Electromagnetic radiation a new concern

Volume 19/Number 8/August 1988

In Britain, the government's Hazardous Waste Inspectorate has warned that the UK is rapidly becoming Europe's biggest waste dumping ground. Imported waste comes mainly from the Netherlands and includes industrial and chemical refuse as well as non-hazardous rubbish. Figures for 1986/87 show that 53 000 t of potentially dangerous material were imported for incineration and 13 000 t had gone to landfill.

Arsenic and Benzene in Norwegian Fjord A solution of very toxic alkaline arsenic (between 183 m 3 and 223 m 3 equivalent to at least 4.3 t of As203) was discharged on 29 February from the Norwegian cokeworks to the Rana Fjord in Northern Norway. The discharge was due to corrosion of a pipeline leading from the storage tanks containing alkaline arsenic and is indicative of the poor maintenance levels at the factory. The day after the discharge great masses of dead krill were observed on some beaches. However, the stranding of dead krill on beaches has been observed before. At present it is not clear whether or not this mortality was due to the arsenic discharge or a natural phenomenon. The discharge was led to the Rana Fjord by a canal. The day after the discharge samples of the water in the fjord were taken by the Norwegian Institute of Water Research (NIVA) and analysed by Nordic Analytic Center (NAC). In the canal concentrations as high as 16 mg As 1-1 were observed and further out in the fjord (8-10 kin) the concentrations were 10-20 times above normal background level. Analysis of fish and marine invertebrates showed high concentrations in saithe liver (10-40 ppm wet wt). The acute arsenic concentrations in the discharge to the t]ord were extremely high and could have had very serious implications for human health. Arsenic accumulates in marine animals and fish-farmers further out in the t]ord were very worried about the situation. However, subsequent analysis of fish from the fish farms has shown normal values. The cokeworks are now having to finance a monitoring programme which will analyse the concentration of arsenic in water, sediment, fish, and marine invertebrates. A week after this discharge occurred, 600-700 kg of benzene was accidentally discharged from the cokeworks to the t]ord. Enhanced concentrations of benzene were observed in the fjord 2-3 km from the outlet. So far no effect has been reported. The cokeworks are having trouble, not only with their discharges, but also with their economy. The Norwegian State Pollution Control Authority (SPCA) has demanded reduced discharge levels which will involve the installation of better cleaning equipment. However, this is unlikely to be carded out since the Norwegian Government has now decided to close down the entire cokeworks! LARS-OTTO REIERSEN

Seal Populations Threatened More than 400 seals are reported to have died from a pneumonia-like virus in the Skagerrak and North Wadden Sea, west of Denmark. It is suspected that high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) accumulated in the seals' flesh have lowered their immunity to the virus. The seal population of the Wadden Sea off the Netherlands is already severely depleted due to environmental pressures, while the Kattegat area had previously boasted a population of only 4000. Meanwhile Norway's northern coasts are suffering from an invasion of Greenland seals, thought to have originated from the Barents and White Seas. The seals' natural prey, capelin and herring, are in short supply in their home territory because of the effects of overfishing and they have migrated to the Norwegian coast in search of food. For the past 11 years, Norway has seen similar seal invasions almost every winter and spring but never on such a large scale or so late in the year. The seals threaten local fisheries, not only by reducing fish stocks, but also by damaging nets. During the first few months of this year 20 000 seals were reported to have been drowned in fishermen's nets. Norway used to cull 400 000 seals annually but this number has decreased greatly since the EC banned the import of seal skins in 1982.

ICES Intercalibration on Nutrients The ICES Marine Chemistry Working Group have announced the inauguration of a Nutrients Intercalibration Exercise consequent to the Group's meeting held at the Hague in March 1988. At this stage the Group wishes to identify any institutes, laboratories or individual workers who would be interested in participating. A written reply by interested parties should be received by the end of August and be addressed to: D. Kirkwood, MAFF Directorate of Fisheries Research, Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK.

North American News Electromagnetic Radiation a New Concern The US Department of Defence (DOD) has agreed to defer testing programmes conducted at 11 of its facilities until studies can be performed to demonstrate that radiation emitted by the tests will not harm the environment. The facilities test the vulnerability of strategic military systems to electromagnetic pulses 0EMP) by simulating their production. EMPs are produced when gamma rays emitted by detonation of nuclear explosions collide with air molecules and stimulate the emission of electrons. The resulting electronic fallout destroys unprotected electronic components, such as computer chips, but has not previously been considered to be detrimental to living organisms. As a result of a suit brought by two environmental 351

Marine Pollution Bulletin

groups concerned with the effects of the testing, DOD has agreed to further study effects of the radiation. The suit charged that D O D had not complied with National Environmental Policy Act requirements to file environmental impact statements (EIS) that determine any potential impacts on the environment. D O D has agreed to cease operation of, or drastically reduce power on, the simulators at all its facilities, except a remote site in New Mexico, until EISs have been written. Last year, the US EPA questioned the adequacy of a Navy study of the safety of an EMP simulator, the EMPRESS II, in the Chesapeake Bay. Subsequently, as a result of widespread concerns regarding the testing, the Congress prohibited operation of the EMPRESS 11 in the Bay until the Secretary of Defence certifigs that the tests are essential to the national security and that Chesapeake Bay is the best location for testing based on socio-economic and environmental considerations. Recently, the Navy issued an EIS for EMPRESS II in which it announced it will not use the Bay to test its barge-carried EMP simulator, unless testing at an ocean site proves impracticable. If the Navy were to determine the need to return to the Bay for testing, Maryland State officials have stated their intention to try to block any such future testing. D O D must now produce a refined EIS assessing biotic impacts of the testing at a specific ocean test site. It is certain the study will garner new information regarding a previously-unknown environmental pollutant.

EPA Objects to Specifics of Sale The US EPA has objected to plans outlined by the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) to lease offshore areas near Mendocino, California, for oil and gas exploration. EPA's objections are based on plans as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared by MMS for Sale 91, which is scheduled for February 1989. The Sale would encompass an area of 0.45 million ha that stretches from the 5.6 km State Waters line to 50 km offshore. Water depths are 30-1850 m. EPA's primary concerns centred around fears that fish and wildlife in the Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and the Point Reyes Wilderness Area would be adversely impacted by any oil spills in the lease area. Although the MMS report stated that environmental protection measures would be required for lease activities in the area, EPA thought those measures should be specified and defined in the DEIS. If protective measures were not clearly delineated in leasing stipulations, EPA recommended that the Point Arena area be deleted from the sale to reduce potential damage to these sensitive areas. SPA also suggested that MMS establish a buffer zone along the coast to further protect these areas from the possibility that spilled oil would impact the shoreline, which the DEIS estimated was between a 10 and over 20% probability. Even though the DEIS dismisses the likelihood of oil reaching the shoreline, EPA thought the DEIS did not present sufficient evidence to justify this conclusion. The DEIS concluded that there was almost a 50% 352

chance that 1.6 million 1. (10 000 bbl.) would be spilled in the area during a 25 year leasing period and that there was over a 50% chance that the Farallones Marine Sanctuary would receive spilled oil within 30 days of commencement of oil production. A draft report by the Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was also critical of the Department's DEIS and its proposed procedures for the lease sale. This report was withdrawn by the FWS after criticism by MMS. Environmental groups are trying to get Congressional support to prevent the proposed sale by adding language to the Interior Department's appropriations bill for the 1989 fiscal year. During the California primary campaign for the Presidency, both leading candidates, George Bush and Michael Dukakis, spoke against the Northern California Sale. Dukakis is not in favour of leasing the area, and Bush has called for more study and deferred leasing of the area. In response to all the controversy surrounding the sale, the Interior Department has since announced that the Sale will be deferred for the immediate future.

Interest in Ocean Incineration Goes On The US EPA is receiving renewed pressure to revive its ocean incineration rule-making programme and to issue regulations for the incineration of municipal solid wastes at sea. The EPA announced its abandonment of the programme based on budgetary constraints after Waste Management Inc. decided to relinquish its efforts to obtain a permit for waste incineration (see Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19, 150). Two other companies, Seaburn Inc., and Ocean Incineration Services Inc., have now taken steps to encourage EPA to reverse its decision. Seaburn, which filed a request for an incineration permit with EPA in 1983, has filed suit to force EPA to complete its rule-making procedures. The company has claimed that EPA's prior regulations for ocean incineration were withdrawn without the required public comment, that EPA did not include Seaburn as a party in its decision to abandon the rule-making procedures and that EPA has unfairly refused to consider the company's permit application. Seaburn claims that EPA's costs to continue its development of a regulatory programme would be negligible and that since 1971 various interests have already spent in excess of S l l 0 million for research and development on the technology. The other company, Ocean Incineration, has proposed to EPA that it employ one or more incinerator ships at a location at least 160 km from land to burn municipal solid wastes and, possibly, sewage sludges. Leakproof barges would take the wastes out to the incineration site, where a pneumatic handling mechanism would transfer the wastes to the incinerator ship. Onboard the ship, the incinerator ash and scrubber sludges from the stacks would be stabilized and solidified to form blocks to be used in onshore projects, such as highway construction. If this plan proved technically impracticable, the company could transport the ash and sludge to shore for processing or to an EPA-approved site for disposal. Although