nated dredge material from the Port of New York/New Jersey at the six-mile mud 

 dump off the New Jersey coast. 



This case not only represents a return to the debates on the merits of ocean 

 dumping, but serves as a test case that will set a precedent for the disposal of mil- 

 lions of cubic yards of contaminated sediments. It's a repeat performance: one eco- 

 nomic sector against another, stewards of our environment versus industry. 



On the one hand, our ports must continue to be dredged to allow the uninterrupt- 

 ed flow of commerce. Indeed, we must not set up a situation which precipitates the 

 diversion of cargo to other ports and the concomitant loss of thousands of jobs. 



On the other hand, we have worked long and hard to address the issue of ocean 

 dumping and now have the best water quality in years off our shores. The hard 

 work to reach this point should not be comprised by short-sighted and convenient 

 policies. 



This situation merely illustrates once again that our waste management policies 

 continue to border on bankruptcy. We continue to select the easy, cheap way out of 

 our waste disposal dilemma. The ocean continues to be perceived as the cheapest 

 and, of course, the most comfortable way of disposing of contaminated substances — 

 the old out-of-sight, out-of-mind syndrome is alive and well. 



But it is not a cheap alternative — little is known about the long term effects that 

 dumping will have on marine ecology. Even less is known about the impact and fate 

 of dioxin in this environment — what levels, if any, are acceptable? Does dioxin 

 bioaccumulate? Is there a threat to human consumers? The lack of answers to these 

 and many other questions emphasizes the fact that we can't afford to ignore the 

 potential impact of dioxin, metals and organic compounds on marine life in the 

 ocean and throughout the ecosystem. 



The impacts of ocean disposal of contaminated substances on our coastal commu- 

 nities is indisputable — direct and adverse impacts on tourism and the fishing indus- 

 try have been clearly demonstrated. Dioxin-laden crabs have shut down crabbing 

 and fishing in Newark Bay, diseased lobsters and fish with fin rot have brought eco- 

 nomic hardship to local fishermen. Dirty beaches have sent tourists elsewhere. 



In addition to the unknown and potential impacts of dioxin and other contami- 

 nants on our marine environment, there is great uncertainty as to whether capping 

 offers sufficient protection from these contaminants. 



Can the integrity of the cap withstand the forces of severe storms such as the 

 ones we have experienced over the past two winters? Does EPA or the Army Corps 

 of Engineers have a program to monitor changes in the character of the mud dump, 

 particularly after these storms? Is there any monitoring to ensure that contami- 

 nants from the mud dump site are not spreading and being taken up by marine or- 

 ganisms? 



Has the ACOE or EPA considered, proposed, or explored the availability of inter- 

 im measures to handle these contaminated sediments until a final solution is found? 

 What measures has the Army Corps of Engineers taken to develop a long-term plan 

 to address the problem of contaminated sediments in general? 



Clearly, we need to develop long-range options for the disposal of contaminated 

 substances and not go through this symbolic train wreck every time the public in- 

 terest in protecting ourselves and our resources from the threats of dioxin and other 

 harmful substances conflicts with our economic interests. 



We have a tremendous opportunity, and indeed, the responsibility, to use a 21st 

 century approach to solve a 20th century problem. We must meet this challenge 

 head on, move forward and avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. 



Mr. Chairman, I will close my opening remarks by welcoming the panel. I look 

 forward to their testimony today in hopes that it will address the concerns I have 

 raised. I would also like to extend a special welcome to Dr. Fred Grassle from Rut- 

 gers University and Richard Sinding from the New Jersey Department of Environ- 

 mental Protection and Energy. Thank you both for testifying today. 



Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Pallone. 



STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 



FROM NEW JERSEY 



Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also have a writ- 

 ten statement I would like to have submitted in full for the record 

 and urge unanimous consent for that. But I have to comment — I 

 would like to summarize my remarks, if I could. I want to thank 

 Mr. Hughes and Mr. Saxton, of course, the Chairman, for setting 



