23 



ing with sludge permitting where EPA was the permitting agency, 

 are not done by EPA in this case. It would be done by the Corps of 

 Engineers who is the permitting agency. 



Mr. Pallone. Well, I believe we actually did send the letter to 

 the Corps, and I did not get a response from the Corps. But, you 

 know, either way, I think we sent a copy to you too so I would cer- 

 tainly like to have a response. Thank you. 



Mr. Green. Mr. Saxton. 



Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have, I think, one 

 more question. Mr. Sinding, in your verbal testimony nor in your 

 written testimony can I find any mention of the Coastal Zone Man- 

 agement Act provisions. Here in this room sometime ago there was 

 a long discussion about giving states the right to make a determi- 

 nation as to whether or not a Federal-permitted activity is consist- 

 ent with the state's Coastal Zone Management Act. I heard you say 

 that apparently you are supporting legislation, or a decision has 

 been made that will stop the disposal of dioxin-contaminated mate- 

 rial after 1995. I guess the first question is does our New Jersey 

 Coastal Zone Management Act speak to this issue currently? And if 

 it does, then do you intend to use your State authority to address 

 this question under the Federal opportunity to do so? 



Mr. Sinding. The answer to both questions, Congressman, is yes. 



Mr. Saxton. The answer to both questions is yes, and does that 

 yes mean that you are currently deciding whether or not you are 

 in accordance with the issuance of the permit? 



Mr. Sinding. Yes. Our initial decision for coastal zone consisten- 

 cy based upon the information available at the time that the EPA 

 recommended and the Corps subsequently granted the permit to 

 the Port Authority was that the permit for use of the Mud Dump 

 Site was consistent with the state's Coastal Zone Management. The 

 permit, of course, has since been pulled back. There is now another 

 level of analysis that is ongoing. We continue to be supportive of 

 the research and analysis efforts being undertaken by both the 

 EPA and the Corps of Engineers, but we certainly do have the 

 right at anytime to invoke the consistency review provision of the 

 Coastal Zone Management Act and wouldn't hesitate to do so if we 

 felt that the material that was being disposed of was in some way 

 or was not in compliance with our consistency review provisions. 



The statement about the 1995 deadline was as much to indicate 

 our impatience with the inability of anyone to establish up to this 

 point a national or regional standard for dioxin, and our rather 

 forceful statement came out of the fact that we believe that if no 

 such standard has been adopted by the end of 1995, that we would 

 not hesitate not only to invoke the consistency review provision but 

 to use any of the other permitting arrows in our quiver to prevent 

 any disposal of any dioxin-contaminated material in the absence of 

 the establishment of such a standard. 



Mr. Saxton. Now, you are then taking the position that this is 

 consistent. Does that mean from your position that this is not 

 harmful? 



Mr. Sinding. On the basis 



Mr. Saxton. This is not going to be harmful to either endan- 

 gered species, other fish in the area, the general habitat, the ocean 

 habitat that this Mud Dump Site is located in? 



