1972) in that the fate o£ heavy metals in the waste deposits is not a 

 question that can be answered with present knowledge. Similarly disputed 

 was the SHL conclusion that heavy metals, such as copper, lead, chromium 

 and mercury in the water, originate from the sewage sludge and dredge 

 spoil dumping sites. The SHL data on the concentrations of certain heavy 

 metals (Zn, B, Fe, Mo, Mn, Cu, Sr, Al , Ba) in water samples collected at 

 only six stations (Table 5-11 of the SHL report) has been questioned by 

 the SAC since a cause-effect relationship was not clearly established. 

 The SAC felt that the techniques used by both studies did not clearly 

 demonstrate the mobility or lack of mobility of heavy metals from the 

 waste deposits of the dumping grounds . Determining the reactivity of 

 heavy metals based on acid extractions was not possible because of the 

 variability of extraction with different concentrations of acid. 



Neither study provided for the vertical distribution of heavy metals 

 throughout the waste deposits. The SAC maintained that analysis of the 

 heavy-metal content of interstitial water at selected depth in cores would 

 aid in determining whether heavy metals are leaching from the waste 

 deposits. 



Differences in the methods and analyses in the SUNY-SB and SHL studies 

 make comparison of the chemical results difficult. No significance can 

 be attached to differences in heavy-metal contents of sediments determined 

 by SUNY-SB and SHL because uniform extraction procedures were not used. 

 (SAC, 1972) 



The method of sample collection using grab samples could also produce 

 variations in the results of both studies. The grab sampler would have 

 the tendency to disturb the sediment and not necessarily reflect iri_ situ 

 distribution of constituents. 



In conclusion, the results obtained to date indicate that high 

 concentrations of heavy metals are found in the sediments of the dumping 

 grounds. The fate of these heavy metals, their effect on water quality 

 and their toxic potential have not been determined. 



i. Organic Fraction . Quantitative numerical limits have not yet 

 been defined by EPA in its water quality standards for oil, petrochemicals, 

 or synthetic organic compounds. Existing restrictions are descriptive, 

 and state that no oil or petrochemicals should be added to receiving 

 waters in such quantities as to: "produce a visible film on the surface; 

 impart an oily odor to the water and oily taste to the fish and edible 

 invertebrates; coat the banks or bottom of the water course, or taint any 

 of the associated biota; and finally, become effective toxicants." New 

 York and New Jersey have similar descriptive restrictions on oil and petro- 

 chemicals. (EPA, 1972) None appear to apply to the offshore marine environ- 

 ment. 



The sediments associated with ocean dumping areas are usually 

 characterized by high organic contents. The organic materials found in 

 such areas may be natural, synthetic, or related to petroleum based 



123 



