149 



Because of the limited knowledge of the deep oceans, we rec- 

 ommended against ocean disposal of highly toxic wastes but in 

 favor of an experiment on the mass disposal of relatively benign 

 high-volume waste, such as sludge, and its impact on abyssal 

 ecosystems. Such an experiment should include replicated experi- 

 mental treatments and should be designed to maximize its useful- 

 ness in predicting future changes in oceanic ecosystems. 



In calculating whether deep ocean disposal is practical, the cost 

 of bringing the knowledge of deep ocean processes up to levels we 

 take for granted in other environments should be factored into the 

 cost of disposal. Alternative approaches that include beneficial use, 

 source reduction, and alternatives available for waste isolation 

 should be carefully evaluated. 



A substantial portion of the cost associated with disposal alter- 

 natives are related to management and regulation, where obstacles 

 have little to do with actual costs of containment or treatment. For 

 purposes of comparison, costs associated with the most efficient 

 management practices achievable should be used. 



Some of the interest in using the abyssal plains as a dumping 

 ground for contaminated sediments is a result of a crisis presently 

 faced by the port authority of New York and New Jersey. In my 

 previous testimony before the House Subcommittee on Merchant 

 Marine and Fisheries in 1993, I recommended continuation of the 

 use of the 6-mile mud dump site in the short term, pending devel- 

 opment of another method for containment; determination of the 

 sources of contamination and a study of the transport processes as- 

 sociated with deposition of contaminated sediments in the shipping 

 channels and berths; use of specially designed pits for subseabed 

 containment within the harbor; and initiation of a broad-based, 

 long-term strategy to develop methods for remediation of Newark 

 Bay sediments. 



Some of the reasons there has been little progress in any of these 

 areas include a complex and fragmented regulatory framework, 

 lack of an adequate mechanism to evaluate new technology, an in- 

 adequately informed public, and our inability to manage the port 

 as an entire system. I believe that the limited resources available 

 to the port should be used to improve management of contaminated 

 sediments rather than for development of techniques for isolation 

 of sediment on the abyssal plain. 



This conclusion perhaps begs the more general question about 

 the feasibility of using the abyssal to isolate wastes. Considerable 

 investment by the Department of Energy was made approximately 

 a decade ago to evaluate the possibility of using the abyssal plain 

 for placement of high-level radioactive waste. Uncertainties associ- 

 ated with an inability to control the placement and transport of the 

 material have argued for disposal under more manageable cir- 

 cumstances. 



Unfortunately, the deep sea is a habitat that is particularly dif- 

 ficult to access. Thus, once wastes have been planted there, future 

 remediation is near impossible from a logistic or financial stand- 

 point. It is possible that risks associated with land or near-shore 

 disposal of some materials may be so great in the future that the 

 equivalent of a landfill on the abyssal plain will eventually be 

 needed. I believe this eventuality can be avoided. 



