ocean dumping are
at core of debate
EPA standards for
ocean dumping are
at core of debate
By elaine van develde
Staff Writer
When it comes to ocean dumping, environmentalists feel as if they’ve been banging their heads against a sea wall. But they’re headstrong enough on the issue to take a few knocks and get past the rocks.
The persistence and pain of the fight, they say, is a small price to pay for the end result of saving the bight — the 19,000-square-mile mock sea nestled in the curve of the New York and New Jersey coasts from Montauk Point, Long Island to Cape May and the Gulf Stream.
The fight for a healthy, clean ocean has been an ever-evolving one of long standing. Now, as the summer season hits and hopes remain high for clean coastal waters, the environmental group Clean Ocean Action, Congressman Frank Pallone and the American Littoral Society are fighting for the bight.
Stringent federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for ocean dumping instituted in 2000 have not been adhered to, and grandfathered permits have slipped through the environmental cracks. There have been court battles, legislative initiatives and a lot of persistence.
Still, the threat of new dumping of polychlorinated biphenyl-laced sludge on the Historical Area Remediation Site, six miles off the coast of Sandy Hook, looms large. The environmentalists’ desire is for no ocean dumping. But if it must happen, they say, what’s dumped should be held to a higher standard. On the heels of two dumping permit issues, these area environmentalists are up in arms and not willing to accept a "dump whatever" or "PCB levels are close enough to safe" edict.
"Anything could change," said Kari Jermansen, Clean Ocean Action outreach director, while waiting for word on some initiatives.
What has the area environmentalists in a particular uproar are the recent EPA-sanctioned dumpings slated for Naval Weapons Station Earle, Leonardo section of Middletown, and the N.Y.-based U.S. Gypsum Co. While different circumstances surround each case, it all boils down to ocean dumping in the end.
With respect to Gypsum, the case could be a precedent-setting one, said Jermansen.
The issue surrounds EPA standards for what is an acceptable level of contaminated muck to dump in the ocean and cap the HARS site off Sandy Hook.
Until September 2000, the EPA standard for dredged materials "clean" enough to dump was 400 parts per billion (ppb) of PCBs (polychlorinated byphenals). That standard was reduced to 113 ppb. PCBs are pollutants in the soil, along with other things, such as lead, that are poisonous. When seeped into the water and ingested by fish, they can be lethal.
The day after the public comment period ended for the Gypsum permit, the new 113 ppb ruling was in place. Gypsum’s level had tested at 128 ppb. The permit would allow the company to dump 107,000 tons of dredged material at the HARS. Gypsum was held to the newer 113 standard and sued the N.Y. District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Region 2 of the EPA in U.S. District Court and won in a decision handed down on July 10. The reason for the win was that the 113 ppb guideline qualified as a new rule and as such needed to go through a mandated rule-making process that included a public hearing. There had been no public hearing on the new EPA guideline of 113 ppb.
In order for the new rule to stick appropriately, there has to be a notice and public comment period.
In the Gypsum case, the new 113 ppb standard, without the public comment period, was seen by the court as only an interim guideline — not permanent enough to hold.
"This ruling flies in the face of our collective work over the years to implement a consistent standard that protects the ocean environment," Pallone said in a released statement. "At a time when thousands of residents and tourists are flocking to our beaches, we need to ensure that the water they swim and recreate in is safe. The EPA must expeditiously work to ensure that the 113 ppb guideline returns in order to keep toxic dredged materials from once again being sent out to the old mud dump site."
Pallone’s sentiments were echoed by Clean Ocean Action Executive Director Cindy Zipf and Jermansen. Both called it a sad day for the ocean.
"We’re definitely saddened by this and want to see the 113 level upheld. Ideally, there should be no PCBs, but if not, at the very least, the 113 level should be sustained," said Jermansen.
Right in the Clean Ocean Action backyard, Earle is asking to dump 55,300 tons of 123 ppb, PCB-laced sediment at the HARS. Earle’s approval from the EPA came June 26. Calling the approval an insult, Clean Ocean Action, Pallone and the Littoral Society anxiously await a public hearing on the issue. The insult added to the injury of Earle being a bad neighbor by not tapping into alternatives to ocean dumping is, they say, that if any entity has access to "upland" ocean dumping alternatives, it’s the U.S. Navy. It’s just more expensive, they said. Pallone has criticized all organizations and the federal and state governments for not exploring ocean dumping alternatives because of a higher cost when, in the end, cleaning the ocean will cost more. Closed beaches and tainted fish, he has said, will be costly to the economy and the people who enjoy them. Others couldn’t agree more.
"For Earle to choose the mud dump rather than an upland alternative is a terrible decision," said Tim Dillingham, assistant director of the American Littoral Society. "Earle has alternatives more available to it than other entities. The muck could be disposed of in a containment facility upland, out of the ocean. It’s just more expensive. Just because it’s cheaper, it doesn’t mean the sludge should be put there (at HARS).
"The real cost ultimately is the quality of ocean waters," he added. "Dumping shifts the cost theoretically from the Navy to the public. Just to save a few dollars, the public is being asked to bear the cost of unclean waters."
Another problem, Zipf said in a released statement, is that the total volume for the project slated for dumping is 313,700 tons, 55,300 of which are above 113 ppb. That, she said, doesn’t mean that the other material is not tainted; it’s just less tainted.
"We join Congressman Pallone in requesting a public hearing and will call on citizens to fight back against dumping this material in the ocean," said Zipf.
Saying the ocean is at the mercy of state and federal agencies’ protection, Jermansen emphasized the importance of public protest to further protection initiatives.
"It is imperative that citizens hold our agencies and elected officials accountable to the highest standard to protect our environment and public health," she said.
In keeping with that idea, Pallone, in conjunction with U.S. Senators Robert Torricelli and Jon Corzine, introduced legislation July 11 in the Senate and House of Representatives to establish a permanent PCB guideline of 113 ppb for any material slated for dumping at the HARS site.
"Two years ago, the EPA finally agreed with me and shoreline environmentalists that a tougher standard needed to be established for material sent out to the old mud dump site," Pallone said in a released statement.
"The EPA did the right thing for the health of the ocean and the public when it established 113 ppb as the standard. Yesterday (July 10) a U.S. District Court put that health at risk. Today, with my colleagues, we begin the process of correcting that ill-advised decision by introducing legislation establishing 113 ppb as a permanent standard in the hope that we can protect generations of visitors to the Jersey Shore from negative health effects caused by contaminated material."