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

-------