EPA to dump toxic waste in Pacific Ocean

To:     Lyndon Hawkins <hawkins@empm.cdpr.ca.gov>
          Senior Research Scientist
          State of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation - Integrated Pest Management

Lyndon, I thought you might like to read an article that appeared in the Seattle Times on Wednesday, March 29, 2000, 07:53 p.m. Pacific - entitled: EPA will dump sand, 50,000 truckloads of it, to cap undersea DDT - by Marla Cone, Los Angeles Times .

LOS ANGELES - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans an unprecedented experiment this summer to cover 180 acres of ocean floor south of Los Angeles, a potentially risky effort to deal with the world's largest deposit of the pesticide DDT.

The pilot project, in which tons of sand will be dropped into deep ocean water off Palos Verdes Peninsula, is the first tangible step toward resolving a decades-old problem that haunts Southern California's marine environment.

For 25 years, through 1971, chemical manufacturer Montrose Corp. dumped residue into the Los Angeles County sewer system, allowing 110 tons of DDT to spread across 17 square miles of the ocean floor in depths up to 200 feet.

The chemical, linked to cancer and reproductive problems, is still contaminating fish consumed by some Southern Californians and killing bald-eagle chicks.

DDT, banned in the United States since 1972, was widely used and touted as safe for killing mosquitoes and other pests until scientists discovered that it accumulated in the fat of fish and consequently, in animals and humans.

The area - the Palos Verdes Shelf - was declared a Superfund environmental cleanup site in 1996. A lawsuit in the dumping is the largest pending natural-resource-damage case in the nation, previously exceeded only by the Exxon Valdez case in Alaska.

The EPA today will announce its initial plan for protecting people and wildlife from the underwater contamination. In addition to the $5 million sand-capping experiment, the EPA is proposing to spend $22 million to enforce a no-fishing zone around the deposit and increase efforts to warn consumers to avoid eating white croaker caught near the area.

During a two-month period, the EPA plans to drop about 50,000 dump-truck loads of sand and silt two miles offshore, on four small sections of ocean floor near sewer outfall pipes.

If the test succeeds, the EPA intends to spend about $100 million more to seal much of the Palos Verdes Shelf - three or four square miles - beginning in 2002.

Never before have environmental officials tried to place a layer, called a "cap," on a hazardous-waste deposit in such deep water or on such a sloped ocean bottom. Digging up the deposit would be too risky and expensive. Even if it were safely dredged up, there would be no place to dispose of so much toxic waste.

"The levels of DDT are simply not acceptable for a recreational area that is so highly used and valued," said Michael Montgomery, the EPA's chief of Superfund cleanup in California and Arizona. "Capping it is the lone technology we have that has a high possibility of working and having a great benefit. If we can't cap it, there might not be anything we can do."

The companies held responsible for the pollution say the cap will be ineffective at best and at worst could stir up the DDT and unleash even more contamination. They say the best option is leaving the deposit alone, allowing it to slowly degrade and be buried by natural forces.

"They're nuts to do this," said Karl Lytz, a San Francisco attorney representing the now-defunct Montrose Corp. "It's unnecessary; it's wasteful. If you do this thing, it's completely ineffective and it's potentially really dangerous."

Many scientists involved in marine research are skeptical about the capping project and say the EPA should undertake a rigorous scientific review first. (If the scientists would have done a "rigorous scientific review" in the first place - we would not have the POISON PROBLEM!)

Issues include whether the sand layer can effectively control the DDT and resist erosion and earthquakes. Scientists also question whether the risk to human and marine life is great enough to warrant the expenditure and whether sensitive resources, including kelp beds less than a mile away, would be harmed.

"These are complex issues that require an independent peer review of EPA action, and EPA has not yet undertaken that review," said Steve Weisberg, director of the Southern California Water Research Project, a scientific group largely funded by EPA that has researched the contaminated site.

Weisberg stopped participating in the EPA's technical review committee for the project because he believed the process was dominated by lawyers rather than science.

Worth a try, EPA says EPA officials acknowledge the uncertainties but say it is time to head out to sea and experiment.

"A lot of the questions people have will be answered with this pilot project," said Keith Takata, regional chief of EPA's Superfund program.

Mark Gold, executive director of the environmental group Heal the Bay, said the pilot project is a great idea and it is small enough in scale that he has no concerns about it causing ecological harm. If the experiment proves successful, a proposal for the far larger cap is expected by year's end.

Capping of underwater toxic waste has worked well at dozens of Superfund sites throughout the nation in recent years. But most have occurred in shallow rivers or harbors, not the open ocean.

A long, acrimonious legal battle has been waged over the contamination, and the capping project is likely to become a new focal point.

For 10 years, Montrose, Chris-Craft Industries and four other companies have fought a federal and state lawsuit seeking about $170 million in damages for the cleanup and restoration of wildlife off Palos Verdes. Another $67 million in settlements already has been paid by 150 Southern California municipalities that used the sewer system and three companies, Simpson Paper Co., Potlatch Corp. and CBS Corp.

Well Lyndon, If you would not have "registered" this TERRIBLE TOXIN for use in the first place, we would not STILL! have a tremendous contamination problem almost 30 years after this life-destroyer was finally "banned"! It will be interesting to see what long term contamination and/or health problems your other "registered" POISONS will cost us after they are finally studied, "banned and/or voluntarily withdrawn"! The only way to prevent CONTAMINATION is not to use any of your "registered" CONTAMINANTS! When will it be "legal" (in your opinion) to use safe and far more effective alternatives to actually control pest problems in California?

(Editor's Note: How much more of the earth are we going to make unlivable with these toxins.)

TOP
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.

Nontoxic Products Recommended by Steve Tvedten

Now Available

Safe 2 Use Products and Services