255 



describing wood burning at-sea as a barbaric and dangerous process. For 

 instance, there were accusations that some children playing in the 

 water on the New Jersey Shore were struck with timbers that fell off a 

 burn barge. This incident was later determined to be caused by wood 

 debris that came from an adjacent pier that was damaged in a very 

 severe fire. However, the Final Environmental Impact Statement found 

 at-sea wood burning to be an acceptable practice, but recommended a 

 phased out period of two years. Nevertheless, EPA Region II, then 

 placed such onerous restrictions on the wood burning operation that it 

 was no longer feasible. As a result of EPA's action, the costs for 

 disposal of wood for this project have increased a minimum of two times 

 and is probably more. This project is federally funded and cost-shared 

 by local governments. In this case, EPA's action has caused a greater 

 expenditure of public funds with little or no environmental benefit. 

 During the time the Environmental Impact Statement was being prepared, 

 material similar to what was generated by this project was allowed to 

 be open and burned on land in the southeastern states. 



Ultimately, the Port Authority would like to be confident that there is 

 consistency in the application of federal rules and standards in our 

 region relative to others. It also is our hope that in the future good 

 science and the common good will be the basis for decision-making and 

 not ill-founded public perception. 



14. You comment that the permitting process is costing more than the 

 cost of the dredging itself. To date, how much have you spent trying 

 to obtain your pending permit, and how does this compare to the last 

 permit obtained by the Port Authority? In real terms, how do the 

 additional cost effect the Port and its ability to operate? 



We estimate that we will have spent approximately a million 

 and a half dollars, or possibly more, for testing and monitoring to 

 obtain the Port Newark and Elizabeth Marine Terminal maintenance 

 dredging permit. We believe the cost for the previous permit for the 

 Port Newark and Elizabeth complex was around $100,000. This does not 

 include staff time and other in-house costs. 



In real terms, the high cost of testing for the Port of New 

 York and New Jersey is tragic. The additional costs are making it 

 prohibitive to operate in this region. Small terminal operators cannot 

 afford such high costs. When the cost of a three-year permit exceeds 

 the cost of construction for maintenance dredging, which for most 

 terminal operators is only once within the three-year life cycle of the 

 permit, then it should be obvious that there is no alternative to ocean 

 disposal . 



Some private terminal operators are finding the cost of 

 obtaining a dredging permit in our harbor to be much too high. When 

 the terminal operator passes on this cost, the operation becomes less 

 competitive and may suffer losses or may even go out of business. In 

 either case, the region suffers. This is a lose/lose situation for the 

 New York and New Jersey region. 



