253 



Bay would be suitable for the disposal of contaminated dredged 

 material. This option is the subject of a nearly complete EIS but is 

 faced with a great deal of public opposition. The Dutch, in particular 

 the Port of Rotterdam, have come to the realization that the use of 

 subaqueous borrow pits for contaminated dredged material is the way to 

 go. The Port of Rotterdam presently uses a containment facility called 

 the Parrot Beak. The Dutch have found the economics of such a facility 

 and possible future environmental consequences have demonstrated that 

 this is not the best solution. Once the Parrot Beak reaches capacity, 

 the Port of Rotterdam expects to implement the use of subaqueous borrow 

 pits for contaminated dredged material. The cost of use of subaqueous 

 borrow pits in the New York and New Jersey harbor may be less than the 

 cost of ocean disposal with capping. A much longer-term solution 

 (although The Netherlands would not agree) would be the construction of 

 a containment island in the Lower New York Bay. The siting of such a 

 facility is problematic and the cost of construction may be a billion 

 dol lars or more . 



We are investigating, with the partial involvement of the 

 federal government, other potential means of disposal. For example, 

 pursuant to WRDA 1992 the EPA and Corps of Engineers are to demonstrate 

 decontamination technology on materials from the port. We have 

 requested that the Congress provide $5 million in FY 1994 to supplement 

 the $2.7 million appropriated for the current year and we have urged 

 the agencies to quickly produce the work plan for that project which 

 has yet to get underway. However, EPA has yet to develop a plan of 

 study. In order to facilitate action the project we are preparing to 

 hire a consultant to identify potential upland areas in the port region 

 where such a project might be located. 



As for materials that are not contaminated the port will 

 continue to need an ocean location especially because of the great 

 volumes of material dredged annually. 



11. The Mud Dump Site has been used as a repository for clean and 

 contaminated dredged material since 1914. Is the dredged material 

 proposed for disposal from Newark Bay any more contaminated or 

 environmentally harmful than what has been disposed of at the site in 

 the past? 



The dredged material being proposed for ocean disposal from 

 our Port Newark and Elizabeth Port Authority Marine Terminal probably 

 has less contaminants than material that has been disposed of at the 

 Hud Dump in the past. The testing requirements are just more 

 stringent. Evidence of this is the fact that the most recent tests of 

 sediment in Port Newark/Elizabeth revealed that the material was in 

 fact less contaminated. We believe dredged material that is being 

 generated in the Port of New York and New Jersey is cleaner today than 

 it has been in the past. Since the advent of environmental laws in the 

 1970's, the pollution loadings to the waterway have been regulated and 

 have decreased over time. In addition, the publicly-owned sewage 

 treatment works in general have been upgraded to secondary treatment. 

 During this century, there has been increased use of synthetic 



69-996 0-93-9 



