32 



This report reveals several pieces of bad news. First, it found 

 that a quarter of a million cubic yards of material dredged from 

 the Kill Van Kull channel and recently deposited in two mounds at 

 the Mud Dump Site had eroded away. In some places, up to four 

 feet of material was found to be gone. Secondly, although over 

 300,000 cubic yards of material had been deposited in another por- 

 tion of that site, over the course of the three months during which 

 the survey was conducted only 25,000 cubic yards or 8 percent 

 could be found. 



Altogether, these findings have led us to conclude that, first, all 

 testing of dredge materials fail to prevent ocean disposal of con- 

 taminated sediments. Secondly, that capping is not always an effec- 

 tive means of isolating contaminated dredge materials, and that 

 the Mud Dump Site is not stable enough to withstand disruption by 

 storms. 



EDF has petitioned the EPA to evaluate the Mud Dump Site to 

 determine if the effects of activities at the site can be considered to 

 be impacting the marine environment and to set dumping limita- 

 tions accordingly. This Petition may also be undertaken by other 

 environmental and fishing groups. 



The recent surveys must also be considered in the context of the 

 Port Authority's pending permit, and we understand that EPA has 

 already decided that only additional capping measures are needed 

 to counteract any impact storms may have. We find this difficult to 

 accept given that decisions about this permit have turned solely 

 upon the ability of capping of dioxin contaminated dredge materi- 

 als to prevent any adverse effects on the marine environment. 



We look to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which now 

 must decide how this project may affect endangered species, to con- 

 sider this new information more carefully. We have raised numer- 

 ous issues with respect to this permit and how it regulates dioxin. 

 And as I have indicated, the most recent scientific surveys under- 

 score our doubts about capping to work. 



We believe that these issues are valid and should be resolved 

 before any dumping of dredge material occurs. Unfortunately, most 

 of the issues we have raised have fallen on deaf ears, and the 

 public process largely ignored these issues until it became a crisis. 

 The dioxin bioaccumulation criteria is an outdated fish consump- 

 tion standard that did not go through a proper review process. No 

 EIS was or is anticipated to be prepared. The record to date of 

 dumping, monitoring, and capping at the site gives us no confi- 

 dence that the proposed monitoring and management plan will be 

 effectively carried out. 



We believe that there are many problems that need resolution 

 and assessment before any further dumping should go forward. A 

 comprehensive environmental assessment that reviews conditions 

 at the Mud Dump Site, reviews sediment conditions in the harbor, 

 and identifies alternatives to ocean disposal for implementation in 

 the near-term would ensure environmental protection and move 

 forward this issue toward a long-term solution. 



And, in closing, the present situation that we are faced with dic- 

 tates that problems need to be resolved before they become elevat- 

 ed to a crisis, and we welcome this subcommittee's help and insight 

 in heading off new crises from emerging around the country. 



