Advertisement

The Utilization of Ocean Space for Waste Disposal Changing Perspectives

  • M. A. Champ
  • S. Panem
Conference paper

Abstract

With seventy-one percent of the world covered with seawater, should the land carry the burden totally for waste disposal? Why does the ocean have a “protected” or “preferred” status when it comes to the disposal of wastes? What is the concept of assimilative capacity? What are the ocean waste disposal issues? What is comprehensive-integrated waste management? Why does the risk assessment — risk management approach to environmental management coordinate and integrate waste management actions? What issues in the risk assessment process need public debate? What critical oceanographic information is needed to apply the assimilative capacity concept in the decision making process for the utilization of ocean space for waste disposal?

Keywords

Risk Assessment Sewage Sludge Waste Management Waste Disposal Biochemical Oxygen Demand 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Champ, M.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Vol. 40 Suppl. 2, (1983): 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. U.S. Govt. Print. Office. Washington, D.C. (1970). 45 p.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register. 42 (7): 2485 (1–11–77).Federal Register 49(88):19005(5–4–84).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization London. 36p. + 1979 Amend. Pub. 76. 14E.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Champ, M.A.; Park, P.K. IFI/Plenum. New York. 1982. 399 p.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Osterberg, C. The New York Times. 8–9–81Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Osterberg, C. In: Waste Management-82. Post (Ed.) Vol. 2 Low Level Wastes. Univ. of Arizona, Tucson. (1982): 402–414Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Osterberg, C. IAEA Bull. Vol. 24.No. 2. (1982): 3–34.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Osterberg, C. The Washington Times. 6–7–83.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Osterberg, C. In: Ocean Waste Management: Policy and Strategies. Paper # 13. 9 p. IDOS Spec. Symp. (1983).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roels, O. Sea Technology, Vol. 23. No. 8. (1982):63–67.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    U.S. National Research Council. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. (1984). 179 p.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Preston, A., Poe. Royal Society. Ser. E. (B). 72, 41. London. (1972): 411.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eisenbud, M. Health Physics. Vol. 40. (1981): 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldberg, E. D. Oceanus. Vol. 24. No. 1. (1981): 2–9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kamlet, K. S. Oceanus. Vol. 24, No. 1. (1981): 10–17.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hardin, G. Science. Vol. 162 (1968): 1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cullen, P. Water News. (9 March/Apr, 1984 ): 11–12.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, G and C Merriam Co. Springfield, Massachusetts. (1979). 1531 p.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldberg, E.(Ed.)Proc.Workshop on Assimilative Capacity of US Coastal Waters for Pol. NOAA. Boulder, CO (1979).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Champ,M.A.; Hebard,J.F. In: The Manag, of Oceanic Resources-The Away Ahead. Pub. by the Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles (1981): 389–409.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Champ,M.A. In: The Law of Sea and Ocean Ind: New Oppor. and Restraints. Johnston and Letalik (Eds.). Law of the Sea Ins. Univ. Hawaii. (1983): 282–295Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mayer, G. F. (Ed.). Ecological Stress and NY Bight: Sci. and Mang. ERF, Columbia, South Carolina. (1982). 715 p.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farrington, Oceanus. Vol. 25. No. 4. (Winter 1982/83): 39–50.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Champ, M. A.; Park, P. K. (Eds). Waste Management in the Ocean. Krieger Pub. Co. Malabar, Florida. (In Press).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Gov. Print. Office. Washington, D.C. 103p. 1981.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boxer, B. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 15 (9) (1984): 320–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    U.S. National Research Council. National Academy Press Washington, D. C. (1984). 210 p.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    U.S. National Research Council. National Academy Press. Vol. IX. Washington, D. C. (1978). 187 p.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assess. and Management: Manag, the Process. Washington, D.C. (1984). 35 p.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    U.S. National Research Council. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 1983. 191 p.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    GESAMP. Reports and Studies No. 16. Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization. London. (1982). 60 p.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Norton, M.G., Champ, M. A.: In: Wastes in the Oceans Series, Duedall 1985 John Wiley and Sons, NYGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    International Atomic Energy Agency. Tech. Doc. 296. Vienna. (1983). 55 p.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    O’Connor, et al. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Vol. 40. Suppl. 2. (1983):228–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Champ, Paper #59. Special Symp. on Contam. Fluxes Through the Coastal Zone. ICES, Copenhagen (1984): 27 p.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Champ, : In: Proc. Workshop on Assimilative Capacity of the Oceans for Man’s Wastes. Su and Hung (Eds.). SCOPE/ICSU, Taipei, Republic of China. (1983). p362.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    O’Connor, T. P. NOAA TM NOS 28. Rockville, Maryland. (1983). 119 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Tokyo 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. Champ
    • 1
  • S. Panem
    • 1
  1. 1.Office of Policy, Planning and EvaluationU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyUSA

Personalised recommendations