149 



Second, there are many routes of exposure that have to be taken into 

 account including, 1) water column exposure when dredged materials are dumped 

 into the Dump Site or released into the water column once dredged material 

 reaches the ocean floor; 2) the dredged materials may well be unstable and thus 

 dispersed over a wider area: 3) if materials are "capped", contaminants can escape 

 via breaches or thin layers, such as at the peripheral edges of capped area: 4) 

 benthic organisms can bioturbate the flanks of mounds or the edges of capped 

 areas and accumulate contaminants, then becoming preyed upon by higher trophic 

 species. 5) fish are attracted to feed at vertical surfaces such as a dredged 

 material mound, increasing the exposure route; and 6) animals that feed on 

 bottom dwelling invertebrates are attracted to disturbed areas to feed on the 

 exposed animals in the sediments. 



Third, fish consumption standards should be looked at carefully to 

 understand the assumptions used to develop the standard. In the case of New 

 York State's 10 pptr dioxin standard, it was developed when 10 pptr was the 

 detection limit. It also is viewed by the New York State Department of Health 

 as a standard that should be applied to total TCDD toxic equivalents, not only 

 2.3,7. 8-TCDD. There is reason to believe that many dioxin isomers exist in 

 Newark Bay that can accumulate in organisms, consequently, the criteria should 

 not be used to assess the bioaccumuiauon of one isomer onlv. 



c. This project was decided upon without the benefit of an EIS 



Under NEPA, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be included 

 in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and "other major 

 Federal actions " significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 

 What constitutes "significantly" varies with the circumstances of each case. The 

 following issues have yet to addressed and were not considered in the 

 Environmental Assessment (EA) issued by the Corps. 



Existing levels of dioxin contamination at the Mud Dump Site have never 

 been determined to be acceptable. The prospect of further impact due to disposal 

 of hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of material contaminated with dioxin 

 from the Port Authority's project and approximately 800.000 cubic yards per year 

 from nearly twenty additional projects in the Newark Bay complex awaiting 

 permits was never considered. The dioxin bioaccumulation criteria was objected 

 to by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service has 

 questioned its suitability given EPA's recent recantation of the 25 pptr number. 

 No EIS has been prepared for either the Mud Dump Site or a private or federal 

 project in the New York-New Jersey Harbor area that has ever assessed the 



25 



