Jul 
Mr. Carney. Unfortunately, I was just handed a very important 
notice, “Your 5 minutes has expired.” 
I will yield back to the Chair. 
Mr. D’Amours. There will be a second round of questioning. I 
thank the gentleman from New York. 
Mr. CaRNeEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. D’Amours. Just two quick questions from me on the second 
round. This question of the New York Bight seems to be becoming 
more and more important as the questioning goes on. I was very 
interested in Mr. Hughes’ questions. For instance, are you aware 
that NOAA estimated that we can expect an increase from the cur- 
rent 7 million wet tons of sludge in the area to about 17 million 
wet tons over the next 5 years? 
Mr. Scuatzow. Those are the projections assuming an increase 
in population and an increase in secondary treatment. 
Mr. D’Amours. Well, but that is a very significant increase. 
Mr. ScHATzOw. Yes. 
Mr. D’Amours. That 3 percent, if that is the correct figure, and I 
am not sure that it will likely grow, will it not? 
Mr. Scuatzow. And that is something that we will very seriously 
consider in our rulemaking as we consider whether the 12-mile site 
should be redesignated and, if redesignated, for what quantities. 
Mr. D’Amours. That brings me to my next question EPA’s draft 
of the revised Ocean Dumping Regulations reads, and I quote— 
When data collected from field investigations are used for making a determina- 
tion, the material proposed for dumping may be considered acceptable for ocean 
dumping at the proposed site when it is sufficiently similar in chemical and physical 
characteristics to material previously dumped at the site and it may be expected to 
have similar effects and there is no statistically significant increase in the constitu- 
ents of concern in organisms from within the dump site as compared to those from 
outside the dump site. 
There are some people who think that the section was written 
specifically for the New York Bight Apex. It seems to me that the 
section says that once you get a site so polluted, more pollution be- 
cause it will not make a whole lot of statistical difference you can 
go ahead and add, even though a little more may be terribly toxic 
or cause degradation. 
Mr. ScHatzow. That is, of course, just a staff draft. That is cer- 
tainly not the intent of that. 
Mr. D’Amours. What could the intent possibly be if not that? 
Mr. ScHatzow. The intent was for other materials particularly, 
such as dredge materials, where we are familiar with the charac- 
teristics of the material and where we have an adequate site, an 
appropriate site. 
Mr. D’Amours. But is not the significance of this that you can 
dump anything at a site as long as it does not statistically and sig- 
nificantly increase the constituents of concern, which could be any 
kind of toxic element? 
Ms. Hurp. That is not the intent. 
Mr. D’Amours. Well, what does that mean? I understand what it 
means, but does it mean that you can, if you have a polluted site, 
and you are not increasing the percentage of pollution so drastical- 
ly, you can go ahead and dump? 
