Explanation called for on dredging proposal

Explanation called for
on dredging proposal

U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-6) and Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action, last week called on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide further information on the maintenance dredging proposal from Port Imperial Co.

Located on the Hudson River in Weehawken, the proposal seeks to re-establish sufficient water depths in the marina and a passenger ferry refueling dock for navigation.

The dredged materials from this site would be placed at the Mud Dump Site, now officially known as the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS).

Pallone and Zipf received word earlier in the week from EPA that Imperial plans to dredge more than 194,000 tons of material from its marina on the Hudson River. Pallone and Zipf said alternatives to ocean dumping should be considered since the material does not comply with an EPA polychlorinated biphenyls guideline issued last year.

EPA reduced the allowable levels of PCBs in dredged material for dumping from 400 parts per billion (ppb) to 113 ppb.

The Port Imperial project caused worms to bioaccumulate 115.8 ppb of PCBs, higher than the guideline.

"Although this project is only moderately higher than the 113 ppb value, I do not want to establish a precedent whereby bending the rules is acceptable behavior," Pallone said. "If the EPA established the 113 ppb criteria with the health and safety of the public in mind, why are we now accepting 115.8 ppb? And just how high is the agency willing to go?"

When bioaccumulation tests are performed, the mud from a project is split into five separate tanks with worms and clams. Each tank is the same.

At the end of the test, these five replicates are averaged. For HARS projects prior to this project and for every contaminant, EPA compared this average with the guideline for HARS.

If the average exceeded the guideline, then the project failed. If the average was below the guideline, then the project was passed for that contaminant for HARS. In this case, the average bioaccumulation of PCBs in worms was not below the guideline (worms accumulated 115.87 ppb, and the guideline is 113 ppb), and the EPA passed this muck for HARS.

Using this method, it concluded that the project mud is no different from the PCB matrix guideline value. However, it failed to show that the project mud is below the PCB matrix guideline level.

It also failed to show that the upper ranges of PCB bioaccumulation in the dredged material were safe. The project’s mud could cause bioaccumulation in a range between 106.4 and 125.3.

This sets a dangerous precedent because EPA does not set limits on the allowable margin of error in bioaccumulation tests.

This encourages applicants to submit variable data, which would allow them to then be approved for HARS.

In a phone call to Christine Whitman, administrator for the EPA, Pallone received commitment from the agency to a mid-January meeting between the regional EPA administrator, Clean Ocean Action, and the congressman. Pallone and Zipf are seeking explanation for EPA approval of a project that clearly does not even meet the agency’s own guidelines.

"This mud fails the PCB guidance that EPA and the Army Corps set in September 2000," said staff scientist Dr. Kristen Milligan of Clean Ocean Action. "This mud is not remediation material. The method that EPA used to approve this mud for the remediation site does not err on the side of caution or environmental protection. It sets a dangerous precedent and opens a loophole for more projects to pass when they really should fail because of PCB contamination," Milligan said.