U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
DRAFT
CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS
SCIENCE
PLAN
Prepared
for
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
by
members
of
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Workgroup,
a
group
of
U.
S.
EPA's
Science
Policy
Council
Principal
Authors
Elizabeth
Lee
Hofmann
(Chair),
OSWER
Thomas
Armitage,
OW
Bonnie
Eleder,
U.
S.
EPA
Region
5
Steve
Ells,
OSWER
Patricia
Erickson,
ORD
Sharon
Frey,
OSWER
James
Rowe,
ORD
Marc
Tuchman,
GLNPO
Randall
Wentsel,
ORD
Science
Policy
Council
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Washington,
DC
20460
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
ii
DISCLAIMER
This
document
is
an
external
review
draft
for
review
purposes
only
and
does
not
constitute
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
policy.
Mention
of
trade
names
or
commercial
products
does
not
constitute
endorsement
or
recommendation
for
use.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
iii
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
.................................................
Page
vii
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
...............................................
Page
viii
1.
GOALS
AND
OBJECTIVES
.............................................
Page
1
1.1
Introduction
.................................................
Page
1
1.2
Goals
of
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
..................
Page
2
1.3
Development
of
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
............
Page
3
1.4
Linkage
of
the
Science
Plan
to
Agency
Planning
Processes
............
Page
4
1.5
Continuity
of
the
Science
Plan
with
Agency
National
Strategic
Plan
Goals
Page
6
1.6
Document
Organization
........................................
Page
7
2.
CURRENT
UNDERSTANDING
OF
CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS
..........
Page
9
2.1
Introduction
.................................................
Page
9
2.2
Scope,
Magnitude,
and
Impacts
of
Contaminated
Sediments
...........
Page
9
2.3
Overview
of
Major
Sediment
Issues
and
Needs
Across
the
Agency
.....
Page
11
2.4
Recent
U.
S.
EPA
Contaminated
Sediment
Science
Activities
and
Products
................................................
Page
15
2.5
Overview
of
Communication
and
Collaboration
Activities
...........
Page
19
2.5.1
Collaborative
Efforts
Within
U.
S.
EPA
.....................
Page
19
2.5.2
External
Collaborative
Efforts
............................
Page
20
2.6
National
Research
Council
(NRC)
Report
on
PCB­
Contaminated
Sediments
..................................................
Page
22
2.7
National
Research
Council
Report
on
Contaminated
Marine
Sediments
.
Page
22
2.8
Long­
term
Trends
Affecting
Contaminated
Sediments
...............
Page
24
3.
ASSESSING
THE
SCIENCE
ON
CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS
............
Page
27
3.1
Introduction
................................................
Page
27
3.2
Sediment
Site
Characterization
.................................
Page
28
3.2.1
Sampling
Strategies
(temporal
and
spatial)
..................
Page
29
3.2.2
Physical
Parameters
....................................
Page
30
3.2.3
Chemical
Parameters
...................................
Page
32
3.2.4
Key
Recommendations
for
Sediment
Site
Characterization
.....
Page
34
3.3
Exposure
Assessment
.........................................
Page
34
3.3.1
Bioavailability
........................................
Page
35
3.3.2
Bioaccumulation
Potential
...............................
Page
36
3.3.3
Fate
and
Transport
Modeling
.............................
Page
37
3.3.4
Key
Recommendations
for
Exposure
Assessment
.............
Page
39
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
iv
3.4
Human
Health
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
.......................
Page
39
3.4.1
Key
Recommendations
for
Human
Health
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
......................................
Page
41
3.5
Ecological
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
..........................
Page
41
3.5.1
Ecological
Screening
Levels
.............................
Page
41
3.5.2
Ecological
Indicators
...................................
Page
44
3.5.3
Direct
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Biota
..........................
Page
46
3.5.4
Ecological
Significance
and
Population
Models
..............
Page
47
3.5.5
Key
Recommendations
for
Ecological
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
......................................
Page
47
3.6
Sediment
Remediation
........................................
Page
48
3.6.1
Natural
Recovery/
Bioremediation
.........................
Page
48
3.6.2
In
situ
Capping
........................................
Page
49
3.6.3
In
situ
Treatment
......................................
Page
50
3.6.4
Dredging/
Removal
.....................................
Page
52
3.6.5
Ex
situ
Treatment
Technologies
...........................
Page
52
3.6.6
Beneficial
Use
Technologies
.............................
Page
54
3.6.7
Disposal
Options
......................................
Page
55
3.6.8
Key
Recommendations
for
Sediment
Remediation
............
Page
55
3.7
Baseline,
Remediation,
and
Post­
Remediation
Monitoring
............
Page
56
3.7.1
Key
Recommendations
for
Baseline,
Remediation,
and
Post­
Remediation
Monitoring
............................
Page
59
3.8
Risk
Communication
and
Community
Involvement
.................
Page
59
3.8.1
Key
Recommendations
for
Risk
Communication
and
Community
Involvement
..........................................
Page
61
3.9
Information
Management
and
Exchange
Activities
..................
Page
62
3.9.1
Key
Recommendations
for
Information
Management
and
Exchange
Activities
............................................
Page
63
4.
LONG­
RANGE
SCIENCE
STRATEGY
...................................
Page
65
4.1
Introduction
................................................
Page
65
4.2
Key
Recommendations
.......................................
Page
65
4.2.1
Sediment
Site
Characterization
...........................
Page
66
4.2.2
Exposure
Assessment
...................................
Page
67
4.2.3
Human
Health
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
.................
Page
69
4.2.4
Ecological
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
....................
Page
70
4.2.5
Sediment
Remediation
..................................
Page
72
4.2.6
Baseline,
Remediation,
and
Post­
remediation
Monitoring
......
Page
74
4.2.7
Risk
Communication
and
Community
Involvement
...........
Page
76
4.2.8
Information
Management
and
Exchange
Activities
............
Page
77
4.3
Recommended
Approaches
to
Implement
Strategy
..................
Page
79
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
v
REFERENCES
.........................................................
Page
85
APPENDIX
A:
Contaminated
Sediment
Science
Activities
Database
..............
Page
A­
1
APPENDIX
B:
Example
of
Summary
Sheet
.................................
Page
B­
1
APPENDIX
C:
List
of
Acronyms
..........................................
Page
C­
1
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Contributors
Elizabeth
Beiring,
OW
Edward
Bender,
ORD
David
Bennett,
OSWER
Scott
Cieniawski,
GLNPO
Kevin
Garrahan,
ORD
Scott
Ireland,
OW
Lorelei
Kowalski,
ORD
Jennifer
Lenz,
OSWER
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
vii
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
In
2000,
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(U.
S.
EPA's)
Science
Policy
Council
(SPC)
initiated
the
development
of
the
Science
Plan
because
contamination
of
sediments
is
a
multi­
faceted,
cross­
Agency
issue
which
can
benefit
from
a
more
comprehensive
and
higher
level
of
coordination
across
U.
S.
EPA
program
and
regional
offices
than
what
occurs
at
the
program
level.
Extensive
resources
to
address
contaminated
sediment
problems
are
spent
by
a
number
of
Agency
program
offices,
including
the
Superfund
Program
(SF),
Office
of
Water
(OW),
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(OSW),
Great
Lakes
National
Program
Office
(GLNPO),
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxic
Substances
(OPPTS),
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(ORD),
and
U.
S.
EPA
Regional
Offices.

The
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
is
the
first
formal
example
of
an
Agency
science
plan
on
a
specific
cross­
Agency
office­
and
region­
wide
activity.
However,
it
follows
in
the
footsteps
of
previous
U.
S.
EPA
initiatives,
such
as
the
Mercury
Action
Plan
(U.
S.
EPA,
2001c),
the
Action
Plan
for
Beaches
and
Recreational
Waters
(Beach
Action
Plan)
(U.
S.
EPA,
1999a),
and
A
Multimedia
Strategy
for
Priority
Persistent,
Bioaccumulative,
and
Toxic
(PBT)
Pollutants
(U.
S.
EPA,
1998a).
These
plans
and
strategies
contain
elements
of
both
science
plans
and
management
action
plans.
The
result
of
an
effective
science
plan
will
be
improved
environmental
decision­
making
which
conserves
both
human
and
financial
resources.

The
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
has
three
goals
to
promote
the
vision
of
providing
a
strong
scientific
basis
for
addressing
contaminated
sediments:

1.
Development
and
dissemination
of
tools
and
science
necessary
to
address
the
management
of
contaminated
sediments.
2.
Enhancement
of
the
level
of
coordination
and
communication
of
science
activities
dealing
with
contaminated
sediments
across
the
Agency.
3.
Development
of
an
effective,
cost­
efficient
strategy
to
promote
these
scientific
activities,
including
research.

The
Science
Plan
is
organized
into
four
chapters.
Chapter
One
discusses
the
goals,
objectives,
and
how
the
Science
Plan
relates
to
the
Agency's
mandate.
Chapter
Two
provides
an
overview
of
the
contaminated
sediment
problems
and
issues
across
the
Agency.
The
brief
description
of
issues
in
Chapter
Two
is
meant
to
provide
an
introduction
to
the
discussion
of
contaminated
sediment
issues,
as
well
as
the
overall
context
for
the
more
detailed
discussion
of
specific
science
needs
given
in
Chapter
Three.

Chapter
Three,
along
with
U.
S.
EPA's
contaminated
sediment
science
activities'
database
(Appendix
A),
is
the
data
collection
and
analysis
section
of
the
Science
Plan.
It
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
viii
documents
the
current
Contaminated
Sediment
Science
Activities
ongoing
within
the
Agency,
and
places
these
activities
within
the
context
of
Agency
goals.
Significant
data
gaps
and
uncertainties
in
methodology/
assessment
procedures
are
identified.
Finally,
it
proposes
science
activities
to
fill
those
data
gaps
and
resolve
related
issues.

Chapter
Four
provides
the
key
recommendations
for
future
Agency
science
activities,
including
research,
based
on
the
discussion
in
Chapter
Three.
For
each
recommendation,
critical
U.
S.
EPA
partners
and
the
immediate
or
long­
term
nature
of
the
science
activity
are
proposed.
The
workgroup
did
not
constrain
the
recommendations
to
fit
within
available
resources.
Instead,
the
recommendations
are
a
comprehensive
list
that
U.
S.
EPA
organizations
can
consider
when
balancing
resource
allocations
across
competing
high­
priority
needs.

Key
scientific
questions,
which
are
given
below,
were
developed
for
each
major
topic
in
order
to
focus
discussions
on
scientific
needs
and
to
identify
recommended
science
activities
to
address
these
questions.

Key
Scientific
Questions:

Sediment
Site
Characterization:
What
physical,
chemical
and
biological
methods
best
characterize
sediments
and
assess
sediment
quality?

Exposure
Assessment:
What
are
the
primary
exposure
pathways
to
humans
and
wildlife
from
contaminants
in
sediments
and
how
can
we
reduce
uncertainty
in
quantifying
and
modeling
the
degree
of
exposure?

Human
Health
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment:
What
are
the
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
contaminants
in
sediments
through
direct
and
indirect
pathways?

Ecological
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment:
What
are
the
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
contaminants
in
sediments
to
wildlife
species
and
aquatic
communities?

Sediment
Remediation:
What
sediment
remedial
technology
or
combination
of
technologies
is
available
to
effectively
remediate
sites?

Baseline,
Remediation,
and
Post­
remediation
Monitoring:
What
types
of
monitoring
are
needed
to
ensure
that
the
implemented
remedy
meets
remedial
performance
goals
and
does
not
cause
unacceptable
short­
term
effects?

Risk
Communication
and
Community
Involvement:
How
can
we
provide
communities
with
more
meaningful
involvement
in
the
contaminated
sediments
cleanup
process?
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
ix
Information
Management
and
Exchange
Activities:
How
do
we
improve
information
management
and
exchange
activiti
es
on
contaminated
sediments
across
the
Agency?

Table
E­
1
summarizes
the
key
recommendations,
the
critical
U.
S.
EPA
partners,
and
the
immediate
or
long­
term
nature
of
the
science
needs.

Table
E­
1.
Summary
of
Key
Recommendations,
Time
Frame
for
Implementation,
and
Suggested
Critical
Partners
Recommendations
A.
Sediment
Site
Characterization
Immediate
Time
Frame
A.
1
Conduct
a
workshop
to
develop
a
consistent
approach
to
collecting
sediment
physical
property
data
for
use
in
evaluating
sediment
stability.
(OERR,
ORD,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

Longer
Time
Frame
A.
2
Develop
more
sensitive,
low­
cost
laboratory
methods
for
detecting
sediment
contaminants,
and
real­
time
or
near
real­
time
chemical
sensors
for
use
in
the
field.
(ORD,
OERR,
GLNPO)
A.
3
Develop
U.
S.
EPA­
approved
methods
with
lower
detection
limits
for
analysis
of
bioaccumulative
contaminants
of
concern
in
fish
tissue.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
A.
4
Develop
methods
for
analyzing
emerging
endocrine
disruptors,
including
alkylphenol
ethoxylates
(APEs)
and
their
metabolites.
(ORD)

B.
Exposure
Assessment
Immediate
Time
Frame
B.
1
Develop
a
tiered
framework
for
assessing
food
web
exposures.
(ORD,
OW,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
B.
2
Develop
guidance
and
identify
pilots
for
improving
coordination
between
TMDL
and
remedial
programs
in
waterways
with
contaminated
sediments.
(OW,
OSWER,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
B.
3
Develop
and
advise
on
the
use
of
the
most
valid
contaminant
fate
and
transport
models
that
allow
prediction
of
site­
specific
exposures
in
the
future.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
B.
4
Develop
a
consistent
approach
to
applying
sediment
stability
data
in
transport
modeling.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
x
C.
Human
Health
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
Immediate
Time
Frame
C.
1
Develop
guidance
for
characterizing
human
health
risks
on
a
PCB
congener
basis.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
C.
2
Develop
sediment
guidelines
for
bioaccumulative
contaminants
that
are
protective
of
human
health
via
the
fish
ingestion
pathway.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

Longer
Time
Frame
C.
3
Refine
methods
for
estimating
dermal
exposures
and
risk.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
C.
4
Evaluate
the
toxicity
and
reproductive
effects
of
newly
recognized
contaminants,
such
as
alkylphenol
ethoxylates
(APEs)
and
other
endocrine
disruptors
and
their
metabolites
on
human
health.
(ORD)

D.
Ecological
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
Immediate
Time
Frame
D.
1
Develop
sediment
guidelines
to
protect
wildlife
from
food
chain
effects.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
D.
3
Develop
guidance
on
how
to
interpret
ecological
sediment
toxicity
studies
(lab
or
in
situ
caged
studies);
and
how
to
interpret
the
significance
of
the
results
to
site
populations
and
communities.
(OW,
ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
D.
4
Acquire
data
and
develop
criteria
to
use
in
balancing
the
long­
term
benefits
from
dredging
vs.
the
shorter
term
effects
on
ecological
receptors
and
their
habitats.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
D.
6
Continue
developing
and
refining
sediment
toxicity
testing
methods.
(ORD,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
D.
7
Develop
whole
sediment
toxicity
identification
evaluation
procedures
for
a
wide
range
of
chemicals.
(ORD,
OW)

Longer
Time
Frame
D.
2
Develop
additional
tools
for
characterizing
ecological
risks.
(ORD,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
OW)
D.
5
Conduct
field
and
laboratory
studies
to
further
validate
and
improve
chemical­
specific
sediment
quality
guidelines.
(OW,
ORD)
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
xi
E.
Sediment
Remediation
Immediate
Time
Frame
E.
1
Collect
the
necessary
data
and
develop
guidance
for
determining
the
conditions
under
which
natural
recovery
can
be
considered
a
suitable
remedial
option.
Such
guidance
would
include:
measurement
protocols
to
assess
the
relative
contribution
of
the
various
mechanisms
for
chemical
releases
from
bed
sediments
(e.
g.,
advection,
bioturbation,
diffusion,
and
resuspension),
including
mass
transport
of
contaminants
by
large
storm
events;
methodologies
to
quantify
the
uncertainties
associated
with
natural
recovery;
and
development
of
accepted
measuring
protocols
to
determine
in
situ
chemical
fluxes
from
sediments.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
GLNPO)
E.
2
Develop
performance
evaluations
of
various
cap
designs
and
cap
placement
methods
and
conduct
post­
cap
monitoring
to
document
performance.
Continue
to
monitor
ongoing
capping
projects
to
monitor
performance
(e.
g.,
Boston
Harbor,
Eagle
Harbor,
Grasse
River).
(ORD,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
GLNPO)
E.
4
Using
the
data
provided
in
recommendation
E.
1,
develop
a
white
paper
evaluating
the
short­
term
impacts
from
dredging
relative
to
natural
processes
and
human
activities
(e.
g.,
resuspension
from
storm
events,
boat
scour,
wave
action,
and
anchor
drag).
(OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

Longer
Time
Frame
E.
3
Encourage
and
promote
the
development
and
demonstration
of
in­
situ
technologies.
(ORD,
GLNPO)
E.
5
Support
the
demonstration
of
cost­
effective
ex­
situ
treatment
technologies
and
identification
of
potential
beneficial
uses
of
treatment
products.
(ORD,
GLNPO,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

F.
Baseline,
Remediation,
and
Post­
remediation
Monitoring
Immediate
Time
Frame
F.
1
Develop
monitoring
guidance
fact
sheets
for
baseline,
remediation,
and
post­
remediation
monitoring,
and
monitoring
during
remedy
implementation.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
OW)
F.
2
Conduct
training
and
hold
workshops
for
project
managers
regarding
monitoring
of
contaminated
sediment
sites.
(OERR,
ORD,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

G.
Risk
Communication
and
Community
Involvement
Immediate
Time
Frame
G.
1
Establish
a
research
program
on
risk
communication
and
community
involvement
focusing
on
developing
better
methods,
models,
and
tools.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
xii
H.
Information
Management
and
Exchange
Activities
Immediate
Time
Frame
H.
1
Establish
regional
sediment
data
management
systems
which
can
link
the
regions
and
program
offices
with
each
other
and
with
the
National
Sediment
Inventory.
(U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
OW,
OSWER,
GLNPO)
H.
3
Develop
national
and
regional
contaminated
sediment
sites
web
sites
for
sharing
information.
(U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
OW,
OSWER,
GLNPO)
H.
4
Re­
establish
and
expand
the
Office
of
Water­
sponsored
Sediment
Network
by
including
more
regional
representation.
(OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
H.
5
Promote
communication
and
coordination
of
science
and
research
among
Federal
agencies.
(ORD,
OSWER,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
NOAA,
U.
S.
Navy,
U.
S.
ACE,
USGS,
U.
S.
FWS)
H.
6
Promote
the
exchange
of
scientific
information
via
scientific
fora
(i.
e.,
workshops,
journals,
and
meetings).
(CSMC,
OW,
OSWER,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
GLNPO)

Longer
Time
Frame
H.
2
Standardize
the
sediment
site
data
collection/
reporting
format.
Establish
minimum
protocols
for
Quality
Assurance/
Quality
Control
(QA/
QC).
(OEI,
OW
OSWER,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

Table
E­
2
is
a
list
of
the
Acronyms
used
in
the
Executive
Summary.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
xiii
Table
E­
2.
List
of
Acronyms
in
Executive
Summary.

APE
Alkylphenol
Ethoxylate
CSMC
Contaminated
Sediment
Management
Committee
GLNPO
Great
Lakes
National
Program
Office
NOAA
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
OEI
Office
of
Environmental
Information
OERR
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
OPPTS
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxic
Substances
ORD
Office
of
Research
and
Development
OSW
Office
of
Solid
Waste
OSWER
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
OW
Office
of
Water
PBT
Persistent,
Bioaccumulative,
and
Toxic
QA/
QC
Quality
Assurance/
Quality
Control
SF
Superfund
Program
SPC
Science
Policy
Council
TMDL
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
U.
S.
ACE
United
States
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
U.
S.
EPA
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
U.
S.
FWS
United
States
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
USGS
United
States
Geological
Survey
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
xiv
THIS
PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT
BLANK
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
xv
Suggested
Uses
of
This
Science
Plan
This
Science
Plan
is
designed
to
satisfy
a
number
of
different
perspectives
and
needs.
Here
are
three
suggested
approaches
to
its
use:

1.
For
those
within
or
outside
the
Agency
seeking
a
general
understanding
of
the
purposes
and
goals
of
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
(what
is
it
and
why
is
it
needed?)
and
some
understanding
of
its
history
and
Agency
activities
and
products,
the
reader
is
referred
to
Chapter
One
and
Two,
Goals
and
Objectives
and
Current
Understanding
of
Contaminated
Sediments,
res
pectively.

2.
Those
who
understand
the
contaminated
sediments
issues
in
general,
but
desire
to
analyze
and
assess
the
validity
of
the
scientific
basis
for
the
science
recommendations,
should
refer
to
Chapter
Three,
Assessing
the
Science
on
Contaminated
Sediments,
in
conjunction
with
Section
4.2,
Key
Recommendations.

3.
Knowledgeable
risk
assessors,
risk
managers,
and
program
managers
who
desire
to
see
how
the
science
plan
directly
impacts
their
programs
will
find
a
quick
overview,
the
key
recommendations,
and
the
recommended
approach
for
implementation
of
the
science
plan
in
Chapter
Four,
Long
Range
Science
Strategy.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
xvi
THIS
PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT
BLANK
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
1
Contaminated
sediments
are
defined
as
soils,
sand,
and
organic
matter,
or
minerals
that
accumulate
on
the
bottom
of
a
water
body
and
contain
toxic
or
hazardous
materials
that
may
adversely
affect
human
health
or
the
environment
(U.
S.
EPA's
Contaminated
Sediment
Management
Strategy
(U.
S.
EPA­
823­
R­
98­
001).
1.
GOALS
AND
OBJECTIVES
1.1
Introduction
The
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
(Science
Plan)
is
a
mechanism
for
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(U.
S.
EPA)
to
develop
and
coordinate
Agency
office­
and
region­
wide
science
activities
in
the
contaminated
sediments
area.
Along
with
U.
S.
EPA's
contaminated
sediment
science
activities'
database
(Appendix
A),
this
plan
provides
an
analysis
of
the
current
Agency
science
activities
in
this
area,
identifies
and
evaluates
the
science
gaps,
and
provides
a
strategy
for
filling
these
gaps.

In
2000,
U.
S.
EPA's
Science
Policy
Council
(SPC)
initiated
the
development
of
the
Science
Plan
because
contamination
of
sediments
is
a
multi­
faceted,
high
profile
issue
which
can
benefit
from
a
more
comprehensive
and
higher
level
of
coordination
across
the
Agency.
Extensive
resources
are
spent
by
a
number
of
Agency
program
offices
to
address
contaminated
sediment
problems.
Program
offices
addressing
this
problem
include:
the
Superfund
Program
(SF),
Office
of
Water
(OW),
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(OSW),
Great
Lakes
National
Program
Office
(GLNPO),
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxic
Substances
(OPPTS),
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(ORD),
and
U.
S.
EPA
Regional
Offices.

U.
S.
EPA's
mission
is
to
protect
human
health
and
to
safeguard
the
natural
environment
–
air,
water,
and
land
–
upon
which
life
depends.
Sediments
are
an
integral
component
of
aquatic
ecosystems
providing
habitats
for
many
aquatic
organisms.
Many
sediment­
dwelling
organisms
at
the
base
of
the
food
chain
are
eaten
by
organisms
at
higher
trophic
levels.
Contaminants
in
sediments
1
pose
a
threat
to
human
health,
aquatic
life,
and
the
environment.
Chemicals
released
to
surface
waters
from
industrial
and
municipal
discharges,
atmospheric
deposition,
and
polluted
runoff
from
urban
and
agricultural
areas
can
accumulate
to
environmentally
harmful
levels
in
sediment.
Humans,
aquatic
organisms,
and
other
wildlife
are
at
risk
through
direct
exposure
to
pollutants
or
through
consumption
of
contaminated
fish
and
wildlife.
Exposure
to
these
contaminants
is
linked
to
cancer,
birth
defects,
neurological
defects,
immune
dysfunction,
and
liver
and
kidney
ailments.
Contaminated
sediments
may
also
cause
economic
impacts,
at
both
the
local
and
regional
level,
on
the
transportation,
fishing,
tourism,
and
development
industries.

Sediment
contamination
is
an
issue
that
cuts
across
offices
and
jurisdictions
throughout
the
Agency,
other
Federal
agencies
(e.
g.,
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(NOAA),
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(U.
S.
FWS),
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
(U.
S.
ACE)),
state
agencies,
and
tribes.
U.
S.
EPA
programs
with
the
authority
to
address
sediment
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
2
contamination
operate
under
the
mandate
of
many
statutory
provisions
including
the
Comprehensive
Emergency
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(CERCLA),
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA),
the
Clean
Water
Act
(CWA),
the
Oil
Pollution
Act
(OPA),
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(TSCA),
and
the
Marine
Protection,
Research,
and
Sanctuaries
Act
(MPRSA).
Other
Federal
agencies
having
authorities
that
may
be
used
to
address
contaminated
sediments
include:
U.
S.
ACE,
through
the
statutory
provisions
of
the
Water
Resources
Development
Act
(WRDA),
Clean
Water
Act
(CWA),
and
the
Marine
Protection,
Research,
and
Sanctuaries
Act
(MPRSA);
and
U.
S.
FWS
and
NOAA,
through
Natural
Resources
Damages
(NRD)
aut
hority.

The
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
is
the
first
formal
example
of
an
Agency
science
plan
on
a
specific
cross­
Agency
activity,
i.
e.,
contaminated
sediment
activities
shared
across
U.
S.
EPA
offices
and
regions.
However,
it
follows
in
the
footsteps
of
previous
U.
S.
EPA
initiatives,
such
as
the
Mercury
Action
Plan
(U.
S.
EPA,
2001c),
the
Action
Plan
for
Beaches
and
Recreational
Waters
(Beach
Action
Plan)
(U.
S.
EPA,
1999a),
and
A
Multimedia
Strategy
for
Priority
Persistent,
Bioaccumulative,
and
Toxic
(PBT)
Pollutants
(U.
S.
EPA,
1998a).
These
plans
and
strategies
contain
elements
of
both
science
plans
and
management
action
plans.

1.2
Goals
of
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
The
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
has
three
goals
which
are
highlighted
in
Figure
1­
1.
The
first
goal
is
the
development
and
dissemination
of
tools
and
science
necessary
to
address
the
management
of
contaminated
sediments.
The
second
goal
is
to
enhance
the
level
of
coordination
and
communication
of
science
activities
dealing
with
contaminated
sediments
across
Agency
program
and
regional
offices.
The
third
goal
is
to
develop
an
effective,
costefficient
strategy
to
promote
these
scientific
activities,
including
research.
These
goals
promote
the
vision
of
providing
a
strong
scientific
basis
for
addressing
contaminated
sediments.
The
result
will
be
a
more
effective
science
plan
with
improved
environmental
decision­
making
which
conserves
both
human
and
financial
resources.
Figure
1­
1.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan:
G
oals
°
Development
and
dissemination
of
tools
and
science
necessary
to
address
the
management
of
contaminated
sediments.

°
Enhancement
of
the
level
of
coordination
and
communication
of
science
activities
across
the
Agency.

°
Development
of
an
effective,
cost­
efficient
strategy
to
promote
these
scientific
activities
and
research.

Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan:
Expected
Results
°
Improved
environmental
decision­
making
which
is
more
informed
and
has
a
sound
science
basis.

°
More
efficient
and
appropriate
expenditure
of
resources.

°
Prevention
of
duplication
of
efforts.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
3
The
goals
of
the
Science
Plan
are
based
upon
the
strategic
guiding
principles
proposed
in
the
Strategic
Framework
for
U.
S.
EPA
Science
(U.
S.
EPA,
2000e)
to
unify
science
activities
across
the
Agency.
First,
this
Science
Plan
uses
the
Sediment
Science
Inventory
to
assemble
and
evaluate
the
current
contaminated
sediment
science
activities
and
research
across
the
Agency.
Second,
it
uses
effective
planning
("
doing
the
right
science")
to
insure
that
the
most
appropriate
science
activities
are
being
conducted.
Third,
it
uses
sound
scientific
practices
and
approaches
("
doing
the
science
right"),
such
as
Agency
and
public
consultation
and
external
peer
review,
in
its
development
(Figure
1­
2).

1.3
Development
of
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
The
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Workgroup
has
been
responsible
for
the
development
of
this
Science
Plan,
although
it
has
also
received
wide
input
from
staff
from
U.
S.
EPA's
regional
and
program
offices.
The
development
process
is
described
below.

A
cross­
Agency
workgroup
of
key
staff
working
in
the
contaminated
sediments
area,
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Workgroup,
was
charged
by
the
SPC
with
developing
a
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
(2000).
The
Workgroup
went
through
the
following
action
steps
to
develop
this
Science
Plan:

°
Collected
information
on
contaminated
sediments
research
and
science
activities
across
the
Agency.
°
Incorporated
the
identified
science
activities
into
U.
S.
EPA
Science
Inventory.
°
Identified
key
contaminated
sediments
issues
and
data
gaps.
°
Identified
areas
for
better
coordination
of
contaminated
sediments
research
and
science
activities.
°
Developed
a
strategy
for
future
contaminated
sediments
research
and
science
activities.
°
Provided
for
a
broad
consultative
review
of
the
Science
Plan
both
internal
and
external
to
the
Agency,
and
a
Science
Advisory
Board
(SAB)
peer
review.
°
Developed
a
strategy
to
implement
the
Science
Plan
and
evaluate
its
performance
(see
Section
4.3
for
details).

Weekly
conference
calls
and
a
two­
day
meeting
in
June
2001
resulted
in
a
draft
of
the
Science
Plan
which
was
then
circulated
for
internal
review
to
ensure
both
accuracy
and
completeness
of
the
document.
External
review
included
other
Federal
agencies,
states,
tribes,
and
others,
in
addition
to
a
formal
peer
review
by
the
Agency's
Science
Advisory
Board.
The
review
process
is
outlined
in
Figure
1­
2.

Other
important
inputs
to
the
development
of
the
Science
Plan
were
recommendations
contained
in
the
Contaminated
Sediment
Management
Strategy
(U.
S.
EPA,
1998b),
A
Risk
Management
Strategy
for
PCB­
Contaminated
Sediments
(NRC,
2001a),
and
Contaminated
Sediments
in
Ports
and
Waterways
(NRC,
1997).
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
4
Figure
1­
2.
Peer
Consultation
Process
for
the
Science
Plan
1.4
Linkage
of
the
Science
Plan
to
Agency
Planning
Processes
Organizations
within
U.
S.
EPA
use
various
planning
processes
to
ensure
that
they
meet
the
Agency's
National
Strategic
Plan
goals.
For
planning
cross­
program
work,
three
tools
are
available.
Two
of
these
tools
are
management
strategies
and
action
plans,
which
describe
commitments
by
all
of
the
relevant
organizations
within
U.
S.
EPA
to
meet
specified
goals.
Examples
of
these
documents
are
the
Mercury
Management
Strategy
(U.
S.
EPA,
2001c)
and
the
Beaches
Action
Plan
(U.
S.
EPA,
1999a).
These
types
of
documents
usually
focus
on
statutory
authorities
and
implementation
by
the
program
offices
and
regions;
research
needs
are
usually
considered.
The
third
and
newest
tool
is
the
science
plan.
The
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
is
the
first
formal
example
of
an
agency
science
plan
on
a
specific
cross­
Agency
activity.
A
science
plan
is
developed
to
ensure
that
science
is
at
the
foundation
of
U.
S.
EPA
activities
when
multiple
offices
are
addressing
complex
environmental
management
issues.

The
Science
Plan
is
an
important
tool
that
will
be
used
by
U.
S.
EPA
regional
and
program
offices
in
annual
budget
formulation
and
work
planning
processes.
Implementation
of
the
Science
Plan
will
help
identify
the
highest
priority
contaminated
sediment
needs,
coordinate
ongoing
work
across
the
Agency,
avoid
duplication
of
effort,
and
promote
complementary
endeavors.
Workload
requirements
to
implement
Science
Plan
recommendations
need
to
be
evaluated
to
determine
if
new
budget
initiatives
will
be
needed.
The
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
will
receive
the
same
analysis
and
accountability
reviews
as
any
other
Agency
science/
technical
assessment
priority.
Agency
annual
planning
cycles
and
annual
performance
measures
should
be
examined
by
lead
offices
and
regions
to
see
how
U.
S.
EPA
is
addressing
Science
Plan
recommendations
(please
refer
to
Section
4.3
on
Science
Plan
implementation).

The
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
encompasses
more
than
research,
but
where
research
needs
are
identified,
it
will
inform
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(ORD)
of
the
most
important
contaminated
sediment
needs
to
consider
during
the
ORD
annual
planning
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
5
Figure
1­
3:
Schematic
illustration
of
the
relationship
of
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
to
U.
S.
EPA
GPRA
Goals,
program
and
regional
office
plans,
and
ORD's
multi­
year
plans.
cycle.
ORD
plans
its
research
through
Multi­
Year
Plans
(MYPs)
to
provide
a
long­
term
view
of
the
research
direction.
Research
Coordination
Teams
(RCTs),
comprised
of
representatives
from
ORD
and
U.
S.
EPA
regions
and
program
offices,
participate
in
developing
MYPs
and
determining
research
priorities.
The
National
Regional
Science
Council
(NRSC),
formed
in
1997,
helps
the
regions
to
focus
their
research
needs
for
ORD's
consideration.
The
multi­
year
plans
and
annual
resource
planning
describe
how
ORD
will
address
recommendations
in
the
Science
Plan.

Figure
1­
3
is
a
schematic
illustration
of
the
relationship
of
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
to
U.
S.
EPA
Government
Performance
and
Results
Act
(GPRA)
Goals
and
program
and
regional
office
plans
and
ORD's
multi­
year
plans.
The
Science
Plan
reflects
the
Agency's
integrated
efforts
to
achieve
the
GPRA
goals
and
objectives,
e.
g.,
Goal
5,
Objective
1
discussed
below
in
Section
1.5,
for
contaminated
sediments.
This
effort
is
accomplished
through
cooperation
among
the
critical
partners,
OSWER,
OW,
ORD
and
the
regional
offices,
within
U.
S.
EPA.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
6
1.5
Continuity
of
the
Science
Plan
with
Agency
National
Strategic
Plan
Goals
The
relevance
of
addressing
the
problem
of
contaminated
sediments
to
the
Agency's
mission
is
reflected
in
the
linkages
with
U.
S.
EPA's
National
Strategic
Plan
goals,
as
discussed
below.
The
GPRA
requires
all
Federal
agencies
to
develop
a
five­
year
strategic
plan
that
establishes
clear
goals,
objectives,
and
annual
performance
measures.
The
strategic
plan
is
updated
every
three
years,
and
agencies
must
report
back
to
Congress
annually
on
the
results
achieved.
U.
S.
EPA's
Strategic
Plan
establishes
ten
goals
that
identify
the
environmental
results
that
U.
S.
EPA
is
working
to
attain.
Contaminated
sediments
is
a
significant
multi­
media
issue
related
to
the
desired
results
for
many
of
the
goals
(Table
1­
1).
Addressing
contaminated
sediment
problems
significantly
helps
the
Agency
achieve
identified
environmental
outcomes.

Table
1­
1.

GPRA
Goal
2
­
Clean
and
Safe
Waters
OBJECTIVE(
S)
POTENTIAL
EFFECTS
OF
CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS
°
Objective
1
­
Reduce
consumption
of
contaminated
fish.
Pollutants
can
bind
to
organic
particles
in
the
water
column,
sediments
and
soils.
Contaminants
in
sediments
can
enter
the
aquatic
food
chain,
thus
contaminating
aquatic
organisms
and
ultimately
placing
humans
at
risk
of
adverse
health
effects
from
consumption
of
these
organisms.
U.
S.
EPA
is
addressing
contaminants
in
sediments
in
order
to
prevent
contaminant
movement
through
the
food
chain.

°
Objective
2
­
Increase
the
percentage
of
waters
meeting
standards
that
support
healthy
aquatic
ecosystems.
Contaminated
sediments
can
cause
impairment,
threatening
healthy
aquatic
communities.

GPRA
Goal
5
­
Better
Waste
Management,
Restoration
of
Contaminated
Sites,
and
Emergency
Response
OBJECTIVE(
S)
POTENTIAL
EFFECTS
OF
CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS
°
Objective
1
­
Reduce
or
control
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Toxic
substances
in
sediments,
such
as
PCBs
and
mercury,
can
enter
the
aquatic
food
chain,
contaminate
fish,
and
place
wildlife
and
humans
at
risk
through
their
c
onsumption.
U.
S.
E
PA
is
working
to
clean
up
contaminated
sediment
sites
to
prevent
harm
to
human
health
and
the
environme
nt.

GPRA
Goal
6
­
Reduction
of
Global
and
Cross­
Border
Environmental
Risks
OBJECTIVE(
S)
POTENTIAL
EFFECTS
OF
CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS
°
Objective
1
­
Reduce
transboundary
threats:
North
American
ecosystems.
Sediments
contaminated
with
toxics
such
as
mercury
represent
transboundary
threats
to
ecosystems
and
human
health
via
water
or
via
global
dispersion
of
air
emissions.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
7
S
Sub­
objective
1.4
­
Restore
and
maintain
the
chemic
al,
physical,
and
biological
integrity
of
the
Great
Lakes
Basin
Ec
osystem,
particularly
by
reducing
the
level
of
toxic
substances,
protecting
human
health,
and
restoring
vital
habitats.
Toxic
substances
such
as
PCBs
and
mercury
in
sediments
can
enter
the
aquatic
food
chain
and
cause
toxic
effects.
As
a
result,
the
presence
of
toxic
substances
impacts
the
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
integrity
of
the
Great
Lakes
and
connecting
tributaries.

C
Objective
5
­
Application
of
cleaner
and
cost­
effective
environmental
practices
and
technolo
gies.
Development
of
treatment,
recycling,
or
dredging
technologies
within
the
United
States
and
abroad
will
enhance
cost­
effective
practices
which
strengthen
the
economy
and
protect
the
environment.

GPRA
Goal
8
­
Sound
Science
OBJECTIVE(
S)
POTENTIAL
EFFECTS
OF
CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS
C
Objective
2
­
Improve
models
that
integrate
exp
osures
from
multiple
pathways.
Contaminated
sediments
may
cause
unwanted,
adverse
consequences
to
human
life,
he
alth,
and
the
en
vironment,
and
U.
S.
E
PA
is
committed
to
using
the
best
available
science
to
reduce
the
risk.

1.6
Document
Organization
The
Science
Plan
is
organized
into
four
chapters.
Chapter
One
discusses
the
goals,
objectives,
and
how
the
Science
Plan
relates
to
the
Agency's
mandate.
Chapter
Two
provides
an
overview
of
the
contaminated
sediment
issues
across
the
Agency.
The
brief
description
of
issues
in
Chapter
Two
is
intended
to
provide
an
introduction
to
the
discussion
of
contaminated
sediment
issues,
as
well
as
providing
the
overall
context
for
the
more
detailed
discussion
of
specific
research
and
science
needs
given
in
Chapter
Three.

Chapter
Three,
along
with
U.
S.
EPA's
contaminated
sediment
science
activities
database
(Appendix
A),
is
the
data
collection
and
analysis
section
of
the
Science
Plan.
It
documents
the
current
contaminated
sediment
science
activities
ongoing
within
the
Agency,
and
places
these
activities
within
the
context
of
Agency
goals.
Significant
data
gaps
and
uncertainties
in
methodology/
assessment
procedures
are
identified.
Finally,
it
proposes
research
and
science
activities
to
fill
those
data
gaps
and
resolve
related
issues.

Chapter
Four
provides
the
key
recommendations
for
future
Agency
science
activities,
including
research,
based
on
the
discussion
in
Chapter
Three.
For
each
recommendation,
critical
U.
S.
EPA
partners
and
the
immediate
or
long­
term
nature
of
the
science
activity
are
proposed.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
8
THIS
PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT
BLANK
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
9
2.
CURRENT
UNDERSTANDING
OF
CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS
2.1
Introduction
Chapter
Two
provides
an
overview
of
the
contaminated
sediment
problems
and
issues
across
U.
S.
EPA.
The
brief
description
of
issues
in
this
chapter
is
meant
to
provide
an
introduction
to
the
discussion
of
contaminated
sediment
issues,
as
well
as
providing
the
overall
context
for
the
more
detailed
discussion
of
specific
research
and
science
needs
given
in
Chapter
Three
of
this
Science
Plan.

2.2
Scope,
Magnitude,
and
Impacts
of
Contaminated
Sediments
U.
S.
EPA
defines
contaminated
sediments
as
soils,
sand,
and
organic
matter
or
minerals
that
accumulate
on
the
bottom
of
a
water
body
and
contain
toxic
or
hazardous
materials
that
may
adversely
affect
human
health
or
the
environment
(U.
S.
EPA,
1998d).
In
1997,
U.
S.
EPA
published
its
first
National
Sediment
Quality
Survey
Report
to
Congress,
The
Incidence
and
Severity
of
Sediment
Contamination
in
Surface
Waters
of
the
United
States
(U.
S.
EPA,
1997a).
This
report
describes
areas
where
sediment
may
be
contaminated
at
levels
that
may
adversely
affect
aquatic
life,
wildlife,
and
human
health.
To
evaluate
sediment
quality
nationwide,
U.
S.
EPA
developed
the
National
Sediment
Inventory
(NSI)
database,
which
is
a
compilation
of
existing
sediment
quality
data
and
protocols
used
to
evaluate
the
data.
The
NSI
was
used
to
produce
the
first
biennial
Report
to
Congress
on
sediment
quality
in
the
United
States
as
required
under
the
Water
Resources
Development
Act
of
1992
(U.
S.
EPA,
1997a).
These
data
were
generated
from
1980
to
1993,
and
represent
information
collected
from
1,363
out
of
2,111
watersheds
in
the
United
States.
U.
S.
EPA's
evaluation
of
the
data
shows
that
sediment
contamination
exists
in
every
region
and
state
of
the
country
and
that
various
waters
throughout
the
United
States
contain
sediment
sufficiently
contaminated
with
toxic
pollutants
to
pose
potential
risks
to
sediment­
dwelling
organisms,
fish,
and
humans
and
wildlife
that
eat
fish.
Figure
2­
1
shows
the
locations
of
ninety­
six
(96)
watersheds
identified
by
U.
S.
EPA
as
"areas
of
probable
concern"
for
potential
adverse
effects
of
sediment
contamination
on
human
health
or
the
environment.
These
areas
are
on
the
Atlantic,
Gulf
of
Mexico,
Great
Lakes,
and
Pacific
coasts,
as
well
as
in
inland
waterways,
in
regions
affected
by
urban
and
agricultural
runoff,
municipal
and
industrial
waste
discharges,
and
other
pollution
sources.
U.
S.
EPA
is
currently
developing
the
next
Report
to
Congress
to
be
available
in
2002.

Sediments
act
as
both
a
repository
and
a
source
of
pollutants.
Many
of
these
pollutants
adsorb
onto
sediment
particles
which
eventually
settle
to
the
bottom
of
water
bodies.
Over
time
these
pollutants
may
be
buried
under
layers
of
cleaner
sediments.
But
sediments
are
subject
to
erosion
and
resuspension,
which
may
result
in
the
pollutants
being
released
and
dispersed
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
10
Figure
2­
1.

through
the
water
column
for
transport
downstream,
uptake
through
the
food
chain,
or
release
to
the
atmosphere
via
volatilization,
for
transport
through
the
air
and
re­
deposition
into
lakes
and
other
waterways.

The
bioaccumulative,
persistent,
and
toxic
contaminants
in
sediment
affect
aquatic
life
and
wildlife
through
direct
contact,
ingestion,
and
food
chain
effects.
These
impacts
include
reproductive
effects,
developmental
effects,
birth
defects,
cancer,
tumors,
and
other
deformities.
Humans
are
also
at
risk
through
direct
exposure
to
pollutants
or
through
consumption
of
contaminated
fish
and
wildlife.
Exposure
to
these
contaminants
is
linked
to
cancer,
birth
defects,
neurological
defects
(e.
g.,
in
infants
and
children),
immune
dysfunction,
and
liver
and
kidney
ailments.
Research
is
currently
underway
studying
the
potential
for
endocrine
disruption
effects
due
to
contaminants
in
sediments.

In
addition,
contaminated
sediments
can
impose
costs
on
society
through
lost
recreational
opportunities
and
revenues.
For
example,
fish
consumption
advisories
can
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
use
of
our
natural
resources.
Approximately
twenty­
three
percent
of
the
nation's
lake
acreage
and
nine­
point­
three
percent
(9.3%)
of
the
nation's
river
miles
are
under
advisory
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
11
for
fish
consumption.
Many
of
these
advisories
can
be
linked
to
contaminated
sediments.
Contaminated
sediments
may
also
cause
severe
economic
impacts
at
both
the
local
and
regional
level.
Economic
risk
may
be
felt
by
the
transportation,
fishing,
tourism,
and
development
industries.
In
one
Great
Lakes
harbor,
the
Indiana
Harbor
Ship
Canal,
contaminated
sediments
are
imposing
an
annual
cost
of
eleven
to
seventeen
million
dollars
(Peck
et
al.,
1994).

2.3
Overview
of
Major
Sediment
Issues
and
Needs
Across
the
Agency
The
management
of
contaminated
sediments
is
a
multi­
faceted
challenge
for
the
Agency.
As
a
multi­
media
issue,
aspects
of
contaminated
sediment
management
fall
under
different
parts
of
U.
S.
EPA.
This
section
provides
an
overview
of
the
major
contaminated
sediment
issues
from
across
the
Agency.
This
discussion
is
meant
to
provide
the
overall
context
for
the
discussion
of
the
specific
research
and
science
needs
that
follow
in
Chapter
Three.

Water
Quality
Standards
The
Clean
Water
Act
(CWA)
was
established
to
restore
and
maintain
the
quality
of
waters
in
the
United
States
(U.
S.).
Sediment
underlying
surface
water
is
recognized
as
a
significant
source
of,
and
sink
for,
toxic
pollutants
in
the
aquatic
environment.
Therefore,
addressing
sediment
quality
is
an
integral
component
of
water
quality
standards
programs.
It
is
necessary
to
incorporate
appropriate
sediment
quality
protection
policies
and
procedures
to
protect
and
maintain
designated
water
uses.
At
a
minimum,
states
and
authorized
tribes
must
provide
water
quality
for
the
protection
and
propagation
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
wildlife,
and
provide
for
recreation
in
and
on
the
water,
where
attainable
(CWA
Section
101(
a)).
Sediment
quality
can
affect
the
attainment
of
designated
uses.
It
is
therefore
both
necessary
and
appropriate
to
assess
and
protect
sediment
quality
as
an
essential
component
of
the
total
aquatic
environment
in
order
to
achieve
and
maintain
designated
uses.

Development
of
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(TMDLs)

Section
303(
d)
of
the
CWA
and
its
implementing
regulations
(40
CFR
130.7)
require
states
and
authorized
tribes
to
establish
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(TMDLs)
of
pollutant
discharge
at
levels
necessary
to
achieve
applicable
water
quality
standards.
TMDLs
identify
the
loading
capacity
of
the
water
body,
wasteload
allocations
for
point
sources,
and
load
allocations
(LA)
for
nonpoint
sources
and
natural
background.
About
40,000
TMDLs
are
required
for
about
20,000
impaired
water
bodies
in
U.
S.,
based
on
U.
S.
EPA's
1998
list
of
impaired
waters.
About
twenty­
four
percent
of
the
TMDLs
(based
on
1998
data
from
the
TMDL
tracking
system)
are
for
pollutants
that
are
also
found
in
contaminated
sediments.
These
TMDLs
will
require
some
analysis
for
the
contribution
of
pollutants
from
contaminated
sediments.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
12
Developing
a
TMDL
is
a
mass
balance
exercise
that
considers
contaminant
loads
(particulate
and
dissolved)
from
all
sources,
incorporates
dilution
and
downstream
fate
and
transport,
includes
a
margin
of
safety,
and
allocates
the
permissible
pollutant
load
among
point
sources,
nonpoint
sources,
and
natural/
background
sources.
A
TMDL
is
a
written
analysis
and
plan
established
to
ensure
that
a
water
body
or
group
of
water
bodies
within
a
watershed
will
attain
and
maintain
water
quality
standards
throughout
the
year.
A
TMDL
identifies
the
wasteload
allocations
and
load
allocations
that
together,
along
with
a
consideration
of
a
margin
of
safety
and
seasonal
variations,
will
achieve
water
quality
standards.

Fish
Advisories
The
states,
U.
S.
territories,
and
Native
American
tribes
have
primary
responsibility
for
protecting
their
residents
from
the
health
risks
of
consuming
contaminated,
non­
commercially
caught
fish
and
wildlife.
They
do
this
by
issuing
consumption
advisories
for
chemicals
such
as
mercury
or
PCBs
for
the
general
population
as
well
as
for
sensitive
subpopulations
(e.
g.,
pregnant
women,
nursing
mothers,
and
children).
These
advisories
inform
the
public
when
high
concentrations
of
chemical
contaminants
have
been
found
in
local
fish
and
wildlife
and
include
recommendations
to
limit
or
avoid
consumption
of
certain
fish
and
wildlife
species
from
specific
water
bodies
or
water
body
types.
Approximately
twenty­
three
percent
of
the
nation's
lake
acreage
and
over
nine
percent
(9.3%)
of
the
nation's
river
miles
are
under
advisory
for
fish
consumption.
Many
of
these
advisories
can
be
linked
to
contaminated
sediments.
One
hundred
percent
of
the
Great
Lakes
and
their
connecting
waters
and
seventy­
one
percent
of
coastal
waters
of
the
contiguous
forty­
eight
states
were
under
advisories
in
2000.
It
is
expected
that
addressing
sediment
quality
issues
will
reduce
the
need
for
issuance
of
such
consumption
advisories.

Management
of
Dredged
Material
from
Navigational
Dredging
Several
hundred
million
cubic
yards
of
sediment
are
dredged
from
United
States
ports,
harbors,
and
waterways
each
year
to
maintain
and
improve
the
nation's
navigation
system
for
commercial,
national
defense,
and
recreational
purposes.
Of
the
total
sediment
volume
dredged,
approximately
one­
fifth
is
disposed
of
in
the
ocean
(i.
e.,
waters
outside
the
baseline)
at
designated
sites
in
accordance
with
Section
103
of
the
Marine
Protection,
Research,
and
Sanctuaries
Act
(MPRSA).
Most
of
the
remaining
dredged
material
is
discharged
into
inland
waters
of
the
United
States
(i.
e.,
waters
inside
the
baseline),
placed
in
confined
disposal
facilities
with
a
return
flow
to
waters
of
the
U.
S.
(i.
e.,
inland
waters
and
waters
out
to
three
miles
from
the
baseline),
or
used
for
beneficial
purposes
(including
as
fill)
in
waters
of
the
U.
S.,
all
of
which
are
regulated
under
Section
404
of
the
CWA.

U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
(U.
S.
ACE),
the
Federal
agency
designated
to
maintain
navigable
waters,
conducts
a
majority
of
this
dredging
and
disposal
under
its
Congressionally
authorized
civil
works
program.
The
balance
of
the
dredging
and
disposal
is
conducted
by
a
number
of
local
public
and
private
entities.
In
either
case,
the
disposal
is
subject
to
a
regulatory
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
13
program
administered
by
U.
S.
ACE
and
U.
S.
EPA
under
the
above
statutes.
U.
S.
EPA
shares
the
responsibility
of
managing
dredged
material,
principally
in
the
development
of
the
environmental
criteria
by
which
proposed
discharges
are
evaluated
and
disposal
sites
are
selected,
and
in
the
exercise
of
its
environmental
oversight
authority.
Estimates
by
U.
S.
ACE
indicate
that
only
a
small
percentage
of
the
total
annual
volume
of
dredged
material
disposed
(approximately
three
million
to
twelve
million
cubic
yards)
is
contaminated
such
that
special
handling
and/
or
treatment
is
required.

Superfund
Sites
Superfund
is
the
Federal
government's
program
to
clean
up
the
nation's
uncontrolled
hazardous
waste
sites.
The
National
Priorities
List
(NPL)
is
a
published
list
of
priority
hazardous
waste
sites
in
the
country
that
are
being
addressed
by
the
Superfund
program.
The
regions
have
identified
about
four
hundred
NPL
sites
potentially
having
contaminated
sediments.
These
include
a
number
of
very
large
contaminated
sediment
sites
where
remedies
may
cost
up
to
several
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars.
The
major
issues
associated
with
contaminated
sediments
include
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
limited
disposal
space,
high
costs,
and
the
uncertainties
related
to
risk
management
options.

Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
Sites
Like
the
Superfund
program,
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
sites/
facilities
are
remediated
to
support
current
and
reasonably
anticipated
uses.
RCRA
authority
for
Corrective
Action
is
to
clean
up
releases
from
a
specific
facility;
therefore
it
is
less
amenable
to
an
area­
wide
approach
than
Superfund.
The
number
of
RCRA
sites
with
contaminated
sediment
issues
is
smaller
than
the
number
of
Comprehensive
Emergency
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(CERCLA)
contaminated
sediment
sites.
In
March
1999,
the
regions
and
states
identified
seventeen
RCRA
Corrective
Action
sites
with
sediment
contamination
problems.
The
major
issues
associated
with
contaminated
sediments
related
to
RCRA
sites
include
uncertainties
regarding
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
and
uncertainties
related
to
risk
management
options.

Deposition
of
Contaminants
via
Long­
Range
Air
Transport
Over
the
past
thirty
years,
scientists
have
collected
a
large
amount
of
data
indicating
that
air
pollutants
can
be
redeposited
on
land
and
water,
sometimes
at
great
distances
from
their
original
sources.
These
data
demonstrate
that
air
transport
of
contaminants
can
be
an
important
contributor
to
declining
water
quality.
These
air
pollutants
can
have
undesirable
health
and
environmental
impacts:
contributing
to
fish
body
burdens
of
toxic
chemicals,
causing
harmful
algal
blooms
through
deposition
of
nutrients,
and
impacting
water
quality,
resulting
in
unsafe
drinking
water.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
14
In
response
to
mounting
evidence
indicating
that
air
pollution
contributes
significantly
to
water
pollution,
Congress
added
the
Great
Waters
Program
(Section
112(
m))
when
it
amended
the
Clean
Air
Act
in
1990.
The
Great
Waters
Program,
a
joint
program
including
U.
S.
EPA
and
NOAA,
is
designed
to
study
and
address
the
effects
of
air
pollution
on
the
water
quality
and
ecosystems
of
the
Great
Lakes,
Lake
Champlain,
the
Chesapeake
Bay,
and
estuaries
that
are
part
of
the
National
Estuary
Program
or
the
National
Estuarine
Research
Reserve
System.

Persistent,
Bioaccumulative,
and
Toxic
Pollutants
(PBTs)

PBTs
often
accumulate
in
sediments.
The
Agency
has
three
major
efforts
related
to
PBTs:
a
PBT
Initiative,
the
Binational
Strategy
to
Reduce
Toxics,
and
Testing
Requirements
under
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
(FIFRA)
and
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(TSCA)
for
Pesticides
and
Toxic
Substances
use.

PBT
Initiative
U.
S.
EPA
has
developed
and
is
implementing
a
national
multi­
media
strategy
for
the
reduction
of
persistent,
bioaccumulative,
toxic
chemicals
(PBTs),
entitled
the
PBT
Initiative.
The
goal
of
this
strategy
is
to
reduce
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
from
existing
and
future
exposure
to
priority
pollutants.
The
four
main
elements
of
the
PBT
Initiative
are:

1.
Develop
and
implement
national
action
plans
to
reduce
priority
PBT
pollutants,
utilizing
the
full
range
of
U.
S.
EPA
tools.

2.
Continue
to
screen
and
select
more
priority
pollutants
for
action.

3.
Prevent
new
PBTs
from
entering
the
marketplace.

4.
Measure
progress
of
these
actions
against
U.
S.
EPA's
Government
Performance
Results
Act
(GPRA)
goals
and
national
commitments.

U.
S.
EPA's
challenge
in
reducing
risks
from
PBTs
stems
from
the
pollutants'
ability
to
travel
long
distances,
to
transfer
rather
easily
among
air,
water,
and
land,
and
to
linger
for
generations
in
people
and
the
environment.
Although
much
work
has
been
done
over
the
years
to
reduce
the
risk
associated
with
these
chemicals,
they
frequently
occur
at
levels
of
concern
in
fish
tissue.
All
of
the
substances
that
are
causing
the
fish
consumption
advisories
are
PBTs.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
15
Great
Lakes
Binational
Toxics
Strategy
The
Great
Lakes
Binational
Toxics
Strategy
provides
a
framework
for
actions
to
reduce
or
eliminate
persistent,
toxic
substances
from
the
Great
Lakes
Basin,
especially
those
that
bioaccumulate.
The
Strategy
was
developed
jointly
by
Canada
and
the
United
States
in
1996
and
1997
and
was
signed
April
7,
1997.
The
Strategy
establishes
reduction
challenges
for
an
initial
list
of
persistent,
toxic
substances
targeted
for
virtual
elimination
(`
Level
One'
substances)
which
are
synonymous
with
the
first
twelve
priority
pollutants
identified
through
the
PBT
Initiative.
These
substances
have
been
associated
with
widespread
long­
term
adverse
effects
on
wildlife
in
the
Great
Lakes,
and,
through
their
bioaccumulation,
are
of
concern
for
human
health.
The
Strategy
provides
a
framework
for
action
to
achieve
specific
quantifiable
reduction
"challenges"
in
the
1997
to
2006
time
frame
for
specific
toxic
substances.

Testing
Pesticides
and
Toxic
Substances
for
Registration
and
Use
The
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
(FIFRA)
and
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(TSCA)
provide
U.
S.
EPA
the
authority
to
ban
or
restrict
the
use
of
pesticides
and
toxic
chemicals
that
have
the
potential
to
contaminate
sediment.
These
actions
can
be
taken
if
environmental
or
human
health
risks
are
determined
to
be
unacceptable.
Sediment
toxicity
testing
can
be
required
to
assess
the
risks
of
sediment
contamination
posed
by
pesticides
and
other
chemicals.
These
tests
must
be
applied
under
the
authority
of
FIFRA
and
TSCA
in
a
strategy
to
systematically
evaluate
the
risks
of
sediment
contamination.

2.4
Recent
U.
S.
EPA
Contaminated
Sediment
Science
Activities
and
Products
To
address
the
contaminated
sediment
issues
discussed
above,
U.
S.
EPA
produces
scientific
products
such
as
guidance
documents
and
risk
assessments.
Various
scientific
activities,
internal
and
external
to
U.
S.
EPA,
support
the
development
of
these
scientific
products.
Figures
2­
2
through
2­
4
summarize
the
major
recent
science
products
and
activities
in
contaminated
sediments
by
OW,
OERR,
ORD,
and
U.
S.
EPA
Regions.
The
information
has
been
separated
into
effects
and
assessment,
sediment
characterization
and
fate
and
transport,
and
remediation
monitoring
and
managing
contaminated
sediments.
Cross­
Agency
relationships
have
resulted
in
focused
scientific
activities
to
more
directly
support
science
products
and
program
office
or
regional
decisions.
A
detailed
listing
of
U.
S.
EPA's
contaminated
sediment
science
activities
database,
including
program
and
regional
office
activities,
is
contained
in
Appendix
A.
It
presents
recent
projects
that
include
scientific
areas
on
program
implementation,
human
health
and
ecological
effects
and
assessment,
exposure
and
modeling,
and
remediation
and
risk
management.
Collaboration
among
U.
S.
EPA
scientists
and
engineers
enhances
the
use
of
quality
scientific
information
in
risk
management
decision­
making.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate
or
copy
April
19,
2002
Page
16
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate
or
copy
April
19,
2002
Page
17
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate
or
copy
April
19,
2002
Page
18
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
19
2.5
Overview
of
Communication
and
Collaboration
Activities
Management
of
contaminated
sediments
requires
a
coordinated
effort
which
surpasses
any
single
legislative
authority
or
media.
Comprehensive,
multi­
media
responses
that
combine
multiple
programs,
agencies,
and
resources
with
public
and
private
support
can
result
in
resolution
of
the
contaminated
sediments
problem.
This
section
will
provide
an
overview
of
how
such
coordinated
multi­
media
efforts
occur
within
and
outside
of
U.
S.
EPA.

2.5.1
Collaborative
Efforts
Within
U.
S.
EPA
Several
key
collaborative
efforts
within
the
Agency
are
relevant
to
the
Science
Plan
and
include
the
Contaminated
Sediment
Management
Committee
(CSMC),
publication
of
the
Contaminated
Sediment
Management
Strategy
(CSMS)
(U.
S.
EPA,
1998d),
development
of
the
National
Sediment
Inventory,
the
Agency­
wide
Science
Inventory,
and
cross­
media
teams
such
as
U.
S.
EPA
Region
5
Sediment
Team
that
focus
their
efforts
on
the
contaminated
sediments
issue.
These
are
briefly
discussed
below.
In
addition,
there
has
been
enhanced
Headquarters
collaboration
with
the
regions
and
coordination
across
media
programs
in
the
regions.

°
U.
S.
EPA
published
the
Contaminated
Sediment
Management
Strategy
(CSMS)
in
April
1998.
The
CSMS
summarizes
U.
S.
EPA's
understanding
of
the
extent
and
severity
of
sediment
contamination;
describes
the
cross­
program
policy
framework
in
which
U.
S.
EPA
intends
to
promote
consideration
and
reduction
of
ecological
and
human
health
risks
posed
by
sediment
contamination;
and
identifies
actions
U.
S.
EPA
believes
are
needed
to
bring
about
consideration
and
reduction
of
risks
posed
by
contaminated
sediments
(see
Figure
2­
5
for
goals).

°
The
Contaminated
Sediment
Management
Committee
(CSMC)
was
established
to
coordinate
all
the
appropriate
programs
and
their
associated
regulatory
authorities
involved
in
the
management
of
contaminated
sediments.
CSMC
includes
representation
at
the
Office
Director
and
Regional
Division
Director
level
from
OSWER,
OW,
ORD,
OECA,
and
many
of
the
regions.
To
deal
with
the
management
of
contaminated
sediments
across
Agency
programs
and
regions,
a
plan
has
been
developed
outlining
the
next
steps
for
the
Agency
in
the
management
of
contaminated
sediments,
and
describing
the
commitments
from
U.
S.
EPA
program
offices
to
develop
and
apply
sound
science
in
managing
contaminated
sediments.
The
plan
shows
how
U.
S.
EPA
is
coordinating
activities
and
utilizing
multiple
authorities
to
achieve
overall
environmental
goals.
The
CSMC
will
have
an
overarching
role
in
ensuring
the
implementation
of
this
plan.

°
The
National
Sediment
Inventory
is
a
national
database
and
repository
of
data
regarding
sediment
quality
in
the
United
States.
In
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
Title
V
of
the
Water
Resources
Development
Act,
U.
S.
EPA's
Office
of
Water
(OW)
developed
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
20
first
comprehensive
national
survey
of
data
regarding
sediment
quality
and
compiled
all
available
information
in
a
national
database.
The
database
includes
information
regarding
quantity,
chemical
and
physical
composition,
and
geographic
location
of
pollutants
in
sediments.
This
information
was
summarized
in
a
report
to
Congress
entitled,
The
Incidence
and
Severity
of
Sediment
Contamination
in
Surface
Waters
of
the
United
States
(U.
S.
EPA,
1997a).
The
National
Sediment
Inventory
is
being
updated
on
a
regular
basis
and
will
be
used
to
assess
trends
in
sediment
quality.

°
U.
S.
EPA's
Science
Inventory
is
a
database
under
development
of
Agency
research
and
science
activities
for
a
number
of
different
topics,
one
of
which
is
contaminated
sediments.
The
Office
of
Science
Policy
is
coordinating
development
of
the
Science
Inventory
for
the
Agency.
The
portion
on
contaminated
sediments
identifies
the
current
scientific
activities
and
research
efforts
in
the
contaminated
sediments
area
from
across
the
Agency.

°
Contaminated
sediments
were
designated
as
an
U.
S.
EPA
Region
5
Environmental
Priority
in
1995
due
to
both
the
extent
and
severity
of
the
problem
across
the
region.
Because
a
coordinated,
multi­
media
effort
would
be
required
to
address
the
problem,
a
Regional
Team
was
formed
with
members
representing
regional
programs
and
the
Great
Lakes
National
Program
Office.
The
Team
helped
develop
a
strategy
to
implement
a
coordinated
approach
to
program
and
office
efforts
to
address
contaminated
sediments
sites
and
provide
technical
expertise
to
the
region,
state
agencies,
and
others.

2.5.2
External
Collaborative
Efforts
The
Agency
recognizes
the
importance
of
an
open
dialogue
and
active
collaboration
with
Federal
and
state
agencies
and
other
stakeholders
who
are
concerned
with
the
contaminated
sediment
issue.
U.
S.
EPA
is
participating
in,
is
sponsoring,
or
has
sponsored
a
number
of
multistakeholder
collaborations
concerned
with
the
various
aspects
of
this
issue.
These
efforts
have
Figure
2­
5.
The
Goals
of
the
Contaminated
Sediment
Management
Strategy
(CSMS)

°
Prevent
the
volume
of
contaminated
sediment
from
increasing.

°
Reduce
the
volume
of
existing
contaminated
sediment.

°
Ensure
that
sediment
dredging
and
dredged
material
disposal
are
managed
in
an
environmentally
sound
manner.

°
Develop
scientifically
sound
sediment
management
tools
for
use
in
pollution
prevention,
source
control,
remediation,
and
dredged
material
man
agement.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
21
been
diverse.
For
example,
the
National
and
Regional
Dredging
Teams,
cochaired
by
U.
S.
EPA
and
U.
S.
ACE,
were
formed
in
response
to
the
final
report
of
the
Interagency
Working
Group
on
the
Dredging
Process
in
order
to
provide
a
mechanism
for
timely
resolution
of
conflicts
over
navigational
dredging
by
involving
all
agencies
and
maximizing
interagency
coordination.

U.
S.
EPA
is
working
with
the
National
Environmental
Policy
Institute
(NEPI)
through
participation
on
the
National
Sediment
Dialogue
to
develop
a
white
paper
with
insights
and
expertise
on
all
aspects
of
risk
management
of
contaminated
sediments.
OSWER's
Technology
Innovation
Office
(TIO)
and
ORD's
NRMRL
are
co­
sponsors
of
the
Remedial
Technologies
Development
Forum
(RTDF)
Sediment
Action
Team,
a
public­
and
private­
sector
partnership
created
to
undertake
the
research,
development,
demonstration,
and
evaluation
efforts
needed
to
achieve
common
cleanup
goals
(See
Figure
2­
6).
It
is
anticipated
that
these
collaborations
will
continue
and
expand
through
the
implementation
of
the
Science
Plan.

In
addition
to
these
direct
collaborative
efforts
with
other
agencies,
the
RAND
Corporation,
in
cooperation
with
the
National
Science
Foundation
(NSF),
was
funded
by
the
Federal
government
to
develop
a
database
called
RaDiUS
(Research
and
Development
in
the
United
States).
This
database
tracks
government
resources
and
research
and
development
activities.
RaDiUS
helps
the
research
community
understand
the
research
being
conducted
by
the
Federal
government
in
order
to
eliminate
duplication
of
effort
and
promote
collaboration.
The
database
was
searched
using
the
term
"sediment"
and
identified
more
than
650
projects
in
eight
agencies:
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(USDA),
Department
of
Commerce
(DOC),
Department
of
Defense
(DoD),
Department
of
Energy
(DOE),
Department
of
Interior
(DOI),
U.
S.
EPA,
National
Aeronautics
and
Space
Administration
(NASA),
and
National
Science
Foundation
Figure
2­
6.
Examples
of
External
Collaborative
Efforts
°
Contaminated
Aquatic
Sediment
Remedial
Guidance
Workgroup:
developing
Superfund
Contaminated
Sediments
Remediation
Guidance;
involves
ORD,
OW,
and
the
regions,
as
well
as
inter­
agency
participation
from
NOAA,
USGS,
U.
S.
FWS,
and
U.
S.
ACE.

°
National
Dredging
Team
(NDT):
includes
members
from
U.
S.
EPA,
U.
S.
ACE,
NOAA
(OCRM
and
NMFS),
USCG,
USGS,
and
MARAD.

°
RaDiUS
database
of
Federally­
funded
research.

°
Great
Lakes
Dredging
Team:
Comprised
of
Great
Lakes
states,
Great
Lakes
Commission
and
six
Federal
agencies,
including
U.
S.
EPA.

°
Inter­
state
Technology
and
Regulatory
Cooperation
(ITRC)
Sediment
Remediation
Team.

°
U.
S.
EPA
Region
5
U.
S.
EPA/
State
Superfund
Conference
Calls.

°
NEPI
National
Sediments
Dialogue.

°
Ashtabula
River
Partnership.

°
Remedial
Technologies
Development
Forum
(RTDF).
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
22
Figure
2­
7.
Recommendations
for
Further
Research
on
PCB­
Contaminated
Sediments
(NRC,
2001a)

°
A
better
assessment
of
human
health
and
ecological
risks
associated
with
mixtures
of
individual
chlorobiphenyls
present
in
specific
environmental
comp
artments.

°
The
impact
of
co
­contaminants
on
PCB
risk
assessments
and
risk
man
agement
strategies.

°
Processes
governing
the
fate
of
PCBs
in
sediments,
including
erosion,
suspension,
transport
of
fine
cohesive
sediments,
po
re
water
diffusio
n,
biodegradation,
an
d
bioava
ilability.

°
Improvement
of
ex
situ
and
in
situ
technologies
associated
with
removal
or
containment
of
PCBcontaminated
sediments,
treatment
of
PCB­
co
ntaminated
material,
and
dispo
sal
of
such
sediments.

°
Pilot
scale
testing
of
innovative
technologies,
such
as
biodegradation
and
in
situ
active
treatme
nt
caps,
to
assess
their
effectiveness
and
applicability
to
various
sites.

°
The
impact
of
continuing
PCBs
releases
and
global
environmental
cycling
on
site­
specific
risk
assessments.
(NSF).
The
results
of
this
search
were
considered
in
the
development
of
this
plan
and
will
be
revisited
as
the
plan
develops
and
is
implemented.

2.6
National
Research
Council
(NRC)
Report
on
PCB­
Contaminated
Sediments
In
an
effort
to
address
the
controversial
issues
related
to
the
management
of
PCBcontaminated
sediments,
the
U.
S.
Congress
directed
U.
S.
EPA
to
"enter
into
an
arrangement
with
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences
(NAS)
to
conduct
a
review
which
evaluates
the
availability,
effectiveness,
costs,
and
effects
of
technologies
for
the
remediation
of
sediments
contaminated
with
polychlorinated
biphenyls,
including
dredging
and
disposal."
In
response
to
this
Congressional
request,
the
National
Research
Council
(NRC)
published
A
Risk­
Management
Strategy
for
PCB­
Contaminated
Sediments,
which
was
released
in
March,
2001
(NRC,
2001a).
Among
the
eleven
major
conclusions
and
recommendations
made
by
the
committee,
one
was
directed
at
the
research
areas
shown
in
Figure
2­
7.

2.7
National
Research
Council
Report
on
Contaminated
Marine
Sediments
The
National
Research
Council
established
the
Committee
on
Contaminated
Marine
Sediments
to
"assess
the
nation's
ability
for
remediating
contaminated
sediments
and
to
chart
a
course
for
the
development
of
management
strategies."
The
Committee
published
the
results
of
their
findings
in
Contaminated
Sediments
in
Ports
and
Waterways
(NRC,
1997).
In
general,
the
report
concluded
that
there
is
no
need
to
delay
sediment
remediation
projects
in
anticipation
of
a
ground­
breaking
remediation
technology,
since
no
such
technology
is
on
the
horizon.
The
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
23
Figure
2­
8.
National
Research
Council
Recommendations
on
Contaminated
Marine
Sediments
(NRC,
1997)

DECISION­
MAKING
°
U.
S.
EPA
and
U.
S.
ACE
should
continue
to
develop
uniform/
parallel
procedures
for
environmental/
human
health
risks
associated
with
freshwater,
marine,
and
land­
based
disposal,
containment,
or
beneficial
reuse
of
contaminated
sediments.
°
Because
consensus
building
is
essential
for
project
success,
Federal,
state,
and
local
agencies
should
work
together
with
appropriate
private­
sector
stakeholders
to
interpret
statutes,
policies,
and
regulations
in
a
constructive
manner
so
that
negotiations
can
move
forward
and
sound
solutions
are
not
blocked
or
obstructed.
°
To
facilitate
the
application
of
decision­
making
tools,
U.
S.
EPA
and
U.
S.
ACE
should:
(1)
develop
and
disseminate
information
to
stakeholders
concerning
the
available
tools;
(2)
use
appropriate
risk
analysis
techniques
throughout
the
management
process,
including
the
selection
and
evaluation
of
remediation
strategies;
and
(3)
demonstrate
the
appropriate
use
of
decision
analysis
in
an
actual
contaminated
sediments
case.
°
U.
S.
ACE
should
modify
the
cost­
benefit
analysis
guidelines
and
practices
it
uses
to
ensure
the
comprehensive,
uniform
treatment
of
issues
involved
in
the
management
of
contaminated
sediments.
°
U.
S.
ACE
should
revise
its
policies
to
allow
for
the
implementation
of
placement
strategies
that
involve
the
beneficial
use
of
contaminated
sediments
even
if
they
are
not
lowest
cost
alternatives.
In
addition,
regulatory
agencies
involved
in
contaminated
sediments
disposal
should
develop
incentives
for
and
encourage
implementation
of
beneficial
use
alternatives.
°
Federal
and
state
regulators,
as
well
as
ports,
should
investigate
the
use
of
appropriate
legal
and
enforcement
tools
to
require
upstream
contributors
to
sediment
contamination
to
bear
a
fair
share
of
cleanup
costs.

TECHNOLOGIES
°
U.
S.
EPA
and
U.
S.
ACE
should
develop
a
program
to
support
research
and
development
and
to
demonstrate
innovative
technologies
specifically
focused
on
the
placement,
treatment,
and
dredging
of
contaminated
marine
sediments.
Innovative
technologies
should
be
demonstrated
side­
by­
side
with
the
current
state­
of­
the­
art
technologies
to
ensure
direct
comparisons.
The
results
of
this
program
should
be
published
in
peer­
reviewed
publications
so
the
effectiveness,
feasibility,
practicality,
and
cost
of
various
technologies
can
be
evaluated
independently.
The
program
should
span
the
full
range
of
research
and
development,
from
the
concept
stage
to
field
implementation.
°
U.
S.
ACE
and
U.
S.
EPA
should
develop
guidelines
for
calculating
the
costs
of
remediation
systems,
including
technologies
and
management
methods,
and
should
maintain
data
on
the
costs
of
systems
that
have
actually
been
used.
The
objective
should
be
to
collect
and
maintain
data
for
making
fair
comparisons
of
remediation
technologies
and
management
methods
based
on
relative
costs,
as
well
as
their
effectiveness
in
reducing
risks
to
human
health
and
ecosystems.
°
U.
S.
EPA
and
U.
S.
ACE
should
support
research
and
development
to
reduce
contaminant
losses
from
confined
disposal
facilities
and
confined
aquatic
disposal,
to
promote
the
reuse
of
existing
confined
disposal
facilities,
and
to
improve
tools
for
the
design
of
confined
disposal
facilities
and
confined
aquatic
disposal
systems
and
for
the
evaluation
of
long­
term
stability
and
effectiveness.
recommendations
are
organized
into
three
areas:
decision­
making,
remediation
technologies,
and
project
implementation.
A
summary
of
the
recommendations
is
given
in
Figure
2­
8.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
24
NRC
Recommendations
on
Contaminated
Marine
Sediments
(NRC,
1997)
(continued)

°
U.
S.
EPA
and
U.
S.
ACE
should
sponsor
research
to
develop
quantitative
relationships
between
the
availability
of
contaminants
and
the
corresponding
risks
to
humans
and
ecosystems.
The
overall
goal
should
be
to
enable
project
evaluation
using
performance­
based
standards,
specifically
the
risk
reduction
from
in­
place
sediments;
disturbed
sediments;
capped
sediments;
confined
disposal
facilities
and
confined
aquatic
disposal;
and
sediments
released
following
physical,
chemical,
thermal,
and
biological
treatments.
°
U.
S.
EPA
and
U.
S.
ACE
should
support
the
development
of
monitoring
tools
to
assess
the
long­
term
performance
of
technologies
that
involve
leaving
contaminants
in
or
near
aquatic
environments.
Monitoring
programs
should
be
demonstrated
with
the
goal
of
ensuring
that
risks
have
been
reduced
through
contaminant
isolation.
°
Funding
should
continue
for
research
and
development
of
innovative
beneficial
uses
for
contaminated
sediments
and
the
development
of
technical
guidelines
and
procedures
for
environmentally
acceptable,
beneficial
reuse
PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
°
U.
S.
EPA
and
U.
S.
ACE
should
conduct
joint
research
and
development
projects
to
advance
the
state
of
the
art
in
site
assessment
technologies.
Objectives
should
include
the
identification
and
development
of
advanced
survey
approaches
and
new
and
improved
chemical
sensors
for
both
surveying
and
monitori
ng.
°
U.
S.
ACE
should
support
demonstrations
of
innovative
site
assessment
technologies.
Remote
sensing
technologies
should
be
demonstrated
in
an
integrated
survey
operation
at
a
major
contaminated
sediment
site.
The
project
should
demonstrate
the
capability
of
accurately
defining
a
hot
spot
or
larger
critical
area
that
requires
either
in
situ
treatment
or
accurate
removal
for
ex
situ
treatment
or
placement.

Figure
2­
9.
Environmental
Trends
Relevant
to
Contaminated
Sediments
°
More
develop
ment
around
waterfro
nt.

°
Long­
range
transport
of
contaminants.

°
TMDL
challenge.

°
Nonpoint
source
controls.

°
Extensive
sites
with
multiple
communities.

°
Large/
complex
sites
("
mega"
sites).

°
Limited
disp
osal
capa
city.

°
High
costs
of
remediation
vs.
shrinking
resources.
2.8
Long­
term
Trends
Affecting
Contaminated
Sediments
The
purpose
of
this
Science
Plan
is
to
capture
not
only
immediate
and
intermediate
scientific
needs
for
contaminated
sediment
management,
but
also
longer
term
trends
or
impacts
which
may
be
"outside
the
box
of
regulatory
focus,"
yet
are
of
critical
environmental
concern.
In
many
cases,
these
scientific
concerns
encompass
more
than
the
area
of
contaminated
sediments.
A
listing
of
some
of
these
concerns
is
given
in
Figure
2­
9.

The
sources
and
activities
that
lead
to
sediment
contamination
are
likely
to
increase
with
the
growth
in
world
population
and
economic
development.
Atmospheric
loadings
are
likely
to
increase
as
well.
Under
most
current
projections
of
future
conditions
here
and
abroad,
societal
and
governmental
pressure
will
increase
to
maintain
navigation
channels,
protect
food
and
water
supplies,
and
develop
housing,
business,
and
recreation
along
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
25
waterways
and
coastlines.
While
it
is
extremely
important
to
develop
the
capability
to
detect
and
manage
contaminated
sediments,
that
strategy
alone
is
unlikely
to
achieve
the
desired
levels
of
environmental
protection.
Extensive
scientific
information
should
also
be
obtained
and
analyzed
to
understand
environmental
loadings,
develop
measures
and
management
strategies
to
prevent
additional
loadings
to
sediments
and
develop
alternative
uses,
promote
recycling,
and
minimize
the
generation
of
waste
to
reduce
future
loadings.
Such
approaches
(e.
g.,
conceptual
models
of
the
sources
and
pathways
that
lead
to
contaminated
sediments
and
global
budgets
of
metals
and
persistent
and
bioaccumulative
organics)
should
be
integrated
with
other
U.
S.
EPA
programs,
Federal
agencies
and
states,
industrial
trade
groups,
stakeholders,
and
foreign
countries.
Consideration
of
these
broader
scientific/
societal
issues
in
this
kind
of
strategy
will
require
national
and
international
collaboration.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
26
THIS
PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT
BLANK
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
27
3.
ASSESSING
THE
SCIENCE
ON
CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS
3.1
Introduction
This
chapter
discusses
current
contaminated
sediment
science
activities
within
the
Agency
and
identifies
science
needs
within
eight
major
topic
areas.
The
major
topics
are:
sediment
site
characterization;
exposure
assessment;
health
effects
and
risk
assessment;
ecological
effects
and
risk
assessment;
sediment
remediation;
baseline,
remediation,
and
postremediation
monitoring;
risk
communication
and
community
involvement;
and
information
management
and
exchange
activities.
Key
scientific
questions
were
developed
for
each
major
topic
in
order
to
focus
discussions
on
scientific
needs
and
to
identify
recommended
science
activities
to
address
these
questions.
Future
updates
to
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
will
re­
evaluate
the
current
state
of
the
science
and
identify
any
new
and
emerging
science
issues
and
needs.

Key
Scientific
Questions:

Sediment
Site
Characterization:
What
physical,
chemical
and
biological
methods
best
characterize
sediments
and
assess
sediment
quality?

Exposure
Assessment:
What
are
the
primary
exposure
pathways
to
humans
and
wildlife
from
contaminants
in
sediments
and
how
can
we
reduce
uncertainty
in
quantifying
and
modeling
the
degree
of
exposure?

Health
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment:
What
are
the
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
contaminants
in
sediments
through
direct
and
indirect
pathways?

Ecological
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment:
What
are
the
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
contaminants
in
sediments
to
wildlife
species
and
aquatic
communities?

Sediment
Remediation:
What
sediment
remedial
technology
or
combination
of
technologies
is
available
to
effectively
remediate
sites?

Baseline,
Remediation,
and
Post­
remediation
Monitoring:
What
types
of
monitoring
are
needed
to
ensure
that
the
implemented
remedy
meets
remedial
performance
goals
and
does
not
cause
unacceptable
short­
term
effects?

Risk
Communication
and
Community
Involvement:
How
can
we
provide
communities
with
more
meaningful
involvement
in
the
contaminated
sediments
cleanup
process?
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
28
Information
Management
and
Exchange
Activities:
How
do
we
improve
information
management
and
exchange
activiti
es
on
contaminated
sediments
across
the
Agency?

U.
S.
EPA
science
activities
on
contaminated
sediments
are
primarily
contained
in
OSWER,
OW,
ORD,
GLNPO,
and
the
regions.
The
contaminated
sediment
science
activities
database
contained
in
Appendix
A
presents
recent
projects
on
various
scientific
topics
of
concern
in
the
assessment
and
management
of
contaminated
sediments.
Areas
addressed
in
the
table
are
divided
into
major
science
areas.
Program
implementation
projects
include
remediation,
monitoring,
pilot
studies,
and
initiatives.
Human
health
and
ecological
effects
and
assessment
projects
include
productive
cross­
Agency
efforts
on
equilibrium
partitioning
of
contaminants,
ecotoxicological
method
development,
risk
assessments,
and
characterization
studies.
Exposure
and
modeling
tasks
are
also
presented
and
they
address
tasks
such
as
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(TMDLs),
bioavailability,
and
modeling.
Remediation
and
risk
management
projects
include
guidance
development,
technology
development
and
evaluation,
site
specific
efforts,
field
demonstration
of
technologies,
and
information
management
systems.

3.2
Sediment
Site
Characterization
U.
S.
EPA
has
evaluated
sediment
quality
data
collected
from
more
than
21,000
sampling
stations
nationwide
(U.
S.
EPA,
1997a).
This
evaluation
has
indicated
that
contaminated
sediment
sites
occur
in
different
types
of
water
bodies
in
every
state.
The
water
bodies
affected
include
streams,
lakes,
harbors,
near
shore
areas,
and
oceans.
U.
S.
EPA
has
recognized
that
in
different
water
body
types,
many
factors
can
affect
the
kinds
and
magnitude
of
impacts
that
contaminated
sediments
have
on
the
environment
(U.
S.
EPA,
1992b).
These
factors
include
hydrology,
physical
and
chemical
characteristics
of
the
sediment,
types
of
contaminants
present
and
their
associated
human
health
or
ecological
effects,
and
synergistic
or
antagonistic
effects
of
contaminants.
Sediment
characterization
and
assessment
tools
vary
in
their
suitability
and
sensitivity
for
detecting
different
endpoints
and
effects.
For
example,
the
most
appropriate
method
for
conducting
screening
level
assessments
may
not
provide
adequate
information
for
definitive
risk
assessments.
Similarly,
methods
providing
information
about
food
chain
exposure
may
not
answer
questions
about
direct
toxicity.
It
is,
therefore,
necessary
to
match
the
assessment
method
used
with
the
site
or
program­
specific
objectives
of
a
study
being
conducted.
For
this
reason,
multiple
complementary
characterization
or
assessment
methods
are
used
to
assess
sediment
quality.
Assessments
of
sediment
quality
have
commonly
involved:
use
of
various
spatial
and
temporal
sampling
strategies,
analyses
of
physical
parameters,
analyses
of
chemical
parameters,
biological
testing
(both
laboratory
and
in
situ
testing
for
toxicity
and
bioaccumulation
of
contaminants),
and
evaluation
of
ecological
indicators
such
as
benthic
community
structure.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
29
3.2.1
Sampling
Strategies
(temporal
and
spatial)

Selection
of
an
appropriate
sampling
design
is
one
of
the
most
critical
steps
in
assessment
and
characterization
studies.
The
sampling
design
chosen
will
depend
upon
the
study
objectives.
U.
S.
EPA
(2001b)
describes
the
factors
to
consider
in
designing
a
sampling
study.
The
study
design
should
control
extraneous
sources
of
variability
and
error
so
that
data
are
representative
for
the
objectives
being
addressed.
Sampling
designs
for
spatially
distributed
variables
fall
into
two
major
categories:
1)
random
or
probabilistic,
and
2)
targeted
designs.
Probability­
based
designs
avoid
bias
in
the
results
of
sampling
by
randomly
assigning
and
selecting
sampling
locations.
In
targeted,
judgmental,
or
model­
based
designs,
sampling
locations
are
selected
on
the
basis
of
prior
knowledge
or
variables
such
as
estimated
loading,
depth,
salinity,
and
substrate
type.
Because
targeted
sampling
designs
can
often
be
quickly
implemented
at
a
relatively
low
cost,
this
type
of
sampling
is
often
used
to
meet
schedule
and
budgetary
restraints
that
cannot
be
met
by
implementing
a
statistical
design.
A
comprehensive
review
of
site­
specific
factors
that
may
influence
the
location
of
sampling
stations,
particularly
for
large­
scale
monitoring
studies,
is
provided
by
Mudroch
and
MacKnight
(1994).
U.
S.
EPA
has
also
developed
a
computerized
sampling
design
program
called
the
Fully
Integrated
Environmental
Location
Decision
Support
(FIELDS)
system.
This
system
is
a
set
of
software
modules
designed
to
simplify
sophisticated
site
and
contamination
analysis.
Each
module
is
a
self
contained
unit
that
can
be
applied
to
a
variety
of
scenarios.
When
used
together,
either
working
through
the
FIELDS
process,
or
being
applied
according
to
a
different
schedule,
the
modules
offer
power
and
efficiency
in
the
characterization,
analysis,
and
discrete
sampling
data
points
to
be
interpolated
into
a
surface.
Important
uses
of
these
interpolated
surfaces
include
delineating
hot
spots,
calculating
average
concentrations,
estimating
contamination
mass
and
volumes,
and
developing
post­
remediation
scenarios.

It
should
be
noted
that,
regardless
of
the
appropriateness
of
a
sampling
plan,
its
ultimate
effectiveness
will
be
dependent
upon
the
ability
to
retrieve
the
samples.
Recovering
a
complete
sediment
core
representing
the
desired
vertical
interval
can
prove
to
be
infeasible.
Representativeness
of
a
sample
may
be
affected
by
such
problems
as:
core
shortening
or
compression,
sample
loss
during
retrieval,
sample
washout,
and
inability
to
determine
the
sediment
surface.
The
Superfund
Innovative
Technology
Evaluation
(SITE)
Program
has
conducted
studies
to
evaluate
the
capability
of
samplers
to
collect
representative
sediment
samples
(U.
S.
EPA,
2000d).

Science
Needs
The
National
Research
Council
(1997)
discusses
the
complex
factors
that
must
be
understood
to
develop
a
sediment
sampling
plan.
The
distribution
of
sediment
contaminants
is
determined
by
complex
interactions
among
meteorological,
hydrodynamic,
biological,
geological,
and
geochemical
factors.
Interactions
among
these
factors
result
in
a
transport
system
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
30
with
wide
variations,
both
spatial
and
temporal.
These
interactions
must
be
understood
in
order
to
specify
sampling
frequency
and
location.
Sediment
transport
time
scales
ranging
from
hours
to
months,
sometimes
disturbed
by
high­
energy
storms,
must
be
considered
in
developing
sampling
designs.
As
NRC
(1997)
notes,
designs
of
sediment
sampling
strategies
increasingly
rely
on
computer­
based
numerical
models.
These
models
fall
into
four
categories:
hydrodynamic,
sediment
and
chemical
transport,
biological
toxicity,
and
ecosystem
response.
Improved
numerical
models
will
facilitate
the
design
of
optimal
sediment
sampling
strategies.
However,
accurate
simulations
of
sediment
and
chemical
transport
will
also
require
the
development
of
site­
specific
formulations.

3.2.2
Physical
Parameters
Analysis
of
physical
characteristics
of
sediment
provides
information
that
can
be
used
to
assess
the
effects
of
contaminants
on
the
benthic
environment
and
the
water
column.
Physical
analysis
of
the
sediment
is
generally
the
first
step
in
the
characterization
and
assessment
process.
Information
describing
physical
parameters
of
the
sediment
is
required
to
understand
bioavailability,
fate,
and
transport
of
sediment
contaminants
at
any
site.
Physical
analysis
often
includes
measurement
of
parameters
such
as
particle
size
distribution,
total
solids,
and
specific
gravity.
Methods
for
measuring
sediment
physical
characteristics
have
been
published
and
widely
used
for
a
number
of
years.
Many
of
these
methods
are
based
on
analytical
techniques
originally
developed
for
soils.

Particle
size
distribution
analysis
defines
the
frequency
distribution
of
size
ranges
of
the
mineral
particles
that
make
up
the
sediment
(Plumb,
1981;
Folk,
1980).
Sediment
particle
size
influences
both
chemical
and
biological
characteristics
of
the
sediment.
It
is
used
to
normalize
chemical
concentrations
and
account
for
some
of
the
variability
found
in
biological
assemblages
(U.
S.
EPA,
1998c)
or
in
laboratory
toxicity
testing
(U.
S.
EPA,
2000d;
Hoss
et
al.,
1999).
Particle
size
is
frequently
described
in
percentages
of
gravel,
sand,
silt,
and
clay.
Each
of
these
size
fractions,
however,
can
be
subdivided
further
so
that
a
more
complete
characterization
of
particle
sizes
can
be
determined
(Puget
Sound
Estuary
Program,
1986).
Commonly
used
sediment
particle
size
methods
include:
wet
sieving
(U.
S.
EPA,
1979;
Plumb,
1981;
Puget
Sound
Estuary
Program,
1986;
Singer
et
al.,
1988),
hydrometer
method
(Day,
1965;
Patrick,
1958),
pipette
method
(Guy,
1969;
Rukavina
and
Duncan,
1970),
settling
techniques
(Sandford
and
Swift,
1971),
and
X­
ray
absorption
(Duncan
and
Lattaie,
1979;
Rukavina
and
Dunkan,
1970).

Total
solids
is
a
gravimetric
determination
of
the
organic
and
inorganic
material
remaining
in
a
sample
after
it
has
been
dried
at
a
specific
temperature.
The
total
solids
values
are
used
to
convert
concentrations
of
contaminants
from
a
wet
weight
to
a
dry
weight
basis.
Water
content
of
sediment
provides
useful
information
for
assessments
of
sediment
quality.
Methods
for
determining
water
content
of
a
sediment
are
described
by
Plumb
(1981)
and
Vecchi
(1999).
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
31
Specific
gravity
of
a
sediment
sample
is
the
ratio
of
the
mass
of
a
given
volume
of
material
to
an
equal
volume
of
distilled
water
at
the
same
temperature
(Plumb,
1981).
The
specific
gravity
of
a
sediment
sample
can
be
used
to
predict
the
behavior
(i.
e.,
dispersal
and
settling
characteristics)
of
sediments.
Methods
for
determining
specific
gravity
are
described
by
Plumb
(1981)
and
Blake
and
Hartge
(1986).

Science
Needs
As
noted
above,
reliable
methods
are
available
for
measuring
the
physical
parameters
of
a
sediment.
Sediment
must
be
collected
to
measure
these
parameters.
The
National
Research
Council
(1997)
describes
a
variety
of
mechanical
methods
available
to
collect
vertical
sediment
column
samples
for
evaluation
of
physical
parameters.
Depending
on
the
objectives
of
a
study,
sediment
samples
can
be
mixed
to
provide
composite
samples.
This
provides
an
indication
of
average
physical
parameter
measurements
at
a
site.
However,
high­
resolution
spatial
data
are
often
needed
to
fully
characterize
physical
sediment
parameters
at
heterogeneous
sites.
Obtaining
such
data
requires
conducting
detailed
site
surveys
with
dense
sampling.
This
is
a
very
slow
and
expensive
process
that,
even
with
dense
sampling,
can
provide
limited
spatial
resolution.

Sampling
is
currently
conducted
using
two
main
types
of
devices:
grab
samplers
and
core
samplers.
Various
grab
and
core
samplers
have
limitations
that
can
affect
cost
and
time
required
for
sampling.
Grab
sampler
limitations
can
include:
boats,
winches,
and
lines
required
for
operation;
limited
sampling
depth
and
volume;
loss
of
sample
due
to
incomplete
device
closure;
and
sample
contamination
from
metal
frame.
Core
sampler
limitations
can
include:
equipment
required
for
operation
and
lifting,
difficulty
of
deployment
and
handling,
repetitive
and
time
consuming
operation
and
removal
of
liners,
and
risk
of
metal
contamination.
Improved
sampling
and
data
collection
techniques
could
reduce
cost
and
provide
improved
spatial
resolution.

The
National
Research
Council
(1997)
notes
that
sediment
physical
parameters
and
contaminant
concentrations
are
often
interpolated
horizontally,
resulting
in
an
overestimation
of
the
mass
or
volume
of
a
contaminated
sediment.
However,
interpolation
could
also
result
in
an
underestimation
of
the
mass
or
volume
of
a
sediment.
Thus,
it
is
important
to
develop
and
implement
more
cost
effective
assessment
technologies
to
replace
coring.
The
National
Research
Council
further
notes
that
a
promising
technique
for
measurement
of
physical
sediment
parameters
is
acoustic
sub­
bottom
profiling.
Development
of
acoustic
sub­
bottom
profiling
technology
could
permit
high
resolution
mapping
of
acoustic
reflectivity,
and
determination
of
physical
sediment
parameters
such
as
porosity,
bulk
density,
and
grain
size.
This
technology
has
the
potential
to
reduce
overall
sediment
assessment
costs
and
increase
the
spatial
resolution
of
field
surveys.
In
addition
to
improved
field
methods
for
measuring
physical
sediment
parameters,
research
is
needed
in
two
other
important
areas.
Work
should
also
be
completed
to
better
understand
the
effect
of
geomorphological
and
physical
sediment
parameters
such
as
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
32
sediment
texture
on
the
response
of
benthic
organisms
exposed
to
contaminants.
Work
is
also
needed
to
better
understand
the
relationships
between
bioturbation
and
physical
sediment
parameters
(such
as
surface
roughness,
internal
porosity,
and
physical
strength),
and
the
resultant
modification
of
sediment
erodability
and
contaminant
transport
pathways.

It
is
recommended
that
U.
S.
EPA
hold
a
workshop
to
identify
work
necessary
to
develop
methods
that
could
reduce
the
cost
and
increase
the
efficiency
and
accuracy
with
which
physical
parameters
can
be
evaluated
at
contaminated
sediment
sites.

3.2.3
Chemical
Parameters
Chemical
analysis
of
sediment
provides
information
about
chemicals
that,
if
bioavailable,
can
cause
toxicity
or
bioaccumulate
to
levels
of
concern.
In
addition,
chemical
parameters
such
as
pH,
total
organic
carbon,
and
redox
potential
furnish
information
to
assess
bioavailability
and
contaminant
exposure.

U.
S.
EPA
and
other
agencies
have
developed
analytical
methods
capable
of
identifying
and
quantifying
these
chemical
parameters.
However,
techniques
for
analysis
of
chemical
constituents
in
sediment
have
some
inherent
limitations.
Interferences
encountered
as
part
of
the
sediment
matrix,
particularly
in
samples
from
heavily
contaminated
areas,
may
limit
the
ability
of
a
method
to
detect
or
quantify
some
analytes.
The
most
selective
methods
using
gas
chromatography/
mass
spectrometry
(GC/
MS)
techniques
are
often
used
for
nonchlorinated
organic
compounds
because
such
analysis
can
avoid
problems
due
to
matrix
interferences.
Gas
chromatography/
electron
capture
detection
methods
are
frequently
used
as
the
analytical
tool
for
PCB
and
pesticide
analyses
because
these
methods
result
in
lower
detection
limits.
Methods
for
collection
of
sediment
and
interstitial
water
samples
and
for
analysis
of
chemical
parameters
are
described
in
a
number
of
publications
(U.
S.
EPA,
1998c,
1995b,
and
2001b).

Many
chemical
contaminants
can
persist
for
relatively
long
periods
of
time
in
sediments
where
bottom­
dwelling
animals
can
accumulate
and
pass
them
up
the
food
chain
to
fish.
Therefore,
methods
are
needed
for
analysis
of
chemical
contaminants
in
fish
tissue.
U.
S.
EPA
has
published
interim
procedures
for
sampling
and
analysis
of
priority
pollutants
in
fish
tissue
(U.
S.
EPA,
1981);
however,
official
U.
S.
EPA­
approved
methods
are
available
only
for
the
analysis
of
low
parts­
per­
billion
concentrations
of
some
metals
in
fish
and
shellfish
tissues
(U.
S.
EPA,
1991b).
Although
the
U.
S.
EPA­
approved
methods
for
many
analytes
have
not
been
published,
states
and
regions
have
developed
specific
analytical
methods
for
various
target
analytes
(U.
S.
EPA,
2000c).
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
33
Science
Needs
Although
published
methods
for
sampling
sediment
and
quantifying
chemical
parameters
are
available,
the
National
Research
Council
(NRC,
1997)
notes
that
there
is
growing
interest
in
the
use
of
real­
time
or
near
real­
time
chemical
sensors
for
use
in
the
field.
NRC
(1997)
remarks
that
these
sensors
can
provide
both
point
measurements
and
long­
term,
time­
series
observations.
Development
of
these
technologies
is
needed
for
more
cost­
effective
site
assessment.
Although
sensors
that
measure
pH,
Eh,
oxygen,
carbon
dioxide,
and
ammonia
are
currently
available,
these
sensors
are
not
capable
of
measuring
contaminants
of
concern
in
sediments.
NRC
(1997)
identifies
fiber­
optic
sensors
as
a
technology
that
holds
promise
for
assessment
of
sediment
chemistry.
These
sensors
make
use
of
optical
measurements
down
a
fiber,
or
immobilized
membranes
or
reagents
at
the
fiber
tip
that
reversibly
or
irreversibly
bind
with
specific
analytes,
producing
a
response
that
can
be
sensed
optically.
NRC
identifies
development
of
these
kinds
of
technologies
as
a
scientific
advancement
that
would
contribute
significantly
to
the
development
of
improved
management
protocols
for
contaminated
sediment
sites.

In
addition
to
the
development
of
field
methods
for
real­
time
detection
of
sediment
chemical
parameters,
work
is
needed
to
develop
more
sensitive,
low­
cost
laboratory
methods
to
detect
sediment
contaminants
and
chemical
parameters
that
control
bioavailability
of
contaminants.
Interferences
encountered
as
part
of
the
sediment
matrix,
particularly
in
samples
from
heavily
contaminated
areas,
may
limit
the
ability
of
available
methods
to
detect
or
quantify
some
analytes.
Methods
should
be
developed
that
minimize
the
use
of
hazardous
solvents
and
reagents
thereby
reducing
the
exposure
of
laboratory
workers
to
these
chemicals
and
minimizing
the
waste
which
must
be
disposed
of
in
accordance
with
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
regulations.
Methods
must
also
be
developed
for
sediment
contaminants
of
emerging
concern,
such
as
endocrine
disruptors,
including
alkylphenol
ethoxylates
(APEs)
and
their
metabolites.
Work
is
also
needed
to
develop
faster
and
less
expensive
methods
for
analysis
of
interstitial
water.
Interstitial
water
analysis
is
particularly
useful
for
assessing
sediment
contaminant
levels
and
associated
toxicity.
Isolated
interstitial
water
can
provide
a
matrix
for
both
toxicity
testing
and
an
indication
of
partitioning
of
contaminants
within
the
sediment
matrix.
In
addition
to
improved
laboratory
methods
for
detection
of
sediment
contaminants,
improved
methods
for
analysis
of
chemical
contaminants
in
fish
tissue
are
also
needed.

In
order
to
address
these
science
needs,
it
is
recommended
that
U.
S.
EPA:
1)
develop
more
sensitive,
low­
cost
laboratory
methods
for
detecting
sediment
contaminants
and
real­
time
or
near
real­
time
chemical
sensors
for
use
in
the
field,
2)
develop
U.
S.
EPA­
approved
methods
with
lower
detection
limits
for
analysis
of
bioaccumulative
contaminants
of
concern
in
fish
tissue,
and
3)
develop
methods
for
analyzing
emerging
endocrine
disruptors,
including
alkylphenol
ethoxylates
(APEs)
and
their
metabolites.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
34
3.2.4
Key
Recommendations
for
Sediment
Site
Characterization
A.
1
Conduct
a
workshop
to
develop
a
consistent
approach
to
collecting
sediment
physical
property
data
for
use
in
evaluating
sediment
stability.
(OERR,
ORD,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
A.
2
Develop
more
sensitive,
low­
cost
laboratory
methods
for
detecting
sediment
contaminants,
and
real­
time
or
near
real­
time
chemical
sensors
for
use
in
the
field.
(ORD,
OERR,
GLNPO)
A.
3
Develop
U.
S.
EPA­
approved
methods
with
lower
detection
limits
for
analysis
of
bioaccumulative
contaminants
of
concern
in
fish
tissue.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
A.
4
Develop
methods
for
analyzing
emerging
endocrine
disruptors,
including
alkylphenol
ethoxylates
(APEs)
and
their
metabolites.
(ORD)

3.3
Exposure
Assessment
The
major
human
health
exposure
pathway
for
contaminated
sediments
is
through
the
food
chain.
Body
burdens
in
humans
can
be
measured
directly
for
past
exposures
from
all
sources.
However,
it
is
more
common
to
measure
contaminant
concentrations
in
food
fish
to
estimate
human
exposure
from
the
dietary
pathway.
Areas
of
uncertainty
in
exposure
estimates
from
this
pathway
include:

°
Fish
consumption
by
sub­
populations,
such
as
subsistence
fishers,
and
fish
preparation,
such
as
whole
fish
versus
fillet
and
cooking
method.
°
Effects
of
contaminant
mixtures,
such
as
weathered
PCB
mixtures
rather
than
Aroclor
mixtures.
°
Predictions
of
the
rate
and
extent
of
reductions
in
contaminant
concentrations
in
fish
in
response
to
metabolism
and
natural
processes
or
remedial
actions.
°
Degree
and
duration
of
exposure.

Other
potential
pathways
of
human
exposure
include
dermal
contact
and
inhalation
exposures
from
in­
place
sediments
and
contact
with
sediments
during
removal
and
ex
situ
management.
These
pathways
have
not
received
as
much
attention
as
the
food
pathway.
Science
needs
include
the
development
of
better
estimates
of
dermal
exposures
and
better
assessment
of
circumstances
when
contaminant
volatilization
needs
to
be
considered
in
decision­
making.

Ecological
receptors
can
have
both
direct
and
food
chain
exposure
to
contaminated
sediments.
Benthic
infauna
and
bottom­
feeding
fish
receive
direct
exposures
to
contaminants
in
sediment
interstitial
water
and
overlying
water.
The
thickness
of
the
sediment
layer
in
contact
with
the
biota
and
the
bioavailability
of
contaminants
affect
the
level
of
direct
exposure
to
sediment
contamination.
A
better
understanding
of
the
thickness
of
this
zone
will
improve
initial
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
35
risk
characterization
and
help
in
assessing
the
potential
risk
reduction
achieved
by
alternative
management
options.

Higher
trophic
level
fish
are
exposed
to
contaminants
in
the
water
column,
which
may
derive
from
the
sediment
compartment;
they
are
also
exposed
to
bioaccumulative
contaminants
via
their
food.
Fish­
eating
avian
and
terrestrial
species
are
exposed
through
their
food
chain.
Surrogate
measures
and
models
are
often
used
to
assess
exposures
through
the
bioaccumulation
pathway
described
in
Section
3.3.3.
Bioaccumulation
tools
are
intended
to
link
simple
chemical
measurements
in
the
sediment
and
water
column
to
a
resulting
body
burden
in
ecological
receptors
and
humans,
with
an
understanding
of
the
acute
and
chronic
risks
that
the
resulting
exposure
would
induce.

3.3.1
Bioavailability
The
bioavailability
of
a
contaminant
relates
total
concentration
in
the
sediment,
overlying
water
column,
or
ambient
air
to
the
concentration
that
affects
the
ecological
or
human
receptor.
Bioavailability
depends
on
the
exact
chemical
speciation
of
the
toxic
constituent;
the
contaminant
binding
phases
in
the
sediment
(e.
g.,
organic
carbon
for
nonionic
organic
contaminants
and
acid
volatile
sulfides
for
metals);
the
degree
to
which
the
receptor
is
in
contact
with
it;
and
the
degree
to
which
it
is
absorbed
by
the
receptor.

Several
tools
are
available
to
assess
bioavailability.
Acute
and
chronic
toxicity
testing
are
direct
measures
of
whether
or
not
a
contaminated
sediment
contains
enough
of
the
toxicant
in
an
available
form
to
exert
a
toxic
effect.
Research
by
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(ORD),
in
cooperation
with
the
Office
of
Water
(OW),
has
led
to
development
of
a
range
of
toxicity
tests
described
in
an
earlier
section
of
this
plan.
Such
tests
are
used
in
assessing
contaminated
sediments
and
in
managing
dredged
material
disposal
under
the
Marine
Protection,
Research
and
Sanctuaries
Act
(MPRSA)
and
Clean
Water
Act
(CWA).
These
tests
can
be
used
to
determine
whether
sediment
is
toxic,
but
they
do
not
provide
an
indication
of
the
chemicals
causing
the
effect.

When
unacceptable
exposures
to
toxicants
are
determined
from
sediment
concentrations,
the
simplest
assumption
used
is
that
100%
of
the
contaminant
is
available
to
receptors.
This
is
a
conservative
assumption
appropriate
for
screening
levels.

More
realistic
and
site­
specific
estimates
of
bioavailability
can
be
developed
using
field­
measured
biota
sediment
accumulation
factors,
which
relate
contaminant
concentrations
to
tissue
concentrations
to
determine
what
residual
sediment
concentration
will
not
pose
a
threat
of
acute
or
chronic
toxicity.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
36
Figure
3­
1.
Methods
for
Estimating
Bioaccumulation
°
Field­
measured
bioaccumulation
factor
­
direct
measurement
of
the
relationship
between
water
concentrations
and
tissue
concentrations
of
the
toxicant.

°
Field­
measured
biota­
sediment
accumulation
factor
­
direct
measu
rement
of
the
relationship
between
sediment
concentrations
and
tissue
concentra
tions
of
the
toxic
ant.
An
alternative
indirect
approach
is
the
use
of
Equilibrium
Partitioning
Sediment
Guidelines
(ESGs).
This
approach
uses
contaminant
concentrations
in
sediment
and
other
sediment
properties
to
estimate
the
pore
water
concentration
of
contaminants
at
chemical
equilibrium.
The
pore
water
concentration
is
then
correlated
with
the
concentration
available
to
the
aquatic
organism
and
can
be
compared
to
various
reference
values
for
acute
or
chronic
toxicity.
ESGs
can
be
used
to
determine
which
contaminants
in
sediment
might
be
exerting
a
toxic
effect
demonstrated
in
whole
sediment
toxicity
tests.
They
can
also
be
used
to
help
establish
unacceptable
levels
of
toxic
contaminants
in
sediment.

3.3.2
Bioaccumulation
Potential
Some
sediment
contaminants
exert
toxic
effects
by
being
accumulated
to
greater
degrees
in
successively
higher
trophic
levels.
Thus,
a
sediment
contaminant
concentration
that
poses
no
direct
acute
or
chronic
toxicity
to
aquatic
biota
or
humans
via
direct
exposure
may
be
magnified
through
the
food
chain
so
that
species
eating
fish
or
aquatic
wildlife
are
exposed
to
an
unacceptable
toxicant
dose.

The
most
direct
measure
of
bioaccumulation
is
measurement
of
the
toxicant
in
the
tissues
of
the
receptor
(Figure
3­
1).
Direct
measurement
is
ideal
because
it
includes
all
sources
of
exposure
and
accounts
for
elimination
and
metabolism.
Bioaccumulation
test
method
protocols
have
been
developed
for
freshwater
oligochaetes
and
marine
polychaetes
and
bivalves
(U.
S.
EPA,
2000d;
Lee
et
al.,
1989).
The
National
Research
Council
(2001a)
recommends
this
method
for
PCBs:
An
assessment
of
present
exposure
is
best
addressed
through
direct
measurement
of
PCBs
in
specific
organisms
or
in
their
diet.

The
direct
measurement
method
is
referred
to
as
a
field­
measured
bioaccumulation
factor
(BAF)
for
water/
organism
interactions
and
a
field­
measured
biota­
sediment
accumulation
factor
(BSAF)
for
sediment/
organism
interactions.
The
BAF
is
appropriate
for
all
chemical
stressors,
while
the
BSAF
is
appropriate
for
nonionic
organic
compounds
and
ionic
organics
that
partition
to
lipids
and
organic
carbon
in
similar
ways.
Although
direct
measurement
can
be
expensive
and
difficult,
it
is
commonly
used
in
assessments
of
contaminated
sediment
sites.
There
are
uncertainties
if
bioaccumulation
is
measured
in
food
sources
because
consumption
rates
by
higher
trophic
levels
are
not
always
well­
known
for
ecological
predators
and
humans,
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
37
particularly
human
sub­
populations
from
fishing
cultures.
Therefore,
OW
and
ORD
have
collaborated
on
extensive
research
to
provide
alternative
estimates
that
relate
contaminant
concentrations
in
sediments
and
water
to
the
concentrations
that
would
consequently
occur
in
various
species.

Laboratory
tests
can
be
used
to
assess
bioaccumulation
by
freshwater
and
marine
benthic
invertebrates.
Methods
are
available
for
freshwater
Diporeia
spp.,
Lumbriculus
variegatus,
and
mollusks
and
marine
species.
OW
has
published
a
compendium
of
methods
for
measuring
bioaccumulation
of
sediment­
borne
toxicants
in
freshwater
(U.
S.
EPA,
2000d).

Deployed
organisms
also
can
be
used
to
measure
current
exposures
to
sediment­
borne
toxicants.
These
measures
are
very
useful
in
determining
baseline
exposures
and
responses
to
remedial
actions.
However,
the
linkage
between
caged
organism
uptake
and
dietary
exposure
of
higher
trophic
levels
is
uncertain.
A
further
confounding
factor
exists
for
persistent
and
bioaccumulative
toxicants
such
as
PCBs
and
PAHs.
These
complex
mixtures
change
over
time
through
weathering
and
are
found
in
different
mixtures
in
source
sediments
and
receptor
tissues.

The
current
state­
of­
the­
practice
is
to
use
direct
testing
and
models
to
estimate
the
direct
dose
delivered
to
the
lowest
trophic
level
in
a
food
web
and
the
food­
delivered
dose
to
successively
higher
tropic
levels.
Models
range
from
simple
to
complex.
Empirical
models
use
partitioning
coefficients
(BAFs
or
BSAFs)
to
link
sediment
concentrations
with
tissue
levels
in
organisms.
More
complex
models
use
mechanistic
models
of
uptake,
metabolism,
and
excretion,
along
with
feeding
patterns
to
estimate
the
tissue
burdens
for
fish,
birds,
and
mammals.

The
approaches
described
above
provide
several
different
ways
to
assess
exposure
of
ecological
and
human
receptors
to
sediment­
borne
contaminants.
Each
of
the
estimation
approaches
can
cause
disagreements
among
affected
parties,
ranging
from
the
theoretical
soundness
of
alternative
approaches
to
the
values
selected
for
exposure
duration
and
dietary
composition.
Even
with
the
direct
measurement
of
contaminants
in
receptor
tissues,
arguments
can
be
made
about
the
relative
importance
of
sediment
contamination
relative
to
other
sources.
Validation
of
models
is
hindered
by
a
paucity
of
data
sets
that
overcome
the
natural
variability
of
ecological
receptors.
Research
on
monitoring
may
provide
additional
tools
to
measure
bioaccumulation
in
receptors.

3.3.3
Fate
and
Transport
Modeling
Aquatic
sediments
are
a
sink
for
contaminants
from
a
wide
range
of
point
and
nonpoint
sources.
But
the
"sink"
is
connected
to
ecological
and
human
receptors
through
a
variety
of
mechanisms:
partitioning
to
the
overlying
water
column
and
air;
uptake
by
organisms
and
accumulation
or
magnification
in
the
food
chain;
chemical
and
biological
alteration;
dilution
and
dispersion;
bulk
sediment
transport;
and
burial
by
fresh
sediments.
For
non­
degradative
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
38
processes,
it
may
be
necessary
to
evaluate
the
transport
and
fate
of
the
contaminant
in
the
shortterm
and
the
long­
term.
For
example,
a
persistent
and
bioaccumulative
toxicant
that
is
diluted
and
dispersed
in
a
river
over
the
short­
term
may
become
part
of
a
longer­
term
biogeochemical
cycle
over
a
much
larger
region.
The
National
Research
Council
(NRC,
2001a)
made
two
recommendations
for
research
specifically
related
to
PCB­
contaminated
sediments:

1.
A
better
understanding
of
the
contribution
of
PCB­
contaminated
sediments
to
the
total
global
burden
is
needed.
2.
The
role
of
global
cycling
of
PCBs
in
assessing
the
PCB
problem
at
a
specific
site
should
be
considered.

Although
the
NRC
report
specifically
addressed
PCBs,
these
recommendations
are
also
applicable
to
other
persistent
and
bioaccumulative
toxicants
such
as
mercury
and
some
pesticides.

The
current
state­
of­
the­
practice
is
to
apply
one
or
more
of
a
suite
of
mathematical
models
to
simulate
the
important
processes.
Fate
and
transport
modeling
can
be
highly
controversial
because
various
models,
assumptions
used
in
the
models,
and
selection
of
input
parameters
can
lead
to
very
different
conclusions
about
present
risk
and
how
protective
various
remedial
alternatives
will
be.

The
fate
of
organic
contaminants
in
sediments
may
include
degradation
via
chemical
and
biologically­
mediated
pathways.
The
mechanisms,
rates,
and
endpoints
of
degradation
processes
need
to
be
better
understood
to
assess
both
natural
recovery
and
active
remedies
that
are
intended
to
enhance
contaminant
degradation.
NRC
(2001a)
noted
that
anaerobic
dechlorination
may
have
a
threshold
value.
This
implies
that
degradation
may
proceed
from
higher
concentrations
toward
the
threshold
value
and
then
become
negligible;
models
need
to
account
for
such
nonlinear
behavior.

Contaminant
transport
in
sediments
and
overlying
waters
is
critical
to
assessing
both
present
risk
and
the
performance
of
all
remedies.
Contaminants
can
be
transported
by
diffusion
and
dispersion
within
bed
sediments,
advection
from
upward
groundwater
movement,
bulk
sediment
movement,
movement
of
suspended
sediments,
and
dissolution
into
the
overlying
water.
Contaminants
can
enter
and
leave
the
system
through
landscape
erosion,
atmospheric
deposition,
and
volatilization.
All
of
these
processes
are
active
in
sediment
systems
and
determine
how
biotic
exposure
changes
over
time.
The
wide
range
of
transport
mechanisms
contributes
to
uncertainty
in
the
characterization
of
sediment
sites
as
well
as
estimates
of
present
risk.
Active
capping
and
the
natural
process
of
burial
by
cleaner
sediments
can
only
be
effective
over
the
long­
term
if
contaminant
transport
by
diffusion,
advection,
and
bioturbation
are
slow
enough
that
sediments
and
the
overlying
water
column
remain
at
safe
levels.
These
remedies
also
depend
on
the
long­
term
stability
of
the
system
with
respect
to
bulk
sediment
movement
by
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
39
natural
hydrodynamics
and
human
intervention,
such
as
dam
removal,
navigation
dredging,
boat
traffic,
and
so
on.

The
role
of
uncertainty
in
fate
and
transport
modeling
needs
to
be
addressed
so
that
stakeholders
understand
how
sure
we
are
of
existing
risks
and
the
risk
reduction
achievable
by
remediation.
It
is
critical
that
the
contaminant
transport
models
link
smoothly
with
biological
uptake
and
trophic
transfer
models
to
obtain
an
accurate
assessment
of
present
risks
and
risk
reductions
achievable
by
management
alternatives.

Science
Needs
The
science
needs
associated
with
exposure
assessment
relate
to
refining
our
understanding
of
the
important
pathways
of
exposure
and
improving
the
tools
used
to
measure
and
model
how
contaminants
cycle
within
the
system.
The
complexity
of
the
tools
applied
to
specific
sites
should
be
commensurate
with
the
risks
and
costs
of
proposed
decision­
making
and
consistent
with
the
National
Research
Council
recommendation
(NRC,
2001a).
The
use
of
different
tools
at
different
sites
or
under
different
authorities
should
be
integrated
so
that
consistent
decisions
can
be
made
to
protect
the
environment
and
potential
ecological
or
human
receptors.
Because
contaminated
sediment
is
a
mobile
medium
and
contaminants
within
sediment
can
migrate
into
other
media,
understanding
all
the
important
fate
and
transport
processes
is
a
key
step
in
assessing
the
risk
and
estimating
the
potential
effectiveness
of
various
remedial
actions.

3.3.4
Key
Recommendations
for
Exposure
Assessment
B.
1
Develop
a
tiered
framework
for
assessing
food
web
exposures.
(ORD,
OW,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
B.
2
Develop
guidance
and
identify
pilots
for
improving
coordination
between
TMDL
and
remedial
programs
in
waterways
with
contaminated
sediments.
(OW,
OSWER,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
B.
3
Develop
and
advise
on
the
use
of
the
most
valid
contaminant
fate
and
transport
models
that
allow
prediction
of
site­
specific
exposures
in
the
future.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
B.
4
Develop
a
consistent
approach
to
applying
sediment
stability
data
in
transport
modeling.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

3.4
Human
Health
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
Contaminants
in
sediments
can
present
risks
to
humans
through
direct
contact
with
the
sediment
(inhalation
of
particulates
or
gases,
ingestion,
dermal
contact)
or
indirect
exposure
pathways
(ingestion
of
fish,
wildlife,
or
plants
which
have
accumulated
contaminants
from
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
40
sediments).
Health
effects
may
occur
at
the
point
of
contact,
e.
g.,
skin
or
lung,
but
will
most
often
occur
in
response
to
contaminants
or
their
metabolites
circulating
internally
(the
internal
dose).
The
FIELDS
software
tools
contain
a
human
health
module
for
analyzing
the
human
health
impact
of
contaminated
sediments
via
dermal,
ingestion,
and
inhalation
pathways.
Further
improvements
underway
on
this
module
for
FY02
include
refinements
of
existing
exposure
pathway
models.

Sediments
are
often
environmental
sinks
for
multiple
contaminants
and
can
act
as
a
source
of
exposure
to
multiple
contaminants,
some
of
which
may
act
by
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity.
PCBs
exist
as
a
mixture
whose
components,
individual
PCB
congeners,
change
in
concentration
over
time.
Risk
assessments
should
consider
the
additive
or
cumulative
effects
of
all
contaminants.
Some
contaminants
may
pass
through
the
placenta
to
the
developing
fetus
or
may
be
passed
to
nursing
infants.
Therefore,
risk
assessments
should
consider
sensitive
and
highly
exposed
subpopulations,
particularly
children,
and
focus
on
neurological
and
developmental
effects.

Health
risk
assessments
need
to
evaluate
the
mode
of
action
for
contaminants
and
all
detailed
mechanistic
data
which
may
be
available.
Cancer
risk
assessment
for
dioxins,
furans,
and
`dioxin­
like'
PCB
congeners
focuses
on
the
chemical's
binding
to
a
particular
cellular
receptor
(Ah)
and
subsequent
responses.
Likewise,
many
contaminants
bind
to
the
endocrine
receptor,
raising
assessment
concerns
for
endocrine
disruption
in
both
humans
and
wildlife.

Some
exposures
to
sediments
may
be
intermittent
or
of
limited
duration.
Risk
assessments
should
match
these
exposure
data
with
subchronic
toxicity
data.
These
data
are
rarely
available.
More
information
is
needed
on
the
toxicity
of
newly
recognized
contaminants
such
as
potential
endocrine
disruptors.

Science
Needs
Advances
in
any
of
the
above
subjects
would
result
in
an
improved
understanding
of
the
health
effects
of
exposure
to
contaminated
sediments.
Several
of
these
areas
are
extremely
important
for
assessing
other
environmental
problems
as
well.
Needs
particularly
important
to
sediments
include:

°
Speciation
and
characterization
of
individual
contaminants
in
sediment
or
biological
samples
to
evaluate
mode
of
action
and
individual
chemical
contributions
to
risk.
Examples
include
distribution
of
individual
PCB
congeners
(NRC,
2001a);
dioxins,
furans,
and
dioxin­
like
PCBs;
PAHs;
and
mercury
species.
°
Determining
interactions
among
multiple
contaminants
found
in
sediments
and
the
resulting
impacts
on
site­
specific
risk
assessment
(NRC,
2001a).
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
41
°
Relating
the
results
of
bioaccumulation
studies
in
animals
or
other
models
to
doses
in
humans.
°
Studies
of
mode­
and
mechanism­
of­
action
for
species
and
mixtures
most
often
found
in
sediments,
particularly
focusing
on
chronic
or
sub­
chronic
systemic
effects.
°
Developing
biomarkers
of
effect
(toxicity)
and
relating
these
to
measurable
toxic
endpoints.
°
Evaluating
the
reproductive
toxicity
of
endocrine
disruptors
and
other
newly
emerging
contaminants
of
concern
such
as
APEs.
°
Revise
methods
for
estimating
dermal
exposures
and
risk
from
sediments.

3.4.1
Key
Recommendations
for
Human
Health
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
C.
1
Develop
guidance
for
characterizing
human
health
risks
on
a
PCB
congener
basis.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
C.
2
Develop
sediment
guidelines
for
bioaccumulative
contaminants
that
are
protective
of
human
health
via
the
fish
ingestion
pathway.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
C.
3
Refine
methods
for
estimating
dermal
exposures
and
risk.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
C.
4
Evaluate
the
toxicity
and
reproductive
effects
of
newly
recognized
contaminants,
such
as
alkylphenol
ethoxylates
(APEs)
and
other
endocrine
disruptors
and
their
metabolites
on
human
health.
(ORD)

3.5
Ecological
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
3.5.1
Ecological
Screening
Levels
Numerical
screening
levels
or
sediment
quality
guidelines
based
upon
concentrations
of
contaminants
in
sediment
that
are
associated
with
potential
adverse
effects
have
been
proposed
by
a
number
of
investigators
and
jurisdictions
around
the
world
(Chapman,
1989;
Long
and
Morgan,
1991;
Long,
1992;
MacDonald
et
al.,
1996;
U.
S.
EPA
1992b,
1996b,
and
1997a;
Macdonald
et
al.,
2000;
Field
et
al.,
1999).
Screening
values
are
needed
by
U.
S.
EPA,
states
and
tribes,
and
other
Federal
agencies
to:
1)
help
prioritize
sites
and
areas
for
further
investigation,
2)
help
identify
causative
contaminants
when
toxicity
is
indicated
by
bioassays
or
other
tools;
and
3)
develop
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(TMDLs)
s
and
National
Pollution
Elimination
Discharge
System
(NPDES)
permit
limitations.

One
approach
to
the
derivation
of
numerical
values
has
focused
on
evaluation
of
the
available
toxicity
data
to
establish
associations
between
individual
chemical
concentrations
in
sediments
and
adverse
biological
effects.
This
empirical
or
correlative
approach
was
originally
developed
by
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(NOAA)
using
sediment
chemistry
data
collected
under
the
National
Status
and
Trends
Program
(Long
and
Morgan,
1991;
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
42
Long,
1992).
The
empirical
guidelines
approach
was
adopted,
with
some
modifications,
by
the
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(MacDonald,
1994;
MacDonald
et
al.,
1996)
and
the
Canadian
Council
of
Ministers
of
the
Environment
(CCME,
1995;
Smith
et
al.,
1996)
to
support
the
development
of
guidelines
in
the
State
of
Florida
and
in
Canada.
Additional
data
available
in
the
published
literature
and
collected
through
U.
S.
EPA's
Assessment
and
Remediation
of
Contaminated
Sediment
(ARCS)
program
have
been
used
to
further
refine
the
empirically
derived
guidelines
(Ingersoll
et
al.,
1996).
Although
empirically
derived
sediment
quality
guidelines
have
in
many
cases
accurately
predicted
sediment
toxicity,
a
number
of
limitations
have
been
associated
with
this
approach
(MacDonald
et
al.,
1996).
The
correlative
approach
does
not
support
the
quantitative
evaluation
of
cause
and
effects
relationships
between
contaminant
concentrations
and
biological
responses.
Because
the
approach
is
based
on
associations
between
contaminant
concentrations
and
biological
responses,
various
factors
other
than
the
concentrations
of
the
contaminant
under
consideration
could
have
influenced
the
actual
response
observed
in
any
investigation.
In
addition,
the
guidelines
developed
using
this
approach
do
not
address
either
the
potential
for
bioaccumulation
or
the
associated
adverse
effects
of
bioaccumulation
on
higher
trophic
levels.
The
recent
National
Research
Council
report
on
PCB­
contaminated
sediments
(NRC,
2001a)
stated
that,
at
least
for
PCBs,
"ERM
[effects
range
median]
and
ERL
[effects
range
low]
values
are
not
deemed
to
be
reliable
and
should
not
be
used
for
ERAs
[ecological
risk
assessments]."

Another
approach
used
by
U.
S.
EPA
is
the
equilibrium
partitioning
(EqP)
approach
to
develop
draft
Equilibrium
Partitioning
Sediment
Quality
Guidelines
(ESGs).
This
approach
focuses
on
predicting
the
chemical
interaction
among
sediments,
interstitial
water,
and
the
contaminants.
Studies
have
indicated
that
interstitial
water
concentrations
of
contaminants
appear
to
be
better
predictors
of
biological
effects
than
bulk
sediment
concentrations.
U.
S.
EPA
based
the
ESGs
on
EqP
theory,
which
is
a
conceptual
approach
for
predicting
the
bioavailability
of
sediment­
associated
chemicals
and
their
toxicity.
The
theory
assumes
that
sedimentassociated
chemicals
partition
to
a
state
approximating
equilibrium
between
three
phases:
the
interstitial
(pore)
water,
the
binding
phases
in
sediment
which
limit
bioavailability
(i.
e.,
organic
carbon
for
nonionic
organic
chemicals
and
acid
volatile
sulfides
for
divalent
metals),
and
the
biota.
Under
this
assumption,
the
pathway
of
chemical
exposure
(i.
e.,
respiration
of
interstitial
water
or
ingestion
of
sediment)
is
not
important,
because
the
activity
of
the
chemical
is
the
same
in
each
equilibrated
phase.
If
the
chemical
concentration
in
any
one
phase
is
known,
then
the
concentration
in
the
others
can
be
predicted.
Thus,
EqP
theory,
enabling
prediction
of
interstitial
water
concentration
from
the
total
sediment
concentration
and
the
relevant
sediment
properties
(i.
e.,
organic
carbon),
can
be
used
to
quantify
the
exposure
concentration
for
an
organism.
However,
U.
S.
EPA
also
notes
that
equilibrium
partitioning
theory
does
not
address
potential
food
chain
effects
of
bioaccumulative
sediment
pollutants.
Details
on
the
ESG
methodologies
and
chemical­
specific
ESGs
can
be
found
in
the
following
documents:
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
43
C
Eco
Update.
Intermittent
Bulletin
Volume
3,
Number
2
–
Ecotox
Thresholds.
U.
S.
EPA
540/
F­
95/
038
(U.
S.
EPA,
1996b).
C
Draft
­
Technical
Basis
for
the
Derivation
of
Equilibrium
Partitioning
Sediment
Guidelines
(ESGs)
for
the
Protection
of
Benthic
Organisms:
Nonionic
Organics
(U.
S.
EPA,
2000b).
C
Draft
­
Equilibrium
Partitioning
Sediment
Guidelines
(ESGs)
for
the
Protection
of
Benthic
Organisms:
Metal
Mixtures
(Cadmium,
Copper,
Lead,
Nickel,
Silver,
and
Zinc)
(U.
S.
EPA,
2000a).

Although
theoretically
derived
screening
levels
(e.
g.,
those
based
on
the
EqP
approach)
can
be
used
to
predict
levels
that
are
safe,
they
are
less
accurate
in
predicting
when
these
concentrations
in
the
field
will
result
in
unacceptable
risks
to
exposed
aquatic
organisms.
This
is
not
an
issue
at
Superfund
and
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
Corrective
Action
sites,
because
site­
specific
sediment
toxicity
tests
or
bioassessments
can
be
performed
onsite
or
using
site­
collected
sediments
to
empirically
determine
levels
of
effects.
It
is
not
clear,
however,
what
the
relationship
is
between
mortality
rate
in
a
sediment
test
with
Hyallela
or
reduction
in
species
diversity
and
expected
significant
impacts
on
ecosystem
function
or
structure
in
the
contaminated
waterbody.
Additional
work
should
be
undertaken
to
improve
existing
screening
values
and
develop
new
ones
for
bioaccumulative
contaminants.

The
FIELDS
software
tools
contain
an
ecological
risk
module,
peer
reviewed
by
U.
S.
EPA
Ecological
Risk
Assessors
Forum,
which
includes
screening
values
and
can
be
used
for
analyzing
the
impact
of
contaminated
sediments
on
ecological
receptors.
Further
refinements
underway
on
this
module
for
FY02
include
the
addition
of
wildlife
exposure
models
and
the
ability
to
evaluate
risks
based
on
tissue
concentrations.

Science
Needs
U.
S.
EPA's
Science
Advisory
Board
(SAB)
and
others
have
identified
a
number
of
science
needs
to
further
support
regulatory
use
of
the
Agency's
ESGs
and
other
chemical­
specific
screening
values
and
sediment
quality
guidelines
(SAB,
1992
and
1996).
These
science
needs
include:

C
Field
and
laboratory
studies
to
evaluate
the
accuracy
of
chemical­
specific
sediment
quality
guidelines.
These
could
include
new
studies
and
the
use
of
existing
data
from
contaminated
sites
where
both
contaminants
and
benthic
community
data
are
available.
Sublethal
sediment
toxicity
tests
(in
situ
studies,
laboratory
studies
of
field­
collected
sediment,
and
spiked­
sediment
laboratory
studies)
using
a
range
of
species
including
benthic
fish
and
algae,
long­
term
studies
of
population
dynamics,
and
colonization
studies
are
examples
of
sensitive
tests
that
could
be
used
to
further
validate
sediment
quality
guidelines.
Additional
work
should
be
undertaken
to
evaluate
the
range
of
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
44
sediment
types
to
which
sediment
guidelines
can
be
applied.
Field
validation
of
these
guidelines
in
different
sediment
types
would
help
define
the
appropriate
conditions
for
applying
the
guidelines.
C
Studies
of
chemical
concentrations
in
interstitial
water
from
natural
sediment
samples
are
needed.
These
values
can
be
compared
to
predicted
ESG
values
for
the
same
sediments.
C
For
ESGs,
additional
research
can
evaluate
the
relative
significance
of
binding
factors
other
than
organic
carbon
and
acid
volatile
sulfides
that
may
affect
bioavailability
of
contaminants.
C
Bioaccumulation
from
food
and
kinetic
limitations
on
contaminant
bioaccumulation
should
be
further
evaluated
to
determine
their
relevance
for
both
equilibrium
and
nonequilibrium
conditions.
Additional
work
should
be
conducted
to
determine
whether
metals
guidelines
can
be
used
to
define
conditions
where
sediment
sorbed
metals
can
be
bioaccumulated
by
benthic
organisms.
These
investigations
can
provide
additional
insight
into
the
contributions
of
adsorbed
or
digested
material
to
total
exposure.
C
In
addition
to
diet,
habitat
requirements
of
benthic
infaunal
and
other
sediment­
dwelling
organisms
may
cause
them
to
be
exposed
to
higher
concentrations
of
contaminants
than
those
measured
in
bulk
sediments.
Investigations
should
be
undertaken
to
determine
the
importance
of
contaminant
exposure
routes
that
are
not
now
explicitly
considered.
For
example,
preferential
sorting
of
particulates
during
tube
building
may
be
a
route
of
exposure
to
contaminants
that
could
be
considered
in
applying
sediment
quality
guidelines.
C
There
has
been
considerable
discussion
about
whether
sediment
quality
guidelines
should
comprise
a
range
of
values
reflecting
uncertainty,
or
the
current
point
estimates.
Recent
modeling
work
has
attempted
to
address
this
by
using
the
probability
of
effects
to
define
sediment
quality
guidelines.
The
use
of
a
range
of
values
or
the
development
of
improved
estimates
of
uncertainty
could
be
considered.
C
Although
U.
S.
EPA
has
conducted
research
to
develop
mixtures
guidelines
for
PAHs
and
metals,
additional
work
should
be
completed
to
understand
how
mixtures
of
contaminants
in
sediments
should
be
handled.
C
Work
is
needed
to
develop
a
better
understanding
of
the
time
and
space
scales
over
which
sediment
quality
guidelines
or
other
assessment
tools
are
valid.
Organisms
are
major
contributors
to
sediment
spatial
heterogeneity
and
may
affect
oxygen
penetration
depth
across
spatial
gradients.
Sediment
mixing
affects
redox
regimes,
which
can
affect
the
bioavailability
of
redox­
sensitive
chemicals.
It
is
necessary
to
understand
how
sediment
biogeochemistry
could
affect
the
application
of
sediment
quality
guidelines.

3.5.2
Ecological
Indicators
Historically,
sediment
monitoring
programs
have
used
benthic
community
studies
as
indicators
of
the
effects
of
sediment
contaminants
on
aquatic
ecosystems.
An
assessment
of
benthic
community
structure
typically
involves
a
field
survey
that
includes
sorting
and
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
45
identification
of
organisms
and
analysis
of
the
numbers
of
taxa,
individuals,
and
biomass
in
each
sample.
At
many
sites,
the
objective
of
the
benthic
community
survey
is
to
determine
if
there
are
unacceptable
risks
to
the
communities
of
organisms
that
inhabit
those
sediments.
Many
different
benthic
community
measures
have
been
used
as
ecological
indicators
such
as:
species
diversity
indices;
biotic
indices;
indicator
organisms;
species
richness
measures;
enumeration
of
specific
abundances
of
taxa
present;
indices
measuring
similarity
between
benthic
communities
at
reference
and
study
sites;
community
function
measurements
based
on
habitat;
trophic
structure
and
other
ecological
measures;
and
statistical
approaches
applied
to
determine
whether
the
benthic
community
at
a
study
site
varies
from
reference
or
other
sites.
The
major
limitation
associated
with
the
use
of
these
indicators
is
difficulty
relating
them
to
the
presence
of
individual
chemicals
or
other
stressors.

Science
Needs
The
development
of
new
indicator
methods
for
measuring
risks
from
sediment
contaminants
will
lead
to
more
effective
assessment
and
characterization
of
contaminated
sites.
Additional
research
should
be
conducted
to
develop
new
indicator
methods
at
all
levels
of
biological
organization
(molecular,
cellular,
organismal,
population,
and
community).
It
is
important
that
these
biological
responses
can
be
linked
to
known
chemical
stressors.
Cellular
and
biochemical
measurements
can
be
used
to
indicate
the
bioavailability
of
sediment
contaminants
to
establish
levels
of
exposure,
and
to
facilitate
fate
and
transport
modeling
of
the
contaminants.
A
number
of
specific
science
needs
have
been
identified
to
link
sediment
contaminants
and
other
stressors
with
biological
impairment.
These
include:

°
Development
and
assessment
of
statistical
techniques
to
associate
sediment
contaminants
with
community­
level
responses.
°
Development
of
methods
to
characterize
exposure
to
individual
stressors
and
predict
exposure
to
contaminant
mixtures.
°
Development
of
whole
sediment
toxicity
identification
methods.
°
Development
of
tools
to
determine
genetic
impairment
caused
by
contaminants
in
sediment.
°
Development
of
diagnostic
indicators
for
emerging
chemicals
such
as
endocrine
disruptors.
°
Development
of
mechanistic
ecosystem
models
and
a
better
understanding
of
benthic
community
structure
and
function.
°
Development
of
methods
to
measure
spatial
and
temporal
variation
in
structural
and
functional
properties
of
benthic
communities,
and
an
understanding
of
how
this
variation
affects
prediction
and
detection
of
impacts.
°
Determination
of
the
cause­
effect
connection
between
sediment
contamination
and
of
behavioral
responses,
and
the
relevance
of
behavioral
responses.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
46
3.5.3
Direct
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Biota
Studies
at
contaminated
sediment
sites
have
demonstrated
that
high
concentrations
of
contaminants
have
resulted
in
direct
toxicity
to
benthic
invertebrates
and
to
reductions
in
fish
and
wildlife
populations.
At
some
sites
that
are
heavily
contaminated
from
past
mining
operations,
heavy
rain
events
have
resulted
in
acute
lethality
of
salmonids
due
to
short­
term
pH­
induced
increases
in
metal
solubility
in
the
water
column.

Biological
sediment
testing
has
become
an
effective
assessment
tool
that
provides
direct,
quantifiable
evidence
of
biological
consequences
of
sediment
contamination.
Sediment
tests
can
be
used
to:
1)
determine
the
relationship
between
toxic
effects
and
bioavailability,
2)
investigate
interactions
among
chemicals,
3)
compare
the
sensitivities
of
different
organisms,
4)
determine
spatial
and
temporal
distribution
of
contamination,
5)
evaluate
dredged
material,
6)
rank
areas
for
cleanup,
and
7)
set
cleanup
goals.

A
variety
of
standard
biological
test
methods
have
been
developed
for
assessing
the
shortterm
and
long­
term
toxicity
of
contaminants
associated
with
freshwater
and
marine
sediments
using
amphipods,
midges,
polychaetes,
oligochaetes,
mayflies,
and
cladocerans.
These
toxicity
tests
provide
measures
of
several
different
endpoints
including
survival,
growth,
behavior,
and
reproduction.
Sediment
toxicity
identification
evaluation
(TIE)
procedures
have
also
been
used
to
identify
toxic
compounds
in
sediment
samples
containing
mixtures
of
chemicals.

Science
Needs
Although
a
number
of
sediment
toxicity
test
methods
have
been
standardized,
protocols
using
new
test
species
should
be
developed
to
provide
tests
of
greater
sensitivity.
It
will
also
be
necessary
to
standardize
test
methods
using
species
that
inhabit
different
geographic
ranges
and
habitat
types.
Additional
work
will
be
necessary
to:

C
Develop
a
better
understanding
of
how
sediment
can
be
manipulated
before,
during
and
after
tests
without
inappropriately
affecting
test
results.
C
Establish
appropriate
physical
test
conditions,
feeding
regimes,
test
duration,
and
test
initiation
or
termination
procedures.
C
Develop
a
better
understanding
of
how
geophysical
properties
of
sediment
affect
test
results.
C
Complete
additional
work
to
understand
the
sensitivity
of
test
species
to
major
classes
of
contaminants.
This
information
can
aid
in
species
selection
and
test
interpretation.
C
Conduct
additional
verification
and
validation
studies
of
toxicity
test
methods.
Validation
studies
could
be
conducted
by
evaluating
bioassay
response
to
sediments
collected
along
a
natural
pollution
gradient
and
comparing
results
to
benthic
community
studies
and
in
situ
test
results.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
47
C
Identify
and
standardize
formulated
sediment
and
sediment
spiking
techniques;
C
Develop
tests
with
amphibians
and
reptiles.
C
Develop
and
standardize
higher
level
tests
(e.
g.,
microcosms
and
mesocosms).
C
Develop
better
understanding
of
exposure­
time
relationships
in
chronic
whole
sediment
toxicity
tests.
C
Develop
field­
based
methods
to
assess
biological
effects
of
contaminated
sediments.

3.5.4
Ecological
Significance
and
Population
Models
In
an
ecological
risk
assessment,
it
is
important
to
clearly
define
and
describe
ecological
significance
and
to
determine
what
levels
of
population
and
community
effects
are
generally
acceptable;
e.
g.,
will
a
twenty
percent
reduction
in
a
specific
endpoint
still
sust
ain
a
functioning,
healthy
ecosystem?
How
does
U.
S.
EPA
determine
that:
1)
the
observed
or
predicted
adverse
effects
on
a
structural
or
functional
component
of
the
site's
ecosystem
is
of
sufficient
type,
magnitude,
areal
extent,
and
duration
that
irreversible
effects
have
occurred
or
are
likely
to
occur,
and
2)
these
effects
appear
to
exceed
the
normal
changes
in
the
structural
or
functional
components
typical
of
similar
unimpacted
ecosystems?

Science
Needs
°
Develop
predictive
models
for
determining
the
potential
population
level
effects;
e.
g.,
how
much
sediment
toxicity
is
needed
before
one
can
predict
that
there
will
be
significant
effects
on
the
population
of
concern.
How
many
bass
or
mink
or
kingfishers
can
be
affected
before
there
will
be
an
impact
on
the
ability
of
the
population
of
biota
to
sustain
itself
at
a
healthy
level
in
the
area
impacted
by
the
site?
°
Develop
a
method
for
estimating
depth
of
bioturbation
for
benthic
macro­
invertebrates.
Certain
benthic
macro­
invertebrates
that
colonize
on
caps
build
or
live
in
burrows
or
tunnels
in
the
sand/
sediment
cap
environment.
In
order
to
evaluate
the
potential
impact
on
these
aquatic
food
chain
organisms,
we
need
to
identify
the
depth
and
extent
of
benthic
bioturbation
impacts
in
a
cap.
°
Potential
benthic
macro­
invertebrate
cap
attraction.
Caps
often
are
of
a
non­
indigenous
fill
material
or
sand
or
are
anchored
with
stone.
Will
use
of
different
materials
reduce
colonization
times?
Will
it
attract
other,
less
desirable
organisms
and
non­
native
communities?

3.5.5
Key
Recommendations
for
Ecological
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
D.
1
Develop
sediment
guidelines
to
protect
wildlife
from
food
chain
effects.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
D.
2
Develop
additional
tools
for
characterizing
ecological
risks.
(ORD,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
OW)
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
48
D.
3
Develop
guidance
on
how
to
interpret
ecological
sediment
toxicity
studies
(lab
or
in
situ
caged
studies);
and
how
to
interpret
the
significance
of
the
results
in
relation
to
site
populations
and
communities.
(OW,
ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
D.
4
Acquire
data
and
develop
criteria
to
use
in
balancing
the
long­
term
benefits
from
dredging
vs.
the
shorter
term
adverse
effects
on
ecological
receptors
and
their
habitats.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
D.
5
Conduct
field
and
laboratory
studies
to
further
validate
and
improve
chemical­
specific
sediment
quality
guidelines.
(OW,
ORD)
D.
6
Continue
developing
and
refining
sediment
toxicity
testing
methods.
(ORD,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
D.
7
Develop
whole
sediment
toxicity
identification
evaluation
procedures
for
a
wide
range
of
chemicals.
(ORD,
OW)

3.6
Sediment
Remediation
A
sediment
remedial
alternative
is
a
technology
or
combination
of
technologies
used
to
reduce
the
impact
of
contaminated
sediments
on
human
health
and
the
environment.
Alternatives
can
span
a
wide
range
of
complexity
and
technological
ingenuity.
The
simplest
alternatives
might
employ
only
a
single
component
(i.
e.,
in
situ
capping).
However,
more
complex
alternatives
may
involve
several
different
technologies
and
various
project
components
(U.
S.
EPA,
1994).
For
the
more
complex
alternatives,
it
is
important
to
match
complementary
components
in
order
to
obtain
an
efficient
remedial
design
(e.
g.,
hydraulic
dredging
may
not
be
the
best
choice
for
sediments
that
will
be
disposed
of
in
a
landfill
due
to
the
"no
water
in
landfills"
rule).

Due
to
all
the
confounding
factors
involved
in
sediment
remediation,
it
is
difficult
to
capture
all
the
complexities
of
the
state
of
the
science
in
sediment
remediation
in
only
a
few
short
pages.
However,
the
subsections
below
provide
a
summary
of
the
current
state
of
sediment
remediation
technology,
identification
of
problems,
and
a
discussion
of
key
research
gaps.

3.6.1
Natural
Recovery/
Bioremediation
Natural
recovery
involves
leaving
contaminated
sediments
in
place
and
allowing
ongoing
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
aquatic
processes
to
contain,
destroy,
or
otherwise
reduce
the
bioavailablility
of
contaminants.
No
actions
are
required
to
initiate
or
continue
the
natural
recovery
process
(NRC,
1997).
Although
natural
recovery
has
been
the
strategy
of
choice
at
only
a
few
contaminated
sediments
sites,
the
absence
of
timely
remedial
activities
at
many
sites
has
made
natural
recovery
the
de
facto
remediation
of
choice
at
these
sites.
Case
studies
are
identified
in
the
National
Research
Council
(1997)
document.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
49
There
are
a
plethora
of
resources
available
that
provide
more
information
on
the
natural
recovery
and
bioremediation
of
contaminated
sediments.
However,
there
is
still
an
ongoing
debate
regarding
the
viability
of
using
natural
processes
or
engineered
biological
processes
to
remediate
contaminated
sediments,
especially
those
contaminated
with
heavy
metals
and
chlorinated
organics:
"Using
bioremediation
to
treat
in­
place
[contaminated]
sediments,
although
theoretically
possible,
requires
further
research
and
development
because
it
raises
a
number
of
significant
microbial,
geochemical,
and
hydrological
issues
[including
transport
by
large­
scale
storm
events]
that
have
yet
to
be
resolved"
(NRC,
1997).

Additionally,
while
the
"natural
capping"
and
resulting
sequestration
of
sediment
contaminants
from
natural
deposition
may
occur
at
a
faster
"average"
rate
than
the
ongoing
biological
breakdown,
large
scale
storm
events
may
result
in
the
unfortunate
circumstance,
as
seen
at
the
Saginaw
River,
Michigan,
of
hot­
spot
contamination
being
dispersed
over
a
large
area
where
it
would
be
difficult
to
remove
or
remediate.

The
NRC
(1997)
document
offers
the
following
science
needs
for
further
research.

Science
Needs
°
Develop
scientific
principles
to
describe
the
process
of
natural
recovery.
°
Perform
a
literature
survey
to
determine
the
level
of
effectiveness
at
natural
recovery
sites.
°
Develop
accepted
measuring
protocols
to
determine
in
situ
chemical
fluxes
from
bed
sediments
into
the
overlying
water
column.
°
Develop
protocols
for
assessing
the
relative
contribution
of
the
five
or
more
mechanisms
for
chemical
releases
from
bed
sediments
(including
mass
transport
of
sediments
and
contaminants
by
large­
scale
storm
events).
°
Determine
the
mechanisms
for
measuring
the
bioavailability
of
sorbed
contaminants
and
the
effect
of
sediment
aging.
°
Determine
the
rate
and/
or
presence
of
anaerobic
degradation
processes
in
near­
shore,
mostly
anoxic
sediments.
°
Conduct
additional
laboratory,
pilot­
scale,
and
field­
scale
demonstrations
of
the
effectiveness
of
biological
treatments.
°
Explore
the
possibility
of
combining
in
situ
bioremediation
with
in
situ
capping.

3.6.2
In
situ
Capping
"In
situ
capping
is
the
controlled,
accurate
placement
of
a
clean,
isolating
material
cover,
or
cap,
over
contaminated
sediments
without
relocating
the
sediments
or
causing
a
major
disruption
of
the
original
bed"
(NRC,
1997).
U.
S.
EPA's
Great
Lakes
National
Program
Office
and
U.
S.
EPA
Region
5
have
coordinated
with
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
and
U.
S.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
50
Geological
Survey
in
the
production
of
two
guidance
documents
on
in
situ
capping
(U.
S.
EPA,
1998d,
and
in
prep.).
Capping
attempts
to
limit
the
adverse
impacts
of
sediment
contamination
by
providing
a
barrier
to
prevent
contact
between
aquatic
organisms
and
the
contaminated
sediments.
Capping
may
also
prevent
downstream
transport
of
sediments
and
their
associated
contaminants.

The
design
and
installation
of
conventional
sediment
caps
is
fairly
straight­
forward
and
well
understood,
including
the
numerous
cap
placement
technologies
(tremie
tube,
submerged
diffuses,
and
others)
described
by
U.
S.
EPA
(1998d).
However,
the
long­
term
effectiveness
of
this
alternative
has
not
been
well
researched,
although
the
National
Research
Council
(NRC,
2001a)
documents
in
situ
capping
case
studies
that
have
been
completed
in
Hamilton
Harbor,
Canada
and
the
St.
Paul
Waterway
in
Tacoma,
Washington.
Reports
documenting
results
of
these
operations
can
be
found
in
Zeman
and
Patterson
(1997)
and
Parametrix
(1999),
respectively.
Additionally,
many
entities
are
now
beginning
to
discuss
more
complex
sediment
cap
designs,
including
the
use
of
zero­
valent
iron
or
biological
treatment
mechanisms
in
the
cap
design.

Science
Needs
°
Analyze
data
from
historical
and
ongoing
field
applications
to
determine
capping
effectiveness
(NRC,
1997).
°
Research
and/
or
develop
technologies
to
control
contaminant
releases
during
cap
placement
(NRC,
1997).
°
Testing
to
simulate
and
evaluate
the
consequences
of
episodic
mixing
(e.
g.,
anchor
penetration
and
major
flood/
storm
events)
(NRC,
1997).
°
Determine
the
impacts
of
advective
transport
(i.
e.,
groundwater
flow)
on
the
transport
of
contaminants
through
the
cap.
°
Develop
and
evaluate
the
use
of
innovative
cap
designs
that
incorporate
chemical
and/
or
biological
treatment
technologies.
°
Assess
the
uncertainties
associated
with
cap
performance
predictions.

3.6.3
In
situ
Treatment
In
situ
treatment
involves
the
active
manipulation
of
in­
place
sediments
to
enhance
the
breakdown
or
prevent
the
transport
(e.
g.,
immobilization)
of
contaminants.
Potential
technologies
include:
in
situ
immobilization,
in
situ
chemical
treatment,
in
situ
freezing,
in
situ
geo­
oxidation,
and
in
situ
vitrification
(NRC,
1997).

Immobilization
technologies
are
likely
to
be
based
on
the
concepts
of
solidification
and
immobilization.
The
applicability
of
these
processes
to
fine­
grained
sediments
with
high
water
content
has
yet
to
be
demonstrated.
Potential
problems
include:
inaccuracies
of
in
situ
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
51
placement,
erosion,
temperature
increases
during
curing,
and
increases
in
sediment
volume
(NRC,
1997).

Researchers
at
the
Canadian
National
Water
Research
Institute
have
developed
and
demonstrated
equipment
capable
of
injecting
chemical
solutions
into
sediments
at
a
controlled
rate
(U.
S.
EPA,
1994).
However,
the
applicability
of
in
situ
chemical
treatment
appears
to
be
limited
because
of
interference
between
various
classes
of
contaminants
and
the
possibility
of
mobilizing
metals
in
the
process
of
oxidizing
organics
(NRC,
1997).
The
National
Research
Council
(NRC,
2001)
states
that
"no
effective
in
situ
delivery
system
has
yet
been
developed
for
[delivering
required
nutrients,
substrates,
or
reagents
to]
contaminated
sediments."

The
use
of
in
situ
freezing
and
in
situ
vitrification
can
be
quickly
dismissed
based
on
high
cost
and
limited
effectiveness.
Freezing
by
injection
of
molten
sulfur
has
the
same
limitation
as
in
situ
solidification.
In
situ
vitrification
has
been
demonstrated
on
soils,
but
the
high
water
content
of
sediments
would
require
local
site
dewatering
and
the
construction
of
a
vapor
recovery
system
(NRC,
1997).
The
NRC
(2001a)
documents
the
difficulties
encountered
on
an
in
situ
treatment
project
in
Manitowoc
Harbor,
Wisconsin.
There
are
many
difficulties
associated
with
the
application
of
in
situ
technologies
to
contaminated
sediment
deposits.
Many
of
these
problems
are
based
upon
the
application
of
known
processes
to
the
high
volumes
of
lowconcentration
sediment
generally
found
in
the
field.
In
addition,
many
sediment
deposits
are
both
heterogeneous
and
fine­
grained,
making
the
uniform
application
of
treatment
amendments
difficult.

The
use
of
ElectroChemical
Geoxidation
(ECGOx)
is
being
considered
for
a
pilot­
scale
demonstration
in
Puget
Sound,
Washington.
Two
additional
ex
situ
pilot­
scale
sediment
treatment
projects
using
ECGOx
are
also
in
the
planning
stages.
The
ECGOx
process
uses
lowvoltage
low­
amperage,
alternating
current/
direct
current
to
sustain
a
reduction­
oxidation
reaction
between
two
electrodes
placed
in
the
sediments.
This
redox
reaction
results
in
the
mineralization
of
organic
compounds.
Target
compounds
for
this
treatment
include
PAHs,
PCBs,
and
other
organics
(CDM,
1986).
Additionally,
by
making
adjustments
to
the
current
applied
to
the
system,
ECGOx
can
mobilize
inorganic
contaminants
and
plate
them
to
the
cathode
and
anode
ends
of
the
electrodes.
Unconfirmed
data
provided
by
the
vendor
indicate
the
success
of
ECGOx
in
addressing
PAHs,
PCBs,
and
mercury
contamination
in
soils.

Science
Needs
°
Additional
extensive
research
of
most
in
situ
treatment
would
be
required
and
is
probably
not
justified
based
on
the
limited
applicability
and
effectiveness
of
current
technologies
(NRC,
1997).
°
U.
S.
EPA
should
oversee
and
critically
evaluate
the
three
in
situ
and
ex
situ
ECGOx
pilot­
scale
demonstrations
planned
for
the
U.
S.
in
2001
and
2002
to
determine
if
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
52
additional
studies
are
justified
(The
Great
Lakes
National
Program
Office,
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
several
private
companies,
U.
S.
EPA's
Superfund
Innovative
Technologies
Evaluation
Program,
U.
S.
EPA
Region
2,
and
U.
S.
EPA
Region
10
are
involved
in
the
evaluation
and
demonstrations
currently
being
discussed).
°
Continue
an
open
dialogue
with
international
agencies
and
technology
vendors
and
perform
literature
reviews
to
keep
abreast
of
any
advances
in
in
situ
treatment
technologies.

3.6.4
Dredging/
Removal
"Efficient
hydraulic
and
mechanical
methods
are
[readily]
available
for
the
removal
and
transport
of
sediments
for
ex
situ
remediation
or
confinement"
(NRC,
1997).
Additionally,
promising
technologies
for
precision
control
include
electronically
positioned
dredge­
heads
and
bottom­
crawling
hydraulic
dredges.
The
latter
may
offer
the
capability
of
dredging
in
depths
beyond
the
standard
maximum
operating
capacity
of
conventional
dredges
(NRC,
1997).
Finally,
many
innovative
mechanical
(e.
g.,
environmental
clamshell)
and
hydraulic
pumps
(e.
g.,
Eddy
pump,
PNEUMA
pump)
are
available
that
advertise
reduced
sediment
resuspension,
increased
solids
content
of
dredged
material,
and/
or
other
performance
enhancements.
Adequate
research
and
data
are
not
available
to
evaluate
all
of
these
claims.
Hayes
(1989)
noted
that
the
operation
of
the
dredge
and
experience
of
the
dredge
operator
have
a
profound
effect
on
the
rate
of
sediment
re­
suspension.
Furthermore,
recent
monitoring
at
dredging
sites
has
focused
on
the
short­
term
impacts
and
contaminant
losses
associated
with
dredging
operations.
U.
S.
EPA
(1996a)
presents
a
good
general
framework
for
estimating
contaminant
losses
from
all
components
of
the
dredging
and
disposal
process.
Additionally,
the
USGS
(Steuer,
2000)
presents
a
case
study
for
monitoring
short­
term
impacts
for
a
dredging
project
on
the
Fox
River,
Wisconsin.

Science
Needs
°
Performance
evaluation
for
innovative
dredging
equipment.
°
Evaluate
the
performance
of
low
re­
suspension
dredges
capable
of
removing
sediments
at
near
in
situ
densities
(NRC,
1997).
°
Enhanced
capabilities
for
precision
removal
of
sediments
(NRC,
1997).
°
Increased
monitoring
before,
during,
and
after
dredging
to
determine
short­
term
impacts
and
long­
term
improvements
due
to
dredging
projects.

3.6.5
Ex
situ
Treatment
Technologies
Numerous
ex
situ
treatment
technologies
have
undergone
bench­
and
pilot­
scale
demonstrations.
The
results
of
these
studies
are
documented
in
numerous
reports
including
U.
S.
EPA's
Assessment
and
Remediation
of
Contaminated
Sediments
(ARCS)
program
reports
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
53
(http://
www.
epa.
gov/
glnpo/
arcs/),
International
Navigation
Association
(PIANC)
proceedings,
Superfund's
Innovative
Technology
Evaluation
(SITE)
programs
(http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ORD/
SITE/),
and
other
documents.
Ex
situ
treatment
is
generally
more
promising
than
using
the
same
technology
in
situ,
because
conditions
can
be
more
tightly
controlled
in
contained
facilities.
Chemical
separation,
thermal
desorption,
and
immobilization
technologies
have
been
employed
successfully
but
are
expensive,
complicated,
and
limited
to
treating
certain
types
of
sediments
and/
or
contaminants.
Because
of
the
high
unit
costs,
thermal
and
chemical
destruction
techniques
do
not
appear
to
be
cost­
effective,
near­
term
approaches
for
remediating
large
volumes
of
contaminated
dredged
material
(NRC,
1997).

Following
up
on
the
work
conducted
under
the
ARCS
Program,
U.
S.
EPA
Region
2
coordinated
a
five­
year
study
on
sediment
treatment
technologies,
the
goal
of
which
was
to
examine
alternative
methods
to
address
and
manage
contaminated
sediments
in
New
York/
New
Jersey
Harbor.
A
particular
focus
of
U.
S.
EPA
Region
2
work
was
to
evaluate
treatment
technologies
that
both
decontaminate
sediments
and
produce
a
marketable
final
product.
This
study
has
resulted
in
a
completed
pilot­
scale
demonstration:
a
sediment
washing
process
whereby
a
manufactured
topsoil
and
bricks
are
produced
as
marketable
end­
products.
Two
additional
thermal
treatment
demonstrations
are
planned
for
2002/
2003:
a
process
that
produces
a
blended
cement
product;
and
a
process
that
produces
a
lightweight
aggregate
product
(Stern
et
al.,
1998;
Jones
et
al.,
2001).

Utilizing
the
information
generated
by
U.
S.
EPA
Region
2
in
its
New
York/
New
Jersey
Harbor
decontamination
program
and
in
an
effort
to
identify
treatment
technologies
with
a
unit
cost
(dollars
per
cubic
yard)
of
less
than
one
hundred
dollars
($
100),
the
Great
Lakes
National
Program
Office
(GLNPO)
has
teamed
with
the
Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
(MDEQ)
for
bench­
scale
testing
and
evaluation
of
sediment
treatment
technologies
with
beneficial
end
products
(SEG,
1999).
MDEQ
and
GLNPO
selected
the
most
promising
of
these
technologies,
the
thermal
destruction
Cement­
Lock
technology,
for
a
pilot­
scale
demonstration
scheduled
for
2002.
Additionally,
GLNPO,
U.
S.
EPA­
SITE,
the
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
and
Minergy
Corporation
are
coordinating
the
pilot­
scale
demonstration
and
evaluation
of
Minergy's
technology
which
destroys
organic
contaminants
and
encapsulates
inorganic
contaminants
while
producing
a
glass
aggregate
by­
product
that
can
be
used
for
construction
fill.
Additional
demonstrations
are
planned.

Science
Needs
°
Research
and
development
of
ex
situ
treatment
technologies
to
search
for
reasonable
possibilities
for
cost
effective
treatment
of
large
volumes
of
sediments
(NRC,
1997).
°
Additional
full­
scale
demonstrations
of
promising
treatment
options
to
determine
effectiveness
of
technology
on
a
larger
scale
and
to
identify
the
pathways
for
contaminant
losses
and
risk
associated
with
contaminant
losses
during
treatment.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
54
°
Significant
coordination
between
U.
S.
EPA,
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
(U.
S.
ACE),
and
technology
vendors
to
identify
cost­
effective
treatment
options
and
potential
end
uses
of
treatment
products
to
offset
the
cost
of
treatment.

3.6.6
Beneficial
Use
Technologies
"Dredged
sediments
traditionally
have
been
viewed
as
waste
[material].
However,
dredged
material
is
often
used
for
beneficial
purposes
[such
as],
fill
for
urban
development
(such
as
the
construction
of
National
Airport
in
Washington,
DC),
beach
nourishment,
the
creation
of
wetlands
and
wildlife
habitat,
for
improving
farmland
[as
a
soil
amendment],
as
fill
for
general
construction,
and
for
establishing
coastal
islands
where
many
species
of
birds
nest"
(NRC,
1997).
The
statutory
underpinning
for
the
beneficial
use
of
dredged
material
is
provided
by
the
Water
Resources
Development
Act
(WRDA)
1992
(P.
L.
102­
580),
which
contains
provisions
for
using
dredged
material
for
such
things
as
the
protection,
restoration,
and
creation
of
aquatic
habitat
(NRC,
1997).
In
addition,
both
the
MPRSA
and
CWA
dredged
material
disposal
regulatory
programs
help
foster
beneficial
uses
by
requiring
consideration
of
alternatives
(such
as
beneficial
use)
to
dredged
material
disposal.

Most
beneficial
use
projects
completed
to
date
have
used
"clean"
dredged
material,
but
the
National
Research
Council
(1997)
contains
an
extensive
list
of
completed
beneficial
use
projects
that
used
both
"clean"
and
"contaminated"
dredged
materials.
The
NRC
document
also
contains
references
to
numerous
scientific
studies
to
assess
the
effectiveness
of
these
beneficial
use
projects
and
to
determine
if
there
were
any
environmental
impacts
from
the
contaminants
associated
with
the
dredged
sediments.
U.
S.
ACE,
GLNPO,
and
associated
state
and
local
organizations
have
coordinated
on
several
beneficial
use
pilot
projects
within
the
Great
Lakes
watershed
(mined
land
reclamation
and
construction
fill
projects
in
Duluth,
Minnesota,
top
soil
creation
at
Toledo,
Ohio,
Milwaukee,
Wisconsin,
and
Green
Bay,
Wisconsin).
Additionally,
the
Michigan
DEQ
realized
significant
cost
saving
on
a
sediment
remediation
project
for
Newburgh
Lake
when
the
dredged
sediments
were
used
as
daily
cover
at
a
nearby
landfill
(GLNPO,
2000).

Although
there
is
significant
information
on
research
studies
and
pilot­
and
full­
scale
demonstrations
of
beneficial
use,
most
of
the
reuse
projects
are
isolated,
one­
time
studies
and
are
not
consistently
incorporated
into
long­
term
management
strategies
on
dredge
material
management.
This
is
unfortunate
since
increases
in
beneficial
use
could
conserve
valuable
disposal
space
at
Confined
Disposal
Facilities
(CDFs)
and
landfills.

Science
Needs
°
Development
of
technical
guidelines
for
the
beneficial
use
of
dredged
material,
similar
to
the
guidelines
for
the
use
of
biosolids.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
55
°
Literature
review
and
analysis
of
beneficial
use
projects
and
studies
to
determine
the
associated
environmental
impacts.

3.6.7
Disposal
Options
The
National
Research
Council
(1997)
contains
an
excellent
discussion
of
disposal
options
for
contaminated
sediments
and
a
figure
for
visualizing
each
alternative.
The
three
major
options
for
contaminated
sediment
disposal
include:

C
Landfilling
­
the
placement
of
sediments
into
a
licensed
solid
waste
facilit
y.
C
Confined
Disposal
Facilities
(CDFs)
­
placement
of
sediments
into
a
diked
in­
water,
nearshore
or
land­
based
facility
specifically
designed
for
containing
sediments.
C
Contained
Aquatic
Disposal
(CAD)
­
controlled,
open­
water
placement
of
contaminated
material
followed
by
covering
(capping)
with
clean
material.
(NRC,
1997).

Both
CDFs
and
landfills
have
a
long
history
of
use,
and
the
state
of
research
and
study
of
these
facilities
is
fairly
well
advanced.
In
contrast,
fewer
actual
case
studies
exist
for
CAD
projects,
and
therefore,
there
exists
only
a
limited
amount
of
research
on
this
disposal
option.
Sumeri
(1984)
and
Truitt
(1986)
document
the
results
of
a
CAD
project
in
the
Duwamish
Waterway
in
Seattle,
Washington
(NRC,
1997).
In
1992,
U.
S.
EPA
and
U.
S.
ACE
published
a
document
describing
techniques
for
evaluating
releases
resulting
for
various
disposal
options
(U.
S.
EPA/
U.
S.
ACE,
1992).

Science
Needs
°
Improved
methods
for
evaluation
of
potential
release
pathways
for
each
disposal
option.
°
Literature
review
and
evaluation
of
releases
for
current
disposal
facilities,
particularly
CDFs.
°
Improved
design
criteria
for
designing
and
building
CADs.
°
Investigation
of
long­
term
effectiveness
and
releases
for
each
disposal
alternative.
°
Better
models
to
predict
loss
of
contaminants
via
volatilization.

3.6.8
Key
Recommendations
for
Sediment
Remediation
E.
1
Collect
the
necessary
data
and
develop
guidance
for
determining
the
conditions
under
which
natural
recovery
can
be
considered
a
suitable
remedial
option.
Such
guidance
would
include:
measurement
protocols
to
assess
the
relative
contribution
of
the
various
mechanisms
for
chemical
releases
from
bed
sediments
(e.
g.,
advection,
bioturbation,
diffusion,
and
resuspension),
including
mass
transport
of
contaminants
by
large
storm
events;
methodologies
to
quantify
the
uncertainties
associated
with
natural
recovery;
and
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
56
development
of
accepted
measuring
protocols
to
determine
in
situ
chemical
fluxes
from
sediments.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
GLNPO)
E.
2
Develop
performance
evaluations
of
various
cap
designs
and
cap
placement
methods
and
conduct
post­
cap
monitoring
to
document
performance.
Continue
to
monitor
ongoing
capping
projects
to
monitor
performance
(e.
g.,
Boston
Harbor,
Eagle
Harbor,
Grasse
River).
(ORD,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
GLNPO)
E.
3
Encourage
and
promote
the
development
and
demonstration
of
in­
situ
technologies.
(ORD,
GLNPO)
E.
4
Using
the
data
provided
in
recommendation
E.
1,
develop
a
white
paper
evaluating
the
short­
term
impacts
from
dredging
relative
to
natural
processes
and
human
activities
(e.
g.,
resuspension
from
storm
events,
boat
scour,
wave
action
and
anchor
drag).
(OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
E.
5
Support
the
demonstration
of
cost­
effective
ex­
situ
treatment
technologies
and
identification
of
potential
beneficial
uses
of
treatment
products.
(ORD,
GLNPO,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

3.7
Baseline,
Remediation,
and
Post­
Remediation
Monitoring
A
sediment
monitoring
program
is
required
for
all
types
of
sediment
remedies,
both
during
remedy
implementation
and
over
the
long­
term
to
ensure
that
all
sediment
risk
and
exposure
pathways
at
a
site
have
been
adequately
managed
by
the
remedy.
Long­
term
monitoring
should
continue
until
all
remedial
action
objectives
have
been
met.
In
some
instances,
this
may
take
many
decades.
A
sediment
monitoring
program
encompasses
baseline
monitoring,
monitoring
during
remedial
action
implementation,
and
post­
remediation,
or
longterm
monitoring.

Baseline
monitoring
encompasses
the
monitoring
of
those
indicators
of
environmental
change
(i.
e.,
fish
or
other
biota,
sediment
chemistry,
pore
water
chemistry,
toxicity
testing,
and
benthic
community
structure)
which
is
conducted
prior
to
the
initiati
on
of
the
remedial
action.
It
is
typically
conducted
during
the
remedial
investigation
or
site
characterization
stage.
Baseline
monitoring
should
be
consistent
with
the
planned
long­
term
or
post­
remediation
monitoring,
and
to
provide
a
baseline
for
comparison
with
the
post­
remediation
monitoring
data
in
order
to
detect
and
evaluate
environmental
trends.

In
contrast,
post­
remediation,
or
long­
term,
monitoring
is
initiated
once
the
remedial
action
is
completed.
It
involves
multiple
measurements
made
over
time
to
assess
the
success
of
the
remedy
in
meeting
remedial
performance
goals.
The
data
are
used
to
evaluate
the
long­
term
effectiveness
of
the
selected
remedial
action
in
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment,
engineering/
construction
performance
and
structural
integrity
of
any
containment
or
stabilization
structures,
the
recovery
of
areas
impacted
by
the
remedial
action,
and
the
success
of
mitigation
projects
built
to
offset
environmental
impacts
caused
by
the
remedial
action;
the
data
can
also
be
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
57
used
to
evaluate
restoration
of
the
ecosystem.
Post­
remediation
monitoring
typically
consists
of
the
monitoring
of
fish
or
other
biota,
toxicity
testing,
and
benthic
community
structure
evaluations.

Monitoring
during
implementation
of
the
remedial
action
is
used
to
evaluate
the
shortterm
effects
of
the
conductance
of
the
remedial
action,
whether
the
remedial
action
project
meets
design
requirements,
whether
clean­
up
levels
are
met,
and
whether
other
remedial
action
objectives
are
met.
In
some
cases
where
the
implementation
of
the
remedial
action
spans
a
significant
length
of
time,
the
length
of
time
of
monitoring
during
implementation
may
span
several
years,
if
not
decades.
Natural
recovery
sites
and
large
dredging
projects
encompassing
millions
of
cubic
yards
of
sediment
are
examples
of
sites
where
such
monitoring
may
run
for
decades.
Monitoring
during
remedial
action
implementation
may
contain
some
of
the
same
indicators,
but
will
likely
include
monitoring
of
others
such
as
turbidity,
dissolved
oxygen,
sediment
chemistry,
water
chemistry,
and
air
monitoring.

Monitoring
is
a
standard
component
at
a
contaminated
sediment
project,
beginning
prior
to
the
site
investigation
when
project
managers
are
trying
to
determine
whether
there
is
a
problem,
and
running
through
post­
remediation
monitoring.
These
various
types
of
monitoring
programs
are
being
implemented
at
a
number
of
contaminated
sediment
sites,
and
plans
are
in
place
to
initiate
monitoring
at
others.
A
few
examples
of
sites
where
post­
remediation
monitoring
is
underway
or
planned
to
be
initiated
are:

1.
Cannelton
Industries
Superfund
site
on
the
St.
Mary's
River,
Michigan.
2.
Black
River,
Ohio.
3.
River
Raisin
(Ford
Outfalls
Superfund
removal
action
site),
Michigan.
4.
Manistique
River
and
Harbor,
Michigan
(Superfund
removal
action
site).
5.
LCP
Superfund
site
in
Brunswick,
Georgia.

Monitoring
during
remedy
implementation
is
underway
on
the
Pine
River,
Michigan
(Velsicol
Superfund
site).
The
Sediment
Inventory
may
be
referred
to
for
additional
information.

Figure
3­
2.

Examples
of
Other
Science
Activities
Related
to
Monitoring
°
FIELDS
software
tools
have
been
developed
to
support
the
monitoring
of
remedy
implementation
and
remediation
effectiveness
(U.
S.
EPA
Region
5
Superfund).
°
A
Contaminated
Sediments
Monitoring
Workshop
will
be
held.
°
Development
of
monitoring
guidance
and
fact
sheets
(OSWER
and
regions),
targeted
for
completion
over
2002/
2004.
°
Development
of
tools
to
be
used
in
monitoring
(ORD/
OW
).
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
58
Questions
arise
regarding
the
short­
term
impacts
and
long­
term
effectiveness
of
dredging,
capping
and
other
in
situ
remedies.
A
look
at
sediment
sites
across
the
nation
shows
inconsistencies
in
the
kinds
of
monitoring
performed.
Impediments
to
the
implementation
of
monitoring
may
be
due
to
limited
knowledge
on
how
to
develop
and
implement
monitoring
plans.

There
is
an
ongoing
debate
regarding
the
short­
term
impacts
and
long­
term
effectiveness
of
dredging
and
capping
remedies,
with
some
claiming
that
dredging
(and
possibly
capping)
cause
greater
harm
through
destruction
of
habitat
and
release
of
contaminants.
Others
argue
that
while
there
are
short­
term
impacts,
they
can
be
minimized
through
technology
and
operational
and
other
controls,
and
that
these
remedies
will
prove
to
be
more
protective
over
the
long­
term
because
of
the
permanent
removal
of
the
contaminants
or
through
limitations
on
bioavailability.
Other
questions
include:
Will
dredging
or
capping
result
in
newly
created
or
increased
direct
toxicity
to
biota
from
increases
in
dissolved
or
suspended
contaminant
concentrations
in
the
water
column?
Will
they
result
in
an
increase
in
the
bioavailability
of
contaminants
and
increased
tissue
concentrations
in
fish
and
other
biota?
How
long
does
it
take
for
the
habitat
of
a
dredged
or
capped
area
to
become
suitable
for
aquatic
life
and
for
re­
colonization
to
take
place?
Will
caps
provide
attractive
habitat
for
desirable
biota,
or
will
they
attract
less
desirable
organisms
and
non­
native
communities?
Information
from
the
monitoring
of
both
remedy
implementation
and
post­
remediation
is
necessary
in
order
to
address
and
resolve
these
issues.

Science
Needs
The
NRC
Report
(2001a)
recommends
that
"[
l]
ong­
term
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
[...]
contaminated
sediment
sites
should
be
conducted
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
management
approach
and
to
ensure
adequate,
continuous
protection
of
humans
and
the
environment."
This
is
consistent
with
the
issues
discussed
above
­
more
and
better
monitoring
data
are
needed.
To
ensure
that
such
data
are
collected,
guidance
and
information
with
regard
to
available
protocols
and
tests
are
needed
for
the
remediation
project
manager's
reference.
In
addition,
to
ensure
that
such
monitoring
is
implemented,
a
cross­
program
policy
may
also
be
needed.
Such
a
policy
may
direct
the
programs
and
offices
to
ensure
that
monitoring
is
included
as
a
component
of
remedial
alternatives
in
the
Feasibility
Study
and
Record
of
Decision,
and
included
in
settlements
with
Potentially
Responsible
Parties
(PRPs).
For
cleanups
funded
with
Federal
dollars,
sufficient
funds
would
need
to
be
included
to
cover
the
cost
of
the
monitoring,
or
agreements
made
with
state
or
Federal
partners
to
conduct
such
monitoring.

Some
specific
areas
that
need
to
be
addressed
include:
an
evaluation
of
the
existing
protocols
and
tests
performed
to
identify
those
which
are
appropriate
for
monitoring
and
any
additional
needs.
For
example,
U.
S.
EPA's
Office
of
Water
has
published
protocols
for
sampling
and
analysis
of
fish
and
shellfish
in
order
to
determine
human
health
risks
associated
with
tissue
contaminants
(U.
S.
EPA,
2000c).
U.
S.
EPA
has
also
published
guidance
on
collection,
storage,
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
59
and
manipulation
of
sediments
(U.
S.
EPA,
2001b),
and
existing
Agency
protocols
are
available
for
dredged
material
testing
and
assessment
(U.
S.
EPA,
1998c
and
1991a).
These
protocols
are
available
for
use
in
monitoring
contaminated
sediment
sites.
However,
monitoring
guidance
needs
to
be
developed
to
provide
remediation
project
managers
with
a
consistent
approach
to
developing
monitoring
plans
and
implementing
such
monitoring.
Monitoring
guidance
should
also
address
how
monitoring
plans
are
developed,
what
protocols
and
tests
are
available
for
use
with
recommendations
for
the
use
for
each,
how
to
develop
indicators
and
measures,
how
to
evaluate
monitoring
data,
minimum
Quality
Assurance/
Quality
Control
(QA/
QC)
protocols,
and
specifics
regarding
which
biota
and
which
media
should
be
used
for
specific
situations
(i.
e.,
number
of,
species,
and
age
of
fish
for
bioaccumulative
chemicals
of
concern).

Monitoring
data
should
also
be
made
available
to
provide
information
for
decisionmaking
at
other
sediment
sites.
Please
refer
to
Section
3.9
for
additional
details
with
regard
to
monitoring
data
management
and
exchange.

3.7.1
Key
Recommendations
for
Baseline,
Remediation,
and
Post­
Remediation
Monitoring
F.
1
Develop
monitoring
guidance
fact
sheets
for
baseline,
remediation,
and
post­
remediation
monitoring,
and
monitoring
during
remedy
implementation.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
OW)
F.
2
Conduct
training
and
hold
workshops
for
project
managers
regarding
monitoring
of
contaminated
sediment
sites.
(OERR,
ORD,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

3.8
Risk
Communication
and
Community
Involvement
The
National
Research
Council's
report,
A
Risk­
Management
Strategy
for
PCBContaminated
Sediments
(NRC,
2001a)
highlighted
the
many
benefits
of
involving
communities
in
the
cleanup
process.
"Participation
makes
the
process
more
democratic,
lends
legitimacy
to
the
process,
educates
and
empowers
the
affected
communities,
and
generally
leads
to
decisions
that
are
more
accepted
by
the
community
(Fiorino,
1990;
Folk,
1991;
NRC,
1996).
The
affected
community
members
can
contribute
essential
community­
based
knowledge,
information,
and
insight
that
is
often
lacking
in
expert­
driven
risk
processes
(Ashford
and
Rest,
1999).
Community
involvement
can
also
assist
in
dealing
with
perceptions
of
risk
and
helping
community
members
to
understand
the
differences
between
types
and
degrees
of
risk."
Although
the
benefits
of
early,
active,
and
continuous
community
involvement
have
been
widely
recognized
by
U.
S.
EPA
and
others,
the
NRC
found
that
there
still
remains
much
progress
that
needs
to
be
made
to
more
effectively
involve
communities.

U.
S.
EPA's
two
major
programs
with
responsibilities
for
protecting
and
cleaning­
up
contaminated
sediments,
Superfund
and
the
Office
of
Water,
have
both
expanded
efforts
to
more
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
60
greatly
involve
communities
in
their
programs.
For
example,
the
Superfund
program
published
a
report
identifying
useful
lessons
that
were
learned
on
how
to
provide
communities
greater
involvement
(U.
S.
EPA,
1999b).
Superfund
has
developed
a
number
of
general
guidance
documents
and
tools
for
use
at
Superfund
sites.
Risk
Assessment
Guidance
for
Superfund
(RAGS):
Volume
1
­
Human
Health
Evaluation
Manual.
Supplement
to
Part
A:
Community
Involvement
in
Superfund
Risk
Assessments
(U.
S.
EPA,
1999c)
explains
how
Superfund
staff
and
community
members
can
work
together
especially
during
the
risk
assessment.
A
video,
Superfund
Risk
Assessment
­
What
It's
All
About
and
How
You
Can
Help,
describes
(in
lay
terms)
the
Superfund
risk
assessment
process
and
how
communities
can
help
(U.
S.
EPA,
1999d).
Other
fact
sheets
and
Community
Advisory
Group
Toolkits
have
been
developed
(U.
S.
EPA,
1998a,
1995b,
1999b,
and
1996b).
Additionally,
the
Office
of
Water's
National
Fish
and
Wildlife
Contamination
Program
is
developing
an
updated
(second)
edition
of
its
Guidance
for
Assessing
Chemical
Contaminant
Data
for
Use
in
Fish
Advisories,
Volume
IV:
Risk
Communication
(U.
S.
EPA,
1995a).
This
new
edition,
expected
to
be
completed
in
Spring
2003,
will
provide
greater
emphasis
on
ensuring
that
risk
communication
is
culturally
appropriate
for
diverse
communities
and
that
all
communities
should
be
involved
early
and
throughout
the
program.

Risk
communication
provides
the
means
for
communities
to
have
a
greater
role
in
the
evaluation
and
decision­
making
process.
Risk
communication
research
develops
the
methods,
models,
and
tools
for
U.
S.
EPA
to
more
effectively
reach
out
to
communities,
earn
their
trust,
and
build
an
effective
working
partnership.
This
partnership
will
allow
communities
to
become
more
fully
engaged
in
the
entire
cleanup
process
–
not
just
as
passive
listeners,
but
as
important
decision­
makers.
The
NRC
(2001b)
report
recognized
that
U.
S.
EPA's
community
involvement
program
has
been
advocating
greater
involvement
of
affected
communities
into
the
cleanup
process.

An
important
component
of
risk
communication
and
community
involvement
is
ensuring
that
all
the
technical
information
provided
to
the
communities
is
understandable.
Too
often
communities
are
either
inundated
with
too
much
extraneous
information
that
cannot
be
understood,
or
they
are
presented
with
summaries
that
contain
too
little
data.
Research
is
needed
on
both
how
to
effectively
extract
the
appropriate
amount
of
information
and
determine
the
best
vehicles
(e.
g.,
formal
presentations,
newsletters,
informal
meetings,
videos,
infomercials,
web
sites)
for
presenting
the
data
to
communities.
In
addition
to
developing
more
effective
tools
for
the
sender
of
messages,
research
is
needed
to
develop
better
listening
skills
for
all
the
receivers
of
messages.

Communities
have
first­
hand
knowledge
of
the
site
and
their
own
activities
(such
as
catching
and
consuming
fish)
that
would
be
very
helpful
to
U.
S.
EPA's
evaluation
of
the
site
and
its
possible
impacts
on
nearby
communities.
The
development
of
site­
specific
exposure
factors
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
61
based
on
the
measurements
of
the
habits
of
the
local
community
could
reduce
reliance
on
the
use
of
national
default
assumptions
that
may
not
reflect
local
habits
or
conditions.

Communities
at
contaminated
sediment
sites
are
diverse
and
often
have
conflicting
interests
that
are
hard
to
articulate
and
quantify.
Measurement
methods
that
might
be
suitable
include
public
opinion
survey
instruments,
randomly
selected
focus
groups,
and
computer­
based
methods
such
as
"virtual"
town
meetings.
This
is
particularly
important
for
sediment
sites
because
they
can
cover
large
geographic
areas.

Because
the
effectiveness
of
risk
communication
and
community
involvement
are
rarely
measured
in
application,
there
is
considerable
disagreement
about
the
effectiveness
of
current
public
participation
activities.
Measuring
the
performance
of
existing
tools
and
newly
developed
tools
would
focus
improvements
in
necessary
areas.

Science
Needs
°
Develop
better
methods
and
tools
to
measure
the
preferences
of
individuals,
subpopulations
and
communities
throughout
the
entire
sediment
cleanup
process.
°
Develop
more
effective
methods
and
tools
to
describe,
summarize,
and
present
complex
technical
data
to
communities.
°
Develop
better
methods
and
tools
to
extract
and
utilize
community­
based
knowledge.
°
Develop
ways
to
determine
how
various
societal
and
cultural
values
and
practices
are
impacted
by
contaminated
sediments
or
cleanup
activities.
For
example,
the
inability
of
native
tribes
to
harvest
fish
and
then
barter
them
for
other
valuables
is
a
cultural
impact
that
is
not
often
considered.
°
Develop
community
outreach
methods
and
tools
that
can
be
applied
to
large
geographic
sites
with
multiple
diverse
communities.
Because
some
contaminated
sediment
sites,
especially
river
sites,
can
span
tens
or
even
hundreds
of
miles,
they
present
difficult
challenges
to
community
involvement
staff.
°
Develop
and
apply
methods
and
tools
that
measure
the
effectiveness
of
environmental
public
participation
programs.

3.8.1
Key
Recommendations
for
Risk
Communication
and
Community
Involvement
G.
1
Establish
a
research
program
on
risk
communication
and
community
involvement
focusing
on
developing
better
methods,
models,
and
tools.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
62
3.9
Information
Management
and
Exchange
Activities
Information,
or
data,
management
is
a
key
component
of
the
characterization,
assessment,
and
monitoring
activities
conducted
at
contaminated
sediment
sites.
A
data
management
system
provides
one
point
of
access
for
all
data
and
simplifies
assessment,
QA/
QC
evaluation,
modeling,
mapping,
querying,
trends
analysis
and
other
activities
that
may
be
conducted
using
the
data.
Information
communication
and
exchange
are
critical
components
of
a
contaminated
sediment
project
and
would
be
simplified
by
the
establishment
of
a
quality
data
management
system.
Outreach
and
information­
sharing
with
the
public
is
key
to
not
only
their
understanding
of
the
ecological
and
health
risks
associated
with
a
site,
but
also
of
the
possible
solutions
to
address
those
risks.
An
informed
public
would
be
better
able
to
contribute
to
the
decision­
making
process
in
a
knowledgeable
manner.

Some
examples
of
the
types
of
information/
data
management
activities
that
are
underway
are
shown
in
Figure
3­
3.

Figure
3­
3.

Types
of
Information/
Data
Management
Activities
Currently
Underway
°
GLNPO's
sediment
database.
°
OW's
Sediment
Inventory.
°
OERR's
Superfund
sediment
sites
database.
°
U.
S.
EPA
Region
5/
GLNPO
Sediment
Information
Management
System
Other
information
communication
and
exchange
activities
are
identified
in
Figure
3­
4.

Figure
3­
4.

Information
Communication
and
Exchange
Activities
°
Sediment
Network
(OW).
°
Superfund
Sediment
Forum
(OERR).
°
Participation
on
external
fora
such
as
the
National
Sediment
Dialogue
and
Great
Lakes
and
other
regional
Dred
ging
Teams.
°
Great
Lakes
sediment
web
page
(GLNPO).
°
Public
Outreach
Tools:
Sediment
pamphlet
and
poster
(OW
)
and
a
dredging
video
(OERR).
°
U.
S.
EPA
Region
5/
GLNPO
Sediment
Information
Management
System
(SIMS).
°
U.
S.
EPA
Region
5
Superfund's
Fully
Integrated
Environmental
Locational
Decision
Support
(FIELDS)
system.
°
U.
S.
EPA
Region
5's
sediment
web
page.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
63
Science
Needs
Environmental
data
need
to
be
appropriately
housed
in
data
management
systems.
Such
data
management
systems
should
be
consistent
and
able
to
link
across
the
regions
and
offices.
Environmental
information
regarding
these
sites
needs
to
be
placed
onto
regional
contaminated
sediment
web
sites
which
are
updated
on
a
regular
basis.
They
should
link
across
the
regions
so
that
information
on
sites
in
other
regions
is
available
to
the
viewer.
Networks
should
be
formed
so
that
information
about
contaminated
sediment
sites
and
issues
can
be
exchanged
and
discussed.
Workshops
and
other
fora
should
be
held
periodically
for
a
range
of
audiences
as
additional
means
of
communicating
and
exchanging
information,
and
increasing
the
science
knowledge
of
stakeholders
and
others.

There
is
a
need
for
more
timely
information
exchange,
improved
access
to
environmental
information
and
data,
both
internally
across
the
Agency
and
with
external
stakeholders
and
other
interested
parties.
One
of
the
recommendations
in
the
National
Research
Council
Report
(2001b)
is
that
there
be
"early,
active,
and
continuous
involvement
of
all
affected
parties
and
communities
as
partners."
One
of
the
many
keys
to
the
success
of
such
involvement
is
the
availability
of,
and
access
to,
environmental
i
nformation
and
data
about
the
site(
s)
of
concern.
In
addition,
stakeholders
may
also
need
some
basic
science
knowledge
(or
someone
to
explain
it)
so
as
to
be
able
to
comprehend
what
the
data
and
information
means
and
be
better
able
to
contribute
to
the
decision­
making
process
in
an
informative
manner.

3.9.1
Key
Recommendations
for
Information
Management
and
Exchange
Activities
H.
1
Establish
regional
sediment
data
management
systems
which
can
link
the
regions
and
program
offices
with
each
other
and
with
the
National
Sediment
Inventory.
(U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
OW,
OSWER,
GLNPO)
H.
2
Standardize
the
sediment
site
data
collection/
reporting
format.
Establish
minimum
protocols
for
quality
assurance/
quality
control
(QA/
QC).
(OEI,
OW
OSWER,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
H.
3
Develop
national
and
regional
contaminated
sediment
sites
web
sites
for
sharing
information.
(U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
OW,
OSWER,
GLNPO)
H.
4
Re­
establish
and
expand
the
Office
of
Water­
sponsored
Sediment
Network
by
including
more
regional
representation.
(OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
H.
5
Promote
communication
and
coordination
of
science
and
research
among
Federal
agencies.
(ORD,
OSWER,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
NOAA,
U.
S.
Navy,
U.
S.
ACE,
USGS,
U.
S.
FWS)
H.
6
Promote
the
exchange
of
scientific
information
via
scientific
fora
(i.
e.,
workshops,
journals,
and
meetings).
(CSMC,
OW,
OSWER,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
GLNPO)
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
64
THIS
PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT
BLANK
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
65
4.
LONG­
RANGE
SCIENCE
STRATEGY
4.1
Introduction
There
are
many
scientific
uncertainties
associated
with
assessing
and
managing
contaminated
sediments.
Multiple
offices
and
regions
have
overlapping
science
needs;
some
have
individual,
program­
specific
requirements.
Realistically,
it
will
take
a
long­
term
program
to
develop,
implement,
and
verify
the
science.
Planning
across
all
U.
S.
EPA
organizations,
with
recognition
of
important
work
being
conducted
by
other
organizations,
is
essential
to
advancing
the
science
and
managing
risks
from
contaminated
sediments
in
the
most
cost­
effective
ways.

4.2
Key
Recommendations
In
the
presentation
of
each
major
topic
in
Chapter
Three,
the
authors
discussed
the
state
of
the
science
and
science
needs.
Science
needs
were
developed
to
provide
guidance
on
what
scientific
tasks
are
needed
to
address
the
topics'
key
scientific
question.
These
needs
address
a
wide
array
of
data
gaps,
method
development,
guidance
requirements,
and
communication
issues.

The
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
science
needs
for
the
major
topics
were
focused
through
the
generation
of
key
recommendations.
In
the
development
of
key
recommendations
for
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan,
the
Workgroup
members
reviewed
Chapter
Three
science
needs
for
each
major
topic.
As
each
major
topic
was
discussed,
science
needs
were
evaluated
for
their
high
priority,
critical
nature
to
address
data
gaps
in
the
topic,
ability
to
reduce
uncertainty,
and
identification
of
state­
of­
the­
science
guidance
or
tools.
Key
recommendations
for
each
major
topic
were
agreed
to
by
the
Workgroup
members
using
the
evaluation
criteria,
professional
judgement,
comment
or
input
from
Agency
review,
and
a
group
consensus
process.
The
Workgroup
did
not
constrain
the
recommendations
to
fit
within
available
resources.
Instead,
the
recommendations
are
a
comprehensive
list
that
U.
S.
EPA
organizations
can
consider
when
balancing
resource
allocations
across
competing
high
priority
needs.

The
thirty­
three
(33)
key
recommendations
described
in
this
section
address
the
contaminated
sediment
issues
and
data
gaps,
as
well
as
areas
for
better
coordination
of
contaminated
sediment
science
activities,
including
research,
across
the
Agency
that
are
identified
as
highest
priority
by
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Workgroup
and
have
undergone
cross­
Agency
review.
The
recommendations
are
listed
by
science
area
and
include:
sediment
site
characterization;
exposure
assessment
research;
health
effects
research;
ecological
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
66
effects
research;
sediment
remediation;
baseline,
remediation,
and
post­
remediation
monitoring;
risk
communication
and
community
involvement;
and
information
management
and
exchange
activities.

4.2.1
Sediment
Site
Characterization
Accurate
sediment
site
characterization
is
of
great
importance
to
scientists,
risk
managers,
and
others
involved
in
the
decision­
making
process.
Because
of
the
complexity
of
chemical
fate
and
transport
processes
in
sediment,
water,
and
biota,
many
factors
can
affect
the
kinds
and
magnitude
of
impacts
that
contaminated
sediment
has
on
the
environment.
These
factors
include
hydrology,
the
physical
and
chemical
characteristics
of
the
sediment,
the
types
of
contaminants
present
and
their
associated
human
health
or
ecological
effects,
and
synergistic
or
antagonistic
effects
of
contaminants.
Better
tools
and
methods
for
analysis
of
physical
and
chemical
parameters,
biological
testing,
evaluation
of
ecological
effects,
and
sediment
sampling
will
result
in
sound
science
to
support
decision­
making.

Physical
Parameters
A.
1
Conduct
a
workshop
to
develop
a
consistent
approach
to
collecting
sediment
physical
property
data
for
use
in
evaluating
sediment
stability.

A
workshop
is
needed
to
identify
research
necessary
to
develop
better,
faster,
and
more
cost­
effective
methods
for
high
resolution
determination
of
physical
sediment
parameters.
Such
methods
are
needed
for
evaluating
remedial
options
(e.
g.,
natural
attenuation,
capping,
or
dredging).
When
evaluating
remedial
options,
risk
managers
must
obtain
information
on
key
physical
sediment
parameters
including
the
erosional
and
depositional
properties
of
sites
to
be
remediated.
High
resolution
spatial
data
are
needed
to
characterize
freshwater
sites
where
sediment
is
often
heterogeneous.
Improved
spatial
resolution
of
field
survey
data
will
enable
more
accurate
determination
of
the
volume
or
mass
of
contaminated
sediment.
It
is
recommended
that
U.
S.
EPA
consult
with
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
and
U.
S.
Navy
on
their
progress
in
developing
these
techniques.
An
improved
understanding
of
the
relationships
between
geomorphological
and
physical
sediment
parameters
and
contaminant
transport,
fate,
and
effects
will
enable
decision­
makers
to
more
effectively
evaluate
site
management
alternatives.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
67
Chemical
Parameters
A.
2
Develop
more
sensitive,
low­
cost
laboratory
methods
for
detecting
sediment
contaminants,
and
real­
time
or
near
real­
time
chemical
sensors
for
use
in
the
field.

Interferences
encountered
as
part
of
the
sediment
matrix,
particularly
in
samples
from
heavily
contaminated
areas,
may
limit
the
ability
of
available
methods
to
detect
or
quantify
some
analytes.
More
sensitive,
low­
cost
methods
are
needed
to
detect
sediment
contaminants
and
the
chemical
parameters
that
control
bioavailability
of
contaminants
such
as
PCBs,
dioxin,
PAHs,
metals,
and
pesticides.
Real­
time
or
near
real­
time
sensors
are
also
needed
to
provide
both
point
measurements
and
long­
term,
time­
series
observations
of
sediment
contaminants
of
concern.
Real­
time
chemical
sensors
will
enable
better,
faster,
and
more
cost­
effective
site
assessment
and
the
immediate
targeting
of
hot
spots
for
potential
remediation.

A.
3
Develop
U.
S.
EPA
approved
methods
with
lower
detection
limits
for
analysis
of
bioaccumulative
contaminants
of
concern
in
fish
tissue.

Many
chemical
contaminants
can
persist
for
relatively
long
periods
of
time
in
sediments
where
bottom­
dwelling
animals
can
accumulate
and
pass
them
up
the
food
chain
to
fish
and
wildlife.
Therefore,
improved
methods
are
needed
for
analysis
of
chemical
contaminants
such
as
PCBs,
dioxin,
metals
and
pesticides
in
fish
tissue.
U.
S.
EPA
has
published
interim
procedures
for
sampling
and
analysis
of
priority
pollutants
in
fish
tissue
(U.
S.
EPA,
1981).
However,
official
U.
S.
EPA­
approved
methods
are
available
only
for
the
analysis
of
low
parts­
per­
billion
concentrations
of
some
metals
in
fish
and
shellfish
tissues
(U.
S.
EPA,
1991b).
Although
U.
S.
EPA­
approved
methods
for
many
analytes
have
not
been
published,
states
and
regions
have
developed
specific
analytical
methods
for
various
target
analytes
(U.
S.
EPA,
2000d).

A.
4
Develop
methods
for
analyzing
emerging
endocrine
disruptors,
including
alkylphenol
ethoxylates
(APEs)
and
their
metabolites.

Present
methods
for
analyzing
emerging
endocrine
disrupting
chemicals
are
inadequate.
Methods
for
analyzing
endocrine
disruptors,
including
APEs
and
their
metabolites,
should
be
developed
to
support
regulatory
decision­
making.

4.2.2
Exposure
Assessment
B.
1
Develop
a
tiered
framework
for
assessing
food
web
exposures.

The
National
Research
Council
(2001a)
recommended
a
tiered
approach
to
risk
assessment
for
PCB­
contaminated
sediment
sites
that
would
work
well
for
any
sediment
contaminated
by
bioaccumulative
compounds.
The
screening
tier
would
apply
conservative
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
68
assumptions
and
rely
on
existing
data
in
the
literature
to
easily
distinguish
sediments
that
do
not
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
from
those
that
may.
The
middle
tier
would
use
a
combination
of
some
site­
specific
data
and
interpretive
tools
to
produce
a
more
refined
assessment
of
the
level
of
risk.
At
many
sites,
this
approach
would
be
sufficient
to
determine
whether
or
not
remediation
was
warranted
and
would
provide
some
insight
into
the
potential
benefits
of
alternative
remedies.
The
highest
tier
of
exposure
assessment
would
rely
heavily
on
site­
specific
data
and
would
include
model
tailoring
and
model
calibration
to
site
conditions.
This
most
sophisticated
assessment
would
be
applied
only
at
selected
sites
where
the
combination
of
site
complexity,
resource
values,
affected
party
interests,
and
potential
costs
warrant
a
detailed
investigation
of
existing
and
potential
future
exposures.

ORD's
research
and
program
applications
are
presently
focused
at
the
middle
tier;
funding
is
being
sought
to
expand
the
research
to
the
lower
and
higher
tiers.
This
recommendation
is
to
provide
program
guidance
for
implementing
the
screening
tier
and
to
conduct
research
and
model
validation
for
the
highest
tier.

B.
2
Develop
guidance
and
identify
pilots
for
improving
coordination
between
TMDL
and
remedial
programs
in
waterways
with
contaminated
sediments.

In
many
of
the
country's
water
bodies,
there
are
multiple
legal
authorities
to
address
both
existing
contaminated
sediments
and
continued
contaminant
loading.
Pilot
projects
need
to
be
developed
to
identify
the
most
effective
ways
to
integrate
environmental
management
to
control
sources
and
achieve
water
quality
goals.
Integrated
management
models
need
to
be
improved
and
communicated
within
U.
S.
EPA
and
to
partners
in
state
programs.
Results
of
the
TMDL
pilot
projects
in
waterways
with
contaminated
sediments
should
be
made
available
to
the
states
as
potential
models
for
the
development
of
complex
TMDLs
involving
multiple
toxic
pollutants
and
media
(i.
e.,
water,
sediment,
and
fish
tissue).

B.
3
Develop
and
advise
on
the
use
of
the
most
valid
contaminant
fate
and
transport
models
that
allow
prediction
of
exposures
in
the
future.

Numerous
models
exist
for
contaminant
fate
and
transport,
including
both
public
domain
and
proprietary
codes.
Some
models
have
not
been
peer­
reviewed
in
the
open
literature
and
there
are
very
few
long­
term
data
sets
that
can
be
used
to
judge
predictive
capability.
The
existing
public
domain
and
commercial
models
need
to
be
evaluated
to
determine
their
mechanistic
and
mathematical
foundations
and
robustness,
and
to
determine
the
extent
to
which
they
are
accepted
by
the
scientific
community.
One
or
more
models
need
to
be
further
developed
to
improve
any
weaknesses
determined
from
the
evaluation;
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(ORD)
has
begun
this
work.
The
models
need
to
be
validated
with
high
quality
data
sets,
which
will
be
developed
via
other
recommendations
in
this
plan.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
69
The
fate
and
transport
models
also
need
to
link
with
models
that
predict
direct
and
food
web
exposures
for
the
purpose
of
assessing
risks
and
comparing
remediation
alternatives.
The
bioavailability
of
the
contaminants
within
portions
of
the
system
has
to
be
considered
to
provide
input
from
the
transport
models
to
the
exposure/
effects
models.

B.
4
Develop
a
consistent
approach
to
applying
sediment
stability
data
in
transport
modeling.

Current
approaches
to
evaluating
sediment
stability
in
transport
modeling
vary
across
the
Agency
and
the
larger
stakeholder
community.
While
a
single
model
is
probably
not
appropriate
for
all
sites,
a
consistent
approach
is
needed
to
ensure
that
important
factors
are
being
considered.
Data
sets
developed
by
the
regions
and
other
organizations
can
help
identify
the
key
factors
that
the
transport
models
need
to
include
for
realistic
predictions.
In
addition,
a
workshop
was
held
in
January
2002
to
conduct
a
comparative
evaluation
of
the
models
for
hydrogeological
conditions
in
terms
of
the
reliability
of
predictions.

4.2.3
Human
Health
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
C.
1
Develop
guidance
for
characterizing
human
health
risks
on
a
PCB
congener
basis.

Improved
methods
are
needed
to
assess
the
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
aged
PCBs
in
sediment.
For
example,
although
it
is
recognized
that
measurement
of
PCB
Aroclors
in
sediment
can
underestimate
exposure
to
PCBs,
this
method
of
chemical
analysis
continues
to
be
used
in
risk
assessments
because
a
toxicity
equivalence
approach
for
evaluating
PCB
congeners
has
not
been
fully
developed.

C.
2
Develop
sediment
guidelines
for
bioaccumulative
contaminants
that
are
protective
of
human
health
via
the
fish
ingestion
pathway.

Contaminant­
specific
sediment
guidelines
to
protect
recreational
and
subsistence
anglers
should
be
developed.
This
will
conserve
resources
by
efficiently
eliminating
sites
or
parts
of
sites
and
chemicals
from
further
study,
and
will
help
focus
site
investigations
on
the
most
important
areas.
Fish
tissue
contaminant
guidelines
have
been
developed
for
a
range
of
chemicals
(U.
S.
EPA,
2000a),
but
corresponding
levels
of
contaminants
in
sediments
must
be
developed.
Guidelines
for
bioaccumulative
contaminants
such
as
DDT
and
metabolites,
PCBs,
methyl
mercury,
dieldrin,
and
high
molecular
weight
PAHs
should
be
developed.

C.
3
Refine
methods
for
estimating
dermal
exposures
and
risk.

Although
the
greatest
human
health
risk
is
generally
from
ingestion
of
contaminated
fish,
there
is
a
need
to
develop
better
methods,
models,
and
exposure
factors
that
will
enable
risk
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
70
assessors
to
estimate
the
exposure
from
direct
skin
contact
with
contaminated
sediments.
Research
is
needed
to
determine
the
amount
of
sediment
that
might
come
into
contact
with
the
skin
from
various
activities.
Research
is
also
needed
to
develop
a
model
that
accurately
predicts
how
much
of
the
sediment­
borne
contaminants
actually
crosses
the
dermal
barrier
and
is
available
to
cause
a
toxicological
effect.
Current
dermal
absorption
models
are
either
water
or
soil­
based
and
it
is
not
clear
which
might
be
more
applicable
for
sediments.

C.
4
Evaluate
the
toxicity
and
reproductive
effects
of
newly
recognized
contaminants,
such
as
alkylphenol
ethoxylates
(APEs)
and
other
endocrine
disruptors
and
their
metabolites
on
human
health.

Additional
long­
term
toxicity
data
are
needed
on
APEs
and
other
similar
chemicals
to
further
understand
their
long­
term
effects
on
reproductive
and
other
systems.

4.2.4
Ecological
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
D.
1
Develop
sediment
guidelines
to
protect
wildlife
from
food
chain
effects.

Sediment
quality
guidelines
are
needed
to
protect
piscivorous
birds
and
wildlife
from
food
chain
effects.
The
contaminants
should
be
bioaccumulative
chemicals
such
as
PCB,
DDT,
and
methyl
mercury.
This
effort
would
include
a
consistent
method
for
estimating
the
sitespecific
bioavailability
of
contaminants.

D.
2
Develop
additional
tools
for
characterizing
ecological
risks.

Benthic
community
studies
and
single­
species
sediment
toxicity
tests
are
often
used
to
evaluate
the
baseline
risks
to
ecological
receptors
and
the
risks
after
remediation.
Additional
methods
to
assess
long­
term
risks,
especially
for
persistent
bioaccumulating
compounds,
should
be
developed
and
validated.
This
includes
the
use
of
smaller,
short­
lived
fish
to
predict
the
longterm
food
chain
effects
on
game
fish,
and
the
use
of
molecular
or
genetic
indicators
to
predict
endocrine
disruptor
impacts.

D.
3
Develop
guidance
on
how
to
interpret
ecological
sediment
toxicity
studies
(lab
or
in
situ
caged
studies);
and
how
to
interpret
the
significance
of
the
results
in
relation
to
site
populations
and
communities.

A
more
consistent
process
is
needed
to
allow
risk
managers
to
determine:
1)
if
the
observed
or
predicted
adverse
effects
on
a
structural
or
functional
component
of
the
site's
ecosystem
is
of
sufficient
type,
magnitude,
areal
extent,
and
duration
that
irreversible
effects
have
occurred
or
are
likely
to
occur;
and
2)
if
these
effects
appear
to
exceed
the
normal
changes
in
the
structural
or
functional
components
typical
of
unimpacted
ecosystems.
Interpretive
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
71
guidance
for
ecological
sediment
toxicity
studies,
and
the
significance
of
the
results
to
site
populations
and
communities
needs
to
be
developed
to
better
evaluate
the
need
to
protect
an
ecological
resource.
For
bioassay
endpoints
such
as
survival,
growth,
and
reproduction,
population
models
should
be
developed
to
provide
further
insight
into
interpretation
of
test
results.

D.
4
Acquire
data
and
develop
criteria
to
use
in
balancing
the
long­
term
benefits
from
remedial
dredging
vs.
the
shorter
term
adverse
effects
on
ecological
receptors
and
their
habitats.

The
process
of
remedial
dredging
can
result
in
a
short­
term
increase
in
the
water
column
level
of
suspended
or
dissolved
contaminants
as
well
as
the
removal
of
existing
biota
and
a
severe
disruption
of
their
habitats.
Quantitative
or
qualitative
criteria
are
needed
that
can
be
used
to
determine
when
there
is
more
benefit
to
the
existing
ecosystem
from
leaving
the
contamination
in
place
and
preserving
the
impacted
biota
and
habitat
versus
a
destructive
remedy
that
removes
the
contamination
but
causes
short­
term
impacts.
This
analysis
would
also
include
predicting
recovery
times
for
all
scenarios
considered.

It
is
recommended
that
U.
S.
EPA
collaborate
with
appropriate
Federal
agencies
to
study
the
short­
and
long­
term
impacts
from
environmental
dredging.
At
least
two
locations
should
be
monitored
thoroughly
to
quantitatively
determine
all
contaminant
losses
during
remedial
dredging.
At
these
projects,
all
currently
accepted
management
practices
(e.
g.,
silt
curtains,
covered
clamshell
buckets,
state­
of­
the­
art
cutter
heads
for
hydraulic
dredging)
will
be
employed
to
ensure
minimal
resuspension.
All
losses
quantified
as
part
of
the
remedial
dredging
operation
would
then
have
to
be
measured
against
overall
benefits
to
the
site
by
evaluating
ecological
benefits
for
at
least
a
ten­
year
horizon.
Such
a
study
could
go
far
towards
resolving
the
argument
that
short­
term
negative
impacts
from
remedial
dredging
outweigh
long­
term
ecological
benefits.

Biological
Testing
(bioassays
and
bioaccumulation
tests)

D.
5
Conduct
field
and
laboratory
studies
to
further
validate
and
improve
chemicalspecific
sediment
quality
guidelines.

Chemical­
specific
sediment
quality
guidelines
have
been
developed
by
U.
S.
EPA
for
use
in
contaminated
sediment
assessment,
prevention,
and
remediation
programs.
Field
validation
studies
have
been
conducted
on
some
of
these
guidelines
for
these
uses.
However,
additional
field
validation
studies
and
laboratory
tests
using
a
range
of
species
should
be
conducted
to
further
validate
the
guidelines
and
understand
contaminant
exposure
routes.
Work
is
also
needed
to
develop
mixtures
guidelines
for
sediment
contaminants.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
72
D.
6
Continue
developing
and
refining
sediment
toxicity
testing
methods.

Although
a
number
of
sediment
toxicity
test
methods
have
been
standardized,
protocols
using
new
freshwater,
marine,
and
estuarine
test
species
must
be
developed
to
provide
sensitive
tests
representing
a
greater
range
of
species
and
habitat
types.
The
currently
available
Leptocheirus
plumulosus
chronic
test
protocol
uses
an
Atlantic
Coast
species,
which
may
not
adequately
represent
the
sensitivity
of
species
from
Pacific
Ocean
systems.
Chronic,
sublethal
test
protocols
are
needed
for
marine
species
present
in
the
Pacific,
such
as
the
amphipod
Grandidierella
japonica.
Additional
freshwater
test
protocols
are
needed
for
burrowing
species.
Field­
based
test
methods
(e.
g.,
in
situ
test
methods)
are
needed
to
assess
the
biological
effects
of
contaminated
sediments.
Some
of
the
currently
available
test
protocols
are
expensive
and
difficult
to
run.
Test
protocols
should
be
simplified
to
reduce
costs,
and
interpretive
guidance
for
sublethal
test
methods
should
be
developed.
A
number
of
marine
and
estuarine
test
protocols
for
amphipod
species
have
been
developed.
Consideration
should
be
given
to
developing
additional
methods
for
species
other
than
amphipods.

D.
7
Develop
whole
sediment
toxicity
identification
evaluation
procedures
for
a
wide
range
of
chemicals.

Sediment
contaminants
often
occur
in
mixtures.
Whole
sediment
toxicity
identification
evaluation
methods
are
needed
in
order
to
determine
which
contaminants
cause
observed
toxicity.
Currently
available
toxicity
identification
evaluation
methods
are
capable
of
characterizing
the
toxicity
of
a
sediment
only
by
identifying
classes
of
toxic
contaminants
(e.
g.,
metals
or
organic
toxicants).
Additional
work
is
needed
to
improve
the
method
so
that
individual
chemical
contaminants
can
be
identified.
In
addition,
work
is
needed
to
conduct
field
validation
studies
supporting
the
method.

4.2.5
Sediment
Remediation
Natural
Recovery/
Bioremediation
E.
1
Collect
the
necessary
data
and
develop
guidance
for
determining
the
conditions
under
which
natural
recovery
can
be
considered
a
suitable
remedial
option.
Such
guidance
would
include:
measurement
protocols
to
assess
the
relative
contribution
of
the
various
mechanisms
for
chemical
releases
from
bed
sediments
(e.
g.,
advection,
bioturbation,
diffusion,
and
resuspension),
including
mass
transport
of
contaminants
by
large
storm
events;
methodologies
to
quantify
the
uncertainties
associated
with
natural
recovery;
and
development
of
accepted
measuring
protocols
to
determine
in
situ
chemical
fluxes
from
sediments.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
73
When
selecting
a
remedial
option
for
a
particular
site,
it
is
critical
to
determine
the
methods
by
which
contaminants
are
lost
or
transported,
and
which
mechanisms
play
significant
roles.
In
many
situations
large
storm
events
will
be
the
largest
mechanism
to
move
contaminants
from
a
particular
hot
spot.
In
other
more
quiescent
settings,
such
processes
as
advection,
diffusion
and
bioturbation
may
predominate.
In
many
systems,
the
predominant
method
of
contaminant
loss
will
vary
over
the
season,
with
resuspension
by
storm
events
predominating
in
spring
and
other
mechanisms
dominant
over
the
rest
of
the
year.
Knowing
the
relative
contributions
of
these
mechanisms
is
critical
in
determining
whether
natural
recovery
or
capping
are
the
most
appropriate
remedial
options
for
a
site.

It
is
thus
recommended
that
research
be
continued
and
increased
for
examining
the
relative
contributions
of
the
various
mechanisms
for
contaminant
release
from
sediments.

In
Situ
Capping
E.
2
Develop
performance
evaluations
of
various
cap
designs
and
cap
placement
methods
and
conduct
post­
cap
monitoring
to
document
performance.
Continue
to
monitor
ongoing
capping
projects
to
monitor
performance
(e.
g.,
Boston
Harbor,
Eagle
Harbor,
Grasse
River).

The
design
and
installation
of
conventional
sediment
caps
is
well
understood;
however,
the
long­
term
effectiveness
of
this
remedial
alternative
has
not
been
well
researched.
In
addition,
many
entities
are
now
beginning
to
discuss
more
complex
cap
designs,
including
the
use
of
biological
treatment.

With
capping
becoming
a
management
option
being
recommended
at
more
sites,
it
is
critical
that
evaluations
be
conducted
to
document
its
effectiveness.
Capping
demonstration
projects
should
be
promoted
and
long­
term
monitoring
be
implemented
to
document
cap
performance.
All
mechanisms
of
loss
must
be
quantified
during
such
a
study
including
diffusion,
advection,
bioturbation,
and
storm
events.

In
Situ
Treatment
E.
3
Encourage
and
promote
the
development
and
demonstration
of
in­
situ
technologies.

In
situ
technologies,
if
proven
effective,
would
be
the
most
efficient
means
for
remediating
contaminated
sediment
sites.
Such
a
technology
would
avoid
the
problems
and
arguments
of
whether
or
not
removing
sediments
via
dredging
does
more
harm
than
good.
It
would
also
navigate
around
all
the
difficulties
associated
with
finding
a
disposal
site.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
74
U.
S.
EPA
should
actively
identify
and
work
with
any
vendors
who
have
a
viable
technology
for
treating
contaminants
in
situ.
Demonstration
projects
examining
in
situ
technologies
should
be
conducted
and
evaluated
to
determine
their
efficacy.
The
testing
of
one
such
technology,
electrogeochemical
oxidation,
is
currently
being
applied
at
a
number
of
sites
around
the
country.
As
part
of
these
projects,
the
process
will
be
extensively
monitored
to
evaluate
its
performance
in
treating
sediments.

Dredging/
Removal
E.
4
Using
the
data
provided
in
recommendation
E.
1,
develop
a
white
paper
evaluating
the
short­
term
impacts
from
dredging
relative
to
natural
processes
and
human
activities
(e.
g.,
resuspension
from
storm
events,
boat
scour,
wave
action
and
anchor
drag).

Large
storm
events
are
known
to
move
large
volumes
of
sediment
and
their
associated
contaminants.
Any
study
examining
the
impacts
from
dredging
must
also
be
examined
in
relation
to
all
mechanisms
of
contaminant
loss
ongoing
at
a
particular
site.
All
contaminant
losses
that
would
naturally
occur
at
a
site
including
resuspension
from
storm
events,
advection,
diffusion,
and
bioturbation,
must
be
taken
into
account
when
evaluating
dredging
impacts.
Only
when
the
net
losses
from
these
processes
are
known
can
the
impacts
associated
with
dredging
be
adequately
evaluated.

Ex
Situ
Treatment
Technologies
E.
5
Support
the
demonstration
of
cost­
effective
ex
situ
treatment
technologies
and
identification
of
potential
beneficial
uses
of
treatment
products.

Much
work
on
ex
situ
treatment
has
been
conducted
by
both
U.
S.
EPA
Region
2
and
The
Great
Lakes
National
Program
Office.
A
number
of
demonstrations
have
been
successfully
completed
to
date,
and
others
are
planned.
We
are
now
confident
that
tools
do
exist
to
decontaminate
sediments.
It
is
apparent,
however,
that
to
make
treatment
a
viable,
cost
effective
option,
a
marketable
end
use
product
must
be
developed,
particularly
at
sites
that
have
large
volumes
of
contaminated
sediments.

Partnerships
need
to
be
developed
with
industry
to
conduct
joint
demonstrations
and
examine
all
options
for
making
treatment
cost
effective
and
a
viable
alternative
to
landfilling.

4.2.6
Baseline,
Remediation,
and
Post­
remediation
Monitoring
There
is
an
ongoing
national
debate
regarding
the
short­
term
impacts
and
long­
term
effectiveness
of
dredging
and
capping
remedies,
with
some
claiming
that
dredging
and
capping
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
75
cause
greater
harm
through
destruction
of
habitat
and
release
of
contaminants.
Others
argue
that
while
there
are
short­
term
impacts,
they
can
be
minimized
through
technology
and
operational
and
other
controls,
and
that
these
remedies
will
prove
to
be
more
protective
over
the
long­
term
because
of
the
permanent
removal
of
the
contaminants
or
through
limitations
on
bioavailability.
A
review
of
sediment
sites
across
the
nation
show
a
lack
of
or
limited
monitoring
data
with
which
to
answer
these
questions
and
resolve
the
debate.
In
addition,
monitoring
data
needs
to
be
made
available
to
inform
decision­
making
at
contaminated
sediment
sites.

The
NRC
Report
(2001a)
recommends
that
"[
l]
ong­
term
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
[...]
contaminated
sediment
sites
should
be
conducted
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
management
approach
and
to
ensure
adequate,
continuous
protection
of
humans
and
the
environment."
This
is
consistent
with
the
issues
discussed
above;
more
and
better
monitoring
data
are
needed
of
both
remedy
implementation
and
post­
remediation
in
order
to
address
and
resolve
these
issues.

The
impediments
to
monitoring
include
limited
knowledge
on
how
to
develop
monitoring
plans,
including
the
types
of
measurements
to
be
performed,
how
often
monitoring
should
occur
and
over
how
long
a
period
of
time,
and
how
they
should
be
implemented.

The
following
key
recommendations
are
made
to
address
these
issues.

F.
1
Develop
monitoring
guidance
fact
sheets
for
baseline,
remediation,
and
postremediation
monitoring,
and
monitoring
during
remedy
implementation.

To
ensure
that
monitoring
data
will
be
collected,
guidance
and
a
compendium
of
available
protocols
and
tests
are
needed
for
the
project
manager's
reference.
Some
specific
areas
that
need
to
be
addressed,
including
an
evaluation
of
the
existing
protocols
and
tests,
should
be
performed
in
order
to
identify
those
which
are
appropriate
for
monitoring
and
what
additional
needs
there
may
be.
Monitoring
guidance
needs
to
be
developed
to
provide
project
managers
with
a
consistent
approach
to
developing
monitoring
plans
and
implementing
such
monitoring.
Such
guidance
should
also
address
how
monitoring
plans
are
developed,
what
protocols
and
tests
are
available
for
use
with
recommendations
for
the
use
for
each,
how
to
develop
indicators
and
measures,
how
to
evaluate
monitoring
data,
minimum
Quality
Assurance/
Quality
Control
(QA/
QC)
protocols,
and
specifics
regarding
which
biota
and
which
media
should
be
used
for
specific
situations
should
be
used
(i.
e.,
number
of,
species,
and
age
of
fish
for
bioaccumulative
chemicals
of
concern).

To
meet
this
need,
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
recommends
that
the
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
(OERR),
with
support
from
the
other
program
offices
and
regions,
initiate
the
development
of
monitoring
guidance
fact
sheets
in
FY02/
03
with
a
goal
of
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
76
finalizing
them
by
the
end
of
FY03.
It
is
suggested
that
a
workgroup
be
established
with
representation
from
across
the
program
offices
and
regions
to
take
on
this
task.

In
addition,
a
review/
evaluation
should
be
conducted
of
the
available
protocols
and
tests
in
order
to
identify
those
most
appropriate
for
specific
types
of
monitoring
and
to
identify
any
gaps
which
may
need
to
be
filled.
This
information
would
be
compiled
into
a
compendium
and
be
available
as
a
reference
document
for
the
guidance
and
fact
sheets.

F.
2
Conduct
training
and
hold
workshops
for
project
managers
regarding
monitoring
of
contaminated
sediment
sites.

Training
is
needed
to
teach
project
managers
how
to
develop
and
implement
monitoring
plans,
and
evaluate
the
resulting
data
with
regard
to
remedy
implementation
and
performance.
Workshops
or
other
fora
are
needed
to
share
monitoring
information
and
remedy
performance.

To
begin
to
meet
these
needs,
a
two­
day
Monitoring
Workshop
should
be
held
under
the
suggested
lead(
s)
of
ORD
and
OERR.
The
target
audience
would
be
U.
S.
EPA
scientists
and
project
managers
of
contaminated
sediment
sites.
An
advisory
group
should
be
formed
with
participation
from
the
various
program
and
regional
offices
to
plan
the
workshop.

The
CSSP
also
recommends
that
additional
sessions
be
held
periodically
(whether
they
be
training
workshops
or
brown
bags
for
the
purpose
of
teaching
how
to
conduct
monitoring
or
prepare
monitoring
plans,
or
fora
for
the
purpose
of
sharing
experiences
and
results),
and
at
various
levels
(i.
e.,
regional,
national,
U.
S.
EPA
only,
or
U.
S.
EPA
plus
external
parties).
The
leads
for
planning
such
sessions
may
be
at
the
national
or
regional
level.
Use
of
existing
fora
is
encouraged,
such
as
the
annual
National
Association
of
Remedial
Project
Managers
(NARPM)
meeting,
or
the
National
Superfund
Site
Assessment
Conference.
At
the
regional
level,
a
program
office
may
take
the
lead
to
sponsor
a
brown
bag
on
monitoring.
The
timing
of
such
regional
sessions
will
be
left
to
the
discretion
of
the
regions.
It
is
also
recommended
that
a
national
workshop
be
held
in
conjunction
with
the
completion
of
the
draft
monitoring
guidance,
under
the
sponsorship
of
OERR,
ORD,
and
OW.

4.2.7
Risk
Communication
and
Community
Involvement
Advances
in
the
science
of
risk
communication
would
result
in
much
more
meaningful
community
involvement
in
the
contaminated
sediments
cleanup
process.
The
methods,
models,
and
tools
produced
by
this
research
would
allow
U.
S.
EPA
to
more
effectively
reach
out
to
communities,
earn
their
trust,
and
build
effective
working
partnerships
–
partnerships
that
empower
communities
to
become
more
fully
engaged
in
the
entire
cleanup
decision­
making
process.
To
accomplish
this,
the
following
recommendation
is
made:
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
77
G.
1
Establish
a
research
program
on
risk
communication
and
community
involvement
focusing
on
developing
better
methods,
models,
and
tools.

There
are
many
potential
benefits
to
be
gained
by
conducting
research
in
this
area.
The
Office
of
Research
and
Development
should
take
the
lead
in
developing
a
solicitation
package
to
conduct
research
in
one
or
more
of
these
project
areas.

4.2.8
Information
Management
and
Exchange
Activities
Information,
or
data,
management
is
a
key
component
of
the
characterization,
assessment,
and
monitoring
activities
conducted
at
contaminated
sediment
sites.
A
data
management
system
provides
one
point
of
access
for
all
data
and
simplifies
assessment,
QA/
QC
evaluation,
modeling,
mapping,
querying,
trends
analysis
and
other
activities
that
may
be
conducted
using
the
data.
Information
communication
and
exchange
are
critical
components
of
a
contaminated
sediment
project
and
would
be
simplified
by
the
establishment
of
a
quality
data
management
system.
Outreach
and
information
sharing
with
the
public
is
key
to
their
understanding
of
the
ecological
and
health
risks
associated
with
a
site
and
of
the
possible
solutions
to
address
them.

There
is
a
need
for
more
timely
information
exchange
and
improved
access
to
environmental
information
and
data,
both
internally
across
the
Agency
and
with
external
stakeholders
and
other
interested
parties.
A
recommendation
in
the
National
Research
Council
Report
(2001b)
is
that
there
be
"early,
active,
and
continuous
involvement
of
all
affected
parties
and
communities
as
partners."
One
of
the
many
keys
to
the
success
of
such
involvement
is
the
availability
of,
and
access
to,
environmental
i
nformation
and
data
about
the
site(
s)
of
concern.
In
addition,
stakeholders
may
also
need
some
basic
science
knowledge
(or
someone
to
explain
it)
so
as
to
be
able
to
comprehend
what
the
data
and
information
mean
and
be
better
able
to
contribute
to
the
decision­
making
process
in
an
informative
manner.

To
meet
these
needs,
the
following
recommendations
are
made.

H.
1
Establish
regional
sediment
data
management
systems
which
can
link
the
regions
and
program
offices
with
each
other
and
with
the
National
Sediment
Inventory.

There
is
a
need
for
more
timely
information
exchange
regarding
contaminated
sediment
sites,
and
improved
access
to
environmental
information
and
data.
This
will
allow
for
improved
decision­
making
in
addition
to
being
able
to
learn
from
the
experiences
of
others.
The
two
key
impediments
or
issues,
in
addition
to
the
lack
of
sediment
data
management
systems
in
general,
are
the
lack
of
consistent
formats
among
such
systems,
and
a
lack
of
accessibility
between
regional
systems
and
the
national
program
offices.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
78
To
address
these
issues,
it
is
recommended
that
the
regional
information
management
programs
should
take
the
lead
for
ensuring
regional
sediment
data
management
systems
are
established,
and
to
provide
the
technical
support
that
may
be
needed.
The
regional
program
offices
will
need
to
work
together
to
establish
roles
and
responsibilities
on
how
the
data
management
systems
will
be
set
up
and
maintained.
The
Office
of
Environmental
Information
(OEI)
would
also
have
a
key
role
in
this
activity.
The
existing
data
management
systems
such
as
U.
S.
EPA's
STORage
and
RETrieval
database
(STORET)
should
be
evaluated
to
see
if
any
are
able
to
meet
the
needs
identified
here.
It
is
suggested
that
a
workshop
be
held
for
the
regions
and
program
offices
to
share
information
on
existing
data
management
systems
and
how
this
recommendation
might
best
be
implemented.
This
work
should
be
initiated
in
FY02.

H.
2
Standardize
the
sediment
site
data
collection/
reporting
format.
Establish
minimum
protocols
for
quality
assurance/
quality
control
(QA/
QC).

Because
data
are
collected
both
by
various
U.
S.
EPA
programs
and
offices
and
by
other
agencies,
collection
and
reporting
formats
and
QA/
QC
protocols
vary.
This
leads
to
difficulties
in
sharing
information
across
programs/
offices
and
between
U.
S.
EPA
and
other
agencies.

To
address
these
issues,
it
is
recommended
that
U.
S.
EPA's
Environmental
Information
Office,
with
OW
and
OSWER,
take
the
lead
in
developing
standardized
formats
and
identifying
minimum
QA/
QC
protocols.
The
regions,
state
environmental
agencies,
and
other
Federal
agencies,
as
appropriate,
should
be
involved.
It
is
recommended
that
a
workshop
be
held
in
the
near
future
to
address
these
issues,
with
the
protocols
being
developed
from
the
workshop.

H.
3
Develop
national
and
regional
contaminated
sediment
sites
web
sites
for
sharing
information.

To
also
meet
the
need
for
more
timely
information
exchange
regarding
contaminated
sediment
sites,
the
CSSP
recommends
that
a
national
sediment
web
site
be
established.
The
proposed
sediment
web
site
under
consideration
in
OW
should
be
considered
for
use
as
a
centralized
web
site
t
o
meet
this
need.
OW
is
suggested
to
take
the
lead,
with
support
from
OEI,
OERR,
and
other
offices
and
regions
as
appropriate.
Web
sites
developed
by
the
regions
and
programs
should
link
with
the
national
sediment
web
site.
GLNPO,
OW,
OERR,
and
some
of
the
regions
are
developing
or
have
developed
contaminated
sediment
web
sites
containing
information
on
sediment
sites,
and
also
provide
links
to
guidance
and
other
information
regarding
the
contaminated
sediment
problem.
Where
they
do
not
exist,
and
are
found
to
be
needed,
it
is
recommended
that
regional
remedial
and
water
programs,
working
with
their
regional
information
management
programs,
jointly
develop
contaminated
sediment
sites
web
sites.
It
is
recommended
that
these
web
sites
be
in
place
in
2003.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
79
H.
4
Re­
establish
and
expand
the
Office
of
Water­
sponsored
Sediment
Network
by
including
more
regional
representation.

The
CSSP
recommends
that
the
Sediment
Network
be
re­
established
in
2002
under
the
co­
lead
of
OW
and
OERR.
Key
representatives
from
appropriate
national
and
regional
program
offices
should
be
the
targeted
participants.
The
suggested
purpose
of
the
Network
would
be
to
resolve
issues
and
to
share
information
(each
representative
would
then
share
the
information
through
their
own
organizations).
Regular
teleconferences
should
be
scheduled.
It
is
also
suggested
that
an
OW/
OSWER
memorandum
be
prepared
and
sent
to
the
program
offices
and
regional
offices
announcing
the
Sediment
Network
and
inviting
their
participation.

A
sediment
list
server
is
also
recommended
as
an
additional
means
of
sharing
information
and
resolving
issues
for
a
larger
audience.
Responsibility
for
maintenance
of
such
a
list
server
should
be
jointly
shared
between
OW
and
OSWER.

H.
5
Promote
communication
and
coordination
of
science
and
research
among
Federal
agencies.

Many
other
Federal
agencies
and
departments
also
sponsor
research
on
many
of
the
same
sediment
research
topics.
The
CSSP
recommends
that
coordination
and
communication
of
science
and
research
among
Federal
agencies
be
promoted
in
order
to
avoid
duplication
of
efforts,
encourage
partnering
between
researchers
working
on
similar
projects,
and
facilitate
the
timely
sharing
of
interim
and
final
results.
Agencies
that
might
participate
include
U.
S.
EPA,
NOAA,
U.
S.
Navy,
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
and
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.

H.
6
Promote
the
exchange
of
scientific
information
via
scientific
fora
(i.
e.,
workshops,
journals,
and
meetings).

The
CSSP
recommends
that
national
and
regional
program
offices
encourage
their
managers
and
staff
to
share
scientific
information
via
workshops,
conferences,
publication
in
journals,
and
presentations.
Other
options
for
sharing
scientific
information
should
be
explored
at
the
regional
level.

4.3
Recommended
Approaches
to
Implement
Strategy
In
order
to
achieve
the
goals
of
the
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
(CSSP),
its
implementation
should
result
in
the
development
of
tools
and
scientific
methods,
enhancement
of
agency
communication
and
coordination,
and
development
of
effective
scientific
information
that
will
support
risk
management
decisions
on
contaminated
sediments
problems.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
80
The
CSSP
recommends
that
the
Contaminated
Sediment
Management
Committee
(CSMC),
comprised
of
Office
and
Division
directors,
has
the
responsibility
for
ensuring
the
implementation
of
the
key
recommendations
in
the
CSSP
through
their
role
as
a
forum
for
crossagency
coordination
and
collaboration
on
science
activities
in
contaminated
sediments.
It
is
recommended
that
the
CSMC
include
all
U.
S.
EPA
offices
and
regions
that
play
a
key
role
in
contaminated
sediment
issues
and
implementation
of
the
recommendations
of
the
CSSP.

It
is
recommended
that
the
CSMC
do
this
by
holding
an
annual
meeting
of
U.
S.
EPA
offices
and
regions.
This
meeting
should
serve
to
identify
the
status
of
science
activities
on
the
key
recommendations,
to
communicate
recent
results,
and
to
plan
future
activities.
To
accomplish
this,
the
following
tasks
should
be
completed
at
the
annual
meeting:

°
Reviewing
science
activities
The
lead
U.
S.
EPA
offices
and
regions
should
present
to
the
CSMC
the
current
science
activities
they
are
conducting
pertaining
to
research
topics
and
key
recommendations
identified
in
the
CSSP.
In
addition,
they
should
identify
those
additional
science
activities,
based
on
the
key
recommendations
in
the
CSSP,
that
they
would
implement
should
sufficient
resources
become
available.
This
information
sharing
will
serve
to
initiate
closer
coordination
of
science
activities
related
to
contaminated
sediments
across
U.
S.
EPA.

°
Implementing
science
activities
Lead
U.
S.
EPA
offices
and
regions
who
agree
to
carry
out
the
recommended
science
activities
should
ensure
that
these
activities
are
considered
within
their
annual
planning,
budgeting,
and
accountability
process,
and
are
implemented
when
resources
are
committed.
It
is
recommended
that
for
each
recommendation,
a
brief
one­
page
description
be
developed
(or
updated)
which
includes
the
following
information:
title,
key
partners,
actions
underway,
actions
planned
over
next
two
years,
products
expected
by
(date),
and
primary
contact(
s).
Please
refer
to
Appendix
B
for
an
example.
The
onepage
recommendation
descriptions
and
a
report
out
on
the
status
of
the
implementation
of
the
science
activities
would
be
provided
at
the
annual
meetings.
The
CSMC
would
then
determine
whether
progress
toward
the
goals
is
being
made
and,
if
necessary,
recommend
adjustments
to
science
activities
to
meet
the
key
recommendations.

°
Identifying
areas
where
science
partnerships
are
needed
The
CSMC
should
recommend
to
U.
S.
EPA
offices
and
regions
where
scientific
collaboration
within
the
Agency,
as
well
as
with
other
Federal
agencies,
would
be
beneficial.
These
partnerships
will
hopefully
speed
the
accomplishment
of
key
recommendations.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
81
°
Coordinating
with
U.
S.
EPA
offices
and
regions
The
CSMC
should
contact
the
lead
U.
S.
EPA
office
or
region
identified
as
a
suggested
critical
partner
from
Table
4­
1
for
each
key
recommendation
to
understand
how
they
intend
to
implement
science
activities
for
the
recommendations.

°
Identifying
unfunded
activities
Resource
needs
for
unfunded
or
underfunded
tasks
should
be
identified.
The
CSMC
should
discuss
unfunded
science
areas
and
communicate
these
to
the
appropriate
science
planning
staff
within
U.
S.
EPA
offices
and
regions
in
order
to
identify
the
appropriate
resources
to
address
them.

°
Updating
the
CSSP
Periodic
reviews
of
the
state
of
the
science
on
contaminated
sediments,
a
gaps
analysis,
and
updating
of
the
CSSP
are
recommended
every
five
years.

Table
4­
1
lists
the
key
recommendations
by
topic
area,
the
time
frame
for
implementation,
and
suggested
critical
partners.
Although
recommendations
are
roughly
divided
into
two
time
frames,
immediate
and
longer
term,
some
of
the
recommendations
could
be
viewed
as
continuing
needs.

Table
4­
1.
Summary
of
Key
Recommendations,
Time
Frame
for
Implementation,
and
Suggested
Critical
Partners
Recommendations
A.
Sediment
Site
Characterization
Immediate
Time
Frame
A.
1
Conduct
a
workshop
to
develop
a
consistent
approach
to
collecting
sediment
physical
property
data
for
use
in
evaluating
sediment
stability.
(OERR,
ORD,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

Longer
Time
Frame
A.
2
Develop
more
sensitive,
low­
cost
laboratory
methods
for
detecting
sediment
contaminants,
and
real­
time
or
near
real­
time
chemical
sensors
for
use
in
the
field.
(ORD,
OERR,
GLNPO)
A.
3
Develop
U.
S.
EPA­
approved
methods
with
lower
detection
limits
for
analysis
of
bioaccumulative
contaminants
of
concern
in
fish
tissue.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
A.
4
Develop
methods
for
analyzing
emerging
endocrine
disruptors,
including
alkylphenol
ethoxylates
(APEs)
and
their
metabolites.
(ORD)
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
82
B.
Exposure
Assessment
Immediate
Time
Frame
B.
1
Develop
a
tiered
framework
for
assessing
direct
and
food
web
exposures.
(ORD,
OW,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
B.
2
Develop
guidance
and
identify
pilots
for
improving
coordination
between
TMDL
and
remedial
programs
in
waterways
with
contaminated
sediments.
(OW,
OSWER,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
B.
3
Develop
and
advise
on
the
use
of
the
most
valid
contaminant
fate
and
transport
models
that
allow
prediction
of
site­
specific
exposures
in
the
future.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
B.
4
Develop
a
consistent
approach
to
applying
sediment
stability
data
in
transport
modeling.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

C.
Human
Health
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
Immediate
Time
Frame
C.
1
Develop
guidance
for
characterizing
human
health
risks
on
a
PCB
congener
basis.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
C.
2
Develop
sediment
guidelines
for
bioaccumulative
contaminants
that
are
protective
of
human
health
via
the
fish
ingestion
pathway.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

Longer
Time
Frame
C.
3
Refine
methods
for
estimating
dermal
exposures
and
risk.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
C.
4
Evaluate
the
toxicity
and
reproductive
effects
of
newly
recognized
contaminants,
such
as
alkylphenol
ethoxylates
(APEs)
and
other
endocrine
disruptors
and
their
metabolites
on
human
health.
(ORD)

D.
Ecological
Effects
and
Risk
Assessment
Immediate
Time
Frame
D.
1
Develop
sediment
guidelines
to
protect
wildlife
from
food
chain
effects.
(ORD,
OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
D.
3
Develop
guidance
on
how
to
interpret
ecological
sediment
toxicity
studies
(lab
or
in
situ
caged
studies)
and
how
to
interpret
the
significance
of
the
results
to
site
populations
and
communities.
(OW,
ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
D.
4
Acquire
data
and
develop
criteria
to
use
in
balancing
the
long­
term
benefits
from
dredging
vs.
the
shorter
term
effects
on
ecological
receptors
and
their
habitats.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
83
D.
6
Continue
developing
and
refining
sediment
toxicity
testing
methods.
(ORD,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
D.
7
Develop
whole
sediment
toxicity
identification
evaluation
procedures
for
a
wide
range
of
chemicals.
(ORD,
OW)

Longer
Time
Frame
D.
2
Develop
additional
tools
for
characterizing
ecological
risks.
(ORD,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
OW)
D.
5
Conduct
field
and
laboratory
studies
to
further
validate
and
improve
chemical­
specific
sediment
quality
guidelines.
(OW,
ORD)

E.
Sediment
Remediation
Immediate
Time
Frame
E.
1
Collect
the
necessary
data
and
develop
guidance
for
determining
the
conditions
under
which
natural
recovery
can
be
considered
a
suitable
remedial
option.
Such
guidance
would
include:
measurement
protocols
to
assess
the
relative
contribution
of
the
various
mechanisms
for
chemical
releases
from
bed
sediments
(e.
g.,
advection,
bioturbation,
diffusion,
and
resuspension),
including
mass
transport
of
contaminants
by
large
storm
events;
methodologies
to
quantify
the
uncertainties
associated
with
natural
recovery;
and
development
of
accepted
measuring
protocols
to
determine
in
situ
chemical
fluxes
from
sediments.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
GLNPO)
E.
2
Develop
performance
evaluations
of
various
cap
designs
and
cap
placement
methods
and
conduct
post­
cap
monitoring
to
document
performance.
Continue
to
monitor
ongoing
capping
projects
to
monitor
performance
(e.
g.,
Boston
Harbor,
Eagle
Harbor,
Grasse
River).
(ORD,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
GLNPO)
E.
4
Using
the
data
provided
in
recommendation
E.
1,
develop
a
white
paper
evaluating
the
short­
term
impacts
from
dredging
relative
to
natural
processes
and
human
activities
(e.
g.,
resuspension
from
storm
events,
boat
scour,
wave
action,
and
anchor
drag).
(OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

Longer
Time
Frame
E.
3
Encourage
and
promote
the
development
and
demonstration
of
in­
situ
technologies.
(ORD,
GLNPO)
E.
5
Support
the
demonstration
of
cost­
effective
ex­
situ
treatment
technologies
and
identification
of
potential
beneficial
uses
of
treatment
products.
(ORD,
GLNPO,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
84
F.
Baseline,
Remediation,
and
Post­
remediation
Monitoring
Immediate
Time
Frame
F.
1
Develop
monitoring
guidance
fact
sheets
for
baseline,
remediation,
and
post­
remediation
monitoring,
and
monitoring
during
remedy
implementation.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
OW)
F.
2
Conduct
training
and
hold
workshops
for
project
managers
regarding
monitoring
of
contaminated
sediment
sites.
(OERR,
ORD,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

G.
Risk
Communication
and
Community
Involvement
Immediate
Time
Frame
G.
1
Establish
a
research
program
on
risk
communication
and
community
involvement
focusing
on
developing
better
methods,
models,
and
tools.
(ORD,
OERR,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)

H.
Information
Management
and
Exchange
Activities
Immediate
Time
Frame
H.
1
Establish
regional
sediment
data
management
systems
which
can
link
the
regions
and
program
offices
with
each
other
and
with
the
National
Sediment
Inventory.
(U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
OW,
OSWER,
GLNPO)
H.
3
Develop
national
and
regional
contaminated
sediment
sites
web
sites
for
sharing
information.
(U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
OW,
OSWER,
GLNPO)
H.
4
Re­
establish
and
expand
the
Office
of
Water­
sponsored
Sediment
Network
by
including
more
regional
representation.
(OERR,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
H.
5
Promote
communication
and
coordination
of
science
and
research
among
Federal
agencies.
(ORD,
OSWER,
OW,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
NOAA,
U.
S.
Navy,
U.
S.
ACE,
USGS,
U.
S.
FWS)
H.
6
Promote
the
exchange
of
scientific
information
via
scientific
fora
(i.
e.,
workshops,
journals,
and
meetings).
(CSMC,
OW,
OSWER,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions,
GLNPO)

Longer
Time
Frame
H.
2
Standardize
the
sediment
site
data
collection/
reporting
format.
Establish
minimum
protocols
for
quality
assurance/
quality
control
(QA/
QC).
(OEI,
OW
OSWER,
U.
S.
EPA
Regions)
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
85
REFERENCES
Abramowicz,
D.
A.
and
D.
R.
Olsen.
1995.
Accelerated
biodegradation
of
PCBs.
CHEMTECH
24:
36­
41.

Ashford,
N.
A.
and
K.
M.
Rest.
1999.
Public
Participation
in
Contaminated
Communities.
Rep.
No.
U60/
CCU/
100929­
02.
Prepared
by
the
Center
for
Technology,
Policy,
and
Industrial
Development,
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology,
Cambridge,
MA.
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry,
Atlanta,
GA.

Bedard,
D.
L.
and
R.
J.
May.
1996.
Characterization
of
the
PCBs
in
Sediments
of
Woods
Pond:
Evidence
for
Microbial
Dechlorination
of
Aroclors
1260
In
Situ.
Environmental
Science
Technology
30:
237­
245.

Blake,
G.
R.
and
K.
H.
Hartge.
1986.
Methods
of
Soil
Analysis.
American
Society
of
Agronomy,
Inc.
and
Soil
Science
Society
of
America,
Madison,
WI.

Brown,
J.
F.
Jr.,
R.
E.
Wagner,
H.
Feng,
D.
L.
Bedard,
M.
J.
Brennan,
J.
C.
Carnaham,
and
R.
J.
May.
1987.
Environmental
Dechlorination
of
PCBs.
Environmental
Toxicology
and
Chemistry
6:
579­
593.

Canadian
Council
of
Ministers
of
the
Environment.
1995.
Protocol
for
the
Derivation
of
Canadian
Sediment
Quality
Guidelines
for
the
Protection
of
Aquatic
Life.
Prepared
by
the
CCME
Task
Group
on
Water
Quality
Guidelines,
Ottawa,
ON.

CDM.
1986.
Weiss
Associates
ElectroChemical
GeoOxidation
Pilot
Scale
Study
Work
Plan:
Draft
Report.
Prepared
by
Camp,
Dresser,
&
McKee
for
Alcoa,
Inc.

Cerniglia,
C.
E.
1992.
Biodegradation
of
PAHs.
Biodegradation
3:
351­
368.

Chapman,
P.
M.
1989.
Current
Approaches
to
Developing
Sediment
Quality
Criteria.
Environmental
Toxicology
and
Chemistry
8:
589­
599.

Chapman,
P.
M.,
E.
A.
Power,
and
G.
A.
Burton,
Jr.
1982.
"Integrative
Assessments
in
Aquatic
Ecosystems."
pp.
313­
340.
In:
Sediment
Toxicity
Assessment.
G.
A.
Burton,
Jr.
(ed).
Lewis
Publishers,
Chelsea,
MI.

Day,
P.
R.
1965.
"Particle
Fractionation
and
Particle­
Size
Analysis."
pp.
562­
566.
In:
Hydrometer
method
of
Particle
Size
Analysis
9.
American
Society
of
Agronomy,
Madison,
WI.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
86
Duncan,
G.
A.,
and
G.
G.
Lattaie.
1979.
Size
Analysis
Procedures
Used
in
Sedimentology
Laboratory,
NWRI
Manual.
National
Water
Research
Institute,
Canada
Centre
for
Inland
Waters,
Canada.

Field,
L.
J.,
D.
M.
Macdonald,
S.
B.
Norton,
C.
G.
Severn,
and
C.
G.
Ingersoll.
1999.
Evaluating
Sediment
Chemistry
and
Toxicity
Data
using
Logistic
Regression
Modeling.
Environmental
Toxicology
and
Chemistry
18(
6):
1311­
1322.

Fiorino,
D.
J.
1990.
Citizen
participation
and
environmental
risk
­
a
survey
of
institutional
mechanisms.
Science,
Technology,
and
Human
Values
15(
2):
226­
243.

Folk,
R.
L.
1980.
Petrology
of
Sedimentary
Rocks.
Hemphill
Publishing
Co.,
Austin,
TX.

Folk,
E.
1991.
Public
participation
in
the
Superfund
cleanup
process.
Ecology
Law
Quarterly
18(
1):
173­
221.

GLNPO.
2000.
Realizing
Remediation
II:
An
Updated
Summary
of
Contaminated
Sediment
Remediation
Activities
at
Great
Lakes
Areas
of
Concern.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Great
Lakes
National
Program
Office,
Chicago,
IL.

Guy,
Harold
P.
1969.
"Techniques
of
Water­
Resources
Investigations
of
the
U.
S.
G.
S."
p.
58.
In:
Laboratory
Theory
and
Methods
for
Sediment
Analysis;
Book
5.
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
Arlington,
VA.

Hayes,
D.
F.
1989.
Guide
to
selecting
a
dredge
for
minimizing
resuspension
of
sediment,
environmental
effects
of
dredging.
Technical
Note
EEDP­
09­
1.
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
Waterways
Experiment
Station,
Vicksburg,
MS.

Hoss,
S.
M.,
Haitzer,
W.
Traunspurger,
and
C.
E.
W.
Steinberg.
1999.
Growth
and
Fertility
of
Caenorhabditis
elegans
(Nematoda)
in
Unpolluted
Freshwater
Sediments:
Response
to
Particle
Size
Distribution
and
Organic
Content.
Environmental
Toxicology
and
Chemistry
18(
12):
2921­
2925.

Ingersoll,
C.
G.,
P.
S.
Haverland,
E.
L.
Brunson,
T.
J.
Canfield,
F.
J.
Dwyer,
C.
E.
Henke,
and
N.
E.
Kemble.
1996.
Calculation
and
Evaluation
of
Sediment
Effect
Concentrations.
Journal
of
Great
Lakes
Research
22:
602­
623.

Jones,
K.
W.,
Feng,
H.,
Stern,
E.
A.,
Lodge,
J.,
and
N.
L.
Clesceri.
2001.
Dredged
Material
Decontamination
Demonstration
for
the
Port
of
New
York/
New
Jersey.
Journal
of
Hazardous
Materials
85:
127­
143.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
87
Lee,
H.
II,
B.
L.
Boese,
J.
Pelletier,
M.
Winsor,
D.
T.
Sprecht,
and
R.
C.
Randall.
1989.
Guidance
Manual
Bedded
Sediment
Bioaccumulation
Tests.
EPA­
600/
X­
89/
302.
ERL,
Narragansett,
RI.

Long,
E.
R.
1992.
Ranges
in
chemical
concentrations
in
sediments
associated
with
adverse
biological
effect.
Marine
Pollution
Bulletin
24(
1):
38­
45.

Long,
E.
R.,
and
L.
G.
Morgan.
1991.
The
Potential
for
Biological
Effects
of
Sediment­
Sorbed
Contaminants
Tested
in
the
National
Status
and
Trends
Program.
NOAA
Technical
Memorandum
OMA
52.
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration,
Seattle,
WA.

MacDonald,
D.
D.
1994.
Approach
to
the
Assessment
of
Sediment
Quality
of
Florida
1991
Coastal
Waters.
Volume
1
­
Development
and
Evaluation
of
Sediment
Quality
Assessment
Guidelines.
Report.
Prepared
for
the
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
Tallahassee,
FL.

MacDonald,
D.
D.,
R.
S.
Carr,
F.
D.
Calder,
E.
R.
Long,
and
C.
G.
Ingersoll.
1996.
Development
and
Evaluation
of
Sediment
Quality
Guidelines
for
Florida
Coastal
Waters.
Ecotoxicology
5:
253­
278.

McDonald,
D.
D.,
Ingersoll,
C.
G.,
and
Berger,
T.
A.
2000.
Development
and
Evaluation
of
Consensus­
Based
Sediment
Quality
Guidelines
for
Freshwater
Ecosystems.
Archives
of
Environmental
Contamination
and
Toxicology
39:
20­
31.

Mudroch,
A.,
and
S.
D.
MacKnight.
1994.
CRC
Handbook
of
Techniques
for
Aquatic
Sediment
Sampling.
Second
Edition.
CRD
Press,
Boca
Raton,
FL.

National
Research
Council.
1997.
Contaminated
Sediments
in
Ports
and
Waterways:
Cleanup
Strategies
and
Technologies.
National
Academy
Press,
Washington,
D.
C.

National
Research
Council.
2001a.
A
Risk
Management
Strategy
for
PCB­
Contaminated
Sediments.
National
Academy
Press,
Washington,
D.
C.

National
Research
Council.
2001b.
Understanding
Risk,
Informing
Decisions
in
a
Democratic
Society.
P.
C.
and
H.
V.
Stineberg
(eds).
National
Academy
Press,
Washington,
D.
C.

Parametrix.
1999.
St.
Paul
Waterway
Area
Remedial
Action
and
Habitat
Restoration
Project:
1998
Monitoring
Report.
Unpublished
report
to
Simpson­
Tacoma
Kraft
Co.,
Tacoma,
WA,
and
Champion
International,
Stanford,
CT,
for
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology
and
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Seattle,
WA.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
88
Patrick,
W.
H.,
Jr.
1958.
"Modification
of
Method
Particle
Size
Analyses."
In:
Proceedings
of
the
Soil
Science
Society
of
America
4:
366­
367.

Peck,
J.,
Hulsey,
B.,
and
Savagian,
A.
1994.
Clean
Lakes,
Clean
Jobs
A
Case
for
Cleaning
Up
Contaminated
Sediments.
Sierra
Club
Great
Lakes
Ecoregion
Program,
Madison,
WI.

Plumb,
R.
H.
1981.
Procedure
for
handling
and
chemical
analysis
of
sediment
and
water
samples.
Tech.
Rep.
EPA/
CE­
81­
1.
Prepared
by
Great
Lakes
Laboratory,
State
University
College
at
Buffalo,
Buffalo,
NY
for
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
Technical
Committee
on
Criteria
for
Dredged
and
Fill
Material.
Published
by
U.
S.
Army
Engineer
Waterways
Experiment
Station,
Vicksburg,
MS.

Puget
Sound
Estuary
Program.
1986.
Recommended
Guidelines
for
Measuring
Selected
Environmental
Variables
in
Puget
Sound.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Region
10,
Office
of
Puget
Sound,
Seattle,
WA,
and
Puget
Sound
Water
Qualit
y
Authority,
Olympia,
WA.

Rukavina,
N.
A.,
and
G.
A.
Duncan.
1970.
"F.
A.
S.
T.
­
Fast
Analysis
of
Sediment
Texture."
pp.
274­
281.
In:
Proceedings
of
the
13th
Conference
on
Great
Lakes
Research.

Sanford,
R.
B.,
and
D.
J.
P.
Swift.
1971.
Comparisons
of
Sieving
and
Settling
Techniques
for
Size
Analysis,
Using
a
Benthos
Rapid
Sediment
Analyzer.
Sedimentology
17:
257­
264.

Seech,
A.,
B.
O'Neil,
and
L.
A.
Comacchio.
1993.
"Bioremediation
of
Sediments
Contaminated
with
PAHs."
In:
Proceedings
of
the
Workshop
on
the
Removal
and
Treatment
of
Contaminated
Sediments.
Environment
Canada's
Great
Lakes
Cleanup
Fund.
Wastewater
Technology
Center,
Burlington,
Ontario.

SEG.
1999.
Trenton
Channel
Marketability
Study,
Detroit,
Michigan.
MERA
#820012.
Snell
Environmental
Group,
Lansing,
MI.

Shuttleworth,
K.
L.
and
C.
E.
Cerniglia.
1995.
Environmental
Aspects
of
PAH
Biodegradation.
Applied
Biochemistry
and
Biotechnology
54:
291­
302.

Singer,
J.
K.,
J.
B.
Anderson,
M.
T.
Ledbetter,
I.
N.
McCave,
K.
P.
N.
Jones,
and
R.
Wright.
1988.
An
Assessment
of
Analytical
Techniques
for
the
Size
Analysis
of
Fine­
Grained
Sediments.
Journal
of
Sedimentary
Petrology
58:
534­
543.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate,
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
89
Smith,
S.
L.,
D.
D.
MacDonald,
K.
A.
Kennleyside,
G.
G.
Ingersoll,
and
J.
Field.
1996.
A
Preliminary
Evaluation
of
Sediment
Quality
Assessment
Values
for
Freshwater
Ecosystems.
Journal
of
Great
Lakes
Research
22:
624­
638.

Steuer,
Jeffrey
J.
2000.
A
Mass­
Balance
Approach
for
Assessing
PCB
Movement
During
Remediation
of
a
PCB­
Contaminated
Deposit
on
the
Fox
River,
Wisconsin.
USGS
Report
00­
4245.
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
Middleton,
WI.

Stern,
E.
A.,
K.
R.
Donato,
N.
L.
Clesceri,
and
K.
W.
Jones.
1998.
"Integrated
Sediment
Decontamination
for
the
New
York/
New
Jersey
Harbor."
pp.
71­
81.
In:
Proceedings,
National
Conference
on
Management
and
Treatment
of
Contaminated
Sediments.
EPA/
625/
R­
98/
001.

Sumeri,
A.
1984.
"Capped
in­
water
disposal
of
contaminated
dredged
material."
pp.
644­
653.
In:
Dredging
`84:
Proceedings
of
the
1st
International
Conference
on
Dredging
and
Material
Disposal.
R.
L.
Montgomery
and
J.
W.
Leach
(eds).
American
Society
of
Civil
Engineers,
New
York.

Truitt,
C.
L.
1986.
Engineering
Considerations
for
Capping
Subaqueous
Dredged
Material
Deposits
­
Design
Concepts
and
Placement
Techniques.
Environmental
Effects
of
Dredging.
EEDP­
01­
4.
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
Waterways
Experiment
Station,
Vicksburg,
MS.

U.
S.
EPA.
1979.
Chemistry
Laboratory
Manual
for
Bottom
Sediments
and
Elutriate
Testing.
EPA­
905­
4­
79­
014
(NTIS
PB
294596).
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
V,
Chicago,
IL.

U.
S.
EPA.
1981.
Interim
Methods
for
the
Sampling
and
Analysis
of
Priority
Pollutants
in
Sediment
and
Fish
Tissue.
EPA­
600/
4­
81­
055.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Environmental
Monitoring
and
Support
Laboratory,
Cincinnati,
OH.

U.
S.
EPA.
1991a.
Evaluation
of
dredged
material
proposed
for
ocean
disposal
­
testing
manual.
EPA­
503­
8­
91­
001.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
1991b.
Methods
for
the
Determination
of
Metals
in
Environmental
Samples.
EPA600
4­
91­
010.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Environmental
Monitoring
Systems
Laboratory,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
Cincinnati,
OH.

U.
S.
EPA.
1992a.
Proceedings
of
EPA's
contaminated
sediment
management
forums.
EPA
823.
Chicago,
IL,
21­
22
April,
and
Washington,
D.
C.,
27­
28
May
and
16
June.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
90
U.
S.
EPA.
1992b.
Sediment
Classification
Methods
Compendium.
EPA­
823­
R­
92­
006.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
1994.
ARCS
Program
­
Remediation
Guidance
Document.
EPA­
905­
R­
94­
003.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Great
Lakes
National
Program
Office,
Chicago,
IL.

U.
S.
EPA.
1995a.
Guidance
for
Assessing
Chemical
Contaminant
Data
for
Use
in
Fish
Advisories,
Volume
IV:
Risk
Communication.
EPA/
823/
R­
95/
001
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Water,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
1995b.
QA/
QC
Guidance
for
Sampling
and
Analysis
of
Sediments,
Water,
and
Tissues
for
Dredged
Material
Evaluations.
Phase
I
­
Chemical
Evaluations.
EPA­
823­
B95
001.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
1996a.
ARCS
Program
­
Estimating
Contaminant
Losses
from
Components
of
Remediation
Alternatives
for
Contaminated
Sediments.
EPA­
905­
R96­
001.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Great
Lakes
National
Program
Office,
Chicago,
IL.

U.
S.
EPA.
1996b.
Ecotox
Thresholds:
Eco
Update.
EPA­
540­
F­
95­
038.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
1997a.
Incidence
and
Severity
of
Sediment
Contamination
in
Surface
Waters
of
the
United
States.
EPA­
823­
R­
96­
006.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
1997b.
EPA's
Strategic
Plan.
EPA/
190­
R­
97­
002.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
the
Chief
Financial
Officer,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
1998a.
A
Multimedia
Strategy
for
Priority
Persistent,
Bioaccumulative,
and
Toxic
(PBT)
Pollutants.
Prepared
by:
U.
S.
EPA
Persistent,
Bioaccumulative
and
Toxic
Pollutants
(PBT)
Plenary
Group
and
U.
S.
EPA
Office
Directors
Multimedia
and
Pollution
Prevention
Forum.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
1998b.
EPA's
Contaminated
Sediment
Management
Strategy.
EPA­
823­
R­
98­
001.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
1998c.
Evaluation
of
Dredged
Material
Proposed
for
Discharge
in
Waters
of
the
U.
S.
––
Testing
Manual.
EPA­
823­
B­
98­
004.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
91
U.
S.
EPA.
1998d.
Guidance
for
In
Situ
Subaqueous
Capping
of
Contaminated
Sediments.
EPA­
905­
B96­
004.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
1999a.
EPA
Action
Plan
for
Beaches
and
Recreational
Waters.
EPA/
600/
R­
98/
079.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Research
and
Development
and
Office
of
Water,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
1999b.
Lessons
Learned
about
Superfund
Community
Involvement,
Features
Partnerships
at
Waste
Inc,
Superfund
Site.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
5,
Michigan
City,
IN.

U.
S.
EPA.
1999c.
Risk
Assessment
Guidance
for
Superfund:
Volume
1­
Human
Health
Evaluation
Manual
Supplement
to
Part
A:
Community
Involvement
in
Superfund
Risk
Assessments.
EPA
­540­
R­
98­
042.
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
1999d.
Superfund
Risk
Assessment
and
How
You
Can
Help
(Videotape).
EPA­
540­
V­
99­
002
OSWER­
9285.7­
29A.
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
2000a.
Draft
Equilibrium
Partitioning
Sediment
Guidelines
(ESGs)
for
the
Protection
of
Benthic
Organisms:
Metal
Mixtures
(Cadmium,
Copper,
Lead,
Nickel,
Silver,
and
Zinc).
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Water,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
2000b.
Draft
Technical
Basis
for
the
Guidelines
(ESGs)
for
the
Protection
of
Benthic
Organisms:
Nonionic
Organics.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Water,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
2000c.
Guidance
for
Assessing
Chemical
Contaminant
Data
for
Use
in
Fish
Advisories.
Third
Edition.
EPA­
823­
B­
00­
007.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
2000d.
Methods
for
Measuring
the
Toxicity
and
Bioaccumulation
of
SedimentAssociated
Contaminants
With
Freshwater
Invertebrates.
Second
Edition.
EPA/
600­
R99
064.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
2000e.
Strategic
Framework
for
EPA
Science.
Office
of
Science
Policy.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
92
U.
S.
EPA.
2001a.
Methods
for
Assessing
the
Chronic
Toxicity
of
Marine
and
Estuarine
Sediment­
Associated
Contaminants
with
the
Amphipod
Leptocheirus
plumulosus.
First
Edition.
EPA­
823­
F­
01­
008.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
2001b.
Methods
for
Collection,
Storage,
and
Manipulation
of
Sediments
for
Chemical
and
Toxicological
Analysis.
In
press.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Water,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
2001c.
PBT
National
Action
Plan
for
Mercury.
Final
Draft.
Prepared
by:
U.
S.
EPA
Mercury
Task
Force,
Persistent,
Bioaccumulative
and
Toxic
Pollutants
(PBT)
Mercury
Work
Group.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
In
prep.
Appendix
to
the
Capping
Guidance
Document:
Impacts
of
Advective
Transport
of
Contaminants
through
In
Situ
Caps
(working
title).
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Great
Lakes
National
Program
Office
and
Region
5.

U.
S.
EPA/
U.
S.
ACE.
1992.
Evaluating
Environmental
Effects
of
Dredged
Material
Management
Alternatives
­
A
Technical
Framework.
EPA­
842­
B­
92­
008.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
GAO.
2000.
Report
to
Congressional
Requesters:
Superfund
Information
Regarding
EPA's
Decision
Process
on
the
Hudson
River
Superfund
Site.
GAO/
RCED­
00­
193.
U.
S.
General
Accounting
Office,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
Science
Advisory
Board.
1992.
An
SAB
Report:
Review
of
Sediment
Criteria
Development
Methodology
for
Non­
ionic
Organic
Contaminants.
EPA­
SAB­
EPEC­
93­
002.
Prepared
by
the
Sediment
Quality
Criteria
Subcommittee
of
the
Ecological
Processes
and
Effects
Committee.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Science
Advisory
Board,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
Science
Advisory
Board.
1996.
An
SAB
Report:
Review
of
the
Agency's
Approach
for
Developing
Sediment
Criteria
for
Five
Metals.
EPA­
SAB­
EPEC­
95­
020.
Prepared
by
the
Sediment
Quality
Criteria
Subcommittee
of
the
Ecological
Processes
and
Effects
Committee.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Science
Advisory
Board.
Washington,
D.
C.

Vecci,
M.,
T.
B.
Reynoldson,
A.
Pasteris,
and
G.
Bonomi.
1999.
Toxicity
of
Copper­
Spiked
Sediments
to
Tubifex
tubifex
(Oligochaeta,
Tubificidae):
Comparison
of
the
28­
day
Reproductive
Bioassay
With
an
Early
Life
Stage
Bioassay.
Environmental
Toxicology
and
Chemistry
18(
6):
1144­
1148.
Contaminated
Sediments
Science
Plan
Draft
Document
­
Do
not
cite,
circulate
or
copy
June
13,
2002
Page
93
Zeman,
A.
J.
and
T.
S.
Patterson.
1997.
"Results
of
in
situ
capping
demonstration
project
in
Hamilton
Harbour,
Lake
Ontario."
In:
Proceedings
of
the
International
Symposium
on
Engineering
Geology
and
the
Environment.
Athens,
Greece,
23­
27
June.
