163 



outpaced our institutional ability to make decisions. The second is the lack of adequate 

 federal funding for the implementation of existing program mandates such as the designation 

 of disposal sites and development of disposal site management, the development of cost- 

 effective remediation technologies, and the construction of confined disposal areas for 

 contaminated material when ocean disposal is not feasible. In making management 

 decisions about contaminated dredged material, regulatory agencies should consider whether 

 the relative risk posed by open water placement justifies the expense of hugh capital 

 investment in landside disposal facilities decontamination. 



Although the Corps is ultimately responsible for issuing ocean disposal permits, 

 complex requirements for coordination, consultation and review by other federal, state and 

 local agencies can often unnecessarily delay or derail final consideration by the Corps. Too 

 often reviews by regulatory agencies are sequential rather than simultaneous, and there is 

 no consensus on what is required of the permit applicant. Wherever possible multiple 

 agency reviews should be consolidated objectives agreed to and clear timelines established. 

 Amendments to the Ocean Dumping Act in the WRDA '92 did set out specific timelines 

 for review of ocean dumping permits. We hope that these changes will help improve the 

 permit review process. 



Regulatory agencies must understand that leaving sediments in navigational channels 

 both impedes commercial opportunities, and presents navigational, safety and environmental 

 hazards. It is common sense to realize that is environmentally and economically preferable 

 to move sediments out of the path of oncoming vessels and relocate it to designated, 

 monitored and managed disposal sites. Too often regulatory agencies become embroiled 

 in endless process forgetting that time is of the essence for the permit applicant. Ports 

 welcome any improved working relationship among federal and state agencies as a positive 

 step toward achieving more programmatic consistency and building public confidence in the 

 soundness of their dredged material disposal program. 



The public port industry supports the current regulatory structure, in which the Corps 

 has authority to permit ocean disposal while the EPA has the authority under both the 

 Clean Water Act and the Ocean Dumping Act to prevent unwise disposal actions and to 

 designate appropriate disposal sites. The technical and biological concerns are well 

 balanced in a division of labor with the Corps conducting assessment, permit review and 

 sediment remediation functions, and the EPA reviewing ocean disposal permits and making 

 disposal site designations. The Corps' has considerable experience, resources and expertise 

 in dredging and dredged material management and disposal. Indeed, EPA currently relies 

 on the expertise of the Corps in designing sediment remediation under the Superfund 

 program for aquatic sites like New Bedford Harbor, MA. 



Unfortunately, even if regulatory improvements can be made it will not address the 

 fact that there is inadequate funding. The public port community is very concerned that 

 proposed cuts in funds for EPA's ocean dumping program will limit their ability to comply 

 with WRDA '92 mandates to designate ocean disposal sites, upgrade monitoring programs, 



