94 



TESTIMONY OF 



RICHARD V. SINDINC, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOE POLICY AND PLANNING 



NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND ENERGY 



BEFORE THE 



HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES 



OCEANOGRAPHY, GULF OF MEXICO AND CONTINENTAL SHELF SUBCOMMITTEE 



Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear before you today to 

 discuss a subject that is of great concern to the New Jersey Department of 

 Environmental Protection and Energy. I believe that I can state 

 unequivocally, not just on behalf of my department but of all the citizens 

 of New Jersey, that protection of our waterways, our ports and our oceans is 

 a matter of the highest priority, and we will not allow the superior quality 

 of our marine and coastal resources to be compromised in any way. 



I can also state, on behalf of Governor Jim Florlo and DEPE Commissioner 

 Scott Weiner, that the issue before us today — the dredging and disposal of 

 dioxin-contaminated materials in the New York/New Jersey Harbor region — is 

 not, and should not be considered, a conflict between Jobs and the 

 environment. Rather, it represents a formidable but surmountable challenge 

 to provide for a vibrant, sustainable regional economy and a healthy, 

 protected environment. Our goal in the Port of New York and New Jersey 

 should be nothing leas than the achievement of a state-of-the-art port that 

 serves as a model of robust economic vitality and the highest standard of 

 environmental protection. 



To that end, we in New Jersey have worked long and hard in collaboration 

 with our counterparts in New York State, appropriate federal agencies, 

 environmental groups, labor unions, fishing interests, and other interested 

 parties to seek a framework for a comprehensive policy of sound harbor-wide 

 management practices. Our own state permitting conditions impose stringent 

 but fair limitations on the dredging activities which the Port Authority of 

 New York and New Jersey proposes to undertake in Port Newark and Port 

 Elizabeth, including a no-barge overflow provision designed to keep 

 potentially harmful levels of dioxin out of the water column. 



I think it is important to recognize that there are some distinctions 

 between the Port Authority's pending permit application and many of the 

 broader, long-term issues involving proper harbor management. We have spent 

 the last several weeks engaged in sometimes heated but generally fruitful 

 discussion about the details of the current permit application, including 

 the no-barge overflow and other conditions of the dredging operations, as 

 well as the management practices, monitoring and capping protocols at the 

 "Mud Dump" disposal site. Some of these issues are unique to this 

 particular permit application, and must be addressed by our department, the 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other 

 regulatory agencies in a manner consistent with current laws, rules, 

 regulations and policies. 



One of the benefits of this process is a clearer understanding of the 

 limitations imposed by present policy. For example, the only disposal site 

 under active consideration for the current application is the "Mud Dump," 

 yet virtually everyone agrees that alternative disposal sites, including an 

 artificial island, subaqueous borrow pits, and upland disposal, must be 

 considered for future dredging operations, and there is general agreement 

 that research and development of bloremedlation and other decontamination 

 technologies should be expedited. It may not be appropriate, however, to 

 apply these intermediate and longer-term solutions to the current permit 

 application, and, in our judgment, the USEPA and the Corps of Engineers have 

 diligently and effectively sought to balance our mutual short-term 

 objectives in the harbor with a realistic assessment of our ability to meet 

 our intermediate and longer-term goals. 



