STATEMENT OF HON. H. JAMES SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 



FROM NEW JERSEY 



Mr. Saxton. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the dispatch 

 with which you have called this hearing subsequent to my request. 

 It is a very important subject, and this hearing turns out to be 

 more timely than anyone could imagine. I say that because appar- 

 ently just yesterday the EPA issued a conditional permit to the 

 Corps of Engineers signifying the go-ahead conditioned upon some 

 approvals from the National Marine Fisheries Service. 



And to that extent, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unani- 

 mous consent at this point that following my opening statement a 

 letter dated 29 March from EPA to the Corps be entered into the 

 record to be followed by a letter dated March 23 written to the 

 Corps from NMFS outlining NMFS's concerns relative to the En- 

 dangered Species Act as it relates to this permit. 



[The abovementioned letters can be found at the end of the hear- 

 ing.] 



Mr. Ortiz. Hearing no objection, so ordered. You still have an- 

 other statement? I am sorry. Go right ahead. 



Mr. Saxton. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and, Mr. 

 Chairman, as Congressman Hughes and Congressman Pallone and 

 I will say clearly, "Here we are yet again to discuss the merits of 

 ocean disposal as the most economic alternative for getting rid of 

 unwanted waste." In this case, it is 460,000 cubic yards of dredged 

 material much of which is contaminated with dioxin. 



Once again, one sector of our society is being pitted against an- 

 other due to the scientific ignorance as to the risks and our lack of 

 commitment for aggressively developing alternative disposal meth- 

 ods, something which is only now getting the attention it deserves. 

 Again, no one knows the effects of the dioxin, nor what the accu- 

 mulative effects will be on marine life and seafood as time goes on. 

 And, once again, it seems the burden of proof has fallen squarely 

 on the shoulders of citizens and businesses who depend on the 

 ocean for their livelihoods to prove that this activity may be harm- 

 ful to marine life rather than requiring the applicants to prove 

 that it is not. 



It is important for my colleagues to understand that this is a 

 precedent-setting case. There are 20 to 30 additional permit appli- 

 cations in the New York/ New Jersey Harbor lined up behind the 

 Port Elizabeth application. At least 20 of those projects are antici- 

 pated to contain dioxin. Whatever happens in this case will set the 

 standards in dealing with similar situations elsewhere around the 

 country. 



It is important to note that this is the very first time that we 

 have tested for dioxin. It is my understanding that the Six-Mile 

 Mud Dump Site is already contaminated with dioxin from previous 

 disposal activities which were not subjected to dioxin testing. A big 

 concern is over whether or not introducing more dioxin to the Mud 

 Dump will increase the bioaccumulated levels of dioxin already ob- 

 served in marine life in and around this site. No one wants to see 

 levels of dioxin equal to those found in Newark Bay where crab- 

 bing and fishing are already prohibited due to high concentrations 

 of dioxin. 



