252 



as it can possibly do so. By doing so, environmental advocacy groups 

 hope to defeat the application and make the permit disappear. Lastly, 

 environmental advocacy groups usually prefer the no action alternative 

 to permit issuance with mitigation, because they have no faith in 

 engineering solutions. 



To simplify the permit process, the federal regulator must 

 adhere to the schedules specified in their regulations and must be able 

 to cut off comments without fear of losing in a court of law because of 

 an administrative error. This fear of loss provides the impetus for 

 regulators not to close the record. 



In addition, all governmental-and inter-agency reviews of 

 permits should be coordinated and where possible, consolidated. The 

 complex memo of agreements between the Corps of Engineers, 

 Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service and 

 Fish and Wildlife Service provide the framework for endless review and 

 study . 



Another frustration for the applicant is when the federal 

 agencies add to and change requirements and in doing so, at a minimum, 

 protracts the process. In fairness to the permit applicant, the 

 regulators should early in the process set forth clearly the 

 information they require, the appropriate testing and other protocols, 

 and not add to those requirements once the original requirements are 

 complied with. As for criteria and standards, the applicant should be 

 required to meet only those criteria and standards in effect at the 

 time of the application. The rules should not change in midstream. 



We believe that only minor changes in the Ocean Dumping Act 

 are required to improve the permitting process for dredged material 

 ocean disposal. Again, it is the lack of policy and guidance at the 

 national level by the Corps of Engineers and EPA which allows for an 

 endless process within Corps districts and EPA regions. We 

 respectfully suggest the need for a national policy which provides for 

 a level of acceptable risk, requires adherence to schedules as 

 published in the regulation, oversight that ensures closure of public 

 comments in a timely manner, and decision-making which recognizes and 

 weighs the serious economic and environmental impacts of the no action 

 alternative. That policy should also place with the federal government 

 responsibility for dredged material disposal planning and costs. 



10. If the Port Authority's permit is ultimately denied, what dredge 

 and disposal options will you have, and are they feasible and practical 

 alternatives? What will the cost be? 



At the present time, the Port Authority has no feasible or 

 practical alternative to dredging and ocean disposal of the maintenance 

 material from Port Newark and Elizabeth. There is only one EPA 

 designated ocean site and no other water or land-based sites. Whenever 

 possible, dredged sand is used for beach replenishment or as 

 construction aggregate. There are a number of alternatives for 

 disposal of contaminated dredged material that while not readily 

 implementable have merit. Subaqueous borrow pits in the New York Lower 



