- Email: [email protected]
Sewage sludge
Marine PollutionBulletin progress has definitely been made. Already OCSEAP data have affected several OCS leasing decisions. The offshore oil and gas exploration in Alaska is still in a nascent stage. An accurate and credible assessment of the degree of success of the programme must wait until the start of OCS oil and gas development in Alaska. There is no question that OCSEAP has already provided a wealth of scientific data, some of which are well beyond the scope of its primary objectives. The value of these data has been widely acknowledged by prominent and respected scientists. The analysis and interpretation of these data and their eventual publication in scientific journals or periodicals will take years to accomplish. It is the intent of NOAA and BLM to have the data and results from OCSEAP made available to all interested groups. To fail to do this would be irresponsible indeed. This requires a tad more time than Dr Bourne feels it should, but we are "getting a move o n " !
Manager, OMPA Alaska Office, HERB BRUCE NOAA Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, Rockville, MD20852, USA Dr Bourne comments: While it is good to learn from Dr Bruce that provision is being made for the continuation of the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Programme, I suggest I also deserve a little credit for early agitation for it. The trouble with the results, illustrated by his letter, is that they become increasingly concerned with obscure and long-winded discussions of models bearing little relation to real life instead of the "clear, concise report of what was found and what steps it is proposed to take to maintain a continuing watch on the situation" requested.
SewageSludge In his Editorial on 'Disposing of sewage sludge at sea' (Mar. Pollut. Bull., 1981, 13, 37-39) D. H. Jenkins was able to practice oneupmanship as he cites unpublished articles in the press in support of advocacy of continuing the discharge of sludge to the sea by the City of Los Angeles. He refers to "extensive surveys of the Santa Monica Bay by the California Coastal Waters Research Project" and quotes Bascom's conclusion "that the benefits and detrimental effects of the sludge were mixed". Mixed with what and by whom? My fife-long experience with the bay includes more than 30 years underwater observations by diving (3000 + dives in total), more than ten years of sampling by trawling (4000 + samples by trawl), and analyses of sea water for chemical determinations and determinations of coliform bacteria. In addition to my work in Santa Monica Bay, I have studied the marine biota of the Pacific from Mexico to Alaska. It is hardly surprising that fishes congregate in large numbers in a submarine canyon and that invertebrates are in large numbers where water motion is more vigorous than at other locations. It is not even surprising that some animals are attracted to the sludge deposits. These observations confound the issue of the impact of the discharge on marine fife. More than 30 years ago, Santa Monica Bay in particular and southern California in general abounded with marine fife. San Pedro was a major fishing port of the world and 214
hundreds of small boats fished Santa Monica Bay. Southern California and the City of Los Angeles underwent an order of magnitude increase in population and orders of magnitude increase in industrial activity, including electric power generation and decreases in air and water quality. Some 10 years later, after more than two decades of abuse, studies were commenced on the environment that is now severely disturbed and serves as habitat for a 'pollution-tolerant biota'. Today the fishing industry in San Pedro is in a state of depression. No commerical boats regularly fish Santa Monica Bay. Commercial fishing activity in the vicinity of Los Angeles is reduced by more than an order of magnitude and each day hundreds of tons of sludge are discharged into the local ocean. There is no evidence to support the suggestion that sludge is good for fish. As a marine biologist who supplies specimens of marine organisms for educational and research programmes, please note that if the changes in the biota which have occurred and which continue as a result of the waste discharges into the ocean were good for the biota, I should in honesty state same. But I cannot, for understandable reasons. There is a long record of decreased fisheries production which coincides with the nature and volume of hazardous waste discharged to local waters. There is an imbalance in the biota which evidences the distribution of the waste field in the bay. Alternatively, where waste discharges have received adequate treatment or been abated around the world, improvements in water quality and in the biota of those waters have been observed. Examples include the Thames, the Potomac, Biscayne Bay (Florida), and San Diego Bay (California). Discharge of primary treated waste and sewage sludge to the ocean is inconsistent with rational productive use of our marine waters. Waste discharges of this nature compromise every beneficial use made of coastal waters, save possibly for navigation. Alternative disposal practices for sludge either on land or by incineration are called for and are supportable.
Pacific Bio-marine Labs Inc. P.O. Box536, Venice, CA 90291, USA
RIMMON C. F A Y
Dr Jenkins comments: The announcement that Mr W. Bascom was to present a paper on the "Effects on the ecosystem of sewage sludge disposal from a pipeline" at the IAWPR London conference on Disposal of Sludge to Sea held from 29 September to 1 October 1981 was given world-wide circulation. The complete paper was available as a preprint to all who wished to attend the conference. The proceedings of that paper are now published in Water Science and Technology 1982, 14, 41-52. Mr Bascom amplified his paper at the conference and these additional comments are printed together with the discussion of his paper on pages 196-207 of the conference proceedings. I suggest that Dr Fay defers judgement of the validity of the conclusions derived from the California Coastal Waters Research Project dealing with a study of the Santa Monica Bay until he has considered Mr Bascom's paper and then comments on them in a communication to Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Manager, OMPA Alaska Office, HERB BRUCE NOAA Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, Rockville, MD20852, USA Dr Bourne comments: While it is good to learn from Dr Bruce that provision is being made for the continuation of the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Programme, I suggest I also deserve a little credit for early agitation for it. The trouble with the results, illustrated by his letter, is that they become increasingly concerned with obscure and long-winded discussions of models bearing little relation to real life instead of the "clear, concise report of what was found and what steps it is proposed to take to maintain a continuing watch on the situation" requested.
SewageSludge In his Editorial on 'Disposing of sewage sludge at sea' (Mar. Pollut. Bull., 1981, 13, 37-39) D. H. Jenkins was able to practice oneupmanship as he cites unpublished articles in the press in support of advocacy of continuing the discharge of sludge to the sea by the City of Los Angeles. He refers to "extensive surveys of the Santa Monica Bay by the California Coastal Waters Research Project" and quotes Bascom's conclusion "that the benefits and detrimental effects of the sludge were mixed". Mixed with what and by whom? My fife-long experience with the bay includes more than 30 years underwater observations by diving (3000 + dives in total), more than ten years of sampling by trawling (4000 + samples by trawl), and analyses of sea water for chemical determinations and determinations of coliform bacteria. In addition to my work in Santa Monica Bay, I have studied the marine biota of the Pacific from Mexico to Alaska. It is hardly surprising that fishes congregate in large numbers in a submarine canyon and that invertebrates are in large numbers where water motion is more vigorous than at other locations. It is not even surprising that some animals are attracted to the sludge deposits. These observations confound the issue of the impact of the discharge on marine fife. More than 30 years ago, Santa Monica Bay in particular and southern California in general abounded with marine fife. San Pedro was a major fishing port of the world and 214
hundreds of small boats fished Santa Monica Bay. Southern California and the City of Los Angeles underwent an order of magnitude increase in population and orders of magnitude increase in industrial activity, including electric power generation and decreases in air and water quality. Some 10 years later, after more than two decades of abuse, studies were commenced on the environment that is now severely disturbed and serves as habitat for a 'pollution-tolerant biota'. Today the fishing industry in San Pedro is in a state of depression. No commerical boats regularly fish Santa Monica Bay. Commercial fishing activity in the vicinity of Los Angeles is reduced by more than an order of magnitude and each day hundreds of tons of sludge are discharged into the local ocean. There is no evidence to support the suggestion that sludge is good for fish. As a marine biologist who supplies specimens of marine organisms for educational and research programmes, please note that if the changes in the biota which have occurred and which continue as a result of the waste discharges into the ocean were good for the biota, I should in honesty state same. But I cannot, for understandable reasons. There is a long record of decreased fisheries production which coincides with the nature and volume of hazardous waste discharged to local waters. There is an imbalance in the biota which evidences the distribution of the waste field in the bay. Alternatively, where waste discharges have received adequate treatment or been abated around the world, improvements in water quality and in the biota of those waters have been observed. Examples include the Thames, the Potomac, Biscayne Bay (Florida), and San Diego Bay (California). Discharge of primary treated waste and sewage sludge to the ocean is inconsistent with rational productive use of our marine waters. Waste discharges of this nature compromise every beneficial use made of coastal waters, save possibly for navigation. Alternative disposal practices for sludge either on land or by incineration are called for and are supportable.
Pacific Bio-marine Labs Inc. P.O. Box536, Venice, CA 90291, USA
RIMMON C. F A Y
Dr Jenkins comments: The announcement that Mr W. Bascom was to present a paper on the "Effects on the ecosystem of sewage sludge disposal from a pipeline" at the IAWPR London conference on Disposal of Sludge to Sea held from 29 September to 1 October 1981 was given world-wide circulation. The complete paper was available as a preprint to all who wished to attend the conference. The proceedings of that paper are now published in Water Science and Technology 1982, 14, 41-52. Mr Bascom amplified his paper at the conference and these additional comments are printed together with the discussion of his paper on pages 196-207 of the conference proceedings. I suggest that Dr Fay defers judgement of the validity of the conclusions derived from the California Coastal Waters Research Project dealing with a study of the Santa Monica Bay until he has considered Mr Bascom's paper and then comments on them in a communication to Marine Pollution Bulletin.