Question: That’s all true, but you haven’t decided what you want to avoid. 
G. Gallagher: A perfect example of where the physical oceanography has been 
a key in understanding the effects of a pollutant would be in the monitoring of mining and 
oil drilling on Georges Bank. The physical oceanography was the key to designing the 
sampling program—to look at whether drilling muds and fluids had an adverse effect on 
the marine environment. This physical oceanography was mainly done by Brad Buttman of 
the U.S. Geological Survey in Woods Hole, MA. 
There is an area of deposition where most of the fine materials from Georges 
Bank are transported. Monitoring stations were not only set up around the drilling rig, but 
also in the deposition area. We're missing all of that information in Boston Harbor. In 
terms of assessing whether there is environmental damage, we really need to know where 
the fine materials from one area are transported. 
It's not just academic information that’s sitting there. It's key to managing an 
area's resource. When the Canadians begin drilling on Georges Bank, as they might, the 
physical and geological oceanographic information and sediment transport is going to be a 
key element to deciding whether there's been an adverse impact due to renewed drilling 
on Georges Bank. It's not just of academic interest; it's key to management. 
B. Brown: I agree with Gene. We need to understand dispersional and 
depositional processes in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay. We must learn where 
contaminants are going. For example, are they going to fine-grained sedimentary areas 
such as Stellwagen Basin, to our living resources, offshore out of the system, or 
somewhere else. We also need to learn more about chemical conversions of contaminants 
over time in estuaries and marine systems. These types of information are key to 
management decisions in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay. We need them to decide 
issues such as outfalls siting, siting of dredge spoil areas, and methods for placing 
subharbor tunnels. 
Question: I've heard Dr. Wallace comment several times on the need to assess 
in advance what's going to happen to the waste. I wouldn't want us to be left with the 
impression that as a general rule there's no one thinking about that. Criteria are being 
made on how to develop technical recommendations used in a multi-media assessment. 
G. Wallace: I'm glad to hear it, but in practice right now it's not being done. 
The sludge management problem is just totally ignored. Michael Deland, the Region I 
EPA Administrator, said, "Under law, that's what I'm required to do: only consider water 
quality considerations, not balance terrestrial." 
In the EIS for treatment plant siting that recently came out, the sludge 
disposal factor was not figured into the siting problem, for logic that escapes me, too 
complex or whatever; but it was not one of the factors they considered in the initial EIS 
statement. Perhaps it is now. I don't know its status now. 
117 
