EPA, environmentalists clash over proposal to test contaminated dredged sediments Environmental groups, backed by several scientists, are accusing EPA of giving in to harbor interests by proposing changes in testing standards that, they say, will allow contaminated dredged sediments to be dumped at sea. However, EPA officials deny this. They say the Feb. 29 proposal merely corrects a misinterpretation of testing regulations caused by a 1995 court decision in a dispute about ocean dumping of contaminated dredge spoils from New York/New Jersey Harbor Because of the controversy little dredging has taken place in the harbor, and longshoremen, port-related businesses, and others are turning up pressure to reexamine the option of ocean dumping contaminated portions of some six million tons of silt that must be dredged from the port each year. Roughly twothirds of the sediments fail EPA's current bioassay tests for acute toxicity and hold a toxic mix of dioxins polychlorinated biphenyls hydrocarbons metals and pesticides A $6 million federal program to develop remediation technologies is under but results are not expected until next year fFS&T March 1996 11 SA)
What can be dumped in the ocean is determined through EPA-established procedures for testing the biological effects of dredged sediments. Many of these procedures involve laboratory bioassays that expose selected marine organisms to dredged sediments to determine what harm would occur if the mud was dumped at approved ocean dump sites. The agency's recent proposal expands the definition of bioassay to include, in addition to laboratory bioassays, "such effectsbased evaluations as may be approved by EPA." The change will open the door to the use of toxicological models, risk assessments, screening evaluations, guidance documents, or other methods that may be developed in the future. EPA argues that the proposed changes merely clarify the flexibility built into the regulations to
allow for scientific advances, but some environmental groups and scientists disagree. They charge that the revisions provide EPA with risk models and other more subjective mechanisms it can use to allow ocean dumping of these harbor spoils. Among those saying EPA is opening a loophole is biologist Angela Cristini at New Jersey's Ramapo College. In a study of dredged sediments for the state of New Jersey, Cristini found dioxin levels in blue crabs living in polluted parts of the harbor to be up to 10 times higher than those in crabs outside the area (FS&T August 1994 1528) She is concerned that the pronnsal coiild lead to similar r n n t a m i n a t i o n in t h e r\cf*ar\ if allowed to crn forward
Opponents also say the rule change would allow testing on physically "similar materials" rather than on actual contaminated sediments. Perhaps most contentious is proposed language declaring that if there is no agency-approved bioassay procedure then a test need not be run. "This language provides a loophole for not testing," said Susan Kennedy, lawyer for Clean Ocean Action, an organization of New Jersey environmentalists and fishing and tourism interests which sued to block a 1993 dumping permit "The Ocean Dumping Act has a clear piirposp' to protect the oceans These changes flip that assumption " Not so, said John Lishman, chief of the EPA Marine Pollution
Control Branch, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, in Washington. "These changes do not open the way for unrestricted dumping. The regulations clearly state that if there is inadequate characterization of a chemical of concern, then it can't be dumped." Several scientists involved in the testing of contaminated sediments support EPA's revisions to allow use of modeling and risk assessment. They argue that these methods, in addition to bioassays are useful means of assessing the consequences of sediment contamination. Other scientists, however, say replacing laboratory bioassays with models is a major change in the intent of ocean dumping regulations, according to Scott Carr, a marine ecotoxicologist who led in writing EPA's original guidance on testing procedures and is currently station leader for the National Biological Service marine ecotoxicological research station in Corpus Christi, Tex. Carr suggests that the proposal is intended to head off use of new sensitive laboratory bioassays designed to estimate the chronic long-term effects of contaminants Chmriif* TPQ^Q avf tiot currently nprformpH b e c a u s e EPA h a s vpt to a n n r o v e any of t h e s e bioassavs C u r r e n t FPA n r o c e s cifv t n r v binassavs i n c l u d i n g h i n a r r n m n l a t i n n t e s t s ' a n d a c u t e tnxiritv tests rhich m e a s u r e t h e Heaths
of sensitive marine life, such as amphipods, exposed to dredged sediments tor a relatively short time. In the absence of approved
Some six million tons of sediments—two-thirds of which is contaminated—must be removed from New York/New Jersey Harbor each year to keep the nation's third largest port operating at peak capacity. VOL. 30, NO. 5, 1996/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 9 7 A
chronic tests, EPA turns to bioaccumulation bioassays, according to Tom Chase, an environmental engineer with EPA's ocean dumping program. However, he said there are currently no standards for bioaccumulation tests, and he acknowledged that regulators must look to more subjective measures. But Chase stressed that dumping is "not supposed to degrade the environment," meaning that under EPA standards dumped materials should be no more contaminated than ocean sediments found near the dump site. In determining whether this is so, EPA uses bioassay tests, in which test animals live in dredged muds and the concentrations accumulating in the animals are compared to a reference. If concentrations in test species are less than the reference level the mud p a cope
the bioaccumulation test If concentrations are very high the sediment fails However for Ipvels in betwppn Chase said a decision depends on a "subjecinterpretatinn thprp are signifirant adverse r e .
"
Subjectivity has been an issue since at least 1993 when Clean Ocean Action began legal proceedings against EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The group challenged an ocean dumping permit that allowed the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to dump dioxintainted Newark Bay sediments into the Atlantic Ocean. On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 ruled that in issuing the permit EPA had not followed Ocean Dumping Act re~ quirements However the ruling did not address the subjectivity of Region II's permitting decision and instead it focused on whether EPA had followed its own regulatory rpnuirements Likewise, according to Chase, the proposed rule addresses only procedures, and the Newark permitting decision would not be affected by the proposal. EPA issued the proposed changes {Federal Register 1996, 61 (41), 7765-70) with an initial comment period of 30 days, but on March 22 the agency extended that period until May 1. —REBECCA RENNER
NEWS SOCIETY EPA drops 16-year PCB import ban Claiming environmental and economic benefits, EPA has opened U.S. borders to the import of wastes with high-concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The March 18 announcement overturns a 16-year ban on the import of wastes with 50 ppm or more PCBs and is expected to result in more business for U.S. companies that treat, incinerate, dispose, or recycle PCB-tainted wastes. The increased business is expected to come from Canada and Mexico. However, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund have filed a legal challenge to the rule. In particular, they object to bringing more PCB wastes into the United States where most of it will eventually be burned. EPA estimates that some 400 million lb of PCBs are stored in Canada and another 100 million lb in Mexico and that the regulatory change could generate $500 million for U.S. companies to treat those wastes, assuming revenues of $1 a pound. Most of this income would go to three U.S. companies—Rollins Environmental Services, WMX Technologies, and Roy E Weston which run five incinerators that are permitted to burn PCBs. Revenues for these companies like the rest of the hazardous waste incineration industry are down because of a shortage of wastes analysts sav All this waste might not wind up in the United States, however; Canada has one PCB incinerator and Mexico has a PCB landfill operated by WMX. EPA estimates the U.S. revenues will range from $50 to $100 million a year for five years. "This might help a couple of companies, but it's not going to come near to solving the overcapacity problem," said Jon Hanke, senior associate, Environmental Information Ltd., a Minneapolisbased environmental technology research firm. He said the income estimates are too high and will depend on PCB concentration in wastes and how they are handled.
1 9 8 A • VOL. 30, NO. 5, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
For instance, he predicted a lot of PCB waste will not be incinerated but simply landfilled, a much cheaper operation. One nonincinerator company that hopes to profit from the change is S. D. Myers Inc., an Ohio-based PCB transformer recycler that pushed hard to lift the ban. Mike Valentine, Myers's development director, stressed the environmental benefits of recycling, saying only 2% of a 6000Tb transformer must be incinerated if the rest is recycled. He said most Canadian PCBs are in transformers, and the company has been lobbying Canadian officials to require recycling Driving the environmentalists' suit is opposition to incineration and the resulting dioxin emissions, according to Neil Carman with the Texas Chapter of the Sierra Club. He urged EPA to encourage development of nonincineration technologies before allowing more PCBs to come into the country. Carman applauded EPA's March 18 decision to permit the first-ever nonthermal, portable PCB destruction technology for high-concentration PCB wastes. The chemical treatment process, developed by Commodore Environmental Services Inc. (New York City), uses a solvated electron technology held in an enclosed, portable cement-mixer-like device to destroy contaminants according to the company But before PCBs can be imported from Canada, the United States must negotiate a treaty with Canada, and Canada must lift its own ban on the export of PCB wastes. EPA and industry officials said they have been assured through private conversations with Canadian officials that the ban will be modified and PCBs will begin to cross the border by year's end. Canadian officials however withheld comment. If the deal is closed these wastes will join some 400 million lb of other hazardous waste that traverses the U S —Canada border each year .—JEFF JOHNSON
