This article was published in FDA Consumer magazine several years ago. It is no longer being maintained and may contain information that is out of date. You may find more current information on this topic in more recent issues of FDA Consumer or elsewhere on the FDA Website, by checking the site index or home page, or by searching the site. |
FDA Goes Fishing for Toxic Waste by Joseph Raulinaitis Alyson Saben, an investigator from the Food and Drug Administration's Boston district, leaned heavily against the side of the research ship Gloria Michelle, watching 10-foot waves crash into the small vessel. "I had begun to feel pretty squeamish," Saben recalled, several months later, "and a few other people were already sick. So I just sat there with the rain splashing against my face, and I didn't even care if I went overboard or not." At that moment it was very difficult for Saben, 28, a former Peace Corps volunteer with less than two years experience in FDA, to focus on the importance of her mission--sampling seafood for contamination in the stormy Atlantic waters off the coast of New England. Several months earlier she hadn't even known about the problems associated with the waste disposal area she was sailing over. But awareness had come quickly and completely when she was assigned to coordinate the agency's efforts to sample seafood in and around the area ominously known to local seafarers as the "dump site." Only 18 miles off the coast of Boston, the area appears on nautical maps as two overlapping circles, each approximately 2 miles across with an average depth of about 300 feet. The eastern boundary lies only 4 miles west of the rich fishing area known as the Stellwagen Bank. The western circle, called the Massachusetts Bay Industrial Waste Site (or Foul Area), served as a dumping ground for toxic and radioactive materials from 1953 to 1976. The eastern part, officially classified as the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site, was used for years as a dumping ground for materials dredged up from Boston Harbor and local channel bottoms. During the summer of 1991, the International Wildlife Coalition, working under an Environmental Protection Agency grant, conducted an underwater side-scan video survey of part of the dump site using a remote-controlled underwater camera. Those films showed almost 100 objects dotting the ocean floor at some 18 survey sites. Sixty-four of the objects were identified as cement containers used to dispose of dangerous materials, and more than half of them had broken open. The amount and type of waste material--some of it radioactive--from four decades of dumping raised a very real concern about pollution as well as contamination of seafood. In November 1991, U.S. Congressman Gerry Studds (D-Mass.) chaired a public hearing about the dump site. The meeting was held at the Kennedy Library, whose grassy yards touch the ocean at Columbia Point in Boston's Dorchester section. If you draw a straight line in a northwest direction from the beach in front of the library, you would arrive at the dump site in about an hour's sailing time. The hall was packed with the press, environmental groups, and the seafood industry, as well as representatives of FDA and other government agencies. U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) attended with Studds and listened intently as a cavalcade of witnesses offered both official and personal testimony to the extent of the dumping done off the Massachusetts coast since 1940. The witnesses presented a collection of horror stories that included sloppy record-keeping and illegal mass dumping in nondesignated areas. Congressman Studds wrote FDA's Office of Seafood, seeking help in assuring the public that seafood harvested from Massachusetts Bay is safe to eat. In the months that followed, media interest in the dumping sites increased. FDA's Edward McDonnell, district director of the agency's Boston district, recalled that various media sources were reporting pollution in the waters off Massachusetts Bay. "People were outraged at the level of dumping in nondesignated waste sites," he said. "There was a great deal of public confusion. People were concerned about the food chain and were asking about the quality of seafood being taken out of Massachusetts Bay. We [FDA] felt that we could play an important role in such a risk assessment and at the same time contribute to solving the problem." So Saben had her work cut out for her. Complex Task Throughout the dreary days of a long New England winter, Saben found her assignment growing in scope and complexity. "The task was small and focused to begin with," Saben recalled; then she found out that EPA was planning a study in the same area. A partnership for the project between FDA, EPA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was agreed upon in March 1992. The federal agencies were joined by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which was working on the site study with EPA. Several other state agencies were also included in the project. By late May, Saben and a host of workers from all the agencies were spending 12-hour-plus workdays traveling, trapping, filming, and generally gathering a wide range of samples from the gray waters and ocean floor of the dump site. To accomplish the mission, Saben, John Lindsay (NOAA's Coastal Resource coordinator), and almost 100 others spent most of the time on three research vessels: the 127-foot Ferrel, the smaller Gloria Michelle, and the largest of the fleet, the 187- foot Seward Johnson with its four-person submarine, the Johnson Sea Link II. Lindsay noted, "There was an expectation by the public that we were wasting money on an area that we had already studied. Some of our discoveries, such as low-level radiation, indicated that we really did not know a great deal about the site. It was worth being out there." According to EPA's David Tomey, "We were aware of the public concerns and realized that fishermen were actually pulling barrels up [of waste material]. As a result of these concerns, grant money was developed for a study of this area. We looked at the perimeter of the disposal area just to see how far the dumpers had gone." Tomey is an aquatic biologist who has been with EPA over six years. Uncooperative Lobsters FDA survey efforts were directed towards collecting important bottom-dwelling seafood. Setting traps for lobsters within the dump site for bottom-feeding lobsters was an important facet of the operation. The crew and staff of the Ferrel placed traps at several sites in the northern part of the Massachusetts Bay Industrial Waste Site. Their efforts proved rather disappointing. John Biello, a 29-year FDA veteran out of the Providence, R.I., resident post, who was on board the Ferrel at the time, said, "There was a lack of lobsters, but like hunting or fishing you take what you get." After the first 48 hours, they had only come up with two lobsters. "Everybody was kind of disappointed--we thought there might not be any lobsters down there," Saben added. "By the third and fourth day, several members of the crew started to do the lobster dance as the traps were lowered into and raised from the water. It was a lively step in which the participants would dance around in a circle on the rolling deck holding their hands out making claw-like movements. The dance didn't work either. We really expected more than we got." Lobster experts from NOAA felt something was eating the bait well before the lobsters got to the traps, accounting for the lack of lobsters. EPA's Tomey agreed. "I was on the Ferrel for two days putting out lobster traps--of course we were all hoping to get a lot more catch per trap than we did. We were surprised the traps didn't do that well with all the dumping and contamination in that region, it was really a perfect habitat for lobsters. But the ones we did take in looked fairly normal." In the end, only 25 lobsters were caught by trap. Fortunately, trawling efforts conducted off the Gloria Michelle were far more successful, yielding an additional 18 lobsters. Radiation and Rough Seas For Biello, the excitement dulled a bit when the weather turned foul. "Anybody who said this was good duty should have been there on June 1 when the Ferrel went out to deploy and recover lobster traps," he said. "It was very rough seas with 9- foot waves, 35-mile-an-hour winds, and rain." "Finally, the Ferrel's captain, John Trokar, decided not to stay out. I didn't get seasick but Ive felt better in my life. I'll admit I supported his decision to return to dock," Biello added. As the seas got rougher, the captain of the Gloria Michelle, Dave Mattens, also cut short their trawl and returned to port in Gloucester, Mass. He explained to Saben that there had been a very real possibility that the net could have gotten caught on the bottom, causing the 72-foot-long ship to sink. Rough seas were not the only problem confronting the small fleet during its seven days at sea. The Gloria Michelle, with her huge net, was assigned to trawl the eight designated sites. On one sweep the net caught on submerged debris, ripping the bottom out of that expensive piece of equipment. Still, with a replacement net the crew completed the mission, bringing in nearly a ton of cod, flounder, skate, lobster, redfish, and ocean trout. Saben recalled that, "each catch brought a new wave of excitement" as they watched the big nets thump down on the Gloria Michelle's deck spilling out all types of fish. Saben knew that they were getting almost all of the samples they needed. NOAA workers experienced in species identification helped sort out the fish after each catch. "We relied a great deal on them," Saben said. "Without their expertise and commitment to the project we would not have had the success we did." Samples were sorted, weighed, measured, and placed into iced coolers, while fish not needed were tossed over the side. All the while, Saben stood by with her clipboard, keeping tally. The refrigerated catch was taken from the boats and quickly transported to FDA's Winchester Engineering and Analytical Center in Winchester, Mass. (There the edible portions would be removed and ground together into a mixture making a uniform composite sample, with separate portions analyzed at different FDA laboratories and results sent to FDA's Office of Seafood for a complete evaluation.) Unexpected Company Surprisingly, the government fishers were not alone gathering sea life, despite a government advisory warning not to harvest bottom-dwelling species from the area, which was already legally closed to shellfish or quahog harvesting. On several occasions, commercial fishing boats swept into the operational area and pulled alongside the NOAA research vessels. According to Saben, the crews were concerned, even angry, that the government would disturb their activities in the contaminated regions. "I couldn't believe that they would actually be fishing out there," said Saben. "Essentially, these men were fishing in a dump that happens to be covered by water." The excitement of the catch was tempered when, on May 30, FDA's attention became focused on the anchor of the Gloria Michelle. She had been operating a remote-controlled underwater camera in support of the Johnson Sea Link's dives at the northern end of the Massachusetts Bay Industrial Waste Site. That area had been used for the disposal of low-level radioactive material from 1953 until 1959, and the Gloria Michelle dropped anchor onto the sea floor during operations. When the anchor was hauled up on board, sensing devices detected radiation. Biello remembered that the radiation safety specialists monitored everything as it came on board. "We were aware of the radiation factor but not afraid of it. We decided that we would just have to deal with it in the appropriate manner," he said. Every member of the expedition was required to wear radiation detection badges. They had also been drilled in the proper safety procedures should either radioactive materials or explosives be brought up. William Bell, a radiation scientist with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, was one of several such experts assigned to monitor the fleet. In his 15 years with the state it was his third trip to the dump site. "I was one of a few people who had been there before and, although there was some concern, people felt good that we were on board," he said. About the anchor contamination, Bell remarked, "It was interesting, detectable but not a threat. Still, we used all the precautions, wore gloves and used plastic bags for the samples." On the afternoon of June 2, 1992, after a successful final effort on welcome calm seas, the staff held their last gathering, swapped stories, compared notes, accounted for equipment, made sure everything was straightened away, and prepared to go home. Saben, Biello, and the other FDAers bid goodbye to the boat crews and watched them sail away. The people from the other agencies followed the same routine, ending the earlier phases of the project. As they headed back to their homes and offices, almost a ton of seafood samples were being processed and sent to laboratory facilities throughout the country. The long waiting game for the real results of their labors had begun. Final Tally Eventually, after being scattered across the nation for analysis at various agency laboratories, the results of the testing on the seafood samples taken from the cold New England waters made their way to the desk of Gregory Cramer, Ph.D., in FDA's Office of Seafood in Washington, D.C. It was something Cramer had been waiting for since helping to collect the samples months earlier. "The test results were, in some respects, surprising. No hazardous levels that might be harmful to consumers were observed, even though we collected nearly a ton of seafood adjacent to a site used for over several decades for dumping a variety of toxic chemicals," Cramer said. He explained that pesticide residues were not detectable in 41 of the 43 samples of fin fish tested, while the remaining two samples had only trace amounts (levels too low to be accurately characterized). It was much the same for lobster and shellfish, none of which had more than trace amounts of pesticide residue. Testing of 55 samples of fin fish, lobster and shellfish indicated that almost half had no detectable levels of polychlorinated biphenyls while another 25 had trace amounts. The remaining five samples did have levels above trace amounts but still well below FDA acceptable levels. The levels of the trace metals cadmium, arsenic, lead, and mercury were found to occur within normal ranges, none exceeding FDA limits. Cramer explained that radiation contamination, in the form of plutonium-239, showed up in trace levels in a few of the samples. He attributed the residue more to atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1960s than to the dumping of nuclear wastes in Massachusetts coastal waters. Scientists tested for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), but only low or barely detectable levels were found in fin fish samples. However, lobster and scallop samples indicated measurable levels of PAHs, generally around the few parts per billion range. Still, these levels were consistent with other studies, and not considered unusual. Cramer explained, "Consumers of lobsters and scallops from Massachusetts Bay should not be concerned about possible dietary exposure to carcinogenic PAHs. They are ubiquitous in the environment as components of petroleum, byproducts of combustion, and are routinely found on smoked and grilled foods, as well as on fruits and vegetables. As a consequence, many food products may contribute to dietary exposure to PAHs." "This was the largest single study of chemical contaminants in seafood harvested from Massachusetts Bay. The large variety and quantities of bottom-dwelling seafood that were analyzed for a host of chemical contaminants provides a valuable profile of seafood from the area," he said. The long history of industrial discharge into the ocean off Massachusetts will always be a concern to consumers and the government, often complicated by many variables. "This study does, however, go a long way toward addressing the present public health significance of this dumping on seafood," said Cramer. "This snapshot concludes that the overall residues are low and the seafood from Massachusetts Bay is safe to eat." n Joseph Raulinaitis is a public affairs specialist in FDA's Boston district office. ####<