United States Office of Water. Off ice of Water EPA-905/9-88-002
Environmental Protection Regulations and Standards June 1987
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 and
Region 5
Chicago, Illinois 60604
An Overview of
Sediment Quality in
the United States
-------
AN OVERVIEW OF SEDIMENT QUALITY
IN THE UNITED STATES
Final Report
\
^
By
Warren J. Lyman
Anita E. Glazer
Joo Hooi Ong
Susan F. Coons
Contract No. 68-01-6951, Task 20
Howard Zar, EPA Task Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region V
MONITORING AND DATA SUPPORT DIVISION
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC
June, 1987
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(PL. *
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge helpful conversations with individuals in
over fifty State and Federal offices with responsibilities for
environmental protection (see Appendix C). Many of these individuals
helped us identify and obtain the reports listed in Appendix B.
The STORET maps in Section IV were prepared by Mike Paquette (Versar,
Inc., Springfield, VA). Alec Naugle (Arthur D. Little, Inc.) compiled
the site latitudes and longitudes needed for the preparation of these
maps.
-------
ABSTRACT
This report provides an overview of sediment quality in waters of
the United States. The focus is on describing qualitatively the
nature and extent of contaminated sediments, i.e., bottom deposits in
rivers, lakes, harbors and oceans that have been polluted with heavy
metals, organic chemicals and other materials from anthropogenic
sources. Such materials, also called "in-place pollutants," may be
significantly impacting aquatic ecosystems in some areas, and may be
degrading the quality of the overlying water to the extent that water
quality criteria are exceeded and that uses of the water - by both
aquatic life and humans - are impaired.
Information for this report was obtained from a review of the
published literature (identified via computerized bibliographic data
bases and via personal contacts) and from interviews with
knowledgeable individuals in approximately fifty federal and state
agencies that deal with contaminated sediments. Although a
considerable amount of personal experience was drawn upon and a large
volume of literature assessed, the data collection effort was not
statistically designed or geographically complete. It was also not
within the scope of the study to include any major compilation of
sediment quality data or to screen such data to determine the degree
of contamination. For these reasons the conclusions drawn may reflect
a somewhat impressionistic view of overall sediment quality issues.*
Major sections of the report provide information on: (1) the
nature of sediment contamination problems (e.g., types of locations,
pollutants and ecological impacts); (2) sources of contaminated
sediments (including a discussion of current vs.. old sources); (3)
available responses to sediment contamination; and (4) an overview of
sediment quality criteria (or evaluation processes) that are, or have
been, used to classify sediments as polluted or not. Appendix A
provides summary information on over 180 sites with "in-place
pollutants." Appendix B contains a coded bibliography of literature
on this subject. Appendix C identifies the specific agencies and
individuals contacted for information on polluted sediments.
ill
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures viii
I. INTRODUCTION I
A. Background 1
B. Study Objectives 2
C. Report Overview 3
II. CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS 5
A. The Sediment Contamination Problem: 5
Sinks and Sources
B. Problem Chemicals 7
C. Responses to Sediment Contamination 8
D. Development of Sediment Quality Criteria 9
III. STUDY METHODOLOGY 11
A. Overview 11
B. Literature Search and Review 11
C. Telephone Interviews and Visits 12
D. Information Review and Synthesis 16
E. Other Studies 16
IV. STUDY FINDINGS 19
A. Sediment Contamination Problems 19
1. Overview 19
2. How Widespread is the Problem of
In-Place Pollutants? 20
3. Types of Sites Involved 22
4. Types of Pollutants Involved 42
5. Types of Ecological Impacts 57
B. Sediment Contamination Sources 61
1. Overview 61
2. Categories of Sources 62
3. Point Sources 66
4. Non-Point Sources 69
5. Other Sources 70
iv
-------
Page
C. Responses to Sediment Contamination 72
1. Overview 72
2. Problem Identification and Assessment 72
3. Available Responses 76
- No Action Alternative 81
- Dredging 81
- Capping 84
- Sealing and Grouting 84
- In Situ Chemical and Biological
Treatment 86
- Demonstrated Application of
Cleanup Technologies 86
4. Evaluation and Selection of Remedial
Alternatives 86
V. DEVELOPMENT OF SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA 95
A. Overview 95
B. Chemical Analyses of Interstitial Waters 100
C. Background Level Approach 100
D. Biological Effects Approaches 106
E. Equilibrium Sediment-Water Partitioning
Approach 109
F. Equilibrium Sediment-Biota Partitioning
Approach 109
VI. LITERATURE CITED 110
APPENDICES
A. Data on Sites with In-Place Pollutants A-l
B. Bibliography of Literature on In-Place Pollutants B-l
C. List of Agencies and Individuals Contacted C-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
III-l Agencies Contacted 13
IV-la Listing of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region I 24
IV-lb Listing of Reviewed Sites in EPA Regions II and III 26
IV-Ic Listing of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region IV 28
IV-Id Listing of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region V 30
IV-le Listing of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region VI 32
IV-lf Listing of Reviewed Sites in EPA Regions VII and VIII 34
IV-Ig Listing of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region IX 36
IV-Ih Listing of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region X 38
IV-2 Number of Reviewed Sites by Type and Region 40
IV-3 Types of Pollutants in Contaminated Sediments
at Reviewed Sites 43
IV-4 Number of Sites in the U.S. Showing Sediment
Contaminants at Different Levels 44
IV-5 Coastal U.S. Regions Containing at Least One
Pollutant in Sediments at Concentrations
Exceeding Provisional Threshold Values by
More than Ten-Fold (Level 4) 46
IV-6 List of Locations with Contaminated Sediments - 1976 47
IV-7 Water Bodies and Locations with Contaminated
Sediments 48
IV-8 Summary of Sediment Contamination in National
Wildlife Refuges in the United States 50
IV-9 Concentrations of Pollutants Found in Freshwater
Sediments 51
IV-10 Parameters for Bulk Sediment Test (New England
Division, Corps of Engineers) 54
IV-11 Impacts Associated with Contaminated Sediment 60
IV-12 Sources of In-Place Pollutants - Point Sources 63
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
IV-13 Sources of In-Place Pollutants - Non-Point Sources
and Other Sources 65
IV-14 Summary of Sediment Contamination Sources
by Region 67
IV-15 Sources and Associated Pollutants in
Contaminated Sediments 68
IV-16 Materials Spilled in U.S. Waters 71
IV-17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Various
Remedial Action Techniques 77
IV-18 Comparison of Dredge Equipment 82
IV-19 Potential Application of Grouts and Sealants
for Stabilization of Contaminated Sediments 85
IV-20 Summary of In-Situ Chemical and Biological
Treatment 87
IV-21 Cleanup Technologies Considered (C) and
Implemented (I)in Eleven Case Studies 89
IV-22 Considerations for Evaluation of Remedial
Alternatives 92
V-l Comparison of Coverage of Existing Sediment
Quality Criteria 96
V-2 Comparison of Approaches to Deriving Sediment
Criteria 101
V-3 Comparison of Selected Marine Sediment Criteria
Values Derived by Various Methods 103
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
IV-la Total Aliphatic and n-Alkanes in Sediment Core 23
IV-lb Mercury in Sediment Core from Lake Ontario 23
IV-2a Locations of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region I 25
IV-2b Locations of Reviewed Sites in EPA Regions II
and III 27
IV-2c Locations of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region IV 29
IV-2d Locations of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region V 31
IV-2e Locations of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region VI 33
IV-2f Locations of Reviewed Sites in EPA Regions VII
and VIII 35
IV-2g Locations of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region IX 37
IV-2h Locations of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region X 39
IV-3 Sources and Sinks of Contaminated Sediments 41
IV-4 Cumulative Frequency Plot for: (a) Nickel;
(b) Lead; (c) Zinc; (d) PCB; (e) DDT; (f)
Chlordane; (g) Fluorene; (h) Diethyl-
phthalate 52
IV-5 Local Cycle of Arsenic in a Stratified Lake 56
IV-6 Pathways of Human Exposure to Chemicals
Originating in Contaminated Sediments 58
IV-7 Consensus Tiered Testing Program for Evaluation
of Sediments Scheduled for Open-Water
Disposal in Freshwater Environments 75
IV-8 Management Strategy Flowchart 94
V-l Hypothetical Metal versus Aluminum Diagram
for Interpretation of Reported Metal
Concentrations in Estuarine Sediments 107
viii
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND1
Sediment contamination problems have been documented in an increasing
number of areas over the last few years. Contaminated sediments can
have direct effects on aquatic life by making areas uninhabitable for
benthic organisms or by contaminating the food chain and adversely
affecting fish. An example of the latter is the development of
cancerous tumors in fish from streams where the sediments are
contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Food chain
contamination can also pose a threat to human health as pollutants in
sediments bioaccumulate in fish tissue. There are numerous examples
of cases where fish consumption warnings or bans have been issued for
pollutants such as FCfis, mercury, dioxin, kepone, and others due to
contaminated sediments affecting the food chain. Sediment
contamination can also affect commerce, most prominently by raising
the price of navigational dredging to levels that can not be borne by
the Corps of Engineers or shipping interests.
While sediment contamination has been recognized as a serious problem
for some time, there has been relatively little success in mitigating
these situations for a number of reasons. One factor is the lack of
national guidelines and well developed scientific basis for
determining what levels of various pollutants in sediments constitute
a problem. To date, problems have been defined primarily on the basis
of observed effects on aquatic life, such as .a lack of benthic
organisms or diseased or contaminated fish. In some instances,
however, pollutant loadings to another body of water, sediment oxygen
demand, and regional or state guidelines have been effectively used
for problem definition.
Another factor which makes sediment contamination problems difficult
to solve is the handling of contaminated sediments. Both dredging and
disposal can raise additional problems. Although there are control
techniques available, dredging can result in resuspension of
contaminated material which can then become more available to aquatic
life or possibly affect water supplies. Disposal requires locating a
secure site where large amounts of difficult-to-handle aqueous
material can be safely transported and contained.
Contaminated sediments can also be expensive to control. Not only are
specialized dredging techniques and disposal sites sometimes needed
but the sediments may need to be dewatered or otherwise treated before
disposal can occur. Other complicating factors are the higher
concentrations of contamination that sometimes underlie the surface
1. This Background discussion was excerpted from an internal EPA
document on Sediment Strategy, dated July 1985.
-------
sediments and the difficulty in establishing a responsible party,
especially when older sediments or multiple dischargers are involved.
Frequently, sediment contamination is the result of discharges of some
years past, prior to NPDES regulation.
A further reason that EPA has had limited success in mitigating
sediment contamination problems is the administrative limitation in
the authorities EPA and the Corps of Engineers (COE) have for dealing
with contaminated sediments. First, while Congress has authorized $15
million under Section 115 of the Clean Water Act to clean up
contaminated sediments, little money has been appropriated under that
authority, and then only for investigation. Second, the scoring
system under which potential Superfund sites are rated to determine
their priority tends to focus on immediate human health hazards as
opposed to the long term type of problems caused by contaminated
sediments. Finally, the COE is limited to dredging only where
necessary for navigation and must justify added environmental control
costs on the basis of the benefits of the project involved.
While a large number of sediment contamination problems have been
identified, no systematic effort has been made to compile a
comprehensive national assessment of the extent of sediment
contamination problems. As a first step, it would be helpful to have
an extensive survey of all the regional offices, a detailed review of
relevant literature, a review of COE and State information, and an
evaluation of data available through STORE! and other water quality
data bases to define the extent of the problem.
Once a comprehensive listing of known contamination problems and
apparent sources has been developed, it should be possible to
correlate the problems with respect to source category such as
particular type of industrial discharge, type of hazardous waste
spill, etc. The purpose of this exercise would be to establish
relationships between various types of industrial activities and
sediment contamination problems. (Aside from source category, factors
such as land use, sediment type and flow regime are also relevant.)
This would allow EPA to predict where currently undetected problems
may exist, to determine to what extent field studies are necessary to
further investigate various source categories, and to suggest
regulatory followup approaches that might be taken.
B. STUDY OBJECTIVES
This study was undertaken as an initial step towards the goal of
compiling a comprehensive national assessment of the nature and extent
of sediment contamination problems. Specific objectives were to:
- Document the extent to which various sources have been
associated with sediment contamination problems;
- Document approaches to, and effectiveness of, remediation of
sediment contamination;
- Provide documentation of Regional and State approaches to
sediment contamination problem identification and resppnse; and
-------
Provide support and perspective to the development and eventual
implementation of sediment quality criteria through an
inventory and description of known contaminated sediment
problem areas.
The major purpose of this study was thus to provide a "picture" of the
sediment contamination problem in the United States in the most
efficient and objective way possible. It is hoped that this "picture"
can act as a framework or plateau on which future discussions of
sediment contamination problems can take place. We realized that the
data base of information being collected lacked the numeric rigor and
statistical base that is often needed in other studies, and that some
of the information may be called subjective or anecdotal. This
approach was taken purposely in the hopes that it will provide an
alternative view, a balance, to other approaches in which sediment
quality data are, in a mechanistic way, compared with concentration
limits that are akin to criteria values. Studies of this latter type
can be very helpful, however. Two good examples (described briefly in
Sections III and IV) are reports by Johanson and Johnson (1976) and
Bolton et al. (1985). The existence of these studies, which included
extensive analysis of numeric data on pollutant concentrations in
sediments, provides a valuable supplement to the current work.
C. REPORT OVERVIEW
A number of summary observations and conclusions are presented in
Section II. As explained above, the statements may be somewhat
impressionistic due to the nature of the study approach.
Section III describes the study methodology used in this project. It
also provides a brief summary of four other reports that contain, at
least in part, surveys of sites with in-place pollutants. (Some
summary data from these other reports are presented in Section IV.)
The main findings of the report are presented in Section IV. The
first two subsections focus on: (a) descriptions of the types of
sites and pollutants involved; and (b) descriptions of the pollutant
sources responsible. To a large extent, the information provided has
been based upon a review of over 180 sites with in-place pollutants.
(Summary information on these sites is provided in Appendix A.) The
final subsection of Section IV provides an overview of available
responses to sediment contamination, focusing more on management
issues and generic approaches than on engineering details.
Section V provides a discussion of several approaches to deriving
sediment quality criteria. The discussion focuses on approaches that
have been developed by federal and state offices for current use in
sediment contamination problems. Less information is provided on
ongoing research efforts to derive new sediment quality criteria.
Full references to the literature cited in the main body of the report
are given in Section VI.
-------
Appendix A provides summary information on over 180 sites with
in-place pollutants. Information is given on the following: water
body/location; contaminants and their concentration ranges; perceived
or noted impacts; sources of pollutants; code for remedial actions
undertaken; additional comments; and a literature reference. The list
of sites is subdivided into ten tables by EPA region.
Appendix B provides a coded bibliography of literature (on in-place
pollutants) obtained during this study. The coding relates to eight
different criteria including EPA region, type of water body, types of
contaminants, suspected sources, remedial actions taken, and
ecological effects noted.
Appendix C identifies the specific individuals and agencies contacted
for information on sediment quality. The purpose is to make it easier
for future projects to identify and obtain needed information.
-------
II. CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
As described in Section I, the objective of this project was to
provide a "picture" of the sediment contamination problem in the
United States. The conclusions and observations given below are thus
a series of summary statements which represent collective wisdom; they
are generally supported by the data in Sections IV and V, but may also
contain a subjective or impressionistic flavor and may be skewed by
the nature of the data collection effort.
A. THE SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION PROBLEM: SINKS AND SOURCES
1. There are hundreds of sites in the U.S. with in-place pollutants
at concentration levels that are of concern to environmental
scientists and managers. These sites include all types of water
bodies (streams, lakes, harbors, near-shore ocean, etc.) and are
found in all regions of the country.
2. It is probably safe to conclude that all surface waters receiving
significant waste water discharges, runoff or infiltration from
anthropogenic sources contain some in-place pollutants, and that
the amounts present are related, in part, to the historic record
of waste loads received by the water body. Only the smallest and
most remote water bodies are likely to have pristine sediments
although even these may be affected by wind-borne pollutants
which reach the water body via wet or dry fallout.
3. The overall magnitude of the problem in terms .of areal extent and
severity has not been assessed. The potential, however, is
staggering given the historic use of our waterways as a disposal
area and the fact that the U.S. has 39.4 million acres of lakes,
1.8 million miles of rivers, 32 thousand square miles of
estuaries,* 23 thousand ocean coastline miles,* and hundreds of
thousands of square miles of near-shore, continental shelf
(marine) habitat. Even if only a small percentage were affected
with polluted sediments, it would represent a very significant
problem.
4. Municipal and industrial point source discharges, urban and
agricultural runoff, combined sewer overflows, spills, mine
drainage, and atmospheric deposition are frequently cited
sources. It is presumed that illegal (intentional) discharges
have contributed significantly, but perhaps less so in recent
years.
5. There is a general feeling that the worst sources of pollution
(leading to contaminated sediments) have been stopped or brought
under control. However, no evidence was found that documented
the extent to which the problem of in-place pollutants has been
mitigated by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant
* Excluding Alaska
-------
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and other federal and state
acts and regulations. It is clear that many of the worst cases
of sediment contamination are associated with sources that have
ceased discharge. However, it is known that in many locations
the older polluted sediments are still in place but have been
covered by recent deposits of cleaner material. Such natural
burial may diminish current impact, but it complicates future
removal strategies as may be associated with navigational
dredging.
6. In addition to pollutant source strength, patterns of sediment
contamination are strongly affected by hydrologic factors
(specifically sedimentation -patterns), and the physical and
chemical characteristics of the sediments. Fine-grained
sediments with high surface area-to-volume ratios and/or high
organic carbon contents, for example, are good sorbents for many
pollutants. In areas where sediment-laden streams enter
quiescent waters (e.g., discharge into a reservoir, harbor or
other large body of water), or in other places where sediments
tend to accumulate, large masses of contaminated sediments may
accumulate.
7. The combined effect of varied source locations, and variable
hydrology and sediment characteristics, has led to large
variability in the concentrations of in-place pollutants within a
water course or water body. The more contaminated sites are
often referred to as "hot spots."
8. Harbor areas, both freshwater and marine, have clearly been
impacted most severely. This is understandable given that they
usually receive waste loads: (1) from the local urban and
industrial sources (including point and non-point); (2) from
commercial and recreational boat traffic; (3) from dredging
operations; and (4) from any rivers entering the harbor and
dropping their (possibly contaminated) sediments in the harbor.
9. Our understanding of the nature and extent of the problem of
in-place pollutants is hampered by the fact that sediment quality
data are not easy to collect and review. There have been no
national surveys of sediment quality (a limited one is currently
being sponsored by NOAA); the existing data, although extensive
in some regards, are associated with varying sampling and
analytical methods, and are widely scattered in many state and
federal offices, often in uncompiled formats (some has been
entered into STORE!); and only a few states (e.g., Texas, Oregon
and Washington) have regular programs to check for in-place
pollutants.
10. Our understanding of the environmental impacts associated with
in-place pollutants is limited by gaps in knowledge relating to
sediment-pollutant chemistry (especially the bioavailability of
-------
pollutants associated with sediments) and the direct and indirect
ecological impacts on the aquatic biota.
B. PROBLEM CHEMICALS
1. One would only expect significant sediment accumulation of
non-volatile, persistent chemicals. Both terms are relative, but
"non-volatile" might be appropriate, for chemicals with a Henry's
law constant less than 10 atm m /mol. By "persistent" it is
meant resistant to degradation by microbiological or chemical
pathways (e.g., hydrolysis, photolysis, reduction); chemicals
with a half-life (in sediments) of at least a year would
certainly be considered persistent. Heavy metals (which do not
"degrade" at all) and highly chlorinated organics are examples of
persistent chemicals.
2. The available data do cite heavy metals and metalloids most
frequently as in-place pollutants. Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), "pesticides", and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
are also frequently cited. Radionuclides and microbiological
pollution are rarely cited.
3. In addition to toxic metals and organics, other sediment quality
problems involve nutrients, pathogens, acidity, oxygen demand,
salinity, physical habitat alteration and sedimentation.
4. Although the use of scans may be increasing, it is very uncommon
to find analyses where an attempt was made to identify all
pollutants in the sediments. More commonly, sediments are
analyzed for a screening list of chemicals. In some instances it
appears that a few chemicals or parameters are being used as
indicator pollutants for contaminated sediments; examples include
PCBs, dioxins, total organic carbon (or oil and grease), selected
heavy metals (e.g., mercury), and selected pesticides.
5. Because of the very selective nature of most of the analyses
done, it is possible that certain classes of in-place pollutants
have not yet been recognized as such, or that their relative
importance is underestimated. Petroleum- and coal-derived
hydrocarbons may be one such class of chemicals. Stable
metabolites of some pesticides may be another.
6. Sediment quality data are obtained using a variety of analytical
techniques, with the largest differences being in the initial
digestion or extraction step. Comparison of data sets is thus
made difficult, as is drawing any conclusions regarding the
bioavailability of the pollutants.
7. Although some sediments have been found with extremely high
pollutant concentrations, it is unusual to find samples that fail
the extraction procedure (EP) test used to define hazardous
wastes under RCRA. Easily extracted pollutants are presumably
-------
also easily leached by the natural water flow from contaminated
sediments.
C. RESPONSES TO SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
1. The most common responses to recognized sediment contamination
problems have been the issuance of fishing bans, fish consumption
advisories, and bans on swimming, and the closing of water
supplies.
2. If one neglects the Corps of Engineers' experience with the
removal of (contaminated) sediments -- which is almost
exclusively connected with the maintenance dredging of harbors
and channels -- there has been very little experience with
removing (or mitigating the effects of) in-place pollutants.
3. The initial consideration in every case must include a careful
study of the extent to which the sources of the in-place
pollutants have been controlled. If they have not been
controlled, then any response that involves removal of the
contaminated sediments may have only limited, short-term value.
4. Fueled primarily by CERCLA ("Superfund") money, there is now more
serious consideration of technological solutions to contaminated
sediments. Such solutions might involve, for example, temporary
stream diversions, stabilization of the contaminated sediments,
dredging, open water burial (and subsequent capping) of the
contaminated sediments, on-land treatment and disposal, or in
situ treatment of the contaminated sediments. One or more such
technological solutions have been tried in at least 8 cases (see
Section IV-C).
5. Most cases have considered (and properly should) the "no action"
alternative in which the in-place pollutants are not disturbed.
At a minimum, this provides a baseline for a comparison of
relative risks and costs for alternate responses. It is quite
possible that the "no action" alternative may be, by choice or by
default, a very common one in the future given the technological
complexity, costs, and institutional and political constraints
associated with other actions. The "no action" case would also
receive support in instances where in situ degradation or natural
burial (by cleaner sediments) is expected to mitigate the problem
within a reasonable time span.
6. An attractive variation on (and improvement over) the strict "no
action" alternative is the use of broadcast material or caps to
enhance the effects of natural burial. In more sophisticated
projects, the contaminated sediments may be relocated to a
prepared pit in the waterbody sediments before a cap is added.
The use of caps for in situ or in-water disposal is gaining wider
attention.
-------
7. There is a general consensus that consideration of responses is,
and must be, very site specific. This is presumably due mostly
to physical and ecological differences at each site, but local
public involvement, and other institutional considerations may
play a significant role too.
8. The process of deciding just what remedial action is "best" for a
site with contaminated sediments is complex, lengthy, and fraught
with many uncertainties. The complexity is due, in part, to the
numerous alternatives that can (or must) be considered. The
uncertainties may be associated with: (1) unknown effectiveness
of various technologies (under the local conditions); (2)
possible long term "failure" of a solution (e.g., disintegration
of a cap over buried contaminants); (3) crude methodologies to
carry out exposure and risk assessments associated with different
solutions; (4) equipment availability (especially dredging
equipment); (5) uncertain or unknown costs; (6) availability of
funding; (7) the uncertain basis and utility of various sediment
quality criteria that have recently been proposed; and (8) extent
of cleanup required.
9. Responses that involve removal of the contaminated sediments will
usually be on a much higher plane of complexity, cost, and
controversy than non-removal options since it must then be
decided where else to place the polluted material.
D. DEVELOPMENT OF SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
1. Criteria that are currently in use for evaluating levels of
pollutants in sediments, or for making regulatory decisions
regarding the disposal of dredged material, are primarily based
on comparison to background levels of pollutants, rather than on
biological effects data.
2. In addition to the background concentration method, other methods
being developed for the derivation of sediment quality criteria
include approaches based: (1) on the toxicity of pollutants in
water in situations where equilibrium sorption conditions can be
assumed; (2) on laboratory measures of the biological effects of
contaminated sediments; and (3) on field data indicating the
impact of in-place pollutants on the distribution or abundance of
benthic organisms. Approach (1) makes use of existing water
quality criteria for aquatic life.
3. The factors affecting the toxicity of contaminated sediments are
still poorly understood. Uncertainties include the variation of
effects with sediment particle size and organic carbon content,
and the relative importance of various methods of contaminant
uptake by biota (e.g, ingestion or absorption of overlying water;
ingestion of sediment particles, or biomagnification).
-------
4. Efforts to develop new toxicological data to support sediment
quality criteria are highly resource-intensive. As a result,
most recent sediment criteria development efforts have focused on
making optimal use of existing data.
5. Sediment criteria derived by the different methods developed to
date, although they may be quite similar, sometimes vary by
orders of magnitude for a given pollutant.
10
-------
III. STUDY METHODOLOGY
A. OVERVIEW
The approach to gathering information for this study consisted of two
separate efforts: (1) a search of the recent published literature on
sediment contamination, and (2) a series of interviews, both by
telephone and in person, with representatives of various federal and
state agencies that deal with contaminated sediments. Each of these
segments of the study is described in more detail below. Two general
types of information were gathered: (1) data on specific cases of
sediment contamination, their causes and effects, and (2) descriptions
of federal and state agency approaches to identifying, studying and
cleaning up contaminated sediments.
B. LITERATURE SEARCH AND REVIEW
The literature search consisted of both in-house searching of computer-
ized literature databases and review of bibliographies and publications
listings obtained from various federal agencies.
Two databases were searched in-house: NTIS and Pollution Abstracts.
The NTIS database, produced by the National Technical Information
Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce, consists of references to
reports of U.S. government-sponsored research. The Pollution Abstracts
database includes references from approximately 2,500 primary sources
(including books, conference papers or proceedings, periodicals,
research papers, and technical reports) dealing with pollution, its
sources, and its control. Both of these databases were searched for
citations for which the word "sediment" or "sediments" and some form of
either "pollution" or "contaminants" (i.e., words beginning with
"pollut" or "contamin") were listed as descriptor terms. In Pollution
Abstracts, the search strategy specified that "sediment" or "sediments"
must be a word in the title as well as being a descriptor term. (Some
additional citations, which did not contain these words in their
titles, were obtained from Pollution Abstracts for the years 1978 to
1980.) Citations obtained from Pollution Abstracts were limited to the
English language. In NTIS, the search strategy specified that the term
"sediment" or "sediments" must either be both a descriptor term and a
word in the title of each document or be listed as a major descriptor
term.
In addition to the in-house searches, a literature search on the topic
of sediment contamination was ordered from the Defense Technical
Information Center (DTIC). This search covered reports published by the
U.S. Department of Defense.
11
-------
The DTIC search covered the years 1976 to 1986, the Pollution Abstracts
search covered 1978 to 1986, and the NTIS search covered 1980 to 1986.
Complete bibliographic citations with abstracts were obtained from all
three databases: a total of about 220 citations from DTIC, 450 from
Pollution Abstracts, and 390 from NTIS.
Additional bibliographic listings were obtained from several sources:
• A bibliography of literature on "Lake and River Bottom Sampling"
(dated 1977 to July, 1985) compiled by NTIS
• A list of publications of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi
• A list of publications of the U. S. Geological Survey
• A literature search conducted by the information specialist at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Columbia National
Fisheries Research Laboratory. (In addition, a search of
literature published by the USFWS was requested from the Fish and
Wildlife Reference Service in Rockville, Maryland. However, no
references specifically to sediment contamination were found).
From the above-mentioned citations and abstracts, reports and articles
were selected for inclusion in this study. All of the literature gath-
ered in this search process, together with reports and articles received
from the various agencies contacted (as described below), were listed in
a bibliography. Each citation in the bibliography was coded to indicate
the major subject areas touched upon by the report or article. In
addition, the literature was cross-indexed according to geographical
location, in order to facilitate review of all literature on hand
dealing with a given location. The bibliography and cross-index, which
are included in this report as Appendix B, were used in preparing the
table of sediment contamination problem areas (Appendix A) and writing
the remainder of this report.
C. TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS AND VISITS
The second major approach to gathering information for this study was
speaking to representatives of various federal and state agencies that
deal with sediment contamination. The majority of these interviews were
conducted by telephone, but a few agencies were visited in order to have
in-person discussions of the subject. The agencies/offices contacted
are listed in Table III-l. The specific individuals contacted are
identified in Appendix C. Prior to our contacting the EPA regional
offices, the EPA Office of Water, Monitoring and Data Support Division,
sent a "letter of introduction" to all of the regional offices,
explaining the purpose of this study and requesting that they identify
individuals for us to contact in their offices. Names of contacts in
state environmental agencies were provided by the individuals we spoke
to in the EPA regional offices.
12
-------
TABLE III-l. AGENCIES CONTACTED
NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
National Ocean Service, Ocean Assessment Div. (Rockville, MD)
National Marine Fisheries Service (Sandy Hook, NJ)
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
*New England Division (Waltham, MA)
*North Central Division (Chicago, IL)
New York District Office
Norfolk, VA, District Office
Jacksonville, FL, District Office
Galveston, TX, District Office
Omaha, NE, District Office
Memphis, TN, District Office
Portland, OR, District Office
U.S. ARMY TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AGENCY (USATHAMA)
Installation Restoration Program Division
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
Resource Contaminant Assessment Division
Biological Services Division
Western Energy and Land Use Division
National Fisheries Research Laboratory (Columbia, MO)
Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory (Ann Arbor, MI)
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)
Office of Surface Water
Northeast Region
Central Region (Denver, CO)
Harrisburg, PA, District
Baton Rouge, LA, District
Rapid City, SD, District
Lakewood CO, District
Salt Lake City, UT District
Oregon District
U.S. EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, NARRAGANSETT, RI
U.S. EPA REGION I
Water Quality Branch
State Agencies:
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
U.S. EPA REGION II
Water Management Division
(continued)
* Indicates offices visited
13
-------
TABLE III-l. AGENCIES CONTACTED (continued)
U.S. EPA REGION III
Water Quality Control Division
Environmental Services Division
U.S. EPA REGION IV
Environmental Services Division (Atlanta, GA)
Ocean Disposal Division (Atlanta, GA)
Superfund Division (Atlanta, GA)
State and Local Agencies:
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Metro-Dade County, FL, Planning Department
Miami River Coordinating Committee
U.S. EPA REGION V
*Water Division
*Great Lakes National Program Office
*Environmental Review Branch
Dredge and Fill Section
*Waste Managment Division
State Agencies:
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
*Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
U.S. EPA REGION VI
Water Management Division
Hazardous Waste Management Division
State Agencies:
Texas Water Commission
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
U.S. EPA REGION VII
Water Management Division
Superfund Section
State Agencies:
Iowa Department of Water, Air and Waste Management
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
U.S. EPA REGION VIII
Water Division
State Agencies:
Colorado Department of Health
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
North Dakota Department of Health
South Dakota Department of Water and Natural Resources
Utah Department of Water Pollution Control
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
(continued)
* Indicates offices visited
14
-------
TABLE III-l. AGENCIES CONTACTED (continued)
U.S. EPA REGION IX
Water Management Division
Environmental Services Branch (Policy Division)
State Agency:
California Water Resources Control Board
U.S. EPA REGION X
Environmental Services Division
Water Resources Assessment Section
Office of Water Planning
Puget Sound Office
State Agencies:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Washington Department of Ecology
15
-------
In speaking to these personal contacts, we asked for: (1) information
that individuals could provide from personal knowledge; and (2) sediment
quality reports and data summaries that they could send us or to which
they could provide references. The type of information requested
included the following:
• Statewide or regional surveys of sediment quality;
• Data on specific locations considered to be "problem areas" with
regard to sediment contamination, including the nature and extent
of contamination, known or suspected sources of pollutants, and
remedial actions considered or implemented;
• Information about approaches identifying sediment: contamination
problems, deciding what level of contamination constitutes a
"problem", determining the need for remedial action, and
evaluating remedial action alternatives.
D. INFORMATION REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS
Among the first steps in the review of the information collected was the
preparation of a large table listing specific sediment contamination
problem areas. This table, presented in Appendix A, is not intended to
be a comprehensive listing of sites that have contaminated sediments,
nor is it a list of the "worst" sites. Rather, it provides a sampling
of sediment contamination problems throughout the nation, with the most
attention given to sites for which documentation is readily available.
This listing was used as a starting point for the preparation of an
overview of sediment contamination in the United States, discussing the
types of contaminants most frequently found, and the known and suspected
sources of contaminants (Sections IV-A and IV-B). Another section of
this report (IV-C) discusses approaches to detecting, characterizing and
responding to instances of sediment contamination. This section was
based on conversations with agencies that deal with sediment
contamination, together with the literature collected.
E. OTHER STUDIES
Several previous studies have reviewed sediment contamination on a
nationwide scale. They include Johanson and Johnson (1976), Bolton et
al. (1985), Science Applications International Corporation (1985), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife (1986) and NOAA (1987). Each of these studies has a
different focus and provides information on different sets of sites
although there may be some overlap. Brief descriptions of these studies
are given below. (Some additional details are given in Section IV-A.)
• Johanson and Johnson (1976), Identifying and Prioritizing
Locations for the Removal of In-Place Pollutants.
16
-------
This study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water Planning and Standards. The purpose of this study was
to assist in the selection of locations for consideration under Section
115 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL-500), which requires
EPA to identify the location of in-place pollutants, with emphasis on
toxics. Under Section 115, EPA was also authorized to make contracts
through the Secretary of the Army for removal and disposal of these
in-place pollutants. Section 115 and the study covered harbors and
navigable waterways. Data was obtained from U.S. Corps of Engineers,
EPA regional and field offices, federal and state agencies, port
authorities, academia, and other institutes. A semifinal list of 23
locations was developed based on a pollution index which was a measure
of contamination relative to national median concentrations. These 23
locations were prioritized based on considerations such as availability
of disposal sites for contaminated dredged spoils, chemicals present,
population and shipping traffic. The prioritized list is shown in Table
IV-6 (Section IV-A), with Priority 1 sites as those deserving the most
consideration for Section 115 funds. Among a list of other conclusions,
the authors concluded that the data available at that time were not
adequate to set final priorities for removal or inactivation of in-place
pollutions in response to Section 115. Also, the authors perceived that
the magnitude of sediment pollution was such that the available funds
could not begin to have a significant impact. There was also concern on
the bias of inadequate intensity and geographically non-uniform
availability of data.
• Bolton, et al. (1985), National Perspective on Sediment Quality
This study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Criteria and Standards Division of the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. The purpose of this study was to provide a nationwide
overview of the quality of freshwater and marine/estuarine sediments and
to provide assistance in the development of sediment criteria. Data
from the EPA Storage and Retrieval (STORET) system computer file, the
open literature, and reports from state and federal agencies were
included. Preliminary threshold concentrations, shown in Table IV-9
(Sect. IV), primarily based on sediment-water-equilibrium partitioning
were used to compare sediment contamination monitoring data for
different pollutants. These threshold concentrations had been developed
in earlier reports (Pavlou and Weston, 1983; JRB Associates, 1984). In
their methodology, the assumption is made that the distribution of a
chemical between the organic carbon phase of the sediment and the
soluble phase in interstitial water in equilibrium with the solid phase
is described by the organic carbon-water partition coefficient (K ) for
the chemical. If the water quality criterion value for the chemical is
taken to be the maximum acceptable concentration of the chemical in
solution in the interstitial water, then the threshold concentration of
the chemical in the bulk sediment is calculated based on the sediment
organic-normalized K for the chemical. Water bodies with sediment
oc
contamination monitoring data were categorized into those having
contaminant(s) at Level 4 (greater than 10 times the threshold value),
17
-------
Level 3 (3 to 10 times the threshold value), Level 2 (1 to 3 times the
threshold value), and Level 1 (sediment concentrations less than the
threshold value). The highest contamination levels were usually found in
"hot spots" rather than over broad areas. For marine/estuarine sites,
only a limited number of areas contained contaminants at higher
concentrations. Details on the results of this study are given in
Section IV-A.
• Science Applications International Corporation, 1985, Removal and
Mitigation of Contaminated Sediments.
This study was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory in the Office of
Research and Development. This report described 11 case studies of
sediment contamination selected out of 33 cases based on remedial
actions considered and implemented at these sites. These case studies
provided information on state-of-the-art contaminated sediments
management. A list of chemicals was also provided on sediment contam-
inants based on their physical and chemical characteristics. Equipment
and techniques for sediments removal, dredged material management, and
in-situ treatment and isolation techniques are described in the report.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife, April 1986, Preliminary Survey of
Contaminant Issues of Concern on National Wildlife Refuges.
This is an effort to inventory the presence of potentially harmful
contaminants on national wildlife refuges. Sediment contamination was
one of the issues considered but was not the primary focus. Information
for the report was compiled from a questionnaire survey of refuge field
stations. The report identified 78 contaminant issues of concern on 85
refuges. We noted eight national wildlife refuges that had sediment
contamination problems as shown in Table IV-8 (Section IV-A).
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1987,
"National Status and Trends Program. Progress Report and
Preliminary Assessment of Findings of the Benthic Surveillance
Project - 1984."
The report summarizes the results of the first year (1984) of a national
program to monitor toxic chemicals in bottom feeding fish and sediments
at 50 coastal and estuarine sites in the U.S. Chemical contaminants
surveyed included PCBs, aromatic hydrocarbons, selected chlorinated
pesticides, metals, and sewage, materials. The incidence of fish
disorders (gross and histopathological lesions) was also surveyed, as a
potential measure of biological response to contaminants. Areas with
high concentrations of several pollutants included Boston Harbor and
Salem Harbor, Massachusetts, Raritan Bay, New Jersey, Western Long
Island Sound, New York, San Diego Harbor, California, and Elliott Bay,
Washington. (The full NOAA report was not available at the time this
report was being prepared and thus no data or site information are
included herein.)
18
-------
IV. STUDY FINDINGS
A. SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS
1. Overview
This section presents the results of the data-gathering on sites
which, based upon the information sources used, probably contain some
in-place pollutants in the sediments. The term "in-place pollutants"
is used to describe those contaminants found in sediments. The use of
this term precludes some of the value judgment that may accompany the
term "contaminated sediments". It was not within the scope of this
study to provide a detailed and complete analysis of in-place
pollutants in sediment; thus, the overview of the status of sediment
contamination in the U.S. presented is somewhat subjective. We also
did not attempt to include an independent judgment on the accuracy,
adequacy, or rigor of the data as provided us from various sources.
In total, our study included 184 separate sites. Most of these were
in the Northeast, along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, and in the Great
Lakes region. This is not to say that these are also where the
problem is most severe, but where most of our data is concentrated.
Many water bodies serving major urban and industrial areas in the U.S.
contain sediments with elevated levels of pollutants. Affected water
bodies include ocean waters, estuaries, rivers/streams, lakes, and
reservoirs. Heavy metals and metalloids, PCBs, pesticides, and PAHs
were the most frequently mentioned contaminants in sediments.
Ecological impacts from these contaminants, including biological
impacts (e.g., impacts on reproduction, structure and health of the
community, and fish kills), were frequently noted. Accumulation in
edible fish has been severe enough to warrant fishing bans or fish
consumption advisories in many cases. In one case, an alternative
water supply was brought into a community because the water supply was
contaminated by arsenic in the sediments. There are also numerous
examples where contaminated sediments have stymied navigational
dredging efforts; this, in turn, has had impacts on shipping.
This section provides:
o a brief discussion on the extent of the problem of
in-place pollutants;
o a description of the sites involved;
o a discussion of the types of pollutants in sediments; and
o a brief discussion on the types of impacts that have
occurred from in-place pollutants.
From the literature survey, U.S. EPA Offices, various state and
federal agencies and other sources that were contacted, data
regarding in-place pollutants were summarized in tables shown in
19
-------
Appendix A. These tables show the site (water body and location) ,
contaminants, any impacts that were noted or perceived, the
source(s) of the contamination, whether remedial actions were
considered or implemented, the reference or agency that the data
were obtained from, and other comments regarding the site. The
inclusion of sites was not based on ADL's judgment on contamination
or non-contamination as measured by concentrations, impacts, or
other criteria. Rather, there was no discrimination and sites were
included as given by the literature and other sources. In addition,
the tables do not provide an exhaustive list of all siteis in the
United States with in-place pollutants. The information in the
tables in Appendix A is the primary basis of our conclusions. We
also relied on results from other studies similar to this one, which
were described in Section III.
The terms "contaminated" and "non-contaminated", or other such terms
used in conjunction with sediments are somewhat arbitrary.
Different sources and agencies have different approaches to making
these designations. Section V describes the current criteria and
approaches that are used by various Federal agencies, EPA regions or
states. As a result of these varied approaches, the sites across a
region and the country listed in the tables in Appendix A vary
greatly in terms of contaminants monitored, procedures of testing
and analyses, and concentrations.
An important consideration is the current database that exists on
sediment monitoring data. The effort that was made to compile the
data in Appendix A was not uniform throughout the EPA regions in the
U.S. As a result, certain regions are better represented than
others. However, the bias of such non-uniform effort is also
partially a function of the non-uniformity of the available data.
There are certain regions of the country that have received more
intensive study than others, e.g., the Northeastern coast and Great
Lakes region. The data available are not statistically rigorous.
In some sites, intensive monitoring has occurred over a long period
and many samples have been collected. In others, very few data
points are available. All these and other issues of concern should
be kept in mind when approaching a study of this type. The results
and conclusions of this report are qualified by these concerns.
2. How Widespread is the Problem of In-Place Pollutants?
Although it is reasonable to say that there is significant in-place
contamination in U.S. waters, it is not possible with the current
level of knowledge to quantify the problem. We do not know and
cannot even begin to estimate, for example, the river miles affected
or the cubic yards of sediment involved. Part of this has to do
with limitations on the quality and quantity of the available data,
but a larger part is probably associated with not knowing how to
define and apply criteria that distinguish between contaminated and
uncontaminated sediments. However, from the information we have, it
20
-------
is possible to attempt some general statements regarding the
problem.
In regions of the country where there has been industrialization,
the sediments in rivers, estuaries, and harbors serving these
regions generally contain elevated concentrations of metals, organic
compounds, or other man-made contaminants when compared to levels in
"pristine" areas (e.g., open ocean sediments). Every major harbor
in the U.S. may be considered to be contaminated from sources
upstream and from ship traffic. Similarly, estuaries in industrial
areas appear to be contaminated by industrialization and
urbanization in these areas. Rivers flowing through major cities
are also impacted. Increased industrialization and urbanization in
the coastal areas and Great Lakes harbor areas have historically
contributed to these areas being more affected than other areas,
e.g., upstream portions of rivers. However, some rivers in
non-urbanized areas show elevated levels of agricultural chemicals
because they receive drainage from agricultural areas. An important
qualification in all these generalized statements is that in each
location, the actual areas of high contamination may be extremely
localized. These localized areas with high levels are often related
to the location of the sources of contamination, e.g., at the end of
a sewage or industrial outfall. In general, however, they are
difficult to identify and pinpoint. Their locations appear to vary
due to the movements of currents and other disturbances, e.g., ship
traffic or dredging.
The high mobility of sediments in some waterbodies is a complicating
issue. Pollutants discharged in the upper reaches of a watershed
may travel tens or hundreds of miles before finding a relatively
permanent 'home' in an open harbor, lake or bay. Even here,
however, permanent or episodic (e.g., storm generated) currents can
result in significant sediment redistribution. In some areas, older
contaminated sediments may become buried by cleaner material as part
of the natural sedimentation process.
Another perspective to describing the extent of in-place
contamination is through the impacts of such contamination. By and
large, known impacts due directly to in-place pollutants are
difficult to identify. Impacts are frequently indirectly observed
from effects related to contaminants in the overlying water. In
many of the areas where in-place contamination has been noted, there
have also been noted or perceived impacts on the aquatic biota
and/or water contaminated by the sediments, e.g., the detection of
contaminant(s) in biota and one recorded case where an alternative
water supply had to be provided for a community because arsenic in
sediments in a reservoir affected the water supply. Other cases of
potential human health impacts have led to such actions as fishing
bans, fish consumption advisories, and swimming bans. In terms of
impacts, therefore, the problem of in-place contamination is
significant. In instances where all other polluting sources have
been regulated, in-place contaminants may be the primary source
contributing to the impacts.
21
-------
The historical record of concentrations of pollutants in sediments
shows that in-place contamination has increased rapidly through this
century. Figures IV-la and -Ib show, for example, the historical
concentration of aliphatic hydrocarbons in Lake Washington
sediments, and the historical concentration of mercury in Lake
Ontario sediments. The accumulation of pollutants with
industrialization is clear from these figures. (Reductions in point
source loadings over the last decade may have reduced surface
pollutant concentrations from the values shown in the Figures.) The
concentration profiles show that the contamination decreases rapidly
with depth. The volume of sediments affected in many cases is
concentrated only in the surface sediments. This profile, however,
may be disturbed by currents, dredging operations, or other
disturbances. In some cases, reverse concentration profiles (i.e.,
showing higher concentrations at depth) are found; this is fre-
quently seen with PCBs in Great Lakes Harbors. In these cases,
burial of older contaminated sediments by cleaner meiterial is
probably involved.
3. Types of Sites Involved
Figures IV-2a to -2h and Tables IV-la to -Ih indicate the locations
of the sites listed in Tables 1-10 in Appendix A. In many cases,
several sites were incorporated as one map site because they were
close together. It was often difficult to differentiate the sites
by type (marine, estuary, etc.) because the water systems are
connected. For example, many of the sites in the Great Lakes Region
were located at the mouths of rivers that drain into the lake.
These were arbitrarily designated as lake sites. There were other
similar cases of arbitrary designations.
In all, 184 sites were included in this study: 48 marine, 15
estuaries, 78 river/stream, and 43 lake/reservoir. Table IV-2 shows
the locations of these sites by region. From these data, it appears
that in-place pollutants occur in all types of water bodies.
The types of water bodies affected tend to be related to the types
of activities that are often associated with these areas. Figure
IV-3 shows a generalized picture of how sources and water bodies are
related. Bays and harbors are associated with sources from
shipping, among others. Major cities are usually also located in
these areas. Similarly, upper reaches of rivers and streams are
polluted by sources that are located in these areas, e.g., mines.
Section IV-B discusses the sources of in-place pollutants in greater
detail.
In addition to nearby sources, the extent of in-place contamination
is also dependent on the characteristics of the sediments. Fine
sediments tend to sorb pollutants to a greater degree than coarse
sediments because of their higher surface areas. For organics, the
organic matter content of the sediments is a very important factor;
the higher the organic matter content, the greater the sorption of
(Text continues on p.42 )
22
-------
CO
o
n
o
n>
i
1-1
n
00
rt
vo
oo
o
sr
s-
OQ
rt
O
H-
OQ
n
n>
H
O
rt
§
o.
D
0)
01
(D
a*
em IN CORE
8 S
b 5 Si !>
APPROXIMATE
AGE OF DEPOSITION
CO
O
w
rt
B
a.
oo
u>
(t.
M
i
CO
n>
a.
o
o
i-h
if
O
3
n>
o
Approximate date of deposition
I I t 8 8 I ! I I
8
IP
s
g
r»
he
Sediment depth (cm)
i-i
H-
O
-------
TABLE IV-la LISTING OF REVIEWED SITES IN EPA REGION I
SITE NUMBER NAME TYPE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Gulf of Maine, Casco Bay Region
Gulf of Maine, Penobscot Bay Region
Gulf of Maine/Wilkinson Basin, Murray
Basin, Franklin Basin
Saco River Estuary, ME
Kennebec River Estuary, ME
Sebasticook River, ME
Pawtucket River, Providence River, RI
Narragansett Bay, RI
Fishing Rip Shoals, MA
Buzzards Bay, MA
New Bedford Harbor, MA
Falmouth Marsh, MA
Charles River, MA
French River, MA
Blackstone River, MA and RI
Bass River, MA
Neponset River, MA
Winthrop Harbor, Dorchester Bay,
Boston Harbor, etc.
Silver Lake, MA
Coopers Pond, MA
Mill River, Mill Pond, CT
Housatonic River, CT
Eastern Long Island Sound, CT
Branford, Bridgeport, Stamford,
New Haven Harbors , CT
Quinhipiac River, CT
Ten Mile River, MA and RI
Marine
Marine
Marine
Estuary
Estuary
River
River
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
River
River
River
River
River
Marine
Lake
Lake
River
River
Marine
Marine
River
River
Site numbers used to show locations on following map. The same
numbers are also used in Tables 1-10 of Appendix A where detailed
information on the sites are given.
24
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STORET SYSTEM
EPA REGION I
SEDIMENT SITES
• RIVER
^ LAKE
^ MARINE
^ ESTUARY
X WETLAND
PROJECTION - ALBERS EQUAL AREA
SCALE 1>3250000
VT
Figure IV-2a. Location of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region I
25
-------
TABLE IV-Ib LISTING OF REVIEWED SITES IN EPA REGIONS II AND III
SITE NUMBER
NAME
TYPE
Region II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Region III
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Upper Hudson River/Fort Edward, NY
Hudson River, NY/Tidal Portion
New York Bight
Long Island Sound
Eastchester Creek (Hutchinson River) , NY
Saw Mill River, Westchester, NY
Foundry Cove, Cold Spring, NY
The Saddle River/Near Lodi, NJ
Lake Ontario/Whole Lake
Lake Ontario/Oswego River and Harbor
Lake Ontario/Buffalo River, Niagara River
Lake Ontario/Eighteen Mile Creek, NY
Lake Ontario/Rochester Embayment, NY
Wine Creek and White Creek, Oswego, NY
St. Lawrence River, Messena, NY
Wetlands, Moira, NY
Black Creek, Bergholtz Creek, Niagara
River, Niagara Falls, NY
Elizabeth River, Arthur Kill,
Elizabeth, NJ
Cannon Run, North Branch
Rancocas Creek , NJ
Burnt Fly Bog, Marlboro Township, NJ
Edwards Run, Delaware River,
Gloucester County, NJ
Maurice River drainage basin,
Vineland, NJ
Tinicum National Environmental Center , PA
Monongahela River, Pittsburgh, PA
Schuylkill River, PA
Chesapeake Bay
Baltimore Harbor, MD
James River, Hopewell, VA
North Fork, Hols ton River, VA and TN
South River and South Fork, Shenandoah
River, Waynesboro, VA
Elizabeth River Estuary, VA
Lynnhaven Estuary, VA
River
Estuary
Marine
Marine
River
River
River
River
Lake
River
River
River
Lake
River
River
Wetlands
River
Estuary
River
Wetlands
River
Estuary
River
River
Estuary
Marine
Marine
Estuary
River
River
Estuary
Estuary
Site numbers used to show locations on following map. The same
numbers are also used in Tables 1-10 of Appendix A where detailed
information on the sites are given.
26
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STORET SYSTEM
EPA REGION 11 i III
SEDIMENT SITES
• RIVER
^ LAKE
A MARINE
^ ESTUARY
X WETLAND
PROJECTION - ALBERS EQUAL AREA
SCALE 1>5500000
15
LAKE
ONTARIO
12
REGION I
or HUH
M.tl MIU «• >••
Figure IV-2b. Location of Reviewed Sites in EPA Regions II and III
27
-------
TABLE IV-Ic LISTING OF REVIEWED SITES IN EPA REGION IV
SITE NUMBER NAME TYPE
1 Sampit River, Georgetown, SC Estuary
2 Savannah River Estuary, GA Estuary
3 Latham Bayou and Loosahatchie River, TN River
4 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, AL River
5 Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL River
6 Mobile Harbor, AL Marine
7 Mississippi Sound, Escatawpa River, Marine
Bayou Casotte, Pascagoula River,
Biloxi Bay, MS
8 Escambia Bay, FL Marine
9 Bayou Chico, Estuary, FL Estuary
10 Canaveral Port, FL Marine
11 Ft. Pierce Port, FL Marine
12 Jacksonville Port, FL Marine
13 Manatee Port, FL Marine
14 Miami Port and River, FL Marine
15 Pensacola Port, FL Marine
16 Port St. Joe, FL Marine
17 Tampa Port, FL Marine
18 West Palm Beach, FL Marine
19 Hillsborough River, FL River
Site numbers used to show locations on following map. The same
numbers are also used in Tables 1-10 of Appendix A where detailed
information on the sites are given.
28
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STORET SYSTEM
EPA REGION IV
SEDIMENT SITES
• RIVER
LAKE
MARINE
ESTUARY
X WETLAND
PROJECTION - ALBERS EQUAL AREA
SCALE 1>8500000
Figure IV-2c. Location of Reviewed Sites In EPA Region IV
29
-------
TABLE IV-Id LISTING OF REVIEWED SITES IN EPA REGION V
SITE NUMBER NAME TYPE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7a
7b
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Cleveland Harbor, Cuyahoga River, OH
Lake Erie, Western
Lake Erie, Central
Lake Erie, Eastern
Lake Erie/Maumee River, OH
Lake Erie/Black River, OH
Lake Erie/Ashtabula River and Harbor, OH
Detroit River, MI
Shiawassee River, Howell, MI, South Branch
Lake Erie/Clinton River, Rouge River,
Raisin River, MI
Lake Huron, Southern
Lake Huron, Saginaw Bay
Lake Huron
Georgian Bay
Lake Michigan, Green Bay
Lake Michigan, Algoma Basin
Lake Michigan, Fox Basin
Lake Michigan, Grand Haven Basin
Lake Michigan, Sarian Basin
Lake Michigan, Southern Basin
Lake Michigan, Traverse Basin
Lake Michigan, Waukegan Basin
Lake Michigan, Manistique River, MI
Lake Michigan, Menominee River, WI and MI
Lake Michigan, Sheboygan Harbor
Lake Michigan, Milwaukee Estuary and Basin
Lake Michigan, Kalamazoo River, MI
Indiana Harbor, Grand Calumet River,
East Chicago, IL
Michigan City Harbor, IN
Lake St. Glair
Lake Superior
Lake Superior, Keweenaw Peninsula
Lake Superior, St. Louis River, MN
Lake Superior, Torch Lake, MI
Lake Superior, Deer Lake, Carp Creek,
Carp River
River
Lake
Lake
Lake
River
River
River
River
River
River
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
River
River
Lake
Lake
River
River
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
River
Lake
River
Site numbers used to show locations on following map. The same
numbers are also used in Tables 1-10 of Appendix A where detailed
information on the sites are given.
30
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STORE! SYSTEM
EPA REGION V
SEDIMENT SITES
• RIVER
* LAKE
A MARINE
^ ESTUART
X WETLAND
PROJECTION - ALBERS EQUAL AREA
SCALE 1-7500000
ICAlt Of HUU
III.WMIH ra IMH
Figure IV-2d. Location of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region V
31
-------
TABLE IV-le LISTING OF REVIEWED SITES IN EPA REGION VI
SITE NUMBER NAME TYPE
1 Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, TX Marine
2 Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, Marine
TX
3 Corpus Christi Harbor and Ship Channel, TX Marine
A Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Tx/San Antonio Marine
Bay to Aransas Bay
5 Sabine Neches Waterway and Neches River, Marine
TX
6 Houston Ship Channel Marine
7 Lavaca Bay, TX Marine
8 Petronila Creek, TX Marine
9 Rio Grande, Presidio, TX River
10 Double Mountain Fork of Brazos River, River
North Fork, Lubbock, TX
11 Finfeather and Municipal Country Club Lake
Lakes, Bryan, TX
12 Mountain Creek Lake, Dallas, TX Lake
13 Trinity River, TX River
14 Crutcho and Soldier Creeks, Oklahoma River
City, OK
15 Mississippi River, Shell Beach, LA, River
Gulf Outlet
16 Lake Pontchartrain, LA Marine
17 Capitol Lake, Baton Rouge, LA Lake
18 Lake St. John, Northeastern LA Lake
19 Lake Bruin, Northeastern LA Lake
20 Lake Providence, Northeastern LA Lake
21 Middle Rio Grande, NM/Elephant Butte Lake
Reservoir and Caballo Reservoir
Site numbers are used to show locations on following map. The same
numbers are also used in Tables 1-10 of Appendix A where detailed
information on the sites are given.
32
-------
Co
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STORET SYSTEM
EPA REGION VI
SEDIMENT SITES
• RIVER
* LAKE
A MARINE
+ ESTUARY
X WETLAND
PROJECTION - ALBERS EQUAL AREA
SCALE 1«9000000
!«.«/ MIU Nl IMM
Figure lV-2e. Location of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region VI
-------
TABLE IV-If LISTING OF REVIEWED SITES IN EPA REGIONS VII AND VIII
SITE NUMBER
Region VII
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Region VIII
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
NAME
Cedar Lake, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Mississippi River and Romaine Creek,
St. Louis, MO
Swope Park Lakes, Kansas City, MO
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge, MO
Gum Spring Creek, Wolf Creek, Granby, MO
Shoal Creek, Joplin West, Center Creek,
MO-KS
Missouri River, Omaha, NE
Spring River, MO
Big River near Desloge, MO, Irondale-
Brown's Foprd, MO
St. Francis River Basin, near Farmington
and Fredericktown, MO
Tebo Creek, Henry County, MO
North Claybank Creek, Macon County, MO
Blue River, near Kansas City, MO
Local surface waters, St. Louis, MO
Pin Oak Creek, Johnson County, MO
Mississippi River Side Channel,
Clinton, IA
Mississippi River Side Channel,
Davenport , IA
Cedar River near Charles City, IA
Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge, MT
Freezout Lake, MT
Lake Bowdoin, MT
Silverbow Creek/Upper Clark Fork, Butte, MT
Milltown Reservoir, MT
Clark Fork River near Frenchtown, MT
Prickly Pear Creek/Spring Creek,
Jefferson City, MT
Columbus, MT
Whitewood Creek, Belle Fourche River,
Cheyenne River, South Dakota
Laramie River, WY, Wheatland Res.
No. 2 - Laramie
Little Popo A Tie River, WY
Jordan River near Salt Lake City, UT
Upper Arkansas River, California Gulch,
Yak Tunnel, Leadville, CO
Missouri River, near Williston, ND
James River, ND and SD
TYPE
Lake
River
Lake
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
Lake
Lake
Lake
River
Lake
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
River
Site numbers used to show locations on following map. The same
numbers are also used in Tables 1-10 of Appendix A where detailed
information on the sites are given.
34
-------
CO
in
REGION Vlll
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STORET SYSTEM
EPA REGION Vll «, Vlll
SEDIMENT SITES
I RIVER
LAKE
MARINE
ESTUARY
X WETLAND
PROJECTION - ALBERS EQUAL AREA
SCALE 1 110000000
REGION Vll
SCALE or HUE*
100
400
ur.n mm rn i
Figure IV-2f. Location of Reviewed Sites in EPA Regions VII and VIII
-------
TABLE IV-lg LISTING OF REVIEWED SITES IN EPA REGION IX
SITE NUMBER NAME TYPE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge, CA
Stillwater Wildlife Management Area, NV
San Francisco Bay, CA #
Southern Coastal California
San Diego Harbor, CA
Blanco Drain, Salinas /Monterey
Bay area, CA
Elkhorn Slough, tributary to
Monterey Bay, CA
Monterey Harbor, CA
Urban Lakes, LA, CA
Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, CA
Santa Monica Bay, CA
Newport Bay, CA
Lake
River/Lake
Marine
Marine
Marine
River
River
Marine
Lake
Marine
Marine
Marine
Site numbers used to show locations on following map. The same
numbers are also used in Tables 1-10 of Appendix A where detailed
information on the sites are given.
*
The Southern California Bight encompasses a very large area.
Although it is shown here, for convenience, as a single site, it is
actually comprised of several "sites" related to. municipal and
industrial outfalls, river discharges, off-shore oil development,
and other sources. Additional details on available data are
contained in a report by Tetra Tech (1986).
36
-------
CO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STORE! SYSTEM
EPA REGION IX
SEDIMENT SITES
RIVER
LAKE
MARINE
ESTUARY
X WETLAND
PROJECTION - ALBERS EQUAL AREA
SCALE I•7500000
III.M miu m inn
Figure IV-2g. Location of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region IX
-------
TABLE IV-Ih LISTING OF REVIEWED SITES IN EPA REGION X
SITE NUMBER NAME TYPE
1
2
3
4
5
6
Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA
Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA
Everett Harbor, WA
Puget Sound, WA/Colvos Passage and
Southern Puget Sound
Alaska Maritime Nat. Wildlife Refuse, AK,
Woman's Bay
Alaska Maritime Nat. Wildlife Refuse, AK,
Anchitka and Atka Is .
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
Site numbers used to show locations on following map. Alaskan sites
not mapped. The same numbers are also used in Tables 1-1.0 of Appendix
A where detailed information on the sites are given.
38
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STORET SYSTEM
EPA REGION X
SEDIMENT SITES
RIVER
LAKE
MARINE
ESTUARY
X WETLAND
PROJECTION - ALBERS EQUAL AREA
SCALE 1-5000000
VO
HALE Of HUM
IM
200
Figure IV-2h. Location of Reviewed Sites in EPA Region X
-------
TABLE IV-2. NUMBER OF REVIEWED SITES BY TYPE AND REGION
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
Marine
11
2
2
12
0
8
0
0
7
6
48
Estuarine
3
3
4
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
River/Stream
10
13
4
4
13
4
16
11
3
0
78
Lake/Reservoir
2
*
4
0
0
22
7
2
4
2
0
43
Total
26
22
10
19
35
21
18
15
12
16
184
*
Including 2 classified as wetlands.
40
-------
Plant
Discharge
(Point Source)
Old Chemical
Dump Site
Confined
Disposal
Area for
Dredge
Spoils
Locations of In-Place
Pollutants
Drill Muds and
Cuttings, Oil
F16URE ,V-3 SOURCES AND S.NKS OF CONTAM.NATED SEO.MENTS
1,1
-------
organics would be. However, this enhanced sorption may reduce the
bioavailability of the pollutants to aquatic life.
Areas where sediments tend to settle are also prime locations for
sediment contamination. These areas include reservoirs, other
impoundments, and lakes where the flow of a river is appreciably
slowed. Sediments that are contaminated by upstream sources are
carried to the reservoir, impoundment, or lake and deposited there.
As rivers flow toward the ocean, the rate of flow becomes slower and
sediments are deposited. Also, the interaction with salt water can
cause the flocculation and sedimentation of pollutant-laden
suspended sediments, and the precipitation and/or increased sediment
sorption of other pollutants due to oxidation (e.g., of metals) or
the "salting out" effect. Because of these effects, estuaries and
deltas become depositories of pollutants from upstream.
4. Types of Pollutants Involved
From the pollutants mentioned in each of the sites shown in Tables
1-10 in Appendix A, a summary table of contaminants and their
frequency of occurrence is shown in Table IV-3. Heavy metals and
metalloids (e.g., arsenic) are the most frequently mentioned
contaminants; 69 percent of the sites showed the presence of at
least one heavy metal or metalloid. PCBs were mentioned in 34
percent of the sites; PAHs, 19 percent; pesticides, 26 percent; and
other organics, 25 percent. The pesticides most frequently found
are DDT and its derivatives, dieldrin, and chlordane. Some classes
of contaminants were rarely mentioned, e.g., biological and
radiological pollutants.
The above observations regarding pollutants and their frequency of
occurrence seem to be similar to those from other studies. Table
IV-4, taken from the study of Bolton et al. (1985), shows the number
of sites that were contaminated with various pollutants. Metals
again appear in many sites. PCBs and PAHs were also found in many
sites. Table IV-5, adapted from the same study, shows the sites
containing the highest levels of at least one pollutant. This table
shows that heavy metals, PAHs, PCBs, and DDT are found at high
levels. Johanson and Johnson (1976) studied the harbors and
navigable waterways in the country. Table IV-6 shows heavy metals,
PCBs, oil and grease, and DDT to be the most frequent contaminants
in these sites. Tables IV-7 and IV-8, from two other studies
(Science Applications Corp. 1985 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1986), show similar contaminants. Pentachlorophenol, creosote,
cyanide and a few other chemicals occur ir a few sites.
The ranges of concentrations of contaminants found in all the sites
from Tables 1-10 in Appendix A are very wide. It was not the
purpose of this study to provide a statistical analysis of the
concentrations found. Table IV-9 and Figures IV-4a to -4h, adapted
from Bolton et al. (1985), show the concentrations that were
obtained from the data in their study. Since that study was based
(Text continues on pJ54 )
42
-------
TABLE IV-3. TYPES OF POLLUTANTS IN CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AT REVIEWED SITES
Heavy Metals &
Metalloids
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
Frequency
19
16
6
14
21
14
11
12
8
4
125
b %c
73
73
60
74
60
67
61
80
67
100
69
PCBs
Frequency %
9
8
4
1
15
7
3
4
6
4
61
35
36
40
5
43
33
17
27
50
100
34
PAHs
«
Pesticides Other Organics
Frequency %
9
3
3
4
4
4
1
0
0
4
34
35
14
30
21
11
19
6
0
0
100
19
Biological
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
1
4
4
3
14
9
2
3
8
0
48
4
18
40
16
40
43
11
20
67
0
26
8
6
1
2
12
6
3
3
2
2
45
31
22
10
10
34
29
17
20
17
50
25
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
a. Includes oil and grease, hydrocarbons, volatile organics, phenols, base/neutrals, dioxin.
b. "Frequency" is the number of sites where the pollutant(s) was mentioned.
c. Percentage of sites with these pollutants.
-------
TABLE IV-4. NUMBER OF SITES IN THE U.S. SHOWING SEDIMENT
CONTAMINANTS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (a)pyrene
Benzo (k) f luoranthene
Chrysene
Dinitrotoluene
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Indeno (1,2,3) pyr ene
Nap thai ene ,
Nitrobenzene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Toluene
PAH
TOTAL AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
PESTICIDES
Aldrin
Chlordane
ODD
DDE
DDT
Heptachlor
Isophorone
Lindane
Toxaphene
TOTAL PESTICIDES
Level 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
14
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
Level 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Level 2 Level 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
7
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
9
1
11
4
3
4
0
4
4
2
10
1
14
8
5
12
94
44
2
32
27
6
0
14
1
0
~126
No Value
Available
44
44
36
44
34
41
42
41
45
41
41
43
34
44
31
37
40
7
689
93
135
105
110
124
137
123
136
137
1100
(continued)
44
-------
TABLE IV-4. NUMBER OF SITES IN THE U.S. SHOWING SEDIMENT
CONTAMINANTS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS (continued)
No Value
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 Available
OTHER
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
Dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorethane
Methylchloride
Methylenechloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
PCBs
TOTAL OTHER
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
15
1
1
0
0
3
2
4
106
117
136
136
137
137
134
135
133
7
955
METALS
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
TOTAL METALS
1
1
5
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
7
3
7
7
2
2
4
2
16
8
14
19
23
5
30
79
8
39
69
28
14
69
68
21
67
51
13
47
64
27
11
28
91
336
358
PHTHALATES
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Diethylphthalate
DimethyIphthalate
Di-N-butylphthalate
TOTAL PHTHALATES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
7
"12
103
99
102
96
400
* Level 1 - Sediment concentrations less than threshold value.
Level 2 - 1 to 3 times threshold value.
Level 3 - 3 to 10 times threshold value.
Level 4 - Greater than 10 times threshold value.
Threshold values are primarily based on EPA water quality criteria and
assumed sediment-water equilibrium partitioning. Please see III-E for
further details.
Source: Bolton et al. (1985)
45
-------
TABLE IV-5. COASTAL U.S. REGIONS CONTAINING AT LEAST ONE POLLUTANT
IN SEDIMENTS AT CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDING PROVISIQNSAL
THRESHOLD VALUES BY MORE THAN TEN-FOLD (LEVEL 4)
Water Body Location
Contaminant(s)
At Level 4
Other
Contaminant(s)
At Site
LA County Wastewater Treat. Plant Outfall.CA
Palos Verdes Whites Point Outfall, CA
Palos Verdes Penn. JWPCP Outfall System, CA
San Francisco Bay, Beemar Point, CA
LA City, Hyperion Outfall, CA
Joint Water Poll. Cont. Monitoring Zone, CA
Palos Verdes Shelf, CA
Quinhipiac River, CT
Charles River, Boston, MA
Boston Harbor, MA
Achushnet River/New Bedford Harbor, MA
Patapso Estuary, Baltimore Harbor, MA
Arthur Kill, NJ
Newark Bay, NJ
New York Bight, NY
East River, NY
Newton Creek, NY
Gowanus Canal, NY
Lower Bay, NY
Sewage Sludge Dumpside, NY
Hudson River, NY
Providence River, RI
Corpus Christi Channel, TX
Puget Sound: Commencement Waterways, WA
Duwamish Waterway
West Point
Seattle Waterfront
Hylebos Waterway
Puget Sound:
Puget Sound:
Puget Sound:
Puget Sound:
DDT
DDT
DDT
Cd
Cr
Cr
Cr
Hg
PAH
PAH
PCBs,Cu
Cr
PAH
PAH, PCBs
PAH
PAH
PAH (total)
PAH (total)
PAH (total)
DDT
PCBs
Cr
Hg
PAH, As
PAH
PAH
PAH
PAH
PCBs
Cr,Cu,Hg,Ni
Cu.Hg.Ni
Ni,Cu,Pb,Hg
Cu,Pb,Ni,Cd,Zn
Hg
Cu,Pb,Ni,Zn
Pb,Hg,PCBs,Zn,As
Hg.Pb
PCBs
Napthalene,PCBs
PCBs
DDT,PCBs
PCBs,Cr,PAH,Pb,Hg,Ni
Pb.DDT.Cu
Cu
Cr,Pb,Zn
Cr.Ni
PCBs.Cr.Ni
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
*Level 4 indicates concentrations greater than 10 times threshold value.
Threshold values are primarily based on sediment-water equilibrium
partitioning. Please see Section III-E for further details.
Source: Bolton et al. (1985)
46
-------
TABLE IV-6. LIST OF LOCATIONS WITH CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS - 1976
Water Body
Contaminant(s)
Priority 1
Detroit River, MI
Baltimore Harbor, MD
Indiana Harbor, IN
Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA
Michigan City Harbor, IN
San Francisco Harbor, CA
heavy metals, oil & grease
heavy metals
heavy metals, cyanide, oil & grease
heavy metals, PCB, oil & grease
heavy metals, oil & grease
heavy metals, PCB, oil & grease
Priority 2
Bridgeport Harbor, CT
New Bedford Harbor, MA
Corpus Christi Harbor, TX
heavy metals, DDT, PCB, oil & grease
heavy metals, DDT, PCB, oil & grease
heavy metals, oil & grease
Priority 3
Providence River and Harbor, RI
New Haven Harbor, CT
Eastchester Creek, NY
Newark Bay, NJ
Sampit River, Georgetown, SC
Monongahela River above Pittsburg, PA
Mississippi River below St. Louis, MO
Cleveland Harbor and Cuyahoga River, OH
Milwaukee Harbor, WI
Neches Waterway, Beaumont, TX
Richmond Harbor CA
Oakland Harbor, CA
Los Angeles Harbor, CA
San Diego Harbor, CA
heavy metals
heavy metals
heavy metals
heavy metals
Pb
Pb
heavy metals
heavy metals,
heavy metals
Pb
Hg
heavy metals,
heavy metals
heavy metals
cyani de
oil & grease
*Priority 1 sites are those regarded as deserving the most consideration
for clean-up funds under Section 115 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. Priority 2 and Priority 3 sites are those deserving less consideration.
The findings and recommendations of this report, now over 10 years old,
might not be considered very pertinent for any current policy decisions on
clean-up, but they do add weight to the conclusion that harbors are amongst
the most impacted areas, and that a variety of inorganic and organic pollu-
tants are involved. Please see Section III-E for further details on the
study.
Source: Johanson and Johnson (1976)
47
-------
TABLE IV-7. WATER BODIES AND LOCATIONS WITH CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
Water Body
Location
Contaminant(s)
Duwamish Waterway
Gulf outlet of
Mississippi River
James River
Mill River
North Fork
HoIston River
South Branch of the
Shiwassee River
South and South Fork
Shenandoah Rivers
Stamford and New Haven
Harbors
Seattle, WA
Shell Beach, LA
Hopewell, VA
Fairfield, CT
Saltville, VA
Howell, MI
Waynesboro, VA
Stamford and
New Haven, CT
PCB
PCP
Kepone
Lead
Mercury
PCB
Mercury
Heavy Metals
Commencement Bay
Fox River
Sheboygan Harbor
Milwaukee Harbor
Elizabeth River
Upper Hudson River
Waukegan Harbor
Little Menomonee River
New York Bight
Tacoma , WA
Wisconsin
Sheboygan , WI
Milwaukee, WI
Portsmouth , VA
Fort Edward, NY
Waukegan, IL
Milwaukee, WI
New York, NY
Various
PCB
PCB
PCB
PAHs
PCB
PCB
Creosote
Heavy metals ,
PCB
(continued)
48
-------
TABLE IV-7. WATER BODIES AND LOCATIONS WITH CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
(Continued)
Water Body
Location
Contaminant(s)
Whitewood Creek
Housatonic River
Lake Dupree
Bayou Bonfouca
Puerco River
Cottonwood Creek
Baltimore Harbor
Fields Brook, Ashtabula River,
and Ashtabula Harbor
Black River and
Lorain Harbor
Kalamazoo River
Tittabawasee River
Indian Creek and
Wheeler Reservoir
Grand Calumet River and
Indiana Harbor Canal
Raisin River
Pine River and Reservoir
Deadwood, SD
MA and CT
Jacksonville, AR
Slidell, LA
Churchrock, NM
Edgewood, SD
Baltimore, MD
Ashtabula, OH
Lorain, OH
Kalamazoo, MI
Midland, MI
Alabama
Indiana
Adrian, MI
St. Louis, MI
Arsenic-
contaminated
tailings
PCB
Agent Orange
Creosote
Uranium tailings
Uranium tailings
Heavy metals
PCB, Heavy metals
Coal tars,
Napthaiene
PCB
PCB, PBB
DDT
PCB
Curene 442,
Anilines
PBB
Please see Section III-E for a brief description of this study by Science
Applications International Corp.
Source: Science Applications International Corp. (1985)
49
-------
TABLE IV-8. SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION IN NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGES IN THE UNITED STATES
EPA
Region
Name of Site
Contaminants
in Sediments
III Tinicum National Env. Center, PA/
Creeks and Marsh
IV Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, AL/
Huntville Spring Branch of Indian
Creek
VI Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, TX/
Bay areas adjacent to refuge
Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, TX/
Burgentine Lake
Laguna Atascosa Nat. Wildlife
Refuge, TX
VIII Benton Lake National Wildlife
Refuge, MT/Benton Lake
IX Kesterson National Wildlife
Refuge, CA/Kesterson Ponds
Stillwater Wildlife Mgt. Area, NV/
Paiute Drain, Carson River,
Lahontan Reservoir
heavy metals, pesticides,
cyanide, PCBs, chlordane,
PAHs
DDT & metabolites
heavy metals (Hg.As,Cd,Zn),
PAHs
oil & grease, pesticides
Agricultural chemicals
(incl. DDE, toxaphene),
heavy metals (incl. Se)
Se
Se, other trace metals
Se.As.Hg
Please see Section III-E for a brief description of this study by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1986)
50
-------
TABLE IV-9. CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) OF POLLUTANTS FOUND IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENT
Pollutant
"Threshold
Value"*
Sediment Concentration
Median 95th Percentile
Metals
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Nickel
Arsenic
Cadmium
136
132
0.8
760
20
33
31
4.0
16
< 1.0
41
13
4.0
1.0
32
199
1.0
379
99
39
12
Polvnuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthalene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
24
44
220
28
56
0.6
0.5
0.01
0.6
0.6
4.3
4.5
0.014
4.5
5.6
Phthalate Esters
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
1.28
1.96
0.4
0.5
5.62
4.47
Pesticides
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Heptachlor
Lindane
Toxaphene
0.021
0.020
0.006
0.020
0.0124
0.020
0.0001
0.001
0.0004
0.0006
0.03
0.097
0.015
0.006
0.012
0.044
*Threshold values are primarily based on EPA water quality criteria and
assumed equilibrium sediment-water partitioning. Please see Section III-E
for further details.
Source: Bolton et al. (1985)
51
-------
Ol
c
t)
u
j
3200
looo
310
100
FIGURE IV-4 Cumulative Frequency Plots
(Note: See Tables IV-4 and -9, and Section III-E for information on threshold values.)
10 x Threshold value
3 x Threshold value
Threshold value
So
to »5 •»<>
Cumulative Frequency (Z)
FIGURE «a. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY PLOT FOR NICKEL
c
u
u
<§
Jo
10 x Threshold value
3 x Threshold value
10 <)> too
Cumulative Frequency (Z)
FIGURE Ab. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY PLOT FOR LEAD
e
01
u
c
<3
50.000
I9OOO
tlOO
loeo
JW>
too
30
10 x Threshold value
3 x Threshold value
Threshold value
o So
Cumulative Frequency (%)
FIGURE 4c. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY PLOT FOR ZINC
90 95 loo
<-> u
c o
01 k.
31
10
3
I
0.3
O.I
0-03
o-oi
10 x Threshold value
3 x Threshold value
Threshold value
0 5o
Cumulative Frequency (X)
FIGURE Ad. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY PLOT FOR PCB
-------
Concentration (ppm)
Concentration (ppra)
° o o o o
§ b 9 -
o
c
50
PI
a o
5 I
m
ri
2
50
«
e
$
o
\
9 9 o
S S -
o
50
8
PI
O
O
S
c
CD
o.
Concentration (ppm)
Concentration (ppm)
9
Ui
o
c
i
I
I
3
"*
r-
•o
x
•-)
n
c
h-4
PI
•fl
I
•O
i
3
50
X
r"
o
50
a
?> O o
£ o -
\
-------
on data from stations, regardless of whether they were "contam-
inated" or "non-contaminated", their data do not provide a picture
of the range of concentrations found in "contaminated" sites.
However, the high levels shown are indications of the levels of
contamination in "contaminated" sites.
Although the specific pollutants and classes of pollutants mentioned
above clealy demonstrate the existence of in-place pollutant
problems, it would be misleading to assume that they are the only
contaminants of concern, or that they present a complete picture of
in-place pollution. It is important to remember that what is found
depends on what is looked for. In many studies, the investigators
looked only for metals. Certain agencies, e.g. the Corps of
Engineers, have a list of standard parameters which are to be tested
for. A list of parameters for the bulk sediment test from the New
England District of the Corps of Engineers is shown in Table IV-10.
Additional parameters may be included at many sites, but the
standard list is rather limited. Section V of this report describes
other screening lists used by other state and federal Agencies, and
their use as sediment quality criteria.
In some cases, a small list of pollutants is used because these
specific pollutants are being used as indicators of contamination.
Such a list, therefore, is not intended to provide a complete
picture of all the pollutants at the site.
* •
TABLE IV-10. PARAMETERS FOR BULK SEDIMENT TEST
(NEW ENGLAND DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS)
volatile solids
water
oil and grease
Metals Mercury
Lead
Zinc
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
PCS Total PCBs
Source: Information obtained from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
New England Division (1986)
54
-------
Another related issue of concern is that once a site is considered
"contaminated" based on a particular pollutant (e.g. PCBs),
investigators may not be on the look-out for other pollutants which
may have important ecological impacts.
The sediment analysis data that are available are primarily in the
form of bulk sediment analyses. Elutriate and bioassay data are
also available on occasion but tests for these are rarely based on
consistent procedures from investigator to investigator, and are
therefore not easily comparable. Although the methods for bulk
sediment analyses are not uniform, the data have more in common in
terms of bases for comparison. However, bulk sediment concentrations
do not necessarily correlate with the availability of the contaminants
to biota. It is therefore impossible, on the basis of bulk concentra-
tions alone, to predict the toxicity or other impacts of these sedi-
ments to the biota in the water body.
The issue of bioavailability is a major quetion for all contaminants
in sediments. Contaminants are sorbed onto sediments, become
partially immobilized, and therefore are not "available" to biota in
the overlying water. However, benthic organisms or bottom feeders
could still be exposed to the sorbed contaminant. For metals,
speciation in water also influences the bioavailability and toxicity
of the metal to biota. Bioavailability is a complex issue, and a
thorough discussion of it is not within the scope of this study.
These and other factors determine the impact of contamination in
sediments. To illustrate the complexities involved in metal
contamination, Figure IV-5 shows the speciation of arsenic in a
stratified lake. Arsenate and arsenite may coprecipitate with or sorb
onto hydrous iron oxides in the sediments. Under reduced conditions
in the presence of sulfide, orpiment (AS?S_) may be formed in the
sediments. Arsenic species also sorb onto aluminum oxides and clays.
Except for PCBs and PAHs, and some agricultural chemicals (e.g. DDT),
organics are not as frequently monitored in sediments as metals.
Other organics that may be present (and, perhaps, should be analyzed
for) include other chlorinated hydrocarbons (besides PCBs and
pesticides), polymers, and metabolites of anthropogenic compounds.
Degradation or reactions of compounds in the environment will produce
new products. These products may be as important or even more
important than the parent compounds in terms of biological or human
health impacts. An example of reaction products that may be
significant but which are currently not monitored are sulfides formed
by abiotic reactions of organics with sulfide. Compounds which are
persistent and have high adsorption coefficients should be emphasized
in sediment monitoring efforts. Radionuclides are another class of
contaminants not frequently reported. It is conceivable that these
may be mor.e frequently detected if they are analyzed for in sediments.
An important point to emphasize, however, is that contaminant analyses
do not always provide information on the speciation or bioavailability
of the pollutant.
55
-------
• —H
Epilimnion
Thermocline
Hypolimnion
Sediments
Source: Ferguson and Gavis (1972).
FIGURE IV-5 Local Cycle of Arsenic in a Stratified Lake
56
-------
5. Types of Ecological Impacts
An examination of the ecological and human health impacts from
sediment contamination was not the primary objective of this study.
Thus, this section provides only a brief discussion of exposure
pathways and a brief summary of the impacts noted or perceived.
The primary exposure pathways which may be followed by chemicals in
contaminated sediments, and which could lead to adverse effects on
aquatic life and humans, are shown in Figure IV-6. There are two
significant features of this Figure. First, it points out that,
within both the 'bottom sediments' and 'water column' compartments,
pollutant chemicals are partitioned between three subcompartments: (1)
sorbed to filterable sediments; (2) sorbed to non-filterable dissolved
organic matter (DOM) (primarily humic and fulvic acids); and (3)
dissolved in water. The bioavailability (to benthic organisms and
other aquatic life) of pollutant chemicals may differ significantly
depending on which subcompartment the pollutant is primarily
associated with. For example, strongly sorbed chemicals (e.g., DDT,
dioxin, benzo[a]pyrene) will be primarily associated with sediment
particles and DOM; only the small residual portion in true solution is
probably immediately bioavailable to most biota as the other two are
not in a form that can pass through gill membranes or other cell
membranes of the organisms.
Second, the routes leading to human exposure are mostly indirect,
involving, first, transport of the pollutants out of the bottom
sediments into the water column and/or biota. . Direct contact of
humans (such as swimmers, divers, and workmen cleaning boat hulls)
with sediments is also possible, but occurs much less frequently than
exposure via indirect pathways. No exposure pathway involving
volatilization from the water column and subsequent human inhalation
is shown since few volatile chemicals accumulate to any significant
extent in sediments. (While volatilization may not be important from
a human health [exposure] standpoint, it may be important from a mass
balance standpoint, especially if other degradation and loss mechan-
isms are negligible.) Other more convoluted exposure routes, includ-
ing the use of contaminated water as irrigation water on food crops,
are also not shown. The human exposure route involving drinking water
may start with a surface water withdrawal, or with a groundwater with-
drawal where the well is near the surface water.
It is not difficult to conceptualize a range of possible impacts on
aquatic biota deriving from polluted sediments. These would include
specific toxic effects on individual organisms, both lethal and
sublethal. The latter include, for example, skin lesions ("fin rot"),
tumors, excess fatty vacuoles in the liver, altered metabolism and
strength, and altered behavior and reproductive habits. Population-
scale impacts could include decreased population size, decreased
reproduction potential, shorter average life span, and loss of
habitat. While laboratory studies can show the extent of effects on
57
-------
Ul
oo
0>
OJ
T3
C
3
O
O
(drinking water)
••••
(body contact)
"Dissolved" Organic 4
Matter
(non-filterable materiaJ)
* Direct uptake from sediments by bottom feeding fish.
FIGURE IV-6
PATHWAYS OF HUMAN EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS
ORIGINATING IN CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
-------
individual organisms, extrapolating to whole species/population
effects can be difficult. The use of field studies to determine the
impacts of contaminated sediments is also difficult since it must be
demonstrated that the identified sediment pollutants were taken up by
the studied organisms and caused the perceived impacts.
In the last several years there have been significant advances in
sediment (contamination) assessment by toxicity testing, including
monitoring: (1) for a variety of non-lethal effects on individual
organisms; (2) for changes at the cellular and molecular level (e.g.,
detection of histopathological abnormalities and chromosome damage);
(3) for changes in life cycle and whole population effects; and (4)
for effects on community structure. As noted above, studies focusing
on the nature and extent of such impacts, and the types of test
protocols used, are beyond the scope of this report.
Some information on reported "impacts" is included in Tables 1-10 in
Appendix A. This information is summarized in Table IV-11. Some of
these "impacts" are clearly not direct manifestations of adverse
health impacts, but merely suggestions (e.g., by the finding of
excess levels in fish) that such impacts might be expected. It is
difficult to directly associate the impacts shown in Table IV-11 to
the contamination in sediments. They are mainly indirectly
experienced through the contamination in the overlying water. Also, a
number of the impacts are indirectly implied through the institutional
controls that were instituted to reduce the exposure of humans to the
contaminants.
From the information in Table IV-11, brief statements may be made
regarding the impacts of in-place pollutants. Impacts on biota, most
notably impacts on reproduction, structure and health of the
ecological community (e.g., tumors, lesions, deformities, shorter
lifespan and therefore a skewing of the population toward smaller,
younger fish), and fish kills were frequently mentioned by investi-
gators. Contaminants were also detected or bioaccumulated in biota
to levels unacceptable for human consumption. Fishing bans or fish
consumption advisories were common institutional controls to reduce
exposure. In several cases, investigators specifically mentioned that
levels in fish exceeded limits for human consumption set by the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). Swimming bans or beach closings were
also noted in several cases. Livestock toxicity was noted once. In a
case in Mi11town, Montana, a groundwater supply was contaminated with
arsenic that originated from mine tailings deposited in a reservoir
(Site No. 5, Region VIII). An alternative water supply was provided
for this community.
59
-------
TABLE IV-11. IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT
Impact or Institutional Action Number of Mentions
Detected or accumulated in biota 23
Impact on biota (e.g., community structure 35
and health, fish kill)
Fishing ban or fish consumption advisories 32
Levels in fish exceed FDA limits 11
Swimming ban/beach closings 4
Alternative water supply 1
Lifestock toxicity 1
Alteration, postponement or elimination of
navigational dredging
Information summarized from Tables 1-10 in Appendix A.
*
Not mentioned directly, but many examples are known to exist.
Impacts would be socio-economic in nature.
60
-------
B. SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION SOURCES
1. Overview
This section presents a description of sources contributing to the
contamination of sediments in U.S. waters. There are basically two ways
in which sources affect sediment quality in a water body. Sources can
directly contribute sediments that are contaminated in the form of
solids, e.g., mine tailings. Sources can also discharge pollutants in
the aqueous phase which are then sorbed into the sediments.
There are numerous difficulties associated with the task of identifying
the responsible sources for a particular site. For any one contaminated
site, investigators normally listed many associated sources. These
often consisted of a list of suspected sources rather than proof of
actual sources. This is a function of the location of many contaminated
sites in urban and industrial areas where there are many possible
contributing sources in one location. The main source or sources are
frequently not identifiable. Unless a pollutant is unique to a particu-
lar facility, it is difficult to separate out the individual contrib-
utors. To identify the main sources, one would have to know, at a
minimum, the pollutants and loadings into the water body, from each
individual source.
A very important characteristic of in-place pollutants in sediment is
that the problem could exist long after the sources are gone. There may
be sources that are discontinued and other sources that are continuing
to contribute to the contamination. An example of.this is the existence
of DDT and its derivatives in sediments. Although agricultural uses of
DDT have been discontinued, some residues may still be carried (via
erosion) from formerly-treated fields to surface waters for several
years or decades. Because of this characteristic, sources cannot be
easily identified from the current activities around the water body.
There appear to be numerous types of point, non-point and other sources
(e.g. spills) that were mentioned as sources of in-place pollutants.
Sewage treatment plants are important contributors to in-place
pollutants in virtually all regions of the country. Other point sources
include chemical, steel, metal working, and electroplating plants. In
many cases, unspecified industrial sources were cited as responsible
sources. Important non-point sources include urban and agricultural
runoff. Mining is a very important source in regions where it is an
economic activity. Spills are also significant contributors to in-place
pollutants.
This section provides:
• a review of the categories of sources of in-place pollutants;
• a discussion of the major point sources and the pollutants
associated with these sources;
61
-------
• a discussion of significant non-point sources and the pollutants
associated with these sources; and
• a review of other sources, e.g. spills, and the types of
chemicals involved.
The information obtained from published literature, U.S. EPA offices and
various state and federal agencies was the primary basis for the results
discussed in this section. This information is summarized in Tables
1-10 in Appendix A; additional information on sources is shown in Tables
IV-12 and -13. As in the case of determining the status of contaminated
sites in the U.S., the amount of information on sources was not uniform
from site to site. In many cases, no information on the sources of
contamination was available, while in others, numerous suspected sources
were cited. In some cases, the source or sources responsible for the
in-place pollutants were clearly identifiable because of the relative
locations of the source and contamination site, or because of the
particular pollutant involved. As was pointed out in Section IV-A, the
database from which our results and conclusions are drawn is
non-statistical. Our objective is to present a picture of the
situation, not a statistical analysis.
2. Categories of Sources
There are essentially three types of sources that can be identified:
point sources, non-point sources, and other sources which include spills
and purposeful addition. Each one of these categories will be described
in detail in the sections below.
In point sources, effluents are usually from an identifiable source and
usually from the end of a pipe that is in a fixed location. Point
sources include industrial and municipal wastewater discharges which are
regulated under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) by authority of the Clean Water Act. Non-point sources are
usually characterized by effluents from an area and not from a pipe.
The types of pollutants associated with non-point sources are determined
primarily by land-use characteristics. Examples of non-point sources
are urban runoff and agricultural runoff. The c.ategory of other sources
includes accidental (unintentional) releases and purposeful addition of
chemicals into a water body. Examples are spills, dumping, and the
addition of herbicides into reservoirs or lakes.
Although the definitions above provide reasonably clear distinctions
among the categories, there are a number of sources that are difficult
to categorize. Combined sewer overflows, which result from the
overwhelming of sewage systems due to runoff from storms, were classi-
fied as point sources, even though overflow outlets may be located at
several points upstream of the sewage treatment facility. Discharges
from shipping, such as the washing of decks and cleaning of containers,
were classified as non-point sources, as was atmospheric deposition.
62
-------
TABLE IV-12 SOURCES OF IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS - POINT SOURCES
Location
Providence River
Cattaraugus &
Region
I
II
Point Source (Status)**
Sewage (C)
Nuclear fuel services
Pollutants Found
hydrocarbons
radionuclides
Reference (see Appendix B)
Hurtt & Quinn, 1979
Walters et al. , 1982
Buttermilk
Creeks, NY
Murderkill River,
Delaware
facility (U)
III Sewage treatment plants (C) heavy metals
Hoffman & Biggs, 1983
Miami Beach, FL IV Sewage outfall (U)
Ashtabula River &
Harbor, OH
Fields Brook,
Ashtabula, OH
Fox River & Green
Bay Harbor, WI
Grand River,
Grand Rapids, MI
V Chemical plants & landfills
(C)
V Industrial point sources,
abandoned landfills, lagoons,
chemical storage sites
(all C)
V Industrial point sources (C)
***
POTWs, automot ive,
chemicals, metals, other
industrial (all C)
Indiana Harbor, V
Grand Calumet River
Menominee River,
WI & MI
Steel mills, refineries,
foundries, chemicals,
municipal, sewer overflows,
landfills & dumps (all C)
V Chemical company (C)
enteroviruses, coliforms, Schaiberger et al., 1982
fecal coli and streptococcus
***
PCBs, other synthetic
organics
organics, heavy metals
*** ***
PCBs, PCDD, PCDF,
resin acids, chlorinated
resin acids, chlorophenols,
ammonia
heavy metals
U.S. EPA Region V, 1984
U.S. EPA Region V, 1984
U.S. EPA Region V, 1984
U.S. EPA Region V, 1984
***
PCBs, PAHs, heavy metals U.S. EPA Region V, 1984
As
U.S. EPA Region V, 1984
(Continued)
-------
TABLE IV-12 SOURCES OF IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS - POINT SOURCES* (Continued)
Location
Region Point Source (Status)
Pollutants Found
Reference (see Appendix B)
Sheboygan River & V
Harbor, WI
Techumseh Engine (C)
St. Louis River,
MN
Waukegan Harbor,
Waukegan, IL
Lower Waukegan
Harbor
Southern
California Bight
Los Angeles,
Palos Verdes,
Shelf, CA
Columbia River,
WA
Willamette Rivrr,
OR
V Steel Company (C)
V Outboard Marine Corp. (C)
Outboard Marine Corp. (C)
IX Sewage outfall (C)
IX Sewage outfall (C)
PCBs
PAHs, heavy metals
PCBs
PCBs, heavy metals
petroleum hydrocarbons
oil & grease, heavy metals,
phenols, PAHs, phthalates,
DDT & deriv., dieldrin
X U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Radionuclides
Hanford Reservation (C)
Zinc hydrosulfide used in
ground wood pulp & paper
mills (C)
Zn
U.S. EPA Region V, 1984
U.S. EPA Region V, 1984
U.S. EPA Region V, 1984
U.S. EPA Region V, 1984
Eganhouse et al., 1984
Swartz et al., 1985
Haushild, 1980
Ricket et al., 1977
* See Tables 1-10 in Appendix A for compilations of more sources.
** Status of sources indicate whether they were currently continuing at the time of the cited report (C),
discontinued (D), or their status was unknown (U).
*** POTWs - Publicly-Owned Treatment Works; PCBs - Polychlorinated
Biphenyls; PCDD - Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins; PCDF - Polychlorinated
Dibenzofurans; PAHs - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
-------
TABLE IV-13 SOURCES OF IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS - NON-POINT SOURCES AND OTHER SOURCES*
Location
Region
Non-Point Source (Status)**
Pollutants Found
Reference (see Appendix B)
Ul
Georges Bank I
Lake Whitney, Lake I
Saltonstall,
New Haven, CT
New York Bight II
Adirondack Lake II
Murderkill River, III
DE
Delaware River III
Wisconsin Lakes V
Standley Lake, CO VIII
Southern California IX
Bight
Hansen Lake IX
Los Angeles, CA
Grays Harbor, WA X
Exploratory drilling (D)
Deposition from leaded
gasolines (C), CuSO,
biocide in reservoirs (C)
contaminated dredge spoil
(C), sewage sludge in ocean
dump site (C)
atm. deposition from fossil
fuels combustion (C)
agri. runoff, runoff from
pastures & woodlands,
urban runoff (all C)
urban stormwater runoff (C)
sodium arsenite used as
aquatic herbicide (C)
runoff into creek before
discharge into Lake (C)
surface runoff (C)
vehicular emissions (C)
oil spills, sewage effluents
(C), urban storm runoff (C)
Aromatic hydrocarbons
heavy metals
hydrocarbons
heavy metals
heavy metals
aromatic hydrocarbons
As
heavy metals
petroleum hydrocarbons
***
PAHs
aliphatic hydrocarbons
Payne et al., 1983
Bertine & Mendeck, 1978
Farrington & Tripp,
1977
Galloway & Likens, 1979
Hoffman & Biggs, 1983
MacKenzie & Hunter, 1979
Kobayashi and Lee, 1978
Heit et al., 1980
Eganhouse et al., 1982
Heit, 1979
Rapp et al., undated
* See Table 1-10 in Appendix A for compilations of more sources.
** Status of Sources indicate whether they were currently continuing at the time of the cited report (C),
discontinued (D), or their status was unknown (U).
*** PAHs - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
-------
Another way to categorize sources is to differentiate on the basis of
whether they are continuing sources or old (discontinued) sources. This
distinction is an important element in the choice of remedial actions
for a site. Cleaning up a site without reducing the loadings from the
sources causing the problem would have no lasting benefit.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to determine the current status of a
particular source from the information available. Most of the
literature reviewed did not include this piece of information. In many
cases, the references were not current enough for any conclusions on the
status of the sources.
Choices for remediation or mitigation of sediment contamination problems
also differ depending on whether the contamination is due to "point",
non-point", or "other" sources. For example, reducing loadings from a
point source may be more straightforward than reducing loadings from
non-point sources. Considerations of remedial actions for large areas
that are non-point sources (e.g. mining areas) may involve more complex
factors.
Table IV-14 shows in-place pollutant sources cited by EPA region. This
table does not provide information on the size of loading contributions
from various sources. We were not able to evaluate sources on the basis
of their contribution but only on the number of times they were
mentioned by investigators. To provide information on pollutants
associated with particular types of sources, cases in which the sources
of contamination were known were used to generate Table IV-15. This
table presents the pollutants discharged by different sources. Some
types of sources, e.g. urban runoff tended to be cited together with
numerous other sources; in such cases it is impossible to figure out
what pollutants were released by each type of source. Tables IV-14 and
-15 summarize the information contained in Tables 1-10 in Appendix A and
Tables IV-12 and -13. The discussions in the following sections are
primarily based on the information summaries in Tables IV-14 and -15.
3. Point Sources
Point sources were mentioned frequently as sources of in-place
pollutants. Both industrial and municipal point sources are significant
contributors to in-place pollutants.
As shown in Table IV-14, many types of point sources contribute to
sediment contamination. There were a large number of sites in which
industrial sources were cited as a group and not specified. Municipal
sewage treatment plants are important contributors in virtually all the
regions of the country. Chemical, steel, metal working and
electroplating are commonly cited sources.
Other important industrial sectors include: engines and automotive;
nuclear energy production; paper mills; tanneries; refineries and other
petroleum industries; electrical component and capacitor manufacture;
wood preserving, wharfs and pilings. Although combined sewer overflows
66
-------
TABLE IV-14 SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION SOURCES BY REGION
Freauencv of Citation.
Source
Point
Municipal sewage treatment
Combined sewer overflows
Industrial (other or not specified)
Chemical
Steel, metal working, electroplating
Engines , automotive
Energy production (nuclear)
Paper mills
Tanneries
Refineries , other petroleum
Electrical component, capacitor manuf.
Wood preserving, wharf and pilings
Non- Point
Urban surface runoff
Rural, agricultural runoff
Ocean dump site (sewage sludge, dredged
spoil)
Atmospheric, combustion (fossil fuels
and vehicles)
Waste disposal seepage and runoff
(landfills, etc.)
Mining
Shipping
Other
Spills
Purposeful addition (herbicide, etc.)
I
9
1
9
1
5
0
0
1
3
1
1
2
3
0
1
2
1
0
1
3
1
II
9
7
10
3
3
2
2
0
0
1
2
1
8
0
2
1
10
0
1
1
0
III
3
0
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
IV
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
V
15
8
9
8
7
5
0
1
1
1
0
0
9
15
0
2
2
1
0
0
1
VI
2
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
bv EPA
VII
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
10
0
1
0
Region
VIII
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
7
0
0
0
IX
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
0
2
3
0
1
1
0
X
1
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
2
0
2
0
TOTAL
44
16
43
20
16
7
4
3
4
7
3
4
35
28
3
8
22
20
5
15
2
-------
TABLE IV-15 SOURCES AND ASSOCIATED POLLUTANTS IN CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
oo
Heavy Metals Oil
and and
Source Type Metalloids PCBs PAHs Grease Pesticides
Point
Sewage x x x x
Chemical Hg, As Mirex, kepone, DDT
Steel, metal working, x x x x
electroplating
Engines , automotive x
Nuclear energy x
production
Pulp and Paper x, Zn x
Tanneries x
Refineries x x
Electrical component, x x
capacitor
Non- Point
Agricultural runoff Se, As, Hg x DDT and derivatives,
heptachlor epoxide,
dieldrin , chlordane ,
toxaphene
Ocean dumpsite x
Atmospheric, x
combustion
Mining x
Other
Spills Hg x DDT, chlordane,
endosulfan
Purposeful addition As , Cu
Transuranics
and
Hydrocarbons Organics Radionuclides
x
x
X
Phenols
x
x penta-
chlorophenol
An x indicates that the pollutant is associated with the source in the first column.
-------
are not strictly point sources, they are included in here because the
discharges from these are associated with sewage treatment plants.
It is difficult to find any geographical trends in the information on
point sources. Overall they seem to be located more in the Northeast
and Great Lakes regions. However, this is probably a function of the
greater data availability for these areas.
Heavy metals and metalloids are associated with virtually all types of
point sources as shown in Table IV-15. Particular metals and metalloids
are pointed out when they appeared uniquely associated with some
sources. Sewage treatment plants were sources for many pollutants,
including PCBs, PAHs, oil and grease, and hydrocarbons. Some of these
may originate with industry as many sewage treatment plants have
substantial industrial contributions. Because the chemical plants noted
in our study were mainly pesticide facilities, a number of pesticides
(Mirex, Kepone, DDT) were released by them. Mercury and arsenic, two
commonly used metalloids in pesticides, were also discharged by chemical
plants. PCBs were found associated with many types of sources. The
origin of the PCBs is frequently not clear. As expected, nuclear energy
production was related to transuranics and radionuclides found in
sediments. Metals, oil and grease, and hydrocarbons were pollutants
from refineries.
4. Non-Point Sources
Important non-point sources of sediment contamination include: urban
surface runoff, rural and agricultural runoff, atmospheric deposition,
seepage from waste disposal facilities, mining, shipping, and ocean dump
sites.
Urban surface runoff is a significant source of sediment contamination
in virtually all urbanized areas. In all regions of the country, urban
runoff was mentioned as a contributor to the problem of sediment
contamination. Rural and agricultural runoff was also cited frequently.
The sources of air pollutants that are subsequently deposited include
sources burning fossil fuels, and vehicles. The disposal of waste in
landfills, surface impoundments, and other waste disposal facilities can
lead to seepage and runoff from these facilities to water bodies. In
some Superfund sites (e.g., Love Canal, NY and Holbrook, MA) the
sediments of nearby streams were severely contaminated by pollutants in
the infiltrating groundwater. Similarly, sewage sludge, garbage and
dredged spoil have been disposed in ocean sites. Currents and other
disturbances cause the dispersal of contaminants from these areas to
their surroundings. Mining sites are very important sources of
pollutants into water bodies, particularly of metals. Mining sites with
identified sediment contamination are primarily located in Regions VII
and VIII.
The pollutants associated with non-point sources are primarily related
to the land-use characteristics of the area. Urban runoff is normally
mentioned with a number of point sources. Because of this, it is
69
-------
difficult to separate out the contribution of urban runoff to the
contamination in sediments. Table IV-15 (mentioned earlier) shows the
pollutants associated with various sources. Certain metals (selenium,
arsenic and mercury) and pesticides (DDT and derivatives, heptachlor
epoxide, dieldrin, chlordane, and toxaphene) have been found where
agricultural runoff is a non-point source. Strangely enough, PCBs have
also been found in sites receiving agricultural runoff. As would be
expected, a large number of metals have been found associated with
mining sources. Metals were also found in sediments contaminated by
disposed sewage sludge and dredged spoil disposed of in ocean dumpsites.
Atmospheric deposition of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) is an
important source of PAHs in lake sediments. On certain industrialized
rivers, coke ovens and creosoting operations have been significant
sources of PAH discharges. Some PAHs may also be derived from the
natural degradation of humic material.
5. Other Sources
This category includes spills (unintentional releases of pollutants) and
the purposeful addition of chemicals to a water body. Spills are
frequently mentioned as sources. These include spills of chemicals into
inland waters and spills into harbor and other marine areas. According
to data compiled by the U.S. Coast Guard (1983), the majority of spills,
both in terms of number of incidents and quantities spilled, are into
inland waters. Materials spilled include petroleum substances,
hazardous chemicals, and other types of materials as shown in Table
IV-16. Purposeful addition was only mentioned twice from the
information we obtained. In both cases, chemicals were added to
reservoirs/lakes as biocides (Bertine and Mendeck; 1978; Kobayashi and
Lee, 1978).
Some pollutants in sediments associated with spills were shown in Table
IV-15. A number of classes of contaminants are included: metals
(mercury), PCBs, pesticides (DDT, chlordane, endosulfan), hydrocarbons,
and organics (pentachlorophenol). The use of sodium arsenite and copper
sulfate as aquatic herbicides have contributed to arsenic and copper
contamination in sediments.
70
-------
TABLE IV-16. MATERIALS SPILLED IN U.S. WATERS
Percent bv Volume
1982 1983
Material % %
Crude Oil 34.8 12.3
Gasoline 5.4 2.8
Other Distillate 2.0 1.7
Solvents 0.4 0.1
Diesel Oil 6.7 9.9
Fuel Oil 11.8 1.8
Asphalt/Tar/P i tch 0.3 0.4
Animal/Vegetable Oil 1.3 0.0
Waste Oil 0.6 5.1
Other Oil 5.3 4.8
Chemical 4.1 8.5
Other Pollutant 25.1 50.4
Natural Substance 0.0 1.4
Other Material 2.0 0.7
Unknown 0.2 0.0
TOTAL 100.0 100.0
Source: U.S. Coast Guard (1983)
71
-------
C. RESPONSES TO SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION
1. Overview
The process of responding to a sediment contamination problem begins
with the initial determination that a problem exists at a particular
location. Once a problem has been identified, the next step is
characterizing the nature of the contamination and assessing its extent
and severity. Based on such an assessment, together with considerations
of cost and technical feasibility, a decision must be made as to what
type of remedial action (if any) to implement. A variety of remedial
action options are available. Some have been repeatedly demonstrated,
while others are still in experimental phases. No one option is best in
all situations, as the decision process must consider many site-specific
factors.
The following section describes the steps which may be taken to identify
and assess a sediment contamination problem and the general decision
logic that can be used in developing a remedial action plan. Individual
response alternatives are briefly described, and their applicability,
advantages and disadvantages are summarized.
2. Problem Identification and Assessment
Environmental agencies may become aware of sediment contamination
problems by several means. Few agencies currently conduct r6utine
sediment quality monitoring, although several one-time surveys of
sediment quality throughout a given area have been undertaken.
Investigations of sediment quality may be initiated for several reasons:
• in response to a particular polluting incident, such as a
chemical spill;
• as part of a follow-up study of other pollution problems,
such as fish contamination, fish kills, or surface water
contamination;
• to monitor pollutant levels in areas subject to major impacts
from urgan and industrial discharges (e.g., the New York and
Los Angeles bights, and major bays and harbors);
• to determine the extent of a sediment contamination problem
detected in one location and suspected to be widespread
(e.g., selenium contamination caused by agricultural runoff
in California);
• as baseline studies for environmental impact assessments or
environmental impact statements;
• to establish background levels of pollutants in sediments
(e.g., for the purpose of sediment quality criteria
development); or
• to determine whether material that is to be dredged is
acceptable for open water disposal.
72
-------
This last is among the most common reasons for sampling sediments; the
regulation of dredged material disposal has provided the motivation for
many studies on the effects of contaminated sediments and on new
dredging and disposal methods.
The initial determination that sediments at a given site are
contaminated may be based on a variety of indications. Historical data
on the occurrence of spills or discharges of pollutants may suggest a
potential problem. Ecological stress indicators, such as reduced
diversity or abundance of benthic organisms, tumors found in
bottom-dwelling fish, or, in more severe cases, fish kills, provide
additional evidence of sediment contamination. Areas with severe
contamination may be recognizable because of odors or the appearance of
surface slicks when sediments are disturbed. High concentrations of
contaminants in biota also point toward sediment contamination.
Finally, data from analyses of sediment samples can be used to compare
contaminant concentrations to background levels or to criteria values.
No single method for deciding what level of contamination constitutes a
problem has yet been firmly established; see Section V for a discussion
of the development of sediment quality criteria.
Once preliminary investigations have identified a sediment contamination
problem, further study is needed to characterize the problem, assess its
severity, and determine the most appropriate response. Such assessments
are likely to include consideration of the sources of pollutants, the
hydrologic conditions and uses of the water body, and data from
bioassays and bulk analysis of sediments.
The investigation of sediment contamination may proceed quite
differently depending on the reason for the investigation. If sediment
contamination is detected in the course of planning a routine dredging
operation, an assessment of the problem is likely to be narrowly
focused. It might be aimed at producing just enough information to
determine what kind of precautions are needed. to avoid releasing
contaminants into the water column during dredging, and what type of
disposal is appropriate for the dredged material.
For purposes of regulating dredged material disposal, more or less
standard procedures for evaluating sediment contamination have been
devised. Such procedures, which have been developed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the EPA, and state environmental agencies, typically
involve a series of tests to be performed on sediments to determine
whether or not they can be disposed of in open water. For disposal of
dredged material in inland waters, actions are controlled by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, and by regulations issued under the authority of
the Act.
The disposal of dredged material in the ocean is governed by the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), which requires
permits for the dumping of materials into ocean waters. Federal
regulations specify criteria for evaluating the environmental impact of
materials (40 CFR 227). These criteria require that dredged material to
be disposed of in ocean waters must either meet one of several exclu-
sions (based on the physical characteristics of the material and on
historical data that indicate whether it is likely to be polluted), or
73
-------
be evaluated by specified tests. The evaluation procedure, developed by
the EPA together with the Corps of Engineers (U.S. EPA/CE, 1977), calls
for chemical analysis of the liquid phase, and bioassays of the solid
phase and suspended particulate phase, of the dredged material. The
results of the chemical analysis of the liquid phase are to be compared
to the applicable marine water quality criteria, after allowance for
initial mixing. If the liquid phase contains contaminants for which
marine water quality criteria are not established, it is to be evaluated
by bioassays. The bioassays compare mortality of test organisms exposed
to the dredged material to mortality in a control sediment, and measure
bioaccumulation in surviving organisms.
In practice, the various Corps of Engineers regional divisions follow
somewhat variable procedures for evaluating proposed dredging projects
in accordance with the federal regulatory requirements. In general, the
Corps first requires a bulk chemical analysis and an elutriate test on
the material to be dredged. (The elutriate test, which involves mixing
a sediment sample with a measured amount of water, then measuring
contaminant concentrations in the extracted water, is designed to
estimate the potential release of contaminants into the water column
during dredging operations.) If the results of these two tests indicate
that contaminants may be present at levels of concern, then bioassays
are conducted. The test results are usually interpreted on a
site-specific basis, as numerical criteria for allowable contaminant
levels in dredged material have not been widely established. However, a
number of state, federal, and regional environmental regulatory agencies
have established (or are in the process of developing) more formalized
testing procedures and requirements, including numerical criteria
applicable to dredged material disposal in particular locations. (See
Section V for a summary of criteria levels.)
Recent attempts to standardize procedures for dredged material
evaluation have focused on establishing tiered testing schemes. For
example, at a workshop on bioassessment methodologies for dredged
material, a group of researchers and representatives of regulatory
agencies arrived at a consensus tiered testing program for sediment
scheduled for open-water disposal in freshwater environments (Dillon and
Gibson, 1986). This program is outlined in Figure IV-7. Following such
a testing scheme, the tests included in a given tier would be required
only if the results of the previous tier indicated that sediments are
likely to be contaminated. Thus, for example, laboratory
bioaccumulation tests would be run only if bulk chemical analysis of
sediments and/or acute toxicity tests give reason for concern.
In addition to following dredged material disposal guidelines, in some
instances involving heavily contaminated sediments, regulatory agencies
may find it appropriate to apply criteria for classifying materials as
hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
or as toxic materials subject to regulation under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). In such cases, disposal of dredged materials must
conform to the applicable RCRA or TSCA regulations.
74
-------
FIGURE IV-7.
CONSENSUS TIERED TESTING PROGRAM FOR
EVALUATION OF SEDIMENTS SCHEDULED FOR
OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL IN FRESHWATER
ENVIRONMENTS
Tier
Activity
II
- Initial assessment:
Historical inputs, siting, identification of existing
data, etc.
- Bulk chemistry
- Predictive calculation of bioaccumulation potential (rapid)
*- Acute lethality
- Ames test (rapid)
III
*- Life cycle test (growth and reproduction)
*- Laboratory determination of bioaccumulation potential
- Other bioassessment techniques
Bioenergetics, histopathology, aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase
induction, sister chromatid exchange, adenylate energy
IV charge, microcosms
- Trophic transfer potential
*- Laboratory determination of steady-state concentrations and
important factors affecting bioaccumulation
*These tests could conceivably be combined into a single test.
Source: Dillon and Gibson, 1986
75
-------
If sediment contamination is being investigated as a known pollution
problem posing a potential risk to human health and the environment (for
example, at a toxic waste site or at the site of a chemical spill), a
much more thorough investigation than that required for routine dredging
operations might be undertaken. Such an investigation is likely to
include sediment sampling to determine what contaminants are present at
what range of concentrations, and to establish the depth and areal
extent of contamination. Fish and benthic organisms might be sampled to
determine whether contaminants are being bioaccumulated, and an
inventory of flora and fauna might be conducted to note the impact of
contamination on the distribution and abundance of biota. Another
important question to be answered is what the source or sources of the
pollution are, whether they are point or non-point sources, and whether
or not the discharge of pollutants is continuing. The depth and
frequency of mixing of the water body are also important considerations.
Finally, in order to provide an overall exposure and risk assessment for
a site, the uses of the water body by humans and by biota must be
considered.
3. Available Responses
A variety of options are available for responding to sediment
contamination. The first option to be considered in any instance of
sediment contamination resulting from a continuing pollutant discharge
is the possibility of controlling the source of pollutants. If it is
impossible to eliminate or substantially reduce the flow of contaminants
to a water body (for example, in some cases of agricultural or municipal
runoff), there may be little benefit to cleaning up the sediments, as
they will become contaminated again. Possible source control measures
include improved sewage treatment, implementation of more stringent
effluent limitations, and stricter enforcement of existing effluent
limitations. Once the source of pollutants is under control, response
options include the following:
• No action.
• Removal of contaminated sediments by dredging.
• Gapping of sediments in place with clean sediments, with
chemically active materials, with a synthetic membrane, or
with a grout or sealant.
• Stabilization of contaminated sediments by injection of a
grout or sealant.
• In situ chemical or biological treatment.
Each of these options is described briefly below. Table IV-17
summarizes advantages and disadvantages of each option.
76
-------
TABLE IV-17. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF VARIOUS REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNIQUES
Response Option
Advantages/Applications
Disadvantages/Limitations
Dredging Methods
Mechanical dredging
Hydraulic dredging
Dredged Material Disposal
Methods
Open-water disposal with
capping
Upland confined disposal
-Sediments removed without added water,
minimizing needs for transportation,
treatment and disposal of dredged
material.
-Higher production rates than mechanical
dredges.
-Lower resuspension/turbidity than mech-
anical dredges.
-Anoxic water-saturated environment favors
contaminant retention (especially metals).
-Calm, deep-water sites less likely to be
disturbed than near-shore sites.
-Any contaminants released would be diluted
by overlying water, decreasing adverse
impacts.
-Little risk of human exposure to contami-
nants .
-Many site control and treatment options
available for handling heavily contami-
nated material.
-Less potential for release of soluble con-
taminants than in aquatic environment.
-Low production rates.
-May generate high turbity in fine-grained
sediments.
-Does not remove free/unabsorbed liquid
contaminants.
-Pumping at low solids concentrations
necessitating large settling dewatering
areas for dredged material.
-Possibility for contaminant release
especially soluble organics) via
water exchange through cap.
-Only available control of contaminant
release is increasing cap thickness or
or impermeability.
-Potential adverse effects or bioaccumula-
tion in benthic organisms.
-Exposure to air and drying of sediments
may cause increased mobility of contami-
nants .
-Proximity to human habitation results in
increased human health risk.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE IV-17. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF VARIOUS REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNIQUES (continued)
Response Option
Advantages/Applications
Disadvantages/Limitations
Upland confined disposal
(continued)
Shoreline confined
disposal
-Ease of transportation of dredged
material from nearby dredging sites.
00
Capping Methods
Cover and capping of
contaminated sediments
in situ or of dredged
material disposal
mounds
-Potentially applicable as (1) a temporary
remedial measure to retard the spread
of contaminated material until recovery
or treatment can be implemented; (2) as
a final step in the remedial process, to
isolate any residual material following
recovery; or (3) as a primary
remedial measure.
Potential routes for contaminant
release:
- in effluent
- in surface runoff produced by rainwater
- by leaching into groundwater
- by plant or animal uptake
- by gaseous or volatile emissions
-Potential routes for contaminant release
include both those found at upland sites
(from dry, upper layer) and those found
at open-water sites (from water-saturated
lower .layer) .
-High risk of human and environmental
exposure to contaminants.
-Limited to protected open waters where
bottom currents and flow velocity are not
sufficient to erode the cap.
Possible problems include:
- turbidity and dispersion generated dur-
ing capping.
- scouring and resuspension of cover
material.
- leaching of pollutants through cover
material.
- impact on benethic organisms, e.g.
through bioaccumulation of contaminants
by organisms that colonize the cap, or
through disruption of habitat.
- erosion of cap by burrowing organisms.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE IV-.17. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF VARIOUS REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNIQUES (continued)
Response Option
Advantages/Applications
Disadvantages/Limitations
Burial in subaqueous
pits
-Cap can restore ambient sediment -Possible loss of habitat for fish inhabit -
type and topography. ing subaqueous pits.
-Reduced potential for erosion (compared -Other possible problems as listed above
to capping a disposal mound). for capping.
Capping with active
materials
-Potential to neutralize or detoxify
contaminants.
VD
Covering with
synthetic membranes
•Impermeability potentially prevents
leaching from highly contaminated
sediments.
Capping with sealant
-Less potential for resuspension of
contaminated sediments than with injec-
tion of sealant.
-Potentially applicable in less
accessible areas.
-Limited field application to date.
-Requires accurate placement of cover
materials.
-Requires resistance to scouring (in order
to have time to react with contaminants);
coarse materials may need to be mixed with
more stable inert material.
-Liner must be compatible with contaminants
to be contained.
-Possible problems include:
- puncture of membranes by jagged objects.
- need to vent gases released from sedi-
ments .
- need to bond adjacent liner strips.
- tearing or displacement of liner by
bottom currents (need to weight down
with clay, sand, or sediments).
- difficulty of placing membrane.
-Grout or sealant may impact water column
during application.
-Application may be slow.
-Difficult to obtain complete coverage.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE IV-17. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF VARIOUS REMEDIAL ACTION TECHNIQUES (continued)
Response Option
Advantages/Applications
Disadvantages/Limitations
Other In Situ Treatment
Methods
Sealing and grouting
(by injection)
00
o
Chemical and biological
in situ treatment
-Isolates contaminants, eliminating need
for sediment removal.
-Potentially creates stable base for
construction.
-Eliminates need to remove contaminated
sediments.
-Limited information available on
impacts and effectiveness.
• Limited to protected open waters or
to low flow streams where the flow
can be diverted while grouting takes
place.
-Potential for secondary contamination
by treatment reagents or by contaminant
degradation products; therefore limited
to areas that can be contained during
treatment or where stream flow can be
diverted during treatment.
-Need to ensure that treatment
reagents are completely mixed with
the contaminated material.
-Biological treatment involving
aerbobic degradation requires that
sediments contain sufficient oxygen.
-Method not yet demonstrated.
Source: Summarized from Science Applications International Corp., 1985, and Phillips et al., 1985.
-------
The following descriptions of contaminated sediment cleanup technologies
are based on the more detailed discussions given by Science Applications
International Corp. (1985). Descriptions of dredged material disposal
methods are based on the discussion by Phillips et al. (1985).
No Action Alternative
Taking no direct action to clean up contaminated sediments may be
appropriate in situations where the contamination poses little immediate
threat to human health and the environment, and where natural processes
are expected to result in rapid burial of the contaminated sediments by
clean material with little risk of scour by storms at a later date. In
such cases, the short-term impacts of cleanup operations (e.g., sediment
resuspension and increased bioavailability of contaminants) and/or the
long-term impacts of the disposal.of contaminated material may be found
to outweigh the benefits. In other cases, the "no action" alternative
may be selected even though it is not deemed the most beneficial to the
environment, because of a lack of sufficient funds for cleanup.
In situations where taking no action is clearly unacceptable, the
expected consequences of this alternative may be evaluated as a baseline
against which to compare other alternatives.
Dredging
Removal of contaminated sediments by dredging, perhaps the most obvious
solution to sediment contamination problems, has both advantages and
drawbacks. Complete removal of all contaminated material would ensure
that pollutants will not impact local biota or human uses of the water
body. However, complete removal may not be possible in areas with
extensive contamination. In addition, the process of dredging may
resuspend contaminated material, thus increasing its availability to
biota. Another concern is the need to dredge below the contaminated
layers (which may lie under a relatively clean surface layer) so that
dredging does not make the situation worse by just exposing the
contaminated material.
Numerous types and design of dredging equipment are available. Typical
applications and capabilities of dredge equipment are compared in Table
IV-18. Mechanical dredges remove bottom sediment by the direct
application of mechanical force. Hydraulic dredges use centrifugal
pumps to create suction, removing and transporting material in liquid
slurry form. Pneumatic dredges, a type of hydraulic dredge, use
compressed air and/or hydrostatic pressure to dislodge and collect
sediments. Most types of dredging equipment are mounted on barges, but
some are land- or dock-based. Specialized dredging equipment includes
both smaller, hand-held dredges, and large, self-propelled equipment
that may operate on land, in shallow water, and/or underwater.
A variety of support activities may be required in conjunction with
dredging operations. These include pre-dredging activities such as
stream diversion or removal of weeds or debris from bottom sediments,
the use of barriers to control turbidity during dredging, and treatment
and disposal of the dredged material.
81
-------
TABLE IV-18. COMPARISON OF DREDGE EQUIPMENT
Typical Application
volume
Sailing
Auukary Faciklies
Depth Limitations
Minimum IFl 1
Manimum IFl.l
Precision Obtainable
Horiiomal IFl 1
vertical IFl.l
Raw of Production
ICY /Hr.l
Turbidity/ Resuspension
AvaMMkly
Transporiabiliiy
Type of Dredge
Mechanical
Clamshell
A. B
D. E. F. C. H
1. J. M
1
None1"
Nona11*
I141
1
30600*41
High141
T
4
Dragline
A. B
D. E. F
1. J. M
None1"
None121
2
2
80700
High
T
4
Backhoe
A.
D. E
1
None
40
1
1
60-700
High
T
1
HydreuHc
Plain Suction
B. C
J. K. L
6«MI
60
23141
1
25W.00014'
Low141
X141
S
Culterheed
B. C
G. H
J. K, L
3S141
I2S0141
23'41
1
252.500141,
Avg.141
R141
5
Dustpan
B. C
G. H
J, K. I
S141
60141
23'4'
1
3.600141
AVB"'
O141. X141
S
Hopper
B. C
H-
None
12 30141
38 65141
w,«
1
600 2.000141
Avg14'
O141, S141
6
Portable
A. B
E. F. G
K. L. M
1)4 6"1
ISSH*
,141
1
801.860*
Low141
U
I314'
CtoanUp
B. C
G. H
ai
01
23
1
m
Low
W
5
Pneumatic
Air Lift
A. B
E. F. G. H
None
None
1
1
IS
Low
V
4
Pneuma
B. C
E. F. G. H
in
Nor*1"
23
,141
6039014'
Low141
V
4
Ooier
B. C
E. F. G. H
III
None"'
23
1
in
Low
W
4
00
to
Volume
A - Small scale, less than 1,000 cubic yards. (4)
B - Medium scale. 1,000 to 200,000 cubic yards. (41
C - Urge scale, greater than 200.000 cubic yards. (41
Salting
D - Narrow and/or very shallow (less than 6 feel)
streams.
E - Shallow (less than 20 leel) streams and rivers.
navigable by smart vessels.
f - Inland lakes and ponds.
G - Inland navigable channels and lake and coastal
harbors.
H - Great lakes and coastal harbors.
Auxiliary Facilities
I - Dump trucks
J - Barges
K - Transport piping
L - Settling impoundments
M Crane
Availability
Q — AN or most owned by Corps of Engineers.
R — Based in most major harbors and commercial
waterways.
S - Based in some coastal and great lakes harbors.
Transportability References
1 - Dredge can be moved over existing roads "as is" (4) Hand et al , 1978
orwith-ightmodificalionlS. ,5, Clark. ,983.
2 - Dredge can be moved over existing roads alter
disassembling to 3 or (ewer pieces. IS)
_ . ..... • . . . ... 3 - Dredge can be moved over existing roads alter
T - Widely available m general earthwork applications disassembling to more lhan 3 pieces. (51
U - Widely available from contractors and vendors.
V - Limited availability through U.S. distributors.
W - Not generally available in U.S.
X - Generally available on inland commercial
waterways.
Y - Can be fabricated.
4 - Dredge head can be moved over existing roads
"as is" or with slight modification and mounted
on conventional vessel or crane.
S — Transport restricted to navigation channels (greater
lhan 5-foot depth) due to draft.
6 - Transport restricted to deep (greater lhan 12 feet)
navigation channels due lo draft.
Footnotes
(11 Determined by draft of vessel; if not vessel-
mounted, there Is not limiting minimum depth.
(21 Limited only by availability of support equipment
(e.g.. cables, winches, etc.)
(3) Information not available.
Source: Science Applications International Corp., 1985
-------
In the process of dredging contaminated sediments, treatment and
disposal of the dredged material are frequently more costly and of
greater environmental concern than the actual dredging. Three general
dredged material disposal alternatives are discussed here: open-water,
shoreline, and upland. Within each of these alternatives, various
restrictions or controls may be implemented to contain contaminants.
Advantages and disadvantages of these disposal methods are summarized in
Table IV-17.
Open-water disposal involves depositing dredged material at an aquatic
site. Material may be placed at an open-water site by dumping from
barges or hopper dredges or by discharging directly from a pipeline. A
submerged diffuser system, which radially discharges slurry just above
the bottom at a low velocity, has been developed as a means of more
accurately placing dredged material and minimizing turbidity during
discharge. Other methods for reducing the impacts of open-water
disposal include containment in subaqueous depressions or in areas
confined by underwater dikes, and capping with clean sediments.
Treatment of dredged material by chemical, physical, or biological means
either prior to or during discharge is also possible.
Upland disposal involves placing dredged material in a diked containment
area on dry land. Upland disposal sites usually are designed to contain
the solids from a dredged material slurry, allowing the supernatant
water to flow out over a weir as the solids settle. Upland sites may
also be used for disposal of hydraulically dredged material that has
been dewatered elsewhere, or mechanically dredged material transported
directly to the site. Control options that may be implemented to reduce
the impacts resulting from disposal of contaminated sediments include
the following:
• effluent quality controls--techniques for removal of
suspended solids and/or soluble contaminants from the
effluents
• runoff water quality controls--measures to prevent the
erosion of dried dredged material and the dissolution of
contaminants from its oxidized surface
• leachate controls--measures to minimize leaching of soluble
contaminants into groundwater
• control of contaminant uptake by plants and animals
• control of gaseous or volatile emissions
• control of wind erosion
Control measures may involve chemical treatment, capping or covering the
surface, lining the bottom, physical, chemical or vegetative
stabilization of the surface, or other techniques. Upland disposal
facilities can be used either for long-term containment of dredged
material, or for temporary storage and/or treatment of dredged material
prior to long-term disposal or beneficial use. For particularly
contaminated sediments, RCRA or TSCA designs for land disposal
facilities may be appropriate (or required).
83
-------
Shoreline disposal, like upland disposal, involves placing dredged
material in a diked containment area. In the case of shoreline
disposal, the containment area is in the water, at a location such that
the final surface of the dredged material after the facility is filled
is above water. Control measures similar to those used at upland
disposal sites may be implemented to reduce contaminant release.
In other instances these confined disposal areas may have specialized
designs including dikes specially constructed (with slurry walls, clay,
and/or impermeable plastic liners) to prevent leakage of contaminated
leachate into the waterbody. Where impermeable materials are not used,
filtering layers (e.g., of sand) may be employed. Other design features
may provide for water level control, and for the collection and
treatment of runoff and/or leachate.
Capping
Several techniques have been proposed or developed for capping or
covering contaminated sediments. These include capping with inert
materials (e.g., sand, silt, clay, or clean dredge spoils), capping with
active materials that neutralize or detoxify contaminants (e.g.,
limestone, gypsum, or alumina), covering with synthetic membranes, and
covering with sealants or grouts (e.g., cement). Such techniques may be
used to cover a dredged material disposal mound, to cover materials
deposited in an underwater pit, or to cover contaminated sediments in
place. Advantages and disadvantages of these general capping methods
are summarized in Table IV-17.
Capping could be supplemented by additional confinement on the sides of
a contaminated area by the installation of slurry walls and/or grouting
(see below).
Sealing and Grouting
Stabilization of sediments by injection of grouts or sealants is a
technique that has been used extensively to facilitate marine
construction, but has had relatively little application as a control
measure for contaminated sediments. Sealing materials used include
cement, quicklime, silicates, bentonite, and combinations of these
materials. The applicability of particular types of grouts is
determined by their viscosity, particle size, permeability, and
compatibility with the contaminants to be contained. The viscosity of
chemical grouts and the particle size of particulate grouts limit the
type of sediment that the grout will penetrate. The grout chosen must
be chemically compatible with the contaminants arid sufficiently
impermeable to contain them. Potential applications of several grouts
and sealants are summarized in Table IV-19. Grouting and sealing of
contaminated sediments may be accomplished in situ by injection of
grouting materials or by stream diversion followed by sealing, as well
as by capping with sealant, as mentioned above.
84
-------
TABLE IV-19.
POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF GROUTS AND SEALANTS FOR STABILIZATION
OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
Grout/Sealant
Haterial
Grout
Type
Solidificalion
Hethoda
Suitable
Sed iment
Typea
Incoapat ible
Uaate
Typea
Portland Ceawnl ' unit able, pani-
culate
Bentonile atable, particu-
Porlland Cement late
tentunite
atable. panicu-
late
00
Sit ica Cel
cheaical
Quickline
atable
late
Solidification o(
Portland Craent
• Penetrability limila
arc a function of grain
aize--general ly liiaited
to coarae aanda and gravel
Sol idif icalion of
Portland Cement;
twelling and gel-
lation of expanding
clay that atabil-
izea the cement
Swelling and gel-
lation of expanding
clay
Polyaierisat ion to
fona ailica gel
(SiOj lattice) upon
•ixing with gelling
agenta auch aa
acida, polyvalent
cationa, or acid
fona ing coeipounda
Poztolanic
react ion
Acida t baaea, organic
aolventa and aulfuroua
coapounda. unleaa aulfur
reaiatant type Portland
Ceeient ia uaed
e Penetrability liaita
are a function of grain
aize—coarae aanda and
and gravel
Penetrability lieiita
are a function of grain
aiie — fine to Bedim aanda
and coaraer
• Sand and ailty aand
• Clay aoil to ailty aand
aoil in which a
pazzolanic reaction
ia fully expected and
concentration of organic
••alter ia leaa than about
IX
Durability and atrenRth ia
high but ao ia permeability
Ceaient grout a are wire per-
•eable than otiier typea of
grout a awsnt ioned
Strong organic and
inorganic acida and baae
organic aolvenla, aul-
furoua coapounda unleaa
Type V Portland Ceeient
ia uaed
Strong organic and <
inorganic acida 4
baaea
In the long tern
ahrilik/awell aiay be
affected by wide
variety of organica
and i>et*l aalta
Baaic aolutiona
There are auch a
wide variety of
gelling agent a and
additivea being invaa-
tigated, that it ia
difficult to gener-
alize about
tncoapatibilily
• Organica
Addition of clay lowera
permeability and improves
rheological proper!iea
Watertightneaa increaaea
with increaae in clay
content
Bentonite haa a lower
penaeability than cement
but haa lower alructura.1
atrength aleo
Silicate grout cheaiiatry
ia a developing field.
new adililivea for improving
alrength 4 waterlIghlneta
and reducing aynereaia.
Celling agent a lucn it
Ihoae produced by Dynanit
Nobel ahuuld he further
inveal igatcd.
Synereaia ia the Major
concern in uaing ailica
«ela
Source: Science Applications International Corp., 1985
-------
In Situ Chemical and Biological Treatment
Several chemical and biological treatment methods that have been
developed, although primarily designed for treating contaminated soils
and groundwater, are potentially applicable to contaminated sediments
and sinking chemical spills. Applicable in situ treatment methods
include neutralization, precipitation, oxidation, chemical dechlor-
ination, and biological treatment. The applications and limitations of
these methods are summarized in Table IV-20.
Demonstrated Application of Cleanup Technologies
A recent survey of eleven case studies involving the cleanup of
contaminated sediments illustrates the number and variety of remedial
action technologies available (SAIC, 1985). Case studies were selected
to illustrate a variety of cleanup technologies, especially innovative
technologies, in situations involving a range of contaminants, water
body types, and sediment characteristics. Ten of the cases involved
U.S. locations, and one involved a harbor in Japan. Cases where
sediment cleanup was actually implemented and/or where several
alternative cleanup technologies were considered and evaluated were
preferentially selected for inclusion.
The cleanup technologies considered and implemented in these cast-
studies are summarized in Table IV-21. A total of 53 separate
technologies (excluding "no action") were identified. From 3 to 29 of
these technologies were considered or implemented at each site. The
most commonly implemented cleanup actions consisted of sediment removal,
sediment and water separation, water treatment, and sediment disposal.
However, in one case sediment removal was followed by riverbed capping
with concrete to isolate remaining contaminants. In another case, the
"no action" alternative, accompanied by long-term monitoring, was
selected. (Two of the case studies describe sites where cleanup is
planned, but has not yet been implemented.) A variety of in situ
treatment methods were evaluated, but none (other than capping) were
implemented in the case studies.
4. Evaluation and Selection of Remedial Alternatives
When a decision has been made to clean up contaminated sediments, the
available remedial alternatives must be carefully evaluated. Evaluation
of alternatives may proceed via one or a series of screening processes,
in which the number of alternatives under consideration is reduced by
the application of technical, environmental, economic and other
criteria.
The process of evaluating and selecting remedial alternatives is
illustrated by several site-specific studies, such as those by CH-M Hill
and Ecology & Environment (1983 and 1986), McGinn (1981), NUS^ Corp.
(1984), and Phillips et al. (1985). A typical decision-making process
is described below.
86
-------
TABLE IV-20. SUMMARY OF IN SITU CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Treatment
Method
Uaate Types
Amenable
Treatment Potent iel Problems Comments
la an ant.
Neutralize! ion
Acida t baaea
e Weak acida and baaea
a To neutral lie acida: calcium
carbonate, aodium carbonate or
aodium bicarbonate; limeatoae
or greenstone may be-applied
aa active cover material
00
Precipif at ion
Inorganic cationa
and an iona
Sulfide pracipitation ia
most promising aince metal
aulfides ara the leaat eol-
uble metal coaipounda likely
to form over a broad pH
range. Calcioei aulfate.
iron Hulfate, or gypaum may
be used
Oxidaliun
Wide range of
organica; highly
chlorinated com-
pounds and nitro
aromatice are
not well lulled
a Oxygen and/or ozone and
hydrogen peroxide
e Toxicity to pd-sensit ive
benthos iff not properly
placed on the apill
e Use of ferric aulfate under
aerobic conditions may reault
in the formation of hydrous
iron ox idea which can scavenge
heavy metals from water and may
coat the (ilia of bottom
feedera
Potential for formation of
H Sgaa; likelihood increases
aa the reactivity of aulfide
and metal a decreaee
Effective only under reduced
condition!, oxidation to more
aoluble aulfide apeciea could
occur under aerobic conditiona
• Oxidation can reault in more
mobile degradation producta
• loth oxone and hydrogen
peroxide may react with
organica in the water
column or aedimenta which
are not target compounda,
thereby reducing effeeliveneaa
• Compounda which are aorbed
to sediment a may be difficult
to oxidize
Containment of the spill or contaminated
aedimenta ia required before neutraliiation
in aim
Remote pH meter ahould be uaed to locate pH
imbalances
Hateriala can be applied in aim aa aolida
either by broadcaat apreading or uae of
hand ahovela within the contained area
Hateriala can be applied in aitu aa
alurriea uaina, auch method* aa aand
apreader, open pipe diacharge or the dif-
fuaer head
Materials can alao be applied by divert inn
at ream flow and then apreading and mixing
the neutralising agenta; limited to
atreama with relatively low flow velocity
Containment of the apill or contaminated
aedimenta ia required in order to allow
adeeuate t ime for react Ion to proceed to
complet ion
Solutiona or alurriea could be applied
together with capping material (e.g., sand
or clay) uaing methods auch aa pump down,
open pipe diacharge or the diffuaer head
Solutions and alurriea can be applied
directly in calm waters using pumps and
hoses
Mixine. will generally be required so thai
formation of the precipitant will not
prevent further reaction
Materiala can alao be applied by divert ing
at ream flow and then spreading and mixing
precipitating agents; reduced conditions
should be maintained
Containment of apilla or contaminated
aedimenta is required prior to oxidation
in order to prevent loss of oxidant and
oxidation of non-target compounds outside
the contaminated area
(continued)
-------
TABLE IV-20. SUMMARY OF IN SITU CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT (Continued)
He thud
Waste Typea
Amenable
Treatment
Reagant *
Potenttal Problems
Comment •
On idat ion C com inued)
00
00
Chemical
dechlor inat ion
U0*1 PEC proceaa)
Biological
treatment
Highly chlortna- Polythylene glycol and
ted organic* potassium hydroxide
(e.g. PCI, dioxina)
Noat organic* are
amenable to bio-
degration to aome
degree; groups
that tend to be
•oat re* isi ant to
aerobic decumpoai-
tion include chlor-
inated and nitro
organica and poly-
nuclear aroMat ic
hydrocarbons with
three or aiore
ringa; however(
removal of nitro and
chlorine group* may
occur under reduced
condtt ions
Microorganisms, oxygen source
(for aerobic degradation) and
nut rienta
• Oione will decompose back to
oxygen rapidly in the presence
of organica; stability of
hydrogen peroxide ia not well
known
• Treatment system can tolerate
some water but lisiils have
not been established
• Degradation it temperature
dependent and may proceed
alowly at ambient temperature*
• Organica s or bed to sediment*
•ay be refractory
• Degradation rates proceed very
slowly at low temperature*
• Part ial degradat ion product*
may be more soluble or more
toxic
• Hicroorganisms uaed for
treatment may be pathogenic
Due to a limited tolerance of water.
stream diveraion and/or dewalering wouM
be required prior to treatment
Containment ia required to confine micro-
organisms to contaminated area* when
t reat ing in •itu
Ace Iimated, mutant and genet ically engi-
neered microorganisms have or are being
developed for degradation of a bruait range
of waate typea
Con*iderable research is needed to f ind
suitable meana of maintaining adequate
oxygen aupply; research needs to concen-
trate on oxygen delivery systems aa well
a* on the uae of ozone and hydrogen per-
oxide a* an oxygen source
Source: Science Applications International C6rp., 1985
-------
TABLE IV-21.
CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED (C) AND IMPLEMENTED(I)
IN ELEVEN CASE STUDIES
Technoloev
No. Sites
C I
Technoloev
No. Sites
C I
NO ACTION
SEDIMENT REMOVAL
2
3
• Predredging Activities
- Stream Diversion 4
- Coffer Dams 4
- Snagging
- Diver Assistance
• Mechanical Dredges
- Clamshell 2
- Dragline 2
- Backhoe 2
- Scraper 2
- Loader 2
» Hydraulic Dredges
- Plain Suction
- Cutterhead 2
- Dustpan 1
- Hopper 1
- Clean Up
- Portable 1
- Special Head
• Pneumatic Dredges
- Airlift 1
- Pneuma 1
- Oozer 2
• Specialized Dredges
- Hand-Held (Above- or
Under-Water)
- Amphibious
- Underwater
• Turbidity Control Measures
- Silt Curtain 1
- Air Curtain
- In-Stream Filter
- In-Stream Detention
1
8
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
• Dewatering: 3
- Settling Tanks
- Settling Impound-
ments 3
- Settling Barges 1
- Filter Press 2
- Solidification 2
• Sediment Separation by
Grain Size:
- Settling
- Screens
• Disposal: 3
- Special Landfill 3
- Sanitary Landfill
- Water Column 1
- Special On-Site
Facility 2
- On-Land Nearby 1
• Supernatant Treatment 3
- Sand Filtration 1
- Coagulation 2
- Carbon Adsorption 2
- Chlorination
- Photochemical Degrad.l
- Ozonation 1
- Direct Discharge 1
- Radiation 1
IN SITU TREATMENT 4
- Sorbents 2
- Capping with Sealant 3
- Capping with Clean
Sediments 1
- Fixation 2
- Chemical Treatment 2
- Biological Treatment 2
- Stabilization/
Containment 1
5
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
4
3
1
5
2
3
4
1
1
1
Source: Science Applications International Corp., 1985
89
-------
A first step in choosing appropriate remedial actions is specifying
objectives and key criteria. For example, the goal may be to restore
the site to near-pristine conditions, to improve sediment quality to a
level that is equal to adjacent areas, or to mitigate or contain the
worst pollution so that it does not pose an immediate threat to human
health and the local environment. Depending on the site, greater or
lesser importance may be placed on particular factors, such as
completing the cleanup as quickly as possible, making the solution
agreeable to the local community, or minimizing costs.
The next step in a comprehensive approach to planning remedial
activities is to identify potentially applicable technologies or "unit
processes". Such technologies might include methods of capping or of
chemical or biological treatment, dredging techniques and equipment,
dredge spoils disposal methods, and support activities such as stream
diversion, dredged material dewatering, or turbidity control. These
technologies must then be screened to eliminate inappropriate ones. For
example, a first screening would eliminate technologies that:
• do not meet objectives for environmental quality;
• have excessive costs (e.g., exceeding costs of other methods
by a factor of ten or more);
• require unacceptable time delays (e.g., because equipment is
not readily available, or because of permit requirements);
• have not been previously demonstrated (unless the resources
are available to develop and test technologies that are in
conceptual or experimental stages);
• cannot be easily monitored; or
• do not meet institutional or regulatory requirements.
Additional criteria may be applied to further limit the number of
technologies under consideration.
Following this preliminary screening, the remaining technologies may be
assembled into "remedial alternatives" that combine individual
technologies into a complete cleanup plan. For example, one alternative
may combine a stream flow diversion plan with an in-place capping
method, while another alternative combines a selected dredging technique
and sediment dewatering technique with a particular confined disposal
design. Once such remedial alternatives have been defined, further
screening and evaluation can compare the impacts and benefits of the
complete alternatives. If many alternatives have been identified, a
more cursory screening that narrows consideration to a few options may
be followed by a detailed evaluation of the remaining few. This
evaluation should include consideration of technical, environmental,
90
-------
public health, socioeconomic, institutional, and cost factors, such as
those listed in Table IV-22. As becomes clear upon reviewing these
factors, the choice of the most appropriate alternative is highly
site-specific, depending on the nature of the contamination, the water
body, the local biota, and the local human community, among other
factors.
Procedures for selecting appropriate dredged material disposal methods
have received considerable research attention. Choice of a disposal
method and site is influenced by several considerations (Phillips et
al., 1985):
• the class of contaminants of concern;
• the physicochemical environment at the disposal site;
• the properties of the dredged material;
• accessibility of the disposal site from the dredging site;
and
• the risk of adverse impacts from contaminants released to the
surrounding environment.
Dredged material properties and the physicochemical conditions at a
disposal site influence the mobility of contaminants in dredged
material. Important parameters are clay and organic matter content, pH,
and oxidation-reduction conditions. Sediments rich in organic matter
and clay tend to retain many contaminants to a greater extent than sandy
sediments with low organic content. Thus, although sandy sediments are
less likely to accumulate contaminants, once contaminated, they are more
likely to release contaminants to the water column during dredging
operations or to groundwater by leaching from a disposal facility
(Phillips et al., 1985).
In general, disposing of contaminated sediments in a chemical
environment similar to their in situ condition favors contaminant
retention. Many contaminated sediments are initially in a reduced state
and at near neutral pH. If such sediments are exposed to air and
allowed to dry, they may become acidic, increasing the solubility and
potential release of heavy metals. Exposure to air and oxygen can also
dissolve, degrade, or volatilize sediment organic matter, increasing the
mobility of organic contaminants. Thus, many contaminants would be
better retained by sediments in a capped, open-water disposal site than
in an upland or nearshore site. However, organic contaminants, because
they tend to remain partly soluble whether in a wet or dry environment,
are more subject to release by water exchange than are metals; thus,
upland disposal may be preferable to open-water or nearshore disposal in
some cases (Phillips et al., 1985; Francingues et al., 1985). Other
concerns related to open water disposal sites are: (1) monitoring
requirements; (2) disturbance and failure of the cap; and (3) the
possible need to consider the applicability of TSCA and RCRA regula-
tions .
91
-------
TABLE IV-22. CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATION OF
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Technical/Engineering Considerations
• efficiency of contaminant removal or effectiveness of contaminant
confinement (depends on contaminant type).
• demonstrated reliability of techniques.
• safety of operations.
• ease of implementation (at the particular site in question) .
• availability of equipment.
• availability and accessibility of suitable disposal sites.
Environmental Considerations
• short-term impact of cleanup operations on biota at the contami-
nant site, in adjacent areas, and at the disposal site.
• long-term impact on biota.
Public Health Considerations
• impact on health of cleanup workers.
• short-term and long-term impact on health of the surrounding
community.
Socioeconomic Considerations
• impact on recreational and commercial uses of the water.
• impact on desirability of land surrounding the contaminated water
body and the disposal site.
Institutional/Regulatory Considerations
• compliance with environmental standards.
• compliance with land use/zoning regulations.
• requirements for obtaining permits.
Cost Considerations
• total cost of cleanup operations.
• maintenance costs.
• cost per mass of contaminants contained or removed.
92
-------
The issue of monitoring at completed remediation sites is a growing
concern for many. Some sites (e.g., open water disposal areas, under-
water capped areas, and even some shoreline confined disposal areas)
clearly would involve difficult and costly monitoring programs if
thorough checks on the integrity of the confinement (or actual measure-
ments of the contaminant leakage rates) were required. The results of
this uncertainty in monitoring capability are often more stringent
requirements to design for complete containment, requirements for point
source treatment (e.g., of runoff or leachate collected from shoreline
disposal areas), or a requirement to use upland sites.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Francingues et al. , 1985) have
developed a "Management Strategy for Disposal of Dredged Material",
specifying tests to be performed on dredged material to determine the
need for restrictions and controls on its disposal. A flowchart
outlining this strategy is shown in Figure IV-8. (In this flowchart,
the term "confined disposal" refers to any disposal option in which
fine-grained sediments are taken out of the water and allowed to dry,
i.e., shoreline, intertidal, or upland disposal). The strategy calls
for proceeding via the following steps to select a disposal method:
a. Conduct an initial evaluation to assess contamination
potential.
b. Select a potential disposal alternative.
c. Identify potential problems associated with that
alternative.
d. Apply appropriate testing protocols.
e. Assess the need for disposal restrictions.
f. Select an implementation plan.
g. Identify available control options.
h. Evaluate design considerations for technical and economic
feasibility.
i. Select appropriate control measures.
93
-------
POTENTIAL
PROBLEM
TESTING
PROTOCOL
IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGY
AVAILABLE
OPTIONS
DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
IAVAILAI
Ml
SELECTION OF EITHER ONE
OK * COMWUTKIN OF AITEMUTIVES
WOULO IE PAM OF A LOWHERM
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY. DEVELOPED
W CONCERT WITH OTHER FEDERAL. STATE
( LOCAL AGENCIES. I SHOULD WCUX*.
JUT NOT BE LIMITED TO CONSIDERATION
OF
• PHYSICAL IMPACTS
• RESTRICTIONS
H
-1
SUBMERGED
DISCHARGE
TREATMENT
{PHYStCAUCHEMlCAL
BIOLOGICAL)
h
-
_r CONTWNED AQUATIC !_*.
" DISPOSAL K
H
H
SUBAQUEOUS
CAPPING
COMBINATIONS
h
H
FIGURE IV-8. MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FLOWCHART
Source: Francingues et al., 1985
-------
V. DEVELOPMENT OF SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
A. OVERVIEW
A question of great importance to environmental managers is how to
decide when in-place pollutants constitute a sediment contamination
problem. There are currently no nationwide standards for sediment
quality, although efforts to develop such criteria are underway under
the direction of EPA's Criteria and Standards Division in the Office
of Water Regulations and Standards. Most agencies that must make
decisions regarding sediment contamination (e.g., EPA regional
offices, state environmental agencies, and Corps of Engineers district
offices) evaluate instances of sediment contamination on a
case-by-case basis.
Ideally, judgments of the seriousness of sediment contamination should
be based on the potential for adverse ecological (and human health)
effects. Such effects are not always correlated with the total
concentration of pollutants in sediments. It has been found that bulk
sediment analyses do not adequately predict water quality effects,
release of contaminants from sediment, or bioaccumulation of contam-
inants (Engler, 1980). However, because pollutant concentrations are
easily measurable by standard analytical methods, bulk analyses of
sediments are often used as an indication of the level of pollution.
Most commonly, in areas that have no formal sediment quality criteria,
judgments of the severity of pollution are made by comparing contam-
inant levels to background levels, i.e., contaminant levels measured
at locations considered unpolluted. In addition, evaluation of
dredged material being considered for in-water disposal usually
includes consideration of bioassays and of the physical character-
istics of the material.
In the past two decades, a number of regional and state agencies have
developed numerical criteria for evaluating pollutant levels in
sediments or dredged material. Most of the earlier sets of sediment
quality criteria were based primarily on background levels of
pollutants. More recently, efforts to develop sediment quality
criteria have had the goal of deriving numerical values for maximum
pollutant levels that do not cause unacceptable biological effects.
The majority of the criteria developed have been based on total
pollutant concentrations in sediments. Other proposed criteria have
been based on pollutant concentrations in sediment interstitial water,
on the ratio of a metal concentration to the concentration of aluminum
in sediment, or on the concentration of an organic pollutant divided
by the total organic carbon concentration in sediment.* The coverage
and applicability of several sets of sediment criteria (including
regulatory criteria, non-regulatory guidelines, and preliminary values
intended to demonstrate new methods for deriving criteria) are
summarized in Table V-l.
* This may be referred to as the organic carbon-normalized
concentration.
95
-------
TABLE V-l. COMPARISON OF COVERAGE OF EXISTING SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
Number of elements or chemicals for which
numerical criteria are given
Criteria fRef.1
Puget Sound Interim
Sediment Criteria,
1984-86 [1]
Metals & Conventional
Metalloids Pollutants* Pesticides
Other Area of
Organics Applicability
3 Puget Sound
Comments
• Includes 3 sets of
criteria, for different
dredged material disposal
sites.
VO
Wisconsin DNR Interim
Criteria for In-Water
Disposal, 1985 [2]
Long Island Sound Interim
Dredged Material Disposal
Plan, 1980 [3]
10
• fiioassays and physical
parameters are also
considered.
Great Lakes • Analyses for particle size,
harbors TOG, and N-containing
pollutants are also required.
(see
comment)
Long Island
Sound
Maine DEP Dredged Material
Disposal Guidelines [4]
(see
comment)
• Primary classification of
dredged material is based on
percentages of oil & grease,
volatile solids, water, and
silt & clay; levels of
chemicals are used to confirm
classifications.
Gulf of Maine • Primary classification of
dredged material is based on
percentages of oil & grease,
volatile solids, water, and
silt & clay; levels of
chemicals are used to confirm
classifications.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE V-l. COMPARISON OF COVERAGE OF EXISTING SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA (Continued)
Criteria fRef.1
Massachusetts Dredged
Material Disposal
Guidelines [4]
EPA Region V Guidelines
for Pollutional
Classification of
Sediments, 1977 [5]
Florida DER Guide to
Interpretation of
Metal Concentrations,
1986 [6]
Number of elements or chemicals for which
numerical criteria are given
Metals & Conventional Other Area of
Metalloids Pollutants* Pesticides Organics Applicability
Comments
(see
comment)
marine water • Combination of chemical
parameters and physical
parameters (% oil & grease,
volatile solids, water, and
silt & clay) determines
disposal options.
11
Great Lakes
harbors
Florida
estuaries
USGS Sediment Alert
Levels [7]
15
nationwide
• Interim guidelines,
classifying sediments as
non-, moderately, or heavily
polluted.
• Non-regulatory guide for
assessing pollution.
• Based on the ratio of metal
concentration to aluminum
concentration, not total
metal concentration.
• Screening levels, used to
flag high contaminant levels
(detected in monitoring
program) for further
investigation.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE V-l. COMPARISON OF COVERAGE OF EXISTING SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA (Continued)
Number of elements or chemicals for which
numerical criteria are given
\o
oo
Criteria fRef.T
Metals & Conventional
Metalloids Pollutants* Pesticides
Other Area of
Organics Applicability
Comments
JRB Equilibrium Partitioning-
Based Criteria, 1984 [8]
Screening Level Concentra-
tions (SLC), 1986 [9]
4
1
41 marine • Preliminary values,
waters demonstrating method.
• Derived using sediment-
water partitioning
coefficients and water
quality criteria.
1 freshwater • Preliminary values,
8 saltwater demonstrating method.
Apparent Effects Threshold
(AET), 1986 [10]
Oklahoma Numerical
Criteria Goals for
Sediment [11]
Sediment Quality
Triad [12]
14
17
Puget Sound
Oklahoma
freshwater
• Preliminary values,
demonstrating method.
• Several AET values were
derived for each contaminant,
based on different measures
of biological effects.
• Non-regulatory screening
levels.
Puget Sound • Preliminary values,
demonstrating method.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE V-l. COMPARISON OF COVERAGE OF EXISTING SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
(Continued)
jk
"Conventional pollutants" include: ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, Kjeldahl
nitrogen, cyanide, phosphorus, COD, volatile solids, oil and grease.
REFERENCES:
1. U.S. EPA Region X, 1986
2. Sullivan et al., 1985
3. New England River Basins Commission, 1980
4. New England Governor's Conference, 1982
5. U.S. EPA Region V, April, 1977, as cited in
Great Lakes Water Quality Board, 1982
6. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1986
7. Pavlou and Weston, 1983
8. JRB Associates, 1984
9. Neff et al., 1986
10. Tetra Tech, 1986, as cited in Puget Sound Water Quality Authority,
1986
11. Personal communication from P. Crocker, EPA Region VI.
12. Chapman, 1986.
99
-------
A variety of approaches have been used to derive sediment criteria,
including approaches based on background levels, biological effects,
or equilibrium partitioning. Several of these approaches are
described briefly below. Some of the advantages and disadvantages of
each method are summarized in Table V-2. Table V-3 compares, for a
few pollutants, criteria values derived by various methods. As
illustrated by this comparison, criteria for a given pollutant may
vary widely depending on the method of derivation.
B. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF INTERSTITIAL WATER
This approach, which was originally proposed by EPA Region VI, calls
for evaluating sediments by comparing contaminant levels in the
interstitial water to EPA water quality criteria. This approach is
based on the assumption that the toxic effects of contaminated
sediments are primarily due to contaminants absorbed from overlying
and interstitial water, rather than direct absorption from sediments
or ingestion of sediment particles. A disadvantage is the difficulty
of extracting sufficient interstitial water for analysis from certain
types of sediment. However, this method has the advantage of being
based on the extensive toxicological database incorporated into the
water quality criteria (Pavlou and Weston, 1983). The remainder of
the approaches described below are based on measuring contaminant
concentrations in the sediments directly.
C. BACKGROUND LEVEL APPROACH
Following this approach, criteria are established by reference to
measured contaminant concentrations in sediments of a relatively
unpolluted reference area. This has been the most widely used method
of setting sediment quality criteria to date, principally because the
necessary background concentration data are readily available, while
sediment toxicity data are not generally available. Some advantages
and disadvantages of this approach are listed in Table V-2.
One source of background concentration data that is used by several
EPA regions, as well as by the Monitoring and Data Support Division at
EPA Headquarters, is the STORET water quality monitoring database.
Several of the EPA regions, whether or not they conduct routine
sediment quality monitoring, collect some sediment samples in
conjunction with water quality sampling, and input the results into
the STORET system. The 85th percentile of the sediment pollutant
concentrations recorded in STORET is used as a screening level against
which to compare contaminant levels at potential sediment problem
areas. The 85th percentile level (i.e., the level that is higher than
85 percent of the values recorded) may be calculated on either a
regional or national basis. The accessibility and nationwide coverage
of the STORET system make it a useful source of data. However,
because much sediment sampling is conducted in areas with suspected
pollution problems, the database may be skewed toward higher pollutant
concentrations. Thus, the 85th percentile level may be an inappro-
priately high screening level (Personal communication, J. Lazorchak,
EPA Region VIII).
100
-------
TABLE V-2. COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO DERIVING SEDIMENT CRITERIA
Approach [Ref.]
Advantages
Disadvantages
Background Level
[1]
• Background concentration
data are readily available.
• Criteria are site-specific, depending
on the region from which background
samples were taken.
• Criteria based on contaminant levels in
unpolluted sediments may be overly
restrictive.
Bioassay [1]
• Represents a direct measure of
contaminated sediment toxicity,
accounting for all possible routes
of contaminant uptake.
• Setting a permissible level of
contaminant enrichment above background
levels is somewhat arbitrary and does not
represent,a maximum biologically safe
level.
• Requires development of standard
bioassay methodologies.
• Requires a large number of lab tests
for each contaminant.
Apparent Effects
Threshold [2,3]
• Uses existing data and can
be refined as more data are
obtained.
• Results in several possible criteria
values, depending on what biological
effects indicator is used.
Screening Level
Concentration (SLC)
[3,4]
• Based on actual field data
indicating effects of
contaminated sediments.
• Distribution of organisms may be
affected by many factors other than
sediment contaminant levels; thus not a
direct measure of contaminant effects.
• Range and distribution of data points
affects calculated value.
(continued)
-------
TABLE V-2. COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TO DERIVING SEDIMENT CRITERIA (Continued)
Approach [Ref.J
Advantages
Disadvantages
Sediment Quality Triad
[6]
Equilibrium
Sediment- Water
Partitioning [5]
Equilibrium
Sediment*fiiota
Partitioning. [1]
• Based on a combination of
laboratory and field data indicat-
ing effects of actual contaminated
sediments; can be refined as more
data are obtained.
• Utilizes large
toxicological database
incorporated in water
quality criteria.
• Relies on well-developed
theory of partitioning.
• Criteria would account for
all possible routes of
contaminant uptake.
• The only chemical-specific
information required is an
acceptable body burden
limit.
• Available data may be of variable
quality, from studies conducted at
different times and using different
techniques.
• Limited to contaminants for which both
water quality criteria and sediment-water
partitioning coefficients are available.
• Sediment and water may not be at
equilibrium with respect to contaminant
concentration.
• Does not account for contaminant uptake
by ingestion of particles or by direct
absorption from sediments.
• Limited to hydrophobic neutral organic
compounds.
• Assumption of constant bioaccumulation
factor for various contaminants and
organisms is questionable.
• Some compounds may accumulate in animal
tissues in a non-equilibrium fashion.
• Few data are available on acceptable
body burden limits.
REFERENCES: 1. Sullivan et al., 1985 4.
2. Barrick et al., 1986 5.
3. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1986 6.
Neff et al., 1986
JRB Associates,
Chapman, 1986
1984
-------
TABLE V-3. COMPARISON OF SELECTED MARINE SEDIMENT CRITERIA VALUES DERIVED BY VARIOUS METHODS
Chemical
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Organics
DDE
ODD
DDT
PCBs (total)
2-PCB
3 -PCS
4-PCB
5-PCB
6-PCB
Screening Level
Equilibrium Partitioning Concentration (SLC) Puget Sound
Based Criteria (for sediment Open-Water
(for sediment with Apparent Effects with 4% organic Disposal ,
4% organic carbon) a Threshold (AET) carbon) C Criteria
Acute
Concentrations in
64
96
216
3360
0.6
2240
Concentrations
28,000
13,000
840
Chronic
parts per million (ppm)
32.8 700-85 12.5
30.8 9.6-5.8 0.7
136 800-310 68.0
132 700-300 33.0
0.032 2.1-0.41 0.15
760 1600-260 105.0
in parts per billion (ppb)
15-9
43-2
6.4 11-3.9 1712 5.0
(sum of ODD,
DDE, & DDT)
2500-130 170.4 380
2.56
40
56
208
280
(continued)
-------
TABLE V-3. COMPARISON OF SELECTED MARINE SEDIMENT CRITERIA VALUES DERIVED BY VARIOUS METHODS (continued)
Chemical
Equilibrium Partitioning
Based Criteria (for
sediment with 4% organic
carbon)
Acute
Chronic
Apparent Effects
Threshold (AET)
Screening Level
Concentration (SLC)
(for sediment
with 4% organic
carbon)
Puget Sound
Open-Water
Disposal,
Criteria
Organics
Low Molecular
Wt. PAHs6
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
High Molecular
Wt. PAHs
Concentrations in parts per billion (ppb)
42,000
56,000
Benzo(a)anthracene 220,000
Benzo(a)pyrene 1,800,000
Chrysene 460,000
Fluoranthene 36,000
Pyrene 198,000
14,400
6100-5200
21,000-21,000 1468
3200-1500 1036
>51,000-12,000
4,500-1300 1044
6800-1600 1584
6700-1400 1536
6300-1700 1728
>7300-2600 1736
680
2690
(Continued)
-------
TABLE V-3. COMPARISON OF SELECTED MARINE SEDIMENT CRITERIA VALUES DERIVED BY VARIOUS METHODS (continued)
FOOTNOTES:
a. Values calculated from organic carbon-normalized criteria given by JRB Associates, 1984. These criteria are
based on EPA water quality criteria, or, for contaminants for which no water quality criteria have been
established, on one-half the lowest concentration at which toxic effects have been noted. Note that several
of the water quality criteria have been updated since the time of publication of these values, so sediment
criteria derived from the current water quality criteria may differ from them.
b. Values cited by Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1986, from Tetra Tech, 1986. Highest and lowest of four
values, derived based on various biological tests, are presented.
c. Values calculated from organic carbon-normalized criteria given by Neff et al., 1986.
d. Values from U.S. EPA, Region X, 1986 (Unpublished information). These are interim criteria, administered by
EPA and the Washington Dept. of Ecology. Sediments must meet specified bioassay criteria, as well as these
chemical criteria, in order to be approved for unconfined open water disposal.
e. Sum of acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluorene, naphthalene, and phenanthrene.
f. Sum of benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene,
chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene, and pyrene.
-------
A variation on the background level approach has been used by the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (1986) to develop
guidelines for interpreting reported metal concentrations in estuarine
sediments. This approach is based on the principle that, although
metal concentrations in unpolluted estuarine sediments may vary
widely, the ratio of the concentration of a given heavy metal to the
concentration of aluminum is fairly constant. Thus, polluted
sediments can be identified by comparing measured metal-to-aluminum
ratios to "natural" ratios calculated from data for uncontaminated
sediments. Using data collected from presumably uncontaminated
estuarine sediments in Florida, graphs like the one in Figure V-l were
prepared for seven metals, showing the mean metal-to-aluminum ratio,
as well as the mean plus one and two standard deviations.
Metal concentrations data for estuarine sediments can be interpreted
by comparison to the mean metal-to-aluminum ratios; sediments with
metal-to-aluminum ratios more than two standard deviations above the
mean are probably polluted, while those with ratios below the mean or
within one standard deviation of the mean are probably unpolluted.
Each graph also includes a line indicating the maximum metal
concentration observed in the unpolluted sediments analyzed; it is
assumed that any sample having a metal concentration above this value
is contaminated regardless of its aluminum concentration.
D. BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS APPROACHES
A few possible approaches establish criteria by relating sediment
contaminant concentrations to observed adverse biological effects.
Effects may be quantified based on either laboratory bioassays or
field observations,
Biassay. An approach that theoretically could result in very accurate
criteria is to conduct a series of bioassay tests for each contaminant
of concern, comparing effects on test organisms held in sediments with
known contaminant concentrations to effects in controls. Mortality,
sublethal effects, or bioconcentration may be measured. However, such
an approach would require an extensive series of tests for each
contaminant, using a variety of organisms and sediment types (Sullivan
et al., 1985).
Apparent Effects Threshold. An alternative approach is to compile
existing data on biological effects noted for natural sediments with
known chemical composition. Although bioassay results for a single
sediment sample containing several contaminants cannot be used to
quantify the effects of any one contaminant, results from many such
samples can be used to derive an apparent effects threshold (AET) for
each contaminant. The AET is the contaminant concentration above
which adverse effects are always expected to occur. An AET can be
established using any measure of biological effects, including both
laboratory bioassays and field observations (e.g., abundance of
benthic infauna). Several different AET values can be derived,
depending on the biological effects indicator used. In addition, AETs
106
-------
1000-
500.
O)
2
100-
«J
£ 50-
0)
O
O
O
2 10
i
5-
Mean
Maximum Observed
Metal Concentration-
Mean + 2S.D.
Mean-*- 1 S.D.
Mean
I
Natural Sediments
_L
J_
1,000 3.000 5.000
2.000 4,000
_L
J.
10.000
50.000 100.000 200.000
Aluminum Concentration (ug • g~ )
FIGURE V-l. HYPOTHETICAL METAL VERSUS ALUMINUM DIAGRAM FOR INTER-
PRETATION OF REPORTED METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN ESTUARINE
SEDIMENTS.
Source: Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1986
107
-------
may be based either on total contaminant concentrations or on
concentrations normalized for organic carbon (or any other desired
parameter). This approach has been applied to data from Puget Sound
sediments to derive AETs for over 50 inorganic and organic pollutants
(Barrick et al. , 1986; Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1986).
Screening Level Concentration. A third method for relating sediment
contaminant levels to biological effects has been termed the screening
level concentration (SLC) approach. This approach uses field data on
the occurrence of benthic infaunal invertebrates in sediments with
varying concentrations of organic contaminants. The SLC is a
calculated estimate of the highest concentration of a given
contaminant that can be tolerated by 95 percent of the benthic
infauna. The method for calculating an SLC involves two steps.
First, the 90th percentile concentration of a given contaminant at all
stations where a given species occurs is calculated. This value is
called the species screening level concentration (SSLC). Next, after
SSLCs have been derived for many species, the concentration that is
below 95 percent of the SSLCs is designated the SLC. This method was
used by Neff et al. (1986) to calculate SLCs for five contaminants in
freshwater sediments and nine contaminants in saltwater sediments.
The method was applied to nonpolar organic contaminants only, and the
SLCs were calculated using organic carbon-normalized concentrations.
The method has also been applied to Puget Sound sediments by Tetra
Tech (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1986).
Sediment Quality Triad. Another criteria-development approach is
referred to as the sediment quality triad, because it combines the
three elements of sediment chemistry, bioassays, and in situ studies.
Criteria are developed by analyzing data on the spatial distribution
of selected chemicals in sediments of a given area, the results of
laboratory bioassays of sediments collected from that area, and the
results of in situ studies such as measures of resident organism
histopathology, benthic community structure, or bioaccumulation. In a
demonstration of this approach by Chapman (1986), three chemical
groups were studied: high molecular weight combustion polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total PCBs, and lead. These chemicals
were selected because sufficient data were available to determine
their spatial distributions, and their distribution appeared
representative of other chemical contaminants. Three types of
bioassays (amphipod acute lethality, oligochaete respiration effects,
and fish cell anaphase aberration tests) were considered, and the in
situ measure used was fish histopathology (i.e., the frequency of
selected liver lesions in English sole). Based on an analysis of data
from these studies for the Puget Sound area, a general trend of
increasing biological effects with increasing sediment chemical
concentrations was found. Three ranges of concentrations, for which
biological effects levels were low, hign, or intermediate, were
determined for each chemical group. The contaminant concentrations at
or below which biological effects were minimal are: 50 ppm lead, 3.8
ppm combustion PAHs, and 0.1 ppm total PCBs. The contaminant
concentrations at or above which biological effects were always high
are: 130 ppm lead, 6.8 ppm combustion PAHs, and 0.8 ppm total PCBs.
The range between these low- and high-effects levels is considered an
area of uncertainty.
108
-------
E. EQUILIBRIUM SEDIMENT-WATER PARTITIONING APPROACH
This approach uses sediment-water partitioning coefficients to set
criteria at a level that ensures that contaminant concentrations in
interstitial water will not exceed the EPA water quality criteria.
Criteria are calculated by multiplying the sediment-water partitioning
coefficient for a given contaminant by the water quality criterion for
that contaminant. Since partitioning coefficients are usually
normalized for organic carbon, this method results in criteria for
organic carbon-normalized concentrations of contaminants. This
approach is based on two major assumptions: (1) that the toxic
effects of contaminated sediments are caused primarily by ingestion or
absorption of contaminated water in contact with the sediments and are
not significantly increased by ingestion of contaminated particles,
and (2) that contaminants are at equilibrium between sediments and
water. Criteria based on the equilibrium partitioning approach have
been derived by JRB Associates (1984) for 6 metals and 47 organic
pollutants.
F. EQUILIBRIUM SEDIMENT-BIOTA PARTITIONING APPROACH
In this approach, criteria are established at levels such that
organisms at thermodynamic equilibrium with the sediment cannot
accumulate tissue concentrations of contaminants in excess of
established permissible limits. This approach has been suggested for
use only for hydrophobic or neutral organic compounds. It relies on
the assumptions that all such compounds have essentially the same
bioaccumulation potential (sediment-to-biota partition coefficient),
and that when the bioaccumulation potential is expressed on a lipid
basis, it is the same for all organisms. Thus, the only data needed
for the development of sediment quality criteria by this method are
(1) an acceptable body burden limit for each contaminant and (2) a
partition coefficient indicating the relative concentration of
hydrophobic/neutral compounds in sediment organic carbon and in
lipids. To date, however, permissible body burden levels have not
been established for many compounds (Sullivan et al., 1985).
109
-------
VI. LITERATURE CITED
Barrick, R.C., H.R. Beller, T.C. Ginn, and D.S. Becker (1986),
"Apparent Effects Thresholds: Evaluation as a Tool for Sediment
Quality Management," in Environmental Data: Significance in Decision
Making. abstracts of presentations at the 7th Annual Meeting of the
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, November 2-5, 1986,
Alexandria, Virginia.
Bertine, K.K. and M.F. Mendeck (1978), "Industrialization of New
Haven, Conn., as Recorded in Reservoir Sediments," Environ. Sci.
Technol.. 12:201-207.
Bolton, H.S., R.J. Breteler, B.W. Vigon, J.A. Scanlon, and S.L. Clark
(May, 1985), "National Perspective on Sediment Quality," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria and Standards Division,
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC, EPA
Contract No. 68-01-6986.
Chapman, P.M. (1986), "Sediment Quality Criteria from the Sediment
Quality Triad: An Example," Environ. Toxicol. Chem.. 5:957-964.
CH2M Hill and Ecology & Environment (July, 1983), "Source Control
Feasibility Study, OMC Hazardous Waste Site, Waukegan, Illinois," U.S.
EPA Hazardous Site Control Div., EPA 13-5M28.0.
CH2M Hill and Ecology & Environment (July, 1986), "Feasibility Study:
Fields Brook Site, Sediment Operable Unit, Ashtabula, Ohio," Public
Comment Draft, U.S. EPA Hazardous Site Control Div., EPA 19.4L46.0.
Dillon, T.M., and A.B. Gibson (June, 1986), "Bioassessment
Methodologies for the Regulatory Testing of Freshwater Dredged
Material," Proceedings of a Workshop, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Miscellaneous Paper EL-86-6.
Engler, R.M. (1980), "Prediction of Pollution Potential through
Geochemical and Biological Procedures: Development of Regulation
Guidelines and Criteria for the Discharge of Dredged and Fill
Material," in Contaminants and Sediments. Vol. 1, R.A. Baker, ed., Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ferguson, J. and J. Gavis (1972), "A Review of the Arsenic Cycle in
Natural Waters," Water Research. 6:1259-1274.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (March, 1986) , "Guide
for Interpreting Reported Metal Concentrations in Estuarine
Sediments," Draft Version.
Forstner, U. and G.T.W. Wittmann (1983), Metal Pollution in the
Aquatic Environment. Second Revised Edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Germany.
110
-------
Francingues, N.R. , Jr., M.R. Palermo, C.R. Lee and R.K. Peddicord
(August, 1985), "Management Strategy for Disposal of Dredged Material:
Contaminant Testing and Controls," Dredging Operations Technical
Support Program, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS, Misc. Paper D-85-1.
Great Lakes Water Quality Board (January, 1982), "Guidelines and
Register for the Evaluation of Great Lakes Dredging Projects," Report
of the Dredging Subcommittee to the Water Quality Programs Committee
of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, International Joint
Commission, Windsor, Ontario.
JRB Associates (April, 1984), "Initial Evaluation of Alternatives for
Development of Sediment Related Criteria for Toxic Contaminants in
Marine Waters (Puget Sound). Phase II: Development and Testing of
the Sediment-Water Equilibrium Partitioning Approach," U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C., EPA 910/9-82-117.
Johanson, E.E. and J.C. Johnson (May, 1976), "Identifying and
Prioritizing Locations for the Removal of In-Place Pollutants," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Planning and
Standards, Washington, DC, Contract No. 68-01-2920.
Kobayashi, S. and G.F. Lee (1978), "Accumulation of Arsenic in
Sediments of Lakes treated with Sodium Arsenite," Environ. Sci.
Techno1.. 12:1195-1200.
McGinn, J.M. (July, 1981), "A Sediment Control Plan for the
Blackstone River," Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering. NTIS PB 84-22963-2.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (1987),
"National Status and Trends Program: Progress Report and Preliminary
Assessment of Findings of the Benthic Surveillance Project-1984," NOAA
Rockville, MD.
Neff, J.M., D.J. Bean, B.W. Cornaby, R.M. Vaga, T.C. Gulbransen, and
J.A. Scanlon (July, 1986), "Sediment Quality Criteria Methodology
Validation: Calculation of Screening Level Concentrations from Field
Data," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria and Standards
Division, Washington, D.C.
New England Governor's Conference (September, 1982), "New England/New
York Long Range Dredge Management Study: Final Report," prepared for
the U.S. Water Resources Council.
New England River Basins Commission (August, 1980), "Interim Plan for
the Disposal of Dredged Material from Long Island Sound."
NUS Corporation (July, 1984), "Feasibility Study of Remedial Action
Alternatives: Acushnet River Estuary Above Coggeshall Street Bridge,
New Bedford site, Bristol County, Massachusetts," EPA Work Assignment
#28-lL43, Contract #68-01-6699 (Draft).
Ill
-------
Pavlou, S.P. and D.P. Weston (October, 1983), "Initial Evaluation of
Alternatives for Development of Sediment Related Criteria for Toxic
Contaminants in Marine Waters (Puget Sound). Phase I: Development of
Conceptual Framework," U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA.
Phillips, K.E., J.F. Malek, and W.B. Hamner (June, 1985),
"Commencement Bay Nearshore Tideflats Superfund Site, Tacoma,
Washington; Remedial Investigations. Evaluation of Alternative
Dredging Methods and Equipment, Disposal Methods and Sites, and Site
Control and Treatment Practices for Contaminated Sediments," U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. NTIS AD-A162 732.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (May, 1986), "Issue Paper:
Contaminated Sediments and Dredging."
Science Applications International Corp. (September, 1985), "Removal
and Mitigation of Contaminated Sediments," Draft report, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sullivan, J. , J. Ball, E. Brick, S. Hausmann, G. Pilarski and D.
Sopcich (November, 1985), "Report on the Technical Subcommittee on
Determination of Dredge Material Suitability for In-Water Disposal,"
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.
Tetra Tech, Inc. (1986), "Compilation of Historical Data on Selected
Pollutants in the Southern California Bight;" Final Report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division (1986), Unpublished
information.
U. S. Coast Guard (1983), "Polluting Incidents in and around U.S.
Waters," Calendar Year 1982 and 1983, COMDTINST M16450.2F.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region X (1986), Unpublished
information.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engineers (U.S. EPA/CE)
Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredged and Fill Material (1977),
"Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material into
Ocean Waters: Implementation Manual for Section 103 of Public Law
92-532 (Mrine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972)," U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (April, 1986), "Preliminary Survey of
Contaminant Issues of Concern on National Wildlife Refuges".
Wakeham, S.G. and J.W. Farrington (1980), "Hydrocarbons in
Contemporary Aquatic Sediments," in Contaminants and Sediments. Vol.
1, R.A. Baker (ed.), Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI.
112
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA ON SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS
Table of Contents
Page Number
I. Introduction A-2
II. Data on Sites with In-Place Pollutants A-3
Table 1 - Data on Reviewed Sites with In-Place A-4
Pollutants in EPA Region I
Table 2 - Data on Reviewed Sites with In-Place A-11
Pollutants in EPA Region II
Table 3 - Data on Reviewed Sites with In-Place A-16
Pollutants in EPA Region III
Table 4 - Data on Reviewed Sites with In-Place A-18
Pollutants in EPA Region IV
Table 5 - Data on Reviewed Sites with In-Place A-21
Pollutants in EPA Region V
Table 6 - Data on Reviewed Sites with In-Place A-28
Pollutants in EPA Region VI
Table 7 - Data on Reviewed Sites with In-Place A-32
Pollutants in EPA Region VII
Table 8 - Data on Reviewed Sites with In-Place A-35
Pollutants in EPA Region VIII
Table 9 - Data on Reviewed Sites with In-Place A-38
Pollutants in EPA Region IX
Table 10 - Data on Reviewed Sites with In-Place A-41
Pollutants in EPA Region X
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA ON SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS
I. Introduction
Information on sites with in-place pollutants was obtained from
various sources, as discussed in Section III of this report. In
general, detailed information on individual sites has not been
provided in the main body of this report. Rather, the information in
this Appendix was used to generate the summary tables shown in the
main report.
There are a total of 10 tables in Appendix A, organized by EPA
regions; Table 1 lists sites from Region 1, and so on. Sites were
chosen for inclusion in these tables based on the sources of informa-
tion available. No independent judgment was made to include or
exclude sites on the basis of contaminant concentrations or other
criteria. However, the list provided in the following tables is by no
means an exhaustive compilation of all sites in the U.S. with in-place
pollutants.
The numbers in the left-most column of each table correspond to the
site numbers used in Section IV-A to indicate the locations of the
sites, as shown on the maps in Figures TV-2a to -2h. Please refer to
these maps for the approximate geographical locations of the sites.
Note that more than one entry in a table may pertain to a single site,
and may therefore be assigned the same site number. Separate entries
in the tables represent data obtained from different sources.
For each site, information is provided under each of these headings:
Water body/Location
Contaminants (concentration)
Perceived/Noted impacts
Source
Remedial actions
Comments
Reference (References are listed in Appendix B.)
The concentrations of contaminants are given in ppm, unless otherwise
stated, and are provided within parentheses next to the contaminant
name. In most cases, ranges of concentrations are given. In other
cases, an average concentration is given or in cases where only one
measured concentration is available, a single value is given. For
certain classes of contaminants, e.g., polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), a total concentration of the whole class is
given, rather than individual concentrations for each contaminant in
the class. Where impacts were perceived or noted, these are also
briefly described.
A-2
-------
The suspected source or sources of the in-place pollutants are also
briefly described. Where sources were not mentioned in the reference,
or were unknown, the column is left blank. Where it was known that
the source was a current (continuing) source, the letter "C" is shown
in parentheses next to the source. The letter "D" is shown when it
was known that the source was a discontinued source. In the majority
of cases, the status of the source was unknown.
Codes are used to indicate whether remedial actions have been
implemented (I) or considered (C) at the site. The reader should
refer to the literature source cited for a description of the remedial
actions implemented or considered. Descriptions of possible remedial
action techniques are provided in Section IV-C.
Additional relevant information on the site is given under the
"Comments" column. The source for information on the site is given
under "Reference." A bibliography of these references is provided in
Appendix B.
II. Data on Sites with In-Place Pollutants
Tables 1-10 which follow provide data on sites with in-place
pollutants.
A-3
-------
TABLE 1. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION I
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Source (status)
Remedial
Actions
Comments
Reference
Region I
f Gulf of Maine/Casco Bay
Region
Gulf of Maine/Casco Bay
Region
1 -\ Gulf of Maine/Casco Bay
Region
Gulf of Maine/Casco Bay
' Gulf of Haine/Penobscot
Bay Region
Gulf of Haine/Penobscot
Bay
Gulf of Maine/Wilkinson
3 Basin, Murray Basin,
Franklin Basin
4 Saco River Estuary, Maine
5 Kennebec R., Estuary, ME
Cd<0.2-0.9); Cr<6-60);
Cu(2-40); Ni(5-30);
Pb(10-60); Zn(20-100)
PAHs(0.2-H total);
numerous PAHs highest
indiv.:
benzo-b-fluoranthene
(MD-5)
PCBs<0.04-0.2)
Cd(0.2-0.9), Cr(6-55),
Cu<2-45), Ni(5-32),
Pb(9-61), Zn(21-100),
PCBsCO.04-0.3),
PAHs(0.2-U), highest
individual benzo-b-
fluoranthene(4)
PAHs(0.3-9 total)
Ag(0.05-0.7),
Cd(0.2-0.8), Cr(18-65),
Cu(6-32), Ni(8-35),
Pb(14-33), Zn(43-100),
PCBs(ND-0.2), PAHs(<1-6)
PCBs(0.004-0.01),
PAHs(<0.01-0.4)
Cr(ave. 274), Pb(ave.
36), ZnCave. 47)
Cr(ave. 29), Cu(ave. 33),
PbCave. 33), Zn(ave. 64)
Industrial
sources, sewage
treatment, pet-
roleum, air pol-
lution fallout,
storm drainoff,
creosote wharfs
and pi lings
Combustion
sources
Tannery
operations,
combustion
sources
Sewage
Tannery
operations
High values in Portland
Harbor
Larsen,
Zdanowicz, et
al., 1983
Larsen,
Gadbois, et
al., 1983
Larsen et al.,
1984
Larsen, 1985
Johnson and
Larsen, 1985
Larsen, 1985
Boehffl. 1984
As reported in
Larsen, 1985
As reported in
Larsen, 1985
-------
TABLE 1. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION I (CONTINUED)
Uater Body/location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
Sebasticook R.,
Maine/Great Moose Lake
and Pittsfield
/ Pawtucket River, RI
7 <
Pawtucket R., Cove,
Providence R.,
Narragansett Bay R I
Providence R., RI
Cr(13-24,000); Ag
Ln
-------
TABLE 1. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION I (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
10 <
( Buzzards Bay, HA
Buzzards Bay, HA
V Buzzards Bay, HA
f New Bedford area,
HA/Acushet R. Estuary to
harbor
11 <
PCBs(O.OI-O.S)
PCBs(up to 0.06)
PAHs(1-5)
PCBsCup to 190,000)
New Bedford Harbor/Upper PCBs(up to 1000)
Acushnet R.
New Bedford Harbor/Inner
Harbor
New Bedford Harbor/Outer
Harbor
New Bedford Harbor, HA
New Bedford Harbor, HA
PCBs(3-100)
PCBsCO.3-78)
PAHs(63)
HgCO.2-8), Cd(0.1-76),
Pb(3-560), As(0-50),
Cu(5-7250), Zn(6-2300),
Cr(5-3200), Ni(2-550),
DDTC0.1), PCBs(125), oil
and grease(0-2X)
FishCarea closed to
fishing)
Point sources,
landfills,
comb-sewer
overflows, urban
runoff
Copper and brass
produ., plating,
municipal sewer
SHU 1980
unpubl., Boehm,
1983, as
reported in
Boehm, 1984
Energy
Resources Co.,
Inc., 1983
As reported in
Larsen, 1985
Weaver, 1982
Farrington
unpubl. as
reported in
Boehm, 1984
Hass DEQE 1980
unpubl. as
reported in
Boehm, 1984,
U.S. EPA 1980,
unpubl. as
reported in
Boehm 1984
reported in
Boehm, 1984
As reported in
Larsen, 1985
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
-------
TABLE 1. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION I (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Source (status)
Remedial
Actions
Comments
Reference
11
18
( New Bedford Site,
NA/Acushnet R., estuary
Acushnet R/New Bedford
Harbor
Boston Harbor, Mass Bay,
Cape Cod Bay System
13 ,
Falmouth Harsh, HA
( Massachusetts Bay, MA
Boston Harbor
Boston Harbor, HA
' Charles R., HA
Charles R., HA
French River, HAM
14 impoundment sites along
river
PCBs(>100.000),
Cu(>1000), As(>50),
Pb(300-500), Zn(>600),
Hg(>2.5), Cr(400-S00),
Cd(>20)
Closure of estuary to
all fishing
PCBs(5-900),
Cu(3000-7500)
PAHs(0.3-880),
PCBs(0.002-0.3),
coprostanol(0.03-16)
PAHs(8)
PAHs(0.2-3)
PAHs(S.S)
PAHs(87)
PAHs(87-120)
PAHs(12-120)
As(4-50); Be(ND-0.6>;
Cd<1-24); Cr(220-2560);
Cu(70-1980); Hg(0.8-5);
Ni(8-550); Pb(80-630);
Zn(140-1680); CN total
(4-7); Tot. phenols
(ND-0.3);
Base/Neuts(highest
indiv.1-23); VOCs(highest
inidv. 0.03-0.2)ppm
Electrical
component
manufacturing
Impact on structure
and health of benthic
community
Metals and PAHs in
fish, pop. skewed
toward smaller, young
fish
Storiawater run-
off, municipal
wastewater,
sewage sludge,
cont. sediments
disposal, indus-
trial sources,
ship traffic
Numerous pt
sources (muni.
and industrial)
(C)
NUS, 1984
As reported in
Bolton et al.,
198S
Area considered more Boehm, 1984
contaminated than NY Bight
As reported in
Larsen, 1985
As reported in
Larsen, 1985
As reported in
Larsen, 1985
As reported in
Bolton et al.,
1985
As reported in
Larsen, 1985
As reported in
Bolton et al.,
1985
Hetcalf & Eddy,
1985
>
-------
TABLE 1. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION I (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
French River, HA
Metals, CN, PAHs, VOCs
15
16
18 <
Blackstone River Basin, HA Cd(ND-410); Cr(6-3300);
ft RI/8 sites in basin Cu(5-10900);
Pb(10-3500); Hi(9-2900);
Zn(20-13200);
As(0.5-130)
Bass R., Beverly, HA/Bass
Yacht Club
' Neponset R., HA/around
Granite Ave. Bridge
Neponset R., HA/around
Granite Ave. Bridge
Uinthrop Harbor, HA
Dorchester Bay,
MA/Dorchester Yacht Club
PCBs(3-10);
Hg(2-3); Cd(7-9);
Pb(340-430);
Cr(1200-1700); Cu(< 200);
ASO2.0-12.5);
Ni(47-52);
Zn(390-420)
PCBs(<1-68)
As(19-20); Cd{3-4);
Cr(130-180); Cu(84-150);
Pb(170-250);
Hg(0.75-1.5); Ni(20-30);
V(60-80); Zn(180-300);
PCBs(0.3-12)
As(10-25); Cr(50-190);
Cu(40-160); Ni(10-30);
Pb(40-130); V(25-70);
Zn(72-300); oil and
grease(2-5X)
As(23); Cd(6); Cr(310);
Cu(210); Hg(3); Ni(30);
Pb(290); V(77); Zn(380);
oil and grease(1.5%);
PCBs(2.2)
Oil spills,
coke-oven
effluents, road
runoff
Numerous pt.
sources (muni.
and industrial)
(C)
Info, from EPA
Region I
Separate remedial alterna- McGinn, 1981
tives considered for differ-
ent points in basin
Info, from COE.
New England
Info, from COE,
New England
Info, from COE,
New England
Info, from COE,
New England
Info, from COE,
New England
>
oo
-------
TABLE 1. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION I (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Source (status)
Remedial
Actions
Comments
Reference
( Savin Hill Yacht Club,
U. Mass Pier, HA
L8<
South Boston Yacht Club,
Boston, MA
As(18-25); Cr(2.7-3);
CrCKO-190); Cu(120-150);
Hg(1-2); Ni(18-23);
Pb(150-170); V(42-46);
Zn(230-240);
PCBs(NO-1.17); oil and
grease (1.1-5.8%)
As(5-23); Cd(3.3-3.9);
Cr(250-280); Cu(190-200);
Hg(2); Ni(30-31);
Pb(190-220); VC58-68);
Zn(420-700);
PCB(0.07-0.84); oil and
grease(3.1-5.1%)
19 Silver Lake/Pittsfield, HA PCBs(0.1-6350)
20 Coopers Pond/Attleboro, HA AK3510-26700); Cd(<
50-260); Cr(< 50-660);
Cu<400-16500);
Pb(<50-400);
MU190-6120);
Pt(<50-334); Ag(<50-210);
Zn(70-2390)
( Hill R., Hill Pond,
vicintty/Fairfield, CT
Pb
Mill River, Fairfield, CT Pb(up to 147,000), Al
Versailles Pond, CT
Pb(20-808); Zn<66-650);
Hg(0.22-0.55); Cu(50-60);
Phenols(0.2-10);
PCBs(0-27)
Industrial
Hetal finishing
plant (C)
Manuf. facility
Manufacturing
facility
Paper mill
Info, from COE,
New England
Info, from COE,
New England
Info, from EPA
Region I
Info, from EPA
Region I
Info.
DEP
from CT
Facility produced aluminum Science
products from 1930s-51, Applications
Pb-acid batteries 1951-1981, Int'l Corp.,
remedial plan completed in 1985
1983
Info, from CT
DEP
>
vo
-------
TABLE 1. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION I (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
tconc. range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
22
24
Housatonic R.. CT
Housatonic R., CT
Branford Harbor, Ct
23 Eastern Long Island Sound
' Bridgeport Harbor, CT
24 •£ New Haven Harbor, CT
Stamford and New Haven
Harbors, CT
25 Quinhipiac R., CT
Great Bay Estuary, NH
PCBs(0-76)
PCBs (< 1-210)
CdCave. 1), Cu(ave. 35),
Pb(ave. 265), ZnCave. 55)
Cd(ave. 3), Cr(ave. 60),
Cu(ave. 20), Ni(ave. 8),
Pb(ave. 16), ZnCave. 50)
Hg(0.01-10), Cd(2-H0),
Pb(50-1640), As(5-9300),
Zn(50-3000), Cr(20-3500),
Cu(40-9300), Ni(<10-400),
DOT(0.05-1), PCB<0.1-2),
oil and grease(O.I-AX)
Cu(2500), ZndOOO)
Heavy metals
Hg(320)
Cr(10-590), Cu(3-130),
Pb(1-150), Zn(13-210)
PCBs in fish exceed
FDA levels
Industrial (D)
municipal (D)
Steel mill,
brass mill,
metal plating
facilities
Brass mills,
metal plating,
primary waste-
water treatment
Info, from CT
DEP
Info, from EPA
Region I
As reported in
Larsen, 1985
As rpeorted in
Larsen, 1985
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
Science
Applications
Int'l Corp.,
1985
As reported in
Bolton et al.,
1985
As reported in
Larsen, 1985
26 Ten Mile River,
HA and RI
Cr, Cu, Hi, Pb, Zn;
may be organics too
Metal plating
Atkinson et al.,
1985; and
conversations with
EPA Region I,
Mass. DEQE.
-------
TABLE 2. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION II
Water Body/Location
Region II
1 4
' Upper Hudson R., NY/Fort
Edward & mi les
downstream
Upper Hudson R./Fort
Edward, NY
Upper Hudson R. Basin, NY
i
2 Hudson R., NY/Tidal
portion
3 •<
' NY Bight/Various Sites
New York Bight
NY Bight/Hudson Valley
Transect
NY Bight/Christiaensen
Basin
NY Bight/near dumpsite
Ocean dump sites off NY
City
NY Bight/Raritan Bay
\
Contaminants
(cone, range)
PCBs
PCBs(5-250)
PCBs(4-200)
PCBs(0. 5-140)
PCBs(0.5-7)
PCBs (1-6)
PCBs(0.002-0.2);
PAHs(< 0.01-46)
PCBsCup to 0.7)
PAHs(0-30)
Cr(2-370), Cu(1-330),
Ni(2-40), Pb(5-270),
Zn(7-480>
PAHs(0.2-3)
Perceived/ Remedial
Noted Impacts Source (status) Actions Comments
PCB levels in fish Point sources C
exceed FDA limits
Some fish species Capacitor C 40 mile stretch of river
severely contaminated manufacturing contaminated; certain
plants sect ions --Superfund
Fishing ban Capacitor C
manufacturing
plants (D)
Capacitor
manufacturing
plants upstream
(D)
Sewage sludge
Combustion,
sewage sludge,
dredge material
Sewage sludge
Reference
Weaver, 1982;
Brown et a I.,
1985
Science
Applications
International
Corp., 1985
Turk, 1980
Bopp et al.
1981
From various
sources as
reported in
Boehm, 1984
West and
Hatcher, 1980
Boehm, 1984
Energy
Resources Co.,
Inc., 1983
Energy
Resources Co.,
Inc., 1983
As reported in
Greig and
McGrath, 1977
Energy
Resources Co.,
Inc., 1983
-------
TABLE 2. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION II (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Source (status)
Remedial
Actions
Comments
Reference
3 •<
New York Bight/Raritan Bay
Newark Bay, Passaic R., NJ
Newark Bay, NJ
/ Long Island Sound
New York Bight and Long
Island Sound
CdCup to 15), Cr(up to
1260), Cu(up to 1230),
Ni(up to 50), PCB(up to
990), Zn(up to 820)
Hg(up to 20), Cd(up to
40), Cu(up to 1100).
Pb(up to 1000); TCDD
Pb(70-3200), Zn(80-2280),
Cd(0-20), Hg(0.3-30)
Cr(5-280), Cu(<2-280),
Ni(<2-40), Pb(<6-210),
Zn(5-350)
Cd(<0.25-4), Cr(2-100),
Hg(<0.04-0.7),
Cu(0.2-150), Ni(0.8-30),
Pb(2-130), Zn(3-330),
PAHs(0-60)
Area closed to shell-
fish harvesting,
water quality not
suited for bathing,
yield of commercial
fishery declined;
decrease in benthie
diversity and crop.
Very few desirable
aquatic organisms
found
Municipal and
industrial
Elevated levels in
aquatic species
Many sources:
industrial,
municipal, non-
point, shipping
Cones, similar to Corpus Greig and
Christi Harbor, dump sites McGrath, 1977
of NY city, basins off
S. Calif., Long Island Sound
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976;
NUS, 1986
Meyerson et
al., 1981
As reported in
Greig and
McGrath, 1977
Reid et al.,
1982
Jamaica Bay. NY City
5 Eastchester Creek
(Hutchinson R.), NY
r saw Mill R., Westchester
NY/lower 3 miles of
river
7 Foundry Cove, Cold Spring,
NY
Pb(up to 500), Cr(up to
500), Ni(up to 100),
Zn(up to 1930), Cu(up to
760), Co(up to 20), Cd(up
to 10), V(up to 130)
Pb(up to 900), Cu(290),
Zn(650)
Cu(6-200), Pb(12-570),
ZN(7-520)
Cd 171,000)
Ni(156,000)
Co(6,000)
Sediment feeder
enriched in Cu and
Zn, bottom life
nearly gone in areas
of heavy metal-
concentration
Elevated Cd levels
biota (plants and
fish)
Sewer treatment
plants
Discharge from
Ni-Cd battery
mfg. facility (D)
Has been dredged before
(1972-73) but cones.
similar to before dredg-
ing. Not succesful.
Superfund site
Ramondetta,
1978
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
Rogers, 1983
Kneip and
Hazen, 1979;
EPA Reg. 11
-------
TABLE 2. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION II (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Source (status)
Remedial
Actions
Comments
Reference
The Saddle R./near Lodi,
NJ
Lake Ontario/whole lake
Pb(10-200), Zn(70-280).
Cu(20-100), Mi(7-20),
Cr(4-40), Cd(0.4-3)
PC6s(ave. 0.057),
DOTCave. 0.04),
chlordane, endosulfan
Pptn., storm-
water runoff
Endosulfan spill
Wither and
Hunter, 1979
Frank et al.,
1979
10
11
13
flake Ontario/Oswego R. and Hirex(ND-0.07)
Harbor
Lake Ontario/Osuego R., NY Heavy metals
'take Ontario/Buffalo R., Organics, metals
MY
Niagara R., NY
Heavy metals,
organ!cs-PCB, mi rex
Buffalo, MY/Niagara R., Volatile organics, PAHs,
Tonawanda Channel, Buffalo other organics, PCBs,
R., Lake Erie pesticides, heavy metals,
phenols, CM
Lake Ontario/Eighteen Mile Heavy metals
Creek, NY
Lake Ontario/Rochester
Embayment, NY
Heavy metals
Fish consumption
advisories, fish
contaminated with PCS
and mi rex
Fish consumption
advisories, biota
impacted
Fish consumption
advisories; Biota
impacted
Fish consumption
advisories
Chemical com-
pany, cork co.
Municipal and
industrial point
sources, urban
non-point, sewer
overflows, waste
disposal sites
Municipal,
industrial point
sources, urban
non-point, sewer
overflows, waste
disposal sites
Aluminum, auto-
motive, chemi-
cal, other
industrial,
urban non-point,
sewer overflows,
waste disposal
sites
Industrial point
sources, urban
non-point, sewer
overflows
Municipal and
industrial point
sources, urban
non-point, sewer
overflows
Remedial action plan being
developed by NY DEC
USEPA, State of NY
developing Remedial Action
plans
Scrudato and
Del Prete, 1982
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Rockwell et
al., 1984
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
T
-------
TABLE 2. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION II (CONTINUED)
Water Body/location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Moted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
14 Wine Creek and White
Creek, Oswego, NY
15 St.Lawrence River,
Hassena. NY
16 Wetlands, Motra, NY
Be(3-6),
Cd(1-Z2),
Cr(7-137),
Cu(13-38),
Pb(25-277),
Hg(0.01-0.07),
NH9-49),
Zn(36-258),
VOCs(highest indiv.
1200), Base/Neutrals
(highest indiv. 0.9)
PCBs
PCBs(up to 210),
Pb (640)
PCBs detected
in fish
Landfill and
industrial point
source
Superfund site
Indusrial (foundry):
direct discharge
and from disposal
sites via grounduater
Oil recycling
facility (D)
Superfund site
Superfund site
Information from
EPA Region II.
Information from
EPA Region II.
Information from
EPA Region II.
17 Black Creek. Bergholtz
Creek, Niagara
River, Niagara Falls,NY
2,3,7,8-TCDD
(3.3-46 ppb).
other chlorinated
organics
Dioxin detected
in fish
Sewer
outfalls,
landfill
Superfund site
(Love Canal)
Information from
EPA Region II.
18 Elizabeth River,
Arthur Kill, Elizabeth,
tiJ
19 Cannon run, North Branch
Rancocas Creek, NJ
Numerous organics
(Highest indiv. 61)
Organics (highest indiv.
2.6), Metals
Waste treatment
facility, urban
and industrial
runoff (C)
Landfill
Superfund site
Superfund site
Information from
EPA Region I!
Information from
EPA Region II
I
i->
j>
-------
r
TABLE 2. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION II (CONTINUED)
Water Body/location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
Burnt Fly Bog, Marlboro
Township, NJ
Edwards Run, Delaware
River, Gloucester County,
NJ
Maurice River, Black-
water Branch and Union
Lake. Vineland, NJ
PCBs(up to 254),
Pb (up to 13,000)
Metals (40-2443),
VOCs(ND-3lOO),
Semi-votatiles (ND-21),
Pesticides (ND-50)
As (1-21,160)
Iagoons
Waste
Landfill
Chemical
company
Superfund site
EPA Region II
Superfund site
Superfund site
Information from
Information from
EPA Region II
Information from
EPA Region II
-------
TABLE 3. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION III
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
Region III
1 Tinicum Nat. Env. Center, Heavy metals, pesticides,
PA/Creeks and Harsh cyanide, PCBs, chlordane,
PAHs
2 Monongahela R./Pi ttsburgh, Pb(up to 1300)
PA
Schuylkill R., PA/lower
basin
Schuylkill R., PA
' Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
f Baltimore Harbor, MD
Baltimore Harbor, MD
Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn,
DDT(O.OI), PCB$(<0.1-0.2)
), Cu(10-3000),
Pb(20-19000), Be(<1-55),
Ni(10-930),
Hg(<0.01-0.9),
Zn(30-H00), Cr(10-880),
Chlordane(0-0.07), ODD,
DDE & DDT(O-O.I),
PCBs(0-2.4)
PCBs(0.004-0.4)
PAHs(ND->100), DDT, PCBs Elevated levels in
oysters
Hg(0.1-10), Cd(<1-650),
Pb(130-13890),
Cu(60-2930),
Zn(350-6040),
Cr(60-5750), Mi(20-90)
PCBs(0.05-80)
Absence of many
aquatic species
Baltimore Harbor/Patapsco Cr(490)
Es.
Landfills
Spills.
discharges
Industrial
sources, spills
(creosote,
paint, dye-
stuffs, plating
solutions, pickle
I iquors)
Sewage treatment
plants, many
potential indus-
trial sources,
spills
U.S. Fish &
Wildlife
Service, 1986
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
Yorke et al.,
1985
Stamer et al.,
1985
Worst conditions in northern
shore of the harbor; all hot
spots adjacent to heavily
industrial areas
Sayler et al.,
1978 as
reported in
Boehm, 1984
Bieri et al.,
1983
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
Morgan and
Sommer, 1979
As reported in
Bolton et at.,
1985
i-1
CT>
-------
TABLE 3. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION III (CONTINUED)
Contaminants
Water Body/location (cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
James River. Hopeuell, VA KeponeCO.02-30)
James River, VA/estuary Kepone
James River, VA/estuary Kepone(<0.02-4.5)
Holston R., Saltville,
VA/North Fork
Kg(300-1000)
North Fork Holston R., VA Hg(0.3-20)
and TN
g South River and South Fork Hg(50 ppm)
Shenandoah River,
Waynesboro, VA
9 Elizabeth R., VA/estuary Hydrocarbons<100-2900),
PNAs
10 Lynnhaven Estuary, VA Bacteria
Fish contamination;
kepone concentration
in crab above FDA
action level
Elevated kepone
levels in fish,
crabs, oysters
River closed to
fishing
Hg cone, in fish
above FDA action
level
Chemical company
(D)
Kepone plant (D)
Kepone plant (D)
Chemical plant
including
electrolytic
chlorine (D)
Chloralkali
plant
Hg in fish exceed FDA Spill at plant
action level
Wood preserving
facilities.
other industrial
sources
Oyster beds closed at
intervals
Sewage treatment
plant, non-point
sources, septic
tanks
Between 1966-75, 65,000 Ibs. Science
of kepone discharged into Applications
river Int'l Corp.,
1985
Kepone being covered by Cutshall et
sediment; disturbance could al., 1981
return contamination to
surface
Source discontinued in 1975 Huggett et al.,
1980
Plant from 1895-1972; Science
elevated levels of Hg at Applications
least 10 miles upstream of Int'l Corp.,
plant and downstream to 1985
Cherokee Reservoir; remedial
action declared complete
Hildebrand et
al., 1980
"No active" alternative
recommendation
Three facilities, two
discontinued by 1981
Science
Applications
Int'l Corp.,
1985
Merrill and
Wade, 1985
Erkenbrecher,
1980
-------
TABLE 4. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION IV
Water Body/Location
Region IV
Sampit R., Georgetown, SC
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Pb(IOOO)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
2 Savannah R. estuary, GA
3 4
( Latham Bayou, TN
Loosahatchie R., TM
Uheeler National Wildlife
Refuge, AL/Huntsville
Spring Branch of Indian
Creek
Transuranics(Pu),
Pb
Goldberg et
al., 1979
Information
from EPA Region
IV
Information
from EPA Region
IV
Remedial action scheduled to U.S. Fish &
begin 1986 Wildlife
Service, 1986
5 Redstone Arsenal,
Huntsville, AL
6 Mobile Harbor, AL
' Mississippi Sound/
Escatawpa R.
Bayou Casotte, Mississippi
Pascagoula R., Mississippi
Sound
Mississippi Sound/Btloxi
Bay
g Escambia Bay, FL
DDT, DDE, ODD & other
degradation products
Hg(O.I-Z), As(0.3-10),
Cu(1-50), Zn(1-250),
Ni(4-40), Cr(3-100)
Aliphatic hydrocarbons(up
to 5860)
Petroleum hydrocarbons(up
to 12300)
Aliphatic hydrocarbons(up
to 830), Arom. hydro-
carbons(up to 100)
Aliphatic hydrocarbons(up
to 130), Arom. hydro-
carbons(up to 210)
PCBsCND-8)
DDT plant (D)
DDT plant closed in 1970
Industrial (C);
spills and leaks
from refinery
(C)
Sullivan and
Thiess, 1983
Information
from EPA Region
IV
Lytle & Lytle,
1980
Lytle and
Lytle, 1983
Lytle & Lytle,
1985
Lytle & Lytle,
1985
U.S. EPA 1976
as reported in
Bochm, 1984
00
-------
TABLE 4. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION IV (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
Deep Sea and Florida
Lakes, FL
Bayou Chico, estuary, FL
10 Canaveral Port, FL
11 Ft. Pierce Port, FL
12 Jacksonville Port, FL
13 Manatee Port, FL
Miami Port & River, FL
15 Pensacola Port, FL
Cd<0.1-0.4), Cu(2-250),
Ni(<2-230), Pb(<0.2-80),
Zn(4-170)
Ni(<2-80), Pb(u<6-1480),
Cu(<5-190), Rb(2-210),
TH220-10300),
Cr(<20-170), Zr(30-1840)
As(5-8), Cd(0.2-4>,
Cr(5-100), Cu<4-100>,
Pb(8-500), Mn(30-J30),
Ag(0. 02-0.1), Zn(8-220)
As(1-9), Cd(0.01-0.2),
Cr(2-60), Cu(1-40),
Pb<4-40). Mn(30-190),
Hg(0.1-0.7), Ni(1-12>,
Ag(0.01-0.06), Zn(1-80)
As(0.5-10), Cd(0.03-1),
Cr(3-60), Cu(1-30),
Pb(0.6-60), Hg(0.1-1),
Mi(1-30), Ag(O.OM),
Zn(3-270)
As(0.1-5), Cd(0.2-0.8),
Cr(10-60), Cu(2-20).
Pb(4-10), Hg(0.1-0.3).
Ni(3-20), Ag(0.01-0.3),
Zn(5-80)
0), Cd(0.8-3),
Cr(6-80), Cu(5-310),
Pb(9-980), Mn<10-60),
Hg(0.2-4), NHO.4-10),
Ag(0.04-3), Zn(14-480)
As(0.1-10), Cd(0.2-0.5),
Cr(5-80), Cu(1-20),
Pb(9-40), Hg(0.04-0.8),
NU3-20), Ag(0.1-0.3),
Zn(10-100)
As reported in
Greig and
McGrath, 1977
Pilotte et al.,
1978
Ryan et a I.,
1985
Ryan et a I.,
1985
Ryan et at.,
1985
Ryan et al,
1985
Remedial actions considered Ryan et al.
in Florida legislature
1985;
Metro-Dade
County Planning
Department,
personal
comms., Miami
River Manage-
ment Committee
1984, 1985
Ryan et at.,
1985
vo
-------
TABLE 4. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION IV (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
16 Port St. Joe, fl
17 Tampa Port, FL
18 West Palm Beach, FL
19 HHlsborough River, FL
Contaminants
(cone, range)
As(12-20), Cd<0.1-0.8),
Cr(15-80), Cu(S-SO),
Pb<8-40), Hn(90-600),
Hg(0.1-1), NU4-ZO),
Ag<0.03-0.2), Zn(20-90)
As(0.1-10), Cd(0.6-4),
Cr<60-100), Cu(4-130),
Pb<9-180). Hg(0.12-1.2),
Ni<9-50), Ag(0.2-1),
2n(31-390)
As(0.6-2), Cd(0.04-0.9),
Cr(4-aO).
Pb(4-60),
Hi(1.4-2.4),
Ag<0.01-0.04), Zn(6-80)
Aliphatic hydro-
carbons<60-400), Arom.
hydrocarbons(15-90)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Urban stormuater
runoff(C)
Reference
Ryan et al.,
1985
Ryan et al,
1985
Ryan et a I.,
1985
Broun et al.,
1985
-------
TABLE 5. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION V
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
Region V
Cleveland Harbor. Cuyahoga Cd(70), Pb(560),
R., OH Zn(2390), Cr(540). CN(35)
Steel, chemical,
paint dis-
chargers
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
Lake Erie/Western
Lake Erie/Uesterm
Lake Erie/S. Western
Lake Erie/Central
Lake Erie/Central
' Lake Erie/Eastern
Lake Erie/Eastern
ChIorobenzenes(h i ghest
individual hexachloro
0.02), -chlordane(0.001-
0.004), DDT &
derivatives(highest indivi-
dual 0.017),
PCBs<0.1-0.7)
Cd(7), Cu(150), Pb(UO),
Zn(370)
PAHs(O.S-O.S)
Chlorobenzenes(highest
individual hexachloro
0.004), -chlordane
(0.0006-0.002), DDT &
derivatives(highest
individual 0.015),
PCBs(0.04-0.2)
Cd(3), Cu(100), P(100),
Zn(300)
Chlorobenzenes(highest
individual hexachloro
0.005), -chlordane
(0.0008-0.002). DDT &
derivatives(highest
individual 0.012),
PCBs(0.04-0.1)
Cd(4), Cu(100), Pb(100), Sewage
Zn(330)
Sewage
Coal-fired power
plant
Sewage
Oliver &
Bourbonniere,
1985
Nriagu et al.t
1979
Eadie et al.,
1979
Oliver &
Bourbonniere,
1985
Nriagu et al.,
1979
Oliver &
Bourbonniere,
1985
Nriagu et al.,
1979
>
ro
-------
TABLE 5. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLAGE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION V (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
nts
Reference
Lake Erie/Cuyahoga R., OH Organics, heavy metals Biota impacted,
aesthetics
Steel, chemical,
other indus-
trial, munici-
pal, urban non-
point, sewer
overflows
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Lake Erie/Maumee R., OH
Organics, heavy metals
Lake Erie/Black R., OH
Organics, PAHs, heavy
metals
-]„ Lake Erie/Ashtabula R. I
Harbor, OH
Chlorinated organics,
PCBs, heavy metals
Biota impacted,
aesthetics
Fish consumption
advisories, biota
impacted, aesthetics
7b Detroit River, Detroit, HI Hg(<1-90), Cd(<30),
NH10-230), Pb(22-900),
Cr(9-540), Cu(9-290),
Zn<35-1300). oil & grease
Fish consumption
advisories, biota
impacted
High Hg levels in
fish
Municipal and
industrial point
sources, urban
and rural non-
point, sewer
overflows
Steel industry,
other indus-
trial, munici-
pal, urban and
rural non-point,
sewer overflows,
waste disposal
sites
Industrial point
sources, urban
non-point
9 muni. wwater
trtment plants,
over 40 indust.
outfalls--Hg
cell operations,
steel mills,
chemical cos,
brass mills
Remedial action plan to be
drafted November 1986
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Sediments in Fields Brook
qualify for Superfund;
draft remedial action
plan September 1985
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board. 1985
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
T
K)
N>
-------
TABLE 5. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION V (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Source (status)
Remedial
Actions
Comments
Reference
7b Detroit R.
8 Shiawassee R., Howell,
Ml/South Branch
Organochlorine
contaminants in ducks:
PCBs (ave. 8-11),
hexachlorobenzene(1.7),
transnonachlor(0.33),
DDE(1.3)
PCBs
PCB levels in duck
and carp exceed FDA
guidelines
PCBs level in fish
exceeded FDA safe
level
Manufacture of
Al castings (D)
Cleanup completed
Smith et al.,
1985
Science
Applications
Int'l Corp.,
1985
Lake Erie/Clinton R., MI Oil and grease, heavy
metals
Lake Erie/Rouge R., HI Heavy metals, organics
Lake Erie/Raisin R., MI
10 Lake Huron/Southern
Lake Huron/Saginaw Bay
Organics, oil & grease,
• heavy metals
ChIorobenzenesC hi ghest
individual 1,2,4-
trichloro 0.007),
-chlordane(0.0002-
0.0008), DOT &
derivatives(highest
individual 0.02),
PCBs(O.OI-O.OS)
PCBs(1-1.3)
Lake Huron/Saginaw R., and Organics, heavy metals
Bay
Biota impacted
Fish consumption
advisories, biota
severely impacted,
aesthetics
Fish consumption
advisories, fish
contaminated with
PCBs, other organics;
biota impacted,
aesthetics
Fish consumption
advisories, biota
impacted
Muni, and ind.
point sources,
urban and rural
non-point, sewer
overflows
Muni, and ind.
point sources,
urban and rural
non-point, sewer
overflows
Muni, and ind.
point sources,
urban and rural
non-point, sewer
overflows
Water Quality
Landfills, road
pavements, atm.
deposition
Automotive
plant, municipal
point source,
rural non-point
sources
Water Quality
Great Lakes
Board, 1985
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Great Lakes
Board. 1985
Oliver &
Bourbonniere,
1985
Richardson et
al., 1983
Remedial action plan in 1985 Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
T
N>
W
-------
TABLE 5. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION V (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
12 Lake Huron
13 Georgian Bay
Contaminants
-------
TABLE 5. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION V (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Source (status)
Remedial
Actions
Comments
Reference
19 Lake Michigan/Southern
Basin
20 Lake Michigan/Traverse
Basin
21 Lake Michigan/Waukegan
Basin
22 Lake Hichigan/Manistique
R-, Ml
23 Lake Hichigan/Henominee
R., UI, MI
16 Lake Michigan/Fox R.,
Southern Green Bay, UI
24 Lake Hichigan/Sheboygan
Harbor
25 Lake Michigan/Milwaukee
Es.
26 Lake Michigan/Kalamazoo
R.. MI
27 Indiana Harbor, E.
Chicago, IN
Total DDT(0.03)
Total DDTC0.02)
Total DDT(0.02),
dietdrin(0.0008),
chlordane(O.OOI)
PCBs
As
PCBs, furans
PCBs
Heavy metals, PCBs, DOT,
PAHs
Fish consumption
advisories, biota
impacted
PCBs
Cd(230-7490),
Pb(250-1370), Cu(24-180),
Zn(620-10580),
Hi(40-170), Cr(10-170),
CNCND-0.7), oil and
grease(4-17X)
Fish consumption
advisories, biota
impacted
Fish consumption
advisories
Fish consumption
advisories, biota
impacted, beach
closings, aesthetics
Fish consumption
advisories
Agricultural
runoff
Agricultural
runoff
Agricultural
runoff
Municipal and
ind. point
sources (paper
mill CD])
Pulp and paper,
muni. wewater
discharges
PCB source (D)
Sewer overflows,
agricultural
runoff, runoff
from industrial
sites, waste
disposal sites
seepage
PCB sources (D)
Industrial (pet-
roleum, steel),
stormwater
runoff
Proposed studies to
identify sources
Remedial action plan under
development
In-place contamination not
to be addressed in remedial
action
Remedial action plans
developed by 1986;
Superfund site
Construction of large deep
tunnel to control sewer
overflows already started
Sediment cleanup
feasibility study being
conducted
Data from 1967; discharges
probably significantly
reduced since then
Frank et al.,
1981
Frank et al.,
1981
Frank et al.,
1981
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
K>
01
-------
TABLE 5. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION V (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
28 Michigan City Harbor, IN
25 Milwaukee Harbor, WI
Hg(0.02-2), As(350-9660).
Pb(10-240), Zn<20-10900),
oil and grease(0.02-2X)
Cu(1380), Pb<50), Cd(77)
' Uaukegan Harbor, Waukegan, PCBsCup to >300,000)
IL
21
Lake Hichigan/Uaukegan
Harbor, IL
PCBs(up to 50,000), heavy Fish consumption
metals advisories, biota
impacted
Sewage plant
Sewage plant,
foundries,
tanneries,
incinerator
Aluminum
die-casting
Outboard marine
corp. (D)
Arsenic concentrations very Johanson and
high Johnson. 1976
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
Science
Applications
Int'l Corp.,
1985
Superfund site
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
27 Lake Michigan/Grand
Calumet R., and Indiana
Harbor Canal. !N
29 Lake St. Clair
Heavy metals, PCBs
Chlorobenzenes(highest
ind. hexachloro 0.07),
-chlordane (0.0004), DDT
and derivatives(highest
ind. 0.002), PCBs(0.03)
Fish consumption
advisories, biota
impacted, aesthetics
Muni, and ind.
point sources,
waste disposal
sites, sewer
overflows
Remedial action plan
scheduled to be
completed by late 1986
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Oliver &
Bourbonniere,
1985
-------
TABLE 5. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION V (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
29 Lake St. Ctair
Lake Superior
30
Lake Superior
Lake Superior
31 Lake Superior/Keweenau
Peninsula
Contaminants
(cone, range)
PCBsCave. 0.004)
Hg<0.06-0.4), Pb(16-140),
Zn(50-200), Cu(30-260),
Ni(24-65). Co(10-30),
Cd(0.4-2.5), Cr(26-60),
Be(0.6-2), V(70-120),
As(5-8)
DDT(ND-0.02),
dieldrin(ND-0.002),
PCBs(ND-0.06)
PCBs(0.005-0.4),
DDE(0.001-0.2)
Cu<14-930)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Source (status)
Comments
Mine tailings
Reference
Pugsley et al.,
1985
Kemp et al.,
1978
Frank et al.,
1980
Eisenreich et
al., 1980, 1979
Kraft, 1979
32 Lake Superior/St. Louis, PCBs, PAHs
R., MM
33 Lake Superior/Torch Lake, Cu
HI
34 Lake Superior/Deer Lake, Hg
Carp Creek, Carp River
Fish consumption
advisories
Fish consumption
advisories, biota
impacted
Fish consumption
advisories
Unknown
Copper
concentration
oeprations
Unknown
Remedial action plans under
preparation for Superfund
cleanup
Current studies
Rish being restocked; no
remaining Hg source
Great Lakes
Water Qualty
Board, 1985
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Board, 1985
>
K>
-------
TABLE 6. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION VI
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
Region VI
Aransas Nat. Wildlife
Refuge, TX/Bay Areas
Adj. to Wildlife Refuge
Heavy metals • Hg;
As(> 40); Cd; Zn; PAHs;
oil and grease(>9000)
Petrochemical,
metal refining,
oil and gas
prod., pipeline
transp., oil
tanker traffic
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Service, 1986
Aransas NWR, TX/Burgentine Pesticides
' Lake
Agricultural
drainwater
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Service, 1986
Leguna Atascosa Nat.
Wildlife Refuge, TX
Corpus Christi Inner
Harbor, TX
AgH . chems.--incl. DDE, Elev. cones. DDE,
toxaphene, trace metals-- toxaphene in fish,
incl. Se birds
Hg(0.5-40), Cd(2-130),
Pb<40-670), As(3->25).
Cu<12-280), Zn(73-11000),
Cr(20-160), Ni(8-20), oil
and grease(O.IX)
Agricultural
drainwater
Corpus Christi Harbor, TX Cd(0.1-130), Zn(6-11000)
3 <
Corpus Christi Channel
Corpus Christi Ship
Channel
Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, TX/San Antonio
Bay to Aransas Bay
Sabine Neches Waterway,
TX/ Port Arthur turning
basins and junction area
Hg(18)
As(3-4), Cd<<0.5-7),
Cr(7-15). Cu(6-13).
Pb<9-18), Zn(50-165)
AsO-41), Cr(<5-9),
Pb(<5-6), Zn<<5-20)
1), Cd(1-2),
Cr<18-30), Cu(5-12),
Pb<22-32), Ni(22-28),
Zn(70-110)
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Service, 1986
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
As reported in
Greig and
HcGrath, 1977
As reported in
Bolton et al.,
1985
Information
from U.S. Corps
of Engineers,
Galveston, TX
Information
from U.S. Corps
of Engineers,
Galveston, TX
Information
from U.S. Corps
of Engineers,
Galveston, TX
N>
00
-------
TABLE 6. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION VI (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
5 Neches R., Beaumont, TX
6 Houston Ship Channel,
TX/Carpenter Bayou to
Greens Bayou
Lavaca Bay, TX
Petronila Creek, TX
Rio Grande, Presidio, TX
10
Double Mountain Fork of
Brazos River, Lubbock,
TX/North Fork
Pb(3000)
As(2-3), Cd(0.2-1),
Cr<22-43), Cu(25-60),
Pb(34-52), Hg(ND-O.S),
Ni(4-12), 2n(56-170),
PAHs(3-16), DDT and
derivatives(0.004-0.05)
Hg(0.5-11)
As, Ba(430-1900),
Cr(4-10), Zn(20-150), oil
and grease(90-10500)
Industrial
Fish kill
DDT and derivatives(up to DDT biomag in fish
0.03), PCB(0.04)
PCBs(ND-9)
11 Finfeather and Municipal As(<1-12000)
Country Club Lakes, Bryan,
TX
Mountain Creek Lake,
Dallas, TX
13 Trinity R.f TX
Hg(22)
As(1-5), Cd(1-20),
Cr(1-120)f Cu<5-160),
Pb(20-80), Hn(IO-SOO),
Hg(0.2-2.2), Mi(7-75),
Zn(10-240),
chtordane(<0.0003-0.06),
DDT(<0.0005-0.05),
dieldrin(0.0003-0.2),
endrin(0.0003-0.02),
heptachIor(0.0007-0.009),
Iindane(0.0002-0.0007),
PCBs{<0.00001), oil and
grease(400-8300)
Biota impacted. As
levels in fish
objectionable for
human consumption
Impact on biota
Petroleum
operations
brine water
Industrial
Municipal and
industrial
outfalls
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
Information
from U.S. Corps
of Engineers,
Galveston, TX
Information
from Texas
Department of
Water Resources
Information
from Texas
Department of
Water Resources
Information
from Texas
Department of
Water Resources
Information
from Texas
Department of
Water Resources
Information
from Texas
Department of
Water Resources
Information
from EPA Region
VI
Qasim et al.,
1980
-------
TABLE 6. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION VI (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
14 Crutcho t Soldier Creeks,
Oklahoma City, OK
DichlorobenzenesChighest
indiv. 0.3),
toluene(0.04),
PAHs(highest indiv. 0.8).
phthalate esters(0.05-7),
phenolics(up to 7),
chlorinated alip.(up to
0.07), As(2-4),
Cd(20-70), Cr(20-730),
Cu(7-30), Pb(13-35),
Ni(10-170), Se(1-2),
Ag(7-10), Zn(20-70),
Ba<240-890)
Air Force Base
Crocker, 1985 -
information
from EPA Region
VI
15 Mississippi R., Shell
Beach, LA/Gulf Outlet
Pent achIorophenoI(PCP),
probably other pollutants
Bioacc. of PCP in
oysters
Spill of hydro-
bromic acid,
ethylmercaptan,
lubrication oil,
PCP
Spill in 1980; spill cleanup Science
declared complete Applications
Int'l Corp.,
1985
16
Lake Pontchartrain, LA
Lake Pontchartrain, LA
PAHs, phthalate esters(up Metals found in biota Urban storm-
to 0.9), PCBs(up to 0.1),
Pb(up to 270). Cd(up to
4), Zn(up to 250), Cu(up
to 83), Hg(up to 0.5),
As(up to 1.5), Cr(up to
90), Ni(up to 45)
PAHs, DDT, PCBs, heavy
metals
uater, domestic
sewage, dis-
charges and
spills from
marine facili-
ties and vessels
Urban runoff,
spills
Schurtz &
Pe, 1984
St.
Overton et al.,
1986
T
CO
o
-------
TABLE 6. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION VI (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Source (status)
Remedial
Actions
Comments
Reference
17 Capitol Lake, Baton Rouge, PCBs(4-11)
LA
18-20 Oxbow Lakes/NEastern LA
21 Middle Rio Grande,
MH/Elephant Butte
Reservoir, Caballo
Reservoir
DDT and metabolites(O.I),
PCBs(0.03), toxaphene
As(3-10). Cd<1-4).
Cr(30-50), Cu<20-40),
Hg(1-10), Pb(30-60),
Mo(1-3), Se(0.04-0.3),
U(180-280), V(40-110),
Mn(230-1070)
Biota impacted;
bioacc. of chlorin-
ated hydrocarbons,
low diversity,
absence of repro-
duction, absence of
tertiary predator
species
Biomagnification in
biota
Hg, Pb, V in fish; Hg
levels in fish
warrant public health
concern
Industrial
point, spills,
urban stormwater
runoff
Schurtz &
Albritton, 1986
Niethammer et
al., 1984
Popp et a I.,
1983
>
-------
TABLE 7. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION VII
1
2
3
2
4
Water Body/location
Region VII
Cedar Lake, Cedar Rapids,
Iowa
Mississippi R., St. Louis,
HO
Suope Park Lakes, Kansas
City, HO
Romaine Creek, St. Louis,
HO
Squaw Creek National
Wildlife Refuge, Holt
County, HO
Contaminants
(cone, ranae)
ChlordaneCO. 0005-0. 5)
As(up to 100), Pb(up to
440)
ChlordaneCO. 5)
Dioxin(ND-0.04)
Pb(0. 1-940)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Fish tissue
levels exceeded
FDA action levels;
Fish tissue
levels exceeded
FDA action levels
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Urban Fishing
runoff restricted
Industrial
Urban Fishing
runoff restricted
Urban
runoff
Secondary lead
smel t i ng/recovery
Comments Reference
Information
from EPA Region
VII
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
Information
from EPA Region
VII
Information
from EPA Region
VII
Information
from EPA Region
VII
Gum Spring Creek, Wolf
Creek, Granby, MO
Heavy metals as below
6 -<
Shoal Creek, Joplin West, AK3400-5400), Sb(40-60),
HO-KS As(7-10), Ba(35-60),
Ca(18-90), Cr(9-16),
Cd(4-16), Cu(17-40),
Pb(150-4300), Ni(27-40),
Se(3-5), Ag(7-10),
Th(7-10), Sn(27-40),
VC12-30), 7n(3700-26000)
Center Creek,
Oronogo-Duenweg
Missouri R., Omaha, NE
Heavy metals as above
AK3000-7000), As(5-6).
Cd(0.1-0.2), Cr(5-10),
Cu(3-10), Ni(10-20),
Pb(4-10), Zn(20-40)
Mining
Mining
Mining
More info.on
#6 below
Information
from EPA Region
Vii and Missouri
Dept.Nat.Res.
Information
from EPA Region
VII
Information
from EPA Region
VII
Information
from EPA Region
VII
CO
N>
-------
TABLE- 7. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION VII
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Source (status)
Remedial
Actions
Comments
Reference
8 Spring R.f HO
9 Big River, Desloge, HO
D i ox i n
Pb< 1000 -49, 000),
Cd(11-30),Zn(700-1660),
Cu(60-130)
f Center Creek, Oronogo. HO Pb(73-7300)
Zn(750-16,000)
Fe(10, 000-28, 000)
Shoal Creek, Joplin, HO
Pb(66-4300)
Zn(750-26,000)
Fe( 6200 -14, 000)
Turkey Creek, Joplin, HO Pb (230)
Zn(2300)
10 Ooe Run Creek & Little St.
Francis River, Frederick-
town, HO
11 Tebo Creek, Henry County,
HO
12 North Claybank Creek,
Hacon County, HO
13 Blue River, Kansas
City, HO
Cu(3-6280)
Co(12-1744)
Mi(5-2815)
Pb(65-29,420)
Zn(36-2330)
Fe, sulfate
Fe, sulfate
PCBs
Discharge from
herbicide mfgr.
Mining
Mining
Hining
Mining
Hining
Coal Mining
Coal mining
Chemical dumping
Information from
from KS officials
Information from
HO Dept. of Natur.
Resources
Information from
HO Dept. of Natur.
Resources
Information from
HO Dept. of Natur
Resources
Information from
HO Dept. of Natur.
Resources
Information from
HO Dept. of Natur.
Resources
Information from
HO Dept. of Natur.
Resources
Information from
HO Dept. of Natur.
Resources
Information from
MO Dept. of Natur.
Resources
T
u>
u>
-------
TABLE 7. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION VII (continued)
Water Body/location
local surface waters,
St.Louis, HO
15 Pin Oak Creek, Johnson
County, MO
16 Mississippi River side
channel, Clinton, IA
17 Mississippi River side
channel, Davenport, IA
Cedar River, Charles
City, IA
Contaminants
(cone, range)
PCBs
PCBs
PAHs, aliphatic
hydrocarbons
Metals, organics
Hg compounds
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Chemical Dumping
Discharges and spill
from waste treatment
facility (D)
Comments
Leaching from landfill,
wastes originally from
a pharmaceutical company
Reference
Information from
MO Dept. of Natur.
Resources
Information from
MO Dept. of Natur.
Resources
Information from
IA Dept. of Hater
Air & Waste Mgmt.
Information from
IA Dept. of Water
Air & Waste Mgmt.
Information from
IA Dept. of Water
Air & Waste Mgmt.
10
-------
TABLE 8. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION VIII
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
Region VIII
Benton Lake National
Wildlife Refuge, NT
Se
1 Benton Lake Salinity, Se
National Wildlife Refuge,
MT
Concentrations exceed Agricultural
EPA drinking water drainwater
criterion
Salinity associated
with increased
botulism in waterfowl
Agricultural
drainage
US Fish &
Wildlife
Service, 1986
MT Dept. of Health
ft Environmental
Sciences, 1986
Freezeout Lake, MT
Salinity, Se
Agricultural
drainage
NT Dept. of Healt
& Environmental
Sciences, 1986
Lake Bowdoin
National Wildlife
Refuge, NT
Se
Agricultural
drainage
NT Dept. of HealtK
ft Environmental
Sciences, 1986
Silver Bow Creek I upper Hetals(Cu,
Clark Fork River, near Fe, Pb, Zn)
Butte, NT
Hilltown, Montana/Mill town As
Reservoir Sediments site
Occasional
fish kills
Alternative water
supply recommended
Mining, mill
tailings
Mining, milling,
smelting
Superfund site
Superfund site
MT Dept. of HealtK
ft Environmental
Sciences, 1986
U.S. EPA, 1984
Clark Fork River,
Frenchtown, NT
Spring Creek ft Prickly
Pear Creek, south of
Helena, MT
Surface waters near
Columbus, MT
Pulp wastes
Metals
Cr(VI)
Pulp ft paper
Vwill discharge
Mining
Chromium ore
processings wastes
Superfund site
Information from
EPA Region VIII
NT Dept. of HealtK
Environmental Ser
1986
Information from
EPA Region VIII
u>
in
-------
TABLE 8. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION VIII
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
9 Cheyenne River at
Lake Oahe, SO
9 Cheyenne River at Lake
Oahe, SD
Hg(0.03-0.62)
Hg(3-16)
As(2-65)
Se(ND-4)
Concentration of
contaminants,
especially Se, noted
in fish and aquatic
birds.
Mining, mill
tailings
Mining
(source of Hg)
Walter et al.,
1973
Information
from SO Dept. of
Water & Natural
Resources.
10
U
Whiteuood Creek, Belle
Fourche R., Cheyenne R.,
S. Dakota
Whiteuood Creek, Belle
Fourche R., Cheyenne R.,
S. Dakota
Whitewood Creek, Belle
Fourche R., Cheyenne R.,
S. Dakota
Laramie River,
Laramie, WY
Little Popo Agie R., WY
Little Popo Agie R., WY
As, Cu, Hi, Cr
As(up to 4), Hg(up to
1.1)
Hg(<0.1-4), Zn(40-230),
Cu(3-150), As(4-11800)
PCBs, DDT, DDE,
DDD, lindane,
dieldrin, endrin,
creosote
Total oil
residue(ND-2520)
Total hydro-
carbons(980-2520),
Zn(20-60)
Groundwater contam-
ination, biota
impacted
Hg in fish often
exceed FDA
guidelines; biota
impacted
Mining
Mining
Mining
Species diversity
reduced
Railroad tie treatment
plant waste discharge
(source of creosote)
Sediment microbial Effluent from
activity stimulated oil field
Effluent from oil
field
Information
from USGS,
Rapid City.
South Dakota,
U.S. EPA, 1971
U.S. EPA, 1973
WY Dept. of
Environmental
Quality, 1986
Heitkamp &
Johnson, 1984
Woodward &
Riley, 1983
12
u>
Jordan River & tributaries, PCBs(ND-0.32),
Salt Lake City, UT 2,4-D(ND-0.32),
DDD(HD-O.OOS),
DDE(ND-0.002),
dieldrin(ND-0.002),
methoxychlor(ND-O.OS),
Cu(7-120),Pb(10-480),
Zn(23-400),As(6-20),
Cr(2-20)
Urban runoff, WWTP
discharges
Information from
USGS, Salt Lake
City, UT
-------
TABLE 8. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION VIII
Water Body/location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
13
Upper Arkansas R.,
California Gulch, Yak
Tunnel, Leadville, CO
As, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, CN,
Pb. Hg, Hi. Se, Ag, Th,
Zn
Stream biota severely Acid mine
impacted, periodic drainage
fish kills, metals
toxicity in area
livestock, ground-
water potentially
contaminated
Superfund site--Yak
Tunnel/California Gulch
14
15
Missouri River, UiI listen, PCBs
NO
James River, MD/SD
pesticides, PCBs
Information
received from
USGS Colorado
District
Information from
Omaha district
Corps of
Engineers
Information from
Omaha district
Corps of
Engineers
Co
-------
TABLE 9. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION IX
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
Region IX
Kesterson Nat. Wildlife
Refuge, CA/Kesterson
Ponds
Se, other trace metals
Bioacc.; poor
reproduction,
deformities, deaths
in birds
Agri. drainuater
(being phased
out)
Plans being developed
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Service, 1986
Stillwater Wildlife Mgt.
Area. NV/Paiute Drain,
Carson River, Lahontan
Reservoir
San Francisco Harbor,
CA/Islais Creek
San Francisco Bay
3 •<
San Francisco Bay
Se, As, Hg
Hg(0.1-8). As(0.1-7),
Cd(0.4-500), Pb(3-100),
Cu{23-700), Cr(93-100),
Zn(60-200),
PCBs(0.1-0.3), oil and
grease(0.02-0.8%)
Pb(16-60), Zn(55-190),
Hg(0.2-1), Cd(1-3),
Cu(20-85)
Ag(0.1-12),
Cd(0.2-22), Cr(2-300),
Cu(4-100), Hg(0.1-16),
Ni(4-200), Pb(3-80),
Se(0.3-12), Zn(3-200)
Hg in fish one to
four times roaxi.
sugg. for human
consump.
Elevated metal
concentrations in
shellfish
Agricultural
drainwater(C)
Industries,
storm sewers
Municipal and
industrial point
sources, storm
drains, surface
runoff, atmos-
pheric fallout,
overboard dis-
charge, agricul-
tural drainage,
upland erosion,
waste disposal
sites
Municipal point
sources, other
sources
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Service 1986
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
Sustar &
Uakeman, 1977
Bradford &
Luoma, 1980
San Francisco Bay/
Richmond Inner Harbor,
CA
Oakland Harbor, CA
DDT. dieldrin
Pb(up to 1800), Cd(up to
33), oil and grease(up to
3.3%)
All test organisms
exposed to
sediment/water
mixture died.
Agricultural
runoff
Industrial
Information from
California Water
Resources Control
Board
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
I
w
CO
-------
TABLE 9. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION IX (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
San Francisco Bay/Beemar Cd(IOOO)
Point
f Pa Ios Verdes. CA
Pa Ios Verdes, CA
Pa Ios Verdes, CA
Hg(2-90)
Ag(2-30), Cd(1-70),
Cr(50-1500), Cu<10-940),
Hi(20-130), Pb(20-580),
Zn(50-2880)
DDT(0.2-280),
Cr(1000-13000)
Coastal Calif./depending PCBs(0.5-7)
on distance from Los
Angeles discharges
Various basins off
Southern California
Cr(8-360), Cu(1-300),
Ni(6-65). Pb<<0.1-360),
Zn(7-1S30)
California Coast/Southern Cu(up to 550), Cd Cr, Zn,
California Pb, Ag, Hi, Co
, Los Angeles Harbor, CA
5 San Diego Harbor, CA
San Diego Bay,
CA (north Bay)
San Diego Bay,
CA (24th St.
Marine Terminal)
Hg(10), Cu(1800). Hi(570)
As(135), Hg(9)
PCBs
Cu.Zn (25X)
Sewage outfall
Municipal sewage
treatment
Municipal sewage
treatment
Food processing
Sandblasting of
ships, marine
paints
Aircraft mfg.
plants, via
storm drains
(probable)
Spillage from
ore shipment
As reported in
Bolton et al.,
1985
Eganhouse et
al., 1978
Herchelman et
al., 1981
As reported in
Bolton et al.,
1985
Young et aI.,
1977, as
reported in
Boehm, 1984
As reported in
Greig and
McGrath, 1977
Galloway. 1978
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
Information from
California Water
Resources Control
Board
Information from
California Water
Resources Control
Board
u>
VO
-------
TABLE 9. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION IX (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
Blanco Drain, east of DOT,ODE,
Monterey, CA toxaphene
Agricultural
runoff
Information from
California Water
Resources Control
Board
Elkhorn Slough, north
of Monterey, CA
pesticides (toxaphene,
endosu(fan,dacthal,
dieldrin, DDT)
Agricultural
runoff
Information from
California Water
Resources Control
Board
Monterey Harbor, CA
(Cannery Row area)
9 Urban lakes, Los
Angeles metropolitan
area, CA
10 tos Angeles/
long Beach Harbor,
CA
11 Santa Monica Bay,
CA
Pb
Pb, sometimes PCBs
DDT,toxaphene,
other pesticides
PCBs, DDT, and
others
DDT
Health warnings
issued against
eating shellfish
Railroad (lead C
dumped as ballast
for tracks) (D)
Sewage outfalls
Highest concen-
tration of Pb
ever found in
marine environment
Information from
California Water
Resources Control
Board
Information from
California Water
Resources Control
Board
Information from
California Water
Resources Control
Board
Information from
California Water
Resources Control
Board
12 Newport Bay, CA
DDT, toxaphene,
PCBs, other
pesticides, metals
(Pb,Cd,Zn)
Non-point
sources
Information from
California Water
Resources Control
Board
-------
TABLE 10. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION X
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Source (status)
Remedial
Actions
Comments
Reference
Puget Sound/Seattle
Waterfront
Region X
Duwamish Waterway,
Seattle, WA
1 •<
Duwamish Waterway,
Seattle, WA
Duwamish Waterway,
Seattle, WA
Puget Sound/Duwamish
Waterway
Commencement Bay,
WA/Hylebos & Blair
Waterways
PAHs(0.3-50)
PCBs(0.2-6), Hg(0.1-70),
Cd(O-IO), Pb(35-340),
Cu(30-160), Zn(70-6700),
Cr(20-70), Ni(25-60), oil
& grease(O-ZX)
PCBs
PCBs(<0.01-140), As, Cd,
Cu, Mn, Hg, Ni, Zn
PAHs(2-30)
PCBs(0.4-7), chlorinated Ace. of contaminants
butadienes(2-80),
PAHs(0.2-110),
halogenated organics, As,
Pb
PCB spill (D),
Municipal and
industrial out-
falls (C),
stormuater run-
off (C), sani-
tary landfill/
garbage dump (C)
PCB oil coolant
spill (D)
PCB spill (D)
265 gallons PCB spill in
1974; PCB levels among
highest in country
As reported in
Bolton et al.,
1985
Johanson and
Johnson, 1976
260 gallons spill in 1974; Science
spread over 3 acres; spill Applications
cleanup complete Int'l Corp.,
1985
Cones, average post-dredge, Blazevich et
5/4/76 al., 1977
As reported in
Bolton et al.,
1985
in demersal and
benthic organisms,
tumors and lesions in
fish and inverte-
brates
Superfund site
Riley et al.,
1981
T
Puget Sound/Hylebos
Waterway
Commencement Bay
Nearshore/Tideflats,
Tacoma, WA
Commencement Bay
Nearshore/Tideflats,
Tacoma, WA
PAHs(O.I-SO)
As(1-30000),
Cu(10-36000),
Pb(2-10000), Hg(0.01-50),
numerous other metals,
PCBs(0.004-20), Alip.
hydrocarbons,
phenols(MD-IOO),
PAHs(ND-600),
dichlorobenzenes(MD-U),
dibenzofuran, phthalates
Ace. in biota,
abnormalities in
indigenous biota;
advisory on fish
consumption in 1982
Superfund site
As reported in
Bolton et al.,
1985
Phillips et
al., 1985
Numerous indus-
trial sources,
TSOFs, smelter,
runoff, spills
Superfund site; levels of Tera-Tech 1985,
contamination and biological see also Gahler
effects vary widely et al., 1982
-------
TABLE 10. DATA ON REVIEWED SITES WITH IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS IN EPA REGION X (CONTINUED)
Water Body/Location
Contaminants
(cone, range)
Perceived/
Noted Impacts
Remedial
Source (status) Actions
Comments
Reference
2 •<
' Puget Sound/CoMMnceiaent
Waterways
Puget Sound/Commencement
Bay
Everett Harbor. UA/East
Waterway
Puget Sound, UA/Colvos
Passage and Southern Puget
Sound
Puget Sound/West Point
Alaska Maritime Nat.
Wildlife Refuge,
AK/Woman's Bay
Alaska Maritime Nat.
Wildlife Refuge.
AK/Amchitka and Atka
Islands
PAHs(0.3-50)
AK470)
Cr(40-80), NK20-50),
Cu(30-100), Zn(UO-UO),
Pb(20-70), As(3-10),
Hg(0.1-0.4). Cd(1-1.1).
Ag(0.1-0.2). Be(0.2-0.4),
TK1.6-2.4),
PAHSCO.2-16), PCBS
Co(6-20). V(30-110),
Cr<70-150), Ni<20-50),
Cu(IO-SO), Zn(30-130),
As(3-30). Se(<0.5-3),
Pb(IO-SO), PAHs(0.03-2),
PCBs(0.03)
PAHs(50)
Biomag. of PCBs in
fish
Biological desert
Runoff, seuage,
industrial point
sources, auto
exhaust, smelter
Solid waste
disposal(C);
seafood
processor(D);
ship repair(D)
Military
installations
(D)
Follow-up to define type
and source of contaminants
As reported in
Bolton et al.,
1985
As reported in
Bolton et al.,
1985
Anderson I
Crecelius, 1985
Riley et al.,
1983
As reported in
Bolton et al.,
1985
u.s. Msn and
Wildlife
Service, 1986
Plans are underway; sampling U.S. Fish and
conducted in 1985 Wildlife
Service 1986
>
10
-------
APPENDIX B
3F LITERATURE ON IN-PLACE POLLUTANTS
Table of Contents
Page
I. Introduction B-l
II. General Reports, Literature Reviews, B-3
and Nationwide Surveys
III. Location- and Subject-Specific Reports B-5
IV. Index to Reports and Articles by Location B-25
I. INTRODUCTION
This appendix contains a complete listing of the literature obtained for
this study. Included are reports and articles collected by means of a
literature search supplemented by inquiries to environmental agencies,
as described in Section III. (References for literature cited in the body
of this report are listed in Section VI. Some of the citations listed in
Section VI also appear in this bibliography.) The bibliography is divided
into two parts: The first section includes literature reviews, nationwide
surveys dealing with in-place pollutants, and a few general works
describing in-place pollutants. The second section includes reports and
articles dealing with in-place pollutants at particular locations, as well
as works dealing in general with techniques for cleaning up contaminated
sediments or with the ecological effects of in-place pollutants.
The second section of the bibliography is coded to indicate the subject
areas touched upon by each report or article. Each citation is marked
with a set of code letters and numbers indicating:
• What EPA region it refers to (Roman numerals I through X)
• What type of water body it discusses:
M - Marine
E - Estuarine
R - River/Stream
L — Lake/Reservoir
• What types of contaminants were analyzed for or detected:
1 - Metals
2 - PAHs
3 - Petroleum Hydrocarbons
4 - PCBs
5 - Pesticides
6 - Radionuclides
7 - Bacteria/Viruses
0 - Other
B-l
-------
In addition, code letters are added for any of the following specific
subjects that are discussed:
S Sources or suspected sources of contaminants (e.g., specific
industries, agricultural runoff, chemical or oil spills, atmos-
pheric deposition).
R Remedial actions considered or undertaken.
E Ecological/biological effects noted (e.g., disease, mortality,
community structure changes, pollutant uptake/bioaccumulation/bio-
magnification).
J Judgements or methods of judging what constitutes a sediment
contamination "problem"; sediment quality criteria or classi-
fication systems.
P "Problem Area" -- This code was used when an article discussed a
site that we felt should be included in our Appendix A "inventory"
of sediment contamination problem areas.
For example, the article "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sediments
and Associated Benthos in Lake Erie", which discusses the results of
sampling near a large coal fired power plant, would be coded as follows:
V, W-L, C-2, S, E, P (where W-refers to type of water body and C-refers
to type of contaminants).
Following the bibliography is an index to the reports and articles by
location, organized according to EPA regions.
B-2
-------
II. GENERAL REPORTS, LITERATURE REVIEWS, AND NATIONWIDE SURVEYS
Alderton, D.H.M. (1985), "Sediments," in: Historical Monitoring.
Monitoring and Assessment Research Centre (MARC Report #31), University
of London.
Bolton, H.S., R.J. Breteler, B.W. Vigon, J.A. Scanlon, and S.L. Clark
(May, 1985), "National Perspective on Sediment Quality," U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Criteria and Standards Division, Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC, EPA Contract No.
68-01-6986.
Forstner, U. and G.T.W. Wittmann (1983), Metal Pollution in the Aquatic
Environment. Second Revised Edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Johanson, E.E. and J.C. Johnson (May, 1976), "Identifying and Prioritiz-
ing Locations for the Removal of In-Place Pollutants," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Planning and Standards, Washington,
DC, Contract No. 68-01-2920.
Judy, R.D., P.N. Seeley, T.M. Murray, S.C. Svirsky, M.R. Whitworth, and
L.S. Ischinger (June, 1984), "1982 National Fisheries Survey Volume I
Technical Report: Initial Findings," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, FWS/OBS-84/06.
Khalid, R.A., R.P. Gambrell, B.A. Taylor, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. (May,
1983), "Literature Survey of Reservoir Contaminant Problems," Environ-
mental & Water Quality Operational Studies, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Technical Report E-83-13
Lathrop, Joyce E. , and W.S. Davis (1986), "Aquatic Sediments," J. Water
Pollution Control Fed.. 58:684-699.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (1987),
"National Status and Trends Program: Progress Report and Preliminary
Assessment of Findings of the Benthic Surveillance Project-1984," NOAA,
Rockville, MD.
Olsen, L.A. (April, 1984), "Effects of Contaminated Sediment on Fish and
Wildlife: Review and Annotated Bibliography," U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-82/66.
Patin, T.R., ed. (July, 1984), "Management of Bottom Sediments Containing
Toxic Substances," Proceedings of the 8th U.S./Japan Experts Meeting, 8 -
10 November, 1982, Tokyo, Japan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NTIS
AD-A149 291.
Patin, T.R., ed. (March, 1985), "Management of Bottom Sediments Contain-
ing Toxic Substances," Proceedings of the 9th U.S./Japan Experts Meeting,
17 - 19 October, 1983, Jacksonville, Florida, U.S. Army Corps of Engin-
eers, NTIS AD-A157 863.
B-3
-------
Patin, T.R., Ed., (October, 1985), "Management of Bottom Sediments
Containing Toxic Substances," Proceedings of the 10th U.S./Japan Experts
Meeting, 30-31 October 1984, Kyoto, Japan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Water Resources Support Center, DT1C AD-A163 709.
Seelye, J.G. and M.J. Mac (February, 1984), "Bioaccumulation of Toxic
Substances Associated with Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal: A
Literature Review," Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL, EPA-905/3-84-005.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resources Support Center (March
1982), "Management of Bottom Sediments Containing Toxic Substances,"
Proceedings of the 6th U.S./Japan Experts Meeting, 16-18 February 1981,
Tokyo, Japan, DTIC AD-A116 778.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (August, 1985), "National Water Quality Inventory, EPA
440/4-85-029.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (April, 1986), "Preliminary Survey of
Contaminant Issues of Concern on National Wildlife Refuges".
Vinopal, J. Howard, and J.F. Suprock, "Pesticide Monitoring Special
Study, No. 44-0100-77d, Dept. of the Army Pesticide Monitoring Program,
Interim Evaluation of Soil and Sediment Samples Collected in CY 1975 from
Fourteen Installations, January - December 1976," U.S. Army Environmental
Hygiene Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.
B-4
-------
III. LOCATION- AND SUBJECT-SPECIFIC REPORTS
X,W-M,C-1,2,4,P Anderson, J.W. and E.A. Crecelius (March, 1985), "Analysis
of Sediments and Soils for Chemical Contamination for the
Design of U.S. Navy Homeport Facility at East Waterway of
Everett Harbor, Washington," Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle District, under a Related Services
Agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract
DE-AC06-76RLO 1830.Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,
Washington, PNL-5383.
I,W-R,C-1,S,E Atkinson, D.S., N.M. Ram and ^ S . Switzenbaum (March, 1985),
"Evaluation of the Microtox Analyzer for Assessment of
Sediment Toxicity," University of Massachusetts, Env. Eng.
Report No. 86-85-3, Prepared for Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering, Division of Water Pollu-
tion Control.
III,W-R,C-5,S,R,E,P Battelle Memorial Institute (June, 1978), "The Feasibility
of Mitigating Kepone Contamination in the James River
Basin," Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.
I/II,W-M/E,C-1 Bender, M.L. (August, 1981), "Nearshore Marine Trace Metal
Geochemistry," U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory,
Narragansett, RI, EPA 600/3-81-050. NTIS PB 82-109372.
I,W-L,C-1,S Bertine, K.K. andM.F. Mendeck (1978), "Industrialization of
New Haven, Conn., as Recorded in Reservoir Sediments,"
Environ. Sci. Technol.. 12:201-207.
III,W-M,C-0,E,P Bieri, R.H., P.DeFur, R.J. Huggett, W. Maclntyre, P. Shou,
C.L. Smith, and C.W. Su (April, 1983), "Organic Compounds in
Surface Sediments and Oyster Tissues from the Chesapeake
Bay," U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD
EPA-600/3-83-018a. NTIS PB 83-187443.
V,W-R/L,C-1,4,R,P Blasland & Bouck Engineers, P.C. (November, 1985, Revised
January and March, 1986), "Sheboygan River and Harbor
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan." EPA
Contract No. 68-61-6939.
X,W-E,C-4,S,R>P Blazevich, J.N., A.R. Gahler, G.J. Vasconcelos, R.H. Rieck,
and S.V.W. Pope (August, 1977), "Monitoring of Trace
Constituents During PCB Recovery Dredging Operations
Duwamish Waterway," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region X, Seattle, WA, EPA 910/9-77-039.
B-5
-------
I/II/III,W-M,C-2,4,0 Boehm, P. (January, 1983), "Chemical Contaminants in North-
east United States Marine Sediments," National Ocean Ser-
vice, Rockville, MD, NOAA Technical Report NOS99. NTIS PB
83-192237.
I,W-M,C-3,4,S,E Boehm, P.O. and J.G. Quinn (1978), "Benthic Hydrocarbons of
Rhode Island Sound," Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science.
6:471-494.
IIIW-E/R,C-4,S,P Bopp, R.F., H.J. Simpson, C.R. Olsen, and N. Kostyk (1981),
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Sediments of the Tidal Hudson
River, New York," Environ. Sci. & Techno1.. 15:210-216.
I,W-M,C-1,S Bothner, M.H. , R.'R. Rendigs, E.Y. Campbell, M.W. Doughton,
C.M. Parmenter, C.H. O'Dell, G.P. DeLisio, R.G. Johnson,
J.R. Gillison, and N. Rait (February, 1985), "The Georges
Bank Monitoring Program: Analysis of Trace Metals in Bottom
Sediments During the Third Year of Monitoring", Minerals
Management Service, Vienna, Virginia, MMS/AT/ES-85/04. NTIS
PB 85-231967.
IX,W-E,C-lfS,E,P Bradford, W.L. and S.N. Luoma (1980), "Some Perspectives on
Heay Metal Concentrations in Shellfish and Sediment in San
Francisco Bay, California," in Contaminants and Sediments.
Vol. 2, R.A. Baker (ed.), Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
E,R Brannon, James M. , R.E. Hoeppel, T.C. Sturgis, I. Smith,
Jr., and D. Gunnison (November, 1985), "Effectiveness of
Capping in Isolating Contaminated Dredged Material from
Biota and the Overlying Water," (Long-Term Effects of
Dredging Operations Program), Technical Report D-85-10, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS,
DTIC AD-A165 251.
VI,W-M,C-2,0 Brooks, J.M., E.L. Estes, D.A. Wiesenburg, C.R. Schwab and
H.A. Abdel-Reheim (1980), "Investigations of Surficial
Sdiments, Suspended Particulates and Volatile Hydrocarbons
at Buccaneer Gas and Oil Field." Vol. L, in: Jackson, W.B.
and E.P. Wilkens (eds.) Environmental Assessment of Bucca-
neer Gas and Oil Field in the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico,
1975-1980. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-47. NTIS PB
81-157778
II,W-R,C-4,P Brown, M.P. et al. (1985), "Polychlorinated biphenyls in the
Hudson River, "Environ. Sci. Technol.. 19:656-661.
IV,W-R/M,C-3,S,P Brown, R.C., R.H. Pierce, andS.A. Rice (1985), "Hydrocarbon
Contamination in Sediments from Urban Stormwater Runoff,"
Marine Pollution Bulletin. 16:236-240.
I,W-M/E,C-3,S,E,P Burns, K.A. and J.M. Teal (1979), "The West Falmouth Oil
Spill: Hydrocarbons in the Salt March Ecosystem," Estuarine
and Coastal Marine Science, 8:349-360.
B-6
-------
IX.W-R/L/M
V,W-L,C-4,S,R,E,P
V,W-R,C-1,4,0,S,R,E,P
V,W-L,C-1,S,P
III,W-E,C-5,S,P
V,W-R,L,C-0
X,W-M,C-4,R,E
VI,W-R/L/E,C-4,5,S,E
E,R
W-M/E,C-2,3,0,E
California Water Resources Control Board (1984), "Toxic
Substances Monitoring Program 1984," State of California,
Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Monitoring
Report #86-4-WQ.
CH2M Hill and Ecology & Environment (July, 1983), "Source
Control Feasibility Study, OMC Hazardous Waste Site,
Waukegan, Illinois," U.S. EPA Hazardous Site Control Div. ,
EPA 13-5M28.0. [Note: See also appended record of deci-
sion, technical documentation, and public comments.]
CH2M Hill and Ecology & Environment (July, 1986),
"Feasibility Study: Fields Brook Site, Sediment Operable
Unit, Ashtabula, Ohio," Public Comment Draft, U.S. EPA
Hazardous Site Control Div., EPA 19.5L46.0.
Christensen, E.R. and N.K. Chien (1979), "INAA and AAS
Determination of Arsenic, Mercury, and Other Elements in
Dated Green Bay Sediments," American Nuclear Society.
Transactions. 32:178-179.
Cutshall, N.H., I.L. Larsen, and M.M. Nichols (1981),
"Man-Made Radionuclides Confirm Rapid Burial of Kepone in
James River Sediments," Science. 213:440-442.
Davenport, I.E. and M.H. Kelly (December, 1984), "Water
Resource Data and Preliminary Trend Analysis for the High-
land Silver Lake Monitoring and Evaluation Project," Madison
County, Illinois," Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
Springfield, Illinois, IEPA/WPC/84-030. NTIS PB 85-163665.
Dexter, R.N., D.E. Anderson, and E.A. Quinlan (September,
1984), "Long-Term Impacts Induced by Disposal of Contaminat-
ed River Sediments in Elliott Bay, Seattle, Washington,"
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS, Technical Report D-84-4. NTIS AD-A148815.
Dick, M. (January, 1982), "Pesticide and PCB Concentrations
in Texas-Water, Sediment, and Fish Tissue," Texas Department
of Water Resources, Austin, TX, Report 264.
Dillon, T. M. , and A.B. Gibson (June, 1986), "Bioassessment
Methodologies for the Regulatory Testing of Freshwater
Dredged Material," Proceedings of a Workshop, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS,
Miscellaneous Paper EL-86-6.
DiSalvo, L.H., H.E. Guard, N.D. Hirsch, and J. Ng (November,
1977) , "Assessment and Significance of Sediment-Associated
Oil and Grease in Aquatic Environments," U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Technical
Report D-77-26. NTIS AD A050044.
B-7
-------
W-R/L,C-5,S Duda, A.M. (1985), "Environmental and Economic Damage Caused
by Sediment from Agricultural Nonpoint Sources," Water
Resources Bulletin. 21:225-234.
I,W-R,C-1,S,E,P Duval, R.L., C.R. Ferris, R.B. Owen, Jr., K.E. Gibbs, L.K.
Fink, Jr., and F.E. Woodard (1980), "Effects of a Cattleskin
Tannery on Stream Quality and Benthic Macroinvertebrates in
Central Maine," Bull. Environm. Contam. Toxicol..
25:269-276.
V,W-L,C-2,S,E,P Eadie, B.J., W. Faust, U.S. Gardner, arid T. Nalepa (1982),
"Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sediments and Associat-
ed Benthos in Lake Erie," Chemosphere. 11:185-191.
X,W-M,C-1,E Ecological Analysts, Inc., Concord, CA, (September, 1981) "A
Technical Evaluation of Potential Environmental Impacts of
Proposed Ocean Disposal of Dredged Material at Winchester
Bay, Oregon," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland Dis-
trict, Portland, OR.
IX,W-M,C-1,S,P Eganhouse, R.P., D.R. Young, and J.N. Johnson (1978),
"Geochemistry of Mercury in Palos Verdes Sediments,"
Environ. Sci. &Technol.. 12:1151-1157.
IX,W-M,C-3,S Eganhouse, R.P., D.L. Blumfield, andl.R. Kaplan, "Petroleum
Hydrocarbons in Stormwater Runoff and Municipal Wastes:
Input to Coastal Waters and Fate in Marine Sediments," Vllth
International Symposium "Chemistry of the Mediterranean," --
Transport and Reactivity of Pollutants in the Estuary, May
6-12, 1982, Primosten, Croatia, Yugoslavia.
CONF-8205127--1. NTIS DE 83 001318.
V,W-L,C-4,S,P Eisenreich, S.J. and G.J. Hollod (1979), "Accumulation of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Surficial Lake Superior
Sediments. Atmospheric Deposition," Environ. Sci. &
Technol.. 13:569-573.
V,W-L,C-4,S,P Eisenreich, S.J., G.J. Hollod, and T.C. Johnson (1980),
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Other Microcontaminant-
Sediment Interactions in Lake Superior," in Contaminants and
Sediments. Vol. 1, R.A. Baker (ed.), Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
III,W-E,C-7,S,P Erkenbrecher, C.W. Jr. (June, 1980), "Sediment Bacteria as a
Water Quality Indicator in the Lynnhaveri Estuary," Virginia
Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA, Bulletin 126.
NTIS PB 80-192354.
II,W-M,C-3,S Farrington, J.W. and B.W. Tripp (1977), "Hydrocarbons in
Western North Atlantic Surface Sediments," Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta. 41:1627-1641.
B-8
-------
IV,W-E,C-1,J Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (March,
1986), "Guide for Interpreting Reported Metal Concentrations
in Estuarine Sediments," Draft Version.
IV,W-E,C-1,J Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (February,
1986), "Geochemical and Statistical Bases for Assessing
Metals Pollution in Estuarine Sediments," Draft Version.
R Francingues, N.R. , Jr., M.R. Palermo, C.R. Lee, and R.K.
Peddicord (August, 1985), "Management Strategy for Disposal
of Dredged Material: Contaminant Testing and Controls,"
Dredging Operations Technical Support Program, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Misc.
Paper D-85-1.
II,W-L,C-4,5,S,P Frank, R. , R.L. Thomas, M. Holdrinet, A.L.W. Kemp and H.E.
Brown (1979), "Organochlorine Insecticides and PCS in
Surficial Sediments (1968) and Sediment Cores (1976) from
Lake Ontario, J. Great Lakes Res.. 5:18-27.
V,W-L,C-4,5,P Frank, R., R.L. Thomas, H.E. Braun, J. Rasper, and R. Dawson
(1980), "Organochlorine Insecticides and PCB in the
Surifical Sediments of Lake Superior (1973)," J. Great Lakes
Res.. 6:113-120.
V,W-L,C-4,5,S,P Frank, R. , R.L. Thomas, H.E. Braun, D.L. Gross, and T.T.
Davies (1981), "Organochlorine Insecticides and PCB in
Surficial Sediments of Lake Michigan (1975)," J. Great Lakes
, 7:42-50.
X,W-R,C-1,5,0 Fuhrer, G.J. (1984), "Chemical Analyses of Elutriates,
Native Water, and Bottom Material from the Chetco, Rogue,
and Columbia Rivers in Western Oregon," U.S. Geological
Survey Open File Report 84-133.
X,W-R/E,C-1,4 Fuhrer, G.J. and F.A. Rinella (1983), "Analyses of
Elutriates, Native Water, and Bottom Material in Selected
Rivers and Estuaries in Western Oregon and Washington," U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 82-922.
X,W-M,C-1,4,5,0,E,P Gahler, A.R., J.M. Cummins, J.N. Blazevich, R.H. Rieck, R.L.
Arp, C.E. Gangmark, S.V.W. Pope, and S. Filip (December,
1982), "Chemical Contaminants in Edible, Non-Salmonid Fish
and Crabs from Commencement Bay, Washington," Environmental
Services Division Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington, EPA-910/9-82-093.
NTIS PB 83-172163.
IX,W-M,C-1,S,P Galloway, J.N. (1979), "Alteration of Trace Metal
Geochemical Cycles Due to the Marine Discharge of
Wastewater," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 43:207-218.
B-9
-------
II,W-L,C-1,S Galloway, J.N. andG.E. Likens (1979), "Atmospheric Enhance-
ment of Metal Deposition in Adirondack Lake Sediments,"
Limnol. Oceanogr.. 24:427-433,.
VI.W-L.C-1 Garcia, J.D. and D.E. Kidd (1979), "Mercury Levels in Water
and Sediment of Elephant Butte Reservoir, New Mexico," Bull.
Environm. Contam. Toxicol.. 21:624-630.
IV,W-E,C-1,6,S,P Goldberg, E.D., J.J. Griffin, V. Hodge, and M. Koide (1979),
"Pollution History of the Savannah River Estuary," Environ.
Sci. & Technol.. 13:588-594.
VI,W-E/R,C-7,S,P Goyal, Sagar M., C.P. GerbaandJ.L. Melnick (1977), "Occur-
rence and Distribution of Bacterial Indicators and Pathogens
in Canal Communities Along the Texas Coast," Applied and
Environmental Microbiology. 34:139-149.
II/V,W-L,J Great Lakes Water Quality Board (January, 1982), "Guidelines
and Register for the Evaluation of Great Lakes Dredging
Projects," Report of the Dredging Subcommittee to the Water
Quality Programs Committee of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Board, International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario.
II,V,W-L,R,P Great Lakes Water Quality Board (June, 1985), "1985 Report
on Great Lakes Water Quality," Report to the International
Joint Commission, Kingston, Ontario.
II,W-E,C-1,P Greig, R.A. and R.A. McGrath (1977), "Trace Metals in
Sediments of Raritan Bay," Marine Pollution Bulletin.
8:188-192.
II.W-M.C-1 Greig, R.A., R.N. Reids, and D.R. Wenzloff (1977), "Trace
Metal Concentrations in Sediments from Long Island Sound,"
Marine Pollution Bulletin. 8:183-188.
V,W-R,C-7,S,P Grimes, D.J. (1980), "Bacteriological Water Quality Effects
of Hydraulically Dredging Contaminated Upper Mississippi
River Bottom Sediment," Applied and Environmental Microbiol-
ogy, 39:782-789.
IV/V/VI/VII,W-L,C-1,0 Gunkel, R.C., Jr., R.F. Gaugush, R.H. Kennedy, G.E. Saul,
J.H. Carroll, andJ.E. Gauthey (February, 1984), "A Compara-
tive Study of Sediment Quality in Four Reservoirs," U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi, Technical Report E-84-2. NTIS AD-A140750.
X,W-E,C-1,4,5,P Hancock, D.R., P.O. Nelson, C.K. Sollitt, and K. J.
Williamson (December, 1984), "Coos Bay Offshore Disposal
Site Investigation," Interim Report Phase I, February, 1979
- March, 1980, Portland District Corps of Engineers, Port-
land, OR, Contract #DACW57-79-C00040
B-10
-------
X,W-R,C-6,S
VIII/IX,W-L,C-2,S
II,W-L,C-1,2,6,E
VIII,W-L,C-1,2,S
VIII,W-R,C-3,S,E,P
IX,W-M,C-1,S,P
II,W-R/E,C-4,S,E,R,P
III/IV,W-R,C-1,S,E,P
IX,W-M,C-6,S
II,W-R/E,C-1,2,4,5,0,P
Harrison, G. (1984), "A Survey of the Trace-Metal Content of
Corbicula fluminea and Associated Sediments in the Tidal
Potomac River," U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
#84-558.
Haushild, W.L. (1980), "Transport, Accumulation and Distri-
bution Interrelationships Between Hanford-Reactors'
Radionuclides and Columbia River Sediment," in Contaminants
and Sediments. Vol 1, R.A. Baker (ed.), Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Heit, M. (1979), "Concentrations of Benzo(a)Pyrene in the
Sediments of Six Western United States Lakes," Water. Air.
and Soil Pollution. 11:447-454.
Heit, M. , C.S. Klusek, and K.M. Miller (1980), "Trace
Element, Radionuclide, and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Concentrations in Unionidae Mussels from Northern Lake
George," Environ. Sci. & Technol.. 14:465-468.
Heit, M., C.S. Klusek, and H.L. Volchok (1980), "Time
History of Trace Elements in Sediments from Standley Lake,
Colorado," Environ. International. 4:229-237.
Heitkamp, M.A. and B.T. Johnson (1984), "Impact of an Oil
Field Effluent on Microbial Activities in a Wyoming River,"
Can. J. Microbiol.. 30:786-792.
Hershelman, G.P., H.A. Schafer, T..K. Jan, and D.R. Young
(1981), "Metals in Marine Sediments Near a Large California
Municipal Outfall," Marine Pollution Bulletin. 12:131-134.
Hetling, L., E. Horn and J. Tofflemire (April, 1978),
"Summary of Hudson River PCB Study Results," New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Technical Paper
#51.
Hildebrand, S.G., R.H. Strand, and J.W. Huckabee (1980),
"Mercury Accumulation in Fish and Invertebrates of the North
Fork Holston River, Virginia and Tennessee," J. Environ.
Oual.. 9:393-400.
Hisamatsu, S. and M. Sakanoue (1978), "Determination of
Transuranium Elements in a So-Called "Bikini Ash" Sample and
in Marine Sediment Samples Collected Near Bikini Atoll,"
Health Phvsics. 35:301-307.
Hochreiter, J. (June, 1982), "Chemical-Quality Reconnais-
sance of the Water and Surficial Bed Material in the Dela-
ware River Estuary and Adjacent New Jersey Tributaries,
1980-81," U.S. Geological Survey, Trenton, NJ,
Water-Resources Investigations 82-36. NTIS PB83 151852.
B-ll
-------
I,W-M,C-3,S,P Hoffman, E.J. and J.G. Quinn (1979), "Gas Chromatographic
Analyses of Argo Merchant Oil and Sediment Hydrocarbons at
the Wreck Site," Marine Pollution Bulletin. 10:20-24.
I,W-M,C-3,S,E,P Hoffman, E.J. and J.G. Quinn (1980), "The Argo Merchant Oil
Spill and the Sediments of Nantucket: Shoals: Research
Litigation and Legislation," in Contaminants and Sediments.
Vol. 1, R.A. Baker (ed.), Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
III,W-R,C-1,S Hoffman, D. and R. Biggs (September, 1983), "Trace Metals in
Sediments of the St. Jones and Murderkill Rivers, Delaware,"
OWP Project A-055-DEL, Agreement No. 14-34-0001-2108. NTIS
PB 84-111897.
II,W-L,C-5,S,P Holdrinet, M.V.H., R. Frank, R.L. Thomas and L.J. Hetling
(1978), "Mirex in the Sediments of Lake Ontario," J. Great
Lakes Res.. 4:69-74.
X,W-R/L,C-1,2,5,0 Hopkins, B.S., O.K. Clark, M. Schlender, and M. Stinson
(November, 1985), "Basic Water Monitoring Program Fish
Tissue and Sediment Sampling for 1984," Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
III,W-E,C-5,S,E,P Huggett, R.J., M.M. Nichols, andM.E. Bender (1980), "Kepone
Contamination of the James River Estuary," in Contaminants
and Sediments. Vol. 1, R.A. Baker (ed.), Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
I,W-M,C-3,S Hurtt, A.C. and J.G. Quinn (1979), "Distribution of Hydro-
carbons in Narragansett Bay Sediment Cores," Environ. Sci. &
Technol.. 13:829-836.
I,W-M,C-2,S,P Johnson, A.C., P.P. Larsen, D.F. Gadbois, and A.W. Humason
(1985), "The Distribution of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocar-
bons in the Surficial Sediments of Penobscot Bay (Maine,
USA) in Relation to Possible Sources and to Other Sites
Worldwide," Marine Environmental Research. 15:1-16.
X,W-M-C-A,2,4,5,0,J JRB Associates (April, 1984), "Initial Evaluation of
Alternatives for Development of Sediment Related Criteria
for Toxic Contaminants in Marine Waters (Puget Sound).
Phase II: Development and Testing of the Sediment-Water
Equilibrium Partitioning Approach," U.S. EPA, Washington,
D.C., EPA 910/9-82-117.
I,W-R/M,C-0,S,P Jungclaus, G.A., V. Lopez-Avila, and R.A. Kites (1978),
"Organic Compounds in an Industrial Wastewater: A Case
Study of Their Environmental Impact," Environ. Sci. &
Technol. 12:88-96.
B-12
-------
V,W-L,C-1,4,5,S,J Kelly, M.H. and R.L. Kite (1981), "Chemical Analysis of
Surficial Sediments from 63 Illinois Lakes, Summer, 1979,"
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Division of
Water Pollution Control, Springfield, Illinois. NTIS PB
84-180876.
V,W-R,C-1,4,5,S,J Kelly, M.H. and R.L. Kite (January, 1984), "Evaluation of
Illinois Stream Sediment Data: 1974 - 1980," Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Water Pollution
Control, Springfield, Illinois, IEPA/WPC/84-004. NTIS PB
84-161785.
V,W-L,C-1,S,P Kemp, A.L.W., J.D.H. Williams, R.L. Thomas, and M.L. Gregory
(1978), "Impact of Man's Activities on the Chemical Composi-
tion of the Sediments of Lakes Superior and Huron," Water....
Air, and Soil Pollution. 10:381-402.
V,W-R/L,C-1,2,4,5,0,S,P Kizlauskas, A.G. (October, 1982), "Report on an Investiga-
tion of Sediment Contamination, The Milwaukee Estuary,
Wisconsin, Sampled July 29-31, 1980," Great Lakes National
Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
V, Chicago, IL, EPA-905/4-85-006.
V,W-L,C-1,5,J,P Kizlauskas, A.G. and D. Homer (1984), "RCRA EP Toxicity Test
Applied to Dredged Material," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL,
Reprinted from Proceedings of the Conference Dredging '84,
ASCE, Clearwater Beach, FL, November 1984.
II,W-R/L,C-1,2,4,5,0 Kizlauskas, A.G., D.C. Rockwell, and R.E. Claff (April,
1984), "Great Lakes Naitonal Program Office Harbor Sediment
Program Lake Onatario 1981: Rochester, New York, Oswego,
New York, Olcott, New York," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL,
EPA-905/4-84-002.
V,W-R/L,C-1,2,4,5,0 Kizlauskas, A.G., D.C. Rockwell, and R.E. Claff (April,
1984), "Great Lakes National Program Office Harbor Sediment
Program Lake Superior 1981: Ashland, Wisconsin, Black
River, Michigan, L'Anse, Michigan," 'U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL, EPA 905/4-84-0003.
S Klemetson, S.L. (1985), "Factors Affecting Stream Transport
of Combined Sewer Overflow Sediments," Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Fed.. 57:390-397.
II,W-R/L,C-1,S,R,E,P Kneip, T.J. and R.E. Hazen (1979), "Deposit and Mobility of
Cadmium in a Marsh-Cove Ecosystem and the Relation to
Cadmium Concentration in Biota," Environmental Health
Prospectives. 28:67-73.
V,W-L,C-1,S Kobayashi, S. and G.F. Lee (1978), "Accumulation of Arsenic
in Sediments of Lakes treated with Sodium Arsenite,"
Environ. Sci. Technol.. 12:1195-1200.
B-13
-------
V,W-L,C-1,S,E,P Kraft, K.J. (1979), "Pontoooreia Distribution Along the
Keweenaw Shore of Lake Superior Affected by Copper Tail-
ings," J. Great Lakes Res.. 5:28-35.
II,W-M,C-1,S,P Krom, M.D., K.K. Turekian, and N.H. Cutshall (October,
1982), "The Fate of Trace Metals in the Sediments of the New
York Bight," CONF-8110104--5, Environmental Sciences Div. ,
ORNL, Publication No. 2035. NTIS DE83 001896.
II,W-R,C-0,S Kuehl, D.W., E. Durhan, B.C. Butterworth, and D. Linn
(1984), "Tetrachloro-9H-Carbazole, A Previously Unrecognized
Contaminant in Sediments of the Buffalo River," J. Great
Lakes Res.. 10:210-214.
I,W-M,C-2,S,P Lake, J., C. Norwood, C. Dimock, and R. Bowen (1979),
"Origins of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Estuarine
Sediments," Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 43:1847-1854.
I,W-M,C-2 Larsen, P.P., D.F. Gadbois, and A.C. .Johnson (1986),
"Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Gulf of Maine Sedi-
ments: Distributions and Mode of Transport," Marine
Environ. Res. 18, in press.
I,W-M,C-4 Larsen, P.F., D.F. Gadbois, and A.C. Johnson (1985), "Obser-
vations on the Distribution of PCBs in the Deepwater Sedi-
ments of the Gulf of Maine," Marine Pollution Bulletin.
16:439-442.
I.W-M.C-2 Larsen, P.F., D.F. Gadbois, A.C. Johnson, and L.F. Doggett
(1983), "Distribution of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in
the Surficial Sediments of Casco Bay, Maine," Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol.. 30:530-535.
I,W-M,C-4,P Larsen, P.P., D.F. Gadbois, A.C. Johnson, and R.F. Maney
(1984), "On the Appearance of PCBs in the Surficial Sedi-
ments of Casco Bay, Maine," Marine Pollution Bulletin.
15:452-453.
I,W-M,C-1,P Larsen, P.F., V. Zdanowicz, A.C. Johnson, and L.F. Doggett
(1983), "Trace Metals in New England Marine Sediments:
Casco Bay, Maine, in Relation to Other Sites," Chemistry in
Ecology. 1:191-200.
X,W-M,R,J,P Lee, C.R., R.K. Peddicord, M.R. Palermo, and
N.R. Francingues, Jr. (February 1985), "Decisionmaking
Framework for Management of Dredged Material: Application
to Commencement Bay, Washington," U.S. Army Engineer Dis-
trict, Seattle, WA, NTIS AD-A162731.
I,W-R/M,C-0,S,P Lopez-Avila, V. and R.A. Kites (1980), "Organic Compounds in
an Industrial Wastewater. Their Transport into Sediments,"
Environ. Sci. &Technol.. 14:1382-1390.
B-14
-------
IV,W-E,C-2,3,0,E,J
IV,W-R/E,C-1,3,S,P
IV,W-E,C-3,S,E,R,J,P
III,W-R,C-3,S
II,W-R,C-4,R,P
VII/VIII.W-R/L.C-l
VII/VIII,W-R/L,C-4,5,E
I,W-R,C-7,S,J
I,W-R,C-1,R,E,J,P
III,W-E,C-2,S,P
Lytle, T.F. and J.S. Lytle (July, 1985), "Pollutant Trans-
port in Mississippi Sound," Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium, MASGP-82-038. NTIS PB 86-123809.
Lytle, T.F. and J.S. Lytle (1980), "Pollution Impact in
Mississippi Coastal Waters," Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium, MASGP-80-020. NTIS PB 82-153891.
Lytle, J.S. and T.F. Lytle (June, 1983), "Potential Damage
of Oil Wastes in Coastal Estuary Sediments,"
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, MASGP-82-024.
NTIS PB 83-22865-0.
Mac, M.J., C.C. Edsall, R.J. Hesselberg, and R.E. Sayers,
Jr. (November, 1984), "Flow-Through Bioassay for Measuring
Bioaccumulation of Toxic Substances from Sediment," Great
Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chicago, IL, EPA-905/3-84-007.
MacKenzie, M.J. and J.V. Hunter (1979), "Sources and Fates
of Aromatic Compounds in Urban Stormwater Runoff," Environ.
Sci. & Technol.. 13:179-183.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (January, 1978), "Feasibility Report:
Dredging of PCB-Contaminated River Bed Materials Upper
Hudson River, New York," New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
Martin, D.B. and W.A. Hartman (19.84), "Arsenic, Cadmium,
Lead, Mercury, and Selenium in Sediments of Riverine and
Pothole Wetlands of the North Central United States," JL
Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., 67:1141-1146.
Martin, D.B. and W.A. Hartman (1985), "Organochlorine
Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Sediment and
Fish from Wetlands in the North Central United States," J_._
Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem.. 68:712-717.
Matson, E.A., S.G. Hornor, andJ.D. Buck (1978), "Pollution
Indicators and Other Microorganisms in River Sediment,"
Water Poll. Control Fed. Journal. 50:13-19.
McGinn, J.M. (July, 1981), "A Sediment Control Plan for the
Blackstone River," Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering. NTIS PB 84-22963-2.
Merrill, E.G. and T.L. Wade (1985), "Carbonized Coal Prod-
ucts as a Source of Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Sediments from
a Highly Industrialized Estuary," Environ. Sci. & Technol..
19:597-603.
B-15
-------
I,W-R,C-1,2,0,S,R,E,P
II,W-E,C-1,S,P
IV,W-L,C-1,0
VIII.W-R/L.P
III,W-E/M,C-4,P
W-R/L/M,C-2,4,5,E,J
X,W-E,C-1,4,5,R,E,P
I/II,W-M,C-1,4,5,E,J
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., (September, 1985), "Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the French River Cleanup
Program in Massachusetts and Connecticut," U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Region 1, Boston, MA.
Meyerson, A.L. , G.W. Luther III, J. Krajewski, and R.I.
Hires (1981), "Heavy Metal Distribution in Newark Bay
Sediments," Marine Pollution Bulletin. 12:244-250.
Miller, H.D. and J. Boyd (January, 1983), "Large-Scale
Operations Management Test of Use of the White Amur for
Control of Proglem Aquatic Plants; Report 4, Third Year
Poststocking Results; Volume VI: The Water and Sediment
Quality of Lake Conway, Florida," U.S. Army Engineer Water-
ways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Technical Report
A-78-2. NTIS AD-A124443.
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
(May, 1986), "Montana Water Quality 1986," Water Quality
Bureau, Environmental Sciences Division, Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena, MT.
Morgan, R.P. II and S.E. Sommer (1979), "Polychlorinated
Biphenyls in Baltimore Harbor Sediments," Bull. Environm.
Contam. Toxicol.. 22:413-419.
Neff, J.M., D.J. Bean, B.W. Cornaby, R.M. Vaga, T.C.
Gulbransen, and J.A. Scanlon (July, 1986), "Sediment Quality
Criteria Methodology Validation: Calculation of Screening
Level Concentrations from Field Data," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Criteria and Standards Division, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Nelson, P.O., C.K. Sollitt, K.J. Williamson, and D.R.
Hancock (December, 1984), "Coos Bay Offshore Disposal Site
Investigation," Interim Report Phase II, III, April, 1980 -
June, 1981, Portland District Corps of Engineers, Portland,
OR, Contract # DACW57-79-C0040.
New England Governors' Conference (September, 1982), "New
England/New York Long Range Dredge Management Study: Final
Report," prepared for the U.S. Water Resources Council.
New England River Basins Commission (August, 1980), "Interim
Plan for the Disposal of Dredged Material from Long Island
Sound."
New England River Basins Commission (September, 1981),
"Dredging Management: Data and Analysis for the New Eng-
land/Long Island Sound Region," Technical Assistance Report,
Dredging Management Program, Long Range Dredging Study.
B-16
-------
III,W-M,C-1 Nichols, M., R. Harris, G. Thompson, and B. Nelson (October,
1982), "Fate, Transport and Transformation of Toxic Sub-
stances: Significance of Suspended Sediment and Fluid Mud,"
U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, HD,
EPA-600/3-82-089. NTIS PB 83-116426.
VI,W-L,C-4,5,S,E,P Niethammer, K.R., D.H. White, T.S. Baskett and M.W. Sayre
(1984), "Presence and Biomagnification of Organochlorine
Chemical Residues in Oxbow Lakes of Northeastern Louisiana,"
Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.. 13:63-74.
V,W-L,C-1,S,P Nriagu, J.O., A.L.W. Kemp, H.K.T. Wong, and N. Harper
(1979), "Sedimentary Record of Heavy Metal Pollution in Lake
Erie," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 43:247-258.
I,W-M,C-4,R,P NUS Corporation (July, 1984), "Feasibility Study of Remedial
Action Alternatives: Acushnet River Estuary Above
Coggeshall Street Bridge, New Bedford site, Bristol County,
Massachusetts," EPA Work Assignment #28-lL43, Contract
#68-01-6699 (Draft).
II.W-R, C-O.P NUS Corporation (1986), "Sampling Results for 2,3,7,8-Tetra-
chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in the Passaic River in the Vicinity
of 80 Lister Avenue, Newark, NJ, "EPA Contract #68-01-6699.
II,W-M,C-1,3,4,5,R,E,P O'Connor, J.M. and S.G. O'Connor (1980), "Evaluation of
Capping Operations at the Experimental Mud Dump Site, New
York Bight, 1980," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI, Contract DACW39-82-2544.
V,W-L,C-4,5,0,S,P Oliver, B.C. and R.A. Bourbonniere (1985), "Chlorinated
Contaminants in Surficial Sediments of Lakes Huron, St.
Clair, and Erie: Implications Regarding Sources Along the
St. Clair and Detroit Rivers," J. Great Lakes Res..
11:366-372.
X,W-R/L,C-1,2,3,4,5,0,E Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (November, 1984),
"Oregon Ambient Water Quality Toxics Data Summary -- 1979 to
1983" (Draft).
VI.W-L.C-l^.S.E.P Overton, E.B, M.H. Schurtz, K.M. St. Pe and C. Byrne (1986),
"Distribution of Trace Organics, Heavy Metals, and Conven-
tional Pollutants in Lake Pontchartrain Louisiana," Organic
Marine Geochemistry. 247-270.
X,W-M,C-1,2,4,5,0,J Pavlou, S.P. and D.P. Weston October, 1983), "Initial
Evaluation of Alternatives for Development of Sediment
Related Criteria for Toxic Contaminants in Marine Waters
(Puget Sound). Phase I: Development of Conceptual Frame-
Framework," U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA.
B-17
-------
I,W-M,C-1,2,3,S,E Payne, J.R., J.L. Lambach, R.E. Jordan, C.R. Phillips, G.D.
McNabb, Jr., M.K. Beckel, G.H. Farmer, R.R. Sims, Jr., J.G.
Sutton, and A. Abasumara (November, 1983), "Georges Bank
Monitoring Program: Analysis of Hydrocarbons in Bottom
Sediments and Analysis of Hydrocarbons and Trace Metals in
Benthic Fauna During the Second Year of Monitoring," U.S.
Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, Reston,
VA, MMS/AT/ES-83/08. NTIS PB 84-141449.
I/II/III,W-M,C-1,2,4, Pearce, J.B., C.R. Berman, Jr., and M.R. Rosen (eds.)
7,0,E (January, 1985), "Annual NEMP Report on the Health of the
Northeast Coastal Waters, 1982," NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-F/NEC-35. NTIS PB 85-219129.
V,W-R,C-1,4,E Peddicord, R., H. Tatem, A. Gibson, and S. Pedron (December,
1980), "Biological Assessment of Upper Mississippi River
Sediments," U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Sta-
tion, Vicksburg, MS, Miscellaneous Paper EL-80-5. NTIS
AD-A094248
III,W-R/M,C-0,S Pellenbarg, R. (1979), "Environmental Poly(Organosiloxanes)
(Silicones)." Environ. Sci. &Technol.. 13:565-569.
R Peterson, S.A. (1982), "Lake Restoration by Sediment Remov-
al," Water Resources Bulletin. 3:423-435.
R Peterson, S.A. (August, 1984), "Sediment Removal," U.S.EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon
EPA-600/D-84-207. NTIS PB 84-236397.
IV,W-E,C-1,P Pilotte, J.O., J.W. Winchester, and R.C. Classen (1978),
"Detection of Heavy Metal Pollution in Estuarine Sediments,"
in: Water. Air & Soil Pollution (1978), 363-368.
X,W-M,R,P Phillips, K.E., J.F. Malek, and W.B. Hamner (June, 1985),
"Commencement Bay Nearshore Tideflats Superfund site,
Tacoma, Washington; Remedial Investigations. Evaluation of
Alternative Dredging Methods and Equipment, Disposal Methods
and Sites, and Site Control and Treatment Practices for
Contaminated Sediments," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Seattle District. NTIS AD-A162 732.
VI,W-L,C-1,5,E,P Popp, C.J., O.K. Brandvold, T.R. Lynch, and L.A. Brandvold
(March, 1983), "Evaluation of Sediments? in the Middle Rio
Grande, Elephant Butte Reservoir, and Caballo Reservoir as
Potential Sources for Toxic Materials," New Mexico Water
Resources Research Inst. Las Cruces, NM, Report No. 161.
NTIS PB 83-221754.
IV,W-L,C-1,E Price, R.E. and L.A. Knight, Jr. (1978),, "Mercury, Cadmium,
Lead, and Arsenic in Sediments, Plankton, and Clams from
Lake Washington and Sardis Reservoir, Mississippi, October
1975 - May, 1976," Pesticides Monitoring Journal.
11:182-189.
B-18
-------
X,W-M,C-1,2,4, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (May,1986), "Issue Paper
0,S,E,J,P Paper: Contaminated Sediments and Dredging."
V,W-R/L,C-4,0,E, Pugsley, C.W., P.D.N. Hebert, G.W. Wood, G. Brotea, and T.W.
Obal (1985), "Distribution of Contaminants in Clams and
Sediments from the Huron-Erie Corridor. I - PCBs and
Octachlorostyrene," J. Great Lakes Res.. 11:275-289.
VI,W-R,C-1,4,5,S,E,P Qasim, S.R., A.T. Armstrong, J. Corn, and B.L. Jordan
(1980), "Quality of Water and Bottom Sediments in the
Trinity River," Water Resources Bulletin. 16:522-531.
II,W-M,C-1,S,E,P Ramondetta, P.J. and W.H. Harris (1978), "Heavy Metals
Distribution in Jamaica Bay Sediments," Environ. Geology.
2:145-149.
X,W-E,C-3,S Rapp, J.B., K.A. Kvenvolden, and H.E. Clifton "Aliphatic
Hydrocarbons in Surface Sediments of Willapa Bay and Grays
Harbor, Washington," U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report
82-609.
II,W-M,C-1,2,4,7,0,E,P Reid, R.N., J.E. O'Reilly, andV.S. Zdanowicz, eds. (Septem-
ber, 1982), "Contaminants in New York Bight and Long Island
Sound: Sediments and Demersal Species, and Contaminant
Effects on Benthos, Summer, 1980," Northeast Monitoring
Program, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-16, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods
Hole, MA.
V,W-L,C-4,P Richardson, W.L., R. Wethington, and V.E. Smith (August,
1983), "Dynamic Mass Balance of PCB and Suspended Solids in
Saginaw Bay -- A Case Study," U.S. EPA Environmental Re-
search Lab., Duluth, MN, EPA-600/D-83-092. NTIS PB
83-250308.
X,W-R,C-1,S Rickert, D.A., V.C. Kennedy, S.W. McKenzie, and W.G. Hines
(1977) "A Synoptic Survey of Trace Metals in Bottom Sedi-
ments of the Willamette River, Oregon," U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 715-F.
X,W-M,C-1,2,4,0,E,P Riley, R.G., E.A. Crecelius, R.E. Fitzner, B.L. Thomas, J.M.
Gurtisen, and N.S. Bloom (June, 1983), "Organic and Inorgan-
ic Toxicants in Sediment and Marine Birds From Puget Sound,"
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, NOAA
Technical Memorandum NOS QMS 1. NTIS PB 84-16023-3.
X,W-M,C-2,4,0,S,P Riley, R.G., L.A. Crecelius, M.L. O'Malley, K.H. Abel, and
D.C. Mann (November, 1981), "Organic Pollutants in Waterways
Adjacent to Commencement Bay (Puget Sound)," National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO, NOAA
Technical Memorandum OMPA-12. NTIS PB 82-174947.
B-19
-------
II,W-R/L,C-1,2,4,5,0,J,P Rockwell, D.C., R.E. Claff, and D.W. Kuehl (April, 1984),
"1981 Buffalo, New York, Area Sediment Survey (BASS)," U.S.
EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, EPA 905/3-84-001.
NTIS PB 84-19967-8.
II,W-R,C-1,P Rogers, R.J. (1983), "Heavy Metals in Bottom Sediments from
the Saw Mill River, Westchester County, New York, 1981,"
Northeastern Environmental Science. 2:188-197.
IV,W-R/E,C-1,2,4,5,J,P Ryan, J.D., F.D. Calder, L.C. Burney, and H.L. Windom
(1985), "The Environmental Chemistry of Florida Estuaries:
Deepwater Ports Maintenance Dredging Study," Technical
Report: Port of Miami and the Miami River, Florida Dept. of
Environmental Regulation.
I,W-M,C-1,3,S,P Santschi, P.H., S. Nixon, M. Pilson, and C. Hunt (1984),
"Accumulation of Sediments, Trace Metals (Pb.Cu) and Total
Hydrocarbons in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island," Estuarine.
Coastal and Shelf Science. 19:427-449.
IV,W-M,C-7,S Schaiberger, G.E., T.D. Edmond, and C.P. Gerba (1982),
"Distribution of Enteroviruses in Sediments Contiguous with
a Deep Marine Sewage Outfall," Water Res.. 16:1425-1428.
V/VII,W-R,C-1,4,R,J Schnoor, J.L., A.R. Giaquinta, C. Sato, C.P. Robison and
D.B. McDonald (July, 1982), "Refinement and Verification of
Predictive Models of Suspended Sediment Dispersion and
Desorption of Toxics from Dredged Sediments," U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, Iowa Institute of
Hydraulic Research Report No. 249, DTIC AID A120725.
VI,W-L,C-4,S,E,P Schurtz, M.H. and R. Albritton (March, 1986), "An Evaluation
of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Capitol Lake, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana," Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality,
Office of Water Resources, Water Pollution Control Divi-
sion.
VI,W-L,C-1,2,4,5,0,E,P Schurtz, M. and K.M. St. Pe (April, 1984), "Report on
Interim Findings: Water Quality Investigation of
Environmental Conditions in Lake Pontchartrain," Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality Water, Pollution Control
Division.
R Science Applications International Corp. (September, 1985),
"Removal and Mitigation of Contaminated Sediments," Draft
report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
V,W-R/L,C-2,S,J Science Applications International Corporation (May, 1986),
"Sediment PAH Concentrations and Associated Sampling Site
Rankings in .the Great Lakes Region," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Chicago, IL, Draft Report, EPA contract
No. 68-04-5035,D.O. 012.
B-20
-------
II,W-L,C-5,S,P Scrudato, R.J. and A. DelPrete (1982), "Lake Ontario Sedi-
ment - Mirex Relationships," J. Great Lakes Res. .
8:695-699
X,W-M,C-2,3,S Shaw, D.G., D.J. Mclntosh, and E.R. Smith (1979), "Arene and
Alkane Hydrocarbons in Nearshore Beaufort Sea Sediments,"
Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science. 9:435-449.
V.W-L.C-4 Simmons, M.S., D.I. Bialosky, and R.Rossmann (1980),
"Polychlorinated Biphenyl Contamination in Surficial Sedi-
ments of Northeastern Lake Michigan," J. Great Lakes Res..
6:167-171.
II,W-E,C-6,S Simpson, H.J. and R.M. Trier, "Plutonium and Cesium
Radionuclides in the Hudson River Estuary and Other Environ-
ments," Annual Technical Progress Report, December 1, 1978 -
November 30, 1979, Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Energy Under Contract EY-76-S-02-2529. NTIS COO 2529-12.
V,W-R,C-4,5,E,P Smith, V.E., J.M. Spurr, J.C. Filkins, and J.J. Jones
(1985), "Organochlorine Contaminants of Wintering Ducks
Foraging on Detroit River Sediments," J. Great Lakes Res. .
11:231-246.
X,W-E,C-1,4,5,R,E,P Sollitt, C.K., D.R. Hancock, and P.O. Nelson (December,
1984), "Coos Bay Offshore Disposal Site Investigation,"
Final Report Phase IV, V, July 1981 - September, 1983,
Portland District, Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon,
Contract #DACW57-79-C-0040.
III,W-R,C-1,4,5,P Stamer, J.K., T.H. Yorke, and G.L. Pederson (1985), "Distri-
bution and Transport of Trace Substances in the Schuylkill
River Basin from Berne to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,"
United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2256-A.
IV,W-R,C-1,4,5,0,S,R,E,P Sullivan, J. and W. Thiess (March 1983), "Redstone Arsenal
(RSA) Installation Restoration Summary -- Volumes 1-3," U.S.
Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Maryland, Report DRXTH-AS-CR-83198. DTIC
AD-B072965.
V,W-R/L,C-1,4,5,0,J Sullivan, J., J. Ball, E. Brick. S. Hausmann, G. Pilarski
and D. Sopcich (November, 1985), "Report of the Technical
Subcommittee on Determination of Dredge Material Suitability
for In-Water Disposal," Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Madison, WI.
IX,W-M/E,C-1,R,E,P Sustar, J. and T. Wakeman (February, 1977), "Dredge Disposal
Study, San Francisco Bay and Estuary, Main Report," U.S.
Army Engineer District San Francisco, San Francisco, CA,
NTIS #AD A037727.
B-21
-------
IX,W-M,C-1,2,3,5,0,S,E
y/X,W-L/M,C-l,4,R
IV,W-R,C-1,2,4,6,0
X,W-M,C-1,2,4,5
O.S.R.P
Swartz, R.C., D.W. Schults, G.R. Ditsworth, W.A. DeBen, and
F.A. Cole (September, 1985), "Sediment Toxicity, Contamina-
tion, and Macrobenthic Communities Near a Large Sewage
Outfall," U.S. EPA Corvallis Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Newport, OR, EPA/600/D-85/202. NTIS PB 86-102142.
Tatem, H.E. (November, 1984), "Long-Term Impact of Dredged
Material at Two Open-Water Sites: Lake Erie and Elliott
Bay; Evaluative Summary," U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS Technical Report D-84-5.
NTIS AD-A152029.
Tennessee Valley Authority (April, 1985), "Sediment Charac-
terization: Task 2, Instream Contaminant Study," U.S.
Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
DOE/OR/21444--T2-Vol. 1. NTIS DE85 013502.
Tetra-Tech, Inc.(August, 1985), "Commencement Bay Nearshore/
Tideflats Remedial Investigation," Vols. 1 & 2, Washington
State Department of Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Region 10, EPA-910/9-85-134b. NTIS PB 86-104569
& PB 86-104577.
IX.W-M.P
II,W-R,C-4,S,P
VI/VIII/IX.W-R/L,
C-0,E,P
VIII,W-R,C-1,S,E,P
VIII,W-R,C-1,P
Tetra-Tech, Inc. (November, 1986), "Compilation of Histori-
cal Data on Selected Pollutants in the Southern California
Bight," Report to U.S. EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection.
Turk, J.T. (1980), "Applications of .Hudson River Basin PCB -
Transport Studies," in Contaminants and Sediments. Vol. 1,
R.A. Baker (ed.), Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York, and U.S. EPA Region
II (December, 1984), "Guidance for Performing Tests on
Dredged Material to be Disposed of in Ocean Waters."
U.S. Department of Interior Task Group on Irrigation Drain-
age (December, 1985), "Preliminary Evaluation of Selenium
Selenium Concentrations in Ground and Surface Water, Soils,
Sediment, and Biota from Selected Areas in the Western
United States," Draft report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement
(September, 1971), "Pollution Affecting Water Quality of the
Cheyenne River System Western South Dakota," Division of
Field Investigations -- Denver Center, Denver, CO, NTIS PB
216 948.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Denver CO
(April, 1973), "Mercury, Zinc, Copper, Arsenic, Selenium,
and Cyanide Content of Selected Waters and Sediment Collect-
ed Along Whitewood Creek, the Belle Fourche River, and the
Cheyenne River in Western South Dakota. December 1971
October, 1972." NTIS PB-244 950.
B-22
-------
V,W-R/L,C-l,S,R,E,JfP
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (February, 1978),
"In-Place Pollutants in Trail Creek and Michigan City
Harbor, Indiana," Office of Water Planning and Standards,
Washington, DC, EPA-440/5-78-012.
III,W-M/E,C-1,2,5,S,E,P U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (September, 1982),
"Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis,"
Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. NTIS PB-84-111202.
V.W-R/L.C-l,2,4,0,
S.R.E.J
VIII,W-L,C-1,S,R,P
VI,W-E,C-1,2,0,E
I/X,W-M/L,C-3,S
VIII.W-L.C-l.E.P
II,W-R,C-6,S
IV,W-E,C-4,5
VI,W-R/L/E/M,C-1,J
I,W-M/E,C-4,S,E,P
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V (April,
1984), "Preliminary Report on In-Place Pollutants in Region
V," U.S. EPA Region V In-Place Pollutant Task Force,
Chicago, IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (April, 1984),
"Superfund Record of Decision: Milltown Site, MT"
EPA/ROD/R08-84/001. NTIS PB 85-214070.
Voyksner, R.D. (March, 1985), "Final Report: Analysis of
Metals and Organics in Sediment and Biota. Period Covered:
March, 1984 to February, 1985," Department of Environmental
Quality, Baton Rouge, LA, Report #RTI/2830/00-01Q.
Wakeham, S.G. and J.W. Farrington (1980), "Hydrocarbons in
Contemporary Aquatic Sediments," in Contaminants and Sedi-
ments . Vol. 1, R.A. Baker (ed.), Ann Arbor Science Publish-
ers, Ann Arbor Michigan.
Walter, C.M., F.C. June and H.G. Brown (1973), "Mercury in
Fish, Sediments, and Water in Lake Oahe, South Dakota,"
J. Water Poll. Cont. Fed.. 45:2203-2210.
Walters, W.H., R.M. Ecker, and Y. Onishi (November, 1982),
"Sediment and Radionuclide Transport in Rivers: Summary
Report: Field Sampling Program for Cattaraugus and Butter-
milk Creeks, New York," Battelle Pacific Northwest Laborato-
ries, Richland, WA, PNL-3117, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC, NUREG/CR-1020-Vol. 4.
Wang, T.C., J.P. Krivan, Jr. and R.S. Johnson (1979),
"Residues of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and DDT in Water and
Sediment of the St. Lucie Estuary, Florida, 1977," Pesti-
cides Monitoring Journal. 13:69-71.
Warshaw, S. (May, 1976), "Metals Concentrations in Water and
Sediment of Texas," Texas Department of Water Resources,
Special Report No. SR-4.
Weaver, G. (June, 1982), "PCB Pollution in the New Bedford,
Massachusetts Area: A Status Report," Massachusetts Office
of Coastal Zone Management. [Note: Also contains other PCB
case studies.]
B-23
-------
II,W-M,C-4,S,P
V/VII,W-R,C-1,E
I.W-M.C-2
VI,W-L,C-1,4,5,E
VIII,W-R,C-1,3,S,E,P
VIII,W-R/L,P
III.W-R.C-l^.S.P
West, R.H. and P.G. Hatcher (1980), "Polychlorinated
Biphenyls in Sewage Sludge and Sediments of the New York
Bight," Marine Pollution Bulletin. 11:126-129.
Wiener, J.G., G.A. Jackson, T.W. May, and B.P. Cole (1984),
"Longitudinal Distribution of Trace Elements (As, Cd, Cr,
Hg, Pb, and Se) in Fishes and Sediments in the Upper Missis-
sippi River," Chapter 7, pp. 139-169, in. J. G. Wiener, R.V.
Anderson, and D.R. McConville, eds. Contaminants in the
Upper Mississippi River. Butterworth Pub., Stoneham, MA.
Wilber, W.G. and J.V. Hunter (1979), "The Impact of Urban-
ization on the Distribution of Heavy Metals in Bottom
Sediments of the Saddle River," Water Resources Bulletin.
15:790-800.
Windsor, J.G. Jr. and R.A. Kites (1979), "Polycyclic Aromat-
ic Hydrocarbons in Gulf of Maine Sediments and Nova Scotia
Soils," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 43:27-33.
Winger, P.V. and J.K. Andreasen (1985), "Contaminant Resi-
dues in Fish and Sediments from Lakes in the Atchafalaya
River Basin (Louisiana)," Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol..
14:579-586.
Woodward, D.F. and R.G. Riley (1983), "Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Concentrations in a Salmonid Stream Contaminated by Oil
Field Discharge Water and Effects on Macrobenthos," Arch.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol.. 12:327-334.
Wyoming Department of Environmentl Quality (1986), "Wyoming
1986 305(b) Summary Report" and "Wyoming 1986 Water Quality
Assessment," Water Quality Division, Department of
Environmental Quality, Cheyenne, WY.
Yorke, T.H., J.K. Stamer, and G.L. Pederson (1985), "Effects
of Low-Level Dams on the Distribution of Sediment, Trace
Metals, and Organic Substances in the Lower Schuylkill River
Basin, Pennsylvania," United States Geological Survey Water
Supply Paper 2256-B.
B-24
-------
IV. INDEX TO REPORTS
Location
Region I
Northeast Coast
Western North Atlantic
Georges Bank
Penobscot Bay, ME
Casco Bay, ME
Gulf of Maine
West Falmouth, MA
Buzzards Bay, MA
Nantucket Shoals, MA
New Bedford Harbor, MA
Narragansett Bay, RI
Rhode Island Sound, MA/RI
Sebasticook R., ME
Blackstone R., MA
AND ARTICLES BY LOCATION
References
Boehm, 1983
Pearce et al., 1985
New England River Basins
Commission, 1981
Wakeham & Farrington, 1980
Farrington & Tripp, 1977
Bothner et al., 1985
Payne et al., 1983
Johnson et al., 1985
Larsen et al., 1983 a & b
Larsen et al., 1984
Larsen et al., 1986
Larsen et al., 1985
Windsor & Hites, 1979
Burns & Teal, 1979
Wakeham & Farrington, 1980
Hoffman & Quinn, 1979
Hoffman & Quinn, 1980
NUS Corp., 1984
Weaver, 1982
Bender, 1981
Lake et al., 1979
Jungclaus et al., 1978
Lopez-Avila & Kites, 1980
Hurtt & Quinn, 1979
Wakeham & Farrington, 1980
Santschi et al., 1984
Boehm & Quinn, 1978
Duval et al., 1980
McGinn, 1981
B-25
-------
Location
Region I (continued)
French R., MA
Ten Mile R., MA/RI
2 Lakes near New Haven, CT
Shetucket R. Basin, CT
Pawtuxet R. & Providence R., RI
Pettaquamscutt R., RI
Region II
Northeast Coast
New York Bight
Long Island Sound
Jamaica Bay, NY
Newark Bay, NJ
Raritan Bay, NJ
References
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1985
Connecticut DEP (Misc. file)
U.S. EPA Region I (Misc. file)
Atkinson et al., 1985
Bertine & Mendeck, 1978
Matson et al., 1978
Lopez-Avila & Kites, 1980
Jungclaus et al., 1978
Wakeham & Farrington, 1980
(See Region I)
Reid et al., 1982
Krom et al., 1982
West & Hatcher, 1980
O'Connor & O'Connor, 1980
Reid et al., 1982
Greig et al., 1977
Ramondetta & Harris, 1978
Meyerson et al., 1981
Greig & McGrath, 1977
Delaware R. estuary & tributaries, NJ Hochreiter, 1982
Hudson R. estuary
Upper Hudson R. Basin, NY
Bender, 1981
Bopp et al., 1981
Simpson & Trier, 1979
Brown et al. 1985
Turk, 1980
Hetling et al., 1978
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 1978
U.S. EPA Region VI (Misc.File)
B-26
-------
Location
Region I (continued)
Lake Ontario
References
Oswego R. & Harbor
Buffalo R., NY
Buffalo, NY area
Cattaraugus & Buttermilk Creeks, NY
Lake George, NY
Adirondack Lakes, NY
Marsh near Cold Spring, NY
Sawmill R., NY
Saddle R., NJ
Passaic R., NJ
Region III
Northeast coast
Delaware Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Baltimore Harbor
Lynnhaven Estuary, VA
James R. Estuary, VA
Scrudato & Del Prete, 1982
Frank et al., 1979
Great Lakes Water Quality Board, 1982
Great Lakes Water Quality Board, 1985
Holdrinet et al., 1978
Kizlauskas et al., 1984a
Scrudato & Del Prete, 1982
Kuehl et al., 1984
Rockwell et al., 1984
Walters et al., 1982
Heit et al., 1980
Galloway & Likens, 1979
Kneip & Hazen, 1979
Rogers, 1983
Wilber & Hunter, 1979
NUS Corp., 1986
(See Region I)
Pellenbarg, 1979
Bieri et al., 1983
Nichols et al., 1982
U.S. EPA, 1982
Morgan & Sommer, 1979
Erkenbrecher, 1980
Huggett et al., 1980
Cutshall et al., 1981
Batelle Memorial Inst., 1978
B-27
-------
Location
Region III (continued)
Elizabeth R. Estuary, VA
St. Jones R. & Murderkill R., DE
Potomac R., Washington, DC
North Fork Holston R., VA/TN
Delaware R.
Schuylkill R. Basin, PA
Region IV
Coast near Miami, FL
Hillsborough R., reservoir & bay, FL
St. Lucie Estuary, FL
Mississippi coastal waters
Streams near Oak Ridge, TN
L. Washington & Sardis Res., MS
Lake Conway, FL
Florida estuaries
Savannah R., Estuary
West Point Lake, GA/AL
Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL
References
Merrill & Wade, 1985
Hoffman & Biggs, 1983
Pellenbarg, 1979
Harrison, 1984
Hildebrand et al., 1980
MacKenzie & Hunter, 1979
Stamer et al., 1985
Yorke et al., 1985
Schaiberger et al., 1982
Brown et al., 1985
Wang et al., 1979
Lytle & Lytle 1980, 1983 & 1985
Tennessee Valley Authority
Price & Knight, 1979
Miller & Boyd, 1983
Fla. Dept. of Environ.
Regulation 1986 a & b
Ryan et al., 1985
Pilotte et al., 1978
Goldberg et al., 1979
Gunkel et al., 1984
Sullivan & Thiess, 1983
B-28
-------
Location
Region V
Region V (general)
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake St. Glair
Detroit River
Lake Erie
Fields Brook, Ohio (trib to L.Erie)
Mississippi R. (upper)
Highland Silver Lake watershed, IL
Illinois Lakes
Illinois Streams
References
U.S. EPA Region V, 1984
Great Lakes Water Quality Board, 1982
Great Lakes WaterQuality Board, 1985
Kizlauskas & Homer, 1984
Science Applications Int'l.
Corp., 1986
Sullivan et al., 1985
Eisenreich et al., 1979
Eisenreich et al., 1980
Frank et al., 1980
Kemp et al., 1978
Kizlauskas et al., 1984b
Kraft, 1979
Christensen & Chien, 1979
Frank et al., 1981
Simmons et al., 1980
Blasland & Bouck Eng., 1985
CH2M Hill, 1983
Kizlauskas, 1982
U.S. EPA, 1978
Kemp et al., 1978
Oliver & Bourbonniere, 1985
Richardson et al., 1983
Oliver & Bourbonniere, 1985
Pugsley et al., 1985
Pugsley et al., 1985
Smith et al., 1985
Eadie et al., 1982
Nriagu et al.', 1979
Oliver & Bourbonniere, 1985
Tatem, 1984
CH2M Hill, 1986
Grimes, 1980
Peddicord et al., 1980
Schnoor et al., 1982
Wiener et al., 1984
Davenport & Kelly, 1984
Kelly & Kite, 1981
Kelly & Kite, 1984
B-29
-------
Location
Region V (continued)
Wisconsin Lakes
Eau Galle Lake, MN
References
Kobayashi & Lee, 1978
Gunkel et al., 1984
Region VI
Gulf of Mexico (northwestern)
Louisiana estuaries
Texas (general)
Several sites in NM and TX
Coastal canals, TX
Trinity River, TX
Elephant Butte Reservoir, NM
Middle Rio Grande R. & Caballo
Res., NM
DeGray Lake, AR
Lakes in Atchafalaya R. Basin, LA
Oxbow Lakes, LA
Capitol Lake, LA
Lake Pontchartrain, LA
Brooks et al., 1980
Voyksner, 1985
Warshaw, 1976
Dick, 1982
U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1985
Goyal et al, 1977
Qasim et al., 1980
U.S. EPA Region VI (Misc. File)
Garcia & Kidd, 1979
Popp et al., 1983
Popp et al., 1983
Gunkel et al., 1984
Winger & Andreason, 1985
Niethammer et al., 1984
Schurtz & Albritton, 1986
Schurtz & St. Pe, 1984
Overton et al., 1986
B-30
-------
Location
Region VII (continued)
Wetlands in IA & NB
References
Martin & Hartman, 1984
Martin & Hartman, 1985
Region VIII
Montana (geneal)
Wyoming (general)
Milltown Superfund Site, MT
Standley Lake, CO
Cheyenne River Basin, SD
Lake Oahe, SD
Great Salt Lake, UT
Lake Mead, NV
Navajo Reservoir, CO
Utah Lake, UT
Little Popo Agie R., WY
Wetlands in MT, ND & SD
Several sites in MT, SD & UT
Region IX
California (general)
Near Bikini Atoll
San Francisco Bay, CA
Montana Dept. of Health & Environmental
Sciences, 1986
Wyoming Dept. of Environmental
Quality, 1986
U.S. EPA, 1984
Heit et al. , 1980
Heit, 1979
U.S. EPA, 1971 & 1973
Walter et al., 1973
Heit, 1979
Heit, 1979
Heit, 1979
Heit, 1979
Heitkamp & Johnson, 1984
Woodward & Riley, 1983
Martin & Hartman, 1984
Martin & Hartman, 1985
U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1985
California State Water
Resources Control Board, 1984
«
Hisamatsu & Sakanoue, 1978
Bradford & Luoma, 1980
Sustar & Wakeman, 1977
B-31
-------
Location
Region IX (continued)
Southern California coast/
Palos Verdes Shelf
Hansen Lake, Los Angeles, CA
Several sites in AZ, CA & NV
Region X
Commencement Bay, WA
Duwamish Waterway, WA
Everett Harbor, WA
Willapa Bay & Grays Harbor, WA
Elliott Bay, WA
Puget Sound, WA
Coos Bay, OR
Winchester Bay, OR
Beaufort bea, AK
Columbia R., WA/OR
Lake Washington, WA
Chetco, Rogue, & Columbia R., OR
Western OR & WA rivers & estuaries
References
Eganhouse et al., 1978
Eganhouse et al., 1980
Galloway, 1979
Hershelman et al., 1981
Swartz et al., 1985
Tetra-Tech, 1986
Heit, 1979
U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1985
Phillips et al., 1985
Riley et al., 1981
Tetra-Tech, 1985
Gahler et al., 1982
Lee et al., 1985
Blazevich et al., 1977
Anderson & Crecelius, 1985
Rapp et al.
Dexter et al., 1984
Tatem, 1984
JRB Associates, 1984
Pavlou & Weston, 1983
Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority, 1986
Riley et al., 1983
Hancock et al., 1984
Nelson et al., 1984
Sollitt et al., 1984
Ecological Analysts, 1981
Shaw et al., 1979
Haushild, 1980
Wakeham & Farrington, 1980
Fuhrer, 1984
Fuhrer & Rinella, 1983
B-32
-------
Location
Region X (continued)
Washington rivers
Willamette R., OR
Portland Area, OR
References
Hopkins et al., 1985
Rickert et al., 1977
Oregon Department of
Environmental Qual., 1984
B-33
-------
APPENDIX C
LIST OF AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED
This appendix identifies the specific individuals contacted for
information during the course of this project. It should be noted
that the list is certainly not exhaustive (there was no attempt to
contact all knowledgable individuals), and that the individuals
that are listed may not be (today or in the future) the best
individuals to contact in any future study. However, it is hoped
that the listing will help so.me future efforts by identifying at
least a fraction of the individuals in State and Federal agencies
who have information or expertise related to chemical contamination
of sediments.
C-l
-------
LIST OF AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED
Agency/Office Name Telephone No.
National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Ocean Assessment Division,
National Ocean Service
(Rockville, MD)
National Marine Fisheries Service
(Sandy Hook, NJ)
Dr. John Calder
Mr. Robert Reid
Mr. Vincent Zdanowicz
(301) 443-8655
(201) 872-0200
(201) 282-0200
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Headquarters Library
Waterways Experiment Station
New England Division
(Waltham, MA)
Jacksonville, FL District
Galveston, TX District
Portland, OR District
New York District
Norfolk, VA District
North Central Division
(Chicago, IL)
Omaha, NE District
Memphis, TN District
Ms. Jackie Patterson
(Librarian)
Ms. Jimmie Perry
(Librarian)
Mr. James Bajek
Ms. Nancy Schwall
Mr. Rick Medina
Mr. Jim Reese
Mr. Mario Paula
Mr. Eugene Whitehurst
Mr. Terry Getchell
Mr. Dale Raven
Dr. John Anderson
Mr. Dick Mochow
(202) 272-0455
(601) 634-2543
(617) 647-8307
(409) 766-3962
(503) 221-6021
(804) 441-3243
(804) 441-3617
(312) 353-7762
(402) 221-4620
(901) 521-3618
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency (USATHAMA)
USATHAMA, U.S. Army IRP Division
Mr. Andy Anderson
(301) 671-3618
C-2
-------
Agency/Office
Name
Telephone No.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Resource Contaminant Assessment
Biological Services Division
Western Energy & Land Use Division
National Fisheries Research Lab
(Columbia, MO)
Great Lakes Fishery Lab
(Ann Arbor, MI)
U.S. Geological Survey
Northeast Region
Central Region
(Denver, CO)
Oregon District
Rapid City, SD District
Baton Rouge, LA District
Lakewood, CO District
Office of Surface Water
(USGS Headquarters, VA)
Harrisburg, PA District
Salt Lake City, UT District
EPA Environmental Research Labs
Narragansett, RI
Ms. Lynn Lewis
Dr. Edward LaRoe
Mr. Lee Ischinger
Ms. Ell-Piret Multer
(Information Specialist)
Dr. Wayne Willford
(202) 343-4767
(202) 653-8723
(303) 226-9390
(314) 875-5399
(313) 994-3331
Mr. Waite Osterkamp
Mr. Ned Andrews
Mr. Stuart McKenzie
Mr. Kim Goddard
Mr. Charlie Demas
Mr. Briant Kimball
Mr. Douglas Glysson
Mr. Bob Helm
Mr. Doyle Stephens
(703) 860-6083
(303) 236-5004
(503) 231-2016
(605) 342-6812
(504) 389-0391
(303) 236-4886
(703) 648-5317
(717) 782-4514
(801) 524-4249
Mr. Richard Lattimer (401) 789-1071
Mr. David Hanson
C-3
-------
AEencv/Office
Name
Telephone No.
EPA Region I
Water Quality Branch,
Planning & Standards Section
Water Quality Branch, Environmental
Evaluation Section
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
EPA Region II
Water Management Division
EPA Region III
Water Quality Control Division
Environmental Services Division
EPA Region IV
Environmental Services Division
(Athens, GA)
Ocean Disposal Division
(Atlanta, GA)
Waste Management Division
(Atlanta, GA)
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
Metro-Dade County, FL
Planning Department
Miami River Coordinating
Committee
Ms. Corrine Paul
Ms. Dorothy Allen
Mr. Paul Hogan
Mr. Art Mauger
Mr. Charlie Fredette
Ms. Susan Insetta
Mr. John Ruggero
Mr. Doug Lair
Mr. Mike Carter
Mr. Dave Hill
Mr. Del Hicks
Mr. Reginald Rogers
Mr. Russ Wright
Mr. Mark Latch
Mr. Joseph Ryan
Ms. Ricky Schechtman
Ms. Sandra Howard
(617) 223-0893
(617) 223-0838
(617) 366-9181
(203) 566-2588
Ms. Rosella O'Connor (212) 264-8479
(215) 597-3927
(215) 597-1196
(404) 546-3351
(404) 546-3117
(404) 546-2207
(404) 546-2294
(404) 347-2156
(404) 347-2643
(904) 488-8614
(305) 375-2835
(305) 358-2800
C-4
-------
Agency/Office
EPA Region V
Great Lakes National Program Office
Water Division
Environmental Review Branch
Dredge & Fill Section
Waste Management Division
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
EPA Region VI
Water Quality Division
Waste Management Division
Texas Water Commission
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
EPA Region VII
Water Management Division
Waste Management Division
Iowa Department of Water, Air
& Waste Management
Kansas Department of Health
& Environment
Missouri Department of
Natural Resources
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control
Name
Telephone No.
Mr. Anthony Kizlauskas (312) 353-3576
Mr. Howard Zar
Mr. Marc Tuchman
Ms. Kay Brennan
Mr. Elmer Shannon
Mr. Tony Rutter
Mr. Greg Kulma
Mr. Dan Caplice
Dr. Elwin Evans
Dr. John Sullivan
Mr. Joe Ball
Mr. Scott Hausmann
Mr. Philip Crocker
Mr. Barry Nash
Mr. Dave Buzan
Mr. Mike Schurtz
Mr. John Houlihan
Ms. Kerry Herndon
(section chief)
Ms. Kathy Barrett
Mr. Ralph Turkle
Mr. Mike Butler
Mr. Jerry Stoltenberg
Mr. John Ford
Mr. John Bender
(302) 886-1491
(312) 886-1505
(312) 886-6873
(312) 353-2307
(312) 886-3009
(517) 373-2867
(608) 267-9753
(214) 767-8987
(214) 767-5233
(512) 463-7919
(504) 342-8930
(913) 236-2817
(913)236-2856
(515) 281-8779
(913) 862-9360, X258
(913) 862-9360, X236
(314) 751-1300
(402) 471-4201
C-5
-------
Agency/Office
Name
Telephone No.
EPA Region VIII
Water Division
Colorado Department of Health
Montana Department of Health &
Environmental Sciences
North Dakota Department of Health
South Dakota Department of Water
& Natural Resources
Utah Department of Water
Pollution Control
Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality
EPA Region IX
Water Management Division
Policy Division, Environmental
Services Branch
California Water Resources
Control Board
EPA Region X
Environmental Services Division
Puget Sound Office
Water Resources Assessment
Section
Office of Water Planning
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Washington Department of Ecology
Mr. Jim Lazorchak
Mr. John Scherschligt
Mr. Loren Bahls
Mr. Francis Schwindt
Mr. Rich Hanson
Mr. Mike Reichert
Mr. Dave Hogan
Mr. Phil Woods
Mr. Milton Tunzi
Mr. John Youngerman
Mr. Evan Horning
Mr. John Armstrong
Mr. Carl Kassebaum
Mr. Tom Wilson
Ms. Sally Marquis
Mr. Jeffrey Hock
Mr. Randy Bayliss
Mr. Larry Patterson
Mr. Andy Schaedel
Mr. Dale Norton
Mr. Dave Bradley
(303) 293-1581
(303) 331-4757
(406) 444-2406
(701) 224-2354
(605) 773-3351
(801) 538-6146
(307) 777-7098
(415) 974-8505
(415) 974-8594
(916) 322-0214
(206) 442-1685
(206) 442-1368
(206) 442-1286
(206) 442-1354
(206) 442-8293
(907) 465-2681
(907) 465-2640
(503) 229-5374
(503) 229-5983
(206) 753-2812
(206) 459-6355
C-6
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING orF ICE : 1988-516-002 :301Bd
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
. REPORT NO.
EPA-905/9-88-002
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
An Overview of Sediment Quality in the United States
5. REPORT DATE
June 1987
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
Warren J. Lyman, Anita E. Glazer, Joo Hooi Ong
Susan F. Coons
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
None
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, MA 02140
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA Contract No. 68-01-6951,
Task No. 20
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, D.C. and Region V Water Division,
Chicago, 111.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
FINAL
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Project Officer: Howard Zar, U.S. EPA Region V
230 S. Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60604
16. ABSTRACT
This report provides an overview of sediment quality in waters of the United States.
The focus is on describing qualitatively the nature and extent of contaminated
sediments, i.e., bottom deposits in rivers, lakes, harbors and oceans that have been
polluted with heavy metals, organic chemicals and other materials from anthropogenic
sources. Such materials, also called "in-place pollutants," may be significantly
impacting aquatic ecosystems in some areas, and may be degrading the quality of the
overlying water to the extent that water quality criteria are exceeded and that uses
of the water - by both aquatic life and humans - are impaired.
Information for this report was obtained from a review of the published literature
and from interviews with individuals in agencies that deal with contaminated sediments
The data collection effort was not statistically designed or geographically complete
despite these efforts. The study did not include a major compilation of sediment
quality data or screen data. The conclusions drawn may reflect an impressionistic
view of sediment quality issues.
Major sections of the report provide information on: (1) the nature of sediment
contamination problems; (2) sources of contaminated sediments; (3) available responses
to sediment contamination; and (4) an overview of sediment quality criteria, used to
classify sediments as polluted or not. There are appendices.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Contaminants,
Sediments, Water pollution,
Water quality
Bottom sediments.
Contaminated sediments,
In-place pollutants
13B
14G
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. Or PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS /This page/
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |