13 



refined petroleum products, and 

 petroleum distillate residues. 



Even if none of the prohibited 

 compounds are present, once again 

 there is no clear guidance for what the 

 cut-off point is between capping, 

 upland disposal, and no action. On 

 what basis does one determine that 

 material is too contaminated to cap 

 but not too contaminated for upland 

 disposal, or that material is too 

 contaminated to disturb in any fashion 

 and be left as is (e.g., the "no action" 

 alternative)? Once again, this is 

 relegated to "best professional 

 judgment". It would behoove us to 

 define clear guidelines in the near 

 future if possible, otherwise we are 

 guilty of being just as "vague" as the 

 federal regulations. 



If disposal is chosen as the 

 outcome, the unstated null hypothesis 

 is the ultimate environmental question 

 and the reason EPA regulations have 

 been issued over the past two decades: 



H : Disposal will not degrade the 

 environment unreasonably or 

 endanger human health or 

 welfare. 



Unfortunately, this is precisely the sort 

 of loosely-stated null hypothesis which 

 has been criticized by others as being 

 untestable (Green, 1979, 1984; Fredette 

 et al., 1986; Bernstein and Zalinski, 

 1986) and cannot be answered by any 

 of the previous tests done up to this 

 point. The regulator once again has to 

 exercise his/her "best professional 

 judgment" to determine if they feel the 

 null hypothesis would be rejected 

 (leading to Box 1.11 and no action) or 



accepted (leading to disposal and the 

 resulting monitoring in Box 1.12). The 

 monitoring programs presented in the 

 sections to follow are attempts to 

 address this vague null hypothesis; as 

 mentioned earlier, if we could predict 

 the outcome of impacts at this point 

 with any certainty, there would be no 

 need to monitor at all. 



Box 1.11 "No Action Alternative" 



This box is self-explanatory. If it is 

 felt that contaminant levels are too 

 high and disturbance of any sort or 

 any type of disposal would degrade the 

 environment unreasonably, then the 

 only remaining action is not to dredge 

 and leave the material as is or to 

 consider in situ capping. In the 

 absence of remediation, the "no action 

 alternative" itself results in negative 

 environmental impacts to water 

 quality through sediment resuspension 

 and continued direct impacts to the 

 organisms inhabiting the location. 



As heightened public awareness, 

 the restrictions on ocean dumping, 

 and the need for dredging the heavily- 

 contaminated inner reaches of large 

 harbors in industrialized urban centers 

 in the northeast (e.g., New York 

 Harbor, Boston Harbor, Providence 

 Harbor, New Haven Harbor, etc.) 

 continue to increase in the future, 

 more and more permit evaluations 

 will wind up in either Box 1.8 (Special 

 Management) or Box 1.11 (No Action). 

 If this becomes too critical a problem 

 in the future such that there are severe 

 economic impacts to urban port 

 operations, it will lead most likely to 

 the development of in situ remediation 

 techniques. 



An Integrated, Tiered Approach to Monitoring and Management of Dredged Material Disposal Sites 



