PROCEEDINGS OF THE
NATIONAL SEDIMENT INVENTORY WORKSHOP
April 26-27, 1994
Dupont Plaza Hotel
Washington, DC
Sponsored by:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Science and Technology
Standards and Applied Science Division
Washington, DC
R*cyct*d/R*cydablซ
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contain* ซt least 50% recycled taw
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
DAY ONE - METHODOLOGIES FOR EVALUATING NSI DATA 1
Purpose and Objectives of the NSI Workshop 1
NSI Data Overview 1
Potential Methodologies for Use in Evaluating the NSI Data 2
DAY ONE - WORKGROUP BREAKOUT SESSIONS . 3
Question #1 4
Question #2 5
Question #3 6
Question #4 r 8
DAY ONE - AFTERNOON WORKGROUP PRESENTATIONS 9
DAY TWO - MORNING SESSION 11
Overview of Potential Ranking Approaches 11
DAY TWO - WORKGROUP BREAKOUT SESSIONS 12
Issue #1 12
Issue #2 12
Issue #3 13
Issue #4 13
DAY TWO - CLOSING SESSION 18
Biased Versus Unbiased Data * 18
Data Aggregation 18
Road Test/Pilot Project ; 18
Categorization of Sites 19
SUMMARY TABLE OF CATEGORIES OF SITE CLASSIFICATIONS AND
TYPES OF DATA USED TO DETERMINE CLASSIFICATIONS 22
NEXT STEPS 23
APPENDIX A. AGENDA ; A-l
APPENDIX B. LIST OF ATTENDEES B-l
APPENDIX C. NSI WORKGROUP BREAKOUT ASSIGNMENTS C-l
APPENDIX D. SPEAKER PRESENTATIONS D-l
APPENDIX E. GLOSSARY OF TERMS . . E-l
iii
-------
IV
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 26-27, 1994, in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) sponsored the National Sediment Inventory Workshop. The purpose of the workshop
was to bring together experts in the field of sediment quality to develop a methodology for
evaluating the National Sediment Inventory (NSI) data using a "weight-of-eyidence" approach
that will identify known and suspected sites of sediment contamination. This information
will be included in a Report to Congress, which was mandated under the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992 (WRDA). The purpose of the Report to Congress is to identify
the geographic extent and severity of sediment contamination in the United States.
Elizabeth Southerland of EPA's Office of Science and Technology (OST) opened the meeting
and provided background information on the NSI and on the purpose and goals of the
workshop. Next, Catherine Fox of EPA's OST reviewed the data elements in the NSI and
explained the approach used in the preliminary evaluation of the sediment chemistry data that
was provided to the EPA Regions. Finally, Peter Chapman of EVS Consultants reviewed
potential methodologies for use in evaluating the NSI data. The participants then broke into
four workgroups to discuss methodologies that should be used to evaluate the different data
types in the NSI, as well as to develop a categorization of sites to be used in the evaluation
of data currently housed in the NSI.
Following the second day's workgroup breakout sessions, the workshop participants were
brought together to summarize workgroup discussions and to reach consensus on the issues
discussed.
Consensus was reached on the definition of categories.
identified:
Five categories of sites were
High probability of adverse effects caused by sediment contamination
Medium-high probability of adverse effects caused by sediment contamination
Medium-low probability of adverse effects caused by sediment contamination
Low probability of adverse effects caused by sediment contamination
Unknown.
The participants also identified various types of data that could be used alone or in
combination with other data to place a site into one of the above-mentioned categories. The
following table summarizes the categories of site classifications and types of data used to
determine classifications.
Following the development of the final approach for evaluating the NSI data (based on
recommendations from this workshop) and the incorporation of comments from the EPA
Regions on the preliminary evaluation of NSI sediment chemistry data, EPA will begin to
evaluate the NSI data for inclusion in the Report to Congress.
-------
SUMMARY TABLE OF CATEGORIES OF SITE CLASSIFICATIONS AND
TYPES OF DATA USED TO DETERMINE CLASSIFICATIONS
Category or Site
ClusUkatiom
High Probability of
Adverse Effects
Medium-High
Probability of
Advene Effects
Medium-Low
Probability of
Adverse Effects
Low Probability of
Advene Effects
Unknown
Data Used to Determine Classifications
Sediment Chemistry
(site is identified by any one of
the following characteristics)
Sediment chemistry values
exceed sediment quality
criteria for any one of the five
chemicals for which criteria
have been developed by EPA
(based on measured TOC)
Sediment chemistry values
exceed all relevant AETs
(high), ERMs, PELs.and EqPs
for any one chemical (can use
default TOC and AVS)
Sediment chemistry values
>50 ppm for PCBs
Sediment chemistry TBP
exceeds FDA action levels or
EPA risk levels
Sediment chemistry TBP
exceeds wildlife criteria
Elevated sediment chemistry
concentrations of PAHs
Sediment chemistry values
exceed at least two of the
sediment upper threshold
criteria (i.e., ERM, EqP,
PEL, high AET) (caa use
default TOC EqPs for metals
cannot be used unless with
measured AVS)
Sediment chemistry TBP
exceeds FDA action levels or
wildlife criteria
Sediment chemistry values
exceed one of the lower
threshold criteria (ERL, EqP,
TEL, lower AET) (can use
default TOC and AVS)
No exceedance of lower
threshold criteria
and
No sediment chemistry TBP
exceedances of FDA action
levels or wildlife criteria
OR
AND
AND
AND
OR
OR
AND
Toxicity
Toxicity demonstrated by
two or more acute toxicity
tests (one of which must
be a solid-phase
nonmicrobial test)
Toxicity demonstrated by
a single species toxicity
test (solid-phase,
nonmicrobial)
Toxicity demonstrated by
a single species toxicity
test (elutriate-phase,
nonmicrobial)
No toxicity demonstrated
in tests using at least two
species and at least one
solid-phase test using
amphipods .
OR
OR
"
AND
Tissue Residue/
Biological Indicator
Human health thresholds
for dioxin or PCBs are
exceeded in resident
species (not a consensus
agreement participants
evenly divided on this
issue)
Tissue levels in resident
species exceed FDA action
levels or EPA risk levels
Tissue levels in resident
species exceed wildlife
criteria
Presence of fish tumors
Tissue levels in resident
species exceed FDA action
levels or wildlife criteria
~
Tissue levels in resident
species are lower than FDA
action levels and wildlife
criteria
VI
-------
NATIONAL SEDIMENT INVENTORY WORKSHOP
April 27-28, 1994
Washington, DC
DAY ONE - METHODOLOGIES FOR EVALUATING NSI DATA
Purpose and Objectives of the NSI Workshop, Elizabeth Southerland, USEPA OST
(overheads included in Appendix B)
Elizabeth Southerland welcomed the participants and explained the purpose of the workshop:
to develop a methodology for evaluating the National Sediment Inventory (NSI) data using a
"weight-of-evidence approach" that will identify known and suspected sites of sediment
contamination.
She gave some background on the development of the NSI, noting that the NSI has been
developed in response to the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA), which
calls for the compilation of all existing information on the location of pollutants in aquatic
sediment, including the probable source of such pollutants and identification of those
sediments which are contaminated.
Elizabeth stressed to the group that Congress wants to know the geographic extent and
severity of sediment contamination in the United States. The Report to Congress, as
mandated by WRDA, will include this information and will be revised every 2 years.
Some participants expressed some concern about actually performing a numerical ranking of
the contaminated sites, and Elizabeth responded that the ranking does not have to be
numerical but can involve general classifications.
NSI Data Overview, Catherine Fox, USEPA OST (overheads included in Appendix B)
Catherine Fox presented an overview of the NSI project and a timeline for completed and
proposed activities under the project. She then reviewed the inventory itself, identifying how
data sets were obtained and what minimum data elements were needed to include a data set.
Catherine presented graphically the location of NSI stations with data on sediment chemistry,
tissue residue, toxicity, benthic abundance, and histopathology, as well as matched data sets.
She reviewed the limitations of NSI data, such as the limited TOC and AVS data available
for sediment chemistry analysis. Some participants expressed their belief that TOC should
be a "must have" data element to be included in the NSI. Catherine explained that a TOC
requirement would severely limit the geographic coverage of the study and perhaps lessen the
usefulness of the information given to Congress.
-------
Catherine described the preliminary evaluation of the sediment chemistry data, which will be
distributed to the EPA Regions in the near future. The purpose of this evaluation is to
quickly identify highly contaminated sites for Regional review. The methodology
recommended for the final evaluation of sites and the Report to Congress may differ from the
preliminary evaluation approach. The Regions will also be asked to add additional sites that
are suspected areas of concern.
Catherine next explained the approach used in the preliminary evaluation of the sediment
chemistry data provided to the EPA Regions. The approach involves using the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) effects range mediums (ERMs) for
metals, EPA's equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach for nonionic organics, and
Washington State's lowest apparent effects thresholds (AETs) for ionic organics. The
analysis was performed at the waterbody segment level of detail. Each analyte in the
inventory was screened at the 50th percentile concentration. (Nondetects and less thans were
treated as zero.) If the 50th percentile concentration in a waterbody segment was greater
than the reference value for that contaminant, then the waterbody segment was considered a
potential area of concern. The advantages of the approach are that it targets the most highly
contaminated sites (based on 50th percentile concentrations); comparisons are based on
reference levels demonstrated to cause biological impacts (i.e., ERMs, EqPs, and AETs);
and the results are presented at the waterbody segment level of detail, which will allow the
Regions to compare the results with known sampling results in the Region. The
disadvantages of the approach are that it uses only sediment chemistry data, TOC and AVS
data are not provided in many data sets, and there is a lack of documented QA/QC
information.
Based on the preliminary evaluation, Catherine presented the top 20 potential contaminants of
concern and showed the geographical extent of sites where those contaminants were identified
as a concern.
Potential Methodologies for Use in Evaluating the NSI Data, Peter Chapman, EVS
Consultants (overheads included in Appendix B)
Peter Chapman presented a "discussion" paper on potential evaluation methodologies for the
Report to Congress and what the selected methodology should contain. He stated that the
methodology employed should include data on ecological and human health risk, should
allow the use of future data (e.g., greater emphasis on biology), should direct future data-
gathering activities, and should be able to answer the central question: Are contaminated
sediments a national problem or only a "hot spot" problem?
He then reviewed the status of the NSI and the kinds of data sets included. He stressed that
the NSI is not currently in the form of a user-friendly "database." The NSI is in a series of
Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) files and requires specialized software to perform
evaluations. Peter pointed out that the NSI will eventually be converted to a more
user-friendly format and that the data evaluation should include toxicity as well as sediment
chemistry at a minimum.
-------
Peter explained that the evaluation of the data in the NSI should be treated as a risk
assessment. Tier 1 requires an exposure assessment and a toxicity/hazard assessment, taking
into account bulk chemical concentrations, background chemical concentrations, and
receptors. Tier 2 includes direct measures of bioavailability and standard bioassessment
studies. For example, in a Tier 1 assessment ecoregions would be compared to background
levels using sediment chemistry thresholds as well as sediment tissue data (e.g., human
health, fish advisory comparisons). In a Tier 2 assessment effects data would be added for
the final site classification. Many participants stated that it is not possible to link chemical
concentrations to biological effects without matched data. Some, however, stated that an
inventory of contamination (i.e., elevated chemical concentration) can be done using only
sediment chemistry data.
Peter then presented possible sediment chemistry screening tools and posed the question of
how to score the sites: on a continuum or using a binary system. EPA prefers a system
based on a continuum.
He then reviewed the QA/QC issue. What is an appropriate level of QA validation? How
stringent can we be with QA/QC requirements and still have data left to evaluate? He
stressed that minimum QA/QC expectations should be met for all types of data in the NSI.
Peter stated that in the future the QA/QC requirements could become more stringent.
The participants then broke into workgroups to discuss individual data types.
DAY ONE - WORKGROUP BREAKOUT SESSIONS
Workshop participants were divided into three workgroups and were charged with answering
the following four questions:
1. What methodology should be used to evaluate the NSI's toxicity data (solid phase
and elutriate toxicity test data)?
2. Should we incorporate the NSI's fish tissue residue data into the evaluation? If
so, what methodology should be used to evaluate these data?
3. Should we incorporate the NSI's benthic community data into the evaluation? If
so, what methodology should be used to evaluate these data?
4. What methodology should be used (threshold values and ranking approach, if
appropriate) to evaluate the NSI's sediment chemistry data (metals, ionic organics,
nonionic organics)? '
"f \ ' '
Following are the preliminary recommendations of each of the three workgroups concerning
these questions.
-------
Question #1: What methodology should be used to evaluate the NSI's toxicity data?
Workgroup #1 Response:
Elutriate toxicity with sediment chemistry data cannot be enough to place a site
in the "known contamination" or "clean" category. These data can place a site
higher hi the "suspected contamination" category range.
A site cannot be placed on the "known" list without more than one solid-phase
sample and more than one species. If data from only one solid-phase sample
using only one species are available, a site can be placed in the "suspected"
category.
Workgroup #2 Response:
The NSI should include all toxicity tests, regardless of medium (e.g., whole
sediment or elutriate) and species as long as (1) the tests have appropriate
QA/QC (defined as having a negative control and acceptable control responses
and appropriate test conditions) and (2) there is an appropriate statistical
evaluation of the response to the particular test that would allow reaching a
conclusion as to whether sediments are toxic or nontoxic.
Tests to be included in the NSI should be those approved by EPA or designated
by the Office of Water as acceptable tests.
For the future, sediment toxicity data sets must include at least one whole-
sediment test with amphipods.
Workgroup #3 Response:
* Advantages of evaluating toxicity data
- Is an effects-based approach to evaluating contaminated sediments
- Integrates biological effects with sediment contamination
Field validation data for some tests are available
' "i '
Disadvantages of evaluating toxicity data
- Is a data quality issue (uses a mixed bag of species and endpoints)
There is a potential for manipulation effects on observed toxicity
False positive results can occur
In many cases results cannot be compare to controls
Use of data
- Can be used alone to target sites of high concern if mortality is the endpoint
Other endpoints represent lower concerns
Confidence in test results
There is a high level of confidence in solid-phase tests
-------
- There is a low level of confidence in elutriate-phase tests (unless toxic)
- There is a low level of confidence in pore water tests
- Mortality to an insensitive organism is significant (bad)
Species tested
- There is a high level of confidence in tests using benthic species (have
significant contact with sediment)
Method used
- Multiple species responses are preferred
Controls
- Data should be eliminated if no control information is available. Criteria for
targeting sites should include a significant response relative to
control/reference.
Question #2:
Should we incorporate the NSl'sfish tissue residue data into the
evaluation? If so, what methodology should be used to evaluate these
data?
Workgroup #1 Response:
Data on resident species or species with a known life history can be used. The
focus should be on "key species." The decision as to which species should be
used will be determined on a site-by-site basis. Fish tissue residue data can be
used for human health assessments and for the development of sediment criteria
for protection of human health.
Concern was expressed regarding other compounds, such as PAHs in bile, that
are not looked at. In many cases, organ-specific data are not collected. Organ-
specific and compound-specific fish tissue levels protective of wildlife should
also be monitored.
Tissue residue data for known bioaccumulative compounds such as PCBs and
dioxins can place a site in the "known" category without additional sediment
chemistry information. To be placed in the "known" category, samples of
resident species or species whose life history is known should be used. Some in
the group believed that fish tissue residue data (from resident species) alone
could place a site in the known category for any contaminant. Fish tissue residue
data from mobile species would place a site in the "unknown" category.
Limits for fish tissue residue concentrations are needed for both human health
and wildlife protection.
-------
Workgroup # 2 Response:
Data on species that are migratory or wide-ranging should be excluded for the
purposes of the NSI.
Tissue data alone (finfish and shellfish) cannot flag a "hot spot" of sediment
contamination; they only identify a reach as a possible problem, but the source
remains to be determined.
Tissue levels of concern include FDA action levels, wildlife criteria, state criteria
for the protection of human health, and extrapolations from water quality criteria.
Workgroup #3 Response:
Advantages of evaluating fish tissue residue data
Considers the human health issue through comparison with FDA action
levels, fish advisory limits, or human health risks
Also can consider wildlife impacts/endpoints
Integrates broad area! exposures
Disadvantages of evaluating fish tissue residue data
Fish mobility clouds the interpretation of site-specific exposure to
contamination
- Tissue levels might not be related to exposure to contaminated sediments
Use of fish tissue residue data
Can be used as confirmatory only (to corroborate other data)
- Need to differentiate' between resident (high-confidence) and migratory (low-
confidence) species '.
- Need to differentiate between tests using whole body, fillet, and liver
samples for evaluation '(human health versus wildlife effects)
- Need to know the life history of the species in question
- Use might be more applicable when data are aggregated at higher levels,
e.g., watersheds or estuaries
Question #3:
Should we incorporate the NSI's benthic community data into the
evaluation? If so, what methodology should be used to evaluate these
data?
Workgroup #1 Response:
To place a site in the "known" category, reference site data are needed and
results from the site in question must be significantly different from data from
the reference site. Historical reference sites are less desirable. Benthic
community data alone cannot be used to place a site in the "known" category.
Benthic community changes can be a result of NH3 and anoxia.
-------
Workgroup #2 Response:
Macrobenthic community structure is extremely important information because
benthic species have intimate contact with the sediment.
However, macrobenthic community structure cannot be efficiently evaluated at
'. this time in the NSI (i.e., nationally) because of the variety of factors that
influence the benthos (e.g., biotic and abiotic, as well as anthropogenic). Site-
specific benthic conditions need to be assessed to determine sediment "hot spots"
rather than trying to use set indices across the Nation. These assessments can
. , then lead to a national assessment.
Workgroup #3 Response:
Issues related to evaluating benthic community data
,. - Variability in collection methods
Freshwater/marine comparisons (different properties of freshwater and
marine systems)
Interpretations of community structure/function as a function of
contamination
Lack of reference data
Criteria to use in evaluating benthic community data
Presence of indicator/sensitive species
Total abundance and biomass
Species richness
* Advantages of evaluating benthic community data
The benthic community is the endppint of interest
Disadvantages of evaluating benthic community data
There is often no reference comparison
- Significant differences can exist between sites (e.g., freshwater versus
marine) lv, w , .
- Impacts may not be the result of contamination
Data quality is often uncertain
Use of benthic community data
- Can be used as confirmatory only
A significant issue is how to mesh benthic community data with other data
types
-------
Question #4: What methodology should be used to evaluate the NSI's sediment chemistry
data?
Workgroup #1 Response:
Sediment chemistry data that are a "blow-out" can be used to place a site in the
"known" category but cannot be used to place a site in the "clean" category.
Exceedances of multiple thresholds or at multiple stations can be used to place a
site in the "known" category. Use of sediment quality thresholds is an
appropriate method for identifying sites of known contamination. Caution should
be used in evaluating blow-out data for metals; reference sites are needed. A site
cannot be placed on the "known" list using data from a single sample but can be
placed there based on a single chemical.
A site can be classified as "clean" (acceptable) if chemicals do not exceed
chemical criteria and are nontoxic.
Workgroup #2 Response:
Sediment chemistry data alone can be used to categorize sites as "suspected," but
not as "known" (e.g., as either polluted or the reverse, "clean").
There is no single sediment chemistry screening approach that is universally
appropriate; a burden-of-evidence approach combining different sediment
screening approaches should be used for the present.
Greater confidence exists for a smaller number of chemicals than for all
chemicals. (It is anticipated that the number of chemicals in future national
assessments will increase.) Sites that do not include data for the high-confidence
chemicals may not be properly addressed.
Workgroup #3 Response:
Advantages of evaluating sediment chemistry data
There are a lot of sediment chemistry data in the NSI
Sediment contamination is what you manage against (it is the essential
measure against which progress will be measured)
Disadvantages of evaluating sediment chemistry data
The sediment chemistry data in the NSI are of varying quality
The information necessary to evaluate bioavailability is not always included
with data in the NSI (TOC/grain size for normalization)
Metals extraction methods vary (metals data are a function of the extraction
scheme)
- Natural as well as anthropogenic sources of contamination exist (need means
to distinguish)
-------
Evaluation procedures for nonionic organic chemicals
High AETs are appropriate
- Levels exceeding ERMs will probably result in effects
- For EqPs, should use measured TOC or use' 1 percent as a default
- If all of the above (high AETs, ERMs, and EqPs) are exceeded, a site can be
considered contaminated
One individual felt that PAHs need to be dealt with separately because of
detection limits
Evaluation procedure for metals
- EqPs for certain metals (i.e., Cd, Zn, Pb, Ni, Cu)need to determine
default AVS values
- AETs and ERMs can be used for other metals
- If a site exceeds all of the above values, it can be considered contaminated
Need to consider metals digestion schememeasures may be conservative by
5-fold
Bioaccumulation issues
Can model theoretical bioaccumulation potential (TBP) using measured TOC
or a default value
- Need to construct a sediment-to-fish model for mercury
FDA action level = 1 ppm for mercury
Use of data
High-quality sediment chemistry data that exceed reference levels are stand-
alone criteria
DAY ONE - AFTERNOON WORKGROUP PRESENTATIONS
Following the first day's workgroup breakout sessions, all of the workshop participants were
brought together in an afternoon session to summarize workgroup deliberations and to reach
consensus on the methodologies to be used to evaluate sediment contamination. A summary
of the workgroup deliberations was presented in the previous section of this meeting
summary. The following is a summary of the consensus reached by workshop participants
related to methodologies to be used to evaluate sediment contamination.
Toxicitv
Toxicity data can be used alone to identify a known contaminated sediment site if
the data include multiple species, multiple stations, control data, and solid-phase
testing results. Mortality and other endpoints can be used.
Elutriate or pore water toxicity testing results can be used to evaluate sediment
toxicity but cannot be used alone to place a site in the "known" category. At
least one solid-phase test is needed to place a site in the "known" category.
-------
Tissue Residue
Tissue residue data can be used only with other data to target "known" sites of
contamination.
Resident species, bottom feeders, and shellfish (mollusks) provide higher-
confidence results.
Pelagic and migratory species provide lower-confidence results.
Benthic Community
Benthic community data should be reported, but alone these data cannot target a
"known" contaminated site. Other data types should be used to determine to
which category a site belongs.
Benthic community data can, however, be used to move a site from one category
to another.
By themselves, these data can be used only for local/regional evaluations; they
carry low importance in a national assessment.
These data will not be interpreted in the first Report to Congress.
Sediment Chemistry
Consensus was not reached during the afternoon plenary session, concerning the use of
sediment chemistry data taken alone to target a potential site of concern. Completion of this
discussion was postponed until the rnorning session of day two of the workshop.
Pay Two Issues
The following were identified as issues to be addressed during the day two morning plenary
session:
Definition of contamination: should the evaluation be based on elevated
concentrations alone, or can we predict ecological or human health risk from the
data contained in the NSI?
Can "blow-out" sediment chemistry data alone be used to target potential sites of
concern?
Aggregation of data by station, reach, or other methods; or, what is a site?
Should we develop a categorization system for evaluating NSI data?
10
-------
DAY TWO - MORNING SESSION
Discussions continued on the issues identified during the afternoon session of the first day of
the workshop. The discussions began by addressing whether a site could be classified as a
"known" contaminated site based solely on sediment chemistry data. In leading the
discussion, Elizabeth Southerland suggested using a categorization approach for the
identification of contaminated sediment sites. Under this approach, a site could be
considered "known," "suspected," or in another category of contamination based on
(1) sediment chemistry data only or (2) a combination of parameters (chemical and
biological). After a long group discussion of these issues, no consensus was reached. The
workgroups were then directed to continue to address these and other remaining issues in the
breakout sessions.
Overview of Potential Ranking Approaches, Peter Chapman, EVS Consultants
(overheads included in Appendix B)
Prior to the morning breakout sessions, Peter Chapman presented a discussion of ranking/
categorization schemes that could be used in the evaluation of the NSI data. He discussed
programs that have implemented one of two types of assessment methods: inference and
demonstration. The inference method infers biological impact by comparing measured
chemistry or biological parameters to predetermined thresholds. The demonstration method
demonstrates biological impact by taking site-specific measurements of synoptic (or
coincident) chemistry and biological parameters. The approaches briefly reviewed by Peter
were the following:
Reyoldsan (Great Lakes) approach (demonstration)
SEDRANK (Puget Sound) approach (inference)
Chesapeake Bay approach (inference)
ARCS approach (inference)
Region 5 prioritization approach (inference)
Peter then presented several ideas concerning the evaluation of the NSI data and their
limitations. He suggested that no single approach for evaluating the NSI data was
appropriate; rather, a "battery" of trigger levels should be used depending on available data.
He then proposed several categories of data combinations that could be used to classify sites
as sites of known or suspected contamination, clean sites, and uncertain.
11
-------
DAY 2 - WORKGROUP BREAKOUT SESSIONS
Issue #1: What parameters define "contamination?"
Workgroup #1 Response:
Contamination can be defined based on sediment chemistry data alone, as well as
on the probability of biological and human health effects.
Workgroup #2 Response:
Six categories of parameters could conceivably define contamination:
Elevated sediment chemistry
Sediment chemistry above effects guidelines
Sediment chemistry above effects guidelines and bioeffects at the site
Bioeffects (toxicity, biology, histopathology)
Human health risk
- Wildlife risk >.
Workgroup #3 Response:
Contamination can be defined based on elevated concentration alone or based on
human health and ecological risk. The Report to Congress should include both
approaches. It should also distinguish between freshwater and marine samples
and biased (e.g., STORET) versus unbiased (e.g., NS&T and EMAP) data.
Issue #2:
Workgroup #1 Response:
Can a site be classified as a "known" contaminated site based solely on
sediment chemistry data?
"Blow-out" sediment chemistry concentrations can be used alone to classify a site
as a "known" contaminated site.
If sediment chemistry data alone are to be used to classify "known" sites of
contamination, the level of uncertainty associated with this approach needs to be
determined. This can be done by looking at those sites with complete data (both
sediment chemistry and biological), comparing the results of evaluating combined
sediment chemistry and biological data with the results of evaluating sediment
chemistry data alone.
The level of certainty of using sediment chemistry data alone to classify sites
would increase if the number of chemicals evaluated were limited.
12
-------
Workgroup #2 Response:
Initially, some workgroup members were not comfortable using elevated
sediment chemistry alone as a primary criterion for identifying sites of concern,
but they did believe it would be worthwhile to provide this information as an
appendix to the Report to Congress (including appropriate caveats) using a
frequency distribution or other appropriate presentation method. Later
discussions indicated agreement under certain circumstances on using sediment
chemistry data alone to classify a site as contaminated.
Workgroup #3 Response:
Yes, sediment chemistry data alone can be used to, classify a known contaminated
sediment site.
Issue #3: How should sites be aggregated for evaluation of potential contamination?
Workgroup #1 Response:
Sites should first be defined on a station-by-station basis and then aggregated by
reach. The categorization of sites would be based on the number of stations in a
reach that exceed the classification criteria. A reach with only one station cannot
be classified.
Workgroup #2 Response:
Workgroup #2 did not have time to address this issue.
Workgroup #3 Response:
NSI data should be analyzed by station. The number of "hits" per reach should
then be calculated. Maps should then be presented representing the number of
hits in each category (e.g., known, suspected, etc.).
Issue #4: What system should be used to categorize the results of the NSI data
evaluation?
Workgroup #1 Response:
Four categories of sediment contamination should be used:
- Known contamination (high probability of effects)
Suspected contamination (medium probability of effects)
Suspected acceptable (no probability of effects)
Uncertain
If any of the following criteria are met, a site can be classified as a known
contaminated site:
13
-------
- Sediment chemistry data exceed EqPs for one of the five nonionic organics
with sediment quality criteria or exceed other upper threshold values (e.g.,
ERMs) for other chemicals.
- Multiple toxic bioassay effects are demonstrated and no supporting sediment
chemistry data are available, or a single toxic bioassay effect is demonstrated
and supporting sediment chemistry data are available.
- Tissue residue data exceed human health or ecological thresholds (including
high BSAF probability) and are supported by sediment chemistry data.
Benthic abundance data cannot be used to classify sites.
If any of the following criteria are met, a site can be classified as a suspected
contaminated site:
- Sediment chemistry data exceed one or more of the lower threshold limits
(e.g., ERLs).
- A single toxic bioassay effect is demonstrated (without supporting
chemistry).
- Tissue residue data exceed human health or ecological thresholds.
Supporting sediment chemistry data are not required.
Benthic abundance data cannot be used to classify sites.
If any of the following criteria are met, a site can be classified as a suspected
acceptable site:
- Sediment chemistry data levels are below all lower thresholds.
- There are no demonstrated toxic bioassay effects using multiple tests.
- Tissue residue levels are below all thresholds.
Benthic abundance data cannot be used to classify sites.
Sites are classified as uncertain in terms of contamination if there are inadequate
data to place them in any of the other categories.
Workgroup #2 Response:
The following possible categories for ranking sites were discussed
- Known contaminated
- Suspected contaminated
- Suspected clean
14
-------
- Clean
Unknown
A known contaminated site is one at which convincing evidence of environmental
degradation due to sediment contamination exists based on any one of the
following criteria:
- Exceeds EPA sediment quality criteria.
- Exceeds the highest relevant and reliable value for EqPs, ERMs, AETS, and
SQTs. Only relevant and reliable values should be considered for a short list
of chemicals following peer review of the highest values for each
approachsome may be regional.
- Two different toxicity tests result in significant acute toxicity (i.e.,
mortality). Tests must be approved by EPA or ASTM or designated by the
Office of Water, as appropriate. One of the tests must be a solid-phase
amphipod test (or chironomid in fresh water).
- Tissue concentrations of an appropriate (e.g., nonmigratory) field or
laboratory species exceed FDA action levels, wildlife criteria, or EPA levels,
as appropriate. This applies to any chemical for which such levels are
available.
- "Major" evidence exists of contaminant-related histopathology in an
appropriate (e.g., nonmigratory) field species.
Degradation of the benthic community exists based on regional indicators
clearly related to sediment contamination. At present, this is a non-stand-
alone measure because the benthos are affected by various factors (e.g., DO,
habitat, biology, etc.).
A suspected contaminated site is one at which an indication of environmental
degradation at a site due to sediment contamination exists based on any one of
the following criteria:
- Exceeds the higher of any two values for EqPs, ERMs, AETs, or SQTs.
Only relevant and reliable values should be considered for a short list of
chemicals following peer review of the highest values for each
approachsome may be regional.
One toxicity test shows significant acute or chronic toxicity. The test must
be approved by EPA or ASTM or designated by the Office of Water, as
appropriate. It does not have to be a solid-phase amphipod test.
- Occurrence of contaminant-related histopathology in appropriate (e.g.,
nonmigratory) field species (not "major" evidence).
15
-------
- Alteration of benthos based on regional indicators clearly related to sediment
contamination.
Other ideas that were presented but for which there was not consensus:
(1) Tissue residue concentrations of appropriate (e.g., nonmigratory) field or
laboratory species exceed calculated tissue concentrations based on BCFs
using the water quality criteria.
(2) Predicted tissue residue levels based on chemical concentration compared
to FDA action levels, wildlife criteria, or EPA levels, as appropriate.
This would apply to any chemical for which such levels are available.
(3) Theoretical bioaccumulation potential (TBP).
A site with low probability for adverse effects is one at which little evidence of
environmental degradation due to sediment contamination exists based on all of
the following criteria:
- No reasonable expectation of sediment contamination based on location.
- Two different toxicity tests do not result in significant toxicity. Tests must
be approved by EPA or ASTM or designated by the Office of Water, as
appropriate, and one of the tests must be a solid-phase amphipod test (or
chironomid in fresh water).
- The workgroup could not agree on a good lower bound for chemistry but
suggested that perhaps both of the following criteria could be used:
(1) All chemicals are below their respective ERLs
and
(2) All chemicals are an order cf magnitude below the EqP. (The
workgroup suggested comparing these numbers with each other and with
the frequency distribution in the NSI data.)
A "clean" subcategory could be determined based on either of the last two
criteria listed under "low probability," assuming that there are no toxicity data.
Workgroup #3 Response:
Four categories of contamination could be used to classify sites:
Contaminated
- Likely contaminated
- Unlikely contaminated
7 Uncertain
A contaminated (impacted) site would have one or more of the following
characteristics:
- PCB concentrations are greater than 50 ppm.
16
-------
- Sediment chemistry values are above the 95th percentile confidence level for
the sediment quality criteria (SQC) for the five chemicals that have SQCs
(must have measured TOC).
- Sediment chemistry values exceed all AETs, EqPs, ERMs, and other
threshold values, times some multiplier (not determined). Predictions can be
made using default TOC and AVS values.
- Toxicity is demonstrated with multiple species, at least one of which is a
solid-phase test.
- Sediment chemistry values exceed all AETs, ERMs, EqPs, and other
threshold values, and toxicity is demonstrated in one solid-phase test.
- Sediment chemistry values exceed PAH criterion and fish tumors are present.
- Sediment chemistry/TBP (BSAF) calculations and resident fish/shellfish
tissue levels exceed FDA action levels or human health risk factor of 1Q-4.
Sites where contamination is likely would have one or more of the following
characteristics:
- Sediment chemistry values exceed any one of the high AETs, ERMs, or
EqPs, using a default TOC. EqPs cannot be used to evaluate metals if a
default AVS is used.
Demonstrated toxicity in any nonmicrobial test.
- No tissue data exist and sediment chemistry/TBP exceeds FDA action levels
or a human health risk of 10"4.
- Tissue residue data exist and sediment chemistry/TBP exceeds wildlife
criteria.
A site where contamination is unlikely would have all of the following
characteristics:
- Sediment chemistry values below all AETs, ERLs, and EqPs; no positive
demonstrated toxicity in multiple species; no tissue residue in resident
species; and no TBP exceedance.
Unknown sites are those with the following characteristics:
- Only sediment chemistry data are available and there are no ERLs, ERMs,
AETs, or other reference values available for comparison.
- Sediment chemistry TBP is high and fish tissue levels are low or nondetects.
17
-------
No sediment chemistry data are available and one toxidty test was conducted
with negative results.
No sediment chemistry data are available and resident fish tissue levels are
high.
Positive toxicity is demonstrated using only microbial tests.
Only sediment chemistry data are available and values are between ERLs and
ERMs and low AETs and high AETs.
DAY TWO - CLOSING SESSION
Following the day two workgroup breakout sessions, all workshop participants were brought
together to summarize workgroup discussions and to reach consensus on the issues discussed.
A^summary of each of the workgroup's deliberations was presented in the previous section of
this meeting summary. The following is a summary of the closing session deliberations and
the consensus reached concerning the issues discussed during day two of the workshop.
Biased Versus Unbiased Data
A suggestion was made that an appendix to the Report to Congress should be prepared to
evaluate the frequency distribution of sediment chemistry data from the various data sets.
Some of the data originated from programs that use a random sampling design (e.g., EMAP)
or specifically target areas away from known sources of pollution (e.g., NOAA's NS&T).
Other data sets (e.g., STORET) were gathered from programs designed specifically to target
areas of known pollution sources. The purpose of this analysis would be to screen for
chemicals for which there is an adequate unbiased data set.
Data Aggregation
Data should be analyzed at the station level first. Graphics could then be used to present
river reach information based on the number of samples per station and number of stations
per reach that met the criteria to place a reach in a given contamination category. A reach
would be listed in the highest category of contamination even if only one station had a
sample or samples that met the criteria to place it in that category. A map could be
produced for each classification category. For sediment chemistry analyses, the highest
recent measurements taken from surficial sediments should be used. In addition, the
maximum concentrations at depth should also be considered in terms of potential biological
effect because material can be brought to the surface through bioturbation and resuspension.
Road Test/Pilot Project
The purpose of this analysis would be to determine the accuracy of classifying sites as known
contaminated sites based on sediment chemistry data alone. Sediment chemistry data should
be analyzed and categorized by comparing measured chemical values to low AETs, high
is
-------
AETs, ERLs, ERMs, and EqPs. The results of this analysis would be compared to
measured toxicity values to determine how well they match. Workgroup participants could
not reach consensus on the utility of this analysis. It was agreed, however, that any site
categorized as a "known" contaminated site based on sediment chemistry data alone should
be subject to additional QA/QC evaluation.
Categorization of Sites
Workshop participants agreed that five categories of sites could be classified based on an
evaluation of the data currently housed in the NSI:
High probability of adverse effects
Medium-high probability of adverse effects
Medium-low probability of adverse effects
Low probability of adverse effects
Unknown
The following types of data could be used to place a site into one of these five categories.
High Probability of Adverse Effects
Based on sediment chemistry data only, one or more of the following
characteristics should be demonstrated:
- Sediment chemistry values exceed the sediment quality criteria for the five
chemicals for which criteria have been developed (based on measured TOC).
- Sediment chemistry values exceed all appropriate AETs (high), ERMs,
PELs, and EqPs for any one chemical (can use default TOC and AVS).
- Sediment chemistry values exceed 50 ppm for PCBs.
Based on toxicity data only
- Toxicity demonstrated by two or more acute toxicity tests, at least one of
which must be a solid-phase nonmicrobial test.
Based on tissue residue data only
- Human health thresholds for dioxin or PCBs are exceeded in resident species
(This was not a consensus agreement. Participants were evenly divided on
whether tissue residue data alone could be used to a place a site in the "high
probability of adverse effects" category.)
Based on sediment chemistry and tissue residue data, one or more of the
following characteristics should be demonstrated:
19
-------
- Sediment chemistry theoretical bioaccumulation potential (TBP) and tissue
levels in resident species exceed FDA action levels or EPA risk levels.
- Sediment chemistry TBP and tissue levels in resident species exceed wildlife
criteria.
Based on sediment chemistry and histopathology data
- Fish tissue tumors present and elevated sediment chemistry concentrations for
PAHs.
Based on sediment chemistry and benthic community data
- Significant benthic degradation associated with elevated sediment chemistry
concentrations. (The workgroup agreed that this was an evaluation category
for the future. It cannot be used for the first Report to Congress.)
Medium-High Probability of Adverse Effects
Based on sediment chemistry data only, one or more of the following
characteristics should be demonstrated:
- Sediment chemistry values exceed at least two of the sediment upper
threshold criteria (i.e., ERM, EqP, PEL, high AET). Can use default TOC.
EqPs for metals cannot be used unless with measured A VS.
- Sediment chemistry TBP exceeds FDA action levels or wildlife criteria.
Based on toxicity data only
- Toxicity demonstrated by a single species toxicity test (solid-phase,
nonmicrobial).
Based on fish tissue residue data only
- Fish tissue residue levels exceed FDA action levels or wildlife criteria.
Medium-Low Probability of Adverse Effects
Based on sediment chemistry data only
- Sediment chemistry values exceed one of the lower threshold criteria (ERL,
EqP, TEL, lower AET). Can use default TOC and AVS
Based on toxicity data only
20
-------
- Toxicity demonstrated by a single species toxicity test (solid- or elutriate-
, phase, nonmicrobial).
Low Probability of Adverse Effects
All of the following must be met:
- No exceedance of lower threshold criteria for sediment chemistry.
- No toxicity demonstrated in tests using at least two species and at least one
solid-phase test using amphipods.
- No sediment chemistry TBP exceedances of FDA action levels or wildlife
.criteria.
- , Tissue levels of resident species below FDA action levels and wildlife
criteria.
Unknown
Not enough data to place a site in any of the other categories.
21
-------
SUMMARY TABLE OF CATEGORIES OF SITE CLASSIFICATIONS AND
TYPES OF DATA USED TO DETERMINE CLASSIFICATIONS
Category of Site
CUutlflcatioBS
High Probability of
Advene Effects
Medium - High
Probability of
Advene Effects
Medium - Low
Probability of
Advene Effects
Low Probability of
Advene Effects
Unknown
Data Used to Determine Classifications
Sediment Chemistry
(site is identified by any one of
the following characteristics)
Sediment chemistry values
exceed sediment quality
criteria for any one of the five
chemicals for which criteria
have been developed (based on
measured TOC)
Sediment chemistry values
exceed all relevant AETs
(high), ERMs, PELs.and EqPs
for any one chemical (can use
default TOC and AVS)
Sediment chemistry values
>50 ppm for PCBs
Sediment chemistry TBP
exceeds FDA action levels or
EPA risk levels
Sediment chemistry TBP
exceeds wildlife criteria
Elevated sediment chemistry
concentrations of PAHs
Sediment chemistry values
exceed at least 2 of the
sediment upper threshold' .
criteria (i.e., ERM, EqP,
PEL, high AET) (can use
default TOC EqPs for metals
cannot be used unless with
measured AVS)
Sediment chemistry TBP
exceeds FDA action levels or
wildlife criteria
Sediment chemistry values
exceed one of the lower
threshold criteria (ERL, EqP,
TEL, lower AET) (can use
default TOC and AVS)
No exceedance of lower
threshold criteria
and
No sediment chemistry TBP
exceedances of FDA action
levels or wildlife criteria
OR
AND
AND
AND
OR
OR
AND
Tojdcity
Toxicity demonstrated by
two or more acute toxicity
tests (one of which must
be a solid-phase
nonmicrobial test)
Toxicity demonstrated by
a single species toxicity
test (solid-phase,
nonmicrobial)
Toxicity demonstrated by
a single species toxicity
test (elutriate-phase,
nonmicrobial)
No toxicity demonstrated
in tests using at least two
species and at least one
solid-phase test using
amphipods
OR
OR
AND
Tissue Residue/
Biological Indicator
Human health thresholds
for dioxin or PCBs are
exceeded in resident
species (not a consensus
agreement participants
evenly divided on this
issue)
Tissue levels in resident
species exceed FDA action
levels or EPA risk levels
Tissue levels in resident
species exceed wildlife
criteria
Presence of fish tumors
Tissue levels in resident
species exceed FDA action
levels or wildlife criteria
_
Tissue levels in resident
species are lower than FDA
action levels and wildlife
criteria
Not enough data to place a site in any of the other categories
22
-------
NEXT STEPS
The EPA Regional offices are being asked to review the preliminary evaluation of sediment
chemistry data from the NSI that are relevant to their Region. The Regions will review the
data set and are being asked to:
Verify sites targeted as contaminated.
: Identify sites that were targeted as potential areas of concern but may not be.
Identify potential areas of concern that were not targeted but should have been.
Provide EPA Headquarters with additional sediment quality data that should be
included in the NSI to make it more accurate and complete.
This information is to be provided to EPA Headquarters in time to allow the incorporation of
changes to the NSI prior to the evaluation of the data for the first Report to Congress.
Following the development of the final approach for evaluating NSI data (based on
recommendations from the April workshop) and incorporation of Regional comments on the
preliminary evaluation, EPA will evaluate all of the NSI data. EPA will then prepare the
first Report to Congress, which will classify sites (using the five categories identified at the
workshop) in the country, based on an evaluation of both sediment chemistry and biological
data from the NSI.
23
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
8:30-9:00
9:00-10:00
10:00-11:00
11:00-11:15
11:15-3:00
3:00-4:00
4:00-5:00
8:30-9:00
9:00-10:00
10:00-10:15
10:15-2:00
2:00-3:00
3:00-4:00
4:00-5:00
AGENDA
National Sediment Inventory Workshop:
Evaluation and Ranking of Sites
April 26-27, 1994
Dupont Plaza Hotel
1500 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Day One - Methodologies for Evaluating NSI Data
I. Purpose and Objectives of the NSI Workshop
Betsy Southerland - EPA
H. NSI Data Overview
Catherine Fox - EPA
m. Potential Methodologies for Use in Evaluating NSI Data
(sediment chemistry, fish tissue, toxicity, benthic abundance, QA/QC)
Peter Chapman - EVS
Break
IV.
V.
VI.
I.
n.
Break
m.
IV.
v.
VI.
Workgroups Meet to Discuss Methodologies
Presentations of Workgroups' Recommendations
Finalize Selection of Methodologies
Day Two Approach for Ranking Sites
Summary of Previous Day's Work and Outline of Today's
Charge
Betsy Southerland - EPA
Overview of Potential Ranking Approaches (Puget Sound, Great
Lakes, Chesapeake Bay)
Peter Chapman - EVS
Workgroups Meet to Identify Ranking Approach
Presentations of Workgroups' Recommendations
Finalize Ranking Approach
Wrap-Up and Next Steps
A-l
-------
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF ATTENDEES
National Sediment Inventory Workshop
April 26-27, 1994
Sid Abel
EPA/OPPT (7406)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-3920; Fax (202) 260-0981
Jim Andreasen
EPA ORD-EMAP (8205)
401 M. St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5259; Fax (202) 260-4346
Gary Ankley
ERL-Duluth
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
(218)720-5603
Tom Armitage
EPA/OST (4305)
401 M St. SW ;;
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5388
Bev Baker
EPA/OST (4305)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7037
Rich Batiuk
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21403
(410) 267-5731; Fax (410) 267-5777
Paul Baumann
National Biological Survey
Ohio State University
2021 Coffey Rd.
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 469-5701
Candy Brassard
EPA/OPP
7507C
410 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 305-5398
Barry Burgan
EPA/OWOW (4503F)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7060
Allen Burton
Biological Science Department F3301
Wright State University
Dayton, OH 45435
(513) 873-2201
Scott Carr
National Biological Survey
NFCR Field Research Station
TAMU-CC, Campus Box 315
6300 Ocean Dr.
Corpus Christi, TX 78412
(512) 888-3366; Fax (512) 888-3443
Charlie Chandler
USFWS/DEC
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 330
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 358-2148; Fax (703) 358-1800
B-l
-------
Peter Chapman
EVS Consultants
195 Pemberton Ave.
N. Vancouver, B.C.
Canada V7P2R4
(604) 986-4331
Tom Chase
EPA/OWOW (4504F)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1909; Fax (202) 260-9960
email: chase.tom@epamail.epa.gov
Greg Currey
EPA/OWEC (4203)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1718
Kostas Daskalakis
NOAA/ORCA 21
1305 East Hwy.
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 713-3028
Dom DiToro
Manhattan College
Environmental Engineering
Bronx, NY 10471
(718) 920-0276; Fax (718) 543-7914
Bob Engler
COE-WES
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
(601) 634-3624
Jay Fields
NOAA/HAZMAT
7600 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 526-6404
Catherine Fox
EPA/OST (4305)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1327; Fax (202) 260-9830
Tom Fredette
COE New England District
424 Trapels Rd.
Waltham, MA 02254
(617) 647-8291; Fax. (617) 647-8303
Marilyn Gower
EPA Region 3
2530RivaRd., Suite 300
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 224-0942
Dave Hansen
EPA ERL-Narragansett
27 Tarzwell Dr.
Narragansett, RI 02882
(401) 782-3027; Fax (401) 782-3030
Jon Harcum
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton PL, Ste. 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
(703) 385-6000; Fax (703) 385-6007
Rick Hoffmann
EPA/OST (4305)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-0642; Fax (202) 260-9830
Bob Hoke
SAIC
411 Hackensask Ave.
Hackensack, NJ 07601
(201) 489-5200; Fax (201) 489-1592
B-2
-------
Chris Ingersoll
NBS
Midwest Science Center
4200 New Haven Rd.
Columbia, MO 65201
(314) 875-5399
Doug Johnson
EPA Region 4
345 Courtland St. NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-1740; Fax (404) 347-1797
Ken Klewin
EPA Region 5 (WS-16J)
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-4679; Fax (312) 886-7804
Fred Kopfler
Gulf of Mexico Program
Bldg. 1103
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
(601) 688-3726; Fax (601) 688-2709
Paul Koska
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75115
(214) 655-8357
Mike Kravitz
EPA/OST
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-8085
Peter Landrum
Great Lakes ERL
2205 Commonwealth Blvd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(313) 741-2276
Matthew Liebman
EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Bldg., WQE
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-4866; Fax (617) 565-4940
email: bays@epamail.epa.gov
Ed Long
NOAA (N/OMA 34)
7600 Sand Point Way, NE
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 526-6338
Don MacDonald .
MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd.
2376 Yellow Point Rd.
Ladysmith, BC
Canada VORZEO
(604) 722-3631
John Malek
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave., WD-128
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-1286; Fax (206) 553-1775
Audrey Massa
EPA Region 2
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-8118; Fax (212) 264-4690
Deirdre Murphy
MD Dept. of Environment
2500 Broening Hgwy.
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3906; Fax (410) 633-0456
Arthur Newell
New York DEC
Division of Marine Resources
Bldg. 40, SUNY
Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356
(516) 444-0430; Fax (516) 444-0434
B-3
-------
Torn O'Connor
NOAA Status and Trends Program
Bldg. SSMCY
1305 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20901
(301) 713-3028
Robert Paulson WR/2
Wisconsin DNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
(608) 266-7790; Fax (608) 267-2800
Mary Reiley
EPA/OST (4304)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9456; Fax (202) 260-1036
John Scott
SAIC
165 Dean Knauss Dr.
Narragansett, RI 02882
(401) 782-1900; Fax (401) 782-2330
Thomas Seal
Florida DEP
Mail Station 46
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
(904) 488-0784
Mohsin Siddique
Water Quality Control Branch
2100MLK Jr. Ave., SE
Ste. 203
Washington, DC 20020
(202) 404-1129
Gail Sloane
Florida DEP
Mail Station 46
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
(904) 488-0784
Sherri Smith
Environment Canada
351 St. Joseph Blvd., 8th Floor
Hull, Quebec KIAOH3
(819) 953-3082; Fax (819) 953-0461
Betsy Southerland
EPA/OST (4305)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-3966
Mark Sprenger
EPA ERT (MS101)
2890 Woodbridge Ave
Edison, NJ 08837
(908) 906-6826
Jerry Stober
BSD-Athens
College Station Rd.
Athens, GA 30113
(706) 546-2207; Fax (706) 546-2459
Rick Swartz
EPA ERL-Newport
Hatfield Marine Science Center
Marine Science Drive
Newport, OR 97365
(503) 867-4031
Nelson Thomas
EPA/ERL-Duluth
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
(218) 720-5702
Rachel Friedman-Thomas
Washington Dept. of Ecology
Mail Slot 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
(206) 407-6909; Fax (206) 407-6904
B-4
-------
Burnell Vincent .
EPA/ORD
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7891; Fax (202) 260-6932
Mark Wildhaber
NBS
Midwest Science Center
4200 New Haven Rd.
Columbia, MO 65201
(314) 876-1847
Craig Wilson
California SWRCB
901 P St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 657-1108
Drew Zacherle
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton PL, Ste. 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
(703) 385-6000; Fax (703) 385-6007
Chris Zarba
EPA/OST (4304)
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC
(202) 260-1326
20460
Xiaochun Zhang, WR/2
Wisconsin DNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 264-8888; Fax (608) 267-2800
B-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
NSI WORKGROUP BREAKOUT ASSIGNMENTS
Group One
Chairs: Gary Ankley, ERL-Duluth
John Scott, SAIC
Kostas Daskalakis, NOAA
Paul Baumann, NBS
Dave Hansen, ERL-Narragansett
Bill Wilbur, USGS
Thomas Seal, FL
Ken Klewin, Region 5
Betsy Southerland, HQ
Rick Hoffmann, HQ
Tom Chase, HQ
Mark Sprenger, ERT-Edison
Fred Kopfler, GOMP
Jon Harcum, Tetra Tech
Jim Andreasen, ORD
Diedra Murphy, MD
John Malek, Region 10
Bob Hoke, SAIC
Vic MacFarland, COE-WES
Group Two
Chairs: Rick Swartz, ERL-Newport
Peter Chapman, EVS
Tom O'Connor, NOAA
Don MacDonald
Craig Wilson, CA
Rich Batiuk, Chesapeake Bay Program
Paul Koska, Region 6
Mark Wildhaber, NBS
Greg Currey, HQ
Mike Kravitz, HQ
Drew Zacherle, Tetra Tech
Audrey Massa, Region 2
Matt Liebman, Region 1
Bob Engler, COE-WES
Mary Rieley, HQ
Xiaochun Zhang, WI
Charlie Chandler, FWS
Tom Armitge, HQ
Burnell Vincent, HQ
C-l
-------
Group Three
Chairs: Chris Ingersoll, NBS
Allen Burton, Wright State University
Ed Long, NOAA
Nelson Thomas, ERL-Duluth
Scott Carr, NBS
Art Newell, NY
Gail Sloan, FL
Chris Zarba, HQ
Catherine Fox, HQ
Sid Able, HQ
Marilyn Gower, Region 3
Doug Johnson, Region 4
Rachel Freidman-Thomas, WA
Jerry Stober, ESD-Athens
Peter Landrura, ERL-Great Lakes
Bev Baker, HQ
Jay Fields, NOAA
Robert Paulson, WI
Tom Fredette, COE-NED
Dora DiToro, Manhattan College
C-2
-------
NATIONAL SEDIMENT INVENTORY WORKSHOP
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Science and Technology
April 26-27, 1994
Washington, D.C.
THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992
Section 503(a)(l)I
The EPA Administrator shall "compile all existing information on the
location of pollutants in aquatic sediment, including the probable source of
such pollutants and identification of those sediments which are contaminated
pursuant to Section 501(b)(4)."
According to WRDA 1992, Contaminated Sediment Means:
"Aquatic sediment which -
a) contains chemical substances in excess of appropriate geochemical,
toxicological or sediment quality criteria measures; or
b) is considered by the EPA Administrator to pose a threat to human
health or the environment."
-------
THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1992
Requires EPA to Submit a Report to Congress That Describes:
"The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of such survey, including
recommendations for actions necessary to prevent contamination of aquatic
sediments and to control sources of contamination."
STATUS OF THE PROJECTS
National Sediment Management Strategy
- Tiered Testing Methodologies
National Sediment Contaminant Source Inventory
Point Source Analysis
- Non-point Source Analysis
National Sediment Inventory
-------
PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP
To Develop a Methodology for Evaluating NSI Data Using a "Weight of
Evidence Approach" That Will Identify Known and Suspected Sites of
Sediment Contamination
USE OF THE INVENTORY
Notify Congress about the Geographic Extent and Severity of Sediment
Contamination in the United States
Provide Basis for Agency's Contaminated Sediments Program
- Target Chemicals for Pollution Prevention
- Target Geographic Areas for Additional Monitoring, Pollution
Prevention, Source Control and Remediation
-------
CHARGE TO THE WORKSHOP
Devise a Methodology Using NSI Data to Identify Known, Suspected and
Unknown Sites of Sediment Contamination
Report to Congress on the National Extent and Severity of the Contaminated
Sediments Problem in 1995, and Continuously Refine the Message
Every Two Years Thereafter
-------
NATIONAL SEDIMENT INVENTORY:
DATA OVERVIEW
Catherine Fox
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Science and Technology
Standards and Applied Science Division
NATIONAL SEDIMENT INVENTORY:
DATA OVERVIEW
Topics of Discussion
Project Overview
Sources of NSI Data
Description of NSI Data
Limitations of NSI Data
Preliminary Evaluation of Sediment Chemistry Data
-------
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Past Activities
3 Pilot Site Inventories (Regions iV & V, Gulf of Mexico
Program)
1 Pilot Source Inventory (Gulf of Mexico Program)
NSI Planning Workshop and Framework Report
National Sediment Contaminant Source Inventory Report
NSI Preliminary Evaluation and Report
Current/Future Activities
NSI Evaluation Workshop
Regional Review of Preliminary Evaluation and Submission of
Additional Data Sets
Biennial Report to Congress
TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF MSI AND NSCSI
Activity
Reg V Pilot Site Inventory
Reg IV Pilot Site Inventory
GOMP Pilot Site Inventory
GOMP Pilot Source Inventory
NSI Planning Workshop
and Framework Report
National Sediment Contaminant Source
Inventory Report
NSI Preliminary Evaluation
and Report
NSI Evaluation Workshop
Regional Review of Preliminary Evaluation
and Identification of Additional Data Sets
First Report to Congress
Incorporate NSI into Modernized STORET
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
->?
1993
1904
1995
-------
MINIMUM DATA ELEMENTS:
Data Record
Minimum Data Element
In Computerized Format
Location
Sampling Date
Lat/Long
Reach Number
Units
Necessary
X
X
X
X
X
If Available
X
Comments
With data dictionary
specifying field names,
widths, delimiters, or
file structure
Conforming to EPA's
standards
"!
MINIMUM DATA ELEMENTS:
Site Characteristics
Minimum Data Element
Land Use
Management Status of
Site
Location of Haz Waste/
Superfund Site
Spill Information
Frequency of Dredging
Point Source Information
Presence of Endangered
Species
Necessary
If Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments
Urban, industrial,
rural, etc.
Remedial action, etc.
i.e., dredging history
Current/historical
, '.
-------
MINIMUM DATA ELEMENTS:
QA/QC
Minimum Data Element
Source of Information
Lab Methods
Field Methods
Necessary
X
If Available
X
X
Comments
Sponsor or client
name and address,
name of analytical
lab or principal in-
vestigator and ad-
dress
Detection limits used
in analyses to be in-
cluded
MINIMUM DATA ELEMENTS:
Sampling Parameters
Minimum Data Element
Sediment Chemistry
Total Organic Carbon
Grain Size
Acid Volatile Sulfides
Tissue Residue
Toxicity
Benthic Abundance
Histopathology
Necessary
X
If Available
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comments
Benthic infauna,
community, other
indices
-------
SOURCES OF NSI DATA
Timeline: 1980 to present
Sources of data
Select Data Sets from STORET '
(COE, USGS, EPA, States, BIOACC,
etc.)
EPA Region IV's Sediment Quality
Inventory
EPA Gulf of Mexico Program's
Contaminated Sediment Inventory
EPA's Ocean Data Evaluation
System
EPA's Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program's Sedi-
ment Quality Data
EPA Region X/COE Seattle
District's Sediment Inventory
USGS Mass. Bay data
(metals only)
NOAA's Coastal Sediment
Data Base (includes NS&T)
EPA Great Lakes Data Base
EPA Region IX's DMATS Data
Base
EPA's National Sediment Con-
taminant Source Inventory
(TRI&PCS)
Additional data sets to be added following Regional review
of Preliminary Evaluation
DATA INCLUDED IN NSI:
Type of Data
Data Set
STORET
Reg. IV
GOMP
ODES
EMAP
Reg. X/Seattle
COE
USGS Mass Bay
COSED/NS&T
Great Lakes
Reg. IX DMATS
Source Inv.
Data Type
Sed Chem
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Tissue
X
X
X
X
X
Toxicity
X
X
X
X
X
X
Abund
X
X
X
X
Histopath
X
. -
Effluent
X
-------
DESCRIPTION OF NSI DATA:
Categories of Data
Sediment Chemistry
QA/QC
Tissue Residue
Toxicity
- elutriate
- solid phase
Benthic Abundance
Histopathology
Matched Data
- sediment chemistry and
tissue residue
- sediment chemistry and
toxicity
- sediment chemistry and
abundance
- sediment chemistry and
histopathology
- sediment chemistry, tis-
sue residue, and toxicity
- sediment chemistry, tox-
icity, and abundance
DATA ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN NSI
(when available):
Sediment Chemistry
Analyte concentration (all converted to ppb)
Wet weight or dry weight (converted to dry weight only,
when possible)
Percent organic carbon
Acid volatile sulfides
Sediment grain size
-------
DATA ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN NSI
(when available):
Tissue Residue
Composite or individual sample
Life stage
Wet or dry weight
Analyte concentration
Sex
Species
Tissue, organ, or whole animal
DATA ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN NSI
(when available):
Benthic Species Abundance and
Community Analysis
Benthic Abundance
Organism order, genus, species
ซ Number of organisms
Area sampled
Benthic Community Analysis
Number of organisms (amphipods, arthropods, crustaceans,
echinoderms, molluscs, nematodes, oligochaetes, polychaetes,
miscellaneous taxa)
Mean abundance (amphipods, bivalves, capitellids, decopods,
polychaetes, tubificids)
Total abundance
Mean abundance/grab
Total biomass
Mean biomass/grab
-------
DATA ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN NSI
Benthic Abundance (Continued)
Mean biomass/polychaete
Mean Shannon-Wiener Diversity index
Total number of species
Mean number species/grab
Pooled Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index
Numeric dominance
Evenness
% abundance (amphipods, bivalves, gastropods, tubificids)
Abundance of pollution-sensitive organisms (%)
Abundance of pollution-tolerant organisms (%)
DATA ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN NSI
(when available):
Toxlcity
Type of bioassay reported
Endpoint of bioassay test
Organism genus, species
Life stage
Results
Phase (medium) in which bioassay organisms are housed
Type of response
Sphere (environment) from which sample came
Test duration
Test used
Test exposure periods
-------
DATA ELEMENTS INCLUDED IN NSI
(when available):
Histopathology
Number of fish w/body pathologies
Number of fish w/branchial pathologies
Number of fish w/buccal pathologies
Number/trawl
Number of species
Identification of species
SUMMARY OF QA/QC INFORMATION
ODES
EMAP
Reg.X/
Seattle COE
Reg. IV
QOMP
COSED
Great Lakes
DMATS
STORET
uses
Are There
QA/QC Reports
Yes
Yes
Yes
: Some '
Some
Yes
Yes
Some
Unknown
Some
Was the Data
Peer Reviewed
Yes (301(h))
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Are the Sampling and
Analytical Methods
Yes
Yes
Yes
Some
Some
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Are the Detection
Limits for the
Anatvtes Available
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Some
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Comments
Data Qualifiers
Data Qualifiers
Data Qualifiers
Data Qualifiers
Data Qualifiers
Data Qualifiers
Data Qualifiers
-------
DESCRIPTION OF NSI DATA:
Number of Stations
Measurement Parameters
Sediment Chemistry
TOO
AVS
Tissue Residue
Toxicity
Elutriate Phase
Solid Phase
Banthlc Abundance
Histopathology
Sed. Cham. & Tissue
Sed. Chem. & Toxicity
Sed. Chem. & Abundance
Sed. Chem. & Histopath.
Sed. Chem., Tissue,
& Toxicity
Sed. Chem., Toxicity,
& Abundance
Total * of
Stations
21,093
6,170
425
8,206
2,343
630
1,865
3,904
259
1,963
1,801
1,939
259
389
848
Stations with Coordinates
f
19.S46
5,335
371
7,208
1,523
w
1,844
259
1,930
1,2153
1,340
259
359
733
% of Total Number of
Stations
w/Coordinates*
76
21
1
28
~
7
1
8
5
5
1
j
3
- loiai Number of Stations With Coordinates = 25,555
DESCRIPTION OF NSI DATA:
Location of Sediment Chemistry Stations
-------
DESCRIPTION OF NSI DATA:
Location of Tissue Residue Stations
DESCRIPTION OF NSI DATA:
Location of Toxicity Stations
-------
DESCRIPTION OF NSS DATA:
Location of Benthic Abundance Stations
DESCRIPTION OF NSI DATA:
Location of Histopathology Stations
-------
DESCRIPTION OF NSI DATA:
Location of Matched Data: Sediment
Chemistry and Tissue Residue
DESCRIPTION OF NSI DATA:
Location of Matched Data: Sediment
Chemistry and Toxicity
-------
DESCRIPTION OF NSI DATA:
Location of Matched Data: Sediment
Chemistry and Benthic Abundance
DESCRIPTION OF NSI DATA:
Location of Matched Data: Sediment
Chemistry and Histopathology
-------
DESCRIPTION OF NSI DATA:
Location of Matched Data: Sediment
Chemistry, Tissue Residue, and Toxicity
DESCRIPTION OF NSI DATA:
Location of Matched Data: Sediment
Chemistry, Toxicity, and Benthic Abundance
-------
LIMITATIONS OF NSI DATA
Limited TOC and AVS data for sediment chemistry analysis
Detection limits are often higher than threshold values
Limited biological effects data
Limited QA/QC information
Latitudes/longitudes not verified
Variation in monitoring objectives
Multiple sampling and analytical methods used
No information on bed sediment type, history of dredging,
land use available yet
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY DATA:
Purpose
Provide EPA Regions with preliminary assessment of the sediment
chemistry data currently housed in the NSI for their review
Allow Regions to:
Verify sites targeted as contaminated
Identify sites that are targeted as being a potential area of
concern but may not be
Identify potential areas of concern that were not targeted but
should have been
* Provide EPA Headquarters with sediment quality data that
should be included in the NSI to make it more accurate and
complete
-------
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY DATA:
Overview of Approach
Waterbody-Segment Level of Analyses
Threshold values
Metals-ERMs (NO A A, 1990)
Nonionic organics - EQPs (1% oc)
Ionic organics - lowest AETs
Steps:
Identify 50th percentile (median) concentrations for all observations
for each analyte (nondetects and "less thans" treated as zero)
If 50th percentile concentration greater than reference value, then con-
sider contaminant of concern for that waterbody segment
Any waterbody segments in which one or more contaminants of con-
cern were identified are targeted as potential areas of concern
COMPARISON OF 50th PERCENTILE
CONCENTRATION TO REFERENCE LEVEL
waterbody segment
#1: not an area of
potential concern
Reference
LeveK
waterbody segment #2:
an area of potential concern
aterbody segme
#1:50th percenjife
concentratio
watqrbody segment
#2: Sbth percentile
concentration
Concentration
-------
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY DATA:
Advantages of Approach
Targets the most highly contaminated sites (based on
50th percentile concentrations)
Comparisons based on reference levels demonstrated to
cause biological impacts (i.e., ERMs, EQPs, and AETs)
Results presented at waterbody segment level of analysis
to allow Regions to compare results wilth known sampling
results in the Region
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY DATA:
Limitations of Approach
Sediment chemistry data analysis only
TOC and AVS not provided for many data sets
Variation in monitoring objectives, sampling/analytical
methods, and data quality across data sources
Lack of documented QA/QC information
-------
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT
CHEMISTRY DATA:
Top 20 Contaminants of Concern
(based on number of waterbody segments where 50th
percentile concentrations exceed reference levels)
Contaminant
Polychlorinated biphcnyls
Chlordane
ODD
Lead
Zinc
PCB-1254
Anthracene
Pyrene
Hcptachlor epoxide
DDE
Nickel
DDT
Hcptachlor
PCB-1260
Aldrin
Mercury
Silver
PCB-1248
Cadmium
Chromium
# of Waterbody Segments
584
359
229
229
226
195
186
174
137
130
127
124
105
101
92
84
. 83
83
78
77
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY DATA:
Potential Areas of Concern
s.
Number of Segments 1709
-------
-------
CO
Q
LU
X
DC
LL1
O
LJL
O
CO
LU
Q_
O
O
C
cd
Q.
cd
6
QL
jQ
to
ojo
w JS
g) D
p
5ro
o .E
S ^
_ >
o>
O CO
OLD
O)
CC
75
1
(D
H- (O
O 0)
(D CO
"E 2
0) Q.
^ Ct
O<
CM
i^
^
c\T
^
O
-------
D
o
X
CO
CO
UJ
O
O
o
Q
O
X
UJ
CO
S
H- D)
o o
^ "5 -2
coa S v.
ซ< ฎ -
*- CO _ m
CO n= O r^
CD CO ^ S
SI*
CO -S.
T3 -^
"ฐ0
0)
-------
ฃ
r-
Q
UJ
CD
3
<
>
3.
CD
MOM
>. _J
c* co
X w
.ฃ -4=
E-u
0 C
.C CO
0 ^
>>ฃ
"s.i
E"ฐ
^ CD
o_>^
^fi^^
CO r^
(D ;=
= S
CO O)
CO 0
1 1
CO ฃ
?s^s.
-S2 ^ -Q 0
O) c '5 "^
o o ฃ .52
- *-> w ซ
o -ฐ ป- c
"DQ r-1 c\i co
O w 0s"
ill!
-S >ป C
CD ^3 CO =
C ซta. O
E T3 ^ O
O C C
CO CO <0
CO
(0
UJ
3
o
CD
O 3
-r c
UJ o
E
CO CO
CO 0 CO
to S ซ
0 O "(O
b= CO o
CO
C
0
CO
-S E
CO
.^ o
E jg>
0
o
& CO Q.
c c eo
o .o 4-
< 05 CO
-------
CO
z
o
CO
Q
III
Q
Z
111
O
o
lil
DC
c
0
0
CO
D
0
CO
CO w
073
0
CO _
=3 CO
C
O D)
4= CO
O 73
0 CO
+3 I
O 111
20ซ
H- I CO
O x^
c "x b
2 2
0 CO
CO
c
f, W
m CO
0 ป-
111 0 73
UJ
CO
m
ง
Q
"*
CO
z
LL
O
CO
O - cp
"*= S- o
tO CT CO
งฃT5
0 r- CD
i o.g
ซ=-'ซ E
^ J5 o
>ป 3 -K
t user friend
rieval/manipi
3cialized/cus
o is Q_
-7 CD 1J-
Z. Si co
13
CD
lซ
Q. CO
CO *
CD -9
d .*2
^ ง
1 c
11
^c. *-
^f cO
LLJ 0
QJ _
O o
CO ^5
f^ ^^H>
CD *~'
^> iiO
"co 'E
o lr
=
-------
<ฃ
>i^
LU
re Assessment
D
(O
O
Q.
&
B
CO
C
O
"ฃ
hemical concentre
ฐ-ฎ
* ^
13 ซ5
CD ฃ
1
round chemical
itrations
nine)
CD m i
^ o ฎ
r^ ?i +-
y c o
m8B
i
Q
o ^2
OT To ^
^^* ป ij ^* ^^^^.
;ors, especially ex
and concentratio
overlay of resoun
ve areas - which
future sampling,
&rs:l8
0 3 0) C g
2-S-S8-S
1
0
h-
CQ
CC
r^
CO
Q
^
^L
ง
^
CO
CO
0)
o
0)
c
0
c
1
o
S
CC
UJ
s
LL
O
g
!<
0)
O ฃ?
2! S
Tf
ซ '5
1?
1ฐ
^ "5.
ca o
o
CO
UJ m
O
>.
>> o
.s .c
1 -rs ' C
1 X 1 (Q
\ฃ ;m
i
^
1
c
0
jr
O
.23
f
CD
JZ
O
Sediment
2
5S
S*""'
o
IS
co
1
1
5
- in
- o
-------
^f
^ซ
S IS BASICALL
I
h-
^**
S
LL
^^
i
K ASSESSMEIS
CO
DC
r/i
/EL 2 RA REQUIRE!
LU
CD
.a
jcg
"co
>
CO
o
JO
Direct measures of
forms
T"
o^
CO
CD
^^
to
E
to
CD
Q_
CT
CD
to
CD
O
Q.
C
.2
i*
^0
D
P
laboratory bioaccui
(available?)
CO
ฃ1
CD
Ju_
JD
>ป
T3
0
3
CO
CO
%-*
1
E
o
CO
CD
1
CO
CD
TJ
13
to
4_ซ
C
CD
Standard bioassess
rvi
VAI
^
o
o
CO
0
i
"co
(D
*-
"o
"ix
o
#-*
1
,*~+
CD
benthos (have som
1
DC
coco
< LU
ffl CO
CO
CO
LU
CC
^r
o
LU
CC
DC
i
LU
LU
H <
CD
CO
CO
CD
CO
CO
^^
"E
CO
N
CO
X
^
o
"x
|2
CO
0
to
f.
c:
CD
O
C
82
OT ^
O o
^ Q.
t{Z s^
o 3
2 o
0 *"
ฃ CD
CO >
CD -P
^-25
H 2
s
.2
' jg
o
6
_c
D)
c
o^-.
_I 0-
CO
"O *-
LU S
JD
41
^ c
CM
-------
1=
.E c5
o
EC*
.
CO
2">
5 (O
co1*-
co ^r
c ซ
s ?^
ic?
"828
CO ง ~
5-=S.
1 ci.E
o "o
c _o>. o
-------
DC
H
CO
*5
LU
X
0
H
LU
Q
LU
CO
OSSIBLE
a.
O
O
0
CREENIN
CO
>t
IE
o
7^
c
D)
O
cd
o
*-
c
o
CO
Q.
0
O
*
}
<ฃ
o
+-
0
JQ
cd
"5.
a.
cd
measure
CO
*-
C
cd
c
cd
c a- H 0
0 CT HI -1
0 HI < CO
LLJ
0.
q>
d)
c
/i\
d>
cd
"5
CT
CD
~a
cd
ERM/ERL
Others??
>
o
u.
c
cd
CD
^o
o
Q.
"c
0
c
o
c
"cd
'E
c
cd
I
CO
c
g
Vj
concentre
o-
CD
CO
13
o
<
O
c~
a
c
CD
CD
o
CO
definitive
>-
CC
DIMENT CHEMIS1
LU
CO
o
"co .2
r_j k i
J-i fg
-------
z
g
CO
111
D
O
JP.
Q.
2 X > CD
D CD > TJ
.E ป- C 3
C ฃ CD 'F
C D)'S 8
S as ฃ ฃ
o I. 9 9
CD
o-
CD
O M
0 0 0
L_ vJ CO
O v- CD
^ซ ^^^^
CO
SO
UJ O
QDC
UJ O
(O CO
LU
CD
O
DC
Q_
CD
D)
C
CD CD
"U ฐtJ
ป!E E
ggoig:
"c ~ "^ O)
Igo?
O g II ||
CD
E
o
CO
o
LL.
O
q)uj LU
CD
CD
D)
C
CO
CO 3
c to
_co ^
CO
o
So"
o c
x. CD
CD CO
O
O
LL. CD
E E E
Q. Q. Q.
~ CL Q.
10 r^
CO IO
tr LU
uj
CO
z
Q
CO
LU
O
CD
CO
13
O
JZ
0-
>>
-------
_ffl
I
o
o
o
(0
.0
E
QJ
^
o
o
(0
E>
o
(D
O
to
(0
Jฃ
5
(0
o
E
0
0
1
o
o
o
to
Q)
5
^^
2
2
-5
-S 0)
i
'5
^
.8
ง
U)
- o
-------
u
o
08
Q&
LJ jฃ
Q o
s*
5f
|i
O |
HI o
DC %z>
o,,
0O
0
&
o
+- 0
co
0 0
CO ฃ
c w
CO O)
ซ fl
O 0
iz -
+- .
CO CO
0
tr.
o
0 0
5?
3S cb
D O -ซฑ
ซp. CD ^
^ a."0
ฎ X n
C7D 0 2
c\
0
,- O)
0.0 2
^ 3) to
CO CD P
sll
^S2
^ CD O)
0 o S
> & a.
BS-o
effe
eff
a
O
a
o
0
I
(D
Q.
O
Q.
Q.
0
9? 28
0 0
"co
o
x
>ป Q. O
D)
0 CO CD
o c 0 E lo"
ฃ ฐ > co ฃ
H -5=: "" JK 0
c 0 0 '+= u.
"* "O *"* i_ CO
CO
-^0.0)0)
*- 0 fl; =
O T5 ^-^
-------
C0
z
o
I
o
UJ
Q.
X
UJ
o
o
ง
If
^ D
S c
zl
18
o
CO
o
*-ป
Q)
DC)
CO
.*
0
0
o
0
u.
0)
'E,
o
CO
1
0
t3
_0
"o
o
v_
0
JC
o
I
%t
o
c
0
3
!-ซ
*-*
0
T>
C
0
Q.
0
"D
C
't
MBM
CO
CO
5-
c
o
^erfficati
CO
0
Q_
cd
CO
HT
O
f"
0
1ฑ
o
Q.
0
Q.
o
"x
|2
16
CO
w ,, o
o ซ:s
4= p-u
c 4= c
o c o
000
^,0 ^
c ^.s co
CO O 0
<1> '*
o oฎ
'^ii CO
0 m '=
^ > s-
toiS
O) CO Q.
0 O Q.
C CL CO
CO
z
o
1
IMUM" QA/QC EXPEC
z
S|
CO
3
*-
M
L.
ฃ
Ml**
r
To1
r~
initive site classificatior
-------
CO
z
q
CO
o
UJ >-
o DC
111
05
zui
UJ X
so
5ui
ฐs
o co
UJ CO
DCH
o
o
o
E
1
CO
> .2
'? *-*
'F CD
.E o
-
o =
ui
S
Q^
s|
ฐ0
UJ h-
Z
UJ
^* "CE
oi
oo
111 LLI
OC CO
O
O
CO
* ฃ
>.2
- -
I- <0
^ o
ass
^5ฐ
-------
CO
z
o
ฃ2
o
111
o
o
111
Q
Z
8
HI HI
DC
0
o
O o>
I "
.i .i
f"** *t^f C^J
E ||
ti> 0> "U til
CO
J5
T Q-
CO D
"o ^
CD .ฃ=
Q. Q.
CO
^^ ^^-
"D ^
5 E ^
Q. o .Q
Is"8
II a
5-5
CO c
CO CO (p
.9- 5
n g E
W j_ CO
(0
Z
O
CO
ฐs-
ui^;
o t
o2
ill X
QP
UJ
RQ
UJ HI
or co
o
o
0
E
1
CD "43
S ฃ-0 co
cj> 3 >,^
ฃ*- r-^ฑ:
13 S en
CD
C j-
O H-
K -tf CD
!ง
..= +^
Tl CO
4-0)
Q CD
O
-------
CM
(0
Ul
x
o
O
cc
Q.
Q,
O
Z'
2
i
^c
z
H
' "L.
0
Q.
8.
C
O
"55
CO
0
CO
b
"tl
"o
41%
0
Q>
n
2
T3
T3
C
flj
,A_J
^^^v
*i
O
Z
>;
^
"c
'o
Q.
O)
C'
S
<
c
"o
0
+- ir
C O
0 O
&_
0 O
*= ^L
^ ^d>
o o
H- 0
05-
ง w
B-a
ฃ8
e-ง
co
P
^T Q-
^1 CO
o
IฃM
co
^irf
. . CO
55ฎ
'o *-
0 0
O co
i l~"
CO O
O
O
-------
X
o
o
DC
Q.
Q.
(O
DC
Q
O
I-
IJJ
"Z.
g
{<
ir
CO
2:
O
111
Q
TS O
.
"co
3 W JU =
ltt&&
x O) O
>c _-T r-> +-
Sgง-p
o
o
0 _
= 88
CO
8
V^
CD
^ D
co F
^) ฃ
ll
CO CD
> CO
gS
. *-
0) T3
0) ฃ
Q Q.
CO
o
o
H
LU
ฐ^
[S|
&i
(-co
oiJj
ฃco
H<
IZ J2
co "p
.2 0
D)JC
^O O
O 0
s 5
ffiS
ffi^
0
C
"E
CD
u
CD
>* Q.
O) "
O 02
CO O
Q-w
and/or
Com
thre
o
co
Q.
E
15 r
- CO C
O) CD 0
ial-8
-ฐ 0-1^
ty E o^
111 CO
Q ,
cvi
-------
x
o
o
CC
Q.
CL
0)
CC Z
0)O
II flj
20
iฐ
MB ซ
>
O uj
ODC
CO
Z
ป-
c
CD
CO
CD
Q.
O
ซ-
CD
CO
O
"o.
Q,
CO
CD
"3
**
I
D)
0)
o E
CD
x-
o o
E "" *E
CD "co
To
QQ
X
o
D.-I
<ฐ
^ O
Z .
O ^
co 8
o^
z 13
> g>
CO o
.2 w
ft ^
.2 CD
CD
"O
CD
ฃ "-5
CO
_
0 0 0
O c co
T3
c|
CL-
~
0
ง0
CO O)
CD c
ซ -
O O) CO
0)
"co ซ8
Q
c
CD
E
T3
Q
CO
"CO
O
*D)
JO
g
!Q
1.1
CD "CD
It
-------
D
O
CO
LM
O
Z ง
< i
a.iz
iป
Q S
iu o
contaminated
.c
_to
[Q
CO
*-*
to
CD
O
ป-
up
CD
O
C
o
to
2? ฃ =
ป ni <-\
0 c
ซ5 2 .c
.2 o
>
o p. S <2 ฃ
O
z
D
O
CO
UJ
a
13
Q^
*
<
CC
O
LLJ
CO
s
o
i
FERENCE MET
z
to
c
o
to
I_
c
CD
O
C
O
O
diment chemica
ry weight
ormalized to TO
CD 73 C
CO , .
W"
CO
CD
CO
CD
O,
C
CD
1
O
t-*
o
CD
CO
Q.
E
o
O
o
CD CD O
'-5 Q- o
Z ฃ ซ5
< 5
o co c
*" ฃ>-
8*1
ฃEง
C CD O
CD JC. ^
JQ O .E
-------
X
o
o
a
Q.
Q.
^
5
m
UJ
*
<
UJ
Q.
<
CO
UJ
X
o
^_ ^
o
o
h-
LU
^
UJ
O
z
HI
cc
UJ
LL
Si inX
0
2ซ
*ง>
Q
'&
ฃ-
-Q o
"To
.2-5=
, "
CO CD
JQ Q.
It
if^
2 j--o
O) w
'- O) =
CO D CD
ZQ. ^
QQ , i
-------
I
o
cc
m
ui
2
Q.
CO
CO
X CO
CO
111
CO
T3
CD
CO
> CO
^9 T3
O .22
co
%
CD
CO uj
CO
CD
CDCOCDCJ ^
CC , , <
o *2 co
x a CD
m fl) ป-
CD
E T3 0
JQ O CD
CO 4r CO
0
o
CO CD
a
CO
O
ปI CD
o o
co
O
m
UJ
UJ T3
S
51
CD -4=
CD
O
CO
CD
Q.
=
co
CD
O
O
.E c
"S r
S3 co
o
(D
a
co
jCO
CO
LU
Q.
- *
c Q-
CD
CO
i_
CD
Q.
CO
o
CO
CO
"O
CD
CD
O br
O
CO
CO
to ฃ
*= o
c o
CD CO
CM
CD
" ^
CD
LU LU
LU CO CO
ir*^
DL O O
DC COCO AAV
-------
X
o
o
CE
0.
O,
EU
UJ
OL
UJ c
X O
^
ฃ
Ul
E
o
o
1
cr
CO
c
CO
ป ซ2
11
2 uj
10 -
e
*- c
c to
Q) fe
.
1
'c
O)
'to to
CO
0)
CO
Q>
JQ
a
1
w ฎ
c > -o "O
c o
'
0)
(0
O 0)
S o .ฃ o
,ง."ง 15 I ^
<2 p ซ p u s
? o 2 i ซ 2
to
Q)
O c
w '"
^ 2S E"iJ
" ซง2
Si Q
u.
o
(O i
CO
x:
o
CD
CO
Q.
2
E"ซ
j= o
to o>
2-c
'E ฐ
co g s
o | 2
ฃ c ฐ
Sงซ
HO ฐ ซ-
X
o
o
QC
CL
a.
UJ
UJ ~0
ft CD
<
,
UJ C
CO
111
or
^
CO
<
LLJ
C
g
I
cd ?ป
t: .2
o-g
OF
C
E
^
o
O
c
o
c
(D
^
Q)
CO
C '
O
I
co
E
o
o
-------
X
o
<
o
DC
Q.
Q.
DC LU
z
HI
LU
OX
00
CO
^2
JD
CO
O
"o.
Q.
co
c
CO
Q.
c
0
"*= c
ซ0
CD
CD o
ฃ c
I- ฐฐ
o^
C x-.
- +
c c
O CD
*D) CO
CO
0
*0)
tj
"6
0
CD
-^^
CD
CO g 0
^^J Ml^^
'+3 to SP
w -^ >
03
S--^ &
-^^S
X
o
^
I CHESAPEAKE BAY APPRO,
1 (continued)
-------
X
o
<
o
oc
\RCS APP
[continued)
0
DIMENT
RANKIN
REVISED SE
CHEMISTRY
>,
.41
c
(D
o
C
0
Q.
CD
"O
C
Ti
\ซX
(D
j*:
c
to
H >
o
Chemicals n
c
o
*JT
Q ^^
ง o .a
o a> ^g
O 03 T3
> ._
>, CD /6 ^
2 B ^ ^
C cO O >ป
Or- *-
^ ,E CL '-=
oT
a
CD
O)
CO
CD
CO
to
4-ป
'c
ZJ
o
'x
ฃ
IT
3
E
'c
1
^
o
M
CD ^
CO P
O 5
co 1
CO .E:
s^
E
O)^
.c o
.* o
C T-
10 0
cc B
X
tCS APPROAC
CL
s
o
(INFERENCE METH
00
O)
CO
c
o
CD
CO
CO
CQ
+-
1
Bulk Sediment Che
"O
CD
C
ป-
- each contaminant
o
i
^
1
"c
independently
- scaling from 1 (mi
100 (maximum)
o
CD
D)
CO
CD
CO
- independent rank
c
o
c
g
to
o
M
{_.
CD
o
13
0
C
8
a
'1
a
Q.
- toxicology
^^^\
_^^j
^M
JD
J5
- ecology
- estimated bioava
-------
X
o
RCS APPROA
:ontinued)
ฃง
ID2
:^z
BENTHOS COM
STRUCTURE RA
CO
*-*
0
4-*
t
O
Common scale (
each major taxoi
CD c
T3 CO
> fc
~ฐ 0
c *-
o c
s ฐ
CO .ฃ5
"CO* CL
o to
iS ฃ
CD
D)
CO
Responses aven
!>ง
iง
CO
Ranking on a sc
1 (minimum) to
X
S APPROAC
:inued)
0 c
or P
h-
~2L
LU
5ci
BORATORY SE
XICITY RANKIN
5R
CO
CD
4 ป
CD "r-
3 ง
w o
2^
ฃ%
ซ>%
CO >
CO T3 ^_^
C 0 CD
O to to
c c c
ฃ 0 0
E Q- Q-
n w co
(X CD CD
V-/ 1_ U.
T3
CD
sponses averag
***
CD
cc
E
13
E
"x
E |
o E
IMM ^^^X
rt% ^^^
^W ^^
^6 T-
co o
*-ป
CO ^^
c E
O 13
o)E
.ฃ= c
CO
CC T-
-------
X
mฐ
^g
CO ฃฃ
tฐ-
z o.
iy <
^ .ซ
S c^
!o
O OC
o<
CO
o
!-
CD
JQ
cd
,0
"o.
Q.
cd
>ป
c
cd
Q_
cd
s
T5
0
O
C
0)
I
h- CO
CO ,
s
CD
CD
0
'.Q
C
O>
3E
0
"~"
CO
z
1
ซ
"c "O
"55 cd
g~ฃ
_CD o
"cd'x
IS 3
CD **~*
"ฐ ^~
|| ^3 CO
CO O
CO'E J=
OC !-*
*w .ซ- CD C
"S "- f^ CD
ง2,0-ฐ
c
0
"s
Q
C
^o
0
u.
cd
i ,
S APPROACH
tinued)
O c
Cฃ 0
NAL RANKING:
LL
*-
CO
= o
E ?=
CD 43
SI C
0 CD Q
ased on sedimeni
.boratory toxicity,
Dmmunity structui
CD .55 o
o
o
o
*-*
B
CD
cd
o
CO
cd
c
o
f
LU
v
CO
^ฃL
cd
VMป
CD
CD
CD
*-
CD
CD
^
-------
g
I
H
DC
O
DC
0.
IO
UJ
o
I
CO
LJLJ
o:
X
LL
Q
UJ
DC
O
O
C/)
CO CO
0<
T3
0
o
CD
CD
8
LU
T3
CD
T3
CD
ง
jj>
JQ
jcg
'co
io
CO
to
o
to
o
** o
CO }=
o
X
iis
{ฑ0-0
ฃ CD 3
2 CO 4=
E ซ 'E
i ฃ I
CD O CO
co.E E
0
IIVZIIIUOI
DC
Q.
1C
z
o
(3
UJ
DC
E METHOD)
t-l*M
o ..
z: 2
LU CD
DC P
"J 7^
u. o
Z ^
CO
o
O)
CD
ts
O
.E
o
o
CO
i
CD
1-
t Chemistry
, Sedimenl
i-
le chemistry
j
CO
.52
*rf
CO
LL.
<\i
"o
"x
o
- -.
Sedimenl
CO
vironmental
CD CO
(D CO
n
*
-------
g
B
ง
EGION 5 PRIORI!
continued)
DC ^
JS
w
BASIS FOR SEDIMENT
TOXICITY EVALUATION:
(Only 2% of sites have c
<^ป
O
*-
C
o
o
< 50% difference from
i
UJ
BASIS FOR ENVIRQNM
IMPACT EVALUATION:
(Information fspotty")
c
tO
ป Omission probably doe
change prioritization
=co
+- .-'1,
CD
-I .|
CD ฐ
= CO
tl
3 *-
ป Includes benthic comm
, "biQaccumulation", four
"impairment"
^
N
QC
O
DC
Q.
LO
O C
s
HI UJ
LLCO
CO
CQO
cd
O _
UJ SL
co
CD
C
"CD
12
*3
O)
1
ฃ
o
O
CO
CD
1
(0
CD
"ง CO
- o
CO u
-------
CO
a
to
a
LU
DC
^ .2
0 J1-
5x ป-*
0
J
W O)
CO _
CD E
co
bi O
^ฃ S
-M S OT O
*~ C" CO m
i_ > ?-? W
-2=6:
n" 0 CO ฃJ
* ^ft **ป
CO
E 3 i
O $0
CO r^ ^
c *ฐ
t N
o
Q> = co
ป- O
(D -43
co
CO
CD
0 JD
O T3
E5
CM
ฃt
LU
ID
g
o
Ul
QC
CO Ji:
Q. .
X
0 iL
CO
Q- CO
0
0 =
_ o
co
0
c o r
0
Q. co
CO
co
-------
2z
(5 O
UJ JZ
cc<
SE
Pi
Otr
Z Q.
TJ
o
D)
^
a. 1
o a ฐ
-cl (D
' " ^^
:= O
LL O
CO
ง^
w 2
CO C
15
^o>co
0 Q.Z
> CO.E
-E ป
in
to
CO
jฃ
to
03
ซ
Q
i
33 underway
Remedial activitie
*
0
re contaminati
- Moderate/seve
CO
CD
*-*
CO
k_
CD
6
*
jies desirable
tl
13>?
CD *jฑ
^ +-*
0 3
i i
ent chemistry
* (EITHER sedim
Of? fish tissue)
-------
t
ฃ
111
-J
CD
O
DC
OL
CO
O
02
o
._ >*
ซ-ซ 0
co i:: 0 co
o .2 .2
C .0 JQ
10
O
O
in
MMENTS Re:
IORITIZATION
Ooc
Oa.
CO C
MRM ^^B
^^9 %\J .^H^k
O *^ 0
+- O CO
0 CO O
.g 2 Q.
co o Q.
.2 c ซ
^p
>-5 ฐ
1* ฎ c
^aซ
c
o
o
G>.
X
0
0 ฎ
^- xz
co
00
O
5 2
* Q.
0 ซ
"CO JQ
^ O
-------
Z
O
SSIBLE SOLUT
0
Q.
"c
rtf
to o
T5 C
Assign chemistry i
various levels of u
5 ~o
O c
Q CO
en siT*
52 is
"Certainty" only ba
- matched chemis
biological data
Off
4>
*n O ^
.__ CO
- "blow-out" chem
concentrations (i
[e.g., PCBs?] or
contaminants?)
0
ซ
2
Hi
X
o
o
UJ
5c/>
ETERM
SHOLD
O UJ
LU OC
cc x
QL h-
co
rECHNIQUE
ERENCE 1
LJL
C ' '
O
1
T3 ,
) backgroun
cable to ALL
v-ป
^ "o w
LJL H_.
5 Q-'c
0 cO OJ
O) r-
c o .=
S ^ E
Q. w oj
/? 1 ง
O E o
UJ
Q_
d)
c
Q
CO
: ; . "5
cr
CD
OJ
DC
UJ
Q- H O ^
cr LU -i CC
UJ < CO UJ
C"
CD
(0
1 "ซ
> c
^ o o
O f *
O flj . -
^*^"* *^^ f"*
li "c ^
10 '^ -^
__ c. o)
|M
C- 0) CD
^18
^ "cd w
^ ฃ 2 CD
J2 . CD .ฑฑ
CD ^ 0 C
ง all
-------
z
o
UL F
o<
CO
HI 2
OC<
DH
cgz
<0
02
UJ ฃ
zs
GOT
z
o
o
*
INFORM
UJ
Q
0
DC
Q.
h-
O
3F
U
s
ฃ $
Ew*
m 2
| to
o 75
0 g
0 0
c .2
^ ^
*" 0
^ CD
T3
CD
to >
to w o
CD CD C
6|i
.^ O CD
C OT Jrt
*- CD *
+^x: c
o *- o
C*i ,,
= -K
ss =
tT.g E
^^^s
^ o c
CD 0 O
.C 0
0
Q
O
t:
i.
8
I*
JR w
o o
fiw
ฎ
c\
o
ui
O
oz
9Z
" O
iฐo
(D
D)
C
03
(D 0)
(D
D)
CO
O
C
_ E E
CL CL Q.
Q. Q.
lg"5s
o 2 H II
HI
CO
o
DC
Q_
5o
o c
L. CD
CD CO
CO IO h*
CO CO LD
oO
CO ^
^ nj
O ^-P
LL CD
r- o .
UJ
o
U. CD
DC LLJ
in <
-------
UJ
2
UJ
X
O
V)
O
<
ฃC
UJ
ffl
0)
O
Q.
CD
x:
E
CD
.c
o
^m itiff
0 S
T3 T3
CO
m 8
i .V.. ^ <
>ป ฎ o
CO
E
ฐ^
m -3
CD
O
O S
jO >^
CD
W
TJ ฑ; Q
r*ป ซ Tฑ iJ
C
O
CO
~ o
c
.
to X
Q
COHI
Q- "ซ
DL
ui
OEiJ-UJ
Z
-------
------- |