142 
Dr. Byrne, what is your reaction to the draft amendments? Do 
you have any particular problems with any of them in particular? 
Can you give us any rundown on some of the, perhaps, more gre- 
vious errors that that draft presents? 
Dr. Byrne. As I indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman, we would be 
prepared to comment in writing for the record. We have a number 
of the elements within NOAA looking at the draft amendments 
now and we would like to coordinate that activity before we re- 
spond to you with that. 
Mr. D’Amours. So you would rather not comment at all on any 
of the draft amendments at this time? 
Dr. Byrne. That would be my desire, yes. 
Mr. D’Amours. I have no power to compel it right now and I 
would not try even if I had the power to do so. 
Thank you very much. 
Mr. Carney? 
Mr. Carney. General, just a clarification—in your statement you 
said that new dredging is comparatively clean. Mostly the dredged 
material that has the heavy contaminants in it exists in areas that 
are being utilized for commerce and that type of thing? 
General Gay. That is correct. For the new work, you are dredg- 
ing material that has not been disturbed. Therefore, it has not had 
a chance for contaminants to get into it. 
Mr. Carney. Perhaps this question should be addressed to Colo- 
nel Smith, or whoever would like to answer the question. 
The New York Bight area—if you continue to dump the dredge 
material from the New York Harbor into the New York Bight area 
from now until 1985, would it have an adverse effect on the bight? 
And, if it does, to what extent would that be measured? 
General Gay. I think that we have three people here who would 
say no to that, I for one. 
Colonel Situ. As I was saying, very clearly, everything we know 
right now, all the data, all the research we have done, comparative 
analysis to what exists in the mud dump site right now versus 
what is in the surrounding area, would clearly say, no. We would 
not significantly degrade the bight. 
Mr. Carney. You added a phrase in there, ‘not significantly.” 
The General said “no,” period. Maybe I should not put a colonel 
and a general at odds with each other. It might be a great disad- 
vantage to the gentleman who is running New York. 
Dr. ENGLER. The term “significantly” refers to the regulations. 
The regulations require an assessment of a significant impact. Ob- 
viously, if you dispose clean sand in a mound, there is an effect and 
it is a measurable effect. As far as adverse effect from toxic pollut- 
ants, bioaccumulation, movement in the food chain, we have seen 
no effect whatsoever occurring at the mud dump site. 
Creatures living on the mud contain body burdens or exotic and 
natural materials as you find anywhere in the New York Bight 
area; they are certainly not in excess. 
We found no measure of toxics anywhere near the FDA limits 
regarding human consumption of foodstuff. Other than the physi- 
cal mounding which is measurable—and one could say signficant— 
you have a mound of material where no mound existed. But from 
the toxicological standpoint, the answer is clearly no. 
