148 



Surprisingly. Region II capitulated to the NYD's insistence that 25 pptr be 

 the upper limit that triggered prohibition of ocean disposal in March of 1992. 

 after the public comment period had ended. It was understood that the EPA 

 agreed to the number of 25 pptr as long as a monitoring and management plan 

 was developed. Despite raising the issue personally with EPA and citing the 

 problem in comments on the public notice, it wasn't until December 31st. 1992 

 that EPA reconsidered its position on 25 pptr and found it to be insufficiently 

 protective. It chose to reiy upon an upper limit of 10 pptr instead, which is New 

 York State's fish consumption standard. 



This action, while welcome on one level, did not go far enough. The most 

 important reason is that a fish consumption standard does not protect sensitive 

 species or wildlife, which should be accorded protection given that the MPRSA 

 requires prevention of unreasonable degradation to the marine environment. 

 Protecting sensitive endpoints is paramount in the development of any 

 bioaccumulation criteria, but in the case of dioxin. it is particularly important. In 

 addition, there is a critical need to have bioaccumulation criteria undergo 

 scientific scrutiny and public review. EDF recommended several existing dioxin 

 criteria designed to protect wildlife to EPA for there consideration. We have yet 

 to hear a cogent explanation as to why they are not appropriate. Secondly, 

 whatever the criterion number is. the presumption is that capping will occur and 

 will work in isolating the dioxin from marine life. This very premise is now in 

 dispute. 



There are many reasons why fish consumption standards are not appropriate 

 to use in assessing worm bioaccumulation potential after a 28 day test. First, the 

 harm resulting from contamination caused by dredged material disposal is via the 

 exposure to the contaminants of the marine food web (the trophic system) and 

 eventually humans. Marine animals in the immediate vicinity of the Mud Dump 

 Site, migratory fish, wildlife (including endangered bird species) feeding on 

 contaminated fish and shellfish, and humans, via the same exposure pathway, are 

 currently exposed to contaminants at the Mud Dump Site. Contaminants can be 

 taken up from the sediments by invertebrates (clams, worms, crabs, and dozens of 

 soft-bodied animals) living within or on the sediments. These animals are 

 consumed by other animals, especially crabs, lobsters and bottom feeding fish 

 where the tissue concentration of dioxin increases above that in the prey animals. 

 Also, any contaminated organism in dredged material that is dumped will become 

 prey for scavenging fish or shellfish as it floats through the water column or 

 lands on the bottom and is left exposed. 



24 



