1 DR. RAY: That's another thing. It's an interesting debate that 



2 biologists always have and that is, a lot of times an organism will 



3 selectively uptake or if they are in a high background level, can 



4 actually uptake metals and it acts like a bioaccumulation factor, but 



5 that by itself does not indicate whether or not it is a harmful 



6 situation. 



7 A lot of times, the multiplication factor can go up several -fold 



8 in the organism depending on the metal, and it is still handling it 



9 without a problem. So, because you've got a bioaccumulation factor 



10 itself does not necessarily mean you are having damage. 



11 This has been one of the big debates in a lot of the criteria the 



12 Corps of Engineers uses for dredge materials. 



13 DR. AURAND: I didn't write fast enough the last time. Does 



14 anybody want me to write this down? You've got to say something about 



15 metals. 



16 DR. TEAL: I still think the dilution of the metals is sufficient 



17 that it is unlikely to be a problem, at least-- 



18 DR. BUTMAN: Those concentrations we just characterized as 20 



19 parts per million are 20 times what he said. He just said one part per 



20 millon on Georges Bank, right? 



21 DR. COOPER: About 1 1/2 ppm. The surficial sediments went up 



22 about 11. 



23 DR. BOTHNER: That's for bulk sediments, right, Dick? 



24 DR. COOPER: The surficial sediments. 



25 DR. BOTHNER: That's bulk, not by fraction. 



26 DR. COOPER: Bulk. 



27 DR. BUTMAN: You said the fraction in Lydonia was 50 or a 100? 



28 DR. BOTHNER: Using the bulk patches as an indicator, the 



29 background of the mud patch, in both samples, is on the order of 50 or 



30 60 parts per million, so a 20 ppm increase is a significant fraction of 



31 what is there; that is a fact. It goes up by a third. I mean, the 



32 geochemists can measure that. 



299 



