THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, July 31, 1996 TAG: 9607310427
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY SCOTT HARPER, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: 67 lines
After some promise that Virginia might lift its 71-year-old ban on harvesting clams from the polluted Elizabeth River, state health officials and scientists have decided otherwise.
While a new study finds that traces of toxics and metals are slowly decreasing in some clam samples, officials believe the risk of raising a public furor over seafood safety for what would be a tiny clam harvest is not worth the fuss.
``Beyond the science, the question really is: Is there a public concern about eating anything out of the Elizabeth River?'' said Robert Croonenberghs, state director of shellfish sanitation. ``I think we've got a ways to go to overcome those concerns.''
The study, conducted over two years by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, measured two notorious pollutants in clams at 14 locations throughout the river. The worst conditions were found on the Eastern Branch, near the Campostella Bridge east of downtown Norfolk.
There, levels of TBT, a toxic boat paint additive, and of petroleum-based residues linked to cancer, known as PAHs, were four times as high as in clams that can be legally harvested along Newport News, according to the study.
On the highly degraded Southern Branch, which runs past shipyards and industrial plants in Portsmouth and Chesapeake, scientists could not find live clams to research.
But closer to the mouth of the Elizabeth, north of Waterside and downtown Norfolk, concentrations begin to wane - to levels similar to those in commercial clam beds between Newport News and the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel.
The reasons for the improvements here are many, including progress in cleaning up one of the dirtiest rivers on the East Coast and on past research showing that toxic hot spots may not be as widespread as long presumed.
``I wasn't really surprised we saw some of the lower readings in those waters,'' said Morris H. Roberts Jr., chief author of the study and director of environmental sciences at VIMS, a branch of the College of William and Mary.
``I think that's the good news of our report, really - that we're seeing some positive signs there,'' Roberts added.
It was this evidence that led the state Health Department to consider reopening select sections of the river last year to a limited and protected clam harvest. The news caused a storm of interest, mostly because the entire Elizabeth has been closed to shellfish harvesting since 1925.
As with seasonal beds along Newport News, the department considered allowing clams to be harvested from the river only during warm-weather months, and then taken to cleaner waters elsewhere, where they would purge themselves of contaminants for at least 15 days.
But, as Croonenberghs explained, health officials felt the economic benefit from what experts said would be a minuscule catch would not equal the public scrutiny of allowing a harvest from such re-nownedly tainted waters.
``Hopefully, over time, we'll see some continued water-quality improvements, and the readings will continue to improve,'' Croonenberghs said. ``We can look at it again then.''
Another reason for the study was to assess the possible health effects facing a small number of local residents who eat clams illegally from the river. Some watermen and riverfront residents are known to occasionally trap clams and oysters. Most take them home for their own consumption.
Because there are no federal health standards for TBT and PAHs in seafood, scientists and officials are reluctant to say whether Elizabeth River clams are dangerous.
However, standards for heavy metals in seafood exist. And from them, scientists concluded in the study that eating clams poses minimal risks from metals such as lead, arsenic, chromium and copper.
KEYWORDS: ELIZABETH RIVER WATER POLLUTION by CNB