29 



ment regulation. Indeed, we have to operate as a business does 

 with a practical concern for costs in time, people, and financial re- 

 sources. 



Our port employs 180,000 people directly and indirectly. Most of 

 the port's shipping activities occur at the Port Newark/Elizabeth 

 complex, one of the largest in the world. Our port is suffering 

 today. Due to doubts about adequate depths, some shipping lines, 

 as Mr. Saxton indicated, have shifted cargo to competing ports in- 

 cluding Halifax, Canada. At the same time, unnecessary controver- 

 sy over the existence of trace levels of dioxin in our sediments and 

 the disposal of these sediments with capping at the Mud Dump has 

 harmed the commercial and recreational fishing industries in our 

 region and has the potential to harm our spring/summer tourism 

 business as well. 



You can imagine our frustration that we are still not at a point 

 of decision in a three-year process. Why? Because we proposed to 

 dredge and dispose of the dredged material at the Mud Dump. The 

 question being dealt with in the permit process is how clean is 

 clean? The Federal regulatory system, when dealing with sedi- 

 ments proposed for ocean disposal uses criteria and standards 

 which are orders of magnitude more stringent than that for land- 

 based criteria. These interest groups insist scientific knowledge is 

 not adequate to justify ocean disposal. 



The committee should know that with regard to dioxin [2,3,7,8 te- 

 trachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin] the land-based criteria viewed as clean is 

 one part per billion while we are required by the Corps and EPA 

 procedure for a maintenance dredging permit to test to one part in 

 a trillion. That is 1,000 parts less. 



We must recognize with rapid advances in technology our ability 

 to detect things to lower and lower levels far exceeds our overall 

 understanding of what it all means. It is unreasonable for society 

 to expect to have a complete understanding of all risks of every 

 action taken at every point in time. If we don't establish a reasona- 

 ble risk level for environmental protection, economic development 

 will come to a screeching halt, and we will not adequately protect 

 our environment either. 



In the case of our permit, I believe the risk of not acting is far 

 worse than removing those trace levels by dredging the berths in 

 Port Newark/ Elizabeth and subsequently disposing of them in the 

 ocean with a cap applied. 



On the process side, the issues are clear. Responsibility, time, 

 costs, and management between the responsible Federal agencies 

 are all a problem. The regulatory process is a due process ap- 

 proach. A permit applicant should be able to have rules, require- 

 ments, and standards explained, provide information based on 

 those requirements for Federal agency decisionmaking, expect 

 prompt attention and decision within a reasonable timeframe. That 

 hasn't happened in this case. Instead, because trace levels of a sub- 

 stance the Federal agencies did not have standards for were found, 

 we became a national process and scientific test lab and a national 

 cause for environmental advocates. In my full testimony, I have at- 

 tached a chronology of the three-year process we have been 

 through. 



69-996 0-93-2 



