144 
there is some effect, is there not, inasmuch as many scientists are 
concerned? It is difficult to pin down any one cause because there 
are several but that ought not to be an excuse for doing nothing, 
which I think to be the attitude I picked up from EPA earlier. How 
would you respond to what I see as maybe not a contradiction, but 
a shade in difference in meaning between this Mitre report and 
your answers to Mr. Carney. 
General Gay. Let me ask Doctor Engler who leads our research 
to respond. 
Dr. ENGLER. The Mitre report—this particular aspect of the 
report—was concerned with toxic metals. The dredged material 
that goes out to the New York Bight does account for a large quan- 
tity of heavy metals that go to the bight. But, these metals exist 
naturally in the Earth’s crust, in sediments and soils. So, when we 
measure and analyze a sediment, we are also measuring those nat- 
ural quantities. Zinc, for instance, 100 parts per million or 50 parts 
per million wet weight is not uncommon at all, it is an average 
crystal abundance. If you dumped 10 million cubic yards, which is 
about 10 million tons, theoretically you have dumped about 500 
tons of zinc. These are the figures that comprise that 30 percent of 
loadings of select contaminants cited in the Mitre report. It is a 
gross inventory of everything that goes out there, but it is a mix of 
natural and contaminated material. It also measures what goes out 
naturally, so it gives an unrealistically high measure of the actual 
contaminant level of pollution. Obviously there are sediments that 
are highly contaminated with metals as a result of certain manage- 
ment plans that include point dumping at the bight. That is, one 
load is dumped, another load is dumped over that. This is the ma- 
terial that passes the bioassay and bioaccumulation, yet still may 
be somewhat high in metals from an analytic standpoint. These 
loads are continually covered and the materials are sequestered 
from the environment, or removed from the environment. 
There is some ongoing research on disposal of contaminated ma- 
terial, followed by capping of this material with very clean sedi- 
ment. So, my answer is based on the fact that we are able, through 
management considerations, to isolate the unacceptable material 
from the aquatic environment and for the intermediate contami- 
nated material that passes our environmental criteria. Although 
we have some element of concern for it, we use a similar manage- 
ment technique such as covering one dump after another. So, that 
is the basis for my answer. 
Mr. D’Amours. Thank you very much. 
Mr. Carney. Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that my stomach 
could not take another 5 minutes of questioning; it is growling, so I 
will yield back to the Chair. 
Mr. D’Amours. Mr. Hughes? 
Mr. Hucues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
When you say “sequestered” are you saying that it is buried? Is 
that what you mean? 
Dr. ENGLER. Yes; we know how deep the benthic organisms 
burrow into the sediment and it is less than 1 meter in depth. Once 
this material is covered to that depth, it is essentially removed 
from the environment. We do not find the leaching of contami- 
