|
|
|
||||||||
"Come in before you catch your death of mud"
- Character Nana Oyl (Movie: Popeye)
"I'll just assure you that anything New Jersey specific we will have a hold on it in the United States Senate until this is taken care of"
- Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum threatening New Jersey Projects regarding reluctance to accept Pennsylvania dredging proposal (January 2006)
-Congressman Bob Franks (R-NJ)
"How can material with PAH levels of 751 parts per billion help cleanup a site with an average of 530 parts per billion? And how can material with PCB levels of 170 parts help cleanup a site with an equal level of PCBs? I hope EPA will explain this ill-conceived logic to the Subcommittee."
Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. - Sixth District of New Jersey (November 5, 1999)
Statement on Dredged Material Disposal Options in the New York Bight
"Orange, dioxins, mercury, lead, arsenic, petrochemicals, cadmium, PCBs and some yet unnamed chemical agents that the Dept. Of Defense contracted the Diamond Shamrock Corporation, and other chemical giants to do research on during the Viet Nam War, When the Viet Nam War ended, they just dumped these chemicals into the waters of Newark Bay.They just dumped these poisons into the water! That's all they did. And then they just walked away."
-Natural Resources Protection Association
"The Corps’ own studies show that 128 different contaminants are possibly present in the river sediment in varying amounts. Some of the chemicals that will be dredged up include thallium, cadmium, antimony, beryllium, lead, selenium, mercury, and PCBs."
-Sierra Club statement against deepening of the Delaware bay
"Fish from more than 130 water bodies in New York have contaminant levels that are greater than federal standards."
-New York State Deparment of Health Chemicals in Sports Fish and Game 2006 - 07 Health Advisories
"Nearly any person who contacts the surface water will become ill."
"Accidentally drinking the waters or sticking a hand with a cut into them virtually guarantees a person will suffer vomiting, diarrhea, stomach cramps, and other gastrointestinal problems, the study say"
- northjersey.com article (August 25, 2004) on Tierra Solutions, Inc. Study on Lower Passaic River and other water bodies.
The pressure to perform the dredging appears a bit more complicated than the above quoted statements. The current depths to sediment in Newark Bay are approximately 30-feet, where channels and berths are supposed to be at at least 36-feet. However, the real pressure is the future commerce with the large container ships which require at minimum draft of 45-feet or more. The sources provided below present this information from several points of view. The one common thread is that all of the sources state that the sediment contains significant concentrations of organic and inorganic contaminants.
"The two lawmakers said there is one thing worse than South Jersey river mud, and that's North Jersey river mud."
U.S. Rep Rob Andrews (D-NJ) and NJ State Sen. Stephen Sweeney
on dumping dredge material from deepening to 45 feet
Philadelphia Inquirer (April 12, 2002)
“Ignoring the hard evidence of the hazards of this sludge, without concern for the future impact on the environment, puts us on the road to disaster. If the Administration cannot be trusted to keep their word, I believe Congress must take action to ensure that New Jersey’s environment is not compromised,”
- New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith (1999)
The Pennsylvania Bark Camp project is a State funded pilot project to justify use of bay sediments for use in the remediation of abandoned coal mines in Pennsylvania. The potential problems of this project and the proposal to remediate abandoned mines in specific area are currently a hot topic with environmental groups. The Army for a Clean Environment provides a geology report (November 2003) that provides some thoughts on the review of environmental media tested. The author warns about the potential of the report to be taken out of context based on the lack of some information that was still needed for the evaluation. The disturbing parts of this report (personal observation on reading this report) appear to be this lack of information on the normal "background" for this area (a technical necessity for logical comparisons), details on the monitoring points (including fish samples), mixing of sediments with various residual waste streams (fly ash, incinerator ash, etc.), high variation in pH ranges (from very acidic to very alkaline), and limited samples for specific volumes of material (while typical municipal/residual requirements may be as low as one sample per 250 cubic yards; it appears that sampling may have occurred on a monthly basis). The detection of most of the contaminants could not be traced to a specific section of the project, or a specific material (like the non-soil cover material, etc.) at the project site. The Pennsylvania Bark Camp Project information can also be viewed at the Department of Environmental Protection Bark Camp page.
"At least one core sample shall be obtained for each 1000 cubic yards (cu.yds.) of proposed dredged sediment. The depth of each core should correspond to the dredging depth at the sampling site."
-Massachusetts DEP Interim Policy for Sampling, Analysis, Handling and Tracking Requirements for Dredged Sediment
Reused or Disposed at Massachusetts Permitted Landfills
The above Massachusetts DEP policy is for testing requirements for dredge material that will go to a permitted landfill. This is offered in comparison to the testing proposed in Pennsylvania where this material will go to areas accessible to public, not have the infiltration and drainage protection of landfills, or have any type of liners. Possibly a comparison of visualizing the volume of 10,000 cubic yards represented by one composite (mix of several discrete sample locations) sample is in order. The typical sampling for a non-hazardous waste (like lightly contaminated soil from a spill) going to a restricted access and lined municipal/residual waste landfill. This type of landfill would have daily cover as well as leak monitoring and a stringent groundwater monitoring system. Still this non-hazardous waste would have a required organic and inorganic sampling before it would be allowed to be disposed in one of these facilities. Now, how much is 10,000-cubic yards? This possibly entertaining comparison utilizes a long hauling trailer that is common on most highways. The generic trailer for this utilized the ultralite J & J Trailer (Lancaster)with dimensions of length of 48-feet, height of 100-inches, and width of 102-inches. The maximum capacity would be 120-cubic yards. However, soil/sediment/sludge is relatively dense and weight is the limiting factor. Then a use of 100-cubic yards of sediment as a max load is very realistic and probably a very conservative load.
Considering the height issue of stacking 100 trailers of sediment on top of each other the calculated height would be 10,000-inches or 833-feet high. This height is compared with the Hoover dam which would be 726.4-feet from top to bottom. The Hoover Dam is the tallest all-concrete dam in the U.S.A. There is enough concrete in the dam that, by 1935 standards, they could have built a two lane highway from San Francisco to New York City, or a sidewalk around the equator (Photo and text credit: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation - Lower Colorado Region).
The width of 100-trailers pushed side by side would be calculated at 10,200-inches or 850-feet total. These (parked) and pushed together trailers would exceed the width of the Kennedy Space Centre Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) by 332-feet. The fame of this VAB is this is one of the most voluminous buildings in the world. The VAB covers 3.25 hectares (8 acres). It is 160 meters (525 ft) tall, 218 meters (716 ft) long and 158 meters (518 ft) wide. It encloses 3,664,883 cubic meters (129,428,000 cubic feet) of space (Images and text NASA).
The last volume comparison considers making a pyramid of these 100 trailers. If start at two trailers on the top (to avoid 101 trailers) then the bottom row would be 13 trailer widths (using the 102-inch) wide. The height would also be 13 trailer heights (using the 100-inch). Then the trailer structure would be 108-feet high and (still about) 108-feet wide. While not quite rivaling the size of the Khufu Pyramid possibly placing a 6-inch tall sampling bottle at the top of this pyramid may give some perspective. The Khufu Pyramid in Giza (Egypt) is the World's largest pyramid. The original pyramid height was 481 feet tall, but is now only 449 feet. Then again some of these proposed projects will likely exceed the 10,000 cubic yards (and one sample) quite easily. So maybe a future comparison of use would show that the Khufu Pyramid would be buried deep in this comparative sediment. The subsequent sections will focus on what contaminants (and for a surprise scroll to bottom) have been documented in the dredged material.
"It will be treated before it gets here,...After it's processed, you could almost eat it."
-Hazleton (PA) Mayor Barletta
Now! Does one sample per 10,000 cubic yards seem to be possibly not representative based on common practice, policies, technical logic, and (what one person has called) "the reasonable man theory"? Well hang on cause the Hazleton (Pennsylvania) dredge/sludge proposal calls for a protocol of one verification sample PER 50,000 cubic yards!!!!! So, it does appear that now there would be 500 ultralite J & J Trailer (Lancaster)with dimensions of length of 48-feet, height of 100-inches, and width of 102-inches. So now the hypothetical trash trailer pyramid becomes 31 rows high with a base of 266 feet and a total height of 258 feet. Still not quite the dimension of the Khufu Pyramid the base does exceed the the base (187 feet) of the Sphinx, and would cause the pharaoh-lion creature to strain it's neck to look up from the total height of 66 feet. A local Hazleton resident's "Stop the Dumping" website has excellent description and some interesting pictures describes this project very well.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II has a site on dredging that describes contamination and testing protocol. The contamination issues can be found in the following general description of management of dredged material in the New York/New Jersey Harbor.
"The Port of New York and New Jersey is an extremely challenging system in which to manage dredged material. The lower estuary region is densely populated and certain areas of the harbor complex are heavily industrialized. The system receives inputs of contaminants from a variety of sources including municipal sewage treatment plants, industrial discharges, combined sewer outfalls, storm runoff and landfill leachates. Two Superfund sites (the Diamond Alkali [Passaic River] site and the Hudson River PCB site ) are also suspected of being significant contributors to sediment contamination in the NY/NJ Harbor system. These inputs combine to cause significant contamination of harbor sediments."
-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II
The extent of the East Coastcontaminated sediments is described very nicely in an article, "Rising Mud" by Dick Munson. This article states that EPA revised testing protocol (1992) would categorize 14 per-cent of the dredged mud in New York Harbor as "clean enough" to be dumped in the ocean, or on sandy beaches. Another 20 per-cent is contaminated to the degree (Federal Class 3) that ocean dumping would be allowed IF covered with cleaner material. The remaining 66 per-cent (other references cited here give an approximate three-quarters) would require treatment or placement in CONFINED disposal areas.
The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) New York District homepage provides information (most in Adobe Acrobat PDF files) on the proposed navigational improvements in Port Jersey, Arthur Kill-Howland Hook, and Newark Bay. Also provides PA state links on other beneficial uses, and the Corps Dredged Material Management Plan. The Army Corps of Engineers DAMOS (Disposal Area MOnitoring System) homepage provides information on ocean disposal dredge dumping sites from Maine to New York.
The Natural Resources Protection Association (NRPA) also spoke out against an ACOE plan to build giant tox islands. The standing room only meeting of 300-plus fell silent during a meeting held at the Richmond County Yacht Club (article by Kerry Sullivan, NRPA) during April 1999 as speakers discussed dioxin, agent orange, mercury, and other carcinogens. The article indicates that the ACOE proposal for an island to be built standing about 35-feet above the mean high water mark was not an apparent great idea for most in the crowd. The NRPA is a consortium (established 1977) of conservation groups involved with the issues on NY/NJ bay conservation. The "Ocean Disposal of Toxic Dredge Material in the New York Bight" provides some insight on the NRPA position.
The ocean dumping option of any of these sediments has been opposed by the governors of New York and New Jersey. As of September 1, 1997 ocean dumping was discontinued. A brief article which describes this action is from the Clean Ocean Action Organization's September 1997 Newsletter. Various articles on the extent of the problem (including levels in biological receptors) can be found by perusing Clean Ocean Actions website.
On the economic side of the issue is an article, "Dredge We Must - Jobs vs. Environment in Newark Bay" by Jason Wilson (New Jersey Reporter, May-June 1996, Volume 25, No. 7). This article illustrates the frustration and pressure by the residents that depend on the New Jersey ports. This report again states the nature of the PCBs, dioxin, pesticides, and inorganic contaminants. The business leaders have severely criticized the administration and USEPA. The USEPA requires special handling of sediment with dioxin at levels of 10 parts per trillion. "We have 30 parts per trillion in our bodies on an everyday basis" , states the President of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, "its time to get real". The New Jersey DEP had also suggested putting the contaminated sediment in bags, excavation of 50-foot pits in the ocean, and capping with clean sand.
"The world is mud-luscious and puddle-wonderful".
-E. E. Cummings
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in out air and water that are doing it."
-Dan Quayle
The USEPA Region II Homepage also provides links to information on the bay cleanup and on some of the Superfund Sites which appear to be some of the problem. For the more technical aspects of what are the contaminants, concentrations, and testing locations, try the GIS maps done by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (sponsored by USEPA Region II and Army Corps of Engineers). These on-line maps allow the selection of specific semivolatile organics, pesticides, inorganics, and inorganic constituents. The Clean Ocean and Shore Trust (COAST) "is a bipartisan, bistate Legislative Committee for the maximization of the ecological, economic and scenic resources of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary and New York Bight, from Montauk Point, Long Island to Cape May, New Jersey." The COAST homepage has a link to the "Virtual Estuary" that was lauded to be a comprehensive on-line source of environmental (and other) information on areas that would be dredged. The main page also has links to agencies where additional data (like the New Jersey map of their own abandonded mines) may be found.
Another source on the summarized category of contaminants and the potential environmental receptors in world wide harbors is the National Institute of Health (NIH) article "No Safe Harbor" (Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 106, Number 5, May 1998).
The high costs of dredging complicated by the detectable concentrations of PCBs, dioxins, and a variety of other organic and inorganic contaminants appear to make solutions complex with the closure of ocean dumping sites. New Jersey Online had several articles on the controversy. Several past articles mentioned the re-use of sediment for fill at abandoned Pennsylvania coal mine sites. The former Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Seif responding to the House of Representatives provided the status of the Bark Camp demonstration project in 1999. The most recent position can be found at the above referenced state site.
"On top of the $84 million we invested in the 45-foot project, we will invest an additional $760 million to deepen the harbor channels to 50 feet, which will guarantee that our port remains the destination of choice for international shippers."
-Port Authority Chairman Anthony R. Coscia (May 2005 Press Release)
"The desire for deeper ports collided with the environmental awakening of the 1970s, which in turn made it harder for the Army Corps to dispose of the potentially-toxic dredge spoils it dug up from under oily, polluted harbors. Dredging projects experienced delays all over: Boston’s effort to deepen its harbor stalled for over a decade; Baltimore’s was on hold 13 years. When Congress in 1977 closed the infamous “mud dump,” a partially-restrained pile of spoils off Sandy Hook, NJ, engineers at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey were left scratching their heads."
-Princeton Policy Research Institute Regional Update (Spring 2006)
The statement of Lilian Borrone, Director of Port Commerce, before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans (November 5, 1999) appears to put a perspective on the massive amount of material projected to be moved to meet the demands of Maersk Lines and Sea-Land to remain in the Port of New York and New Jersey for the next thirty years. The proposal would require 45-foot depth channels by 2004, and 50-foot depth channels in 2009. The resolution of the dredge disposal requirements appeared to be a key issue in meeting this economic need. The economic issues and pressures is provided in a Newark Star Ledger article ("Angry dockworkers demand dredging").
"Congratulations, you have a sense of humor. And to those who didn't: Go stick your head in the mud."
-Jesse Ventura
The International Agency for Economic Development (IAED) "looks for solutions to major, problems that stand in the way of economic development." The IAED informational page on the sediment in the harbors acknowledges that traces of dioxins, heavy metals and other pollutants are present. However, the same paragraph seems to imply that the acidic abandoned mine water "damaging streams and rivers and ruining ground water" would be benefited by the addition of this sediment. The main details are provided on an attached New York Times Sunday (August 10, 1997) article which indicates that the cemented lime/fly ash(?) stabilized sediment would "buffer the acidity in the mines and help break down some of the industrial contaminants in the mud....". The following paragraph states that the plugs in the mines would probably "be stable for thousands of years." This may provide some conflicts as the first part implies chemical reactions while the second part implies incredible non-reactivity.
More information on types of contaminants can be found at NASA's Ocean Planet perils site. Although generic to toxic materials in most harbors, the New York harbor is used as an example.
New York Department of Health Advice for the Capital District, Hudson River, New York Harbor, Fresh Waters of Long Island and Marine Waters of New York
· The general health advisory does not apply to these waters. However, some species of fish and shellfish do contain chemical contaminants at levels that may cause adverse human health effects. For those species, people should follow the advice given below.
· Women of childbearing age and children under the age of 15 should eat no striped bass from New York Harbor and Long Island Sound west of Wading River. Other people should eat no more than one meal per month of striped bass from these waters.
· Everyone should eat no more than one meal per week of striped bass from Long Island Sound east of Wading River, Peconic and Gardiners Bays, Block Island Sound, Long Island South Shore waters and Jamaica Bay.
· Everyone should eat no more than one meal per week of American eel and bluefish from any of these waters.
· Do not eat the hepatopancreas (mustard, tomalley, liver) of American lobster and blue crab. Discard all cooking liquids.
Harbour dredge spoils that are contaminated with heavy metals and organic pollutants also have been disposed of in the area, while additional wastes are carried directly from land by regional currents. Other pollutants include metals, carbon, bacteria, and organic contaminants. These materials have been dispersed and diluted over time, however, sediments are still polluted.
Additional concerns which are not likely to be routinely tested would be the potential for nasty microorganisms in the dredged sediments. Are the nasty creatures in the sediment? Various abstracts from the American Society for Microbiology indicates that microorganisms can exist and lay dormant in these marine environments. The abstracts indicate fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci, clostridum perfringens, hepatitis A, Pasteurella piscicida, Vibrio vulnificus, and some new bugs (Desulfocapsa sulfoexigens) in the neighborhood. There was no indication that the bacteria and/or viruses would become dormant and revive in (lets say) a freshwater drainage area. However, one abstract does appear to suggest that P. piscicida strains could be starved and revived, and still retain the original pathogenic potential. Any additional sources on this would be appreciated. The small selection of numerous abstracts form ASM Abstracts are:
- B. Magarinos, JL Romalde, JL Barja, and AE Toranzo, Evidence of a dormant but infective state of the fish pathogen Pasteurella piscicida in seawater and sediment, Appl. Envir. Microbiol. 60: 180-186.
- CM Davies, JA Long, M Donald, and NJ Ashbolt, Survival of fecal microorganisms in marine and freshwater sediments, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. Vol 61, No. 5.
- F. Le Guyader, E Dubois, D. Menard, and M Pommepuy, Detection of hepatitis A virus, rotavirus, and enterovirus in naturally contaminated shellfish and sediment by reverse transcription-seminested PCR, Appl. Envir. Microbiol: 60 Vol. 10 3665-3671.
- K. Finster, W. Liesack, and B. Thamdrup, Elemental sulfur and Thiosulfate Disproportionation by Desulfocapsa sulfoexigens sp. nov., a New Anerobic Bacterium Isolated from Marine Surface Sediment, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. Vol. 64, No. 1 p. 119-125.
- KE. Wommack, RT Hill, M Kessel, E. Russek-Cohen, and RR Colwell, Distribution of viruses in the Chesapeake Bay, Appl. Environ. Microbiol, Vol. 58, No. 9.
- JP Gray and RP Herwig, Phylogenetic analysis of the bacterial communities in marine sediments, Appl. Envir. Microbiol. 1996 62: 4049-4059.
- Kevin Feris, Philip Ramsey, Chris Frazar, Johnnie N. Moore, James E. Gannon, and William E. Holben, Differences in Hyporheic-Zone Microbial Community Structure along a Heavy-Metal Contamination Gradient Appl. Envir. Microbiol. 2003 69: 5563-5573.
One additional source on biological interest in contaminated mud comes from an the sampling of toxic sites, including NJ Meadowlands swamp areas, for microbes. The objective of this research is that resistant microbes may help cleanup of contaminated sites and possibly other beneficial applications. The Hypography Sci-Tech article: "Scientists Muck Around in Toxic Mud", provides some information on this project.
"French is the language that turns dirt into romance."
-Stephen King
This last documented incident shows an unusual component found in dredged sediment. Some proponents of the use of dredged material might state this is closely monitored. But note in this incident that sediment from the New Jersey coast was dredged for clams. This dredged sediment/clam mix was processed at the main Sea Watch International clam processing plant in Delaware. The waste sediment was then loaded and transported in trucks that went to hundreds of driveways as this sets hard for a good base. Last year one of these deliveries was to a Bridgeville, Delaware resident. This resident discovered 32 corroded (but still live and lethal) hand grenades while spreading the crushed shell/sediment delivered to his property. The Army Corps is still assessing this problem but an early assessment indicates that unexploded World War I era munitions showing up in clamshells used as paving material for driveways and parking areas in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. At this point "more than 300 munitions - mostly British and French-made hand grenades but at least one 75 mm projectile containing a chemical agent " have been found. The chemical (mustard) round had injured several of the ordnance responders. While this might show an unusual component, it still demonstrates the lack of observation that created this condition at numerous locations. What part of the New Jersey coast this mollusc munitions mix (creating this "clamity") has come from is still not known (at least to the public). Some might even say it's not from areas that would be needed to be dredged for shipping. Then again, the reason for these munitions being there and the extent of the problem has not been determined.
A bit more on the UXO (and other hazards) of marine sediments in New Jersey and New York are summarized by the U.S. Geological Survey providing some general information on a geophysical exploration technique induced-polarization (IP) method. In describing this technique several interesting statements are provided:
"Vast amounts of urban waste have been dumped offshore (for instance, offshore Miami, in the New York Bight, Long Island Sound, and Boston Harbor). These sea-floor waste deposits are significant health and even navigation hazards, and they are being mobilized by ocean currents. The hypodermic needles that washed ashore on the New Jersey coast several years ago came from the New York municipal waste barges that have operated in the New York Bight over the past several decades. "
The USGS Publication goes on and states:
"In addition to urban waste dumps, there are numerous places where unexploded ordnance (UXO) has been left over from World War II and peacetime military exercises. This UXO is generally buried beneath a shallow layer of sediments and is invisible. It poses a threat to divers, marine life, and fishermen."
"These companies don't like to reveal a good fisheries location"
-U.S. Army Corps (to Philadelphia Inquirer 2005)
"The Daily Press investigation shows the Army’s 30-year chemical weapons dumping program was much more extensive than previously believed. Recently unclassified data shows 64 million pounds of nerve gas and mustard gas; 400,000 chemical bombs, landmines and rockets, and 500 tons of radioactive waste dumped in the sea before Congress banned the practice in 1972."
-Deep Sea News Blog (November 2005)
"Munitions can be encountered any-where, not just in charted hazard areas, at sea. Munitions that crews may en-counter include mines, torpedoes, depth charges, artillery shells, bombs and mis-siles. These munitions can contain high explosives or chemical agents that pres-ent a serious danger to a vessel and its crew"
-U.S. Army Pacific Munitions at Sea
“We do not claim to know where they all are"
-William Brankowitz, US Army Chemical Materials Agency deputy project manager
If you have reached the bottom and still interested in this issue, come on down to my paenvironment egroup. Several of these articles are provided in full on the message board. Take the poll and put your opinion (or any additional suggestions) on the message board.
"Through the years of experience I have found that air offers less resistance than dirt."
-Jack Nicklaus (Pro Golfer)
 |
| paenvironment |
| Visit this group |
back to Hydra's Environmental Screwups press here
back to Hydra's Main page press here
"Good planets are hard to find."
-Unknown