13 



eryone refers to as the Green Book, and we hope that we will have 

 out for public comment a new manual for looking at 404 disposal 

 activities in the near future. 



Let me perhaps jump in right away to that discussion of the Port 

 Elizabeth/Port Newark permit which I think is what is on every- 

 one's mind here even though your letter of invitation asked for a 

 number of other areas to be covered. The Port Authority requested 

 a permit from the Corps to dredge Ports Elizabeth and Newark and 

 dispose of sediment at the Mud Dump Site. The Corps issued a 

 public notice for ocean disposal of 200 cubic yards which is the sub- 

 ject of EPA review under its MPRSA responsibilities. And because 

 sediments in the Newark area are contaminated with low levels of 

 dioxin, this project has been subject to very, very careful review. 



The agency itself has found the issue of dioxin to be very, contro- 

 versial and has been involved in a reassessment broadly across the 

 agency of research information that we have on dioxin, and we 

 have used most of the information that we had available. The men- 

 tion that Mr. Saxton made of a document that was derived under 

 Freedom of Information will be put behind us. We hope to have 

 that document published for public review. It will be published as a 

 draft document for peer review, and there will be a public meeting 

 in June on that information. The ongoing review of dioxin, of 

 human health, exposure, and ecologic effects will continue through 

 the year with EPA having public meetings and making as much 

 available as they can on this issue. But based on this relevant sci- 

 entific information, EPA determined that sediments which resulted 

 in dioxin 28-day bioaccumulation worm tissue above 10 parts per 

 trillion were unacceptable for ocean dumping. The agency agreed 

 that sediments which upon biological testing resulted in bioaccu- 

 mulation of less than 10 parts per trillion could be dumped at the 

 Mud Dump Site provided that these sediments were covered with a 

 layer of clean sediments at least one meter thick and that that cap- 

 ping should take place closely after disposal. 



As you know, there has been some controversy about the amount 

 of material to be disposed, and, consequently, EPA asked the port 

 and the Corps to retest some of the material. The results of these 

 tests show the dioxin levels in sediments to be at or below the tests 

 conducted on the initial project, which were generally below the 10- 

 parts-per-trillion criteria. Disposal may be allowed if the material 

 is capped within five to ten days of such dumping, and as you men- 

 tioned, a decision was made on this yesterday. 



These issues have been very controversial, and they have gener- 

 ated much public interest. And in light of this interest, our Region 

 II office is seeking to facilitate a consensus on disposal alternatives 

 among interested parties particularly as we deal with this and 

 other issues relative to this site. In addition, EPA has been work- 

 ing on a whole range of other issues under the contaminated sedi- 

 ment heading. We have been developing sediment criteria, as some- 

 one mentioned, and we expect after having been through a series 

 of Scientific Advisory Board reviews to publish a methodology for 

 nonionic organic criteria for five chemicals for public comment this 

 spring. We expect that those criteria would then be used in preven- 

 tion and remediation activities. 



