By Kathianne Boniello
A representative for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced Thursday night that $450,000 has been allocated to clean up mercury and other contaminants at Bayside's Fort Totten four months after the federal government eliminated funds for the project.
David Brouwer, project manager for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, disclosed in October that the Fort Totten cleanup had lost funding because of cuts to the federal government's Formerly Used Defense Sites, or FUDS, program.
Brouwer gave credit for obtaining the $450,000 in funds to U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Bayside), who had written a letter in October to Gen. Stephen Rhoades of the Army Corps of Engineers blasting him for not keeping the congressman informed of the Army's budget problems.
Brouwer told members of the Coast Guard Restoration Advisory Board, or RAB, at Thursday night's meeting at the fort that “Ackerman got us this $450,000.”
Fort Totten is part of the FUDS program's North Atlantic region, which stretches from Maine to Virginia. Brouwer told the Times/Ledger in October that the entire North Atlantic region received about $23 million for the fiscal year, which runs from October 1999 to October 2000.
But the New York/New Jersey area alone needed $23 million and only seven of the 14 projects planned in the region got funding. The Fort Totten cleanup did not receive any monies.
The new FUDS' budget for the North Atlantic region was boosted to $40 million, Brouwer said, which meant some money could be allocated to Fort Totten.
A spokesman for Ackerman said the congressman was “very pleased over the decision.”
“The community deserves to have this problem addressed,” spokesman Jordan Goldes said.
The funding increase allowed the RAB to figure the cost of clean-up activities into a priority list for the first time.
“We've never had a budget to work with before,” said Richard Jannaccio, community co-chairman of the RAB.
Mercury was discovered at Fort Totten in 1985 by the Coast Guard, which shared the base with the Army.
Army Corps officials said the metal was present after years of repairs to mercury-filled torpedo guidance systems that were maintained at the fort. The Army agreed to remediate the mercury in May 1998.
Based on the project's newly allocated funding, the RAB chose to alter the newest work plan for Fort Totten, which calls for additional sampling of mercury and other contaminants in Little Bay and the upland areas of the base.
The original work plan was expanded from four to about 14 different sediment samples in Little Bay after RAB members requested more testing.
But Jonathan Greco, an engineering geologist for the state Department of Environmental Conservation's Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation, said Thursday the project could save money and increase the number of samples if the board chose to test only for mercury.
The savings would occur by narrowing down the number of test sites and limiting the search for only mercury in Little Bay rather than a list of contaminants.
“If it's going to give you a greater level of comfort, let's do it,” he said. “If you can live with less analysis and more samples, you can work that out monetarily.”
Responding to RAB members concerns' about the limited amount of testing provided for in the original work plan, Brouwer said the new plan would test for mercury at deeper and farther levels in Little Bay to determine the extent of contamination.
“We're starting at three feet and we're going to go down deeper,” he said.
Brouwer also agreed to RAB member Bob LoPinto's request for testing at 700 feet and 800 feet from shore to see if the mercury has spread out.
According to a document published by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in Atlanta, long-term exposure to mercury “can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetuses.” Short-term exposure can do similar damage, “but full recovery is more likely after short-term exposures once the body clears itself of the contamination,” it said.
“The Little Bay sampling that we're proposing to do is to confirm that there is no environmental threat,” he said. “Today, the environmental data we have is that the sediment does not pose a public health threat.”
