98 



cannot point to actual job losses yet, we have clearly 

 seen signs that our fears are being realized. Due to 

 doubts about adequate depths, some shipping lines have 

 shifted cargo to competing ports including Halifax, 

 Canada. At the same time unnecessary controversy over 

 the existence of trace levels of dioxin in our sediments 

 and the disposal of these sediments with capping at the 

 Mud Dump has harmed the commercial and recreational 

 fishing industries in our region and has the potential 

 to harm our spring/summer tourism business as well. 



why? Because the community at large has been prodded by interest 

 groups who want nothing, even clean material dumped into the 

 ocean. The question has become "how clean is clean?" The federal 

 regulatory system when dealing with sediments proposed for ocean 

 disposal uses criteria and standards which are order of magnitudes 

 more stringent that land-based level criteria. These interest 

 groups insist scientific knowledge is not adequate to justify 

 ocean disposal. The committee should know that with regard to 

 dioxin (2,3,7,8 tet rachorodibenzo-p-diox in ) the land-based 

 criteria viewed as clean is one part per billion, while we are 

 required by the Corps/EPA for a maintenance dredging permit to 

 test to one part in a trillion. That is one thousand parts less. 



We need to recognize that with rapid advances in technology our 

 ability to detect things to lower and lower levels far exceeds our 

 understanding of what it all means. It is unreasonable for 

 society to expect to have a complete understanding of all risks of 

 every action taken. If we do not establish reasonable risk levels 

 for environmental protection, economic development will come to a 

 screeching halt. I feel strongly that the risk of not acting is 

 far worse than most proposed activities, such as removing these 

 trace levels by dredging the berths in Port Newark/Elizabeth and 

 subsequently disposing of them in the ocean. 



The Port Authority retained a world renowned expert and 

 commissioned a risk assessment of ocean placement of dredged 

 material containing dioxin. The findings concluded that the 

 material we propose to dredge doesn't need to be capped. The risk 

 associated with the dioxin is well below EPA current cancer risk 

 guidelines. However, a special condition of the Port Authority's 

 suspended permit requires a two to one cap by volume, roughly 

 three feet thick. This cap in effect is the suspenders going 

 along with the belt. It will cost approximately $3 million and 

 will exceed the cost of dredging. 



Now I'd like to turn to the actual permit process. In the recent 

 past the process of seeking and receiving a dredging and ocean 

 disposal permit for berth maintenance dredging took approximately 

 six months--about three months for sampling and testing of the 

 sediments and marine organisms, about three weeks for Corps/EPA 

 review and publication of a public notice on the permit, one month 

 for public comment and another month for findings and a decision. 

 As a matter of public policy, if the material to be dredged 



