tidal action (e. g., many estuaries), material can accumulate on the bottom in

the general vicinity of the dumpsite when sludge

is dumped over a long period (85,87 ,400). These

types of marine waters, however, are not used for

sludge dumping in the United States.

In contrast, in more open and well-mixed waters

such as are used in the United States, most particulate material (perhaps as much as 90 percent) is

transported out of the immediate area by currents

and may disperse over an area of several hundred

square kilometers (387). In the New York Bight,

for example, most particles disperse away from the

immediate dumping area over the course of days

or weeks; some particles and associated pollutants

move into and accumulate in other areas of the

Bight such as Christiaensen Basin (located northwest of the dumpsite).

The decomposition of the organic material in

dumped sludge depends on the activity of microorganisms. Initially, much of the decomposition is

performed by microorganisms that are present in

the sludge before it enters marine waters. These

microorganisms are adapted to survive in freshwater (the main component of sludge) and they may

not survive when the sludge enters marine waters,

thereby reducing the initial decomposition of organic material, Some decomposition also occurs after the material settles on the bottom, but it tends

to be slower in the conditions typical of bottom sediments and for sludges with low organic content.

It also tends to be slower in waters that have low

oxygen levels, since many or most of the decompose microorganisms require oxygen. Some observers suggest that decomposition could be enhanced by ‘ ‘seeding’”’ sludge with microorganisms

developed (e. g., by genetic engineering) to survive

in both fresh and marine water (R. Colwell, Univ.

Maryland, pers. comm., October 1986; also see ref.

105).

Discharged Effluent

When discharged from a pipeline, effluent is primarily fresh, buoyant water which tends to form

a “plume” that rises in the water column. The

plume rises, entraining saltwater in the process, until it reaches either water of equal density or the

surface; the plume can spread horizontally at either point. The particles in the effluent, already

present at a concentration of less than 1 percent,

are diluted as they mix with the denser saltwater,

but the degree of initial dilution varies greatly. For

pipelines that discharge into shallow water and that

are not equipped with diffusers, dilution is only

about a factor of 10 (280). In contrast, large outfalls that discharge in relatively deep water and that

are equipped with long mulitport diffusers can

achieve initial dilution of up to a thousandfold

(280). Individual particles begin to sink slowly after this initial plume rise and dilution.

As with sludge, the fraction of particles in effluent

that disperses from the discharge point varies

markedly under different conditions. In the relatively dispersive conditions in the Southern California Bight, for example, only about 10 percent

of the particles may settle in a well-defined zone

around the discharge point (350), although accumulation of these particles can still result in significant

Impacts.
Ch. 9—Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge ● 223

IMPACTS FROM EFFLUENT AND SLUDGE DISPOSAL

Marine Impacts From Particulate

Material, Microorganisms, and Nutrients

Pollutants such as particulate material (suspended solids, organic material), fecal coliform bacteria and other microorganisms, and nutrients in

sludge or effluent can cause a variety of beneficial

and adverse impacts on marine environments.

Some observers argue that the beneficial nature

of sludge and effluent disposal in marine waters has

not been appreciated by the public (509,638). In

estuaries and coastal waters, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can stimulate phytoplankton productivity, and in turn possibly enhance commercial fisheries. In the open ocean, nutrients from

sludge dumping could stimulate increases in productivity, since lack of nutrients is a major constraint on productivity in most of these waters.

Overall productivity, however, would still remain

low relative to estuaries and coastal waters.

In contrast, the adverse impacts associated with

dumping and discharges of sewage wastes have received considerable attention. One common problem is that particulate material can accumulate in

the disposal area, especially if the activity is continuous or frequent, and alter bottom (i. e., benthic) habitats. This can lead to changes in population sizes or the diversity of marine organisms. The

major change in species composition that typically

occurs is a shift from communities dominated by

suspension feeders, such as crabs and mollusks, to

ones dominated by deposit feeders, such as worms

(350).

These types of impacts are present in a range of

sites around the country. In southern California

coastal waters, for example, pollutants including

suspended solids, and some metals and organic

chemicals have affected about 5 percent of the benthic communities to some degree (350,387). One

small area (less than 10 km2

) around two outfalls

was severely affected and up to about 85 km2 of

surrounding areas was moderately affected. At one

dumpsite near Delaware Bay, once used by Philadelphia, gradual accumulation of material to the

south and west of the site seems to have caused

changes in benthic species abundance and diversity (686). In the New York Bight, the most severely

degraded areas (about 10 to 15 km2) occur just west

of the dumpsite, on the margin of Christiaensen

Basin (387).

Excessive inputs of nutrients and organic material (i. e., eutrophication) can lead to hypoxia—

low dissolved oxygen levels—and other serious consequences. In some shallow and enclosed marine

waters, these impacts have been caused at least in

part by effluent discharges. Both problems, however, also are caused by other factors. Seasonally

recurring episodes of extreme hypoxia in the New

York Bight, for example, are caused by a Combination of factors: natural stratification of the water

prevents the mixing and reoxygenation of bottom

waters; nutrients from a wide variety of sources,

including raw sewage and municipal effluents carried by the Hudson and Raritan rivers, increase

plant life, which can lead to reduced oxygen supplies when the plants die and are decomposed by

microorganisms (416,548,632). 12

Pathogenic microorganisms present in effluent

and sludge can cause a variety of impacts, too, such

as the contamination and closure of shellfish beds.

Some cases of shellfish contamination have been

unequivocally linked to sludge dumping, for example, at the old Philadelphia dumpsite (595). Such

contamination may be partially reversible; 3 years

after dumping ceased at the Philadelphia dumpsite certain pathogenic microorganisms were relatively rare, although still detectable (595). Although

contamination by pathogenic microorganisms is

common in the vicinity of effluent discharges, the

microorganisms can also come from raw sewage,

combined sewage overflows, and runoff. Some viral pathogens present in effluent discharges (e. g.,

enteric viruses) have high survival rates in marine

waters and, if ingested, may adversely affect human health by causing gastrointestinal disorders

and other diseases.
224 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Marine Impacts From Metals and

Organic Chemicals

The potential for metals in both sludge and effluent to cause adverse impacts depends on many

chemical and physical factors (ch. 4). Organisms

can ingest certain metals that sometimes cause immediate toxic effects (including death). Furthermore, because metals are persistent they can bioaccumulate within organisms and cause further

impacts (e. g., impair growth or reproduction in fish

and benthic invertebrates) (55). Most metals do not

biomagnify in successive levels of the food chain.

However, mercury—a common pollutant in sludge

—can be converted by marine organisms to a form

that has direct acute toxic effects on the organisms,

biomagnifies in the food chain, and is toxic to

humans.

Many organic chemicals also are persistent in the

environment and often bioaccumulate. In contrast

to metals, however, many also can biomagnify.

These chemicals can cause severe sediment contamination problems, and a variety of short- and

long-term effects on organisms.

Information on the potential impacts of metals

and organic chemicals in effluent discharges has

been summarized for 25 of the 30 largest coastal

POTWs that applied for Section 301(h) waivers

(503,649). If these POTWs were allowed to continue to provide less-than-secondary treatment, 12

were considered to have the potential to cause significant impacts because of large quantities of

metals (e. g., copper, nickel, thallium, zinc) and organic chemicals (e. g., naphthalene, pentachlorophenol) in their effluents. Potential and observed

impacts included contamination of sediments and

organisms; fish disease and reproductive failure;

degradation of benthic and plankton communities;

and closures of shellfisheries and fisheries (503). Effluents from the other 13 applicants were considered to lack this potential (649).

Toxic pollutants in combined sewer overflows

(CSOs) also have caused major impacts in marine

waters (503,647). 13 For example, overflows into

13The water Qu~ity Act of 1987 set aside some Construction Grants

funding for the correction of CSOS that cause water qualit y problems

in marine waters; the amount set aside is not to exceed 1 percent of

the Construction Grants funding for fiscal years 1987 and 1988 and

1.5 percent for fiscal years 1989 and 1990.

Puget Sound have contributed to toxic ‘‘hotspots’

in Elliot Bay, where the sediments have average

concentrations of metals and organic chemicals

greater than sediments from the deep central part

of the Sound. Elevated levels of copper and lead

also were found in fish exposed to the overflows and

sediments. In San Francisco Bay, sediments located

near CSOs had elevated concentrations of numerous pollutants, including many metals, and the sediments were considered unsuitable to support the

normal diversity and abundance of organisms (233,

503). In contrast to Puget Sound, however, fish

near the CSOs in San Francisco Bay did not exhibit elevated amounts of metals.

Impacts From Land-Based Disposal

Land applied sludge can be used beneficially as

a fertilizer or soil conditioner on agricultural and

forest lands (34,429,502,525). Seattle, for example, has applied sludge to forest lands and recently

determined that revenues from the sale of sludge

for forest application will at least partially offset the

costs of sludge treatment and other management

options (P. Machno, Seattle Metro, pers. comm.,

1985; ref. 469).

Controversy surrounds many land application

projects, however, because pathogens, metals, organic chemicals, and even nutrients in the sludge

can cause adverse impacts (167). Nutrients such

as organic nitrogen and ammonia, for example, can

be converted by microorganisms into nitrates,

which can leach into and contaminate surface water

or groundwater.

Because of public health concerns, the presence

of pathogens is a major factor limiting land application. Modern treatment processes can reduce the

densities of most bacteria and some viruses, but not

parasites, and sludges subjected to these processes

are allowed to be land-applied in certain situations.

Additional reduction of pathogens results from sunlight and drying after application. Despite this, bacteria, viruses, and parasites can survive in soil for

months, depending on soil temperature, pH, organic content, and other factors. Viable pathogens

have been found in runoff from fields that were subject to land application of sludge. No cases of human disease, however, have been documented to

date from land application of treated sludge, al-
Ch. 9—Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge ● 225

though disease outbreaks have been linked with application of untreated sewage wastes (ch. 6).

Potential impacts from metals are another limiting factor. In general, metals adsorb strongly to particles or are not highly water soluble, so they tend

to be retained in the soil. They are more mobile

in sandy or acidic soils, however, from which they

can leach into and contaminate surface runoff and

groundwater. Some metals (e. g., cadmium, chromium, zinc, nickel) can be taken up by plants,

sometimes affecting productivity, and excessive

amounts of metals in plants can affect livestock or

human health (1 18,387).

Some organic chemicals are lost from the soil

through volatilization, but the fate of others depends

on properties such as their volubility in water (503).

They usually do not affect plant productivity significantly, but they can be ingested from soil or root

surfaces by livestock, accumulate in animal tissues,

and be consumed by humans.

The impacts associated with landfilling sludge are

similar to those for land application. Anaerobic conditions are more common in landfills, however,

which tends to retard the conversion of nitrogen

and ammonia into nitrates, so there is generally less

potential for leaching of nitrates into groundwater.

Decomposition of organic material in landfills also

can produce various gases; methane can be explosive, while carbon dioxide can acidify soils and increase the volubility of metals.

Sludge incineration significantly reduces the

amount of material to be disposed, totally destroys

pathogens, and can destroy more than 99 percent

of organic chemicals under proper conditions.

However, emissions of particulate material can affect ambient air quality, and emissions of volatilized metals or products of incomplete combustion

can increase risks to human health. Incineration

residuals, particularly metals, also remain in scrubber water or bottom ash, which also must be disposed of (usually in landfills, thereby adding to the

potential risk of groundwater contamination).

Risks to Humans From Sludge Disposal

Methods

Extensive research has been conducted on the

potential risks to humans from different sludge disposal methods. EPA has developed a series of environmental and human health hazard indices for 50

pollutants found in sludge (656). Based on these

indices, it appears that contaminated sludge applied

to human food-chain cropland poses the greatest

risk to humans, primarily because of the threat of

PCBs and other nonvolatile, insoluble organic

chemicals (503). In contrast, application of uncontaminated or even moderately contaminated sludge

to non-food-chain croplands poses much less risk

to humans. Evidence also suggests that risks to humans from land incineration and ocean dumping

might be less than those from land application

(503).

MAJOR ISSUES RELATED TO MARINE ENVIRONMENTS

The many issues that influence the management

of sewage sludge and effluent in marine waters can

be grouped into five broad categories:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

compliance and enforcement,

how toxic pollutants and hazardous wastes affect sewage management,

new regulatory initiatives regarding sludge

management,

the role of marine waters in waste management, and

the role of land-based disposal alternatives. 14

1 tThe issue of ensuring funding of future municipal treatment plant

construction, under the Construction Grants Program, is discussed

in detail in ch. 1; indirect effects of the program on the above issues

are discussed here when appropriate.

Compliance and Enforcement

Municipal treatment plants have been slower

than industrial facilities to respond to the original

requirements of CWA. Originally, municipal plants

were to achieve secondary treatment by 1977. Congress extended this date to 1988, and in 1984 EPA

issued a National Municipal Policy statement affirming this goal. As of September 30, 1985, however, 37 percent of all major POTWS

15 still were

not in compliance with secondary treatment requirements, in part because many have not com-

‘

5

’’ Major” POTWs include those discharging more than 1 million

gallons per day or serving more than 10,000 people.
226 • Wastes in Marine Environments

pleted the necessary construction (327). Substantial progress has been made during the last year

in bringing POTWs onto a compliance schedule

(designed to achieve compliance by mid-1988) or

into actual compliance (table 24), As a result, under existing construction schedules, it appears that

compliance could be achieved by the mid-1988

deadline by about 87 percent of major POTWs

(table 24) (655), Almost 200 major POTWs, however, currently do not have compliance schedules

and hence are likely to miss the deadline.

Even where required facilities have been built

and are operational, some frequent and often serious violations of discharge standards have occurred.

About 6 percent of the major POTWs that have

completed construction have exhibited significant

noncompliance. Noncompliance by these POTWs

was attributed to inadequate facilities to provide

required treatment levels; inadequate industrial

pretreatment and treatment of combined sewer

overflows; problems in maintaining sewer systems;

and lack of appropriate local institutional structures

to finance capital and operating costs and to efficiently manage facilities (327).

Implementing and enforcing CWA goals and requirements has been difficult, in part because of

limited resources for monitoring and restrictions

on the types of penalties that EPA can impose (327).

Furthermore, these requirements focus largely on

the removal of conventional pollutants. Quantities

of metals and organic chemicals can be significant,

however, and are likely to decline only if pretreatment is implemented and enforced.

Effect of Toxic Pollutants and Hazardous

Wastes on Sewage Management

Many problems associated with municipal waste

disposal stem from the presence of toxic metals and

organic chemicals, which municipal treatment

plants are not designed to treat. Hundreds of these

pollutants enter municipal systems legally and illegally, although often at extremely low concentrations, and they are primarily contributed by industrial sources. A small portion is ‘‘incidentally’

removed from wastewater, and some pollutants become incorporated in sludge. If POTWs continue

to receive industrial wastes that contain these pollutants, questions will continue to arise regarding

the ability of POTWs to produce clean effluent and

sludge.

If levels of these pollutants in POTW influents

were reduced, however, the feasibility of some disposal options, such as land application, would be

enhanced. 16 Many constraints hamper the achievement of such a goal, however, including poor compliance with and enforcement of regulations, lack

of standards for some management options, and

lack of permit limits for some pollutants.

The lack of standards presents problems for both

sludge and effluent disposal. Most sludge disposal

options are not covered by regulations that limit

metals and organic chemicals in sludge, leaving

1 b~~Od~ls deYr~]OP~d for EpA suggest that full implementation Of

pretreatment regulations could reduce, in both sludge and effluent,

the amount of C~’A priority metals by about one-half and the amount

of priority organic chemicals by about three-fourths (503).

Table 24.—Status of Major Municipal Facilities (POTWs) Not in Compliance With National Municipal Policya

Number of major POTWs Number of major POTWs Number of minor POTWsbStatus of POTW (October 1985) (July 1986) (October 1985)

On final enforcement schedule or under

referral c

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 1,066 586

Returned to compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 234 —

Unresolved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 191 2,775

Total subject to National Municipal Policy . . 1,578 1,491 3,361

aA~ ~t date i“di~ated; data refer only to n-rajor pOw.S (those cfe.sigmd to treat flows of 1 million gallons per day Or more Or tO Service a Population of IO,OW or 9reater)

not yet in compliance with the National Municipal Policy (which affirmed the goal of compliance by July 1, 1988; see box A).

bRepresents only those minor pOTWS that require fuflher construction to achieve compliance; data are not available fOr minor POWS that have completed construction

but are not in compliance.

CReferral represents cases referr~ t. Department Of Justice or State Attorneys General for civil action; such cases usually result in the establishment Of a final compliance

schedule.

SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, ‘State Breakout of NMP Majors Construction Required, Status at End 3rd Quarter FY191X5° (Washington,

DC” data as of end of July 1, 1986); and Management Advisory Group to the EPA Construction Grants Program, Reporf to EPA.’ Municipal Cornp/iance With

the Nafiona/ Po//utant Discharge .Hirnination System (Washington, DC: June 1986).
Ch. 9—Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge ● 227

POTWs without clearly defined goals for sludge

quality. Among POTWs that receive significant

quantities of industrial discharges, most have effluent discharge permits that contain limits on some

metals but only a few organic chemicals (503). In

part, this reflects the lack of State water quality

standards for some metals and most organic chemicals (668). POTWs can also develop their own ‘ ‘local’ limits on industrial discharges of metals and

organic chemicals into sewers. Local limits on industries are generally developed, however, only if

a POTW must meet a specific limit contained in

its own discharge permit. Since most POTWs do

not have limits on organic chemicals in their permits, there is little incentive for them to develop

corresponding local limits on their industrial users.

Some of these problems are being addressed by

EPA and the States. For example, EPA is developing comprehensive sludge disposal regulations

and promoting the use of water quality-based permitting as a means of controlling toxic pollutants

(49 FR 9016-9019, Mar. 9, 1984). EPA also has

the statutory authority to develop regulations for

potentially toxic substances that are currently unregulated by CWA but which may be present at

high concentrations in municipal wastestreams.

Under paragraph 4(c) of the 1976 Toxics Consent

Decree, for example, EPA has identified six such

pollutants, but no regulations have been developed

(644).

These important issues—enforcement, local limits, additional national standards, and water quality criteria—are discussed in further detail in chapters 1 and 8. For most of these issues, improved

implementation of existing programs at all levels

of involvement is critical and will require much

more rigorous enforcement. This will only be possible if funding for monitoring and enforcement

programs is increased.

The issue of legal hazardous waste discharges into

sewers is particularly vexing. Eliminating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

Domestic Sewage Exemption and regulating such

discharges under RCRA is attractive because

POTWs would receive fewer hazardous wastes.

This option, however, could lead to increased illegal dumping into sewers and waterways, possibly

making the problem worse (666). EPA proposed

that the exemption be retained and that POTWs

continue to develop and improve pretreatment programs to reduce the levels of hazardous and toxic

pollutants that enter treatment plants. This approach thus will require effective implementation

and enforcement of the pretreatment program, the

likelihood of which is unclear. A related approach

might be to develop regionalized waste treatment

facilities, specifically designed to collect and treat

hazardous or other industrial wastestreams (502).

New Regulatory Initiatives Regarding

Sludge Management

The management of sludge is controlled by a

patchwork of Federal, State, and local regulations,

and no national sludge management program now

exists. Instead, institutional arrangements among

municipalities, counties, States, and EPA Regions

are highly site-specific and complex, and often

highly politicized (502). 17 Management also is complicated by a lack of comprehensive disposal standards, changing economic conditions, public opposition, and a relative lack of promotion of the idea

that sludge can be used as a beneficial resource.

As a result, most municipalities develop options

haphazardly to take advantage of short-term opportunities.

Two sometimes antagonistic needs are key parts

of the sludge management debate: the needs for

stronger Federal guidance and regulation, and

more flexibility to accommodate local conditions

(502). Proponents of a minimal Federal role would

let States develop their own regulations independently, with the Federal Government providing only

technical assistance and guidance. Because local

sludge management decisions are highly site-specific

and often difficult to implement (502), local

managers need considerable flexibility in designing and implementing sludge disposal options.

dustnal Iz<it ion. ptw rca[ rnent program \t,i[ ui. dudgc m~n. iqcrrl(’rll ,dlt, rnat ]1 c~, ,tnd Inst ]tu t ]orr.d or p(~li( } ls~uci
228 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

According to this perspective, however, Federal regulations do not allow sufficient flexibility or promote consideration of site-specific factors.

In contrast, proponents of an increased Federal

role question whether current regulations for both

sludge and effluent provide sufficient protection for

the public and the environment. They contend that

the Federal Government should continue to establish minimum national standards for most pollutants, conduct broad multimedia assessments, and

possibly develop a large-scale, uniform national

program with mandatory requirements for all

States. Minimum standards, for example, could be

included in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System to provide performance goals for

POTWs and promote the use of sludge as a resource.

In response, EPA has developed two new regulatory initiatives involving State sludge management programs and Federal regulations for sludge

disposal. Under these initiatives, the Federal Government would play a stronger role in some areas:

promoting the use of sludge as a resource, developing technical regulations for sludge disposal, and

providing more technical assistance. 18

First, EPA proposed a new rule to aid States in

designing sludge management programs (51 FR

4458, Feb. 4, 1986); final action on the rule is

scheduled for February 1987. Under the rule, States

would develop plans for managing sludge (including promoting beneficial uses). To obtain EPA approval, a State would have to:

•

●

●

●

demonstrate that it can ensure compliance with

Federal regulations by overseeing how individual POTWs manage sludge;

demonstrate that the State can monitor sludge

to verify compliance and take enforcement actions against violators;

possess legal authority to assess civil penalties

for violations; and

meet various reporting requirements on sludge

inventories, noncompliance, and other aspects

of sludge management (150, 151).

18EPA ~so has drafted new regulations to establish conditions under which dumping in marine environments would be allowed; the

regulations originally developed for ocean dumping of sewage sludge

were overturned in court (see ch. 7).

These regulations would focus on improving

sludge quality by implementing and enforcing

pretreatment programs and sludge sampling and

monitoring. According to EPA, the regulations

would give States flexibility in using existing programs and institutional arrangements. Other than

the loss of Federal funds for program development,

there appear to be few penalties for States that do

not submit plans for programs.

Second, EPA is developing technical regulations

for five major sludge management methods—land

application, landfilling, incineration, distribution

and marketing, and ocean disposal. Federal regulations have never been promulgated for some of

these options (e. g., for distribution and marketing),

although nonbinding guidance has been issued. The

new regulations would complement the regulations

for State programs and would focus on quantifying the risks from and allowable concentrations of

metals and organic chemicals in sludge; EPA identified pollutants that are candidates for regulation,

and pollutants selected for actual regulation will be

controlled either by numerical criteria for different disposal options or by technology-based management practices (311). These regulations would

place sewage sludge management within a multimedia context; for a given situation, the risks of

different options could be compared and the most

environmentally acceptable option identified.

The regulations are scheduled for proposal in

1987. In a preliminary review, EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) indicated that the risk assessment

methodologies being used by EPA to develop the

regulations do not provide a clear way to compare

the human health risks of different sludge management options (245); the SAB recommendations focused on improving these methodologies. In addition to this shortcoming, the regulations do not

sufficiently address pathogens. Current regulations

for pathogens are technology-based and focus on

fecal coliform bacteria; they do not directly address

other pathogens such as viruses and parasites.

Role of Marine Environments in

Municipal Waste Management

If policy choices about waste disposal in different marine environments are made within the context of a waste management hierarchy that includes
Ch. 9—Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge ● 229

other management options, then marine waste disposal may be acceptable in some cases and unacceptable in others. Furthermore, the particular policy choices made about disposal in estuaries and

coastal waters could greatly influence decisions

about land-based and open ocean disposal.

For example, a goal of maintaining or improving

the quality of estuaries and coastal waters could preclude the dumping of sludge in coastal waters,

where most of it currently occurs. This could increase the need for either land-based disposal or

open ocean dumping of sludge. A comparison of

the benefits and risks of all sludge disposal options

could suggest that the best use of uncontaminated

(i.e., containing minimal amounts of metals, organic chemicals, pathogens) sludge might be either

on land or in open ocean waters. On the other

hand, the choice of treatment or disposal options

for contaminated sludge would be less clear because

of the risks of groundwater contamination from

land application or landfilling, air pollution from

incineration, or marine impacts from dumping.

EPA’s new regulatory initiative will address some

of these issues. Still, some basic questions regarding sludge and effluent disposal in marine environments remain unsettled.

Should Sludge Dumping Be Allowed in

Marine Waters?

The basic choice to be made in any disposal operation is between dispersal or containment (387).

Containment of sludge in marine waters is technically difficult, expensive, and can increase adverse

impacts. Dispersal, on the other hand, is feasible

and since its objective is to minimize the buildup

of disposed material on the bottom, it reduces the

probability of impacts.

Dispersal is generally greater in large and wellmixed water masses, where wastes are mixed rapidly into a large volume of water and dispersed over

a wide area (132,387). These conditions are prevalent in open ocean environments and well-mixed

coastal waters. In contrast, estuarine and calmer

coastal wasters generally are less well-mixed or

flushed. In addition, they receive large inputs of

waste material from other sources. This section focuses on sludge dumping, while the proposed discharge of sludge by Orange County, California,

into ocean waters is described in box W.

At the relatively deep Deepwater Municipal

Sludge Site, for example, particles from dumped

sludge are expected to be well-dispersed and result

in little or no accumulation on the bottom (595).

Although bottom-dwelling organisms at the site

might be affected and monitoring should be conducted, the impacts are likely to be less severe than

those seen near the present less dispersive site in

the New York Bight Apex (416,548).

Relatively uncontaminated sludge thus could

probably be dumped in open ocean waters without causing severe impacts, as long as a dispersal

strategy and appropriate disposal technologies were

used (51,87,338,387,402). In general, sludge should

be dumped slowly in deep, dispersive waters to obtain the greatest mixing and dilution. Furthermore,

impacts might be minimized by varying the location and frequency of disposal operations (509).

Barges or ships could help achieve this goal, since

the disposal location can be changed as needed.

Shifting dumping to the Deepwater Municipal

Sludge Site is one example of this strategy.

On the basis of these factors, there would be little rationale to eliminate dumping as a disposal option. In addition, controlled dumping under dispersive conditions also might be used beneficially

to increase productivity in certain marine environments, for example midcontinental shelf areas with

a naturally relatively barren benthic community

(509).

On the other hand, however, most sludge

dumped in marine waters will continue to be contaminated to some degree with microorganisms,

metals, and organic chemicals. Furthermore, the

likelihood that programs for reducing toxic pollutants in municipal wastes will be fully implemented

and enforced is unclear. The uncertainties associated with our ability to detect microorganisms (including human pathogens) in marine waters, and

to sufficiently reduce the amounts of metals and organic chemicals in sludge, thus argue in favor of

a policy that call for restricting (at least to some

degree) the dumping of sludge. For these reasons,

many public groups remain adamantly opposed to

dumping in any form.

If marine dumping of sludge is to continue,

it seems prudent to use a dispersal strategy (e. g.,

dumping in well-mixed and deep waters) and

to minimize the presence of metals, organic
Chemicals, and pathogens. This strategy would crease in the amount of sludge being dumped in

clearly preclude dumping in estuaries and the ocean. The Marine Protection Research and

poorly-mixed coastal waters. Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) permitting process may

be adequate to temper these economic incentives;

In addition, if increased dumping were allowed, in addition, fees or taxes could be imposed on ocean

another legitimate concern is whether the magni- dumpers so that the total cost of dumping is comtude of dumping could be sufficient}? controlled. parable to the cost of other dispos~ options. It may

Economic pressures might force a substantial in- be difficult, however, to levy such a tax or fee on
Ch. 9—Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge ● 231

POTWs using ocean dumping because the

MPRSA only allows the collection of fees to process permit applications.

Treatment Levels for Effluent Discharges

Effluent cannot be readily contained and instead

is generally discharged from pipelines. Since pipelines are fixed in one position and result in relatively low rates of initial dilution (280,509), their

use can lead to the accumulation of particulate material in localized areas. Even so, these discharges

can be suitable and dispersion can be enhanced if:

1. the amounts or concentrations of pollutants

in effluents are reduced, and

2. pipelines are properly designed and placed in

well-mixed and dispersive waters at appropriate distance from shore and depth (387).

Because of historical precedent and the current

structure of municipal systems, few people question the need to discharge sewage effluent into estuaries and coastal waters.

At the same time, however, other options such

as water conservation and reclamation could be

used in some situations to reduce discharges into
232 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

marine and fresh waters. For example, the development of small plants to treat and reclaim municipal wastewater might be environmentally and

economically preferable to the continued development of larger and more expensive POTWs that

discharge effluents into surface waters, especially

as these larger plants begin to age and as Federal

funding for the construction of municipal treatment

plants declines (N. K. Taylor, Seirra Club Clean

Coastal Water Task Force, pers. comm. 1987). The

incentives to develop water reclamation and conservation plants are greatest in the more arid areas

of the country.

For discharges into marine waters much disagreement exists about the acceptable levels of two

conventional pollutants—suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand—in such discharges and

whether some POTWs should be allowed to provide less-than-secondary treatment. Under Section

301(h) of CWA, POTWs could apply for waivers

from secondary treatment requirements in areas

where environmental quality would not be harmed,

primarily to reduce construction and operating

costs. The implementation of the waiver program,

as well as its merit, has been debated extensively

(122,225,310,533,649).

There is little doubt that substantial cost savings,

amounting to several billion dollars in construction

costs and up to $100 million in annual operation

and maintenance costs, could be achieved by allowing some waivers (504,575). Comparing cost

savings to costs of subsequent changes in receiving water quality is difficult, however, because of

the variety of other factors that can affect water

quality.

From a technical perspective, the question of

whether lower treatment levels should be allowed

can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, after evaluating site-specific factors. These factors are

evaluated as part of the 301(h) application process

(40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G) and include:

●

●

●

the quality of receiving water (i. e., ability to

disperse material, degree of previous impacts);

the sensitivity of indigenous organisms and

communities; and

the relative contributions of pollutants from

other sources (e. g., nonpoint pollution, industrial effluents).

Figure 34.—Status of 301(h) Applications,

As of Jan. 2, 1987

No final Final approval

action yet

37

Withdrawn

59

46

Denied

66

SOURCE: R. DeCesare, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

personal communication, January 1987.

As of January 1987, EPA had decided that all

relevant criteria appeared to be satisfied for 46 of

208 waiver applications (figure 34). Only a few

large coastal POTWs, however, received approvals

(e.g., Los Angeles County). Some municipalities

(e.g., Seattle) withdrew their applications in part

because of major public controversy.

From a policy perspective, prohibiting such

waivers in the future could be justified because of

the overall extent of pollutant inputs from many

sources into estuaries and coastal waters and the

expected trend of degradation in many of these

waters. Indeed, some environmental groups have

suggested that the Section 301 (h) waiver provision

be rescinded.

In one sense, this issue is largely moot, however,

because decisions about most waivers have been

made and no additional applications can be submitted. In addition, the National Municipal Policy calls for most POTWs to achieve secondary

treatment by mid-1988. It is complicated, however,

by uncertain future economic conditions. Many

POTWs have not yet secured funding for building or upgrading plants to the secondary level, and

Federal Construction Grant funds for such activities will be significantly reduced in the next few

years.

In anticipation of reduced Federal funding, some

States are developing revolving funds (through

bond sales or initial capitalization by State appropri-
Ch. 9—Managing Municipal Effluent and Sludge ● 233

ations) to meet future POTW construction costs

(143,520). Some municipalities are turning to private developers in an attempt to finance necessary

construction, although it is unclear whether incentives are sufficient for private developers to invest

on a large scale in municipal treatment plants

(143,685).

These economic conditions could lead to reconsideration of the issue of required treatment levels

in the future, as municipal treatment needs in

coastal areas increase and as older treatment plants

require maintenance or expansion. At the same

time, and in combination with general concerns

about the quality of marine environments, they also

could provide incentives to consider other options

for managing effluent such as water reclamation

and reuse.

Role of Land-Based Alternatives

in Sludge Management

The availability of land-based sludge management options is a critical factor in decisions regarding marine disposal of sludge. In the context of the

waste management hierarchy, use of sludge as a

beneficial resource on land (or in marine waters)

would generally be preferred to disposal. From a

technical perspective, relatively uncontaminated

sludge could be land-applied, under proper conditions (e. g., appropriate measures to control runoff),

as a beneficial resource without causing significant

impacts. In addition, destruction of uncontaminated

sludge by incineration might also be preferred in

many situations.

Implementation of land-based alternatives, however, often is difficult for several reasons. First, local

public opposition to land application or incineration can be intense because sludge is often considered an undesirable waste and because of concerns

about health risks arising from use of these methods. Second, long-term management arrangements

often are difficult to maintain (502). Third, standards to compare the various land-based disposal

alternatives have been lacking (502), but EPA is

developing regulations to address this problem. Finally, most sludges are contaminated with pathogens and toxic pollutants, which limits the environmental acceptability of land-based (and marine)

disposal options, especially those involving beneficial uses.
Photo credit: U.S. Army Chips of Engineers

Managing Dredged

Chapter 10

Material
CONTENTS

Page

overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................237

Dredged Material Disposal: Amounts and Sites . ...............,.............239

Inventory of Dredged Material Amounts . . . . . . . . ..........................239

Disposal Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........,239

Future Need for Marine Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........240

Dredged Material Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........242

Sediment Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242

Effects of Dredging Equipment on Composition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..242

Physical Fate of Dredged Material After Disposal . ...........................243

Disposal in Marine Environments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................243

Disposal in Intertidal and Upland Containment Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244

Impacts of Dredged Material Disposal . . . . . . . . . .............................244

Disposal in Marine Environments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,...244

Disposal in Intertidal Areas and Upland Containment Areas. . . . . ............246

Predicting Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........246

Predicting Physical Fate in Marine Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....246

Predicting Chemical Impacts on Marine Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....246

Predicting Impacts From Other Disposal Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., ....247

Disposal Techniques for Contaminated Dredged Material . ...............,....248

Capping in Marine Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........248

Upland Containment Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............249

Containment Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............,.....249

Costs of Disposal Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ....,.....250

Policy Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...251

Dealing With the Shortage of Disposal Areas . . . . . . . . . . . ..................,251

Providing Balanced Consideration of All Disposal Options. .,..... . ..........253

Tables

Table No. Page

25. Approximate Costs of Laboratory Tests for Predicting Chemical Impacts of

Marine Disposal, Per Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......247

26. Approximate Costs of Laboratory Tests for Predicting Chemical Impacts of

Upland Disposal, Per Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...248

27. Approximate Costs Per Cubic Yard for Dredged Material Disposal . . . . . . . . . .250

Figure

Figure No. Page

35. Amounts of Dredged Material Disposed of in Coastal Waters and the

Open Ocean, 1974-84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................240

Box

Box Page

X. Statutory Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................,238
Chapter 10

Managing Dredged Material

OVERVIEW

Dredging involves the removal of bottom sediment from rivers and harbors and its transportation to another location for disposal. ‘ ‘New work’

dredged material is generated during the initial development of a port, harbor, or navigation channel, or the widening and deepening of existing

navigational channels. In addition, ‘‘maintenance’

dredging is required for most channels because finegrained, river-borne sediment settles out of suspension and gradually accumulates in the channels

(44), and because coarse-grained sediment is eroded

from along shorelines and also begins to fill the

channels. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(COE) considers a small fraction of this maintenance material, general] y dredged from areas near

highly industrialized ports and harbors, to contain

high enough levels of pollutants to require special

management during disposal. 1

COE is responsible for maintaining over 25,000

miles of navigable waterways that service over 155

commercial ports and more than 400 small boat

harbors; these ports and harbors are valuable for

commercial, defense, and recreational purposes.

Projects run by COE, other Federal and State agencies, and private efforts result in the dredging of

about 550 million wet metric tons of sediment each

year, at a cost of about $725 million (442).2 Most

dredged material originates from COE projects that

have been authorized by Congress. Box X briefly

describes the major Federal statutes that control the

disposal of dredged material.

Dredged material accounts for about 80 to 90

percent by volume of the waste material that is

ICOF, uses a series of screening tests, discussed below, to determine when dredged material requires special handling. Quantitative

national criteria that could be used to decide whether dredged material is contaminated, however, are currently lacking.

2Dredged material is usually measured by volume in cubic yards.

To facilitate comparisons, where possible, with the amounts of other

waste types, volumes of dredged material have been multiplied by the

density of such material, which is approximately 1.18 metric tons per

cubic yard, to give wet metric tons. The density of material from any

given site may vary somewhat from this figure, however, so the resultant calculations should be considered estimates only,

dumped into marine environments each year. About

one-third of all dredged material (180 million wet

metric tons) is disposed of in marine environments:

two-thirds of this material is disposed of in estuaries and the remainder is dumped in coastal waters

or the open ocean. Two dozen sites receive about

95 percent of all dredged material dumped in

coastal waters and the open ocean (442); an unknown but large number of sites are used for disposal in estuaries. Pressure to use marine environments for dredged material disposal will continue

and possibly increase.

Disposal of uncontaminated dredged material

does not appear to have had major negative impacts on organisms in most large estuaries or open

ocean waters, although some temporary impacts

have occurred. In some cases, uncontaminated

dredged material can be used for beneficial purposes such as beach replenishment. In some smaller

estuaries and some coastal waters, however, disposal of uncontaminated material can contribute

to observable degradation. During disposal operations, most bottom dwelling (or ‘‘benthic’ organisms that are covered by disposed material will die

because of physical burial or suffocation. These

physical impacts generally are short-term and restricted to the disposal sites; recolonization can take

from several months to a few years after cessation

of disposal activities. However, marine resources

can be permanently damaged at disposal sites that

are used regularly and/or that are used for large

volumes of dredged material. For example, a quahog fishery off of Narragansett was totally lost after the disposal of several million cubic yards of

dredged material.

The disposal of contaminated dredged material

is generally of greater concern. According to COE,

about 3 percent of the material dredged from estuaries and coastal areas is heavily contaminated

with pollutants (metals and organic chemicals) derived from point and nonpoint sources. When this

material is disposed of and settles on the bottom,

237
238 • Wastes in Marine Environments

benthic organisms that recolonize the deposits may

take up and bioaccumulate some of these pollutants. Although few potentially harmful pollutants

appear to be released directly into the water

column, the pollutants can be transferred from benthic organisms to predatory organisms. To date,

no known human health impacts have been documented from the transfer of pollutants from dredged

material up the food chain, although such impacts

would be difficult to detect and generally have not

been investigated.

Disposal of contaminated material generally involves expensive techniques designed to isolate the

material from the environment. In some marine

environments, it can be covered or ‘ ‘capped’ with

a layer of uncontaminated sediment or special containment islands can be built. On land, it can be
Ch. 10—Managing Dredged Material ● 239

disposed of in specially managed upland containment areas. It is unlikely, however, that currently

available disposal techniques will permanently isolate all pollutants.

No disposal option is categorically better than

another, because operational, economic, environmental, and social factors vary greatly among

dredging projects (496). As a result, the choice of

disposal options usually requires site-specific and

often subjective evaluations ( 169).

Finding suitable disposal sites is the overriding

problem now facing COE and other sponsors of

dredging projects. Although COE policy stresses

the balanced consideration of all disposal options,

Federal regulatory requirements are generally stricter for disposal in the open ocean than for disposal

in freshwater and estuarine environments. Federal

and State requirements tend to be least restrictive

for upland disposal, and policies that ha~e attempted

to curb pollution in freshwater and marine environments have indirectly encouraged dredged material disposal in upland containment areas. However, disposal in upland areas is generally costly,

and finding upland sites is becoming more difficult. Thus, future decisions regarding disposal of

dredged material in the Nation’s estuaries and

coastal waters will be greatly affected by policies

regarding disposal on land and in open ocean

waters.

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL: AMOUNTS AND SITES

Inventory of Dredged Material Amounts

Almost 60 percent—about 310 million wet metric tons—of all dredged material in the United

States comes from estuarine and coastal areas. Of

this material, an average of about 180 million wet

metric tons is disposed of in marine environments:

about two-thirds in estuaries, one-sixth in coastal

waters, and one-sixth in the open ocean. 3 Of the

remaining material dredged from estuarine and

coastal areas, most is disposed of in upland containment areas (above the water table, but near the

dredging site), but some is disposed of in intertidal

areas, open freshwater areas, or containment

islands.

The amount of material disposed of in coastal

and open ocean waters has fluctuated greatly during the last 25 years, between 35 and 120 million

wet metric tons per year, with much of the fluctuation resulting from varying dredging demands on

the lower Mississippi River (figure 35; the figure

and the discussion in this paragraph do not include

disposal activities in estuaries). If the volumes of

dredged material from the lower Mississippi River

‘“1’hcsc fi,qu res ,irt. Ixis(>d on an ()’1’A sur~t’y of [ hc 18 COE ( oastal

d is( rl( t \ with prim:irl rt’ip(]nsll~ll It) for rnalnt ai n i n q ports and harbors. “1’hc amount of cfrcdKing and disposal flue tuatcs grcatl) fro[ll

y tar t{) }car and tn d if f’erent areas Of the mater-la] that IS disposed

of in ( oastal and open [x can water-s, almost half IS dlsposcd of in the

(;ulf of Nlrxl( (), an(i t}lc r{ma]ndcr rs splr( hctwccn tht Atlantr( an d

Pa( Ifi( (Xcans

are ignored, dredging volumes decreased from 1974

to 1981 and then began to increase in 1982.

Dredged material can be used in a variety of beneficial ways. About 15 to 20 percent of all dredged

material is used for: beach nourishment; subaqueous mounds for shoreline protection; construction

aggregate; fill material for commercial development

or parks; cover material for sanitary landfills; construction material for dikes, levees, and roads; development of marshes and upland habitat; soil supplementation on agricultural land; and reclamation

of strip mines (565).

Disposal Sites

Sites in Coastal and Open Ocean Waters

As of January 1987, about 126 disposal sites were

located in coastal waters and the open ocean (D.

Mathis, COE, pers. comm., January 1987). Most

of these sites are distributed relatively evenly along

the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts, although a

few are located in the Caribbean and the South Pacific (442). Although half of the sites receive some

use each year, 95 percent of all coastal and open

water disposal occurs at about two dozen sites.

Some disposal sites are rarely used. Half of the sites

have areas of 0.5 square miles or less; the remainder

have areas of up to 4 square miles. About threefourths are located in water less than 60 feet deep;

only 18 are in water over 300 feet deep.
240 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Figure 35.—Amounts of Dredged Material” Disposed

of in Coastal Waters and the Open Ocean, 1974-84

100 “

0

 8 0 -

E

 6 0 —

 4 0 -

20 -

i ) -

19741975197619771978 19791980198119821983 1984

Year

a

From U.S. Ar y m Corps of Engineers’ Projects.

NOTE: Missing second bar for 1975, 1976, and 1978 reflects lack of data

SOURCES: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 19S0 Report to Congress on Administration of Ocean Dumping Activities, Pamphlet 82-PI (Fort

Belvolr, VA: Water Resources Support Center, May 1982); U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, Ocean Dumping Report for Calendar Year

1981, Summary Report 82-S02 (Forf Belvoir, VA: Water Resources

SupPort Center, June 1982); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ocean

Dumping Report for Ca/endar Year 1982, Summary Report 83-SR1

(Fort Belvoir, VA: Water Resources Support Center, October 1983);

J. Wilson, US Army Corps of Engineers, personal communication,

1988.

Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research,

and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) established a formal process for ‘designating coastal and open ocean

disposal sites. In 1977, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published comprehensive criteria for the designation process and granted 3-year

‘‘interim’ designations for previously used disposal

sites (630). Preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for each site and “final” designation were to be completed by January 1981,

but this process encountered many delays (579).

As of November 1986, EPA had granted final

designation to 19 sites (Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, EPA, pers. comm., November

1986). Although COE does not formally designate

sites, as of January 1986 it had ‘‘selected’ about

15 additional sites that it considered suitable for final designation (D. Mathis, COE, pers. comm.,

January 1987). Most of these sites were selected for

one-time use, for example, for the disposal of material from channel deepening projects in Mobile

and Norfolk, with disposal of any subsequent maintenance material occurring at other, EPA-designated

sites. Most of the remaining 90 or so coastal and

open ocean sites are being used under extensions

of EPA’s original interim designations.

No major dredging project has been canceled because a coastal or open ocean disposal site lacks final designation. However, a portion of the Tampa

Harbor deepening was delayed, and the State of

New York has prohibited the use of several undesignated disposal sites in coastal waters. COE, port

authorities, and the dredging industry are concerned that future projects could be canceled or delayed if interim disposal sites cannot be used, for

example, because of litigation over delays in the

designation process (442).

Sites in Estuarine Waters

Defining the number of disposal sites in estuaries

is difficult because material often is discharged

along much of a navigation channel, although at

some distance from the channel itself. Thus, it is

difficult to judge whether this constitutes one or

multiple disposal sites. Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act (CWA) controls this kind of disposal

through a permitting process, but it does not include provisions for formally designating sites. Generally, a permit for disposal in an estuary specifies

that a site will be used for a given length of time;

in many cases, the permit is only for one disposal

operation, although the site could be used again

under another permit.

In addition, about 30 sites have received multiple-use permits under Section 404 (D. Mathis,

COE, pers. comm., January 1987). These sites—

for example, Alcatraz Island in California and

Puget Sound in Washington-tend to be controversial, and the permitting process often involves preparing an EIS, even if the site is not to be used on

a continuing basis. Most dredged material disposal

that occurs in estuaries, however, does not occur

at these multiple-use sites.

Future Need for Marine Disposal

Dredged material disposal in marine waters could

increase for several reasons. First, some projects
Ch. 10—Managing Dredged Material ● 241

Photo credit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

After being excavated from a navigation channel, dredged material can be “sidecast” from the dredge

and used to replenish beaches.

proposed for increasing commercial traffic would

involve the development of harbors and deepening of channels. These projects would generate large

amounts of material, and deeper channels, once

created, generally would require increased maintenance dredging. Since most coastal ports have

used marine waters heavily for disposal from similar projects in the past, such disposal is likely to

continue; for example, about 90 percent of dredged

material from COE’s New York District is disposed

of at the Mud Dump site in the New York Bight.

Second, some observers argue that the United

States must develop additional capacity to handle

large, deep-draft vessels if it is to maintain or increase its present role in the international economy.

Because of the high costs of port construction and

uncertainties about the total required capacity for

deep-draft ships, however, only a limited number

of such ports are likely to be built (388). Third,

some ports may need to be deepened to accommodate an increasing number of naval vessels.

Although all major U.S. ports have made some

plans for expansion and channel deepening, new

federally authorized port projects have faced many

delays over the last 10 to 15 years. The Water Resources Development Act passed by Congress in

1986, however, authorized many of these projects,

including 6 deep-draft projects and 35 general cargo

and shallow water improvements. It also established

cost-sharing between the Federal Government and

local sponsors or port authorities. If all the authorized projects are completed, the Federal share

would be $3 billion and the local or port share would

be $2 billion. New dredging projects will now proceed, and marine disposal of some material is likely.

The cost-sharing arrangement, however, could inspire local sponsors to reduce the amount of requested dredging, with a subsequent decrease in

the amount of material requiring disposal (P. Johnson, Office of Technology Assessment, pers. comm.,

November 1986).
242 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

DREDGED MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS

Sediment Composition

Sediment is composed of varying amounts of several natural substances: sand, gravel, silt, and/or

clay; organic matter and humus (i. e., decomposed

organic matter); and chemical compounds such as

sulfides and hydrous iron oxide. Sediments also can

be contaminated with various metals and organic

chemicals, from both point and nonpoint pollution

sources.

Pollutants commonly found in dredged material

include metals (e. g., cadmium, chromium, copper,

iron, lead, mercury, nickel, silver), chlorinated

hydrocarbons (e. g., PCBs, DDT), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and other petroleum products.

Most pollutants are adsorbed or tightly bound to

the organic material and the clay particles in dredged

material, thereby reducing their potential availability to marine organisms that inhabit the water

column, but not necessarily to benthic organisms

that dwell on or in the sediment (46,549).

No quantitative criteria exist for defining the degree to which dredged material is contaminated,4

so it is difficult to estimate exactly how much dredged

material is clean, somewhat contaminated, or

highly contaminated. COE considers a large portion of dredged material to be relatively clean. For

example, as much as 20 percent of all sediment

dredged by COE is ‘ ‘new work’ material, which

generally is not contaminated because it was deposited long before the settlement and industrialization of North America. Sand, which does not

readily adsorb pollutants, and sediments located

some distance from present or past pollution sources

usually are relatively clean.

To determine when dredged material is contaminated enough to require special management, either in upland or island containment areas or by

capping, COE generally relies on a series of screening tests. Based on these tests, COE considers about

3 percent (approximately 7 million wet metric tons)

of all material dredged in its coastal districts to be

4F. PA is studying the feasibility of developing sediment quality criteria for certain metals and organic chemicals (C. Zarba, EPA, pers.

comm. , N’overnber 1986). These criteria could be used, for example,

to determine whether dredged material is sufficiently contaminated

so as to pose undue risks to bottom -dwellin~ marine organisms.

highly contaminated and to require special management. 5 In addition, participants at an OTA

workshop estimated that about 30 percent of all

maintenance material might be contaminated to

some degree, even though it is not managed specially (584). These participants and other observers

consider highly contaminated dredged material to

be less contaminated than material disposed of in

sanitary landfills (103) and than some hazardous

material (299).6

Most contaminated sediment is found in the immediate vicinity of ports and harbors, or in areas

where direct municipal and industrial discharges

into estuaries and coastal waters have contributed

considerable amounts of pollutants. Riverborne

clays that are ‘‘trapped ‘‘ in estuaries and navigation channels also may have been contaminated

when they were transported through upstream regions. Dredging and disposal operations do not introduce new pollutants into aquatic environments;

they simply redistribute sediments that are already

contaminated.

Effects of Dredging Equipment

on Composition

The physical characteristics of dredged material

are significantly influenced by the type of dredging equipment used to excavate and transport the

sediment. Two major types of dredges are used:

hydraulic and mechanical.

5This figure is based on the survey of COE coastal districts; since

quantitative nationwide criteria are lacking, responses about the degree of contamination were based on the best judgment of COE personnel and their experience with dredged material requiring special

management.

cIt is unclear whether the Resource Conservation and Recovery Acts

toxic characteristic leachate procedure (TCLP) toxicity test, developed by EPA to evaluate the potential for leaching from land-based

disposal sites, is legally applicable to dredged materiat. The previous

test (the extraction procedure, or EP, toxicity test) specified that material should be tested in its field-collected form, which for dredged

material would always be wet. According to COE, wet dredged material, even if highly contaminated, will generally pass the EP test

(103,269,299). On the basis of the EP test, highly contaminated

dredged material could be considered acceptable for upland disposal;

subsequent oxidization of the material, howm’er, could make it susceptible to leaching. In contrast, dried dredged material, even if not

considered highly contaminated, might not pass the test.
Ch. 10—Managing Dredged Material • 243

Photo credit U S Army Corps of Engineers

Much of the dredging in the United States is conducted by ships known as hopper dredges, which hydraulically excavate

material from a channel bottom and place it in ‘(hoppers” within the hull. After the ship moves to a designated disposal

site, the material is either dumped into the water or discharged through a pipeline to a beach or a diked containment

area. This diagram of a hopper dredge shows some of the equipment used to excavate material from the bottom.

Most of the dredging in the United States is done

with hydraulic dredges, Hydraulic dredges add significant amounts of water to the material, which

enables the resulting slurry—about 80 to 90 percent water—to be pumped through a pipeline to

a disposal site. Hydraulic dredges include both

pipeline dredges and hopper dredges. Pipeline

dredges discharge the material through a pipeline

leading away from the dredge; they are rarely used

in the open ocean because the pipeline can be broken by sizable waves. Hopper dredges are ships that

hydraulically fill their hulls with dredged material

slurry, cruise to the disposal site, and dump the

dredged material through doors in the hull; they

operate most effectively in the open ocean or in vessel traffic.

Mechanical dredges are used on small jobs (e. g.,

around piers). They have clamshells or buckets that

remove sediment at its original, or ‘‘in situ, density without adding significant amounts of water.

Mechanically dredged sediment is typically transported to a disposal site in barges (240).

PHYSICAL FATE OF DREDGED MATERIAL AFTER DISPOSAL

Disposal in Marine Environments idly (a few feet per second) through the water

column as a high-density mass. The remainder—

When a load of dredged material is dumped from about 1 to 5 percent of the released sediment—

a stationary hopper dredge in water depths of less remains suspended in the water column as a plume

than 200 feet, most of the material descends rap- of slowly settling particles. When the rapidly de-
244 • Wastes in Marine Environments

scending mass reaches the bottom, the largest blocks

of material remain in the impact area. Fine-grained

material (as opposed to coarser, sandy material)

spreads several hundred feet radially along the bottom and away from the impact point, in the form

of a layer of “fluid mud” that can measure several feet in thickness (234).

In estuaries and coastal waters, the accumulation of dredged material on the bottom can be significant if dumping occurs over long periods or involves large volumes. Ever since the late 1800s, for

example, dredged material has been dumped in the

New York Bight within a few miles of the present

Mud Dump site (located 6 miles east of New Jersey and 11 miles south of Long Island). More than

85 percent of the dredged material has remained

at the disposal site, forming three well-defined hills

that rise 30 to 50 feet above the bottom (125,171).

Other material has accumulated northwest of these

mounds, evidence of shoreward transport and/or

dumping of dredged material short of the disposal

site.

In the deep ocean, where water may be thousands of feet deep, the rapidly descending mass of

material will entrain water as it descends and lose

its integrity. After this occurs the material continues

to settle slowly through the water column as a

widely dispersed plume of suspended sediment.

This material eventually is distributed widely over

the bottom, usually without any significant buildup

(93,234,439). If the total volume of material dumped

at an open ocean site exceeds a few hundred thousand metric tons, however, the deposition may be

sufficient to bury benthic organisms.

When slurry made of dredged material is disposed of in rivers, estuaries, and enclosed coastal

areas via pipeline dredges, an estimated 97 to 99

percent of the slurry descends rapidly to the bottom of the disposal area. Once on the bottom, the

slurry typically accumulates in the form of a low

gradient mound of fluid mud. About 1 to 3 percent of the slurry remains suspended in the water

column in the form of a turbidity plume. Turbidity

plumes usually spread a few thousand feet from the

discharge point and dissipate within several hours

after the dredging is completed (500).

Once deposited, the long-term fate of dredged

material depends on many factors, including bottom topography, the nature of the sediment, and

erosion and transport by currents (234). Several

models can be used to predict long-term transport

of dredged material (235).

Disposal in Intertidal and Upland

Containment Areas

To dispose of dredged material in intertidal or

upland areas, it is usually pumped by a pipeline

dredge into a diked containment area. The sediment will settle inside the area, and the ponded surface water is generally drained off as “effluent.”

If the ponded water and any rainfall on top of the

settled material is drained completely, a dried crust

will form over the surface of the area (217). However, the dredged material under the crust will remain almost indefinitely at a grease-like consistency

with a solids content of about 30 to 40 percent (431).

IMPACTS OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL

Disposal in Marine Environments

In marine environments, a number of adverse

impacts can occur as dredged material descends

through the water column or when it settles on the

bottom. Impacts can occur in two areas: 1) on the

water column and pelagic organisms, and 2) on

bottom-dwelling organisms. No impacts on human

health are known to have occurred from the transfer of pollutants in dredged material through the

food chain; even if they were detected, however,

it would be difficult to attribute them solely to

dredged material disposal because other sources of

pollutants are present in most areas.

Impacts on the Water Column

and Pelagic Organisms

Levels of suspended solids in the water column

during dredging and disposal operations are usually low enough to cause few, if any, detectable

physical impacts on pelagic organisms (i. e., those

in the water column) (232). If surrounding waters

become too turbid, several control techniques can
Ch. 10—Managing Dredged Material ● 245

be used (14). Another approach is to schedule projects to avoid seasons, such as during spawning,

when potential impacts to marine organisms are

great (320).

As dredged material descends through the water

column, some pollutants (e. g., hydrogen sulfide,

manganese, iron, ammonia, and phosphorus) may

be released and their concentration in the water

column may increase. In dispersive waters these

increases are usually diluted rapidly (62,232,708).

In small estuaries and sheltered coastal waters, however, such releases may adversely affect organisms

in the water column. It appears to be rare, however, for pelagic organisms to bioaccumulate metals and organic chemicals released from contaminated dredged material, although detecting such

impacts and attributing them to a particular waste

type is difficult.

Impacts on Bottom-Dwelling Organisms

Physical Impacts. —Most benthic organisms

that are covered by more than a foot or so of

dredged material will die from suffocation within

minutes or hours after disposal (232, 708). Some

burrowing organisms may be able to move vertically through the deposited material, especially if

the dredged material is similar to the original bottom sediment. Bottom-dwelling fish typically leave

a dumpsite during disposal operations, but they may

return later if the habitat is not severely altered.

Physical impacts to bottom-dwelling organisms

are generally restricted to the dumpsites. In large

estuaries and coastal waters such as Chesapeake

Bay or Puget Sound, disposal of uncontaminated

material probably has an insignificant overall impact on the ecosystem. Physical impacts also are

likely to be less significant (although possibly more

widespread) at deeper sites because the material is

more dispersed over the ocean bottom (440). In

smaller estuaries or embayments, however, ecosystem impacts can be more significant. In general,

disposal sites that are used once a year or more frequently will not fully recover as long as disposal

continues. In addition, particularly sensitive benthic communities such as undersea grasses, coral

reefs, and oyster beds may never recover.

In most areas that have been covered by uncontaminated dredged material, recolonization by benthic organisms begins within a period of weeks; extensive recolonization can take from several months

to a few years after cessation of dumping activities

(232,708). If the dredged material is similar to the

original sediment, recolonization will occur more

rapidly and the new community will more closely

resemble the original community, Otherwise, the

new community may show changes in the types and

distribution of species, or changes in the total biomass of organisms present.

Some disposal of uncontaminated dredged material has harmed fisheries and other marine resources. For example, a quahog fishery was totally

lost when several million wet metric tons of dredged

material were disposed of at the Brenton Reef disposal site near Narragansett in 1969 and 1970 (442).

In another instance, a coral reef off southern Florida

was smothered by a disposal operation (J. Wilson,

COE, pers. comm., 1986). On the other hand,

some sites adversely affected by dredged material

disposal may later be colonized by other organisms

and become important commercial and sport fishing sites. The Brenton Reef site, for instance, was

colonized by lobsters and is now a favorite location for lobster fishermen (442).

Chemical Impacts. —In addition to physical impacts, some pollutants in dredged material maybe

released to the lower water column over a period

of months or years because of: the expulsion of interstitial (or pore) water as the material consolidates

on the bottom (125), the burrowing of organisms

in the upper layers of sediment (124), or the resuspension of material during storms (709). Benthic

organisms that recolonize the deposit area may take

up and sometimes bioaccumulate some pollutants

from the lower water column or the sediment itself (46,232,260). Pollutants of particular importance include methyl mercury, cadmium, and

many chlorinated and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (442).

Potential and actual adverse effects from pollutant uptake are discussed in chapters 5 and 6. In

many situations, it is difficult to discern how bioaccumulation affects benthic organisms or the ecosystem in general (437), or where the pollutants

came from. In the New York Bight, for example,

dumped sewage sludge and dredged material are

major contributors of many metals, suspended

solids, phosphorus, and PCBs, but it is difficult to
246 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

ascertain how much is contributed by the dumping of dredged material alone (125). In addition,

metals often tend to be tightly bound to the clays

and organic matter in dredged material; in such

cases, they are less likely to be released to the water

column.

Disposal in Intertidal Areas and

Upland Containment Areas

In intertidal areas, impacts depend largely on the

characteristics of the disposal site. If a 3- to 6-inch

layer of clean dredged material is placed over a

marsh, most plants will regrow within several years.

Once vegetated, these marshes are quickly colonized

by various invertebrates (e. g., mussels, snails, and

crabs) and birds. Thicker layers of dredged material will probably destroy the marsh grass and significantly change the elevation of the area so that

marsh grass may not regrow (3 19). Some metals

and organic chemicals can be taken up by plants,

especially if the dredged material is exposed to oxidizing conditions during low tide ( 179,265,479).

Once taken up by plants, pollutants can be transferred to wildlife or to estuarine organisms that feed

on the plants or plant detritus (301).

Upland disposal in diked containment areas has

been favored by many Federal and State regulatory agencies during the last decade because of concerns about potential impacts associated with marine

and freshwater disposal (259). Several problems,

however, can occur in upland situations. For instance, if ponded water on top of the settled material is drained, pollutants can escape in the drained

effluent (15 ,289,43 1,449). In addition, the material remaining in the containment area often oxidizes, increasing the acidity of the material. Under these conditions, metals that were formerly

bound to the dredged material (e. g., cadmium,

lead, mercury, nickel) can be released in runoff

from the containment area (1 79,300). Most organic

chemicals tend to remain with the fine- grained

dredged material in the containment area or volatilize into the atmosphere (R. Peddicord, COE, pers.

comm., 1986). Upland containment areas have also

been identified as sources of saltwater intrusion and

other groundwater contamination (1 79,442; R.M.

Engler, COE, pers. comm., 1986).

PREDICTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Predictions about project-specific impacts can

only be made if there is adequate information about

the proposed operation, the material that will be

disposed of, and the disposal site environment. In

some cases, predictions can be generalized for situations in which the sediments, dredging equipment, and disposal environments are similar.

Predicting Physical Fate in

Marine Environments

The short-term physical fate of disposed dredged

material is generally quite predictable and computer

and empirical models are available for making more

detailed assessments. Predicting long-term sediment

transport, however, is usually more difficult (234),

For example, the accuracy of long-term predictions

is directly related to the availability of data on currents and other hydrographic conditions in a particular area (235). If this information is not available, detailed and costly predictions of long-term

physical fate for single disposal operations may not

be worthwhile, unless a large volume of material

is involved. Using information from past disposal

operations at similar sites is often a more effective

way of predicting long-term transport.

Predicting Chemical Impacts on

Marine Organisms

The COE uses a number of laboratory tests to

evaluate the potential short-term toxicity of pollutants

●

●

●

in dredged material to marine organisms:

Bulk sediment composition analyses indicate

the concentrations of pollutants that are present

in the dredged material.

Elutriate tests indicate the degree to which

different pollutants might be released to the

water column during disposal.

Laboratory bioassays indicate the potential

‘ ‘acute’ toxicity (or lethality) of pollutants to

organisms, over a period of 2 to 60 days (436).
Ch. 10—Managing Dredged Material ● 247

● Bioaccumulation tests indicate which pollutants might be taken up by marine organisms

over the short-term (436).

These standard tests generally require several

months to a year to complete; costs can range from

$1,000 to $30,000 per sample (table 25). The number of samples required to evaluate a particular disposal operation depends on several factors, including size of the dredging project, sensitivity of the

disposal environment, and similarity of the project

to past projects that have been monitored for

impacts.

Federal and State regulators have tried to use

bulk sediment composition analyses as the primary

(and sometimes only) method for determining

whether a particular sediment is contaminated

enough to require special management, in part because these analyses do not require expensive and

time-consuming tests. In addition, the potential toxicity to marine organisms of a given sample of

dredged material is usually lower than indicated by

the tests, because metals and some organic chemicals tend to be tightly bound to clay particles and

humus in the material and to be less available to

the organisms (259). Because of this factor, COE

has assumed that sediment passing these tests can

be disposed of safely in any environment without

concern about potential chemical effects; if the sediment f-ails these tests, it is considered contaminated

enough to be unsafe for unrestricted disposal in marine environments.

The use of these types of tests to determine

whether dredged material is contaminated enough

to require special management has been criticized.

For instance, bulk sediment composition analyses

do not necessarily indicate the likelihood that pollutants will be released from the sediment to the

Table 25.—Approximate Costs of Laboratory Tests

for Predicting Chemical Impacts of Marine Disposal,

Per Sample

Bulk sediment analyses. ... ... ... ... .$ 5,000

Elutriate test ... , ... ... ... ... ... ... .$ 1,000 to $ 5,000

Bioassay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... .$ 1,000 to $ 5,000

Bioaccumulation tests ... ... ... ... .. .$15,000 to $30,000

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; based on W.E Pequegnat,

An Overwew of the Sclenfifm and Technica/ Aspecfs of Dredged Mater/-

a/ D/sposa/ IrI the Mar/ne Ertwronrnent, contract prepared for U S. Con.

gress, Of f!ce of Technology Assessment (College Station, TX January

1986)

water column or whether they will be taken up by

marine organisms. Laboratory bioassays do not indicate which pollutants are responsible for any observed effects nor can they detect long-term, chronic

effects, and bioaccumulation tests do not necessarily

indicate whether further effects will occur (436,437).

In addition, the lack of standardized, quantitative ‘‘sediment quality criteria’ is a major problem, especially for sediments that are neither extremely contaminated nor extremely clean (C.

Zarba, U.S. EPA, pers. comm., November 1986;

K. Kamlet, A.T. Kearney, Inc., pers. comm., November 1986). Regulatory agencies could use sediment quality criteria—designed to indicate when

pollutant levels in dredged material are likely to

cause impacts on marine organisms—to assess the

degree of contamination of dredged materia). EPA

is considering developing quantitative sediment

quality criteria for some metals and organic chemicals (C. Zarba, U.S. EPA, pers. comm. , November 1986). Without such criteria, the results of any

qualitative tests are subject to varying interpretation. Thus, tests such as the bulk sediment composition analyses are probably most useful as screening tools to identify clean sediments, but not to

assess the degree of contamination of sediments.

Predicting Impacts From Other

Disposal Options

In upland containment areas, the consolidation

of dredged material slurry can be predicted with

reasonable accuracy, based on empirical observations and measurements (555). Chemical impacts,

however, are more difficult to predict,

COE has developed several tests to predict the

chemical impacts that might be associated with upland disposal. These tests show the quality of

ponded water that might be discharged during the

disposal operation, the quality of surface runoff

from the disposal area, the potential for long-term

leaching of pollutants into adjacent aquifers or surface waters, and the potential uptake of pollutants

by plants and animals that might eventually inhabit

the area, These tests also require several months

to complete, but they are generally more expensive than tests for marine disposal (table 26). EPA

has developed other tests under the Resource Con-
248 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Table 26.—Approximate Costs of Laboratory Tests for servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to assess the

Predicting Chemical impacts of Upland Disposal,

Per Sample

potential for hazardous wastes to leach from land

disposal sites. Whether these tests are legally appliBulk sediment analyses. ... ... ... ... .$ 5,000 cable to the disposal of dredged material is unclear.

Quality of ponded water tests ... ... ..$ 7,500

Runoff quality tests ... ... ... ... ... ..$20,000

Leachate quality testsa ... ... ... ... ..$75,000 to $100,000

plant/animal uptake tests ... ... ... .. .$30,000 to $ 40,000

aLegchate quality tes@ address the potential for Contaminating groundwater.

Standard tests are being developed and costs for routine testing may be lower

than values cited.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987; baaad on W.E. Pequegnat,

An Overview of the Scientific and Technical Aspects of Dredged Material Disposal in the Marine Environment, contract prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (College Station, TX: January

1986).

DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES FOR CONTAMINATED

DREDGED

If dredged material is determined, by whatever

method, to be highly contaminated, it generally requires special management during disposal to isolate it from the environment. These special techniques include disposal in:

1. water, under a layer or “cap” of uncontaminated sediment,

2. an upland containment area, or

3. a containment island.

These disposal options all require long-term maintenance to maximize the degree of sediment isolation. Even then, it is unlikely that all pollutants will

be permanently isolated.

Capping in Marine Environments

In relatively quiescent marine (and freshwater)

environments, contaminated dredged material can

sometimes be isolated from aquatic organisms by

covering it with a layer of uncontaminated material (47 ,261,363,5 11). About 3 feet of cover material is usually required to minimize the possibility

of organisms burrowing into the contaminated material. Capping does not change the nature of the

material under the cap: it still remains contaminated.

Capping has several advantages, especially in

relatively quiescent marine environments. First,

caps appear to be stable and subject to little erosion in these environments; it is conceivable that

additional capping material might not be needed

MATERIAL

for several decades. Second, as long as the cap is

not disturbed the contaminated material remains

in a relatively unoxidized state, thereby minimizing the upward migration of pollutants from the

dredged material (47). Finally, costs for capping

can be much lower than costs for disposal in upland containment areas or containment islands. The

London Dumping Convention considers capping

in quiescent marine environments to be an acceptable method, if subject to careful monitoring (136).

Capping also has several disadvantages, however. First, the water column may be exposed to

some pollutants as the dredged material descends

to the bottom, although releases to the water column tend to be small. Second, if water depth at

the site increases beyond 100 feet, it becomes difficult to restrict lateral spreading when dredged material is placed on the bottom. 7 Third, capping requires a large volume of clean cover material,

leading to increased costs. This can be minimized

if contaminated material from one project is covered with uncontaminated material from another

7When contaminated sediment is removed with a pipeline dredge,

the slurry can be pumped through a ‘ ‘diffuser’ mounted at the end

of the pipeline (390). By reducing the velocity of the slurry as it leaves

the pipeline, a diffuser system minimizes the exposure of the water

column to the contaminated dredged material, allows more precise

placement of the material, and minimizes the lateral movement of

the material along the bottom. First designed in the United States in

the late 1970s, diffusers have been used to cap contaminated sediment

in Rotterdam Harbor and recently were tested on contaminated

dredged material from Calumet Harbor, Chicago, IL (R. Montgomery, pers. comm., 1986).
Ch. 10—Managing Dredged Material • 249

project. Fourth, once the dredged material is on

the bottom, contaminated water may be released

as the sediment consolidates prior to capping or after capping if the cap ‘‘sinks’ into the contaminated sediment. Finally, storms or currents can

erode the cap, thus requiring the expense of additional clean material.

Capping of contaminated material has been used

over the last decade in the United States, Japan,

Canada, and the Netherlands (442). In this country it has been used in water depths of 100 feet or

less in Long Island Sound, the New York Bight,

off the coast of Maine, the Duwamish Waterway

near Seattle, and Alaska.

In some cases, natural or artificial subaqueous

pits can be filled with contaminated dredged material and capped (37). Pits restrict the lateral

spreading of the dredged material, and a cap that

is level with the bottom is less susceptible to erosion than a mounded surface. Approximately 125

natural and artificial pits have been identified in

rivers, estuaries, and coastal areas of the United

States, many near ports and harbors (39).

Upland Containment Areas

Upland containment areas are used to physically,

and presumably chemically, contain contaminated

dredged material. As with capping, material disposed of in upland containment areas still remains

contaminated.

The primary advantage of upland disposal is that

it allows greater management and control than is

possible in marine environments (259,317,431). For

instance, the area could be lined with clay or synthetic materials to reduce the potential for groundwater contamination, water discharged from the site

could be controlled and treated, lime could be applied to increase pH and minimize the leaching of

metals, or the area could be covered with clean sediment to isolate the contaminated sediment from

runoff, Such management techniques, however,

can greatly increase the overall costs of disposal.

The major disadvantage of upland disposal is the

potential for release of metals (e. g., cadmium, lead,

mercury, nickel). Drying the dredged material to

enhance its consolidation and increase the area’s

capacity significantly increases the potential for

mobilization and subsequent release of most metals to the environment. Oxidizing conditions,

which are more common in upland than aquatic

environments, increase the likelihood that metals

will be taken up by plants and transferred to animals, released in runoff from the site, or leach into

groundwater.

Containment Islands

Another option to dispose of contaminated sediment is to build containment ‘‘islands’ in relatively

protected areas close to a port. These islands consist of an outer perimeter that is gradually filled with

contaminated dredged material over a period of a

few decades. The primary advantage of containment islands over upland containment areas is that

the contaminated material is maintained in a saturated and unoxidized chemical environment, thereby

minimizing the potential for migration and release

of pollutants. These islands can cause undesirable

changes in water circulation or benthic communities or become navigational hazards, however, unless they are located away from navigation channels or biologically important resources.

Several containment islands have either been

built or proposed. For example, Hart-Miller Island

in the Chesapeake Bay was designed to accept contaminated dredged material from Baltimore Harbor for the next two decades. It has a capacity of

53 million cubic yards (about 63 million wet metric tons), covers approximately 1,100 acres of shallow bottom, and cost $59 million to build (442).

The New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection has proposed that the New York and

New Jersey Port Authority build a containment island in Raritan Bay. After a containment island

has been filled and capped, the island can be developed commercially or used for recreation or wildlife habitat if continued isolation of the contaminated material can be ensured.
250 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Photo credit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

In some cases, dredged material is disposed of in diked containment islands that are built in relatively protected areas.

The containment island shown here, located in North Carolina, is being filled with dredged material pumped through

a pipeline from the dredge in the foreground.

COSTS OF DISPOSAL OPERATIONS

Dredging and disposal costs vary significantly material may be 2 to 10 times higher than ordifrom one project to another. In 1986, uncontami- nary disposal costs.

nated material averaged about $1.50 per cubic yard

for disposal. For marine disposal, the costs of oper- Table 27.—Approximate Costs Per Cubic Yard

ations using pipeline dredges ranged from about for Dredged Material Disposal

$0.50 to $2.00 per cubic yard (table 27). Costs for Uncontaminated Contaminated

ocean disposal using a hopper dredge or dumping Marine environments? . . . . $0.50 to $2 $3 to $5

barge are usually somewhat greater, reflecting the Upland containment . . . . . $5 to $20 $30 to $60

transport distance to the disposal sites. The use of ausing pipeline dredge with disposal in adjacent waters

upland containment areas is considerably more ex- SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987, based on 

 Overview of Scientific and Technical Aspects of Dredged 

pensive than disposal in marine environments.

Costs for disposing highly contaminated dredged

al Disposal in Marine Environment, contract prepared for U S 

 Office of Technology Assessment (College Station, TX January

19s6)
Ch. 10—Managing Dredged Material ● 251

POLICY ISSUES

Dealing With the Shortage

of Disposal Areas

Estuaries and coastal waters are among the most

important aquatic environments, but many are severely stressed by pollutants from a variety of waste

disposal activities and from runoff. Because of concerns about the immediate physical impacts and potential long-term chemical impacts of dredged material disposal in these waters, coastal States (e. g.,

California, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina,

Florida, and others) have increasingly restricted

waste disposal during the last decade. For example, Maryland does not allow dredged material

from Baltimore Harbor to be disposed of in its marine waters without special management, even

though some of the material (that generated by any

new work, as opposed to maintenance work) would

not be contaminated (442).

Despite this trend, two-thirds of all marine

dredged material disposal still takes place in estuaries. One reason for this is that most of the material is dredged from these waters. Another is that

disposal in estuaries generally is less costly than disposal in upland areas or in waters more distant from

shore. Third, according to COE, Federal regulatory policies have made it easier to obtain permits

for disposal in estuaries than in coastal and open

ocean waters. COE considers the testing requirements under CWA for disposal in estuaries and

rivers (or for pipeline discharge of dredged material within the territorial sea) to be less stringent

than MPRSA requirements for dumping in coastal

and open ocean waters.8

Policies about disposal of wastes in estuaries and

coastal waters are influenced by policies about disposal in open ocean waters and on land. If a policy to provide greater protection to estuaries and

coastal waters is pursued, it may become difficult

to decide where else to put dredged material. As

81t is unclear whether the decrease in material disposed of in coastat

and open ocean waters that occurred prior to 1982 (other than in the

Mississippi River area) reflects differences in regulatory requirements

or simply normal fluctuations in dredging operations. Similarly, it

is unclear whether the increase beginning in 1982 reflects an easing

of the requirements for ocean disposal permits, perhaps in response

to the Federal District Court decision that overturned a ban on the

disposal of sewage sludge in the ocean (ch, 7).

discussed, disposal in the open ocean already appears to be regulated more stringently than in other

marine environments. In addition, open ocean disposal usually increases transportation costs significantly and it may not be practical in most situations.

Although the regulatory requirements for upland

disposal are less comprehensive (and probably less

stringent) than requirements for disposal in aquatic

environments, finding new upland containment

areas can be difficult and costly. Disposal in upland containment areas is controlled indirectly

through Section 404 of CWA and State coastal zone

management programs, and some States have imposed standards on the effluent discharged from upland containment areas. Upland disposal may also

be subject to State or local land-use requirements.

Finally, a shortage of upland containment areas is

developing as available areas reach their designed

capacity and as concerns about the effects of upland disposal increase.

At the same time, it is not clear that dredged material disposal should be prohibited totally in estuaries and coastal waters. Disposal in some instances

causes only short-term and reversible impacts, especially when the volume of material is small, dumping does not occur frequently or continuously, and

the dredged material is not a significant source of

pollutants. In addition, COE contends that dredged

material should receive less stringent regulatory

treatment than other wastes because comparable

concentrations of pollutants in dredged material

may be less available to organisms than the same

pollutants in other wastes. COE also notes that

dredged material that is disposed of in estuaries usually is not ‘‘added’ to estuaries, but simply moved

from one location to another.

In general, finding a disposal site for dredged material in any environment is becoming increasingly

difficult, partly because of public attitudes. Sometimes public attitudes reflect real uncertainties about

the impacts of dredged material disposal. For example, it is true that the long-term impacts of disposal in marine waters and on land are not well

understood. Similary, the relative importance of

different sources of pollutants are also uncertain and

in some cases may never be resolved. (For instance,

63-983 - 87 - 9 : QL 3
252 • Wastes in Marine Environments

despite millions of dollars of research, the importance of dredged material relative to other pollutant sources in the New York Bight is still unclear. )

Public attitudes, however, also can reflect a lack

of awareness of the facts. For example, many people think that dredged material from the Mud

Dump site in the New York Bight adversely affected

New Jersey beaches (441); sediment transport

studies, however, show that less than O. 1 percent

of the sediment near these beaches is derived from

dredged material disposed of at the site (709).

Siting decisions can also be affected by questions

about the credibility of COE statements regarding

the impacts of dredged material disposal. These

questions arise in part because COE both regulates

dredging activities and conducts many of them, and

because it traditionally has been managed as a development agency. In addition, it does not need

Section 404 or Section 103 permits to conduct its

own federally authorized dredging projects, although it must comply with all applicable Federal

laws and regulations and obtain appropriate State

permits. COE also has sponsored most of the technical research on the impacts of marine and landbased disposal, having spent over $100 million since

the early 1970s. To avoid bias, however, much of

the research has been conducted and/or reviewed

by non-COE groups. Recent State-supported research has tended to support the findings of Cosponsored research.

Since disposal sites are becoming increasingly difficult to develop and use, one management approach is to minimize the amount of required

dredging, and thus the impacts generated, by developing long-term management plans for dredged

material disposal. Revised regulations proposed by

COE (for 33 CFR Part 337.9) recognize the value

of such plans and suggest their use (51 FR 104:

19693-19706, May 30, 1986). In addition, since

most marine disposal consists of material dredged

from ports and harbors, it makes sense to link

dredging plans with broader management plans for

surrounding estuaries and coastal waters. Several

examples of such planning efforts exist. The Grays

Harbor (Washington) Estuary Management Plan

provides a blueprint for the port future dredging

and development (441). In the Chesapeake Bay,

EPA is conducting a $27 million study of water

quality and resources, including all different causes

of degradation, and as a part of this effort COE’s

Baltimore District is studying the effects of dredging on the Bay (441). Finally, the Puget Sound

Water Quality Authority was formed by the State

of Washington to provide a broad framework for

cleaning up Puget Sound, and as part of this initiative COE’S Seattle District is developing a management plan for dredged material disposal (441).

Long-term management plans for dredged material disposal have several advantages. First, they

can be used to guide future decisions about port

development while protecting the long-term productivity of an estuary. Such plans can consider the

physical, biological, aesthetic, social, and economic

resources associated with each proposed project, as

well as interrelationships among proposed projects

(61,273,496). Second, management plans can provide consistency and predictability for regulators,

developers, environmentalists, and all State and

Federal agencies. To ensure broad consensus, the

planning process can involve all relevant State and

Federal agencies, as well as local special interest

groups with broad public representation. Finally,

long-term plans could help streamline the regulatory review process, thereby reducing the time required to approve future projects and allowing more

efficient scheduling of dredging and disposal operations.

Long-term planning efforts, however, are not

without potential drawbacks. First, they are initially

time-consuming and expensive. Second, unless

these plans are incorporated into long-term compliance documents or permits, they may be subject to shifting agency policies. Finally, planning

can be difficult because the long-term need for disposal sites is often hard to predict, given uncertainties about future port development.

In addition to developing long-term management

plans where feasible, it will be important to conduct more peer-reviewed research about long-term

impacts. Both laboratory and long-term field studies

need to continue addressing several areas, including: how to assess sediment contamination; the

long-term effects of bioaccumulation on individual

organisms and community structure; the quality

of effluent water discharged from upland containment areas; and procedures to minimize adverse

impacts from the dredging and disposal of contami-
Ch. 10—Managing Dredged Material • 253

nated sediment in different environments (296). To

increase the usefulness of research results to Federal and State decisionmakers, COE and EPA

could jointly summarize and periodically update

the state-of-knowledge on dredging and disposal

operations. Short, readable publications would also

help to explain to the public the necessity for, and

the impacts associated with, dredging and disposal

operations (e. g., see ref. 563).

Providing Balanced Consideration

of All Disposal Options

As discussed in chapter 1, specific decisions or

general policies about the disposal of any material

should be based on a comprehensive evaluation of

all available options. Evaluations are becoming

more important, especially for large dredging projects or ones that involve contaminated material, as

disposal sites become scarcer. One example of this

type of evaluation is the Dredged Material Disposal

Management Plan, prepared by the Port of New

York and New Jersey. The plan compares eight disposal alternatives that might be used when the Mud

Dump site in the New York Bight is filled to capacity in 15 to 20 years (562).

Regulations proposed by COE in May 1986

would provide general guidelines to ensure that all

dredging and disposal alternatives are compared

comprehensively by all COE districts. Such comparisons might indicate, for example, that dredged

material disposal in the open ocean is more favorable in a specific situation than disposal in estuaries,

coastal waters, or on land, even though regulatory

requirements appear to be more stringent for the

open ocean.

COE has developed a technical framework, with

laboratory testing procedures, for evaluating the potential impacts of different disposal options (169).

This framework is being tested on contaminated

sediment from Commencement Bay, Washington

(438). A comprehensive implementation manual

describing the different laboratory procedures, however, does not yet exist. This kind of manual, which

would need periodic updating to incorporate newly

developed techniques, could provide guidance so

planners could routinely evaluate the potential impacts of waste disposal. However, it also could impose detailed and costly analyses all disposal operations, regardless of their size or characteristics. The

development of national sediment quality criteria

also would aid the evaluation of potential impacts.
Managing

“Dumped
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........257

Drilling Fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............,........,..258

Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......,258

Quantities of Waste Generated and Marine-Disposed . ......................259

Management and Disposal Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259

Fate, Availability, and Impact of Waste Constituents . ......................259

Regulatory Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., ............259

Acid and Alkaline Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......260

Quantities of Waste Generated . . . . . . . . . . ................................260

Management and Disposal Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . ......260

Composition and Quantities of Waste Disposed of in Marine Waters . ........260

Fate, Availability, and Impact of Waste Constituents . ......................261

Regulatory Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............262

Pharmaceutical Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....262

Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................262

Management and Disposal Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262

Quantities of Waste Marine-Disposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................262

Fate, Availability, and Impact of Waste Constituents . ....................,.262

Regulatory Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................,.263

Fish Processing Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................,..263

Composition and Quantities of Waste Generated . . . . . . . . ...................263

Management and Disposal Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............263

Quantities of Waste Marine-Disposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................263

Fate, Availability, and Impact of Waste Constituents . ..............,.......264

Coal Ash and Flue Gas Desulfurization Sludges . . . . . . . . . .....................264

Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................264

Quantities of Waste Generated . . . . . . . . . . ................................264

Management and Disposal Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264

Potential for Marine Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ............265

Fate, Availability, and Impact of Waste Constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..265

Tables

Table No. Page

28. Current Management Practices for Industrial Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . ...........258

29. Regulatory Framework for Marine Disposal of Industrial Wastes . . . . . . . . . . ..258

30. Origin and Quantities of Acid and Alkaline Wastes Currently Dumped in

Marine Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............261

31. Quantities and Current

Figure No.

36. Quantities of Industrial

Management of Utility Coal Ash and FGD Sludge. ..265

Figure

Page

Wastes Dumped in Marine Waters, 1973-85 . .......257
Chapter 11

Managing Industrial Wastes

Dumped in Marine Waters

INTRODUCTION

Marine disposal of industrial waste involves two

primary modes of delivering wastes to marine waters. Dumping typically involves the use of barges

to deliver industrial sludges and slurries directly to

surface waters at designated marine dumping sites.

In general, dumping of such wastes is not as significant in causing environmental impacts as are

the far greater quantities of industrial waste directly

discharged through pipelines or out falls into marine waters within a short distance of the coastline

(ch. 8).

Marine dumping of industrial wastes has been

greatly reduced in the United States in the last decade, with respect to both number of permitters and

quantities of waste. Prior to 1973, over 300 firms

used marine waters for dumping; by 1979 the number had fallen to 13 (6), and currently only 3 firms

are dumping wastes in marine waters (139). The

quantity of dumped industrial wastes has steadily

declined from 4.6 million metric tons in 1973 to

about 200,000 metric tons in 1985 (figure 36).

Numerous sites have been used by the United

States for marine dumping of industrial wastes, but

only three have received significant amounts since

1977. These sites, which are administered by EPA

Region II, are: 1) the New York Bight Acid Waste

Disposal Site, 2) Deepwater Industrial Waste Disposal Site, and 3) the Pharmaceutical Waste Site

off Puerto Rico. Only the first two are in current

use (see figure 3 in ch. 3), receiving waste from

three firms (1 39). Use of the Puerto Rico site was

discontinued in 1981 (594).

Industrial waste disposal planning involves considerable capital investment, and the decreasing

availability of marine waters as a viable disposal

option caused many firms to make long-term investments in land-based disposal or treatment options ( 140). However, some previously attractive

land-based options are now subject to much stricter

Figure 36.—Quantities

Dumped in Marine

of Industrial Wastes

Waters, 1973-85

I

SOURCES

’973

 ”

.

82 83 84 1985

Year

EG&G Washington Analytical Serwces Center, Inc , /rrdustr/a/

Waste f)/sposa/ m Marine Enwronments, contract prepared for U S

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Waltham, MA’ 1986);

R Schwer, E I du Pent de Nemours & Co., personal communlca.

tlon, November 1986, L Mattloll, Allied Chemical, personal corn.

municatlon, December 1986; R DeCesare, Office of Water, U S En.

vironmental Protect Ion Agency, personal communication, January

1987

regulation and this may increase pressure to consider marine dumping. Indeed, for particular waste

types in some regions of the country and for new

generators, the marine option may be very attractive. It is difficult to predict the extent of future pressures to use marine environments for dumping or

to gauge what effect a change in regulations might

have on marine dumping.

This chapter discusses the marine dumping of

drilling fluids, acid and alkaline wastes, pharmaceutical wastes, fish processing wastes, and coal ash

and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) sludges. 1 For

each waste type considered, the following topics are

covered wherever data are available: waste composition; quantities generated and marine-disposed;

1 Uraste effluents and sludges resulting from the treatment of industrial process wastewaters prior to direct discharge into navigable waters

or into sewerage systems are considered in ch. 8,

257
258 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

management and disposal practices currently used; rent management practices for the various wastes

the fate, availability, and impacts of waste constit- considered in this chapter. Table 29 summarizes

uents or contaminants; and the current regulatory the regulatory framework governing their marine

framework. Table 28 provides a summary of cur- disposal.

Table 28.—Current Management Practices for Industrial Wastes

Waste type Drilling fluids Acid/alkaline Pharmaceuticals Fish processing Coal ash/sludge

Marine pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . l

a

x x

Marine dumping . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3

Land disposalb . . . . . . . . . . . . . x 2 1

Land application . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Physical, chemical, or

biological treatment . . . . . . . 1 1 x

Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Recyclinglreuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

aN”~b,g~~ i“cjicate r~lative prevalence of US6 of an option; X irrclicates an option used to a lesser extent than the numbered OPtions, but to an unknown extent retative

to the other options.

bLand disposal includes Iandfilling, surface impoundment, and deep-well injection.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 19S7.

Table 29.—Regulatory Framework for Marine Disposal of Industrial Wastes

Waste type Statute Agency Program or regulations

Drilling muds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CWA EPA NPDES

CWA EPA New Source Performance Standards

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

Lands Act MMS O c s

Acid/alkaline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MPRSA EPA Ocean dumping regulations

Pharmaceutical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MPRSA (dumping) EPA Ocean dumping regulations

CWA (pipeline) EPA NPDES

CWA (sewer) EPA Pretreatment regulations

Fish processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MPRSA EPA Ocean dumping regulations

Coal ashlFGD sludge . . . . . . . . . . MPRSA EPA Ocean dumping regulations

KEY: CWA = Clean Water Act NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

MPRSA = Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

MMS = Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

FGD = flue gas desulfurization

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987

DRILLING

Composition

The discharge of spent drilling fluids accompanies the exploration and development phases, but

not the production phase, of offshore oil and gas

activities. Hundreds of compounds are used in

drilling fluids formulations, depending on the par-

‘Drilling fluids are one of several types of waste created by offshore

drilling. Others include brine and sand brought up along with oil or

gas; drill cuttings (the solids resulting from drilling); well treatment

wastes (resulting from operations to enhance oil or gas recovery); and

deck drainage and sanitary wastes. Most regulatory attention has focused on drilling fluids, and thus the discussion here is limited to this

waste type. Although drilling fluids are often discharged through pipcIines, the offshore location of such discharges justifies their consideration here with other dumping activities.

FLUIDS

ticular needs of each well. However, four materials account for over 90 percent of the mass of essentially all drilling fluids: barium sulfate (or

barite), clays, lignosulfates, and lignites (50 FR

34592, Aug. 26, 1985).

Drilling fluids can be water- or oil-based. Waterbased fluids are more commonly used for offshore

operations, for both regulatory and technical reasons. EPA’s chemical analysis of 8 generic waterbased fluids detected no priority pollutant organic

chemicals, but 10 priority pollutant metals were detected. In particular, mercury and cadmium were

found in all formulations tested (50 FR 34592, Aug.

26, 1985; ref. 384).
Ch. 1 l—Managing Industrial Wastes Dumped in Marine Waters ● 259

Quantities of Waste Generated

and Marine-Disposed

About 2 million dry metric tons of drilling fluid

components are used annually in offshore drilling

activities and discharged directly into marine waters.

About 3,900 offshore platforms currently produce

oil and gas, accounting for roughly 20 percent of all

domestic production (50 FR 34592, Aug. 26, 1985).

Almost all (98 percent) such operations are located

in the Gulf of Mexico, and over 90 percent of drilling fluid discharges occur there (384); however, increasing exploration in the waters of southern California and Alaska (the only other major sites for

drilling fluid discharges) is expected to alter this distribution. EPA estimates that about 800 new platforms will be built between 1986 and 2000, a rate

greatly reduced from that between 1972 to 1982,

when an average of 1,100 new wells were drilled

each year.

Management and Disposal Practices

Under existing regulations, used oil-based drilling fluids (or water-based fluids significantly contaminated with oil) are prohibited from marine discharge. Such fluids must be transported to land for

disposal in a facility permitted under the Resource

Recovery and Conservation Act or for reconditioning and reuse (40 CFR 435, Subpart A). In contrast, used water-based drilling fluids typically are

dumped overboard or discharged from a pipe; both

of these practices require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Most

coastal EPA Regions have prohibited direct offshore

discharge near certain drilling sites because of ecological sensitivity at the sites (482). In addition,

some State laws require land disposal for spent

fluids generated in coastal waters (384). Using

barges to transport used drilling fluids to shore or

to distant ocean sites can be expensive and logistically difficult.

Fate, Availability, and Impact

of Waste Constituents

In most areas on the continental shelf, the

majority of particles present in drilling fluids and

cuttings settle rapidly to the seabed, generally

within 1,000 meters of the point of discharge (384).

Further dispersion may occur because of bottom

currents or tidal action. A plume of particles, however, remains in suspension and is subject to relatively more rapid dispersion and dilution.

The main environmental concerns related to marine disposal of drilling fluids include potential toxicity of various chemical additives or trace metals,

increased turbidity in the water column, physical

burial of benthic organisms or alteration of physical substrates available to these organisms, and possible long-term accumulation of metals in sediments

and marine organisms. The primary acute effects

appear to be physical and limited to the benthic

environment.

Evidence indicates that most water-based drilling

fluids are relatively nontoxic to marine organisms

at the concentrations that are achieved shortly after discharge (384). For those fluids exhibiting significant toxicity, it appears to be primarily attributable to the presence of diesel fuel, which can

comprise as much as 2 to 4 percent of the total

volume.

While most research has focused on acute effects,

the concentrations of potentially toxic constituents

present at most sites are in a range that is more

likely to induce chronic or sublethal effects. Data

are limited on such impacts, however, so considerable uncertainty remains regarding the long-term

environmental impacts associated with marine disposal of drilling fluids.

Regulatory Framework

The principal authority to regulate marine disposal of drilling discharges lies with EPA, through

the NPDES program of the Clean Water Act (Section 402). Such discharges are subject to the ‘ ‘best

practicable control technology’ (BPT) and ‘ ‘best

available technology’ (BAT) limitations of the

Clean Water Act (ch. 7). Offshore oil and gas operations do not receive individual NPDES permits

and instead are covered by a general NPDES permit (ch. 8), unless a facility requests its own permit. Prior to issuance of an individual NPDES permit, EPA must determine that the discharges will

not unreasonably degrade the marine environment,

in compliance with the Ocean Discharge Criteria

of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 125, Subpart M).
260 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Using this regulatory authority, EPA has imposed a variety of permit conditions, including:

limits on the amount of toxic substances or total

hydrocarbons in drilling fluids, requirements to

conduct toxicity testing of drilling fluid formulations prior to use, seasonal or zonal restrictions on

discharges, and special monitoring and reporting

requirements (482).

EPA recently proposed BAT effluent limitation

guidelines and new source performance standards

for offshore oil and gas facilities (50 FR 34592, Aug.

26, 1985). In addition to maintaining the prohibitions against the discharge of oil-based drilling fluids

and water-based fluids containing oil, EPA proposed

two further controls: a limit on the acute toxicity

of drilling fluid discharges and a limit on the discharge of cadmium and mercury to a maximum

of 1 part per million (ppm).

A recently renewed general permit covering

drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico (51 FR

24897, July 9, 1986) incorporates the proposed

BAT limits, but not the proposed limit for mercury

and cadmium. General permits incorporating the

BAT limits on these two metals have been issued

for Alaska (51 FR 35460, Oct. 3, 1986) and proposed for southern California (50 FR 34036, Aug.

22, 1985).

The Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior regulates drilling discharges

through lease stipulations and Outer Continental

Shelf operating orders, some of which prohibit the

use of certain additives. In addition, individual

States may impose further requirements on drilling

discharges for operations taking place in their territorial waters.

While drilling fluids are not classified as hazardous, their disposal on land is regulated under the

solid waste provisions of RCRA.

ACID AND ALKALINE WASTES

Quantities of Waste Generated

Most liquid acid and alkaline wastes are classified generically as corrosive wastes, a RCRA category that also includes sludges and solids. Corrosive wastes comprise almost half of the total

hazardous waste generated in the United States

(140,690), but it is not known what fraction of these

are relatively uncontaminated acids and alkalis with

potential for marine disposal.

Management and Disposal Practices

Most corrosive wastes are disposed or treated onsite, using methods such as deep-well injection and

neutralization. Only 1 to 2 percent of corrosive

wastes are disposed off-site (140), including the acid

and alkaline wastes that are currently dumped in

marine waters. When disposed of in marine waters,

these wastes are barged to the disposal site and then

dumped in bulk at a permitted rate into the wake

of the vessel.

Composition and Quantities of Waste

Disposed of in Marine Waters

Acid and alkaline wastes from three industrial

firms are presently dumped in marine waters (table 30).3 Under current permit schedules, about

200,000 metric tons from Allied Chemical, DuPontEdge Moor, and DuPont-Grasselli will continue to

be dumped annually after 1986 (139).

Quantities of waste dumped at the New York

Bight Acid Waste Site by Allied Chemical have decreased from a high of 60,000 metric tons in 1973

to the current level of about 40,000 metric tons annually; no change is anticipated in the amount of

waste to be dumped during the next several years

(L. Mattioli, Allied Chemical, pers. comm., Dec.

1986). The current permit expires September 30,

1988; application for renewal of the permit is due

3Unless otherwise noted the following discussion is based on material from references 139 and 140.
Ch. n-Managing Industrial Wastes Dumped in Marine Waters • 261

Table 30.—Origin and Quantities of Acid and Alkaline Wastes Currently Dumped in Marine Waters

Annual

Company Type of waste/process Composition Dumpsite quantity a

Allied Chemical Hydrochloric acid from

fluorocarbon refrigerants

and polymer

manufacturing

Du Pent-Edge Moor Iron and other acidic metal

chlorides from titanium

dioxide production

Du Pent-Grasselli Sodium sulfate from

agricultural chemical

production

About 300/0 HCI New York Bight 30,000 mt

1 to 2.5°/0 fluoride Acid Waste Site

Suspended solids and total

organic carbon in 10s ppm

range

Petroleum hydrocarbons in 1-10

ppm range

Chromium, nickel, zinc in <0.1

to 3 ppm range

Arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead,

mercury in <0.01 to 1 ppm

range

pH <1.0

Chromium in 100s ppm range Deepwater Industrial s 50,000 mt

Zinc and lead in 10s ppm range Waste Site

Copper and nickel in 1-10 ppm

range

Cadmium in 0.001 ppm range

pH 0.1 to 1.0

10°/0 sodium sulfate Deepwater Industrial 110,000 mt

Low molecular weight organics Waste Site

in 10s-1000s ppm range

Chromium, copper, nickel, lead

in 0.01 to 0.1 ppm range

Cadmium in 0.001 ppm range

pH 10 to 12.5

aga~ed on present permit limits.

bThe fluorocarbon ~olymer manufacturing facility was recently ~o)d to Ausimont U, S. A,, inc. (L. Mattioli, Allied Chemical, personal communication, December 1986),

SOURCES: R Schwer, El. du Pent de Nemours & Co., personal communication, November 19S6; L. Mattioli, Allied Chemical, personal communication, December 1986;

and EG&G Washington Analytical Services Center, Inc., /ndustria/ Waste DisDosa/ in Marine Environments, rxeDared for U.S. Conaress, Office of Technoloav-.

Assessment (Walt~am, MA:-19S6).

by April 3, 1988. The only alternative to marine

disposal currently being used is to sell the waste for

use as hydrochloric acid; about 10 percent of the

waste was sold in 1984 and about 6 percent was

sold in 1985 (L. Mattioli, Allied Chemical, pers.

comm., Dec. 1986).

DuPont-Edge Moor has dumped acid wastes at

the Deepwater Industrial Waste Site since 1968.

Since 1973, its permits have contained provisions

for the cessation of ocean dumping and the development of feasible alternatives. By 1984, such

changes had reduced ocean dumping by 70 percent,

to less than 115,000 wet metric tons. The current

permit expires June 30, 1987, but it can be renewed

provided that, despite good-faith efforts, DuPontEdge Moor has been unable to develop sufficient

land-based alternatives to completely replace marine disposal; an application for a new 3-year permit is being submitted on this basis (R. Schwer,

E.I. du Pent de Nemours & Co., pers. comm.,

Nov., 1986).

DuPont-Grasselli has dumped alkaline wastes

from 1968 to 1973 at the New York Bight Acid

Waste Site and from 1968 to the present at the

Deepwater Industrial Waste Site. Between 1973

and 1983, amounts dumped ranged from 118,000

to 290,000 wet metric tons per year. The last permit, valid through the end of 1986, required the

development of alternative treatment methods, but

contained no deadline for halting dumping.

Fate, Availability, and Impact

of Waste Constituents

The rationale for allowing marine disposal of acid

and alkaline wastes is that they rapidly (within 1

to 4 hours) neutralize after coming into contact with

seawater, which has a high natural buffering capacity (157). In addition, discharge into the turbulent wake of the vessel provides rapid mixing and

a several thousand-fold dilution. Acute impacts due

to transient changes in acidity may occur prior to
262 • Wastes in Marine Environments

neutralization. Such effects, however, would generally be limited to the immediate vicinity of the

discharge, and past monitoring has not detected any

observable effects on marine life (83, 157). Trace

pollutants, primarily toxic metals, may pose longer

term risks, although such pollutants are generally

rapidly and extensively diluted under typical disposal conditions. Some metals (primarily iron and

magnesium) precipitate upon entering marine waters and can remain in suspension for several days

or more.

Regulatory Framework

Most acid and alkaline wastes are generically

classified under RCRA as hazardous due to their

corrosivity. However, wastewater treatment sludges

from the DuPont-Edge Moor facility, which are

usually disposed of by landfilling or ocean dumping, have been delisted and excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste (45 FR 72037, Oct. 30,

1980), and wastewater from the DuPont-Grasselli

facility is not considered hazardous because it does

not exceed the upper pH limit specified for corrosivity by RCRA (R. Schwer, E.I. du Pent de

Nemours & Co., pers. comm., Nov. 1986). In all

cases, however, dumping of acid and alkaline wastes

in marine waters is allowed only after a case-bycase determination of compliance with the Ocean

Dumping Criteria of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). Permits issued by EPA under authority of MPRSA do not

contain requirements for specific treatment of acid

and alkaline wastes that are to be dumped; rather

they require that dilution to background levels be

achieved in a specified length of time.

PHARMACEUTICAL WASTES

Composition

Pharmaceutical wastes originate from the biological production of antibiotics and the chemical production of pharmaceuticals. They are typically

aqueous suspensions near neutral pH; have densities similar to seawater; and contain about 1 percent suspended solids, 2 percent organic carbon,

and very low ( <1 ppm) levels of metals or high

molecular weight organochlorines (relative to other

industrial wastes). However, they can contain high

concentrations (10 to 100 ppm) of any of several

common industrial solvents (139,594).

Management and Disposal Practices

Most U.S. pharmaceutical companies responded

to EPA regulations by investing in land-based disposal, including onsite incineration and secondary

wastewater treatment (e. g., anaerobic digestion, activated sludge treatment). Marine dumping generally is only attractive to those pharmaceutical

companies not yet having secondary treatment

(138).

Quantities of Waste Marine-Disposed

Seven pharmaceutical companies in Puerto Rico

dumped pharmaceutical wastes at the designated

Pharmaceutical Waste Site (74 km north of Puerto

Rico) from at least 1973 until 1981. The amounts

dumped increased from 38,000 wet metric tons in

1973 to over 300,000 metric tons in the late 1970s

and early 1980s (594).

Because of lower disposal costs and EPA mandates, these wastes are now discharged into a secondary sewage treatment plant completed at Barceloneta in 1981 (Black and Veatch, cited in ref.

594). Almost half of the wastewater entering the

plant is pharmaceutical wastes. Effluent from the

plant is not disinfected and is discharged through

a pipeline 800 meters offshore, in waters less than

30 meters deep (208). The volume of pharmaceutical wastes entering the plant is about fourfold

higher than that previously marine dumped, but

is about tenfold less concentrated in suspended

solids, organic carbon, and nitrogen (594).

Fate, Availability, and Impact

of Waste Constituents

The dispersive high-energy conditions at the

Puerto Rico dumpsite diluted dumped wastes by

a factor of up to 100,000-fold soon after dumping

and by a factor of about 10,000,000-fold over a

long-term period (594). However, one clearly demonstrated change at the dumpsite was the almost

complete replacement, within 7 years after disposal
Ch. n-Managing Industrial Wastes Dumped in Marine Waters ● 2 6 3

began, of resident bacteria with other bacterial species (including several human pathogens—e. g.,

Salmonella and Vibrio) (207). Some experts attribute the change to a selection for the other species

able to degrade particular pharmaceutical waste

components, but this conclusion has been questioned (594). Shifts also occurred in the composition and size of the phytoplankton community in

the vicinity of the dumpsite (594).

Other potentially more serious impacts have been

attributed to the discharge of pharmaceutical wastes

into the Barceloneta secondary treatment plant.

These include frequent disruption of the treatment

process, reduced removal of bacterial pathogens

prior to effluent discharge, and significantly elevated levels of fecal bacteria (including human pathogens) in coastal waters (208). Because discharge

now occurs close to shore in shallow waters, concerns have been raised that human health impacts

under the current disposal system may be greater

than those associated with the previous ocean dumping of untreated pharmaceutical waste. In particular, currents and wave action in the area of discharge

have been demonstrated to carry waste constituents back to shore (208,594).

Regulatory Framework

Dumping of pharmaceutical wastes at the Puerto

Rico dumpsite was regulated under the Ocean

Dumping Criteria of MPRSA. The present discharge of effluent from the Barcelonet a treatment

plant is regulated under an NPDES permit.

FISH PROCESSING WASTES

Composition

Waste

and Quantities of

Generated

These wastes arise from the processing of seafood for a variety of products.4 The large tuna and

fishmeal industries engage in year-round operations; most other food waste generators are small,

seasonal, specialized facilities. Prior to treatment,

these wastes are composed entirely of organic matter and ‘‘conventional’ pollutants: oil, grease, and

solids (139). In 1980, 1.4 to 2.0 million metric tons

of seafood processing material was produced, an

increase of 35 to 41 percent since 1970 (138).

Management and Disposal Practices

Most seafood processing material is converted

to marketable meal and fertilizer or is recycled

(140). The remaining waste can be treated prior

to NPDES-permitted discharge, or directly disposed

of by landftiing, land application, or marine dumping. Data on the relative use of these options are

not available.

Primary treatment using dissolved air flotation

(DAF) systems is typically employed by large proc4Thcse wastes are distinguished from unprocessed wastes arising

from seafood cleaning, which are exempted from ocean dumping regulations (40 CFR 220. 1(c)( 1)).

essing facilities (140). These systems use coagulant

to remove solids from wastewater, thereby generating DAF sludges which are not exempt from ocean

dumping regulations. The small quantity of DAF

sludge currently generated is disposed of in landfdls.

EPA is considering requiring DAF systems for

virtually all seafood processing waste generators.

If applied throughout the industry, about 2000 metric tons of DAF sludge would be produced annually

(140).

Quantities of Waste Marine-Disposed

The only site designated for dumping of fish

processing wastes is in the Pacific Ocean near

American Samoa (45 FR 77435, Nov. 24, 1980;

ref. 86). This interim site, which is administered

by EPA Region IX, was approved for up to 118,000

wet metric tons per year and for a period of 3 years,

pending completion of further studies. Actual quantities of waste dumped at the site were 17,000 wet

metric tons in 1982 and 19,500 wet metric tons in

1983 (648).

Region IX expects an increase in requests to

dump seafood processing wastes in marine waters,

primarily DAF treatment sludge from tuna canneries (140). EPA has proposed to designate a dump-
264 • Wastes in Marine Environments

site in the Southern California Bight for cannery cause nutrient overloading. Proper disposal in wellwastes generated by Star-Kist Foods, Inc. (102). mixed ocean environments appears to be essentially

nonhazardous, although some concerns have been

Fate, Availability, and Impact raised over potential impacts of the chemical coaguof Waste Constituents lants introduced during DAF treatment (140).

Disposal of these wastes in poorly mixed or relatively enclosed coastal marine environments could

COAL ASH AND FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION SLUDGES

Composition

Coal ash is the incombustible, inorganic, or

mineral fraction of coal remaining after its combustion in industrial and public-owned boilers. It

includes fly ash captured by stack scrubbers and

bottom ash/slag that is left behind in the boiler.

FGD sludges are produced when sulfur-containing

flue gases react with air pollution control scrubber

reagents (usually calcium carbonate or limestone).

The chemical composition of coal ash varies considerably with the type of coal from which it is derived (288). Primary constituents include the salts

and oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium,

magnesium, sodium, potassium, titanium, and sulfur. Other significant trace ( <1 percent) constituents include barium, strontium, manganese, and

boron. Coal ash leachate has a pH between 6 to

11.5, The composition and quantity of FGD sludge

depends on the type of air pollution controls that

are employed. It typically contains 5 to 15 percent

solids initially and 30 to 80 percent solids after

dewatering, and has a pH of 3 to 13 (139,141). Primary components are calcium sulfites, sulfates, and

carbonate; major trace elements include barium,

boron, copper, fluorine, manganese, molybdenum,

nickel, and zinc (288).

Currently, coal ash and FGD sludge from electric utilities are characterized as nonhazardous

under RCRA (40 CFR 261 .4( b)(4)). However,

EPA has proposed new procedures for testing the

toxicity of Ieachates from wastes, which could lead

to the classification of some utility wastes as hazardous. The original exemption of such wastes from

regulation as hazardous wastes was intended to allow EPA to complete environmental impact studies

and determine a course of action (141).

Quantities of Waste Generated

Estimates of the amount of coal ash and FGD

sludge generated annually in the United States vary

considerably, but they are clearly very high-volume

wastes that will continue to increase in quantity at

least through the end of this century (table 31).

Coal-burning utilities are estimated to produce

about 95 percent of total utility ash; the remainder

arises from burning of other fossil fuels.5 Rapid increases in the generation of these wastes are occurring, due to wider application and greater efficiency

of sulfur dioxide removal technology, as well as increased coal consumption. G

The East Coast States, from Pennsylvania south,

and the Gulf States of Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana, are the major sources of utility coal ash and

FGD sludge. These States are also expected to

exhibit the largest increase in waste generation

through 2000 (141; Tobin, 1982, cited in ref. 140).

Management and Disposal Practices7

Most utility coal waste is presently disposed of

onsite, in unlined landfills and impoundments

(table 31); however, the use of unlined impoundments is declining because of concerns about ground-

‘Nonutility industries generate much larger quantities of air pollution control dusts and sludges (257). Many of these are listed as hazardous under RCRA, however, and have not been discussed as candidates for dumping. Nonutility boilers generate an additional 8 million

metric tons of coal wastes (257), similar in composition to that generated by utilities.

‘Fly ash and FGD sludge together constitute 5 to 15 percent of the

mass of coal from which they are generated. A typical, 1000-megawatt

plant will consume 2.4 million metric tons of coal annually, and generate about 650,000 metric tons of ash and sludge (131).

‘This discussion is limited to practices used for utility coal waste.

Data on the disposition of coal wastes from nonutility industrial boilers

are scant (257).
Ch. 1 l—Managing Industrial Wastes Dumped in Marine Waters ● 265

Table 31.—Quantities and Current Management of Utility Coal Ash and FGD Sludge

Coal ash FGD sludge Referencea

Annual quantities: b

1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 mmt 18 mmt USWAG, 1982; EG&G, 1986

2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......155 mmt 52 mmt

Current management practices

Percent disposed onsite . . . . . . . 75°/0 820/o JRB, 1983

Percent disposed off site. . . . . . . 16°/0 180/0

Percent sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9°/0 —

Percent in landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . 40°/0 300/0 EG&G, 1983; EPRI, 1985

Percent in wet ponds . . . . . . . . . 39°/0 670/o

Percent in mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 2 %

Percent used commercially . . . . 21 % <1 ”/0

asee Ilst of references at end of report.

bQuantities are in million metric tons (wet weight)

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1987

water contamination and land reclamation (141 ).

These wastes are distinguished from unprocessed

wastes arising from seafood cleaning, which are

exempted from ocean dumping regulations (40

CFR 220. l(c)(l)).

Some 10 to 20 percent of utility coal wastes are

currently recycled or reused in cement manufacture, building materials, road surfacing, sand blasting, roofing, and ice and snow control. While recycling and reuse will increase somewhat, it is not

expected to keep up with increases in waste generation. By the year 2000, only an estimated 16 percent of utility coal ash and a much smaller fraction of FGD sludge will be recycled or reused (680).

Thus, the vast majority of coal wastes will continue

to require disposal.

In contrast to present practices, most future

disposal— at least 80 percent—is expected to take

place offsite because of insufficient onsite disposal

capacity (Tobin, 1982, cited in ref. 140).

Potential for Marine Disposal

No coal ash or FGD sludge is currently disposed

of in marine waters, except for research purposes.

However, with land for disposal becoming increasingly scarce, and with accelerating coal conversion

taking place in New England, the use of the ocean

for such disposal has recently received attention:

in particular, ConEdison of New York has requested permission to dump fly ash at the 106-mile

deepwater dumpsite (488). In the absence of reglatory restrictions on the ocean disposal of coal ash,

over one-fourth of the total ash generated in the

coastal regions (representing over one-tenth of the

national total) might be economically disposed of

in the ocean by 2000. Estimates for FGD sludge

are even higher: about 40 percent of all the FGD

sludge generated in coastal regions in 2000, representing over one-fourth of the national total ( 140).

Estimated costs for ocean disposal are about $5 per

metric ton, compared to about $16 per metric ton

for landfilling (1982 dollars),8

Utility coal ash has been dumped in marine

waters for many years by the United Kingdom

(131 ,401). In the United States, two research projects involving dumping of consolidated coal ash in

the New York Bight have been conducted (131),

and it is possible that coal-waste blocks could be

used to construct artificial reefs in both marine and

freshwater environments (131 ,213).

Fate, Availability, and Impact

of Waste Constituents

The principal problems associated with marine

disposal of untreated coal ash or FGD sludge include dissolved oxygen depletion, increased turbidity, sulfite toxicity to marine organisms, smothering of benthic organisms, and release of metals.

These concerns particularly limit the potential for

disposing of FGD wastes in marine waters (131).

A promising potential option to address these

problems involves the consolidation of a mixture

B’l”hiS estimate, dcril,ed b}, con~dlson, includes tug and barge leasing and monitoring costs, and assumes that at least 500,000 metric

tons per year are disposed at the Dcepwater Industrial Waste Disposal Site (140).
266 • Wastes in Marine Environments

of FGD sludge, fly ash, and lime into solid forms structural integrity over periods of years in the

(433). The resulting material exhibits significantly marine environment, and may therefore be an apdecreased release rates for sulfite and metals, and propriate material for building artificial reefs to proresulting leachates show reduced toxicity to marine vide substrates for colonization by marine organorganisms. The consolidated material maintains isms and enhance fisheries.
Appendixes

Appendix A

Acknowledgments

Contractors

Arthur D. Little, Inc .

Brookhalren National Laboratory

EG&G Washington Analytical Services Center, Inc.

Chris Elf ring, Editor

Florida Institute of Technology

Jay Grimes, University) of Maryland

Joseph 0’Connor, New York University Medical

Center

Willis Pequegnat

Resources For the Future

Science and Public Policy Program, University of

Oklahoma

Science Applications International Corp.

OTA

The unsung heroes of

● Information Center

● Publishing Office

● Service Center

Services

every OTA assessment:

Reviewers and Other Contributors

Many individuals and organizations contributed valuable information, guidance, and substantive reviews of

draft material OTA wishes to extend its gratitude to

the following for their help (and apologizes to any contributors inadvertently omitted from this list):

Talibah Adisa, Dade County Department of

Environmental Resources Management

Ken Adler, Environmental Protection Agenc

Lorenzo Alonzo, Houston Public Works

Department

Blake Anderson, County Sanitation Districts of

Orange County

Vyto Andreliunas, Corps of Engineers New

England Division

Forest Arnold, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Judith Ayres, Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX

James Bajek, Corps of Engineers New England

Division

Dru Barrineau, Corps of Engineers Mobile District

Dan Basta, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Bob Bastian, Environmental Protection Agency

Warren Baxter, Corps of Engineers Seattle District

Ed Bender, Environmental Protection Agency

D. W’. Bennett, American Littoral Society

Harvey Beverly, Corps of Engineers LOS Angeles

District

Rosina Bierbaum, Office of Technology Assessment

Allen Blume, Center for Environmental Education

Donald Boesch, Louisiana Universities Marine

Consortium

Suzanne Bolton, Battelle Columbus Laboratories

Charles Bookman, National Academy of Sciences

James Borberg, Hampton Roads Sanitation District

Robert Borchardt, Houston Public Works Division

David Brailcy, Environmental Defense Fund

William Brandt, Dade County’ Department of

Environmental Resources Management

N. H. Brooks, California Institute of Technology

David Brown, Southern California Costal Water

Research Project

Robert Burd, Environmental Protection Agency

Region X

Jack Campbell, South Dade Soil and Water

Conservration District

Judy Capuzzo, Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institut ion

Charles Carry, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles

County

Mike Champ, Science Applications International

Corp.

Frank Covington, Environmental Protection Agcncy

Region IX

Jerome Cura, Goldberg-Zoino & Associates, Inc.

Clif Curtis, The Oceanic Society

Phil Dagatano, New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation

Tudor Davies, Environmental Protection Agency

Jack Davis, Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Author-it}

Ron DeCesare, Environmental Protection Agency

Stephen C. Delaney, Environmental Protection

Agency

D.A. Dennis, Corps of Engineers Sacramento

District

Harriet Diamond, Massachusetts Coastal Zone

Management

Iver Duedall, Florida Institute of Technology

Al Dufour, Environmental Protection Agency

Robert Dyer, Environmental Protection Agency

Charles Ehler, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

269
270 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Robert Engler, Waterways Experiment Station

Dan Farrow, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Robert Fergen, Miami-Dade Water and Sewer

Authority

David Fierra, Environmental Protection Agency

Region I

Larry Fink, Environmental Protection Agency

Region V

David Fluharty, University of Washington

Rod Frederick, Environmental Protection Agency

Jim Gallup, Environmental Protection Agency

Charles Ganze, Gulf Coast Waste Disposal

Authority

William Garber, Management Consultant

Mary Jo Garreis, Maryland Department of Health

and Mental Hygiene

Jack Gentile, Environmental Protection Agency

Roger Certh, Corps of Engineers Mobile District

Leonard Gianessi, Resources For the Future

Tim Goodger , National Marine Fisheries Service

Court Greenfield, Soil Conservation Service

Henry Gregory, Houston Public Works Department

Jay Grimes, University of Maryland

Philip Gschwend, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

LeeAnn Hammer, Environmental Protection

Agency

Mary Hamrick, Science Applications International

Corp.

Rixie Hardy, Corps of Engineers New Orleans

District

Nan Harllee, Maritime Administration

Jakc Harari, Corps of Engineers San Francisco .

District

Fred Harper, Management Consultant

Irwin Haydock, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles

County

Thomas Healey, Philadelphia Water Department

Doug Hilderbrand, Seattle METRO

Charles Hollister, Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution

John Hoornbeek, Environmental Protection Agency

Mercedes Hsu, California Regional Water Quality

Control Board

Fran Irwin, Conservation Foundation

Robert Johns, Dade County Department of

Environmental Resources Management

Dennis Johnson, Agency for International

Development

Peter Johnson, Office of Technology Assessment

Galen Jones, University of New Hampshire

David Kern, Corps of Engineers Pacific Ocean

Division

Ken Kirk, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage

Agencies

Jay Kremer, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles

County

Braxton Kyzer, Corps of Enginet’rs Charleston

District

William Lahey, Palmer & Dodge

John Lampe, Seattle METRO

Ron Landy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Dick Lee, Waterways Experiment Station

Tom Leschine, University of Washington

Leonard Levine, Gulf’ Coast Waste Disposal

Author-it y

David Lim, Environmental Protection Agency

Region I

Steve Lipman, Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Quality Engineering

Carol Litchfield, E. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co.,

Inc.

John Lyon, Environmental Protection Agency

David Lyons, Environmental Protection Agency

Peter Machno, Seattle METRO

Gary Magnuson, Coastal States Organization

Donald Malins, National Marine Fisheries Service

Samual Maloof, Management Consultant

Bruce Mannheim, Environmental Defense Fund

Deborah Martin, Environmental Protection Agency

Dave Mathis, Corps of Engineers

Leon Mattioli, Allied Chemical Corp.

Gordon McFeters, Montana State University

Jeffrey McKee, Corps of Enqineers Baltimore .

District

John McKern, Corps of Engineers Walla Walla

District

Terrence McKiernan, Corps of Engineers North

Pacific Division

Alan Mearns, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Richard Medina, Corps of Engineers Galveston

District

Bob Miele, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles

County

Kathy Minsch, Environmental Protection Agency

Ralph Mitchell, Harvard University

Robert Mitchell, Resources For the Future

Joe Moran, Environmental Protection Agency

Robert Morton, Science Applications Inter-national

Corp,

Donald Mount, Environmental Protection Agency

William Murden, Corps of Engineers

Leonard Nash, Environmental Protection Agency

Region III

.Joel O’Connor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Tom O’Connor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Tom O’Farrell, Environmental Protection Agency
App, A—Acknowledgment s ● 2 7 1

Linda O’I.ear), Port Authority; of New’ l’or-k

Robert ottcscn, Corps of Enginwrs Jackson\illc

District

Henry Pcskin, Rt’s(jur[cs For tht> Future

Cart)l)n Smith Pra\lik, Terris & Sunder-land

Arrdrtw Robertson, National Oceanic and

Atmospher-i( Administrate ion

Rotx>rt Robichaud, F;ntirc)nmental Protection

,A17(IT1c?, Rt>~i[)n .X

Gilbert Rowt’, 13rookha\tn National I,aborator-y

Nlaryin Rubin, ~;n~rirorlrr~c’rltzil Protect ion .Agenc)

7’homas Sch inc., Corps of Engineers Philadelphia

I)ist rict

I,cw’is Schinazi, (California Regional W’ater Quality’

{;ontrol Board

hlt)ira Schoc’n, F;n\irc)nrnt>ntal Protc>ction Agenc)r

I)ou: SeSar, Aquatic Habitat Institute

Frank Senskc, Philadelphia t$’attr Department

Peter Sht’llry’, Conservation I.aw’ Foundation

I)iane Sheridan, Ixague of’ \\’omen I’otcrs of g’exas

Keith Sil\a, [;rl~rir{)nrrlcrltal Protect ion .Agen[).

Region IX

Jerome Simpson, Corps of Engineers Portland

I)istrict

Carl Sindcrmanrr, Uni\ersit? of” Miami

Kir\il Skinnarland, Pu~t>t Sound W’ater Qualit)

AU t hori t )’

-John Sptncrr, Seattle hlE1’R()

E;lisa Spt’ranza, hlassachusetts J1’ater Resources

Aut h[)ri t }

Frank Sttirnlr, i~a( ional OCC an i( and Atmospheric

.4d m i n i st rat ion

~$’illiarn Sttllc, Jr., House C;ommittec on ~lc>rthant

Rlarine and Fisheries

Harol(i Ste\enson, Mch’t>est> State Uni\’crsit}

Frank Swevne?r. Scit’nce ,4pplications International

(;(jrp.

I;t’rn Summer, J$’atcr & ~$’astt>water F,quipment

hlanuf}ict u rers Association

Dennis Suszkowski, ~;n~’ironmt’ntal Protection

Agtrl(Yr Region 11

tl’a)rn( S’)lf{>st(r, Sanitation I)istricts of Orange

(Jount )

John ‘1’a\olar(J, Corps of Engineers Ncw lror-k

Dist ri( t

N’anc} ‘1’a}’ior, Sierra Ciub Clean Coastal J$’atcrs

Task Forte

.J{,c ~’eller, Gulf’ Coast ~$’aste Disposal Authority

~’homas ‘1’hor-nton, fi;n~ironmentai Protection

,+g~,n( \ R(qion I

Peter Trick, Science Applicati[)ns Intt>rnat iona]

Corp.

Glenn I_’nterburger, l+ln~ironmenta] Protection”

Agency

Ron \’arm, Corps of EnSinecrs Nor-fi)lk I)istri(t

John Waesche, Jardine Insuranct Brokrrs, Inc.

Eric Washburn, Science .Applications Intt>rnationa]

Corp.

Thomas tl’alton, Phila(ielphia \$’atrr Ilepartn](’nt

Al W’astier-, En\rironmental Prottxt ion Agt’n[)’

Ginger ~$’tbstrr, Eln\il-[)llrll(>rltal Prote(tiorl A~en[ )

Judith \$’cis, Rutgers uni~er-sit)

Bill Westerme)er-, Office of Technolo~) Assrssmcnt

Lee \$’hite, \$Thite, Fine, & ~’er~illc

Gene ~$’hitt>hurst, Corps of” Enginet>rs N’orft)lk

District

Richard W’hitscl, Califi)rnia Re~ionai 1$’ater Qualit)’

Control Board

,Joe 1$’ilson, Corps of Enqinecr-s

Douglas J$’olfk’, Nat ional oc(’an ic a n(i At mospht.ric

Administration

Thomas }’ourk, (~or-ps of F;ngincers Sa\annah

District

Chris Zarba. En\rironnlental Protection Agvnc).

Participants in Dredged Material

Workshop, July 23, 1985

The following in(ii~i[iuals part icipate(i in a ~iorkshop

held b) OTA on the disposal of’ (ire(ig(>{i material:

Bill Conner, National oceanic an(i ,4tmt)spheric

Administration

Robert Engler, i$’aterwa)’s I+lxperirnent Station

Dan Farrow, N’ational Oceanic and .Atmospheric

Administration

Tim Goodger, National Marine Fisheries St>r\icr

Frank Hamons, Mar)’land Port Acirnin istrat ic)n

Da\rid Hankla, Fish and \4’ildlife Ser\i( c’

George Hanson, Fish an(i P$’ildlife Ser\ice

Jim Houston, W’aterwa?s Experiment Station

Kerr Kamlet, ,4. T. Kear-ne)t Inc. (f’t)rrncrl)r ~yith

National P$rilcilife Federation)

Bob Morton, Science .4pplicati(Jns Intern:itiorral

Corp.

“I”orn O’Connor, National oceanic an(i Atmospheric

Adm inistrat ion

1$’illis Pequegnat, Consultant

Ronaid Vann, Waterwa}s F;xperirnent Station

Al W’astler, En\.ironmental Protection .Agenc)r
Appendix B

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AO —Administrative Order

BAT —Best Available Technology (Economically Achievable)

BCT —Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology

BMR —Baseline Monitoring Report

BOD —Biochemical Oxygen Demand

BPJ —Best Professional Judgment

BPT —Best Practicable Control Technology (Currently Available)

CBP —Chesapeake Bay Program

C EQ —Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA —Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR —Code of Federal Regulations

COE —U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CSI —Compliance Sampling Inspection

CSO —Combined Sewer Overflow

CWA —Clean Water Act

CZMA —Coastal Zone Management Act

DAF —Dissolved Air Flotation

DDT —Dichlorodiphenyl Trichloroethane

DMR —Discharge Monitoring Report

DOJ —Department of Justice

EDF —Environmental Defense Fund

EIL —Environmental Impairment Liability

EIS —Environmental Impact Statement

EMS —Enforcement Management System

EP —Extraction Procedure

EPA —U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FDA —Food and Drug Administration

FDF —Fundamentally Different Factor

FGD —Flue Gas Desulfurization

FR —Federal Register

FWS —Fish and Wildlife Service

GAO —General Accounting Office

GCWDA —Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority

LDC —London Dumping Convention

LLW —Low-level Radioactive Waste

MDSD —Monitoring and Data Support Division

MPRSA —Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

NACOA —National Advisory Committee on Oceans

and Atmosphere

NEA —Nuclear Energy Agency

NEMP —Northeast Monitoring Program

NEP —National Estuary Program

NEPA —National Environmental Policy Act

NIMBY —Not In My Backyard

NMFS —National Marine Fisheries Service

NMPP —National Marine Pollution Program

NOAA —National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES —National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System

NRDC —Natural Resource Defense Council

NSPS —New Source Performance Standards

OAD —Ocean Assessments Division

OCPSF —Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic

Fibers

OMEP —Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection

PAH —Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon

PCB —Polychlorinated Biphenyl

PCS —Permit Compliance System

PFRP —Process to Further Reduce Pathogens

PIRT —Pretreatment Implementation Review Task

Force

POTW —Publicly Owned Treatment Work

PSES —Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources

PSNS —Pretreatment Standards for New Sources

PSRP —Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens

PSWQA —Puget Sound Water Quality Authority

QNCR –Quarterly Noncompliance Report

RCRA —Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RFF —Resources For the Future

SAB —Science Advisory Board

SASSR —Semi-Annual Statistical Summary Report

SAV —Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

SCCWRP—Southern California Coastal Water ReSNC

SPMS

TBT

TCDD

TCDF

TCLP

TSCA

TSS

U.S.C.

USGS

VRAC

search Project

—Significant Noncompliance

—Strategic Planning and Management System

—Tributyltin

—Tetrachlorodioxin

—Tetrachlorodibenzofuran

—Toxic Characteristic Leachate Procedure

—Toxic Substances Control Act

—Total Suspended Solids

—United States Code

—U.S. Geological Survey

—Violation Review Action Criteria

272
References
References

1.

~,

3.

4

.5,

6.

7.

8.

9,

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

i4dan]kus, \’., ‘‘ Restoring the> Cre~it I,akcs, E’PA

Jourmd 1 1(2):2-4, Nlarch 1985.

Alabama 11’part ment of En\ir{)nmental hfanagenl(’nt, JI ‘a ter Qualit t’ Report [C) Con,yress !br Calendar } “t’ar 1.984 &’ 1 {XI.5 (Mont ~omer}, ,41,: April

1 986).

Almeida, E.(; ., ‘ ‘Coastal Systems Proqam of the

Brazilian 1st Sectional Plan fbr Marine Resources,

in Procwdin<ys of the Inter-national Sj’mposium on

L-’ti]izatic)n c)i’CoaLTtal l+lc(j.s,t’sttn]s: ilanning, Pollutic}n an(i Pr(xiur[i\it}, to]. 1, N. I., Chao and W.

Kirb?-Smith (eds. ) (Beaufhr-t, NC: Duke LTni\ersit >’ Alarint> 1.abc)rator?’, 1985), pp. 17-26.

,4ndt’rson, IJ. NI., ‘ ‘Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning,

in Il”atural 7?).~ins and Human Pathogens in the

Afarine En\ironmen(, R. R, Co]well (ecf. ), UMS(;-”1’S-8.5-01 (Colle3e Park, hlD: Mar}land Sca

(;rant (:oll(’gt’, 1 98.5).

Anderson, 1>. L$’., rt al., ‘‘ Brown Pelicans: Inlpro~{’d Reproduction Of’f’ the Southern California

Coast , ‘ ‘ Science 190: 806-808, No\’. 21, 197.5.

Andt>rson, P,\$’., and Dcw’ling, R.7’., ‘ ‘Industrial

ocean I>umping in EIPA Region 11—Regulatory’

Aspect s,‘‘ in OceaIJ Dumpin<q~ of Industrial \\’astes,

B. H. Krtchum, et al. (eds. ) ( New York: Plenum

Pressl 1981), pp. 25-38.

,4nderson, “I’., b ‘State of’ the Sound, Imn<q Isfarrd

.%)und Rep~)rf 3(2):1 ,8-9, fall 1986.

.4ssociated Press, b

‘ Ra?ronier t$’ors( Polluter .4mong

Paper h’1 ills, .4.s.sociated Press, Fernandina Beach,

I“I., B,]t/460, ‘4u~. 28, 1986.

i4sso(iated Prt>ss, ‘‘ Shellfish, ,4.s,sc~[iated Press,

Ceor3ia, B,]t/340, oct. 27, 1986.

Associated Press, ‘‘NJ Brief, .4.ssociattd Press,

.4\alon, NJ, IX>C. 30, 1986.

,4yrts, R. L’,, and Rod, S. R., ‘ ‘Patterns of Pollut ion in the H uds{)n-Raritan Basin, En ~’ironmen t

28(4): 14-43, N!a)’ 1986.

13akalian, A., ‘‘ Regulation and Control of LTni[ed

States (lean Durnpinq: A Decade of Progress, An

Appraisal fi)r the Future. Har\ard En}’ironnrenta]

[.awr Re\iew 8(1): 193-256, 1984.

Barile, D. (cd.), Proceedings of the Indian Ri}erRrsource.s S~mlposium, The Indian Ri\rer I.agoon,

Sea Grant Project No. IR 84-28 (Melbourne, FI,:

Marine Resources (_;ouncil of East Central Florida,

1985).

Barnard, \$’. D., Prediction and Control of Dredged

AIattrial Ilisper.sion Around Dredging and Open -

\%’ater Pipeline Disposal Operations, Technical

Report DS-78- 13 (Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Arm)’

Engineer W’atcrways Experiment Station, 1978).

15.

16.

17.

18,

19

20.

21

22

23

24.

25.

26.

Barnard, W’, D., and Hand, T, D., 7’reatn]ent t)l’

Contaminated Dredgrd Nfaterial, ‘1’e(hnica] R(’-

port DS-78- 14 (\’icksburg, MS: L’. S, Arrnyr F;nyineer Waterwa?’s Experiment Stat i(~n, 1 978).

Baross, .J. A., Hanus, F.iJ., and hlorital R, }’.,

‘ b Su r~’ i~’ al o f Human En te ric and () t he r Sc’wage

Microorganisms Under Simulated Deep-Sea Condit ions, Applied hfi(’t-ol~i(~]c),~~>” ~~(~:~~~~-~~ 18, 1975.

Bascorn, W’. (cd.), 771e Eflbcr.s of JI’a.sfe Disposal

on hreip ~omIn unities ( 1.a <Jolla, C,.4: LTn i~’crs it}’

of California Inst itutc> of’ hlarine Resources, 1983).

Bascom, W, (eel.), Coastal i%’atc>r Research Project

Biennial Report, 1$?8.’7-1984 (1.ong Beach, CA:

Southern California Coastal t$’ater- Rcsear[’h Project, 1984).

Bascorn, J\’. (cd.), ‘‘ Director’s Statement, in

Southern Caliii]rnia Coastal i%’ater Research Pr(?ject Biennel Rcpor[, 198.7-1994 (1.ong Beach, CA:

%uthern California Coastal Water Research Projec”t , 1 984), pp. 1-3.

Bascom, k}’. (cd.), L ‘The Concept of Assimilat i~’c

Capacit ?, in Sou tht>rn Califi]rnia Coastal ~1’ater

Research Project Biennial Repot-t, Ifll?.?- 1?]84

(1.orrg Beach, C.4: Southern California Coastal

Watt,r Resear(h Project, 1984), pp. 171-177.

Battclle Human Affairs Research Center, Institutional Options tbr Inlpro\”ed L’1’arer Qualit> Alanaqen]ent: Po]ic} Direction, prepared fbr U.S. En-

.

tironment al Protection .4genc)’ Region .X, EPA

90 1/9-83- 116a (Seattle. \$’A: hfa~r 16, 1986),

Bean, M., ‘‘ United States and Intt’rnat ional .4uthorities Applicable to Entanglement of’ Nf arine

Mammals and Other Organisms in Lost or Discarded Fishing Gear and Other Debris, A Report

to the Mammal Comrn ission (Springfield, 1’.4:

National Technical Information Ser\ice, OCt. 30,

1984).

Beccasio, .4. D , Fothcringham, N., Redfield,

A. E., et al., Gulf Coast Ecological In\c’ntor~’,

L’ser’s Guide and Inlhrma[ion Bas(’, FM’ S/OBS82/55 (Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and W’ildlife

Ser\ice, 1982).

Beccasio, A.Il., Isakson, J.S, , Redfield, A. E., et

al. , Pacific Coast Ecological In ~’en for}, Crser ‘.s

Guidt’ and lnfi~rrnation Base, F\k’S/OBS-8 1/30

(Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and \$’ildlife Ser\-

ice, 198 1).

13eccasio, A. D.. i%’eissberg, G. H., et al., .4t}arrtic

Coast filcological In\rentorjr, User’s Guide and Inlbrmation Base. F\$’S/OBS-80/51 (Washington.

DC: U.S. Fish anct F$’ildlife Ser\ice, 1980).

Beier-, K., and ,Jcrelo\’, A,, ‘‘hleth?’lation of hlt>r275
276 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

27.

28.

29

30

31

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38

cury in Aquatic Environments, in The Biochemistry of Mercury in the Environment, J. Nriaqu

(cd. ) (New York: Elsevier, 1979), pp. 203-210.

Bell, F. W., and Leeworthy, V. R., An Economic

Analysis of the Importance of Saltwater Beaches

in Florida, FLSGP-T-86-003 (Gainesville, FL:

University of Florida Sea Grant Program, 1986).

Belton, T., Hazan, R., Ruppel, B., et al., A Study

of Dioxin (2,3, 7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin)

Contamination in Select Fin fish, Crustaceans, and

Sediments of New Jersey Waterways (Trenton,

NJ: New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, 1985).

Belton, T., Roundy, R., and Weinstein, N., “Urban Fishermen: Managing the Risks of Toxic Exposure, ” Environment 28(9): 19-20,30-37, November 1986.

Belton, T., Ruppel, B., and Lockwood, K., Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Aroclor 1254) in Fish Tissue Throughout the State of New Jersey: A Cornprehensive Survey (Trenton, NJ: New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection, 1983).

Belton, T., Ruppel, B., Lockwood, K., et al., A

Study of Toxic Hazards to Urban Recreational

Fishermen and Crabbers, Technical Report 51

(Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1985).

Bick, T., and Kamlet, K., ‘ ‘The Ocean Dumping Debate—Continued, Environmental Law

Reporter 13: 10034-10035, February 1983.

Biddinger, G. R., and Gloss, S. P., “The Importance of Trophic Transfer in the Bioaccumulation

of Chemical Contaminants in Aquatic Ecosystems, Residue Reviews 91: 103-145, 1984.

Biocycle, “Land Application Gains Wider Acceptance , Biocycle 26(8):25-27, November/December 1985.

Blake, P. A., et al., ‘ ‘Cholera—A Possible Endemic Focus in the United States, The New England Journal of Medicine 302:305-309, Feb. 7,

1980.

Boehnke, C. A., et al., ‘ ‘Diseased Fish From the

St. Johns River, Preliminary Report’ (’Jacksonville, FL: Jacksonville University Charter Marine

Science Center, 1986).

Bokuniewicz, H.J., ‘ ‘Submarine Borrow Pits as

Containment Sites for Dredged Sediment, ’ in

Wastes in the Ocean, vol. 2, D.R. Kester, et al.

(eds. ) (New York: John Wiley& Sons, 1983), pp.

215-227.

Bonzek, CF., Myers, W. L., Parolari, B. W., and

Patil, G. P., “Sources of Bias in Harvest Surveys

for Marine Fisheries, ‘‘ in Oceans ’86 Conference

Record, vol. 3, 86CH2363-O (Washington, DC:

39.

40

41

42.

43

44

45.

46,

47

48

49

Marine Technology Society and IEEE Ocean Engineering Society, Sept. 23-25, 1986), pp. 908-913.

Boughton, J. D., Investigation of Subaqueous Borrow Pits as Potential Sites for Dredged Material

Disposal, Technical Report D-77-5 (Vicksburg,

MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment

Station, 1977).

Bouwer, E.J., and McCarty, P. L., “Transformations of 1-Carbon and 2-Carbon Halogenated

Aliphatic Organic Compounds Under Methanogenic Conditions, Applied and Environmental

Microbiology 45(4): 1286-1294, 1983.

Bouwer, E.J., and McCarty, P. L., “Transformations of Halogenated Organic Compounds Under

Denitrification Conditions, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 45(4): 1295-1299, 1983.

Bowden, W. B., “Nutrients in Albemarle Sound”

(Raleigh, NC: University of North Carolina Sea

Grant, 1977).

Bower, B., Barre, R., Kuhner, J., and Russell,

c . , ‘ ‘Incentives in Water Quality Management:

France and the Ruhr Area, Research Paper R24 (Washington, DC: Resources For the Future,

1981).

Boyd, M. B., Saucier, R. T., Keeley, J. W., et al.,

Disposal of Dredged Spoil: Problem Identification

and Assessment and Research Program Development, Technical Report H-72-8 (Vicksburg, MS:

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1972).

Boyer, B., and Meidinger, E., “privatizing Regulatory Enforcement: A Preliminary Assessment

of Citizen Suits Under Federal Environmental

Laws, in Administrative Conference of the United

States Recommendations and Reports (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986).

Brannon, J. M., Evaluation of Dredged Material

Pollution Potential, Technical Report DS-78-6

(Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways

Experiment Station, 1978).

Brannon, J. M., Hoeppel, R. E., Sturgis, T. C., et

al., Effectiveness of Capping in Isolating Contaminated Dredged Material From Biota and the Overlying Water, Technical Report D-85-1O (Vicksburg,

MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment

Station, 1985).

Brookhaven National Laboratory, Technologies

For and Impacts of Low-Level Radioactive Waste

in the Deep Sea, contract prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (Upton,

NY: 1986).

Brooks, N. H., ‘ ‘Evaluation of Key Issues and

Alternative Strategies, ‘‘ in Ocean Disposal of Municipal Wastewater.. Impacts on the Coastal Envi-
References ● 277

50.

51.

52.

53

54

55

56

ronment, E. P. Myers (cd. ) (Cambridge, MA:

MIT Sea Grant College Program, 1983), pp.

707-759.

Brooks, N. H., Arnold, R. G., Koh, R. C. Y., et al.,

Deep Ocean Disposal of Sewage Sludge Off Orange

County, California: A Research Plan, Environmental Quality Laboratory Report No. 21 (Pasadena,

CA: California Institute of Technology, November 1982).

Brooks, N. H., and Krier, J. E., “Alternative Strategies for Ocean Disposal of Municipal Wastewater

and Sludge, background paper for Symposium

on Engineering Aspects of Using the Assimilate\’e

Capacity of the Oceans, Lewes, DE, June 23-24,

1981.

Brown, D. A., ‘ ‘Testimony on Contaminant Studies

in Southern California Coastal Waters, As Presented to the SCCWRP Scientific Review Panel

on May 28, 1985’ (Long Beach, CA: May 28,

1985).

Brown, D. A., ‘ ‘Overview of the Status of California’s Oceans and Bays, paper presented at the

Ocean Pollution Conference, Santa Barbara, CA,

Laurel Springs Canyon Ranch, Sept. 12-13, 1986.

Brown, D. A., Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, House Commit tee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. Congress,

“Hearings on Health Implications of Toxic Chemical Contamination of the Santa Monica Bay,

99th Cong., 2d sess., Serial No. 99-74 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986),

pp. 117-133.

Brown, D. A., Jenkins, K. D., et al., ‘ ‘Detoxification of Metals and Organic Compounds in White

Croakers, in Coastal Water Research Project

Biennial Report for the Years 1981-1982, W. Bascom (ed. ) (Long Beach, CA: Southern California

Coastal Water Research Project, 1982), pp. 157-172.

Brown, G. M., Jr., and Johnson, R., “Pollution

Control by Effluent Charges: It Works in the Federal Republic, Why Not in the U.S.?’ Natural Resources Journal 24:929-966, October 1984.

57. Brown, M., Werner, M., Sloan, R., et al., “Recent Trends in the Distribution of Polychlorinated

Biphenyls in the Hudson River System, Environmental Science and Technology 19:656-661, 1985.

58. Brungs, W. A., and Mount, D. I., “Introduction

to a Discussion of the Use of Aquatic Toxicity

Tests for Evaluation of the Effects of Toxic Substances, ‘‘ in Estimating the Hazard of Chemical

Substances to Aquatic Life, Special Technical Publication 657, J. Cairns, Jr., et al. (eds. ) (Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1978), pp. 15-26.

59. Bryan, E. H., “Innovative Management of Residuals-Research Needs, ‘‘ in Public Waste Management and the Ocean Choice, MITSG 85-36, K.D.

Stolzenbach, et al. (eds. ) (Cambridge, MA: MIT

Sea Grant College Program, April 1986), pp.

85-93.

60. Burge, W. D., and Marsh, P. B., ‘‘Infectious Disease Hazards of Landspreading Sewage Wastes,

Journal of Environmental Quality 7(l): 1-9, 1978.

61. Burke, R. A., and McDonald, G. T., “Long-Term

Planning for Dredged Material Disposal, in

Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal, Conference Proceedings (New York: American Society

of Civil Engineers, November 1984), pp. 999-1005.

62. Burks, S. A., and Engler, R. M., Water Quality

Impacts of Aquatic Dredged Material Disposal

(Laboratory Investigations), Technical Report DS78-4 (Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1978).

63. Cabelli, V.J., Dufour, A. P., et al., ‘ ‘SwimmingAssociated Gastroenteritis and Water Quality,

American Journal of Epidemiolog~ 115:606-616,

1982.

64. Cairns, J., Jr., ‘ ‘The Myth of the Most Sensitive

Species, Bioscience 36( 10):670-672, November

1986.

65. Calambokidis, J. A., et al., Biology of Puget Sound

Marine Mammals and Alarine Birds: Population

Health and Evidence of Pollution Effects, Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 18 (Seattle, WA:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1985).

66. California Regional Water Quality Control Board,

San Francisco Bay Region, Aquatic Habitat Program, information sheet (Oakland, CA: undated).

67. California Regional Water Quality Control Board,

San Francisco Bay Region, ‘ ‘Second Draft Basin

Review Document, File No. 1537.00 (SRR) (Oakland, CA: Aug. 29, 1986).

68. California State Water Resources Control Board,

Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of

California (Sacramento, CA: November 1983).

69. California State Water Resources Control Board,

Water Quality Inventory for Years 1982 & 1983,

Water Quality Monitoring Report No. 84-3TS

(Sacramento, CA: 1984).

70. California State Water Resources Control Board,

‘ ‘Plan for Assessing the Effects of Pollutants in the

San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary, Aquatic Habitat Program Pub. No. 82-7SP (Sacramento, CA:

1982, reprinted October 1984).

71. California State Water Resources Control Board,

California State Mussel Watch 1983-84, Water

Quality Monitoring Report No. 85-2 WQ(Sacramento, CA: 1985).

72. Callahan, M., et al., Water-Related Fate of 129
278 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

73.

74.

75.

76,

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83

84.

85.

Priority Pollutants, vol. 2, EPA 44014-79-029B

(Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1979).

Camp, Dresser, & McKee, A Comparison of

Studies of Toxic Substances in POTW Effluents,

report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Water Regulations and Standards (Annandale, VA: 1984).

Capuzzo, J. M. , ‘‘ Predicting Pollution Effects in

the Marine Environment, Oceanus 24( 1):25-33,

1981.

Capuzzo, J. M., Burt, W. V., et al., “Future Strategies for Nearshore Waste Disposal, in Wastes

in the Ocean, vol. 6, B. H. Ketchurn, et al. (eds. )

(New York: John Wiley& Sons, 1985), pp. 491-512.

Capuzzo, J. M., Barrington, J. W,, et al., ‘‘Bioaccumulation and Biological Effects of PCBs on Marine Bivalve Molluscs in New Bedford Harbor,

Massachusetts, paper presented at Sixth International Ocean Disposal Symposium, Pacific Grove,

CA, Apr. 21-25, 1986.

GE Maguire, Inc., Boston Harbor Water Qualit

Baseline for the SDEIS on Boston Harbor Wastewater Facilities Siting (Providence, RI: December

1984).

Centers for Disease Control, “Follow-up on Vibrio

Cholerae Infection—Louisiana, Morbidity &

Mortality Weekly Report 27:365-367, 1978.

Centers for Disease Control, “Water-Related Disease Outbreaks in the United States— 1980, Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 30:623-634,

1982.

Centers for Disease Control, ‘‘Enteric Illness Associated with Raw Clam Consumption- New York,

Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 31 :449-45 1,

1982.

Centers for Disease Control, ‘‘Toxigenic Vibrio

cholerae O1 Infections- I.ouisiana and Florida,

Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 35:606-607,

1986.

Centers for Disease Control, ‘‘Cholerae in Louisiana

—Update , Morbidity & Mortality Weekly. Report 35:687-688, 1986.

Champ, M. A., Operation SAMS: Sludge Acid

Monitoring Survey, CERES Program Publication

No. 1 (Washington, DC: American University

Center for Earth Resources and Environmental

Studies, 1973).

Champ, M. A., ‘ ‘Monitoring—Painting a Moving

Train , Sea Technology 27(9):73, 1986.

Champ, M. A., Norton, M. G., and Devine, M. F.,

‘‘A Semi-Quantitative Model for the Assessment

of Dispersion at Near-Shore Ocean Dumpsites,

paper presented at Contaminant Fluxes Through

86.

87

88.

89.

90

91

92.

93.

94

95.

96.

97.

the Coastal Zone Conference, Nantes, France,

May 1984.

Champ, M. A., O’Connor, T. P., and Park, P. K.,

“Ocean Dumping of Seafood Wastes in the United

States, ” Marine Pollution Bulletin 12(7):241-244,

1981.

Champ, M. A., and Park, P. K., “Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge: A Global Review, Sea

Technology 22(2): 18-24, 1981.

Champney, L., ‘‘A Case Study in the Implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Amendments, Water Resources Bulletin 15(6):

1602-1607, 1979.

Chapman, P. M., et al. , Survey of Biological Effects of Toxicants Upon Puget Sound Biota, I:

Broad-Scale Toxicity Survey, NOAA Technical

Memorandum OMPA-25 (Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

December 1982).

Chapman, P. M., et al., A Field Trial of the Sediment Quality Triad in San Francisco Bay, NOAA

Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 25 (Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, 1986).

Chapman, W., Fisher, H., and Pratt, M., Concentration Factors of Chemical Elements in Edible Aquatic Vertebrates, UCRL 50564 (Berkeley,

CA: Lawrence Livermore Labs, 1968).

Chartrand, A. B., et al., Ocean Dumping Under

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control

Board Permit: A Review of Past Practices, Potential Adverse Impacts, and Recommendations for

Future Action (Los Angeles, CA: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, March 1985).

Chave, K. E., and Miller, J. N., “Pearl Harbor

Dredged-Material Disposal, in Wastes in the

Ocean, vol. 2, D.R. Kester, et al. (eds. ) (New

York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983), pp. 91-98.

Chemical Manufacturers Association, ‘ ‘Comments

of the Chemical Manufacturers Association on

EPA’s July and October 1985 Notices of Availability and Request for Comments on the Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Organic Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers

Category, Volume II” (Washington, DC: Dec. 23,

1985).

Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, Chesapeake

Bay Restoration and Protection Plan (Washington, DC: September 1985).

Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, First Annual

Progress Report Under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement (Washington, DC: December 1985).

Citizens for a Better Environment, Toxics Control at the Source: Industrial Pretreatment of
References “ 279

Mr.aste Water Prior to Disposal to Municipal Sewer

.~~’.~tem.s (San Francisco, CA: May 1984).

~]~, c it i ~(>ns for a Better En\’ ironmcnt, 7“o.~ics Do!*’11

the Drain: .4 Re\’iew’ of Industrial Compliance

\4’ith Fc[irral Pretrcatmen[ Standarc!s in Califi]rnia (San Francisco, CA: No\ember 1985).

99 (;]ark, <J. , coas[a~ blcos}stems. Ecoh)gical CO1 l

-

. .

.sidt’ra tic)ns lhr hf~anagcmen t of the Coa.qtal Zone

(Washington, 1)(;: The C(jnsemation Founc{atiorr,

1 974).

100. Clark, J. R, , ~;~)astal Ecos}rstem Nfanagt>mcnt, .4

l’cchnical Afanual f?~r the Conscr~ration of Coastal

Z[)nc Res[)urcr.s (N’cw York: John Wiley & Sons,

1977).

101. Cle\rengc>r, l’, E. , et al., ‘ ‘Chemical Composition

and Possible Mutagenicity of Municipal Sludges,

Water- Pollution Control F<’dcrati[jr]J[~[lrniii 5.5( 12):

1470-1475, 1983.

102. (;oastal Zone Nfanagement, ‘ ‘Ocean Science News,

Coas(al Zone Lfanagement, June 7, 1984, p. 5.

103. Coch, (; .A. , and Mansk), J. M. , “Feasibility of

LTsr of Dredged hlateria] as Sanitar) I.andfill Co\er

in the N’ew York/New Jersc)’ Harbor Area, in

Dredging and Dre<iged Afaterial Dispos~il (Confi>rrnce Proceedings) (New }rork: American Societ~r of C i~.il Engineers, No\rember 1984), pp.

830-838.

104. Coleman, F. C., and Wehlc, D, H. S., ‘ ‘Plastic Pollution: A Worldwide oceanic Problem, Parks

!)( 1 ):~. 1 z, April/May/June 1984.

1 ().5. Colwell, R. R, , ‘‘ Piiote;hnolocgy in tht’ Marine Sciences, ‘‘ in Bi(~t~’(ht](~l[j<q}’ in the Afarinc Sciencrs,

Pr(xt,c,ciings c~f’ the First .4nnual M17’ Sea Grant

I,ecturt and Scminar, R.R. Colwell, et al. (eds. )

(NCW York: John Wiley& Sons, 1984), pp. 3-36.

106. ColWrll R.R. , et al., ‘‘~’iah]e, But Non-culturable

L’ibri[) cholerae and Related Pathogens in the En-

~’ironment: Implications for Release of Gcnet ically

fi;n~inc’cred M icroorganisrns, lliott,chnolo~y}’ 3:

817-823, 1985.

107. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and

Resources, Our Nation and the Sea-A Plan ibr

A’ationa] Action (Washington, DC: 1970).

108. Connecticut Department of En\’ironmental Protection, Water Compliance Unit, State of Connecticut 1984 14rater Qualit~’ Report to Concgress (Hartford, C“l’: 1984).

109. Connor, M. S., ‘ ‘Comparison of the Carcinogenic

Risks From Fish vs. Groundwatcr Contamination

IIJ’ Organic Compouncis, ‘ ~;nlrircjnrncl]]t~ Sci{’n{tJ

&T Tcchnok),q}r 18:628-631, 1984.

11 (). Const’rvat ion Foundation, ‘ ‘Controlling CrossMe(ii:i Pollutants, Issue Report (Washington,

DC: 1984).

111. Conservation Foundation, ‘‘ New Perspecti\res on

Pollution Control, Cross-Media Problems, Issue

Report (Washington, DC: 1985).

112. Conservation Foundation, ‘‘ National Con fk>rencc

on Risk Communication” (Washington, DC: Jan.

29-31, 1986).

113. Coolbaugh, J.C. , et al., ‘ ‘Bacterial Contamination of Di\’ers During Training Exercises in C,oastal

b’aters, Marine Tt’chnolog? Socict}’ ,Journal

15(2): 1.5-21, 1981.

114. Cormick. (;. \$’, , ‘ ‘Siting New Hazardous M’astc

Management Faci] ities Using Mecliated Negot iat ions, paper prt’scnted at Conference on Meeting the New RC RA Requirements on Hazardous

Waste, Alexandria, VA, Oct. 8, 1985.

115. Council on Environmental Qualit}, Ocean Dumpin<q.. A National Polic]’ (L$’ash in~ton, IX;: U. S,

Government Printing Office, 1970).

116. County Sanitation Districts of orange Count?’,

‘ ‘Statement for the Hearing Record of the Senate>

Environment and Public k$’orks Committee, Subconl m i t t et> on En\’ i ronment a] Pol]ut ion, ReSard -

ing Reauthorization of the Clean P$’ater Act,

Mar. 27, 1985.

117, Cousteau, J. , ‘ ‘Statement of’(~aptain .Ja(ques-}’\~’s

Cousteau, Chairman, l’he Cousteau Socit’ty and

the Foundation Cousteau. Hearings Before the

Subcommittee on occanograph~ and the Subcomm ittec on Fisheries and Wild] ife Conser\’at ion and

the En\’ironment of the Committee on Merchant

Marine and Fisheries, House of Rcprcscntat i~ts,

97th Cons., Mar. 23, 1982, St>rial No. 97-40

(Washington, DC: U.S Government Printin~ Office, 1982).

118. Crites, R. W., ‘‘ Land USC of’ V$’astewater and

Sludge, En~’ironmcntal Scicncc &T 7’t’chnolo<q?

18(5): 140A-147A, 1984.

119. C;ross, J. N., ‘‘ Fin Erosion Among Fishes Collected

Near a Southern California Nlunicipal \+’astcwater Outfall ( 1971- 1982), Fishrr}’ Bullt>tin 83(2):

195-206, 198.5.

120. Csanady, G. T., ‘‘ Long-Term Mixin~ Processes

in Slopewater, in Wastes in the Ocran, ~ol. 1,

I.W. Duedall, et al. (eds. ) (NCW }’ork: John }$’ilt’}

& Sons, 1983), pp. 103-116.

121. Curt is, C., Testimony Before the Subcomm ittec

on Oceanography and the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the En\ iron -

ment, House Committee on Merchant Marine and

Fisheries, ‘‘ Hearings on Ocean Dumping, 96th

Cong-., Committee Serial No. 96-40 (Washington,

DC: U .S Go\crnment Printing Office, 1980).

122. Dalpra, C., ‘‘ Secondary Treatment Wai\ers Issued, Controt’ers]’ Cent inues, tl’a ter Pollu (ion
280 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Control Federation Journal 53(1 1): 1554-1557,

1981.

123. Davis, C., ‘‘Availability of Environmental Impairment Liability Insurance, paper presented to the

Annual Meeting of the American Political Science

Association, Washington, DC, Aug. 28-31, 1986.

124. Davis, W. R., ‘ ‘Sediment-Copper Reservoir Formation by the Burrowing Polychaete Nephtys Incisa , in Wastes in the Ocean, vol. 2, D. R. Kester,

et al. (eds. ) (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983),

pp. 173-184.

125. Dayal, R., Heaton, M. G., Fuhrmann, M., et al.,

A Geochemical and Sedimentological Study of the

Dredged Material Deposit in the New York Bight,

NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-3 (Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, February 1981).

126. DeLong, R. L., Gilmartin, W. G., and Simpson,

J. G., ‘ ‘Premature Births in California Sea-Lions:

Association With High Organochlorine Pollutants

Residue Levels, ” Science 181: 1168-70, 1973.

127. Dillon, T. M., Biological Consequences of Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Animals: An Assessment

of the Current Literature, Technical Report D-84-

2 (Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, June 1984).

128. D’Itri, P,, and D’Itri, F,, Mercury Contamination: A Human Tragedy (New York: John Wiley

& Sons, 1977).

129. Doull, J., Klaassen, C., and Amdur, M., Toxicology-The Basic Science of Poisons (New York:

MacMillan, 1980).

130. Downing, D., and Sessions, S., “Innovative Water

Quality-Based Permitting: A Policy Perspective, ”

Water Pollution Control FederationJournal 57(5):

358-365, May, 1985.

131. Duedall, I. W., Kester, D. R., et al. (eds. ), “Energy

Wastes in the Marine Environment: An Overview, ”

in Wastes in the Ocean, vol. 4 (New York: John

Wiley & Sons, 1985), pp. 3-44.

132. Duedall, I. W., Ketchum, B. H., et al. (eds. ),

“Global Inputs, Characteristics, and Fates of

Ocean-Dumped Industrial and Sewage Wastes:

An Overview, ’ in Wastes in the Ocean, vol. 1

(New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983), pp. 3-45.

133. Duedall, I. W., Ketchum, B. H., et al. (eds. ), “Scientific Strategy for Industrial and Sewage Waste

Disposal in the Ocean, in Wastes in the Ocean,

vol. 1 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983), pp.

399-413.

134. Dybdahl, D.J., “Availability of Environmental

Impairment Liability Insurance, ” paper presented

to Federation of Environmental Technologies

Seminar on Environmental Liability, Pewaukee,

WI, Jan. 16, 1986.

135. Dykstra, M.J., et al., “Characterization of the

Aphanomyces Species Involved With Ulcerative

Mycosis (UM) in Menhaden, ’ Mycologia 78(4):

664-672, 1986.

136. Edgar, C. E., and Engler, R. M., “The London

Dumping Convention and Its Role in Regulating

Dredged Material: An Update, ” in Dredging and

Dredged Material Disposal (Conference Proceedings) (New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, November 1984), pp. 140-149.

137. Edwards, M. L., “Mobile Bay’s Miracle Is Not

Without a Price, National Fisherman: 12-15,

September 1986.

138. EG&G Environmental Consultants, Assessment

for Future Environmental Problems—Ocean Dumping, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Strategic Assessment and Special Studies (Waltham, MA: September 1983).

139. EG&G Washington Analytical Services Center,

Inc., Industrial Waste Disposal in Marine Environments, contract prepared for U.S. Congress,

Office of Technology Assessment (Waltham, MA:

1986).

140. EG&G Washington Analytical Services Center,

Inc., Oceanographic Services, Projected Ocean

Dumping Rates for Municipal and Industrial

Wastes in the Year 2000, prepared for National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Pollution Office (Waltham, MA:

1986).

141. Electric Power Research Institute, ‘ ‘Utility Solid

Waste: Managing the Byproducts of Coal Combustion, EPRI Journal 10(8):20-35, October

1985.

142. Engineering News Record, “Second Ozone Plant

Started, ” Engineering News Record 215(8): 15-16,

Aug. 22, 1985.

143. Engineering News Record, ‘ ‘Questions Shroud

Privatization, ” Engineering News Record 216(2):

26-27, Jan. 9, 1986.

144. Environmental Defense Fund, Approaches to

Source Reduction, Practical Guidance From Existing Policies and Programs (Berkeley, CA: June,

1986).

145. Environmental Defense Fund, ‘ ‘Environmental

Defense Fund Seeks Action To Ban the Use of

TBT To Protect Virginia Shellfish Industry, ”

News Release (Washington, DC: June 20, 1986).

146. Environmental and Energy Study Conference,

‘ ‘Oceans, Outlook (Washington, DC: Jan. 20,

1986), p. 29,

147. Environmental and Energy Study Conference,

“Water Quality Act of 1987, House-Senate Floor

Brief, Jan. 6, 1987.

148. Environmental Policy Alert, “Boston Harbor Dis-
References ● 281

149

1.50

151

152.

153.

154

155.

156.

1.57

158

1.59

160

charges—Court Orders Cleanup, Environmental

Policy Alert 3(2):9, Jan. 151 1986.

Environmental Policy Alert, ‘‘ EPA FY-87 Budget

Request, ” Environmental Policy Alert 3(4): 17,

Feb. 12, 1986.

Environmental Policy Alert, ‘ ‘Sewage Sludge—

EPA Proposes State Program Requirements, Environmental Policy Alert 3(5):5, Feb. 26, 1986.

Environment Reporter, ‘ ‘States Would Be Required To Adopt Plans for Managing Sludge, Under EPA Proposal, Environment Reporter 16(40):

1805-1806, Jan. 31, 1986.

Environment Reporter, ‘‘ RCRA May Cover 700

Plants Receiving Hazardous Wastes, Hedeman

Tells AMSA, ” Environment Reporter 16(42):

1880-1881, Feb. 14, 1986.

Environment Reporter, ‘‘ Massachusetts Plan To

Use 106-Mile Site for Boston Sludge Dropped Due

to Objections, Environment Reporter 17( 14):

491-492, Aug. 1, 1986.

Environment Reporter, ‘‘ New EPA Survey Shows

Reduced POTW Needs; Drop Attributed to Documental ion Requirement, Environment Reporter

17(42): 1733, Feb. 13, 1987.

Erdheim, E., ‘‘ United States Marine Waste Disposal Policy, in Wastes in the Ocean, vol. 6, B.

Ketchum, et al. (eds. ) (New York: John Wile)’ &

Sons, 1985), pp. 421-461.

Fanning, K. A., and Bell, L. M., ‘‘ Nutrients in

Tampa Bay, in Proceedings Tampa Bay Area

Scientific Information Smposium, S. F. Treat, et

al. (eds) (New York: Bellwether, 1985), pp. 109-129.

Fay, R. R., and Wastler, T. A., ‘ ‘Ocean Incineration: Contaminant Loading and Monitoring, in

Wastes in the Ocean, vol. 5, D. R. Kester, et al.

(eds. ) (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985), pp.

73-90.

Feldman, D. I., ‘ ‘Towards a Political Theory of’

Environmental Values: Water Resources Developmcnt and the Problems of a Policy Meta-Ethic,

paper presented at 1986 Annual Meeting of the

American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, Aug. 28-31, 1986.

Feliciano, D,}’., ‘‘ Fact Sheet for Wastewater

Treatment, Water Pollution Control Federation

Journal 54(10): 1346-1348, 1982.

Fields, R.W. , Mueller, R. T., and McGeorge,

‘‘Thc Occurrence and Fate of Toxic Substances in New Jersey Sewage Treatment Facilities, CN-409 (Trenton, NJ: Department of Environmental Protection, September 1986).

Flemer, D. A., Duke, T.W., and Mayer, F. L., Jr.,

‘ ‘Integration of Monitoring and Research in Coastal

Waters: Issues for Consideration From a Regulatory Point of View. i n Oceans ’86 Conference

161.

_.-.

162

163

164,

165.

166.

167.

168.

169.

170.

171.

172.

Record, vol. 3, 86 CH2363-O (Washington, DC:

Marine Technology Society and IEEE Ocean Engineering Society, Sept. 23-25, 1986), pp. 980-992.

Fleming, W.J., Clark, D. R., Jr., and Henny,

C.J. , “Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs: A

Continuing Problem for the 1980’s, Transactions

North American Wildlife Conference 48: 186-199,

1983.

Florida Department of EnvironmentaI Regulation,

Biology Section, Bioassays of Frost Seafoods (Scallop Processing Facility!’), St Augustine, St. Johns

County, Florida (Tallahassee, FL: July 1985. )

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,

‘ ‘Tables and Figures Derived From STORET

Water Quality Data ( 1970-1979) on Reach 17 of

the St. Johns River Basin (Lower) (Tallahassee,

FL: 1986).

Florida Institute of Technology, Definition of the

Oceanic, Atmospheric, and Terrestrial Media, an

Overview of Resources and Processes in These

Media, and a Discussion of the Concepts of’ Assimilative Capacity and Resilience}’, contract prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment (Melbourne, FL: 1986).

Flynn, K. C., ‘ ‘Turning the Tide in Boston Harbor , Water Pollution Control Federation Journal 57(11): 1048-1054, Novembcr 1985.

Forster, D.I-., and Southgatc, D. D., ‘‘ Social Institutions Influencing Land Application of Wastewater and Sludge, Water Pollution Control Federation Journal 56(5): 399-404, May 1984.

Fox, J .C., Testimony Before the Subcommittee on

Governmental Efficiency and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs,

U.S. Congress, “Hearing on Chesapeake By-~

Cleanup Program, 99th Cong., 2d SCSS., Senate

Hearing 99-950, June 24, 1986 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986).

Francingues, N. R., Jr., et al., Management Strategy for Disposal of Drcdgcd Matcrial: contaminant Testing and Controls, Miscellancous Paper

D-85- 1 (Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station, 1985).

Fredette, T. J., et al,, ‘ ‘Biological Monitoring of

Open-Water Dredged Material Disposal Sites,

in Oceans ’86 Conference Record, vol, 3, 86CH2363-

0 (Washington, DC: Marine Technology)’ Society

and IEEE Ocean Engineering Society, Sept. 23-

25, 1986), pp. 764-769.

Freeland, G. L., Swift, D., and Young, R.A.,

“Mud Deposits Near the New York Bight DurJlpsitcs: Origin and Behavior, in Ocean Dumpingand Marine Pollution (New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold, 1979), pp. 73-95.

Freeman, A. M., ‘The Ethical Basis of the Eco-
282 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

173.

174.

175.

176.

177.

178,

179.

180.

181.

182.

183.

184,

nomic View of the F.nvironment, in People, Penguins, and Plastic Trees, D. VanDeVeer and C.

Pierce (eds. ) (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1986), pp. 218-227.

Fricke, C., et al., ‘ ‘Comparing Priority Pollutants

in Municipal Sludges, Biocycle 26(1):35-37,

1985.

Fried, J. P., ‘‘Illegal Taking of Clams From Tainted

Bay Rises, New York Times, Sept. 21, 1986, p.

50.

Fuhrman, R. E., $

‘ History of Water Pollution Control, Water Pollution Control Federation Journal 56(4) :306-3 13, 1984.

Funk, W., ‘ ‘The Exception That Approves The

Rule: FDF Variances Under the Clean Water

Act ,’ ‘ Environmental Affairs 13(1): 1-60, fall 1985.

Gaba, J., ‘ ‘Regulation of Toxic Pollutants Under

the Clean Water Act: NPDES Toxics Control

Strategies, ” Journal of” Air and Law Commerce

50(3/4):761-791 , 1985.

Gadbois, D. F., and Maney, R. S., ‘ ‘Survey of

Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Selected Finfish Species From United States Coastal Waters, Fishery Bulletin, 81(2):389-396, 1983.

Gambrell, R. P., Khalid, R. A., and Patrick, W. H.,

Jr., Disposal Alternatives of’ Contaminated Dredged

‘Material as a Managemcnt Tool to Minimize Adverse Environmental Effects, Technical Report

DS-78-8 (Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station, 1978).

Garber, W. F., and Wada, F. F., ‘ ‘Water Quality

in Santa Monica Bay, as Indicated by Measurements of Total Coliform, in Oceanic Processes

in Marine Pollution, Volume 5, Urban Wastes in

Coastal Marine Environments, D.A. Wolfe and

T.P. O’Connor (eds. ) (Malabar, FL: Robert E.

Krieger Publishing Co., 1987).

Garrity, R. D., McCann, N., and Murdoch, J. D.,

‘‘A Review of Environmental Impacts of Municipal Services in Tampa, Florida, ” in Proceedings

Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, S. F. Treat, et al. (eds. ) (New York: Bellwether, 1985), pp. 526-550.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Water Quality

Control in Georgia, 1982-1983 (Atlanta, GA:

1984).

Gerba, C. P., Smith, E. M., and Melnick, J. L.,

‘ ‘Development of a Quantitative Method for Detecting Enteroviruses in Estuarine Sediments,

Applied Environmental Microbiology 34: 158-163,

1977.

Giam, C. S., et al., ‘‘Phthalate Ester Plasticizers:

A New Class of Marine Pollutant, ” Science 199:

419-421, 1978.

185.

186

187.

188.

189.

190.

191.

192.

193.

194,

195.

196.

197.

198.

Giam, C. S., et al., ‘ ‘Aquatic Pollution Problems,

Southeastern U.S. Coasts: I. Chemical Aspects, ”

paper presented at Toxic Chemicals and Aquatic

Life Symposium, sponsored by National Marine

Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, Sept. 16-18, 1986.

Gill, O. N., et al., “Epidemic of Gastroenteritis

Caused by Oysters Contaminated With Small

Round Structured Viruses, ’ British Medical Journal 287: 1532, 1983.

Gilmartin, W. G., et al., ‘ ‘Premature Parturition

in the California Sea- Lion, Journa.l of Wildlife Diseases 12: 104-115, 1976.

Goldberg, E.D. (cd.), Proceedings of a Workshop

on Scientific Problems Relating to Ocean Pollution, July 10-14, 1978 (Boulder, CO: National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Research Laboratory, 1979).

Goldberg, E. D., ‘ ‘The Oceans as Waste Space:

The Argument, Oceanus 24(1):2-9, 1981.

Goldberg, E. D., “TBT, An Environmental Dilemma, Environment 28(8): 17-20,42-44, October

1986.

Goldstein, J., et al., ‘ ‘Effects of Pentachlorophenol

on Hepatic Drug Metabolizing Enzymes and Porphyria Related to Contamination With Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzof’urans,

Biochemical Pharmacology 26: 1549-1557, 1977.

Goodman, A., et al., ‘ ‘Gastrointestinal Illness

Among Scuba Divers—New York City, Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 32(44):576-577,

1983.

Gordon, W. G., “NMFS Position Statement on

12-106 Mile Ocean Dump Sites, Letter to T.A.

Wastler, Marine Protection Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Aug. 24, 1983.

Gossett, R. W., et al., “ DDT, PCB and Benzo(a)py -

rene Levels in White Croaker (Genyonemus linea -

tus) From Southern California, Marine Pollution

Bulletin 14(2):60-65, February 1983.

Gossett, R. W., Brown, D. A., and Young, D. R.,

‘ ‘Predicting the Bioaccumulation and Toxicity of

Organic Compounds, ‘‘ in Coastal Water Research

Project Biennial Report for the Years 1981-1982,

W. Bascom (cd. ) (Long Beach, CA: Southern

California Coastal Water Research Project, 1982),

pp. 149-156.

Government of the State of’ Sao Paulo, Environmental Pollution Control in Cubatao, Results Report-July/83 to July/86 (Sao Paulo, Brazil: 1986).

Goyal, S.M. , ‘ ‘Viral Pollution of the Marine Environment, CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control 14( 1): 1-32, 1984.

Grassle, J. F., et al., Contaminant Levels and

Relative Sensitivities to Contamination in the

Deep-Ocean Communities, NOAA Technical
References . 283

199,

200.

201.

20’2

203

204

205

206

207

209.

210.

211.

212.

2 t 3.

hfemorandum NOS OMA 26 (Rock\ ille, MD:

National Ocezinic and ,Atmospheric Administration, March 1986),

Greaney, D. ‘‘ How Clean Is Your Beach?’ Sa}’e

the Ba}’ 16(4): 1, August/September 1986.

Great I.akes Water Quality Board, Great I.ak-rs

ii’ater Qualit>’, Repot-t to the Intern~~tior]al<~oil]t

Comn]is.sion (Kingstonl Ontario: June 1985).

~jreen, R,, ‘‘Another Kesterson ?‘ Sierra 70(5): 29-

32, Septemk](>r/O(tc)ber 1985.

(jrie~, R., et al., ‘ ‘Trace Metals in Organisms

from Ocean Ijisposal Sites of” the M icidle-eastern

LTnited States, .4rchi\es of En ~ironmenta] Contaminatic]n and 7’oxicolog~’ 6:395-409, 1979.

(;rimes, D.,J. , ‘‘ Release of Sediment-bound Fecal

Coliforrns by’ Dredging, .4ppJied Aficrobiolo,gj’

29: 109, 1975.

Grimes, D.J., ‘‘ Bacteriological Water Qualit~r Effects of H}ch-aulicall} Dredging Contaminated Upper Nlississippi Ri\wr Bottom Sediment, .4pplied

and En[’ironmental -hIicrobi{]lo,qy 39:782-789,

1980.

Grimes, D.<J., Hun~an Health Impactq of’ i$’aste

Constituents, Pathogens and .4ntibiotic- and Hea\’~r

l~fetal- R esls tan t Bacteria, contract prepared for

U.S. Congress, Office of’ Technology?’ Assessment

(Collese Park, MD: 1986).

Cjrimes, II.* J., Attwell, R W, , et al., ‘ ‘Fate of Enteric Pathogenic Bacteria in Estuarine and Marine

k~n~ironrnents, ,}li(-rc~!]iological Sciences, in press,

Grimes, D.*J., Singleton, F.I.,, and Colwell, R. R.,

‘‘Alloqenic Succession of Marine Bacterial Communities in Response to Pharmaceutical Waste,

<Journa) of’ Applied Bacteriolo~ 57:247-261 , 1984,

(irimes, D.,J. , Singleton, F. 1.., Stemrnler, J., et

al, , ‘ L Microbiological Effects of Wastewatcr Effluent Discharge Into Coastal Waters of Puerto

Rico , ~t’ater Research 18(5):61 3-619, 1984.

Grohrnan, G. S., et al., ‘‘ Norwalk Virus Gastroenteritis in t’o]unteers Consuming Depurated Oysters, Australian cJournal of’ Experimental Biolo~~r

and Medical Science 59: 219, 1981.

Cross. M. G., Oceanograph}’: A iriew of-the Earth

(h;nglewood (jliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972).

Gross, M .G., ‘ ‘Sedimentation and P$’aste Deposition in N’ew York Harbor, Annals of the New’

}’ork At-adem} of Sciences 250: 112-128, 1974.

Gross, M .G. (cd.), Middle Atlantic Continental

She]f’and the New York Bight (Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, Inc, 1976).

Grote, R. S,, et al., ‘ ‘Artificial-Reef De\”elopmc’nt

as a Means of Disposal of Coal Wastes Off Southern C,aliforn ia, in Wastes in the Ocean, \’ol. 4,

1.W. Ducdall, et al. (eds. ) (New York: John Y$’iley’

& Sons, 198.5), pp. 515-534.

214.

215.

216.

217.

218.

220

221

222.

223.

Guarascio, <J., ‘ ‘The Regulation of Ocean Dunlping After Cit\’ of- Nrv+’ }-or-k L’. En i“ironmentai Prc)-

tection .4gcnc?”, En\ironn]entai A/liir.s 12:701 -

741, 1985.

Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authorit}, .4nnual Report (Houston, TX: 1984).

Gusman, S., and Huser, 1’., ‘‘Nfeciiation in th(>

kktuar), Coastal Zone ~lla]]a,qclllcTlt< J{)ux-t]:d 11(4):

273-295, 1984.

Haliburton, T. A., Guidelines Ibr De\iaterirl,q/

Densifjring Confined Dredg# Illateria], q’echnica] Report DS- 78-11 (1’icksburg, hf S: U.S. Army

Engineer k$’aterway’s Experimc>nt Station, 1 978).

Hall, L. W., Jr., et al., ‘‘Mortalit~ of’ Striped Bass

I,arvae in Relation to Contaminants and J$’ater

Qualitv in a Chesapeake 13a} Tributary, ” 7}-ansactions’ Anlrrican Fisheries S~ciet}’ 11 4(6):861 -868,

No\ember 1985.

Hall, I.. W., <Jr., Hall, W. S., and 13ushong, S.J.,

]n-situ In\restigations f?]r .4ssessing Striped Bass,

Aforone saxatilis, Prolar~’al and l’earling Sur\i\al

as Related to Contaminants and i+’ater Qualit>’

Parameters in the Potomac Ri\’er—C(~lltalni[laIlt

and \\’ater Qualit)” E~raluations in East Coast

Striped Bass Habitats (Shad)’ Side, MD: Johns

Hopkins Uni\’ersity, Applied Physics Laboratory},

No\ember 1986).

Hand, J., ct al., Water Qualit~” In }’enter} fi)r the

Sra[e of Florida (Tallahassee, FI,: Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, June 1986).

Hand, J,, et al., k%’ater Qualit}’ In\’en[or}’ fi]t- th(

State of’ Florida: 7’echnical .4ppendix (Tallahassee, FI.: Florida Department of Environmental

Regulation, June 1986).

Hardin, G., ‘ ‘The Traged}r of the Commons,

Science 162: 1243-1245, 1968.

Barrington, M., et al., ‘ ‘,4 Sur\rey of a Population Exposed to High Concentrations of Arsenic

in Well Water in Fairbanks, Alaska, American

Tournaf of’ Epidernioloq}r 108:377-385, 1978.

224. Harrison, P., and Sewell, W’., “Water Pollution

Control by Agreement: The French S)stem of’

Contracts, National Resources ,Journal 20: 765-

786, October 1980.

225. Harwell, C., ‘ ‘Analysis of Clean Y$’ater Act Sec226

tion 403—Ocean Discharge Criteria’ (Ithaca, NY:

Cornell Uni\rersity’ Ecosystems Research Center,

February 1984).

Harwell, M. A., Harwell, C. C., and Ken}, J. R.,

‘‘ Regulatory Endpoints, Ecological Uncertainties,

and Environmental Decision-Making, in Oceans

’86 Conference Record, Yol. 3, 86 CH2363-O (\$’ashin<gton, DC: Marine Technology Society and IEEE

Ocean Engineering %ciety, Sept. 23-25, 1986),

pp. 993-999.

63-983 - 87 - 10 : (?1. 3
284 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

227. Hasit, Y., “Sludge Treatment, Utilization, and

Disposal, Water Pollution Control Federation

Journal 58(6):510-518, June 1986.

228. ‘

229.

230.

231.

232.

233.

234.

235.

236.

237.

238.

239

Hawaii Department of Health, 305(b) Report on

Water Quality (Honolulu, HA: April 1986).

Hazen, R., and Kneip, T., ‘‘Biogeochemical Cycling of Cadmium in a Marsh Ecosystem, in

Cadmium in the Environment, part 1, J. Nriagu

(cd. ) (New York: Wiley -Interscience, 1981).

Heltz, G., Huggett, R., and Hill, J., “Behavior

of Mn, Fe, Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb Discharged From

a Wastewater Treatment Plant Into an Estuarine

Environment, Water Research 9:631-636, 1975.

Hermens, J., Leeuwangh, P., and Husch, A.,

‘ ‘Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships

and Mixture Toxicity Studies of Chloro- and Alkyl

Anilines at an Acute Lethal Toxicity Level to the

Guppy (Poecilia reticdata), ” Ecotoxicolog-y and

Environmental Safety 8:388-394, 1984.

Hirsch, N. D., DiSalvo, L. H., and Peddicord, R.,

Effects of Dredging and Disposal on Aquatic Organisms, Technical Report DS-78-5 (Vicksburg,

MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment

Station, 1978).

Hoffman, R. W., and Meighan, R. B., ‘ ‘The Impact of Combined Sewer Overflows From San

Francisco on the Western Shore of Central San

Francisco Bay, Water Pollution Control Federation Journal 56( 12): 1277-1285, 1984.

Holliday, B. W., Processes Affecting the Fate of’

Dredged Material, Technical Report DS-78-2

(Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways

Experiment Station, 1978).

Holliday, B. W., et al. , Predicting and Monitoring Dredged Material Movement, Technical Report DS-78-3 (Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1978).

Holznagel, B., “Negotiation and Mediation: The

Newest Approach to Hazardous Waste Facility Siting, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law

Review 13(3):329-378, 1986.

Horn, E., and Skinner, L., Final Environmental

Impact Statement for Policy on Contaminants in

Fish (Albany, NY: State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife, 1985).

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., Polluting

the Hudson: A Gentlemen Agreement, A Report

on the SPDES Permit Program for the Period October 1979-September 1981 (Poughkeepsie, NY:

February 1983).

Huggett, R.J., Nichols, M. M., and Bender, M. E.,

‘‘Kepone Contamination of the James Ri\’er Estuary, ‘‘ in Contaminants and Sediments, VO1. 1,

240.

241

242.

243.

244.

245.

246

247

248

249.

250

251.

252.

R.A. Baker (cd. ) (Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science, 1980), pp. 33-52.

Huston, J. W., Hydraulic Dredging, Theoretical

and Applied (Cambridge, MD: Cornell Maritime

Press, 1970).

ICF, Inc., Assessment of Impacts of Land Disposal

Restrictions on Ocean Dumping and Ocean Incineration of Solvents, Dioxins, and California List

Wastes, draft report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency, Office of Solid Waste

(Washington, DC: October 1986).

Inside EPA, “EPA Agrees to OMB Call For Construction Grants Phaseout By 1990, Inside EPA

6(1 1): 1,9-12, Mar. 15, 1985.

Inside EPA, ‘ ‘EPA Eyes ‘Flexible’ RCRA Cleanups for POTWs Trucking in Hazardous Wastes,

Inside EPA 6(36): 1,12, Sept. 6, 1987.

Inside EPA, ‘‘SAB R&D Push on Nonpoint Water

Toxics May Pose Policy Choice For Thomas, Inside EPA 8(1 ): 12-13, Jan. 2, 1987.

Inside EPA, “SAB Pushes Revisions to Allow

More Risk Comparison of Sludge Disposal Options, Inside EPA 8(3):5-6, Jan. 16, 1987.

Inside EPA, ‘ ‘EPA To Launch Major New ‘Nonpoint Source’ Plan to Clean Up Coastal Waters,

Inside EPA 8(8): 1,9-10, Feb. 20, 1987.

Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, ‘ ‘Scientific Criteria for the Selection of

Waste Disposal Sites at Sea, Reports and Studies,

No. 16 (London: 1982).

International Joint Commission, Great Lakes

Water Quality Agreement of 1978, With Annexes

and Terms of Reference, Between the United

States of America and Canada (Ottawa, Canada:

Nov. 22, 1978).

Jelinek, C., and Corneliussen, P., ‘‘ Levels of

PCBs in the U.S. Food Supply, ” Proceedings of

the National Conference on PCBs, EPA-560/6-75-

004 (Washington, DC: 1976), pp. 147-154.

Jenkins, K. D., Brown, D. A., and Oshida, P.,

‘ ‘Detoxification of Metal in Sea Urchins, in

Coastal Water Research Project Biennial Report

for the Years 1981-1982, W. Bascom (cd. ) (Long

Beach, CA: Southern California Coastal Water

Research Project, 1982), pp. 173-178.

Johnson, E. L., ‘ ‘Seventh District Court Decision

on TMDLs, Memorandum to Regional Water Management Division Directors and Regional Environmental Services Division Directors’ (Washington,

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Oct. 23,

1984).

Joklik, W. K., Zinsser Microbiology (Norwalk,

CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1984).
References ● 285

253. Jones, G. E., ‘ ‘The Fate of Freshwater Bacteria in

the Sea, Developments in Industrial Microbiology 12: 141-151, 1971.

254. Josephson, J., ‘ ‘Protecting Virginia’s Waterways,

Environmental Science and Technology 15(10):

1125-1127, October 1981.

255. JRB Associates, Assessment of the Impacts of Industrial Discharges on Publicly Owned Treatment

works, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, office of Water Enforcement (McLean,

VA: Nov. 20, 1981).

256. JRB Associates, Addendum to the Report Entitled: Assessment of the Impacts of Industrial Discharges on Publicly Owned Treatment Works,

prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

EPA Contract No. 68-01-5052, DOW 54 (McLean,

V A: Feb. 25, 1983).

257, JRB Associates, Inventory of Air Polution Control, Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Water

Treatment Sludges, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Contract No. 68-

01-6348 (McLean, VA: Dec. 19, 1983).

258. .JRB Associates, Pretreatment Compliance Assessment of Electroplating Facilities Operated by

large Corporations (McLean, VA: August 1984).

259. Kamlet, K. S., ‘ ‘Dredged-Material Ocean Dumping: Perspectives on Legal and Environmental Impacts, in Wastes in the Ocean, vol. 2, D. R.

Kester, et al. (eds.) (New York: John Wiley &

Sons, 1983), pp. 29-70.

260. Kay, S. H., Potential for Biomagnification of Contaminants Within Marine and Freshwater Food

Webs, Technical Report D-84-7 (Vicksburg, MS:

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1984).

261. Kester, D. R., Ketchum, B. H., et al., ‘‘Ha\’e the

Questions Concerning Dredged-Material Disposal

Been Answered? in Wastes in the Ocean, vol. 2,

D. R. Kestcr, et al. (eds. ) (New York: John Wiley

& Sons, 1983), pp. 275-287.

262. Keystone Ocean Project, The Role of the Oceans

in Hazardous Waste Management, Appendices

(Keystone, CO: The Keystone Center, 1986).

263. Keystone Ocean Project, A Decisionmaking Process for Evaluating the Use of the Oceans in Hazardous Waste Management (Keystone, CO: The

Keystone Center 1987).

264. Keystone Siting Process Group, The Keystone Siting Process Handbook—A New Approach to Siting Hazardous Waste Management Facilities

(Austin, TX: Texas Department of Health, January 1984).

265. Khalid, R .A., et al., ‘‘~”oxic Contaminant Uptakc

in Drcdged Sediment Marshcs, in Dredging and

Dredged Material Disposal (Conference Proceedings) (New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, November 1984), pp. 500-508.

266. Kimball, K. D., and Levin, S. A., “Limitations of

Laboratory Bioassays: The Need for EcosystemLevel Testing, BioScience 35(3): 165-171, March

1985.

267. Kimbrough, R., et al., ‘ ‘Induction of Liver Tumors

in Sherman Strain Female Rats by Polychlorinated

Biphenyl Aroclor 1260, ‘<Journal of the National

Cancer Institute 55: 1453-1459, 1975.

268. King, K. A., and Cromartie, E., ‘ ‘Mercury, Cadmium, Lead, and Selenium in Three Waterbird

Species Nesting in Galveston Bay, Texas, USA,

Colonial Waterbirds 9:90-94, 1986.

269. Kizlauskas, A. G., and Homer, D., “RCRA EP

Toxicity Test Applied to Dredged Material” in

Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal (Conference Proceedings) (New York: American Society

of Civil Engineers, November 1984), pp. 361-370.

270. Klaassen, C. D., and Doull, J., ‘ ‘Evaluation of

Safety: Toxicologic Evaluation, in Toxicology]:

The Basic Science of Poisons, J. Doull, et al. (eds. )

(New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.,

1980), pp. 11-27.

271. Klauda, R.J., Peck, T. H., and Rice, G, K., “Accumulation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Atlantic Tomcod (Microgadus T’omcod) Collected From

the Hudson River Estuary, New York, Bulletin

of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology>’

27(6):829-835, December 1981,

272. Klein, L., et al., ‘ ‘Sources of Metals in New York

City’s Wastewater’ (New York: N.Y. Water Pollution Control Association, 1974).

273. Klesch, W. L., ‘ ‘Need for Long-Term Planning

for Dredged Material Containment Areas, in

Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal (Conference Proceedings) (New York: American Society’

of Civil Engineers, November 1984), pp. 674-683.

274. Kluwe, W., et al., ‘‘Carcinogenicit} Testing of

Phthalate Esters and Related Compounds by the

National Toxicology Testing Program and the National Cancer Institute, Environmental Health

Perspectives 45: 129-133, 1982.

275. Kneip, T., Public Health Risk of Toxic Substances, in Ocean Disposal of Municipal Wastewater: Impacts on the Coastal Environment, vol.

2, E. P. Myers (cd.), MITSG 83-33 (Cambridge,

MA: MIT Sea Grant College Program, 1983). pp.

579-610.

276. Knowles, S.C, ., and Fabel, D.J., Water Quality

Assessment, FYr 1984 -198.5 (Columbia, SC: South

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental

Control, 1986).
286 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

277.

278.

279.

280.

281.

282.

283.

284.

285.

286.

287

288

289

Knudson, T.J., “Struggling L. I. 13aymen Face a

New Threat: Development, New York Times,

pp. RI and B17, April 1986.

Knudson, T.J., ‘‘With Striped Bass Ban, A Way

of Life is Fading, New York Times, pp. 1,2,9,

May 1986.

Koenigsberger, M. D., ‘‘3M, paper presented at

Governor’s Conference on Pollution Prevention

Pays, Nashville, TN, March 1986.

Koh, R.C. Y. , ‘ ‘Delivery Systems and Initial Dilution, in Ocean Disposal of Municipal Wastewater.” Impacts on the Coastal En v’ironrnent, vol.

1, E.P. Myers (cd.), MITSG 83-33 (Cambridge,

MA: MIT Sea Grant College Program, 1983), pp.

129-175.

Kolbye, A., and Carr, C., “l’he Evaluation of the

Carcinogenicity of Environmental Substances, ”

Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology 4:350-

354, 1984.

Kraft, M. E., and Kraut, R., “The Impact of Citizen Participation on Hazardous Waste Policy Implementation: The Case of Clermont County,

Ohio, Policy StudiesJournal 14( 1):52-61, 1985.

Krier, J .E., ‘ ‘Ocean Discharge of Municipal Wastes:

Legal and Institutional Aspects, in Ocean Disposal of” MunicipaJ Wastewater: Impacts on the

Coastal Environment, vol. 2, E.P. Myers (cd.),

MITSG 83-33 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Sea Grant

College Program, 1983), pp. 659-705.

Krom, M. D., “An Evaluation of the Concept of

Assimilative Capacity as Applied to Marine Waters,

Ambio 15(4):208-214, 1986.

Ktsanes, V. K., Anderson, A. C., and Diem, ,J. E.,

Health Effects of Swimming in Lake Pontchartrain

at New Orleans, EPA-600/1 -81-027 (Washington,

DC: March 1981).

Kullenberg, G. E., ‘ ‘Physical Oceanography Studies

Related to Waste Disposal in the Sea, in Wastes

in the Ocean, \-ol. 1, 1.W. Duedall, et al. (eds. )

(New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983), pp. 87-101.

Kuratsune, M., Masuda, Y., and Nagayama, J.,

‘ ‘Some of the Recent Findings Concerning Yusho, ’

Proceedings of’the National Conference on PCBS,

EPA-560/6-75-004 (Washington, DC: 1976), pp.

14-29.

Kurgan, S.J., Balestrino, J. M., and Daley, J. R.,

CoaJ Combustion By-Products Utilization Manual, Vol. I.” Evaluating the Utilization Option

(Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute,

1984).

Kyzer, B. I., ‘ ‘Management of Dredged Material

Disposal Areas, in Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal (Conference Proceedings] (New

York: American Society of ci~ril Engineers, November 1984), pp. 803-810.

290

291

292.

293.

294.

295.

296

297

298.

299

300.

301.

Ladner, C., and Franks, J. S., A Contingency

Guide to the Protection of Mississippi Coastal

En\’ironments From Spilled Oil, Protection Priorities and Related Environmental Information

(Long Beach, MS: Mississippi Department of

Wildlife Conservation, April 1984).

Lahey, W., ‘ ‘Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge:

The Tide Turns From Protection to Management,

Har\’ard En\rironmental Law Re~riew 6(2):395-

431, 1982.

Lahey, W., and Connor, M., ‘‘The Case for Ocean

Waste Disposal, Technology Re\iew 86(6):60-68,

August/September 1983.

Landolt, M. L., et al., Potential Toxicant Exposure

Among Consumers of Recreationally Caught Fish

From Urban Embayrnents of Puget Sound, NOAA

Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 23 (Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, November 1985).

LA/OMA Project, Proposed Sludge Management

Program for the Los Angeles/Orange County Metropolitan Area, Final Facilities Plan/Program and

Summary of’ Final EIS\EIR (San Francisco, CA:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region

IX, October 1980).

Larsson, P., ‘ ‘Contaminated Sediments of Lakes

and Oceans Act as Sources of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons for Release to Water and Atmosphere,

Nature 317:347-349, 1985.

Lazor, R. L., Calhoun, C. C., and Patin, T. R.,

‘ ‘The Corps’ Environmental Effects of Dredging

Program, in Dredging and Dredged Material

Disposal (Conference Proceedings) (New York:

American Society of Civil Engineers, November

1984), pp. 150-156.

LeChevallier, M. W., et al., ‘(Changes in Virulence of Waterborne Enteropathogens With Chlorine Injury, Applied and En\’ironmental Microbiology 50:412-419, 1985.

Ledo, A., et al., ‘‘ Effect of Deputation Systems

on the Reduction of Bacteriological Indicators in

Cultured Mussels (Mytilus edulis Linnaeus),

Journal of Shellfish Research 1 :59-64, 1983.

Lee, C. R., Peddicord, R. K., et al., Application

of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

of 1976 to Dredged Material, Internal Working

Document D-86-1 (Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1986).

Lee, C. R., and Skogerboe, J. G., “Surface Runoff Water Quality From Contaminated Dredged

Material Placed Upland, ‘‘ in Dredging and Dredged

Material Disposal (Conference Proceedings) (New

York: American Societ)r of Civil Engineers, No-

\ember 1984), pp. 509-513.

I.ee, C .R., Smart, R. M., et al., Prediction of’
References c 287 —

302

303,

304,

305,

306,

307.

308.

309.

310

311,

312.

313.

Ht’a\}’ .4 fetal L’ptake b? Marsh Plants Based on

Chen]icA Extractiorr of Hea~? ,Lft’tals From Drcd<qed

Nfatcrial, I’cchnica] Report IJ-78-6 (\Ticksburg,

MS: U.S. Armv Engineer- k$’aterwa}s F;xperimcnt

Station, 1978).

I,cYI, L’. , ancl Robadue, 1~. D., Jr., Lrpper I\Tarra,yan.$ett BaJ’, .4n L’rban E.stuar} in 7’ransiti(]n,

Preliminary} Report, Marine ‘1’echnical Report 79

(Kingston, RI: L’niversit} of Rhode Island Coastal

Resources Center, 1980).

IJentz, S.,4,, ‘‘ Plastics in the Nfarine Environment:

A Cal] F’{)r International .Action, paper presented

at 6th International ocean Disposal Symposium,

Montere> Ba), CA, Apr. 21-25, 1986.

Ixwnard, H.J., ‘ ‘Confronting Industrial Pollution

in Rapidl)’ Industrializing Countries: Nl?rths, Pitfalls, and opportunities, h’cofoc~ I,aw Quarterl~

12(4):779-816, 1985.

I.eschinc, q’. M., ‘‘ Economic Charges as Inccnti\cs

for Pollution Control, in Pu<qrt Sounci Notr.s

(Seattle, W’A: I.-’. S. lln~’ironmenta] Protection

,Agency Rc’gion X, September 1986), pp. 3-6 .

1.eschine, T. M. , and 13roadus, <J, Al., ‘‘E;conomi c

and oper-at ional (;onsiderat ions of offshore Klisposal of Sewage Sludge, in }f’astes in the O(t>an,

lrol. .5, D. R. Kester, et al, (eds. ) (New York: <John

t~’ile?r & Sons, 1985), pp. 287-31.5.

I.i\ingston, R.J., ‘‘Trophic Response of Fishes to

Habitat \’ariabilit? in Coastal Seagrass Systems,

lk)lo<q~r 65(4): 1258-127.5, August 1984.

I.i\ingston, R.,J., 71rc Ecofo<<~’ of the .4palachicola

S}.stt’m: .4n Estuarine Profile, F\\’ S/(jBS-82/05

(\$’ashington, DC: U.S. Fish and W’ildlife Ser\ri(c, September 1984).

Li\ringston, R .iJ., Historic 7’rt’nci.s of Human In]-

pac[.s on Seagrass Nleado\~s in Florida (St. Petersburg, FI,: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Marine Research, manuscript

dated Aug. 1, 1986).

Imehr, 1.. (;. , and Collias, E, E., ‘‘A Case Stud~

of the Abuse of Science in Sewage Planning, Nl:irine Pollufion Bulletin 15( 12):439-443, 1984.

I.omnitzl E,, Bruins, R., and Fradkin, 1.., ‘ ‘Screening Chemicals in Municipal Sludges, BioC~’cie

26(7):.52-54, October 1985.

I,ondon Dumping Contention, Re}ie}$ of-the Scicn tific anci I’cch n ical Con.sicirra tion.q R t’le~’ant tcj

the Proposal fbr the .4rnt’nciment of’ the Annexrs

to tht’ Lonciorr Dumping Convention Rrlattd to

the Dumpin,q of Raciioacti\’t’ L1’astrs, report prepared by the Expanded Scicrrt ific Panel of Experts

for ,June 3-7, 1985, Meeting (Agerrcia Item 2),

I, DC/PRAD. 1/2 (I,ondon: Apr. 12, 1985).

Long, E. R., and Chapman, P. M., ‘‘A Sediment

Quality Triad: Measures of Sediment Contami314,

315.

316.

317.

318.

319,

320.

321.

322.

323.

324.

325

nation, Toxicity’ and Infaunal Cornrnunit?’ C(~mposition in Puget Sound, ” A4arinc Pollution Bulietin 16( 10):405-41 5, 1985.

I,opik, J. et al., Report of”South .4tlantic an{i Guff’

Rc,qion ~onfkrencc on Afarine pollution pIY)blt’111.V

(J$’ashington, DC: National Oceanic and Atnlospheric Administration, 1980).

I,ouisiana Department of’ En\ironrnental Qualit),

Office of W’ater Resources, 1$’ater Pollution Control Di\’ision, I.ouisiana }1’ater Qualit?’ In t.enter}

Report (Baton Rouse, I.A: 1984).

I.owrance, W’., Of’.4cccptablt> Risk: Science anci

tht> Dett,rn]inatiorr of’.$afi’t} ( I.os ,A]tos. CA: \$’il -

liarn Kaufrnann, 1976).

Loxharn, hl., et al., ‘‘ Saf_e I.andfilling of Contaminated Dredged hlater-ial, ‘‘ in Dredging and Zlredgcti

Alater-ial Disposal (~onl;rcncc l%x’t)rdin~s) (New’

York: American Societ}r of’ Ci\il EnSincers, NoJ’ember 1984), pp. 625-633.

I.ue-H ing, C., Zenz, D. R., and Prakasam, T. B. S.,

‘ ‘Treatment Technologies and Effluent Quality of

the Future, 2000 +, in Publi< 11‘astc A fan:l<qt’-

men t anci rht’ Ocean Choice, K. D. Stolzenback,

(’t al. (eds. ), M IrI’SG 85-36 (Cambridge, LIA:

klIrl’ Sea Grant ColleSe Pro3ram, April 1986), pp.

27-72.

I.unz, .J.11, , Clarke, D.G. , and Fredette, ‘I’,* J.,

“Seasonal Restrictions on Bucket Dredging Op(’rat ions, in Drecigin~T anci Ilrecigeci Ala[erial Disposal (Confi’rencc Proceeding-s) (New }“ork: American Soc iet? of C i~ril F.ngineers, No\’ernber 1984),

pp. 371-383.

I,unz, J. D., Diaz, R.J., and Cole, R.i4. , L’pland

and W’edand Habitat Dt>\,c]opmc>nt }%’ith Drt>dgrd

Alatcria]: Ecolo,qical Cot]sidt>r:itiot]s,” Technical

Report DS-78- 15 (\’icksbur~, hfS: U.S. Arm}

Engineer 1$’aterva~s Experiment Station, 1978).

I.uoma, S. N., and Cloern, ,]. F;., ‘‘g’he Impact of’

Waste-Water Discharge on Bi(~logical Communities in San Francisco 13ayT, in San Fr-an(i.sco Ba }:

L’se and Protection, \l’.,J. Kockelrnan, et al. (eds. )

(Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, 1982), pp. 137-160.

I.~nn, F. hl., ‘ ‘The Interpla)r of %icnce and \’alues

in Assessing En\rironrnental Risk, Scit>nce, 7’t>ch -

nolo<q]’, Human \ ‘alues 11 (2):40-50, Spring 1986.

Lytle, T. F., and I,}tle, J .S., PoJiutant 7’ransport

in hlississippi Sound (Ocean Springs, NI S: Itl ississipp i-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, 1985),

Mackn is, J., ‘ ‘Chesapeake Ba} Nonpoint Source

Pollution, in Prrspccti}’es on I?ronpoint S(~urct’

Po]lution, EPA 440/.5-85/-001 (L$’ashington, DC:

U.S. En\’ironmental Protection Agenc?r, Office of’

Water Regulations and Standards, 1985), pp.

165-171.

Mac I,eod, \\’., et al., .4nal}’sis of’ Rt’siciual Chlo-
288 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

326.

327.

328.

329.

330.

331.

332,

333,

334

335,

336.

rinated Hydrocarbons and Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Related Compounds in Selected Sources,

Sinks, and Biota of New York Bight, NOAA Technical Memorandum, OMPA-6 (Boulder, CO: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

1981).

Malins, D. C., et al., ‘ ‘Toxic Chemicals in Marine Sediment and Biota From Mukilteo, Washington: Relationships With Hepatic Neoplasms

and Other Hepatic Lesions in English Sole (Parophrys vetulus), Journal of the National Cancer

Institute 74(2):487-494, February 1985.

Management Advisory Group to the EPA Construction Grants Program, ‘‘Report to EPA: Municipal Compliance With the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System” (Washington,

DC: June 1986).

Manheim, B,, ‘ ‘International Regulation of Plastic Pollution of the Marine Environment’ (Washington, DC: manuscript dated Dec. 19, 1985).

Manheim, B., Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, U.S.

Congress, Hearing on “Plastic Pollution in the

Marine Environment, ” 99th Gong., 2d sess.,

Serial No. 99-47 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986).

Maragos, J. E., Evans, C., and Holthus, P., “Reef

Corals in Kaneohe Bay Six Years Before and After Termination of Sewage Discharges (Oahu Hawaiian Archipelago), “ HAWAU-R-85-017 (UNIHISG-CP-85-09) (Honolulu, HI: Hawaii Sea Grant,

1985).

Marine Technology Society, et al., Monitoring

Strategies Symposium, vol. 3 of Oceans ’86 Conference Record (Washington, DC: Sept. 23-25,

1986).

Marine Technology Society, et al., Organotin

Symposium, vol. 4 of Oceans ’86 Conference Record (Washington, DC: Sept. 23-25, 1986).

Marion, K. R., and Settine, R. L., ‘ ‘Organic Pollutant Levels in Bivalves of Mobile Bay, Annual

Summary’ (Birmingham, AL: University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1984).

Martin, S.0., “Last Chance for Chesapeake

Bay, Planning Magazine 52: 12-19, June 1986.

Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, Maryland Water Quality Inventory (Baltimore, MD:

Apr. 15, 1986).

Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Quality Engineering, Division of Water Pollution

Control, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Summary of’ Water Quality, 1986; Appendix III—

337.

338.

339.

340.

341.

342.

343.

344.

345

346.

347.

348.

Basin/Segment Information (Westborough, MA:

1986).

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental

Affairs, Department of’ Fisheries, Wildlife & Environmental Law Enforcement, Massachusetts Marine Fisheries, Assessment at Mid-Decade (Boston, MA: November 1985).

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant

Program, ‘ ‘Sewage Disposal and the Ocean: The

Sea Grant Role, ” MITSG Report No. 85-6 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Sea Grant College Program,

1985).

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, PCB Pollution in the New Bedford, Massachuset[s Area: A Status Report (Boston, MA:

1982).

Matta, M. B., Mearns, A.J., and Buchman, M. F.,

Trends in DDT and PCBS in U.S. West Coast

Fish and Invertebrates (Seattle, WA: National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, March 1986).

Matthews, T. D., and Marcus, J. M., ‘ ‘The Need

for Biological Resource Data in Addition to Contaminant Concentration Data, in Oceans ’ 8 6

Conference Record, vol. 3, 86 CH2363-O (Washington, DC: Marine Technology Society and IEEE

Ocean Engineering Society, Sept. 23-25, 1986),

pp. 999-1003.

Matthiesen, P., Men Lives: The Surfmen and

Baymen of the South Fork (New York: Random

House, 1986).

Mayer, G.F. (cd.), Ecological Stress and the New

York Bight (Columbia, SC: Estuarine Research

Federation, 1982).

McConnell, K, E., and Industrial Economics, Inc.,

The Damages to Recreational Activities From

PCBs in the New Bedford Harbor, report prepared

for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessment Division, RA7-0400

(Rockville, MD: undated).

McConnell, K. E., and Morrison, B. G., Assessmen t of Economic Damages to the Natural Resources of New Bedford Harbor: Damages to the

Commercial Lobster Fishery, report prepared for

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessment Division, RA7-0200 (Rockville, MD: June 4, 1986).

McCormick, J. M., et al., “Partial Recovery of

Newark Bay, NJ, Following Pollution Abatement,

Marine Pollution Bulletin 14(5): 188-197, 1983.

McGovern, T., State of Maine 1986 Water Quaiity Assessment (Augusta, ME: Department of

Environmental Protection, 1986).

Meade, N. F., and Leeworthy, V., Public Expend-
References ● 289

itures [~n Outcioor Recreation in the Coastal Areas

of the L’S’.4 (F$lash ingtorr, DC;: National Oceanic

anci .Atmospheric Adrn i n i st rat ion, March 1986),

349. hleade, R. H ., ‘‘ I,anciwarcl Transport of Bottom

Sediments in Estuaries of the Atlantic Coastal

Zone, ” Journal of’ Sedimcntar} Petrolc)<qj’ 39(1):

222-234, 1969.

350. Mearns, A.*J. , ‘‘ Ecological Effects of Ocean ScWagc out falls: C) bser\’at ions and [,cssons, Ocea -

nus 24(1): 45-54. 1981.

~;51. Nlt>arns, ,4 .$J. , Biological Efli’c[s Studic.s at 1‘arious I.t’\rels ,410ng the L’. 5’. Paciiic Coast, pape r

presented at NAI’O Ad\ranccd Research \f’orkshop on Scient ifi( Basis for the Role of the Oceans

as a \$’ast e 11 i sposal () pt ion, 1’ i] amou ra. Port u -

gal, Apr. 24-30, 1985.

352. Nfearns, A.J., et al., ‘‘ E;ffccts of Nutrients and

~;arbon I,oadings on (~ommunities and Ecos)st ems, ‘ ‘ in Ecological Strrss and the New J-OI-k

Bi(qht: .Scienc e and Afanagemerrt, G. F. Mayer

(t’d. ) (Columbia, SC: F;stuarine Research Federation, 1982), pp. 53-66.

3.53, hlearns, A,.J,, et al., The Historical 7’rend Asses.sn]t’n t Program, PCBS and Chlor-inattd Pesticide

Contamination in L’. S. Fish anci Shellfish: An

.4.s.sessn]ent Report (Seattle \4’,A: National Oceanic

and At mosphcric ,4dm in istrat ion, Ocean Assessments Di\ision, No\cmbcr 1986).

3.54. Nleistrell, <J .(; ., and Montagne, I). E. , ‘‘\$’astt>

Disposal in Southern California and Its Effects on

the Rocky” Subtidal Habitat, in T-he Effects of’

~$’astr Dispo.wl on Kelp <;ommunitie.~, }%’. Bascom (cd. ) ( I,a Jolla, CA: Uni\’ersityr of’ California

Institute of Lfarine Resources, 1983), pp. 84-102.

35.5. iklendelsohn, R. Assessment of. Econotnic L)ama,yes: Anal,vsi.~ of’ R evidential Proper-t}’ 1‘alucs in

the A“ew’ Bedfi~rd .4rea, report preparccl for Nat ional ocean ic anci Atmospheric Administration,

ocean Assessments Di\ision (Rock\ ille, MD: ,June

2, 1986).

3.56. Me}er, E.1.., ‘‘ Histor?’ of Sewer-age Facilities Scming the C it)’ of Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico,

staff report (San Diego, CA: California Regional

k$’ater Quality Control Board, Sept. 16, 1983).

357. hle?rers, P. A,, ‘‘ Processes Contributing to the

Con( cntrat ion of Pol~rchlorinated Biphenyls at the

Sea-Surf’ace M icrola)er, paper presenteci at the

Sea-Surface Microlayer Workshop, Arlie, \’A,

IX>C. 18, 1985.

3.58. Minnesota Waste Management Board, HazardCJUS L%?j.s[e ,%lana,q>men[ Plan —Re~’isetf Draft (St.

Paul, MN: Februarl 1984),

35<), NI isslssippl I>(>p:irtment of Natural Resources,

1984 1%’ater Qualit? Report [O Congrc’.s.s (Jackson,

MS: ,June 1984).

360, Mitchell, R. C., ‘‘ Public Opinion and En\’iron -

mental Politics in the 1970s and 1980s, in En \ironmental Polic?. in thy 1980s, Reagan A’t’}t.

.4.genda, N.J. Vig and M. E. Kraf( (eds. ) (kl’ashington, DC: Congressional Quart erl~, 1984), pp.

51-74.

361. hlitchell, R. C., and R. Carson, ‘ b Propert)’ Rights,

Protest, and the Siting of’ Hazardous If’aste Facilities, .4merican Economic Re~iew 76(2):285-290,

Nlay 1986.

362. Nlonaco, NI. E., et al., Stra[e,qic ,4sses.sn]t, n[.s of’tht’

A“a [ion fi;.stuaries.” .4cti\’itie.s CIf’ .\’C>A.4 ‘,s Oct’an

Assessments Di\ision (Rock\ille, ~111: National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1986).

363, hfontgomer}’, R. L., ‘‘ Engineering Aspects of’

Capping Dredged Material, Proceedings of the

16th Dredging Seminar (College Static)n, “llX:

Texas A&M Uni\ersit}, 1985).

364. Nloon, R. E., ‘ ‘Point Source Discharge in th(

Tampa Bay Area, i n Proceedings 7‘ampa Ba ~’

,4rea Scientific In fht-mation S>mposium, S. F:.

Treat, et al. (cds. ) (NewT l’ork: Bellwether. 1985),

pp. 551-562.

365, Moore, J., et al.. L ‘{;omparat i~e Toxic it? of’ Three

Halogenatecl I)ibcnzofurans in Guinea Pigs, NI i(e

and Rhesus Monkey’s, .4nnals of the A“e}j )’orL-

.4cadern} of’ Sciences 320:151 -163, 197?.

366. Morita, R.\’., ‘‘Starlrati[)n and hliniaturization of

Heterotrophs, 1$’ith Special Emphasis on hfain -

tcnance of the Star\ red \’iablc State, in I?actt’ria

in 7’heir IVa[ural En ~ironn]en ts, hi. Fletcher and

G. D. Floodgate (eds. ) (Orlando, FI,: Acad(>mit

Press, Inc., 1985), pp. 111-130.

367. Morse, D. L., Guzewich, J.-J., et al., ‘‘\$’idesprca(]

Outbreaks of Clam- and Oystel--,4sso(iatt,ci (iastroenterit is, NTCW’ En<qland ~JorJrIIal of ~~ feclicint’

3 14:678-681, Mar. 13, 1986.

368. Motes, M. L., Jr., ‘‘E;ffect of” Chlorinated J1’ash

t$’ater on \ ‘ibrio choler-w in ()~rster hlcats, ‘, J{~urnal of Food Science 47: 1028-1029, 1982.

369. Mrak, E., Report of the fkretar~ ‘.s CcJn]n~i.ssic~n

on Pesticides and Their Rt>lationsh ip to lit] ~’iron -

mentaJ Health (Washington, DC: L’, S. Department of Health, Education, and V$’t>lf’are, 1969).

370. Mueller, J .A., et al., ‘ ‘Contaminants in the New

York Bight, i4’ater Pollution Contrc}l Ft>deration

Journal 48(10):2309-2326, 1976.

371. Muir, W. D., ‘‘ History of Ocean Disposal in the>

Mid-Atlantic Bight, ‘‘ in 1~1’astm in the Ocean, ~’[)1.

1, 1.L$’. Duedall, et al. (eds. ) (New’ }’or-k: John

P1’ilc>} & Sons, 1983), pp. 273-291.
290 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

372,

373.

374.

375.

376.

377.

378.

379.

380.

381.

382.

Murai, Y., and Juroiwa, Y., “Peripheral Neuropathy in Chlorobiphenyl Poisoning, Neurology

21:1173-1 176, 1971.

Murchelano, R. A., ‘‘ Epizootic Carcinoma in the

Winter Flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus , Science 228:587-589, May 3, 1985.

Murphy, L. S., and Hoar, P. R., ‘‘Effect of Pollutants on Marine Phytoplankton at 106-Mile

Site, ” in Assessment Report on the Effects of’

Waste Dumping in 106-Mile Ocean Waste Disposal Site: Dumpsite Evaluation Report 81-1

(Boulder, CO: National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, 1981), pp. 309-319.

Myers, E. P. (cd.), Ocean Disposal of Municipal

Wastewater: Impacts on the Coastal Environment,

2 vols., MITSG 83-33 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Sea

Grant College Program, 1983).

Myers, M .S., and Rhodes, L. D., ‘ ‘Morphologic

Similarities and Parallels in Geographic Distribution of Suspected Toxicopathic Liver Lesions in

Rock Sole (Lepidopsetca bilineata), Starry Flounder (Platichthys stellatus), Pacific Staghorn Culpin (Leptocottus armatus), and Dover Sole (Microstomus pacificus) as Compared to English Sole

(Parophrys vetulus) From Urban and Non-Urban

Embayments in Puget Sound, Washington, ’ paper presented at Toxic Chemicals and Aquatic Life

Symposium, sponsored by National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, Sept. 16-18, 1986.

National Advisory Committee on Oceans and

Atmosphere, The Role of the Ocean in a Waste

Management Strategy, A Special Report to the

President and the Congress (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981).

National Advisory Committee on Oceans and

Atmosphere, Nuclear Waste Management and the

Use of the Sea, A Special Report to the President

and the Congress (Washington, DC: April 1984).

National Research Council, Committee on Salmonella, An Evaluation of the Salmonella Problem

(Washington, DC: 1969).

National Research Council, Commission on Natural Resources, Assessing Potential Pollutants: A

Report of the Study Panel on Assessing Potential

Ocean Pollutants to the Ocean Affairs Board (Washington, DC: 1975).

National Research Council, Drinking Water and

Health (Washington, DC: National Academy of

Sciences, 1977).

National Research Council, Commission on Natural Resources, Multimedium Management of

Municipal Sludge (Washington, DC: National

Academy of Sciences, 1978).

383.

384.

385

386

387,

388.

389,

390.

391.

392.

393.

394.

395.

396.

397.

National Research Council, Lead in the Human

Environment (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1980).

National Research Council, Marine Board, Drilling Discharges in the Marine Environment (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983).

National Research Council, Board on Ocean Science and Policy, Disposal of Industrial and Domestic Wastes, Land and Sea Alternatives (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1984).

National Research Council, Commission on Life

Sciences, Toxicity Testing: Strategies to Determine

Needs and Priorities (Washington, DC: National

Academy Press, 1984).

National Research Council, Marine Board, Ocean

Disposal Systems for Sewage Sludge and Effluent

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1984).

National Research Council, Marine Board, Dredging Coastal Ports.” An Assessment of the Issues

(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985).

National Research Council of the United States

and The Royal Society of Canada, The Great

Lakes Water Quality Agreement: An Evolving Instrument for Ecosystem Management (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985).

Neal, R. W., Evaluation of Submerged Discharge

of Dredged Material Slurry During Pipeline Dredge

Operations, Technical Report D-78-44 (Vicksburg,

MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment

Station, 1978).

New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, Enforcement Under the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II, 1975-1980 (Trenton, NJ:

1981).

New York State Assembly, SPDES—A System in

Stress (Albany, NY: Committee on Environmental

Conservation, Dec. 15, 1982).

New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation, “Regulatory Impact Statement,

Required Under the State Administrative Procedures Act for the Amend of Numeral Six NYCRR

Parts 10, 11, and 43” (New York: July 15, 1986).

New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation, New York State Water Quality,

1986 (New York: 1986).

Nichols, F. H., et al., ‘ ‘The Modification of an Estuary, ” Science 231 :567-573, 1986.

Noga, E.J., and Dykstra, M.J., “Oomycete Fungi

Associated With Ulcerative Mycosis in Menhaden,

Brovoortia tyrannus (Latrobe), ” Journal of Fish

Diseases 9:47-53, 1986.

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
References . 291

and Communit}’ De\relopment, Di\ision of En\’i -

ronmental Management, Chowan Albcrmarle .Action P/an, Report No 82-02 (Raleigh, NC: 1982).

398. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources

and Community Dc\’clopnlcnt, D ikision of En\r ironrnental Management, l’he Impact ofhlpAfiil

Efflurnt on the Chowan Ri\’er Herril]<y Fisher~,

Report No. 83-08 (Raleigh, NC: 1983).

f~~]~) North ~;arc)]ina Department of Natural Resources

and Communit?” Development, Di\. ision of Enli -

ronmenta] Management, .4 Lwes.sment of Surfhm

~$’atc>r Qualit~’ in .%’orth Carolina, Report N(). 8.5-

01 (Raleigh, NC: 1985).

400.” Nc)rt[)n, M. G., and Champ, Nf A., ‘‘l’he Influence of Site-Specific Characteristics of’ the Effects

of Sewage Sludge Dumping, paper presented at

4th International ocean Disposal Symposium,

Plymouth, En@and, April 1983.

401. N’f)rtonl h’1 .C., ‘‘Collier)-\$~asre and Fl?-Ash

Dumping Off’ the Northeastern Coast of England,

in L1’astrs in the Ocean, \’ol. 4, 1. \$’. Duedall, ct

al. (cds. ) ( N-ew }’ork: John 14’ iley & Sons, 1985),

pp. 423-448.

402, Nor-ton, hl .C. , ‘ ‘Disposal of’ Sewage SludgeIntcrnational Outlook, undated manuscript.

403. N’ort(}n, 17., Smith, T., and Strand, 1. (e(is. ).

Strip t’r.s: The Economic \ ‘due of’ (ht. Atlantic

Coast Commercial and Rrcr-t, ational Stript’d Ba.s.s

Fisheries, MDU-T-84-001 (College Park, hlD:

hfarylancl Sea Grant, 1984).

404. Nriagu, J. (cd. ), 7hr Bic~<yec~cht~~]istr.} of’hlercur}”

in the En ~’ironment ( New’ }’ork: Illse\’ ier, 1979 ).

40.5. Nriagu, ,J. (cc].), Cadmium in the En\’ironment

(New l’or-k: \h’ilcy-Inters( ience, 1981).

406. 0’ Brien, J. l’., ‘‘PCB-Stripecl Bass, Interoffice

Nlemo to J. M. Cronan and (J. Stolgitis (Pro\ridenct>, RI: State of Rhode Island and Pro\ridence

Plantations, Di\rision of Fish and Wilcllife, datrd

Nlar. 17, 1986).

407. (J’ C;onnor, ,J. M., and Huggett, R.(J., ‘ ‘Aquatic

Pollution Problems, North Atlantic Coast, Including Chesapeake Bay, paper presented at Toxic

Chemicals and .4quatic Life Symposium, sponsored b)’ National Marine Fisheries Ser\ice, Seattle, WA, Sept. 16-18, 1986.

408, ()’ Condor, ,J. M., Klotz, J. B., and Kneip, T., J.,

‘ ‘Sources, Sinks, and Distribution of organic Contain inants in the NCWT l’ork Bight F,cosystem, in

Ecological SII-CSS ancl the NCW ~ror-k Bi<qht: Scicnc(’

anci Mana,qement, G.F. Mayer (cd. ) (Columbia,

SC: Estuarine Research Federation, 1982), pp.

631-6.54.

409. O’[;onnor-, J. h!., and Kneip, T.* J., Human Ht’a]th

Efft>{t.s of’ 1~’astt’ ~;onstituents, contract prepared

fi)r L“, S. Con~ress, Office of’ ‘1’cchnolog> Assessment (Tuxedo Park, N1’: New l’or-k Uni\’ersit>’

Medical Center, 1986),

410. O’Connor, ,J. M., and Rachlin, <J .L4’., ‘‘Perspect i~es on Metals in New }’ork Bi3ht Orr+misms:

Factors Controlling Accumulation and Bed] Burdens, in EC[)]OgiCd stJt’SS and [ht. i\Tt>\$” }’O1-k

Bi<qht: Science and hfanagement, G. F. Nlay’er

(cd. ) (Columbia, SC: Estuarine Research Federation, 1982), pp. 655-673.

411. O’Connor, J. M., Wiedow, A., et al., ‘ ‘Cadmium

in Blue Crabs From the Hudson R i~’er h;st uar)r:

Preliminary)’ Health Risk Assessmt>nt, Ii”.stuarie.s

6:320, 1983.

412. O’Connor, J. S., and Dewlin$, R.-I’,, ‘‘ Indices of.

Marine Deg-radation, Their Utilit?, paper j>rtsented at 8th National S?’mposium on Statistics,

Law, and En\’ironment, 1$’ashington, DC, National .4cadcm~F of Sciences, Oct. 15-16, 1984.

413. O’Connor, <J ,S., Alurchelanol R ,.4., and Ziskowski, <J .,J. , Index of’ P(~llc]tat]t-IIl(i[l(t’cl Fish and

Sht]lfish Disease, INOAA Spe(ial Report (\4Tashington, DC: Nat ion;il Ocean ic and Atmospheric

Administration, 1987).

414. O’Connor, J, S., Pugh, it’. 1.., Pf’olfe, D. A., and

Dcwling, R .T., ‘‘ Protection of” Natural Resources

Through En\ironnlcntal Indices, .St’:i 7’t>chnof -

Ocq)’ 27(9):31 -33, September 1986.

415. O’Connor, J. S., and Swanson, R. L., ‘‘U~]reasonable Degradation of the Nlarine En\’ironrnent -

\$’hat Is It,‘‘ in Oceans 82 Con f?’rt’ncr Proctwin(qs (~’ash ington, DC: Marine Technolo S?’ Society’ and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Sc’pt. 20-22, 1982), pp. 1125-11 :~~ .

416. (~’(;onnor) ‘1’. P., et al., ‘‘ Projectt>d ( ;orlst’c]~lt’rl{’(>s of

Dumplns Se\\a~e ,$ludse at a Det’p ()((an Sitt Nrar

Ne\~ }rork Bisht, Canaciian ,Jc~urniil c)fFi,~ht>rit.~

and .4quati( .%ic’net’.s 4(J ( Suppl. 2): 228-241. 1981.

417. O’Connor, T. P., et al., ‘ ‘Scales of Biological Effects, in (leanic Processes in \$’a.stc> Disposal,

i’o]utnt> .2, Ph}’sical anci Cht>micai Proct.s.scs, T. 1’.

O’Connor, et al. (eds. ) (hfalabar, FI.: KrieSer

Press, in press).

418. Odurn E. P., Funciamental.s of”licolo,q?’ (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1971).

419. Officer, C. B., et al., ‘ ‘Chesapeake Anoxia: Origin, De\’elopment, and Significancej Scit>ncc 223:

22-27, 1984.

420. O’Halloran, R. L.., ‘ ‘Ocean Dumpins: Pro~ress

Toward A Rational Polic) of Dredged k$’aste Disposal, lin~’ironrnental La\~r 12: 745-772, sprinx

1982.

421. Ohlenciorf, H.hl., et al., ‘‘Or-gmochlorines and

Mercur) in Eggs of’ California Coastal Terns and

Htrons, u nd ateci man u script, circa 198.5.

422. ohlendorf, H, M. , et al., ‘‘ Rtproduct ion and or-
292 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

ganochlorine Contaminants in Terns at San Diego

Bay, ” Colonial Waterbirds 8(1):42-53, 1985.

423. Ohlendorf, H. M., et al., ‘ ‘Tissue Distribution of

Trace Elements and DDE in Brown Pelicans, ”

Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and

Toxicology 35: 183-192, 1985.

424. Ohlendorf, H. M.. et al., “Selenium and Heavy

Metals in San Francisco Bay Diving Ducks, ’ Journal of Wildlife Management 50(1 ):64-71, 1986.

425. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,

Oregon 1986 Water Quality Program Assessment

and Program Plan for Fiscal Year 1987 (Salem,

OR: 1986).

426. Orr, M. H., and Baxter L., “Dispersion of Particles After Disposal of Industrial and Sewage Wastes,

in Wastes in the Ocean, vol. 1, 1.W. Duedall, et

al. (eds. ) (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983),

pp. 117-137.

427. Orth, R.J., and Moore, K. A., “Chesapeake Bay:

An Unprecedented Decline in Submerged Aquatic

Vegetation, Science 222:51-53, 1983.

428. Overstreet, R. M., ‘ ‘Aquatic Pollution Problems,

Southeastern U.S. Coasts: Histopathological Indicators, Aquatic Toxicology, in press, 1987.

429. Page, A. L., et al. (eds. ), Utilization of MunicipaWastewater and Sludge on Land, Proceedings of

Workshop (Riverside, CA: University of California, 1983).

430. Pain, S., ‘ ‘Are British Shellfish Safe to Eat?’ New

Scientist 111 :29-33, Aug. 28, 1986.

431. Palermo, M. R., “Design of Confined Disposal

Areas for Retention of Contaminants, in Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal (Conference

Proceedings) (New York: American Society of

Civil Engineers, November 1984), pp. 858-865.

432. Palermo, M. R., Montgomery, R. L., and Poindexter, M. E., Guidelines for Designing, Operating, and Managing Dredged Material Containment

Areas, Technical Report DS-78- 10 (Vicksburg,

MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment

Station, 1978).

433. Parker, J. H., et al., “Coal-Waste Blocks for

Artificial-Reef Establishment: A Large-Scale Experiment, in Wastes in the Ocean, vol. 4, 1. W.

Duedall, et al. (eds. ) (New York: John Wiley &

Sons, 1985), pp. 537-556.

434. Payton, B., “Ocean Dumping in the New York

Bight, ‘‘ Environment 27 :26-32, November 1985.

435. Payton, B. M., ‘ ‘Blight in the Bight: Sewage and

Water Don’t Mix, ” Oceans 18(3): 63-67, M a y

1985.

436. Peddicord, R. K., ‘ ‘Aquatic Bioassays in Dredged

Material Management, ‘‘ in Dredging and Dredged

Material Disposal (Conference Proceedings) (New

York: American Society of Civil Engineers, November 1984), pp. 347-360.

437. Peddicord, R. K., and Hansen, J. C., “Technical

Implementation of the Regulations Governing

Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material, in Wastes

in the Ocean, vol. 2, D. R. Kester, et al. (eds. )

(New York:John Wiley& Sons, 1983), pp. 71-88.

438. Peddicord, R. K., Lee, C. R., et al., “General

Decisionmaking Framework for Management of

Dredged Material: Example Application to Commencement Bay, Washington, Miscellaneous Paper (Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1986).

439. Pequegnat, W. E., An Assessment of the Potential

Impact of Dredged Material Disposal in the Open

Ocean, Technical Report D-78-2 (Vicksburg, MS:

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1978).

440. Pequegnat, W. E., ‘‘Some Aspects of Deep Ocean

Disposal of’ Dredged Material, in Wastes in the

Ocean, vol. 2, D.R. Kester, et al. (eds. ) (New

York: John Wiley & Sons, 1983), pp. 229-252.

441. Pequegnat, W. E., Disposal of Dredged Material,

Case Studies, contract report prepared for U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (College Station, TX: Jan. 6, 1986).

442. Pequegnat, W. E., An Overview of the Scientific

and Technical Aspects of Dredged Material Disposal in the Marine Environment, contract report

prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment (College Station, TX: Jan. 18, 1986).

443. Perret, W., and Condrey, R. E., ‘‘Living Resources: Management Conflicts, Potentials, paper presented at Estuary of the Month Seminar:

Louisiana’s Estuaries, sponsored by NOAA Estuarine Programs Office, U.S. EPA, and U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, November 1986.

444. Pershagen, G., “The Epidemiology of Human

Arsenic Exposure, in Biological and Environmental Effects of Arsenic, B. Fowler (cd. ) (New

York: Elsevier, 1983), pp. 199-232.

445. Pierce, J.J,, and Cahill, L., “State Programs to

Control Municipal Sludge, Journal of Environmental Engineering 110( 1): 15-26, 1984.

446. Pipkin, B. W., et al., Laboratory Exercises in

Oceanography}’ (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co., 1977).

447. Pizza, J., and O’Connor, J., ‘‘PCB Dynamics in

Hudson River Striped Bass, II. Accumulation

From Dietary Sources, Aquatic ToxicoJog> 3:3 13-

327, 1983.
References . 2 9 3

448.

449.

450.

451.

452.

453.

454.

455.

456

457.

458.

459.

460.

461.

462.

Poiger, H., and Schlatter, C., $ ‘Animal Toxicology]’

of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-diox ins, Chemosphere

12:447-462, 1983.

Poindexter, M.I?., ‘‘ I,ong-Term Management of

Confined Disposal Areas, ‘‘ in L)r-tdgin<g and Dredged

A4aterial Disposaf (Conference Proceedings,) (New

York: American Society of’ C i~il Engineers, NTo-

\’ember 1984), pp. 886-895.

Portney, K. E., ‘ ‘The Potential of the Theor? of

Compensation for Mitigating Public Opposition

to Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility’ Siting:

Some E\ridence From Five Massachusetts Communities, ” Polic} StudiesJournal 14( 1 ):81-89, 1985.

Portnov, 13. L., et al., ‘‘O}’ster Associated Hepat itis—Failure of Shelfish Certification Programs to

Pre\ent Outbreaks, ” Journal of’ the American

Medical .4ssociation 233: 1065, 1975.

Poukish, C. A., and Allison, ,J. T.. ‘‘ 1985 Mar?’-

land Fish Kill Summar}, ” draft (Annapolis, MD:

Maryland Department of Health and Mental H)-

giene, Office of En\’ironmental Programs, 1986).

Price, C. M., ‘‘ Pri\’ate Enforcement of the Clean

Water Act, Natural Resour[es and lik~’ironrnent

1(4):3 1-33,59, winter 1986.

Priede-Sedgwick, Inc ., Sarasota Ba} 11’ater Qualit~’ Study (Tallahassee, FI.: Florida Department

of’ ~ln~’ironmental Regulation, Jan. 21, 1983).

Pruell, R,*J., Hoffman, E.* J., and Quinn, J. G.,

‘ ‘Total Hydrocarbons, Polyc~clic Aromatic H?’dro-

(arbons and S}’nthet ic Ogranic Compounds in the

Hard Shell Clam, hfercenaria mercenaria, Purchased at Commercial Seaftmd Stores, Llarine

Environmental Research 11: 163-181, 1984.

Prutcr, A. T., and Al\’erson, 1). L. (eds. ), The Columbia Ri\wr Estuar?’ and Acfjactnt Ocean (Seattle, ~$’A: University of Washington Press, 1972).

Public \;oice for Food and Health Policy. Great

American Fish Scancial: Health Risks ~~ncheckcd

(Washington, DC: 1986).

Puckett, \J. , ~~OddS, R., and Crosby, L., I.icense

to Pollute: 7’he 11’ational Pollutant Discharge Elimination S,vstem in h$’ashin~~on State (Seattle, \%’A:

Greenpeace, May 21, 1985).

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Annual

Report (Olympia, Washington: 1984).

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Combined

Sewer O\erflow, Issue Paper (Seattle, WA: April

1986).

Pugct Sound Water Quality

Pretreatment, Issue Paper

1986).

Puget Sound Water Quality

and Municipal Discharges,

W’A: May 1986).

Authority, Industrial

(Seattle, P1’A: April

Author-it}, Industrial

Issue Paper (Seattle,

463.

464.

465.

466.

467.

468.

469.

470

471.

472

473

474

475

Puget Sound Water Quality Authorit?, 7%e State

of the Sound 1986 (Seattle, WA: JulyT 1986).

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1987 Puge(

Sound Water Quality Management Plan; En\ironrnental Impact Statement, draf’t (Seattle, \$’A:

Sept. 17, 1986).

Rabalais, N. N., and Boesch, D.E’., ‘‘ Extcnsi\e

Depletion of Oxygen in Bottom kf’aters of’ the

Louisiana Shelf During 1985 (drafl manuscript.

1986).

Rabalais, N. N., Dagg, M.J., and Boesch, D. F.,

Nationwide Ret’iewr of Ox}rgen Depletion and Eutrophication in listuarine and Coastal Ji’aters: Guli”

of Mexico, final report to National oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (1..4: I,ouisiana Universit ies Marine Consortium, 1985).

Rappe, C., 13user, H., and Bosshardt, H., ‘‘Dioxins, Dibenzofurans, and Other Polyha]ogenated

Aromatics: Production, Use, Formation, ancl Destruct ion, .4nnals of- the A’t’wr I’c)rk .Academ}, of’

Sciences 320: 1-18, 1979.

Ra\’an, J. E., Testimon) Before the Subcommittee on In\’estimations and O\rersight, House Committee on Public V$’orks and Transportation, L“. S.

Congress, ‘ ‘Hearings on the Implementation of the

Federal Clean Water Act, Mar. 8 and Sept. 19,

1984, 98th Corlg. , Committee Serial 98-81 (J$’ashington, DC: U.S. (loiernment Printing Office,

1985).

ReNewsletter, ‘ ‘Metro lh>~ins I,arge-Scale Sil\rigrow

,4ppl icat ions, ReNewsletter iol. 2. No. 3 (Seattle, WA: Metro, No\ember 198.5).

Reddy, C., Dorn, C., et al., ‘‘ hlunicipal Sewage

Sludge Application on Ohio Farms: Tissue h!etal

Residues and Infections, ~~]]~’i~-~~]]~r]c>ntal Research 38: 360-376, 1985.

Reddy, C., and Dorn, C., ‘ ‘Municipal Sewage

Sludge Application on Ohio Farms: Estimation (J1

Cadmium Intake, En[ironn]cntaf Research 38:

377-388, 198.5.

Reed, A. L%’., Ocean \$’aste Disposal Practict’.s

(Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corp., 1975).

Reed, M., and Bierman, Jr., \’.<J., (eds. ), PJ-Oceedings of a i$’or-kshop for the IA’~’t’lopment of’

a Scientific Protocol fi~r Ocean Dunlp Site Desi,qnation, prepared for the L’. S. En\’ironrncntal Protection Agency, Office of W’ater Regulations and

Standards, Criteria and Standards Di\ision, held

at Uni\’ersity of Rhode Island, KinSston, RI, Feb.

14-17, 1983.

Reid, B., ‘‘TBT, A Chemical On Trial, special

report in the Daily’ Press and Times-Herald newspapers (Richmond, $’A: Apr. 13-20, 1986).

Reinisch, C.I.., Charles, A. M., and Stone, A. M.,
294 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

“Epizootic Neoplasia in Soft Shell Clams Collected

From New Bedford Harbor, ” Hazardous Waste

1(1):73-81, 1984.

476. Renaud, M. L., “Hypoxia in Louisiana Coastal

Waters During 1983: Implications for Fisheries,

Fishery Bulletin 84(l): 19-26, January 1986.

477. Resources For the Future, ‘ ‘An Overview of the

RFF Environmental Data Inventory: Methods,

Sources and Preliminary Results, Volume 1“

(Washington, DC: September 1984).

478. Resources For the Future, ‘ ‘Pollutant Discharges

to Surface Waters in Coastal Regions, contract

prepared for U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment (Washington, DC: February 1986).

479. Rhan, W. R., Jr., ‘ ‘The Role of Spartina alter480.

481.

482.

483

484

485

486.

niflora in the Transfer of Mercury in a Salt

Marsh , M.S. Thesis (Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology, 1973).

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Water Resources, The State

of the State Waters—Rhode Island: A Report to

Congress (Providence, RI: 1986).

Rhodes, M. W., and Kator, H. I., In Situ Sur}i\al

of Enteric Bacteria in Estuarine Environments,

Bulletin 140 (Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institutes and State University, Virginia Water

Resources Research Center, 1983).

Rieser, A., and Spiller, J,, Regulating Drilling Effluents on Georges Bank and the Mid-Atlantic

Outer Continental Shelf A Scientific and Legal

Analysis prepared for the States of Maine, New

Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New Jersey (Augusta, ME: April 1981 ).

Riley, R. G., et al. , Organic and Inorganic Toxicants in Sediment and Marine Birds From Puget

Sound, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS

OMS 1 (Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean

Service, June 1983).

Risebrough, R. W., Reichle, P., et al., ‘‘Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the Global Ecosystem,

Nature 220: 1098-1102, 1968.

Risebrough, R. W., Sibley, F. C., and Kirven,

M.N. , “Reproductive Failure of the Brown Pelican on Anacapa Island in 1969, American Birds

25(1):8-9, February 1971.

Robinson, K., New Jersey 1986 State Water Quality Inventory Report (Trenton, NJ: New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection, Division

of Water Resources, July 1986).

487. Rosbe, W., and Gulley, R., “The Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments of’ 1984: A Dramatic

Overhaul of the Way America Manages Its Hazardous Wastes, Environmental Law Reporter

14(12): 10458-10467, 1984.

488. Rose, C. D., Ward, T.J., de Pass, V. E., “Ecological Assessment for Coal Ash Dumped Off the

Northeastern Coast of England, ” in Wastes in the

Ocean, vol. 4, I.W. Duedall, et al. (eds. ) (New

York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985), pp. 389-422.

489. Rosenberg, M. L., et al., “Shigellosis From Swimming, ‘Journ~ of the American Medical Association 236: 1849-1852, 1976.

490. Royston, M. G., Pollution Prevention Pays (New

York: Pergamon Press, 1979).

491. Rubinstein, N., Lorea, E., and Gregory, N., “Accumulation of PCBS, Mercury, and Cadmium by

Nereis virens, Mercenaria mercenaria and Palaemnetes pugio From Contain inated Harbor Sediment, Aquatic Toxicology 3:249-260, 1983.

492. Rulifson, R. A., et al., Anadromous Fish in the

Southeastern United States and Recommendations

for Development of a Management Plan (Atlanta,

GA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery Resources, 1982).

493. Russell, P. P., et al., ‘‘Water and Waste Inputs to

San Francisco Estuary—An Historical Perspective, ‘‘ in San Francisco Bay.” Use and Protection,

W,J. Kockelman, et al. (eds) (Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, 1982), pp. 127-136.

494. Safe, S., “Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBS) and

Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs): Biochemistry,

Toxicology and Mechanism of Action, C R C

Critical Reviews in Toxicology 13:319-393, 1984.

495. Sass, S. L., and Murchelano, R. A., ‘‘ Hepatic

Tumors and Other Liver Pathology in Massachusetts Flatfish, paper presented at Toxic Chemicals and Aquatic Life Symposium, sponsored by

National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA,

Sept. 16-18, 1986.

496. Saucier, R. T., et al., Executive Overview and

Detailed Summary, Technical Report DS-78-22

(Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways

Experiment Station, 1978).

497. Save the Bay, Inc., Down the Drain: Toxic Pollution and the Status of Pretreatment in Rhode Island (Providence, RI: 1986).

498. Sawyer, C. N., and McCarty, P. L., Chemistry for

Environmental Engineering (New York: McGrawHill Book Co., 1978).

499, Schafer, H. A., ‘ ‘Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in

Marine Mammals, in Coastal Water Research

Project Biennial Report, 1983-1984, W. Bascom

(cd.) (Long Beach, CA: Southern California Coastal

Water Research Project, 1984), pp. 108-114.

500. Schubel, J. R., et al., Field Int’estimations of the
References ● 295

501.

502

50 :~

504

505,

.506.

.507

508

5(N

5 1()

i\’acure, Decqret> :ind Extent of’ I“urbidit) Gener -

a teci b,}’ CIpcn - wa tcr Pipeline Disposal Operations,

l’echnica] Report D-78-30 (\’icksburg, NIS: U.S.

.Arnl) Fln$inetr L1’aterwa?s Experiment Station,

1978).

Schwartz R. F:., and Hackett, D. P., ‘ ‘Citizen

Suits ASainst Pri\ate In[iustr~ IJnder the Clean

F1’ater ,4ct, ,X’atural Rt.s<jurces I,a\~ytr 17(3):327-

:;72 , 1984.

Science Applications International Corp., .4sse.s.smt’n t of’ (At’an 1$’as[e Disposal Case Stuciies, contr-a( t report preparrd ii]r LT

. S. Congress, Oflicc of’

I’cchnolog?r ,4sscssrnent (hlcI.can, \’,4: oct. 3,

1 98.5).

S( itnc c Ai)pli( ati{)ns Irltt>r-rl;iti[)rliil Corp., OLt>r-

~’it>~~r (jl’kY(>\~a<qc> .Ylucl,q(’ and fi;fllut’n ( .4f;il]:t<<~c’tl]c’tr t,

( on t r;i( t ~)rt’pare.(i for U S, Con grx>ss, of-fi( t’ of

‘1’t’chn{)lo~) ,lsst’ssrIlc>nt ( Nl( I,can, \’,4: 1986 ),

SEAhlC)( can, In( , ‘‘ Prc>lirninarJ .4sscssn~cnt of

the (;ost lmpl ications of hlult imcdia J$’aste hlan -

agem(>nt Dec is ions g’hat Include an Ocean Opt ion, linal report for- National oceanic and

Atrnospheri( Adrninist rat ion, Offi( (’ of Oceanic

and Atmospheric Rc> search, NO.4.4 C; on t r-act No.

40-,4 AN R502485 (J$-hcaton, illD: Fcbruar} 1986’).

Sra ‘1’t>chnolog?”, ‘‘A N’ati ona] St ratt>g?’ for hfonitor-irly arr[i Rcs(>arch, .St>a 7’echnolo<y~ 27(9): lfl17, Septcmber 1986.

S(’gar, 1)..4. , ‘‘ Design of’ N’lonitorirrg Studies to Asst. ss \4’ astc I) isp(wd Flffccts on R(’ gional to Sitt’

Spt’( iiic Scalesj

in Public 1$’aste Alanagemc’n[

and [ht. CAean Choice, hl ITSG 85-36, K. D. Stol -

zt’nlx~ch, ct al, (eds. ) ( Carnbrid~c, hl.4: kl IT Sea

(~rarrt ~;ollet+> Pr(ypnl. ,4pril 1986), pp. 189-’206.

Sc’gar, 11.,4. , and Ilal. is, P. C., Con ta m ina ti~)n 01’

P{)pulatt’<i Flstuarics and .Acijact’nt(JOasfal Oct’an

—.4 Global \ ‘ie~$’, NOAA ‘1’echn ical Memorandu m N(~S Ohf A 11 (Rock\ illc. hl D: N’at ional

oceanic and Atrnosphcric Administration, N a -

t ionzil ~)ct’an Srr\icr, 1984).

St~ar, D. A., and Stamrnan, E., ‘‘ Monitoring in

Support of Estuarint Pollution Xlanagemerrt Needs,

octan.v *86 <;onfi’rence Record, fol, 3, 86 CH!2363-

0 (\\-ashington, 1)C: Itl;irint q’echnolo~~. Society

an(i I 1; E ~; fj(ra n E n ~i nt’t> r

- i n ,q .S(x’ i (’t }’, Sept. 23-

)5+. 1 ~)~[j), PI), 874-877.

 ,

StSar, I). J\, , Starn man, E., an(l Da\is, P. G.,

‘‘ fk>ncfi( ial L’w of Xluni( i pal Sludge in the Ocean,

,Ilat-int Pf~llution Bul)ttin 16(5): 186-191, hla}

198.5.

Shtift>r, 1.(; ., ‘‘ San Francisco Ila? (;onsidc>re(l as

a Rccrcat ional Rcsourc(>: Ind i(ators 01 I{corlomic

\’alUt>,‘‘ in OCY’anLS ’86 (JOnfi’renct’ R (’cord, ~’ol.

511

512

513

514

51.5

516

.517

518.

519.

520,

.521.

522

2 (Washington, DC: Marine Technology?’ Society

and IEEE Ocean Engineering Soc icty, Sept. 23-

25, 1986), PP. 627-631.

Shields, D. F., Jr., and Montgomcr}, R. 1.., ‘ ‘Fundamentals of Capping Contarninateci Dredge(i

Material, in Dredging and Drrdged Alaterial

Disposal (Conlkrence Proceedings) (New l’or-k:

American Societ)’ of’ Ci\il Engineers, Notrember

1984), pp. 446-460.

ShiSenaka, G., and Calder, J .A., Ol:qanic COIJIpoun<is and Aletals in .%lecteci Fish, Bi\ra]\e AlolIUSCS, and .%iiments of ”Che.wpc’aiie Ba}r: Prellminar}’ R rsults From the A’ational Status and l’rends

proqral~l (RockY,ille, MD: National (]c’{’anic’ and

.

Atmospheric Administration, N’at iorral Status and

Trrnds Pro~ram for Marine En\ironnlental Qualit~r, August 1986).

Shigenaka, (1., and Leschirre, ‘I’. , ‘‘ Pu,qct Sound

k$’att>r Quality hlanagement: St>tting the .~~enda’

(Seattle }$7A: Uni\ersit> of J$’ashington Institutr

for Marine Studies, unpublished manuscript dated

1986).

Shrimp Notes Inc. , A,swssment of’.$hrimp lnciustt-?’ Potentials and Conflicts, \ ‘olurne 7’w.0, Report

\‘: Potential Actions of 7’ariffanci Quota Le<qislafion (New Orleans, 1..4: August 1983).

S indc rm an n, C ., J., ‘‘ Fish and hln~ir-(}rlnlerlti~l Inlpact s,‘‘ Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of

k~uropean Ichthyologists, .4rchi~ fii r Fischerei\~issenschafi 3.5: 125-160, 1984.

Sindermann, C.,J., ‘‘ Pollution-.4sso(iiitc>(i” Diseases

of’ Nlar-inc Fish, in Principal Diseast’.5 of ”illat”int’

Fish and Sht>l]fish (New. }’ork: Academic Pr(’ss, in

press).

Sittig. M., Handbook of 7’o.~ir and Hazardou s

C~hen]icals anci Car(ino<qens (Park Ridge, hT.J:

N’eyes Press, 1985).

Sloan, R., et al., P<;fi in Stripe(i Bass FroIn th(

Afarine District of’ A’t>}j }-or-k, ‘1’rchnical Report

86-1 (BEP) (Alhan?, N’}”: New. }’ork State IJepart -

mcnt of En\ironmcntal Conservation. April 1986’),

Sloan, R., Brown, Al., Br-andt, R., ct al., ‘‘ Hudson R i~’er PC B Relationships Bt’twec’n Resident

Fish, Water, and St’dimcnt, ,\’c)~-tf]t’iis/[>z.~] kTrl\ironmental Scienm 3: 138-152, 1984.

Sludge Ne~slcttcr, ‘‘ Slants and Trends, Slu(igt’

A’t’w’slet[er 1 ()(13): 97, ,Junt> 24, 1 !185.

Smith, S.1’., ‘‘ kln~rirorlrllt’rltal Status of Hawaiian

Estuaries, in blstuarint’ Pollution <~ontrol an<i

i~SSt’SS1nCIlt: pt”OCCtXdiIlgS of’ a COtlft’[-t’tlc’t’, ~:p,4

440/ 1-77-007 (t$’ashirrgton, I>C: L’. S. F:n\ironrrrcntal Protection .4gcrlc~’, Oflict’ of J$’atcr P]an -

n iny Standards. 1977), pp. 297-:306.

Snyrdcr, C., et al., ‘ - E\iciencc for Herll:itotoxi(it}”
. Wastes in Marine Environments

523

524

52.5,

526

527

528

529

530

531.

532.

533,

5 :34,

and Tumorigenesis in Rats Exposed to 100 ppm

Benzene, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 5:429-434, 1984.

Sobsey, M. D., Rullman, V. A., and Davis, A. L.,

‘ ‘Influence of Temperature, Salinity, and A\’ailabiIity of Foocl Supply on the Elimination of Hepatitis A Virus and Poliovirus Type 1 From the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica, Under Deputation

Conditions, ‘‘ in U.S./French Symposium on Dischar<ye of Urban Wastes in Marine and Coastal

Waters (College Park, MD: University of Maryland Sea Grant Program, 1986).

Sommers, L. E., ‘ ‘Chemical Composition of Sewage Sludges and Analysis of Their Potential L’se

as Fertilizers, ” Journal of’ Ent-ironmenta] Qua]-

it~’ 6(2):225-232, 1977.

Sopper, W. E., Seaker, E.N4., and Bastian, R. K.,

(eds. ), Land Reclamation and Biomass Production

\Vith Municipal Waste~’ater anci Sludge (Uni\’ersity Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University

Press, 1982).

Soule, D.F. , “Changes in a Harbor Ecosystem

Following ‘ Improved’ Waste Treatment, in Marine En ~’ironrnental Pollution, \rol. 2, R. A. ~~eyer

(cd. ) (Amsterdam: Else\’ier, 1981), pp. 313-378.

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, 7’hc Ef&cts of Ocean Disposal of Municipal

W’astes (El Segundo, CA: June, 1978).

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Coas[al Water Research Pr(y”ect Biennial Report, 198.? -1984 (Long Beach, CA: 1984).

Spies, R.13. et al., Pollutant Body Burdens and Reproduction in Platichth~’s stellatus From San Francisco Bay, report prepared for iNational Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration Coastal and Estuarine Assessment Branch, UCID 19993-84 (Livermore, CA: Lawrence [.i~rermort I.aboratory, 1985).

Spits, R, B., et al., ‘ ‘Reproductive Success, Xenobiotic Contaminants and Hepatic Mixed-Function

Oxidase (MFO) Acti\rity in platichth~s stellatus

Populations From San Francisco Bay, Marine

Environmental Research 17: 117-121, 1985.

Spirer, J. ‘ ‘The Ocean Dumping Deadline: Easin~ the Mandate Milestone, Fordhan] Urban

Law(Journal 1 l(l): 1-49, 1982.

Squires, D. F., 77he Oceiin Dumpin$ Quandarytl’aste Disposal in the Net+ l’ork Bight (Albany,

NY: State Uni\’ersity of h’ew York Press, 1983).

Stanfield, R. 1... ‘‘ Mone)’ Down the Drain?’ Nra -

fionaf Journal, June 2, 1984, p. 1097.

Stanley, D. E., Nationwide Re\’iew of Ox}rgen

Depletion and Eutrophication in Estuarine and

~~[~asta~ t$ratt’rs: SoLJtheast RC’giOn (GrtXn\’dl(’,

NC: Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources,

1985).

535.

536.

537,

538,

539,

540.

541.

542.

543,

544.

545.

546.

547.

548.

Stegeman, J.J., Kloepper-Sams, P.J., and Barrington, J. W., ‘‘Monoxygenase Induction and Chlorobiphenyls in the Deep-Sea Fish Coryphaenoides

armatus , Science 231: 1287-1289, 1986.

Steidinger, K. A., and Haddad, K., “Biologic and

Hydrographic Aspects of Red Tides, Bioscience

31(1 1):814-819, December 1981.

Steimle, F. Vi’., et al., ‘ ‘Organic and Trace Metal

Levels in Ocean Quahog, Arctica Islandica Linne,

From the Northwestern Atlantic, Fishery Bulletin 84( 1): 133-40, January 1986.

Stein, R., and Woods, J., “Review of the Great

Lakes Water Quality Agreement, En\ Tironment

28(6):25-27, July/August 1986.

Stun, J. K., et al., “Long-Term Changes in the

Benthic Community on the Coastal Shelf’of Pales

Verdes, Southern California, Marine Bio@y

91(4):539-553, 1986.

Suflita, J, M., et al., ‘ ‘Kinetics of’ Microbial Dchalogenation of Haloaromatic Substrates in Methanogenic Environments, Applied and lin~ironmental

Microbiology 45(5): 1466-1473, 1983.

Sullivan, K., Atlas, E., and Giam, C., ‘ ‘Adsorption of’ Phthalic Acid Esters From Seawater, En-

~’ironmental Science and 7“echnology 16:428-433,

1982.

Summer, F., ‘ ‘Sewage Treatment: When the Federal Government Pulls the Plug, The En\’iron -

rnental Forum 4:8- 13, April 1986.

Sun, M., ‘ ‘The Chesapeake Bay’s Difficult Comeback, ’ Science 233:715-7 17, Aug. 15, 1986.

Susani, 1.., Li\’er Lesions in Feral Fish: .4 Discussion of 7’heir Relationship to En i’ironmen tal Pollutants, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS

OMA 27 (Rockville, MD: National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, 1986).

Suszkowski, D.J., and Santoro, E. D., ‘‘ Marine

Monitoring in the New York Bight, in Oceans

’86 Conference Record, \’ol. 3 (Washington, DC:

Marine Technology Societ~r and IEE;E Ocean Engineering Society, 1986), pp. 754-759.

Swanson, R. L., and S indermann, C .J. , Oxygen

Depletion and Associated Benthic i$lortalities in

New, }rork Bi~ht, NOAA Professional Paper 11

(Rock\ille, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1976).

Swanson, R. L., et al., I.on<g Island Beach Po)lution: .June 1.976 (Boulder-, CO: National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, En\’ironmcntal

Research I.aboratory, 1977).

Swanson, R. L., et al., ‘‘ScWage Sludge Dumping

in the New York Bight Apex: A Comparison With

Other Proposed Dumpsites, in W’astes in the

Ocean, to]. 6, 1.W. Duedall, et al. (eds. ) (New

}’ork: John Wiley & Sons, 1985), pp. 461-488.
References ● 2 9 7

.549.

.750,

551

.5.52

5.53,

554.

.5.5.5

5.56,

.5.57

.5.58

559

560,

561.

Swrartz, R C., et al., ‘‘ Sediment Toxicity to a Marine In faunal Amph ipod: Cadmium and Its Interact ion t$’ith Sewage Sludge, Afarine En \’iron -

mentaf Research 18: 133-153, 1985.

Takizawa, 1’., ‘‘ Epidemiology of Mercury. Poisonins , in ‘lThe Bi[~,qt>(jc’h(>n]istl-~r of ~lercur~r in [he

fi~~~~ir[~~]~~)(’r?[, J. Nriagu (d. ) (New York: Elsc’lier. 1 979). pp. 32.5-366 .

I’arr, .J.,A, , et al,, ‘‘t$’atcr and \$’astes: A Rt>trospect i~’e Assessment of J$’astewater Technology’ in

the United States, 1800-1932, T’echnolo<q} and

Culture 25(2):226-263, 1984.

I’a>l(]r, Ill., ‘‘“l’rouble on the Parnlico, tl’ildliii’

in i\’of-th Car[)lina 50( 5):4-1 1, Nlay 1986.

‘1’ernple, Barkerl & Sloane, Inc., Costs of Ocean

l~i.sposal {Jf,41 unicipal Sewa<ye Sludge ancl Irrcius -

rrial }$’a.ste. s, prepared for ~’. S. En\’ironmental

Protection A~enc~’, Office of’ ,4nalysis and EIaluat ion ( Ijcxington, M.4: September 1982).

“1’exas IX’partmcnt of” ~$’ater Resources, 7’he State

[~1’ 7’cxa.s \$’a [(’r Qualit}’ In ~’en tor~’, 1,P-59 (.Aus -

tin, ‘IX: 1984),

Thackston, k;, I.., hlont~ornery. R, L., and Pa]ermo,

hf. R., ‘ ‘Settling of’ Dredged hlateria] Slurries,

in l~rt’d,qin~r and I)redged ,tfareria] Disposal (Conti’rt’nce Proceedin,qs,) ( iNet\I }’ork: American Societ?’

of” C; i\’il I’; nSinc(’rs, No\enlbtr 1984), pp. 849-857.

I’hom. NT., and .4gs, A., 197.5. ‘‘~”he Breakdown

of S}’nthc’t ic organic {jonlpounds” in Biological

Pr(xc>ss(’s, Prcwtedin<q.s of thr Ro?al Societ}’ 01’

I,ondl)n, Series B 189:347-357, 197.5.

‘1’r:~rrlorltozzi,” P., ‘‘ Refilrmins \$’ater Pollution

Regulation, F’ormal Publication Number 69 (St,

I.ouis, Nl(j: tlrashingtorr LTni\ersit} {;cnter for the

Study of American Business, August 1985).

‘1’ribe, 1.. H. ‘‘ \$’a)s Ik’t)t ‘1’o I’hink About Plastic

l’rees: N“ew’ Foundations fi)r ~~~l~irorlr~lerltal I.a\\,

}rale I.a}t ,]ournal 83( 7):1315-13 19,1325-1327,

1 :;z+ ] :3:32, 134 ] -1346, <June 1974.

United Kins(iom Department of” the En\rironnlent,

Radioactive i$rastc I)i\ision, .4.sst’s.snlent of Best

Practicable En Lironn]ent <jption.s (BPEOS) lbr

~~aIlifgCIllCI?t Of I.()}%’- alld Int(>rrnt’di;itc’-I.(’~t’l

S~Jid Radioacti\re It”asres ( I.ondon: Her Nla]est}”s

stationery of’fi(t, Nlarch 1!)86).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, fW?O Report to

(:c)ll,qrt’.%s on ,4clr1]irlistratic~I] of Ocean Ilun]pinkq

,4cti\i[ies, Pamphlet 82-P 1 (Fort Rel\oir, \’A:

\f’atcr Resour( {S Support (;c>nt~’r, hla}r 1 982).

b“. S. ,4rrrl}r (;orps of l’lnginecrs, Oc(>an llumpin~

Report fi>r ~~alendat- }’t’ar 1981, Sunlnlar) Report

82-S02 (Fort Bcl\roir, 1’.4: W’att>r Resources Support ~;cnter, ,Junt’ 1982).

562.

563.

564

565.

566.

.567

568.

569.

570.

571.

572.

573

574

U.S. Arm}’ Corps of Engineers, Dredged Afaterial Llisposal Alternati~’es: Port of Nt’\~ }rork and

k’ew Jersey, NANP 1145-2-2 ( New l’or-k: Nt.w.

}’ork District, May 1983).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, All I~redged L’p

and No Place to Go, NANP 1145-2-3 ( Ne\~’ l’ork:

New York District, July 1983).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, OcearI Dun]ping

Report for Calendar Year 1982, Summar) Report

83-SR 1 (Fort Bel\oir, 17A: Pf’atcr Resour( es Support Center, October 1983).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Beneiicia] L’ses

of Dred,qeci hfaterial, Engineer Nlanual EN! 1110-

2-5026 (Washington, DC: Office of the Chicl of

Engineers, 1985).

U.S. Bureau of the Census, S[atis[ical .4 bstract of

the L’nited S[atc. s: 1986 (106th cd) (\$rash ington,

LIC: U.S. Government Printing of]ice. 1985).

U.S. Congress, A I.egislati\t’ Histor} of the Clean

}A’ater Act ot’ 1977, A Continuation ~)i the I.r,yis -

latiire Histot-) of’the Federal 11’ater Pollution conrrol Act, 9.5th Cong. , 2d sess. , Senate Comrnittre

on Eny’ ironment and Pub] ic \$’orks, Comrn ittec

Print 95-14 (t$’ashington, IX;: 1978).

U.S. Congress, Congressional BudSet Office, Hazardous T%’aste .41an;j<~Tt>tllt’nt. R ecent Chan<qc.s anc{

Polic? .4~ternati\ws (;$’ashington, DC: U. S. (;()\-

ernment Printing Of’fice, Nla} 1985).

U.S. Congpss, Congressional Budget Of’ficc, fi;f:

iicient Inie.stments in il’astt>water 7’rt>atn]t’nt

Plants (M’ashin$non, IX: L’ .S. (Im’ernment Printing office, June 1985).

U.S. Congress, Congressional R(’search Ser\ice,

Ocean Dumping: .4 7’inlt’ to Rt’apprai.w’;) Issue

Brief No. IB8 1088 (J$rashington, IX;: 1983).

U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Scr\’ice,

kl’ater Qualit~: Itnplenlenting tht’ (:lran \$’att’I-

,4ct, update of Issue Brief 11383030 (L1’ashington,

DC: 1984).

U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Scr\’ict’,

Clean i%’att’r: Section 404 Drt’cl<qt’ an~i b’ili Pt’rtl]it

Pr(~gram, lSSLIC Brief 11383011 ( it’ashington, D(1:

1985).

LT. S. Congress, Congressional” Research Ser\rice,

\+hsteNater 7’I-CEIt111t’tlt Progr:inls: ln]~a(t of(;ranln -

R udman-Hol]inSs .-lc[ and Pro.spr(ts Ii)r Ftdt>ra]

Funciin,y (il’ith .-ipptn~ii.~), ]ssut 13rit>i IB86018

(Washington, DC: Februar-l 1 986).

L’. S. Congress, General Accounting (~fli(e, ,Ifor(>

Efl&’ti\’e Action b? the k“niil-c~rltl]txrlt:~l Prott’(tic~n

.4,qt’nc? A’twieci 7?) hlnfi~rce Industrial Conlplian(t’

i$rith \\’att>r Po]iution <;(~ntt-[~] Discharqe ])t’rn]it.%

(t$’ash ingt on, DC: Oct. 17, 1978),
298 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

575. bT. S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Billions Could Be Sa\ed Through Waiters for Coastal

Wastewater Treatment Plants, CED-81-68 (Washington, DC: May 1981).

576. U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office,

Wastewater Dischargers Are Not Complying With

EPA Pollution Control Permits (Washington, DC:

Dec. 2, 1983).

577. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Energy anci

Commerce, Health Implications of 7’oxic Chemical Contamination of the Santa Monica Bay,

Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Health and

the En i-ironment of the House Committee on

Encrg~’ and Commerce, Serial No. 99-74 (Washington, DC: L’ .S. Go\rernment Printing Office,

1986).

578. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant

Marine and Fisheries, Ocean Dumping Reauthorization (’FY 1980) and Chrersigh t, Ocean Dumpin<q Deadline O\’ersigh t, Ocean Dumping Reauthorization (F)’ 1981,) and O\wrsight, Hearings

Before the Subcommittee on Oceanography ancl

the Subcommittee on Fisheries and \$’ildlifk Consrr~a tion and the En \’ironmen t of’ the Committee

on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 96th Gong.,

Serial No. 96-40 (Washington, DC: U.S. Go\’ernment Printing Office, 1980).

579. LT. S. Congress, House Committee on Merchant

Marine and Fisheries, Ocean Dumping Amendments .4ct of’ 198.?, 98th Gong., 1st sess., Report

98-200, Part 1 (Washington, DC: May 16, 1983).

.580. U.S. Congress, House Comrnittce on Merchant

Marine and Fisheries, Plastic Pollution in the Marine En ~’ironment, Hearing Before the Subcom -

mittee on Coast Guard and Na ~’igation of’ the

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,

99th Gong., 2d sess., Serial No. 99-47 (Washington, DC: LT

. S. C>o\’ernment Printing Office, Aug.

12, 1986).

581. U.S. Congress, House of Representati\’es, Ocean

Dumpin<q Amendments Act of- 1985, 99th Gong.,

1st sess., Report 99-107, Part 2 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Go\’ernment Printing Office, June 19, 1985).

582. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

W’edands: Their Use and Regulation, OTA-O-206

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1984).

583. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Super-fund Strategy’, OTA-ITE-252 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April

1985).

584. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

‘‘Workshop On the Disposal of Dredged Material

in the Marine Environment” (Washington, DC:

July 23, 1985).

585. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Subseabed Disposal of’ High -Le\’el Radioacti\’e

Waste, staff paper (Washington, DC: May 1986).

586. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Ocean Incineration, Its Role in Managing Hazardous Waste, OTA-O-313 (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1986).

587. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Serious Reduction of Hazardous P$’aste, OTAITE-317 (Washington, DC: IJ, S. Government

Printing Office, September 1986).

588. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Ecological Consequences of- Waste Disposal in Marine En~’ironments, staff paper (Springfield, VA:

National Technical Information Service, 1987).

589. L’. S. Congress, Senate Committee on En\ironrnent and Public Works, Ocean Dumping, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on En ~’ironmental

Pollution of’ the Committee on Environment and

Public kf’orks, Senate Hearing 99-206 (Washington, DC: U.S. Go\wrnment Printing office, 1985).

590. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, 77he Future Direction of’ the

Chesapeake Ba,v Program, Hearing Befbrc the

Senate Subcommittee on Got’ernmen[d Eflicienc?.

and the District of’ Columbia of’ the Committee on

Go\rernmenta] Afftiirs, 99th Gong., 2d sess., Senate Hearing 99-950, June 24, 1986 (F$’ashington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986).

591. U.S. Department of’ Agriculture, Utilization of’

Sewage Sludge Compost as a Soil Conditioner and

Fertilizer fbr Plant Growth, Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 464 (Washington, DC: Agriculture Research Ser\’ice, 1984).

592. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Ser\’ice, Northeast Monitoring Pro-

~ram, Annu~ NE&fP Report on the Health of the

Northeast Coastal Waters of’ the United States,

1980, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSF/NEC-10 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1981).

593. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, G’ulf and At~an -

tic Sur\’ey for Selected Organic Pollutants in Finfish (Washington, DC: NOAA, 1982).

594. U.S. Department of Commerce, NTational Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessments Di\’ision, Assessment of Ocean Dumping

North of Puerto Rico, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS 28 (Rockville, MD: 1983).

595. U.S. Department of’ Commerce, National Oceanic

Atmospheric Administration, Report to the Congress on Ocean Pollution, Monitoring and Research, October 1982 through September 1983

(Washington, DC: July 1984).

596. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
References ● 299

—.

597

602

60:3

604

605

anc] .Atmospheric Administration, Nrational Llarine Pollution Program office, F’ccferal .4ction Plan

!ijr <]ccan p{~]]ution, Rt’sear-ch, I]e\’elopnlf>nt, an d

,Ilonitorin(y, Draft (Rock\ille, AID: Dec. 7, 1984),

U.S. Department of” Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, National hlarint> Fisheries Ser\’iw, Northeast ~lorr itoring Program, .4nnual l\”E,~lP Report on the Health oi’tht

,N”t)rthca.st Coastal Ji’atc’r,s, 1.982, NOA,4 Tt>chnical Llt’morandurn N hl FS - F/N- I+X -35 (\$’ash ington, IX;: L’. S. (;()\r{’rnmc>nt Printin~ Of’flct>, .January’ 1 985).

L’ .S. Department 01” (;ornmercc, National O( eanic

an[] Atmosph(ri( .A(lmini strati on, National ~’l:u

rine Pollution” Proqam, Cat:ilotq of FtY/cI-al

Prc?jt’ct.~, f’}’ 1984 L’pdatr (Rock\ ille, hlD: ,Junt’

1 98.5),

L“ .S. Ikpartment of’ (;ommerce, National Ch-eanic

an[i Atmosphc’ric .4dministratiorr, i’Xat ional N4ari ne Pollution Proqram, .4qtrj(\ Prc)gt-an] Sunln~arit’.s, F“}’ 1.984 L’pcla[t’ ~Roc~\ille, NIII: <Jui}

1 C18.j ),

U.S. Ikpartrnent of Commerce, National Owanic

a n (i A t m osph c r i ( A(i m i n i st rat io n, Ocean As SC’ss -

mt’rrts I)itision, ‘1’hr National Coas[a) Pollutant

I~i.schar,qc ~n~entor~ (Rock\’ ille, MD: July 1985).

(-’. S. IX’partm~>nt of” (;ommc’rce, National Oceanic

an[i Atmospheric .Acim in istrat ion. National Lla -

ri n{’ Pollution Prx)qram, A’atiOnal Alarine POllu -

tion Pt-c)cqratn, Fcd(,ral Plan FOr CAt’an POllution

Rr.sear( h, IJ(>L(I(I])III(’11[, anci Nlonitorir]g,” Fiscal

l’car,s 1.98.5-1989 (’1$’ ashington, DC: September

1 98.5).

U.S. I)tpartment (~f’ (;~)n~rnerce, National oceanic

an(i .4trnosphtric .Acirnini strat ion, Ocean Assessnltrrts I>i\ision. ~\’ational E,~tuarinc Zn\’cnt~)r)’

llata ,4tlas: Phjsicd and H)’cfrologic C;haractcristics ( R(Nk\T ille, hlD: No\ember 1985).

L1 .S, I]epar[mcnt of Commcrcel National Oceanic

anci ,4tmospheric .4dministration, and TXpartmt’nt

of” Health and H urn:in .St’ r~’ices, Fmxi and Drug

,Acirninistr-ation, 1985 A’ationa] Shcflfj.sh Reg-ister

[)1’(;la.s.silid h’stuarinr 11’a[c’rs (l$rashington, DC:

I)t’ct’rnix’r 1 985).

u ,S, D~,partmen[ of Conlmerce, National Oceanic

anci Atmospheric ,A(irn in ist rat ion, Of’fice of’ Sea

(jr-ant, ‘1’hc ,h’a[ional St’a Grant Program, Annual

Rc’[rc’at Rt>ix)rt, F}’ 8.5 (Rock\ ’ille, iNID: DecemIx>r 1985).

U.S. Department of’ Commerce, National Oceanic

and At mosphrri( .A{im i n i st rat ion, Nat iona] hlzirin(’ E’isherit’s Ser\. icr, Alarint> R ecre:iti[)nal Fish -

rr)r Statistics .Surlt’J, Atlantic an<] Gulf Coasts.

19#3-19#4,~;~lrr(,nt Fi$ht’r)r Statistics No. 832 6

(J1’ashinqtorr, IX;: 1985).

606

607.

608.

6(W

610

611

612

613

614.

615.

L“. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

anci .4tmospheric Administration, IXat iona] Al arine Fisheries Ser\rice, Alarine Rwrrati{)naf Fi,sh -

et-? Statistics Sur\c), Pacilir Coast, 1.%9.7-1984,

Current Fisher? Statistics No. 8325 (~1’ashin~ton,

DC: 1985).

U.S. Department of’ Commc’rce, National oceanic

and At rnospheric organ iz:it ion, (Mean Asst>ss -

rnents Di\’ ision, Gulf’Of~\ ft’.~i(() Cfmstal and Occ>an

Zones Stratt>~i[ ,4,s.sc>.s.stI] tr]t: ZIata .A[la.s (Rock\ rillt>,

MD: 1985),

U.S. Department of Commrrce, National Oceanic

anci Atmospheric Acirn in ist rat ion, Oct>an Assessments Di\’ision, ‘‘rI’ablt>s From National Coastal

Pollutant Discharge In\’t>nt[)r\, tabics prepar-t>~i

fbr L’, S. Congress, Office> of” ~’echnology” Asst>ssmerrt ( Rock\ ille, MI]: 198.5- 1986).

U.S. Department of Conlt~~ercr, Nat ional ocean i(

and Atmospheric Acirn in ist rat i(~n, Nat iona] Nlarine Fisheries Ser\’ice, 7’h e Habitat (;~)~]sc’]”~’:~tic)t]

Program o!’ the A’a[iona] Alarinc’ Fisht>rit’.y .St>ri’-

im, 1984/198.5 (J+rashinqt on, D(1: N(),4A, .Jan Llary’ 1 986).

U.S. Department of Conlrnt’r-et>, N’ation:i] Owani(’

anci Atmospheric .4dm in i st rat ion, hTat ion al (J(can

&’r\ri[’e, Report to the (~ OIl<$V-t’SS on <] Ct>aIl pOllutr’on, Afonitorin,q, and Rcsc>ar[’h, CAtobcr 1.984

7’hrouLq-h Septt’n]bcr 198.5 (R(wk\ille, NII>: ~la~

1 986).

L’. S. Department of” (lornrnerce, N’ational owanic

an(i Atmospheric A{i m i n i st ration, National (Xt’an

&r\rice, ,Stratt><gic .~.sst>.wnlt>nt pr(?]t>(t.%: Fact .~ht’t>t.v

(Rock\ ille, LII>: .Junc 1986).

U.S. Department of Cornmerct’, National (Xcanic

anci i4tmospheric Aciministr ation, ( )flicc of’ oct>ar]-

ograph? anci hl ari nr Assrssmt’nt, .4 ,Nratic)nal

Atlas, Health anci ~’st> (~1’<;(~a,vtal 11’att’t-s, ~“nitt’cl

Sta[e.s o}’ ,An]t>t-i(a (R(xk\illc>. hlD: ~’()~t>mlx’r

1986).

u. S. Departrnen[ of” Conlmerce, National oct>anic

and At mospht>ric ,4(irm i n ist rat ion, National ~1 arine Pollution Program, ~\’ational ~~larint> PollutiOn pI-Oqt-aI1l, L5UI11111aI-J” ot’Ft’dt’ral pIOC~~laI1l$ iin[i

Prqjccts, F}’ 1985 C’pdatc (J+’ashinston, 1)(; :

1986).

U.S. Department of’ Cornrnerw, Nat iorral Oceanic

anci Atmospheric .4cirn in istrat ion, National Nla -

rine Fisheric’s Scr\ict>. Fi,shcrit>.s o]’ the L’nittd

Stares, 198.5, Curr-ent Fishc>r? Statistics N(), 8380

(Washington, DC: 1986),

U.S. Department of Commerce, .National Oceani(

an[i .Atmospheric Acim in ist rat ion, ocean .Asscssments Di\ is ion, l’hc National S’ta tus and 7’rc’nd.~

pl-~l<~l-~tll Ihr Afarint’ &;Il\iroIlxllt’I]t;il Qualit),

Brief~~]g Guide (Rock\ille, hlD: 1986).
300 ● Wastes jn Marjne Environments

616.

617.

618.

619.

620.

621.

622.

623.

624

625.

626.

627,

628.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessments Division, The National Status and Trends

Program for Marine Environmental Quality,

FY86 Program Description (Rockville, MD:

1986).

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Sea

Grant, NOAA National Sea Grant College PI-ogram (Rockville, MD: 1986).

L

T

. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, FY 1987 l?ucf -

get Summary (Washington, DC: 1986).

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessments Division, National Estuarine In\wntor}’,

I.i}’in<y Marine Resources Component, \%rest Coast

(Rockville, MD: 1986).

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic

ancl Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessments Di\”ision, The Consequences of Contaminants to Li\’ing Marine Resoumt’s and Human

Health (Rock\ ille, MD: 1986).

U.S. Department of’ Commerce, National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessments Division, Progress Report and Preliminary]’

Assessment of’ the Findings of’ the 1984 Benthic

Sur\’eillance Project (Rockville, MD: 1987).

U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, Integrated Data Base fbr 1986: Spent

Fuel and Radioacti\rc I%raste In\’en tories, Projections, and Characteristics, DOE/RW-0006, Rm’. 2

(Oak Ridge, g’N: September 1986).

U.S. Department of the Interior, 771e National Estuarirm Pollution Stud,v, Report of’ the Sccrctar?,

of’ the Interior to the U.S. Congress Pursuant t<)

Public Law 89-75.3, l’he Clean W’atcr Rmtoration

Act of 1!?66, 9 1st Cong., 2d sess., Senate Document LNO. 91-58 (Washington, DC;: U.S. C~o\ernrnent Printing Ofiice, 1970).

U.S. Department of’ the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Ser\’ice, The Can\ -asback (Annapolis, ML>:

1985).

~T, s Departn)ent of the Interior, Fish and wildlife Ser\ice, Striped Bass (Annapolis, MD: 1986).

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Ser\’ice, 1982-198.3 Nationwide Recreation sur~ej

(Washington, DC: LT. S. (~o~ernmcnt Printing Office, April 1986).

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Ser\’ice, National Park Statistical Abstract 198.5

(Den\er, CO: 1986).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and L$’ildlife Ser\’ice, and Ikpartment of’ (Iornmerce, Bu -

629.

630.

631

632

633.

634.

635

636.

637

638

639.

reau of the Census, 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982).

U.S. Department of the Navy, Final En\rironmental Impact Statement on the Disposal of’ Decom -

missioned, De fueled Naval Submarine Reactor

Plants (Washington, DC: May 1984).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Ecological Evaluation

of Proposed Discharge of’ Dredged Material into

Ocean Waters (Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1977).

U.S. En\’ironmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water Program Operations, Report to Congress

on Control of’ Combined Sewer O\wrflo w in the

United States, EPA-430/9-78-006 (Washington,

DC: October 1978).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region

II, Final Environmental Impact Statement on the

Ocean Dumping of’ Se~’age Siu(lgc in the NCR

}’ork Bight (New York: 1978).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center

for Environmental Research Information, En\’ironmental Pollution Control Alternativws-Municipal 14’astewrater, EPA-62515 -79-O 12 (C incinnat i,

OH: November 1979).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water Programs Operations, Primer fbr Wastewater 7“reatment, MCD-65 (Washington, DC:

July 1980).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center

for Environmental Research Information, Process

Design Manual tbr Land 7“reatn]ent of- Municipal B’astewater, EPA 625/1 -81-013 (Cincinnati,

OH: October 1981).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region

1, Impacts of- W’aste~rater Disinfection Practices on

Coldwater Fisheries, EPA 901-82-000 (Boston,

MA: July 1982).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent

Guidelines Di\ision, Fate of’ Priorit,v Po~lutants in

Public]}’ Owrned Treatment Works, Final Report,

t’olume 1, EPA 440/1 -82/303 (Washington, DC:

September 1982).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sludge

Task Force, Interim Rt’port of’ the EPA Siudge

7’ask Force Ii)r the Sludge Polic)’ Cotntnittee (Washington, D(;: August 1983).

U.S. Entironmenta] Protection Agencyj Center

for Environmental Research Information, Process

Design Manual fbr I,and i4pplication of’ Alunicipal Sludge, EPiA-625/l -83-016 (Cincinnati, OH:

October 1983).
References “ 301

—

640.

641,

642,

643,

644.

645

646

647

648

049

050”

651.

U.S. En\’ironnlc’ntal Protection” Agc’nc}’, Region

111, ~~hesapeakt’ 13a>r Program, Chesapeake Ra}:

A Profile (~f-~;r]~ir{~nrncnt[i~ Chan<ye, P13 84119197

(Philadelphia, PA: 1983),

L“. S. Environmental Protection Agen(}, Office of”

Research an{] IX’\c>lopment, Health Eflects Cri-

[eria li)r hfarinct Recrt>ationaf L$’aters (iVashington, 11[;: August 1983).

U.S. ~ln~irc)rlrrlc’nt:il Protection A~t’nor, Ann LJiil

Repot-t to Con<qrt’.v\ on .4cf[ni1]i,~tt-;~ti<~t] of the ltla -

rine Prott’(ti<)n, R t’.vearch and Sanctuarie.q .4ct of

1~)7~, draft (\$’:ish inqton, I)(; : 1 ~~~~~ ).

I_’. S. Iin\ir-orlr~lc’rltal Prote( t ion Agenc}, SludSe

I’ask I;orce, L$-orkplan /i)r llt~tl(~~~l~](’t]t ofan Inte,~ratt’d S]lldqe i\iiiIl;i5Tt’trlt’llt Rt’5@at0t-J’ ]>l-O#l-all~

(~$’ashin~tc)n, 1)(;: Februar} 1984).

U.S. k;rl\ironrll~>rlt:il Protection ,~~enc}., Offim of

}Vater Re$mlations and Standards, F; flluerrt Guidelint>s I)i\’ision, })ar+yaph ~((’) Prf)<qraln .$un]mat-}’

R(’porf (’L$’;ishington, DC;: Alarch 1984).

l-,’. S. Iin\ironrllt’r~tiil Prott’( ti(~n .4~t’nc?r. Final De-

~’f’lc)pn]t’n t IXxun]ent /ijr fi:/lluc>nt I.imitati(>ns and

Standar<is Ii)r the ~~c)ppcr Forn]irl<q Point Sourct

Catt>,qor). F:P,4 440/1 -84/[174, ‘1’ahlc X-19 (f*’ashing-ton, 1X;: Nfarch, 1984).

L’ .S. ~;rliirc)nr]lt>nt:~l Protection” .4gx’nc;’, Puhlic Af’-

f’ziirs of’fi( t>, ‘‘ I+;P,4 Iksi~natt>s I>isposa] Sites 106

h’! iles () f’f’.4 tlan t i[ Coast, 1;11 ~’it-onrllc’ntal .\’t’tt’.Y ,

‘4pr. 26. 1984.

LT, S ~;n\rironr T1(.nt2il ~rotecrlc)n .~~t’n(’)’, (Jf’fi(’ts of

t$’attrt Con:bint(i ,Yektcr O\c>rflokt ‘1’().\i( Pollutant .Stuci}r. F: P.4 440/ 1 -84/304 ( W7ash i ngton, IX;:

April 1 984).

~~. S ~;n~ironm(,n[:l] Prott’( tion A~t’131’yr, offict> of

\$-atrr Rcgul:i[ ions arl(l Standar{is. A?cport to C;on-

,y-t>.s.s, ,]anu;ir} 1981 -I)tyt’tl]bt’r 1 98.?, CIn .4(itnin -

i.stra (ion of the AIarine Protection, R (’search. anci

,Yan((uarit>s .4(t ~)1 1972, .4.< .4nlcndt’d (P. 1,. .92-

.,?,<j~j at~(i l[~lj]lc,rllc>n[i[l<T th(’ III tt’rna tional I.onCi(lIl

I)rlrnpin,q (~on;t’ntion” (J1’ashington, IX;: June

1 984).

C. S. E;rl\ir(Jr3r1~t’rltzil Prott>ct ion Agenc ~r. ofli( t> of”

\$’att’r Program ( )pt’rati(~ns, Rc’pfJrf ~)n the Inlplt>-

[n(ntation ol’ Section .’~Ol(h], EP.4 430/9-84-007

( ~~’ash ington, IX;: ,4ugust 1984).

L’, S, F1n\irf)nrrlf>llt:il Protection ,4gencyr, Intra-

,4qx>n(} Sl\r(lgt’ ‘l’ask h’orce, L’.se anci Disposal of”

,Iluni(ipal .51udcqe, hlPA 625/10-84-003 ( Washington. 1)(;: Septernher 1 984).

L’. S. 111]1 irf)nrnt’ntal Prot Lct ion .4 Senc?r, ‘‘i4d(litional In ft)rmation to Supplement the (;.40 Rv-

[)c)rt [JI1 XPI)I+;S Norl(orrlf]li:irlct’” in tht> I.()\\cr hliss iss ippi R it’rr Basin, in Implt’tnt’1] ta [ion of th(’

F’(>ci(ral <.’l(>;in l} ”attr .4([ (h’Pi4 J;nfi)rct>n]cnt {)ftht>

652

653

654,

655.

656.

6.57.

658.

65?).

660.

661,

662,

National Pcdlu tion Discharge Elimination S}’stcm

Permit Program), Hearings Before the Subcommittee on In\’estigat ions and Chers ight of’ the

Committee on Public V$’orks anci ‘1’r:insport:iti orl”,

House of Representati\res, 98th Cong., 2d sess.

(\$’ashington, DC: Mar. 7-8, Sept. 19, 1984).

L’. S. En\rironmental Prott’ct ion ,4gt’n( )’, Risk

Assessment and Afana,gemcnt: Framt’\~orli ii~r 11’-

cision Alakin,q, F.PA 600/ 19-85-002 (W’ash ington,

DC: December 1984).

U.S. Environmental Protection A~t>nc?r, Office ofk$rater k~nforcement and Permits, Prt>treatn]c’nr

I1~~J>lt>mt>ntatiotl Reiit>w ‘Task 1+’orce: Final l?ep(~rt

tc) tht’ Admin. straror ( i$’ashington, IX;: Jan. 31),

1985).

U.S. k;n~ironrnt>ntal Protection l+y’nc?’, Offi(e of”

Municipal Pollution Control, .4ssessn)rnt f~f~Vee(irci

Publicl}’ O~ne[i iirastt’~~attr Treatn]ent Facilities

in the ~~nitt’d States, EPA 430/9-84-011 (Washington, DC: Fcbruar;r 198.5).

U.S. En\’ironmental Protc’[tion ASt’nc?r, Offict> of”

Polic)’. Planning, and El:iluation, .4(tion ,\Tee(l(’c/

to .$(]pport .State-h’p8~ [tll])lt’tt]t’[] ttttiO1l of tht’ L\’ii -

tional Aluni(ipd Pc)li[} , t’in<~l Report on a St u(i?

t]~ tht” Program b;~’aluation l~i~isic~n, Oflict’ (JfP(dic}”, Planning, and ~~tra~ua ti~~n (J$’ash i ngton, IJC:

,June 1985).

U.S. En\’ironnlental Prott’(tion Agcnc~, ofIi(t” of”

\$~:~tc>r Regulations an(] Standards, .$ UtI]n]aZ-}’ f~~’

.

b;Il\”iI”[)Iltllt’Il t~li pH)iilCS :)Il(i ]~aZW-[i ~I~[ii(’C’nS fi)t

Con.vtitut’ntiv of ~lluni(ipaf Sluci,ye: .Ilc>th(xis anci

Results (\Vashington, IX;: .July 198.5).

u S. En\rirO1nc>nt:il Protect ion .4gt’n[’}’, of’fi( ~’ of”

Polic} .4nalysis, ‘1’ht> f!’ f?]u(>nt <~har<qe ,S~rstt>In in

tht’ Ftdt’ral Rt’pubii( of Ccrr~lan?, b: PA 230-07-

85-011 (Virashington, DC: ,J ul} 1 985).

~TS. ~~rltironrrlt,nt:i] Protc’ction” Agtm(}, (~f’fice of”

W’ater Rt>~mlations an(l Standards, .’l’a[r’(~nai ~~’a[tr

Qualiti, In,t,ntor~, 1.984 Rt’port t[) C(m,qrr.w , liPA

440/4 -’85-029 (i%’ashin~ton, IX:: ,+ugust 1985).

l_TS. ~~nkir-or~r~l(>nt:i] I>rott(tion” Ag(nc}r, of’fi(’t> of”

W’ater-, I’echnical Support ll~[u[l]t’l~t !i)r l$-;~ttr

Qua]it}-Based Zi,%ic.s ~;on[rf,l (\$’ashinr#[,n, IX:

September- 1985).

U.S. l+;n~fironmental Protection” A~t>nc }, (~tntt’r

for En\ironnlental Rrsc’ar(h In f’ormat i(~n, AluI)i(ipal J$’asteij’ater Sludge Combustion liYhnOlO,q~y”

EP,4/625-4-85/015 (Cincinnati, OH: St’ptt>mlx’r

1985).

L“. S. En\’ironmental Protection ,4gen(~, Of’fic t of”

Research and 11’i’elopmc>nt, H:irldb(}~)k—l;stiIlli~tincy ,$lLJci,q’ ,9 Iana<q’(>nlrnt <.’().sts, k;}> A/625/6-85/() 1 ( )

( J$’ashingt on, IX;: octotx>r-” 1 985).

L

T

. S. F;n\irorlrllc’rltiil Prott’ction” ,4g(n(}, of’fi( ~’ of”
302 “ Wastes in Marine Environments

663.

664.

665.

666

667

668

669

670.

671

672.

673.

Water Regulations and Standards and Office of

Research and Development, Pathogen Risk Assessment Feasibility Stuci,v (Washington, DC: No\’ember 1985).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great

Lakes National Program Office, Fit’e-}’ear Program Strategy for Great Lakes National Program

Oilice, 1986-1990 (Chicago, IL: 1985).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Research and Development and Office of Water

Regulations and Standards, Bacteriological Ambient Water Quality Criteria ior Nfarine and

Freshwater Rccreationai Waters, EPA-440/5-84-

002 (Washington, DC: January 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water Regulations and Standards, Monitoring

and Data Support Division, Summar-}’ of Effluent

Characteristics and Guidelines for Selected Industrial Point Source Categories: Industr,v Status

Sheets (Washington, DC: Feb. 28, 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water Regulations and Standards, Report to Congress on the Discharge of Wrastes to Publicly Ofi’ned

Treatment Works, EPA 5301 SW-86-004 (Washington, DC: February 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘ ‘Hearing Officer’s Report on the Tentati\’e Determination to Issue the Incineration-At-Sea Research

Permit HQ-85-001 (Washington, DC: May 1,

1986).

US. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water Regulations and Standards, Quality Criteria ~or Water, 1986, EPA 440/5-86-001 (and Update No. 1, Sept. 2, 1986) (Washington, DC: May

1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water, ‘ ‘State Breakout of NMP Majors Construction Required, Status at End 3rd Quarter

FY 1986’ (Washington, DC: data as of July 1,

1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Marine and Estuarine Protection, ‘ ‘Near-Coastal

Waters Strategic Options Paper’ (Washington,

DC: Aug. 12, 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, 1986

L’pdate to Clean Water Act Ci~’il Penalt,v Analysis (Washington, DC: Dec. 12, 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘ ‘Summary of EPA Enforcement Activity for 1980-1986,

press release (Washington, DC: Dec. 16, 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water, The Enforcement Management Svstem —

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S~’stem

(Washington, DC: 1986).

674.

675.

676.

677,

678,

679

680

681.

682.

683.

684.

685

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V,

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Indiana

Department of Environmental Management, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Lake

Michigan Toxic Pollutant ControURcduction

Strategy (Chicago, IL: July 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science

Advisory Board, Review of’ EPA Water Quality

Based Approach Research Program, SAB-EC-87-

011 (Washington, DC: Dec. 11, 1986).

U.S. En\’ironmental Protection Agency, Office of

Municipal Pollution Control, 1986 Needs Sur\’ev

Rrport to Congress, Assessment of Needed Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities in

the United States, EPA 430/9-87-00 1 (Washington, DC: February 1987).

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, E~aiuation

Report: Phthalate Esters in Foods Surie}’ (Washington, DC: 1974).

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Industry

Programs Branch, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Compliance Polic~’ Guides Manual (Washington, DC: October 1986).

University of Rhode Island Sea Grant Marine

Advisory Service, ‘ ‘Sea Grant Grandchild, Marine Resources Iniortnation i 4D: 1-2, July-August

1985.

Utility Solid Wastes Activities Group and the National Rural Electric Cooperati\’e Association, Report and Technical Studies on the Disposal and

Utilization of Fossil Fuel Combustion By-Products,

prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (Washington, DC: Edison Electric Institute, 1982).

Virginia Water Control Board, Water Quality In-

\’entor,Y, 305(b) Report, Virginia, vol. 2, chs. 4

through 12, Information Bulletin 558 (Richmond,

VA: 1984).

Walker, A., et al., ‘ ‘The Toxicology and Pharmacodynamics of Dieldrin (H EOD): Two-Year

Oral Exposures of Rats and Dogs, Toxicology

and Applied Pharmacology 15: 345-373, 1969.

Walsh, J., ‘ ‘Delaware Bay on the Rebound, Science 223: 1375, Mar. 30, 1984.

Ward, B., and Harris, C., ‘ ‘The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments: A Bold Experiment in Hazardous Waste Management, Journal of>the Air Poflution Control Association 35(3):

254-258, March 1985.

Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers

Association, Inc., Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources, House Public Works

and Transportation Committee, ‘‘ Hearings on

Possible Amendments to the Federal Water Pol-
—.

References ● 303

lution Control Act, 99th Cong., Comnlittcc

Serial 99-9 (J\’ashinSton, DC: L’. S. Government

Printing Office, 1985).

686. L$’atling, 1,., ct al., ‘‘ Ekaluat ion of SIUCISC Dumping Off D~la~ar~ Ba?r, Alarine Pollution Bulletin 5: 39-4’2, 1974.

687. ~$’ca~rer, G., ‘‘ P(;B Contamination In and Arounci

N“(w Bedf’or(l, hlass. , ‘ ~fli’irot]tn(’f ltal .%’i(>n(’t’

and ~“echno]og?’ 18(1) :22 A-27A, 1984.

688, Vf’elsh, B. I.., I.ong island Sound, The Pel;igic

L’cos?’stem, paper presented at Estuary’ of the

Month Seminar, sponsored b? National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration k~stuarine Programs Of’ficc and U.S. Enl’ironmerrtal Protrct ion

Agen(.}, ~$’i~shington, IX;, Nfa) 1 ~, 1985

689. J$’essinger, H .iJ, , Testirnon} Before the Subcomm ittrc on I n~’cst igat ions and O\’ersight, House

Committee on Public 1$’orks and Transportation,

L’. S. Congress, ‘‘ Hearings on the Implementation

of the Federal Clean \h’ater Act, Sept. 19, 1984,

98th Cong., Ct)mmittec Serial 98-81 (t$’ashinmon,

DC: U.S. Go\rernment Printing Office, 1 985).

690. Wrestat, Inc., Pf-a[ionai Sur\e]r of Hazarcious Ji’as[e

<ienc’raters and 7’reatment, Storage and Disposal

Facilities Re(qulated under RCR.4 in 1981, contract prrpared for LT

. S. k;n~’ironmental Protection

,~%t~no, {jf~i(t> of solid ~~’aste (Rock\ille, hfD:

Apr. 20, 1984).

691. \$’hipplc, J, A., 7’he Impact of Estuarine Degra -

ciation and ~hI-onic PolJution on popu]afions o f

.4nadromous Stt-iped Ba.w IA foronc saxatilis] in the

San Francisco Ba}r Iklta, ~~fi~bI-flia, .A SuInIllaI->’

fi)r Alana,yers and Re~pJlators, Administrative Report T--84-() 1 (1’iburon, CA: T’iburorr Fisheries

I,aborator}, 1984).

692, W’hite, H. H, (MI), Concepts in Afarine Pollu[ion”

Afeasurements (Collt’gr Park, NID: Uni\rrrsit? of

Mar?’ lancl Sea Grant, 1 984).

693. J$’hitel H. H., an(l Champ, h! .A., ‘‘g’he Great

Bioassay Hoax, and Alternatives, in Hazardous

anci In(iustria] Solid \l’aste 7’esriIl$r: Seconci S}’rn -

posium, R,A, Conway and \$’. P, Gulleclge (mls. ),

ASTNI STP 80.5 (Ph iladclphia: American Society’

fi)r I“esting and Materials, 1983), pp. 288-312,

694, \$’h itlecigc>. ‘I’. E,, )b’ationwide Re\irw of Ox},gen

Deplctiorr and k’utrophication in Estuarine and

Coast:tl Itraters; ]b’ortheast Rrgion, BNL 3658 0

(Upton, NY: 13rookha\en National Laborator},

I)epartment ,4pplied Science, Nfarch 1985).

695. \$’hitlrdge, q’. E., Nation ~tide R e~riew’ of’ Ox?’gen

Depft’tiorr and Eutrophication in Estuarine and

Coastal Ji’aters, BN1. 37144 (Upton, N}r: 13rookha~’en National I,aborator}, Department Applied

Scien(t’, Septembrr 1985).

696. ~’iedow’, hl., Distribution and fiindinqo~’ <J:idmium in the Blue Crab (CaJlint’ctc’s sapicius): lm -

p]ica[ions in Human Health, Ph. 11. ‘1’hesis ( N(’w

l’or-k: New }’ork Uni\rersit?’. 1981).

697, Wiedow, M,, Kneip, 1’., and Garte, S., ‘‘C;admiurn Binding Proteins From Blue Crabs, Callinectcs sapidus, Enkironmentall} Exp(nc’d to CIadm ium, En\itoI]xl]t’Iltal Resesvirch 28: 164-170 .

1982.

698. W’icrnc}’er, S. N.,. $w ‘lne fo rd. D. L 1., and Spit m r,

P.R. , ‘‘Organochlorirre Residues in New .Jcrst’y

OspreJ Eggs, fiUl](’tiIl ot” k’Il\’iI”(lIIIllt’ Ilt;j] <~011-

famination anci 7’~).~icc)lo~~}’ 19: 56-63, 1978.

699. Wilkins, 1.. P., ‘ ‘The I1nplcmcntat ion of \\’atcr

Pollution Control hfc>:isLll-es—S(ctiorl 208 of the

klrater Pollution Control Act .Ar~l(’ll(lr~)t’ rlts, land

and 1$’acer I,aw. Rr\ie\* 15(2):479-502, 1980 .

700. P?’ilson, R. . I.icb, S. , et al., ‘‘ Non-f) Group 1

I’ibrio cho)erae Gastrorntcritis Associat(’d t$’i[h

h~ating Raw’ Oysters. .4n]t’t-ican ,Journal of” Epiciemic~lo~}’ 114:293, 1981.

701. \$’indom, H. 1.., ‘‘ En\ironnlcrltal Aspr(rs of Drt>d3-

ing in the Coastal Zone, CRC Cri[i(al R t>~’i(’}~s

in En tironal Con tro] 7:9 1-109. hf arch 1 !176.

702. Winciom, H., and Kendall, 1>., ‘‘Accunlulatiorr

and 13iot ransformation of’ Nlercur-] in C(Eist al and

Marine 13iota, in 7“ht’ Bi~),qt’()[h(’r~~is[~-~’ ~J1’ Aft’rcur~ in tht’ En ~rironn]en [. J. N’riagu (cd, ) ( New

}’ork: Else\irr, 1 979), pp. 303-324.

703. Ik’indsor, J .(; ., Jr., ~~’aci[)n}tid(> Rt’\it>\\ {)}’ [).Y}’-

gen Depletion and fi;Lltrclphic’:ltic)ll in kktuat-ine anci

Coastal 1$’aters: Florida Re~~ion, report to Brookha~en National I.aborator~ and the National Oct>ani(

and Atmospheric Administration ( Nlt>lb(jurne, FI,:

Florida Institute of l’echnolog~, 1985).

704. Wisconsin Dcpartmrnt of’ N’atural Rt>sourct’s, .4n

.4nal)’sis of’ l~risconsin Pc)]ic) on the Ditsinkctic)n

of J1’astewrater (Al adison, J%’I: Bu rt’au of’ 1$’ater

Qualit\, July 19?7).

705. Wise, .j. p., ‘ ‘Fisheries Statist ics-130ring Stuff LTntil \’ou N’eed Them for ILlt)nitorinrg, in Oceans

’86 Confi>rence Record IO]. 3, 86 CH2363-O (\$’ashington, DC: Marine ‘l”echnolo~p Socirt? and IEEF:

Ocean Engineering Socict?’, 1986), pp. 904-907.

706, P$’ood, J .D,, Jr. (cd), Proceedings 1985 A’ational

Outdoor Recreation Trenci.~ S~mposium II, 1‘olurnr n-Concurrent Sessions (.Atlanta, CJA: N’ational Park Ser\’icc Science Publications of flcc,

1985).

707. J$’ocrlson, E., ‘ ‘Emissions, C~clinS and Flflkcts of

Arsenic in Soil Ecosystems, in Bio)ogi~al and

En\ironmenta) Efkc[s oi”.4rsenic, B. Fowler- (rd. )

(New’ York: Else\icr, 1983), pp. 51-140.

708. \$rright, T. D., .4quatic Dredged Afaterial Disposal
304 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

Impacts, Technical Report DS-78- 1 (Vicksburg,

MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways

Experiment Station, 1978).

709. Young, R. A., et al., “Dispersal Pathways for

Particle-Associated Pollutants, Science 229:43 1-

435, 1985. 712

710. Zafiriou, D. C., et al., ‘ ‘Photochemistry of Natural Waters, lin~’ironrnental Science and Te[-hnolog}’ 18(12):358-371, 1984.

711. Zdanowicz, V. S., Gadbois, D. F., and Newman,

M. W’. , “Levels of Organic Contaminants in Sedi- 713

ments and Fish Tissues and Prevalence of Pathological Disorders in k$’inter Flounder From Estu -

aries of the Northeast United States, 1984, in

Oceans ’86 Conference Record, vol. 2 ,

86 CH2363-O (Washington, DC: Marine Technology Society and IEEE Ocean Engineering Society, 1986), pp. 578-585.

Zeppetello, M. A., “National and International

Regulation of Ocean Dumping: The Mandate to

Terminate Marine Disposal of Contaminated Sewage Sludge , Ecolog~ Lawr Quar[erl} 12:619,

1985.

Ziskowski, J .J. et al., Disease in Economical} ln]-

portant Fish Stocks in the ,h’orthwe.st Atlantic, draft

(Highlands, NJ: Sand) Hook I,aboratory, 1986),
Index
309

Nlarint> Protection, R[’stare h, :ind S,inc tu,iric>s AI( [

(hlPRSA): :~-5,7,8,:3 <3-35,+8,51 .58,63,68 .7[), 14:;-

148, 1 50.1t1,177,Z!1(),2‘;8, 240,251,2.58,262, L6’;

ptrmittinx pro~isions: 33,1 -W, 1 50,230”

phi]osophi{ al perspecti~cs: 46

Ocean Dumping Anlenclmt>nts A( t: 7’2

O(t’an Dumping Critcri<t an{] rt’~~il<it iorls: 2!), 148,1.50,

151,258

spm ific provisions: 144

MARPO1, ( Intt’rnation,i] (;on~ t’nt ic~rl for th(’ l]rt’\t’nt ion

of Pollution from Sh ip~ ) 70.77, 1 4°

mt’rcu r~: 39,62,64, ’14, 124-1 ’26, 1 ‘;().224. 245.25[{. I(j( )

metals

bioa(curllt]latic)n: 16,92,94,125,126

bioa~ailabilit>r: 59,91,94,124

}Iiorrlagnifl(ati on: 16,92,94,125,120

impacts: 95, 105, 129-132

intcrna] rt’Sulat ion by or$arl isnls: 94

of pri mar?’ con( t’ r-n: 1 Y ~~. 124

pathway’s [0 an(l rnlpac Ii on hurll:ins 12.5.126, 1 2{)- 1 ’32

m i( n )( )rgan is ms: .st>t’ p,lt h t )gt’ n \

hl int>rals hl<ina~trnc>n[ S{’r\i{ c: 258.200”

Nlississippi Ri\tr: 15 ,20, h.5.8 1,83, 1 16,2(~(1

Mississippi Sound: 21,116,117

Nlonitoring an(l Data Suj)port IJij iiiorl:

mon i[oring and rc>st’ar( h: 10, 1 2,:3, ~; 5.1 (i

17-I (also ,s(’[ NPI)FX)

rffe( ti~’ent’is: 12, 1:3, 165, 1 6(J

en~’ironnlt.ntal in{] i( t’s: 1 ~;, 60

funding: 1 (),26, 16.j- 169,171-171

in format i( )n - gatht>ri n g p rograllls: 1 ~, 13

86,189

,1 6.;- 1 6(1, 171-

16.>-1 ()() ,171-174

ntwi for coord inat ion and intt>gr<lt ion: 13, 1 6!)

\/llc)lc’-t>f’flL]t>1lt tox i( it} tt’sls: 13,60.96, 20(;

mu 1 [ i - rnt>d ia asst>ssmen t: .st>(’ [ onl pre]l~>ns i~t> \\ ast t> r]lan

agt’ m (’n t

municipal disc tl.irgc>rs: 3,6, 13, 14

amount of c’f’fluen t: 7 1 . 7‘2

aIIloLl n ( s of ])( )11(1 [ :in t s : 64

( oxrl p] i an( (’: ~[’c’ N P I ) 1;, S

numbers: 13, 14,60,70, 1 8’\

rcgtilator~ fr,inlt’\\ork se<> ,N 1] I ) fiS

nl u n ic i pal st’w ;igt’ trt>atrtlt>]l[ ( P()’1’\f’\)

an t i( i pat t>(i nt. tds: 26

( onst r-u( I ion of” t rt’atrI~t>n t plar~t \: j, 1 (),2 j, 200” ( ,~1 ~( ) S[,(,

Construction Grants Progr,irll)

disposal of sludgt’ ancl t’ ffluen t: S(Y’ st’}~ ag(’ t’ f f] (1 t> rl I.

S~W;itJe s]udgt’

gt,nerat ion of slu(lgt> and t’filucnt: 200,’2” 11

i nccn t i \ es to i m plcmt>n t prt>t r(’at nlt’n t p r( )~r<ir I ~ 2 ( ):3.

~()~ , J J 7, ~~[]

incidental rt, n]o~’ al: 184.188,215-216.227

industrial disc haryys to P()”I’\l’s: 72.177.182-18 !,

186-188, 192, 193,203, 204,!(N,21 1,212,220,227

,Nationa] hlunicipal Poli[ ~: 1?8,20;,21 (),227 .2<32

renlo\ dl of” nl i( ro( )r~ti n ii~lls. SCJ(J (li\i n It( t ion

r( )1(’ i n IIlan a~t’n 1(’n 1 ( )f I n(l 11 st ria] li ,~st t’s: 1 .r), 28.182-184,

~ 15. ‘J ~(j , ~~ ~

t C’( llnc )1( )qi(s ,in(i c osts 21 1,.21 (j

t rt;itrncrlt It\(ls: 72, 154. 17!1, 188,211 .21~,231 -23’\
310 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

upsets: 182,193,215

~iaiit’rs (301 (h) program): 154,2 1() ,224,232,233

Nlussel t$rat{h: 1 lb, 167

Narragansett Ba>r: 70,102,119,1 36,154,’245

National Ad\risor~’ Conlnlittc’t on Oceans and Atmosphere

(N.4CX) A): 143

National En\ir(Jnr~lcntal Polio Act: 145

National Estu:ir) ProSranl (of kIPA): 10,11,29.33,154 ,

157,159,160,163,165, 169

National Nlarine Fisheries Ser\ice: 136,153,165,238

National hlarine Sanctuary Program: 148

National ocean Pollution Planning Act: 13,145,171

National oc{>anic and .4tmospheric ,Administ ration: 11-13,

16,24 ,57,58,131,1 +7,1 54,157,167

National [loastal Pollution I>ischaryc> In\entor>: 16,

57,70, 167

National E;stuarint. In\rcntor): 165

National I{stuarine Program: 32

National >Iarint’ Pollution Pro~ram: 131,

171,172

,National (Icean Ser\ice: 165,166

(Ict’an Asst>ssmerrts Division: 16$), 172-174

Status and g’rt’nds Program: 173,174

National Pretreatment Program: ’25, 1.52,156,

67,169,

177

,4ppro\al Authority’: 183

C(~ntrol Author-it): 183

Generiil Pretreatment Regulations: 182-185,199

local limits: 28,185,191,203,204,227

National Categorical Standards and regulations: 182,

183,185,189,190,199

Prt>( rt’atmt.rtt IrTil>lt’n~ent:ition Re\’iewr Task Force: 203

standards and 1 i m it at ions: see standards

status of implemental ion: 183, 188, 189,203,204

structurt’ and rcsponsibi]it ies: 182-184

National Shellfish Register: see shellfish

Natural Resources Defense Council: 152,153, 17!1

N:iv>: 68,76

?Jt’ar-Coastal 11’atcrs Strategic Planning Initiative: 155

New Bt’dford Harbor and Buzzards Bay: 44,96,103,119,

129,154

New York Bight: 4,11,15 ,17,22,23,60,64,86,1 ()(),11 3,119,

129, 1:j4,151,219 ,222,223,244,245,252, 253

pollutant inputs and impacts: 15,64,65

Restoration Plan: 23

,Vtw l’ork Cit}F ~. EPA decision: 34,46,47,143,146,150,

151,210,219

nonpoint pollution: 3,5,7, 1 (), 11, 15,24,25.64,65,72,75,78

agricultural runoff: 3,6,75,78

urban runoff’: 3,6,7,72

Northeast hlonitoring Program: 172

INPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S}xttm): 7,13,25-27,31,152,153, 177-182,188-202,210

adequacy of’ implernentat ion anci co~’erage: 7,24-26, 156,

188-202

compliance: 156, 195-199

cotnpIiance sampling inspection: 181,196

deacilines: 11,153,191,210

extent of noncompliance: 195-199

lnunicipa] \. industrial non[ ornplianct>: 197, 198,

225,226

I]ermit Compliance System: 1~~,181, 182

Quartcrl} Noncompliance Report: 181,196

self-reporting: 179, 195, 196

Semi-Annual Statistical Summar) Report: 181

significant noncompliance: 180, 181, 197-199, 200”

tools for tracking: 181

~’iolation Rtwiew Action (;ritt>ri,l: 18 1

en f’orx t>rnent: 27

iidmin istrat ion orders: 181, 200”, 201

Flnforcc>ment Management System: 179,180,182

judicial referrals: 181

number of’ cnfi)rcement ac’tions: 1 99,200”

penalties: 11,27.201,202

resources: 7, 1 (),25-’27, 180,182, 189,202,203

monitoring: 7, 179

Baseline Monitoring Report: 184

I)ischar-ge hlonitorinS Refx)r-t: 181,182.196

resourc es: 7,26, 189

permits: 152,178,210,259.263

backlogs: 191,192

backsliding: 11,195

reSulat ions for c atc>,q)rical industries: 190 (also st’t’

stanciarcls)

regulations for municipal ciisch:iryc>rs: 178, 179

standards and limitations: st’t’ standards

structure and rt’sponsibili ties: 152, 178,179

Nuclear ~~nerg~ A~enc}: 69, 7-!

nutrients: 90,91

eutrophication: 16, 17,22,90,91, 1 ()(), 11.5. I 16, 118, 1 19,22:3

nitrogen, nitrates: 7,62,65

phosphorus: 7,15,62,64,65

0[ ean Discharge Criteria: see Clean W’ater- Act

Ocean Dumping Act: see Nlarine Protection, Researx h,

and Sanctuaries ,Act

ocean Dumping Criteria: see Marine Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries Act

ocean incineration: 3,33,48,50

office of Marine and Fjstuarine Protection: 154

oil and grease: 6

open (wean: 4

Constraints on disposal: 9,34

fk>atures: 18,34,86,87

general health: 3,8,9,18

issues and policy’ opt ions: 10- 12,33-3.5

susceptibility to impacts: 18,86

use for waste disposal: 3,4,8,1 ()- 15,18,23,24,33-35,60,63

~alue: 18,86

Orange Count), proposed discharge of sludge: 221,230

Organic Chemicals, Plastics. and S)’nthetic Fibers

(OCPSF): 187,188,190,191,194

organic chemicals

bioaccumu]ation: 16,59,92-94,129,130,224

bioa~ailability: 91

biomagnification: 16,59,92,94,104,129, 130

classification, screening: 6,59,127-131

impacts: 104-106,129-133
Index ● 3 1 1

4:3 ,177

S( rt’t>n I n g

pollutants: 59

w’att’rt)(d it’s: 32
312 “ Wastes in Marine Environments

amount and composition: 71,72,216,217

disinfection: scc disinfection

disposal technologies: 209,219

~eneral fare when discharged: 88,222

irnpa( ts: 223-225 (also see specific po]]utants)

role of marine waters in disposal: 231-233

treat rncnt processes: see municipal sewage treatment

sewage sludge (also st>t’ municipal sewa$e trcatlncnt)

amounts : 14,60,67,73,217,219, 220

benefi(.ial use: 10,34,223,224,233

conlpositiorr: 212,216

{osts of dumping sludge. 2’21

discharge through pipeline: 72,221,230

disposal te[ hnologies

distribution and markc>ting: 217,218

dumping: 14,15,218-221

incineration: 218,224,233

land application: 217,218,224,233

landfllling: 218,224

general fate when dumped: 87,221,222

impacts: 139,223-225 (:ilso st’e sptx ific pollutants)

reg[llat ions for disposal: 11,227,228,233

role of marine waters in disposal: 9,229-231

State progratns: 227,228

treatment technologies: st’e municipal sew’agu trcatmt>nt

t]r~corlt:irTlinatecl \, contaminated: 8,229,233

shell fish

c om mt’r( ial ~’alut’: st’t’ ~al ut’ of n] ;irint’ resou rx es

contamination by pathogens: 16, 101, 108, 113-115, 118,

119,135,137,138,223

cor~t~~trlinatiorl” by toxic pollutants: 17,107,108,115,129,

136

National Shellfish Register: 108,109,165,174

shift ing disposal acti~’ities to other media: 7,9,34

Southern California Bight: 4,17,86,103,115,222,223,230

Southern California Coastal Jlrater Rest’ arc h Project: 29,

1.57,159,160,163,169

species di~rersity: 17,82

standards. 25

13A-I’ (best a~railablc tc>c hnolog}): 153,184,186-189,102,

195,2 5!), 260

BC;-I’ (bcs( con~entional tt’chnolorgy): 153,184,189

131]J (best professional ,judgment): 188,191,192,194,195

BPT (best practicable technology): 1.53,184,195,259

compliance deadlines: .we NP1)ES

cffluc’nt 1 irn itat ions: 152

Ii{ k of” standards or limits: 26,193,194,203-206,226,227

,NSPS ( ncsw sourxt> [)t’rfotrll:irlcc” standards’): 153, 184,258

ps~:s (P,.t.trt,:itlllt.nt s[an~{ards for existinS sour(es):

153,184,186,187,189

PSNS (prt’tl-t’:itl]]c>rlt stan(iar(is for nc’w sour-c t’s):

153,184

secondary trt>atrnent: 152, 184 (also see municipal sewage tr-eatment)

tc>(t~n(~log)-base’d standards: 153,184,206

toxic ef’fluent standards: 153,184

water quality-based standards: see water quality approach

State responsibilities, programs: 11,13,25,30,153,162, 179,

183,205,227,228

State r-e~ol~ring loan f’unds: st’e Construction Grants

Program

striped bass: 22,43,52,93,11 (),118

submerged aquatic vcgetat ion, kelp: 17,22,25.26,81,86,

1 1‘2 ,113,115,120

Subseabed Working Group: 74

Superf’uncl: set> CERCL4

surf’ace tnicrolayer-: 82,102

suspended solids: 6,15,62,91 ,113.115,2 11,213,242

territorial sea: 4,143

~’oxic Substances Control A{ t: 145,210

trapping: sc’e fate of pollutants

tribut?’ltin (m-r): 77

turbidity?’: 17,91,244

United Nations Regional Seas Programme: 76,149

unreasonable degradation, definition: 154

value of marine resources: :39-43, 166,167

commercial: 19-22,39,41-44

esthetic: 39

rm’rcational: 39,40,43

wai~’cr f’rorll secondar~’ trt’atrnerrt: st’e municipal sewage

t rcat rncnt

wastt’ reduction: S(Y comprchensi~’t’ waste management

waterbed) managenlcnt: 8, 1 (),24, 1.57, 159-165 (also .sc>c’

water quality’ approach)

t’ff’ect iireness: 29,30

framework: 10,30-33

programs: 29,30,157

water conserx’ation and reclamation: 9,217,231

W’att’r Qualit)’ Act: 10,1 1,2+,’26,27.30,31, 151,152,154,

155,182,202,205,214

estuarine rnanagenlent c on fercnces: 11, 155

sptx ifi( provisions: 11

water qualit~ approach: 10,30-33,205,206

Federal water quality criteria: 205,206”

~ater- qua] it)’ standards: 30,.58, 153, 194 ,’205, 206,227

framework to implerncnt: 10,30-3~~

Pf’atcr Resources De\’elopment Act: 241

\$’est (jtrnlany Federal \$’ater Act: 158

~~holt’-t’ffluc’rlt toxicity tests: SCY> nlon it{)ring an(] research
Index

109,1 18,1:; 7

110,1 1:3,2 H

307
308 ● Wastes in Marine Environments

containment island: 248,249

dumping: 8,14,15237,239

for contaminated mat{’ rial: 11,248,249

upland c(jntainnlc’nt: 239, 244,2%, 248,249

disposal sites

(It’sirylat ion J>rocess: 240

I iart-hliller Island: 249

nunltx>rs: 237 ,2~39

shortaiy” of: 237,239,251-2.53

fate and impacts after disposal: 237,243-248 (also see’

spt’cific pollutants)

long-[(m) management plans: 252

pressure for ruarint’ disp(~s:il: 240,241

reguliitorv fi-alllt>work: 148, 153,238,251-253

ty’pts of dred~es: 242,243

drill ii~g flu i(ls: stY’ indust i.ial mastc’s

(Iulnpi ng: ~’I, 4,6, 1 1, 14,60, 6~~ -67 (:ilsc) set> ind il’ idu:il ~~’:istc’

t)’pcs)

1<)81 (It>a(ilirle: sc>e.\’t>\t l’orli Cit>. ~’. E1>.4 dt’(i.sic)n

:ir~~ou n ts :ind trends: 1 +,60, 63,21 !)

I)y (ltli<’r c ountritys: 66,73,74,158

[ ont rx)l b)’ NI PRSA: 4, 33-:)5 ,46, 1 4:3, 147,148,230

in tt’ri r]] pcrm its: 151

public issue: 3

dumping sites

1~-h~ilt $+(,~~:~qt, sludge Dump Site: 9,14,47,67,219-221

AC id }V;iste Iiisposal Site: 14,67,257,260,261

Deepwatt’r In(lustr-ial Wr:istt Site: 4,23,67,257,261

I)t’cpwater- Municipal Sludge Site: 4,9,11,14,15,23,47,

67,72.219-221,229

fish (st>alimd) pr(xcssing w:istes site: 263

interim 106-NI ile Oceiin J$’tistc I)urnp Site: 23

m i(LAtl:in tic sitt.: 67

hlud I)urrip site: 244,2.52

l’ll:irrll;itt’~ltic;il L$’astc Sitt: fj7.257 ,262

selt>ct i[)n [r’itt>ria: 12,35

[ist’ 01” rnultiplt’ sites: ~j.5

I)u Pent: 260,261

t>c onorn” ic m{’{h:in isnls: 35,46

ef’fluent 1 imit ;it ions: set’ stand ar(ls

elect ropliit inq firms: 199

En(iangered Species .A<t: 145

t’nii~rct>ment: st’c’ ,NPDI~S

t’rl\ir’or~rl]c’ntal intl ict>s: sc’e rnon itor-ing ancl research

~; PA: 10-13 ,23,24,26-28,3 1,32,46,47,49,57-59,67,77, 138,

147,148.150- 15(j, 163.165,167,169-171, 179-206,

1)~5.~:;(),~32 +. ~:j:j ,zYjB,Q40,~4Z ,247,248,258,260,264

t.stu:irit>s: 4

~enci-;il htalth: 3,7-9,16,17

issues and poli( }’ options: 9,1 (),24-33

si]sc t’pt it~il ity to imp:icts: 17,84,85

typt’s and fe;itur es: 17,8 1,8ft-85

usc I’or- wiistt’ disposal: ~;,9, 1 ~J, 14,17,24 ,60, ti 1,63,71,

72,177

l:ilut’: 8, 16,81

t>u t rx)ph i~ :it i( )n: st’t’ nut rit’n Is

fat(’ 01 J)(lllut ants

biolo~i(iil” tr:insport: 8!),90

ini[ iiil (Iilut ion: 87,221, ’222

physic:il transport ((ui-rents, nlixiny): 88,221

sediment cieposit ion, accumulation of part i{ ICS:

16,89,90,222

I)ioturbation: 90

floc( ulation: 89

resuspension: 89

stxlimt’ntatiorr: 84,89,90,222

trapping: 17,84

fecal {oliiorrn bacteria: 6,17,62,64,108,115,116, 138 (also

S(Y> pathogens)

usc as [jollut ion indicator-: 58,138

Fc(it’r-:il t$’atcr Pollution Contrwl Act: set’ Cltan Water

Act

fish

c omrnt’rcial fisheries: 19-22,41-44

fin erosion or rot: 112

rnassi~’e kills: 17, 107, 108, 118, 119

sublethal impacts, contarniilat ion: 17, 106, 108,11 (), 115,

118,129,136

1+’ish and Wildlife Sen’ice: 153,157,165,166,238

fish (seaibod) processing waste: S(YJ industrial wastes

Flannery Ilecree: 15’2,153

iloccwlation: 84

flue-xas dt~sulfurization sludge (IWD): scc industrial

N’astcs

F(xxi and Dru~ Administration: 13(j, 166

iimd chains or wt’bs: 82,83,92,93

F’rance riker- basin fee s>’stem: 158

fun(ianlentall] difftrt>nt factor: 1 .5’2,205

Gal\eston Bay: 106,116,125

(jeneral Accountin$ (Jfllcc: 192,197,200,201

(jeologica] Sur\rey: 167

Georses Bank: 86

Grays Harbor: 252

Great l.akts: 4,32

Great I.akcs National Proty-arn: 33, 155,159, 160, 163

Toxic Substance Contix)l ,Agreen~t>nt: 169

I$rater- Q_ualit>, Agreement: 162,169

J$rater Quality Board: 162,164,169

(julf {;oast Plrastt> Disposal ,4uthorit): 159,160,164,169

Glilf’ of’ hlexico: 17,’20,61 ,62,64-66,75, 100,” 107-109,”

116-118,137,259

Hazardous and %lid Wastes Amendments: scc R(lRA

}]azarcious waste: see RCR.4

coastal sitt>s: 7 5

d ischar-gcs to scwei-s: .sec’ n]un icipal st’wagt’ t rt’at rncnt

hot spots: 85,86,95,224

hurrliin health impacts: also .st’t’ pathogens

;I( ute ~’. {h r-on ic : 125, 126

cholt’ra: 134, 13tr

ef’ftx ts of” rnt’tals: st’t’ metals

effk>(ts of” organic (hem i{ als: .st>t’ oi-~an ic c ht’rn i{ :ils

gastrot>ntt>ritis: 16,134,136-138

hepat it is: 16,1 :34,137,140

incidt’ncc of’ rqx)rtcd d ise:ist>: 17, 136-138

]irnitations of data: 124,127,128

pollutant pathways: 123,125,135-138

risks from sc>wagc slu~i~e: 113°.225

hvpox i a: SC’(’ ox>’sc’n-cit’rrl:irl(i ins sllf)~tanccs